The fierce debate over who should build and control the digital highways of the future is intensifying in communities across America, and nowhere has this conflict been more sharply defined than in the city of Willmar, Minnesota. A proposed $25 million municipal broadband network, known as “Willmar Connect,” has become the focal point of a contentious dispute, pitting a vocal group of citizens wary of the project’s financial risks against city officials who champion it as a vital, long-term investment in public infrastructure. The standoff came to a head just as the City Council was poised to award the first major construction contract, transforming council chambers into a forum on fiscal responsibility, government transparency, and the fundamental role of a municipality in the digital age. At the heart of the disagreement lies a crucial question: is city-owned internet a reckless gamble with taxpayer money, or is it an essential utility, as critical to a city’s future as roads and water, that can no longer be left to the whims of the private market?
A Public Outcry Over Fiscal Prudence
The simmering public discontent boiled over during a City Council meeting where local resident Bob Enos, flanked by approximately ten other concerned citizens, directly challenged the city’s leadership. Wielding signs with the pointed message, “Shame on you! Willmar City Council — $25 million for internet and you don’t ask?” the group articulated a powerful sentiment of exclusion from a decision-making process with significant financial ramifications. Their protest was strategically timed, occurring just before the council was scheduled to consider the construction bid for the project’s initial phase. This public demonstration wasn’t merely a show of opposition; it was a direct accusation that the city was moving forward on a massive expenditure without adequately consulting the very taxpayers who would ultimately bear the financial burden. The confrontation highlighted a deep-seated distrust and a core grievance that a project of this scale and cost should have been subject to far greater public scrutiny and input before reaching such a critical stage of implementation.
The criticism leveled by Enos was not vague; it was a direct and severe indictment of the city staff and elected officials, whom he accused of a profound dereliction of duty. He methodically outlined three possible scenarios, each painting a damning picture of the city’s handling of the Willmar Connect initiative. First, he raised the possibility of gross negligence, questioning if the city staff had simply neglected to perform basic due diligence on the well-documented risks associated with municipal broadband projects, an omission he bluntly labeled as “pure laziness and incompetence.” His second charge suggested a more calculated deception, positing that officials may have conducted the necessary research but then deliberately concealed information about failed networks that contradicted their “desired narrative,” an act he characterized as “fraudulent.” Finally, Enos presented the most troubling possibility: that the City Council was fully aware of the financial devastation other cities had suffered from similar ventures and the looming risk of technological obsolescence, yet chose to proceed anyway—a decision he deemed “immoral” for consciously putting taxpayer funds in jeopardy.
The Blueprint for a Municipal Network
The genesis of the “Willmar Connect” initiative dates back to early 2023, when the city’s attempt to entice a private internet service provider (ISP) to build a comprehensive, city-wide fiber network proved unsuccessful. Faced with a lack of interest from the private sector, the city administration pivoted its strategy, embracing a municipal model to address the community’s growing need for reliable, high-speed internet. To bring this vision to life, the city partnered with Hometown Fiber, a specialized firm engaged to provide the conceptual framework, detailed network design, and a strategic plan for a phased build-out. Under the proposed open-access model, the city of Willmar would retain ownership of the physical fiber optic infrastructure, treating it as a public utility. Hometown Fiber would then assume the role of network manager and operator. The defining feature of this open-access system is its ability to foster competition; multiple, independent ISPs can lease access to the city’s network to offer their services to residents and businesses. This structure is designed to create a competitive marketplace, potentially leading to better service and lower prices for consumers. The financial underpinning of the project relies on this model, with the revenue generated from these ISP access fees intended to be the primary source for servicing the debt and interest on the approximately $24.5 million in bonds the city plans to issue for construction.
The city’s plan for constructing the network is meticulously structured into three distinct and manageable phases, designed to spread the financial commitment and logistical complexity over time. The immediate focus of the City Council’s decision was the first phase, which was the subject of the pending construction bid. This initial stage carries an estimated cost of around $7.8 million, although a competitive bid of $7.6 million was already under review by the city. Geographically, this first phase is designed to cover a significant commercial and residential area, encompassing all businesses and homes located west of First Street South, between U.S. Highway 12 and 19th Avenue. Following the successful completion of this initial build-out, the project would proceed to phase two, extending the fiber network to the southern and eastern portions of Willmar. The third and final phase would then cover the northern sections, ultimately creating a comprehensive, city-wide infrastructure. Each of these subsequent phases is estimated to cost approximately $7.0 million, bringing the total project cost in line with the $25 million figure at the center of the public debate. This phased approach allows the city to demonstrate the model’s viability and generate revenue from the first phase before committing to the full project scope.
