HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019-10-01 Finance Committee Agenda PacketFinance Committee
1
MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA
PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE.
DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS.
Tuesday, October 1, 2019
Special Meeting
Community Meeting Room
5:30 PM
Agenda posted according to PAMC Section 2.04.070. Supporting materials are available in
the Council Chambers on the Thursday 12 days preceding the meeting.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Members of the public may speak to agendized items. If you wish to address the Committee on any issue that is on this agenda, please complete a speaker request card located on the table at the entrance to the Council
Chambers/Community Meeting Room, and deliver it to the Clerk prior to discussion of the item. You are not
required to give your name on the speaker card in order to speak to the Committee, but it is very helpful. Public
comment may be addressed to the full Finance Committee via email at City.Council@cityofpaloalto.org.
Call to Order
Oral Communications
Members of the public may speak to any item NOT on the agenda.
Action Items
1.Approve Revised Workplan to Address the City Council Direction for
Further Consideration of a Ballot Measure
Future Meetings and Agendas
Adjournment
AMERICANS WITH DISABILITY ACT (ADA) Persons with disabilities who require auxiliary aids or services in using City facilities, services or programs or who would like information on the City’s compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, may
contact (650) 329-2550 (Voice) 24 hours in advance.
MEMO
City of Palo Alto (ID # 10712)
Finance Committee Staff Report
Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 10/1/2019
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Council Priority: Fiscal Sustainability
Summary Title: Revised Workplan for Consideration of a Ballot Measure
Title: Approve Revised Workplan to Address the City Council Direction for
Further Consideration of a Ballot Measure
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Administrative Services
Recommendation
Staff recommends the Finance Committee review and direct staff to continue to work on ballot
measure work within the refined workplan recommended in this report.
Background
The Finance Committee and City Council have been reviewing and refining potential ballot
measure options since June 2019 as part of the 2019 Council Priority Fiscal Sustainability.
Relevant reports and presentations are linked below.
2019 Fiscal Sustainability Workplan, 4/22/19:
- www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/70506
City Council Approve Workplan for a Potential Revenue Generating Ballot Measure,
4/22/19:
- www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/70507
Finance Committee Review, Comment, and Accept Preliminary Revenue Estimates for
Consideration of a Ballot Measure, 6/18/19:
- www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/72101
Finance Committee Evaluation and Discussion of Potential Revenue Generating Ballot
Measures, 8/20/19:
- www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/73071
City Council Evaluation and Discussion of Potential Revenue Generating Ballot Measures
City of Palo Alto Page 2
and Budget Amendment, 9/16/19:
- www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/73287
During this process, the Finance Committee serves as the working body to assist in the review
of a potential revenue ballot measure for the November 2020 election, reviewing staff and
consultant work, and stakeholder feedback. The Finance Committee will make its
recommendations for consideration and action by the full seven-member City Council.
Most recently, on September 16, 2019, the City Council provided the following direction to staff
(summarized):
Continue work exploring a potential ballot measure with the following focuses:
a) Consider the following measure types as either a general tax or a special tax measure:
- general business tax measure focused on head count, payroll, or square footage as the
units of measure
- parcel tax measure focused on square footage as the unit of measure;
b) Continue further refined analysis on potential exemptions and tiered tax rate structures
with the following guidance:
- maintaining estimated revenue generation between 1 and 10 percent of General Fund
revenues,
- focus on implications regarding retail, restaurants, hospitality, and medical industries,
and keeping potential tax structures simple and modern minimizing exemptions;
c) Discuss next steps including continued stakeholder engagement with multiple business
types;
d) Direct Staff to compile an information sheet on San Francisco’s and East Palo Alto’s various
business taxes;
e) Develop a round of polling to test the type of taxation, levels of taxation, a phase in period
and tiering based on type of business:
- Test payroll, headcount, and square footage taxes;
f) Potential revenue proceeds allocations to transportation and/or affordable housing shall be
determined at a later date and informed by polling; and
g) Consider a parcel tax or General Obligation (GO) Bond for unfunded infrastructure projects
at a later date.
Discussion
As outlined above, the City Council provided additional direction to staff to focus future staff
work related to a potential ballot. Staff has reviewed Council’s direction and has revised
workplan for approval.
Through September, the Finance Committee, City Council, and staff have accomplished the
tasks set out as part of the original workplan. The table below outlines the revised key decision
points for City Council and Finance Committee and notes anticipated staff work to be
completed for context over the coming months. The workplan continues to anticipate an
iterative approach for the Finance Committee and City Council providing information at a
City of Palo Alto Page 3
steady pace and allows for continued review and refining of proposals. This plan reflects and
ideal timeline which has many risks that may delay it further, details are outlined in more detail
below.
Schedule Task
October
2019
Finance Committee provides direction on further work and next steps (items c,
e, f)
- Informed by the revised direction received by the full City Council on
September 16, 2019
- Complete an initial poll and onboard necessary resource for outreach.
Staff work
- Obtain additional, complete, and more detailed data to incorporate
into modeling potential measures per City Council direction.
- Develop information sheet on San Francisco and East Palo Alto taxes
assessed on businesses.
- Engage with polling and outreach consultants to develop and
implement polling and outreach strategy.
November
2019
Finance Committee discuss and provide guidance to the City Council on
potential revenue generating ballot measure(s) to pursue (items a, b, d)
- Review more refined analysis on narrowed options including scenarios
for rates, exemptions, and tiers
Staff work
- Continue stakeholder outreach and polling.
December
2019
City Council: discuss findings from initial polling and stakeholder outreach and
confirmation on potential ballot measure to pursue (items a – f)
January
2020-May
2020
Staff work
- Continue stakeholder outreach and an additional round of polling as
directed,
- Draft required legal and administrative documents.
City Council and Finance Committee will be provided updates as necessary for
status check-ins, feedback, and policy decisions.
June 2020 City Council approves November 2020 ballot measure and specific measure
language - Should the City Council choose to pursue a ballot measure(s), final
approval including the ballot measure language needs to be submitted to the
Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters in early August 2020.
City of Palo Alto Page 4
Both polling and stakeholder outreach are informally outlined in the monthly timeline above.
The frequency and appropriate stakeholders are highly dependent on the types of proposals
pursued. In order to meet these timelines, it is expected that reliance on staff and consultant
expertise on strategies be used. Specifically, polling was completed in 2016 and 2018. In 2016,
the polling was focused on a transportation tax measure and the questions and results can be
found here: www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/53000. In 2018, an initial
round of polling, similar to what is proposed in the timeline above was completed first, and it
informed a more detailed second round of polling that was completed at a later date. The
questions and results of the 2018 initial polling can be found here:
www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/53000.
A multi stepped and informal stakeholder engagement process for a business tax measure
would be recommended as both outreach about instituting a business tax would be necessary
for education and awareness but also for consultation regarding the design and structure.
Candid direct feedback through an iterative process will assist in the development of a viable
measure that is administratively feasible.
Potential Risks to Proposed Workplan
This workplan assumes staff, consultant, and critical data availability immediately. As discussed
previously, staff is working to obtain more detailed and authoritative data sources to further
refine scenario modeling and although in process, essential data is still being gathered.
Incorporating polling and outreach efforts assume expeditious procurement processes as well
as immediate availability of consultant assistance. Throughout the overall process, restarting
the data gathering or seeking other/additional data sources to compare, or remodeling or
refining models that have already been completed will potentially further delay the workplan
outlined and ultimately the June 2020 target to approve the ballot measure and specific
measure language for the November 2020 ballot.
Resource Impact
Staff recommends continuing working with consultants for analysis of potential tax structure
scenario modeling as well as consultant(s) for polling and outreach. In September the Council
approved funding of $75,000 for the analysis work that has been completed to date as well as
that work that was recently requested. Staff expects consulting services of an additional
$175,000 for polling and outreach services. No funding for this additional consultant assistance
is currently budgeted, therefore, it is anticipated that staff will bring forward both funding
requests and the contracts for approval including requests for exemptions from solicitation in
order to meet the above timeline.
The City has most recently completed work associated with revenue ballot measures in 2018
for Measure E (increase in Transient Occupancy Tax rate) as well as 2016 for a potential
business tax measure. Staff will work to leverage this prior work to the extent possible
including consultant knowhow to ease the onboard and accomplish the proposed timing.
City of Palo Alto Page 5
Policy Implications
This recommendation aligns with existing City policy and City Council direction as part of the
2019 Fiscal Sustainability Workplan.
Environmental Review
This report is not a project for the purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Environmental review is not required.
.
Attachments:
• Attachment A: 09-16-2019 City Council DRAFT Action Minutes
• Attachment B: Abbreviated Election Calendar - November 2020
CITY OF PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL
DRAFT ACTION MINUTES
Page 1 of 6
Special Meeting
September 16, 2019
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council
Chambers at 5:05 P.M.
Present: Cormack, DuBois, Filseth, Fine; Kniss arrived at 5:13 P.M., Kou;
Tanaka participating remotely arrived at 5:13 P.M.
Absent:
Study Session
1.Study Session With the City's Federal Lobbyist Related to Federal
Legislation.
NO ACTION TAKEN
Closed Session
2.CONFERENCE WITH CITY ATTORNEY-EXISTING LITIGATION
Santa Clara County Superior Court Case No. 18CV328469
(One Case, as Defendant)–Jay Greer v. City of Palo Alto
Authority: Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1).
