Aurora’s 60-mile underground fiber-optic network was just three weeks away from shutting down when Austin FitzCorbett, a former software engineering manager, first started volunteering to help the city manage the network last summer, he said.
The city-connected organization established to manage the city’s fiber network, OnLight Aurora, had nearly run out of money, was behind on bills and had around $1 million in debt, Aurora Mayor John Laesch has said.
But after spending over a year trying to dig OnLight out of its debt, FitzCorbett said, he and other city officials want to ditch the organization and have the city take it over.
The Aurora City Council is set to vote on a resolution Tuesday evening that would end the city’s agreement with OnLight and authorize city staff to negotiate transferring OnLight’s customers to the city.
The fiber-optic network provides high-speed internet to around 19 customers, including the city, schools, healthcare providers and data centers, said FitzCorbett.
“My option last year was to do nothing and let it fail and then hurt the schools and businesses or try to do something,” FitzCorbett said. “But the equipment is outdated, customers are declining … significant public support has been consumed. We need to move on to make oversight improvements.”
If the resolution is approved by the City Council on Tuesday, the city would have 180 days to negotiate new contracts with OnLight’s customers before those contracts terminate. Equipment owned by OnLight would also become city property in 180 days under the proposed resolution.
The resolution comes nearly a year after Laesch claimed that OnLight was in financial distress in part due to three failed attempts to bring internet service through city fiber to residents’ homes, including one that ended up costing over $110,000 in legal fees, he said.
The organization’s financial state was also due to “unregulated debit card expenses for marketing purposes” since 2018, which included cash withdraws, sponsorships, airfare, lodging, limos or car services, restaurants and bars, “adult entertainment clubs” and political contributions, among others, according to a presentation by Laesch to the Aurora City Council last year.
Those formerly in charge of OnLight have disputed claims made by Laesch about what the organization spent money on, and also said he was overreaching in his power as mayor in order to target those associated with former Mayor Richard Irvin’s administration.
As for the city taking over OnLight, FitzCorbett said some customers have expressed interest in working with the city while others remain frustrated with the current quality of service.
“There are multiple customers who are unhappy with their service … who within the next six months unless they see commitments for better next steps for OnLight, for the service they’re being provided, will move on,” he said.
“There are also customers or end users who are happy with the service,” he said. “They can not get other options in the market today, and they look forward to seeing that service continue.”
In addition to its existing customers, Aurora’s fiber-optic network is also set to expand and provide internet
More Top Picks Best New Balance Shoes For Men
for 17 homes by 2028 in a new smart neighborhood on Aurora’s West Side called Habitat Green Freedom.Contract negotiations with OnLight’s customers could cost the city around $100,000 in legal fees over the next 12 months, said Yordana Wysocki, legal counsel for Aurora, at an Oct. 6 City Council Committee of the Whole meeting. The new contracts would have to be approved by the City Council, she said.
Yet it’s still unclear if the city would be on the hook for OnLight’s remaining debt, which now amounts to around half a million dollars as of early October, said FitzCorbett. OnLight dedicated most of its monthly expenses to debt payments in the last year, said FitzCorbett.
The city could have to pay the remaining debt once OnLight stops making those payments, as the city is OnLight’s guarantor, said Wysocki at the Oct. 6 committee meeting.
The city took several steps to stabilize OnLight in the past year, such as dedicating financial support in January and later hiring FitzCorbett as the city’s fiber network manager. OnLight spending was also slashed, which reduced the company’s monthly losses from $27,000 to $5,000 by January, FitzCorbett said.
‘The OnLight model has run its course’
The Tuesday resolution is the first of several measures set to come before the City Council as part of a larger effort to revamp the fiber-optic network, said Laesch and FitzCorbett.
FitzCorbett said he aims to get the network to a place where its self-sustaining financially, instead of relying on loans and city funding as OnLight previously did, he said.
He said OnLight was meant to return a revenue share to the city, but it stopped doing so six years ago. In recent months, he said OnLight would have a positive cash flow if it weren’t for the $1,000 monthly debt service payments.
Revenue could be increased, he said, by modernizing the equipment, improving relationships with the clientele, improving asset management, building additional partnerships and establishing more transparent spending controls.
The city would temporarily take over the service while looking for established internet service providers to partner with the city and run the service, he said.
Eventually, he said the city would like to expand the network and even bring back former customers. He said half of the network is currently unused, “ready to be maximized.” He hopes updating the equipment can help attract more use in those areas.
“Long term, the goal was to find operating models that allow for us to build enough revenue and institutional trust that we can afford to partner with them to bring it back,” he said.
Declining customers and outdated equipment were a few reasons FitzCorbett advocated for shifting away from OnLight. He said the organization was losing more customers than it brought in, and he saw that as a sign for a change.
The service had nearly 35 customers at its peak in 2020, now reduced to 19 customers in 2026, according to company data provided by FitzCorbett. Between 2025 and 2026, customer revenue decreased by nearly $73,000, according to the data provided by FitzCorbett.
As for equipment, OnLight’s current fiber-optic equipment is long overdue for replacement, as he said it serves far less users per fiber than new equipment.
“It’s like a 1970s car, so if you want to go buy parts for it, you can’t buy them new anymore … and you can’t take it to any good dealership because they won’t service it anymore,” he said. “Your best option is to replace them.”
FitzCorbett said that overall, the city’s goal is to bring the service back into alignment with its original purpose – to provide affordable, high-speed internet to public institutions. According to the original 2012 agreement between OnLight and the city, which was revised in 2015, the service was meant to be self-sustaining on subscriber fees and sharing excess capacity with schools, hospitals and libraries.
FitzCorbett also said the fiber network itself has a unique structure that’s useful to the city, as it provides resiliency in the case of a fiber cut, he said. That architecture, he said, helped the city more quickly recover this summer after a fiber line was cut, which temporarily left the city’s phone system, website and internet offline.
If the council approves the resolution to end its contract with OnLight Tuesday, the city would have several next steps, such as applying to be an e-rate service provider, becoming authorized to deal directly with customers and taking over data center and internet service provider agreements, said FitzCorbett.
As for running its own fiber network, FitzCorbett said the city aims to build off strategies used by Kane County government, St. Charles, Urbana-Champaign and Highland in Illinois and Lincoln, Nebraska.