Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Street Repair Ordinance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Shelton City board reviews proposed ordinance requiring full-width mill-and-pave after utility work
Summary
Shelton City board members heard a staff summary of a proposed amendment to the city’s street-excavation code that would require full-width milling and paving after certain utility work and water-main repairs and would include replacement of Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) ramps and a two-year warranty.
Get email alerts on the Street Repair Ordinance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Shelton City board members heard a staff summary of a proposed amendment to the city’s street-excavation code that would require full-width milling and paving after certain utility work and water-main repairs and would include replacement of Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) ramps and a two-year warranty.
Eric, a city staff member, told the board the changes affect “section 14-51, paragraph (c)” and “section 14-53” of the code and would require full-width milling and paving for the full length of any utility-main extension required by a development, for any installation or replacement of 100 feet or more, and for repairs resulting from water-main breaks; he also said the ordinance text includes fines. “The work shall be warrantied for 2 years,” Eric said during his summary.
The proposal assigns the city engineer and the superintendent of highways and bridges responsibility to determine the necessary extent of resurfacing in the affected street segments. The amendment text that staff read specifically requires replacement of any ADA ramps within the work zone “as per ADA requirements.” Eric said the changes came through the city’s street committee at the request of the city engineer.
No members of the public spoke during the hearing on the ordinance. The presiding officer closed the public portion of the hearing after a motion and an unopposed second; the board declared the public hearing closed unanimously. The presiding officer said the board will be asked to vote on the suggested change at the next board meeting.
The proposal, as presented, does not include a final vote and does not specify fine amounts. Board members asked no publicly recorded substantive questions in the provided transcript excerpt and no amendments were offered on the record. Additional details or changes to the text may appear when the measure returns for formal action at the next meeting.

