2022 City of Sunnyvale
Finance Measure Feasibility Survey
220-6463
CONSULTANT WORKING DRAFT. NOT FOR PUBLICATION. CA GOV’T CODE 6254.
DRAFT PRESENTATION
2CONSULTANT WORKING DRAFT. NOT FOR PUBLICATION. CA GOV’T CODE 6254.
Dates June 4-15, 2022
Survey Type Dual-mode Voter Survey
Research Population Likely November 2022 Voters in City of Sunnyvale Total Interviews 401
Margin of Sampling Error (Full Sample) ±4.9% at the 95% Confidence Level (Half Sample) ±6.9% at the 95% Confidence Level
Contact Methods
Data Collection Modes
(Note: Not All Results Will Sum to 100% Due to Rounding) Survey Specifics and Methodology
Text
Invitations
Telephone
Calls
Email
Invitations
Telephone
Interviews
Online
Interviews
DRAFT PRESENTATION
3CONSULTANT WORKING DRAFT. NOT FOR PUBLICATION. CA GOV’T CODE 6254.
Views of Life in Sunnyvale
DRAFT PRESENTATION
4CONSULTANT WORKING DRAFT. NOT FOR PUBLICATION. CA GOV’T CODE 6254.
Half continue to believe things
are headed in the right direction.
Q1.
Right
Direction
47%
Wrong
Track
17%Mixed/
Don't
Know
35%
April 2018 June 2022
Right
Direction
50%
Wrong
Track
17%
Mixed/
Don't
Know
33%
Would you say that things in the City of Sunnyvale are generally headed in the right direction, or do you feel that things are off on the wrong track?
DRAFT PRESENTATION
5CONSULTANT WORKING DRAFT. NOT FOR PUBLICATION. CA GOV’T CODE 6254.
Similarly, approval ratings for City Government
have not changed in the last few years.
Q2.
16%
18%
15%
16%
48%
46%
42%
42%
15%
8%
15%
9%
5%
10%
7%
11%
16%
18%
21%
23%
June 2022
April 2018
June 2022
April 2018
Strng. Appr. Smwt. Appr. Smwt. Disappr. Strng. Disappr. Don't Know Total
Appr.
Total
Disappr.
64% 20%
64% 18%
57% 22%
57% 20%
I am now going to read you a brief list of public officials and agencies.
Please tell me whether you approve or disapprove of the job each is doing.
Sunnyvale City
Government overall
Sunnyvale Mayor
and City Council
DRAFT PRESENTATION
6CONSULTANT WORKING DRAFT. NOT FOR PUBLICATION. CA GOV’T CODE 6254. 48%
45%
24%
18%
18%
9%
12%
15%
11%
13%
10%
31%
23%
25%
25%
17%
22%
18%
14%
17%
12%
12%
14%
22%
25%
21%
35%
29%
35%
32%
36%
26%
23%
6%
8%
22%
33%
28%
26%
33%
28%
34%
45%
49%
13%
11%
6%
The cost of housing
*Inflation
Too many homeless residents
*Too much growth and development
*Traffic and congestion on local streets and roads
*Waste and inefficiency in local government
Crime, in general
The amount people pay in City taxes
*Potholes and deteriorating streets and roads
*A lack of public transportation options
Jobs and the local economy
Ext. Ser. Prob. Very Ser. Prob. Smwt. Ser. Prob. Not Too Ser. Prob. Don't Know Ext./Very Serious
79%
68%
49%
42%
35%
32%
30%
29%
29%
24%
22%
The most serious problems in the City
today are the cost of housing and inflation.
Q6. *Split Sample
I'd like to read you some problems facing the City of Sunnyvale that other people have mentioned.
Please tell me whether you think it is an extremely serious problem, a very serious problem, somewhat serious problem, or a not too serious problem in Sunnyvale.
DRAFT PRESENTATION
7CONSULTANT WORKING DRAFT. NOT FOR PUBLICATION. CA GOV’T CODE 6254.
Concerns about homeless residents and crime have
increased; far fewer are concerned about local traffic.
