Dakota County residents rate quality of life high; affordable housing and drinking water concerns rise

Dakota County commissioners on June 25 received the results of a 2025 resident survey that found consistently high ratings for overall quality of life in the county but rising public concern about affordable housing, taxes and the quality of drinking water.

The county’s Office of Performance and Analysis and survey contractor Polco presented the findings, based on a random sample of 7,000 households and 786 completed responses (about a 12% response rate). Katie O’Connor of the Office of Performance and Analysis introduced the report, and Erin Caldwell of Polco delivered the presentation.

The survey gave Dakota County an average quality-of-life score of 78 on a 0–100 scale, identical to 2022, and higher than national county benchmarks and most nearby counties surveyed under the same joint powers agreement. Residents rated overall county services at 69 and the job of the Dakota County Board at about 68 on the 100-point scale. Caldwell said libraries and snow-and-ice removal scored higher than national county benchmarks and sheriff patrol services scored similar to benchmarks.

“The Dakota County resident survey is a statistically valid survey of residents,” Erin Caldwell said, describing the sample and methods. The county oversampled multifamily addresses and some districts to offset lower historical response rates; 433 respondents returned paper surveys and 353 completed online.

Respondents named affordable housing as the most serious issue facing the county in 2025, followed by taxes and growth; crime and safety, which was the top issue in 2022, dropped to fourth. When given a checklist of housing needs, roughly half of respondents selected affordable family housing as one of their top three needs, followed by market-rate single-family homes and affordable options for older adults.

Concerns about drinking-water quality increased between 2022 and 2025, Caldwell said, noting the 2025 question added the parenthetical “(PFAS contaminants),” which she said likely contributed to increased concern. She added that respondents in District 1 reported greater concern about water quality than other districts.

“Respondents were most likely to indicate concerns about the climate, the quality of drinking water, and the quality of water in rivers and lakes and streams,” Caldwell said.

Board members asked follow-up questions about geographic and demographic breakdowns and whether recent PFAS reporting could explain the rise in water-quality concern. Caldwell said cross-tabs and appendices in the full report break results out by district, age and household income, and that the addition of “PFAS” to the question likely raised salience compared with 2022.

Commissioner Hayman Rowland asked whether the timing of PFAS reports might have affected responses; Caldwell said the addition of the PFAS parenthetical and reports released in 2023 likely played a role. Commissioner Atkins asked whether any districts showed unique patterns; Caldwell said she would follow up with district-specific notes.

The presentation covered additional findings: residents gave high marks to parks, greenways and bike/pedestrian options; areas with lower scores included planning for the county’s future, perceived value of services for taxes paid, listening to residents and managing tax dollars, though those scores remained stable over multiple survey cycles. The county’s report includes appendices for departmental use and departmental cross-tabs to inform future planning, OPA staff said.

The board did not take formal action on the survey results during the meeting; presenters and commissioners discussed next steps for departmental review and using the data to guide program and budget work.

The county’s Office of Performance and Analysis and Polco plan to provide the full dataset and cross-tabbed appendices to departments for deeper analysis.