Loading...
CC 2013-02-26_11.a. FCFA Special Financing DistrictItem 11.a. - Page 1 Item 11.a. - Page 2 Item 11.a. - Page 3 Item 11.a. - Page 4 Item 11.a. - Page 5 Main Office 32605 Temecula Parkway, Suite 100 Temecula, CA 92592 Toll free: 800.676.7516 Fax: 951.296.1998 Regional Office 870 Market Street, Suite 1223 San Francisco, CA 94102 Toll free: 800.434.8349 Fax: 415.391.8439 Five Cities Fire Authority Fire Suppression Special Tax/Assessment Feasibility Report December 2012 ATTACHMENT 1 Item 11.a. - Page 6   Fire Suppression Feasibility Report – Five Cities Fire Authority Prepared by NBS – December 2012 FIVE CITIES FIRE AUTHORITY FIRE SUPPRESSION SPE CIAL TAX/ASSESSMENT FEASIBILITY REPORT 140 Traffic Way Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 Phone - (805) 473-5490 FIRE AUTHORITY BOARD OF DIRECTORS Felma Hurdle, Oceano Community Services District, Board Chair John P. Shoals, City of Grover Beach, Vice Chair Joe Costello, City of Arroyo Grande, Board Member FIRE AUTHORITY MANAGEMENT Joel Aranaz, Fire Chief, Executive Officer Martin D. Koczanowicz, General Counsel Amy Jones, Administrative Manager, Secretary to the Board Angela Kraetsch, Treasurer Riki Heath, Battalion Chief NBS Pablo Perez, Client Services Director Adina Light, Senior Consultant Item 11.a. - Page 7   Fire Suppression Feasibility Report – Five Cities Fire Authority Table of Contents Prepared by NBS – December 2012 TABLE OF CONTENTS    1. INTRODUCTION 1-1   BACKGROUND ................................................................................... 1-1   SERVICES ........................................................................................... 1-2   2. BUDGET 2-1   FUNDING REQUIREMENTS ............................................................... 2-1   FUNDING OPTIONS ............................................................................ 2-2   3. AUTHORITY DATA 1   GENERAL INFORMATION AND USE CLASSIFICATION ..................... 1   REGISTERED VOTERS ......................................................................... 1   4. SPECIAL TAX RATE ANALYSIS 1        Item 11.a. - Page 8   Fire Suppression Feasibility Report – Five Cities Fire Authority 1-1 Prepared by NBS – December 2012 1. INTRODUCTION BACKGROUND The Five Cities Fire Authority (the “Authority”) was established July 9, 2010 by a Joint Powers Agreement between the Cities of Arroyo Grande, Grover B each and Oceano Community Se rvices District and is governed by a Fire Board made up of an elected offi cial from each participat ing city or community’s Council or Board. The Authority provides fire prevention, emergency medical, hazardous materials, fire suppression, rescue, community outreach/education and emergenc y preparedness related services to over 37,500 residents across a 10 square mile coverage area as we ll as an additional transient population of over a 1.5 million visitors a year. In addition to protecting member communities, the Authority also provides services to the Town of Halcyon and the Oceano Dunes State Vehicle Recreation Area. The Authority operates 3 fire stations: Headquarters – Station 66 Located in Arroyo Grande, Station 66 serves as the headquarters for the Authority and serves the City of Arroyo Grande and the greater Arroyo Grande area. Station 68 Located in Grover Beach, Station 68 serves the City of Grover Beach and the we st side of the City of Arroyo Grande. Station 61 Located in Oceano, Station 61 serves the community of Oceano, the To wn of Halcyon, and the Oceano Dunes State Vehicle Recreation Area. And utilizes the following apparatus to respond to over 4,000 incidents annually: 3 –Type I Fire Engines 1 –Reserve Type I Fire Engine 1 –100 ′ Aerial Platform (Truck) 1 –Type III Brush Engine 1 –Type IV Patrol (Dunes Response) 1 –Type II Urban Search & Rescue 1 –CalEMA Fire Engine 1 –Breathing Support Unit 2 –Command Vehicles   Item 11.a. - Page 9 Fire Suppression Feasibility Report – Five Cities Fire Authority 1-2 Prepared by NBS – December 2012 SERVICES Fire Suppression The Authority provides fire suppression of all types of fires including: structure, vegetation, vehicle, and any other miscellaneous fires. The department accomplishes this through the use of a variety of fire apparatus, tools and training. Fire department personnel spend hundreds of hours a year training to be prepared to fight fires. The Authority also provides the only ladder truck in the south San Luis Obispo County area and responds to incidents anywhere from Avila Beach, through t he Five Cities area, and Nipomo. This ladder truck has a platform on the end of the ladder for rescuing peopl e who are trapped on the upper floors of a structure. These victims may not be able to climb down a ladder safely. The platform acts as an elevator and will safely bring the victims down to the ground. The ladder truck platform is also used for transporting firefighters and their tools to the uppe r floors or roof of a structure. Wild land firefighting is one of the most visible responsibilities of all fire departments throughout California. California’s beautiful w eather and topography make the state susceptible to vegetation fires. The Authority participates in what is known as the California Master Mutual Aid Plan and provides assistance across the entire state of Ca lifornia. Under this plan all fire departments within the state assist each other when large scale emergencies occur. Under the contract with the California Emergenc y Management Agency, also known as CalEMA, the Authority is provided a state-owned fire engine fo r use within our jurisdictions for response to emergencies on a day to day basis and in return when CalEMA needs to respond to a large scale incident, the Authority will provide personnel and respond with this state owned fire engine to the incident anywhere within or outside the State of California. Emergency Medical Services The Authority responds to a variety of emergency medical calls. These emergency medical calls include but are not limited to cardiac arrest, difficulty breat hing, diabetic emergencies, and trauma. All emergency response personnel who are employed by the Author ity are required at a minimum to have an Emergency Medical Technician (EMT) certification which allows the employees to operate at the basic life support (BLS) level of service during emergency medical in cidents. The Emergency Medical Technicians level of training and certification requires all individuals to maintain a CPR and automatic-external defibrillation certification. In addition, each individual must be in the Department of Justice and Motor Vehicles background check system. Hazardous Materials The Authority is a participating agency with the San Luis Obispo County Regional Hazardous Materials Team. The San Luis Obispo County Regional Hazardou s Materials Team is funded by fire agencies throughout the San Luis Obispo County and each fire department provides personnel who are trained in hazardous materials response and are members on th e team. Currently, two of the fire department members are members on the regional hazardous ma terials team and are trained to the level of Hazardous Materials Specialists. The Authority also has nine other individuals who are state-certified at the level of hazardous materials specialist. Oceano Dunes Response The Authority also provides fire suppression, tec hnical rescue, and emergency medical services to the Oceano Dunes Vehicular Recreation Area. This area is unique to California and provides recreation such as camping and driving on the beach. The Oceano Dunes are a popular tourist destination because of off- highway vehicle recreation as well as other surf and dunes activities. The Authority utilizes a specialized emergency response vehicle that is designed and e quipped to handle the different types of emergencies at the Oceano Dunes. Item 11.a. - Page 10 Fire Suppression Feasibility Report – Five Cities Fire Authority 1-3 Prepared by NBS – December 2012 Technical Rescue The Authority responds to technical rescue incidents also known as Urban Search and Rescue. Some of these technical rescue incidents include but are not limi ted to auto extrication, rope rescue, trench rescue, confined space rescue, structural collapse rescue, and water rescue. The Authority has a variety of specialized equipment to perform such technical re scues. In order to respond, the Authority has a specialized Rescue apparatus that is equipped and de signed for technical rescue type incidents. In addition, the Authority also participates in the San Luis Obispo County Urban Search and Rescue team. Fire Investigation The Authority provides fire investigat ive services within its jurisdiction. Our fire investigators consist of an individual from the Arroyo Grande Police Department and an individual from the Five Cities Fire Authority. This arrangement allows us to works close with local law enforcement agencies in order to investigate arson fires which have successful l ead to prosecution in the past. The Authority Fire Investigators also are members of the San Luis Obispo County Regional Fire Investigation Strike Team (SLOFIST). This team is made up of investigators from the vari ous fire departments throughout the San Luis Obispo County and these individuals are availabl e for response throughout the County. Public Assists The Authority provides non-emergency assistance to the public. These types of non-emergency incidents include but are not limited to; assistance to the el derly and physically disabled, individuals who are locked out of their automobiles or and smoke or carbon monoxide detector inspections. Disaster Response The Authority responds to needs generated by natural or man-made disasters. These include earthquakes, tsunamis, terrorist events, and large fires. In addition to responding to such incidents the Authority also provides planning and recovery assistance. Other Services The Authority provides other services in addition to emergency and non-emergency responses. The Authority provides community outre ach programs including public education, training, and non-profit support. The Authority also provides a fire prevention program to insure the safety of the business place and safety to our community and visitors. Item 11.a. - Page 11   Fire Suppression Feasibility Report – Five Cities Fire Authority 2-1 Prepared by NBS – December 2012 2. BUDGET FUNDING REQUIREMENTS The Five Cities Fire Authority is fully funded by gen eral fund contributions from its member agencies. The Fiscal Year 2012/2013 budget totals $3,671,000. The Ci ty of Grover Beach has experienced a 10 to 12% reduction in revenues for the general fund. The City of Arroyo Grande and the Oceano CSD have also experienced reductions in revenues avai lable to contribute to the Authority. In addition to the reduction in available revenue for the existing budget requirements, the Authority has additional staffing and equipment needs. Short term funding for the additional need is being provided by a grant in the amount of $1,182,693.00 from the 2011 Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergen cy Response Grant program (SAFER). The grant monies will be used to hire six full time positions, three Fire Engineers and three Firefighters. These positions are fully funded by the grant for a period of tw o years. This grant will bring the Five Cities Fire Authority into closer compliance with the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 1720, a national standard for initial response to a structure fire. T he additional personnel will also allow the department to comply with the Occupational Safety and Health Admi nistration (OSHA) “2- in/2-out” requirements. Given the Fire Authority’s budget constraints, this grant will have a tremendous impact on the department’s ability to meet staffing requirements to provide fire suppression and rescue se rvices to our community. The grant will allow the Authority to operate until September 2014 at which time another funding source will be required to maintain service levels. Item 11.a. - Page 12   Fire Suppression Feasibility Report – Five Cities Fire Authority 2-2 Prepared by NBS – December 2012 FUNDING OPTIONS Previously the Fire Board was presented with two alte rnatives including the formation of a Fire Protection District or a special benefit assessment. NBS was hi red to provide a feasibility analysis for the special benefit assessment or other funding options. Special Benefit Assessment Fire suppression assessments under California Gove rnment Code section 50078 are only allowed to finance obtaining, furnishing, operating, and maintaini ng fire suppression equipment or apparatus or for paying the salaries and benefits of firefighting personnel, or both. Assessments as those that would be levied under a fire suppression assessment are subject to Article XIII D of the California Constitution and Proposition 218, and as such ther e is a higher burden to show the rates do not exceed the proportional special benefit received and that the benefits are particular and distinct over and above general benefits conferred to the public at large. A special benefit is a “particular and distinct benefit over and above gene ral benefits conferred on real proper ty located in the district or to the public at large.” Article XIII D imposes several requi rements on new assessments: An agency which proposes to levy an assessment shall identify all parcels which will have a special benefit conferred upon them and upon which an assessment will be imposed. The proportionate special benefit derived by each identified parcel shall be determined in relationship to the entirety of the capital cost of a public improvement, the maintenance and operation expenses of a public improvement, or the cost of the property related service being provided. No assessment shall be imposed on any parcel which exceeds the r easonable cost of the proportional special benefit conferred on that parcel. Only special benefits are assessable, and an agency shall separate the general benefits from the special benefits conferred on a parcel. Parcels within a district that are owned or used by any agency, the State of California or the United States shall not be exempt from assessment unless the agency can demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that those publicly owned parcels in fact receive no special benefit. As the Five Cities Fire Authority is a full service emergency service distri ct a significant portion of the calls responded to are non-fire related emergencies. A dditionally, the Authority provides services to neighboring communities outside its jurisdictional boun daries and properties within the jurisdictional boundaries could not be assessed for the portion of the benefits received by these neighboring communities, the general public and transient popula tions. For both of these reasons the amount of financing that could be provided through a fire s uppression assessment would be minimal compared to the overall need. Additionally, there are concerns about legal risk in using this option based upon recent legal activity regarding the use of Fire Suppression Assessments.   