San Mateo City Council
June 15, 2026

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Table of Contents
iCity of San Mateo True No rth Research, Inc. © 2026
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

T ABLE OF C ONTENTS
Table of Contents. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i List of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii List of Figures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Motivation for Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Overview of Methodology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Organization of Report. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Disclaimer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 About True North . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Key Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Quality of Life & City Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Quality of Life. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Question 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Changes to Improve San Mateo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Question 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Overall Performance Rating . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Question 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Initial Ballot Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Question 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Gauging AB1416 Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Support by Subgroups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Reasons For Not Supporting Measure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Question 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Projects & Services. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Question 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Service Ratings by Initial Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Positive Arguments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Question 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Top Positive Arguments by Initial Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Interim Ballot Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Question 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Support by Ballot Test Version . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Support by Subgroups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Negative Arguments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Question 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Negative Arguments by Initial Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Final Ballot Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Question 11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Support by Ballot Test Version . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Change in Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Charter Amendment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Question 12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Fiscal Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Question 13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Background & Demographics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Questionnaire Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Programming, Pre-Test & Translation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Sample. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Statistical Margin of Error . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Recruiting & Data Collection. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Table of Contents
iiCity of San Mateo True No rth Research, Inc. © 2026
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Data Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Rounding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Questionnaire & Toplines. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 List of Tables
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 iii
City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

L IST OF T ABLES
Table 1 Demographic Breakdown of Support at Initial Ballot Test. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Table 2 Top Projects & Services by Position at Initia l Ballot Test. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Table 3 Top Positive Arguments by Position at Initial Ballot Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Table 4 Demographic Breakdown of Support at Interim Ballot Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Table 5 Negative Arguments by Position at Initial Ballo t Test. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Table 6 Demographic Breakdown of Support at Final Ballot Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Table 7 Movement Between Initial & Final Ballot Test. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Table 8 Demographics of Sample . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 List of Figures
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 iv
City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

L IST OF F IGURES
Figure 1 Quality of Life . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Figure 2 Quality of Life by Years in San Mateo & Age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Figure 3 Quality of Life by Child in Hsld, Homeowner on Voter File, Survey Language & Gender . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Figure 4 Changes to Improve City. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Figure 5 Overall Satisfaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Figure 6 Overall Satisfaction by Years in San Mateo & Ag e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Figure 7 Overall Satisfaction by Quality of Life, Child in Hsld, Homeowner on Voter File, Survey Language & Gender . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Figure 8 Initial Ballot Test. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 Figure 9 Initial Ballot Test by Ballot Test Version. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Figure 10 Reasons for Not Supporting Measure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Figure 11 Projects & Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Figure 12 Positive Arguments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Figure 13 Interim Ballot Test. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Figure 14 Interim Ballot Test by Ballot Test Version . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Figure 15 Negative Arguments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Figure 16 Final Ballot Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 5 Figure 17 Final Ballot Test by Ballot Test Version . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Figure 18 Support for the Proposed City Charter Amendment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Figure 19 Support for the Proposed City Char ter Amendment by Overall Satisfaction, Party & Position at Initial Ballot Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Figure 20 Rating Fiscal Management. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Figure 21 Rating Fiscal Management by Overall Satisfaction, Party & Position at Initial Ballot Test. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Figure 22 Maximum Margin of Error Due to Sampling @ 95% Confidence Level. . . . . . . . . . . 34 Introduction
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 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 104,315 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 tracking survey was to pro- duce an up-to-date, statistically reliable evaluati on of voters' interest in supporting a sales tax measure to fund city streets, infrastructure, pu blic safety, and other general municipal services in the current environment. Additionally, should the City decide to move forward with a measure, the survey data can guide how best to structure the measure so it is consistent with the commu- nity's priorities and expressed needs. Specifically, the study was designed to:
• Gauge current, baseline support for enacting a local sales tax to ensure adequate funding for streets, infrastructure, public safety, and general municipal services; • Identify the types of services voters are most interested in funding, should the measure pass;
• Expose voters to arguments in favor of—and against—the proposed tax measure to gauge 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 recognize that voters’ opinions about tax measures are often fluid, particularly when they begin with limited information. The way voters think and feel about a measure today may shift as they are exposed to additional deta ils in the months leading up to election day.

Accordingly, to accurately asse ss the feasibility of establishing a sales tax increase to fund municipal services, it was important that in addition to measuring current opinions about the measure (Question 5), the survey expose respon dents to the types of information voters are likely to encounter during an election cycle, including arguments in favor of (Question 8) and opposed to (Question 10) the measure, and gauge how this type of information ultimately impacts their voting decision (Questions 9 & 11).

1. Source: State of California, Depart ment of Finance, E-1City/County Population Estimates, January 2025.

Introduction
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 2City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

OVERVIEW OF METHODOLOGY For a full discussion of the research methods and tech- niques used in this study, turn to Methodology on page 33. In brief, the survey was administered to a random sample of 689 registered voters in the City of San Mateo who are likely to partici- pate in the November 2026 election. The survey followed a mixed-method design that employed multiple recruiting methods (email, text, and te lephone) and multiple data collection methods (telephone and online). Administered in English and Spanish between May 11 and May 15, 2026, the average interview lasted 16 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 findings of the survey and a discussion of their implica- tions. For the interested reader, this section is followed by a more detailed question-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 anal yzing the data. And, for the truly ambitious reader, the questionnaire used for the interviews is contained at the back of this report (see Questionnaire & Toplines on page 36) 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.

During their careers, True Nort h’s Principals (Dr. McLarney an d Mr. Sarles) have designed and conducted over 1,500 survey research studies fo r public agencies, including more than 500 rev- enue measure feasibility studies. Of the measures that have gone to ballot based on True North’s recommendation, 93% have been successful. In total, the research that True North has con- ducted has led to over $42 billion in voter-approved local revenue measures.

Key Findings
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 3
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 an up-to-date, statistically reliable understanding of voters’ interest in establishing a local sales tax to fund general city services. Whereas subsequent sections 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.

Does a local sales tax
measure appear feasible
for the November 2026
ballot?
Voters have a high regard for the quality of life in San Mateo (85% rate it as excellent or good) and are generally satisfied with the City’s provision of services (80% very or somewhat sa tisfied). These sentiments translate into sufficient natural support (58%) for establishing a one-quarter cent sales tax to provide funding for city services in San Mateo, such as keep- ing local streets, sidewalks, parks, infrastructure, and community facili- ties safe, clean, and well-maintained; fixing potholes; providing fire protection, paramedic, crime preven tion, and 911 emergency response; and improvements to traffic safe ty/traffic management. Moreover, despite the recent war in Iran and spiking fuel prices, natural support for the proposed sales tax was 5% higher than in the Baseline Survey con- ducted in November 2025.
2 The results of this tracking survey indicate that a local sales tax measure continues to be feasible for the November 2026 ballot provided that it focuses on the projects and services th at voters identify as their priori- ties and is accompanied by robust community/opinion leader engage- ment, education, and communication (more on this below).

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 (not within the City’s or an indepe ndent campaign’s control) and that a recommendation to place the meas ure on the November 2026 ballot comes with several qualifications an d conditions. Indeed, although the results are promising, all revenue measures must overcome challenges prior to being successful. The propos ed measure is no exception. The following paragraphs discuss some of the challenges and the next steps that True North recommends.

2. The natural level of support fo r the proposed sales tax measure in the baseline survey was 53%.

Key Findings
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 4City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Which services do vot-
ers view as priorities?
A general tax is “any tax imposed for general governmental purposes” 3 and is distinguished from a special tax in that the funds raised by a gen- eral tax are not earmarked for any sp ecific 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 tracking survey results indicate that vot- ers continue to be primarily interested in using the proceeds to fund public works and public safety, including keeping streets, sidewalks, parks, infrastructure, and community facilities safe, clean, and well- maintained (88% strongly or somewhat favor), providing quick responses to 911 emergencies (84%), providing fire protection and paramedic ser- vices (83%), and fixing potholes (83%). That said, it is worth noting that every potential use of sales tax proceeds tested was favored by at least two-thirds of voters surveyed.

How might a public
information campaign
affect support for the
proposed measure?
As noted in the body of this report , individuals’ opinions about revenue measures are often not rigid, especially when the amount of information presented to the public on a measure has been limited. Thus, in addition to measuring current support for the measure, one of the goals of this study was to explore how the introd uction of additional information about the measure may affect voters’ opinions about the proposal.

It is clear from the survey results that some voters’ opinions about the proposed measure are somewhat sensitive to the nature—and amount— of information that they have abou t the measure. Information about the specific services that could be funded by the sales tax, as well as argu- ments in favor of the measure, were found by many voters to be compel- ling reasons to support the measure. However, voters also exhibited sensitivity to opposition arguments, which effectively cooled support for the one-quarter cent sales tax measure down to 54% at the Final Ballot Test. There is also a risk that some voters could be swayed by hyper-par- tisan campaigning during the 2026 election cycle. Accordingly, one of the keys to building and sustaining support for the measure will be the presence of an effective, well-organized public outreach effort, as well as an independent campaign that focu ses on the need for the measure 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 is likely feasible for 2026. Even in a national environment marred by eco- nomic uncertainty, political instability, concerns about war, tariffs, and

3. Section 1, Article XIIIC, California Constitution.

Key Findings
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 5City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
inflation, rising cost-of-living pressures, consumer sentiment reaching record lows, and broader skepticis m about government spending, 58% of voters were supportive of the proposed measure on the natural.

