Kara Kornachuk, research manager at DHM Research, presented final results from two 2025 surveys of Tumwater residents to the City Council, telling members the work included a statistically valid random sample (n=300, margin of error ±5.7%) and a separate opt‑in community engagement survey (n=273) that reflects people already engaged with city processes.

"People really like living here," Kornachuk said, summarizing a key finding: about 95% of respondents rated Tumwater's quality of life as excellent or good, and roughly half rated it "very good." The presentation said residents also reported strong confidence in fire and emergency medical services (about 94% confident) and high overall feelings of safety (about 92%).

But the surveys also highlighted priorities and areas with lower satisfaction. Open-ended responses and coding showed transportation infrastructure (reported by about 18% of respondents), homelessness and housing affordability among the top issues residents want the city to address. In a matrix comparing priority and satisfaction, DHM identified responding to homelessness, street construction and maintenance, and managing growth and development as priority areas needing improvement; satisfaction with the city's homelessness response was reported at about 48%.

Kornachuk noted differences between the samples: the community engagement respondents skew older and more highly educated and are considerably more likely to already contact or interact with the city (16% of those respondents said they had not engaged with the city in the past year, versus roughly 47% of the general population). She warned the opt-in results should not be generalized to all residents and said crosstabs are available on request for detailed demographic breakdowns.

On growth, roughly half of respondents said Tumwater's growth rate is "about right," while about 31% said it is growing too fast. When asked what the city's primary focus should be in managing growth, the plurality of residents (around 29%) selected ensuring that roadways and the transportation system can handle more people, a finding council members said highlights a policy tension between accommodating growth and protecting environmental or neighborhood character.

The presentation also covered environmental priorities, where the single most selected option among the general population was construction permitting that protects the environment and human health (about 28%). Kornachuk said electric-vehicle infrastructure and commute‑reduction options were not top environmental priorities in the surveys, even though transportation was a leading concern elsewhere in the results.

Council members used the presentation to discuss next steps. Council member Kathy and others highlighted water quality as a local strength captured in the results, and several members urged clearer public communication about municipal finance and homelessness response to reduce the share of respondents who answered "don't know" to questions about those topics. Staff suggested simple, outreach-oriented materials ("by‑the‑numbers" posts, HOA and civic‑group briefings) to explain where tax dollars go and what the city does and does not control.

The consultant and staff emphasized that the packet contains a longer report and that crosstabs are available on request for council members who want to examine subgroup responses. City staff noted the survey information is informational only and that no formal council action was required on the agenda item.