The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAGENDA REPORT 2014 0205 CCSA REG ITEM 09AITEM 9.A. - CliY OF MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA City Council Meeting of rX-5-JtP /'-/> MOORPARK CITY COUNCILActto~~~ AGENDA REPORT ,Au_ --Zt-d TO: Honorable City Council BY: LZJ1 &;;z;;;;: FROM: DATE: January 17, 2014 (CC Meeting of 2/5/14) SUBJECT: Consider Results from the Voter Opinion Survey BACKGROUND On July 12, 2013, the City entered into an Agreement with True North Research, Inc. (True North) to design and conduct a statistically reliable survey of Moorpark voters to profile community priorities as they relate to the services, programs, and facilities provided by the city, as well as gauge voters' willingness to fund said services and facilities through a local revenue measure. On October 2, 2013, staff presented a report to City Council to consider a recommended survey approach. Councilmembers had numerous questions and requested the item be continued to the meeting of October 16, 2013, and that the consultant be present to answer questions and explain in further detail his recommendations. An Ad Hoc Committee (Mayor Parvin and Councilmember Van Dam) worked with staff to review a draft survey instrument and finalize a recommended survey approach. On October 16, 2013 staff returned to the City Council with the item and the consultant was present to answer questions and explain the survey methodology in further detail. The recommended survey approach was approved and True North conducted the voter opinion survey during November 2013. DISCUSSION Before discussion of the survey and results, staff will recap the budgetary expenditure reductions and deficits. Over the last decade, the City of Moorpark has been faced with difficult budgetary decisions due to a multitude offactors including the recessed economy, the demise of redevelopment, an aging infrastructure, and annual increases in maintenance and contractual services. The City has continued to utilize its General Fund (GF) reserve to fund shortfalls; however, this is not a viable long term solution. The City needs to take a hard look at the balance of further reducing services and expenditures and increasing revenues while maintaining a prudent GF reserve and setting aside appropriate funds for long term capital and maintenance needs. 1 Honorable City Council February 5, 2014 Regular Meeting Page 2 Over the last few years, the City has taken a number of actions to reduce GF expenditures including: • Elimination of seven (7) full-time management positions and one (1) competitive service position saving the GF approximately $800,000 per year. • Reduction of employee benefits including the City contribution to health benefits. • Combination of the School Resource Officer and the Community Services officer to reduce law enforcement costs. (in F.Y. 15-16., one-half of the School Resource Officer is funded from the General Fund Reserve) • Reduction of park maintenance service levels. • Payment of unfunded liabilities to California Public Employee Retirement System (CalPERS) Side Fund, Other Post-Employment Benefit (OPEB), and California Joint Powers Insurance Authority (CJPIA) general insurance liability to take advantage of low interest rates and to eliminate or reduce the need for annual payments. Still, even with the above actions the City faces a number of concerns that need to be considered not only for short term sustainability but for their long-term benefit or consequences for the City including: • Increases in standard service agreement costs including a 3% projected average annual increase for Police Services which has increased at a faster pace than any other service in the GF at $180,000 in FY 2013/14. • The increasing need for the GF to augment funding for landscape and parks maintenance funds at approximately $2,254,000 annually. • Street and road maintenance needs are anticipated to be underfunded at $$459,000 annually over the next five (5) years for basic sidewalk, chip seal, and slurry projects. Overlay project needs are anticipated to be underfunded at another $909,000 annually over the next five (5) years. This equates to an annual shortfall of $1.368 million for street and road projects. • The City owns vehicles, computers, playground equipment at the parks and other assets that need replacement on a regular recurring schedule. The City has not been setting aside funds for these replacements. An infusion of $2.8 million is in order to catch-up on these set-aside funds. The estimated yearly set-aside is approximately $300,000. • Property tax revenue is flat with minimal growth expected in the next few years. • The practice of reducing the General Fund Reserve to fund shortfalls has reduced investment earnings. However, the City should not be overly dependent on these earnings to help balance the budget. • No GF money is available for capital projects unless taken from the reserve. Money needs to be set aside for future capital projects including city hall, library expansion, streets, parks, and building maintenance and upgrade projects. As an example, based on current general obligation bond interest rates, the City could expect to pay approximately $2,360,000 per year in debt service for a 30 year bond issue for the 2 Honorable City Council February 5, 2014 Regular Meeting Page 3 $35,000,000 Civic Center Project (City Hall and Library Expansion). • Negative impact from internet sales on sales tax revenues. (Although there has not been a complete analysis, this trend has begun to impact this revenue stream across the state.) The primary purpose of the survey was to produce an unbiased, statistically reliable evaluation of voters' interest in establishing a local sales tax to fund essential municipal services. In addition to assessing the feasibility of a sales tax ballot measure which must be submitted to the County by late June, the survey was designed to identify how to structure a measure so that it is consistent with the community's priorities and expressed needs. Using a combination of recruiting and data collection methods, the survey was administered to a random sample of 4 73 voters who are likely to participate in the November 2014 election, with a subset who are also likely to participate in the lower- turnout June 2014 election. Interviews were conducted between November 9 and November 24, 2013. The results of the survey suggest that, if crafted appropriately and combined with an effective public education effort, the proposed sales tax measure has a reasonable chance of being supported by the necessary proportion of voters in November 2014. To enhance the measure's chances of passage, True North recommends that the measure be crafted as a General Tax, the tax rate not exceed 1,1,i percent, that the additional tax sunset in four to five years, that informational outreach efforts and communications focus on core city services that are priorities for voters, and that the City receive professional assistance in crafting the measure and with communications. If the Council were to direct staff to proceed with True North recommendations, there would be a number of steps needed including identifying and retaining a communications consultant, forming a citizen's support committee representing a broad spectrum of the community, and other activities to help inform the public of the City's budget concerns. FISCAL IMPACT If the Council directs staff to proceed there would be additional expense involved with preparing and presenting a ballot measure for the November 2014 Election. Staff would seek the City Council's approval for any related costs. Revenue generated annually from a 1,1,i percent sales tax is estimated to be approximately $1.3 million. STAFF RECOMMENDATION 1 . Authorize staff to proceed with the steps necessary for the preparation of a ballot measure for an amount and duration as selected by the City Council. 2. Direct staff to hire a consulting firm to assist with public communications and stakeholder outreach. 3 Honorable City Council February 5, 2014 Regular Meeting Page 4 3. Direct staff and the selected consulting firm to work with the City Attorney to craft the necessary documents, resolutions and ordinance to proceed with a ballot measure. Attachment: Revenue Measure Feasibility Study NOTE: True North will have a presentation prepared on the survey results. 4 THIS PAGE INT ENT/ON4LL Y l ff T Bl ANK 6 TABLE 0 F CO N T ENTS Table of Contents .................................................................. i List of Tables .................................................................... iii List of Figures .................................................................... iv Introduction ...................................................................... 1 Motivation for Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Overview of Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Organization of Report. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Acknowledgments ....................................................... 2 Disclaimer ............................................................. 2 About True North . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Just the Facts .................................................................... 3 Quality of Life & Town Services .............................................. 3 Initial Ballot Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Projects & Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Positive Arguments ...................................................... 4 Interim Ballot Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Negative Arguments ...................................................... 4 Final Ballot Test ......................................................... 4 Conclusions ...................................................................... 5 Quality of Life & City Services ...................................................... 8 Overall quality of life . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Question 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Ways to Improve Quality of Life ............................................. 9 Question 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Overall Satisfaction with City Services. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 0 Question 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 O Initial Ballot Test ................................................................ 12 Question 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 Support by Subgroups ................................................... 12 Support at 1 /4 Percent Tax Rate ............................................ 