Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
MINUTES - 04052011 - D.4
RECOMMENDATION(S): 1. ACCEPT the results of public opinion polling on a special tax measure for the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District. 2. DIRECT the Fire Chief to place a measure to fund fire and emergency response services before voters or property owners in 2012. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no direct fiscal impact to the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District from acceptance of the revenue measure feasibility study and a discussion of the results. The fiscal impact of proceeding with a revenue measure could be significant and will be addressed if the Board considers a future resolution to call a special measure election. BACKGROUND: Like many fire districts APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/05/2011 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes:See Addendum VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Gayle B. Uilkema, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: (925) 941-3312 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: April 5, 2011 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: Daryl L. Louder, Jackie Lorrekovich D. 4 To:Contra Costa County Fire Protection District Board of Directors From:Daryl L. Louder, Chief, Contra Costa County Fire Protection District Date:April 5, 2011 Contra Costa County Subject:Results of Public Opinion Polling on Special Tax Measure BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) in the State, the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District (District) is heavily dependent on property tax revenues to fund its operations. With the economic recession and associated steep decline in the housing market, the funding the District has traditionally relied upon for providing emergency response services has declined significantly. In response to the worsening financial conditions, the District has enacted a number of measures to cut costs and improve efficiencies, including eliminating positions, reducing discretionary spending in all areas, deferring capital purchases, improvements and maintenance, and eliminating select programs. Despite these efforts, the District is still projecting a multi-million dollar shortfall for fiscal year 2010-2011 as well as ongoing deficits in future years. Without dramatic cuts to programs and service levels and/or securing additional revenues, the District will deplete its entire reserve fund in fiscal year 2011-12. The primary purpose of the revenue measure feasibility study was to produce an unbiased, statistically reliable evaluation of voters' interest in supporting a local revenue measure to partially close the funding gap noted above. Additionally, should the District decide to move forward with a revenue measure, the data provides guidance as to how to structure the measure so that it is consistent with the community's priorities and expressed needs. One of the key objectives of the study was to determine how support for a proposed revenue measure may vary depending on the type of funding mechanism employed: parcel tax or benefit assessment. Because the legal, logistical, and campaign environments for special taxes and benefit assessments differ on so many dimensions that ultimately affect whether a measure will win or lose, it was important that the research methodology take these differences into account to ensure reliable results for each unique scenario. Accordingly, the District commissioned True North Research and SCI to conduct two surveys—one to assess the feasibility of a parcel tax, the other for a benefit assessment. The parcel tax survey was administered by telephone to 800 voters in the District. The results of the telephone survey indicate that a parcel tax has a good chance of success if placed on the ballot during a high turnout election and accompanied by a well-organized, effective campaign. The level of natural support for the proposed $72 parcel tax measure among likely November 2012 voters was 69% and stayed at or above the two-thirds threshold throughout the interview. The benefit assessment survey was conducted by mailed. A total of 12,225 property owners in the District were mailed a survey. A total of 3,269 surveys were returned, representing a participation rate of 27% which is similar to the return rate for actual ballot proceedings in large jurisdictions. Although also positive, the results of the mail-based benefit assessment survey indicate that this path could be more challenging. Although support among single family residential property owners and condominiums/multi-plexes was well above the simple majority threshold required for passage (60%), more than one-third of the expected weighted vote is held by commercial property owners, industrial property owners, apartment owners, and owners of large properties/multiple properties. Support for the proposed benefit assessment in these latter property classes was substantially lower. Overall, at fees based on a $60 per single family home equivalent, support for the proposed benefit assessment was found among 45% of all property owners—approximately 5% below the weighted majority needed for passage. Only at the lower equivalent rate of $40 per single family home did support exceed a majority (54%). For reference, at the highest rate tested ($72 per year), a measure can be expected to generate between $12.5 million and $16.5 million. The low estimate in this range is based on a flat parcel tax with an optional senior exemption, whereas the high estimate is based on a tiered-structure benefit assessment (not a flat rate per parcel) without a senior exemption. At the lowest rate tested ($48 per year), a measure is expected to generate between $8.2 million and $10.9 million. The results of the study must be viewed in light of the current times. Indeed, the results for a measure were quite strong despite the general economic malaise, which speaks volumes about the value that voters place on maintaining the quality of fire and emergency response services. It is important to keep in mind that the poll is a snapshot in time. Should the economy and/or political climate change in ways that would be more favorable, support for the measure—and the potential effectiveness of a positive education campaign—could increase considerably. Conversely, negative economic and/or political developments, especially at the local level, could dampen support for the measure below what was recorded in the study. Detailed polling results are presented in the attached report. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The majority of voters and property owners in the District consider maintaining the quality of local fire protection, fire prevention, and emergency response services to be among the most important issues facing their community. This sentiment translates into solid support for a local revenue measure to maintain the quality of fire protection and prevention services, ensure prompt 9-1-1 response times, repair and upgrade fire and emergency equipment and facilities, attract and retain professional firefighters and paramedics, and avoid closing stations and making deep cuts to emergency services. Without direction from the Board indicating support for a tax measure, the District will not have the option to pursue additional funding and will have to address current and future budget shortfalls with cuts to emergency services. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: Not Applicable CLERK'S ADDENDUM Speakers: Bill Granados; Kris Hunt, Contra Costa Taxpayers Association; Wendy Lack, resident of Pleasant Hill; George Burtt, Acalanes Valley Homeowners Association. ACCEPTED the results of public opinion polling on a special tax measure for the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District; and expressed continued interest in placing a measure to fund fire and emergency response services before voters or property owners in 2012. ATTACHMENTS Survey Report Powerpoint on Tax Measure THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Table of ContentsiContra Costa County FPD True North Research, Inc. © 2010. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . T ABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i List of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .iii List of Figures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Motivation for Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Revenue Measure Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Different Mechanisms, Different Methodologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Organization of Report. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Disclaimer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 About True North. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 About SCI Consulting Group. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Just the Facts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Importance of Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Initial Ballot Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Tax Threshold . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Programs & Projects. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Positive Arguments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Interim Ballot Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Negative Arguments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Final Ballot Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Messengers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Assessment Mail Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Conclusions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Importance of Issues. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Question 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Initial Ballot Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Question 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Support by Subgroups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Reasons for Opposing Measure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Question 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Tax Threshold. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Question 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Programs & Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Question 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Spending Programs & Projects Ratings by Subgroup. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Positive Arguments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Question 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Positive Arguments by Initial Support. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Interim Ballot Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Question 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Support by Subgroups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Negative Arguments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Question 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Negative Arguments by Initial Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Final Ballot Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Question 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Lower Tax Rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Question 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Change in Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Messengers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Question 11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Table of ContentsiiContra Costa County FPD True North Research, Inc. © 2010. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Assessment Mail Survey. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Support by Fee Rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Support by Subgroups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Weighted Vote by Property Type. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Background & Demographics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Questionnaire Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Programming & Pre-Test. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Samples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Statistical Margin of Error. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Data Collection. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Data Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Rounding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Questionnaires & Toplines. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Mail Survey & Information Pieces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 Letter Format Information Piece . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Fact Sheet Information Piece. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 List of Tablesiii. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Contra Costa County FPD True North Research, Inc. © 2010 L IST OF TABLES Table 1 Demographic Breakdown of Support at Initial Ballot Test. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Table 2 Top Programs & Projects by Position at Initial Ballot Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Table 3 Top Positive Arguments by Position at Initial Ballot Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Table 4 Demographic Breakdown of Support at Interim Ballot Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Table 5 Top Negative Arguments by Position at Initial Ballot Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Table 6 Demographic Breakdown of Support at Final Ballot Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Table 7 Movement From Initial to Final Ballot Test. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Table 8 Demographics of Sample . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 List of Figuresiv. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Contra Costa County FPD True North Research, Inc. © 2010 L IST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Importance of Issues. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Figure 2 Initial Ballot Test. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 3 Figure 3 Reasons for Not Supporting Measure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Figure 4 Tax Threshold . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Figure 5 Programs & Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Figure 6 Positive Arguments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Figure 7 Interim Ballot Test. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Figure 8 Negative Arguments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Figure 9 Final Ballot Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Figure 10 Final Ballot Test at $48 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Figure 11 Effect of Messengers on Opinion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Figure 12 Ballot Test by Assessment Rate. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Figure 13 Ballot Test by Property Owner Categories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Figure 14 Ballot Test by Total Assessment Amount. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Figure 15 Ballot Test by Household Party Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Figure 16 Ballot Test by LL Zone & Information Packet Version . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Figure 17 Ballot Test by City. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Figure 18 Expected Weighted Vote by Property Owner Categories. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Figure 19 Maximum Margin of Error Due to Sampling (Parcel Tax Survey). