HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022-01-18 Finance Committee Agendas1
Materials related to an item on this agenda submitted to the Finance Committee after distribution of the agenda
packet are available for public inspection in the city’s website at www.cityofpaloalto.org
FINANCE COMMITTEE
Tuesday, January 18, 2022
Special Meeting
Virtual Meeting
6:00 PM
***BY VIRTUAL TELECONFERENCE ONLY***
Click to Join Zoom Meeting ID: 992-2730-7235 Phone: 1(669)900-6833
Pursuant to AB 361, to prevent the spread of Covid-19, this meeting will be held by
virtual teleconference only, with no physical location. The meeting will be broadcast
on Midpen Media Center at https://midpenmedia.org. Members of the public who
wish to participate by computer or phone can find the instructions at the end of this
agenda. Members of the public may speak to agendized items; up to three minutes
per speaker, to be determined by the presiding officer. All requests to speak will be
taken until 5 minutes after the staff’s presentation. Public comment may be
addressed to the full Finance Committee via email at
City.Council@cityofpaloalto.org and available for inspection on the City’s
website. Please clearly indicate which agenda item you are referencing in your
email subject line.
CALL TO ORDER
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Members of the public may speak to any item NOT on the agenda.
ACTION ITEMS
1.Discuss Poll Results Regarding Potential 2022 Revenue Generating
Ballot Measures and Recommend Further Refinement of Business
License Tax and Utility Tax Proposals
FUTURE MEETINGS AND AGENDAS
ADJOURNMENT
Presentation
2
Finance Committee Special Meeting January 18, 2022
PUBLIC COMMENT INSTRUCTIONS
Members of the Public may provide public comments to virtual meetings via email,
teleconference, or by phone.
1. Written public comments may be submitted by email to
city.council@cityofpaloalto.org.
2. Spoken public comments using a computer or smart phone will be accepted
through the teleconference meeting. To address the Council, click on the link below
to access a Zoom-based meeting. Please read the following instructions carefully.
• You may download the Zoom client or connect to the meeting in - browser. If using
your browser, make sure you are using a current, up-to-date browser: Chrome
30+, Firefox 27+, Microsoft Edge 12+, Safari 7+. Certain functionality may be
disabled in older browsers including Internet Explorer. Or download the Zoom
application onto your phone from the Apple App Store or Google Play Store and
enter the Meeting ID below
• You may be asked to enter an email address an d name. We request that you
identify yourself by name as this will be visible online and will be used to notify
you that it is your turn to speak.
• When you wish to speak on an Agenda Item, click on “raise hand.” The Clerk will
activate and unmute speakers in turn. Speakers will be notified shortly before
they are called to speak.
• When called, please limit your remarks to the time limit allotted.
• A timer will be shown on the computer to help keep track of your comments.
3. Spoken public comments using a phone use the telephone number listed below.
When you wish to speak on an agenda item hit *9 on your phone so we know that
you wish to speak. You will be asked to provide your first and last name before
addressing the Council. You will be advised how long you ha ve to speak. When called
please limit your remarks to the agenda item and time limit allotted.
Click to Join Zoom Meeting ID: 992-2730-7235 Phone: 1(669)900-6833
AMERICANS WITH DISABILITY ACT (ADA)
Persons with disabilities who require auxiliary aids or services in using City facilities,
services or programs or who would like information on the City’s compliance with the
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, may contact (650) 329 -2550 (Voice) 48
hours or more in advance.
City of Palo Alto (ID # 13875)
Finance Committee Staff Report
Meeting Date: 1/18/2022
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Title: Discuss Poll Results Regarding Potential 2022 Revenue Generating
Ballot Measures and Recommend Further Refinement of Business License Tax
and Utility Tax Proposals
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Administrative Services
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Finance Committee:
A. Receive a report on initial polling results and consider the results as the Committee
continues to evaluate potential revenue generating ballot measures;
B. Review refined calculations of a potential square footage-based business license tax and
make recommendations to the City Council on the following tax structure
characteristics:
a. Whether a tax should include exemptions for:
i. Small businesses, e.g. including a minimum square footage threshold and
whether businesses below the minimum should be completely exempt or
pay a flat rate;
ii. Small retail, including a defined square footage threshold for what is
considered “small”
iii. Grocery stores; or
iv. No exemptions.
b. Parameters of an annual escalator for the business license tax, conside ring
components such as the basis for the escalator (e.g. CPI), whether the escalator
should be capped, and whether the escalator should be applied on a calendar
year or fiscal year schedule.
C. Review, accept, and forward to the City Council results of the Initial Polling and draft
Community and Stakeholder Engagement Plan
D. Discussion and direction on related items as needed, including:
a. Confirming the Finance Committee’s recommendation on December 7, 2021
regarding the Utility Tax of removing a potential Utility Users Tax increase from
consideration and recommend that the City Council direct staff to develop a
proposal for voter ratification of the existing gas General Fund Transfer.
1
Packet Pg. 3
City of Palo Alto Page 2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report continues the Finance Committee’s discussion and work to explore the
development of a potential revenue generating local measure for the November 2022 ballot,
and specifically seeks to refine components of a potential business license tax. A utility tax has
also been under consideration, and the Finance Committee was presented options regarding
the utility on-bill tax on December 7, 2021 (CMR 13728) and made recommendations to
Council. Staff and its consultants are presenting three updates in this report. Staff requests that
the Finance Committee consider the polling results and the additional analysis presented and
recommend to the City Council further refinements and next steps. This report is organized as
follows:
• A further refined square footage business license tax that includes and defines the
following components (Attachment A).
• Updated modeling that includes rates ranging from $0.05 to $0.20 per square
foot per month
• Scenarios for exemptions for small retail and/or grocery stores, including a
definition of what is consider “small” as measured by square footage (minimum
threshold), or no exemptions;
• Options for calculation methodology of an annual escalator
• Results of the initial Palo Alto Community Issues polling survey, which includes polling
related to potential business license and utility tax proposals (Attachment B).
• City of Palo Alto Community and Stakeholder Engagement Plan that includes planned
work to seek additional community feedback through additional polling and stakeholder
engagement; feedback on this plan and recommendation for Council direction. This plan
includes engagement regarding business license and voter ratification of the existing gas
General Fund Transfer proposals, including:
• Any additional priorities for exploration, potential priorities for the use of funds
from any measure, potential exemptions for a business license tax, and how to
frame and explain a voter ratification of the existing gas General Fund Transfer.
Also attached to this report is the Summary of Prior Work on Potential Revenue Generating
Ballot Measures (Attachment C) for reference.
The proposed business license tax would result in a tax on entities doing business in Palo Alto
measured by occupied non-residential square footage, if approved by the voters. It is not a tax
on non-residential parcels. For modeling purposes only, the information provided in this staff
report, including Attachment A, was developed using real estate data as a reasonable and
available approximation of the non-residential square footage occupied by businesses in Palo
Alto. The purpose and goal of the modeling analysis is to provide the Finance Committee and
City Council with estimated impacts of the various components (taxation level, type of
exemptions, thresholds for square footage size, etc.) of a business license tax to continue to
1
Packet Pg. 4
City of Palo Alto Page 3
refine direction of a potential business tax for voter consideration in November 20 22. This
analysis, based on non-residential occupied square footage, attempts to provide rough
modeling of the impacts that various options for tax design would have on business and the
City.
The attached results of the first iteration of polling will inform major aspects of the ballot
measure workplan over the coming months. The Finance Committee’s feedback is requested on
further exploration of topic areas to be included the second round of polling and/or community
outreach efforts. Potential recommendations to the City Council may include the viability of
two potential revenue generating measures on the November 2022 ballot, refinements to
components of the potential business license tax and the voter ratification of the existing gas
General Fund Transfer, areas to further explore in the second round of polling, as well as target
areas to consider in the City’s community outreach plan. These topics for discussion by the
Committee are intended to further narrow options and refine the work plan calendar.
Following feedback from the Finance Committee, staff will forward these materials with the
Committee’s feedback to the City Council for direction to staff on next steps.
BACKGROUND
The City’s efforts in advancing fiscal sustainability efforts have grow n over the past decade. In
2019, several actions and plans were specifically outlined in the Fiscal Sustainability Workplan.
The goal of the workplan was to continue to make proactive progress towards fiscal
sustainability to maintain the excellent quality of life that the City of Palo Alto supports through
its services. Elements of the workplan included proactive funding contributions for the City’s
long-term pension and other post-employment benefits (OPEB) and strategies to structurally
balance and contain cost in the City’s General Fund on an ongoing basis. Staff have catalogued
the Council and Committee work in regard to the potential pursuit of a revenue generating tax
measure in support of the priorities for investment by the Council and community in
Attachment C.
Following the two meetings with the Finance Committee in September and October 2021,
discussion on November 8, 2021 with the City Council (CMR 13687) considered the Finance
Committee’s recommendation to further explore a business license tax and a utility tax. The
Finance Committee serves as the public body to review periodic progress reports and allow for
structured public discussion for feedback and recommendations of the potential revenue
generating ballot measure. In addition to direction regarding tax structure and modeling, the
City Council also delegated the review of polls to the Finance Committee, provided that the
overall ballot measure workplan stays on its timeline. The following is Council’s direction to
staff and the Finance Committee on November 8th:
A. Direct staff to model a business license tax at monthly rates of $0.05 to $0.20 per square
foot, with a preference for no sunset and an annual escalator, and with thresholds for
square footage size and possible exemptions for:
1
Packet Pg. 5
City of Palo Alto Page 4
i. Small retail, measured by square footage;
ii. Grocery stores;
iii. No exemptions;
B. Direct staff to model two methods to replace the General Fund Equity Transfer (GFET) at
risk in the Green case:
i. Seek voter approval in modifying the 2009 GFET formula to transfer a percentage
of gas utility gross revenues;
ii. Distribute the change across gas and electric as an increase in the percentage of
Utility Users Tax (UUT); and
C. Direct staff to execute initial round of polling (Attachment A), delegate review of the
polls to the Finance Committee, pending availability to stay on the workplan timeline,
and incorporate the Council’s feedback of the poll, including the modeling assumptions
identified in Parts A and Parts B of the motion; and
D. Remove the parcel tax as an option from the polling questions.
MOTION PASSED 6-1 (Tanaka no)
This staff report includes updated analysis and other information for a potential business
license tax, refined as directed by the City Council on November 8 th. In addition, staff launched
the initial round of polling and results are included in Attachment B. Staff also presented
updated analysis and other information for a potential utility on -bill tax at the Finance
Committee’s December 7, 2021 meeting (CMR 13728). The Finance Committee tentatively
recommended that Council direct staff, pending polling data, to refine the potential utility tax
to focus only on a percentage of revenue methodology, to focus solely on the gas utility, and to
use polling to determine whether to consider a cap on annual growth in the tax.
DISCUSSION & ANALYSIS
This item is an incremental step in the process of reviewing fiscal sustainability measures
through potential local revenue ballot measure(s). In response to the direction by Council at its
November 8, 2021 meeting, analysis is presented in this report to assist in further formation of
the characteristics of a potential business license tax. In addition, the results of the initial round
of polling are presented below to inform Finance Committee recommendations regarding
future polling and further refinement of the potential revenue generating ballot measure(s).
Square Footage Business License Tax (Attachment A)
On November 8th (CMR 13687) the City Council directed staff to continue exploration and
modeling of a business license, considering the following elements. A detailed discussion of
these components can be found in Attachment A:
• Model a business license tax at rates of $0.05 to $0.20 per square foot per month,
including assumptions for vacancy rates for available property categories
• Options for an annual escalator
1
Packet Pg. 6
City of Palo Alto Page 5
• Options for how to approach thresholds by square footage size and exemptions for
small retail (measured by square footage) and grocery stores
• Discussion of business license tax key concepts
As mentioned in the Executive Summary section of this report, the proposed business license
tax would result in a tax on entities doing business in Palo Alto measured by occupied non -
residential square footage. It is not a tax on non-residential parcels.
Revised Calculations of Revenue Generated by a Square Footage Business License Tax
The updated model includes staff’s assumption of key policy considerations and direction yet to
be decided by the City Council. Further narrowing of these aspects impacts the estimated
revenue of this model, which is now in the range of $12 million to $59 million in comparing the
baseline scenario and options 1, 2, and 3. Key policy considerations for the Finance Committee
for recommendation to the City Council include characteristics for a potential business license
tax including:
• A square footage business license tax be based solely on monthly rates per square foot
or also include a flat annual fee for certain businesses (Options 2 and 3)
• The monthly rate to be assessed (staff modeled a range of monthly rates between $0.05
to $0.20 per square foot, or $0.60 to $2.40 per square foot annually)
• Exemptions for small retail and grocery stores
o Definition of “small” as measured by square feet. See Attachment A, Table A8
for property data and examples of businesses that occupy space in the City.
• Additional exemptions based on economic conditions, such as small business hardship,
for further exploration. This area has not yet been explored however is a potential
consideration in the coming months as ballot language is discussed and considered by
the City Council.
Based on the City Council’s direction, staff has modeled a variety of options that include the
Council’s direction to model business license tax at monthly rates of $0.05 to $0.20 per square
foot with thresholds for square footage size and possible exemptions for small retail (measured
by square footage), grocery stores, or no exemption by policy. A baseline scenario was
generated, using all non-residential properties and excluding properties that are likely to be
legally exempt per the California Revenue and Tax Code. From this baseline scenario, the
following three options are modeled:
Option 1: exemptions for retail (less than or equal to 5,000 sf) and all grocery st ores.
Revenues estimated at $14.3 to $57.1 million.
Option 2: Tiered Rates, a Flat Fee for businesses less than or equal to 5,000 sf ($50/year),
for all others, assumes monthly rate per square foot. Revenues estimated at $14 to $56
million
1
Packet Pg. 7
City of Palo Alto Page 6
Option 3: Tiered Rates, a Flat Fee for first 5,000 sf ($50/year), and apply monthly rate/sf
beyond threshold. Revenues estimated at $11.7 to $46.5 million
Absent Finance Committee and Council direction, staff have modeled these assuming a 5,000
square footage threshold. However, feedback on if there should be a threshold and what it
should be is an area for the Council/Committee to opine on and would be helpful feedback for
staff’s continued work. For reference, the average coffee establishment is typically 1,500 to
2,000 square feet; a neighborhood retailer, such as Summit Bicycles is approximately 5,000
square foot; a smaller grocery store, such as Trader Joe’s, is 10,000 square feet; and coworking
spaces such as HanaHaus are approximately 15,000 square feet.
Table A1: Business License Tax Baseline Scenario and Options
Property RBA
Estimated Annual Revenue Based on Rate per Square Foot
(tax rate shown as rate per square foot per month)
Count w/ Vacancy $0.05/sf $0.10/sf $0.15/sf $0.20/sf
Baseline Scenario: No Policy Exemptions
100-5,000 sf 413 1,146,099 $687,660 $1,375,319 $2,062,979 $2,750,638
5,001-20,000 sf 462 4,326,445 $2,595,867 $5,191,735 $7,787,602 $10,383,469
20,001-100,000 sf 290 11,441,377 $6,864,826 $13,729,653 $20,594,479 $27,459,305
100,001+ sf 45 7,543,524 $4,526,115 $9,052,229 $13,578,344 $18,104,459
Total 1,210 24,457,446 $14,674,468 $29,348,936 $44,023,404 $58,697,871
Estimated Monthly Fee:
5,000 sf non-retail business $250 $500 $750 $1,000
30,000 sf non-retail business $1,500 $3,000 $4,500 $6,000
100,000 sf non-retail business $5,000 $10,000 $15,000 $20,000
Option 1: Exemption for Retail (assumes less than or equal to 5,000 sf) and all Grocery Stores
100-5,000 sf 220 625,672 $375,403 $750,806 $1,126,210 $1,501,613
5,001-20,000 sf 457 4,263,152 $2,557,891 $5,115,783 $7,673,674 $10,231,566
20,001-100,000 sf 288 11,377,807 $6,826,684 $13,653,368 $20,480,052 $27,306,737
100,001+ sf 45 7,543,524 $4,526,115 $9,052,229 $13,578,344 $18,104,459
Total 1,010 23,810,156 $14,286,094 $28,572,187 $42,858,281 $57,144,374
Estimated Monthly Fee:
5,000 sf non-retail business $250 $500 $750 $1,000
30,000 sf non-retail business $1,500 $3,000 $4,500 $6,000
100,000 sf non-retail business $5,000 $10,000 $15,000 $20,000
Option 2: Flat Fee for First Tier (assumes $50 for less than or equal to 5,000 sf)
100-5,000 sf 413 1,146,099 $19,411 $19,411 $19,411 $19,411
5,001-20,000 sf 462 4,326,445 $2,595,867 $5,191,735 $7,787,602 $10,383,469
20,001-100,000 sf 290 11,441,377 $6,864,826 $13,729,653 $20,594,479 $27,459,305
100,001+ sf 45 7,543,524 $4,526,115 $9,052,229 $13,578,344 $18,104,459
Total 1,210 24,457,446 $14,006,219 $27,993,028 $41,979,836 $55,966,644
Estimated Monthly Fee:
5,000 sf non-retail business $4.20 $4.20 $4.20 $4.20
30,000 sf non-retail business $1,500 $3,000 $4,500 $6,000
1
Packet Pg. 8
City of Palo Alto Page 7
Table A1: Business License Tax Baseline Scenario and Options
Property RBA
Estimated Annual Revenue Based on Rate per Square Foot
(tax rate shown as rate per square foot per month)
Count w/ Vacancy $0.05/sf $0.10/sf $0.15/sf $0.20/sf
100,000 sf non-retail business $5,000 $10,000 $15,000 $20,000
Option 3: Flat Fee for a Defined Threshold (assumes $50 for first 5,000 sf) and Apply Monthly Rate
Beyond Threshold
100-5,000 sf 413 1,146,099 $20,650 $20,650 $20,650 $20,650
5,001-20,000 sf 462 4,326,445 $1,237,344 $2,451,372 $3,665,484 $4,879,716
20,001-100,000 sf 290 11,441,377 $6,009,280 $12,004,156 $17,999,032 $23,993,860
100,001+ sf 45 7,543,524 $4,393,386 $8,784,462 $13,175,610 $17,566,722
Total 1,210 24,457,446 $11,660,660 $23,260,640 $34,860,776 $46,460,948
Estimated Monthly Fee:
5,000 sf non-retail business $4.20 $4.20 $4.20 $4.20
30,000 sf non-retail business $1,250 $2,500 $3,750 $5,000
100,000 sf non-retail business $4,750 $9,500 $14,250 $19,000
The Data: CoStar Database:
These revised calculations use data from CoStar, a real estate database with a primary focus on
information for buying, selling, or leasing property. CoStar provides specific information
regarding the rentable building area (RBA) of properties within the Ci ty and does not track the
number or type of companies conducting business in the City. In addition, the assigned
categories in the database may not correlate with business activity being conducted in the
space. RBA is expressed in square feet and includes the space a tenant or tenants will occupy
(usable building area) plus a proportionate share of common areas (i.e. restrooms, lobbies,
hallways, mechanical rooms, etc.), designated by a load factor. While all properties in the
CoStar data base had an RBA, not all the properties listed the tenant’s occupied square footage
or the associated load factor. From a reporting and compliance aspect, staff selected RBA as the
best available basis to estimate square footage occupied by business entities likely to be subject
to the proposed tax, since it is the typical basis for which rent is calculated.
