Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 5.A 7/7/2014DATE: July 7, 2014 TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the 'ty cil FROM: John C. Brown, City Mana cr Agenda Item SUBJECT: Report on Outreach and Eduction and Efforts, Discussion and and Possible Council Direction Related to Placing a Tax Measure on the November 2014 Ballot RECOMMENDATION It is recommended the City Council: 1) Receive the report on the results of outreach and education activities related to the City's financial condition and a possible November 2014 ballot measure; 2) Establish, as appropriate, the Council's top fimding priorities for the use of new sales tax revenues; and 3) Direct staff to prepare the legislation and supporting documents necessary to enable the Council to place a tar measure on the November 2014 ballot, for consideration and action at the Council's July 21, 2014 meeting. In March 3013, the City Council adopted updated goals and priorities for the 2013 and 2014 calendar years. Adopted as part of the priority "Continue to Seek Opportunities to Enhance Revenue Sources", within the "Financial Stability" Goal Category, is "Consider a ballot initiative in November 2014 to ask voters to approve a sales tax to fiord city services". Discussion in this area focused on applying new revenues to enhance Public Safety, including police and fire programs and staffing, vehicle replacement, street maintenance and lighting, flood protection/storm water improvements, and expanded transit set -vices. The Council conducted a series of workshops in 2013 and early 2014 on subjects taken from the Council's goals. These included wastewater improvements, budget forecasting, reserve policies, storm water and flood protection, street maintenance and road finding, and vehicle replacement. The theme conmun to the workshops is projected needs far surpass projected resources, and that the future of Petaluma's safety relies on adding a very significant new revenue source. In August 2013, the Council considered the subject of placing a tax measure on the November ballot, and authorized staff to conduct polling to determine the community's service priorities and Agenda Review: City Attorney Finance Director City Manage _ preferences, and its willingness to increase taxes. Staff issued a request for proposals to compile and conduct the poll, selected the firm WBC from among the respondents, worked closely with its Principal, William Berry, to design the survey instrument, and raised private contributions to finance the polling. A statistically representative 450 respondents, chosen from a group of most - likely voters, was polled by phone between November 25 and 27, 2013. Polling results were shared with the Council at its January 6, 2014 meeting. The poll focused questions in three broad areas: 1) how voters feel about Petaluma, its governance, and the direction in which it is headed; 2) voter service priorities and areas of concern; and 3) how voters feel about a potential funding measure and levels of support for various rate and term alternatives. The results showed that voters feel good about Petaluma and generally so about its governance and the direction in which it is headed; voters had the strongest concerns (66.6 percent or more) about street maintenance, traffic congestion, and continuity of police services; and were willing (50 percent or more) to increase taxes to improve services. Voters showed strong support for measures with a 30 -year term (the maximum tested) and placed the highest priority on street repairs. Replacing aging equipment and vehicles had the most support of all the other projects tested, following street maintenance, repair and renovation. A copy of the January 6, 2014 presentation to the City Council is included as Attachment 1. Following the presentation, City Council authorized staff to initiate an outreach campaign, to educate the community as to the City's financial condition and needs, to further determine community service preferences, and to seek to validate the findings of the November 2013 poll. In February 2014, the Council authorized funding to pay for consulting and material costs needed to complete this phase of the project. WBC was retained and has worked closely with staff since February 2014 to conduct and support and the education and outreach campaign. DISCUSSION Outreach and Education Outreach and education relied on written material, surface mail, e-mail, social media, group meetings, a town hall meeting, a website, and newsprint. Outreach was also conducted through periodic reports provided to the City Council and aired through PCA on the Government channel. Materials were developed that provide information regarding the City's finances, resources, actions taken to maintain a balanced budget during the economic downturn, and areas of need as perceived by City staff. Areas of need included those where deep budget reductions were made, and where investment in infrastructure, equipment, and facilities has been deferred. These materials were used in presentations to community groups, provided as hand-outs at a town -hall meeting conducted in May 2014, and are posted on a micro -site on the City's website, created for the purpose of providing information to an interested public. Lists of individuals (opinion leaders) and groups were compiled, and correspondence mailed to them inviting input, questions, and extending an invitation to hear a presentation from City staff. Approximately 370 individuals, selected for their involvement in a variety of groups and organizations were contacted in that effort, as were approximately 30 civic organizations. Staff received a handful of written responses from those contacted in that manner; many from this group attended the May town hall meeting. Eight organizations requested and received presentations. One additional presentation was made at a quarterly meeting of the City's senior and mid-level management staff. Audiences ranged from 40 to 60, although a smaller group or two was addressed as well. WBC reached out to the 22 other groups on two additional occasions to solicit interest in a presentation. Outreach also included an e-mail blast, where over 5,000 individuals were asked to respond to a questionnaire located on the micro -site. Google Adwords and Facebook were also used to direct the community to the questionnaire on the micro -site. Approximately 1,400 on-line responses were received due to that outreach or because of the invitations given as part of the group presentations. The questionnaire results are