Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Citywide Survey topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
City releases results of 740-response survey showing resident concerns on roads, utilities and public safety
Summary
Bay City staff presented a citywide survey with 740 responses that highlighted resident dissatisfaction with road conditions, concerns about utility costs and mixed views about public safety; commissioners discussed next steps for outreach and use of the data.
Bay City officials presented the results of a citywide survey Monday showing 740 responses collected in July that the presenter said represent about 10% of Bay City’s roughly 32,000 residents.
The survey, presented by Dana (city staff), found high dissatisfaction with road conditions, recurring concerns about water and sewer costs, and mixed views on public safety services. "We had 740 responses that we collected for the whole month of July," Dana said during the presentation, noting some duplicate submissions and a mix of online and paper responses.
Why it matters: the survey is intended to guide commission priorities and department-level planning. Dana told the commission the city will post the full results on the city website and email them to commissioners; staff also said they had followed up with 70 respondents who volunteered to be engaged further on boards and committees.
Key findings: respondents rated utility reliability and customer service relatively high in some categories but expressed concern about costs. According to the presentation, 62% said they were satisfied with water quality; electric service reliability was 59%. At the same time, respondents signaled concern about utility cost and billing transparency. The presenter said 51% supported increased investment in utility infrastructure, while 29% were unsure.
Roads and transportation were the most frequently cited priorities. The presentation said 79% rated road conditions as poor; potholes, traffic flow and sidewalks were the top-ordered concerns. On roads funding, 47% said they would support a local road millage while 38% said they would not. When asked about special assessments for a specific street, 51% said no and 18% said yes.
Public safety responses were mixed. The presentation summarized that residents expressed unease about neighborhood safety and perceived understaffing; however, 76% of respondents indicated at least some support for a dedicated public safety millage, though many indicated low willingness to pay substantial amounts (46% said they would only pay $50 per year or less and 31% said $0).
Other takeaways included concerns about trash/recycling consistency, tree removals and tree replacement timing, and desire for more transparent communication from city leadership. The presenter said the city will post the survey results online and share the raw data with commissioners for follow up.
Commission response and next steps: Commissioners asked about the respondent profile (age and homeowner status) and about regularizing the survey process as an annual or recurring tool. Commissioner Cubitt asked how representative the sample was of the city’s demographics; Dana said she would provide comparative figures. Commissioner DeWitt asked whether an outside consultant was used; Dana said the survey was done in-house.
Dana and commissioners said the results will be used to inform forthcoming committee work and public safety discussions. Dana said the city will email the full results to commissioners and post them on the website, and staff reported they had already contacted respondents who expressed interest in serving on boards.
Ending: Commissioners said the findings will feed into committee work and budget discussions in coming months; staff will publish the report on the city website and follow up with citizens who requested further involvement.
