01.12.23 Agenda
M ayor
Aaron Brockett
Council M e mbe rs
Matt Benjamin
Lauren Folkerts
Rachel Friend
Junie Joseph
Nicole Speer
Mark Wallach
Tara Winer
Bob Yates
Council Chambers
1777 Broadway
Boulder, CO 80302
January 12, 2023
6:00 PM
City M anage r
Nuria Rivera-Vandermyde
City Attorne y
Teresa Taylor Tate
City Cle rk
Elesha Johnson
ST UDY S E S S ION
BOULDE R CIT Y COUNCIL
Airport Community Conversation Update 15 min
Presentation /
45 min Council
Discussion
Discussion on Membership A pplication to the Rocky Mountain A irport Noise
Roundtable
15 min
Update on Community Broadband 30 min
Presentation /
60 min Council
Discussion
2:30 hrs
City Council documents, including meeting agendas, study session agendas, meeting action
summaries and information packets can be accessed at https://bouldercolorado.gov/city-
council/council-documents. (Scroll down to the second brown box and click "I nformation Packet")
This meeting can be viewed at www.bouldercolorado.gov/city-council. Meetings are aired live on
Municipal Channel 8 and the city's website and are re-cablecast at 6 p.m. Wednesdays and 11 a.m.
Fridays in the two weeks following a regular council meeting.
Boulder 8 TV (Comcast channels 8 and 880) is now providing closed captioning for all live meetings
that are aired on the channels. The closed captioning service operates in the same manner as similar
services offered by broadcast channels, allowing viewers to turn the closed captioning on or off with
the television remote control. Closed captioning also is available on the live HD stream on
Boulder Channel8.com. To activate the captioning service for the live stream, the "C C" button
(which is located at the bottom of the video player) will be illuminated and available whenever the
channel is providing captioning services.
Packet Page 1 of 24
The council chambers is equipped with a T-Coil assisted listening loop and portable assisted listening
devices. I ndividuals with hearing or speech loss may contact us using Relay Colorado at 711 or 1-
800-659-3656.
Anyone requiring special packet preparation such as Braille, large print, or tape recorded versions
may contact the City Clerk's Office at 303-441-4222, 8 a.m. - 5 p.m. Monday through Friday. Please
request special packet preparation no later than 48 hours prior to the meeting.
I f you need Spanish interpretation or other language-related assistance for this meeting, please call
(303) 441-1905 at least three business days prior to the meeting. Si usted necesita interpretacion o
cualquier otra ayuda con relacion al idioma para esta junta, por favor comuniquese al (303) 441-
1905 por lo menos 3 negocios dias antes de la junta.
Send electronic presentations to email address: CityClerkStaff@bouldercolorado.gov no later
than 2 p.m. the day of the meeting.
Packet Page 2 of 24
C OVE R SH E E T
ME E T I N G D AT E
January 12, 2023
ST U D Y SE SSI ON I T E M
Airport Community C onversation Update
P RI MARY STAF F C ON TAC T
Allison Moore-Farrell, Senior Transportation Planner
AT TAC H ME N T S:
Description
I tem 1 - Airport Community Conv ersation Update
Packet Page 3 of 24
STUDY SESSION MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and Members of City Council
FROM: Nuria Rivera-Vandermyde, City Manager
Chris Meschuk, Deputy City Manager
Natalie Stiffler, Interim Director of Transportation & Mobility
John Kinney, Boulder Airport Senior Manager
Allison Moore-Farrell, Senior Transportation Planner
DATE: January 12, 2023
SUBJECT: Boulder Airport Community Conversation
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City of Boulder (city) will conduct community conversations with both on and off airport
stakeholders and develop a range of alternatives for the future of Boulder Municipal Airport (BDU). This
engagement process and resulting alternatives analysis will provide a better understanding of the desired
future for BDU.
This study is expected to achieve the following:
- Understand community goals and aspirations for the airport
- Identify key issues and opportunities for consideration
- Identify a range of alternatives
- Identify preferred alternative
- Determine the next steps
Building on the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, and in preparation for a future Airport Master Plan
Update, the city has contracted with Kimley-Horn and their subconsultants to facilitate a series of
community conversations with the Boulder community to understand their aspirational goals and desired
outcomes for the future operation and/or development of BDU.
QUESTIONS FOR COUNCIL
Transportation & Mobility Department staff request that Boulder City Council offer general feedback on
the proposed Boulder Airport Community Conversation process. Specific questions include:
1. Are there any additional stakeholder groups not already identified that should be included in the
process?
2. Does Council have additional feedback about the process defined here for the Airport Community
Conversation?
3. Are there additional considerations that the project team should be aware of?
Item 1 - Airport Community Conversation Update Page 1
Packet Page 4 of 24
BACKGROUND
The city owns BDU, which is a general aviation airport that offers business, private, recreational, and
emerging aviation services to the city and surrounding communities. It has two published runways and
supports heavy glider operations.
The city has expressed interest in holding in-depth community conversations to better understand the
aspirations of directly impacted stakeholders, residents, and traditionally underserved communities.