1 3 Question 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 4 Reasons for Not Supporting Measure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Question 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 4 Projects & Programs ............................................................. 1 5 Question 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 5 Spending Project Ratings by Subgroup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Positive Arguments .............................................................. 1 7 Question 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 7 Positive Arguments by Initial Support. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 8 Interim Ballot Test ............................................................... 19 Question 1 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 9 Support by Subgroups ................................................... 19 Negative Arguments ............................................................. 21 Question 11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Negative Arguments by Initial Support ....................................... 21 Final Ballot Test ................................................................. 23 Question 12 ........................................................ 23 Change in Support ............................................................... 24 Background & Demographics ..................................................... 26 Methodology .................................................................... 2 7 Questionnaire Development ............................................... 2 7 Programming & Pre-Test .................................................. 27 City of Moorpark True North Research , Inc . © 20 7 3 I .· • I 7 Sample, Recruiting & Data Collection ........................................ 27 Statistical Margin of Error . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 7 Data Processing ........................................................ 29 Rounding ............................................................. 29 Questionnaire & Toplines ......................................................... 30 --City of Moorpark True North Research, Inc. © 20 7 3 II 8 L IS T Table 1 Table 2 Table 3 Table 4 Table 5 Table 6 Table 7 Table 8 0 F TABLES Demographic Breakdown of Support at Initial Ballot Test. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 3 Top Projects & Programs by Position at Initial Ballot Test ................... 16 Top Positive Arguments by Position at Initial Ballot Test .................... 18 Demographic Breakdown of Support at Interim Ballot Test ............... : .. 20 Negative Arguments by Position at Initial Ballot Test ....................... 22 Demographic Breakdown of Support at Final Ballot Test .................... 24 Movement Between Initial & Final Ballot Tests ............................ 25 Demographics of Sample ........................................... 26 City of Moorpark True North Research , Inc . © 20 7 3 . " ••• Ill 9 L IS T Figure l Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 Figure 6 Figure 7 Figure 8 Figure 9 Figure l 0 Figure 11 Figure 12 Figure l 3 Figure 14 Figure l 5 Figure 16 0 F FIGURES Quality of Life . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Quality of Life by Years in Moorpark, Child in Hsld & Party ................... 8 Quality of Life by Gender, Home Type & Age .............................. 9 Changes to Improve Moorpark ........................................ 9 Overall Satisfaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l 0 Overall Satisfaction by Years in Moorpark, Child in Hsld & Party . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l 0 Overall Satisfaction by Gender, Home Type & Age. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Initial Ballot Test. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l 2 Initial Ballot Test at One-Quarter Cent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Reasons For Not Supporting Measure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Projects & Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l 5 Positive Arguments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l 7 Interim Ballot Test. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Negative Arguments ............................................... 21 Final Ballot Test .................................................. 2 3 Maximum Margin of Error Due to Sampling .............................. 28 ' City of Moorpark True North Research , Inc . © 201 3 "' ~ ... • IV 10 INTRODUCTION Located in scenic Ventura County, the City of Moorpark is known for its quality of life , sense of community, and safety. Incorporated in 1983 and currently home to an estimated 34,904 resi- dents 1 , the City's team of full-time and part-time employees provides a full suite of municipal services through multiple departments and divisions , including Administrative Services, City Manager's Office, Community Development, Finance , Human Resources, Library, Parks, Recre- ation & Community Services, Public Safety , and Public Works. As Moorpark has grown, so too have the demands placed upon its facilities, services, infrastruc- ture, and staff. Unfortunately, the City's revenue streams have not kept pace with the growing demands and escalating costs , leading to shortfalls in recent years in the funding required to provide essential municipal services at the desired levels of service. Despite being efficient, fis- cally responsible, and making significant budget cuts in recent years in response to the eco- nomic downturn and State raids on the City 's finances, the City of Moorpark faces continued budget shortfalls in the future unless services are cut further and/or additional revenue sources are realized . 2 MOTIVATION FOR RESEARCH The primary purpose of this study was to produce an unbiased , statistically reliable evaluation of voters' interest in establishing a local sales tax to fund essential municipal services . In addition to assessing the feasibility of a sales tax ballot measure , the survey was designed to identify how to structure a measure so that it is consistent with the community's priorities and expressed needs. Toward this end, the study was designed to : Gauge current, baseline support for a local sales tax increase to ensure adequate funding for general municipal services Identify the types of services and projects that 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 Estimate support for the measure once voters are presented with the types of information they will likely be exposed to during the election cycle It is important to note at the outset that voters ' opinions about tax measures are often some- what fluid, especially when the amount of information they initially have about a measure is lim- ited . How voters think and feel about a measure today may not be the same way they think and feel once they have had a chance to hear more information about the measure during the elec- tion cycle. Accordingly, to accurately assess the feasibility of establishing a sales tax increase to fund municipal services , it was important that in addition to measuring current opinions about the measure (Question 5), the survey expose respondents to the types of information voters are likely to encounter during an election cycle-including arguments in favor (Question 9) and opposed (Question 11) to the measure-and gauge how this information ultimately impacts their voting decision (Questions 10 & 12). l . Source : California Department of Finance estimate fo r January 2013 . 2 . For more on the City's financial position , see City Manager's Budget Message fo r Fiscal Yea r 20 7 3/20 7 4 , City of Moorpark Agenda Report May 20 , 2013 . City of Moorpark True North Research, Inc . © 20 7 3 11 OVERVIEW OF METHODOLOGY For a full discussion of the research methods and tech- niques used in this study, turn to Methodology on page 27 . In brief, the survey used a combina- tion of mailed invitations and phone calls to recruit participation i n the survey from randomly selected voters in the City of Moorpark who are likely to participate in the November 2014 elec- tion , with a subset who are also likely to participate in the lower-turnout June 2014 election. A total of 473 voters participated online or by telephone between November 9 and November 24 , 2013 . The telephone interviews averaged 15 minutes in length. ORGANIZATION OF REPORT This report is designed to meet 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 sections titled just the Facts and Conclusions are for you. They provide a summary of the most important factual findings of the survey in bul- let-point format and a discussion of their impl i cations. 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 col- lecting and analyzing the data. And , for the truly ambitious reader , the questionnai re used for the interviews is contained near the conclusion of th i s report (see Questionnaire & Toplines on page 30) and a complete set of crosstabulations for the survey results is contained in Appendix A. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS True Nort h thanks the City of Moorpark for the opportunity to con- duct the study, as well as for staff's and the Council subcommittee 's contributions to the design of the survey . Their collective ex pertise , local k nowledge , and i nsight improved the overall qual- ity of the research presented here . DISCLAIMER The statements an d conclus i on s i n t his r eport ar e those of the authors (Dr. Timothy Mclarney and Richard Sarles ) at T rue North Resea r ch , Inc. and not necessarily those of the City of Moorpark. Any errors and omissions are the respon.sibility of the authors . ABOUT TRUE NORTH True North is a full-service survey research firm that is dedicated to providing public agencies with a clear understanding of the values , perceptions , priorities and concerns of their residents and voters . Through designing and implementing scientific surveys , focus groups and one -on-one interviews , as well as expert interpretati on of the findings , True North helps its clients to move with confidence when making strategic decisions in a variety of areas -such as planning , pol i cy evaluation , performance management, organizational develop- ment, establishing fiscal priorities , passing revenue measures , and developing effective public information campaigns . During their careers , Dr. Mclarney and Mr. Sarles have designed and conducted over 800 survey research studies for public agenc i es-includ i ng more than 300 studies for California municipali- ties and more than 250 revenue measure feasibility studies . Of the measures that have gone to ballot based on Dr. Mclarney's recommendation , more than 94% have been successful. In total , the research that Dr. Mclarney has conducted has led to over $22 billion in successful local rev- enue measures . City of Moorpark True North Research , Inc . © 20 7 3 12 J UST T H E F ACTS The following section is an outline of the main factual findings from the survey. For the reader's convenience, we have organized the findings according to the section titles used in the body of this report. Thus, if you would like to learn more about a particular finding , simply turn to the appropriate report section . QUALITY OF LIFE & TOWN SERVICES Ninety-four percent (94%) of voters shared favorable opinions of the quality of life in Moor- park, with 40% reporting it is excellent and 54% stating it is good . An additional 5% of voters indicated that the quality of life in the city is fair, whereas 1 % used poor or very poor to describe the quality of life in Moorpark and 1 % were unsure or unwilling to answer the ques- tion. When asked what changes the city government could make to improve the quality of life in Moorpark, the most common suggestions were reducing truck traffic (26%), reducing traffic congestion in general (14%), improving dining and shopping opportunities in Moorpark (1 0%), limiting growth and development (7%), improving parks and recreation facilities (7%), and improving/preserving historic areas of the city/High Street (5%). Nearly nine-in-ten respondents (86%) indicated that they were satisfied with the City 's efforts to provide municipal services , with 43% stating that they were very satisfied . Approximately 9% of voters reported that they were dissatisfied in this respect , whereas 5% were unsure or unwilling to state their opinion. INITIAL BALLOT TEST With only the information provided in the ballot language , 49% of respondents indicated they would definitely or probably support the proposed half-percent local sales tax at this stage in the survey , whereas 45% stated they would oppose the measure and 7% were unsure or unwilling to share their vote choice. Reducing the tax rate to one -quarter percent resulted in 5% additional voters indicating that they would probably support the proposed sales tax measure , bringing total support for a one-quarter percent measure to 54%. Those who opposed the measure at this point in the survey were most likely to cite a con- cern about taxes already being too high , a perception that the City needs to improve how it manages its budget and/or reduce spending , and a need for more information as the rea- sons for their position. PROJECTS & PROGRAMS Among the projects and services that could be funded by the measure, voters most strongly favored paving, maintaining and repairing local streets (83% strongly or somewhat favor), followed closely by keeping parks , public areas and landscapes clean and well-maintained (81 %), removing graffiti (80%), providing quick responses to 9-1-1 emergencies (79%), main- taining and repairing sidewalks (77%), and providing police services including crime preven- tion and investigations (74%). City of Moorpark True North Research , Inc . © 2013 13 POSITIVE ARGUMENTS When presented with arguments in favor of the measure, voters found the following arguments to be the most persuasive: By keeping our city safe, clean and well-maintained, this measure will help protect our qual- ity of life and our property values. All money raised by the measure will stay in Moorpark to fund essential city services. It can't be taken away by the State or used for other purposes. A half-cent sales tax increase means that if you spend 7 00 dollars at a local store, the tax increase will be just 50 cents. That is a small price to pay to ensure that our city stays safe, clean and well-maintained. INTERIM BALLOT TEST After being presented with services and capital improvements that could be funded as well as arguments in favor of the measure, overall support for the proposed half-percent sales tax measure among voters increased to 52%, with 24% of voters indicating that they would definitely vote yes on the measure . Approximately 40% of respondents opposed the mea- sure at this point in the survey, and an additional 8% were unsure or unwilling to state their vote choice . NEGATIVE ARGUMENTS Of the arguments in opposition to the measure , voters found the following arguments to be the most persuasive: This measure is a blank check. Because it is a 'general tax', there is no way to ensure the City spends the money on what they say they will. The State of California just raised the sales tax last year. Now the City wants to raise the sales tax again? That's not fair to taxpayers. People are having a hard time making ends meet with high unemployment and a sluggish economy. Now is NOT the time to be raising taxes . FINAL BALLOT TEST After being presented with services that could be funded as well as arguments in favor and opposed to the measure, support for the half-percent sales tax measure was found among 49% of voters, with 21 % indicating that they would definitely support the measure. Approxi- mately 43% of respondents were opposed to the measure at the Final Ballot Test, and 9% were unsure or unwilling to state their vote choice . City of Moorpark True North Research , Inc . © 201 3 14 CONCLUSIONS The bulk of this report is devoted to conveying the details of the study findings. In this section , however, we attempt to 'see the forest through the trees ' and note how the collective results of the survey answer the key questions that motivated the research . The following 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 . Is it feasible to place a local sales tax measure on the ballot in 2014? How will the tax rate affect support for the measure? City of Moorpark Yes . Moorpark voters have a high opinion of the quality of life in the city as well as the City's performance in providing municipal services . These sentiments combine to create natural support for a sales tax increase to fund essential municipal services that is within the range of what is needed for a general sales tax to pass under California law (50%). On the natural , 49% of Moorpark voters who are likely to cast a ballot in the November 2014 election indicated that they would support a one-half percent sales tax increase to fund essential city services such as police, crime prevention and 9-1-1 emergency response services , paving, main- taining and repairing local streets , parks and recreation , library services, and keeping the city clean and well-maintained. At a rate of one-quarter percent, support for the measure increased to 54%. The results of this feasibility study suggest that , if crafted appropriately and combined with an effective public education effort, the proposed sales tax measure has a reasonable chance of being supported by the necessary proportion of voters in 2014 . Having stated that the sales tax measure has a reasonable chance of being successful in 2014 , its also important to note that this conclusion comes with several qualifications and conditions. Indeed , although the results are promising , all tax measures must overcome challenges prior to being successful. The proposed measure is no exception. The follow- ing paragraphs discuss some of the challenges and the next steps that True North recommends . Naturally, the willingness of voters to support a specific revenue mea- sure can be contingent, in part, on the tax rate associated with a mea- sure . The higher the rate , all other things being equal, the lower the level of aggregate support that can be expected. It is important that the rate be set at a level that the necessary proportion of voters view as afford- able . Although fluctuations in the proposed tax rate did not have a large i mpact on Moorpark voters ' willingness to support the proposed mea- sure, the 5% increase in support for the measure that occurred when the rate was reduced from one-half to one-quarter percent was necessary for voter support to exceed the simple majority required for passage of a general sales tax . Support for a one-half percent increase was 49%, True North Research , Inc. © 20 l 3 15 Which projects and ser- vices do Moorpark vot- ers view as priorities? whereas support for a one-quarter percent increase was 54%. For this reason, True North recommends that the City set the tax rate increase at one-quarter percent. A general tax is "any tax imposed for general governmental purposes"3 and is distinguished from a special tax in that the funds raised by a gen- eral tax are not earmarked for a specific purpose(s). Thus, a general tax provides a city with a great deal of flexibility with respect to what is funded by the measure on a year-to-year basis. Although the City Council would have the discretion to decide how to spend the general sales tax revenues, the survey results indicate that Moorpark voters are most interested in using the proceeds to pave , maintain and repair local streets , keep parks , public areas and land- scapes clean and well -maintained , remove graffiti , provide quick responses to 9-1-1 emergencies , maintain and repair sidewalks , and pro- vide police services including crime prevention and investigations. To the extent allowed , the ballot language and public education efforts should make clear that the measure will provide funding for these core service areas . How might public educa-As noted in the body of this report , individuals ' opinions about revenue tion affect support for measures are often not rigid , especially when the amount of information the proposed measure? How might the eco- nomic or political cli- mate alter support for the measure? presented to the public on a measure has been limited . Thus , in addition to gauging current support for the measure , one of the goals of this study was to explore how the introduction of additional informati on about the measure may affect voters ' opin i ons about the proposed sales tax. It is clear from the survey results that voters ' opinions about the pro- posed sales tax measure are somewhat sensitive to the nature-and amount-of information that they have about the measure. Information about the specific services and capital improvements that could be funded by the sales tax, as well as arguments in favor of the measure , were found by many voters to be compelling reasons to support the measure . Moreover, this information played an important role in prevent- ing a significant erosion of support for the measure once respondents were exposed to the types of opposition arguments they will likely encounter during an election cycle . A survey is a snapshot i n time-wh i ch means the results of this study and the conclusions noted above must be viewed i n light of the current economic and political