city of san rafael...2017/04/19 · rafael, with subsamples of likely november 2018 voters (18,466...
TRANSCRIPT
-
City of San Rafael
2017 City Satisfaction Survey
April 2017
-
Page 2
April 2017
Overview and Research Objectives
The City of San Rafael commissioned Godbe Research to conduct a telephone and
internet survey of voters with the following research objectives:
➢ Assess overall perceptions of living in San Rafael;
➢ Gauge satisfaction with the City’s performance in providing resident services and
programs;
➢ Assess awareness of the City’s financial situation;
➢ Determine the most pressing problems facing the City;
➢ Test whether residents perceive the City to be responsible with taxpayer dollars;
➢ Assess adoption of green/sustainable practices in households;
➢ Gauge support for a revenue measure that would preserve essential city services
with funding that cannot be taken by the State;
➢ Determine the type of tax, impact of features, and duration of the proposed measures
on voter support;
➢ Assess support for allowing cannabis businesses to operate in San Rafael and
taxation of gross receipts of sales;
➢ Gauge satisfaction with local information sources; and
➢ Identify differences in opinions due to demographic and/or behavioral characteristics
that show statistically significant levels.
-
Page 3
April 2017
Methodology Overview
➢ Data Collection Internet and telephone Interviewing
➢ Universe 46,787 adult residents (ages 18 and older) in the City of San
Rafael, with subsamples of likely November 2018 voters
(18,466 voters), likely June 2018 voters (13,597), and likely
November 2017 voters (12,474).
➢ Fielding Dates February 7 through February 19, 2017
➢ Interview Length 25 minutes
➢ Sample Size 858 adult residents/all voters
750 likely November 2018 voters
633 likely June 2018 voters
537 likely November 2017 voters
➢ Margin of Error + 3.31% adult residents /all voters
+ 3.51% likely November 2018 voters
+ 3.80% likely June 2018 voters
+ 4.14% likely November 2017 voters
-
Executive Summary
-
Page 5
April 2017
Executive Summary
➢ Overall, residents continue to have a positive opinion of the quality of life in the City of
San Rafael.
▪ Eighty-seven percent of respondents indicated that they are “very satisfied”
(46.4%) or “somewhat satisfied” (40.6%) with the quality of life in San Rafael.
➢ Opinion of the City’s financial situation is slightly better at 38.6 percent, although not
statistically different. In 2015, 37.8 percent of residents felt the City financial situation
was excellent or good, compared to 38 percent in 2013.
➢ In an open-end format, residents’ concerns clearly reflect current events. In the
current survey:
▪ Homelessness was citied by 26.2%
▪ Cost of living or affordability of housing was an important concern among 25.2%
▪ Traffic congestion was a top concern among 17.7%
-
Page 6
April 2017
Executive Summary
➢ Overall, 76.1 percent of respondents were satisfied with the job the City is doing to
provide services (31.8% “very satisfied” and 44.3% “somewhat satisfied”).
➢ Respondents reported satisfaction with a wide range of city services.
▪ The survey assessed 29 specific city services. For 18 services, respondents as a
whole were between “somewhat” and “very satisfied.” Further, 29 of 29 services
received positive rankings.
➢ Thirty percent respondents indicated they were satisfied with the job the City is doing
to spend taxpayer money, while 19.6 percent were dissatisfied. Thirty-two percent
had mixed opinions and 11.4 percent did not have an opinion.
➢ With respect to sustainable behavior, majorities of respondents use reusable bags at
grocery and other stores, compost kitchen food scraps, and reduced water
consumption more than “most of the time”. But, only 30.8 percent use alternative
modes of transportation.
▪ The top reason for not engaging in sustainable practices continues to be
“inconvenient” at 37.2 percent.
-
Page 7
April 2017
Executive Summary
➢ Before information was provided, 55.1 percent of likely November 2017 voters
supported a measure to increase the local sales tax by ¼ percent.
➢ Contrastingly, 39.5 percent of likely November 2017 voters supported a measure to
increase the local utility users tax by 5 percent.
➢ The top arguments for the measure among the likely November 2017 voters included:
• Every penny from this measure must stay in San Rafael. No funds can be
taken away by the state
• Maintaining adequate numbers of on-duty firefighters and paramedics and
police
• Maintaining rapid emergency police and fire response times
• The measure will continue the appointed Citizen Oversight Committee to
assure the money raised is used for its intended purposes
• Repairing city streets and sidewalks
➢ After information was provided 54.4 percent of likely November 2017 voters support
the measure to increase the local sales tax by ¼ percent.
➢ Alternatively, 41.2 percent of likely November 2017 voters supported a measure to
increase the local utility users tax by 5 percent.
➢ Sixty-six percent of respondents support allowing medical cannabis businesses in San
Rafael and 55.4 percent support allowing recreational cannabis businesses in the City.
-
Overall Satisfaction
-
Page 9
April 2017
Q1. Satisfaction with Quality of Lifen=858
Somewhat Dissatisfied
9.2%
Very Dissatisfied2.7%
DK/NA1.1%
Very Satisfied
46.4%
Somewhat Satisfied
40.6%
Total Satisfaction87.0%
-
Page 10
April 2017
Q1. Satisfaction with Quality of LifeTrended Results n=858
2017 2015* 2013 2011 2009
Very satisfied 46.4% 52.3% 70.7% 63% 59%
Somewhat satisfied 40.6% 41.5% 23.3% 29% 32%
Total Satisfied 87.0% 93.8% 94.0% 92% 91%
Somewhat dissatisfied 9.2% 4.9% 3.5% 5% 6%
Very dissatisfied 2.7% 1.2% 2.2% 3% 4%
Not sure 1.1% .2% .2%
-
Page 11
April 2017
Q1. Satisfaction with Quality of LifeGender and Age Comparisons
n=858
Respondent's Gender Age
Total Male Female Other 18-29 30-39 40-49 50-64 65+Not
coded
Total 858 416 434 8 137 138 174 210 199 0
Very satisfied398 209 185 4 38 62 78 119 101 0
46.4% 50.2% 42.6% 52.5% 27.6% 45.2% 44.5% 56.6% 50.9% .0%
Somewhat satisfied348 162 184 2 74 63 63 69 80 0
40.6% 39.0% 42.5% 24.7% 53.7% 46.0% 36.3% 32.6% 40.0% 100.0%
Somewhat dissatisfied79 32 45 1 10 11 32 12 13 0
9.2% 7.8% 10.4% 17.0% 7.5% 8.1% 18.7% 5.9% 6.4% .0%
Very dissatisfied24 5 19 0 15 0 1 3 4 0
2.7% 1.1% 4.3% 5.8% 11.2% .0% .3% 1.6% 2.1% .0%
DK/NA9 8 1 0 0 1 0 7 1 0
1.1% 1.9% .2% .0% .0% .6% .1% 3.3% .5% .0%
-
Page 12
April 2017
Q1. Satisfaction with Quality of LifeEthnicity Comparisons
n=858
Ethnic Group
Total
African-
American
or Black
American
Indian or
Alaska
Native
AsianCaucasian
or White
Hispanic
or Latino
Two or
more
races
Some
other
race
DK/NA
Total 858 22 6 50 514 211 33 10 12
Very satisfied398 2 2 15 261 94 15 2 6
46.4% 7.8% 38.1% 30.7% 50.8% 44.7% 46.4% 16.8% 48.6%
Somewhat satisfied348 20 4 35 172 96 15 4 4
40.6% 91.2% 61.5% 68.5% 33.4% 45.3% 47.1% 37.3% 34.9%
Somewhat dissatisfied79 0 0 0 51 20 2 4 2
9.2% 1.0% .0% .8% 9.8% 9.5% 5.1% 45.9% 14.7%
Very dissatisfied24 0 0 0 22 1 0 0 0
2.7% .0% .4% .0% 4.2% .5% 1.4% .0% 1.9%
DK/NA9 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0
1.1% .0% .0% .0% 1.8% .0% .0% .0% .0%
-
Page 13
April 2017
Q2. Satisfaction with Overall City Servicesn=858
Somewhat Dissatisfied
12.3%
Very Dissatisfied3.9%
DK/NA7.8%
Very Satisfied
31.8%
Somewhat Satisfied
44.3%
Total Satisfied76.1%
-
Page 14
April 2017
Q2. Satisfaction with Overall City ServicesTrended Results n=858
2017 2015* 2013 2011 2009
Very satisfied 31.8% 43.6% 36.2% 42% 43%
Somewhat satisfied 44.3% 40.4% 47.8% 39% 41%
Total Satisfied 76.1% 84.0% 84.0% 81% 84%
Somewhat dissatisfied 12.3% 8.8% 7.5% 7% 7%
Very dissatisfied 3.9% 2.9% 4.9% 5% 5%
Not sure 7.8% 4.2% 3.7% 6% 3%
* Due to the overlap of the survey start date and the closure of Boyd Park, the data for the 2015 resident satisfaction questions
have been normalized to account for news stories during the initial interviewing. Normalization was accomplished by removing
interviews conducted on the first two days of the survey for purposes of this report. The full data set (before normalization) is
available in the 2015 detailed cross-tabulations.