This memo provides the Boulder City Council an overview of the purpose of the project, initial themes
from stakeholder interviews, and next steps. The project team plans to present the range of alternatives
and the preferred alternative at the conclusion of the community conversations effort in June 2023.
CONSULTANT SCOPE OF WORK
Overview
The scope of this project is to carry out a community engagement process that identifies community goals
and desired outcomes, a range of alternatives and the selection of a preferred alternative. The city is
working to develop a deeper understanding of the desired future for BDU by engaging directly with the
greater Boulder community, while being mindful of current obligations and commitments to the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA).
Kimley-Horn and their subconsultants have begun connecting with various community members to
understand common interests, challenges, opportunities, and potential alternatives through facilitating
community conversations. Each conversation will aim to understand the stakeholders’ points of view
about the benefits of the airport, airport operations, how the airport affects community members, and
determine what alternatives might be preferred. Following the in-depth interviews, the project team will
form a Community Working Group (CWG) comprised of both on and off airport stakeholders which will
meet three times over the course of the project. The project team will host two public open houses to
engage the broader public in the community conversation about the future of the airport.
These community conversations and the CWG will help shape the development of a preferred alternative
for the future of the airport and guide a future FAA Airport Master Plan Update should the City Council
decide to pursue. Using the information gathered in these conversations, the project team will develop a
range of up to four alternatives. The analysis of these alternatives will include goals, objectives,
evaluation criteria and a high-level estimated cost of implementation. From these alternatives, the team
will optimally identify a preferred alternative.
The preferred alternative presented may not be representative of all comments and concerns gathered
during the community conversation process. There will likely be elements outside the alternatives that
warrant additional quantification or discussion (including conversations with regulatory agencies) which
will be addressed through a separate process complimentary to the alternatives. While mindful of the
community recommendations, the project team will work with federal partners to understand how the
recommendations will stand up to the continuing FAA obligations. The outcome of this additional study
will be shared with the City Council for review, input, and further staff direction and guidance.
Community Conversation Strategy
Purpose
The purpose of this strategy is to facilitate community conversations about aspirations and desired
outcomes for the future of the airport. These conversations will help the project team understand and
Item 1 - Airport Community Conversation Update Page 2
Packet Page 5 of 24
contextualize the relationship between directly impacted communities and airport operations.
By speaking directly to stakeholders, the city will foster relationships between city and airport leadership
and key stakeholder groups to meaningfully apply community input and desires into the future of the
airport. Consistent with the City’s Racial Equity Plan, the project team will engage directly with
underserved community members and will collaborate with the city’s Community Connectors to solicit
feedback on the engagement strategy, process, and issues at hand. Staff and the project team will employ
the city’s Racial Equity Instrument to further refine the community engagement activities for this effort,
with a focus on underrepresented communities including the San Lazaro Mobile Home Community and
the Vista Village Mobile Home Community. Outreach to these communities will be used to inform the
decisions for the future of the airport that prioritize community experiences and allow for diverse
representation.
The desired outcome for this effort is for the city to gain a better understanding of the community's
desires for the future operations and development of the airport and how it integrates into the community.
Additionally, the city aims to identify common understanding among impacted stakeholders about the
information gathering process and ensure that all parties and the broader community feel that their input
was accurately and equitably considered.
Stakeholder Interviews
The community conversations kick off with one-on-one stakeholder interviews. These interviews provide
key stakeholders who are directly impacted or have direct involvement with the airport an opportunity to
discuss topics of primary interest and concern.
The project team received initial interview participant recommendations from airport and city staff.
During the stakeholder interviews conducted so far, the project team asked participants if they had
additional recommendations about other stakeholders to contact for this effort. In addition to this
stakeholder list, city staff recommended names and groups to ensure this effort includes traditionally
underserved communities. To facilitate broader participation, the project team is providing interpretation
services for the interviews upon request.
Aviation safety is of the highest priority for the city and the FAA, both in air and on ground. As the
regulatory agency, the FAA has vested interested in what occurs at the airport. There are some comments
that occurred in which additional context is available:
• Several times it was requested that the city remove leaded fuel from BDU
o On September 2, 2022, General Aviation Modifications, Inc. (GAMI) received a
functional fleet wide approval through FAA’s Supplemental Type Certificate process for
an unleaded 100 octane fuel. While this is fuel is compatible with all existing
infrastructure (airplane engines, fuel tanks, fuel pumps, fuel trucks, etc.) it will take some
time to ramp up production of the G100UL fuel for distribution to all general aviation
airports.
• Airport repurposing, alternative uses of airport land, and/or access restrictions:
o A separate process quantified by legal reviews consistent with existing Grant Obligations
with the FAA with cost benefit analysis is suggested
o Land purchased with FAA grant monies in the past may preclude reuse of the airport land
as anything other than an airport as a viable alternative
o The FAA will require the airport sponsor to maintain compliance with all 39 grant
assurances until federal obligations expire
o Future development and the character of the airport will be part of the future Airport
Master Plan
Item 1 - Airport Community Conversation Update Page 3
Packet Page 6 of 24
o As a federally obligated airport, the city must “…make the airport available as an airport
for public use on reasonable terms and without unjust discrimination to all types, kinds
and classes of aeronautical activities…” (FAA Grant Assurance 22).
