Leetsdale leaders consider road-opening rules
As nearby municipalities have utility crews repairing aging lines underneath roads and Leetsdale officials look toward paving season in the community, leaders soon could take a look into the borough's ordinances regarding when utilities can tear up streets.
“Everyone would cry if one of the utilities comes in and tears up a big chunk of it,” borough Solicitor Megan Ott said about road-paving work set to begin later this year.
As of now, the fees utilities pay to tear up a road, called street-opening fees, start at $600, according to the borough's application. A cost of $2 per square foot is added to the total.
Those fees could rise along, and rules on how the road should be paved afterward could change.
“One thing that we can put into this ordinance is that rather than (having those who open the road) patch a little hole, that (they) patch from curb to curb,” Ott said.
Borough engineer Dan Slagle said utility companies would be most affected by the ordinance.
“Whenever there's (an issue), they'll come out, and they'll open up a 4-by-4 hole in your asphalt and say, ‘Oops, it's not here,' They'll go down another 15 feet and open up another 4-by-4 hole,” he said. “Next thing you know, you have about six of these together, and it looks like a quilt.
“This ordinance would require that utility companies hurting your road system — that after (they) open up a certain number of sequences that they repave the entire section of road, curb to curb, rather than just pieces.”
Bobby Cherry is an associate editor for Trib Total Media. He can be reached at 412-324-1408 or email@example.com.
Add Bobby Cherry to your Google+ circles.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Need to modernize closes Ambridge theater doors ... for now
- Sewickley Academy freshman making difference through love of science
- St. James School enrollment remains steady, pastor says
- Sewickley-based group seeks $1M for Sewickley Heights land
- Photos: Quaker Valley students head back to class
- Lane: Here’s to the making of an organized student
- Quaker Valley’s new chief eyes change, respects tradition
- Bus staff to work weekend ahead of Quaker Valley’s first day
- Sewickley councilman questions workshop meeting vote