climates. Despite ongoing concerns about the housing market, unemployment, and the lingering effects of the reces- sion , voter support for the proposed measure was reasonably strong , 3 . Section 1, Article XlllC, California Constitution . City of Moorpark True North Research , Inc. © 20 l 3 16 City of Moorpark which speaks volumes about the value that Moorpark voters place on having high quality city services . Nevertheless, should the economy and/ or political climate continue to improve, support for a measure could increase . Conversely , negative economic and/or political developments, especially at the local level, could dampen support for a measure below what was recorded in this study. True North Research , Inc . © 201 3 17 QUALITY 0 F l I F E & (IT Y SERVICES The opening series of questions in the survey were designed to profile voters' opinions regard- ing the quality of life in Moorpark, their ideas for changes the City could implement to improve the quality of life in Moorpark, as well as their assessment of the City's overall performance in providing municipal services . OVERALL QUALITY OF LIFE At the outset of the interview, respondents were asked to rate the overall quality of life in Moorpark using a five-point scale of excellent, good, fair, poor, or very poor. As shown in Figure 1 below, 94% of respondents shared favorable opinions of the quality of life in Moorpark, with 40% reporting it is excellent and 54% stating it is good. An addi- tional 5% of residents indicated that the quality of life in the city is fair, whereas 1 % used poor or very poor to describe the quality of life in Moorpark and 1 % were unsure or unwilling to answer the question. Question 2 How would you rate the overall quality of life in the City? Would you say it is excel- lent, good, fair, poor or very poor? FIGURE 1 QUALITY OF LIFE Poor Very poor Not sure 0.4 0.3 0 .5 Excellent 40.3 For the interested reader, Figures 2 and 3 present the responses to this question by length of resi- dence, presence of a child in the home, partisan affiliation, gender, home type, and age. Although there were some differences in the perceived quality of life across subgroups, the most striking pattern in the figures is the relative consistency of positive opinions . Regardless of subgroup cate- gory, voters generally held very positive opinions regarding the quality of life in Moorpark. FIGURE 2 QUALITY OF LIFE BY YEARS IN MOORPARK, CHILD IN HSLD & PARTY "' 100 90 80 70 ~ 60 -0 g so ~ ~ 40 ';JI. 30 20 10 0 LessthanS Sto9 10to14 1Sormore Yes No Democrat Republican Other / DTS Years in Moorpark (Ql ) Child in Hsld (QDl) Party City of Moorpark True North Research , Inc . © 201 3 18 FIGURE 3 QUALITY OF LIFE BY GENDER, HOME TYPE & AGE 100 90 80 70 "' c: 60 OJ -c c: so 0 ~ OJ 40 ct: ~ 30 20 10 0 Male Female Single Apt I Town home 18 to 29 30 to 39 40 to 49 SO to 64 6S or older famil y Condo Gender Home Type (QD2) Age WAYS TO IMPROVE QUALITY OF LIFE The next question in the opening series asked respondents to indicate one thing that the city government could change to make Moorpark a better place to live, now and in the future. Question 3 was asked in an open-ended manner, which allowed respondents to mention any change that came to mind without be prompted by or restricted to a particular list of options . True North later reviewed the verbatim responses and grouped them into the categories shown below in Figure 4. Question 3 /f the City government could change one thing to make Moorpark a better place to live now and in the future , what change would you like to see? FIGURE 4 CHANGES TO IMPROVE MOORPARK Reduce truck traffic Reduce traffic congestion (general) Not sure I Cannot think of anything Improve dining, shopping opportunities Limit growth , development Provide, improve parks , rec facilities Improve , preserve historic area, High Street Improve streets , roads Improve public safety Provide , improve community activities , events Improve public transportation Improving traffic lights Improve education , schools Improve parking Improve government leadership Improve permitting process Improve walking , bike paths City of Moorpark 0 26.4 10 1 5 20 25 30 % Respondents True North Research , Inc . © 201 3 19 Among the specific improvements that were cited, the most common were reducing truck traffic (26%), reducing traffic congestion in general (14%), improving dining and shopping opportunities in Moorpark (1 0%), limiting growth and development (7%), improving parks and recreation facili- ties (7%), and improving/preserving historic areas of the city/High Street (5%). No other single issue was mentioned by at least 5% of respondents . OVERALL SATISFACTION WITH CITY SERVICES The final question in this series asked respondents if, overall , they were satisfied or dissatisfied with the job the City of Moor- park is doing to provide municipal 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. Question 4 Generally speaking, are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the job the City of Moor- park is doing to provide city services? FIGURE 5 OVERALL SATISFACTION Very dissatisfied 2.1 Somewhat satisfied 43.l Refused 0.2 Very satisfied 43.3 As shown in Figure 5 , nearly nine-in-ten respondents (86%) indicated that they were satisfied with the City 's efforts to provide municipal services , with 43% stating that they were very satisfied . Approximately 9% of voters reported that they were dissatis- fied in this respect , whereas 5% were unsure or unwilling to state their opinion . At least 81 % of Moorpark voters in every identified subgroup i ndicated that they were satisfied with the City 's overall perfor- mance i n providing munic i pal services (see Figures 6 & 7). FIGURE 6 OVERALL SATISFACTION BY YEARS IN MOORPARK, (HILD IN HSLD & PARTY ~ 100 90 80 70 ~ 60 -0 § so a. ~ 40 "*-30 20 10 0 Less t han S S to 9 lOto 14 15 or more Yes No Demo c rat Re public an Othe r I DTS Ye ars in Moorp ark (Ql) Child in Hsld (QDl) Party City of Moorpark True North Research, Inc. © 20 7 3 20 FIGURE 7 OVERALL SATISFACTION BY GENDER, HOME TYPE & AGE 100 90 80 70 !'.! c: 60 <1J "1:J c: so 0 Smwt 30 9 3 3 g 3 l l satisfied 4 5 2 4? 4 4 3 8 42 8 41 l SS 3 r) 3 0 5l- <1J 40 "' "' 30 Very [) 8 s ) ( 20 satisfied 42 .3 44 G .jQ ; 43 I 44? )8 0 3 I 0 l 0 0 Male Female Single Apt I Town home 18 to 29 30 to 39 40 to 49 SO to 64 6S or older family Condo Gender Home Ty pe (QD2) Age City of Moorpark True North Research , Inc . © 20 l 3 21 I NIT I AL BALLOT T EST The primary research objective of this survey was to estimate voters' support for establishing a one-half percent general sales tax increase to fund essential city services, such as police, crime prevention and 9-1-1 emergency response services, paving, maintaining and repairing local streets, parks and recreation, library services, and keeping the city clean and well-maintained. To this end, Question 5 was designed to take an early assessment of voters' support for the pro- posed measure . The motivation for placing Question 5 up-front in the survey is twofold. First, voter support for a measure can often depend on the amount of information they have about a measure. At this point in the survey, the respondent has not been provided information about the proposed mea- sure beyond what is presented in the ballot language. Question 5-also known as the Initial Bal- lot 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 from which to judge the impact of various information items conveyed later in the survey on voter support for the measure. Question 5 Next year, voters in Moorpark will have the opportunity to vote on a number of State and local issues . Let me read you a summary of one local measure you may be asked to vote on. In order to provide funding for essential city services, such as police, crime prevention and 9-1-1 emergency responses services; paving, maintaining and repairing local streets; parks and recreation; library services; and keeping the city clean and well-maintained shall the City of Moorpark enact a one-half cent sales tax for a period not to exceed five years, with independent audits, annual reports to the community, and all money staying local? If the election were held today, would you vote yes or no on this measure? FIGURE 8 INITIAL BALLOT TEST Definitely no 29.6 Not sure Refused 6.4 0 .2 Definitely yes 20.8 Figure 8 presents the results of the Initial Ballot Test among all 473 respondents who are likely to participate in the November 2014 election . Overall, 49% of respondents indicated they would definitely or probably support the measure at this stage in the survey, whereas 45% stated they would oppose the measure and 7% were unsure or unwilling to share their vote choice. The support levels recorded at the Initial Ballot Test were approximately l % less than the Probably no simple majority required for passage of a 14.9 general sales tax under California law. SUPPORT BY SUBGROUPS Table l on the next page shows how support for the sales tax measure at the Initial Ballot Test varied by key demographic variables . The blue column (Approx- imate% of Voter Universe) indicates the percentage of the likely November 2014 electorate that each subgroup category comprises . As noted in the table, support for the proposed sales tax measure varied substantially across voter subgroups, including by length of residence, home City of Moorpark True North Research , Inc . © 201 3 22 type, partisanship and household party type , age, and registration date . It is noteworthy, how- ever, that support for the proposed sales tax measure among high propensity voters who are likely to participate in the lower turnout June 2014 primary election was similar to that expressed by the larger universe of voters who are expected to participate in the higher turnout November 2014 election . TABLE 1 DEMOGRAPHIC BREAKDOWN OF SUPPORT AT INITIAL BALLOT TEST Approx1maie r. of Voter % Probably or Universe Definitely Ye s 'o Not sure Overall 100 48.9 6.4 Less than 5 9 64.2 55 Years in Moorpark (Q 1) 5 to 9 12 63.1 "4 1 0 to 14 16 38.2 -l' 1 5 or more 63 46 .7 -- Child in Hsld (QDl) Yes 39 48.4 c '2 No 6.1 5 2.7 o2 Gender Male 50 50 .7 2 9 Female 50 4 7.1 Single family 89 49.0 -" Home Type (QD2) Apt /Condo 5 70.9 "' Townhome 6 38.6 8.:l Single dem 7 5 7 .9 c .6 Dual dem 12 71.2 D Household Party Type Single rep 9 44.8 ~ Dual rep 24 3 7.2 c Other 1 5 5 3.1 - Mixed 33 46.7 "..l. 1 8 to 29 12 49.5 Q r, 3 0 to 39 11 48.5 Age 40 to 49 18 37.8 50 to 64 41 49 .7 6 5 or older 18 5 8.1 2 013 to 2009 22 5 5.9 - Registration Year 2008 to 2005 21 49 .5 2004to 2001 l 3 39.1 2 000 or before 44 48.0 - Democrat 30 64.5 ' Party Republican 47 3 9.3 ' - Other I DTS 24 48.5 + ' Homeowner on Voter File Yes 86 46.9 r No 14 61.7 Likely to Vote by Mail Yes 53 47.0 No 47 5 1.1 Likely June 2014 Voter Yes 63 49.5 -4 No 37 48.0 ,.., - SUPPORT AT 1 /4 PERCENT TAX RATE The ballot language in Question s indicated that the measure would raise the local sales tax rate by up to one -half percent. Respondents who opposed the measure at the Initial Ballot Test or were unsure were subsequently asked if they would support the proposed sales tax if the rate increase were instead one -quarter percent. As shown in Figure 9 on the next page, reducing the tax rate to one-quarter percent resulted in 5% additional voters indicating that they would probably support the proposed sales tax measure, bringing total support for the measure to 54%. I City of Moorpark True North Research , Inc . © 20 7 3 ' . 