Item 11.a. - Page 13 Fire Suppression Feasibility Report – Five Cities Fire Authority 2-3 Prepared by NBS – December 2012 Community Facilities District A Community Facilities District (“CFD”) can be form ed pursuant to the Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982 (“CFD Act”). A CFD can pay for both capita l projects as well as ongoing maintenance. Bonds would be issued to pay for capital costs secured by a special tax levy. The same CFD can also fund ongoing maintenance costs also through a special ta x levy. There is great flexibility in both the geographic area to be levied and the formula by which to levy when using a CFD. A CFD may include non-contiguous geographic areas. There is no r equirement that the special tax be apportioned on the basis of benefit to any property. Property owned by a public entity is generally exempt from the CFD special tax. Successful creation of a CFD requires approval of 2/3 of the registered voters voting in the election (or approval of the landowners if less t han 12 persons are registered to vote within the CFD boundary). With a voter election, each voter has one vote regardless of their weighted share of the proposed special tax levy. In a landowner election, the vote is one vote per acre or portion thereof. Establishment Process A CFD must be approved by 2/3 of the voters voting in the election. Formation of a CFD requires the Agencies to adopt local goals and policies concerning use of the CFD Act (if not already done so). A public hearing is held 30 to 60 days following the initial resolutions. The special tax would then be submitted to all registered voters within the boundaries at a regular election held by the San Luis Obispo County Elections Department. The election may be conso lidated with other general elections but must be held 90 to 180 days following conclusion of the public hearing. A mailed ballot election may be conducted at any time of year. A CFD can pay for ongoing maintenance costs as well as being able to finance capital improvements through the sale of bonds. A CFD will likely require a consultant to annually calc ulate and submit the special tax roll to the County Auditor-Controller, prepare required report s, and handle property owner inquiries. Rate Structure A CFD provides the most flexibility in terms of rate structure. A tax imposed pursuant to the CFD Act is a special tax and not a special assessment. There is no requirement that the tax be apportioned on the basis of benefit to any property. However, it would be in the Authority’s best inte rest to make the special tax formula “reasonable” to allow the best chance fo r voter approval. Public properties are exempt from special taxes and the Authority is under no obligation to prove they do not benefit from the services. Item 11.a. - Page 14   Fire Suppression Feasibility Report – Five Cities Fire Authority 3-1 Prepared by NBS – December 2012 3. AUTHORITY DATA GENERAL INFORMATION AND USE CLASSIFICATION The Five Cities Fire Authority includes the cities of Arroyo Grande and Grover Beach as well as the Oceano Community Services District in San Luis Obispo County. There are approximately 15,267 parcels within the jurisdictional boundaries according to the San Luis Obispo County Secured Property Roll. Parcel classifications are summarized in the table below as they could be classified for the purposes of a Special Tax/Community Facilities District. Land Use Category Parcel Count Units Total Single Family Residential 10,307 10,307 Multi-Family Residential 2,803 6,590 Commercial/Industrial 839 N/A Other Developed 154 N/A Vacant 629 N/A Exempt 535 N/A Grand Total 15,267 16,897 REGISTERED VOTERS The following table shows the number of registered voters as of the November 6, 2012 general election in each agency per the San Luis Obispo County Registrar of Voters. Agency Registered Voters City of Arroyo Grande 11,287 City of Grover Beach 6,791 Oceano Community Services District 3,401 Grand Total 21,479 Item 11.a. - Page 15   Fire Suppression Feasibility Report – Five Cities Fire Authority 4-1 Prepared by NBS – December 2012 4. SPECIAL TAX RATE ANALYSIS   Scenario 1   The following scenario illustrates the breakdown of special taxes based on land use assuming a budget of $1.2 million annually. Call response data was analyzed to determine a reasonable spread between residential properties and all others. Approximately half of the calls the authority responds to are generated by residential property while all other pr operty types make up the rest. The option below represents a reasonable spread of the budget utilizing call response data as a basis. The Authority could also include an annual CPI factor to keep up with in flation. In summary, each Single Family Unit would pay $54.00 and each Multi-Fam ily Unit would pay $46.00. Land Use Category Parcel Count Units Total Annual Special Tax Total Annual Special Tax Rates Average Annual Special Tax Per Parcel A verage Monthly Special Tax Per Parcel Single Family Residential 10,307 10,307 $55 6,578.00 $54.00 per unit $54.00 $4.50 Multi-Family Residential 2,803 6,590 303,140.00 46.00 per unit 108.15 9.00 Commercial/Industrial 839 N/A 302,0 40.00 360.00 per parcel 360.00 30.00 Other Developed 154 N/A 18,480.00 120.00 per parcel 120.00 10.00 Vacant 629 N/A 20,128.00 32.00 per parcel 32.00 2.67 Exempt 535 N/A - - - - Grand Total 15,267 16,897 $1,200,366.00 N/A N/A N/A Scenario 2 The following scenario illustrates the breakdown of special taxes based on land use assuming a budget of $1.4 million annually. In summary, each Single Family Un it would pay $62.00 and each Multi-Family Unit would pay $55.00. Land Use Category Parcel Count Units Total Annual Special Tax Total Annual Special Tax Rates Average Annual Special Tax Per Parcel A verage Monthly Special Tax Per Parcel Single Family Residential 10,307 10,307 $639,034.00 $62.00 per unit $62.00 $5.17 Multi-Family Residential 2,803 6,590 362,450.00 55.00 per unit 129.31 10.78 Commercial/Industrial 839 N/A 356,575.00 425.00 per parcel 425.00 35.42 Other Developed 154 N/A 21,560.00 140.00 per parcel 140.00 11.67 Vacant 629 N/A 23,273.00 37.00 per parcel 37.00 3.08 Exempt 535 N/A - - - - Grand Total 15,267 16,897 $1,402,892.00 N/A N/A N/A Item 11.a. - Page 16 ATTACHMENT 2 Item 11.a. - Page 17 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Item 11.a. - Page 18 Ta b l e o f C o n t e n t s True North Research, Inc. © 2011 i Five Cities Fire Authority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . T ABLE OF C ONTENTS Table of Contents. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .i List of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .iii List of Figures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .iv Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Motivation for Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Different Mechanisms, Different Methodologies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Organization of Report. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Disclaimer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 About True North. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 About Terrain Consulting. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Just the Facts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Importance of Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Initial Ballot Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Tax/Fee Threshold. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Programs & Projects. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Positive Arguments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Interim Ballot Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Negative Arguments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Final Ballot Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Alternative Rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Conclusions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Importance of Issues. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Question 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Initial Ballot Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Support by Measure Type. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Question 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Support by Subgroups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Reasons for Opposing Measure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Question 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Tax Threshold. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Question 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Price Sensitivity by Initial Support. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Programs & Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Question 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Project Ratings by Subgroup. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Positive Arguments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Question 6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Interim Ballot Test. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Question 7. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Support by Subgroups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Negative Arguments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Question 8. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Negative Arguments by Initial Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Final Ballot Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Question 9. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Lower Tax Rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Question 10. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Change in Support. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Background & Demographics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Methodology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Questionnaire Development. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Item 11.a. - Page 19 Ta b l e o f C o n t e n t s True North Research, Inc. © 2011 ii Five Cities Fire Authority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Programming & Pre-Test. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Samples. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Statistical Margin of Error. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Data Collection. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Data Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Rounding. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Questionnaire & Toplines. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Item 11.a. - Page 20 Li s t o f T a b l e s True North Research, Inc. © 2011 iii Five Cities Fire Authority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . L IST OF T ABLES Table1Demographic Breakdown of Support at Initia l Ballot Test: Parcel Tax. . . . . . . . . . . 14 Table2Demographic Breakdown of Support at Initial Ballot Test: Assessment . . . . . . . . . 15 Table3Top Programs & Projects by Position at Initial Ballot Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Table4Demographic Breakdown of Support at Inte rim Ballot Test: Parcel Tax . . . . . . . . . 23 Table5Demographic Breakdown of Support at In terim Ballot Test: Assessment . . . . . . . . 24 Table6Negative Arguments by Position at Initial Ballo t Test. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Table7Demographic Breakdown of Support at Final Ballot Test: Parcel Tax . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Table8Demographic Breakdown of Support at Fina l Ballot Test: Assessment . . . . . . . . . . 29 Table9Movement Between Initial and Final Ballot Test : Parcel Tax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Table10Movement Between Initial and Final Ballot Te st: Assessment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Table11Demographics of Sample . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Item 11.a. - Page 21 Li s t o f F i g u r e s True North Research, Inc. © 2011 iv Five Cities Fire Authority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . L IST OF F IGURES Figure1Importance of Issues. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Figure2Initial Ballot Test. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 3 Figure3Reason for Not Supporting Measure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Figure4Tax Threshold . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Figure5Tax Threshold by Position at Initial Ballot Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Figure6Programs & Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Figure7Positive Arguments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Figure8Interim Ballot Test. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Figure9Negative Arguments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Figure10Final Ballot Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 6 Figure11Final Ballot Test at Lower Rate. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Figure12Maximum Margin of Error Due to Sampling. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Item 11.a. - Page 22 In t r o d u c t i o n True North Research, Inc. © 2011 1 Five Cities Fire Authority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I NTRODUCTION Established in 2010 by a Joint Powers Agreemen t between the cities of Arroyo Grande, Grover Beach and Oceano Co mmunity Services District, the Five Cities Fire Authority (Authority) provides fire suppression, rescue, emergency medical and disaster preparedness services to residents and businesses throughout its jurisdic tion. The Authority’s mission is to provide the highest level of service possible by mitigating threats to life, property and the enviro nment while meeting the growing needs of our communities. Like many fire districts in the State, the Five Cities Fire Authority is heavily dependent on prop- erty tax revenues to fund its operations. With the economic recession and associated steep decline in the housing market, the funding the Authority relies upon for providing fire services has also declined. Despite being efficient, fisca lly responsible, providing comparatively low sal- ary and benefits packages, the Authority faces a funding shortfall that threatens its ability to continue providing high quality fire protection services. MOTIVATION FOR RESEARCH The primary purpose of the study was to produce an unbiased, statistically reliable evaluation of voters' interest in supporting a local revenue mea- sure to partially close the funding gap noted abov e. Additionally, should the Authority decide to move forward with a revenue measure, the data provides guidance as to how to structure the measure so that it is consistent with th e community's priorities and expressed needs. Specifically, the study was designed to: •Gauge current, baseline support for a local revenue measur e to ensure adequate funding for fire and emergency medical 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 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 local revenue mea- sure to fund fire services, it was important that in addition to measuring current opinions about the measure (Question 2), the survey expose respon dents to the types of information voters are likely to encounter during an election cycle—including arguments in favor (Question 6) and opposed (Question 8) to the measure—and gauge how this information ultimately impacts their voting decision (Questions 7 & 9). DIFFERENT MECHANISMS, DIFFERENT METHODOLOGIES One of the key objec- tives of this study was to determine how su pport for a proposed revenue measure may vary depending on the type of funding mechanism employed: parcel tax or benefit assessment. Because the legal, logistical, and campaign en vironments for special taxes and benefit assess- Item 11.a. - Page 23 In t r o d u c t i o n True North Research, Inc. © 2011 2 Five Cities Fire Authority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ments differ on so many dimensions that ultimately affect whether a measure will win or lose, it was important that the research methodology take these differences into account to ensure reli- able results for each unique scenario. Althou gh the methodologies used for the study are dis- cussed in greater detail later in this report (see Methodology on page 32), it is worth noting at the outset that this survey was administered to two overlapping sample sets which collectively encompass both a likely November 2012 voter universe (parcel tax) and the universe of residen- tial property owners 1 who are likely to participate in a benefit assessment. Through filtering and weighting the samples, we are able to gauge th e opinions and support levels under each sce- nario. Accordingly, throughout this report the results of key questions are shown separately for the parcel tax and assessment samples. A total of 400 respondents were administered the survey between Augu st 16 and August 22, 2011. Interviews were conducted via telephone during weekday evenings (5:30PM to 9PM) and on weekends (10AM to 5PM). It is standard pr actice not to call during the day on weekdays because most working adults are unavailable and thus calling during those hours would bias the sample. Interviews averaged 15 minutes in length. ORGANIZATION OF REPORT This report is designed to me et the needs of readers who prefer a summary of the findings as well as those who are interested in the details of the results. For those who seek an overview of the findings, the 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 implications. For the interested reader, this section is followed by a more detailed question-by-question discussion of the resu lts 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 re ader, the questionnaire used for the interviews is contained at the back of this report and a complete set of crosstabulations for the survey results is contained in Appendix A. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS True North thanks the Five Cities Fire Authority for the opportunity to conduct the study, as well as for Chief Hubert’s contributions to the design of the survey. A special thanks also to Terrain Consulting for a ssisting in the overall research design, implemen- tation and analysis of the survey. Their collective expertise, local knowledge, and insight improved the overall quality of the research presented here. DISCLAIMER The statements and conclu sions in this report are those of the authors (Dr. Timothy McLarney and Richard Sarles) at True North Research, Inc. and not necessarily those of the Five Cities Fire Authority. Any errors and omissions are the responsibility of the authors. 1.It should be noted that residential property owners represent a large segment of the individuals who are eli- gible to participate in a benefit assessment. However, other types of property owners—including owners of commercial, industrial, and apartments properties—are also eligible to particip ate in an assessment. The purpose of this study was to profile the support levels among residential property owners only. Based on the findings of this survey, if the Authority elects to ta ke the next steps toward a benefit assessment, a detailed engineering analysis is needed to develop a fee meth odology that is compliant with Proposition 218, and a follow-up mail survey is recommended to test support for the specific rates generated by that proposed methodology among all property ownership categories. Item 11.a. - Page 24 In t r o d u c t i o n True North Research, Inc. © 2011 3 Five Cities Fire Authority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ABOUT TRUE NORTH True North is a full-service survey research firm that is dedicated to providing public agencies with a clear understandi ng 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 interpretation of the findings, True North helps its clients to move with confidence when making strategic decisions in a variety of areas—such as planning, policy evaluation, per formance management, organizational develop- ment, establishing fiscal priorities, passing re venue measures, and developing effective public information campaigns. During their careers, Dr. McLarney and Mr. Sarl es have designed and conducted over 600 survey research studies for public agen cies—including more than 250 studies for California municipali- ties and special districts, and more than 200 revenue measure feasibility studies. Of the mea- sures that have gone to ballot based on Dr. McLarney’s recommendation, more than 90% have been successful. In total, the re search that Dr. McLarney has conducted has led to over $19 bil- lion in successful local revenue measures. ABOUT TERRAIN CONSULTING Terrain Consulting, Inc. is the Central Coast’s leading public affairs and government relations firm, specializing in developing successful strategies for dealing with complex political issues. Terrain focuses on the challenging and often controversial climate surrounding public input and government decision making , and achieves results by nav- igating the political “terrain” of a community. Terrain understands that all issues, policies and politics are interconnected, and th at clients need the strategies an d expertise to effectively posi- tion their vision and goal s for successful outcomes. Principals Brian Robinson and Jim Youngson have over 30 years combined experience in this spe- cialized field. They have conducted dozens of public affairs initiatives throughout the Central Coast and have delivered a multitude of successful political campaigns on a variety of issues, including candidate campaigns and revenue me asures, development and environmental proj- ects, public awareness and information initiatives. Item 11.a. - Page 25 Ju s t t h e F a c t s True North Research, Inc. © 2011 4 Five Cities Fire Authority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . J UST THE F ACTS The following section is an outline of the main factual findings from the survey. For the reader’s convenience, we have organized th e findings according to the sect ion 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 re port section. IMPORTANCE OF ISSUES •When presented with a list of six specific issu es and asked to rate the importance of each, the most important issue was en suring quick response times to 911 calls for fires and emer- gencies (92% extremely or very important), followed by maintaining the quality of education in our local public schools (88%), maintainin g public safety (87%), and ensuring adequate local fire protection and prevention services (85%). INITIAL BALLOT TEST •With only the information provided in the ballo t language, 57% of likely voters indicated that they would definitely or probably support the $93 parcel tax measure at this stage in the survey. Approximately 29% stated that they would oppose the parcel tax and 13% were unsure or unwilling to share their vote choice. •Support for the $93 benefit assessment meas ure among residential property owners was slightly softer, with 55% of respondents indicating that they would definitely or probably support the measure, 34% opposed, and 11% unsu re or unwilling to share their vote choice. •Those who opposed the measure at the Initial Ballot Test were most likely to reference their concerns about taxes already being too high (23%), the tax rate for the measure being too high (15%), and poor budgeting or overspending as their reasons for opposing the measure. However, it is instructive that approximately one quarter (23%) of respondents cited a need for additional information as their reason for initially not supporting the measure. TAX/FEE THRESHOLD •When their attention is focused on the tax or fee rate, voters and property owners are some- what price sensitive when it comes to their su pport for the fire protection measure. At the highest tax rate tested ($93 per year per pr operty) 55% of respondents indicated that they would vote in favor of the meas ure. Incremental reductions in the tax rate resulted in incre- mental increases in support fo r the measure, with 62% of re spondents indicating that they would support the proposed measure at an annual tax rate of $66 per property. PROGRAMS & PROJECTS •Among the programs and services that coul d be funded by the measure, respondents most strongly favored ensuring quick response ti mes to 911 medical emergencies, followed by maintaining the number of prof essional firefighters and m edical personnel needed to keep our community safe, maintaining high quality local fire protection and prevention services, and making needed repairs and upgrades to life-saving fire prot ection and emergency equipment. Item 11.a. - Page 26 Ju s t t h e F a c t s True North Research, Inc. © 2011 5 Five Cities Fire Authority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . POSITIVE ARGUMENTS When presented with arguments in favor of the measure, respondents found the following argu- ments to be the most persuasive: •All money raised by this measure will be spen t locally to provide fire protection and emer- gency response services. The money cannot be taken away by the State or used for other purposes . •In a medical emergency, brain damage occurs in 4 to 6 minutes, and brain death occurs in 8 minutes without oxygen. This measure will ensure that we have the staff and resources needed to provide quick response times to emergencies . •This measure will ensure that firefighters and medical personnel have the facilities and equipment they need to do their jobs . INTERIM BALLOT TEST •After being presented with programs that co uld be funded as well as arguments in favor of the measure, voter support for the parcel tax in creased slightly to 60%, with 30% of respon- dents opposed to the measure and an additional 11% unsure or unwilling to state their vote choice. •Overall support among property owners for a benefit assessment remained stable at 55%, with 36% of respondents opposed to the measure and an additional 8% unsure or unwilling to state their vote choice. NEGATIVE ARGUMENTS Of the arguments in opposition to the measur e, respondents found the following arguments to be the most persuasive: •People are having a hard time making ends meet with the housing crisis, high unemploy- ment, and the economy in recession. Now is NOT the time to be raising taxes . •This tax is unfair to seniors and others on fixed incomes . •Firefighters are paid too much in salary and pensions. If they took a modest pay cut, there would be no need for this tax. FINAL BALLOT TEST •After providing respondents wi th the wording of the proposed measure, possible tax rates, programs and projects that could be funded by the measure, and arguments in favor and against the proposal, support for the parcel tax measure was found among 58% of voters, with 31% opposed to the measure and 9% unsure or unwilling to state their vote choice. •Support for the benefit assessment among re sidential property owners remained somewhat lower at 54%, with 38% opposed to the measure and 7% unsure or unwilling to state their vote choice. ALTERNATIVE RATE •Those who opposed the $93 measure at the Fi nal Ballot Test were subsequently asked if they would support the measure at $66 per year, an additional 8% of voters and 8% of prop- Item 11.a. - Page 27 Ju s t t h e F a c t s True North Research, Inc. © 2011 6 Five Cities Fire Authority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . erty owners indicated they would support th e measure at the lower rate—bringing overall support for the measure at $66 per parcel among a high-turnout electorate that is also quite familiar with the measure to 66% among voters, 64% among property owners. Item 11.a. - Page 28 Co n c l u s i o n s True North Research, Inc. © 2011 7 Five Cities Fire Authority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C ONCLUSIONS The bulk of this report is devot ed to conveying the details of th e 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 questi ons that motivated the research . The following conclusions are based on True North’s and Terrain Consulting’s interpretations of the survey results and the firms’ collective experience conduc ting hundreds of revenue meas ure studies for public agencies throughout the State. Should the Five Cities Fire Authority proceed with plans to place a revenue measure before voters or property own- ers in 2012? Yes. The vast majority of voters and property owners in the District con- sider maintaining the quality of local fire protection, fire prevention, and emergency response services to be among the most important issues facing their community—on par with maintaining the quality of educa- tion in public schools, and more important than preventing local tax increases. This sentiment translates into solid support for a local reve- nue measure to maintain high quality local fire protection and prevention services, ensure quick response time s to 911 emergencies, upgrade fire protection and emergency equipment , and maintain an adequate num- ber of firefighters and medical personnel. The results of this study suggest th at, if packaged appropriately and combined with a broad-based and effe ctive public education effort, a measure to fund fire and emergency response services has a good chance of passage. Having recommended that the District move forward, it is important to note that this