informative, and generally support the results of prior and subsequent polling. It should be noted, however, that no controls were placed on respondents. Consequently, this set of responses are not demographically or geographically statistically representative of the community or Petaluma voters as a whole. A summary of these responses is included as Attachment 2. In addition, approximately 10,000 letters were sent via bulk mail to voters in the last general election, asking them to complete a short questionnaire. These responses could be returned in surface mail or via e-mail. The bulk mail house's handling of that mail, unfortunately, delayed mailing for approximately three weeks so these letters only recently arrived in Petaluma mailboxes. Accordingly, results from the mailing are still coming in, are not compiled, and are not sununarized here. The emphasis on that outreach was to solicit input regarding further reductions that might be made to address the City's budget issues, as well as priorities for program/service preservation. As such, it is less critical to know the results of that particular effort now than it may be in the future. As well, the responses to this set of questions are important as, based on both polling and surveying, there is a perception that govemment waste is still an issue in Petaluma. A copy of that questionnaire is provided for the Council's information as Attachment 3. To conclude the outreach and education effort, WBC completed a second phone poll between June 23, and June 29, 2014. The June poll was similar to but more focused than the one conducted in November 2013, and sought to determine how much voter responses may have changed due to outreach and education efforts. The June poll focused on sales tax increase options with no expiration date, added a three-quarter cent (3/4) increase option, and deleted a one-quarter cent (1/4) increase option. It also focused the questions of likely support on a measure that would restore public safety positions; repair aging roads and sidewalks; relocate, modernize and expand City fire stations; replace outdated fire engines, ambulances, and police cars; modernize and expand the Police station; complete flood protection projects; and complete the Rainier Cross Town Connector, representing the areas receiving the strongest support in prior polling and during outreach, and/or those discussed with Council during the workshop series as being the City's unmet needs. A question was also added to test voter reaction to the possibility of City and County measures, which could be used for road improvements, if both were on the ballot at the same time. This is a real possibility, as the County currently considers its unmet transportation finding needs. In the June poll, four hundred and eight (408) individuals were contacted at random, from a statistically representative groups of likely voters. The margin of error for the poll is plus or minus 4.5 percent. Results of the June poll were more favorable in many ways than in November. A slightly smaller mmiber of respondents felt the City is going in the right direction, but support for a tax measure was stronger. When combined, "definitely will" and "probably will" respondents supported a one cent increase, a three-quarter ('/a) cent increase, and a one-half ('/) cent increase by 68.4, 69.4, and 3 72.2 percent, respectively. Overall, when the question of a one cent increase was repeated at the end of the poll, 59.3 percent of respondents indicated they would support it. The one -cent and one-half ('/) cent options were tested in both November and June. Responses in June were 8.3 and 4 percent higher, respectively, than in November. Respondents' priorities for City services continued to be highest for traffic congestion relief and street maintenance, both polled more strongly in June than in November. This was followed closely by the new addition, funding Rainier improvements. Support for emergency vehicle replacement and hiring additional police officers fell in the seven months between polls. With respect to competing City and County measures, respondents favored a Petaluma measure over a County measure, and most highly favored voting for both. William Berry of WBC will be available at the July 7, 2014 meeting to discuss June polling results, findings, and recommendations. A summary of the June poll is provided as Attachment 4. Key findings and recommendations related to the poll are as follows: Key Findings and Recommendations. • The City of Petaluma is in good shape to attempt and pass a sales tax measure • The sales tax can be as high as one cent • There does not need to be a sunset date in the sales tax measure • Voters are most interested in the sales tax proceeds to go toward traffic/road improvements • Voters are also supportive of measures to increase public safety General Tax vs. Special Tax A General, rather than a Special Tax is recommended if the City Council chooses to place a measure on the November 2014 ballot. A General tax would allow the City Council broad discretion in using proceeds. A Special tax designates the use or uses to which tax proceeds are restricted. A Special tax requires a two-thirds (2/3) majority to pass, a General tax requires a simple majority. Polling suggests a General tax is more likely to pass than a Special tax, especially when the 4.5 percent margin of error is taken into account. Only one option, a one-half ('/) cent increase would pass as a Special tax based on the June polling results, when a negative margin of error is applied. To be conservative, "probably will" responses should be discounted, reflecting an assumption that some respondents who said they would probably vote yes will vote no on election day. If the percentage of "probably wills" is reduced by as little as 1.2 percent for this discount, and combined with a negative margin of error of 4.5 percent, none of the increase options tested reaches 66 2/3 percent. As noted in previous reports to Council, the votes of six members of the City Council are required to place a General tax measure on the ballot, a Special tax requires four votes. Concerns raised during the outreach effort included assurance the Council will spend tax increases on the uses voters intended, if the tax is General. This is less of an issue if the measure is for a Special tax. But, as has been discussed, the likelihood of passing a Special tax, based on polling results is questionable. To provide some assurance of the Council's intentions, without creating a Special tax, it is suggested the City Council establish priorities for how it would like to use increased tax revenues and, of course, use funding in ways consistent with those priorities if a measure should pass. Nevertheless, it must be acknowledged that future City Councils will have discretion to find services, programs and activities in other areas when the tax is General. 