The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutStaff Report 309-08TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: City of Palo Alto Manager’s Report HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: CITY MANAGER’S OFFICE JULY 7, 2008 CMR:309:08 REVIEW OF POLLING RESULTS FOR LIBRARY/COMMUNITY CENTER BOND MEASURE AND DIRECTION TO STAFF ON A NOVEMBER 2008 BOND MEASURE 12 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that Council review the results of polling conducted in late June 2008 for a library/community center bond measure and provide direction to staff on components for a potential November 2008 bond measure. The three key questions for Council direction are: 1)Should the City proceed with a library/community center bond measure on the November 2008 ballot? If so, should the bond measure include all three elements discussed previously (construction of a new and expanded Mitchell Park library and community center, renovation and expansion of the Main Library, and renovation of the Downtown Library? 2) Should the City pursue LEED Gold building standards for the new Mitchell Park library/community center at an added cost of approximately $1.3 million over the cost of the LEED silver standard incorporated in the current conceptual design of the facility? 3)Should the City include design costs spent to date on the library/community center projects in the bond measure at a cost of approximately $1.5 million? If Council chooses to proceed with a bond measure, staff recommends that the Council direct staff to return in late July with the appropriate authorizing mechanisms (ordinance and resolutions) to place the measure on the November 4, 2008 ballot. BACKGROUND For the past two years, the City Council has placed plans for enhanced library facilities and operations on the top priority lists. There have been substantial work efforts by the City Council, Library Advisory Commission, Recreation Commission and staff developing proposals for enhanced library and community center facilities and operations. These efforts culminated in approval by Council of the Library Service Model Analysis and Recommendations (LSMAR) and Mitchell Park Space Study in December of 2006. CMR:309:08 Page 1 of 6 Following these efforts, the Council authorized staff to proceed with preliminary polling on potential funding options for the needed improvements. On March 5, 2007, the City Council received the preliminary results of a survey conducted by Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin & Associates (FMMA) regarding voter sentiment towards potential funding options for enhanced library facilities and services and a new public safety building. Attachment A to this report provides a copy of that preliminary polling presentation with the key findings from the March 2007 meeting. Following that meeting, the Council has had several discussions regarding the library and public safety building projects. In February 2008, the Council decided to proceed with the issuance of Certificates of Participation (COPs) for the public safety building and to pursue a potential bond measure to fund the libraries/community center projects that would include a new and expanded Mitchell Park library and community center, renovations to and an expansion of Main Library and renovations to the Downtown Library. Since February, the Council, City staff and community members have been working on an outreach effort to inform the community specifically about the library and community center facility needs. This effort has included presentations to neighborhood and community groups, a letter to key stakeholders, and a direct mail piece among other efforts. If the Council places a measure on the November ballot, staff would continue to provide factual information about the measure through the City’s website and other means. On a parallel track and based on Council direction, the Public Works Department convened a group of construction industry specialists to peer review the project cost estimates for both the library/community center projects and the public safety building project. This group has met several times since February and staff presented the results of their analysis at the May 19, 2008 Council meeting. The group confirmed that the cost estimates for the projects were consistent with current industry standards and that the contingency estimates were reasonable. Staff did some additional analysis and refinement of the project costs and developed a revised cost estimate that the Council discussed at the May 19 meeting (Attachment B). In June 2008, FMMA conducted a tracking poll of Palo Alto voters that focused only on a potential library/community center bond measure. Attachment C is the polling questionnaire used for the survey. Staff based the survey project cost estimates in Attachment C on the May 19 data with appropriate bond financing costs included. The total project cost of $75 million identified in the survey questionnaire does not include any of the non-bondable costs, e.g. furniture, fixtures, equipment or temporary facilities. These costs are addressed in the. Resource Impact section below. The Council will receive the results of the June 2008 poll during the presentation at the July 7 meeting. DISCUSSION There are several key decision points for the Council at this meeting: 1) Should the City proceed with a library/community center bond measure on the November 2008 ballot? If so, should the bond measure include all three of the elements discussed previously (construction of a new and expanded Mitchell Park library and community CMR:309:08 Page 2 of 6 center, renovation and expansion of the Main Library, and renovation of the Downtown Library)? 2) Should the City pursue LEED Gold building standards for the new Mitchell Park library/community center at an added cost of approximately $1.3 million over the cost of the LEED silver standard incorporated in the current conceptual design of the facility? 