My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CC PACKET 12221987
StAnthony
>
City Council
>
City Council Packets
>
1987
>
CC PACKET 12221987
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/30/2015 4:26:35 PM
Creation date
12/30/2015 4:26:25 PM
Metadata
Fields
SP Box #
18
SP Folder Name
CC PACKETS 1987-1989
SP Name
CC PACKET 12221987
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
67
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).
View images
View plain text
1 Mr. Morris told Councilmembers :they had taken all the City' s sugges- <br /> 2 tions 'related to questions -which should be asked and incorporated them • <br /> 3 as well as possible into the questionnaire, with the exception of <br /> 4 some"app-le pie 'issues" the responses to which -he knew from experience <br /> 5 would be of no policy benefit to St. Anthony. <br /> 6 For the third time", Mr. Morris reassured the Councilmembers that the <br /> 7 questionnaire was 'not too long because city surveys had unquestionably <br /> 8 remained the easiest survey to do because "people love to talk about <br /> 9 their own city. " He said the refusal rate remains at 20 with many <br /> 10 cities going well below to and with most people saying they' re glad <br /> 11 that at last someone is seeking their opinion. <br /> 12 The topical areas into which the survey had been broken down in Mr . <br /> 13 Morris ' December 4th memorandum were explored again briefly. <br /> 14 Mr . Morris stated the following about the questionnaire: <br /> 15 *it could provide better insight about what various ages were <br /> 16 looking for when. it came to housing as well as the seniors per- <br /> 17 ceptions of what type of housing they might consider to get them <br /> 18 to move; <br /> 19 *it would not be difficult to reword some questions to give the <br /> 20 Council some idea of how much support remained for their <br /> 21 attempts to redevelop the southern retail area; <br /> 22 <br /> 23 *question 106 could probably be adjusted to specify age cate- , <br /> 24 gories between 55 and 70 as verification of the accepted assump- <br /> 25 tion that 400 of the community were in that category. Getting <br /> 26 the marital status and income levels would also give the <br /> 27 Council a better idea of the community's composition; <br /> 28 *"Maintenance" would be changed to "reconstruction" in Question <br /> 29 67 and 89 and 90 would be couched in language which would not <br /> 30 resurrect old divisiveness but would let the respondents know <br /> 31 their opinions were being sought related to the make up of the <br /> 32 Fire Department. Those responses -would also be flagged for <br /> 33 comments ; <br /> 34 *question 97 was to be moved up in the survey as requested by <br /> 35 the Police Chief ; <br /> 36 *questions about the respondents ' satisfaction with present <br /> 37 levels of communication related to City affairs would be worded <br /> 38 in such a way as to give the Council an idea of whether they <br /> 39 ought to spend more money to expand the quarterly Newsletter to <br /> 40 monthly reports to the residents ; <br /> 41 *it would probably not cost the Council any more to include a <br /> 42 question related to where residents make their major purchases <br /> 43 which might be of benefit for future planning. <br /> 16 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.