2009 town of atherton parcel tax survey - 6-23 presentation

7/29/2019 2009 Town of Atherton Parcel Tax Survey - 6-23 Presentation

1/22

Town of Atherton2009 Parcel Tax Feasibility SurveyJune 2009


2/22

Page 2

June 2009

Overview and Research Objectives

Conduct a survey of voters to understand feasibility of continuingexpiring parcel tax, including:

Optimal tax rate

Optimal measure duration

Optimal election

Assess voter priorities vis--vis funding needs;

Test influence of supporting and opposing arguments on potential

voter support.

Identify any differences in voter support due to demographic

and/or voter behavioral characteristics


3/22

Page 3

June 2009

Methodology Overview

Data Collection Telephone Interviewing

Universe Approximately 2,200 Atherton voters

who are estimated to be likely voters in

the November 2009 election, with

adjustment for off-year election for a

tax measure

Fielding Dates June 3 to 14, 2009

Interview Length 15 minutes

Sample Size 300

Margin of Error 5.3%

Note: The data have been weighted to reflect the actual population characteristics of the likely voters in the Town of Athert on in terms of their

gender, age, political party type, and the actual proportion of respondents on record as homeowners.


4/22

Page 4

June 2009

Initial Ballot Test

To continue providing funding for

Town general purposes, such as, but

not limited to,

[RANDOMIZE A THROUGH D]

A. police and public safety services

B. park facility maintenance and

improvements

C. street and sidewalk

maintenance and improvements;

and

D. storm drain construction and

maintenance

Shall an ordinance be adopted to

continue the existing Town of

Atherton Parcel Tax, plus a 10

percent increase?

Probably no

13%

Definitely no

19%

DK/NA9%

Definitely yes30%

Probably yes29%

Total Support59%


5/22

Page 5

June 2009

Initial Ballot TestDifferences in Election Timing

* These are registered voters who are likely to vote in the November 2009 election, but have been adjusted for turnout in an off-year election for a tax measure.

Likely Off-YearTax Voters*

Likely November2009 Voters

Likely Mail Ballot2010 Voters

Likely June 2010Voters

Sample size 300 201 220 254

Margin of error + 5.3% + 6.5% + 6.3% + 5.8%

Definitely Yes 30% 37% 36% 32%

Probably Yes 29% 27% 27% 29%

Probably No 13% 10% 11% 13%

Definitely No 19% 16% 16% 17%

DK/NA 9% 11% 10% 10%


6/22

Page 6

June 2009

Support for Different Rates of Tax Increases

17%25%

39%

23%

30%

26%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

15% increase 10% increase 5% increase

Probably yes

Definitely yes


7/22Page 7

June 2009

Support for Different Tax IncreasesVarious Dwelling Sizes

Less than acre(n = 13)

Definitely yes Probably yes Probably no Definitely no DK/NA

15% increase to $518 per year 17% 25% 15% 38% 5%



Between and acre(n = 42)





Between acre and 2 acres(n = 243)





* There were too few responses to report support at various tax increases for respondents with a dwelling size of 2 acres or more.


8/22Page 8

June 2009

Support for Continuation without Increase

Probably no6%

Definitely no13%

DK/NA

12%

Definitely yes48%

Probably yes21%

Total Support69%

One alternative to this measurewould be simply to continue the

existing parcel tax, which is due

to expire in June 2010, without

an increase. This will allow the

Town to continue funding some,

but not all, of the current and

planned resident services.

If the election were held today,

would you vote yes or no on

this measure?


9/22Page 9

June 2009

Support for Renewal without IncreaseDifferences in Election Timing

* These are registered voters, who are likely to vote in the November 2009 election, but have been adjusted for turnout in an off-year election for a tax measure.





Sample size 300 201 220 254Margin of error + 5.3% + 6.5% + 6.3% + 5.8%


Probably Yes 21% 18% 18% 20%

Probably No 6% 5% 5% 6%


DK/NA 12% 12% 11% 10%


10/22

Page 10

June 2009

Support for Different Durations

34% 36% 36% 36%38%

24% 19% 20%24%

26%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

Ongoing 12 years 9 years 7 years 5 years

Probably yes

Definitely yes


11/22

Page 11

June 2009

Measure Features

Note: The above rating questions have been abbreviated for charting purposes. The responses were recoded to calculate mean scores:

Much More Likely = +2, Somewhat More Likely = +1, and No Effect = 0, Somewhat Less Likely = -1, and Much Less Likely = -2.