recommendation to take the next steps toward placing a measure on the ballot comes with several qualifications and conditions. Indeed, although the results are pro mising, all revenu e measures must overcome challenges prior to being successful. The proposed measure is no exception. The following paragraphs discuss some of the challenges and the next steps that True Nort h and Terrain Consulting recommend. Which funding mecha- nism appears to have the best chance for pas- sage? One of the key objectives of this st udy was to determine how support for a local revenue measure for fire and emergency services may vary depending on the type of funding mechanism employed: parcel tax or benefit assessment. As described in the Introduction , these financial mechanisms have very different legal, logistical, and campaign environ- ments, each having its own opportunities and challenges for a measure. A parcel tax for a specific purpose is considered a special tax under Cali- fornia law and requires support from two-thirds of voters who participate in the election—which can be held either as a traditional polling-booth election or by mailed-ball ot. Registered voters can participate in the elec- tion regardless of whether they own pr operty or are renters, and all votes are counted equally (one person=one vote) in determining the outcome of the election. Item 11.a. - Page 29 Co n c l u s i o n s True North Research, Inc. © 2011 8 Five Cities Fire Authority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A benefit assessment, on the other ha nd, requires that those who partic- ipate own property in the District. In addition to residential property owners, owners of other types of pro perties (i.e., commercial, industrial, apartments, etc.) as well as absentee owners 2 are eligible to participate. Whereas in special tax elections each vote is weighted equally in deter- mining the outcome, in assessmen t ballot proceedings the higher the amount of a proper ty owner's fee, the greater the weight of their vote in determining the outcome of the election. A majority of the weighted votes is required for a measure to pass. Assessment ballot proceedings also employ different voting procedures, as all property owners are typi- cally mailed a ballot that includes an information sheet, but does not include arguments in support or opposi tion as is the case with a special tax. The results of the survey indicate th at a parcel tax would have difficulty achieving the necessary two-thirds threshold for success. Even among voters who are likely to participate in a high-turnout election like Novem- ber 2012, support for the proposed $93 parcel tax measure remained seven to ten percentage points below the required threshold throughout the survey. Lowering the tax rate resu lts in somewhat higher support lev- els, but at no point does support for the parcel tax exceed two-thirds. The survey results also indicate, however, that a benefit assessment could be a viable mechanism for fund ing fire protection and emergency services. Among the residential property owners surveyed in this study, support for a $93 benefit assessm ent ranged between 54% and 58% at the Ballot Tests—several percentage points above the weighted simple majority required for passage under California law. Lowering the tax rate increased support even further. It is important to keep in mind, however, that the results of this initial assessment survey are among reside ntial property owners who comprise the vast majority—but not all—of the property owners in the District who would participate in an assessme nt ballot proceeding. Commercial, apartment and industrial property owne rs are also eligible to participate in a benefit assessment. Traditionally, their levels of support for revenue measures such as that proposed ar e lower than that found among resi- dential property owners. If the Distri ct opts to move forward with a bene- fit assessment, it will be important to consider the impact that these property owners may have on the fi nal weighted vote and structure the measure and fee rates accordingly. On that note, if the District is inclined to take the next steps toward a benefit assessment, we strongly recom- mend conducting a follow-up mail survey to estimate support for a spe- 2.A person who does not live in the District but does own property in the District is still eligible to participate in a benefit assessment. Item 11.a. - Page 30 Co n c l u s i o n s True North Research, Inc. © 2011 9 Five Cities Fire Authority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . cific assessment package among all property owner groups prior to the Board voting to call for the ballot proceeding. How will the tax or fee rate affect support for the measure? Naturally, the willingness of voters and property owners to support a specific revenue measure is contingent—in part—on the tax rate associ- ated with a measure. The higher the rate, all other things being equal, the lower the level of aggr egate support that can be expected. It is criti- cal that the rate be set at a level that the necessary proportion of voters or property owners view as affordable. One of the more striking patterns from the survey is that voters and property owners are somewhat price sensitive with respect to the pro- posed fire and emergency services me asure, especially when their atten- tion is focused on the tax rate. At the highest tax rate tested ($93 per year per property), 55% of respondents indicated that they would vote in favor of the measure. Incremental redu ctions in the tax rate resulted in incremental increases in support for the measure, with 62% of respon- dents indicating that they would su pport the measure at an annual tax rate of $66 per property. Given that price will be one of the driving factors that will shape how property owners react to the prop osed measure, we recommend keeping the tax rate as affordable as possi ble—especially considering the current state of the economy and voters’ sensit ivity to this issue. Our recommen- dation as to a specific rate will depend upon the outcome of future research and discussions wi th the District, as well as a candid evaluation of the resources that can be expected for the campaign. How might a public information campaign affect support for the proposed measure? As noted in the body of this report , individuals’ opinions about revenue measures are often not rigid, especia lly when the amount of information presented to the public on a measur e has been limited. Thus, in addition to measuring current support for the measure, one of the goals of this study was to explore how the introd uction of additional information about the measure may affect vote rs’ and property owners’ opinions about the measure. It is clear from the survey results that voters’ and property owners’ opin- ions about the proposed measure are somewhat sensitive to the nature—and amount—of information th at they have about the measure. Information about the specific improvements that could be funded by the measure, as well as arguments in favor of the measure, were found by many respondents to be compelling reasons to support the measure. Moreover, this information played an important role in mitigating the erosion of support for the measure once respondents were exposed to the types of opposition arguments they will likely encounter during an election cycle. Item 11.a. - Page 31 Co n c l u s i o n s True North Research, Inc. © 2011 10 Five Cities Fire Authority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Accordingly, one of the keys to building and sustaining support for the fire and emergency services measure will be the presence of an effective, well-organized campaign to that fo cuses on the need for the measure as well as the many benefits that it will bring. How might the eco- nomic or political cli- mate alter support for the measure? An important component of any ballot measure’s potential for success is the economic and political climate surrounding the election. Concerns about the housing market, an unstable stock market, job losses, and the recession have done little to raise consumer confidence—which has yet to rebound substantially from all-time lows reached last year. Together with the state of the economy, lin gering concerns about the ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as the State budget crisis combine to create an economic and political climate that is not as favorable to rev- enue measures as it has been in prior years. The results of this study and th e conclusions noted above must be viewed in light of the current time s. Indeed, the results for a measure were quite strong despite the general economic malaise, which speaks volumes about the value that voters place on maintaining the quality of fire and emergency response services . It is important to keep in mind that this poll is a snapshot in time. Should the economy and/or political climate change in ways that would be more favorable, support for the measure—and the potential effectiveness of a positive education cam- paign—could increase considerably. Conversely, negative economic and/ or political developments, especiall y at the local level, could dampen support for the measure below wh at was recorded in this study. Item 11.a. - Page 32 Im p o r t a n c e o f I s s u e s True North Research, Inc. © 2011 11 Five Cities Fire Authority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I MPORTANCE OF I SSUES The first substantive question of the survey pres ented respondents with six issues facing resi- dents in their community and asked them to ra te the importance of each issue. Because the same response scale was used for each issue, th e results provide an insight into how important each issue is on a scale of importance as well as how each issue ranks in importance relative to the other issues tested. To avoid a systematic po sition bias, the order in which the issues were read to respondents was randomized for each respondent. Figure 1 presents each issue tested, as well as the importance assigned to each issue by survey participants, sorted by order of importance.3 Overall, the most important issue was ensuring quick response times to 911 calls for fires and emergencies (92% extremely or very important), followed by maintaining the quality of education in our local public schools (88%), maintaining public safety (87%), and ensuring adequate local fire protection and prevention services (85%). Given the purpose of this study, it is instructive to note that preventing local tax increases (49%) was rated much lower in importance than the fi re protection, response-time, and public safety items. Question 1 To begin, I'm going to read a list of issues facing your community and for each one, please tell me how important you feel the issue is to you, using a scale of extremely important, very important, somewhat important or not at all important. F IGURE 1 I MPORTANCE OF I SSUES 3.Issues were ranked based on the percentage of respondents who indicated th at the issue was either extremely important or very important. 20.8 21.8 33.6 38.2 47.0 50.1 28.5 51.0 51.8 48.7 40.8 41.8 0102030405060708090100 Preventing local tax increases Maintaining local streets and roads Ensuring adequate local fire protection and prevention services Maintaining public safety Maintaining the quality of education in our local public schools Ensuring quick response times to 9-1-1 calls for fires, emergencies Q1 e Q 1 d Q 1 b Q 1 f Q 1 c Q 1 a % Respondents Extremely important Very important Item 11.a. - Page 33 In i t i a l B a l l o t T e s t True North Research, Inc. © 2011 12 Five Cities Fire Authority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I NITIAL B ALLOT T EST The primary research objective of this survey wa s to estimate voters’ and property owners’ sup- port for establishing a revenue measure to maintain high quality local fire protection and preven- tion services, ensure quick response times to 911 emergencies, upgrade fire protection and emergency equipment, and mainta in an adequate number of fire fighters and medical personnel. To this end, Question 2 was designed to take an early assessment of respondents’ support for the proposed measure. The motivation for placing Question 2 up-front in the survey is twofold. First, voter support for a measure can often depend on the amount of info rmation they have about a measure. At this point in the survey, the respon dent has not been provided information about the proposed mea- sures beyond what is presented in the ballot lang uage. This situation is analogous to a voter or property owner casting a ballot with limited knowledge about a measure, such as what might occur in the absence of an effective education campaign. Question 2—also known as the Initial Ballot Test—is thus a good measure of voter support for the proposed measure as it is today . Because the Initial Ballot Test provides a gauge of ‘uninformed’ support fo r the measure, it also serves a second purpose in that it provides a us eful baseline from which to judge the impact of various information items conveyed later in th e survey on respondent support for the measure. To accommodate the District’s interest in est imating support for a parcel tax and a benefit assessment, the sampling methodology was des igned to encompass both a likely November 2012 voter universe and the universe of residential property owners who are likely to cast ballots in a benefit assessment. Through filtering and weig hting of the data, we are able to profile sup- port in both scenarios. SUPPORT BY MEASURE TYPE Figure 2 on the next page presents the results of the Initial Ballot Tests for both the parcel tax and benefit assessment measures. Overall, 57% of likely vot- ers indicated that they would defin itely or probably support the pa rcel tax measure at this stage in the survey, which is approximately 10% lower than the two-thirds threshold required for pas- sage of a special tax. Approximately 29% stated th at they would oppose the parcel tax and 13% were unsure or unwilling to share their vote choice. Support for the benefit assessment measure among residential property owners was slightly softer, with 55% of resp ondents indicating that they would definitely or probably support the measure, 34% opposed, and 11% unsure or unwill- ing to share their vote choice. For benefit assessments, the level of support reco rded at the Initial Ballot Test is approximately 5% above the simple majority (50% + 1) required for passage. However, it is important to keep in mind that residential property owners represent only a portion of all property owners allowed to participate in a benefit assessment, and the ot her property owner groups (i.e., commercial, industrial, apartment owners) carry a significant percentage of the weighted vote. Item 11.a. - Page 34 In i t i a l B a l l o t T e s t True North Research, Inc. © 2011 13 Five Cities Fire Authority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Question 2 Your household receives fire protection services from the Five Cities Fire Authority, which was formed last year by merging the Arroyo Grande, Grover Beach, and Oceano Fire Departments. Next year, voters in your area may be asked to vote on a local ballot measure. Let me read you a summary of the measure. In order to maintain high quality local fire protection and prevention services; ensure quick response times to 9-1-1 medical emergencies; upgrade and repair life-saving fire protection and emergency equipment; and maintain the number of professional firefighters and medical personnel needed to keep our community safe, shall the Five Cities Fire Authority establish a parcel tax of up to $93 per parcel, with citizen oversight and all money staying local? If the election were held today, would you vote yes or no on this mea- sure? F IGURE 2 I NITIAL B ALLOT T EST SUPPORT BY SUBGROUPS For the interested reader, Tables 1and 2 show how support at the Initial Ballot Test for the parcel tax and ben efit assessment measures, respectively, varied by key demographic traits. The blue column (Approximate % of Universe) indicates the percentage of the universes that each subgroup category comprises. When compared to their respective counterparts, those who had lived in the area le ss than 15 years, Democrats and voters who are unlikely to vote in the upcoming November 2011 election were consistently the most likely to support a local revenue measure to fund fire prot ection services—be it a parcel tax or benefit assessment. 