Adoption of resolutions placing a ballot proposition on the November 3, 2026, ballot that, if approved by a majority of voters, would increase the City s Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) rate from 10% to 12%; requesting the City Attorney to prepare an impartial analysis of the ballot proposition; establishing requirements for ballot arguments; and approval of the contract for election services and supplies with the County of Ventura and authorize the City Manager to execute the contract

City of Simi Valley
Staff Report
June 8
, 2026
To: City
Council
From:

Office of the City Manager
Luis Garibay, Assistant City Manager
Subje
ct: Adoption of resolution s placing a ballot proposition on the November 3, 2026, ballot that, if approved by a majority of voters, would increase the City’s Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) rate from 10% to 12% ; requesting the City Attorney to prepare an impartial analysis of the ballot proposition; establishing requirements for ballot arguments; and approval of the contract for election services and supplies with the County of Ventura and authorize the City Manager to execute the contract
Staff Re
commendation
It
is recommended that the City Council:

1. Adop
t Resolution No. 2026-25 (Attachment A) placing a ballot proposition on the November 3, 2026, ballot that, if approved by a majority of voters, would increase the City’s Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) rate from 10% to 12%;

2. Adop
t Resolution No. 2026- 26 (Attachment B) requesting the City Attorney to prepare an impartial analysis of the TOT ballot proposition;

3. Adop
t Resolution No. 2026-27 (Attachment C) establishing requirements for the ballot arguments filed with the City Clerk to be included with voter information guide for the November 3, 2026, General Election ballot;

4. Adop
t Resolution No. 202 6-30 ( Attachment D) requesting the County Board of Supervisors to permit the County Elections Official to render services to the City for the General Municipal Election to be held on the day of the Statewide General Election; and

5. Appr
oval of the contract for election services and supplies with the County of Ventura and authorize the City Manager to execute the contract.

Bac
kground
At
the City Council retreat held in June 2025, the City Council discussed a series of priorities intended to guide future policy considerations. The resulting Focus Area Goals, formally adopted by the City Council on August 4, 2025, established a framework for Agenda

Item No.
9B
evaluating strategies that support fiscal stability, maintain essential public services, and address the City’s ongoing infrastructure and operational funding needs.

One option identified for further consideration was an increase to the City’s TOT , which is paid for by those staying in Simi Valley hotels and other short -term lodging accommodations. The City of Simi Valley currently has a 10% TOT rate, which is consistent with several cities in Ventura County, including the cities of Thousand Oaks, Oxnard, and San Buenaventura ( commonly known as the “City of Ventura”). In addition to TOT, most cities in Ventura County charge additional lodging assessments to support tourism efforts, which range from 2% to 4%. A summary of current TOT rates, with additional tourism assessments, for comparable cities in Ventura County is shown below.

Jurisdiction TOT Additional
Assessment(s) Total
Ojai 15% 2% 17%
Oxnard 10% 4% 14%
San Buenav entura
(commonly known
as the “City of
Ventura”)
10% 4% 14%
Camarillo 9% 4% 13%
Port Hueneme 10% 2% 12%
Simi Valley 10% 2% 12%
Thousand Oaks 10% 2% 12%

Staff has been evaluating a potential ballot proposition to increase the existing TOT rate by 2%, marking the first adjustment to the TOT in more than 30 years. If approved by the voters, the ballot proposition is estimated to generate approximately $400,000 annually to support municipal services and infrastructure, including public safety, street maintenance, senior citizen programs and services, and other general City services.

Discussion

To determine whether a TOT ballot proposition is an appropriate policy option to pursue, the City contracted with True North Research, Inc. to conduct a survey. True North is a full-service survey research firm that has designed and conducted over 1,500 survey research studies for public agencies at all levels of government . The survey was administered to a random sample of 508 adults who are registered to vote in Simi Valley.

Only 500 survey participants were needed to obtain a statistically valid sample of the Simi Valley population.

The question proposed to survey participants and as recommended for inclusion on the ballot is as follows:

2 “Shall the measure providing funding for general city services in Simi Valley, such as 9-1-1 emergency response, police and crime prevention, keeping streets, sidewalks, and infrastructure safe, clean and well -maintained, and senior citizen services by increasing the City of Simi Valley’s transient occupancy tax rate from 10% to 12% (paid only by hotel/short-term lodging guests), providing approximately $400,000 annually until ended by voters, with independent audits and all money locally controlled, be adopted?”

Regarding the initial opinion on a TOT increase in Simi Valley, 63% of respondents said they would Definitely or Probably support it, compared to 23% who said Definitely No or Probably No. After the surveyors presented a series of both positive and negative arguments, the question was asked again, and 61% of respondents remained supportive of the ballot proposition, while 23% remained opposed. Only a 50% plus 1 majority is required for this ballot proposition to pass if placed on the ballot.

Based on the survey methodology and sample size, the overall margin of error is ±4.3% at a 95% confidence level. The TOT Feasibility Study, which includes all survey questions and results, is attached (Attachment E).

Since the proposed TOT increase is considered a general tax measure, a 4/5 majority vote of the City Council would be needed to move forward. The deadline to submit the resolution to the Ventura County Clerk-Recorder and Registrar of Voters to place a ballot proposition on the ballot is June 29, 2026. Further, in order for this ballot proposition to pass, the voters must approve it by a majority vote (50% + 1).

This staff report includes the following resolutions for City Council’s consideration:

• Resolution No. 2026-25: This resolution places the TOT ballot proposition on the November 3, 2026, ballot. This resolution includes the TOT ordinance in its Exhibit A that, if approved, increases the TOT rate from 10% to 12%.

• Resolution No. 2026-26: This resolution requests that the City Attorney prepare an impartial analysis for the TOT ballot proposition.

• Resolution No. 2026-27: This resolution establishes requirements for ballot arguments.

• Resolution No. 2026-30: This resolution requests that the County Elections Official render services to the City for the General Municipal Election. Exhibit A is the contract for election services that would be executed by the City Manager.

As adopted by the City Council in its Focus Area Goals, staff recommends the City Council adopt these resolutions by a 4/5 majority vote of the City Council.

3 Financial Impact

The est imated cost for a C itywide ballot proposition is $78,000. Funding for these expenditures has been requested in the City Administration section of the City’s FY 2026- 27 Proposed Budget.

City Council Priorities

This item supports all six of the City Council’s pillars of excellence: Public Safety, Excellent City Government, Reliable Infrastructure, Fiscal Stability, Thriving Community, and Economic Vitality, including the Focus Area Goal – Evaluate a transient occupancy tax (TOT) increase to enhance City revenues.

Suggested Motion

I move to:

1. Adopt Resolution No. 2026- 25 placing a ballot proposition on the November 3, 2026, ballot that, if approved by a majority of voters, would increase the City’s Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) rate from 10% to 12%;

2. Adopt Resolution No. 2026-26 requesting the City Attorney to prepare an impartial analysis of the TOT ballot proposition;

3. Adopt Resolution No. 2026-27 providing requirements for the ballot arguments filed with the City Clerk to be included with voter information guide for the November 3, 2026, General Election ballot;

4 Adopt Resolution No. 202 6-30 requesting the County Board of Supervisors to permit the County Elections Official to render services to the City for the General Municipal Election to be held on the day of the Statewide General Election; and

5. Approve the contract for election services and supplies with the County of Ventura and authorize the City Manager to execute the contract.

Summary

At the City Council retreat held in June 2025, the Council discussed a series of priorities intended to guide future policy considerations. One option identified for further consideration was an increase to the City’s TOT, which is paid for by those staying in Simi Valley hotels and other short -term lodging accommodations. The City of Simi Valley currently has a 10% TOT rate, which is on par with several cities in Ventura County, including the cities of Thousand Oaks, Oxnard, and San Buenaventura (commonly known as the “City of Ventura”).

4 Staff has been evaluating a potential ballot proposition to increase the existing TOT rate by 2%, marking the first adjustment to the tax in more than 30 years. If approved by the voters, the ballot proposition is estimated to generate approximately $400,000 annually to support municipal services and infrastructure, including public safety, street maintenance, senior citizen programs and services, and other general City services.

A TOT ballot proposition survey was administered to a random sample of 508 adults who are registered to vote in Simi Valley. 63% of respondents said they would Definitely or Probably support it, compared to 23% who said Definitely No or Probably No. Based on the survey methodology and sample size, the overall margin of error is ±4.3% at a 95% confidence level. Only 50% plus 1 majority is required for passage.

Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolutions by a 4/5 majority vote of the City Council, which will place the TOT ballot proposition on the November 3, 2026, ballot; request the City Attorney to draft an impartial analysis of the TOT ballot proposition; establish for requirements for ballot arguments filed with the City Clerk ; request County Elections Official to render services to the City for the General Municipal Election; and approve the contract for election services and supplies with the County of Ventura and authorize the City Manager to execute the contract . In order for this ballot proposition to pass, the voters must approve it by a majority vote.

P
repared by: Luis Garibay, Assistant City Manager
Attachments:

Attachment A - Resolution No. 2026-25 - Placing TOT Ballot Proposition on Ballot Attachment B - Resolution No. 2026-26 - Impartial Analysis by City Attorney Attachment C - Resolution No. 2026-27 - Ballot Argument Requirements Attachment D - Resolution No. 2026-30 – Contract for Election Services Attachment E - TOT Feasibility Study
5 Attachment A

Page 1 of 3 ends

RESOLUTION NO. 2026-25

A RESOLUTION REQUESTING THE BOARD OF

SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF VENTURA TO ADD

A BALLOT PROPOSITION TO THE PREVIOUSLY

CONSOLIDATED GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE
HELD ON NOVEMBER 3, 2026, WITH THE GENERAL

ELECTION TO BE HELD ON THAT DATE PURSUANT TO
ELECTIONS CODE § 10403
WHEREAS, the City Council called a General Municipal Election to be held on Tuesday, November 3, 2026, for the purpose of electing council members; and requested consent from the Board of Supervisors of the County of Ventura to consolidate such election to be held with the General Election on that same date; and WHEREAS, the City Council now desires to add a ballot proposition to the previously called and consolidated General Municipal Election to be held on November 3, 2026.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SIMI VALLEY DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Pursuant to the requirements of Elections Code § 10403, the Board of Supervisors of the County of Ventura is requested to consent and agree to the consolidation of a proposition on the ballot for the General Municipal Election consolidated with the General Election on Tuesday, November 3, 2026.

SECTION 2. Pursuant to Elections Code §§ 9222 and 13119, the exact form of the question to be voted on at the election as it should appear on the ballot is as follows:

SECTION 3. The complete text of the proposed ballot measure to be submitted to the voters is attached as Exhibit A, Full Text of the Ballot Measure. 6 Res. No. 2026-25

SECTION 4. The vote requirement for the proposed ballot measure to pass is a majority (50% + 1) of the votes cast.

SECTION 5. The County election department is authorized to canvass the returns of the General Municipal Election. The election will be held in all respects as if there were only one election and only one form of ballot may be used. The election will be held and conducted in accordance with the provisions of law regulating the statewide or special election.

SECTION 6. The Board of Supervisors is requested to issue instructions to the County election department to take any and all steps necessary for the holding of the consolidated election.

