1976 ADJ MIN JUN 22 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

319 Mayor Beltran stated that in discussion of the $35,000 it was noted that a separate $5,000 had been allocated for architectural fees and that $5,000 was then added to the $35,000 for furnishings, with the consensus that the design would be made by City Staff. Mayor Beltran stated this allocation is reflected in the Civic Center Budget. In seeking clarification of Councilman Gonzales' motion, Councilman Rehrer stated the Capital Improvements of $40,000 should not be included in the City Council Budget because it pertains to the Civic Center and will remain as such. Mayor Beltran stated that was correct, the motion includes the City Council Budget additions previously discussed. Councilman Rehrer asked if Mayor Beltran was talking about the Secretary? Mayor Beltran said he was talking about the Memorandum from Finance to the City Manager with the changes made. Mayor Beltran suggested the motion should be to adopt the City Council Budget with changes as submitted. Moved by Councilman Gonzales to adopt the City Council Budget with changes as submitted. Motion seconded by Councilman Rehrer. Councilman Rehrer outlined the following items as the Council Budget and asked Councilman Gonzales if this was correct as his motion: Page 14 of the General Operation & Debt Service Funds Budget, plus $4,426; $300, $880, $360 and $150. Council recessed at 7:28 p. m. and reconvened at 8:00 p. m. Councilman Rehrer said there is a motion on the floor to adopt the City Council Budget in the amount of $37,236, and asked if this was correct. Mayor Beltran asked Councilman Gonzales if this was as he intended his motion. Councilman Gonzales replied yes.. Unanimous vote. BUDGET: Community Promotion City Manager Huffaker asked if the Council wished to wait on this Budget as the Chamber of Commerce Board will not be meeting until June 24. Mayor Beltran suggested that this Budget be delayed until the Chamber of Commerce has had time to meet and that it be taken up at the next budget session. BUDGET: City Clerk City Manager Huffaker reported the City Clerk has submitted a report and it is before you. Council members took time out to read the report from the City Clerk dated June 10, 1976, Purchase Prices of Word Processing Machines. Councilman Rehrer asked what the life of a word processing machine is. City Clerk Ramos replied that the Magnetic Card type of machine has not been on the market that long, however, judging from the first MTS machines, which are the same concept with the exception of a tape versus a card, these machines have been in use for 15 - 20 years. Councilman Rehrer asked if the Clerk were to purchase a machine, which machine in her opinion would do the job for the City. Mrs. Ramos replied the three Mag Card machines have a $2,000 price differential between each model and it is her opinion that if the City is going to make any sort of expenditure in this area, it would be her hope that they would allocate the Top of the Mag Card machines because it would be many, many years before the City would outgrow this machine. Mrs. Ramos said with this particular machine the capabilities could grow for workflow improvement to other departments and doubts very much that a better machine could be found because this particular model offers the maximum in efficiency and labor/time cost savings. City Manager Huffaker asked if he was correct in saying that if the Mag Card II is purchased, the Clerk's office would then definitely need a full time one additional personnel. Mrs. Ramos replied that currently she has a CETA employee, who can be used to operate the machine, as well as, other clerical employees within the building that could be trained to use this for their individual departments, thus the more users the more savings in time and labor. Mrs. Ramos explained that private business uses the word processing concept very readily without hesitancy because it provides a known savings and municipalities are just beginning to accept this fact. Councilman Rehrer asked if the City would have to take an additional person to operate this machine. Mrs. Ramos replied any clerical person applying themselves can train onto the machine. The current machine is an example, Mrs. Veralrud attended IBM School for two days, while the CETA employee and myself learned to operate the machine in-house by application and with the aid of the manual. Mrs. Ramos added that she really utilizes the CETA employee and that she is hoping that eventually the Council will allow her to keep that position on a permanent basis to expand into microfilming for other departments and records - keeping purposes as outlined in the attachment to her memorandum entitled, Records Retention. Mrs. Ramos explained that several times through the departmental review of the budget she has been asked questions about microfilming and records retention, and she finds it very difficult to provide Council with an adequate answer without filling them in on the basic programs. Councilman Rehrer asked if the machine were purchased, would the employees operating the machine come back and say this is a specialized field and request additional salary. Mrs. Ramos responded that she didn't believe this would happen due to the fact that your private secretaries are using these machines and their salaries are no different than what the City pays. Discussion followed on the balance in Revenue Sharing. Mrs. Andengaard stated that after taking out for this year, it is projected that approximately $300,000 is remaining. It was Councilman Rehrer's opinion that the machine could be purchased through interest earned on Revenue Sharing. JUN 2 2'1j/6