Chambana Sun

Champaign County Board Broadband Task Force met June 10

Here are the minutes provided by the board:

Members Present: Bailey Conrady, M.C. Neal, Stephanie Burnett, Samantha Carter, Mike Smith, Eric Thorsland, and Jeff Wilson. (Mike Smeltzer-Zoom)

Members Absent: Lorraine Cowart

Others Present: Michelle Jett (Director of Administration), Tim Arbeiter-Zoom (Finley Engineering), Craig Hall- Zoom (Nextlink), Peter Folk & Jason Young (VOLO), Paul Hixon-Zoom, Kaitlyn Kuzio (Grant Coordinator), and Elisabeth Dillingham (Recording Secretary)

Agenda Items

I. Call to Order

Ms. Conrady called the meeting to order at 6:41p.m.

II. Roll Call

Roll call was taken, and a quorum was declared present.

III. Approval of Agenda/Addendum

MOTION by Mr. Smith to approve the agenda; seconded by Ms. Carter. Upon voice vote, the MOTION CARRIED unanimously.

IV. Approval of Minutes

A. January 29, 2024

MOTION by Mr. Smith to approve the minutes of the January 29, 2024, meeting, seconded by Mr. Wilson. Upon voice vote, the MOTION CARRIED unanimously.

V. Public Participation

There was no Public Participation.

VI. Communications

There were no communications.

VII. New Business

A. Update from Volo

Mr. Peter Folk, founder of VOLO, was present to discuss their current progress of pursuing digital divide and equity throughout the County. Mr. Tim Arbeiter from Finley Engineering navigated the PowerPoint while Mr. Folk gave the presentation. Volo is basically on track with the plans. There are two projects they are working on. The first project is Connect Champaign County Fiber Now. This project is in phase one of building a fiber backbone within Champaign County. This phase will bring fiber Internet to 596 rural premises. Their application has been approved. They are receiving 4.7 million dollars of County funding and 7.1 million dollars of state funding. The project timeline of completion is at the end of 2025.

The second project is Volo Champaign Housing Authority (VCHAP) which is the absolute most in need from an economic standpoint in the community. This project will provide next generation, W61 Fi- seven in every housing authority managed unit. Training and management for maintenance over the next five years is included. The goal of the project is to cut out any financial challenges and provide effective training to users. It has not been funded by the state yet. Volo has decided to roll out and pivot to VCHAP 2.0, which is a slim down version of the VCHAP project. Champaign County, Volo, and Housing Authority have all allocated resources for this project. Mr. Folk is hoping they get the approval to proceed with VCHAP 2.0 from the Broadband Committee. This will service 355 homes with 450 total access points. If there is no current wiring in the Housing Authority properties, they will not be able to include those properties. The properties they can service are more likely to have school aged children in these areas. The County provided $195,000 funding and he is hoping they can continue to pursue VCHAP 2.0. Summer of next year would be the completion date with five years of service for residents starting at the completion date. Properties this project would serve are Providence at Thornberry, Crystal View, Highland Green, Pinewood Place, Douglas Square, and the manor at Prairie Crossing. This serves 355 units or 721 beds, up to 721 people served, and 438 access points.

Mr. Neal asked if they have had conversation with the Housing Authority on the proposed plan and how it would affect the people they are leaving out.

Mr. Folk stated he has not had any conversations regarding he people who are left out and acknowledged he probably should have more conversations about that. He added the next round of funding through the State of Illinois Connect Illinois funding is more focused on digital equity.

VOLO will re-propose for that phase of funding to complete the rest of the project, so no one is left out.

Mr. Young from Volo stated they can utilize the initial programs as a pilot program to obtain data to focus on future applications for equity and inclusion.

Ms. Carter asked how they chose who would be served and who would be served later.

Mr. Folk stated it is based on who has existing CAT 5 wiring.

Mr. Thorsland inquired about rural easement and access for the backbone.

Mr. Folk stated they will not work on it in a final way until the project is almost over so no one shows up and stops it. They are working with the Farm Bureau on those concerns and the project.

