You are on page 1of 22

Town of Atherton

2009 Parcel Tax Feasibility Survey


June 2009

Overview and Research Objectives


Conduct a survey of voters to understand feasibility of continuing expiring 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

Page 2 June 2009

Methodology Overview
Data Collection Universe

Telephone Interviewing 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 June 3 to 14, 2009 15 minutes

Fielding Dates Interview Length

Sample Size
Margin of Error

300
5.3%

Note: The data have been weighted to reflect the actual population characteristics of the likely voters in the Town of Atherton in terms of their gender, age, political party type, and the actual proportion of respondents on record as homeowners.

Page 3 June 2009

Initial Ballot Test

DK/NA 9% Definitely no 19% Definitely yes 30%

To continue providing funding for Town general purposes, such as, but not limited to,
[RANDOMIZE A THROUGH D]

Probably yes 29% Probably no 13%

Total Support 59%

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?

Page 4 June 2009

Initial Ballot Test


Differences in Election Timing

Likely Off-Year Tax Voters* Sample size Margin of error Definitely Yes Probably Yes Probably No Definitely No DK/NA 300 + 5.3% 30% 29% 13% 19% 9%

Likely November 2009 Voters 201 + 6.5% 37% 27% 10% 16% 11%

Likely Mail Ballot 2010 Voters 220 + 6.3% 36% 27% 11% 16% 10%

Likely June 2010 Voters 254 + 5.8% 32% 29% 13% 17% 10%

* 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.

Page 5 June 2009

Support for Different Rates of Tax Increases

80%

60%

26%
40%

30% 23%

Probably yes Definitely yes

20%

39% 17% 25%

0% 15% increase

10% increase

5% increase

Page 6 June 2009

Support for Different Tax Increases


Various Dwelling Sizes

Less than acre (n = 13) 15% increase to $518 per year 10% increase to $495 per year 5% increase to $473 per year

Definitely yes 17% 29% 42%

Probably yes 25% 22% 15%

Probably no 15% 6% 0%

Definitely no 38% 43% 43%

DK/NA 5% 0% 0%

Between and acre (n = 42) 15% increase to $656 per year 10% increase to $627 per year 5% increase to $599 per year

Definitely yes 10% 17% 39%

Probably yes 15% 34% 11%

Probably no 25% 15% 13%

Definitely no 42% 30% 30%

DK/NA 8% 5% 7%

Between acre and 2 acres (n = 243) 15% increase to $863 per year 10% increase to $825 per year

Definitely yes 18% 25%

Probably yes 24% 30%

Probably no 18% 12%

Definitely no 29% 22%

DK/NA 11% 10%

5% increase to $788 per year

38%

29%

9%

18%

7%

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

Page 7 June 2009

Support for Continuation without Increase

DK/NA 12%

Definitely yes 48% Definitely no 13%


Probably yes 21% Probably no 6% Total Support 69%

One alternative to this measure would 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?

Page 8 June 2009

Support for Renewal without Increase


Differences in Election Timing

Likely Off-Year Tax Voters* Sample size Margin of error Definitely Yes Probably Yes Probably No Definitely No 300 + 5.3% 48% 21% 6% 13%

Likely November 2009 Voters 201 + 6.5% 51% 18% 5% 14%

Likely Mail Ballot 2010 Voters 220 + 6.3% 52% 18% 5% 14%

Likely June 2010 Voters 254 + 5.8% 51% 20% 6% 13%

DK/NA

12%

12%

11%

10%

* 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.

Page 9 June 2009

Support for Different Durations

80%

60%

24%
40%

19%

20%

24%

26%
Probably yes Definitely yes

20%

34%

36%

36%

36%

38%

0%

Ongoing

12 years

9 years

7 years

5 years

Page 10 June 2009

Measure Features

Somewhat Less Likely

No Effect

Somewhat More Likely

Much More Likely

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.

Page 11 June 2009

Positive Arguments I

No Effect

Somewhat More Likely

Much More Likely

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.

Page 12 June 2009

Positive Arguments II

No Effect

Somewhat More Likely

Much More Likely

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.

Page 13 June 2009

Negative Arguments

No Effect

Somewhat More Likely

Much More Likely

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.

Page 14 June 2009

Final Ballot Test

To continue providing funding for Town general purposes, such as, but not limited to, Initial Ballot Test 30% 29% 13% 19% 9%
[HOLD RANDOMIZATION FROM QUESTION 1]

Final Ballot Test

26%

25%

15%

25%

9%

0%
Definitely yes Definitely no

50%
Probably yes DK/NA

100%
Probably no

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?

Page 15 June 2009

Final Ballot Test


Differences in Election Timing

Likely Off-Year Tax Voters* Sample size Margin of error Definitely Yes Probably Yes 300 + 5.3% 26% 25%

Likely November 2009 Voters 201 + 6.5% 33% 23%

Likely Mail Ballot 2010 Voters 220 + 6.3% 30% 24%

Likely June 2010 Voters 254 + 5.8% 30% 23%

Probably No
Definitely No DK/NA

15%
25% 9%

11%
21% 12%

13%
22% 11%

14%
22% 11%

* 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.

Page 16 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 the measure 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.

Page 17 June 2009

Voter Support Classification


Differences in Election Timing

Likely Off-Year Tax Voters* Sample size Margin of error Strong Support Potential Support Strong Opposition 300 + 5.3% 27% 42% 31%

Likely November 2009 Voters 201 + 6.5% 35% 39% 26%

Likely Mail Ballot 2010 Voters 220 + 6.3% 32% 41% 27%

Likely June 2010 Voters 254 + 5.8% 30% 40% 29%

* 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.

Page 18 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.
Page 19 June 2009

Summary and Recommendations II


Sizeable potential support segment (42%) suggests need for voter education 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

Page 20 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

Page 21 June 2009

Town of Atherton

2009 Parcel Tax Feasibility Survey


June 2009

You might also like