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, both domestically and internationally. Exactly how these events unfold and may shape voters’ 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 escalation of the war in Iran, sustained high fuel prices, local opposition, and devolving into a hyper-partisan environ- ment), skewed voter turnout, and/or competing measures could dampen support for the measure below what was recorded in this study.

Quality of Life & City Services
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 6
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, 85% of voters shared favorable opinions of the quality of life in San Mateo, with 25% reporting it is excellent and 60% stating it is good. Approximately 12% of voters surveyed rated the quality of life in the City as fair, whereas just 3% 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, age of the respon- dent, presence of a child in the household, homeownership status, survey language, and gender. The most striking pat- tern in the figures is the consistency in assessments of the quality of life in San Mateo, with the percentage who rated it as excellent or good ranging between 81% and 94%.

FIGURE 2 QUALITY OF LIFE BY YEARS IN SAN MATEO & AGE
DK/NA

1.1 Very poor

0.8Poor

2.0 Fair

11.5 Good

59.9 Excellent

24.7 32.7 26.1 25.7 24.6

56.6 63.9 59.9

61.8 57.7

23.5 33.6

23.0Excellent

25.3 18.8

70.5 56.5

57.2 Good

61.8 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
Less than 5 5 to 9 10 to 14 15 or more 18 to 29 30 to 39 40 to 49 50 to 64 65 or older Years in S an Mateo (Q1) Age
% Respondents
Quality of Life & City Services
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 7City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

FIGURE 3 QUALITY OF LIFE BY CHILD IN HSLD, HOMEOWNER ON VOTER FILE, SURVEY LANGUAGE & GENDER 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. Question 3 was pos ed 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 la ter reviewed the verbat im responses and grouped them into the categories shown in Figure 4 on the next page.

Approximately 14% of respondents were unsure (9%) or stated that there were no changes they desire—everything is fine (5%). Among specific changes desired, limiting growth and preserving open space (13%), providing more affordable housing (13%), and reducing traffic congestion (10%) were the most common. Other issues cited by at least 5% of voters were improving/main- taining roads (7%), providing more shopping and dining opportunities (6%), and improving park- ing (6%), public transit (6%), pedestrian safety (6%), and parks and recreation facilities (5%).

25.6 1.4

28.5 58.8

91.0 55.5 66.8

19.9Excellent

18.5 27.6 25.9 22.9
Good

65.0 62.558.358.5
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Yes No Yes No English Spanish Male Female
Child in Hsld (Q14) Homeowner on Voter File Survey Language Gender % Respondents
Quality of Life & City Services
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 8City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

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
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, eight-in-ten voters surve yed (80%) indicated that they were satisfied with the City of San Mateo’s efforts to provide municipal services, with 26% saying they were very sat- isfied. Approximately 15% reported that they were dissatisfied with the City’s overall perfor- mance, whereas 5% were unsure or unwilling to state their opinion.

13.2 12.8

9.5 8.9

6.6 6.4

6.3 6.1

5.6 5.3

4.9 4.4

4.3 4.2

3.8 3.7

2.9 2.8

2.7 2.2

2.2 2.0

1.8 1.7

1.7 1.5

1.9 5.4

4.9 0 5 10 15
Limit growth, preserve open space
Provide more affordable housing
Reduce traffic congestion
Not sure / Cannot think of anything specific
Improve, maintain roads
Provide more shopping, dining opportunities
Improve parking
Improve public transit
Improve pedestrian safety
No changes needed / Everything is fine
Improve, add parks, rec facilities
Provide more, safer bike lanes
Improve downtown area
Enforce traffic laws
Provide additional youth, family activities, events for different ages
Improve planning, zoning
Reduce taxes, fees
Beautify, clean up City
Improve schools, education
Reduce cost of living
Improve walkability
Keep Hillsdale Mall
Improve public safety, police presence
Limit building heights
Fix El Camino Real
Provide more grocery store
Address rent control issues
Address homeless issues
Address empty buildings
% Respondents
Quality of Life & City Services
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 9City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

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 display how the percentage of
respondents satisfied with the City’s overall perfor-
mance varied across key subgroups. As expected,
opinions about the City’s overall performance in
providing municipal services were strongly related
to the perceived quality of life in the community
(89% among those who rated it as excellent or good
vs. 30% for those who said fair, poor, or very poor).

Among demographic subgroups, residents who
have lived in the City less than 15 years, residents
under 50 years of age, an d those without a child in
the household expressed the highest levels of satis-
faction with the City’s overall performance.

FIGURE 6 OVERALL SATISFACTION BY YEARS IN SAN MATEO & AGE Very satisfied

26.2 Somewhat
satisfied

54.0 Somewhat
dissatisfied

12.1 Very
dissatisfied

2.8 Not sure

4.5 Prefer not to
answer

0.4 32.2

21.4 28.8 27.7

53.9 61.2

54.1 52.2

51.7 22.7
Ver y
satisfied

32.6 17.7 20.8

28.4 Smwt
satisfied

56.4 48.064.964.9
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Less than 5 5 to 9 10 to 14 15 or more 18 to 29 30 to 39 40 to 49 50 to 64 65 or older Years in S an Mateo (Q1) Age
% Respondents
Quality of Life & City Services
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 10City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

FIGURE 7 OVERALL SATISFACTION BY QUALITY OF LIFE, CHILD IN HSLD, HOMEOWNER ON VOTER FILE, SURVEY

LANGUAGE & GENDER

23.9 30.0 26.9 33.2

21.0 55.5

51.8 53.2

75.7 50.2

58.3 29.5

21.1 1.2
Very
satisfied

30.0 6.6

28.5 56.8

53.7 Smwt
satisfied

59.0 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
Excellent,
good
Fair, poor,
very poor
Yes No Yes No English Spanish Male Female
Quality of Life (Q2) Child in Hsld (Q14) Homeowner on Voter File
Survey Language Gender
% Respondents
Initial Ballot Test
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 11
City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

I NITIAL B ALLOT T EST
The primary research objective of this survey was to estimate voters’ support for establishing a one-quarter cent sales tax to provide funding fo r city services in San Mateo, such as keeping local streets, sidewalks, parks, infrastructure , and community facilities safe, clean, and well- maintained; fixing potholes; providing fire pr otection, paramedic, cr ime prevention, and 911 emergency response; and improvements to traffic safety/traffic management. To this end, Ques- tion 5 was designed to take an early assessment of voters’ support for the proposed measure.

The motivation for placing Question 5 near the front of the survey is twofold. First, voter support for a measure can often depend on the amount of information th ey have about a measure. At this point in the survey, the respondent has not been provided inform ation about the proposed measure beyond what is presented in the ballot la nguage. 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 campaign. Question 5, also known as the Initial Ballot Test, is thus a good measure of voter support for the proposed measure as it is today, on the natural. Because the Initial Ballot Test provides a gauge of natural support for the measure, it also serves a second purpose as a useful baseline from which to ju dge the impact of variou s information items con- veyed later in the survey on voter support for the measure.

Question 5 Later this year, voters in San Mateo may be asked to vote on a local ballot mea- sure. Let me read you a summary of the measure. To provide funding for San Mateo city ser- vices, such as keeping local streets, sidewalk s, parks, infrastructure, and community facilities safe, clean, and well-maintained; fixing potholes; providing fire protection, paramedic, crime prevention, and 911 emergency response; and impr ovements to traffic sa fety/traffic manage- ment; 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 inde- pendent 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
Figure 8 presents the results of the Initial Ballot
Test among all respondents. Overall, 58% of
likely November 2026 voters surveyed indicated
that they would support the proposed one-quar-
ter cent sales tax, whereas 33% stated that they
would oppose the meas ure and approximately
9% were unsure or unwilling to share their vote
choice.
4 For general taxes in California, the level
of support recorded at the Initial Ballot Test is
approximately eight percentage points above the
simple majority (50%+1) required for passage.

4. Support at the Initial Ballot Test in this Tracking Surv ey is approximately 5% higher than in the Baseline Sur- vey conducted in November 2025.

Definitely yes

25.1 Probably yes

33.2 Probably no

14.2 Definitely no

18.6 Not sure

8.1 Prefer not to
answer

0.8 Initial Ballot Test
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 12City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

GAUGING AB1416 IMPACTS For counties that choose not to opt-out of the practice, new legislation allows for a short list of supporters and opponents to appear right below the 75 word ballot statement. Not knowing at this point exactly which individuals or organizations may choose to support or oppose the proposal, if an y, the survey employed a split-sample to gauge the potential impact of AB1416 on voter support for the proposed sales tax measure. The overall sample was divided into two representative subgroups. One group (Sample A) received the ballot statement with a short list of potential supporters (local fire fighters, police officers, and a busi- ness organization) and no opponents listed, wher eas the second group (Sample B) received the ballot statement, same list of potential suppo rters, and potential opponents described as a regional taxpayer association.

