CITY OF SAN MATEO
City Council Special Meeting
January 12, 2026
6:00 PM
San Mateo Main Library, Oak Room
55 West 3rd Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94402
COUNCIL MEMBERS
Adam Loraine
Nicole Fernandez
Danielle Cwirko-Godycki
Lisa Diaz Nash
Robert Newsom Jr.
AGENDA
THIS MEETING CAN BE ATTENDED IN PERSON OR REMOTE BY JOINING ZOOM – SEE CODES BELOW.
PUBLIC COMMENTS WILL BE ACCEPTED BOTH IN PERSON AND REMOTELY .
SEE END OF AGENDA FOR OPTIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS ON HOW TO PARTICIPATE IN THE MEETING.
To join via Zoom – click here:
January 12, 2026
To join via telephone: (408) 638-0968
Webinar ID: 818 3716 7734 Passcode: 538369
This meeting is being held at the San Mateo Main Public Library – Oak Room due to construction at City Hall, as authorized by City Charter Section 2.10.
CALL TO ORDER
Roll Call
AB 2449 Requests and Considerations for Meeting Participation by Teleconference due to Just Cause or Emergency Circumstances
STUDY SESSION
The public will have an opportunity to comment during the consideration of this item.
1. Potential Ballot Measures for November 2026 — Survey Results and Council Direction Receive a presentation from the City’s consultant, True North Research, concerning the potential Revenue Measures Polling Survey results and provide staff with direction on whether to proceed with informing and educating the community about one of the potential ballot measures in preparation for the November 2026 election.
CEQA: This item is not a project subject to CEQA, because it is an organizational or administrative activity that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(5).)
ADJOURNMENT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- AGENDAS:
Agendas and material are posted on the City’s website on the Friday preceding each Council Meeting and can be viewed on the City's website at
www.cityofsanmateo.org
. Any supplemental material distributed to the Council after the posting of the agenda will be made part of the official record.
WATCHING A MEETING ON TV:
City Council meetings are broadcast live on Comcast/channel 27, Wave/channel 26, or AT&T/channel 99.
For transmission problems during the broadcast, please call (650) 522-7099. For all other broadcast comments, call (650) 522-7040, Monday-Friday, 8 a.m. - 5 p.m.
WATCHING A MEETING ON A COMPUTER:
There are three ways to stream.
1) Public Meeting Portal
www.cityofsanmateo.org/publicmeetings
2) City YouTube channel and stream it on YouTube:
http://youtube.com/CityofSanMateo
1 of 62
3) Watch TV live stream:
https://www.cityofsanmateo.org/193/Channel-San-Mateo-Live-Stream
PUBLIC COMMENTS/REQUEST TO SPEAK
Prior to the Meeting
Send comments to:
[email protected]
until 4 p.m. the day of the meeting.
During the meeting
By Zoom:
Click the link at the top of the agenda and you’ll be added to the meeting. All attendees are muted by default. When the item of interest is open for consideration, select the “Raise Your Hand” icon and you will be called on at the appropriate time.
By telephone:
Call (408) 638-0968 and enter the conference ID found at the top of the meeting agenda. When the item of interest is open for consideration, select *9 to raise your hand. When called upon, press *6 to unmute, state your name and provide your comments.
In Person:
At the meeting complete a “Request to Speak” form. Organized Group and Presentations: Up to five (5) minutes for a group presentation, with as many speakers as can be accommodated within that time allowance. To qualify for a group presentation, all individuals associated with the presentation must be clearly identified and confirmed as in attendance at the meeting. Presentation materials must be submitted to [email protected] one (1) business day in advance of the meeting.
ACCESSIBILITY:
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and to ensure meaningful access for all participants, including those with limited English proficiency, individuals requiring special accommodations or language assistance to participate in this meeting may contact the City Clerk’s Office at (650) 522-7040 or [email protected] . Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting.
2 of 62
CITY OF SAN MATEO
6 1
6 0
CITY OF SAN MATEO
Agenda Report
City Hall
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo CA 94403
www.cityofsanmateo.org
Agenda Number: 1 Section Name: STUDY SESSION Account Number: 10-1311 File ID: 25-10779 TO: City Council
FROM: Alex Khojikian, City Manager
PREPARED BY: City Manager's Office
MEETING DATE: January 12, 2026
SUBJECT:
Potential Ballot Measures for November 2026 — Survey Results and Council Direction RECOMMENDATION:
Receive a presentation from the City’s consultant, True North Research, concerning the potential Revenue Measures Polling Survey results and provide staff with direction on whether to proceed with informing and educating the community about one of the potential ballot measures in preparation for the November 2026 election.
BACKGROUND:
At the June 16, 2025 City Council meeting to adopt the FY 25-26 Citywide budget, the City Council adopted a General Fund budget that anticipated a budget deficit of $12 million. City staff has revised its estimated budget deficit to $14 million since the adoption of the budget because the State’s adopted budget only included 67 percent of the total Vehicle License Fee (VLF) backfill owed to the City in FY 25-26. Due to this estimated budget deficit and the anticipated budget deficits projected over the next 10 years as part of the General Fund 10-year forecast, the City has implemented a Fiscal Sustainability Plan. As part of this plan, staff continues to review opportunities to reduce General Fund expenditures, improve cost recovery and cost allocation, pursue grant opportunities, and strategize Citywide economic development.
Another key component of this plan is to review revenue enhancement options such as a November 2026 ballot measure to bring in new revenues to both sustain city services at their current levels by offsetting the projected $5 -$7 million per year structural operating deficits and to fund the estimated $350 million in capital improvements and infrastructure needs for which there is insufficient funding.
City staff reviewed potential ballot measure options with the Revenue Measure Ad Hoc Committee on August 6, 2025.
Then staff reviewed the potential ballot measure options with the full Council on August 16, 2025. Council expressed a desire to better understand San Mateo voter sentiments regarding a 1/4 cent transactions and use (“sales”) tax and a General Obligation Bond, and polling was conducted through a statistically reliable survey in November 2026.
Revenue Measure Options
Transactions and Use Tax (sales tax)
The City can add a transactions and use tax, also known as a district or local add-on sales tax, on top of the regular sales tax. A sales tax applies to merchandise that is delivered within a jurisdiction and does not apply to grocery items or prescription medicines. San Mateo voters approved Measure S, a sales tax, in November 2015, which extended Measure L, a 1/4 cent sales tax. Since the passage of Measure RR in November 2020 to support Caltrain operations, the sales tax rate in the City of San Mateo has been 9.625 percent. The State of California imposes a limit of two percent above the statewide base sales tax rate (7.25%). Since 0.625 percent of the City’s current sales tax is exempt from this limit, the City still has 1/4 cent of capacity left before reaching the limit. If another entity places a sales tax measure on the ballot before the City uses its cap, the City may no longer have the option to add a 1/4 cent sales tax for local funding that stays within the City limits. In order to pass, this measure would require a simple majority (50% plus 1) voter approval, and the
3 of 62
CITY OF SAN MATEO
6 1
6 0
proceeds can be used to fund general municipal services, such as:
keeping streets, sidewalks, parks, infrastructure, and community facilities safe, clean, and well-maintained fixing potholes
providing quick responses to 911 emergencies
paving and maintaining local streets and roads
providing fire protection and paramedic services.
General Obligation Bond
Another specific type of revenue enhancement that the City could pursue is a General Obligation (GO) bond. A GO bond requires 2/3 voter approval and once approved authorizes the City to sell bonds based on a levy or tax on real and personal property within the City limits. For a GO bond, the voters approve a maximum bond issuance amount and the use of the bond proceeds, but not a specific tax rate or annual payment. Revenues from a GO bond can only be used for approved infrastructure improvements and not for operating expenses. Thus, this revenue source is appropriate for addressing the City’s unfunded capital improvement needs. The City’s municipal advisor, UFI, analyzed three scenarios for potential GO bond issuances. In each scenario they developed what the tax rate per $100,000 of assessed value would be for a parcel, based on an estimated total amount of bond proceeds being approved. Table 1 outlines the estimated tax rates and bond proceeds.
As shown, property owners would pay approximately $30 per $100,000 of assessed valuation on their property per year if the City received approval to bond $325 million, close to the amount currently estimated in unfunded infrastructure needs.
Survey Methodology and Objectives
Between November 10 and November 15, 2025, True North Research administered the survey to a stratified random sample of 1,012 registered voters in the City of San Mateo who are likely to participate in the November 2026 election.
The survey followed a mixed-method design that employed multiple recruiting methods (email, text, and telephone) and multiple data collection methods (telephone and online). The average interview lasted 17 minutes and the survey is statistically reliable.
One of the objectives of the study was to determine how support for a local revenue measure may vary depending on the type of financial mechanism employed: bond or sales tax. To reliably estimate support for the different types of measures, a split-sample methodology was employed such that half of voters were administered a survey that focused on a bond measure and the other half were asked questions regarding a potential sales tax measure. All 1,012 respondents received common questions that applied to both types of measures.
Key Findings - Is a revenue measure feasible for 2026?
Voters have a high regard for the quality of life in San Mateo (86% rate it as excellent or good) and are generally satisfied with the City’s provision of services (74% very or somewhat satisfied). How these sentiments translate into support for a
4 of 62
CITY OF SAN MATEO
6 1
6 0
local revenue measure—and the feasibility of the measure if placed on a ballot in 2026 — depends on the type of measure being considered.
Sales Tax
A majority of voters initially exhibited support for a 1/4 cent sales tax to fund San Mateo city services, such as fire protection, paramedic, and 911 emergency response, police and crime prevention, keeping local streets, sidewalks, parks, infrastructure, and community facilities safe, clean, and well maintained, and addressing homelessness. With just the information conveyed in the 75-word ballot statement, 53% of voters indicated they would support the sales tax at the Initial Ballot Test (3% above the requisite simple majority threshold). Additionally, support for the sales tax increased over the course of the interview in response to the projects that could be funded and the arguments tested, ending the survey 6% above the threshold required for passage at the Final Ballot Test.
General Obligation Bond
The survey results were less promising with respect to the feasibility of a $325 million bond to pave and maintain local streets, fix potholes, improve intersections for traffic flow/safety, repair/replace aging infrastructure, upgrade community parks and playfields, and repair/restore community facilities including fixing deteriorating roofs, plumbing, sewer, and electrical systems. Although 59% of respondents initially supported the bond, the threshold required for passage of a bond is higher (two-thirds). Support for the bond also declined over the course of the survey in response to tax rate information and negative arguments, landing at 54% at the Final Ballot Test.
Key Findings Summary
The results of this survey indicate that a general sales tax may be feasible for the November 2026 ballot provided that it focuses on voters’ priorities and is accompanied by robust voter/opinion leader engagement, education, and communication. The results of the survey indicate that a general obligation bond is not feasible given that it needs two- thirds voter approval and landed 13 percentage points below this level at the Final Ballot Test. Figure 2 below provides the Final Ballot Test percentages for both the bond and sales tax. Additionally, True North Research’s Baseline Revenue Measure Survey Summary report can be seen in full as Attachment 1.
Figure 2 Final Ballot Test
January 7, 2026 City Council Ad Hoc Committee Meeting
At the January 7 meeting, City staff and True North Research presented the results of the Baseline Revenue Measure
5 of 62
CITY OF SAN MATEO
6 1
6 0
Survey Summary, and the Ad Hoc Committee (Deputy Mayor Fernandez and Councilmember Cwirko-Godycki) recommended to continue educating and informing the community about the potential 1/4 cent sales tax measure. The Ad Hoc Committee stated that since the City still has 1/4 cent of capacity left before reaching its sales tax limit, it’s important to act now and keep the 1/4 cent of sales tax within the City. If another entity places a sales tax measure on the ballot before the City reaches the limit, the City may no longer have the option to add sales tax for local funding. The Ad Hoc Committee also recommended that the City should pause education and outreach for the general obligation bond based on the Final Ballot Test results, and the need for two-thirds approval.
Options for City Council Consideration
1. Should the City staff proceed with education and outreach on the sales tax measure and return to Council for a decision whether to place it on the November 2026 ballot?
2. Should the City proceed with education and outreach on the general obligation bond and return to Council for a decision whether to place it on the November 2026 ballot?
3. Should the City proceed with education and outreach on the sales tax measure and general obligation bond and return to Council for a decision whether to place one or both on the November 2026 ballot?
4. Should the City not proceed with education and outreach on either the sales tax measure or the general obligation bond and no longer pursue a revenue measure for the November 2026 ballot? Next steps
If staff receives City Council direction to move forward with option 1, 2, or 3, staff will engage in an educational outreach effort to inform the community about the potential November 2026 ballot measures from January through July 2026. This outreach will include meeting with dozens of community stakeholder organizations and providing educational information to the community. Informational outreach to the full community will include communitywide mailers and digital advertising that is linked to a City dedicated informational website. State election law requires that the City no longer spend City resources or staff time on outreach to the community once Council makes a final determination that an item will be placed on the ballot, which is anticipated to be decided in July 2026.
BUDGET IMPACT:
There are no costs associated with receiving this report. Funding for consultant services is available for Council consideration during the January 12, 2026 City Council Regular Meeting.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:
This item is not a project subject to CEQA, because it is an organizational or administrative activity that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(5).)
NOTICE PROVIDED
All meeting noticing requirements were met.
