Yuma County reports 23 farm towers built; service still needs fiber and power

Yuma County reports that construction of 23 agricultural broadband towers reached substantial completion September 11. Connecting those towers to fiber and electricity remains unfinished work, and the County has not announced a service activation date in its latest project update.

The October 5 presentation describes progress on two connected initiatives: a fiber backbone across populated and rural areas, and a wireless system intended to connect farm technology. Neither construction percentages nor standing towers establish that every nearby home or field can obtain internet service.

The update was scheduled as an informational presentation. The Board agenda designated no legal action on that item; it should not be read as a new grant award or appropriation.

The fiber backbone: one phase complete, two still unfinished

Middle-mile fiber carries data between larger networks and local providers. Last-mile connections carry it to homes, businesses or fields. The County owns the backbone, while ALLO operates and markets it to carriers, according to ALLO’s project description. A provider still needs connections and equipment to serve individual customers.

The County’s October 5 figures describe three phases:

Phase 1, serving Yuma, Somerton and San Luis: 100% complete, 69.93 miles of dark fiber, with a listed project figure of $12,319,855.

Phase 2, covering the Foothills, Dome Valley and Tacna: 96% complete, 68.78 miles, and $11,819,465.

Phase 3, covering North Gila Valley, Roll and Texas Hill: 95% complete, 30.12 miles, and $5,271,921. Staff estimated this phase would finish about $1 million under budget, a projection rather than a final saving.

Together, the phase figures add to $29,411,241 and 168.83 miles. Because two phases remain incomplete, the mileage is not proof that all 168.83 miles have been finished or activated. Dark fiber means installed fiber that requires equipment to transmit data.

ALLO’s undated progress page labels some portions completed, light-tested and available for lease. Its segment names and older network description differ from the County’s current presentation. Those charts cannot reliably establish October 5 completion for the County’s three phases or identify every address ready for service.

Funding is not the same as money spent

The presentation lists $18.7 million in County American Rescue Plan Act funding, a $10 million Arizona Commerce Authority grant, $234,000 in additional ARPA money, $30,000 in program income and $788,000 in interest. Adding those listed amounts gives approximately $29,752,000 for the middle-mile project. The slides do not provide a current payment ledger.

The County’s audited financial report for the year ended June 30, 2025 supplies a historical spending benchmark: $21,132,063 in middle-mile expenditures to date and $742,049 for agricultural wireless infrastructure. Those accounting expenditures predate the latest construction and are not current cash-payment totals.

The audit also describes a revenue-sharing agreement with ALLO under which the County’s share is restricted to broadband capital improvements. It does not establish how many households or farms are now using the County-funded infrastructure.

A separate September 21 budget amendment attachment shifts $4,711,980 in existing ARPA construction budget authority from Financial Services to Engineering. It is an accounting transfer with an equal decrease elsewhere, not evidence of a new grant paying for the remaining agricultural towers.

What is funded for farms, and what is still needed

The wireless design calls for 34 monopoles approximately 50 feet tall across Yuma-area irrigation districts. The October report identifies 23 constructed towers and says approximately $4.7 million in additional funding must be found for the remaining 11. It supplies no date for that unfunded work.

For the funded tower work, the County identifies a $6 million Governor’s Office grant using state ARPA funds. The slide lists $46,410 for administration, $438,192 for engineering and $5,418,578 for construction. Those components total $5,903,180; the presentation does not explain the remaining $96,820 within the grant amount. It does not label the components as final payments.

Fiber connections to the towers are listed separately at approximately $2.6 million in County funds: $200,000 in ARPA money and $2.4 million in interest from ARPA and the Local Assistance and Tribal Consistency Fund, or LATCF. The October design describes 12-strand cable, two strands reserved for the monopoles, and spare conduit.

ALLO’s fiber-to-towers kickoff occurred September 24, according to the presentation. Dates for APS and Wellton-Mohawk to energize the sites remain to be determined. The update does not provide a verified full-network commissioning date, agricultural subscription price, guaranteed speed or farm enrollment process.

These tower and fiber figures should not simply be added to the middle-mile funding as one final project cost. The fiber work expands the backbone, and a reconciled accounting is needed to establish how the project budgets and shared funding pools relate.

Plans and schedules have changed

The April 7, 2025 contract-amendment packet identifies eX2 Technology as the tower contractor and a December 2, 2024 original award of $3,775,135. It describes revised utility and design requirements and expansion from 27 to 34 towers. The proposed amendment sets out a $5,459,984.45 revised contract amount and an August 31, 2026 completion date contingent on extending the state grant.

The public attachment is not an executed contract copy. Later amendments and the final contract accounting were not obtained, so that amount cannot be substituted for the October figures or used to calculate a verified final overrun. Likewise, September 11 substantial completion cannot establish a missed enforceable deadline without the subsequent agreements.

The February 19, 2026 minutes recorded an August closeout target for towers and a roughly $2.4 million, 48-strand fiber-extension proposal. Supervisors approved use of LATCF funds 4–0, with Supervisor Lynne Pancrazi excused. October’s description is approximately $2.6 million and 12 strands; the update does not explain that change.

Those minutes also put middle-mile Phase 2 at 96% and Phase 3 at 10%. October still reports Phase 2 at 96%, while Phase 3 has reached 95%. Staff said earlier Phase 2 delays involving a cultural site and ADOT’s Gila River Bridge work had been resolved. The current update does not identify what prevents the final four percent from being completed.

The fiber project also faced a construction and payment halt in October 2024 in procurement litigation brought by Gila Electronics, according to the County’s statement at the time. That statement said operational portions could continue operating. The subsequent court orders and current case disposition were not obtained; the old injunction should not be assumed to remain in force.

Who can use it now?

Residential service exists separately from the farm-tower build. ALLO’s Yuma retail page offers an address checker and lists residential new-service calls at 928-459-3655 and business sales at 928-459-3610. An advertised plan or nearby fiber route does not establish eligibility at a particular address.

Residents should check their address, obtain a current quote and review the provider’s broadband labels for speeds, monthly charges and conditions. Prices vary among plan classes and offers. Retail fiber rates and advertised speeds are not established terms for the agricultural tower network.

For agriculture, signed April 20 minutes confirm that supervisors approved formation of a Broadband Service District Authority in 5–0 votes. Staff described agricultural connectivity as its purpose. Mark Smith of Yuma Irrigation District told the Board the district would operate and govern the system and would not be a taxing authority. Those minutes establish the governance decision, not an enrollment opening or service launch.

KYMA reported September 15 that the University of Arizona Yuma Agricultural Center was testing a smart-farm network with researchers, growers and industry partners. Potential uses include remote irrigation controls, water-pressure monitoring, equipment tracking and soil-moisture sensors. A pilot demonstration does not establish that the County’s entire planned coverage area is operational.

What results residents should expect to see documented

The original state grant paperwork calls for quarterly expenditure and performance reporting, including baseline water use, water conserved, acres served, participating farms and infrastructure milestones. It provides reimbursement for documented incurred costs, rather than treating the entire award as money already spent.

The October update contains construction progress but no measured water savings, farm participation counts, reliability results or demonstrated productivity gains. Its objectives remain prospective. Water conservation matters locally, but the network’s potential benefits are separate from the operating rules discussed in YumaInformed’s recent Colorado River coverage.

As of October 8, the public records reviewed leave important questions unanswered: when the sites will receive power and fiber, which farms can enroll first, who pays operating and customer-equipment costs, how remaining towers will be funded, and what final testing and payment records show. Signed grant extensions, current change orders, commissioning reports and quarterly performance reports would help distinguish infrastructure progress from delivered service.