Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Engagement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Consultants: Joliet comprehensive-plan survey drew 2,000+ responses; housing and quality-of-life rose to top
Summary
Consultants reported more than 2,000 survey responses and workshop feedback that prioritized housing, neighborhood character, safety and amenities. They said labeling errors in the appendix will be corrected and that prioritization of four core elements is the next step.
Consultants working on Joliet’s comprehensive plan told the advisory committee that an online survey and the first public workshop produced strong public participation and clear, repeatable priorities.
“Katrina: We had, a little over 2,000 responses on the survey, which is a really fantastic turnout,” the consultant said, adding that the consultation team felt confident in the representativeness of the results. The team summarized recurring themes: maintaining existing housing stock and neighborhood character; concerns about safety; desire for parks and cultural events; and short-term amenities such as a pool/splash pad.
The consultant acknowledged errors in several chart labels in the appendix and said corrections are under way. “I noticed that the, American Indian was miss mislabeled there,” she told the committee and said the underlying percentages were correct and would be re-labeled in the appendix.
On demographics, the presentation said the most common age range among respondents (after label corrections) was 45–54 and the most common household size reported was two people. Committee members asked whether a visible cluster of young respondents came from a high-school event; consultants confirmed that some student responses were collected at Joliet West during the public workshop and that the team will note that in the appendix.
Consultants described the engagement summary as phase-two material that will feed into a forthcoming “vision, goals and objectives” draft. That document will be presented to the advisory committee in advance of the next meeting, and will form the basis for working-group validation and later prioritization.
The committee did not take formal action on the engagement summary; staff said corrected appendices and an updated report will be posted to the project page on the city website.