ATTACHMENTS
Att 1 – San Mateo Revenue Measure Baseline Survey Report
STAFF CONTACT
Zachary Reda, Senior Management Analyst
[email protected]
(650) 435-0823
6 of 62
7 of 62
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
8 of 62
Table of Contents
iCity of San Mateo True No rth Research, Inc. © 2025
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
T ABLE OF C ONTENTS
Table of Contents. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i List of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii List of Figures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Motivation for Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Testing Two Funding Alternatives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Overview of Methodology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Organization of Report. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Disclaimer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 About True North . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Key Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Quality of Life & City Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Quality of Life. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Question 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Changes to Improve San Mateo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Question 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Overall Performance Rating . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Question 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Initial Ballot Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Support by Measure Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Question 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Question 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Support by Subgroups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Reasons for Not Supporting Measure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Question 6/8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Tax Threshold for Bond . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Question 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Annualized Bond Impact for Median Homeowner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Question 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Projects & Services. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Question 11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Project & Service Ratings by Initial Support. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Positive Arguments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Question 12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Positive Arguments by Initial Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Interim Ballot Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Question 13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Question 14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Support by Subgroups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Negative Arguments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Question 15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Negative Arguments by Initial Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Final Ballot Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Question 16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Question 17 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Change in Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Background & Demographics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Questionnaire Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Programming & Pre-Test. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Sample. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
9 of 62
Table of Contents
iiCity of San Mateo True No rth Research, Inc. © 2025
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Statistical Margin of Error . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Recruiting & Data Collection. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Data Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Rounding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Questionnaire & Toplines. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
10 of 62
List of Tables
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 iii
City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
L IST OF T ABLES
Table 1 Demographic Breakdown of Support at Initia l Ballot Test: Bond. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Table 2 Demographic Breakdown of Support at Initia l Ballot Test: Sales Tax . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Table 3 Top Projects & Services by Position at Initia l Ballot Test. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Table 4 Top Positive Arguments by Position at Initial Ballot Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Table 5 Demographic Breakdown of Support at Interi m Ballot Test: Bond . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Table 6 Demographic Breakdown of Support at Inte rim Ballot Test: Sales Tax . . . . . . . . . . 27 Table 7 Top Negative Arguments by Position at Initia l Ballot Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Table 8 Demographic Breakdown of Support at Final Ballot Test: Bond . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Table 9 Demographic Breakdown of Support at Final Ballot Test: Sales Tax . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Table 10 Movement Between Initial & Final Ballot Test: Bo nd . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Table 11 Movement Between Initial & Final Ballot Test: Sales Tax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Table 12 Demographics of Sample . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
11 of 62
List of Figures
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 iv
City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
L IST OF F IGURES
Figure 1 Quality of Life . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Figure 2 Quality of Life by Years in San Mateo, Over all Satisfaction & Gender . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Figure 3 Quality of Life by Age & Homeowner on Voter File. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Figure 4 Changes to Improve City. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Figure 5 Overall Satisfaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Figure 6 Overall Satisfaction by Years in San Mateo, Homeowner on Voter File & Gender . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Figure 7 Overall Satisfaction by Age & Quality of Life . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Figure 8 Initial Ballot Test: Bond & Sales Tax. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Figure 9 Reasons for Not Supporting Measure: Bond. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Figure 10 Reasons for Not Supporting Measure: Sales Tax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Figure 11 Tax Threshold: Bond. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Figure 12 Tax Threshold of $225 per Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Figure 13 Projects & Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Figure 14 Positive Arguments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Figure 15 Interim Ballot Test: Bond & Sales Tax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Figure 16 Negative Arguments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Figure 17 Final Ballot Test: Bond & Sales Tax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Figure 18 Maximum Margin of Error Due to Sampling. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
12 of 62
Introduction
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 1
City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
I NTRODUCTION
Incorporated in 1894, the City of San Mateo encompasses 15.9 square miles in the San Francisco Bay Area and is currently home to an estimated 103,352 residents.1 One of only two charter cit- ies in San Mateo County, the City is governed by a five-member City Council, while the City’s daily operations are managed by a dedicated team of employees that provide a full suite of ser- vices to residents and the local business community.
As San Mateo has grown, so too have the demands placed upon its facilities, infrastructure, and services. Unfortunately, the City’s revenue st reams have not kept pace with the growing demands and escalating costs, leading to shor tfalls in the funding required to adequately address its various infrastructure systems—incl uding streets and roads, sewer and stormdrains, parks, and community facilities—as well as municipal services. In total, the City has an estimated $350,000,000 in capital improvements and infrastructure needs for which it does not have a funding source, as well as projected structural deficits in the revenues needed to sustain city ser- vices at their current levels.
MOTIVATION FOR RESEARCH The primary purpose of this study was to produce an unbiased, statistically reliable evaluation of voters' interest in supporting a revenue measure to fund priority repairs, upgrades, and improvements to the City’s infrastructure systems, as well as associated city services. Addi tionally, should the City decide to move forward with a revenue measure, the survey can guide how best to struct ure the measure so it is consistent with the community's priorities and expressed needs. Specifically, the study was designed to:
• Gauge current, baseline support for a revenue measure to fund infrastructure, facilities, and city services;
• Identify the types of projects and services vo ters are most interested in funding, should a measure pass;
• Expose voters to arguments in favor of, and against, the proposed revenue measure to assess how information affects support for the measure; and • Estimate support for the measure once voters are presented with the types of information they will likely be exposed to during an election cycle.
It is important to note at the outset that voters’ opinions about tax measures are often some- what fluid, especially when the amount of information they initially have about a measure is lim- ited. How voters think and feel about a measure today may not be the same way they think and feel once they have had a chance to hear more information about the measure during the elec- tion cycle. Accordingly, to accurately assess the feasibility of establishing a local revenue mea- sure, it was important that in addition to measuring current opinions about the measure (Questions 5 & 7), the survey expose respondents to the types of information voters are likely to encounter during an election cycle—including arguments in favor (Question 12) and opposed (Question 15) to the measure—and gauge how this information ultimately impacts their voting decision (Questions 16 & 17).
1. Source: State of California, Depart ment of Finance, E-1City/County Population Estimates, January 2024.
13 of 62
Introduction
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 2City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
TESTING TWO FUNDING ALTERNATIVES One of the objectives of the study was to determine how support for a local revenue measure may vary depending on the type of financial mechanism employed: bond or sales tax. To relia bly estimate support for the different types of measures, a split-sample methodology was employed such that half of voters were administered a survey that focused on a bond measure and th e other half were asked questions regarding a potential sales tax measure. All 1,012 responden ts received common questions that applied to both types of measures.
OVERVIEW OF METHODOLOGY For a full discussion of the research methods and tech- niques used in this study, turn to Methodology on page 35. In brief, the survey was administered to a random sample of 1,012 registered voters in the City of San Mateo who are likely to partici- pate in the November 2026 election, with a subset who are also likely to participate in the lower- turnout June 2026 primary. The survey followed a mixed-method design that employed multiple recruiting methods (email, text, and telephone) and multiple data collection methods (telephone and online). Administered between November 10 and November 15, 2025, the average interview lasted 17 minutes.
ORGANIZATION OF REPORT This report is designed to me et the needs of readers who prefer a summary of the findings as well as those who are interested in the details of the results.
For those who seek an overview of the findings, the section titled Key Findings is for you. It pro- vides a summary of the most important factual find ings of the survey. For the interested reader, this section is followed by a more detailed ques tion-by-question discussion of the results from the survey by topic area (see Table of Contents ), as well as a description of the methodology employed for collecting and analyzing the data. An d, for the truly ambitious reader, the ques- tionnaire used for the interviews is contai ned at the back of this report (see Questionnaire & Toplines on page 38) and a complete set of crosstabulations for the survey results is contained in Appendix A.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS True North thanks the City of San Mateo for the opportunity to assist the City in this important effort. The collective expertise, local knowledge, and insight pro- vided by city staff and represen tatives improved the overall quality of the research presented here.
DISCLAIMER The statements and conclu sions in this report are those of the authors (Dr. Timothy McLarney and Richard Sarles) at True North Research, Inc. and not necessarily those of the City of San Mateo. Any errors and omissions are the responsibility of the authors.
ABOUT TRUE NORTH True North is a full-service survey research firm that is dedicated to providing public and private agen cies with a clear understanding of the values, opinions, priori- ties, and concerns of their residents, voters, and customers. Through designing and implement- ing scientific surveys, focus groups, and one-on-o ne interviews as well as expert interpretation of the findings, True North helps its clients to move with confidence when making strategic deci- sions in a variety of areas—such as planni ng, policy evaluation, performance management, establishing fiscal priorities, passing revenue measures, and developing effective public informa- tion campaigns.
14 of 62
Introduction
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 3City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
During their careers, Dr. McLarney and Mr. Sarl es have designed and conducted over 1,500 sur- vey research studies for public agencies, includ ing more than 500 revenue measure feasibility studies. Of the measures that have gone to ballot based on Dr. McLa rney’s recommendation, 93% have been successful. In total, the research that Dr. McLarney has conducted has led to over $42 billion in voter-approved local revenue measures.
15 of 62
Key Findings
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 4
City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
K EY F INDINGS
As noted in the Introduction, this study was designed to provide the City of San Mateo with a sta- tistically reliable understanding of voters’ interest in funding priority repairs and improvements to the City’s infrastructure systems as well as general municipal services with a local revenue measure (bond or sales tax). Whereas subsequent se ctions of this report are devoted to convey- ing the detailed results of the surv ey, in this section we attempt to ‘see the forest through the trees’ and note how the collective results of the survey answer some of the key questions that motivated the research. The following conclusion s are based on True North’s interpretations of the survey results and the firm’s collective experience conducting revenue measure studies for public agencies throughout the State.
Is a revenue measure
feasible for 2026?
Voters have a high regard for the quality of life in San Mateo (86% rate it as excellent or good) and are generally satisfied with the City’s provision of services (74% very or somewhat satisfied). How these sentiments translate into support for a local revenue measure—and the feasibility of the measure if placed on a ba llot in 2026—depends on the type of mea- sure being considered.
A majority of voters initially exhibited support for a 1/4 cent sales tax to fund San Mateo city services, such as fire protection, paramedic, and 911 emergency response, police and crime prevention, keeping local streets, sidewalks, parks, infrastructure, and community facilities safe, clean, and well-maintained, and addressing homelessness. With just the infor- mation conveyed in the 75-word ballot statement, 53% of voters indi- cated they would support the sales tax at the Initial Ballot Test (3% above the requisite simple majority thresh old). Additionally, support for the sales tax increased over the course of the interview in response to the projects that could be funded and the arguments tested, ending the sur- vey 6% above the threshold required for passage at the Final Ballot Test.
The survey results were less promising with respect to the feasibility of a $323 million bond to pave and maintain local streets, fix potholes, improve intersections for traffic flow /safety, repair/replace aging infra- structure, upgrade community parks and playfields, and repair/restore community facilities including fixing deteriorating roofs, plumbing, sewer, and electrical systems. Although 59% of respondents initially sup- ported the bond, the threshold required for passage of a bond is higher (two-thirds). Support for the bond al so declined over the course of the survey in response to tax rate information and negative arguments, land- ing at 54% at the Final Ballot Test.
The results of this survey indicate that a general sales tax may be feasi- ble for the November 2026 ballot provided that it focuses on voters’ pri- orities and is accompanied by robust voter/opinion leader engagement, education, and communication (more on this to follow).
16 of 62
Key Findings
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 5City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Having stated that a sales tax measure appears feasible, it is important to note that the measure’s prospects will be shaped by external factors and that a recommendation to place the measure on the November 2026 ballot comes with several qualifications and conditions. Indeed, although the results are promising, all revenue measures must overcome chal- lenges prior to being successful. The proposed measure is no exception.
The following paragraphs discuss some of the challenges and the next steps that True North recommends.
Which projects and ser-
vices do San Mateo vot-
ers view as priorities?
A general tax is “any tax imposed for general governmental purposes” 2 and is distinguished from a special tax in that the funds raised by a gen- eral tax are not earmarked for a spec ific purpose(s). Thus, a general tax provides a municipality with a great deal of flexibility with respect to what is funded by the measure on a year-to-year basis.
Although the San Mateo City Council would have the discretion to decide how to spend the revenues, the survey results indicate that voters are most interested in using the proceeds to keep streets, sidewalks, parks, infrastructure, and community facilities safe, clean, and well-maintained (86% strongly or somewhat favor), fix potholes (85%), provide quick responses to 911 emergencies (85%), pave and maintain local streets and roads (84%), and provide fire protection and paramedic services (83%). Moreover, a majority of respondents strongly favored funding each of the above five service areas with proceeds from the measure.
How might a public
information campaign
affect support for the
proposed measure?
As noted in the body of this report , individuals’ opinions about revenue measures are often not rigid, especially when the amount of information presented to the public on a measure has been limited. Thus, in addition to measuring current support for a measure, one of the goals of this study was to explore how the introd uction of additional information about a measure may affect voters’ opinions about the proposal.
It is clear from the survey results that some voters’ opinions about the proposed sales tax measure are somewhat sensitive to the nature—and amount—of information that they ha ve about the meas ure. Information about the specific projects and se rvices that could be funded by the sales tax, as well as arguments in favor of the measure, were found by many voters to be compelling reasons to support the measure—effec- tively boosting support for the measure to 58% at the Interim Ballot Test.
However, voters also exhibited some sensitivity to opposition argu- ments, and there is a risk that vote rs could be swayed by divisive and hyper-partisan campaigning during the 2026 election cycle. Accordingly, one of the keys to building and sustaining support for a measure will be the presence of an effective, well-organized public outreach effort, as
2. Section 1, Article XIIIC, California Constitution.
17 of 62
Key Findings
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 6City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
well as an independent campaign that focuses on the need for the mea- sure as well as the many benefits that it will bring.
How might changes to
the economic or politi-
cal climate alter support
for the measure?
A survey is a snapshot in time—which means the results of this study and the conclusions noted above mu st be viewed in light of the current economic and political climates. On the one hand, this should provide some reassurances to the reader that the proposed sales tax measure may be feasible. Even in a national environment marred by economic uncertainty, political instability, concerns about tariffs, inflation, and cost of living, and an ongoing narrative that government is the problem, a majority of voters in San Mateo we re supportive of the proposed sales tax measure.
On the other hand, the months leading up to the November 2026 elec- tion are likely to be punctuated with significant events on the economic and political fronts. Exactly how these events unfold and may shape vot- ers’ opinions remains to be seen. Should the economy and/or political climate improve, support for the measure could increase. Conversely, negative economic and/ or political developments (including devolving into a hyper-partisan environment), skewed voter turnout, and/or com- peting measures could dampen support for the measure below what was recorded in this study.
18 of 62
Quality of Life & City Services
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 7
City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Q UALITY OF L IFE & C ITY S ERVICES
The opening section of the survey was designed to gauge voters’ opinions regarding the quality of life in San Mateo, their ideas for how it can be improved, as well as their assessment of the City’s performance in providing municipal services.
