CITY OF RICHMOND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
BALLOT MEASURE SURVEY
KEY FINDINGS PRESENTATION
SURVEY OF 800 CITY OF RICHMOND VOTERS
FIELDING DATES: MAY 12-29, 2026
MARGIN OF SAMPLING ERROR ± 3.44%
————————
JUNE 23, 2026
OVERVIEW
2 I. Research Objectives
II. Key Findings
III. Methodology
IV. Sample Characteristics
V. Detailed Key Findings
I. Mood of the Electorate
II. Ballot Measures Assessment
III. Funding Priorities
IV. Positive and Negative Information
RESEARCH OBJECTIVES
RESEARCH OBJECTIVES
4 Create a statistically valid sampling of likely voters in Richmond to assess the viability of a potential measure to provide funding for emergency services, including the assessment of:
A bond measure;
A parcel tax;
Identify the operational and infrastructural funding priorities of Richmond voters related to emergency services in the City; and
Understand the opportunities and risks associated with a potential measure, including identifying messaging frames and potential pathways to building a winning coalition.
KEY FINDINGS
KEY FINDINGS
6 1. Both measure receive nearly two-thirds support from voters upon initial ask. However, support for both measures is soft, with less than a third committed to definitely voting “yes” in favor.
2. Positive messages about bringing the City up to the same standard of care as the rest of the County and promoting life-saving care resonate highly with City of Richmond voters.
Additional, messages about improved responses times in emergencies also perform well.
3. However, negative messaging has the potential to erode support, particularly for the parcel tax. By contrast, the bond measure retains support —even after voters are exposed to negative messaging.
4. T op tier funding priorities identified by voters include providing 24/7 emergency response support, improving 911 response times,a n dhiring paramedics to improve the standard of care for City residents.
METHODOLOGY
SURVEY METHODOLOGY
8 Sample 800 City of Richmond
Likely V oters
Margin of Sampling
Error (MOE)
Full Sample: ± 3.44%
Split Sample: ± 4.88%
Data Collection
Modes and Language
Live T elephone Interviewing and Online
English and Spanish
Fielding Dates May 12—29, 2026
W eighting and
Rounding
Results have been weighted to match the
distribution of likely voters by party, gender, age,
ethnicity, and city council district. All numbers
are percentages; some may not sum precisely or
to 100% due to rounding.
SAMPLE CHARACTERISTICS
GENDER AND AGE
10 24%
17%
15%
16%
28%
18-34
Gender Age
Male
42%
Gender Unknown
8%
Female
50% 35-44
45-54
55-64
65+
COUNCIL DISTRICT, ETHNICITY, AND LANGUAGE
11 34%
27%
23%
12%
7%
AAPI
Black/African
American
Latino or Hispanic
White
Other/PNTA
12%
15%
13%
22%
20%
18%
District 1 (Brown) District 2 (Zepeda)
District 3 (Robinson) District 4 (Bana)
District 5 (Wilson) District 6 (Jimenez)
Council District
Language of Response
English
92%
Spanish
8%
Self-Reported Race/Ethnicity
DETAILED KEY FINDINGS
MOOD OF THE ELECTORATE
SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS AND FIREFIGHTERS
SEE NEAR UNIVERSAL FA VORABILITY
14 Small Business Owners
Richmond Firefighters **
The Richmond Firefighters’ Unions**
Q: For each one, please indicate if you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of that person, institution, or type of person. ( Ranked by T otal Favorable)*
*Percentages below 5% not displayed. **Items split sampled +80 pts.
Net
Favorability
+80 pts.
+58 pts.
84%
82%
62%
11%
16%
33%
Total Favorable Total NHO/CR Total Unfavorable
THE CITY COUNCIL ALSO ENJOYS POSITIVE NET FA VORABILITY 15 The Richmond City Council
The Chevron Corporation
Richmond Fire Chief Aaron Osorio
Q: For each one, please indicate if you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of that person, institution, or type of person. ( Ranked by T otal Favorable)*
*Percentages below 5% not displayed.
-22 pts.
Net
Favorability
+18 pts.
+19 pts.
