A lack of trust in Bainbridge Island city government, and fears of giving the city council a “blank check,” were big factors in voters’ rejection of a $15 million levy measure that fell in a landslide defeat late last year.

Those are two big takeaways from a recent online survey conducted by the city of Bainbridge Island.

The survey found that a majority of those polled — 51.6 percent — said the city’s SAFE levy was a “blank check,” according to survey results released by the city.

Another 37 percent said the measure was “too expensive.”

Just 31 percent said the proposal — which would have funded wider roadside shoulders for bicyclists and walkers, as well as trails and sidewalk improvements — was “a good investment in a safer city.”

The city also got poor marks on how the property tax increase was sold to voters. Only 8.4 percent said they perceived the city effort as “clear and transparent,” and just 7.8 percent said it was “well thought out.”

A large portion of those polled, nearly 40 percent, indicated the city had a muddled message for the levy; 39.2 percent said the measure was “unclear.”

Additionally, just 13.4 percent said they thought the proposal would be “accountable to the community.”

Approximately 550 people participated in the poll, which was launched earlier this year by city officials who said they wanted to use the results to help guide the creation of a communications plan for city hall.

Write-in answers given during the poll, however, reveal that many who took the survey saw last November’s property tax levy as an attempt to cater to a very vocal minority of bike riders, and not one that would benefit most islanders.

Others thought the proposal was just too expensive, and that the city has bigger priorities to address.

And many respondents to the survey asked the city to abandon any idea of putting the ballot measure back in front of voters for a second try.

“Please don’t waste taxpayers’ money by putting this back on the ballot. We understood it the first time,” one respondent wrote.

Added another: “I would like to see the city respect the voters’ decision and give this mobility levy up. It is not the right time or priority to begin such an open ended project.”

The clout of bicyclists within city hall came up time and again as islanders responded to the survey questions:

“The city is too focused on the bicycle interest group and purposefully ignores the the needs and desires of 98 percent of its other residents.”

“We would like the city to stop wasting and spending our tax money on ridiculous, unneeded things aimed at tourists. They also concentrate only on the local city area with no concern for the rest of the island. We now have homeless who need an affordable place to live, not a bike lane!”

“It was and remains a total boondoggle with ridiculous process entanglements, all to appease the elite biking ‘community’ at the expense of the rest of us.”

“This levy made no sense. There are bigger issues and forcing property owners to support the bicycle culture on the island is — as they say in liberal speak — ‘unfair.’ Unfair to the older citizens who will NEVER ride a bike to doctors, to Seattle or anywhere else. It is unfair to expect that you would have a reasonable plan.”

“Levy seemed tailored to serve a small vocal minority of the community. As a bike rider and motorist, I have no trouble sharing our roads, as I have done for my whole life. There was no problem to fix.”

“The city is obsessed with pandering to bikes, traffic flow and parking. Listen to those who don’t have big mouths. Take the old police station and make an underground- and above-ground garage. Attach a facade that will match the exterior of the Bainbridge museum. It won’t be an eyesore. That will take care of downtown parking. The return on investment for parking fees will pay for a new police station. The city needs creative thinking. The bike thinking is myopic.”

Another reoccurring theme in comments made for the survey centered on the city council’s need to address public concerns about accountability and trustworthiness. Some called out two council members, recently named in ethics complaints filed with the city, as part of their unease with city leaders.

“The citizens of Bainbridge Island do not trust the city council. The failure of the levy was not a failure of the community’s desire to get around the island without being killed. The failure was a matter of trust,” one respondent noted.

Said another: “I believe the SAFE measure failed because the community does not have confidence in our council members. I have lost confidence in two members to trust that they have the community interest in mind and not their own. People will not give them a blank check based on lack of confidence in their judgment. You have a bigger issue at hand here.”

Others noted that some of the safety problems perceived by bikers and walkers wasn’t related to infrastructure.

“Speeding and distracted driving is a big problem here and if we addressed that issue, it would greatly improve safety for walkers and cyclists here on the Island,” one wrote. “It’s great that we put up new speed limit signs; we also need enforcement and fines. I want people to know that we are serious about safety and will enforce traffic laws.”

Still, some supported the levy and asked the city to try again at the ballot box: “I’m glad there will be another opportunity to pass this. I hope it works the next time.”

Survey respondents also disputed the notion raised by levy supporters after the failure of Proposition 1 — that “no” voters didn’t fully understand what was on the ballot.

“I want you to know that the people of Bainbridge Island truly understood why they voted no on the multi-modal bond levy. You communicated well. You let everyone know that the money was not slated for specific projects. They understood that and they gave it a big thumbs down. I’m mad at you. Next time be specific and stick to your word,” one wrote.

Added another: “I 100 percent support the intent behind the SAFE Mobility — I do believe we need better/safer trails and shoulder improvements — and I voted AGAINST the levy. I don’t agree with non-specific funding ‘buckets’ nor do I agree that it should be funded SOLELY through property taxes.”

Most of the people who took the survey, more than 60 percent, said they had lived on Bainbridge for 10 years or more.

While some city officials have raised concerns that the opinions of islanders are being negatively influenced by what they read on social media, many of those who took the poll said their primary source of information on city hall was not coming from specific social media websites.

A total of 59.5 percent named the Bainbridge Review as their main source for city news, while the Bainbridge Islander Facebook page was cited by 31.5 percent.

The city’s Facebook page was named the primary source of info by 17.8 percent of those who took the poll, while word-of-mouth was the preferred source for 47.6 percent of respondents.

Overall, Facebook use was reported by 67.8 percent of those who were polled.

The city council received an overview of the survey at its Feb. 12 meeting and its shortcomings in community communications.

At that meeting, council members agreed to launch a monthly newsletter of city news that will be mailed to homes on the island.

Annual costs of the monthly bulletin have been estimated at $55,000 to $60,000, with other external costs (including hiring a consultant to research and write articles, plus printing, mailing and other costs) coming in at $35,000 to $40,000 a year.

The city’s SAFE Mobility Levy was defeated during the 2018 General Election with a 54 percent “no” vote.

The survey on the levy and the city’s communication’s effort for the ballot measure was launched in early January and was extended through Jan. 30. The complete results of the survey, including written comments, were recently made available to the Bainbridge Review following a public records request.