SECTION 7. The City of Simi Valley recognizes that additional costs will be incurred by the County by reason of this consolidation and agrees to reimburse the County for any costs.

SECTION 8. The City Clerk is directed to file a certified copy of this Resolution with the Board of Supervisors and the County election department of the County of Ventura.

SECTION 9. The City Clerk will certify to the passage and adoption of this Resolution; enter the same in the book of original Resolutions; and make a minute of the passage and adoption thereof in the records of the proceedings of the City Council in the minutes of the meeting at which the same is passed and adopted.

SECTION 10. Electronic Signatures . This Resolution may be executed with electronic signatures in accordance with Government Code §16.5. Such electronic signatures will be treated in all respects as having the same effect as an original signature.

SECTION 11. The Mayor, or presiding officer, is hereby authorized to affix her signature to this Resolution signifying its adoption by the City Council of the City of Simi Valley, and the City Clerk, or her duly appointed deputy, is directed to attest thereto.

SECTION 12. This Resolution will become effective immediately upon adoption.

PASSED and ADOPTED this 8th day of June 2026.

Attest:

_________________________________

_________________________________
Lucy Blanco, City Clerk Dee Dee Cavanaugh, Mayor of the City of Simi Valley, California
7 Res. No. 2026-25
Approved as to Form: Approved as to Content:
___
______________________________ ___
______________________________
Algeria R. Ford, City Attorney Samantha C. Argabrite, City Manager ___
______________________________
Luis Garibay, Assistant City Manager
A
ttachment:

Exhibit A – Full Text of Ballot Measure
8 Exhibit A
Full Text of Ballot Measure

ORDINANCE NO. ______

AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FUNDING FOR GENERAL
CITY SERVICES IN SIMI VALLEY, SUCH AS 9 -1-1

EMERGENCY RESPONSE, POLICE AND CRIME

PREVENTION, KEEPING STREETS, SIDEWALKS, AND

INFRASTRUCTURE SAFE, CLEAN AND WELL -

MAINTAINED, AND SENIOR CITIZEN SERVICES BY
INCREASING THE CITY OF SIMI VALLEY’S TRANSIENT
OCCUPANCY TAX RATE FROM 10% TO 12% (PAID ONLY

BY HOTEL/SHORT -TERM LODGING GUESTS),
PROVIDING APPROXIMATELY $400,000 ANNUALLY

UNTIL ENDED BY VOTERS, WITH INDEPENDENT AUDITS

AND ALL MONEY LOCALLY CONTROLLED
The People of the City of Simi Valley do hereby ordain as follows:

SECTION 1. Simi Valley Municipal Code (“SVMC”) § 3-5.303 (Imposed: Rate) is amended in its entirety as follows:
“§ 3-5.303. Imposed: Rate.

For the privilege of occupancy in any hotel, each transient must pay a tax in the amount of 12% of the rent charged by the operator. Such tax constitute s a debt owed by the
transient to the City, which debt may be extinguished only by payment to the operator or to the City. The transient must pay the tax to the operator of the hotel at the time the rent is paid.

If the rent is paid in installments, a proportionate share of the tax must be paid with each installment. Any unpaid tax must be paid upon the transient's ceasing to occupy space in the hotel.”
SECTION 2. Environmental Analysis. This Ordinance is exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (California Public Resources Code §§ 2100, et seq ., “CEQA”) and CEQA regulations (14 California Code of Regulations §§ 15000, et seq.) because it establishes rules and procedures to implement government funding mechanisms; does not involve any commitment to a specific project which could result in a potentially significant physical impact on the environment; and constitutes an organiza tional or administrative activity that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment. Accordingly, this Ordinance does not constitute a “project” that requires environmental review ( see specifically 14 CCR § 15378(b)(4-5)).

S
ECTION 3. Interpretation. This Ordinance must be interpreted so as to be consistent with all federal and state laws, rules, and regulations. If any section, sub-section, sentence, clause, phrase, part, or portion of this Ordinance is held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a final judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction, such decision does not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The voters declare that this Ordinance, and each section, sub- section, sentence, clause, phrase, part, or portion thereof, would have been adopted or passed irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, sub- sections, sentences, clauses, phrases, part, or portion is found to be invalid. If any provision of this Ordinance is held invalid as applied to any person or circumstance, such invalidity does not affect any application of this Ordinance that can be given effect without the invalid application.

SECTION 4. Severability. If any portion of this Ordinance is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, the remainder of the Ordinance and the application of such provision to other persons or circumstances will not be affected thereby. We the People indicate our strong desire that: (i) the City Council use its best efforts to sustain and reenact that portion, and (ii) the City Council implement this Ordinance by taking all steps possible to cure any inadequacies or deficiencies identified by the court in a manner consistent with the express and implied intent of this Ordinance, and then adopting or reenacting such portion as necessary or desirable to allow imposition of the tax.

SECTION 5. Construction. This Ordinance must be broadly construed in order to achieve the purposes stated in this Ordinance. It is the intent of the voters that the provisions of this Ordinance be interpreted or implemented by the City and others in a manner that facilitates the purposes set forth in this Ordinance.

SECTION 6. Validity of Previous Code Sections. lf this entire Ordinance or its application is deemed invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, any repeal of the SVMC or other regulation by this Ordinance will be rendered void and cause such SVMC provision or other regulation to remain in full force and effect for all purposes SECTION 7. Voter Approval. This Ordinance will enact and impose a general tax. Accordingly, it will be submitted to a general election on November 3, 2026, for voter approval. lf A MAJORITY of voters vote in favor of this Ordinance, it will become valid and binding on the date that the City Council certifies the election results. Should the provisions of Government Code §§ 53720, et seq. or California Constitution Article XlllC be repealed or amended or interpreted by the courts so that voter approval is not required for enacting this Ordinance, then this Ordinance will take effect as provided for all other City ordinances and may be amended in the same manner as all other City ordinances.

SECTION 8. City Council Authority . Pursuant to Elections Code § 9217, the People authorize and direct the City Council to promptly take appropriate actions needed to implement this Ordinance including, without limitation, adopting all regulations needed to effectuate this Ordinance by ordinance. 10 Res. No. 2026-25

SECTION 9. Reconciliation with Competing Ordinance. In the event another ballot measure (a “Competing Ordinance”) appears on the same ballot as this Ordinance that seeks to adopt, impose, or amend any limitations or restrictions, or other regulations or requirements, including, without limitation, those with respect to the actions authorized by this Ordinance, that differ in any respect to or supplement, those contained in this Ordinance, the People declare their intention that, if both the Competing Ordinance and this Ordinance receive a majority of votes cast, the Competing Ordinance and this Ordinance be fully adopted except to the extent that specific provisions contained in each measure are deemed to be in direct conflict with each other on a “provision by provision” basis pursuant to Yoshisato v. Superior Court (1992) 2 Cal. 4th 978. With respect to any such directly conflicting provisions, the specific provisions of the Ordinance receiving the greater number of votes will prevail.

SECTION 10. Miscellaneous.

A. lf any portion of this Ordinance is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, we the People indicate our strong desire that: (i) the City Council use its best efforts to sustain and reenact that portion, and (ii) the City Council implement this Ordinance by taking all steps possible to cure any inadequacies or deficiencies identified by the court in a manner consistent with the express and implied intent of this Ordinance, and then adopting or reenacting such portion as necessary or desir able to permit the planning and development of the Project.

B. This Ordinance must be broadly construed in order to achieve the purposes stated in this Ordinance. lt is the intent of the People that the provisions of this Ordinance be interpreted or implemented by the City and others in a manner that facilitates the purposes set forth in this Ordinance.

SECTION 11. The Mayor will sign this Ordinance and the City Clerk will attest and certify to the passage and adoption of this Ordinance if a majority of the voters voting in the City's general election on November 3, 2026, approve it.

SECTION 12. Pursuant to Revenue and Taxation Code § 7265, this Ordinance will become operative on the first day of the first calendar quarter commencing more than 110 days after the adoption of this Ordinance. ///
///
///
///
///
11 Res. No. 2026-25
PASSED
AND ADOPTED this ___ day of __________, 2026.

Attest:
_________________________________ _________________________________ Lucy Blanco, City Clerk Dee Dee Cavanaugh, Mayor of the City of Simi Valley, California
Approved as to Form: Approved as to Content:
_________________________________ _________________________________ Algeria R. Ford, City Attorney
___
______________________________
Luis Garibay, Assistant City Manager
Samantha C. Argabrite, City Manager
12 Res. No. 2026-25
Attachment B

Page 1 of 3 ends

RESOLUTION NO. 2026-26

A RESOLUTION DIRECTING THE CITY ATTORNEY TO

PREPARE AN IMPARTIAL ANALYSIS OF THE

PROPOSITION AUTHORIZING AMENDMENT OF THE

TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX TO FUND GENERAL

MUNICIPAL SERVICES
WHEREAS, a general municipal election is to be held in the City of Simi Valley on the day of the statewide general election for the purpose of electing a Mayor for a term of two years and three City Council Members, one from District 1 for a term of two years, one from District 2 and one from District 4, each for a term of four years , and to submit to the voters the following City ballot proposition:

Shall the measure providing
funding for general city services in Simi Valley,
such as 9-1- 1 emergency response, police and
crime prevention, keeping streets, sidewalks, and
infrastructure safe, clean and well -maintained,
and senior citizen services by increasing the City
of Simi Valley’s transient occupancy tax rate from
10% to 12% (paid only by hotel/short -term
lodging guests), providing approximately
$400,000 annually until ended by voters, with
independent audits and all money locally
controlled, be adopted?
YES
NO
W
HEREAS, the City of Simi Valley wishes to direct the City Attorney to prepare an impartial analysis of the proposition authorizing an amendment to the transient occupancy tax to fund general municipal services being presented to voters during the General Municipal Election on Tuesday, November 3, 2026;

NOW, THEREFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SIMI VALLEY DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Pursuant to Elections Code § 9280, the City Clerk is directed to transmit a copy of the ballot proposition amending a transient occupancy tax to fund General Municipal Services to the City Attorney for an impartial analysis.

SECTION 2. Upon receiving the ballot measure, the City Attorney is directed to prepare an impartial analysis of the proposed ballot measure showing its effect, if any, on existing law and the operation of the measure. Such analysis must not be more than 500 words.

SECTION 3. The impartial analysis must include a statement indicating whether the proposed measure was placed on the ballot by a petition signed by the requisite number of voters or by the governing body of the City. 13 Res. No. 2026-26
SECTION 4. In the event the entire text of the measure is not printed on the ballot, nor in the voter information portion of the sample ballot, there must be printed immediately below the impartial analysis, in not less than 10 point bold type, the City Clerk should have the following language printed: “The above statement is an impartial analysis of the proposed ballot measure (Resolution No. 2026-26). If you desire a copy of the legislation affected by this measure, please call the City Clerk’s office at (805) 583-6748, and a copy will be mailed at no cost to you.” SECTION 5. The impartial analysis of the proposed ballot measure must be filed by the date set by the City Clerk for the filing of primary arguments.

SECTION 6. Pursuant to 52 U.S.C.A. § 10503, the City Clerk will:

A. Translate the City Attorney’s analysis in accordance with regulations set forth by the Ventura County Clerk Clerk-Record & Registrar of Voters' office; and B. Make copies of the translations of the City Attorney’s analysis publicly available.