MOTION: Council Member Cormack moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Fine
to go into Closed Session.
MOTION PASSED: 7-0
Council went into Closed Session at 5:59 P.M.
Council returned from Closed Session at 6:25 P.M.
Mayor Filseth announced no reportable action.
Consent Calendar
Council Member Kou registered no votes on Agenda Item Numbers 4 and 6.
MOTION: Council Member Cormack moved, seconded by Mayor Filseth to
approve Agenda Item Numbers 3-6.
ATTACHMENT A
DRAFT ACTION MINUTES
Page 2 of 6
City Council Meeting
Draft Action Minutes: 09/16/2019
3. Approval of Contract Number C20174826 With Monterey Mechanical
Co. in an Amount Not-to-Exceed $450,000 to Provide On-call
Emergency and Critical Construction Services at the Regional Water
Quality Control Plant, Wastewater Treatment Fund Capital
Improvement Program Project WQ-19002.
4. Approval of a Funding Agreement With the Santa Clara Valley
Transportation Authority (VTA) for 2016 Measure B Local Streets and
Roads Program Funding.
5. Approval of Contract Number S19175846 With WRA, Inc. in an Amount
Not-to-Exceed $93,237 to Conduct a Matadero Creek Study for the
North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan (NVCAP).
6. Vote to Endorse the Slate of Candidates for the Peninsula Division’s
Executive Committee for 2018-19 and Direct the City Clerk to Forward
to Seth Miller, the Regional Public Affairs Manager for the Peninsula
Division, League of California Cities the Completed Ballot for the City
of Palo Alto.
MOTION PASSED FOR AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 3, 5: 7-0
MOTION PASSED FOR AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 4: 6-1 Kou no
MOTION PASSED FOR AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 6: 6-1 Kou no
MOTION: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Council Member
Cormack to move Agenda Item Number 10 forward to be heard at this time.
MOTION PASSED: 7-0
10. Designation of Voting Delegate and Alternate for the League of
California Cities Annual 2019 Conference, to be Held October 16-18,
2019 in Long Beach, CA.
MOTION: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Fine to
appoint Lydia Kou as a Voting Delegate and Council Member Kniss as an
alternate for the League of California Cities Annual 2019 Conference.
MOTION PASSED: 7-0
Action Items
7. Staff and Utilities Advisory Commission Recommends That the City
Council Adopt a Resolution 9858 Entitled, “Resolution of the Council of
DRAFT ACTION MINUTES
Page 3 of 6
City Council Meeting
Draft Action Minutes: 09/16/2019
the City of Palo Alto Amending Rule and Regulation 20 to Allow
Neighborhood Self-funding of Certain Subsurface Equipment.”
MOTION: Vice Mayor Fine moved, seconded by Mayor Filseth to adopt a
Resolution amending Utility Rule and Regulation 20 to allow Neighborhoods
to Self-Fund Certain Subsurface Projects.
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE
MAKER AND SECONDER to direct Staff to return to Council with an
overview of the City’s underground utilities policy related to cables and
transformers.
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE
MAKER AND SECONDER to direct Staff to include in the Rules and
Regulations efforts to camouflage cables and transformers.
SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Council Member Kou moved, seconded by Council
Member XX to postpone adoption of the Resolution and direct Staff to return
to Council after communicating the new policy to residents.
SUBSTITUTE MOTION FAILED DUE TO THE LACK OF A SECOND
MOTION AS AMENDED: Vice Mayor Fine moved, seconded by Mayor Filseth
to:
A. Adopt a Resolution amending Utility Rule and Regulation 20 to allow
Neighborhoods to Self-Fund Certain Subsurface Projects;
B. Direct Staff to return to Council with an overview of the City’s
underground utilities policy related to cables and transformers; and
C. Direct Staff to include in the Rules and Regulations efforts to
camouflage cables and transformers.
MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED: 6-1 Kou no
Council took a break at 8:51 P.M. and returned at 9:05 P.M.
8. Evaluation and Discussion of Potential Revenue Generating Ballot
Measures and Confirmation of Finance Committee Recommended
Parameters for Tax Structure and Further Analysis; and Approval of a
Budget Amendment in the General Fund.
MOTION: Mayor Filseth moved, seconded by Council Member Kniss to
continue Agenda Item Number 9, “Caltrain Business Plan - Direction to Staff
Regarding…” to September 23, 2019.
DRAFT ACTION MINUTES
Page 4 of 6
City Council Meeting
Draft Action Minutes: 09/16/2019
MOTION PASSED: 7-0
MOTION: Council Member DuBois moved, seconded by Council Member
Kou to:
A. Direct Staff to continue work regarding a potential revenue generating
ballot measure with the following parameters:
a. Consider a general business tax measure focused on head count
or square footage as the units of measure;
b. Consider a parcel tax measure focused on square footage as the
unit of measure;
c. Potential revenue proceeds allocations to transportation and/or
affordable housing shall be determined at a later date and
informed by polling;
d. Continue further refined analysis on potential exemptions and
tiered tax rate structures with the following guidance:
maintaining estimated revenue generation between 1 and 6
percent of General Fund revenues, focus on implications
regarding retail, restaurants, hospitality, and medical industries,
and keeping potential tax structures simple and modern
minimizing exemptions;
e. Continue to review any potential ballot measures as either a
general tax (with nonbinding advisory language on intended use
of funds) or a special tax measure;
f. Consider a parcel tax or General Obligation (GO) Bond for
unfunded infrastructure projects at a later date;
g. Discuss next steps including continued stakeholder engagement
and potential polling;
h. Do additional analysis and research, benchmarking against San
Francisco and East Palo Alto using an average tax revenue per
working metric; and
i. Develop a round of polling to test the type of taxation, levels of
taxation, a phase in period and tiering based on type of
business;
a) Test payroll, headcount, and square footage taxes; and
DRAFT ACTION MINUTES
Page 5 of 6
City Council Meeting
Draft Action Minutes: 09/16/2019
b) Remove range of 1 - 6 % and test a broader range up to
50% of SF average tax per employee
B. Amend the Fiscal Year 2020 Budget Appropriation Ordinance for the
General Fund by:
a. Increasing the Administrative Services Department appropriation
for contractual services in the amount of $75,000; and
b. Decreasing the Budget Stabilization Reserve in the amount of
$75,000.
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE
MAKER AND SECONDER to amend Part A. h. to state “…including
benchmarking against San Francisco and East Palo Alto’s average tax
revenue per worker metric…”
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE
MAKER AND SECONDER to amend Part A. g. to state “Discuss next steps
including continued stakeholder engagement with multiple business types.”
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE
MAKER AND SECONDER to remove Part A. i. b).
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE
MAKER AND SECONDER to amend Part A. d. to state “…estimated revenue
generation between 1 and 10 percent…”
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE
MAKER AND SECONDER to amend Part A. h. to state “Direct Staff to get
an information sheet on San Francisco and East Palo Alto’s various business
taxes.”
MOTION AS AMENDED RESTATED: Council Member DuBois moved,
seconded by Council Member Kou to:
A. Direct Staff to continue work regarding a potential revenue generating
ballot measure with the following parameters:
a. Consider a general business tax measure focused on head count
or square footage as the units of measure;
b. Consider a parcel tax measure focused on square footage as the
unit of measure;
DRAFT ACTION MINUTES
Page 6 of 6
City Council Meeting
Draft Action Minutes: 09/16/2019
c. Potential revenue proceeds allocations to transportation and/or
affordable housing shall be determined at a later date and
informed by polling;
d. Continue further refined analysis on potential exemptions and
tiered tax rate structures with the following guidance:
maintaining estimated revenue generation between 1 and 10
percent of General Fund revenues, focus on implications
regarding retail, restaurants, hospitality, and medical industries,
and keeping potential tax structures simple and modern
minimizing exemptions;
e. Continue to review any potential ballot measures as either a
general tax (with nonbinding advisory language on intended use
of funds) or a special tax measure;
f. Consider a parcel tax or General Obligation (GO) Bond for
unfunded infrastructure projects at a later date;
g. Discuss next steps including continued stakeholder engagement
with multiple business types;
h. Direct Staff to get an information sheet on San Francisco and
East Palo Alto’s various business taxes; and
i. Develop a round of polling to test the type of taxation, levels of
taxation, a phase in period and tiering based on type of
business;
a) Test payroll, headcount, and square footage taxes
B. Amend the Fiscal Year 2020 Budget Appropriation Ordinance for the
General Fund by:
a. Increasing the Administrative Services Department appropriation
for contractual services in the amount of $75,000; and
b. Decreasing the Budget Stabilization Reserve in the amount of
$75,000.
MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED: 6-1 Tanaka no
9. Caltrain Business Plan - Direction to Staff Regarding Comments on the
Draft Long Range Service Vision.
Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 11:49 P.M.
Abbreviated Presidential General Election Calendar
November 3, 2020
Santa Clara County
Revised 06/11/19
DATES ACTIVITIES / DOCUMENTS
July 1, 2020
(E – 125)
DUE DATE FOR RESOLUTIONS FOR GOVERNING BOARD ELECTIONS
Deadline for jurisdictions to submit resolutions for a governing board election.