Regarding vacant properties, CoStar provides market survey reports that provide vacancy rates
for a variety of property categories. Staff used vacancy rates as of November 1, 2021 in this
revised model; duration of vacancy for each property is not available at this time. Should the
Finance Committee and City Council direct staff to provide analysis regarding vacancy
information for historical trends, comparisons with lo cal other agencies, and updates to
information presented by Matrix Consulting Group in 2019 (CMR 10655), additional staff time
and resources would be needed to perform this analysis. More information and a detailed
discussion of the CoStar database can be found in the Review of Available Square Footage Data
section in Attachment A.
Options for Small Retail (Measured by Square Footage) and Grocery Stores:
1
Packet Pg. 9
City of Palo Alto Page 8
For scaling and context, detail in Attachment A provides examples of specific businesses that
occupy addresses in the CoStar database. Businesses in the 100 to 5,000 square feet range
include the original AT&T Store on El Camino Real and Page Mill Road, while businesses that fall
into the 5,001 to 20,000 range include the Trader Joe’s in Town and Country Village and
Patagonia on Alma Street. Approximately 55 percent of the retail properties listed in the CoStar
data base are within the 100 to 5,000 square feet range. Grocery stores within the City range
from 4,610 square feet (Crossroads Specialty Foods) to 41,300 (Mollie Stones). Larger retail
stores, such as the West Elm on University Avenue, are above the 20,000 square feet range,
with stores such as Macy’s at Stanford Shopping Center being approximately 223,000 square
feet in size.
These examples and context for space occupied by business should be considered as the
Finance Committee discusses staff’s recommended options, listed below, regarding thresholds
for square footage size and deference to retail businesses that occupy smaller spaces. The
underlying core of these options relies on direction from the Finance Committee and City
Council on the definition of “small” as measured by square footage.
Options for Annual Escalator:
Research performed by Matrix Consulting (CMR 10655) describes the annual escalator or
indexing methodology for Cupertino, Mountain View, Redwood City, San Jose, and Sunnyvale.
Staff revisited this research and found that no significant changes were made since 2019 and
that the majority of these agencies use the annual Consumer Price Index (CPI) as a basis. The
section below presents options for an annual escalator, as well as the following components
that should also be considered:
• A cap that potentially limits the maximum annual amount the business license tax can
increase by percent
• A formula that indexes the tax to the base year CPI can be utilized
• Timing with either the calendar year or fiscal year
• An alternative index or factor should a CPI not be published
• Whether the tax rate can be reduced below the rate in effect immediately prior to the
applicable adjustment
Option 1: Align with Palo Alto Minimum Wage Escalator (Palo Alto Municipal Code
4.62.030). Measure by the percentage increase, if any, using the preceding year of the Bay
Area Consumer Price Index or its successor index as published by the U.S. Department of
Labor or its successor agency, not to exceed 5 percent. This option is consistent with the
practice of surrounding agencies and would align the annual escalator with the regional
consumer price index and average change in prices over time within the local economy.
Option 2: Align Increase with Annual Municipal Fee Schedule and Annual Budget Process.
During the annual budget process, staff increases municipal fees based on the average
citywide salary and benefit increase in the Adopted Budget. This approach would align the
1
Packet Pg. 10
City of Palo Alto Page 9
escalator for the business license tax with personnel costs (as a service driven agency,
approximately 60 percent of the General Fund costs are driven by this). This approach
would not be as closely reflective of changes in costs of the regional economy for the tax
and would reflect the incremental cost change of services provided by the City.
Review of Key Concepts & Terms:
At the end of Attachment A, staff has included an initial discussion of business license key
concepts for the Finance Committee’s consideration and feedback. Not a critical decision at this
step, staff are beginning to highlight steps that will be forthcoming, at the direction of Council,
once reviewing a formal ordinance draft for a potential tax. An example of this would be the
definition of “business.” Variables for consideration in development of such a definition for a
potential business license tax may include sole proprietors, home based businesses, multiple
businesses that occupy a shared space. This is an introductory discussion and decisions are not
needed on this topic immediately. A summary of the key elements that should be considered in
the Finance Committee’s review of these terms and concepts are:
1. Definition of “business” and various considerations.
2. Definition of square footage occupied.
3. Definition of Retail.
4. Definition of Grocery Stores or Supermarkets.
For ease of reference and for discussion, staff has included a list of terms and concepts based
on information from CoStar, the Santa Clara County Assessor’s Office and from the PAMC in
Attachment A.
Palo Alto Community Engagement, Outreach, & Initial Polling Results(Attachment B)
The Finance Committee and Council provided feedback on a summary outline of the Palo Alto
Community Issues survey at their October 19, 2021 and November 8, 2021 meetings,
respectively.
Initial Polling Summary Results
The survey questions, that were developed based on the Committee and Council’s feedback,
along with summary results are included in Attachment B. The survey was conducted in late
November and into December. Over 801 residents responded to the survey using e-mailed
online surveys and phone outreach. The survey asked respondents to share their perspective
on the major issues currently facing Palo Alto and to provide feedback on business license and
utility tax proposals, including potential uses of funds. The response of survey recipients to
various arguments for and against the measures was assessed.
Overall, the survey results indicate a mixed mood about the City’s current direction – over 40
percent of respondents see the City as headed in the right direction , while 34 percent
responded that the City is on the wrong track. In addition, 54 percent of the respondents rate
quality of life as excellent or good, and 40 percent as fair or poor. These results are below
1
Packet Pg. 11
City of Palo Alto Page 10
survey results in 2018 (CMR 9107) for the Funding Gap for the 2014 Infrastructure Plan. These
results are similar to the results that FM3 has seen throughout the Bay Area during the
pandemic and economic downturn, though the outlook in Palo Alto is generally more favorable
than in other cities in the region.
The cost of housing and homelessness remain the top two concerns , with concern about crime
on the rise, while concern about traffic and parking has declined, likely due to the decreased
mobility of the community as more people are working from home and avoiding group settings
due to the pandemic. The survey included questions regarding the concepts of the two
potential ballot measures at a high-level. Questions from the survey and results regarding these
topics are summarized below.
Business License Tax. Roughly 60 percent of respondents backed the business tax
concept tested, and a similar percentage backed a measure ratifying the current
General Fund transfers from the gas utility. After hearing arguments for and against,
support for the business tax concept did not decline. A majority of the responses to the
survey indicated that a 0.5 to 1.5 percent increase in business rent per square foot
would be either very acceptable or somewhat acceptable. Based on staff’s modeling in
Attachment A, this would roughly translate to the monthly range of $0.05 to $0.10 per
square foot, or $0.60 to $1.20 annually per square foot.
Utility Tax. A measure to increase the UUT on the electric and gas utilities polled at only
46 percent as compared to a measure ratifying the current transfer from the gas utility
only to the General Fund, which polled at 60 percent . This preference by the
community is consistent with the recommendations the Finance Committee made at its
December 7, 2021 meeting to discontinue consideration of the UUT approach and focus
solely on the gas utility.
Indications of whether voters would be open to two ballot measures were mixed. Support for
the utility tax proposal did not change regardless of whether survey respondents heard about it
before or after the business license tax, indicating potential support for two ballot measures.
On the other hand, support for the business license tax was lower if survey respondents heard
about it after the utility tax proposal. Results are inconclusive on if this was due to the influence
of the gas and electric UUT version of the utility tax proposal, which did not have the same
support as the version of the utility tax that focused solely on ratifying the current gas utility
transfer. This concept of multiple measures on one ballot would be something to explore in a
second round of polling and through stakeholder engagement.
In the poll respondents expressed support for restoring and maintaining City services, with
homeless outreach and services and Fire Department emergency response times representing
particularly high priorities. Investment in community assets was also a priority. Of the Council
priorities listed, disaster preparedness and affordable housing were the highest priorities,
though all four were recognized as important. Staff plan to return to the Committee and
1
Packet Pg. 12
City of Palo Alto Page 11
Council within Q1 of 2022 to revisit and solidify feedback on funding uses. These initial polling
results and unfunded needs will inform staff’s work as well as the topics discussed for
stakeholder engagement.
Additional insights and discussion regarding the poll results will be presented by the City’s
consultant, FM3, in staff’s presentation. Subsequent iterations of polling, to address any
concerns that surfaced in the initial round will occur following the Finance Committee’s and City
Council’s review of these results and stakeholder outreach and engagement . A second round of
polling is expected to be completed in the Spring 2022, likely around May.
2022 City of Palo Alto Community and Stakeholder Engagement Plan
On November 15, 2021, the City Council approved a contract with The Lew Edwards Group
(CMR 13626) for community engagement and ballot measure strategy and preparation services
related to the potential revenue generating November 2022 ballot measure. Public opinion
research, ballot measure strategic planning and community and stakeholder engagement are
integral components of the Ballot Measure Workplan, which is designed with a goal o f
establishing an iterative approach with multiple touchpoints throughout the development and
refinements of a potential ballot measure. Stakeholders include, but are not limited to, the
business community and the community at-large.
To engage and inform the community, staff recommends several messaging platforms that are
geared towards seeking input and insight of community sentiment towards a business license
tax and/or a utility tax. These strategies, expected to begin in February include:
• a Community Information Session;
• website, newsletters, and social media outlets;
• informational mailings, and
• paid media and online outreach.
An online community engagement survey will be developed by Public Dialogue Consortium
(PDC) to seek input from the community at-large. In addition, up to 10 Community Input Focus
Groups are planned to elicit input and feedback on a variety of topics, including perceptions of
the City’s financial picture, the general business climate and community issues, and general
options related to a potential business license tax measure. The objective is to engage between
80 to 100 focus group participants from the business community and the community at -large.
The goal of these strategies is first to ensure community awareness of the current proposals
and their ongoing development, ensure the ability for stakeholders to react to and provide
effective feedback as proposals are being refined, and ensure the proposals are crafted in a way
that reflect the priorities of the community. Preliminary results are anticipated to be reported
in the spring, prior to finalization and issuance of a second round of polling expected in May
2022.
1
Packet Pg. 13
City of Palo Alto Page 12
Conclusion & Next Steps
This staff report outlines refined analysis for the potential business license tax, results of initial
polling, and a draft community engagement strategy plan . Further narrowing the focus of the
potential revenue generating ballot measure is critical so that staff can continue advancing the
Ballot Measure Workplan that was approved by Council in August. While previous analysis
presented to the Finance Committee focused on a revenue target, the direction and approach
to model a range of monthly rates places emphasis on the monthly impact to businesses and
the resulting estimated generated revenue of that potential monthly tax rate. Review of the
updated models in this staff report, together with previous analysis provided to the Finance
Committee and Council, establish a scale in which the Finance Committee and the City Council
can weigh policy decisions outlined in this report regarding the structure and components of a
business license tax.
The attached results of the first iteration of polling will inform major aspects of the ballot
measure workplan over the coming months. The Finance Committee’s feedback is requested on
further exploration of topic areas to be included the second round of polling and/or community
outreach efforts. Potential recommendations to the City Council may include the viability of
two potential revenue generating measures on the November 2022 ballot, refinements to
components of the potential business license tax and the utility tax, areas to further explore in
the second round of polling, as well as target areas to consider in the City’s community
outreach plan are among the topics for discussion by the Committee to further narrow options
and also refine the work plan calendar.
TIMELINE
The below table recaps the Ballot Measure Workplan, as approved by the City Council in
August, with minor adjustments, based on the process and discussion thus far.
Table 1: Ballot Measure Workplan Timeline
November 2021
COMPLETED
Council:
- Confirm potential revenue-generating proposals, including refined modeling
and analysis
- Direction to complete initial polling and initial stakeholder outreach
December 2021
COMPLETED
Finance Committee:
- Consideration of additional refinements and updates for a potential utility
tax ballot measure
January 2022 Special Finance Committee:
- Consideration of additional refinements and updates for potential revenue
generating tax measure(s), business license tax
- Review results of first round polling
- Review stakeholder engagement plans
1
Packet Pg. 14
City of Palo Alto Page 13
Table 1: Ballot Measure Workplan Timeline
City Council: Review the results of the first round of polling and the Finance
Committee’s recommendation from third round of staff analysis and seek
direction to proceed with stakeholder outreach and engagement.
February and
March 2022
Stakeholder Outreach and Engagement:
- Outreach and building awareness via websites, social media, and other
outreach tools, speakers, and receiving feedback via online engagement tools
- Community focus groups (e.g. businesses, residents, community
members/organizations)
Finance:
- Review preliminary results from stakeholder engagement, provide
recommendations to Council on priorities for second round of polling,
- Review draft ballot language
- Review funding plan; potential uses of a general tax
April 2022 Council: Review results from stakeholder engagement, provide direction to
staff on priorities for second round of polling and draft ballot language
Stakeholder Outreach and Engagement:
- Second round of polling initiated
- Potential additional stakeholder engagement (e.g. website, social media,
and online engagement)
May 2022 Finance/Council: Review results from second round of polling and additional
stakeholder engagement and recommend final ballot measure language.
June 2022
Council: Final Approval of November 2022 Ballot Measures, including ballot
measure language
August 2022
Language submitted to Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters
November 2022
Election
FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT
Implementation of this workplan to develop a revenue generating local ballot measure will
require significant resources that include internal staff, consultant expertise, a s well as
stakeholder engagement. Resource needs will scale proportionately based on the ballot
measure option and the complexity of the measure that the Finance Committee and City
Council direct staff to pursue. It is important that the scope of the potential ballot measure(s)
be clearly defined and effectively narrowed for staff to successfully progress through the
workplan.
It is expected that this initiative will require an equivalent of approximately two-three full time
dedicated staff positions, and both has and will continue to have an impact on other projects. In
1
Packet Pg. 15
City of Palo Alto Page 14
addition, support required from outside consultants and engagement with internal
stakeholders in key departments will ramp up in intensity as this project approached June 2022.
The City Council appropriated funding for this activity as part of the FY 2022 Preliminary 1st
Quarter. Additional contracts and/or proposed budget amendments will be brought forward
for approval as appropriate.
STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT
The Ballot Measure Workplan integrates stakeholder engagement through constituent polling
and stakeholder outreach. Staff, throughout the process and from previous conversations, has
solicited input and feedback with the Finance Committee, the City Council, residents, and the
business community. The City has engaged with Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin, Metz & Associates
(FM3) perform polling, Lew Edwards for stakeholder engagement planning, and the Public
Dialogue Consortium (PDC) for stakeholder engagement. Staff received direction to proceed
with initial polling at the November 8, 2021 Council meeting and this staff report transmits the
results of this poll. The community engagement and stakeholder outreach strategy plan is
outlined in this report for the Finance Committee’s consideration. Based on the Ballot Measure
Workplan, staff plans to seek the City Council’s direction regarding initial stakeholder outreach.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This activity is not a project under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as defined in
CEQA Guidelines, section 15378, because it has no potential for resulting in either a direct or
reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment.
.
Attachments:
• Attachment A: Preliminary Square Footage Business License Tax Calculations
• Attachment B: Palo Alto Community Issues Survey Results
• Attachment C: Summary of Prior Work on Potential Revenue Generating Ballot
Measures
1
Packet Pg. 16
ATTACHMENT A
Attachment A - 1
Preliminary Square Footage Business License Tax Calculations
Through the City of Palo Alto’s conversations exploring a potential business tax, the City Council
directed staff to pursue a business license tax using square footage occupied as the basis for
such a tax. On November 8, 2021 (CMR 13687), the City Council discussed a potential revenue
generating business tax and directed staff to continue exploration and modeling of a business
license tax with these elements:
• Model a business license tax at monthly rates of $0.05 to $0.20 per square foot
• Preference for no sunset and an annual escalator
• Thresholds for square footage size
• Possible exemptions for small retail (measured by square footage) and grocery stores
This attachment includes:
• Preliminary business license tax calculations including scenarios/options for:
o Assuming no exemptions
o Possible exemption for small retail, measured by square footage
o Possible exemption for grocery stores
• Options for annual escalator
• Detail of Total Rentable Building Area, including available vacancy rates
• Business license tax key concepts/terms
A business tax using square footage of the business is allowed under California law , though
many structures commonly seen are based on gross receipts as the unit of measure . The
California Government Code and the Business Professions Code authorize local governments,
including charter cities, to impose a business license tax based on a unit of measure that fairly
reflects the proportion of the taxed activity carried on within the taxing jurisdiction. An
example of a nearby municipal agency that assesses a business license tax based on the square
footage unit of measure is the City of Cupertino. A business license tax can be structured as a
general tax, requiring a simple majority for passage, or a special tax, requiring 2/3 majority
approval for passage. This distinction is based on whether revenues generated from the tax will
be used for general government purposes or will be restricted in any way, which would
designate the tax as a special tax.
Banks and financial institutions and non-profit entities, including medical and educational
institutions, are exempt from a business license tax (Cal. Rev. & Tax. Code §23182 and §
7284.1). The business license tax provides flexibility and broad discretion to create different
categories of entities to be taxed, provided that there is some reasonable and rational basis for
these categories and distinctions. For example, if the Council wishes to exempt small retail and
service businesses, the ballot measure language would include language defining these
categories and classes. This approach poses substantially less administrative burden in
assessing the tax.
