HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 13981
City of Palo Alto (ID # 13981)
Finance Committee Staff Report
Meeting Date: 3/28/2022
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Title: Revenue Generating 2022 Ballot Measures: Review Feedback from the
Ballot Measure Community and Stakeholder Engagement Plan and the
Second Round of Polling; Review Draft Ballot Measure Language; and
Recommend to Council Further Refinement of Potentia l Measures Adopting a
Business License Tax and Confirming the Gas Utility General Fund Transfer
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Administrative Services
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Finance Committee:
A. Receive a progress report on the Community and Stakeholder Engagement Plan and
consider the results as the Committee continues to evaluate potential revenue
generating ballot measures;
B. Review, provide feedback, and forward to the City Council: (i) initial draft of the ballot
question, and (ii) initial draft ordinance language ratifying the Gas General Fund
Transfer;
C. Review refined calculations of a potential square footage-based business license tax:
i. Consider staff’s revised proposal to modify “option 3”, (a flat fee of $50 for the
first 5,000 square footage occupied and apply a monthly tax rate per square foot
beyond the 5,000 threshold with exemptions for grocery stores and businesses
subject to the transient occupancy tax) to include an exemption for the first
5,000 square feet of space occupied by a business and administer the Business
Registry Certificate (BRC) Program concurrently with the Business License Tax,
ii. Recommend to Council a monthly rate per square footage,
iii. Review and consider staff’s additional refinement for the annual CPI adjustment
Council directed previously; and
D. Recommend the City Council direct staff to proceed with a third round of polling based
on the draft ballot language and refined business license tax calculations .
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On January 24, 2022, the City Council directed staff to continue preparation of a potential
Business License Tax Measure and a Gas Funds Transfer Measure for the November 2022
1
Packet Pg. 3
City of Palo Alto Page 2
election ballot. Council direction in January also included development and execution of an
additional poll by the City’s polling consultant, FM3, and for staff to launch the Community and
Stakeholder Engagement Plan. This staff report presents progress of these efforts with the goal
of providing the Finance Committee information needed to recommend a Business Tax rate,
solidify desired tax characteristics, and to provide guidance to staff on next steps. The following
items are discussed in this staff report for discussion and recommendation to the Council:
1. Summary and progress report on the Community and Stakeholder Engagement Plan,
which includes:
a. A summary of the results of the second poll (Attachments A and B),
b. Results of the online and mailed feedback survey (Attachment C),
c. A progress report on the business and community focus groups conducted by
the City’s consultant, Public Dialogue Consortium (Attachment D);
2. Components of a ballot measure(s):
a. Business license tax, discussion on ordinance status,
b. Measure to affirm the Gas Funds Transfer draft ballot question and ordinance
(Attachment E); and
3. Business license tax additional analysis
For reference, Attachment F of this staff report includes a summary of work done to date on
the potential revenue generating ballot measure(s).
BACKGROUND
The Finance Committee serves as the public body to review periodic progress reports and allow
for structured public discussion for feedback and recommendations on potential revenue
generating ballot measures. The Summary of Prior Work on Potential Ballot Measures can be
found in Attachment F.
Staff presented updated analysis and other information for a potential utility on-bill tax at the
Finance Committee’s December 7, 2021 meeting (Agenda Item #2, begins on p. 55, CMR
13728). For continuity of work by the 2021 Finance Committee, the 2021 Committee met on
January 18, 2022 to review the third round of analysis of a potential business license tax ballot
measure (Agenda Item #1, p. 3, CMR 13875), along with a report of Initial Polling Results
(Agenda Item #1, p. 31, CMR 13875) and staff’s draft Community Engagement and Outreach
Plan.
Following the two meetings with the Finance Committee, discussion on January 24, 2022 with
the City Council (CMR 13770, p. 385 and CMR 13963, p. 462) considered the Finance
Committee’s recommendation to further explore a business license tax, develop a proposal for
a utility tax, and amend the Ballot Measure Workplan to include three polls, and proceed with
staff’s proposed Community and Stakeholder Engagement Plan. The following is Council’s
direction to staff and the Finance Committee on January 24 th:
1
Packet Pg. 4
City of Palo Alto Page 3
A. Pursue preparation of a square footage business license tax with the following
characteristics, as recommended by the Finance Committee:
i. Continue to review the rates, adding option 3 (flat fee of $50 for first 5,000
square footage occupied and apply a monthly tax rate per square foot beyond
the 5,000 threshold) as a starting point;
ii. Exemptions for businesses subject to the Transient Occupancy Tax and grocery
stores;
iii. Annual escalator uses CPI as a basis;
A. Develop a proposal for voter ratification of the existing gas General Fund Equity Transfer
and eliminate the UUT option, with exploration of whether to cap growth of the transfer
to be explored via polling;
B. Amend the workplan to three polls, with the second poll developed and executed by the
City’s polling consultant, and the third to test potential ballot language; and
C. Launch the Community and Stakeholder Engagement Plan, as outlined in the staff
report.
MOTION PASSED 6-1 (Tanaka no)
DISCUSSION & ANALYSIS
Community and Stakeholder Engagement Plan and Second Poll Status and Update
Staff and its consultants engaged the community in February and March to obtain feedback on
the fiscal sustainability work plan and potential ballot measures. Staff used over nine (9)
communications channels, including: a utility bill insert, a page in the spring Enjoy! Catalog, a
citywide mailer, the Uplift Local electronic newsletter, other electronic newsletters and
community e-mail lists, a public landing page on the City’s webpage to access all information
(www.cityofpaloalto.org/fiscalsustainability), and the City Manager’s blog and public
comments. Community members were invited to fill out an online feedback form1 or an
identical paper version. As of March 22, 2022, there were 358 respon ses (174 online responses
and 184 mailed feedback forms). In addition, staff executed a second round of polling of the
voter population testing various characteristics and areas the Council identified for additional
feedback from the voters. Below is a summary of these projects.
Results of Second Round of Polling
In their January 24th meeting, Council directed staff to amend the Ballot Measure Workplan to
include an additional poll. The City’s consultant, FM3, completed the second poll in mid -March
2022. Over 427 residents responded, an intentional smaller sample than the initial poll, to the
survey using emailed online surveys and phone outreach. The survey included questions to test
tax concepts in more specificity than the initial poll, clarify spending priorities of the voter
population, and test support of multiple measures on the November 2022 ballot. FM3’s
1 https://us.openforms.com/Form/07db0c33-8339-497b-839b-6aab75e1f635
1
Packet Pg. 5
City of Palo Alto Page 4
presentation of the poll results is in Attachment A, and the detailed poll results are in
Attachment B. FM3 will present Attachment A at the committee meeting.
A few highlights of the responses:
• Respondents identified the following community priorities in priority order:
o Public safety priorities as important or extremely important: “Improving police
response to violent crime,” “Improving the speed or reliability of ambulance
services,” and “Improving police response to property crimes
o Affordable housing and homeless services were also priorities, with respondents
identifying as important or extremely important: “Expanding outreach to people
experiencing homelessness,” and “Funding affordable housing”
o Climate action and grade separations were also priorities.
• For the business license tax, three in five voters support the business license tax concept
that was tested (a deference for the first 5,000 square feet occupied plus a $0.10 per
square foot monthly rate).
o Voters were comfortable with the concept of increasing the tax representing up to a
$0.10 per square foot monthly rate
o Likely to support a measure that exempts small-square footage businesses while less
likely to support a measure that exempts hotels.
o Voters are more likely to support the business license tax to fund new investments.
• For the affirmation of the Gas Fund transfer, support remains high when voters hear a
more detailed explanation of the measure.
o Voters are divided on whether they would prefer a measure for new revenue
dedicated to new investments or to improving existing services.
Community Feedback Survey (Online and Mailed)
The feedback forms asked residents to prioritize some of the unfunded community investment
needs and City service gaps previously discussed by Council and the Finance Committee. The
highest priorities for the respondents are consistent with the results of the second poll:
• “Maintaining basic services” was one of the top three priorities
• “Repairing streets/roads” and “Investing in community-owned assets like roads and
community centers” were each one of the top three for about 55 percent of respondents
• “Adding public safety services such as police, fire, and emergency medical” was a top
three priority for 46 percent of respondents
• This was followed by “Funding affordable housing and homeless services” (34 percent)
The complete results from the online survey, including all written comments, are summarized
in Attachment C.
1
Packet Pg. 6
City of Palo Alto Page 5
Community and Business Focus Groups
Staff and the City’s consultant, Public Dialogue Consortium (PDC), kicked off a series of
community focus groups in February and continued through March. The focus groups provided
information about the City’s fiscal sustainability efforts and the two potential ballot measures,
allow attendees to ask clarifying questions of staff, and elicit feedback on City service priorities
and various aspects of the ballot measures. Staff and PDC conducted five focus groups, four
with the business community and one with the community at large. There were 27 attendees in
total at the business focus groups representing a range of business perspectives, including the
Chamber of Commerce, small retail and restaurants, hotels, major employers in the Stanford
Research Park, Stanford University, the Stanford Shopping Center, real estate companies, law
firms, and senior housing. The community focus group had six attendees, primarily local
nonprofits focused on housing and youth services. A memo from PDC regarding the focus group
process and results is included in Attachment D.
Some of the key takeaways from the business focus groups included:
• Several attendees expressed concern that the CPI escalator could cause the tax to gro w
significantly in coming years unimpeded leaving forecasting to be difficult for them and
the potential for exponential financial ramifications, especially given current levels of
inflation.
• Many attendees expressed a preference for having some certainty about the way the
funds would be spent.
• Attendees asked that funds be spent on purposes that benefitted the business
community. Police services, economic development, affordable housing, and planning
and development services were all listed as priorities.
• There was also feedback that the timing was bad for a new tax. Businesses were still
recovering from the pandemic-related economic downturn. The new tax could impact
business decisions about their long-term operations as they adjusted to new post-
pandemic economic conditions.
• There was minimal feedback on affirming the gas utility transfer, with some attendees
saying it sounded reasonable and others saying they did not know enough to have a
position.
Feedback from the community focus group emphasized the challenges for the employees of
local nonprofits in finding affordable housing and parking, and support for the use of funds for
affordable housing.
Components of a Ballot Measure
As the workplan outlining a path for Council evaluation of potential ballot measures for the
voter population consideration in November 2022 continues, the below section begins to more
formally provide an overview of the components associated with a ballot measure that staff has
or will begin working on and are bringing forward for Council consideration as appropriate over
the coming months.
1
Packet Pg. 7
City of Palo Alto Page 6
For each local measure, the official ballot includes the following:
• a letter designation generated by the County Registrar of Voters;
• the ballot question (a clear, accurate statement that describes what the measure will
do, not to exceed 75 words); and
• space for voters to mark their vote for or against.
In advance of the election, registered voters receive a Voter Information Guide that includes
additional information, including:
• an impartial analysis of the measure prepared by the City Attorney;
• the full text of the measure; and
• arguments for and against.
The City Council approves the key components of each local measure: the ballot question and
the text of the measure. The City Council also will adopt a resolution (which does not become a
part of the ballot) calling a local election and sending the measure or measures to the County
Registrar of Voters. The current workplan includes Council formal and final action on these
items in June 2022. This report includes initial draft of a ballot question and an initial draft of
the full text of the measure ratifying the Gas Utility Transfer. A draft of the text for the potential
Business License Tax measure as ballot question is being prepared and will be presented at a
future meeting. Key concepts that require additional definition are listed here for Committee
discussion and direction.
Measure to Affirm the Gas Funds Transfer Draft Ordinance
Staff has prepared the following initial draft ballot question:
Shall the measure affirming the City of Palo Alto’s past practice of annually
transferring from the City’s gas utility an amount up to __% of the gross
revenues of the gas utility to the City’s general fund for general government use,
to be paid for by the retail gas rates and providing approximately $_________
annually until ended by voters, be adopted?
This draft is 58 words long, allowing up to 17 additional words. As noted above, many local
revenue measures include additional detail on projects and services that may be funded by the
measure, such as public safety, emergency response, parks, etc. Committee input on the ballot
question is appropriate, though final decisions on this language will not be needed for several
months.
The primary decision points for this measure include 1) the percentage of gross revenues to
transfer, and 2) the uses to note in the ballot measure question. Transferring 18 percent of
gross revenues would be consistent with the current transfer, but as gas rates rise in coming
years would exceed the current transfer. In consultation with our legal counsel, this rate must
either be based on a flat rate or a percentage and cannot be a blend. Therefore, staff
recommend keeping the measure simple and consistent with similar agencies and provide the
1
Packet Pg. 8
City of Palo Alto Page 7
voters consideration of a percentage, current practice would reflect an 18 percent of gross
revenues. For the Finance Committee’s feedback and consideration, the draft ordinance for the
measure can be found in Attachment E.
Business License Tax Draft Ballot Question and Ordinance
Staff is actively working on a ballot question and full text of the measure for a Business License
Tax. Key policy choices regarding the details of the business license tax design were introduced
in the January 18, 2022 Finance Committee staff report (CMR 13875, p. 11 and 28). A summary
of the key elements identified and being worked on by staff include:
1. Definition of “business” and various considerations.
2. Definition of square footage occupied.
3. Definition of Grocery Stores or Supermarkets.
Below is a brief status update on these definitions and areas where further definition will be
necessary
Definition of Business. Staff expects to align the definition of business with the definition
already identified in the Business Registry Certificate Program terms. For seasonal or transitory
businesses that occupy square footage and conduct business activity over a short duration
(such as seasonal sale lots, special events, concerts, performances, circuses, filming, and party
rentals). Staff recommends exempting businesses that occupy space in the City for less than an
identified period of time such as 90 days.
Definition of square footage. Staff expects to align with existing examples of other jurisdictions
as well as documents already in existence such as lease documents. Some variability and
definition will be necessary for ownership versus leased, as well as common space versus
shared space usage as well.
Definition of Grocery Stores or Supermarkets. There are multiple ways and varying levels of
details in defining a grocery store and this has proved the likely be one of the more complex
exemptions under consideration. The Edible Food Recovery Requirements includes a definition
of grocery stores as
“a store primarily engaged in the retail sale of canned food; dry goods; fresh fruits and
vegetables; fresh meats, fish, and poultry; and any area that is not separately owned
within the store where the food is prepared and served, including a bakery, deli, and
meat and seafood departments, or as otherwise defined in 14 CCR Section
18982(a)(30).”
Staff is also evaluating a definition that may include a numeric threshold for food products,
such as “a retail business where at least three-quarters of the floor area open to the public is
occupied by food products sold for consumption off-site.”
1
Packet Pg. 9
City of Palo Alto Page 8
Participants of the focus groups conducted in March, sought to clarify the definition of grocery
stores. Their questions demonstrated that the measure should indicate whether retail stores,
including drug stores or convenience marts that sell grocery items, or bakeries that sell baked
good onsite, will fall into the grocery store exemption.
Revised Square Footage Business License Tax Modeling
Staff modeled a baseline scenario for a square footage business license tax and three options
for the Council’s consideration. Council directed the Finance Committee and staff to continue
to review rates for a square footage business license tax using Option 3 as a starting point:
Table 1: Summary of Square Footage Business Tax Baseline Model and Options
Baseline Scenario: No Exemptions
• Excludes properties likely to be
exempt per CA law (banks, healthcare,
religious, education property types)
• Est. revenues: $15M to $59M
Option 1: Exemption for Retail (less
than or equal to 5,000 sf) and all
grocery stores
• Est. revenues: $14M to $57M
Option 2: Tiered Rates
• Flat fee for businesses less than or
equal to 5,000 sf ($50/year)
• For all others, assume monthly rate
per square foot
• Est. revenues: $14M to $56M
Option 3: Tiered Rates After Square
Footage Threshold, exempting grocery
stores and hotels
• Flat fee for first 5,000 sf
($50/year) and apply monthly
rate/sf beyond threshold
• Est. revenues $11M to $43M
Staff has updated the model for this option to assume exemptions for businesses subject to the
City’s Transient Occupancy Tax and grocery stores. On further review, staff recommends that
the intent of Option 3 be implemented as follows:
1. Exempt the first 5,000 square feet of space occupied by a business
2. Apply the monthly tax rate per square foot (to be determined, between $0.05 and $0.20
per square foot) to footage beyond 5,000 square feet (on square foot 5,001, the rate
would be applied), and
3. Administer the Business Registry Certificate (BRC) Program concurrently with the
potential business license tax, requiring all businesses, including those that occupy less
than 5,000 square feet, to register with the BRC at its current rate of $50 per year.