3) Should the City include design costs spent to date on the library/community center projects in the bond measure at a cost of approximately $1.5 million? Should the City proceed with a library/community center bond measure on the November 2008 ballot? If so, should the bond measure include all three of the elements discussed previously (construction of a new and expanded Mitchell Park library and community center, renovation and expansion of the Main Library, and renovation of the Downtown Library)? As mentioned previously, the Council provided direction to staff in February 2008 to prepare for a potential November 2008 bond measure that would include construction of a new and expanded Mitchell Park library and community center, renovation and expansion of the Main Library, and renovation of the Downtown Library. Based on the results of the June 2008 poll presented this evening, staff is asking for direction on whether to proceed with the bond measure and with the same previously anticipated scope. Should the City pursue LEED Gold building standards for the new Mitchell Park library/community center at an added cost of approximately $1.3 million over the cost of the LEED silver standard incorporated in the current conceptual design of the facility? During the February 2008 Council review of construction cost estimates for the Mitchell Park Library and Community Center, the Council directed staff to determine the cost to upgrade the building design from the current U.S. Green Building Council’s Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Silver rating to a LEED Gold status. LEED is a system of guiding building designers towards more sustainable projects. A more sustainable project can collect more LEED points and thereby qualify for a higher rating. A report prepared by Guttmanri & Blaevoet Mechanical Engineers (G&B) in May 2008, evaluated six different design options including different types of heating and air conditioning systems, water heating systems and other methods that would reduce energy costs. The analysis included construction costs, operating and maintenance costs and considered any rebates offered by the City’s Utility Department. The recommended configuration that would secure the points required to move the Library/Community Center project into a LEED Gold category include: ¯Installation of a more energy efficient heating and air conditioning system ¯Rooftop solar hot water system [] Night sky radiant cooling. Night-sky radiant cooling systems enable downsizing of conventional cooling equipment and reduces annual energy costs by cooling water in a radiative and evaporative fashion. Water is sprayed over a flat or low-slope roof surface at night, cooled, filtered, stored and delivered the following day for building cooling. The total cost of these systems is $1.3 million which includes design, construction and contingency costs. When the resulting energy savings, incremental construction costs and life CMR:309:08 Page 3 of 6 cycle costs are factored in, it will take 14 years for cost-recovery. This $1.3 million would need to be added to the current bondable project cost of $75 million tested in the poll. 3)Should the City include design costs spent to date on the library/community center projects in the bond measure at a cost of approximately $1.5 million? To adequately prepare the design and cost estimates for a potential bond measure, the City entered into a contract with Group 4 Architecture to prepare 35% design drawings and project cost estimates for the library/community center projects. To date, the City has spent approximately $1.5 million on this effort and these costs were not included in the May 19 cost estimates. The City has used Infrastructure Reserve funding to cover these cc;sts. If the Council includes these costs in the bond measure, the City would be able to reimburse the Infrastructure Reserve, freeing up funds for other critical infrastructure projects. Adding these costs to the bond measure would add an additional $1.5 million in project costs to the $75 million figure tested in the poll. RESOURCE IMPACT There are numerous financial challenges facing the General Fund, including the need for new revenue sources for facility and service enhancements. As stated in prior infrastructure studies and as policy approved by Council, new infrastructure efforts and new service levels require new revenue streams. As the Long Range Financial Forecast has demonstrated, there is very limited capacity to absorb any new expenses. Debt financing the capital costs envisioned by the LSMAR will require a fresh, ongoing revenue stream to finance the debt service. The potential construction of an expanded Mitchell Park library and community center will require an allocation of additional annual operating expenses, both from a facility maintenance and library/community center operations standpoint. Staff has worked to develop an estimated range of these anticipated annual operating costs, based on input from the Library, Community Services, Utilities and Public Works departments as well as the independent library consultant who has been working with Group 4 Architecture on these projects. These costs include the following: additional library and community center staff necessary for larger Mitchell Park facility (up to 4 full time positions as recommended by library consultant); new Public Works Facilities Mechanic position for building systems maintenance; custodial/maintenance costs; utility costs; library collection maintenance; public computer replacement; security system costs; and furniture replacement. The estimated annual cost for these items could range between $750,000 and $1.1 million. It is difficult to produce a definitive estimate because the buildings are still in the preliminary design phase. Additionally, based on the proposed construction schedules for the facilities, the total annual amount would not be required before FY2013/2014, allowing for these costs to be phased in and evaluated over time. The City has not provided the resources needed to maintain its existing infrastructure. Presently, Facilities Maintenance staff maintain a workload that requires that each person handle 3 times as much area per person as compared to industry standards. A recent report completed to quantify the City’s facilities needs