Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />Council Meeting Minutes <br />September 14, 1993 <br /> <br />Page 1 2 <br /> <br />Council Business, continued <br /> <br />Motion by Williams, seconded by Gunderman, to REQUEST THE CITIZEN <br />STUDY COMMISSION TO REVIEW THE VARIOUS ASPECTS OF BOARD <br />AND COMMISSION OPERATIONS AND APPOINTMENTS; ROLES AND <br />AUTHORITIES OF THE CHAIR AND MEMBERS: AND DIRECT STAFF AND <br />COUNCIL LIAISONS TO MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS AFTER <br />CONVERSATIONS WITH THE COMMISSION CHAIRS BY THE NOVEMBER <br />23, 1993. COUNCIL MEETING. <br /> <br />5 Ayes - 0 Nayes, Motion Carried. <br /> <br />Finance Director Margaret Egan presented the acquisition of the water <br />meter reading system. <br /> <br />Since 1987, the City has installed water meter remotes as an effort to <br />provide ease of access for winter quarter readings. Maintenance personnel <br />installed the meters and the public has been receptive to the program. At <br />the current installation rate, it would take until 1997 to install remotes on <br />the remaining 2,300 accounts. The cost of time and materials for each <br />installation is about $120. <br /> <br />The 1993 Budget continued an appropriation of $400,000 for a vendor to <br />install remotes on the remaining accounts. This approach would lower <br />costs, provide immediate benefit and increase customer satisfaction. The <br />most desirable option would be smart reading technology which would <br />decrease reading time and eliminate data entry. <br /> <br />Three vendors submitted proposals, and the most responsive vendor was <br />WaterPro. WaterPro meets all City's objectives and proposes a smart gun <br />technology which can be upgraded to radio read in the future. The cost of <br />time and materials for each installation is $106, with a total one-time outlay <br />of $254,900. WaterPro has the necessary experience in the public sector <br />and has worked with our mainframe provider, Therefore. <br /> <br />Staff reviewed the components used to rate the three proposals: Meter, <br />Installation, Reading Software Device, Warranty, Maintenance and Radio. <br />The preference items were: off reading systems, tamper resistance bolt, <br />customer notices, installation time, customer convenience, conversion <br />records and recent experiences. The highest points were awarded to <br />WaterPro, and Davies and Schlumberger followed, respectively. <br /> <br />Staff recommends to postpone acquisition of radio technology at this time. <br />In the future, the conversion to radio read technology may be desirable, <br />however the cost cannot be justified at this time. The proposed system <br />would be purchased radio ready. <br /> <br />Egan said there was a small cost difference in the one-time cost proposals <br />submitted by the three companies. The enhancement dollars come from <br />the data corrector, software and conversion services. This dollar amount is <br />about $10,000 with the WaterPro proposal and is recoverable in one year. <br />WaterPro's subcontractor has proposed an on-going reading service at <br />about $.30 per read, which is less than the City read with the remote. <br /> <br />Council Business <br /> <br />Boards and <br />Commission Issues <br />Report 93-252 <br />Report 93-253 <br /> <br />Water Meter <br />Remotes <br />Report 93-254 <br />Resolution 93-112 <br />