Survey shows majority openness to a temporary levy, residents prioritize pedestrian safety and police staffing

Consultant Chelsea Benning told the Lake Forest Park City Council on Jan. 29 that a December survey of city households produced strong response and measurable support for several temporary levy options that could be proposed in future elections. "A total of, almost a 1,918 surveys, were included in the final dataset," Benning said, noting a 17% response rate and a margin of error of about plus-or-minus 2.95 percentage points.

Why it matters: Council members said the results will inform whether and how the city pursues a levy to fund capital and services, particularly pedestrian-safety work and public-safety staffing. The consultant and councilors repeatedly emphasized that detailed, itemized spending plans and transparent messaging would be required to persuade undecided voters and some prior opponents.

Benning summarized methodology and topline findings: survey packets were mailed to 5,395 households in early November and offered in English and Spanish; online and phone options were also provided. Respondents skewed toward older, long-term residents: Benning said the weighted dataset reflects the registered-voter population and showed 97% of respondents were registered voters and 98% had voted in the most recent general election.

Key results highlighted: 79% said things in Lake Forest Park were generally headed in the right direction; top priorities were public works and public-safety/ emergency management (72% and 69% reported among their top three), and pedestrian safety was singled out frequently in open-ended comments. When asked about a new six-year temporary levy, Benning said 62% of respondents said they supported the concept, 13% were unsure and 25% opposed it. Support varied by levy size: 72% supported a low (3¢) increase, 56% a mid (45¢) level and 37% a higher (60¢) level.

On why the 2021 levy failed and what would be needed to win support now, Benning described mixed reasons: many opponents cited mistrust of city management or that the 2021 proposal was permanent rather than temporary. Supporters said they wanted the services that the levy would enable (notably pedestrian improvements). "If they had a detailed purpose and itemized spend plan, that would help them make their final decision," Benning said, summarizing open-ended responses.

Councilors pressed on sampling bias and representativeness. Councilmember Lebo asked whether the survey could be skewed toward prior supporters of the 2021 levy: "Can you describe or have you in any way accounted for what I'll call, bias to the survey as those that have generally or did support the, 2021 levy?" Benning said the survey was weighted to the voting population using five-year ACS estimates for age, gender and income, and that while some nonrespondents remain unknown, the high response rate and weighting increase confidence the results reflect the voting population.

Councilors also noted areas the city should address in communications if a levy is pursued: an itemized spending plan, transparency about how funds would be used, and attention to outreach to groups who reported they did not recall the 2021 levy. Benning said the full report had already been emailed to council and she offered to resend it; councilors indicated they expect to review the full dataset and use it to shape next steps.

Ending: The council received the presentation for discussion; no formal action was taken on Jan. 29. Benning said she would provide the full report to council members and answer follow-up questions about weighting and language-access details.