HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/16/2000, 6 - LONG TERM FISCAL HEALTH council
j ac En ba Repoizt '�"6
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
FROM: John Dunn, City Administrative Offr r
Bill Statler, Director of Finance
SUBJECT: LONG TERM FISCAL HEALTH
CAO RECOMMENDATION
A. Revisit the results of the recently prepared Ten Year Financial Plan.
B. Consider the results of the feasibility analysis of a November 2000 revenue ballot
measure.
REPORT-IN-BRIEF
Tough Decision—Unique Window of Opportunity
The Council is faced with a very difficult decision regarding the City's long-term fiscal health.
As shown in the recently prepared Ten Year Financial Plan, very limited resources will be
available to us over the next ten years in achieving our capital improvement plan (CIP) goals if
we want to continue current service levels and adequately maintain the facilities and
infrastructure we already have. Putting this in perspective, we may have about $7 million.
available over the next ten years to meet our new facility and infrastructure needs; however,
meeting these needs is likely to cost $100 million. To state the obvious,this is a major gap that
is unlikely to be bridged by grants, State restoration of budget grabs or a foreseeable
improvement (beyond that already projected)in the City's existing revenue sources.
Era of Proposition 218 limits has arrived In the past several years,the Council has been able to
maintain service levels and fund enhanced ones like open space protection, street maintenance
and athletic fields by selectively implementing new revenues. However, under Proposition 218
adopted by the voters in 1996, any new, significant revenue sources will require voter approval.
For the upcoming 2001-03 Financial Plan, this means that there will not be any revenue "budget-
balancers" available to the Council like there have been in the past. Simply stated, funding any
major "new initiatives" will require cutting services or facility maintenance levels. And since
80% of our operating costs are for staffing, and 50% for public safety (police and fire), cutting
service levels—while certainly possible—will not be easy.
A revenue measure is feasible, but . . . . The attached analysis prepared by The Lew Edwards
Group shows that a November 2000 revenue measure is feasible; however, its success depends
on launching an extensive public information program over the next 90 days that will cost about
$60,000. Further, it will require a significant commitment of senior staff resources over the next
90 days, and this will directly compete with other major policy initiatives during this same period
such as the Copeland proposal for Palm Street-Court Street, the airport area specific plan and
auto dealer relocation. And lastly, there are other issues related to the November ballot that
might lessen the chances of success for a City revenue measure.
6-1
a
Council Agenda Report—Long Tenn Fiscal Health
Page 2
On the other hand, the analysis also makes it clear that there are factors in place today that may
not be present in the future. As such, the November 2000 ballot presents a unique window of
opportunity to achieve important community goals and assure our long-term fiscal health.
In short, there are a number of factors that strongly argue for at least moving forward to the next
step (albeit an expensive one) and deferring a final "go/no go" decision about a November
revenue measure until August; and there are equally good reasons to postpone a ballot measure
to after November 2000.
Recommendation. On balance, we recommend taking the next step – a public information
program. This preserves the Council's option to make a final decision in August 2000 when
better information will be available.
Taking this next step is not without risk. It will require spending $60,000 for an outcome that is
not guaranteed: we may well decide in August not to proceed further. And it will mean diverting
senior staff resources from other important projects during this 90-day period. However, even if
we do not ultimately go forward with a ballot measure in August—or it is unsuccessful in
November—this expenditure and commitment of staff resources to tell our "fiscal stor} ' to the
community may still have been a wise one, since it will result in a community that is better
informed about what we can—and cannot—do in maintaining and improving City services and
facilities.
DISCUSSION
Background
As part of the 1999-01 Financial Plan, the Council adopted Long-Term Fiscal Health as a major
City goal. The"action plan"for this goal consists of two major tasks:
■ Develop a ten-year financial plan that assesses our ability to fund current service levels and
adopted capital improvement plan (CIP) goals.
Status. We presented the Ten Year Financial Plan to the Council on February 29, 2000.
■ Prepare for a possible revenue ballot measure in November 2000.
Status. The Council approved $35,000 in the 1999-01 Financial Plan for professional
assistance in evaluating the feasibility of placing a revenue measure on the November 2000
ballot. The workscope for this included a community survey assessing the likelihood of
measure passage. The Council approved the request for proposals for this assistance on
October 19, 1999, and authorized the CAO to award the contract if the best overall proposal
was within the project budget. The CAO awarded the contract to The Lew Edwards Group
(with a subcontract to the firm of Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin & Associates for the survey) on
January 13, 2000. The results of their work are provided in Exhibits A and B.
The following summarizes the results of these two major Long Term Fiscal Health tasks:
6-2
Council Agenda Report—Long Tenn Fiscal Health
Page 3
Ten Year Financial Plan
City in Best•Fiscal Shape in Many Years, But Major Fiscal Challenges Ahead
As presented in the Mid-Year Budget Review, we are in our best financial shape in many years.
Our key revenues are performing well, and we are holding costs down. However, we face
significant fiscal challenges in the years ahead if we want to continue current service levels,
adequately maintain our existing facilities and achieve our long-term capital improvement goals.
This conclusion comes from our recently prepared Ten Year Financial Plan. It assesses the
City's long-term fiscal outlook by projecting ongoing revenues and subtracting from them costs
for day-to-day services and maintenance of the facilities and infrastructure we already have. The
balance remaining is available to fund new facilities and infrastructure.
The plan projects that very limited
resources will be available for this purpose:
s,2�.oao &M-WkNWCN'flmdlnC on average, about $700,000 will be
MOW _ available annually. After adjusting for a
s "one-time" carryover of $1.2 million from
1999-01, available funding ranges from
poaoo0 $100,000 to $900,000 annually. The total
m over the next ten years is about$7 million.
Nil '61-11
In the long-term, this means we can
continue current service levels and adequately maintain our existing facilities and infrastructure.
Considering where we've been—especially in the mid-90's due to State budget grabs and the
recession—this is very good news. It is especially notable since the plan funds street
maintenance at levels that are about $1 million higher annually than in the past; and funds the
added debt service costs we recently incurred in order to build new athletic fields in the
Margarita area,expand the Police Station and purchase key Downtown Plan properties.
On the other hand, it also means that there will be very limited resources for new or expanded
facilities. Achieving our long-term capital improvement goals will require significant new
revenue sources if we want to continue current service
levels and adequately maintain the facilities we already - ' - '
have. And any significant new revenues will require Public Safety Facilities
voter approval. Intersection Improvements
• Railroad Crossings
Placing the City's long-term needs into perspective, the Bikeway/Pedestrian Paths
"maintenance-only" projects funded in the plan do not Flood Protection
• Community Center/Therapy Pool
include new improvements like those in the side bar. Park Improvements
Implementing these projects over the next ten years will Downtown Plan Improvements
cost about $100 million. The$7 million projected in the Railroad Area Plan
plan for these kinds of improvements obviously falls far • Mid-Higuera Area Plan
short of this amount. • Open Space Acquisition
0 Civic Center Improvements
Council Agenda Report—Long Tenn Fiscal Health
Page 4
Forecast Assumptions
In preparing the plan, we made a number of assumptions about our fiscal future after taking a
detailed look at key demographic and financial trends for the last 15 years. Three of our most
important assumptions relate to State budget actions, sales tax revenues and operating costs.
