HomeMy WebLinkAboutA001 - Ordinance No. 3308 passed December 13, 1994 ORDINANCE NO. 3308
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE CITY OF
AMES, IOWA, BY REPEALING SUBSECTION 8.113(2)(a) AND RE-ENACT-
ING THE SAME REVISED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BANNING THE OPEN
BURNING OF YARD WASTE AND LEAVES EXCEPT DURING SPECIFIED
PERIODS; REPEALING ALL ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT HEREWITH;
ESTABLISHING A PENALTY AND SETTING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
BE IT ORDAINED, by the City Council for the City of Ames, Iowa:
Section One. The Municipal Code of the City of Ames, Iowa is hereby amend-
ed by repealing Subsection 8.113(2)(a) and re-enacting the same revised to read
as follows:
"(2) Types of Open Burning on Private or Public Property.
(a) Yard Waste. During the periods of October 1 through Decem-
ber 1, and April 1 through May 1, yard waste and leaves
may be burned on private property on which there is located
a dwelling of two family units or less, provided that the yard
waste originated on the premises by growing or falling on the
property. Trees or branches which are to be burned must
be cut into pieces not larger than 4" diameter and 30" in
length. Open burning of leaves and yard waste on any days
other than during the limited periods provided for above is
prohibited."
Section Two. Violation of the provisions of this ordinance shall constitute
a municipal infraction, punishable as set out in Section 1.9, Ames Municipal Code.
Section Three. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict herewith
shall be repealed to the extent of such conflict if any.
Section Four. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and
after its passage and publication as required by law.
Passed this 13th day of December 1994.
Sandra L. Ryan, City Clerk Larry R. V
rtis, Mayor
0283
06
STAFF REPORT:
LEAF BURNING ALTERNATIVES
October 7, 1994
On September 13, a ban on leaf burning was discussed by the City Council. Public comment
was received on both sides of the issue, followed by Council discussion. Motions made were
as follows:
...motion to amend the current ordinance to allow leaf burning on Saturdays only
...motion to amend the motion to provide that yard waste, as well as leaves, could be
burned only on Saturdays
...motion to table the leaf-burning issue for 30 days, asking staff to research alternatives.
Only the third motion was voted upon and approved, which led to the preparation of this report.
ALTERNATIVES
The September 13 report to Council noted that, in many instances, burning is used as a leaf
disposal technique where the collection and transportation of leaves for off-site disposal would
create a greater burden. In other cases, residents seem to enjoy disposal of leaves by burning for
the aesthetic or intrinsic value it brings to them. The report also detailed a variety of alternatives
to leaf burning.
In addition to those alternatives included in the earlier report, the following four general types
of leaf-management options could also be considered:
Transportation of Leaves for Off-Site Disposal -- Many of the citizens who burn large
quantities of leaves on their property have cited the high cost of disposal as a main
reason for burning. In meetings with local haulers previous to and following
implementation of the yard waste separation law, the haulers have spelled out their
response to this transportation need. In most cases, this currently involves a charge of
$1.25 per bag. The haulers collect these pre-paid bags at curbside and dispose of them
at their own yard waste management facilities or utilize the City's facility.
Though not excessive, the cost of this option for private disposal of bagged leaves would
obviously be expensive for a property producing a large number of bags. The City does
provide five "free days" for disposal of leaves, four in the autumn and one in the spring.
2
However, many citizens have noted the difficulty in transporting large numbers of bags
to the disposal site near the city's eastern boundary.
At least three options are available to assist citizens in transporting their leaves. The first
is to utilize volunteers with trucks to carry the bagged leaves from homeowners'
properties to the free leaf disposal site. While the City itself cannot guarantee volunteer
participation, it seems likely that service clubs, Greek houses, and other volunteer groups
could work through a central clearing h citizens who otherwise(such as the teer Center of Story
lack ack the resources to
County) to match volunteer efforts witi
transport their leaves.
A second option would be to expand the scope of the "free days" by contracting with
local haulers on free day Saturdays to position garbage packer trucks around different
parts of the community. Citizens could then bring their leaves and dump them directly
into the packers. This alternative would spare citizens the trouble of driving to a far side.
of the City and disposing of their leaves in a crowded, muddy area. However, some
citizens would still have difficulty transporting large numbers of leaves to the local
disposal locations. It is estimated that this expansion to the free day program would cost
an additional $500 per free day for five additional locations in the community.
