HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 7118City of Palo Alto (ID # 7118)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 6/27/2016
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Election Measure - Business Tax
Title: Consideration of Ad Hoc Committee Report and Recommendations,
Review of Polling, and Discussion and Direction on Potential 2016 Business
Tax to Fund Transportation and Parking Improvements, Including Alternative
Timing Options, Elements of Measure, Preliminary Revenue Estimates, and
Potential Projects and Impacts
From: City Manager
Lead Department: City Manager
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the City Council discuss second polling results and related findings,
consider and discuss the Ad Hoc Committee report, framing issues and recommendations and
provide direction to staff on whether to place local business tax measure on the ballot for
November 2016 or an alternative election timeframe. The next opportunity for a General Tax
election would be November 2018. A Special Tax election, which requires a 2/3 vote majority
could take place at different times in 2017 or 2018.
Note: If the City Council desires to place a measure on the November 2016 ballot, staff
recommends that the Council also schedule two special meetings before August 12, the deadline
for submitting ballot language. These meetings would allow for input on a draft ordinance, as
well as review of the final ordinance and ballot question.
Executive Summary:
During the week of April 14-20, Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin, Metz & Associates (FM3) conducted
an initial poll of 400 community members to gauge the level of support on the concept of a
potential local business tax to generate funds that Council intends to use for transportation
related purposes. Since the initial poll was conducted, the Local Transportation Ad Hoc
Committee of the Council has met three times on June 2, 8 and 15 to discuss outreach and a
potential second poll. The second round of polling was conducted June 11-12 with the results
provided at the Ad Hoc Committee Meeting’s June 16 meeting. The first and second polling
results are included as Attachments A and B.
# 17
City of Palo Alto Page 2
The second polling results showed that in general:
Voters support a local traffic congestion relief measure with total yes (including
definitely, probably and undecided, leaning yes) – 65%
FM 3 characterized support as “soft” given that nearly half of supporters indicated they
would only probably vote yes or started as undecided and indicated they would lean
toward voting yes when pushed
A plurality of voters support using funding on improvements that take cars off the road
– 48%
The measure is vulnerable to opposition messaging with the argument that it is rushed
persuasive to nearly two-thirds
Connecting the measure’s benefits to the mechanism is especially persuasive
Other tax measures such as a parcel tax, sales tax, or increase in utility tax are much less
popular than an employee head tax
Three-quarters support the Countywide VTA transportation measure (which requires a
2/3 vote countywide), but the County measure loses about 6% support in Palo Alto after
voters hear about a potential local tax, which would represent about a 0.25% decrease
in countywide support. (Polling did not consider the potential interaction with other
funding measures on the ballot, such as the County’s housing bond.)
The polling showed similar levels of support and opposition for such a measure among likely
2018 voters in a general, non-presidential year election.
Based on the second polling results and feedback from outreach efforts, outreach consultant
TBWB outlined three paths forward for Council to consider in terms of timing for a potential tax
measure:
1. Proceed with placing a general tax measure on the November 2016 ballot, but
consider the impact of an opposition campaign focused on the process by which this
measure was developed
2. Consider placing a special tax measure requiring a two-thirds vote on a special
election ballot in 2017 and utilize the additional time to refine the proposal, build
consensus and neutralize potential sources of opposition
3. Consider placing a general tax measure requiring a simple majority vote on the
November 2018 ballot and utilize the additional time to refine the proposal, build
consensus and neutralize potential sources of opposition.
In options 2 and 3, the City could use the time between now and the election to improve the
Business Registry and develop the infrastructure needed to implement a business tax.
City of Palo Alto Page 3
The Ad Hoc Committee directed staff to bring these options, as well as a series of issues to
consider to the full Council at its June 27 meeting.
Background
During the week of April 14-20, Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin, Metz & Associates (FM3) conducted
an initial poll of 400 community members to gauge the level of support on the concept of a
potential local business tax to generate funds that Council intends to use for transportation
related purposes. This poll was designed to test support for such a tax with its use directed to
localized transportation improvements. The poll tested a local tax on business related to
funding City transportation improvements through an employee head count based structure.
Various rates and exemptions were tested. No other local City tax approaches, such as a City
sales tax was tested. The initial poll was designed to help assess whether a special tax requiring
2/3rd majority vote could be successful (tax for a single purpose that could be scheduled for any
election). The poll also tested for support for a general tax, which requires a simple 50%
majority vote, but which can only be held in a general election (November every two years.
2016 or 2018 for example).
At the Ad Hoc Committee meeting on June 2, the Committee gave our outreach consultant
TBWB and staff direction on potential groups and organizations to include in its outreach
efforts. TBWB and staff met with an executive group from the Chamber Board, members of the
Stanford Research Park TMA, and sent a survey out to all small, medium and large businesses
included in the Business Registry to solicit input for the Committee to consider. On June 8,
TBWB and staff returned to the committee with an update on feedback and input received as a
result of these efforts. A summary of the results from the small and medium/large business
survey are included as Attachments C and D.
The Committee then discussed conducting a second round of polling with more specific
language and potential uses for a general tax; details on a tiered structure and exemption for
business with less than 10 employees, as well as a question about other potential types of
taxes. In addition, the County has now voted to place a transportation measure on the county
ballot in November. The second round of polling was also intended to clarify whether having a
local transportation tax measure would impact the likelihood of the County’s measure passing.
The second round of polling was conducted June 11-12 with the results provided to the ad hoc
committee at its meeting on June 16. Due to the compressed timeframe, staff focused on
completing the polling of residents to inform the Committee’s process.
Discussion
Based on the second polling results, Charles Health of TBWB outreach firm outlined for the
committee three paths forward to consider in terms of timing for a potential tax measure. The
“soft” support of 65%, with nearly half indicating they would probably vote yes or are
undecided but lean yes, leaves the measure vulnerable to an opposition campaign, especially if
the opposition conveys that the measure is rushed and poorly planned. TBWB worked on the
City’s Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT – Measure B) in 2014 to fund infrastructure investments
City of Palo Alto Page 4
and indicated that there was very little organized or funded opposition to the measure because
of the time invested in a thorough planning and outreach process to develop a thoughtful plan
and build community consensus. As a result, and even with only a modest advocacy campaign
supporting the measure, Measure B received support from 76.28% of voters, which exceeded
FM3’s pre-election polling on the measure. TBWB estimates that a fundraising effort for
proponents of the measure would likely need to be in the $150,000 to $200,000 range.
Based on the public testimony at the Ad Hoc Committee meeting and feedback so far from the
business community, there are numerous indications that a November 2016 business tax
measure aimed at traffic relief would face significantly more opposition than Measure B in
2014. While FM3’s polling does indicate that a measure could succeed in the face of organized
and funded opposition, the Council should consider the risks and consequences of an
unsuccessful measure in 2016. At the end of the poll after voters have heard potential
arguments that may be made against the measure, overall support is 66%, but only 37% of
voters indicate they will definitely vote yes. The 29% difference between the 66% overall
support and the 37% definite support represents the supporters that may be persuadable by an
opposition campaign. Exactly what portion of those supporters might be persuaded to oppose
the measure is difficult to quantify and highly dependent upon the strength and sophistication
of an opposition campaign, as well as the strength and sophistication of a campaign in support
of the measure to offset and counteract opposition activities.