1.a
Packet Pg. 17
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
A
:
P
r
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y
S
q
u
a
r
e
F
o
o
t
a
g
e
B
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
L
i
c
e
n
s
e
T
a
x
C
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
(
1
3
8
7
5
:
U
p
d
a
t
e
,
C
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
,
a
n
d
P
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
ATTACHMENT A
Attachment A - 2
Data Used for Modeling: Available Square Footage Data
Staff’s calculations in this report use data from CoStar, a real estate subscription database.
Previous staff analysis was developed using parcel data from the County of Santa Clara as the
considerations were broader including a potential parcel tax. The primary difference between
these two data sets is that parcel data is driven by property owner data and categories
designated by Santa Clara County. These categories do not necessarily correlate to the business
activity performed in the space and therefore, some differences in data presentation from prior
reports exist.
CoStar’s primary and secondary property categories were used to model information in this
attachment and will be used as the authoritative data moving forward based on the direction
for a business license tax exploration. CoStar is a commercial real estate data platform whose
focus is information for buying, selling, or leasing a property and not track business activity
being performed in the space or the number of type of companies conducting business in the
City.
CoStar provides specific information regarding the City’s rentable building area (RBA). RBA is
expressed in square feet and includes the space the tenant will occupy (usable building area)
plus a proportionate share of common areas (i.e. restrooms, lobbies, hallways, mechanical
rooms, etc.), designated by a load factor. While all properties in the CoStar database had an
RBA, not all the properties listed the tenant’s occupied square footage or the associated load
factor. From a reporting and compliance aspect, RBA was selected as the best available basis to
estimate square footage occupied by business entities likely to be subject to the proposed tax
since it is the typical basis for which rent is calculated.
The non-residential RBA total for the City is 27.5, 2.4 million or 9.5 percent higher than data
presented in staff’s previous analysis (CMR 13687, Attachment A, p. 7) totaling 25.1 million. A
key assumption is that CoStar assumes space buildings that could be multi-level, where the
focus of data from the County is assessed value of a parcel (a segregation of land) rather than
space in a building. If the same rates were applied to the square footage in Table A1, the
resulting revenue is approximately 40 percent higher due to the greater number of square feet
and higher monthly/annual rates used in this round of modeling.
Furthermore, in comparing the RBA total for the City is 27.5 million square feet to data
previously presented in 2019 (CMR 10445, Attachment B: Potential Parcel Tax Revenues Based
on Rentable Building Square Feet), the total RBA in Table A1 is 1.7 million or 6.7 percent higher.
The difference is due to secondary property types that were excluded in the data presented in
2019 (specifically government, school, parking garage/lot, religious facility, loading/meeting
hall, self-storage, contractor storage yard, car wash, shelter, and theater/concert halls) where
data in this attachment excludes property types that will most likely be exempt per the
California Revenue and Tax Code.
1.a
Packet Pg. 18
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
A
:
P
r
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y
S
q
u
a
r
e
F
o
o
t
a
g
e
B
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
L
i
c
e
n
s
e
T
a
x
C
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
(
1
3
8
7
5
:
U
p
d
a
t
e
,
C
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
,
a
n
d
P
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
ATTACHMENT A
Attachment A - 3
Property category detail and RBA can be found later in Table A8, along with Chart A1, which
displays the distribution of rental building area in Palo Alto.
The CoStar database also includes vacancy rates for industrial, office, and retail properties in
the City. Staff’s revised model assumes vacancy rates as of November 1, 2021. Vacancy rates
are not provided for the flex, hospitality, and specialty properties; for the purposes of
modeling, a 6 percent (6%) vacancy rate is applied. No vacancy rate was applied to the sports
and entertainment since there is only one property under this category.
Modeling for a Square Footage based Business License Tax
Based on the City Council’s direction, staff has modeled a variety of options that include the
Council’s direction to model business license tax at monthly rates of $0.05 to $0.20 per square
foot with thresholds for square footage size and possible exemptions for small retail (measured
by square footage), grocery stores, or no exemption by policy. A baseline scenario was
generated, using all non-residential properties and excluding properties that are likely to be
legally exempt per the California Revenue and Tax Code. From this baseline scenario, the
following three options are modeled:
Option 1: exemptions for retail (less than or equal to 5,000 sf) and all grocery stores
• Revenues estimated at $14.3 to $57.1 million
Option 2: Tiered Rates, a Flat Fee for businesses less than or equal to 5,000 sf ($50/year),
for all others, assumes monthly rate per square foot
• Revenues estimated at $14 to $56 million
Option 3: Tiered Rates, a Flat Fee for first 5,000 sf ($50/year), and apply monthly rate/sf
beyond threshold
• Revenues estimated at $11.7 to $46.5 million
Absent Finance Committee and Council direction, staff have modeled these assuming a 5,000
square footage threshold. However, feedback on if there should be a threshold and what it
should be is an area for the Council/Committee to opine on and would be helpful feedback for
staff’s continued work. For reference, the average coffee establishment is typically 1,500 to
2,000 square feet; a neighborhood retailer, such as Summit Bicycles is approximately 5,000
square foot; a smaller grocery store, such as Trader Joe’s, is 10,000 square feet; and coworking
spaces such as HanaHaus are approximately 15,000 square feet.
1.a
Packet Pg. 19
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
A
:
P
r
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y
S
q
u
a
r
e
F
o
o
t
a
g
e
B
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
L
i
c
e
n
s
e
T
a
x
C
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
(
1
3
8
7
5
:
U
p
d
a
t
e
,
C
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
,
a
n
d
P
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
ATTACHMENT A
Attachment A - 4
Table A1: Business License Tax Baseline Scenario and Options
Property RBA
Estimated Annual Revenue Based on Rate per Square Foot
(tax rate shown as rate per square foot per month)
Count w/ Vacancy $0.05/sf $0.10/sf $0.15/sf $0.20/sf
Baseline Scenario: No Policy Exemptions
100-5,000 sf 413 1,146,099 $687,660 $1,375,319 $2,062,979 $2,750,638
5,001-20,000 sf 462 4,326,445 $2,595,867 $5,191,735 $7,787,602 $10,383,469
20,001-100,000 sf 290 11,441,377 $6,864,826 $13,729,653 $20,594,479 $27,459,305
100,001+ sf 45 7,543,524 $4,526,115 $9,052,229 $13,578,344 $18,104,459
Total 1,210 24,457,446 $14,674,468 $29,348,936 $44,023,404 $58,697,871
Estimated Monthly Fee:
5,000 sf non-retail business $250 $500 $750 $1,000
30,000 sf non-retail business $1,500 $3,000 $4,500 $6,000
100,000 sf non-retail business $5,000 $10,000 $15,000 $20,000
Option 1: Exemption for Retail (assumes less than or equal to 5,000 sf) and all Grocery Stores
100-5,000 sf 220 625,672 $375,403 $750,806 $1,126,210 $1,501,613
5,001-20,000 sf 457 4,263,152 $2,557,891 $5,115,783 $7,673,674 $10,231,566
20,001-100,000 sf 288 11,377,807 $6,826,684 $13,653,368 $20,480,052 $27,306,737
100,001+ sf 45 7,543,524 $4,526,115 $9,052,229 $13,578,344 $18,104,459
Total 1,010 23,810,156 $14,286,094 $28,572,187 $42,858,281 $57,144,374
Estimated Monthly Fee:
5,000 sf non-retail business $250 $500 $750 $1,000
30,000 sf non-retail business $1,500 $3,000 $4,500 $6,000
100,000 sf non-retail business $5,000 $10,000 $15,000 $20,000
Option 2: Flat Fee for First Tier (assumes $50 for less than or equal to 5,000 sf)
100-5,000 sf 413 1,146,099 $19,411 $19,411 $19,411 $19,411
5,001-20,000 sf 462 4,326,445 $2,595,867 $5,191,735 $7,787,602 $10,383,469
20,001-100,000 sf 290 11,441,377 $6,864,826 $13,729,653 $20,594,479 $27,459,305
100,001+ sf 45 7,543,524 $4,526,115 $9,052,229 $13,578,344 $18,104,459
Total 1,210 24,457,446 $14,006,219 $27,993,028 $41,979,836 $55,966,644
Estimated Monthly Fee:
5,000 sf non-retail business $4.20 $4.20 $4.20 $4.20
30,000 sf non-retail business $1,500 $3,000 $4,500 $6,000
100,000 sf non-retail business $5,000 $10,000 $15,000 $20,000
Option 3: Flat Fee for a Defined Threshold (assumes $50 for first 5,000 sf) and Apply Monthly Rate
Beyond Threshold
100-5,000 sf 413 1,146,099 $20,650 $20,650 $20,650 $20,650
5,001-20,000 sf 462 4,326,445 $1,237,344 $2,451,372 $3,665,484 $4,879,716
20,001-100,000 sf 290 11,441,377 $6,009,280 $12,004,156 $17,999,032 $23,993,860
100,001+ sf 45 7,543,524 $4,393,386 $8,784,462 $13,175,610 $17,566,722
Total 1,210 24,457,446 $11,660,660 $23,260,640 $34,860,776 $46,460,948
Estimated Monthly Fee:
5,000 sf non-retail business $4.20 $4.20 $4.20 $4.20
1.a
Packet Pg. 20
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
A
:
P
r
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y
S
q
u
a
r
e
F
o
o
t
a
g
e
B
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
L
i
c
e
n
s
e
T
a
x
C
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
(
1
3
8
7
5
:
U
p
d
a
t
e
,
C
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
,
a
n
d
P
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
ATTACHMENT A
Attachment A - 5
Table A1: Business License Tax Baseline Scenario and Options
Property RBA
Estimated Annual Revenue Based on Rate per Square Foot
(tax rate shown as rate per square foot per month)
Count w/ Vacancy $0.05/sf $0.10/sf $0.15/sf $0.20/sf
30,000 sf non-retail business $1,250 $2,500 $3,750 $5,000
100,000 sf non-retail business $4,750 $9,500 $14,250 $19,000
Baseline Scenario
The baseline scenario assumes models the estimate monthly revenue if the business license tax
were assessed on all non-residential properties, excluding those likely to be exempt by the
California Revenue and Tax Code. The total count of properties is 1,210 (source CoStar
database). The baseline scenario estimates monthly tax revenue to be in the range of $1.2 to
$4.9 million (or $14.7 to $58.7 million annually). The table below provides insight into the count
of properties by size.
Option 1: Exemption for Retail Measured by Square Footage and All Grocery Stores
This option would exempt retail, under a threshold to be defined by City Council, including
grocery stores in the City. For example, if the City Council were to determine “small” as retail
businesses that occupy less than 5,000 RBA, 192 retail properties would be exempt from the
business license tax. Based on monthly rates ranging $0.05 to $0.20 per square foot, this would
result in a range of $26,000 to $0.1 million in monthly tax revenue ($0.3 million to $1.2 million
annually) that would not be collected from these businesses. In comparison to the baseline
scenario, this amount represents approximately 2 percent of total revenue.
Based on monthly rates ranging $0.05 to $0.20 per square foot, this option would result in a
range of $1.2 to $4.8 million in monthly tax revenue ($14 million to $57.1 million annually),
which is 2.6 percent below the baseline scenario.
Table A2: Baseline Scenario - No Policy Exemptions
Count of Rentable RBA w/Estimated Annual Tax Revenue
Range Properties Bldg Area Vacancy $0.60 $1.20 $1.80 $2.40
100 - 2,000 99 140,347 126,164 $75,698 $151,396 $227,094 $302,793
2,001 - 5,000 314 1,135,099 1,019,936 $611,961 $1,223,923 $1,835,884 $2,447,846
5,001 - 10,000 259 1,904,585 1,703,331 $1,021,999 $2,043,998 $3,065,996 $4,087,995
10,001 - 15,000 122 1,504,815 1,354,026 $812,415 $1,624,831 $2,437,246 $3,249,662
15,001 - 20,000 81 1,423,439 1,269,089 $761,453 $1,522,906 $2,284,359 $3,045,813
20,001 - 25,000 48 1,084,748 962,313 $577,388 $1,154,776 $1,732,163 $2,309,551
25,001 - 50,000 140 4,827,761 4,235,781 $2,541,469 $5,082,938 $7,624,406 $10,165,875
50,001 - 75,000 65 3,974,993 3,520,522 $2,112,313 $4,224,626 $6,336,939 $8,449,252
75,001 - 100,000 37 3,101,346 2,722,761 $1,633,657 $3,267,313 $4,900,970 $6,534,626
100,001 - 200,000 32 4,214,670 3,783,172 $2,269,903 $4,539,806 $6,809,709 $9,079,612
200,001 - 300,000 8 1,809,495 1,638,977 $983,386 $1,966,773 $2,950,159 $3,933,546
300,001 - 500,000 3 1,176,066 1,105,502 $663,301 $1,326,602 $1,989,904 $2,653,205
500,001+2 1,205,069 1,015,873 $609,524 $1,219,048 $1,828,572 $2,438,096
Total 1,210 27,502,433 24,457,446 $14,674,468 $29,348,936 $44,023,404 $58,697,871
1.a
Packet Pg. 21
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
A
:
P
r
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y
S
q
u
a
r
e
F
o
o
t
a
g
e
B
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
L
i
c
e
n
s
e
T
a
x
C
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
(
1
3
8
7
5
:
U
p
d
a
t
e
,
C
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
,
a
n
d
P
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
ATTACHMENT A
Attachment A - 6
Small Retail, Measured by Square Footage
The City Council directed staff to model possible exemptions for small retail, measured by
square footage. Previous staff reports used a 20,000 square foot threshold to model what
distinguishes a “small” business. Table A4 provides data for retail sizes to aid the Finance
Committee and the City Council in defining a small business by square foot size. Based on this
data, there are 356 retail properties within the City that total 4.0 million square feet of RBA.
Approximately one-third of the total retail properties in the City are within the 2,001 to 5,000
square foot range, while over 55 percent of the City’s RBA are properties above 20,000 square
feet. For scale and reference, below is a sampling of businesses that occupy addresses in the
CoStar database.
• AT&T Store (El Camino), 2,130 sq ft
• Summit Bicycles, 5,190 sq ft
• Patagonia, ~6,500 sq ft.
• 300 University (retail space previously Walgreens), ~16,400 sq ft
• West Elm, ~37,000 sq ft
• Neiman Marcus, 120,000 sq ft
• Macy's, 223,000 sq ft
Table A3: Option 1 - Exemption for Retail (assumes <=5,000 sf) and all Grocery Stores
Count of Rentable RBA w/Estimated Annual Tax Revenue
Range Properties Bldg Area Vacancy $0.60 $1.20 $1.80 $2.40
100 - 2,000 44 64,095 54,487 $32,692 $65,384 $98,076 $130,768
2,001 - 5,000 176 657,705 571,185 $342,711 $685,422 $1,028,134 $1,370,845
5,001 - 10,000 257 1,889,335 1,688,996 $1,013,398 $2,026,796 $3,040,193 $4,053,591
10,001 - 15,000 122 1,504,815 1,354,026 $812,415 $1,624,831 $2,437,246 $3,249,662
15,001 - 20,000 78 1,371,356 1,220,131 $732,078 $1,464,157 $2,196,235 $2,928,313
20,001 - 25,000 48 1,084,748 962,313 $577,388 $1,154,776 $1,732,163 $2,309,551
25,001 - 50,000 138 4,760,133 4,172,211 $2,503,327 $5,006,653 $7,509,980 $10,013,306
50,001 - 75,000 65 3,974,993 3,520,522 $2,112,313 $4,224,626 $6,336,939 $8,449,252
75,001 - 100,000 37 3,101,346 2,722,761 $1,633,657 $3,267,313 $4,900,970 $6,534,626
100,001 - 200,000 32 4,214,670 3,783,172 $2,269,903 $4,539,806 $6,809,709 $9,079,612
200,001 - 300,000 8 1,809,495 1,638,977 $983,386 $1,966,773 $2,950,159 $3,933,546
300,001 - 500,000 3 1,176,066 1,105,502 $663,301 $1,326,602 $1,989,904 $2,653,205
500,001+2 1,205,069 1,015,873 $609,524 $1,219,048 $1,828,572 $2,438,096
Total $1,010 26,813,826 23,810,156 $14,286,094 $28,572,187 $42,858,281 $57,144,374
Table A4: Retail Properties
Count of Rentable RBA Estimated Annual Tax Revenue
Range Properties Bldg Area w/ Vacancy $0.60 $1.20 $1.80 $2.40
100 - 5,000 192 549,038 516,096 $309,657 $619,315 $928,972 $1,238,630
5,001 - 20,000 128 1,177,321 1,105,659 $663,395 $1,326,791 $1,990,186 $2,653,581
20,001 - 100,000 30 1,151,652 1,082,553 $649,532 $1,299,063 $1,948,595 $2,598,127
100,001 - 700,000 6 1,133,454 1,065,447 $639,268 $1,278,536 $1,917,804 $2,557,072
Total 356 4,011,465 3,769,754 $2,261,852 $4,523,705 $6,785,557 $9,047,410
CoStar
1.a
Packet Pg. 22
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
A
:
P
r
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y
S
q
u
a
r
e
F
o
o
t
a
g
e
B
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
L
i
c
e
n
s
e
T
a
x
C
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
(
1
3
8
7
5
:
U
p
d
a
t
e
,
C
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
,
a
n
d
P
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
ATTACHMENT A
Attachment A - 7
Grocery Stores
An internet search of grocery stores in Palo Alto resulted in 11 businesses and of the 11 grocery
stores in the city, two were grouped together within a range of street addresses in the database
(Piazza’s Fine Foods and Sigona’s Farmer’s Market) and one addresses was not located in the
database. For modeling purposes however staff is presenting the eight that were grocery stores
that were identifiable in the database by address.
For purposes of scale and to understand size of square feet occupied, Table A5 provides RBA
for 11 of the grocery stores in the City where RBA data was available.
