Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ordinance Blasting topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Van Buren County supervisors agree to proceed with revisions to blasting ordinance
Summary
Supervisors voted to accept proposed revisions to Ordinance 2023-2, updating definitions and appeal placement for blasting permits while asking staff to refine language on permittee liability and civil penalties before formal readings.
The Van Buren County Board of Supervisors on an initial action agreed to proceed with revisions to Ordinance 2023-2, the county’s blasting regulation, after a detailed discussion about definitions, permit responsibility and civil-penalty language.
Unidentified Speaker (first appearing as S7) reviewed changes that would redefine “blaster” to include the permittee or an employee of the permittee and would allow a blasting company — rather than only an individual blaster — to hold a permit as defined by state code (cited in the discussion as chapter 101a). The staff presentation also moved an appeal process into the initial permit requirements and proposed language tying the prohibition on future user permits to conviction or defined adverse findings.
Board members focused on a potential loophole: if the company is the permittee, different individuals could perform blasting work and thereby avoid accumulating infractions that would trigger a second-occurrence prohibition. The presenter noted that tying a second occurrence to the permittee would make enforcement simpler, but several supervisors questioned whether that change could dissuade companies from providing blasting services or create unintended administrative burdens (for example, requiring separate user permits for each individual blaster).
The board also discussed procedure: because the agenda listed the item as “discussion and possible action,” staff and the county attorney clarified that approving the revisions would be treated as approval to move the ordinance forward through the required three readings rather than final adoption at this meeting.
On a motion to accept the recommended changes for proceeding through the reading process, the board registered a voice vote and the motion carried. No final ordinance adoption was recorded at this meeting; supervisors asked staff to prepare a clean, unannotated copy reflecting the agreed edits and to return the item for formal reading(s) and any subsequent vote.
The board’s action was procedural: it accepted staff-recommended revisions for placement on the ordinance reading schedule but did not adopt an ordinance this session. The county asked staff to consider whether the permittee definition should require a blasting company licensed in Iowa or include additional clarifying language to prevent circumvention of penalties.