The common comments, aspirations and desired outcomes heard during the initial stakeholder interviews
can be categorized as follows:
• Further restrictions beyond today’s voluntary noise procedures:
o Engage congressional delegations given similar themed proposed legislation
o Enhance flight tracking software capabilities
o Update rules, regulations, and leasing policies to incentivize compliance with the noise
program
• Greater citizen involvement and accountability through restructured governance
o Citizen board with biannual updates to City Council
o Airport expenses better delineated in the transportation budget
o Provide web-based real time flight data
• Remove leaded fuel from BDU
• Enhance safety, reduce risks, implement a Traffic Management Program for use of runways:
o Introduce traffic pattern modifications
o Evaluate touch and go activity
o Enforcement for individuals/companies who deactivate collision avoidance systems
• Landing fees for non-based aircraft to recoup facility operation and maintenance expenses:
o Implement technology solutions
• Implement rules, regulations, and leasing policies for tenant accountability
• Airport repurposing or alternative uses, or access restrictions:
o Economic benefit and cost of having an airport versus other potential uses requires
additional study, outside of the scope of this process.
• Reduce from two to one runways:
o Only allow FAA compliant runways
Community Working Group (CWG)
After the initial interviews, the project team will convene a CWG which will consist of key stakeholders
who will remain engaged throughout the project. The project team will use their input to create a series of
three meetings, which will further refine stakeholder input, identify alternatives, and establish a setting for
discourse between all impacted stakeholders. A key element of discussion will be education of all
stakeholders as to what elements are allowed or precluded from implementing by the FAA and or the City
of Boulder as the airport sponsor.
Members of the CWG are expected to include (but are not limited to):
1. Interview participants
2. Other key stakeholders to represent the broader community including residents geographically
located near the airport
3. Aviation community members such as pilots and tenants
4. Underserved community members who may be directly impacted by the current operations and
future alternatives and may include Community Connectors
The CWG will meet three times throughout the course of the project to collaborate with city to develop a
range of alternatives for the future of the BDU. The first meeting will be a vision workshop in February
2023 where members will talk about the future of the airport, their role as a CWG and determine what a
successful project will look like. In April 2023, the CWG will meet to establish community priorities and
Item 1 - Airport Community Conversation Update Page 4
Packet Page 7 of 24
begin to outline a range of alternatives for consideration. The third and final CWG meeting will establish
the preferred alternative to be shared with the project team.
Public Open House Meetings
One-on-one interviews and establishing the CWG will help identify a range of alternatives and define the
Preferred Alternative. In order to allow the wider community to participate in the process, the project
team will plan and execute two public open house meetings.
Immediately following the first CWG meeting, the project team will host the first public open house
meeting to inform the community about the history of the airport and provide a snapshot about what the
city has heard from the interviews and CWG group so far. A community survey will coincide with this
meeting to solicit initial feedback from the community to aid in the development of the range of
alternatives.
The second public open house meeting will coincide with the second CWG. This will allow the public to
learn about the alternatives identified for evaluation, solicit initial feedback on the alternatives and
encourage continued engagement throughout the project and beyond.
The consultant will prepare informational content for the city to execute. These materials will include:
one community survey to gather initial community feedback, one community survey to gather community
feedback on the range of alternatives, two informational fliers (English and Spanish) and a digital
resource package (website text, images and social media graphics with supporting text).
Alternatives Analysis
Using the information gathered through this process the project team will develop up to four alternatives.
The analysis of these alternatives will include goals, objectives, evaluation criteria and estimated cost of
implementation. From these four alternatives, the team will identify a single preferred alternative.
The evaluation criteria developed to assess alternatives will be based on applicable city and project
requirements; State, Division of Aeronautics, and FAA considerations; and community and stakeholder
perspectives garnered through the robust outreach previously described. The evaluation criteria are a lens
to consider the alternatives for BDU.
Tasks and Schedule
Engagement/Outreach
Develop Engagement Plan Within two weeks of
notice to proceed (NTP)
Develop Stakeholder List to be used for interviews and Community Working
Group (CWG)
Within two weeks of
NTP
Conduct a Situation Analysis/Community Conversations
NTP through February
2023
Conduct up to 10 total meetings with airport stakeholders and community at-
large to develop goals, objectives, evaluation criteria, and resulting alternatives
Ongoing throughout
project
Prepare for and present an initial report to the City Council NTP through January 12,
2023
Prepare for and conduct CWG #1 to discuss the community vision for BDU.
