RE: Precinct IDs for Colorado

["Jeffrey W. Dean" <jwdean@spectrumltd.com>]

We don't have specific answers to your questions today.  As with any
development effort, detailed design criteria must be established.  I'll work
with Frank to establish such.  Please post any other questions that occur to
you.

Thanks

Jeff

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Ken Clark [SMTP:ken@dieboldes.com]
> Sent:	Tuesday, July 24, 2001 10:31 AM
> To:	rcr@dieboldes.com
> Subject:	RE: Precinct IDs for Colorado
> 
> Do our Colorado accounts use an alphanumeric name for their precincts in
> addition to the ID, or just the numeric ID?  Put another way, what do they
> want to see down the left hand side of the SOVC report?  
>  
> If its just the number, then this already doable with our existing system.
> Just type the 10 digit ID into the precinct label field.  If they also
> name their precincts, say for example "South Park Elementary" for precinct
> 1230000005, then this will require pretty major changes to all systems.
>  
> Ken
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-rcr@dieboldes.com [ <mailto:owner-rcr@dieboldes.com>]On Behalf Of
> Jeffrey
> > W. Dean
> > Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2001 10:21 AM
> > To: 'rcr@dieboldes.com'
> > Subject: Precinct IDs for Colorado
> >
> >
> > The State of Colorado has amended their statues to require 10
> > digit precinct
> > identifiers.  This will cause an overflow of the current long integer
> data
> > type associated with PrecinctID and probably some report formatting
> > implications.  It must be ready before July 1, 2002.  The
> > Colorado customers
> > use AVOS, AVTS and GEMS. Any FEC certification issues should be
> researched
> > by Larry Dix, e.g. is incremental by notice OK as opposed to functional
> > retest?  In addition to the development effort, sales should
> > review existing
> > software maintenance agreeements with the Colorado customers and in the
> > absence of such, establish a price for this change (upgrade). 
> > The Vancouver
> > development group has been faxed an explanation sheet for this new
> > requirement.
> >
> > Jeff Dean 
>