1. 220-2708 Survey Conducted: May 6-14, 2009 Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin & Associates Opinion Research & Public Policy Analysis Santa Monica, CA – Oakland, CA – Madison, WI – Mexico City Coalition to Protect Local Vital Services Baseline Survey

2. 2 Methodology  Interviews conducted by telephone with 1500 randomly selected California registered voters likely to vote in November 2010 Statewide Election  Dates of interview: May 6 – 14, 2009  Margin of error for the full sample is +/-2.5%  Margin of error for half the sample is +/-3.6%

3. 3 Right Direction/Wrong Track: Voter opinion of the state differs dramatically from their perception of how things are going at the local level. 2. Would you say that things in are generally headed in the right direction or do you feel that things are pretty seriously off on the wrong track? Your City or town Your region of the state The State of California (Ranked by Right Direction)

4. 4 About a third of voters know that a local special purpose tax or bond measure requires two-thirds approval of local voters. 4a & b. Do you know what percentage is needed for local voters to pass a local tax or bond measure to fund a specific local service in their City or County? Is it... ? Split Sample Yes, two-thirds Yes, 55 percent of votes cast Yes, 50 percent plus one vote Do not know None of these/Other Yes, two-thirds/ 66 percent Yes, 55 percent Yes, 50 percent plus one vote/majority Yes, other No, don’t know DK/NA Multiple ChoiceOpen-end (Split Sample)

5. 5 Informing voters about the current two-thirds requirements has a significant effect on support for a 55% threshold for local finance measures. Total Oppose 30% Total Support 62% Would you support or oppose a requirement that local tax and bond measures that fund specific local services in cities, counties or school districts, be approved by 55% of local voters? Total Oppose 40% Total Support 53% Would you support or oppose a requirement that local tax and bond measures that fund specific local services in cities, counties or school districts, be approved by 55% of local voters instead of the present two-thirds vote requirement? Q5a/5b. (Split Sample)

6. 6 Proposition 39 Ballot Language – 55% Threshold for Local School Bond Measures Proposition 39Proposition 39. School Facilities. 55% Local Vote. Bonds, Taxes Accountability Requirements. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute. Authorizes bonds for repair, construction or replacement of school facilities, classrooms, if approved by 55% local vote. Fiscal Impact: Increased bond debt for many school districts. Long-term costs statewide could total in the hundreds of millions of dollars annually. Potential longer- term state savings to the extent school districts assume greater responsibility for funding school facilities. January 1999 Baseline Survey November 2000 Election Day

7. 7 Information Statement: California’s State Constitution currently requires local special purpose tax and bond measures to be approved by two-thirds of voters, which is 66.7%, in a given city or county, and for certain school funding measures. Special purpose tax measures are those where funds must be dedicated for a single local service or project. “Let me ask you about a possible statewide initiative that may appear on the ballot next year. This initiative would do two things:  First, it would require the approval of (55/50) percent of local voters to pass a tax or bond measure to fund specific local services - like public safety, emergency room care, transportation and local schools - instead of the present two- thirds vote requirement.  Second, it would require mandatory accountability provisions for local funding measures, including annual independent performance audits, citizens’ oversight, and public expenditure reports. Knowing this, would you support or oppose this ballot initiative?” Voters were read a summary of current law and a proposed ballot initiative.

8. 8 Total support for changing the threshold level is similar at 55% and 50%, but there is greater intensity (“strongly support”) at the 55% level. Total support for changing the threshold level is similar at 55% and 50%, but there is greater intensity (“strongly support”) at the 55% level. 6/7. Would you support or oppose this ballot initiative? Split Sample Total Oppose 35% Total Support 56% Total Oppose 38% Total Support 53% 55% Threshold 50%+1 Threshold November 2010 Likely Voters

9. 9 % of Sample (46%)(36%)(46%) 55% Threshold Demographics: Party and Gender (18%)(54%) PartyGender 6. Would you support or oppose this ballot initiative? Split Sample

10. 10 Ethnicity 6. Would you support or oppose this ballot initiative? Split Sample (16%)(5%) (67%)(26%) % of Sample 55% Threshold Demographics:

11. 11 Region 6. Would you support or oppose this ballot initiative? Split Sample (24%)(22%)(9%)(22%)(11%) % of Sample (12%)(11%) 55% Threshold Demographics:

12. 12 Voters have a higher regard for local government and are more concerned about protecting local services. 10. I am going to read you a list of statements. I’d like you to tell me whether you generally agree or disagree. Split Sample (Ranked by 2009 Total Strongly/S.W. Agree) Because state government is not working, local government should do more to protect jobs and improve local economies Because state government is not working, local government should take more responsibility to provide vital local services Local government is more accountable to voters than state government

13. 13 12. I am now going to read you some different provisions that may also be included in the potential initiative to require the approval of at least 55%/50% percent of local voters to pass a tax or bond measure to fund specific local services. Please tell me whether you support or oppose that provision. Split Sample (Ranked by Total Strongly/S.W. Support) Allows local police and law enforcement to make more direct decisions about police staffing levels, crime and gang prevention programs, and other local public safety priorities Includes a sunset provision requiring that any tax increase approved by voters is legally required to expire after 10 years unless voters vote to extend the tax Allows local parents, teachers, and principals to make more direct decisions about teacher staffing levels, classroom education, after school programs and other priorities for local schools The accountability provisions and greater local control of funds attached to the initiative are well-received by voters.

