city of san rafael...2017/04/19 · rafael, with subsamples of likely november 2018 voters (18,466...

City of San Rafael

2017 City Satisfaction Survey

April 2017

April 2017

Overview and Research Objectives

The City of San Rafael commissioned Godbe Research to conduct a telephone and

internet survey of voters with the following research objectives:

➢ Assess overall perceptions of living in San Rafael;

➢ Gauge satisfaction with the City’s performance in providing resident services and

programs;

➢ Assess awareness of the City’s financial situation;

➢ Determine the most pressing problems facing the City;

➢ Test whether residents perceive the City to be responsible with taxpayer dollars;

➢ Assess adoption of green/sustainable practices in households;

➢ Gauge support for a revenue measure that would preserve essential city services

with funding that cannot be taken by the State;

➢ Determine the type of tax, impact of features, and duration of the proposed measures

on voter support;

➢ Assess support for allowing cannabis businesses to operate in San Rafael and

taxation of gross receipts of sales;

➢ Gauge satisfaction with local information sources; and

➢ Identify differences in opinions due to demographic and/or behavioral characteristics

that show statistically significant levels.

April 2017

Methodology Overview

➢ Data Collection Internet and telephone Interviewing

➢ Universe 46,787 adult residents (ages 18 and older) in the City of San

Rafael, with subsamples of likely November 2018 voters

(18,466 voters), likely June 2018 voters (13,597), and likely

November 2017 voters (12,474).

➢ Fielding Dates February 7 through February 19, 2017

➢ Interview Length 25 minutes

➢ Sample Size 858 adult residents/all voters

750 likely November 2018 voters

633 likely June 2018 voters

537 likely November 2017 voters

➢ Margin of Error + 3.31% adult residents /all voters

+ 3.51% likely November 2018 voters

+ 3.80% likely June 2018 voters

+ 4.14% likely November 2017 voters

Executive Summary

April 2017

Executive Summary

➢ Overall, residents continue to have a positive opinion of the quality of life in the City of

San Rafael.

▪ Eighty-seven percent of respondents indicated that they are “very satisfied”

(46.4%) or “somewhat satisfied” (40.6%) with the quality of life in San Rafael.

➢ Opinion of the City’s financial situation is slightly better at 38.6 percent, although not

statistically different. In 2015, 37.8 percent of residents felt the City financial situation

was excellent or good, compared to 38 percent in 2013.

➢ In an open-end format, residents’ concerns clearly reflect current events. In the

current survey:

▪ Homelessness was citied by 26.2%

▪ Cost of living or affordability of housing was an important concern among 25.2%

▪ Traffic congestion was a top concern among 17.7%

April 2017

Executive Summary

➢ Overall, 76.1 percent of respondents were satisfied with the job the City is doing to

provide services (31.8% “very satisfied” and 44.3% “somewhat satisfied”).

➢ Respondents reported satisfaction with a wide range of city services.

▪ The survey assessed 29 specific city services. For 18 services, respondents as a

whole were between “somewhat” and “very satisfied.” Further, 29 of 29 services

received positive rankings.

➢ Thirty percent respondents indicated they were satisfied with the job the City is doing

to spend taxpayer money, while 19.6 percent were dissatisfied. Thirty-two percent

had mixed opinions and 11.4 percent did not have an opinion.

➢ With respect to sustainable behavior, majorities of respondents use reusable bags at

grocery and other stores, compost kitchen food scraps, and reduced water

consumption more than “most of the time”. But, only 30.8 percent use alternative

modes of transportation.

▪ The top reason for not engaging in sustainable practices continues to be

“inconvenient” at 37.2 percent.

April 2017

Executive Summary

➢ Before information was provided, 55.1 percent of likely November 2017 voters

supported a measure to increase the local sales tax by ¼ percent.

➢ Contrastingly, 39.5 percent of likely November 2017 voters supported a measure to

increase the local utility users tax by 5 percent.

➢ The top arguments for the measure among the likely November 2017 voters included:

• Every penny from this measure must stay in San Rafael. No funds can be

taken away by the state

• Maintaining adequate numbers of on-duty firefighters and paramedics and

police

• Maintaining rapid emergency police and fire response times

• The measure will continue the appointed Citizen Oversight Committee to

assure the money raised is used for its intended purposes

• Repairing city streets and sidewalks

➢ After information was provided 54.4 percent of likely November 2017 voters support

the measure to increase the local sales tax by ¼ percent.

➢ Alternatively, 41.2 percent of likely November 2017 voters supported a measure to

increase the local utility users tax by 5 percent.

➢ Sixty-six percent of respondents support allowing medical cannabis businesses in San

Rafael and 55.4 percent support allowing recreational cannabis businesses in the City.

Overall Satisfaction

April 2017

Q1. Satisfaction with Quality of Lifen=858

Somewhat Dissatisfied

9.2%

Very Dissatisfied2.7%

DK/NA1.1%

Very Satisfied

46.4%

Somewhat Satisfied

40.6%

Total Satisfaction87.0%

April 2017

Q1. Satisfaction with Quality of LifeTrended Results n=858

2017 2015* 2013 2011 2009

Very satisfied 46.4% 52.3% 70.7% 63% 59%

Somewhat satisfied 40.6% 41.5% 23.3% 29% 32%

Total Satisfied 87.0% 93.8% 94.0% 92% 91%

Somewhat dissatisfied 9.2% 4.9% 3.5% 5% 6%

Very dissatisfied 2.7% 1.2% 2.2% 3% 4%

Not sure 1.1% .2% .2%

April 2017

Q1. Satisfaction with Quality of LifeGender and Age Comparisons

n=858

Respondent's Gender Age

Total Male Female Other 18-29 30-39 40-49 50-64 65+Not

coded

Total 858 416 434 8 137 138 174 210 199 0

Very satisfied398 209 185 4 38 62 78 119 101 0

46.4% 50.2% 42.6% 52.5% 27.6% 45.2% 44.5% 56.6% 50.9% .0%

Somewhat satisfied348 162 184 2 74 63 63 69 80 0

40.6% 39.0% 42.5% 24.7% 53.7% 46.0% 36.3% 32.6% 40.0% 100.0%

Somewhat dissatisfied79 32 45 1 10 11 32 12 13 0

9.2% 7.8% 10.4% 17.0% 7.5% 8.1% 18.7% 5.9% 6.4% .0%

Very dissatisfied24 5 19 0 15 0 1 3 4 0

2.7% 1.1% 4.3% 5.8% 11.2% .0% .3% 1.6% 2.1% .0%

DK/NA9 8 1 0 0 1 0 7 1 0

1.1% 1.9% .2% .0% .0% .6% .1% 3.3% .5% .0%

April 2017

Q1. Satisfaction with Quality of LifeEthnicity Comparisons

n=858

Ethnic Group

Total

African-

American

or Black

American

Indian or

Alaska

Native

AsianCaucasian

or White

Hispanic

or Latino

Two or

more

races

Some

other

race

DK/NA

Total 858 22 6 50 514 211 33 10 12

Very satisfied398 2 2 15 261 94 15 2 6

46.4% 7.8% 38.1% 30.7% 50.8% 44.7% 46.4% 16.8% 48.6%

Somewhat satisfied348 20 4 35 172 96 15 4 4

40.6% 91.2% 61.5% 68.5% 33.4% 45.3% 47.1% 37.3% 34.9%

Somewhat dissatisfied79 0 0 0 51 20 2 4 2

9.2% 1.0% .0% .8% 9.8% 9.5% 5.1% 45.9% 14.7%

Very dissatisfied24 0 0 0 22 1 0 0 0

2.7% .0% .4% .0% 4.2% .5% 1.4% .0% 1.9%

DK/NA9 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0

1.1% .0% .0% .0% 1.8% .0% .0% .0% .0%

April 2017

Q2. Satisfaction with Overall City Servicesn=858

Somewhat Dissatisfied

12.3%

Very Dissatisfied3.9%

DK/NA7.8%

Very Satisfied

31.8%

Somewhat Satisfied

44.3%

Total Satisfied76.1%

April 2017

Q2. Satisfaction with Overall City ServicesTrended Results n=858

2017 2015* 2013 2011 2009

Very satisfied 31.8% 43.6% 36.2% 42% 43%

Somewhat satisfied 44.3% 40.4% 47.8% 39% 41%

Total Satisfied 76.1% 84.0% 84.0% 81% 84%

Somewhat dissatisfied 12.3% 8.8% 7.5% 7% 7%

Very dissatisfied 3.9% 2.9% 4.9% 5% 5%

Not sure 7.8% 4.2% 3.7% 6% 3%

* Due to the overlap of the survey start date and the closure of Boyd Park, the data for the 2015 resident satisfaction questions

have been normalized to account for news stories during the initial interviewing. Normalization was accomplished by removing

interviews conducted on the first two days of the survey for purposes of this report. The full data set (before normalization) is

available in the 2015 detailed cross-tabulations.