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 IntroductionTrue North Research, Inc. © 2010 1Contra Costa County FPD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I NTRODUCTION Founded in 1964 and expanded over the years through consolidations with smaller fire districts, the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District (District) is today the County’s largest, providing fire suppression, rescue, prevention, emergency medical and disaster preparedness services to residents and businesses throughout its jurisdiction. In addition to serving the incorporated cit- ies of Antioch, Clayton, Concord, Lafayette, Martinez, Pittsburg, Pleasant Hill, San Pablo and Wal- nut Creek, the District also serves the unincorporated communities of Bay Point, Clyde, El Sobrante, Pacheco and Port Chicago. Like many fire districts in the State, the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District is heavily dependent on property tax revenues to fund its operations. With the economic recession and associated steep decline in the housing market, the funding the District has traditionally relied upon for providing fire services has declined nearly 12%. In response to the worsening financial conditions, the District has enacted a number of measures to cut costs and improve efficiencies, including eliminating positions, controlling overtime costs, reducing discretionary spending in all areas, deferring capital purchases, improvements and maintenance, and eliminating select programs. Despite these efforts, however, the District is still projecting a $12 million shortfall for fiscal year 2010/2011 as well as ongoing deficits in future years. Without dramatic cuts to programs and service levels and/or securing additional revenues, the District will deplete its entire reserve fund in less than 18 months. MOTIVATION FOR RESEARCH The primary purpose of the study was to produce an unbiased, statistically reliable evaluation of voters' interest in supporting a local revenue mea- sure to partially close the funding gap noted above. Additionally, should the District decide to move forward with a revenue measure, the data provides guidance as to how to structure the measure so that it is consistent with the community's priorities and expressed needs. Specifi- cally, the study was designed to: • Gauge current, baseline support for a local revenue measure to ensure adequate funding for fire and emergency medical services • Identify the types of services and projects that voters and property owners are most inter- ested in funding, should the measure pass • Expose respondents to arguments in favor of—and against—the proposed revenue measure to gauge how information affects support for the measure • Estimate support for the measure once voters and property owners are presented with the types of information they will likely be exposed to during the election cycle It is important to note at the outset that voters’ opinions about revenue measures are often somewhat fluid, especially when the amount of information they initially have about a measure is limited. How voters think and feel about a measure today may not be the same way they think and feel once they have had a chance to hear more information about the measure during the election cycle. Accordingly, to accurately assess the feasibility of establishing a local revenue measure, it was important that in addition to measuring current opinions about the measure (Question 2), the survey expose respondents to the types of information voters are likely to encounter during an election cycle—including arguments in favor of (Question 6) and opposed to IntroductionTrue North Research, Inc. © 2010 2Contra Costa County FPD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (Question 8) the measure—and gauge how this information ultimately impacts their voting deci- sion (Questions 9 & 10). REVENUE MEASURE OPTIONS To raise the funds needed to maintain the quality of fire protection services, the District has two potentially viable options with respect to the type of rev- enue measure it can place before voters or property owners: parcel tax and benefit assessment. A parcel tax is considered a special tax under California law and requires support from two- thirds of voters who participate in the election. The election can be held either as a traditional polling-booth election or by mailed-ballot, and registered voters can participate in the election regardless of whether they own property or are renters. The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association deemed a super-majority threshold appropriate for special taxes when they crafted Proposition 218 because many of the voters participating in a special tax are renters who do not have to directly pay the proposed special tax, and because many other property owners who will have to pay the tax (such as commercial and apartment owners) do not have an opportunity to vote in a special tax election. A benefit assessment, on the other hand, is voted on by all property owners in the District who are being asked to pay the new property-based benefit assessment. In addition to residential property owners, owners of other types of properties (i.e., commercial, industrial, apartments, etc.) as well as absentee owners are eligible to participate. Whereas a special tax requires two- thirds support for passage, because all affected property owners can participate in a benefit assessment, a majority of weighted ballots returned is required for approval, with the weight of each ballot being proportional to the proposed annual assessment amount for the property. Ben- efit assessment ballot proceedings also employ different voting procedures, as all property own- ers are typically mailed a ballot that includes an information sheet, but does not include arguments in support or opposition as is the case with a special tax. DIFFERENT MECHANISMS, DIFFERENT METHODOLOGIES One of the key objec- tives of this study was to determine how support for a proposed revenue measure may vary depending on the type of funding mechanism employed: parcel tax or benefit assessment. Because the legal, logistical, and campaign environments for special taxes and benefit assess- ments differ on so many dimensions that ultimately affect whether a measure will win or lose, it was important that the research methodology take these differences into account to ensure reli- able results for each unique scenario. Accordingly, the District commissioned True North Research and SCI to conduct two surveys—one to assess the feasibility of a parcel tax, the other for a benefit assessment. The parcel tax survey was administered by telephone to 800 voters in the District who are likely to participate in the November 2012 election, with subsets of voters who are likely to participate in the lower-turnout June 2011 and November 2011 elections. The interviews were conducted between December 1 and December 11, 2010, averaged 16 minutes in length, and were con- ducted during weekday evenings (5:30PM to 9PM) and on weekends (10AM to 5PM). It is stan- dard practice not to call during the day on weekdays because most working adults are unavailable and thus calling during those hours would bias the sample. The parcel tax survey focused on gauging the feasibility of a $72 flat-rate parcel tax and has a statistical margin of error of ± 3.46% at the 95% level of confidence. IntroductionTrue North Research, Inc. © 2010 3Contra Costa County FPD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Because research has shown that a mail-based survey methodology more accurately represents the likely outcome of a mail-based ballot proceeding, the benefit assessment survey was con- ducted by mail. A total of 12,255 property owners in the District representing all property classes that are eligible to cast a ballot were mailed a survey on January 20, 2011. A total of 3,269 surveys were returned, representing a participation rate of 27% which is similar to the return rate for actual ballot proceedings in large jurisdictions. A sample of this size produces results with a very high degree of reliability, achieving a statistical margin of error of ± 1.70% at the 95% level of confidence. The final data were weighted to account for disproportionate partic- ipation rates in mailed-ballot elections and the different fee amounts for each parcel. ORGANIZATION OF REPORT This report is designed to meet the needs of readers who prefer a summary of the findings as well as those who are interested in the details of the results. For those who seek an overview of the findings, the sections titled Just the Facts and Conclusions are for you. They provide a summary of the most important factual findings of the surveys in bul- let-point format and a discussion of their implications. For the interested reader, this section is followed by a more detailed question-by-question discussion of the results from the surveys by topic area—first for the parcel tax survey, then for the assessment survey (see Table of Con- tents). And, for the truly ambitious reader, the methodologies for the surveys are discussed at the back of the report and complete sets of crosstabulations for surveys are contained in Appen- dices A and B, which are bound separately. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS True North thanks the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District for the opportunity to conduct the study, as well as for their staff’s contributions to the design of the survey. A special thanks also to SCI Consulting Group and Tramutola LLC for assisting in the overall research design. Their collective expertise, local knowledge, and insight improved the overall quality of the research presented here. DISCLAIMER The statements and conclusions in this report are those of the authors (Dr. Timothy McLarney and Richard Sarles) at True North Research, Inc. and not necessarily those of the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District. Any errors and omissions are the responsibil- ity of the authors. ABOUT TRUE NORTH True North is a full-service survey research firm that is dedicated to providing public agencies with a clear understanding of the values, perceptions, priorities and concerns of their residents and voters. Through designing and implementing scientific surveys, focus groups and one-on-one interviews, as well as expert interpretation of the findings, True North helps its clients to move with confidence when making strategic decisions in a variety of areas—such as planning, policy evaluation, performance management, organizational develop- ment, establishing fiscal priorities, passing revenue measures, and developing effective public information campaigns. During their careers, Dr. McLarney and Mr. Sarles have designed and conducted over 500 survey research studies for public agencies—including more than 250 studies for California municipali- ties and special districts, and more than 200 revenue measure feasibility studies. Of the mea- sures that have gone to ballot based on Dr. McLarney’s recommendation, more than 90% have IntroductionTrue North Research, Inc. © 2010 4Contra Costa County FPD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . been successful. In total, the research that Dr. McLarney has conducted has led to over $19 bil- lion in successful local revenue measures. ABOUT SCI CONSULTING GROUP SCI Consulting Group, a California Corporation, is a public finance and urban economic consulting firm with over 25 years of expertise in assisting public agencies in California with planning, justifying and successfully establishing new reve- nues for their service and capital improvement needs and objectives. SCI provides a broad range of planning, research, engineering, outreach, balloting and financing services for local agencies. Since the passage of Proposition 218 in 1996, SCI has been successful on 101 community-wide ballots for new or increased assessments or fees and over 300 business area, neighborhood or development project area assessment or fee districts covering a wide range of public services and improvements. Just the FactsTrue North Research, Inc. © 2010 5Contra Costa County FPD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . J UST THE FACTS The following section is an outline of the main factual findings from the surveys. For the reader’s convenience, we have organized the findings according to the section titles used in the body of this report. Thus, if you would like to learn more about a particular finding, simply turn to the appropriate report section. IMPORTANCE OF ISSUES • When asked to rate the importance of eight local issues, ensuring adequate response times to 9-1-1 calls for fires and other emergencies received the highest percentage of respon- dents indicating that the issue was either extremely or very important (90%), followed by maintaining the quality of education in our local public schools (89%), and maintaining pub- lic safety (86%). INITIAL BALLOT TEST • With only the information provided in the ballot language, 69% of voters indicated that they would definitely or probably support the proposed $72 parcel tax measure at this stage in the survey, whereas 24% stated that they would oppose the measure and 7% were unsure or unwilling to share their vote choice. • Among those who initially opposed or were unsure about the parcel tax, the most com- monly cited reasons for their position were the perception that taxes are already too high (28%), concerns about wasting/misspending the money (15%), a need for additional informa- tion (14%), and the perception that firefighter salaries and benefits are too generous (12%). TAX THRESHOLD • Voters were somewhat sensitive to the tax rate associated with the proposed parcel tax. At the highest rate tested ($72 per year), 63% of those surveyed indicated that they would vote in favor of the measure. Incremental reductions in the tax rate resulted in incremental increases in support for the measure, with 72% of those surveyed indicating they would sup- port the proposed measure at the rate of $48 per year. PROGRAMS & PROJECTS • Among the programs and services that could be funded by the measure, voters most strongly favored ensuring prompt response times to 9-1-1 medical emergencies (87% strongly or somewhat favor), followed by maintaining high quality local fire protection and prevention services (82%), making needed repairs and upgrades to emergency rescue equip- ment and facilities (82%), and attracting and retaining professional firefighters and para- medics (78%). POSITIVE ARGUMENTS When presented with arguments in favor of the measure, voters found the following arguments to be the most persuasive: •When you need emergency care, you need it fast. Minutes count in these situations. This measure will ensure that the District can provide prompt response times to emergencies. Just the FactsTrue North Research, Inc. © 2010 6Contra Costa County FPD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . •All money raised by this measure will be spent locally to provide fire protection and emer- gency response services. The money cannot be taken away by the State or used for other purposes. •This measure will ensure that firefighters and paramedics have the facilities and equipment they need to do their jobs. INTERIM BALLOT TEST • After being presented with programs that could be funded as well as arguments in favor of the measure, overall support for the $72 parcel tax measure among likely November 2012 voters held steady at 69%. Approximately 25% of respondents opposed the measure at this point in the survey, and an additional 6% were unsure or unwilling to state their vote choice. NEGATIVE ARGUMENTS Of the arguments in opposition to the measure, voters found the following arguments to be the most persuasive: •People are having a hard time making ends meet with the housing crisis, high unemploy- ment, and the economy in recession. Now is NOT the time to be raising taxes. •Taxes are already too high, we don't need additional property taxes. •Firefighters are paid too much in salary and pensions. If they took a modest pay cut, there would be no need for this tax. FINAL BALLOT TESTS • After being presented with programs and projects that could be funded by the measure, possible tax rates, as well as arguments in favor and against the measure, support for the $72 parcel tax was found among 67% of likely November 2012 voters, with 43% indicating they would definitely support the measure. Approximately 27% of respondents were opposed to the measure at the Final Ballot Test, whereas 6% were unsure or unwilling to state their vote choice. • Respondents who did not support the $72 measure at the Final Ballot Test were asked how they would vote on the proposed measure if the tax rate were lowered to $48 per parcel. The findings indicate that approximately 73% of voters who are adequately informed about the proposal would support the measure at $48 per parcel. MESSENGERS • Overall, the most influential opinion leaders were local firefighters (71%) and local police (65%). Others whose opinions would matter at least somewhat to approximately half of vot- ers surveyed included their local City Council (51%), League of Women Voters (48%), the County Board of Supervisors (47%), and the Contra Costa Taxpayer’s Association (46%). ASSESSMENT MAIL SURVEY • At the $40 single family household rate equivalent, a weighted 54% of property owners indi- cated that they would support the proposed benefit assessment, with 26% indicating that they would definitely support the measure. Just the FactsTrue North Research, Inc. © 2010 7Contra Costa County FPD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • At the higher $60 single family household rate equivalent, support was approximately 9% lower at 