Figure 9 shows how the two subgroups differed in their level of support for the measure at the Initial Ballot Test. Respondents who received a sh ort list of supporters, but no opponents, were more supportive of the proposed sales tax measure (62%) than their counterparts who received a list of supporters and opponents (54%).

FIGURE 9 INITIAL BALLOT TEST BY BALLOT TEST VERSION

17.1 15.8 21.6

9.3 6.9

24.026.1

29.8 36.3

11.5 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
Supporters, but no opponents Supporters and opponents
Ballot Test Version
% Respondents
Prefer not to
answer
Not sur e
Definitely no
Probably no
Probably yes
Definitely yes
Initial Ballot Test
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 13City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

SUPPORT BY SUBGROUPS For the interested reader, Table 1 shows how support for the measure at the Initial Ballot Test varied by ke y voter traits. The blue column (Approximate % of Universe) indicates the percentage of the likely November 2026 electorate that each subgroup category comprises. Support for the proposed measure was widespread, with nearly all demo- graphic5 subgroups exhibiting support at or above a simple majority. The only exceptions were registered Republicans and those living in single or dual Republican households.

TABLE 1 DEMOGRAPHIC BREAKDOWN OF SUPPORT AT INITIAL BALLOT TEST

5. Not including differences by quality of life (Q2), ov erall satisfaction (Q4), or fiscal management (Q13).

Approximate %
of Voter
Universe
% Probably or
Definitely Yes % Not sure
Overall 100 58.2 8.1
Less than 5 16 71.4 5.3
5 to 9 16 60.5 9.5
10 to 14 12 59.8 8.5
15 or more 56 53.7 8.5
Excellent, good 86 62.2 8.5
Fair, poor, very poor 14 35.5 4.0
Satisfied 84 63.5 8.5
Dissatisfied 16 27.6 6.2
Excellent, good 36 79.9 2.8
Fair 28 44.8 10.8
Poor, very poor 14 16.2 6.0
Not sure 22 66.8 15.3
18 to 29 14 72.0 8.7
30 to 39 16 66.3 8.7
40 to 49 16 58.4 8.0
50 to 64 25 50.6 6.3
65 or older 29 53.6 9.1
Democrat 56 67.6 8.4
Republican 15 38.2 9.5
Other / DTS 29 50.5 6.9
Single dem 32 64.2 7.5
Dual dem 16 72.6 10.8
Single rep 7 32.7 16.1
Dual rep 3 16.2 6.9
Other 19 51.7 7.4
Mixed 23 57.7 5.4
Yes 27 57.9 7.8
No 73 60.3 8.3
Since June 2016 36 66.3 9.5
Before June 2016 64 53.6 7.3
Yes 61 54.7 8.8
No 39 63.8 7.0
Yes 95 58.4 8.1
No 5 55.5 9.0
Yes 60 52.7 8.7
No 40 66.4 7.3
Yes 44 50.5 9.4
No 56 64.4 7.1
English 96 58.3 7.8
Spanish 4 55.9 16.2
Male 51 58.4 6.4
Female 49 60.3 10.5
Supporters, but no opponents 51 62.4 9.3
Supporters and opponents 49 53.8 6.9
Gender
Ballot Test Version
Likely Jun 2026 Voter
Likely Low Turnout
Election Voter
Survey Language
Child in Hsld (Q14)
Registration Year
Homeowner on Voter File
Likely to Vote by Mail
Household Party Type
Age
Years in San Mateo (Q1)
Fiscal Management
Rating (Q13)
Party
Quality of Life (Q2)
Overall Satisfaction (Q4)
Initial Ballot Test
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 14City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

REASONS FOR NOT SUPPORTING MEASURE Respondents who did not support the measure or were unsure at the Initial Ballot Test were subsequently asked if there was a particu- lar reason for their position. Question 6 was as ked in an open-ended manner, allowing respon- dents 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 10.

Among the reasons offered for not supporting the measure, a belief that taxes are already too high (41%) and the perception that city funds have been/will be mismanaged or misspent (33%) were the most common, followed by a desire for more information about the measure (19%), concerns about the economy, inflation, and cost of living (14%), and the view that there are other ways to fund city services (12%).

Question 6 Is there a particular reason why you do not support or are unsure about the mea- sure I just described?
FIGURE 10 REASONS FOR NOT SUPPORTING MEASURE

40.8 33.0

19.2 13.5

11.8 5.7

2.5 2.5

2.1 1.9

1.6 0.7

2.0 1.0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Taxes already too high
Money is misspent, mismanaged
Need more information
Economic, inflation, cost of living concerns
Other ways to be funded
Not sure / No particular reason
Do not trust City
Other higher priorities in community
City has enough money
Money will go to admin, union pensions
Mentioned past ballot measure
City is okay as-is, no need for more money
It would hurt economy
Money should not go to police
% Respondents Who Do Not Support Measure
Projects & Services
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 15
City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

P ROJECTS & S ERVICES
The ballot language presented in Question 5 indicated that the proposed sales tax measure would be used to provide funding for San Mateo city services, such as keeping local streets, side- walks, parks, infrastructure, and community facilities safe, clean, and well-maintained; fixing potholes; providing fire protection, paramedic, crime prevention, and 911 emergency response; and improvements to traffic safety/traffic mana gement. The purpose of Question 7 was to pro- vide respondents with a full range of projects an d services that may be funded by the measure, and to identify which of these projects voters most favored funding with sales tax proceeds.

After reading each project or service that ma y be funded by the measure, respondents were asked if they would favor or oppose spending some of the money on that particular item assum- ing that the measure passes. Descriptions of th e projects tested, as well as voters’ responses, are shown in Figure 11 below.
6 Question 7 The measure we've been discussing will provide funding for a variety of services in your community. If the measure passes, would you favor or oppose using some of the money to:
_____, or do you not have an opinion?
FIGURE 11 PROJECTS & SERVICES
All projects and services tested were popular with San Mateo voters, with more than two-thirds of respondents indicating they would favor spen ding measure proceeds on each of the items tested. That said, the services that resonated with the largest percentage of respondents were

6. For the full text of the services tested, turn to Question 7 in Questionnaire & Toplines on page 36.

62.9 55.6

53.4 49.8

53.9 42.9

33.8 36.6

32.2 25.1

28.4 29.7

32.8 27.3

37.2 39.2

34.8 36.2
0 1 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 0 1 0 0
Keep streets, sidewalks, parks, infrastructure, community facilities safe, clean, well-maintained
Provide quick responses to 911 emergencies
Provide fire protection and paramedic services
Fix potholes
Improve traffic safety and reduce traffic congestion
Provide parks and recreation programs for all ages
Provide programs and services for seniors
Provide police and crime prevention services
Maintain adequate reserves to protect the City’s long-term financial health
Q7aQ7cQ7dQ7bQ7eQ7iQ7hQ7fQ7g
% Respondents
Strongly favor Somewhat favor
Projects & Services
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 16City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
keeping streets, sidewalks, parks, infrastructure, and community facilities safe, clean, and well- maintained (88% strongly or somewhat favor), providing quick responses to 911 emergencies (84%), providing fire protection and paramedic services (83%), and fixing potholes (83%).

SERVICE RATINGS BY INITIAL SUPPORT Table 2 presents 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 money on a given service when compar ed with supporters. Nevertheless, initial sup- porters, opponents, and the undecided did agree on four of the top five priorities for funding.

TABLE 2 TOP PROJECTS & SERVICES BY POSITION AT INITIAL BALLOT TEST Position at
Initial Ballot
Test (Q2) Item Project/Service Summary
% Strongly
Favor
Q7a Keep streets, sidewalks, parks, infrastructure, community facilities safe, clean, well- maintained 81
Q7e Improve traffic safety and reduce traffic congestion 69 Q7c Provide quick responses to 911 emergencies 68
Q7d Provide fire protection and paramedic services 67
Q7b Fix potholes 59
Q7c Provide quick responses to 911 emergencies 36
Q7b Fix potholes 34
Q7d Provide fire protection and paramedic services 31
Q7a Keep streets, sidewalks, parks, infrastructure, community facilities safe, clean, well- maintained 31
Q7e Improve traffic safety and reduce traffic congestion 30 Q7a Keep streets, sidewalks, parks, infrastructure, community facilities safe, clean, well- maintained 63
Q7c Provide quick responses to 911 emergencies 52
Q7i Provide parks and recreation programs for all ages 49 Q7b Fix potholes 49
Q7d Provide fire protection and paramedic services 49
Probably or
Definitely Yes
(n = 401)
Probably or
Definitely No
(n = 226)
Not Sure
(n = 56)
Positive Arguments
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 17
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 measure in the ensuing months. Proponents of the measure will present arguments to try to persuade voters to support a measure, just as opponents may present argu- ments to achieve the opposite goal. For this study to be a reliable gauge of voter support for the proposed sales tax measure, it is important that the survey 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.