July 13, 2020
(E – 113)
NOMINATION PERIOD OPENS
First day candidates may pick up nomination documents either at the district office or at the Office of the Registrar of Voters.
August 5, 2020 –
November 3, 2020
(E – 90 to E)
CONTRIBUTION/INDEPENDENT EXPENDITURES
Sums of $1000 or more to/from a single source must be reported within 24 hours. The Independent Expenditure report is required only for committees (not candidate
controlled) that make independent expenditures totaling $1,000 or more to support or oppose a single candidate or a single ballot measure.
August 7, 2020
(E – 88)
NOMINATION PERIOD CLOSES*
Deadline to file (in the Office of the Registrar of Voters only) all required nomination documents.
DUE DATE FOR MEASURE RESOLUTIONS AND TAX RATE STATEMENTS*
Last day for jurisdictions to file a resolution calling for a measure election, and if
applicable, tax rate statements.
August 8, 2020 –
August 12, 2020
(E – 87 to E – 83)
EXTENSION PERIOD*
If an incumbent fails to file a Declaration of Candidacy by August 7, 2020 for his or her office, there will be a five calendar-day extension during which any candidate, other than the incumbent, may file or withdraw from said office.
August 11, 2020
(E – 84)
DUE DATE FOR ARGUMENTS*
Deadline set by the Registrar of Voters for submitting arguments in favor of and
against a measure.
August 13, 2020
(E – 82)
RANDOMIZED ALPHABET DRAWING
This day the Secretary of State and the local elections official will conduct a drawing of letters of the alphabet to determine the order in which candidates appear on the ballot.
August 18, 2020
(E – 77)
DUE DATE FOR REBUTTALS AND IMPARTIAL ANALYSES*
Deadline set by the Registrar of Voters for submitting rebuttals to arguments in
favor of and against and the impartial analysis.
ATTACHMENT B
Abbreviated Presidential General Election Calendar
November 3, 2020
Santa Clara County
Revised 06/11/19
DATES ACTIVITIES / DOCUMENTS
September 7, 2020 –
October 20, 2020
(E – 57 to E – 14)
WRITE-IN CANDIDACY OPENS AND CLOSES
Time frame for write-in candidates to obtain and file nomination documents in the Office of the Registrar of Voters.
September 24, 2020
(E – 40)
F.P.P.C. 1st PRE-ELECTION STATEMENT DUE
Deadline for financial disclosure report Form 460 covering the period of 7/1/20** to 9/19/20.
October 5, 2020
(E – 29)
FIRST DAY FOR MAILING OF VOTE BY MAIL BALLOTS
First day of mailing of Vote by Mail ballots.
October 19, 2020
(E – 15)
LAST DAY TO REGISTER TO VOTE FOR NOVEMBER ELECTION
Deadline to register to be eligible to vote in the November 3, 2020 election.
October 22, 2020
(E – 12)
F.P.P.C. 2nd PRE-ELECTION STATEMENT DUE
Deadline for financial disclosure report Form 460 covering the period of 9/20/20** to 10/17/20.
October 27, 2020
(E – 7)
LAST DAY TO REQUEST VOTE BY MAIL BALLOT BY MAIL
Deadline to submit a request for a Vote by Mail ballot to be mailed to voter.
NOVEMBER 3, 2020
(E)
ELECTION DAY
Voter Centers are open from 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.
December 3, 2020
(E + 30)
OFFICIAL CANVASS OF VOTE
Registrar of Voters to certify election results by December 3, 2020.
This calendar may not contain all of a candidate’s or district’s filing requirements. The Office of the
Registrar of Voters is not open for filings on Saturday, Sunday or holidays.
* Refer to California Elections Code §§9190, 9295 and 13313 for details of public examination periods and writ of mandate.
** The period covered by any statement begins on the day after the closing date of the last statement
filed, OR January 1st, if no previous statement has been filed.
FINANCE COMMITTEE MEETING #1
_10/1/2019__
[X] Placed Before Meeting
[ ] Received at Meeting
City of Palo Alto
M E M O R A N D U M
TO:Finance Committee
DATE: October 1, 2019
SUBJECT: Approve Revised Workplan to Address the City Council Direction for Further
Consideration of a Ballot Measure – Polling Results from 2016 and 2018 (CMR ID
# 10712)
The above referenced staff report outlines a revised workplan for a potential revenue
generating ballot measure. The revised workplan includes directing staff to engage with polling
and outreach consultants to develop and implement a polling and outreach strategy. The work
plan assumes that polling and outreach will begin later this month and continue through Spring
2020 as needed.
The staff report references the most recently completed polling executed in 2016 and 2018.
Attached to this report are excerpts from the staff reports that previously transmitted the
results of these polls. The 2016 poll focused on a transportation tax measure while the 2018
initial round of polling focused on voter views on infrastructure funding. Below are the links to
the full reports for the most recent three polls completed by the city and attached are the
specific results from the first two:
2016 Polling CMR #7118: Funding Transportation Improvements – Key Findings from a Citywide
Voter Survey April 1420, 2016
www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/53000
2018 Polling (initial) CMR #9107: Palo Alto Voter Views on Infrastructure Funding – Key Findings
of a Survey of Palo Alto Voters Conducted March 23April 2, 2018
www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/64561
2018 Polling (refined polling) CMR #9322: Palo Alto Voter of Potential Ballot Measures – Key
Findings of a Survey of Palo Alto Voters Conducted May 1223, 2018
www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/65319
1
Key Findings from a Citywide Voter Survey
Conducted April 14-20, 2016
1
3
2
3Q8. Split Sample
I'd like to read you some problems facing the City of Palo Alto that other people have mentioned.
Please tell me whether you think it is an extremely serious problem, a very serious problem,
somewhat serious problem, or a not too serious problem in Palo Alto.
4
4
Q8. I'd like to read you some problems facing the City of Palo Alto that other people have mentioned. Please tell me whether youthink it is an extremely serious problem, a very serious problem, somewhat serious problem, or a not too serious problem in PaloAlto. Split Sample
5Q1.
How would you rate the overall job being done by Palo Alto
city government in providing services to the City’s residents?
5
6Q2.
I am going to read you a list of specific aspects of the City of Palo Alto’s
work in managing City government. Please tell me whether you generally
approve or disapprove of the job the City is doing in that area.
7
Q2. I am going to read you a list of specific aspects of the City of Palo Alto’s work in managing City government. Please tell mewhether you generally approve or disapprove of the job the City is doing in that area.
6
8Q3.
How would you rate the City of Palo Alto’s
need for additional funding?
9
7
10Q4. Do you think you would vote “yes” in favor of this measure or “no” to oppose it?
11Q5. Do you think you would vote yes or no on such a measure?
8
12Q6. In that case, do you think you would vote yes or no on such a measure?
13
Mechanism Vote by Party and Ethnicity
Q6. In that case, do you think you would vote yes or no on such a measure?
9
14
Mechanism Vote by Gender and Age
Q6. In that case, do you think you would vote yes or no on such a measure?
15
Mechanism Vote by Household Income
Q6. In that case, do you think you would vote yes or no on such a measure?
10
16
Mechanism Vote by City’s Perceived Need for Funding
Q6. In that case, do you think you would vote yes or no on such a measure?
17
11
18Q5/Q6/Q11/Q12. In that case, do you think you would vote yes or no on such a measure?
19
disproportionatelydisproportionately
12
20
42% of the Electorate 42% of the Electorate 16% of the Electorate
21
Q10. Here are some statements we have heard from various people who support the potential transportation measure we have been discussing. Please tell me whether you find it very convincing, somewhat convincing, or not convincing as a reason to voteyes on the measure.
13
22
Q10. Here are some statements we have heard from various people who support the potential transportation measure we have been discussing. Please tell me whether you find it very convincing, somewhat convincing, or not convincing as a reason to voteyes on the measure.
(Very/Somewhat Convincing)
23
Q12. Do you think you would vote yes or no on the potential measure that would have medium and large Palo Alto businesses playa flat annual tax for each employee they have in the City, to fund transportation and parking improvements?
14
24
Q11/Q12. Do you think you would vote yes or no on the potential measure that would have medium and large Palo Alto businessesplay a flat annual tax for each employee they have in the City, to fund transportation and parking improvements?
25
15
26
Q7 a/b/f/g. I am going to read you a list of some specific elements that could be included in such a potential measure. Please tellme whether including that provision would make you more likely or less likely to vote for the measure.
27
Q7 a/b/f/g. I am going to read you a list of some specific elements that could be included in such a potential measure. Please tellme whether including that provision would make you more likely or less likely to vote for the measure.
(Total More Likely)
16
28
Q7 c/d/e. I am going to read you a list of some specific elements that could be included in such a potential measure. Please tell me whether including that provision would make you more likely or less likely to vote for the measure.
29
Q7 c/d/e. I am going to read you a list of some specific elements that could be included in such a potential measure. Please tell me whether including that provision would make you more likely or less likely to vote for the measure.
(Total More Likely)
17
30
Q9. I am going to read you a list of ways in which funds generated by this measure could be spent. Please tell me how importanteach item is to you personally: extremely important, very important, somewhat important, or not too important.
31
Q9. I am going to read you a list of ways in which funds generated by this measure could be spent. Please tell me how importanteach item is to you personally: extremely important, very important, somewhat important, or not too important.