SECTION 7. The City Clerk will certify to the passage and adoption of this Resolution; enter the same in the book of original Resolutions; and make a minute of the passage and adoption thereof in the records of the proceedings of the City Council in the minutes of the meeting at which the same is passed and adopted.

SECTION 8. Electronic Signatures . This Resolution may be executed with electronic signatures in accordance with Government Code §16.5. Such electronic signatures will be treated in all respects as having the same effect as an original signature.

SECTION 9. Recordation. The Mayor, or presiding officer, is authorized to sign this Resolution signifying its adoption by the City Council of the City of Simi Valley and the City Clerk, or her duly appointed deputy, may attest thereto.

SECTION 10. Effective Date . This Resolution will become effective immediately upon adoption and will remain effective unless repealed or superseded.

PASSED and ADOPTED this 8th day of June 2026.

Attest:
_________________________________ _________________________________ Lucy Blanco, City Clerk Dee Dee Cavanaugh, Mayor of the City of Simi Valley, California
Approved as to Form: Approved as to Content:
14 Res. No. 2026-26
___
______________________________ ___
______________________________
Algeria R. Ford, City Attorney
___
______________________________
Luis Garibay, Assistant City Manager
Samantha C. Argabrite, City Manager
15 Attachment C
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-27

A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING REQUIREMENTS FOR

BALLOT ARGUMENTS FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK TO

BE INCLUDED WITH VOTER INFORMATION FOR THE
GENERAL ELECTION ON NOVEMBER 3, 2026
W
HEREAS, a general municipal election is to be held in the City of Simi Valley on the day of the statewide general election for the purpose of electing a Mayor for a term of two years and three City Council Members, one from District 1 for a term of two years, one from District 2 and one from District 4, each for a term of four years , and to submit to the voters the following City ballot proposition:

Shall the measure providing
funding for general city services in Simi Valley,
such as 9-1- 1 emergency response, police and
crime prevention, keeping streets, sidewalks, and
infrastructure safe, clean and well -maintained,
and senior citizen services by increasing the City
of Simi Valley’s transient occupancy tax rate from
10% to 12% (paid only by hotel/short -term
lodging guests), providing approximately
$400,000 annually until ended by voters, with
independent audits and all money locally
controlled, be adopted?
YES
NO
W
HEREAS, the City of Simi Valley wishes to establish requirements for ballot arguments filed with the City Clerk to be included with the Voter Information Guide for the General Municipal Election on Tuesday, November 3, 2026; NO

W, THEREFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SIMI VALLEY DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Pursuant to Elections Code § 9281, qualified voters may submit arguments for and against the ballot measures, in addition to rebuttal arguments, for the November 3, 2026, General Municipal Election on forms provided by the City Clerk.

SECTION 2: Arguments filed in accordance with this Resolution must comply with the following requirements in accordance with Elections Code §§ 9282, 9283, 9285, and 9286:

A. Arguments must be in writing and not exceed three hundred (300) words except for rebuttal argument s which may not exceed two hundred and fifty (250) 16 Res. No. 2026-27
words;
B. Arguments may be submitted by the City Council; any
councilmember authorized to submit an argument by the City Council; any individual voter eligible to vote on the measures; any bona fide association of citizens; or any combination of voters and associations;
C. Arguments must be typewritten in at least a 12-point font; D. Arguments may not include underlining, italics, asterisks, or other, similar, type of formatting;
E. Arguments must be accompanied by the printed name and signature or printed names and signatures of the person or persons submitting it, or, if submitted on behalf of an organization, the name of the organization and the printed name and signature of at least one of its principal officers.

F. If more than five (5) signatures accompany an argument, only the first five (5) will be printed.

G. Arguments for or against the ballot measures must be received in the City Clerk’s office not later than 14 days after the City Council calls for an election.

Rebuttal arguments must be received not later than 10 days after the Arguments submittal deadline.

SECTION 3: Electronic Signatures . This Resolution may be executed with electronic signatures in accordance with Government Code §16.5. Such electronic signatures will be treated in all respects as having the same effect as an original signature.

SECTION 4: Recordation. The Mayor, or presiding officer, is authorized to sign this Resolution signifying its adoption by the City Council of the City of Simi Valley and the City Clerk, or her duly appointed deputy, may attest thereto.

SECTION 5: Effective Date . This Resolution will become effective immediately upon adoption and will remain effective unless repealed or superseded.

PASSED and ADOPTED this 8th day of June 2026.

_________________________________

_________________________________
Algeria R. Ford, City Attorney

_________________________________
Luis Garibay, Assistant City Manager
Samantha C. Argabrite, City Manager

18 R
ESOLUTION NO. 2026-30
A

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SIMI

VALLEY REQUESTING THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF

VENTURA COUNTY TO PERMIT THE COUNTY ELECTIONS

OFFICIAL TO RENDER SERVICES TO THE CITY FOR A TOT

BALLOT MEASURE FOR THE PREVIOUSLY CONSOLIDATED

GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON THE DAY

OF THE STATEWIDE GENERAL ELECTION
W
HEREAS, a general municipal election is to be held in the City of Simi Valley on the day of the statewide general election for the purpose of electing a Mayor for a term of two years and three City Council Members, one from District 1 for a term of two years, one from District 2 and one from District 4, each for a term of four years, and to submit to the voters the following City ballot proposition:

Shall the measure providing
funding for general city services in Simi Valley,
such as 9-1- 1 emergency response, police and
crime prevention, keeping streets, sidewalks, and
infrastructure safe, clean and well -maintained,
and senior citizen services by increasing the City
of Simi Valley’s transient occupancy tax rate from
10% to 12% (paid only by hotel/short -term
lodging guests), providing approximately
$400,000 annually until ended by voters, with
independent audits and all money locally
controlled, be adopted?
YES
NO
W
HEREAS, the City of Simi Valley wishes to have the County elections official of Ventura County render specified services to the City relating to a proposition on the ballot for the previously consolidated General Municipal Election on Tuesday, November 3, 2026; NO

W, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SIMI VALLEY DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:

S
ECTION 1. Pursuant to the Elections Code, the Board of Supervisors is requested to permit the County elections official of Ventura County to render specified services with respect to the conduct of the general municipal election as it relates to the ballot proposition to be held in the City of Simi Valley on the day of the statewide general election, as shown on Exhibit A, attached hereto and made a part hereof; and that any and all other such services be rendered as may be necessary to complete said election.

S
ECTION 2. The City agrees to pay the reasonable costs for the services and supplies to be rendered by the County elections official.

S
ECTION 3. The City Clerk is hereby directed to forward to the Board of Supervisors and to the County elections official each a certified copy of this resolution 19 SECTION 4. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this resolution and shall cause a certified resolution to be filed in the Office of the City Clerk.

PASSED
and ADOPTED this 8th day of June 2026.

Atte
st:

Lucy Blanco, City Clerk Dee Dee Cavanaugh, Mayor of the City of Simi Valley, California
Appr
oved as to Form: Approved as to Content:

Algeria R. Ford, City Attorney Samantha C Argabrite, City Manager Luis Garibay, Assistant City Manager
20 Res. No. 2026-30

MICHELLE ASCENCION
Clerk-Recorder & Registrar of Voters
Elections Division

VENTURA COUNTY

REQUEST FOR SPECIFIED ELECTION SERVICES

CITY BALLOT MEASURES
TO: MICHELLE ASCENCION, Clerk-Recorder & Registrar of Voters FROM: 4
City Name City Clerk
ELECTION: S
tatewide General Election DATE: November 3, 2026 _ A MAP OF THE VOTING AREA OR DISTRICT MUST BE PROVIDED.

SERVICE OPTIONS Place a check mark next to the desired services or enter information.

ITEM #1 PUBLICATIO
NS
A. County elections official is requested to publish: Notice of Election of Measure and Vote Centers.

B. City will publish and send proof of publication to Elections ITEM #2 COUNTY VOTER INFORMATION GUIDE PUBLICATION
A. Print Full Text of Ballot Measure.

B. Full Measure Text will not be printed in the County Voter Information Guide.

ITEM #3 MEASURE/INITIATIVE PROPONENT FILINGS (IF APPLICABLE) A. Random sample of 500 signatures.

B. Full check of all signatures submitted, up to the required number.

ITEM #4 PERCENTAGE OF VOTES REQUIRED FOR PASSAGE OF MEASURE: _______ ELECTIONS DIVISION SERVICES PROVIDED:

MEASURE FORMS/
CAMPAIGN REPORTING MATERIAL: Elections Division provides electronic copies.

TRANSLATIONS: Elec
tions Division provides all translations pursuant to Election Code Section 13307.

City of Simi Valley Lucy Blanco
X
50% + 1
N/A
N/A
X
Exhibit A
21 Res. No. 2026-30
PRINTING OF COUNTY VOTER INFORMATION GUIDES: Elections Division prints arguments/analyses for each measure, Sample Ballots, and Vote Center/Ballot Drop Box lists in the County Voter Information Guide for each election.

VOTE BY MAI
L BALLOTS: Elections Division processes all Vote By Mail ballots.

ELECTION RE
SULTS: Elections Division posts results and regular updates on its website:

Vote.VenturaCounty.gov.

The undersigned requests the above election services to be performed by the Ventura County Elections Division and pursuant to Elections Code Section 10002, agrees to reimburse the County in full for all services requested upon presentation of the invoice.

Name of City
: _________________________________________________
Print Name &
Title: _________________________________________________ Signature: ________________
_________________________________
Date: __________________

PERSON IN CHARGE
OF DECISIONS ON ARGUMENTS, REBUTTAL, AND FINAL PROOFS:

Name: __________
_____________________
Email: _______________________________
Phone: ______________________________
Rev. 4/10/2026
City of Simi Valley
Samantha C. Argabrite, City Manager
Luis Garibay
[email protected]
805-583-6853
22 Res. No. 2026-30
Attachment E

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

T ABLE OF C ONTENTS
Table of Contents. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i List of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii List of Figures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Quality of Life. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Question 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Changes to Improve Simi Valley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Question 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Overall Performance Rating . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Question 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Initial Ballot Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Question 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Gauging AB1416 Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Support by Subgroups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Reasons for Not Supporting Measure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Question 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Projects & Services. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Question 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Service Ratings by Initial Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Positive Arguments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Question 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Top Positive Arguments by Initial Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Interim Ballot Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Question 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Support by Ballot Test Version . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Support by Subgroups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Negative Arguments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Question 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Top Negative Arguments by Initial Support. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Final Ballot Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Question 11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Support by Ballot Test Version . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Change in Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Background & Demographics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Questionnaire Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Programming, Pre-Test & Translation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Sample. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Statistical Margin of Error . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Recruiting & Data Collection. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Data Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Rounding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Questionnaire & Toplines. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 List of Tables
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 ii
City of Simi Valley
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

L IST OF T ABLES
Table 1 Demographic Breakdown of Support at Initial Ballot Test. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Table 2 Top Projects & Services by Position at Initia l Ballot Test. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Table 3 Top Positive Arguments by Position at Initial Ballot Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Table 4 Demographic Breakdown of Support at Interim Ballot Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Table 5 Top Negative Arguments by Position at Initia l Ballot Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Table 6 Demographic Breakdown of Support at Final Ballot Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Table 7 Movement Between Initial & Final Ballot Test. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Table 8 Demographics of Sample . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 List of Figures
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 iii
City of Simi Valley
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