State Budget. In the mid-1990's, State budget grabs reduced City revenues by $1.5 million
annually. Although it should, we are not planning on the State restoring these take-aways. On
the other had, we are not projecting any further take-aways.
Sales Taxes. This is the City's most important General Fund revenue source: at over $8 million
annually, it accounts for almost 30% of total revenues—so its performance has a big impact on
the City's fiscal health. Key assumptions for sales taxes include:
■ The forecast assumes that the basic methodology for allocating sales tax revenues on a
"situs" (where the sale occurs) basis will continue. To put this in perspective, we received
about $8.1 million in sales tax revenue in 1998-99; if this had been allocated on a "per
capita" basis, sales tax revenues would have been about $4.6 million, a loss of$3.4 million
anndally (40% of total sales revenues).
■ The Council is very aware of the major impacts that "e-commerce" can have on our sales tax
revenues. Because of their significance nation-wide for state and local government, the
forecast assumes that there will be a reasonable, "revenue-neutral" resolution to this very real
problem.
■ Based on detailed fiscal impact analyses previously prepared, we project additional "net
revenues" (after adjusting for service costs, "transfers" from existing retail outlets and
revenue sharing agreements) of $450,000 annually from the airport area annexation, and
$150,000 from the San Luis Marketplace. Without these, the annual amount available for
capital improvements is reduced from$700,00 to$100,000.
■ Currently, three major categories account for almost 75% of total "situs" sales tax revenues
general consumer goods (35%),
car-related sales (20%) and
business-to-business sales Situs Sales:1997 Vs 1998
(18%)• a mam® ui
As reflected in the "'°°°""" 151$
accompanying chart, the strong P.M.
performance of auto dealer and ` - -
camwCommrrOmm b -
"business-to-business" sales has
'helped "anemic" trends in 0 -
general consumer goods. The M SAM SLIM
projection assumes continued
strength in these two key areas 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0a z00% 25.0%
in offsetting poor performance
6-4
Council Agenda Report—Long Tenn Fiscal Health
Page 5
by general consumer goods in light of increasing competition from the north and south
county areas.
Operating Costs. Since operating costs make-up over 80% of projected expenditures, even
small differences in projected growth rates can have a major impact on the forecast results. We
are projecting that operating costs will grow by the combined affect of population and inflation,
or about 4% annually. Based on past growth rates, this will be difficult to achieve. This is
especially true since we cannot count on past favorable trends in retirement and insurance costs
to continue. And binding arbitration—which is under consideration by the State legislature and
the subject of a possible local initiative—would only make controlling costs at this level even
more difficult.
Significance of These Assumptions
Because sales tax and operating cost assumptions play such as major role in the forecast, even
relatively minor changes can have a significant impact on the forecast result. The following
chart shows examples of this:
■ The "light gray" bars show the results of the forecast (about $700,000 available annually for
"new "CIP projects).
■ The "white" bars show the results if we keep all other assumptions, but project that the
airport annexation and San Luis Marketplace projects do not go forward, and sales tax grows
by 1% less than the
forecast. In this case, we
rzo.^o" Available"New"CIP Fbndiag
will have a shortfall of
about $600,000 by 2011. a
This means cuts in
a
services and facility o
maintenance. �OAm) � 7�J: .. § Rk
4J)
a
■ The "dark gray" bars show
_....
what happens if we retain
all other forecast
assumptions (including the
most favorable ones for 0 Plan Assumptions
sales tax revenues) but oSales Tax No Airport Area Annexation/San Luis Marketplace;Gram,%Lower
operating costs increase by •operating Costs:Grow,%Higher
jut I% more than the
forecast projections. In this case, we will have shortfall of about$1.7 million by 2011.
Conclusion: Ten Year Financial Plan
Unless the economy performs much better than projected or new revenues are implemented, we
will have very limited resources to fund new facilities and infrastructure if we continue current
service levels and adequately maintain the assets we already have. This is an important "if,"
6-5
Council Agenda Report--Long Tenn Fiscal Health
Page 6
since it is certainly an option to reduce services in some areas in order to fund new ones in
others.
As noted above, in the past the Council has been able to maintain service levels and fund
enhanced programs and projects like open space protection, street maintenance and athletic fields
by selectively implementing new revenues. However, under Proposition 218, any new,
significant revenue sources will require voter approval.
Supplemental Information
The full Ten Year Financial Plan has already been distributed to the Council, and additional
copies are available in the Council Office along with a supplemental graphics package.
Feasibility of a November 2000 Revenue Measure
Based on the results of the survey performed by Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin & Associates
(FMMA), The Lew Edwards Group concludes that a November 2000 revenue measure is
feasible, but there is not a lot of time to prepare for it. As such, if the Council wants to retain the
flexibility to make a final decision in August, we must start work on the next step—a
comprehensive public information program—right away.
The report prepared by The Lew Edwards Group (Exhibit A) comprehensively sets forth the
steps that should be taken between now and August to best position the City for a favorable
outcome, summarized as follows:
Conduct survey research,evaluate results and prepare follow-up plan (completed) May 16
Refine project fist/uses of the measure Early June
Select financing mechanism Early June
Implement information program to educate the public May-July
Conduct additional survey research(tracking poll)to assess shifts in support Late July
Action by the Council Early August
The Lew Edwards Group estimates that the cost of this work through August will be $60,000,
summarized as follows:
Direct mail(based on three mailings to 15,000 households) 30,000
Tracking poll 15,000
Revenue measure feasibility advisor 15,000
Total $60,000
Survey Results
The results of FMMA's survey (along with a description for the methodology they used in
conducting the survey) are provided in Exhibit B. FMMA concludes that San Luis Obispo voters
6-6
Council Agenda Report—Long Term Fiscal Health
Page 7
are extremely happy with the quality of life in the City, and are generally satisfied with the City
services they receive. A two-thirds majority of the electorate also currently supports a quality of
life ballot measure that may be placed before voters in November 2000.
Key findings of the survey include:
■ Voters are extremely happy with the quality of life in San Luis Obispo. Fully 96% of
those surveyed rate the quality of life in the City as "excellent" or"good."
■ The rate of growth and development is the issue that most concerns San Luis Obispo
voters. A 32% plurality labels this issue the most important problem for City government to
address. Housing and traffic are also significant concerns.
■ San Luis Obispo voters are generally satisfied with almost all services they receive from
the City. 72% of those surveyed rate City services as "excellent" or "good," and a majority
give positive ratings to a variety of specific services.