Option 2: Annual Fixed Flat Fee for All Businesses Measured by Square Footage
This option would charge a flat fee to all small businesses under a threshold to be defined by
Council. If Council were to direct that “small” be defined as a business occupying less than
5,000 RBA, and using a $50 annual flat fee, equivalent to the City’s Business Registry Fee, the
tax would generate approximately $20,000 in annual revenue (assuming vacancy) for
businesses less than 5,000 square feet. However, the foregone square footage revenue in this
scenario would range from $57,000 to $0.3 million in monthly tax revenue ($0.7 million to $2.8
million annually). Businesses above the 5,000 threshold in this example would still be assessed
a monthly rate for all square footage occupied.
Based on monthly rates ranging $0.05 to $0.20 per square foot, this option would result in a
range of $1.2 to $4.7 million in monthly tax revenue ($14 million to $56 million annually), which
is 4.7 percent below the baseline scenario.
Table A5: Grocery Stores, Flat Monthly Rate
Rentable Estimated Annual Tax Revenue
Grocery Name Bldg Area $0.60 $1.20 $1.80 $2.40
Crossroads Specialty Foods 4,610 $33,192 $5,532 $8,298 $11,064
Country Sun Natural Foods 5,250 $3,150 $6,300 $9,450 $12,600
Trader Joe's 10,000 $6,000 $12,000 $18,000 $24,000
Grocery Outlet 15,850 $9,510 $19,020 $28,530 $38,040
Whole Foods 17,480 $10,488 $20,976 $31,464 $41,952
Safeway 18,760 $11,256 $22,512 $33,768 $45,024
The Market at Edgewood 26,300 $15,780 $31,560 $47,340 $63,120
Mollie Stones 41,330 $24,798 $49,596 $74,394 $99,192
Piazza's Fine Foods N/A - - - -
Sigona's Farmers Market N/A - - - -
Real Produce International Market N/A - - - -
Total 139,580 $114,174 $167,496 $251,244 $334,992
1.a
Packet Pg. 23
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
A
:
P
r
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y
S
q
u
a
r
e
F
o
o
t
a
g
e
B
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
L
i
c
e
n
s
e
T
a
x
C
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
(
1
3
8
7
5
:
U
p
d
a
t
e
,
C
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
,
a
n
d
P
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
ATTACHMENT A
Attachment A - 8
Option 3: Define a Threshold for a Fixed Flat Fee and Apply Monthly Rate to Square Feet
Beyond the Threshold for All Businesses
This option would charge a flat fee to all square footage under a threshold to be defined by
Council, regardless of total business size. Assuming the threshold is defined as the first 5,000
square feet of RBA, a flat annual amount (assumed to be $50 annually) could be applied to that
first 5,000 of square feet and a monthly rate applied to any square footage beyond the
threshold. For example, based on the CoStar database, Summit Bicycles occupies 5,190 square
feet, and this business would pay $50 for the first 5,000 square feet, and the annual rate for the
remaining 190 square feet.
To compare and contrast the options: under Option 2, assuming a $1.80 per square foot annual
tax rate ($0.15/sf/mo), a 4,500 square foot business would pay $50 annually, while a 5,500
square foot business would pay $9,900 annually. Under Option 3, the 4,500 square foot
business would pay $50 annually, while the 5,500 square foot business would pay $950
annually, which avoids a “cliff” at the flat fee/exemption threshold, which might distort and
complicate small business space planning decisions.
Applying this approach to the population of all properties in this report, based on a $50 annual
flat rate for the first 5,000 of square feet and monthly rates ranging $0.05 to $0.20 per square
foot, annual revenue would range between $11.7 million and $46 million ($1.0 million and $3.9
million monthly). This revenue range is approximately 20.5 percent less than revenue totals in
the baseline scenario, where no exemptions or thresholds are assumed.
Table A6: Option 2 - Flat Fee for First Tier (assumes $50 for <= 5,000 sf)
Count of Rentable RBA w/$50 Flat Rate Estimated Annual Tax Revenue Based on Rate per Square Foot
Range Properties Bldg Area Vacancy (<5,000 sf)$0.60 $1.20 $1.80 $2.40
100 - 2,000 99 140,347 126,164 $4,653
2,001 - 5,000 314 1,135,099 1,019,936 $14,758
5,001 - 10,000 259 1,904,585 1,703,331 $1,021,999 $2,043,998 $3,065,996 $4,087,995
10,001 - 15,000 122 1,504,815 1,354,026 $812,415 $1,624,831 $2,437,246 $3,249,662
15,001 - 20,000 81 1,423,439 1,269,089 $761,453 $1,522,906 $2,284,359 $3,045,813
20,001 - 25,000 48 1,084,748 962,313 $577,388 $1,154,776 $1,732,163 $2,309,551
25,001 - 50,000 140 4,827,761 4,235,781 $2,541,469 $5,082,938 $7,624,406 $10,165,875
50,001 - 75,000 65 3,974,993 3,520,522 $2,112,313 $4,224,626 $6,336,939 $8,449,252
75,001 - 100,000 37 3,101,346 2,722,761 $1,633,657 $3,267,313 $4,900,970 $6,534,626
100,001 - 200,000 32 4,214,670 3,783,172 $2,269,903 $4,539,806 $6,809,709 $9,079,612
200,001 - 300,000 8 1,809,495 1,638,977 $983,386 $1,966,773 $2,950,159 $3,933,546
300,001 - 500,000 3 1,176,066 1,105,502 $663,301 $1,326,602 $1,989,904 $2,653,205
500,001+2 1,205,069 1,015,873 $609,524 $1,219,048 $1,828,572 $2,438,096
Total $1,210 27,502,433 24,457,446 $19,411 $13,986,808 $27,973,617 $41,960,425 $55,947,233
1.a
Packet Pg. 24
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
A
:
P
r
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y
S
q
u
a
r
e
F
o
o
t
a
g
e
B
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
L
i
c
e
n
s
e
T
a
x
C
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
(
1
3
8
7
5
:
U
p
d
a
t
e
,
C
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
,
a
n
d
P
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
ATTACHMENT A
Attachment A - 9
Options for Annual Escalator
Research performed by Matrix Consulting (CMR 10655) describes the annual escalator or
indexing methodology for Cupertino, Mountain View, Redwood City, San Jose, and Sunnyvale.
Staff revisited this research and found that no significant changes were made since 2019 and
that the majority of these agencies use the annual Consumer Price Index (CPI) as a basis. The
section below presents options for an annual escalator, as well as the following components
that should also be considered:
• A cap that potentially limits the maximum annual amount the business license tax can
increase by percent
• A formula that indexes the tax to the base year CPI can be utilized
• Timing with either the calendar year or fiscal year
• An alternative index or factor should a CPI not be published
• Whether the tax rate can be reduced below the rate in effect immediately prior to the
applicable adjustment
Option 1: Align with Palo Alto Minimum Wage Escalator (Palo Alto Municipal Code 4.62.030).
Measure by the percentage increase, if any, using the preceding year of the Bay Area Consumer
Price Index (Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers, San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose, CA for
All Items) or its successor index as published by the U.S. Department of Labor or its successor
agency, not to exceed 5 percent, with the amount of the business license tax increase rounded
to the nearest multiple of five cents ($0.05). If there is no net increase in the cost of living, the
business license tax would remain unchanged for that year. This option is consistent with the
practice of surrounding agencies and would align the annual escalator with the regional
consumer price index and average change in prices over time within the local economy.
Table A7: Option 3 - Flat Fee for Defined Threshold (assumes $50 for first 5,000 sf), Apply Monthly Rate Beyond Threshold
Count of Rentable RBA w/Estimated Annual Tax Revenue Based on Rate per Square Foot
Range Properties Bldg Area Vacancy $0.60 $1.20 $1.80 $2.40
100 - 2,000 99 140,347 126,164 $4,950 $4,950 $4,950 $4,950
2,001 - 5,000 314 1,135,099 1,019,936 $15,700 $15,700 $15,700 $15,700
5,001 - 10,000 259 1,904,585 1,703,331 $262,238 $511,454 $760,730 $1,010,078
10,001 - 15,000 122 1,504,815 1,354,026 $452,584 $898,912 $1,345,384 $1,791,784
15,001 - 20,000 81 1,423,439 1,269,089 $522,522 $1,041,006 $1,559,370 $2,077,854
20,001 - 25,000 48 1,084,748 962,313 $435,768 $869,196 $1,302,540 $1,736,004
25,001 - 50,000 140 4,827,761 4,235,781 $2,128,432 $4,249,888 $6,371,476 $8,492,896
50,001 - 75,000 65 3,974,993 3,520,522 $1,920,610 $3,837,898 $5,755,210 $7,672,450
75,001 - 100,000 37 3,101,346 2,722,761 $1,524,470 $3,047,174 $4,569,806 $6,092,510
100,001 - 200,000 32 4,214,670 3,783,172 $2,175,532 $4,349,392 $6,523,324 $8,697,208
200,001 - 300,000 8 1,809,495 1,638,977 $959,788 $1,919,176 $2,878,564 $3,837,952
300,001 - 500,000 3 1,176,066 1,105,502 $654,450 $1,308,750 $1,963,050 $2,617,362
500,001+2 1,205,069 1,015,873 $603,616 $1,207,144 $1,810,672 $2,414,200
Total $1,210 27,502,433 24,457,446 $11,660,660 $23,260,640 $34,860,776 $46,460,948
1.a
Packet Pg. 25
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
A
:
P
r
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y
S
q
u
a
r
e
F
o
o
t
a
g
e
B
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
L
i
c
e
n
s
e
T
a
x
C
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
(
1
3
8
7
5
:
U
p
d
a
t
e
,
C
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
,
a
n
d
P
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
ATTACHMENT A
Attachment A - 10
Option 2: Align Increase with Annual Municipal Fee Schedule and Annual Budget Process.
During the annual budget process, staff increases municipal fees based on the average citywide
salary and benefit increase in the Adopted Budget. Staff also reviews the cost recovery of
municipal fees; however, this component of the analysis would not be applicable to the
business license tax. The average citywide salary and benefit increase is typically available each
year in March/April. In FY 2022, the average citywide increase was 2.0 percent and can vary
based on negotiated employee agreements or changes in the City’s pension formula from
CalPERS. This approach would align the escalator for the business license tax with agreed upon
employee compensation that is primarily driven by pension rates set by CalPERS. This approach
would not be as closely reflective of changes in costs of the regional economy for the tax and
would reflect the incremental cost change of services provided by the City, which are primarily
City employee costs.
Detail of Total Rentable Building Area
As discussed earlier in this attachment, CoStar provides specific information regarding the City’s
rentable building area (RBA). RBA is expressed in square feet and includes the space the tenant
will occupy (usable building area) and the associated common areas of the building. From a
reporting and compliance aspect, RBA and was selected as the basis of measure since it is the
typical basis for which rent is calculated. Staff used CoStar’s property type descriptions to
exclude legally exempt businesses. Table A11, along with Chart A1, which displays the
distribution of rental building area in Palo Alto. Staff has also included the vacancy rate, as of
November 1, 2021, from the CoStar database for the industrial, office, and retail properties in
the City.
1.a
Packet Pg. 26
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
A
:
P
r
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y
S
q
u
a
r
e
F
o
o
t
a
g
e
B
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
L
i
c
e
n
s
e
T
a
x
C
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
(
1
3
8
7
5
:
U
p
d
a
t
e
,
C
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
,
a
n
d
P
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
ATTACHMENT A
Attachment A - 11
Table A8: CoStar Total Rentable Building Area by Property Type
Sports &
Sq Feet Size Flex Hospitality Industrial Office Retail Specialty Entertainment Grand Total % of Total Running %
100 - 1,000 970 - - 3,089 7,578 - - 11,637 0.0%
1,001 - 2,000 - - 3,717 56,319 68,674 - - 128,710 0.5%0.5%
2,001 - 3,000 7,416 - 10,430 101,272 137,598 5,440 - 262,156 1.0%1.5%
3,001 - 4,000 3,289 3,901 28,937 165,585 144,504 3,995 - 350,211 1.3%2.8%
4,001 - 5,000 23,955 - 80,807 218,271 195,292 4,407 - 522,732 1.9%4.7%
5,001 - 6,000 11,187 - 45,254 118,498 142,107 5,519 - 322,565 1.2%5.9%
6,001 - 7,000 13,212 - 58,868 234,655 104,360 - - 411,095 1.5%7.4%
7,001 - 8,000 23,138 7,998 60,492 151,497 181,942 - - 425,067 1.5%8.9%
8,001 - 9,000 25,859 - 25,448 181,688 93,272 - - 326,267 1.2%10.1%
9,001 - 10,000 57,217 - 37,354 210,349 114,671 - - 419,591 1.5%11.6%
10,001 - 11,000 21,120 - 73,588 168,534 115,921 - 10,452 389,615 1.4%13.0%
11,001 - 12,000 36,000 - 47,144 69,079 103,380 - - 255,603 0.9%13.9%
12,001 - 13,000 63,578 37,369 - 148,751 25,767 - - 275,465 1.0%14.9%
13,001 - 14,000 82,934 13,744 27,667 94,069 - 13,152 - 231,566 0.8%15.7%
14,001 - 15,000 43,354 - 74,451 132,737 87,024 15,000 - 352,566 1.3%17.0%
15,001 - 16,000 62,710 - 62,400 139,698 62,903 - - 327,711 1.2%18.2%
16,001 - 17,000 16,560 16,095 - 82,007 66,495 - - 181,157 0.7%18.9%
17,001 - 18,000 87,390 - 18,000 86,824 70,819 17,428 - 280,461 1.0%19.9%
18,001 - 19,000 18,360 18,180 - 128,903 56,190 - - 221,633 0.8%20.7%
19,001 - 20,000 79,367 - 39,975 273,332 19,803 - - 412,477 1.5%22.2%
20,001 - 21,000 41,153 20,775 - 103,238 20,215 - - 185,381 0.7%22.9%
21,001 - 22,000 21,874 - - 108,410 65,306 - - 195,590 0.7%23.6%
22,001 - 23,000 137,764 69,479 - 181,648 68,689 - - 457,580 1.7%25.3%
23,001 - 24,000 - 24,024 - 97,942 24,231 - - 146,197 0.5%25.8%
24,001 - 25,000 - - - 100,000 - - - 100,000 0.4%26.2%
25,001 - 50,000 776,422 217,271 158,156 3,116,639 559,273 - - 4,827,761 17.6%43.8%
50,001 - 75,000 772,140 251,756 137,218 2,226,511 481,566 105,802 - 3,974,993 14.5%58.3%
75,001 - 100,000 876,534 159,732 80,500 1,984,580 - - - 3,101,346 11.3%69.6%
100,001 - 150,000 656,399 212,537 237,813 1,509,742 342,100 - - 2,958,591 10.8%80.4%
150,001 - 200,000 200,000 357,399 180,000 331,680 187,000 - - 1,256,079 4.6%85.0%
200,001 - 250,000 220,173 - 457,282 638,638 223,000 - - 1,539,093 5.6%90.6%
250,001 - 300,000 270,402 - - - - - - 270,402 1.0%91.6%
350,001 - 400,000 - - 362,434 - 381,354 - - 743,788 2.7%94.3%
400,001 - 450,000 - - - - - 432,278 - 432,278 1.5%95.8%
500,001 - 600,000 - - - 552,105 - - - 552,105 1.9%97.7%
600,001 - 700,000 - - - 652,964 - - - 652,964 2.3%100.0%
Subtotal 4,650,477 1,410,260 2,307,935 14,369,254 4,151,034 603,021 10,452 27,502,433
Vacancy Rate 6.0%6.0%6.0%15.7%6.0%6.0%6.0%
Vacant Sq Ft 279,029 84,616 138,476 2,255,973 249,062 36,181 627 3,043,964
Total 4,371,448 1,325,644 2,169,459 12,113,281 3,901,972 566,840 9,825 24,458,469
% of Total 17.9%5.4%8.9%49.5%16.0%2.3%0.0%
1.a
Packet Pg. 27
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
A
:
P
r
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y
S
q
u
a
r
e
F
o
o
t
a
g
e
B
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
L
i
c
e
n
s
e
T
a
x
C
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
(
1
3
8
7
5
:
U
p
d
a
t
e
,
C
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
,
a
n
d
P
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
ATTACHMENT A
Attachment A - 12
Review of Key Concepts & Terms
A business license tax would be codified by ordinance, including terms and key concepts, which
will be presented to voters and, if approved, be incorporated into the City’s Municipal Code.
Decisions on details such as definition of terms is not required at this time. Staff is introducing
these concepts for preliminary discussion only. Staff will return with additional analysis in early
2022. Once the Committee and Council have made policy choices regarding the details of the
tax design, including definition of key terms and concepts, staff will draft ordinance language
and return for Committee and Council review.
In reviewing various sources of relevant terms and definitions, such as CoStar, Palo Alto
Municipal Code (PAMC), the Santa Clara County Assessor, and a variety of other municipal
agencies with a business license tax, key elements that should be considered in the Finance
Committee’s review of these terms and concepts are:
1. Definition of “business” and various considerations. For purposes of the Business Registry,
PAMC 4.60.020 defines “business” as “any commercial enterprise, trade, calling, vocation,
profession, occupation, or means of livelihood, whether or not carried on for gain or profit.”
Council is not bound to use this definition for a new business license tax.
Additional considerations for the definition of “business”, as they pertain to assessing a
square footage tax and how these situations should be treated from a tax perspective,
including but not limited to the following (although note that the City may only tax business
activity that takes place within Palo Alto):
• Independent contractors, self-employed, and sole proprietors which may or may not
have identified square footage usage within the City
• Individuals who operate a home-based business in the city
• Individuals who manage the activities of rental of real property, whether commercial
or residential (e.g. offsite property management company or the office in a multi-
unit property)
2. Definition of square footage occupied. Staff’s analysis and modeling assumes RBA due to
data that is available in the CoStar data base, however definition of whether or not common
areas should be assumed, as in what is typically used in lease documents to calculate rent,
or occupied space only, will eventually need to be defined.
3. Definition of Retail. CoStar’s definition of general retail includes 26 categories that are used
for various sales opportunities, including restaurants, movie theaters and parking garages.