-
Page 15
April 2017
Q2. Satisfaction with Overall City ServicesGender and Age Comparisons
n=858
Respondent's Gender Age
Total Male Female Other 18-29 30-39 40-49 50-64 65+Not
coded
Total 858 416 434 8 137 138 174 210 199 0
Very satisfied272 160 108 4 37 68 36 72 60 0
31.8% 38.4% 25.0% 56.9% 26.7% 49.7% 20.5% 34.2% 30.1% .0%
Somewhat satisfied380 162 216 2 36 50 86 102 106 0
44.3% 38.9% 49.7% 31.0% 26.2% 36.2% 49.5% 48.5% 53.4% 100.0%
Somewhat dissatisfied106 53 52 1 41 18 13 17 17 0
12.3% 12.7% 11.9% 12.1% 29.9% 13.1% 7.3% 8.1% 8.5% .0%
Very dissatisfied33 6 27 0 8 0 8 9 9 0
3.9% 1.5% 6.2% .0% 5.7% .1% 4.5% 4.3% 4.3% .0%
DK/NA67 35 31 0 16 1 32 10 7 0
7.8% 8.5% 7.1% .0% 11.6% 1.0% 18.2% 5.0% 3.7% .0%
-
Page 16
April 2017
Q2. Satisfaction with Overall City ServicesEthnicity Comparisons
n=858
Ethnic Group
Total
African-
American
or Black
American
Indian or
Alaska
Native
AsianCaucasian
or White
Hispanic
or Latino
Two or
more
races
Some
other
race
DK/NA
Total 858 22 6 50 514 211 33 10 12
Very satisfied272 0 2 1 156 93 19 2 0
31.8% .5% 33.1% 2.1% 30.3% 43.8% 58.4% 16.8% .0%
Somewhat satisfied380 21 4 42 230 59 10 3 10
44.3% 98.4% 66.4% 82.6% 44.7% 28.2% 29.7% 35.1% 85.6%
Somewhat dissatisfied106 0 0 0 75 23 3 5 0
12.3% .0% .0% .0% 14.6% 10.8% 8.6% 48.1% 3.6%
Very dissatisfied33 0 0 0 33 0 0 0 0
3.9% .7% .4% .0% 6.4% .0% .2% .0% 1.9%
DK/NA67 0 0 8 20 36 1 0 1
7.8% .3% .0% 15.2% 4.0% 17.1% 3.1% .0% 8.9%
-
Page 17
April 2017
Q3. City’s Financial Situationn=858
Excellent4.6%
Good34.0%
Fair18.2%
Poor4.4%
DK/NA38.7%
-
Page 18
April 2017
Q3. City’s Financial SituationTrended Results n=858
2017 2015 2013 2011 2009 2007 2005
Excellent 4.6% 2.6% 4.2% 3% 4% 7% 5%
Good 34.0% 35.2% 33.8% 17% 24% 32% 32%
Excellent + Good 38.6% 37.8% 38.0% 20% 28% 39% 37%
Fair 18.2% 19.6% 26.0% 38% 34% 31% 31%
Poor 4.4% 7.0% 5.9% 20% 12% 10% 11%
Not sure 38.7% 35.5% 30.1% 22% 26% 21% 21%
-
Page 19
April 2017
Q3. City’s Financial SituationGender and Age Comparisons
n=858
Respondent's Gender Age
Total Male Female Other 18-29 30-39 40-49 50-64 65+Not
coded
Total 858 416 434 8 137 138 174 210 199 0
Excellent40 16 24 0 8 6 1 20 5 0
4.6% 3.8% 5.5% .0% 6.0% 4.0% .3% 9.6% 2.5% .0%
Good292 148 143 0 14 92 43 83 60 0
34.0% 35.5% 33.0% 5.5% 9.9% 66.8% 25.0% 39.4% 30.1% 100.0%
Fair156 89 67 1 59 15 17 21 44 0
18.2% 21.4% 15.3% 12.3% 43.2% 10.8% 9.8% 9.9% 22.4% .0%
Poor38 11 26 0 0 1 23 3 11 0
4.4% 2.6% 6.1% 6.3% .0% .7% 13.1% 1.5% 5.5% .0%
DK/NA332 152 174 6 56 24 90 83 79 0
38.7% 36.6% 40.1% 76.0% 40.9% 17.7% 51.8% 39.5% 39.5% .0%
-
Page 20
April 2017
Q3. City’s Financial SituationEthnicity Comparisons
n=858
Ethnic Group
Total
African-
American
or Black
American
Indian or
Alaska
Native
AsianCaucasian
or White
Hispanic
or Latino
Two or
more
races
Some
other
race
DK/NA
Total 858 22 6 50 514 211 33 10 12
Excellent40 0 0 1 37 1 0 1 0
4.6% .0% .0% 1.3% 7.2% .5% .2% 7.7% .0%
Good292 18 5 15 159 77 14 2 0
34.0% 81.8% 94.6% 29.9% 31.0% 36.6% 44.3% 20.6% 1.4%
Fair156 1 0 1 104 39 5 6 2
18.2% 3.1% .0% 1.8% 20.3% 18.3% 14.2% 59.1% 12.9%
Poor38 0 0 21 15 0 1 0 0
4.4% .0% .0% 41.3% 3.0% .1% 4.5% .0% 1.5%
DK/NA332 3 0 13 198 94 12 1 10
38.7% 15.1% 5.4% 25.6% 38.5% 44.6% 36.8% 12.6% 84.3%
-
Satisfaction with Individual Services
-
Page 22
April 2017
Q4. Satisfaction with City Services In=858
-2 -1 0 1 2
4CC. Effectively providing building planning and…
4Z. Enforcing traffic and parking laws
4O. Cleaning and sweeping city streets
4U. Maintaining parks
4N. Trimming trees along city streets
4S. Providing community events
4Q. Providing senior citizen services
4V. Providing recreational and cultural arts programs
4A. Providing programs to reduce greenhouse gas…
4T. Providing adequate parks and recreation facilities
4E. Preserving open space
4Y. Providing garbage collection and recycling services
4B. Providing police protection
4H. Providing public library services
4I. Providing fire and paramedic services
1.06
1.07
1.07
1.13
1.13
1.14
1.17
1.19
1.21
1.22
1.24
1.32
1.40
1.48
1.60
Very
Satisfied
Somewhat
SatisfiedVery
Dissatisfied
Somewhat
Dissatisfied
Tie
r 1T
ier 2
Tie
r 3
Note: The above rating questions have been abbreviated for charting purposes. The responses were recoded to calculate mean scores:
“Very Satisfied” = +2, “Somewhat Satisfied” = +1, “Somewhat Dissatisfied” = -1 and “Very Dissatisfied” = -2.
-
Page 23
April 2017
Q4. Satisfaction with City Services IIn=858
-2 -1 0 1 2
4AA. Reducing the impacts of homelessness
4J. Providing affordable housing
4F. Managing traffic on city streets
4C. Keeping taxes at affordable levels
4G. Maintaining city streets and roads
4P. Providing sufficient parking downtown
4D. Managing growth and development
4X. Meeting the needs of ethnic minorities
4L. Maintaining sidewalks
4BB. Having your voice heard in City government
4R. Providing youth and teen services
4M. Providing bike and pedestrian friendly routes
4K. Maintaining storm drains
4W. Providing child care services
0.07
0.39
0.48
0.53
0.66
0.76
0.77
0.83
0.86
0.89
0.96
1.02
1.04
1.05
Very
Satisfied
Somewhat
SatisfiedVery
Dissatisfied
Somewhat
Dissatisfied
Tie
r 3T
ier 4
Tie
r 5T
-6
Note: The above rating questions have been abbreviated for charting purposes. The responses were recoded to calculate mean scores:
“Very Satisfied” = +2, “Somewhat Satisfied” = +1, “Somewhat Dissatisfied” = -1 and “Very Dissatisfied” = -2.
-
Page 24
April 2017
Q4. Satisfaction with City ServicesTrended Results n=858
2017 2015* 2013 2011 2009
4I. Providing fire and paramedic services 1.60 1.4 1.57 1.7 1.7
4H. Providing public library services 1.48 1.39 1.42 1.3 1.4
4B. Providing police protection 1.40 1.2 1.32 1.4 1.5
4Y. Providing garbage collection and recycling services 1.32 1.37 1.34 1.4 1.5
4E. Preserving open space 1.24 1.12 1.31 1.3 1.3
4T. Providing adequate parks and recreation facilities 1.22 1.12 1.29 1.3 1.3
4A. Providing programs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 1.21 1.05 0.8 0.7 0.6
4V. Providing recreational and cultural arts programs 1.19 1 1.23 1.3 1.3
4Q. Providing senior citizen services 1.17 0.97 1.14 1.1 1.2
4S. Providing community events 1.14 0.94 1.26 1.2 1.3
4N. Trimming trees along city streets 1.13 1.16 1.19 1 1.2
4U. Maintaining parks 1.13 1.17 1.34 1.3 1.3
4O. Cleaning and sweeping city streets 1.07 1.02 1.12 1 1.2
4Z. Enforcing traffic and parking laws 1.07 0.81 1.06 1.1 -
4CC. Effectively providing building planning and permitting services 1.06 - - - -
4W. Providing child care services 1.05 0.38 0.94 0.9 1.1
4K. Maintaining storm drains 1.04 0.92 0.85 1 1.2
4M. Providing bike and pedestrian friendly routes 1.02 0.89 1.18 1 0.9
4R. Providing youth and teen services 0.96 0.66 0.66 0.9 0.9
4BB. Having your voice heard in City government 0.89 - - - -
4L. Maintaining sidewalks 0.86 0.79 0.97 0.8 0.9
4X. Meeting the needs of ethnic minorities 0.83 0.6 0.62 1 0.7
4D. Managing growth and development 0.77 0.74 1.09 0.6 0.6
4P. Providing sufficient parking downtown 0.76 0.18 0.61 0.8 0.6
4G. Maintaining city streets and roads 0.66 0.64 0.71 0.5 0.6
4C. Keeping taxes at affordable levels 0.53 0.31 0.65 0.4 0.3
4F. Managing traffic on city streets 0.48 0.51 0.86 0.9 0.5
4J. Providing affordable housing 0.39 0.16 0.19 0.4 0
4AA. Reducing the impacts of homelessness 0.07 - - - -
Maintaining City facilities - 1.16 1.25 1.2 -
Maintaining and weeding median strips - - - 0.8 1
*Due to the overlap of the survey start date and the closure of Boyd Park, the data for the 2015 resident satisfaction questions have been normalized to account for news stories during the initial interviewing. Normalization
was accomplished by removing interviews conducted on the first two days of the survey for purposes of this report. The full data set (before normalization) is available in the 2015 detailed cross-tabulations.
-
Page 25
April 2017
Q4. Satisfaction with City ServicesGender and Age Comparisons
n=858
Respondent's Gender Age
Total Male Female Other 18-29 30-39 40-49 50-64 65+Not
coded
4I. Providing fire and paramedic services 1.6 1.66 1.54 1.65 1.44 1.71 1.55 1.59 1.69 1
4H. Providing public library services 1.48 1.5 1.47 1.75 1.51 1.66 1.31 1.48 1.51 2
4B. Providing police protection 1.4 1.54 1.27 1.2 1.5 1.27 1.31 1.45 1.46 1
4Y. Providing garbage collection and recycling services 1.32 1.36 1.29 0.66 1.18 1.43 0.79 1.54 1.57 2
4E. Preserving open space 1.24 1.3 1.18 0.38 1.15 1.46 1.16 1.31 1.11 1
4T. Providing adequate parks and recreation facilities 1.22 1.29 1.15 0.75 1.66 1.02 0.98 1.24 1.31 2
4A. Providing programs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 1.21 1.39 1.01 0.69 1.52 1.26 0.86 1.22 1.16 1
4V. Providing recreational and cultural arts programs 1.19 1.25 1.13 1.63 1.07 1.29 1 1.39 1.18 1
4Q. Providing senior citizen services 1.17 1.23 1.1 0.43 1.19 1.5 0.49 1.36 1.09 1
4S. Providing community events 1.14 1.21 1.07 1.64 0.96 1.3 0.92 1.22 1.25 1
4N. Trimming trees along city streets 1.13 1.16 1.11 0.12 1.19 1.21 1.12 1.17 1 1
4U. Maintaining parks 1.13 1.24 1.02 0.8 1.2 1.11 0.74 1.28 1.27 2
4O. Cleaning and sweeping city streets 1.07 1.16 0.97 1.31 1.18 1.26 0.92 1.09 0.96 1
4Z. Enforcing traffic and parking laws 1.07 1.04 1.08 1.59 0.9 0.92 1.26 1.12 1.06 .
4CC. Effectively providing building planning and permitting services 1.06 1.11 1.02 0.06 1.46 1.2 1.01 0.96 0.9 1
4W. Providing child care services 1.05 1.05 1.04 1.52 1.54 1 0.75 1.12 1.04 .
4K. Maintaining storm drains 1.04 1.1 0.98 0.68 0.73 0.91 1.14 1.15 1.09 1
4M. Providing bike and pedestrian friendly routes 1.02 1.2 0.87 -0.04 0.92 1.12 0.9 1.13 1.02 1
4R. Providing youth and teen services 0.96 1.13 0.81 0.33 0.96 0.91 0.84 1.08 1 .
4BB. Having your voice heard in City government 0.89 0.97 0.83 0 0.8 1.16 0.69 1.07 0.72 1
4L. Maintaining sidewalks 0.86 1.01 0.72 0.91 1.11 0.91 0.8 0.91 0.66 1
4X. Meeting the needs of ethnic minorities 0.83 1 0.65 1 0.4 1.09 0.61 1.03 1.02 .