April 2017

Q2. Satisfaction with Overall City ServicesGender and Age Comparisons

n=858



coded

Total 858 416 434 8 137 138 174 210 199 0

Very satisfied272 160 108 4 37 68 36 72 60 0

31.8% 38.4% 25.0% 56.9% 26.7% 49.7% 20.5% 34.2% 30.1% .0%

Somewhat satisfied380 162 216 2 36 50 86 102 106 0

44.3% 38.9% 49.7% 31.0% 26.2% 36.2% 49.5% 48.5% 53.4% 100.0%

Somewhat dissatisfied106 53 52 1 41 18 13 17 17 0

12.3% 12.7% 11.9% 12.1% 29.9% 13.1% 7.3% 8.1% 8.5% .0%

Very dissatisfied33 6 27 0 8 0 8 9 9 0

3.9% 1.5% 6.2% .0% 5.7% .1% 4.5% 4.3% 4.3% .0%

DK/NA67 35 31 0 16 1 32 10 7 0

7.8% 8.5% 7.1% .0% 11.6% 1.0% 18.2% 5.0% 3.7% .0%

April 2017

Q2. Satisfaction with Overall City ServicesEthnicity Comparisons

n=858

Ethnic Group

Total

African-

American

or Black

American

Indian or

Alaska

Native

AsianCaucasian

or White

Hispanic

or Latino

Two or

more

races

Some

other

race

DK/NA

Total 858 22 6 50 514 211 33 10 12

Very satisfied272 0 2 1 156 93 19 2 0

31.8% .5% 33.1% 2.1% 30.3% 43.8% 58.4% 16.8% .0%

Somewhat satisfied380 21 4 42 230 59 10 3 10

44.3% 98.4% 66.4% 82.6% 44.7% 28.2% 29.7% 35.1% 85.6%

Somewhat dissatisfied106 0 0 0 75 23 3 5 0

12.3% .0% .0% .0% 14.6% 10.8% 8.6% 48.1% 3.6%

Very dissatisfied33 0 0 0 33 0 0 0 0

3.9% .7% .4% .0% 6.4% .0% .2% .0% 1.9%

DK/NA67 0 0 8 20 36 1 0 1

7.8% .3% .0% 15.2% 4.0% 17.1% 3.1% .0% 8.9%

April 2017

Q3. City’s Financial Situationn=858

Excellent4.6%

Good34.0%

Fair18.2%

Poor4.4%

DK/NA38.7%

April 2017

Q3. City’s Financial SituationTrended Results n=858

2017 2015 2013 2011 2009 2007 2005

Excellent 4.6% 2.6% 4.2% 3% 4% 7% 5%

Good 34.0% 35.2% 33.8% 17% 24% 32% 32%

Excellent + Good 38.6% 37.8% 38.0% 20% 28% 39% 37%

Fair 18.2% 19.6% 26.0% 38% 34% 31% 31%

Poor 4.4% 7.0% 5.9% 20% 12% 10% 11%

Not sure 38.7% 35.5% 30.1% 22% 26% 21% 21%

April 2017

Q3. City’s Financial SituationGender and Age Comparisons

n=858



coded

Total 858 416 434 8 137 138 174 210 199 0

Excellent40 16 24 0 8 6 1 20 5 0

4.6% 3.8% 5.5% .0% 6.0% 4.0% .3% 9.6% 2.5% .0%

Good292 148 143 0 14 92 43 83 60 0

34.0% 35.5% 33.0% 5.5% 9.9% 66.8% 25.0% 39.4% 30.1% 100.0%

Fair156 89 67 1 59 15 17 21 44 0

18.2% 21.4% 15.3% 12.3% 43.2% 10.8% 9.8% 9.9% 22.4% .0%

Poor38 11 26 0 0 1 23 3 11 0

4.4% 2.6% 6.1% 6.3% .0% .7% 13.1% 1.5% 5.5% .0%

DK/NA332 152 174 6 56 24 90 83 79 0

38.7% 36.6% 40.1% 76.0% 40.9% 17.7% 51.8% 39.5% 39.5% .0%

April 2017

Q3. City’s Financial SituationEthnicity Comparisons

n=858

Ethnic Group

Total

African-

American

or Black

American

Indian or

Alaska

Native

AsianCaucasian

or White

Hispanic

or Latino

Two or

more

races

Some

other

race

DK/NA

Total 858 22 6 50 514 211 33 10 12

Excellent40 0 0 1 37 1 0 1 0

4.6% .0% .0% 1.3% 7.2% .5% .2% 7.7% .0%

Good292 18 5 15 159 77 14 2 0

34.0% 81.8% 94.6% 29.9% 31.0% 36.6% 44.3% 20.6% 1.4%

Fair156 1 0 1 104 39 5 6 2

18.2% 3.1% .0% 1.8% 20.3% 18.3% 14.2% 59.1% 12.9%

Poor38 0 0 21 15 0 1 0 0

4.4% .0% .0% 41.3% 3.0% .1% 4.5% .0% 1.5%

DK/NA332 3 0 13 198 94 12 1 10

38.7% 15.1% 5.4% 25.6% 38.5% 44.6% 36.8% 12.6% 84.3%

Satisfaction with Individual Services

April 2017

Q4. Satisfaction with City Services In=858

-2 -1 0 1 2

4CC. Effectively providing building planning and…

4Z. Enforcing traffic and parking laws

4O. Cleaning and sweeping city streets

4U. Maintaining parks

4N. Trimming trees along city streets

4S. Providing community events

4Q. Providing senior citizen services

4V. Providing recreational and cultural arts programs

4A. Providing programs to reduce greenhouse gas…

4T. Providing adequate parks and recreation facilities

4E. Preserving open space

4Y. Providing garbage collection and recycling services

4B. Providing police protection

4H. Providing public library services

4I. Providing fire and paramedic services

1.06

1.07

1.07

1.13

1.13

1.14

1.17

1.19

1.21

1.22

1.24

1.32

1.40

1.48

1.60

Very

Satisfied

Somewhat

SatisfiedVery

Dissatisfied

Somewhat

Dissatisfied

Tie

r 1T

ier 2

Tie

r 3

Note: The above rating questions have been abbreviated for charting purposes. The responses were recoded to calculate mean scores:

“Very Satisfied” = +2, “Somewhat Satisfied” = +1, “Somewhat Dissatisfied” = -1 and “Very Dissatisfied” = -2.

April 2017

Q4. Satisfaction with City Services IIn=858

-2 -1 0 1 2

4AA. Reducing the impacts of homelessness

4J. Providing affordable housing

4F. Managing traffic on city streets

4C. Keeping taxes at affordable levels

4G. Maintaining city streets and roads

4P. Providing sufficient parking downtown

4D. Managing growth and development

4X. Meeting the needs of ethnic minorities

4L. Maintaining sidewalks

4BB. Having your voice heard in City government

4R. Providing youth and teen services

4M. Providing bike and pedestrian friendly routes

4K. Maintaining storm drains

4W. Providing child care services

0.07

0.39

0.48

0.53

0.66

0.76

0.77

0.83

0.86

0.89

0.96

1.02

1.04

1.05

Very

Satisfied

Somewhat

SatisfiedVery

Dissatisfied

Somewhat

Dissatisfied

Tie

r 3T

ier 4

Tie

r 5T

-6

Note: The above rating questions have been abbreviated for charting purposes. The responses were recoded to calculate mean scores:

“Very Satisfied” = +2, “Somewhat Satisfied” = +1, “Somewhat Dissatisfied” = -1 and “Very Dissatisfied” = -2.

April 2017

Q4. Satisfaction with City ServicesTrended Results n=858

2017 2015* 2013 2011 2009

4I. Providing fire and paramedic services 1.60 1.4 1.57 1.7 1.7

4H. Providing public library services 1.48 1.39 1.42 1.3 1.4

4B. Providing police protection 1.40 1.2 1.32 1.4 1.5

4Y. Providing garbage collection and recycling services 1.32 1.37 1.34 1.4 1.5

4E. Preserving open space 1.24 1.12 1.31 1.3 1.3

4T. Providing adequate parks and recreation facilities 1.22 1.12 1.29 1.3 1.3

4A. Providing programs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 1.21 1.05 0.8 0.7 0.6

4V. Providing recreational and cultural arts programs 1.19 1 1.23 1.3 1.3

4Q. Providing senior citizen services 1.17 0.97 1.14 1.1 1.2

4S. Providing community events 1.14 0.94 1.26 1.2 1.3

4N. Trimming trees along city streets 1.13 1.16 1.19 1 1.2

4U. Maintaining parks 1.13 1.17 1.34 1.3 1.3

4O. Cleaning and sweeping city streets 1.07 1.02 1.12 1 1.2

4Z. Enforcing traffic and parking laws 1.07 0.81 1.06 1.1 -

4CC. Effectively providing building planning and permitting services 1.06 - - - -

4W. Providing child care services 1.05 0.38 0.94 0.9 1.1

4K. Maintaining storm drains 1.04 0.92 0.85 1 1.2

4M. Providing bike and pedestrian friendly routes 1.02 0.89 1.18 1 0.9

4R. Providing youth and teen services 0.96 0.66 0.66 0.9 0.9

4BB. Having your voice heard in City government 0.89 - - - -

4L. Maintaining sidewalks 0.86 0.79 0.97 0.8 0.9

4X. Meeting the needs of ethnic minorities 0.83 0.6 0.62 1 0.7

4D. Managing growth and development 0.77 0.74 1.09 0.6 0.6

4P. Providing sufficient parking downtown 0.76 0.18 0.61 0.8 0.6

4G. Maintaining city streets and roads 0.66 0.64 0.71 0.5 0.6

4C. Keeping taxes at affordable levels 0.53 0.31 0.65 0.4 0.3

4F. Managing traffic on city streets 0.48 0.51 0.86 0.9 0.5

4J. Providing affordable housing 0.39 0.16 0.19 0.4 0

4AA. Reducing the impacts of homelessness 0.07 - - - -

Maintaining City facilities - 1.16 1.25 1.2 -

Maintaining and weeding median strips - - - 0.8 1

*Due to the overlap of the survey start date and the closure of Boyd Park, the data for the 2015 resident satisfaction questions have been normalized to account for news stories during the initial interviewing. Normalization

was accomplished by removing interviews conducted on the first two days of the survey for purposes of this report. The full data set (before normalization) is available in the 2015 detailed cross-tabulations.

April 2017

Q4. Satisfaction with City ServicesGender and Age Comparisons

n=858



coded

4I. Providing fire and paramedic services 1.6 1.66 1.54 1.65 1.44 1.71 1.55 1.59 1.69 1

4H. Providing public library services 1.48 1.5 1.47 1.75 1.51 1.66 1.31 1.48 1.51 2

4B. Providing police protection 1.4 1.54 1.27 1.2 1.5 1.27 1.31 1.45 1.46 1

4Y. Providing garbage collection and recycling services 1.32 1.36 1.29 0.66 1.18 1.43 0.79 1.54 1.57 2

4E. Preserving open space 1.24 1.3 1.18 0.38 1.15 1.46 1.16 1.31 1.11 1

4T. Providing adequate parks and recreation facilities 1.22 1.29 1.15 0.75 1.66 1.02 0.98 1.24 1.31 2

4A. Providing programs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 1.21 1.39 1.01 0.69 1.52 1.26 0.86 1.22 1.16 1

4V. Providing recreational and cultural arts programs 1.19 1.25 1.13 1.63 1.07 1.29 1 1.39 1.18 1

4Q. Providing senior citizen services 1.17 1.23 1.1 0.43 1.19 1.5 0.49 1.36 1.09 1

4S. Providing community events 1.14 1.21 1.07 1.64 0.96 1.3 0.92 1.22 1.25 1

4N. Trimming trees along city streets 1.13 1.16 1.11 0.12 1.19 1.21 1.12 1.17 1 1

4U. Maintaining parks 1.13 1.24 1.02 0.8 1.2 1.11 0.74 1.28 1.27 2

4O. Cleaning and sweeping city streets 1.07 1.16 0.97 1.31 1.18 1.26 0.92 1.09 0.96 1

4Z. Enforcing traffic and parking laws 1.07 1.04 1.08 1.59 0.9 0.92 1.26 1.12 1.06 .