Q6. I'd like to read you some problems facing the City of Sunnyvale that other people have mentioned. Please tell me whether you think it is an extremely serious problem, a very serious problem, somewhat serious problem, or a not too serious problem in Sunnyvale. *Split Sample Problem April 2018 June 2022 Difference
Too many homeless residents 36% 49% +13%
Crime, in general 20% 30% +10%
The amount people pay in City taxes 23% 29% +6%
*Waste and inefficiency in local government 31% 32% +1% Jobs and the local economy 21% 22% +1%
The cost of housing 79% 79% 0%
*Too much growth and development 44% 42% -2%
*Potholes and deteriorating streets and roads 32% 29% -3% *A lack of public transportation options 31% 24% -7%
*Traffic and congestion on local streets and roads 64% 35% -29% (Extremely/Very Serious Problem)
DRAFT PRESENTATION
8CONSULTANT WORKING DRAFT. NOT FOR PUBLICATION. CA GOV’T CODE 6254.
Nearly two-thirds believe Sunnyvale is doing
an “excellent” or “good” job, but more give
the City only “fair” rating than seen in the past.
Q7.
How would you rate the quality of services provided by the City of Sunnyvale:
excellent, good, fair, or poor?
19%
27%
24%
46%
48%
57%
30%
16%
11%
5%
5%
June 2022
April 2018
2016
Exc. Good Fair Poor Don't Know Exc./
Good
65%
75%
81%
DRAFT PRESENTATION
9CONSULTANT WORKING DRAFT. NOT FOR PUBLICATION. CA GOV’T CODE 6254.
Only half of voters feel the City has an
appreciable need for additional funding.
Q3.
In your personal opinion, do you think there is a great need, some need, a little need, or no real need for additional funds to provide the level of city services that residents of the City of Sunnyvale need and want? 21%
29%
14%
23%
14%
0% 15% 30% 45%
Great need
Some need
A little need
No real need
Don't know
Great/
Some
Need
50%
A Little/
No Real Need
37%
DRAFT PRESENTATION
10CONSULTANT WORKING DRAFT. NOT FOR PUBLICATION. CA GOV’T CODE 6254.
Potential Sunnyvale
Real Property Transfer
Tax Measure
DRAFT PRESENTATION
11CONSULTANT WORKING DRAFT. NOT FOR PUBLICATION. CA GOV’T CODE 6254.
Potential 75-Word Summary
Q4. Do you think you would vote “yes” or “no” on this measure? Split Sample (As approved by legal counsel; 50% +1 vote threshold)
(ONE RATE)
To fund essential City of Sunnyvale
services, including police, fire, 911
response, park and street maintenance,
homelessness response, and other
services, shall the City of Sunnyvale
adopt an ordinance enacting a real
property transfer tax (paid by buyers and
sellers upon sale) on sales over
$3,000,000 paid at the rate of .75%,
exempting sales of $3,000,000 or less,
and generating approximately
$7,250,000 annually, until ended by
voters, with required audits and all funds
used locally?
(TIERED RATE)
To fund essential City of Sunnyvale
services, including police, fire, 911
response, park and street maintenance,
homelessness response, and other
services, shall the City of Sunnyvale
adopt an ordinance enacting a real
property transfer tax (paid upon sale)
only for sales over $3,000,000 paid at
these rates: $3,000,000 to $4,999,999at
0.75%, $5,000,000 to $9,999,999 at 1.0%,
and over $10,000,000 at 1.5%, generating
approximately $15,100,000 annually,
until ended by voters, with required
audits and all funds used locally?
DRAFT PRESENTATION
12CONSULTANT WORKING DRAFT. NOT FOR PUBLICATION. CA GOV’T CODE 6254.
About half initially support the RPTT regardless
of whether they hear a fixed or tiered rate.
Q4. Do you think you would vote “yes” or “no” on this measure? 26%
19%
7%
1%
14%
25%
7%
Total
Yes
52%
Total
No
41%
One Rate TotalTiered Rate
27%
20%
4%
1%
13%
32%
4%
Total
Yes
50%
Total
No
46%
26%
20%
5%
1%
13%
29%
6%
Total
Yes
51%
Total
No
43%
Definitely yes
Probably yes
Undecided, lean yes
Undecided, lean no
Probably no
Definitely no
Undecided
DRAFT PRESENTATION
13CONSULTANT WORKING DRAFT. NOT FOR PUBLICATION. CA GOV’T CODE 6254.