recommended adding 4 facilities technicians (one of which has been budgeted for FY2008/09) and 12 temporary full-time equivalents to catch up with the CMR:309:08 Page 4 of 6 maintenance and repair backlog. Since sufficient resources are not currently provided for existing facilities, additional facilities cannot be maintained without a corresponding increase in staff and operating expense. Staff will also be evaluating the required library staffing levels pending the outcomes of the library technology plan. A report analyzing the benefits and costs of utilizing automated materials handling (AMH) systems and RFID technology in the libraries will be finalized within two months. A key recommendation of the draft report is that AMH technology be installed at Main, Children’s, and Mitchell Park libraries if the proposed bond measure passes. This will allow for some staff efficiencies and will support the projected rise in circulation at the improved libraries. While the cost to purchase AMH systems for Main and Mitchell Park is estimated at $700,000, the life span of this equipment is long- approximately 20 years. Consideration should be given to including the funding for this capital expenditure as part of the financing plan for the equipment in the new facilities. Regardless of any potential offsets, there will be some additional level of annual operating and maintenance costs. To address these added costs, staff will need to evaluate potential service reductions in the General Fund or look to future economic development tax revenues. If staff is unable to make service adjustments immediately, there is an option to use one-time money in the first few years of facility operations. Staff will continue to develop and refine a plan for addressing these added costs pending approval of a potential bond measure in November. In addition to the ongoing operating and maintenance costs, there are costs associated with furnishing and equipping these new facilities that cannot be included in a bond measure. These costs include the furnishings, fixtures, and equipment for the facilities. The current estimate for these items is approximately $4.3 million (based on the May 19 presentation). The Palo Alto Library Foundation has discussed spearheading a fundraising campaign with other organizations to cover the costs of these items plus approximately $1 million for additional items for the collection. If this campaign does not raise all of the anticipated .funds, the City would have to explore other one-time funding options for these costs. POLICY IMPLICATIONS This report is consistent with existing City policies and with the establishment of the Library Plan/Public Safety Building as a Top 4 priority for 2008. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The direction staff is requesting tonight is not a project subject to environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). However, the library/community center project itself requires environmental review before being placed on a ballot measure. Staff has completed the appropriate environmental review. If the Council proceeds with the ballot measure, staff will return with the appropriate authorizing mechanisms to place the measure on the ballot, including confirmation of the environmental review approvals. ATTACHMENTS CMR:309:08 Page 5 of 6 Attachment A: Presentation of Preliminary Polling Results on Library/Community Center and Public Safety Building Bond Measures, March 5, 2007 Attachment B: Revised Library/Community Center Project Cost Estimates - May 19, 2008 Attachment C: June 2008 Survey Questionnaire from FMMA PREPARED BY: DEPARTMENT HEAD: Kelly Morariu Interim Deputy City Manager ROBERTS Public Works Director DIANE JENNINGS Library Director CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: 2 BENEST City Manager CMR:309:08 Page 6 of 6 Attachment A City of Palo Alto Bond Measure Preliminary Survey March 5, 2007 220-2276 Opinion Research & Pu~~nalysis Fairbank, ~ Maslin; MaUilin & AssoCiates Slide 2 City of Palo Alto Bond Measure Preliminary Survey Methodology 600 telephone interviews with Palo Alto voters likely to cast ballots in the November 2008 general election []Interviews conducted between February 21- 27, 2007 [] Margin of sampling error of +/- 4.0% []Some percentages do not add to 100% because of rounding Fafrbanl~; Maullin & ASSoCiates Slide 3 City of Palo Alto Bond Measure Preliminary Survey Key Findings .The overwhelming majority of voters rate Pale Alto’s quality of life positively. []Solid majorities of Pale Alto voters support potential bond measures to improve public safety and library facilities. However, support for all potential measures currently falls short of the two-thirds supermajority threshold. []Support for a library bond is somewhat stronger than support for a public safety bond. Fatrbank, Maullin & AsSociates Slide 4 City of Palo Alto Bond Measure Preliminary Survey Perceptions of the Community and its Needs 2 Maullin & A~Sociates Slide 5 City of Palo Alto Bond Measure Preliminary Survey Voters believe Palo Alto has an extremely high quality of life. Excellent Good Just fair Poor job 34°/o,= 0%80%60% 2, Generally speaking, how would you rate the City of Palo Alto as a place to live: is it an excellent place to live, a good place to live, only fair, or a poor place to live? ~.,.