4CC. Effectively providing building planning and permitting services 1.06 1.11 1.02 0.06 1.46 1.2 1.01 0.96 0.9 1

4W. Providing child care services 1.05 1.05 1.04 1.52 1.54 1 0.75 1.12 1.04 .

4K. Maintaining storm drains 1.04 1.1 0.98 0.68 0.73 0.91 1.14 1.15 1.09 1

4M. Providing bike and pedestrian friendly routes 1.02 1.2 0.87 -0.04 0.92 1.12 0.9 1.13 1.02 1

4R. Providing youth and teen services 0.96 1.13 0.81 0.33 0.96 0.91 0.84 1.08 1 .

4BB. Having your voice heard in City government 0.89 0.97 0.83 0 0.8 1.16 0.69 1.07 0.72 1

4L. Maintaining sidewalks 0.86 1.01 0.72 0.91 1.11 0.91 0.8 0.91 0.66 1

4X. Meeting the needs of ethnic minorities 0.83 1 0.65 1 0.4 1.09 0.61 1.03 1.02 .

4D. Managing growth and development 0.77 0.85 0.72 -0.62 0.86 1.2 0.36 0.87 0.69 1

4P. Providing sufficient parking downtown 0.76 0.81 0.72 0.63 0.31 1.08 0.9 0.8 0.71 -1

4G. Maintaining city streets and roads 0.66 0.72 0.6 0.62 0.93 1.04 0.21 0.78 0.49 -1

4C. Keeping taxes at affordable levels 0.53 0.62 0.45 0.16 0.61 0.81 0.2 0.5 0.63 1

4F. Managing traffic on city streets 0.48 0.46 0.5 0.4 0.25 0.74 0.41 0.66 0.33 0

4J. Providing affordable housing 0.39 0.6 0.23 -0.32 0.38 0.4 0.28 0.46 0.42 1

4AA. Reducing the impacts of homelessness 0.07 0.22 -0.08 0.52 0.17 0.22 -0.16 -0.01 0.2 1

April 2017

Q4. Satisfaction with City ServicesEthnicity Comparisons

n=858

Ethnic Group

Total

African-

American

or Black

American

Indian or

Alaska

Native

AsianCaucasian

or White

Hispanic

or Latino

Two or

more

races

Some

other

race

DK/NA

4I. Providing fire and paramedic services 1.6 1.13 1.95 1.1 1.67 1.52 1.82 1.94 1.7

4H. Providing public library services 1.48 1.19 1.99 0.91 1.52 1.51 1.77 1.19 1.76

4B. Providing police protection 1.4 0.4 1.79 0.44 1.44 1.59 1.53 1.45 1.17

4Y. Providing garbage collection and recycling services 1.32 1.12 1.62 1.1 1.4 1.11 1.85 1.23 1.29

4E. Preserving open space 1.24 1.03 0.76 0.86 1.24 1.26 1.64 1.19 1.57

4T. Providing adequate parks and recreation facilities 1.22 0.26 1.28 0.97 1.22 1.45 0.97 1.15 1.02

4A. Providing programs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 1.21 0.12 1.19 0.74 1.07 1.79 1.37 1.1 0.05

4V. Providing recreational and cultural arts programs 1.19 0.28 1.87 0.65 1.2 1.36 1.62 1.15 0.69

4Q. Providing senior citizen services 1.17 1.03 1.25 0.38 1.15 1.5 1.55 0.94 0.48

4S. Providing community events 1.14 0.22 1.18 0.66 1.15 1.27 1.7 0.95 1.12

4N. Trimming trees along city streets 1.13 0.25 0.99 0.73 1.05 1.5 1.65 1.05 1

4U. Maintaining parks 1.13 1.11 1.32 0.89 1.12 1.23 0.86 0.76 1.48

4O. Cleaning and sweeping city streets 1.07 0.91 1.19 0.58 1.07 1.24 0.84 0.79 1.11

4Z. Enforcing traffic and parking laws 1.07 0.25 0.24 1.35 0.93 1.41 1.48 0.98 0.96

4CC. Effectively providing building planning and permitting services 1.06 1.03 0.39 0.98 0.84 1.69 1.1 1.04 -0.62

4W. Providing child care services 1.05 0.15 2 0.31 1 1.38 1.02 1.86 0.86

4K. Maintaining storm drains 1.04 0.21 0.91 1.34 0.96 1.28 1.05 0.74 1.55

4M. Providing bike and pedestrian friendly routes 1.02 0.31 1.33 0.74 1.05 1.09 1.19 0.56 0.92

4R. Providing youth and teen services 0.96 -0.34 1.6 0.33 0.87 1.32 1.44 0.97 -0.27

4BB. Having your voice heard in City government 0.89 0.07 1.15 0.44 0.91 1.07 0.9 1.05 -0.16

4L. Maintaining sidewalks 0.86 1.07 0.4 0.55 0.71 1.3 0.98 0.52 0.65

4X. Meeting the needs of ethnic minorities 0.83 -0.72 1.13 1.19 0.76 0.94 1.59 1.52 0.72

4D. Managing growth and development 0.77 1.01 0.36 0.3 0.72 1.01 0.94 0.53 0.23

4P. Providing sufficient parking downtown 0.76 -0.56 0.25 0.53 0.69 1.08 1.39 0.69 0.44

4G. Maintaining city streets and roads 0.66 1.03 0.71 0 0.62 0.86 0.82 0.84 0.55

4C. Keeping taxes at affordable levels 0.53 -0.84 0.24 -0.1 0.51 0.89 1.16 0.74 -0.26

4F. Managing traffic on city streets 0.48 0.92 0.3 -0.52 0.35 1.02 0.46 -0.13 0.7

4J. Providing affordable housing 0.39 0.01 -0.82 0.9 0.4 0.32 0.16 1.12 0.42

4AA. Reducing the impacts of homelessness 0.07 0.65 0 0.27 -0.19 0.67 -0.08 0.36 -0.23

April 2017

Areas of Improvement

Based on the importance – satisfaction values shown on the following pages, the

top priorities for improvements are:

➢ Reducing the impacts of homelessness (4AA)

➢ Managing traffic on city streets (4F)

➢ Maintaining city streets and roads (4G)

➢ Providing sufficient parking downtown (4P)

April 2017

Importance – Satisfaction Matrixn=858

Tier 2

Tier 3

Tier 1

City Service Derived Imp Satisfaction

4Y. Providing garbage collection and recycling services 0.378 1.32

4O. Cleaning and sweeping city streets 0.369 1.07

4U. Maintaining parks 0.356 1.13

4B. Providing police protection 0.341 1.40

4K. Maintaining storm drains 0.297 1.04

4M. Providing bike and pedestrian friendly routes 0.288 1.02

4Z. Enforcing traffic and parking laws 0.283 1.07

4V. Providing recreational and cultural arts programs 0.235 1.19

4L. Maintaining sidewalks 0.233 0.86

4P. Providing sufficient parking downtown 0.226 0.76

4T. Providing adequate parks and recreation facilities 0.221 1.22

4G. Maintaining city streets and roads 0.217 0.66

4F. Managing traffic on city streets 0.213 0.48

4AA. Reducing the impacts of homelessness 0.210 0.07

4N. Trimming trees along city streets 0.195 1.13

4E. Preserving open space 0.179 1.24

4D. Managing growth and development 0.169 0.77

4S. Providing community events 0.149 1.14

4Q. Providing senior citizen services 0.134 1.17

4CC. Effectively providing building planning and permitting

services0.114 1.06

4H. Providing public library services 0.101 1.48

4I. Providing fire and paramedic services 0.083 1.60

4A. Providing programs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 0.072 1.21

4X. Meeting the needs of ethnic minorities 0.064 0.83

4R. Providing youth and teen services 0.047 0.96

4BB. Having your voice heard in City government 0.030 0.89

4C. Keeping taxes at affordable levels 0.026 0.53

4J. Providing affordable housing -0.014 0.39

4W. Providing child care services -0.072 1.05

Other Services and Issues

April 2017

Q5. Problems Facing San Rafaeln=858

0% 10% 20% 30%

DK/NA

Other

Condition or safety of buildings

Poor financial situation/condition

Quality of education

Condition or safety of sidewalks/pathways

Illegal immigrants or day laborers

Public safety (includes crime)