A third alternative would be for the City itself to carry out or subsidize the
transportation of bagged leaves to the disposal site. Either on free days or throughout
the autumn, the City could actually take over the collection of bagged leaves by
providing this service on a tax-subsidized basis. This service would probably need to be
provided to the entire community, due to concerns over equity. It is estimated that this
option would cost between $20,000 and $40,000 and would have to be done under a
contract arrangement.
Promotion of Equipment Use -- One promising area for leaf management is the use of
new technologies and equipment. Previous contacts with residents have shown that
many individuals are already utilizing such equipment as stationary leaf shredders,
wheeled leaf vacuums/shredders/chippers, and various types of leaf composters. In an
effort to demonstrate and promote the greater use of these types of equipment, the City
could undertake any of the following initiatives:
• Conduct a leaf management fair, whereat vendors would be invited to display
and demonstrate their leaf-management equipment and products for citizens.
This type of event was previously conducted on the front lawn of City Hall
when the original yard waste law went into effect.
• Conduct a demonstration program, wherein the City itself would purchase
a variety of leaf shredder units. We would then allow groups to use the units
throughout the autumn to reduce the number of bags placed out for private
3
disposal. Under such a program, groups (which might include groups of
neighbors, church groups, etc.) should involve at least five households, and the
users should be required to maintain records of the reduction in number of
bags placed out for disposal. The City could also use its Government Access
cable production capabilities to produce television programs which document
and emphasize the benefits of these types of equipment.
• Some groups of neighbors already have entered into cooperative neighbor-
hood ventures wherein they have purchased a leaf shredder/chipper and share
its cost and benefits among a group of residents. The City could actively
promote these types of cooperative, self-help efforts. As an example, wheeled
mower-like leaf shredders which advertise a 10-to-I volume reduction are
advertised from $200 to $400. An individual homeowner who normally had
100 bags of leaves would experience a two- to four-year payback on this type
of investment. Obviously, the investment for a group of several homeowners
with large numbers of leaves could be repaid within one or two years,
• The City could subsidize a rebate program to encourage residents to acquire
and use leaf volume reduction equipment. Residents who purchase specified
leaf volume reduction equipment could apply for a partial rebate. For example,
a rebate of 50 percent of the purchase price, up to a maximum of$200, could
be offered for a limited time period (perhaps one year). This program could
reduce the payback period to one to two years for those homeowners bagging
100 bags per year.
• Another application of improved technology could be the use of wire baskets
to help yard waste which is burned to burn cleaner. This technology was
described at the September 13 meeting by Al Joensen, who used overlays to
depict the principles involved. City involvement with this type of technology
could involve promotion of wire burn baskets through educational means.
Currently, staff is not aware of a commercial source for this type of equipment.
The City could also go so far as to require those who burn leaves to utilize
a wire basket so as to provide for quicker and more complete combustion of
leaves.
Resource Recovery Plant Modifications -- Ever since the yard waste laws went into
effect in 1991, no yard waste has been processed at the Resource Recovery Plant. Even
though dry leaves would nearly all be carried through the process and incorporated into
the refuse-derived fuel, wet leaves and grass clippings generally "fall out" of the process
and are taken with the plant rejects to the landfill.
After the major plant renovations are completed in 1995, the plant will have the
capability of having dry yard waste injected directly into the storage bin, thus bypassing
4
the separation process and guaranteeing that all yard waste will avoid the landfill. Even
though this capability will exist, however, there will still be several stumbling blocks to
overcome before yard waste would be disposed of in this manner. These include the
following:
• Capital Investment -- Although the new RDF storage bin will be capable of
receiving leaves and chipped wood, equipment will need to be purchased and
installed to transport these materials up and into the storagebins.equipment,T his with could
involve the use of a large auger or similartype
an
estimated installed cost of $250,000.
• It would still be important that only dry yard waste be injected into the
storage bins. Thus, if wet leaves and other yard waste are brought to the
system, it would either need to be dried out injection
the case. nto the It is estbmated
in, or
would need to be disposed of off-site,
presently
that drying equipment for the massive volumes of wet leaves would cost at
least $100,000.