Question 8 What I'd like to do now is tell you what some people are saying about the measure we've been discussing. Supporters of the measure say: _____. Do you think this is a very convinc- ing, somewhat convincing, or not at all convincing reason to SUPPORT the measure? FIGURE 12 POSITIVE ARGUMENTS
The objective of Question 8 was thus to present respondents with arguments in favor of the pro- posed measure and identify whether they felt the arguments were convincing reasons to support it. Arguments in opposition to the measure were also presented and are discussed later in this report (see Negative Arguments on page 23). Within each series, specific arguments were admin- istered in random order to avoid a systematic position bias.

32.8 29.8

37.2 24.4

29.9 28.5

32.0 24.6

25.0 12.0

38.7 39.3

31.7 43.9

38.1 37.9

34.5 36.5

35.1 31.1
0 1 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 0 1 0 0
City maintains 200 mi of streets, 130 mi of storm drain pipes, 31 parks; measure provides funding we need to keep streets, infrastructure, parks in good condition
Fast response times for 911 critical for saving lives; measure will ensure 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
By keeping city safe, clean, well-maintained, measure will help protect quality of life, keep San Mateo a special place to live Most facilities built 50+ yrs ago; have earthquake safety issues, outdated electrical, plumbing, and roof leaks that can cause water damage, mold; measure will help fix these problems Most of sales tax generated locally goes to State, County; measure ensures higher percentage of sales tax dollars stay in City, we have local control over how those funds are spent City of San Mateo has $350M in unfunded projects that need to be completed; longer we wait to fix streets, infrastructure, facilities, the more expensive it will become
In these uncertain times, we can’t rely on State or Federal government; measure provides stable, predictable funding for city services that is locally controlled
Measure includes a clear system of accountability incl
independent audits, public disclosure of how all funds are spent
Measure makes good financial sense; much of money raised by sales tax comes from people who visit or pass through San Mateo, but don’t live here
Q8bQ8dQ8eQ8cQ8aQ8hQ8fQ8jQ8gQ8i
% Respondents
Very convincing Somewhat convincing
Positive Arguments
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 18City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Figure 12 on the previous page presents the truncated positive arguments tested, as well as vot- ers’ reactions to the arguments. The arguments are sorted from most convincing to least con- vincing based on the percentage of respondents who indicated that the argument was either a ‘very convincing’ or ‘somewhat convincing’ reason to support the measure. Using this methodol- ogy, the most compelling positive arguments were: The City maintains 200 miles of streets, 130 miles of storm drain pipes, and 31 parks. This measure provides the funding we need to keep our streets, infrastructure, and parks in good condition (72% very or somewhat convincing), Fast emergency response times for 911 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 911 emergencies (69%), and 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 (69%).

TOP POSITIVE ARGUMENTS BY INITIAL SUPPORT Table 3 on the next page lists the top five most convincing positive arguments (based on the percentage of respondents who cited it as very convincing) according to respondents’ vote choice at the Initial Ballot Test. The most striking pattern in the table is that the positive arguments resonated with a much higher percentage of voters who were initially inclined to support the measure when compared to voters who initially opposed the measure or were unsur e. Nevertheless, one specific arguments was ranked among the top fi ve most compelling by supporters, opponents, and the undecided: 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.

Positive Arguments
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 19City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

TABLE 3 TOP POSITIVE ARGUMENTS BY POSITION AT INITIAL BALLOT TEST Position at
Initial Ballot
Test (Q2) Item Positive Argument Summary
% Very
Convincing
Q8e 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 Q8b City maintains 200 mi of streets, 130 mi of storm drain pipes, 31 parks; measure provides funding we need to keep streets, infrastructure, parks in good condition 51 Q8f
City of San Mateo has $350M in unfunded projects that need to be completed; longer we wait to fix streets, infrastructure, facilities, the more expensive it will become
49 Q8a
Most facilities built 50+ yrs ago; have earthquake safety issues, outdated electrical, plumbing, and roof leaks that can cause water damage, mold; measure will help fix these problems
46 Q8d
Fast response times for 911 critical for saving lives; measure will ensure enough police officers, firefighters, paramedics, police officers to respond quickly to 911 emergencies
44 Q8e 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 10 Q8d
Fast response times for 911 critical for saving lives; measure will ensure enough police officers, firefighters, paramedics, police officers to respond quickly to 911 emergencies
9 Q8a
Most facilities built 50+ yrs ago; have earthquake safety issues, outdated electrical, plumbing, and roof leaks that can cause water damage, mold; measure will help fix these problems
7 Q8g Measure includes a clear system of accountability incl independent audits, public disclosure of how all funds are spent 7
Q8h
Most of sales tax generated locally goes to State, County; measure ensures higher percentage of sales tax dollars stay in City, we have local control over how those funds are spent
7 Q8b City maintains 200 mi of streets, 130 mi of storm drain pipes, 31 parks; measure provides funding we need to keep streets, infrastructure, parks in good condition 23 Q8e 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 22 Q8g Measure includes a clear system of accountability incl independent audits, public disclosure of how all funds are spent 22
Q8h
Most of sales tax generated locally goes to State, County; measure ensures higher percentage of sales tax dollars stay in City, we have local control over how those funds are spent
19 Q8f
City of San Mateo has $350M in unfunded projects that need to be completed; longer we wait to fix streets, infrastructure, facilities, the more expensive it will become
19 Probably or
Definitely Yes
(n = 401)
Probably or
Definitely No
(n = 226)
Not Sure
(n = 56)
Interim Ballot Test
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 20
City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

I NTERIM B ALLOT T EST
After exposing respondents to projects and services that could be funded by the measure as well as the types of positive argume nts voters may encounter during an election cycle, the survey again presented respondents with the ballot language used previously to gauge how support for the proposed sales tax measure may have change d. As shown in Figure 13, overall support among likely November 2026 voters ticked up to 59%, with 28% of voters indicating that they would definitely vote yes on the measure. Approximat ely 30% of respondents opposed the mea- sure at this point in the survey, and an additional 11% were unsure or unwilling to state their vote choice.7
Question 9 Sometimes people change their mind about a measure once they have more infor- mation about it. Now that you have heard a bit more about the measure, let me read you a sum- mary of it again. To provide funding for San Mateo city services, such as keeping local streets, sidewalks, parks, infrastructure, and community facilities safe, clean, and well-maintained; fix- ing potholes; providing fire protection, par amedic, crime prevention, and 911 emergency response; and improvements to traffic safety/traffic management; shall City of San Mateo's ordi- nance 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 13 INTERIM BALLOT TEST
SUPPORT BY BALLOT TEST VERSION Figure 14 on the next page shows that respon- dents who received the short list of supporters, but no opponents, remained more supportive of the proposed sales tax measure at the Interim Ballo t Test than those who received a list of both supporters and opponents (66% vs. 52%). Moreover, support increased from the Initial to Interim Ballot Test among the supporters-only group (+4%) and decreased among those who received both supporters and opponents (-2%).

7. Support at the Interim Ballot Test in this Tracking Survey is 1% higher than in the Baseline Survey.

Prefer not to
answer

1.6Not sure

9.2 Definitely no

17.5 Probably no

12.4 Probably yes

31.9 Definitely yes

27.5 Interim Ballot Test
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 21City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

FIGURE 14 INTERIM BALLOT TEST BY BALLOT TEST VERSION
SUPPORT BY SUBGROUPS Table 4 on the next page show s how support for the measure at this point in the survey varied by key voter subgroups, as well as the percentage change in subgroup support when compared with the Initial Ballot Test . Positive differences appear in green, whereas negative differences appear in red. Support for the pr oposed sales tax measure increased or decreased by modest amounts (five percentage points or less) between the Initial and Interim Ballot Tests for most subgroups, with the largest net changes in support exhibited by voters under the age of 30 (+13%), voters who are unlikely to vote by mail (+9%), and Republi- cans (-9%).

15.1 14.2

20.9 8.5 9.9

28.8 26.2

37.5 25.9

9.9 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
Supporters, but no opponents Supporters and opponents
Ballot Test Version
% Respondents
Prefer not to
answer
Not sure
Definitely no
Probably no
Probably yes
Definitely yes
Interim Ballot Test
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 22City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