Included in the Committee’s consideration of placing a measure on the November 2016 ballot
was a discussion about the “pairing” of the VTA and a local tax measure as a unique
opportunity to pair the City’s share of the regional measure with its local funding and the
potential impacts of increased traffic congestion by waiting an additional two years to move
forward with a tax measure.
As an alternative, the Council could also choose to put the measure on the ballot in 2017 as a
special election for a special tax with funds earmarked for specific purposes, and that requires
two-thirds voter support to pass. Given that overall support for the measure reaches 72% after
voters hear potential arguments in favor of the measure and in the absence of a simulated
opposition campaign, it is reasonable to believe that a measure could potentially reach the two-
thirds passage threshold given the right set of circumstances.
Delaying until 2017 would provide additional time to build consensus among stakeholders and
neutralize potential sources of opposition by addressing their concerns. Even if all opposition
could not be neutralized, efforts to blunt criticisms that the measure is rushed or poorly
planned would likely make any opposition less damaging to a measure’s probability for success.
When thinking about the potential for a two-thirds measure in 2017, the Council should
continue to consider the significant portion of support that is “soft support” that could diminish
between now and an election and the narrow margin of support measured in polling above the
two-thirds threshold required for passage. The Council should also consider any potential delay
in the implementation of a measure and receipt of funds associated with a delay in the election.
City of Palo Alto Page 5
Finally, the Council could decide to put a general tax measure requiring simple majority support
on the November 2018 general election ballot. November 2018 is a gubernatorial election,
which has historically produced marginally lower voter turnout than presidential general
elections like November 2016 but more than a special election. FM3’s polling suggests that the
marginal decline in turnout expected in 2018 does not result in material decline in support for
the measure. Accordingly, the advantages associated with a 2018 election are largely the same
as a November 2016 election but this date allows more time for planning and consensus
building. The primary disadvantage of a 2018 election is the potential delay in the
implementation of a measure, delay in the receipt of funds and the delay in accrued community
benefits from investments in traffic congestion relief.
At the same time, staff estimates, based on our experience with the Business Registry and
analysis performed at the last effort on a Business License Tax, which failed, suggest that the
earliest date for completion of implementation measures for the tax would be January of 2018,
for an election held in 2016. By comparison, a 2018 election could allow staff to develop the
potential implementation measures in advance of the measure appearing on the ballot, and
significantly shorten the gap between the vote and readiness to collect the tax.
Implementation may be possible as soon as January 2019, reducing the effective gap between
the 2016 and 2018 election to a year or only slightly more. Council should consider this factor in
addition to other pros and cons of timing on an election date.
Based on the polling results, outreach feedback and discussion at the three Ad Hoc meetings,
the Committee directed staff to provide a framework of the major points of discussion for the
full Council to consider at their June 27 meeting. These include:
Formation of an oversight committee
Sunset of tax or not
Estimated revenue generated by measure
Structure and form of tax
Relationship among timeframe for election, implementation and collection of revenues
Potential projects that could be funded by tax proceeds
Enforcement and other administrative elements and costs
Impact on traffic congestion of no action/putting measure in place
Regardless of which scenario the Council may choose, there will need to be a thoughtful design
and deployment of any business tax. Unlike the Business Registry, which simply requires
businesses to fill out information with all self-reported data and includes a nominal registration
fee, imposing a tax on a business is much different in scope. A tax obligation imposed on
employers has different implications and repercussions if inaccurate or incomplete. There
needs to be audit provisions, as well as enforcement provisions, penalties for non-compliance
and numerous quality assurance protocols in place.
City of Palo Alto Page 6
Oversight committee
The Ad Hoc Committee was unanimous in its recommendation for both the formation of an
oversight committee, as well as its membership to include both the business and residential
communities. Council should note that funds generated by a general tax must be placed in the
City’s general fund. While Council could appoint an advisory committee to advise Council on
expenditure of funds generated by the business tax, the committee’s work would differ from
that of a bond oversight committee and would be advisory to Council’s Charter authority to
adopt a budget and expend general funds.
Sunset or not
The Ad Hoc Committee heard from TBWB, the City’s outreach consultant that support for a tax
measure typically increases on tax measures if voters know there is an opportunity to
reconsider the tax at a set future date. There was no specific date agreed upon by the
committee or whether a sunset date should be included. The VTA measure on the ballot is a
30-year measure, and there was a suggestion by one committee member to consider 2028 to
coincide with the Comprehensive Plan update time horizon (which is 2030).
Estimated revenue generated by measure
As originally discussed by the Ad Hoc Committee, staff estimated the revenue generated by a
measure structured as 1) exempting businesses with 10 or fewer employees; 2) employers with
11-50 employees would pay $50 per employee and 3) employers with 100 or more would pay
$100 per employee. Using these criteria and the list of businesses registered for 2015 (the year
for the most current data), staff estimates the revenue at approximately $4.6 million. However,
businesses in the Registry self-report the number of employees, but per the administrative
regulations of the BRC are only made available within ranges. There are a number of
businesses that do not indicate any size range, and it is unknown at this time exactly how many
employees the larger employer may have. It is likely this number would be higher than
approximately $5 million or greater.
There will be one-time costs for implementation and then ongoing administrative costs
estimated at just under $400,000 year, which must be deducted from the tax yield estimates.
Also note that the total number of businesses who were required to register for 2016 is
expected to decrease due to new exemptions put in place for the registry primarily to exempt
businesses and nonprofit organizations with less than one FTE, as well as religious organizations
with no ancillary business on site. This would likely have minimal impact on any estimated
revenue projections.
The self-reported number of employers in each size range listed in the BRC for 2015 (the latest
available) are as follows:
Business Registry 2015 Data
City of Palo Alto Page 7
0-10: 1,734
11-25: 395
26-50: 171
51-100: 79
251-500: 20
501-1000: 6
1001-2000: 7
2001 and up: 1
Using the $4.6 million estimate as a baseline and the average number of employees within each
sized employer, the Committee directed staff to calculate the potential revenue based on
various tiered tax rates. The breakdown is as follows:
Classification by
Number of
Employees
Number of
Businesses
in
Classification
Average
Employees
Fee
Amount Total Fee
0-10 employees 1,734
11-25 395 18 $50 $355,500
26-50 171 38 $50 $324,900
51-100 79 75 $100 $592,500
101-250 51 175 $100 $892,500
251-500 20 375 $100 $750,000
501-1000 6 750 $100 $450,000
1001-2000 7 1500 $100 $1,050,000
2001 and up 1 2001 $100 $200,100
Grand Total $4,615,500
10 and under: Not exempt, $50/employee
11-50: $50/employee
51 and up: $100/employee
Additional $86,700
City of Palo Alto Page 8
Classification by
Number of
Employees
Number of
Businesses
in
Classification
Average
Employees
Fee
Amount Total Fee
0-10 employees 1,734 5 $50 $433,500
11-25 395 18 $50 $355,500
26-50 171 38 $50 $324,900
51-100 79 75 $100 $592,500
101-250 51 175 $100 $892,500
251-500 20 375 $100 $750,000
501-1000 6 750 $100 $450,000
1001-2000 7 1500 $100 $1,050,000
2001 and up 1 2001 $100 $200,100
Grand Total $5,049,000
10 and under exempt
$100/employee for all others, no discounted rate
Additional $1.36 million
Classification by
Number of
Employees
Number of
Businesses
in
Classification
Average
Employees
Fee
Amount Total Fee
0-10 employees 1,734
11-25 395 18 $100 $711,000
26-50 171 38 $100 $649,800
51-100 79 75 $100 $592,500
101-250 51 175 $100 $892,500
251-500 20 375 $100 $750,000
501-1000 6 750 $100 $450,000
1001-2000 7 1500 $100 $1,050,000
2001 and up 1 2001 $100 $200,100
Grand Total $5,295,900
City of Palo Alto Page 9
Companies with more than 500 employees listed in the Business Registry include:
City of Palo Alto
CPI
Palantir
Nordstrom
Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital
Stanford
Google
Hewlett Packard
SAP
Silicon Valley Bank
SSL
Tesla
Varian Medical
VM Ware
Form and Structure of tax
Although the Committee did discuss the initial structure in terms of exemption size, discount
for mid-sized employers and an amount per employee, these issues are before the full Council
for discussion and direction to staff. In the section above, estimated revenues have been
included based on various exemptions and cost-per-employee scenarios. Other issues for the
Council to consider include:
Whether to impose and minimum (floor) or maximum amount (cap)
Whether to provide for annual adjustment based on inflation
The definition of an employee
How to determine average monthly or yearly headcount
Potential projects to be included for funding
The Committee discussed at length potential transportation projects that could be funded with
proceeds raised through a local business tax. The second polling found that a plurality of voters
support using funding on improvements that take cars off the road. Included in the 48%
support were alternatives designed to reduce the number of cards on the road, focusing on
shuttle busses, pedestrian bicycle improvements, and other alternatives to driving.
