02-25-1980 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

REGULAR MEETING OF THE ORONO COUNCIL, FEBRUARY 25 , 1980 �Page 6 We have reviewed the time invested by P�r. Gaffron, SITE EVALUATION FEE* and other staff, in the review of proposed sub- (Continued) divisions in rural Orono. It has become apparent that the soil, slope and water table criteria of acceptable and absorption capacity play a very strong role in the final shaping and configuration of these decisions. Mr. Gaffron does field inspections as well as office review of submitted site evaluations. His input is critical to the developer and the City alike. On the average, he invests from one to two hours per lot in this review, with a minimum of four hours per division. Based on the above , it is our recommendation that a subdivision site evaluation fee be instituted in the 1980 fee schedule, Section 39. 350 Special Improvement Review Charges , as follows: Review Site Evaluation Reports for proposed on- site treatment facilities: $30.00 per lot. Council Meeting - February 25, 1980 Hurr moved, Paurus seconded, to approve a sub- division site evaluation fee in the amount of $30. 00 per lot be included in the 1980 fee schedule. Motion, Ayes (4) - Nays (0) . Alan Olson, City Planner, entered into the SPACE ANALYSIS record the following concerning a space analysis City Buildings for City buildings dated February 14, 1980 , which states : To� Jacobs completed an indepth inventory of the space available in each City building including the post office , administration, police and Council Chambers buildings. He inventoried the number of work stations (people) in each depart- ment as well as special equipment needs. He compiled a list of energy, building code and handicapped-access improvements required in each structure. The above data was used to completely review the housing needs of the City staff with the objective of achieving good space utilization combined with improved department functioning. Make-do improvements were to be avoided while permanent improvements were to be justifiable by some energy, access or functional improveMents. (Continued)