Q4 (Total). Do you think you would vote “yes” or “no” on this measure? Great
Need
Some
Need
A Little/
No Real Need
Total Yes Total No Undecided
(% of
Sample) (21%) (29%) (37%)
Initial Vote by Need for Funding
Support strongly correlates
with perceived need for funding.
DRAFT PRESENTATION
14CONSULTANT WORKING DRAFT. NOT FOR PUBLICATION. CA GOV’T CODE 6254.
Understanding that there is a need for funding and
that high home values mean the tax would be
affordable were compelling rationales for support.
Q5a.
In a few words of your own, why would you vote YES on the property transfer tax measure? 44%
36%
15%
10%
11%
11%
6%
2%
4%
3%
15%
5%
5%
(Open-ended; Asked of “Yes” Voters Only, n=205)
Taxes are needed/It’s a good way to raise the funds/It will help everyone Purchasing/selling property of that value means you can afford the tax Wealthier need to pay their share
Because of the state of the economy/inflation/keep up with growth Because of the homeless issue
Because of the crime issue/support police and fire
Middle class pay too many taxes/should be protected
Oppose Prop 13/Fix loopholes
Need more information/need to research
Support but oppose funding of police
Other
General support
Confused/Don’t know/Refused
DRAFT PRESENTATION
15CONSULTANT WORKING DRAFT. NOT FOR PUBLICATION. CA GOV’T CODE 6254.
In a few words of your own, why would you vote NO on the property transfer tax measure? In contrast, top reasons to oppose the
measure include that taxes are too high
and threshold be re-budgeting.
Q5b.
40%
29%
23%
16%
14%
9%
5%
9%
16%
11%
5%
(Open-ended; Asked of “No” Voters Only, n=173)
Taxes are too high in Sunnyvale/can’t afford
We should re-budge instead/manage funds better/stop wasteful spending Will hurt selling/purchasing homes/Property values are high The percentage is too high for residential
Oppose taxes or increase
Need to address other issues
Funds should be raised elsewhere
Need more information
General oppose/not needed
Other
Don’t know/Refused
DRAFT PRESENTATION
16CONSULTANT WORKING DRAFT. NOT FOR PUBLICATION. CA GOV’T CODE 6254.
Support for a property transfer tax
is higher today than it was in 2018.
Q4 (Total). Do you think you would vote “yes” or “no” on this measure? 26%
20%
5%
1%
13%
29%
6%
17%
13%
2%
3%
19%
39%
7%
Total
Yes
33%
Total
No
61%
April 2018 June 2022
Definitely yes
Probably yes
Undecided, lean yes
Undecided, lean no
Probably no
Definitely no
Undecided
Total
Yes
51%
Total
No
43%
DRAFT PRESENTATION
17CONSULTANT WORKING DRAFT. NOT FOR PUBLICATION. CA GOV’T CODE 6254.
Spending Priorities
DRAFT PRESENTATION
18CONSULTANT WORKING DRAFT. NOT FOR PUBLICATION. CA GOV’T CODE 6254. 46%
52%
48%
44%
40%
34%
36%
29%
40%
31%
35%
38%
39%
43%
41%
45%
11%
11%
10%
16%
13%
18%
20%
19%
5%
7%
5%
Maintaining fire protection services
Maintaining police, fire and 911 emergency
response times
Maintaining police response to violent crimes
Maintaining police response to property crimes,
such as burglaries
Maintaining essential city services
Maintaining fire stations
Maintaining parks and school open space areas
^Maintaining the City of Sunnyvale'
financial stability
Ext. Impt. Very Impt. Smwt. Impt. Not Too Impt. Don't Know Voters highly prioritize spending
for public safety purposes.
Q8 a-d, g, k, m, r. I am going to read you a list of City projects and programs. If additional funds were made available, whether from the ballot measure we previously discussed or from some other means, please tell me how important each spending area is to you personally: extremely important, very important, somewhat important, or not too important. ^Not Part of Split Sample Ext./Very
Impt.