24.9 29.5 29.7 11.0 12.3 21.6 13.3 11.0 27.6 17.9 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Parcel Tax Assessment % R e s p o n d e n t s Refused Not sure Definitely no Probably no Probably yes Definitely yes Two-thirds Threshold 50%+1 Threshold Item 11.a. - Page 35 In i t i a l B a l l o t T e s t True North Research, Inc. © 2011 14 Five Cities Fire Authority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . T ABLE 1 D EMOGRAPHIC B REAKDOWN OF S UPPORT AT I NITIAL B ALLOT T EST : P ARCEL T AX A pprox i mate % of Voter Universe % Probably or Definitely Yes % Not sure Overall 100 57.1 13.3 Less than 10 35 65.8 15.5 10 to 14 15 64.7 9.4 15 or more 51 47.9 13.3 Yes 31 56.8 16.6 No 69 56.7 12.0 Democrat 35 69.4 14.2 Republican 43 47.2 11.0 Other / DTS 22 56.9 16.4 Male 48 56.8 7.4 Female 52 57.4 18.8 18 to 29 12 60.2 15.1 30 to 39 12 51.3 15.6 40 to 49 17 63.2 14.5 50 to 64 33 55.0 11.4 65 or older 26 57.1 13.0 Yes 62 54.7 11.0 No 38 61.0 17.0 2011 to 2008 41 56.6 15.4 2007 to 2002 28 68.0 9.5 2001 to 1997 9 57.3 9.9 1996 to 1990 10 42.6 22.4 Before 1990 12 44.2 10.4 Yes 45 53.5 15.3 No 55 60.1 11.6 Yes 43 52.6 10.5 No 57 60.5 15.4 Single dem 18 72.5 15.5 Dual dem 11 65.7 19.0 Single rep 19 53.5 12.6 Dual rep 17 38.9 8.4 Other 15 51.9 19.2 Mixed 19 60.9 8.3 Yes 68 53.7 12.2 No 32 64.4 15.7 Likely November 2011 Voter Household Party Type Likely June 2012 Voter Registration Year Likely to Vote by Mail Age Homeowner Years in S. San Luis Obispo County (QD1) Gender Children in Hsld (QD3) Party Item 11.a. - Page 36 In i t i a l B a l l o t T e s t True North Research, Inc. © 2011 15 Five Cities Fire Authority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . T ABLE 2 D EMOGRAPHIC B REAKDOWN OF S UPPORT AT I NITIAL B ALLOT T EST : A SSESSMENT REASONS FOR OPPOSI NG MEASURE Respondents who opposed the measure at the Ini- tial Ballot Test were subsequently asked if there was a particular reason for their position. Ques- tion 3 was asked in an open-ended manner, ther eby allowing respondents to mention any reason that came to mind without being prompted by—or re stricted to—a particular list of options. True North later reviewed the verbatim responses and grouped them into the categories shown in Fig- ure 3 on the next page. For the most part, the responses are typical of what True North has encountered in other communities, including concerns about taxes already being too high (23%), the tax rate for the measure being too high (15%), and poor budgeting or overspending (15%). However, it is instructive that approximately one quarter (23%) of resp ondents cited a need for additional information as their reason for initially not supporting the measure, which is not a typical response and represents a clear opportunit y for public outreach to build support for the measure. A pprox i mate % of Voter Universe % Probably or Definitely Yes % Not sure Overall 100 54.7 11.0 Less than 10 26 62.8 14.3 10 to 14 18 58.9 6.5 15 or more 56 49.0 11.0 Yes 28 59.9 11.1 No 72 52.6 11.1 Democrat 34 70.7 11.0 Republican 47 44.8 9.9 Other / DTS 20 50.4 13.7 Male 48 52.2 7.9 Female 52 57.0 13.9 18 to 29 9 42.9 14.3 30 to 39 9 56.5 13.0 40 to 49 16 59.1 11.4 50 to 64 36 53.7 9.5 65 or older 31 56.4 11.1 Yes 100 54.7 11.0 No 0 N/A N/A 2011 to 2008 26 50.3 12.8 2007 to 2002 32 68.3 8.6 2001 to 1997 13 49.3 11.8 1996 to 1990 12 41.7 17.8 Before 1990 17 48.9 7.6 Yes 52 54.5 14.4 No 48 54.8 7.3 Yes 55 48.6 11.2 No 45 62.1 10.8 Single dem 14 67.8 15.5 Dual dem 12 76.0 12.5 Single rep 15 47.8 10.5 Dual rep 22 40.8 7.6 Other 11 43.9 14.0 Mixed 26 57.4 9.9 Yes 76 53.3 10.1 No 24 59.3 14.0 Household Party Type Likely June 2012 Voter Homeowner Registration Year Likely to Vote by Mail Likely November 2011 Voter Children in Hsld (QD3) Party Gender Age Years in S. San Luis Obispo County (QD1) Item 11.a. - Page 37 In i t i a l B a l l o t T e s t True North Research, Inc. © 2011 16 Five Cities Fire Authority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Question 3 Is there a particular reason why you do not support the fire protection measure I just described? F IGURE 3 R EASON FOR N OT S UPPORTING M EASURE 3.4 6.4 11.2 12.4 14.7 14.8 22.5 22.7 0 5 10 15 20 25 Should find other funding sources District has sufficient funds No need for measure, everything is fine Not sure / No particular reason Poor budgeting, overspending Cost of measure is too high Need more information Taxes already too high % Respondents Who Do Not Support Measure Item 11.a. - Page 38 Ta x T h r e s h o l d True North Research, Inc. © 2011 17 Five Cities Fire Authority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . T AX T HRESHOLD Naturally, voter and property owner support for a revenue measure is often contingent on the cost of the measure. The higher the tax/fee ra te, all other things being equal, the less likely a person is to support the measure. One of the go als of this study was thus to gauge the impact that changes in the tax/fee rate can be expected to have on voter and property owner support for the proposed measure. Question 6 was designed to do ju st that. Respondents were first instructed that the tax rate for the measure had yet to be determi ned, although several rates were being considered. They were then presented with the highest tax rate ($93 pe r year) and asked if they would support the pro- posed measure at that rate. If a respondent did not answer ‘def initely yes’, they were asked whether they would support the meas ure at the next lowest tax rate.4 The four tax rates tested, as well as the percentage of respondents who indi cated they would vote in favor of the measure at each rate, are shown below in Figure 4. Question 4 The measure I just described would raise money through annual property taxes paid by residential and commercial property owne rs. However, the amount to be charged to each parcel has not been determined yet. If you he ard that your household would pay _____ per year for each property that you own in the district, would you vote yes or no on the measure? F IGURE 4 T AX T HRESHOLD The most obvious pattern revealed in the figure is that voters are some what price sensitive when it comes to their support for th e fire protection measure. At the highest tax rate tested ($93 per year per property) 55% of voters indicated that they would vote in favor of the measure. Incre- mental reductions in the tax rate resulted in incremental increases in support for the measure, with 62% of voters indicating that they would support the proposed measure at an annual tax rate of $66 per property. 4.If a respondent answered ‘definitel y yes’, it is assumed that they would support the measure at the lower tax rate. Their support at each rate is factored into the percentages shown in the figure. 19.4 18.3 21.6 27.7 8.2 11.1 12.5 13.2 22.1 22.5 22.7 22.0 8.0 9.7 35.1 42.5 40.8 27.5 7.7 7.3 0102030405060708090100 $66 per year $75 per year $84 per year $93 per year % Respondents Definitely yes Probably yes Probably no Definitely no Not sure 35%55% 62% 34% 57% 30% 59% 35% Item 11.a. - Page 39 Ta x T h r e s h o l d True North Research, Inc. © 2011 18 Five Cities Fire Authority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PRICE SENSITIVITY BY INITIAL SUPPORT Figure 5 examines how the specific tax rate information conveyed in Question 4 affected support for the fire protection measure according to respondents’ positions at the Initial Ballot Test. What the figure make clear is that initial sup- porters, initial opponents, and those who were unsure at the Initial Ballot Test were all price sen- sitive to some degree. At a rate of $93 per pa rcel, for example, just 87% of voters who were initially supportive of the measur e indicated that they would co ntinue to support the measure. Conversely, at the lowest tax rate tested ($66 per parcel), 11% of those who initially opposed the measure and 47% of those who were uns ure switched to a supportive position. F IGURE 5 T AX T HRESHOLD BY P OSITION AT I NITIAL B ALLOT T EST 36 40 92 47 87 5 31 89 5 91 7 11 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Defintely or probably yesDefinitely or probably noNot sure Position at Initial Ballot Test (Q2) % R e s p o n d e n t s T h a t S a i d De f i n i t e l y o r Pr o b a b l y Y e s a t I n i t i a l B a l l o t T e s t $93 per year $84 per year $75 per year $66 per yea r Item 11.a. - Page 40 Pr o g r a m s & P r o j e c t s True North Research, Inc. © 2011 19 Five Cities Fire Authority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . P ROGRAMS & P ROJECTS The ballot language presented in Question 2 in dicated that the proposed measure would be used to maintain high quality local fire protection and prevention services, ensure quick response times to 911 emergencies, upgrade fire protec tion and emergency equi pment, and maintain an adequate number of firefighters and medical pe rsonnel. The purpose of Question 5 was to pro- vide respondents with the full range of programs and improvements that may be funded by the proposed measure, as well as identify which of these improvements voters most favored funding with the measure proceeds. After reading each improvement that may be fund ed by the measure, respondents were asked if they would favor or oppose spen ding some of the money on that particular improvement assum- ing that the measure passes. Truncated description s of the improvements tested, as well as vot- ers’ responses, are shown in Figure 6.5 Question 5 The measure we've been discussing would provide funding for a variety of fire pro- tection and public safety services. If the measure passes, would you favor or oppose using some of the money to: _____, or do you not have an opinion? F IGURE 6 P ROGRAMS & P ROJECTS Overall, the item that resonated with the larg est percentage of respondents was providing ensur- ing quick response times to 911 medical emergencies (86% strongly or somewhat favor), fol- lowed by maintaining the number of profession al firefighters and medical personnel needed to keep our community safe (84%), maintaining high quality local fire protection and prevention services (83%), and making needed repairs and upgra des to life-saving fire protection and emer- gency equipment (82%). 5.For the full text of the improvements tested, turn to Question 5 in Questionnaire & Toplines on page 35. 52.2 51.4 51.5 49.2 52.8 56.3 59.2 68.1 25.6 27.8 27.8 30.2 29.0 26.8 24.8 17.8 0102030405060708090100 Maintain local control of fire protection, emergency response services Improve 911 system so police, firefighters can respond quicker Better coordinate with outside agencies for large-scale emergencies Purchase up-to-date emergency rescue and life-saving equipment Repair, upgrade life-saving fire protection and emergency equipment Maintain high quality local fire protection and prevention services Maintain necessary number of firefighters and medical personnel Ensure quick response times to 9-1-1 medical emergencies Q5 f Q 5 g Q 5 h Q 5 e Q 5 c Q 5 a Q 5 d Q 5 b % Respondents Strongly favor Somewhat favor Item 11.a. - Page 41 Pr o g r a m s & P r o j e c t s True North Research, Inc. © 2011 20 Five Cities Fire Authority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PROJECT RATINGS BY SUBGROUP Table 3 presents the top five projects (showing the percentage of respondents who strongly favor each) by position at th e Initial Ballot Test. Not sur- prisingly, individuals who initially opposed the measure or were unsure of their position were generally less likely to favor spending money on a given project or service when compared to supporters. Nevertheless, initial supporters, opponents and the undecided did agree on two of the five top priorities for funding. T ABLE 3 T OP P ROGRAMS & P ROJECTS BY P OSITION AT I NITIAL B ALLOT T EST P os i t i on at Initial Ballot Test (Q2)ItemProgram or Project Summary % Strongly Favor Q5b Ensure quick response times to 9-1-1 medical emer g encies81 Q5d Maintain necessary number of firefighters and medical personnel 77 Q5aMaintain hi g h quality local fire protection and prevention services69 Q5c Repair, upgrade life-saving fire protection and emergency equipment 66 Q5 g Improve 911 system so police, firefi g hters can respond quicker65 Q5b Ensure quick response times to 9-1-1 medical emergencies42 Q5aMaintain hi g h quality local fire protection and prevention services33 Q5dMaintain necessary number of firefi g hters and medical personnel31 Q5f Maintain local control of fire protection, emergency response services 31 Q5hBetter coordinate with outside a g encies for lar g e-scale emer g encies29 Q5b Ensure quick response times to 9-1-1 medical emergencies 68 Q5ePurchase up-to-date emer g ency rescue and life-savin g equipment58 Q5c Repair, upgrade life-saving fire protection and emergency equipment 54 Q5fMaintain local control of fire protection, emer g ency response services50 Q5aMaintain high quality local fire protection and prevention services49 Probably or Definitely Yes (n = 228) Probably or Definitely No (n = 116) Not Sure (n = 53) Item 11.a. - Page 42 Po s i t i v e A r g u m e n t s True North Research, Inc. © 2011 21 Five Cities Fire Authority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . P OSITIVE A RGUMENTS Ballot measures do not succeed or fail in a polit ical vacuum. During an election cycle, propo- nents of a measure will present arguments to try to persuade voters to support the measure, just as opponents will present arguments to achieve the opposite goal. The objective of Question 6 was thus to present respondents with arguments in favor of the proposed measure and identify whether they felt the arguments were convincing reasons to support it. Arguments in opposition to the measure were also presented and will be discussed later in this report (see Negative Argu- ments on page 25). Within each series, specific arguments were administered in random order to avoid a systematic position bias. Question 6 What I'd like to do now is tell you what some people are saying about the measure we've been discussing. Supporters of the measure say: _____. Do you think this is a very convinc- ing, somewhat convincing, or not at all convincing reason to SUPPORT the measure? F IGURE 7 P OSITIVE A RGUMENTS Figure 7 above presents the truncated positive arguments tested, as well as respondents’ reac- tions to the arguments. The arguments are ranked from most convincing to least convincing based on the percentage of respondents who indi cated that the argument was either a ‘very con- vincing’ or ‘somewhat convincing’ reason to su pport the measure. Using this methodology, the most compelling positive argument among voters was: All money raised by this measure will be spent locally to provide fire protection and emergency response services. The money cannot be taken away by the State or used for other purposes (85%), followed by In a medical emergency, brain damage occurs in 4 to 6 minutes, and brain death occurs in 8 minutes without oxygen. This measure will ensure that we have the staf f and resources needed to provide quick response times to emergencies (82%), and This measure will ensure that firefighters and medical person- nel have the facilities and equipment they need to do their jobs (81%). 