CCP 10-19-1995 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I I- agencies. MA Y 16. 1990: The Committee reviewed cUrrent services provided by City staff and projected I possible services which may be provided in the future. - Park Director Buckley reported on discussions with staff at the University of Minnesota I Extension Services Department and advised there does not appear to be an interest for utilizing shared facilities at this time. I City staff provided the Committee with a list of deficiencies in the existing facilities for their review and future reference. I Public Works Superintendent Winkel analyzed the advantages/disadvantages of a "stand-alone" Public Works Facility. I JUNE 20 & 21, 1990: The Committee, along with various staff members, attended tours of recently constructed or newly-remodeled municipal facilities in this area. Tours included: Circle I Pines, New Brighton, White Bear Lake and Shoreview. Representatives from each city were present to discuss the use of the facilities, pros and cons of the development and construction, and the financing used to ~.omplete construction. I JULY 18, 1990: Administrator Berger and Public Works Superintendent Winkel discussed the existing City Hall and Public Works facilities as relates to current space/storage deficiencies and I- future projected need for space/storage. Committee member Mike Olson volunteered to prepare an interim report of activities for Council I review at their regular meeting held August 13. Members Brad Lemberg, Ward Sessing, Steve Erickson and Dennis Probst volunteered to serve I on a subcommittee to review the structural integrity of the existing facilities, " Administrator Berger advised he will provide the Committee with a copy of the results of the I Citizens Survey at the October 1990 meeting. AUGUST 1990: No meeting held. I' SEPTEMBER 19. 1990: Planner Bergly appeared before the Committee to discuss potential City Hall sites and presented a site evaluation scheme example for committee review. I The subcommittee reported on the structural integrity of the existing buildings and concluded that I" both buildings are highly deficient and noted lack of proper ventilation in the Public Works building and lack of energy efficient materials and deterioration of foundation materials in the City Hall building. I I- 3 I