January 26, 2022
City Council
City of Clayton, California
6000 Heritage Trail
We have audited the financial statements of the governmental activities, the business-type activities, each major fund, and the aggregate remaining fund information of the City of Clayton, California for the year ended June 30, 2021. Professional standards require that we provide you with information about our responsibilities under generally accepted auditing standards and Government Auditing Standards, as well as certain information related to the planned scope and timing of our audit. We have communicated such information in our letter to you dated May 27, 2021. Professional standards also require that we communicate to you the following information related to our audit.
Significant Audit Matters
Qualitative Aspects of Accounting Practices
Management is responsible for the selection and use of appropriate accounting policies. The significant accounting policies used by the City of Clayton are described in Note 1 to the financial statements. No new accounting policies were adopted and the application of existing policies was not changed during 2021. We noted no transactions entered into by the City of Clayton during the year for which there is a lack of authoritative guidance or consensus. All significant transactions have been recognized in the financial statements in the proper period.
Accounting estimates are an integral part of the financial statements prepared by management and are based on management’s knowledge and experience about past and current events and assumptions about future events. Certain accounting estimates are particularly sensitive because of their significance to the financial statements and because of the possibility that future events affecting them may differ significantly from those expected. The most sensitive estimates affecting the City of Clayton’s financial statements were:
Management’s estimate of the liabilities, deferred inflows, and deferred outflows related to both pension benefits (Note 10) and Other Post-Employment Benefits (OPEB) (Note 11). These estimates are based on the provisions of GASB No. 68 and GASB No. 75, respectively, and actuarial methodology and assumptions. We evaluated the key factors and assumptions used to develop these estimates in determining that they are reasonable in relation to the financial statements taken as a whole. Management’s estimate of the depreciation expense (Note 5) is based on the useful lives of the underlying assets. We evaluated the key factors and assumptions used to develop these estimates in determining that they are reasonable in relation to the financial statements taken as a whole.
DRAFT 1/26/2022
Certain financial statement disclosures are particularly sensitive because of their significance to financial statement users. The most sensitive disclosures affecting the financial statements were:
The disclosure of plan details for the Pension plans as described in Note 10 to the financial statements.
The disclosure of plan details for Other Post-Employment Benefits as described in Note 11 to the financial statements.
The disclosure of the classifications of fund balances and net position in Note 13 to the financial statements.
The financial statement disclosures are neutral, consistent, and clear.
Difficulties Encountered in Performing the Audit
We encountered no significant difficulties in dealing with management in performing and completing our audit.
Corrected and Uncorrected Misstatements
Professional standards require us to accumulate all known and likely misstatements identified during the audit, other than those that are clearly trivial, and communicate them to the appropriate level of management. The attached schedule summarizes uncorrected misstatements of the financial statements.
Management has determined that their effects are immaterial, both individually and in the aggregate, to the financial statements taken as a whole.
The material misstatements listed on the attached schedule were corrected by management and were detected as a result of audit procedures or were booked by management after the audit began.
Disagreements with Management
For purposes of this letter, a disagreement with management is a financial accounting, reporting, or auditing matter, whether or not resolved to our satisfaction, that could be significant to the financial statements or the auditor’s report. We are pleased to report that no such disagreements arose during the course of our audit.
Management Representations
We have requested certain representations from management that are included in the management representation letter dated January 26, 2022.
Management Consultations with Other Independent Accountants In some cases, management may decide to consult with other accountants about auditing and accounting matters, similar to obtaining a “second opinion” on certain situations. If a consultation involves application of an accounting principle to the City of Clayton’s financial statements or a determination of the type of auditor’s opinion that may be expressed on those statements, our professional standards require the consulting accountant to check with us to determine that the consultant has all the relevant facts. To our knowledge, there were no such consultations with other accountants.
DRAFT 1/26/2022
Other Audit Findings or Issues
We generally discuss a variety of matters, including the application of accounting principles and auditing standards, with management each year prior to retention as the City of Clayton’s auditors.
However, these discussions occurred in the normal course of our professional relationship and our responses were not a condition to our retention.
Other Matters
We applied certain limited procedures to management’s discussion and analysis, budgetary comparison information, Schedule of Proportionate Share of Net Pension Liability, Schedule of Pension Plan Contribution, Schedule of Changes in Net OPEB Liability and Related Ratios, and Schedule of OPEB Plan Contributions, which are required supplementary information (RSI) that supplements the basic financial statements. Our procedures consisted of inquiries of management regarding the methods of preparing the information and comparing the information for consistency with management’s responses to our inquiries, the basic financial statements, and other knowledge we obtained during our audit of the basic financial statements. We did not audit the RSI and do not express an opinion or provide any assurance on the RSI.
We were engaged to report on the combining and individual nonmajor fund financial statements which accompany the financial statements but are not RSI. With respect to this supplementary information, we made certain inquiries of management and evaluated the form, content, and methods of preparing the information to determine that the information complies with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America, the method of preparing it has not changed from the prior period, and the information is appropriate and complete in relation to our audit of the financial statements. We compared and reconciled the supplementary information to the underlying accounting records used to prepare the financial statements or to the financial statements themselves.
We were not engaged to report on introductory and statistical sections of the comprehensive annual financial report (CAFR), which accompany the financial statements but are not RSI. Such information has not been subjected to the auditing procedures applied in the audit of the basic financial statements, and accordingly, we do not express an opinion or provide any assurance on it.
Restriction on Use
This information is intended solely for the information and use of the City Council and management of the City of Clayton and is not intended to be, and should not be, used by anyone other than these specified parties.
Very truly yours,
CROPPER ROWE, LLP
Walnut Creek, California
DRAFT 1/26/2022
Client: CITY OF CLAYTON
Current Period: 06/30/2021
Type of Journal
Entry Proposed/Uncorrected Journal Entries
Account Description Debit Credit
Net Income
Effect
3 BR: Record allowance for doubtful accounts for old balances. 101‐1CAC‐AD Allowance for doubtful accounts 0.00 5,799.00 101‐7389‐00 Misc. Expense 5,799.00 0.00
216‐1CAC‐AD Allowance for Doubtful Accounts 0.00 3,000.00 216‐7CAC‐BD Bad debt expense 3,000.00 0.00
Total 8,799.00 8,799.00 (8,799.00)
4 AH: Accrue 2021 portion of 6/28‐7/11/21 Payroll
101‐7111‐02 Regular Salaries 19,734.98 0.00
101‐2201‐00 Salaries and Wages Payable 0.00 19,734.98 Total 19,734.98 19,734.98 (19,734.98)
PJE #1
BR: Record difference between GL and Aging A/P.
101‐2101‐00 Accounts Payable 4,093.45 0.00
101‐7389‐00 Misc. Expense 0.00 4,093.45
Total 4,093.45 4,093.45 4,093.45
PJE #2
BR: Adjust Bank of America GL balance to estimated correct balance. 999‐1101‐00 Cash in B of A Checking 0.00 3,151.42
999‐1199‐00 Equity in Pooled Cash 3,151.42 0.00
101‐1199‐00 Equity in Pooled Cash
DRAFT 1/26/2022
0.00 3,151.42
101‐7389‐00 Misc. Expense
3,151.42
0.00 Total
6,302.84
6,302.84
(3,151.42)
PJE #3
BR: Accrue subsequent expenditures that were not cut‐off properly. 101‐2107‐00 Accrued Expenses
0.00 22,725.00
101‐7111‐02 Regular Salaries
20,958.00
0.00 101‐7389‐00 Misc. Expense
1,767.00
0.00 Total
22,725.00
22,725.00
(22,725.00)
PJE #4
BR: Correctly record CY revenue in the CY and not in the PY. 202‐3201‐00 Unreserved/Designated Fund Bal
16,288.58
0.00 202‐5218‐00 State Gasoline 2030 (RMRA)
0.00 16,288.58
Total
16,288.58
16,288.58
16,288.58
GRAND TOTAL
455,251.34
455,251.34
(34,028.37)
Type of Journal
Entry Corrected Journal Entries
Account Description Debit Credit
Net Income
Effect
1 BR: Record FY2021 Stranahan note and interest receivables activity. 616‐7389‐00 Misc. Expense
27,951.19
0.00 616‐1361‐00 Notes Receivable‐StranahanIIMo
0.00 27,951.19
616‐1305‐00 Accrued Interest Receivable
2,439.36
0.00 616‐1260‐00 Allowance For Stranahan NR Interest
0.00 2,439.36
Total
30,390.55
30,390.55
(25,511.83)
DRAFT 1/26/2022
2 BR: True‐up of LT Debt and Noncurrent Receivables
217‐2103‐00 Note Payable RDA
0.00 590.00
217‐1331‐00 Assessment Receivable
590.00
0.00 223‐2103‐00 Note Payable RDA
0.00 1,826.27
223‐1331‐00 Assessment Receivable
1,826.27
0.00 422‐2108‐00 Current Portion of LTD
0.00 395,000.00
422‐2804‐00 Principal Payment (CFA 2007)
395,000.00
0.00 615‐2108‐00 Current Portion of LTD
60,000.00
0.00 615‐2802‐00 2014 Refunding Bonds Payable
0.00 60,000.00
615‐1331‐00 Note Receivable High St Bridge
10,891.00
0.00 615‐2720‐00 Deferred Revenues
0.00 11,755.00
615‐7420‐00 Administrative Costs
864.00
0.00 615‐1199‐00 Equity in Pooled Cash
8,182.82
0.00 615‐1333‐00 NoteReceivable from OakStSewer
0.00 8,182.82
422‐1230‐00 Investment in Bonds ‐ Due in One Year
434,000.00
0.00 422‐1251‐00 Investment in Bonds
0.00 59,000.00
422‐1210‐00 Cash with Fiscal Agent (1990‐1)
0.00 375,000.00
422‐2102‐00 Accrued Interest Payable
5,000.00
0.00 422‐7612‐00 Interest Expense
0.00 5,000.00
615‐2102‐00 Accrued Interest Payable
1,143.00
0.00 615‐7612‐00 Interest Expense
0.00 1,143.00
615‐1401‐00 Prepaid Expenses
0.00 360,000.00
615‐2108‐00 Current Portion of LTD
360,000.00
0.00 222‐2102‐00 Accrued Interest Payable
DRAFT 1/26/2022
100.00 0.00
222‐7612‐00 Interest Expense
0.00 100.00
Total
1,277,597.09
1,277,597.09
279.00
5 BR: Replenish EH (702) negative cash from General Fund. 101‐1199‐00 Equity in Pooled Cash
0.00 42,543.78
101‐1330‐00 Advances to Other Funds
42,921.39
0.00 702‐1199‐00 Equity in Pooled Cash
42,543.78
0.00 702‐2601‐00 Due to General Fund
0.00 42,921.39
702‐1203‐00 Allowance for GASB31 Gain/Loss
377.61
0.00 101‐1203‐00 Allowance for GASB31 Gain/Loss
0.00 377.61
Total
85,842.78
85,842.78
0.00 6
BR: Remove gross up of 615 ‐ RDA Successor Agency prepaid and accrued interest. 615‐1401‐00 Prepaid Expenses
0.00 17,307.00
615‐2102‐00 Accrued Interest Payable
17,307.00
0.00 Total
17,307.00
17,307.00
0.00 CLIENT #1
Record CY activity of LT Debt and Receivables.
616‐2721‐00 Deferred Revenue
106,400.00
0.00 616‐1362‐00 Note Receivable P.A.M.
0.00 106,400.00
615‐2720‐00 Deferred Revenues
11,754.55
0.00 615‐1331‐00 Note Receivable High St Bridge
0.00 11,754.55
420‐2803‐00
CFD 1990‐1R (Middle School ) Local Obligations
Payable
409,000.00
0.00 420‐1304‐00 Assessments Receivable
0.00 409,000.00
223‐2103‐00 Note Payable RDA
DRAFT 1/26/2022
10,009.09 0.00
223‐1331‐00 Assessment Receivable
0.00 10,009.09
222‐2103‐00 Bonds Payable
5,000.00
0.00 222‐1304‐00 Assessments Receivable
0.00 5,000.00
217‐2103‐00 Note Payable RDA
1,454.00
0.00 217‐1331‐00 Assessment Receivable
0.00 1,454.00
Total
543,617.64
543,617.64
0.00 CLIENT #2
To book adjustment to FMV for Stranahan cir properties
616‐1255‐00
Equity Investment in Low‐Moderate Income
Housing
384,778.00
0.00 616‐5606‐00 Unrealized Inv. Gain/Loss
0.00 384,778.00
Total
384,778.00
384,778.00
384,778.00
CLIENT #3
Record CY depreciation for CY additions.
502‐7390‐00 Depreciation Expense
10,155.90
0.00 502‐1505‐00 Accumulated Depreciation
0.00 10,155.90
Total
10,155.90
10,155.90
(10,155.90)
CLIENT #4
Client accommodation entry to update TB with journals made subsequent to initial delivery of the TB. 101‐1199‐00 Equity in Pooled Cash
3,948.70
0.00 101‐2107‐00 Accrued Expenses
0.00 3,415.63
101‐5601‐00 Interest
17,397.09
0.00 101‐7332‐02 Telecommunications
154.12
0.00 101‐7332‐03 Telecommunications
14.54 0.00
101‐7332‐04 Telecommunications
17.43 0.00
101‐7332‐06 Telecommunications
DRAFT 1/26/2022
108.09 0.00
101‐7332‐07 Telecommunications
58.22 0.00
101‐7335‐03 Gas & Electricity
2,018.28
0.00 101‐7335‐07 Gas & Electricity
2,350.47
0.00 101‐7335‐09 Gas & Electricity
97.46 0.00
101‐7338‐03 Water Services
0.00 284.37
101‐7338‐07 Water Services
0.00 2.20
101‐7338‐09 Water Services
0.00 1,116.41
101‐7485‐06
Capital Outlay ‐ Machinery, Vehicles &
Equipment
0.00 21,345.79
201‐2107‐00 Accrued Expenses
0.00 2,045.43
201‐7335‐00 Gas & Electricity
2,045.43
0.00 210‐2107‐00 Accrued Expenses
0.00 130.17
210‐7335‐00 Gas & Electric Services
950.14
0.00 210‐7338‐00 Water Services
0.00 819.97
211‐2107‐00 Accrued Expenses
246.99
0.00 211‐7335‐00 Gas & Electric Services
50.81 0.00
211‐7338‐00 Water Services
0.00 297.80
214‐2107‐00 Accrued Expenses
0.00 4,809.30
214‐7335‐00 Gas & Electric Services
4,809.30
0.00 222‐1210‐00 Cash with Fiscal Agent
0.00 7.33
222‐5601‐00 Interest
0.00 0.11
222‐7612‐00 Interest Expense
7.44 0.00
231‐2107‐00 Accrued Expenses
81.56 0.00
231‐7335‐00 Gas & Electric Services
20.51 0.00
231‐7338‐00 Water Services
DRAFT 1/26/2022
0.00 102.07
502‐1199‐00 Equity in Pooled Cash
0.00 21,345.79
502‐7485‐00
Capital Outlay ‐ Machinery, Vehicles &
Equipment
21,345.79
0.00 702‐2107‐00 Accrued Expenses
72.15 0.00
702‐7332‐00 Telecommunications
27.12 0.00
702‐7338‐00 Water Services
0.00 99.27
999‐1101‐00 Cash in B of A Checking
0.00 17,397.09
999‐1199‐00 Equity in Pooled Cash
17,397.09
0.00 Total
73,218.73
73,218.73
(27,478.48)
CLIENT #5
Client Accommodation Entry: Record interest receivable at year‐end for GF and true‐up the Fund 422 interest receivable.
