Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Safety Levy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
County polling shows conditional support for public safety levy; age and economic outlook drive gaps
Summary
EMC Research polling for Washington County found broad but fragile support for a proposed public safety levy: generic support was high but fell when respondents saw ballot language and price, then rebounded after renewal and program details. Older voters and those who say community direction is "right" were most positive.
Washington County officials and polling firm EMC Research presented Round 1 survey results on a proposed public safety levy, saying broad but conditional voter support exists and that economic outlook and age are key predictors of backing.
"This is a representative countywide survey of likely voters for November 2025," EMC Research senior principal Ian Stewart told the Board of Commissioners. Stewart said the survey was conducted Dec. 4–11 with 400 interviews and a margin of error of ±4.9 percentage points.
The firm reported 72% generic support when respondents were asked about replacing the 2020 voter-approved levy without cost details. When respondents were shown draft ballot language and a cost example (about $0.65 per $1,000 assessed value, about $69 in year one for the average homeowner), initial support fell to 57%. Support rose to 65% after explicit cost-and-renewal wording and to 71% after polling respondents were given detailed descriptions of levy components. EMC then tested a set of negative statements about taxes and inflation; after that messaging support dropped back to 65%.
Stewart highlighted subgroup differences: voters 60 and older showed substantially stronger net support than under-60 voters; men and renters trended lower; and respondents who said county direction was “right” were far more likely to support the measure than those saying the county was “off on the wrong track.” He said that right-direction vs. wrong-track sentiment was the single strongest correlate of vote intent.
County staff framed the levy as a replacement measure that would preserve programs funded by a levy that expires in 2026. Assistant county administrators Erin Calvert and Marnie Kyle and communications officer Philip Bransford joined Stewart in the briefing and said steering committees and staff will use the findings to refine levy content and timing.
Stewart cautioned that small-sample subgroup results by council district have wide margins of error (about ±10 points at ~100 interviews) and recommended later, closer-to-election polling. He also noted historical patterns in which actual ballot returns have in many cases outperformed polling results.
Board members pressed staff on next steps. Commissioner comments emphasized the importance of messaging to older voters, city partners, and rural precincts and asked staff to continue testing ballot language, cost levels, and targeted outreach.
The county plans a next round of polling later in the spring or summer and further steering-committee work on levy scope, with staff reporting back to the board before any referral decision.
