Laserfiche WebLink
Economic Development Manager Sullivan commented that the City currently has the ability to <br />lease RALF property, therefore a lease and sign could be constructed with the knowledge that it <br />may need to be moved in the future. He stated that iDigital stated that they would be willing to <br />relocate a sign, if needed, at no cost to the City. <br /> <br />Member Riley stated that the City previously received a presentation from another company that <br />stated they would not participate in an RFI. He asked if there was a sense as to how the proposal <br />of that company would have compared. <br /> <br />Economic Development Manager Sullivan commented that he is unsure. He stated that it was a <br />smaller company and perhaps they felt that they could not compete, but they did not submit a <br />proposal and therefore it would be unfair to those that did to include that in the discussion. <br /> <br />Chairperson Steffen asked the next steps if this were narrowed down to one company today. <br /> <br />Economic Development Manager Sullivan stated that the first step would be to obtain City Council <br />authorization to move forward. He stated that the City would then begin negotiations and review <br />potential ordinance language. <br /> <br />Member Howell stated that she appreciated that iDigital offered a third spot or half spot option for <br />business advertising as that would make advertising available to more businesses. She stated that <br />she also liked the inclusion of a vertical option. <br /> <br />Member MacLennan stated that the choice seems to be clear as iDigital had a lower price, better <br />quality, more options, and they are willing to relocate at no cost to the City. <br /> <br />Chairperson Steffen commented that he agrees. He stated that his only hesitancy is that Clear <br />Channel has been in the market for a long time and is established. He asked what would happen <br />if there was an issue that owns the sign. <br /> <br />Economic Development Manager Sullivan stated that he did review that element. He stated that <br />Clear Channel is well known because they have a lot of signs and media in this market and metro <br />area. He stated that iDigital has more saturation north and west and the number of signs between <br />the companies are very similar overall. He stated that maintenance and operations would be <br />included in the lease and if a company is not performing the City would have the ability to <br />terminate the lease and/or require a company to remove a sign that is not functional. <br /> <br />Member Cords stated that when reading the proposals, he randomly scored Clear Channel and <br />iDigital about the same but following the discussion he tends to prefer iDigital. He stated that he <br />would not be fundamentally against continuing with more detailed negotiations with both <br />companies. <br />Member MacLennan asked the cost of advertising for businesses, specifically if the better deal for <br />the City has an impact through higher advertising costs. <br />Economic Development Authority/ April 8, 2021 <br />Page 6 of 12 <br /> <br />