Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />NOVEMBER 16, 2005 <br />The next category is "Rating of City Services". It was agreed that the <br />same categories from the 1995 suwey would be included (questions 29 <br />through 36). Question 37 dealing with communications would be <br />included in a separaCe communications section of the survey. There was <br />discussion on including questions on additional CiCy services that residents <br />would like to see as well as on services that should be cut in the event of <br />budget cuts. The consensus was to include an open ended question on <br />additional City sewices that residents would like Co see and would the <br />resident be willing to pay additional taxes for this service. <br />With regard to a question dealing with the issue of cutting of services in <br />the event of budget cuts, there was considerable discussion on how to <br />approach Chis question. Leatherman reported that some cities include a <br />budget cutting exercise in their survey, and he explained how that worked. <br />It was noted that the City is not in the posiCion of needing to make <br />significant budget cuts. Therefore, the consensus was to not include the <br />budget cutting exercise. Leatherman suggested that the survey include <br />question 46 of the 1995 survey with some branching off depending if the <br />resident favors or opposes increases in property taxes to maintain current <br />service levels. <br />The next category "City Focus for the Next Five Years" was reviewed. <br />The Administrator indicated that given the redevelopment activity in the <br />City the past few years, there is interest in finding out where residents feel <br />the City should be going. What are the perceived needs? <br />"Redevelopment" was reviewed next. The consensus was that the intent <br />of this category is to find out how residents feel about the City's <br />redevelopment efforts and should those efforts be continued. Leatherman <br />suggested Chat these questions be followed with "Why" to determine the <br />basis for residents' feelings and perceptions. It was also the consensus <br />That Che City would like to find out the types of businesses Chat residents <br />are looking for, yet the group acknowledged that in some cases it might <br />not be possible to attract a specific business. Leatherman suggested a <br />lisCing of businesses that might be realistic for Little Canada as well as <br />leaving the question open ended for residents' suggestions. Suggested <br />businesses included neighborhood retail, office, office/warehouse, <br />restaurants (specific as to type, i.e. fast food, family, fine dining). <br />There was also discussion of the redevelopment of industrial areas as well <br />as blighted parcels, as well as determining residents' feelings for City <br />financial incentives for redevelopment. In discussing eminent domain and <br />TIF, it was the consensus of the group to include a question about the use <br />of TIF. Leatherman reported that he would introduce that question with <br />an explanation of TIF. <br />2 <br />