■ Potential ballot measures to protect open space, establish binding arbitration, and fund
transportation improvements are supported by a majority of City voters. Among voters
who have heard something about the SOAR and arbitration measures, substantial majorities
say they would vote"yes." A transportation measure is supported by 60%of the electorate.
■ Two-thirds of San Luis Obispo voters support a potential measure to improve the
quality of life in the City through a variety of open space, recreation, public safety and
traffic reduction projects. This initial level of support suggests that the measure has the
potential to succeed; at the same time, almost half of those who say they would vote "yes"
say they would only"probably" do so. An extensive public education campaign would likely
be required to solidify the measure's support.
■ A majority of those surveyed support a sales tax as a funding mechanism for the quality
of life measure. A majority.also supports an increase in the transient occupancy tax,but it is
unlikely to generate sufficient revenue to fund the necessary projects.
■ At annual costs per taxpayer of over$75 per year, support for a quality of life measure
falls below two-thirds. At an annual cost of$50 per year, three out of four voters say they
would vote "yes" on the measure. Support falls steadily as the annual cost of the measure
increases. At a cost of $75 or more per year, even more extensive voter education efforts
would be required in order to give the measure any prospect of succeeding.
Where to From Here?
As discussed above in the Report-in-Brief, there are strong reasons for either going forward with
the next step or for deferring this to an election after November 2000. These include:
6-7
Council Agenda Report—Long Term Fiscal Health
Page 8
Reasons for Going Forward to the Next Step
■ There is a high level of satisfaction with the City's services, which is a good foundation for a
successful revenue measure.
■ There is a high level of initial support for a revenue measure that will fund "quality of life"
improvements such as protecting open space, relieving traffic congestion and increasing
recreational opportunities for youth.
■ Given likely voter turnout and voter profiles, support for a revenue measure is likely to be
higher in a Presidential election.
■ The SOAR measure is likely to help with a measure structured around open space protection.
■ While limited, there is adequate time for the needed public information effort. (The final
decision to place a measure on the November ballot, helped by a follow-up tracking poll to
see if voter approval has improved, does not have to be made until August.) However, the
public information program needs to start right away and be extensive.
■ The current strength of the economy is a positive factor in presenting a "quality of life"
measure at this time.
■ There is a high need for additional revenues if we want to achieve the kinds of service and
facility improvements shown in the "side bar" on page 3.
■ Proposition 218 has changed the old municipal government finance "ground rules" forever.
From now on, new municipal revenues can only be created as result of an informed electorate
and public support. It is better to commence this process sooner under favorable
circumstances than later under less favorable circumstances.
Reasons Not to Go Forward Now
■ Whether a two-thirds or an ""AB" approach (combination advisory and general purpose
measure as described in the attached reports), success is much more likely the more specific
we can be in identifying programs and projects that the measure would fund. There is
limited time to reach consensus on this.
■ Only 90 days remains for a public information program; 180 days would be better.
■ Support for a revenue measure is soft; and it will be difficult to identify the best revenue
vehicle (although a sales tax increase seems the most likely) that will raise a sufficient
amount of funds. There is resistance to increases that are more than $75 per household year,
which would raise about$2 million annually from.a 1/a cent sales tax.
■ For a revenue measure to be successful, it is essential that there be an active and committed
community-based group that will raise funds and champion its passage (see next bullet point
on this subject). At this time,there is no such group.
■ Other potential measures may dilute active support by those who might otherwise take an
active role in campaigning for a "quality of life" revenue measure. Until this is a ballot
6-8
Council Agenda Report—Long Term Fiscal Health
Page 9
measure, the City has broad discretion in presenting an aggressive public information effort.
However, once it is an official measure, this will no longer be the case. This means that a
successful ballot measure depends on an active and well-funded campaign mounted by an
effective community-based group. Given these other measures, it may be difficult to get the
active support that will be needed from the community if likely supporters are heavily
engaged in these other campaigns. This is especially true if the City is in an adversarial
relationship with the supporters of any of the other measures.
■ The potential for a binding arbitration measure reduces the likelihood of success.
■ Significant resources and senior staff efforts will be required from now and until August to
make this successful.
FISCAL IMPACT
As noted above, going forward to the next step will cost $60,000. However, placing this cost in
perspective, the Lew Edwards Group advises us that it is not uncommon for a city our size to
spend$100,000 to$175,000 on general outreach efforts, unlinked to a specific revenue measure.
Going forward to the next step will also require a significant commitment of senior staff
resources in the next 90 days. This will compete with other key projects like the Copeland
proposal for Palm Street-Court Street, airport area annexation and auto dealer relocation, and
increase an already-high workload.
However, we need to view this in the long-term context of our financial condition. Moving to
the next step does not assure us that we will be able to fund our capital improvement goals: we
may decide in August not to go forward; and even if we do place a revenue measure on the
November 2000 ballot at that time, there is certainly no guarantee that it will be successful.
On the other hand, if we do not go forward to the next step, then we know our fiscal outlook for
at least the next three years; and based on this, it is highly unlikely that we will be able to fund
any major "new initiatives" during this period. In short, this will present a much more
constrained fiscal environment for the Council during goal-setting and the 2001-03 Financial
Plan.
EDITS
A. Feasibility of November 2000 Revenue Measure, The Lew Edwards Group
B. Results of Citizen Survey, Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin &Associates
AVAILABLE IN COUNCIL OFFICES
Ten Year Financial Plan: 2001-2011
.,� -..y.�•�.....;...... �Y.�.. «..e•S�:LYw.^^.:s.. .,a..ry... 1 ..:,':R-:f'•..:s-�.A�: `t��.�.,.::.,2:..y "S'lte a:r;.�.....wr::.:.....:...tam„'v:;�Y..S:R���.
4. �� tsa#%...sw-Lq....�� �-¢ ^:;_._+�"?L”. 1C.:9. .c 'f_ ami?.....'°°i•-' iffi . L'_.::: S„Y""
Q Ten Year Financial Plan:2001-2011/Survey/Council Agenda Report—Ung Term Fiscal Health
679
Exhibit A
EDWARDS
To: San Luis Obispo City Council
City Administrative Officer John Dunn
Director of Finance William C. Statler
From: Catherine Lew
The Lew Edwards Group
Date: May 3, 2000
Re: Feasibility of San Luis Obispo Finance Measure
Key Considerations from Survey Research
The baseline poll conducted by Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin&
Associates March 28th—30th contain several key findings about the potential
support for a November 2000 City of San Luis Obispo Finance Measure.
The summary of results is contained in FMM&A's Executive
Summary and Report However, from a strategic standpoint, the following
issues are important to consider:
• San Luis Obispo voters are generally satisfied with the City services they
receive, more so than in similar surveys we have seen in other cities.
This factor enhances the potential for a successful finance measure.
• Development, traffic and parking were identified as serious issues by
two-thirds or more of the respondents.
• More parking was a top issue identified by respondents in the open-end
question on"the most important thing the City can do to improve
services."
