Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/22/2016 COW Minutes COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MINUTES March 22, 2016 I.CALL TO ORDER–ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order at 7:05p.m. in the Village Board Room of the Village Hall, 50 South Emerson Street, by Mayor Arlene Juracek.Trustees present included Paul Hoefert, John Matuszak(arrived at 7:15 p.m.), Steven Polit, Richard Rogers, Colleen SaccotelliandMichaelZadel.Staff presentincluded Assistant Village Manager David Strahl,Finance Director David Erb, Fire Chief Brian Lambel, Police Chief Timothy Janowick, Public Works Director Sean Dorsey, Community Development Director William Cooney, Human Services Deputy Director Jan Abernethy and Administrative Analyst Alexander Bertolucci II.APPROVAL OF COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MINUTES FOR FEBRUARY 23, 2016 Motion made by Trustee Zadelseconded by Trustee Polit. Minutes were approved. III.CITIZENS TO BE HEARD None IV.DISCUSSION OF COMMUNITY SURVEY QUESTIONS: Assistant Village Manager, David Strahl stated arough draft of survey questions were compiled from asample of surveys created by ourvendor,ETCInstitute. Staff has reviewed the questions and provided feedback which was incorporated into the current draft. The survey will be streamlined into a 7 page survey that will not take more than 20 minutes to complete. ETC Institute will distribute the survey by mail and willfollow up with phone calls to achieve the requirednumber of responses. He stated respondents will be allowed to opt-out of a questionregarding servicesifthey have not used that servicepreviously. Staff will forward suggestions and comments from tonight’s discussion to ETC to review and make recommendations. The Village Board will have another opportunity to review the survey before it is made final and distributed. There was general discussion for each sectionof the draftsurvey. General comments from the Village Board include the following items: 1)General Comments There was general discussion regarding having the survey askquestions on services thatthe Village does not directly control(e.g. School, Library, Park District). There was discussion regarding howsurvey results pertaining to community service providers would be communicated to stakeholders. 03/22/16 Committee of the Whole Page 1of 4 There were questions regardingthesurvey samplesizeand statistical approachesto sampling andaddressingsurvey bias. 2)Quality of Life There was a comment regardingadding questions on mobility and transportation. There was discussion regarding adding questions related to overall quality of life in a respondent’s neighborhood and if a respondent thinksof Mount Prospect as a place to visit. 3)Perceptions/Characteristics There was general discussion regarding section titles and that each section should have an introductory statement. There were concerns regarding questions on quality of schools being open ended and how to use the results. It was suggested that acomment box should be place at the end of each question section. 4)Village Leadership (Optional) There was general agreement to move questions m. through p. from section 3) Perception/Characteristics to section 4) Village Leadership. 5)Maintenance and 6) Building Permits and Construction It was also noted that all service related sectionsshould be grouped within a boarder services category. TheMaintenanceand Building Permit and Constructionsection titlesshould be changed to fit the services theme. 7)Utility Services It was suggested that Utility Services shouldbe changed toa title that only reflects garbage, water and sewer services. Thisis to prevent possible confusion betweenVillage services andComEd or Nicorservices. 8)Police Services There was general discussion regarding priority rankingof serviceswithin Police Services section. There was a question regarding adding a survey question about the Mount Prospect Crime Stoppers. 9)Fire and Paramedic Services There was general discussionregarding the Citizen Emergency Response Team (CERT) and the value of adding questions related to resident awareness of the CERT program. 10)911 Services a.There was discussion regarding if these questions are necessary since Northwest CentralDispatch collects call data. There was an agreement to remove this section from the survey since NWCD has call data and already addresses individuals’ complaints. 11)Quality of Village Communication and12) Village Information Sources a.It was suggestedtoswitch the order of sections11) Quality of Village Communicationand12)Village Information Sources. b.There was discussion regarding adding questionsabout timelinessof communicationsand ease of accessto information. c.There was a suggestion about adding a question regarding texting services and the Village communicatingto residents via text message. 13)Village Website 03/22/16 Committee of the Whole Page 2of 4 There was a requestto order answer options from the most to least frequently usedcomponents, since a respondent may not readthrough all answer options. There was a suggestion to add questionsregarding the Village’s and Experience Mount Prospect’scalendarsand how to modernize the website. 14)Community Events There were comments regarding placing this section toward the end of the survey. There wasdiscussion regarding adding events likeArbor Day, Memorial Day Parade, French Market, Mondayconcerts at Lions Park, Historical Society’s House Walk. Also, it was suggested to add questions regarding awareness of theseevents and likelihood of attendingin the future. It was noted that respondents should be able to submittheir owncommunity events ideas. 15)Customer Service There were comments on how this section was the cleanestcategoryoverall. There was general discussion regarding adding a question like, if you left a message, did you get a call back? 16)Perceptions of Downtown There was general agreement that this section’s title should be refined. There were comments regarding adding questions about the parking garage. There was a questionif the survey has or will been shown to the Downtown Merchants Association. There was a suggestion to add questionsregarding downtown green space, walkability and general appearance. It was noted that “downtown” should be definedin the surveyby identifying boundaries or providing a little map. There was discussion regarding other areas of town and collectingspecifics on RandhurstVillage, Rand Road Corridorand other geographically defined areas of Mount Prospect. 17)Community Priorities There was general support for understanding residents’priorities. There was a discussion regarding the answer option “Green Space” and how the Village could be limited in creating more green space. 18)Human Services It was suggested to group this section with the other service related sections. It was noted that a statement may be required to explain Human Services, since their services may not be generally known. There was discussion regarding that this section should be more robust, add questions about the Food PantryandLending Closet, and possiblymove some diversity section questions to this section. 19)Diversity Police Chief,Timothy Janowick provided an introduction to this section. He stated the Village has startedassessing how we engagethecommunity based on language and cultural barriers to services. He noted that issuing these questions separately from the resident survey was considered; however,staff would like to use ETCInstitute’sexpertise and add these questions to the resident survey. Healsonoted there is a stakeholder survey which has similar questions that has been sentto service providers. He stated the information garnered could be incorporated into Villageservices 03/22/16 Committee of the Whole Page 3of 4 andshared with stakeholders. The objective is to identify patterns and trends. There was discussion regarding renaming the sectiontoCommunity Engagement. It was noted ETCInstitutewill be seeking statistical representation of the Village (400 respondents) and a larger sample would seem more appropriate for these type of questions. There was generaldiscussionregarding having questions based on primary and secondary language of the survey respondent. There was a discussion regarding subsection 19e and how the questionsare phrase wouldgauge who is using these services now and nothowthe Village should plan to address service needs in the future. It was noted that questions h. through l in section 19g should be in the demographics section. There wereconcernsregardingasking thesetypes ofquestionsunless the Village is willing to go much further into addressing social services that are not currently under the scope for the Village. It was noted that other Human Service providers already have useful information and data that the Village can review to determine service levels. 20)Demographics It was suggested to addasection forquestions regardinghow likely a respondent wouldparticipate in a live tweet with the Village Board, town hall meeting, ice cream socialand etc. Louis Goodman, 310 N. School was concerned that a 7 page survey would be too long and respondents would not complete the survey. Mayor Juracek stated the next step is to haveETCInstituteadvise onthe provided survey suggestions and develop a draft survey for the Village to review. V.MANAGER’S REPORT None. VI.ANY OTHER BUSINESS It was noted that Brush Collection resumes April 4. VII.ADJOURNMENT The meetingadjourned at 9:16p.m. ALEXANDER BERTOLUCCI Administrative Analyst 03/22/16 Committee of the Whole Page 4of 4