4 Many of the programs of work that are recommended with this funding require tens of millions of dollars over decades of time. To accelerate the benefits attendant to these programs, financing would be recommended, and tax proceeds would be used to service debt. This borrowing provides strong assurance of immediate results, and that money will be available when and in the amounts needed. It will also provide the assurance some members of the public want that money will be spent on intended uses. Long term obligations of this sort cannot be easily undone by future City Councils. As well , the City can and should establish an oversight committee to review and report annually on the uses of tax proceeds. Priorities for the Use of New Tax Revenues As noted, the Council may wish to select a set of priorities they would like to fund from a tax increase. To be effective, that number should be limited. It is suggested that the Council restrict its priorities to about a half-dozen. Polling results, combined with opinions gathered during the outreach effort, indicate the strongest community interest is in street maintenance and relief from traffic congestion. Closely related are concerns with the conditions of sidewalks. It is recommended that the Council select this category of improvements as a priority. Also related, outreach and recent polling suggests the community is willing to fund the Rainier crosstown connector/interchange project. It is recommended that the Council identify this project as a priority as well. Polling results were mixed, but the public appears to support replacing emergency vehicles, and flood protection and storm water projects. While some funding for flood protection and stormwater projects exists in the Storm Drainage Impact fees fund, the workshop conducted in 2013 indicates additional funding is required for a more robust system and for system maintenance. Council was advised of the large unmet need for vehicle replacement funding; the sinking find established for this purpose in the General Fund contains about six (6) percent of what is needed immediately, and is not projected with current revenue sources to catch up to or keep pace with future needs. Both of these uses are recommended as Council priorities. Polling suggests that the community is concerned about crime, and further degradation of police services, but is not in overwhelming support of hiring new officers. As the Council is aware, public safety positions were lost during the economic downturn. This impacts staffing schedules, employee morale, and the ability to continue to provide core services. In particular, public safety personnel are working significant amounts of overtime, sometimes mandated by department need, which is not sustainable in the long-term. Relief in the form of additional staffing can improve this situation. In addition, concern exists with the loss of specialty assignments such as School Resource officers. Existing staffing levels cannot support these specialty assignments as officers are needed for patrol and response. Accordingly, it is recommended that restoring public safety positions be a Council priority. Similarly, Fire and Police facility improvements did not poll as strongly as other choices, but significant need exists for both. Fire Station One is challenged with seismic safety issues that should be addressed prior to a major earthquake. The Carnegie Library Museum faces a similar threat. Funding of the magnitude required to address this set of needs is not forthcoming from any other funding source. 5 To recap, priorities recommended to the Council are: • Street and Sidewalk Maintenance and Repair • Rainier Crosstown Connector/Interchange project • Flood Protection and Storm Drainage • Vehicle Replacement • Restoring Public Safety positions • Public Facilities Tax Rate and Tenn Conservative estimates of additional annual tax proceeds, based on recent -years' sales tax receipts, assign the following values to each of the tax increase options that have been tested between November 2013 and June 2014: One cent ($.01) $10,000,000 annually Three quarters of a cent ($.0075) $ 7,500,000 annually One-half cent ($.005) $ 5,000,000 annually One-quarter cent ($.0025) $ 2,500,000 annually It's probable that increases will generate more than these values. FY 2014/15 sales tax revenues are estimated at $13.4 million. This estimate is larger than the value assigned to a one -cent increase. The Finance Director has cautioned using a higher estimate, however, as the State's apportionment of sales tax revenues is based on a formula that takes more into account than sales taxes alone. Capacity currently exists within the existing maximum tax rate, to increase the sales tax in Petaluma by as much as one and one-quarter cent. This was confirmed with the State Board of Equalization again, two weeks ago. At the present time, Petaluma's rate is one of the lowest in Sonoma County. Our immediately surrounding neighbors have higher rates, and only Cloverdale, Windsor, and the County of Sonoma share our rate. Following is the current status of sales tax rates in Sonoma County: Jurisdiction Rate Cloverdale 8.25% Cotati 9.25% Healdsburg 8.75% Petaluma 8.25% Rohnert Park 8.75% Santa Rosa 8.75% Sebastopol 9.00% Sonoma 8.75% Sonoma County 8.25% Windsor 8.25% Given the costs associated with the recommended priorities, a measure increasing the sales tax by one cent is recommended. As noted previously, support for this level of taxation polled well, and received only one percent less support than the three-quarter cent option. A one-half cent option polled the best, with over 72 percent support, but would not generate revenues sufficient to meet the set of needs identified in the recommended priorities. The following cost estimates are just that, estimates, and are provided for illustrative purposes only. Most of these numbers are based on information presented in the various workshops held in 2013 and 2014; some were generated subsequently. It is not suggested that in adopting any or all of the recommended priorities that the cost estimates identified are a spending guarantee or spending plan. These estimates are provided only for comparison between the revenue