Condition or safety of streets

City employee pensions & benefits are too high

Availability of jobs

Growth and/or overcrowding

Traffic congestion

Cost of living or affordability of housing

Homelessness

5.2%

6.7%

0.4%

0.8%

1.0%

1.2%

1.2%

1.3%

1.5%

2.3%

3.8%

5.6%

17.7%

25.2%

26.2%

April 2017

Q5. Problems Facing San RafaelTrended Results n=858

2017 2015 2013 2011 2009 2007 2005

Homelessness 26.2% 25.9% 19.4% 8% 5% 3% 4%

Cost of living or affordability of housing 25.2% 15.0% 7.8% 9% 12% 12% 10%

Growth and/or overcrowding 5.6% 3.2% 2.4% 5% 8% 12% 11%

Availability of jobs 3.8% 1.5% 4.6% 9% 5% 1% 2%

City employee pensions and benefits are too high 2.3% 9.2% 6.5% - - - -

Condition or safety of streets 1.5% 0.9% 3.9% 1% 1% 1% 2%

Public safety (includes crime) 1.3% 4.1% 5.3% 4% 6% 6% 3%

Illegal immigrants or day laborers 1.2% 6.4% 5.3% 9% 9% 11% 6%

Condition or safety of sidewalks/pathways 1.2% 2.5% 2.5% 1% 1% 1% 0%

Quality of education 1.0% 4.6% 2.3% 7% 5% 5% 6%

Poor financial situation/condition 0.8% 2.0% 8.7% 17% 11% 5% 10%

Condition or safety of buildings 0.4% 1.8% 0.8%

April 2017

Q5. Problems Facing San RafaelGender and Age Comparisons

Total Male Female Other 18-29 30-39 40-49 50-64 65+ Not coded

Total 858 416 434 8 137 138 174 210 199 0

32 9 23 0 8 0 15 7 2 0

3.8% 2.2% 5.4% .0% 6.0% .2% 8.5% 3.4% .9% .0%

19 8 10 1 0 1 2 10 6 0

2.3% 2.0% 2.3% 14.8% .0% .7% 1.1% 4.9% 3.2% .0%

3 0 3 0 0 1 2 0 0 0

.4% .0% .7% .0% .0% .6% 1.3% .0% .0% .0%

10 2 7 0 0 0 0 0 10 0

1.2% .6% 1.7% .0% .0% .0% .0% .1% 4.9% .0%

13 3 11 0 1 2 1 8 2 0

1.5% .6% 2.4% .0% .4% 1.3% .4% 3.9% .9% .0%

216 86 126 5 20 72 53 44 28 0

25.2% 20.6% 29.0% 58.0% 14.8% 52.2% 30.2% 20.8% 13.9% .0%

48 14 32 1 2 2 12 10 22 0

5.6% 3.3% 7.5% 17.0% 1.6% 1.1% 6.8% 4.9% 11.0% .0%

225 127 98 0 39 46 36 57 46 0

26.2% 30.6% 22.5% .0% 28.4% 33.6% 20.9% 27.2% 23.2% .0%

10 5 5 0 0 0 1 4 5 0

1.2% 1.2% 1.3% .0% .0% .0% .8% 1.9% 2.4% .0%

6 2 4 0 1 1 1 1 3 0

.8% .5% 1.0% .0% .8% .5% .4% .4% 1.6% .0%

11 9 2 0 0 2 0 6 4 0

1.3% 2.2% .5% .0% .0% 1.3% .0% 2.8% 1.8% .0%

9 6 2 0 0 5 2 1 1 0

1.0% 1.5% .6% .0% .0% 3.9% .9% .4% .4% .0%

152 74 77 1 54 6 22 29 41 0

17.7% 17.8% 17.8% 10.2% 39.6% 4.4% 12.5% 13.7% 20.8% .0%

58 39 19 0 9 0 28 8 12 0

6.7% 9.3% 4.4% .0% 6.9% .1% 16.0% 4.0% 5.9% .0%

45 31 13 0 2 0 0 24 18 0

5.2% 7.5% 3.1% .0% 1.6% .0% .2% 11.5% 9.0% 100.0%

Cost of living or affordability of

housing

Agen=858

Traffic congestion

Other (SPECIFY:

DK/NA

Respondent's Gender


City employee pensions &

benefits are too high


Condition or safety of

sidewalks/pathways



Homelessness

Illegal immigrants or day

laborers

Poor financial

situation/condition



April 2017

Q5. Problems Facing San RafaelEthnicity Comparisons

Total

African-

American

or Black

American

Indian or

Alaska

AsianCaucasian

or White

Hispanic

or Latino

Two or

more

races

Some

other raceDK/NA

Total 858 22 6 50 514 211 33 10 12

32 0 0 14 18 0 0 0 0

3.8% .0% .0% 27.9% 3.6% .0% .0% .0% .0%

19 1 0 0 17 0 2 0 1

2.3% 2.3% .0% .0% 3.2% .0% 4.8% .0% 5.7%

3 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 0

.4% .0% .0% .0% .2% .0% 7.1% .0% .0%

10 0 0 7 2 1 0 0 0

1.2% .0% .0% 14.4% .3% .5% .0% .0% .0%

13 0 0 0 13 0 0 0 0

1.5% .0% .0% .0% 2.5% .1% .0% .0% .0%

216 16 1 3 77 98 15 1 6

25.2% 71.3% 19.8% 6.0% 15.0% 46.5% 44.6% 8.1% 46.2%

48 0 4 8 31 2 3 0 1

5.6% .7% 61.5% 15.1% 6.0% .7% 8.1% .0% 11.1%

225 2 0 1 191 24 2 4 1

26.2% 10.1% .0% 2.9% 37.1% 11.3% 4.6% 41.9% 5.8%

10 0 0 1 8 0 1 1 0

1.2% .0% .4% 2.0% 1.5% .0% 1.6% 9.0% 2.1%

6 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0

.8% .0% .0% .0% 1.3% .0% .0% .0% .0%

11 0 0 0 6 0 0 4 2

1.3% .3% .0% .0% 1.1% .0% .0% 39.1% 14.3%

9 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0

1.0% .0% .0% .0% 1.6% .0% .0% 1.6% .0%

152 0 0 15 95 38 2 0 1

17.7% .7% .0% 30.4% 18.5% 18.2% 7.0% .0% 6.0%

58 1 1 0 33 20 1 0 1

6.7% 4.7% 18.3% .3% 6.4% 9.7% 2.8% .3% 8.9%

45 2 0 1 8 28 6 0 0

5.2% 9.9% .0% 1.0% 1.6% 13.0% 19.3% .0% .0%

Cost of living or affordability of

housing

n=858

Traffic congestion

Other (SPECIFY:

DK/NA

Ethnic Group



benefits are too high



sidewalks/pathways



Homelessness


laborers

Poor financial

situation/condition



April 2017

Q6. Satisfaction with City’s Spending of

Taxpayers’ Money n=858

DK/NA11.4%

No opinion6.9%

Mixed opinions32.0%

Dissatisfied19.6%

Satisfied30.0%

April 2017


Taxpayers’ MoneyTrended Results n=858

2017 2015 2013 2011 2009 2007 2003* 2001* 1999*

Satisfied 30.0% 29.5% 52.4% 53% 45% 56% 46% 47% 49%

Dissatisfied 19.6% 19.9% 19.6% 24% 25% 28% 37% 35% 32%

Mixed opinions 32.0% 29.8% 8.6% 12% 13% 4%

17% 18% 19%No opinion 6.9% 9.8% 18.8% 9% 15% 11%

DK/NA 11.4% .1% .5% 1% 2% 1%

Not sure 10.9%

April 2017


Taxpayers’ MoneyGender and Age Comparisons

n=858



coded

Total 858 416 434 8 137 138 174 210 199 0

Satisfied258 138 119 0 43 40 28 85 61 0

30.0% 33.2% 27.5% .0% 31.4% 29.2% 15.9% 40.6% 30.9% 100.0%

Dissatisfied168 74 93 1 24 9 81 19 35 0

19.6% 17.9% 21.4% 12.8% 17.6% 6.4% 46.8% 9.0% 17.7% .0%

Mixed opinions274 124 148 3 59 62 46 60 47 0

32.0% 29.7% 34.1% 34.7% 43.3% 44.7% 26.4% 28.6% 23.6% .0%

No opinion59 35 24 0 11 9 7 23 10 0

6.9% 8.4% 5.6% .0% 7.7% 6.7% 3.9% 10.9% 4.9% .0%

DK/NA98 45 49 4 0 18 12 23 45 0

11.4% 10.7% 11.4% 52.5% .0% 13.0% 6.9% 10.8% 22.9% .0%

April 2017


Taxpayers’ MoneyEthnicity Comparisons

n=858

Ethnic Group

Total

African-

American

or Black

American

Indian or

Alaska

Native

AsianCaucasian

or White

Hispanic

or Latino

Two or

more

races

Some

other

race

DK/NA

Total 858 22 6 50 514 211 33 10 12

Satisfied258 2 0 0 143 99 11 2 0

30.0% 10.5% .0% .0% 27.8% 47.0% 33.8% 23.6% .0%

Dissatisfied168 1 0 16 103 43 3 0 3

19.6% 4.7% .4% 32.1% 19.9% 20.3% 9.4% .0% 23.5%

Mixed opinions274 18 5 16 154 55 17 6 2

32.0% 83.7% 84.7% 31.7% 30.0% 26.2% 51.4% 67.2% 19.0%

No opinion59 0 0 2 49 0 2 0 6

6.9% .7% .0% 4.8% 9.6% .0% 5.0% .0% 48.6%

DK/NA98 0 1 16 66 14 0 1 1

11.4% .3% 14.9% 31.4% 12.8% 6.5% .5% 9.2% 8.9%

April 2017

Q7. Frequency of Using Green or Sustainable

Practices n=858

Almost

Always

Most of

the Time

Note: The above rating questions have been abbreviated for charting purposes, and responses were recoded to calculate mean scores:

“Almost Always” = +3, “Most of the Time” = +2, “Some of the Time” = +1, and “Never” = 0.

0 1 2 3

7E. Use alternative modes of transportation such aswalking, biking, public transit, and carpool

7C. Bring and use reusable grocery bags to other storessuch as clothing, household, or department stores

7A. Compost kitchen food scraps in Marin SanitaryService's green bin

7B. Bring and use reusable grocery bags to grocery store

7D. Took steps in 2016 to reduce water use such as usinga low flow shower or faucet regulator, or reducing…

1.28

1.75

1.78

2.25

2.43

Some of

the Time

Never

Split Sample C

Split Sample D

April 2017


PracticesGender and Age Comparisons

n=858



coded

7D. Took steps in 2016 to reduce water use

such as using a low flow shower or faucet

regulator, or reducing watering times or

amounts in yard or garden

2.43 2.29 2.6 2.8 2.38 1.88 2.48 2.75 2.54 .

7B. Bring and use reusable grocery bags to

grocery store2.25 2.22 2.28 2.31 2.19 1.91 2.06 2.41 2.5 2

7A. Compost kitchen food scraps in Marin

Sanitary Service's green bin1.78 1.84 1.73 2.55 1.31 1.22 1.66 2.31 1.98 3

7C. Bring and use reusable grocery bags to

other stores such as clothing, household, or

department stores

1.75 1.61 1.87 1.77 1.84 1 1.82 1.87 2 0

7E. Use alternative modes of transportation

such as walking, biking, public transit, and

carpool

1.28 1.17 1.37 2.15 1.01 1.12 1.79 1.17 1.13 .

