7/8/26, 12 24 PM Manage Survey Statistics Text Report
https //www portolavalley net/Admin/Components/Form/Statistics/TextStatisticsDetail/?page 8&size 30&formId 67&itemID 93237&id 7945 2/4 7/8/26, 12 24 PM Manage Survey Statistics Text Report
https //www portolavalley net/Admin/Components/Form/Statistics/TextStatisticsDetail/?page 8&size 30&formId 67&itemID 93237&id 7945 3/4
3.12. Exemptions
Good list, but add a few more exemptions to minimize double transfer taxes on same properties or same buyers/sellers of multiple properties in short time period.
-if any specific property has already been subject to this tax in a period starting (3, or 5) years prior to the current sale of the property, or -if either buyer or seller has already been subject to this tax on a different property within the previous 3 (or 5) year period Section 4. Following certification of election, a period longer than 10 days is warranted before tax takes effect.
It is possible that a few transactions may already have completed contract negotiations, financing arrangements, and/or scheduled closing before the vote certification date happens. Only a 10 day period before imposition introduces an element that would require contract renegotiation and disruption of closing schedule and, in extreme cases, even the sale transaction itself. Suggest at least a 30-45 day, or date certain like January 1, 2027, after vote certification before tax goes into effect.
Offer a competing (2nd) ballot measure as tax alternative to a RETT, such as a 3-3.5% increase in the existing 5.5% UUT general fund tax.
The reason is that the real error in estimating the likelihood of passing a RETT is significantly larger than the error rate reported by the consultant in their calculations. You need to add a second alternative tax measure, because you really can’t be confident that a RETT is the best alternative or would have the best chance of passing.
The consultant correctly calculated the standard error and 95% confidence interval for a sample of n=225 out of approximately 1900 voters. But that only applies to the one question that was asked in the manner it was asked. There is an additional “specification” error based on the way the question was phrased and the factual basis of what was stated in the question, which increases the total overall error in relying on the single outcome of 61% favorability.
The question was asked in a manner (in the order in which Town spending priorities was listed) that the respondent was led to presume the new tax proceeds would be spent largely on police/emergency services and wildfire protection and preparation. We know that is false, or at least misleading.
Those things are always a priority and have been prioritized and funded fully in the recent year’s budgets and new tax proceeds aren’t going to significantly increase those activities. New revenues will go largely to maintaining and developing staff, funding employee benefits, paying consultants, adding funds to maintain our general fund reserves, and possibly accelerating a few capital projects that are already identified for funding. Those may al be reasonable and worthy expenditures, but it is clear that you believe highlighting fire and public safety is the best way to “juice” the positive response for a RETT. The more appropriate place to discuss spending possibilities is in the ballot arguments, not to try to skew the answers to what you want to hear now.
The survey last October also implied that without charter city, the Town is at risk of losing its autonomy and control over its own taxation, which has no been demonstrated.