The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutItem 02 Police Special Levy Renewal AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Meeting Date: 6/11/2012 Meeting Type:Work Session Staff Contact/Dept.: Bob Duey, Finance Jerry Smith, Police Staff Phone No: 541.726.3740 Estimated Time: 30 Minutes S P R I N G F I E L D C I T Y C O U N C I L Council Goals: Strengthen Public Safety by Leveraging Partnerships and Resources ITEM TITLE: POLICE SPECIAL LEVY RENEWAL ACTION REQUESTED: Provide staff with direction necessary to prepare the ballot title for the renewal of the police special levy at the November 2012 General Election. This ballot title, which will include scope of services and property tax rate per thousand, is currently scheduled for a public hearing and final adoption on July 02, 2012. ISSUE STATEMENT: The current 5-year Police Special Levy will expire at the end of the next fiscal year (06/03/13) and will require a successful vote, most likely in November 2012, to renew the levy for an additional 5 years. Essential services provided by the City rely on the $1.09 per thousand assessed valuation levy for funding. This levy first passed in 2002, added funding for our municipal jail in 2006 and now includes police &jail services as well as both municipal court and city prosecutor. Staff is asking Council to consider both service and funding level requirements in establishing the final ballot measure. Staff is recommending that the Council execute a request for a special levy election and have it filed with Lane County Elections prior to any summer break. The issue is currently scheduled to be presented at a public hearing on July 02 prior to final adoption. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment 1: Council Briefing Memorandum Attachment 2: Draft Resolution w/ Exhibit A Draft Ballot Title Attachment 3: Survey of Registered Voters – Advanced Marketing Research, Inc DISCUSSION/ FINANCIAL IMPACT: See Council Briefing Memorandum Attachment 1 Page 1 M E M O R A N D U M City of Springfield Date: 6/4/2012 To: Gino Grimaldi COUNCIL From: Jerry Smith, Police Chief Bob Duey, Finance Director> BRIEFING Subject: Police Special Levy Renewal MEMORANDUM ISSUE: The current 5-year Police Special Levy will expire at the end of the next fiscal year (06/03/13) uncil and will require a successful vote, most likely in November 2012, to renew the levy for an additional 5 years. Essential services provided by the City rely on the $1.09 per thousand assessed valuation levy for funding. This levy first passed in 2002, added funding for our municipal jail in 2006 and now includes police &jail services as well as both municipal court and city prosecutor. Staff is asking Council to consider both service and funding level requirements in establishing the final ballot measure. Staff is recommending that the Co execute a request for a special levy election and have it filed with Lane County Elections prior to any summer break. The issue is currently scheduled to be presented at a public hearing on July 02 prior to final adoption. COUNCIL GOALS/MANDATE: es needs, essential City public safety services receive resources from a Enhance Public Safety To meet existing servic special levy twice passed by the voters of Springfield. The continuation of this levy for another 5 years is critical if the City is going to maintain a level of public safety services that meet the needs and expectations of its citizens. Introduction panying information is being presented to Council in a work session as part of the process sand of AV The accom to place a levy request on the November 2012 ballot. This request is to re-establish the special levy for police services that will expire on June 30, 2013. This is the second of two scheduled work sessions prior to a request for the Council to take final action for placing the levy on the ballot through the Lane County Elections office. The first work session was held on May 07and was structured to concentrate on the services being provided and the size of the necessary levy to provide those services. The current levy is at rate of $1.09 per thousand and the range of alternatives provided that evening was from a low of $1.09 to a high of $1.34 Rate Per Thou Alt #4 Alt #3 Alt # 2 Alt # 1 Services FY08-13 FY14-18 14-18FY Y14-18F Y14-18F rvices Police Se$ 0.67 $ 0.58 $ 0.67 $0.66 $0.67 Court and Prosec$ 0.08 $ 0.08 $ 0.12 $0.11 $0.12 utor Srvs Municipal Jail $ 0.34 $ 0.43 $ 0.43 $0.41 $0.55 $1.09 $1.09 $1.22 $1.28 $1.34 Attachment 1 Page 2 Alternative #1: Alternative # $1.09 per thousand to a rate of $1.34 cents per thousand. Alternative 1, along with Alternatives 2 & e . the Y12 levels. The leasing of jail beds will be expected to generate approximately $225K annually 1 would require the rate per thousand to increase from the existing 3, are all able to maintain the current service level for police, the jail, court staffing and the prosecutor’s office as they relate to the levy services. Community survey results indicate that the public is very satisfied with the level of service being provided by the City in these areas. Th differences between the first three alternatives is only in the additional resources other than property taxes that could be available during the 5-year levy and the likelihood that service adjustments would be necessary during the levy if the those revenues could not be generated For Alternative #1, the additional resources available for jail operations remain consistent with F and the general fund transfer will be about $460K. No additional resources other than property taxes would be built into the projected revenues. Alternative #2: Alternative #2 is able to reduce the levy by $0.06 per thousand to $1.28 by apturing revenue/expense variances in the past 4 year for the current levy, in the next 12 months of arried c tight controls, and future position vacancy to generate additional 1-time dollars than can be c into the next 5-year period. Each $0.01 cent reduction in the levy represents approximately $40K annually and it anticipated that cash flow management from these 3 items would generate a positive cash flow of approximately $240K annually. The level of service described in Alternative #1 for the levy could be maintained in this alternative. The other alternative revenue items as described in Alternative #1 would remain the same. Alternative #3: Alternative #3 would decrease the levy by an additional $0.06 per thousand to 1.22 by making the revenue change as suggested in Alternative #2 but to also more aggressively s e $ attempt to general additional revenues through the leasing of a greater number jail beds and increases the subsidy transfer from the General Fund. The level of service described in Alternative #1 &2 for the levy could be maintained in this alternative if the projected revenues from these changes are achieved. The leasing of jail beds would be expected to generate an additional $110K over the FY12 levels (approximately 4 additional beds) and the transfer from the General Fund would be expected to increase by an additional 15%. Service expectation would be adjusted if these targets were not met. There could possibly be service impacts on the General Fund if the current sluggish economy maintains its slow recovery pace and the General Fund at the same tim as the increase in transfers is attempting to balance its own service priorities. Alternative #4: Alternative #4 keeps the cost at the same rate, $1.09 per thousand, as the current vy. To present a balanced budget for a $1.09 per thousand, in addition to all of the alternative d f Comm ervice and rate information provided at the previous work session, staff had also indicated to Council that we would be working on acquiring information from a community survey prior to tht le revenue described in Alternative #3, expenses would need to be reduced from the current projecte costs by approximately $520K. Significant concessions would be required for the expectations o the delivery of service from the special levy. The expense reductions would most likely create a need to reduce the projected budgets by 6.0 FTE to 8.0 FTE. The specifics of where the reductions may occur have not been determined. unity Survey In addition to the s e next work session. The survey would test citizen’s knowledge and awareness of the City’s curren police levy as well as their support for its renewal. Attachment 1 Page 3 The survey results appear to show favorability towards keeping a similar level of service as opposed to any service reduction. For example 63% said the y would definitely or probably vote yes on a police serv ilable this week and staff will further review this information prior to next week’s work session and provide a summary of the results to Cou evening’s discussion, the next step in the process is for the Council to hold a public hearing n the matter of the Ballot Title for the November election. The Ballot Title must be a neutrally worded doc e asked at the June 11 work session to provide the necessary direction for staff to prepare the Ballot Title, including a specific rate per thousand and any cha ible Ballot Title. Pre ices levy that maintains current services while costing the average homeowner $167 per year, or a rate of $1.34 per $1,000 of assessed value. When changes to the current levy are offered as an option, such as renting additional jail beds, 56% said they would definitely or probably vote yes. When offered an option that included losing some combination of police officers and court services, 41% said they would definitely or probably vote yes on a police services levy that would cost the average homeowner $109 per year, or a rate of $1.09 per $1,000 of assessed value. The information from the survey work is just becoming ava ncil at work session that in that it may assist them in reaching a decision on the Ballot Title. Ballot Title After this o ument that adheres to the State guidelines of being comprised of a maximum of 10 word ballot title, a 20 word question and a150 word explanation along with other required wording. In this case staff has assumed through the use of previous levies at the City that this would be a 5-year rate based levy. The specific rate per thousand of the levy must be clearly stated in the question and the purpose of the levy must be clearly explained in a non-advocating nature. To prepare for the public hearing the Council will b nges in service levels that are anticipated for the levy renewal. Attachment 2 has been provided for Council review for the poss vious Background from May 07 Work Session Current Levy Performance Standards- Before the original operating levy was passed in 2002, epartment staffing levels had been reduced to levels well below national or regional averages. Positions includget inal levy were to improve response times to emergency and non-emergency calls, improve communication and responsiveness to citizens, and develop the capacity to focus attention on s nded D uding Lieutenants, a Police Captain and line staff positions had been eliminated in a series of b reductions that followed the passage of statewide property tax limitations. The staffing priorities identified in the Levy were the results of research, collaboration with local partners, and extensive work done by the Police Planning Task Force, who developed and updated a twenty-year plan for police services in Springfield. The goals of the orig pecific neighborhood problems. By 2006, emergency response times were noticeably shorter and non-emergency response times were cut from a median of 11 minutes to 6. Increases in staffing levels to the Records and Dispatch units meant that waiting times for citizens calling in to report a problem were shortened significantly. Additional officers on each shift, and the addition of Patrol Community Service Officers meant that a higher percentage of calls had an officer available to dispatch rather than taking a phone report. In 2002, less than 70% of all incoming calls for service resulted in an officer being dispatched to take a report. By 2006 that number had increased to over 80%. Specific problem-solving efforts, such as the TEAM Springfield bicycle patrol and neighborhood ‘hot-spot’ patrols also expa as a direct result of the additional staffing provided by the Levy. Attachment 1 Page 4 While the Department’s response to calls for police services improved significantly during the original Levy, many issues remained, including a property crime rate that was consistently near the highest in the state. Crime prevention efforts are effective in improving citizen satisfaction with law enfat the the jail is igh. Property crime rates, compared to 2008, are down significantly. Property crime offenders are held in custody until they either post bail or their cases are resolved, fines and forfeitures are mors, orcement responses to crimes, but by the time the 2006 Levy renewal approached it was clear th actually reducing property crime rates would require different resources. With additional input from community and from the Police Planning Task Force, a series of goals and objectives was outlined for operation of a Municipal Jail. Those goals include holding offenders accountable for their actions, increasing revenue from fines and forfeitures, and specifically, reducing property crime rates in Springfield. In 2012, after two years of operations, citizen satisfaction with the police department and the consistently h e likely to be paid. The investments made by the Springfield community have begun to show result and the goals moving forward will be to continue the gains already achieved. Total Cost Estimates for Levy Renewal - The last full year of information in which to estimate future vy is the fiscal year that ended June 30, 2011 (FY11). The current year FY12 still has 3 months to go ntil year end and the budget for FY13 has not year been approved. Utilizing trending data for labor con le u tracts and inflationary activities the following are the 5-year costs estimated for the current services being provided by the Public Safety levy. Service FTE Police Services 20.00 $ 13,776,362 unicipal Court and Prosecutor Services 2.23 $ 2,582,392 al Jail Operations 1 $ 15,700,811 M Municip8.10 2012 $ 32,059,565 Renewal of the Special Levy in November - The initial numbers that are being developed for the renewal of the special police levy identify only the d cost of providing the same services that are curr estimate ently being provided by the 2006 special levy. The cost of services included in last renewal of the levy was calculated in the spring of 2006. Since that time there are many factors influencing the arrival at the 2013 to 2018 calculations. Some of the more prominent ones are: Expense Factors The Municipal Jail is now in full operation for all 5 years of the levy while in the previous levy ding required for only 3 years (2010-2012) The CPI during the period from January 2006 to current totals 15.7% or an average of 2.7% per year big surprises Overall the operation of the jail has been in line with sts Police have found that they are able to operate the d along with attempting to address the void in complementary social and mental health services in the community there was fun Experience in operating the jail for over 2 years has identified areas of both greater and lesser costs than originally anticipated but no projected costs although rising labor co will be a major factor in estimating future costs jail on one less FTE than originally planned Municipal Court has found that the cost for indigent representation has increased at a rate faster than anticipate The increase in the number