TABLE 4 DEMOGRAPHIC BREAKDOWN OF SUPPORT AT INTERIM BALLOT TEST Approximate %
of Voter
Universe
% Probably or
Definitely Yes
Change From
Initial Ballot
Test (Q5)
Overall 100 59.4 +1.2
Less than 5 16 71.2 -0.2
5 to 9 16 59.8 -0.7
10 to 14 12 65.7 +6.0
15 or more 56 54.8 +1.1
Excellent, good 86 63.6 +1.4
Fair, poor, very poor 14 33.9 -1.6
Satisfied 84 64.8 +1.3
Dissatisfied 16 28.7 +1.1
Excellent, good 36 80.2 +0.3
Fair 28 47.4 +2.7
Poor, very poor 14 14.3 -1.9
Not sure 22 69.7 +2.8
18 to 29 14 85.5 +13.4
30 to 39 16 66.1 -0.2
40 to 49 16 58.1 -0.4
50 to 64 25 49.6 -0.9
65 or older 29 52.3 -1.3
Democrat 56 70.8 +3.2
Republican 15 29.6 -8.6
Other / DTS 29 53.0 +2.4
Single dem 32 66.7 +2.6
Dual dem 16 79.4 +6.8
Single rep 7 25.4 -7.3
Dual rep 3 16.2 No change
Other 19 55.6 +4.0
Mixed 23 53.2 -4.5
Yes 27 58.2 +0.3
No 73 62.0 +1.8
Since June 2016 36 71.5 +5.2
Before June 2016 64 52.4 -1.2
Yes 61 58.0 +3.3
No 39 61.6 -2.2
Yes 95 59.1 +0.7
No 5 64.5 +9.0
Yes 60 53.5 +0.9
No 40 68.0 +1.6
Yes 44 51.9 +1.4
No 56 65.3 +1.0
English 96 59.3 +1.0
Spanish 4 60.7 +4.9
Male 51 61.0 +2.5
Female 49 60.5 +0.2
Supporters, but no opponents 51 66.3 +3.9
Supporters and opponents 49 52.1 -1.8
Likely Low Turnout
Election Voter
Survey Language
Gender
Ballot Test Version
Registration Year
Homeowner on Voter File
Likely to Vote by Mail
Likely Jun 2026 Voter
Age
Party
Household Party Type
Child in Hsld (Q14)
Years in San Mateo (Q1)
Quality of Life (Q2)
Overall Satisfaction (Q4)
Fiscal Management
Rating (Q13)
Negative Arguments
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 23
City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

N EGATIVE A RGUMENTS
Whereas Question 8 presented respondents with arguments in favor of the measure, Question 10 presented respondents with arguments designed to elicit opposition to the measure. In the case of Question 10, however, respondents were asked if they felt that the argument was a very convincing, somewhat convincing, or not at all convincing reason to oppose the measure. The arguments tested, as well as voters’ opinions about the arguments, are presented in Figure 15.

Question 10 Next, let me tell you what opponents of the measure are saying. Opponents of the measure say: _____. Do you think this is a very convincing, somewhat convincing, or not at all convincing reason to OPPOSE the measure?
FIGURE 15 NEGATIVE ARGUMENTS
Among the negative arguments tested, the most compelling were: Residents and local businesses have been hit hard by inflation, high interest rates, spiking fuel prices, and cost of living increases. Many are struggling to stay afloat. Now is not the time to raise taxes (75% very or somewhat convincing), 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 (71%), 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 this year. Enough is enough. We can't afford to keep raising our taxes (66%).

NEGATIVE ARGUMENTS BY INITIAL SUPPORT Table 5 on the next page ranks the negative arguments (based on % very convincing) according to respondents’ vote choice at the Initial Ballot Test.

41.5 39.4

36.5 32.6

32.2 33.7

31.8 29.7

31.6 27.6
0 1 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 0 1 0 0
Residents, local businesses hav e been hit hard by
inflation, high interest rates, spiking fuel prices, cost of living increases; many are struggling to stay afloat; now is not the time to raise taxes
Community is already an expensive place to live,
especially for young families, those on fixed incomes;
passing this tax increase will make it even less affordable Everyone is coming after us for tax increases, incl state, county taxes, school bonds, other taxes that will be on the ballot this yr; enough is enough; we can’t afford to keep raising taxes
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
This tax will last forever; there is no expiration date Q10bQ10aQ10cQ10dQ10e
% Respondents
Very convincing Somewhat convincing
Negative Arguments
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 24City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

TABLE 5 NEGATIVE ARGUMENTS BY POSITION AT INITIAL BALLOT TEST Position at
Initial Ballot
Test (Q2) Item Negative Argument Summary
% Very
Convincing
Q10b
Residents, local businesses have been hit hard by inflation, high interest rates, spiking fuel prices, cost of living increases; many are struggling to stay afloat; now is not the time to raise taxes
27 Q10a Community is already an expensive place to live, especially for young families, those on fixed incomes; passing this tax increase will make it even less affordable 24 Q10d
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
21 Q10e This tax will last forever; there is no expiration date 21 Q10c
Everyone is coming after us for tax increases, incl state, county taxes, school bonds, other taxes that will be on the ballot this yr; enough is enough; we can’t afford to keep raising taxes
20 Q10b
Residents, local businesses have been hit hard by inflation, high interest rates, spiking fuel prices, cost of living increases; many are struggling to stay afloat; now is not the time to raise taxes
69 Q10a Community is already an expensive place to live, especially for young families, those on fixed incomes; passing this tax increase will make it even less affordable 68 Q10c
Everyone is coming after us for tax increases, incl state, county taxes, school bonds, other taxes that will be on the ballot this yr; enough is enough; we can’t afford to keep raising taxes
67 Q10d
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
54 Q10e This tax will last forever; there is no expiration date 54 Q10b
Residents, local businesses have been hit hard by inflation, high interest rates, spiking fuel prices, cost of living increases; many are struggling to stay afloat; now is not the time to raise taxes
34 Q10c
Everyone is coming after us for tax increases, incl state, county taxes, school bonds, other taxes that will be on the ballot this yr; enough is enough; we can’t afford to keep raising taxes
33 Q10a Community is already an expensive place to live, especially for young families, those on fixed incomes; passing this tax increase will make it even less affordable 31 Q10d
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
27 Q10e This tax will last forever; there is no expiration date 25 Probably or
Definitely Yes
(n = 401)
Probably or
Definitely No
(n = 226)
Not Sure
(n = 56)
Final Ballot Test
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 25
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 abou t the proposed measure 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 measur e, projects and services that could be funded, and arguments in favor of and against the prop osal, the survey again asked voters whether they would vote ‘yes’ or ‘no’ on the proposed sales tax measure.

Question 11 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 fo r San Mateo city services, such as keeping local streets, sidewalks, parks, infrastructure, and community facilities safe, clean, and well-main- tained; fixing potholes; providing fire protec tion, paramedic, crime prevention, and 911 emer- gency response; and improvements to traffic safety/traffic management; shall City of San Mateo's ordinance establishing a one-quarter cent sales tax be adopted, providing 7 million dol- lars 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 mea- sure?
FIGURE 16 FINAL BALLOT TEST
At this point in the survey, support for the measure was found among 54% of likely November 2026 voters surveyed, with 22% indicating they would definitely support the measure. Approxi- mately 33% of respondents opposed the measure at the Final Ballot Test, and 13% were unsure or unwilling to state their vote choice.8
SUPPORT BY BALLOT TEST VERSION Figure 17 on the next page shows that respon- dents who received the ballot version with only supporters continued to be more supportive of the proposed sales tax measure at the Final Ballo t Test (58%) than those who received the ver- sion with both supporters and opponents (51%).

8. Support at the Final Ballot Test in this Tracking Survey is approximately 2% lower than in the Baseline Survey.

Definitely yes

22.1 Probably yes

32.3 Probably no

13.3 Definitely no

19.7 Not sure

9.8 Prefer not to
answer

2.7 Final Ballot Test
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 26City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

FIGURE 17 FINAL BALLOT TEST BY BALLOT TEST VERSION

16.7 17.0 22.6

11.2 8.4

22.222.0

28.336.2

10.1 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
Supporters, but no opponents Supporters and opponents
Ballot Test Version
% Respondents
Prefer not to
answer
Not sure
Definitely no
Probably no
Probably yes
Definitely yes
Change in Support
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 27
City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

C HANGE IN S UPPORT
Table 6 provides a closer look at how supp ort for the proposed measure changed over the course of the survey by calculating the difference in support between the Initial, Interim, and Final Ballot Tests within subgroups of voters. Th e percentage of support for the measure at the Final Ballot Test is shown in the column with the heading % Probably or Definitely Yes . The col- umns to the right show the difference between the Final and the Initial, and the Final and Interim Ballot Tests. Positive differences appear in green, and negative differences appear in red.

TABLE 6 DEMOGRAPHIC BREAKDOWN OF SUPPORT AT FINAL BALLOT TEST As expected, voters generally responded to the negative arguments with a reduction in their sup- port for the sales tax measure when compared with the levels recorded at the Interim Ballot Test.

