Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Community Survey topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Norwood council reviews early community-survey results and expands QR-code outreach
Summary
Councilmembers reviewed preliminary survey response totals and agreed on expanded outreach steps — more QR codes for events and businesses, outreach to schools, libraries and churches, and asking administration about placing a link on the water bill — while keeping the survey open to increase response diversity.
Norwood City Council committee members on the Committee of the Whole reviewed early results from the city’s community survey and discussed plans to expand outreach, including printed materials and targeted QR codes for businesses, schools, parks and religious institutions.
Council members said the survey has gathered several hundred initiated responses and several hundred respondents who declared a residential status; they discussed methods to reach underrepresented groups and recommended keeping the survey open longer to increase sample size and geographic balance.
Why it matters: Council members framed the survey as the lead public input step that could inform a later council-led master plan. Members emphasized the need to broaden participation beyond responses gathered so far, which skewed toward higher-income and higher-education respondents, and suggested low-cost distribution tactics to reach renters, non-English speakers and neighborhoods with fewer responses.
Committee members reported current counts and distribution patterns. One councilmember summarized: “we’re at what? 700 right now, give or take?” and later clarified the precise running totals discussed: roughly 678–700 initiated, 679 who declared a residential status, 463 who completed demographic questions. The committee heard that 36 respondents asked to be contacted by council for follow-up.
Members reviewed demographic skews and access channels. The compiled demographics from completes included: 2% reporting household income under $15,000 and 25% reporting household income over $150,000; respondents clustered with about 66% reporting household income above $75,000. Education levels among completes were high compared with statewide averages: about 34% bachelor’s degrees and 21% master’s degrees. Access channels reported were: 64% via Facebook posts, about 10% via QR code scanning, 8% via emailed links and less than 1% via a city-website link.
Council discussion focused on outreach tactics rather than adopting a formal new program. Suggestions and informal directions included: - Printing multiple sizes of handouts with the QR code for distribution at the upcoming parade and to carry while canvassing sidewalks, coffee shops and pocket parks; some handouts would include a playful line used in the mock-up: “Scan the code below and complete the survey so that Norwood City Council can hear from you.” - Distributing stickers or cards to local businesses, libraries, the pool and parks; one councilmember offered to email a list of Norwood businesses to place the retail/business QR code. - Asking the administration about placing the survey QR code or a direct link on the city’s water bill messaging (acknowledging the water-bill schedule would reach only portions of the city each billing cycle). - Creating separate QR codes for targeted audiences (retail, churches, non-English-speaking congregations) to allow later filtering of distribution source, while noting the underlying survey data remain in a single combined file. - Sending the list of respondents who requested follow-up to the city staff member identified by council for contact; 36 respondents had requested contact and provided email addresses.
Committee members noted limitations and next steps. Several members expressed concern that responses skew toward higher-income and higher-education residents and that renters and lower-income residents were underrepresented. Members proposed extra outreach to apartment common areas, churches, school PTAs, and recreation sites (including Tower Park, WaterWorks/pool and Marsh Park) to reduce bias in the sample. One member said the city’s website page linking to the survey should be edited so the flyer leads directly to the survey rather than to a PDF intermediary.
No formal vote was taken in committee; members framed these items as operational directions and outreach suggestions to be implemented informally by council members and staff. The committee’s actions were limited to agreeing to distribute printed materials, share business and church contact lists, and ask administration about including the QR/link on the water bill. The survey will remain open while the council pursues expanded distribution.
The council said it will track distribution sources and filter results by residential status and ward; initial ward breakdowns discussed were approximately 23% Ward 1, 27% Ward 2, 31% Ward 3 and 18% Ward 4, with about 1% unsure of ward. Members asked staff to synthesize the current data and return with a preliminary summary once additional outreach has been completed.
Committee members closed the item noting that the survey is intended as public input for future planning work and that further steps — including keeping the survey open longer and targeted outreach to renters and non-English speakers — would be prioritized before any formal commissioning of consultants or master-plan actions.