101‐1305‐00 Accrued Interest Receivable
23,863.79
0.00 101‐5601‐00 Interest
0.00 23,863.79
422‐1305‐00 Accrued Interest Receivable
0.00 8,860.00
422‐5601‐00 Interest
8,860.00
0.00 Total
32,723.79
32,723.79
23,863.79
CLIENT #6
Record the actual PERS Liability balance at YE based on the Bartel & Assoc. actuarial valuation report. 802‐2206‐00 PERS Liability
0.00 453,768.00
802‐1512‐00 Amount Provided for Unfunded Pension Liability
453,768.00
0.00 Total
453,768.00
453,768.00
0.00 CLIENT #7
AJE to record June 30 2021 comp time payable.
101‐2350‐00 Current Portion Accrued Vacation Payable
0.00 13,867.52
101‐7111‐06 Regular Salaries
13,867.52
0.00 DRAFT 1/26/2022
802‐2301‐00 Accrued Leave Payable
0.00 13,867.52
802‐1509‐00 Amount Provided for LT Comp Abs Liability
13,867.52
0.00 Total
27,735.04
27,735.04
(13,867.52)
CLIENT #8
SERAF Loan Repay
615‐2105‐00 Successor Housing Agency SERAF Loan
148,103.00
0.00 615‐2107‐00 Accrued Expenses
0.00 3,000.00
616‐1300‐00 Accounts Receivable Accruals
3,000.00
0.00 616‐1306‐00 Notes Receivable RDA Project Fund
0.00 148,103.00
615‐1199‐00 Equity in Pooled Cash
0.00 148,103.00
615‐1199‐00 Equity in Pooled Cash
3,000.00
0.00 616‐1199‐00 Equity in Pooled Cash
0.00 3,000.00
616‐1199‐00 Equity in Pooled Cash
148,103.00
0.00 Total
302,206.00
302,206.00
0.00 CLIENT #9
#4275 RMRA State Gas Tax Accrual
202‐5218‐00 State Gasoline 2030 (RMRA)
0.00 20,487.50
202‐1300‐00 Accounts Receivable Accruals
20,487.50
0.00 202‐5218‐00 State Gasoline 2030 (RMRA)
0.00 0.00
202‐1300‐00 Accounts Receivable Accruals
0.00 0.00
Total
20,487.50
20,487.50
20,487.50
CLIENT #11
#4265 Accrue prepaid business licenses
101‐5101‐00 Business Licenses
8,372.68
0.00 101‐1303‐00 Accounts Receivable
18,380.95
0.00 DRAFT 1/26/2022
101‐2722‐00
Unearned Revenue ‐ Prepaid Business License
Renewals
0.00 26,753.63
Total
26,753.63
26,753.63
(8,372.68)
CLIENT #12
#4270 Allocate Interest rev across funds
101‐1199‐00 Equity in Pooled Cash
0.00 20,578.71
101‐5601‐00 Interest
20,578.71
0.00 110‐1199‐00 Equity in Pooled Cash
0.00 4,283.44
110‐5601‐00 Interest
4,283.44
0.00 201‐1199‐00 Equity in Pooled Cash
0.00 2,677.27
201‐5601‐00 Interest
2,677.27
0.00 202‐1199‐00 Equity in Pooled Cash
0.00 5,162.04
202‐5601‐00 Interest
5,162.04
0.00 210‐1199‐00 Equity in Pooled Cash
10,677.25
0.00 210‐5601‐00 Interest
0.00 10,677.25
211‐1199‐00 Equity in Pooled Cash
1,093.65
0.00 211‐5601‐00 Interest
0.00 1,093.65
212‐1199‐00 Equity in Pooled Cash
0.00 500.68
212‐5601‐00 Interest
500.68
0.00 213‐1199‐00 Equity in Pooled Cash
788.24
0.00 213‐5601‐00 Interest
0.00 788.24
214‐1199‐00 Equity in Pooled Cash
926.48
0.00 214‐5601‐00 Interest
0.00 926.48
216‐1199‐00 Equity in Pooled Cash
644.88
0.00 216‐5601‐00 Interest
0.00 644.88
217‐1199‐00 Equity in Pooled Cash
DRAFT 1/26/2022
0.00 42.61
217‐5601‐00 Interest
42.61 0.00
218‐1199‐00 Equity in Pooled Cash
0.00 145.30
218‐5601‐00 Interest
145.30
0.00 220‐1199‐00 Equity in Pooled Cash
1,081.49
0.00 220‐5601‐00 Interest
0.00 1,081.49
222‐1199‐00 Equity in Pooled Cash
0.00 111.30
222‐5601‐00 Interest
111.30
0.00 223‐1199‐00 Equity in Pooled Cash
15.50 0.00
223‐5601‐00 Interest
0.00 15.50
230‐1199‐00 Equity in Pooled Cash
2,614.61
0.00 230‐5601‐00 Interest Income
0.00 2,614.61
231‐1199‐00 Equity in Pooled Cash
0.00 1,148.07
231‐5601‐00 Interest
1,148.07
0.00 303‐1199‐00 Equity in Pooled Cash
8,737.03
0.00 303‐5601‐00 Interest
0.00 8,737.03
304‐1199‐00 Equity in Pooled Cash
4,869.45
0.00 304‐5601‐00 Interest
0.00 4,869.45
405‐1199‐00 Equity in Pooled Cash
5,169.57
0.00 405‐5601‐00 Interest
0.00 5,169.57
420‐1199‐00 Equity in Pooled Cash
0.00 2,716.07
420‐5601‐00 Interest
2,716.07
0.00 422‐1199‐00 Equity in Pooled Cash
5.55 0.00
422‐5601‐00 Interest
0.00 5.55
501‐1199‐00 Equity in Pooled Cash
DRAFT 1/26/2022
0.00 14.81
501‐5601‐00 Interest
14.81 0.00
502‐1199‐00 Equity in Pooled Cash
76.37 0.00
502‐5601‐00 Interest
0.00 76.37
503‐1199‐00 Equity in Pooled Cash
2,408.93
0.00 503‐5601‐00 Interest
0.00 2,408.93
615‐1199‐00 Equity in Pooled Cash
0.00 1,700.63
615‐5601‐00 Interest
1,700.63
0.00 616‐1199‐00 Equity in Pooled Cash
0.00 28.07
616‐5601‐00 Interest
28.07 0.00
Total
78,218.00
78,218.00
3,256.17
CLIENT #13
#4269 Correct interest allocation
101‐1199‐00 Equity in Pooled Cash
72,087.15
0.00 101‐1199‐00 Equity in Pooled Cash
0.00 2,500.00
101‐5601‐00 Interest
2,500.00
0.00 101‐5601‐00 Interest
0.00 72,087.15
422‐1199‐00 Equity in Pooled Cash
0.00 72,087.15
422‐1199‐00 Equity in Pooled Cash
2,500.00
0.00 422‐5601‐00 Interest
69,587.15
0.00 Total
146,674.30
146,674.30
69,587.15
CLIENT #14
#4267 decrease OPEB liability per GASB 75
802‐2407‐00 LT OPEB Liability
3,372.00
0.00 802‐1510‐00 Amount Provided for LT OPEB Liability
0.00 3,372.00
DRAFT 1/26/2022
Total
3,372.00
3,372.00
0.00 CLIENT #15
BR: Adjust to actual the capital assets balance of CERF. 502‐1504‐00 Vehicles, Machinery, and Equipment
94,282.98
0.00 502‐1505‐00 Accumulated Depreciation
0.00 1,249.76
502‐7390‐00 Depreciation Expense
1,249.76
0.00 502‐7485‐00
Capital Outlay ‐ Machinery, Vehicles &
Equipment
0.00 94,282.98
Total
95,532.74
95,532.74
93,033.22
CLIENT #16
Book the interfund activity between 223 and 615 for the Oak Street Sewer Assessment. 223‐7611‐00 Principal
8,182.82
0.00 223‐7612‐00 Interest Expense
1,827.27
0.00 223‐1199‐00 Equity in Pooled Cash
0.00 10,010.09
615‐1199‐00 Equity in Pooled Cash
1,827.27
0.00 615‐5790‐00 Other Revenues‐RDA Successor Agency
0.00 1,827.27
Total
11,837.36
11,837.36
1,827.27
CLIENT #17
AJE #4293 Rainy Day Fund Corrections‐Audit
110‐6001‐00 Transfer From General Fund
0.00 290,592.00
101‐8118‐00 Transfer
290,592.00
0.00 101‐7111‐02 Regular Salaries
0.00 118,774.00
110‐7111‐02 Regular Salaries
118,774.00
0.00 110‐7417‐05 Janitorial Services
2,500.00
0.00 101‐7417‐05 Janitorial Services
0.00 2,500.00
110‐7408‐06 Crossing guard services
4,200.00
0.00 DRAFT 1/26/2022
101‐7408‐06 Crossing guard services
0.00 4,200.00
110‐7486‐06 CERF Charges
16,306.00
0.00 101‐7486‐06 CERF Charges
0.00 16,306.00
110‐8111‐00 Transfer to CIP Fund
330,000.00
0.00 303‐6032‐00 Transfer from Rainy Day Fund
0.00 330,000.00
110‐1199‐00 Equity in Pooled Cash
290,592.00
0.00 110‐1199‐00 Equity in Pooled Cash
0.00 471,780.00
101‐1199‐00 Equity in Pooled Cash
0.00 290,592.00
101‐1199‐00 Equity in Pooled Cash
141,780.00
0.00 303‐1199‐00 Equity in Pooled Cash
330,000.00
0.00 Total
1,524,744.00
1,524,744.00
(290,592.00)
GRAND TOTAL
5,146,960.05
5,146,960.05
221,133.69
DRAFT 1/26/2022
Agenda Item: 9(b)
1 AGENDA REPORT
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: Reina J. Schwartz, City Manager
DATE: February 15, 2022
SUBJECT: Adopt a Resolution Appropriating $30,000 from the Rainy Day Fund in FY2021/22 to Engage Strategy Research Institute for Research Related to a Potential Tax Measure for the November 2022 Ballot
___________________________________________________________________________
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution appropriating $30,000 from the Rainy Day Fund for an Agreement with Strategy Research Institute to provide research on a potential tax measure for the November 2022 ballot.
BACKGROUND
On February 1, 2022, the City Council held a preliminary discussion regarding a potential tax measure for the November 2022 ballot. This report provides additional information related to the types of potential tax measures to consider and recommends engaging a professional polling firm to provide the City Council statistically valid research data prior to making a decision on a potential tax measure. Any action by the City Council to put a tax measure on the ballot is required to be approved by a 4/5 vote. Additionally, no City funds, time, materials etc. can be used to campaign or advocate. The City can produce and provide educational information as long as it does not advocate relative to the measure. Any campaign would have to be privately funded, organized and implemented.
DISCUSSION
This report: 1) provides additional detail on several of the types of tax measures that were discussed at the February 1, 2022 City Council meeting, and 2) provides information to support a recommendation to engage Strategy Research Institute, a professional research firm, to gather statistically valid data for the City Council’s use in making decisions regarding a potential tax measure for the November 2022 ballot.
Clarifications Regarding Tax Options
A variety of information regarding types of tax measures that could be put on the ballot was presented at the February 1, 2022 City Council meeting. The table below provides some additional specificity regarding different types of taxes that may be considered. Attachment 3 to this report provides some additional information on how different types of local revenue measures have fared in California from 2001 to 2019.
Subject: Adopt a Resolution Appropriating $30,000 from the Rainy Day Fund in FY2021/22 to Engage Strategy Research Institute for Research Related to a Potential Tax Measure for the November 2022 Ballot February 15, 2022
________________________________________________________________________________________ 2 Type of Tax Vote Requirement Restrictions/Considerations Parcel Tax 66% Can be used for any governmental service; any services that may be supported should be listed as any
new services that are not listed in the measure cannot
be supported by those tax revenues in the future. The
2/3 vote requirement exists regardless of whether the
proceeds are restricted or targeted in their use or not.
Mello-Roos
District/
Community
Facilities District
(CFD)
66% This is a particular type of parcel tax. Generally a flexible revenue source. City’s Landscape
Maintenance District is a CFD. Can be assessed as a
flat rate per parcel or based on square footage or some other scaling mechanism. Often used to fund facilities
and services associated with new development.
Utility Users Tax
(UUT)
50% if for general
purposes
66% if for special/
restricted purpose
Can be levied on the following utilities: gas, electric, telecommunication, water, sewer, solid waste,
cable/video. 158 cities across California have a UUT
in place with the majority covering gas, electricity and telecommunications, although in recent years UUT
measures have been difficult to pass.
Cannot currently be levied on internet or broadband
which are characterized as Information Services and
not Telecommunications and as such are exempt from
taxation.
May not be a growing source given that internet,
broadband, and streaming services cannot be
captured by this tax.
A 6% UUT is estimated to raise approximately
$800,000-$900,000 per year based on the experience
in other communities.
Transactions and
Use Tax
50% if for general
purposes
66% if for special/
restricted purpose
More volatile revenue source. May be limited due to
lack of commercial activity in Clayton. Would provide
a benefit from large personal property (autos, boats)
that are purchased by Clayton residents (and
registered in Clayton), but were purchased elsewhere.
Property
Assessment
Weighted majority of
property owners
Must be used to provide a direct benefit to the property owners paying the assessment. Cannot be levied for
facilities or services that provide general public benefits such as schools, libraries and public safety. Amount
paid must be proportionate to the cost to provide the
service and to the benefit received.
3 Subject: Adopt a Resolution Appropriating $30,000 from the Rainy Day Fund in FY2021/22 to Engage Strategy Research Institute for Research Related to a Potential Tax Measure for the November 2022 Ballot February 15, 2022
________________________________________________________________________________________ Need for a Polling/Research Firm
While the City Council had a general discussion on February 1, 2022 regarding the potential use of a polling or research firm, the report before you this evening makes a recommendation to approve the appropriation of $30,000 for a contract with Strategy Research Institute to conduct statistically valid research related to a potential tax measure for the November 2022 ballot. There are a number of reasons it is critical to move forward quickly with a selecting and contracting with a polling consultant.
• It is costly to put a measure on the ballot and as such it is important to have as much data as possible to help refine the effort.
• The work done by a research firm will provide the City Council with statistically valid data to make a more informed decision on the type, amount and structure of the tax measure.
• Research will provide information on whether there is a willingness to consider a tax measure and whether now is the right time to pursue. This is especially important given a recent survey done in the nine-county Bay Area (EMC Research, August 2021) which indicated that a majority of Bay Area residents strongly or somewhat agree that taxes in the Bay Area are high enough and would vote against any tax increase. • The Council will receive data to better understand the community, their greatest concerns and where they feel the City should be spending its money. It is considered a best practice to seek to understand the community’s collective core values and expectations in order to better understand potential voting behavior. • Provide data on a threshold for willingness to pay; for example, polling may determine that a $250 per parcel tax is generally supportable, but a $400 per parcel tax is not at all supportable.
• There is not a lot of time to gather the intelligence needed to make an informed decision, so it is important to move forward now to begin this research.
FISCAL IMPACTS
At the meeting on February 1, 2022, the Council also asked for information on what different amounts of new resources would “buy” if they were approved by the voters, or conversely, what could no longer be afforded if new revenues are not approved.