86%
83%
83%
81%
79%
78%
77%
74%
DRAFT PRESENTATION
19CONSULTANT WORKING DRAFT. NOT FOR PUBLICATION. CA GOV’T CODE 6254. 33%
32%
30%
23%
29%
24%
18%
26%
40%
39%
39%
45%
35%
41%
45%
36%
19%
18%
24%
24%
23%
27%
27%
26%
7%
8%
6%
6%
11%
8%
8%
10%
Addressing homelessness
Ensuring community preparedness for disasters
and large-scale emergencies
Maintaining neighborhood police patrols
Repairing and maintaining parks
Expanding services to help get homeless people
off the streets
Maintaining library programs
Maintaining senior programs
Maintaining and repairing storm drains to
prevent street flooding
Ext. Impt. Very Impt. Smwt. Impt. Not Too Impt. Don't Know Q8 i, j, l, n, o, q, s, w. I am going to read you a list of City projects and programs. If additional funds were made available, whether from the ballot measure we previously discussed or from some other means, please tell me how important each spending area is to you personally: extremely important, very important, somewhat important, or not too important. Split Sample
Ext./Very
Impt.
73%
72%
68%
68%
65%
65%
63%
62%
Addressing homelessness and repairing
and maintaining parks are also important
to more than two-thirds.
DRAFT PRESENTATION
20CONSULTANT WORKING DRAFT. NOT FOR PUBLICATION. CA GOV’T CODE 6254. 29%
22%
28%
31%
24%
19%
15%
22%
33%
39%
33%
29%
37%
38%
38%
26%
24%
27%
34%
28%
25%
35%
33%
27%
12%
11%
12%
14%
8%
13%
22%
Maintaining afterschool programs
Maintaining library hours
Repairing sidewalks
Improve the flow of traffic through the city
Helping retain and attract local businesses
and jobs
Fixing potholes and repairing streets
Maintaining recreation programs
Protecting local property values
Ext. Impt. Very Impt. Smwt. Impt. Not Too Impt. Don't Know Q8 e, f, h, t-v, x. I am going to read you a list of City projects and programs. If additional funds were made available, whether from the ballot measure we previously discussed or from some other means, please tell me how important each spending area is to you personally: extremely important, very important, somewhat important, or not too important. Split Sample
Ext./Very
Impt.
62%
62%
61%
60%
60%
57%
53%
49%
Fixing potholes, maintaining recreation
programs, and protecting property values
were comparatively lower priorities.
DRAFT PRESENTATION
21CONSULTANT WORKING DRAFT. NOT FOR PUBLICATION. CA GOV’T CODE 6254.
Impacts of
Supportive and
Critical Statements
DRAFT PRESENTATION
22CONSULTANT WORKING DRAFT. NOT FOR PUBLICATION. CA GOV’T CODE 6254.
Supportive and Critical Statements
• Hypothetical statements supporting a measure included that a measure would help address homelessness; maintain response times to 911 calls; maintain the overall quality of life in the City; that the RPTT would not affect 90% of home sales, would only apply to home sales, would adjust thresholds up for inflation, and would match the rates of other local communities; and that funds generated would be subject to accountability provisions and be only under local control. • Hypothetical statements opposing a measure included that increasing the RPTT would make already unaffordable housing more expensive; that it would put a new burden on seniors and others whose main asset is their homes; that raising taxes given the exploding cost of living is a bad idea; that the City is going to have ability to spend the funds on anything they want, including expensive employee pensions; and that the City has millions in reserves that it should spend first.
DRAFT PRESENTATION
23CONSULTANT WORKING DRAFT. NOT FOR PUBLICATION. CA GOV’T CODE 6254.
While supportive statements modestly increased supportive, critical statements pushed a measure below 50%.
Q4, Q10 & Q12. (Total) Do you think you would vote “yes” or “no” on this measure? (Total)
26%
20%
5%
1%
13%
29%
6%
Total
Yes
51%
Total
No
43%
30%
23%
3%
2%
11%
26%
6%
Total
Yes
55%
Total
No
39%
26%
19%
5%
3%
11%
30%
6%
Total
Yes
49%
Total
No
45%
Definitely yes
Probably yes
Undecided, lean yes
Undecided, lean no
Probably no
Definitely no
Undecided
Initial Vote Vote After
Criticism
Vote After
Support
DRAFT PRESENTATION
24CONSULTANT WORKING DRAFT. NOT FOR PUBLICATION. CA GOV’T CODE 6254.