4D. Managing growth and development 0.77 0.85 0.72 -0.62 0.86 1.2 0.36 0.87 0.69 1
4P. Providing sufficient parking downtown 0.76 0.81 0.72 0.63 0.31 1.08 0.9 0.8 0.71 -1
4G. Maintaining city streets and roads 0.66 0.72 0.6 0.62 0.93 1.04 0.21 0.78 0.49 -1
4C. Keeping taxes at affordable levels 0.53 0.62 0.45 0.16 0.61 0.81 0.2 0.5 0.63 1
4F. Managing traffic on city streets 0.48 0.46 0.5 0.4 0.25 0.74 0.41 0.66 0.33 0
4J. Providing affordable housing 0.39 0.6 0.23 -0.32 0.38 0.4 0.28 0.46 0.42 1
4AA. Reducing the impacts of homelessness 0.07 0.22 -0.08 0.52 0.17 0.22 -0.16 -0.01 0.2 1
-
Page 26
April 2017
Q4. Satisfaction with City ServicesEthnicity Comparisons
n=858
Ethnic Group
Total
African-
American
or Black
American
Indian or
Alaska
Native
AsianCaucasian
or White
Hispanic
or Latino
Two or
more
races
Some
other
race
DK/NA
4I. Providing fire and paramedic services 1.6 1.13 1.95 1.1 1.67 1.52 1.82 1.94 1.7
4H. Providing public library services 1.48 1.19 1.99 0.91 1.52 1.51 1.77 1.19 1.76
4B. Providing police protection 1.4 0.4 1.79 0.44 1.44 1.59 1.53 1.45 1.17
4Y. Providing garbage collection and recycling services 1.32 1.12 1.62 1.1 1.4 1.11 1.85 1.23 1.29
4E. Preserving open space 1.24 1.03 0.76 0.86 1.24 1.26 1.64 1.19 1.57
4T. Providing adequate parks and recreation facilities 1.22 0.26 1.28 0.97 1.22 1.45 0.97 1.15 1.02
4A. Providing programs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 1.21 0.12 1.19 0.74 1.07 1.79 1.37 1.1 0.05
4V. Providing recreational and cultural arts programs 1.19 0.28 1.87 0.65 1.2 1.36 1.62 1.15 0.69
4Q. Providing senior citizen services 1.17 1.03 1.25 0.38 1.15 1.5 1.55 0.94 0.48
4S. Providing community events 1.14 0.22 1.18 0.66 1.15 1.27 1.7 0.95 1.12
4N. Trimming trees along city streets 1.13 0.25 0.99 0.73 1.05 1.5 1.65 1.05 1
4U. Maintaining parks 1.13 1.11 1.32 0.89 1.12 1.23 0.86 0.76 1.48
4O. Cleaning and sweeping city streets 1.07 0.91 1.19 0.58 1.07 1.24 0.84 0.79 1.11
4Z. Enforcing traffic and parking laws 1.07 0.25 0.24 1.35 0.93 1.41 1.48 0.98 0.96
4CC. Effectively providing building planning and permitting services 1.06 1.03 0.39 0.98 0.84 1.69 1.1 1.04 -0.62
4W. Providing child care services 1.05 0.15 2 0.31 1 1.38 1.02 1.86 0.86
4K. Maintaining storm drains 1.04 0.21 0.91 1.34 0.96 1.28 1.05 0.74 1.55
4M. Providing bike and pedestrian friendly routes 1.02 0.31 1.33 0.74 1.05 1.09 1.19 0.56 0.92
4R. Providing youth and teen services 0.96 -0.34 1.6 0.33 0.87 1.32 1.44 0.97 -0.27
4BB. Having your voice heard in City government 0.89 0.07 1.15 0.44 0.91 1.07 0.9 1.05 -0.16
4L. Maintaining sidewalks 0.86 1.07 0.4 0.55 0.71 1.3 0.98 0.52 0.65
4X. Meeting the needs of ethnic minorities 0.83 -0.72 1.13 1.19 0.76 0.94 1.59 1.52 0.72
4D. Managing growth and development 0.77 1.01 0.36 0.3 0.72 1.01 0.94 0.53 0.23
4P. Providing sufficient parking downtown 0.76 -0.56 0.25 0.53 0.69 1.08 1.39 0.69 0.44
4G. Maintaining city streets and roads 0.66 1.03 0.71 0 0.62 0.86 0.82 0.84 0.55
4C. Keeping taxes at affordable levels 0.53 -0.84 0.24 -0.1 0.51 0.89 1.16 0.74 -0.26
4F. Managing traffic on city streets 0.48 0.92 0.3 -0.52 0.35 1.02 0.46 -0.13 0.7
4J. Providing affordable housing 0.39 0.01 -0.82 0.9 0.4 0.32 0.16 1.12 0.42
4AA. Reducing the impacts of homelessness 0.07 0.65 0 0.27 -0.19 0.67 -0.08 0.36 -0.23
-
Page 27
April 2017
Areas of Improvement
Based on the importance – satisfaction values shown on the following pages, the
top priorities for improvements are:
➢ Reducing the impacts of homelessness (4AA)
➢ Managing traffic on city streets (4F)
➢ Maintaining city streets and roads (4G)
➢ Providing sufficient parking downtown (4P)
-
Page 28
April 2017
Importance – Satisfaction Matrixn=858
Tier 2
Tier 3
Tier 1
City Service Derived Imp Satisfaction
4Y. Providing garbage collection and recycling services 0.378 1.32
4O. Cleaning and sweeping city streets 0.369 1.07
4U. Maintaining parks 0.356 1.13
4B. Providing police protection 0.341 1.40
4K. Maintaining storm drains 0.297 1.04
4M. Providing bike and pedestrian friendly routes 0.288 1.02
4Z. Enforcing traffic and parking laws 0.283 1.07
4V. Providing recreational and cultural arts programs 0.235 1.19
4L. Maintaining sidewalks 0.233 0.86
4P. Providing sufficient parking downtown 0.226 0.76
4T. Providing adequate parks and recreation facilities 0.221 1.22
4G. Maintaining city streets and roads 0.217 0.66
4F. Managing traffic on city streets 0.213 0.48
4AA. Reducing the impacts of homelessness 0.210 0.07
4N. Trimming trees along city streets 0.195 1.13
4E. Preserving open space 0.179 1.24
4D. Managing growth and development 0.169 0.77
4S. Providing community events 0.149 1.14
4Q. Providing senior citizen services 0.134 1.17
4CC. Effectively providing building planning and permitting
services0.114 1.06
4H. Providing public library services 0.101 1.48
4I. Providing fire and paramedic services 0.083 1.60
4A. Providing programs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 0.072 1.21
4X. Meeting the needs of ethnic minorities 0.064 0.83
4R. Providing youth and teen services 0.047 0.96
4BB. Having your voice heard in City government 0.030 0.89
4C. Keeping taxes at affordable levels 0.026 0.53
4J. Providing affordable housing -0.014 0.39
4W. Providing child care services -0.072 1.05
-
Other Services and Issues
-
Page 30
April 2017
Q5. Problems Facing San Rafaeln=858
0% 10% 20% 30%
DK/NA
Other
Condition or safety of buildings
Poor financial situation/condition
Quality of education
Condition or safety of sidewalks/pathways
Illegal immigrants or day laborers
Public safety (includes crime)
Condition or safety of streets
City employee pensions & benefits are too high
Availability of jobs
Growth and/or overcrowding
Traffic congestion
Cost of living or affordability of housing
Homelessness
5.2%
6.7%
0.4%
0.8%
1.0%
1.2%
1.2%
1.3%
1.5%
2.3%
3.8%
5.6%
17.7%
25.2%
26.2%
-
Page 31
April 2017
Q5. Problems Facing San RafaelTrended Results n=858
2017 2015 2013 2011 2009 2007 2005
Homelessness 26.2% 25.9% 19.4% 8% 5% 3% 4%
Cost of living or affordability of housing 25.2% 15.0% 7.8% 9% 12% 12% 10%
Growth and/or overcrowding 5.6% 3.2% 2.4% 5% 8% 12% 11%
Availability of jobs 3.8% 1.5% 4.6% 9% 5% 1% 2%
City employee pensions and benefits are too high 2.3% 9.2% 6.5% - - - -
Condition or safety of streets 1.5% 0.9% 3.9% 1% 1% 1% 2%
Public safety (includes crime) 1.3% 4.1% 5.3% 4% 6% 6% 3%
Illegal immigrants or day laborers 1.2% 6.4% 5.3% 9% 9% 11% 6%
Condition or safety of sidewalks/pathways 1.2% 2.5% 2.5% 1% 1% 1% 0%
Quality of education 1.0% 4.6% 2.3% 7% 5% 5% 6%
Poor financial situation/condition 0.8% 2.0% 8.7% 17% 11% 5% 10%
Condition or safety of buildings 0.4% 1.8% 0.8%
-
Page 32
April 2017
Q5. Problems Facing San RafaelGender and Age Comparisons
Total Male Female Other 18-29 30-39 40-49 50-64 65+ Not coded
Total 858 416 434 8 137 138 174 210 199 0
32 9 23 0 8 0 15 7 2 0
3.8% 2.2% 5.4% .0% 6.0% .2% 8.5% 3.4% .9% .0%
19 8 10 1 0 1 2 10 6 0
2.3% 2.0% 2.3% 14.8% .0% .7% 1.1% 4.9% 3.2% .0%
3 0 3 0 0 1 2 0 0 0
.4% .0% .7% .0% .0% .6% 1.3% .0% .0% .0%
10 2 7 0 0 0 0 0 10 0
1.2% .6% 1.7% .0% .0% .0% .0% .1% 4.9% .0%
13 3 11 0 1 2 1 8 2 0
1.5% .6% 2.4% .0% .4% 1.3% .4% 3.9% .9% .0%
216 86 126 5 20 72 53 44 28 0
25.2% 20.6% 29.0% 58.0% 14.8% 52.2% 30.2% 20.8% 13.9% .0%
48 14 32 1 2 2 12 10 22 0
5.6% 3.3% 7.5% 17.0% 1.6% 1.1% 6.8% 4.9% 11.0% .0%
225 127 98 0 39 46 36 57 46 0
26.2% 30.6% 22.5% .0% 28.4% 33.6% 20.9% 27.2% 23.2% .0%
10 5 5 0 0 0 1 4 5 0
1.2% 1.2% 1.3% .0% .0% .0% .8% 1.9% 2.4% .0%
6 2 4 0 1 1 1 1 3 0
.8% .5% 1.0% .0% .8% .5% .4% .4% 1.6% .0%
11 9 2 0 0 2 0 6 4 0
1.3% 2.2% .5% .0% .0% 1.3% .0% 2.8% 1.8% .0%
9 6 2 0 0 5 2 1 1 0
1.0% 1.5% .6% .0% .0% 3.9% .9% .4% .4% .0%
152 74 77 1 54 6 22 29 41 0
17.7% 17.8% 17.8% 10.2% 39.6% 4.4% 12.5% 13.7% 20.8% .0%
58 39 19 0 9 0 28 8 12 0
6.7% 9.3% 4.4% .0% 6.9% .1% 16.0% 4.0% 5.9% .0%
45 31 13 0 2 0 0 24 18 0
5.2% 7.5% 3.1% .0% 1.6% .0% .2% 11.5% 9.0% 100.0%
Cost of living or affordability of
housing
Agen=858
Traffic congestion
Other (SPECIFY:
DK/NA
Respondent's Gender
Availability of jobs
City employee pensions &
benefits are too high
Condition or safety of buildings
Condition or safety of
sidewalks/pathways
Condition or safety of streets
Growth and/or overcrowding
Homelessness
Illegal immigrants or day
laborers
Poor financial
situation/condition
Public safety (includes crime)
Quality of education
-
Page 33
April 2017
Q5. Problems Facing San RafaelEthnicity Comparisons
Total
African-
American
or Black
American
Indian or
Alaska
AsianCaucasian
or White
Hispanic
or Latino
Two or
more
races
Some
other raceDK/NA
Total 858 22 6 50 514 211 33 10 12
32 0 0 14 18 0 0 0 0
3.8% .0% .0% 27.9% 3.6% .0% .0% .0% .0%
19 1 0 0 17 0 2 0 1
2.3% 2.3% .0% .0% 3.2% .0% 4.8% .0% 5.7%
3 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 0
.4% .0% .0% .0% .2% .0% 7.1% .0% .0%
10 0 0 7 2 1 0 0 0
1.2% .0% .0% 14.4% .3% .5% .0% .0% .0%
13 0 0 0 13 0 0 0 0
1.5% .0% .0% .0% 2.5% .1% .0% .0% .0%
216 16 1 3 77 98 15 1 6
25.2% 71.3% 19.8% 6.0% 15.0% 46.5% 44.6% 8.1% 46.2%
48 0 4 8 31 2 3 0 1
5.6% .7% 61.5% 15.1% 6.0% .7% 8.1% .0% 11.1%
225 2 0 1 191 24 2 4 1
26.2% 10.1% .0% 2.9% 37.1% 11.3% 4.6% 41.9% 5.8%
10 0 0 1 8 0 1 1 0