45%
31%
22%
28%
16%
75%
27%
53%
Total Favorable Total NHO/CR Total Unfavorable
BALLOT MEASURES ASSESSMENT
RICHMOND FUNDING MEASURE ALTERNATIVES
The measure reads as follows:
17 PARCEL TAX
Shall the measure for the Richmond Fire
Department to provide 24/7 paramedic emergency
medical response services to victims of heart
attacks, strokes, overdoses, serious traumatic
injury and other significant medical conditions,
providing the same level of emergency medical
response received by all other County residents,
by imposing a parcel tax of $67 annually on all
taxable parcels , raising approximately $2,150,000
annually for 20 years with oversight, audits, cost-
of-living adjustments, exempting low-income
seniors and public disclosure be adopted?
BOND MEASURE
To help ensure rapid, 911 emergency medical
response, bring firefighter housing and equipment
to code/industry standard , reconstruct seismically
unsafe 80-year old fire stations,
replace electrical infrastructure requiring repair,
replace leaky pipes/roofs , and ensure structure
resiliency during disasters, shall the City issue
$120,000,000 in bonds at legal rates , with an
estimated average tax rate of $40 per $100,000 of
assessed valuation, requiring independent citizen
oversight, annual audits, and spending only on
approved projects?
BOTH MEASURES ENJOY STATISTICALLYIDENTICAL
INITIAL SUPPORT FROMVOTERS
18 Q: If the election were held today, would you vote “yes” in favor or “no” to oppose? 28%
30%
7%
4%
8%
14%
9%
Total
Ye s
65%
Total
No
26%
Bond Measure
Definitely yes
Probably yes
Undecided, lean yes
Definitely no
Probably no
Undecided, lean no
Purely undecided/
Prefer not to answer
Total
Ye s
66%
Total
No
26%
Parcel Tax
27%
29%
10%
3%
10%
13%
8%
35%
29%
7%
3%
8%
12%
6%
31%
30%
8%
3%
8%
14%
6%
28%
30%
7%
4%
8%
14%
9%
BOND MEASURE VOTE PROGRESSION
19 *May not sum precisely due to rounding.
Definitely yes
Probably yes
Undecided, lean yes
Definitely no
Probably no
Undecided, lean no
Purely undecided/
Prefer not to answer
Q: If this measure were on the ballot and the election were held today, would you vote “yes” in favor of it or “no” to oppose it? (Bond Measure)* Total
Ye s
65%
Total
No
26%
Initial V ote
Total
Ye s
72%
Total
No
23%
Total
No
25%
Total
Ye s
69%
Second V ote Final V ote
YOUNGER AND LATINOVOTERS MAKE UP
THE BOND MEASURE’S BASE SUPPORTERS
20 Q: If this measure were on the ballot and the election were held today, would you vote “yes” in favor of it or “no” to oppose it? (Bond Measure)* * Percentages below 5% not displayed. **N-size for sub-groups is less than 100. 67%
64%
71%
59%
74%
66%
63%
61%
10%
7%
7%
11%
8%
10%
10%
23%
29%
22%
30%
18%
24%
34%
29%
Total Yes Total Undecided/Skip/PNTA Total No
Total Yes
65%
Total No
26%
Total
Undecided/PNTA
9%
Bond Measure
Wo m e n
Men
Age Under 55
Age 55 or Older
Hispanic or Latino
Black or African
American
Asian**
Unknown Ethnicity
DISTRICT 3 AND 6 VOTERS REPRESENT THE BOND MEASURE’S
STRONGEST INITIAL SUPPORTERS
21 Q: If this measure were on the ballot and the election were held today, would you vote “yes” in favor of it or “no” to oppose it? (Bond Measure)* * Percentages below 5% not displayed. **N-size for sub-groups is less than 100. 66%
66%
53%
59%
61%
69%
61%
64%
73%
11%
5%
9%
5%
10%
10%
9%
9%
23%
29%
42%
31%
35%
21%
29%
27%
18%
Total Yes Total Undecided/Skip/PNTA Total No
Total Yes
65%
Total No
26%
Total
Undecided/PNTA
9%
Bond Measure
Democrats
No Party Preference/
Minor Party V oters
Republicans**
District 1 (Brown)**
District 2 (Zepeda)
District 3 (Robinson)
District 4 (Bana)
District 5 (Wilson)
District 6 (Jimenez)
TURNING OUT LOWER PROPENSITYVOTERS
WILL BE ESSENTIAL FOR SUCCESS
22 Q: If this measure were on the ballot and the election were held today, would you vote “yes” in favor of it or “no” to oppose it? (Bond Measure)* * Percentages below 5% not displayed. **N-size for sub-groups is less than 100. 67%
53%
63%
73%
62%
72%
62%
70%
8%
11%
9%
8%
9%
8%
9%
8%
25%
36%
28%
19%
29%
20%
29%
22%
Total Yes Total Undecided/Skip/PNTA Total No
Total Yes
65%
Total No
26%
Total
Undecided/PNTA
9%
Bond Measure
Likely November 2026
voters
Not likely 2026 voters**
Always votes in
Presidential elections
Not always votes in
Presidential elections**
Always votes in
Gubernatorial elections
Not always votes in
Gubernatorial elections
Always votes in
Primary elections
Not always votes in
Primary elections
30%
28%
5%
4%
9%
17%
6%
36%
30%
8%
3%
7%
11%
6%
PARCEL TAX VOTE PROGRESSION
23 *May not sum precisely due to rounding.
