Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Right Of Way Permits topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Court approves right‑of‑way permits for Sunrise Telecom fiber and water‑supply road bores

5792841 · August 19, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The commissioners authorized right‑of‑way agreements allowing Sunrise Telecom to install fiber on County Road 3400 and a water supply company to perform road bores on County Road 3612 at two addresses.

The County Commissioners Court unanimously approved two right‑of‑way permit requests: one from Sunrise Telecom to install fiber‑optic cable along County Road 3400 in Brownsboro and one from a local water‑supply company to bore under County Road 3612 at two addresses.

A Sunrise Telecom representative told the court the company proposes to install approximately 1,400 feet of 1‑ to 2‑inch conduit carrying fiber‑optic cable, attached to one vault and one pedestal, along County Road 3400. The court approved the proposed utility activity and authorized the commissioners’ signature on the agreement; Commissioner McCam moved for approval and Commissioner Spivey seconded. The motion passed unanimously.

The court also approved a notice of proposed utility line activity from a water‑supply company for road bores at 12029 and 12013 County Road 3612; commissioners authorized the signature on that agreement as well. The presenter identified the company in the transcript variously as Leadville, Lakeville and Leakville Water Supply Company; the transcript does not include a single, consistent spelling. The court approved that request by motion of Commissioner McCam and a second from Commissioner Richardson; the motion passed unanimously.

No conditions, special bonds, or engineering report requirements were recorded in the meeting minutes; the court treated both items as routine right‑of‑way approvals with authorization to sign the necessary documents.

County staff indicated these agreements are typical for utility work in county rights of way and did not describe additional county funding or maintenance obligations at the meeting.