Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br /> <br /> <br />City Council Minutes <br />October 3, 1983 <br />Page Five <br /> <br />building be torn down, should King Street be closed, or should they remain and <br />the Phase 1 project only consist of the construction of the 30,000 square foot <br />building. Further discussion was carried on regarding the type of redevelopment <br />that would be included in the Phase 1 portion of the project. Mr. Don Schumacher <br />indicated that the cost of demolition and acquisition of property would be con- <br />sidered in the tax increment feasibility study. <br /> <br />HRA MEMBER DUITSMAN MOVED TO RECOMMEND THAT THE CITY COUNCIL AUTHORIZE COMPLETION <br />OF THE TAX INCREMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY AND TO PAY ONE HALF OF THE FEE. HRA MEMBER <br />TOTH SECONDED TIlE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED 4-0. <br /> <br />COUNCILMEMBER SCHULDT MOVED TO AUTHORIZE THE COMPLETION OF A TAX INCREMENT FEASI- <br />BILITY STUDY FOR THE DOWNTOWN PROJECT AND TO COMMIT PAYMENT OF ONE-HALF (~) <br />OF THE FEE FROM THE CITY'S HRA BUDGET. COUNCILMEMBER GUNKEL SECONDED THE MOTION. <br />THE MOTION PASSED 4-0. <br /> <br />9. Cable Communications System Request for Proposals - Public Hearing <br /> <br />The City Administrator indicated that the public hearing for the request for pro- <br />posals for a cable television system is a part of the cable television process. The <br />City Administrator indicated that the Cable Commission cannot award a franchise for <br />cable television; therefore, the City Council is responsible for the award and must <br />hold a public hearing. The City Administrator indicated that after receiving bids <br />for the cable television system, the Commission will engage its attorney, Tom <br />Creighton, and a consultant to review and analyze each of the bids prior to making <br />a recommendation for award. The City Administrator indicated that ideally, one <br />vendor would be awarded the total contract for all of the cities involved in the <br />cable television commission, but the request for proposals is structured in such a <br />way that the respective cities will receive bids from a variety of cable companies <br />and each city must award their own contract. The City Administrator indicated <br />that the request for proposals for a cable television system is not the ordinary <br />bid process; the City would be acquiring a service rather than a product. The <br />City Administrator indicated that the school systems have presented an attachment <br />"c" that will be a part of the request for proposals that addresses the schools con- <br />cerns. <br /> <br />Mr. George Zabee, representing the school systems involved, indicated that they <br />are concerned with public education and want their concerns to be addressed in <br />the final negotiations with a cable television company. Mr. Zabee indicated that <br />their primary concern is that the system will provide sufficient channels for <br />the schools to use. <br /> <br />The City Administrator indicated that the schools concerns; are included in the re- <br />quest for proposal as an attachment in order to make the RiPiP an:c:easieLdocutnent for <br />a cable television company to review and submit bids. <br /> <br />Councilmember Duitsman indicated that he felt the schools needs were very important <br />and that he would consider the addressing of their needs by the cable television <br />companies in their bids as a very high priority. <br /> <br />Mr. Jim Goodin questioned some of the language in the RFP. Discussion was carried <br />on regarding the cable television process including two-way active and interactive <br />