QUALITY OF LIFE At the outset of the interview, voters were asked to rate the quality of life in the City of San Mateo using a five-point scal e of excellent, good, fair, poor, or very poor. As shown in Figure 1 below, 86% of voters shared favorable opinions of the quality of life in San Mateo, with 24% reporting it is excellent and 62% stating it is good. Approximately 12% of voters surveyed rated the quality of life in the City as fair, whereas less than 2% used poor or very poor to describe the quality of life in San Mateo.
Question 2 How would you rate the overall quality of life in San Mateo? Would you say it is excellent, good, fair, poor or very poor?+
FIGURE 1 QUALITY OF LIFE
Figures 2 and 3 show how ratings of the quality of life in San Mateo varied by length of residence, satisfaction with city ser- vices, gender, age of the respondent, and homeownership status. The most striking pa ttern in the figures is the consis- tency in assessments of the quality of life in San Mateo. With the exception of those who were dissatisfied with the City’s overall performance, the percentage who rated the quality of life in San Mateo as excellent or good ranged between 81% and 96%.
FIGURE 2 QUALITY OF LIFE BY YEARS IN SAN MATEO, OVERALL SATISFACTION & GENDER Very poor
0.5 DK/NA
0.2 Poor
1.1 Fair
12.2 Excellent
24.1 Good
61.9 29.3
8.5 28.8
21.3 65.2
43.5 60.7
62.9 Excellent
30.8 23.1 19.0 23.5
Good
64.9 59.170.762.0
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Less than 5 5 to 9 10 to 14 15 or longer Satisfied Dissatisfied Male Female Years in San Mateo (Q1) Overall Satisfaction (Q4) Gender % Respondents
19 of 62
Quality of Life & City Services
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 8City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
FIGURE 3 QUALITY OF LIFE BY AGE & HOMEOWNER ON VOTER FILE CHANGES TO IMPROVE SAN MATEO The next question in this series asked voters to indicate the one thing that city government could change to make San Mateo a better place to live, now and in the future (Figure 4).
Question 3 If the city government could change one thing to make San Mateo a better place to live now and in the future, what change would you like to see? FIGURE 4 CHANGES TO IMPROVE CITY
27.4 24.3 23.7
53.7 62.1 61.7
20.215.5
27.3 Excellent
30.4 62.1
70.7 64.9
Good
62.8 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
18 to 29 30 to 39 40 to 49 50 to 64 65 or older Yes No
Age Homeowner on Voter File
% Respondents
11.1 11.0
10.8 10.1
6.5 6.5
6.2 5.4
5.0 4.2
3.9 3.3
3.2 3.0
2.8 2.7
2.5 2.1
2.1 1.9
1.9 1.7
1.6 1.6
3.8 4.8
1.6 0 5 10 15
Not sure / Cannot think of anything specific
Provide more affordable housing
Limit growth, preserve open space
Reduce traffic congestion
Improve, maintain roads
Improve downtown area
Improve parking
Beautify, clean up City
Enforce traffic laws
No changes needed / Everything is fine
Provide more shopping, dining opportunities
Improve public safety, police presence
Address rent control issues
Provide addt'l youth, family activities, events for different ages Reduce taxes, fees
Provide more safer bike lanes
Improve, add parks, rec facilities
Improve public transit
Reduce cost of living
Improve pedestrian safety
Improve planning, zoning
Address illegal immigration issues
Improve schools, education
Improve walkability
Reduce building permit restrictions
Address homeless issues
Enforce city codes
% Respondents
20 of 62
Quality of Life & City Services
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 9City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Question 3 was posed in an open-ended manner, allowing residents to mention any aspect or attribute that came to mind without being prom pted by, or restricted to, a particular list of options. True North later reviewed the verbatim responses and grouped them into the categories shown in Figure 4 on the previous page.
Approximately 16% of respondents were unsure (11%) or stated that there were no changes they desire—everything is fine (5%). Among specific changes desired, providing more affordable housing (11%), limiting growth and preserving open space (11%), and reducing traffic congestion (10%) were the most common. Other issues cited by at least 5% of voters were improving/main- taining roads (7%), improving the downtown area (7%), improving parking (6%), beautifying and cleaning up the City (5%), and enforcing traffic laws (5%).
OVERALL PERFORMANCE RATING The final question in this series asked respondents to indicate if, overall, they we re satisfied or dissatisfied with the job the City of San Mateo is doing to provide city services. Because this question does not reference a specific program, facil- ity, or service and requested that the respondent consider the City’s performance in general, the findings of this question may be regarded as an overall performance rating for the City.
As shown in Figure 5, approximately seven-in-ten voters surveyed (74%) indicated that they were satisfied with the City of San Mateo’s efforts to provide municipal services, with 26% saying they were very satisfied. Approximately 18% reported that th ey were dissatisfied with the City’s over- all performance, whereas 8% were unsure or unwilling to state their opinion.
Question 4 Generally speaking, are you satisfied or di ssatisfied with the job the City of San Mateo is doing to provide city services?
FIGURE 5 OVERALL SATISFACTION
Figures 6 and 7 on the next page display how the
percentage of respondents satisfied with the
City’s overall performance varied across key sub-
groups. As expected, opinions about the City’s
overall performance in providing municipal ser-
vices were strongly related to the perceived quality
of life in the community. Among the demographic
subgroups, newer residents (<5 years), those who
have lived in the City 10 to 14 years, men, and res-
idents under 40 years of age expressed the high-
est opinions of the City’s overall performance.
Very satisfied
25.6 Somewhat
satisfied
48.3 Somewhat
dissatisfied
13.1 Very
dissatisfied
4.9 Not sure
7.5 Prefer not to
answer
0.5 21 of 62
Quality of Life & City Services
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 10City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
FIGURE 6 OVERALL SATISFACTION BY YEARS IN SAN MATEO, HOMEOWNER ON VOTER FILE & GENDER FIGURE 7 OVERALL SATISFACTION BY AGE & QUALITY OF LIFE
22.2 30.7 28.8 24.3
50.7 44.6 49.8
47.1 22.2
39.0 19.8
Ver y
satisfied
31.1 52.2
46.7 47.3
Smwt
satisfied
50.6 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
Less than 5 5 to 9 10 to 14 15 or longer Yes No Male Female Years in San Mateo (Q1) Homeowner on Voter File Gender
% Respondents
23.9 52.4
20.6 1.8
46.9 37.5
57.2 31.7Ver y
satisfied
31.6 31.2
22.3 22.0
Smwt
satisfied
52.6 48.145.7
50.0 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
18 to 29 30 to 39 40 to 49 50 to 64 65 or older Excellent Good Fair Age Quality of Life (Q2)
% Respondents
22 of 62
Initial Ballot Test
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 11
City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
I NITIAL B ALLOT T EST
As noted in the Introduction, the primary objective of this study was to estimate voter support for two potential ballot measures—a $323 million bond to pave and maintain local streets, fix potholes, improve intersections for traffic flow/safety, repair /replace aging infrastructure, upgrade community parks and playfields, and repa ir/restore community facilities including fix- ing deteriorating roofs, plumbing, sewer, and electrical systems, and a quarter-cent general sales tax to fund San Mateo city services, such as fire protection, paramedic, and 911 emer- gency response, police and crime prevention, keeping local streets, sidewalks, parks, infrastruc- ture, and community facilities safe, clean, an d well-maintained, and addressing homelessness.
To this end, questions 5 (bond) and 7 (sales ta x) were designed to take an early assessment of support for the respective measures. A split sample approach was employed to randomly assign respondents to one version of the measure. Once selected for a particular version (e.g., sales tax), the respondent continued with that version for the remainder of the interview.
The motivation for placing questions 5 and 7 up-front in the survey is twofold. First, voter sup- port for a measure can often depend on the amou nt of information they have about a measure.
At this point in the survey, the respondent has not been provided information about the pro- posed measure beyond what is presented in the ballot language. This situation is analogous to a voter casting a ballot with limited knowledge about the measure, such as what might occur in the absence of an effective education campaign. Questions 5 and 7, also known as the Initial Bal- lot Tests, are thus a good gauge of voter support for the proposed measure as it is today, on the natural. Because the Initial Ballot Test provides an estimate of ‘natural’ support for a measure, it also serves a second purpose in that it provides a useful baseline from which to judge the impact of various information items conveyed later in the survey on voter support for the measure.
SUPPORT BY MEASURE TYPE Figure 8 on the next page presents the results of the Initial Ballot Test for the two versions of the measure. Overall, 59% of likely November 2026 voters indi- cated they would support the proposed $323 million bond, with 26% opposed and 15% either unsure or unwilling to share their opinion. Support for the bond was approximately eight points below the two-thirds supermajority (66.7%) required for passage.
A majority of respondents (53%) indicated they would support th e one-quarter cent sales tax measure, whereas 38% were opposed and 9% were unsure or unwilling to support the sales tax.
For general taxes in California, the level of support recorded at the Initial Ballot Test for the sales tax was approximately three percentage points ab ove the simple majority (50%+1) required for passage.
23 of 62
Initial Ballot Test
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 12City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Question 5 Next year, voters in San Mateo may be asked to vote on a local ballot measure. Let me read you a summary of the measure. In order to pave and maintain local streets; fix pot- holes; improve intersections for traffic flow/safety; repair/replace aging infrastructure; upgrade community parks and playfields; and repair/restore community facilities including fixing deteri- orating roofs, plumbing, sewer and electrical systems; shall City of San Mateo's measure be adopted authorizing 323 million dollars in bonds at legal rates, levying $30 per $100,000 assessed value (20 million dollars annually) while bonds are outstanding, with independent audits and all money locally-controlled? If the election were held today, would you vote yes or no on this measure?
Question 7 Next year, voters in San Mateo may be asked to vote on a local ballot measure. Let me read you a summary of the measure. To provide funding for San Mateo city services, such as fire protection, paramedic, and 911 emergency response; police and crime prevention; keeping local streets, sidewalks, parks , infrastructure, and community facilities safe, clean, and well- maintained; and addressing homelessness; shall City of San Mateo's ordinance establishing a one-quarter cent sales tax be adopted, providing 7 million dollars annually for general govern- ment use until ended by voters, with independent audits and all funds locally-controlled? If the election were held today, would you vote yes or no on this measure? FIGURE 8 INITIAL BALLOT TEST: BOND & SALES TAX
SUPPORT BY SUBGROUPS Tables 1 and 2 on the followi ng pages show how support at the Initial Ballot Test varied by key demographic traits for each funding mechanism. The blue column (Approximate % of Universe) indicates the percentage of the likely November 2026 voter universe that each subgroup category comprises. As shown in the tables, support varied consid- erably across voter subgroups for both the proposed bond and sales tax measures, with the larg- est differences in support occurring by perceived quality of life in San Mateo, satisfaction with the City’s performance in providing municipal services, individual partisanship, and household party type for both measures. Age was also stro ngly associated with support for the bond mea- sure, but less so for the sales tax measure.
16.4 15.5 21.2
14.1 6.5
25.4 22.6
33.2 30.6
10.7 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
Bond Sales Tax
Initial Ballot Test Version
% Respondents
Prefer not to
answer
Not sure
Definitely no
Probably no
Probably yes
Definitely yes
24 of 62
Initial Ballot Test
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 13City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Considering the different thresholds required for passage for each funding mechanism, initial support for the proposed sales tax was widespread, exceeding a majority in three-quarters of the identified subgroups (see Table 2 on the next page).
TABLE 1 DEMOGRAPHIC BREAKDOWN OF SUPPORT AT INITIAL BALLOT TEST: BOND Approximate %
of Voter
Universe
% Probably or
Definitely Yes % Not sure
Overall 100 58.6 14.1
Less than 5 18 81.0 14.5
5 to 9 13 59.4 18.2
10 to 14 13 49.4 9.8
15 or longer 56 53.4 14.1
Satisfied 80 65.7 13.9
Dissatisfied 20 24.9 12.8
Since June 2016 30 69.4 16.4
Before June 2016 70 54.5 13.2
Democrat 58 73.5 13.0
Republican 16 33.9 16.2
Other / DTS 26 44.3 15.0
Single dem 33 75.5 12.3
Dual dem 14 77.4 11.7
Single rep 8 24.9 27.6
Dual rep 3 26.5 0.0
Other 20 50.0 12.2
Mixed 21 48.3 15.6
18 to 29 12 87.0 8.0
30 to 39 20 74.3 14.1
40 to 49 17 48.8 24.9
50 to 64 23 45.6 12.7
65 or older 28 52.2 11.0
Yes 60 46.9 14.0
No 40 74.6 14.2
Yes 92 58.8 14.4
No 8 56.8 11.4
Yes 64 54.2 15.8
No 36 66.9 10.9
Yes 44 57.2 13.1
No 56 59.8 15.0
Male 52 64.0 12.2
Female 48 58.3 13.1
Excellent 24 75.8 6.1
Good 62 59.2 16.6
Fair 12 31.4 20.2
Poor, very poor 2 0.0 3.8
Gender
Household Party Type
Age
Years in San Mateo (Q1)
Quality of Life (Q2)
Overall Satisfaction (Q4)
Registration Year
Party
Homeowner on Voter File
Likely to Vote by Mail
Likely Jun 2026 Voter
Likely Low Turnout
Election Voter
25 of 62
Initial Ballot Test
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 14City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
TABLE 2 DEMOGRAPHIC BREAKDOWN OF SUPPORT AT INITIAL BALLOT TEST: SALES TAX REASONS FOR NOT SUPPORTING MEASURE Respondents who did not support the measure at the Initial Ballot Test or were unsure were asked if there was a particular reason for their position. Questions 6 (bond) and 8 (sales tax) were asked in an open-ended manner, allow- ing respondents to mention any reason that came to mind without being prompted by or restricted to a particular list of options. True North later reviewed the verbatim responses and grouped them into the categories shown in Figure 9 for the bond measure and Figure 10 for the sales tax.