~,,,,k,City of Palo Alto Bond Measure Maslin,~o~,,i,, ¯Preliminary SurveyAssociates Ratings for Palo Alto are more positive than for many other California cities, Slide 6 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% (% Exceflent/Good) / 2. Generally speaking, how would you rate the City of Palo Alto as a place to live: is it an excellent place to live, a good place to live, only fair, or a poor place to live? 3 Fairbahk, 3]aslin~ ASsoCi~tes Slide 7 City of Palo Alto Bond Measure Preliminary Survey Two-thirds of voters see at least some need for additional library funding. Public libraries Public schools Public safety Great Need [3 Some Need [] Little Need [] No Need [3 DK/NA ; , ; ; 0%20% 40%60%80%100% 3, I am going to read a short list of public services in the city of Palo Alto. Please tell me if you think it has a great need ~or additional funding, same needt a little need or no real need for additional fundin[t. Fairbank, Maslin~ MaUliin & ~iSkodateS Slide 8 City of Palo Alto Bond Measure Preliminary Survey Support for Potential Bond Measures 4 City of Palo Alto Bond Measure Preliminary Survey $95 Million Libra~ and Public Safety Bond Description TestedSlide 9 Let me tell you a little bit more about this potential bond measure. It would authorize $95 million dollars in general obligation bonds for: [] A new public safety building that would provide a safe space for interviewing crime victims; upgrade outdated facilities and technology for storing and analyzing crime evidence; improve earthquake safety; and provide an upgraded Emergency Operations Center and 911 dispatch system for police, fire and paramedic services. ¯A new library and community center at the site of Mitchell Park Library that would include room for larger collections; more computers and improved information technology; space for community meetings and rooms that could be rented to the public for local events; and dedicated spaces for quiet reading and study. Upgrades would also be made to the Main and Downtown libraries. All bond expenditures would be subject to citizen oversight and independent audits, and no money could be used for administrators’ salaries. The projects would meet and exceed state and federal standards for being energy efficient "green buildings." 5. If the election were held today, would you vote yes in favor of this bond measure or no to oppose it? ~tssociates Slide 10 City of Palo Alto Bond Measure Preliminary Survey Voters support the measure by a two-to-one margin, but it falls short of a two-thirds majority. Definitely yes Probably yes Undecided, lean yes Undecided, lean no Probably no Definitely no Undecided ~~a ~4°/e i "~ TOT4L:’ o [ NO:,~Yo o’ f 3~o/~ ~10°/o 0%t0%20%30% tTO+AL YES 59% 40% 5, If the election were held today, would you vote yes in favor of this bond measure or no to oppose it? 50% 5 Maullin Associates Slide 11 City of Palo Alto Bond Measure Preliminary Survey $45 Million Library Bond Description Tested One/Another measure would authorize $45 million dollars in general obligation bonds to fund construction of a new Mitchell Park Library, including a new community center, and upgrades to the Main and Downtown Libraries. Improvements would include room for larger collections, more computers and improved information technology, space for community meetings and rooms that could be rented to the public for local events, and dedicated spaces for quiet reading and study. These projects would meet and exceed state and federal standards for being energy efficient "green buildings." All bond expenditures would be subject to citizen oversight and independent audits, and no money could be used for administrators’ salaries. 7, If the election were held today, would you vote yes in favor of this ballot measure or no to oppose it? Fairbank, Maslin, Mau!lin& Associates Slide 12 City of Palo Alto Bond Measure Preliminary Survey Just under two-thirds of voters support a library bond. Definitely yes Probably yes Undecided, lean yes Undecided, lean no Probably no Definitely no I I Undecided ~5% i ; 0%t0%20%30%40% 7. If the election were held today, would you vote yes in favor of this ballot measure or no to oppose it? 50% 6 Maslin, ~$laUllh~ & ASSociates Slide 13 City of Palo Alto BondMeasure Preliminary Survey Support for a library bond changes little with pro and con arguments. 100% --Total Yes --Total No --Total Undecided 00% ...........................................63O/o 6S% 00% ..............Z .......................... 40% ......... ----------- --------- -----/ ~44% o2~v. - ......3"Wo ...............................3"la/o ..............342/o ....... 4%0% Initial Vote +Ye~63% No 31% Undecided 5% 7/10a/13/14. If the election were held today, would you vote yes in favor of this ballot measure or no to oppose it? After Cost Information 51% 44% 5% Afte r Pos itive Argument 65% 31% 4% After Negative Argument 62% 34% 4% ~++.,~,City of Palo Alto Bond Measure ,,.~,.,,~Preliminary Survey ~,~.~+..~.......Voters are less enthusiastic about a Slide 14 measure that does not include funding for multiple branches. Definitely Yes [] Prob.lLean Yes [] Prob.lLean No ~i Definitely No r~ Undecided I I$45 million with funding for Mitchell Park Library, a Community Center and Downtown and Main Libraries (Full Description) $35 million with funding for Mitchell Park and Downtown and Main Libraries (Brief Description) $25 million with funding for Mitchell Park Library (Brief Description) 0%20%40%60%80%100% 7/11. The final structure of this library bond measure has not been determined, I am going to read you brief descriptions of several alternative library bond measures; only one of them will ultimately be placed on the ballot. For each, please tell me whether you think you would vote yes in favor of it, or no to Oppose it. 7 Maslin, AssOCiates Slide 15 City of Palo Alto Bond Measure Preliminary Survey Voters rate expansion of collections and improving youth activity areas as the highest priorities for a library bond. I~ Ext.Nerl/Impt. (~ S.W, Impt. [] Not Impt, [] DK/NA *Expanding children’s reading areas in the library *Expanding space for books and other items to accommodate a larger collection at the Library *Providing updated facilities for after-school programs such as homework tutoring *Upgrading and repairing the Main Library Replacing the Mitchell Park Library with an upgraded and expanded building 80%100% 12. I am going to read you a list of specific projects that could be funded by the library and community center bond measure, As I read each one, please tell me how important it is to you that the project be funded: extremely important, very important, somewhat important, or not important. *Split Sample Fairbank, Maslln; Maullin & # Associates Slide 16 City of Palo Alto Bond Measure Preliminary Survey Continued *Improving lighting in libraries to make it easier to locate and read books *Upgrading and repairing the Downtown Library *Offering more computers for public use at the Mitchell