Laserfiche WebLink
CITY COUNCIJp MEETING, DECEMBER 1, 1981 -10- <br />--Eder - sat in on the original rules. Have a great deal of <br />appreciation for those who worked to develop the range <br />initially and their concerns over Mr, Warner's operation <br />and the operation to date. Hope that=in anything that is <br />done here that we"re nbt saying the Club has..Anot done a <br />good job. Need to bring the information base up-to-date <br />for the mutual benefit of all, <br />--Reece -- commented that viewing the Club this time of year <br />is not advantageous because of the snow cover and bare trees <br />--Michael Bear - not a member of the Club, lives in the area. <br />has visited the Club and wants to give the Club a positive <br />vote r was impressed how professional and well operated and <br />cared for it was managed. Has not found the noise objectionable. <br />-Allen Borsheim thin4s have done the Club an injustice <br />with the three month extension. There is no cause, no defensible <br />cause. Do not have a list of complaints or registered complaints <br />over a period of time - there were objections to the improvements <br />and rearrangement of the range, but there were no objections <br />to the renewal or the continued operation. Thinks 110% of <br />the information requested has been provided, and that information <br />is either not used or not read, Have provided a sound report, <br />at a cost of $3,000 . to the people on the Council <br />Planning Commission and Mr. Whittaker -they never bothered reading it. <br />---Mark Amland - member of the Club - good place to go with my <br />father when he comes to visit. Goes to shoot at his leisure <br />no place else around to do this. Hopes the City does not <br />plan to do away with it. Would be very unfair. <br />--Richard Rudman , Director of the Club serves as legislative <br />r liason for the Club. Pointsof fact to the Council - <br />1 Bill passed in the 1979 legislative session, Senate File 188, <br />that specifically exempted the PCA from regulating shooting <br />ranges. The bill had a very complex origin and a great deal <br />of testimony was given on the bill that would be of value to the <br />City Council, There was an implied statement that because the NRA <br />comes out and endorses us doesn't necessarily satisif_y all the <br />requirements of the City Council, Wants the Council to consider <br />that the NRA is involved with preventative maintenance. They <br />do not want shooting ranges ending up in court, they do not <br />want controversies, they try to suggest standards that far exceed <br />anything that could create any problems. The fact you will run <br />into is that there are very few people outside of the NRA that <br />are experts on this simply because it is an area of concern <br />among shooters or to those with terrific technical interests <br />or engineering interests - it is a sophicated problem to analyze <br />and it requires talents that only a very few people have. Is <br />a very serious shooter, has a good technical background andfinds <br />it difficult to understand the most rudimentary judgements made <br />by sound experts. It is a controversey not only surrounding <br />shooting ranges but in the work place and in the home. Think <br />will find that three months of full-time work wouldn!'t create <br />a very good analysis, A comment .on the three month extension - <br />Will find you are in a period of the year under which you will <br />make the least relevant analysis of the range. The noise <br />conditions eminenting from the range are highly seasonal and <br />within seasons are very dependent upon specific weather conditions <br />even down to the time of day. If attempt to make a not Ebanalysis <br />now will have a period of the year when noise travels very well <br />when most people keep their windows closed, when the range is <br />not in the type of use typical of it. Would hope the Council <br />would study the operation throughout an entire year. <br />