In considering this issue, it may be useful to review what General Fund categories make up the FY2021/22 budget:
• Salaries and other labor costs: (65.5%) $3,393,241
• Dispatch (5.9%) $307,755
• Gas, Electricity and Water (5.1%) $264,100
• Engineering & Legal (4.7%) $243,451
• Vehicle Maint, Operation & replacement (2.9%) $149,600 Subject: Adopt a Resolution Appropriating $30,000 from the Rainy Day Fund in FY2021/22 to Engage Strategy Research Institute for Research Related to a Potential Tax Measure for the November 2022 Ballot February 15, 2022
________________________________________________________________________________________ 4 • Insurance premiums (2.8%) $145,349
• Animal Control (1.7%) $89,407
• All other items (11.3%) $584,579
Many of the items listed above are not directly under the City’s control and cannot easily be reduced including costs for gas, electricity and water; dispatch services; insurance premiums and animal control. By far the most significant cost the City faces is for the labor to provide services to our community even though salaries for Clayton employees are 20-25% below median when compared to other cities in Contra Costa County. It should also be noted further that this level of (current) funding already does not adequately invest in: accounting systems; cybersecurity; general maintenance, deferred maintenance and other areas.
Given the longer-term outlook for the City’s General Fund, new revenues are needed soon just to maintain current operations. If no new revenues are approved, expenditure reductions would be needed. Conversely, if a parcel tax of approximately $200 per parcel per year were approved (or other equivalent revenue increase), the following are examples of the types of reductions that could be avoided.
• Police Department – No salary increases beyond what has already been approved by contract for the Police Officers Association through FY2023/24. Police salaries are currently the lowest in Contra Costa County and would fall even farther below median in the County further exacerbating existing recruitment and retention challenges and potentially putting public safety at risk. Additionally, replacement of police vehicles could be delayed due to potential lack of funding.
• Administration, Public Works, Community Development & Engineering Departments – No salary increases beyond the end of the current terms for Miscellaneous City Employees, that ends in June of 2022. Beyond that, there could be potential reinstatement of furloughs for these non-sworn employees. With limited staffing already in place, further cuts would reduce services to the community. • City-wide Impacts - Potential browning out or turning off some public neighborhood streetlights (especially given that our current streetlight assessment does not pay the full cost of the operation and maintenance for City streetlights, so costs are borne by the General Fund). Potential reduction in maintenance at Clayton Community Park (total of approximately $300,000 per year for park maintenance). Reduced maintenance would result in greater infrastructure costs in the future.
Beyond helping to avoid the types of impacts described above, a tax of $400 per parcel per year (or other equivalent revenue source) could also provide for investment in a variety of unmet needs. Examples of these unmet needs include but are not limited to:
• Continued moderate salary increases for all employees, although salaries would still remain significantly below market without major adjustments. • Additional police staffing/Lieutenant ($250,000)
Subject: Adopt a Resolution Appropriating $30,000 from the Rainy Day Fund in FY2021/22 to Engage Strategy Research Institute for Research Related to a Potential Tax Measure for the November 2022 Ballot February 15, 2022
________________________________________________________________________________________ 5 • In-house City engineer to improve service and provide for strategic asset management and oversight that isn’t possible with current funding ($50,000 additional) • Improved cybersecurity and IT support ($50,000)
• Increased accounting support and audit costs including single audit requirements for federal funds ($55,000),
• Additional maintenance staffing to improve park maintenance ($100,000) • Additional street maintenance ($25,000).
What services could be maintained or added will be further refined based on the outcome of the community survey research.
Engagement of a Research Firm
Since the February 1, 2022 meeting, the City has interviewed and received proposals from three well-known research firms. The cost for the proposals are all approximately $30,000 to provide research on:
• Feasibility of a potential ballot measure (or measures); • Most appropriate tax rate and revenue mechanism (utility user tax, property assessment, parcel tax, sales tax, etc.). Multiple potential financing mechanisms can be tested in a single survey.
• How voters may prefer additional revenue to be used;
• How to phrase the ballot language that best responds to the community’s values and concerns.
Based on the proposals and interviews of the firms, it is recommended that the City Council approve the attached Resolution to engage Strategy Research Institute to perform a scientific survey of Clayton’s electorate. (See Attachment 2 for SRI Proposal.) There is sufficient funding in the Rainy Day Fund for this expense. Appropriation of $30,000 would leave a balance in the fund of $113,496.
Per the Contra Costa County Elections department, the cost to put a local tax measure on the ballot would be $2-$3 per registered voter for the November 2022 general election depending on the ultimate cost to the County. Based on a current number of registered voters of 8,580, the cost would be $17,160 - $25,740 in FY2022/23. No funds are required for this expense at this time.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Resolution
2. SRI Proposal
3. An Overview of Local Revenue Measures in California Since 2001 Resolution ##-2022 Rainy Day Fund Appropriation SRI February 15, 2022 RESOLUTION NO. ##-2022
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CLAYTON APPROPRIATING $30,000 FROM THE RAINY-DAY FUND IN FY2021/22 TO ENGAGE STRATEGY
RESEARCH INSTITUTE FOR RESEARCH RELATED TO A POTENTIAL TAX MEASURE FOR THE NOVEMBER 2022 BALLOT
THE CITY COUNCIL
City of Clayton, California
WHEREAS, the City of Clayton has determined that there is a structural imbalance between General Fund revenues and General Fund expenses; WHEREAS, given a structural imbalance in the General Fund, the City Council is considering potential revenue options to address the imbalance; WHEREAS, the City Council desires scientifically valid research data regarding the structure, amount and content of a potential revenue measure in order to inform the Council’s decision regarding a potential ballot measure for the November 2022 election; and
WHEREAS, the City has received and evaluated three proposals for such research and recommends engaging Strategy Research Institute for this work.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of Clayton, California does hereby appropriate $30,000 from the Rainy-Day Fund in FY2021/22 to engage Strategy Research Institute related to a potential tax measure for the November 2022 ballot.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of Clayton, California, at a regular public meeting thereof held on the 15th day of February 2022, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
THE CITY COUNCIL OF CLAYTON, CA
Resolution ##-2022 Rainy Day Fund Appropriation SRI February 15, 2022 Peter Cloven, Mayor
ATTEST:
Janet Calderon, City Clerk
Proposal Prepared for the…
February 2022
Submitted by...
Strategy Research Institute
An Institute for CONSENSUS BUILDING
www.sri-consulting.org
(800) 224-7608
S t r a t eg y R e s e a r c h I n s t i t u t e P a g e i Table of Contents
Page
Section 1.0 Mission Statement ………………..………………….………………...... 1 Section 2.0 SRI’s proven ‘Go, No-Go Model’………………………………...……… 2 Section 3.0 SRI is Uniquely Qualified to Partner with the City of Clayton………... 3 Section 4.0 A ‘Best Practices’ approach is requisite…………………… ……..…... 4 Section 5.0 Telephone Survey that adheres to The Scientific Method ……..…... 5
5.1 Questionnaire Design …………………………………………………...... 5
5.2 Sampling Methodology …………………………………………..……….. 5
5.3 Sample Size ……………..……………...………………………..……….. 5
5.4 Length of Interview …………………………..…………………..……….. 6
5.5 Data Collection …………………………………………………..……….. 6
5.6 Pre-test …………………………………………..…………………….….. 6
5.7 Data Analysis …………………………………………………………...... 6
5.8 Level of Statistical Analysis …………..………………………..……….. 7
5.9 Form and format of Final Report ……………………………………….. 7
5.10 Time Table ……………………………………..………………..……….. 8
5.11 Pricing ………………………………………………………..……..…….. 8
5.11a Fee for Professional Services ..………………………..…..…………... 8
5.11b Cost matrix for Data-collection……… ..………………..….…………... 9
5.11c Total fees (professional services and data-collection)………..……... 10 Section 6.0 Project Team ..................................................................................... 10 Section 7.0 Summary Conclusion ........................................................................ 11 Addendum A: Biographical Sketches ……………………………………...…..…. 12 Addendum B: SRI Client (partial listing) …….…………….…………….….…..…. 15 Addendum C: 2022 Data Collection Pricing Matrix ……………………………… 27 Addendum D: SRI References …………………………………………………….. 28
S t r a t e g y R e s e a r c h I n s t i tu t e P a g e 1 Section 1.0
Mission Statement
The City of Clayton is facing a set of growing fiscal challenges that need to be resolved in order to continue to provide the level of services that it presently provides to local residents, which makes Clayton one of the most desirable communities throughout the state, indeed the nation, in which to reside.
Thus, the purpose for commissioning the present scientific voter survey is to provide City officials with highly reliable and valid ‘intelligence’ (input) from the local electorate for determining whether or not Clayton voters will support an increase in one of multiple funding mechanisms presently under consideration. These include (but may not be limited to):
1. The City’s existing Parcel Tax;
2. The City’s Utility Users Tax
Furthermore, assuming the answer is YES to any of the funding mechanisms being tested, the present survey will also test the local electorate’s THRESHOLD of willingness-to-pay.
Beyond that, the present survey of registered voters in Clayton will include, but NOT necessarily be limited to, the following:
1) Test ARGUMENTS both in support of, and in opposition to, each of the funding mechanisms under consideration.
2) Determine the maximum length for making the funding mechanism SUNSET (terminate).
3) Identify the core values and expectations among Clayton voters, rank-ordered; then, determine how these will impact voting behavior.
A unique element of an SRI survey is that SRI is able to identify local “Opinion Leaders”; then, determine where they stand on each research question(s) in the survey.
a. This capability was developed by SRI years ago; literally no other research firm/organization can bring this element to the proverbial table. b. This is a vital element to the survey, since human behavior (e.g., voting behavior) is a follow-the-leader process, with those in the “mainstream” S t r a t e g y R e s e a r c h I n s t i tu t e P a g e 2 seeking input from local “opinion leaders” prior to making their final decision regarding how to vote.
Finally, we will apply SRI’s proven ‘Go, No-Go Model’, which has resulted in virtually 100% successful outcomes on behalf of cities, counties, and special districts throughout California, and beyond, for more than the past two decades.1 This critical model is discussed in appropriate detail below in Section 2.0 of the present proposal.
Section 2.0
SRI’s proven ‘Go, No-Go Model’
For more than the past two decades, SRI’s proven ‘Go, No-Go Model’ has predicted voting behavior either spot on, or within no more than 1% or 2% of reality (regardless of the statistical ‘margin of error’, which typically ranges between ±4.% to
5.8%). There are three (3) possible outcomes when applying SRI’s Go, No-Go Model.
They are:
(i) GO: All is good and the funding measure(s) being tested will, indeed, secure the requisite voter support; e.g., 2/3rds voter support for a Special Tax (where the yield is earmarked to be spent in a specific fashion); or, simple-majority support for a General Tax (where the yield is placed in the City’s General Fund and City officials have the authority to spend the money in whatever manner they see fit); or a 218 Special Benefit Assessment (Benefit Assessment District).2
(ii) NO-GO: There is simply not sufficient support within the local electorate (or among property owners in certain cases) to secure the requisite vote for the funding measure(s) being tested; and won’t be in the foreseeable future.
(iii) GO…but NOT NOW, some work needs to be done BEFORE placing the measure(s) on the local ballot. The good news is that, should this turn out to be the case, the scientific survey will be designed in a manner that will identify precisely what needs to be done and how to do it. More specifically, our Final Report will include recommendations for how to accomplish this objective and without violating any laws or even being accused of spending tax dollars to advocate for a YES vote. The key here is CONSENSUS BUILDING among stakeholders, many with competing agendas; SRI is an acknowledged expert in consensus building, which is easily documented through our track record.
1 SRI personnel will work closely with City staff in crafting a Research Instrument (questionnaire); we will NOT field the survey until authorized to do so by the City Manager. Typically, this will require 3 to 4 iterations of the Instrument. 2 A 218 Special Benefit Assessment is typically NOT placed before the local electorate; rather, it is administered through a MAIL BALLOT that is sent only to those who own property within public agency’s jurisdiction and only requires support from a simple majority of those property owners who return their ballot to the local authority.
S t r a t e g y R e s e a r c h I n s t i tu t e P a g e 3 Section 3.0
SRI is Uniquely Qualified to Partner with the City of Clayton Strategy Research Institute (SRI) routinely partners with cities, counties, special districts, JPA’s, and other public agencies to assist them in their policy decision-making activities; and has for nearly three decades.
It seems relevant to make note of the fact that our work with government agencies often includes directly addressing the Client’s fiscal challenges. Our work often involves identifying the most appropriate funding mechanism to place on the local ballot, such as a General Obligation Bond, parcel tax (or other form of special tax, such as a CFD), sales tax, what-have-you; OR, yet another funding mechanism that is authorized through a mail ballot sent to property owners within their respective jurisdiction, such as a Proposition 218-type funding measure (LLAD, LMD, etc)3. Some of these funding mechanisms require simple-majority support for passage; others (such as a Special Tax) require 2/3rds voter support to be authorized. SRI can “test” up to four funding mechanisms in a single BENCHMARK scientific survey of registered voters and/or property owners.
SRI consulted with the largest regional park District in the United States for nearly three decades, the East Bay Regional Park District, headquartered in Oakland. During that time, we helped the park District generate well over $1 billion (with a ‘B’) in new funding. Not once did a funding Measure fail, when we predicted it would succeed.
Most recently, SRI assisted the District with a highly successful funding Measure (Measure FF), which secured 84.21% voter support. SRI’s prediction of voter support was within 2% of reality, while the statistical margin of error was ±4.5 to 5.8%.
Other notable successes include:
• After Fresno COG (Council of Governments comprised of the County and the 15 cities in Fresno County) experienced a terrible defeat at the polls (54% YES vote when they needed 2/3rds voter support), they commissioned SRI to handle a $1.7 billion (with a 'B') transportation funding measure. We worked closely with the Agency for 2 years; the upshot was 78% voter support. In fact, we received an 8-page pro-tax editorial in the Fresno BEE; something we've never seen before nor since anywhere in the United States.
3 In a case that involves a Proposition 218-type funding mechanism, we typically partner with a registered Assessment Engineer, who prepares both the Engineer’s Report and the mail ballot…mails out the notices and ballots to the affected property owners…and tabulate the ballots when returned.
S t r a t e g y R e s e a r c h I n s t i tu t e P a g e 4 • SRI assisted the City of Eugene, Oregon with a successful $35.9 million G.O.
Bond; a street maintenance bond to fund approximately 70 lane miles of streets and 3 miles of off-street bike and pedestrian paths. Since then, we’ve worked with the City of Eugene on more than a half-dozen revenue measures; ALL of them have been successful (without exception).
• We orchestrated a tax Measure in Lane County, Oregon (the Eugene area) on behalf of the County Sheriff's Department. The County had placed the Measure on the local ballot 9 times in a row; it lost all 9 times. They then retained the professional services of SRI and we were successful the first time out. • SRI assisted the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (Mid-Pen) in a highly successful effort (nearly 70% voter support) for a $300 million bond.
The list could go on and on (refer to Addendum B).
However, what is particularly relevant to the present proposal has to do with the City of Pittsburg and the City of San Pablo. Literally 100% of the initiatives we’ve worked on through the years with BOTH cities passed. When asked about our research and consulting Institute, the City Manager of San Pablo, Matt Rodriguez, says, “SRI is batting 1000 percent; and this was the case when I was with the City of Pittsburg prior to coming to San Pablo”.
Section 4.0
A ‘Best Practices’ approach is requisite
It should be pointed out here that there are two (2) primary drivers of public opinion and voting behavior. These are:
The collective CORE VALUES of the population being surveyed; e.g., the community-at-large, the local electorate, and/or property owners. Respondents’ EXPECTATIONS.
Identifying these is a ‘Best Practices’ approach. The problem is, most applied research firms (often referred to as polling firms) do NOT know how to: (i) identify these dimensions; then link constituents’ COLLECTIVE CORE VALUES to the desired behavioral outcome, such as supporting the respective Tax Measure; nor (ii) identify and rank-order the collective EXPECTATIONS of the target population (in the present case, Clayton voters).