Definitely yes
Probably yes
Undecided, lean yes
Definitely no
Probably no
Undecided, lean no
Purely undecided/
Prefer not to answer
Q: If this measure were on the ballot and the election were held today, would you vote “yes” in favor of it or “no” to oppose it? (Parcel Tax)* Total
Ye s
66%
Total
No
26%
Initial V ote
Total
Ye s
73%
Total
No
21%
Second V ote
Total
Ye s
64%
Total
No
29%
Final V ote
27%
29%
10%
3%
10%
13%
8%
YOUNGER VORES ARE AMONG
THE PARCEL TAX’S BASE SUPPORTERS
24 Q: If this measure were on the ballot and the election were held today, would you vote “yes” in favor of it or “no” to oppose it? (Parcel T ax)* * Percentages below 5% not displayed. **N-size for sub-groups is less than 100. 69%
65%
70%
60%
69%
68%
67%
64%
11%
10%
6%
9%
11%
7%
6%
20%
31%
20%
35%
23%
22%
26%
30%
Total Yes Total Undecided/Skip/PNTA Total No
Total Yes
66%
Total No
26%
Total
Undecided/PNTA
8%
Parcel Tax
Wo m e n
Men
Age Under 55
Age 55 or Older
Asian**
Hispanic or Latino
Black or African
American
Unknown Ethnicity
DISTRICT 3 REPRESENT THE PARCEL TAX’S
STRONGEST INITIAL SUPPORTERS
25 * Percentages below 5% not displayed. **N-size for sub-groups is less than 100. 67%
67%
53%
66%
65%
76%
68%
65%
57%
9%
5%
8%
11%
5%
5%
7%
11%
8%
24%
28%
39%
23%
30%
18%
25%
24%
35%
Total Yes Total Undecided/Skip/PNTA Total No
Democrats
No Party Preference/
Minor Party V oters
Republicans**
District 1 (Brown)**
District 2 (Zepeda)
District 3 (Robinson)
District 4 (Bana)
District 5 (Wilson)
District 6 (Jimenez)
Q: If this measure were on the ballot and the election were held today, would you vote “yes” in favor of it or “no” to oppose it? (Parcel T ax)* Total Yes
66%
Total No
26%
Total
Undecided/PNTA
8%
Parcel Tax
SUPPORT FOR THE PARCEL TAX IS SLIGHTLY HIGHER
AMONG LOWER PROPENSITYVOTERS
26 * Percentages below 5% not displayed. **N-size for sub-groups is less than 100. 63%
93%
66%
68%
65%
68%
65%
68%
8%
5%
8%
7%
8%
8%
7%
9%
29%
26%
25%
27%
24%
28%
23%
Total Yes Total Undecided/Skip/PNTA Total No
Likely November 2026
voters
Not likely 2026 voters**
Always votes in
Presidential elections
Not always votes in
Presidential elections**
Always votes in
Gubernatorial elections
Not always votes in
Gubernatorial elections
Always votes in
Primary elections
Not always votes in
Primary elections
Q: If this measure were on the ballot and the election were held today, would you vote “yes” in favor of it or “no” to oppose it? (Parcel T ax)* Total Yes
66%
Total No
26%
Total
Undecided/PNTA
8%
Parcel Tax
FUNDING PRIORITIES
46%
45%
41%
39%
38%
40%
39%
37%
40%
45%
Extremely Important Very Important
*All items split-sampled.
