Knox County rejects first-reading ordinance to require removal of dangerous utility poles after extended debate

Knox County commissioners on March 25 declined to advance a first-reading ordinance that would have allowed the county to require removal or remediation of damaged, inactive or dangerous utility poles in county rights-of-way, following an extended debate over who should determine a pole’s safety and how enforcement would work.

The measure, Ordinance O-24-3-101, was introduced by Commissioner Jay and would have added section 66-2 to the Knox County Code to allow engineering and public-works staff to notify pole owners of imminent safety hazards and require remediation within a seven-day period, with limited extension options and potential administrative consequences if owners ignored orders. Commissioner Jay said the proposal was narrowly focused on public safety: “If we think something is gonna hurt someone, we want you to take care of it now and not just wait,” he told colleagues during his presentation.

Support for addressing the broader problem of duplicate poles also moved forward: earlier in the meeting the commission approved Resolution R-24-3-405, a nonbinding measure urging utility pole owners and attachers to work with the county and meet quarterly to reduce duplicate poles. Commissioner Jay described the resolution as a “good starting point” to identify corridors and coordinate partners.

Utility representatives and first responders testified in the ordinance debate. Erin Gill, vice president of government relations and sustainability at KUB, said KUB supports the resolution to coordinate partners but raised concerns about ambiguity in the ordinance’s enforcement language and the potential downstream cost to ratepayers if the county’s process proved inefficient. “We want to be pragmatic in making sure that we’re efficient with where we’re running trucks,” Gill told the commission, while also affirming the utility’s commitment to public safety.

Shannon Littleton, general manager of LCUB, urged the commission to delay passage of the ordinance and work further with utility partners, saying LCUB already tests 10% of its poles annually and responds promptly to safety issues. “We very well could [address] the resolution,” Littleton said, but expressed reservations about aspects of the draft ordinance.

Jeff Bagwell, a field responder with Rural/Metro, described repeated crash scenes involving poles and said utility crews are generally prompt in restoring power, but that repaired or replaced poles can remain in the right-of-way for months. “A lot of times they’ll just set… the pole and the pole may sit there for months or a year before it can get repaired,” Bagwell said.

AT&T’s Alan Hill raised legal and operational questions about who would determine whether a pole is ‘dangerous’ and pointed to earlier versions of the draft that included monetary penalties; he warned that administrative remedies such as withholding permits could have business impacts if disagreements persisted.

County staff described the ordinance as limited in scope and clarified that the right-of-way owner—Knox County, acting through its engineering and public-works department—would be responsible for determining imminent safety hazards. Director Snowden (Engineering and Public Works) explained the county’s process for identifying roadway-departure risks and said the department had identified examples where poles appeared structurally compromised and posed roadway hazards.

During roll call the commission recorded several ‘no’ votes and multiple passes/abstentions; the motion failed (the commission recorded three ayes, five noes and multiple passes/abstentions as counted on the floor). The chair concluded, “So this motion fails.”

What happens next: Commissioners who supported the ordinance said they remain open to language changes and to working with utilities on a committee to define terms and processes; several asked staff and utilities to coordinate red-line edits before any second reading. The companion resolution to coordinate partners and quarterly meetings remains in effect following its earlier approval.

The debate highlighted a recurring split: utility providers emphasized operational standards, industry best practices and concern for ratepayer costs, while some commissioners stressed local public-safety authority and the county’s responsibility to manage rights-of-way. The commission did not adopt the ordinance on March 25; sponsors said they may revise the measure and seek further input from utilities before reconsideration.