1. Key Findings: The Good News The public believes most local services are important to the personal wellbeing of their families. The public believes that local government does a good job of delivering local services. The public has a rough sense that different units of local government are responsible for, or share responsibility for, different services.

2. Key Findings: The Bad News Most of the public does not have a high opinion of how effectively local government manages. Most of the public does not think local government has done as good a job as they or their employers have done in adjusting to changes in the economy. When asked to evaluate how good a job specific local officials and governing bodies are doing in making sure local services are delivered in a cost-effective and efficient manner, positive ratings decline significantly. The public does not have a better sense of which units of government are responsible for which services.

3. Service Conclusions 1.The public values the services provided by local government. 2.The public is concerned about how effectively local government and those services are managed and delivered. they do not equate the “delivery” of those services (which they give relatively high positive marks) with “cost-efficient and effective delivery” (for which they give local government relatively low marks); and, they are critical of local government’s adaptation to change. 3.There are indications that the younger segments of the population (18-44) do not see all services aligned with their needs and/or interests. 4.There are indications that those most adversely affected by recent economic problems (i.e., 45-64) are more critical of local government management.

4. Field Position Considerations 1.The public values their services and would probably oppose significant reductions in most of the service levels. 2.The public believes that local government is doing a good job of getting the services to them, but does not believe that local government is getting the services to them as effectively and efficiently as they could. 3.Consequently, it must be considered as likely that at the moment the public believes, or is ready to believe, that local government could protect services from tax freezes or caps by managing more effectively. 4.Which means in turn that claims that tax freezes or caps will gut local services may be useful in motivating institutional players, but are not likely to be credible with the public and could adversely affect the credibility of local governments making such claims.

5. Do you believe that local governments spend more of your tax dollars on delivering local services to you and the community than they need to?

7. Spending Conclusions 1.Most of the public does not believe local government spends more than it needs to delivering local services. 2.Most of the public does believe that local government spends money on programs that are not needed or that they cannot afford and spends too much money on top-heavy management. 3.Sizeable minorities of the population believe that there is some level of wasteful spending in every major public service.

8. Field Position Considerations 1.The public is not opposed to the current level of major service expenditures. 2.But, because the public believes there is some level of wasteful spending occurring in all of these services and because they do not believe that local government is spending its money as wisely as it could, it is unlikely that they would support increases in spending at this moment in time. 3.Which means in turn that claims that local government spending cannot be maintained at existing levels are as likely to raise questions about local government’s ability to manage as they are to raise concerns about effects on the quality of local services. 4.Consequently, one must assume that those who do not want spending to increase would favor local budgets that hold the line on spending or legislative actions that mandate freezes or caps. 5.Which means in turn that claims that tax freezes or caps will gut local services may be useful in motivating institutional players, but are not likely to be popular with a significant portion of the public and could adversely affect the popularity of local governments making such claims.

9. Taxes Conclusions 1.The public sees property taxes as linked to spending and services, but is unclear on how much of which taxes go to pay for which services. 2.There is a correlation between the public’s perception of the management capacity/performance of local government and their sense of whether or not their property taxes are too high. 3.Property taxes are viewed by majorities of the population as too high, unfair and as a strain on families. 4.Those with less income and those adversely affected by recent downturns in the economy are particularly unhappy with their property taxes.

10. Field Position Considerations 1.The public’s dislike of the property tax is: intense (e.g., “too high,” “strain,” “unfair”); and fueled by the sense that at least some of the burden/cost is driven by wasteful/excessive spending and less than able, top-heavy management. 2.In this context, one must assume that a property tax freeze can and will be positioned as one way of ensuring that the financial challenges taxpayers face will not get any worse. 3.Similarly, in this context, one must assume that a property tax freeze can and will be positioned as one way of making sure that local governments become better managers. 4.Which in turn means that local government budgets that increase the costs to taxpayers will provide fuel for the tax freeze fire and increase public and media scrutiny of local governmental management.

11. Tax Freeze Conclusions 1.The public supports a freeze by a two to one margin. 2.Support for the freeze is driven by economic concerns related to affordability. 3.Support for the freeze is also driven by a sense that there is waste or excess spending in local government budgets. 4.Support for the freeze is also driven by a sense that local government is not well-managed. 5.Support and opposition for a freeze is subject to change.

12. Field Position Considerations 1.The current support for a property tax freeze is strong, diverse and heavily rooted in established public opinions and attitudes regarding government spending and management. 2.Support for a property tax freeze is not likely to erode unless opponents of a freeze are able to persuade the public that a freeze: a) will really hurt local services; b) is not necessary to protect taxpayers from further financial demands for local services; c) will hinder local governments’ ability to support necessary economic development initiatives; and d) is not required to stimulate improvements in the management of local government and services. 3.Opponents of a tax freeze cannot persuade the public unless they speak aggressively, credibly and persuasively to the public’s concerns about services, spending and taxes.

13. Field Position Considerations: Services 1.The public values their services and would probably oppose significant reductions in most of the service levels. 2.The public believes that local government is doing a good job of getting the services to them, but does not believe that local government is getting the services to them as effectively and efficiently as they could. 3.Consequently, it must be considered as likely that at the moment the public believes, or is ready to believe, that local government could protect services from tax freezes or caps by managing more effectively. 4.Which means in turn that claims that tax freezes or caps will gut local services may be useful in motivating institutional players, but are not likely to be credible with the public and could adversely affect the credibility of local governments making such claims.