PROVIDING 24/7 PARAMEDIC EMERGENCY SERVICES AND
IMPROVING RESPONSE TIMES RANK AS TOP FUNDING PRIORITIES 28 Total
Ext./V ery
Important
78%
85%
82%
Q: Please indicate how important it is to you personally that the following item receives funding. (Ranked by Extremely Important)* Providing 24/7 paramedic emergency
medical response services to victims of
heart attacks, strokes, overdoses,
serious traumatic injury and other
significant medical conditions
Hiring paramedics to help ensure
Richmond has the most highly trained
and skilled personnel to respond
rapidly to medical emergencies
Improving 911 emergency medical
response times
Providing the same level of emergency
medical response services received by
all other County residents
Bringing firefighter apparatus/
equipment up to industry standards
83%
79%
34%
33%
33%
32%
32%
44%
36%
36%
40%
37%
Extremely Important Very Important
*All items split-sampled.
INFRASTRUCTURAL IMPROVEMENTS RANK AS SECOND TIER
FUNDING PRIORITIES FOR VOTERS
29 69%
78%
69%
Q: Please indicate how important it is to you personally that the following item receives funding. (Ranked by Extremely Important)* Improving firefighter equipment
to help ensure faster emergency
responses times
Rehabilitating unsafe firefighter
housing, including mold and asbestos
abatement and removal
Replacing deteriorating electrical
systems, leaky pipes and roofs
in City fire stations
Ensuring the structural resiliency
of fire stations during disasters
Bringing Richmond fire stations
up to current building
and safety code standards
70%
71%
Total
Ext./V ery
Important
29%
26%
25%
24%
39%
38%
32%
30%
Extremely Important Very Important
*All items split-sampled.
THIRD TIER PRIORITIES STILL RANK AS IMPORTANT
FOR AT LEAST HALF OF RICHMOND VOTERS
30 57%
68%
Q: Please indicate how important it is to you personally that the following item receives funding. (Ranked by Extremely Important)* Upgrading firefighter medical training
from EMT to paramedic level
Reconstructing/modernizing and
enlarging seismically unsafe
80-year-old fire stations
Upgrading fire stations to create living
quarters for female firefighters,
which do not currently exist in some
Richmond fire stations
Ensuring that all new and renovated
buildings meet standards for energy
efficiency and environmentally-friendly
design
64%
55%
Total
Ext./V ery
Important
POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE INFORMATION
58%
53%
21%
32%
Very Conv. Somewhat Conv.
NEARLYTHREE IN FIVE FIND
THE PARAMEDICS MESSAGE VERY CONVINCING
32 BRINGING RICHMOND UPTO STANDARD: PARAMEDICS
Firefighters in all other cities in the Bay Area—except Richmond—have paramedic level medical training. Richmond is currently only staffed with EMTs. This means that in Richmond, we have to wait for an ambulance to arrive with paramedics when there are severe medical emergencies. Richmond deserves the same rapid-response, quality emergency medical response services as everyone else.
LIFE-SA VING CARE
Having paramedics on our fire trucks is an important part of emergency response. Paramedics are trained to perform EKG monitoring, cardiac pacing, IV treatments, and more lifesaving care bey ond basic life support offered by current firefighters trained as EMTs. This measure would provide funding for Richmond’s firefighters to obtain this advanced training , helping to ensure that faster life-saving care reaches residents as soon as possible.
Q: First, you will read some statements made by people who support the measure you have been reading about. After reading each statement, please indicate whether it is convincing or not convincing as a reason to vote “yes” in favor of the measure. (Ranked by Very Convincing)* 79%
85%
*All items split-sampled
Total
Conv.
46%
38%
39%
44%
Very Conv. Somewhat Conv.
THE MESSAGE ABOUT RESPONSE TIMES ALSO RESONATES
STRONGLYWITH VOTERS
33 RESPONSETIMES
In the event of a heart attack, stroke, overdose, serious traumatic injury, or other medical emergencies—every second count s. This measure will provide the funding needed to upgrade firefighter medical training to paramedic level. Since Richmond fire-fighters are often the first to arrive on the scene, this could shave as much as 4 minutes off emergency response times for life-saving paramedic services.
ONLY FIVE DOLLARS AND SIXTY CENTS
For about $5.60 a month, the Richmond Fire Department will be able to hire 20 paramedics and deploy 3 squad vehicles to support their current staff of 90 firefighters. This is a small price to pay to help ensure that Richmond has highly- skilled, rapid 911 emergency response capacity in place 24 hours a day, seven days a week to handle major disasters and medical emergencies.
