Board of Public Works hoping to make changes to Municipal Code

On Wednesday, July 30, the Board of Public Works met and discussed the amending of the current municipal code. This topic, which had been tabled previously, was a topic for much debate between board members.

It is no secret that a lot of Kimball’s regulations are out of date and in need of an update. This is something that has been addressed by City Administrator Daniel Ortiz. At the Board of Public Works meeting, Ortiz brought that to the attention of the board.

“There are a lot of phrasings that are out of date and require us to use updated wording in order to make sure we cover everything in the municipal code,” Ortiz said.

It is not uncommon for cities all over the state and country to update the wording in their codes because of the advancements that have been made since their last code update.

However, more modern wording does not come without its draw backs. Board member, Keith Prunty did his best to represent the residents of Kimball by doing extensive research concerning the new wording in the amendments to the municipal code.

Prunty was not shy when presenting his concerns with some of the wording and the practices brought to the attention of the board.

“I read this over, and I have some questions and issues with particular parts. The wording just doesn’t sit right, and I’m wondering if it’s even necessary to have it in this at all,” Prunty said.

Prunty raised issue with wording in particular parts concerning when a resident or customer makes renovations and must have their new addition inspected.

This particular amendment to the municipal code states, “The city shall have the right, but does not assume the duty, to inspect the consumer’s installation at any reasonable time and to refuse to commence or to continue service whenever it does not consider such installation to be in good and safe operating conditions.”

Prunty expressed concern with the part where the city has the right to perform an inspection of the customer’s installation at any time.

“What I don’t like is the bit where the city has the right to perform a random inspection whenever they want, they can just knock on the door and say, ‘let me inspect your wiring.’ That’s not right,” Prunty said.

In response to this concern, Ortiz tried to explain what was intended by that amendment versus what Prunty interpreted.

“We’re not trying to police anyone or invade their homes. We are not going into people’s homes to inspect their wiring. They will have a professional inspector do that before. What we’re talking about is, if our guys see something unsafe, they have the authority to cutoff service if they see a serious liability for the city,” Ortiz said.

At this point, Prunty reiterated that the amendment sounded as though the city would be inspecting people’s property at random. Board member, Dawn Moeser, then spoke up to explain what she had seen when she drove around looking at the different electrical connections around Kimball with Ortiz and City of Kimball Electrical Superintendent, Bill Hinton.

“It’s not about going in people’s homes. I saw things people have down with duct tape and electrical tape that I, a person who doesn’t know about electrical wiring or any of that, and I could tell that these connections were unsafe. So that’s the kind of thing that they’re talking about,” Moeser said.

Ortiz then gave an example where the city would step in and take action.

“We had a situation where a home that had been disconnected had extension cords running to their home from two houses over, and they were clearly using their neighbor’s power. This is not something that is safe. There are many problems that could occur in that situation. So, in that instance, Bill could have one of his workers go disconnect that extension cord,” Ortiz said.

After a bit more debate, the motion to recommend the changes to the Municipal Code to the city council passed with only Prunty in opposition.

On Tuesday, August 5, the Municipal Code changes were presented to the City Council. The problem that arose with the amendments, was the one that stated that after 30 days of no service, the city will remove their equipment from the building. In order for the power to be reconnected to a vacant building, an inspection must be performed.

The problem with this was the bit about the 30 days. Present at the City Council meeting representing the public was Christy Warner. Warner is a landlord and presented some concerns on her part.

“This will be a problem for landlords I will tell you right now. Even with really good landlords, it’s not unusual for a house to sit vacant for 30 days, especially if you have to get in and do repairs or clean out the property because of bad previous tenants. To have to pay for an inspection every time you want power reconnected after 30 days is not realistic,” Warner said.

It was suggested that the amendment be changed from 30 days to 60 or 90 days. At that point, Ortiz explained that the reason for the amendment concerning the day limit for vacant properties was due to the city making sure they were not leaving out equipment and causing a potential hazard to properties.

The city council recommended that these changes be made and then the amendments to the Municipal Code be brought before the Council again at their next meeting.