Following are two recent articles from Western City, the magazine of the California League of Cities. Both articles tell how cities can successfully use surveys and polling to build public support for budgeting, strategic plans and revenue enhancement initiatives. The two Western City articles are followed by stories about municipal service surveys in my former home town of Fayetteville, Arkansas, and in Sacramento.
For reasons that have never been made clear, both City staff and City Council members have resisted these tried and true methods in Richmond. Note that in the first article, the City of Long Beach successfully used community outreach to resolve a $46 million looming general fund deficit ” very similar to what we are undergoing in Richmond. Such surveys are not nearly as expensive as the hundreds of thousands of dollars recently paid to special legal, financial and public relations consultants by the City of Richmond. Maybe we could learn from others.
December 2003
Long Beach”s Budget Deficit Forges Vastly Improved Relationship With Constituents
The City of Long Beach won a 2003 Helen Putnam Award for Excellence in the Enhancing Public Trust, Ethics and Community Involvement category.
In 2002, the City of Long Beach marked a turning point in its relationship with constituents. While formulating its fiscal year 2002″03 (FY03) budget, the city discovered that it faced a $46 million structural deficit in its general fund. The deficit, combined with a growing perception of nontransparent decision-making, all but destroyed public trust and confidence in city government. These feelings became manifest in endless op-ed pieces, letters to the editor, negative articles about management and accusations about the absence of openness.
The FY03 gap was filled using one-time revenues and transfers from other funds into the general fund. However, looking ahead, the situation appeared only to worsen, with the city”s uncontrollable fixed costs growing an additional $40″50 million over the next three years and revenues projected to remain flat or shrink.
In response to external pressure and the mounting call for accountability, the city council fired the city manager weeks before adopting the FY03 budget in September 2002. As a condition for adoption of the budget, the mayor and city council called for the formation of a citizens” Budget Advisory Committee to review city finances and develop a three-year financial strategic plan within 90 days that would address the city”s growing structural deficit.
City Launches a Grassroots Campaign and Community Survey
City leaders recognized the need to address the growing perception of community disenfranchisement, the lack of transparency throughout the city”s decision-making apparatus and the urgent necessity to develop a comprehensive plan. So they seized the opportunity to utilize lessons from an emerging internal initiative to improve overall community information, input and interaction. The plan would require reviewing all city spending, prioritizing services and making difficult decisions that addressed the structural deficit. The acting city manager knew that this process and these decisions could not be made in a vacuum.
As a result, a comprehensive Budget Evaluation Process (BEP) was developed as a way to fulfill the city council”s mandate for a plan while ensuring that the decision-making process was more inclusive, open and reliant upon the informed consent of the community. The process was designed to be transparent to constituents.
A critical element of the BEP was an intensive community outreach process, intended to inform the community about the scope of the city”s budget challenges, as well as provide access to the city”s decision-making process. An unprecedented grassroots outreach effort was undertaken to solicit service priorities from multiple stakeholders, including community members, businesses and employees throughout the community.
To effectively solicit opinions and information on the community”s priorities, the city created the “Voice Your Choice: Community Survey on City Services,” which allowed residents to rate programs in nine service areas. The survey also solicited revenue-generating and other ideas for fixing the city”s budget problem. The survey was distributed in English, Spanish and Khmer at dozens of city facilities, made available on the city”s website and mailed to more than 170,000 city utility customers. The survey was also published at no cost in the Long Beach Press-Telegram and the Long Beach Business Journal. These media outlets also ran stories that promoted the community meetings associated with the BEP. Given the deteriorating relationship between the city and the local media, this was an acknowledged breakthrough toward restoring public trust and credibility.
Furthermore, the city partnered with more than 80 boards, commissions, advisory committees, neighborhood associations, business organizations and the Long Beach Unified School District to make formal presentations about the structural deficit and distribute surveys.
