A heartfelt thank-you to every Surfside resident who took the time to vote in this independent community poll. Your participation shows how deeply our community cares about transparency, health, safety, and the future of our tree canopy and waterways. This effort to give everyone a chance to speak on issues that directly affect their homes, their health, and their quality of life.
It’s important to note that the Surfside Board of Trustees is not affiliated with this poll or its administration in any way. This voting effort was entirely independent, conducted outside HOA systems to ensure open access, fairness, and a voice for all who wished to participate.
Thank you again for engaging, caring, and standing up for your community. Results for other questions are being tabulated.
The results of the poll are below. The statement meets the requirement of the most votes is generated by election buddy meaning that The rule for this ballot item was to select the winner based on who got the most votes.
| Have you personally noticed any of the following in west Surfside waterways? Select all that apply. Plurality — 6 vacancies 208 votes tallied and 5 abstentions | |
| Algae Blooms | 53 votes 25.48% |
| Strong Odors | 27 votes 12.98% |
| Fish Die-Offs | 24 votes 11.54% |
| Murky or Discolored Water | 59 votes 28.37% |
| Not safe for fishing | 33 votes 15.87% |
| None of the above | 0 votes 0% |
| I don’t live on the west side near a waterway | 12 votes 5.77% |
| Murky or Discolored Water, Algae Blooms, Not safe for fishing, Strong Odors, Fish Die-Offs, and I don’t live on the west side near a waterway win with 28.37%, 25.48%, 15.87%, 12.98%, 11.54%, and 5.77% of the votes each which meets the requirement of the most votes. | |
| Do you believe water quality issues pose a health risk to residents, pets, or wildlife? Plurality 79 votes tallied and 3 abstentions | |
| Yes — water quality issues are a serious health risk to residents and pets | 75 votes 94.94% |
| No — I do not believe water quality issues are a significant health risk | 4 votes 5.06% |
| Yes — water quality issues are a serious health risk to residents and pets wins with 94.94% of the votes which meets the requirement of the most votes. | |
| Do you support a policy that prohibits tree-topping or tree removal within the buffer zone of Surfside’s lake and canals—based on best available science—to reduce stormwater runoff pollution, prevent algae blooms, and protect fish and water quality?” Plurality 78 votes tallied and 4 abstentions | |
| Yes, protecting the water quality in the lake and canals using best science is important.” | 71 votes 91.03% |
| No, I don’t think tree rules should be changed even if it conflicts with washington Law. | 7 votes 8.97% |
| Yes, protecting the water quality in the lake and canals using best science is important.” wins with 91.03% of the votes which meets the requirement of the most votes. | |
| How safe do you feel drinking Surfside’s tap water? Plurality 81 votes tallied and 1 abstention | |
| I feel safe drinking it. | 17 votes 20.99% |
| I don’t trust the tap water at all. | 64 votes 79.01% |
| I don’t trust the tap water at all. wins with 79.01% of the votes which meets the requirement of the most votes. | |
| How would you rate Surfside’s communication during the water contamination issue? Plurality 80 votes tallied and 2 abstentions | |
| Excellent — they kept us informed. | 6 votes 7.50% |
| Okay — but lacking important details. | 22 votes 27.50% |
| Poor — we were left guessing. | 25 votes 31.25% |
| Terrible — almost no communication. | 25 votes 31.25% |
| I was completely unaware of Ecoli contamination. | 2 votes 2.50% |
| Poor — we were left guessing. and Terrible — almost no communication. win with 31.25% of the votes each which meets the requirement of the most votes. | |
| How much are you spending each month on bottled water to provide safe drinking water? Plurality 71 votes tallied and 11 abstentions | |
| $0 — I drink from the tap and do not buy bottled water | 8 votes 11.27% |
| $1–$20 — a small extra cost. | 27 votes 38.03% |
| $21–$40 — it’s becoming expensive | 24 votes 33.80% |
| $41–$70— it’s a financial burden. | 6 votes 8.45% |
| Over $70 — it’s costing me too much. | 5 votes 7.04% |
| I am a low income senior and I can’t afford bottled water | 1 vote 1.41% |
| $1–$20 — a small extra cost. wins with 38.03% of the votes which meets the requirement of the most votes. | |
| How much do you spend per year on water filters because you don’t trust Surfside’s tap water? Plurality 68 votes tallied and 14 abstentions | |
| $0 — I don’t use filters. | 25 votes 36.76% |
| Under $100 a year — a small cost, but still unnecessary.” | 17 votes 25.00% |
| $100–$249 a year — it adds up. | 22 votes 32.35% |
| Greater than $250 a year – it’s expensive and a financial burden | 4 votes 5.88% |
| $0 — I don’t use filters. wins with 36.76% of the votes which meets the requirement of the most votes. | |
| How would you describe the quality of the tap water in your home over the past year? Plurality 146 votes tallied and 9 abstentions | |
