1. City of San Rafael 2017 City Satisfaction Survey April 2017

2. 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 adoption of green/sustainable practices in households;
Gauge support for a revenue measure that would preserve essential city services with funding that cannot be taken by the State;
Determine the type of tax, impact of features, and duration of the proposed measures on voter support;
Assess support for allowing cannabis businesses to operate in San Rafael and taxation of gross receipts of sales;
Gauge satisfaction with local information sources; and
Identify differences in opinions due to demographic and/or behavioral characteristics that show statistically significant levels.

3. Methodology Overview
Data Collection Internet and telephone Interviewing
Universe 46,787 adult residents (ages 18 and older) in the City of San Rafael, with subsamples of likely November 2018 voters (18,466 voters), likely June 2018 voters (13,597), and likely November 2017 voters (12,474).
Fielding Dates February 7 through February 19, 2017
Interview Length 25 minutes
Sample Size 858 adult residents/all voters likely November 2018 voters likely June 2018 voters likely November 2017 voters
Margin of Error % adult residents /all voters % likely November 2018 voters % likely June 2018 voters % likely November 2017 voters

4. Overall Satisfaction

5. Q1. Satisfaction with Quality of Life n=858

6. Q1. Satisfaction with Quality of Life Trended Results n=858
2017
2015*
2013
2011
2009
Very satisfied
46.4%
52.3%
70.7%
63%
59%
Somewhat satisfied
40.6%
41.5%
23.3%
29%
32%
Total Satisfied
87.0%
93.8%
94.0%
92%
91%
Somewhat dissatisfied
9.2%
4.9%
3.5% 5% 6%
Very dissatisfied
2.7%
1.2%
2.2% 3% 4%
Not sure
1.1%
.2%
<1%
* Due to the overlap of the survey start date and the closure of Boyd Park, the data for the 2015 resident satisfaction questions have been normalized to account for news stories during the initial interviewing. Normalization was accomplished by removing interviews conducted on the first two days of the survey for purposes of this report. The full data set (before normalization) is available in the 2015 detailed cross-tabulations.

7. Q2. Satisfaction with Overall City Services n=858

8. Q2. Satisfaction with Overall City Services Trended Results n=858
2017
2015*
2013
2011
2009
Very satisfied
31.8%
43.6%
36.2%
42%
43%
Somewhat satisfied
44.3%
40.4%
47.8%
39%
41%
Total Satisfied
76.1%
84.0%
81%
84%
Somewhat dissatisfied
12.3%
8.8%
7.5% 7%
Very dissatisfied
3.9%
2.9%
4.9% 5%
Not sure
7.8%
4.2%
3.7% 6% 3%
* Due to the overlap of the survey start date and the closure of Boyd Park, the data for the 2015 resident satisfaction questions have been normalized to account for news stories during the initial interviewing. Normalization was accomplished by removing interviews conducted on the first two days of the survey for purposes of this report. The full data set (before normalization) is available in the 2015 detailed cross-tabulations.

9. Q3. City’s Financial Situation n=858

10. Q3. City’s Financial Situation Trended Results n=858
2017
2015
2013
2011
2009
2007
2005
Excellent
4.6%
2.6%
4.2% 3% 4% 7% 5%
Good
34.0%
35.2%
33.8%
17%
24%
32%
Excellent + Good
38.6%
37.8%
38.0%
20%
28%
39%
37%
Fair
18.2%
19.6%
26.0%
38%
34%
31%
Poor
4.4%
7.0%
5.9%
12%
10%
11%
Not sure
38.7%
35.5%
30.1%
22%
26%
21%

11. Satisfaction with Individual Services

12. Q4. Satisfaction with City Services I n=858
Tier 1
Tier 2
Tier 3
Very
Dissatisfied
Somewhat Dissatisfied
Somewhat Satisfied
Very
Satisfied
Note: The above rating questions have been abbreviated for charting purposes. The responses were recoded to calculate mean scores:
“Very Satisfied” = +2, “Somewhat Satisfied” = +1, “Somewhat Dissatisfied” = -1 and “Very Dissatisfied” = -2.