The Committee directed staff to include potential projects that would maximum traffic
congestion relief and provide the “biggest bang for the buck” in terms of impact. Projects in
the City’s transportation pipeline that could be funded include:
Table: Potential Transportation Projects/Programs for Funding
City of Palo Alto Page 10
Potential
Project/Program
One-time
Capital Cost
Annual
Ongoing/
Operating +
Maintenance
Cost
(calculated at
2% of capital)
Justification/Source
Citywide Bicycle
Parking Program
(Ongoing)
- $100,000 In order to attain Platinum-level Bicycle Friendly
Community status, the City will need to add a large
amount of additional bicycle parking. The lack of
bicycle parking throughout the City was identified as
a gap in the League of American Bicyclists report card
for Palo Alto. Project is scalable and any substantial
funding allocation could be used to install bicycle
parking.
Citywide Bicycle
Sharing System*
$1,100,000 $200,000 Provides gap funding for the installation and
operation of the 350-bike citywide smart bike system
identified in the Peninsula Communities Strategic
Plan, which projects that over 189,070 annual trips
will be made using the system and 62 SOV trips per
day will be removed.
Citywide Shuttle
System Expansion
(three new routes
and two route
extensions)
- $1,500,000 Based on a draft Shuttle Study and work completed in
2015 by the consultant and Staff, it is estimated that
each new route would generate 15-25 boardings per
revenue hour of service. The two existing shuttle
routes generate 46,000 and 76,000 boardings per
year. If the three new routes perform at the level as
the existing routes they can be expected to generate
between 138,000 and 228,000 boardings per year.
The impacts of the extension of the Crosstown and
Embarcadero routes is difficult to estimate. Assuming
a 50% increase in ridership, the extensions would
generate an additional 61,000 boardings per year.
Citywide Traffic
Calming Program
(Ongoing)
- $500,000 This program would address the regional traffic
impacts to local neighborhoods by reducing motor
vehicle speeds and volumes on local streets, thereby
encouraging motorists to remain on arterial and
collector streets for as long as possible when traveling
through Palo Alto or accessing locations within Palo
Alto. Project is scalable and any substantial funding
allocation could be used to install traffic calming
devices.
Citywide Transit
Amenities and
Infrastructure
Improvements
(benches, shelters,
signal priority,
queue-jump lanes,
etc.)
$1,200,000 $24,000 This program would encourage new transit ridership
by adding transit amenities along transit routes
within Palo Alto, including those operated by the City,
VTA, SamTrans, AC Transit and Stanford University.
Project is scalable and any substantial funding
allocation could be used to install transit amenities.
Downtown Parking $3,000,000 $60,000 Provides funding for the installation and operation of
City of Palo Alto Page 11
Access Controls and
Revenue Collection
Equipment**
parking access controls and revenue collection
equipment in the City’s downtown garages and lots.
Downtown Parking
Automated
Guidance Systems**
$2,100,000 $50,000 Provides funding for the installation and operation of
Council-recommended automated parking guidance
system equipment in the City’s downtown garages
and lots.
Expand Safe Routes
to School (high
school student and
adult education)
- $200,000 Provides funding for the expansion of the City’s
successful safe routes to school program to high
schools and the adult population. It is assumed that
two new full-time staff members would be needed to
execute this expansion.
Loma Verde Avenue
Class IV Separated
Bikeway*
$2,000,000 $40,000 Provides funding for the planning, design,
construction and operation of a Class IV separated
bikeway on Loma Verde Avenue between Alma Street
and West Bayshore Road. Assumes that the $1.5
million in Santa Clara County grant funding is not
available for this project.
Palo Alto
Transportation
Management
Association
- $1,000,000 Provides funding to the Palo Alto Transportation
Management Association to achieve a 30% reduction
in SOV trips to and from downtown within three to
five years. The proposed funding level starts at
$100,000 and increases to $1,000,000 over a three-
or five-year period, depending on the speed at which
the TMA ramps up to full capacity.
Railroad Grade
Separations
$50,000,000
to
$200,000,000
- Provides a 20% local match for the construction of
one to four grade separations, with an assumed cost
of $250 million per grade separation. Operating costs
are assumed to be borne by the railroad corridor
owner. Railroad grade separations are identified as a
potential project category to be funded through the
county transportation sales tax, which is up for a
public vote in November 2016.
South Palo Alto
Caltrain Bike/Ped
Crossing (Alma
St/Caltrain in
Matadero Creek
area)
$3,700,000 $260,000 Provides a 20% local match for the planning, design
and construction, and full funding for the operation,
of a bicycle and pedestrian crossing of Alma Street
and Caltrain in the Matadero Creek area. This project
is identified as a significant Across Barrier Connection
in the VTA Bicycle Plan and also identified in the VTA
Bicycle Expenditure Plan and as a potential project to
be funded through the county transportation sales
tax, which up for a public vote in November 2016.
* The FY2017-2021 Capital Improvement Program assumes that these projects will be funded
through the PL-04010 Bicycle + Pedestrian Transportation Plan Implementation project. Funding
these with a new source of revenue would free up additional capital funding for other projects.
** The FY2017-2021 Capital Improvement Program assumes that these projects will be funded
through revenue generated by the introduction of paid parking downtown.
City of Palo Alto Page 12
In addition, the Committee discussed the measure’s funding to potentially allow the downtown
Transportation Management Association to expand its programs to reduce solo car trips to the
South of Forest Avenue area, as well as California Avenue.
Timing for election, implementation and collection of revenues
The Committee discussed a number of scenarios related to the timing of a potential business
tax, time needed to create an implementation and collection structure, as well as the effective
date when businesses would need to remit payment.
