My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
1981-07-28
NewBrighton
>
Council
>
Minutes - City Council
>
Minutes 1981
>
1981-07-28
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/14/2005 2:05:21 PM
Creation date
9/14/2005 1:12:06 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
23
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />Environmental Quality Commission <br />Quarterly Report <br />April 1981 - June 1981 <br /> <br />Objectives: <br /> <br />During this period the EQC has been primarily concerned with <br />issues related to noise and solid waste. We have also continued <br />to monitor progress on the Long Lake Tar Pits and the Pole Yards. <br />New issues include clean up of rubble on Long Lake ice, dredging <br />of Long Lake and the discovery of potential groundwater contamination <br />problems at the Twin Cities Arsenal. <br /> <br />Noise <br />The primary issue concerns the problem of noise from a bug <br />(mosquito) killing device that affects a resident of New Brighton <br />who is now a member of the EQC. The EQC listened to an <br />expert on the; subject of noise and is still in the process <br />of 'evaluating noise ordinances of other conununities. There <br />are technical problems associated with measuring all forms <br />of noise and the EQC has not arrived at a consensus as to <br />how to best approach' the problem. There seems to be two (2) <br />alternative approaches to the problem. One would be to adopt <br />a comprehensive noise ordinance and the other is to enforce <br />the law under the broad nuisance powers of the City. <br /> <br />Solid Waste <br />Members of the EQC are monitoring activities of the State <br />and County in this environmental problem area to determine <br />appropriate alternatives that the City may take. We have <br />learned that in neighboring communities source separation <br />and collection has not proven to be economically feasible <br />due to changing market conditions for the products. At this <br />time there appears to be promise in reducing cost to the <br />citizens of the City by issuing a contract to one hauler <br />who can reduce his costs and travel in the City. We have <br />discussed this with a solid waste collection contractor and <br />are now investigating its success with other communities. <br />It is also apparent that old solutions for solid waste <br />disposal are clearly inappropriate if the State is to protect <br />its drinking water sources. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.