Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Safety Traffic Control topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Councilmember proposes ordinance to require uniformed officer when city streets are blocked for work
Summary
A proposed ordinance to add a section to the codified ordinances would require a uniformed officer to be present for work that blocks designated streets; councilmembers discussed which streets and whether state routes fall under city authority and asked staff to refine definitions.
Councilmember John introduced a proposed ordinance to add section 305.13 to the codified ordinances that would require a uniformed officer to be present whenever a designated city street is blocked for construction or work.
John said the proposal is intended for “main arteries” such as Center Street or Fifth Street and that the ordinance would need a clear definition of “designated street.” Councilmembers raised questions about jurisdiction for state routes (referred to in the meeting as “616”), noting the city may lack authority over restoration or resurfacing standards on state-owned lanes and that county or state agencies sometimes have responsibility for traffic-control decisions on those roads.
Committee members discussed practical scope: requiring officers when an entire lane or both lanes are blocked on main thoroughfares, but not for side-street, driveway or minor shoulder work. John said he is working with Matt Haas to produce a list of streets the ordinance would cover, and the committee asked staff to research whether the city can require an officer on state routes and to provide draft language that clarifies lane-blocking thresholds and responsibility for costs.
No vote was taken; the item remains at the discussion and staff-direction stage.