values shown above, and to give the Council some indication which of the tax increase options is most likely able to fund the recommended priorities. Prioritv Cost Range Street and Sidewalk Maintenance and Repair $86-210 million Rainier Crosstown Connector/Interchange project 88 million Flood Protection and Storm Drainage 39 million Vehicle Replacement 53 million Restore Public Safety positions 45-51 million ** Public Facilities 25 million TOTAL $336-466 million * $1.3 million annually for 30 years ** $1.5 - $1.7 million annually for 30 years In January we discussed thirty years as a possible time frame for a tax increase. The most recent polling eliminated an expiration date from consideration. Using 30 years as a point of reference, and amortizing the estimated costs over that period to quantify need on an annual basis, new revenue from $11.2 million to $15.5 million would be required annually in funding. The only rate option that generates that much funding is the one -cent option, and even at that rate the City will need to economize. Accordingly, an increase of one cent is recommended. Based on polling, and the expectation that the City's needs in these areas will continue to develop over more than a thirty-year period, an increase with no expiration is also recommended to Council. Sales Tax vs. Transient Occupancy Tax June polling, and responses to the on-line questionnaire, show support for increasing the Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT). This was tested as a two -percent increase, estimated to generate $350,000 annually. Comments received during outreach presentations showed interest in this fimding source, due to the perception that visitors, rather than residents, would pay it. Lodging industry representatives have previously stated much of their mid -week business is supported by local companies, and so TOT increases will be borne by a segment of the community. Conversely, the City's sales tax consultant has advised approximately ten percent of our current sales tax is paid by other than Petaluma residents, so a sales tax increase will not be home entirely by residents. Regardless, given the magnitude of the unmet need represented by the recoimnended priorities, it's clear that a TOT increase is insufficient to address that need. Further, concern exists, although it was not tested in polling, that placing two tae increase measures on the ballot at the same time will lessen the City's chance of passing either of them. Accordingly, increasing the TOT at the present time is not recommended. 7 Recommended Actions/Next Stens Four essential questions are posed and Council decisions requested on July 7, 2014: 1) Does the Council wish to place a sales tax measure on the November 2014 ballot; 2) If so, will that be a General ora Special Tax; 3) At what rate; 4) And for what term, if any? Staff respectfully requests that Council determine to place the measure on the ballot; recommendations associated with the remaining questions are provided in the preceding sections of this report. Finally, if the Council wishes to place a measure on the ballot, and having answered these questions, it is requested that Council provide direction to staff to bring back a resolution and all supporting documents necessary to place the matter before voters in November 2014. FINANCIAL IMPACT As approved during the FY 2013/14 mid -year budget adjustments, the outreach and education project cost $60,000. It should be noted that while it was discussed as desirable, the June poll was not included in the scope of work for this set of services. WBC conducted the second poll at its own expense, contributing approximately $15,000 to this effort. The Council will recall the cost of the November 2013 polling was $21,500, which was donated by local contributors. The Outreach and Education component of this effort cost $60,000 for consulting and support services. The June 2014 poll was conducted by WBC at no extra cost. Total costs to date, including November 2013 polling, are $81,500. As was discussed with the Council in August 2013, the full cost of conducting a campaign to pass a tax measure, from initial polling through an advocacy effort, will range between $100,000 and $200,000. The City may not expend monies on advocacy; that phase would need to be supported through fundraising. Election costs, however, are the City's responsibility. The County Registrar of Voters estimates the cost of adding a measure to the 2014 ballot would range between $18,400 to $46,100. This would be in addition to a cost estimate of $53,800 to $70,700 for the Mayor's race and three City Council seats. Funding for a tax measure is not budgeted for 2014/15; the elections account will need to be transferred, from General Fund reserves, to add a measure to the ballot. ATTACHMENTS I . January 6, 2014 Presentation Hand-out 2. Summuy of on-line questiomraire responses 3. June 2014 surface mail questionnaire 4. Summary of Jure 2014 Polling Results ATTACHMENT ����� �.� ��,��_, ' 3 1 x 1 r� ��, �a h' *! �,, k {./�� iu ' � � � � � i g ��► 1� x ;: - 1 i 1��99 i t N� 1 �� '� �". ! � � � ' _ qMq z �� �� <,, ��, � n Cdr e� W #�;r ^-G.tr ,�.'��l�__ �y "i ''t3" K` .i . � .y �i�^i �'n� 1 sky`s± ISI �� Y 1 9 T i�¢ 1 S �� ifX f � �"x�t� �"�`�� Ti kms.-.^�r''+ � 1� � !� Z�Ss i � � �c'�x �r T� I j/ M� � 5 „G, } T- ':x : i � i ae+Ax ":.sr � � i '� 7 � 7 � � I � � ��� �� ; ,� "`a `'r .""mss' ��` r'� � ,� F pub � � sy�� �� �� ' i .'� i "y 'n j *S"" }�� pig A t. � p7 � ' # g I W ON i )07 ol. � C� N !Ir Or 10, pp t L '�: ��''�� �. r ��p �..'�s.a I a y. -r�' k� �� � i .,,�. ,hy, I k �� 5 �� Yi � s'h• ""** v'.4.e4.e 4.:.'.�'^--"s5�i`3&''�;�� t�3^+r� 1 t i 1 I t'''L�;?-c ,�_ i � I .-P t !� � ���x.���� I 3 Y� t-�+$.�f� � ry I � moi+ � M1 eA � i e��� s `s ' y i $j I I I �� � � I "}'* �� t q.� P� I 1. A � '�®� I � �� � � � � � 1 '� s h'� ,£y. y '3 (. ��__ I I �m� #� ?^ I I � I �i� �.. j f 1 i�-"'rv^��.-mow. �'le+ ...�i I I ^G'�`2� � �x z'k5 q � k c S yK > J X' � �" 2 i 4 C �'3 �-'� �- ''' k �-�- +, S` I �: I � �� I *�" s �'" � � - i � � � f �� , '� k k� i`ry ;t i � � x I I { a3x _ I �� � � � '� �., � :i+ -�. tea- �, ��' � -y, `� �,� ra �.-�. 4 :�, I � r �` '� I „„ter'-• y. ,^ �, I { t 3� F: ........u. .. v v cv o- ..ai ... �.. .. .. y- I 0 0 0 0 0 0 NZ '- z 1• M z e c. ZT • rani( En •S. cli ZQ� N rialli •• ;4 w a CI) g 0 E-1 w x w lix , w o 4 c„E-4 4-4 v *1 E. w -+—) c ) 0 z ;-...4 .. o .. 4 •z cn CD a _ <144E-iwc) 0 w x c, w x ra.4 le__, z � � w w a Ci) - x g w w O c, a a z z a 4� w w ° 4-.) z 4t 4t © E' a w w w w w C. Z U U i W a w a a w w w Z A g w g g M N M 40 x ,-1 irn N 04 s LnIft N rt M z) M z, • � z I N `:a, 4 II _ .