Staff included all 26 categories for modeling purposes, including supermarkets, which is also
detailed separately. The Finance Committee’s review and feedback of these retail subsets
will assist in defining “retail” for business license tax purposes should an exemption for this
classification be desired by the Council.
4. Definition of Grocery Stores or Supermarkets. CoStar refers to grocery stores (aka
supermarkets) in their definition of retail and similarly, the PAMC refers to grocery stores or
1.a
Packet Pg. 28
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
A
:
P
r
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y
S
q
u
a
r
e
F
o
o
t
a
g
e
B
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
L
i
c
e
n
s
e
T
a
x
C
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
(
1
3
8
7
5
:
U
p
d
a
t
e
,
C
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
,
a
n
d
P
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
ATTACHMENT A
Attachment A - 13
grocery items in zoning code (PAMC Title 18), however neither source includes a specific
definition.
Potential concepts to consider in the definition of grocery store include the following
elements. Should the Council wish to provide exemption or tiered rates for this type of
activity, ultimately a definition for the code will be needed. G eneral feedback is helpful
and will then return with specific language for the Committee and Council to review :
• Any premises where any of the following are exposed, offered for sale, or sold by
retail: fresh produce; bakery; meat, poultry, or fish products; frozen foods; and
processed and pre-packaged food.
• A minimum threshold of square footage where majority of floor area that is open to
the public is occupied by food products sold for preparation and consumption off-
site
• Retail bakers where any on-site baking is only for on-site sales.
• Stores that have more than one location
• Stores that combine full range of grocery sales and household products
CoStar Terms and Definitions:
For ease of reference and for discussion, staff has included excerpts below of terms a nd
concepts used in this staff report:
Common Area The areas on a floor such as washrooms, janitorial closets, electrical
rooms, telephone rooms, mechanical rooms, elevator lobbies, and public
corridors which are available primarily for the use of tenants on that
floor. It does not include major vertical penetrations such as elevator
shafts, stairways, equipment runs, etc.
Core Factor Common Area (also known as Core Space) reflected as a percentage of
Net Rentable Area (Square Feet) devoted to the building's common areas
(lobbies, rest rooms, corridors, etc.). This factor can be computed for an
entire building or a single floor of a building. Also known as a Loss Factor
or Rentable/Usable (R/U) Factor, it is calculated by dividing the usable
square footage by the rentable square footage - 1.
Core Space Also known as Common Area - The areas on floor such as washrooms,
janitorial closets, electrical rooms, telephone rooms, mechanical rooms,
elevator lobbies, and public corridors which are available for the use of all
tenants on that floor. It does not include major vertical penetrations such
as elevator shafts stairways, equipment runs, etc. (Identified as a
percentage of rentable area.)
General Retail A retail property's primary intended use is to promote, distribute or sell
products and services to the general public. It will often be in high traffic
or easily accessible areas. Retail buildings are configured for the display
of merchandise or the interaction of company sales personnel with
others.
1.a
Packet Pg. 29
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
A
:
P
r
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y
S
q
u
a
r
e
F
o
o
t
a
g
e
B
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
L
i
c
e
n
s
e
T
a
x
C
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
(
1
3
8
7
5
:
U
p
d
a
t
e
,
C
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
,
a
n
d
P
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
ATTACHMENT A
Attachment A - 14
Retail buildings can be used for various sales opportunities, including, but
not limited to, stand-alone (convenience stores to department stores),
store fronts, strip centers (no anchors), neighborhood, community,
regional, and super-regional malls, power centers, factory outlet centers,
and fashion or specialty centers.
Load Factor The Load Factor or Add-On Factor is calculated by dividing the Rentable
Building Area by the Usable Area. This factor can then be applied to the
Usable area to convert it to RBA for comparison. So in markets were
space is leased by the Usable area, if we know the Load Factor is 15%, we
can multiply the Usable area by 1.15, which results in the RBA.
Occupied Space Occupied space is defined as the square footage of space that is
physically occupied by a tenant. It does not include space that is under a
lease obligation, where the tenant does not actually occupy the space.
Rentable Building
Area (RBA) Expressed in square feet, this area includes the usable area and its
associated share of the common areas. Typically, rents are based on this
area. It is the space the tenant will occupy in addition to the associated
common areas of the building such as the lobby, hallways, bathrooms,
equipment rooms, etc. There is no real difference between RBA and GLA
(Gross Leasable Area) except that GLA is used when referring to retail
properties while RBA is used for other commercial properties.
Usable Building
Area (UBA) This consists of the space that the tenant will actually occupy in a
building. The usable area on a single floor may vary depending upon
corridor configurations, whether the floor is a single tenant or multiple
tenant occupancy, etc. It is the rentable area minus the common areas of
the floor such as lobbies, hallways, and bathrooms.
Santa Clara County Assessor’s Office Terms and Definitions
Assessed Value The taxable value of a property against which the tax rate is applied.
Since 1981-82, the assessed value is 100% of the property's value
pursuant to the provisions of the Revenue and Taxation Code. In prior
years, the assessed value was 25% of the full cash value.
Parcel Real property assessment unit. Land that is segregated into units by
boundary lines for assessment purposes.
1.a
Packet Pg. 30
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
A
:
P
r
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y
S
q
u
a
r
e
F
o
o
t
a
g
e
B
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
L
i
c
e
n
s
e
T
a
x
C
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
(
1
3
8
7
5
:
U
p
d
a
t
e
,
C
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
,
a
n
d
P
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
220-6205
Key Findings of a Survey of Palo Alto Voters
Conducted November 24-December 5, 2021
Assessing the Context for Potential
Finance Measures in Palo Alto in 2022
ATTACHMENT B
1.b
Packet Pg. 31
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
B
:
P
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
I
s
s
u
e
s
S
u
r
v
e
y
R
e
s
u
l
t
s
(
1
3
8
7
5
:
U
p
d
a
t
e
,
1
Survey Methodology
Dates November 24 –December 5, 2021
Survey Type Dual-mode Voter Survey
Research Population Likely November 2022 Voters in Palo Alto
Total Interviews 801
Margin of Sampling Error (Full Sample) ±3.5% at the 95% Confidence Level
(Half Sample) ±4.9% at the 95% Confidence Level
Contact Methods
Data Collection Modes
(Note: Not All Results Will Sum to 100% Due to Rounding)
Telephone
Calls
Email
Invitations
Telephone
Interviews
Online
Interviews
ATTACHMENT B
1.b
Packet Pg. 32
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
B
:
P
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
I
s
s
u
e
s
S
u
r
v
e
y
R
e
s
u
l
t
s
(
1
3
8
7
5
:
U
p
d
a
t
e
,
2
Survey Goals & Approach
Assess voter reactions to concepts
of three potential ballot measure
concepts: a business license tax,a
measure to ratify utility fund
transfers,and a utility users tax
increase.
Evaluate voters’priorities for uses
of funds.
Check the impact of campaigns for
and against the BLT measure
specifically – these were also
rotated.
To that end,voters heard either
the BLT or gas tax measures first in
a random order.
Business License Tax
BLT Tax Structure
Utility Fund Transfer Ratification
Utility Users Tax
Uses of Funds
Pro-BLT Messages and Re-Vote
Anti-BLT Messages and Re-Vote
BLT and Utility Fund Measures Rotated
BLT and Utility Fund Measures Rotated
ATTACHMENT B
1.b
Packet Pg. 33
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
B
:
P
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
I
s
s
u
e
s
S
u
r
v
e
y
R
e
s
u
l
t
s
(
1
3
8
7
5
:
U
p
d
a
t
e
,
3
Issue Context
ATTACHMENT B
1.b
Packet Pg. 34
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
B
:
P
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
I
s
s
u
e
s
S
u
r
v
e
y
R
e
s
u
l
t
s
(
1
3
8
7
5
:
U
p
d
a
t
e
,
4
Q1. Question Wording Slightly Altered for 2021 Survey
40%
43%
61%
27%
20%
14%
34%
37%
25%
2021
2018
2016
Right Direction Don’t Know Wrong Track
Would you say that things in Palo Alto are generally headed inthe right direction, or do you feel that things are headed in the wrong direction?
Voters are much less optimistic than 2016.
ATTACHMENT B
1.b
Packet Pg. 35
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
B
:
P
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
I
s
s
u
e
s
S
u
r
v
e
y
R
e
s
u
l
t
s
(
1
3
8
7
5
:
U
p
d
a
t
e
,
5
Q2.
8%
10%
18%
15%
16%
46%
50%
56%
53%
56%
31%
27%
19%
23%
22%
9%
10%
5%
6%
6%2021
2018
2016
2013
2008
Excellent Good Only Fair Poor Job Don't Know Excellent/Good Fair/Poor
54%40%
60%37%
74%24%
68%29%
72%26%
In the environment of COVID, a smaller
majority believes City government is doing an
“excellent” or “good” job.
How would you rate the overall job being done by Palo Alto City government in
providing services to the city’s residents? Would you say the City is doing an …?
ATTACHMENT B
1.b
Packet Pg. 36
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
B
:
P
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
I
s
s
u
e
s
S
u
r
v
e
y
R
e
s
u
l
t
s
(
1
3
8
7
5
:
U
p
d
a
t
e
,
6
36%
32%
27%
26%
20%
13%
32%
30%
26%
26%
30%
28%
17%
21%
21%
33%
32%
39%
13%
16%
26%
13%
14%
17%
The cost of housing
Not enough affordable housing
Climate change
Homelessness
The number of peoplewho are unhoused
The economic impactsof the coronavirus
Ext. Ser. Prob.Very Ser. Prob.Smwt. Ser. Prob.Not Too Ser. Prob.Don't Know Ext./Very Ser. Prob.
68%
62%
53%
52%
51%
41%
Q3. Split Sample
I'd like to read you some problems facing Palo Alto that other people have mentioned.Please tell me whether you think it is an extremely serious problem, a very serious problem, somewhat serious problem, or a not too serious problem in Palo Alto.
Housing costs, climate change and
homelessness are concerns for majorities.
ATTACHMENT B
1.b
Packet Pg. 37
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
B
:
P
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
I
s
s
u
e
s
S
u
r
v
e
y
R
e
s
u
l
t
s
(
1
3
8
7
5
:
U
p
d
a
t
e
,
7
12%
12%
13%
16%
16%
12%
15%
26%
25%
23%
18%
16%
20%
14%
35%
37%
29%
24%
24%
33%
24%
26%
24%
33%
26%
39%
34%
38%
16%
5%
8%
Air pollution including smokefrom wildfires
The public health impacts ofthe coronavirus
Traffic and congestion onlocal streets and roads
Waste and inefficiency inlocal government
Too much office and commercial growth and development
Crime, in general
The amount people pay in City taxes
Ext. Ser. Prob.Very Ser. Prob.Smwt. Ser. Prob.Not Too Ser. Prob.Don't Know Ext./Very Ser. Prob.
38%
37%
36%
35%
32%
32%
29%
Q3. I'd like to read you some problems facing Palo Alto that other people have mentioned. Please tell me whether you think it is an extremely serious problem, a very serious
problem, somewhat serious problem, or a not too serious problem in Palo Alto. Split Sample
Concerns about air pollution, public health,
traffic, and crime are less-broadly shared.
ATTACHMENT B
1.b
Packet Pg. 38
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
B
:
P
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
I
s
s
u
e
s
S
u
r
v
e
y
R
e
s
u
l
t
s
(
1
3
8
7
5
:
U
p
d
a
t
e
,
8
9%
10%
8%
7%
5%
7%
16%
14%
16%
13%
14%
12%
9%
33%
23%
33%
20%
30%
32%
17%
39%
48%
39%
24%
49%
50%
65%
5%
5%
36%
Unsafe railroad crossings
Too much residential growthand development
The condition of the local economy
The amount local businesses payin City taxes
The risk of wildfire
A lack of parking incommercial districts
Airplane noise
Ext. Ser. Prob.Very Ser. Prob.Smwt. Ser. Prob.Not Too Ser. Prob.Don't Know Ext./Very Ser. Prob.
26%
24%
24%
20%
18%
16%
15%
Q3. I'd like to read you some problems facing Palo Alto that other people have mentioned. Please tell me whether you think it is an extremely serious problem, a very serious
problem, somewhat serious problem, or a not too serious problem in Palo Alto. Split Sample
Notably, more than one-third say they
don’t know enough about taxes on
business to offer an opinion.
ATTACHMENT B
1.b
Packet Pg. 39
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
B
:
P
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
I
s
s
u
e
s
S
u
r
v
e
y
R
e
s
u
l
t
s
(
1
3
8
7
5
:
U
p
d
a
t
e
,
9
Q3a, b, f, I, j & n-t . I'd like to read you some problems facing Palo Alto that other people have mentioned. Please tell me whether you think it is an extremely serious problem, a
very serious problem, somewhat serious problem, or a not too serious problem in Palo Alto. Split Sample
Problem 2016 2020 2021 Difference(2021-2020)
Crime, in general 6%16%32%+16%
The condition of the local economy 6%13%24%+11%
The amount people pay in City taxes 18%19%29%+10%
Homelessness 22%44%52%+8%
The amount local businesses pay in City taxes --13%20%+7%
Waste and inefficiency in local government 17%29%35%+6%
Too much office andcommercial growth and development --34%32%-2%
Unsafe railroad crossings --29%26%-3%
Too much residential growth and development --32%24%-8%
The cost of housing 76%77%68%-9%
A lack of parking in commercial districts 37%30%16%-14%
Traffic and congestion on local streets and roads 53%53%36%-17%
(Extremely/Very Serious Problem)
Crime has become a broader concern, though it
is still much lower than in other communities.
ATTACHMENT B
1.b
Packet Pg. 40
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
B
:
P
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
I
s
s
u
e
s
S
u
r
v
e
y
R
e
s
u
l
t
s
(
1
3
8
7
5
:
U
p
d
a
t
e
,
10
Q9.
46%
49%
43%
34%
44%
39%
36%
33%
36%
38%
25%
29%
5%
9%
8%
11%
13%
12%
12%
6%
8%
8%
10%
16%
17%
Investing in community-owned assets like roads, community centers, libraries, parks, and public safety facilities
Maintaining the City's ability to fund basic City services
Restoring City services, such as library hours, recreational services, and adding police and fire services
Improving safety and reducing traffic at rail crossings
Funding affordable housing
Advancing the City's Climate Action Plan to help the community reduceits carbon emissions
Very Acc.Smwt. Acc.Don't Know Smwt. Inacc.Very Inacc.Total Acc.Total Inacc.
82%15%
81%15%
79%19%
72%23%
69%28%
68%28%
Voters see a wide range of rationales
motivating a tax measure as “acceptable.”
I am going to read you a list of reasons the City may place a tax measure on the ballot.Please tell me whether each purpose is an acceptable or unacceptable reason for raising new revenue.
ATTACHMENT B
1.b
Packet Pg. 41
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
B
:
P
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
I
s
s
u
e
s
S
u
r
v
e
y
R
e
s
u
l
t
s
(
1
3
8
7
5
:
U
p
d
a
t
e
,
11
Views of a
Business License Tax
Concept
ATTACHMENT B
1.b
Packet Pg. 42
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
B
:
P
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
I
s
s
u
e
s
S
u
r
v
e
y
R
e
s
u
l
t
s
(
1
3
8
7
5
:
U
p
d
a
t
e
,
12
Q4 Split C & D. Do you think you would vote yes or no on such a measure?
Definitely yes
Probably yes
Undecided, lean yes
Undecided, lean no
Probably no
Definitely no
Undecided
26%
33%
9%
2%
8%
16%
7%
Total Yes68%
Total No25%
Asked First
21%
30%
3%
6%
10%
19%
9%
Total Yes54%
Total No36%
Asked Last
Nearly seven in ten support the business
license tax when they hear about it first.
It would create a business license tax on commercial property in the city, based on theirsquarefootage,to pay for City services such as police,fire and emergency medical response;road repair and transportation improvements;recreation,arts, and theatre programs,library andcommunitycenterhours,and shuttle service,affordable housing,and the City’s climate action plan.
ATTACHMENT B
1.b
Packet Pg. 43
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
B
:
P
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
I
s
s
u
e
s
S
u
r
v
e
y
R
e
s
u
l
t
s
(
1
3
8
7
5
:
U
p
d
a
t
e
,
13
24%
26%
22%
22%
31%
34%
33%
32%
6%
7%
7%
8%
8%
8%
10%
11%
5%
9%
7%
8%
9%
18%
14%
14%
15%
Initial Vote
After Positives Only
After Negatives Only
Final Vote
Def. Yes Prob. Yes Und., Lean Yes Undecided Und., Lean No Prob. No Def. No Total Yes Total No
61%31%
67%25%
63%27%
62%28%
The concept has consistent support from
three in five through an exchange of pro
and con messaging.
Q4 Total, Q13 Split C, Q13 Split D, Q15 Total. Do you think you would vote yes or no on such a measure?
ATTACHMENT B
1.b
Packet Pg. 44
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
B
:
P
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
I
s
s
u
e
s
S
u
r
v
e
y
R
e
s
u
l
t
s
(
1
3
8
7
5
:
U
p
d
a
t
e
,
14
Priorities for Measure
Spending and Structure
ATTACHMENT B
1.b
Packet Pg. 45
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
B
:
P
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
I
s
s
u
e
s
S
u
r
v
e
y
R
e
s
u
l
t
s
(
1
3
8
7
5
:
U
p
d
a
t
e
,
15
17%
25%
36%
31%
30%
25%
17%
14%
12%
17%
15%
13%
18%
16%
15%
2.5%
1.5%
0.5%
Very Acc.Smwt. Acc.Don't Know Smwt. Unacc.Very Unacc.TotalAcc.TotalUnacc.
48%35%
55%31%
61%27%
Q5. Split Sample
Would a measure that increased business rent per square foot by
roughly ______ be an acceptable or unacceptable amount?
Majorities support a tax that would
add up to 1.5% to rent per square foot.
ATTACHMENT B
1.b
Packet Pg. 46
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
B
:
P
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
I
s
s
u
e
s
S
u
r
v
e
y
R
e
s
u
l
t
s
(
1
3
8
7
5
:
U
p
d
a
t
e
,
16
32%
24%
21%
32%
34%
32%
19%
22%
29%
6%
8%
9%
6%
7%
6%
5%
5%
Small retail stores
All businesses undera specified size
Grocery stores
Much More Lkly.Smwt. More Lkly.Makes No Diff.Don't Know Smwt. Less Lkly.Much Less Lkly.