of trials held as a result of operating the jail has not increased as anticipated Attachment 1 Page 5 enue FactorsRev The overall growth in the City’s assessed valuation ( cash that can be utilized to help keep the cost of the renewal levy lower y affected the financial strength has been possible between court revenues (general fund)and jail operations (jail operations fund) jail beds to outside agencies has not generated the revenue anticipated in 2005, currently at only about 30% of that total as ability to generate revenues was an important par of inmates for overnight stay costs (including jail e leasing of jail beds to others agencies, the generation of re ll capacity for generating a greater share of its own operating om operations. In projecting a different trend line for prime is y the dependency on the levy renewal. Finalize the wording of the Ballot Title (Attachment 2 Exhibit A) in preparation for the sche AV) for the period between 2005 and 2012 has been greater than projected providing for a larger AV base to begin FY14 Greater than anticipated AV growth has resulted in an anticipated carry-over of beginning for July 2013 The recession has adversel of the General Fund over the last several years which has impacted the amount of revenue sharing that The leasing of The ability to collect from inmates the jail housing fee has not been as high as anticipated and h not been a significant revenue in the operations to this point Thet of the initial forecasting of the net operating costs for operating a 100 bed municipal jail. Resources that the jail could be wholly or partially responsible for generating could include the charging bed), thvenue from a 5% charge against all court fines collected, and a revenue sharing of overall fines and fees collected as result of the ability to sanction offenders with jail time. With the operation of the jail just passing the two-year mark it is likely that the operation has not yet reached it fu costs frarily two sources of revenue (revenu sharing from the general fund and additional income from the leasing of jail beds to outside agencies) it possible to reduce slightl RECOMMENDED ACTION: duled public hearing on July 02. RESOLUTION No. xxxxx A RESOLUTION REFERRING TO THE ELECTORS OF THE CITY A BALLOT MEASURE AUTHORIZING THE LEVY OF A FIVE YEAR LOCAL OPTION TAX FOR PUBLIC SAFETY PURPOSES IN THE AMOUNT OF $1.XX OF ASSESSED VALUE BEGINNING IN 2013/14. As the preamble to the Resolution the common Council of the City of Springfield, Oregon (the “City”) hereby recites the matters set forth below. To the extent any of the following recitals relates to a finding or a determination which must be made by the Common Council in connection with the subject matter of this Resolution or any aspect thereof, the Common Council declares that by setting forth such recital such finding or determination is thereby made by the Common Council. The recital, findings and determination set forth herein constitute a part of the Resolution. (1) POLITICAL SUBDIVISION. That the City is a municipality and political subdivision organized and existing and pursuant to the laws of the State of Oregon and the Charter of the City (“the Charter”). (2) POLICE PLANNING TASK FORCE. The City Council has previously appointed members to the Police Planning Task Force for the purpose of assisting in the development of a blueprint for strengthening public safety by leveraging partnerships and resources (3) CURRENT LEVY AUTHORIZATION. The City currently has the authorization from the citizens of Springfield to levy a special options tax at the rate of $1.09 per thousand for police services beginning July 1 2007. The current authorization is for five years and expires with the fiscal year beginning July 01, 2013. (4) NEED FOR SERVICE ENHANCEMENTS. A Variety of surveys and community forums have been held by, and on behalf of, the City intended to determine the current needs and desires for the residents as they pertain to issues of public safety. The surveys indicate a continued need to enhance police services to the community. The City recently completed the construction of 100-bed municipal jail through general obligation bonds that opened in January 2010. The Common Council of the City determined to proceed with the identified services for polices services, municipal jail operations and court services for the renewal of the current authorized special option tax at a cost of $32,059,565. The estimated tax rate need to generate the resources required is $1.XX per thousand of assessed valuation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SPRINGFIED, OREGON AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. APPROVE OF BALLOT MEASURE FOR GENERAL PURPOSE LOCAL OPTION TAX LEVY. The Common Council of the City hereby directs that at the General Election to be held on November 06, 2012, there shall be submitted to the qualified electors of the City a measure authorizing the City to levy a local option tax for public safety purposes in the amount of $1.XX per $1,000 of assessed value beginning in 2013/14. The ballot title for the local option levy is attached as Exhibit A (the “Ballot Title”). Section 2. SUBMISSION TO THE ELECTIONS OFFICER. Not later that the 61st day before November 06, 2012 the City Recorder, as the Chief Elections Officer of the City, shall submit to the County Clerk for Lane County, Oregon a statement of the local option tax measure together with a certified copy of this Resolution and the Ballot Title, all in order that the local option tax measure may appear on the ballot for the general election to be held on November 06, 2012. The City Recorder shall submit to the County Clerk all necessary information, and shall do and perform all other acts and things necessary or appropriate, so that the measure shall appear on the ballot for such primary election. Section 3: ADDITIONAL AUTHORIZATION. The City Manager, the City Recorder and the City Finance Director and each of them acting individually, are hereby authorized, empowered and directed, for and on behalf of the City, to do and perform all acts and things necessary or appropriate to cause the public safety purpose local option tax levy to appear on the ballot for November 06, 2012 General Election and to otherwise carry out the purpose and intent of this Resolution. Section 4. EFFECTIVENESS OF RESOLUTION. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption by the Common Council of the City. ADOPTED BY THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD AT A REGULAR MEEING HELD ON XXXX, XX, 2012 BY THE FOLLOWING VOTES: AYES: ______ NAYS: ______ __________________________ Mayor Christine L. Lundberg ATTEST: ____________________ City Recorder, Amy Sowa Attachment 2 Page 2 of 2 Ballot Title CITY OF SPRINGFIELD BALLOT MEASURE XX‐XX Caption : FIVE‐YEAR LEVY FOR SPRINGFIELD JAIL OPERATIONS AND POLICE SERVICES Question: Shall Springfield levy $X.XX per $1,000 assessed valuation for five years beginning 2013/14 for Springfield jail operations and police services. This measure may cause property taxes to increase more than three percent. Summary: The current levy for public safety services, expiring June 30, 2013, provides funding for Springfield’s 100‐bed municipal jail, uniformed police and support personnel and municipal court operations. Passage of this five‐year levy would maintain existing levels of police and community service response and continue funding for the municipal jail. Springfield’s jail opened in 2010. This levy would continue to provide partial funding for jail operations. Court fines, prisoner fees and leasing jail beds to other agencies would provide other funding. The jail provides space for sentenced defendants and has reduced the number of defendants failing to appear for scheduled court dates. During the first 2 years of operations 3,692 were booked into jail with an average jail population in excess of 60 inmates per day. Police services provided by the current levy include additional uniformed officers, community service officers, dispatchers and record clerks. The current levy has resulted in improved response times for both emergency and non‐ emergency police calls. Passage of the proposed levy would allow this level of service to continue. The estimated tax which would be raised by this levy are 2013/14 ‐ $4,699,947; 2014/15 ‐ $4,840,946; 2015/16 ‐ $4,986,174; 2016/17 ‐ $5,135,759; 2017/18 ‐ $5,289,832 for a total of $24,952,658. SURVEY OF REGISTERED VOTERS CONDUCTED FOR THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD May, 2012 P.O. Box 5244 · Eugene, OR 97405 · Phone/Fax 541-345-6600 · www.advancedmarketingresearch.com Attachment 3, Page 1 of 46 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY …………………………………………. 