S t r a t e g y R e s e a r c h I n s t i tu t e P a g e 5 Beyond that, our research and consulting Institute (comprised of behavioral scientists vs. pollsters) and strategic planners who specialize in BOTH traditional media and the social media) has developed through years of experience the SRI Go, No-Go Model, which we presented above in Section 2.
Section 5.0
Telephone Survey that adheres strictly to The Scientific Method
5.1 Questionnaire Design
SRI researchers and strategic planners will work closely with City officials and anyone else assigned to this project in developing an appropriate Research Instrument (questionnaire) for gathering the desired information (data). We will employ the appropriate question formats and response scales (from both the scientific and applied perspectives) that are needed in order to address the research question(s) in the study at hand.
Given a “Team” approach between SRI researchers and the City, the research design being advocated here by SRI holds special promise for you in terms of achieving the precise goals and expectations that underlie the present research effort.
5.2 Sampling Methodology
In order to ensure that the “findings” from the survey will be truly REPRESENTATIVE of the local electorate, we will pull the sample to be surveyed from the most current list of registered voters in Clayton. To maximize the likelihood that every voter in Clayton has an equal likelihood (probability) of being contacted, SRI will secure BOTH landline phone numbers and cell phones.4
5.3 Sample Size
We are including sample parameters for data-collection in the present research proposal for three (3) sample sizes: N=300, N=400, N=500.5 The optimal choice among the above sample sizes is predicated upon three factors: (1) the size of population being 4 Today, approximately one-half of the population throughout the United States use a wireless phone (vs. a landline) as their primary telephone; this is especially true of the younger strata of society. Due to a rather recent change in federal law, SRI has the ability to secure BOTH landline and cell phone numbers within any given target public (e.g., the City of Clayton), which is essential if the findings from a given survey are to be truly representative of the respective population.
5 National polls typically have a sample size ranging from 1,000 to 1,500 to represent the entire United States (population of more than 330 million); thus, given the size of population in the City of Clayton, any of the alternatives being provided in the present proposal are perfectly appropriate and scientifically sound.
S t r a t e g y R e s e a r c h I n s t i tu t e P a g e 6 studied, the number of subsets you want the “findings” to be analyzed by (e.g., demographic, geographic, and psychographic subsets), and (3) available budget.
5.4 Length of Interview
The length of interview is determined largely by two (2) factors:
✓ Type, level of complexity, and amount of information being sought from the population(s) being studied, and…
✓ Budget parameters.
While SRI routinely conducts telephone surveys that last as much as 30 minutes (or longer) in duration, we do NOT believe this long of a survey is necessary (nor cost justified) in the present case. In order to allow you to tailor the research design to your needs and expectations, we are providing cost estimates (for data collection) for three alternative approaches in terms of length of interview. These are:
❑ Not to exceed 15 minutes
❑ Not to exceed 17 minutes
❑ Not to exceed 20 minutes
5.5 Data Collection
Data will be collected by employing a technology called CATI (Computer Assisted Telephone Interviewing). Highly trained and seasoned callers will conduct telephone interviews until the agreed upon number of respondents have completed the entire survey.
5.6 Pre-test
The approved instrument will be pre-tested on 20 respondents. Results will be reviewed and any and all necessary adjustments will be made; of course, you will be advised, in advance, of any required alterations. Once these alterations have been made and approved by the Client, the survey will be completed in its entirety.
5.7 Data Analysis
Data analysis will be administered through the well-known statistics package, SPSS. The findings from the survey will be thoroughly examined by SRI’s researchers and strategic planners, conclusions drawn, and recommendations (if requested) developed.
S t r a t e g y R e s e a r c h I n s t i tu t e P a g e 7
5.8 Level of Statistical Analysis
A third dimension that can vary in the research design being presented herein is the level of statistical analyses to which the data are subjected.
Telephone surveys conducted by competing research firms are often limited to “descriptive” statistical analyses that include frequencies, percentages, and cross classifications (known as “cross-tabs”). While these analytical procedures are, indeed, “necessary”; seldom, if ever, are they “sufficient”!
Thus, if one wishes to have benefit of a comprehensive interpretation and understanding of the findings from the present study, it may be necessary to administer advanced statistical analysis of the data (also called “inferential statistics”). These statistical procedures may include, but are NOT necessarily limited to, the following:
• correlation analysis,
• regression analysis,
• discriminant analysis,
• factor analysis,
• causal analysis (structural equation modeling),
• and other tests deemed appropriate for the situation at hand.
5.9 Form and format of Final Report
Before producing a formal report, we will “debrief” City officials (in person OR via Zoom, if Covid-19 restrictions are still in place). This provides decision-makers with an opportunity to assess the findings from the research effort at the earliest possible moment; it also ensures that SRI’s interpretations of the findings and recommendations are accurate and, as such, hold the greatest promise for ensuring that the Client will realize its goals, objectives and expectations. This also allows the Client to control what “intelligence” is or is not included in the Final Report.
The Final Report will consist of a narrative and graphic interpretation of the findings; more specifically, it will include:
• Key findings
• Interpretation of the findings
• Conclusions
• Recommendations.
We will provide you with four bound copies, one unbound copy (for purposes of duplication), and one electronic copy of the Final Report; plus a Book of Crosstabs.
S t r a t e g y R e s e a r c h I n s t i tu t e P a g e 8
5.10 Time Table
The final report is normally delivered to the Client within four to six weeks of the final version of the instrument (questionnaire) being approved by the Client; however, if the Client is facing some form of time pressures, we’ll happily expedite the process at no additional cost and with no negative impact on the “findings” from this scientific survey.
5.11 Pricing
Pricing for this type of scientific survey is broken into two elements: (i) fee(s) for professional services and (ii) the cost of data-collection. The latter element has to do with ensuring that only the ‘A-Team’ of telephone surveyors (seasoned callers) are assigned to an SRI project, which greatly impacts the “reliability” of the data itself AND the “validity” of the findings.
5.11a Fee for Professional Services
Because it is virtually impossible to determine how much time will be involved with respect to the amount of professional services needed in a given project, it is SRI policy to charge a flat rate for its professional services.6 At a minimum, what is involved includes: (i) crafting the Research Instrument (questionnaire); then, working through as many versions (iterations) of the Instrument with the Client until we have in hand a Final APPROVED questionnaire (typically this requires 3 to 4 iterations); (ii).fielding the survey; (iii) once we have the data in hand, cleaning the dataset; (iv) running the statistics, (v) analyzing the findings and developing conclusions/recommendations; (vi) creating user-friendly graphs, charts and tables to present the findings, conclusions, and recommendations to the Client for consideration; (vii) DEBRIEF the Client using PowerPoint slides; (viii) if needed, doing additional statistical analysis based upon the feedback from the Debrief session; and finally, (x) producing a Final Report.
In the present case, fees for professional services will be $8,000. It is SRI policy to be paid in three (3) installments: (i) half ($4,000) upon signing the contract; (ii) onefourth ($2,000) when we submit the findings from the voter survey (with conclusions and recommendations) to the Client in the form of a DEBRIEF using PowerPoint slides; (iii) the last installment ($2,000) when SRI submits the Final Report to the Client. 6 Clearly, this policy is in the interest of the Client. For example, there is no way to know precisely how many iterations will be required from the time we produce the first version of the Research Instrument (questionnaire) until we have a Final APPROVED version. And, we will NOT enter the field until we have authorization from the Client to do so.
S t r a t e g y R e s e a r c h I n s t i tu t e P a g e 9
5.11b Cost Matrix for Data-collection
The most useful way of discussing the “cost” of data-collection is to present the cost in the context with other parameters of the survey; which is to say, compare each alternative approach based upon the key dimensions of the research design. For the sake of clarity and ease, the alternative approaches for data-collection will be presented below in matrix format.
Sample Size 15 minutes 17 minutes 20 minutes
N=300
Sampling error
±4.5 to 5.7%
Option 1-A Option 1-B Option 1-C
$20,000 $22,000 $25,000
N=400
Sampling error
±4 to 5%
Option 2-A Option 2-B Option 2-C
$22,000 $24,000 $27,000
N=500
Sampling error
±3.5 to 4.5%
Option 3-A Option 3-B Option 3-C
$24,000 $26,000 $29,000
95% confidence level
Sampling error varies with size of sample
Given your goals and objectives (as we presently understand them), we believe the most appropriate and cost-effective research design for the upcoming scientific survey is Option 1B.
Option 1-B:
Sample size: N=300 completed interviews
Length: NOT to exceed 17 minutes
Level of analysis: Descriptive & Advanced statistics (no additional cost) Cost: $22,000
Data-collection is a difficult task; yet, it is relatively low-paying. As a result, turnover is huge AND mistakes are far too common. To control for this reality, SRI maintains a relationship with its data-collection arm that ensures that only the A-Team of telephone surveyors are assigned to our projects. In other words, we are granted highest possible priority [surveyors assigned to our projects come from a stable (body) of seasoned callers; thus, problems associated with turnover and training are eliminated]. To ensure this, we pay our vendors on the front-end of the data-collection phase of the project.
S t r a t e g y R e s e a r c h I n s t i tu t e P a g e 10 Thus, SRI invoices the Client the cost for data-collection at the outset of this project; the invoice needs to be processed and paid to SRI no later than when we enter the field and data-collection begins.
5.11c Total fees (professional services and data-collection) Assuming you accept SRI’s recommendation in terms of sample size and length of interview, the total fees for services (professional services and data collection) will be thirty thousand dollars ($30,000); $8,000 for professional services and $22,000 to cover the cost of data-collection. If you select a different parameter with respect to the sample size and/or length of interview, the price will be adjusted, accordingly, of course.
Section 6.0
Project Team
The project team leader will be G. Gary Manross, Ph.D., Chairman of our research and consulting Institute. He will oversee every aspect of the project.
Dr. Manross will be supported by the Institute’s Chief Methodologist, Richard Miller, Ph.D.; the firm’s Senior Research Associate, Ms. Mary Ann Williams; and SRI’s Director of Qualitative Research, Debra L. Schultz, Ph.D.
Drs. Manross and Miller are behavioral scientists; both have stellar academic credentials and years of applied experience. Ms. Williams has an M.A. in Sociology and brings to the project more than 20 years of applied experience. Dr. Schultz earned her Ph.D. in Interpersonal Communications from NYU and will oversee callers during the data-gathering phase of the research effort.
Richard Miller, Jr., Ph.D.
Research Design
Instrument Design
Advanced Data Analysis
Support
Staff (as needed)
Ms. Mary Ann Williams, M.A.
Senior Research Associate
Project coordinator
coordinator Data analysis & Adm. Oversight
Debra L. Schultz, Ph.D.
Quality Control
(i.e., interviewing strategies)
SRI's Project Team
G. Gary Manross, Ph.D.
Team Leader
Strategy Research Institute
S t r a t e g y R e s e a r c h I n s t i tu t e P a g e 11 Section 7.0
Summary Conclusion
We have presented here what we believe to be the most appropriate (from both the scientific and applied perspectives) and cost-effective research design possible for realizing the goals, objectives, and expectations of the City of Clayton.
That said, should it turn out that we’ve missed any element and/or that questions/concerns arise as you review the proposal, please know that this is NOT a ‘take it, or leave it’ proposal. Clearly, we’re open to making whatever alterations are needed in order to meet your desires, expectations, and budget parameters…and, without placing in jeopardy either the “reliability” or the “validity” of the findings from this BENCHMARK voter survey.
We are including four (4) Addenda to the present proposal. Addendum ‘A’ includes biographical sketches of SRI’s key professional staff; Addendum ‘B’ is a partial listing of SRI clientele; Addendum ‘C’ is a Pricing Matrix for data-collection; and Addendum D is list of professional references.
We’re confident that you simply cannot receive more “value” for dollars invested (return on investment) than you will receive through our research and consulting Institute. Of course, we will be pleased to provide any clarification deemed useful and/or necessary; and, we will happily address any other matter of interest to you.
We hope that our research and consulting Institute will be commissioned to join the Clayton ‘family’ in helping City officials realize your goals and objectives.
S t r a t e g y R e s e a r c h I n s t i tu t e P a g e 12 Addendum ‘A’
Biographical Sketches
Dr. G. Gary Manross, Ph.D.
Chairman/CEO
STRATEGY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
A behavioral scientist, G. Gary Manross, Ph.D., has more than 25 years experience in applied research (political research, public policy research, and market research), and as a consultant in political communications, integrated marketing communications, and communications management.
Dr. Manross has taught political communications at UCLA, mass media effects at U.S.C., and was Associate Professor of Communications in the California State University system, where he held a joint appointment in Advertising and Public Relations. He was the head of the Advertising Sequence when he left academe; during this period, he taught courses in applied research, integrated marketing communications (IMC), management, advertising, and public relations at both the undergraduate and graduate levels.
Prior to founding SRI, Dr. Manross held executive-level positions with the then largest public relations agency in the world, Hill & Knowlton, Inc., the largest state trade association in the United States, the California Association of Realtors®, plus two Fortune 500 companies, Diamond Shamrock Corporation (then 152 on Fortune 500), and Chase Brass and Copper Company.
Dr. Manross’ publishing record includes numerous refereed academic journals, including the top-ranked paper internationally in the Human Communications Technology Group of the International Communication Association (ICA), which was subsequently published as a chapter in Communication Yearbook 10.
His research is routinely cited in both the scholarly and popular press and in classic textbooks, such as Diffusion of Innovations (Everett M. Rogers, 1995, 4th ed., Free Press, N.Y.).
Dr. Manross is author of a paper developed in a joint effort with Dr. Rogers that will soon be submitted to the Harvard Business Review. He also authored a book entitled: The Impact of Theory-driven Public Opinion Research in Strategic Planning for Winning Campaigns, Carlton Press, NY, 1995. He is presently writing a second book entitled: Closing the Chasm.
His academic credentials include a B.A. in Public Relations, M.A. in Communications Management, M.A. in Communication Theory, and a quantitative Ph.D. in Communication Research, with an emphasis in Political Communications and Media Effects, from the Annenberg School for Communication & Journalism at the University of Southern California (USC.).
S t r a t e g y R e s e a r c h I n s t i tu t e P a g e 13 Richard Miller, Jr., Ph.D.
Senior Consultant/Strategic Planner
STRATEGY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
Dr. Miller began his career as a planner for the Honolulu Department of General Planning, where his responsibilities included evaluating Development Plan changes based upon population distribution and land use policies, as well as forecasting growth on the island of O’ahu by aggregate and discrete geographic areas.
He earned his doctorate is in Geography, with an emphasis on economic geography and spatial analysis, and an M.A. degree in Urban and Regional Planning, both from the University of Hawaii.
Immediately prior to joining SRI, Dr. Miller was Business Planning Manager for Health Net, Inc., where he was responsible for all business development, including the HMO’s marketing research, new product development, and competitive analysis While with Kaiser Permanente Medical Care, he held the following positions: (a) Senior Market Research Analyst, (b) Land Use/Real Estate Manager for southern California, where he was responsible for all real estate transactions and securing land use entitlements; and (c) Director of Facilities Planning and Property for the HMO’s Hawaii medical facilities.
Dr. Miller is an award-winning planner, earning the Exceptional Contribution Award from the Society of American Institute of Architects.
S t r a t e g y R e s e a r c h I n s t i tu t e P a g e 14 Debra L. Schultz, Ph.D.
Director of Qualitative Research
STRATEGY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
As SRI's Director of Qualitative Research, Debra L. Schultz, Ph.D., is an expert in advanced interviewing techniques, strategic planning, persuasion, business communications, and multi-cultural communications. Prior to joining SRI, Dr. Schultz was a professor of communications at UCLA; prior to that, at New York University (NYU).
