The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCM City Satisfaction Survey PPT (Study Session)City of San Rafael 2019 Resident Satisfaction Survey April 2, 2019 Page 2 March 2019 Overview and Research Objectives The City of San Rafael commissioned Godbe Research to conduct a telephone and internet survey of voters with the following research objectives: ➢Assess overall perceptions of living in San Rafael; ➢Gauge satisfaction with the City’s performance in providing resident services and programs; ➢Assess awareness of the City’s financial situation; ➢Determine the most pressing problems facing the City; ➢Test whether residents perceive the City to be responsible with taxpayer dollars; ➢Assess support for medical and adult recreational use cannabis dispensaries and storefronts; ➢Gauge support for potential revenue measures that would preserve essential city services and improve wildfire prevention and disaster services with funding that cannot be taken by the State; ➢Determine the type of tax, impact of features, and rate of the proposed measures on voter support; and ➢Identify differences in opinions due to demographic and/or behavioral characteristics that show statistically significant levels. Page 3 March 2019 Methodology Overview ➢Data Collection Internet and telephone Interviewing n=99 Landline n=100 Online from email invitation n=551 Online from text invitation ➢Universe 46,515 adult residents (ages 18 and older) in the City of San Rafael, or all voters (31,403) ➢Fielding Dates February 7 through February 15, 2019 ➢Interview Length 25 minutes ➢Sample Size n=750 Adults 18+ (2017 American Community Survey Weighting) n=750 All Voters ➢Margin of Error +3.55% Adults 18+ (2017 American Community Survey Weighting) +3.54% All Voters Overall Satisfaction Page 5 March 2019 Q1. Satisfaction with Quality of Life Adults 18+ (n=750) Somewhat Dissatisfied 15.2% Very Dissatisfied 3.0% DK/NA/[Not sure] 0.2% Very Satisfied 34.1% Somewhat Satisfied 47.6% Total Satisfaction 81.6% Page 6 March 2019 Q1. Satisfaction with Quality of Life Trended Results, Adults 18+ (n=750) 2019 2017 2015 2013 2011 2009 Very satisfied 34.1%46.4%52.3%70.7%63%59% Somewhat satisfied 47.6%40.6%41.5%23.3%29%32% Total Satisfied 81.6%87.0%93.8%94.0%92%91% Somewhat dissatisfied 15.2%9.2%4.9%3.5%5%6% Very dissatisfied 3.0%2.7%1.2%2.2%3%4% DK/NA/[Not sure]0.2%1.1%.2%.2%<1%<1% Page 7 March 2019 Q1. Satisfaction with Quality of Life Gender and Age Comparisons n=750 Respondent's Gender Age Total Male Female Other 18-29 30-39 40-49 50-64 65+ Total 750 362 376 12 134 103 123 195 195 Very satisfied 256 119 137 0 18 24 43 69 102 34.1%32.9%36.4%0.0%13.3%23.1%34.8%35.4%52.5% Somewhat satisfied 357 172 175 10 76 57 58 95 71 47.6%47.5%46.5%83.1%56.8%55.0%47.5%48.5%36.3% Somewhat dissatisfied 114 62 51 1 38 21 17 24 14 15.2%17.1%13.5%11.1%28.4%20.8%13.5%12.1%7.2% Very dissatisfied 22 9 13 1 2 1 5 8 6 3.0%2.4%3.5%5.8%1.5%1.0%4.1%4.0%3.3% DK/NA/[Not sure]2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.2%0.3%0.2%0.0%0.1%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.8% Page 8 March 2019 Q2. Satisfaction with Overall City Services Adults 18+ (n=750) Somewhat Dissatisfied 19.1% Very Dissatisfied 3.9% DK/NA/[Not sure] 6.4% Very Satisfied 23.1% Somewhat Satisfied 47.5% Total Satisfied 70.6% Page 9 March 2019 Q2. Satisfaction with Overall City Services Trended Results, Adults 18+ (n=750) 2019 2017 2015 2013 2011 2009 Very satisfied 23.1%31.8%43.6%36.2%42%43% Somewhat satisfied 47.5%44.3%40.4%47.8%39%41% Total