3 IMPLEMENTATION …………………………………………. 5 Background …………………………………………………. 5 Purpose of the Study …………………………………. 5 Methodology …………………………………………………. 5 Quotas Observed …………………………………………. 6 Response Rate …………………………………………. 6 Tests for Differences Between Proportions …………. 7 Notes on Chi Square …………………………………. 7 Bound on Error …………………………………………. 8 Differences Between Percentage Points …………………. 9 ANALYSIS OF DATA …………………………………………. 10 Awareness of 2006 Levy …………………………………. 11 Awareness of Imminent Expiration of 2006 Levy …. 12 Level of Support at $1.34 Per Thousand …………………. 13 Level of Support at $1.22 Per Thousand …………………. 14 Level of Support at $1.09 Per Thousand …………………. 15 Level of Support at Various Amounts …………………. 17 Level of Support for Willamalane Bond Measure …. 18 Faced with a Choice …………………………………. 19 CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS …………………. 20 DATA TABLES QUESTIONNAIRE INSTRUMENT Attachment 3, Page 2 of 46 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Introduction The City of Springfield, faced with the imminent expiration of the 2006 police services levy, contracted with Advanced Marketing Research in order to draw insights about voter behavior surrounding a 2012 police services levy, specifically: • Highest dollar amount most likely to succeed • Influence of information regarding impact to services • Impact of competing with a Willamalane money measure on the ballot 400 registered voters living within Springfield city limits who had voted at least once in the last four major elections were contacted by telephone and completed the survey. Key Findings Voters are aware of the 2006 Police Services Levy, but not aware that it is expiring. • 72% are aware of the 2006 levy. • 74% do not know the 2006 levy is expiring. Support is higher for the higher priced levy with more services. • 63% would definitely or probably vote yes on a police services levy that would cost the average homeowner $167 per year, or a rate of $1.34 per $1,000 of assessed value. Services would be maintained at current levels. • 56% would definitely or probably vote yes on a police services levy that would cost the average homeowner $152 per year, or a rate of $1.22 per $1,000 of assessed value. Overall services would stay the same but internal changes would be made, such as leasing out more jail beds. • 41% would definitely or probably vote yes on a police services levy that would cost the average homeowner $109 per year, or a rate of $1.09 per $1,000 of assessed value. Springfield would lose some combination of police officers and court services. The majority would support a Willamalane bond measure. • 57% say they would definitely or probably vote yes on a Willamalane bond measure that would cost the average homeowner $36 per year. Faced with two money measures on the ballot, the police measure would still pass. • 69% say they would vote for the police services measure, either alone or in conjunction with the Willamalane measure. Attachment 3, Page 3 of 46 4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Conclusions There is support for a renewed Police Services Levy, and information plays a key role, both in the amount of support and the dollar amount of the levy. Armed with information, voters are most likely to support the highest dollar amount levy ($1.34 per $1,000 AV) and least likely to support the lowest dollar amount levy ($1.09 per $1,000 AV) with its associated sacrifice in services. The Fairbank, Maslin, Maulin, Metz & Associates survey indicates that without information, voters will barely support the lowest dollar amount levy ($1.09 per $1,000 AV). Attachment 3, Page 4 of 46 5 IMPLEMENTATION Background In November 2002, City of Springfield voters passed two public safety measures, one of which was for Police and Court Services. In 2006, the Police Services Levy was renewed for five years (FY09-FY13) with added staff for the new Justice Center. The tax rate per thousand of assessed home value for the 2006 Police Services Levy was $1.09. The current median assessed value of Springfield homes is $124,400. Due to lower home values and increased costs, to continue services at the current rate of $1.09 per thousand of assessed home value would mean losing the equivalent of five police officers or some equivalent combination of police officers, court clerks, judges, prosecutors, etc. Raising the rate to $1.22 per thousand would deliver the same services as currently offered, but would involve making internal adjustments, such as leasing more jail beds, in order to cover a gap in funding that would exist even at this increased rate. Raising the rate to $1.34 per thousand would enable all Police and Court Services to continue without change or internal adjustment of any kind. Purpose of the Study The purpose of this study is to assist the City of Springfield in determining the likelihood of passing a renewed five year Police Services Levy in November 2012, and the highest rate per thousand that would be likely to succeed. A Willamalane Parks bond measure may also appear on the November ballot, and voter behavior if faced with both money measures needs to be assessed. Methodology Advanced Marketing Research was hired to conduct the research project in order to obtain unbiased and statistically valid results. Using questions proposed by the City of Springfield, Advanced Marketing Research designed a questionnaire instrument to be administered by telephone. Using a random list of registered voters living within Springfield city limits, all of whom had voted at least once out of the last four major elections as a sampling frame, 400 interviews were completed. Telephone interviews were conducted between May 18 and May 30, 2012. Proper data analysis techniques were employed by Advanced Marketing Research to avoid introducing unnecessary error and bias into the study. Attachment 3, Page 5 of 46 6 IMPLEMENTATION Quotas Observed The gender and age quotas below were targeted in the data collection process to reflect the frequencies observed in the list of voters who had voted at least once out of the last four major elections. Males 45-55% Females 45-55% 18-24 3% 25-34 10% 35-44 15% 45-54 20% 55-64 24% 65+ 28% Response Rate Of the 524 qualified respondents reached by telephone, 400 interviews were completed, for a response rate of 76%. The overall breakdown of numbers dialed is as follows: Refusals 124 Disconnects 153 Wrong Numbers 50 Language Barrier 0 Spanish Language Barrier 1 Business Numbers 4 Fax 2 No Answer 137 Answering Machine 556 Busy Signal 6 Call Backs 16 No Qualified Respondent 16 Completed Interviews 400 Total Numbers Dialed 1,465 Attachment 3, Page 6 of 46 7 IMPLEMENTATION Tests for Differences Between Proportions When looking at the data tables, differences between percentage amounts can be misleading, and statistical tests must be conducted to determine if the differences are statistically significant. The computer