January/February 2023
Item 1 - Airport Community Conversation Update Page 5
Packet Page 8 of 24
Prepare for and conduct a Public Open House #2 Immediately following
CWG #1
Prepare for and conduct CWG #2 to develop community priorities and present
the range of alternatives
April 2023
Prepare for and conduct a Public Open House #2 Immediately following
CWG #2
Prepare for and conduct CWG #3 to develop the community recommendations
May 2023
Prepare for and present range of alternatives considered, evaluation criteria and
the preferred alternative to the City Council June 2023
Develop communication materials for City to execute Ongoing throughout the
project
Develop the Range of Alternatives
NTP –through April 2023 Develop goals, objectives, evaluation criteria, and a range of alternatives (up to
four), recommendations going forward and estimated cost of implementation
Identify a Preferred Alternative
Determine and prepare presentation of the Preferred Alternative integrating
CWG, broader community, city and project team recommendations
May 2023
Prepare for and present range of alternatives and preferred alternative to the
City Council June 2023
Report Preparation
Ongoing throughout
project – completed
June 30, 2023
Prepare Draft Report and Executive Summary
Prepare Final Report and Executive Summary
NEXT STEPS
• Continue stakeholder interviews and refine CWG member list – January 2023
• Conduct CGW meetings
o Vision workshop – February 2023
o Community priorities and range of alternatives – April 2023
o Community recommendations – May 2023
• Hold Public Open House #1 – February 2023
• Hold Public Open House #2 – April 2023
• Develop range of alternatives and optimally identify a preferred alternative – ongoing – May
2023
• City Council presentation – June 2023
• Final report – June 2023
Optimally, a preferred alternative will be presented at the conclusion of this study for the City Council’s
review, consideration, and potential budgetary impacts.
Item 1 - Airport Community Conversation Update Page 6
Packet Page 9 of 24
C OVE R SH E E T
ME E T I N G D AT E
January 12, 2023
ST U D Y SE SSI ON I T E M
Discussion on Membership Application to the Rocky Mountain Airport Noise Roundtable
P RI MARY STAF F C ON TAC T
C arl Castillo, Intergovernmental Officer
AT TAC H ME N T S:
Description
Rocky Mountain Metropolitan Airport Community Noise Roundtable
Packet Page 10 of 24
STUDY SESSION MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and Members of City Council
FROM: Carl Castillo, Chief Policy Advisor
Natalie Stiffler, Acting Director for Transportation and Mobility
John Kinney, Airport Principal Project Manager
DATE: January 12, 2023
SUBJECT: Discussion of council’s interest in applying for city membership in the
Rocky Mountain Metropolitan Airport Community Noise Roundtable
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Council is being asked to consider a staff recommendation to apply for city membership
in the Rocky Mountain Metropolitan Airport Community Noise Roundtable (CNR). The
purpose of the CNR is to “provide for and promote a regional, coordinated approach to
collaborate on and address the noise impacts to the community surrounding the Rocky
Mountain Metropolitan Airport.” The members of the CNR are the following local
governments: Arvada, Boulder County, Jefferson County, Lafayette, Louisville, Superior,
Westminster.
The city’s participation in the CNR would require appointment of a city council member
The CNR meets monthly at the RMMA terminal building from 9:00 am to 10:00 am on
the second Monday of each month. Virtual participation is allowed.
Questions for Council
1. Is council interested in applying for city membership in the Rocky Mountain
Metropolitan Airport Community Noise Roundtable?
2.Does council have a member willing to serve as the city’s representative should
the city be granted membership?
BACKGROUND
The city’s absence from the CNR may allow decisions to be made that negatively impact
Boulder residents. One example is the recent Pilot Project to implement VFR
Rock Mountain Airport Noise Roundtable Page 1 Packet Page 11 of 24
Arrival/Departure Flight Path Changes. Boulder lacked a voice in the design stage on that
decision. The flight paths were identified and implemented without our input or
awareness. Moreover, based on reported noise complaints, staff estimates that pilot
practice areas above Boulder are being used approximately 50% of the time by RMMA
flight schools. These practice areas should be reviewed as to options to relocate to
undeveloped farmlands away from homes. This is particularly relevant given that RMMA
is on an aggressive growth trajectory and is seeking to schedule additional service. The
city’s participation on the committee would allow it to raise these issues in a venue
recognized by state and FAA local offices.
NEXT STEPS
Should council express interest in applying for membership, Boulder would need to
submit a letter of interest to Broomfield Council Member Devin Shaff and follow up with
a presentation to the CNR making the case why it should be allowed to join. The CNR
would then vote on whether to allow Boulder to join. If the city was offered membership
council would then need to appoint a representative and approve an IGA.
Rock Mountain Airport Noise Roundtable Page 2 Packet Page 12 of 24
C OVE R SH E E T
ME E T I N G D AT E
January 12, 2023
ST U D Y SE SSI ON I T E M
Update on Community Broadband
P RI MARY STAF F C ON TAC T
Nuria Rivera-Vandermyde, City Manager
Chris Meschuk, Deputy City Manager
Jennifer D ouglas, C hief Innovation & Technology Officer
M ike G iansanti, D eputy Director of Innovation & Technology
Tim Scott, Broadband P roject M anager
AT TAC H ME N T S:
Description
Community Broadband Study Session Memo
Packet Page 13 of 24
STUDY SESSION MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and Members of City Council
FROM: Nuria Rivera-Vandermyde, City Manager
Chris Meschuk, Deputy City Manager
Jennifer Douglas, Chief Innovation & Technology Officer
Mike Giansanti, Deputy Director of Innovation & Technology
Tim Scott, Broadband Project Manager
DATE: January 12, 2023
SUBJECT: Update on Community Broadband
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this study session is to update council members on the construction of the
city’s fiber backbone, to outline various approaches to using the city’s fiber backbone to
provide community-sponsored fiber-based internet services, and to outline the proposed
next steps.