• Even after the two concerns above are addressed, transportation of leaves
to the storage bin site would still be a major concern. Provision would
need to be made through private haulers, private citizens, or public investment
to transport residents' leaves to the storage bin area.
Educational Programs -- Ever since the original yard waste legislation was adopted by
the State, the City has carried out an extensive educational program related to yard waste.
This included direct mailings to all households of a brochure describing various ways in
which yard waste can be managed. (A copy of the original brochure is attached.)
Additional educational efforts in this area are still very appropriate. These efforts, which
can take the form of cable programs, direct mailings, utility bill stuffers, press releases
and other means, could include the following components:
• Reemphasis of the manner in which yard waste is currently disposed of by
haulers and the City (i.e., land application), including the reasons therefor.
• Information on home composting alternatives.
• Information on leaf volume reduction equipment (leaf shredders, etc.) which
can be purchased and used by individual homeowners and by groups of
residents.
• Ideas for how residents can cooperate to transport bagged leaves to the disposal
site on free days.
5
• Information on how residents can access volunteers to assist them in collecting
and transporting their leaves.
Furthermore, if burning of leaves continues to be allowed, educational efforts could also
be carried out in the following areas:
• Distribution of information on the use of wire baskets, as well as other ways
in which residents can "burn cleaner," should they choose to burn.
• Encouragement for residents to communicate with their neighbors regarding
planned burning, so as to minimize or overcome neighborhood conflicts.
CONCLUSION
As can be seen in the above discussion, a great variety of leaf-disposal alternatives are available.
These options could be used in place of or in addition to leaf burning. Since the programs would
be of benefit to Ames residents only, costs would properly be paid from the City's General Fund,
rather than from the Resource Recovery Fund.
Whichever alternative or alternatives are selected, it seems very appropriate to include a strong
public education component. It should also be noted that, if burning is restricted to Saturdays
only, routine changes in weather will probably lead to a weekly determination by the Fire Chief
as to whether or not atmospheric conditions or local circumstances allow for burning on each
particular Saturday. It is also likely to compound citizen problems since the burning would be
concentrated on a few days versus spread throughout the fall leaf and spring seasons.
Attachments:
August 1994 Staff Report
City Yard Waste Management Brochure
Current Leaf Burning Ordinance
September 13 Proposed Change to Ordinance
THE HEALTH EFFECT OF OPEN BURNING OF LEAVES
The burning of leaves contributes large amounts of
particulate matter to air pollution. In a study from Illinois,
the burning of red oak leaves was noted to emit 94 pounds of
particulate, 135 pounds of carbon monoxide, and 33 pounds of
hydrocarbon per ton of leaves burned. Eighty-five percent of the
particulates were very small in size , less than 0 . 6 microns , and
as a result were able to be inhaled into the deepest regions of
the lungs . These areas of the lung do not have the mucociliary
mechanism to clear this material, and this material as a result
may be absorbed and cause various health effects.
Some of the health effects of these particulates are
going to be more obvious in patients who are more susceptible,
such as young children less than ten years of age, older patients
greater than sixty years of age, and in asthmatics , patients with
heart disease, patients with bronchitis and emphysema. The
hydrocarbons that are emitted are carcinogens or cancer-causing,
especially in tobacco smokers . The carbon monoxide is absorbed
into the blood stream and increases the carboxyhemoglobin which,
as a result, decreases the amount of hemoglobin that carries
oxygen, and this would be a problem for persons who already have
a high carbon monoxide level such as smokers, those with
cardiopulmonary problems , and in asthmatic child, pregnant women,
and infants .
-2-
In a study from the Iowa Health Data that was done in
Des Moines , hospital admissions for respiratory distress showed a
very positive correlation with air quality violations caused by
open leaf burning in 1975. Data obtained from the American Lung
Association of Iowa shows 15 percent of the population is
susceptible to dangerous levels of air pollution produced by open
leaf burning. Carcinogens such as benzo- (a) pyrine by leaf
burning can contribute to respiratory tract cancers and several
of these carcinogens are released by open leaf burning. As
mentioned earlier, a major source of carbon monoxide production
in urbanized areas is leaf burning and presents an additional
problem to the respiratory tract and for cardiovascular patients
that has to be coped with.