The Committee discussed the time to create the operational structure if a tax measure was
placed on the November 2016 ballot. Staff estimates that it would take at least six months to
assess and hire either permanent staff or contractors needed to administer collection of the
tax, and then additional design and testing of the collection system suggest the soonest date to
be fully up and running as January 2018. If a measure is placed on the 2016 ballot, the soonest
it could go into effect would be at the beginning of 2018. Full implementation would follow
that date, but tax billings could be assessed back to January 2018.
The Committee also discussed the impact of placing such a measure on the 2018 ballot, which
again would be a general tax measure needing only majority support. They discussed whether
having a longer horizon would help in the ramp up needed to create an infrastructure to
support the implementation and collection of the tax. In this scenario, if a tax measure was
placed on the November 2018 general election ballot, staff indicated potentially the measure
could go into effect at the beginning of 2019 and be implemented on the same schedule as the
2018 measure. The net effect of the two-year difference in the election dates could be a one
year difference in tax collection.
Enforcement and other administrative elements and costs
Some of the questions to consider related to enforcement and other administrative elements of
a tax are:
Self reporting – would need to be verified through some form of authentication
When is tax due?
o Annually on Jan. 1 for prospective year or possibly when other businesses taxes
are due
o Based on prior year’s data
Special rules for newly-established business without a year of data
Apportionment
Appeals procedures
Audit authority
Refunds
Civil or criminal enforcement
Interest and penalties for late payments
Interface with the BRC
City of Palo Alto Page 13
Below are administrative cost estimates based on updated figures from the 2009 business
license tax (BLT) initiative. These assume starting the program from scratch in a department,
such as Administrative Services. As a tax there would be substantial start-up costs that were
not reflected in the Business Registry. These would include appeals process, audit authority, a
formal collection and refund process, a system of checks and balances, as well as a more
rigorous enforcement process. As a tax, there would need to be a more rigorous system of
checks and balances that not only ensures that the taxes were collected fairly but that they
were spent in line with the ballot language. There would also be the need to enhance or
customize software that would meet the needs of this local business tax and provide staff the
needed metrics and customization to administer and audit both the collection taxes and
enforcement.
Table: Estimated Administrative Costs
Implementation Ongoing
Fixed Costs
Staffing (2.5 FTE) $342,873 $342,873
Variable Costs
(Forms, envelopes, software) $100,000 $50,000
Contingency $20,000
Total $462,873 $392,873
Traffic congestion impacts
The “Business as Usual” scenario in the Comprehensive Plan Update Draft Environmental
Impact Report (EIR) from February 2016 provides a picture of what traffic conditions would look
like in 2030 if the Comprehensive Plan is not updated and there is no funding for transportation
investments beyond what is currently available. Under this scenario, multiple intersections and
freeway ramps would see congestion above acceptable levels in peak commute times.
The Comprehensive Plan Update anticipates policy changes and investments aimed at
improving upon the “Business as Usual” scenario. City staff has been directed to quantify the
effectiveness of these policies and mitigation measures, and this analysis is ongoing. Staff is
also conducting a study of potential expansions to the City’s shuttle program, and supporting
the efforts of the Transportation Management Agency (TMA) that has been formed to reduce
SOV commute trips to/from Downtown.
As indicated in the list of possible projects/programs for funding, a draft shuttle indicates that
shuttle ridership could increase by approximately 163-236%, potentially generating between
199,000 and 289,000 new boardings annually, with an investment of about $1,500,000 per
year. This investment would provide for increased shuttle frequencies, extensions of the two
City of Palo Alto Page 14
existing routes, and creation of three new routes. Also, the TMA board has estimated that they
could achieve a shift of 30% reduction in solo commute trips to other modes if they had up to
$1,000,000 to invest in mode-shift encouragement programs over a three- to five-year period.
The potential shift from single occupant vehicle use to transit that could be achieved by the
shuttle and TMA programs with additional funding could be noticeable to drivers during the
commute period if there is no concurrent increase in vehicle trips by other drivers
coming/going to or through Palo Alto.
Deadlines for 2016 Ballot Measure
If the Council chooses to move forward with placing a measure on the November 2016 at its
June 27 meeting, at least two additional City Council meetings would need to be scheduled over
the summer break to approve draft ballot language, as well as a draft ordinance. Staff
recommends that the current Ad Hoc Committee or another sub-group of the Council be
available to work directly with staff on ordinance language to facilitate bringing back to the full
Council for approval. The measure must be submitted by August 12 in order to appear on the
November 2016 ballot. The first regularly scheduled meeting for the Council following the
break is on August 15.
Attachments:
Attachment A: First Polling Results (PPTX)
Attachment B: Second Polling Results (PPTX)
Attachment C: Small business survey results summary (DOCX)
Attachment D: Medium/Large business survey summary results (DOCX)
Attachment E: Local Transportation Funding Committee Transcripts (PDF)
220-4446
Key Findings from a Citywide Voter Survey
Conducted April 14-20, 2016
Funding Transportation Improvements
1
Methodology
•400 telephone interviews with Palo Alto voters
likely to participate in the November 2016 election
•Conducted April 14-20,2016 via landline and cell
phones
•Margin of sampling error +/-4.9%at the
95%confidence interval
•Due to rounding,some percentages do not add up
to 100%
•Selected comparisons to 2013 and 2008
community surveys
2
Mood of the Electorate
3
46%
27%
22%
14%
13%
10%
30%
39%
31%
23%
17%
14%
15%
22%
29%
38%
37%
33%
7%
12%
16%
25%
33%
39%5%
0%20%40%60%80%100%
The cost of housing
Current drought conditions in
California
Traffic and congestion on local
streets and roads
A lack of parking in commercial
districts
Too much growth and
development
Changing character of the
community
Ext. Ser. Prob.Very Ser Prob.Smwt. Ser. Prob.Not Too Ser. Prob.DK/NA Ext./Very
Ser. Prob.
76%
65%
53%
37%
30%
24%
Q8. Split Sample
The cost of housing is seen as by far the
most-urgent problem in Palo Alto.
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
7%
8%
8%
5%
15%
10%
9%
9%
5%
5%
49%
33%
34%
22%
16%
29%
26%
39%
36%
64%
73%
64%
10%
13%
5%
0%20%40%60%80%100%
Homelessness
The amount people pay in City
taxes
Waste and inefficiency in local
government
Airplane noise
The condition of the local
economy
Crime, in general
Ext. Ser. Prob.Very Ser Prob.Smwt. Ser. Prob.Not Too Ser. Prob.DK/NA Ext./Very
Ser. Prob.
22%
18%
17%
14%
6%
6%
Q8. 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. Split Sample
Concern about taxation, the
economy and crime is very low.
5
18%
15%
16%
56%
53%
56%
19%
23%
22%
5%
6%
0%20%40%60%80%100%
2016
2013
2008
Excellent Good Only Fair Poor Job Don't Know
Q1.
Voters’ impression of City service
delivery has reached a new high.
How would you rate the overall job being done by Palo Alto
city government in providing services to the City’s residents?
Excellent/
Good
Fair/
Poor
74%24%
68%29%
72%26%
6
27%
13%
16%
48%
54%
48%
13%
13%
10%
8%
7%
7%
13%
20%
0%20%40%60%80%100%
Maintaining the City’s
infrastructure
Efficiently utilizing local tax
dollars
Managing the City’s budget
and finances
Strng. App.Smwt. App.Smwt. Disapp.Strng. Disapp.DK/NA Total
App.