Community broadband is a topic that was initially discussed with council in 2016 and at
that time a feasibility study was conducted. In 2018, council decided to fund the
construction of a dark fiber backbone along main transportation corridors in the city. This
decision was made as council recognized that there was substantial future value in this
asset to enable broadband programs and that similar cities with successful programs
generally owned some of their backbone infrastructure. As the construction of the
backbone is completed in 2023, it is time to take the next steps in defining the city’s
community broadband program.
As staff embarks on this work, minor revisions to the objectives for community
broadband are proposed to keep the objectives relevant for today’s broadband market.
Additionally, staff is seeking council’s strategic direction on how to approach achieving
the outcome of affordable, high-speed fiber-based broadband internet access for all in
Boulder. The three general approaches include:
A.“Provider of Last Resort” - The low-risk, low-cost, but lower-likelihood of
successfully achieving the desired outcome option of using the city-owned
backbone for city’s own purposes and as a “provider of last resort” to address
Community Broadband Page 1
Packet Page 14 of 24
specific community challenges not addressed by private providers. In this
approach the city would consider case by case fiber leases of backbone based on
to-be-defined criteria, but it would not participate wholistically in the broadband
market to retail residential or business customers.
B.“Provider of Last Resort + Public Private Partnership” - The medium-risk,
low-cost, and likely to successfully achieve the desired outcome option of doing
both Approach A and selecting a private-sector provider(s) who utilizes the city’s
backbone and implements privately owned infrastructure to achieve city-defined
broadband policy objectives. In this approach the partner builds a new fiber-
based, high-speed network connecting premises and the city negotiates on several
parameters that could include retail price, prioritization of infrastructure
investments, and access to lease city-owned fiber assets.
C.“City operated service” - The high-risk, very high-cost, and likely to
successfully achieve the desired outcome option of funding the construction and
operation of a fiber network to premise owned by the city. In this approach the
city builds the entire fiber-to-premise network, operates the network, and is the
service provider taking on all functions such as marketing, billing, and all
technical services.
Regardless of approach, additional research and community engagement must be
completed to define viable operating models before a final decision can be made. Staff is
recommending that the “Provider of Last Resort + Public Private Partnership” (approach
B, above) approach be explored further, with additional analysis and exploration of what
types and levels of partnership could enable achieving the outcome and objectives for
community broadband.
QUESTIONS FOR COUNCIL
1. Do councilmembers have any questions on work completed to date or on the
current broadband ecosystem?
2.Do councilmembers agree with the proposed revisions to the outcome and
objectives for the city’s community broadband initiatives?
3.Do councilmembers agree with staff’s recommendation to further explore
approach B, “Provider of Last Resort + Public Private Partnership”?
BACKGROUND
Boulder, like many other similarly sized municipalities, has limited competition in the
commercial broadband services market for residential and small/medium-sized business
customers. Physical fiber infrastructure to premises is also very limited within the city
with nearly all advertised broadband services being delivered via cable – a less ‘future-
proof’ technology. As a result of this limited competition and infrastructure, pricing for
services tends to be high with both innovation and customer service low.
In November 2014, the community approved a ballot measure (Item 2C) exempting the
city from state limitations on telecommunication services. This measure established city
Community Broadband Page 2
Packet Page 15 of 24
autonomy to invest in community broadband services, which had previously been limited
by Colorado Senate Bill 05-152. Without a voter-approved exemption, this law
significantly restricts the ability of municipal governments to provide broadband services,
either independently or in partnership with private entities. A Broadband Working Group
composed of community representatives was established in 2015 and continued to meet
until early in 2017.
A formal, consultant-assisted broadband feasibility study was presented to council in a
study session on July 12, 2016. The city then issued an RFP for potential partners, and
on April 18, 2017, a public hearing was held to consider recommendations about how
best to proceed. In the weeks leading up to the April council meeting, one company that
the city had been negotiating with showed promise, and in the days prior to the meeting
withdrew from negotiations. This change – along with an assessment that additional
analysis was needed – led staff in May 2017 to recommend against pursuing a ballot
issue in the election that was then just several months away. Council agreed.
Staff then stepped back, and reassessed the approach in late 2017, conducted additional
community engagement, and in June 2018 presented council with various broadband
operating model options (see also council materials from 1/9/18, 5/8/18, and 6/12/18).
Council voted to approve the design and construction of a city-owned “fiber backbone”
in effort to work towards the goals of affordable and accessible high-speed internet
services throughout the city and to preserve the city’s future options for various
broadband business models.
Staff also recommended and
council approved funding of
high-priority network laterals
(i.e., extensions from the
backbone to specific sites) to
connect key partner
organizations to these services.