13 23 Question 6 What if the measure I just described raised the sales tax by a lower amount: one- quarter cent instead of one-half cent? Would you vote yes or no on the measure? FIGURE 9 INITIAL BALLOT TEST AT ONE-QUARTER CENT Refused 0.3 Yes at one -half cent 48.9 REASONS FOR NOT SUPPORTING MEASURE Respondents who opposed the measure at Question 6 (or were unsure) were subsequently asked if there was a particular reason for their position . Question 7 was asked in an open-ended manner, thereby allowing respondents to men- tion any reason that came to mind without being prompted by or r estricted to a particular list of options . True North later reviewed the verbatim responses and grouped t hem into the categories shown in Figure l 0. Please note that the percentage results shown in the figure apply only to those voters who initially opposed the measure or were unsure-they do not r eflect all voters surveyed . The most frequently-mentioned reasons for oppos i ng the sales tax were a concern about taxes already being too high (51 %), a perception that the Ci ty needs to improve how it manages its budget and/or reduce spending (31 %), and a need for more information (l 0%). Question 7 Is there a particular reason wh y you do not support the measure I just described? FIGURE 10 REASONS FOR NOT SUPPORTING MEASURE Ta x es al ready too high 51.4 Overspending , poor budgeting Need more information Not sure / No particular reason Other higher p rio rities in community Measure unnecessary 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 % Re sp o ndents Wh o Do Not Suppo rt Me a sure City of Moorpark True North Research , Inc. © 201 3 24 PROJECTS & PROGRAMS The ballot language presented i n Question 5 i ndicated that the proposed sales tax measure would be used to fund a essential c ity services such as police, crime prevention and 9-1-1 emer- gency response services , paving , maintaining and repairing local streets , parks and recreation , library services , and keeping the city clean and well -maintained . The purpose of Question 8 was to provide respondents with the full range of programs and improvements that may be funded by the proposed measure , and to identify which of these items voters most favored funding with sales tax proceeds. After reading each item that may be funded by the measure , respondents were asked if they would favor or oppose spending some of the money on that particular item assuming that the measure passes. Truncated descriptions of t he items tested , as well as voters ' responses , are shown in Figure 11 below .4 Question 8 The measure we've been discu s sing could fund a variety of projects and services in the City of Moorpark . If the measure passes, would you favor or oppose using some of the money to : _____ , or do you not have an opinion ? FIGURE l 1 PROJECTS & PROGRAMS u 3 Pave . maintain and rep ai r local streets "' 3 Keep park s, p ublic a reas and landscapes clean and well-maintained .s::: 00 a Remove graffiti Provide q uick responses to 9-1-1 emerge ncies Maintain a nd repair sidewalks "' 3 Prov ide po lic e serv ices , including crime prevention and investigations ~ Improve sc hoo l sa fety ~ Provide library serv ices a ~ Prov id e parks and recreat ion faci lit ies , progra ms and serv ices :§' Bui ld an A q uatic Center •Stron gly favor • S ornew hat favor 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 % Respo nd ents Overall , the item that resonated with the largest percentage of respondents was paving , main- taining and repair i ng local streets (83 % strongly o r somewhat favor), followed closely by keeping parks , public areas and landscapes clean and well-maintained (81 %), removing graffiti (80%), pro- viding quick responses to 9-1-1 emergencies (79%), maintaining and repairing sidewalks (77%), and providing police services including crime prevention and investigations (74%). At the other end of the spectrum , voters were notably less enthused with the prospect of using sales tax pro- ceeds to build a joint-use Aquatic Center (45 %). 4 . For the full te xt of the items tested , turn to Question 8 in Questionnaire & Toplines on page 30 . City of Moorpark True North Research , Inc. © 201 3 . .,, 15 25 SPENDING PROJECT RATINGS BY SUBGROUP Table 2 presents the top five projects (showing 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 project or service when compared with supporters and those who were initially undecided. Nevertheless , initial supporters , opponents , and the undecided did agree on four of the top five priorities for funding . TABLE 2 TOP PROJECTS & PROGRAMS BY POSITION AT INITIAL BALLOT TEST os1 ion a Initial Ballot Test (QS) Probably or Definitely Yes (n = 232) Probably or Definitely No (n = 210) lllot Su re Item Q8b Q8e Q8a Q8c Q8f Q8f QBb QBc Q8a Se City of Moorpark Program or Project Summary Provide quick responses to 9-1-1 emergencies Keep parks, public areas and landscapes clean and well-maintained Provide police services, including crime prevention and investigations Pave, maintain and repair local streets Remove ra ffiti Remove graffiti Provide quick responses to 9 -1-1 emergencies Pave , ma i ntain and repair locals treets Provide police services , including crime prevention and investigations Kee arks ublic areas and landsca es clean and well-maintained ~a, " a 1rita1 ·-" 1 ~r;i or;i -t't ~ jjl <; vi! "a ~ a -v ,, t . --ci -ir j5 ,. .._.,1-':5 -ii -r ~ 1 •t'l c I ~~1-10r _)r-' "-' t_ i .:ir E % Strongly Favor 75 70 68 68 64 36 35 30 24 23 r True North Research, Inc. © 20 7 3 -. ~~ 16 26 POSITIVE ARGUMENTS If the City Council chooses to place a sales tax measure on an upcoming 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 the measure , just as oppo- nents may present arguments to achieve the opposite goal. For this study to be a reliable gauge of voter support for a general sales tax measure , it is i mportant that the survey simulate the type of discussion and debate that will occur prior to the vote taking place and identify how this infor- mation ultimately shapes voters ' opinions about the measure. The objective of Question 9 was thus to present respondents with arguments i n favor of the pro- posed measure and identify whether they felt the arguments .were convincing reasons to support it. Arguments in oppositi on to the measure we r e also presented and will be discussed later in this report (see Negative Arguments on page 21 ). Within each series , specific arguments were administered in random order to avoid a systematic position bias . Question 9 What I'd like to do now is tell you what some people are saying about the measure we 've been discussing . Supporters of the measure say: _____ . Do you think this is a very convinc- ing , somewhat convincing, or not a t all convincing reason to SUPPORT the measure? FIGURE 12 POSITIVE ARGUMENTS "O @ Me asure will he lp protect qua li ty of life and property values "' @ Money raised will stay in Moorpark for city serv ices QI @ Sm all price to pay to keep city safe and well maintai ned ~ @ Ma in tenance now is less expensive than future re pairs en @ Measu re will ens ure q uick responses for 911 emerge nc ies i§. Over past fi ve years City respons ible in manag ing budget. ma k ing c uts .0 CJ> Cf Clear system of fisca l acco untab ilit y ~ Li mited d uration, can't be inc reased , extended without voter approval ;; No n-res id ent vis itors will have to pay fair share for using City services a •Very conv i nci ng •So mewhat convin cing 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 1 00 % Respo ndents Figure 12 above presents the truncated pos itive arguments tested , as well as voters ' reactions to the arguments. The arguments are ranked from most convinc i ng to least conv i ncing based on the percentage of respondents who i ndicated that the argument was either a 'very convincing ' or 'somewhat convincing ' reason to support the measure . Using this methodology, the most com- pelling positive arguments were : By keeping our city safe, clean and well-maintained, this mea- sure will help protect our quality of life and our property values (68%), All money raised by the measure will stay in Moorpark to fund essential city services. It can't be taken away by the State City of Moorpark True North Research, Inc . © 201 3 17 27 or used for other purposes (64%), and A half-cent sales tax increase means that if you spend 100 dollars at a local store, the tax increase will be just 50 cents . That is a small price to pay to ensure that our city stays safe, clean and well-maintained (61 %). POSITIVE ARGUMENTS BY INITIAL SUPPORT Table 3 lists the top five most convinc- ing positive arguments (showing the percentage of respondents who cited it as very convincing) according to respondents ' vote choice at the Initial Ballot Test. The most 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 with voters who initially opposed the measure or were unsure . Nevertheless , four arguments were ranked among the top five most compelling by all three groups. TABLE 3 TOP POSITIVE ARGUMENTS BY POSITION AT INITIAL BALLOT TEST os1 ion a Initial Ballot Test(QS) Probably or Definitely Yes (n = 232) Probably or Definitely No (n = 210) f L Item Q9a Q9d Q9e Q9c Q9 Q9a Q9e Q9h Q9c Q9 City of Moorpark Positive Argument Summary Money raised will stay in Moorpark for city services Measure wil I help protect quality of life and property values Small price to pay to keep city safe and well maintained Limited duration, can't be increased , extended without voter approval Measure will ensure uick res ons es for 9 11 emer enci es Money raised will stay in Moorpark for city services Small price to pay to keep city safe and well maintained Non -resident visitors will have to pay fair share for using City services Limited duration , can't be increased , extended without voter approval Measurewillensure uickres onsesfor9llemer encies %Very Convincing 64 54 52 51 49 11 10 10 9 8 True North Research, Inc. © 201 3 28 INTERIM B A L L 0 T T EST After exposing respondents to