While in New York, Dr. Schultz was a member of the research staff of ABC's Goodnight America and Good Morning America; she also headed her own literary agency representing screenwriters, playwrights and other artists.
Her academic credentials include a Ph.D. in Communication, Arts and Science from New York University.
Dr. Schultz oversees the qualitative aspects of the Institute's research projects. These activities include, but are not limited to, field research (involving person-to-person interviewing), facilitating in focus group research (including in-depth probing strategies), descriptive research, library research and other secondary sources of information gathering.
Mary Ann Williams, M.A.
Senior Consultant/Strategic Planner
STRATEGY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
Mary Ann Williams is COO (Chief Operating Officer) for STRATEGY RESEARCH INSTITUTE (SRI); she oversees the administrative support services for every Client project.
Ms. Williams has nearly two decades of experience in communication management, administration (including human resource management), and related areas of responsibility. She is an expert in data management and data collection. Ms. Williams earned her M.A. and B.A. degrees in Sociology in the California State University system; California State University at Los Angeles and Cal-State University, Fullerton, respectively.
Mary Ann is responsible for Client services. In so doing, she works personally with virtually every SRI Client to ensure that all of their needs are being addressed in a comprehensive and timely fashion.
As such, Ms. Williams functions as a primary contact person for the Institute's Clientele.
S t r a t e g y R e s e a r c h I n s t i tu t e P a g e 15 Addendum ‘B’
Partial Client Listing…
FUNDING MEASURES, PUBLIC POLICY,
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND SOCIAL MARKETING
Policy Research & Consulting
(Tax Feasibility studies, 218 Special Benefit Assessments, Bond Measures, & other Funding Mechanisms)
East Bay Regional Park District, headquartered in Oakland, CA.
Measure FF, to generate $3.3 million annually for 20 years to enhance multiple parks within the East Bay Regional Park District. Funds will support public safety, wildfire prevention, and healthy forests; manage park infrastructure and maintenance; and provide environmental stewardship and habitat protection. The measure covers the cities of Oakland, Berkeley, Richmond, Alameda, San Pablo, El Cerrito, Albany, Emeryville, and Piedmont. It required ⅔ super-majority to pass; the final vote was 84.21% Yes.
City of Rio Vista, CA
Feasibility study for a 3/4-cent sales tax on the November 2016 ballot showed likely support for the proposed tax of 69%; potential voter support was 82%. SRI was commissioned to design and administer a Public Outreach effort; the final vote turned was 81.09% Yes. In other words, we were able to secure virtually 100% of the potential voter support for this funding Measure.
City of San Pablo, CA
SRI has helped the City pass two (2) sales taxes over the past four years; one was a half-cent increase in the local sales tax to pay for general city services and programs; the other was to fund Public Safety services. We are presently preparing for another funding Measure; this one to fund the introduction of Municipal Broadband designed to promote economic development in the City; as well as address the issue of the ‘digital divide’ that exists in a city with a high ratio of low-income residents and minorities.
City of Pittsburg, CA.
Successful 218 L&L (increase in City’s annual Landscape & Lighting Assessment). SRI was retained to identify an appropriate funding mechanism to address the City’s fiscal challenges. After conducting a Tax Feasibility Study and an Opinion Leadership Survey, City officials decided to ask local property owners to authorize an increase in the City’s existing Lighting & Landscape assessment. We began with 34% support for the Measure; following a concerted effort to BUILD CONSENSUS among stakeholders…combined with public outreach, the initiative ultimately received 69% support.
Also, commissioned to conduct a feasibility study to determine voter support temporary (5-yr.) half-cent increase in the City’s Sale tax AND two (2) CFD’s. SRI conducted benchmark surveys, assisted in crafting ballot language, and developed and administered public outreach efforts for all three funding Measures.
S t r a t e g y R e s e a r c h I n s t i tu t e P a g e 16 Fresno COG (Fresno Council of Governments), Fresno, CA.
Successful $1.7 billion half-cent sales tax earmarked for public transportation and public transit. SRI was commissioned to design and administer a BENCHMARK voter survey; and subsequently, to consult with Fresno COG involving outreach to residents of 15 cities and the unincorporated areas of Fresno County regarding the need for the continuation of this funding mechanism. Measure received 78% voter support.
7 East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD), Oakland, CA.
Successful $500 mm tax measure, placed on the November 2008 ballot.
Since 1988, SRI has helped the EBRPD secure in excess of $1 billion in new taxes and annual assessments. First project was a successful $225 million bond measure (Measure AA) that required 2/3-voter support. Orchestrated successful Special Benefit Assessments (Measures KK and LL), which received 79.8% and 69.1% voter support, respectively. Orchestrated a successful $45 million parcel tax requiring 2/3-voter support in the November 2004 elections; another successful funding measure in 2008, Measure CC; most recently, a $500 mm bond measure (Measure WW), which secured over 72% voter support; the largest funding Measure put on the ballot by a regional park District in the history in the United States. Our research and consulting Institute conducted feasibility studies and provided consulting services for outreach to registered voters in the respective zone of benefit (including portions of Alameda and Contra Costa Counties). We continue to be under contract (based upon a monthly retainer) with the District.
City of Eugene, Oregon
Successful $35.9 million G.O. Bond (Measure 20-145), placed on the November 2008 ballot. This was a street maintenance bond to fund approximately 70 lane miles of streets and 3 miles of off-street bike and pedestrian paths. Secured 57% voter support. We have been retained to assist with yet another G.O.
Bond that will appear on the November 2018 ballot.
Marin County Congestion Management District.
Failed half-cent sales tax. Conducted a series of feasibility studies to position Marin County to secure the requisite 2/3-voter support for a half-cent transportation tax to help alleviate regional gridlock.
SRI’s Go, No-Go model showed maximum voter support of 45.5%; we recommended NO-GO.
Nonetheless, the Client placed a Measure on the ballot; vote turned out to be 42.5%.
Marin County Congestion Management District.
Successful half-cent sales tax. SRI was brought back to assist the County crafting a strategic plan based upon the collective wishes of Marin County voters to address transit gridlock throughout the County. This time, County officials followed SRI’s recommendation’s, based upon the Go, No-Go Model; the outcome is perhaps best depicted in the following e-mail from one of the consultants with whom we partnered, Bonnie Nelson of San Francisco-based, Nelson/Nygaard, “Hope you noticed the vote in November (2004)…71%, just as you predicted.”
City of Clovis, CA. (suburb of Fresno, CA)
Successful LMD (Landscape Maintenance District). SRI partnered with an engineering firm in bringing forward a successful LMD, wherein local property owners agreed to double and triple their annual LMD assessment. Needed simple majority; SRI’s Go, No-Go Model showed minimum support of 53%; SRI was retained to draft ballot language and assist in Public Outreach…vote turned out to be 57.24%. 7 The very same funding measure had been placed on the ballot three years earlier; SRI was NOT involved in that effort. Their polling said they had 72% voter support; we re-analyzed their polling data (from a competing firm) using the SRI Go, No-Go Model, which said likely voter support, in reality, was 56%. The outcome of that election was
54%. SRI was retained to assist in placing the Measure on the ballot a 2nd time…the outcome of that election was 78% voter support.
S t r a t e g y R e s e a r c h I n s t i tu t e P a g e 17 City of Oakland, CA.
Successful LLAD (Landscape & Lighting District); 2008; partnered with Francisco & Associates. Needed simple majority; SRI’s Go, No-Go Model showed minimum 48.5% support; based on SRI’s data analysis and crafting a targeted MESSAGE STRATEGY, SRI recommended GO; the initiative passed. SRI was retained to draft ballot language and assist in Public Outreach…vote turned out to be 54.91%.
City of Desert Hot Springs, CA.
Successful TOT (bed tax); Secured 78% voter support for a 2% increase in the City’s TOT.
City of Antioch, CA., “218 Feasibility for Creating One or More Landscape & Lighting Districts,” a survey of residential and “high-end” property owners.
Antioch’s six existing Landscape & Lighting Districts were about to “sunset” (terminate). SRI was commissioned to survey residential and “high-end” (hard to reach) property owners to determine: (a) whether or not Antioch property owners would be willing to re-approve the existing Landscape & Lighting Districts,
b) whether or not they would approve creating a single, Citywide District vs. multiple, smaller Districts throughout the City, (c) determine property owners’ collective “willingness to pay” for the services provided through this form of annual assessment, and (d) determine if property owners would be willing to forego the requirement for the District to be “re-approved” every four years and/or approve a cost-of living annual adjustment to the assessment. SRI’s Go, No-Go Model showed INSUFFICIENT support; thus, we recommend NO-GO. The Client chose to move forward; the initiative failed.
Bay Area Rapid Transit Authority (BART), Oakland, CA.
“Determining the Level of Voter Support for the Continuation of a $1.3 billion tax to Renovate & Improve the BART System.” Feasibility study for the renewal of a 30-year tax initiative that would yield BART approximately $1.3 billion.
AC Transit, Oakland, CA
Through the years, SRI has partnered with AC Transit in helping identify and secure new revenue streams. Some of our projects include:
Measure B, Reauthorization; represent AC Transit’s interests in a tax initiative involving the funding of public transit in Alameda County under the auspices of the Alameda County Transit Authority. This ultimately led to a successful funding measure being placed on the local ballot. Measure B Exit Poll.
Study to determine public awareness and attitudes regarding bus fares, usage and possible taxation to maintain existing levels of service. Resulted in a successful tax initiative being placed on the local ballot.
City of Hercules, CA.
For more than 15 years, SRI has represented the City of Hercules regarding public policy research, including such things as: (i) placing successful parcel tax initiatives (requiring 2/3 voter support) on the ballot and successful 218 Special Benefit Assessment Districts (requiring 50% support) before local property owners); and (ii) “Needs Analysis” to determine where to make cutbacks in City’s spending plan. More specifically, SRI has conducted the following studies for the City of Hercules:
• Successful 218-type Special Benefit Assessment District, Landscape &Lighting District • Needs analysis to determine how to cut back on City services due to budget due to pressures brought on by the deficit at the State level.
• Landscape & Lighting Assessment; feasibility study to determine level of voter support for renewing the assessment.
S t r a t e g y R e s e a r c h I n s t i tu t e P a g e 18 • Utilities study. A study to determine level of support for the City creating a new, City-owned utility via a public/private partnership with a subsidiary of ChevronTexaco. • Twice now, we been commissioned to design and administer a needs assessment for Economic Development & Growth Management.
• Study to identify and understand opinions and attitudes among residents that impact current City services, programs and public policy decision making. • Study to determine voter support for a capital improvement bond. • Study to identify and understand opinions and attitudes among residents that impact current City services, programs and public policy decision making.
San Mateo County, Department of Parks & Recreation.
Needs Analysis (empirical input for a 5-year Master Plan) and countywide G.O. Bond Feasibility Study, combined with a study involving the possibility of creating a 218 Special Benefits Assessment District in the mid-coast region of the county.
The Snyderville Basin Special Recreation District, Park City, Utah, “Needs Assessment for Recreation Program & Recreation Capital Facilities.
Three community surveys, in Utah’s Summit County conducted three years apart, to secure “intelligence” needed for developing and updating a comprehensive Master Plan for regional parks and recreation facilities and programs in the areas immediately contiguous to Park City, Utah. The first study resulted in the
passage of an $11 mm park bond, and the second study was designed to determine how best to invest these monies based on the collective perceptions of the District’s various constituencies. The third study led to a successful $7 mm park bond.
Town of Danville, CA.
Successful $15 million Mello-Roos Tax Measure for additional parks and recreational facilities and Opinion Leadership Study to assist in campaign strategy.
City of Berkeley, CA.
Successful tax measure to pay for additional fire protection, earthquake preparedness, etc. in aftermath of the Berkeley/Oakland Hills Fire.
Parks and Recreation
East Bay Regional Park District (the largest regional park district in the United States), 1988 to present.
The EBRPD is comprised of Contra Costa and Alameda Counties (over 2.1 million residents). It has within its jurisdiction 59 regional parklands and over 1,100 miles of trails on approximately 85,000 acres of property.
Benchmarking and Longitudinal Monitoring; SRI conceived and now oversee an on-going program to help the regional park District move from a solely tax-based operating model to a market-driven model of operations. These efforts focus, in part, upon building a comprehensive database comprised of park users, surveying them, and recommending policies and strategies to become more responsive to their collective wants and needs.
S t r a t e g y R e s e a r c h I n s t i tu t e P a g e 19 Consulting for developing and implementing a plan to inform constituents of the Regional Park District’s decision to place a tax initiative before them in the March ’2002 elections. This initiative is designed to provide necessary funding for operations and maintenance of the park districts parklands and trails; currently underway.
Park user Loyalty/Satisfaction Benchmark Survey
Feasibility study to determine the advisability of creating a new Fire Assessment District in the Oakland Hills.
Survey of Voters, Renters and Apartment Dwellers.
Constituent Attitudes Toward Assessment Fees for the Maintenance and Operation of the EBRPD Trail System.
Park Trail Usage Patterns and Public Sentiment Toward Maintenance and Operation Cost of the EBRPD Trail System.
Customer Satisfaction Survey, EBRPD Foundation
City of Sacramento, CA., Department of Parks & Recreation Update five-year Master Plan for City’s parks and recreation services, facilities, and programs.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, PARKS AND RECREATION Department (Co-sponsored by the Savethe-Redwoods League) Determining the feasibility of passing a Bond Measure to upgrade and maintain California State Parks and Recreation Facilities statewide.
CITY OF MILPITAS, CA., DEPARTMENT OF PARKS & RECREATION Presently conducting public opinion survey to secure “intelligence” needed for updating the City’s Master Plan for its Park & Recreation Master Plan (including funding alternatives).
TOWN OF CORTE MADERA, CA, UPDATE MASTER PLAN FOR TOWN PARK & RECREATION CENTER Conducted community survey to secure “intelligence” needed from local resident for updating the Master Plan for the Town of Corte Madera Town Park & Recreation Center.
Marin County with the Towns of San Anselmo & Fairfax (a joint project) Tax feasibility study to determine the wisdom of creating a Joint Powers of Authority (JPA) to purchase the Marin Town & Country Club property and convert it into a parks, trails, and recreation facility, study included determining the electorate’s collective “threshold” of willingness-to-pay.
SONOMA COUNTY REGIONAL PARKS DEPARTMENT, CA
Public Opinion Poll to survey regarding Collective Attitudes and Priorities for Regional Parks and Recreation Facilities provided by and/or through the County.
CARD (Chico Area Recreation and Park District, Chico, Ca.
Update District’s five-year Master Plan.
Southgate Recreation & Park District, South Sacramento County.
Update Master Plan for District’s parks and recreation services, facilities, and programs. Subsequently commissioned to assist with a 2nd update of the Master Plan and securing new revenue streams for the District.
S t r a t e g y R e s e a r c h I n s t i tu t e P a g e 20 The Desert Botanical Garden, Phoenix, AZ.
Toward Building a Strategic Plan for Repositioning the Desert Botanical Garden in the Collective Mind of the General Public and Increasing Visitation to “The Garden”.
Phoenix Art Museum, Arizona
Study to evaluate current membership attitudes, motivation for membership and services provided to members.
Union City, CA
Parks and Recreation Master Plan; plus, assessing issues impacting the ‘Quality of life’ for Union City residents. Citywide survey to determine constituent wishes for short-term and long-term needs with respect to City-sponsored parks, recreation, and leisure programs and facilities.