18
32
33
19
34
1999 Harrison St., Suite 2020
Oakland, CA 94612
Phone (510) 451-9521
Fax (510) 451-0384
20
Survey Conducted
June 11-14, 2016
1
21
2Q1.
Would you say that things in Palo Alto are generally headed in the right direction,
or do you feel that things are pretty seriously off on the wrong track?
3
22
4Q3. If the election were held today, do you think you would vote “yes” in favor of this measure, or “no” to oppose it?
5Q5. Having heard more about it, do you think you would vote yes or no on such a measure?
23
6Q5. Having heard more about it, do you think you would vote yes or no on such a measure?
Having heard more about it, do you think you would
vote yes or no on such a measure?
7
Which of the following statements comes closer to your opinion:
Q7.
24
8
9Q3, Q9 & Q11. If the election were held today, do you think you would vote “yes” in favor of this measure, or “no” to oppose it?
25
10
Q8. Here are some statements we have heard from various people who support the potential transportation measure we have been discussing. Please tell me whether you find it very convincing, somewhat convincing, or not convincing as a reason to vote yesonthe measure. *Split Sample, **Split Sample B
11
Q8. Here are some statements we have heard from various people who support the potential transportation measure we have been discussing. Please tell me whether you find it very convincing, somewhat convincing, or not convincing as a reason to vote yesonthe measure. *Split Sample
26
12
Q8. Here are some statements we have heard from various people who support the potential transportation measure we have been discussing. Please tell me whether you find it very convincing, somewhat convincing, or not convincing as a reason to vote yes onthe measure. *Split Sample, **Split Sample B
13
Q10. Here are some statements we have heard from various people who oppose the potential transportation measure we have been discussing. Please tell me whether you find it very convincing, somewhat convincing, or not convincing as a reason to vote no onthe measure.
27
14
Q10. Here are some statements we have heard from various people who oppose the potential transportation measure we havebeen discussing. Please tell me whether you find it very convincing, somewhat convincing, or not convincing as a reason to votenoon the measure.
15
28
16
Q13. Some people say that a per-employee tax on businesses isn’t the right way to fund traffic and parking improvements. Next Iwill read some alternative funding sources that could be used to address traffic and parking problems in Palo Alto. Please tellmewhether you would you vote yes to support it, or no to oppose it.
17Q5.
Likely 2018 Voters, n=282
29
18
19Q2.
30
20Q2 & Q12.
21
31
22
1999 Harrison St., Suite 2020
Oakland, CA 94612
Phone (510) 451-9521
Fax (510) 451-0384
32
Small Business Survey Response Summary
(10 Employees or Fewer)
The Palo Alto City Council is considering a traffic congestion relief tax on businesses to fund
local transportation and parking improvements. The proposal currently under discussion would
exempt businesses and nonprofits with ten employees or fewer and provide a discounted rate
for businesses with 50 or fewer employees. Please answer the following questions in order to
help inform upcoming decisions by the Palo Alto City Council regarding a potential ballot
measure to provide local funding for traffic congestion relief, parking and transportation
improvements.
Will addressing traffic and parking problems help Palo Alto business attract and
retain employees and customers?
Yes: 76 (82.6%)
No: 16 (17.4%)
Other Response:
It's a start
Making it harder to park downtown (like you're already doing now) is making it very
hard for small business to attract and retain employees.
Only if problems are in fact alleviated. Merely addressing problems is nothing more than
a preliminary step.
Only if existing congested conditions and lack of parking can be improved and if new
development completely mitigates any parking requirement.
Make developers supply parking.
I wasn't aware there was parking issues in my area
Is it fair for businesses to contribute funding for local transportation
solutions by paying a business tax similar to those paid by businesses in
neighboring cities?
Yes: 50 (58.1%)
No: 36 (41.9%)
Other Responses:
I am not familiar with taxes in other cities so I can't answer the question.
Small businesses are already paying enough taxes. Don't penalize us for providing jobs
or small mom and pop stores will not want to do business in Palo Alto. You should be
encouraging businesses like this, not punishing them.
It depends on what the "transportation solutions" are and on who else will be
"contributing." Also depends on whether businesses in neighboring cities "contribute"
funding for similar "transportation solutions" in those cities. To the extent that local
residents and nonprofits benefit, they should "contribute" as well and should not get a
free ride on the backs of local forprofit businesses.
No you will only waste any tax
33
It depends on where they are located. It seems that those most impacted (i.e.
downtown) that will benefit should contribute. Our business is by the airport with
plenty of parking and little traffic in the immediate area. Also I don't think the same
issue apply to business e.g. on Fabian Way in Palo Alto.
Don't you already receive taxes and revenues from the businesses here?
I don't know if the taxes in neighboring cities are fair. The question seems like an
attempt to shift responsibility. I would not vote for it without some credible, nonBS
justification other than "other cities do it".
I don't have enough information
Business should pay the ENTIRE amountthey're the only ones benefitting from
destroying Palo Alto's charm.
Perhaps for bigger business, but not for a part time small business like myself.
Depends on the tax
Make developers supply a fair share of parking
Is a tax based on the number of employees a fair way to ensure the cost scales
with the number of employees from a business utilizing roads, transit and
parking in Palo Alto?
Yes: 61 (71.8%)
No: 24 (28.2%)
Other Responses:
Employees & Business Sales
Might want to take sales, Profit or wage levels of employees into account
Tax should be a sales tax since all will benefit
Employees who take transit, walk, or ride bikes use a lot less resources. There should be
a tax credit for businesses where a large portion of employees do these things instead
of driving.
No, because that discourages businesses from providing more jobs to more people.
Tax should based on how much a business gross per year.
This seems unfair to businesses having night shifts, parttime employees and
telecommuters. A more accurate measure might be the number of employees who
arrive at a business location between, say, 8:00 top 10:00 am and leave between, say,
4:00 to 6:30 pm. As well, it seems unfair to count parttime employees the same as
fulltime, especially in the case of parttime employees working less than all of the five
business days in a week.
It's reasonable, although a business with a warehouse might have few employees but
take up a lot of space and have a lot of trucks coming and going. Another method might
be based on square footage occupied/leased.
No because it does nothing to reduce the existing congestion.
The number of employees, by itself, seems like a crude measure of the parking/traffic. A
training company, for example, may have just a few employees, but hold classes with
he employees. Consulting
34
companies, on the other hand, may generate almost no traffic. A law firm may have very
little traffic from clients. I have a sole proprietorship. Most of my work is paperwork
done from my home office. I average about 15 hours per week in the office and about 4
2hour meetings with 2 clients for a total of about 30 parkinghours per week.
I don't have enough information
Doing a tax will discourage business formation
Less # of Emp. In transit Progs
Number of employees is good, but any fee should have reductions for employees that
telecommute, are parttimers or drive into the city at noncongestion times/days. You
should also consider in the costing the extent to which the business offers and
employees use carpooling benefits and mass transit coupons.
You gave developers defferent. Change your policy. Make developers pay the full tax
Does knowing that small businesses would be exempt from the cost make you
more favorable to this proposal?
Yes: 78 (81.3%)
No: 18 (18.8%)
Other Response:
It doesn't look like small businesses are exempt. We are a very small business but
because our employees are part time there will be more than 10 employees (but some
might only be working 10 hours per week!)
ployees, then probably not. If the
purpose of exempting or reducing the burden on small businesses is to allow them to
survive or to encourage startups, then profit and time in business should also be taken
into account.
The tax should be placed on city of PA utilities, so everyone pays something
Have real estate developers pay the cost of their rape of Palo Alto
As long as wealthy developers are hammered by the tax
You should also include Small Medical Offices the parking restrictions hurt access
to care.
It depends on how small business is defined.
What should be the highest priorities for the use of funds from the
proposed measure?
Upgrade traffic signals, intersections and streets to improve traffic flow: 28 (39.4%)
Implement innovative transportation demand management strategies and policies to
reduce traffic at peak hours and make more efficient use of existing parking:
22 (31.0%)
Associations (TMAs) that help businesses and their employees solve transportation
and parking problems by planning efficient commutes, identifying carpool
opportunities and link commuters to shuttles and public transportation options in
35
order reduce traffic and parking as a barrier to employee satisfaction and retention:
18 (25.4%)
Expand local shuttle service to reduce the number of cars on the road: 3 (4.2%)
Other Responses:
Make it more expensive to drive/park. (e.g. Increase the gas tax, big time). It shouldn't
be so cheap to drive! Fund bicycle lanes. Subsidize bikers. Improve Bay Area wide public
transport. Local solutions can only go so far when we have most of our employees
coming from out of the city.
More parking structures
Provide useful and meaningful public transportation.
Increase # of parking spaces available
Build more parking garages and fix signals
The problem is a regional one, not a city one. Organize the region to build an extensive
subway train system for the whole valley.
Oppose funding these initiatives
Create more parking structures
Increase Parking Structures
Build garages where you have only lots right now. Also when I tried to help out by taking
my motorcycle to work and park it next to the electrical box on the High Street Parking
lot, which is basically an unused half space I got ticketed. So much for no good deed
goes unpunished.
Build new parking facilities, widen streets, fund a long tern agreement with Caltrans for
signal light coordination.
