Lakewood releases results of 650‑respondent community survey; interactive dashboard coming

Adam Przybylski, president of Przybylski Research, presented the findings of a citywide community survey at a Nov. 17 Lakewood City Council study session, telling the council that 650 residents completed the multimode survey and that results are matched to census proportions.

Przybylski said top‑line measures show residents largely satisfied: "73% say excellent or good" when asked to rate overall quality of life in Lakewood, and 69% rate Lakewood as an excellent or good place to live compared with peer cities. He reported that 55% said they are satisfied with the value they receive for local tax dollars and that among residents who had contact with City employees in the past 12 months, 92% described the interaction as positive.

Why it matters: the survey is intended to guide policy priorities and communications. Przybylski told councilors that the largest gap between what residents say is important and what they are satisfied with relates to street repair and conditions — a 47‑point differential — which staff and councilors noted could inform budget and policy decisions.

The survey also highlighted tension on housing: 61% of respondents said they are personally concerned about finding affordable housing for themselves or family members, yet a majority opposed adding more housing in their own neighborhoods (Przybylski said 45% still expressed support for neighborhood housing, indicating a near split). On revenue questions, a slim majority — 52% — said they would be willing to pay more for street, utility and facility improvements.

Methodology and access: Przybylski described the instrument as a direct, multimode survey (mail, email, text and phone) averaging about 18 minutes per complete response; 3% of respondents chose Spanish. He said the firm screened for low‑quality responses ("straight‑liners", unusually short completion times) and matched respondents to American Community Survey proportions to improve representativeness, but cautioned that small demographic subgroups should be interpreted directionally.

Council follow‑up and dashboard: Councilors asked about comparability with the 2022 survey and about the interactive dashboard Przybylski demonstrated. He said some questions and methodology changed from prior years (the firm moved from a weighted approach to a direct survey), and staff committed to provide viable year‑to‑year comparisons where possible. Przybylski and staff said the full 114‑slide deck and the complete survey (including verbatim open‑ended responses) are posted on the city website and that the draft interactive dashboard will be made public soon; presenters estimated availability "by the end of the week" or "by the end of the month." Staff also agreed to add the slide deck and related materials to LakewoodSpeaks.

What councilors asked: Council members requested the demographic cross‑tabs behind specific differentials (for example, which groups drove the change in perceptions of police fairness) and cautioned against overinterpreting small‑N subgroup results. Councilors also asked for periodic updates showing how staff uses survey priorities to inform outreach, spending or program decisions.

Next steps: Staff said they will post the dashboard and slideshow on LakewoodSpeaks, follow up with requested cross‑tabs and comparisons to prior surveys where methodologically feasible, and remain available to provide additional breakdowns and context.

No formal votes or policy actions were taken during the study session; the meeting was adjourned at 8:05 p.m.