45%, with 21% indicating that they would definitely support the benefit assessment. ConclusionsTrue North Research, Inc. © 2010 8Contra Costa County FPD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C ONCLUSIONS The bulk of this report is devoted to conveying the details of the study findings. In this section, however, we attempt to ‘see the forest through the trees’ and note how the collective results of the survey answer the key questions that motivated the research. The following conclusions are based on True North’s, SCI Consulting Group’s, and Tramutola LLC’s interpretations of the sur- vey results and the firms’ collective experience conducting hundreds of revenue measure feasi- bility studies for public agencies throughout the State. Should Confire proceed with plans to place a revenue measure before voters or property own- ers in 2012? Yes. The vast majority of voters and property owners in the District con- sider maintaining the quality of local fire protection, fire prevention, and emergency response services to be among the most important issues facing their community—on par with maintaining the quality of educa- tion in public schools, and more important than improving the local economy or preventing local tax increases. This sentiment translates into solid support for a local revenue measure to maintain the quality of fire protection and prevention services, ensure prompt 9-1-1 response times, repair and upgrade fire and emergency equipment and facilities, attract and retain professional firefighters and paramedics, and avoid closing stations and making deep cuts to emergency services. The results of this study suggest that, if packaged appropriately and combined with a broad-based and effective public education effort, a measure to fund fire and emergency response services has a good chance of passage. Having recommended that the District move forward, it is important to note that this recommendation to take the next steps toward placing a measure on the ballot comes with several qualifications and conditions. Indeed, although the results are promising, all revenue measures must overcome challenges prior to being successful. The proposed measure is no exception. The following paragraphs discuss some of the challenges and the next steps that True North, SCI and Tramutola recommend. Which funding mecha- nism appears to have the best chance for pas- sage? One of the key objectives of this study was to determine how support for a local revenue measure for fire and emergency services may vary depending on the type of funding mechanism employed: parcel tax or benefit assessment. As described in the Introduction, these financial mechanisms have very different legal, logistical, and campaign environ- ments, each having its own opportunities and challenges for a measure. The results of the telephone survey indicate that a parcel tax has a good chance of success if placed on the ballot during a high turnout election (e.g., November 2012) and accompanied by a well-organized, effective campaign. The level of natural support for the proposed $72 parcel tax measure among likely November 2012 voters was 69% and stayed at or above the two-thirds threshold throughout the interview even after vot- ConclusionsTrue North Research, Inc. © 2010 9Contra Costa County FPD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ers were exposed to the types of opposition arguments they would likely encounter during an election cycle.1 Although also positive, the results of the mail-based benefit assess- ment survey indicate that this path could be more challenging. Although support among single family residential property owners and condomin- iums/multi-plexes was well above the simply majority threshold required for passage (60%), more than one-third of the expected weighted vote is held by commercial property owners, industrial property owners, apart- ment owners, as well as owners of large properties/multiple properties. Unfortunately, support for the proposed benefit assessment in these lat- ter property classes was substantially lower. Overall, at fees based on a $60 per single family home equivalent, support for the proposed benefit assessment was found among 45% of all property owners—approxi- mately 5% below the weighted majority needed for passage. Only at the lower equivalent rate of $40 per single family home did support exceed a majority (54%). How will the tax or fee rate affect support for the measure? Naturally, the willingness of voters and property owners to support a specific revenue measure is contingent—in part—on the tax rate associ- ated with a measure. The higher the rate, all other things being equal, the lower the level of aggregate support that can be expected. It is criti- cal that the rate be set at a level that the necessary proportion of voters or property owners view as affordable. One of the more striking patterns from both surveys is that voters and property owners are somewhat price sensitive with respect to the pro- posed fire and emergency services measure, especially when their atten- tion is focused on the tax rate. At the highest tax rate tested for a parcel tax ($72 per year per property), 63% of voters indicated that they would vote in favor of the measure. Incremental reductions in the tax rate resulted in incremental increases in support for the measure, with 72% of voters indicating that they would support the parcel tax at an annual tax rate of $48 per property. Likewise, support for the proposed benefit assessment was also quite sensitive to the proposed fee amount. At the extremes, 67% of respon- dents who received a fee of less than $50 per year for their property indi- cated that they would support the measure, whereas the corresponding figure among those who received a fee of $500 or more was less than 25%. One of the more challenging aspects of the assessment is that as the proposed fee rate increases, the weight of the vote increases as does the likelihood an owner will vote no. 1. It should be noted, however, that support for a parcel tax measure was substantially lower among the smaller number of high propensity voters likely to participate in low turnout election scenarios such as November 2011 and June 2012. ConclusionsTrue North Research, Inc. © 2010 10Contra Costa County FPD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Given that price will be one of the driving factors that will shape how vot- ers react to the proposed measure, we recommend keeping the tax rate as affordable as possible—especially considering the current state of the economy and voters’ sensitivity to this issue. Our recommendation as to a specific rate will depend upon which financial mechanism is chosen, the outcome of future discussions with the District, and a candid evalua- tion of the resources that can be expected for the campaign. For reference, at the highest rate tested ($72 per year), a measure can be expected to generate between $12.5 million and $16.5 million. The low estimate in this range is based on a flat parcel tax with an optional senior exemption, whereas the high estimate is based on a tiered-struc- ture benefit assessment (not a flat rate per parcel) without a senior exemption. At the lowest rate tested ($48 per year), a measure is expected to generate between $8.2 million and $10.9 million. How might a public information campaign affect support for the proposed measure? As noted in the body of this report, individuals’ opinions about revenue measures are often not rigid, especially when the amount of information presented to the public on a measure has been limited. Thus, in addition to measuring current support for the measure, one of the goals of this study was to explore how the introduction of additional information about the measure may affect voters’ and property owners’ opinions about the measure. It is clear from the survey results that voters’ and property owners’ opin- ions about the proposed measure are somewhat sensitive to the nature—and amount—of information that they have about the measure. Information about the specific improvements that could be funded by the measure, as well as arguments in favor of the measure, were found by many respondents to be compelling reasons to support the measure. Moreover, this information played an important role in mitigating the erosion of support for the measure once respondents were exposed to the types of opposition arguments they will likely encounter during an election cycle. Accordingly, one of the keys to building and sustaining support for the fire and emergency services measure will be the presence of an effective, well-organized campaign to that focuses on the need for the measure as well as the many benefits that it will bring. How might the eco- nomic or political cli- mate alter support for the measure? An important component of any ballot measure’s potential for success is the economic and political climate surrounding the election. Concerns about the housing market, an unstable stock market, job losses, and the recession have done little to raise consumer confidence—which has yet to rebound substantially from all-time lows reached last year. Together with the state of the economy, lingering concerns about the ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as the State budget crisis combine ConclusionsTrue North Research, Inc. © 2010 11Contra Costa County FPD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . to create an economic and political climate that is not as favorable to rev- enue measures as it has been in prior years. The results of this study and the conclusions noted above must be viewed in light of the current times. Indeed, the results for a measure were quite strong despite the general economic malaise, which speaks volumes about the value that voters place on maintaining the quality of fire and emergency response services. It is important to keep in mind that this poll is a snapshot in time. Should the economy and/or political climate change in ways that would be more favorable, support for the measure—and the potential effectiveness of a positive education cam- paign—could increase considerably. Conversely, negative economic and/ or political developments, especially at the local level, could dampen support for the measure below what was recorded in this study. Importance of IssuesTrue North Research, Inc. © 2010 12Contra Costa County FPD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I MPORTANCE OF ISSUES The first substantive question of the telephone survey presented respondents with several issues facing residents in the District and asked them to rate the importance of each issue. Because the same response scale was used for each issue, the results provide an insight into how important each issue is on a scale of importance as well as how each issue ranks in importance relative to the other issues tested. To avoid a systematic position bias, the order in which the issues were read to respondents was randomized for each respondent. Figure 1 presents each issue tested, as well as the importance assigned to each issue by survey participants, ranked by order of importance.2 Overall, ensuring adequate response times to 9-1-1 calls for fires and other emergencies received the highest percentage of respondents indi- cating that the issue was either extremely or very important (90%), followed by maintaining the quality of education in our local public schools (89%), and maintaining public safety (86%). Given the purpose of this study, it is instructive to note that preventing local tax increases was rated lower in importance (49%) when compared with the issues that would be addressed by the pro- posed measure (ensuring adequate response times, maintaining public safety, and maintaining local fire protection and prevention services). Question 1 To begin, I'm going to read a list of issues facing your community and for each one, please tell me how important you feel the issue is to you, using a scale of extremely important, very important, somewhat important or not at all important. FIGURE 1 IMPORTANCE OF ISSUES 2. Issues were ranked based on the percentage of respondents who indicated that the issue was either extremely important or very important. 20.2 14.0 21.1 30.9 33.8 35.9 46.5 44.4 28.7 48.7 44.6 52.8 50.9 50.4 42.7 45.2 0 102030405060708090100 Preventing local tax increases Maintaining local streets and roads Maintaining local property values Improving the local economy Maintaining local fire protection, prevention Maintaining public safety Maintaining quality of education in public schools Ensuring adequate 911 response times Q1e Q1d Q1f Q1h Q1b Q1g Q1c Q1a % Respondents Extremely important Very important Initial Ballot TestTrue North Research, Inc. © 2010 13Contra Costa County FPD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I NITIAL BALLOT TEST The primary research objective of the telephone survey was to estimate voters’ support for establishing a local parcel tax measure to maintain the quality of fire protection and prevention services, ensure prompt 9-1-1 response times, repair and upgrade fire and emergency equip- ment and facilities, attract and retain professional firefighters and paramedics, and avoid closing stations and making deep cuts to emergency services. To this end, Question 2 was designed to take an early gauge of voters’ support for the proposed measure. The motivation for placing Question 2 at the front of the survey is twofold. First, voter support for a measure can often depend on the amount of information they have about a measure. At this point in the survey, the respondent has not been provided information about the proposed measure beyond what is presented in the ballot language. This situation is analogous to a voter casting a ballot with limited knowledge about the measure, such as what might occur in the absence of an effective education campaign. Question 2, also known as the Initial Ballot Test, is thus a good measure of voter support for the proposed measure as it is today in the absence of an information campaign. Because the Initial Ballot Test provides a gauge of ‘uninformed’ sup- port for the measure, it also serves a second purpose in that it provides a useful baseline from which to judge the impact of various information items conveyed later in the survey on voter support for the measure. Question 2 Your household is within the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District. Next year, voters in the District may be asked to vote on a local ballot measure. Let me read you a summary of the measure. In order to: maintain high quality local fire protection and prevention services; ensure prompt response times to 9-1-1 medical emergencies; make needed repairs and upgrades to fire and emergency equipment and facilities; attract and retain professional fire- fighters and paramedics; and avoid closing additional fire stations and making deep cuts to life- saving emergency services shall the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District establish a par- cel tax of up to $72 per parcel for five years only, with an exemption for seniors, citizen over- sight, and all money staying local? If the election were held today, would you vote yes or no on this measure? FIGURE 2 INITIAL BALLOT TEST Figure 2 presents the results of the Initial Ballot Test among all respondents in the high-turnout, November 2012 election sce- nario. Overall, 69% of voters indicated that they would definitely or probably support the proposed $72 parcel tax measure at this stage in the survey, whereas 24% stated that they would oppose the measure and 7% were unsure or unwilling to share their vote choice. For parcel taxes in California, the level of support recorded at the Initial Ballot Test is approximately two percentage points above the two-thirds super-majority (67%) required for a measure to pass. Not sure 6.5 Refused 0.3 Definitely no 14.5 Probably no 9.4 Definitely yes 39.2 Probably yes 30.1 Initial Ballot TestTrue North Research, Inc. © 2010 14Contra Costa County FPD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SUPPORT BY SUBGROUPS For the interested reader, Table 1 shows how support for the parcel tax measure at the Initial Ballot Test varied by key demographic traits. The blue column (Approximate % of Likely Voter Universe) indicates the percentage of the universe that each sub- group category comprises. It is important to note that although initial support among voters who are expected to participate in a high-turnout election such as November 2012 was 69%, support levels were somewhat lower among the smaller number of high propensity voters who are expected to participate in the June 2011 and/or November 2011 elections. TABLE 1 DEMOGRAPHIC BREAKDOWN OF SUPPORT AT INITIAL BALLOT TEST Approxi mate % of Voter Universe % Probably or Definitely Yes % Not sure Overall 100 69.3 6.5 Less than 10 14 83.4 1.4 10 to 14 12 71.9 8.8 15 or more 74 66.3 6.8 Yes 39 70.7 5.5 No 61 68.2 7.1 Democrat 51 75.3 5.9 Republican 26 59.1 5.4 Other / DTS 23 67.8 9.0 Male 44 64.7 4.9 Female 56 73.0 7.7 18 to 29 8 82.5 9.5 30 to 39 11 71.3 3.2 40 to 49 20 61.9 10.2 50 to 64 37 64.9 6.3 65 or older 24 76.9 4.2 Yes 84 67.3 6.8 No 16 79.4 4.6 2010 to 2005 29 72.2 5.7 2004 to 2001 22 70.1 6.5 2000 to 1997 14 60.1 12.3 1996 to 1990 14 66.3 6.1 Before 1990 20 73.0 3.8 Single dem 22 78.6 5.8 Dual dem 19 80.4 4.2 Single rep 7 68.6 7.0 Dual rep 11 52.4 5.4 Other 14 75.0 6.2 Mixed 28 58.7 9.0 Zone 1 24 70.0 6.5 Zone 2 13 67.4 9.7 Zone 3 28 70.4 6.5 Zone 4 28 65.7 6.3 Zone 5 7 80.5 1.9 Yes 51 70.5 4.1 No 49 68.2 8.9 Yes 44 66.4 4.0 No 56 71.7 8.4 Yes 38 63.9 4.4 No 62 72.7 7.7 Years in Contra Costa County (QD1) Children in Hsld (QD3) Party Gender Age Homeowner Registration Year Household Party Type Zone Likely to Vote by Mail Likely June 2011 Voter Likely November 2011 Voter Initial Ballot TestTrue North Research, Inc. © 2010 15Contra Costa County FPD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . REASONS FOR OPPOSING MEASURE Respondents who initially opposed the tax mea- sure (or were unsure of their position) were asked if there was a particular reason for their posi- tion. The question was asked in an open-ended manner, thereby allowing respondents to mention any reason that came to mind without being prompted by or restricted to a particular list of options. True North later reviewed the verbatim responses and grouped them into the cat- egories shown in Figure 3 below. Voters’ reasons for not supporting the measure were typical of what True North has found from opponents of revenue measures in other communities. The most common reasons cited for opposing the measure were the perception that taxes are already too high (28%), followed by concerns about wasting/misspending the money (15%) or a need for additional information (14%). Its also worth noting that 12% of those who initially opposed the measure reasoned that firefighter salaries and benefits are too generous. Question 3 Is there a particular reason why you do not support the fire protection measure I just described? FIGURE 3 REASONS FOR NOT SUPPORTING MEASURE 1.2 1.9 3.2 3.6 4.0 5.4 5.7 6.4 7.6 11.6 13.6 28.4 14.5 11.1 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Concern about union Better alternatives exist than raising taxes Not sure / Refused Other higher community priorities exist Unhappy with fire services in general Too expensive Current fire services, staff is sufficient Economic recession Government must live within its means No particular reason Firefighter salaries, benefits too high Need more information Money will be misspent, wasted Taxes already too high % Respondents Who Do Not Support Measure Tax ThresholdTrue North Research, Inc. © 2010 16Contra Costa County FPD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . T AX THRESHOLD Naturally, voter support for a revenue measure is often contingent on the cost of the measure. The higher the tax rate, all other things being equal, the less likely a voter is to support the mea- sure. Because the ballot language tested in Question 2 indicated that property owners could be assessed up to $72 per parcel, it left open the possibility that the rate could be substantially less for certain property owners. One of the goals of this study was thus to gauge the impact that changes in the tax rate can be expected to have on support for the proposed parcel tax measure. Question 4 was designed to do just that. Respondents were first instructed that the measure would raise money through annual property taxes paid by residential and commercial property owners in the District, although the amount to be charged to each parcel had not yet been deter- mined. They were then presented with the highest tax rate ($72 per parcel) and asked if they would support the proposed measure at that rate. If a respondent did not answer ‘definitely yes’, they were asked whether they would support the measure at the next lowest tax rate.3 The three tax rates tested, as well as the percentage of respondents who indicated they would vote in favor of the measure at each rate, are shown below in Figure 4. Question 4 The measure I just described would raise money through annual property taxes paid by residential and commercial property owners in the district. However, the amount to be charged to each parcel has not been determined yet. If you heard that your household would pay _____ per year for each property that you own in the district, would you vote yes or no on the measure? FIGURE 4 TAX THRESHOLD 3. If a respondent answered ‘definitely yes’, it is assumed that they would support the measure at the lower tax rates. Their support at each rate is factored into the percentages shown in Figure 4. 15.9 21.2 25.5 5.7 8.6 11.4 18.3 18.6 18.2 7.137.7 56.0 46.3 4.0 5.4 0 102030405060708090100 $48 per year $60 per year $72 per year % Respondents Definitely yes Probably yes Probably no Definitely no Not sure 30%63% 72% 67% 24% 27% Tax ThresholdTrue North Research, Inc. © 2010 17Contra Costa County FPD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The most obvious pattern revealed in Figure 4 is that voters are price sensitive when it comes to their support for the proposed parcel tax measure. At the highest rate tested ($72 per year), 63% of those surveyed indicated that they would vote in favor of the measure. Incremental reductions in the tax rate resulted in incremental increases in support for the measure, with 72% of those surveyed indicating they would support the proposed measure at the rate of $48 per year. Programs & ProjectsTrue North Research, Inc. © 2010 18Contra Costa County FPD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . P ROGRAMS & PROJECTS The ballot language presented in Question 2 indicated that the proposed parcel tax measure would be used to maintain the quality of fire protection and prevention services, ensure prompt 9-1-1 response times, repair and upgrade fire and emergency equipment and facilities, attract and retain professional firefighters and paramedics, and avoid closing stations and making deep cuts to emergency services. The purpose of Question 5 was to provide respondents with the full range of programs and services that may be funded by the proposed measure, and to identify which of these improvements voters most favored funding with parcel tax proceeds. After reading each improvement that may be funded by the measure, respondents were asked if they would favor or oppose spending some of the money on that particular improvement assum- ing that the measure passes. Truncated descriptions of the improvements tested, as well as vot- ers’ responses, are shown in Figure 5 below.4 Question 5 The measure we've been discussing would provide funding for a variety of fire pro- tection programs and services. If the measure passes, would you favor or oppose using some of the money to: _____, or do you not have an opinion? FIGURE 5 PROGRAMS & PROJECTS Overall, the service that resonated with the largest percentage of respondents was ensuring prompt response times to 9-1-1 medical emergencies (87% strongly or somewhat favor), fol- lowed by maintaining high quality local fire protection and prevention services (82%), making needed repairs and upgrades to emergency rescue equipment and facilities (82%), and attracting and retaining professional firefighters and paramedics (78%). 4. For the full text of programs and services tested, turn to Question 5 in Questionnaires & Toplines on page 38. 47.0 36.2 53.1 53.0 50.3 49.3 52.5 67.4 25.0 36.5 19.9 21.7 27.5 32.3 29.2 19.7 0 102030405060708090100 Ensure fire engines have a paramedic onboard 24 hours a day Continue fire prevention services Avoid closing fire stations due to the budget crisis Avoid making deep cuts to life-saving emergency response services Attract and retain professional firefighters and paramedics Make repairs, upgrades to emergency rescue equipment, facilities Maintain fire protection, emergency response services Ensure prompt response times to 911 medical emergencies Q5g Q5h Q5e Q5f Q5d Q5c Q5a Q5b % Respondents Strongly favor Somewhat favor Programs & ProjectsTrue North Research, Inc. © 2010 19Contra Costa County FPD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SPENDING PROGRAMS & PROJECTS RATINGS BY SUBGROUP Table 2 presents the top five programs and projects (showing the percentage of respondents who strongly favor each) by position at the Initial Ballot Test. Not surprisingly, individuals who initially opposed the measure were generally less likely to favor spending money on a given program or service when compared to supporters. Nevertheless, initial supporters, opponents and the undecided did agree on three of the five top priorities for funding. TABLE 2 TOP PROGRAMS & PROJECTS BY POSITION AT INITIAL BALLOT TEST Pos it ion at Initial Ballot Test (Q2) Item Program or Project Summary % Strongly Favor Q5b Ensure prompt response times to 911 medical emergencies 79 Q5f Avoid making deep cuts to life-saving emergency response services 66 Q5a Maintain fire protection, emergency response services 65 Q5e Avoid closing fire stations due to the budget crisis 65 Q5d Attract and retain professional firefighters and paramedics 62 Q5b Ensure prompt response times to 911 medical emergencies 37 Q5c Make repairs, upgrades to emer gency rescue equipment, facilities 23 Q5e Avoid closin g fire stations due to t he bud g et crisis 22 Q5d Attract and retain professional firefighters and paramedics 22 Q5g Ensure fire engines have a paramedic onboard 24 hours a day 21 Q5b Ensure prompt response times to 911 medical emergencies 53 Q5f Avoid making deep cuts to life-saving emergency response services 51 Q5e Avoid closing fire stations due to the budget crisis 45 Q5a Maintain fire protection, emergency response services 40 Q5d Attract and retain professional firefighters and paramedics 37 Probably or Definitely Yes (n = 555) Probably or Definitely No (n = 191) Not Sure (n = 52) Positive ArgumentsTrue North Research, Inc. © 2010 20Contra Costa County FPD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . P OSITIVE ARGUMENTS Ballot measures do not succeed or fail in a political vacuum. During an election cycle, propo- nents of a measure will present arguments to try to persuade voters to support a measure, just as opponents will present arguments to achieve the opposite goal. The objective of Question 6 was thus to present respondents with arguments in favor of the proposed measure and identify whether they felt the arguments were convincing reasons to support it. Arguments in opposition to the measure were also presented and will be discussed later in this report (see Negative Argu- ments on page 24). Within each series, specific arguments were administered in random order to avoid a systematic position bias. Question 6 What I'd like to do now is tell you what some people are saying about the measure we've been discussing. Supporters of the measure say: _____. Do you think this is a very convinc- ing, somewhat convincing, or not at all convincing reason to SUPPORT the measure? FIGURE 6 POSITIVE ARGUMENTS Figure 6 above presents the truncated positive arguments tested, as well as voters’ reactions to the arguments. The arguments are sorted from most convincing to least convincing based on the percentage of respondents who indicated that the argument was either a ‘very convincing’ or ‘somewhat convincing’ reason to support the measure. Using this methodology, the most com- pelling positive argument was: When you need emergency care, you need it fast. Minutes count in these situations. This measure will ensure that the District can provide prompt response times to emergencies (85%), followed by All money raised by this measure will be spent locally to provide fire protection and emergency response services. The money cannot be taken away by the State or used for other purposes (85%), and This measure will ensure that firefighters and paramedics have the facilities and equipment they need to do their jobs (85%). 30.2 42.6 47.4 51.4 47.2 43.1 56.1 49.8 43.9 33.4 30.2 28.0 35.7 41.9 28.9 35.6 0 102030405060708090100 District forced to close stations, cut positions to reduce cost There will be a clear system of fiscal accountability Declining property tax revenues have created budget crisis Brain damage occurs in 4-6 min, brain death in 8 min without oxygen District has only half the firefighters needed to serve our population Firefighters, paramedics will have necessary facilities, equipment All money raised by this measure will be spent locally Measure ensures prompt response times to emergencies Q6e Q6a Q6f Q6g Q6h Q6d Q6b Q6c % Respondents Very convincing Somewhat convincing Positive ArgumentsTrue North Research, Inc. © 2010 21Contra Costa County FPD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . POSITIVE ARGUMENTS BY INITIAL SUPPORT Table 3 lists the top five most convinc- ing positive arguments (showing the percentage of respondents who cited it as very convincing) according to respondents’ vote choice at the Initial Ballot Test. The most striking pattern in the table is that the positive arguments resonated with a much higher percentage of voters who were initially inclined to support the measure when compared to voters who initially opposed the mea- sure or were unsure. Nevertheless, four specific arguments were ranked among the top five most compelling by all three groups. TABLE 3 TOP POSITIVE ARGUMENTS BY POSITION AT INITIAL BALLOT TEST Pos it ion at Initial Ballot Test (Q2) Item Positive Argument Summary % Very Convincing Q6b All money raised by this measure will be spent locally 70 Q6g Brain damage occurs in 4-6 min, brain death in 8 min without oxygen 64 Q6c Measure ensures prompt response times to emergencies 63 Q6h District has only half the firefighters needed to serve our population 62 Q6f Declining property tax revenues have created budget crisis 60 Q6b All money raised by this measure will be spent locally 22 Q6g Brain damage occurs in 4-6 min, brain death in 8 min without oxygen 18 Q6a There will be a clear system of fiscal accountability 17 Q6c Measure ensures prompt response times to emergencies 14 Q6f Declining property tax revenues have created budg et crisis 13 Q6c Measure ensures prompt response times to emergencies 42 Q6f Declining property tax revenues have created budg et crisis 41 Q6g Brain damage occurs in 4-6 min, brain death in 8 min without oxygen 40 Q6b All money raised by this measure will be spent locally 39 Q6a There will be a clear system of fiscal accountability 30 Probably or Definitely Yes (n = 555) Probably or Definitely No (n = 191) Not Sure (n = 52) Interim Ballot TestTrue North Research, Inc. © 2010 22Contra Costa County FPD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I NTERIM BALLOT TEST After exposing respondents to the types of positive arguments they may encounter during an election cycle, the survey again presented voters with the ballot language used previously to gauge how support for the proposed parcel tax measure may have changed. As shown in Figure 7, overall support for the measure among likely November 2012 voters held steady at 69%. Approximately 25% of respondents opposed the measure at this point in the survey, and an addi- tional 6% were unsure or unwilling to state their vote choice. Question 7 Sometimes people change their mind about a measure once they have more infor- mation about it. Now that you have heard a bit more about the measure, let me read you a sum- mary of it again. In order to: maintain high quality local fire protection and prevention services; ensure prompt response times to 9-1-1 medical emergencies; make needed repairs and upgrades to fire and emergency equipment and facilities; attract and retain professional firefighters and paramedics; and avoid closing additional fire stations and making deep cuts to life-saving emer- gency services shall the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District establish a parcel tax of up to $72 per parcel for five years only, with an exemption for seniors, citizen oversight, and all money staying local? If the election were held today, would you vote yes or no on this measure? FIGURE 7 INTERIM BALLOT TEST SUPPORT BY SUBGROUPS Table 4 on the next page shows how support for the measure at this point in the survey varied by key demographic subgroups, as well as the percentage change in subgroup support when compared to the Initial Ballot Test. Positive differences appear in green, whereas negative differences appear in red. The aggregate stability in support for the measure among voters as a whole was also reflected at the subgroup level. For nearly all