My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
City Council Study Session Summary 2005 05 10
PORTAL
>
CITY COUNCIL RECORDS
>
STUDY SESSIONS (45.010)
>
2001-2009 City Council Study Sessions
>
2005 City Council Study Sessions
>
City Council Study Session Summary 2005 05 10
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/15/2021 1:48:20 PM
Creation date
10/23/2007 2:33:57 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITYWIDE
Original Hardcopy Storage
5E5
Quality Check
10/23/2007
Supplemental fields
Test
SSSUM 2005 05 10
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
7
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />City Council <br />Study Session Summary <br />May 10, 2005 <br />Page 6 of 7 <br />be conducted to provide guidance about drafting the plan, and has included a <br />draft survey for Council review. Staff proposes that the survey be available on the <br />City's website and in paper format at the Library. A public meeting would then be <br />scheduled to review the results of the survey. <br /> <br />Julie Boyd asked for Council's input on the methodology for obtaining citizen <br />input and on the draft survey questions. <br /> <br />Councilmember Brown expressed concern that some residents will ask for <br />technology that is unreasonable or that the City cannot afford to provide. He <br />suggested including a disclaimer in the survey to address that. <br /> <br />Meredyth Muth explained that we currently post 98% of all agenda-related <br />materials on the City website. Most companies are able to provide their <br />information in electronic format; however, some smaller firms do not have the <br />equipment to comply with this requirement. <br /> <br />Council member Van Pelt expressed support for the survey; however, she <br />questioned the usefulness of some questions. For example, if the survey results <br />show most citizens obtain their information from the Louisville Times, how does <br />that affect a technology plan? <br /> <br />Council member Brown agreed. <br /> <br />Mayor Sisk suggested including a question on the frequency of using the City's <br />website. He would like to see the survey expanded to include some general <br />questions. If the respondent's are not using the City's website, ask why - what <br />would they like to see on the website. <br /> <br />Councilmembers Brown and Van Pelt agreed. They suggested including more <br />open-ended questions. <br /> <br />Public Comjments <br />John Leary commended staff for doing an excellent job in meeting the <br />requirements. He expressed support for the survey. He described Louisville as a <br />community that is aware of current technology and where it is going. He agreed <br />that the price of technology is always changing. <br /> <br />Council member Van Pelt asked John Leary to recommend how the City should <br />address the technology available versus the City's ability to afford the <br />technology. <br /> <br />John Leary replied that he could not answer that question. He explained that this <br />is why there was no deadline included in the initiative. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.