Approximate %
of Voter
Universe
% Probably or
Definitely Yes % Not sure
Overall 100 53.2 6.5
Less than 5 18 58.4 1.7
5 to 9 13 60.4 10.7
10 to 14 13 47.9 4.3
15 or longer 56 51.4 7.6
Satisfied 80 62.8 6.4
Dissatisfied 20 22.0 5.1
Since June 2016 30 59.3 4.5
Before June 2016 70 50.1 7.5
Democrat 58 65.5 5.6
Republican 16 26.3 8.1
Other / DTS 26 38.7 7.6
Single dem 33 65.5 7.9
Dual dem 14 68.3 3.0
Single rep 8 27.5 9.3
Dual rep 3 14.4 1.9
Other 20 36.1 9.4
Mixed 21 51.1 4.6
18 to 29 12 66.0 0.0
30 to 39 20 63.6 6.6
40 to 49 17 53.1 2.3
50 to 64 23 40.4 10.8
65 or older 28 51.4 8.5
Yes 60 51.9 6.1
No 40 55.4 7.1
Yes 92 52.4 6.8
No 8 66.7 1.4
Yes 64 50.2 6.9
No 36 58.0 5.8
Yes 44 51.7 7.1
No 56 54.2 6.0
Male 52 52.6 7.4
Female 48 56.9 5.8
Excellent 24 65.8 10.8
Good 62 53.3 5.6
Fair 12 29.8 3.5
Poor, very poor 2 55.2 0.0
Gender
Quality of Life (Q2)
Age
Homeowner on Voter File
Likely to Vote by Mail
Likely Jun 2026 Voter
Registration Year
Party
Household Party Type
Likely Low Turnout
Election Voter
Overall Satisfaction (Q4)
Years in San Mateo (Q1)
26 of 62
Initial Ballot Test
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 15City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Although the rank order (and intensity of rati ngs) varied by type of funding mechanism, con- cerns about taxes being too high and the mo ney being mismanaged/misspent were the most common reasons offered for not supporting each measure. A need for information was the third most common reason cited for not supporting the measures.
Question 6/8 Is there a particular reason why you do not support or are unsure about the measure I just described?
FIGURE 9 REASONS FOR NOT SUPPORTING MEASURE: BOND
33.3 30.5
21.8 9.1
8.7 8.5
5.2 3.7
2.5 1.6
1.2 0.7
2.5 0.9
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Money is misspent, mismanaged
Taxes already too high
Need more information
Mentioned past ballot measure
Do not trust City
Not sure / No particular reason
Other higher priorities in community
Do not support bonds, increased debt
Other ways to be funded
City has enough money
Me a sure t oo e x pe nsive
Illegal immigration issues
City services are okay as-is, no need for more money
Money will go to admin, union pensions
% Respondents Who Do Not Support Measure: Bond
27 of 62
Initial Ballot Test
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 16City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
FIGURE 10 REASONS FOR NOT SUPPORTING MEASURE: SALES TAX
46.1 28.8
14.0 11.2
8.5 7.2
4.7 3.9
2.6 2.4
1.7 0.9
2.6 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Taxes already too high
Money is misspent, mismanaged
Need more information
Other ways to be funded
Not sure / No particular reason
Do not trust City
City services are okay as-is, no need for more money
Other higher priorities in community
City has enough money
Mentioned past ballot measure
Sales taxes are regressive
Money will go to admin, union pensions
Illegal immigration issues
% Respondents Who Do Not Support Measure: Sales Tax
28 of 62
Tax Threshold for Bond
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 17
City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
T AX T HRESHOLD FOR B OND
Naturally, voter support for a revenue measure is often contingent on the cost of the measure.
The higher the tax rate, all other things being equal, the less likely a voter is to support the mea- sure. One of the goals of this study was thus to gauge the impact that changes in the tax rate for the bond can be expected to have on voter support for the proposed measure. 3 Questions 9 and 10 were designed to do just th at. Respondents were firs t instructed that the amount each homeowner will pay if the bond measure passes depends on the assessed value of their home—not the market value. Voters were th en presented with the highest tax rate ($30 per $100,000 assessed valuation) and asked if they would support the proposed measure at that rate. If a respondent did not answer ‘definitely yes’, they were asked whether they would support the measure at the lower tax rate. The three tax rates tested using this methodology and the per- centage of respondents who indica ted they would vote in favor of the measure at each rate are shown in Figure 11.
Question 9 The amount homeowners will pay if the bond passes depends on the assessed value of their home - not the current market value of the home. If you heard that the annual property taxes on your home would increase: _____ per 100,000 dollars of assessed valuation, would you vote yes or no on the bond measure?
FIGURE 11 TAX THRESHOLD: BOND
The most obvious pattern revealed in Figure 11 is that some voters are price sensitive when it comes to their support for the proposed bond me asure. As the cost of the measure to their household increases, su pport for the bond decreases. At th e highest tax rate tested ($30 per $100,000 of assessed valuation), 45% of voters indicated that they would support the bond.
Incremental reductions in the tax rate resulted in incremental increases in support for the mea- sure, with 55% of voters indicating that they would support the bond at the lowest tax rate tested ($15 per $100,000 of assessed valuation).
3. Because voters are generally not sensitive to small fluc tuations in the sales tax rate, the survey did not test alternative rates for the sales tax.
26.7 25.4
26.2 16.7
13.4 10.2
25.1 26.0
24.7 10.3
18.2 23.3
28.6 13.3
11.9 0 1 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 0 1 0 0
$30 per $100K
$20 per $100K
$15 per $100K
% R espondents: Bond
Definitely yes Probably yes Probably no Definitely no Not sure 45%
49%
42%
39%
55% 35%
29 of 62
Tax Threshold for Bond
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 18City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
ANNUALIZED BOND IMPACT FOR MEDIAN HOMEOWNER Because voters occa- sionally overestimate their current assessed valuation and/or have difficulty translating the tax rate into an annualized total, the survey also tested a different approach for conveying the tax rate information for the bond. In addition to presenting the rate as described above, voters were also provided with the total annual cost of the bond for the median homeowner (see Question 10) based on the $30 per $100,000 assessed valuation tax rate tested in Question 9. The results are presented in Figure 12 below.
Voters responded more positively when the co st of the bond measure was expressed as an annual total for the median homeowner when compared with a rate per $100,000 of assessed valuation. At a tax rate of $30 per $100,000 of assessed valuation, 45% of voters indicated that they would support the proposed bond measure. When that rate was translated to an annual cost for the median homeowner (approximately $225 per year), 53% of those surveyed indicated that they would support the bond, 36% would oppose it, and 11% were unsure or unwilling to share their vote choice.
Question 10 Let me put it another way: If you knew that this measure w ould cost the typical homeowner about $225 per year, would you vote yes or no on the bond measure? FIGURE 12 TAX THRESHOLD OF $225 PER YEAR
Prefer not to
answer
1.5Not sure
9.6 Definitely no
24.9 Probably no
10.7 Probably yes
25.8 Definitely yes
27.5 30 of 62
Projects & Services
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 19
City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
P ROJECTS & S ERVICES
The ballot language presented in Question 5 (bond) and Question 7 (sales tax) indicated that the proposed bond measure would be used to pave and maintain local streets, fix potholes, improve intersections for traffic flow/safety, repair/replace aging infrastructure, upgrade community parks and playfields, and repair/restore community facilities including fixing deteriorating roofs, plumbing, sewer, and electrical systems, and that the proposed sales tax measure would be used to fund San Mateo city services, such as fire protection, paramedic, and 911 emergency response, police and crime prevention, keeping lo cal streets, sidewalks, parks, infrastructure, and community facilities safe, clean, and well-maintained, and addressing homelessness. The purpose of Question 11 was to provide respondents with the full range of projects and services that may be funded by the proposed revenue measures, and to identify which of these items vot- ers most favored funding with the measure proceeds.
Question 11 The measure we've been discussing would provide funding for a variety of city projects and services. If the measure passes, would you favor or oppose using some of the money to: _____, or do you not have an opinion?
FIGURE 13 PROJECTS & SERVICES
After reading each item that may be funded by the measure, respondents were asked if they would favor or oppose spending some of the mone y on that particular item assuming that the measure passes. Descriptions of the projects an d services tested, as well as voters’ responses, are shown in Figure 13.4 The order in which the services were presented to respondents was ran-
4. For the full text of the projects tested, turn to Question 11 in Questionnaire & Toplines on page 38.
55.1 58.2
58.6 52.2
52.5 48.1
56.0 41.7
39.4 43.6
40.3 31.0
27.0 25.9
31.3 30.2
33.7 23.5
36.5 36.5
28.6 29.2
0 1 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 0 1 0 0
[Sales Tax] Keep streets, sidewalks, parks, infrastructure, community facilities safe, clean, well-maintained
Fix potholes
[Sales Tax] Prov ide quick responses to 911 emergencies Pave and maintain local streets and roads
[Sales Tax] Provide fire protection and paramedic services Repair or replace aging infrastructure
Make improvements to roads, intersections, bike lanes, signals to improve traffic safety, reduce congestion
Repair, restore community facilities incl fixing deteriorating roofs, plumbing, sewer, electrical sy stems
Upgrade community parks and playfields
[Sales Tax] Provide police and crime prevention services [Sales Tax] Address homelessness
Q11jQ11bQ11hQ11aQ11gQ11dQ11cQ11fQ11eQ11iQ11k
% Respondents
Strongly favor Somewhat favor
31 of 62
Projects & Services
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 20City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
domized to avoid a systematic po sition bias, and items that were unique to the sales tax mea- sure are preceeded by [Sales Tax] in the label.
Overall, respondents tended to express more in terest in projects and services that could be funded by a general sales tax measure when compared to the more limited capital improvements that could be funded by a bond. The items that resonated with the largest percentage of respon- dents were keeping streets, si dewalks, parks, infrastructure, and community facilities safe, clean, and well-maintained (presented only to respondents who received the sales tax version, 86% strongly or somewhat favor), fixing potholes (85%), providing quick responses to 911 emer- gencies (sales tax only, 85%), paving and mainta ining local streets and roads (84%), and provid- ing fire protection and paramedic services (sales tax only, 83%). Moreover, a majority of respondents strongly favored funding each of the above fi ve projects with proceeds from the measure.
PROJECT & SERVICE RATINGS BY INITIAL SUPPORT Table 3 on the next page pres- ents the top five services (based on the percentage of respondents who strongly favor each) by position at the Initial Ballot Test. Not surprisingly, individuals who initially opposed the measure were generally less likely to favor spending mo ney on a given project when compared with sup- porters. Nevertheless, initial supporters, opponents, and the undecided did agree on three of the top five priorities for funding.
32 of 62
Projects & Services
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 21City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
TABLE 3 TOP PROJECTS & SERVICES BY POSITION AT INITIAL BALLOT TEST Position at
Initial Ballot
Test (Q5,Q7) Item Project/Service Summary
% Strongly
Favor
Q11c Make improvements to roads, intersections, bike lanes, signals to improve traffic safety, reduce congestion 71
Q11j [Sales Tax] Keep streets, sidewalks, parks, infrastructure, community facilities safe, clean, well-maintained 71
Q11h [Sales Tax] Provide quick responses to 911 emergencies 70 Q11g [Sales Tax] Provide fire protection and paramedic services 68 Q11b Fix potholes 66
Q11b Fix potholes 47
Q11h [Sales Tax] Provide quick responses to 911 emergencies 41 Q11a Pave and maintain local streets and roads 39
Q11c Make improvements to roads, intersections, bike lanes, signals to improve traffic safety, reduce congestion 34
Q11j [Sales Tax] Keep streets, sidewalks, parks, infrastructure, community facilities safe, clean, well-maintained 33
Q11j [Sales Tax] Keep streets, sidewalks, parks, infrastructure, community facilities safe, clean, well-maintained 67
Q11h [Sales Tax] Provide quick responses to 911 emergencies 59 Q11g [Sales Tax] Provide fire protection and paramedic services 59 Q11b Fix potholes 51
Q11i [Sales Tax] Provide police and crime prevention services 45 Probably or
Definitely Yes
(n = 566)
Probably or
Definitely No
(n = 323)
Not Sure
(n = 104)
33 of 62
Positive Arguments
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 22
City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
P OSITIVE A RGUMENTS
If the City chooses to place a measure on an up coming ballot, voters will be exposed to various arguments about the proposal in the ensuing months. Proponents of the measure will present arguments to try to persuade voters to support the measure, just as opponents may present arguments to achieve the opposite goal. For this study to be a reliable gauge of voter support for a revenue measure, it is important that the su rvey simulate the type of discussion and debate that will occur prior to the vote taking place and identify how this information ultimately shapes voters’ opinions about the measure.
The objective of Question 12 was thus to present respondents with arguments in favor of the proposed measure and identify whether they felt the arguments were convincing reasons to sup- port it. Arguments in opposition to the measur e were also presented and are discussed later in this report (see Negative Arguments on page 28). Within each series, specific arguments were administered in random order to avoid a system atic position bias. Ar guments that were pre- sented only to those who received the sales tax measure are preceded by [Sales Tax] in the label.
Question 12 What I'd like to do now is tell you what some people say about the measure we've been discussing. Supporters of the measure say: _____. Do you think this is a very convincing, somewhat convincing, or not at all convincing reason to SUPPORT the measure? FIGURE 14 POSITIVE ARGUMENTS
32.5 32.8
29.2 34.2
37.6 33.5
28.5 29.8
29.0 21.7
38.6 37.2
40.5 34.4
30.7 33.6
36.2 34.5
33.3 31.1
0 1 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 0 1 0 0
Most facilities built 50+ yrs ago; due to age, have earthquake safety issues, outdated electrical, plumbing, roof leaks that can cause water damage, mold; measure will fix these problems
City maintains 200 mi of streets, 390 mi of sewer, storm drain pipes, 31 parks; measure provides funding we need to keep streets, infrastructure, parks in good condition
[Sales Tax] By keeping city safe, clean, well-maintained, measure will help protect quality of life, keep San Mateo a special place to live
[Sales Tax] Fast emergency response times for 911 critical for sav ing lives; measure will ensure we have enough police officers, firefighters, paramedics, police officers to respond quickly to 911 emergencies
All money raised by measure will be reinvested here in City of San Mateo; by law, it can’t be taken away by Federal Government, State or County
City of San Mateo has $350M in unfunded projects that need to be completed; the longer we wait to fix streets, infrastructure, facilities, the more expensive it will become
Measure includes a clear system of accountability incl independent audits, public disclosure of how all funds are spent
[Sales Tax] Most sales tax generated goes to State, County ; measure ensures a higher percentage of sales tax dollars stay in the City ; we have local control over how those funds are spent
San Mateo has kept costs down by deferring maintenance, cutting services, freezing staff; even so, the City faces a $14M deficit this year and at least $5M annually; to keep our community safe and clean, we need this measure
[Sales Tax] Sizeable percentage of sales tax will come from people who visit, pass through San Mateo, but don’t live here; measure will make sure they pay their fair share for facilities, services they use while in city
Q12eQ12dQ12gQ12jQ12aQ12cQ12bQ12iQ12fQ12h
% Respondents
Very convincing Somewhat convincing
34 of 62
Positive Arguments
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 23City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Figure 14 on the prior page presents the trunca ted positive arguments tested, as well as voters’ reactions to the arguments. The arguments are sorted from most convincing to least convincing based on the percentage of respondents who indicated that the argument was either a ‘very con- vincing’ or ‘somewhat convincing’ reason to support the measure. Using this methodology, the most compelling positive arguments were: Most of our community facilities were built more than 50 years ago. Due to their age, they have eart hquake safety issues, ou tdated electrical and plumbing, and roof leaks that can cause water damage and mold. This measure will fix these problems (71% very or somewhat convincing), The City maintains 200 miles of streets, 390 miles of sewer and storm drain pipes, and 31 parks. This measure provides the funding we need to keep our streets, infrastructure, and parks in good condition (70%), and By keeping our city safe, clean, and well-maintained, this measure will help protect our quality of life and keep San Mateo a special place to live (sales tax only, 70%).
