Erie has been conducting annual surveys for years to collect data on residents’ perspectives. However, this year’s survey, headlined by the Mayor, Andrew Moore, includes a number of changes that have made it both more expensive and more controversial. One major change: Moore wants to survey a much larger portion of the population. Previous surveys aimed to reach around 3,000 people. Moore wants to send the survey to every household in the city. According to him, it’s simply about hearing from more people and better understanding what the town wants.
He told YS, “It’s [the cost] about $70,000. So the way I look at that, we’re a town of almost 300 employees, this is the cost of less than one employee. And to get the input from our residents, to know where they’re at —to me, that’s priceless.”
Not everyone is as cavalier about the increased cost. The usual survey cost about $30,000. Moore’s expanded version is currently estimated to be more than double that. Critics argue that the change dramatically inflates the cost and burden of the survey with very little added benefit. Although the old survey only sampled a smaller portion of the population, it was handled by a professional survey company that used statistical sampling techniques to gather a representative set of responses. Think about how the federal government collects data. It would be impossibly expensive and impractical to ask all 300 million Americans for their opinions. Instead, it relies on trained statisticians who use sampling methods to make sure the data is still valid without needing to hear from everyone. Erie’s past surveys worked the same way. So while it might sound good to increase the sample size, the reality is that doing so will increase costs without necessarily improving the data.
In fact, some argue that surveying this many people could make the data less useful, not more. Town of Erie Communications Director, Gabi Rae told YS, “The consulting team does say that after a certain amount of responses, there’s really no scientific need to continue asking. You won’t see a difference in the data from basically 3,000 people versus 10,000 people who respond to it. So it becomes more difficult to look at the data after a certain amount, and you don’t have any more useful data that you gather.”
Others are concerned not just about the volume of data, but the survey questions themselves.
Previous surveys were conducted by a company that administers surveys across the country and uses carefully crafted questions designed by consultants. The benefit of this was twofold: the questions were designed to minimize bias, and Erie could compare its answers to those from other towns and cities nationwide. Moore, however, saw the previous surveys as too generic and lacking in side-by-side comparisons between options, and has called for a revamp of the questions.
He explained, “I think the other challenge with the national survey is it doesn’t give you any type of comparative information. Would you prefer an outdoor pool over a performing arts center? And so one of the key goals of this survey is to get comparative-type information that we simply do not have in the other survey.”
This new approach, and the new questions generated, have sparked controversy. Multiple meetings have been held to comb through the new language, with concerns raised about potential bias and manipulation.
At first glance, the questions seem innocuous enough, so what about them is worth debating for multiple days? One concern is the type of questions being asked. Many of Mayor Moore’s proposed questions go beyond asking for general town preferences and instead ask residents to weigh in on complex matters that may be better off posed to experts. For instance, one draft version of the survey includes Question 11 (shown below), which asks citizens whether they would prefer the town use taxes and bonds or Certificates of Participation (COPs) to finance new facilities.
I consider myself a well-educated and informed individual, and even I would feel unprepared to answer such a question. In fairness, the survey does provide a short explanation of the difference between financing options, but it’s limited to just a few sentences, when the subject could warrant pages of context. From the brief description, I, and I suspect many others, got the impression that the main difference between COPs and bonds is the level of public input. The question explains that bonds require a vote of the people, whereas COPs do not. That might make it seem like a question of democratic process versus speed: do you want a say, or do you want the project done faster?
But with even minimal research, I realized that framing is a major oversimplification. Bonds are less flexible and have more red tape, but they’re generally considered a stable, lower-risk investment and are often a better choice for long-term projects. COPs, by contrast, are seen as riskier, meaning they carry higher interest rates. Over time, that can make projects financed through COPs significantly more expensive, which risks a serious strain on town resources. The point isn’t whether COPs are good or bad, it’s that there is a lot of nuance here, nuance that’s nearly impossible for the average citizen to grasp from a two-sentence blurb on a survey.
Mayor Moore spoke to YS at length about the importance of ensuring residents are informed before they’re asked to weigh in. He said:
“If you’re asking somebody to raise their taxes, and they have no awareness, they’re absolutely going to say no. If you haven’t shared enough information to explain what the challenge is, they’re going to have no desire to move forward with the change.”