| The water looks clear and clean to me | 13 votes 8.90% |
| It’s sometimes cloudy or discolored. | 47 votes 32.19% |
| My filters get dirty quickly from the water | 26 votes 17.81% |
| It often smells or tastes off. | 23 votes 15.75% |
| It’s bad — I won’t drink it anymore. | 23 votes 15.75% |
| My whites change color | 14 votes 9.59% |
| It’s sometimes cloudy or discolored. wins with 32.19% of the votes which meets the requirement of the most votes. | |
| Surfside’s west side tree canopy has declined from an estimated 30% in 2020 to 14% today—based on satellite imagery and i-Tree canopy data—largely due to ongoing tree-height enforcement; do you believe this level of canopy loss is acceptable despite losing the stormwater protection, pollution absorption, and public-health benefits that trees provide? Plurality 80 votes tallied and 2 abstentions | |
| Not Acceptable – The canopy loss is harmful and tree-height rules must change to restore canopy and protect members health and the environment | 74 votes 92.50% |
| Acceptable – The canopy reduction is acceptable to preserve views and current enforcement should continue even if it impacts public health. | 6 votes 7.50% |
| Not Acceptable – The canopy loss is harmful and tree-height rules must change to restore canopy and protect members health and the environment wins with 92.50% of the votes which meets the requirement of the most votes. | |
| Motion A Increase tree height limits from restrictive areas with 16/20 feet tree height limits to 24 feet to Restore Canopy Coverage and Protect Public Health Plurality 78 votes tallied and 4 abstentions | |
| Yes – Increasing tree height limits from restrictive areas with 16/20 feet tree height limits to 24 feet | 74 votes 94.87% |
| No – keep tree height restrictions the same | 4 votes 5.13% |
| Yes – Increasing tree height limits from restrictive areas with 16/20 feet tree height limits to 24 feet wins with 94.87% of the votes which meets the requirement of the most votes. | |
| Motion B Protecting Our Most Vulnerable Children and Seniors: Grant no limit Tree Height Variances fo?r the Health of Our Most Vulnerable Residents Plurality 73 votes tallied and 9 abstentions | |
| Yes grant tree no height limit variances upon request for residents with health conditions | 64 votes 87.67% |
| No keep tree height limits with no health variance allowed | 9 votes 12.33% |
| Yes grant tree no height limit variances upon request for residents with health conditions wins with 87.67% of the votes which meets the requirement of the most votes. | |
| Motion C: Suspend or eliminate tree height enforcement near waterways for two years to promote equity and restore the tree canopy to a 30% health benchmark. Plurality 78 votes tallied and 4 abstentions | |
| Yes Suspend or eliminate tree height enforcement near waterways for two years to promote equity and restore the tree canopy | 72 votes 92.31% |
| No let tree canopy be reduced further. | 6 votes 7.69% |
| Yes Suspend or eliminate tree height enforcement near waterways for two years to promote equity and restore the tree canopy wins with 92.31% of the votes which meets the requirement of the most votes. | |
| Do you believe the Election Committee violated democratic principles by blocking members with fines from voting and rejecting three environmental motions without transparency or explanation, effectively limiting member participation and suppressing community input? Plurality 75 votes tallied and 7 abstentions | |
| Strongly Agree — this clearly violated democratic principles by imposing their rules and suppressed opposition member participation. | 53 votes 70.67% |
| Agree — the lack of transparency and explanation suggests a failure in fairness and openness. | 10 votes 13.33% |
| Unsure: I need more information before deciding. | 9 votes 12.00% |
| Disagree — the committee was following new procedures, though communication should improve. | 0 votes 0% |
| Strongly Disagree— the committee was enforcing rules properly and did not act undemocratically. | 3 votes 4.00% |
| Strongly Agree — this clearly violated democratic principles by imposing their rules and suppressed opposition member participation. wins with 70.67% of the votes which meets the requirement of the most votes. | |
| Given that members were not allowed to vote or voice their opinions on the motions presented, how strongly do you agree that members should have the right to vote on them in a democratic community? Plurality 78 votes tallied and 4 abstentions | |
| Strongly Agree— Voting on motions is a fundamental democratic right. | 60 votes 76.92% |
| Agree— Members should be able to speak and vote on motions. | 14 votes 17.95% |
| Somewhat — It would be better to allow voting, but not essential. | 3 votes 3.85% |
| Disagree— I don’t feel voting on motions is important. | 0 votes 0% |
| Strongly agree— The Board should decide and reject motions without member votes. | 1 vote 1.28% |
| Strongly Agree— Voting on motions is a fundamental democratic right. wins with 76.92% of the votes which meets the requirement of the most votes. | |
Surfside Washington News 