Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Broadband Infrastructure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners discuss BEAD/fiber MOU and letters of support; court approves MOU with language caveats
Summary
A lengthy discussion focused on broadband grant coordination, overlapping letters of support and a requested MOU for a BEAD/fiber grant. Commissioners approved an MOU but asked staff to clarify non-compete and matching-language before final execution.
Commissioners devoted an extended portion of the meeting to a BEAD/fiber-related memorandum of understanding and related grant applications for high-speed Internet service in parts of Dimmit County. The discussion centered on whether a proposed MOU would conflict with previously submitted letters of support for other applicants and how the county would handle required local matches.
Multiple commissioners and staff said they had previously submitted letters of support for an unrelated applicant in a different area (referred to in the meeting as the "Bagilles/Baguilles/Bayouville" area; spelling varied in the transcript). Several speakers emphasized they did not want one grant pursuit to foreclose another; in particular, commissioners said they would not sign a MOU that included a non-compete clause that would prevent the county from supporting other applicants. The court heard that some letters of support had already been forwarded to state offices, including at least one to a state senator's office.
Staff and presenters described the grant structure: the county's proposed participation would require local coordination and an expected 25% local match in some proposals, but speakers also described waiver or matching-assistance programs (identified in the record as a Texas Match Assistance program) that could reduce the county's required cash outlay. The presenter said the proposal contemplated "open-access" infrastructure and that local matches might be waived or reduced through state assistance.
After discussion, a motion to approve the MOU was made and seconded; the court carried the motion. Commissioners asked staff to return with clarified MOU language that addresses: - Whether the MOU includes a non-compete clause that would prevent the county from supporting other applicants in separate service areas. - The county's liability, if any, for the stated 25% match and whether the match will be formally waived or reduced through matching-assistance programs.
Ending: The court approved the MOU subject to clarification of the language. Commissioners expressed support for bringing broadband to multiple parts of the county but emphasized they would not intentionally restrict other precincts' opportunities by signing a restrictive non-compete without full disclosure.