the types of positive arguments they may encounter during an election cycle, the survey again presented voters with the ballot language used previously to gauge how their support for the proposed sales tax measure may have changed. As shown in Figure 1 3, overall support for the proposed half-percent sales tax measure among voters increased to 52%, with 24% of voters indicating that they would definitely vote yes on the mea- sure. Approximately 40% of respondents opposed the measure at this point in the survey, and an additional 8% were unsure or unwilling to state their vote choice. Question 10 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. In order to provide funding for essential city services, such as police, crime prevention and 9-7 -7 emergency responses services; paving, maintaining and repairing local streets; parks and recreation; library services; and keeping the city clean and well-maintained shall the City of Moorpark enact a one-half cent sales tax for a period not to exceed five years, with independent audits, annual reports to the community, and all money staying local? If the election were held today, would you vote yes or no on this measure? FIGURE 13 INTERIM BALLOT TEST Definitely no 26.4 Not sure 7 .2 Probably no 13.8 Refused 0.7 Definitely yes 23.9 Probably yes 27.9 SUPPORT BY SUBGROUPS Table 4 on the next page shows 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. As shown in the table, support for the sales tax measure increased by small amounts (+5% or less) for most subgroups between the Initial and Interim Ballot Test, although certain subgroups (new residents , voters under 40, and those who registered to vote in Moorpark between 2005 and 2008) posted double-digit increases in support for the sales tax measure based on the information they learned after the Initial Ballot Test. City of Moorpark True North Research , Inc . © 20 7 3 '. 19 29 TABLE 4 DEMOGRAPHIC BREAKDOWN OF SUPPORT AT INTERIM BALLOT TEST f\pprox1ma1e 7o UJange trom of Voter % Probably or Initial Ballot Universe Definitely Yes Test (QS) Overall 100 5 1.8 +2.9 Less than 5 9 7 4.7 +l 0.5 Years in Moorpark (Q 1) 5 to 9 12 61.8 -1. 3 1 Oto 14 16 39.9 + l. 7 1 5 or more 63 49.6 +2.9 Child in Hsld (QDl) Yes 39 48.9 +0.5 No 61 56.3 +3.6 Gender Male 50 51.9 + l. 2 Female 50 5 1.7 +4.6 Single family 89 51.8 +2. 7 Home Type (QD2) Apt I Condo 5 67.3 -3 .6 Townhome 6 5 0.4 +11.7 Single dem 7 5 7.9 No change Dual dem 12 70.6 -0.7 Household Party Type Single rep 9 42 .9 -1. 9 Dual rep 24 3 7 .9 +O. 7 Other l 5 5 2 .7 -0 . 5 Mixed 33 5 5.8 +9.1 1 8 to 29 l 2 66 .1 +16.6 30 to 39 11 58 .8 + l 0.3 Age 40 to 49 18 39.8 +2 .0 5 0 to 64 41 49 .3 -0 .4 6 5 or older 18 5 5.9 -2 .2 2013to2009 22 5 5.1 -0 . 7 Registration Year 2008 to 2005 21 62.7 + 13 .2 2004to 2001 l 3 4 1.6 +2 . 5 2 000 or before 44 4 7.8 -0 .2 Democrat 30 68 .8 +4 .3 Party Republican 47 41.3 +2 .0 Other I DTS 24 5 1.4 +2 .8 Homeowner on Voter Fi le Y es 86 5 0 .2 +3 . 3 No 14 61.7 +O.O Likely to Vote by Mai I Yes 53 4 7 .9 +0.9 No 47 5 6.3 +5 .1 Likely June 2014 Voter Y es 63 50 .9 +l .4 No 37 5 3.4 +5.4 City of Moorpark True North Research , Inc . © 201 3 30 NEGA TIVE ARGUMENTS Whereas Question 9 presented respondents with arguments in favor of the measure , Question l l presented respondents with arguments designed to elicit opposition to the measure. In the case of Question l l, however, respondents were asked whether they felt that the argument was a very convincing, somewhat convincing , or not at all convincing reason to oppose the measure. The arguments tested, as well as voters ' opinions about the arguments , are presented in Figure 14 . Question l l 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 measu r e? FIGURE 14 NEGATIVE ARGUMENTS u A g e neral tax is like a bla nk c he c k ..c State of Califo rn ia just raised t he sales tax last year In e c o nom ic crisis , no w is NOT t he ti me to be raisin g taxes Q) Tax will hurt se ni ors an d ot hers on fixe d -inco mes -c ;: Will hurt local b usinesses , slow dow n the recovery of economy 0 •Ve ry co nvinc ing •Some w hat convinc in g 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 1 00 % Respond e nts Among the negative arguments tested , the most compelling were : This measure is a blank check. Because it is a 'general tax', there is no way to ensure the City spends the money on what they say they will (70%), The State of California just raised the sales tax last year. Now the City wants to raise the sales tax again? That's not fair to taxpayers (68%), and People are having a hard time making ends meet with h igh unemployment and a sluggish economy. Now is NOT the time to be raising taxes (65 %). NEGATIVE ARGUMENTS BY INITIAL SUPPORT Table s on the next page ranks the negative arguments (showing the percentage of respondents who cited each as very convincing) according to respondents ' vote choice at the Initial Ballot Test. City of Moorpark True North Research, Inc. © 201 3 31 TABLE 5 NEGATIVE ARGUMENTS BY POSITION AT INITIAL BALLOT TEST os ion a Initial Ballot Test(Q5) Probably or Definitely Yes (n = 232) Probably or Definitely No (n=210) Not Sure YI =3(1 Item Ql lc Qlla Qllb Ql le Qlld Qllb Qlla Ql lc Qlle Qlld c1 'a } lri "-<.. lt;: QI Li City of Moorpark Negative Argument Summary A general tax is like a blank check In economic crisis, now is NOT the time to be raising taxes State ofCaliforniajust raised the sales tax last year Tax will hurt seniors and others on fixed-incomes Will hurt local businesses slow down the re cove of econom State of California just raised the sales tax last year In economic er is is, now is NOT the time to be raising taxes A general tax is like a blank check Tax will hurt seniors and others on fixed-incomes Will hurt local businesses slow down the recove of econom 10 eco nrn 1c •1 :sis now is NOT the tirne to be • ais ing 'axes ..1. 9e 1er a ta 11. s 111· (;.ct u1ank .chel~ _,rare fCal't0rria ust q sed •he sa1es <ax last vear ~~, t seniors i'l~cJ -:.·0 e·' r· ~'. ed-inco•nes Nil '""rt uca1 bc1s nesses slolA do·" ,!0 2 ecove ·, of econorn %Very Convincing 21 16 13 11 7 57 53 51 35 34 24 '9 5 True North Research , Inc. © 20 7 3 32 F I NA L B ALLOT T E S T Voters' opinions about ballot measures are often not rigid, especially when the amount of infor- mation presented to the public on a measure has been limited. An important g_oal of the survey was thus to gauge how voters' opinions about the proposed measure may be affected by the information they could encounter about the measure in the months leading up to a vote. After providing respondents with the wording of the proposed measure, projects and services that could be funded by the measure, as well as arguments in favor and against the proposal, respon- dents were again asked whether they would vote 'yes' or 'no ' on the proposed half-percent local sales tax measure . Question 12 Now that you have heard a bit more about the measure, let me read you a sum- mary of it one more time. In order to provide funding for essential city services, such as police, crime prevention and 9-1-1 emergency responses services; paving, maintaining and repairing local streets; parks and recreation; library services; and keeping the city clean and well-main- tained shall the City of Moorpark enact a one-half cent sales tax for a period not to exceed five years, with independent audits, annual reports to the community, and all money staying local? If the election were held today, would you vote yes or no on this measure? FIGURE 1 5 FINAL BALLOT TEST Definitely no 28.4 Not sure 7.9 Probably no 14.2 Refused 0 .8 Definitely yes 20.7 At this point in the survey , support for the sales tax measure was found among 49% of voters, with 21 % indicating that they would definitely support the measure. Approximately 43% of respondents were opposed to the measure at the Final Ballot Test, and 9% were unsure or unwill- ing to state their vote choice. City of Moorpark True North Research , Inc. © 20 7 3 . . 23 33 CHANGE IN SUPPOR T Table 6 provides a closer look at how support for the proposed sales tax measure changed over the course of the interview by calculating the difference in support between the Initial, Interim, and Final Ballot Tests within various subgroups of voters. The percentage of support for the measure at the Final Ballot Test is shown in the column with the heading % Probably or Definitely Yes. The columns to the right show the difference between the Final and the Initial, and the Final and Interim Ballot Tests . Positive differences appear in green , whereas negative differences appear in red. TABLE 6 DEMOGRAPHIC BREAKDOWN OF SUPPORT AT FINAL BALLOT TEST Approximate % UJange nom UJange trom of Voter % Probably or Initial Ballot Interim Ballot Universe Definit ely Yes Test (QS) Test (QlO) Overall 100 48.6 -0. 3 -3 .2 Less than 5 9 69.0 +4.8 -5.8 Years in Moorpark (Q l) 5 to 9 12 s 5.8 -7. 3 -6.0 lo to 14 16 3 7.9 -0 . 3 -2 .0 1 5 or more 63 4 7.1 +0.4 -2.6 Child in Hsld (QDl) Yes 39 4 S.4 -3.0 -3.S No 61 s 3.6 +0.9 -2.7 Gender Male so 48 .6 -2 . l -3.3 Female so 48.7 + 1. s -3.l Single family 89 49.3 +0.3 -2.S Home Type (QD2) Apt I Condo s 6 7.3 -3.6 No change Townhome 6 3 8.6 No chanqe -11.7 Single dem 7 s S.6 -2 .3 -2 .3 Dual dem 12 61 .8 -9.4 -8 .8 Household Party Type Single rep 9 38.9 -S.9 -4.0 Dual rep 24 3 3.S -3. 7 -4.4 Other 1 5 s 4 .2 +l. l +1.6 Mix ed 33 s 3.4 +6 . 7 -2.4 l 8 to 29 1 2 S4 .9 +S. 3 -11 .3 30 to 39 11 s S.8 +7 3 -3.0 Age 40 to 49 18 34.0 -3. 9 -S.8 5 0 to 64 41 4 7.5 -2 .2 -1.8 6 5 or older 18 5 7 .2 -0 .9 + 1. 3 2013 to 2009 22 S0 .8 -S. l -4.4 Registration Year 2 008 to 2005 21 5 3 .2 +3.6 -9 .5 2 004 to 2001 1 3 40 .4 +1.3 -1.3 2 000 or before 44 4 7 .7 -0 . 3 -0.l Democrat 30 62 .9 -1. 5 -S.8 Party Republican 47 38.0 -1. 3 -3.3 Other/ DTS 24 s 1.6 +3 .1 +0 .3 Homeowner on Voter File Yes 86 4 7 .1 +0 .2 -3.l No 14 S8 .0 -3. 