Unidentified Speaker 3, a member of the Sabine Parish Road and Shop Committee, told colleagues at the Dec. 13 meeting that contractors working for Swift Connect have caused widespread damage to parish roads and ditches and have not coordinated with parish officials. "They just showed up like a bunch of locusts," Speaker 3 said, describing multiple water-line strikes and damaged ditches.

The committee discussed the parish’s current permitting system and whether to require additional financial assurance from the company. Speaker 3 noted the parish had paid $510,000 related to Swift Connect work and proposed that the company post a $1,000,000 bond before continuing work in the parish. "I told him that we're going to have a meeting today and that we were going to discuss having them post a $1,000,000 bond," Speaker 3 said after a call with a Swift Connect construction vice president, who on the call indicated that such a requirement "sounds right in line."

Committee members described the current permit as limited in practical effect. Speaker 1 explained the existing fee structure, saying the parish issues a permit with a $1,000 fee and a $1,000 deposit but that the deposit is often inadequate relative to the cost of road or ditch repairs. "That's the only deposit that we have on anywhere...a $1,000 deposit on a board is nothing compared to road damage," Speaker 3 said.

The committee agreed to require Swift Connect or its contractors to secure stronger financial guarantees and to tighten permit enforcement. Members proposed three immediate steps: (1) issue permits that explicitly make contractors liable for damage, (2) require a bonded financial assurance beyond the $1,000 deposit, and (3) invite Swift Connect representatives to a Tuesday meeting to discuss remediation and permitting. Speaker 2 said contractors must provide notarized, signed permits or cease work: "If they do not do what they need to do, they gonna quit work."

The committee also discussed enforcement options, including stopping contractor operations if permit or bonding conditions are not met. Several members volunteered to be available for the proposed meeting with Swift Connect and to gather photographic and location-specific evidence of damage before that meeting.

The committee did not adopt a formal ordinance change at the meeting; members described the next step as tightening the existing permitting process and returning to the jury (parish governing board) if a new bonding requirement requires formal approval.

The meeting concluded without a formal vote on a bond amount; the committee set up the follow-up meeting and asked staff to prepare documentation of damaged locations and the current permit records.