Daviess County denies $25,000 tort claim from telecom, orders permit compliance

Daviess County commissioners voted 3-0 to deny a $25,000 tort claim from Brightspeed after highway department staff said the company’s contractors used county right-of-way without filing required permits and installed utility lines improperly, damaging county drainage and road infrastructure.

The action came after a lengthy report from Chris, highway department staff, who told commissioners the county has required right-of-way permits for utilities for decades but that contractors working for Brightspeed and other internet providers frequently fail to follow the permit specifications. "They're not filling out the permits to utilize county right of way," Chris said, and staff had found that lines meant to be three feet below drainage structures were sometimes only "three inches under," contributing to damage when county crews later replaced culverts.

Why it matters: County officials said taxpayers already pay for road and drainage maintenance and should not be billed to repair privately installed lines placed without the county's authorization. Commissioners approved a motion that both denies payment of the claim and directs staff to notify the company it must complete the county right-of-way permit process or lose access.

Details from the highway report included that the county has maintained an accessible permitting process that is not fee-based (per staff to encourage compliance), and that some contractors installing fiber or other utilities are not local and do not remain to address infrastructure problems. Chris said the company had forwarded at least one billing request and that a third-party collection agency also had attempted to collect from the highway department.

Commissioner Cook made the motion to deny payment and to correspond with the company with a warning; Commissioner Keith seconded. The motion passed 3-0. Commissioners asked staff to send the warning letter this week and to require that the company submit a completed permit application within 30 days; failure to do so would lead to revocation of any future access to county right-of-way. Grant (staff member) and other commissioners indicated they would review the letter before it is sent.

The county record notes that the company named in the discussion is based out of Minneapolis, Minnesota, and that the practices described are concentrated in the northern part of the county. Staff said the permitting program has been in place for decades but is not being followed consistently by outside contractors. The commissioners’ action is administrative direction to deny the claim, require permitting, and pursue revocation of access if the company does not correct its permitting status.

The county did not authorize payment on the submitted tort claim and will follow up with correspondence and a 30-day compliance deadline.