Satisfied 70.6%76.1%84.0%84.0%81%84% Somewhat dissatisfied 19.1%12.3%8.8%7.5%7%7% Very dissatisfied 3.9%3.9%2.9%4.9%5%5% DK/NA/[Not sure]6.4%7.8%4.2%3.7%6%3% Page 10 March 2019 Q2. Satisfaction with Overall City Services Gender and Age Comparisons n=750 Respondent's Gender Age Total Male Female Other 18-29 30-39 40-49 50-64 65+ Total 750 362 376 12 134 103 123 195 195 Very satisfied 173 78 96 0 36 13 19 46 60 23.1%21.5%25.4%0.0%26.5%12.3%15.6%23.6%30.7% Somewhat satisfied 357 180 175 1 67 48 69 85 89 47.5%49.8%46.6%8.6%50.0%46.2%55.7%43.4%45.5% Somewhat dissatisfied 143 70 64 9 22 23 23 44 31 19.1%19.3%17.1%72.5%16.4%22.4%18.6%22.4%16.0% Very dissatisfied 29 15 13 2 3 2 6 11 7 3.9%4.1%3.3%15.1%2.2%1.6%5.0%5.8%3.6% DK/NA/[Not sure]48 19 28 0 7 18 6 9 8 6.4%5.4%7.5%3.8%5.0%17.4%5.1%4.7%4.2% Page 11 March 2019 Q3. City’s Financial Situation Adults 18+ (n=750) Excellent 5.6% Good 31.6% Fair 21.2% Poor 7.0% DK/NA/[Not sure] 34.5% Page 12 March 2019 Q3. City’s Financial Situation Trended Results, Adults 18+ (n=750) 2019 2017 2015 2013 2011 2009 2007 2005 Excellent 5.6%4.6%2.6%4.2%3%4%7%5% Good 31.6%34.0%35.2%33.8%17%24%32%32% Excellent + Good 37.2%38.6%37.8%38.0%20%28%39%37% Fair 21.2%18.2%19.6%26.0%38%34%31%31% Poor 7.0%4.4%7.0%5.9%20%12%10%11% DK/NA/[Not sure]34.5%38.7%35.5%30.1%22%26%21%21% Page 13 March 2019 Q3. City’s Financial Situation Gender and Age Comparisons n=750 Respondent's Gender Age Total Male Female Other 18-29 30-39 40-49 50-64 65+ Total 750 362 376 12 134 103 123 195 195 Excellent 42 30 12 0 11 5 3 14 7 5.6%8.3%3.1%0.0%8.4%5.1%2.8%7.4%3.7% Good 237 125 110 2 67 15 35 55 65 31.6%34.6%29.4%13.4%50.1%14.6%28.1%28.3%33.5% Fair 159 72 80 8 40 28 22 40 30 21.2%20.0%21.2%61.8%30.0%27.1%17.7%20.4%15.2% Poor 53 26 25 1 5 14 3 12 18 7.0%7.3%6.6%11.0%3.5%14.0%2.8%5.9%9.5% DK/NA/[Not sure]259 108 149 2 11 40 60 74 74 34.5%29.8%39.8%13.8%8.1%39.2%48.6%37.9%38.1% Satisfaction with Individual Services Page 15 March 2019 Q4. Satisfaction with City Services I Adults 18+ (n=750) -2 -1 0 1 2 S. Enforcing traffic and parking laws K. Maintaining storm drains N. Trimming trees along city streets O. Cleaning and sweeping city streets Z. Maintaining City parks and recreation facilities M. Providing bike and pedestrian friendly routes W. Wildfire prevention and preparedness X. Providing recreation programs B. Providing police protection E. Preserving open space R. Providing garbage collection and recycling services H. Providing public library services I. Providing fire and paramedic services 0.63 0.64 0.69 0.77 0.82 0.83 0.89 1.09 1.10 1.16 1.27 1.51 1.58 Very Satisfied Somewhat Satisfied Very Dissatisfied Somewhat Dissatisfied Tier 1Tier 2Tier 3Note: The above rating questions have been abbreviated for charting purposes. The responses were recoded to calculate mean sc ores: “Very Satisfied” = +2, “Somewhat Satisfied” = +1, “Somewhat Dissatisfied” = -1 and “Very Dissatisfied” = -2.Tier 4 Page 16 March 2019 Q4. Satisfaction with City Services II Adults 18+ (n=750) -2 -1 0 1 2 J. Providing affordable housing T. Addressing the impacts of homelessness F. Managing traffic on city streets C. Keeping taxes at affordable levels G. Maintaining city streets and roads Q. Meeting the needs of ethnic minorities D. Managing growth and development V. Effectively providing building planning and… L. Maintaining sidewalks A. Providing programs to reduce greenhouse gas… U. Having your voice heard in City government P. Providing sufficient parking downtown Y. Providing childcare