makes these calculations for us, and the results are occasional plus or minus signs at the bottom of certain cells. These indicate that those answers are more different from everybody else’s answers than could be expected due to chance, given the sample sizes involved. Plus signs are used if the group picks that answer more often than everyone else; minus signs if it is less than everyone else. The number of plus or minus signs indicates the level of statistical significance. One means the 90% level, two the 95% level, and three the 99% level. For example, two plus signs would mean that you can be 95% sure that the people represented by that group really would pick that answer more often than the people represented by the rest of the sample. It should be noted that this test can only be done for banner columns that contain at least 30 people. Because of this requirement, it is possible that the test will be done for some banner columns on a table and not for others. Notes on Chi Square The chi square value and its associated probability are printed beneath the first column in each banner heading. The probability (p=.xxx) indicates the probability that the heading and row variables are not related is .xxx. For example, a .05 probability of not being related means a 95 percent chance of being related. Attachment 3, Page 7 of 46 8 IMPLEMENTATION Bound on Error SAMPLE SIZE Bound on Error at SEX Frequency Percent 95% Confidence Level Male 199 50% 6.4% Female 201 50% 6.3% AGE 18-24 12 3% -- 25-34 37 9% 14.8% 35-44 57 14% 11.9% 45-54 79 20% 10.1% 55-64 98 25% 9.1% 65+ 117 29% 8.3% OWN/RENT Own 321 80% 5.0% Rent 77 19% 10.2% YEARS IN SPRINGFIELD 1-5 years 35 9% 15.2% 6-10 years 65 16% 11.1% 11-20 years 94 24% 9.3% Over 20 years 206 52% 6.3% WARD One 72 18% 10.6% Two 64 16% 11.2% Three 62 16% 11.4% Four 50 13% 12.7% Five 75 19% 10.4% Six 77 19% 10.2% ZIP CODE 97477 207 52% 6.2% 97478 192 48% 6.5% TOTAL 400 100% 4.9%* * What this means is that we are 95% certain that the maximum difference between the survey proportion and the population proportion on any given question is within (plus or minus) 4.9%, the population defined as City of Springfield voters who voted at least once out the last four major elections. Attachment 3, Page 8 of 46 9 IMPLEMENTATION Differences Between Percentage Points MINIMUM DIFFERENCE IN PERCENTAGE POINTS REQUIRED FOR STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE IN COMPARISON OF REPORTED PERCENTAGES FOR SUBGROUPS WITH 95% CONFIDENCE Subsample 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 600 50 20% 17% 16% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 100 14% 13% 12% 12% 11% 11% 11% 11% 11% 11% 150 11% 11% 10% 10% 10% 9% 9% 9% 9% 200 10% 9% 9% 9% 8% 8% 8% 8% 250 9% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 7% 300 8% 8% 7% 7% 7% 7% 350 7% 7% 7% 7% 6% 400 7% 7% 7% 6% 450 7% 6% 6% 500 6% 6% 600 6% Minimums are for reported percentages near 50%. When much smaller or much larger percentages are reported, a slightly smaller minimum is required. Attachment 3, Page 9 of 46 10 ANALYSIS OF DATA Attachment 3, Page 10 of 46 11 ANALYSIS OF DATA Awareness of 2006 Levy (Q2) 72% of Springfield voters are aware that in 2006 a levy was approved which funded police services, the Springfield jail, and criminal prosecution. Demographic Differences Homeowners, those who vote frequently, 55 to 64 year-olds, and those who have lived in Springfield for over twenty years are more likely than others to be aware of the 2006 police services levy. Attachment 3, Page 11 of 46 12 ANALYSIS OF DATA Awareness of Imminent Expiration of 2006 Levy (Q3) Only 25% of voters are aware that the 2006 police services levy is about to expire; 74% are unaware. Demographic Differences Frequent voters and Democrats are more likely than others to know that the police services levy is about to expire. Attachment 3, Page 12 of 46 13 ANALYSIS OF DATA Level of Support at $1.34 Per Thousand (Q4) Respondents were told that the police services levy that is about to expire cost the average homeowner $135 per year and the City of Springfield is considering a replacement ballot measure. In order to maintain services at current levels, the new levy would cost the average homeowner $167 per year due to rising costs. After hearing this explanation, 42% of voters say if the election were held today, they would definitely vote yes to support the new measure. An additional 21% would probably vote yes, and 5% lean toward voting yes. 9% are undecided. 15% are adamantly opposed, 8% probably opposed, and 1% leaning toward opposed. 63% say they would “definitely” or “probably” vote yes. The mean response is 5.1 on a seven-point scale, where one is “definitely no,” and seven is “definitely yes.” Attachment 3, Page 13 of 46 14 ANALYSIS OF DATA Level of Support at $1.22 Per Thousand (Q5) Respondents were told that if the average homeowner were charged $152 per year, overall services would stay the same, but internal changes would be made to compensate for the lower dollar amount, such as leasing out more jail beds. After hearing this explanation, 31% of voters say if the election were held today, they would definitely vote yes to support the new measure. An additional 25% would probably vote yes, and 4% lean toward voting yes. 9% are undecided. 18% are adamantly opposed, 12% probably opposed, and 3% lean toward opposed. 56% say they would “definitely” or “probably” vote yes. The mean response is 4.7 on a seven-point scale, where one is “definitely no,” and seven is “definitely yes.” Demographic Differences Those who have lived in Springfield for six to ten years are more likely than others to say they would “probably” vote yes. Attachment 3, Page 14 of 46 15 ANALYSIS OF DATA Level of Support at $1.09 Per Thousand (Q6) Respondents were told that if the average homeowner were charged $135 per year, the same amount as the levy about to expire, Springfield would lose some combination of police officers and court services. After hearing this explanation, 17% of voters say if the election were held today, they would definitely vote yes to support the new measure. An additional 24% would probably vote yes, and 5% lean toward voting yes. 10% are undecided. 27% are adamantly opposed, 13% probably opposed, and 6% lean toward opposed. 41% say they would “definitely” or “probably” vote yes. The mean response is 3.9 on a seven-point scale, where one is “definitely no,” and seven is “definitely yes.” AMR FMMM & Assoc. Definitely Yes 17% 28% Probably Yes 24% 25% Lean Yes 5% 2% Don’t Know 10% 7% Lean No 6% 3% Probably No 13% 13% Definitely No 27% 22% Attachment 3, Page 15 of 46 16 Demographic Differences Seniors and those who have lived in Springfield for more than twenty years are more likely than others to say they would “probably” vote yes. Ward Three residents and 55 to 64 year-olds are more likely than others to say they would “probably” vote no. Those who have lived in Springfield for one to five years and Republicans are more likely than others to say they would “definitely” vote no. Attachment 3, Page 16 of 46 17 ANALYSIS OF DATA Level of Support at Various Amounts (Q4-Q6) As the levy amount decreases, and with it the level of services, the proportion “definitely” voting yes drops dramatically, from 42% at the highest dollar amount to 17% at the lowest dollar amount. Interestingly, there is no significant difference amongst the various levy amounts for those saying “probably” yes or for those “leaning” yes. As the levy amount decreases, opposition at all levels (“definitely,” “probably,” and “leaning”) increases. Attachment 3, Page 17 of 46 18 ANALYSIS OF DATA Level of Support for Willamalane Bond Measure (Q7) Respondents were asked whether or not they would support a Willamalane Park and Recreation District bond measure costing the average homeowner $36 per year. 39% of voters say if the election were held today, they would definitely vote yes to support the Willamalane measure. An additional 18% would probably vote yes, and 1% lean toward voting yes. 10% are undecided. 