Economic Development
ChevronTexaco Corporation, the second largest US integrated oil & gas company, with a presence in more than 180 countries.
An Economic Development survey of opinion leaders throughout the Cocotren (coastline) corridor of Baja, California, Mexico (from Ensenada through Tijuana) to secure the “intelligence” needed for developing a COMMUNITY BENEFITS PROGRAM to enhance education, health care, and “the Arts” throughout the region; to upgrade such infrastructure as local roads, streets, and the sewage system); and to promote tourism and other economic development resources.
This research effort was designed to help position ChevronTexaco to win a $4 billion contract for constructing and operating an LNG regasification complex plant in Baja, California, Mexico.
City of Sunnyvale, CA., “Assessing Sunnyvale’s Economic Prosperity Program & its Business Climate.” Surveying businesses of all sizes and types (e.g., commercial, professional, high tech, in-home businesses, both light and heavy industry) currently doing business in the City of Sunnyvale. Goal is to create an Economic Development model that will enhance the economic vitality of the City in the foreseeable future.
East Bay Regional Park District (the largest regional park district in the United States). “Quantifying our Quality of Life: An Economic Analysis of the East Bay’s Unique Environment..” SRI conceived the idea, and partnered with the lead consultant, Economic & Planning Systems, Inc., of Berkeley, CA., which culminated with an Economic Summit. 18 UTOPIA Cities, Dynamic City MetroNet Advisors, Lindon, Utah Economic Development studies on behalf of the Utopia Consortium (Utah Telecommunications Open Infrastructure Agency), which is currently comprised of 18 cities in the State of Utah, and the Sweetwater Consortium, which is comprised of 2 cities in Wyoming. The intent of the 20 individual studies was to identify “likely market potential” for the Dynamic City Fiber Optic MetroNet in terms of being a viable mechanism for attracting new business and industry into the respective communities.
Oakland CEO Council, Oakland, CA., “Securing ‘Intelligence’ for Enhancing Economic Vitality in the City of Oakland”
Opinion Leadership study designed to secure the “intelligence” necessary for developing a strategic plan for Economic Development within the City of Oakland. The Oakland CEO Council is comprised of the twelve largest firms with headquarters in Oakland. These include, for example, Clorox, Dryers, Kaiser Permanente, the Oakland A’s).
S t r a t e g y R e s e a r c h I n s t i tu t e P a g e 21 Rincon San Luiseño Band of Mission Indians, San Diego County, CA., Survey Tribal members to secure “intelligence” for developing a 15-20 year Economic Development Master Plan for to allow all Tribal members to benefit from the revenues generated through gaming on the reservation (Harrah’s Casino). Also, conduct the first comprehensive Tribal census in the Tribe’s history. Presently updating the Tribe’s Census data.
Puyallup Indian Nation, Tacoma, Washington
An Economic Development survey to identify voter attitudes & public sentiment statewide toward providing Education, Health Care & Social Services via Revenue Sharing with the State of Washington of Sales Tax Dollars from Native American Commerce.”
Tax Initiative for Public Schools
Alameda Unified School District, City of Alameda, California Two studies (benchmark survey & tracking poll prior to the election) to determine the level of community support for consolidation of high schools and feasibility for passage of a $48 million bond.
Berryessa Union School District, San Jose, California
Study to determine feasibility of passing a local school tax initiative for education programs and establishing overall budget priorities (two studies)
Brentwood/Byron/Oakley School Districts, Contra Costa County, California Study to determine the feasibility of passing a local school tax measure.
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY LIBRARIES
Survey to determine public library use and needs, general attitudes towards library and county services, and the likelihood of passing public financing for construction of additional libraries.
Department of Education, State of Arizona (Co-sponsored by The Goldwater Institute).
Feasibility study for a 1/2 cent sales tax to “equalize school funding” throughout the State of Arizona.
Livermore Valley Joint Unified School District, Livermore, California Survey to determine the feasibility of a parcel tax measure to enhance educational programs within the District on a site-specific basis.
Martinez Unified School District, Martinez, California
Baseline survey to determine feasibility of passage of $25 million bond measure for a new high school; later conducted tracking surveys. Subsequently, ran successful campaign.
Mt. Diablo Unified School District, Concord, California Re-analyze data gathered by another research firm regarding feasibility of $90 million bond measure; subsequently commissioned to conduct a tracking poll to confirm “findings.” Newark Unified School District & City of Newark
Joint study to determine the feasibility of two proposed tax measures: the renovation of local schools and a community swimming pool.
Oakley School District, Oakley, California
Study to determine the feasibility of passing a local school tax measure. Subsequently retained to manage successful campaign for the bond measure.
S t r a t e g y R e s e a r c h I n s t i tu t e P a g e 22 Redwood District Elementary School District, Redwood City, California Tracking survey to determine the feasibility for passage of both a successful bond measure for facility improvements and parcel tax measure for educational programs.
Reed Union School District
Study to determine reasons for failure of a prior parcel tax initiative and the parameters of an acceptable measure.
West Contra Costa College, Richmond, California
An assessment of resident attitudes and needs with regards to the college and its programs.
Public Policy and Public Opinion Research
City of Brentwood, CA
✓ Needs assessment for Economic Development & Growth Management. ✓ Two studies over five-year period to identify and understand opinions and attitudes among residents that impact City services, programs and public policy decision making. ✓ Study to determine voter support for a capital improvement bond. ✓ Study to determine level of support among local property owners for the renewal of an existing Landscape & Lighting District to provide monies for the creation and maintenance of such infrastructure as street lighting, streets & roads, park and recreation facilities, et al. (this amounts to the renew of a 218 Special Benefit Assessment District within the City). ✓ Study to identify and understand opinions and attitudes among residents that impact current City services, programs and public policy decision making.
City of Davis, CA
Public Opinion, Attitudes and Spending Priorities regarding Issues of Open Space, Natural Areas, and Recreation Trails.
DELTA ENVIRONMENT SCIENCE CENTER (survey residents throughout entire S.F. Bay Area) Public Perceptions Regarding Prospective Educational and Recreational Programs, Activities & Facilities.
City of Fremont, CA
Survey of local electorate to determine likelihood of support for bond/tax measure with regard to five capital projects and/or a Gann Limit override.
City of Gilroy, CA
Survey of City residents to identify local concerns and community priorities, and to assess City programs and service levels.
City of Half Moon Bay, CA
Voter attitudes toward growth management.
S t r a t e g y R e s e a r c h I n s t i tu t e P a g e 23 CITY OF HOLLISTER AND SAN BENITO COUNTY (CO-SPONSORED BY BOTH PUBLIC AGENCIES).
Attitude Analysis regarding Growth Restricting Initiatives City of Lafayette.
Survey to determine park and recreation desires and voter willingness to support tax for such projects.
City of Los Altos, CA
Survey to determine the general attitudes and concerns of local residents regarding the needs of seniors in the Los Altos area.
TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS, CA
Study electorate regarding sentiment towards two ballot measures in election dealing with local land use decisions and possible annexation; subsequently conducted a tracking survey regarding same issues.
CITY OF MARTINEZ, CA
Survey local electorate to determine perceived need for a community center and willingness to pay additional taxes for the construction of such a facility.
CITY OF MARTINEZ, CA, “Developing a Crisis Plan to Address a Serious Budget Shortfall Impacting City Services and Securing ‘Matching Funds’ to Address the Problem of Flood Control in downtown Martine.”
Feasibility study to determine: (a) the likelihood of securing the requisite voter support and the “threshold” of willingness-to-pay” a new tax in order to avoid cutbacks in City services as a result of a serious budget shortfall, and (b) willingness-to-pay a modest tax in order to “match” funds being provided by FEMA (Federal Emergency Management District, CalTrans, and the Union Pacific Railroad in order to resolve a chronic flooding problem in downtown Martinez.
CITY OF MORENO VALLEY, CA
Maintaining the Community Services Assessment District (Zone ‘A’) Threshold of Willingness-to-Pay for Parklands and Recreation Facilities Made Available from the Closure of the March Air Force Base.
CITY OF OAKLAND FIRE DEPARTMENT
Study to determine voter attitudes towards existing services and possible additions/changes in services.
CITY OF PACIFICA
Determination of voter support for a ballot measure to exempt current growth limitations.
CITY OF PLEASANTON (THREE SURVEYS)
First survey to determine level of support for a growth-limiting initiative and to establish voter attitudes towards general land use policies ; second survey to determine voter support for a General Plan Amendment regarding open space preservation and residential development; third survey to drive strategic planning involving Pleasanton Ridgelands Land-Use Plan.
CITY OF SANTA ROSA
Public Usage, Attitudes and Priorities for Parks & Recreation Facilities and Programs.
S t r a t e g y R e s e a r c h I n s t i tu t e P a g e 24 CITY OF SOUTH GATE, California
Developing Benchmarks (baseline measures) for ”consensus-building” among Stakeholders throughout the City’s jurisdiction; sustaining Innovation within the City of Southgate.. A City-wide telephone survey, plus a series of Town Hall meetings.
CITY OF VENTURA, California.
Demographic profile of the City of San Buenaventura
Public Utilities
Salt River Project (3rd largest public power and water utility in the United States).
New product research in preparation for the divestiture of the utility industry within the following two years. ✓ Introducing Whole House Surge Protection products to the marketplace. ✓ Introducing to the marketplace SRP’s M-Power Technology (manufactured by Motorola). ✓ Product development for BOTH residential and business markets.
Studies in Private Sector
Managed Health Care Industry
MetLife Insurance (SafeGuard Dental Plan, a dental HMO, subsidiary to MetLife). Conduct on-going monthly “patient satisfaction” surveys involving providers who accept the SafeGuard plan in every market throughout the United States.
J.D. Power and Associates, Health Care Division, Mesa, Arizona. Design and administer customer satisfaction surveys and surveys designed to enhance business development for J.D. Power Clients.
Humana, Inc., Louisville, Kentucky — Study to determine market potential and pricing threshold for premium-based POS Supplement to Medicare. Conducted telephone survey that was designed to:
(1) confirm the findings from previously-conducted focus group research and (2) to address the abovenoted research questions.
Health Net, Inc. (subsidiary of Foundation Health Systems/Health Systems International) ✓ Phase I: POS (point of service) product research to determine how to improve “HealthNet Select.” Conduct a series of focus group exercises involving members who have purchased Health Net’s POS product.
✓ Phase II: POS (point of service) product research to determine how to improve “HealthNet Select.” Conduct a series of focus group exercises involving physicians and administrators who service Health Net’s POS product.
✓ New Product Development. Conduct a series of focus group sessions to: (1) determine the likelihood of adoption of new member products/benefits being considered by Health Net and (2) to evaluate key features of the new products under consideration.
Intergroup Health Plan , Phoenix, Arizona (subsidiary of Foundation Health Systems/Health Systems International) — Toward enhancing member retention: Disenrollment telephone survey.
S t r a t e g y R e s e a r c h I n s t i tu t e P a g e 25 PCS Health Systems, Scottsdale, Arizona (a wholly-owned Division of Eli Lilly Pharmaceuticals) — Conduct 1997 Annual Customer Satisfaction Survey. Combination telephone and mail surveys.
QualMed HealthLine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (subsidiary of Foundation Health Systems/Health Systems International). SRI analyzes the data from mail user satisfaction surveys conducted quarterly; we conduct longitudinal (over time) analyses in order to identify instructive trends and patterns (quarterly since May 1997).
SCAN Health Plan (social HMO that is part of a Congressional experiment designed to provide health care services to the senior/Medicare population) ✓ Niche Analysis and Branding Study commissioned for the purpose of determining how to position the senior HMO to competed with larger HMO’s (especially those with “deep pockets”) when the protection of SCAN’s niche is terminated by Congress and the playing field levels out. Study comprised of three-phases: Phase I: telephone survey of SCAN members and non-members; Phase II: one-on-one, in-depth interviews of SCAN employees & consultants; Phase III: conduct two focus group exercises involving consumers recruited from specific target markets.
✓ Building behavioral models for client/member retention. Combination telephone survey and focus group study.
✓ Needs analysis of seniors. Telephone survey.
✓ Disenrollment Study. Combination focus group research and telephone survey. ✓ Proposed name change. Test proposed name change for senior HMO.
Focus group research.
✓ Niche analysis/concept testing. Niche marketing study (based upon in-depth one-on-one personal interviews) to determine marketability of new HMO (a subsidiary to SCAN Health Plan) called SmartCare. Study included testing three advertising concepts.
United Health Plan, Los Angeles, California (telephone surveys) ✓ Member satisfaction survey. Statistical analysis included “causal modeling.” ✓ Member & Non-member Senior Market Profile Survey; Survey members and nonmembers to determine a profile of clientele.
Yellowstone Community Health Plan, Billings, Montana — Needs Assessment and Local Market Analysis for purposes of strategic planning. Telephone survey for start-up of new HMO.
S t r a t e g y R e s e a r c h I n s t i tu t e P a g e 26 Non-Health Care Research in Private Sector
Home Builders Association of Northern California — Multiple studies regarding Inclusionary Zoning, to fund affordable housing in the City of San Jose.
AAA (Auto Club of Southern California)
✓ Understanding ‘Purchase Barriers’ to AAA auto insurance. ✓ Post-election survey re: ‘No-fault Insurance’ Ballot Initiative. Member survey to determine level of awareness, knowledge, and attitudes after the No Fault Insurance initiative was on the statewide California ballot.
✓ Pre-election survey re: ‘No-fault Insurance’ Ballot Initiative. Member survey to determine level of awareness and likelihood of voter support for the statewide No Fault Insurance initiative that was on the upcoming ballot.
✓ Post-election survey of AAA members re: two transportation propositions that appeared on the November 8th ballot. Object of study was to analyze voting behavior among AAA members. ✓ Market feasibility study and new product development. Study involved a new insurance product called Mechanical Breakdown Insurance.
Not-for-profit Organizations
Vintage House Senior Center, Sonoma, CA, “Public Opinion Research for Purposes of Strategic Planning: Benchmarking Community Awareness, Public Image & Needs Analysis.” Vintage House wanted to take a higher profile in the communities they serve in the Sonoma Valley.
Toward that end, they wanted to secure a better understanding of how well known the senior center was throughout the region, how they were perceived, and whether or not there were services desired by their constituency that the Center was not presently providing to seniors. Finally, they wanted to secure “intelligence” that would help improve their fund-raising efforts.
Jesus Video Project, sponsored by the Campus Crusade for Christ ✓ Testing Distribution Strategies & Measuring the Effects of viewing “The Jesus Video” when sent, unsolicited, to homes of Christians & Non-Christians (Two surveys of residents in three cities located BOTH inside and outside of the ‘Bible Belt’). ✓ Surveying Pastors about The Jesus Video: Whether or not their expectations were realized. ✓ Redesigning the Cover Sleeve (jacket) of The Jesus Video; focus group research involving both Christians & Non-Christians.
Wycliffe Bible Translation, Orange, CA.
Developing a strategy to maximize the effectiveness of fund-raising letters to supporters of the Wycliffe effort.
Inland Auto Dismantlers’ Association, Identifying Market Potential for Used Engines & Used Parts throughout the Inland Empire.
UNITED WAY OF ORANGE COUNTY
Needs analysis survey.