POSITIVE ARGUMENTS BY INITIAL SUPPORT Table 4 on the next page lists the top five most convincing positive arguments (showing the percentage of respondents who cited it as very convincing) according to respondents’ vote choice at the Initial Ballot Test. The most strik- ing pattern in the table is that the positive ar guments resonated with a much higher percentage of voters who were initially inclined to support the measure when compared to voters who ini- tially opposed the measure or were unsure. Ne vertheless, one argument was ranked among the top five most compelling by all three groups (All money raised by the measure will be reinvested here in the City of San Mateo. By law, it can't be taken away by the Federal Government, State or County).
35 of 62
Positive Arguments
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 24City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
TABLE 4 TOP POSITIVE ARGUMENTS BY POSITION AT INITIAL BALLOT TEST Position at
Initial Ballot
Test (Q5,Q7) Item Positive Argument Summary
% Very
Convincing
Q12a All money raised by measure will be reinvested here in City of San Mateo; by law, it can’t be taken away by Federal Government, State or County 55 Q12j
[Sales Tax] Fast emergency response times for 911 critical for saving lives; measure will ensure we have enough police officers, firefighters, paramedics, police officers to respond quickly to 911 emergencies
53 Q12d
City maintains 200 mi of streets, 390 mi of sewer, storm drain pipes, 31 parks; measure provides funding we need to keep streets, infrastructure, parks in good condition
52 Q12c
City of San Mateo has $350M in unfunded projects that need to be completed; the longer we wait to fix streets, infrastructure, facilities, the more expensive it will become
52 Q12e
Most facilities built 50+ yrs ago; due to age, have earthquake safety issues, outdated electrical, plumbing, roof leaks that can cause water damage, mold; measure will fix these problems
49 Q12a All money raised by measure will be reinvested here in City of San Mateo; by law, it can’t be taken away by Federal Government, State or County 12 Q12b Measure includes a clear system of accountability incl independent audits, public disclosure of how all funds are spent 11
Q12i
[Sales Tax] Most sales tax generated goes to State, County; measure ensures a higher percentage of sales tax dollars stay in the City; we have local control over how those funds are spent
10 Q12g [Sales Tax] By keeping city safe, clean, well-maintained, measure will help protect quality of life, keep San Mateo a special place to live 9 Q12e
Most facilities built 50+ yrs ago; due to age, have earthquake safety issues, outdated electrical, plumbing, roof leaks that can cause water damage, mold; measure will fix these problems
8 Q12g [Sales Tax] By keeping city safe, clean, well-maintained, measure will help protect quality of life, keep San Mateo a special place to live 37 Q12j
[Sales Tax] Fast emergency response times for 911 critical for saving lives; measure will ensure we have enough police officers, firefighters, paramedics, police officers to respond quickly to 911 emergencies
36 Q12a All money raised by measure will be reinvested here in City of San Mateo; by law, it can’t be taken away by Federal Government, State or County 29 Q12h
[Sales Tax] Sizeable percentage of sales tax will come from people who visit, pass through San Mateo, but don’t live here; measure will make sure they pay their fair share for facilities, services they use while in city
22 Q12c
City of San Mateo has $350M in unfunded projects that need to be completed; the longer we wait to fix streets, infrastructure, facilities, the more expensive it will become
21 Probably or
Definitely Yes
(n = 566)
Probably or
Definitely No
(n = 323)
Not Sure
(n = 104)
36 of 62
Interim Ballot Test
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 25
City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
I NTERIM B ALLOT T EST
After informing respondents about the potential tax rates associated with the measure (bond only), projects and services that could be fund ed, as well as exposing them to positive argu- ments they may encounter during the election cycl e, the survey again pres ented voters with the ballot language used previously to gauge how their support for the measures may have changed.
Question 13 Sometimes people change their minds about a measure once they have more information about it. Now that you have heard a bit more about the measure, let me read you a summary of it again. In order to pave and mainta in local streets; fix potholes; improve intersec- tions for traffic flow/safety; repair/replace aging infrastructure; upgrade community parks and playfields; and repair/restore community facilities including fixing deteriorating roofs, plumb- ing, sewer and electrical systems; shall City of San Mateo's measure be adopted authorizing 323 million dollars in bonds at legal rates, levying $30 per $100,000 assessed value (20 million dol- lars annually) while bonds are outstanding, with independent audits and all money locally-con- trolled? If the election were held today, would you vote yes or no on this measure? Question 14 Sometimes people change their minds about a measure once they have more information about it. Now that you have heard a bit more about the measure, let me read you a summary of it again. To provide funding for Sa n Mateo city services, such as fire protection, paramedic, and 911 emergency response; police and crime prevention; keeping local streets, sidewalks, parks, infrastructure, and community facilities safe, clean, and well-maintained; and addressing homelessness; shall City of San Mateo's ordinance establishing a one-quarter cent sales tax be adopted, providing 7 million dollars annually for general government use until ended by voters, with independent audits and all funds locally-controlled? If the election were held today, would you vote yes or no on this measure?
FIGURE 15 INTERIM BALLOT TEST: BOND & SALES TAX
Overall support for the bond
among likely November 2026
voters remained consistent at
58%, with 35% opposed and
the remainder unsure or
unwilling to share their opin-
ion. Meanwhile, support for
the sales tax measure
increased to 58% at the Interim
Ballot Test. Thirty-two percent
(32%) of respondents opposed
the sales tax measure at this
point, whereas approximately
10% were unwilling to share
their opinion.
16.3 20.4 15.8
5.9 8.1
26.027.3
31.931.0
14.2 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
Bond Sales Tax
Interim Ballot Test Version
% Respondents
Prefer not to
answer
Not sure
Definitely no
Probably no
Probably yes
Definitely yes
37 of 62
Interim Ballot Test
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 26City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
SUPPORT BY SUBGROUPS Tables 5 (bond) and 6 (sales tax) display how support for each measure at this point in the survey varied by key demographic subgroups, as well as the percent- age change in subgroup support when compared to the Initial Ba llot Test. Positive differences appear in green, whereas negative difference s appear in red. Support for the bond measure showed mixed movement between the Initial and Interim Ballo t Tests across subgroups (56% increased support, while 44% decreased), wherea s support for the sales tax measure increased for most subgroups. As displayed in Table 6 on the next page, double-digit gains for the sales tax measure were recorded for residents who have lived in San Mateo 10 to 14 years (+11%), vot- ers 18 to 29 years of age (+10%), and those unlikely to vote in a mail ballot election (+10%).
TABLE 5 DEMOGRAPHIC BREAKDOWN OF SUPPORT AT INTERIM BALLOT TEST: BOND Approximate %
of Voter
Universe
% Probably or
Definitely Yes
Change From
Initial Ballot
Test (Q5)
Overall 100 58.3 -0.3
Less than 5 18 86.0 +5.0
5 to 9 13 59.6 +0.2
10 to 14 13 47.2 -2.1
15 or longer 56 51.7 -1.7
Satisfied 80 66.0 +0.3
Dissatisfied 20 25.1 +0.2
Since June 2016 30 76.6 +7.2
Before June 2016 70 51.4 -3.1
Democrat 58 74.4 +0.8
Republican 16 28.3 -5.7
Other / DTS 26 44.9 +0.6
Single dem 33 77.0 +1.5
Dual dem 14 73.2 -4.3
Single rep 8 28.3 +3.4
Dual rep 3 6.4 -20.1
Other 20 49.6 -0.4
Mixed 21 47.4 -0.9
18 to 29 12 87.0 +0.0
30 to 39 20 81.6 +7.3
40 to 49 17 49.1 +0.3
50 to 64 23 40.2 -5.4
65 or older 28 49.3 -3.0
Yes 60 47.1 +0.2
No 40 73.6 -1.0
Yes 92 59.5 +0.7
No 8 47.6 -9.2
Yes 64 53.5 -0.7
No 36 67.5 +0.5
Yes 44 52.6 -4.6
No 56 63.3 +3.5
Male 52 66.1 +2.1
Female 48 58.0 -0.2
Excellent 24 68.2 -7.6
Good 62 59.8 +0.6
Fair 12 38.9 +7.5
Poor, very poor 2 14.7 +14. 7
Likely Jun 2026 Voter
Likely Low Turnout
Election Voter
Gender
Quality of Life (Q2)
Household Party Type
Age
Homeowner on Voter File
Likely to Vote by Mail
Years in San Mateo (Q1)
Overall Satisfaction (Q4)
Registration Year
Party
38 of 62
Interim Ballot Test
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 27City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
TABLE 6 DEMOGRAPHIC BREAKDOWN OF SUPPORT AT INTERIM BALLOT TEST: SALES TAX Approximate %
of Voter
Universe
% Probably or
Definitely Yes
Change From
Initial Ballot
Test (Q7)
Overall 100 57.8 +4.7
Less than 5 18 56.9 -1.5
5 to 9 13 68.0 +7.5
10 to 14 13 58.4 +10.5
15 or longer 56 56.0 +4.6
Satisfied 80 67.5 +4.7
Dissatisfied 20 27.6 +5.6
Since June 2016 30 63.4 +4.1
Before June 2016 70 55.0 +4.9
Democrat 58 72.7 +7.2
Republican 16 31.7 +5.4
Other / DTS 26 36.1 -2.6
Single dem 33 74.8 +9.3
Dual dem 14 74.4 +6.1
Single rep 8 24.9 -2.7
Dual rep 3 16.6 +2.2
Other 20 32.8 -3.4
Mixed 21 56.5 +5.5
18 to 29 12 76.0 +10. 0
30 to 39 20 72.5 +8.9
40 to 49 17 54.6 +1.6
50 to 64 23 43.8 +3.5
65 or older 28 53.4 +2.0
Yes 60 55.1 +3.2
No 40 62.4 +7.1
Yes 92 56.7 +4.3
No 8 77.1 +10.4
Yes 64 54.1 +3.9
No 36 63.9 +5.9
Yes 44 52.2 +0.5
No 56 61.8 +7.6
Male 52 57.6 +4.9
Female 48 62.0 +5.1
Excellent 24 67.6 +1.7
Good 62 58.5 +5.1
Fair 12 39.0 +9.2
Poor, very poor 2 41.4 -13.8
Likely Jun 2026 Voter
Likely Low Turnout
Election Voter
Gender
Quality of Life (Q2)
Household Party Type
Age
Homeowner on Voter File
Likely to Vote by Mail
Years in San Mateo (Q1)
Overall Satisfaction (Q4)
Registration Year
Party
39 of 62
Negative Arguments
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 28
City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
N EGATIVE A RGUMENTS
Whereas Question 12 presented respondents with arguments in favor of the measures, Question 15 presented respondents with arguments designed to elicit opposition to the measures. In the case of Question 15, however, respondents were asked whether they felt that the argument was a very convincing, somewhat convincing, or not at all convincing reason to oppose the measure.
Arguments that were presented only to those who received the sales tax or bond measure are preceded by [Sales Tax] or [Bond] in the label. The arguments tested, as well as voters’ opinions about the arguments, are presented below in Figure 16.
Question 15 Next, let me tell you what opponents of the measure say. Opponents of the mea- sure say: _____. Do you think this is a very co nvincing, somewhat convincing, or not at all con- vincing reason to OPPOSE the measure?
FIGURE 16 NEGATIVE ARGUMENTS
Among the negative arguments tested, the most compelling were: Our community is already an expensive place to live, especially for young families and those on fixed incomes. Passing this tax increase will make it even less affordable (74% very or somewhat convincing), Residents and local businesses have been hit hard by inflation, high interest rates, and cost of living increases. Many are struggling to stay afloat. Now is not the time to raise taxes (73%), and Everyone is coming after us for tax increases - including state and county taxes, school bonds, and other taxes that will be on the ballot next year. Enough is enough. We can't afford to keep raising our taxes (70%).
37.6 38.8
38.8 30.2
26.0 32.8
22.9 36.7
34.3 31.6
34.5 34.4
27.2 26.4
0 1 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 0 1 0 0
Community is already an expensive place to live, especially for young families, those on fixed incomes; passing tax increase will make it even less affordable
Residents, local businesses hav e been hit hard by inflation, high interest rates, cost of liv ing increases; many are struggling to stay afloat; now is not the time to raise taxes Everyone is coming after us for tax increases, incl state, county taxes, school bonds, other taxes that will be on ballot next yr; enough is enough; we can’t afford to keep raising taxes
[Sales Tax] There are no guarantees on how funds will be spent, which means City can divert money to pet projects without any say from voters; we can’t trust City with tax dollars
[Bond] Don’t be fooled; with interest, bond will cost taxpayers nearly $700M, take 30 yrs to pay off
[Sales Tax] This tax will last forever; there is no expiration date
City employees are making too much money in salary,
pensions, benefits that’s the problem; City needs to tighten its belt before asking residents to pay more taxes
Q15a2Q15a1Q15cQ15eQ15dQ15fQ15b
% Respondents
Very convincing Somewhat convincing
40 of 62
Negative Arguments
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 29City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
NEGATIVE ARGUMENTS BY INITIAL SUPPORT Table 7 ranks the top five negative arguments (based on % very convincing) according to respondents’ vote choice at the Initial Bal- lot Test.