April 2017


PracticesEthnicity Comparisons

n=858

Ethnic Group

Total

African-

American

or Black

American

Indian or

Alaska

Native

AsianCaucasian

or White

Hispanic

or Latino

Two or

more

races

Some

other

race

DK/NA

7D. Took steps in 2016 to

reduce water use such as

using a low flow shower or

faucet regulator, or reducing

watering times or amounts

in yard or garden

2.43 2.53 3 2.4 2.5 2.14 2.59 2.82 1.97

7B. Bring and use reusable

grocery bags to grocery

store

2.25 0.32 2.07 2.32 2.38 2.34 1.53 2.18 2.03

7A. Compost kitchen food

scraps in Marin Sanitary

Service's green bin

1.78 0.45 2.07 1.61 1.94 1.69 1.31 2.69 1.93

7C. Bring and use reusable

grocery bags to other stores

such as clothing,

household, or department

stores

1.75 0.33 0.19 2.26 1.73 2.04 1.16 1.21 1.87

7E. Use alternative modes of

transportation such as

walking, biking, public

transit, and carpool

1.28 1.36 3 1.49 1.1 1.52 2.42 0.99 0.93

April 2017

Q8. Reasons for Not Adopting Green or

Sustainable Practicesn=295

0% 20% 40%

DK/NA

Other

Unsure of how to adopt the practice

Unaware of the practice

Too costly

Inconvenient to practice

17.7%

21.5%

5.3%

8.7%

12.8%

37.2%

April 2017


Sustainable PracticesGender and Age Comparisons

n=295



coded

Total 295 149 146 1 62 79 48 43 63 0

Inconvenient to practice110 49 60 0 32 14 15 19 30 0

37.2% 33.2% 41.4% .0% 50.8% 18.1% 31.0% 43.2% 48.1% 100.0%

Unaware of the practice26 6 19 0 0 1 6 13 6 0

8.7% 4.2% 13.2% .0% .0% .7% 12.4% 29.6% 9.9% .0%

Unsure of how to adopt the practice16 5 11 0 1 5 1 1 8 0

5.3% 3.5% 7.3% .0% 1.4% 6.6% 1.9% 2.6% 12.3% .0%

Too costly38 28 9 0 0 28 7 0 3 0

12.8% 19.1% 6.4% .0% .0% 35.5% 14.0% .2% 4.7% .0%

Other63 34 29 0 31 1 7 10 15 0

21.5% 22.8% 20.1% 24.8% 49.2% 1.2% 14.9% 23.0% 23.4% .0%

DK/NA52 30 22 0 0 30 13 4 5 0

17.7% 20.2% 14.9% 75.2% .0% 37.9% 27.1% 9.9% 8.3% .0%

April 2017


Sustainable PracticesEthnicity Comparisons

n=295

Ethnic Group

Total

African-

American

or Black

American

Indian or

Alaska

Native

AsianCaucasian

or White

Hispanic

or Latino

Two or

more

races

Some

other

race

DK/NA

Total 295 16 4 8 169 86 9 1 3

Inconvenient to practice110 0 4 1 79 23 1 1 1

37.2% 1.0% 80.5% 13.7% 47.0% 26.5% 14.6% 100.0% 31.5%

Unaware of the practice26 0 4 0 20 1 0 0 0

8.7% .0% 100.0% 5.2% 11.8% 1.0% .0% .0% .0%

Unsure of how to adopt the practice16 0 0 0 15 0 1 0 0

5.3% .0% .0% 3.7% 8.8% .0% 7.0% .0% .0%

Too costly38 0 0 7 4 27 0 0 0

12.8% .0% .0% 81.0% 2.2% 31.7% .9% .0% .0%

Other63 0 0 0 34 23 6 0 0

21.5% .0% .0% 3.7% 19.9% 26.7% 72.7% .0% 12.6%

DK/NA52 16 0 0 22 12 0 0 2

17.7% 99.0% .0% .0% 13.3% 14.2% 5.7% .0% 55.9%

Revenue Measure Ballot Tests

April 2017

Q9. Uninformed Support: Sales TaxSample A

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

November2018

n=750

June 2018n=633

November2017

n=537

32.3%

33.4%

32.3%

25.4%

23.4%

22.8%

8.4%

8.6%

9.3%

28.2%

30.1%

31.0%

5.7%

4.5%

4.6%

Definitely Yes Probably Yes Probably No Definitely No Not sure

55.1% Shall the City of San Rafael increase the local sales tax rate by one-quarter

percent to provide funding that cannot be

taken by the State, and can be used to

preserve essential city services for a

period of 20 years, including: maintaining

rapid emergency police and fire response

times and anti-gang and anti-drug

programs, maintaining adequate

numbers of on-duty firefighters and

paramedics and police, addressing sea

level rise and flooding, maintaining

community centers and repairing city

streets?

56.8%

57.7%

April 2017

Q10. Uninformed Support: Utility Users TaxSample B

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

November2018

n=750

June 2018n=633

November2017

n=537

13.7%

15.9%

14.5%

21.9%

24.5%

25.0%

20.9%

21.7%

21.8%

33.4%

28.9%

30.4%

10.1%

9.1%

8.3%


40.4%

35.6%

Shall the City of San Rafael levy a 5

percent utility users tax on

telecommunications, gas, electric, water

and sewer services to provide funding

that cannot be taken by the State, and

can be used to preserve essential city

services for a period of 20 years,

including: maintaining rapid emergency

police and fire response times,

maintaining adequate numbers of on-

duty firefighters and paramedics and

police, addressing sea level rise and

flooding, maintaining community centers

and repairing city streets?

39.5%

April 2017

Q11. Statements About the Measure Likely November 2017 Voters n=537


“Much More Likely” = +2, “Somewhat More Likely” = +1, “No Effect” = 0, “Somewhat Less Likely” = -1, and “Much Less Likely” = -2.

No Effect Somewhat

More LikelyMuch More

Likely

-2 -1 0 1 2

11I. The tax will just be used to increase city…

11M. The tax will be used to support a bloated and…

11L. If the measure passes, San Rafael will have the…

11G. Providing 21st century libraries in San Rafael

11E. Maintaining community centers

11K. The City has been very fiscally responsible, but…

11D. Addressing sea level rise and flooding

11B. Anti-gang and anti-drug programs

11F. Repairing city streets and sidewalks

11H. The measure will continue the appointed Citizen…

11A. Maintaining rapid emergency police and fire…

11C. Maintaining adequate numbers of on-duty…

11J. Every penny from this measure must stay in San…

-1.08

-0.88

-0.60

0.26

0.33

0.33

0.35

0.48

0.62

0.63

0.70

0.73

0.96

Somewhat

Less LikelyMuch

Less Likely

Sample C

Sample D

Tie

r 2T

ier 3

T-1

T-4

T-5

Tie

r 6

April 2017

Q12. Informed Support: Sales TaxSample A

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

November2018

n=750

June 2018n=633

November2017

n=537

32.1%

34.0%

33.2%

26.7%

21.9%

21.2%

10.1%

10.5%

12.0%

26.1%

28.3%

28.3%

4.9%

5.2%

5.4%


54.4% Shall the City of San Rafael increase the local sales tax rate by one-quarter

percent to provide funding that cannot be

taken by the State, and can be used to

preserve essential city services for a

period of 20 years, including: maintaining

rapid emergency police and fire response

times and anti-gang and anti-drug

programs, maintaining adequate

numbers of on-duty firefighters and

paramedics and police, addressing sea

level rise and flooding, maintaining

community centers and repairing city

streets?

55.9%

58.8%

April 2017

Q13. Support for Alternative Sales Tax

Measure with 9 Year DurationSample A

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

November2018

n=750

June 2018n=633

November2017

n=537

37.2%

40.1%

38.8%

21.7%

17.5%

17.4%

9.7%

8.9%

10.1%

25.3%

26.9%

27.3%

6.0%

6.6%

6.4%


56.2% INSTEAD of a levy for 20 years, another alternative would be to end the measure

after 9 years.

57.6%

58.9%

April 2017

Q14. Uninformed Support: Utility Users TaxSample B

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

November2018

n=750

June 2018n=633

November2017

n=537

13.9%

16.6%

13.7%

23.6%

25.2%

27.5%

20.7%

19.0%

19.9%

32.9%

30.1%

30.5%

8.8%

9.1%

8.4%


41.8%

37.5%

Shall the City of San Rafael levy a 5

percent utility users tax on

telecommunications, gas, electric, water

and sewer services to provide funding

that cannot be taken by the State, and

can be used to preserve essential city

services for a period of 20 years,

including: maintaining rapid emergency


maintaining adequate numbers of on-

duty firefighters and paramedics and

police, addressing sea level rise and

flooding, maintaining community centers

and repairing city streets?

41.2%

April 2017

Q15. Support for Alternative UUT Measure with

9 Year DurationSample B

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

November2018

n=750

June 2018n=633

November2017

n=537

19.6%

24.1%

22.1%

20.9%

23.3%

24.9%

20.1%

16.0%

15.7%

31.9%

28.6%

29.8%

7.5%

8.0%

7.5%


47.4%

40.5%

INSTEAD of a levy for 20 years, another

alternative would be to end the measure

after 9 years.

47.0%

April 2017

Q16. Support for Future Cannabis OrdinancesLikely November 2017 Voters (n=537)


“Strongly Support” = +2, “Somewhat Support= +1, “Somewhat Oppose” = -1, and “Strongly Oppose” = -2.

Somewhat

SupportStrongly

Support

-2 -1 0 1 2

16B. Allowing recreational cannabis businesses in SanRafael

16A. Allowing medical cannabis businesses in San Rafael

-0.02

0.53

Somewhat

OpposeStrongly

Oppose

Tie

r 1T

ier 2

April 2017

Q17. Suppot for Tax on Cannabis Businesses

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

November2018

n=750

June 2018n=633

November2017

n=537

43.5%

44.1%

42.3%

28.3%

29.6%

30.9%

5.1%

5.2%

4.7%

16.4%

15.4%

16.3%

6.7%

5.7%

5.8%


73.7%

71.8%

Shall the City of San Rafael levy an

ongoing tax of up to 10% of gross

receipts of potential future cannabis

(marijuana) businesses in the city, which

could provide over $5 million dollars

annually, requiring independent citizen

oversight, financial audits, and that all

funds stay in the City of San Rafael and

cannot be taken by the State, to be used

to maintain and enhance City services,

including maintaining rapid emergency


maintaining community centers,

repairing city streets and other general

city services?

73.2%

Communications

April 2017

Q18. Satisfaction with Local Information

Sourcesn=858


“Very Satisfied” = +2, “Somewhat Satisfied= +1, “Somewhat Dissatisfied” = -1, and “Very Dissatisfied” = -2.

