Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Blasting Ordinance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
DeKalb committee advances blasting safety ordinance with proposed permit fees
Summary
The IRPS committee advanced a blasting control and safety ordinance to establish permitting and on‑site fees; staff recommended a $293.70 permit and $53.49 on‑site fee with estimated annual revenue of about $207,006.46 based on ~707 blastings per year; approval was contingent on receiving fee study details and placement in the county code.
DeKalb County commissioners on the IRPS committee moved forward with an ordinance to regulate blasting operations in the county, including proposed permit and on‑site inspection fees.
Chair Ladina Bolton opened the item as a resolution to “establish regulatory oversight of blasting operations in DeKalb County through the adoption of a control blasting and safety ordinance to promote public safety, environmental protection, and community stability.” County staff said the ordinance was originally drafted as standalone language but might be attached to an existing charter article or section pending review by the county attorney.
Fire Rescue staff described the proposed fee structure from the department’s recommendation: a permit fee of $293.70 and an on‑site fee of $53.49. Using historical activity averaging about 707 blastings per year, staff estimated average annual fee collections of approximately $207,006.46. Staff noted there are currently no blasting permit fees; inspectors and on‑site work were previously performed without a dedicated fee.
Commissioners asked whether the department’s recommended fees should be adopted immediately or await the county‑wide fee study (MGT). County administration staff said the fee study is in progress and that the department had submitted its recommendations; the interim county attorney said the committee could set the fee now based on the department recommendation and later revise it if the county study warrants a change.
Attorney Phillips said the law department would determine the proper placement in the code and provide numbers well in advance of the next meeting. A motion to pass the item was made contingent on receiving the requested information from staff; the committee voted in favor by voice vote.
The transcript records the committee's approval but does not include a detailed roll‑call vote. The ordinance's text, final fee schedule or effective date were not posted verbatim in the recorded discussion; staff committed to deliver the placement recommendation and supporting numbers to the committee.