identi- fied subgroups, support for the measure changed only slightly (+/- 3% or less) between the Initial and Interim Ballot Tests. Not sure 5.5 Refused 0.3 Definitely no 17.8 Probably no 7.0 Definitely yes 46.2 Probably yes 23.2 Interim Ballot TestTrue North Research, Inc. © 2010 23Contra Costa County FPD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TABLE 4 DEMOGRAPHIC BREAKDOWN OF SUPPORT AT INTERIM BALLOT TEST Approxi mate % of Voter Universe % Probably or Definitely Yes Ch an ge F rom Initial Ballot Test (Q2) Overall 100 69.4 +0.1 Less than 10 14 83.9 +0.5 10 to 14 12 76.8 +5.0 15 or more 74 65.5 -0.7 Yes 39 68.8 -1.8 No 61 70.0 +1.8 Democrat 51 76.6 +1.2 Republican 26 57.8 -1.3 Other / DTS 23 66.9 -0.8 Male 44 65.3 +0.6 Female 56 72.7 -0.3 18 to 29 8 77.8 -4.8 30 to 39 11 74.4 +3.2 40 to 49 20 60.7 -1.3 50 to 64 37 66.5 +1.6 65 or older 24 76.1 -0.8 Yes 84 67.2 -0.1 No 16 80.6 +1.2 2010 to 2005 29 69.6 -2.6 2004 to 2001 22 72.5 +2.4 2000 to 1997 14 68.9 +8.8 1996 to 1990 14 65.4 -0.9 Before 1990 20 69.1 -3.9 Single dem 22 80.6 +2.0 Dual dem 19 78.4 -2.0 Single rep 7 70.9 +2.3 Dual rep 11 50.0 -2.4 Other 14 75.0 +0.0 Mixed 28 59.2 +0.5 Zone 1 24 67.8 -2.2 Zone 2 13 65.6 -1.8 Zone 3 28 73.8 +3.4 Zone 4 28 65.3 -0.3 Zone 5 7 80.5 +0.0 Yes 51 70.1 -0.3 No 49 68.7 +0.6 Yes 44 65.0 -1.4 No 56 73.0 +1.3 Yes 38 63.7 -0.2 No 62 73.0 +0.3 Years in Contra Costa County (QD1) Children in Hsld (QD3) Party Gender Age Homeowner Registration Year Household Party Type Zone Likely to Vote by Mail Likely June 2011 Voter Likely November 2011 Voter Negative ArgumentsTrue North Research, Inc. © 2010 24Contra Costa County FPD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . N EGATIVE ARGUMENTS Whereas Question 6 presented respondents with arguments in favor of the measure, Question 8 presented respondents with arguments designed to elicit opposition to the measure. With Ques- tion 8, however, respondents were asked whether they felt that the argument was a very convinc- ing, somewhat convincing, or not at all convincing reason to oppose the measure. The arguments tested, as well as voters’ opinions about the arguments, are presented in Figure 8. Question 8 Next, let me tell you what opponents of the measure are saying. Opponents of the measure say: _____. Do you think this is a very convincing, somewhat convincing, or not at all convincing reason to OPPOSE the measure? FIGURE 8 NEGATIVE ARGUMENTS Among the negative arguments tested, the most compelling was People are having a hard time making ends meet with the housing crisis, high unemployment, and the economy in recession. Now is NOT the time to be raising taxes (66%), followed by Taxes are already too high, we don't need additional property taxes (56%), and Firefighters are paid too much in salary and pensions. If they took a modest pay cut, there would be no need for this tax (52%). NEGATIVE ARGUMENTS BY INITIAL SUPPORT Table 5 ranks the four negative argu- ments according to respondents’ vote position at the Initial Ballot Test. TABLE 5 TOP NEGATIVE ARGUMENTS BY POSITION AT INITIAL BALLOT TEST 20.5 19.2 26.9 33.8 31.3 33.1 29.3 32.4 0 102030405060708090100 District can’t be trusted with this tax Firefighters are paid too much in salary and pensions Taxes are already too high With economic crisis, now is NOT the time to raise taxes Q8b Q8d Q8c Q8a % Respondents Very convincing Somewhat convincing Pos it ion at Initial Ballot Test (Q2) Item Negative Argument Summary % Very Convincing Q8a With economic crisis, now is NOT the time to raise taxes 20 Q8c Taxes are already too high 14 Q8b District can’t be trusted with this tax 13 Q8d Firefighters are paid too much in salary and pensions 12 Q8a With economic crisis, now is NOT the time to raise taxes 70 Q8c Taxes are already too high62 Q8d Firefighters are paid too much in salary and pensions 43 Q8b District can’t be trusted with this tax 42 Q 8a With economic crisis, now is NOT the time to raise taxes 48 Q8c Taxes are already too high 32 Q8b District can’t be trusted with this tax 21 Q8d Firefighters are paid too much in salary and pensions 11 Probably or Definitely Yes (n = 555) Probably or Definitely No (n = 191) Not Sure (n = 52) Final Ballot TestsTrue North Research, Inc. © 2010 25Contra Costa County FPD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F INAL BALLOT TESTS Voters’ opinions about ballot measures are often not rigid, especially when the amount of infor- mation presented to the public on a measure has been limited. A goal of the survey was thus to gauge how voters’ opinions about the proposed measure may be affected by the information they could encounter during the course of an election cycle. After providing respondents with the wording of the proposed measure, possible tax rates, programs and services that could be funded by the measure, and arguments in favor and against the proposal, respondents were again asked whether they would vote ‘yes’ or ‘no’ on the proposed $72 parcel tax measure. Question 9 Now that you have heard a bit more about the measure, let me read you a sum- mary of it one more time. In order to: maintain high quality local fire protection and prevention services; ensure prompt response times to 9-1-1 medical emergencies; make needed repairs and upgrades to fire and emergency equipment and facilities; attract and retain professional fire- fighters and paramedics; and avoid closing additional fire stations and making deep cuts to life- saving emergency services shall the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District establish a par- cel tax of up to $72 per parcel for five years only, with an exemption for seniors, citizen over- sight, and all money staying local? If the election were held today, would you vote yes or no on this measure? FIGURE 9 FINAL BALLOT TEST At this point in the survey, support for the measure was found among 67% of likely November 2012 voters, with 43% indicating they would definitely support the measure. Approximately 27% of respondents were opposed to the measure at the Final Ballot Test, whereas 6% were unsure or unwilling to state their vote choice. LOWER TAX RATE The ballot language for the proposed measure used in Questions 2, 7, and 9 indicated that the measure would increase annual property taxes by up to $72 per parcel. Respondents who opposed the measure at the Final Ballot Test (or were unsure of their position) were subsequently asked how they would vote if the tax increase were instead $48 per parcel. Figure 10 displays the responses to this question and includes those respondents who previ- ously indicated they would support the measure at $72 (and thus did not receive this question). Probably yes 24.0 Definitely yes 43.1 Probably no 7.4 Definitely no 19.4 Refused 0.1Not sure 6.0 Final Ballot TestsTrue North Research, Inc. © 2010 26Contra Costa County FPD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . An additional 6% of voters indicated they would definitely (1%) or probably (5%) support the mea- sure at the lower rate, bringing the overall support for the measure at $48 per parcel among a high-turnout electorate that is also quite familiar with the measure to 73%. Question 10 How about if instead of $72 per household, the tax were $48 per household. Would you vote yes or no on this measure? FIGURE 10 FINAL BALLOT TEST AT $48 Definitely no 17.8 Not sure 4.2 Probably no 4.4 Probably yes 5.0 Supported at $72 67.1 Definitely yes 1.2 Refused 0.3 Change in SupportTrue North Research, Inc. © 2010 27Contra Costa County FPD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C HANGE IN SUPPORT Table 6 provides a closer look at how support for the parcel tax measure changed over the course of the interview by calculating the difference in support between the Initial, Interim, and Final Ballot Tests within various subgroups of voters. The percentage of support for the measure at the Final Ballot Test is shown in the column with the heading % Probably or Definitely Yes. The columns to the right show the difference between the Final and the Initial, and the Final and Interim Ballot Tests. Positive differences appear in green, negative differences appear in red. TABLE 6 DEMOGRAPHIC BREAKDOWN OF SUPPORT AT FINAL BALLOT TEST Approxi mate % of Voter Universe % Probably or Definitely Yes Ch an ge From Initial Ballot Test (Q2) Change f rom Interim Ballot Test (Q7) Overall 100 67.1 -2.2 -2.3 Less than 10 14 83.1 -0.3 -0.8 10 to 14 12 70.6 -1.3 -6.3 15 or more 74 63.6 -2.6 -1.9 Yes 39 68.0 -2.6 -0.8 No 61 66.8 -1.4 -3.2 Democrat 51 74.0 -1.3 -2.6 Republican 26 55.7 -3.4 -2.1 Other / DTS 23 65.0 -2.8 -2.0 Male 44 63.7 -1.0 -1.5 Female 56 69.8 -3.2 -2.9 18 to 29 8 77.8 -4.8 No change 30 to 39 11 71.3 -0.0 -3.2 40 to 49 20 59.4 -2.5 -1.3 50 to 64 37 65.3 +0.4 -1.2 65 or older 24 70.8 -6.1 -5.3 Yes 84 64.9 -2.4 -2.3 No 16 78.4 -1.1 -2.3 2010 to 2005 29 68.8 -3.4 -0.8 2004 to 2001 22 69.5 -0.6 -3.0 2000 to 1997 14 62.5 +2.4 -6.4 1996 to 1990 14 64.0 -2.3 -1.4 Before 1990 20 67.7 -5.4 -1.5 Single dem 22 75.7 -2.9 -4.9 Dual dem 19 79.0 -1.3 +0.7 Single rep 7 66.1 -2.4 -4.7 Dual rep 11 49.4 -3.0 -0.6 Other 14 74.5 -0.5 -0.5 Mixed 28 56.0 -2.7 -3.3 Zone 1 24 63.6 -6.4 -4.2 Zone 2 13 65.0 -2.3 -0.5 Zone 3 28 71.2 +0.7 -2.6 Zone 4 28 63.2 -2.4 -2.1 Zone 5 7 81.9 +1.3 +1.3 Yes 51 67.5 -3.0 -2.7 No 49 66.8 -1.4 -1.9 Yes 44 62.4 -4.0 -2.6 No 56 70.9 -0.8 -2.1 Yes 38 61.1 -2.8 -2.6 No 62 70.9 -1.8 -2.1 Zone Likely to Vote by Mail Likely June 2011 Voter Likely November 2011 Voter Age Homeowner Registration Year Household Party Type Years in Contra Costa County (QD1) Children in Hsld (QD3) Party Gender Change in SupportTrue North Research, Inc. © 2010 28Contra Costa County FPD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . As expected, most voters responded to the negative arguments with a reduction in their support for the measure when compared with levels recorded at the Interim Ballot Test. The trend over the course of the entire survey (Initial to Final Ballot Test) was also one of slightly decreasing support (-2%). Overall support at the Final Ballot Test was approximately two percentage points lower than that found at the Initial Ballot Test, with the majority of subgroups showing slight decreases as well. Whereas Table 6 on the previous page displays change in support for the measure over the course of the interview at the group level, Table 7 below presents individual-level changes that occurred between the Initial and Final Ballot Tests for the measure. On the left side of the table is shown each of the response options to the Initial Ballot Test and the percentage of respondents in each group. The cells in the body of the table depict movement within each response group (row) based on the information provided throughout the course of the survey as recorded by the Final Ballot Test. For example, in the first row we see that of the 39.2% of respondents who indi- cated they would definitely support the measure at the Initial Ballot Test, 34.9% indicated they would definitely support the measure at the Final Ballot Test. Approximately 2.5% moved to the probably support group, 1.0% moved to the probably oppose group, 0.6% moved to the defi- nitely oppose group, and 0.3% percent stated they were now unsure of their vote choice. To ease interpretation of the table, the cells are color coded. Red shaded cells indicate declining support, green shaded cells indicate increasing support, whereas white cells indicate no move- ment. Moreover, within the cells, a white font indicates a fundamental change in the vote: from yes to no, no to yes, or not sure to either yes or no. TABLE 7 MOVEMENT FROM INITIAL TO FINAL BALLOT TEST As one might expect, the information conveyed in the survey had the greatest impact on individ- uals who either weren’t sure about how they would vote at the Initial Ballot Test or were tentative in their vote choice (probably yes or probably no). Moreover, Table 7 makes clear that although the information presented in the survey did impact some voters, it did not do so in a consistent way for all respondents. Some respondents found the information conveyed during the course of the interview to be a reason to become more supportive of the measure, whereas a larger per- centage found the same information reason to be less supportive. Despite 12% of respondents making a fundamental5 shift in their opinion regarding the measure over the course of the inter- view, the net impact is that support for the measure at the Final Ballot Test (67%) was approxi- mately 2% higher than support at the Initial Ballot Test (69%). 5. This is, they changed from a position of support, opposition, or undecided at the Initial Ballot Test to a dif- ferent position at the Final Ballot Test. Definitely support Probably support Probably oppose Definitely oppose Not sure Definitely support 39.2%34.9% 2.5%1.0% 0.6% 0.3% Probably support 30.1%7.0% 19.0%1.9% 0.5% 1.6% Probably oppose 9.4%0.4% 0.7%3.3% 4.4%0.6% Definitely oppose 14.5%0.3% 0.2%0.5% 13.0%0.4% Not sure 6.8%0.5% 1.6% 0.6% 0.8%3.2% Initial Ballot Test (Q2) Final Ballot Test (Q9) MessengersTrue North Research, Inc. © 2010 29Contra Costa County FPD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M ESSENGERS In addition to gauging voters’ willingness to support the proposed parcel tax measure, the tele- phone survey also sought to identify the groups and individuals in the community that voters may rely on most when forming their own opinions about the measure. Accordingly, for each individual or group listed on the left of Figure 11, participants were simply asked how much their opinions about the measure will matter to them. To avoid a systematic position-order bias, the groups and individuals were presented in a random order for each respondent. Question 11 During the next few months, you may hear statements from individuals and groups who take a position on the measures we've been discussing. As I read the following list of individuals and groups, I'd like to know how much their opinions about the measures will matter to you. FIGURE 11 EFFECT OF MESSENGERS ON OPINION Overall, the most influential opinion leaders were local firefighters (71%) and local police (65%). Others whose opinions would matter at least somewhat to approximately half of voters surveyed included their local City Council (51%), League of Women Voters (48%), the County Board of Supervisors (47%), and the Contra Costa Taxpayer’s Association (46%). 