My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CCP 10-19-1995
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
City Council
>
City Council Packets
>
1990-1999
>
1995
>
CCP 10-19-1995
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/8/2007 1:10:35 PM
Creation date
11/6/2006 4:31:38 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General (2)
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
101
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).
View images
View plain text
<br /> I <br /> I Exterior Storage <br /> . Exterior Storage 3,000 (Approx.) 7,500 <br /> I Area (Enclosed) - <br /> Salt/Sand Storage -- 5,000 <br /> -- Building (Enclosed) <br /> I Exterior Parking 12 Cars 20- 25 Cars <br /> Hazardous Materials -- 300 <br /> Storage Room <br /> I <br /> Arden Hills Survey <br /> I As part of the Arden Hills Survey (Survey and Executive Summary are attached as Appendix B.) <br /> I residents were asked about the need for a new City Hall. Their response is summarized as <br /> follows: <br /> - <br /> I "After being informed of the inadequacies of the present City Hall, a fIfty-eight percent to <br /> twenty-nine percent margin favDred the construction of a new one, A majority would support <br /> a multi-use facility containing space to be rented to other government bodies. The current site <br /> I for this new facility was favored by sixty-four percent of the sample; no other site generated <br /> much enthusiasm. A popularly supported community center addition would contain only meeting <br /> rooms for community center addition facilities and an indDor swimming pool were opposed by <br /> I'. strong majorities. The residents split, though, in their support for a stand-alone City Hall versus <br /> one with a community center addition: , thirty-seven percent prefer the former, while thirty-nine <br /> percent opted for the latter. By a narrow forty-seven percent to forty-fIve percent margin, <br /> I residents would support a bond referendum for a new City Hall. They would oppose a <br /> combination City Hall-Community Center bond referendum by a fIfty-eight percent to thirty-six <br /> percent margin. Neither of these margins bode well for a successful special election bond <br /> Ii referendum. Under these circumstances, the City may wish to investigate funding alternatives <br /> which do not require a bond referendum election." <br /> .,.~ <br /> 11 ANAL YSIS <br /> I) Possible Solutions <br /> Several alternatives were discussed by subcommittee that should be considered by the City. <br /> I These are as follows: <br /> A. RetrofIt and expand both buildings on the present site <br /> I: B. Build totally new facilities on alternate sites <br /> 1 <br /> i. 9 <br /> I' <br /> ( I <br /> I) <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.