The City’s Defense and Strategic Rationale
In a direct response to the pointed public criticism, City Operations Director Kyle Box, prompted by a request from Councilor Justin Ask, stepped forward to defend the city’s extensive planning process. While acknowledging the right of community members to voice their concerns, Box firmly stood by the work of his staff and the city’s consultants. “I can absolutely take criticism if I need to, but I feel we’ve done our due diligence,” he stated, adding, “We have been very conservative in all of our project funding.” He was transparent about the project’s financial realities, explicitly stating that he had never claimed it would be entirely risk-free. He confirmed that if the project were to proceed and fail to attract a sufficient number of subscribers, the city would remain obligated to repay the construction debt. However, he immediately countered this by detailing the comprehensive measures taken to mitigate this very risk. This preparatory work included a significant investment of just over $1 million in detailed planning and engineering. Furthermore, Box explained that the city’s broadband committee, along with Hometown Fiber, had deliberately delayed the project timeline on several occasions to conduct additional research, consult with a wide range of industry experts, and thoroughly study the lessons learned from both the failures and successes of other municipal networks across the country.
The city’s defense went beyond simply rebutting accusations of incompetence; it articulated a clear, strategic vision for Willmar’s digital future. Box emphasized that a crucial component of their due diligence was a detailed financial analysis designed to ensure the project’s long-term feasibility without imposing an undue burden on taxpayers. According to his report to the council, the results of this analysis were positive. This financial modeling was further supported by strong real-world data significant number of residents and businesses located within the phase one area had already pre-registered for service, indicating a robust initial demand that helps secure the project’s financial footing from the outset. When addressing Enos’s specific examples of struggling municipal networks elsewhere, Box offered a more nuanced perspective. He acknowledged that some networks have “come up short” in fully covering their debt obligations but highlighted a critical, often overlooked benefit. “The one thing that never left was the fiber,” he explained. “Fiber didn’t leave, and so that valuable utility is still available for those residents.” Ultimately, Box framed the decision not as a simple financial calculation but as a fundamental policy choice for the council about whether the city should own and control a key utility to actively shape its economic future or abandon the effort and hope for a private-sector solution that had already failed to materialize.
Examining the National Landscape of Municipal Fiber
The debate in Willmar was deeply informed by the mixed outcomes of similar projects nationwide. Chelan County, Washington, one of the examples cited by critics, began building its wholesale fiber network in 2001. The project proved exceptionally costly and challenging due to the region’s mountainous terrain, rocky soil, and the fact that 85% of county land is government-owned. By the end of 2024, the total investment had reached $124.1 million, and its annual report for that year showed operating expenses of $16.2 million exceeding operating revenues of $12.4 million. Despite these financial hurdles, the network represented a long-term strategic investment. By 2023, it had successfully reached 76% of the county’s population and achieved a solid 55% take-up rate among those with access, demonstrating significant community adoption as it continued its expansion. In another case, the Ashland Fiber Network in Oregon, developed in the late 1990s, was at times labeled a failure. However, analysis by the Institute for Local Self-Reliance revealed that its presence forced the incumbent cable company to become more competitive on price and that the municipal network was more responsive to citizen needs. Most critically, as of June 2025, the network had fully paid off the 25-year-old debt from its construction and, by April of that year, held a fund balance of nearly $3 million. With a 33% market share, it had laid out ambitious plans to invest millions in upgrades with the goal of capturing a 55% share over the next decade.
In stark contrast to the cautionary tales, there are numerous examples of municipal broadband projects that have become resounding successes. UTOPIA Fiber in Utah, a consortium of 20 cities, stands as one of the largest and most successful open-access networks in the United States. While it encountered financial difficulties in its early years, it has since become a model of sustainability. The network now “operates in the black,” hosts 15 competing ISPs, and offers highly competitive gigabit and multi-gigabit speeds at prices that significantly undercut incumbent providers. Its continued expansion, covering over 100,000 households, is funded entirely through revenue bonds repaid directly by subscriber fees, not from general tax funds. The narrative of inevitable failure was further countered by successful projects like Ammon Fiber in Idaho, The Wired Road in Virginia, Huntsville Utilities in Alabama, and Westminster Fiber in Maryland. A more recent example, the city of Superior, Wisconsin, is also successfully building its own city-owned, open-access network in phases, much like the model proposed for Willmar. The intense debate in Willmar, therefore, encapsulated a broader national conversation, where the undeniable financial risks of public investment were weighed against the profound, long-term economic and social benefits of owning and controlling essential digital infrastructure. The decision that faced the council was a reflection of this national crossroads.