Five of the planned seven
backbone rings will be
complete by the end of 2022,
see Figure 1, shown in light
yellow. The remaining Canyon
and Table Mesa areas (phases 5
and 6), shown in heavy red,
have planned completion dates
in autumn 2023. As rings are
completed, they are available
for service. This includes the
Diagonal and Arapahoe rings
that are already being used to
deliver fiber for use by our public
safety organizations and to traffic signal infrastructure. In parallel, city staff is developing
Figure 1 – “Backbone Construction Current State”
Community Broadband Page 3
Packet Page 16 of 24
a multi-year ‘smart city’ plan that outlines how connected devices can further council
priorities and department master plans while leveraging existing and planned city fiber
assets.
Boulder is now in positioned to leverage its investment in the city-wide, fiber backbone
infrastructure to spur delivery of fiber-based, high-speed, and competitively priced
internet services. Furthermore, additional city investment will further close the digital
divide that has seen improvement via private infrastructure investment since council
approved backbone funding in 2018.
The city’s work on community broadband also has a high degree of alignment with all
attributes of the Sustainability, Equity, and Resilience Framework:
Sustainability, Equity &
Resilience Framework Community Broadband’s Impact
Safe •Directly enhances public safety communication
•Enables more efficient / effective basic public health utilities
Healthy & Socially
Thriving
•Enables digital connection and access to educational
opportunities
•Enables greater inclusion in the digital world
Livable •Enables smart buildings and infrastructure
Accessible & Connected •Directly bridges the digital divide
•Enhances access to government services
Responsibly Governed •Enhances customer experience, government transparency, and
overall effectiveness
Economically Vital •Enhances the attractiveness of Boulder as a place to do business
•Promotes creativity, entrepreneurship, and social mobility for all
ANALYSIS
Boulder, having invested approximately $20M in core infrastructure (dark-fiber
backbone), now must determine the best approach to achieve the city’s desired outcome
of community broadband. The fundamental question the city must now answer, is the
level of control and financial/other risk it wishes to take on.
Community Broadband Outcome and Objectives
With grounding in the city’s Sustainability, Equity, and Resilience, staff has drafted the
intended outcome of community broadband initiatives: Affordable high-speed fiber-based
broadband internet access for all.
To achieve this intended outcome staff also proposes 5 objectives on which future
decisions will be framed. These objectives are:
•Citywide access
•Equitable & inclusive
•Future-oriented
Community Broadband Page 4
Packet Page 17 of 24
•Competitive marketplace
•Consumer privacy
Two objectives that were defined when council last visited this topic in 2018, ‘net
neutrality’ and ‘open access’ are proposed to be removed. By removing them the
objectives are less redundant as ‘open access’ is captured as part of ‘competitive
marketplace’ and ‘net neutrality’ as part of ‘equitable & inclusive’. It also better reflects
the current landscape around the broadband ecosystem and federal standards. ‘Consumer
privacy’ is proposed as an addition given its criticality to deliver trusted and competitive
services.
Operating Model Approaches
Figure 2, below, outlines the full range of operating models along a spectrum of risk and
control.
While the number of approaches is truly limitless along this spectrum of risk, to simplify
decision making at this stage of the project, staff has summarized three core approaches
to achieving the intended outcome of community broadband – A, B, and C (as indicated
in Figure 2 and described below). Variations on each core approach are numerous and
will be further outlined once there is alignment on the city’s general direction.
From lowest risk and cost to highest:
Approach A “Provider of Last Resort”: This approach includes the city using
the backbone infrastructure for its own purposes and as a “provider of last
resort” (i.e., where private providers are not providing sufficient services) to
Figure 2 – “Fiber-based Municipal Internet Service Operating Models”
Community Broadband Page 5
Packet Page 18 of 24
address community challenges (e.g. Boulder Rescue connection). The city
considers case by case fiber leases of backbone based on to-be-defined criteria.
Approach B “Provider of Last Resort + Public Private Partnership”: This
approach includes Model A + the city partners with private-sector provider who
utilizes the city backbone and implements defined broadband policy objectives.
In this approach the partner builds new fiber-based, high-speed network
connecting premises and operates associated services. The city leases backbone
infrastructure and ensures ease of permitting / construction, and in return
negotiates for items such as retail price locks and a say in the prioritization of
geographies served.
Approach C “City Operated Service” This approach requires an estimated
$+100M 1 of capital investment to build fiber city-wide to enable services to all
city premises. Additionally, significant annual maintenance costs for all new
fiber plant and electronics would be required. There are further complex
operational requirements and costs associated with running a premise-based
fiber network offering internet services. These include billing, ticketing,
network operations, trouble shooting, customer care, and marketing of any new
network and services. Given these complex and costly features staff does not
believe these are feasible models to achieve the goals of affordable and
accessible services in a timely or cost-effective manner.
Considering the balance of risk (financial, operational, and reputational) and control /
opportunity, staff recommends approach B “Provider of Last Resort + Public Private
Partnership”. This partner would take on both the capital and operational risk of running
a broadband network, and the market risk of competing and offering internet services in
the local market.