22% are adamantly opposed, 9% probably opposed, and 2% lean toward opposed. 57% say they would “definitely” or “probably” vote yes. The mean response is 4.7 on a seven-point scale, where one is “definitely no,” and seven is “definitely yes.” AMR FMMM & Assoc. Definitely Yes 39% 49% Probably Yes 18% 15% Lean Yes 1% 2% Don’t Know 10% 3% Lean No 2% 2% Probably No 9% 7% Definitely No 22% 23% Demographic Differences Females, renters, and Democrats are more likely than others to say they would “definitely” vote yes. Those who have lived in Springfield for six to ten years are more likely than others to say they would “probably” vote yes. Homeowners, Ward Six residents, seniors, and Republicans are more likely than others to say they would “definitely” vote no. Attachment 3, Page 18 of 46 19 ANALYSIS OF DATA Faced with a Choice (Q8) If both the bond measure for Willamalane Park and Recreation District and the continuation of the police services local option levy were on the same ballot, 46% say they would vote yes on both measures. An additional 26% would vote yes on just the police services measure. 10% would vote yes on just the Willamalane measure. 12% would vote no on both measures. 10% are unsure how they would vote. 69% say they would vote for the police services measure, either alone or in conjunction with the Willamalane measure. AMR FMMM & Assoc. Yes on Both 46% 35% Yes on Just Police 23% 24% Yes on Just Willamalane 10% 17% No on Both 12% 12% Don’t Know 10% 6% Demographic Differences Homeowners are more likely than renters to say they would vote yes on just the police services measure. Attachment 3, Page 19 of 46 20 CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS Attachment 3, Page 20 of 46 21 CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS Conclusions In most cases, asking for higher dollar amounts on a levy creates more opposition and less support. What we found in this survey, though, is the opposite. Each time the dollar amount requested decreased, the level of support also decreased. The only explanation that makes sense is that along with the dollar amount decreases was an accompanying explanation regarding services that would be compromised or lost. These services are apparently important enough to not only make it worthwhile voting for the higher cost measure, but to oppose the lower cost measures with their associated loss of services. Armed with information concerning the potential impact to police services, 63% say they would “definitely” or “probably” vote yes on a police services levy that would cost the average homeowner $167 per year, or a rate of $1.34 per $1,000 of assessed value. Armed with information concerning the potential impact to police services, 41% say they would “definitely” or “probably” vote yes on a police services levy that would cost the average homeowner $135 per year, or a rate of $1.09 per $1,000 of assessed value. With no information concerning the impact to police services, 53% of respondents in the Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin, Metz & Associates survey said they would “definitely” or “probably” vote yes on a police services levy that would cost the average homeowner $131 per year. With no clarifying dollar amount, 69% say they would vote for the police services measure, either alone or in conjunction with the Willamalane measure (compared with 59% in the Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin, Metz & Associates survey). Recommendations If an effective public information campaign can be implemented to explain potential impacts to services, the voters of Springfield are willing to support a renewed police services levy at a rate of $1.34 per $1,000 of assessed value. Without such information, there is evidence that a renewed police services levy at a rate of $1.09 per $1,000 of assessed value will most likely pass, but by a slim margin. Key to the success of a higher value levy is letting the voters know what services will be lost or compromised without it. Attachment 3, Page 21 of 46 22 DATA TABLES Attachment 3, Page 22 of 46 23 QUESTIONNAIRE INSTRUMENT Attachment 3, Page 23 of 46 CITY OF SPRINGFIELD - 2012 —————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— Table 2: Are you aware that in 2006 Springfield voters approved a levy funding police services, the Springfield jail, and criminal prosecution? Total ———————— GENDER —————————————————— OWN/RENT —————————————————— WARD —————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— # ELECTIONS VOTED/FOUR ———————————————————————————————————————— Male ———————— Femal e ———————— Own ———————— Rent ———————— One ———————— Two ———————— Three ———————— Four ———————— Five ———————— Six ———————— One ———————— Two ———————— Three ———————— Four ———————— Base 400 199 201 321 77 72 64 62 50 75 77 60 65 76 199 Yes 289 72% 148 74% 141 70% 244 76% +++ 43 56% --- 51 71% 49 77% 43 69% 35 70% 57 76% 54 70% 24 40% --- 41 63% - 66 87% +++ 158 79% +++ No 110 28% 50 25% 60 30% 76 24% --- 34 44% +++ 20 28% 15 23% 19 31% 15 30% 18 24% 23 30% 36 60% +++ 24 37% + 10 13% --- 40 20% --- Don't know/Refused 1 0% 1 1% 0 0% 1 0% 0 0% 1 1% ++ 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1 1% Chi Square 2.07 .355 13.17 .001 6.26 .793 48.84 .001 Total ———————— AGE ——————————————————————————————————————————————————— YRS LIVED IN SPFD ———————————————————————————————————————— ZIP CODE —————————————————— PARTY ————————————————————————————— 18-34 ———————— 35-44 ———————— 45-54 ———————— 55-64 ———————— 65+ ———————— 1-5 ———————— 6-10 ———————— 11-20 ———————— >20 ———————— 97477 ———————— 97478 ———————— Dem. ———————— Rep. ———————— Other ———————— Base 400 49 57 79 98 117 35 65 94 206 207 192 183 130 87 Yes 289 72% 28 57% -- 39 68% 57 72% 81 83% +++ 84 72% 14 40% --- 41 63% - 70 74% 164 80% +++ 150 72% 138 72% 143 78% ++ 89 68% 57 66% No 110 28% 21 43% ++ 18 32% 22 28% 17 17% --- 32 27% 21 60% +++ 24 37% + 24 26% 41 20% --- 56 27% 54 28% 39 21% -- 41 32% 30 34% + Don't know/Refused 1 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1 1% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1 0% 1 0% 0 0% 1 1% 0 0% 0 0% Chi Square 13.78 .088 28.34 .001 0.97 .615 7.73 .102 Prepared by Advanced Marketing Research, Inc. Attachment 3, Page 24 of 46 CITY OF SPRINGFIELD - 2012 —————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— Table 3: Are you aware that the 2006 levy is about to expire? Total ———————— GENDER —————————————————— OWN/RENT —————————————————— WARD —————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— # ELECTIONS VOTED/FOUR ———————————————————————————————————————— Male ———————— Femal e ———————— Own ———————— Rent ———————— One ———————— Two ———————— Three ———————— Four ———————— Five ———————— Six ———————— One ———————— Two ———————— Three ———————— Four ———————— Base 400 199 201 321 77 72 64 62 50 75 77 60 65 76 199 Yes 101 25% 52 26% 49 24% 86 27% 15 19% 13 18% 22 34% + 12 19% 13 26% 20 27% 21 27% 5 8% --- 12 18% 14 18% 70 35% +++ No 296 74% 146 73% 150 75% 233 73% 61 79% 58 81% 42 66% - 50 81% 36 72% 54 72% 56 73% 55 92% +++ 53 82% 60 79% 128 64% --- Don't know/Refused 3 1% 1 1% 2 1% 2 1% 1 1% 1 1% 0 0% 0 0% 1 2% 1 1% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 2 3% ++ 1 1% Chi Square 0.47 .792 2.05 .358 9.41 .494 27.64 .001 Total ———————— AGE ——————————————————————————————————————————————————— YRS LIVED IN SPFD ———————————————————————————————————————— ZIP CODE —————————————————— PARTY ————————————————————————————— 18-34 ———————— 35-44 ———————— 45-54 ———————— 55-64 ———————— 65+ ———————— 1-5 ———————— 6-10 ———————— 11-20 ———————— >20 ———————— 97477 ———————— 97478 ———————— Dem. ———————— Rep. ———————— Other ———————— Base 400 49 57 79 98 117 35 65 94 206 207 192 183 130 87 Yes 101 25% 10 20% 13 23% 17 22% 30 31% 31 26% 4 11% -- 16 25% 24 26% 57 28% 50 24% 50 26% 57 31% ++ 26 20% - 18 21% No 296 74% 39 80% 43 75% 61 77% 68 69% 85 73% 31 89% ++ 49 75% 68 72% 148 72% 155 75% 141 73% 124 68% --- 104 80% + 68 78% Don't know/Refused 3 1% 0 0% 1 2% 1 1% 0 0% 1 1% 0 0% 0 0% 2 2% + 1 0% 2 1% 1 1% 2 1% 0 0% 1 1% Chi Square 5.02 .755 7.65 .265 0.43 .806 7.90 .095 Prepared by Advanced Marketing Research, Inc. Attachment 3, Page 25 of 46 CITY OF SPRINGFIELD - 2012 —————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— Table 4: The police services levy that is about to expire cost the average homeowner $135 per year, and the City of Springfield is considering a ballot measure for a new police services levy. In order to maintain services at current levels, the new levy would cost the average homeowner $167 per year due to rising costs. If the election were held today, would you vote yes to support, or no to oppose a police services levy costing the average homeowner $167 per year? (IF YES/NO:) Is that DEFINITELY or PROBABLY (YES/NO)? IF UNDECIDED:) Do you LEAN TOWARDS voting yes or no? Total ———————— GENDER —————————————————— OWN/RENT —————————————————— WARD —————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— # ELECTIONS VOTED/FOUR ———————————————————————————————————————— Male ———————— Femal e ———————— Own ———————— Rent ———————— One ———————— Two ———————— Three ———————— Four ———————— Five ———————— Six ———————— One ———————— Two ———————— Three ———————— Four ———————— Base 400 199 201 321 77 72 64 62 50 75 77 60 65 76 199 DEFINITELY NO 60 15% 28 14% 32 16% 49 15% 10 13% 13 18% 8 13% 9 15% 9 18% 8 11% 13 17% 8 13% 7 11% 15 20% 30 15% Probably no 30 8% 16 8% 14 7% 19 6% -- 11 14% ++ 8 11% 3 5% 10 16% +++ 5 10% 4 5% 0 0% 6 10% 4 6% 5 7% 15 8% Lean no 5 1% 1 1% 4 2% 5 2% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1 2% 1 2% 1 1% 2 3% 0 0% 0 0% 2 3% 3 2% Don't know/No opinion 35 9% 18 9% 17 8% 25 8% 10 13% 3 4% 6 9% 5 8% 5 10% 5 7% 11 14% + 6 10% 9 14% 3 4% - 17 9% Lean yes 18 5% 8 4% 10 5% 17 5% 1 1% 5 7% 3 5% 1 2% 1 2% 4 5% 4 5% 2 3% 2 3% 2 3% 12 6% Probably yes 85 21% 46 23% 39 19% 70 22% 15 19% 16 22% 14 22% 11 18% 8 16% 21 28% 15 19% 15 25% 13 20% 17 22% 40 20% DEFINITELY YES 167 42% 82 41% 85 42% 136 42% 30 39% 27 38% 30 47% 25 40% 21 42% 32 43% 32 42% 23 38% 30 46% 32 42% 82 41% Mean S.D. 5.1 2.3 5.2 2.2 5.1 2.3 5.2 2.2 4.9 2.3 4.9 2.4 5.4 2.1 4.8 2.4 4.8 2.4 5.5 2.0 5.2 2.2 5.1 2.2 5.4 2.1 5.0 2.4 5.1 2.3 Chi Square 3.07 .800 11.62 .071 31.49 .392 12.84 .801 Attachment 3, Page 26 of 46 CITY OF SPRINGFIELD - 2012 —————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— Table 4: The police services levy that is about to expire cost the average homeowner $135 per year, and the City of Springfield is considering a ballot measure for a new police services levy. In order to maintain services at current levels, the new levy would cost the average homeowner $167 per year due to rising costs. If the election were held today, would you vote yes to support, or no to oppose a police services levy costing the average homeowner $167 per year? (IF YES/NO:) Is that DEFINITELY or PROBABLY (YES/NO)? IF UNDECIDED:) Do you LEAN TOWARDS voting yes or no? Total ———————— AGE ——————————————————————————————————————————————————— YRS LIVED IN SPFD ———————————————————————————————————————— ZIP CODE —————————————————— PARTY ————————————————————————————— 18-34 ———————— 35-44 ———————— 45-54 ———————— 55-64 ———————— 65+ ———————— 1-5 ———————— 6-10 ———————— 11-20 ———————— >20 ———————— 97477 ———————— 97478 ———————— Dem. ———————— Rep. ———————— Other ———————— Base 400 49 57 79 98 117 35 65 94 206 207 192 183 130 87 DEFINITELY NO 60 15% 5 10% 9 16% 12 15% 11 11% 23 20% + 5 14% 6 9% 16 17% 33 16% 31 15% 29 15% 19 10% -- 25 19% 16 18% Probably no 30 8% 2 4% 1 2% - 9 11% 9 9% 9 8% 4 11% 6 9% 9 10% 11 5% - 24 12% +++ 6 3% --- 13 7% 12 9% 5 6% Lean no 5 1% 1 2% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 4 3% ++ 0 0% 0 0% 1 1% 4 2% 1 0% 4 2% 4 2% 1 1% 0 0% Don't know/No opinion 35 9% 4 8% 6 11% 8 10% 7 7% 10 9% 2 6% 6 9% 6 6% 21 10% 15 7% 20 10% 16 9% 11 8% 8 9% Lean yes 18 5% 1 2% 2 4% 4 5% 7 7% 4 3% 1 3% 3 5% 3 3% 11 5% 9 4% 9 5% 13 7% ++ 2 2% -- 3 3% Probably yes 85 21% 11 22% 13 23% 16 20% 19 19% 26 22% 6 17% 18 28% 20 21% 41 20% 41 20% 43 22% 43 23% 25 19% 17 20% DEFINITELY YES 167 42% 25 51% 26 46% 30 38% 45 46% 41 35% - 17 49% 26 40% 39 41% 85 41% 86 42% 81 42% 75 41% 54 42% 38 44% Mean S.D. 5.1 2.3 5.6 2.0 5.4 2.2 4.9 2.3 5.3 2.2 4.8 2.4 5.2 2.4 5.3 2.1 5.0 2.4 5.1 2.3 5.0 2.3 5.2 2.2 5.3 2.1 4.9 2.4 5.1 2.4 Chi Square 23.07 .516 11.26 .883 13.03 .043 14.79 .253 Prepared by Advanced Marketing Research, Inc. Attachment 3, Page 27 of 46 CITY OF SPRINGFIELD - 2012 —————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— Table 5: If the average homeowner were charged $152 per year, overall services would stay the same, but internal changes would be made to compensate for the lower dollar amount, such as leasing out more jail beds. If the election were held today, would you vote yes to support, or no to oppose a police services levy costing the average homeowner $152 per year? (IF YES/NO:) Is that DEFINITELY or PROBABLY (YES/NO)? IF UNDECIDED:) Do you LEAN TOWARDS voting yes or no? Total ———————— GENDER —————————————————— OWN/RENT —————————————————— WARD —————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— # ELECTIONS VOTED/FOUR ———————————————————————————————————————— Male ———————— Femal e ———————— Own ———————— Rent ———————— One ———————— Two ———————— Three ———————— Four ———————— Five ———————— Six ———————— One ———————— Two ———————— Three ———————— Four ———————— Base 400 199 201 321 77 72 64 62 50 75 77 60 65 76 199 DEFINITELY NO 71 18% 34 17% 37 18% 56 17% 14 18% 16 22% 13 20% 7 11% 10 20% 9 12% 16 21% 10 17% 12 18% 13 17% 36 18% Probably no 46 12% 17 9% - 29 14% + 34 11% 12 16% 7 10% 7 11% 13 21% ++ 8 16% 10 13% 1 1% --- 10 17% 5 8% 8 11% 23 12% Lean no 10 3% 6 3% 4 2% 10 3% 0 0% 5 7% +++ 0 0% 0 0% 1 2% 0 0% 4 5% + 0 0% 0 0% 4 5% + 6 3% Don't know/No opinion 34 9% 21 11% 13 6% 26 8% 8 10% 5 7% 4 6% 3 5% 6 12% 4 5% 12 16% ++ 3 5% 8 12% 5 7% 18 9% Lean yes 15 4% 5 3% 10 5% 14 4% 1 1% 2 3% 2 3% 2 3% 1 2% 6 8% ++ 2 3% 3 5% 1 2% 2 3% 9 5% Probably yes 101 25% 53 27% 48 24% 81 25% 20 26% 22 31% 14 22% 14 23% 10 20% 23 31% 18 23% 20 33% 13 20% 21 28% 47 24% DEFINITELY YES 123 31% 63 32% 60 30% 100 31% 22 29% 15 21% -- 24 38% 23 37% 14 28% 23 31% 24 31% 14 23% 26 40% + 23 30% 60 30% Mean S.D. 4.7 2.3 4.8 2.3 4.6 2.4 4.7 2.3 4.5 2.4 4.3 2.4 4.8 2.5 4.8 2.3 4.3 2.4 5.0 2.2 4.7 2.3 4.6 2.3 4.9 2.4 4.7 2.3 4.6 2.3 Chi Square 7.52 .276 5.83 .442 49.84 .013 17.62 .481 Attachment 3, Page 28 of 46 CITY OF SPRINGFIELD - 2012 —————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— Table 5: If the average homeowner were charged $152 per year, overall services would stay the same, but internal changes would be made to compensate for the lower dollar amount, such as leasing out more jail beds. If the election were held today, would you vote yes to support, or no to oppose a police services levy costing the average homeowner $152 per year? (IF YES/NO:) Is that DEFINITELY or PROBABLY (YES/NO)? IF UNDECIDED:) Do you LEAN TOWARDS voting yes or no? Total ———————— AGE ——————————————————————————————————————————————————— YRS LIVED IN SPFD ———————————————————————————————————————— ZIP CODE —————————————————— PARTY ————————————————————————————— 18-34 ———————— 35-44 ———————— 45-54 ———————— 55-64 ———————— 65+ ———————— 1-5 ———————— 6-10 ———————— 11-20 ———————— >20 ———————— 97477 ———————— 97478 ———————— Dem. ———————— Rep. ———————— Other ———————— Base 400 49 57 79 98 117 35 65 94 206 207 192 183 130 87 DEFINITELY NO 71 18% 9 18% 5 9% - 17 22% 16 16% 24 