This refined structure decreases estimated business license tax revenue by $21,000 (see Table 2
below).
1
Packet Pg. 10
City of Palo Alto Page 9
The proposed exemption for grocery stores and hotels reduces the estimated generated
revenue from a range of $12 to $47 million, to $11 to $43 million, approximately 8 percent.
Below is a summary table outlining details for the Baseline Scenario and the three options.
Option 3 has been revised to exclude grocery stores and properties in the hospitality category.
Based on the results of the second poll, voters are comfortable with a measure that would
increase average monthly rent for a business by up to $0.10 per square foot. As shown in Table
2, the estimated revenue generated by a monthly $0.10 per square foot rate is up to $21.7
million. These estimates continue to reflect gross revenues estimates. There will be
administrative costs as well as some likely leakage that will ultimately reduce these figures.
Table 2: 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
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 411 1,137,822 $20,550 $20,550 $20,550 $20,550
5,001-20,000 sf 450 4,171,323 $1,179,684 $2,336,604 $3,493,668 $4,650,816
20,001-100,000 sf 270 10,675,292 $5,608,638 $11,203,848 $16,799,094 $22,394,256
100,001+ sf 41 7,007,785 $4,083,742 $8,165,374 $12,247,090 $16,328,746
Total 1,172 22,992,222 $10,892,614 $21,726,376 $32,560,402 $43,394,368
Estimated Monthly Fee:
5,000 sf business $4.20 $4.20 $4.20 $4.20
30,000 sf business $1,250 $2,500 $3,750 $5,000
100,000 sf business $4,750 $9,500 $14,250 $19,000
As discussed in Attachment A of CMR 13875, p. 17, there are eight grocery stores in the City
that were identifiable in the CoStar real estate database, totaling 139,580 square feet (see
Table A5 in above mentioned staff report). In addition, Table A8 of this staff report lists
1,410,260 square feet for addresses in the hospitality category, totaling 30 properties. The
property count for the hospitality properties corroborates the City’s transien t occupancy tax
records.
Business license exemptions were tested in the second round of polling (see Attachment A) and
summarized in Chart 1 below. Based on these results, an exemption for businesses less than
5,000 square feet will more likely gain support, followed by grocery stores, with retail and
hotels being less likely to gain support by voters.
1
Packet Pg. 11
City of Palo Alto Page 10
Chart 1: Second Round Polling - Exemptions
Options for an Annual Escalator
To assist in further refining the direction for consideration of a CPI escalator, staff researched
the annual CPI for San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward for all urban consumers for the past 20
years. The 20-year average shown in Chart 1 below is 2.6 percent, the highest being 5.4 percent
in 2001 (dot.com boom) and the lowest being 0.7 percent in 2009 (Great Recession). The 2021
average CPI was 3.2 percent.
Chart 2:
Staff would recommend consideration of a structure similar to recent measures approved by
the voters such as the Storm Water fee, which identifies a CPI escalator with a 6% annual cap
1
Packet Pg. 12
City of Palo Alto Page 11
on the growth. It should also be noted an alternative found in research done by Matrix
Consulting in 2019 (CMR 10655) would be to cap units of measure for a business license tax,
rather than capping CPI as some other agencies have done.
Conclusion & Next Steps
The Finance Committee’s further refinement of tax characteristics and policy guidance, taking
into consideration results from the second round of polling, the community survey, and focus
groups, is critical so that staff can continue advancing the Ballot Measure Workplan, as
approved by the Council in August 2021. As discussed in this staff report, the Committee’s
feedback and recommendation to Council of tax characteristics (monthly rate and CPI) and
guidance on policy decisions for the ordinance that will be adopted by Council in June are
critical at this stage of the process. These further refinements will assist staff in continued
planned engagement with stakeholders including more specific feedback both on the measures
as well as the administrability of them.
TIMELINE
The below table recaps future items for the Ballot Measure Workplan, as approved by the City
Council in August, based on the process and discussion so far, and amended to include a second
round of polling.
Ballot Measure Workplan Timeline
March 2022
TONIGHT
Finance Committee:
- Progress report of the Community and Stakeholder Engagement
Plan, including review of the results for
o Second round poll
o Community wide survey
o Focus groups
- Review draft ballot questions and ordinance language for the
business license tax and the measure to affirm the Gas Fund
transfer
- Consideration of additional refinements for the potential business
license tax proposal
1
Packet Pg. 13
City of Palo Alto Page 12
Ballot Measure Workplan Timeline
April 2022 City Council:
- Formalized discussion of funding resource/spending allocation
- Progress report of the Community and Stakeholder Engagement
Plan, including results of
o Second round poll
o Community wide survey
o Focus groups
o Community Listening Session
- Review of draft ballot questions and ordinance language for the
business license tax and the measure to affirm the Gas Funds
Transfer
- Direction to staff and polling consultant to execute final poll:
o Review of outline for final poll, with a focus to test ballot
question(s)
May 2022 Second Round of Polling launched (early May)
June 2022
Council:
- Results of second round polling reported
- 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, as 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.
This initiative has required an equivalent of approximately two full time dedicated staff
positions, however, as work continues to progress a significant increase in staffing resources
including additional focused executive support from the Executive Leadership Team has begun
to ramp up. This will have an impact on other projects. In addition, support is required from
outside consultants and engagement with internal stakeholders in key departments . The City
Council appropriated funding for this activity as part of the FY 2022 Preliminary 1 st Quarter.
Additional contracts and/or proposed budget amendments will be brought forward for
approval as appropriate.
1
Packet Pg. 14
City of Palo Alto Page 13
The Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters estimates that placing two measures on the
November 2022 election ballot will cost approximately $160,000, or $80,000 each.
Appropriation for these funds will be brought forward in the FY 2023 Proposed Budget.
Staff plans to bring forward an amendment to the professional services agreement with
Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin, Metz & Associates (FM3) in a separate staff report this spring to
include the second round of polling, which requires approval by the City Council, based on
contract authority set forth in the Palo Alto Municipal Code. In addition to this, additional
outreach for print and mailing would be needed as well.
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 FM3 to perform polling, Lew Edwards Group
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 reviewed results with the Finance Committee on
January 18 2021 (CMR 13875). In addition, staff received direction from the City Council at its
January 24, 2022 meeting to launch the Community and Stakeholder Engagement Plan, which is
currently underway, and received direction for the City’s polling consultant, FM3, to develop
and execute a second round of polling. This staff report summarizes staff’s progress to date of
this component of the workplan.
A landing page on the City’s website has been created to provide the community and
stakeholders information and a variety of ways to engage in this conversation. Please visit
www.cityofpaloalto.org/fiscalsustainability for more information.
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: Palo Alto Ballot Measure Survey Analysis
• Attachment B: Palo Alto Ballot Measure Refinement Survey (Tracking)
• Attachment C: Summary of Online Survey Responses
• Attachment D: Public Dialogue Consortium Focus Groups Progress to Date
• Attachment E: Draft Ordinance for Measure to Affirm Gas Fund Transfer
• Attachment F: Summary of Prior Work on Potential Revenue Generating Ballot
Measures
1
Packet Pg. 15
220‐6319
Key Findings of a Survey of Palo Alto Voters
Conducted March 8‐14, 2022
Updating Palo Alto Voter Views
of Potential Ballot Measures
ATTACHMENT A 1.a
Packet Pg. 16
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
A
:
P
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
B
a
l
l
o
t
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
S
u
r
v
e
y
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
(
1
3
9
8
1
:
B
a
l
l
o
t
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
1
Survey Methodology
Dates March 8‐14, 2022
Survey Type Dual‐mode Voter Survey
Research Population Likely November 2022 Voters in Palo Alto
Total Interviews 427
Margin of Sampling Error (Full Sample) ±4.9% at the 95% Confidence Level
(Half Sample) ±6.9% at the 95% Confidence Level
Contact Methods
Data Collection Modes
(Note: Not All Results Will Sum to 100% Due to Rounding)
Text
Invitations
Telephone
Calls
Email
Invitations
Telephone
Interviews
Online
Interviews
ATTACHMENT A 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
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
B
a
l
l
o
t
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
S
u
r
v
e
y
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
(
1
3
9
8
1
:
B
a
l
l
o
t
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
2
Survey Goals and Approach
Assess voter reactions to two
potential ballot measure
concepts: a business license tax
and a measure to ratify utility
fund transfers.
Voters randomly heard either
the BLT or utility measure
first.
Evaluate voters’ priorities for
uses of funds.
Check the impact of campaigns
for and against the BLT measure
specifically. These were also
rotated to give us a look at the
measure’s “floor” and “ceiling.”
Business License Tax
Utility Fund Transfer Ratification
Uses of Funds
Pro‐BLT Messages and Re‐Vote
Anti‐BLT Messages and Re‐Vote
BLT and Utility Fund Measures Rotated
Utility Funf Measure Explanation
Vote on One, Both, Neither?
BLT Amounts and Exemptions
Demographics
Message Blocks Rotated
ATTACHMENT A 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
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
B
a
l
l
o
t
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
S
u
r
v
e
y
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
(
1
3
9
8
1
:
B
a
l
l
o
t
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
3
Context
ATTACHMENT A 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
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
B
a
l
l
o
t
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
S
u
r
v
e
y
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
(
1
3
9
8
1
:
B
a
l
l
o
t
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
4
Voters continue to be pessimistic
about the direction of the city.
Q1.
41%40%43%
61%
35%34%37%
25%24%27%
20%
14%
2022202120182016
Right Direction Wrong Track Don’t Know
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?
ATTACHMENT A 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
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
B
a
l
l
o
t
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
S
u
r
v
e
y
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
(
1
3
9
8
1
:
B
a
l
l
o
t
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
5
Q2.
10%
8%
10%
18%
15%
16%
42%
46%
50%
56%
53%
56%
33%
31%
27%
19%
23%
22%
10%
9%
10%
5%
6%
7%
6%
2022
2021
2018
2016
2013
2008
Excellent Good Only Fair Poor Job Don't Know Excellent/
Good
51%
54%
60%
74%
68%
72%
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 …?
A majority rates City services as
“excellent” or “good” – a slight erosion
compared with prior years.
ATTACHMENT A 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
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
B
a
l
l
o
t
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
S
u
r
v
e
y
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
(
1
3
9
8
1
:
B
a
l
l
o
t
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
6
Voter Views of Ballot
Measure Concepts
ATTACHMENT A 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
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
B
a
l
l
o
t
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
S
u
r
v
e
y
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
(
1
3
9
8
1
:
B
a
l
l
o
t
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
7
About three in five support a business
license tax conceptually.
Q3a & b. 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
29%
31%
4%
3%
5%
20%
8%
Total
Yes
63%
Total
No
28%
Asked First
20%
33%
5%
4%
10%
21%
7%
Total
Yes
59%
Total
No
35%
Asked Second
The measure would deal with a business license tax. This measure would create a business license
tax on commercial property in the city of $50 per year for the first 5,000 square feet occupied,
plus 12 cents per square foot per month for space occupied over 5,000 square feet, adjusted
annually for inflation. The funds would pay for City services such as police, fire and emergency
medical services, affordable housing and support for the unhoused, parks and recreation,
transportation, the City’s climate action plan, and other public services.
ATTACHMENT A 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
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
B
a
l
l
o
t
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
S
u
r
v
e
y
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
(
1
3
9
8
1
:
B
a
l
l
o
t
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
8
Nearly seven in ten Democrats support this
measure, as does a majority of independents.
Q3. (Total) Do you think you would vote yes or no on such a measure?
Initial Business License Tax Vote by Party
69%
56%
28%
22%
37%
72%
9%8%
0%
Democrats Independents Republicans
Total Yes Total No Undecided
(% of
Sample)(60%) (30%) (10%)
ATTACHMENT A 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
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
B
a
l
l
o
t
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
S
u
r
v
e
y
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
(
1
3
9
8
1
:
B
a
l
l
o
t
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
9
Women are stronger supporters than men, though
the measure has majorities across gender lines.
Q3. (Total) Do you think you would vote yes or no on such a measure?
Initial Business License Tax Vote by Gender
53%
69%
41%
22%
6%9%
Men Women
Total Yes Total No Undecided
(% of
Sample)(48%) (52%)
ATTACHMENT A 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
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
B
a
l
l
o
t
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
S
u
r
v
e
y
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
(
1
3
9
8
1
:
B
a
l
l
o
t
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
10
Two-thirds of voters under 50 back the
measure, as do nearly three in five over 50.
Q3. (Total) Do you think you would vote yes or no on such a measure?
Initial Business License Tax Vote by Age
66%
57%59%
30%31%35%
5%
12%7%
18‐49 50‐64 65+
Total Yes Total No Undecided
(% of
Sample)(41%) (29%) (30%)
ATTACHMENT A 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
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
B
a
l
l
o
t
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
S
u
r
v
e
y
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
(
1
3
9
8
1
:
B
a
l
l
o
t
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
11
The utility fund measure has support
from at least seven in ten voters.
Q4a & b. 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
35%
35%
4%
3%
3%
10%
11%
Total
Yes
74%
Total
No
16%
Asked Second
19%
42%
8%
3%
7%
7%
13%
Total
Yes
69%
Total
No
18%
Asked First
The FIRST/SECOND measure would deal with utilities. 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 services.
This measure would confirm the existing practice of transferring not more than 18% of City of Palo Alto
Utilities’ gross annual sales of gas, providing over $7 million annually to needed investments like police,
fire and emergency medical services; affordable housing and support for the unhoused; parks and
recreation; transportation; the City’s climate action plan; and other public services. This measure would
not increase utility rates.
ATTACHMENT A 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
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
B
a
l
l
o
t
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
S
u
r
v
e
y
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
(
1
3
9
8
1
:
B
a
l
l
o
t
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
12
Nearly four in five Democrats and more than
two-thirds of independents support it.
Q4. (Total) Do you think you would vote yes or no on such a measure?
Initial Utility Measure Vote by Party
78%
68%
42%
10%
21%
45%
12%11%13%
Democrats Independents Republicans
Total Yes Total No Undecided
(% of
Sample)(60%) (30%) (10%)
ATTACHMENT A 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
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
B
a
l
l
o
t
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
S
u
r
v
e
y
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
(
1
3
9
8
1
:
B
a
l
l
o
t
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
13
Women support the measure
by a 70-point margin.
Q4. (Total) Do you think you would vote yes or no on such a measure?
Initial Utility Measure Vote by Gender
65%
78%
26%
8%10%14%
Men Women
Total Yes Total No Undecided
(% of
Sample)(48%) (52%)
ATTACHMENT A 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
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
B
a
l
l
o
t
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
S
u
r
v
e
y
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
(
1
3
9
8
1
:
B
a
l
l
o
t
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
14
Support is very broad
across age categories.
Q4. (Total) Do you think you would vote yes or no on such a measure?