• z a� •. W CD -- U P..1 Z F 1 c..E...� rr•^^• w .. x fi C4 : P4 •• 4 g 1"1 . tij W x z 0 W p 0W g U ci, � a W• 1I Cie) ° p4 El H PIM '''' .' ''' .'' ' IMMI g 41 ! *4 M CA " Ct ` ci) z A g ° 4to 0 N p o o E-( w E, H p g w ° p w a z w 2 w x ° p x ° �-+ v w w w w w 4 Z p x o w o A A A . g A o C.) w w w v w a g v 2 s. Key Findings and Recommendations w 00 •OUTSIDE OF TRAFFIC & ROAD CONDITIONS, VOTERS ARE SATISFIED WITH CITY SERVICES & LEADERSHIP. •PETALUMA HAS THE NECESSARY SUPPORT TO PLACE A FUNDING MEASURE ON THE BALLOT. •THE FUNDING MECHANISM SHOULD BE GENERAL, RATHER THAN SPECIFIC, IN NATURE. •ANY TAX MEASURE SHOULD ADDRESS CONCERNS ABOUT TRAFFIC & STREET MAINTENANCE. ATTACHMENT TO: John Brown FROM: Bill Berry RE: Input and Ideas DATE: 6/27/2014 On top of the scientific opinion survey the City of Petaluma conducted last November, it was decided that we wanted to give all of those who live in Petaluma a chance to provide their opinions about what kind of Petaluma they want today and in the future. A micro -site was published within the City of Petaluma's website. Part of that blog contains a questionnaire, the results of which are attached. Mass emails, Google Adwords and Facebook advertising were all vehicles that we used to encourage Petalumans to take the survey and give us their thoughts and opinions. To date, 1,400 people have completed the survey — a terrific number of responses. As in the November 2013 opinion survey, street and sidewalk repair AND traffic congestion were far and away the most pressing problems that Petaluma faces in the eyes of respondents. Combined, in both surveys, 48% of voters named them as the most serious issue facing Petaluma. Again, both surveys show that Petalumans are not reflexively tax -averse. Both surveys showed 17% of respondents felt that the current level of taxes paid for City services are too high. In neither survey did a lack of after-school programs for youth show any level of dissatisfaction of note. IT IS CRITICAL TO NOTE THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE TWO SURVEYS THE CITY OF PETALUMA HAS CONDUCTED TO DATE. The scientifically conducted survey from November 2013 consisted of a randomized sample of likely voters that represent a demographic and geographic match of the City of Petaluma. The margin of error within the survey is +/- 4.5%. It was conducted via telephone. The second survey was administered on-line in the months of May and June 2014. Respondents were by no means a random sample of voters within the City of Petaluma. Ostensibly, anyone could take the questionnaire. Because this survey was not meant to be scientific, no margin of error of the survey can be given. It is not meant to be a reflection of the citizens as a whole. Rather, its value is as anecdotal evidence. Surely, the large number of respondents and the similarity of their answers go some ways to showing a broad cross-section of Petaluma residents completed the survey. Answers and notes of interest: Y IS THE CITY OF PETALUMA GOING IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION OR WRONG DIRECTION? June 2014 Survey November 2013 Survey 52% Right Direction 55% Right Direction HOW WOULD YOU RATE PETALUMA AS A PLACE TO LIVE? June 2014 Survey 41% Excellent November 2013 Survey 53% Excellent SERIOUSNESS OF PETALUMA'S PROBLEMS? STREET REPAIR June 2014 Survey 44% Very Serious November 2013 Survey 62% Very Serious TRAFFIC CONGESTION June 2014 Survey 46% Very Serious November 2013 Survey 52% Very Serious AMOUNT OF TAXES AND FEES PEOPLE HAVE TO PAY FOR CITY SERVICES June 2014 Survey 17% Very Serious November 2013 Survey 16% Very Serious WASTE AND INEFFICIENCY IN CITY GOVERNMENT June 2014 Survey 18% Very Serious November 2013 Survey 24% Very Serious SUPPORT ONE -CENT SALES TAX INCREASE TO RAISE NEW FUNDS FOR THE CITY OF PETALUMA June 2014 Survey 41% Support November 2013 Survey 51% Support SUPPORT A HALF -CENT SALES TAX INCREASE TO RAISE NEW FUNDS FOR THE CITY OF PETALUMA June 2014 Survey 51% Support November 2013 Survey 57% Support SUPPORT AN INCREASE OF REAL ESTATE TRANSFER TAX TO RAISE NEW FUNDS FOR THE CITY OF PETALUMA June 2014 Survey 31% Support November 2013 Survey 32% Support SUPPORT AN INCREASE OF TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX TO RAISE NEW FUNDS FOR THE CITY OF PETALUMA June 2014 Survey 34% Support November 2013 Survey 36% Support J,� City of Petaluma Survey LY All Pages__ LL._. Thinking about the City of Petaluma in general, would you say things are going in the right direction or would you say they are off on the wrong track? Answered 1,342 Skipped: 58 Right direction Wrong tack (DON'T READ( Mixed (DON'T READ) ' DKINA Answer Choices 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% Ree a 70% K% 90% 100% Right direction 52.38% 703 Wrong track 28.89% 377 (DON'T READ) Mixed 15.65% 210 (DON'T READ) DIVNA 3.87% 52 Tnts' 1 342 1400 responses 59 days (April 29, 2014 - now) 7 views Q2 What do you think we should do to address it?" Answered: 694 Skipped: 706 5Y Q3 Q4 Stop all growth in urban areas i.e. Davidon Windsor Dr. 6124x2014 1.50 PM We need better roads and bike lanes 6232014 790 PM The city needs to get back to core services only 6202014 10:20 AM Work on traffic flow especially in the new shopping areas and timing of street lights (especially Lakeville & D St.. 6116,2014 10.40 PM keep making decisions that insist on quality high standards for development 61168014 10:13 AM 50150 depending on specific Issues 6/152014 8:24 PM It seems 80% of the budget is for police and fire, we need to change that percentage. Generally speaking, how would you rate the City of Petaluma as a place to live? Would you say it is an excellent place to live, a pretty good place, just fair, or a poor place to live? Answered: 1,331 Skipped: 69 Excellent Pretty good . Just fair Poor I (DON'T KNOW/NA) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Answer Choices Responses Excellent 40.87% 544 Pretty good 50.79% 5776 Just fair 7.14% % Poor 0.90% 12 (DON'T KNOWINA) 0.30% 4 Tctai i 337 Next, what do you think is the most serious issue facing the residents of the City of Petaluma that you would like to see City government do something about? n h,1 Q5 Answered: 1,292 Skipped: 108 Affordable housing Nothing/no ' serious issues Too much growth and... Traffic congestion ss Business Busine 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% tlevel , Jobstunemployme nt 8.36% Waste and . inefficiency... 