1.2% .0% .4% 2.0% 1.5% .0% 1.6% 9.0% 2.1%
6 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0
.8% .0% .0% .0% 1.3% .0% .0% .0% .0%
11 0 0 0 6 0 0 4 2
1.3% .3% .0% .0% 1.1% .0% .0% 39.1% 14.3%
9 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0
1.0% .0% .0% .0% 1.6% .0% .0% 1.6% .0%
152 0 0 15 95 38 2 0 1
17.7% .7% .0% 30.4% 18.5% 18.2% 7.0% .0% 6.0%
58 1 1 0 33 20 1 0 1
6.7% 4.7% 18.3% .3% 6.4% 9.7% 2.8% .3% 8.9%
45 2 0 1 8 28 6 0 0
5.2% 9.9% .0% 1.0% 1.6% 13.0% 19.3% .0% .0%
Cost of living or affordability of
housing
n=858
Traffic congestion
Other (SPECIFY:
DK/NA
Ethnic Group
Availability of jobs
City employee pensions &
benefits are too high
Condition or safety of buildings
Condition or safety of
sidewalks/pathways
Condition or safety of streets
Growth and/or overcrowding
Homelessness
Illegal immigrants or day
laborers
Poor financial
situation/condition
Public safety (includes crime)
Quality of education
-
Page 34
April 2017
Q6. Satisfaction with City’s Spending of
Taxpayers’ Money n=858
DK/NA11.4%
No opinion6.9%
Mixed opinions32.0%
Dissatisfied19.6%
Satisfied30.0%
-
Page 35
April 2017
Q6. Satisfaction with City’s Spending of
Taxpayers’ MoneyTrended Results n=858
2017 2015 2013 2011 2009 2007 2003* 2001* 1999*
Satisfied 30.0% 29.5% 52.4% 53% 45% 56% 46% 47% 49%
Dissatisfied 19.6% 19.9% 19.6% 24% 25% 28% 37% 35% 32%
Mixed opinions 32.0% 29.8% 8.6% 12% 13% 4%
17% 18% 19%No opinion 6.9% 9.8% 18.8% 9% 15% 11%
DK/NA 11.4% .1% .5% 1% 2% 1%
Not sure 10.9%
-
Page 36
April 2017
Q6. Satisfaction with City’s Spending of
Taxpayers’ MoneyGender and Age Comparisons
n=858
Respondent's Gender Age
Total Male Female Other 18-29 30-39 40-49 50-64 65+Not
coded
Total 858 416 434 8 137 138 174 210 199 0
Satisfied258 138 119 0 43 40 28 85 61 0
30.0% 33.2% 27.5% .0% 31.4% 29.2% 15.9% 40.6% 30.9% 100.0%
Dissatisfied168 74 93 1 24 9 81 19 35 0
19.6% 17.9% 21.4% 12.8% 17.6% 6.4% 46.8% 9.0% 17.7% .0%
Mixed opinions274 124 148 3 59 62 46 60 47 0
32.0% 29.7% 34.1% 34.7% 43.3% 44.7% 26.4% 28.6% 23.6% .0%
No opinion59 35 24 0 11 9 7 23 10 0
6.9% 8.4% 5.6% .0% 7.7% 6.7% 3.9% 10.9% 4.9% .0%
DK/NA98 45 49 4 0 18 12 23 45 0
11.4% 10.7% 11.4% 52.5% .0% 13.0% 6.9% 10.8% 22.9% .0%
-
Page 37
April 2017
Q6. Satisfaction with City’s Spending of
Taxpayers’ MoneyEthnicity Comparisons
n=858
Ethnic Group
Total
African-
American
or Black
American
Indian or
Alaska
Native
AsianCaucasian
or White
Hispanic
or Latino
Two or
more
races
Some
other
race
DK/NA
Total 858 22 6 50 514 211 33 10 12
Satisfied258 2 0 0 143 99 11 2 0
30.0% 10.5% .0% .0% 27.8% 47.0% 33.8% 23.6% .0%
Dissatisfied168 1 0 16 103 43 3 0 3
19.6% 4.7% .4% 32.1% 19.9% 20.3% 9.4% .0% 23.5%
Mixed opinions274 18 5 16 154 55 17 6 2
32.0% 83.7% 84.7% 31.7% 30.0% 26.2% 51.4% 67.2% 19.0%
No opinion59 0 0 2 49 0 2 0 6
6.9% .7% .0% 4.8% 9.6% .0% 5.0% .0% 48.6%
DK/NA98 0 1 16 66 14 0 1 1
11.4% .3% 14.9% 31.4% 12.8% 6.5% .5% 9.2% 8.9%
-
Page 38
April 2017
Q7. Frequency of Using Green or Sustainable
Practices n=858
Almost
Always
Most of
the Time
Note: The above rating questions have been abbreviated for charting purposes, and responses were recoded to calculate mean scores:
“Almost Always” = +3, “Most of the Time” = +2, “Some of the Time” = +1, and “Never” = 0.
0 1 2 3
7E. Use alternative modes of transportation such aswalking, biking, public transit, and carpool
7C. Bring and use reusable grocery bags to other storessuch as clothing, household, or department stores
7A. Compost kitchen food scraps in Marin SanitaryService's green bin
7B. Bring and use reusable grocery bags to grocery store
7D. Took steps in 2016 to reduce water use such as usinga low flow shower or faucet regulator, or reducing…
1.28
1.75
1.78
2.25
2.43
Some of
the Time
Never
Split Sample C
Split Sample D
-
Page 39
April 2017
Q7. Frequency of Using Green or Sustainable
PracticesGender and Age Comparisons
n=858
Respondent's Gender Age
Total Male Female Other 18-29 30-39 40-49 50-64 65+Not
coded
7D. Took steps in 2016 to reduce water use
such as using a low flow shower or faucet
regulator, or reducing watering times or
amounts in yard or garden
2.43 2.29 2.6 2.8 2.38 1.88 2.48 2.75 2.54 .
7B. Bring and use reusable grocery bags to
grocery store2.25 2.22 2.28 2.31 2.19 1.91 2.06 2.41 2.5 2
7A. Compost kitchen food scraps in Marin
Sanitary Service's green bin1.78 1.84 1.73 2.55 1.31 1.22 1.66 2.31 1.98 3
7C. Bring and use reusable grocery bags to
other stores such as clothing, household, or
department stores
1.75 1.61 1.87 1.77 1.84 1 1.82 1.87 2 0
7E. Use alternative modes of transportation
such as walking, biking, public transit, and
carpool
1.28 1.17 1.37 2.15 1.01 1.12 1.79 1.17 1.13 .
-
Page 40
April 2017
Q7. Frequency of Using Green or Sustainable
PracticesEthnicity Comparisons
n=858
Ethnic Group
Total
African-
American
or Black
American
Indian or
Alaska
Native
AsianCaucasian
or White
Hispanic
or Latino
Two or
more
races
Some
other
race
DK/NA
7D. Took steps in 2016 to
reduce water use such as
using a low flow shower or
faucet regulator, or reducing
watering times or amounts
in yard or garden
2.43 2.53 3 2.4 2.5 2.14 2.59 2.82 1.97
7B. Bring and use reusable
grocery bags to grocery
store
2.25 0.32 2.07 2.32 2.38 2.34 1.53 2.18 2.03
7A. Compost kitchen food
scraps in Marin Sanitary
Service's green bin
1.78 0.45 2.07 1.61 1.94 1.69 1.31 2.69 1.93
7C. Bring and use reusable
grocery bags to other stores
such as clothing,
household, or department
stores
1.75 0.33 0.19 2.26 1.73 2.04 1.16 1.21 1.87
7E. Use alternative modes of
transportation such as
walking, biking, public
transit, and carpool
1.28 1.36 3 1.49 1.1 1.52 2.42 0.99 0.93
-
Page 41
April 2017
Q8. Reasons for Not Adopting Green or
Sustainable Practicesn=295
0% 20% 40%
DK/NA
Other
Unsure of how to adopt the practice
Unaware of the practice
Too costly
Inconvenient to practice
17.7%
21.5%
5.3%
8.7%
12.8%
37.2%
-
Page 42
April 2017
Q8. Reasons for Not Adopting Green or
Sustainable PracticesGender and Age Comparisons
n=295
Respondent's Gender Age
Total Male Female Other 18-29 30-39 40-49 50-64 65+Not
coded
Total 295 149 146 1 62 79 48 43 63 0
Inconvenient to practice110 49 60 0 32 14 15 19 30 0
37.2% 33.2% 41.4% .0% 50.8% 18.1% 31.0% 43.2% 48.1% 100.0%
Unaware of the practice26 6 19 0 0 1 6 13 6 0
8.7% 4.2% 13.2% .0% .0% .7% 12.4% 29.6% 9.9% .0%
Unsure of how to adopt the practice16 5 11 0 1 5 1 1 8 0
5.3% 3.5% 7.3% .0% 1.4% 6.6% 1.9% 2.6% 12.3% .0%
Too costly38 28 9 0 0 28 7 0 3 0
12.8% 19.1% 6.4% .0% .0% 35.5% 14.0% .2% 4.7% .0%
Other63 34 29 0 31 1 7 10 15 0
21.5% 22.8% 20.1% 24.8% 49.2% 1.2% 14.9% 23.0% 23.4% .0%
DK/NA52 30 22 0 0 30 13 4 5 0
17.7% 20.2% 14.9% 75.2% .0% 37.9% 27.1% 9.9% 8.3% .0%
-
Page 43
April 2017
Q8. Reasons for Not Adopting Green or
Sustainable PracticesEthnicity Comparisons
n=295
Ethnic Group
Total
African-
American
or Black
American
Indian or
Alaska
Native
AsianCaucasian
or White
Hispanic
or Latino
Two or
more
races
Some
other
race
DK/NA
Total 295 16 4 8 169 86 9 1 3
Inconvenient to practice110 0 4 1 79 23 1 1 1
37.2% 1.0% 80.5% 13.7% 47.0% 26.5% 14.6% 100.0% 31.5%
Unaware of the practice26 0 4 0 20 1 0 0 0
8.7% .0% 100.0% 5.2% 11.8% 1.0% .0% .0% .0%
Unsure of how to adopt the practice16 0 0 0 15 0 1 0 0
5.3% .0% .0% 3.7% 8.8% .0% 7.0% .0% .0%
Too costly38 0 0 7 4 27 0 0 0
12.8% .0% .0% 81.0% 2.2% 31.7% .9% .0% .0%
Other63 0 0 0 34 23 6 0 0
21.5% .0% .0% 3.7% 19.9% 26.7% 72.7% .0% 12.6%
DK/NA52 16 0 0 22 12 0 0 2
17.7% 99.0% .0% .0% 13.3% 14.2% 5.7% .0% 55.9%
-
Revenue Measure Ballot Tests
-
Page 45
April 2017
Q9. Uninformed Support: Sales TaxSample A
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
November2018
n=750
June 2018n=633
November2017
n=537
32.3%
33.4%
32.3%
25.4%
23.4%
22.8%
8.4%
8.6%
9.3%
28.2%
30.1%
31.0%
5.7%
4.5%
4.6%
Definitely Yes Probably Yes Probably No Definitely No Not sure
55.1% Shall the City of San Rafael increase the local sales tax rate by one-quarter
percent to provide funding that cannot be
taken by the State, and can be used to
preserve essential city services for a
period of 20 years, including: maintaining
rapid emergency police and fire response
times and anti-gang and anti-drug
programs, maintaining adequate
numbers of on-duty firefighters and
paramedics and police, addressing sea
level rise and flooding, maintaining
community centers and repairing city
streets?
56.8%
57.7%
-
Page 46
April 2017
Q10. Uninformed Support: Utility Users TaxSample B
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
November2018
n=750
June 2018n=633
November2017
n=537
13.7%
15.9%
14.5%
21.9%
24.5%
25.0%
20.9%
21.7%
21.8%
33.4%
28.9%
30.4%
10.1%
9.1%
8.3%
Definitely Yes Probably Yes Probably No Definitely No Not sure
40.4%
35.6%
Shall the City of San Rafael levy a 5
percent utility users tax on
telecommunications, gas, electric, water
and sewer services to provide funding
that cannot be taken by the State, and
can be used to preserve essential city
services for a period of 20 years,
including: maintaining rapid emergency
police and fire response times,
maintaining adequate numbers of on-
duty firefighters and paramedics and
police, addressing sea level rise and
flooding, maintaining community centers
and repairing city streets?