Initial Utility Measure Vote by Age
75%70%68%
14%19% 19%
12%11%13%
18‐49 50‐64 65+
Total Yes Total No Undecided
(% of
Sample)(41%) (14%) (30%)
ATTACHMENT A 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
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
B
a
l
l
o
t
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
S
u
r
v
e
y
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
(
1
3
9
8
1
:
B
a
l
l
o
t
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
15
A majority of those voting “no” on the business
license tax support the utility measure.
Q4. (Total) Do you think you would vote yes or no on such a measure?
Initial Utility Measure Vote by Initial Business License Tax Vote
82%
54% 54%
9%
35%
4%8%11%
43%
Among Business License Tax
Yes Voters
Among Business License Tax
No Voters
Among
Undecideds
Total Yes Total No Undecided
(% of
Sample)(61%) (31%) (7%)
ATTACHMENT A 1.a
Packet Pg. 31
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
A
:
P
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
B
a
l
l
o
t
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
S
u
r
v
e
y
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
(
1
3
9
8
1
:
B
a
l
l
o
t
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
16
Next, voters were provided more
context on the utility fund measure.
Q6. Having heard this, do you think you would vote yes or no on such a measure?
Investor‐owned utilities like PG&E that provide natural gas
service transfer some funds from their utility to
shareholders. Cities like Palo Alto that own their own
utilities do not have shareholders, so many cities instead
transfer some funds from the utility to pay for City services
like police, fire, transportation, parks and other public
services. Palo Alto received voter approval for these kinds of
transfers in its municipal Charter in 1950; however, this
practice has been challenged legally, and voter approval may
be required for it to continue. As a result, the City may place
this measure to reconfirm this practice on the November
ballot.
ATTACHMENT A 1.a
Packet Pg. 32
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
A
:
P
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
B
a
l
l
o
t
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
S
u
r
v
e
y
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
(
1
3
9
8
1
:
B
a
l
l
o
t
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
17
Q4 (Total) & Q6. 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
27%
38%
6%
3%
5%
9%
12%
Total
Yes
71%
Total
No
17%
Initial Utility
Measure Vote
30%
35%
4%
2%
7%
9%
12%
Total
Yes
69%
Total
No
18%
Utility Measure
Vote After Info
This did not shift patterns of support.
ATTACHMENT A 1.a
Packet Pg. 33
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
A
:
P
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
B
a
l
l
o
t
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
S
u
r
v
e
y
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
(
1
3
9
8
1
:
B
a
l
l
o
t
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
18
In a head-to-head test, two in five said they
would vote “yes” on both measures.
Q5.
If both of these measures were on the same ballot, would you vote
“yes” on both, for just one, or for neither?
10%
40%
18%
11%
21%
Yes on business license tax only
Yes on both
Yes on utility fund transfer measure only
No on both
Don't know
Total Yes,
Business
License Tax
50%
Total Yes,
Utility Fund
Measure
Vote
58%
ATTACHMENT A 1.a
Packet Pg. 34
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
A
:
P
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
B
a
l
l
o
t
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
S
u
r
v
e
y
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
(
1
3
9
8
1
:
B
a
l
l
o
t
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
19
Structuring a
Business License Tax
ATTACHMENT A 1.a
Packet Pg. 35
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
A
:
P
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
B
a
l
l
o
t
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
S
u
r
v
e
y
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
(
1
3
9
8
1
:
B
a
l
l
o
t
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
20
Majorities are comfortable with a rate that
would increase rent by 10 cents per square foot.
Q7.
The structure of this measure has not been finalized. Currently, average monthly rents for
businesses range from $4.10 to $6.40 per square foot per month for retail and industrial space
and $7.10 to $8.50 per square foot per month for office space. Would a measure that increased
monthly business rent by roughly __per square foot be an acceptable or unacceptable amount?
33%
26%
16%
13%
25%
28%
26%
19%
12%
12%
14%
16%
10%
10%
12%
14%
20%
24%
32%
38%
5 Cents
10 Cents
15 Cents
20 Cents
Very Acc.Smwt. Acc.Don't Know Smwt. Unacc.Very Unacc.Total
Acc.
Total
Unacc.
58%30%
54%34%
42%44%
33%51%
ATTACHMENT A 1.a
Packet Pg. 36
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
A
:
P
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
B
a
l
l
o
t
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
S
u
r
v
e
y
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
(
1
3
9
8
1
:
B
a
l
l
o
t
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
21
Exemptions for small-square-footage
businesses are a plus; an exemption for hotels
is more of a minus.
Q8.
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.
23%
24%
14%
5%
31%
22%
19%
10%
24%
30%
31%
37%
8%
9%
9%
9%
7%
7%
12%
16%
7%
8%
15%
23%
All businesses under
5,000 square feet
Grocery stores
Retail stores
Hotels
Much More Lkly.Smwt. More Lkly.Makes No Diff.Don't know Smwt. Less Lkly.Much Less Lkly.Total
More
Lkly.
Total
Less
Lkly.
54%14%
46%16%
33%26%
15%39%
ATTACHMENT A 1.a
Packet Pg. 37
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
A
:
P
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
B
a
l
l
o
t
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
S
u
r
v
e
y
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
(
1
3
9
8
1
:
B
a
l
l
o
t
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
22
Offering major new City services, such as
affordable housing, climate change reduction
efforts, improving the safety of rail crossings,
transportation services such as shuttles, or
support for the unhoused
OR
Improving the quality and reliability of core
City services such as fire and emergency
services, and parks and recreation
Voters are split on their desired focus for new
revenue, with a strong preference for major
new investments among Democrats.
Q10. If a ballot measure to provide additional funding were approved by voters, would you prefer that the money be dedicated to:
49%
61%
38%
10%
38%
59%
61%
41%
41%
62%
24%
50%
39%
28%
50%
76%
50%
29%
29%
48%
45%
26%
66%
31%
All Voters
Democrats
Independents
Republicans
Men
Women
18‐49
50‐64
65+
Among Business License Tax Yes Voters
Among Business License Tax No Voters
Among Undecideds
ATTACHMENT A 1.a
Packet Pg. 38
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
A
:
P
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
B
a
l
l
o
t
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
S
u
r
v
e
y
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
(
1
3
9
8
1
:
B
a
l
l
o
t
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
23
Improvements to public safety, homelessness and
housing services are seen as most important.
Q9.
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.
Ext./Very
Impt.
62%
60%
58%
58%
55%
54%
52%
32%
30%
35%
19%
21%
20%
22%
30%
30%
23%
38%
35%
34%
30%
22%
24%
22%
26%
27%
25%
20%
13%
14%
19%
13%
14%
20%
25%
Improving police response to
violent crime
Expanding outreach to people
experiencing homelessness
Funding affordable housing
Improving the speed and reliability of
ambulance service
Improving police response to
property crimes
Improving pedestrian, bicyclist, and
driver safety by building separate crossings
under train tracks to prevent collisions
Advancing the City's Climate Action Plan
to help the community reduce its
carbon emissions
Ext. Impt.Very Impt.Smwt. Impt.Not Too Impt.Don't Know
ATTACHMENT A 1.a
Packet Pg. 39
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
A
:
P
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
B
a
l
l
o
t
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
S
u
r
v
e
y
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
(
1
3
9
8
1
:
B
a
l
l
o
t
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
24
Voters value library services, animal sheltering,
and transportation with less intensity.
Q9. 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.
Ext./Very
Impt.
47%
46%
43%
41%
37%
37%
13%
16%
16%
14%
12%
10%
34%
30%
27%
27%
25%
27%
37%
36%
32%
32%
34%
41%
15%
16%
22%
24%
26%
21%
Improving parks, recreation,
and arts services
Improving the safety, health, and
cleanliness of downtown and
commercial cores
Expanding transportation services,
such as shuttles
Programs to reduce traffic from
incoming commuters
Improving animal sheltering and care
Improving library services
Ext. Impt.Very Impt.Smwt. Impt.Not Too Impt.Don't Know
ATTACHMENT A 1.a
Packet Pg. 40
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
A
:
P
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
B
a
l
l
o
t
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
S
u
r
v
e
y
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
(
1
3
9
8
1
:
B
a
l
l
o
t
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
25
Messaging and Movement
ATTACHMENT A 1.a
Packet Pg. 41
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
A
:
P
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
B
a
l
l
o
t
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
S
u
r
v
e
y
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
(
1
3
9
8
1
:
B
a
l
l
o
t
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
26
Support Messages Tested
Q11. I am going to read you some statements from people who support the measure. Please tell me whether you find it very convincing, somewhat convincing,
or not convincing as a reason to support the measure.
(Ranked in Order of Effectiveness)
(FAIR SHARE)Palo Alto currently registers businesses of all sizes for $50. That means a
mom‐and‐pop coffee shop pays the same as a tech company with thousands of employees.
This measure is a sensible way to ensure large businesses pay their fair share for the
services the City provides and that their employees enjoy, like road repairs and police and
fire protection.
(COMPARISON)Palo Alto does not have a business license tax, unlike most communities in
California. Several nearby communities have significant taxes on business, such as
East Palo Alto's tax of $2.50 per square foot annually on commercial office space over
25,000 square feet and San Francisco's business tax of $2.85 to $5.60 per $1,000 of gross
receipts annually. This tax would align Palo Alto's tax system with those of other cities in the
area.
(TAX BASE)This measure is not a tax on homeowners or shoppers, but on the city's largest
businesses. Sales taxes continue to decline in Palo Alto, and by diversifying the City's tax
base with a thoughtfully designed business license tax, we will be better able to weather
future financial crises without having to raise taxes on everyday residents.
(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.
(SAFETY)The recent economic downturn had significant impacts to funding for police and
emergency services. Recently the community has seen increases in property crimes impacts
to fire and emergency medical services. This measure would provide funding for police and
emergency services to address these issues.
ATTACHMENT A 1.a
Packet Pg. 42
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
A
:
P
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
B
a
l
l
o
t
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
S
u
r
v
e
y
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
(
1
3
9
8
1
:
B
a
l
l
o
t
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
27
The most compelling message in favor of the
measure explains how this would be fairer to
small businesses than the status quo.
Q11. I am going to read you some statements from people who support the measure. Please tell me whether you find it very convincing, somewhat convincing,
or not convincing as a reason to support the measure.
46%
31%
30%
27%
23%
30%
34%
33%
36%
41%
76%
65%
63%
64%
63%
Fair Share
Comparison
Tax Base
Accountability
Safety
Very Convincing Somewhat Convincing
ATTACHMENT A 1.a
Packet Pg. 43
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
A
:
P
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
B
a
l
l
o
t
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
S
u
r
v
e
y
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
(
1
3
9
8
1
:
B
a
l
l
o
t
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
28
Opposition Messages Tested
Q13. I am going to read you some statements from people who oppose this potential ballot measure. Please tell me whether you find it very convincing,
somewhat convincing, or not convincing as a reason to oppose the measure.
(Ranked in Order of Effectiveness)
(LOOPHOLES)Just like any tax, this will fall hardest on small and medium
businesses already struggling with labor shortages, inflation, and high
commercial rent. Meanwhile, the largest companies will find creative loopholes
to get out of paying their fair share.
(INFLATION)The cost of living is out of control and inflation is on the rise.
With the price of groceries and gasoline increasing and an interest‐rate hike on
the way, now is simply not the time to be raising taxes.
(RECOVERY)COVID‐19 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
tax that hurts local businesses just as we start to recover.
(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.
ATTACHMENT A 1.a
Packet Pg. 44
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
A
:
P
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
B
a
l
l
o
t
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
S
u
r
v
e
y
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
(
1
3
9
8
1
:
B
a
l
l
o
t
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
29
A variety of negative messages
resonate broadly.
Q13. I am going to read you some statements from people who oppose this potential ballot measure. Please tell me whether you find it very convincing,
somewhat convincing, or not convincing as a reason to oppose the measure.
34%
33%
32%
31%
33%
25%
35%
24%
67%
58%
67%
55%
Loopholes
Inflation
Recovery
Waste
Very Convincing Somewhat Convincing
ATTACHMENT A 1.a
Packet Pg. 45
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
A
:
P
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
B
a
l
l
o
t
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
S
u
r
v
e
y
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
(
1
3
9
8
1
:
B
a
l
l
o
t
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
30
A majority supports the measure throughout
exposure to pro and con messages.
Q4 (Total), Q12 Split C, Q12 Split D & Q14 (Total). Do you think you would vote yes or no on such a measure?
25%
31%
15%
24%
32%
33%
31%
32%
5%
5%
8%
5%
8%
9%
8%
9%
7%
5%
11%
12%
21%
15%
23%
18%
Initial Business License Tax Vote
Vote After Positives Only
Vote After Negatives Only
Final Business License Tax Vote
Def. Yes Prob. Yes Und., Lean Yes Undecided Und., Lean No Prob. No Def. No Total
Yes
Total
No
61%31%
69%22%
54%38%
60%31%
ATTACHMENT A 1.a
Packet Pg. 46
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
A
:
P
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
B
a
l
l
o
t
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
S
u
r
v
e
y
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
(
1
3
9
8
1
:
B
a
l
l
o
t
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
31
Conclusions
ATTACHMENT A 1.a
Packet Pg. 47
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
A
:
P
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
B
a
l
l
o
t
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
S
u
r
v
e
y
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
(
1
3
9
8
1
:
B
a
l
l
o
t
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
32
Conclusions
• The mood of the city continues to be mixed, as it is in many cities around
region. A slim majority rates City government’s performance as “excellent” or
“good” (51%).
• Three in five back the business license tax concept we tested, which – pending
a more detailed exploration of a more specific concept and associated ballot
language – has consistent majority support.
• Voters are comfortable with a measure that would increase average monthly
rent for businesses by up to 10 cents per square foot. They are more likely to
support a measure that exempts small‐square footage businesses, and are less
likely to support one that exempts hotels.
• A measure ratifying utility fund transfers polls at 71%; support remains high
when voters hear a more detailed explanation.
• Voters are divided on whether they would prefer new revenue be dedicated to
major new investments or to improving existing services – however, those who
support the BLT are more likely to favor new investments.
• Voters are most enthusiastic about allocating funding toward public safety,
affordable housing, and outreach to the unhoused.
ATTACHMENT A 1.a
Packet Pg. 48
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
A
:
P
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
B
a
l
l
o
t
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
S
u
r
v
e
y
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
(
1
3
9
8
1
:
B
a
l
l
o
t
M
e
a
s
u
r
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
ATTACHMENT A 1.a
Packet Pg. 49
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
A
:
P
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
B
a
l
l
o
t
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
S
u
r
v
e
y
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
(
1
3
9
8
1
:
B
a
l
l
o
t
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
MARCH 8-14, 2022
CITY OF PALO ALTO BALLOT MEASURE SURVEY
220-6319 WT
N=427
MARGIN OF SAMPLING ERROR ±4.9% (95% CONFIDENCE LEVEL)
A/B & 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 ------------------------------------------------- 90%
Yes, cell but cannot talk safely --------------------------------- TERMINATE
No, not on cell ----------------------------------------------------------------- 10%
(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 2022
Right direction ----------------------- 61% ------------ 43% ------------ 40% -------- 41%
Wrong track -------------------------- 25% ------------ 37% ------------ 34% -------- 35%
(DON'T READ) DK/NA --------- 14% ------------ 20% ------------ 27% -------- 24%
2.(T) 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)
2016 2018 2021 2022
EXCELLENT/GOOD ------------ 74% ------------ 60% ------------ 54% -------- 51%
Excellent ------------------------------ 18% ------------ 10% ------------- 8% --------- 10%
Good ---------------------------------- 56% ------------ 50% ------------ 46% -------- 42%
FAIR/POOR ------------------------ 24% ------------ 37% ------------ 40% -------- 42%
Only fair ------------------------------ 19% ------------ 27% ------------ 31% -------- 33%
Poor job -------------------------------- 5% ------------- 10% ------------- 9% --------- 10%
(DON'T READ) Don't know ----- 2% ------------- 3% ------------- 6% ----------- 7%
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
B
a
l
l
o
t
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
R
e
f
i
n
e
m
e
n
t
S
u
r
v
e
y
(
T
r
a
c
k
i
n
g
)
(
1
3
9
8
1
:
B
a
l
l
o
t
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
E
n
g
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
,
D
r
a
f
t
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
FM3 RESEARCH 220-6319-WT PAGE 2
NOW I WOULD LIKE TO ASK YOU A FEW QUESTIONS ABOUT TWO MEASURES THAT MAY
APPEAR ON THE PALO ALTO BALLOT IN THE NOVEMBER ELECTION.