There is sufficient data to state that open leaf
burning does contribute in sufficient quantity pollutants that
can be injurious to the human respiratory tract and heart. When
one looks at air pollution, one needs to think about the
Population that is exposed, in this case those that are more
sensitive such as young children, older patients, and those
patients with cardiopulmonary problems , and also the amount that
they are going to be exposed to which can depend on the
atmospheric inversions and the times of the week when the burning
is being done (usually weekends) . Contributing to the problem
today is the fact that there is greater exposure to other air
Pollution from automobiles, industrial pollution, cigarette
smoke, and the fact that most of us live in urban areas.
-3-
If one wants to look at the economic impact of leaf
burning which would include health care costs , several studies
have been done that have shown that money can be saved by
collecting these leaves instead of open leaf burning. The cost
to the community when it affects the health of our children and
our elders and those that are already fighting for air cannot be
measured in dollars. What cost is one to place on asthmatics who
can ' t breath on weekends when leaf burning is prevalent and end
up in emergency rooms with possible hospitalizations and school
missed. The great costs relating to health cannot be valued in
monetary terms and these should receive the greatest
consideration in the decision to ban open leaf burning.
Edward G. Nassif , M.D.
Allergy, Pediatric, Pulmonary
EGN :csr
4/26/94
FILED
AUG 2 51994. .q
TO : Mayor Larry Curtis and Council members - ---i
CITY CLERK
You are discussing banning leaf and all burning 1 CM OFAMES, IOWA
of Ames . I commend you for initiating this effort .
I am asthmatic and chemically sensitive . Often, during the
leaf burning season, I have been made ill by the smoke that
infiltrates my home . Asthma is on the rise in the general
population so anything you can do to prevent disease is
desirable for the public welfare .
You will observe , upon reading the enclosed article , that a
study in Des moines showed EPA violations of carbon monoxide
during leaf burning in the fall but showed no similar
violations occurred during August .
When leaves are burned a number of fine particulates are
released such as pesticides , car exhaust products , molds and
pollen . A potent carcinogen , benzopyrene , is found in large
quantities in both leaf and tobacco smoke . People made ill
or allergic to the chemicals in tobacco smoke are often
sensitive to leaf smoke .
The enclosed article well explains problems associated with
leaf burning . I hope you will pursue alternative ways to
dispose of leaves and thereby have a cleaner healthier city
in the process .
Sincerely,
Virginia Carlson
811 Ridgewood j
Ames , Iowa
232 3225
P . S . For 13 years I have been associated with the Human
Ecology Action League , based in Atlanta, GA, and served as
the national President . We serve the chemically sensitive
and have support groups in 36 states . By products of
combustion, such as leaf and other industrial burning and
car exhausts to name a few, make for much of our citizen ' s
illnesses but the root cause of these illnesses often go
unrecognized .
THE HUMAN ECOLOGIST WINTER 1990
instrumental in passage of a 1977 Des Moines's leaf- may be composted easily by throwing them on an open
burning ban. pile, where they will decompose into rich soil in less than
The health benefits of Des Moines' leaf-burning ban have one year. Using special composting pits, turning the
been significant. Jim VanDeBerg, director of cardiopulmon- compost, and adding other materials or microbes may
ary services at the city's Iowa Lutheran Hospital, reported speed up decomposition or produce a richer compost; but
that hospital respiratory admissions during the leaf-burning these interventions are not absolutely necessary. Leaves
month of October 1975 were more than double the year- also make wonderful mulches, which reduce the need for
long monthly average. Mr. VanDeBerg reports that from weeding, watering, and fertilizing plants. The leaves from
1977 through 1989, hospital respiratory admissions during large wooded properties can be picked up quickly and
October were no greater than the year-long monthly easily with large and powerful leaf vacuum/shredder/
average. The leaf-burning ban in Des Moines can thus be baggers available for about$400.00. A community leaf
roughly projected`to have cut October respiratory admis= pickup and composting service costs from $2 to $5 per
sions by.half. — - person per year and does not take up valuable landfill
Burning a ton of leaves will produce about 117 pounds of space.
carbon monoxide, 41 pounds of particulates, and at least The District of Columbia and the states of Louisiana,
seven proven carcinogens. It is interesting to note that the New Jersey, Ohio, and Rhode Island have total bans on
potent carcinogen benzo(a)pyrene is found in large quanti- leaf burning, and six more states have banned it almost
ties inthlea ndaobacco_smoke. Globally, the burning totally. Hundreds of cities and counties ban leaf burning
of biomass (mostly wood, leaves, stems, and roots) ac- where state law does not forbid it.