programs -0.99 -0.95 -0.21 -0.09 -0.06 0.09 0.12 0.17 0.23 0.27 0.29 0.34 0.57 Very Satisfied Somewhat Satisfied Very Dissatisfied Somewhat Dissatisfied T-4 cont’dTier 5Tier 8Note: The above rating questions have been abbreviated for charting purposes. The responses were recoded to calculate mean sc ores: “Very Satisfied” = +2, “Somewhat Satisfied” = +1, “Somewhat Dissatisfied” = -1 and “Very Dissatisfied” = -2.Tier 6Tier 7 Page 17 March 2019 Q4. Satisfaction with City Services I Trended Results, Adults 18+ (n=750) 2019 2017 2015 2013 2011 2009 I. Providing fire and paramedic services 1.58 1.6 1.4 1.57 1.7 1.7 H. Providing public library services 1.51 1.48 1.39 1.42 1.3 1.4 R. Providing garbage collection and recycling services 1.27 1.32 1.37 1.34 1.4 1.5 E. Preserving open space 1.16 1.24 1.12 1.31 1.3 1.3 B. Providing police protection 1.10 1.4 1.2 1.32 1.4 1.5 X. Providing recreation programs 1.09 W. Wildfire prevention and preparedness 0.89 M. Providing bike and pedestrian friendly routes 0.83 1.02 0.89 1.18 1 0.9 Z. Maintaining City parks and recreation facilities 0.82 O. Cleaning and sweeping city streets 0.77 1.07 1.02 1.12 1 1.2 N. Trimming trees along city streets 0.69 1.13 1.16 1.19 1 1.2 K. Maintaining storm drains 0.64 1.04 0.92 0.85 1 1.2 S. Enforcing traffic and parking laws 0.63 1.07 0.81 1.06 1.1 - Y. Providing childcare programs 0.57 P. Providing sufficient parking downtown 0.34 0.76 0.18 0.61 0.8 0.6 U. Having your voice heard in City government 0.29 0.89 ---- A. Providing programs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 0.27 1.21 1.05 0.8 0.7 0.6 L. Maintaining sidewalks 0.23 0.86 0.79 0.97 0.8 0.9 V. Effectively providing building planning and permitting services 0.17 1.06 ---- D. Managing growth and development 0.12 0.77 0.74 1.09 0.6 0.6 Q. Meeting the needs of ethnic minorities 0.09 0.83 0.6 0.62 1 0.7 G. Maintaining city streets and roads -0.06 0.66 0.64 0.71 0.5 0.6 C. Keeping taxes at affordable levels -0.09 0.53 0.31 0.65 0.4 0.3 F. Managing traffic on city streets -0.21 0.48 0.51 0.86 0.9 0.5 T. Reducing the impacts of homelessness -0.95 0.07 ---- J. Providing affordable housing -0.99 0.39 0.16 0.19 0.4 0 Page 18 March 2019 Q4. Satisfaction with City Services II Trended Results, Adults 18+ (n=750) 2019 2017 2015 2013 2011 2009 Providing adequate parks and recreation facilities 1.22 1.12 1.29 1.3 1.3 Providing recreational and cultural arts programs 1.19 1 1.23 1.3 1.3 Providing senior citizen services 1.17 0.97 1.14 1.1 1.2 Providing community events 1.14 0.94 1.26 1.2 1.3 Maintaining parks 1.13 1.17 1.34 1.3 1.3 Providing child care services 1.05 0.38 0.94 0.9 1.1 Providing youth and teen services 0.96 0.66 0.66 0.9 0.9 Maintaining City facilities -1.16 1.25 1.2 - Maintaining and weeding median strips ---0.8 1 Page 19 March 2019 Areas of Improvement Based on the importance –satisfaction values shown on the following page, the top priorities for improvements are: ➢Maintaining City streets and roads (G) ➢Managing traffic on City streets (F) ➢Addressing the impacts of homelessness (T) ➢Keeping taxes at affordable levels (C) Page 20 March 2019 Importance –Satisfaction Matrix n=750 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 1 City Service Derived Imp Satisfaction 4G. Maintaining City streets and roads 0.329 -0.06 4O. Cleaning and sweeping City streets 0.329 0.77 4F. Managing traffic on City streets 0.327 -0.21 4B. Providing police protection 0.325 1.10 4Z. Maintaining City parks and recreation facilities 0.284 