Ms. Conrady congratulated Volo on their Fiber Now funding. She explained the easement situation is favorable to both the landowners and Internet Service Providers (ISP) Once the maps are laid out, the appropriate people will be contacted.

Mr. Wilson asked why the Connect Illinois funding fell through.

Mr. Folk stated he was not officially informed it was denied but believes it has since he hasn’t been informed it was approved.

Discussion ensued regarding the importance of the elderly community and homes with children having access to Internet access.

Mr. Wilson asked when support starts for the install.

Mr. Folk replied that the support starts after the installation is complete. For instance, if a device stops working, the homeowner can call the company for assistance and a technician will respond if needed.

Mr. Neal confirmed with Mr. Folk that the ISP is independent of the project.

Discussion ensued between Taskforce Board Members regarding service options and affordability.

Ms. Burnett stated there has been no discussion from the Housing Authority about internet service at this time. She added that some of the common areas do have internet service, however, there are also locations that have no wiring or wi-fi. She advised the board there was a 2024 plan that needs approved by HUD, the rent will be reduced which may provide a way for them to obtain internet service to their home.

Mr. Folk stated the smallest of units is Manor at the Crossing with single 18 beds and the largest is Providence at Thornberry with 160 units and 360 beds. He estimated the average price per unit for Broadband is $25.00-$30.00 per month for the lowest cost.

B. Update from Nextlink

Mr. Craig Hall from Nextlink spoke via zoom regarding updates of their process.

He indicated Nextlink did not receive the grant funding from the state. Mr. Hall spoke about other options to utilize the money to provide internet access. There was no feedback from the State of Illinois as to why their project was not awarded.

Ms. Jett advised the board what Administration is looking for from the Broadband Taskforce Committee. Nextlink had the more rural plan which requires more construction and more land for fewer houses.

There are two options left for Nextlink to utilize the County funding that was given to them.

1) Do what they can with the ARPA money that was given to them to get something in the ground.

2) Talk about options with fixed wireless systems.

This is a bit different than what was consistently discussed with the Taskforce. Ms. Jett asked the Taskforce to speak with Mr. Hall about what the fixed wireless option is and determine it is in line with the mission and vision of what we are trying to accomplish prior to drafting a proposal of how that would work.

Mr. Hall stated Nextlink offers broadband, and the terminology is a matter of speed which is incredibly fast. He explained fiber can scale up easier and fixed wireless can scale but would require updated equipment after 6-8 years. With fixed wireless, radios with antennas are installed on exterior structures throughout the County in sectors to aim outwards and equipment would be placed in the homes. If a frequency becomes too full, it will create jamming and a loss of service. Mr. Hall talked about the Pros & Cons of what Nextlink can offer. The minimum cost of a plan at 100 megabits per second is around $49.00 a month. A router would be required in the residence.

He compared the install to installing a DISH. He stated the cost is 15% less than the cost of fiber.

The install is quick, and the project could be completed by the end of the year. He talked about lag and said the system does not have those issues. Installation costs are $150.00 with a contract period or $250.00 for an installation charge with no contract. 

There was discussion by multiple Taskforce members who were concerned about Nextlink connectivity issues and outages due to the weather. One concern came from a Taskforce member who is a current Nextlink customer who has experienced connectivity issues and outages in the past due to inclement weather. Mr. Hall stated rain, ice, and snow does not make a significant impact on the fixed wireless service. Mr. Hall stated a very heavy rain might knock out service. He indicated his service trucks usually respond to outages within a few hours. He talked about regularly updating equipment to ensure it is not outdated. He ensured the Board he would do his very best to earn the trust of the committee which requires time and history. He stated his company is currently operating in 12 states across the country.

Mr. Neal asked if the Taskforce went with this route, would customers be able to choose their own ISP, or would they have to use Nextlink. He also inquired who absorbs the cost of outdated equipment that needs replaced.