1 Estimate based on industry blended per premise installation estimate of $2,500/ premise at
approximately 40,000 premises in Boulder
Community Broadband Page 6
Packet Page 19 of 24
Additional details about a potential public-private partnership:
The city’s fiber backbone has 432 individual fibers, each of which can be designated for a
different use. Figure 3 outlines a high-level provisional allocation with several uses in
mind reflecting some current and future use cases. Half of the backbone (216 fibers) have
been provisionally
allocated for the purpose
of assisting with the
deployment of
community broadband
solutions, shown in
yellow, while others are
intended for government
services, shown in purple,
and others, for city
partnerships and being a
“provider of last resort”
for entities that cannot
obtain services elsewhere,
shown in blue.
Staff’s recommendation
is that the portion of fiber
strands, in this
provisional model there
are 50%, be allocated to a
private-sector partner
who, in exchange, would
extend fiber from the backbone to connect to premises across the city. The exact number
of strands would primarily be driven by the technology choice that the potential private-
sector partner utilizes to design and construct extensions from the backbone and connect
fiber to city premises. These fibers are typically granted to the partner within the terms of
the public-private-partnership agreement and are typically assigned by granting an
Indefeasible Right to Use (IRU) for a term of 20 or 30 years.
Assuming a backbone allocation similar to the provisional model, the 216-fiber strand
allocation offers an attractive starting point for a private sector partner to begin the
process of marketing and ultimately securing fiber-based, internet customers in the city.
The city’s risk in this approach would be low as it would only commit a portion of the
completed fiber backbone to a new partner to then leverage and create fiber expansion
strategies to premises and offer new internet products and services. In return for
providing use across the city’s fiber backbone, the city could seek one or more of the
following through contract negotiations to achieve affordability and accessibility goals:
A.A partner to fund and build fiber to all city premises. Everyone who desires
a fiber-based service from this new partner should be served regardless of
where they live or their property address
Community
Broadband
216
Affordable
Housing
25CU
11
RTD
11
Transport
ation
36
Public
Safety
25
Water
Utilities
25
Other Smart
City
Applications
48
General
Spare
35
Figure 3 - "Provisional Cross Section of Fiber Backbone Uses"
Community Broadband Page 7
Packet Page 20 of 24
B.An expectation, at the city’s discretion, to work with Boulder Housing
Partners and other low/middle income housing communities prioritized by
the city
C.Offer a true city-facilitated community broadband product available to all, a
basic broadband service for everyone (e.g. $30 a month for a 100mbps
service)
D.A partner to pay city a lease fee for using x fibers across the city’s fiber
backbone, or, city to share in of collected broadband revenues
E.As the partner builds their own fiber network from the city’s dark fiber
backbone, they also build city-owned fiber everywhere, effectively creating
additional fiber assets across the rest of the city that could be used for
“future proofing” and enabling more “provider of last resort” and “smart
city” opportunities for the city
While the city would welcome a new partner to provide city-wide, fiber-based internet
premise-based services, the city would continue to act as a “provider of last-resort" where
if desired, it can extend fiber from its backbone and connect to community partners. The
city is already completing work like this, such as with Boulder Rescue Squad which will
be completed in 2023 providing them with fiber-based, critical, affordable, internet
services. The “provider of last resort” would consider the following:
1. Extend lateral connections from the city’s backbone where there is a need from a
city partner that is not being served by the private sector
2. Typically these locations would be non-profit or some sort of
governmental/institution location
3. The objective is not to compete with the private sector so for-profit organizations
are not the focus unless the private sector is unable or unwilling to provide service
Increasingly, cities are looking towards private sectoring partnering to achieve true
competition with their broadband offerings. Centennial is a good example of this, and
more recently this is a direction that Colorado Springs has taken. Additionally,
Huntsville, AL, Austin, TX, and also recently Mesa, AZ are all taking similar pathways
but not all have an already completed fiber backbone in place that can offer a real
incentive to the private partner.
Staff’s recommendation is to seek a well-aligned private partner that understands the
city’s objectives as it relates to utilizing the current backbone, with the private partner
ultimately, funding, designing, constructing and operating the required fiber extension
loops and fiber drops that connect to city premises. All funding for the required effort to
design, construct, and operate these fiber loops and premise extensions would be borne
by the selected private sector partner. They would compete in the local Boulder market
offering fiber based, broadband products and services taking on all the market risk and
telecom incumbents. Whilst the city would not bring any direct funding to this
partnership, the city would make its fiber backbone available for the partner to quickly
have city-wide reach avoiding an estimated 3-years of costly design and construction
enabling them to move much faster in a mid-sized metro market such as Boulder. Under
this agreement the private partner is also responsible for maintenance of any fiber that
Community Broadband Page 8
Packet Page 21 of 24
may be granted from the city. The city would remain responsible for maintenance of
fibers not granted to partner from the backbone.
Additionally, Boulder, like most mid-sized cities across America, is not regarded as
“unserved” or “underserved” per federal definitions as it relates to the opportunities to
obtain broadband services. Therefore, staff do not see opportunities to obtain federal or
state funds as capital for the purpose of directly building fiber and providing internet
services. However, there are several areas of funding that potentially could assist
community organizations bridge some of the challenges of broadband adoption such as
cost, education, device availability etc. These programs will be further explored in early
2023.