7 -3.7 Likely to Vote by Mail Yes 53 46.0 -1.0 -1.9 No 47 s 1.6 +O .S -4 .6 Likely June 2014 Voter Y es 63 4 7 .0 -2. s -3.9 No 37 s 1.4 +3.4 -1.9 As expected , voters generally responded to the negative arguments with a reduction in their sup- port for the sales tax measure when compared with the levels recorded at the Interi m Ballot Test. The general trend over the course of the entire survey (Initial to Final Ballot Test), however, was mixed-with modest decreases in support among some groups being offset by modest increases in support among others . City of Moorpark True North Research , Inc . © 201 3 34 Whereas Table 6 displays change in support for the measure over the course of the interview at the subgroup level, Table 7 displays the individual-level changes that occurred between the Ini- tial and Final Ballot Tests for the measure . On the 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 the course of the survey as recorded by the Final Ballot Test. For example, in the first row we see that of the 20.8% of respondents who indicated that they would definitely support the measure at the Initial Ballot Test, 16. l % also indicated that they would definitely support the measure at the Final Ballot Test. Approximately 4 .0% moved to the probably support group, 0 .3% moved to the probably oppose group, 0 .0% moved to the defi - nitely oppose group, and 0.4% percent 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 TESTS Final Ballot Test (Ql 2) Defi nitely Probably Probably Definitely Initial Ballot Test (QS) Not sure Definitely support 20 .8% Probably support 28 .1% Probably oppose 14.9% Definitely op pose 29 .6% 'OL~Jrc 4 .5% As one might expect , the i nformati on conveyed i n 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 i n 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 information conveyed duri ng the course of the interview to be a reason to become more supportive of the measure , whereas a similar percentage found the same information to be a reason to be less supportive. Despite 11 % of respondents making a fundamenta/5 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 the same as support at the Ini- tial Ballot Test. 5. This is , they changed from a position of support, oppos it ion or undecided at the Initial Ballot Test to a differ- ent position at the Final Ballot Test. City of Moorpark True North Research , Inc . © 201 3 35 B A C K G R 0 U N D TABLE 8 DEMOGRAPHICS OF SAMPLE Total Respondents Years in Moorpark (Ql) Less than 5 5 to 9 10to14 15 or more Refused Child in Hs Id (QDl) Yes No Refused Gender Male Female Home Type (QD2) Single family Apt /Condo Town home Refused Household Party Type Single dem Dual dem Single rep Dual rep Other Mi x ed Age 18 to 29 30 to 39 40 to 49 50 to 64 65 or older Registration Year 2013 to 2009 2008 to 2005 2004 to 2001 2000 or before Party Democrat Republican Other/ DTS Homeowner on Voter File Yes No Likely to Vote by Ma ii Yes No Likely June 2014Voter Yes No City of Moorpark & 413 8.8 12.4 15 .9 62 .6 0 .3 36 .5 57.4 6.2 50.4 49 .6 86 .0 4 .4 5.7 3.8 7.4 11.9 8 .5 24 .2 14.9 33 .l 11.6 11.1 18.0 40.8 18.4 22 .3 21.2 12 .6 43 .8 29 .7 46.7 23 .6 85 .9 14.1 52.9 47.1 63.4 36.6 DEMOGRAPHICS In addition to questions directly related to the pro- posed measure, the study collected basic demo- graphic information about respondents and their households. Some of this information was gathered during the interview, although much of it was col- lected from the voter file . The profile of the likely November 2014 voter sample used for this study is shown in Table 8 . True North Research , Inc. © 201 3 36 METHODOLOGY The following sections outline the methodology used in the study, as well as the motivation for using certain techniques . QUESTIONNAIRE DEVELOPMENT Dr. Mclarney of True North Research worked closely with the City of Moorpark 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 individual items. Because asking the items in a set order can lead to a system- atic position bias in responses , items were asked in random order for each respondent . Some of the questions asked in this study were presented only to a subset of respondents . For example, only individuals who did not support the sales tax measure at Question 5 or Question 6 were asked the follow-up open-ended Question 7 regarding their reasons for not supporting the measure. The questionnaire included with this report (see Questionnaire & Toplines on page 30) identifies the skip patterns that were used during the interview to ensure that each respon- dent received the appropriate questions . PROGRAMMING & PRE TEST Prior to fielding the survey , the questionnaire was CATI (Computer Assisted Telephone Interviewing) programmed to assist interviewers when conduct- ing the telephone interviews, as well as web programmed to allow online participation . Both pro- grams automatically navigate skip patterns , randomize the appropriate question items, and alert the interviewer (phone) or participant (web) to certain types of keypunching mistakes should they occur. The integrity of the questionnaire was pre -tested internally by True North prior to formally commencing the interviewing . SAMPLE, RECRUITING & DATA COLLECTION The survey was administered to regis- tered voters in the City of Moorpark who are likely to participate in the November 2014 election , with a subset of voters who are also likely to participate in the lower turnout June 2014 primary election. A total of 3 ,000 voters were mailed letters that invited them to participate in the study either online at a secure website or by telephone. Each voter was assigned a unique personal identification number (PIN), which prevented outsiders from participating in the survey and ensured that voters completed the survey only once . Following a two-week period of online data collection , True North began dialing into likely November 2014 voter households that had not yet participated in the online survey (including those that had received an invitation letter and those that had not). A total of 473 voters participated online or by telephone between November 9 and November 24 , 2013 . The telephone interviews averaged 15 minutes in length . STATISTICAL MARGIN OF ERROR The final random sample of voters was representa- tive of the age , gender, and partisanship of voters in the City who are likely to participate in the November 2014 election . The results of the sample can thus be used to estimate the opinions of all voters likely to participate in the November 2014 election . Because not all voters participated in the study, however, the results have what is known as a statistical margin of error due to sam- pling . The margin of error refers to the difference between what was found in the survey of 473 voters for a particular question and what would have been found if all 12 ,525 likely November 2014 voters identified in the City had been surveyed for the study. City of Moorpark True North Research , Inc . © 201 3 37 For example, i n estimating the percentage of likely voters that would definitely support the mea- sure at the Initial Ballot Test (Question 5 in the survey), the margin of error can be calculated if one knows the size of the population , the size of the sample , a confidence level, and the distri- bution of responses to the question. The appropriate equation for estimating the margin of error, in this case, is shown below. ~ p±t (N -n)p(l -p) N n-l Where p is the proportion of voters who said definitely yes (0 .21 for 21 % in this example), N is the population size of likely voters (12 ,525), n is the sample size that received the question (473) and t is the upper a /2 point for the t -distribution with n -1 degrees of freedom (l .96 for a 95% confidence interval). Solving the equation using these values reveals a margin of error of± 3 .60%. This means that with 21 % of survey respondents indicating they would definitely sup- port the measure at the Initial Ballot Test , we can be 95% confident that the actual percentage of all likely November 2014 voters that wou l d definitely support the measure is between 17% and 25%. Figure 16 provides a graphic plot of the maximum margin of error in this study. The maximum margin of error for a dichotomous percentage result occurs when the answers are evenly split such that 50% provide one response and 50% provide the alternative response . For this survey , the maximum margin of error is± 4.42 %. FIGURE 16 MAXIMUM MARGIN OF ERROR DUE TO SAMPLING 14% 12% 10% - -- - - -- -- - - - - - - -- - -'- - - - -_I I ~ 8% LJ.J ' -- - r --- -1 --- --, --- -,--- - -..., .... 0 c: ~ 6% "' :a , 473 Likely Nov - - --" -- -- - - - - -""" --- - - - - --2014 Voters -~ - --- _,_ - - - ----- -' ±4.42% 4% 2% - -- - - - ------ - - - - - - 0 100 200 3 0 0 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 Sa mp le Size (Num be r of Respo nde nts) Within this report , figures and tables show how responses to certain questions varied by sub- groups such as age , gender, and partisan affiliation . Figure 16 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 subgroup) 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. City of Moorpark True North Research, Inc. © 201 3 38 DATA PROCESSING Data processing consisted of checking the data for errors or inconsis- tencies , coding and recoding responses , and preparing frequency analyses , and crosstabula- tions. 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 charts . Occasionally , these rounding rules lead to small discrepancies in the first decimal place when comparing tables and pie charts for a given question . City of Moorpark True North Research , Inc . © 20 7 3 -... ' 29 39 QUESTIONNAIRE & TOPLIN ES City of Moorpark Sales Tax Survey Final Toplines November 2013 Sect10n I l11tmduct1011 to Study Hi, may I please speak to ____ . My name is _____ , and I'm calling on behalf of TNR, an independent public opinion research firm. We're conducting a survey of voters about imoortant issues in Mooroark and I'd like to aet vour ooinions. If needed: This is a survey about important issues in your community. I'm NOT trying to sell anything and I won't ask for a donation. If needed: The survey should take about 12 minutes to complete. If needed: If now is not a convenient time, can you let me know a better time so I can call back? If the person asks why you need to speak to the listed person or if they ask to participate instead, explain: For statistical purposes, at this time the survey must only be completed by this particular individual. If the person says they are an elected official or is somehow associated with the survey, politely explain that this survey is designed to measure the opinions of those not closely associated with the study, thank them for their time and terminate the interview. I'd like to begin by asking you a few questions about what it is like to live in the City of Moorpark. Ql How long have you l ived in the City of Moorpark? l Less than l year 0% 2 l to 2 years 4% 3 3 to 4 years 4% 4 5 to 9 years 12% 5 l 0 to l 4 years 16% 6 l 5 years or longer 63% 99 Refused 0% Q2 How would you rate the overall quality of life in the City? Would you say it is excellent, good, fair, poor or very poor? Excellent 40% 2 Good 54% 3 Fair 5% 4 Poor 0% 5 Very poor 0% 98 Not sure 1% 99 Refused 0% True North Research , Inc. © 201 3 Page 1 City of Moorpark True North Research , Inc. © 20 7 3 40 Moorpark Sales Tax Survey November 201 3 If the City government could change one thing to make Moorpark a better place to live Q3 now and in the future, what change would you like to see? Verbatim responses recorded and later arouoed into cateaories shown