0.82 4L. Maintaining sidewalks 0.275 0.23 4D. Managing growth and development 0.269 0.12 4S. Enforcing traffic and parking laws 0.269 0.63 4P. Providing sufficient parking downtown 0.257 0.34 4T. Addressing the impacts of homelessness 0.236 -0.95 4I. Providing fire and paramedic services 0.223 1.58 4R. Providing garbage collection and recycling services 0.200 1.27 4X. Providing recreation programs 0.191 1.09 4K. Maintaining storm drains 0.190 0.64 4N. Trimming trees along City streets 0.185 0.69 4H. Providing public library services 0.179 1.51 4E. Preserving open space 0.172 1.16 4W. Wildfire prevention and preparedness 0.163 0.89 4M. Providing bike and pedestrian friendly routes 0.148 0.83 4C. Keeping taxes at affordable levels 0.143 -0.09 4U. Having your voice heard in City government 0.132 0.29 4V. Effectively providing building planning and permitting services 0.049 0.17 4Q. Meeting the needs of ethnic minorities 0.039 0.09 4J. Providing affordable housing 0.032 -0.99 4Y. Providing childcare programs 0.023 0.57 4A. Providing programs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions -0.030 0.27 Other Services and Issues Page 22 March 2019 Q5. Problems Facing San Rafael Adults 18+ (n=750) 0%10%20%30% DK/NA/[Not sure] Other Preserving open space Condition of parks and/or recreation facilities Availability of jobs Condition or safety of sidewalks/pathways Public safety (includes 'crime') Poor financial situation/condition City employee pensions & benefits are too high Condition or safety of streets Undocumented workers or day laborers Quality of education Availability of housing Growth and/or overcrowding Cost of living Traffic congestion Homelessness Affordability of housing 1.9% 5.5% 0.1% 0.2% 0.4% 0.5% 0.7% 0.7% 1.5% 1.7% 2.0% 2.5% 3.6% 6.7% 10.8% 12.2% 21.8% 27.2% Page 23 March 2019 Q5. Problems Facing San Rafael Trended Results, Adults 18+ (n=750) 2019 2017 2015 2013 2011 2009 2007 2005 Affordability of housing 27.2% Homelessness 21.8%26.2%25.9%19.4%8%5%3%4% Traffic congestion 12.2% Cost of living 10.8% Growth and/or overcrowding 6.7%5.6%3.2%2.4%5%8%12%11% Availability of housing 3.6% Quality of education 2.5%1.0%4.6%2.3%7%5%5%6% Undocumented workers or day laborers 2.0% Condition or safety of streets 1.7%1.5%0.9%3.9%1%1%1%2% City employee pensions and benefits are too high 1.5%2.3%9.2%6.5%---- Poor financial situation/condition 0.7%0.8%2.0%8.7%17%11%5%10% Public safety (includes crime)0.7%1.3%4.1%5.3%4%6%6%3% Condition or safety of sidewalks/pathways 0.5%1.2%2.5%2.5%1%1%1%0% Availability of jobs 0.4%3.8%1.5%4.6%9%5%1%2% Condition of parks and/or recreation facilities 0.2% Preserving open space 0.1% Condition or safety of buildings 0.0%0.4%1.8%0.8%<1%1%1%<1% Other 5.5%6.7%3.6%17.4%14%10%9%14% DK/NA/[Not sure]1.9%5.2%6.5%9.0%8%5%9%10% Cost of living or affordability of housing 25.2%15.0%7.8%9%12%12%10% Illegal immigrants or day laborers 1.2%6.4%5.3%9%9%11%6% Page 24 March 2019 Q6. Satisfaction with City’s Spending of Taxpayers’ Money Adults 18+ (n=750) Very satisfied 4.6% Somewhat satisfied 33.5% Somewhat dissatisfied 15.9% Very dissatisfied 9.2% Mixed opinions 17.2% No opinion 6.1% DK/NA/ [Not sure] 13.4% Page 25 March 2019 Q6. Satisfaction with City’s Spending of Taxpayers’ Money Trended Results, Aduts 18+ (n=750) 2019 2017 2015 2013 2011 2009 2007 2003 2001 1999 Satisfied 38.2%30.0%29.5%52.4%53%45%56%46%47%49% Dissatisfied 25.1%19.6%19.9%19.6%24%25%28%37%35%32% Mixed opinions 17.2%32.0%29.8%8.6%12%13%4% 17%18%19%No opinion 6.1%6.9%9.8%18.8%9%15%11% DK/NA/[Not