counts for an estimated 32 percent of total carbon monox- Leaf burning is a totally unnecessary form of air pollu-
ide and 40 percent of the carbon dioxide produced by all tion that produces no jobs. Remember that tobacco and
sources. Biomass burning also plays a major role in ozone marijuana smoking are also forms of leaf burning, and
formation. More than 95 percent of all biomass burning is their adverse health effects are well known. Mandated leaf
deliberate. composting is a double victory—it reduces air pollution
and produces rich soil.
Approximately one person in six is particularly For more information about the leaf-burning problem
sensitive to the effects of leaf burning. The and for ideas for working on local leaf-burning bans,
'LparticulatpAproduced are especially hardonthe 10. please contact Luke Curtis at 708/256-3562. ❑
percenY6T[he population with asthma or.chronic_allQrgies,_
and the carbon monoxide produced is articular) hard on SOURCES
..-..-ti--- .-_�, particularly ■Battelle Labs,Columbus,Ohio. August 1975. Final report on leaf burning
heart or sfro�patlentS.` emission program. Contract No.69-02-1409.
■Camow,B.W.,and Meier,P.1972. Biological effects of atmospheric pollution
particulate polycyclic organic matter.Epidemiology Section. Natl.Acad.Sci.,
rr pp.205-235.
How can leaves be disposed o f •Carpenter,A.,True,D.,&Stanek,E.(1977). Leaf burning as a significant
without burnin Whey may be source of urban air pollution. Journal of Air Pollution Control Association,27(6),
PP.574-576.
corn�7os red eas i �/ b th rowin •City of Lake Forest v.Illinois Pollution Control Board,Thomas Greenland,Dr.
f' ,1 y g Bob and Mrs.Pat Ryan,John Fischbach,Dr.Anthony Daddono,Vito Lubes,and
them on an open pile, where Rita Kawula. Case Number 2-85-054 1,Appellate Court of Illinois,Second
District,August 28, 1986.
the will decompose into rich ■Eriksen,R.G.(December 21, 1981). Material compiled by Joseph Saga and
„ presented to Wheaton,Illinois,City Council,recommending a leaf-burning ban.
Sol in less than one year 0lo%va Department of Environmental Quality. June 1982. Air quality,health
and economic aspects of leaf burning. Air Program Development Section,900
East Grand Avenue,Des Moines,to 50319.
■Kohn,R.(Ed.),(1976). The economics of proposed regulation R73-5 on leaf
buming. (Note: Leaf pickup costs adjusted for 1990 dollars.)
■Levine,J. Convener of Chapman Conference on Global Biomass Burning,
Many physicians and nurses are urging leaf-burning March 19-23, 1990,Williamsburg,VA.
bans. Dr. R.G. Eriksen of Wheaton, Illinois, notes a lar e ■Richard Miller,President,"Ban the Burn"Committee,226 East Navarre,South
_ g Bend.IN 46601(1990).
increase in the number of asthmatic patients during burning ■Minnich,J•,Hunt,M.,and editors of Organic Gardening. 1979. Rodale guide
periods. Dr. Eriksen further notes that his patient increase to composting. Emmaus,PA: Rodale Press.
is articular) large during Saturdays, Sundays, and Mon ■�lusselman,R.(Ed.),(1978). Advisory report on the potential health effects of
particularly g g Y Y leaf burning. Illinois Department of Natural Resources,Document 78/19.
days following major weekend leaf burning. Dr. Anthony ■Taylor,A.and Kashmanian,R.April, 1989. Study and assessment of 8 yard
Daddono, an allergist from Lake Forest, Illinois, reports that Waste composting programs in the United States. EPA Document 530 SW 89-039.
many of his allergic patients are bothered by the pollens
and molds released into the air by leaf burning. Several Luke Curtis, who works as a horticulturist in Northfield,
-physicians have noted that many patients who are very Illinois, holds a BS in biology and chemistry from Valparaiso
sensitive to secondhand tobacco smoke are also very Univeristy and an MS in biology from Loyola University in
sensitive to leaf smoke. Chicago. He helped organize a campaign against leaf
How can leaves be disposed of without burning? They burning in Elkhart County, Indiana, his former home.