Enforce the parking limit and draw parking space lines so car use one space not two
or more
Build a five story parking building unlimited hours and free for employee
We need more parking structures for employees without the high cost of permits. The
majority of people that work in a Palo Alto cannot afford to live in Palo Alto.
I ser
city allows commercial buildings to be built and highdensity businesses (employees +
customers) to exist without regard to, especially, parking, everything else is a bandaid.
I need more information
Repair the badly crumbled El Camino
Stop shrinking our streets thru road diets.
Add pay to park parking garages
Reduce the number and size of businesses approved to operate within the Palo Alto
city limits.
Parking structure and parking meters
Before I can make a decision on these options, I would recommend looking at the
existing data to determine which have been most effective in this community and other
like communities.
Put pressure on CalTrain to allow dogs on the train. I would be taking the train to work if
I could have my dog on the train.
36
More tickets for red light runners, rolling through stop signs & the speedway called
Alma. That should bring in money for traffic issues
Zone for greater density with limited parking. People will not rent there unless they
work near by or plan to use alternative means of transportation
By assuming all people can take public transportation if they only try harder is not a very
inclusive position. For example not providing an exemption to small healthcare facilities
forces patients to have reduced assess to care. Health workers in small offices have
already started to leave the area and it is harder now to hire. Yes permits are available
at a reduced fee, but if they have to walk 4+ blocks because they got hired after the
logical zone is full. Why provide their health services to the people of Palo Alto?
Especially if of a certain age or have a minor disability, now the potential
employment pool is even smaller. By giving small healthcare workers exemptions it
would benefit the healthcare to the residence of Palo Alto.
Build more parking garages.
Should the rate structure adjust with changes in the local Consumer Price Index
(CPI) to account for inflation and protect the purchasing power of
transportation funding?
Yes: 57 (67.1%)
No: 28 (32.9%)
Other Responses:
Not sure, small businesses are earning pennies
Not sure what this means, but you should not be penalizing the people who are
providing jobs and services to the community.
Probably not. Providing for this kind of rate adjustment implies that this will be a
longlived tax. It shouldn't be. Determine what needs to be done, what it will cost, and
obtain enough funding for it. Don't enact another permanent tax. If you need longterm
funding, issue municipal bonds.
I am against a tax period.
This is a good idea in theory, but in practice it simply allows governments to set it and
forget it. I think taxes need to be rejustified periodically.
Index to transport costs only
What are you funding and what are the costs
If this is for large corporations then the CPI is too low if it's a national standard.
Does your business currently contribute to a Transportation Management
Association (TMA)?
Yes: 2 (2%)
No: 96 (98%)
If yes, which one?
Yes, we pay for downtown parking permits
37
Not sure
If yes, if Palo Alto businesses paid a transportation tax, would you continue
voluntarily contributing to a TMA?
Yes: 5 (9.8%)
No: 46 (90.2%)
Other comments:
One person business with large pro bono work
Palo Alto is already too expensive for businesses. We're moving to Redwood City.
Creating additional parking is a shortterm solution. Taxing businesses is well
intentioned, but misguided. Really, Bay Area public transportation sucks and driving is
too easy. The solution is not making driving and parking easier.
It is naive to think that improving shuttle services will help the congestion problem.
Most people in this area are not interested in shuttle services. The money would be
better spent building parking structures. From a personal standpoint, please make
Kipling a one way street like it use to be. I've never seen so many accidents and near
accidents as I have on this narrow little street.
If the planning commission and city council would stop making exceptions for
developers' project submittals we would have a less severe problem. Every single
developer who submits a proposal is asking for an exception to the required parking.
Stop granting exceptions. Enforce the rules.
When school is out due to a winter break or for the summer have you noticed the
amount of traffic is greatly reduced? City councils have contributed to this problem not
keeping up with parking and downsizing the roads available for vehicles. Now you want
to blame and put the burden on the business community. Our city government has no
clue on what to do and seem to make the matter worse when they try.
N/A
Please, please start planning and then building a rapid subway train system for the
whole valley. Light rail and buses that average around 15 miles per hour are a waste of
resources. Visit New York City, London, Paris, etc. to see how it is done.
When the business registry went into effect it was stated that it would not become a
tax. Now City Hall is proposing to turn it into a tax no doubt to fund "necessary" staff to
administer it. WE DO NOT NEED MORE ADMINISTRATION TO RUN A PROGRAM LIKE
THIS. What's next? We are in a part of Palo Alto that does not have parking and
congestion problems; I object to funding something that is a downtown problem.
Alternate suggestion: reduce the monthly fees on the paid permit parking in the
downtown garages to something more in line with what Menlo Park charges and you
will likely get more people to pay for those permits plus eliminate all those unused
vacant spaces. The monthly fee being charged is too high which is why everyone tries to
find free all day parking in the side neighborhoods.
In general, I don't think building more traffic infrastructure for cars is a good thing.
There is already plenty of space in Palo Alto wasted on parking lots. What's needed is to
38
encourage more people to avoid driving single occupant cars on a daily basis. If the tax
can be used to encourage that, it will have a bigger impact. Collecting a tax and using
the money to add more parking garages or widening roads will just contribute to sprawl
and make the problem worse.
It's easy to dump every problem on the business community, but we are the ones who
are providing jobs (as well as the most delicious ice cream) to people in the community.
Stores are closing in the downtown area because of exorbitant rents, high wages, and
taxes. This plan will only hurt businesses more.
The main traffic problems can be greatly alleviated by upgrading roadways and traffic
signals. This would benefit not just forprofit businesses, but residents and nonprofit
businesses (including PAMF, which accounts for a substantial amount of vehicular
traffic). Taxing forprofit businesses may have political appeal, but ultimately it is the
customers of those businesses who wind up paying the tax.
build a parking structure and provide a better shuttle service to the business districts.
Charging employees to park is ridiculous
It would behoove Palo Alto to keep larger employers and service/retail hubs
geographically distinct. The former generate rushhour traffic, requiring major roads.
The latter draw lighter traffic more continuously during the day, and have positive
instead of negative implications for surrounding residential areas. Careful zoning and
review of building proposals (e.g. at 550 Hamilton Ave) are critical to protecting Palo
Alto's human friendly residential and small business atmosphere from overwhelming
peak traffic.
We are a very small business, just seven employees.
It seems I would be paying twice for the same thing
The majority of the City Council has continued to approve developer oriented proposals
which have not carried their fair share for real improvementsparking facilities,
widening of streets and turn lanes. TDM programs or paper mitigation have not proven
to be effective and developers themselves have said so. True mitigation of new
development has to occur before new financing is sought. The word "sustainability" is
used a lot without implementation. Whether it is parking, water or affordable housing,
new development should mitigate its impact. Neighborhood conclutation should be
required early in the process. The appearance is that nearly allnew development is
driven by the City Manager and controlling land use documents are not followed.
As long as parking improves within a reasonable time
I doubt that the parking problem will ever be solved until selfdriving cars eliminate the
need for parking altogether. They will also greatly improve the traffic problem.
I am a sole business, however, I know that some days my patients drive around for 15 to
20 minutes looking for parking.
This should have been addressed during the planning & development phase
of construction.
Not if I don't have to. I am local and feel it is people's responsibility to get themselves to
work. I don't like supplementing others transportation.
39
You need to give credit to businesses, which provide own parking for their employees
and customers.
Very small business ($20K/year) solo medical practice
I believe the transportation issue is directly related to the overbuilding issue and the
increased rental rates for businesses, which only big businesses with big labor forces
can afford.
This whole problem is a result of past city council kowtowing to big business leaders.
The city council permitted the outsized expansion of businesses within the city limits,
when it should have restricted the business population to that which would gainfully
employ the number of people who can be housed within the city limits. Having 60K+
commuters coming into the area each day is a very poor choice caused by past errors in
city judgment, and is responsible for all the current problems. Learn to not repeat
the mistakes.
We already pay the new business tax plus the downtown association fees. Another fee
is going to drive business away. Stop hitting us with new fees. Its already expensive
enough to do business here with out you driving us out with more taxes that
improve the situation. Your part of the problem not the solution.
We are a dog friendly office. Being near the train, our workers would like to take the
train to work, but Caltrain does not allow any kind of dogs other than those required
under the ADA. Caltrain should adjust the rules to be similar to BART, and allow small
dogs if they are in carriers.
As a voter, I would want to see a detailed accounting of how current funds are managed
and the qualifications of those who make decisions in this area. I have been very
surprised by some decisions made in the recent past that greatly add to our traffic
problems (e.g. the inexplicably poor planning near the intersection of Embarcadero and
El Camino; the very unattractive roundabouts that are being installed like the new one
on Cowper Street in old Palo Alto).
Survey Respondents
Name Name of Business
Kaloma A. Smith University AME Zion Church
JON GOVIND THE PALO ALTO INN
Irena Smith Irena Smith College Consulting
Isaac H. Winer Law Office of Isaac H. Winer
cary no name
Michael Sarrett Yogurtland
Nancy Nancy Trueblood, MFT
xxx yyy
Samir Tuma Kila Properties
Ed Castano BlueVine
40
pat blumenthal pat blumenthal
Nick Vino Locale
Stephen levy Ccsce
miriam joann blessingmoore md inc
Peter N. Brewer Law Ofcs. of Peter N. Brewer
david bena Church
stephen atkinson atkinson architecture
Paul Russell Hand in Hand Parenting
mimi richart nonobject
Alex Tennant Aerobie, Inc.
