CC_Minutes_2015_0914 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, September 14, 2015 Page 29 Councilmember McGehee responded that her suggestion would be to group citizen thoughts and responses, but essentially provide feedback to those citizens having taken time to participate. Discussion ensued regarding fonnat for an article based on the intent and desired infor- mation to portray as feedback; timing of newsletter issues; protecting the privacy of citi- zens candidly responding; value added in such a follow-up process; staff time and objec- tivity in assigning categories for responses. Councilmember McGehee opined that the City owed residents some follow-up, without indicating any scientific survey results were represented. Councilmember Willmus opined that whether or not the results were clearly identified as being unscientific, they would still be interpreted that way by the public. CouncilmemUer Etten agreed with Councilmember Willmus' concerns in putting the data out there; opining that if this was the intent the original questions should have been asked and formatted differently. Councilmember Etten noted the variables in public responses, with some ranking all items, and some only addressing one specific item, with some comments having nothing to do with the budget at all. Councilmember Etten opined that, to taslc staff with synthesizing that input into any real or meaningful data was unrealistic causing staff to malce a number of judgment calls based on that limited and variable data. Councilmember Laliberte opined that she saw both sides of this, noting that having asked for citizen feedbacic it would be good to provide a response and indicate how that data in- fonned the budget process, accomplishing a full circle of engagement. However, Coun- cilinember Laliberte noted that citizens had not been informed how their information would be shared, and since all respondent answered differently, it didn't provide a true representation for staff to group, making her unsure how best to coinmunication those re- sults back to citizens. Mayor Roe noted City Council action at their August of 2015 meeting to make those postcard responses a part of the official budget public hearing by their attachment to the meeting minutes of record. From his personal perspective, Mayor Roe advised that when email addresses were inade available by citizens responding, he had sent a personal ge- neric thanlc you informing citizens that their comments would be taken into consideration as part of the budget process, thereby acknowledging their participation. Mayor Roe agreed with concerns expressed about staff atteinpting to categorize responses, in addi- tion to the time required of them to do so, opining he was not convinced it provided worthwhile direction to staff. Councilmember McGehee agreed that it would take staff time, and had initially consid- ered making first pass herself; and further agreed that the responses had never been in any way intended to be scientific but only another way to gather information. Coun- cilmember McGehee opined that for those handicapped or shut-in residents in the com-