|
Logan County Board
Broadband project nears approval from County Board
[December 26, 2025]
On Tuesday, December 23rd, the
Logan County Board held their regular monthly meeting in the
second-floor courtroom of the Logan County Courthouse at 6:00 p.m.
All twelve board members attended including: Chairman JR Glenn, Vice
Chairman Dale Nelson, Lance Conahan, Michael DeRoss, Hannah
Fitzpatrick, Keenan Lessman, Kevin Knauer, Joseph Kuhlman, Bob
Sanders, Kathy Schmidt, Gil Turner, and Jim Wessbecher.
The first item the board discussed was the county-wide broadband
project that the county board has been working on for several years.
For a rundown of everything else that was discussed in this meeting,
including items such as the board voting to approve a new insurance
broker and an update on the proposed data center in Logan County,
please read LDN’s other article on this meeting.
Leesman, the one who has been spearheading the project for the
board, started by explaining an agreement he brought forward between
the Board and WANRack, the company the county will be partnering
with to build the project.
Avid readers of LDN’s articles on the county board may recall that
the idea is for the county to have a revenue share with WANRack. The
project is too expensive for the county to build alone. With
assistance from WANRack, and the state of Illinois, the county is
going to be able to pay their $2 million share in monthly
installments over the course of ten years. While WANRack will own
the majority of the fiber from the project, the county will get a
share of the profits that WANRack or other entities make from it.
Leesman explained that the current agreement was reviewed and
approved by State’s Attorney Brad Hauge. He reiterated that the
county would be paying $14,588 per month for ten years. He provided
specific numbers for the revenue share agreement. The agreement
states that the county would receive fifteen percent of the profits
from any "clientele" that use the fiber, and five percent of the
profits that WANRack themselves make from the project. Leesman,
however, suggested changing those numbers to ten percent for both.
Nelson asked what happens after the ten-year payment period. Leesman
stated that WANRack will continue to own and operate the network,
but that the county would continue to share the revenue from the
project indefinitely. He also shared that the county is going to get
twelve shares of fiber to be used however they see fit. Nelson
pushed back, stating that the wording of the agreement concerned
him. He continued, stating that nothing in the agreement certifies
that the revenue share will continue after the initial ten years. He
stated that he did not want WANRack to pull out of the revenue share
agreement after the ten year period if there was nothing in the
agreement requiring them to continue it.
[to top of second column] |
Leesman stated
that, in all his discussions with WANRack, they have always been
clear that the revenue agreement was going to span the life of
the project, not just ten years. He stated that he would talk to
them about changing the wording, being confident that WANRack
would not disagree with that change. Leesman specifically
suggested striking out the word “term,” which in the contract
referred to the initial ten-year period, and changing it to “the
life of the project.”
DeRoss then chimed in, citing verbiage at the end of the
agreement that had him concerned. He stated that the wording
made it sound like, after the end of the ten-year term, that
WANRack could simply decide not to renew the agreement with the
county. Glenn read over this portion and agreed with DeRoss that
it did “read that way.”
Glenn then asked Leesman when this
contract needed to be approved. Leesman stated “the sooner the
better.” According to Leesman, the broadband office wants to see
“momentum” from the county in getting this project started. Glenn
then laid out two options available to the board. They could either
approve it as is with the condition of fixing the verbiage that they
did not like or fix the verbiage and bring it back in January.
Sanders then brought up another concern with the taxes and fees. He
stated that the county would be the sole ones responsible for them.
He stated this did not make sense especially since the county would
be the “minority partner” in the agreement. After this comment,
Glenn then suggested having the county look over the agreement and
bring it back later. The idea of having a special regular board
meeting for this was discussed to get the ball rolling, and it was
decided that one would be held in early January.
[Matt Boutcher]
|
