Laserfiche WebLink
-5- <br /> 5. The City's right-of-way which averages 62 feet in that area would not only supple- <br /> ment the eight foot setback but would provide sufficient green area between the <br /> . <br /> facility and Highway '88. <br /> Motion carried .unanimously. <br /> Councilmember Makowske reported she had gone to an AMM Housing Committee meeting that <br /> afternoon where a number of issues which might be of interest to the Councilmembers <br /> had been discussed. Sh.e -indicated she would be passing around the three pieces of <br /> information she had obtained at the meeting which each Councilmember could read and <br /> pass on. The Councilmember said the August 20th RCLLG picnic had been well attended <br /> considering the threat of rain before the tour of the Ramsey County regional parks <br /> commenced. Councilmember Makowske said she had personally found the .tour "well worth <br /> the trip" and had been especially interested to learn the Park Board's plans for <br /> developing the Long Lake Regional Park, which is the closest to St. Anthony. Her <br /> family had found the train project in which he is involved very interesting, Council - <br /> member Makowske told Councilmember Marks. <br /> The discussion of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency's hearing earlier that day <br /> was initiated by Councilmember Makowske who commented that, although she wasn't <br /> certain the Council 's presence had directly affected the MPCA Board's six to two vote <br /> to accept the RFRA which required response action by the Department of the Army, <br /> Federal Cartridge CFederal Hoffman) and Honeywell regarding source contamination on the <br /> Twin Cities Army Ammunition Plant (_TCAAP) and contamination of water supplies -in <br /> New Brighton and St. Anthony, she perceived it had been good for the Councilmembers <br /> ✓to witness-an agency of the U.S. Governmental as well as two large corporation failing <br /> to accept responsibility for their own actions which had caused major problems for <br /> • others. <br /> Councilmember Ranallo agreed that those actions had affected more than 50,000 lives, <br /> a fact that seemed to have been missed by many because no actual fatalities had <br /> resulted, as had happened:.when the pipeline burst in Mounds View. The Councilmember <br /> indicated he had found it "very disillusioning to witness out and out lying about <br /> their responsibility by representatives of the U.S. Army". <br /> Mr.' Childs said the reason he had urged all the .Councilmembers to attend the hearing <br /> had been because the .attorneys handling the City' s case had been thoroughly convinced <br /> that the Board's action would to a great extent be based on the number of municipal <br /> officials who showed up at the hearing and the number of calls the Board received <br /> from other persons .of some importance on the. issue. Councilmember Makowske indicated <br /> that as a follow up to the meeting she would like .to see a letter sent from the <br /> Council to the Board members who had voted in favor of St. Anthony's position to let <br /> them know the City appreciated the time they Out into their jobs and the concern they <br /> had exhibited for the welfare of the residents of St. Anthony. <br /> There was 'a brief discussion of the two votes which had been cast against the RFRA <br /> as well as the attempts which had been made to cloud the issue for the decision makers. <br /> Mayor Sundland said he had been alerted by the Board Chairman to,the fact that the <br /> intent of the Army and the two corporations had been to widen the existing rift <br /> between the MPCA Board and staff and that the first vote against the RFRA had actually <br /> represented more of a "slap for the MPCA staff -than a vote against St. Anthony". The <br /> Mayor indicated he had perceived that the hearing had "really degenerated" when the <br /> • attorney for Federal Cartridge (Hoffman) had accused the Board members of breaking <br /> the Open Meeting Law by discussing the matters between themselves between hearings <br /> because he had .perceived no different testimony had been offered between the two <br /> votes and one of the two Board members who had voted against the RFRA had responded <br /> that he personally knew all the Board members had been provided with all sorts of <br /> additional information between hearings. <br />