(SPLIT SAMPLE A ONLY: Q3 THEN Q4)
(SPLIT SAMPLE B ONLY: Q4 THEN Q3)
3. The FIRST/SECOND measure would deal with a business license tax. This measure would create a
business license tax on commercial property in the city of 50 dollars per year for the first 5,000 square
feet occupied, plus 12 cents per square foot per month for space occupied over 5,000 square feet,
adjusted annually for inflation. The funds would pay for City services such as police, fire and emergency
medical services, affordable housing and support for the unhoused, parks and recreation, transportation ,
the City’s climate action plan, and other public services.
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, ASK: Do you lean toward voting yes or no?”)
SPLIT A SPLIT B
Q3 Q3
FIRST LAST TOTAL
TOTAL YES ------------------------------- 63%------- 59% ------- 61%
Definitely yes ------------------------------- 29%------- 20% ------- 25%
Probably yes -------------------------------- 31%------- 33% ------- 32%
Undecided, lean yes ------------------------ 4%--------- 5% --------- 5%
TOTAL NO -------------------------------- 28%------- 35% ------- 31%
Undecided, lean no ------------------------- 3%--------- 4% --------- 3%
Probably no ---------------------------------- 5%------- 10% --------- 7%
Definitely no -------------------------------- 20%------- 21% ------- 21%
(DON'T READ) DK/NA ----------------- 8%--------- 7% --------- 8%
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
B
a
l
l
o
t
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
R
e
f
i
n
e
m
e
n
t
S
u
r
v
e
y
(
T
r
a
c
k
i
n
g
)
(
1
3
9
8
1
:
B
a
l
l
o
t
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
E
n
g
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
,
D
r
a
f
t
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
FM3 RESEARCH 220-6319-WT PAGE 3
(SPLIT SAMPLE A ONLY: Q3 THEN Q4)
(SPLIT SAMPLE B ONLY: Q4 THEN Q3)
4. The FIRST/SECOND measure would deal with utilities. 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
services. This measure would confirm the existing practice of transferring not more than 18 percent of
City of Palo Alto Utilities’ gross annual sales of gas, providing over 7 million dollars annually to needed
investments like police, fire and emergency medical services; affordable housing and support for the
unhoused; parks and recreation; transportation; the City’s climate action plan; and other public services.
This measure 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, ASK: “Do you lean toward voting yes or no?”)
SPLIT A SPLIT B
Q4 Q4
LAST FIRST TOTAL
TOTAL YES ------------------------------- 74%------- 69% ------- 71%
Definitely yes ------------------------------- 35%------- 19% ------- 27%
Probably yes -------------------------------- 35%------- 42% ------- 38%
Undecided, lean yes ------------------------ 4%--------- 8% --------- 6%
TOTAL NO -------------------------------- 16%------- 18% ------- 17%
Undecided, lean no ------------------------- 3%--------- 3% --------- 3%
Probably no ---------------------------------- 3%--------- 7% --------- 5%
Definitely no -------------------------------- 10%--------- 7% --------- 9%
(DON'T READ) DK/NA ---------------- 11%------- 13% ------- 12%
(RESUME ASKING ALL RESPONDENTS)
5. If both of these measures were on the same ballot, would you vote “yes” on both, for just one, or for
neither? (IF YES ON ONE, ASK: Which one would you vote “yes” on: the business license tax or the
utility fund transfer measure?)
TOTAL YES ----------------------------------------------- 69%
Yes on both -------------------------------------------------- 40%
Yes on business license tax only ------------------------- 10%
Yes on utility fund transfer measure only -------------- 18%
No on both --------------------------------------------------- 11%
(DON'T READ) DK/NA --------------------------------- 21%
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
B
a
l
l
o
t
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
R
e
f
i
n
e
m
e
n
t
S
u
r
v
e
y
(
T
r
a
c
k
i
n
g
)
(
1
3
9
8
1
:
B
a
l
l
o
t
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
E
n
g
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
,
D
r
a
f
t
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
FM3 RESEARCH 220-6319-WT PAGE 4
6. Now I will provide you some additional background information on this measure. Investor -owned
utilities like P-G-and-E that provide natural gas service transfer some funds from their utility to
shareholders. Cities like Palo Alto that own their own utilities do not have shareholders, so many cities
instead transfer some funds from the utility to pay for City services like police, fire, transportation,
parks and other public services. Palo Alto received voter approval for these kinds of transfers in its
municipal Charter in 1950; however, this practice has been challenged legally, and voter approval may
be required for it to continue. As a result, the City may place this measure to reconfirm this practice on
the November ballot. Having heard this, 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, ASK: “Do you lean
toward voting yes or no?”)
TOTAL YES ------------------------------ 69%
Definitely yes ------------------------------- 30%
Probably yes -------------------------------- 35%
Undecided, lean yes ------------------------- 4%
TOTAL NO -------------------------------- 18%
Undecided, lean no -------------------------- 2%
Probably no ----------------------------------- 7%
Definitely no ---------------------------------- 9%
(DON'T READ) DK/NA ---------------- 12%
THE REST OF MY QUESTIONS ARE ABOUT THE BUSINESS LICENSE TAX MEASURE.
7. First, the structure of this measure has not been finalized. Currently, average monthly rents for
businesses range from $4.10 to $6.40 per square foot per month for retail and industrial space and $7.10
to $8.50 per square foot per month for office space. Would a measure that increased monthly business
rent by roughly (READ EACH ITEM) per square foot be an acceptable or unacceptable amount? (IF
ACCEPTABLE/ UNACCEPTABLE, ASK: “Is that very or somewhat ACCEPTABLE/
UNACCEPTABLE?”) (READ IN ORDER) (ROTATE TOP-TO-BOTTOM AND BOTTOM-TO-
TOP)
VERY SMWT SMWT VERY TOTAL TOTAL
ACC ACC UNACC UNACC (DK/NA) ACC UNACC
[ ]a. 5 cents ---------------------------------------- 33% ----- 25% ---- 10% ----- 20% ----- 12% 58% 30%
[ ]b. 10 cents -------------------------------------- 26% ----- 28% ---- 10% ----- 24% ----- 12% 54% 34%
[ ]c. 15 cents -------------------------------------- 16% ----- 26% ---- 12% ----- 32% ----- 14% 42% 44%
[ ]d. 20 cents -------------------------------------- 13% ----- 19% ---- 14% ----- 38% ----- 16% 33% 51%
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
B
a
l
l
o
t
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
R
e
f
i
n
e
m
e
n
t
S
u
r
v
e
y
(
T
r
a
c
k
i
n
g
)
(
1
3
9
8
1
:
B
a
l
l
o
t
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
E
n
g
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
,
D
r
a
f
t
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
FM3 RESEARCH 220-6319-WT PAGE 5
8. 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 (DON’T TOTAL TOTAL
MORE MORE LESS LESS NO READ) MORE LESS
LKLY LKLY LKLY LKLY DIFF DK/NA LKLY LKLY
[ ]a. Retail stores --------------------- 14% ----- 19% ----- 12% ---- 15% ----- 31% -------9% 33% 26%
[ ]b. (T) Grocery stores ------------- 24% ----- 22% ------ 7% ------ 8% ----- 30% -------9% 46% 16%
[ ]c. All businesses under five
thousand square feet ----------- 23% ----- 31% ------ 7% ------ 7% ----- 24% -------8% 54% 14%
[ ]d. Hotels ------------------------------ 5% ----- 10% ----- 16% ---- 23% ----- 37% -------9% 15% 39%
9. 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. Improving police response to property
crimes --------------------------------------------------- 21% ---- 35% ----- 27% ----- 14% ------ 3% 55%
[ ]b. Improving police response to violent crime ------ 32% ---- 30% ----- 22% ----- 13% ------ 3% 62%
[ ]c. Improving the speed and reliability of
ambulance service ------------------------------------- 19% ---- 38% ----- 26% ----- 13% ------ 4% 58%
[ ]d. Improving pedestrian, bicyclist, and driver
safety by building separate crossings under
train tracks to prevent collisions -------------------- 20% ---- 34% ----- 25% ----- 20% ------ 2% 54%
[ ]e. Expanding transportation services, such as
shuttles -------------------------------------------------- 16% ---- 27% ----- 32% ----- 22% ------ 2% 43%
[ ]f. Advancing the City’s Climate Action Plan
to help the community reduce its carbon
emissions ----------------------------------------------- 22% ---- 30% ----- 20% ----- 25% ------ 2% 52%
[ ]g. Programs to reduce traffic from incoming
commuters ---------------------------------------------- 14% ---- 27% ----- 32% ----- 24% ------ 3% 41%
[ ]h. Expanding outreach to people experiencing
homelessness ------------------------------------------- 30% ---- 30% ----- 24% ----- 14% ------ 2% 60%
[ ]i. Improving the safety, health, and
cleanliness of downtown and commercial
cores ----------------------------------------------------- 16% ---- 30% ----- 36% ----- 16% ------ 2% 46%
[ ]j. Funding affordable housing ------------------------- 35% ---- 23% ----- 22% ----- 19% ------ 2% 58%
[ ]k. Improving parks, recreation, and arts
services-------------------------------------------------- 13% ---- 34% ----- 37% ----- 15% ------ 1% 47%
[ ]l. Improving animal sheltering and care ------------- 12% ---- 25% ----- 34% ----- 26% ------ 2% 37%
[ ]m. Improving library services --------------------------- 10% ---- 27% ----- 41% ----- 21% ------ 2% 37%
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
B
a
l
l
o
t
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
R
e
f
i
n
e
m
e
n
t
S
u
r
v
e
y
(
T
r
a
c
k
i
n
g
)
(
1
3
9
8
1
:
B
a
l
l
o
t
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
E
n
g
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
,
D
r
a
f
t
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
FM3 RESEARCH 220-6319-WT PAGE 6
10. Next, if a ballot measure to provide additional funding were approved by voters, would you prefer that
the money be dedicated to: (ROTATE)
[ ] Offering major new City services, such as affordable housing, climate
change reduction efforts, improving the safety of rail crossings,
transportation services such as shuttles, or support for the unhoused------------------- 49%
OR
[ ] Improving the quality and reliability of core City services such as fire
and emergency services, and parks and recreation ----------------------------------------- 39%
(DON’T READ) Both----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2%
(DON’T READ) Neither ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2%
(DON’T READ) Don’t Know/NA-------------------------------------------------------------- 8%
NEXT, HERE ARE SOME STATEMENTS FROM SUPPORTERS AND OPPONENTS OF THE
POTENTIAL BUSINESS TAX WE HAVE BEEN DISCUSSING.
(SPLIT SAMPLE C ONLY: Q11/Q12/Q13)
(SPLIT SAMPLE D ONLY: Q13/Q12/Q11)
11. 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)
VERY SMWT NOT DON’T VERY/
CONV CONV CONV BEL (DK/NA) SMWT
[ ]a. (COMPARISON) Palo Alto does not have
a business license tax, unlike most
communities in California. Several nearby
communities have significant taxes on
business, such as East Palo Alto’s tax of
$2.50 per square foot annually on
commercial office space over 25,000
square feet and San Francisco’s business
tax of $2.85 to $5.60 per 1000 dollars of
gross receipts annually. This tax would
align Palo Alto’s tax system with those of
other cities in the area. ------------------------------- 31% ---- 34% ----- 23% -------6% ------ 6% 65%
[ ]b. (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% ---- 36% ----- 22% ----- 10% ------ 4% 64%
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
B
a
l
l
o
t
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
R
e
f
i
n
e
m
e
n
t
S
u
r
v
e
y
(
T
r
a
c
k
i
n
g
)
(
1
3
9
8
1
:
B
a
l
l
o
t
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
E
n
g
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
,
D
r
a
f
t
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
FM3 RESEARCH 220-6319-WT PAGE 7
VERY SMWT NOT DON’T VERY/
CONV CONV CONV BEL (DK/NA) SMWT
[ ]c. (SAFETY) The recent economic downturn
had significant impacts to funding for
police and emergency services. Recently
the community has seen increases in
property crimes impacts to fire and
emergency medical services. This measure
would provide funding for police and
emergency services to address these issues. ------ 23% ---- 41% ----- 24% -------9% ------ 4% 63%
[ ]d. (FAIR SHARE) Palo Alto currently
registers businesses of all sizes for 50
dollars. That means a mom-and-pop coffee
shop pays the same as a tech company with
thousands of employees. This measure is a
sensible way to ensure large businesses pay
their fair share for the services the City
provides and that their employees enjoy,
like road repairs and police and fire
protection. ---------------------------------------------- 46% ---- 30% ----- 14% -------5% ------ 4% 76%
[ ]e. (TAX BASE) This measure is not a tax on
homeowners or shoppers, but on the city’s
largest businesses. Sales taxes continue to
decline in Palo Alto, and by diversifying
the City’s tax base with a thoughtfully
designed business license tax, we will be
better able to weather future financial crises
without having to raise taxes on everyday
residents. ----------------------------------------------- 30% ---- 33% ----- 20% ----- 13% ------ 4% 63%
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
B
a
l
l
o
t
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
R
e
f
i
n
e
m
e
n
t
S
u
r
v
e
y
(
T
r
a
c
k
i
n
g
)
(
1
3
9
8
1
:
B
a
l
l
o
t
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
E
n
g
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
,
D
r
a
f
t
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
FM3 RESEARCH 220-6319-WT PAGE 8
(SPLIT SAMPLE C ONLY: Q11/Q12/Q13)
(SPLIT SAMPLE D ONLY: Q13/Q12/Q11)
12. Now that you’ve learned more about it, would you support or oppose a measure that would create a
business license tax on commercial property in the city of 50 dollars per year for the first 5,000 square
feet occupied plus 12 cents per square foot per month for space occupied over 5,000 square feet, adjusted
annually for inflation, to pay for City services such as police, fire and emergency medical services,
affordable housing and support for the unhoused, parks and recreation, transportation , the City’s climate
action plan, and other public services? 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, ASK: “Do you lean toward
voting yes or no?”)
