My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
04-14-1986 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
1986
>
04-14-1986 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/29/2025 11:42:36 AM
Creation date
12/29/2025 11:29:53 AM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
383
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
City Facilities Assessments <br />March 20, 1986 <br />Page 3 of 5 <br />to close their doors however because of the need to ensure the coverage <br />under the present physical arrangement. <br />D. Community Leadership - Appropriately the City should reflect its <br />philosopy of a low governmental posture through its facilities. It appears <br />however contradictary that the City would place requirements on other <br />persons in the City through its zoning, building and other codes when the <br />City itself although dealing with existing facilities, provides little <br />leadership in compliance with its own codes. While attachment A does list <br />some of the significant def.iciences ones, the list is a summary of over 20 <br />pages of on the existing buildings. <br />F. Ability to Provide Service - Because of the condition of some of <br />the structures and their susceptibility to vandalism and fire the City <br />stands a good chance that of having significant part of it's street <br />maintenance/vehicle fleet destroyed in a fire. while this maybe covered in <br />part by insurance and replacements can eventually be gotten, the City <br />could be severely hampered in its maintenance efforts particularily for <br />snow removal if it occurs in the fall or winter. <br />Options <br />The primary options are as follows. (Other options Maybe combinations <br />of the major ones.) <br />1. No action- This option is to do nothing significant to fix <br />up the current facilities. we have not attached any dollar amounts to <br />repair or bring up to code complaince as at this point as it would entail <br />outside expenditures and represents only part of the issue. It is <br />strorgl.y felt however that something significant will need to be done with <br />the public works facility in the next 5 years. <br />2. Construction and Relocation of Some of the Facilities - <br />Construction of public works facility would prabablt mean relocation to —a <br />different site. Such a move would allow for some rehabilitation and <br />consolidation of the administration and police on the present site but <br />would necessitate not only separating Public works from the rest of the <br />City but also construction of some new facilities on the current site in <br />Crystal Bay. <br />3. Construction/Relocation of All Facilities- This option would <br />result in selection of one site to loc'at.ed all the, major city facitities <br />except utility, liquor and golf. This would entail construction of perhaps <br />one and -t most two buildings to accommodate these major functions. <br />Financing <br />While some rehabilitation could be done within the annual budget <br />through a tax increase, the following represent general means to finance a <br />significant new facility: <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.