13. Q4. Satisfaction with City Services II n=858
Tier 3
Tier 4
Tier 5
T-6
Very
Dissatisfied
Somewhat Dissatisfied
Somewhat Satisfied
Very
Satisfied
Note: The above rating questions have been abbreviated for charting purposes. The responses were recoded to calculate mean scores:
“Very Satisfied” = +2, “Somewhat Satisfied” = +1, “Somewhat Dissatisfied” = -1 and “Very Dissatisfied” = -2.

14. Q4. Satisfaction with City Services Trended Results n=858
2017
2015*
2013
2011
2009
4I. Providing fire and paramedic services
1.60
1.4
1.57
1.7
4H. Providing public library services
1.48
1.39
1.42
1.3
4B. Providing police protection
1.40
1.2
1.32
1.5
4Y. Providing garbage collection and recycling services
1.37
1.34
4E. Preserving open space
1.24
1.12
1.31
4T. Providing adequate parks and recreation facilities
1.22
1.29
4A. Providing programs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions
1.21
1.05
0.8
0.7
0.6
4V. Providing recreational and cultural arts programs
1.19 1
1.23
4Q. Providing senior citizen services
1.17
0.97
1.14
1.1
4S. Providing community events
0.94
1.26
4N. Trimming trees along city streets
1.13
1.16
4U. Maintaining parks
4O. Cleaning and sweeping city streets
1.07
1.02
4Z. Enforcing traffic and parking laws
0.81
1.06 -
4CC. Effectively providing building planning and permitting services  -
4W. Providing child care services
0.38
0.9
4K. Maintaining storm drains
1.04
0.92
0.85
4M. Providing bike and pedestrian friendly routes
0.89
1.18
4R. Providing youth and teen services
0.96
0.66
4BB. Having your voice heard in City government
4L. Maintaining sidewalks
0.86
0.79
4X. Meeting the needs of ethnic minorities
0.83
0.62
4D. Managing growth and development
0.77
0.74
1.09
4P. Providing sufficient parking downtown
0.76
0.18
0.61
4G. Maintaining city streets and roads
0.64
0.71
0.5
4C. Keeping taxes at affordable levels
0.53
0.31
0.65
0.4
0.3
4F. Managing traffic on city streets
0.48
0.51
4J. Providing affordable housing
0.39
0.16
0.19
4AA. Reducing the impacts of homelessness
0.07
Maintaining City facilities - 
1.25
Maintaining and weeding median strips
*Due to the overlap of the survey start date and the closure of Boyd Park, the data for the 2015 resident satisfaction questions have been normalized to account for news stories during the initial interviewing. Normalization was accomplished by removing interviews conducted on the first two days of the survey for purposes of this report. The full data set (before normalization) is available in the 2015 detailed cross-tabulations.

15. Areas of Improvement
Based on the importance – satisfaction values shown on the following pages, the top priorities for improvements are:
Reducing the impacts of homelessness (4AA)
Managing traffic on city streets (4F)
Maintaining city streets and roads (4G)
Providing sufficient parking downtown (4P)

16. Importance – Satisfaction Matrix n=858
Tier 1
Tier 2
Tier 3

17. Other Services and Issues

18. Q5. Problems Facing San Rafael n=858

19. Q5. Problems Facing San Rafael Trended Results n=858
2017
2015
2013
2011
2009
2007
2005
Homelessness
26.2%
25.9%
19.4% 8% 5% 3% 4%
Cost of living or affordability of housing
25.2%
15.0%
7.8% 9%
12%
10%
Growth and/or overcrowding
5.6%
3.2%
2.4%
11%
Availability of jobs
3.8%
1.5%
4.6% 1% 2%
City employee pensions and benefits are too high
2.3%
9.2%
6.5% -
Condition or safety of streets
0.9%
3.9%
Public safety (includes crime)
1.3%
4.1%
5.3% 6%
Illegal immigrants or day laborers
1.2%
6.4%
Condition or safety of sidewalks/pathways
2.5% 0%
Quality of education
1.0% 7%
Poor financial situation/condition
0.8%
2.0%
8.7%
17%
Condition or safety of buildings
0.4%
1.8%
<1%
Other
6.7%
3.6%
17.4%
14%
DK/NA
5.2%
9.0%