Park Library *Providing air conditioning at libraries that currently do not have any m Ext.Nery Impt. E]S.W. Impt. [] Not Impt. [] DK/NA Building a new community center 0%20%4~/0 60%80%10~A 12. I am going to read you a list of specific projects that could be funded by the library and community center bond measure. As I read each one, please tell me how important it is to you that the project be funded: extremely important, very important, somewhat important, or not Important. *Split Sample 8 Maslil~, ~laullin & : Slide 17 City of Palo Alto Bond Measure Preliminary Survey At the conclusion of the survey, a slim majority of voters indicated that they supported a $99 library parcel tax. Definitely yes Probably yes Undecided, lean yes Undecided, lean no Probably no Definitely no ~ 26% ! TOTAL 20%YES 53% 10% =ira 21% Undecided ]~°/o I 0%10%20% TOTXL NO 30%40% 18, Now I would like to ask you about a separate measure that may be on a future Paid Alto ballot. This measure would be an annual tax of $99 per parcel to expand library collections, increase library hours by twelve percent, improve cleaning and maintenance of all local libraries, and expand library programs for children, teens and families. The tax would be limited to twenty years, and all expenditures would be subject to citizen oversight and annual audits, Would you vote yes in favor or no to oppose this ballot measure? As~OOiates : Slide 18 City of Palo Alto Bond Measure Preliminary Survey $50 Million Public Safety Bond Description Tested One/Another measure would authorize $50 million dollars in general obligation bonds to fund construction of a new public safety building to be centrally located in Paid Alto. Improvements would include an upgraded Emergency Operations Center and 911 dispatch system for police, fire and paramedic services; safe spaces for interviewing crime victims; and upgrades to outdated facilities and technology for storing and analyzing crime evidence. The project would meet and exceed state and federal standards for being energy efficient "green buildings." All bond expenditures would be subject to citizen oversight and independent audits, and no money could be used for administrators’ salaries. 8. If the election were held today, would you vote yes in favor of this ballot measure or no to oppose it? 9 Fairbank, Maullin & Associates Slide 19 City of Palo Alto Bond Measure Preliminary Survey A majority of voters support a public safety bond. Definitely yes Probably yes Undecided, lean yes Undecided, lean no Probably no Definitely no Undecided TOTAL YES 0%10%20%30%40%50% 8. If the election were held today, would you vote yes in favor of this ballot measure or no to oppose it? ~a,,~.,,k,:City of Palo Alto Bond Measure Ma~lin,,,,a~,,i,, ~Preliminary SurveyA~ociates Support declines as voters get more s,,~o~0 information about a public safety bond. 100% ~Total Yes ~Total No ~Total Undecided 2(PA - 6% I57% 55%0OO/o - ............................................................. 50~048% 4~PA .......... 44% 38% 42% ....... 32~/o After Cost After Positive After NegativeInitial Vote Information Argument Argument ~Yes 57%48%55%50% __No 32%44%38%42% Undecided 11%8%7%8% 8/15/~6/17. If the election were held today, would you vote yes in favor of this ballot measure or no to oppose it? 10 : Fairbank, ~lloslin, Maullin & ASsociates Slide 2"1 City of Palo Alto Bond Measure Preliminary Survey Conclusions No proposed bond measure currently receives the support of the required two=thirds of local voters. []The City should consider deferring a bond election until November of 2008. []In the interim, the City should work to educate local residents about the need for library and public safety facility improvements and the work that has been done to develop proposals to address those needs. City of Palo Alto Bond Measure Preliminary Survey March 5, 2007 220=2276 bank, Maslin; Mauilin & +ssociates: Opihion ResOOrbh & PUb]i~ Poii@~nalysis Sania ~6niea, CA ~ Oakland, CA: Mah~i~ ] 11 Attachment B Libraries (Mitchell, Main, and Downtown) & Community Center Cost Update: May 2008 Libraries (Mitchell, Main, and Downtown) & Community Center Cost Update: May 2008 FA!RBANK, MASLIN, MAULLIN & ASSOCIATES Attachment C JUNE tl, 2008 PALO ALTO BALLOT MEASURE TRACKING SURVEY 220-2544 FINAL Hello, I’m from FMMA, a public opinion research company. We’re conducting a public opinion survey about some important issues that concern residents of Palo Alto (PAL-oh AL-toh). I am not trying tosell you anything and I will not ask you for a donation or contribution of any kind. May I please speak to ? (MUST SPEAK TO VOTER LISTED. VERIFY THAT THE VOTER LIVES AT THE ADDRESS LISTED; OTHERWISE, TERMINATE.) []a. lib. []c. In November there will be a .qeneral election for President, Congress, and state and local ballot measures. I know it is a long way off, but how likely are you to actually vote in this election? Will you definitely vote, probably vote, are the chances 50-50 that you will vote, will you probably not vote, or will you definitely not vote? Definitely vote .............1 Probably vote 2 50-50 ................................................3 Probably not vote .TERMINATE Definitely not vote .................TERMINATE (DON’T KNOW/NA)4 (T) Generally speaking, how would you rate the City of Palo Alto (PAL-oh AL-toh) as a place to live: is it an excellent place to live, a good place to live, only fair, or a poor place to live? Excellent .......1 Good ................................................2 Just fair .......3 Poor --.4 (DON’T READ/DK/NA)5 I am going to read a short list of public services in the city of Palo Alto (PAL-oh AL-toh). For each one, please tell me if you think it has a great need for additional funding, some need, a little need or no real need for additional funding. (ROTATE) (DON’T GREAT SOME LITTLE NO READ) NEED NEED NEED NEED DK/NA (T) Public safety ...................................1 .............2 ..............3 ............4 ...............5 (T) Public libraries 1 2--3 ............4 5 (T) Public schools .................................1 .............2 ..............3 ............4 ...............5 FAIRBANK, MASLIN, MAULLIN & ASSOCIATES 220-2544oD5 PAGE 2 NOW I WOULD LIKE TO ASK YOU ABOUT A LOCAL BALLOT MEASURE THAT MIGHT APPEAR IN AN UPCOMING PALO ALTO ELECTION. Here is the language for the measure as it might appear on the ballot: it is entitled PALO ALTO LIBRARY IMPROVEMENT BOND. It might read as follows: "To complete improvements to all branch libraries in the City of Palo Alto by: replacing the existing Mitchell Park Library and community center; upgrading and expanding the Main Library; renovating the Downtown Library; expanding reading areas and facilities for children; and providing room for larger collections and improved information technology; shall the City of Palo Alto issue 75 million dollars in general obligation bonds, subject to independent audits and citizen oversight?" If the election were held today, would you vote yes in favor of this potential ballot measure or no to oppose it? (IF YES/NO ASK): "Is that definitely (YES/NO) or just probably (YES/NO)?" (IF UNDECIDED, ASK:) Well, do you lean towards voting yes or no? Definitely yes ..........................................(ASK QX)--1 Probably yes ...........................................(ASK QX)--2 Undecided, lean yes (ASK QX)--3 Undecided, lean no (ASK QX)--4 Probably no ............................................(ASK QX)--5 Definitely no ..................................~ .........(ASK QX)--6 (DON’T READ) Need more info (SKIP TO QX)--7 (DON’T READ) DK/NA (SKIP TO QX)--8 FAIRBANK, MASLIN, MAULLIN & ASSOCIATES 220-2544-D5 PAGE 3 (IF YES/NO IN QX, ASK QX) 5. In a few words of your own, why would you vote YES/NO on this ballot measure? (OPEN END, RECORD VERBATIM RESPONSE BELOW) a. Yes: b. No: (RESUME ASKING ALL RESPONDENTS) 6. And what if the bond measure authorized the issue of 71 million dollars in general obligation bonds instead of 75 million dollars in bonds, but did not include any improvements or upgrades to the Downtown Library? If that were the case, would you vote yes in favor of the bond measure or no to oppose it? (IF YESlNO, ASK:) would you definitely vote (YES/NO) or just probably? (IF UNDECIDED, ASK: Are you leaning toward voting yes or no?) Definitely yes-1 Probably yes 2 Undecided, lean yes 3 Undecided, lean no 4 Probably no ........................................5 Definitely no .......................................6 (DON’T READ) Need more info 7 (DON’T READ) DK/NA 8 FAIRBANK, MASLIN, MAULLIN & ASSOCIATES 220-2544=D5 PAGE 4 (SPLIT SAMPLE A - ASK Q7 THEN Q8) (SPLIT SAMPLE B - ASK Q8 THEN Q7) 7. Next, suppose you knew that the 75 million dollar library bond measure to fund improvements to Palo Alto (PAL-oh AL-toh) libraries, including Mitchell Park, Main and Downtown, resulted in an annual property tax increase of 25 dollars per 100 thousand dollars of assessed value - which is based on the value of the house as identified on your most recent property tax bill and no____~t its current market value. If that were the case, would you vote yes in favor of the bond measure or no to oppose it? (IF YES/NO, ASK:) would you definitely vote (YES/NO) or just probably? (IF UNDECIDED, ASK: Are you leaning toward voting yes or no?) Definitely yes ......................................1 Probably yes 2 Undecided, lean yes.3 Undecided, lean no 4 Probably no ........................................5 Definitely no 6 (DON’T READ) Need more info 7 (DON’T READ) DK/NA 8 Next, suppose you knew that the 75 million dollar library bond measure to fund improvements to Palo Alto (PAL-oh AL-toh) libraries, including Mitchell Park, Main and Downtown, resulted in an annual property tax increase of 123 dollars for the median Palo Alto homeowner. If that were the case, would you vote yes in favor of the bond measure or no to oppose it? (IF YES/NO, ASK:) would you definitely vote (YES/NO) or just probably? (IF UNDECIDED, ASK: Are you leaning toward voting yes or no?) Definitely yes ......................................1 Probably yes Undecided, lean yes. Undecided, lean no Probably no Definitely no (DON’T READ) Need more info (DON’T READ) DK/NA 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 MY NEXT QUESTIONS DEAL WITH SOME OTHER ISSUES FACING PALO ALTO. I am going to read you a list of different aspects of life in Palo Alto. After I read each one, please tell me if you expect that item to be better or worse twelve months from now. (IF BETTER/VVORSE) Is that much BETTER/VVORSE or somewhat BETTER/WORSE? (ROTATE) []a.lib. MUCH SMWT (NO SMWT MUCH BETTER BETTER DIFF.) WORSE WORSE Your personal economic situation ..................1 ..........2 The local economy .....................................1 ..........2 3..........4 5 6 3 ..........4 ..........5 ...........6 FAIRBANK, MASLIN, MAULLIN & ASSOCIATES 220-2544-D5 PAGE 5 10.How would you rate the overall job being done by Palo Alto (PAL-oh AL-toh) city government in providing services to the City’s residents? Would you say the City is doing an...? (READ RESPONSES AND RECORD) Excellent 1 Good 2 Only fair, or 3 Poor job 4 (DON’T READ) Don’t know 5 11.Next, how would you rate the job being done by Palo Alto (PAL-oh AL-toh) City officials in managing City funds? Would you say City officials are doing an...? (READ RESPONSES AND RECORD) Excellent 1 Good 2 Only fair, or 3 Poor job 4 (DON’T READ) Don’t know 5 NOW I’D LIKE TO ASK YOU SOME MORE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS ABOUT THE POTENTIAL 75 MILLION DOLLAR BOND MEASURE TO FUND IMPROVEMENTS TO PALO ALTO LIBRARIES, INCLUDING MITCHELL PARK, MAIN AND DOWNTOWN. 