below. Reduce truck traffic 2696 Reduce traffic congestion (general) 1496 Not sure I Cannot think of anything 13 96 Improve dining, shopping opportunities l 096 Provide, improve parks , rec facilities 7% Limit growth, development 7% Improve, preserve historic area , High Street S% Improve streets, roads 5% Improve public safety 4% Improve public transportation 3% Improving traffic lights 3% Improve education, schools 3% Provide, improve community activities , events 3% Improve permitting process 2% Improve government leadership 2% Improve parking 2% Improve walking , bike paths 2% Improve li brary, library serv ices 196 Reduce no is e pollution 1% Reduce water r ates 1% Support loca l bus i nesses 196 Redevelop , improve outdated areas 1% Clean up , remove trash 1% Encourage growth , development 1% Reduce fees for parks , recreation 1% Generally speaking, are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the job the City of Moorpark is Q4 doing to provide city services? Get answer, then ask: Would that be very (satisfied/dissatisfied) or somewhat (satisfied/dissatisfied)? l Very satisfied 43 96 2 Somewhat satisfied 43 % 3 Somewhat dissatisfied 796 4 Very dissatisfied 296 98 Not sure 596 99 Refused 0% True North Research, Inc. © 2013 Page 2 -, City of Moorpark True North Research, Inc. © 201 3 31 41 Moorpark Sales Tax Survey November 2013 Sectwn 3 Initial Ballot Test Next year, voters in Moorpark will have the opportunity to vote on a number of State and local issues. Let me read you a summary of one local measure you may be asked to vote on. In order to provide funding for essential city services, such as: ¢ Police, crime prevention and 9-1-1 emergency responses services ¢ Paving, maintaining and repairing local streets ¢ Parks and recreation ¢ Library services QS ¢ And keeping the city clean and well-maintained Shall the City of Moorpark enact a one-half cent sales tax for a period not to exceed five rcears, with independent audits, annual reports to the community, and all money staying ocal? II If the election were held today, would you vote yes or no on this measure? Get answer, then ask: Would that be definitelv (ves/no) or orobablv (ves/no)? l Definitely yes 2 1% Skip to QB 2 Probably yes 28 % Skip to QB 3 Probably no 15 % Ask Q6 4 Definitely no 30 % AskQ6 98 Not sure 6% AskQ6 99 Refused 0% AskQ6 What if the measure I just described raised the sales tax by a lower amount: one-quarter Q6 cent instead of one-half cent? Would you vote yes or no on the measure? Get answer, then ask: Would that be definitely (yes/no) or probably (yes/no)? l Yes at one-half cent (Q5) 49 % Skip to QB 2 Definitely yes 0% Skip to QB 2 Probably yes 5% Skip to QB 3 Probably no 14% AskQ1 4 Definitely no 26 % AskQ7 98 Not sure 6% AskQ1 99 Refused 0% Ask Q1 Is there a particular reason why you do not support the measure I just described? If Q7 yes, ask: Please briefly describe your reason. Verbatim responses recorded and later arouoed into cateaories shown below. Taxes already too high 51 % Overspending , poor budgeting 3 1% Need more information 9% Not sure I No particular reason 4% Measure unnecessary 3% Other higher priorities i n comm un ity 3% True North Research, Inc. © 2013 Page 3 City of Moorpark True North Research, Inc . © 201 3 42 Moorpark Sales Tax Survey November 2013 The measure we've been discussing could fund a variety of projects an City of Moorpark. QB 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 stron I (favor/o ose) or somewhat (favor/o ose)? :;; c > "'., 1!"<11 .Q -0 °' ~ .<:: ~ .<:: ~ Cl~ c :l: Randomize co >: 0 >: 0 c 0 ·c. g~ ., > ., c. 0 c. .2 E~ E c. ~ c. 0 ., Vl 0 oO .:no 0 a: Vl Vl z A Provide police services, including crime 47% 27% 10% 7% 6% 3% revention and investi ations B Provide quick responses to 9-1-1 emergencies 56% 23% 5% 6% 6% 4% c Pave, maintain and repair local streets 52% 31% 5% 5% 5% 3% D Provide parks and recreation facilities, 30% 37% 12% 11% 7% 4% ro rams and services E Keep parks, public areas and landscapes 49% 32% 6% 5% 5% 3% clean and well-maintained F Remove graffiti 52% 28% 6% 5% 5% 4% G Provide library services 32% 36% 11% 9% 9% 2% H Maintain and repair sidewalks 42% 35% 8% 6% 7% 3% Improve school safety 38% 30% 11% 9% 8% 4% Build an Aquatic Center that can be jointly used by residents , local schools and swim 20% 26% 14% 29% 9% 3% teams What I'd like to do now is tell you what some people are saying about the measure we've been discussing. Q9 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? ., Cl -"' -Cl > 0 c c "'c ~ :~ .!!1 -0 ~·g .<:: ·--zo Randomize >: ~ -.; ~g ~:~ :l: ., ·-., ·-"' .2 > > E 1; 0 ~ 0 0 c. c -c ., 0 oo z 0 ,!20 a: u VlU u 0 0 All money raised by the measure will stay in A Moorpark to fund essential city services. It 39% 25% 13% 16% 3% 4% can 't be taken away by the State or used for other ur oses. There will be a clear system of accountability B including independent audits and annual 23% 32% 20% 17% 3% 5% reports to the community to ensure that the mone is s ent ro erl . True North Research, Inc. © 2 013 Page 4 .. - City of Moorpark True North Research, Inc. © 201 3 33 43 Moorpark Sales Tax Survey November 2013 The tax will be for a limited duration and c can't be increased or extended without voter 30% 24% 18% 21% 3% 4% annroval. By keeping our city safe, clean and well- D maintained, this measure will help protect our 31% 37% 18% 7% 4% 4% aualitv of life and our orooertv values. A half-cent sales tax increase means that if you spend l 00 dollars at a local store, the tax E increase will be just 50 cents. That is a small 31% 29% 22% 11% 2% 4% price to pay to ensure that our city stays safe, clean and well-maintained. This measure will allow the City to keep up with basic repairs and maintenance to streets F and public facilities. If we don't take care of it 27% 34% 23% 10% 2% 4% now, it will be a lot more expensive to repair in the future. When you have an emergency, you need help fast. Minutes count in these situations. This G measure will ensure that we have enough 29% 28% 24% 10% 5% 4% police officers so that they can respond auicklv to 9-1-1 emeroencies. A substantial amount of the money raised by the sales tax will come from non-residents H who visit our community. This measure will 21% 25% 28% 18% 4% 4% make sure they pay their fair share for the facilities and services they use while in our citv. The City of Moorpark has been very responsible in managing its budget. Over the past five years the City has cut the budget as I far as possible, made staffing cuts, and used 20% 35% 19% 16% 6% 4% one-time-funds when appropriate. If we want to continue receiving quality city services, we need to suaoort this measure. True North Research, Inc. © 2013 Page S ' ~ City of Moorpark True North Research, Inc. © 20 7 3 34 44 Moorpark Sales Tax Survey November 2013 Sectwn 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 aaain. In order to provide funding for essential city services, such as: Ii <> Police, crime prevention and 9-1-1 emergency responses services <> Paving, maintaining and repairing local streets <> Parks and recreation <> Library services QlO <> And keeping the city clean and well-maintained Shall the City of Moorpark enact a one-half cent sales tax for a period not to exceed five riears, with independent audits, annual reports to the community, and all money staying ocal? If the election were held today, would you vote yes or no on this measure? Get answer, then ask: Would that be definitely (ves/no) or c robablv (ves/no)? 1 Definitely yes 24% 2 Probably yes 28% 3 Probably no 14% 4 Definitely no 26% 98 Not sure 7% 99 Refused 1% Next, let me tell you what opponents of the measure are saying. Qll 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? "' Cl -Cl -Cl > 0 c: c: "'c: ~ ·g .~ 'O ~·g .£: ·--.; - z 0 5: Randomize ~ ~ "' ~g i:; "'·-"'·-<( ·-.2 > > EE; 0 ~ c: 'c: 0:!20 "' 0 0 0 z 0 "' u Vl u u 0 0 People are having a hard time making ends A meet with high unemployment and a sluggish 34% 32% 23% 8% 2% 2% economy. Now is NOT the time to be raising taxes. The State of California just raised the sales B tax last year. Now the City wants to raise the 33% 35% 21% 6% 2% 3% sales tax a ain? That 's not fair to tax a ers. This measure is a blank check . Because it is a c 'general tax', there is no way to ensure the 35% 35% 16% 8% 4% 2% City spends the money on what they say they will . True North Research, Inc. © 2013 Page 6 City of Moorpark True North Research, Inc. © 20 7 3 45 Moorpark Sales Tax Survey November 2013 Raising our sales tax will hurt our local D businesses and slow down the recovery of our 19% 29% 31% 15% 3% 2% economy. E This tax will hurt seniors and others on fixed-23% 33% 27% 12% 3% 2% incomes. Sectwn 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. In order to provide funding for essential city services, such as: <> Police, crime prevention and 9-1-1 emergency responses services <> Paving, maintaining and repairing local streets <> Parks and recreation <> Library services Q12 <> And keeping the city clean and well-maintained Shall the City of Moorpark enact a one-half cent sales tax for a period not to exceed five rcears, with independent audits, annual reports to the community, and all money staying ocal? If the election were held today, would you vote yes or no on this measure? Get answer, then ask: Would that be definitely (yes/no) or probably (yes/no)? 1 Definitely yes 21% 2 Probably yes 28% 3 Probably no 14% 4 Definitely no 28% 98 Not sure 8% 99 Refused 1% Thank you so much for your participation. I have just two background questions for statistical purposes. Dl Do you have children under the age of 18 living in your household? Yes 36% 2 No 57% 99 Refused 6% True North Research, Inc. © 2013 Page 7 City of Moorpark True North Research, Inc. © 20 7 3 46 Moorpark Sales Tax Survey November 2013 02 Which of the following best describes your current home? l Single family detached home 86% 2 Apartment 2% 3 Condominium 3% 4 Town home 6% 5 Mobile home 1% 99 Refused 3% Those are all of the questions that I have for you. Thanks so much for participating in this important survey . Democrat 30 % 2 Republican 47% 3 Other 5% 4 DTS 18% 53 l 18 to 29 12 % 2 30 to 39 11 % 3 40 to 49 18% 4 50 to 64 41 % 5 65 or older 18% 99 Not coded 0% True North Research, Inc. © 2013 Page 8 City of Moorpark True North Research, Inc. © 201 3 47 Moorpark Sales Tax Survey November 2013 2013 to 2009 22% 2 2008 to 2005 21% 3 2004 to 2001 13 % 4 2000 to 1997 13% 5 Before 1997 30% Single Dem 7% 2 Dual Dem 12 % 3 Single Rep 9% 4 Dual Rep 24% 5 Single Other 9% 6 Dual Other 6% 7 Dem & Rep 12% 8 Dem & Other 8% 9 Rep & Other 10% 0 Mixed (Dem + Rep + Other) 3% True North Research, Inc. © 20 I 3 Page 9 ... City of Moorpark True North Research , Inc. © 201 3 3 48