Information Services Advisory Board
MINUTES
October 4, 2007, 6:00 p.m.
Town Hall Campus
Council Large Conference Room #10035
316 N. Academy Street, Cary, North Carolina
www.townofcary.org
Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m.
Present
Terra Brown-Shelton, Lee Douglas, John Fitzpatrick, Tangie Hofer, Helen Hutchings, John Nolander, Vijay Raghavendran (6:07), Planning Director Jeffery Ulma, Staff Liaisons Susan Moran and Teri Peralta
Absent
Mark Evangelista, Nazi Kite, Todd McGee and Council Liaison Julie Robison
Approval of Minutes
The minutes from the September 6, 2007 meeting were approved unanimously with an adjustment to Mr. Fitzpatrick’s member comments.
Watch List: Web Site Overhaul
There were no comments on this item.
Watch List: Traffic Management System Update to Citizens
There were no comments on this item.
Watch list: Dynamic Message Signs
Ms. Moran informed the board that Ms. Cove, Traffic Engineering Manager, is working on a policy document outlining the use and informational content of the dynamic message signs.
Watch list: 2007 Annual Report Preparation
There were no comments on this item.
Watch list: RSS Technology
There were no comments on this item.
Old/New Business: Neighborhood America
Ms. Moran opened by stating that Neighborhood America is a citizen comment tool the Town has recently begun using in order to get citizen input on various projects.
Mr. Raghavendran arrived at 6:07.
Ms. Moran reminded the board that Ms. Robison had encouraged them to go to Town’s Web site and see how the Neighborhood America program has been used so far and to be prepared to offer comments and ask questions. She turned the meeting over to Mr. Ulma who gave a brief overview of how Neighborhood America works and how the Town has been using it.
Mr. Ulma explained that throughout any planning project a lot of dialogue takes place and citizen input comes in many forms and from many directions. He noted that this can result in inefficient use of time answering questions repeatedly, especially throughout the various phases of a project. He stated that a search was made to see if there was a centralized way of getting citizen input and making their comments and Town staff’s responses available to others who might have the same questions or concerns. He went on to say that of programs available Neighborhood America stood out as worth investigating and, in time, a one-year contract was signed.
Mr. Ulma went on to state that the program allows up to 26 projects to be available for citizen comment at any given time. He explained that it is a very structured system with multiple choice, yes or no, and some open-ended questions, noting that with too many open-ended questions you are left with no way to analyze the input. Mr. Ulma also pointed out that the Town is using the program differently than other communities by using it to get citizen comment on smaller rezoning cases, whereas other municipalities are using it for huge projects such as implementing a transportation plan.
Mr. Ulma explained that citizens who call with questions or comments are encouraged to go to the Web site to share their thoughts and concerns. He also mentioned some of the features the program offers such as filtering out vulgar comments, varying questions from project to project, and batching comments for publishing. Mr. Ulma went on to say that, while many thought the majority of comments would be from people living nearby the project, just as many comments have been received from people who live five to ten miles away.
Mr. Ulma stated that because the program is online, citizens who may be intimidated by the idea of going before council–especially if they disagree–have an alternative means of providing input, and citizens who may be away on a business trip are able to express their concerns as well.
Ms. Moran added that one of the struggles to getting Neighborhood America implemented was the fact that we didn’t want a survey tool on the Web but still hoped to reduce redundant time answering the same questions over and over. She reiterated that generally this program is used for city-wide and even national projects, never as an ongoing project tool, and since these projects take several months and change over time, it’s beneficial to have a central place where people can go and see what changes are being made, keeping them engaged throughout the process.
Ms. Moran explained that there is no requirement that every comment be posted, simply that it be made available upon request. Mr. Ulma said that this is a one-way method of communication in that there is no way to reply to the comments but hoped that down the road a FAQ page could be developed. Ms. Moran also added that if the program proves useful, a citizen input main page could be created with links to the various projects.
Ms. Hofer asked what the questions are these based on and whether it was the same questions for every project. Mr. Ulma replied that the questions tend to vary by project depending on what issues may be raised in each situation. He added that they can also create a question library to which they can refer on future projects.
Mr. Nolander asked who ultimately represents the people who use the program to express their concerns. Mr. Ulma replied that council ultimately weighs and evaluates those comments when making their decisions. He added staff provides a summary of the citizen input to council, but if they want to see specific answers they can read the comments themselves as well. Ms. Moran stated that, while we know council reads them, the hope is that the developer is looking at them and the project gets tweaked over time. She mentioned that in the past developers have made the claim that they never heard the citizens’ concerns, and this program eliminates that problem.
Mr. Ulma explained that reports can be compiled from the comments, including charts and graphs, and the comments can be published anonymously even though their name and address are required. He acknowledged that there are more capabilities to Neighborhood America than we are utilizing, but the purpose is to provide a better way to collect and manage public comment. Ms. Moran reminded them that it has only been used for two months and, as it continues to be used in the next few months, it will be evaluated for inclusion in next year’s budget. Mr. Ulma noted that incorporating additional features or using the service in other departments would add to the cost of the service.
Mr. Ulma encouraged the board to continue watching the program and see how it evolves. He noted that others are watching to see how this turns out, adding that he wrote an article for Public Management magazine which included a discussion about our experience using this kind of technology for citizen input.
The board thanked Mr. Ulma for explaining the Neighborhood America program to them.
Old/New Business: 2008 Meeting Day and Time
The board agreed to continue meeting on the same day and time.
Statement of Findings
The board heard Mr. Ulma’s discussion of Neighborhood America, a program that encourages citizens to get involved in the planning process. Mr. Ulma listened to comments from the board and encouraged board members to continue doing research on this program. The board looks forward to working with Mr. Ulma in the future, should there be an opportunity to do so.
Citizen Comments
There were no citizen comments
Member Comments
Mr. Nolander stated that he has been on the board for a year and learned many things and in the last month has been thinking about the value added, particularly his value added and that of this board, to our mission. He observed that at the last meeting the council representative was thinking out loud about information technology’s change on right-of-way fees collected and noted that it is a 15% line item collected. He then stated that the board did not feel that came under the mission of the board. He proposed that, as topics are considered for the upcoming year, the board consider modifying its mission and whether or not it should it be broadened to include other things.
Coming Up: Topic to be determined
The 2007 Annual Report of the ISAB will be considered at the next meeting.
Ms. Moran suggested that any discussion of examining the mission of the board be done before the term expires, noting that it would need to be settled before they could set goals for the next year. She directed them to look at the mission statement and make sure the topics brought up for discussion are tied in. The board agreed to add discussion of the mission statement to next month’s agenda.
Mr. Nolander added that searching the phrase “social network” on a search engine would provide more background on the type of citizen comment input tool the Planning Department is using. Ms. Moran added that Limehouse is another brand that has been pitching to the Town as well.
Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 7:05 p.m.