39.5%
-
Page 47
April 2017
Q11. Statements About the Measure Likely November 2017 Voters n=537
Note: The above rating questions have been abbreviated for charting purposes, and responses were recoded to calculate mean scores:
“Much More Likely” = +2, “Somewhat More Likely” = +1, “No Effect” = 0, “Somewhat Less Likely” = -1, and “Much Less Likely” = -2.
No Effect Somewhat
More LikelyMuch More
Likely
-2 -1 0 1 2
11I. The tax will just be used to increase city…
11M. The tax will be used to support a bloated and…
11L. If the measure passes, San Rafael will have the…
11G. Providing 21st century libraries in San Rafael
11E. Maintaining community centers
11K. The City has been very fiscally responsible, but…
11D. Addressing sea level rise and flooding
11B. Anti-gang and anti-drug programs
11F. Repairing city streets and sidewalks
11H. The measure will continue the appointed Citizen…
11A. Maintaining rapid emergency police and fire…
11C. Maintaining adequate numbers of on-duty…
11J. Every penny from this measure must stay in San…
-1.08
-0.88
-0.60
0.26
0.33
0.33
0.35
0.48
0.62
0.63
0.70
0.73
0.96
Somewhat
Less LikelyMuch
Less Likely
Sample C
Sample D
Tie
r 2T
ier 3
T-1
T-4
T-5
Tie
r 6
-
Page 48
April 2017
Q12. Informed Support: Sales TaxSample A
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
November2018
n=750
June 2018n=633
November2017
n=537
32.1%
34.0%
33.2%
26.7%
21.9%
21.2%
10.1%
10.5%
12.0%
26.1%
28.3%
28.3%
4.9%
5.2%
5.4%
Definitely Yes Probably Yes Probably No Definitely No Not sure
54.4% Shall the City of San Rafael increase the local sales tax rate by one-quarter
percent to provide funding that cannot be
taken by the State, and can be used to
preserve essential city services for a
period of 20 years, including: maintaining
rapid emergency police and fire response
times and anti-gang and anti-drug
programs, maintaining adequate
numbers of on-duty firefighters and
paramedics and police, addressing sea
level rise and flooding, maintaining
community centers and repairing city
streets?
55.9%
58.8%
-
Page 49
April 2017
Q13. Support for Alternative Sales Tax
Measure with 9 Year DurationSample A
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
November2018
n=750
June 2018n=633
November2017
n=537
37.2%
40.1%
38.8%
21.7%
17.5%
17.4%
9.7%
8.9%
10.1%
25.3%
26.9%
27.3%
6.0%
6.6%
6.4%
Definitely Yes Probably Yes Probably No Definitely No Not sure
56.2% INSTEAD of a levy for 20 years, another alternative would be to end the measure
after 9 years.
57.6%
58.9%
-
Page 50
April 2017
Q14. Uninformed Support: Utility Users TaxSample B
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
November2018
n=750
June 2018n=633
November2017
n=537
13.9%
16.6%
13.7%
23.6%
25.2%
27.5%
20.7%
19.0%
19.9%
32.9%
30.1%
30.5%
8.8%
9.1%
8.4%
Definitely Yes Probably Yes Probably No Definitely No Not sure
41.8%
37.5%
Shall the City of San Rafael levy a 5
percent utility users tax on
telecommunications, gas, electric, water
and sewer services to provide funding
that cannot be taken by the State, and
can be used to preserve essential city
services for a period of 20 years,
including: maintaining rapid emergency
police and fire response times,
maintaining adequate numbers of on-
duty firefighters and paramedics and
police, addressing sea level rise and
flooding, maintaining community centers
and repairing city streets?
41.2%
-
Page 51
April 2017
Q15. Support for Alternative UUT Measure with
9 Year DurationSample B
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
November2018
n=750
June 2018n=633
November2017
n=537
19.6%
24.1%
22.1%
20.9%
23.3%
24.9%
20.1%
16.0%
15.7%
31.9%
28.6%
29.8%
7.5%
8.0%
7.5%
Definitely Yes Probably Yes Probably No Definitely No Not sure
47.4%
40.5%
INSTEAD of a levy for 20 years, another
alternative would be to end the measure
after 9 years.
47.0%
-
Page 52
April 2017
Q16. Support for Future Cannabis OrdinancesLikely November 2017 Voters (n=537)
Note: The above rating questions have been abbreviated for charting purposes, and responses were recoded to calculate mean scores:
“Strongly Support” = +2, “Somewhat Support= +1, “Somewhat Oppose” = -1, and “Strongly Oppose” = -2.
Somewhat
SupportStrongly
Support
-2 -1 0 1 2
16B. Allowing recreational cannabis businesses in SanRafael
16A. Allowing medical cannabis businesses in San Rafael
-0.02
0.53
Somewhat
OpposeStrongly
Oppose
Tie
r 1T
ier 2
-
Page 53
April 2017
Q17. Suppot for Tax on Cannabis Businesses
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
November2018
n=750
June 2018n=633
November2017
n=537
43.5%
44.1%
42.3%
28.3%
29.6%
30.9%
5.1%
5.2%
4.7%
16.4%
15.4%
16.3%
6.7%
5.7%
5.8%
Definitely Yes Probably Yes Probably No Definitely No Not sure
73.7%
71.8%
Shall the City of San Rafael levy an
ongoing tax of up to 10% of gross
receipts of potential future cannabis
(marijuana) businesses in the city, which
could provide over $5 million dollars
annually, requiring independent citizen
oversight, financial audits, and that all
funds stay in the City of San Rafael and
cannot be taken by the State, to be used
to maintain and enhance City services,
including maintaining rapid emergency
police and fire response times,
maintaining community centers,
repairing city streets and other general
city services?
73.2%
-
Communications
-
Page 55
April 2017
Q18. Satisfaction with Local Information
Sourcesn=858
Note: The above rating questions have been abbreviated for charting purposes, and responses were recoded to calculate mean scores:
“Very Satisfied” = +2, “Somewhat Satisfied= +1, “Somewhat Dissatisfied” = -1, and “Very Dissatisfied” = -2.
Somewhat
SatisfiedVery
Satisfied
-2 -1 0 1 2
18C. Nextdoor social media site
18A. The City's website, www.cityofsanrafael.org
18B. The City Manager's newsletter
1.01
1.18
1.40
Somewhat
DissatisfiedVery
Dissatisfied
-
Appendix A: Additional Demographic
Information
-
Page 57
April 2017
QA. Gender
Male48.5%
Female50.6%
Other0.9%
-
Page 58
April 2017
QB. Ethnicity
0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
DK/NA
Some other race
Two or more races
Hispanic or Latino
Caucasian or White
Asian
American Indian or Alaska Native
African-American or Black
1.4%
1.1%
3.8%
24.6%
60.0%
5.9%
0.7%
2.5%
-
Page 59
April 2017
Yes35.6%
No63.9%
DK/NA0.5%
QC. Children in Household
-
Page 60
April 2017
QD. Number of Adults in Household
None65.0%
One13.5%
Two20.5%
Three or more0.5%
DK/NA0.4%
-
Page 61
April 2017
QE. Working Status
Full-time52.2%
Part-time8.0%
Self-employed8.6%
Unemployed4.3%
Homemaker or stay-at-home
parent2.5%
Retired18.7%
Student4.8%
DK/NA0.8%
-
Page 62
April 2017
QF. Length of Residence in San Rafael
Less than 5 years21.5%
5 to 10 years16.7%
11 to 20 years26.3%
More than 20 years34.6%
DK/NA0.9%
-
Page 63
April 2017
QG. Home Ownership
Owner55.5%
Renter35.9%
DK/NA8.7%
-
Page 64
April 2017
-
Page 65
April 2017
QI. Age
18-2916.0%
30-3916.1%
40-4920.3%
50-6424.5%
65+23.2%
-
Page 66
April 2017
QJ. Ethnic Surname
0% 10% 20% 30%
Hispanic
Jewish
Italian
Chinese
Vietnamese
Japanese
22.6%
3.4%
2.1%
1.8%
0.4%
0.2%
-
Page 67
April 2017
QK. Home Ownership (From Voter File)
Owner54.4%
Renter45.6%
-
Page 68
April 2017
Democrat51.3%
Republican15.1%
Other4.6%
DTS29.0%
QL. Individual Party
-
Page 69
April 2017
QM. Household Party Type
0% 20% 40%
Mixed
Republican & Other
Democrat & Other
Democrat & Republican
Other (2+)
Other (1)
Republican (2+)
Republican (1)
Democrat (2+)
Democrat (1)
0.2%
3.5%
10.4%
2.6%
2.0%
23.0%
4.5%
6.4%
15.0%
32.5%
-
Page 70
April 2017
QN. Registration Date
2013 to 201751.2%
2009 to 201214.3%
2005 to 200810.7%
2001 to 20047.2%
1997 to 20004.6%
1993 to 19963.3%
1981 to 19925.3%
1980 or before3.5%
-
Page 71
April 2017
QO. Voting History
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
June 2016
November 2014
June 2014
November 2012
June 2012
November 2010
June 2010
November 2009
May 2009
November 2008
June 2008
February 2008
November 2007
November 2006
June 2006
16.2%
10.8%
5.3%
19.0%
8.4%
17.7%
9.7%
6.2%
8.5%
19.9%
6.8%
16.6%
5.5%
15.2%
9.8%
35.5%
24.2%
19.2%
33.1%
18.7%
23.3%
18.5%
13.2%
16.2%
29.5%
13.9%
23.4%
15.2%
20.6%
12.3%
48.2%
65.0%
75.5%
47.9%
72.9%
59.0%
71.7%
80.6%
75.4%
50.6%
79.3%
60.0%
79.3%
64.2%
77.9%
Poll Mail No
-
Page 72
April 2017
QP. Times Voted in Last Elections
0% 20% 40%
0 of 16
1 of 16
2 of 16
3 of 16
4 of 16
5 of 16
6 of 16
7 of 16
8 of 16
9 of 16
10 of 16
11 of 16
12 of 16
13 of 16
14 of 16
15 of 16
16 of 16
30.0%
13.1%
8.2%
4.5%
3.0%
4.3%
2.4%
2.9%
3.2%
2.8%
2.5%
2.0%
3.0%
2.7%
2.9%
4.0%
8.4%
-
Page 73
April 2017
QQ. Times Voted Absentee
0% 20% 40% 60%
0 of 16
1 of 16
2 of 16
3 of 16
4 of 16
5 of 16
6 of 16
7 of 16
8 of 16
9 of 16
10 of 16
11 of 16
12 of 16
13 of 16
14 of 16
15 of 16
16 of 16
47.5%
13.8%
6.6%
3.4%
2.7%
2.8%
2.1%
1.8%
2.2%
1.2%
1.7%
1.5%
1.3%
2.0%
1.8%
2.8%
4.9%
-
Page 74
April 2017
QR. Likely June 2018 Voter
Yes29.1%
No70.9%
-
Page 75
April 2017
QS. Likely November 2017 Voter
Yes26.7%
No73.3%
-
Page 76
April 2017
QT. Permanent Absentee Voter
Yes73.5%
No26.5%
-
Page 77
April 2017
QU. Likely Absentee Voter
Yes39.7%
No60.3%
-
Appendix B: Detailed Methodology
-
Page 79
April 2017
Survey Methodology
Survey Parameters
Godbe Research conducted a total of 858 interviews representing 46,787 adult (age 18 and older) residents in the City of
San Rafael (weighted to the 2015 ACS). This includes subsamples of 537 likely November 2017 voters, 633 likely June
2018 voters, and 750 likely November 2018 voters. The error rate is plus or minus 3.31% for the sample of 858 adult
residents, plus or minus 4.14% for the sample of likely November 2017 voters, plus or minus 3.80% for the sample of likely
June 2018 voters, and plus or minus 3.51% for the sample of likely November 2018 voters. Interviews were conducted
from February 7 through February 19, 2017. The average interview time was approximately 25 minutes.
