The Eagle City Council voted to pursue a public–private partnership (P3) using an open‑access approach to expand the city’s fiber‑optic network and complete a city “ring” connecting municipal facilities and public partners.

The council’s decision followed a 45‑minute presentation by Eric (staff member), who outlined the city’s completed work on fiber engineering and construction standards, described options for ownership and operation, and requested direction on next steps. “So for council, we have said that fiber is an essential service for here at the city,” Eric said, summarizing the city’s position and the ordinance that requires developers to install fiber infrastructure in new developments.

Council members discussed three broad options Eric presented: (A) city‑owned and operated fiber, (B) city‑owned infrastructure leased to an ISP, and (C) a public‑private partnership in which a private partner builds out fiber‑to‑the‑home while the city secures and operates core public infrastructure. Council members expressed support for maintaining city control of core infrastructure while using private partners to deliver residential service; several members said they prefer the open‑access model so more than one internet service provider can operate on the same physical network.

Eric told the council the city has completed engineering for a four‑phase build and holds stockpiled conduit and vault materials, but the city has not budgeted capital for full buildout in FY2026 and currently has limited staff dedicated to active construction monitoring. He described known challenges: inconsistent conduit throughout the city, limited staff capacity for monitoring installations, and the lack of backhaul and active customers on installed dark fiber.

In their remarks, council members warned against fully vertically integrating construction and operations under city management because that would require substantially more staff and administrative capacity. They also emphasized the city should retain ownership or control of the infrastructure to avoid losing leverage if a private operator were to exit or sell service rights.

The council’s motion directed staff to move forward with the public‑private partnership model and to pursue an open‑access approach where feasible, and to return with draft proposals or an RFP and budget guidance for inclusion in future budget processes. The motion passed by voice vote; the roll call record did not specify a numeric tally in the transcript.

The council asked staff to seek partners who could use the city’s existing conduit inventory as part of negotiations, and to ensure the city completes a “city ring” connecting city hall, the library, the museum, the fire district and other public facilities before or as part of any partnership buildout.

Next steps specified by staff included preparing draft partnership terms, identifying whether to pursue open‑access partners, determining whether fiber projects should be added to the FY2026 capital plan or remain in the public works operating budget, and bringing draft RFP language or proposals back to council for approval.

The council’s direction does not authorize immediate construction beyond previously approved phases; it directs staff to pursue partnership options and budgetary programming.

Looking ahead, staff told the council that partner proposals may vary (some sole‑provider models, some open‑access), and that open‑access providers are less common and may be harder to secure. The council requested that staff seek proposals that preserve city control of core infrastructure while enabling private partners to deploy neighborhood and home connections.