Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Transportation Levy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Survey finds majority support for a proposed road levy; Bainbridge council split over scope and timing
Summary
EMC Research reported that 58% of sampled Bainbridge voters would support a transportation levy concept (rising to ~60% after cost details); council members disagreed over whether language should combine road maintenance and bike projects and moved to defer formal levy consideration pending budget review.
City staff and consultants presented a statistically valid poll of 300 Bainbridge voters showing majority support for a proposed "transportation improvements, maintenance and safe streets" levy.
Jessica Polsky Sanchez of EMC Research told the council the sample was designed to be demographically representative and has a margin of error of ±5.7 percentage points. "A majority, 58%, say they would support this measure," she said. When presented with a median‑homeowner cost example (about $15 per month), support held steady and rose slightly to about 60% (and up to 62% after additional information about uses and benefits was provided). A hypothetical opposition message reduced support to about 56% but the top line remained above a simple majority across scenarios.
Council members pressed the consultant and staff on methodology and on the levy language. Council member Nelson and others worried that broad language—"transportation system maintenance and modernization"—could be read to allow funding for bike lanes and other projects, not only urgent road maintenance. "If we say this is for road maintenance, let's put that in the levy and let's use it for that," Nelson said, citing matters of public trust.
Council members expressed differing views: some argued the levy should focus narrowly on overdue pavement maintenance, while others supported a combined approach to win broader support and include safer routes to schools. Council member Matthews said a ballot measure is the ultimate test but urged clarity for voters. Several councilors asked staff to publish poll questions and methodology online for public review.
Council member Nelson moved to defer consideration of any levy timing until after council and staff review of the upcoming budget and capital plan; the motion led to staff and mayoral follow‑up to propose timing and next steps. No binding decision to place a levy on a particular ballot was taken at the meeting.
The council did not vote on a levy; next steps include additional budget analysis, outreach and potential ballot scheduling if the council decides to proceed.