Somewhat

SatisfiedVery

Satisfied

-2 -1 0 1 2

18C. Nextdoor social media site

18A. The City's website, www.cityofsanrafael.org

18B. The City Manager's newsletter

1.01

1.18

1.40

Somewhat

DissatisfiedVery

Dissatisfied

Appendix A: Additional Demographic

Information

April 2017

QA. Gender

Male48.5%

Female50.6%

Other0.9%

April 2017

QB. Ethnicity

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

DK/NA

Some other race

Two or more races

Hispanic or Latino

Caucasian or White

Asian

American Indian or Alaska Native

African-American or Black

1.4%

1.1%

3.8%

24.6%

60.0%

5.9%

0.7%

2.5%

April 2017

Yes35.6%

No63.9%

DK/NA0.5%

QC. Children in Household

April 2017

QD. Number of Adults in Household

None65.0%

One13.5%

Two20.5%

Three or more0.5%

DK/NA0.4%

April 2017

QE. Working Status

Full-time52.2%

Part-time8.0%

Self-employed8.6%

Unemployed4.3%

Homemaker or stay-at-home

parent2.5%

Retired18.7%

Student4.8%

DK/NA0.8%

April 2017

QF. Length of Residence in San Rafael

Less than 5 years21.5%

5 to 10 years16.7%

11 to 20 years26.3%

More than 20 years34.6%

DK/NA0.9%

April 2017

QG. Home Ownership

Owner55.5%

Renter35.9%

DK/NA8.7%

April 2017

April 2017

QI. Age

18-2916.0%

30-3916.1%

40-4920.3%

50-6424.5%

65+23.2%

April 2017

QJ. Ethnic Surname

0% 10% 20% 30%

Hispanic

Jewish

Italian

Chinese

Vietnamese

Japanese

22.6%

3.4%

2.1%

1.8%

0.4%

0.2%

April 2017

QK. Home Ownership (From Voter File)

Owner54.4%

Renter45.6%

April 2017

Democrat51.3%

Republican15.1%

Other4.6%

DTS29.0%

QL. Individual Party

April 2017

QM. Household Party Type

0% 20% 40%

Mixed

Republican & Other

Democrat & Other

Democrat & Republican

Other (2+)

Other (1)

Republican (2+)

Republican (1)

Democrat (2+)

Democrat (1)

0.2%

3.5%

10.4%

2.6%

2.0%

23.0%

4.5%

6.4%

15.0%

32.5%

April 2017

QN. Registration Date

2013 to 201751.2%

2009 to 201214.3%

2005 to 200810.7%

2001 to 20047.2%

1997 to 20004.6%

1993 to 19963.3%

1981 to 19925.3%

1980 or before3.5%

April 2017

QO. Voting History

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

June 2016

November 2014

June 2014

November 2012

June 2012

November 2010

June 2010

November 2009

May 2009

November 2008

June 2008

February 2008

November 2007

November 2006

June 2006

16.2%

10.8%

5.3%

19.0%

8.4%

17.7%

9.7%

6.2%

8.5%

19.9%

6.8%

16.6%

5.5%

15.2%

9.8%

35.5%

24.2%

19.2%

33.1%

18.7%

23.3%

18.5%

13.2%

16.2%

29.5%

13.9%

23.4%

15.2%

20.6%

12.3%

48.2%

65.0%

75.5%

47.9%

72.9%

59.0%

71.7%

80.6%

75.4%

50.6%

79.3%

60.0%

79.3%

64.2%

77.9%

Poll Mail No

April 2017

QP. Times Voted in Last Elections

0% 20% 40%

0 of 16

1 of 16

2 of 16

3 of 16

4 of 16

5 of 16

6 of 16

7 of 16

8 of 16

9 of 16

10 of 16

11 of 16

12 of 16

13 of 16

14 of 16

15 of 16

16 of 16

30.0%

13.1%

8.2%

4.5%

3.0%

4.3%

2.4%

2.9%

3.2%

2.8%

2.5%

2.0%

3.0%

2.7%

2.9%

4.0%

8.4%

April 2017

QQ. Times Voted Absentee

0% 20% 40% 60%

0 of 16

1 of 16

2 of 16

3 of 16

4 of 16

5 of 16

6 of 16

7 of 16

8 of 16

9 of 16

10 of 16

11 of 16

12 of 16

13 of 16

14 of 16

15 of 16

16 of 16

47.5%

13.8%

6.6%

3.4%

2.7%

2.8%

2.1%

1.8%

2.2%

1.2%

1.7%

1.5%

1.3%

2.0%

1.8%

2.8%

4.9%

April 2017

QR. Likely June 2018 Voter

Yes29.1%

No70.9%

April 2017

QS. Likely November 2017 Voter

Yes26.7%

No73.3%

April 2017

QT. Permanent Absentee Voter

Yes73.5%

No26.5%

April 2017

QU. Likely Absentee Voter

Yes39.7%

No60.3%

Appendix B: Detailed Methodology

April 2017

Survey Methodology

Survey Parameters

Godbe Research conducted a total of 858 interviews representing 46,787 adult (age 18 and older) residents in the City of

San Rafael (weighted to the 2015 ACS). This includes subsamples of 537 likely November 2017 voters, 633 likely June

2018 voters, and 750 likely November 2018 voters. The error rate is plus or minus 3.31% for the sample of 858 adult

residents, plus or minus 4.14% for the sample of likely November 2017 voters, plus or minus 3.80% for the sample of likely

June 2018 voters, and plus or minus 3.51% for the sample of likely November 2018 voters. Interviews were conducted

from February 7 through February 19, 2017. The average interview time was approximately 25 minutes.

Sample and Weighting

Once collected, the sample of voters was compared with the respective voter population in the City to examine possible

differences between the demographics of the sample and the actual universe of voters. The data were weighted to correct

these differences, and the results presented are representative of the voter characteristics of the City of San Rafael t in

terms of gender, age, political party type, and election timing.

Questionnaire Methodology

To avoid the problem of systematic position bias, where the order in which a series of questions is asked systematically

influences the answers, several questions in the survey were randomized such that the respondents were not consistently

asked the questions in the same order. The series of items in Questions 4, 5, 7, 8, 11, 16, and 18 were randomized to

avoid such position bias. Question 8 allowed the voters surveyed to mention multiple responses and may sum to more

than 100.

April 2017

Margin of Error I

Because a survey typically involves a limited number of people who are part of a larger population group, by mere

chance alone there will almost always be some differences between a sample and the population from which it was

drawn. These differences are known as “sampling error” and they are expected to occur regardless of how scientifically

the sample has been selected. The advantage of a scientific sample is that we are able to calculate the sampling error.

Sampling error is determined by four factors: the population size, the sample size, a confidence level, and the dispersion

of responses.

For example, the following table shows the possible sampling variation that applies to a percent result reported from a

probability type sample. Because the sample of 858 adult residents was drawn from the estimated population of the City

of San Rafael of approximately 46,787 voters, one can be 95% confident that the margin of error due to sampling will not

vary, plus or minus, by more than the indicated number of percent points from the result that would have been obtained if

the interviews had been conducted with all persons in the universe. As the table on the following page indicates, the

margin of error for all aggregate responses is between 1.99 and 3.31% for the survey.

This means that, for a given question with dichotomous response options (e.g., Yes/No) answered by 858 respondents,

one can be 95% confident that the difference between the percent breakdowns of the sample and those of the total

population is no greater than 3.31%. The percent margin of error applies to both sides of the answer, so that for a

question in which 50% of respondents said yes, one can be 95% confident that the actual percent of the population that

would say yes is between 47% (50 minus 3.31) and 53% (50 plus 3.31).

The margin of error for a given question also depends on the distribution of responses to the question. The 3.31% refers

to dichotomous questions where opinions are evenly split in the sample with 50% of respondents saying yes and 50%

saying no. If that same question were to receive a response in which 10% of the respondents say yes and 90% say no,

then the margin of error would be no greater than plus or minus 1.99%. As the number of respondents in a particular

subgroup (e.g., age) is smaller than the number of total respondents, the margin of error associated with estimating a

given subgroup’s response will be higher. Due to the high margin of error, Godbe Research cautions against generalizing

the results for subgroups that are comprised of 25 or fewer respondents.

April 2017

Margin of Error II

nDistribution of Responses

90% / 10% 80% / 20% 70% / 30% 60% / 40% 50% / 50%

1000 1.84% 2.45% 2.81% 3.00% 3.07%

900 1.94% 2.59% 2.97% 3.17% 3.24%

858 1.99% 2.65% 3.04% 3.25% 3.31%

600 2.39% 3.18% 3.64% 3.89% 3.98%

500 2.62% 3.49% 4.00% 4.27% 4.36%

400 2.93% 3.90% 4.47% 4.78% 4.88%

300 3.38% 4.51% 5.17% 5.53% 5.64%

200 4.15% 5.53% 6.34% 6.78% 6.91%

April 2017

Reading Crosstabulation Tables

The questions discussed and analyzed in this report comprise

a subset of various crosstabulation tables available for each

question. Only those subgroups that are of particular interest

or that illustrate particular insights are included in the

discussion. Should readers wish to conduct a closer analysis

of subgroups for a given question, the complete breakdowns

appear in Appendix E. These crosstabulation tables provide

detailed information on the responses to each question by

demographic and behavioral groups that were assessed in the

survey. A typical crosstabulation table is shown here.

A short description of the item appears on the left-hand side of

the table. The item sample size (n = 250) is presented in the

first column of data under “Total.”

The results to each possible answer choice of all respondents

are presented in the first column of data under “Total.” The

aggregate number of respondents in each answer category is

presented as a whole number, and the percent of the entire

sample that this number represents is just below the whole

number. In this example, among the total respondents, 96

voters reported their “definitely yes” vote on the measure, and

this number of respondents equals 39% of the total sample

size of 250. Next to the “Total” column are the other columns

representing responses from the low-, medium-, and high-

propensity voters. The data from these columns are read in

exactly the same fashion as the data in the “Total” column,

although each group makes up a smaller percent of the entire

sample.

EXAMPLE OF DATA

CROSSTABULATION TABLE

Voting Propensity

Total Low Medium High

If the election

were held

today, would

you vote yes or

no on this

measure?