TABLE 7 TOP NEGATIVE ARGUMENTS BY POSITION AT INITIAL BALLOT TEST Position at
Initial Ballot
Test (Q5,Q7) Item Negative Argument Summary
% Very
Convincing
Q15a2 Community is already an expensive place to live, especially for young families, those on fixed incomes; passing tax increase will make it even less affordable 24 Q15a1
Residents, local businesses have been hit hard by inflation, high interest rates, cost of living increases; many are struggling to stay afloat; now is not the time to raise taxes
21 Q15f [Sales Tax] This tax will last forever; there is no expiration date 20 Q15c
Everyone is coming after us for tax increases, incl state, county taxes, school bonds, other taxes that will be on ballot next yr; enough is enough; we can’t afford to keep raising taxes
19 Q15e
[Sales Tax] There are no guarantees on how funds will be spent, which means City can divert money to pet projects without any say from voters; we can’t trust City with tax dollars
18 Q15c
Everyone is coming after us for tax increases, incl state, county taxes, school bonds, other taxes that will be on ballot next yr; enough is enough; we can’t afford to keep raising taxes
70 Q15a2 Community is already an expensive place to live, especially for young families, those on fixed incomes; passing tax increase will make it even less affordable 64 Q15a1
Residents, local businesses have been hit hard by inflation, high interest rates, cost of living increases; many are struggling to stay afloat; now is not the time to raise taxes
61 Q15f [Sales Tax] This tax will last forever; there is no expiration date 55 Q15d
[Bond] Don’t be fooled; with interest, bond will cost taxpayers nearly $700M, take 30 yrs to pay off 53
Q15a1
Residents, local businesses have been hit hard by inflation, high interest rates, cost of living increases; many are struggling to stay afloat; now is not the time to raise taxes
61 Q15c
Everyone is coming after us for tax increases, incl state, county taxes, school bonds, other taxes that will be on ballot next yr; enough is enough; we can’t afford to keep raising taxes
54 Q15e
[Sales Tax] There are no guarantees on how funds will be spent, which means City can divert money to pet projects without any say from voters; we can’t trust City with tax dollars
41 Q15a2 Community is already an expensive place to live, especially for young families, those on fixed incomes; passing tax increase will make it even less affordable 33 Q15d [Bond] Don’t be fooled; with interest, bond will cost taxpayers nearly $700M, take 30 yrs to pay off 23
Probably or
Definitely Yes
(n =566)
Probably or
Definitely No
(n = 323)
Not Sure
(n = 104)
41 of 62
Final Ballot Test
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 30
City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
F INAL B ALLOT T EST
Voters’ opinions about ballot measures are often not rigid, especially when the amount of infor- mation presented to the public on a measure ha s been limited. An important goal of the survey was thus to gauge how voters’ opinions about the proposed measures may be affected by the information they could encounter during the course of an election cycle. After providing respon- dents with the wording of the proposed measures, possible tax rates (bond only), projects and improvements that could be funded by the measures, as well as arguments in favor and against the proposals, respondents were again asked whether they would vote ‘yes’ or ‘no’ on the pro- posed revenue measures.
Question 16 Now that you have heard a bit more about the measure, let me read you a sum- mary of it one more time. In order to pave and maintain local streets; fix potholes; improve inter- sections for traffic flow/safety; repair/repla ce aging infrastructure; upgrade community parks and playfields; and repair/restore community fa cilities including fixing deteriorating roofs, plumbing, sewer and electrical systems; shall Ci ty of San Mateo's measure be adopted authoriz- ing 323 million dollars in bonds at legal rates, levying $30 per $100,000 assessed value (20 mil- lion dollars annually) while bonds are outstanding, with independent audits and all money locally-controlled? If the election were held today, would you vote yes or no on this measure? Question 17 Now that you have heard a bit more about the measure, let me read you a sum- mary of it one more time. To provide funding for San Mateo city services, such as fire protection, paramedic, and 911 emergency response; police and crime prevention; keeping local streets, sidewalks, parks, infrastructure, and community facilities safe, clean, and well-maintained; and addressing homelessness; shall City of San Mateo's ordinance establishing a one-quarter cent sales tax be adopted, providing 7 million dollars annually for general government use until ended by voters, with independent audits and all funds locally-controlled? If the election were held today, would you vote yes or no on this measure?
FIGURE 17 FINAL BALLOT TEST: BOND & SALES TAX
As shown in Figure 17, sup-
port for the bond measure
lagged behind the sales tax
option at the Final Ballot Test,
declining to 54%. Although the
negative arguments also
impacted support for the
sales tax, support at the Final
Ballot Test remained above the
simple majority required for
passage at 56%, with 35%
opposed and 9% unsure or
unwilling to share their opin-
ion.
17.0 22.6 18.2
5.9 7.0
23.5 24.0
30.1 31.7
16.8 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
Bond Sales Tax
Final Ballot Test Version
% Respondents
Prefer not to
answer
Not sure
Definitely no
Probably no
Probably yes
Definitely yes
42 of 62
Change in Support
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 31
City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
C HANGE IN S UPPORT
Table 8 (bond) and Table 9 (sales tax) provide a closer look at how support for the measures changed over the course of the interview by calculating the difference in support between the Ini- tial, Interim, and Final Ballot Tests within vari ous subgroups of voters . The percentage of sup- port for each measure at the Final Ballot Test is shown in the column with the heading% Probably or Definitely Yes. The columns to the right show the diffe rence between the Final and the Initial, and the Final and Interim Ballot Te sts. Positive differences appear in green, negative differences in red.
TABLE 8 DEMOGRAPHIC BREAKDOWN OF SUPPORT AT FINAL BALLOT TEST: BOND As expected, voters generally responded to the negative arguments with a reduction in their sup- port for the measures when comp ared with levels recorded at the Interim Ballot Test. The gen- eral trend over the course of the entire survey (Initial to Final Ballot Test), however, was different for the two measures. Support declined for most voter subgroups presented with the bond ver- sion (averaging -5% overall), while it increased for the sales tax (averaging +3% overall). As such, support for the proposed sales tax measure at th e Final Ballot Test (56%) was 6% above the sim- ple majority (50%+1) required for passage of a general tax.
Approximate %
of Voter
Universe
% Probably or
Definitely Yes
Change From
Initial Ballot
Test (Q5)
Change From
Interim Ballot
Test (Q13)
Overall 100 53.6 -5.0 -4.7
Less than 5 18 73.8 -7.2 -12.2
5 to 9 13 58.2 -1.2 -1.4
10 to 14 13 45.9 -3.4 -1.3
15 or longer 56 47.8 -5.5 -3.9
Satisfied 80 59.6 -6.1 -6.5
Dissatisfied 20 25.6 +0. 7 +0.5
Since June 2016 30 66.9 -2.5 -9.7
Before June 2016 70 48.5 -6.0 -2.8
Democrat 58 70.1 -3.4 -4.2
Republican 16 18.3 -15.6 -9.9
Other / DTS 26 42.1 -2.2 -2.7
Single dem 33 70.8 -4.7 -6.2
Dual dem 14 73.5 -3.9 +0.3
Single rep 8 24.3 -0.6 -4.0
Dual rep 3 0.0 -26.5 -6.4
Other 20 47.5 -2.5 -2.1
Mixed 21 39.1 -9.2 -8.3
18 to 29 12 84.9 -2.1 -2.1
30 to 39 20 69.5 -4.8 -12.1
40 to 49 17 47.1 -1.7 -2.0
50 to 64 23 39.2 -6.4 -1.0
65 or older 28 45.2 -7.0 -4.1
Yes 60 42.4 -4.5 -4.7
No 40 68.8 -5.7 -4.8
Yes 92 54.2 -4.6 -5.3
No 8 47.6 -9.2 No change
Yes 64 49.9 -4.3 -3.6
No 36 60.5 -6.4 -6.9
Yes 44 49.9 -7.3 -2.7
No 56 56.7 -3.1 -6.5
Male 52 59.2 -4.8 -6.9
Female 48 55.1 -3.2 -3.0
Excellent 24 62.9 -13.0 -5.3
Good 62 55.1 -4.0 -4.6
Fair 12 34.0 +2.6 -4.9
Poor, very poor 2 14.7 +14.7 No change
Likely Jun 2026 Voter
Likely Low Turnout
Election Voter
Gender
Quality of Life (Q2)
Household Party Type
Age
Homeowner on Voter File
Likely to Vote by Mail
Years in San Mateo (Q1)
Overall Satisfaction (Q4)
Registration Year
Party
43 of 62
Change in Support
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 32City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
TABLE 9 DEMOGRAPHIC BREAKDOWN OF SUPPORT AT FINAL BALLOT TEST: SALES TAX Whereas tables 8 and 9 display changes in support for the measures over the course of the inter- view at the subgroup level, tables 10 and 11 display the individual-level changes that occurred between the Initial and Final Ballot Tests for the respective measures. On the left side of the tables is shown each of the response options to the Initial Ballot Test and the percentage of respondents in each group. The cells in the bo dy of the tables depict movement within each response group (row) based on the information provided throughout the course of the survey as recorded by the Final Ballot Test. For example, in the first row of Table 10 we see that of the
25.4% of respondents who indicated that they wo uld definitely support the bond measure at the Initial Ballot Test, 16% also indicated that they would definitely support the measure at the Final Ballot Test. Approximately 7.2% moved to the pr obably support group, 1.0% moved to the prob- ably oppose group, 1.2% moved to the definitely oppose group, and none stated they were now unsure of their vote choice.
To ease interpretation of the tables, the cells are color coded. Red shaded cells indicate declining support, green shaded cells indicate increasing support, whereas white cells indicate no move- ment. Moreover, within the cells, a white font indicates a fundamental change in the vote: from yes to no, no to yes, or not sure to either yes or no.
Approximate %
of Voter
Universe
% Probably or
Definitely Yes
Change From
Initial Ballot
Test (Q7)
Change From
Interim Ballot
Test (Q14)
Overall 100 55.6 +2.5 -2.2
Less than 5 18 56.4 -2.0 -0.5
5 to 9 13 66.5 +6.0 -1.5
10 to 14 13 52.0 +4.1 -6.4
15 or longer 56 54.2 +2.8 -1.8
Satisfied 80 65.3 +2.5 -2.2
Dissatisfied 20 23.2 +1.2 -4.4
Since June 2016 30 60.9 +1.6 -2.5
Before June 2016 70 53.0 +2.9 -2.0
Democrat 58 69.0 +3.5 -3.7
Republican 16 36.1 +9.8 +4.4
Other / DTS 26 33.4 -5.3 -2.7
Single dem 33 67.6 +2.2 -7.1
Dual dem 14 73.9 +5.6 -0.5
Single rep 8 27.4 -0.1 +2.6
Dual rep 3 29.1 +14.7 +12.5
Other 20 30.1 -6.0 -2.7
Mixed 21 56.7 +5.6 +0.2
18 to 29 12 72.4 +6.4 -3.6
30 to 39 20 64.1 +0.6 -8.4
40 to 49 17 52.4 -0.6 -2.2
50 to 64 23 44.5 +4.1 +0.6
65 or older 28 53.3 +1.9 -0.1
Yes 60 52.6 +0.7 -2.5
No 40 60.7 +5.3 -1.7
Yes 92 54.1 +1.7 -2.6
No 8 81.9 +15.2 +4.8
Yes 64 50.7 +0.5 -3.4
No 36 63.6 +5.6 -0.3
Yes 44 50.0 -1.7 -2.1
No 56 59.6 +5.3 -2.2
Male 52 54.9 +2.3 -2.7
Female 48 60.2 +3.3 -1.8
Excellent 24 63.1 -2.8 -4.5
Good 62 57.8 +4.4 -0.7
Fair 12 33.5 +3.7 -5.5
Poor, very poor 2 41.4 -13.8 No change
Likely Jun 2026 Voter
Likely Low Turnout
Election Voter
Gender
Quality of Life (Q2)
Household Party Type
Age
Homeowner on Voter File
Likely to Vote by Mail
Years in San Mateo (Q1)
Overall Satisfaction (Q4)
Registration Year
Party
44 of 62
Change in Support
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 33City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
TABLE 10 MOVEMENT BETWEEN INITIAL & FINAL BALLOT TEST: BOND TABLE 11 MOVEMENT BETWEEN INITIAL & FINAL BALLOT TEST: SALES TAX Tables 10 and 11 make clear that although the information did impact some voters, it did not do so in a consistent way for all responden ts. Despite 22% of respondents making a fundamental5 shift in their opinion about the bond measure ov er the course of the interview, the net impact is that support for the bond measure at the Final Ballot Test was approximately 5% lower than sup- port at the Initial Ballot Test. For the sales tax, 12% of respondents made a fundamental shift in their opinion about the measure over the course of the interview, with the net impact being an increase of 3% between the Initial Ballot Test and Final Ballot Test.
5. That is, they changed from a position of support, opposition or undecided at the Initial Ballot Test to a differ- ent position at the Final Ballot Test.
Definitely
support
Probably
support
Probably
oppose
Definitely
oppose Not sure
Definitely support 25.4% 16.0% 7.2% 1.0% 1.2% 0.0%
Probably support 33.2% 7.1% 19.8% 2.7% 1.7% 1.9%
Probably oppose 10.7% 0.0% 0.3% 6.3% 3.2% 0.9%
Definitely oppose 15.5% 0.3% 0.0% 1.1% 13.7% 0.3%
Not sure 15.2% 0.0% 2.8% 5.7% 2.8% 4.0%
Initial Ballot Test (Q5)
Final Ballot Test (Q16)
Definitely
support
Probably
support
Probably
oppose
Definitely
oppose Not sure
Definitely support 22.6% 16.9% 5.0% 0.2% 0.0% 0.5%
Probably support 30.6% 5.9% 22.2% 1.4% 0.0% 1.0%
Probably oppose 16.4% 0.7% 2.2% 10.2% 2.4% 1.0%
Definitely oppose 21.2% 0.0% 1.4% 4.1% 15.2% 0.5%
Not sure 9.2% 0.4% 1.0% 1.0% 0.6% 6.1%
Initial Ballot Test (Q7)
Final Ballot Test (Q17)
45 of 62
Background & Demographics
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 34
City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
B ACKGROUND & D EMOGRAPHICS
TABLE 12 DEMOGRAPHICS OF SAMPLE
In addition to questions di rectly related to the pro-
posed revenue measures, the study collected basic
demographic information ab out respondents and their
households. Some of this information was gathered
during the interview, although much of it was collected from the voter file. The profile of the likely November 2026 voter sample used for this study is shown in
Table 12.