S t r a t e g y R e s e a r c h I n s t i tu t e P a g e 27 Addendum ‘C’
2022
Data Collection, Pricing Matrix
15 minutes 17 minutes 20 minutes 25 minutes
N=100
Sampling error
8 to 9.8%
Option 1-A Option 1-B Option 1-C Option 1-D
$16,000 $18,000 $21,000 $26,000
N=200
Sampling error
±5.5 to 7.0%
Option 2-A Option 2-B Option 2-C Option 2-D
$18,000 $20,000 $23,000 $28,000
N=300
Sampling error
±4.5 to 5.8%
Option 3-A Option 3-B Option 3-C Option 3-D
$20,000 $22,000 $25,000 $30,000
N=400
Sampling error
±4 to 5%
Option 4-A Option 4-B Option 4-C Option 4-D
$22,000 $24,000 $27,000 $32,000
N=500
Sampling error
±3.5 to 4.5%
Option 5-A Option 5- B Option 5-C Option 5-D
$24,000 $26,000 $29,000 $34,000
N=600
Sampling error
3 to 4%
Option 6-A Option 6- B Option 6-C Option 6-D
$26,000 $28,000 $31,000 $36,000
N=800
Sampling error
±2.5 to 3.5%
Option 7-A Option 7- B Option 7-C Option 7-D
$30,000 $32,000 $35,000 $40,000
N=1,000
Sampling error
±2.3 to 3.2%
Option 8-A Option 8- B Option 8-C Option 8-D
$34,000 $36,000 $39,000 $44,000
N=1,200
Sampling error
2 to 2.8%
Option 9-A Option 9-B Option 9-C Option 9-D
$37,000 $39,000 $41,000 $46,000
N=1,500
Sampling error
1.8 to 2.5%
Option 10-A Option 10-B Option 10-C Option 10-D
$42,000 $44,000 $47,000 $52,000
95% confidence level
Sampling error varies with size of sample
Note: For travel out of state; add $1,000 per trip
S t r a t e g y R e s e a r c h I n s t i tu t e P a g e 28 Creators of the…
Addendum ‘D’
Strategy Research
Institute
SRI References
Mr. Matt Rodriquez
City Manager
City of San Pablo
3831 San Pablo Avenue
San Pablo, CA 94806
510⧫215-3016 (direct line)
[email protected]
Chief Ron Ramon
Chief of Police
City of San Pablo
3831 San Pablo Avenue
San Pablo, CA 94806
510⧫215-3130
[email protected]
Mr. Pat O’Brien
General Manager, Recently Retired
East Bay Regional Park District
510⧫612-2093 (cell)
[email protected]
Mr. Tony Boren
Executive Director
Fresno County Council of Governments
(Fresno County and 15 Cities in the County)
2035 Tulare Street, Suite 201
Fresno, CA 93721
559233-4148
[email protected]
Mr. Joe Francisco
Principal
Francisco and Associates
130 Market Place, Suite 160
San Ramon, CA 94583
925⧫867-3400
[email protected]
WWW.SRI - -CONSULTING.ORG
Northern California Southern California
925372-3788 714447-4884
Toll Free
800224-7608
Corporate FAX 714447-4537
P.O. Box 1724
Lake Arrowhead, CA 92352
CaliforniaCityFinance.com Updated 30 October 2019
The California Local Government Finance Almanac
An Overview of Local Revenue Measures
in California Since 2001
Voter Approval of Local Taxes
In November, 1996, California voters approved Proposition 218, “The Right to Vote on Taxes Act.” Together with its tax limitation predecessors, Proposition 13 (1978) and Proposition 62 (1986), Proposition 218 substantially expanded restrictions on local government revenue-raising including taxes, assessments, and property related fees. With regard to taxes, Article XIII of the California State Constitution now provides a clear standard distinguishing locally imposed general taxes from special taxes and requires majority voter approval for general taxes and a two-thirds supermajority requirement for special taxes.1 Parcel taxes, non-value-based taxes on real property, require two-thirds supermajority voter approval.
Two-thirds voter approval is also required for general obligation bonds. The proceeds of these bonds must be used for the acquisition or improvement of real property. Voter approved rates levied for the debt service of these bonds may be in addition to the limit on ad valorem property taxes of one percent of full cash value of a property. In November 2000, California voters passed Proposition 39, reducing to 55 percent the two-thirds supermajority needed to pass certain school bonds. School bond measures qualify for the lower 55 percent approval threshold if they meet Proposition 39’s restrictions on the allowable amount of the bond and include certain accountability provisions. 1 Under Proposition 13 (1978), a special tax requires the approval of two-thirds of voters. The In 1982, the state Supreme Court decided City and County of San Francisco v. Farrell, which defined the term special tax as any tax earmarked for a specific purpose. majority approval requirement for general taxes was previously established for general law cities by Proposition 62 (1986). 2217 Isle Royale Lane • Davis, CA • 95616-6616 • Tel: 530.758.3952 City County Special District School District Approval
Required
General Tax ✔✔ -- majority
Special Tax ✔✔✔ - 2/3 supermajority
Parcel Tax ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ 2/3 supermajority
G.O. Bond ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ 2/3 supermajority
55% Vote Bond - - - ✔ 55%
✔ = May propose.
The types of taxes that may be proposed are further limited in law.
Approval Requirements
for Local Taxes
– 2 – 30 October 2019
CaliforniaCityFinance.com
Proposed Local Measures
Since 2001 and through the November 2018 election, over 4,000 local revenue measures have been placed before local voters concerning school, city, county or special district taxes or bonds. Over a quarter of these measures concerned city or county general purpose taxes requiring majority voter approval; about a third were 55 percent approval school bonds; and the rest were parcel tax or special tax measures requiring two-thirds supermajority approval.
Despite their general purpose use, majority vote tax measures have been more likely to pass than supermajority vote special tax measures.2 Three quarters of city general measures and over half of county general measures passed. But fifty-five percent school bonds have been the most successful with more than four out of five passing.
2 There were five majority vote special district measures concerning fee increases. Unlike general purpose taxes, fee revenues are restricted in use.
Total Pass Passing%
City Majority Vote 1071 825 77%
County Majority Vote 110 66 60%
SpecialDistr Fee MajVote 5 4 80%
City 2/3 Vote 436 223 51%
County 2/3 Vote 150 68 45%
Special District (2/3) 511 240 47%
School ParcelTax (2/3) 394 261 66%
SchoolBond 2/3 55 20 36%
School Bond 55% 1364 1151 84%
Total 4096 2858 70%
Local Revenue Measures Since 2001
Through November 2018
© 2019 Michael Coleman
Proposed Local Revenue Measures
Since 2001 through November 2018
County
General
Tax, 110
City
General
Tax, 1072
Special District
Fee, 5
City Parcel
or Special
Tax, 354 City G.O. Bond, 82
County G.O. Bond, 6
SpecialDistrict
G.O.Bond, 47
Special
District
Tax, 464
County
Parcel or
Special
Tax, 144
School
Parcel
Tax, 394
School
Bond
2/3, 55 School Bond,
1364
55%
Vote
2/3
Vote
Majority
Vote
© 2019 Michael Coleman
Approved Local Revenue Measures
Since 2001 through November 2018
County
General
Tax 66
City
General
Tax 825
Special District Fee 4
City Parcel or
Special Tax 178
City G.O. Bond 45
County G.O. Bond 4
SpecialDistrict
G.O.Bond 24
Special
District
Tax 240
County
Parcel or
Special Tax
68 School
Parcel Tax
261
School Bond
2/3 20
School Bond
1151
55%
Vote
2/3
Vote Majority
Vote
– 3 – 30 October 2019
CaliforniaCityFinance.com
Super-Majority Measures
Overall, half of two-thirds vote measures have succeeded. But non-school two-thirds vote special taxes and bonds were successful less than half the time whereas three out of five school parcel tax measures passed. A 55% vote threshold would apparently have made a dramatic difference in passage rates, especially for school parcel taxes.
Among the 1,097 non-school special tax and bond measures, the most common were designated for police, fire or emergency medical services. Over half of the failing special tax or bond measures garnered more than 55% “yes” votes.
"Fail 55%+" = measure received over 55% yes votes but did not achieve the 2/3 approval needed to pass. "Fail<55%" = measure received less than 55% yes votes. ~Michael Coleman CaliforniaCityFinance.com Pass 812
Pass 1,151
Pass 895
Fail 734
Fail 213
Fail 292
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
2/3 Vote
55% Vote
Majority Vote
Local Revenue Measures - 2002 through November 2018
Cities, Counties, Special Districts and K-14 Schools
*School measures included here include parcel taxes and 2/3 vote bonds. Excludes 55% vote bonds. "Fail 55%+" = measure received over 55% yes votes but did not achieve the 2/3 approval needed to pass. "Fail<55%" = measure received less than 55% yes votes. ~Michael Coleman CaliforniaCityFinance.com Pass 281
Pass 240
Pass 68
Pass 223
Fail 55%+ 128
Fail 55%+ 129
Fail 55%+ 51
Fail 55%+ 124
Fail 168
Fail 271
Fail 82
Fail 213
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
School*
Special
District
County
City
Local Special Tax and G.O. Bond Measures - 2002 through November 2018 Cities, Counties, Special Districts and K-14 Schools
– 4 – 30 October 2019
CaliforniaCityFinance.com
Among the non-school special tax measures, nearly 2 out of 3 were parcel taxes. Fewer than half of these passed, but over 70% garnered greater than 55% voter approval. G.O. Bond measures fare only slightly better and two-thirds vote earmarked sales tax and hotel tax measures have fared much worse than their general purpose counterparts. Nearly nine out of ten general obligation bond measures received more than 55% yes votes.
*Parcel taxes or general obligation bonds require 2/3 vote regardless of purpose. These measures w ere general purpose parcel taxes or multi-purpose G.O. bonds. "Fail 55%+" = measure received over 55% yes votes but did not achieve the 2/3 approval needed to pass. "Fail<55%" = measure received less than 55% yes votes. ~Michael Coleman CaliforniaCityFinance.com Pass 52
Pass 10
Pass 77
Pass 70
Pass 224
Pass 53
Pass 11
Pass 34
Fail 55%+ 37
Fail 55%+ 9
Fail 55%+ 49
Fail 55%+ 39
Fail 55%+ 126
Fail 55%+ 24
Fail 55%+ 6
Fail 55%+ 14
Fail 74
Fail 16
Fail 89
Fail 69
Fail 236
Fail 46
Fail 8
Fail 28
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Other (facilities,
tourism, etc.)
General*
Transportation/Streets
Parks & Recreation
Police/Fire/EMS
Library
Homeless / Housing
Hospital/Medical
Local Special Tax & G.O. Bond Measures - 2002 through November 2018 Cities, Counties, and Special Districts
"Fail 55%+" = measure received over 55% yes votes but did not achieve the 2/3 approval needed to pass. "Fail<55%" = measure received less than 55% yes votes. ~Michael Coleman CaliforniaCityFinance.com "Other" includes parking taxes, business license taxes, property transfer taxes and other special taxes.
Pass 5
Pass 6
Pass 18
Pass 331
Pass 93
Pass 73
Fail 55%+ 7
Fail 55%+ 3
Fail 55%+ 8
Fail 55%+ 174
Fail 55%+ 67
Fail 55%+ 43
Fail 11
Fail 9
Fail 18
Fail 361
Fail 99
Fail 62
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Other
Utility Users Tax
Transient Occupancy (Hotel)
Parcel Tax
Sales Tax (Transactions & Use)
G.O. Bond
Local Special Tax & G.O. Bond Measures - 2002 through November 2018 Cities, Counties, and Special Districts - two-thirds voter approval – 5 – 30 October 2019
CaliforniaCityFinance.com
Non-School Local Measures – Majority vs Special
Aside from the variety of fees, assessments, and other revenue raising methods, local governments - especially cities and counties – have a variety of tax options. Over time, many areas of taxation once available to localities have been “occupied” by the state of California and made off limits to localities.
These include: personal and corporate income taxes, cigarette taxes, liquor taxes, and taxation of motor vehicles. Among the local options still available, the most common appearing on ballots are utility user taxes, hotel taxes and so-called add-on sales taxes. But well over one-third of local measures are parcel taxes.
252
41 168
64 187
54 280
68 171
60 250
57 264
44 429
57 410
122
41 143
32 120
28 100
34 100
27 101
18 102
24 102
38 107
0 100
200
300
400
500
600
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Fail Pass
72%
65%
81%
60%
79%
Local Tax and Bond Measures - 2002 through November 2018 67%
54% 61%
74%
50% 67% 66% 67%
63%
71%
69% 76%
~Michael Coleman CaliforniaCityFinance.com
~Michael Coleman CaliforniaCityFinance.com
Pass 531
Pass 895
Fail 55%+ 304
Fail 564
Fail 292
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
2/3 Vote
Majority Vote
Local Revenue Measures 2002 through November 2018
Cities, Counties, and Special Districts
– 6 – 30 October 2019
CaliforniaCityFinance.com
Among the measures proposed by cities, counties and special districts, three out of four majority vote measures passed.3 Only 48 percent of the two-thirds supermajority vote measures passed. However, a substantial portion of the losing two-thirds supermajority vote measures achieved a clear majority of “yes” votes. In fact, if 55 percent had been the constitutional standard for approval rather than two-thirds, three out of four might have passed.
As for voter thresholds, a lower vote threshold would clearly have a big effect on the success rate of these local tax measures. A lower vote threshold, such as 55 percent, would also entice more municipalities to choose to legally earmark their taxes, rationalizing that the additional yes votes from such an earmarking would exceed the additional five percent yes vote needed for passage.
Parcel Taxes – Cities, Counties and Special Districts
A parcel tax is an excise tax on real property that is based on either a flat per-parcel rate or a rate that varies depending upon use, size, and/or number of units on each parcel. Any increase or extension of a parcel tax by a local government in California requires the approval two-thirds of the voters. Forty-eight percent of the 693 non-school parcel tax measures have passed. Nearly half of those that failed achieved over 55 percent “yes” votes.
Parcel taxes may be imposed for any municipal purpose. Over half of the proposed parcel taxes since 2001 have been for public safety or medical services including law enforcement, gang suppression, fire suppression and prevention, emergency medical and hospital services, equipment and facilities. Although There are many factors that determine the success or failure of a ballot measure, some uses of funds appear to be more successful than others. The variation in purpose is a reflection of perceptions of which services need additional resources.
General Obligation Bonds Cities, Counties and Special Districts Except for certain school measures, general obligation bond measures require approval of twothirds of voters. Since 2001 there have been 120 non-school local general obligation bond measures in California.
Over half, 73, of the 135 measures passed. Among the 62 failing measures, 43 received more than 55 percent “yes” votes and all but four received majority voter approval. 3 Special districts may not impose general taxes. Taxes imposed by special districts are special taxes. – 7 – 30 October 2019
CaliforniaCityFinance.com
*Parcel taxes or general obligation bonds require 2/3 vote regardless of purpose. These measures w ere general purpose parcel taxes or multi-purpose G.O. bonds. "Fail 55%+" = measure received over 55% yes votes but did not achieve the 2/3 approval needed to pass. "Fail<55%" = measure received less than 55% yes votes. ~Michael Coleman CaliforniaCityFinance.com Pass 10
Pass 9
Pass 13
Pass 12
Pass 8
Pass 6
Pass 15
Fail 55%+ 5
Fail 55%+ 5
Fail 55%+ 5
Fail 55%+ 10
Fail 55%+ 7
Fail 55%+ 5
Fail 55%+ 6
Fail 6
Fail 6
Fail 12
Fail 14
Fail 9
Fail 6
Fail 9
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Other (facilities,
tourism, etc.)
