Marshfield Utility staff presented a continuing draft of a dark-fiber (communications) policy and led a multi-hour substantive discussion about how the city should treat its fiber network. Staff said the policy in the packet included changes clarifying billing frequency and that the total replacement cost of the fiber plant is estimated at just under $2,600,000.

Commissioners and staff debated several core policy choices. Points included whether to use the label "dark fiber" or "fiber optic utility;" whether new customers should pay 100% of construction costs or whether the utility should participate sometimes; how to structure lease agreements (staff said customers lease the right to use fiber while the utility retains ownership); and whether pricing should be market-based or set by a rate-of-return (ROR) model. Commissioners raising concerns included questions about protecting the utility if a third-party developer fails and whether the market for new customers is large enough to justify complex rate studies.

Staff estimated that the communications utility currently holds cash reserves and that a target reserve of 1.5 times book value was under discussion; staff reported a book value near $1,600,000 and an estimated replacement cost near $2,600,000, implying a 1.5× cash-reserve target around $2.4 million. Commissioners discussed trade-offs: a higher reserve target could take many years to reach, while setting market-based pricing without periodic checks could leave the utility under-reserved. Several commissioners suggested recurring market checks (every two to five years) to confirm prices rather than an immediate cost-of-service study; others preferred an ROR-based goal to ensure replacement funding.

Staff also noted operational details: most current fiber agreements include a 3% annual escalator and many arrangements convert after a term to an annual escalator with notice provisions. Commissioners asked for additional information on the market price of comparable services and the likely costs to obtain a market-study versus a formal cost-of-service study.

No policy was adopted; the commission agreed to continue the discussion at the next meeting and asked staff to research market-rate comparables and clarify language about the utility's nonregulated status and possible accounting implications of lease treatment.