Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Community Survey topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council debates 2026 community survey after consultant targets year‑round residents
Summary
City consultant presented results from a 561‑respondent, statistically weighted community survey that emphasized year‑round residents; council members pressed the firm on student underrepresentation, sampling and weighting choices, and accessibility of survey tables.
Mayor Carrie Thompson introduced the city’s 2026 community survey presentation and invited Jeff Anderson of Equity to summarize methods and findings for the Common Council.
Anderson said the survey drew 561 responses from a random sample of Bloomington residents, with a maximum margin of error of 4.1%. He described the sample as intentionally weighted toward year‑round residents rather than Indiana University students, arguing that year‑round residents are more likely to be familiar with city services. “The community wide survey included, from a random sample of Bloomington residents, responses from 561,” Anderson said (presentation). The report showed high satisfaction with parks and cultural offerings but flagged lack of affordable housing and concerns about the unhoused population as top negatives.
Several council members questioned the validity of excluding or underweighting students. Councilmember Stosberg said the design made the instrument “a community survey of a subset of Bloomington, Indiana” rather than the full city population and criticized the effect on representation. Director of Communications Desiree de Molina said the city chose a professional services agreement (no RFP) with a firm familiar to city staff and that the design responded to 2023 feedback about low response rates and survey length.
Councilmembers also raised accessibility concerns: some data tables in the packet are images and not machine‑readable, and one member asked for accessible formats for residents who use screen readers. Anderson said tables and the full report include demographic breakdowns and verbatim responses and that the firm used multiple contact methods (email, mailed questionnaire, phone line) with an overall response rate around 4–5% of invitations sent (about 7,000–8,000 invitations). He reiterated that weighting was used to mitigate nonresponse bias and to reflect the year‑round resident population.
The council directed staff to provide follow‑up materials: a clearer statement in public materials about which population the survey represents, accessible data tables, and documentation of invitations and response rates.