SPLIT C SPLIT D
AFTER AFTER
SUPPORT OPPOSE
ONLY ONLY
TOTAL YES ------------------------------- 69%------------------ 54%
Definitely yes ------------------------------- 31%------------------ 15%
Probably yes -------------------------------- 33%------------------ 31%
Undecided, lean yes ------------------------ 5%------------------- 8%
TOTAL NO -------------------------------- 22%------------------ 38%
Undecided, lean no ------------------------- 2%------------------- 4%
Probably no ---------------------------------- 5%------------------ 11%
Definitely no -------------------------------- 15%------------------ 23%
(DON'T READ) DK/NA ----------------- 9%------------------- 8%
(SPLIT SAMPLE C ONLY: Q11/Q12/Q13)
(SPLIT SAMPLE D ONLY: Q13/Q12/Q11)
13. 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)
VERY SMWT NOT DON’T VERY/
CONV CONV CONV BEL (DK/NA) SMWT
[ ]a. (INFLATION) The cost of living is out of
control and inflation is on the rise. With the
price of groceries and gasoline increasing
and an interest-rate hike on the way, now is
simply not the time to be raising taxes. ----------- 33% ---- 25% ----- 31% -------7% ------ 4% 58%
[ ]b. (LOOPHOLES) Just like any tax, this will
fall hardest on small and medium
businesses already struggling with labor
shortages, inflation, and high commercial
rent. Meanwhile, the largest companies will
find creative loopholes to get out of paying
their fair share. ---------------------------------------- 34% ---- 33% ----- 21% -------7% ------ 5% 67%
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
B
a
l
l
o
t
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
R
e
f
i
n
e
m
e
n
t
S
u
r
v
e
y
(
T
r
a
c
k
i
n
g
)
(
1
3
9
8
1
:
B
a
l
l
o
t
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
E
n
g
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
,
D
r
a
f
t
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
FM3 RESEARCH 220-6319-WT PAGE 9
VERY SMWT NOT DON’T VERY/
CONV CONV CONV BEL (DK/NA) SMWT
[ ]c. (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. ----------------------------------------------------- 31% ---- 24% ----- 32% -------8% ------ 5% 55%
[ ]d. (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 tax that
hurts local businesses just as we start to
recover. ------------------------------------------------- 32% ---- 35% ----- 23% -------6% ------ 4% 67%
14. 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 measure to create a business license tax on commercial property
in the city of 50 dollars per year for the first 5,000 square feet occupied, plus 12 cents per square foot
per month for space occupied over 5,000 square feet, adjusted annually for inflation, to pay for City
services such as police, fire and emergency medical services, affordable housing and support for the
unhoused, parks and recreation, transportation, the City’s climate action plan, and other public services.
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, ASK: “Do you lean toward voting yes or no?”)
SPLIT C SPLIT D
OPPOSE OPPOSE
LAST FIRST TOTAL
TOTAL YES ------------------------------- 60%------- 60% ------- 60%
Definitely yes ------------------------------- 23%------- 24% ------- 24%
Probably yes -------------------------------- 33%------- 31% ------- 32%
Undecided, lean yes ------------------------ 5%--------- 5% --------- 5%
TOTAL NO -------------------------------- 30%------- 33% ------- 31%
Undecided, lean no ------------------------- 3%--------- 1% --------- 2%
Probably no --------------------------------- 11%------- 12% ------- 12%
Definitely no -------------------------------- 15%------- 20% ------- 18%
(DON'T READ) DK/NA ---------------- 10%--------- 8% --------- 9%
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
B
a
l
l
o
t
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
R
e
f
i
n
e
m
e
n
t
S
u
r
v
e
y
(
T
r
a
c
k
i
n
g
)
(
1
3
9
8
1
:
B
a
l
l
o
t
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
E
n
g
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
,
D
r
a
f
t
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
FM3 RESEARCH 220-6319-WT PAGE 10
HERE ARE MY LAST QUESTIONS, AND THEY ARE FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES ONLY.
15. Do you own a business in Palo Alto?
Yes --------------------------------------------- 6%
No -------------------------------------------- 91%
(DON’T READ) DK/NA ------------------ 3%
16. Do you own or rent your place of residence?
Own ------------------------------------------ 58%
Rent ------------------------------------------ 32%
(DON’T READ) DK/NA ---------------- 11%
17. What was the last level of school you completed?
High school graduate or less ------------------------ 3%
Some college/vocational school ------------------ 10%
College graduate (4 years) ------------------------ 41%
Post graduate work/Professional school -------- 44%
((DON’T READ) DK/NA -------------------------- 2%
18. 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 --------------------------- 60%
Vietnamese ------------------------------------ 1%
Chinese ---------------------------------------- 9%
South Asian/East Indian -------------------- 7%
Other Non-Asian/Pacific Islander -------- 1%
Other Asian/Pacific Islander --------------- 3%
Multiracial ------------------------------------ 6%
(DON’T READ) DK/NA ------------------ 8%
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
B
a
l
l
o
t
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
R
e
f
i
n
e
m
e
n
t
S
u
r
v
e
y
(
T
r
a
c
k
i
n
g
)
(
1
3
9
8
1
:
B
a
l
l
o
t
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
E
n
g
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
,
D
r
a
f
t
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
FM3 RESEARCH 220-6319-WT PAGE 11
THANK AND TERMINATE
GENDER (BY OBSERVATION): Male ------------------------------------------ 48%
Female --------------------------------------- 52%
PARTY REGISTRATION: Democrat ------------------------------------ 60%
Republican ---------------------------------- 10%
No Party Preference ----------------------- 28%
Other ------------------------------------------- 2%
FLAGS
P16 ------------------------------------------- 54%
G16 ------------------------------------------ 72%
P18 ------------------------------------------- 58%
G18 ------------------------------------------ 74%
P20 ------------------------------------------- 70%
G20 ------------------------------------------ 95%
BLANK --------------------------------------- 3%
AGE
18-24 ---------------------------------------- 10%
25-29 ----------------------------------------- 6%
30-34 ----------------------------------------- 7%
35-39 ------------------------------------------ 4%
40-44 ----------------------------------------- 6%
45-49 ----------------------------------------- 8%
50-54 ----------------------------------------- 9%
55-59 ---------------------------------------- 11%
60-64 ---------------------------------------- 10%
65-74 ---------------------------------------- 14%
75+ ------------------------------------------ 16%
PERMANENT ABSENTEE
Yes ------------------------------------------- 90%
No -------------------------------------------- 10%
HOUSEHOLD PARTY TYPE
Dem 1 --------------------------------------- 33%
Dem 2+ ------------------------------------- 17%
Rep 1 ------------------------------------------ 5%
Rep 2+ ---------------------------------------- 1%
Ind 1+ --------------------------------------- 20%
Mix ------------------------------------------- 23%
MODE
Phone ---------------------------------------- 51%
Online --------------------------------------- 49%
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
B
a
l
l
o
t
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
R
e
f
i
n
e
m
e
n
t
S
u
r
v
e
y
(
T
r
a
c
k
i
n
g
)
(
1
3
9
8
1
:
B
a
l
l
o
t
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
E
n
g
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
,
D
r
a
f
t
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
ATTACHMENT C
Summary of Responses to Online Community Feedback Survey
Status update, March 28, 2022
Starting February 15, 2022, the City provided an online feedback form regarding the City’s Fiscal
Sustainability efforts. Community members could rank their priorities for community services, provide
suggestions for additional service priorities, and pose questions about the City’s fiscal sustainability
efforts and revenue measures.
As of March 28, 2022, the Fiscal Sustainability Community Conversation survey may still be accessed.1
Survey Contents
Community members were asked the following questions:
The City of Palo Alto is engaging the community around long-term fiscal sustainability and community
priorities. Below are some of the key priorities Palo Alto residents have historically identified as key to
their quality of life. Please give us your feedback by ranking the following priorities from 1 to 8, with “1”
being the most important. We will review all comments to ensure that the City continues to address the
community’s priorities in its long-range planning.
1. Priorities to be ranked:
• Expanding City Services
• Maintaining basic services
• Improving services such as longer library hours
• Adding public safety services such as police, fire and emergency medical
• Investing in community-owned assets like roads and community centers
• Funding affordable housing and homeless services
• Repairing streets/roads
• Maintaining after school/summer youth programs
2. Suggestions for additional service priorities:
3. I have the following questions:
Survey Responses
There were 358 responses as of March 22, 2022 (174 online survey responses and 184 mailed survey
responses). The most highly ranked priorities for the survey respondents were “Maintaining basic
services,” “Repairing streets / roads,” “Investing in community-owned assets,” “Adding public safety
services such as police, fire, and emergency medical,” and “Funding affordable housing and homeless
services,” as shown in Table 1. Table 1 shows the percentage of respondents who ranked each priority
first, second, or third.
1 https://us.openforms.com/Form/07db0c33-8339-497b-839b-6aab75e1f635
1.c
Packet Pg. 61
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
O
n
l
i
n
e
S
u
r
v
e
y
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
s
(
1
3
9
8
1
:
B
a
l
l
o
t
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
E
n
g
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
,
D
r
a
f
t
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
L
a
n
g
u
a
g
e
,
R
e
f
i
n
e
d
ATTACHMENT C
Table 1: Percentage of Survey Respondents Ranking Each Priority First, Second, or Third
There were 107 respondents who submitted suggestions for additional service priorities or additional
comments and questions via the online survey. The complete comments are included at the end of this
attachment, but in summary:
1.c
Packet Pg. 62
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
O
n
l
i
n
e
S
u
r
v
e
y
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
s
(
1
3
9
8
1
:
B
a
l
l
o
t
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
E
n
g
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
,
D
r
a
f
t
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
L
a
n
g
u
a
g
e
,
R
e
f
i
n
e
d
ATTACHMENT C
• 40 respondents wrote comments supporting funding for Lucie Stern Theatre facilities and
staffing. Of these, 3-5 appeared to be duplicate submittals.
• 13 comments related to investments in various other types of City infrastructure
• 14 comments related to increasing policing, including code enforcement and traffic
enforcement
• 10 comments related to climate action, with a couple of comments opposing City action.
• 6 comments related to affordable housing or homeless services, with a couple of comments
expressing concern about setting affordable housing goals or homeless services.
• Other respondents wrote comments related to traffic safety, traffic congestion, road
maintenance, parking, expanding bicycle infrastructure and other alternative transportation
options, climate change (both in favor of and opposing action), electric grid reliability, fiber
internet, zoning, affordable housing, employee pension costs, community and human services,
and other topics.
There were 78 respondents to the mailed version of the survey who submitted additional comments or
questions. The complete comments are included at the end of this attachment, but to summarize:
• 15 comments related to infrastructure, with an emphasis on roads
• 11 comments focused on increased traffic enforcement, code enforcement, or policing in
general.
• 7 comments related to sustainability (climate change, tree canopy, alternative transportation)
• Other respondents wrote comments related to airplane noise, affordable housing, the animal
shelter, recreation services, fiber to the home, library hours, utility services, zoning, and service
levels in general.
1.c
Packet Pg. 63
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
O
n
l
i
n
e
S
u
r
v
e
y
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
s
(
1
3
9
8
1
:
B
a
l
l
o
t
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
E
n
g
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
,
D
r
a
f
t
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
L
a
n
g
u
a
g
e
,
R
e
f
i
n
e
d
ATTACHMENT C
Comments from Online Survey
The following comments were submitted in response to the two open-ended survey questions for the online version of the survey.
Written
Comment
# Suggestions for additional service priorities: I have the following questions:
1
Reducing pension and retirement benefit expenses
Switching to a 24/7 mental health crisis team approach like cahoots
using mental health and social workers. Police are only needed if there
is a threat of violence which is rarely the case. We could save so much
money with this approach.
Fiber to the Home; Undergrounding utilities as promised so many years
ago. Increasing police response to gangs stealing from stores - there
doesn't seem to be much effort here at all.
New Animal Shelter
This survey is poorly written. Most people want all of the above. But I
also want. to see ways to save money. We seem to be adding more
and more administrators and fewer people who actually perform the
work of caring for the city. Do we really need another assistant to the
City Manager? We need a new animal shelter which we could have had
for a fraction of the cost of the bike bridge. Increasing library hours is
so cheap - why isn't this a given? Let's get the police up to fill strength -
79 officers and then decide to get more. The poor showing of the
police with only 59 officers does not mean that 79 is not enough, esp. if
we outsource mental health calls.
2
Support our downtown retail and business operations. They provide
the revenues needed to provide all services. They also provide the
vibrancy we all value.
Why does the Council not support businesses? We need them to
support our hotels, frequent our retailers, and provide quality jobs.
Why is the Council wanting to tax businesses now with a business tax
AND with a district tax?
Why doesn't the Council incentivize housing development by a
reduction its fees and an offer to expedite the permitting processes
instead of keeping those as the worst in the area and adding more
taxes to try and add housing itself?
3 n/a n/a
4 Law enforcement to reduce property crime
5
Please focus on managing the City and prioritize its citizens.
Thanks for the survey.
6
Providing actionable resources to Eichlers to help with green related
retrofitting - for instance, I can’t find a non-gas powered boiler for my
radiant heating!
1.c
Packet Pg. 64
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
O
n
l
i
n
e
S
u
r
v
e
y
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
s
(
1
3
9
8
1
:
B
a
l
l
o
t
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
E
n
g
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
,
ATTACHMENT C
Written
Comment
# Suggestions for additional service priorities: I have the following questions:
7
I would also encourage the City to scrub the budget and eliminate
some unnecessary items that cost too much. In my neighborhood, I can
mention the Ross Road street "improvement" that cost a lot, did not do
anything and created a lot of controversy.
Also we should aim to make projects less expansive, the pedestrian
overpass for 101 at the Baylands should not have costed more than
$10M, also the Mitchell Park community center should not have costed
as much and taken so long. The city needs to learn how to manage
these projects better.
8 Finish work at Shoreline Park
9 Close Churchill Ave Caltrain intersection. It is too dangerous for
pedestrians and bikes and cars!!!
10 providing access to Foothills park to mountain bikes through
Arastradero and create one bike trail (single track) in Foothill park
11
Stop forcing green energy initiatives on the residents, making it more
and more expensive to live in PA. These should be put to a vote by
residents, not forced by city council members who think more of
themselves in how they can get national publicity than supporting the
residents.
12
This should be at the top of the list:
Funding city's future obligations in terms of pensions, etc. I have heard
that we haven't funded these obligations anywhere near sufficiently.
What is the city doing to fund the future generous pensions that we
owe?
13
Delete the commercial zoning requirement, density, and height
requirements on most parcels along El Camino. Especially near
transportation.
Especially for affordable housing.
Increase zoning and density along Alma. Especially for affordable
housing .
14 As a subset re public safety, consider installation of additional speed
limit signage in our residential neighborhoods.
15
Please improve bicycle infrastructure! I see many others biking as I do
for transportation, but I often don’t feel safe next to cars on the main
road.
16 Preparing for flooding risk.
1.c
Packet Pg. 65
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
O
n
l
i
n
e
S
u
r
v
e
y
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
s
(
1
3
9
8
1
:
B
a
l
l
o
t
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
E
n
g
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
,
ATTACHMENT C
Written
Comment
# Suggestions for additional service priorities: I have the following questions:
17
Dealing with the City has become onerous. 10 years ago, staff were
responsive with fewer regulations to navigate. 10 years later, and
everything has become complicated - you need high-cost permits for a
generator or to get solar. You have fill out forms which are returned
for minor issues. Just cut out the red tape - please. And enforce city
regulations on leaving trash cans out, safety in walking downtown
(arrest people).
18 Affordable housing is a huge problem and we need better solutions.
19 It was a waste of taxpayer’s money for so-called improvement of Ross
Road.
20 Addressing climate change Is each city department maximizing each budgeted dollar?
21
A. The item, Maintaining basic services, should include preparing for
climate change, especially sea level rise, more frequent droughts and
global warming.
B. The item, Investing in community-owned assets ... , should include
providing broadband, i.e. fiber optic, internet service to the premises.
C. The item, Expanding City Services, should include providing better
intra-city commuter options to reduce the need for individually owned
cars.
D. The item, Repairing streets/roads, should include adding new bike
lanes and upgrading existing lanes to provide safe use.
22 Law enforcement
23 Free shuttle system
24 Increased policing and enforcement of traffic laws such as parking and
speed laws
25
Improved street signage and efficient street lighting.
Encourage CalTrans to improve El Camino road surface !
Consider levy of small city tax on all residents -- sliding scale based on
income, not to exceed $100 / year.
1.c
Packet Pg. 66
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
O
n
l
i
n
e
S
u
r
v
e
y
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
s
(
1
3
9
8
1
:
B
a
l
l
o
t
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
E
n
g
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
,
ATTACHMENT C
Written
Comment
# Suggestions for additional service priorities: I have the following questions:
26
I recommend increasing police services to contain burglaries from
homes and businesses. Such crime must be addressed.
