Clackamas County officials call for polling and tighter messaging after public safety levy defeat

Clackamas County officials met on May 26, 2026, to map next steps after voters last week rejected a proposed public safety levy, hearing from Tony Marinic, a county policy advisor, and Sheriff Brandenburg before asking staff to produce polling, outreach options and service-impact analyses.

Tony Marinic summarized how the levy proposal reached voters: the county narrowed four options to one and placed it on the ballot. "At present, it is unlikely that that will succeed," Marinic said, and asked the board what additional information staff should prepare, including whether to refer a measure to the November ballot or let the levy expire and wrap up operations.

Sheriff Brandenburg told the board she favored conducting targeted polling to understand "why" voters rejected the measure and the specific messages that failed to land. "I think we should conduct polling to determine... what folks were thinking and the why behind the no," she said, adding that the county need not run an expensive study but should ask voters directly.

Commissioners framed several reasons the levy may have failed: difficult economic conditions, confusion about the ballot language and perceived unequal benefits across incorporated cities and unincorporated areas. Several commissioners said more explicit value propositions (what residents would receive for a higher rate) and coordinated outreach across cities would be necessary for a future effort.

Commissioner Sabin pressed staff for financial detail. He asked how levy proceeds were allocated (for example, an approximate $2 million-per-year cost for body-worn cameras, per the discussion) and how courthouse and civil deputy positions were budgeted after the new courthouse added roughly 13 FTEs last year. Sabin and others noted an estimated delta of about $12 million between the lower- and higher-rate levy options and asked staff to show what services the same tax rate would support and how many positions would be cut if the board pursued the existing rate.

Board members also reviewed get-out-the-vote efforts. Sheriff Brandenburg described a PAC backed primarily by command staff that paid for mailers, text messages, yard signs and phone calls; commissioners said those efforts were not uniformly coordinated across elected offices and city partners. Several members warned that at least one mayor publicly criticized the levy, and some cities have expressed such concern about costs that they are contemplating independent contracting options with law enforcement.

Next steps the board requested include: a polling plan to test messages and timing; a communications assessment and community engagement plan; a fiscal analysis showing, at the current tax rate, which deputies or services would need to be reduced (staff were asked to quantify positions and costs); and outreach to city leaders to clarify allocation and perceived cross-subsidies. The board scheduled a follow-up discussion for next Tuesday.

The session closed after roughly 30 minutes with Chair Roberts thanking participants and directing staff to return with the requested information.