14. 14 Most Effective Statements in Support of an Initiative to Change the Threshold for Local Finance Measures 65% 65% (Ranked by Total More Inclined to Support Initiative) 13. I am going to read you some statements made by people who support this initiative. Please tell me if it makes you more inclined to support this initiative. *Split Sample *Due to the economic crisis and budget cuts, cities and counties across California are laying off firefighters, police and teachers. This initiative empowers local voters to decide for themselves if they want to maintain funding for public safety, local schools, emergency room care and transportation services, because Sacramento politicians are not getting the job done. This initiative does not raise taxes and does not allow elected officials to raise taxes. This initiative simply makes it easier for voters to decide for themselves if they want to pass a local measure to maintain vital services, like public safety and local schools. This initiative requires tough accountability provisions in local ballot measures: publishing expenditure reports publicly; conducting mandatory annual performance audits; and creating citizens’ oversight committees to ensure that local tax dollars are used as promised. Further, this initiative prohibits funds raised by a local ballot measure from being taken by state government. 64%

15. 15 After the messages, two-thirds support a 55% threshold for local finance measures and nearly three-in-five support a simple majority. 6/14a/7/14b. Would you support or oppose this ballot initiative? Split Sample Total Oppose 35% Total Support 56% Total Oppose 38% Total Support 53% 55% Threshold50%+1 Threshold Strongly support Somewhat support Somewhat oppose Strongly oppose DK/NA Total Oppose 28% Total Support 64% Total Support 58% Total Oppose 36% Vote after Messages Initial Vote Vote after Messages Initial Vote

16. 16 53% 52% 15. I am going to mention to you some statements made by people who oppose this possible statewide ballot initiative. Please tell me if it makes you more inclined to oppose such an initiative. Split Sample Statements Opposed to Changing Two-thirds Requirement for Local Finance Measures (Ranked by Total More Inclined to Oppose Initiative) In this time of economic crisis, now is not the time to make it easier to raise taxes. The State Legislature passed a huge tax increase, and this measure makes it easier to raise all kinds of taxes on families and businesses. In this time of economic crisis, now is not the time to make it easier to raise taxes. The State Legislature just passed a huge tax increase, and this measure makes it easier to raise all kinds of taxes on families and businesses. This initiative makes it easier to raise local property taxes, parcel taxes, business taxes, utility taxes and sales taxes.

17. 17 49% 46% 15. I am going to mention to you some statements made by people who oppose this possible statewide ballot initiative. Please tell me if it makes you more inclined to oppose such an initiative. Split Sample Continued 49% This initiative opens the flood gates for all types of tax increases. Making it easier to raise local taxes will make California less economically competitive and drive businesses, jobs and talented people out of the state. There is too much wasteful spending in government. Cities and counties should cut wasteful spending before we open the flood gates to all types of tax increases. This initiative seeks to repeal one of the most important provisions of Proposition 13, which has protected every California resident, including property owners, renters, and seniors from local tax increases for more than 30 years.

18. 18 45% 37% 15. I am going to mention to you some statements made by people who oppose this possible statewide ballot initiative. Please tell me if it makes you more inclined to oppose such an initiative. Split Sample Continued 43% This measure is really a backdoor attempt to gut Prop 13 protections, and allow local governments to raise taxes on property owners throughout California. Voters have already addressed local school funding by reducing the percentage needed to approve local school bonds to 55%. The two-thirds requirement should be left in place for other less essential government programs. Our present system has been in place for 30 years, and it works. The two-thirds voter requirement has allowed hundreds of important and broadly-supported tax increases, but has blocked less essential ones that do not have broad community support.

19. 19 Even after negative messages, three-in-five voters support changing the threshold to pass local tax and bond measures to 55%. 6/14a/16a. Would you support or oppose this ballot initiative? Split Sample

20. 220-2708 Survey Conducted: May 6-14, 2009 Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin & Associates Opinion Research & Public Policy Analysis Santa Monica, CA – Oakland, CA – Madison, WI – Mexico City Coalition to Protect Local Vital Services Baseline Survey