18
tr
p r • LUNG •
eose. earl
�rollOV41A
I oFor M04-i On LINES
I} would do o. to+
.off
1 va burn n�rwas�
fan ,
-�Y,ank You�� ` a
LAtA hr ^`4 ����, Ly.
all is in the air--and for _ you can mulch or compost
the thousands of Iowans ,- j the leaves to improve the
with some form of lung quality of your lawn and
j:.
disease, that means-- - garden.
smoke is in the air. In Iowa •
communities where open = anngs• For those in one of the
leaf burning is still allowed, high risk categories, there
those with lung conditions is little you can do other
are forced to head inside to than stay indoors while
escape the irritation caused Leaf burning gives off Hydrocarbons are the leaves are burning in your
by the smoke. major pollutants in the unburned chemicals in neighborhood. The ALA of
form of particulate matter combustion. In leaf smoke, Iowa also recommends
Approximately one in hydrocarbons, and carbon there are seven hydrocas- installing a new furnace
every six people is suscep- monoxide. In addition to bons that are known to filter and petitioning our
tible to the irritating effects the chemical pollutants cause cancer. They adhere city government to ban
of the smoke from burning released, mold spores are to, or help make up, the open leaf burning.
leaves. They include: distributed in the plume of particulate matter.
the fire. These spores may
Persons with asthrt g, affect people with aller- Carbon monoxide com-
• Indivi_ uals with r ront� gies. bines with hemoglobin in
respiratory disease the blood more readily
♦Anyone with allergies The majority of leaf smoke than oxygen. In excessive
Persons with heart is fine particulate matter amounts it will rob the
disease which travels into the body of necessary oxygen.
•Pregnant women respiratory system. This Relatively low levels of
•Individuals who smokes material either becomes carbon monoxide can
Children under six years embedded into tissues of cause dizziness, headaches,
of ae the lung or is broken up and fatigue.
into very small particles
which can be absorbed If you're concerned about
AMERICAN directly into the blood- the health of your neigh-
LUNG stream. Particulate matter bors and family members
ASSOCIATION® may contain toxic compo- during the fall season,
o f/own nents which adhere to the there are alternatives to
particles. These toxic leaf burning. You can bag
Volume 4, Edition 3 chemicals may cause the your leaves and have them
greatest health threat. collected on trash day. Or,
September, 1993
2514 Kellogg Ave.
Ames, Iowa 50010-4863
2 April 1.996
City of Ames
Ames, Iowa
Dear Mrs. Wirth,
The City of Ames should not allow open burning at any time. I therefore request
that the Ames City Council ban open burning of refuse, leaves, and other yard wastes.
The smoke and pollution caused by the burning are detrimental to the health of many
people and annoying to many more people. For these reasons it is entirely reasonable to
ban open burning.
Banning open burning is not a novel or radical idea. As you will note by the
infonnation I have included with this letter most communities of similar size in the Nlidwest
do not allow open bunting as we do here. A number of communities make special
arrangements for the disposal of these wastes and some provide city pickup.
Please peruse the information enclosed and strongly consider my request. It will
make Ames a much more pleasant place in the Spring and the Fall.
Sincerely,
Louis Banitt, M.D.
cc. Ames City Council members and mayor
Ames City manager �l
Ames City attorney <�
r S1 ,
i
(�j
77�)
07
l `
a'
'
. . .
23O5 Broadmoor
Ames , Iowa 50010
December 26/ 1997
Councilwoman Judie Hoffman
City Hall
515 Clark Avenue
Ames, Iowa 50010
Dear Councilwoman Hoffman:
1 note the article in the December 22, 1997 issue of the Ames Tribune
concerning open burning . I am disappointed that you do not take a stronger
position opposing open burning . The fundamental issue is that , as much as
possible in our technical society, people have a right to breath clean air and
that our local government has an obligation to enforce that rzght . To do
otherwise is to neglect those responsibilities. Public health should have no
compromise. Clean air is something that can be greatly enhanced by proper
administration .
Most people in Ames do not burn leaves, either because they do not want to
pollute the air or as a courtesy to others and the general well-being of the
personnel in the city. Letters to the Editor in the Ames paper as well as
reports of the fire department that respond to complaints of open burning are of
public record. l am sure that others have responded to the city council opposing
open burning .