20. Q6. Satisfaction with City’s Spending of Taxpayers’ Money n=858

21. Q6. Satisfaction with City’s Spending of Taxpayers’ Money Trended Results n=858
2017
2015
2013
2011
2009
2007
2003*
2001*
1999*
Satisfied
30.0%
29.5%
52.4%
53%
45%
56%
46%
47%
49%
Dissatisfied
19.6%
19.9%
24%
25%
28%
37%
35%
32%
Mixed opinions
32.0%
29.8%
8.6%
12%
13% 4%
17%
18%
19%
No opinion
6.9%
9.8%
18.8% 9%
15%
11%
DK/NA
11.4%
.1%
.5% 1% 2%
Not sure
10.9%

22. Q7. Frequency of Using Green or Sustainable Practices n=858
 Split Sample C
 Split Sample D
Never
Some of the Time
Most of the Time
Almost Always
Note: The above rating questions have been abbreviated for charting purposes, and responses were recoded to calculate mean scores:
“Almost Always” = +3, “Most of the Time” = +2, “Some of the Time” = +1, and “Never” = 0.

23. Q8. Reasons for Not Adopting Green or Sustainable Practices n=295

24. Revenue Measure Ballot Tests

25. Q9. Uninformed Support: Sales Tax Sample A
55.1%
Shall the City of San Rafael increase the local sales tax rate by one-quarter percent to provide funding that cannot be taken by the State, and can be used to preserve essential city services for a period of 20 years, including: maintaining rapid emergency police and fire response times and anti-gang and anti-drug programs, maintaining adequate numbers of on-duty firefighters and paramedics and police, addressing sea level rise and flooding, maintaining community centers and repairing city streets?
56.8%
57.7%

26. Q10. Uninformed Support: Utility Users Tax Sample B
39.5%
Shall the City of San Rafael levy a 5 percent utility users tax on telecommunications, gas, electric, water and sewer services to provide funding that cannot be taken by the State, and can be used to preserve essential city services for a period of 20 years, including: maintaining rapid emergency police and fire response times, maintaining adequate numbers of on- duty firefighters and paramedics and police, addressing sea level rise and flooding, maintaining community centers and repairing city streets?
40.4%
35.6%

27. Q11. Statements About the Measure Likely November 2017 Voters n=537
Tier 2
Tier 3
T-4
T-5
 Sample C
 Sample D
Tier 6
Much Less Likely
Somewhat Less Likely
No Effect
Somewhat More Likely
Much More Likely
Note: The above rating questions have been abbreviated for charting purposes, and responses were recoded to calculate mean scores:
“Much More Likely” = +2, “Somewhat More Likely” = +1, “No Effect” = 0, “Somewhat Less Likely” = -1, and “Much Less Likely” = -2.

28. Q12. Informed Support: Sales Tax Sample A
54.4%
Shall the City of San Rafael increase the local sales tax rate by one-quarter percent to provide funding that cannot be taken by the State, and can be used to preserve essential city services for a period of 20 years, including: maintaining rapid emergency police and fire response times and anti-gang and anti-drug programs, maintaining adequate numbers of on-duty firefighters and paramedics and police, addressing sea level rise and flooding, maintaining community centers and repairing city streets?
55.9%
58.8%

29. Q13. Support for Alternative Sales Tax Measure with 9 Year Duration Sample A
56.2%
INSTEAD of a levy for 20 years, another alternative would be to end the measure after 9 years.
57.6%
58.9%

30. Q14. Uninformed Support: Utility Users Tax Sample B
41.2%
Shall the City of San Rafael levy a 5 percent utility users tax on telecommunications, gas, electric, water and sewer services to provide funding that cannot be taken by the State, and can be used to preserve essential city services for a period of 20 years, including: maintaining rapid emergency police and fire response times, maintaining adequate numbers of on- duty firefighters and paramedics and police, addressing sea level rise and flooding, maintaining community centers and repairing city streets?
41.8%
37.5%

31. Q15. Support for Alternative UUT Measure with 9 Year Duration Sample B
47.0%
INSTEAD of a levy for 20 years, another alternative would be to end the measure after 9 years.
47.4%
40.5%

32. Q16. Support for Future Cannabis Ordinances Likely November 2017 Voters (n=537)
Tier 1
Tier 2
Strongly Oppose
Somewhat Oppose
Somewhat Support
Strongly Support
Note: The above rating questions have been abbreviated for charting purposes, and responses were recoded to calculate mean scores:
“Strongly Support” = +2, “Somewhat Support= +1, “Somewhat Oppose” = -1, and “Strongly Oppose” = -2.