L IST OF F IGURES
Figure 1 Quality of Life . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Figure 2 Quality of Life by Years in Simi Valley, Homeowner on Voter File & Survey Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Figure 3 Quality of Life by Age & Gender . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Figure 4 Changes to Improve City. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Figure 5 Satisfaction With City Services. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Figure 6 Satisfaction With City Services by Years in Simi Valley, Quality of Life & Homeowner on Voter File . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Figure 7 Satisfaction With City Services by Age, Ge nder & Survey Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Figure 8 Initial Ballot Test. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 0 Figure 9 Initial Ballot Test by Ballot Test Version. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Figure 10 Reasons for Not Supporting Measure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Figure 11 Projects & Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Figure 12 Positive Arguments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Figure 13 Interim Ballot Test. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Figure 14 Interim Ballot Test by Ballot Test Version . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Figure 15 Negative Arguments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Figure 16 Final Ballot Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 4 Figure 17 Final Ballot Test by Ballot Test Version . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Figure 18 Maximum Margin of Error Due to Sampling @ 95% Confidence Level. . . . . . . . . . . 30 Introduction
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 1
City of Simi Valley
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

I NTRODUCTION
Incorporated in 1969 and currently home to an estimated 124,815 residents, 1 the City of Simi Valley provides a wide range of services and amen ities to residents and visitors alike, either directly or through partnerships with local pub lic and private agencies. Although Simi Valley is primarily a residential community, the City is also home to regional attractions such as the Ron- ald Reagan Presidential Library, which draws vi sitors from throughout Southern California and beyond.

Like many cities, Simi Valley relies in part on revenues generated by a voter-approved transient occupancy tax (TOT) paid by guests of hotels and motels to help fund municipal services and off- set the impacts that visitors can have on city se rvices, streets, infrastructure, and public ameni- ties. The City’s current TOT ordinance was adop ted 32 years ago, meanwhile the local lodging market and the way visitors book and use accommodations have evolved significantly. In order to modernize the ordinance and in crease the TOT rate by 2% to provide additional funding for essential municipal services, the City is consi dering placing a TOT ballot measure before voters in 2026.

MOTIVATION FOR RESEARCH The primary purpose of this study was to produce an unbiased, statistically reliable evaluation of vo ters' interest in supporting a modest increase to the City’s TOT to provide additional funding for city services. 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 community's priorities and expressed needs. Specifically, the study was designed to:
• Gauge current, baseline support for modernizing and increasing the City’s TOT by 2% to provide additional funding for 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 assess the feasibility of increasing the TOT to fund municipal services, it was important that in addition to measuring current opinions about the measure (Question 5), the survey expose respondents to the types of in formation 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 (Ques- tions 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 Simi Valley
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

OVERVIEW OF METHODOLOGY For a full discussion of the research methods and tech- niques used in this study, turn to Methodology on page 29. In brief, the survey was administered to a random sample of 508 voters in the City of Simi Valley who are likely to participate in the November 2026 general 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 18 and May 26, 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 analyzing the data. And for the truly ambitious reader, the questionnaire used for th e interviews is contained at the back of this report (see Questionnaire & Toplines on page 32), and a complete set of crosstabulations for the survey results is contained in Appendix A.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS True North thanks the City of Simi Valley 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. A special thanks also to Jared Boigon (Tea mCivX) for contributing to the design of the sur- vey.

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 Simi Valley. 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 Simi Valley
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

K EY F INDINGS
As noted in the Introduction, this study was designed to provide the City of Simi Valley with a statistically reliable understanding of voters’ inte rest in raising the City’s transient occupancy tax to provide additional funding for city servi ces. Whereas subsequent sections of this report are devoted to conveying the detailed results of the survey, in this section we attempt to ‘see the forest through the trees’ and note how the colle ctive results of the surve y answer some of the key questions that motivated the research. The fo llowing conclusions 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.

Are voters supportive of
a TOT increase to pro-
vide additional funding
for city services?
Yes. Voters have a high regard for the quality of life in Simi Valley (77% rate it as excellent or good) and ar e generally satisfied with the City’s provision of services (71% very or somewhat satisfied). These sentiments translate into solid natural support (63%) for increasing the City’s TOT from 10% to 12% to fund city services in Simi Valley, such as 911 emer- gency response, police and crime prevention, keeping streets, sidewalks, and infrastructure safe, clean and well-maintained, and senior citizen services. The results of this baseline survey indicate that a TOT measure is feasible for the November 2026 ballot provided that it focuses on the projects and services that voters identify as their priorities and is accom- panied by robust community/opinio n leader engagement, education, and communication (more on this below).

Having stated that a TOT measure ap pears feasible, it is important to note that the measure’s prospects will be shaped by external factors (not within the City’s or an independent campaign’s control) and that a rec- ommendation to place the measure on the November 2026 ballot comes with several qualifications and cond itions. Indeed, although the results are promising, all revenue measures must overcome challenges prior to being successful. The proposed measur e is no exception. The following paragraphs discuss some of the cha llenges and the next steps that True North and TeamCivX recommend.

Which services do vot-
ers view as priorities?
A general tax is “any tax imposed for general governmental purposes” 2 and is distinguished from a special tax in that the funds raised by a gen- eral tax are not earmarked for 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 Simi Valley City Council would have the discretion to decide how to spend the revenues, the survey results indicate that voters are primarily interested in using the proceeds to fund public works and pub- lic safety, including fixing streets an d potholes (87% strongly or some- what favor), repairing aging infrastructure including sidewalks, bridges,

2. Section 1, Article XIIIC, California Constitution.

Key Findings
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 4City of Simi Valley
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
storm drains, and pipes (86%), and providing quick responses to 911 emergencies (85%). That said, it is worth noting that every potential use of TOT proceeds tested was favored by at least seven-in-ten voters.

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 TOT are somewhat sensitiv e to the nature—and amount—of information that they have about the measure. Information about the specific services that could be funded by the TOT, as well as arguments in favor of the measure, were found by many voters to be compelling reasons to support it—effectively raising support to 69% at the Interim Ballot Test. However, voters also exhibited sensitivity to opposition argu- ments, which effectively cooled support for the TOT down to 61% at the Final Ballot Test. There is also a risk that some voters could be swayed by hyper-partisan 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 focuses on the need for the mea- sure as well as the many benefits that it will bring.

How might changes to
the economic or politi-
cal climate alter support
for the measure?
A survey is a snapshot in time—which means the results of this study and the conclusions noted above mu st be viewed in light of the current economic and political climates. On the one hand, this should provide some reassurances to the reader th at the proposed TOT measure is fea- sible for 2026. Even in a national environment marred by economic uncertainty, political instability, concerns about war, tariffs, and infla- tion, rising cost-of-living pressures, consumer sentiment reaching record lows, and broader skepticism about government spending, support for the proposed TOT measure remained well above the simple majority (50%+1) required for passage of a general tax throughout the survey.

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 5
City of Simi Valley
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

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 Simi Valley, 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 Simi Valley using a five-point scale of excellent, good, fair, poor, or very poor. As shown in Figure 1 below, more than three-quarte rs of voters shared favorable opinions of the quality of life in Simi Valley, with 20% reporting it is excellent and 57% stating it is good. Approx- imately 17% of voters surveyed rated the quality of life in the City as fair, whereas 5% used poor or very poor to describe the quality of life in Simi Valley and less than 1% were unsure.

Question 2 How would you rate the overall quality of life in Simi Valley? Would you say it is excellent, good, fair, poor or very poor?
FIGURE 1 QUALITY OF LIFE
Figures 2 and 3 on the next page show how ratings of the quality of life in the City of Simi Valley varied by length of residence, homeownership, survey language, age, and gender. When com- pared to their respective counterparts, quality of life ratings (excellent and good) were highest among homeowners, respondents who took the survey in English, seniors, and men. Ratings were reasonably consistent by length of residence.

Prefer not to
answer

0.6 Very poor

1.4 Poor

3.4 Fair

17.1 Good

57.4 Excellent

20.0 Quality of Life & City Services
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 6City of Simi Valley
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

FIGURE 2 QUALITY OF LIFE BY YEARS IN SIMI VALLEY, HOMEOWNER ON VOTER FILE & SURVEY LANGUAGE FIGURE 3 QUALITY OF LIFE BY AGE & GENDER
CHANGES TO IMPROVE SIMI VALLEY The next question in this series asked voters to indicate the one thing that city government could change to make Simi Valley a better place to live, now and in the future. Question 3 was po sed in an open-ended ma nner, allowing respon- dents to mention any aspect or attribute that came to mind withou t 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 4 on the next page.

Approximately one-in-five respondents (19%) could not think of a change to Simi Valley that they desired (14%) or stated flatly that no changes are needed/everything is fine (5%). Among specific changes desired, the five most common were limiting growth and development (12%), address- ing homeless issues (10%), improving shopping and dining opportunities (9%) improving infra- structure, streets, and roads (8%) and cleaning up and beautifying the City (8%).

17.7 25.2 19.0

33.4 62.2 46.7 59.0 36.3
Excellent

15.7 22.6 25.0 19.8
Good

66.2 56.5

57.356.0
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Less than 5 5 to 9 10 to 14 15 or more Yes No English Spanish Years in Simi Valley (Q1) H omeowner on Voter File Survey Language % Respondents

21.6 21.6 19.6

65.5 60.5

55.1 20.017.915.7
Excellent

23.4 55.3

58.9 60.1
Good

37.5 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
18 to 29 30 to 39 40 to 49 50 to 64 65 or older Male Female Age Gender
% Respondents
Quality of Life & City Services
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 7City of Simi Valley
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Question 3 If the city government could change one thing to make Simi Valley 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 whether, overall, they were satisfied or dissatisfied with the job the City of Simi Valley is doing to provide city services. Because this question does not reference a specific program, facility, 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 on the next page, seven-in -ten respondents (71%) indicated that they were satisfied with the City of Simi Valley’s efforts to provide municipal services, with 24% saying they were very satisfied and 47% somewhat satisfied. Twenty-four percent (24%) reported that they were dissatisfied with the City’s overall perfo rmance, while approximat ely 5% were unsure or unwilling to state their opinion.

For the interested reader, Figures 6 and 7 displa y how the percentage of respondents satisfied with the City’s overall performance varied acro ss key subgroups. As expected, opinions about the City’s overall performance in providing municipal services were strongly related to the per- ceived quality of life in the City (92% of those who rated quality of life as excellent were satisfied, compared with 75% of those who rated it as good and 44% of those who rated it as fair, poor, or very poor). Among demographic subgroups, satisfaction with the City’s overall performance was highest among residents who have lived in the City between five and nine years, residents 30 to 39 years of age or 65 years and older, men, and respondents who took the survey in English.