Sample and Weighting
Once collected, the sample of voters was compared with the respective voter population in the City to examine possible
differences between the demographics of the sample and the actual universe of voters. The data were weighted to correct
these differences, and the results presented are representative of the voter characteristics of the City of San Rafael t in
terms of gender, age, political party type, and election timing.
Questionnaire Methodology
To avoid the problem of systematic position bias, where the order in which a series of questions is asked systematically
influences the answers, several questions in the survey were randomized such that the respondents were not consistently
asked the questions in the same order. The series of items in Questions 4, 5, 7, 8, 11, 16, and 18 were randomized to
avoid such position bias. Question 8 allowed the voters surveyed to mention multiple responses and may sum to more
than 100.
-
Page 80
April 2017
Margin of Error I
Because a survey typically involves a limited number of people who are part of a larger population group, by mere
chance alone there will almost always be some differences between a sample and the population from which it was
drawn. These differences are known as “sampling error” and they are expected to occur regardless of how scientifically
the sample has been selected. The advantage of a scientific sample is that we are able to calculate the sampling error.
Sampling error is determined by four factors: the population size, the sample size, a confidence level, and the dispersion
of responses.
For example, the following table shows the possible sampling variation that applies to a percent result reported from a
probability type sample. Because the sample of 858 adult residents was drawn from the estimated population of the City
of San Rafael of approximately 46,787 voters, one can be 95% confident that the margin of error due to sampling will not
vary, plus or minus, by more than the indicated number of percent points from the result that would have been obtained if
the interviews had been conducted with all persons in the universe. As the table on the following page indicates, the
margin of error for all aggregate responses is between 1.99 and 3.31% for the survey.
This means that, for a given question with dichotomous response options (e.g., Yes/No) answered by 858 respondents,
one can be 95% confident that the difference between the percent breakdowns of the sample and those of the total
population is no greater than 3.31%. The percent margin of error applies to both sides of the answer, so that for a
question in which 50% of respondents said yes, one can be 95% confident that the actual percent of the population that
would say yes is between 47% (50 minus 3.31) and 53% (50 plus 3.31).
The margin of error for a given question also depends on the distribution of responses to the question. The 3.31% refers
to dichotomous questions where opinions are evenly split in the sample with 50% of respondents saying yes and 50%
saying no. If that same question were to receive a response in which 10% of the respondents say yes and 90% say no,
then the margin of error would be no greater than plus or minus 1.99%. As the number of respondents in a particular
subgroup (e.g., age) is smaller than the number of total respondents, the margin of error associated with estimating a
given subgroup’s response will be higher. Due to the high margin of error, Godbe Research cautions against generalizing
the results for subgroups that are comprised of 25 or fewer respondents.
-
Page 81
April 2017
Margin of Error II
nDistribution of Responses
90% / 10% 80% / 20% 70% / 30% 60% / 40% 50% / 50%
1000 1.84% 2.45% 2.81% 3.00% 3.07%
900 1.94% 2.59% 2.97% 3.17% 3.24%
858 1.99% 2.65% 3.04% 3.25% 3.31%
600 2.39% 3.18% 3.64% 3.89% 3.98%
500 2.62% 3.49% 4.00% 4.27% 4.36%
400 2.93% 3.90% 4.47% 4.78% 4.88%
300 3.38% 4.51% 5.17% 5.53% 5.64%
200 4.15% 5.53% 6.34% 6.78% 6.91%
-
Page 82
April 2017
Reading Crosstabulation Tables
The questions discussed and analyzed in this report comprise
a subset of various crosstabulation tables available for each
question. Only those subgroups that are of particular interest
or that illustrate particular insights are included in the
discussion. Should readers wish to conduct a closer analysis
of subgroups for a given question, the complete breakdowns
appear in Appendix E. These crosstabulation tables provide
detailed information on the responses to each question by
demographic and behavioral groups that were assessed in the
survey. A typical crosstabulation table is shown here.
A short description of the item appears on the left-hand side of
the table. The item sample size (n = 250) is presented in the
first column of data under “Total.”
The results to each possible answer choice of all respondents
are presented in the first column of data under “Total.” The
aggregate number of respondents in each answer category is
presented as a whole number, and the percent of the entire
sample that this number represents is just below the whole
number. In this example, among the total respondents, 96
voters reported their “definitely yes” vote on the measure, and
this number of respondents equals 39% of the total sample
size of 250. Next to the “Total” column are the other columns
representing responses from the low-, medium-, and high-
propensity voters. The data from these columns are read in
exactly the same fashion as the data in the “Total” column,
although each group makes up a smaller percent of the entire
sample.
EXAMPLE OF DATA
CROSSTABULATION TABLE
Voting Propensity
Total Low Medium High
If the election
were held
today, would
you vote yes or
no on this
measure?
Total 250 68 80 101
Definitely Yes96 24 35 37
38.5% 34.4% 44.2% 36.7%
Probably Yes60 25 16 19
23.9% 36.1% 19.6% 19.2%
Probably No20 3 8 9
7.9% 4.3% 9.5% 8.9%
Definitely No63 14 16 33
25.3% 20.9% 19.7% 32.6%
DK/NA11 3 6 3
4.4% 4.2% 7.0% 2.6%
-
Page 83
April 2017
Subgroup Comparisons
To test whether or not the differences found in percent results
among subgroups are likely due to actual differences in opinions
or behaviors – rather than the results of chance due to the
random nature of the sampling design – a “z-test” was
performed. In the headings of each column are labels, “A,” “B,”
“C,” etc. along with a description of the variable. The “z-test” is
performed by comparing the percent in each cell with all other
cells in the same row within a given variable (within Voting
Propensity in the pictured table, for example).
The results from the “z-test” are displayed in a separate table
below the crosstabulation table. If the percent in one cell is
statistically different from the percent in another, the column
label will be displayed in the cell from which it varies significantly.
For instance, in the adjacent table, a significantly higher percent
of low-propensity voters (36%) reported “probably yes” than
high-propensity voters (19%). Hence, the letter “C,” which stands
for high-propensity voters, appears under Column “A,” which
stands for low-propensity voters. The letters in the table indicate
the differences where one can be 95% confident that the results
are due to actual differences in opinions or behaviors reported by
subgroups of respondents.
It is important to note that the percent difference among
subgroups is just one piece in the equation to determine whether
or not two percentage figures are significantly different from each
other. The variance and sample size associated with each data
point is integral to determining significance. Therefore, two
calculations may be different from each other, yet the difference
may not be statistically significant according to the “z” statistic.
EXAMPLE OF DATA FOR Z-TEST
Voting Propensity
Low Medium High
(A) (B) (C)
If the election were held
today, would you vote
yes or no on this
measure?
Definitely Yes
Probably Yes C
Probably No
Definitely No
DK/NA
EXAMPLE OF DATA FOR
SUBGROUP COMPARISONS
Voting Propensity
Total Low Medium High
If the election
were held
today, would
you vote yes
or no on this
measure?
Total 250 68 80 101
Definitely Yes96 24 35 37
38.5% 34.4% 44.2% 36.7%
Probably Yes60 25 16 19
23.9% 36.1% 19.6% 19.2%
Probably No20 3 8 9
7.9% 4.3% 9.5% 8.9%
Definitely No63 14 16 33
25.3% 20.9% 19.7% 32.6%
DK/NA11 3 6 3
4.4% 4.2% 7.0% 2.6%
-
Page 84
April 2017
Understanding a Mean
In addition to the analysis of the percent of the
responses, some results are discussed with respect
to an average score. To derive the overall
importance of an issue, Q4 for example, a number
value was assigned to each response category – in
this case, “Very Satisfied” = +2, “Somewhat
Satisfied” = +1, “Somewhat Dissatisfied” = -1 and
“Very Dissatisfied” = -2.
The number values that correspond to
respondents’ answers were then averaged to
produce a final score that reflects the overall
importance of an issue. The resulting mean score
makes the interpretation of the data considerably
easier.
In the crosstabulation tables for Questions 4, 7, 11,
16, and 18 of the survey, the reader will find mean
scores. These mean scores represent the average
response of each group. The table to the right
shows the scales for each corresponding question.
Responses of “DK/NA” were not included in the
calculations of the means for any question.
Question Measure Scale Values
Q4 and Q18
Satisfaction Ratings
-2 to +2
+2 = “Very Satisfied”
+1 = “Somewhat Satisfied”
-1 = “Somewhat Dissatisfied”
-2 = “Very Dissatisfied”
Q7Frequency
Ratings-2 to +2
+3 = “Almost Always”
+2 = “Most of the Time”
+1 = “Some of the Time”
0 = “Never”
Q11 Features +2 to -2
+2.0 = “Much More Likely”
+1.0 = “Somewhat More Likely”
0.0 = “No Effect”
-1.0 = “Somewhat Less Likely”
-2.0 = “Much Less Likely”
Q16
Likely
Support and
Opposition
+2 to -2
+2.0 = “Strongly Support”
+1.0 = “Somewhat Support”
-1.0 = “Somewhat Oppose”
-2.0 = “Strongly Oppose”
-
Page 85
April 2017
Means Comparisons
A typical crosstabulation table of mean scores is
shown in the adjacent table. All subgroups of
interest concerning questions 4, 7, 11, 16, and 18
are included in Appendix E.
The aggregate mean score for each item in the
question series is presented in the first column of
the data under “Total.” For example, among all the
survey respondents, the feature A, “Overall
appearance of City,” earned a mean score of 1.8.
Next to the “Total” column are other columns
representing the mean scores assigned by the
respondents grouped by Gender.
The data from these columns are read in the same
fashion as the data in the “Total” column. To test
whether two mean scores are statistically different,
a “t-test” is performed. As in the case of the “z-test”
for percentage figures, a statistically significant
result is indicated by the letter representing the data
column.
EXAMPLE OF DATA FOR MEANS
COMPARISON
Gender
Total Male Female
Overall appearance of the City 1.8 1.7 1.9
Recreational opportunities 1.6 1.5 1.6
Access to quality affordable housing -0.4 -0.3 -0.5
Overall image and reputation of City 1.4 1.3 1.4
EXAMPLE OF DATA FOR T-TEST
Gender
Male Female
(A) (B)
Overall appearance of the City A
Recreational opportunities
Access to quality affordable housing
Overall image and reputation of City
-
Appendix C: Topline Report
-
CITY OF SAN RAFAEL
2017 Resident Satisfaction Survey
Topline Report n=858 25-minutes Hybrid Online & Phone Interviewing Sample: All Voters / Likely November 2018 / Likely June 2018 / Likely November 2017
February 27, 2017
www.godberesearch.com
Northern California and Corporate Offices 1575 Old Bayshore Highway, Suite 102 Burlingame, CA 94010 Nevada 59 Damonte Ranch Parkway, Suite B309 Reno, NV 89521 Pacific Northwest 601 108th Avenue NE, Suite 1900 Bellevue, WA 98004
http://www.godberesearch.com/
-
Godbe Research
2015 San Rafael Resident Satisfaction Survey
METHODOLOGY
Interview Methodology: Internet & Phone
Languages: English n=858 & Spanish n=3
Sample Universes:
46,787 Adults 18+
18,466 Likely November 2018 voters
13,597 Likely June 2018 voters
12,474 Likely November 2017 voters
Sample Size:
n=858, Adults 18+
n=750, November 2018
n=633, June 2018
n=537, November 2017
Error Rate:
±3.31%, Adults 18+
±3.51%, November 2018
±3.80%, June 2018
±4.14%, November 2017
Field Dates: February 7 to February 19, 2015
Census 2015 ACS Weighting Strata: Survey Type / Gender / Age / Ethnicity / Homeownership
Voter File Weighting Strata: Survey Type / Gender / Age / Partisanhip / Homeownership / Permanent Absentee Voter