• At the time the poll was conducted, respondents indicated two-thirds
support for a city"Quality of Life" measure. However, despite this
potential support, in our experience, a successful measure is contingent
CATHERINE LEW, ESQ LLOYD A. EDWARDS
5251 Desmond Street,Oakland,California 946x8 • P.O.Box u2r5,Oakland,California 9462o6-10
Tel:510/594-0224 - Fax: pro/420-0734 • Email:lewedgp@pad3eU.ner
413"
Exhibit
upon our ability to further specify and define the funding uses for such a
measure.
• A significant percentage (29%) are "soft supporters" because they define
themselves as probable--not yet definite--supporters. This is not
unusual, as the survey was conducted prior to any public education on
specific items or needs. With a strong public education campaign, these
numbers may shift.
• Specific fimding options such as street improvements to address
congestion/safety; parks and recreation centers for kids; and open space
protection achieve two-thirds support.
• It will be important to limit the cost per taxpayer to no more than
$75/year.
• The Chief of Police is the most credible messenger, followed by the
Mayor and Council, merchant and business leaders, and senior
organizations.
Conclusion: While potential two-thirds support exists, the level of support
hovers close to the 67% threshold.
Therefore, a well-crafted measure and community education/consensus are
essentials before a two-thirds measure should be considered.
Opposition will seriously jeopardize a two-thirds measure's chance for
success. In addition, other measures which do not require a two-thirds vote
should be considered.
ELEMENTS OF A SUCCESSFUL TWO-THIRDS REQUIREMENT
FINANCE MEASURE
This section of the report addresses the feasibility of a two-thirds
requirement fimding measure for the City's November 2000 ballot.
The typical elements of a successful two-thirds Finance Measure
include Phase One preparation activities by a public agency and Phase Two
activities during an election campaign by a volunteer Campaign Committee.
The key elements of the city-side Phase One activities are as follows:
6-11
ExhibitA-
1. Conducting survey research. (Completed)
2. Refining the project list/uses of the measure.
3. Selection of the financing mechanism
4. Implementation of an Information Campaign to educate the public.
5. Additional survey research—known as a tracking poll— to assess
shifts in support.
6. Action by the City Council.
The deadline for the Council to place such a Finance Measure on your
November 2000 ballot is early August. To place this measure on your
November ballot will require refining the measure and conducting an
effective Public Information Campaign to educate the public within a 90-day
period.
In our experience, public agencies take as much as six months to a
year to plan for a successful Finance Measure. The key activities for the
remaining components of Phase One are outlined below.
Refinement of the Measure
Funding Items: While the poll showed support for a general "Quality
of Life" measure, in our experience, the more specific the measure is, the
better your chances of success. What you have to sell is the plan itself.
In the poll, a variety of funding options were tested under the
descriptor"Quality of Life" measure in order to evaluate general suppoyt.
Nevertheless, it is our very strong recommendation that the Measure be
refined so that it specifically addresses those needs identified as important
by two-thirds of the respondents.
Ideally, your measure would be structured around a specific item, e.g.,
preserving/protecting open space around specific areas such as Bishop's
Peak, Cerro San Luis, and Irish Hills; creating new parks, playfields,
hiking/biking trails, and rec centers for children; or street improvements for
congestion/safety.
These three items tested well in the poll, and a decision must be made
as to the items to include in a Finance Measure.
6-12
Exhibit.
Costs and funding mechanism: Costs should be assigned to your items
and a financial advisor experienced in pre-election planning retained to
evaluate the cost to taxpayers.
There is no "easy" funding mechanism in a two-thirds election, nor is
it unusual for different types of funding mechanisms to receive low levels of
support when tested in a poll. Parcel taxes tend to be much harder to pass
than bonds or other types of measures. However, sales or hotel taxes may
attract opposition from the business community, which could affect support.
Development of Key Messages
Once you refine the funding items, assign costs and select a funding
mechanism, key messages are developed around the following areas:
• address the need for such a measure, and why now—make the case
that this is a necessary, responsible fiscal plan;
• includespecifics of the items to be funded;
• establish protections for ensuring money will be spent responsibly
(outside audits, Citizens Oversight Committee, etc.)
Brdlding Community Support
Opinion Leaders: Depending on the funding mechanism and uses
identified for the measure, building community consensus is key. In May,
constituents, stakeholders, business leaders, and other public officials should
be contacted and their support, questions, or opposition evaluated.
Media/Communications Plan: An effective Public Information
Campaign includes the following communications components—
• Personal meetings with external Opinion Leaders to educate them
on the funding needs contained in the Measure and obtain input;
• A series of nonpartisan, information-only mailings to Opinion
Leaders, again about the funding needs;
• A series of nonpartisan, information-only mailings to constituents
determined by the poll as needing more information;
6-13
Exhibit A .
• A Free Media plan which includes but is not limited to:
nonpartisan guest columns, op-eds, and stories in neighborhood
newsletters or other local outlets about the funding needs;
• Where appropriate, "fixed site visibility" activities where
constituents and/or city representatives table or otherwise
distribute nonpartisan information on a potential measure; and
• A Speakers Bureau primarily led by constituents to make
presentations to key community organizations as needed.
As part of the City's Media/Communications Plan, nonpartisan,
information-only fact sheets, brochures, letters, newsletters, and guest
columns are developed for mailing and distribution. .Where time permits,
communications seek citizen input in an"interactive" manner.
Ideally, prior to your action to place a Finance Measure on the ballot,
our Public Information Campaign has:
• shifted public opinion further;
• yielded letters and cards that give the City input on how to further
refine the measure;
• answered questions about the funding needs; and
• generated greater community awareness prior to your action to
place it on the ballot.
Additional Survey Research
Following the 90-day Public Information Campaign, FMM&A would
be retained to conduct another opinion survey—an abbreviated version also
known as a "tracking poll"just before your action of placing the measure
on the ballot.
The purpose of this tracking poll would be to test final financial
thresholds, to ensure that we are not asking for too little or too much money
for the measure.
In some cases—for example, in LEG/FMM&A's recent work on
behalf of the City of Saratoga—the City Council increased the bond amount
an additional $1 million when our Public Information Campaign increased
public awareness of the needs. In other cases, the tax amount is reduced by
6-14
Exhibit
the Council because we learn that taxpayers will not tolerate the initial
amount desired.
In any case, conducting a tracking poll close to the time that you act
represents a final opportunity to evaluate where the electorate is, and to
make adjustments in your Measure as necessary.
Implications of Other November Ballot Measures & Issues
National Elections: November Presidential years constitute the
highest turnout elections. This year will be no different. With a healthy
economy and higher turnout (traditionally among Democrats and younger
voters), a high-turnout Presidential election may be a prime opportunity
to consider a two-thirds finance measure.