14.0 12.4

10.1 9.0

8.0 7.7

6.3 6.1

5.4 3.7

3.6 3.4

3.2 2.9

2.9 2.7

2.7 2.4

2.4 2.2

1.7 1.6

1.5 1.5

3.5 4.6

1.6 05 1 0 1 5
Not sure / Cannot think of anything specific
Limit growth, development
Address homeless issues
Improve shopping, dining opportunities
Improve infrastructure, streets, roads
Clean up, beautify City
Support small, local businesses
Improve public safety
Provide rec activities, events, for all ages
No changes needed / Everything is fine
Improve parks, rec facilities
Improve Town Center
Support, encourage economic growth
Provide more police presence, response
Improve public transportation
Address E-bike issues
Provide more affordable housing
Address racism, discrimination issues
Enforce traffic laws
Improve schools, education
Reduce taxes, fees
Improve City Council, Gov process
Reduce traffic congestion
Enforce city codes
Reduce cost of living
Address ICE issues
Improve economy, jobs
% Respondents
Quality of Life & City Services
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 8City of Simi Valley
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Question 4 Generally speaking, are you satisfied or di ssatisfied with the job the City of Simi Valley is doing to provide city services?
FIGURE 5 SATISFACTION WITH CITY SERVICES
FIGURE 6 SATISFACTION WITH CITY SERVICES BY YEARS IN SIMI VALLEY, QUALITY OF LIFE & HOMEOWNER ON VOTER FILE
Somewhat
satisfied

46.8 Very satisfied

24.1 Somewhat
dissatisfied

16.4 Very
dissatisfied

7.7 Prefer not to
answer

1.3 Not sure

3.6 58.9

20.1 3.9

22.2 28.5

32.9 54.9

39.6 48.8 42.4

22.521.528.9
Very
satisfied

35.9 56.3

49.2 45.5
Smwt
satisfied

42.3 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
Less than 5 5 to 9 10 to 14 15 or more Excellent Good Fair / Poor / Very poor
Yes No
Years in Simi Valley (Q1) Quality of Life (Q2) Homeowner on Voter File % Respondents
Quality of Life & City Services
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 9City of Simi Valley
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

FIGURE 7 SATISFACTION WITH CITY SERVICES BY AGE, GENDER & SURVEY LANGUAGE

31.1 24.9 25.6 23.1

38.6 43.9 54.3

41.5 48.7 22.5
Very
satisfied

23.0 30.7

12.5 21.2
Smwt
satisfied

43.5 48.7

54.9 43.4
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
18 to 29 30 to 39 40 to 49 50 to 64 65 or older Male Female English Spanish Age Gender Survey Language
% Respondents
Initial Ballot Test
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 10
City of Simi Valley
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

I NITIAL B ALLOT T EST
The primary research objective of this survey wa s to estimate voters’ support for increasing the City’s transient occupancy tax from 10% to 12% to fund city services in Simi Valley, such as 911 emergency response, police and crime prevention; keeping streets, sidewalks, and infrastructure safe, clean and well-maintained; and senior citizen services. To this end, Question 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 in that it provides a useful baseline fr om which to judge the impact of various informa- tion items conveyed later in the survey on voter support for the measure.

Question 5 Later this year, voters in Simi Valley may be asked to vote on a local ballot mea- sure. Let me read you a summary of the measure. Shall the measure providing funding for gen- eral city services in Simi Valley, such as 911 emergency response, police and crime prevention; keeping streets, sidewalks, and infrastructure sa fe, clean and well-maintained; and senior citi- zen services; by increasing the City of Simi Valley's transient occupancy tax rate from 10% to 12% (paid only by hotel/short-term lodging guests ), providing approximately 400 thousand dol- lars annually until ended by voters, with independent audits and all money locally controlled, be adopted?
FIGURE 8 INITIAL BALLOT TEST
Figure 8 presents the results of the Initial Bal-
lot Test among all respondents. Overall, 63%
of likely November 2026 voters surveyed indi-
cated that they woul d support the proposed
transient occupancy tax (TOT) measure,
whereas 23% stated that they would oppose
the measure and approximately 14% were
unsure or unwilling to share their vote choice.

For general taxes in California, the level of
support recorded at the Initial Ballot Test is
approximately 13 percentage points above the
simple majority (50%+1) required for passage.

Prefer not to
answer

2.0Not sure

12.0 Definitely no

11.3 Probably no

12.1 Probably yes

36.2 Definitely yes

26.5 Initial Ballot Test
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 11City of Simi Valley
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

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 suppor t for the proposed TOT 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 (police officers and a small business owner) and no opponents listed, whereas the second group (Sample B) received the ballot statement, same list of potential supporters, and potentia l opponents described as a taxpayer association and Simi Valley retiree.

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 TOT measure (70%) than their counterparts who received a list of supporters and opponents (56%).

FIGURE 9 INITIAL BALLOT TEST BY BALLOT TEST VERSION

16.6 9.7 12.7

11.3 12.6

22.830.5

33.3 39.3

7.1 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 sur e
Definitely no
Probably no
Probably yes
Definitely yes
Initial Ballot Test
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 12City of Simi Valley
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

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 TOT measure was widespread at the Initial Ballot Test, with all but two subgroups exhibiting majo rity or supermajority support for the measure.

The only exceptions were respondents who rated the quality of life in Simi Valley as fair, poor, or very poor (48%) and respondents who took the survey in Spanish (48%).

TABLE 1 DEMOGRAPHIC BREAKDOWN OF SUPPORT AT INITIAL BALLOT TEST Approximate %
of Voter
Universe
% Probably or
Definitely Yes % Not sure
Overall 100.0 62.7 12.0
Less than 5 7.9 55.8 14.4
5 to 9 14.1 77.0 7.3
10 to 14 7.2 67.0 17.4
15 or more 70.8 61.0 12.3
Satisfied 74.6 68.4 12.3
Dissatisfied 25.4 50.1 7.7
Yes 30.8 64.0 12.0
No 69.2 64.1 11.6
Excellent 20.1 73.7 12.4
Good 57.8 65.1 9.7
Fair / Poor / Very poor 22.1 48.1 17.9
Since June 2016 27.8 61.4 12.3
Before June 2016 72.2 63.2 11.9
Yes 69.1 61.3 14.3
No 30.9 65.8 6.7
Yes 72.1 63.9 11.7
No 27.9 59.5 12.6
18 to 29 14.5 59.4 11.9
30 to 39 14.3 57.2 14.6
40 to 49 15.3 67.6 11.2
50 to 64 28.9 59.6 14.1
65 or older 27.0 67.8 8.9
Yes 60.7 63.6 12.7
No 39.3 61.3 10.9
Yes 40.6 66.5 7.5
No 59.4 60.1 15.0
Democrat 35.3 69.5 10.4
Republican 37.6 63.9 8.8
Other / DTS 27.1 52.1 18.4
Single dem 13.4 64.0 16.1
Dual dem 10.9 70.5 6.4
Single rep 13.0 61.5 10.1
Dual rep 15.4 65.8 5.7
Other 14.3 52.3 13.2
Mixed 33.0 63.0 15.3
Male 49.7 68.9 10.1
Female 50.3 62.0 13.2
Supporters, but no opponents 47.8 69.8 11.3
Supporters and opponents 52.2 56.1 12.6
English 93.0 63.8 11.2
Spanish 7.0 48.3 21.8
Ballot Test Version
Survey Language
Party
Likely Low Turnout
Election Voter
Gender
Household Party Type
Likely Jun 2026 Voter
Age
Quality of Life (Q2)
Years in Simi Valley (Q1)
Satisfaction with City
Services (Q4)
Child in Hsld (Q12)
Registration Year
Homeowner on Voter File
Likely to Vote by Mail
Initial Ballot Test
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 13City of Simi Valley
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

REASONS FOR NOT SUPPORTING MEASURE Respondents who opposed the measure (or were unsure) at the Initial Ballot Test were subsequently asked if th ere was a particular rea- son for their position. Question 6 was asked in an open-ended manner, allowing respondents to mention any reason that came to mind without be ing prompted by, or restricted to, a particular list of options. True North later reviewed the verbatim responses and grouped them into the cat- egories shown in Figure 10.

Among the reasons offered for not supporting the measure, the belief that taxes are already too high (27%), a need for more in formation (22%), and the perceptio n that city funds have been or will be mismanaged or misspent (1 8%) were the most common. An additional 13% were unsure or could not think of a particular reason for their position.

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

27.0 22.3

18.4 12.7

6.8 6.5

6.3 4.6

4.1 1.6

1.5 2.1
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Taxes already too high
Need more information
Money is misspent, mismanaged
Not sure / Cannot think of anything
Other higher priorities in community
It will hurt businesses, economy
Do not support police, they do not need more money
Economic, inflation, cost of living concerns
Do not trust City
Other ways to be funded
City has enough money
Oppose some potential spending projects
% Respondents Who Do Not Support Measure
Projects & Services
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 14
City of Simi Valley
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

P ROJECTS & S ERVICES
The ballot language presented in Question 5 indicated that the proposed TOT measure would provide funding for city services in Simi Vall ey, such as 911 emergency response, police and crime prevention; keeping streets, sidewalks, and infrastructure safe, clean and well-maintained; and senior citizen services. The purpose of Ques tion 7 was to provide respondents with a full range of projects and services that may be funded by the proposed measure, as well as identify which of these services voters most favored funding with the proceeds of the measure.

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 the pr ojects and services tested, as well as voters’ responses, are shown in Figure 11 below.3
Question 7 The measure we've been discussing will continue 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 services tested were favored by at least seven-in-ten voters surveyed. That said, voters priori- tized using funding from the measure to fix st reets and potholes (87% strongly or somewhat favor), repair aging infrastructure including sidewalks, bridges, storm drains, and pipes (86%), and provide quick responses to 911 emergencies (85%).

3. For the full description of items tested, turn to Question 7 in Questionnaire & Toplines on page 32.

67.7 66.8

64.9 47.5

51.3 51.6

47.9 50.3

42.0 19.5

19.1 19.7

30.2 24.2

21.6 25.2

22.0 29.3
0 1 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 0 1 0 0
Fix streets and potholes
Repair aging infrastructure including sidewalks, bridges, storm drains, pipes
Provide quick responses to 911 emergencies
Provide programs and services for seniors, including meals on wheels
Provide police and crime prevention services
Address homelessness
Provide after school and summer youth programs
Attract and retain highly qualified police officers
Provide library services
Q7cQ7dQ7aQ7gQ7bQ7iQ7hQ7eQ7f
% Respondents
Strongly favor Somewhat favor
Projects & Services
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 15City of Simi Valley
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

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 three of the top five priorities for funding.

TABLE 2 TOP PROJECTS & SERVICES BY POSITION AT INITIAL BALLOT TEST Position at
Initial Ballot
Test (Q5) Item Project/Service Summary
% Strongly
Favor
Q7a Provide quick responses to 911 emergencies 80
Q7d Repair aging infrastructure including sidewalks, bridges, storm drains, pipes 79 Q7c Fix streets and potholes 79
Q7e Attract and retain highly qualified police officers 64 Q7b Provide police and crime prevention services 63
Q7c Fix streets and potholes 41
Q7d Repair aging infrastructure including sidewalks, bridges, storm drains, pipes 40 Q7b Provide police and crime prevention services 29
Q7a Provide quick responses to 911 emergencies 29
Q7i Address homelessness 28
Q7c Fix streets and potholes 68
Q7d Repair aging infrastructure including sidewalks, bridges, storm drains, pipes 63 Q7a Provide quick responses to 911 emergencies 61
Q7g Provide programs and services for seniors, including meals on wheels 53 Q7h Provide after school and summer youth programs 51
Probably or
Definitely Yes
(n = 318)
Probably or
Definitely No
(n = 118)
Not Sure
(n = 61)
Positive Arguments
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 16
City of Simi Valley
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

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 TOT measure, it is important that th e 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.