The acting city manager submitted a draft of his proposed plan to provide further opportunities for city council and community input. The draft plan was posted in its entirety on the city”s website and placed at more than 28 city facilities, including all city libraries. Community meetings were then held, culminating in a citywide town hall meeting. These forums provided an opportunity for senior city management to review and discuss the contents of the plan with the community, as well as collect additional comments, feedback and ideas that enhanced the city council”s deliberations.
Community Rallies in Support of The Strategic Plan
After five months of intensive effort and extensive community collaboration, a final three-year financial strategic plan was adopted unanimously by the city council. The plan provides a strategy to incrementally address the structural deficit over a three-year period, based heavily on a less costly model of municipal service provision. Increases to fees and taxes were recommended only where the city was not achieving a full market return on its services. The plan is unique in that it uses community input and priorities as its basis, drawing direct linkages between the community”s service priorities and its proposed deficit-reduction strategies.
Initial community response to the plan was overwhelmingly favorable. The dramatic change in tone of the community”s voice, seen most clearly in the press, was the most telling endorsement of the BEP. “A sea change has occurred at Long Beach City Hall during the past few weeks. Change is good, and in this case, better than good,” wrote George Economides, editor and publisher of the Long Beach Business Journal.
On the day the draft plan was released, the Press-Telegram editors wrote, “Long Beach city officials ” have brought forth the first budget-cutting proposal we”ve ever seen that is actually a pleasure to read.” Such sentiment, which just a few months earlier was unthinkable, was as much a reward for the city”s efforts as the knowledge that a truly deliberative process was employed during a potentially divisive community issue.
With the acknowledgement by city officials that they cannot unilaterally resolve all community problems using traditional administrative models, the BEP clearly represents a new community-oriented, accountable decision-making approach for Long Beach to restore public confidence and maintain quality participation.
The plan has buttressed the city”s fiscal stability going forward. The process allowed the city to reinforce its trust, legitimacy and credibility with the community it serves as well.
Contact: Suzanne Mason, acting deputy city manager, City of Long Beach; phone: (562) 570-5092; e-mail: suzanne_mason@longbeach.gov.
May 2004
City Forum
Polling: A Strategic Tool for Winning Voter Support of City Finance Initiatives
by John Fairbank and Richard Maullin
John Fairbank and Richard Maullin are partners in Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin & Associates, a public policy-oriented opinion research firm that is working on the Local Taxpayers and Public Safety Protection Act for the November 2004 election.
Unless local governments succeed in passing constitutional measures to strengthen protection for local revenues, it is virtually guaranteed that California cities will continue to suffer fiscal losses at the hands of the state. Fiscal year 2004″05 looks even more dismal than the current fiscal year, which already has been tough for local government finance. And while state government officials are still betting that California”s economy will improve, the state continues to reduce funding for local services as it attempts to balance its own books.
Cities do have the option to raise taxes or pass bonds for capital improvements that local voters themselves want, need and expect. Obtaining voter approval for supplemental taxation is not simple or easy, however, particularly as the same adverse economic conditions that underlie the state”s fiscal problems also affect voters and make them wary of tax increases. And until the League and its LOCAL coalition partners are able to pass an initiative to strengthen constitutional protections for local revenues, the harsh reality is that the state will still have the ability to take away an amount equivalent to the new money that city voters approve. But even with these challenges, some city officials conclude that their best option is to take a finance initiative to their voters.
Increase Your Chances of Winning Voter Approval
So how can cities increase their chances of winning voter approval for tax or fee increases or new assessments? To succeed in today”s electoral environment, cities need to employ accurate and strategically focused voter opinion research. Such research, or “polling” as it”s commonly called, is an essential tool for adding to local revenues.
First, for a relatively low cost, voter surveys can test the feasibility and degree of support for the options and choices that city managers and finance directors have in mind before making public commitments. Polling can answer questions about voters” priorities and validate (or dispute) assumptions that city officials may have about the voting public”s views.
Second, voter opinion research produces reliable answers quickly so that empirical data can replace speculation about voter intentions and propensities in real time, enabling city staff and elected officials to proactively consider the available options. Third, voter opinion research tests the understandability and credibility of rationales for increasing taxes, fees or assessments as voters might actually hear or see them. This “message testing” creates a foundation of fact that can be translated into vital communications that inform and ultimately persuade voters to support new funding initiatives.