Total
Disapp.
75%21%
67%20%
64%17%
Q2.
Voters especially approve of the City’s
work maintaining infrastructure.
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
27%
28%
13%
14%
16%
16%
48%
47%
54%
49%
48%
46%
13%
14%
13%
19%
10%
15%
8%
8%
7%
6%
7%
8%
13%
12%
20%
14%
0%20%40%60%80%100%
2016
2013
2016
2013
2016
2013
Strng. App.Smwt. App.Smwt. Disapp.Strng. Disapp.DK/NA Total
App.
Total
Disapp.
75%21%
75%23%
67%20%
63%26%
64%17%
62%23%
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 me
whether you generally approve or disapprove of the job the City is doing in that area.
Impressions of fiscal management
have largely held steady.
Maintaining the City’s
infrastructure
Efficiently utilizing
local tax dollars
Managing the City’s
budget and finances
8
Q3.
Many see the City doing well; explaining the
need for additional funding could be a challenge.
5%
31%
18%
36%
10%
0%20%40%60%
Great need
Some need
Little need
No real need
Don't know
Little/
No Real Need
54%
Great/
Some Need
36%
How would you rate the City of Palo Alto’s
need for additional funding?
9
Testing a Potential City
Transportation Measure
10
Q4. Do you think you would vote “yes” in favor of this measure or “no” to oppose it?
Santa Clara County leaders are considering a transportation measure for the county
ballot in November.This 30-year,half-cent sales tax would fund transit improvements like
Caltrain to increase capacity and improve safety at crossings,provide funds for street
maintenance and pothole repair,bike and pedestrian improvements,especially near
schools,and ease congestion on County Expressways and key highway interchanges.
Nearly three-quarters support the
County’s transportation measure.
34%
37%
2%
0%
9%
13%
4%
0%20%40%
Definitely yes
Probably yes
Undecided, lean yes
Undecided, lean no
Probably no
Definitely no
Undecided
To tal
Yes
74%
To tal
No
22%
11
Q5. Do you think you would vote yes or no on such a measure?
The City of Palo Alto is considering a City transportation tax on
businesses to raise funds to reduce traffic congestion,increase the
availability of parking,upgrade traffic signals and intersections,expand
local shuttle bus service and improve bicycle and pedestrian options.
Two-thirds support the concept of a
Citywide transportation measure.
30%
35%
3%
1%
13%
15%
4%
0%20%40%
Definitely yes
Probably yes
Undecided, lean yes
Undecided, lean no
Probably no
Definitely no
Undecided
To tal
Yes
67%
To tal
No
29%
12
Q6. In that case, do you think you would vote yes or no on such a measure?
The structure of this measure has not been finalized,but it could involve
having medium and large Palo Alto businesses pay an annual tax for each
employee they have in the City.
A smaller and more tentative
majority backs a “head tax.”
22%
32%
3%
4%
15%
16%
8%
0%20%40%
Definitely yes
Probably yes
Undecided, lean yes
Undecided, lean no
Probably no
Definitely no
Undecided
Total
Yes
57%
Total
No
35%
13
64%
47%
54%
49%
57%
58%
28%
43%
41%
35%
36%
31%
60%40%20%0%20%40%60%80%
Democrats
Independents
Republicans
Asians/Pacific Islanders
Whites
Voters of Color
Total Yes Total No
Mechanism Vote by Party and Ethnicity
% of Sample
54%
31%
15%
14%
71%
22%
Q6. In that case, do you think you would vote yes or no on such a measure?
Patterns of support for the measure are only
modestly partisan.
14
51%
63%
56%
65%
52%
43%
27%
37%
27%
39%
60%40%20%0%20%40%60%80%
Men
Women
18-49
50-64
65+
Total Yes Total No
Mechanism Vote by Gender and Age
% of Sample
48%
52%
38%
30%
32%
Q6. In that case, do you think you would vote yes or no on such a measure?
Women and voters between 50 and
64 years old are especially supportive.
15
63%
63%
70%
51%
27%
29%
27%
40%
60%40%20%0%20%40%60%80%
<$100,000
$100,000-$150,000
$150,000-$250,000
$250,000+
Total Yes Total No
Mechanism Vote by Household Income
% of Sample
23%
17%
15%
25%
Q6. In that case, do you think you would vote yes or no on such a measure?
Voters in wealthier households are more
likely to oppose the concept.
16
74%
47%
18%
45%
60%40%20%0%20%40%60%80%
Great/Some Need
Little/No Real Need
Total Yes Total No
Mechanism Vote by City’s Perceived Need for Funding
% of Sample
36%
54%
Q6. In that case, do you think you would vote yes or no on such a measure?
There is a strong correlation between “yes”
votes and perceptions of the City’s overall need.
17
Impact of Messaging
18
An exchange of messaging drops support
below the two-thirds threshold.
Q5/Q6/Q11/Q12. In that case, do you think you would vote yes or no on such a measure?
67%
57%
66%
61%
29%
35%
26%
33%
4%8%8%6%
0%
15%
30%
45%
60%
75%
Concept Vote
Mechanism
Vote After Positives Final Vote
To tal Yes
To tal No
Undecided
19
Segmenting the Electorate by
Consistency of Support
v Consistent Yes:Voters who
consistently indicated they would
vote yes on the measure
v Consistent No:Voters who
consistently indicated they would
vote no on the measure
v Swing:Voters who do not fall into
any of the other categories –
remaining consistently undecided
or switching positions
The following slide shows
demographic groups that
disproportionately fall into one
category or the other.
v Consistent Yes:Voters who
consistently indicated they would
vote yes on the measure
v Consistent No:Voters who
consistently indicated they would
vote no on the measure
v Swing:Voters who do not fall into
any of the other categories –
remaining consistently undecided
or switching positions
The following slide shows
demographic groups that
disproportionately fall into one
category or the other.
Consistent
Ye s
42%
Consistent
No
16%
Swing
42%
20
Consistent Yes Swing Consistent No
42%of the Electorate 42%of the Electorate 16%of the Electorate
Multi-Democrat Households Ages 75+ Republicans Ages 50+
Democrats Ages 18-49 Asians/Pacific Islanders Independent Men
Women Ages 18-49 Some College or Less Republicans
Democratic Women Mixed Partisan Households Independents Ages 18-49
HH Income $150,000-$250,000 Voters of Color 1+ Independent Households
Ages 30-39 Republicans Ages 50+ Independents
Democrats Ages 40-49 Men Ages 18-49
Single Democrat Households ZIP Code 94303 College-Educated Men
Ages 50-64 HH Income <$100,000 Independents Ages 50+
HH Income $100,000-$150,000 Republicans Men
Ages 65-74 Ages 18-29 ZIP Code 94303
College-Educated Women Single Democrat Households Mixed Partisan Households
Independents Ages 50+ Ages 65+ Ages 40-49
ZIP Code 94306 Ages 18-49 Four-year College Graduate
Democrats Ages 50+ Democratic Women Independent Women
Demographic Profiles of the Segments
21
38%
34%
37%
29%
35%
37%
30%
38%
0%20%40%60%80%
Very Conv.Smwt. Conv.
