Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcc min 1981/02/26 MINUTES OF AN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA Held Thursday, February 26, 1981 Council Conference Room, City Hall 3 p.m. 276 Fourth .Avenue ROLL CALL Councilmen present: Mayor Hyde, Councilmen Scott, Gillow, Cox, McCandliss Councilmen absent: None CLOSED DOOR SESSION MSUC (Hyde/Gillow) to recess to Closed Door Session for an evaluation of the City Clerk. The Council and City Clerk recessed to Closed Door Session at 3:00 p.m. in the Executive Lounge, Public Services Building. The meeting reconvened in the Council Conference Room, City Hall at 4:00 p.m. Staff present: City Manager Cole, City Attorney Lindberg, Assistant City Manager Asmus, Development Services Administrator Roberts 1. RESOLUTION NO. 10405 -APPROVING PRIORITY PLAN FOR EXPENDITURES UNDER THE PROVISION OF THE CALIFORNIA PARKLANDS ACT OF ~980 City Manager Cole noted that the Council's action at the last meeting was for staff to find eft if the City of San Diego was planning to ask the Committee who proposed for distribution formula, to reconsider their action. Mr. Cole indicated that this would be academic unless Chula Vista voted not to support the plan. The County has already acted on this and indications are that all of the cities will approve it. If Chula Vista goes along with San Diego, that would represent over 51% which would stop this priority plan. Councilman Scott felt that it was too late in the system to do anything about the plan at this time. RESOLUTION OFFERED by Councilman Scott, the reading of the text was waived by unanimous consent, passed and approved unanimously. 2. EVALUATION OF THE WORD PROCESSING/DICTATION NEEDS OF ALL CITY DEPARTMENTS City Manager Cole remarked that one year ago today, the Council directed staff to make a study of the word-processing needs for the City (during the budget deliberations). On May 8, staff requested that a comprehensive study be made and recommended that the budget be approved freezing the appropriations relating to the word processing [$37,000). Mr. Cole stated that approximately 70% of the budget relates to employees' salaries and it behooves the administration to make these services as efficient as possible. He then reviewed the four word processor alternatives available to Counc'il noting that he would recommend #3: "Proceed with implementation of those dictation systems already budgeted and review all other recommendations as a part of the normal budget process. This alternative requires unfreezing $8,210." Director of Policy Analysis and Program Evaluation (PAPE) Thomson discussed the purpose of the report and the staff's reporting of tbe immediate "soft dollar" savings and the future ootential of "hard dollar" savings. In "go£t dollar" savings, this refers to time savings ~ increasing the productivity of the employee allowing both cleridal and orincipaI staff more time for aCtuAl productive procedures. The 'mard dollar" savings are ~ifficult to estimate; ~owover, an example would be a CETA position in:the Engineering Department wbo~e contract terminat@s in September. It is quite possible that Engineering ~ould be requesting a ~ermanent position to reDlace this?this can be avoided if the word processing system were implemented. Mr. Thomson added that there is an estimated loss of $4,000 a month in "soft dollars" due to the inefficient procedures of document production. City Council Meeting -2- February 26, 1981 Senior Administrative Analyst Morris explained how he put the report together and the steps that were taken in arriving at the recommendations. He stated that what is being recommended is a "shared logic" word processing system with three terminals, two printers, one with a twin sheet feeder and one with a central memory unit. This is amulti~$erm'inal system whose operating intelligence is obtained from a central memory unit. It is proposed that two of the terminals be placed in a cluster in the Public Services Building and one in the City Clerk's office. The staffing of the word processing cluster would be done by transferring a Clerk II position from the staffing of the Public Services Building. The other terminal will be placed in the City Clerk's office as Policy Analysis and Program Evaluation (PAPE) staff feels it is important for the City Clerk to have her own terminal based on the needs of the operation of that office. The City Attorney's word processor would be reiMned for applications within his office. As to the dictation needs for the City, the reconmlendation is for implementation of a department-based dictation system with the purchase of thirty-two dictation systems with related transcription equipment. As to the specifics of staffing the word processing cluster, it is being recommended that the Clerk II position budgeted for the Transit Division last year (currently not filled) be transferred to this unit along with one of the three clerical Planning department positions. There will be a review and re-assiFnments of the current clerical assignments in the Planning department and there ~hodld be no mitigating n'egJtive impacts Upon ~his:dep-~rtment since a~majority of the typing assignments will be going to the word processihg unit. Councilwoman McCandliss remarked that they have to look for the person with high typing skills and a tendency to learn quickly - which amounts to one or two of the best people being transferred from a department. This may have an impact on that department. Mr. Morris explained that the recommendation is to create two new classifications-- on. equivalent to an Administrative Secretary or Secretary II which will be called a Word Processing Supervisor. The other would be equivalent to a Secretary I or II. In answer to Councilman Cox's question, Mr. ~lorris stated that supervision over this word processing unit would be under the Policy Analysis and Program Evaluation (PAPE) department to begin with; after the implementation is completed, they would report to either Mr. Robens or Mr. Asmus. Mr. Morris then reviewed the existing