OVERALL SATISFACTION
Column N % Count∑, Mean
or ΔColumn N % Count
∑, Mean
or ΔColumn N % Count
∑, Mean
or ΔColumn N % Count
∑, Mean
or Δ
Very satisfied 46.4% 398 46.6% 158 48.7% 122 47.6% 109
Somewhat satisfied 40.6% 348 42.1% 143 40.7% 102 40.9% 94
Somewhat dissatisfied 9.2% 79 8.2% 28 7.5% 19 8.1% 19
Very dissatisfied 2.7% 24 2.4% 8 2.2% 6 2.5% 6
DK/NA 1.1% 9 0.6% 2 0.9% 2 0.9% 2
Satisfaction 87.0% 88.8% 89.5% 88.5%
Dissatisfaction 12.0% 10.6% 9.7% 10.5%
Ratio Sat to Dissat 7.3 8.4 9.2 8.4
Very satisfied 31.8% 272 27.4% 93 28.4% 71 28.1% 64
Somewhat satisfied 44.3% 380 52.2% 177 51.4% 128 50.9% 116
Somewhat dissatisfied 12.3% 106 11.4% 39 10.7% 27 12.0% 27
Very dissatisfied 3.9% 33 4.1% 14 4.4% 11 4.4% 10
DK/NA 7.8% 67 4.9% 17 5.1% 13 4.7% 11
Satisfaction 76.1% 79.6% 79.8% 79.0%
Dissatisfaction 16.2% 15.5% 15.1% 16.4%
Ratio Sat to Dissat 4.7 5.1 5.3 4.8
Excellent 4.6% 40 3.9% 13 3.8% 10 3.7% 9
Good 34.0% 292 29.2% 99 34.1% 85 33.4% 77
Fair 18.2% 156 22.2% 75 21.9% 55 22.7% 52
Poor 4.4% 38 5.0% 17 5.7% 14 6.2% 14
DK/NA 38.7% 332 39.7% 134 34.5% 86 33.9% 78
Ex + Good 38.6% 33.0% 37.9% 37.2%
Poor 4.4% 5.0% 5.7% 6.2%
Ratio (Ex + Good)/Poor 8.7 6.6 6.6 6.0
1. To begin, what is your overall opinion of living in San Rafael .
In general, are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the overall
quality of life in San Rafael?
2. In general, are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the job the
City of San Rafael is doing to provide City services?
3. In your opinion, would you say the City's financial situation is
excellent, good, fair, or poor?
Total R. Likely June 2018 Voter S. Likely November 2017 VoterLikely November 2018 Voter
Topline Report 2/27/2017 Page 1
-
Godbe Research
2015 San Rafael Resident Satisfaction Survey
SATISFACTION WITH INDIVIDUAL SERVICES
Column N % Count∑, Mean
or ΔColumn N % Count
∑, Mean
or ΔColumn N % Count
∑, Mean
or ΔColumn N % Count
∑, Mean
or Δ
Very satisfied 24.5% 210 46.6% 15.2% 51 42.8% 15.0% 37 43.7% 15.2% 35 43.4%
Somewhat satisfied 22.1% 190 27.6% 94 28.7% 72 28.2% 65
Somewhat dissatisfied 8.0% 68 8.9% 30 8.1% 20 8.5% 19
Very dissatisfied 2.3% 19 3.4% 12 2.9% 7 2.5% 6
DK/NA 43.2% 370 44.9% 152 45.3% 113 45.6% 104
Very satisfied 49.8% 427 85.6% 45.5% 154 88.1% 49.5% 124 88.9% 48.4% 111 88.2%
Somewhat satisfied 35.9% 308 42.6% 144 39.3% 98 39.8% 91
Somewhat dissatisfied 8.1% 70 4.7% 16 4.8% 12 5.5% 13
Very dissatisfied 1.7% 14 2.8% 9 1.3% 3 1.1% 2
DK/NA 4.6% 39 4.4% 15 5.0% 12 5.2% 12
Very satisfied 17.6% 151 45.4% 11.0% 37 48.9% 13.7% 34 51.3% 13.4% 31 51.0%
Somewhat satisfied 27.8% 239 38.0% 129 37.7% 94 37.6% 86
Somewhat dissatisfied 28.4% 243 23.4% 79 21.4% 53 20.2% 46
Very dissatisfied 15.5% 133 18.9% 64 18.0% 45 19.4% 44
DK/NA 10.7% 92 8.8% 30 9.3% 23 9.4% 22
Very satisfied 17.2% 147 57.0% 12.4% 42 54.8% 13.6% 34 54.9% 14.0% 32 54.2%
Somewhat satisfied 39.9% 342 42.4% 144 41.3% 103 40.2% 92
Somewhat dissatisfied 21.7% 186 19.5% 66 20.8% 52 21.0% 48
Very dissatisfied 7.4% 64 10.3% 35 9.4% 23 10.8% 25
DK/NA 13.8% 119 15.4% 52 14.8% 37 14.0% 32
Very satisfied 38.4% 329 78.6% 37.6% 128 82.7% 36.7% 91 83.0% 37.9% 87 82.9%
Somewhat satisfied 40.2% 345 45.0% 152 46.4% 116 45.0% 103
Somewhat dissatisfied 13.5% 116 6.0% 20 6.1% 15 5.6% 13
Very dissatisfied 1.4% 12 3.5% 12 2.8% 7 3.5% 8
DK/NA 6.5% 56 7.8% 27 8.0% 20 8.0% 18
Very satisfied 18.7% 160 49.9% 12.5% 42 51.8% 13.2% 33 52.3% 11.5% 26 50.5%
Somewhat satisfied 31.2% 268 39.3% 133 39.1% 98 39.0% 89
Somewhat dissatisfied 27.4% 235 23.2% 78 24.6% 61 24.1% 55
Very dissatisfied 21.1% 181 22.4% 76 20.1% 50 22.5% 52
DK/NA 1.7% 14 2.6% 9 2.9% 7 2.9% 7
Very satisfied 16.5% 141 64.4% 15.9% 54 55.1% 16.9% 42 55.2% 15.2% 35 54.2%
Somewhat satisfied 48.0% 411 39.3% 133 38.4% 96 39.0% 89
Somewhat dissatisfied 18.1% 155 26.0% 88 26.7% 67 26.3% 60
Very dissatisfied 15.9% 137 17.5% 59 16.5% 41 18.1% 42
DK/NA 1.5% 13 1.4% 5 1.6% 4 1.4% 3
Very satisfied 48.3% 414 85.8% 49.3% 167 86.6% 50.7% 126 85.8% 48.2% 111 85.7%
Somewhat satisfied 37.5% 322 37.3% 126 35.2% 88 37.5% 86
Somewhat dissatisfied 4.3% 37 2.3% 8 2.9% 7 2.9% 7
Very dissatisfied 0.2% 2 0.5% 2 0.3% 1 0.1% 0
DK/NA 9.7% 83 10.6% 36 11.0% 27 11.3% 26
Total Likely November 2018 Voter R. Likely June 2018 Voter S. Likely November 2017 Voter
4C. Keeping taxes at affordable levels
4D. Managing growth and development
4E. Preserving open space
4F. Managing traffic on city streets
4G. Maintaining city streets and roads
4A. Providing programs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions
4B. Providing police protection
4H. Providing public library services
Topline Report 2/27/2017 Page 2
-
Godbe Research
2015 San Rafael Resident Satisfaction Survey
Column N % Count∑, Mean
or ΔColumn N % Count
∑, Mean
or ΔColumn N % Count
∑, Mean
or ΔColumn N % Count
∑, Mean
or Δ
Very satisfied 55.5% 476 86.5% 59.2% 201 89.4% 62.7% 156 89.7% 63.0% 144 89.4%
Somewhat satisfied 31.0% 265 30.2% 102 26.9% 67 26.4% 60
Somewhat dissatisfied 2.4% 20 1.7% 6 1.8% 4 1.8% 4
Very dissatisfied 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0
DK/NA 11.1% 96 8.8% 30 8.5% 21 8.7% 20
Very satisfied 7.8% 67 36.0% 9.9% 34 35.7% 11.2% 28 35.9% 11.6% 26 34.8%
Somewhat satisfied 28.2% 242 25.8% 87 24.7% 62 23.2% 53
Somewhat dissatisfied 24.1% 207 27.9% 95 28.9% 72 30.0% 69
Very dissatisfied 14.6% 125 14.3% 48 13.4% 33 14.0% 32
DK/NA 25.3% 217 22.2% 75 21.8% 54 21.2% 48
Very satisfied 26.9% 231 70.8% 26.6% 90 75.3% 27.5% 69 74.6% 28.3% 65 75.0%
Somewhat satisfied 43.8% 376 48.8% 165 47.1% 117 46.7% 107
Somewhat dissatisfied 14.3% 123 12.3% 42 13.3% 33 13.1% 30
Very dissatisfied 4.5% 39 5.9% 20 4.6% 11 4.5% 10
DK/NA 10.4% 89 6.5% 22 7.5% 19 7.4% 17
Very satisfied 23.0% 198 71.1% 21.1% 71 63.5% 23.2% 58 62.8% 21.8% 50 60.4%
Somewhat satisfied 48.0% 412 42.4% 144 39.6% 99 38.6% 88
Somewhat dissatisfied 17.9% 154 17.9% 61 20.7% 52 22.5% 52
Very dissatisfied 9.2% 79 14.3% 48 12.4% 31 12.8% 29
DK/NA 1.7% 15 4.4% 15 4.1% 10 4.3% 10
Very satisfied 29.7% 255 74.9% 26.5% 90 72.1% 26.9% 67 71.7% 26.0% 60 70.6%
Somewhat satisfied 45.2% 387 45.7% 155 44.7% 112 44.6% 102
Somewhat dissatisfied 10.6% 91 11.1% 38 12.6% 31 13.3% 31
Very dissatisfied 8.4% 72 6.7% 23 6.3% 16 6.2% 14
DK/NA 6.1% 52 10.0% 34 9.5% 24 9.8% 23
Very satisfied 29.9% 257 73.2% 28.5% 97 75.8% 27.9% 69 76.9% 25.9% 59 76.5%
Somewhat satisfied 43.3% 371 47.2% 160 49.1% 122 50.6% 116
Somewhat dissatisfied 12.4% 106 10.5% 35 8.8% 22 8.8% 20
Very dissatisfied 3.1% 26 6.2% 21 5.5% 14 5.8% 13
DK/NA 11.3% 97 7.6% 26 8.8% 22 8.9% 20
Very satisfied 31.3% 268 79.8% 29.9% 101 77.3% 32.4% 81 78.5% 31.2% 71 77.9%
Somewhat satisfied 48.5% 416 47.5% 161 46.1% 115 46.7% 107
Somewhat dissatisfied 12.0% 103 11.7% 40 12.2% 30 13.0% 30
Very dissatisfied 6.4% 55 7.8% 26 6.3% 16 6.0% 14
DK/NA 1.8% 15 3.2% 11 2.9% 7 3.1% 7
Very satisfied 23.5% 202 64.2% 19.6% 66 61.2% 19.6% 49 59.5% 20.8% 48 57.9%
Somewhat satisfied 40.7% 349 41.6% 141 39.9% 100 37.0% 85
Somewhat dissatisfied 19.9% 171 21.6% 73 22.0% 55 22.9% 52
Very dissatisfied 13.3% 114 12.2% 41 13.8% 34 13.9% 32
DK/NA 2.6% 22 5.0% 17 4.7% 12 5.3% 12
Total Likely November 2018 Voter R. Likely June 2018 Voter S. Likely November 2017 Voter
4M. Providing bike and pedestrian friendly routes
4N. Trimming trees along city streets
4O. Cleaning and sweeping city streets
4P. Providing sufficient parking downtown
4I. Providing fire and paramedic services
4J. Providing affordable housing
4K. Maintaining storm drains
4L. Maintaining sidewalks
Topline Report 2/27/2017 Page 3
-
Godbe Research
2015 San Rafael Resident Satisfaction Survey
Column N % Count∑, Mean
or ΔColumn N % Count
∑, Mean
or ΔColumn N % Count
∑, Mean
or ΔColumn N % Count
∑, Mean
or Δ
Very satisfied 14.7% 126 40.4% 17.0% 58 50.1% 17.5% 44 51.4% 19.2% 44 52.2%
Somewhat satisfied 25.7% 220 33.1% 112 33.9% 85 33.0% 76
