Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Engagement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission asks city to clarify resident input behind indoor pool and Performance Park plans
Summary
Commissioners asked staff to locate the datasets and methods used for public outreach after members said an online “Balancing Act” survey included nonresidents and may not be statistically valid; no formal vote was taken but staff agreed to follow up.
Members of the Webster Groves Parks and Recreation Commission questioned what resident input informed plans for a proposed indoor pool (the “dome”) and a Performance Park during their meeting. Commissioners said an online, self‑selected survey used in early outreach allowed nonresidents to respond and therefore might not represent Webster Groves residents.
Commissioners stressed the question matters because the Performance Park project is a large capital item cited in discussion as about $2,500,000 and the indoor pool has been shelved and is expected to return to council consideration. A commissioner asked the director to determine whether any statistically valid survey of Webster residents exists and whether the city has additional outreach records.
In the discussion a commission member said they had seen the online “Balancing Act” results and that “25% of the respondents didn’t live in Webster.” The same member said, “I want Webster to do what Webster citizens wanna do,” and asked staff to report back on who responded and what outreach methods the city used beyond the open survey.
The Parks and Recreation director acknowledged the email exchange among residents, said the item had been tabled by the council for now, and told commissioners she would look into the underlying survey data. A staff member present said the city had sought other, proactive forms of input beyond the online survey but did not provide the commission with a dataset during the meeting.
No motion or formal vote on policy or a referral to city council occurred at the meeting. Commissioners discussed the possibility of asking the council to reconsider or reinvestigate outreach if staff cannot locate representative resident data. The director and a staff member agreed to follow up and report findings to the commission.
The commission’s questions covered outreach method (self‑selected online survey versus a contacted sample), proportion of nonresident respondents, and whether additional in‑person or targeted contact occurred. Commissioners emphasized that, if the city relied principally on the open online survey to shape a multi‑million dollar project, they wanted to confirm the representative quality of that data before the project moved forward.
The commission plans to await staff’s report and did not adopt any formal recommendation at the meeting.