Mr. Hall stated it would be Nextlinks product and Nextlinks service. Mr. Hall also advised the committee when there is upgrade to the external equipment, the homes would need upgraded equipment as well. The upgrades to the equipment installed in residences would be at the cost of Nextlink.

Mr. Smeltzer appeared via Zoom. He asked Mr. Hall if the ARDOF money awarded to Nextlink has been utilized. He expressed concern about Mr. Hall stating bands travel through leaves on trees. He then questioned Mr. Hall about his comment regarding lower latency on the new equipment versus fiber. Mr. Smeltzer stated he would like a report on supportive data. He advised Mr. Hall that if he were to install a wall to wall 120 fixed wireless system in every home or geographical area within Champaign County, he would kill the ability for anyone in the County to obtain federal or state funds for Broadband ever again. He does not believe it is a good idea. Fixed wireless is a quick fix but not a long-term solution Mr. Smelter is comfortable with to properly serve future generations.

Mr. Hall stated the ARDOF money has been used to install various towers east to west throughout the County. He was unclear as to the exact numbers of towers installed but estimated there are 10-12. Mr. Hall related his equipment penetrates a moderate amount of tree coverage. He stated it is different in the winter when the leaves are down. Mr. Hall spoke about the upgraded equipment and better frequency.

Mr. Smith asked about the type of antennas and frequencies which are used. He also discussed the physical limits and performance metrics of the system.

Mr. Hall stated the antennas are very advanced that are flat inside the housing of the radio. Mr. Hall stated he is not quite familiar with all the equipment. He related the new equipment has a multi-pathing frequency. He stated that all systems will have a drive testing to see how well the system is performing as soon as the installation takes place. The systems are them monitored for function capability.

Ms. Jett asked how many towers they have in the county at this time and if there are plans to add more towers.

Mr. Hall replied he believes they have double digit towers. They have plans to close some gaps and uncertain if it is on anyone’s agenda.

Ms. Jett asked if the towers Champaign County is paying for is in those gaps or would they be new towers specifically for the areas identified on the map.

Mr. Hall replied that the gaps would be a major part of any plan. He added that just because there are towers in the community doesn’t mean there are enough of them to cover the entire county. They would look at a potential overlap in how the towers cover the community.

Mr. Wilson stated the county is about 1000 square miles. He estimated they would need about 25-35 towers. He advised that close to 90% of the county is rural. He stated the other option is to do nothing.

He acknowledged Mr. Smeltzer raised some interesting problems about the long-term goal of serving the entire community with the best fiber or broadband possible, along with the challenge of losing the bigger pot of money with state or federal funding. He reminded the committee that an option would be to just table the whole thing. He asked the time frame to re-apply for the funding that fell through.

Mr. Arbeiter stated the current funding is winding down. They are oversubscribed, meaning too many people applied for the funding. He believes the next funding called “Connect Four” might be available in late summer or early fall. They do not have a definitive timeline of when the Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) program funding will be available.

Mr. Wilson asked Ms. Jett if the funding is lost and reallocated to something else and what the best choice is for allocation.

Ms. Jett clarified the ARPA money needs to be allocated by the end of this year. She related the five million dollars is a significant amount of money that would require some real thought as to where it will go moving forward. A concern would be earmarking these funds for this project in hopes the grant gets awarded next round and it doesn’t. This leaves us with the five million dollars, we are then out of luck and didn’t come up with Plan B that we do not have time to execute. This is a huge infrastructure project that will take some time with construction and easements. The juncture with Nextlink we are at now is we have three choices.

1) Do we want a proposal from Nextlink for what they can do for fiber for five million dollars?

2) Do we want a proposal for what they can do for fixed wireless and fiber for five million dollars?

3) Do we want to talk about moving in a different direction and allocating the five million dollars to something else?

Ms. Jett stated the committee needs to bring a recommendation to the County Board before we get heavy into the budget cycle before August. It would be a heavy lift to reallocate the funds.