73%
67%
71%
(FAIRNESS) It is only fair to increase what businesses pay to fund
transportation and parking improvements in Palo Alto, since businesses
contribute to the City’s traffic and parking problems.
(GROWTH) The growth of businesses is beneficial for our community in
many ways, but it has caused huge traffic headaches and parking
nightmares. Employers should pay a little to help solve the problems that
come with their growth in Palo Alto.
(NO BIZ LICENSE TAX) Palo Alto currently registers businesses of all
sizes for just $50, but is one of the only cities in the Bay Area that
currently does not have a business license tax. This measure is a
sensible way to ensure businesses pay their fair share for the services
the City provides.
(SAFETY) Te rrible traffic jams have caused more and more drivers to
leave main roads and instead drive on neighborhood streets,
endangering children, cyclists, and pedestrians in our City. This measure
will make improvements to improve traffic flow and make our City safer.
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 vote
yes on the measure.
A message around fairness is most
broadly persuasive.
67%
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 vote
yes on the measure.
Statement All
Voters
Consistent
Yes Swing Consistent
No
Fairness 73%95%67%31%
Growth 71%90%67%33%
Safety 67%80%66%36%
No Biz License Tax 67%86%65%24%
(Very/Somewhat Convincing)
Swing voters find each message
about equally 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 play
a flat annual tax for each employee they have in the City, to fund transportation and parking improvements?
Opposition Message Tested
Opponents say that increasing taxes on local
businesses is the wrong way to fund transportation
improvements.This proposal will increase taxes on
nearly all local businesses,including some
longtime small businesses that are already barely
making ends meet in a City that already has a very
high cost of doing business.This tax could force
many of them to cut jobs or relocate.In addition,
there will be all kinds of taxes from the County and
State on November’s ballot,and adding a City tax
on top of it is too much.We just can’t tax our way
out of every problem in Palo Alto.
Opponents say that increasing taxes on local
businesses is the wrong way to fund transportation
improvements.This proposal will increase taxes on
nearly all local businesses,including some
longtime small businesses that are already barely
making ends meet in a City that already has a very
high cost of doing business.This tax could force
many of them to cut jobs or relocate.In addition,
there will be all kinds of taxes from the County and
State on November’s ballot,and adding a City tax
on top of it is too much.We just can’t tax our way
out of every problem in Palo Alto.
24
24%
35%
7%
3%
11%
12%
8%
0%20%40%60%
Definitely yes
Probably yes
Undecided, lean yes
Undecided, lean no
Probably no
Definitely no
Undecided
Total
Yes
66%
Total
No
26%
Q11/Q12. Do you think you would vote yes or no on the potential measure that would have medium and large Palo Alto businesses
play a flat annual tax for each employee they have in the City, to fund transportation and parking improvements?
Support ticks below two-thirds
after this message.
22%
33%
6%
2%
14%
16%
6%
0%20%40%60%
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Total
Yes
61%
To tal
No
33%
Final VoteAfter Positives
25
The Structure
of a Measure
26
62%
36%
30%
27%
13%
25%
20%
32%
40%20%0%20%40%60%80%
Requiring that funding from the
measure could only be used for
transportation improvements
Scaling the tax so that offices that
pack large numbers of employees in
small spaces pay more
Charging a discounted rate for
employees 11 through 50
Charging $100 per employee per
year for each employee above 50
Total More Lkly.Total Less Lkly.Difference
+49%
+11%
+10%
-5%
Voters have mixed feelings about different
alternative rate strucures.
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 tell
me 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 tell
me whether including that provision would make you more likely or less likely to vote for the measure.
Statement All
Voters
Consistent
Yes Swing Consistent
No
Requiring that funding from the
measure could only be used for
transportation improvements
62%73%65%27%
Scaling the tax so that offices
that pack large numbers of
employees in small spaces
pay more
36%48%33%9%
Charging a discounted rate for
employees 11 through 50 30%38%32%8%
Charging $100 per employee
per year for each employee
above 50
27%41%21%8%
(Total More Likely)
Supporters and swing voters like the
dedication of funding to transportation.
28
67%
49%
31%
11%
16%
30%
40%20%0%20%40%60%80%
Exempting small non-profit
organizations
Exempting the first 10 employees in
each business
Exempting retail and restaurants
Total More Lkly.Total Less Lkly.Difference
+56%
+33%
+1%
Exemptions for non-profits are
much more favored than for retail.
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.
Statement All
Voters
Consistent
Yes Swing Consistent
No
Exempting small non-profit
organizations 67%82%69%24%
Exempting the first 10
employees in each business 49%62%47%22%
Exempting retail and
restaurants 31%34%35%18%
(Total More Likely)
Exemptions for non-profits appeal
strongly to swing voters.
30
34%
28%
17%
19%
20%
22%
20%
20%
37%
40%
47%
43%
41%
36%
36%
34%
21%
23%
33%
29%
31%
31%
34%
35%
7%
8%
6%
9%
10%
9%
11%
0%20%40%60%80%100%
Providing safe routes to school for
students
Providing safe routes for bicyclists and
pedestrians
Maintaining City streets and roads
Maintaining the City’s core infrastructure
Providing safe sidewalks, paths and
bridges for pedestrians
Reducing traffic congestion
Making sidewalks, City buildings and parks
accessible for people with disabilities
Providing adequate parking
Ext. Impt.Very Impt.Smwt. Impt.Not Too Impt.DK/NA
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 important
each item is to you personally: extremely important, very important, somewhat important, or not too important.
Safety for students, cyclists and
pedestrians are top spending priorities.
Ext./Very
Impt.
71%
68%
64%
62%
61%
58%
56%
54%
31
19%
18%
12%
12%
15%
12%
11 %
8%
7%
35%
32%
36%
31%
23%
26%
23%
16%
17%
33%
36%
40%
37%
37%
39%
37%
34%
43%
12%
13%
12%
18%
24%
23%
25%
40%
30%
0%20%40%60%80%100%
Fixing potholes
Improving traffic light timing and flow
Repairing and maintaining City sidewalks
Providing regular and frequent bus shuttle
service
Expanding the shuttle bus system
throughout the City
Providing more and safer bike racks and
storage options throughout the City
Improving traffic calming on neighborhood
streets
Providing free transit passes to people who
work in Palo Alto
Providing an app to make local ridesharing,
transit schedules and parking easier
Ext. Impt.Very Impt.Smwt. Impt.Not Too Impt.DK/NA
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 important
each item is to you personally: extremely important, very important, somewhat important, or not too important.
Many other proposed priorities lack urgency.
Ext./Very
Impt.
54%
50%
48%
43%
37%
37%
34%
25%
24%
32
Conclusions
33
Conclusions
•Roughly two-thirds rate the City’s performance positively on a variety
of aspects.
•However,only one-third of those polled (36%)see “some need”for
additional funding for City services.
•Housing costs are by far the top local concern;traffic comes in third,
after the drought.
•A City tax funding transportation improvements has two-thirds support
in concept;however,just 57%say they would vote “yes”with an
employee head tax as the mechanism.
•Voters express mixed feelings about a variety of the structural
features,in terms of rates,tiers,and exemptions.
•Top spending priorities are safety for bicycles and pedestrians,
particularly students going to school;maintaining core infrastructure
also ranks highly.
•Support does reach two-thirds after positive messaging,but
opposition messaging pushes it back below that threshold.