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 22). Within each series, specific arguments were admin- istered in random order to avoid a systematic position bias.

Question 8 The measure we've been discussing will continue 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 12 POSITIVE ARGUMENTS

43.5 38.7

38.5 41.4

33.9 42.0

35.8 29.2

35.7 32.9

36.1 35.1

31.0 36.7

26.3 31.6

34.5 27.8
0 1 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 0 1 0 0
Fast emergency response times for 911 calls are critical for saving lives; measure helps ensure that we have enough police officers to respond quickly to 911 emergencies
By keeping city safe, clean, well-maintained, measure will help protect quality of life, keep Simi Valley a special place to live City maintains 346+ mi of streets, 586 mi of sidewalks, 134 mi of storm drains; measure provides funding we need to keep streets, infrastructure in good condition
Money raised by measure is reinvested back into community to fund essential services, facilities here in Simi Valley; by law, it can’t be taken away by State, County
Ordinance not updated in 32 yrs; the way visitors use short term lodging changed a lot; measure updates ordinance so that all forms of short-term lodging are treated equally
Measure will NOT impact your taxes as a resident of Simi Valley; it applies only to visitors who stay in local hotels, short- term lodging
We can’t depend on State or Fed Government to take care of local needs; measure provides stable source of locally- controlled funding to provide essential services to residents, businesses
Ordinance not updated in 32 yrs; the way visitors use short term lodging changed a lot; measure updates ordinance so that all forms of short-term lodging pay their fair share
Measure includes a clear system of accountability incl
independent audits, public disclosure of how all funds are spent
Q8eQ8dQ8fQ8cQ8g1Q8aQ8hQ8g2Q8b
% Respondents
Very convincing Somewhat convincing
Positive Arguments
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 17City of Simi Valley
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

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: Fast emergency response times for 911 calls are critical for saving lives. This measure helps ensure that we have enough police officers to respond quickly to 911 emergencies (76% very or somewhat convincing), By keeping our city safe, clean, and well-maintained, this measure will help protect our quality of life and keep Simi Valley a special place to live (75%), and The City maintains more than 346 miles of streets, 586 miles of sidewalks, and 134 miles of storm drains. This measure provides funding we need to keep our streets and infrastructure in good condition (74%).

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 unsure. Nevertheless, two specific arguments were ranked among the top five most compelling by supporters, opponents, and the undecided.

TABLE 3 TOP POSITIVE ARGUMENTS BY POSITION AT INITIAL BALLOT TEST Position at
Initial Ballot
Test (Q5) Item Positive Argument Summary
% Very
Convincing
Q8e
Fast emergency response times for 911 calls are critical for saving lives; measure helps ensure that we have enough police officers to respond quickly to 911 emergencies
59 Q8a Measure will NOT impact your taxes as a resident of Simi Valley; it applies only to visitors who stay in local hotels, short-term lodging 58 Q8c Money raised by measure is reinvested back into community to fund essential services, facilities here in Simi Valley; by law, it can’t be taken away by State, County 57 Q8d By keeping city safe, clean, well-maintained, measure will help protect quality of life, keep Simi Valley a special place to live 55
Q8h
We can’t depend on State or Fed Government to take care of local needs; measure provides stable source of locally-controlled funding to provide essential services to residents, businesses
50 Q8f City maintains 346+ mi of streets, 586 mi of sidewalks, 134 mi of storm drains; measure provides funding we need to keep streets, infrastructure in good condition 13 Q8a Measure will NOT impact your taxes as a resident of Simi Valley; it applies only to visitors who stay in local hotels, short-term lodging 13 Q8e
Fast emergency response times for 911 calls are critical for saving lives; measure helps ensure that we have enough police officers to respond quickly to 911 emergencies
11 Q8c Money raised by measure is reinvested back into community to fund essential services, facilities here in Simi Valley; by law, it can’t be taken away by State, County 11 Q8h
We can’t depend on State or Fed Government to take care of local needs; measure provides stable source of locally-controlled funding to provide essential services to residents, businesses
9 Q8f City maintains 346+ mi of streets, 586 mi of sidewalks, 134 mi of storm drains; measure provides funding we need to keep streets, infrastructure in good condition 33 Q8e
Fast emergency response times for 911 calls are critical for saving lives; measure helps ensure that we have enough police officers to respond quickly to 911 emergencies
32 Q8g2
Ordinance not updated in 32 yrs; the way visitors use short term lodging changed a lot; measure updates ordinance so that all forms of short-term lodging pay their fair share
26 Q8b Measure includes a clear system of accountability incl independent audits, public disclosure of how all funds are spent 25
Q8c Money raised by measure is reinvested back into community to fund essential services, facilities here in Simi Valley; by law, it can’t be taken away by State, County 24 Probably or
Definitely Yes
(n = 318)
Probably or
Definitely No
(n = 118)
Not Sure
(n = 61)
Interim Ballot Test
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 19
City of Simi Valley
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

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 measure may have changed. As show n in Figure 13, overall support among likely November 2026 voters increased to 69%, with 33% of voters indicating that they would definitely vote yes on the TOT measure. Approximately 20% of respondents opposed the measure at this point in the survey, and an additional 11% were unsure or unwilling to state their vote choice.

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. Shall the measure providing funding for general city services in Simi Valley, such as 911 emergency response, police and crim e prevention; keeping streets, sidewalks, and infrastructure safe, clean and well-maintained; and senior citizen services; by increasing the City of Simi Valley's transient occupa ncy tax rate from 10% to 12% (paid only by hotel/short-term lodging guests), providing approximately 400 thousand dollars annually until ended by voters, with independent audits and all money locally controlled, be adopted? 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 TOT measure at the Interim Ballot Test than those who received a list of both sup- porters and opponents (73% vs. 65%). That said , the gap narrowed, and support increased from the Initial to Interim Ballot Test among both the supporters-only group (+4 percentage points) and those who received both supporters and opponents (+9 percentage points).

Definitely yes

33.2 Probably yes

35.9 Probably no

9.9 Definitely no

9.7 Not sure

7.9 Prefer not to
answer

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 proposed TOT measure increased or decreased by moderate amounts (fiv e percentage points or more) between the Ini- tial and Interim Ballot Tests for most subgroup s. The largest net increases in support were exhibited by voters who have lived in Simi Valle y less than five years (+24%), voters 18 to 29 years of age (+22%), those who registered to vote on or after June 2016 (+17%), and respondents who took the survey in Spanish (+15%).

13.8 9.4 10.0

8.3 7.5

36.4 30.3

37.0 34.9

5.6 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
Supporters, but no opponents Supporters and opponents
Ballot Test Ver sion
% Respondents
Prefer not to
answer
Not sur e
Definitely no
Probably no
Probably yes
Definitely yes
Interim Ballot Test
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 21City of Simi Valley
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

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 100.0 69.1 +6.4
Less than 5 7.9 80.1 +24.3
5 to 9 14.1 80.7 +3.7
10 to 14 7.2 74.3 +7.4
15 or more 70.8 65.9 +5.0
Satisfied 74.6 75.8 +7.4
Dissatisfied 25.4 51.5 +1.4
Yes 30.8 69.7 +5.7
No 69.2 72.3 +8.2
Excellent 20.1 83.5 +9.8
Good 57.8 70.3 +5.2
Fair / Poor / Very poor 22.1 54.9 +6.8
Since June 2016 27.8 78.1 +16.7
Before June 2016 72.2 65.6 +2.5
Yes 69.1 67.0 +5.7
No 30.9 73.8 +8.0
Yes 72.1 71.8 +7.9
No 27.9 62.2 +2.7
18 to 29 14.5 81.8 +22.3
30 to 39 14.3 67.2 +10.0
40 to 49 15.3 67.8 +0.2
50 to 64 28.9 63.5 +3.9
65 or older 27.0 70.0 +2.2
Yes 60.7 67.9 +4.4
No 39.3 70.9 +9.6
Yes 40.6 70.1 +3.6
No 59.4 68.4 +8.3
Democrat 35.3 78.5 +9.0
Republican 37.6 64.6 +0.7
Other / DTS 27.1 63.0 +10.9
Single dem 13.4 76.7 +12.7
Dual dem 10.9 77.3 +6.8
Single rep 13.0 68.3 +6.7
Dual rep 15.4 65.5 -0.3
Other 14.3 60.2 +7.9
Mixed 33.0 69.2 +6.1
Male 49.7 71.9 +3.1
Female 50.3 72.4 +10.4
Supporters, but no opponents 47.8 73.4 +3.5
Supporters and opponents 52.2 65.2 +9.0
English 93.0 69.6 +5.8
Spanish 7.0 62.7 +14.5
Gender
Ballot Test Version
Survey Language
Likely Jun 2026 Voter
Likely Low Turnout
Election Voter
Party
Household Party Type
Registration Year
Homeowner on Voter File
Likely to Vote by Mail
Age
Years in Simi Valley (Q1)
Satisfaction with City
Services (Q4)
Child in Hsld (Q12)
Quality of Life (Q2)
Negative Arguments
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 22
City of Simi Valley
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

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: 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 (67% very or somewhat convincing), Residents and local businesses have been hit hard by inflation, high interest rates, and cost of living increases. Many are struggling to stay afloat. Now is not the time to pass tax measures that could hurt local businesses (66%), and Everyone is coming after us for tax increases - includ- ing state and local taxes, school bonds, and other taxes that will be on the ballot next year.

Enough is enough. We can't afford to keep raising our taxes (64%).