The general trend over the course of the entire survey (Initial to Final Ballot Test) was also one of declining support for most voter subgroups, averaging -4% overall. Even with this trend, how- Approximate %
of Voter
Universe
% Probably or
Definitely Yes
Change From
Initial Ballot
Test (Q5)
Change From
Interim Ballot
Test (Q9)
Overall 100 54.4 -3.8 -5.0
Less than 5 16 67.1 -4.3 -4.1
5 to 9 16 54.8 -5.7 -5.0
10 to 14 12 60.7 +1.0 -5.0
15 or more 56 49.7 -4.0 -5.1
Excellent, good 86 58.8 -3.4 -4.9
Fair, poor, very poor 14 28.1 -7.5 -5.9
Satisfied 84 61.1 -2.4 -3.7
Dissatisfied 16 17.8 -9.8 -10.9
Excellent, good 36 78.6 -1.3 -1.6
Fair 28 41.4 -3.4 -6.1
Poor, very poor 14 8.0 -8.2 -6.3
Not sure 22 61.1 -5.8 -8.6
18 to 29 14 78.2 +6.2 -7.2
30 to 39 16 56.5 -9.8 -9.6
40 to 49 16 55.2 -3.2 -2.8
50 to 64 25 45.5 -5.1 -4.2
65 or older 29 49.2 -4.4 -3.1
Democrat 56 67.0 -0.6 -3.8
Republican 15 25.9 -12.3 -3.8
Other / DTS 29 45.1 -5.5 -7.9
Single dem 32 62.8 -1.3 -3.9
Dual dem 16 76.9 +4.3 -2.5
Single rep 7 21.4 -11.4 -4.1
Dual rep 3 21.7 +5.6 +5.6
Other 19 47.6 -4.1 -8.1
Mixed 23 46.3 -11.4 -7.0
Yes 27 53.5 -4.4 -4.7
No 73 56.6 -3.6 -5.4
Since June 2016 36 64.8 -1.5 -6.7
Before June 2016 64 48.5 -5.1 -3.9
Yes 61 54.0 -0.7 -4.0
No 39 55.1 -8.7 -6.5
Yes 95 54.1 -4.3 -5.1
No 5 61.5 +5.9 -3.0
Yes 60 49.4 -3.3 -4.1
No 40 61.9 -4.6 -6.2
Yes 44 47.9 -2.7 -4.1
No 56 59.7 -4.7 -5.6
English 96 54.2 -4.1 -5.1
Spanish 4 59.6 +3.7 -1.1
Male 51 56.1 -2.4 -4.9
Female 49 56.5 -3.8 -3.9
Supporters, but no opponents 51 58.2 -4.2 -8.1
Supporters and opponents 49 50.5 -3.4 -1.6
Likely Low Turnout
Election Voter
Survey Language
Gender
Ballot Test Version
Registration Year
Homeowner on Voter File
Likely to Vote by Mail
Likely Jun 2026 Voter
Age
Party
Household Party Type
Child in Hsld (Q14)
Years in San Mateo (Q1)
Quality of Life (Q2)
Overall Satisfaction (Q4)
Fiscal Management
Rating (Q13)
Change in Support
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 28City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
ever, support for the proposed sales tax measur e at the Final Ballot Test (54%) remained four percentage points above the simple majority (50%+1) required for passage.

Whereas Table 6 displays changes in support for the measure over the course of the interview at the subgroup level, Table 7 displays the indivi dual-level changes that occurred between the Ini- tial and Final Ballot Tests for the measure. On th e left side of the table is shown each of the response options to the Initial Ballot Test and the percentage of respondents in each group. The cells in the body of the table depict movement within each response group (row) based on the information provided throughout th e course of the survey as recorded by the Final Ballot Test.

For example, in the first row we see that of the 25.1% of respondents who indicated that they would definitely support the measure at the Initia l Ballot Test, 18.4% also indicated they would definitely support the measure at the Final Ballot Test. Approximately 4.8% moved to the proba- bly support group, 0.2% moved to the probably oppose group, 1.0% moved to the definitely oppose group, and 0.8% stated they were now unsure of their vote choice.

To ease interpretation of the table, the cells are color coded. Red shaded cells indicate declining support, green shaded cells indicate increasing support, whereas white cells indicate no move- ment. Moreover, within the cells, a white font indicates a fundamental change in the vote: from yes to no, no to yes, or not sure to either yes or no.

TABLE 7 MOVEMENT BETWEEN INITIAL & FINAL BALLOT TEST
As one might expect, the information conveyed in the survey had the greatest impact on individ- uals who weren’t sure about how they would vote at the Initial Ballot Test as well as among those who were tentative in their op position (probably no). More over, Table 7 makes clear that although the information did impact some voters, it did not do so in a consistent way for all respondents. Some respondents found the informat ion conveyed during the course of the inter- view to be a reason to become more supportive of the measure, whereas a somewhat larger per- centage found the same information to be a reason to be less supportive. Despite 14% of respondents making a fundamental9 shift in their opinion about the measure over the course of the interview, the net impact is that support for the measure at the Final Ballot Test (54%) was just four percentage points different than support at the Initial Ballot Test (58%).

9. This is, they changed from a position of support, opposition, or undecided at the Initial Ballot Test to a dif- ferent position at the Final Ballot Test.

Definitely
support
Probably
support
Probably
oppose
Definitely
oppose Not sure
Definitely support 25.1% 18.4% 4.8% 0.2% 1.0% 0.8%
Probably support 33.2% 3.2% 24.9% 1.6% 0.3% 3.2%
Probably oppose 14.2% 0.1% 1.1% 8.7% 2.3% 2.0%
Definitely oppose 18.6% 0.0% 0.2% 1.8% 15.9% 0.7%
Not sure 8.9% 0.5% 1.4% 0.9% 0.2% 5.9%
Initial Ballot Test (Q5)
Final Ballot Test (Q11)
Charter Amendment
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 29
City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

C HARTER A MENDMENT
Following the questions regarding the proposed sa les tax measure, the survey also evaluated voters’ support for a Charter Amendment that may be placed on the ballot. The measure would reflect the City’s transition to district elections, allow additional time to fill City Council vacan- cies, provide flexibility regarding the scheduling of City Council meetings and the selection of a newspaper for official notices, and remove outdated language from the Charter.

As shown in Figure 18 below, 51% of likely November 2026 voters surveyed indicated that they would support the proposed Charter Amendment, which is just above the simple majority threshold (50% + 1) required for passage. Twenty percent (20%) stated that they would oppose the measure, and 28% were unsure or unwilling to share their vote choice.

Question 12 In addition to the sales tax measure we've been discussing, voters will also be asked to vote on a Charter Amendment for the City. Let me read you a summary. Shall the City Charter be updated and streamlined to reflect the transition to district elections that has already occurred; allow additional time to fill City Co uncil vacancies; allow the day and start time of Council meetings to be specified by resolution; permit flexibility in the process of selecting a newspaper for official notices; and remove outdated language? If the election were held today, would you vote yes or no on this measure?
FIGURE 18 SUPPORT FOR THE PROPOSED CITY CHARTER AMENDMENT Figure 19 on the next page shows support for the proposed Charter Amendment measure by overall satisfaction with the job the City is do ing to provide services, partisanship, and position at the Initial Ballot Test. Support for the Charter Amendment was highest among voters satisfied with the City’s performance, Democrats, and those who supported the proposed sales tax mea- sure at the Initial Ballot Test.

Prefer not to
answer

2.4 Not sure

25.7 Definitely no

8.0 Probably no

12.4 Probably yes

35.7 Definitely yes

15.7 Charter Amendment
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 30City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

FIGURE 19 SUPPORT FOR THE PROPOSED CITY CHARTER AMENDMENT BY OVERALL SATISFACTION, PARTY & POSITION

AT INITIAL BALLOT TEST

14.5 23.3

5.1 5.1

20.7 42.3

22.6 29.8

40.0 29.6 31.0

11.0 22.4

10.2 16.1

14.8 9.2

18.1 13.1

5.9 19.8

19.4 10.1

20.4 2.0

27.4 25.6 26.7

48.9 17.6 17.2

5.8 15.2

39.0 1.9

3.8 28.431.326.5 28.2
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Satisfied Dissatisfied Democrat Republican Other / DTS Def, prob yes Def, prob no Not sure Overall Satisfaction (Q4) Party Position at Initial Ballot Test (Q5) % Respondents
DK/NA
Definitely no
Probably no
Probably yes
Definitely
yes
Fiscal Management
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 31
City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

F ISCAL M ANAGEMENT
To understand why voters take the positions that they do with respect to a revenue measure, it is often instructive to look beyond the specifics of the measure itself. In particular, how voters per- ceive the job the City has done managing its finances can have a meaningful impact on their sup- port for the proposed sales tax measure.

Question 13 In your opinion, has the City of San Ma teo done an excellent, good, fair, poor or very poor job of managing its financial resources?
FIGURE 20 RATING FISCAL MANAGEMENT
When asked to assess the job the City of San Mateo
has done managing its financial resources, 23% of
respondents were either unsure (22%) or unwilling to
answer the question (1%). Thirty-five percent rated the City’s performance as excellent (4%) or good (32%),
28% indicated it is fair, and approximately 14%
described the City’s performance as poor or very poor
(see Figure 20).

For the interested reader, Figure 21 shows a strong,
positive relationship between fiscal management rat-
ings and voters’ support for the measure at the Initial Ballot Test. Ratings of excellent and good were also
higher among residents satisfied with the City’s over-
all performance and Democrats.