Total Respondents 1,012
Years in San Mateo (Q1)
Less than 5 17.8
5 to 9 12.6
10 to 14 13.2
15 or longer 56.1
Prefer not to answer 0.3
Gender
Male 49.0
Female 45.8
Non-binary 0.4
Prefer not to answer 4.8
Party
Democrat 57.9
Republican 16.0
Other / DTS 26.1
Age
18 to 29 12.1
30 to 39 20.2
40 to 49 16.6
50 to 64 23.4
65 or older 27.8
Registration Year
Since June 2016 30.5
Before June 2016 69.5
Household Party Type
Single dem 33.4
Dual dem 14.4
Single rep 7.7
Dual rep 3.0
Other 20.4
Mixed 21.1
Homeowner on Voter File
Yes 60.1
No 39.9
Likely to Vote by Mail
Yes 92.1
No 7.9
Likely Jun 2026 Voter
Yes 63.7
No 36.3
Likely Low Turnout Election Voter
Yes 44.0
No 56.0
46 of 62
Methodology
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 35
City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
M ETHODOLOGY
The following sections outline the methodology used in the study, as well as the motivation for using certain techniques.
QUESTIONNAIRE DEVELOPMENT Dr. McLarney of True North Research worked closely with the City of San Mateo to develop a questionnaire that covered the topics of interest and avoided possible sources of system atic measurement error, incl uding position-order effects, wording effects, response-category effects, sc aling effects, and priming. Several questions included multiple individual items. Because asking the items in a set order can lead to a system- atic position bias in responses, items were asked in random order for each respondent.
Some questions asked in this study were presen ted only to a subset of respondents. For exam- ple, only individuals who did no t support the bond measure (or were unsure) at the Initial Ballot Test (Question 5) were asked Question 6 rega rding their reasons for not supporting the mea- sure. A split-sample approach was also used throughout the survey so that respondents received questions related to one version of the meas ure (bond or sales tax) based on their being assigned to Sample A or Sample B. In some cases, two versions of a project or argument were tested to identify how wording or framing differences impact perception of the item. In such cases, half of each sample (within Sample A or B) received the item with version 1 wording (e.g., Question 15, item A1) and the other half received version 2 (e.g., Question 15, item A2). The questionnaire included with this report (see Questionnaire & Toplines on page 38) identifies the skip instructions that were used during the in terview to ensure that each respondent received the appropriate questions.
PROGRAMMING & PRE-TEST Prior to fielding the survey, the questionnaire was CATI (Computer Assisted Telephone In terviewing) programmed to assist interviewers when conduct- ing telephone interviews. The CATI program auto matically navigates skip patterns, randomizes the appropriate question items, and alerts the interviewer to keypunching mistakes should they occur. The survey was also programmed into a passcode-protected online survey application to allow online participation for sampled voters. The integrity of the questionnaire was pre-tested internally by True North and by dialing into voter households in the City prior to formally begin- ning the survey.
SAMPLE The survey was administered to a stratified and clustered random sample of regis- tered voters in the City who are likely to participate in the November 2026 general election, with a subset who are also likely to participate in the lower-turnout June 2026 primary. Consistent with the profile of this universe, the sample was stratified into clusters, each representing a com- bination of age, gender, and household party type. Individuals were then randomly selected based on their profile into an appropriate cluster. This method ensures that if a person of a par- ticular profile refuses to participate, they are replaced by an individual who shares their same profile.
To reliably estimate support for a bond measure as well as a sales tax measure, a split-sample methodology was employed such that 506 voters were administered a survey that focused on a bond, whereas a separate 506 voters were ask ed questions regarding a sales tax measure. All respondents received questions that were common to both types of measures. The split-sample
47 of 62
Methodology
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 36City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
approach was employed because it is the most reliable method of estima ting voter support for alternative tax measures. Prior research (and actu al election results) have consistently shown that attempting to estimate support for multiple tax measures (e.g., bond and sales tax) with the same respondent during the course of an interview will lead to an artificially low estimate of sup- port for whichever measure is introduced second—and it also has a tendency to cause confusion.
To avoid these sources of measurement error, it is important that each respondent be asked their opinions regarding one of the alternatives, not both.
STATISTICAL MARGIN OF ERROR By using the probability-based sampling design noted above, True North ensured that the final sa mple was representative of voters in the City who are likely to participate in the November 2026 general election. The results of the survey can thus be used to estimate the opinions of all voters likely to participate in said election.
Because not all voters participated in the study, however, the results have what is known as a sta- tistical margin of error due to sampling. The ma rgin of error refers to the difference between what was found in the survey of voters for a particular question and what would have been found if all of the estimated 42,415 likely November 202 6 voters identified in the City had been sur- veyed for the study.
Figure 18 provides a graphic plot of the maximum margin of error in this study. The maximum margin of error for a dichotomous percentage re sult occurs when the answers are evenly split such that 50% provide one response and 50% pr ovide the alternative response. For questions answered by all 1,012 respondents, the maximum margin of error is ± 3.0%. For questions spe- cific to one type of revenue measure (bond or sales tax), the maximum margin of error is approximately ± 4.3%.
FIGURE 18 MAXIMUM MARGIN OF ERROR DUE TO SAMPLING
Split Sample of
506 Voters
± 4.3%
1,012 Respondents
± 3.0%
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 Sample Size (Number of Respondents)
Margin of Error
48 of 62
Methodology
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 37City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Within this report, figures and tables show ho w responses to certain questions varied by sub- groups such as age, gender, and partisan affilia tion. Figure 18 is thus useful for understanding how the maximum margin of error for a percentage estimate will grow as the number of individ- uals asked a question (or in a particular subgro up) shrinks. Because the margin of error grows exponentially as the sample size decreases, the reader should use caution when generalizing and interpreting the results for small subgroups.
RECRUITING & DATA COLLECTION The survey followed a mixed-method design that employed multiple recruiting methods (telephone, text, and email) and multiple data collection methods (telephone and online). Te lephone interviews averaged 17 minutes in length and were conducted during weekday evenings (5:30PM to 9PM) and on weekends (10AM to 5PM). It is stan- dard practice not to call during the day on we ekdays because most working adults are unavail- able and thus calling during those hours would likely bias the sample.
Voters recruited via email and text were assigned a unique passcode to ensure that only voters who received an invitation could access the online survey site, and that each voter could com- plete the survey only one time. A total of 1,012 surveys were completed between November 10 and November 15, 2025.
DATA PROCESSING Data processing consisted of checking the data for errors or inconsis- tencies, coding and recoding responses, weighting, and preparing frequency analyses and cross- tabulations.
ROUNDING Numbers that end in 0.5 or higher are rounded up to the nearest whole num- ber, whereas numbers that end in 0.4 or lower are rounded down to the nearest whole number.
These same rounding rules are also applied, when needed, to arrive at numbers that include a decimal place in constructing figures and tables. Occasionally, these rounding rules lead to small discrepancies in the first decimal place when comparing tables and charts for a given question.
49 of 62
Questionnaire & Toplines
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 38
City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Q UESTIONNAIRE & T OPLINES
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 Page 1
City of San Mateo
Bond & Sales Tax Survey
Final Toplines (n= 1,012)
November 2025
Section 1: Introduction to Study
Hi, may I please speak to _____. My name is _____, and Im calling from TNR on behalf of the City of San Mateo (Muh-TAY-oh). Were conducting a confidential survey of voters about important issues in the city and Id like to get your opinions.
If needed: This is a survey about important issues in your community. Im NOT trying to sell anything and I wont ask for a donation.
If needed: The survey should take about 12 minutes to complete.
If needed: If now is not a convenient time, can you let me know a better time so I can call back?
If the person asks why you need to speak to the listed person or if they ask to participate instead, explain: For statistical purposes, at this time the survey must only be completed by this particular individual.
Section 2: Quality of Life & City Services
Id like to begin by asking you a few questions about what it is like to live in San Mateo.
Q1 How long have you lived in San Mateo?
1 Less than 1 year 3%
2 1 to 4 years 14%
3 5 to 9 years 13%
4 10 to 14 years 13%
5 15 years or longer 56%
99 Prefer not to answer 0%
Q2 How would you rate the overall quality of life in San Mateo? Would you say it is excellent, good, fair, poor or very poor?
1 Excellent 24%
2 Good 62%
3 Fair 12%
4 Poor 1%
5 Very poor 0%
98 Not sure 0%
99 Prefer not to answer 0%
50 of 62
Questionnaire & Toplines
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 39City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
City of San Mateo Bond & Sales Tax Survey November 2025 True North Research, Inc. © 2025 Page 2
Q3
If the city government could change one thing to make San Mateo a better place to live now and in the future, what change would you like to see? Verbatim responses recorded and later grouped into categories shown below.
Limit growth, preserve open space 11%
Provide more affordable housing 11%
Not sure / Cannot think of anything specific 11%
Reduce traffic congestion 10%
Improve, maintain roads 7%
Improve parking 6%
Improve downtown area 6%
Beautify, clean up City 5%
Enforce traffic laws 5%
No changes needed / Everything is fine 5%
Improve public safety, police presence 4%
Provide more shopping, dining opportunities 4%
Address rent control issues 4%
Improve, add parks, rec facilities 3%
Provide additional youth, family activities,
events for different ages 3%
Improve public transit 3%
Reduce taxes, fees 3%
Provide more, safer bike lanes 3%
Address illegal immigration issues 2%
Address homeless issues 2%
Improve schools, education 2%
Improve planning, zoning 2%
Reduce cost of living 2%
Enforce city codes 2%
Reduce building permit restrictions 2%
Improve walkability 2%
Improve pedestrian safety 2%
51 of 62
Questionnaire & Toplines
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 40City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
City of San Mateo Bond & Sales Tax Survey November 2025 True North Research, Inc. © 2025 Page 3
Q4
Generally speaking, are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the job the City of San Mateo is doing to provide city services? Get answer, then ask: Would that be very (satisfied/dissatisfied) or somewhat (satisfied/dissatisfied)? 1 Very satisfied 26%
2 Somewhat satisfied 48%
3 Somewhat dissatisfied 13%
4 Very dissatisfied 5%
98 Not sure 8%
99 Prefer not to answer 1%
Section 3: Initial Ballot Tests
Next year, voters in San Mateo may be asked to vote on a local ballot measure. Let me read you a summary of the measure.
Split Sample. Only Sample A (Bond) gets Q5 & Q6.
Q5
In order to:
o Pave and maintain local streets
o Fix potholes
o Improve intersections for traffic flow/safety
o Repair/replace aging infrastructure
o Upgrade community parks and playfields
o And repair/restore community facilities including fixing deteriorating roofs, plumbing, sewer and electrical systems
shall City of San Mateos measure be adopted authorizing 323 million dollars in bonds at legal rates, levying $30 per $100,000 (one hundred thousand dollars) assessed value (20 million dollars annually) while bonds are outstanding, with independent audits and all money locally-controlled?
If the election were held today, would you vote yes or no on this measure? Get answer, then ask: Would that be definitely (yes/no) or probably (yes/no)? 1 Definitely yes 25% Skip to Q9
2 Probably yes 33% Skip to Q9
3 Probably no 11% Ask Q6
4 Definitely no 15% Ask Q6
98 Not sure 14% Ask Q6
99 Prefer not to answer 1% Skip to Q9
52 of 62
Questionnaire & Toplines
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 41City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
City of San Mateo Bond & Sales Tax Survey November 2025 True North Research, Inc. © 2025 Page 4
Q6
Is there a particular reason why you do not support or are unsure about the measure I just described? If yes, ask: Please briefly describe your reason. Verbatim responses recorded and later grouped into categories shown below.
Money is misspent, mismanaged 33%
Taxes already too high 30%
Need more information 22%
Mentioned past ballot measure 9%
Do not trust City 9%
Not sure / No particular reason 9%
Other higher priorities in community 5%
Do not support bonds, increased debt 4%
Other ways to be funded 3%
City has enough money 2%
Measure too expensive 2%
City services are okay as-is, no need for more
money 1%
Illegal immigration issues 1%
Money will go to admin, union pensions 1%
Split Sample. Only Sample B (Sales Tax) gets Q7 & Q8.
Q7
To provide funding for San Mateo city services, such as:
o Fire protection, paramedic, and 9-1-1 emergency response o Police and crime prevention
o Keeping local streets, sidewalks, parks, infrastructure, and community facilities safe, clean, and well-maintained
o And addressing homelessness
Shall City of San Mateos ordinance establishing a one-quarter cent sales tax be adopted, providing 7 million dollars annually for general government use until ended by voters, with independent audits and all funds locally-controlled?
If the election were held today, would you vote yes or no on this measure? Get answer, then ask: Would that be definitely (yes/no) or probably (yes/no)? 1 Definitely yes 23% Skip to Q9
2 Probably yes 31% Skip to Q9
3 Probably no 16% Ask Q8
4 Definitely no 21% Ask Q8
98 Not sure 6% Ask Q8
99 Prefer not to answer 3% Skip to Q9
53 of 62
Questionnaire & Toplines
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 42City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
City of San Mateo Bond & Sales Tax Survey November 2025 True North Research, Inc. © 2025 Page 5
Q8
Is there a particular reason why you do not support or are unsure about the measure I just described? If yes, ask: Please briefly describe your reason. Verbatim responses recorded and later grouped into categories shown below.