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

31.8 31.4

35.3 30.5

25.2 12.9

35.4 34.8

29.1 24.8

28.4 25.4
0 1 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 0 1 0 0
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
Residents, businesses have been hit hard by inflation, high interest rates, cost of living increases; many struggling to stay afloat; now is not the time to pass tax measures that could hurt businesses
Everyone is coming after us for tax increases, incl state and local taxes, school bonds, other taxes that will be on ballot next yr; enough is enough; we can’t afford to keep raising taxes
This tax will last forever; there is no expiration date Measure will make hotel tax in Simi Valley second highest in County, which will hurt many of small businesses that depend on tourism
Measure hurts Simi Valley seniors who are relying on rental income for their retirement
Q10cQ10aQ10bQ10dQ10e2Q10e1
% Respondents
Very convincing Somewhat convincing
Negative Arguments
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 23City of Simi Valley
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

TABLE 5 TOP NEGATIVE ARGUMENTS BY POSITION AT INITIAL BALLOT TEST Position at
Initial Ballot
Test (Q5) Item Negative Argument Summary
% Very
Convincing
Q10b
Everyone is coming after us for tax increases, incl state and local taxes, school bonds, other taxes that will be on ballot next yr; enough is enough; we can’t afford to keep raising taxes
28 Q10c
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
24 Q10a
Residents, businesses have been hit hard by inflation, high interest rates, cost of living increases; many struggling to stay afloat; now is not the time to pass tax measures that could hurt businesses
22 Q10d This tax will last forever; there is no expiration date 22 Q10e2 Measure will make hotel tax in Simi Valley second highest in County, which will hurt many of small businesses that depend on tourism 17
Q10b
Everyone is coming after us for tax increases, incl state and local taxes, school bonds, other taxes that will be on ballot next yr; enough is enough; we can’t afford to keep raising taxes
61 Q10a
Residents, businesses have been hit hard by inflation, high interest rates, cost of living increases; many struggling to stay afloat; now is not the time to pass tax measures that could hurt businesses
59 Q10d This tax will last forever; there is no expiration date 56 Q10c
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
55 Q10e2 Measure will make hotel tax in Simi Valley second highest in County, which will hurt many of small businesses that depend on tourism 50
Q10a
Residents, businesses have been hit hard by inflation, high interest rates, cost of living increases; many struggling to stay afloat; now is not the time to pass tax measures that could hurt businesses
30 Q10c
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
30 Q10b
Everyone is coming after us for tax increases, incl state and local taxes, school bonds, other taxes that will be on ballot next yr; enough is enough; we can’t afford to keep raising taxes
29 Q10d This tax will last forever; there is no expiration date 25 Q10e2 Measure will make hotel tax in Simi Valley second highest in County, which will hurt many of small businesses that depend on tourism 23
Probably or
Definitely Yes
(n = 318)
Probably or
Definitely No
(n = 118)
Not Sure
(n = 61)
Final Ballot Test
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 24
City of Simi Valley
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

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 TOT 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. Shall the measure providing funding for general city services in Simi Valley, such as 911 emergency response, police and crime prevention; keeping streets, side- walks, and infrastructure safe, clean and well-maintained; and senior citizen services; by increasing the City of Simi Vall ey's transient occupancy tax rate from 10% to 12% (paid only by hotel/short-term lodging guests), providing approximately 400 thousand dollars annually until ended by voters, with independent audits and all money locally controlled, be adopted? FIGURE 16 FINAL BALLOT TEST
At this point in the survey, support for the measure was found among 61% of likely November 2026 voters surveyed, with 25% indicating they would definitely support the measure. Approxi- mately 24% of respondents opposed the measure at the Final Ballot Test, and 16% were unsure or unwilling to state their vote choice.

Prefer not to
answer

3.0Not sure

13.0 Definitely no

11.8 Probably no

11.7 Probably yes

35.2 Definitely yes

SUPPORT BY BALLOT TEST VERSION Figure 17 shows that respondents who received the ballot version with only supporters contin ued to be more supportive of the proposed TOT measure at the Final Ballot Test (65%) than thos e who received the version with both supporters and opponents (56%).

FIGURE 17 FINAL BALLOT TEST BY BALLOT TEST VERSION

14.9 10.6 12.8

13.6 12.4

21.929.1

34.2 36.3

8.2 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
Change in Support
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 26
City of Simi Valley
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

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 TOT 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 -2% overall. Even with this trend, how- ever, support for the proposed TOT measure at the Final Ballot Test (61%) remained 11% above the simple majority (50%+1) required for passage.

Approximate %
of Voter
Universe
% Probably or
Definitely Yes
Change From
Initial Ballot
Test (Q5)
Change From
Interim Ballot
Test (Q9)
Overall 100.0 60.6 -2.1 -8.5
Less than 5 7.9 66.6 +10.8 -13.4
5 to 9 14.1 74.1 -2.9 -6.6
10 to 14 7.2 61.0 -5.9 -13.3
15 or more 70.8 57.9 -3.0 -8.0
Satisfied 74.6 67.9 -0.5 -8.0
Dissatisfied 25.4 41.9 -8.3 -9.6
Yes 30.8 57.3 -6.7 -12.5
No 69.2 65.2 +1.2 -7.0
Excellent 20.1 68.6 -5.1 -14.9
Good 57.8 62.6 -2.5 -7.7
Fair / Poor / Very poor 22.1 49.8 +1.7 -5.1
Since June 2016 27.8 65.9 +4.4 -12.3
Before June 2016 72.2 58.6 -4.6 -7.1
Yes 69.1 60.1 -1.2 -6.9
No 30.9 61.8 -4.0 -12.0
Yes 72.1 64.5 +0.6 -7.3
No 27.9 50.5 -9.1 -11.8
18 to 29 14.5 70.0 +10.5 -11.8
30 to 39 14.3 60.6 +3.4 -6.6
40 to 49 15.3 57.8 -9.7 -10.0
50 to 64 28.9 55.5 -4.1 -8.0
65 or older 27.0 62.5 -5.4 -7.5
Yes 60.7 60.7 -2.9 -7.2
No 39.3 60.4 -0.9 -10.5
Yes 40.6 63.2 -3.3 -6.9
No 59.4 58.8 -1.3 -9.6
Democrat 35.3 74.0 +4.5 -4.5
Republican 37.6 56.1 -7.8 -8.5
Other / DTS 27.1 49.3 -2.8 -13.7
Single dem 13.4 70.0 +6.0 -6.7
Dual dem 10.9 77.3 +6.8 No change
Single rep 13.0 55.1 -6.4 -13.1
Dual rep 15.4 57.3 -8.5 -8.3
Other 14.3 49.1 -3.1 -11.0
Mixed 33.0 59.9 -3.1 -9.3
Male 49.7 68.2 -0.7 -3.7
Female 50.3 57.8 -4.3 -14.7
Supporters, but no opponents 47.8 65.4 -4.4 -8.0
Supporters and opponents 52.2 56.2 +0.0 -9.0
English 93.0 62.3 -1.5 -7.3
Spanish 7.0 37.9 -10.3 -24.8
Gender
Ballot Test Version
Survey Language
Likely Jun 2026 Voter
Likely Low Turnout
Election Voter
Party
Household Party Type
Registration Year
Homeowner on Voter File
Likely to Vote by Mail
Age
Years in Simi Valley (Q1)
Satisfaction with City
Services (Q4)
Child in Hsld (Q12)
Quality of Life (Q2)
Change in Support
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 27City of Simi Valley
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

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 26.5% of respondents who indicated that they would definitely support the measure at the Initia l Ballot Test, 18.5% also indicated they would definitely support the measure at the Final Ballot Test. Approximately 5.5% moved to the proba- bly support group, 0.4% moved to the probably oppose group, 0.3% moved to the definitely oppose group, and 1.8% 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 either weren’t sure about how they would vote at the Initial Ballot Test or were tentative in their vote choice (probably yes or probably no). Moreover, 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 info rmation conveyed during the co urse of the interview to be a reason to become more supportive of the measur e, whereas a slightly larger percentage found the same information to be a reason to be less supportive. Despite 21% of respondents making a fundamental4 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 was just two percentage points dif- ferent than support at the Initial Ballot Test.

4. 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 26.5% 18.5% 5.5% 0.4% 0.3% 1.8%
Probably support 36.2% 5.8% 23.5% 2.1% 0.4% 4.3%
Probably oppose 12.1% 0.1% 2.8% 6.0% 1.6% 1.5%
Definitely oppose 11.3% 0.4% 0.5% 1.5% 8.8% 0.1%
Not sure 14.0% 0.5% 2.9% 1.7% 0.7% 8.1%
Initial Ballot Test (Q5)
Final Ballot Test (Q11)
Background & Demographics
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 28
City of Simi Valley
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

B ACKGROUND & D EMOGRAPHICS
TABLE 8 DEMOGRAPHICS OF SAMPLE
In addition to questions directly related to the proposed measure, the study collected basic demographic infor-
mation about respondents and their households. Some
of this information was ga thered during the interview, although 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 508
Years in Simi Valley (Q1)
Less than 5 7.9
5 to 9 14.0
10 to 14 7.1
15 or more 70.0
Prefer not to answer 1.1
Child in Hsld (Q12)
Yes 28.1
No 63.1
Prefer not to answer 8.8
Own STR in Simi Valley (Q13)
Yes 0.5
No 94.5
Prefer not to answer 5.0
Gender
Male 45.9
Female 46.5
Non-binary 1.7
Prefer not to answer 5.9
Party
Democrat 35.3
Republican 37.6
Other / DTS 27.1
Age
18 to 29 14.5
30 to 39 14.3
40 to 49 15.3
50 to 64 28.9
65 or older 27.0
Registration Year
Since June 2016 27.8
Before June 2016 72.2
Household Party Type
Single dem 13.4
Dual dem 10.9
Single rep 13.0
Dual rep 15.4
Other 14.3
Mixed 33.0
Homeowner on Voter File
Yes 69.1
No 30.9
Likely to Vote by Mail
Yes 72.1
No 27.9
Likely Jun 2026 Voter
Yes 60.7
No 39.3
Likely Low Turnout Election Voter
Yes 40.6
No 59.4
Survey Language
English 93.0
Spanish 7.0
Ballot Test Version
Supporters, but no opponents 47.8
Supporters and opponents 52.2
Methodology
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 29
City of Simi Valley
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

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 TOT or were unsure at the Initial Ballot Test (Question 5) were asked to describe the reason for their position (Quest ion 6). In some cases, two versions of a question were tested to identify how wording differences impact perceptions of the item. In such cases, half of the sample rece ived the item with version 1 wording (e.g., Ques- tion 8, item G1) and the other half received versio n 2 (e.g., Question 8, item G2). The question- naire included with this report (see Questionnaire & Toplines on page 32) 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 508 voters for a particular question and what would have been Methodology
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 30City of Simi Valley
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
found if all of the estimated 65,764 likely Nove mber 2026 voters identified in the City had been surveyed for the study.

Figure 18 provides a graphic plot of the maximum margin of error in this study. The maximum margin of error for a dichotomous percentage re sult occurs when the answers are evenly split such that 50% provide one response and 50% prov ide the alternative response. For this survey, the maximum margin of error is ± 4.3% at the 95% confidence level.

FIGURE 18 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 18 is thus useful for understanding how the maximum margin of error for a percentage estimate will grow as the number of individ- uals asked a question (or in a particular subgro up) shrinks. Because the margin of error grows exponentially as the sample size decreases, the reader should use caution when generalizing and interpreting the results for small subgroups.

RECRUITING & DATA COLLECTION The survey followed a mixed-method design that employed multiple recruiting methods (telephone, text, and email) and multiple data collection methods (telephone and online). Te lephone interviews averaged 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 508 surveys were completed between May 18 and May 26, 2026. 508 Respondents
± 4.3%
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 31City of Simi Valley
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

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.

Q UESTIONNAIRE & T OPLINES

True North Research, Inc. © 2026 Page 1
City of Simi Valley
Baseline Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) Survey
Final Toplines (n=508)
May 2026
Section 1: Introduction to Study
Hi, may I please speak to _____. My name is _____, and Im calling from TNR on behalf of the City of Simi (SEE-me) Valley. The City is conducting a confidential survey of voters about important issues in the city and Id like to get your opinions.

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

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

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

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

Section 2: Quality of Life & City Services
Id like to begin by asking you a few questions about what it is like to live in Simi Valley.