SOAR: Although only the county measure remains, this issue was
tested because it also addresses open space protection. Because of the
popularity of open space protection/parks as found in the poll, it is important
to understand how SOAR may affect our ballot measure. Because there is a
high awareness of SOAR and open space preservation is popular, SOAR
may increase the voter-turnout of other constituents who are more
supportive of an open space or parks-oriented City measure.
Countywide Sales Tax Increase for Transportation: It is difficult to
project the affect of such a measure on a city-oriented Finance Measure.
The advantage that our City measure will have is that funds would be
targeted specifically to local, San Luis Obispo projects. It is probably
unlikely that a countywide sales tax increase would have a negative impact
on our measure, but only if key stakeholder organizations are still willing to
endorse the city measure.
Binding Arbitration Measure: We generally advise our clients not to
proceed if labor/personnel issues are anticipated. Our initial survey results
are favorable, but if opposition develops from public safety organizations
arising from other issues such as binding arbitration, it may seriously affect
our chances for success.
6-15
Exhibit
Other Tunes of Funding Mechanisms
There are other types of finance measures that do not require a two-
thirds vote. These include:
• "General purpose" measures. While only requiring a simple
majority approval, they are not selected by many communities
because they call for simply raising taxes for no special reason or
projects.
• "A/B" measures. This is a dual-component measure—the "A"
function is simply an"advisory" vote on specific projects. The
"B" function asks voters to approve a general purpose revenue
measure. Therefore, A/B measures require some specificity, which
can be appealing to the electorate, but need to be structured
properly from a legal standpoint. This takes significant planning
time, and may not permit time to conduct a Public Information
effort.
The difficulty of two-thirds requirement elections is that they are hard
to pass. However, in some cases it is easier to educate the public and
organize support around a special purpose measure with designated projects,
rather than a measure where you are simply informing the public that their
taxes are being increased for general operations.
The A/B measure has some appeal, but the City may not have the time
to retain and supervise the legal/technical expertise needed to proceed._
November 2000 Timeline
If you want to proceed with a November 2000 Finance Measure, the
City must move quickly to refine the measure, establish costs, and select the
finding mechanism. This internal work must be completed before we can
effectively communicate with the community.
An approximate timeline would be as follows:
Refine Measure [item(s), cost, funding mechanism) end of May
Identify and retain Financial Advisor, Tax Counsel end of May
Opinion Leader meetings/communication#1 end of May
6-16
ExhlbitA.
Community Mailings (3 are recommended) May—July
2 additional Opinion Leader mailings June, July
Free Media Plan June; July
Speakers Bureau end/May-July
Tracking Poll end of July
Council Action early August
Potential Public Information NNonnartisan) Budget
Direct Mail $30,000
(Presumes a mail universe of 15,000 households,3 times plus opinion leader mailings at a unit price of 55
cents per letter,including bulk postage and printing)
Tracking Poll $15,000
(The length of the poll and the number of respondents will be determined within this budget upon
conclusion of the Public Information effort,but prior to the Council vote)
Revenue Measure Feasibility Consultant $155000
(Develops timeframe,strategy,messages,and implements direct mail/media program)
PROJECTED COSTS $6000*
'This does not include costs for outside counsel, which your City Attorney may wish to retain; the cost is
dependent upon the financing mechanism selected and scope of work It also does not include costs for a
financial advisor for any bond issue that may result;this is typically compensated on a contingency fee
basis following successful passage of the measure and bond issuance.
Conclusion
Potential two-thirds support exists for a November 2000 Finance
Measure in the City of San Luis Obispo. The factors to be considered by the
City are whether there is adequate time, and proper circumstances, to
conduct an aggressive Public Information program and to build community
consensus on the Measure over the next 90 days. If serious opposition is
anticipated, or if there is not enough time to conduct a proactive community
education effort, the City Council may want to consider waiting until
another election. However, a low-turnout election is likely to have a higher
proportion of voters who are less likely to support a finance measure.
6-17
Exhibit.
Fairbank,
Maslin,
Maullin &
Associates
Opinion Research &
Public Policy Analysis
TO: Bill Statler
City of San Luis Obispo
FR: Richard Maullin and David Metz
Fairbank,Maslin, Maullin & Associates
RE: Results of San Luis Obispo Citizen Survey
DATE: May 1,2000
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The results of our recent poll indicate that San Luis Obispo voters are extremely happy
with the quality of life in the city, and are generally satisfied with the City services they
receive.' A two-thirds majority of the electorate also currently supports a quality of life
ballot measure that may be placed before voters in November.
Among the key findings of the survey were the following:
• Voters are extremely happy with the quality of life in San Luis Obispo. Fully
96 percent of those surveyed rate the quality of life in the City as "excellent" or
"good."
• The rate of growth and development is the issue that most concerns San Luis
Obispo voters. A 32 percent plurality labels this issue the most important
problem for City government to address. Housing and traffic are also significant
concerns.
• San Luis Obispo voters are generally satisfied with almost all services they
receive from the City. Seventy-two percent of those surveyed rate City services
as "excellent" or "good," and majorities give positive ratings to a variety of
specific services.
Methodology: From March 28 to 30, 2000, Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin &Associates conducted a telephone
survey among 400 registered voters in the City of San Luis Obispo likely to vote in the November 2000 general
election. The margin of error for the entire sample is+/-4.9 percent The margin of error for subgroups within
the general sample will be higher.
2425 Colorado Ave., Ste. 180 1999 Harrison Street, Ste. 1290
Santa Monica, CA 9 0 4 0 4 Oakland, CA 9 4 6 1 2
Phone: (310) 828-1183 Phone: (510) 451-9521
Fax (3 10) 453-6562 Fax (510641S0384
ExhIW2,
• Potential ballot measures to protect open space, establish binding
arbitration, and fund transportation improvements are supported by
majorities of City voters. Among voters who have heard something about the
SOAR and arbitration measures, substantial majorities say they would vote `yes."
A transportation measure is supported by 60 percent of the electorate.
• Two-thirds of San Luis Obispo voters support a potential measure to
improve the quality of life in the city through a variety of open space,
recreation, public safety, and traffic reduction projects. This initial level of
support suggests that the measure has the potential to succeed; at the same time,
almost half of those who say they would vote `yes" say they would only
"probably" do so. An extensive public education campaign would likely be
required to solidify the measure's support and ensure that it reached the two-thirds
vote threshold.
• A majority of those surveyed support a sales tax as a funding mechanism for
the quality of life measure. A majority also support an increase in the transient
occupancy tax, but it is unlikely to generate sufficient revenue to fund the
necessary projects.
• At annual costs per taxpayer of over 75 dollars per year, support for a
quality of life measure falls below the necessary two-thirds level. At an annual
cost of 50 dollars per year, three out of four voters say they would vote "yes" on
the measure. Support falls steadily as the annual cost of the measure increases.
At a cost of 75 dollars or more per year, even more extensive voter education
efforts would be required in order to give the measure any prospect of succeeding.
EVALUATIONS OF THE QUALITY OF LIFE IN SAN LUIS OBISPO
San Luis Obispo voters are overwhelmingly satisfied with the quality of life in their city.
