Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Safety Levy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Sheriff, pollster say public‑safety levy polling shows majority support for larger package when explained
Summary
Sheriff Angela Brandenburg and pollster Maggie Simich presented an Oct.–Nov. 2025 survey of 400 likely Clackamas County voters showing baseline satisfaction with the sheriff’s office but mixed county spending sentiment; a tested levy 'up to 69¢' increase reached majority support once specific services were explained.
Sheriff Angela Brandenburg and Maggie Simich of Patinkin Research Strategies told the Clackamas County Board of Commissioners on Dec. 16 that polling shows a viable path for renewing and expanding the county’s public‑safety levy. The survey of 400 likely voters was conducted Oct. 28–Nov. 3, 2025, used telephone interviews plus text‑to‑web solicitation, and was weighted to a projected May 2026 electorate; the firm gave a margin of error of ±4.9 percentage points.
The poll found 64% net satisfaction with the quality of service provided by the sheriff’s office and 59% favorable impressions of deputies. By contrast, respondents leaned negative (36% right direction, 48% wrong track) when asked whether the county overall is heading in the right direction. Maggie Simich said concern about child abuse, school safety and drug trafficking rose notably compared with prior surveys.
Patinkin tested multiple ballot price points. Simich said a package described as an “up to 69¢” increase — which the firm presented in plain English as funding specific personnel and capital items including detectives for elder and child abuse, a drug‑enforcement team, body cameras, neighborhood patrol deputies and additional jail capacity — produced the highest support in the price‑sensitivity exercise. Simich told the board that the fuller, itemized description improved support compared with an initial ballot‑language test and increased the intensity of strong support among some voter groups.
Commissioners pressed on methodology and timing. Commissioner Paul Savas asked whether polling close to property‑tax statements might affect results; Simich said polling is a snapshot and results can change as economic conditions or campaigns evolve. Commissioners also emphasized the need to confirm that any levy ask matches the true costs of promised services before placing a measure on the ballot.
Sheriff Brandenburg said the county’s finance and sheriff’s staff are working to refine cost estimates and that a formal board discussion about a levy proposal will continue in January. “We want to make sure you are comfortable that the numbers cover the services,” she said.
Next steps: the sheriff and county staff said they will continue technical work on costs and may conduct follow‑up polling; the board did not take a formal vote on placing a levy on the ballot during the Dec. 16 session.