Q: First, you will read some statements made by people who support the measure you have been reading about. After reading each statement, please indicate whether it is convincing or not convincing as a reason to vote “yes” in favor of the measure. (Ranked by Very Convincing)* 86%
81%
*All items split-sampled
Total
Conv.
49%
42%
35%
38%
Very Conv. Somewhat Conv.
ALMOST HALF FIND THE MESSAGE ABOUT RESPONSE TIMES TO BE
A VERY CONVINCING REASON TO SUPPORTTHE BOND MEASURE
34 RESPONSETIMES
In the event of a heart attack, stroke or serious traumatic injury, every second counts.
Given the size of our fire stations, firefighters can only accommodate enough personnel to respond to a limited number of emergencies at a time. Many also lack the latest technology and emergency response equipment. This means slower response times, placing residents at risk when speed is a matter of life or death.
HEALTH AND SAFETY FOR FIREFIGHTERS
Richmond’s fire stations are deteriorating and in need of major renovations to protect the health and safety of firefighters an d improve their housing conditions. This includes replacing seismically unsafe buildings with earthquake-safe stations; replacing cracking foundations and deteriorating electrical systems, pipes, and leaky roofs to prevent mold and mildew problems, and removing asbestos, flooring, and paint to remain up to date with current health and safety standards.
Q: First, you will read some statements made by people who support the measure you have been reading about. After reading each statement, please indicate whether it is convincing or not convincing as a reason to vote “yes” in favor of the measure. (Ranked by Very Convincing)* 84%
80%
*All items split-sampled
Total
Conv.
39%
36%
39%
42%
Very Conv. Somewhat Conv.
DISASTER READINESS MESSAGES FOR THE BOND MEASURE
ALSO RESONATEWITH MORE THAN A THIRD OF VOTERS
35 TOO SMALL
The oldest fire stations in Richmond were built nearly 100 years ago. Our fire stations are rapidly deteriorating, and many are too small to house modern firefighting equipment. Richmond’s fire engines have to be designed to fitall stations. This means smaller engines, which can hold less life-saving and fire fighting equipment—limiting their capacity to respond effectively to fires and major emergencies.
DISASTER READINESS/RESILIENCE
This measure will help Richmond be more resilient. The Bay Area has always been at high risk for major earthquakes—and catastrophic wildfires, flooding, and other extreme weather events are more and more common. By upgrading and modernizing fire stations and equipment, Richmond firefighters will be able to respond and recover quickly in the event of a disaster—reducing the number of injuries, saving lives, and speeding the City’s recovery.
Q: First, you will read some statements made by people who support the measure you have been reading about. After reading each statement, please indicate whether it is convincing or not convincing as a reason to vote “yes” in favor of the measure. (Ranked by Very Convincing)* 78%
78%
*All items split-sampled
Total
Conv.
NEGATIVE MESSAGES ABOUT AFFORDABILITY
HAV EPOTENTIAL TO ERODE SUPPORT
36 Q: Next, you will read some statements made by people who oppose the measure you have been reading about. After reading each statement, please indicate whether it is convincing or not convincing as a reason to vote “no” to oppose the measure. (Ranked byVery Convincing) 40%
35%
15%
31%
35%
30%
Very Conv. Somewhat Conv.
71%
71%
45%
Total
Conv.
*Item shown to respondents who saw parcel tax language. **Item shown to respondents who saw the bond measure language.
AFFORDABILITY*
This measure will increase our taxes. With the high cost of housing, groceries, and inflation overall, many working Richmond families are already having a hard time making ends meet.W e simply cannot afford any new taxes.
CHEVRON REVENUE
Richmond just got over half a billion dollars in a settlement from Chevron. W e don’t need to raise taxes again. Instead, the city should be more responsible and spend the money it already has.
RESPONSETIMES
**
Renovating old fire stations or hiring more staff won’t move the fire station any closer to emergencies when they happen. Increasing funding here won’t lead to faster response times.
65%
72% 69%66%
73%
64%
60%
65%
70%
75%
Bond Measure Yes Bond Measure No Parcel Tax Yes Parcel Tax No 26% 23% 25%
21%
29%
15%
20%
25%
30%
Baseline Vote Second Vote Final Vote
THE BOND MEASURE HAS THE STRONGEST RESILIENCE
IN THE FACE OF NEGATIVE MESSAGING
37 Q: If the election were held today, would you vote “yes” in favor or “no” to oppose? www .evitarus.com