12.I am going to read you a list of specific projects that could be funded by the library bond measure. As I read each one, please tell me how important it is to you that the project be funded: extremely important, very important, somewhat important, or not important. (RANDOMIZE) EXT VERY SW NOT IMPT.IMPT. IMPT. IMPT. (DON’T READ) DK/NA (SPLIT SAMPLE A ONLY) [ ]a. (T) Expanding children’s reading areas in the []b. []c. lid. lie. [If.Jig. []h. []i. library ...................................................................1 .........2 ..........3 ........4 (T) Offering more computers for public use at the Mitchell Park Library ................................................1 .........2 ..........3 ........4 (T) Improving lighting in libraries to make it easier to locate and read books ..........................................1 .........2 ..........3 ........4 (T) Expanding space for books and other items to accommodate a larger collection at the Library ..............1 2 3 ........4 (T) Providing updated facilities for after-school programs such "as homework tutoring ..........................1 .........2 ..........3 ........4 (T) Upgrading and repairing the Downtown Library .........1 2 3 ........4 (T) Providing air conditioning at libraries that currently do not have any .........................................1 .........2 ..........3 ........4 Building new facilities that meet federal and state standards for environmentally-friendly "green building" - ..............................................................1 .........2 ..........3 ........4 Building spaces for community events, programs and meetings .........................................................1 2 3 ........4 EXT VERY SW NOT IMPT.IMPT.IMPT.IMPT. 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 (DON’T READ) DK/NA FAIRBANK, MASLIN, MAULLIN & ASSOCIATES 220-2544-D5 PAGE 6 []j. Ilk. (T) Upgrading and repairing the Main Library ................1 .........2 ..........3 ........4 (T) Building a new Mitchell Park Library .......................1 2 3 4 (T) Building a new community center 1 .........2 3 4 5 5 5 (SPLIT SAMPLE B ONLY) [ ]m. Improving access for disabled persons at the library and community center ....................................1 .........2 ..........3 4 [ ]n.Reducing duplication of facilities and allowing more efficient joint use of library and community center space ...........1 .........2 3 4 [ ]o.Adding group study areas for students at the library ...................................................................1 .........2 ..........3 ........4 [ ]p.Providing dedicated quiet spaces for reading 1 2 3 ........4 [ ]q.Preserving the historic character of the Main Library ..................................................1 2 3 ........4 [ ]r.Providing a safe place for children and youth to go after school ...........................................................1 .........2 ..........3 ........4 [ ]s.Completing a series of improvements to all of Palo Alto’s branch libraries ..............................................1 .........2 ..........3 ........4 [ ]t.Ensuring that all libraries meet standards for earthquake safety ...................................................1 .........2 ..........3 ........4 [ ]u.Offering a dedicated children’s room at the Mitchell Park Library ................................................1 .........2 ..........3 ........4 [ ]v.Expanding the Main Library .......................................1 .........2 ..........3 ........4 [ ]w.Replacing and expanding the Mitchell Park Library .........1 2 3 ........4 [ ]x.Building a new community center at Mitchell Park Library ..................................................1 2 3 ........4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 (RESUME ASKING ALL RESPONDENTS) NEXT, I’D LIKE TO READ YOU SOME STATEMENTS FROM SUPPORTERS AND OPPONENTS OF THE PROPOSED 75 MILLION DOLLAR LIBRARY BOND MEASURE. 13.First, here are some statements from people who support this potential library bond measure. After hearing each statement, please tell me whether you find it very convincing, somewhat convincing, or not convincing as a reason to vote yes on the measure. If you do not believe the statement, please tell me that too. (RANDOMIZE) []a. (DON’T VERY SMWHT NOT DON’T READ CONV. CONV. CONV. BELIEVE DK/NA) This measure will make it possible to offer Palo Alto (PAL-oh AL-toh) children and teens more safe after-school activities, including tutoring and educational programs. - ...........................................1 ............2 ............3 ...........4 .........5 FAIRBANK, MASLIN, MAULLIN & ASSOCIATES 220=2544-D5 PAGE 7 lib. []c. lid. Palo Alto (PAL,oh AL-toh) libraries have limited space for collections, poor lighting, and need upgrades for earthquake safety or disabled access. This bond measure will address these VERY CONV. SMWHT CONV. (DON’T NOT DON’T READ CONV. BELIEVE DK/NA) vital needs.- ..........................................................1 ............2 ............3 ...........4 .........5 Over the past ten years, the City has been steadily making improvements to all of Palo Alto’s library branches. This bond measure will fund improvements at the last three branches and complete improvements to the library system. - ..............................................................1 ............2 ............3.4 5 This measure has tough accountability provisions including, mandatory independent audits, a citizens’ fiscal oversight committee and no money for administrators’ salaries. - .......................1 ............2 ............3 ...........4 .........5 (SPLIT SAMPLE A ONLY) [ ]e. Over 25 hundred people visit libraries daily, This bond proposal was carefully reviewed by Palo Alto citizens on the Library Advisory Commission, and citizens in the construction industry say it is the most efficient, cost-effective way to meet the City’s future library needs. - ................1 [ ]f. there is increasing demand for Wi-Fi and internet services, and library use overall increased ten percent last year. The Mitchell Park Library was built 50 years ago, and is simply too small to meet today’s needs.1. [ ]g.More than one-third of the cost of repaying the bonds authorized by this measure will be paid by businesses, reducing the impact on Palo Alto homeowners.1 (SPLIT SAMPLE B ONLY) [ ]h. Increasing the space and capacity of the Main, Mitchell Park and Downtown Libraries will increase library collections available throughout the entire library system. - ....................... 1 [ ]i.The library improvements and building upgrades in this measure have been well planned. The Mitchell Park Library will have temporary services in the area during the rebuilding process and the new Mitchell Park Library will not affect existing dedicated parkland. Likewise, renovations and improvements to the Main Library will preserve the historic character of the 2 ............3 ...........4 .........5 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 .........5 2 3 4 existing building.