21 Neighborhood 10.76% quality of life Traffic congestion Police services , City 5.42% budgebloss ... Jobslunemployment Youth services Keeping businesses Streetlsidewalk repair 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Answer Choices Responses Affordable housing 8.36% 108 Nothinglno serious issues 1.63% 21 Too much growth and develop"I'lot 10.76% 139 Traffic congestion 26.93% 348 Business developmintI.c.n.my 5.42% 70 Jobslunemployment 1.47% 19 Waste and inefficiency in City government 6.04% 78 Neighborhood quality of life 2.71% 35 Police services 4.33% 56 City budgeVloss of fundslneed more funds 4.64% 60 Youth services 1.93% 25 Keeping businesses in town 4.95% 64 Streetlsidewalk repair 20.82% 259 Total 1.292 Comments (183) Following are issues some people say might be problems for residents of the City H. of Petaluma. After each one, please mark whether you consider it to be a very serious problem, a somewhat serious problem, or not too serious a problem or not a problem at all for Petaluma residents. Answered: 1,306 Skipped: 94 Crime In Very general 'I.. Not City streets Don't In need of... Average Continuing € Serious police. Too The Know / availability�,_■ Raling Waste and Inefficiency... Sodom The time it Not takes for... The availability... Traffic '.. Applicable congestion �® The amount of 8.38% take. and fe... '.. 48.26% 0 05 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 35 4 4.5 5 Very Somewhat 'I.. Not Not a Don't Total Average Serious Serious Too problem Know / Raling Sodom Not '.. Applicable Crime In 8.38% 30.18% '.. 48.26% 10.32% 1.86% general 108 389 635 133 24 1,289 2.67 City streets 46.38% 35.82% 16.72% 1.85% 0.23% In need of 589 465 217 24 3 1 298 1.76 repair Continuing 24.36% 36.78% 24.08% 5.71% 9.10% police anti- 315 477 312 74 118 1297 2.38 gang and anti-drug operations The 7.51% 21.22% 32.77% 15.34% 23.16% availability 97 274 423 198 299 1.291 3.25 of senior services Waste and 18.86% 25.87% 27.02% 8.76% 19.48% Inefficiency 245 336 351 114 253 1,299 2.84 in City government The time It 9.08% 14.21% 27.64% 24.38% 24.69% takes for 117 183 356 314 318 11.288 341 police and firefighters to respond to service calla The 16.94% 34.65% 28.31% 7.81% 12.30% availability 219 446 366 101 159 1,293 264 of stable, good paying fobs In the local area Traffic 46.46% 35.51% 15.15% 2.49% 0.39% congestion 598 457 195 32 5 1,287 175 The amount 17.87% 29.89% 33.51% 15.18% 3.54% of takes 232 388 435 197 46 1.298 257 and fees people have a6 07 to pay for city services In what areas do you think the City Council should invest less funding? Answered: 749 Skipped: 651 Fire k 6232014 7',33 PM F None 612MOl4 5'.15 PM Everything but core services 6202014 10:24 AM Fire fighting services. 6/172014 7'.10 PM This is an impossible question. Sorry, 1 do not have any good suggestions for this one. 6/162014 10:43 PM Police and fire 6/162014 10'.15 AM The Fire Dept. 6/152014 6'.26 PM Following are some specific services provided by Petaluma's city government to the City's residents. For each one, please state if you are satisfied with that service. Use a scale from one to seven, where one means you are NOT AT ALL SATISFIED and seven means you are VERY SATISFIED. Remember, you can choose any number from one to seven to express your opinion. Answered: 1,234 Skipped: 166 Senior citizen services Traffic management t... Y Firefighter and and ambulanc... Street mature and maintenance Maintenance of public perks Police protection i... Availability of after-ach... 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 c, 9 10 QB recreational programs for kids Following are several methods that might be used to raise money to maintain and improve city services in Petaluma, including roads and public safety protection. For each one, tell us if you would support or oppose using that particular way of raising new revenue for city services. Answered: 1,229 Skipped: 171 Increase the city sales t.. Increase real estate trans... Increase the city sales t_ Increase the city Transk, 1- Not 2 3 4 5 8 7- Very Don't Total Average Total Average Satisfied Know Rating Se0afied Know 43.15% Rating 1.49% at All sales tax by one- 491 520 176 18 1205 1 77 cent, which Senior citizen 1.15% 1.15% 3.63% 11.16% 10.01% 8.45% 8.09% 57.67% million per year services 14 14 43 136 122 103 84 703 1.219 6.69 Traffic 29.92% 20.08% 20.16% 14.31% 8.62% 3.58% 1.14% 2.20% t management 368 247 248 176 106 44 14 27 1.230 2.78 to reduce congestion Firefighter and 1.06% 2.21% 3.92% 9.73% 11.28% 17.42% 17.91% 36.47% ambulance 13 27 48 119 138 213 219 446 1,223 634 response times Street repair 38.58% 22.18% 16.57% 12.35% 6.74% 3.01% 1.30% 1.30% and 450 273 204 152 83 37 16 16 1 231 2.51 maintenance Maintenance of 8.09% 12.10% 16.11% 20.85% 17.17% 14.72% 6.13% 4.82% public parks 99 148 197 255 210 180 75 59 1.223 420 Police 4.81% 6.12% 9.38% 161 18.84% 22.27% 11.34% 10.44% protection In 59 75 115 206 231 273 139 128 1,228 5.03 local neighborhoods Availability of 3.19% 5.31% 8.17% 11.11% 9.48% 8.42% 6.13% 48.20°6 after-school 39 65 100 136 116 103 75 590 1.224 6.09 recreational programs for kids Following are several methods that might be used to raise money to maintain and improve city services in Petaluma, including roads and public safety protection. For each one, tell us if you would support or oppose using that particular way of raising new revenue for city services. Answered: 1,229 Skipped: 171 Increase the city sales t.. Increase real estate trans... Increase the city sales t_ Increase the city Transk, 0 0.5 1 15 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 45 5 Support Oppose Undecided Don't Total Average Know Rating Increase the city 40.75% 43.15% 1481% 1.49% sales tax by one- 491 520 176 18 1205 1 77 cent, which would raise $10 million per year Increase real 31.76% 47.55% 17.96% 2.74% estate transfer 352 572 216 33 1203 1.92 tax to be paid t every time a I Q9 home is sold, at $3 per 51,000 of the sale price— which would mise $1 million ',.. per year, Increase the city 5089% ! 3409% 1257% sales tax by % E03 404 149 cont, which '.. would miso $5 million per year Increase the city 3445% 30.94% Transient 413 371 Occupancy Tax which would mise $350,000 per year '.. 245% 29 1,165 1.67 18.85% 15.76% 226 '., 169 1,199 216 Should the City of Petaluma use funds for the following projects? Answered: 1,209 Skipped: 191 Dredge the marina, Turn... Repave and repair more... Relocate Petaluma Fir... Expand routes and weekend... Complete flood protection... Modernize the aging Petalu... Replace aging fire tracks,... Restore frozen positions in... Replace aging police cars ... Increase police petro— Increase availability... Complete the Rainier... 