SomewhatLess Likely

SomewhatMore Likely

MuchMoreLikely

No Effect


12/22

Page 12

June 2009

Positive Arguments I

Note: The above rating questions have been abbreviated for charting purposes. The responses were recoded to calculate mean score s: Much More

Likely = +2, Somewhat More Likely = +1, and No Effect = 0.

No Effect SomewhatMore Likely

Much MoreLikely


13/22

Page 13

June 2009

Positive Arguments II



No Effect SomewhatMore Likely

MuchMoreLikely


14/22

Page 14

June 2009

Negative Arguments



NoEffect

SomewhatMore Likely

Much MoreLikely


15/22

Page 15

June 2009

Final Ballot Test

To continue providing funding for

Town general purposes, such as, but

not limited to,

[HOLD RANDOMIZATION FROM QUESTION 1]

A. police and public safety services

B. park facility maintenance and

improvements

C. street and sidewalk

maintenance and improvements;

and

D. storm drain construction and

maintenance

Shall an ordinance be adopted to

continue the existing Town of

Atherton Parcel Tax, plus a 10

percent increase?

0% 50% 100%

Final Ballot Test

Initial Ballot Test

26%

30%

25%

29%

15%

13%

25%

19%

9%

9%

Definitely yes Probably yes Probably no

Definitely no DK/NA


16/22

Page 16

June 2009

Final Ballot TestDifferences in Election Timing





Sample size 300 201 220 254Margin of error + 5.3% + 6.5% + 6.3% + 5.8%


Probably Yes 25% 23% 24% 23%

Probably No 15% 11% 13% 14%


DK/NA 9% 12% 11% 11%



17/22

Page 17

June 2009

Voter Support Classification

The above classification is based on responses to the initial and final ballot questions: Voters classified under the Strong Support group supported themeasure in both ballot tests, while their Strong Opposition counterparts opposed the measure in both tests, or declined to state an opinion in the final test.

Those classified under Potential Support changed their minds about support between the initial and final ballot tests.


18/22

Page 18

June 2009

Voter Support ClassificationDifferences in Election Timing






Sample size 300 201 220 254

Margin of error + 5.3% + 6.5% + 6.3% + 5.8%

Strong Support 27% 35% 32% 30%

Potential Support 42% 39% 41% 40%

Strong Opposition 31% 26% 27% 29%


19/22

Page 19

June 2009

Summary and Recommendations I

Survey found continuing parcel tax with no increase to be a viable option.

69 percent total support (48% definite and 21% probable), which could

be as low as 64 percent or as high as 74 percent, with a 5-percent

margin of error.

Parcel tax continuation plus 10 percent increase did not get sufficient

support (59% and 51% in initial and final ballot tests, respectively). Lowest tested annual increase of 5 percent did not get the requisite

two-thirds support, at 65 percent (39% definite ad 26% probable),

which could be as low as 60 percent or as high as 70 percent.

Optimal duration for the parcel tax would be no more than 5 years, and

would also depend on the annual tax rate.

Total support for 5 years was at 64 percent, which could be as low as

59 percent or as high as 69 percent.

November 2009 is a viable election for a no-increase renewal.

Similar support levels to a mail ballot 2010 or June 2010 election.


20/22

Page 20

June 2009

Summary and Recommendations II

Sizeable potential support segment (42%) suggests need for votereducation about Towns funding needs.

Substantial communications are needed to educate voters about funding

needs during the pre-electoral phase AND by an independent campaign

committee after the measure has been placed on the ballot.

Funding needs of highest priority to Atherton voters:

Maintaining the Towns emergency response operations

Maintaining neighborhood police patrols

Repairing and constructing streets


21/22

Page 21

June 2009

Summary and Recommendations III

Benefits of the measure most salient to Atherton voters:

This measure is not a new tax, but simply the continuation of an

existing parcel tax to fund critical town services

Without the money from this measure, the Town's public works budget

to maintain streets, sidewalks, storm drains and park facilities will be

cut by over 30 percent

Funding from this measure is needed to improve streets, many of

which are below standard

Funding from this measure effectively enables every police car to be a

mobile emergency response center

The measure allows the Town to qualify for matching funds to install

traffic lights at Encinal and Middlefield, a joint project with the City of

Menlo Park


22/22

Town of Atherton2009 Parcel Tax Feasibility SurveyJune 2009

2009 town of atherton parcel tax survey - 6-23 presentation

Documents