Redmond survey: overall satisfaction edges up; affordability, growth remain top concerns

Ian Stewart, senior principal with EMC Research, presented the City of Redmond's 2025 annual community survey at the council's study session on July 8, 2025. The independent survey, conducted March 27'—28, 2025, used an address-based sampling (ABS) approach and completed 536 interviews; Stewart said, "We did a total of 536 interviews this year," and noted a margin of error of "plus or minus 4.2 percentage points." The survey tracked trends back to 2014 to provide longitudinal comparison.

The headline findings were mixed: quality-of-life measures and the overall "job rating" for city government rose (the presenter reported an 83% positive rating for quality of life and a 68% positive rating for the city's overall job). At the same time, residents continued to list affordable housing and cost of living among the top problems; open-ended answers showed growth/overdevelopment and housing costs as leading concerns. Stewart emphasized that responses near 50/50 carry greater statistical uncertainty because of the survey's margin of error.

On public safety, mentions of crime as the principal problem fell substantially from 2024; Stewart described the 2024 spike as a possible blip and said the 2025 responses show crime is a lower-level concern than housing and growth. The survey also asked how safe residents feel in the city and walking in their neighborhoods; overall "very safe" responses rose between 2024 and 2025.

The presentation included communication and engagement metrics. Use of the City of Redmond print newsletter rose sharply: Stewart reported that the City of Redmond "focus" print newsletter was up 14 points between 2024 and 2025 and that 52% of respondents now say they use it regularly or often. Other information channels with meaningful reach included word-of-mouth, utility bill inserts and the City of Redmond website.

Council members used the subsequent question-and-answer period to press staff on representativeness and outreach. Council member Salahuddin asked whether mail-based ABS limits participation by renters and younger residents; Stewart replied that ABS intentionally broadens coverage beyond voter-file samples but acknowledged trade-offs and said budget constraints affect how much the city can invest in reaching hard-to-reach groups. Stewart also said the city opened a separate digital portal for the survey and that about 100 digital responses were recorded for this cycle, lower than in some prior years.

Several council members suggested expanding outreach channels (text-message invitations, targeted digital outreach, and neighborhood-specific strategies) to better reach younger and renter populations. Staff cautioned that adding digital-only contact lists can skew samples unless carefully controlled and that any expansion would need budget and methodological safeguards.

The consultant and staff stressed the utility of the city's longitudinal tracking: many ratings returned toward pre-pandemic levels, though a persistent minority continues to give negative ratings. Stewart recommended using the survey's subgroup data (with the caution about larger margins of error for smaller groups) to inform outreach and neighborhood planning.

The council did not take action on the survey at the meeting. Council members asked staff to explore additional outreach mechanisms before next year's survey and to share the full digital-response dataset and subgroup cross-tabs for council review.