34
Next Steps
•The Council could provide direction on whether placement
of a local tax on the November ballot should be further
explored.
–TBWB,the firm that conducted outreach related to the infrastructure
measure ballot measure,could conduct possible community outreach from
early May to early June to further inform the Council’s decision.
–Results of that outreach could then inform a second follow-up tracking poll
in early June to provide Council with more data to inform its decision on a
ballot measure by the July 2 meeting.
•Alternatively,Council may decide that 2016 is not the best
time for a measure and,having more time,provide
alternate direction to staff.
•Finally,the Council could decide to not proceed with any
further direction.
For more information, contact:
1999 Harrison St., Suite 2020
Oakland, CA 94612
Phone (510) 451-9521
Fax (510) 451-0384
Dave@FM3research.com Miranda@FM3research.com
220-4556
Survey Conducted
June 11-14, 2016
Palo Alto Vo ter Support for a
Tr ansportation Finance Measure
1
Methodology
•400 interviews with Palo Alto voters likely to
participate in the November 2016 election
•Conducted June 11-14, 2016 via landline and cell
phones
•Margin of error of +/-4.9% at the 95% confidence
interval
•Due to rounding, some percentages do not add up
to 100
2
Voters are quite optimistic about
the direction of life in the City.
Q1.
Right
direction
61%Wrong track
25%
DK/NA
14%
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
A Traffic Congestion
Relief Measure
4
36%
22%
8%
5%
10%
14%
6%
0%20%40%60%
Definitely yes
Probably yes
Undecided, lean yes
Undecided, lean no
Probably no
Definitely no
Undecided
PALO ALTO TRAFFIC CONGESTION RELIEF MEASURE.To fund general City services such
as reduced traffic congestion;improved driver,pedestrian and cyclist safety;upgraded traffic
signals and intersections;expanded shuttle bus service and trip planning;and improved parking
availability,shall the City of Palo Alto enact a $50 to $100 per employee business tax,
exempting businesses with up to 10 employees,providing approximately $5 million annually
until ended by voters,requiring annual independent audits,with all funds spent locally?
Total
Yes
65%
To tal
No
28%
Voters softly support a local
traffic congestion relief measure.
Q3. If the election were held today, do you think you would vote “yes” in favor of this measure, or “no” to oppose it?
5
•It could fund traffic and parking improvements,
including improved driver, pedestrian and cyclist
safety; upgraded traffic signals and intersections;
expanded shuttle bus service and trip planning; and
improve parking availability;
•Funding would come from an annual tax on
businesses in Palo Alto, which would pay a flat tax for
each full-time, Palo Alto-based employee;
•Businesses with up to 10 employees would be
exempted; and
•Businesses with 51 or more employees would pay
$100 each, while businesses with between 11 and 50
employees would pay $50 each.
Q5. Having heard more about it, do you think you would vote yes or no on such a measure?
Additional Information Provided
6
38%
22%
7%
6%
8%
14%
4%
0%20%40%60%
Definitely yes
Probably yes
Undecided, lean yes
Undecided, lean no
Probably no
Definitely no
Undecided
Total
Yes
67%
To tal
No
29%
A description of the measure leaves
support essentially unchanged.
Q5. 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
48%
30%
12%
10%
0%20%40%60%
The measure should largely fund alternatives
designed to reduce the number of cars on the
road, focusing on shuttle buses, pedestrian and
bicycle improvements, and other alternatives to
driving
Funding from this measure should focus on
improving traffic flow by expanding road and
parking infrastructure in the City to
accommodate more cars
Both
Neither/DK/NA
Which of the following statements comes closer to your opinion:
Q7.
A plurality of voters support using funding on
improvements that take cars off the road.
8
Messaging and
Movement
9
The measure is vulnerable
to opposition messaging.
65%
72%
66%
28%25%30%
6%3%4%
0%
15%
30%
45%
60%
75%
90%
Initial Vote
After Support
Messages
After Opposing
Messages
To tal Yes
To tal No
Undecided
Q3, 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?
10
Support Messages Tested
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 on
the measure. *Split Sample, **Split Sample B
**(FAIRNESS)Palo Alto is one of the only cities in the Bay Area that does not charge a business
tax to provide funding to help address issues like traffic congestion and parking.Currently,Palo
Alto registers businesses of all sizes for just a flat fee of $50.This measure is a sensible way to
ensure businesses pay their fair share for the transportation services the City provides.
(NEIGHBORHOODS)As main roads have become more congested,commuters are using small
residential streets to avoid traffic.This creates congestion on neighborhood streets and growing
safety risks for children walking and biking to school,as well as for cyclists and other
pedestrians.This measure would make traffic flow improvements to keep our streets safe.
*(RETAIN SHOPPERS)Palo Alto suffers from a severe shortage of downtown and California
Avenue parking.Residents nearby are seeing more and more shoppers park in their
neighborhoods,and some people choose to shop elsewhere in the region rather than try to find
parking in Palo Alto.This measure is a small price for Palo Alto businesses to pay to help retain
customers.
*(RETAIN EMPLOYEES)Local traffic congestion creates frustrations for employees as once
short 15-to 30-minute commutes grow to 45 minutes to an hour or longer.As frustrations grow
and congestion impacts local quality of life,traffic and transportation can become an impediment
to local businesses attracting and retaining employees.This measure is a small price for Palo
Alto businesses to pay to help retain quality employees and continue to grow.
(WALK/BIKE)Part of the solution to traffic congestion is to make it easier and safer to walk and
bike in Palo Alto.Funding would provide programs and projects that make it easier to get around
without a car at all.
11
Support Messages Tested; Continued
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 on
the measure. *Split Sample
*(FAIRNESS)Since businesses contribute to the City’s traffic and parking problems,it is only fair
to increase what they pay to fund transportation and parking improvements in Palo Alto.This
measure is a sensible way to ensure businesses pay their fair share for the transportation
services the City provides.
(NEED)The City currently spends millions each year on improving streets,sidewalks,and
bicycle and pedestrian safety programs,but traffic and parking problems keep getting worse.
The additional funding provided by this measure is needed if we are going to address this
problem.
(ENVIRONMENT)Funding from this measure would take cars off the road by helping
commuters shift to carpools,shuttles,public transit,walking,and biking.Fewer cars on our
streets mean less pollution in the air and fewer greenhouse gas emissions that drive global
warming.
(PAIRED)The County is placing a measure on the ballot to fund improvements to Caltrain,the
VTA,and freeways.Palo Alto has a unique opportunity to pair its share of this County funding
with City investments in improving local parking and traffic.
(SPECIFICITY)The City Council is adopting a plan to outline specifically how these funds will be
used to relieve traffic congestion and improve parking availability in Palo Alto.
12
47%
39%
37%
37%
37%
36%
33%
31%
27%
24%
31%
36%
36%
32%
31%
30%
37%
35%
38%
38%
0%20%40%60%80%100%
**Fairness
Neighborhoods
*Retain Shoppers
*Retain Employees
Walk/Bike
*Fairness
Need
Environment
Paired
Specificity
Very Conv.Smwt. Conv.
Connecting the measure’s benefits to the
mechanism is especially persuasive.
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 on
the measure. *Split Sample, **Split Sample B
77%
76%
73%
69%
68%
67%
71%
66%
65%
62%
13
Opposing Messages Tested
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 on
the measure.