Edwin Oh Infrastructure Group LLC
Laurie Rohrbach Lobird
James Howard Real Artists Inc
Cindy Somasunderam Scoop Microcreamery
Sandeep OpsHub
Henry Yee Sharetea
a a
Alec Hsu Flight Ventures
Alan Nopar Nopar & Assoicates
Michael Bence Duxiana
Andrea Bogan Henderson
Anders Greenwood Anders Greenwood, Doctor of Psychology, Inc
GR Mine
Maureen Ruffell Maureen Ruffell, M.D.
Carol Field Field Architecture, Inc.
Hope Case Sacks, Ricketts & Case
G J N/A
Michael Tompert Raygun Studio
joe hedges voelker sensors, inc
William Ross Law Offices of William Ross
Carlos Carlos for Hair
Melissa Lu ELLA
Lynn Kearney Lynn J Kearney, MFT
41
JENNY G JEROME CLIKAWAY
Myrna Green Office of Myrna S. Green, Ph.D.
Babak Kahrobaie Gate Cleaners
Michael K. Smith Michael K. Smith, Ph.D.
Alan Brauer MD Totalcare Clinic
Lori Romero True
Hugh Baras Hugh Baras, Ph.D.
Wes Christensen C. Wesley Christensen, MS
Lynn Kearney Lynn J Kearney, MFT
Demetra Paras Demetra Paras MA MFT
Roger Strom Strom Properties
marty klein marty klein & associates
Eval GalOz E.U Int'l corp
Dr Eric Wu Wu Orthodontics
Padmini Schuet
Ananda Church our private P. lot is overcrowded with nonchurch
members on weekdays
Jonathan Lam ClickAway Verizon
mehrdokht
shirmohammadi Clickaway Verizon Palo Alto
Alexander Johnson
Www.nurseregistry.com, Nurse Logistics, Nurse solutions, Law Officd of
Alexander Johnson, California Catalyst LLC
Peter Wexler FATG
Jack Morton Morton & Associates
Kathy Styles Target Discovery
Anonymous Palo Alto Business choosing anonymity
Katherine Hohbach Katherine Hohbach, LMFT
L. Branden Studio Kicks
Gerd Goette Siemens Fianancial Services
Sherry Brown Sherry Brown, LMFT
Chris Macie Christopher J Macie L.Ac
Donna Dagenais Mid Peninsula Speech and Language Clinic
Alena Campagna Stoecker & Northway
Terry Walker Walker Systems
Steve McGraw Steve McGraw, Psy.D.
42
Miriam Rivera Ulu Ventures
Carol Campbell, MFT Carol Campbell, MFT
Susan Graf Susan Graf Limited
rick barry barry real estate
Dilip Sheth Sysorex
Abby Haile Abby Haile, PsyD
mo.kashefi Cielo Btq. Inc.
info PAPIE
A Singh VIP
Jon Leeb Leebco, Inc.
Audra Johnson Vertex Ventures
Jessica Nisperos Mental Research Institute
Heather Bernikoff The Special Hope Foundation
Brian S. AckermanPracticon Inc
Tracy Tripp Blum & Tripp CPAs
David Heinichen heinichen's Garage
Omonike Weusi
Puryear Primerica
Jean Kirsch Jean P Kirsch MD
steve steve
None None
Justin Trepel Arastradero West Apartments
Danielle Computerlaw Group LLP
Hsin Yang Core Studio
Reza Riahi Palo Alto Endodontic Center
Ben Cintz Law Offices of Benjamin Cintz
Duanni Hurd StarLight CareGivers
Loy Martin Loy D. Martin Furniture
Laura Seitel Laura Seitel, Ph.D.
Serena Garcia Good Vibrations
43
Medium/Large Business Survey Response Summary
(11 Employees and up)
Please answer the following questions in order to help inform upcoming decisions by the Palo
Alto City Council regarding a potential ballot measure to provide local funding for traffic
congestion relief, parking and transportation improvements.
Will addressing traffic and parking problems help Palo Alto business attract and
retain employees and customers?
Yes: 29 (78.4%)
No: 8 (21.6%)
Other Response:
Only in conjunction with major improvement in public transportation
Is it fair for businesses to contribute funding for local transportation
solutions by paying a business tax similar to those paid by businesses in
neighboring cities?
Yes: 14 (43.8%)
No: 18 (56.3%)
Other Responses:
Perhaps, depending on how
This is something that the downtown businesses already do. We pay an assessment for
parking garages already.
People who collect sales tax should pay
Depends on the solution
Business already contribute to taxes through both property and sales taxes
Is a tax based on the number of employees a fair way to ensure the cost scales
with the number of employees from a business utilizing roads, transit and
parking in Palo Alto?
Yes: 16 (50%)
No: 16 (50%)
Other Responses:
NO if a business has 10 employees but none drive a car is it fair that they are required to
pay the same as a business with 10 employees where they all drive?
The 50% partners who collect the 9.5% sales tax should pay for
infrastructure improvement.
Only if the building that the business resides in does not provide parking
Not sure, plus all businesses will be taxed, not just ones in impacted areas. Should
revenue also be a "driver"?
Revenues
44
Should small and medium sized businesses receive an exemption or discount?
Yes: 29 (78.4%)
No: 8 (21.6%)
Other Response:
Businesses under 15 employees should have a lower rate than a very large company
Should small nonprofit organizations receive an exemption from the cost?
Yes: 25 (66.7%)
No: 12 (32.4%)
Other Response:
They're already exempt from so many taxes
What should be the highest priorities for the use of funds from the
proposed measure?
Upgrade traffic signals, intersections and streets to improve traffic flow: 13 (46.4%)
Implement innovative transportation demand management strategies and policies to
reduce traffic at peak hours and make more efficient use of existing parking: 6 (21.4%)
Expand local shuttle service to reduce the number of cars on the road: 5 (17.9%)
Provide supplemental funding to expand Pal
Associations (TMAs) that help businesses and their employees solve transportation
and parking problems by planning efficient commutes, identifying carpool
opportunities and link commuters to shuttles and public transportation options in
order reduce traffic and parking as a barrier to employee satisfaction and retention:
4 (14.3%)
Other Responses:
Build bicycle infrastructure
What about walking and cycling???
Require developers to provide sufficient parking for all new construction
No new taxes
All this should come out of sales taxes
None
Replace your people who say a school near business on a 2 lane rd will not effect
traffic flow
We need a comprehensive approach
Should the rate structure adjust with changes in the local Consumer Price Index
(CPI) to account for inflation and protect the purchasing power of
transportation funding?
Yes: 18 (54.5%)
No: 15 (45.4%)
Other Responses:
Not sure
45
No new taxes
Not sure
Does your business currently contribute to a Transportation Management
Association (TMA)?
Yes: 2 (5.4%)
No: 35 (94.6%)
If yes, which one?
National Center for Transit Research at the University of South Florida, Best Workplaces
for Commuters
If yes, if Palo Alto businesses paid a transportation tax, would you continue
voluntarily contributing to a TMA?
Yes: 0 (0%)
No: 12 (100%)
Other comments:
Our employees are most sensitive to length in time of total commute. That includes
walking, waiting for transport and or parking. Anything to reduce the over all time
getting from their home to the actual office is very welcome to us! And please, please
don't make it confusing or more hoops to jump through. Thank you for your work
making PA a premium city to work in.
Our business is across the street from the Palo Alto Airport. Every work night from 4:00
p.m. until about 6:00 p.m. we have gridlock at Bayshore and Embarcadero. The traffic is
due to cars going to the East Bay. The East Bay commuters jam the intersection so
during a light change cars going west on Embarcadero rarely get the full use of the
green light.
Traffic calming and keeping bus stops away from intersections would be very helpful for
traffic on Middlefield. The intersection of Middlefield and Colorado is dangerous and
often backed up due to busses stopping right at the intersection
Not sure
Your traffic planners do not know what they are doing especially on E. Bayshore Rd.
They need to open Laura Ln. for school traffic thru the Post Office Parking lot to allow 2
ways traffic can move for the school/post office/bridge traffic.
We are located on California Avenue and already contribute through property tax as
well as our sales taxes. If this tax were to pass, how would the city guarantee that the
funds would only go to transportation issues, building more garages, etc...
Tax should be based on all traffic generated by the business, not just employee travel
maybe revenues would better approximation.
Amount of traffic generated by business (e.g., retail store) should be taken into account,
not just number of employees.
46
Survey Respondents
Name Name of Business
Chen HCA
Name Name of Business
Ken Martin Mike's Bikes
Matt Hengehold Hengehold Motor Co.
Jeff Selzer Palo Alto Bicycles
Dan Fortner Tipalti
Franco Campilongo Terun
Lindsay Van Keuren Adaptive Insights, Inc.
Peter Licari Jack Mobile Inc. (Ozlo Inc.)