Mr. Hall stated this is not a quick and dirty fix. Nextlink is top heavy across the states they serve. They have a lot of fiber and even more fixed wireless with a ton of customers.

Ms. Carter clarified the fixed wireless is less expensive so they can supply more of the county and the fiber optic is more expensive, more reliable, but less coverage as to how many people could be serviced.

Ms. Jett informed Ms. Carter she was correct on all points. Ms. Jett stated we have fixed wireless within the county, and we do not have Broadband throughout the county. She reminded the committee the goal of the taskforce was to figure out how we can have Broadband throughout the county. Ms. Jett stated in terms of long-term possibilities, we have a Grant Coordinator, and we will have a lot of money for internet access the next 10-15 years so we can continue working on this issue for a long time if that is what the Taskforce wishes to do as the focus. Another option is an immediate fix for more fixed wireless for more access in the present time frame for people in rural communities.

Ms. Carter sought clarification on Mr. Smeltzer’s previous comment on the possibility of losing future funding for Internet service. Ms. Conrady clarified that if those speeds of fixed wireless, at this point and time, would preclude those areas of Champaign County that are covered by that fixed wireless from being eligible for Federal and State grants that could put fiber in the ground because those people would be considered served and therefore be ineligible for additional grant funding.

Mr. Smeltzer concurred and added that if 10-mile diameter areas are overlapped with towers, there will be people who are affected that aren’t even part of the project. Even outlining counties could be picked up as part of the process. 

Mr. Thorsland stated the original goal of the committee was to focus on broadband and fiber-based service to at least get a backbone which would ring around the county to continue trying to leverage funds that will continue to come up from state and federal government. He reiterated he wants to get everyone on good fiber. He explained his strong disappointment with fixed wireless service when the wind blows as he previously lived in the country. Long term, he prefers we get as much high-quality fiber in the county as possible. He stated he does not want to put a band-aid on this project and would like to do what they said they would do.

Mr. Neal agrees with Mr. Thorland’s comments.

Ms. Conrady reminded the committee it was formed to bring the best broadband they could to all citizens of the county, both urban and rural. For too long, we have just gotten by, and this is a once in a lifetime opportunity to do better than that. It is doing this project right and well. Ms. Conrady asked the board if they were agreeable to have Nextlink as a preferred prescriber, and to prepare a proposal of what they can offer for five million dollars.

Mr. Wilson stated he was not comfortable with that idea as we would re-open the que as to who would do the work.

Ms. Jett stated she researched the contract if a scenario presented if federal funding was denied. We are contractually bound to put forth a good faith effort. It would be a breach of contract if we did not ask Nextlink to draft an alternative and not come up with a draft as to what they could offer for five million dollars. Ms. Jett suggested that the Board ask Nextlink to draft a proposal of what they could offer for five million dollars for just fiber and go from there.

Mr. Hixson appeared via Zoom. He was previous U of I Chief Information Officer (CIO). He worked 42 years at the U of I in the College of Agriculture Extension. He cares about the underserved rural and urban folks. He concurs with what Mr. Smeltzer said. He stated he believes Mr. Hall is giving beyond a glossy interpretation of what fixed wireless would do. His concern is enabling a disservice to the community if we do not focus on true broadband.

Ms. Conrady explained the next steps. Nextlink was asked to prepare a proposal for what they can do for five million dollars in their areas of the county as laid out in the MOU with VOLO regarding fiber installation. To stay ahead of the budget process, a meeting will be scheduled as soon as they receive the Nextlink proposal in the next few weeks.

Ms. Jett stated we need to work out the timeline so the committee can receive the proposal and can review it to come up with a recommendation for the July County Board Meeting. We need to at least move forward in some direction.

VIII. Other Business

A. Date of next meeting-TBD.

IX. Chair’s Report

There was no Chair’s Report.

X. Adjournment

Ms. Conrady adjourned the meeting at 8:47 p.m

https://www.co.champaign.il.us/CountyBoard/Broadband%20Task%20Force/2024/240709_Meeting/240709_Agenda_Full.pdf