Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> __m__'m_'_ <br /> Minutes of Regular Public Safety/Works Committee Meeting, May 21, 1987 <br /> l"2 <br /> . ecorative Street Lighting, Arden Oaks Court <br /> David Angell, 1443 Arden Oaks Court, and Gary Kremer, 1437 Arden Oaks Court, <br /> stated that the seven homeowners in this cuI de sac would like to install, at <br /> their own expense, decorative street lights on each of their respective lots. <br /> They are getting estimates on ten to twelve foot high lights, with 100 to 17~z <br /> watts power, automatically activated. They would like to install them about" , <br /> ~ in from the curb, in line with the Cable TV boxes, NSP lines, and mail boxes. <br /> If installed here, they would be on the City's easement, but because of the <br /> other installations here, feel they would not be a problem when snow plowing. <br /> They added that they have had some break-ins in the area, and feel lighting of <br /> this type will make the neighborhood safer, as well as add to its <br /> attractiveness. <br /> (The master street lighting plan prepared by the Street Light Subcommittee has <br /> a street light planned for the intersection of Arden Oaks Court and Arden Oaks <br /> Drive in the secondary phase of its plan -- none in Phase I.) <br /> Committee members noted that many residents have lighting of this type in front <br /> of their homes; that they have been required to install the lights on their own <br /> property, not on boulevards, and expressed concern about the City's liability <br /> should the lights be damaged by City employees when snow plowing or doing other <br /> maintenance work. <br /> It was moved by Zehm, seconded by Timm, that Committee recommend to Council <br /> that, while Committee has no objection to the installation of these decorative <br /> . lights as long as they are not a problem to any neighbors, that such lights not <br /> be allowed to be isntalled on City easements, for reasons of liability, as well <br /> as precedent-setting. Motion carried unanimously. <br /> Recycling Report <br /> Letters inviting trash haulers and recycling firms to submit bids for a <br /> recycling program in Arden Hills were sent to all known trash haulers in the <br /> metropolitan area, as well as Ramsey County's list of all known recycling <br /> firmst in early April. One firm bid has been received, from Super Cycle, of <br /> $850 per month, for a monthly curbside pickup of recyclable materials <br /> (newsprint, cardboard, separated glass, and metal). Waste Management, Inc. <br /> attended last month's Committee meeting; stated that they do not have a plan in <br /> place for providing recycling services at the present time, but are planning to <br /> develop one. No other positive responses have been received. <br /> Long, from his conversations (in his business) with these firms, stated that <br /> most are hesitating to get into the business since costs and requirements are <br /> not fully known. Malone questioned the Metro Council and State legislation <br /> requiring recycling; it was his understanding that State legislation does not <br /> include mandatory recycling by fourth class cities; Metro Council (or/and <br /> Ramsey County) legislation seems to include them. Another concern is the <br /> successful operation of the recycling facilities such as Newport...none has <br /> been in successful operation long enough to know if they are indeed going to <br /> llworktl. <br /> Staff was requested to ascertain when requests for grants from Ramsey County to <br /> . <br />