Survey shows narrow majority support for Springfield fire levy; consultants recommend outreach

DHM Research presented results of a survey of 300 likely November 2025 voters showing majority—but not overwhelming—support for a proposed Springfield fire levy.

The poll, conducted in early to mid-April, gave a baseline “cold” test of the ballot title at 42% support and a post-information test of 56% support after respondents were told the levy would be used to keep services up to date, that it was an increase over the past levy, and that it would likely cost the average household about $100 a year for five years. DHM reported the margin of error as “plus or minus 5.7%.”

The survey matters because the levy funds would be used to maintain local fire and rescue services, including keeping stations open and providing wildfire protection—services the firm found yield relatively high satisfaction among likely voters. DHM cautioned the council that, in their experience, a referral is more likely to pass with roughly 60% support and a strong outreach effort.

DHM’s methodology and toplines DHM said the sample was a mixed-mode design—half phone interviews with a live interviewer and half an online text-invite sample—weighted to represent likely November 2025 voters by age, gender, party, ward, race and ethnicity, education and homeownership. The firm emphasized that a survey of “likely voters” typically skews older and toward homeowners; in Springfield’s case DHM said about 55% of the overall community are homeowners while 75% of the survey respondents were homeowners, reflecting expected special-election turnout patterns. The firm explained the sample size limits the statistical precision to ±5.7 percentage points.

What voters told pollsters Before messaging, 42% of likely voters supported the levy; after a short ballot-summary style explanation support rose to 56%. DHM identified three especially compelling pro-levy messages: that funds would be spent for Springfield only, that the levy would help ensure all five stations stay open, and that it would provide greater wildfire protection. Reasons tested for opposition that resonated most were that this was bad timing amid inflation and high housing costs, and a general opposition to any property tax increase.

The firm also tested alternative rate options. When voters were asked to choose between a 53¢ per $1,000 rate to maintain services, a 46¢ rate that would reduce some services, or no levy at all, a plurality (about 50%) chose the 53¢ option; roughly one-third opposed any increase. DHM summarized that about 64% of respondents supported some level of increase (the 53¢ plus the 46¢ respondents combined).

DHM’s takeaway and council discussion DHM said the city’s results—56% support with 36% “certain” supporters—warrant cautious optimism but suggested a public outreach campaign and coordinated leadership would increase the likelihood of passage. As the consultant put it, “it’s easier to get people to no than it is to yes.” DHM identified trusted messengers for the measure as the Springfield fire chief and residents who have received fire and emergency medical services.

Council members discussed the tested rates and the mayor’s task force recommendation. Staff asked councilors for guidance on a preferred rate to smooth an upcoming work session; a councilor said they were “comfortable with pushing the 53¢” level given task-force findings and the city’s structural constraints. No final vote was recorded; staff said they would return with a levy ordinance and rate guidance at a regular session on June 16 and that a scheduled work session would be canceled if council gave clear guidance beforehand.

What’s next Staff told the council they will present a formal levy ordinance and rate recommendation at the June 16 meeting and perform further outreach. DHM also provided a full written report with subgroup analyses and additional toplines for council and staff to use in communications planning.