Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Right Of Way And Utilities topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Adams County commissioners, residents discuss fiber installation, right‑of‑way authority and property concerns
Summary
Residents raised concerns about a planned underground fiber installation across private property and county road right‑of‑way; county staff and commissioners described historical right‑of‑way establishment, permitting practices and said engineers review potential impacts to roads and drainage.
A resident raised concerns during public comment about a private company’s plan to bore under county roads and private property to install fiber lines, prompting a multi‑speaker discussion about right‑of‑way authority and the county’s permitting practice.
The resident said she had not been notified about the work other than flags placed in her yard and questioned where the county obtained authority to permit private utilities in the county right‑of‑way. She said Zayo, a data‑transmission company, would own seven of ten conductors in the line and that the line would be a private company’s revenue source; she questioned whether the county could "give my land away to a private company for data transmission."
In response, county staff and commissioners explained that many county road rights‑of‑way were established in the 19th century under state law rather than by deed recordings and that the county maintains an index referencing those historic commissioner records. One county official said that modern right‑of‑way acquisitions are handled by deed, but that older roads and rights‑of‑way are recorded in a separate index rather than in property deeds.
County staff said the permitting decision focuses on whether installing utilities in the right‑of‑way would disrupt or obstruct public infrastructure — such as roads, bridges, drainage — and that engineering staff (county highway and engineers) review permits for impacts to drainage and other county obligations. The board noted permits for utilities such as telephone and electric lines have been routinely considered, and that data and communications lines are increasingly common.
Legal questions remain about the interplay of private property rights and permits within the county right‑of‑way. County officials referenced prior cases and said the matter may be litigated in federal court if parties cannot agree; one resident indicated she is represented by counsel. Commissioners and staff encouraged continuing discussions among the resident, county surveyor, county attorney and the company doing the work to resolve outstanding questions.
Ending: County staff said multiple departments are continuing to investigate the request and the county will follow up with the landowner and utility representatives; no permit denial or final decision was recorded at the meeting.
