Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Community Survey topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Erie council refines draft community survey: will open to residents 18+, refine COP and traffic questions
Summary
The council reviewed a draft townwide survey on June 3 and agreed to open it to all Erie residents age 18 and older (with a voter‑status question to allow filtering). Members asked the consultants to simplify RTD and traffic items, move a general question on COPs ahead of police‑specific financing language, remove potentially leading phrasing, and add context in the housing section. Council will continue the detailed survey review at the next meeting.
Erie — At a special meeting June 3, Erie town staff and consultants from Magellan Strategies walked the Town Council through a draft community survey, and councilors provided detailed edits and direction on wording, audience and sequencing.
Method and audience: Courtney of Magellan explained the proposed methodology: send a postcard to every household with a unique link or QR code, follow up roughly 48 hours later with a text invitation, and host an online questionnaire where demographic questions are required for statistical weighting. The consultants recommended opening the survey to all Erie residents age 18 and older while including a direct question about registered voter status so results can be filtered later for ballot‑measure planning; council members agreed.
Key refinements agreed by the council: - Voting subgroup: Add a voter registration question so staff can slice results by registered voters versus non‑voters for ballot planning. - RTD/jump question: Simplify the bus question to ask about familiarity with the RTD route from the Erie Community Center to Boulder and keep a single familiarity item (the council removed a redundant follow‑up question). - Traffic: Replace a generic "have you experienced traffic increasing" item with a short inconvenience measure and a brief open‑ended follow‑up so respondents can indicate the intersection or commute direction of concern; staff will explain primary/secondary/tertiary road definitions in the survey text. - COPs and police facility funding: Council directed staff to move a general question about use of Certificates of Participation (COPs) for town facilities ahead of the police‑specific financing question, and to neutralize wording that council members felt implied deficit framing. The council requested the definition of COPs (non‑voter financing that is repaid from general revenues) be provided but not framed in a way that prejudges consequences. - Housing section: Members asked consultants to remove the word "missing" from the image label (keep the visual types but not a presumption), and to add brief contextual language in the opening so respondents understand why different housing types are being discussed; the council also asked staff to be cautious interpreting results because homeowner respondents can skew responses.
Next steps: Consultants will rework the draft language and return it to staff for a follow‑up review at the June 17 meeting so that the survey can be finalized in time for any budget or outreach needs this year.
