Survey: informational summary raises support for Springfield fire levy to 56% among likely voters

Tony Ocarino, senior research manager at DHM Research, presented results of a public-opinion survey to the Springfield City Council on the prospects for a possible fire levy in November 2025. The consultant said the April hybrid-mode survey of 300 likely November 2025 voters produced a “cold” support level of 42% that rose to 56% after respondents were read a short ballot-style summary about the levy and its likely effects.

DHM told the council the study used a representative sample of likely voters, with quotas and weighting by race, age, education and homeownership, and a stated margin of error of “plus or minus 5.7.” Ocarino said respondents were split between a live-interviewer phone sample and an online text-to-survey sample. He emphasized the sample represented likely special-election voters, who tend to be older and more often homeowners than the general population.

Why it matters: the levy would fund local fire and emergency medical services and the city is weighing whether to ask voters for a higher rate to cover rising costs. Councilors asked whether the levy dollars would cover service inside the urban growth boundary but outside city limits; staff replied contract districts have separate funding and cited Rainbow Water District as an example. The council directed staff to return a final adoption-ready resolution on the levy at the June 16 regular session and cancelled an earlier scheduled work session.

Survey details and results: DHM reported that, in an initial (cold) test using only a ballot title, support was 42%. After providing additional summary language — including that the proposed rate is higher than the prior levy, that the increase would address roughly 15 years of inflation, and that the average household cost would be about $100 per year for five years — overall support rose to 56%. Ocarino told the council, “voter support increases by 14 points to 56%.” He also reported that 36% of respondents said they were “certain” supporters.

Respondents reported several top reasons to support the levy. DHM found the most persuasive messages were that levy funds would be dedicated to Springfield only, that the levy would help keep all five fire stations open and preserve equal service across neighborhoods, and that it would provide protection against wildfires. The most compelling reasons to oppose were timing amid high housing and inflation pressures and a general opposition to any property tax increase. DHM reported that after respondents heard both sets of pro and con messages, overall support held at 56% while the certainty of supporters increased.

Rate choice and council reaction: the survey tested competing rate options. When offered a choice between a 53¢ per $1,000 rate (the rate DHM tested to maintain services), a 46¢ rate with some decreased services, or no levy, roughly half chose the 53¢ option; DHM summarized that 50% selected the full proposal and about one-third opposed any increase. Staff and council discussed prior levy history (staff said earlier measures date to 2002 and later adjustments) and the mayor’s task force recommendation for a full-rate levy.

Implementation considerations: DHM advised that a comfortable margin for referring a ballot measure is often closer to 60% support and recommended accompanying referral with an outreach campaign. The consultant identified trusted messengers — the Springfield fire chief and residents who have benefited from fire and rescue services — as effective communicators. Councilors raised questions about homeowner versus renter impacts (DHM noted homeowners pay property taxes and the likely-voter sample had a higher share of homeowners than the general population), and about the campaign and outreach needed to sustain support through an election.

Next steps: Council direction at the end of the presentation was to cancel the initial follow-up work session and return a final resolution for adoption at the June 16 regular session. Staff also flagged the option to schedule further work if councilors request additional analysis or outreach planning before that date.

Ending: Councilors signaled cautious support for referring a full-rate levy and asked staff to prepare the resolution and outreach plan for the June 16 agenda. No formal ordinance or ballot referral was adopted at the meeting; the council’s direction was procedural (schedule a resolution for a future regular session).