Transportation/Streets
Parks & Recreation
Police/Fire/EMS
Library
Homeless / Housing
Hospital/Medical
General Obligation Bond Measures - 2002 through November 2018 Cities, Counties, and Special Districts
*Parcel taxes or general obligation bonds require 2/3 vote regardless of purpose. These measures w ere general purpose parcel taxes or multi-purpose G.O. bonds. "Fail 55%+" = measure received over 55% yes votes but did not achieve the 2/3 approval needed to pass. "Fail<55%" = measure received less than 55% yes votes. ~Michael Coleman CaliforniaCityFinance.com Pass 21
Pass 26
Pass 43
Pass 184
Pass 32
Pass 16
Fail 55%+ 10
Fail 55%+ 16
Fail 55%+ 25
Fail 55%+ 97
Fail 55%+ 13
Fail 55%+ 6
Fail 29
Fail 41
Fail 44
Fail 187
Fail 31
Fail 16
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Other (facilities,
tourism, etc.)
Transportation/Streets
Parks & Recreation
Police/Fire/EMS
Library
Hospital/Medical
Parcel Tax Measures - 2002 through November 2018
Cities, Counties, and Special Districts - two-thirds voter approval – 8 – 30 October 2019
CaliforniaCityFinance.com
Utility User Taxes
Every city in California levies the basic 1% local Bradley Burns Sales & Use Tax. Nearly every city in California levies a business license tax and a hotel tax (transient occupancy tax). But of the 482 incorporated cities in California, 158 levy a tax on the users of utility services such as gas, electric, water, cable TV or telecommunications services (including the City and County of San Francisco). Three of the other 57 counties levy a UUT in their unincorporated areas.
In the wake of the severe revenue constraints brought in part by Proposition 13, many communities considered adopting a utility user tax. During the first 25 years following the passage of Proposition 13, UUTs were the most common area of new taxation by cities. The passage of Proposition 218 in 1996 made all local tax increases – including UUTs – subject to voter approval.
Since 2001 there have been 227 local measures concerning UUTs, but just 91 of these were proposals to increase or adopt a new tax. Another 90 were to “modernize” or expand an existing telecommunications UUT to new technologies and billing methods (i.e. wireless, etc.). Other UUT measures proposed to extend or validate previously approved rates.
A. UUTs: Proposals for New or Increased Rates
All but one of the 91 measures to increase or adopt a new UUT since 2001 were by cities. The loan exception was a special UUT by the proposed Isla Vista Community Services District, a loan statutory exception allowing a special district to proposed a UUT. Eleven of the measures were special taxes designated for a specific purpose and requiring two-thirds voter approval. Among the 80 city general tax measures, 12 were accompanied by advisory measures indicating the use of the funds, the so-called “a/b strategy.” Six passed.
Utility User taxes appear far more difficult to pass than other taxes such as add-on sales taxes, UUTs or business license taxes. Based on this limited number of measures, it appears the “a/b” strategy might provide better success in some communities. But this is not borne out in other taxes, Pass 26
Pass 6
Pass 3
Fail 53
Fail 6
Fail 8
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
General Tax New/Incr.
General Tax
w/Advisory
Special Tax (2/3)
Utility User Tax Measures - 2002 through November 2018
Cities and Counties
– 9 – 30 October 2019
CaliforniaCityFinance.com
such as add-on sales taxes where “a/b strategy” appears to be no more successful than straight forward general tax proposals.
B. UUTs: La Habra Validations / Continuations
In the years following the passage of Proposition 62 in 1986, the legality of tax increases without voter approval was in dispute. The necessity of voter approval was finally settled in Santa Clara Local Transportation Authority v. Guardino (1995), the passage of Proposition 218 in 1996 and Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association v. City of La Habra (2001). A number of cities then placed measures on the ballot to validate – without increasing - taxes that had been previously imposed without voter approval. Other cities have proposed measures to extend – without increasing – existing tax levies that would otherwise sunset. Of the 48 measures since 2001 to extend or validate existing taxes, all but four passed.
C. UUT Modernizations
Over the past decade or so, many utility user tax ordinances have fallen out of step with changes in telecommunications technology, billing practices, and federal tax law. In order to continue to apply these taxes to telecommunications users, local UUT laws have needed revision, and in order not to run afoul of the voter approval requirements of Proposition 218, many localities have sought to revise their UUTs with voter approval. Among the 90 measures to modernize and expand UUTs to cover new telecommunications technologies, 38 maintained the same tax rate, but 52 accompanied the revision/expansion with a small reduction in the UUT rate on telecommunications.
Pass 44 Fail 4
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Extension/Validation
Utility User Tax Measures - 2002 through November 2018
Cities and Counties
Pass 31
Pass 50
Fail
7 Fail
2 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Modernize/
SameRate
Modernize /
Reduce
Utility User Tax Measures - 2002 through November 2018
Cities and Counties
– 10 – 30 October 2019
CaliforniaCityFinance.com
Among these 90 UUT modernization measures, just nine have failed and each of these failures had unique story. For example, in March 2007, voters in the City of Covina – where controversy over the city’s UUT has a lengthy history - rejected a UUT modernization proposal. But in June 2008, following a better effort by supporters, Covina voters approved a UUT modernization measure maintaining the 5% rate.
D. UUT-911 Validations
A number of years ago, several cities imposed new charges on telephone customers to cover the costs of 911 emergency call center operations. These agencies imposed these charges as regulatory fees. Unlike taxes, regulatory fees may be approved by a majority of a city council or board of supervisors and do not require voter approval. Subsequent court decisions cast the legality of these fees into doubt and in response, a number of agencies put their charges up to voter approval. Three of the five proposed measures passed.
E. Utility Transfers
Recent litigation casted doubt on the legality of the practice by cities of transferring revenues from utility funds to their general funds in the form of such things as “in-lieu taxes” or “in-lieu franchise fees.” Some taxpayer groups have argued that these transfers are taxes and must be voter approved.
Although this are of law is not yet settled, seven cities have taken measures to their voters for approval of such transfers. Five passed, two failed. Most of these measures validated existing practice and thus resulted in no rate (tax) increase.
Transient Occupancy (Hotel) Taxes
Nearly every city and county in California imposes a tax on hotels, motels and other short term accommodations. Commonly called “hotel taxes,” they are called Transient Occupancy Taxes (TOT) in California law. Since 2001 there have been 277 measures to expand or increase TOTs including 230 city measures and 47 county measures. Most (256) of these proposals sought to increase a TOT rate, establish a new TOT, or expand an existing TOT to a new class of rate payers such as vacation properties or campgrounds. Others sought to validate or extend (beyond a sunset date) an existing tax rate.
Twenty-six of the new/increase/expand proposals were earmarked for a particular purpose, typically tourism development, making these measures special taxes requiring two-thirds voter approval. Seventeen of these special tax measures passed, although eight of the 18 failing measures achieved more than 55 percent “yes” votes. Of the 221 majority vote general tax TOT proposals, two out of three (149) passed.
Twenty-one measures sought to validate or extend an existing levied tax. All but one passed.
Pass 5 Fail 2
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Utility
Transfers
Utility Transfer Measures - 2002 through November 2018
– 11 – 30 October 2019
CaliforniaCityFinance.com
Add-on Sales Taxes (Transactions and Use Taxes)
In 2003, California law was changed to allow cities and counties to seek increases to the sales and use tax. Since that time, these “add-on sales taxes” transactions & use tax additions to the basic sales and use tax have become more and more common.
Prior to 2003, the most common transactions and use tax measures were those for a specific countywide need, most commonly transportation. Where approved, these countywide transportation sales taxes must be accompanied with a detailed spending plan and enable counties to receive matching state transportation funds.
A more in depth report on local Add-On Sales Taxes in California may be found at http://californiacityfinance.com/index.php#SALESTAX.
A. General Purpose Add-On Sales Taxes
There have been 336 general-purpose, majority-vote add-on sales tax measures since 2001 to add a ¼, ½, ¾ or 1 percent tax rate. Fifty-three other measures proposed to extend an existing general purpose sales tax rate. Over two-thirds of the tax increases were successful. The success rate for so called A/B advisory measure approaches was slightly worse.
Pass 20
Pass 17
Pass 149
Fail 55%+ 8
Fail
1 Fail 18
Fail 72
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Validate/Extend
New/Increase/Expand
Special Tax (2/3)
New/Increase/Expand
General Tax
Transient Occupancy (Hotel) Tax Measures - 2002 through November 2018 Cities and Counties
– 12 – 30 October 2019
CaliforniaCityFinance.com
Most of these measures were by cities. Among the 267 general purpose sales tax increase proposals were just 19 county measures of which just five were successful.
B. Countywide Transportation Sales Taxes
The original law authorizing the adoption of local “transactions and use tax” add-ons to the combined state and local sales tax rate was adopted in 1969 with the particular intent to provide for regional transportation and public transit funding. The Bay Area Rapid Transit District in the San Francisco Bay Area began its ½ percent rate in April 1970. The Southern California Rapid Transit District followed in July 1970.
Today, countywide Transportation Sales Taxes are levied in 24 counties. Many of these taxes were initially adopted without a public vote. Most have end dates and consequently, due to the 1996 passage of Proposition 218, require two-thirds voter approval to be extended. Among the 15 attempts to extend existing countywide transportation taxes since 2001, only a 2002 measure in Imperial County and a 2012 measure in Los Angeles failed. Both counties succeeded with later attempts.
Pass 48
Pass 6
Pass 242
Fail 5
Fail 9
Fail 79
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
ExtensionGeneral
General Tax
w/Advisory
General Tax
New/Incr.
Transactions & Use (Sales) Tax Measures General - 2002 through Nov.2018 "Fail 55%+" = measure received over 55% yes votes but did not achieve the 2/3 approval needed to pass. "Fail<55%" = measure received less than 55% yes votes. ~Michael Coleman CaliforniaCityFinance.com Pass 17
Pass 13
Fail 55%+ 19
Fail
55%+
1 Fail 28
Fail
2 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
New/Increase
Extension
Countywide Transportation Sales Tax Measures - 2002 through November 2018 – 13 – 30 October 2019
CaliforniaCityFinance.com
Proposals for new or increased transportation sales taxes have fared less well with 17 of 45 passing, although 19 of the 28 failures achieved greater than 55 percent “yes” votes. In several counties, sponsors of failing measures have later returned with similar proposals. o Solano County voters have rejected ½ percent
transportation sales tax measures on three occasions:
November 2002 at 60 percent yes, November 2004 at 64
percent yes, June 2006 at 45 percent yes. In June 2016, Solano county voters rejected Measure S with 44 percent “yes.” The majority vote general purpose measure was
accompanied by advisory measure that the funds be used
for transportation purposes.
o Merced County voters also knocked down three:
(November 2002 at 61 percent, June 2006 at 63 percent,
November 2006 at 61 percent) before approving
Measure G in November 2016 with 69 percent yes.
o In Monterey County, voters in November 2016 narrowly
approved Measure X, a 3/8 percent tax, after two prior
two attempts had been turned back (June 2006 at 57
percent yes, November 2008 at 62 percent yes).
o Stanislaus County transportation advocates also tried and failed twice (November 2006 at 58 percent, November 2008 at 66 percent) before succeeding in November 2016 with Measure L (71 percent yes).
o Proposals for new transportation sales taxes have also been turned down in Amador, Kern, Napa and Ventura Counties.
C. Special Add-On Sales Taxes (Other than countywide transportation) Since 2001 there have been 115 add-on sales tax measures earmarked for a particular purpose other than countywide transit or transportation. These special taxes require two-thirds voter approval.
Proposals dedicated to law enforcement, fire or emergency medical services were the most common.
Eighteen of the 40 public safety special taxes passed with all but 8 garnering over 55 percent yes votes.
There were also ten measures to extend existing special purpose add-on sales taxes. Nine of the ten passed. The 2004 extension of a hospital tax in Mariposa County failed.
California Self Help Counties
(Passed Countywide Transactions &
Use Tax for transportation.)
Alameda Contra Costa
Fresno Imperial
Los Angeles Madera
Marin Merced (11/2016)
Napa Monterey (11/2016)
Orange Riverside
Sacramento San Bernardino
San Diego San Francisco
San Joaquin San Mateo
Santa Barbara Santa Clara
Sonoma Stanislaus (11/2016)
Tulare Santa Cruz (11/2016)
San Benito (11/2018)
– 14 – 30 October 2019
CaliforniaCityFinance.com
Other Taxes: Business License Tax, Property Transfer Tax, etc.
The various other tax measures proposed include business operations, parking, real property transfer and admissions taxes. These measures take a variety of forms and often involve circumstance unique to a particular community. For example, cities near a major airport have sought to increase the taxes on offstreet parking businesses and customers. The category of Business Operations Taxes (business license taxes) includes excise taxes on specific forms of business activity such as cannabis taxes, or sugary beverage taxes. Business Operations Tax measures are often a combination of higher and lower rates as a part of a larger revision to bring a city or county business license structure up to date.
While most of these measures were general purpose majority vote proposals, these taxes may be proposed as special taxes requiring two-thirds voter approval (see notes below chart). "Fail 55%+" = measure received over 55% yes votes but did not achieve the 2/3 approval needed to pass. "Fail<55%" = measure received less than 55% yes votes. ~Michael Coleman CaliforniaCityFinance.com Pass 6
Pass 13
Pass 8
Pass 12
Pass 22
Fail 55%+ 11
Fail 55%+ 4
Fail 55%+ 6
Fail 55%+ 8
Fail 55%+ 17
Fail 14
Fail 6
Fail 9
Fail 11
Fail 27
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Other
Library
Parks/OpenSpace
Streets/Roads
Police/Fire/EMS
Transactions & Use (Sales) Tax Measures Special Purpose* - 2002 through Nov.2018 * Except Countywide Transportation Sales Taxes
– 15 – 30 October 2019
CaliforniaCityFinance.com
Conclusions
This survey of local revenue measures since 2001 leads to some noteworthy observations. A proposal to increase a general purpose tax is more likely to succeed than a special tax. Generally, the additional hurdle of the two-thirds vote exceeds the appeal of dedicating a tax to a specific purpose.
Generally speaking, special taxes for broad based public safety services (law enforcement, fire, emergency medical) are more likely to garner two-thirds voter approval than other purposes. Twothirds parcel taxes for schools are also more successful than not. The so-called a/b advisory vote approach to general tax measures appears to have little effect on the success or failure of a measure.
For cities and counties, add-on sales (transactions & use), transient occupancy (hotel), and business license tax increase measures all succeed more often than proposals to increase utility user taxes.
UUTs are among the most difficult taxes to pass.
Nearly every proposal to modernize existing utility user taxes on telecommunications, including broadening the tax base to cover newer technologies has succeeded, whether the UUT rate is maintained or reduced.
Most extensions and revisions of existing taxes that do not increase the rate are successful.
Three of the Busn License Tax meas ures were 2/3vote. One passed, two failed with over 55% vote.
All parking tax and admis sions tax measures were majority vote general taxes.
Three of the 23 Property Transfer Tax measures were 2/3 vote special taxes in Berkeley. All failed, getting between 50% and 55% yes.
Pass 12
Pass 1
Pass 3
Pass 237
Fail 11
Fail 2
Fail 2
Fail 47
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Property Transfer Tax
Admissions Tax
Parking Tax
Business Operations
Tax
Other Tax Measures -2002 through November 2018
Cities and Counties
– 16 – 30 October 2019
CaliforniaCityFinance.com
Lowering the two-thirds vote approval threshold for special taxes 55 percent would substantially increase the passage rate of these measures, reducing the number of failing measures by half or more.
Lowering the two-thirds vote approval threshold for general obligation bonds to 55 percent would have an even more dramatic effect, increasing passage rates from around half to as high as 90 percent. Over 80 percent of fifty-five percent school bonds since 2001 passed. mjgc
For More Information:
Local tax measures and election results: http://www.californiacityfinance.com/#VOTES Coleman, Michael, The California Municipal Revenue Sources Handbook. Sacramento: League of California Cities.