Total 250 68 80 101

Definitely Yes96 24 35 37

38.5% 34.4% 44.2% 36.7%

Probably Yes60 25 16 19

23.9% 36.1% 19.6% 19.2%

Probably No20 3 8 9

7.9% 4.3% 9.5% 8.9%

Definitely No63 14 16 33

25.3% 20.9% 19.7% 32.6%

DK/NA11 3 6 3

4.4% 4.2% 7.0% 2.6%

April 2017

Subgroup Comparisons

To test whether or not the differences found in percent results

among subgroups are likely due to actual differences in opinions

or behaviors – rather than the results of chance due to the

random nature of the sampling design – a “z-test” was

performed. In the headings of each column are labels, “A,” “B,”

“C,” etc. along with a description of the variable. The “z-test” is

performed by comparing the percent in each cell with all other

cells in the same row within a given variable (within Voting

Propensity in the pictured table, for example).

The results from the “z-test” are displayed in a separate table

below the crosstabulation table. If the percent in one cell is

statistically different from the percent in another, the column

label will be displayed in the cell from which it varies significantly.

For instance, in the adjacent table, a significantly higher percent

of low-propensity voters (36%) reported “probably yes” than

high-propensity voters (19%). Hence, the letter “C,” which stands

for high-propensity voters, appears under Column “A,” which

stands for low-propensity voters. The letters in the table indicate

the differences where one can be 95% confident that the results

are due to actual differences in opinions or behaviors reported by

subgroups of respondents.

It is important to note that the percent difference among

subgroups is just one piece in the equation to determine whether

or not two percentage figures are significantly different from each

other. The variance and sample size associated with each data

point is integral to determining significance. Therefore, two

calculations may be different from each other, yet the difference

may not be statistically significant according to the “z” statistic.

EXAMPLE OF DATA FOR Z-TEST

Voting Propensity

Low Medium High

(A) (B) (C)

If the election were held

today, would you vote

yes or no on this

measure?

Definitely Yes

Probably Yes C

Probably No

Definitely No

DK/NA

EXAMPLE OF DATA FOR

SUBGROUP COMPARISONS

Voting Propensity

Total Low Medium High

If the election

were held

today, would

you vote yes

or no on this

measure?

Total 250 68 80 101

Definitely Yes96 24 35 37

38.5% 34.4% 44.2% 36.7%

Probably Yes60 25 16 19

23.9% 36.1% 19.6% 19.2%

Probably No20 3 8 9

7.9% 4.3% 9.5% 8.9%

Definitely No63 14 16 33

25.3% 20.9% 19.7% 32.6%

DK/NA11 3 6 3

4.4% 4.2% 7.0% 2.6%

April 2017

Understanding a Mean

In addition to the analysis of the percent of the

responses, some results are discussed with respect

to an average score. To derive the overall

importance of an issue, Q4 for example, a number

value was assigned to each response category – in

this case, “Very Satisfied” = +2, “Somewhat

Satisfied” = +1, “Somewhat Dissatisfied” = -1 and

“Very Dissatisfied” = -2.

The number values that correspond to

respondents’ answers were then averaged to

produce a final score that reflects the overall

importance of an issue. The resulting mean score

makes the interpretation of the data considerably

easier.

In the crosstabulation tables for Questions 4, 7, 11,

16, and 18 of the survey, the reader will find mean

scores. These mean scores represent the average

response of each group. The table to the right

shows the scales for each corresponding question.

Responses of “DK/NA” were not included in the

calculations of the means for any question.

Question Measure Scale Values

Q4 and Q18

Satisfaction Ratings

-2 to +2

+2 = “Very Satisfied”

+1 = “Somewhat Satisfied”

-1 = “Somewhat Dissatisfied”

-2 = “Very Dissatisfied”

Q7Frequency

Ratings-2 to +2

+3 = “Almost Always”

+2 = “Most of the Time”

+1 = “Some of the Time”

0 = “Never”

Q11 Features +2 to -2

+2.0 = “Much More Likely”

+1.0 = “Somewhat More Likely”

0.0 = “No Effect”

-1.0 = “Somewhat Less Likely”

-2.0 = “Much Less Likely”

Q16

Likely

Support and

Opposition

+2 to -2

+2.0 = “Strongly Support”

+1.0 = “Somewhat Support”

-1.0 = “Somewhat Oppose”

-2.0 = “Strongly Oppose”

April 2017

Means Comparisons

A typical crosstabulation table of mean scores is

shown in the adjacent table. All subgroups of

interest concerning questions 4, 7, 11, 16, and 18

are included in Appendix E.

The aggregate mean score for each item in the

question series is presented in the first column of

the data under “Total.” For example, among all the

survey respondents, the feature A, “Overall

appearance of City,” earned a mean score of 1.8.

Next to the “Total” column are other columns

representing the mean scores assigned by the

respondents grouped by Gender.

The data from these columns are read in the same

fashion as the data in the “Total” column. To test

whether two mean scores are statistically different,

a “t-test” is performed. As in the case of the “z-test”

for percentage figures, a statistically significant

result is indicated by the letter representing the data

column.

EXAMPLE OF DATA FOR MEANS

COMPARISON

Gender

Total Male Female

Overall appearance of the City 1.8 1.7 1.9

Recreational opportunities 1.6 1.5 1.6

Access to quality affordable housing -0.4 -0.3 -0.5

Overall image and reputation of City 1.4 1.3 1.4

EXAMPLE OF DATA FOR T-TEST

Gender

Male Female

(A) (B)

Overall appearance of the City A

Recreational opportunities

Access to quality affordable housing

Overall image and reputation of City

Appendix C: Topline Report

CITY OF SAN RAFAEL

2017 Resident Satisfaction Survey

Topline Report n=858 25-minutes Hybrid Online & Phone Interviewing Sample: All Voters / Likely November 2018 / Likely June 2018 / Likely November 2017

February 27, 2017

www.godberesearch.com

Northern California and Corporate Offices 1575 Old Bayshore Highway, Suite 102 Burlingame, CA 94010 Nevada 59 Damonte Ranch Parkway, Suite B309 Reno, NV 89521 Pacific Northwest 601 108th Avenue NE, Suite 1900 Bellevue, WA 98004

http://www.godberesearch.com/

Godbe Research

2015 San Rafael Resident Satisfaction Survey

METHODOLOGY

Interview Methodology: Internet & Phone

Languages: English n=858 & Spanish n=3

Sample Universes:

46,787 Adults 18+

18,466 Likely November 2018 voters

13,597 Likely June 2018 voters

12,474 Likely November 2017 voters

Sample Size:

n=858, Adults 18+

n=750, November 2018

n=633, June 2018

n=537, November 2017

Error Rate:

±3.31%, Adults 18+

±3.51%, November 2018

±3.80%, June 2018

±4.14%, November 2017

Field Dates: February 7 to February 19, 2015

Census 2015 ACS Weighting Strata: Survey Type / Gender / Age / Ethnicity / Homeownership

Voter File Weighting Strata: Survey Type / Gender / Age / Partisanhip / Homeownership / Permanent Absentee Voter

OVERALL SATISFACTION

Column N % Count∑, Mean

or ΔColumn N % Count

∑, Mean


∑, Mean


∑, Mean

or Δ

Very satisfied 46.4% 398 46.6% 158 48.7% 122 47.6% 109

Somewhat satisfied 40.6% 348 42.1% 143 40.7% 102 40.9% 94

Somewhat dissatisfied 9.2% 79 8.2% 28 7.5% 19 8.1% 19

Very dissatisfied 2.7% 24 2.4% 8 2.2% 6 2.5% 6

DK/NA 1.1% 9 0.6% 2 0.9% 2 0.9% 2

Satisfaction 87.0% 88.8% 89.5% 88.5%

Dissatisfaction 12.0% 10.6% 9.7% 10.5%

Ratio Sat to Dissat 7.3 8.4 9.2 8.4

Very satisfied 31.8% 272 27.4% 93 28.4% 71 28.1% 64




DK/NA 7.8% 67 4.9% 17 5.1% 13 4.7% 11

Satisfaction 76.1% 79.6% 79.8% 79.0%

Dissatisfaction 16.2% 15.5% 15.1% 16.4%

Ratio Sat to Dissat 4.7 5.1 5.3 4.8

Excellent 4.6% 40 3.9% 13 3.8% 10 3.7% 9

Good 34.0% 292 29.2% 99 34.1% 85 33.4% 77

Fair 18.2% 156 22.2% 75 21.9% 55 22.7% 52

Poor 4.4% 38 5.0% 17 5.7% 14 6.2% 14

DK/NA 38.7% 332 39.7% 134 34.5% 86 33.9% 78

Ex + Good 38.6% 33.0% 37.9% 37.2%

Poor 4.4% 5.0% 5.7% 6.2%

Ratio (Ex + Good)/Poor 8.7 6.6 6.6 6.0

1. To begin, what is your overall opinion of living in San Rafael .

In general, are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the overall

quality of life in San Rafael?

2. In general, are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the job the

City of San Rafael is doing to provide City services?

3. In your opinion, would you say the City's financial situation is

excellent, good, fair, or poor?

Total R. Likely June 2018 Voter S. Likely November 2017 VoterLikely November 2018 Voter

Topline Report 2/27/2017 Page 1

Godbe Research


SATISFACTION WITH INDIVIDUAL SERVICES



∑, Mean


∑, Mean


∑, Mean

or Δ

Very satisfied 24.5% 210 46.6% 15.2% 51 42.8% 15.0% 37 43.7% 15.2% 35 43.4%




DK/NA 43.2% 370 44.9% 152 45.3% 113 45.6% 104

Very satisfied 49.8% 427 85.6% 45.5% 154 88.1% 49.5% 124 88.9% 48.4% 111 88.2%




DK/NA 4.6% 39 4.4% 15 5.0% 12 5.2% 12

Very satisfied 17.6% 151 45.4% 11.0% 37 48.9% 13.7% 34 51.3% 13.4% 31 51.0%




DK/NA 10.7% 92 8.8% 30 9.3% 23 9.4% 22

Very satisfied 17.2% 147 57.0% 12.4% 42 54.8% 13.6% 34 54.9% 14.0% 32 54.2%




DK/NA 13.8% 119 15.4% 52 14.8% 37 14.0% 32

Very satisfied 38.4% 329 78.6% 37.6% 128 82.7% 36.7% 91 83.0% 37.9% 87 82.9%




DK/NA 6.5% 56 7.8% 27 8.0% 20 8.0% 18

Very satisfied 18.7% 160 49.9% 12.5% 42 51.8% 13.2% 33 52.3% 11.5% 26 50.5%




DK/NA 1.7% 14 2.6% 9 2.9% 7 2.9% 7

Very satisfied 16.5% 141 64.4% 15.9% 54 55.1% 16.9% 42 55.2% 15.2% 35 54.2%




DK/NA 1.5% 13 1.4% 5 1.6% 4 1.4% 3

Very satisfied 48.3% 414 85.8% 49.3% 167 86.6% 50.7% 126 85.8% 48.2% 111 85.7%




DK/NA 9.7% 83 10.6% 36 11.0% 27 11.3% 26

Total Likely November 2018 Voter R. Likely June 2018 Voter S. Likely November 2017 Voter

