August 31, 2005

Ms. Toni Wheeler, Staff Attorney

City of Lawrence

P.O. Box 708

Lawrence, Kansas 66044

Re:  Proposed Blasting Ordinance

Dear Toni:

As I indicated in our conversation yesterday I am concerned about how the new Blasting Ordinance might be implemented assuming the City Commission decides to proceed with it.  I have two areas of concern that I hope will be considered by the Commission in their review of the proposed ordinance:

1. Effective Date of Ordinance – Typically new ordinances are effective as of the date of publication.  In this case I suggest that the effective date be set for some reasonable period of time after the date of publication, perhaps four to six weeks, to allow those projects that have been bid under the existing ordinance an opportunity to apply for blasting permits under the conditions of the current Blasting Code.  Our company has three private projects that we have recently bid assuming that the current ordinance would apply to these projects.  This was the only assumption we could make given that until the last few days there has been no indication as to when the proposed ordinance might be considered by the City Commission.  The nature of private projects is that there is typically a time lag of a few weeks after bids are received before an award of the contract is made.  This delay allows the developer/owner time to finalize financing arrangements and contracts to be prepared and signed.  Contractors would typically not apply for building or blasting permits until contracts are received.  A delayed effective date for the new Blasting Ordinance would therefore allow projects bid under the conditions of the existing ordinance to be built under the existing ordinance. 

2. Allowing Projects Started Under the Existing Ordinance to be Completed Under the Existing Ordinance - The process of blasting on construction projects is often such that the blasting does not occur all at once; rather it is spread over a period of time.  Both the current and proposed Blasting Ordinances provide that permits are only issued for thirty day time periods and then a re-application is necessary.  However the process of re-application differs substantially between the two ordinances.  To avoid confusion and to allow for an orderly process of re-application I suggest that any projects that are started under the existing ordinance be allowed to be finished under the existing ordinance.  The City has followed this process in the past when new Building Codes or Mechanical Codes are adopted and it would seem reasonable to follow that precedent.

I will appreciate your forwarding my suggestions regarding the proposed Blasting Ordinance to the City Commission.  I will plan to attend the September 6, 2005 City Commission meeting to present these suggestions, but wanted you and other City staff members to be aware of my thoughts prior to the meeting. 

Sincerely,

Stephen E. Glass

President