Enclosed is a letter that I wrote to Councilwoman Wirth in 1993. At that
time I also talked with Councilwoman Pat Brown who, along with Councilwoman
Wirth , was also in favor of banning open burning . I am sorry that in four years
greater progress has not been made in banning open burning . Open burning is an
issue that won't go away so why keep putting it off . Other communities large and
small have had the vision to ban open burning and it is difficult to understand
why Ames is so slow in solving the problem.
R tf ll ,
Don C. Norton
copy: Councilman Wirth *'
Oxll�
September, 1997
2220 Knapp Street and
525 Ash Avenue
Dear neighbors, and in many cases, friends, and acquaintances,
We are writing to humbly ask for your charity, empathy, and co-operation regarding open
burning in our neighborhood.
We are asking you--if at all possible, to please find alternatives to open burning—free days at the
city landfill, composting, use of leafmulchers, bagging of waste, etc..
As you probably know, Ames allows yard-waste burning in October,November, and April
between 6:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. (fires must be totally extinguished by 8:00 p.m. for safety—
also so that they do not smolder all night causing smoke to saturate areas in the neighborhood).
The ordinance does also state that"upon complaint regarding the smoke and odors from open
fires, the fires shall be extinguished".
Jean has developed ever-worsening sensitivity to yard-waste smoke and becomes very
nauseated for the duration of the burning if smoke wafts to 2220 Knapp. (If the wind is in the
south, which it often is, smoke from backyards on Lynn and Ash drifts largely north--if it is in
the north or northwest, it often drifts to Dr. Simonson's home at Ash and Donald. She develops
ear-aches, very swollen eyes and face, and bronchial problems, even with house windows
closed. Last April she developed bacterial bronchitis twice in April in days following strong
smoke exposure--this has been going on for several YEARS..
Don and Jean are both professional singer/teachers, and their severe allergies to yard-waste
smoke have MANY times caused much lower quality solo performances. We both have many
performances spread throughout the leaf-burning months--any smoke exposure causes at
LEAST 5 days of severe vocal problems during which we cannot rehearse or perform well.
We have tried to "get around"these problems in MANY ways; for example, we have tried many
medications--none comes close to restoring a normal voice, and many cause other problems
vocally. (This year we have MANY performances which are extremely important to us
professionally--and reviewers do not say, "Oh, the singer's tone was thin, small, and breathy, but
then--it's OK--their neighbors were burning yard-waste".
We believe that a new solution needs to be found to disposal of yard-waste and that open-
burning must be banned to promote good health for ALL of us. (Two doctors from McFarland
Clinic who are working for a solution and a burning ban(in the interest of public health) have
learned that virtually no cities of our size allow open burning. Most have curb pick-up, many
compost as a town or city—of course, part of their city budgets.
A footnote: During the summer months there has been a person or persons who have begun
to burn after dark, leaving fires to smolder all night. (This year, the night of August 22, again
last week, and Friday, Sept. 12.) That night I walked around our immediate block and could
' not Iocaie the fire exactly; but the interesting thing was, as is the case SO often, the very acrid
smoke was strong only near the yards of 3 houses (the smoke often wafts into a very small area--
YOUR fire's smoke may be very strong in someone else's yard and house though not in yours, so
that you have no idea that it's smoke and odors are bothering others). Ash and Lynn Avenues'
air was very fresh, cool, and clean; three of our houses and yards on Knapp Street were being
saturated with very acrid, strong, heavy smoke and odors.
We care VERY much for this neighborhood and have lived here for many years (25 in Jean and
Jim's case).
We believe that communication is always the key to co-operation and that none of us wishes to
hurt others, and that all of us need to let other people know when their actions hurt us--WE
certainly want people to let US know! (Jean spends a significant amount of time speaking with
fraternities and other students in the neighborhood in order to educate them as to "what it's like
to be a good neighbor"--(yup--you guessed it—concerns about loud music, garbage pick-up, etc.
She finds the students to be extremely co-operative as long as they are sensitized to the needs of
others.)
It is in this spirit of co-operation that we write this plea.
Thank you all so VERY much for your co-operation and your charity.
Jean Thomas and Don Simonson
Jean home phone: 292-9257
Don home phone: 292-9701