FIGURE 21 RATING FISCAL MANAGEMENT BY OVERALL SATISFACTION, PARTY & POSITION AT INITIAL BALLOT TEST Prefer not to
answer

1.3 Not sure

21.5 Very poor

3.5 Poor

10.0 Fair

27.8 Good

31.5 Excellent

4.4 4.6 6.8 1.52.2

39.1 20.3 22.5

42.5 17.5

12.3 25.7

39.4 22.5

31.9 36.1

21.4 37.6

37.2 6.2

33.3 17.7

14.8 21.1

10.0 6.8

9.9 22.9

12.5 27.2

18.7 16.1

25.6 12.5

40.6 4.2 4.85.5

37.8 5.5

3.5 0.3

5.7 1.7

12.5 1.5
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Satisfied Dissatisfied Democrat Republican Other / DTS Def, prob yes Def, prob no Not sure Overall Satisfaction (Q4) Party Position at Initial Ballot Test (Q5) % Respondents
DK/NA
Very poor
Poor
Fair
Good
Excellent
Background & Demographics
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 32
City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

B ACKGROUND & D EMOGRAPHICS
TABLE 8 DEMOGRAPHICS OF SAMPLE
In addition to questions di rectly related to the pro-
posed sales tax measure, the study collected basic
demographic information about respondents and
their households. Some of this information was gath-
ered during the interview, al though much of it was
collected from the voter file. The profile of the likely November 2026 voter sample represented in this
report is shown in Table 8.

Total Respondents 689
Years in San Mateo (Q1)
Less than 5 15.5
5 to 9 16.3
10 to 14 11.7
15 or more 55.7
Prefer not to answer 0.8
Child in Hsld (Q14)
Yes 25.4
No 69.8
Prefer not to answer 4.8
Gender
Male 47.8
Female 46.6
Non-binary 1.3
Prefer not to answer 4.4
Party
Democrat 56.1
Republican 15.3
Other / DTS 28.6
Age
18 to 29 13.7
30 to 39 16.4
40 to 49 16.3
50 to 64 24.7
65 or older 28.9
Registration Year
Since June 2016 36.5
Before June 2016 63.5
Household Party Type
Single dem 32.2
Dual dem 16.1
Single rep 6.9
Dual rep 2.6
Other 19.2
Mixed 23.0
Homeowner on Voter File
Yes 61.3
No 38.7
Likely to Vote by Mail
Yes 95.0
No 5.0
Likely Jun 2026 Voter
Yes 59.6
No 40.4
Likely Low Turnout Election Voter
Yes 44.4
No 55.6
Survey Language
English 96.5
Spanish 3.5
Ballot Test Version
Supporters, but no opponents 51.4
Supporters and opponents 48.6
Methodology
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 33
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 to develop a questionnaire that covered the topics of interest and avoided possible sources of systematic measurement error, including position-order effects, wording effects, response-category effects, scaling effects, and priming. Several questions included multiple indi- vidual items. Because asking the items in a set order can lead to a systematic position bias in responses, items were asked in random order for each respondent.

Some of the questions asked in this study were presented only to a subset of respondents. For example, only individuals who di d not support the sales tax or were unsure at the Initial Ballot Test (Question 5) were asked to describe the reason for their po sition (Question 6). The ques- tionnaire included with this report (see Questionnaire & Toplines on page 36) identifies the skip patterns and programming instructions used in the survey to ensure each respondent received the appropriate questions.

PROGRAMMING, PRE-TEST & TRANSLATION Prior to fielding the survey, the ques- tionnaire was CATI (Computer Assisted Telephone Interviewing) programmed to assist interview- ers when conducting telephone interviews. Th e CATI program automatically navigates skip patterns, randomizes the appropriate question item s, and alerts the interviewer to certain types of keypunching mistakes should they occur. The survey was also pr ogrammed into a passcode- protected online survey application to allow online participation for sampled voters. The integ- rity of the questionnaire was pre-tested internally by True North and by dialing into voter house- holds in the City prior to formally beginning the survey. Once finalized, the questionnaire was professionally translated into Spanish to allow for data collection in English and Spanish.

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. Con- sistent with the profile of this universe, the sample was stratified into clusters, each representing a combination of age, gender, and household party type. Individuals were then randomly selected based on their profile into an appropriate cluster. This method ensures that if a person of a particular profile refuses to participate, th ey are replaced by an indi vidual who shares their same profile.

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 689 voters for a particular question and what would have been found if all of the estimated 45,132 likely Nove mber 2026 voters identified in the City had been surveyed for the study.

Methodology
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 34City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Figure 22 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% prov ide the alternative response. For this survey, the maximum margin of error is ± 3.7% at the 95% confidence level.

FIGURE 22 MAXIMUM MARGIN OF ERROR DUE TO SAMPLING @ 95% CONFIDENCE LEVEL 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 22 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 16 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. During the data collection period, email reminder notices were also sent to encourage participation among those who had yet to take the survey. A total of 689 surveys were completed between May 11 and May 15, 2026. 689 Respondents
± 3.7%
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Sample Size (Number of Respondents)
Margin of Error
Methodology
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 35City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

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.

Questionnaire & Toplines
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 36
City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Q UESTIONNAIRE & T OPLINES

True North Research, Inc. © 2026 Page 1
City of San Mateo
Sales Tax Tracking Survey
Final Toplines (n=689)
May 2026
Section 1: Introduction to Study
Hi, may I please speak to _____. My name is _____, and I’m calling from TNR on behalf of the City of San Mateo (Muh-TAY-oh). We’re conducting a confidential survey of voters about important issues in the city and I’d like to get your opinions.

If needed: This is a survey about important issues in your community. I’m NOT trying to sell anything and I won’t ask for a donation.

If needed: The survey should take about 12 minutes to complete.

If needed: If now is not a convenient time, can you let me know a better time so I can call back?

If the person asks why you need to speak to the listed person or if they ask to participate instead, explain: For statistical purposes, at this time the survey must only be completed by this particular individual.

Section 2: Quality of Life & City Services
I’d like to begin by asking you a few questions about what it is like to live in the City of San Mateo.

Q1 How long have you lived in San Mateo?
1 Less than 1 year 3%
2 1 to 4 years 13%
3 5 to 9 years 16%
4 10 to 14 years 12%
5 15 years or longer 56%
99 Prefer not to answer 1%
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 25%
2 Good 60%
3 Fair 11%
4 Poor 2%
5 Very poor 1%
98 Not sure 0%
99 Prefer not to answer 1%
Questionnaire & Toplines
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 37City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

City of San Mateo Sales Tax Tracking Survey May 2026
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 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 13%
Provide more affordable housing 13%
Reduce traffic congestion 9%
Not sure / Cannot think of anything specific 9%
Improve, maintain roads 7%
Improve parking 6%
Improve public transit 6%
Provide more shopping, dining opportunities 6%
Improve pedestrian safety 6%
Improve, add parks, rec facilities 5%
Improve downtown area 5%
Provide more, safer bike lanes 5%
No changes needed / Everything is fine 5%
Beautify, clean up City 4%
Provide additional youth, family activities,
events for different ages 4%
Reduce taxes, fees 4%
Improve planning, zoning 4%
Enforce traffic laws 4%
Improve schools, education 3%
Reduce cost of living 3%
Improve walkability 3%
Improve public safety, police presence 2%
Fix El Camino Real 2%
Address homeless issues 2%
Address rent control issues 2%
Address empty buildings 2%
Provide more grocery store 2%
Keep Hillsdale Mall 2%
Limit building heights 2%
Questionnaire & Toplines
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 38City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

City of San Mateo Sales Tax Tracking Survey May 2026
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 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 54%
3 Somewhat dissatisfied 12%
4 Very dissatisfied 3%
98 Not sure 4%
99 Prefer not to answer 0%

Section 3: Initial Ballot Test
Later this 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. Sample A receives ‘Sample A’ version of supporters/opponents.

Sample B receives ‘Sample B’ version.

Q5
To provide funding for San Mateo city services, such as:

o Keeping local streets, sidewalks, parks, infrastructure, and community facilities safe, clean, and well-maintained
o Fixing potholes
o Providing fire protection, paramedic, crime prevention, and 9-1-1 emergency response
o And improvements to traffic safety/traffic management

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?

Sample A: Listed supporters of the measure are local fire fighters, police officers, and a business organization. Listed opponents: none submitted.

Sample B: Listed supporters of the measure are local fire fighters, police officers, and a business organization. Listed opponents of the measure are a regional taxpayer association.

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)? Overall
Supporters,
but no
opponents
Supporters
and
opponents

1 Definitely yes 25% 26% 24% Skip to Q7
2 Probably yes 33% 36% 30% Skip to Q7
3 Probably no 14% 12% 17% Ask Q6
4 Definitely no 19% 16% 22% Ask Q6
98 Not sure 8% 9% 7% Ask Q6
99 Prefer not to answer 1% 1% 1% Skip to Q7
Questionnaire & Toplines
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 39City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

City of San Mateo Sales Tax Tracking Survey May 2026
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 Page 4
Q6
Is there a particular reason why you do not support or are unsure about the measure I just described? Verbatim responses recorded and later grouped into categories shown below.

Taxes already too high 41%
Money is misspent, mismanaged 33%
Need more information 19%
Economic, inflation, cost of living concerns 13%
Other ways to be funded 12%
Not sure / No particular reason 6%
Do not trust City 3%
City is okay as-is, no need for more money 2%
City has enough money 2%
Other higher priorities in community 2%
Mentioned past ballot measure 2%
Money will go to admin, union pensions 2%
It would hurt economy 1%
Money should not go to police 1%

Section 4: Projects & Services
Q7
The measure we’ve been discussing will provide funding for a variety of services in your community.

