My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Agenda Packets - 2006/12/11
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
City Council
>
Agenda Packets
>
2000-2009
>
2006
>
Agenda Packets - 2006/12/11
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/28/2025 4:51:40 PM
Creation date
7/18/2018 6:03:19 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
MV Commission Documents
Commission Name
City Council
Commission Doc Type
Agenda Packets
MEETINGDATE
12/11/2006
Supplemental fields
City Council Document Type
City Council Packets
Date
12/11/2006
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
227
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).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Mounds View City Council November 13, 2006 <br />Regular Meeting Page 8 <br /> <br /> 1 <br />Director Ericson indicated that, if approved, from January 1, 2007 forward every document 2 <br />would be archived into the system for future use. 3 <br /> 4 <br />Council Member Flaherty said that it states that Roseville has made a significant expense in the 5 <br />software and Mounds View will pay maintenance fees and he would like to know what the 6 <br />maintenance fee would be. 7 <br /> 8 <br />Director Ericson indicated it would be approximately $700 to $800 annually and noted that the 9 <br />software cost was around $75,000 to Roseville so the cost for the City to take part is the 10 <br />hardware and scanning costs and creating an index for those documents. 11 <br /> 12 <br />Council Member Flaherty asked whether the personnel hours are included in the estimate. 13 <br /> 14 <br />Director Ericson indicated that Mounds View Staff will do the scanning from January 1 going 15 <br />forward and they will undertake the scanning of the documents prior to that. 16 <br /> 17 <br />Council Member Flaherty asked what microfilm looks like and asked whether it is necessary to 18 <br />switch from microfilm to digital media. 19 <br /> 20 <br />Director Ericson indicated that it is not critical but it may be necessary if the City wants all 21 <br />documentation to be searchable in the same location. He then said that it is possible that the 22 <br />second year costs could be less if the City decides to maintain the microfilm reader but it is 23 <br />already getting harder to read the existing microfilm. 24 <br /> 25 <br />Council Member Flaherty indicated the City needs to do this but he is looking at it for ways to 26 <br />save money. 27 <br /> 28 <br />Council Member Thomas agreed with going ahead with the two year implementation because 29 <br />that will assist with the goal of increasing communication with residents. She then said that she 30 <br />would like to suggest that Staff stay on top of technology moving forward to do handwritten 31 <br />notes and keep in mind whether the City needs to keep those types of things for the future. 32 <br /> 33 <br />Council Member Gunn said that she feels that everything should be done because it would be 34 <br />difficult if one piece you were looking for was on microfilm. She then asked if there is the 35 <br />ability for an adjoining City to share documents by email. 36 <br /> 37 <br />Director Ericson indicated that is possible. 38 <br /> 39 <br />Finance Director Beer indicated that the microfilm is the only copy of some documents and some 40 <br />of them are beginning to degrade so the sooner the City gets them converted the better. 41 <br /> 42 <br />Mayor Marty indicated that he has spent days going through boxes of information to locate files 43 <br />on specific topics. He then said that there is the possibility for people to take documents from 44 <br />the files but, if it is electronically preserved, it will always be available to Staff and residents. 45
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.