I emphatically do not recommend increasing fire services. They are
more than adequately funded and should be reduced to provide any
needed emergency medical services.
I would have given public safety services a higher ranking, but since fire
services was included it was given a lower priority.
27
Don’t just fix the potholes on El Camino redo the street material with a
mix of tires and asphalt to make them more resilient to the wear and
tear. Also can you please pay attention to Barron Park Streets they are
looking like very undeveloped countries
The Barron park section of el Camino is a disaster
28 City-funded housing and transportation services for seniors.
29
Putting electrical wires underground.
Replacing large lawn areas with native shrubs (but leaving areas for kids
to play).
30 Reduction of city management salaries. Find a hungry person to do it
for a fair price.
31
Why is Lucie Stern Community Center so underinvested compared to
Cubberley Community Center? It's a beautiful indoor + outdoor space
(and home to three award-winning performing arts companies that
Palo Alto should be proud to claim as its own!) that can benefit many
more community members, especially during COVID-19, if repairs and
upgrades are made to the facilities.
32
Make it more difficult for developers/speculators to demolish livable
housing to replace it with huge homes that are often not occupied. This
is why housing has become unaffordable. Increase incentives to
remodel/rehab existing housing stock. Build affordable/low income
housing in Palo Alto Square (not sure who owns that). Stop billionaires
from buying up multiple neighborhood houses and taking them out of
the housing market. Decrease the number of ghost houses.
1.c
Packet Pg. 67
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
O
n
l
i
n
e
S
u
r
v
e
y
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
s
(
1
3
9
8
1
:
B
a
l
l
o
t
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
E
n
g
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
,
ATTACHMENT C
Written
Comment
# Suggestions for additional service priorities: I have the following questions:
33
Do not spend any money on public art until all the potholes in the city
are fixed.
How much money is CPA spending on the fiber-optic project? Why is it
building this service when fiber optic is already being provided by AT&T
and Comcast?
Why is a fire engine dispatched along with an ambulance for every
emergency call?
34 Grade Separation on the SP tracks. You can't keep all the people
happy all the time. Subsidized Solar Roof plan for residents.
35 Ease traffic congestion and provide more parking.
36
First category above (expanding...) is too vague to be useful.
Cubberley should get sustained attention and investment, leading to
purchase from the school district and total renovation, funded by long
term bonds. It is a huge opportunity for the future and a pretty ugly
testimonial to our confused process and thinking in the present.
How do we compare to MV, RWC, Sunnyvale in per capita spending on
various categories. Can we find places where we are overspending this
way?
37 Nothing about utilities here. Improving the utility function is a very
high priority.
38
Missing from the list: RESTORE cut funding for multi-modal transportation projects, including foot-powered transportation safety, especially at
identified safety trouble spots on school commute routes. Before you "Add" public safety services, you need to restore what the city cut. The
item should read, "RESTORE public safety services." The survey language is not an honest representation of where we are and what adding funds
will really do. Restoration of cut services is not "adding" or "expanding" them. These are misleading options. What are "basic services", if not
police, fire, road repair, etc. Utilities? Waste collection? Street cleaning? Arborist? What? The average citizen won't know this. This second item
is vague and, in context of the rest of this list especially, requires explanation. This is a poor beginning to a listening exercise. I filled out the
priorities so the survey would let me go beyond this page. My prioritization is meaningless because the options you offer are inaccurate and
vague. My top priority, mentioned above, is not even on the list. How does one prioritize without understanding current budget constraints and
the cost of these items? Too little background information to understand trade-offs and make informed choices. So...what do you really mean?
Are we talking about restoration of cut services or adding services above the levels we previously had? Be more clear.
Additional Feedback: See above.
1.c
Packet Pg. 68
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
O
n
l
i
n
e
S
u
r
v
e
y
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
s
(
1
3
9
8
1
:
B
a
l
l
o
t
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
E
n
g
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
,
ATTACHMENT C
Written
Comment
# Suggestions for additional service priorities: I have the following questions:
39
The City of Palo Alto has been doing mayor improvements in certain
areas, Loma Verde and Ferne, Charleston from Middlefield to El Camino
and beyond but nothing has been done in the Circles, I had asked for a
(ONE) STOP sign at the corner of Carlson Rd (coming from Charleston)
and Redwood Circle, a very dangerous outlet from my Carlson Circle
because of lack of view and speed on Redwood Circles and nothing has
been done, while there are bumps on streets that don't really need
them and gardens in crossroads that make them more dangerous for
pedestrians and children on bikes.
There is no police patrol near schools, example Fairmeadow. Very little
patrol on Alma and around the dangerous railroad crossing on
Churchill. Cars drive at 60 plus miles per hour on Alma.
Also Alma is a shame with trash cans all week long. I have to remove
my trash cans after they are serviced or somebody complains (I am 80
years old, by myself) and Alma has trash cans always by the street that
looks terrible.
Why every neighborhood in Palo Alto does not get the same service?
Louise, Ferne, Amarillo ( the road finish on Louise and Amarillo is a
shame, already dirty, inadequate and I bet very expensive, it is
confusing a total waste of money), Loma Verde and Professor Ville get
all the improvements while the Circles get nothing, only high speed cars
and even School Busses cut from Alma at full speed on Lindero and
Redwood Circle. Why are there so much road construction on
Charleston and Alma (almost daily) and Alma in South Palo Alto. This is
just the beginning of my questions, I have gone to city meetings and I
was never chosen to talk.
I have to also say that the police department was great during my
husband long illness, for about three years, they came to our house to
lift him from the floor, they took him to the hospital, they were always
helpful, and correct. Thanks to them.
40
I am concerned about the conflict between cars and bikes on the
Bryant Street Bike Boulevard between Embarcadero and downtown.
We have been promised a traffic circle and or other measures for
slowing cars. What is the status of the traffic circle at Kingsley and
Bryant Street?
41 Add more police budget to make the residents feel safe.
42 Decide what to do with Cubberley
43
Public safety is by far the highest priority. Besides "police, fire and
emergency medical", additional measures for improving public safety
will also be important, e.g., community watch, using technology to
improve automated surveillance...
1.c
Packet Pg. 69
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
O
n
l
i
n
e
S
u
r
v
e
y
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
s
(
1
3
9
8
1
:
B
a
l
l
o
t
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
E
n
g
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
,
ATTACHMENT C
Written
Comment
# Suggestions for additional service priorities: I have the following questions:
44
Properly funding the trust funds for retiree pensions and medical
benefits should be higher than all the priorities you've listed above.
That's the most critical element in achieving fiscal sustainability. The
fact that you left this off your list really worries me.
We're seeing a big uptick in crime, and many minor crimes are not
followed up on by the police, leading citizens to stop reporting all of
these incidents. Thus, I believe that the current crime statistics
undercount the true problem. Job #1 for our local government should
be maintaining order and taking actions that discourage crime.
As I mentioned in suggestions above, I still can't believe cities like Palo
Alto have made promises to retirees (pensions and medical benefits)
that are not fully funded. This is a time bomb that will come back to
bite us later on, causing a big decrease in non-essential services. I
recommend we tackle this problem responsibly.
45 More funding for adult community classes
46 Traffic enforcement.
Improve tree program - natives
47 Get a nighttime curfew for planes out/into SFO, like San Jose.
48
You'll never be able to build enough new housing in our built-out city to
even make a dent in housing costs, let alone make it 'affordable.' Don't
further bankrupt the town in this futile endeavor. Every additional
housing unit does not bring in the revenue to cover the cost of its
increased services.
49
Stop digging up the Charleston/Arastradero corridor every year! You
keep working on it, wasting money, causing traffic jams - and make it
harder to drive and bike (yes, I do both).
50
Funding for task force to identify and eliminate local zoning regulations
blocking dense housing development.
Increasing mass transit options.
What percentage of emergency services are for police vs other
emergency departments?
51
I believe that all City of Palo Alto efforts related to climate change
should be terminated. The existing programs will have no measurable
impact on CO2 levels in the atmosphere, but will have measurable and
adverse impact on the city's fiscal health. Those people who work in
the programs can be re-directed to higher priorities, which I rank
above.
52 We also need to find funds to work on climate change
1.c
Packet Pg. 70
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
O
n
l
i
n
e
S
u
r
v
e
y
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
s
(
1
3
9
8
1
:
B
a
l
l
o
t
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
E
n
g
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
,
ATTACHMENT C
Written
Comment
# Suggestions for additional service priorities: I have the following questions:
53
I would like to understand how the city is measuring current program
effectiveness and estimating cost effectiveness of new programs. For
example, it's hard to know if we need to spend more on
police/fire/medical unless we know how well those services are
currently performing now and how much it would cost to make them
better buy some increment.
Also, many of these questions seem to assume the conclusion. For
example, "Funding affordable housing and homeless services" is a
solution, while, "increase housing affordability and reduce
homelessness" is the goal. You can increase housing affordability by
reducing building restrictions, no additional funding required. And are
there any proven cost effective programs for reducing homelessness?
What is the formal measurement process the city is using in evaluating
service levels and cost effectiveness of potential improvements?
54
For the Lucie Stern Community Theater:
Allocate funding through the Capital Improvement Project (CIP) for
Lucie Stern Community Theater facility upgrades
Restore a theatre facilities manager position for the Lucie Stern
Community Theater
55
City-owned facilities such as Lucie Stern Center are important assets
and need to be maintained as much as libraries or fire stations. This is
more valuable in my view than building a new police building.
Many of the above priorities are overlapping!
56
I specifically think Palo Alto should invest in our grid. It's a durable
community asset, and it supports our sustainability goals through
electrification.
57
It's difficult for me to rank these needs, one over the other......however
I would put funding improvements to the Lucy Stern Theater near the
top since it adds immeasurably to the quality of life in Palo Alto
Is it possible to sponsor a volunteer position for theater maintenance
with cooperation from Avenidas who has a rooster of engaged,
talented seniors?
1.c
Packet Pg. 71
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
O
n
l
i
n
e
S
u
r
v
e
y
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
s
(
1
3
9
8
1
:
B
a
l
l
o
t
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
E
n
g
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
,
ATTACHMENT C
Written
Comment
# Suggestions for additional service priorities: I have the following questions:
58
Abilities United used to have a therapy pool that people with
disabilities and seniors could use. They no longer have that and Palo
Alto could really use a good hot therapy pool. It could be open to the
public, and not just disabled and senior people. There is such a big
senior population in this town and I don’t understand why there’s not
more facilities for seniors. Why don’t we have a functioning animal
shelter? Why doesn’t the city take better care of the streets and roads?
Why doesn’t the city take better care of the existing parks and
facilities? We don’t need another gym.
Why don’t we have a functioning animal shelter? Why doesn’t the city
take better care of the streets and roads? Why doesn’t the city take
better care of the existing parks and facilities?
59
I am particularly concerned about Lucie Stern Theatre. It is in dire need
of maintenance (e.g. seats, plumbing..), facilities upgrade (better
ventilation), and personnel to oversee its operation.
60 G
61 Lucie Stern Theatre1
62 We have beautiful community areas (Lucie Stern) that desperately
need funding. Please budget for maintaining the resources we have!
63
Addressing traffic congestion and noise pollution. Establishing and
Strictly enforcing noise controls from motorcycles and speeding cars at
night.
Having the Palo Alto police use their already extensive funds in
patrolling at night and break-in prevention tactics.
Maintenance of our public spaces and freeway corridors - our streets
and freeways are embarrassingly broken and dirty
These issues have become a major concern in the safety and quality of
life for us residents.
How are the current taxes and funds being utilized? How much is going
toward paying administrative overhead and city officials salaries vs
actual community services?
What is the effectiveness score of our police and city administrators
enforcing and implementing safety, noise control, community services,
infrastructure maintenance and clean streets?
64
Allocate funding through the Capital Improvement Project (CIP) for
Lucie Stern Community Theater facility upgrades
Restore a theatre facilities manager position for the Lucie Stern
Community Theater
65
I am a resident of Stanford, not Palo Alto. But I would like to urge you
to adequately support the Lucie Stern Theater. Brian White, 881
Tolman Dr, Stanford.
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
O
n
l
i
n
e
S
u
r
v
e
y
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
s
(
1
3
9
8
1
:
B
a
l
l
o
t
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
E
n
g
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
,
ATTACHMENT C
Written
Comment
# Suggestions for additional service priorities: I have the following questions:
66
Allocate funding through the Capital Improvement Project (CIP) for
Lucie Stern Community Theater facility upgrades
Restore a theatre facilities manager position for the Lucie Stern
Community Theater
Add more funds to the Children's Theatre to keep a vibrant community
treasure that helps our youth and builds self confidence
67
Lucy Stern Community Center Theatre needs maintenance. Further a
city employee needs to be assigned to oversee the theatre. This facility
is 100 years old and is showing its age and lack of recent maintenance.
68
Restore and repair the Lucie Stern theatre. It provides an important
and necessary cultural center for this university town. It's a legacy that
needs to be maintained and cared for.
69
I suggest that city staff opportunities for training regarding interaction
with citizens be made available. On two occasions, I attempted to get
answers to questions: (1) regarding marking parking spaces so drivers
would take up one instead of two spaces; and (2) repair of sidewalks.
The responses from city staff were inadequate, in my opinion. On
another occasion, when underground power was being installed in the
residential area south of University Avenue, communication from the
individual coordinating the operation was adequate. I think the quality
of communication should be less varied.
When will the overhead power lines be taken down, now that power is
delivered underground?
70 Refurbish Lucie Stern Theater
Move ahead on rebuilding Cubberley Community Center
71
Lucy Stern Theater is a vital resource for our well-respected, top-quality
community opera and theater companies, West Bay Opera and Palo
Alto Players, but it has been sadly neglected for many years, and is in
desperate need of plumbing, heating, and lighting upgrades, as well as
both basic maintenance and ongoing care.
72
Lucie Stern facility is in particular need of upgrade, having been around
for a century.
Seems that #1 and #3 in my choices have some overlap.
Affordable housing needs developer and probably city tax
incentives/subsidies. Might be a different type of investment than
other items
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
O
n
l
i
n
e
S
u
r
v
e
y
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
s
(
1
3
9
8
1
:
B
a
l
l
o
t
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
E
n
g
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
,
ATTACHMENT C
Written
Comment
# Suggestions for additional service priorities: I have the following questions:
73
Allocate funding through the Capital Improvement Project for Lucie
Stern Community Theater facility upgrades.
Restore a theatre facilities manager position for the Lucie Stern
Community Theatre.
74
Palo Alto should invest in either a major remodel of Lucie Stern Theater
or build a new theater. The theater is worn out, its technology is
obsolete making it difficult for our wonderful theater companies to
work there, and it is too small. TheatreWorks won a Tony and many of
their performances are in Mountain View where they built a wonderful
new theater some years ago. We must invest in Palo Alto's wonderful
theater talent!
75
Attend to the need of maintenance of the Lucy Stern Theater and
Community Center. This is a gem and must be preserved. Many
people are affected by the opportunities presented here.
Put it in the budget.
76
Allocate funding through the Capital Improvement Project (CIP) for
Lucie Stern Community Theater facility upgrades
Restore a theatre facilities manager position for the Lucie Stern
Community Theater
Arts are important to this - any! - community, and the 100 year old
Lucie Stern Theater is a landmark that deserves more respectful
treatment than it's currently getting. Those of us who produce those
arts - plays and operas for example - need your help.
77 Some of these categories appear to overlap. This means that answers
won’t be accurate.
78
Allocate funding through the Capital Improvement Project (CIP) for
Lucie Stern Community Theater facility upgrades and restore a theatre
facilities manager position for the Lucie Stern Community Theater.
79
Upgrading the Palo Alto electrical grid so that Electric cars, Electric
space heating and water heating can be adequately served. Perhaps
even finishing the promise to underground utilities while upgrading
them.
