Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />City Council <br />March 5, 1986 <br />Cable TV Fahey was skeptical about municipal ownership. Fahey stated that <br />(Cont.) he would be satisfied if the City could control costs and save the <br />citizens money. <br />Scalze questioned the ability to float a bond for this purchase. <br />Tarnowski explained that the consortium would float the bond. <br />Revenues from the system would pay for the bond. Tarnowski also <br />pointed out the income that could be derived from Cable TV. <br />Scalze also felt the idea of municipal ownership should be pursued. <br />Blesener indicated that if the flow of the meeting was to pursue <br />this idea, he was agreeable. Mr. Collova also agreed. Collova <br />stated that he would have to see some positive benefit for the City <br />in order for the City to get involved in this. Nardini agreed. <br />Mr. Tarnowski commented that he would pursue the investigation of <br />municipal ownership and come up with some figures to support this <br />position. <br />Building The City Clerk presented the Council with the applications the City <br />Inspector has received for the posi tion of Building Inspector. <br />Position <br /> Council will review these applications and eliminate those that <br /> do not have the necessary qualications for the job. A special <br /> meeting will be set at a later date to int erview the qualified <br /> applicants. <br />Storm Bob Voto, City Aiaditor, reported that it may be possible to bond <br />Water for the purchase of park and recreational facilities under the <br />Drainage City's storm water drainage district. Voto chose for an example <br />District park property adjoining a County drainage ditch. <br />Voto reported that he and Brad Farnham of Juran & Moody have been <br />looking at what this will mean to the City in terms of mill rates. <br />Voto felt that the City would be able to acquire land for storm <br />water or ponding purposes in addition to recreational purposes. <br />Voto pointed out that Spooner Park is adjacent to a County ditch <br />and the City would require land around the ditch for maintenance <br />purposes. Voto stated that the City will have to determine what <br />portion of the property could be attributed to the ditch and what <br />is not related. The property not related to the ditch would have <br />to be financed in another way. <br />Farnham stated that if the School District would not sell a strip <br />of land in order to access the ditch and for maintenance purposes, <br />but would only sell the entire property, there is the possibility <br />that the whole piece could be financed under the storm water <br />Paae -2- <br />