If the measure passes, would you favor or oppose using some of the money to: _____, or do you not have an opinion? Get answer, if favor or oppose, then ask: Would that be strongly (favor/oppose) or somewhat (favor/oppose)?
Randomize
Strongly
favor
Somewhat
favor
Somewhat
oppose
Strongly
oppose
No sure
Prefer not
to answer
A
Keep streets, sidewalks, parks, infrastructure,
and community facilities safe, clean, and well-
maintained
63% 25% 3% 3% 3% 3%
B Fix potholes 50% 33% 6% 4% 4% 4%
C Provide quick responses to 9-1-1 emergencies 56% 28% 4% 3% 5% 4% D Provide fire protection and paramedic
services 53% 30% 4% 3% 6% 4%
E Improve traffic safety and reduce traffic
congestion 54% 27% 5% 5% 4% 4%
F Provide police and crime prevention services 37% 35% 11% 6% 8% 3% G Maintain adequate reserves to protect the
City’s long-term financial health 32% 36% 9% 6% 13% 3%
H Provide programs and services for seniors 34% 39% 8% 7% 8% 4% I Provide parks and recreation programs for all
ages 43% 37% 5% 5% 6% 3%
Questionnaire & Toplines
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 40City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

City of San Mateo Sales Tax Tracking Survey May 2026
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 Page 5
Section 5: Positive Arguments
What I’d like to do now is tell you what some people are saying about the measure we’ve been discussing.

Q8 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
A
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 help fix these problems.
30% 38% 14% 10% 5% 3%
B
The City maintains 200 miles of streets, 130
miles of storm drain pipes, and 31 parks.

This measure provides the funding we need
to keep our streets, infrastructure, and parks
in good condition.
33% 39% 15% 8% 3% 3%
C
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.
24% 44% 16% 10% 4% 3%
D
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.
30% 39% 12% 11% 5% 3%
E
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.
37% 32% 11% 12% 5% 3%
F
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.
32% 34% 16% 10% 5% 3%
G
The measure includes a clear system of
accountability including independent audits
and public disclosure of how all funds are
spent.
25% 35% 14% 15% 7% 3%
H
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.
28% 38% 15% 10% 6% 2%
Questionnaire & Toplines
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 41City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

City of San Mateo Sales Tax Tracking Survey May 2026
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 Page 6

I
This measure makes good financial sense.

Much of the money raised by the sales tax
comes from people who visit or pass through
San Mateo, but don’t live here.
12% 31% 25% 24% 6% 2%
J
In these uncertain times, we can’t rely on the
State or Federal government. This measure
provides stable and predictable funding for
city services that is locally controlled.
25% 36% 18% 12% 6% 3%

Section 6: Interim Ballot Test
Sometimes people change their mind about a measure once they have more information about it. Now that you have heard a bit more about the measure, let me read you a summary of it again.

Split Sample. Sample A receives ‘Sample A’ version of supporters/opponents.

Sample B receives ‘Sample B’ version.

Q9
To provide funding for San Mateo city services, such as:

o Keeping local streets, sidewalks, parks, infrastructure, and community facilities safe, clean, and well-maintained
o Fixing potholes
o Providing fire protection, paramedic, crime prevention, and 9-1-1 emergency response
o And improvements to traffic safety/traffic management

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?

Sample A: Listed supporters of the measure are local fire fighters, police officers, and a business organization. Listed opponents: none submitted.

Sample B: Listed supporters of the measure are local fire fighters, police officers, and a business organization. Listed opponents of the measure are a regional taxpayer association.

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)? Overall
Supporters,
but no
opponents
Supporters
and
opponents
1 Definitely yes 28% 29% 26%
2 Probably yes 32% 37% 26%
3 Probably no 12% 10% 15%
4 Definitely no 17% 14% 21%
98 Not sure 9% 8% 10%
99 Prefer not to answer 2% 1% 2%

Questionnaire & Toplines
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 42City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

City of San Mateo Sales Tax Tracking Survey May 2026
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 Page 7

Section 7: Negative Arguments
Next, let me tell you what opponents of the measure are saying.

Q10 Opponents of the measure say: _____. Do you think this is a very convincing, somewhat convincing, or not at all convincing reason to OPPOSE the measure? Randomize
Very
convincing
Somewhat
convincing
Not at all
convincing
Don’ t
believe
Not sure
Prefer not to
answer
A
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.
39% 32% 16% 5% 5% 2%
B
Residents and local businesses have been hit
hard by inflation, high interest rates, spiking
fuel prices, and cost of living increases. Many
are struggling to stay afloat. Now is not the
time to raise taxes.
42% 34% 14% 5% 3% 3%
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 this year. Enough is enough. We can’t
afford to keep raising our taxes.
36% 30% 19% 6% 6% 3%
D
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 can’t trust the City with our tax
dollars.
33% 32% 17% 10% 6% 3%
E This tax will last forever. There is no
expiration date. 32% 28% 20% 9% 8% 3%

Questionnaire & Toplines
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 43City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

City of San Mateo Sales Tax Tracking Survey May 2026
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 Page 8

Section 8: Final Ballot Test
Now that you have heard a bit more about the measure, let me read you a summary of it one more time.

Split Sample. Sample A receives ‘Sample A’ version of supporters/opponents.

Sample B receives ‘Sample B’ version.

Q11
To provide funding for San Mateo city services, such as:

o Keeping local streets, sidewalks, parks, infrastructure, and community facilities safe, clean, and well-maintained
o Fixing potholes
o Providing fire protection, paramedic, crime prevention, and 9-1-1 emergency response
o And improvements to traffic safety/traffic management

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?

Sample A: Listed supporters of the measure are local fire fighters, police officers, and a business organization. Listed opponents: none submitted.

Sample B: Listed supporters of the measure are local fire fighters, police officers, and a business organization. Listed opponents of the measure are a regional taxpayer association.

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)? Overall
Supporters,
but no
opponents
Supporters
and
opponents
1 Definitely yes 22% 22% 22%
2 Probably yes 32% 36% 28%
3 Probably no 13% 10% 17%
4 Definitely no 20% 17% 23%
98 Not sure 10% 11% 8%
99 Prefer not to answer 3% 4% 2%

Questionnaire & Toplines
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 44City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

City of San Mateo Sales Tax Tracking Survey May 2026
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 Page 9

Section 9: Charter Amendment
In addition to the sales tax measure we’ve been discussing, voters will also be asked to vote on a Charter Amendment for the City. Let me read you a summary.

Q12
Shall the City Charter be updated and streamlined to:

o reflect the transition to district elections that has already occurred o allow additional time to fill City Council vacancies
o allow the day and start time of Council meetings to be specified by resolution o permit flexibility in the process of selecting a newspaper for official notices o and remove outdated language?

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 16%
2 Probably yes 36%
3 Probably no 12%
4 Definitely no 8%
98 Not sure 26%
99 Prefer not to answer 2%

Section 10: Background & Demographics
Thank you so much for your participation. I have just two background questions for statistical purposes.

Q13 In your opinion, has the City of San Mateo done an excellent, good, fair, poor or very poor job of managing its financial resources?
1 Excellent 4%
2 Good 32%
3 Fair 28%
4 Poor 10%
5 Very poor 3%
98 Not sure 21%
99 Prefer not to answer 1%
Q14 Do you have children under the age of 18 living in your household? 1 Yes 25%
2 No 70%
99 Prefer not to answer 5%
Those are all of the questions that I have for you. Thanks so much for participating in this important survey.

Questionnaire & Toplines
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 45City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

City of San Mateo Sales Tax Tracking Survey May 2026
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 Page 10

Post-Interview & Sample Items
S1 Gender
1 Male 48%
2 Female 47%
3 Non-binary 1%
4 Prefer not to answer 4%
S2 Party
1 Democrat 56%
2 Republican 15%
3 Other 8%
4 DTS 21%
S3 Age on Voter File
1 18 to 29 14%
2 30 to 39 16%
3 40 to 49 16%
4 50 to 64 25%
5 65 or older 29%
S4 Registration Date
1 Since Nov 2020 18%
2 Jun 2016 to before Nov 2020 18%
3 Jun 2012 to before Jun 2016 8%
4 Before June 2012 55%
Questionnaire & Toplines
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 46City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

City of San Mateo Sales Tax Tracking Survey May 2026
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 Page 11

S5 Household Party Type
1 Single Dem 32%
2 Dual Dem 16%
3 Single Rep 7%
4 Dual Rep 3%
5 Single Other 15%
6 Dual Other 4%
7 Dem & Rep 4%
8 Dem & Other 11%
9 Rep & Other 6%
0 Mixed (Dem + Rep + Other) 2%
S6 Homeowner on Voter File
1 Yes 61%
2 No 39%
S7 Likely to Vote by Mail
1 Yes 95%
2 No 5%
S8 Likely November 2026 Voter
1 Yes 100%
2 No 0%
S9 Likely June 2026 Voter
1 Yes 60%
2 No 40%
S10 Likely Low Turnout Election Voter
1 Yes 44%
2 No 56%
Questionnaire & Toplines
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 47City of San Mateo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

City of San Mateo Sales Tax Tracking Survey May 2026
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 Page 12

S11 Survey language
1 English 96%
2 Spanish 4%