Councilor Singh, presenting to the Medford City Resident Services Public Engagement Committee, summarized results from an FY26 budget survey that drew 110 responses and highlighted schools and streets as the most frequently mentioned short-term needs.

The survey, Singh said, skewed toward higher-income, older homeowners and English speakers; that caveat framed his presentation of substantive findings. "We got a 110 responses, which is decent," Councilor Singh said, adding that respondents came from across the city but were underrepresented in East Medford and among renters.

The nut graf: Councilor Singh told the committee the survey repeatedly named Medford Public Schools and streets/sidewalks as top short-term priorities (46 mentions each), with affordable housing, non-street infrastructure and support for vulnerable immigrant residents also appearing often. He recommended distributing the full results to councilors to inform FY26 public engagement and next steps.

In detail, Singh reported 46 short-term mentions for schools and for streets/sidewalks, 25 mentions of non-street public infrastructure (public buildings), 21 mentions of affordable housing and development, 16 mentions calling for more support for low-income and immigrant residents, 14 mentions of transit and multimodal planning, and 13 mentions about public safety (which respondents addressed variously as police, fire, EMS and services for vulnerable people). Long-term priorities shifted somewhat: housing, economic development and climate rose in prominence, with housing cited in 31 long-term responses and 30 mentions of non-street infrastructure including water and sewer tied in some comments to flooding and climate concerns.

Singh also summarized suggestions for new programs: expanded after-school and youth programs, housing navigation and eviction support, targeted code enforcement and permitting reforms, improved public transit and shuttles, and climate-related projects such as tree canopy and heat-island work. He noted a repeated request for clearer communication about who handles which permitting steps, and that some permitting delays are driven by state-level processes outside city control.

Committee members discussed the survey distribution and outreach. Councilor Lazaro praised the distillation and recommended a listening session; Councilor Callaghan and Chair Lemming participated in the roll call vote approving distribution.

Action: On a motion by Councilor Singh, seconded by Councilor Callaghan, the committee voted (Councilor Callaghan: yes; Councilor Lazaro: yes; Councilor Scarpelli: absent; Councilor Singh: yes; Chair Lemming: yes) to distribute the full survey results to city councilors, publicly distribute the report, and receive and place the paper on file. The motion passed (approved; 1 absent).

The committee also discussed follow-up steps such as a possible Zoom listening session or in-person meetings and a recommendation to provide clearer public information about what is city- versus state-controlled in permitting and timelines.

Ending: Committee members asked staff and councilors to consider next steps for broader outreach given the demographic skew of respondents, and to use the report as a basis for targeted community engagement during the FY26 budget process.