TotalMoreLikely
TotalLessLikely
65%11%
58%12%
52%11%
Q6. Split Sample
The structure of this measure has not been finalized. If it were written to exempt ____________ from the tax, would you be more likely to support it orless likely to support it? If it makes no difference, you can tell me that instead.
Most voters say various exemptions would
make them more likely to back a measure.
ATTACHMENT B
1.b
Packet Pg. 47
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
B
:
P
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
I
s
s
u
e
s
S
u
r
v
e
y
R
e
s
u
l
t
s
(
1
3
8
7
5
:
U
p
d
a
t
e
,
17
Q11.
45%
40%
33%
21%
27%
28%
A tax that expires whenended by voters
A tax that increasesalongside the ConsumerPrice Index over time
A tax that expires in 9 years
Total More Likely Total Less Likely Difference
+24%
+13%
+5%
Voters are more likely to favor a tax that
expires when ended by voters than one with a
specific, nine-year sunset.
Here is a list of several ways a tax on business might be structured to raise funds for some of
these services. Please tell me whether you would be more likely or less likely to vote “yes” on a
measure that included that provision. If it makes no difference, you can tell me that instead.
ATTACHMENT B
1.b
Packet Pg. 48
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
B
:
P
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
I
s
s
u
e
s
S
u
r
v
e
y
R
e
s
u
l
t
s
(
1
3
8
7
5
:
U
p
d
a
t
e
,
18
Ext./Very Impt.
61%
60%
57%
55%
54%
52%
25%
22%
23%
29%
24%
24%
36%
38%
34%
26%
30%
28%
26%
31%
30%
21%
27%
26%
11%
8%
11%
21%
18%
20%
Homeless outreach and the safety, health, and cleanliness of downtown and commercial cores
*Preparing for natural disasters suchas earthquake or flooding
Fire staffing to improve emergency response times
*Providing affordable housing
Providing services for unhoused people
*Funding sustainability andclimate action plan goals
Ext. Impt.Very Impt.Smwt. Impt.Not Too Impt.Don't Know
Q10. *Split Sample
I am going to read you a list of more-specific ways in which funds generated bya tax could be spent. Please tell me how important each item is to you personally: extremely important, very important, somewhat important, or not too important.
More specifically, they rate homeless outreach,
natural disaster and emergency response as
important investment categories.
ATTACHMENT B
1.b
Packet Pg. 49
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
B
:
P
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
I
s
s
u
e
s
S
u
r
v
e
y
R
e
s
u
l
t
s
(
1
3
8
7
5
:
U
p
d
a
t
e
,
19
Ext./Very Impt.
51%
46%
46%
44%
39%
39%
23%
20%
16%
16%
13%
13%
28%
26%
30%
28%
27%
26%
28%
32%
35%
32%
38%
32%
20%
20%
16%
23%
18%
27%
5%
*Providing subsidized housing forlow-income residents
Providing safer crossings atrailroad tracks for traffic, bicycles,and pedestrians
Assisting small businesses
Police for investigations, traffic enforcement, and animal control
Improving and expanding parks as described in the Parks Master Plans
Expanding the bicycle network
Ext. Impt.Very Impt.Smwt. Impt.Not Too Impt.Don't Know
Q10. I am going to read you a list of more-specific ways in which funds generated by a tax could be spent. Please tell me how important each item is to you personally:
extremely important, very important, somewhat important, or not too important. *Split Sample
The bicycle network, expanded parks, and
policing are relatively lower priorities.
ATTACHMENT B
1.b
Packet Pg. 50
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
B
:
P
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
I
s
s
u
e
s
S
u
r
v
e
y
R
e
s
u
l
t
s
(
1
3
8
7
5
:
U
p
d
a
t
e
,
20
Ext./Very Impt.
34%
34%
31%
29%
28%
27%
20%
11%
9%
10%
9%
8%
8%
6%
23%
25%
21%
21%
19%
20%
15%
35%
41%
33%
38%
40%
35%
30%
27%
23%
29%
31%
31%
26%
47%
7%
12%
Crosstown, Embarcadero, and other shuttle services
Recreation programs
Code enforcement services
Increased library hours
Arts and theatre productions
Renovating Cubberley Community Center as laid out in the Cubberly Master Plan
Implementing further Junior Museum and Zoo expansions
Ext. Impt.Very Impt.Smwt. Impt.Not Too Impt.Don't Know
Q10. I am going to read you a list of more-specific ways in which funds generated by a tax could be spent. Please tell me how important each item is to you personally:
extremely important, very important, somewhat important, or not too important. Not Part of Split Sample
Fewer than three in ten highly value
expansions to the Junior Museum and Zoo or
renovations to the community center.
ATTACHMENT B
1.b
Packet Pg. 51
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
B
:
P
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
I
s
s
u
e
s
S
u
r
v
e
y
R
e
s
u
l
t
s
(
1
3
8
7
5
:
U
p
d
a
t
e
,
21
Views of Utility Fund
Transfer Measures
ATTACHMENT B
1.b
Packet Pg. 52
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
B
:
P
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
I
s
s
u
e
s
S
u
r
v
e
y
R
e
s
u
l
t
s
(
1
3
8
7
5
:
U
p
d
a
t
e
,
22
Q7 & Q8. Do you think you would vote yes or no on such a measure?
Voters heard or read two proposals to address
utility fund transfers, in rotated order.
As you may know,the City of Palo Alto provides natural gas service to residents andbusinesses.As part of its routine budget practices,the City annually transfers some moneyfromtheutilityfundtothegeneralCitybudgetwhichmaintainscoreCityservices used bythecommunity.Next year,there may be a measure on the ballot to update the structure forthis practice.I’d like to ask you about 2 different ways it could be structured.
Tax Confirmation Vote Amendment Tax Vote
ONE/ANOTHER approach would be to seekvoterapprovaltoconfirmtheexistingbudgetpracticeoftransferringnotmorethan18%ofCityofPaloAltoUtilities’gross annual sales ofgas,paid by retail gas rate payers,providingover$7 million annually to maintain generalCityservicessuchaspolice,fire andemergencymedicalresponse;road repair andtransportationimprovements;recreation,parks,arts,and theatre programs;library andcommunitycenterhours;and shuttle services.This approach would not increase utility rates.
ONE/ANOTHER approach would be to amendtheCityofPaloAltoMunicipalCodetoreplacetheCity’s transfer from the utilitywithavoter-approved measure to increase totheUtilitiesUser’s Tax paid by retail gas andelectricratepayersby5%to provide over$7 million annually to maintain general Cityservicessuch police,fire and emergencymedicalresponse;road repair andtransportationimprovements;recreation,parks,arts,and theatre programs;library andcommunitycenterhours;and shuttleservices.This approach would not increasetotalresidentialutility bills.Do you think youwouldvoteyesornoonsuchameasure?
ATTACHMENT B
1.b
Packet Pg. 53
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
B
:
P
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
I
s
s
u
e
s
S
u
r
v
e
y
R
e
s
u
l
t
s
(
1
3
8
7
5
:
U
p
d
a
t
e
,
23
17%
34%
9%
5%
8%
10%
16%
Definitely yes
Probably yes
Undecided, lean yes
Undecided, lean no
Probably no
Definitely no
Undecided
Total Yes60%
Total No24%
Q7 Total. Do you think you would vote yes or no on such a measure?
On the measure to confirm existing practice,
three in five would vote “yes.”
(Confirmation Vote)
ATTACHMENT B
1.b
Packet Pg. 54
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
B
:
P
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
I
s
s
u
e
s
S
u
r
v
e
y
R
e
s
u
l
t
s
(
1
3
8
7
5
:
U
p
d
a
t
e
,
24
13%
25%
9%
5%
13%
17%
18%
Definitely yes
Probably yes
Undecided, lean yes
Undecided, lean no
Probably no
Definitely no
Undecided
Total Yes46%
Total No36%
Q8 Total. Do you think you would vote yes or no on such a measure?
The measure to increase the UUT
has less than majority support, and
does not appear viable.
(UUT Vote)
ATTACHMENT B
1.b
Packet Pg. 55
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
B
:
P
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
I
s
s
u
e
s
S
u
r
v
e
y
R
e
s
u
l
t
s
(
1
3
8
7
5
:
U
p
d
a
t
e
,
25
Conclusions
ATTACHMENT B
1.b
Packet Pg. 56
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
B
:
P
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
I
s
s
u
e
s
S
u
r
v
e
y
R
e
s
u
l
t
s
(
1
3
8
7
5
:
U
p
d
a
t
e
,
26
Conclusions
•The mood of the city continues to be mixed,as it is in many cities around region.
A majority rates City government’s performance as “excellent”or “good” (54%).
•The cost of housing and homelessness remain the top two concerns;concern
about crime is on the rise, while concern about traffic and parking has (not
surprisingly)declined.
•Three in five back the business license tax concept we tested,which –pending a
more detailed exploration of measure structure –indicates viability; a measure
ratifying utility fund transfers polls at 60% and is viable.
•In contrast, an increase in the UUT polls at only 46%,below the level needed for
viability.
•The City might continue to consider the two viable measures,with future polling
to determine whether proceeding with both is advised,including the order of
ballot placement.
•Voters see maintaining basic services as the strongest rationale for placing a tax
measure on the ballot.They are most enthusiastic about allocating funding
toward fire staffing,disaster preparedness,affordable housing,and outreach to
the unhoused.
ATTACHMENT B
1.b
Packet Pg. 57
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
B
:
P
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
I
s
s
u
e
s
S
u
r
v
e
y
R
e
s
u
l
t
s
(
1
3
8
7
5
:
U
p
d
a
t
e
,
For more information, contact:
Dave@FM3research.com
Dave Metz
Miranda@FM3research.com
Miranda Everitt1999 Harrison St., Suite 2020
Oakland, CA 94612
Phone (510) 451-9521
Fax (510) 451-0384
DRAFT
ATTACHMENT B
1.b
Packet Pg. 58
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
B
:
P
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
I
s
s
u
e
s
S
u
r
v
e
y
R
e
s
u
l
t
s
(
1
3
8
7
5
:
U
p
d
a
t
e
,
NOVEMBER 24 – DECEMBER 5, 2021
CITY OF PALO ALTO BALLOT MEASURE SURVEY
220-6205 WT
N=801
MARGIN OF SAMPLING ERROR ±3.5% (95% CONFIDENCE LEVEL)
A/B AND C/D SPLITS
Hello, I'm ___________ from _________, a public opinion research company. I am definitely not trying to sell
you anything. We are conducting an opinion survey about issues that interest people living in the City of Palo
Alto and we are only interested in your opinions. May I speak to ______________? (YOU MUST SPEAK
TO THE VOTER LISTED. VERIFY THAT THE VOTER LIVES AT THE ADDRESS LISTED,
OTHERWISE TERMINATE).
A.Before we begin, I need to know if I have reached you on a cell phone, and if so, are you in a place
where you can talk safely without endangering yourself or others? (IF NOT ON A CELL PHONE,
ASK: Do you own a cell phone?)
Yes, cell and can talk safely ------------------------------------------------- 67%
Yes, cell but cannot talk safely --------------------------------- TERMINATE
No, not on cell ----------------------------------------------------------------- 33%
(DON’T READ) DK/NA/REFUSED ------------------------- TERMINATE
1.(T*) First, would you say that things in Palo Alto are generally headed in the right direction, or do you
feel that things are headed in the wrong direction?
2016 2018 2021
Right direction ----------------------- 61% --------------- 43% -------------- 40%
Wrong track -------------------------- 25% --------------- 37% -------------- 34%
(DON'T READ) DK/NA --------- 14% --------------- 20% -------------- 27%
2.And how would you rate the overall job being done by Palo Alto City government in providing services
to the city’s residents? Would you say the City is doing an …? (READ RESPONSES AND RECORD)
2008 2013 2016 2018 2021
EXCELLENT/GOOD ------------- 72% ------- 68% ----- 74% --- 60% -- 54%
Excellent ------------------------------- 16% ------- 15% ----- 18% --- 10% ---- 8%
Good ----------------------------------- 56% ------- 53% ----- 56% --- 50% -- 46%
FAIR/POOR ------------------------- 26% ------- 29% ----- 24% --- 37% -- 40%
Only fair ------------------------------- 22% ------- 23% ----- 19% --- 27% -- 31%
Poor job ------------------------------- 4%-------- 6% ------ 5% ------ 10%---- 9%
(DON'T READ) Don't know ----- 2%-------- 3% ------ 2% ------- 3% ---- 6%
ATTACHMENT B
1.b
Packet Pg. 59
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
B
:
P
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
I
s
s
u
e
s
S
u
r
v
e
y
R
e
s
u
l
t
s
(
1
3
8
7
5
:
U
p
d
a
t
e
,
C
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
,
a
n
d
P
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
D
i
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
o
n
P
o
s
s
i
b
l
e
3. I'd like to read you some problems facing Palo Alto that other people have mentioned. For each one I
read, please tell me whether you think it is an extremely serious problem, a very serious problem,
somewhat serious problem, or a not too serious problem in Palo Alto. (RANDOMIZE)
EXT VERY SMWT NOT (DON’T
SER SER SER TOO SER READ) EXT/
PROB PROB PROB PROB DK/NA VERY
(SPLIT SAMPLE A ONLY)
[ ]a. A lack of parking in commercial districts
2021 ------------------------------------------------------ 4% ---- 12% ----- 32% ----- 50% ------ 3% 16%
2020 ----------------------------------------------------- 13% ---- 17% ----- 35% ----- 32% ------ 3% 30%
2016 ----------------------------------------------------- 14% ---- 23% ----- 38% ----- 25% ------ 0% 37%
[ ]b. The cost of housing
2021 ----------------------------------------------------- 36% ---- 32% ----- 17% ----- 13% ------ 1% 68%
2020 ----------------------------------------------------- 51% ---- 26% ----- 14% -------9% ------ 0% 77%
2016 ----------------------------------------------------- 46% ---- 30% ----- 15% -------7% ------ 1% 76%
[ ]c. Not enough affordable housing --------------------- 32% ---- 30% ----- 21% ----- 16% ------ 1% 62%
[ ]d. The public health impacts of the
coronavirus --------------------------------------------- 12% ---- 25% ----- 37% ----- 24% ------ 2% 37%
[ ]e. The risk of wildfire ------------------------------------ 5% ---- 14% ----- 30% ----- 49% ------ 3% 18%
[ ]f. Unsafe railroad crossings
2021 ------------------------------------------------------ 9% ---- 16% ----- 33% ----- 39% ------ 3% 26%
2020 ----------------------------------------------------- 11% ---- 18% ----- 29% ----- 40% ------ 2% 29%
[ ]g. Airplane noise ------------------------------------------ 7% ------ 9% ----- 17% ----- 65% ------ 2% 15%
[ ]h. The number of people who are unhoused --------- 20% ---- 30% ----- 32% ----- 14% ------ 3% 51%
[ ]i. Too much residential growth and development
2021 ----------------------------------------------------- 10% ---- 14% ----- 23% ----- 48% ------ 5% 24%
2020 ----------------------------------------------------- 14% ---- 18% ----- 20% ----- 46% ------ 3% 32%
[ ]j. The amount local businesses pay in City taxes
2021 ------------------------------------------------------ 7% ---- 13% ----- 20% ----- 24% ---- 36% 20%
2020 ------------------------------------------------------ 5% ------ 8% ----- 20% ----- 19% ---- 48% 13%
(SPLIT SAMPLE B ONLY)
[ ]k. The economic impacts of the coronavirus -------- 13% ---- 28% ----- 39% ----- 17% ------ 3% 41%
[ ]l. Climate change ---------------------------------------- 27% ---- 26% ----- 21% ----- 26% ------ 0% 53%
[ ]m. Air pollution including smoke from
wildfires ------------------------------------------------ 12% ---- 26% ----- 35% ----- 26% ------ 2% 38%
[ ]n. Waste and inefficiency in local government
2021 ----------------------------------------------------- 16% ---- 18% ----- 24% ----- 26% ---- 16% 35%
2020 ----------------------------------------------------- 13% ---- 16% ----- 24% ----- 26% ---- 21% 29%
2016 ------------------------------------------------------ 8% ------ 9% ----- 34% ----- 36% ---- 13% 17%
[ ]o. The condition of the local economy
2021 ------------------------------------------------------ 8% ---- 16% ----- 33% ----- 39% ------ 5% 24%
2020 ------------------------------------------------------ 3% ---- 10% ----- 18% ----- 62% ------ 7% 13%
2016 ------------------------------------------------------ 2% ------ 5% ----- 16% ----- 73% ------ 5% 6%
[ ]p. Crime, in general
2021 ----------------------------------------------------- 12% ---- 20% ----- 33% ----- 34% ------ 2% 32%
2020 ------------------------------------------------------ 4% ---- 11% ----- 28% ----- 54% ------ 2% 16%
2016 ------------------------------------------------------ 1% ------ 5% ----- 29% ----- 64% ------ 1% 6%
ATTACHMENT B
1.b
Packet Pg. 60
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
B
:
P
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
I
s
s
u
e
s
S
u
r
v
e
y
R
e
s
u
l
t
s
(
1
3
8
7
5
:
U
p
d
a
t
e
,
C
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
,
a
n
d
P
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
D
i
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
o
n
P
o
s
s
i
b
l
e
EXT VERY SMWT NOT (DON’T
SER SER SER TOO SER READ) EXT/
PROB PROB PROB PROB DK/NA VERY
(SPLIT SAMPLE B CONTINUED)
[ ]q. Traffic and congestion on local streets and roads
2021 ----------------------------------------------------- 13% ---- 23% ----- 29% ----- 33% ------ 1% 36%
2020 ----------------------------------------------------- 30% ---- 23% ----- 33% ----- 13% ------ 0% 53%
2016 ----------------------------------------------------- 22% ---- 31% ----- 29% ----- 16% ------ 2% 53%
[ ]r. Homelessness
2021 ----------------------------------------------------- 26% ---- 26% ----- 33% ----- 13% ------ 3% 52%
2020 ----------------------------------------------------- 21% ---- 23% ----- 30% ----- 25% ------ 1% 44%
2016 ------------------------------------------------------ 7% ---- 15% ----- 49% ----- 26% ------ 3% 22%
[ ]s. Too much office and commercial growth and development
2021 ----------------------------------------------------- 16% ---- 16% ----- 24% ----- 39% ------ 5% 32%
2020 ----------------------------------------------------- 20% ---- 14% ----- 25% ----- 36% ------ 5% 34%
[ ]t. The amount people pay in City taxes
2021 ----------------------------------------------------- 15% ---- 14% ----- 24% ----- 38% ------ 8% 29%
2020 ------------------------------------------------------ 6% ---- 14% ----- 20% ----- 46% ---- 15% 19%
2016 ------------------------------------------------------ 8% ---- 10% ----- 33% ----- 39% ---- 10% 18%
(RESUME ASKING ALL RESPONDENTS)
NOW I WOULD LIKE TO ASK YOU A FEW QUESTIONS ABOUT MEASURES THAT MAY
APPEAR ON THE BALLOT IN AN UPCOMING ELECTION.
