Citizen Portal

Get email alerts on the Permits And Safety topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Board of Public Works sets $0 bond for ammunition maker's planned blasting demonstration

Board of Public Works · August 19, 2026

Summary

The Board of Public Works voted unanimously to set the bond at $0 for an ammunition manufacturer's planned blasting demonstration after staff said the company has liability insurance and must submit a site plan and permit for fire‑chief approval.

The Board of Public Works voted unanimously to set the bond at $0 for a planned on‑site blasting demonstration by an ammunition manufacturer, while staff and the fire chief said the company must complete a permit application, provide a site plan and prove liability coverage before any detonation.

City staff told the board the request came from Allen Winchester and that municipal code section 6090 requires a permit from the fire chief and that the board must set a bond "deemed adequate in each case." Staff described the planned demonstration as detonating a 45‑pound keg of slow‑burning smokeless propellant, a 45‑pound keg of fast‑burning propellant and up to 1,000 small pistol primers as part of a workplace safety demonstration the company uses at other locations.

The Fire Chief said the permit form requires a site plan, a pre‑blast survey, notification to adjoining properties and utilities, and traffic and pedestrian control measures; he said he will inspect the site and retains authority to approve or deny the permit. "If they fill this out, I'm able to look at their plan, they can show me that and they follow what's on that site plan and permit things like that, that this would be an acceptable thing to do out in the industrial park," the fire chief said during the meeting.

Board members raised safety and liability concerns, asking whether the demonstration would occur inside or outside the building and what damage could result if the materials detonated at once. One member suggested requiring a $1 million bond; that motion failed for lack of a second. Staff recommended a $0 bond on the grounds that the company already has liability insurance and the permit process will capture coverage limits.

McKenzie, who moved the $0 motion, said, "providing proof of insurance is part of the permit application, so we don't that we will have evidence of their liability coverage prior to issuing a" to emphasize that the permit review would verify insurance. The board requested that staff send an update email after the fire chief's permit decision noting the insurance amounts and whether the permit was approved.

Under the city ordinance read during the meeting, an applicant must file a bond that "shall become available in the payment of any damage arising from the neglect of the contractor or the contractor's agent or employees," and violations of the blasting section carry fines up to $500. The fire chief reiterated that final approval of any blasting activity rests with his office and will follow inspection of the submitted site plan and permit materials.

The board approved the $0 bond motion by voice vote, recorded as "Aye," and the meeting adjourned immediately after the action.

AI generated

The text on this page is AI generated. Summaries, highlights, analysis, and video transcripts are all produced from the original source material.

AI can make mistakes, so if you spot one, and we will fix it for everyone.

Note: the source content is unaltered by us. Any content source we link to, be it a video, an audio recording, or a document, is presented exactly as its publisher released it. That publisher is usually a government body, sometimes an individual official or another organisation.

Source