My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Agenda Packets - 2015/12/14
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
City Council
>
Agenda Packets
>
2010-2019
>
2015
>
Agenda Packets - 2015/12/14
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/28/2025 4:51:44 PM
Creation date
6/19/2018 5:29:22 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
MV Commission Documents
Commission Name
City Council
Commission Doc Type
Agenda Packets
MEETINGDATE
12/14/2015
Supplemental fields
City Council Document Type
City Council Packets
Date
12/14/2015
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
124
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
Mounds View City Council November 9, 2015 <br />Regular Meeting Page 8 <br /> <br />Council Member Mueller agreed. She thought the City’s website was in need of upgrades. 1 <br /> 2 <br />Council Member Hull thought the exciting site was fine. 3 <br /> 4 <br />Council Member Meehlhause was in favor of the City pursuing a website update. 5 <br /> 6 <br />Mayor Flaherty commented it was 2015 and he believed the website was in need of upgrades as it 7 <br />was an important tool for the City. City Administrator Ericson thanked the Council for their 8 <br />feedback. He indicated he would continue to work on this item and believed it would be 9 <br />included in the 2017 budget. 10 <br /> 11 <br />City Administrator Ericson provided comment on the survey regarding Citywide organized 12 <br />collection services. He reviewed the questions within the survey and requested comment from 13 <br />the Council on how to proceed. 14 <br /> 15 <br />Council Member Meehlhause did not believe the survey addressed the advantages and 16 <br />disadvantages of going to an organized collection system. He expressed concern with how the 17 <br />survey and its results would be perceived. 18 <br /> 19 <br />Council Member Hull supported the survey as is. 20 <br /> 21 <br />Council Member Mueller requested further information on questions 7 through 11. She did not 22 <br />understand the categories or how these questions related to the remainder of the survey. City 23 <br />Administrator Ericson reiterated that this would be a phone survey. He then discussed the 24 <br />categories in further detail with the Council. 25 <br /> 26 <br />Council Member Mueller wondered if the survey should be left more neutral to allow for general 27 <br />feedback from the public on how to proceed with organized collection. City Administrator 28 <br />Ericson stated the intent of the survey was not to promote or create bias, but rather, to gather 29 <br />public perception on the topic. 30 <br /> 31 <br />Council Member Gunn reviewed the questions within the survey and believed there was too 32 <br />much emphasis on residents’ current haulers. She suggested more questions be included in the 33 <br />survey to gauge how residents felt about a having a single hauler or creating zones within the 34 <br />City. She was in favor of the survey being tweaked further. City Administrator Ericson agreed 35 <br />that further revisions could be made to the questions to make the survey less confusing. He 36 <br />reported that the City’s intent was not to limit the haulers within Mounds View but rather to 37 <br />make a more efficient model for garbage removal within the City. He discussed the consortium 38 <br />approach that would have to be taken by the City and stated if an efficient model could not be 39 <br />found, the City would then pursue an RFP with a single hauler. 40 <br /> 41 <br />Mayor Flaherty feared that residents would not take the time to complete a 20-question phone 42 <br />survey. He also questioned how homeowners would be selected. 43 <br /> 44
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.