5.7 8.4 7.9 12.4 10.5 16.7 13.7 26.2 34.8 18.2 29.0 31.0 33.8 36.6 30.8 37.2 39.0 36.4 0 1020304050607080 Local refineries like Chevron, Shell Contra Costa Times newspaper Chamber of Commerce Contra Costa Taxpayer’s Association County Board of Supervisors League of Women Voters Your local City Council Local police Local Firefighters Q11g Q11d Q11a Q11b Q11f Q11c Q11i Q11h Q11e % Respondents A lot Somewhat Assessment Mail SurveyTrue North Research, Inc. © 2010 30Contra Costa County FPD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A SSESSMENT MAIL SURVEY The parcel tax survey described in previous sections of this report was conducted by telephone. Because research has shown that a mail-based survey methodology more accurately represents the likely outcome of a mail-based ballot proceeding, the benefit assessment survey was con- ducted by mail. A total of 12,255 property owners in the District representing all property classes that are eligible to cast a ballot were mailed a survey on January 20, 2011. A total of 3,269 surveys were returned, representing a participation rate of 27% which is similar to the return rate for actual ballot proceedings in large jurisdictions. The final data were weighted to account for disproportionate participation rates in mailed-ballot elections and the different fee amounts for each parcel. The results of the assessment mail survey are presented in this section. SUPPORT BY FEE RATE The mail survey employed a split-sample methodology whereby some property owners received a fee based on a rate equivalent of $60 for the typical single fam- ily home, whereas others received a fee based on a lower $40 equivalent. Note that the actual rates for each respondent were based on the property(s) they own and could be higher or lower. Figure 12 presents the weighted results for the proposed assessment at the $40 and $60 rate equivalents, respectively. At the $40 rate, 54% of property owners indicated that they would sup- port the assessment, with 26% indicating that they would definitely support the measure. At the higher $60 rate, support was approximately 9% lower at 45%, with 21% indicating that they would definitely support the measure. FIGURE 12 BALLOT TEST BY ASSESSMENT RATE 20.6 24.8 38.3 Definitely yes 25.5 Probably yes 28.1 Probably no 11.9 16.3 Definitely no 34.6 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 $40 $60 Assessment Rate% Respondents Assessment Mail SurveyTrue North Research, Inc. © 2010 31Contra Costa County FPD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SUPPORT BY SUBGROUPS For the interested reader, the following figures show how sup- port for the proposed assessment varied by key property owner subgroups, including by type of property owned, the actual fee assigned to their property(s), age, household party type, and geo- graphic zones and jurisdictions. As is typical of these types of measures, support for the pro- posed assessment was strongest among owners of single family residences and Democrats. Figure 14 also reveals considerable price sensitivity, with support for the measure ranging from a high of 67% to a low of 21% as the actual fee amounts for property owners increased from under $50 to up to $1500. FIGURE 13 BALLOT TEST BY PROPERTY OWNER CATEGORIES FIGURE 14 BALLOT TEST BY TOTAL ASSESSMENT AMOUNT 13.8 14.9 4.8 20.6 26.6 19.9 10.9 16.3 50.8 47.6 59.1 Definitely yes 30.8 Probably yes 29.4 14.8 Probably no 13.6 Definitely no 26.1 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Single Family Res Apt & Investment Com & Industrial Large Owners Property Owner Categories% Respondents26.0 16.1 7.1 10.7 4.4 29.3 21.4 17.2 10.4 21.5 18.6 3.0 17.7 17.0 28.5 44.0 72.8 61.2 57.2 Definitely yes 35.3 Probably yes 31.2 Probably no 9.7 16.2 Definitely no 23.9 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Under $50 $50 to $99 $100 to $499 $500 to $999 $1,000 to $1,499 $1,500 or more Total Assessment Amount% Respondents Assessment Mail SurveyTrue North Research, Inc. © 2010 32Contra Costa County FPD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . FIGURE 15 BALLOT TEST BY HOUSEHOLD PARTY TYPE FIGURE 16 BALLOT TEST BY LL ZONE & INFORMATION PACKET VERSION 34.9 28.2 15.6 26.8 26.2 30.5 28.9 26.6 28.1 28.3 13.1 13.4 18.1 12.8 21.1 29.7 44.5 27.0 32.7 Definitely yes 36.8 Probably yes 34.8 Probably no 9.5 13.5 Definitely no 18.9 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Single Dem Dual Dem Single Rep Dual Rep Mixed Other Household Party% Respondents22.1 23.5 26.1 22.2 22.6 23.5 22.9 26.9 26.1 25.1 26.5 26.4 13.6 18.3 10.2 14.2 13.9 42.7 36.0 29.5 42.5 36.7 36.1 Definitely yes 19.5 Probably yes 28.1 12.3 Probably no 11.2 Definitely no 41.1 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 12345Letter StyleFact Sheet LL Zone Information Packet Version% Respondents Assessment Mail SurveyTrue North Research, Inc. © 2010 33Contra Costa County FPD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . FIGURE 17 BALLOT TEST BY CITY WEIGHTED VOTE BY PROPERTY TYPE For the interested reader, Figure 18 shows the amount of the total weighted vote held by different property owner types for the proposed assessment. Just under two-thirds of the vote (64%) is held by owners of single family residential properties, with the remaining votes held by owners of large/multiple properties (18%), commer- cial and industrial properties (7%), and apartments/investment properties (12%). FIGURE 18 EXPECTED WEIGHTED VOTE BY PROPERTY OWNER CATEGORIES 16.7 20.1 38.9 21.2 37.3 29.9 25.9 19.9 26.1 20.8 20.9 24.9 25.5 20.7 18.7 29.3 24.1 26.5 25.2 29.5 24.3 32.6 23.8 26.7 12.6 8.6 14.2 10.7 19.4 11.8 10.7 11.6 21.6 7.5 20.4 47.3 46.5 33.8 35.3 28.0 24.2 37.0 39.9 38.0 25.0 47.9 28.0 31.8 9.5 14.3 10.6 44.4 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 AlamoAntiochBay PointClaytonConcordEl SobranteLafayetteMartinezPittsburgPleasant HillRichmondSan PabloWalnutCreekCity% RespondentsDefinitely no Probably no Probably yes Definitely yes Large Owners 17.5 Com & Industrial 6.7 Single Family Res 63.6 Apt & Investment 12.1 Background & DemographicsTrue North Research, Inc. © 2010 34Contra Costa County FPD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B ACKGROUND & DEMOGRAPHICS TABLE 8 DEMOGRAPHICS OF SAMPLE In addition to questions directly related to the proposed parcel tax measure, the telephone sur- vey collected basic demographic information about respondents and their households. Some of this information was gathered during the inter- view, although much of it was collected from the voter file. The profile of the likely November 2012 voter sample used for the parcel tax survey is shown in Table 8. Total Respondents 800 Years in Contra Costa County (QD1) Less than 10 14.0 10 to 14 11.7 15 or more 73.6 Refused 0.7 Children in Hsld (QD3) Yes 39.2 No 60.1 Refused 0.7 Party Democrat 50.9 Republican 26.2 Other / DTS 22.8 Gender Male 44.2 Female 55.8 Age 18 to 29 8.1 30 to 39 10.8 40 to 49 20.3 50 to 64 36.8 65 or older 23.8 Not on file 0.1 Homeowner Yes 83.6 No 16.4 Registration Year 2010 to 2005 29.4 2004 to 2001 21.5 2000 to 1997 14.4 1996 to 1990 14.1 Before 1990 20.5 Household Party Type Single dem 21.6 Dual dem 18.8 Single rep 7.2 Dual rep 10.9 Other 13.7 Mixed 27.7 Zone Zone 1 23.9 Zone 2 12.5 Zone 3 27.8 Zone 4 28.4 Zone 5 7.3 Likely to Vote by Mail Yes 50.5 No 49.5 Likely June 2011 Voter Yes 44.5 No 55.5 Likely November 2011 Voter Yes 38.2 No 61.8 MethodologyTrue North Research, Inc. © 2010 35Contra Costa County FPD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M ETHODOLOGY The following sections outline the methodology used in the study, as well as the motivation for using certain techniques. QUESTIONNAIRE DEVELOPMENT Dr. McLarney of True North Research worked closely with the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District, SCI Consulting Group, and Tramutola to develop a questionnaire that covered the topics of interest and avoided the many possible sources of systematic measurement error, including position-order effects, wording effects, response-category effects, scaling effects and priming. Several questions included multiple indi- vidual items. Because asking the items in a set order can lead to a systematic position bias in responses, the items were asked in a random order for each respondent. Some of the questions asked in this study were presented only to a subset of respondents. For example, only respondents who opposed the parcel tax measure or were undecided at the Final Ballot Test (Question 9) were asked a follow-up question (Question 10) regarding their support for the measure with a lower tax rate. The questionnaire included with this report (see Question- naires & Toplines on page 38) identifies the skip patterns that were used during the telephone interview to ensure that each respondent received the appropriate questions. PROGRAMMING & PRE-TEST Prior to fielding the parcel tax survey, the questionnaire was CATI (Computer Assisted Telephone Interviewing) programmed to assist the live interview- ers when conducting the telephone interviews. The CATI program automatically navigates the skip patterns, randomizes the appropriate question items, and alerts the interviewer to certain types of keypunching mistakes should they happen during the interview. The integrity of the questionnaire was pre-tested internally by True North and by dialing into random homes in the District prior to formally beginning the survey. SAMPLES The parcel tax survey was administered to a stratified and clustered random sam- ple of registered voters in the District who are likely to participate in the November 2012 elec- tion with subsets of voters who are likely to participate in the lower-turnout June 2011 and November 2011 elections. Consistent with the profile of this universe, the sample was stratified into clusters, each representing a particular combination of age, gender, and household party- type. Individuals were then randomly selected based on their profile into an appropriate cluster. This method ensures that if a person of a particular profile refuses to participate in the study, they are replaced by an individual who shares their same profile. For the benefit assessment survey, a total of 12,255property owners in the District representing all property classes that are eligible to cast a ballot were randomly selected and mailed a survey. A total of 3,269 surveys were returned, representing a participation rate of 27%, which is similar to the return rate for actual ballot proceedings in large jurisdictions. The final data were weighted to account for disproportionate participation rates in mailed-ballot elections and the different fee amounts for each parcel. MethodologyTrue North Research, Inc. © 2010 36Contra Costa County FPD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . STATISTICAL MARGIN OF ERROR By using the probability-based sampling designs noted above, True North ensured that the final samples were representative of voters and prop- erty owners in the District who are likely to participate in the November 2012 election or return a mailed ballot in a benefit assessment. The results of this study can thus be used to estimate the opinions of all voters and property owners likely to participate in those election scenarios. Because not all voters and property owners participated in the study, however, the results have what is known as a statistical margin of error due to sampling. The margin of error within the parcel tax survey refers to the difference between what was found in the survey of 800 voters for a particular question and what would have been found if all 224,185 likely November 2012 vot- ers identified in the District had been surveyed for the study. The margin of error within the ben- efit assessment survey refers to the difference between what was found among the 3,269 surveyed property owners for a particular question and what would have been found if all 162,845 property owners identified in the District had participated in the study. For example, in estimating the percentage of likely November 2012 voters that would definitely support the parcel tax measure at the Initial Ballot Test (Question 2 in the parcel tax question- naire), the margin of error can be calculated if one knows the size of the population, the size of the sample, a confidence level, and the distribution of responses to the question. The appropri- ate equation for estimating the margin of error, in this case, is shown below. Where is the proportion of voters who said definitely yes (0.39 for 39% in this example), is the population size of likely voters (224,185), is the sample size that received the question (800) and is the upper point for the t-distribution with degrees of freedom (1.96 for a 95% confidence interval). Solving this equation using these values reveals a margin of error of ± 3.38%. This means that with 39% of respondents indicating they would definitely support the measure at the Initial Ballot Test, we can be 95% confident that the actual percentage of likely November 2012 voters that would definitely support the measure is between 36% and 42%. Figure 19 provides a graphic plot of the maximum margin of error for the parcel tax survey. The maximum margin of error for a dichotomous percentage result occurs when the answers are evenly split such that 50% provide one response and 50% provide the alternative response. For the parcel tax survey, the maximum margin of error is ± 3.46%. Although not shown in the fig- ure, the maximum margin of error for the benefit assessment survey is ± 1.70%. pˆt Nn– N-------------⎝⎠⎛⎞pˆ1 pˆ–() n 1– --------------------± pˆN n t α 2⁄n 1– MethodologyTrue North Research, Inc. © 2010 37Contra Costa County FPD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . FIGURE 19 MAXIMUM MARGIN OF ERROR DUE TO SAMPLING (PARCEL TAX SURVEY) Within this report, figures and tables show how responses to certain questions varied by sub- groups such as age, gender, and partisan affiliation. Figure 19 is thus useful for understanding how the maximum margin of error for a percentage estimate will grow as the number of individ- uals asked a question (or in a particular subgroup) shrinks. Because the margin of error grows exponentially as the sample size decreases, the reader should use caution when generalizing and interpreting the results for small subgroups. DATA COLLECTION For the parcel tax survey, the method of data collection was tele- phone interviewing. Interviews were conducted during weekday evenings (5:30PM to 9PM) and on weekends (10AM to 5PM) between December 1 and December 11, 2010. It is standard prac- tice not to call during the day on weekdays because most working adults are unavailable and thus calling during those hours would bias the sample. The interviews averaged 16 minutes in length. For the benefit assessment study, surveys were mailed to property owners on January 20, 2011 and gathered via pre-paid postage return mail until February 15, 2011. DATA PROCESSING Data processing consisted of scanning mailed surveys and keypunch- ing where necessary, checking all data for errors or inconsistencies, coding and recoding responses, categorizing verbatim responses, and preparing frequency analyses and crosstabula- tions. ROUNDING Numbers that end in 0.5 or higher are rounded up to the nearest whole num- ber, whereas numbers that end in 0.4 or lower are rounded down to the nearest whole number. These same rounding rules are also applied, when needed, to arrive at numbers that include a decimal place in constructing figures and charts. Occasionally, these rounding rules lead to small discrepancies in the first decimal place when comparing tables and pie charts for a given question. Sample of 800 Likely Nov 2012 Vot ers ± 3. 46% 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 Sample Size (Number of Respondents)Margin of Error Questionnaires & ToplinesTrue North Research, Inc. © 2010 38Contra Costa County FPD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Q UESTIONNAIRES & TOPLINES True North Research, Inc. © 2010 Page 1 ConFire Parcel Tax Survey Final Toplines December 2010 Section 1: Introduction to Study Hi, may I please speak to _____. My name is _____, and I’m calling on behalf of TNR, an independent public opinion research firm. We’re conducting a survey of voters about important issues in Contra Costa County and I’d like to get your opinions. If needed: This is a survey about important issues in your community. I’m NOT trying to sell anything and I won’t ask for a donation. If needed: The survey should take about 12 minutes to complete. If needed: If now is not a convenient time, can you let me know a better time so I can call back? If the person asks why you need to speak to the listed person or if they ask to participate instead, explain: For statistical purposes, at this time the survey must only be completed by this particular individual. If the person asks who is sponsoring the survey, explain: For statistical purposes, I can’t reveal the sponsor of the survey at the beginning of this interview, but I will tell you at the end. If the person says they are an elected official or is somehow associated with the survey, politely explain that this survey is designed to measure the opinions of those not closely associated with the study, thank them for their time, and terminate the interview. Section 2: Importance of Issues Q1 To begin, I’m going to read a list of issues facing your community and for each one, please tell me how important you feel the issue is to you, using a scale of extremely important, very important, somewhat important or not at all important. Here is the (first/next) issue: _____. Do you think this issue is extremely important, very important, somewhat important, or not at all important? Randomize Extremely Important Very Important Somewhat Important Not at all Important Not sure Refused A Ensuring prompt response times to 9-1-1 calls for fires and medical emergencies 44% 45% 9% 1% 1% 0% B Maintaining local fire protection and prevention services 34% 51% 14% 1% 0% 0% C Maintaining the quality of education in our local public schools 46% 43% 8% 2% 0% 0% D Maintaining local streets and roads 14% 49% 35% 2% 0% 0% E Preventing local tax increases 20% 29% 37% 13% 1% 0% F Maintaining local property values 21% 45% 29% 5% 1% 0% G Maintaining public safety 36% 50% 13% 1% 0% 0% H Improving the local economy 31% 53% 15% 1% 0% 0% Questionnaires & ToplinesTrue North Research, Inc. © 2010 39Contra Costa County FPD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ConFire Parcel Tax Survey December 2010 True North Research, Inc. © 2010 Page 2 Section 3: Initial Ballot Test Your household is within the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District. Next year, voters in the District may be asked to vote on a local ballot measure. Let me read you a summary of the measure: Q2 In order to: Maintain high quality local fire protection and prevention services Ensure prompt response times to 9-1-1 medical emergencies Make needed repairs and upgrades to fire and emergency equipment and facilities Attract and retain profession al firefighters and paramedics And avoid closing additional fire stations and making deep cuts to life-saving emergency services