Salem Lakes committee debates final survey text, outreach and how it will feed upcoming strategic plan

The Salem Lakes Economic Development Committee discussed final edits to a community survey and how to distribute it, with members asking for clearer wording on housing options and agreeing to use web and print channels to reach residents. The committee meeting at Village Hall also considered how the survey should relate to a consultant-led strategic plan scheduled this fall.

The discussion matters because the survey will shape which development and services the village studies, and because the committee wants a broad sample before it uses results to guide workshops, fairs and planning work.

Members debated specific question wording and placement. Several speakers urged including an "other/none" option and free-text boxes so respondents can add detail. Sharon Palmeville suggested adding accessory dwelling units as a distinct option, saying simply, "Accessory dwelling units," to illustrate the specific housing type the committee should list. Committee members also recommended spelling out alternative lower‑cost housing types (for example, manufactured housing, micro‑apartments and shared housing) rather than relying on the phrase "affordable housing," which some members said carries varied local meanings.

On distribution, staff reported the village recently purchased SurveyMonkey and proposed using the EDC email list, the village website and printed copies at upcoming events. The committee set a deadline for revisions: "If you could send any revisions that you'd like to this to me by Friday of this week," a committee member said, so staff could prepare materials for the fair planned next week. Staff also noted the strategic‑planning contractor plans a broad outreach effort beginning after board approval in September and concluding by December; committee members discussed avoiding "survey saturation" by coordinating questions with that consultant.

Members moved through question‑by‑question edits: add "none/other" choices on development‑type questions; include a line for lakes as a valued local amenity; add restaurants and small business types where appropriate; move long, parks‑specific items to the end of the instrument or rely on the 2021 parks survey to avoid repetition; and shorten or remove demographic questions that produced little usable guidance. Several participants supported keeping a shorter core questionnaire and placing a longer parks module later so more respondents would finish the main survey.

The committee also debated questions about downtown or "enterprise zone" development for hamlets such as Silver Lake and Wilmot. Some members favored a specific item asking whether the village should commit resources to study or improve downtown hamlets; others warned that asking about marginal tax increases was a separate and politically sensitive issue and recommended instead asking whether residents would support studying downtown revitalization.

On web presence, Ryan Filiatro showed a draft EDC splash graphic designed to direct visitors to the survey; staff said the site can include a prominent “community survey” icon that links straight to SurveyMonkey. Sarah, a village staff member who manages the website, said the site can host a simple graphic and link to the survey and that SurveyMonkey also allows images on the questionnaire. Committee members asked staff to prepare a front‑page graphic or direct link for the village news/announcements section to increase visibility.

Directions and next steps agreed at the meeting: committee members were asked to send final edits by the stated Friday deadline; staff will compile revisions and prepare a SurveyMonkey questionnaire and printed versions for the upcoming fair; the EDC web page will include a direct link to the survey; and the committee will coordinate survey content with the strategic‑plan consultant when that work begins. No formal vote was taken on the survey text at the meeting.

Less critical details discussed included whether to seek mailings or inclusion in tax bills for broader reach (members noted those options cost money and timing differs), and whether to add a question about one‑way commute time to gauge how many residents might work locally. The committee agreed to continue refining the instrument before finalizing distribution plans.