(SPLIT SAMPLE C ONLY: Q4/Q5/Q6, THEN Q7/Q8)
(SPLIT SAMPLE D ONLY: Q7/Q8, THEN Q4/Q5/Q6)
4. It would create a business license tax on commercial property in the city, based on their square footage,
to pay for City services such as police, fire and emergency medical response; road repair and
transportation improvements; recreation, arts, and theatre programs, library and community center
hours, and shuttle service, affordable housing, and the City’s climate action plan . Do you think you
would vote yes or no on such a measure? (IF YES/NO, ASK: “Is that definitely or just probably?”)
(IF UNDECIDED, DON’T KNOW, NO ANSWER, ASK: Do you lean toward voting yes or no?”)
SPLIT C SPLIT D
ASKED ASKED
FIRST LAST TOTAL
TOTAL YES ------------------------------- 68%------- 54% ------- 61%
Definitely yes ------------------------------- 26%------- 21% ------- 24%
Probably yes -------------------------------- 33%------- 30% ------- 31%
Undecided, lean yes ------------------------ 9%--------- 3% --------- 6%
TOTAL NO -------------------------------- 25%------- 36% ------- 31%
Undecided, lean no ------------------------- 2%--------- 6% --------- 4%
Probably no ---------------------------------- 8%------- 10% --------- 9%
Definitely no -------------------------------- 16%------- 19% ------- 18%
(DON'T READ) DK/NA ----------------- 7%--------- 9% --------- 8%
ATTACHMENT B
1.b
Packet Pg. 61
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
B
:
P
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
I
s
s
u
e
s
S
u
r
v
e
y
R
e
s
u
l
t
s
(
1
3
8
7
5
:
U
p
d
a
t
e
,
C
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
,
a
n
d
P
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
D
i
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
o
n
P
o
s
s
i
b
l
e
(SPLIT SAMPLE C ONLY: Q4/Q5/Q6, THEN Q7/Q8)
(SPLIT SAMPLE D ONLY: Q7/Q8, THEN Q4/Q5/Q6)
5. Would a measure that increased business rent per square foot by roughly (READ EACH ITEM) be an
acceptable or unacceptable amount? (IF ACCEPTABLE/ UNACCEPTABLE, ASK: “Is that very or
somewhat ACCEPTABLE/ UNACCEPTABLE?”) (READ IN ORDER)
VERY SMWT SMWT VERY TOTAL TOTAL
ACC ACC UNACC UNACC (DK/NA) ACC UNACC
a. 2.5% ------------------------------------------ 17% ----- 31% ---- 17% ----- 18% ----- 17% 48% 35%
b. 1.5% ------------------------------------------ 25% ----- 30% ---- 15% ----- 16% ----- 14% 55% 31%
c. 0.5% ------------------------------------------ 36% ----- 25% ---- 13% ----- 15% ----- 12% 61% 27%
(SPLIT SAMPLE C ONLY: Q4/Q5/Q6, THEN Q7/Q8)
(SPLIT SAMPLE D ONLY: Q7/Q8, THEN Q4/Q5/Q6)
6. The structure of this measure has not been finalized. If it were written to exempt ____________ from
the tax, would you be more likely to support it or less likely to support it? If it makes no difference,
you can tell me that instead. (IF MORE/LESS, ASK: Is that much MORE/LESS LIKELY, or only
somewhat?) (RANDOMIZE)
MUCH SMWT SMWT MUCH MAKES TOTAL TOTAL
MORE MORE LESS LESS NO MORE LESS
LKLY LKLY LKLY LKLY DIFF (DK/NA) LKLY LKLY
[ ]a. Small retail stores -------------- 32% ----- 32% ------ 6% ------ 5% ----- 19% -------6% 65% 11%
[ ]b. Grocery stores ------------------ 21% ----- 32% ------ 6% ------ 4% ----- 29% -------9% 52% 11%
[ ]c. All businesses under a
specified size -------------------- 24% ----- 34% ------ 7% ------ 5% ----- 22% -------8% 58% 12%
ATTACHMENT B
1.b
Packet Pg. 62
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
B
:
P
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
I
s
s
u
e
s
S
u
r
v
e
y
R
e
s
u
l
t
s
(
1
3
8
7
5
:
U
p
d
a
t
e
,
C
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
,
a
n
d
P
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
D
i
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
o
n
P
o
s
s
i
b
l
e
(SPLIT SAMPLE C ONLY: Q4/Q5/Q6, THEN Q7/Q8)
(SPLIT SAMPLE D ONLY: Q7/Q8, THEN Q4/Q5/Q6)
NEXT, I WOULD LIKE TO ASK ABOUT ANOTHER ISSUE. AS YOU MAY KNOW, THE CITY OF
PALO ALTO PROVIDES NATURAL GAS SERVICE TO RESIDENTS AND BUSINESSES. AS PART
OF ITS ROUTINE BUDGET PRACTICES, THE CITY ANNUALLY TRANSFERS SOME MONEY
FROM THE UTILITY FUND TO THE GENERAL CITY BUDGET WHICH MAINTAINS CORE CITY
SERVICES USED BY THE COMMUNITY. NEXT YEAR, THERE MAY BE A MEASURE ON THE
BALLOT TO UPDATE THE STRUCTURE FOR THIS PRACTICE. I’D LIKE TO ASK YOU ABOUT
TWO DIFFERENT WAYS IT COULD BE STRUCTURED.
(SPLIT SAMPLE C ONLY: Q4/Q5/Q6, THEN Q7/Q8)
(SPLIT SAMPLE D ONLY: Q7/Q8, THEN Q4/Q5/Q6)
(ROTATE Q7/Q8)
7. ONE/ANOTHER approach would be to seek voter approval to confirm the existing budget practice of
transferring not more than 18 percent of City of Palo Alto Utilities’ gross annual sales of gas, paid by
retail gas rate payers, providing over 7 million dollars annually to maintain general City services such
as police, fire and emergency medical response; road repair and transportation improvements;
recreation, parks, arts, and theatre programs; library and community center hours; and shuttle services.
This approach would not increase utility rates. Do you think you would vote yes or no on such a
measure? (IF YES/NO, ASK: “Is that definitely or just probably?”) (IF UNDECIDED, DON’T
KNOW, NO ANSWER, ASK: “Do you lean toward voting yes or no?”)
SPLIT C SPLIT D
ASKED ASKED
LAST FIRST TOTAL
TOTAL YES ------------------------------- 60%------- 60% ------- 60%
Definitely yes ------------------------------- 18%------- 17% ------- 17%
Probably yes -------------------------------- 34%------- 34% ------- 34%
Undecided, lean yes ------------------------ 8%--------- 9% --------- 9%
TOTAL NO -------------------------------- 23%------- 25% ------- 24%
Undecided, lean no ------------------------- 5%--------- 6% --------- 5%
Probably no ---------------------------------- 8%--------- 9% --------- 8%
Definitely no -------------------------------- 10%------- 11% ------- 10%
(DON'T READ) DK/NA ---------------- 17%------- 15% ------- 16%
ATTACHMENT B
1.b
Packet Pg. 63
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
B
:
P
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
I
s
s
u
e
s
S
u
r
v
e
y
R
e
s
u
l
t
s
(
1
3
8
7
5
:
U
p
d
a
t
e
,
C
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
,
a
n
d
P
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
D
i
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
o
n
P
o
s
s
i
b
l
e
(SPLIT SAMPLE C ONLY: Q4/Q5/Q6, THEN Q7/Q8)
(SPLIT SAMPLE D ONLY: Q7/Q8, THEN Q4/Q5/Q6)
(ROTATE Q7/Q8)
8. ONE/ANOTHER approach would be to amend the City of Palo Alto Municipal Code to replace the
City’s transfer from the utility with a voter-approved measure to increase to the Utilities User’s Tax
paid by retail gas and electric ratepayers by 5 percent to provide over 7 million dollars annually to
maintain general City services such police, fire and emergency medical response; road repair and
transportation improvements; recreation, parks, arts, and theatre programs; library and community
center hours; and shuttle services. This approach would not increase total residential utility bills. Do
you think you would vote yes or no on such a measure? (IF YES/NO, ASK: “Is that definitely or just
probably?”) (IF UNDECIDED, DON’T KNOW, NO ANSWER, ASK: “Do you lean toward voting
yes or no?”)
SPLIT C SPLIT D
ASKED ASKED
LAST FIRST TOTAL
TOTAL YES ------------------------------- 46%------- 47% ------- 46%
Definitely yes ------------------------------- 13%------- 12% ------- 13%
Probably yes -------------------------------- 24%------- 25% ------- 25%
Undecided, lean yes ------------------------ 8%------- 10% --------- 9%
TOTAL NO -------------------------------- 37%------- 35% ------- 36%
Undecided, lean no ------------------------- 4%--------- 6% --------- 5%
Probably no --------------------------------- 15%------- 12% ------- 13%
Definitely no -------------------------------- 18%------- 17% ------- 17%
(DON'T READ) DK/NA ---------------- 18%------- 17% ------- 18%
ATTACHMENT B
1.b
Packet Pg. 64
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
B
:
P
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
I
s
s
u
e
s
S
u
r
v
e
y
R
e
s
u
l
t
s
(
1
3
8
7
5
:
U
p
d
a
t
e
,
C
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
,
a
n
d
P
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
D
i
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
o
n
P
o
s
s
i
b
l
e
9. Stepping back a bit, I am going to read you a list of reasons the City may place a tax measure on the
ballot. After each one, please tell me whether each purpose is an acceptable or unacceptable reason for
raising new revenue. (RANDOMIZE)? (IF ACCEPTABLE/UNACCEPTABLE, ASK:) “Is that very
ACCEPTABLE/UNACCEPTABLE or just somewhat?
VERY SMWT SMWT VERY TOTAL TOTAL
ACC ACC UNACC UNACC (DK/NA) ACC UNACC
[ ]a. Maintaining the City’s ability to
fund basic City services ------------------- 49% ----- 33% ------ 8% ------ 8% -------4% 81% 15%
[ ]b. Restoring City services, such as
library hours, recreational services,
and adding police and fire services ----- 43% ----- 36% ---- 11% ------ 8% -------3% 79% 19%
[ ]c. Investing in community-owned
assets like roads, community
centers, libraries, parks, and public
safety facilities ------------------------------ 46% ----- 36% ------ 9% ------ 6% -------2% 82% 15%
[ ]d. Funding affordable housing -------------- 44% ----- 25% ---- 12% ----- 16% -------3% 69% 28%
[ ]e. Improving safety and reducing
traffic at rail crossings--------------------- 34% ----- 38% ---- 13% ----- 10% -------5% 72% 23%
[ ]f. Advancing the City’s Climate
Action Plan to help the community
reduce its carbon emissions -------------- 39% ----- 29% ---- 12% ----- 17% -------4% 68% 28%
10. Next, I am going to read you a list of more-specific ways in which funds generated by a tax could be
spent. After I read each one, please tell me how important each item is to you personally: extremely
important, very important, somewhat important, or not too important. (RANDOMIZE)
NOT (DON’T
EXT VERY SMWT TOO READ) EXT/
IMP IMP IMP IMP DK/NA VERY
[ ]a. Police for investigations, traffic
enforcement, and animal control ------------------- 16% ---- 28% ----- 32% ----- 23% ------ 1% 44%
[ ]b. Homeless outreach and the safety, health,
and cleanliness of downtown and
commercial cores -------------------------------------- 25% ---- 36% ----- 26% ----- 11% ------ 2% 61%
[ ]c. Fire staffing to improve emergency
response times ----------------------------------------- 23% ---- 34% ----- 30% ----- 11% ------ 3% 57%
[ ]d. Code enforcement services -------------------------- 10% ---- 21% ----- 33% ----- 29% ------ 7% 31%
[ ]e. Recreation programs ----------------------------------- 9% ---- 25% ----- 41% ----- 23% ------ 2% 34%
[ ]f. Increased library hours -------------------------------- 9% ---- 21% ----- 38% ----- 31% ------ 2% 29%
[ ]g. Crosstown, Embarcadero, and other shuttle
services-------------------------------------------------- 11% ---- 23% ----- 35% ----- 27% ------ 4% 34%
[ ]h. Arts and theatre productions ------------------------- 8% ---- 19% ----- 40% ----- 31% ------ 1% 28%
[ ]i. Renovating Cubberley Community Center
as laid out in the Cubberly Master Plan ------------ 8% ---- 20% ----- 35% ----- 26% ---- 12% 27%
[ ]j. Expanding the bicycle network --------------------- 13% ---- 26% ----- 32% ----- 27% ------ 2% 39%
[ ]k. Implementing further Junior Museum and
Zoo expansions ----------------------------------------- 6% ---- 15% ----- 30% ----- 47% ------ 3% 20%
ATTACHMENT B
1.b
Packet Pg. 65
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
B
:
P
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
I
s
s
u
e
s
S
u
r
v
e
y
R
e
s
u
l
t
s
(
1
3
8
7
5
:
U
p
d
a
t
e
,
C
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
,
a
n
d
P
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
D
i
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
o
n
P
o
s
s
i
b
l
e
NOT (DON’T
EXT VERY SMWT TOO READ) EXT/
IMP IMP IMP IMP DK/NA VERY
[ ]l. Improving and expanding parks as
described in the Parks Master Plans --------------- 13% ---- 27% ----- 38% ----- 18% ------ 5% 39%
[ ]m. Providing safer crossings at railroad tracks for traffic, bicycles, and pedestrians
2021 ----------------------------------------------------- 20% ---- 26% ----- 32% ----- 20% ------ 2% 46%
2020 ----------------------------------------------------- 21% ---- 28% ----- 31% ----- 21% ------ 1% 48%
[ ]n. Assisting small businesses --------------------------- 16% ---- 30% ----- 35% ----- 16% ------ 2% 46%
[ ]o. Providing services for unhoused people ----------- 24% ---- 30% ----- 27% ----- 18% ------ 2% 54%
(SPLIT SAMPLE A ONLY)
[ ]p. Funding sustainability and climate action
plan goals ----------------------------------------------- 24% ---- 28% ----- 26% ----- 20% ------ 2% 52%
[ ]q. Providing subsidized housing for low-income residents
2021 ----------------------------------------------------- 23% ---- 28% ----- 28% ----- 20% ------ 2% 51%
2020 ----------------------------------------------------- 27% ---- 26% ----- 31% ----- 14% ------ 2% 54%
(SPLIT SAMPLE B ONLY)
[ ]r. Providing affordable housing
2021 ----------------------------------------------------- 29% ---- 26% ----- 21% ----- 21% ------ 3% 55%
2020 ----------------------------------------------------- 40% ---- 22% ----- 18% ----- 19% ------ 1% 62%
[ ]s. Preparing for natural disasters such as earthquake or flooding
2021 ----------------------------------------------------- 22% ---- 38% ----- 31% -------8% ------ 1% 60%
2020 ----------------------------------------------------- 25% ---- 37% ----- 30% -------8% ------ 1% 62%
(RESUME ASKING ALL RESPONDENTS)
MY NEXT QUESTIONS RETURN TO POTENTIAL BALLOT MEASURE I MENTIONED EARLIER
WHICH WOULD CREATE A BUSINESS LICENSE TAX ON PALO ALTO BUSINESSES BASED ON
THEIR SQUARE FOOTAGE.
11. Next, here is a list of several ways a tax on business might be structured to raise funds for some of these
services. After you hear each one, please tell me whether you would be more likely or less likely to
vote “yes” on a measure that included that provision. If it makes no difference, you can tell me that
instead. (IF MORE/LESS, ASK: Is that much MORE/LESS LIKELY, or only somewhat?)
(RANDOMIZE)
MUCH SMWT SMWT MUCH MAKES TOTAL TOTAL
MORE MORE LESS LESS NO MORE LESS
LKLY LKLY LKLY LKLY DIFF (DK/NA) LKLY LKLY
[ ]a. A tax that expires in 9 years --- 9% ----- 24% ----- 15% ---- 13% ----- 28% ----- 11% 33% 28%
[ ]b. A tax that expires when
ended by voters ----------------- 17% ----- 28% ----- 10% ---- 11% ----- 24% ----- 10% 45% 21%
[ ]c. A tax that increases
alongside the consumer
price index over time ---------- 13% ----- 27% ----- 13% ---- 14% ----- 23% ----- 10% 40% 27%
ATTACHMENT B
1.b
Packet Pg. 66
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
B
:
P
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
I
s
s
u
e
s
S
u
r
v
e
y
R
e
s
u
l
t
s
(
1
3
8
7
5
:
U
p
d
a
t
e
,
C
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
,
a
n
d
P
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
D
i
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
o
n
P
o
s
s
i
b
l
e
NEXT, HERE ARE SOME STATEMENTS FROM SUPPORTERS AND OPPONENTS OF THE
POTENTIAL BUSINESS TAX WE HAVE BEEN DISCUSSING.
12. First, I am going to read you some statements from people who support the measure. After hearing each
statement, please tell me whether you find it very convincing, somewhat convincing, or not convincing
as a reason to support the measure. If you do not believe the statement, please tell me that too.
