My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
City Council Study Session Summary 2005 02 22
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 02 22
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/15/2021 1:48:20 PM
Creation date
10/23/2007 2:37:30 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITYWIDE
Original Hardcopy Storage
5E5
Quality Check
10/23/2007
Supplemental fields
Test
SSSUM 2005 02 22
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
6
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 />February 22, 2005 Study Session <br /> <br />and soliciting public input at a Council meeting. <br /> <br />Mayor Sisk agreed with Council member Van Pelt. <br /> <br />City Manager Bill Simmons explained that the electronic technology in Council Chambers <br />needs to be updated in order to successfully deliver information to the audience. <br /> <br />Council member Jay Keany suggested emailing draft questions out to the Council <br />Information Email List members for their input. He also suggested investigating whether or <br />not the website could include an option to accept email comments on each Council <br />agenda item. <br /> <br />Council member Michele Van Pelt questioned the City's ability to pay for this Technology <br />Plan. <br /> <br />Julie Boyd agreed. She explained that the plan will include cost estimates as well. <br /> <br />Mayor Sisk asked Meredyth Muth how long a typical Council packet takes to place on the <br />web. <br /> <br />Meredyth Muth replied 2-3 hours. <br /> <br />Julie Boyd explained that this is a matter of education and we have made great progress <br />in this area so far. Departments are obtaining as much information as possible <br />electronically for placing on the City's web site. <br /> <br />John Leary explained that when Ballot Issue 200 was drafted, the proponents discovered <br />there are residents with a tremendous amount of computer/internet ability. He suggested <br />tapping into this pool of expertise for recommendations. He stated that the proponents of <br />Ballot Issue 200 purposely excluded a date for implementing the Technology Plan <br />because they realized the financial implications that could be required to implement the <br />Plan. <br /> <br />Council member Michele Van Pelt asked John Leary how the City addresses a plan that is <br />developed but takes several years to implement. She questioned what would happen if <br />the technology changes that occur within that time frame make the plan obsolete. <br /> <br />John Leary replied that the intent is to be reasonable and explained that if the City is only <br />able to implement the plan incrementally, that would be reasonable. <br /> <br />Doug Grinbergs agreed with John Leary that with judicious use of technology the City can <br />achieve great things. He explained that the proper use of automation can increase <br />productivity. He questioned the need for a bond issue to fund a Technology Plan. <br /> <br />5 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.