Taxes already too high 46%
Money is misspent, mismanaged 29%
Need more information 14%
Other ways to be funded 11%
Not sure / No particular reason 9%
Do not trust City 7%
City services are okay as-is, no need for more
money 5%
Other higher priorities in community 4%
City has enough money 3%
Mentioned past ballot measure 3%
Money will go to admin, union pensions 2%
Sales taxes are regressive 2%
Illegal immigration issues 1%
Section 4: Tax Threshold for Bond
Split Sample. Only Sample A (Bond) gets Q9 & Q10.
Q9
The amount home owners will pay if the bond passes depends on the assessed value of their home not the current market value of the home.
If you heard that the annual property taxes on your home would increase: _____ per 100,000 (one hundred thousand) dollars of assessed valuation, would you vote yes or no on the bond measure? Get answer, then ask: Is that definitely (yes/no) or probably (yes/no)?
If needed: The assessed value of your home is listed on your property tax bill.
Read in sequence starting with the highest amount (A), then the next highest (B), and so on.
If respondent says definitely yes, record definitely yes for all LOWER dollar amounts and go to next question.
Ask in Order
Definitely
yes
Probably
yes
Probably
no
Definitely
no
Not sure
Prefer not
to answer
A $30 18% 27% 17% 25% 12% 2%
B $20 23% 25% 13% 26% 10% 1%
C $15 29% 26% 10% 25% 8% 2%
54 of 62
Questionnaire & Toplines
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 43City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
City of San Mateo Bond & Sales Tax Survey November 2025 True North Research, Inc. © 2025 Page 6
Q10
Let me put it another way: If you knew that this measure would cost the typical home owner about $225 per year, would you vote yes or no on the bond measure? Get answer, then ask: Is that definitely (yes/no) or probably (yes/no)? 1 Definitely yes 27%
2 Probably yes 26%
3 Probably no 11%
4 Definitely no 25%
98 Not sure 10%
99 Prefer not to answer 1%
Section 5: Projects & Services
Q11
The measure weve been discussing would provide funding for a variety of city projects and services.
If the measure passes, would you favor or oppose using some of the money to: _____, or do you not have an opinion? Get answer, if favor or oppose, then ask: Would that be strongly (favor/oppose) or somewhat (favor/oppose)?
Randomize
Strongly
favor
Somewhat
favor
Somewhat
oppose
Strongly
oppose
Not sure
Prefer not
to answer
All respondents receive items A-F.
A Pave and maintain local streets and roads 52% 31% 5% 5% 5% 1% B Fix potholes 58% 27% 4% 6% 4% 1%
C
Make improvements to roads, intersections,
bike lanes, and signals to improve traffic
safety and reduce congestion
56% 24% 7% 7% 5% 1%
D Repair or replace aging infrastructure 48% 34% 5% 6% 6% 1% E Upgrade community parks and playfields 39% 36% 8% 7% 7% 1% F
Repair and restore community facilities
including fixing deteriorating roofs,
plumbing, sewer and electrical systems
42% 37% 7% 6% 8% 1%
Only Sample B (Sales Tax) receives items G-K.
G Provide fire protection and paramedic
services 52% 30% 5% 3% 6% 3%
H Provide quick responses to 9-1-1 emergencies 59% 26% 2% 3% 8% 2% I Provide police and crime prevention services 44% 29% 8% 8% 9% 3% J
Keep streets, sidewalks, parks, infrastructure,
and community facilities safe, clean, and well-
maintained
55% 31% 4% 4% 5% 2%
K Address homelessness 40% 29% 8% 10% 10% 3%
55 of 62
Questionnaire & Toplines
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 44City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
City of San Mateo Bond & Sales Tax Survey November 2025 True North Research, Inc. © 2025 Page 7
Section 6: Positive Arguments
What Id like to do now is tell you what some people say about the measure weve been discussing.
Q12 Supporters of the measure say: _____. Do you think this is a very convincing, somewhat convincing, or not at all convincing reason to SUPPORT the measure? Randomize
Very
convincing
Somewhat
convincing
Not at all
convincing
Don t
believe
Not sure
Prefer not to
answer
All respondents receive items A-F.
A
All money raised by the measure will be
reinvested here in the City of San Mateo. By
law, it cant be taken away by the Federal
Government, State or County.
38% 31% 13% 12% 5% 1%
B
The measure includes a clear system of
accountability including independent audits
and public disclosure of how all funds are
spent.
28% 36% 13% 16% 5% 2%
C
The City of San Mateo has 350 million dollars
in unfunded projects that need to be
completed. The longer we wait to fix our
streets, infrastructure, and facilities, the more
expensive it will become.
33% 34% 17% 11% 4% 1%
D
The City maintains 200 miles of streets, 390
miles of sewer and storm drain pipes, and 31
parks. This measure provides the funding we
need to keep our streets, infrastructure, and
parks in good condition.
33% 37% 15% 10% 4% 2%
E
Most of our community facilities were built
more than 50 years ago. Due to their age,
they have earthquake safety issues, outdated
electrical and plumbing, and roof leaks that
can cause water damage and mold. This
measure will fix these problems.
33% 39% 14% 9% 4% 1%
F
The City of San Mateo has done a good job
keeping costs down by deferring maintenance
projects, cutting back on basic services, and
freezing staff positions despite a growing
population. Even with these cost-cutting
actions, the City is facing a 14-million-dollar
deficit this year and deficits of at least $5
million each year into the future. If we want
our community to be a safe, clean place to
live, we cant keep deferring maintenance and
cutting services. We need to support this
measure.
29% 33% 16% 16% 5% 1%
56 of 62
Questionnaire & Toplines
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 45City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
City of San Mateo Bond & Sales Tax Survey November 2025 True North Research, Inc. © 2025 Page 8
Only Sample B (Sales Tax) receives items G-J.
G
By keeping our city safe, clean, and well-
maintained, this measure will help protect our
quality of life and keep San Mateo a special
place to live.
29% 40% 16% 10% 4% 1%
H
A sizeable percentage of the money raised by
the sales tax will come from people who visit
or pass through San Mateo, but dont live
here. This measure will make sure they pay
their fair share for the facilities and services
they use while in our city.
22% 31% 23% 17% 5% 2%
I
Most of the sales tax generated locally goes
to the State of California and the County. This
measure ensures that a higher percentage of
our sales tax dollars stay here in the City of
San Mateo and we have local control over how
those funds are spent.
30% 34% 16% 14% 5% 1%
J
Fast emergency response times for 9-1-1 calls
are critical for saving lives. This measure will
ensure that we have enough police officers,
firefighters, paramedics, and police officers
to respond quickly to 9-1-1 emergencies.
34% 34% 13% 10% 6% 2%
Section 7: Interim Ballot Tests
Sometimes people change their minds about a measure once they have more information about it. Now that you have heard a bit more about the measure, let me read you a summary of it again.
Split Sample. Only Sample A (Bond) gets Q13.
Q13
In order to:
o Pave and maintain local streets
o Fix potholes
o Improve intersections for traffic flow/safety
o Repair/replace aging infrastructure
o Upgrade community parks and playfields
o And repair/restore community facilities including fixing deteriorating roofs, plumbing, sewer and electrical systems
shall City of San Mateos measure be adopted authorizing 323 million dollars in bonds at legal rates, levying $30 per $100,000 (one hundred thousand dollars) assessed value (20 million dollars annually) while bonds are outstanding, with independent audits and all money locally-controlled? If the election were held today, would you vote yes or no on this measure? Get answer, then ask: Would that be definitely (yes/no) or probably (yes/no)?
1 Definitely yes 27%
2 Probably yes 31%
3 Probably no 14%
4 Definitely no 20%
98 Not sure 6%
99 Prefer not to answer 1%
57 of 62
Questionnaire & Toplines
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 46City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
City of San Mateo Bond & Sales Tax Survey November 2025 True North Research, Inc. © 2025 Page 9
Split Sample. Only Sample B (Sales Tax) gets Q14.
Q14
To provide funding for San Mateo city services, such as:
o Fire protection, paramedic, and 9-1-1 emergency response o Police and crime prevention
o Keeping local streets, sidewalks, parks, infrastructure, and community facilities safe, clean, and well-maintained
o And addressing homelessness
Shall City of San Mateos ordinance establishing a one-quarter cent sales tax be adopted, providing 7 million dollars annually for general government use until ended by voters, with independent audits and all funds locally-controlled?
If the election were held today, would you vote yes or no on this measure? Get answer, then ask: Would that be definitely (yes/no) or probably (yes/no)? 1 Definitely yes 26%
2 Probably yes 32%
3 Probably no 16%
4 Definitely no 16%
98 Not sure 8%
99 Prefer not to answer 2%
Section 8: Negative Arguments
Next, let me tell you what opponents of the measure say.
Q15 Opponents of the measure say: _____. Do you think this is a very convincing, somewhat convincing, or not at all convincing reason to OPPOSE the measure? Randomize. Split Sampe A1/A2 using
odd/even clusters.
Very
convincing
Somewhat
convincing
Not at all
convincing
Don t
believe
Not sure
Prefer not to
answer
A1
Residents and local businesses have been hit
hard by inflation, high interest rates, and cost
of living increases. Many are struggling to
stay afloat. Now is not the time to raise taxes.
39% 34% 17% 6% 2% 2%
A2
Our community is already an expensive place
to live, especially for young families and
those on fixed incomes. Passing this tax
increase will make it even less affordable.
38% 37% 13% 7% 4% 1%
B
City employees are making too much money
in salary, pensions and benefits thats the
problem. The City needs to tighten its belt
before asking residents to pay more taxes.
23% 26% 24% 17% 8% 2%
58 of 62
Questionnaire & Toplines
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 47City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
City of San Mateo Bond & Sales Tax Survey November 2025 True North Research, Inc. © 2025 Page 10
C
Everyone is coming after us for tax increases
including state and county taxes, school
bonds, and other taxes that will be on the
ballot next year. Enough is enough. We cant
afford to keep raising our taxes.
39% 32% 18% 8% 3% 2%
Split Sample. Only Sample A (Bond) gets items D.
D
Dont be fooled. With interest, this bond will
cost taxpayers nearly 700 million dollars and
take 30 years to pay off.
26% 34% 20% 11% 6% 3%
Split Sample. Only Sample B (Sales Tax) gets item E & F.
E
There are no guarantees on how funds will be
spent, which means the City can divert the
money to pet projects without any say from
voters. We cant trust the City with our tax
dollars.
30% 34% 15% 11% 8% 2%
F This tax will last forever. There is no
expiration date. 33% 27% 21% 8% 8% 3%
Section 9: Final Ballot Tests
Now that you have heard a bit more about the measure, let me read you a summary of it one more time.
Split Sample. Only Sample A (Bond) gets Q16.
Q16
In order to:
o Pave and maintain local streets
o Fix potholes
o Improve intersections for traffic flow/safety
o Repair/replace aging infrastructure
o Upgrade community parks and playfields
o And repair/restore community facilities including fixing deteriorating roofs, plumbing, sewer and electrical systems
shall City of San Mateos measure be adopted authorizing 323 million dollars in bonds at legal rates, levying $30 per $100,000 (one hundred thousand dollars) assessed value (20 million dollars annually) while bonds are outstanding, with independent audits and all money locally-controlled?
If the election were held today, would you vote yes or no on this measure? Get answer, then ask: Would that be definitely (yes/no) or probably (yes/no)? 1 Definitely yes 23%
2 Probably yes 30%
3 Probably no 17%
4 Definitely no 23%
98 Not sure 6%
99 Prefer not to answer 1%
59 of 62
Questionnaire & Toplines
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 48City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
City of San Mateo Bond & Sales Tax Survey November 2025 True North Research, Inc. © 2025 Page 11
Split Sample. Only Sample B (Sales Tax) gets Q17.
Q17
To provide funding for San Mateo city services, such as:
o Fire protection, paramedic, and 9-1-1 emergency response o Police and crime prevention
o Keeping local streets, sidewalks, parks, infrastructure, and community facilities safe, clean, and well-maintained
o And addressing homelessness
Shall City of San Mateos ordinance establishing a one-quarter cent sales tax be adopted, providing 7 million dollars annually for general government use until ended by voters, with independent audits and all funds locally-controlled?
If the election were held today, would you vote yes or no on this measure? Get answer, then ask: Would that be definitely (yes/no) or probably (yes/no)? 1 Definitely yes 24%
2 Probably yes 32%
3 Probably no 17%
4 Definitely no 18%
98 Not sure 7%
99 Prefer not to answer 2%
Those are all of the questions that I have for you. Thanks so much for participating in this important survey.
Post-Interview & Sample Items
S1 Gender
1 Male 49%
2 Female 46%
3 Non-binary 0%
4 Prefer not to answer 5%
S2 Party
1 Democrat 58%
2 Republican 16%
3 Other 6%
4 DTS 20%
60 of 62
Questionnaire & Toplines
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 49City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
City of San Mateo Bond & Sales Tax Survey November 2025 True North Research, Inc. © 2025 Page 12
S3 Age on Voter File
1 18 to 29 12%
2 30 to 39 20%
3 40 to 49 17%
4 50 to 64 23%
5 65 or older 28%
S4 Registration Date
1 Since Nov 2020 14%
2 Jun 2016 to before Nov 2020 17%
3 Jun 2012 to before Jun 2016 8%
4 Before June 2012 61%
S5 Household Party Type
1 Single Dem 33%
2 Dual Dem 14%
3 Single Rep 8%
4 Dual Rep 3%
5 Single Other 16%
6 Dual Other 5%
7 Dem & Rep 4%
8 Dem & Other 12%
9 Rep & Other 4%
0 Mixed (Dem + Rep + Other) 2%
S6 Homeowner on Voter File
1 Yes 60%
2 No 40%
S7 Likely to Vote by Mail
1 Yes 92%
2 No 8%
61 of 62
Questionnaire & Toplines
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 50City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
City of San Mateo Bond & Sales Tax Survey November 2025 True North Research, Inc. © 2025 Page 13
S8 Likely November 2026 Voter
1 Yes 100%
2 No 0%
S9 Likely June 2026 Voter
1 Yes 64%
2 No 36%
S10 Likely Low Turnout Election Voter
1 Yes 44%
2 No 56%
S11 Survey Language
1 English 97%
2 Spanish 3%
62 of 62