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 509A 60% 70% 60% 90% 100% VES M NO Q10 YES NO Total Dredge the marina, 51.66% 48.34% Turning Basin and 575 538 1,113 Petaluma River Repave and repair 62.75% 7.25% more streets in 1,101 86 1,187 Petaluma Relocate Petaluma Fire 15.86% 84.34% Station #1 164 863 1,047 Expand routes and 39.62% 60,18% weekend hours for 434 656 1 099 Petaluma Transit Complete good 66.35% 43.65% protection programs 617 478 1 095 Modemize the aging 49.42% SM11% Petaluma Police 552 565 1.117 Station and Emergency Operations Center Replace aging fire 63.69% 36.31% hocks, ambulances 714 407 1,121 and emergency response equipment Restore frozen 55.64% 44.36% '.. positions in the 617 492 1,109 Petaluma fire department and police departments Replace aging police 46.84% 53.16% cars and equipment 519 589 1,108 Increase police patrols 55.02% 44.98% In Petaluma 603 493 1,096 Increase availability of 60.33% 39.67% parks for youth sparte 6% 438 1.104 Complete the Rainier 76.42% 23.58% Crosstown 875 270 1,145 Connectorllntereection Project Which of the following two potential service enhancements do you think should be the highest priority for increased funding in Petaluma? Answered: 1,033 Skipped: 367 Improve pollee sernces by... Improve 911 emergency... 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Answer Choices Responses Improve police services by hiring 4 more officers 66.73% 566 Improve 911 emergency medical services by building relocating and expanding fire 43.27% station? 447 Total 1,033 �i4 Q11 Following are some specific services that could be funded by a Petaluma sales tax ballot measure. Please mark if it is Extremely Important, Very Important, Somewhat Important or Not Important to you if the service were funded. Answered: 1,176 Skipped: 224 Increase the number of... Maintain animal contr... Improve 911 response fin... Increasing smears for... 0 0.5 1 1 5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 Extremely Very Somewhat Not Total Avefvo Important Important Important Important Nefirg Increase the 19.73% 26.13% 37.05% 15.09% number of 230 328 432 176 1,165 2.48 police patrol units available to follow up on property crimes Maintain 6.84% 18.56% 47.78% 28.84% animal control 80 217 559 314 1,170 2.95 and code enforcement services Improve 911 28.61% 37.63% 24.40% 9.36% Z333 438 284 109 1,164 2,15 Imes for Police officers, Bre fighters and ambulances Increasing 30.74% 27.84% 27.84% 13.68% arrests for 360 326 326 159 1.171224 e infl antler the influence of alcohol and drugs I F Powered by -,"),, SurveyMonkey Check out out our sample surveys and create your own nowt A C I T Y O F P E T A L U M 2014 PRIORITIES SURVEY ATTACHMENT A 1. What do you feel is the most important issue facing Petaluma today and what do you think we can do about it? 2. Do you think that the City of Petaluma is on the right track? ❑ YES ❑ NO 3. If our city government could change one thing to make Petaluma a better place to live now and in die future, what would that be? 4. NWhich programs do you feel should be the LAST to receive budget cuts? ❑ Police and Fire services ❑ Road Maintenance ❑ Parks and recreation ❑ Youth Programs ❑ Senior Citizens Programs ❑ Other 5. Are there specific areas in Petaluma City government where you feel tax dollars could be saved or used more efficiently? 6. What is your biggest concern for the future of Petaluma? Please share any additional thoughts you may have. Questionnaires can be mailed back to: City of Petaluma City Hall City Managers Office I I English Street Petaluma, CA 94952 Or, Email your thoughts and ideas to: petalumabudget@gmail.com Give us more input on your priorities for Petaluma: www.cit ,ofpecaluma.net/petalumavision20l4 �j j ATTACHMENT 4 TO: John Brown FROM: Bill Berry RE: Opinion Survey Results DATE: 7/1/2014 From June 23th through June 291h, we conducted an opinion survey on behalf of the City of Petaluma. 'The goal of the survey was to once again gauge the level of support for a potential sales tax measure and test the specifics that would be included in such a measure. Overall, the results were even more positive than the previous survey, which was conducted in November 2013. The increase in support was due, at least in part, to the extensive education and outreach effort by the City regarding the potential tax measure. Traffic and sidewalk/street repair continued to be the top two most serious issues facing Petaluma, according to voters. In a test of potential language for a one -cent sales tax measure with no sunset date, 68% of respondents were supportive. Unlike the previous survey, the Rainier Cross Town Connector was included in the potential ballot language. The answers to the right reflect the responses to the November 2013 survey: If the election were held today on this measure, do you think you would vote yes in favor or no to oppose it? Definitely yes June 2014 November 2013 46.2% 35.8% 41z Probably yes 22.2% 24.4% Probably no 12.1% 7.6% Definitely no 11.0% 22.9% Need more information 8.3% 4.4% We then asked voters if they would support the same sales tax measure, reducing the sales tax to 3/4 cent instead of a penny. As you will see, support increased went only slightly: Shall the Petaluma City voters enact a 3/4 sales tax with local control, independent financial audits and public review of expenditures? If the election were held today on this measure, do you think you would vote yes in favor or no to oppose it? Definitely yes 51.2% Probably yes 18.2% Probably no 12.2% Definitely no 12.0% Need more information 6.4% We then tested support level for a 1/z cent sales tax increase. Again, a slight rise in support was found: Shall the Petaluma City voters enact a 1/2 sales tax with local control, independent financial audits and public review of expenditures? If the election were held today on this measure, do you think you would vote yes in favor or no to oppose it? Definitely yes 53.1% Probably yes 19,1% Probably no 12.1% Definitely no 11.0% Need more information 4.7% Voters were also asked to rate on a scale of 1-7 their willingness to pay for potential items in a sales tax measure. Like the previous survey, street/sidewalk repair was near the top of items voters would be willing to support. This time, however, the top item most supported by voters was the construction of the Rainier Crosstown Connector, with a 5.19 median rating. With the potential of Sonoma County placing a tax measure on the ballot simultaneously with the City of Petaluma, we