A baseline, random sample survey of likely voters can determine the overall feasibility and voter acceptance of a bond or special tax measure at different funding levels. It can test how voters respond to different versions of the ballot title and summary and, through analysis of respondent demographics and past voting patterns, it can help determine which election calendar promises the greatest likelihood of success. The same survey can also determine the effectiveness of arguments that might be offered for and against a bond or special tax measure, thus helping shape the proponents” best public arguments.
Getting the Most Out of Opinion Research
Conducting a voter opinion survey is fairly straightforward, but doing it right is not necessarily easy. The process typically begins with a city-generated request for proposals. California has a community of experienced opinion researchers who can respond with competitive proposals. Cities get the most out of surveys if they have worked out exactly how much new money is really needed for specific programs and/or service levels, and have identified their true needs before engaging an opinion researcher.
It also helps to have staff members who are experienced or at least familiar with public opinion research and who remain actively engaged as surveys are drafted and the results analyzed and interpreted by the opinion research consultant. Qualities to look for in a consultant include experience in providing strategic intelligence for successful financial ballot initiatives, quick turnaround of survey drafts, and analysis and sensitivity to the requirements of working for a public entity governed by elected officials.
Avoiding the Pitfalls of Opinion Research
Pitfalls arise from not specifying a realistic voter sample that accounts for the low and often variable voter turnout in municipal elections. Furthermore, great care must be taken in devising the ballot title and summary language. What might make sense to the city attorney may set off negative reactions and/or be unintelligible to the average voter. Analysis and interpretation of the data, particularly with regard to the intensity of support and opposition, and understanding what rationales work best with which voters, is an art as well as a science. And experience working with city staffs, campaign managers and media consultants as a team in local financial initiative elections counts for a lot.
With the state gambling on longer term economic factors to repair its fiscal health and with the stakes so high for California cities, local jurisdictions cannot afford a roll of the dice on critical financial measures. Voter opinion research dramatically increases the odds for success by lighting the path to winning at the ballot box.
Survey says …
BY SARAH TERRY Northwest Arkansas Times
Posted on Sunday, December 14, 2003
Fayetteville citizens gave the city a mostly positive review when they were surveyed on a variety of topics last summer.
Now the City Council must decide how it will incorporate those responses into its goals and budget for the upcoming year.
Chief Administrative Officer Hugh Earnest said the council will likely meet after the first of the year to discuss the findings of the telephone survey, which was conducted of 400 residents by the Survey Research Center at the University of Arkansas. “We all need to go over what was said in that report,” he said. “There”s an awful lot of valuable information in there that people are telling us.”
Although the council has seen a report on the findings ” the information was presented at the Oct. 14 agenda-setting session ” the detailed analysis of the results was handed out last week.
The phone surveys were conducted of 400 residents during July and August. Citizens were randomly select- ed, and letters, which preceded the phone calls, informed citizens about the survey they would be asked to participate in.
The $25,000 survey was paid for using money from the city”s Budget and Research Division”s annual budget. The City Council approved the expenditure at its May 20 meeting. The findings will be used in the decision-making process for the 2004 budget.
The telephone surveys took between 15 to 20 minutes and included about 40 questions that asked citizens how the city is performing and what the city should do in the future. “I think there are some issues in there,” Earnest said. “A s the council considers issues in next year”s budget, this survey will serve as some benchmark for what people are thinking.”
Earnest said he expects that the discussion to focus on improving area roads. “There”s going to be a great deal of discussion about what we want to do about roads,” he said.
When asked to rate city services, more than half ” 51 percent ” felt that streets need the most improvement; 24 percent felt transportation should be enhanced; 12 percent thought utilities should be upgraded; 5 percent thought parks and recreation services needed to be upgraded; and information programs, public safety services and other services each received 3 percent.
Of the particular aspects of streets that should be improved; 12 percent responded that street repair was most important; 8 percent listed street maintenance, sidewalk maintenance and sidewalk accessibility each received 2 percent; and 1 percent named cleanliness of streets.