As shown in Figure 1 below, nearly seven out of ten voters rate the quality of life in the
city as "excellent,"while an additional 27 percent label it"good." Moreover, the positive
feelings cut across every subgroup of the electorate; at least nine out of ten members of
every major demographic group rate the city's quality of life positively. Just one in 25
voters gives the city's quality of life a negative evaluation.
FIGURE 1:
Ratings of the Quality of Life in San Luis Obispo
Excellent 69%
Good 27%
Just Fair 3%
Poor 1%
•0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Fairbank,
2 6 )V�I�lln,
74 wi in &
Associates
Exhibit Q
These findings indicate a very high degree of satisfaction with the quality of life in the
city. Even in other small or suburban communities in California,. it is extremely
uncommon to find such a large majority of city residents labeling the quality of life as
"excellent."
This is not to say that there are not issues that concern San Luis Obispo residents.
Respondents were asked to name, without prompting, the issue they would most like to
see City government do something about Concerns relating to growth and development
were most frequently mentioned; housing and traffic-related issues were also mentioned
often. The top responses to this question are listed below:
• Growth and development, 32%
• Affordable housingthomelessness, 15%
• Traffic/parking/street maintenance, 11%
• Crime/drugs/gangs/violence,4%
• Jobs/keeping businesses,4%
• Water supplies,4%
Though members of all demographic groups were concerned about growth to some
extent, concern ran particularly high among those with high levels of income or
educational attainment, as well as among Democrats — particularly men and those over
age 50.
In order to understand residents' specific concerns in more detail, survey respondents
were read a list of"things that some people say may be problems facing the City of San
Luis Obispo" They were asked to rate each as a `very serious problem,"...somewhat
serious problem," "not too serious problem" or "not at all a serious problem" The
results are shown on the following page in Figure 2. Not surprisingly, the issues most
frequently labeled a `very serious problem" relate to the issues of growth, traffic and
housing, which respondents indicated were the issues they would most like City
government to do something about
Fairbank,
, lin,
3 6Ilin &
Associates
Exhibit Q
FIGURE 2:
Evaluations of Problems Facing the City of San Luis Obispo
(Split Sampled)
Traffic congestion
Lack of parking downtown W
Rate at which land is being developed , k:r'
..........
Loss of open space, hills,and creeks
3Q
Homelessnesszl
Lads of retail shopping opportunities
Taxesffees people pay for city services
Drug usage and drug abuse .�`;?A!"JoWM I MOMe%
Inefficiency in City government T ` "'19"/0
lack of efficient public transportation
Quality of public schools
Graffiti and similar vandalism26% ;, V
Y,
Lack of parks/athletic fields/ awR 50�
rec centers
Danger of flooding from lops creeks
..-• .u......
Gangs and juvenile violence Oo 5%
Quality of SLO's basic city services
0%% 20%% 40%% 60%% 80%% 100%%
=Very Serious Problem MSW Serious Problem ®Not Too Much of a Problem M Not a Problem at All
O No Opinion
EVALUATIONS OF CITY SERVICES IN SAN LUIS OBISPO
San Luis Obispo voters are as happy with the quality of City services as they are with the
general quality of life in the city, fully 72 percent of those surveyed rated City services
positively. Those positive feelings were not particularly strong, however. Though 58
percent of area voters rate City services as "good," just 14% label them "excellent."
Those most likely to rate City services as excellent include voters over the age of 50,
particularly Democrats and men.
Fairbank,
Afirlin,
4 N"Un &
Associates
ExhibitA
FIGURE 3:
Ratings of the Quality of City Services in San Luis Obispo
Excellent 14%
Good �8%
Just Fair 230%/6
Poor2%
DK/NA 2%
0% 100/0 20% 30% 40% 50% 60°/0 70%
At the same time, one in four voters rates City services negatively. Again, the feelings
lack intensity, those who label City services "just fair" outnumber those who label them
"poor" by more than ten to one. Nevertheless, there are some clear pockets of
dissatisfaction with City services. Those most likely to be dissatisfied include
Republicans (particularly those under 50), voters in their forties, those with a high school
education or less, and those who work outside the city.
Survey respondents were also asked to indicate their satisfaction with a range of specific
City services, as shown in Table 1 below. Respondents were read a list of 22 specific
services, and were asked to rate their satisfaction with each service on a scale from one to
ten, where one represented "not at all satisfied" and ten represented"extremely satisfied."
Table 1 shows the mean score for each service.
Fairbank,
5 6 lilinn,&
Associates
ExhibitB_
TABLE 1:
Satisfaction with City Services in San Luis Obispo
(Mean Scores on 1 to 10 Scale Among Those Offering an Opinion;
1=Not at all Satisfied and 10= Very Satisfied)
Mean
Service Satisfaction
Score -
Fire prevention and protection 7.6
Maintenance of public parks 7.4
Police protection in yog neighborhood 7.4
Trash pick-up and recycling 7.3
Removal of graffiti from public buildings 7.1
Landscaping on street medians and other public areas 6.8
Tree trimming 6.7
Sewer and storm drain maintenance 6.7
Building and safety code enforcement 6.7
Environmental protection and pollution prevention 6.7
Recreation opportunities and programs at city arks 6.5
Neighborhood clean-up and preservation programs 6.5
Street lighting in your neighborhood 6.2
Protecting open space 6.2
Managing city government finances 6.0
After school day-care and programs for children 5.9
Repair of broken sidewalks 5.6
Maintaining traffic flow through the city 5.3
Programs to retain, expand, and attract businesses to San Luis Obispo 5.3
Regulation of cable TV service 5.0
Housing assistance profor lower income residents 5.0
R air of otholes in ci streets 4 9
On the whole, voters were satisfied with each of the City services tested. A mean score
of 5.0 or greater indicates that residents, on average, are satisfied with a service. Just one
service (repair of potholes in city streets)-fell short of this benchmark and, with a mean
score of 4.9, just barely so. The results show that voters are particularly pleased with
police and fire protection, maintenance of parks, trash pick-up and recycling, and the
removal of graffiti from public buildings; each received an average score of more than
7.0.
Fairbank,
Alin,
6 674MIlin &
Associates
Exhibit
VOTER OPINION ON POTENTIAL NOVEMBER BALLOT MEASURES
Voters were asked about a variety of measures that might appear on the ballot in this
November's general election. Questions about these measures were included to
determine what implications they might have for the passage of a quality of life ballot
measure. These implications are discussed in the following section.
The first measure tested was the Countywide "Save Our Agricultural Resources and
Open Space," or "SOAR" measure to protect open space in San Luis Obispo. County.
Awareness of the measure ran very high; 83 percent of those surveyed said they had
heard at least "a little" about the measure, and nearly half of all respondents said they had
heard "a lot." Among those who had heard about the measure, a 52 percent majority
indicated that they would vote "yes" while just one in four said they would vote "no."