43.7 39.5 41.9 42.6 38.8 47.8 59.4 31.2 36.3 38.1 37.9 42.3 33.8 26.0 0102030405060708090100 We have only 60% of the firefighters needed to serve our population Many fire engines have out-datedor are missing equipment There will be a clear system of fiscal accountability Five Cities Fire Authority was formed to keep costs low as possible Firefighters, medical personnel will have necessary facilities, equipment Brain damage occurs in 4-6 min, brain death in 8 min without oxygen All money raised by this measure will be spent locally Q6 e Q 6 f Q 6 a Q 6 g Q 6 d Q 6 c Q 6 b % Respondents Very convincing Somewhat convincing Item 11.a. - Page 43 In t e r i m B a l l o t T e s t True North Research, Inc. © 2011 22 Five Cities Fire Authority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I NTERIM B ALLOT T EST After exposing respondents to the types of po sitive arguments they may encounter during an election cycle, the survey again presented respon dents with the ballot language used previously to gauge how their support for the prop osed revenue measure may have changed. As shown in Figure 8, voter support for the parc el tax increased slightly to 60%, with 30% of respondents opposed to the measure and an additi onal 11% unsure or unwilling to state their vote choice. Overall support am ong property owners for a benef it assessment remained stable at 55%, with 36% of respondents opposed to the meas ure and an additional 8% unsure or unwilling to state their vote choice. Question 7 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 maintain high qua lity local fire protection and prevention services; ensure quick response times to 9-1-1 medical emergencies; upgrade and repair life-saving fire protection and emergency equipment; and maintain the number of professional firefighters and medical personnel needed to keep our community safe, shall the Five Cities Fire Authority estab- lish a parcel tax of up to $93 per parcel, with citizen oversight and all money staying local? If the election were held today, would you vote yes or no on this measure? F IGURE 8 I NTERIM B ALLOT T EST SUPPORT BY SUBGROUPS For the interested reader, tables 4 and 5 display how support for the parcel tax and benefit assessment measures at this point in the survey varied by key demographic subgroups, as well as the percenta ge change in subgroup support when compared to the Initial Ballot Test. Positive differences appear in green, whereas negative differences appear in red. 31.4 23.7 23.5 9.7 11.7 24.6 10.6 8.4 35.9 19.9 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Parcel TaxAssessment % R e s p o n d e n t s Refused Not sure Definitely no Probably no Probably yes Definitely yes Two-thirds Threshold 50%+1 Threshold Item 11.a. - Page 44 In t e r i m B a l l o t T e s t True North Research, Inc. © 2011 23 Five Cities Fire Authority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . T ABLE 4 D EMOGRAPHIC B REAKDOWN OF S UPPORT AT I NTERIM B ALLOT T EST : P ARCEL T AX A pprox i mate % of Voter Universe % Probably or Definitely Yes Ch an g e F rom Initial Ballot Test (Q2) Overall 100 59.6 +2.5 Less than 10 35 75.1 +9.3 10 to 14 15 63.8 -0.9 15 or more 51 47.3 -0.6 Yes 31 65.3 +8.5 No 69 56.6 -0.2 Democrat 35 73.4+4.0 Republican 43 47.1 -0.1 Other / DTS 22 62.2+5.3 Male 48 57.5+0.7 Female 52 61.6+4.2 18 to 29 12 71.1+11.0 30 to 39 12 59.7+8.4 40 to 49 17 65.8+2.7 50 to 64 33 55.0 -0.0 65 or older 26 55.9 -1.2 Yes 62 55.0+0.3 No 38 67.1+6.1 2011 to 2008 41 65.2+8.6 2007 to 2002 28 66.1 -1.9 2001 to 1997 9 50.7 -6.7 1996 to 1990 10 45.1 +2.4 Before 1990 12 43.6 -0.6 Yes 45 58.3 +4.8 No 55 60.7 +0.6 Yes 43 53.3 +0.7 No 57 64.3+3.9 Single dem 18 77.4+4.8 Dual dem 11 70.2+4.5 Single rep 19 53.5 -0.0 Dual rep 17 40.0+1.1 Other 15 58.0+6.0 Mixed 19 61.0+0.1 Yes 68 56.2+2.5 No 32 66.9+2.5 Age Homeowner Years in S. San Luis Obispo County (QD1) Gender Children in Hsld (QD3) Party Likely November 2011 Voter Household Party Type Likely June 2012 Voter Registration Year Likely to Vote by Mail Item 11.a. - Page 45 In t e r i m B a l l o t T e s t True North Research, Inc. © 2011 24 Five Cities Fire Authority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . T ABLE 5 D EMOGRAPHIC B REAKDOWN OF S UPPORT AT I NTERIM B ALLOT T EST : A SSESSMENT A pprox i mate % of Voter Universe % Probably or Definitely Yes Ch an g e F rom Initial Ballot Test (Q2) Overall 100 55.0 +0.3 Less than 10 26 68.1 +5.3 10 to 14 18 51.7 -7.2 15 or more 56 50.0 +1.0 Yes 28 61.3 +1.4 No 72 52.4 -0.1 Democrat 34 71.6+0.9 Republican 47 43.7 -1.1 Other / DTS 20 53.0+2.6 Male 48 50.1 -2.1 Female 52 59.5+2.5 18 to 29 9 47.6+4.8 30 to 39 9 60.9+4.3 40 to 49 16 59.1 No change 50 to 64 36 53.7 -0.0 65 or older 31 54.7 -1.7 Yes 100 55.0+0.3 No 0 N/AN/A 2011 to 2008 26 57.3+7.0 2007 to 2002 32 64.2 -4.1 2001 to 1997 13 45.5 -3.9 1996 to 1990 12 44.9 +3.2 Before 1990 17 48.2 -0.7 Yes 52 57.9 +3.4 No 48 51.7 -3.1 Yes 55 48.5 -0.0 No 45 62.8+0.7 Single dem 14 74.9+7.1 Dual dem 12 70.5 -5.5 Single rep 15 44.7 -3.1 Dual rep 22 42.2+1.4 Other 11 44.8+0.9 Mixed 26 57.6+0.2 Yes 76 53.7+0.5 No 24 58.9 -0.3 Likely November 2011 Voter Household Party Type Likely June 2012 Voter Age Homeowner Registration Year Likely to Vote by Mail Years in S. San Luis Obispo County (QD1) Children in Hsld (QD3) Party Gender Item 11.a. - Page 46 Ne g a t i v e A r g u m e n t s True North Research, Inc. © 2011 25 Five Cities Fire Authority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . N EGATIVE A RGUMENTS Whereas Question 6 presented respondents with ar guments in favor of the measure, Question 8 presented respondents with argume nts designed to elicit oppositi on to the measure. In the case of Question 8, 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 respondents’ opinio ns about the arguments, are presented in Fig- ure 9. Question 8 Next, let me tell you what opponents of the measure are saying. Opponents of the measure say: _____. Do you think this is a very convincing, somewhat convincing, or not at all convincing reason to OPPOSE the measure? F IGURE 9 N EGATIVE A RGUMENTS Among the negative arguments tested, the most compelling for respondents were: People are having a hard time making ends meet with the housing crisis, high unemployment, and the econ- omy in recession. Now is NOT the time to be raising taxes (74%), This tax is unfair to seniors and others on fixed incomes (63%), and Firefighters are paid too much in salary and pensions. If they took a modest pay cut, there would be no need for this tax (41%). NEGATIVE ARGUMENTS BY INITIAL SUPPORT The following table ranks the nega- tive arguments (showing the percentage of re spondents who cited each as very convincing) according to respondents’ vote choice at the Initial Ballot Test. T ABLE 6 N EGATIVE A RGUMENTS BY P OSITION AT I NITIAL B ALLOT T EST 11.1 15.7 28.0 42.2 20.1 25.0 35.2 32.1 0102030405060708090100 Fire Authority can’t be trusted with this tax Firefighters are paid too much in salary and pensions This tax is unfair to seniors and others on fixed incomes With current economic crisis, now is NOT the time to be raising taxes Q8 b Q 8 c Q 8 d Q 8 a % Respondents Very convincing Somewhat convincing P os i t i on at Initial Ballot Test (Q2)ItemNegative Argument Summary % Very Convincing Q8aWith current economic crisis, now is NOT the time to be raising taxes28 Q8d This tax is unfair to seniors and others on fixed incomes 17 Q8cFirefighters are paid too much in salary and pensions11 Q8b Fire Authority can’t be trusted with this tax 6 Q8aWith current economic crisis, now is NOT the time to be raising taxes75 Q8dThis tax is unfair to seniors and others on fixed incomes49 Q8cFirefighters are paid too much in salary and pensions28 Q8bFire Authority can’t be trusted with this tax24 Q8a With current economic crisis, now is NOT the time to be raising taxes 33 Q8dThis tax is unfair to seniors and others on fixed incomes26 Q8c Firefighters are paid too much in salary and pensions 8 Q8bFire Authority can’t be trusted with this tax6 Probably or Definitely Yes (n = 228) Probably or Definitely No (n = 116) Not Sure (n = 53) Item 11.a. - Page 47 Fi n a l B a l l o t T e s t s True North Research, Inc. © 2011 26 Five Cities Fire Authority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F INAL B ALLOT T ESTS Voters’ and property owners’ opinions about ballo t measures are often not rigid, especially when the amount of information presen ted to the public on a measur e has been limited. An important goal of the survey was thus to gauge how their opinions about the proposed fire protection mea- sure may be affected by the info rmation they could encounter duri ng the course of an election cycle. After providing respondents with the wording of the proposed measure, projects that could be funded by the measure, as well as argu ments in favor and against the proposal, respon- dents were again asked whether they would vote ‘yes’ or ‘no’ on the proposed water reliability measure. Question 9 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 maintain high quality local fire protection and prevention services; ensure quick response times to 9-1-1 medical emergencies; upgrade and repair life-sav- ing fire protection and emergency equipment; and maintain the number of professional firefight- ers and medical personnel needed to keep our community safe, shall the Five Cities Fire Authority establish a parcel tax of up to $93 per parcel, with citizen oversight and all money staying local? If the election were held toda y, would you vote yes or no on this measure? F IGURE 10 F INAL B ALLOT T EST At this point in the survey, su pport for the parcel tax measure was found among 58% of voters, with 31% opposed to the measure and 9% unsure or unwilling to state their vote choice. Support for the benefit assessment among residential property owners remained somewhat lower at 54%, with 38% opposed to the measure and 7% unsure or unwilling to state their vote choice. 31.3 23.3 23.1 10.8 11.2 27.1 8.9 7.0 34.9 21.9 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Parcel Tax Assessment % R e s p o n d e n t s Refused Not sure Definitely no Probably no Probably yes Definitely yes Two-thirds Threshold 50%+1 Threshold Item 11.a. - Page 48 Fi n a l B a l l o t T e s t s True North Research, Inc. © 2011 27 Five Cities Fire Authority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LOWER TAX RATE The ballot language for the proposed measure used in Questions 2, 7, and 9 indicated that the measure would increase annual property taxes by up to $93 per parcel. Respondents who opposed the measur e at the Final Ballot Test (or were unsure of their position) were subsequently asked how they would vote if the tax increase were instead $66 per parcel. Table 10 displays the responses to this questi on and includes those respondents who previously indicated they would support the measure at $93 (and thus did not receive this question). An additional 8% of voters and 8% of property ow ners indicated they would support the measure at the lower rate, bringing the overall suppo rt for the measure at $66 per parcel among a high- turnout electorate that is also quite familiar with the measure to 66% among voters, 64% among property owners. Question 10 How about if instead of $93 per household, the tax were $66 per household. Would you vote yes or no on this measure? F IGURE 11 F INAL B ALLOT T EST AT L OWER R ATE 54.4 1.9 1.8 5.9 5.9 8.4 22.3 24.5 5.4 5.1 58.1 6.4 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Parcel TaxAssessment % R e s p o n d e n t s Not sure Definitely no Probably no Probably yes Definitely yes Supported at $93 (Q9) Two-thirds Threshold 50%+1 Threshold Item 11.a. - Page 49 Ch a n g e i n S u p p o r t True North Research, Inc. © 2011 28 Five Cities Fire Authority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C HANGE IN S UPPORT Tables 7 and 8 provide a closer look at how support for the proposed parcel tax and benefit assessment measures, respectively, changed over th e 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 measur e at the Final Ballot Test is shown in the col- umn with the heading % Probably or Definitely Yes . The columns to the ri ght show the difference between the Final and the Initial, and the Final and Interim Ballot Tests. Positive differences appear in green, whereas negati ve differences appear in red. T ABLE 7 D EMOGRAPHIC B REAKDOWN OF S UPPORT AT F INAL B ALLOT T EST : P ARCEL T AX A pprox i mate % of Voter Universe % Probably or Definitely Yes Ch an g e F rom Initial Ballot Test (Q2) Ch an g e f rom Interim Ballot Test (Q7) Overall 100 58.1 +1.0 -1.5 Less than 10 35 75.8 +10.0 +0.7 10 to 14 15 58.6 -6.1 -5.2 15 or more 51 45.4 -2.5 -1.9 Yes 31 61.5 +4.7 -3.8 No 69 56.1 -0.6 -0.5 Democrat 35 70.9+1.5 -2.5 Republican 43 47.7+0.5+0.6 Other / DTS 22 58.2+1.3 -4.0 Male 48 57.4+0.6 -0.1 Female 52 58.8+1.4 -2.8 18 to 29 12 74.1+13.9+3.0 30 to 39 12 57.8+6.4 -2.0 40 to 49 17 63.2 No change -2.7 50 to 64 33 55.9+0.9+0.9 65 or older 26 50.3 -6.8-5.6 Yes 62 54.4 -0.3-0.6 No 38 64.2+3.1 -2.9 2011 to 2008 41 65.1+8.5 -0.1 2007 to 2002 28 62.0 -6.0-4.2 2001 to 1997 9 53.1 -4.2 +2.5 1996 to 1990 10 41.7 -0.9-3.4 Before 1990 12 42.2 -2.0-1.4 Yes 45 54.2+0.7 -4.1 No 55 61.4+1.3+0.7 Yes 43 49.7 -2.9-3.6 No 57 64.4+4.0+0.1 Single dem 18 71.9 -0.6-5.5 Dual dem 11 70.8+5.1+0.6 Single rep 19 53.7+0.2+0.2 Dual rep 17 41.4+2.5+1.4 Other 15 52.1+0.1 -5.9 Mixed 19 61.4+0.5+0.4 Yes 68 54.2+0.6 -1.9 No 32 66.4+2.0 -0.5 Likely November 2011 Voter Household Party Type Likely June 2012 Voter Registration Year Likely to Vote by Mail Age Homeowner Years in S. San Luis Obispo County (QD1) Gender Children in Hsld (QD3) Party Item 11.a. - Page 50 Ch a n g e i n S u p p o r t True North Research, Inc. © 2011 29 Five Cities Fire Authority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . T ABLE 8 D EMOGRAPHIC B REAKDOWN OF S UPPORT AT F INAL B ALLOT T EST : A SSESSMENT Whereas Tables 7 and 8 display change in support for the measure over the course of the inter- view at the group level, Tables 9 and 10 display the individual-level changes that occurred between the Initial and Final Ballot Tests for the respective measures. On the left side of the tables is shown each of the response options to the Initial Ballot Test and the percentage of respondents in each group. The cells in the bo dy of the tables depict movement within each response group (row) based on the information pr ovided throughout the course of the survey as recorded by the Final Ballot Test . For example, in the first row of Table 9 we see that of the 27.6% of respondents who indicated that they wo uld definitely support the parcel tax measure at the Initial Ballot Test, 21.9% also indicated that they would definitely support the measure at the Final Ballot Test. Approximately 4.1% moved to th e probably support group, 0.0% moved to the probably oppose group, 0.9% moved to the defi nitely oppose group, and 0.8% percent stated they were now unsure of their vote choice. A pprox i mate % of Voter Universe % Probably or Definitely Yes Ch an g e F rom Initial Ballot Test (Q2) Ch an g e f rom Interim Ballot Test (Q7) Overall 100 54.4 -0.3 -0.6 Less than 10 26 69.6 +6.7 +1.5 10 to 14 18 54.5 -4.4 +2.8 15 or more 56 47.4 -1.6 -2.6 Yes 28 58.9 -0.9 -2.4 No 72 52.6 -0.0 +0.1 Democrat 34 71.5+0.8 -0.1 Republican 47 43.4 -1.5-0.3 Other / DTS 20 51.0+0.6 -2.0 Male 48 50.1 -2.1 No change Female 52 58.4+1.4 -1.1 18 to 29 9 47.6+4.8 No chan g e 30 to 39 9 56.5 No chan g e -4.3 40 to 49 16 59.1 No changeNo change 50 to 64 36 56.8+3.2+3.2 65 or older 31 50.4 -6.0-4.3 Yes 100 54.4 -0.3-0.6 No 0 N/AN/AN/A 2011 to 2008 26 58.8+8.5+1.5 2007 to 2002 32 62.6 -5.8 -1.7 2001 to 1997 13 48.4 -0.9 +2.9 1996 to 1990 12 40.5 -1.2 -4.4 Before 1990 17 46.7 -2.2 -1.5 Yes 52 58.1 +3.6 +0.2 No 48 50.3 -4.5 -1.4 Yes 55 48.7 +0.1 +0.2 No 45 61.3 -0.8-1.5 Single dem 14 73.0+5.2 -1.9 Dual dem 12 71.4 -4.6 +0.9 Single rep 15 41.2 -6.6-3.5 Dual rep 22 44.0+3.2+1.7 Other 11 41.1 -2.8-3.7 Mixed 26 58.0+0.6+0.4 Yes 76 53.5+0.2 -0.2 No 24 57.2 -2.0-1.7 Likely November 2011 Voter Household Party Type Likely June 2012 Voter Age Homeowner Registration Year Likely to Vote by Mail Years in S. San Luis Obispo County (QD1) Children in Hsld (QD3) Party Gender Item 11.a. - Page 51 Ch a n g e i n S u p p o r t True North Research, Inc. © 2011 30 Five Cities Fire Authority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . To ease interpretation of the tables, the cells are color coded. Red shaded cells indicate declining support, green shaded cells indicate increasing support, whereas white cells indicate no move- ment. Moreover, within the cells, a white font indicates a fundamental change in the vote: from yes to no, no to yes, or not sure to either yes or no. T ABLE 9 M OVEMENT B ETWEEN I NITIAL AND F INAL B ALLOT T EST : P ARCEL T AX T ABLE 10 M OVEMENT B ETWEEN I NITIAL AND F INAL B ALLOT T EST : A SSESSMENT As one might expect, the informat ion conveyed in the survey had th e greatest impact on individ- uals who either weren’t sure about how they would vote at the Initial Ballot Test or were tentative in their vote choice (probably yes or probably no). Moreover, Tables 9 and 10 make clear that although the information did impac t some respondents, it did not do so in a consistent way for all respondents. Some respondents found the info rmation conveyed during the course of the interview to be a reason to become more suppo rtive of the measure, wh ereas others found the same information to be a reason to be less supportive. Despite 19% of voters making a fundamental 6 shift in their opinion about the parcel tax measure and 13% of property owners making a similar shif t for the benefit assessment over the course of the interview, the net impact is that support fo r the parcel tax measure at the Final Ballot Test was just 1% greater than support at the Initial Ballot Test. Similarly, support for the benefit assessment measure at the Final Ba llot Test was the same as the le vels recorded at the Initial Bal- lot Test. 6.That is, they changed from a position of support, opposi tion or undecided at the Initial Ballot Test to a differ- ent position at the Final Ballot Test. Definitely support Probably support Probably oppose Definitely opposeNot sure Definitely support27.6%21.9%4.1%0.0%0.9%0.8% Probably support29.5%10.0%14.2%2.2%1.0%2.2% Probably oppose11.0%0.4%1.6%4.8%3.5%0.6% Definitely oppose17.9%0.0%0.4%1.8%15.7%0.0% Not sure13.9%2.6%2.9%2.1%0.7%4.9% Initial Ballot Test (Q2) Final Ballot Test (Q9) Definitely support Probably support Probably oppose Definitely opposeNot sure Definitely support24.9%21.3%2.8%0.0%0.8%0.0% Probably support29.7%8.9%16.5%1.6%1.2%1.6% Probably oppose12.3%0.0%1.4%5.8%4.5%0.5% Definitely oppose21.6%0.0%0.0%1.5%20.1%0.0% Not sure 11.4%1.0%2.4%2.2%0.5%4.9% Initial Ballot Test (Q2) Final Ballot Test (Q9) Item 11.a. - Page 52 Ba c k g r o u n d & D e m o g r a p h i c s True North Research, Inc. © 2011 31 Five Cities Fire Authority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B ACKGROUND & D EMOGRAPHICS T ABLE 11 D EMOGRAPHICS OF S AMPLE In addition to questions directly related to the proposed measure, the study collected basic demographic information about respondents and their households. Some of this information was gathered during the inte rview, although much of it was collected from the voter file. The profile of the sample used for this study is shown in Table 11. Total Respondents 400 Years in S. San Luis Obispo County (QD1) Less than 10 34.2 10 to 14 14.3 15 or more 50.2 Refused 1.2 Children in Hsld (QD3) Yes 30.8 No 68.0 Refused 1.2 Party Democrat 35.0 Republican 43.0 Other / DTS 22.0 Gender Male 47.9 Female 52.1 Age 18 to 29 12.4 30 to 39 12.3 40 to 49 16.6 50 to 64 32.7 65 or older 26.0 Homeowner Yes 61.6 No 38.4 Registration Year 2011 to 2008 40.8 2007 to 2002 28.3 2001 to 1997 9.4 1996 to 1990 9.7 Before 1990 11.8 Likely to Vote by Mail Yes 45.5 No 54.5 Likely November 2011 Voter Yes 42.8 No 57.2 Likely June 2012 Voter Yes 67.9 No 32.1 Household Party Type Single dem 18.5 Dual dem 11.2 Single rep 19.3 Dual rep 16.9 Other 15.0 Mixed 19.2 Item 11.a. - Page 53 Me t h o d o l o g y True North Research, Inc. © 2011 32 Five Cities Fire Authority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M ETHODOLOGY The following sections outline the methodologies us ed in the study, as well as the motivation for using certain techniques. QUESTIONNAIRE DEVELOPMENT Dr. McLarney of True North Research worked closely with the Five Cities Fire Authority and Terrain Co nsulting to develop a qu estionnaire that covered the topics of interest and avoided the many po ssible sources of systematic measurement error, including position-order effects, wording effects, response-category effects, scaling effects and priming. Several questions included multiple indivi dual items. Because asking the items in a set order can lead to a systematic position bias in responses, the items were asked in a random order for each respondent. Some of the questions asked in this study were presented only to a subset of respondents. For example, only respondents who indicated that they did not support the proposed revenue mea- sure at the Initial Ballot Test (Question 2) were asked the follow-up question if there was a partic- ular reason for their position (Question 3). Th e questionnaire included with this report (see Questionnaire & Toplines on page 35) identifies the skip patterns that were used during the interview to ensure that each respon dent received the a ppropriate questions. PROGRAMMING & PRE-TEST Prior to fielding the survey, the questionnaire was CATI (Computer Assisted Telephone In terviewing) programmed to assist the interviewers when con- ducting the telephone interviews. The CATI prog ram automatically navigates the skip patterns, randomizes the appropriate question items, and alerts the interviewer to certain types of key- punching mistakes should they happen during the interview. The integrit y of the questionnaire was pre-tested internally by True North and by di aling into random homes in the district prior to formally beginning the survey. SAMPLES The accommodate the Authority’s interest in obtaining reliable estimates of sup- port for the proposed measure under two differ ent funding scenarios—parcel tax and benefit assessment—two samples were spec ified for the study. Questions pertaining to a parcel tax were administered to a sample of 400 voters who, base d on their voting history, are expected to par- ticipate in the November 2012 election. The assessment version of the questions was adminis- tered to a subsample of 300 voters who are also ow ners of residential prop erties in the district. The samples were stratified by key respondent characteristics—househol d party type, age, gen- der and location within the district—prior to randomly selecting individuals into sample clusters. STATISTICAL MARGIN OF ERROR Because this study consisted of random samples drawn from the likely voter and residential proper ty owner universes in th e district, the results can be used to estimate the opinions of all likely November 2012 voters (or residential property owner voters in the district) who are likely to cast ballots in the elections of interest. Because not all voters or property owners participated in the study, however, the results have what is known as a statistical margin of error due to sampling. The margin of error refers to the difference between what was found, for example, in the survey of 400 voters regarding a parcel tax for a particular question and what would have been found if all of the approximately 18,078 likely November 2012 voters in the distri ct had been surveyed for the study. Item 11.a. - Page 54 Me t h o d o l o g y True North Research, Inc. © 2011 33 Five Cities Fire Authority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . For example, in estimating the percentage of likely November 2012 vote rs who would definitely support the proposed parcel tax me asure on the natural at a rate $93 per year (Question 2), the margin of error can be calculated if one knows the size of the population, the size of the sample, a desired confidence level, and the distribution of responses to the question. The appropriate equation for estimating the margin of error, in this case, is shown below: where is the proportion of voters who said that they would definitely support the measure (0.28 for 28% in this example), is the population size of all likely November 2012 voters (18,078), is the sample size that received th e question (400), and is the upper point for the t-distribution with degrees of freedom (1.96 for a 95% confidence interval). Solving the equation using these values reveals a margin of error of ± 4.36%. This means that with 28% of survey respondents indicating they would definitely support the measure at a $93 tax rate, we can be 95% confident that the actual percentage of likely November 2012 voters that would defi- nitely support the measure at th is rate is between 24% and 32%. Figure 12 provides a 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 (i.e., = 0.5). For this sur- vey, the maximum margin of error is ± 4.85% for questions answered by all 400 respondents from the parcel tax sample and ± 5.61% for questions answered by all 300 respondents from the benefit assessment sample. F IGURE 12 M AXIMUM M ARGIN OF E RROR D UE TO S AMPLING Within this report, figures and tables show ho w responses to certain questions varied by sub- groups such as age and gender. Figure 12 is thus useful for understanding how the maximum margin of error for a percentage estimate will grow as the number of individuals asked a ques- tion (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. p ˆt Nn – N --------------⎝⎠⎛⎞p ˆ1 p ˆ–() n 1 –----------------------± p ˆ N n t α 2 ⁄ n 1 – p ˆ 300 Property Owners (Assessment) ± 5.61% 400 Likely Nov 2012 Voters (Parcel Tax) ± 4.85% 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 01002003004005006007008009001000 Sample Size (Number of Respondents) Ma r g i n o f E r r o r Item 11.a. - Page 55 Me t h o d o l o g y True North Research, Inc. © 2011 34 Five Cities Fire Authority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DATA COLLECTION Interviews were conducted via te lephone during weekday evenings (5:30PM to 9PM) and on weekends (10AM to 5PM) between August 16 and August 22, 2011. It is standard practice not to call during the day on weekdays because most working adults are unavailable and thus calling during those hour s would bias the sample. Interviews averaged 15 minutes in length. DATA PROCESSING Data processing consisted of checking the data for errors or inconsis- tencies, coding and recoding responses, and pr eparing frequency analyses and crosstabulations. 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 wh en comparing tables and pie charts for a given question. Item 11.a. - Page 56 Qu e s t i o n n a i r e & T o p l i n e s True North Research, Inc. © 2011 35 Five Cities Fire Authority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Q UESTIONNAIRE & T OPLINES True North Research, Inc. © 2011 Page 1 Five Cities Fire Authority Revenue Measure Feasibility Survey Final Toplines August 2011 Section 1: Introduction 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 important issues in southern San Luis (Lew-iss) Obispo (O-biss-po) County and I’d like to get your opinions. If needed: This is a survey about important issues in your community. I’m NOT trying to sell anything and I won’t ask for a donation. If needed: The survey should take about 12 minutes to complete. If needed: If now is not a convenient time, can you let me know a better time so I can call back? If the person asks why you need to speak to the listed person or if they ask to participate instead, explain: For statistical purposes, at this time the survey must only be completed by this particular individual. If the person asks who is sponsoring the survey, explain: For statistical purposes, I can’t reveal the sponsor of the survey at the beginning of this interview, but I will tell you at the end. 