12/26/1989 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

COIJNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 26, 1989 would probably be that the smaller cities would lease the equipment from the County at election time. Mr. Bisel asked why the County would not buy them all and then lease them to the cities. Mrs. Anderson explained that it was difficult to persuade the County to purchase the necessary equipment to assist the cities who did purchase the voting equipment let alone try to get them to purchase all of the equipment. Mr. Schumacher asked why it is felt that the price of the equipment will be going up rather than coming down. Mrs. Anderson explained that at this time there is only one company certified to sell their optical scan equipment in Minnesota. Soon a second company will be certified. There just is no competition so that prices will be affected. The reason favorable bids were received at this time is that one company is just coming into the field and the company already in the field has a large inventory which they wanted to reduce before January 1, 1990 so that they would get a tax break. Acting Mayor Reinert asked if the equipment was interchangeable between the two companies. Mrs. Anderson said no. She explained that it is expected that this equipment will be practical for ten to fifteen (15) years use but historically there are changes to voting equipment every ten (10) to fifteen (15) years. Acting Mayor Reinert asked what company Anoka County is recommending and Mrs. Anderson explained that at this time neither, the large cities in Anoka County prepared the specifications and requested the bids. However, the bids were so competitive that it is felt that we will never see these prices again. Mr. Bisel asked why the cities are doing this on an individual basis. This is backwards from the normal procedure. Mrs. Anderson. explained that this was done for two reasons; 1) there is a County Commissioner who is anti - computer and has been instrumental in keeping other Commissioners from considering the matter, and 2) Anoka County must make a major investment in equipment to assist all of the cities. Mr. Bisel said he thought that the County would have prepared their specifications and then said to the venders we have this need, let us know what is your best price. Mrs. Anderson explained that Anoka County had not considered converting to optical scan until 1992. It was the larger cities that wanted to cut their ballot counting time and go to an updated system that instigated the entire matter. Mr. Bisel asked if this equipment has to be paid up front. Mrs. Anderson said yes. Mr. Bisel moved to approve the proposal as presented by Mrs. Anderson. Mr. Neal seconded the motion. Mr. Schumacher explained that there is only $9,500.00 set aside for this purchase and some creative financing would be necessary. He said it was possible that PAGE 8