Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Broadband Rights Of Way topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Broadband contractor work in Adams County right‑of‑way raises questions from landowners and commissioners
Summary
Contractors have begun placing conduit and fiber in county right‑of‑way along routes that include Winchester Road, 300 North and stretches toward the state line; landowners and some commissioners pressed for clarity on route, property access and who to contact for damage or trespass.
A group of contractors and county staff discussed progress and concerns about a fiber‑optic route that will traverse parts of Adams County during a commissioners meeting where several local landowners attended.
Brad, a county staff member who oversees parts of roadwork and rights‑of‑way, and company representatives introduced themselves before a public update. Jim Almond and Mitch Bellman (company representatives) were present and identified by name in the meeting.
Brad said crews have started work on sections that have documented right‑of‑way and that the county granted permission to work in those areas. "They have started on 450 North ... and they're going to start out on 300 South and the state line where they go into Ohio," Brad said. County staff told the board that the contractor will place three conduits and later install fiber within them; boxes and markers will be placed where needed.
Several landowners asked who to contact if the line or associated boxes are damaged. County staff said the primary utility‑location contact is 811 and that the contractor will mark and place visible markers on junction boxes. "If something happens in the right of way to that line, it gets cut or it gets broke or whatever ... ultimately ... 811," a county staff member said when explaining the damage and location process. Staff also said they verified with field crews that connection boxes would have markers.
Some attendees and a commissioner raised concerns about portions of the proposed route where the company does not have documented county right‑of‑way. The company representatives said they would contact property owners directly where a county right‑of‑way does not exist; county staff said the county has no role in private negotiations for easements beyond permitting and rights‑of‑way the county controls.
Landowners pressed the point that if the company proceeds without landowner permission on private property, the county's enforcement would be limited to permitting and stop orders. Don, a resident in attendance, said he has no record in his title abstract of an easement and worried the project could set a precedent if private utilities routinely use county right‑of‑way or adjacent land without transparent negotiation. County counsel Clayton (identified in the meeting as a county legal staff member) and other commissioners said the question of whether a given line is a "public" or "private" utility is not being resolved in that meeting and may require legal review.
The commissioners and staff asked the company to coordinate further with county staff when they approach properties without recorded right‑of‑way and reiterated that the county will require permits and flagging on busier roads. The contractor representatives acknowledged they will place markers on boxes and that they were using subcontractors in the field. The county advised landowners to call 811 before any digging and to contact the county if work appears to be occurring without permits; county staff said they will monitor compliance.
Ending: No formal vote was held. County staff said they will continue to press the contractor for routing details and contact information and will ask the company to notify affected landowners where the county does not have documented right‑of‑way.
