Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Community Survey topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Erie council delays community survey after members flag new tax question and timing
Summary
Councilors directed staff to hold the town’s contracted 2025 community survey until after the council’s March comprehensive‑plan discussion, citing new custom questions (including a lodging‑tax item), concerns about sample representativeness and the survey’s timing relative to the budget cycle; staff said the Polco contract is $23,000 for the mailed wave.
Erie Town Council on Tuesday paused a planned community survey after council members raised concerns about several staff‑proposed custom questions and whether the survey’s timing would feed the town’s budget process with the right information.
Gabby Ray, the town’s director of communications and community engagement, told the council the town participates in the National Community Survey through contractor Polco and each year may add a page‑and‑a‑half of custom questions. "It is $23,000 for this survey," Ray said, describing the cost of the statistically valid mailed wave; she also said sending the instrument to every household would add roughly $20,000.
Councilors pressed staff on the two‑part approach: a statistically valid mailed sample (Polco’s 4,000‑household target) and an open‑participation version that any resident can take. Ray said the two datasets are presented together and staff examines discrepancies; councilors cautioned that open participation can skew results and that residents who are not invited may feel excluded even if the mailed sample is statistically valid.
A central dispute was the content of seven custom questions staff proposed for 2025 (questions 13–20), which council members said introduced new tax‑related material they had not expected. One councilor said the lodging‑tax wording in the draft prompted concern: if the survey asks about a tax measure before council discussion of competing capital priorities, it could drive decisions based on incomplete public understanding.
Council members also highlighted timing: Polco’s schedule – mailed surveys in March and open participation in April – is intended to produce results in time for the May/June budget cycle. Staff warned that delaying the survey could mean missing those budget deadlines; councilors countered that asking the wrong questions could misdirect the budget.
After discussion, councilors directed staff to hold the survey and return with consultants and a revised plan after the council’s March 4 comprehensive‑plan discussion so members can better align custom questions with anticipated policy choices. Malcolm Fleming, the town manager, said staff will work to reschedule a study session with the consultant and to report back on cost and schedule implications. No formal vote was recorded; the action was a council direction to delay and reconvene the issue.
