Connecticut Senate Bill SB00419

Connecticut 2010 Regular Session

• Introduced: 3/4/10
• Refer: 3/4/10
• Report Pass: 3/18/10
• Refer: 3/29/10
• Report Pass: 4/6/10
• Refer: 4/21/10
• Report Pass: 4/26/10
• Report Pass: 4/28/10

Caption

An Act Requiring Documentation Of Utility Road Cuts.

Impact

The implementation of SB00419 is expected to significantly impact state laws by enhancing local government oversight on road cuts performed by utilities. By mandating documentation, municipalities will have better resources to track the condition of roadways post-repair, potentially improving maintenance standards and reducing hazards associated with poorly repaired road cuts. The act aims to foster better communication between public service companies and local governments, ultimately facilitating a more organized approach to road management across the state.

Summary

SB00419, also known as An Act Requiring Documentation of Utility Road Cuts, introduces a requirement for public service companies and certain municipal waterworks systems to document their road cuts during repairs or installations. The bill mandates that these entities notify the public works department of the municipality where the cut is made, providing a digital photograph of any temporary and permanent patches applied to the affected road. Additionally, a follow-up photograph is required one year after the completion of the permanent patching. This legislation seeks to ensure clarity and accountability in road maintenance activities undertaken by utility companies.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding SB00419 appears to be generally positive, especially among local government officials and public works departments who value the added accountability that comes with thorough documentation of utility road cuts. Stakeholders recognize the necessity of such legislation to improve infrastructure maintenance practices. However, there could be concerns from utility companies regarding the implementation and administrative burden that documentation may impose, reflecting a mixed sentiment among the entities directly affected by the bill.

Contention

Notable points of contention may arise regarding the operational implications for utility companies. Critics could argue that the bill adds unnecessary layers of bureaucracy which might delay utility repairs and increase costs. On the other hand, proponents advocate for the importance of safety and quality in public roadway repairs, defending the bill as a necessary step towards ensuring accountability and transparency. The debate highlights the ongoing balancing act between regulatory measures and the operational flexibility needed by service providers.