CC Minutes - 01/24/01 Work Session

Home Browse Search

Ms. Bettman agreed with Mr. Meisner, saying that she questioned the utility of the instrument and the cost. She suggested that the community could be surveyed less often. She also thought the responses to the survey were affected by issues that arose in the community, such as the Christmas tree policy instituted by the City Manager. Mr. Farr thought the survey was useful because it was statistically valid, sought out residents in their homes, and gave the council public input from a broader audience. He supported the survey and its frequency. He suggested that those in the community who might oppose the survey were from the small groups that came to the council "constantly." Mr. Farr acknowledged the survey might be fine-tuned further and some of the questions might be leading. Regarding Ms. Bettman's remarks about the potential the survey could be affected by a single issue, he pointed out that often those in attendance at the council's Public Forum were often also spurred by one issue, and the council had to balance that input with the peaks and valleys in public opinion. Mr. Farr suggested it was the council's responsibility to identify important issues resulting from the survey to incorporate into the goals process. He thought the presentation on the survey was timely. Mr. Farr was pleased the survey indicated an expectation that the City would work with the school districts and was also pleased that was occurring. Ms. Nathanson believed that the survey was related to the goals. If it indicated discontent with a particular service, the council would react to that in some manner. While she supported the annual survey, she thought a biennial goals, budget, and survey cycle based on the fact the council was composed of the same members for two years might be appropriate. Ms. Taylor determined from Ms. Bohman that the survey was a telephone survey. She said that she thought such surveys were less and less valid as more people monitored their incoming calls. She thought people were annoyed by surveys and gave flip answers to get rid of the call. She thought a survey printed in the newspaper that people could clip and send in would be more valid. Mr. Pap8 said he would like to see a better tie between the survey and goals session. He did not think the cost was too high, but he was unsure it needed to be done every year. He suggested that every two years might be more appropriate. Mayor Torrey said he liked the survey but was willing to look at a biennial survey tied to the biennial goals process. He favored a phone survey and suggested staff contact the University of Oregon and ask for information on the most valid methodology. He did not support a newspaper survey as it could be abused by multiple responses from the same groups or individuals. Mayor Torrey suggested the survey should include four or five key indicators, with additional questions regarding the council's goals. Mr. Meisner favored a biennial survey. He said if the survey was intended to address the goals, it should be structured in a way that accomplished that. Mr. Meisner termed the survey both vague and ambiguous. It did not inform the council about what people really meant because respondents did not know the survey was a tool for determining what the City of Eugene does. What, for example, did education, as a top priority, mean for the City? Mr. Meisner called for more specificity in the survey. MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 24, 2001 Page 7 Work Session