Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Outreach topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Charter commission OKs plan for postcard mailer to 8,323 households; vendor estimate ~$4,583
Summary
The CRC Group 2 agreed to mail a postcard with a QR code linking to the town’s charter survey to roughly 8,323 households, using a local printer/mailer; one vendor quoted $4,582.54 (printing $1,169; estimated postage $3,139). The commission discussed timing, a possible extension of the survey deadline, and producing a short explanatory video for residents.
CRC Group 2 met by Zoom on Feb. 12 and advanced plans to expand public outreach by mailing a postcard that links residents to the commission’s online charter survey.
Speaker 1 introduced the mail plan and the mailing list methodology: the commission used the registered-voter file and collapsed households with the same last name and address to reduce the list from about 14,000 names to 8,323 households. Speaker 1 said the card would include a CRC QR code and a short blurb about the charter review and that one vendor in Norwalk could handle printing and mailing using its permit to send first-class mail.
Speaker 1 reported an updated vendor quote of $4,582.54 in total: "printing is 1,169, approximate first class postage for 8,400 is 3,139," and confirmed postage was included in that estimate. Earlier in the meeting Speaker 1 described a higher-cost estimate of about $5,000 from a different vendor and said she was awaiting a second formal quote before the committee’s Tuesday meeting.
Members debated timing. Speaker 1 proposed extending the original March 15 response deadline if the mailer goes out earlier so the survey captures both pre- and post-discussion input. Speaker 3 and others agreed an extension could increase participation; Speaker 3 also suggested that the postcard link to a webpage that explains the charter and points to the survey rather than surfacing commission recommendations immediately.
The committee discussed the card’s content and placement of the QR code. Several members recommended the QR code go directly to the survey page but that the survey itself include prominent links to the full charter and a short introductory video. Speaker 1 suggested a two-to-three-minute video featuring CRC leadership explaining what the charter is and why the commission seeks public input to make the material accessible to residents who do not read long documents.
Speaker 2 and Speaker 1 emphasized the practical details: using a vendor’s mailing permit reduces administrative burden and first-class mail reduces the risk postcards will be lost, and the committee will monitor whether the town budget or a line item will cover the cost. Speaker 3 said the commission should provide enough context on the linked webpage—sample questions or bullet points about topics such as term limits or elected vs. appointed offices—to help respondents engage.
Next steps: Speaker 1 will secure the second vendor quote and return to the full commission with the numbers; the group expects to decide whether to proceed at the next meeting and agreed to consider a modest extension of the survey deadline once mailing timing is confirmed.
Ending: The mailer plan was advanced with vendor follow-up assigned to Speaker 1; the commission did not take a formal budget vote at this meeting.
