Laserfiche WebLink
Louisville City Council Meeting <br />March 6, 2001 <br />Page 9 <br /> <br />the written ruling will confirm the discussion and announcements made in the oral <br />decision to grant the petition. <br /> <br />Sisk noted that Mr. Diehl stated that the EMF levels would be reduced with the higher <br />poles. He asked Diehl if the noise level would be reduced. Diehl stated that with new <br />hardware and conductor, the noise level will also be reduced. <br /> <br />Sisk asked Mr. Diehl if PSCo would be agreeable to monitor for EMF and sound impact. <br />Diehl stated that PSCo will do everything to mitigate the EMF and sound impact. With <br />respect to PSCo monitoring the line for EMF and noise level, Diehl stated that such <br />action would set a precedent, however if the City wants to monitor the line for EMF and <br />noise levels, and report problems to PSCo, they will take steps to correct the problem~ <br /> <br />Sisk stated that it is very important that the pole locations are not changed. He asked if <br />PSCo was asking for a 100' difference in terms of pole locations. Diehl stated that there <br />are six structures that may have to be moved slightly, less than fifty feet, to avoid City <br />water lines, telephone lines and cables. <br /> <br />Keany asked about the pre-ordered poles and if they were all the same height. Diehl <br />stated that each pole is specifically designed for each specific site, however them is some <br />room from modification. <br /> <br />Keany stated that in previous discussions, the maximum pole height was 86'. He asked <br />for the current maximum projected pole height. Diehl stated that the tallest pole is 100' <br />above ground level, and is located at the Louisville Reservoir. <br /> <br />Howard stated that the pole relocation would negatively impact neighbors that had not <br />previously been impacted. Diehl stated that the poles would be located within the 75' <br />PSCo right-of-way. He stated that the relocation of the pole will not negatively impact <br />the neighbors. <br /> <br />Howard asked Diehl if he had any information on the current cost of the equipment to <br />monitor EMF and noise levels, and if he knew the operational complexity of such <br />equipment. Diehl stated that he did not know the cost of such equipment. With respect <br />to the operational complexity of such equipment, Diehl stated it would require nominal <br />training. <br /> <br />Howard asked Ms. Heaney if she knew the cost of such equipment. Heaney estimated the <br />cost of equipment to monitor the noise at $1,000 and the equipment to monitor EMF at <br />less than $5,000. She noted that they are small handheld devices designed for field use. <br /> <br />Howard voiced his concern about the EMF and the noise levels. He asked Diehl what <br /> <br /> <br />