- ...................................................1 ............2 ............3 ...........4 .........5 FAIRBANK, MASLIN, MAULLIN & ASSOCIATES 220-2544-D5 PAGE 8 (RESUME ASKING RESPONDENTS) 14. Now that you have heard what those in favor of this potential bond measure are saying, let me ask you again. Would you vote yes in favor or no to oppose the 75 million dollar bond measure to fund improvements to Palo Alto libraries, including Mitchell Park, Main, and Downtown? (IF YES/NO ASK): "Is that definitely (yes/no) or just probably (yes/no)?" (IF UNDECIDED, ASK:) Well, do you lean towards voting yes or no? Definitely yes Probably yes Undecided, lean yes Undecided, lean no Probably no Definitely no (DON’T READ) Need more info (DON’T READ) DK/NA 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 15.Next, here are some statements from people who o~ose this library bond measure. After hearing each statement, please tell me whether you find it very convincing, somewhat convincing, or not convincing as a reason to vote n_go on the measure. If you do not believe the statement, please tell me that too. (RANDOMIZE) [ ]a. [lb. With our economy moving into a recession, we simply cannot afford a major tax increase for Palo Alto families that are already struggling to make ends meet. We cannot trust City government to spend the funds from this bond measure properly. VERY SMWHT NOT DON’T CONV.CONV.CONV.BELIEVE 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 (DON’T READ DK/NA) (SPLIT SAMPLE A ONLY) [ ]c. Nearly all the money from this bond measure will be used to rebuild Mitchell Park Library. Most local residents use other branches that will not benefit as much from this bond measure.- ...................1 ............2 ............3 ...........4 ..........5 [ ]d.There are much higher priorities for our tax dollars than improving libraries -like schools, streets and public safety.- ........................................1 ............2 ............3 ...........4 .........5 (SPLIT SAMPLE B ONLY) [ ]e. We just passed a school bond to help local kids, and now the City is asking us to approve more borrowing.~ ...........1 [ If.We should focus our resources on one or two full-service libraries instead of spending money to upgrade 5 different libraries.. ..........1 2 2 3 4 5 FAIRBANK, MASLIN, MAULLIN & ASSOCIATES 220-2544-D5 PAGE 9 (RESUME ASKING ALL RESPONDENTS) 16. Sometimes over the course of a survey like this, people change their minds. Let me ask you one last time: would you vote yes in favor or no to oppose the 75 million dollar bond measure to fund improvements to Palo Alto libraries, including Mitchell Park, Main and Downtown? (IF YES/NO ASK): "Is that definitely (yes/no) or just probably (yes/no)?" (IF UNDECIDED, ASK:) Well, do you lean towards voting yes or no? Definitely yes Probably yes Undecided, lean yes Undecided, lean no Probably no Definitely no (DON’T READ) Need more info (DON’T READ) DK/NA 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 THESE ARE MY FINAL QUESTIONS, AND THEY ARE FOR CLASSIFICATION PURPOSES ONLY. 17.Which of the following Palo Alto public libraries have you visited within the past year? (READ LISTmALLOW MULITPLE RESPONSES) College Terrace ............1 Downtown .............................................................2 Main Library ...........................................................3 Mitchell Park---4 Children’s Library .......5 (DON’T READ) Other, specify 6 (DON’T READ) DK/NA/REFUSED 7 18.Do you ... (READ LIST) Own a single family home ......................1 Own a condominium 2 Rent an apartment or home 3 (DON’T READ) DK/NA/REFUSED 4 (ASK Q19 ONLY IF HOMEOWNER- CODE 1 OR 2 IN Q18) 19. Did you buy your home before 1978, or in 1978 or after? Before 1978 In 1978 or after (DON’T KNOW/NA) 1 2 (RESUME ASKING ALL RESPONDENTS) 20. Do you live north or south of Oregon Expressway? North South (DON’T READ) DK/NA 1 2 3 FAIRBANK, MASLIN, MAULLIN & ASSOCIATES 220-2544-D5 PAGE 10 21. 22. 23. What was the last level of school that you completed? Grades 1-8- Grades 9-12 High School graduate ....... Less than 4 years of college College graduate (4) Post graduate work/ Professional school (DON’T READ) Refused 1 3 4 5 6 7 Do you have any children under the age of 19 living at home? No ....................................................2 (DON’T READ) DK/NA 3 With which racial Caucasian, Black background? or ethnic group do you identify yourself: Latino or Hispanic, White or or African-American, Asian-American, or some other ethnic or racial Hispanic/Latino White/Caucasian Black/African-American. Asian-American Other (SPECIFY~.) (DON’T READ) DKdNNREFUSED 1 2 3 4 5 6 24. 25. In what year were you born? 1990-1984 (18-24) ..........1 1983-1979 (25-29)2 1978-1974 (30-34)3 1973-1969 (35-39) ..............................4 1968-1964 (40-44)5 1963-1959 (45-49)6 1958-1954 (50-54)7 1953-1949 (55-59)8 1948-1944 (60-64)9 1943-1934 (65-74)10 1933 or earlier (75 & over).11 (DON’T READ) Refused-12 I don’t need to know the exact amount, but please stop me when I read the category that includes the total income for your household before taxes in 2007. Was it: Under $50,000 a year ...........................1 $50,001 to $100,000 $100,001 to $150,000 $150,001 to $200,000 $200,001 to $250,000 Over $250,000 (DON’T READ) Refused 2 3 4 5 6 7 220-2544-D5 PAGE 11FAIRBANK, MASLIN, MAULLIN & ASSOCIATES THANK AND TERMINATE GENDER (BY OBSERVATION): REGISTRATION: Name Address Zip Phone # Cluster# Male .......1 Female .....2 Democrat 1 Republican 2 Decline to State ...................................3 Other .......4 Precinct # Interviewer Voter I D# FLAGS P02 ..............................1 G02.,2 R03 ,3 P04 G04 ....................5 N05 ,6 P06 ,7 G06,,8 F08 ,9 Blank.....................................10 VOTE BY MAIL 1 1 2 .2 3+.3 Blank,.4 PERMANENT ABSENTEE Yes 1 No .2 HOUSEHOLD PARTY TYPE Dem 1 1 Dem 2+2 Rep 1 3 Rep 2+ ....................................4 Ind 1+5 Mix ......6