DeKalb commissioners require SurfNet to post $100,000 bond and remove wrongly installed conduits

DeKalb County commissioners voted Nov. 10 to require SurfNet to post a $100,000 bond and to remove two conduits the county says were installed incorrectly, after a prolonged discussion about permitting, bond levels and on‑site supervision for utility work.

The board’s action followed a lengthy review by highway and permitting staff of repeated misinstalled bores and poor recordkeeping by contractors working for SurfNet and related subcontractors. County highway staff described multiple attempts to bore and place conduit at the correct depth; two earlier bores fell short of county standards and left redundant or misplaced conduit in the ground.

"We have to protect the county in this situation," Commissioner Kellen (Speaker 6) said, arguing for stronger financial assurances. Staff cited INDOT permit language and other counties’ practice — a commonly cited benchmark was $10,000 per mile as a minimum performance bond for underground utility work — and recommended a per‑permit bond tied to project length or declared construction cost.

County highway staff said the board already demanded a $10,000 bond for the current project, but staff recommended raising that amount because long runs of underground work can create substantial potential damage and remediation costs. The board discussed options including a flat minimum, a per‑mile calculation, or requiring contractors to submit project construction costs as part of the permit application.

After discussion, Speaker 6 moved (and Speaker 7 seconded) to require SurfNet to provide a $100,000 bond for the board’s review and to remove the two incorrectly placed conduits and restore the ground at SurfNet’s expense. Commissioners approved the motion by voice vote.

The board also directed staff to refine permit language to include clearer bonding rules (minimum amounts, per‑mile scaling or project‑cost ties), stronger enforcement language (including permit revocation and nonrenewal for repeated violations), and the option to require an on‑site inspector or supervisor for contractors with repeated noncompliance. County staff said they will work with legal counsel to draft ordinance language and new permit forms.

Highway staff described a recent field situation in which bores were not at the required depth and public complaints revealed that non‑English‑speaking crews were undertaking nighttime and weekend work without adequate on‑site supervision. "I want an English speaking supervisor at all times," a county highway representative said during the discussion, reflecting staff concerns about on‑site oversight and communication.

The action is intended to both remediate the immediate damage and to send a stronger signal to utility contractors that the county will enforce permit terms and require higher financial guarantees for extensive projects.