Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Broadband Deployment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Brightspeed/Dragline seek bond waiver for Whiteland fiber build; council asks legal review of insurer certificate
Summary
Representatives from Brightspeed and contractor Dragline asked the council to accept an insurance certificate in lieu of a large performance bond for a fiber build; council members expressed concern about utility damage and asked legal counsel to review the insurer certificate and provide an opinion next month.
Representatives for Brightspeed and contractor Dragline asked the Whiteland Town Council on March 11 to consider allowing construction of a fiber network under an insurance certificate rather than the municipal bond typically required by town ordinance.
Michelle Durbin, who identified herself as the manager for Indiana for Brightspeed (the incumbent local exchange carrier), said the company is investing to upgrade copper networks to fiber across its 20-state footprint and wants to provide fiber to Whiteland. Durbin said the contractor Dragline has been prepared to provide a bond but that the town's bond requirement, as written, would lead to a very large bond amount for the town (the firm estimated a figure that would exceed typical local bonding practice). She said Brightspeed and Dragline could provide a $3.5 million per-incident insurance certificate and had secured a $40,000 bond as an alternative.
Durbin said the insurance certificate includes a third-party administrator and long-term coverage of claims; she described the company as committed to leaving work sites in good condition and responding to issues promptly. "We really do want to be good community partners," she said.
Council members raised concerns about the town's ability to identify and remedy damage to underground utilities, including instances the town reported of delayed discovery of utility hits. Several council members pressed for protections such as pre- and post-construction photographic documentation (camera before/after) and insisted the town's legal counsel compare the offered insurance certificate with the bond protections currently specified in the ordinance. One council member said he was not comfortable changing the town's requirements without legal review given the potential for buried utility damage discovered months later.
The council did not take final action. Members asked staff to have the town attorney review the offered certificate of insurance and advise whether it provides protections comparable to the bond. The council requested the company provide the full insurance documentation and any third-party administrator contact information; the item was tabled for consideration at the next meeting after counsel's review.
No formal vote was recorded on waiving the bond requirement; council members recorded support for obtaining counsel's analysis before deciding.
