Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Infrastructure Permitting topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners press engineer on fiber‑optic permits after bounced checks and subcontractor concerns
Summary
Commissioners raised concerns about fiber‑optic company payments and subcontractor oversight; the county engineer described permit fees, a recent instance of bounced checks and daily crew reporting from some utilities and agreed to provide more information for follow‑up.
Get email alerts on the Infrastructure Permitting topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners used the meeting's open discussion to press county engineering staff for details about permitting and oversight of fiber‑optic work after reports of payment problems and substandard work.
A commissioner said a recent conversation with carriers and county staff indicated follow‑up meetings were needed and suggested bringing carriers and department heads together to clarify responsibilities and who will locate underground lines.
Gary, identified in the discussion as the county engineer or engineer's office representative, explained the county's permitting fees: approximately $1 per linear foot for utility runs, with a typical permit fee of $100 for spot connections and a $1,000 cap for very long runs. He said permit applications are fillable PDFs submitted with payment and are reviewed for drawings, scope and timing.
"We had a certain company bounce two checks recently," the county engineer said, noting he was holding up permit processing until payments were resolved and that as of his most recent check the checks had not been made good. When asked whether that was unusual, he said the amounts were small ("a few thousand," covering several checks) and that the office would follow up.
Commissioners asked whether the county could pre‑screen or audit companies doing fiber work—similar to screenings required for sanitary projects—and suggested consulting the county prosecutor on licensing or enforcement if necessary. The engineer said some utilities (for example, Lumos) now provide daily "street sheets" with crew rosters and locations, and that the county could consider requiring similar reporting from other carriers.
The board directed staff to continue the discussion and return with options for oversight, possible pre‑screening or documentation requirements and coordination with prosecutors or unions where applicable.

