Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Broadband Infrastructure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Sabine Parish jurors press contractor after fiber work leaves roads torn and utilities hit
Summary
Jurors and residents told the Sabine Parish Police Jury that Swift (and subcontractors) began fiber‑optic work in the parish without local permits and have caused road damage and unmarked utility strikes. The jury is reviewing documents, preparing a CEA for disbursements, and scheduling follow‑up with the company.
Jurors and residents told the Sabine Parish Police Jury on Dec. 18 that a contractor installing fiber‑optic cable has been tearing up parish roads, hitting unmarked water lines and working without apparent local permits. Multiple jurors described areas “so bad” that cars and school buses must detour and said some landowners reported crews entering yards without permission.
The issue arose during agenda item discussion when jurors moved a broadband update to the agenda. Several members said they had received repeated calls from constituents reporting ruts, damaged driveways and clogged ditches after crews arrived to bore and install cable. One juror said, “They’re in my yard. I’ve got tracks from the boring machines where they tore my grass up.”
Staff and jurors said they met the contractor (referred to in the meeting as Swift) and requested documentation. According to the road‑shop representative, company representatives told staff that an unmarked water line — not contractor crews — caused one of the large ditches; in other instances the company texted that it would send crews to inspect reported damage. The jury also said it received a document from the contractor indicating minimal permitting fees and requested time to study the materials.
Jurors debated remedies on two fronts: immediate repairs by parish crews with later reimbursement versus requiring the contractor to repair damage before acceptance of work. Some members urged the parish to require a performance bond large enough to cover ongoing damage; staff mentioned a $750,000 bond figure during discussion as a possible enforcement tool. The jury asked staff to document GPS locations and photographic evidence of road damage, to create a new maintenance accounting category for broadband work to track labor and material costs, and to report back with recommendations.
The jury also discussed whether the fiber work is federally funded and thus governed by different permitting rules; jurors said some subcontractors told them they were working to meet funding deadlines and that the contractor asserted minimal local permitting obligations. Members agreed to continue investigating and to invite contractor representatives to a follow‑up meeting so jurors could press the company on permits, utility marking, repair responsibilities and bonding.
The jury directed staff to review the contractor’s documents, assemble citizen complaints and damage photos, and return with a recommendation; no formal enforcement or fine was adopted at the meeting.