(RANDOMIZE)
(DON’T
VERY SMWT NOT DON’T READ) VERY/
CONV CONV CONV BEL DK/NA SMWT
[ ]a. (ACCOUNTABILITY) This measure will
be subject to strict accountability provisions
like annual financial audits; full public
disclosure of all spending; and a
requirement that all funds be spent locally
in Palo Alto. This will ensure funds are
used efficiently, effectively, and as
promised. ----------------------------------------------- 27% ---- 37% ----- 20% ----- 11% ------ 5% 64%
[ ]b. (QUALITY OF LIFE) The pandemic
greatly impacted quality of life in Palo Alto
and required cuts to police, fire and
emergency medical response; road repair
and transportation improvements;
recreation, parks, arts, and theatre
programs; library and community center
hours; and shuttle services. This measure is
a way to restore services and ensure that
Palo Alto remains a safe, beautiful, and
vibrant place to live, work, and raise a
family. -------------------------------------------------- 23% ---- 36% ----- 27% ----- 11% ------ 4% 58%
[ ]c. (COMPARISON) Palo Alto currently
registers businesses of all sizes for 50
dollars, but is one of the only cities in the
Bay Area that currently does not have a
business license tax. This measure is a
sensible way to ensure businesses pay their
fair share for the services the City
provides. ------------------------------------------------ 36% ---- 35% ----- 19% -------7% ------ 4% 70%
[ ]d. (FAIRNESS) It is only fair to increase
what businesses pay to fund police, fire,
and emergency medical response and
transportation and City services in Palo
Alto, since businesses benefit from our
high-quality services. --------------------------------- 24% ---- 38% ----- 26% -------8% ------ 4% 62%
ATTACHMENT B
1.b
Packet Pg. 67
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
B
:
P
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
I
s
s
u
e
s
S
u
r
v
e
y
R
e
s
u
l
t
s
(
1
3
8
7
5
:
U
p
d
a
t
e
,
C
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
,
a
n
d
P
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
D
i
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
o
n
P
o
s
s
i
b
l
e
13. Now that you’ve learned more about it, would you support or oppose a measure that would create a
business license tax on commercial properties in Palo Alto, based on their square footage, to pay for
City services such as police and fire services, road repair, infrastructure maintenance, parks and
recreation, services for seniors and people who are unhoused, and the climate action plan. Do you think
you would vote yes or no on such a measure? (IF YES/NO, ASK: “Is that definitely or just probably?”)
(IF UNDECIDED, DON’T KNOW, NO ANSWER, ASK: “Do you lean toward voting yes or no?”)
SPLIT C SPLIT D TOTAL
TOTAL YES ------------------------------- 67%------- 63% ------- 65%
Definitely yes ------------------------------- 26%------- 22% ------- 24%
Probably yes -------------------------------- 34%------- 33% ------- 34%
Undecided, lean yes ------------------------ 7%--------- 7% --------- 7%
TOTAL NO -------------------------------- 25%------- 27% ------- 26%
Undecided, lean no ------------------------- 4%--------- 5% --------- 5%
Probably no ---------------------------------- 7%--------- 8% --------- 8%
Definitely no -------------------------------- 14%------- 14% ------- 14%
(DON'T READ) DK/NA ----------------- 8%------- 10% --------- 9%
14. Next, I am going to read you some statements from people who oppose this potential ballot measure.
After hearing each statement, please tell me whether you find it very convincing, somewhat convincing,
or not convincing as a reason to oppose the measure. If you do not believe the statement, please tell me
that too. (RANDOMIZE)
(DON’T
VERY SMWT NOT DON’T READ) VERY/
CONV CONV CONV BEL DK/NA SMWT
[ ]a. (ANTI-TAX) Palo Alto residents pay more
than enough in taxes, and the cost of living
is out of control. We simply cannot afford
any additional taxes. ---------------------------------- 29% ---- 25% ----- 30% ----- 13% ------ 3% 54%
[ ]b. (WASTE) Given the amount of money we
already pay in city, county, and state taxes,
and the amount we pay for expensive
employee pensions, salaries, and healthcare
benefits, City government simply needs to
tighten its belt, work together, and do a
better job with the dollars they already
have. ----------------------------------------------------- 29% ---- 30% ----- 29% -------9% ------ 3% 59%
(SPLIT SAMPLE A ONLY)
[ ]c. (RECOVERY) COVID restrictions have
already pushed many local businesses to
slash hours or even close. The last thing we
need to do is drive up prices with a sales
tax, hurting small businesses just as we
start to recover. ---------------------------------------- 36% ---- 35% ----- 21% -------5% ------ 3% 71%
ATTACHMENT B
1.b
Packet Pg. 68
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
B
:
P
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
I
s
s
u
e
s
S
u
r
v
e
y
R
e
s
u
l
t
s
(
1
3
8
7
5
:
U
p
d
a
t
e
,
C
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
,
a
n
d
P
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
D
i
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
o
n
P
o
s
s
i
b
l
e
(DON’T
VERY SMWT NOT DON’T READ) VERY/
CONV CONV CONV BEL DK/NA SMWT
(SPLIT SAMPLE B ONLY)
[ ]d. (LEAVE) A tax of this scale would force
innovative businesses to leave, taking their
good-paying jobs elsewhere, and hurting
other small businesses that depend on
employees dining, shopping, and living
here. ----------------------------------------------------- 25% ---- 31% ----- 28% ----- 13% ------ 4% 56%
(RESUME ASKING ALL RESPONDENTS)
15. Sometimes over the course of a survey like this, people change their minds, and sometimes they do not.
Let me ask you one more time about the that would create a business license tax on commercial
properties in Palo Alto, based on their square footage, to pay for City services such as police and fire
services, road repair, infrastructure maintenance, parks and recreation, services for seniors and people
who are unhoused, and the climate action plan. Do you think you would vote yes or no on such a
measure? (IF YES/NO, ASK: “Is that definitely or just probably?”) (IF UNDECIDED, DON’T
KNOW, NO ANSWER, ASK: “Do you lean toward voting yes or no?”)
SPLIT C SPLIT D TOTAL
TOTAL YES ------------------------------- 63%------- 61% ------- 62%
Definitely yes ------------------------------- 23%------- 21% ------- 22%
Probably yes -------------------------------- 31%------- 32% ------- 32%
Undecided, lean yes ------------------------ 9%--------- 8% --------- 8%
TOTAL NO -------------------------------- 28%------- 28% ------- 28%
Undecided, lean no ------------------------- 4%--------- 4% --------- 4%
Probably no ---------------------------------- 9%--------- 9% --------- 9%
Definitely no -------------------------------- 15%------- 14% ------- 15%
(DON'T READ) DK/NA ---------------- 10%------- 11% ------- 11%
HERE ARE MY LAST QUESTIONS, AND THEY ARE FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES ONLY.
16. (T) Do you own a business in Palo Alto?
Yes --------------------------------------------- 6%
No -------------------------------------------- 90%
(DON'T KNOW/NA) ---------------------- 4%
17. Do you own or rent your place of residence?
Own ------------------------------------------ 68%
Rent ------------------------------------------ 27%
(DON'T KNOW/NA) ---------------------- 5%
ATTACHMENT B
1.b
Packet Pg. 69
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
B
:
P
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
I
s
s
u
e
s
S
u
r
v
e
y
R
e
s
u
l
t
s
(
1
3
8
7
5
:
U
p
d
a
t
e
,
C
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
,
a
n
d
P
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
D
i
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
o
n
P
o
s
s
i
b
l
e
18. What was the last level of school you completed?
High school graduate or less ----------------------- 5%
Some college/vocational school ------------------- 8%
College graduate (4 years) ----------------------- 42%
Post graduate work/Professional school ------- 44%
(DON'T READ) Refused -------------------------- 1%
19. With which racial or ethnic group do you identify yourself: Latino or Hispanic, African American or
Black, White or Caucasian, Asian or Pacific Islander, multiracial, or some other ethnic or racial
background? (IF ASIAN OR PACIFIC ISLANDER, ASK: “Are you Vietnamese, Chinese, South
Asian or East Indian, or of some other Asian background?”)
Latino/Hispanic ------------------------------ 4%
African American/Black -------------------- 1%
Caucasian/White --------------------------- 57%
Vietnamese ------------------------------------ 1%
Chinese ---------------------------------------- 9%
South Asian/East Indian -------------------- 5%
Other Non-Asian/Pacific Islander -------- 1%
Other Asian/Pacific Islander --------------- 5%
Multiracial ------------------------------------ 5%
(DON'T READ) DK/NA/Refused ----- 12%
ATTACHMENT B
1.b
Packet Pg. 70
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
B
:
P
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
I
s
s
u
e
s
S
u
r
v
e
y
R
e
s
u
l
t
s
(
1
3
8
7
5
:
U
p
d
a
t
e
,
C
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
,
a
n
d
P
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
D
i
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
o
n
P
o
s
s
i
b
l
e
THANK AND TERMINATE
GENDER (BY OBSERVATION): Male ------------------------------------------ 48%
Female --------------------------------------- 51%
Nonbinary ------------------------------------- 1%
Other/Refused -------------------------------- 0%
PARTY REGISTRATION: Democrat ------------------------------------ 60%
Republican ---------------------------------- 10%
No Party Preference ----------------------- 27%
Other ------------------------------------------- 3%
FLAGS
P16 ------------------------------------------- 53%
G16 ------------------------------------------ 69%
P18 ------------------------------------------- 52%
G18 ------------------------------------------ 71%
P20 ------------------------------------------- 69%
G20 ------------------------------------------ 92%
BLANK --------------------------------------- 7%
AGE
18-24 ---------------------------------------- 11%
25-29 ----------------------------------------- 5%
30-34 ----------------------------------------- 5%
35-39 ------------------------------------------ 6%
40-44 ----------------------------------------- 5%
45-49 ----------------------------------------- 9%
50-54 ---------------------------------------- 11%
55-59 ---------------------------------------- 10%
60-64 ----------------------------------------- 8%
65-74 ---------------------------------------- 15%
75+ ------------------------------------------ 15%
PERMANENT ABSENTEE
Yes ------------------------------------------- 91%
No ---------------------------------------------- 9%
HOUSEHOLD PARTY TYPE
Dem 1 --------------------------------------- 33%
Dem 2+ ------------------------------------- 19%
Rep 1 ------------------------------------------ 5%
Rep 2+ ---------------------------------------- 1%
Ind 1+ --------------------------------------- 21%
Mix ------------------------------------------- 20%
MODE
Phone ---------------------------------------- 42%
Online --------------------------------------- 58%
ATTACHMENT B
1.b
Packet Pg. 71
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
B
:
P
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
I
s
s
u
e
s
S
u
r
v
e
y
R
e
s
u
l
t
s
(
1
3
8
7
5
:
U
p
d
a
t
e
,
C
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
,
a
n
d
P
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
D
i
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
o
n
P
o
s
s
i
b
l
e
ATTACHMENT C
Attachment C - 1
Summary of Prior Work on
Potential Revenue Generating Ballot Measures
The City of Palo Alto has been discussing its options for potential revenue-generating ballot
measures through 2019 and 2020. This work was suspended at City Council direction in March
2020 in order to marshal available resources to manage through the COVID-19 pandemic. A
brief timeline of the CMRs and discussions with the Finance Committee and the City C ouncil
since April of 2019, when staff was formally directed to begin working on this project by the
City Council, is included below for additional context. The date, the forum of the meeting
(Finance Committee or City Council), the summary title, and the CMR number are included for
ease of reference.
Summary
The economic impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, and efforts to contain and mitigate the spread of the
virus resulted in a $40 million General Fund gap between revenues and expenses in the FY 2021
Adopted Budget. This gap was balanced through significant service reductions throughout the
organization, concessions from the City’s labor groups, as well as substantive reductions in the City’s
capital investments, impacting catch-up and keep-up costs and funding of new projects. Significant
service reductions taken in FY 2021 persist this year due to both the current impacts of Green v. City of
Palo Alto, a class action lawsuit that challenges the City’s gas and electric rates under Proposition 26,
and the recovery period of the pandemic. In addition, the City faces significant unmet needs in areas
such as affordable housing and transportation, including but not limited to a significant capital
investment in the railroad Caltrain train/grade crossings. This report represents the next step of
discussions with the Finance Committee and City Council regarding a potential revenue generating ballot
measure(s) to balance the project and services needs of the City with available resources.
In March 2020, the City Council, considering the uncertain economic impacts of the pandemic, paused
efforts that were underway at that time to explore a revenue generating ballot measure. Resumption of
this review was later outlined in the Community and Economic Recovery Workplan and Council Priority
in 2021. On June 15, 2021, the Finance Committee reviewed the Workplan for the November 2022 Local
Ballot Measure(s) and Affordable Housing Funding Referral (CMR 12299), where the Finance Committee
recommended that the City Council:
• Approve the Ballot Measure Workplan, with a focus on development of a busin ess tax
and a utility use-based tax,
• Refinement of estimates, evaluation of a stakeholder outreach plan and polling, and
• Additional information regarding affordable housing.
These Finance Committee recommendations were considered by the City Council in their August 16,
2021 meeting (CMR 12381). Consistent with past practice, the City Council directed the Finance
Committee be the main deliberative body for the development of the potential revenue generating
ballot measure and, through an iterative process outlined in the Ballot Measure Workplan, that updates
1.c
Packet Pg. 72
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
C
:
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
o
f
P
r
i
o
r
W
o
r
k
o
n
P
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
i
n
g
B
a
l
l
o
t
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
(
1
3
8
7
5
:
U
p
d
a
t
e
,
C
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
,
a
n
d
ATTACHMENT C
Attachment C - 2
will be taken to the City Council for review through June 2022. The Summary of Prior Work on Potential
Revenue Generating Ballot Measures is included as Attachment C. At this meeting, the City Council
approved the Ballot Measure Workplan for the November 2022 General Election and directed the
Finance Committee to:
• Pursue a business tax and the preference of a square footage-based tax;
• Continue exploration of a utility use-based tax and options to incorporate revenue on
climate adaptability
• Refine estimates and continue evaluation of potential tax measures, and
• The Finance Committee to discuss and develop initial polling to inform future
exploration.
On September 21, 2021 (CMR 13469) and October 19, 2021 (CMR 13648), the Finance Committee
directed staff to continue exploration of a business tax and utility tax by returning to the Committee
with refined modeling and additional information. The Finance Committee was presented with refined
modeling for the business tax and utility tax modeling and analysis, along with additional research
discussing the key differences between a parcel tax and business license tax.
Timeline
4/22/2019 City Council, “2019 Fiscal Sustainability Workplan”, CMR 10267
4/22/2019 City Council, “Approve Workplan for a Potential Revenue Generated Ballot
Measure”, CMR 10261
6/18/2019 Finance Committee, “Review, Comment, and Accept Preliminary Revenue Estimates
for Consideration of a Ballot Measure”, CMR 10392
8/20/2019 Finance Committee, “Evaluation and Discussion of Potential Revenue Generating
Ballot Measures”, CMR 10445
9/16/2019 City Council, “Evaluation and Discussion of Potential Revenue Generating Ballot
Measures and Budget Amendment”, CMR 10615
10/1/2019 Finance Committee, “Revised Workplan for Consideration of a Ballot Measure”, CMR
10712
10/15/2019 Finance Committee, “Stakeholder Outreach, Initial Polling, and Discussion of a
Potential Ballot Measure”, CMR 10743
11/4/2019 City Council, “Potential Ballot Measure Polling/Outreach, Contract, Solicitation
Exemption and Budget Amendment”, CMR 10792
1.c
Packet Pg. 73
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
C
:
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
o
f
P
r
i
o
r
W
o
r
k
o
n
P
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
i
n
g
B
a
l
l
o
t
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
(
1
3
8
7
5
:
U
p
d
a
t
e
,
C
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
,
a
n
d
ATTACHMENT C
Attachment C - 3
12/2/2019 City Council, “Structure and Scenarios of Initial Round of Polling for a Potential Local
Tax Measure”, CMR 10891
12/17/2019 Finance Committee, “Consideration, Evaluation, and Discussion of a Revenue
Generating Local Tax Ballot Measure, Review of Refined Modeling, Analysis, Tax Structure and
Recommendation to the City Council”, CMR 10655
1/27/2020 City Council, “Update, Consideration, and Potential Direction on Possible Local Tax
Measure for 2020 Election”, CMR 11019
3/23/20 City Council, “Consideration of Analysis, Public Outreach, and Refined Polling and
Further Direction on a Potential Local Business Tax Ballot Measure for 2020 Election”, CMR
11161
3/23/20 City Council, “Consideration of Analysis, Public Outreach, and Refined Polling and
Further Direction on a Potential Local Business Tax Ballot Measure for 2020 Election”, At-Places
Memorandum
6/15/2021, Finance Committee Staff Report, “Recommend the City Council Approve the
Workplan for Pursuit of a Revenue-Generating Local Ballot Measure for the November 2022
General Election; Review and Potential Guidance to Staff on Affordable Housing Funding as
Referred by the Council”, CMR 12299
8/16/2021 City Council, “Approve the Workplan for Development of a Revenue-Generating
Local Ballot Measure for the November 2022 General Election; Review and Potential Guidance
to Staff on Affordable Housing Funds as Referred by the City Council”, CMR 12381
9/21/2021 Finance Committee, “Discuss Updates and a Recommended Further Refinement of
Potential Revenue Generating Local Ballot Measures,” CMR 13514
10/19/2021 Finance Committee, “Discuss Updates and Recommend Further Refinement of
Potential Revenue Generating Local Ballot Measures, and Review Draft Initial Polling Outline”,
CMR 13648
11/8/2021 City Council, “Discuss Updates and Recommend Further Refinement of Potential
Revenue Generating Local Ballot Measures, and Review Draft Initial Polling Outline”, CMR
13687
12/7/2021 Finance Committee, “Discuss Updates and Recommend Further Refinement of
Potential Revenue Generating Local Ballot Measures”, CMR 13728
1.c
Packet Pg. 74
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
C
:
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
o
f
P
r
i
o
r
W
o
r
k
o
n
P
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
i
n
g
B
a
l
l
o
t
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
(
1
3
8
7
5
:
U
p
d
a
t
e
,
C
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
,
a
n
d