Shall the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District establish a parcel tax of up to $72 per parcel for five years only, with an exemption for seniors, citizen oversight, and all money staying local? If the election were held today, would you vote yes or no on this measure? Get answer, then ask: Would that be definitely (yes/no) or probably (yes/no)? November 2012 November 2011 1 Definitely yes 39% 38% Skip to Q4 2 Probably yes 30% 26% Skip to Q4 3 Probably no 9% 11% Ask Q3 4 Definitely no 14% 20% Ask Q3 98 Not sure 6% 4% Ask Q3 99 Refused 0% 1% Skip to Q4 Q3 Is there a particular reason why you do not support the fire protection measure I just described? Verbatim responses recorded and later grouped into the categories shown below. Taxes already too high 28% Need more information 14% Money will be misspent, wasted 14% Firefighter salaries, benefits too high 12% No particular reason 11% Government must live within its means 8% Economic recession 6% Current fire services, staff is sufficient 6% Too expensive 5% Other higher community priorities exist 4% Unhappy with fire services in general 4% Not sure / Refused 3% Better alternatives exist than raising taxes 2% Concern about union 1% Questionnaires & ToplinesTrue North Research, Inc. © 2010 40Contra Costa County FPD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ConFire Parcel Tax Survey December 2010 True North Research, Inc. © 2010 Page 3 Section 4: Tax Threshold Q4 The measure I just described would raise money through annual property taxes paid by residential and commercial property owners in the district. However, the amount to be charged to each parcel has not been determined yet. If you heard that your household would pay _____ per year for each property that you own in the district, would you vote yes or no on the measure? Get answer, then ask: Is that definitely (yes/no) or probably (yes/no)? Read in sequence starting with the highest amount (A), then the next highest (B), and so on. If respondent says ‘definitely yes’, record ‘definitely yes’ for all LOWER dollar amounts. Ask in order Definitely yes Probably yes Probably no Definitely no Not sure Refused November 2012 A 72 dollars 38% 26% 11% 18% 7% 0% B 60 dollars 46% 21% 9% 19% 5% 0% C 48 dollars 56% 16% 6% 18% 4% 0% November 2011 A 72 dollars 35% 24% 12% 23% 5% 1% B 60 dollars 42% 21% 9% 23% 5% 1% C 48 dollars 48% 18% 6% 23% 4% 1% Section 5: Programs & Projects Q5 The measure we’ve been discussing would provide funding for a variety of fire protection programs and services. If the measure passes, would you favor or oppose using some of the money to: _____, or do you not have an opinion? Get answer, if favor or oppose, then ask: Would that be strongly (favor/oppose) or somewhat (favor/oppose)? Randomize Strongly Favor Somewhat Favor Somewhat Oppose Strongly Oppose No Opinion Refused A Maintain high quality local fire protection and prevention services 52% 29% 3% 5% 10% 1% B Ensure prompt response times to 9-1-1 medical emergencies 67% 20% 2% 3% 6% 1% C Make needed repairs and upgrades to emergency rescue equipment and facilities 49% 32% 5% 6% 7% 1% D Attract and retain professional firefighters and paramedics 50% 28% 5% 7% 9% 1% E Avoid closing fire stations due to the budget crisis 53% 20% 6% 11% 9% 0% F Avoid making deep cuts to life-saving emergency response services due to the budget crisis 53% 22% 6% 10% 8% 1% G Ensure that each fire engine has a paramedic onboard 24 hours a day to treat medical emergencies on site 47% 25% 10% 7% 10% 0% Questionnaires & ToplinesTrue North Research, Inc. © 2010 41Contra Costa County FPD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ConFire Parcel Tax Survey December 2010 True North Research, Inc. © 2010 Page 4 H Continue fire prevention services such as defensible space inspections and evacuation planning 36% 36% 8% 7% 12% 1% Section 6: Positive Arguments What I’d like to do now is tell you what some people are saying about the measure we’ve been discussing. Q6 Supporters of the measure say: _____. Do you think this is a very convincing, somewhat convincing, or not at all convincing reason to SUPPORT the measure? Randomize Very Convincing Somewhat Convincing Not At All Convincing Don’t Believe Don’t Know/No Opinion Refused A There will be a clear system of accountability, including a Citizen’s Oversight Committee and annual independent audits to ensure that the money is spent properly 43% 33% 22% 0% 1% 0% B All money raised by this measure will be spent locally to provide fire protection and emergency response services. The money cannot be taken away by the State or used for other purposes 56% 29% 13% 1% 1% 0% C When you need emergency care, you need it fast. Minutes count in these situations. This measure will ensure that the District can provide prompt response times to emergencies 50% 36% 13% 0% 1% 0% D This measure will ensure that firefighters and paramedics have the facilities and equipment they need to do their jobs 43% 42% 14% 1% 1% 0% E The District has already taken a number of cost-cutting actions, including laying-off firefighters, cutting administration, reducing salaries, reducing spending, and deferring the maintenance of equipment and facilities 30% 44% 22% 1% 3% 0% F Declining property tax revenues have created a budget crisis for the District. If this measure does NOT pass, the District will be forced to close fire stations, lay-off additional firefighters, and make deep cuts to emergency services that will put all of us at greater risk 47% 30% 20% 1% 1% 0% G In a medical emergency, brain damage occurs in 4 to 6 minutes, and brain death occurs in 8 minutes without oxygen. This measure will ensure that the District has the staff and resources it needs to provide adequate response times to emergencies 51% 28% 18% 1% 2% 0% Questionnaires & ToplinesTrue North Research, Inc. © 2010 42Contra Costa County FPD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ConFire Parcel Tax Survey December 2010 True North Research, Inc. © 2010 Page 5 H The District currently has only half the number of firefighters that experts agree is needed to serve our population, and response times to emergencies are already much longer than the recommended standard. Further cuts will mean even fewer firefighters and longer response times. We need to pass this measure to protect our community 47% 36% 15% 1% 2% 0% Section 7: Interim Ballot Test Sometimes people change their mind about a measure once they have more information about it. Now that you have heard a bit more about the measure, let me read you a summary of it again: Q7 In order to: Maintain high quality local fire protection and prevention services Ensure prompt response times to 9-1-1 medical emergencies Make needed repairs and upgrades to fire and emergency equipment and facilities Attract and retain profession al firefighters and paramedics And avoid closing additional fire stations and making deep cuts to life-saving emergency services Shall the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District establish a parcel tax of up to $72 per parcel for five years only, with an exemption for seniors, citizen oversight, and all money staying local? If the election were held today, would you vote yes or no on this measure? Get answer, then ask: Would that be definitely (yes/no) or probably (yes/no)? November 2012 November 2011 1 Definitely yes 46% 42% 2 Probably yes 23% 21% 3 Probably no 7% 8% 4 Definitely no 18% 21% 98 Not sure 6% 6% 99 Refused 0% 1% Questionnaires & ToplinesTrue North Research, Inc. © 2010 43Contra Costa County FPD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ConFire Parcel Tax Survey December 2010 True North Research, Inc. © 2010 Page 6 Section 8: Negative Arguments Next, let me tell you what opponents of the measure are saying. Q8 Opponents of the measure say: _____. Do you think this is a very convincing, somewhat convincing, or not at all convincing reason to OPPOSE the measure? Randomize Very Convincing Somewhat Convincing Not At All Convincing Don’t Believe Don’t Know/No Opinion Refused A People are having a hard time making ends meet with the housing crisis, high unemployment, and the economy in recession. Now is NOT the time to be raising taxes 34% 32% 32% 0% 1% 0% B The District can’t be trusted with this tax. They will mismanage the money 20% 31% 45% 1% 2% 0% C Taxes are already too high, we don’t need additional property taxes 27% 29% 43% 0% 1% 0% D Firefighters are paid too much in salary and pensions. If they took a modest pay cut, there would be no need for this tax 19% 33% 42% 1% 5% 0% Section 9: Final Ballot Tests Now that you have heard a bit more about the measure, let me read you a summary of it one more time: Q9 In order to: Maintain high quality local fire protection and prevention services Ensure prompt response times to 9-1-1 medical emergencies Make needed repairs and upgrades to fire and emergency equipment and facilities Attract and retain profession al firefighters and paramedics And avoid closing additional fire stations and making deep cuts to life-saving emergency services Shall the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District establish a parcel tax of up to $72 per parcel for five years only, with an exemption for seniors, citizen oversight, and all money staying local? If the election were held today, would you vote yes or no on this measure? Get answer, then ask: Would that be definitely (yes/no) or probably (yes/no)? November 2012 November 2011 1 Definitely yes 43% 40% Skip to Q11 2 Probably yes 24% 21% Skip to Q11 3 Probably no 7% 9% Ask Q10 4 Definitely no 19% 24% Ask Q10 98 Not sure 6% 5% Ask Q10 99 Refused 0% 0% Ask Q10 Questionnaires & ToplinesTrue North Research, Inc. © 2010 44Contra Costa County FPD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ConFire Parcel Tax Survey December 2010 True North Research, Inc. © 2010 Page 7 Q10 How about if instead of $72 per household, the tax were $48 per household. Would you vote yes or no on this measure? Get answer, then ask: Would that be definitely (yes/no) or probably (yes/no)? November 2012 November 2011 Supported at $72 (Q9) 67% 61% 1 Definitely yes 1% 2% 2 Probably yes 5% 5% 3 Probably no 4% 7% 4 Definitely no 18% 21% 98 Not sure 4% 4% 99 Refused 0% 1% Section 10: Messengers Q11 During the next few months, you may hear statements from individuals and groups who take a position on the measures we’ve been discussing. As I read the following list of individuals and groups, I’d like to know how much their opinions about the measures will matter to you. Here is the (first/next) one: _____. Will their opinion about the measures matter to you a lot, somewhat, a little, or not at all? Randomize A Lot Somewhat A Little Not At All Not sure Refused A The Chamber of Commerce 8% 31% 18% 40% 3% 0% B Contra Costa Taxpayer’s Association 12% 34% 14% 35% 5% 0% C The League of Women Voters 17% 31% 11% 39% 3% 0% D The Contra Costa Times newspaper 8% 29% 14% 46% 3% 0% E Local firefighters 35% 36% 9% 19% 0% 0% F The County Board of Supervisors 10% 37% 15% 35% 3% 0% G Local refineries like Chevron and Shell 6% 18% 14% 60% 3% 0% H Local police 26% 39% 10% 24% 1% 0% I Your local City Council 14% 37% 15% 32% 2% 0% Questionnaires & ToplinesTrue North Research, Inc. © 2010 45Contra Costa County FPD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ConFire Parcel Tax Survey December 2010 True North Research, Inc. © 2010 Page 8 Section 11: Background & Demographics Thank you so much for your participation. I have just a few background questions for statistical purposes. D1 How long have you lived in Contra Costa County? 1 Less than 1 year 0% 2 1 year to less than 5 years 5% 3 5 years to less than 10 years 9% 4 10 years to less than 15 12% 5 15 years or more 74% 99 Refused 1% D2 Which of the following best describes your current home? 1 Single family detached home 83% 2 Apartment 5% 3 Condominium 7% 4 Townhome 4% 5 Mobile home 1% 99 Refused 1% D3 Do you have children in your household? 1 Yes 39% 2 No 60% 99 Refused 1% Those are all of the questions that I have for you. Thanks so much for participating in this important survey. This survey was conducted for the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District. Post-Interview & Sample Items S1 Gender 1 Male 44% 2 Female 56% Questionnaires & ToplinesTrue North Research, Inc. © 2010 46Contra Costa County FPD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ConFire Parcel Tax Survey December 2010 True North Research, Inc. © 2010 Page 9 S2 Party 1 Democrat 51% 2 Republican 26% 3 Other 9% 4 DTS 14% S3 Age on Voter File 1 18 to 29 8% 2 30 to 39 11% 3 40 to 49 20% 4 50 to 64 37% 5 65 or older 24% 99 Not Coded 0% S4 Registration Date 1 2010 to 2005 29% 2 2004 to 2001 22% 3 2000 to 1997 14% 4 1996 to 1990 14% 5 Before 1990 20% S5 Household Party Type 1 Single Dem 22% 2 Dual Dem 19% 3 Single Rep 7% 4 Dual Rep 11% 5 Single Other 9% 6 Dual Other 5% 7 Dem & Rep 8% 8 Dem & Other 11% 9 Rep & Other 7% 0 Mixed (Dem + Rep + Other) 3% Questionnaires & ToplinesTrue North Research, Inc. © 2010 47Contra Costa County FPD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ConFire Parcel Tax Survey December 2010 True North Research, Inc. © 2010 Page 10 S6 Homeowner on Voter File 1 Yes 84% 2 No 16% S7 Likely to Vote by Mail 1 Yes 51% 2 No 49% S8 Likely November 2012 Voter 1 Yes 100% 2 No 0% S9 Likely June 2011 Voter 1 Yes 44% 2 No 56% S10 Likely November 2011 Voter 1 Yes 38% 2 No 62% S11 Zone 1 Zone 1 24% 2 Zone 2 13% 3 Zone 3 28% 4 Zone 4 28% 5 Zone 5 7% Mail Survey & Information PiecesTrue North Research, Inc. © 2010 48Contra Costa County FPD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M AIL S URVEY & INFORMATION P IECES Please use the space below to write any other reasons why you support or oppose this proposed measure, and to describe which issues are most important to you: Detach Here Fill Below Portion, Detach at this Line, and Mail Back in Return Envelope Detach Here * The assessment amount printed in the survey question above is the proposed total combined annual amount for all properties you own. OFFICIAL SURVEY CONTRA COSTA COUNTY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT This short survey has been mailed to property owners in the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District to gather important information and opinions. Please take a moment to fill out and return this survey. Your response will help the Fire District make decisions about future fire protection and emergency services. Property owners in the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District may be asked to vote by mail on a local funding measure for fire protection and emergency services. Following is a summary of the proposal: Definitely YES Probably YES Probably NO Definitely NO Survey Instructions: 1) Read the potential ballot measure proposal listed below. 2) Fill in the circle for your response. Please use a pen and completely fill in one circle. 3) If desired, write out any reasons why you support or oppose the proposed measure in the space below. 4) Detach the bottom portion of this sheet. 