sure]13.4%11.4%11.0%.5%1%2%1% Cannabis Planning Issues Page 27 March 2019 Q7. Support for Allowing Medical Cannabis Dispensaries or Storefronts Adults 18+ (n=750) Strongly Support Somewhat Support Note: The above rating questions have been abbreviated for charting purposes, and responses were recoded to calculate mean sc ores: “Strongly Support = +2, “Somewhat Support” = +1, “Somewhat Oppose” = -1, and “Strongly Oppose” = -2. -2 -1 0 1 2 C. Residential neighborhoods G. Office buildings B. Local shopping centers E. Regional shopping centers A. Downtown F. Industrial areas D. Near the police department -0.69 0.16 0.19 0.21 0.42 0.47 0.62 Somewhat Oppose Strongly Oppose Tier 1Tier 2Tier 3 Page 28 March 2019 Q8. Support for Allowing Adult Recreational Use Cannabis Dispensaries or Storefronts Adults 18+ (n=750) Strongly Support Somewhat Support Note: The above rating questions have been abbreviated for charting purposes, and responses were recoded to calculate mean sc ores: “Strongly Support = +2, “Somewhat Support” = +1, “Somewhat Oppose” = -1, and “Strongly Oppose” = -2. -2 -1 0 1 2 C. Residential neighborhoods G. Office buildings B. Local shopping centers E. Regional shopping centers A. Downtown F. Industrial areas D. Near the police department -0.68 -0.09 -0.05 0.00 0.23 0.27 0.56 Somewhat Oppose Strongly Oppose Tier 1Tier 2Tier 3Tier 4 Revenue Measure Ballot Tests Page 30 March 2019 Q9. General Sales Tax Sample A 0%20%40%60%80%100% November 2020 March 2020 Mail Ballot November 2019 All Voters 26.8% 27.8% 26.5% 27.9% 27.0% 29.1% 31.1% 28.7% 25.5% 27.5% 15.7% 14.6% 18.6% 18.8% 14.8% 20.7% 19.4% 20.9% 22.5% 22.5% 7.7% 7.2% 5.3% 5.3% 8.2% Definitely Yes Probably Yes Probably No Definitely No DK/NA/Not sure 54.5%To preserve essential city services with funding that cannot be taken by Sacramento, including: •maintaining rapid emergency police and fire response times; •maintaining adequate numbers of on-duty firefighters, paramedics and police; •attracting, training, and retaining quality police, fire and city employees; •maintaining city streets and parks; and •supporting other city services; shall the City of San Rafael measure increasing the local sales tax rate by one-quarter percent, for 9 years, providing $4 million dollars per year, be adopted? 53.4% 55.2% 58.9% 55.9% Page 31 March 2019 Q10. Wildfire Prevention Parcel Tax Sample B 0%20%40%60%80%100% November 2020 March 2020 Mail Ballot November 2019 All Voters 24.2% 25.9% 26.0% 25.5% 22.8% 37.6% 33.0% 30.8% 29.5% 39.6% 13.0% 14.5% 17.6% 18.5% 13.4% 14.3% 15.7% 16.8% 17.3% 14.7% 10.9% 10.9% 8.8% 9.2% 9.5% Definitely Yes Probably Yes Probably No Definitely No DK/NA/Not sure 62.4%To improve wildfire prevention and disaster services, including; •increasing capability for early fire detection and warning; •implementing and overseeing vegetation management and fuel reduction for private, public, and open space areas; •improving disaster preparedness and evacuation planning; and •increasing emergency services positions; shall the City of San Rafael measure creating a $200 per parcel disaster prevention levy, for 10 years, providing $3.2 million dollars annually, with annual inflation adjustments and independent citizen oversight, be adopted? 