Q1 How long have you lived in Simi Valley?
1 Less than 1 year <1%
2 1 to 4 years 7%
3 5 to 9 years 14%
4 10 to 14 years 7%
5 15 years or longer 70%
99 Prefer not to answer 1%
Q2 How would you rate the overall quality of life in Simi Valley? Would you say it is excellent, good, fair, poor or very poor?
1 Excellent 20%
2 Good 57%
3 Fair 17%
4 Poor 3%
5 Very poor 1%
98 Not sure 0%
99 Prefer not to answer 1%
Questionnaire & Toplines
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 33City of Simi Valley
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Q3
If the city government could change one thing to make Simi Valley 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.

Not sure / Cannot think of anything specific 14%
Limit growth, development 12%
Address homeless issues 10%
Improve shopping, dining opportunities 9%
Improve infrastructure, streets, roads 8%
Clean up, beautify City 8%
Improve public safety 6%
Support small, local businesses 6%
Provide rec activities, events, for all ages 5%
No changes needed / Everything is fine 5%
Improve parks, rec facilities 4%
Improve Town Center 4%
Enforce traffic laws 3%
Provide more affordable housing 3%
Provide more police presence, response 3%
Improve public transportation 3%
Address E-bike issues 3%
Address racism, discrimination issues 3%
Support, encourage economic growth 3%
Reduce traffic congestion 2%
Improve schools, education 2%
Reduce taxes, fees 2%
Improve economy, jobs 2%
Enforce city codes 2%
Improve City Council, Gov process 2%
Reduce cost of living 2%
Address ICE issues 2%
Questionnaire & Toplines
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 34City of Simi Valley
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Q4
Generally speaking, are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the job the City of Simi Valley is doing to provide city services? Get answer, then ask: Would that be very (satisfied/dissatisfied) or somewhat (satisfied/dissatisfied)? 1 Very satisfied 24%
2 Somewhat satisfied 47%
3 Somewhat dissatisfied 16%
4 Very dissatisfied 8%
98 Not sure 4%
99 Prefer not to answer 1%

Section 3: Initial Ballot Test
Later this year, voters in Simi Valley 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
Shall the measure providing funding for general city services in Simi Valley, such as:

o 9-1-1 emergency response, police and crime prevention o Keeping streets, sidewalks, and infrastructure safe, clean and well-maintained o and senior citizen services

by increasing the City of Simi Valleys transient occupancy tax rate from 10% to 12% (paid only by hotel/short-term lodging guests), providing approximately 400 thousand dollars annually until ended by voters, with independent audits and all money locally controlled, be adopted?

Sample A: Listed supporters of the measure are police officers and a small business owner. Listed opponents: none submitted.

Sample B: Listed supporters of the measure are police officers and a small business owner. Listed opponents of the measure are a taxpayer association and Simi Valley retiree.

1 Definitely yes 27% 31% 23% Skip to Q7
2 Probably yes 36% 39% 33% Skip to Q7
3 Probably no 12% 7% 17% Ask Q6
4 Definitely no 11% 10% 13% Ask Q6
98 Not sure 12% 11% 13% Ask Q6
99 Prefer not to answer 2% 2% 2% Skip to Q7
Questionnaire & Toplines
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 35City of Simi Valley
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

City of Simi Valley Baseline TOT 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? If yes, ask: Please briefly describe your reason. Verbatim responses recorded and later grouped into categories shown below.

Taxes already too high 27%
Need more information 22%
Money is misspent, mismanaged 18%
Not sure / Cannot think of anything 13%
Other higher priorities in community 7%
Do not support police, they do not need more
money 6%
It will hurt businesses, economy 6%
Economic, inflation, cost of living concerns 5%
Do not trust City 4%
City has enough money 2%
Other ways to be funded 2%
Oppose some potential spending projects 2%

Section 4: Projects & Services
Q7
The measure weve been discussing will continue 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 Provide quick responses to 9-1-1 emergencies 65% 20% 3% 5% 4% 3% B Provide police and crime prevention services 51% 24% 7% 9% 7% 2% C Fix streets and potholes 68% 20% 2% 4% 3% 3%
D Repair aging infrastructure including
sidewalks, bridges, storm drains, and pipes 67% 19% 3% 5% 3% 2% E Attract and retain highly qualified police
officers 50% 22% 7% 9% 9% 3%
F Provide library services 42% 29% 8% 8% 10% 2%
G Provide programs and services for seniors,
including meals on wheels 48% 30% 6% 6% 6% 3%
H Provide after school and summer youth
programs 48% 25% 9% 8% 8% 3%
I Address homelessness 52% 22% 5% 12% 7% 2%
Questionnaire & Toplines
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 36City of Simi Valley
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Section 5: Positive Arguments
What Id like to do now is tell you what some people are saying about the measure weve 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. Split Sample G1/G2
Very
convincing
Somewhat
convincing
Not at all
convincing
Don t
believe
Not sure
Prefer not to
answer
A
This measure will NOT impact your taxes as a
resident of Simi Valley. It applies only to
visitors who stay in local hotels and short-
term lodging.
42% 26% 9% 15% 5% 2%
B
The measure includes a clear system of
accountability including independent audits
and public disclosure of how all funds are
spent.
36% 28% 12% 14% 8% 2%
C
All money raised by the measure is reinvested
back into the community to fund essential
services and facilities here in Simi Valley. By
law, it cant be taken away by the State or
County.
41% 31% 9% 12% 4% 2%
D
By keeping our city safe, clean, and well-
maintained, this measure will help protect our
quality of life and keep Simi Valley a special
place to live.
39% 36% 10% 10% 3% 2%
E
Fast emergency response times for 9-1-1 calls
are critical for saving lives. This measure
helps ensure that we have enough police
officers to respond quickly to 9-1-1
emergencies.
43% 33% 10% 7% 4% 2%
F
The City maintains more than 346 miles of
streets, 586 miles of sidewalks, and 134
miles of storm drains. This measure provides
funding we need to keep our streets and
infrastructure in good condition.
38% 35% 11% 9% 4% 3%
G1
The existing ordinance hasnt been updated
in 32 years. Meanwhile, the way visitors use
short term lodging has changed a lot. This
measure updates the ordinance so that all
forms of short-term lodging are treated
equally.
34% 37% 10% 7% 11% 2% G2
The existing ordinance hasnt been updated
in 32 years. Meanwhile, the way visitors use
short term lodging has changed a lot. This
measure updates the ordinance so that all
forms of short-term lodging pay their fair
share.
29% 34% 16% 10% 7% 3%
Questionnaire & Toplines
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 37City of Simi Valley
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

City of Simi Valley Baseline TOT Survey May 2026
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 Page 6
H
We cant depend on the State or Federal
Government to take care of our local needs.

This measure provides a stable source of
locally-controlled funding to provide essential
services to our residents and local
businesses.
36% 32% 13% 12% 6% 2%

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
Shall the measure providing funding for general city services in Simi Valley, such as:

o 9-1-1 emergency response, police and crime prevention o Keeping streets, sidewalks, and infrastructure safe, clean and well-maintained o and senior citizen services

Sample A: Listed supporters of the measure are police officers and a small business owner. Listed opponents: none submitted.

Sample B: Listed supporters of the measure are police officers and a small business owner. Listed opponents of the measure are a taxpayer association and Simi Valley retiree.

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 33% 36% 30%
2 Probably yes 36% 37% 35%
3 Probably no 10% 6% 14%
4 Definitely no 10% 9% 10%
98 Not sure 8% 8% 8%
99 Prefer not to answer 3% 3% 3%

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. Split Sample E1/E2
Very
convincing
Somewhat
convincing
Not at all
convincing
Don t
believe
Not sure
Prefer not to
answer
A
Residents and local businesses have been hit
hard by inflation, high interest rates, and cost
of living increases. Many are struggling to
stay afloat. Now is not the time to passing tax
measures that could hurt local businesses.
31% 35% 15% 10% 4% 4%
B
Everyone is coming after us for tax increases
including state and local taxes, school
bonds, and other taxes that will be on the
ballot next year. Enough is enough. We cant
afford to keep raising our taxes.
35% 29% 19% 9% 4% 3%
C
There are no guarantees on how funds will be
spent, which means the City can divert the
money to pet projects without any say from
voters. We cant trust the City with our tax
dollars.
32% 35% 14% 10% 6% 3%
D This tax will last forever. There is no
expiration date. 30% 25% 19% 13% 10% 3%
E1
This measure hurts Simi Valley seniors who
are relying on rental income for their
retirement.
13% 25% 26% 22% 11% 4%
E2
This measure will make the hotel tax in Simi
Valley the second highest in the County,
which will hurt many of our small businesses
that depend on tourism.
25% 28% 22% 14% 7% 4%

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
Shall the measure providing funding for general city services in Simi Valley, such as:

o 9-1-1 emergency response, police and crime prevention o Keeping streets, sidewalks, and infrastructure safe, clean and well-maintained o and senior citizen services

Sample A: Listed supporters of the measure are police officers and a small business owner. Listed opponents: none submitted.

Sample B: Listed supporters of the measure are police officers and a small business owner. Listed opponents of the measure are a taxpayer association and Simi Valley retiree.

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% 29% 22%
2 Probably yes 35% 36% 34%
3 Probably no 12% 8% 15%
4 Definitely no 12% 11% 13%
98 Not sure 13% 14% 12%
99 Prefer not to answer 3% 2% 4%

Section 9: Background & Demographics
Thank you so much for your participation. I have just two background questions for statistical purposes.

Q12 Do you have children under the age of 18 living in your household? 1 Yes 28%
2 No 63%
99 Prefer not to answer 9%
Questionnaire & Toplines
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 40City of Simi Valley
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Q13 Do you own or operate a short-term vacation rental in Simi Valley? 1 Yes 1%
2 No 94%
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.

Post-Interview & Sample Items
S1 Gender
1 Male 46%
2 Female 47%
3 Non-binary 2%
4 Prefer not to answer 6%
S2 Party
1 Democrat 35%
2 Republican 38%
3 Other 9%
4 DTS 18%
S3 Age on Voter File
1 18 to 29 15%
2 30 to 39 14%
3 40 to 49 15%
4 50 to 64 29%
5 65 or older 27%
S4 Registration Date
1 Since Nov 2020 13%
2 Jun 2016 to before Nov 2020 15%
3 Jun 2012 to before Jun 2016 8%
4 Before June 2012 65%
Questionnaire & Toplines
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 41City of Simi Valley
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

S5 Household Party Type
1 Single Dem 13%
2 Dual Dem 11%
3 Single Rep 13%
4 Dual Rep 15%
5 Single Other 9%
6 Dual Other 5%
7 Dem & Rep 6%
8 Dem & Other 12%
9 Rep & Other 13%
0 Mixed (Dem + Rep + Other) 2%
S6 Homeowner on Voter File
1 Yes 69%
2 No 31%
S7 Likely to Vote by Mail
1 Yes 72%
2 No 28%
S8 Likely November 2026 Voter
1 Yes 100%
2 No 0%
S9 Likely June 2026 Voter
1 Yes 61%
2 No 39%
S10 Likely Low Turnout Election Voter
1 Yes 41%
2 No 59%
Questionnaire & Toplines
True North Research, Inc. © 2026 42City of Simi Valley
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

S11 Survey Language
1 English 93%
2 Spanish 7%

Simi Valley City CouncilJune 8, 2026

Simi Valley City Council
June 8, 2026