The single-tier measure had a higher ceiling
but settled in around 50% at the end.
Q4, Q10 & Q12. (Split C) Do you think you would vote “yes” or “no” on this measure? (One Rate)
26%
19%
7%
1%
14%
25%
7%
Total
Yes
52%
Total
No
41%
Initial Vote Vote After
Critical
Vote After
Education
31%
24%
4%
1%
12%
23%
5%
Total
Yes
58%
Total
No
37%
26%
18%
7%
4%
14%
27%
5%
Total
Yes
51%
Total
No
45%
Definitely yes
Probably yes
Undecided, lean yes
Undecided, lean no
Probably no
Definitely no
Undecided
DRAFT PRESENTATION
25CONSULTANT WORKING DRAFT. NOT FOR PUBLICATION. CA GOV’T CODE 6254.
A tiered-rate measure followed a similar
pattern though with slightly less support.
Q4, Q10 & Q12. (Split D) Do you think you would vote “yes” or “no” on this measure? (Tiered Rate)
27%
20%
4%
1%
13%
32%
4%
Total
Yes
50%
Total
No
46%
29%
22%
2%
2%
10%
29%
6%
Total
Yes
53%
Total
No
41%
25%
20%
2%
3%
8%
33%
7%
Total
Yes
48%
Total
No
45%
Definitely yes
Probably yes
Undecided, lean yes
Undecided, lean no
Probably no
Definitely no
Undecided
Initial Vote Vote After
Critical
Vote After
Education
DRAFT PRESENTATION
26CONSULTANT WORKING DRAFT. NOT FOR PUBLICATION. CA GOV’T CODE 6254. 32%
Segmenting the Electorate
42%
26%
The following slide shows demographic groups that disproportionately fall into one category or the other.
Voters who consistently indicated they
would vote “yes” on the measure
Consistent
Yes
Voters who consistently indicated they
would vote “no” on the measure
Consistent
No
Voters who do not fall into any of the
other categories – remaining consistently
undecided or switching positions
Swing
DRAFT PRESENTATION
27CONSULTANT WORKING DRAFT. NOT FOR PUBLICATION. CA GOV’T CODE 6254.
Conclusions
DRAFT PRESENTATION
28CONSULTANT WORKING DRAFT. NOT FOR PUBLICATION. CA GOV’T CODE 6254.
Life in Sunnyvale
• By a wide margin, voters continue to be much more likely to feel optimistic rather than pessimistic about where
Sunnyvale is headed.
• While high-level views of city government and Sunnyvale’s elected officials also remain positive, slightly fewer view city services as positively as they have in the past.
• While few are concerned about the local economy, crime, city tax, street quality, and traffic, many are acutely concerned about housing costs and inflation.
• Suggestive of support for a local revenue measure, only about half of voters feel Sunnyvale needs additional
funding.
DRAFT PRESENTATION
29CONSULTANT WORKING DRAFT. NOT FOR PUBLICATION. CA GOV’T CODE 6254.
Measure Viability
• These results suggest a challenging electoral environment for a RPTT measure this coming November, due to the following factors:
1. Voters are generally content and only half feel that they City needs a
dditional revenues to fund services.
2. Support for a measure essentially hovered a few point above and below its 5 0% vote threshold with relatively similar levels of intensity among supporters and opponents.
3. Reaching 50% was often reliant upon those initially undecided and only “
leaning” toward a “yes” vote.
4. Voters view the cost of housing as the top problem facing Sunnyvale, which c
an be directly connected to a tax on the sale of property. • While these factors do not mean a measure would be assured of failure, they clearly create a headwind that would need to be overcome with education about the City’s needs, further clarifications the tax would exclude the vast majority of home sales, and the emergence of a unified and active community-based campaign of supporters.
DRAFT PRESENTATION
For more information,
contact:
Curt Below Laura Covarrubias
[email protected] [email protected]
1999 Harrison St., Suite 2020
Oakland, CA 94612
Phone (510) 451-9521
Fax (510) 451-0384
12100 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 350
Los Angeles, CA 90025
Phone (310) 828-1183
Fax (310) 453-6562
DRAFT PRESENTATION