Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Community Survey topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Birmingham commissioners workshop draft community survey, push for clearer wording on funding and Woodward questions
Summary
Commissioners and residents gave detailed line-by-line feedback on a draft community survey, especially the "dollar-bill" tax graphic, wording about funding unimproved roads, and whether state-controlled Woodward Avenue should appear on a city survey.
The Birmingham City Commission spent an extended portion of its March 23 meeting reviewing a revised draft of the city's community survey and returned it to staff with detailed edits and clarifications. The working group that revised the draft recommended a shorter questionnaire and added contextual material, but commissioners pressed for changes in phrasing, follow-up text boxes and clearer explanations of jurisdictional limits.
Planning staff and consultant materials in the meeting packet explained the working-group process and the rationale for shortening the instrument to improve response rates. Commissioners and members of the public asked staff to double-check the numeric breakdowns used in a "dollar-bill" graphic showing where property-tax dollars go, and to consider follow-up questions that would let residents explain why they feel safe or unsafe.
A contentious thread focused on whether two questions about Woodward Avenue (a state-owned road) should remain. Some commissioners argued the questions would elicit complaints about a road the city does not control and urged removal or an explanatory asterisk; others said leaving the items would capture resident experience and might be useful when the city advocates to MDOT.
Commissioners also flagged the question about funding unimproved roads for clearer wording and suggested adding dollar-range follow-ups so the city could gauge residents' willingness to pay for bonds or millages versus special assessments. Staff said some of those numeric choices had been discussed and could be added in later drafts.
Planning staff and the working group agreed to incorporate the commission's edits and to return a revised survey for final action at a subsequent meeting; commissioners discussed whether to continue editing in public or submit written comment to staff for consolidation.