The remaining 22 percent of those interviewed either said they needed more information
or did not know how they would vote on the measure.
A much smaller group of voters is aware of a potential ballot measure involving binding
arbitration. Just 29 percent of voters have heard anything about the measure, and only
one in ten has heard "a lot" about it. Those who are aware of the measure are
overwhelmingly supportive; nearly four out of five say they will vote `yes," with a 52
percent majority indicating that they will "definitely" vote for the measure. Just 15
percent of those who are aware of the measure say they would vote "no." However, it
should be noted that the respondents were not provided with very detailed information
about the structure or consequences of the binding arbitration measure. Patterns of
support for such a measure could change significantly as more voters become aware of it
and gain a better understanding of its implications.
There is also a possibility that there will be a Countywide measure on the ballot which
would impose a '/i-cent increase in the County sales tax to improve transportation and
ease traffic congestion in San Luis Obispo County. Sixty percent of voters surveyed said
they would vote `yes" on the measure, with 35 percent saying they would "definitely"
vote "yes." Just 26 percent of City voters oppose the transportation measure, with the
remaining 14 percent either undecided or needing more information.
VOTER OPINION ON A"QUALITY OF LIFE" BALLOT MEASURE
The principal focus of the survey was to evaluate support for a potential "quality of life"
ballot measure which would fund a variety of projects in the City of San Luis Obispo,
potentially including open space preservation, hiking and biking trails, Civic Center
improvements, services for seniors, and expanded police and fire facilities. When told
that the measure would raise up to $4 million per year and given a brief description of the
projects it might fund, 66 percent of voters surveyed said they would vote "yes" on the
measure (as shown in Figure 4 below). Just one in five voters said they would vote "no,"
with the remaining 15 percent undecided.
Fairbank,
2 6 I S1in,
Ilin &
Associates
Exhibit AP..>
FiGuRE 4:
Initial Vote on a Quality of Life Ballot Measure
Definitely Yes 3$%
Total Y
Probably Yes _ 2�%
Probably No 8r T�tal No:
II 19%
Definitely No 11%
Need InfomK 15%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
This level of support is a solid starting point for the measure. Typically, a measure that
will require approval from two-thirds of the electorate should begin with at least a two-
thirds level of overall support, and this measure meets that standard. However, the
survey results also indicate that almost half of those who say they would vote `yes" say
they would only "probably" do so. Without extensive efforts to educate these somewhat
hesitant voters about the benefits of the measure, it is very possible that support could fall
short of the two-thirds required for passage.
Support for the measure cuts across demographic groups within the City; there is no
major group in which a majority or even plurality of voters oppose the measure. The
measure 7s strongest support comes from women, Democrats (particularly women and
those under 50), independents, and voters with annual household incomes under$30,000.
These.are typical of the demographic groups that usually support revenue measures to
improve public services. On the other hand, the strongest opponents of the measure
include men, voters over 50, Republicans (particularly men and those over 50), and those
with household incomes over$100,000. This pattern of opposition is also typical for this
type of measure.
Support for the quality of life measure also appears to be high among those voters that
support the other measures that are on the ballot As shown in Table 2 below, voters
who support each of the other three potential measures are more likely than other voters
to vote"yes"on the quality of life measure.
Fairbank,
8 6 wd lin,
7illin &
Associates
Exhibit-J-9>
TABLE 2:
Relationship Between Votes on Other Measures and Votes on a QOL Measure
Vote on QOL SOAR Trans ortat'on Yes on
Yes No Yes No Binding
Measure Voters Voters DK Voters Voters DK Arb.*
Yes 82% 42% 57% 78% 44% 55% 71%
No 9% 42% 14% 9% 41% 16% 17%
Need Info/DK 9% 15% 29% 13% 15% 29% 13%
• Sample saes for"no"and"undecided"voters on the binding arbiirnlon measure were too small far meaningful analysis.
Voters generally rate open space protections as the most important projects that the
measure might fund. As shown in Table 3, substantial majorities of those surveyed say it
is at least `very important" that the measure fund projects like "preserving open space
around the City of San Luis Obispo" or "protecting special places like Bishop's Peak,
Cerro San Luis, and Irish Hills." Voters also place a high degree of importance on
projects to reduce traffic congestion and create recreational centers for youth.
TABLE 3:
Importance of Projects to be Funded by a QOL Measure
Eat Very SW Not
Project Imp. Imp. Imp. Too DK/NA
Imp.
Preserving open space around the City of San 27% 31% 24% 18% 0%
Luis Obispo
Protect special places like Bishop's Peak,Cerro 26% 40% 18% 15% 2%
San Luis,and Irish Hills
Improve traffic congestion by building bridges
over railroad crossings,improving intersections, 24% 34% 27% 14% 2%
and widening selected streets
Create additional recreation centers for children 19% 42% 24% 13% 2%
and youth
Improve and maintain existing arks 13% 42% 33% 11% 2%
Expand city facilities and services for seniors 12% 27% 40% 17% 4%
Build new hiking trails around the City 12% 19% 32% 35% 1%
Create more bike trails,including a city-to-sea 12% 27% 27% 32% 2%
bike trail from Downtown to Avila Beach
Provide additional flood protection around San 11% 33% 34% 19% 2%
Luis Obispo creeks
Creating new parks and sports field in City 10% 23% 40% 26% 1%
neighborhoods
Renovate and improve Fire Station 3 on Laurel 8% 26% 34% 21% 10%
Lane
Fairbank,
9 6lin,
llin &
Associates
TABLE 3 (CONTINUED):
Eat. Very SW Not
ProjectImp. Imp. Imp. I ooDK/NA
.
Build a new Civic Center complex which would 6% 15% 34% 41% 4%
house many city services in one location
Create new cultural opportunities such as a natural
history museum,an archaeology museum, or an 6% 18% 38% 37% 1%
agricultural history museum
Build a new community center 4% 17% 34% 39% 6%
Landscaping medians on city streets 4% 110N. 1 41% 1 43% 1 1%
On the other hand, there are a number of projects for which voters express little
enthusiasm. Fewer than one in four voters view building a new Civic Center complex,
creating new museums, building a new community center, or landscaping medians as
"very important"uses of money raised by a quality of life measure.
Survey respondents were also asked whether or not they supported a variety of funding
mechanisms that might be used to generate revenue under the terms of the quality of life
measure. As shown in Table 4 below, only two potential funding mechanisms are
supported by a majority of San Luis Obispo voters: an increase in the transient occupancy
tax, and an increase the local sales tak. Given that the transient occupancy tax will not
generate sufficient revenue to fund most of the projects incorporated in the measure, it
appears that a sales tax is the most viable method for raising the necessary funds. While
existing state law does not allow cities to set their own sales tax, a handful of California
cities have been successful in having special legislation adopted that allows them to set
their own sales tax rate with the approval of local voters.