Cameron Tipalti
AnDi Irvin Aerion Technologies Corporation
Patricia Nojima Gallery House
Lee Boman Eastman
Anika Sargent Living Wisdom School of Palo Alto
Linda Winter Lodge
Not Necessary Not Necessary
Abby Wittmayer Whole Foods Market
Rigel St. Michael's Alley
Wade Smith Hammon Plating
Israel Rind Izzy's Brooklyn Bagels
Dave Stellman Palo Alto Glass
Max Silverstein Eversight
Anonymous Anonymous
SM NA
Chris Boreta Orchard Commercial
Dana PlaceIQ
Terry Boyle Children's Health Council
Ron Malouf Jazz Pharmaceuticals
Anonymous Anonymous
Jay Patel Sciton, Inc.
47
Audrey Smith CK12 Foundation
K S Montelaro PBC
Mandy Brown Castilleja School
Scott Yeaman Yeaman Auto Body 2025 E. Bayshore Rd.
Guillaume Bienaime Zola
Michael Ekwall La Bodeguita del Medio
Maureen Breen Avenidas
Marina Remmel Communications & Power Industries LLC
48
220-5016
Key Findings of a Survey of Palo Alto Voters
Conducted March 23-April 2, 2018
Palo Alto Voter Views on
Infrastructure Funding
1
Methodology
• 1,191 interviews with likely November 2018 voters in
Palo Alto
• Conducted March 23 to April 2, 2018, online and via
landline and cell phones
• Margin of sampling error of ±4.0% at the 95%
confidence interval
• Due to rounding, some percentages do not add up to
100%
• Selected comparisons to 2016, 2014, 2013 and 2008
surveys
49
2
Key Findings
• Voters are now divided on the City’s direction compared with 2016 – a trend
common in recent months for Bay Area cities facing increasing challenges like
housing costs and traffic congestion.
• Majorities approve of the City’s management of infrastructure, and more
approve than disapprove of its handling of budget and tax dollars.
• In principle, voters support a measure to fund improvements to City
infrastructure – and a solid majority is willing to pay up to $100 per household
per year for such projects.
• Ensuring a modern emergency response system, and repairing streets and
roads, are the highest-priority projects.
• Among mechanisms tested in concept, a TOT or real estate transfer tax have
the most initial appeal.
•Note that this poll was not designed to gauge the ultimate feasibility of a fully-
developed ballot measure concept; should the City choose to move forward,
future research will need to test draft ballot language and pro and con
arguments.
3
Issue Context
50
4
Q1.
Right
Direction
61%
Wrong
Track
25%
DK/NA
14%
Right
Direction
43%
Wrong
Track
37%
DK/NA
20%
2018 2016
Would you say that things in the Palo Alto are generally headed in the right
direction, or do you feel that things are pretty seriously off on the wrong track?
Voters are now split on the city’s direction,
reflecting a regional trend.
5
10%
18%
15%
16%
50%
56%
53%
56%
27%
19%
23%
22%
10%
5%
6%
2018
2016
2013
2008
Excellent Good Only Fair Exc./ Good Fair/ Poor
60% 37%
74% 24%
68% 29%
72% 26%
Three in five say the City does an “excellent”
or “good” job providing services.
Q2.
How would you rate the overall job being done by Palo Alto city government in
providing services to the Citys residents? Would you say the City is doing an ?
51
6
21%
10%
9%
43%
37%
38%
5%
23%
16%
17%
16%
21%
13%
14%
16%
Maintaining the City's
infrastructure
Managing the City's
budget and finances
Efficiently utilizing
local tax dollars
Strng. App.Smwt. App.DK/NA Smwt. Disapp.Strng. Disapp.
Q3.
Total
Approve
Total
Disapprove
64% 31%
47% 30%
47% 36%
Nearly two-thirds approve of maintenance
of City infrastructure; they are more divided
on budget and tax management.
I am going to read you a list of specific aspects of the City of Palo Altos work in managing city government.
Please tell me whether you generally approve or disapprove of the job the City is doing in that area.
7
Q3. I am going to read you a list of specific aspects of the City of Palo Altos work in managing city government. Please tell me whether you generally approve or disapprove of
the job the City is doing in that area.
Appraisals of the City’s work managing
infrastructure and its budget have declined as
they have in many cities - but remain net positive.
City Palo Alto City Government 2013 2016 2018
Maintaining the City's infrastructure 75% 75% 64%
Managing the City's budget and finances 62% 64% 47%
Efficiently utilizing local tax dollars 63% 67% 47%
(Total Approve)
52
8
11%
35%
19%
25%
11%
Q5. Split Sample
10%
36%
22%
23%
9%
Great/
Some Need
46%
Little/No
Real Need
45%
Great need
Some need
Little need
No real need
Don’t know
Great/
Some Need
45%
Little/No
Real Need
43%
Just under half see at least “some need”
for funding for infrastructure.
More specifically, how would you rate the City of Palo Altos need for additional
funding to maintain and improve infrastructure: is there a great need for
additional funding, some need, a little need or no real need for additional funding?
2018 2013
9
10%
31%
25%
25%
8%
Q6. Split Sample
11%
43%
19%
22%
5%
Great/
Some Need
54%
Little/No
Real Need
41%
Great need
Some need
Little need
No real need
Don’t know
Great/
Some Need
42%
Little/No
Real Need
50%
About two in five see at least “some need” for
more specific infrastructure improvements.
More specifically, how would you rate the City of Palo Altos need for additional
funding to maintain and improve public parks, streets, sidewalks and vital
facilities like police and fire stations: is there a great need for additional
funding, some need, a little need or no real need for additional funding?
2018 2013
53
10
Voter Priorities for
Infrastructure Funding
11 11
“Now I would like to ask you a
few questions about potential
local funding measures. The
City has identified between
$75 million and $150 million
in needed improvements to
City’s streets, sidewalks,
parks, public facilities and
other basic infrastructure.”
11 Q7.
54
12
35%
22%
24%
26%
25%
15%
23%
22%
16%
40%
44%
39%
35%
36%
43%
31%
31%
35%
18%
29%
30%
27%
29%
37%
27%
32%
33%
6%
5%
7%
12%
10%
5%
19%
14%
16%
^Ensuring a modern and stable 911
emergency communications network
Maintaining City streets and roads
Fixing potholes and paving city streets
^Providing safe routes for bicyclists and pedestrians
Maintaining City parks and recreation facilities
^Improving safety at Caltrain crossings
^Improving city streets to make busy
intersections safer
Providing adequate parking
Ext. Impt.Very Impt.Smwt. Impt.Not Too Impt./DK/NA
Q7. Im going to read you some of the objectives of the infrastructure projects identified through this process. Please tell me how important each objective is to you as a
resident of Palo Alto: extremely important, very important, somewhat important, or not important. ^Not Part of Split Sample
Ext./Very
Impt.
75%
66%
63%
61%
61%
58%
54%
53%
51%
Ensuring a modern emergency communications
network is important to three-quarters.
^Ensuring vital City facilities like police
stations and the emergency command center are earthquake safe
13
17%
20%
14%
15%
10%
9%
32%
25%
29%
29%
29%
21%
14%
8%
8%
35%
31%
34%
32%
41%
38%
46%
32%
29%
16%
24%
22%
24%
21%
32%
37%
59%
61%
^Making sidewalks, City buildings and parks
accessible for people with disabilities
Funding transportation incentives that
improve traffic by reducing solo driver trips
Providing downtown parking
^Providing a safe crossing over Highway 101
for pedestrians and cyclists
Improving parks, playgrounds and playfields
for youth and adult recreation
^Providing a modern animal shelter
^Upgrading the Palo Alto
Junior Museum and Zoo
^Upgrading Byxbee Park
Restoring the historic Roth building
Ext. Impt.Very Impt.Smwt. Impt.Not Too Impt./DK/NA
Q7. Im going to read you some of the objectives of the infrastructure projects identified through this process. Please tell me how important each objective is to you as a
resident of Palo Alto: extremely important, very important, somewhat important, or not important. ^Not Part of Split Sample
Ext./Very
Impt.
49%
44%
44%
43%
39%
30%
17%
10%
10%
Fewer are concerned with upgrading the
museum, zoo, Byxbee Park, or Roth building.
55
14
Support for
an Infrastructure
Funding Measure
15
19%
39%
17%
18%
6%
Strongly support
Somewhat support
Somewhat oppose
Strongly oppose
Don't know
Many of these projects and improvements are beyond the scope of the Citys
existing budget and may require additional funding through a local voter-
approved bond or tax measure. Based on what youve heard, do you think
you would support or oppose a bond or tax measure to fund some group of
these projects to maintain and improve Palo Altos infrastructure?
Total
Support
59%
Total
Oppose
35%
Q8.
In principle, nearly three in five support a bond
or tax measure for infrastructure upgrades.
56
16
Younger voters are slightly more
supportive than those over age 50.
Q8. Many of these projects and improvements are beyond the scope of the Citys existing budget and may require additional funding through a local voter-approved bond or tax
measure. Based on what youve heard, do you think you would support or oppose a bond or tax measure to fund some group of these projects to maintain and improve Palo
Altos infrastructure?
64%
56%
62%
59%
30%
39%
33%
33%
Men Ages 18-49
Men Ages 50+
Women Ages 18-49
Women Ages 50+
Total Support Total Oppose % of
Sample
15%
33%
15%
36%
By Gender by Age
17
While nearly seven in ten Democrats support
the idea, independents are split.