tested which one the voters would support: City of Petaluma Tax Measure 21% Sonoma County Tax Measure 8.8% Both Tax Measures 25.2% Neither Tax Measure 22% Undecided 23.1% The results of this survey correlate with the previous survey as well as the over 1,400 other, on-line surveys we have conducted. Therefore, recommendations are as RUN The City of Petaluma is in good shape to attempt and pass a sales tax measure The sales tax can be as high as one cent • There does not need to be a sunset date in the sales tax measure • Voters are most interested in the sales tax proceeds to go toward traffic/road improvements Voters are also supportive of measures to increase public safety Opinion surveys do not predict election outcomes; they are a snap shot of how voters feel on a certain day. In order to ensure a positive result of a potential tax measure, the information that was provided to voters during the outreach phase will need to continue to be communicated with a concise, consistent message through Election Day in November. City of Petaluma Public Opinion Survey Conducted by William Berry Campaigns 6/23/2014 - 6/29/2014 N=408 We are not telemarketers trying to sell anything, or ask for a donation of any type. We're conducting a public opinion survey about issues that concern people in Petaluma. This call may be monitored or recorded for quality assurance. Q1. First, how interested are you in voting in the November 2014 gubernatorial elections? Are you extremely interested, very interested, somewhat interested, not too interested, or not at all interested in the November 2014 gubernatorial election? Extremely interested 62.6% 41.6% Very interested 24.2% 31.1% Somewhat interested 7% 18.4% Not too interested 1.1 % 4.0% Not at all interested 4.4% 1.8% 02. Next, thinking about the City of Petaluma in general, would you say things are going in the right direction or would you say they are off on the wrong track? Right direction 53.9% 55.6% Wrong track 23.1% 23.8% Mixed 20.0% 14.7% DK 3.0% 6.0% Q3. Next, what do you think is the most serious issue facing the residents of the City of Petaluma that you would like to see City government do something about? 11/13 Affordable housing 3.0% 1.8% Too much growth and development 12.7% 8.2% Traffic congestion 29.6% 23.8% Business development/economy 7.2% 4.2% Jobs/unemployment 4.5% 0.7% Waste and inefficiency in City government 7.9% 1.8% Police services 4.2% 2.0% Street/sidewalk repair 26.5% 24% No Answers 4.4% 04 Now let me ask you about a measure that may appear on the ballot in the upcoming Petaluma city election this November. This measure might read as follows: SPLIT SAMPLE ONE BETTER ROADS AND A SAFER PETALUMA MEASURE To: Restore public safety positions; Repair aging roads and sidewalks; Relocate, modernize and expand City fire stations; Replace outdated fire engines, ambulances, and police cars; Modernize and expand the Police station; Complete flood protection projects; complete the Rainier Cross Town Connector, Shall the Petaluma City voters enact a one -cent sales tax with local control, independent financial audits and public review of expenditures? If the election were held today on this measure, do you think you would vote yes in favor or no to oppose it? Definitely yes 46.2% 35.8% Probably yes 22.2% 24.4% Probably no 12.1% 7.6% Definitely no 11.0% 22.9% Need more information 8.3% 4.4% SPLIT SAMPLE TWO To: Restore public safety positions; Repair aging roads and sidewalks; Relocate, modernize and expand City fire stations; Replace outdated fire engines, ambulances, and police cars; Modernize and expand the Police station; Complete flood protection and storm water projects; complete the Rainier Cross Town Connector, Shall the Petaluma City voters enact a 3/4 sales tax with local control, independent financial audits and public review of expenditures? If the election were held today on this measure, do you think you would vote yes in favor or no to oppose it? Definitely yes 51.2% Probably yes 18.2% Probably no 12.2% Definitely no 12.0% Need more information 6.4% SPLIT SAMPLE THREE To: Restore public safety positions; Repair aging roads and sidewalks; Relocate, modernize and expand City fire stations; Replace outdated fire engines, ambulances, and police cars; Modernize and expand the Police station; Complete flood protection and storm water projects; complete the Rainier Cross Town Connector, Shall the Petaluma City voters enact a 1/2 sales tax with local control, independent financial audits and public review of expenditures? If the election were held today on this measure, do you think you would vote yes in favor or no to oppose it? Definitely yes 53.1% Probably yes 19.1% Probably no 12.1% Definitely no 11.0% Need more information 4.7% 0 Q5. I am going to mention a list of ways money from the BETTER ROADS AND SAFER PETALUMA ballot measure could be used. Regardless of your opinion of the measure, after 1 mention each one, please tell me how willing you would be personally to pay for that proposed item through enacting a sales tax in Petaluma. We will use a scale of one to seven, where one means NOT AT ALL WILLING to vote to pay for the use and seven means you are VERY WILLING to vote to pay for the use. If you have no opinion or don't know enough about that item I mention, you can tell me that too. Here is the first one... Repave and repair more 5.09 average streets and sidewalks in Petaluma Modernize the Petaluma 3.54 average Police Station and Emergency Operations Center Replace aging police cars and 3.68 average Fire trucks Construct the Rainier Cross 5.16 average Town Connector Complete Flood Protection 4.56 average Projects Add more police officers to 2.94 average the Petaluma Force Add more fire fighters in Petaluma 4.24 average Q7. Sonoma County likely will have a sales tax measure also on this November's ballot. It likely will be 1/4 cent, a portion of which could be used to widen Highway 101 through Petaluma. If both the City of Petaluma and the County of Sonoma had sales tax measures to fund road work on the ballot, which you support? City of Petaluma Tax Measure 21% Sonoma County Tax Measure 8.8% Both Tax Measures 25.2% Neither Tax Measure 22% Undecided 23.1% 0 Q8. Let me ask you again about the BETTER ROADS SAFER PETALUMA measure, which will enact a one -cent sales tax with local control, required independent financial audits and public review of expenditures. If the election were held today, would you vote yes in favor or no to oppose it? Yes in Favor 59.3% No to Oppose 29.7% Undecided 11.0% 09 Thank you for your participation