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. Section 2: Importance of Issues Q1 To begin, I’m going to read a list of issues facing your community and for each one, please tell me how important you feel the issue is to you, using a scale of extremely important, very important, somewhat important or not at all important. Here is the (first/next) issue: _____. Do you think this issue is extremely important, very important, somewhat important, or not at all important? Randomize Ex t r e m e l y Im p o r t a n t Ve r y Im p o r t a n t So m e w h a t Im p o r t a n t No t a t a l l Im p o r t a n t No t s u r e Re f u s e d A Ensuring quick response times to 9-1-1 calls for fires and emergencies 50% 42% 7% 1% 0% 0% B Ensuring adequate local fire protection and prevention services 34% 52% 12% 2% 0% 0% C Maintaining the quality of education in our local public schools 47% 41% 9% 2% 1% 1% D Maintaining local streets and roads 22% 51% 26% 1% 0% 0% E Preventing local tax increases 21% 29% 36% 13% 1% 1% F Maintaining public safety 38% 49% 11% 1% 0% 0% Item 11.a. - Page 57 Qu e s t i o n n a i r e & T o p l i n e s True North Research, Inc. © 2011 36 Five Cities Fire Authority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Five Cities Fire Authority Revenue Measure Survey August 2011 True North Research, Inc. © 2011 Page 2 Section 3: Initial Ballot Test Your household receives fire protection services from the Five Cities Fire Authority, which was formed last year by merging the Arroyo (Uh-ROY-O) Grande (Grawn-day), Grover Beach, and Oceano (O-SHE-awn-o) Fire Departments. Next year, voters in your area may be asked to vote on a local ballot measure. Let me read you a summary of the measure: Q2 In order to: Maintain high quality local fire protection and prevention services Ensure quick response times to 9-1-1 medical emergencies Upgrade and repair life-saving fire protection and emergency equipment And maintain the number of profes sional firefighters and medical personnel needed to keep our community safe Shall the Five Cities Fire Authority establish a pa rcel tax of up to $93 per parcel, with citizen oversight and all money staying local? 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 28% Skip to Q4 2 Probably yes 30% Skip to Q4 3 Probably no 11% Ask Q3 4 Definitely no 18% Ask Q3 98 Not sure 13% Ask Q3 99 Refused 1% Skip to Q4 Q3 Is there a particular reason why you do not support the fire protection measure I just described? Taxes already too high 23% Need more information 22% Poor budgeting, overspending 15% Cost of measure is too high 15% Not sure / No particular reason 12% No need for measure, everything is fine 11% District has sufficient funds 6% Should find other funding sources 3% Refused 1% Item 11.a. - Page 58 Qu e s t i o n n a i r e & T o p l i n e s True North Research, Inc. © 2011 37 Five Cities Fire Authority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Five Cities Fire Authority Revenue Measure Survey August 2011 True North Research, Inc. © 2011 Page 3 Section 4: Tax Threshold Q4 The measure I just described would raise money through annual property taxes paid by residential and commercial property owners. However, the amount to be charged to each parcel has not been determined yet. If you heard that your household would pay _____ per year for each property that you own in the district, would you vote yes or no on the measure? Get answer, then ask: Is that definitely (yes/no) or probably (yes/no)? Read in sequence starting with the highest amount (A), then the next highest (B), and so on. If respondent says ‘definitely yes’, record ‘definitely yes’ for all LOWER dollar amounts and go to next section. Ask in Order De f i n i t e l y ye s Pr o b a b l y ye s Pr o b a b l y no De f i n i t e l y no No t s u r e Re f u s e d A 93 dollars 27% 28% 13% 22% 9% 1% B 84 dollars 35% 22% 13% 23% 7% 1% C 75 dollars 41% 18% 11% 23% 6% 1% D 66 dollars 43% 19% 8% 22% 7% 1% Section 5: Programs & Projects Q5 The measure we’ve been discussing would provide funding for a variety of fire protection and public safety services. If the measure passes, would you favor or oppose using some of the money to: _____, or do you not have an opinion? Get answer, if favor or oppose, then ask: Would that be strongly (favor/oppose) or somewhat (favor/oppose)? Randomize St r o n g l y Fa v o r So m e w h a t Fa v o r So m e w h a t Op p o s e St r o n g l y Op p o s e No O p i n i o n Re f u s e d A Maintain high quality local fire protection and prevention services 56% 27% 5% 4% 5% 2% B Ensure quick response times to 9-1-1 medical emergencies 68% 18% 2% 6% 5% 1% C Make needed repairs and upgrades to life- saving fire protection and emergency equipment 53% 29% 6% 4% 7% 2% D Maintain the number of professional firefighters and medical personnel needed to keep our community safe 59% 25% 4% 5% 6% 1% E Purchase up-to-date emergency rescue and life-saving equipment 49% 30% 5% 7% 7% 1% F Maintain local control of our fire protection and emergency response services 52% 26% 7% 6% 9% 1% G Improve the 9-1-1 dispatch system so that police and firefighters can respond quicker to emergencies 51% 28% 5% 6% 8% 2% Item 11.a. - Page 59 Qu e s t i o n n a i r e & T o p l i n e s True North Research, Inc. © 2011 38 Five Cities Fire Authority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Five Cities Fire Authority Revenue Measure Survey August 2011 True North Research, Inc. © 2011 Page 4 H Better coordinate with outside agencies whose help we depend on when multiple or large-scale emergencies happen 51% 28% 6% 8% 6% 1% Section 6: Positive Arguments What I’d like to do now is tell you what some people are saying about the measure we’ve been discussing. Q6 Supporters of the measure say: _____. Do you think this is a very convincing, somewhat convincing, or not at all convinci ng reason to SUPP ORT the measure? Randomize Ve r y Co n v i n c i n g So m e w h a t Co n v i n c i n g No t A t A l l Co n v i n c i n g Do n ’ t B e l i e v e No t s u r e Re f u s e d A There will be a clear system of accountability, including a Citizen’s Oversight Committee and annual independent audits to ensure that the money is spent properly. 42% 38% 19% 0% 1% 0% B All money raised by this measure will be spent locally to provide fire protection and emergency response services. The money cannot be taken away by the State or used for other purposes. 59% 26% 13% 0% 1% 0% C In a medical emergency, brain damage occurs in 4 to 6 minutes, and brain death occurs in 8 minutes without oxygen. This measure will ensure that we have the staff and resources needed to provide quick response times to emergencies. 48% 34% 16% 0% 1% 0% D This measure will ensure that firefighters and medical personnel have the facilities and equipment they need to do their jobs. 39% 42% 17% 0% 2% 0% E We have only 60% of the firefighters that experts agree are needed to serve our population. When more than one 9.1.1 call comes in at a time, we often have to depend on help from outside agencies because we don’t have enough of our own firefighters. We are stretched too thin, and that puts all of our lives at risk. 44% 31% 22% 1% 2% 0% F Many of our fire engines have out-dated equipment, or are missing equipment needed to save lives in a medical emergency such as a heart attack. We need to pass this measure to protect our community. 40% 36% 22% 1% 2% 0% Item 11.a. - Page 60 Qu e s t i o n n a i r e & T o p l i n e s True North Research, Inc. © 2011 39 Five Cities Fire Authority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Five Cities Fire Authority Revenue Measure Survey August 2011 True North Research, Inc. © 2011 Page 5 G By merging to form the Five Cities Fire Authority, our local fire departments have been able to cut administrative costs, eliminate redundancy, and save taxpayers money. They’ve done everything possible to keep the cost of this measure as low as possible. 43% 38% 17% 0% 2% 0% Section 7: Interim Ballot Test Sometimes people change their mind about a measure once they have more information about it. Now that you have heard a bit more about the measure, let me read you a summary of it again. Q7 In order to: Maintain high quality local fire protection and prevention services Ensure quick response times to 9-1-1 medical emergencies Upgrade and repair life-saving fire protection and emergency equipment And maintain the number of profes sional firefighters and medical personnel needed to keep our community safe Shall the Five Cities Fire Authority establish a pa rcel tax of up to $93 per parcel, with citizen oversight and all money staying local? 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 36% 2 Probably yes 24% 3 Probably no 10% 4 Definitely no 20% 98 Not sure 11% 99 Refused 0% Item 11.a. - Page 61 Qu e s t i o n n a i r e & T o p l i n e s True North Research, Inc. © 2011 40 Five Cities Fire Authority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Five Cities Fire Authority Revenue Measure Survey August 2011 True North Research, Inc. © 2011 Page 6 Section 8: Negative Arguments Next, let me tell you what opponents of the measure are saying. Q8 Opponents of the measure say: _____. Do you think this is a very convincing, somewhat convincing, or not at all convincing reason to OPPOSE the measure? Randomize Ve r y Co n v i n c i n g So m e w h a t Co n v i n c i n g No t A t A l l Co n v i n c i n g Do n ’ t B e l i e v e No t s u r e Re f u s e d A People are having a hard time making ends meet with the housing crisis, high unemployment, and the economy in recession. Now is NOT the time to be raising taxes. 42% 32% 23% 0% 2% 0% B The Fire Authority can’t be trusted with this tax. They will mismanage the money. 11% 20% 64% 1% 3% 0% C Firefighters are paid too much in salary and pensions. If they took a modest pay cut, there would be no need for this tax. 16% 25% 53% 2% 4% 0% D This tax is unfair to seniors and others on fixed incomes. 28% 35% 35% 0% 2% 0% Section 9: Final Ballot Tests Now that you have heard a bit more about the measure, let me read you a summary of it one more time: Q9 In order to: Maintain high quality local fire protection and prevention services Ensure quick response times to 9-1-1 medical emergencies Upgrade and repair life-saving fire protection and emergency equipment And maintain the number of profes sional firefighters and medical personnel needed to keep our community safe Shall the Five Cities Fire Authority establish a pa rcel tax of up to $93 per parcel, with citizen oversight and all money staying local? 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 35% Skip to D1 2 Probably yes 23% Skip to D1 3 Probably no 11% Ask Q10 4 Definitely no 22% Ask Q10 98 Not sure 9% Ask Q10 99 Refused 0% Ask Q10 Item 11.a. - Page 62 Qu e s t i o n n a i r e & T o p l i n e s True North Research, Inc. © 2011 41 Five Cities Fire Authority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Five Cities Fire Authority Revenue Measure Survey August 2011 True North Research, Inc. © 2011 Page 7 Q10 How about if instead of $93 per household, the tax were $66 per household. Would you vote yes or no on this measure? Get answer, then ask: Would that be definitely (yes/no) or probably (yes/no)? Supported at $93 (Q9 above) 58% 1 Definitely yes 2% 2 Probably yes 6% 3 Probably no 6% 4 Definitely no 22% 98 Not sure 5% 99 Refused 0% Section 10: Background & Demographics Thank you so much for your participation. I have just a few background questions for statistical purposes. D1 How long have you lived in southern San Luis (Lew-iss) Obispo (O-biss-po) County? 1 Less than 1 year 0% 2 1 year to less than 5 years 14% 3 5 years to less than 10 years 20% 4 10 years to less than 15 14% 5 15 years or more 50% 99 Refused 1% D2 Which of the following best describes your current home? 1 Single family detached home 77% 2 Apartment 5% 3 Condominium 4% 4 Townhome 5% 5 Mobile home 6% 99 Refused 3% D3 Do you have children in your household? 1 Yes 31% 2 No 68% 99 Refused 1% Those are all of the questions that I have for you. Thanks so much for participating in this important survey. This survey was conducted for the Five Cities Fire Authority. Item 11.a. - Page 63 Qu e s t i o n n a i r e & T o p l i n e s True North Research, Inc. © 2011 42 Five Cities Fire Authority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Five Cities Fire Authority Revenue Measure Survey August 2011 True North Research, Inc. © 2011 Page 8 Post-Interview & Sample Items S1 Gender 1 Male 48% 2 Female 52% S2 Party 1 Democrat 35% 2 Republican 43% 3 Other 4% 4 DTS 18% S3 Age on Voter File 1 18 to 29 12% 2 30 to 39 12% 3 40 to 49 17% 4 50 to 64 33% 5 65 or older 26% 99 Not Coded 0% S4 Registration Date 1 2011 to 2008 41% 2 2007 to 2002 28% 3 2001 to 1997 9% 4 1996 to 1990 10% 5 Before 1990 12% S5 Household Party Type 1 Single Dem 18% 2 Dual Dem 11% 3 Single Rep 19% 4 Dual Rep 17% 5 Single Other 11% 6 Dual Other 4% 7 Dem & Rep 6% 8 Dem & Other 6% Item 11.a. - Page 64 Qu e s t i o n n a i r e & T o p l i n e s True North Research, Inc. © 2011 43 Five Cities Fire Authority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Five Cities Fire Authority Revenue Measure Survey August 2011 True North Research, Inc. © 2011 Page 9 9 Rep & Other 5% 0 Mixed (Dem + Rep + Other) 1% S6 Homeowner on Voter File 1 Yes 62% 2 No 38% S7 Likely to Vote by Mail 1 Yes 45% 2 No 55% S8 Likely November 2012 Voter 1 Yes 43% 2 No 57% S9 Likely November 2011 Voter 1 Yes 68% 2 No 32% S10 Likely November 2012 Voter 1 Yes 100% 2 No 0% Item 11.a. - Page 65 Qu e s t i o n n a i r e & T o p l i n e s True North Research, Inc. © 2011 44 Five Cities Fire Authority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Item 11.a. - Page 66 ATTACHMENT  3       PER  CAPITA   FIRE  PROTECTION   COMPARISONS     Agency     Population   Budget    Per  Capita   FCFA  (existing)   38,000    $3.682  Million   $97   Paso  Robles    30,000    $6.070  Million   $202   Atascadero    28,000    $3.418  Million   $122   Morro  Bay    10,300    $1.837  Million   $178   SLO  City    62,000  (CP)  $9.8  Million   $158   Pismo  Beach    8,000    $2.047  Million   $255   SLO  County    105,000   $17.371  Milli on   $165   FCFA  (with  financing  district)       $135     $0.00 $50.00 $100.00 $150.00 $200.00 $250.00 $300.00 Per  Capita  Fire  Protection  Comparisons FCFA Paso  Robles Atascadero Morro  Bay SLO  City Pismo  Beach SLO  County FCFA  (w/financing  district) Item 11.a. - Page 67 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Item 11.a. - Page 68