Q8. Many of these projects and improvements are beyond the scope of the Citys existing budget and may require additional funding through a local voter-approved bond or tax
measure. Based on what youve heard, do you think you would support or oppose a bond or tax measure to fund some group of these projects to maintain and improve Palo
Altos infrastructure?
68%
49%
38%
61%
64%
51%
25%
43%
57%
35%
29%
44%
Democrats
Independents
Republicans
Asians/Pacific Islanders
White Voters
Voters of Color
Total Support Total Oppose
% of
Sample
58%
27%
15%
14%
62%
30%
By Party & Ethnicity
57
18
Renters are stronger backers than owners,
though majorities of both support it.
Q8. Many of these projects and improvements are beyond the scope of the Citys existing budget and may require additional funding through a local voter-approved bond or tax
measure. Based on what youve heard, do you think you would support or oppose a bond or tax measure to fund some group of these projects to maintain and improve Palo
Altos infrastructure?
63%
64%
56%
64%
56%
66%
29%
32%
38%
30%
38%
28%
<$100,000
$100,000-$150,000
$150,000-$250,000
$250,000+
Homeowners
Renters
Total Support Total Oppose
% of
Sample
18%
12%
19%
28%
72%
23%
By Income & Residence
19
51%
36%
23%
19%
20%
24%
18%
18%
5%
5%
5%
8%
11%
16%
14%
16%
24%
37%
43%
$50 per year
$100 per year
$200 per year
$250 per year
Very Will.Smwt. Will.DK/NA Smwt. Unwill.Very Unwill.
Q9.
Total
Willing
Total
Unwilling
71% 25%
61% 35%
41% 53%
38% 57%
Three in five voters are willing to pay up to
$100 annually for these improvements.
Regardless of how the measure was structured, would your household be willing to pay
______ in additional taxes if it were dedicated to the types of Palo Alto infrastructure repairs
and improvements we have been discussing?
58
20
Examining Potential
Funding Mechanisms
21
27%
25%
13%
8%
34%
27%
27%
20%
5%
7%
5%
17%
16%
17%
23%
17%
25%
38%
47%
Increasing the transient
occupancy tax, charged to
hotel and motel guests
Increasing the real estate
transfer tax rate, paid when a
property is bought or sold
Establishing a flat tax on every
parcel of property in Palo Alto
Increasing the sales tax
Strng. Supp.Smwt. Supp.DK/NA Smwt. Opp.Strng. Opp.
Q10. I am going to read you a list of several methods that might be used to raise money to fund the types of infrastructure repairs and improvements we have been discussing.
Please tell me if you would support or oppose that particular way of raising new revenue for these purposes. Would you support or oppose_____?
Total
Supp.
Total
Opp.
61% 34%
53% 40%
40% 55%
27% 70%
Three in five back a higher TOT, and
a majority favors an RETT.
59
22
Q11.
Voters then heard a pro/con exchange on a
potential sales tax increase in isolation.
Let me ask you about the idea of increasing the sales tax.
Supporters say increasing the sales tax ensures that people who make
purchases in the city, including visitors, pay a small share of the cost of
maintaining city infrastructure without raising taxes on homeowners
once again.
Opponents say sales taxes increase the price of nearly everything we
buy, which hurts the poor more than it does the rich. Our sales tax
rates is already 9 percent.
Having heard this, would you support or oppose increasing the sales tax
as a way of raising money to repair and upgrade City infrastructure?
23
9%
17%
21%
51%
2%
Q10a. I am going to read you a list of several methods that might be used to raise money to fund the types of infrastructure repairs and improvements we have been discussing.
Please tell me if you would support or oppose that particular way of raising new revenue for these purposes. Would you support or oppose increasing the sales tax?
Q11. Having heard this, would you support or oppose increasing the sales tax as a way of raising money to repair and upgrade City infrastructure?
8%
20%
23%
47%
2%
Total
Support
27%
Total
Oppose
70%
Strongly support
Somewhat support
Somewhat oppose
Strongly oppose
Don’t know/NA
Total
Support
26%
Total
Oppose
72%
This did not shift opinions more than seven
in ten still oppose a sales tax increase.
After Pro/Con Initial Opinion
60
24
Q12.
They also heard an exchange of messaging on
a transient occupancy tax increase.
Let me ask you about the idea of increasing the transient occupancy tax,
charged to hotel and motel guests.
Supporters say increasing the transient occupancy tax ensures that visitors
to our city pay their fair share for our infrastructure while keeping costs
lower for residents.
Opponents say higher transient occupancy taxes will cause tourists to stay
in cities outside Palo Alto, driving business out of the City, and especially
hurt parents and students who visit campus.
Having heard this, would you support or oppose increasing the transient
occupancy tax charged to hotel and motel guests as a way of raising money
to repair and upgrade City infrastructure?
25
25%
33%
19%
19%
4%
Q10b. I am going to read you a list of several methods that might be used to raise money to fund the types of infrastructure repairs and improvements we have been discussing.
Please tell me if you would support or oppose that particular way of raising new revenue for these purposes. Would you support or oppose Increasing the transient occupancy
tax, charged to hotel and motel guests?
Q12. Having heard this, would you support or oppose increasing the transient occupancy tax charged to hotel and motel guests as a way of raising money to repair and upgrade
City infrastructure?
27%
34%
17%
17%
5%
Total
Support
61%
Total
Oppose
34%
Strongly support
Somewhat support
Somewhat oppose
Strongly oppose
Don’t know/NA
Total
Support
58%
Total
Oppose
38%
A solid majority continued to support a TOT
increase after messaging.
After Pro/Con Initial Opinion
61
26
Q13.
Supporter and opponent rationales for a real
estate transfer tax were also read.
Let me ask you about the idea of raising the real estate transfer tax
rate, paid when a property is bought or sold.
Supporters say the it makes sense for people who buy a home in
Palo Alto to contribute to the City’s infrastructure with a one-time
investment when they buy the house.
Opponents say the cost of housing is already outrageous, and we
shouldn’t make it even more costly to buy a home in our community.
Having heard this, would you support or oppose raising the real
estate transfer tax rate as a way of raising money to repair and
upgrade City infrastructure?
27
21%
26%
17%
32%
4%
Q10c. I am going to read you a list of several methods that might be used to raise money to fund the types of infrastructure repairs and improvements we have been discussing.
Please tell me if you would support or oppose that particular way of raising new revenue for these purposes. Would you support or oppose increasing the real estate transfer
tax rate, paid when a property is bought or sold?
Q13. Having heard this, would you support or oppose raising the real estate transfer tax rate as a way of raising money to repair and upgrade City infrastructure?
25%
27%
16%
25%
7%
Total
Support
53%
Total
Oppose
40%
Strongly support
Somewhat support
Somewhat oppose
Strongly oppose
Don’t know/NA
Total
Support
47%
Total
Oppose
49%
After messaging on the RETT as a funding
mechanism, voters were evenly divided.
After Pro/Con Initial Opinion
62
28
Q14.
Voters heard reasons to vote “yes”
and “no” on a flat parcel tax.
Let me ask you about the idea of establishing a flat parcel tax on
each piece of property.
Supporters say that it is the simplest way to ensure that property
owners all pay a fair share in improving the City’s infrastructure.
Opponents say that this method is unfair because owners of smaller
homes will be forced to pay the exact same price as owners of larger
and more valuable properties.
Having heard this, would you support or oppose establishing a flat
parcel tax as a way of raising money to repair and upgrade City
infrastructure?
29
12%
22%
22%
41%
4%
Q10d. I am going to read you a list of several methods that might be used to raise money to fund the types of infrastructure repairs and improvements we have been discussing.
Please tell me if you would support or oppose that particular way of raising new revenue for these purposes. Would you support or oppose Establishing a flat tax on every
parcel of property in Palo Alto?
Q14. Having heard this, would you support or oppose establishing a flat parcel tax as a way of raising money to repair and upgrade City infrastructure?
13%
27%
17%
38%
5%
Total
Support
40%
Total
Oppose
55%
Strongly support
Somewhat support
Somewhat oppose
Strongly oppose
Don’t know/NA
Total
Support
34%
Total
Oppose
62%
This increased opposition
to more than three in five.
After Pro/Con Initial Opinion
63
30
Conclusions
31
Conclusions
• This limited test of mechanisms alone indicates that a transient occupancy tax
or real-estate transfer tax present potential avenues for voter-approved
revenue.
– Both a TOT and RETT (without the rate of increase) begin with majority
support, and retain it after a very brief exchange of messaging.
– Voters in general support up to $100 per year in new taxes for
infrastructure improvements and repairs.
• Maintaining the emergency communications network, repairing streets and
roads, and pedestrian and cyclist safety are top priorities.
• Voters are increasingly pessimistic about the direction of the City, and offer
middling approval ratings on the City’s work managing tax revenues and the
budget.
• At the same time, fewer than a majority see a need for new funding for the City
generally or for infrastructure specifically.
• Further research should test a 75-word ballot label, which includes the rate of
increase and projects funded, as well as a fuller suite of messaging, to
determine viability in a November election.
64
For more information, contact:
1999 Harrison St., Suite 2020
Oakland, CA 94612
Phone (510) 451-9521
Fax (510) 451-0384
Dave@FM3research.com Dave@FM3research com
Miranda@FM3research.com Miranda@FM3research comm
65