My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Agenda Packets - 1986/01/06
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
City Council
>
Agenda Packets
>
1980-1989
>
1986
>
Agenda Packets - 1986/01/06
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/26/2025 3:41:56 PM
Creation date
3/26/2025 3:41:56 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
MV Commission Documents
Commission Name
City Council
Commission Doc Type
Agenda Packets
MEETINGDATE
1/6/1986
Description
Annual Meeting
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
27
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
MEMO 'rV: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL <br />0011�. FRO im: CI.FRK-ADM IN I STRAT11R <br />DA'rE; DECEMHER 20, 1985 <br />SIIH.)E("f: Ctkl?UTER SYSTEM SELECTIUN <br />A., you hay.• been pre.vlously adv)sec1, the I>,•p.u-1 nu n) II•ead <br />Team mat on Friday, D•cember 20th with Jim Stern of <br />Management Advisors, Inc. to select a computer system for <br />your consideration. Attached is a document prepared by <br />Mr, stern for that mertrny ouUininy prule.•1 hrabrty, <br />proposals received, selection and profile of finalists and <br />his recommendation. <br />As indicated in that report, after review of thc• proposals <br />the Department Head Team selected three (NCR, Computoservice <br />and Dat,, Management Design) for further consideration. <br />During the week nt Deceember 2nd the team and Mr, stern <br />witnessed demonstrations of each of the systems. After <br />these demonstrations it was concluded that only the Computo- <br />service and Data Management Design proposals warranted <br />further investigation and consideration. <br />During the discussion on December 20th it was agreed that we <br />had "underestimated" our initial system needs and that the <br />addition of 3 Lermina:s and 2 printers was necessary in <br />order to ensure peak efficiency and Automation of our <br />operations at the level we discussed. Also, it was <br />determiged that some of the financial applications initially <br />programmed for the second year would best be implemented in <br />the first year. Finally, we looked at the rity's need in <br />4-5 years and project-d what additional equipment and system <br />upgrades would be needed. <br />We were able to happily conclude that even nth these modi- <br />fications to our initial plans the 5 year cost for both <br />systems would be less than what was budgeted. As a final <br />step to reaching a conclusion the software and maintenance <br />capabilities of each system was reviewed. <br />At the end of this lengthy discussion it was the unanimous <br />conclusion of the Department Heao Team to agree with the <br />consultart's recommendation that the City pur.:hasre the <br />system proposed by Computoservice of Mankato using Texas <br />instruments hardware. Althnuyh we are recommendcny the <br />Computoservice system, we are not recommendiny your <br />immediate approval of a purchase. Rather, we are reyuPsting <br />authorization to negotiate a contract with Computoservice in <br />order to fine-tune the costs As we foel we ran negotiate a <br />better price, and estanlish a schedule for inst.cllA-tion. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.