4C. Keeping taxes at affordable levels

4D. Managing growth and development

4E. Preserving open space

4F. Managing traffic on city streets

4G. Maintaining city streets and roads

4A. Providing programs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions

4B. Providing police protection

4H. Providing public library services


Godbe Research




∑, Mean


∑, Mean


∑, Mean

or Δ

Very satisfied 55.5% 476 86.5% 59.2% 201 89.4% 62.7% 156 89.7% 63.0% 144 89.4%




DK/NA 11.1% 96 8.8% 30 8.5% 21 8.7% 20

Very satisfied 7.8% 67 36.0% 9.9% 34 35.7% 11.2% 28 35.9% 11.6% 26 34.8%




DK/NA 25.3% 217 22.2% 75 21.8% 54 21.2% 48

Very satisfied 26.9% 231 70.8% 26.6% 90 75.3% 27.5% 69 74.6% 28.3% 65 75.0%




DK/NA 10.4% 89 6.5% 22 7.5% 19 7.4% 17

Very satisfied 23.0% 198 71.1% 21.1% 71 63.5% 23.2% 58 62.8% 21.8% 50 60.4%




DK/NA 1.7% 15 4.4% 15 4.1% 10 4.3% 10

Very satisfied 29.7% 255 74.9% 26.5% 90 72.1% 26.9% 67 71.7% 26.0% 60 70.6%




DK/NA 6.1% 52 10.0% 34 9.5% 24 9.8% 23

Very satisfied 29.9% 257 73.2% 28.5% 97 75.8% 27.9% 69 76.9% 25.9% 59 76.5%




DK/NA 11.3% 97 7.6% 26 8.8% 22 8.9% 20

Very satisfied 31.3% 268 79.8% 29.9% 101 77.3% 32.4% 81 78.5% 31.2% 71 77.9%




DK/NA 1.8% 15 3.2% 11 2.9% 7 3.1% 7

Very satisfied 23.5% 202 64.2% 19.6% 66 61.2% 19.6% 49 59.5% 20.8% 48 57.9%




DK/NA 2.6% 22 5.0% 17 4.7% 12 5.3% 12


4M. Providing bike and pedestrian friendly routes

4N. Trimming trees along city streets

4O. Cleaning and sweeping city streets

4P. Providing sufficient parking downtown

4I. Providing fire and paramedic services

4J. Providing affordable housing

4K. Maintaining storm drains

4L. Maintaining sidewalks


Godbe Research




∑, Mean


∑, Mean


∑, Mean

or Δ

Very satisfied 14.7% 126 40.4% 17.0% 58 50.1% 17.5% 44 51.4% 19.2% 44 52.2%




DK/NA 53.4% 458 41.3% 140 39.8% 99 38.4% 88

Very satisfied 15.8% 136 44.1% 10.8% 37 39.4% 10.1% 25 39.8% 11.0% 25 39.7%




DK/NA 41.6% 357 50.1% 170 51.6% 129 50.9% 117

Very satisfied 26.3% 226 68.2% 29.3% 99 75.9% 29.7% 74 74.8% 30.3% 69 74.2%




DK/NA 17.9% 153 15.9% 54 17.1% 43 17.1% 39

Very satisfied 34.2% 293 76.8% 35.0% 118 82.2% 36.5% 91 83.2% 35.5% 81 82.6%




DK/NA 10.0% 86 6.9% 23 7.2% 18 7.4% 17

Very satisfied 31.6% 271 78.8% 30.6% 104 81.1% 31.0% 77 83.8% 29.5% 68 83.1%




DK/NA 6.2% 53 6.7% 23 7.0% 17 7.0% 16

Very satisfied 27.5% 236 72.7% 24.7% 84 74.0% 27.2% 68 75.7% 27.9% 64 77.6%




DK/NA 16.4% 141 17.6% 60 16.0% 40 14.6% 34

Very satisfied 10.7% 92 34.8% 8.5% 29 24.3% 8.8% 22 23.4% 9.9% 23 25.2%




DK/NA 57.4% 492 68.2% 231 70.2% 175 68.9% 158

Very satisfied 17.8% 153 40.7% 14.9% 50 41.9% 16.1% 40 46.1% 15.6% 36 45.5%




DK/NA 40.3% 345 43.3% 147 40.3% 100 40.0% 92


4Q. Providing senior citizen services

4W. Providing child care services

4X. Meeting the needs of ethnic minorities

4R. Providing youth and teen services

4S. Providing community events

4T. Providing adequate parks and recreation facilities

4U. Maintaining parks

4V. Providing recreational and cultural arts programs


Godbe Research




∑, Mean


∑, Mean


∑, Mean

or Δ

Very satisfied 51.7% 443 85.5% 55.6% 188 89.0% 57.2% 143 88.2% 55.8% 128 88.6%




DK/NA 1.4% 12 3.4% 12 3.5% 9 3.7% 8

Very satisfied 27.6% 236 74.6% 22.7% 77 70.9% 24.4% 61 70.0% 25.1% 58 69.2%




DK/NA 8.6% 73 10.1% 34 10.2% 26 9.2% 21

Very satisfied 8.5% 73 31.2% 3.5% 12 25.5% 4.0% 10 26.8% 4.7% 11 27.7%




DK/NA 10.2% 87 11.1% 38 10.3% 26 9.9% 23

Very satisfied 15.3% 131 51.2% 13.0% 44 45.0% 13.9% 35 48.8% 14.5% 33 50.1%




DK/NA 29.9% 256 34.6% 117 31.2% 78 28.4% 65

Very satisfied 20.1% 172 48.7% 13.4% 46 43.1% 12.5% 31 43.4% 12.9% 29 42.8%




DK/NA 38.6% 331 37.9% 128 36.1% 90 36.1% 83


4Y. Providing garbage collection and recycling services

4Z. Enforcing traffic and parking laws

4AA. Reducing the impacts of homelessness

4BB. Having your voice heard in City government


services


Godbe Research


SATISFACTION WITH INDIVIDUAL SERVICES - RANKED BY MEAN SCORE



∑, Mean


∑, Mean


∑, Mean

or Δ

4I. Providing fire and paramedic services 1.60 1.63 1.67 1.67

4H. Providing public library services 1.48 1.51 1.53 1.51

4B. Providing police protection 1.40 1.37 1.44 1.43

4Y. Providing garbage collection and recycling services 1.32 1.48 1.49 1.49

4E. Preserving open space 1.24 1.27 1.27 1.27

4T. Providing adequate parks and recreation facilities 1.22 1.23 1.27 1.25

4A. Providing programs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 1.21 0.99 1.02 1.03

4V. Providing recreational and cultural arts programs 1.19 1.18 1.21 1.22

4Q. Providing senior citizen services 1.17 1.11 1.11 1.12

4S. Providing community events 1.14 1.23 1.25 1.24

4N. Trimming trees along city streets 1.13 1.06 1.09 1.06

4U. Maintaining parks 1.13 1.16 1.21 1.18

4O. Cleaning and sweeping city streets 1.07 1.03 1.08 1.06

4Z. Enforcing traffic and parking laws 1.07 0.96 0.98 0.96


services1.06 0.76 0.75 0.73

4W. Providing child care services 1.05 0.97 1.02 1.07

4K. Maintaining storm drains 1.04 1.03 1.05 1.07

4M. Providing bike and pedestrian friendly routes 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.00

4R. Providing youth and teen services 0.96 0.96 0.99 0.99

4BB. Having your voice heard in City government 0.89 0.76 0.82 0.80

4L. Maintaining sidewalks 0.86 0.73 0.77 0.73

4X. Meeting the needs of ethnic minorities 0.83 0.90 0.96 0.92

4D. Managing growth and development 0.77 0.67 0.69 0.67

4P. Providing sufficient parking downtown 0.76 0.72 0.68 0.68

4G. Maintaining city streets and roads 0.66 0.54 0.56 0.52

4C. Keeping taxes at affordable levels 0.53 0.45 0.52 0.50

4F. Managing traffic on city streets 0.48 0.43 0.47 0.41

4J. Providing affordable housing 0.39 0.40 0.43 0.41

4AA. Reducing the impacts of homelessness 0.07 -0.06 0.02 0.04



Godbe Research


OTHER SERVICES AND ISSUES



∑, Mean


∑, Mean


∑, Mean

or Δ

Homelessness 26.2% 225 31.2% 106 28.5% 71 28.8% 66

Traffic congestion 17.7% 152 17.2% 58 18.1% 45 18.7% 43

Affordability of housing 15.2% 131 8.8% 30 10.9% 27 9.3% 21

Cost of living or housing 10.0% 85 6.9% 23 5.8% 15 5.6% 13

Growth and/or overcrowding 5.6% 48 9.4% 32 8.6% 21 9.4% 21

Availability of jobs 3.8% 32 1.1% 4 1.2% 3 1.3% 3


benefits are too high2.3% 19 3.7% 13 4.8% 12 4.4% 10

Condition or safety of streets 1.5% 13 1.7% 6 1.5% 4 1.5% 3

Public safety (includes crime) 1.3% 11 2.2% 8 1.1% 3 1.1% 3


laborers1.2% 10 3.0% 10 3.4% 8 3.4% 8


sidewalks/pathways1.2% 10 0.7% 2 1.1% 3 1.1% 2

Quality of education 1.0% 9 1.1% 4 1.1% 3 1.3% 3

Poor financial

situation/condition0.8% 6 1.6% 5 2.6% 6 1.9% 4

Condition or safety of buildings 0.4% 3 0.9% 3 0.0% 0 0.0% 0

Other (SPECIFY: 6.7% 58 7.2% 24 7.8% 20 8.5% 19

DK/NA 5.2% 45 3.2% 11 3.6% 9 3.7% 8

Satisfied 30.0% 258 30

city of san rafael...2017/04/19 · rafael, with subsamples of likely november 2018 voters (18,466...

Documents