equipment in the City. The recommendation for the Engineering micro processor is to retain it mainly for data processing applications and as a backup for the word processing cluster. It is further recommended that a software update be purchased for the Engineering system (approximately $700). Even with this update, the Engineering unit will not be as current and up-to-date as the systems on the market today. Councilwoman McCandliss commented that when the word processor was purchased in the Engineering Department, it was understood that there would be expanded terminals throughout the two buildings tied into this: one was to be in the City Clerk's office. Development Services Administrator Roberts explained tbat the Engineering system was purchased so that other systems that would be purchased could be compatible with it. It is a computer with computer functions but could work as a word processor, even though it was purchased originally as a word processor. City Council Meeting -3- February 26, 1981 Cost Factor: Dictation units - $19,000 to $25,500 Word processing shared-logic system - $48,000 to $59,500 Furniture - $6,500 to $7,290 Engineering Software Update - $700 Projected Savings/Efficiences Mr. Morris stated that the projected savings per year as a result of the dictation systems implementation would be between $21,309 and $31,967. The implementation of the word processing would be between $15,700 to $20,000. These figures do not include the Police Department savings estimated at $49,900 to $75,000. Of the total staff years of work transferable to the word processing cluster, there would be a savings of approximately 1.1 to 1.4 staff years, with 2.5 years of savings in the City Clerk's office. Management Efficiences. This would result in better long-range planning for equipment and staff; cost-effecitve method of document production; increased productivity for clerical and administrative staff; provides flexibility; improves' management control of production standards and priorities. Other factors discussed by Mr. Morr~s,were:Policy Analysis and Program Evaluation (PAPE) would be providing the priorities in the initial stages of the implementation of the cluster unit; the efficiency factor savings in having dictation systems in each of the departments; conclusions in implementing the entire system; the phases in initiating the system; and a review of Council's alternatives. Mayor Hyde questioned the recommendation of the City Hanager to wait until budget review before approving the word processing cluster, tte noted that was three months away and asked whether the City Manager expected something to happen between now and then from a financial standpoint that would cause problems with this program stacking up to the others. City Manager Cole noted there would be a lot of competition for programs at the budget reviews and if the Council goes the route of getting the word processor system now, it would be obligating itself for $27,000 for the next three years. He added that the main reason for his recommendation is that mid-year appropriations are not subjected to the pressures of all the other items presented at the budget review. Mayor Hyde commented that this was a carry-over item from last year ($12,000 was budgeted). Councilman Cox remarked that the study was quite in-depth and comprehensive and even with the competitions, he felt this study would win out during the budget deliberations and questioned the rationale of postponing the decision. Council discussion which followed involved the recommendation for the lease-purchase; the recommendation of the City ~tanager; the need for the system right now in order to save the $4,000 a month "soft dollars"; cost of the equipment may increase; need for getting a report on revenue sharing and bail-out funds to determine the City's financial posture; postponement of this matter until budget review in order to "preserve the integrity oft~ebudget process system." MSUC (Scott/McCandliss) to approve Recommendation No. 3: "Proceed with the implementation of 'those dictation systems already budgeted and review all other recommendations as a part of the normal budget process. This alternative requires unfreezing $8,210." At this time, the Council asked for comments from staff. City Clerk Fulasz stated that for the past several years, she has agked for a permanent Clerk II in her office (she has had a CETA position). However this study and the review of her department stated that with a word processor system in her office, there would be no need for that Clerk II position; therefore, she is not requesting the permanent clerical position in this next fiscal year's budget. City Council Meeting -4- February 26, 1981 Councilman Scott said he would like to see, at budget time if the word processor is approved, making th~ wholesystem compstible at one which includes the Attorney's word processor. He felt the study confirmed the fact that there should not be a fragmented system and he felt ii ~uld be well wort~,5~ending~the extra dollars to get into the whole system to "do all the things yo~u can do with the ~ystem rather than waiting until one of the 'dinosaurs' die." City Engineer Lippitt declared that his budget, also, is based upon having the word processor system approved and he will not be asking for a Dermanent Clerk position. Mr. Lippitt added that the report recommended the expenditure of $700 to update the word processor system in his department. MSUC (Scott/Gillow) to approve the amount up to $1,000 to update the Engineering computer/word processor. (Councilman Scott left at this time) Director of Planning Peterson remarked that he was a supporter of the word processor system - but that he just "worries like crazy" at the thought of losing one of his clerical personnel. Mayor Hyde commented that if staff get a "real deal" from one of the vendors that would reduce the overall cost of the system, they should bring this matter to the Council immediately. ADJOURNMENT at 5:30 p.m. to the meeting scheduled for Tuesday, March 3, 1981 at 7:00 p.m.