TABLE 4:
Support for Various Funding Mechanisms for a QOL Measure
Total Total DK/NA
Funding Mechanism
Support Oppose
An increase in the transient occupancy tax, 59% 35% 7%
assessed on hotel and motel guests
An increase in the local sales tax 51% 45% 3%
An increase in The business tax 41% 52% 7%
Selling bonds and using an increase in property 37% 57% 6%
taxes to repay borrowed money
An increase in the tax assessed when property is 33% 61% 6%
bought or sold
An increase in the utility users tax 31% 65% 4%
Fairbank,
rn,
10 6 Ilia &
Associates
Exhibit B
Of course, a central factor in determining voter support for the quality of life measure
will be the cost it imposes on City taxpayers. In order to determine the cost-sensitivity of
voter support for the measure, survey respondents were asked whether they would vote
"yes" or "no" on the measure at a variety of annual cost levels. As shown in Figure 5
below, support drops below the necessary two-thirds level once annual costs exceed 75
dollars per year. The measure will have the best chance for success if annual costs per
taxpayer can be limited to about 50 dollars per year; the survey results indicate that
nearly three-quarters of the electorate would vote`yes"at this cost level.
FIGURE 5:
Cost Sensitivity of Support for a QOL Measure
150 dollar* 23% 16% 5%
125 dollars .' , 21% 19%
100 dollars 23% 12% • ' 4%
75 dollars 45%1 . 21% 9% % 4%
50 dollars ' , 20% 6% 5%
0% 20% 40% 60% 60% 100°/.
ODefinitelyYes 013robablyYes OProbably No WDefinRely No O Need InfoIDKINA
In the case of a sales tax, these per-household costs would generate the following
amounts of revenue:
• $50 per household would raise about$1.4 million per year;
• $75 per household would raise about $2.1 million per year (at about a '/4-cent
sales tax rate);
• $100 per household would raise about$2.8 million per year; and
• $150 per household would raise about $4.2 million per year (at about a V2-cent
sales tax rate). -:
The survey results suggest that it will be difficult for a sales tax increase in excess of one-
quarter of one percent to win support from two-thirds of the electorate.
Survey respondents were also asked to evaluate a series of arguments'in favor of the
measure. As shown in Table 5 below, three arguments led two-thirds of those surveyed
to say they would be more inclined to vote `yes" on the measure. These arguments focus
Fairbank,
,
11 6 11inlin &
Associates
Exhibit �.
on projects funded by the measure, in particular those to create new park and recreational.
facilities, reduce traffic congestion, and protect open space. Given voters' concern with
issues relating to growth and traffic, it is not surprising that the strongest arguments for
the measure focus on the role it will play in addressing those problems.
TABLE 5:
Arguments in Favor of a QOL Measure
Total Much SW More Don't
Argument More More Incl. Incl. Believe
Incl.
Passing this measure will provide new parks,
athletic fields,hiking and biking trails,and
recreation centers throughout the city. It will 74% 34% 40% 4%
also provide recreation programs to keep kids out
of trouble.
We need this measure to make street
improvements that will relieve traffic congestion 68% 33% 35% 7%
and improve safety,
Passing this measure will help protect open space 67% 36% 31% 5%
and the city's natural environment.
The City of San Luis Obispo is in excellent
economic health. Revenues have been higher
than expected, and costs have been lower. This 58% 24% 34% 8%
is an excellent time to make these critical
investments in our city's future.
This measure will cost the average taxpayer less
about a quarter per day.That's not a lot to pay 52% 21% 31% 12%
for such important projects.
The City of San Luis Obispo has won awards
from national organizations for excellence and 41% 15% 26% 11%
innovation in financial management
Finally, survey respondents were asked to rate the reliability of a variety of people and
organizations that might take a position on the quality. of life measure. As shown in
Table 6, those that received the highest ratings for reliability included City officials (the
Chief of Police,the Mayor, the City Council) and business organizations (the Chamber of
Commerce, the Downtown Association). Two-thirds of those surveyed rated each of
these people or organizations as "reliable" on the issue of the quality of life ballot
measure.
Fairbank,
lin,
12 6 11in &
Associates
Exhibit-A
TABLE 6:
Reliability of People and Organizations Taldng Positions on a QOL Measure
Total Total Nev.
Person/Organization Reliable Not Hrd.
Reliable Of/DK
The chief of the San Luis Obispo Police 75% 9% 16%
Department
The San Luis Obispo Chamber of 69% 16% 15%
Commerce
The San Luis Obispo City Council 69% 17% 13%
Mayor Allen Settle 66% 16% 18%
The Downtown Association 66% 15% 19%
The American Association of Retired 65% 17% 18%
Persons,or A-A-R-P
ECOSLO, or the Environmental Council 64% 15% 22%
of San Luis Obispo
Your local church 62% 12% 26%
Your local county supervisor 60% 21% 19%
The Sierra Club 57% 28% 14%
Your localparent-teacher association 53% 10% 37%
The Tribune 52% 37% 11%
City Administrator John Dunn 42% 7% 500/0
The principal of your local school 40% 12% 47%
Residents for Quality Neighborhoods, 37% 11% 52%
or R-Q-N
The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers' 27% 29% 44%
Association
CONCLUSION
In summary, the principal findings of the voter survey are the following:
• Voters are extremely happy with the quality of life in San Luis Obispo, and
are pleased with the services they receive from the City. Almost all voters
rate the city's quality of life positively, and most also express satisfaction with a
variety of City services. Voters would, however, like City government to address
a variety of issues including growth, traffic congestion, and the availability of
affordable housing.
• Two-thirds of city voters express support for a ballot measure to protect
open space, reduce traffic congestion, improve public safety, and expand
recreational opportunities; with a significant public outreach effort, such a
measure could win voter approval. While 66 percent of those surveyed said
they would vote for such a measure, 28 percent said they would only`Probably"
vote `yes." As a result, the measure may fall short of the required two-thirds
Fairbank,
lin,
13 6 llin &
Associates .
Exhibit
level of support unless a substantial effort is made educate voters about the
potential benefits of the measure.
• A sales tax increase of no more than '/,-cent appears to be the most viable
financing option for a quality of life measure. Voters express more support
for a sales tax increase than for any other viable financing mechanism. In
addition, two-thirds of city voters say they would vote "yes" on a measure with
additional annual per-taxpayer costs of up to about $75 per.year (approximately
the incremental cost imposed by a '/<-cent sales tax increase). The measure will
have the best chance for success, however, if per-taxpayer costs can be
constrained to about $50 per year; at this cost level, roughly three-quarters of
area voters indicate that they would vote `yes."
• Voters rate preserving open space, reducing traffic congestion, and creating
recreational centers for children and youth as the most important projects
that a quality of life measure could fund. More than three out of five voters
label each of these types of projects as at least `very important." Voters also
indicate that messages stressing these particular benefits of the measure offer the
most compelling reasons to vote `yes."
Fairbank,
14
Associates