33. Q17. Suppot for Tax on Cannabis Businesses
73.2%
Shall the City of San Rafael levy an ongoing tax of up to 10% of gross receipts of potential future cannabis (marijuana) businesses in the city, which could provide over $5 million dollars annually, requiring independent citizen oversight, financial audits, and that all funds stay in the City of San Rafael and cannot be taken by the State, to be used to maintain and enhance City services, including maintaining rapid emergency police and fire response times, maintaining community centers, repairing city streets and other general city services?
73.7%
71.8%

34. Communications

35. Q18. Satisfaction with Local Information Sources n=858
Very Dissatisfied
Somewhat Dissatisfied
Somewhat Satisfied
Very Satisfied
Note: The above rating questions have been abbreviated for charting purposes, and responses were recoded to calculate mean scores:
“Very Satisfied” = +2, “Somewhat Satisfied= +1, “Somewhat Dissatisfied” = -1, and “Very Dissatisfied” = -2.

36. Executive Summary

37. Executive Summary
Overall, residents continue to have a positive opinion of the quality of life in the City of San Rafael.
Eighty-seven percent of respondents indicated that they are “very satisfied” (46.4%) or “somewhat satisfied” (40.6%) with the quality of life in San Rafael.
Opinion of the City’s financial situation is slightly better at 38.6 percent, although not statistically different. In 2015, 37.8 percent of residents felt the City financial situation was excellent or good, compared to 38 percent in 2013.
In an open-end format, residents’ concerns clearly reflect current events. In the current survey:
Homelessness was citied by 26.2%
Cost of living or affordability of housing was an important concern among 25.2%
Traffic congestion was a top concern among 17.7%

38. Executive Summary
Overall, 76.1 percent of respondents were satisfied with the job the City is doing to provide services (31.8% “very satisfied” and 44.3% “somewhat satisfied”).
Respondents reported satisfaction with a wide range of city services.
The survey assessed 29 specific city services. For 18 services, respondents as a whole were between “somewhat” and “very satisfied.” Further, 29 of 29 services received positive rankings.
Thirty percent respondents indicated they were satisfied with the job the City is doing to spend taxpayer money, while 19.6 percent were dissatisfied. Thirty-two percent had mixed opinions and 11.4 percent did not have an opinion.
With respect to sustainable behavior, majorities of respondents use reusable bags at grocery and other stores, compost kitchen food scraps, and reduced water consumption more than “most of the time”. But, only 30.8 percent use alternative modes of transportation.
The top reason for not engaging in sustainable practices continues to be “inconvenient” at 37.2 percent.

39. Executive Summary
Before information was provided, 55.1 percent of likely November 2017 voters supported a measure to increase the local sales tax by ¼ percent.
Contrastingly, 39.5 percent of likely November 2017 voters supported a measure to increase the local utility users tax by 5 percent.
The top arguments for the measure among the likely November 2017 voters included:
Every penny from this measure must stay in San Rafael. No funds can be taken away by the state
Maintaining adequate numbers of on-duty firefighters and paramedics and police
Maintaining rapid emergency police and fire response times
The measure will continue the appointed Citizen Oversight Committee to assure the money raised is used for its intended purposes
Repairing city streets and sidewalks
After information was provided 54.4 percent of likely November 2017 voters support the measure to increase the local sales tax by ¼ percent.
Alternatively, 41.2 percent of likely November 2017 voters supported a measure to increase the local utility users tax by 5 percent.
Sixty-six percent of respondents support allowing medical cannabis businesses in San Rafael and 55.4 percent support allowing recreational cannabis businesses in the City.

40. Town of West Contra Costa: Parcel Tax Feasibility Survey
California and Corporate Offices 1575 Old Bayshore Highway, Suite 102 Burlingame, CA 94010
Nevada Office
59 Damonte Ranch Parkway, Suite B309
Reno, NV
Pacific Northwest Office th Avenue NE, Suite 1900 Bellevue, WA 98004