CC_Minutes_2014_0324 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday,March 24,2014 Page 24 Mr. Bowman opined that it was a self-identification question for the resident; but advised that the survey takers could be directed to provide regions at the City Council's discretion. Mayor Roe opined that it was fairly meaningless in its current formation. Councilmember Etten opined that a choice of quadrants should be provided. Councilmember Laliberte stated that she wouldn't mind eliminating the question entirely, unless it was beneficial to hear if one particular area had significant is- sues. Discussion ensued how best to define regions (e.g. voting precincts,neighborhood groups or constellations, or natural dividing lines); with consensus that the com- munity be divided in quarters, providing definition similar to that used in the Parks &Recreation Master Plan map; with staff so directed to do so. Public Comment Dick Houck, 1131 Roselawn Avenue Related to Item #82 in the draft survey, Mr. Houck expressed his disappointment with the City Council not being upfront and asking the real question. While hav- ing no real problem in their explaining the three available options, Mr. Houck opined that the real question was: "Do you want to choose who you do business with at your house or have the City mandate who you do business with?" If resi- dents are to understand this issue, Mr. Houck opined that unless that question was asked, the City Council would not receive a real answer. Mr. Houck referenced his own personal survey of 100 residents that he had previously presented to the City council, and 92% of those choosing to continue making that decision on their own. Mr. Houck opined that this was not about services provided, but about be- ing able to have the freedom to choose who you do business with at your own home, and he would personally like to see that question answered. Roll Call Ayes: Willmus; Etten; McGehee; Laliberte; and Roe. Nays: None. Size of Survey/Budget Mr. Bowman noted the current survey was constructed of 106 questions, with a cost of $17,500, which was $2,500 over the allotted $15,000 budget unless re- spondents were reduced to 300 at a total charge of$14,500, which would also al- ter the margin of error to some degree. Mr. Bowman sought consensus as to whether the City Council preferred to maintain the survey level of 400 residents and increase the budgeted amount, or reduce the number of respondents.