Medford committee approves resident budget survey with chart and question edits; asks city to distribute

The Medford City Resident Services and Public Engagement Committee voted to approve and distribute a resident budget-feedback survey after members requested several edits to the draft form and accompanying budget graphic.

The committee approved a motion to "approve the survey, request that the city administration use their channels to distribute it and adjourn." Councilor Seng moved the motion; a second was recorded and the committee approved the measure by voice vote. "Motion passes. Meeting is adjourned," the chair recorded at the end of the meeting.

Why it matters: committee members said the survey will both gather input on residents' budget priorities and help the city identify how best to publicize budget outreach. Members emphasized clarifying what parts of the general-fund budget are effectively fixed costs and improving the survey's usability so it reaches a broader cross-section of residents.

Discussion and edits requested

Councilor Callaghan, who supplied an example infographic, opened discussion of the chart and survey wording, saying, "Most of it's education, insurance, pensions. And I feel like that does a great job of clarifying to residents, what kind of budget we have." Committee members asked for an updated pie chart using 2025 numbers, a short explanatory caption, and the addition of actual dollar amounts (not only percentages).

Members asked that three categories be visually set aside as largely outside the committee's control: insurance, pensions, and bonds. Committee members also recommended separating the city’s trash contract from the broader Department of Public Works (DPW) highway line so residents can see fixed-contract costs. One member said roughly $7,000,000 of $9,000,000 in the DPW highway line is the trash contract and urged that be shown or explained in the chart.

The committee discussed demographic and outreach questions for the form. Councilor Callaghan proposed adding a household income question; members debated band definitions and offered a set of suggested ranges that included 0–15,000; 15,000–50,000; 50,000–100,000; 100,000–200,000; 200,000–600,000; and 600,000+. Committee members discussed whether an explicit question about a tax override was appropriate for a feedback survey and cautioned that answers will not produce a statistically representative sample of the city.

On geography and neighborhoods, members said a free-text or mapped selection would be more useful than an ambiguous neighborhood list. Suggestions included a simple north/south/east/west grid with common neighborhood names in parentheses (for example, East Medford, Wellington, Glenwood) and a short map image for visual reference.

Members also revised participation and outreach items on the form. The committee agreed to ask which outreach methods would "appeal to you" and to include check-box options such as reading the city newsletter, attending a listening session, attending city council meetings in chambers, or participating in a budget Zoom meeting. Staff discussed technical constraints for embedding URLs and for whether certain form fields should be radio buttons or check boxes.

Timeline and next steps

Committee members set a near-term timeline for the budget process: an introductory preliminary budget meeting is scheduled for April 29; a smaller departments day is expected May 6; larger departments are expected to appear the week of May 20–21; and the committee planned to review survey results at its May 7 meeting if responses permit. Committee member Sam Kass and others indicated the updated chart would be prepared promptly; Councilor Gowan said, "I can plan on doing that tomorrow." Staff will test the form's settings (radio vs. check boxes), add explanatory text, and, per the approved motion, the committee requested that city administration publish the survey through the city's channels.

Votes at a glance

- Motion to approve and distribute the resident budget survey, request that city administration use its channels to distribute it, and adjourn: approved by voice vote; mover: Councilor Seng; second: not specified; outcome: approved. The committee did not take a roll-call vote.

The meeting then moved to public participation before adjournment.