Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Resident Survey topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
University of Maryland presents 2025 resident survey; communication and services score well
Summary
University of Maryland researchers presented the village's 2025 resident survey: 579 invitations produced 228 returns (217 used), a 38% response rate. Respondents rated the village newsletter, weekly wrap-up and email alerts positively; elections were widely regarded as fair and open.
University of Maryland researchers presented the results of Martin's Additions' 2025 resident survey during the council meeting on Dec. 11. The team reported that 579 invitation emails were issued and 228 questionnaires were returned; after excluding blank and no-consent forms, 217 responses were analyzed, yielding a 38% response rate.
Sharon Gibbs Cooper of the Institute for Governmental Service and Research said the survey used Qualtrics and paper forms and was de-identified before analysis. "We received a total of 228 surveys ... and that's including 4 paper surveys," she said, and noted that 194 questionnaires were fully completed for the primary analysis. The presenters emphasized that respondents had the option to skip demographic questions, which reduced denominators on some cross-tabs.
Key findings: respondents gave communication channels generally favorable ratings (monthly newsletter mean 3.36; weekly wrap-up mean 3.33; email alerts mean 3.41 on a 1–4 scale). On election-related items, average scores were above 4.0 for fairness, openness and receiving needed information to make an informed vote. Service satisfaction was high for core services such as trash pickup; composting scored lower (mean ~2.79). Event participation rose in 2025 compared with 2024, and overall satisfaction with village operations remained strong (about 49% extremely satisfied).
Presenters cautioned about small subgroup sample sizes (nonwhite respondents were few) and chart labeling errors flagged during the meeting (a gender pie-chart value the presenters said they would correct before distribution). Sean Flower, who conducted much of the analysis, reviewed statistical tests by gender, race and length of residency and stressed caution where n was small.
Council members asked about making open‑ended comments public in sanitized form; presenters and staff said the village has made comments available previously and would consider whether to publish sanitized comments. The presenters will update the PowerPoint to correct chart errors before broader distribution at the request of staff.