(ANTI-TAX) Ta xes in Palo Alto are simply too high. We should not vote for anything that
further increases our taxes.
(WASTE) Instead of pushing another tax measure, the City should fund transportation
improvements by cutting unnecessary spending. We don’t need to raise taxes again and
allow bureaucrats and politicians to waste more of our tax dollars.
(ANYTHING) Supporters say this tax would be for transportation, but in reality they could
spend the money on anything they want. We should vote no on this blank check for local
politicians.
(RUSHED) This is a rushed plan being pushed through by City leaders with no real plan for
how the funds would be used. Instead they should wait and come back to voters when they
have a detailed plan for how the tax would actually improve traffic and parking problems in
Palo Alto.
(PRIVAT E SECTOR) Many Palo Alto businesses are already leading the way with
innovative solutions to our transportation problems. This tax would just replace private-
sector transportation solutions with inefficient government programs. We should vote no.
(VTA) Voters Countywide are about to vote on a half-cent transportation sales tax that will
address these same problems, from parking and traffic to public transit and bicycling.
There’s just no need for a City tax measure as well.
14
33%
30%
27%
27%
22%
22%
31%
21%
27%
25%
22%
19%
0%20%40%60%80%
Rushed
Anything
Waste
VTA
Private Sector
Anti-tax
Very Conv.Smwt. Conv.
An argument that the measure is poorly
planned is persuasive to nearly two-thirds.
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
on the measure.
64%
51%
54%
52%
44%
41%
15
Other Options
16
18%
11%
7%
32%
21%
21%
9%
6%
6%
7%
5%
18%
23%
21%
23%
27%
40%
44%
59%
0%20%40%60%80%100%
A business tax not based on the number
of employees but based on a percentage
of a business’s gross receipts or total
revenue generated
An increase in Palo Alto’s local sales tax
paid by anyone who shops in Palo Alto
A parcel tax paid by all residential and
commercial property owners in Palo Alto
An increase in Palo Alto’s utility users tax
charged on water, electricity, gas, cable
TV, phone, and internet bills
Def. Yes Prob./Undec., Lean Yes Undecided Prob./Undec., Lean No Def. No
Other tax mechanisms
are much less popular.
Q13. Some people say that a per-employee tax on businesses isn’t the right way to fund traffic and parking improvements. Next I
will read some alternative funding sources that could be used to address traffic and parking problems in Palo Alto. Please tell me
whether you would you vote yes to support it, or no to oppose it.
To tal
Yes
To tal
No
50%45%
32%62%
27%66%
14%82%
17
33%
21%
7%
5%
11 %
16%
7%
0%20%40%60%
Definitely yes
Probably yes
Undecided, lean yes
Undecided, lean no
Probably no
Definitely no
Undecided
Total
Yes
61%
To tal
No
32%
Voters likely to vote in a non-Presidential race
show similar levels of support and opposition.
Q5.
Likely 2018 Voters, n=282
18
Impact on the
Countywide Measure
19
43%
25%
7%
4%
6%
11 %
4%
0%20%40%60%
Definitely yes
Probably yes
Undecided, lean yes
Undecided, lean no
Probably no
Definitely no
Undecided
Santa Clara County leaders have placed a transportation measure on the County ballot in
November.This 30-year,half-cent sales tax would fund transit improvements like Caltrain to
increase capacity and improve safety at crossings,provide funds for street maintenance and
pothole repair,bike and pedestrian improvements,especially near schools,and ease congestion
on County Expressways and key highway interchanges.Do you think you would vote “yes”in
favor of this measure,or “no”to oppose it?
Total
Yes
75%
To tal
No
21%
Three-quarters support the concept of a
Countywide transportation measure.
Q2.
20
The County measure loses support after voters
hear about a potential local tax.
Q2 & Q12.
43%
25%
7%
4%
6%
11 %
4%
0%20%40%60%
Definitely yes
Probably yes
Undecided, lean yes
Undecided, lean no
Probably no
Definitely no
Undecided
37%
23%
9%
5%
8%
15%
3%
0%20%40%60%
Final VoteInitial Vote
To tal
Yes
75%
Total
No
21%
To tal
Yes
69%
To tal
No
28%
21
Conclusions
22
Conclusions
•The Palo Alto Traffic Congestion Relief Measure begins with support from
nearly two-thirds of voters, though about half as many are “definitely” yes
voters.
•Informational messaging brings the measure to 72% yes, though support
remains soft. Opposition argumentation again reduces the overall yes
vote and its intensity to the original two-thirds.
•The most-effective messages stress the impact of congestion on local
neighborhoods, and explain the direct benefits to businesses. The
strongest opposition messages claim the measure is rushed or a “blank
check.”
•Given the choice, a plurality favors funding alternatives to driving.
•Other finance mechanisms –such as a sales tax, UUT, or parcel tax –
are largely unpopular when tested briefly and conceptually.
•The Countywide transportation measure has solid support from three-
quarters of Palo Alto voters, though this erodes slightly once they learn of
a potential Citywide measure.
For more information, contact:
1999 Harrison St., Suite 2020
Oakland, CA 94612
Phone (510) 451-9521
Fax (510) 451-0384
Dave@FM3research.com Miranda@FM3research.com
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 non-profits 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 non-profits benefit, they should "contribute" as well and should not get a
free ride on the backs of local for-profit businesses.
No you will only waste any tax
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, non-BS
justification other than "other cities do it".
I don't have enough information
Business should pay the ENTIRE amount--they'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, part-time 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 part-time employees the same as
full-time, especially in the case of part-time 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
dozens of “students”. Most retail traffic is the customers, not the employees. Consulting
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
2-hour meetings with 2 clients for a total of about 30 parking-hours 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 part-timers or drive into the city at non-congestion 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!)
If “small” is defined solely by the number of employees, 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%)
Provide supplemental funding to expand Palo Alto’s Transportation Management
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:
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 seriously doubt that any of those options will really “solve” the problem. As long as the
city allows commercial buildings to be built and high-density 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.
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 you’re 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
long-lived 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 long-term
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 re-justified 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
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 short-term 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
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 for-profit businesses, but residents and non-profit
businesses (including PAMF, which accounts for a substantial amount of vehicular
traffic). Taxing for-profit 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 rush-hour 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 improvements--parking 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 all-new 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 self-driving 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.
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 over-building 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 don’t
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
pat blumenthal pat blumenthal
Nick Vino Locale
Stephen levy Ccsce
miriam joann blessing-moore 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
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 Gal-Oz 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.
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. Ackerman-Practicon 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
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
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 non-profit 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 Palo Alto’s Transportation Management
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
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.
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.
Audrey Smith CK-12 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
Local Transportation Funding Committee Meeting
Transcripts
(Hard copies for City Council Only)
A. March 24, 2016 Local Transportation Funding Committee Meeting Transcript
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=52332
B. May 13, 2016 Local Transportation Funding Committee Meeting Transcript
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=52979
C. June 2, 2016 Local Transportation Funding Committee Meeting Transcript
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=52980
D. June 8, 2016 Local Transportation Funding Committee Meeting Transcript
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=52981
E. June 16, 2016 Local Transportation Funding Committee Meeting Transcript
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=52982
Agendas, Action Minutes, and Videos of Local Transportation Funding
Committee Meetings are available online:
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/agendas/local_transportation_funding_committee.asp