At Yellow Scene, we agree with Mayor Moore on the value of public awareness. People should be informed before being asked to make decisions that could affect not just their lives, but the lives of their children and grandchildren. But we question whether this survey is putting citizens in a position to make truly informed decisions.
And the concern goes far beyond one question.
Questions of similar complexity appear across topics, from affordable housing to traffic. For example, Question T32 asks residents whether they would support taxes to fund road and infrastructure projects, but doesn’t explain what that funding would actually cover.
Are we talking about filling potholes? Expanding public transportation? Building new roads? That question has since been removed following the most recent council meeting.
Question T35 is perhaps the most emblematic of the deeper problems with the survey.
It doesn’t just ask citizens what projects they want funded, but how to fund them.
One version of the question asks respondents to weigh the pros and cons of financing options like Property Taxes, Sales Taxes, and the Town of Erie’s General Fund with little explanation of how each method works or what tradeoffs they involve. These questions aren’t just complex, they touch on high-stakes decisions that Erie can’t afford to get wrong. Choosing COPs over bonds in the wrong situation could cost the town millions. Mishandling the affordable housing crisis could worsen it as Erie continues to grow. Which raises the question: Is a survey really the best tool to make these calls?
Councilman Pesaramelli says no.
“This comprehensive survey has become an obstacle,” he told YS. “Town staff, who I’d call subject matter experts, prepare to move forward on projects, but now they’re being told to pause and wait for survey data. It’s created a directionless environment. Surveys can help with general sentiment, but the staff and council are the ones who should make funding and policy decisions. You don’t ask the public whether we should have water in 20 years. That’s a basic necessity. Not everything needs to go to a vote.”
Pesaramelli also believes that ironically, the survey’s length and complexity may discourage public engagement. With dozens of questions, many of them dense and time-consuming, he worries that busy citizens will opt out altogether. It’s not hard to imagine a busy parent skimming through Question 35 and deciding they don’t have time to take a 50-question quiz on tax strategy. Critics of Moore’s approach say they’re not opposed to public input on big issues, but believe there are better ways to involve residents, such as targeted town halls or community outreach that both inform and engage.
In response to those concerns, Moore has stood firm.
“My response is simple,” he said. “I want to hear from our constituents. I don’t know what I don’t know… I’ve told anyone who’ll listen: I’ll follow what the survey guides us to do, even if it’s not the direction I personally support. I wasn’t elected to do whatever I want, I was elected to represent the will of the people.”
But some question whether Moore’s approach is as selfless as it sounds. Councilman Hoback worries the survey may be used to justify policies Moore already supports. “He’s on the record as being skeptical of affordable housing programs,” Hoback said. “We got federal ARPA funding to buy land for affordable housing—now he wants to hit pause.”
This is where critics say question wording matters. If the survey isn’t clear about what affordable housing really is, people may oppose it simply because they don’t think it applies to them.
“If the survey just asks, ‘Do you want affordable housing here?’ without explaining what that means […] like entry-level homes for young people or smaller homes for seniors, people won’t connect with the need. That can tilt answers against affordable housing, not because it’s unwanted, but because the question doesn’t explain the real issues or who it helps.”
In the end the case against Moore’s survey is straightforward. The survey is more than twice as expensive as the regular one, and if this becomes the new standard, the long-term cost will add up fast. Because the questions are unique, Erie loses the ability to compare responses over time or against other towns. Some of the questions are poorly framed or too technical for the average resident to answer meaningfully. And at 50 questions, it’s long enough to discourage participation, not boost it. Regardless, Moore’s survey has likely become too big to fail. There’s already been too much time, money, and political capital put into it. It’s the path we’re on. Where that path leads will depend on what happens next. Residents should stay engaged. Watch how the results get used. Push for transparency in how they’re interpreted. And make sure major town decisions aren’t being quietly driven by flawed data or unchecked assumptions. Whether the survey gets improved or scrapped, repeated or replaced, what matters now is that the public stays in the loop.