Weld County commissioners grant Soul Fiber appeal in part, require more plans and fees

Todd Messenger, an attorney for Soul Fiber, told the Weld County Board of County Commissioners on June 29 that the company’s proposed 55.84‑mile fiber conduit across county rights of way should be approved and that staff’s denial was unlawful and discriminatory under state and federal telecommunications law.

Messenger said the county’s June 5 denial surprised the applicant after 240 days of processing and that staff had introduced new, unstated requirements including engineer‑stamped plans, surveys to resolve alleged adverse possession, and a requirement to file dozens of separate permits. “We urge the county commissioners to grant our appeal,” Messenger said, arguing that federal law and state statute constrain local requirements and that excessive per‑foot or per‑unit fees and in‑kind survey conditions could be unlawful.

County staff, represented by Assistant County Attorney Matt Conway (also shown in the transcript as M. Conry), Director of Public Works Curtis Hall and permit coordinator Amy Matchy, defended the department’s approach as consistent with Weld County code and public‑safety concerns. Conway cited 47 U.S.C. §253 and its carve‑outs for local authority over rights of way and said local governments retain the ability to require “fair and reasonable compensation” and to manage public rights of way. Matchy told commissioners the department had repeatedly requested clearer, segment‑specific plan sets, method statements and traffic‑control plans so staff could review construction, inspection and reclamation needs across varied road types.

Public‑works staff detailed safety and maintenance concerns raised during review, including the need for compaction and two‑year workmanship warranties to address potential settling along trenches and vault installations. Director Hall said Weld County typically inspects disturbed right‑of‑way areas after construction and monitors repairs; “we almost always see settling,” he said, explaining why compaction and warranty provisions are standard practice.

After questions and extended debate, the board voted to grant Soul Fiber’s appeal in part. The motion (moved by Commissioner Ross and seconded by Commissioner Maxi) required the appellant to provide: sufficient, corrected plan sets for the route segments; method statements that explain compaction and vault installation; segment‑specific traffic‑management plans; and payment of fees set by county code. The board declined to waive fees; it directed staff to seek reimbursement from the applicant for costs that exceed the county’s standard fees when appropriate. The motion carried on a recorded voice vote.

The decision means the project may proceed through the county’s permitting process once Soul Fiber submits the requested materials and pays applicable fees. Messenger told the board his client planned to submit a corrected plan set within days and said Soul Fiber had filed a courtesy copy of a petition it intends to file with the Federal Communications Commission if local delays continued; he said the company would dismiss that petition if the county issued the permit in a timely fashion.

What happens next: the board remanded the matter to staff with direction to process segmented permits and inspect construction per county standards. Soul Fiber was given a timeline to resubmit plans; the board did not set a specific final date in public remarks. The appeal hearing record and the board’s conditional remand establish the procedural path for county review and, if necessary, judicial or federal review of unresolved fee or standard disputes.