MATRIX OF OPTIONS
Approach A: Provider of
Last Resort
Approach B: Provider of
Last Resort + Public
Private Partnership
Approach C: City
Operated Service
Description City completes fiber
backbone in 2023, uses
backbone for its own
purposes and as a “provider
of last resort” to address
community challenges e.g.
Boulder Rescue connection.
City would consider case by
case fiber leases of
backbone on an
opportunistic basis
City completes fiber
backbone in 2023 and in
parallel seeks private sector
partner that would utilize
city backbone and
implement defined city
broadband policy objectives.
Partner builds new fiber-
based, high-speed network
connecting any premise
within city boundaries
City completes fiber
backbone in 2023 and in
parallel seeks to fund the
build out of a full fiber
network that could connect
fiber to every city premise.
City would operate the
network and be the service
provider taking on all
functions such as
marketing, billing, and all
technical services. These
functions are typically
performed by cities with
existing electric utility
departments
Infrastructure
Owner
Backbone: City
Distribution: N/A
Electronics: N/A
Operations: N/A
Backbone: City
Distribution: Private
Electronics: Private
Operations: Private
Backbone: City
Distribution: City
Electronics: City
Operations: City
Service
Provider
Private Private City
Organizational
Implications to
City
Low Risk – Minor staffing
implications during
construction, no facility
implications
Low/Medium Risk – City
makes a portion of key fiber
backbone asset available.
Requires possible dedicated
FTE to oversee asset
allocation.
High Risk – as well as the
full financial risk of
funding a city-wide fiber
network, city would have
to stand up a new
broadband department to
perform all required ISP
functions including
facilities for administration
and operations. A new
department such as this is
Community Broadband Page 9
Packet Page 22 of 24
estimated to require
43FTEs
Financial
Implications /
Considerations
Low - $20m budget was
secured in 2020 to complete
the build of the city’s fiber
backbone. Some budget is
likely to remain after
completion of backbone at
end of 2023 that could fund
annual operational costs.
Annual operational costs are
relatively low <$50K.
Low/Medium - $20m
budget was secured in 2020
to complete the build of
city’s fiber backbone.
Private partner use of
backbone and their plans to
then fund and build out fiber
across the city does not
necessarily guarantee
successful broadband
outcomes. Annual
operational costs are
relatively low <$50K and
may involve an additional
FTE resource within IT
High – estimated to be
$138m cost to construct,
maintain, and operate
network and customer
service. Network costs
estimated to be between
$500k to $1m annually
excluding all FTE costs.
The model to pay back
high expected capital costs
is typically based on
residential take rates and
assumed revenue per
premise.
Control Less Control
-Price: Set by
provider
-Speed: Set by
provider
-Minimal customer
service
requirements
-Coverage may be
dependent on
market demand
-No funding for
backbone usage
Some Control
-Price: May be
negotiated with
provider
-Speed: May be
negotiated with
provider
-Negotiated
customer service
requirements
-Universal coverage
across city
-Payment to the city
for use of fiber
backbone
High Control
-Price: Set by city
-Speed: Set by city
-Customer service
requirements
controlled
-Universal
coverage across
city
-No funding for
backbone usage
Ability to Meet
Objectives
Low
-Citywide access:
Not guaranteed
-Equitable &
Inclusive: Not
guaranteed
-Future-Oriented:
somewhat
-Competitive
Marketplace:
potentially better
than status quo
-Net Neutrality: ?
-Open Access: Fiber
backbone yes, other
carriers remain on
their own networks
Mixed
-Citywide access:
Possible
-Equitable &
Inclusive: Likely
-Future-Oriented:
Yes
-Competitive
Marketplace:
somewhat –
another competitor
-Net Neutrality:
Possible
-Open Access:
Possible, but most
potential partners
will desire to be
sole service
provider
High
-Citywide access:
Yes
-Equitable &
Inclusive: Yes
-Future-Oriented:
Yes
-Competitive
Marketplace:
another
competitor
-Net Neutrality:
Possible
-Open Access: Not
initially
Community Broadband Page 10
Packet Page 23 of 24
Other
Communities
with this
Approach
Holly Springs, NC
Centennial, CO
Urbana-Champaign, IL
Westminster, MD
Huntsville, AL
Colorado Springs CO
Breckenridge, CO
Longmont, CO
Wilson, NC
Salisbury NC
Ft. Collins, CO
Loveland, CO
NEXT STEPS
Pending council feedback and general alignment with staff’s recommendation to further
research Approach B, next steps include:
•Continue backbone construction – planned completion in late 2023
•Backbone-use strategy analysis
•Public Private Partnership operating-model analysis (including more detailed cost
analysis, resource analysis, and potential points for negotiation)
•Community engagement activities
•Prepare for a Q2 study session with additional detail around Approach B
ATTACHMENTS
•N/A
Community Broadband Page 11
Packet Page 24 of 24