Despite the overwhelming response to improving the roads, about 82 percent of residents surveyed spend 15 minutes or less in a one-way commute to work or school. Another 14 percent take a half-hour for their daily drive.
Citizens were also asked to list which of the goals that the City Council set at its spring retreat they viewed as most important.
Again, respondents named improved mobility and street quality as the most important with 31 percent; planned and managed growth received 27 percent; maintaining a clean and green city earned 18 percent; developing south Fayetteville garnered 18 percent; and developing downtown Fayetteville, Dickson Street and College Avenue netted 6 percent.
Nearly all the citizens surveyed ” 95 percent ” consider Fayetteville “a good or excellent place to live.”
Respondents say they choose to live in Fayetteville for myriad reasons: 31 percent named the quality of life as their reason; 22 percent listed being close to families; 18 percent said being close to work; 15 percent responded to be close to University of Arkansas; 4 percent listed the quality of the school system; and 1 percent named either weather, recreation opportunities or high value for their tax dollars.
Steve Davis, the city”s Finance and Internal Services Director, said the 2004 budget process is too far along to affect change in the monetary allotment next year. Instead, he expects policies to be examined. “I expect more of a policy discussion around the results of the survey,” he said. “My guess is its more for the 2005 budget. City Council has to have a discussion over what the citizen”s survey means in terms of how polices are implemented.”
Davis said the findings will continue to have an affect in planning and policy decisions in the future. “The primary purpose is to find out what citizens are thinking and hear their input,” he said. “If the survey points out areas that need improving, we use that document to see what those changes should be. It may not be used for 2004 “s budget, but it”s going to play a very big role in how we implement 2004 “s plan and how 2005, 2006 and 2007 is planned out.”
The first citizens survey follows the survey conducted during the summer of 2001 by the city”s budget and research division, which mailed out 1,200 surveys to residents throughout the city.
Earnest said he plans to continue to do a study every other year. “My preference is to do something similar to this,” he said.
Customer Satisfaction Survey
http://www.sacto.org/StrategicPlanning/SurveyResults.htm
The City of Sacramento recently completed its third bi-annual Customer Satisfaction Survey. The results of the survey are good news for the City – and will help us focus our efforts going forward. Some of the highlights of the survey results include:
Overall, the City of Sacramento was viewed positively in terms of the job its doing of providing services, with two-thirds of the respondents saying the City is doing a “good” or an “excellent” job. Similar to previous surveys, residents rated the City highest for its job of providing fire services, park maintenance, and solid waste collection (including garbage collection, garden refuse pick-up, and recycling) and lowest for youth programs and permitting. Positive ratings for economic and job development have increased significantly over the survey years. The level of positive ratings for traffic management appears to be down from previous surveys. The specific City programs and services that are important and significantly related to the overall service ratings of the City include: street maintenance and repair; economic and job development; tree maintenance; and management of traffic. In other words, residents who were more positive in their evaluations of the City’s performance of these services were also more positive in their evaluation of the City’s overall performance. While the largest group of respondents continues to think that City conditions are about the same as they were two years ago, in the 2000 survey, significantly more residents felt that conditions in the City had improved over the past two years than when asked in previous surveys. Additionally the proportion of residents with negative opinions of City conditions appears to be declining. Consistent with the 1998 survey findings, a majority of respondents indicated that their neighborhood conditions had stayed about the same over the past two years. The results also indicate that the significant increase in positive opinions regarding improvement in neighborhood conditions that occurred between 1996 and 1998 has held constant through the 2000 survey. Residents believe the City’s top priorities for the next ten years should be education, public safety, transportation issues, and improved air quality. Respondents rated safe neighborhoods as the top reason for living in the City of Sacramento, followed by transportation issues, air quality, and public schools. Respondents reported getting their information about City services and activities by talking to others and reading the Sacramento Bee. Since the 1996, Internet usage has been an increasingly common way for residents to find out about services and activities provided by the City.