55.0% 56.8% 58.9% 61.8% Page 32 March 2019 Q11. Support for $100 Parcel Tax Alternative Sample B 0%20%40%60%80%100% November 2020 March 2020 Mail Ballot November 2019 All Voters 41.1% 43.1% 44.4% 44.7% 40.7% 34.1% 31.2% 30.1% 29.0% 34.5% 6.8% 7.1% 8.0% 8.3% 6.1% 9.6% 9.8% 10.7% 11.0% 10.7% 8.5% 8.9% 6.7% 7.0% 8.0% Definitely Yes Probably Yes Probably No Definitely No DK/NA/Not sure 75.2%Instead of a $200 tax for increasing capability for early fire detection and warning; implementing and overseeing vegetation management and fuel reduction for private, public, and open space areas; improving disaster preparedness and evacuation planning; and increasing emergency services positions, what if the tax rate was $100? 73.7% 74.5% 74.3% 75.2% Page 33 March 2019 Q12. Statements About the Measure I All Voters (n=750) Note: The above rating questions have been abbreviated for charting purposes, and responses were recoded to calculate mean sc ores: “Much More Likely” = +2, “Somewhat More Likely” = +1, “No Effect” = 0, “Somewhat Less Likely” = -1, and “Much Less Likely” = -2. No Effect Somewhat More Likely Much More Likely -2 -1 0 1 2 L. The measure will fund implementation and oversight of vegetation management plans for private, public and… Q. The measure will provide help to reduce fuels around critical infrastructure R. The measure will provide increased access and control of technology, including cameras with heat detection,… G. The measure will help maintain city streets and parks T. The measure will provide increased emergency services positions E. The measure will maintain rapid emergency police and fire response times S. The measure will reduce the risk of encampment ignited wildfires I. The measure will provide wildfire prevention services and wildfire rapid response J. The measure will increase capability for early fire warnings and detection B. Every penny from this measure must stay in San Rafael. No funds can be taken away by Sacramento 0.95 0.95 0.96 0.96 0.97 1.04 1.19 1.20 1.21 1.34 Somewhat Less Likely Much Less Likely ◼Sample A Sample B Tier 2Tier 1 Page 34 March 2019 Q12. Statements About the Measure II All Voters (n=750) Note: The above rating questions have been abbreviated for charting purposes, and responses were recoded to calculate mean sc ores: “Much More Likely” = +2, “Somewhat More Likely” = +1, “No Effect” = 0, “Somewhat Less Likely” = -1, and “Much Less Likely” = -2. No Effect Somewhat More Likely Much More Likely -2 -1 0 1 2 D. The tax will be used to support a bloated and costly pension program for City employees K. Voters already increased taxes for a new fire station and public safety building downtown, why do we need… P. The measure will help provide a new 21st century library H. The measure will help support other city services M. The measure will fund development of programs and training to enable fuel reduction efforts through… C. The City has been very fiscally responsible, but cost increases threaten our city's long-term financial… N. The measure will fund disaster preparation to address flooding from climate change and sea-level rise F. The measure will attract, train, and retain quality police, fire and city employees A. The measure will continue the appointed Citizen Oversight Committee to assure the money raised is… O. The measure will fund disaster preparation to address the impacts of earthquake -0.85 -0.12 0.53 0.54 0.70 0.75 0.85 0.86 0.93 0.94 Somewhat Less Likely Much Less Likely ◼Sample A Sample B Tier 3T-2 cont’dTier 4T-5T-6 www.godberesearch.com California and Corporate Offices 1575 Old Bayshore Highway, Suite 102 Burlingame, CA 94010 Nevada Office 59 Damonte Ranch Parkway, Suite B309 Reno, NV 89521 Pacific Northwest Office 601 108th Avenue NE, Suite 1900 Bellevue, WA 98004