January 24, 2008

San Jose releases 2008 Community Budget Survey

As part of San Jose’s community budget process, the city has asked residents for their perceptions of city services, their funding priorities and their support for or opposition to strategies to increase revenue or cut the budget deficit. The results of the survey are now online at www.sanjoseca.gov/mayor.

“San Jose residents know that we have serious budget problems and realize the need to make tough decisions to solve the structural budget deficit,” said Mayor Chuck Reed. “However, it appears that residents are not supportive of new taxes or tax increases at this time.”

On Saturday, Jan. 19, San Jose held its second annual Neighborhood Associations Budget Deficit Discussion and Priority Setting Session. Designated representatives from each neighborhood association will participate in small-group discussions and give input on priorities for solving the City’s deficit.

“It’s important for the Mayor and City Council to hear from residents about ways to solve the structural budget deficit,” said Reed. “This survey provides critical insight into the feelings and concerns of all of our residents. It’s an important piece of our community-based budgeting process.”

Survey background
The 2008 community budget survey was conducted by Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin & Associates from Jan. 7 to 13. On Feb. 12, FMMA staff will present an in-depth report on the results at the City Council’s budget priority-setting session.

This year, the city expanded the telephone survey to 1,005 San Jose residents. Using a random-digit dial method, FMMA reached a random and representative sample of 503 San Jose residents. Last year, FMMA surveyed 450 residents by random-digit dial method. Given the interest in deficit-reduction strategies that may require action by the voters of San Jose, FMMA also surveyed a representative sample of 502 likely voters.

The survey was translated and conducted in Spanish and Vietnamese as well as English. The same questions were asked of each group of respondents. For tracking purposes, several questions were identical to those asked in 2007. The survey included questions exploring residents' rating of the quality of city services, residents' perception of the city budget, residents' priorities for increases or cuts in city spending, residents' attitudes toward budget-related policy issues and a number of demographic questions that will allow analysis of survey results according to demographic and geographic subgroups.

The following reports the results from the random sample and likely voters separately as well as a combined report of all 1,005 respondents.

San Jose budget
The survey results show an increasing awareness of the City’s budget deficit: 53 percent of residents and 56 percent of voters believe the city will start its budget process with a deficit, compared with 35 percent of residents in 2007.

As with last year’s survey, a majority of residents believe the city is spending the right amount of money on the key services areas that were the subject of the survey.

Revenue generation
Depending on the revenue strategy, increases may require a two-thirds or majority vote of the voters of San Jose. At this time, it appears that the majority of likely voters do not support fee or tax increases. Similar results were seen in the responses of the random sample of San Jose residents.

Voters were somewhat or strongly opposed to:

* Increasing the existing tax that customers pay on utility bills, which is called the utility users tax, 74 percent

* Increasing the sales tax, 71 percent

* Creating new districts that would charge property owners for street landscape and new energy-efficient lighting services, 55 percent

* Establishing a new dedicated tax on each parcel of property in the city to support police, fire and other critical services, 53 percent
Voters were somewhat or strongly supportive of:

* Increasing the existing hotel room tax, which is also called the transient occupancy tax, 62 percent

* Adjusting the tax on business licenses to generate new revenue, 60 percent

* Shifting funds from the real estate transfer tax from capital projects to operating and maintenance projects, 60 percent

Changes in services
Respondents’ top recommendations for deficit solutions that would require changes in the way the city provides services were:

* Selling underused city property, 83 percent strongly or somewhat support

* Increasing the leases for all buildings the city owns to market rate, 71 percent

* Lowering entry-level city salaries to market-rate, 69 percent

* Increasing the use of civilian positions in the police and fire departments, 69 percent

* Reducing the size of pay increases for city employees, 62 percent

The only service change that a majority of respondents opposed was “changing and decreasing police and fire department staffing requirements,” which 59 percent somewhat or strongly opposed.

Budget cuts
Few respondents deemed services cuts to be “completely acceptable.” The areas they were most willing to see service cuts were:

* Reducing staffing in the mayor and city council’s offices, 85 percent somewhat or completely acceptable.

* Reducing funds for recruiting, training and recognizing city employees, 72 percent

* Reducing staff in the offices of the City Attorney, City Auditor, City Clerk, City Manager or Independent Police Auditor, 74 percent

* Reducing the size of pay increases for city employees, 71 percent

* Reducing staffing at the planning department, 71 percent
Respondents were most opposed to cuts in the following services:

* Eliminating crime prevention programs in which the city works with neighborhoods, 77 percent somewhat or strongly oppose.

* Closing bathrooms in neighborhood parks, 72 percent

* Reducing police staffing dedicated to solving property crimes, 71 percent

* Reducing the number of school crossing guards, 71 percent

* Eliminating city programs that educate young people in character and decision-making or give them work experience in city government, 63 percent.