Somewhat dissatisfied 5.6% 48 6.9% 23 6.6% 16 7.1% 16
Very dissatisfied 0.7% 6 1.7% 6 2.1% 5 2.3% 5
DK/NA 53.4% 458 41.3% 140 39.8% 99 38.4% 88
Very satisfied 15.8% 136 44.1% 10.8% 37 39.4% 10.1% 25 39.8% 11.0% 25 39.7%
Somewhat satisfied 28.2% 242 28.6% 97 29.7% 74 28.7% 66
Somewhat dissatisfied 10.6% 91 8.0% 27 6.4% 16 7.2% 16
Very dissatisfied 3.7% 32 2.5% 8 2.2% 6 2.2% 5
DK/NA 41.6% 357 50.1% 170 51.6% 129 50.9% 117
Very satisfied 26.3% 226 68.2% 29.3% 99 75.9% 29.7% 74 74.8% 30.3% 69 74.2%
Somewhat satisfied 41.9% 359 46.6% 158 45.2% 113 43.9% 101
Somewhat dissatisfied 13.2% 113 6.5% 22 7.1% 18 7.3% 17
Very dissatisfied 0.7% 6 1.7% 6 0.9% 2 1.4% 3
DK/NA 17.9% 153 15.9% 54 17.1% 43 17.1% 39
Very satisfied 34.2% 293 76.8% 35.0% 118 82.2% 36.5% 91 83.2% 35.5% 81 82.6%
Somewhat satisfied 42.6% 366 47.2% 160 46.6% 116 47.1% 108
Somewhat dissatisfied 11.4% 98 8.5% 29 7.5% 19 8.0% 18
Very dissatisfied 1.7% 15 2.4% 8 2.1% 5 2.0% 5
DK/NA 10.0% 86 6.9% 23 7.2% 18 7.4% 17
Very satisfied 31.6% 271 78.8% 30.6% 104 81.1% 31.0% 77 83.8% 29.5% 68 83.1%
Somewhat satisfied 47.2% 405 50.5% 171 52.8% 132 53.6% 123
Somewhat dissatisfied 10.5% 90 8.2% 28 6.9% 17 7.0% 16
Very dissatisfied 4.5% 39 3.9% 13 2.4% 6 2.9% 7
DK/NA 6.2% 53 6.7% 23 7.0% 17 7.0% 16
Very satisfied 27.5% 236 72.7% 24.7% 84 74.0% 27.2% 68 75.7% 27.9% 64 77.6%
Somewhat satisfied 45.1% 387 49.3% 167 48.5% 121 49.8% 114
Somewhat dissatisfied 10.3% 89 6.9% 24 7.2% 18 6.4% 15
Very dissatisfied 0.6% 5 1.4% 5 1.2% 3 1.3% 3
DK/NA 16.4% 141 17.6% 60 16.0% 40 14.6% 34
Very satisfied 10.7% 92 34.8% 8.5% 29 24.3% 8.8% 22 23.4% 9.9% 23 25.2%
Somewhat satisfied 24.1% 207 15.8% 54 14.5% 36 15.2% 35
Somewhat dissatisfied 7.0% 60 5.5% 19 4.6% 11 4.1% 9
Very dissatisfied 0.8% 7 2.0% 7 1.9% 5 1.8% 4
DK/NA 57.4% 492 68.2% 231 70.2% 175 68.9% 158
Very satisfied 17.8% 153 40.7% 14.9% 50 41.9% 16.1% 40 46.1% 15.6% 36 45.5%
Somewhat satisfied 22.9% 196 27.1% 92 30.0% 75 29.9% 69
Somewhat dissatisfied 10.2% 88 9.2% 31 8.7% 22 8.6% 20
Very dissatisfied 8.8% 75 5.5% 19 4.9% 12 5.8% 13
DK/NA 40.3% 345 43.3% 147 40.3% 100 40.0% 92
Total Likely November 2018 Voter R. Likely June 2018 Voter S. Likely November 2017 Voter
4Q. Providing senior citizen services
4W. Providing child care services
4X. Meeting the needs of ethnic minorities
4R. Providing youth and teen services
4S. Providing community events
4T. Providing adequate parks and recreation facilities
4U. Maintaining parks
4V. Providing recreational and cultural arts programs
Topline Report 2/27/2017 Page 4
-
Godbe Research
2015 San Rafael Resident Satisfaction Survey
Column N % Count∑, Mean
or ΔColumn N % Count
∑, Mean
or ΔColumn N % Count
∑, Mean
or ΔColumn N % Count
∑, Mean
or Δ
Very satisfied 51.7% 443 85.5% 55.6% 188 89.0% 57.2% 143 88.2% 55.8% 128 88.6%
Somewhat satisfied 33.8% 290 33.3% 113 31.0% 77 32.8% 75
Somewhat dissatisfied 5.9% 51 5.5% 19 6.9% 17 6.3% 14
Very dissatisfied 7.3% 62 2.1% 7 1.4% 3 1.4% 3
DK/NA 1.4% 12 3.4% 12 3.5% 9 3.7% 8
Very satisfied 27.6% 236 74.6% 22.7% 77 70.9% 24.4% 61 70.0% 25.1% 58 69.2%
Somewhat satisfied 47.0% 403 48.2% 163 45.6% 114 44.1% 101
Somewhat dissatisfied 12.2% 104 11.9% 40 13.2% 33 14.2% 32
Very dissatisfied 4.7% 40 7.0% 24 6.5% 16 7.4% 17
DK/NA 8.6% 73 10.1% 34 10.2% 26 9.2% 21
Very satisfied 8.5% 73 31.2% 3.5% 12 25.5% 4.0% 10 26.8% 4.7% 11 27.7%
Somewhat satisfied 22.7% 195 22.0% 75 22.8% 57 23.0% 53
Somewhat dissatisfied 25.4% 218 29.3% 99 33.9% 85 33.6% 77
Very dissatisfied 33.2% 285 34.1% 115 29.0% 72 28.8% 66
DK/NA 10.2% 87 11.1% 38 10.3% 26 9.9% 23
Very satisfied 15.3% 131 51.2% 13.0% 44 45.0% 13.9% 35 48.8% 14.5% 33 50.1%
Somewhat satisfied 36.0% 308 32.0% 108 34.9% 87 35.7% 82
Somewhat dissatisfied 14.8% 127 12.5% 42 13.6% 34 14.5% 33
Very dissatisfied 4.0% 35 8.0% 27 6.4% 16 7.0% 16
DK/NA 29.9% 256 34.6% 117 31.2% 78 28.4% 65
Very satisfied 20.1% 172 48.7% 13.4% 46 43.1% 12.5% 31 43.4% 12.9% 29 42.8%
Somewhat satisfied 28.6% 245 29.7% 101 30.9% 77 30.0% 69
Somewhat dissatisfied 9.0% 78 10.0% 34 12.2% 31 12.0% 27
Very dissatisfied 3.6% 31 9.0% 31 8.3% 21 9.1% 21
DK/NA 38.6% 331 37.9% 128 36.1% 90 36.1% 83
Total Likely November 2018 Voter R. Likely June 2018 Voter S. Likely November 2017 Voter
4Y. Providing garbage collection and recycling services
4Z. Enforcing traffic and parking laws
4AA. Reducing the impacts of homelessness
4BB. Having your voice heard in City government
4CC. Effectively providing building planning and permitting
services
Topline Report 2/27/2017 Page 5
-
Godbe Research
2015 San Rafael Resident Satisfaction Survey
SATISFACTION WITH INDIVIDUAL SERVICES - RANKED BY MEAN SCORE
Column N % Count∑, Mean
or ΔColumn N % Count
∑, Mean
or ΔColumn N % Count
∑, Mean
or ΔColumn N % Count
∑, Mean
or Δ
4I. Providing fire and paramedic services 1.60 1.63 1.67 1.67
4H. Providing public library services 1.48 1.51 1.53 1.51
4B. Providing police protection 1.40 1.37 1.44 1.43
4Y. Providing garbage collection and recycling services 1.32 1.48 1.49 1.49
4E. Preserving open space 1.24 1.27 1.27 1.27
4T. Providing adequate parks and recreation facilities 1.22 1.23 1.27 1.25
4A. Providing programs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 1.21 0.99 1.02 1.03
4V. Providing recreational and cultural arts programs 1.19 1.18 1.21 1.22
4Q. Providing senior citizen services 1.17 1.11 1.11 1.12
4S. Providing community events 1.14 1.23 1.25 1.24
4N. Trimming trees along city streets 1.13 1.06 1.09 1.06
4U. Maintaining parks 1.13 1.16 1.21 1.18
4O. Cleaning and sweeping city streets 1.07 1.03 1.08 1.06
4Z. Enforcing traffic and parking laws 1.07 0.96 0.98 0.96
4CC. Effectively providing building planning and permitting
services1.06 0.76 0.75 0.73
4W. Providing child care services 1.05 0.97 1.02 1.07
4K. Maintaining storm drains 1.04 1.03 1.05 1.07
4M. Providing bike and pedestrian friendly routes 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.00
4R. Providing youth and teen services 0.96 0.96 0.99 0.99
4BB. Having your voice heard in City government 0.89 0.76 0.82 0.80
4L. Maintaining sidewalks 0.86 0.73 0.77 0.73
4X. Meeting the needs of ethnic minorities 0.83 0.90 0.96 0.92
4D. Managing growth and development 0.77 0.67 0.69 0.67
4P. Providing sufficient parking downtown 0.76 0.72 0.68 0.68
4G. Maintaining city streets and roads 0.66 0.54 0.56 0.52
4C. Keeping taxes at affordable levels 0.53 0.45 0.52 0.50
4F. Managing traffic on city streets 0.48 0.43 0.47 0.41
4J. Providing affordable housing 0.39 0.40 0.43 0.41
4AA. Reducing the impacts of homelessness 0.07 -0.06 0.02 0.04
Total Likely November 2018 Voter R. Likely June 2018 Voter S. Likely November 2017 Voter
Topline Report 2/27/2017 Page 6
-
Godbe Research
2015 San Rafael Resident Satisfaction Survey
OTHER SERVICES AND ISSUES
Column N % Count∑, Mean
or ΔColumn N % Count
∑, Mean
or ΔColumn N % Count
∑, Mean
or ΔColumn N % Count
∑, Mean
or Δ
Homelessness 26.2% 225 31.2% 106 28.5% 71 28.8% 66
Traffic congestion 17.7% 152 17.2% 58 18.1% 45 18.7% 43
Affordability of housing 15.2% 131 8.8% 30 10.9% 27 9.3% 21
Cost of living or housing 10.0% 85 6.9% 23 5.8% 15 5.6% 13
Growth and/or overcrowding 5.6% 48 9.4% 32 8.6% 21 9.4% 21
Availability of jobs 3.8% 32 1.1% 4 1.2% 3 1.3% 3
City employee pensions &
benefits are too high2.3% 19 3.7% 13 4.8% 12 4.4% 10
Condition or safety of streets 1.5% 13 1.7% 6 1.5% 4 1.5% 3
Public safety (includes crime) 1.3% 11 2.2% 8 1.1% 3 1.1% 3
Illegal immigrants or day
laborers1.2% 10 3.0% 10 3.4% 8 3.4% 8
Condition or safety of
sidewalks/pathways1.2% 10 0.7% 2 1.1% 3 1.1% 2
Quality of education 1.0% 9 1.1% 4 1.1% 3 1.3% 3
Poor financial
situation/condition0.8% 6 1.6% 5 2.6% 6 1.9% 4
Condition or safety of buildings 0.4% 3 0.9% 3 0.0% 0 0.0% 0
Other (SPECIFY: 6.7% 58 7.2% 24 7.8% 20 8.5% 19
DK/NA 5.2% 45 3.2% 11 3.6% 9 3.7% 8
Satisfied 30.0% 258 30