Let’s NOT build a Gym.
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
O
n
l
i
n
e
S
u
r
v
e
y
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
s
(
1
3
9
8
1
:
B
a
l
l
o
t
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
E
n
g
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
,
ATTACHMENT C
Written
Comment
# Suggestions for additional service priorities: I have the following questions:
80
Please keep in mind the needs of older citizens who no longer can get
around easily. The Downtown Library, for just one example, is one
thing that needs to be kept available to us.
81 Magical Bridge Playground maintenance, Lucie Stern Theater sets and
infrastructure, summer music concerts
82
Provide funding to maintain and upgrade the Lucy Stern complex.
Wiring and plumbing does age and wear out and no longer comply with
code. That can place its very existence in jeopardy.
83
Lucie Stern Theater and Community Center are most definitely in need
of upgrades. Please put funds toward these very valuable community
assets.
84
The school programs through Explore Online are not convenient for
double working parents from a timing perspective. Can we check how
population mix for parents have changed and adapt to it?
Are there reports on current state of infrastructure, crime rates etc.
which help understand current investment in defensive/maintenance
activities and what’s the right mix?
85
Who is benefitted by the after-school and summer youth programs?
Are lower income families appropriately subsidized for these
programs? Is the city working on solutions to the problem of people
living in RVs around the city? Why do I never see traffic law
enforcement any more - speeding and red light running with impunity,
creating dangerous situations for kids and adults?
86
Community assets such as the Lucie Stern Theatre have been allowed
to atrophy through lack of maintenance & cutting necessary staffing
like the theatre facilities manager. It should be much more of a priority
to preserve the city's heritage and existing facilities and services than to
constantly be on looking for new ways to spend tax revenue on splashy
& politically trendy new programs.
87 Repair & improve Lucie Stern theater & the Children’s Theater.
88 Repairs and improvements to Lucie Steen Community Theater are
much needed
1.c
Packet Pg. 75
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
O
n
l
i
n
e
S
u
r
v
e
y
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
s
(
1
3
9
8
1
:
B
a
l
l
o
t
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
E
n
g
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
,
ATTACHMENT C
Written
Comment
# Suggestions for additional service priorities: I have the following questions:
89
The city needs to spend money rehabing Lucie Stern, rather than spend
money on street striping and building concrete barriers in middle of
streets.
There are a number of items that I consider VERY VERY low priority.
Hard to make them all a 10. Comments: city services - do not need any
more, think about reducing them. Long library hours - is this needed?
Funding homeless services - look how great the city did with the
Opportunity center. People were to stay there for a max of 2 years.
Residents do not want to/ do not plan to move. Maintaining after
school programs - is this a role for city or for PAUSD
90
3.5 Fiber internet Seeing an increasing number of homeless roaming around our
residential streets. What are we doing about it? Not sure why that’s
happening, but feel like there should be more planning and action
around that on a local, state and national level. More specifically I
worry about the mentally ill roaming my neighborhood where my kids
are. We spend so much $$ (mortgage and taxes) to live here that it
boggles the mind that the homeless can too and I can’t figure out 1.
why this is happening more so in the last few months, 2. There seems
to be no plan and 3. Why should we just accept all homeless people
who come? Does anyone have any good actionable ideas and the
ability to execute on those ideas?
91
Repair/Upgrade existing buildings especially:
Build New Animal Shelter
Maintain and upgrade Lucy Stern Theatre
Why are talking about new initiatives when we haven't taken care of
existing buildings and programs? We have no need of a new gym until
the Animal Shelter is improved and Lucy Stern Theatre Repairs and
Maintenance is insured. Why aren't the bathrooms at Lucy Evans
Interpretive Center open to hikers? Mt. View has bathrooms available
in the Baylands. We have them - we just don't want to maintain them.
92 Repairing, renovating city buildings, parks. Lucie Stern Center should
be made more friendly for its demographic -- over 60.
Why aren't we pushing back more on ABAG for its over the top housing
requirements for our City?
93
Allocate funding through the Capital Improvement Project (CIP) for
Lucie Stern Community Theater facility upgrades
Restore a theatre facilities manager position for the Lucie Stern
Community Theater
Why are you pursuing a city gym facility over upgrading a community
jewel like the Lucie Stern Community Theater?
1.c
Packet Pg. 76
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
O
n
l
i
n
e
S
u
r
v
e
y
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
s
(
1
3
9
8
1
:
B
a
l
l
o
t
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
E
n
g
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
,
ATTACHMENT C
Written
Comment
# Suggestions for additional service priorities: I have the following questions:
94
Lucie Stern theatre is in wretched condition. As a volunteer crew chief
for both Palo Alto Players and West Bay Opera I'm aware of the many
problems we face trying to put on a production. Broken seats,
insufficient lighting and electrical. Also rodent problems and filthy
catwalks for the follow spot operators.
If Palo Alto can fund a bike bridge that serves 100s, can't they fund a
theatre that serves
thousands?
95
I believe that public safety services are the most important. If the city
is not safe, people actually move out instead of moving into Palo Alto.
The reason why Palo Alto is such a desirable place is that it's safe for
families. Thank you so much for all the work that the police have been
doing.
96
The Lucie Stern Community Theater is in need of repair. For example,
the seats don't stay up, which is a hazard for people with less mobility.
There are also problems with the plumbing, heating, and lighting
systems.
Please allocate funding through the Capital Improvement Project (CIP)
for Lucie Stern Community Theater facility upgrades.
In addition, please restore a theatre facilities manager position for the
Lucie Stern Community Theater.
97
We would like more affordable options for renting space to conduct
non profit events such as bonsai shows. We'd like to be able to sell
bonsai to help fund the rental but the City of Palo Alto's interpretation
of the ruling regarding non profits and fundraising has made it quite
expensive.
I also like the idea I've heard of a city recreation center. I've been to
rec centers in other states that are really fantastic facilities with large
lap pools, climbing walls, racket ball facilities, etc. Wish we had
something like that here and affordable.
98 Improve Lucie Stern Auditorium.
99 Finish intended improvements to Park-Wilkie Bike Boulevard When will we learn what citizens cared most about?
1.c
Packet Pg. 77
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
O
n
l
i
n
e
S
u
r
v
e
y
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
s
(
1
3
9
8
1
:
B
a
l
l
o
t
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
E
n
g
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
,
ATTACHMENT C
Written
Comment
# Suggestions for additional service priorities: I have the following questions:
100
With the important things above, it seems like the City has enough on
its plate. I have not done any home renovations, but neighbors who
have say the process is very inefficient.
Does the City consider reducing/modifying programs that do not work
well; make decisions based on some sort of representative user
feedback;?
Thanks for trying
101 Funding for adaptation to climate change
102 With pressure from the state to expand the population the city will
need to focus on maintaining service levels.
103
Why don't City workers work five days a week? Why were they
recently given more holidays? Why is the City Council seemingly more
concerned about
accommodating City employees than looking after the interests and
needs of Palo Alto residents? City Council members need to recognize
that they
owe a fiduciary duty not to City employees, or their unions, but City
residents.
104
Businesses have significant responsibility to fund housing. The jobs
they create causes the demand for new housing (which is always more
expensive than depreciated housing) and infrastructure to support
population growth (transportation, resources, schools, etc.,)
Parks and recreational spaces need to be supported.
How can we get the very wealthy businesses, including Stanford
University to pay for the value of the benefits they receive by being
here?
105
While local efforts to reduce carbon emissions and sustainability are to
be commended, I would NOT invest more in this area. Palo Alto is not
responsible for the environment alone, and the effort needs to be
more widespread to be effective. As a city, Palo Alto needs to focus on
itself first and foremost.
1.c
Packet Pg. 78
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
O
n
l
i
n
e
S
u
r
v
e
y
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
s
(
1
3
9
8
1
:
B
a
l
l
o
t
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
E
n
g
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
,
ATTACHMENT C
Written
Comment
# Suggestions for additional service priorities: I have the following questions:
106
Lucie Stern facilities especially the Theatre needs total do-over. The
toilets are ridiculously too small for a capacity theatre. The pavement is
dangerous to walk on when it is raining There is no inside access to
handicapped readily available without going outside to go down to the
lower door (ripe for being sued). There needs to be brick framework
near the front door built up as I watched an 80 year old stumble but
fortunately agile so able to stop from a serious fall. For a city with the
wealth of PA it is disgracefully maintained. Gorgeous though it may be
from the outside, the inside is tatty and downright rundown. Need
expertise to have a first rate theatre and children's theatre plus the
other rooms.... Do retain its charm but have a contest of architects and
do it now. I will gladly work to achieve this.
Why can't Theatreworks or the Players use the toilets int he Children's
theatre when they are open as well as all the other toilets, whether
there is a wedding or not.
107
Lucie Stern Theatre is in great need of upgrading. One major problem
is the need for additional bathrooms at this Community Center. When
the theatre is in full attendance and there is a wedding or other event
there are only 2 bathrooms for about 400 people to use at a 15 minute
intermission. We need more bathrooms here and in particular we need
to add gender neutral bathrooms so that women have equal access.
108 Improve Lucie Stern theatre.
109
The libraries should be consolidated into two locations, Mitchell Park
and Rinconada. Although controversial, this would free up money to
improve service at the two locations.
Building a new gym should not be given any priority. It was not being
considered until John Arrillaga offered a large donation. Now that his
gift is no longer available, and he won't be managing the project, the
idea should be postponed indefinitely.
110 Repairing, renovating city buildings, parks. Lucie Stern Center should
be made more friendly for its demographic -- over 60.
Why aren't we pushing back more on ABAG for its over the top housing
requirements for our City?
111
Allocate funding through the Capital Improvement Project (CIP) for
Lucie Stern Community Theater facility upgrades
Restore a theatre facilities manager position for the Lucie Stern
Community Theater
Why are you pursuing a city gym facility over upgrading a community
jewel like the Lucie Stern Community Theater?
1.c
Packet Pg. 79
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
O
n
l
i
n
e
S
u
r
v
e
y
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
s
(
1
3
9
8
1
:
B
a
l
l
o
t
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
E
n
g
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
,
ATTACHMENT C
Written
Comment
# Suggestions for additional service priorities: I have the following questions:
112
Lucie Stern theatre is in wretched condition. As a volunteer crew chief
for both Palo Alto Players and West Bay Opera I'm aware of the many
problems we face trying to put on a production. Broken seats,
insufficient lighting and electrical. Also rodent problems and filthy
catwalks for the follow spot operators.
If Palo Alto can fund a bike bridge that serves 100s, can't they fund a
theatre that serves
thousands?
113
I believe that public safety services are the most important. If the city
is not safe, people actually move out instead of moving into Palo Alto.
The reason why Palo Alto is such a desirable place is that it's safe for
families. Thank you so much for all the work that the police have been
doing.
114
The Lucie Stern Community Theater is in need of repair. For example,
the seats don't stay up, which is a hazard for people with less mobility.
There are also problems with the plumbing, heating, and lighting
systems.
Please allocate funding through the Capital Improvement Project (CIP)
for Lucie Stern Community Theater facility upgrades.
In addition, please restore a theatre facilities manager position for the
Lucie Stern Community Theater.
1.c
Packet Pg. 80
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
O
n
l
i
n
e
S
u
r
v
e
y
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
s
(
1
3
9
8
1
:
B
a
l
l
o
t
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
E
n
g
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
,
ATTACHMENT C
Comments from Feedback Mailer
The following comments were submitted in response to the comments section of the mailed version of the survey with a
perforated tear-off postcard to mail back to the City.
Written
Comment # Comment
1 Continue working on Airplane noise solutions
2 Traffic safety: Too many drivers ignore stop signs.
3 1 - Dramatically reduce pollution footprint
4 Just tarmacing street doesn't clear bumps under it. Bad for backs! S.P. Alto, Middlefield
5 The one about "community-owned assets" is very confusing.
6 More street lights in neighborhood
7 Finish putting utility wires underground across all Palo Alto
8 Build trash-to-energy converter @ Baylands
9 My granddaughter is a TEACHER and can't afford to live here most important teacher housing is no
the very unacceptable answer
10 What about sustainability. 0.5) What about green initiatives & sustainability
11 The condition of many roads in Palo Alto is terrible
12 What about code enforcement?
13 The rest are so nebulous, it's impossible to make a intelligent choice
14 We need CITY-FUNDED TREE service!
15 We should allow Castilleja to build & grow
16 Top city priorities should be: police/paramedics (emergency response), utilities (public works)
17 Animal shelter/spaying
18 What does our #6 above really mean?
19 More pickleball courts!
20 Sustainability, climate change plans etc.
21 We live in a safe community, housing is a crisis. Allow more housing!
22 On the supply side by greater public ownership, i.e. public banking, ISP etc.
Comment on services: ALL DEMAND SIDE!!!
23
Fix the police! Fire the violent officers who cause the City to be sued!!! No pensions.
Comments on Services:
Expanding City Services - More mental health services
Adding public safety... - improve training and better screening of the police recruits
24 Foothill Park - take it back!
25 1 - Create more parks & open areas in this crowded city
26 We need to invest in making Palo Alto a more quitable place to live for everyone.
27 I am concerned about the judge who said utilities profits to general fund is a tax!
28 1 - prep for/mitigate/reduce climate change
29 Repair all non-working street intersection cameras
30 Stop leaf blowers (noise pollution
31 Bike friendly improvement and good tree health/canopy
32 Remove overhead utility lines
33 PLEASE SUPPORT THE AIRPORT. THANK YOU.
34
There are far more important city services than fiber-in-the-home!
Comments on Services:
Expanding City Services - How is this different from all that follow?
Investing in comm..., funding homeless..., improving services...., repairing streets - how are these
different?
35 REAPIRA STREETS – POLICE
36 POLICE LEAF BLOWERS!!!! Bring down sound pollution
1.c
Packet Pg. 81
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
O
n
l
i
n
e
S
u
r
v
e
y
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
s
(
1
3
9
8
1
:
B
a
l
l
o
t
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
E
n
g
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
,
D
r
a
f
t
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
L
a
n
g
u
a
g
e
,
R
e
f
i
n
e
d
ATTACHMENT C
Written
Comment # Comment
37 Especially, longer hours @ Children's Library. Whose expansion was supported thru PALF!
38 We are very disappointed w/ these questions. They are so vague. For example what does expanding
services mean? What's the difference between #7 and #4 for roads?
39 Issues like crime + roads - which you ignore for libraries. Who uses a library?
40 Lucie Stern Community Center needs attention please.
41 Investing in community owned assets like community centers - particularly Lucie Stern
42 Why to roads appear twice on the list? Please define basic services versus city services.
43
Add speedbumps, reduce speeding cars.
What does expanding City services mean?
Community owned assets are already great.
City has already great work in affordable housing and homeless service area.
Put up speed limit signs.
Reduce residential and personal safety crimes (for police)
44 No to expanding City services and funding affordable housing and homeless services.
Stop police radio encryption (Number 1 - more transparency)
45 Fix Churchill bike lanes at Alma
46 Install smart meters and help with solar installs
If you want to known "improvement needed?" why "maintain?"
47 The City needs to address excessive noise from airplanes. Fun this! Top priority!
48 More active policing. Less value futurism
49 Expanding project safety net to include mental health services for adults + youth
50 1 - Fiber to the home from City Muni Internet
51 Please preserve Cal Ave as a No-Car area
52
#1 Priority: Traffic safety kids/teen bike safety - much more police vigilance needed.
Comments on services:
Cut down semis + tractor trailers off our streets!!!
Road safety standards have decreased appallingly in 3-5 years
53 1 - Fix the railroad level crossings!