5) Place the bottom portion of this sheet in the return envelope and mail (no postage is needed.) In order to: • Avoid closing additional fire stations and making deep cuts to life-saving emergency services; • Ensure prompt response times to medical emergencies; • Make needed repairs and upgrades to fire and emergency equipment and facilities; • Attract and retain professional firefighters and paramedics; and • Maintain high quality local fire protection and prevention services would you support an annual assessment for your property(s)* in the amount of _______________ ?CCCFPD 1CCCFPD 1 Mail Survey & Information PiecesTrue North Research, Inc. © 2010 49Contra Costa County FPD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LETTER FORMAT INFORMATION PIECE ContraCostaCountyFire ProtectionDistrict Thisletterandsurveyhasbeensenttopropertyownerswhoreceivetheirfireprevention,fire protection and emergency medical services from the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District.PleasereadthefollowingletterfromtheFireChiefandtheinformationontheother sideofthissheetandthencompletetheveryshortsurveyenclosed.Yoursurveyresponsewill helptheFireDistrictmakeimportantdecisionsaboutfutureservicesandpriorities. Firesuppressionservices Emergencyresponseservices DearPropertyOwnerandFireDistrictCustomer: TheFireDistrictisprimarilyfundedbyasmallportionofpropertytaxes.Amajor challengetheFireDistrictnowfacesisthatsince 2007,itsrevenueshavedecreasedby over11.7%asaresultofdecliningpropertyvalues. Inresponsetothisdramaticrevenuedecrease,theFireDistricthasbeenworking tobecomemoreefficientandhasalreadyreducedexpendituresbyover$6million.To achievethesesavings,theFireDistricthaseliminated15positions,limitedovertimecosts tothosenecessarytomaintaincriticalservicedeliverylevels,anddeferredneededcapital purchases and improvements. In addition, salary cost of living increases have been deferred.Evenafterthesecutbacks,theFireDistricthasbeenspendingreservefundsto maintainservicesandwillcompletelydepleteitsre servefundsbythenextfiscalyear. In order to prevent significant cutbacks in local fire protection and emergency services, the Fire District is considering a local funding measure. The local funding measuredescribedonthesurveyincludedwiththis letterwouldallowtheFireDistrictto maintain current fire protection and emerge ncy services, make needed repairs and upgradestoemergencyrescueequipmentandfacilities,andavoidclosingfirestations. TheFireDistrictisseekingyourinput regardingthisproposedFireProtectionand Emergency Services measure. Please read the following information, complete the enclosedsurveyandreturnitinthepostage paidenvelope.Formoreinformationonthe ContraCostaCountyFireProtectionDistrict,pleasevisitourwebsiteatwww.cccfpd.org. Thankyouforyourinput. Sincerely, FireChiefDarylLouder Mail Survey & Information PiecesTrue North Research, Inc. © 2010 50Contra Costa County FPD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CCCFPD INFO v2 QuestionsandAnswersforPropertyOwners Q.WhatservicesdoestheFireDistrict provideandhowisitgoverned? A.TheFireDistrictisgovernedbytheelectedContraCostaCountySupervisorsandservesapproximately600,000 residentsinthenorth,centralandportionsofwesternContraCostaCounty.Evenwithitssignificantlydecreased revenues, the Fire District seeks to maintain the highest possible level of service. The Fire District responds to approximately43,500fireandmedical emergenciesannually.The FireDistrictalsorespondstootheremergencycalls including vehicle accidents and entrapments, hazardous materials incidents, and a variety of other hazardous situations.TheFireDistrictalsoprovidesyearround firepreventionservicessuchas brushclearing,defensiblespace inspections,evacuationplanningandfiretrailmaintenance. Q.Howwillthisaffectemergencyresponse timesandemergencyservices? A.Inamedicalemergency,braindamagetypicallyoccursin 4to6minutes,andbraindeathoccursin8minutes withoutoxygen.Inaddition,studi eshaveshownthatafirewilldoublein sizeandsignificantlyincreaseinseverity everytwominutes.Approvalofalocalfundingmeasureforfireandemergencyserviceswouldprotectandmaintain emergencyresponsetimes. Q.HowwillthefundsfromtheproposedFire ProtectionandEmergencyServicesmeasurebespent? A.TheproposedFireProtectionandEmergencyServicesmeasure wouldprovidefundingtheFireDistrictneedsto accomplishthefollowinggoals: Maintaincurrentfrontlinefirefighterstaffinglevels Maintainpromptresponsetimesto911emergencycallsforfireandmedicalemergencies Ensureeveryfireenginehasaparamediconboard24hours adaytotreatmedicalemergenciesonsite Avoidclosingfirestations Resumeneededrepairsandupgradesto emergencyrescueequipmentandfacilities Continuefirepreventionservicessuchasdefensibl espaceinspectionsand evacuationplanning Q.Whataccountabilityprovisionswouldbeincludedinanyfundingmeasure? A.Ifalocalfundingmeasurewasapproved,thefunds couldonlybeusedtoprovidefireprotectionandemergency servicesintheareasservedbytheFire District.Thefundscouldnotbeusedfor anyotherpurposeorinanyother areas.Also,therevenuesandexpendituresforthese fundswouldberegularlyauditedbyanindependentauditor andwouldbepresentedtothepublica nnuallyatanoticedpublichearing. Q.Whatmayhappenifalocal fundingmeasureisnotapproved? A.Overthepastthreeyears,theFireDistrict’srevenuehasdec reasedbyover11.7%asaresultofdecliningproperty values.TheFireDistricthasalreadytakenactionto reduceexpensesincluding eliminating15positions,limiting overtime costs, deferring salary increases, and deferring needed repairs and upgrades to emergency rescue equipmentandfacilities.Withoutadditionalrevenue,the FireDistrictwillbeforcedtoreducefireprotectionand emergencyservicesinitsservicearea. Formoreinformationvisitwww.cccfpd.org Mail Survey & Information PiecesTrue North Research, Inc. © 2010 51Contra Costa County FPD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . FACT SHEET INFORMATION PIECE Information Fact Sheet Why Did You Receive This Survey? You have been identified as a property owner who receives fire protection and emergency medical services from the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District. Please read this information sheet and complete the enclosed survey. Your survey responses will help the Fire District make important decisions about future services and priorities. Funding Challenges The Fire District is primarily funded by a small portion of property taxes. Since 2007, the Fire District’s revenue has decreased by over 11.7% as a result of declining property values. In response to this drastic revenue decrease, the Fire District has been working to become more effi cient and has already reduced expenditures by over $6 million. To achieve these savings, the Fire District has eliminated 15 positions, limited overtime costs to those necessary to maintain critical service delivery levels, and deferred needed capital purchases and improvements. In addition, awarded salary increases have been deferred for at least two years. Also, in order to prevent any cutbacks to front-line fi re and emergency services, the Fire District has been spending reserve funds and will completely deplete its entire reserve fund by fi scal year 2011-12. Without additional funding the Fire District may be forced to close 4 fire stations as early as 2011. This would be a 13% reduction in front-line fi re company staffi ng over fi scal year 2009-10 and would negatively impact response times to 9-1-1 calls for fi re and medical emergencies. In order to prevent these significant cutbacks in local fire protection and emergency services, the Fire District is considering a local funding measure. A local funding measure would allow the Fire District to maintain current fire protection and emergency services, make needed repairs and upgrades to emergency rescue equipment and facilities, and avoid closing fire stations. Contra Costa County Fire Protection District CCCFPD INFO v 1Funding to maintain fire suppression services. About the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District The Contra Costa County Fire Protection District is an agency responsible for providing a host of essential services including the following: Fire suppression and rescue Emergency medical / paramedic response Fire prevention Wildland fi re prevention, including evacuation planning Community education and readiness The Fire District is governed by the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors and serves approximately 600,000 residents. The Fire District maintains the highest possible level of service within its limited budget. The Fire District responds to approximately 43,500 fire and medical emergencies annually. The Fire District also responds to other emergency calls, including vehicle accidents and entrapments, hazardous materials incidents, and a variety of other hazardous situations. • • • • • Funding to maintain emergency response services. Mail Survey & Information PiecesTrue North Research, Inc. © 2010 52Contra Costa County FPD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . What Will a Funding Measure Provide? The list below provides an overview of some of the services that would be funded: Information Fact Sheet, continued Emergency Response Times Approval of a funding measure would also prevent cutbacks that would negatively impact emergency response times. In a medical emergency, brain damage occurs in 4 to 6 minutes, and brain death occurs in 8 minutes without oxygen. In addition, studies have shown that a fire will double in size and significantly increase in severity every two minutes. Emergency Medical Services Additional funding could ensure that every fire engine has a paramedic onboard 24 hours a day to treat medical emergencies on site. Contra Costa County Fire Protection District Maintain High Quality Fire Protection & Emergency Services Approval of a local funding measure would maintain your current level of fire protection and emergency services. Without additional revenue, the Fire District will be forced to reduce fire protection and emergency services in its service area. Emergency Rescue Equipment & Facilities Due to declining property tax revenue the Fire District has been delaying needed repair and upgrade of emergency rescue equipment and facilities, such as fire engines, fire station remodeling and improvements, and other life- saving equipment. Additional funds would allow the Fire District to resume repair and upgrade of emergency rescue equipment and facilites, which would increase the Fire District’s capacity and capability to respond to emergencies. Continue Fire Prevention Services Additional funding would also allow the District to continue fire prevention services such as defensible space inspections, evacuation planning and fire trail maintenance. Contra Costa County Fire Protection District Major Motorways Major Roads #Fire Station County Boundary LEGEND T S E CC AB Administrative Building Communications Center EMS Division Apparatus Shop Training Facility FIRE STATIONS & MAJOR SUPPORT FACILITIES Researchyou can trust. Thedirectionyou seek. The attentionyou deserve.Conducted for theContra Costa County Fire Protection DistrictConducted byTimothy McLarney, Ph.D., True North ResearchGerard van Steyn, SCI ConsultingBonnie Moss, TramutolaJanuary 19, 2011Revenue Measure Feasibility Study Purpose of Study¾Is it feasible to place a revenue measure on a future ballot?¾If yes, how should the measure be packaged for success?¾What type of funding mechanism is optimal –parcel tax or benefit assessment?¾Gather information that will help ConFire in developing and executing a public information program. Methodology of Study¾Telephone survey for Parcel TaxFeb 9thto Feb 15th800 voters likely to participate in Nov 2012 election, with lower turnout subsetsOverall margin of error of ± 4.9%¾Mail survey for Benefit AssessmentJan 20thto Feb 15th3,269 returned surveys, 27% participationOverall margin of error of ± 1.7% Part IParcel Tax Findings Importance of Issues201421313436464429494553515043450 102030405060708090100Preventing local tax increasesMaintaining local streets and roadsMaintaining local property valuesImproving the local economyMaintaining local fire protection, preventionMaintaining public safetyMaintaining quality of education in public schoolsEnsuring adequate 911 response times% RespondentsExtremely importantVery important Initial Ballot TestIn order to:¾Maintain high quality local fire protection and prevention services¾Ensure prompt response times to 9-1-1 medical emergencies¾Make needed repairs and upgrades to fire and emergency equipment and facilities¾Attract and retain professional firefighters and paramedics¾And avoid closing additional fire stations and making deep cuts to life-saving emergency servicesShall the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District establish a parcel tax of up to $72 per parcel for five years only, with an exemption for seniors, citizen oversight, and all money staying local? Probably no9.4Not sure6.5Definitely yes39.2Probably yes30.1Definitely no14.5Refused0.3 Parcel Tax Threshold56463816212669181918 7.1114.05.40 102030405060708090100$48 per year$60 per year$72 per year% RespondentsDefinitely yesProbably yesProbably noDefinitely noNot sure30%63%72%67%24%27% Proposed Services473653535049526725362022283229200 102030405060708090100Ensure fire engines have paramedic onboard 24-hrs a dayContinue fire prevention servicesAvoid closing fire stations due to the budget crisisAvoid cutting life-saving emergency response servicesAttract and retain professional firefighters and paramedicsMake repairs, upgrades to emergency rescue equip, facilitiesMaintain fire protection, emergency response servicesEnsure prompt response times to 911 medical emergencies% RespondentsStrongly favorSomewhat favor Positive Arguments304347514743565044333028364229360 102030405060708090100District forced to close stations, cut positionsThere will be a clear system of fiscal accountabilityDeclining property tax revenues have created budget crisisBrain damage occurs 4-6 min, brain death 8 min w/o oxygenDistrict has half the firefighters needed to serve populationFirefighters, paramedics will have nec. facilities, equipmentAll money raised by this measure will be spent locallyMeasure ensures prompt response times to emergencies% RespondentsVery convincingSomewhat convincing Interim Ballot TestProbably no7.0Not sure5.5Definitely yes46.2Probably yes23.2Definitely no17.8Refused0.3 Negative Arguments20192734313329320 102030405060708090100District can’t be trusted with this taxFirefighters are paid too much in salary, pensionsTaxes are already too highWith economic crisis, now is NOT time to raise taxes% RespondentsVery convincingSomewhat convincing Final Ballot TestProbably no7.4Not sure6.0Definitely yes43.1Probably yes24.0Definitely no19.4Refused0.1 Support by Election Date55%60%65%70%75%80%InitialBallotInterimBallotFinalBallotFinal @$48Nov-12Nov-11Jun-11Two-thirdsthreshold Part IIBenefit Assessment Findings Benefit Assessment Considerations¾Benefit assessment rates must be based on special benefits to property, and therefore cannot be flat rates¾Only mechanism where every property owner who is being asked to pay an assessment, gets a vote and votes are proportional to how much you will pay¾Weighted majority threshold instead of super-majority¾The weighted majority threshold is not necessarily easier to obtain than 2/3rds of voters for a parcel tax Weighted Vote by Property TypeCom & Industrial6.7Single Family Res63.6Apt & Investment12.1Large Owners17.5 Weighted Support for Assessment20.624.838.3Definitely yes25.5Probably yes28.1Probably no 11.916.3Definitely no34.60102030405060708090100$40 $60 Assessment Rate% Respondents Support by Property Type13.814.94.820.626.619.910.916.350.847.659.1Definitelyyes30.8Probablyyes29.4Probablyno 13.614.8Definitelyno26.10102030405060708090100Single FamilyResApt &InvestmentCom & Industrial Large OwnersProperty Owner Categories% Respondents Support by Total Fee26.016.17.110.74.429.321.417.210.421.518.63.017.717.028.544.072.861.257.2Definitelyyes35.3Probablyyes31.2Probablyno 9.716.2Definitelyno23.90102030405060708090100Under $50 $50 to $99 $100 to $499 $500 to $999 $1,000 to$1,499$1,500 ormoreTotal Assessment Amount% Respondents Support by City31.816.720.138.921.237.329.925.919.926.120.8 20.924.925.520.718.729.324.126.525.229.524.332.623.826.714.312.68.614.210.719.411.810.711.621.67.520.444.447.346.533.835.328.024.237.039.938.025.047.928.09.510.60102030405060708090100AlamoAntiochBay PointClaytonConcordElSobranteLafayetteMartinezPittsburgPleasantHillRichmondSan PabloWalnutCreekCity% RespondentsDefinitely noProbably noProbably yesDefinitely yes Key Conclusions¾Is a measure feasible? Yes.Maintaining the quality of fire protection and emergency services are among the most important issues to votersSolid levels of naturalsupport for a modestly-priced measurePopular projects/servicesCompelling positive arguments Considerations & Next Steps¾Snapshot in time, not a crystal ball¾Selecting a financial mechanism – parcel tax or benefit assessment¾Setting an affordable tax rate$72 rate=$12.5 to $16.5 mil per year$48 rate=$8.2 to $10.9 mil per year¾Selecting an election date¾Need for a well-organized, effective public outreach effort & independent campaign Researchyou can trust. Thedirectionyou seek. The attentionyou deserve.Conducted for theContra Costa County Fire Protection DistrictConducted byTimothy McLarney, Ph.D., True North ResearchGerard van Steyn, SCI ConsultingBonnie Moss, TramutolaJanuary 19, 2011Revenue Measure Feasibility Study Researchyou can trust. Thedirectionyou seek. The attentionyou deserve.Backup Slides Follow Reasons for Not Supporting Measure1.21.93.23.64.05.45.76.47.611.111.613.614.528.40 5 10 15 20 25 30Concern about unionBetter alternatives exist than raising taxesNot sure / RefusedOther higher community priorities existUnhappy with fire services in generalToo expensiveCurrent fire services, staff is sufficientEconomic recessionGovernment must live within its meansNo particular reasonFirefighter salaries, benefits too highNeed more informationMoney will be misspent, wastedTaxes already too high% Respondents Who Do Not Support Measure Final Ballot Test at $48Probably yes5.0Definitely no17.8Supportedat $7267.1Definitely yes1.2Probably no4.4Refused0.3Not sure4.2 Effect of Messengers6881210171426351829313436373137390 1020304050607080Local refineries like Chevron, ShellContra Costa Times newspaperChamber of CommerceContra Costa Taxpayer’s AssociationCounty Board of SupervisorsLeague of Women VotersYour local City CouncilLocal policeLocal Firefighters% RespondentsA lotSomewhat