54 NOT "defund" but "redesign" w/ social services
55 Maintain tree + flower beds on corners (like the 70's + 80's)
56 These streets are the worse/El Camino need ASAP atten
57 Resolve/improve traffic problem on El Camino & Embarcadero - Alma, etc.
58 Resume shuttle
59 Emergency vehicles are very noisy on Middlefield. Cut back on sirens - only use when absolutely
necessary. Residences are affected by noise level.
60 I value & appreciate services that are currently provided. Thank you.
61 Please less construction! It obstructs traffic
62 WORK ON OPPOSING THE NEW IDEA OF ALLOWING 4 HOUSES ON A 50x100 Sq.ft.std LOT
63 Comments on Services:
Maintaining basic services - roads
64 Stop the stack & pack housing, you only get so many people. Get homeless off the street rehab
programs
65 Lack of P.A. employees & using contractors has lead to lack of a or terrible service. Are the plans to
hire people instead.
66 Stop racism - no firmament action
67 Cubberley
68 How many existing City positions are currently unfilled?
69 Castilleja? Why?
Palo Alto takes too long to make decisions on everything.
1.c
Packet Pg. 82
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
O
n
l
i
n
e
S
u
r
v
e
y
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
s
(
1
3
9
8
1
:
B
a
l
l
o
t
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
E
n
g
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
,
D
r
a
f
t
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
L
a
n
g
u
a
g
e
,
R
e
f
i
n
e
d
ATTACHMENT C
Written
Comment # Comment
70 Don't add new things, first improve existing services. Reduce costs, simplify.
Programs like Citywide yard sale are excellent.
71 Please maintain service at College Terrace Library.
72 Removing the entrance fee to Foothills Park!
73 Invest in prepaid questionnaire returns
74 Public safety number 1 always; streets and roads number 2
75 Keep libraries open 7 days a week
(down arrow) police support
76 Getting rid of gas powered leaf blowers - priority for climate change, pollution, and public health.
Specifically repair and preservation at Lucy Stern
77 Please please improve the dumping of things in streets/yards, especially El Camino
78 Don't we already have public safety? How about "improve"
Funding - esp homeless services
1.c
Packet Pg. 83
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
O
n
l
i
n
e
S
u
r
v
e
y
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
s
(
1
3
9
8
1
:
B
a
l
l
o
t
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
E
n
g
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
,
D
r
a
f
t
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
L
a
n
g
u
a
g
e
,
R
e
f
i
n
e
d
ATTACHMENT D
March 18, 2022
To: Ed Shikada, City Manager
Fr: Public Dialogue Consortium
Re: Update on Business and Community Stakeholder Focus Groups
On November 15, 2021, the City Council approved a contract with The Lew Edwards
Group for community engagement and ballot measure strategy and preparation services
related to the potential revenue generating November 2022 ballot measures. As part of
this process, the Lew Edwards Group enlisted the services of the Public Dialogue
Consortium to conduct focus groups with members of the business community and
community at-large, and to facilitate a public listening session with the Palo Alto
community.
Focus Groups
Staff compiled a comprehensive list of Palo Alto stakeholders consisting of business
groups, employers, and community groups and organizations, and conducted extensive
outreach utilizing multiple platforms to invite participants to the focus groups. Focus
group invites were sent via e-mail and mail to business and community organizations
throughout Palo Alto, with efforts to be as inclusive as possible. Sample business and
community invites are attached. At first five focus groups were scheduled for the
business community, and two groups were scheduled for community groups and
organizations, but PDC and the City were ultimately able to accommodate all
participants in five focus groups.
The five focus groups were conducted between February 22 and March 17, 2022. Four
of the focus groups involved business community stakeholders, which consisted of 27
participants total. One community stakeholder group was conducted with six
participants. The list of participants in each focus group is attached.
Attendance at the focus groups was underwhelming. Despite the extensive outreach,
invitations, and follow-up reminders, we could have accommodated many more focus
group participants based on the number of groups offered and the way they were
structured. In fact, three focus groups were cancelled and two had to be rescheduled
due to low attendance.
All focus group were conducted to achieve the same three outcomes:
• Educate stakeholders about Palo Alto’s Fiscal Sustainability Strategy for 2022 and
the funding options currently under consideration.
• Elicit feedback on City service priorities that are important to the business
community and community at-large.
1.d
Packet Pg. 84
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
D
:
P
u
b
l
i
c
D
i
a
l
o
g
u
e
C
o
n
s
o
r
t
i
u
m
F
o
c
u
s
G
r
o
u
p
s
P
r
o
g
r
e
s
s
t
o
D
a
t
e
(
1
3
9
8
1
:
B
a
l
l
o
t
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
E
n
g
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
,
D
r
a
f
t
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
ATTACHMENT D
• Elicit feedback on the two ballot measures that the City Council is considering for
voters in November 2022: (1) Measure to affirm Gas Funds Transfer and (2)
Adopt a new Business License Tax.
The focus group format was the same for the business and community at-large
stakeholders. Part one established the context for the focus group, including
introductions, the agenda, and outcomes and purposes. Part two consisted of a staff
presentation on the City’s Fiscal Sustainability Strategy, including revenue trends and
services, and the two ballot measures under consideration. The third part was a
facilitated discussion to elicit participant feedback. The following questions were used to
focus the discussion:
• What clarifying questions about the presentation do you have for staff?
• What City services and priorities are important to you and your organization,
business, or group?
• What do you and your organization, business, or group think about placing these
two measures on the ballot? First, Measure to affirm Gas Funds Transfer? Next,
the business license tax?
• What are your thoughts about how the business license tax should be
structured?
o Should any types of businesses be exempted if this idea is pursued (e.g.,
based on size, or type)?
o What about basing the tax on a square footage percentage?
o Are there are any other factors in how the tax should be structured that you
want to share?
• Under what circumstances, if any, could you support the Measure to affirm Gas
Funds Transfer? Under what circumstances could you support the business
license tax?
• Is there anything else you would like to say about the Fiscal Sustainability
Strategy, City services, or the two potential ballot measures before we close?
Results and Summary Themes
An analysis of the focus group results reveals mixed support for the Business License
Tax. Specifically, opinions fell mostly into two categories. One was “conditional
approval.” Many focus group participants said that they could support the measure as
long as particular elements are included or conditions are met (see the four themes
below). The second category was “no support,” with several group participants saying
that they do not favor placing the measure on the November ballot under any
circumstances.
By comparison, there was majority support to affirm the Gas Funds Transfer, with focus
group participants saying that they favor placing the measure on the ballot, or were
1.d
Packet Pg. 85
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
D
:
P
u
b
l
i
c
D
i
a
l
o
g
u
e
C
o
n
s
o
r
t
i
u
m
F
o
c
u
s
G
r
o
u
p
s
P
r
o
g
r
e
s
s
t
o
D
a
t
e
(
1
3
9
8
1
:
B
a
l
l
o
t
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
E
n
g
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
,
D
r
a
f
t
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
ATTACHMENT D
neutral about the measure due to lack of familiarity with it . There was no direct
opposition to the Gas Funds Transfer.
Looking deeper into the views expressed about the Business License Tax, four dominant
themes emerged from an analysis of the focus group discussions.
1. No cap on the CPI. Concerns were expressed that without a cap on the CPI the tax
would continually increase, as some group participants said, “to millions of dollars
for some companies.” In addition to wanting a cap on the CPI, a related suggestion is
to put a cap on the total amount of the tax that a business would pay.
2. No sunset. The lack of a specified end date for the tax is viewed as problematic,
particularly when coupled with the concern that the tax does not have a CPI cap. The
prospect of the tax continually increasing indefinitely was the most significant
concern expressed by group participants.
3. Not the right time. Another major concern was the timing of the tax. Group
participants noted that many businesses are in recovery mode from COVID, and that
there are commercial vacancies from businesses that did not survive the downturn
from the pandemic. Given the uncertainties surrounding the current economic
climate, the tax is seen as an impediment to business recovery and a disincentive to
attract new businesses to Palo Alto.
4. Need a funding plan. Group participants voiced concerns about how the revenue
from the tax will be allocated, specifically with the revenue going into the General
Fund and spent on services that do not benefit the business community or the
community at-large. The recommendation is to develop a plan that specifies how
the revenue will be spent, which for group participants will ensure transparency and
accountability.
Next steps
Two follow-up engagements will be conducted. One is a public Listening Session to be
held on Tuesday, March 29 at 6:00pm, available to all members of the Palo Alto
community. This session will include the staff presentation on the 2022 Fiscal
Sustainability Strategy and the two ballot measures currently under consideration,
followed by comments and input from the participants.
A second round of focus groups will be conducted with business community
stakeholders in April and May to elicit input on the specific factors that will be used to
structure the Business License Tax. Results from the listening session and second round
of focus groups will be incorporated into the results from the initial five focus groups,
and complied in a summary and presented to the Finance Committee and City Council.
1.d
Packet Pg. 86
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
D
:
P
u
b
l
i
c
D
i
a
l
o
g
u
e
C
o
n
s
o
r
t
i
u
m
F
o
c
u
s
G
r
o
u
p
s
P
r
o
g
r
e
s
s
t
o
D
a
t
e
(
1
3
9
8
1
:
B
a
l
l
o
t
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
E
n
g
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
,
D
r
a
f
t
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
ATTACHMENT D
1.d
Packet Pg. 87
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
D
:
P
u
b
l
i
c
D
i
a
l
o
g
u
e
C
o
n
s
o
r
t
i
u
m
F
o
c
u
s
G
r
o
u
p
s
P
r
o
g
r
e
s
s
t
o
D
a
t
e
(
1
3
9
8
1
:
B
a
l
l
o
t
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
E
n
g
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
,
D
r
a
f
t
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
ATTACHMENT D
1.d
Packet Pg. 88
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
D
:
P
u
b
l
i
c
D
i
a
l
o
g
u
e
C
o
n
s
o
r
t
i
u
m
F
o
c
u
s
G
r
o
u
p
s
P
r
o
g
r
e
s
s
t
o
D
a
t
e
(
1
3
9
8
1
:
B
a
l
l
o
t
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
E
n
g
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
,
D
r
a
f
t
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
ATTACHMENT D
1.d
Packet Pg. 89
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
D
:
P
u
b
l
i
c
D
i
a
l
o
g
u
e
C
o
n
s
o
r
t
i
u
m
F
o
c
u
s
G
r
o
u
p
s
P
r
o
g
r
e
s
s
t
o
D
a
t
e
(
1
3
9
8
1
:
B
a
l
l
o
t
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
E
n
g
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
,
D
r
a
f
t
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
ATTACHMENT D
Palo Alto Focus Group Participants
*list does not include 3/29 listening session
Tuesday, 2-22-22, 12pm (Business)
1 Participant
1. John Shenk, Thoits Brothers
Thursday, 3-3-22 9am (Stanford Research Park and Shopping Center)
19 Participants
1. Yvonne Mills, Morrison & Foerster
2. Angie Pyszczynski, Simon Properties
3. Georgie Gleim, Gleim Jewelers
4. Thomas Lawson, Ford Motor Company
5. Peter Arbour, Ford Motor Company
6. Charlie Weidanz, Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce
7. Kent Leacock, VMware
8. Jennifer Cohen, Tesla
9. Barry Barnes, CleanSweep Campaigns
10. Don Cecil, MC2 Bay Area Public & Government Affairs Consulting
11. Allison Koo, Sand Hill Property Company
12. Pam Decharo, Owner, Hair International
13. John Koselak, Vi Living
14. Jessy Borges, Lockheed Martin
15. Nicholas Karrelas, SAP
16. Shweta Bhatnagar, Stanford University
17. Lucy Wicks, Stanford University
18. Tiffany Griego, Stanford University
19. Michael Bordoni, Stanford University
Tuesday, 3-8-22 12pm (Community)
6 Participants
1. Mary Gloner, Project Safetynet
2. Karla Henriquez, Project Safetynet
3. Rhonda Bekkedahl, Channing House retirement community
4. Kate Blesssing-Kawamura, Eden Housing
5. Matt Bryant, resident & pharmacist
6. Edesa Bitbadal, representative for NAIOP Silicon Valley on public policy matters
Tuesday, 3-15-22 6pm (Business)
4 Participants
1. Dan Kostenbauder - VP for tax policy, Silicon Valley Leadership Group
2. Howard Schneck - tax director at Varian Medical Systems
3. Valerie Sinden - global overview systems at Varian Medical Systems
4. Kris Quigley - representing CA Life Sciences
1.d
Packet Pg. 90
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
D
:
P
u
b
l
i
c
D
i
a
l
o
g
u
e
C
o
n
s
o
r
t
i
u
m
F
o
c
u
s
G
r
o
u
p
s
P
r
o
g
r
e
s
s
t
o
D
a
t
e
(
1
3
9
8
1
:
B
a
l
l
o
t
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
E
n
g
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
,
D
r
a
f
t
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
ATTACHMENT D
Thursday, 3-17-22 12pm (Chamber of Commerce)
5 Participants
1. Elizabeth Santana, Palo Alto Players
2. Karen Law, Palo Alto Players
3. Nancy Coupal - Coupal Cafe
4. Shweta Bhatnagar - Stanford University
5. Charlie Weidanz - Chamber of Commerce
1.d
Packet Pg. 91
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
D
:
P
u
b
l
i
c
D
i
a
l
o
g
u
e
C
o
n
s
o
r
t
i
u
m
F
o
c
u
s
G
r
o
u
p
s
P
r
o
g
r
e
s
s
t
o
D
a
t
e
(
1
3
9
8
1
:
B
a
l
l
o
t
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
E
n
g
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
,
D
r
a
f
t
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
ATTACHMENT E
Gas Utility Transfer to the General Fund
Each fiscal year the City Council may transfer from the gas utility to the general fund an amount
equal to [__% of the gross revenues of the gas utility received during the fiscal year two fiscal
years before the fiscal year of the transfer] or [__% of the gross revenues of the gas utility
received during the fiscal year immediately preceding the fiscal year before the fiscal year of the
transfer]. At its discretion, the City Council may decide to transfer a lesser amount. The
projected cost of the transfer shall be included in the City’s retail gas rates included in the City’s
retail gas rates as a cost of providing services.
Note: The description of the fiscal year used to measure the transfer can be either:
__% of the gross revenues of the gas utility received during the fiscal year two
fiscal years before the fiscal year of the transfer
or
__% of the gross revenues of the gas utility received during the fiscal year
immediately preceding the fiscal year before the fiscal year of the transfer
1.e
Packet Pg. 92
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
E
:
D
r
a
f
t
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
f
o
r
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
t
o
A
f
f
i
r
m
G
a
s
F
u
n
d
T
r
a
n
s
f
e
r
(
1
3
9
8
1
:
B
a
l
l
o
t
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
E
n
g
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
,
D
r
a
f
t
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
ATTACHMENT F
Attachment F - 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
timeline of the CMRs and discussions with the Finance Committee and the City Council 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.
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
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.f
Packet Pg. 93
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
F
:
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
9
8
1
:
B
a
l
l
o
t
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
E
n
g
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
,
ATTACHMENT F
Attachment F - 2
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
1/18/2022 Finance Committee, “Discuss Poll Results Regarding Potential 2022 Revenue
Generating Ballot Measures and Recommend Further Refinement of Business License Tax and
Utility Tax Proposals”, CMR 13875
1/24/2022 City Council, “Discuss Polling Results, Analysis, and Community Stakeholder
Engagement Plan; Recommend Further Refined Parameters for a Possible Local Tax Ballot
Measure for November 2022 Election (Business License Tax and Utility Tax Proposals); and
Direct Staff on Related Items such as Community and Stakeholder Engagement Plan,” CMR
13770, p. 385 and CMR 13963, p. 462
1.f
Packet Pg. 94
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
F
:
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
9
8
1
:
B
a
l
l
o
t
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
E
n
g
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
,