21% 9 26% 7 11% 19 20% 36 17% 37 18% 34 18% 25 14% -- 26 20% 20 23% Probably no 46 12% 3 6% 4 7% 11 14% 13 13% 15 13% 6 17% 6 9% 13 14% 21 10% 30 14% + 16 8% - 23 13% 16 12% 7 8% Lean no 10 3% 1 2% 0 0% 2 3% 4 4% 3 3% 0 0% 2 3% 3 3% 5 2% 5 2% 5 3% 7 4% 3 2% 0 0% Don't know/No opinion 34 9% 2 4% 5 9% 8 10% 9 9% 10 9% 3 9% 5 8% 6 6% 20 10% 13 6% - 21 11% + 15 8% 10 8% 9 10% Lean yes 15 4% 1 2% 4 7% 2 3% 3 3% 5 4% 0 0% 4 6% 3 3% 8 4% 6 3% 9 5% 4 2% 8 6% + 3 3% Probably yes 101 25% 16 33% 17 30% 17 22% 23 23% 28 24% 6 17% 25 38% +++ 20 21% 50 24% 52 25% 48 25% 48 26% 28 22% 25 29% DEFINITELY YES 123 31% 17 35% 22 39% 22 28% 30 31% 32 27% 11 31% 16 25% 30 32% 66 32% 64 31% 59 31% 61 33% 39 30% 23 26% Mean S.D. 4.7 2.3 5.0 2.3 5.4 2.0 4.3 2.4 4.6 2.3 4.4 2.4 4.2 2.6 5.0 2.0 4.5 2.4 4.7 2.3 4.6 2.4 4.7 2.3 4.8 2.3 4.5 2.4 4.6 2.4 Chi Square 17.55 .824 16.85 .534 6.68 .352 13.91 .307 Prepared by Advanced Marketing Research, Inc. Attachment 3, Page 29 of 46 CITY OF SPRINGFIELD - 2012 —————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— Table 6: If the average homeowner were charged $135 per year, the same amount as the levy about to expire, Springfield would lose some combination of police officers and court services. If the election were held today, would you vote yes to support, or no to oppose a police services levy costing the average homeowner $135 per year? (IF YES/NO:) Is that DEFINITELY or PROBABLY (YES/NO)? IF UNDECIDED:) Do you LEAN TOWARDS voting yes or no? Total ———————— GENDER —————————————————— OWN/RENT —————————————————— WARD —————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— # ELECTIONS VOTED/FOUR ———————————————————————————————————————— Male ———————— Femal e ———————— Own ———————— Rent ———————— One ———————— Two ———————— Three ———————— Four ———————— Five ———————— Six ———————— One ———————— Two ———————— Three ———————— Four ———————— Base 400 199 201 321 77 72 64 62 50 75 77 60 65 76 199 DEFINITELY NO 106 27% 51 26% 55 27% 82 26% 23 30% 24 33% 18 28% 11 18% - 16 32% 18 24% 19 25% 16 27% 20 31% 16 21% 54 27% Probably no 50 13% 23 12% 27 13% 38 12% 12 16% 8 11% 6 9% 13 21% ++ 8 16% 8 11% 7 9% 11 18% 8 12% 10 13% 21 11% Lean no 23 6% 15 8% 8 4% 19 6% 4 5% 3 4% 5 8% 3 5% 3 6% 6 8% 3 4% 5 8% 4 6% 5 7% 9 5% Don't know/No opinion 39 10% 22 11% 17 8% 31 10% 8 10% 5 7% 7 11% 7 11% 5 10% 6 8% 9 12% 4 7% 8 12% 5 7% 22 11% Lean yes 21 5% 12 6% 9 4% 16 5% 5 6% 5 7% 3 5% 1 2% 4 8% 2 3% 6 8% 6 10% + 3 5% 3 4% 9 5% Probably yes 94 24% 41 21% 53 26% 82 26% + 11 14% -- 16 22% 9 14% - 17 27% 8 16% 24 32% + 20 26% 10 17% 9 14% -- 21 28% 54 27% + DEFINITELY YES 67 17% 35 18% 32 16% 53 17% 14 18% 11 15% 16 25% + 10 16% 6 12% 11 15% 13 17% 8 13% 13 20% 16 21% 30 15% Mean S.D. 3.9 2.3 3.9 2.3 3.9 2.4 4.0 2.3 3.6 2.4 3.7 2.4 4.0 2.4 4.0 2.3 3.4 2.3 4.1 2.3 4.1 2.3 3.6 2.3 3.7 2.4 4.3 2.4 4.0 2.3 Chi Square 5.33 .503 4.96 .548 27.69 .587 17.59 .483 Attachment 3, Page 30 of 46 CITY OF SPRINGFIELD - 2012 —————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— Table 6: If the average homeowner were charged $135 per year, the same amount as the levy about to expire, Springfield would lose some combination of police officers and court services. If the election were held today, would you vote yes to support, or no to oppose a police services levy costing the average homeowner $135 per year? (IF YES/NO:) Is that DEFINITELY or PROBABLY (YES/NO)? IF UNDECIDED:) Do you LEAN TOWARDS voting yes or no? Total ———————— AGE ——————————————————————————————————————————————————— YRS LIVED IN SPFD ———————————————————————————————————————— ZIP CODE —————————————————— PARTY ————————————————————————————— 18-34 ———————— 35-44 ———————— 45-54 ———————— 55-64 ———————— 65+ ———————— 1-5 ———————— 6-10 ———————— 11-20 ———————— >20 ———————— 97477 ———————— 97478 ———————— Dem. ———————— Rep. ———————— Other ———————— Base 400 49 57 79 98 117 35 65 94 206 207 192 183 130 87 DEFINITELY NO 106 27% 11 22% 15 26% 26 33% 26 27% 28 24% 15 43% ++ 14 22% 23 24% 54 26% 56 27% 50 26% 36 20% --- 44 34% ++ 26 30% Probably no 50 13% 9 18% 6 11% 10 13% 18 18% ++ 7 6% -- 6 17% 7 11% 17 18% + 20 10% - 28 14% 22 11% 23 13% 13 10% 14 16% Lean no 23 6% 7 14% +++ 1 2% 5 6% 4 4% 6 5% 4 11% 5 8% 4 4% 10 5% 10 5% 12 6% 16 9% ++ 5 4% 2 2% Don't know/No opinion 39 10% 2 4% 6 11% 8 10% 11 11% 12 10% 2 6% 5 8% 12 13% 20 10% 20 10% 19 10% 16 9% 13 10% 10 11% Lean yes 21 5% 1 2% 4 7% 5 6% 6 6% 5 4% 3 9% 6 9% 5 5% 7 3% - 10 5% 11 6% 8 4% 9 7% 4 5% Probably yes 94 24% 11 22% 15 26% 12 15% - 13 13% --- 43 37% +++ 0 0% 17 26% 18 19% 59 29% ++ 44 21% 50 26% 50 27% + 26 20% 18 21% DEFINITELY YES 67 17% 8 16% 10 18% 13 16% 20 20% 16 14% 5 14% 11 17% 15 16% 36 17% 39 19% 28 15% 34 19% 20 15% 13 15% Mean S.D. 3.9 2.3 3.8 2.3 4.1 2.4 3.6 2.4 3.7 2.4 4.3 2.3 2.8 2.2 4.2 2.3 3.8 2.3 4.1 2.4 3.9 2.4 3.9 2.3 4.2 2.3 3.7 2.4 3.7 2.4 Chi Square 39.28 .026 29.23 .046 2.94 .816 17.56 .130 Prepared by Advanced Marketing Research, Inc. Attachment 3, Page 31 of 46 CITY OF SPRINGFIELD - 2012 —————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— Table 7: If the election were held today, would you vote yes to support, or no to oppose a Willamalane Park and Recreation District bond measure costing the average homeowner $36 per year? (IF YES/NO:) Is that DEFINITELY or PROBABLY (YES/NO)? IF UNDECIDED:) Do you LEAN TOWARDS voting yes or no? Total ———————— GENDER —————————————————— OWN/RENT —————————————————— WARD —————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— # ELECTIONS VOTED/FOUR ———————————————————————————————————————— Male ———————— Femal e ———————— Own ———————— Rent ———————— One ———————— Two ———————— Three ———————— Four ———————— Five ———————— Six ———————— One ———————— Two ———————— Three ———————— Four ———————— Base 400 199 201 321 77 72 64 62 50 75 77 60 65 76 199 DEFINITELY NO 86 22% 42 21% 44 22% 76 24% ++ 10 13% -- 16 22% 13 20% 11 18% 7 14% 16 21% 23 30% ++ 13 22% 16 25% 16 21% 41 21% Probably no 35 9% 22 11% 13 6% 29 9% 6 8% 6 8% 5 8% 5 8% 3 6% 9 12% 7 9% 5 8% 4 6% 11 14% ++ 15 8% Lean no 8 2% 4 2% 4 2% 7 2% 1 1% 0 0% 2 3% 0 0% 2 4% 1 1% 3 4% 2 3% 2 3% 0 0% 4 2% Don't know/No opinion 41 10% 19 10% 22 11% 32 10% 9 12% 6 8% 4 6% 7 11% 9 18% + 3 4% -- 12 16% + 3 5% 9 14% 6 8% 23 12% Lean yes 4 1% 3 2% 1 0% 4 1% 0 0% 3 4% +++ 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1 1% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 4 2% ++ Probably yes 70 18% 41 21% 29 14% 56 17% 13 17% 13 18% 11 17% 15 24% 8 16% 14 19% 9 12% 11 18% 11 17% 17 22% 31 16% DEFINITELY YES 156 39% 68 34% -- 88 44% ++ 117 36% -- 38 49% ++ 28 39% 29 45% 24 39% 21 42% 32 43% 22 29% -- 26 43% 23 35% 26 34% 81 41% Mean S.D. 4.7 2.5 4.6 2.4 4.8 2.5 4.5 2.5 5.3 2.3 4.7 2.5 4.9 2.5 5.0 2.4 5.0 2.2 4.8 2.6 4.0 2.5 4.8 2.5 4.5 2.5 4.6 2.5 4.8 2.4 Chi Square 8.19 .224 7.44 .282 36.82 .183 16.30 .571 Attachment 3, Page 32 of 46 CITY OF SPRINGFIELD - 2012 —————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— Table 7: If the election were held today, would you vote yes to support, or no to oppose a Willamalane Park and Recreation District bond measure costing the average homeowner $36 per year? (IF YES/NO:) Is that DEFINITELY or PROBABLY (YES/NO)? IF UNDECIDED:) Do you LEAN TOWARDS voting yes or no? Total ———————— AGE ——————————————————————————————————————————————————— YRS LIVED IN SPFD ———————————————————————————————————————— ZIP CODE —————————————————— PARTY ————————————————————————————— 18-34 ———————— 35-44 ———————— 45-54 ———————— 55-64 ———————— 65+ ———————— 1-5 ———————— 6-10 ———————— 11-20 ———————— >20 ———————— 97477 ———————— 97478 ———————— Dem. ———————— Rep. ———————— Other ———————— Base 400 49 57 79 98 117 35 65 94 206 207 192 183 130 87 DEFINITELY NO 86 22% 7 14% 14 25% 14 18% 15 15% - 36 31% +++ 6 17% 8 12% -- 22 23% 50 24% 42 20% 44 23% 30 16% -- 43 33% +++ 13 15% - Probably no 35 9% 3 6% 3 5% 10 13% 10 10% 9 8% 4 11% 8 12% 7 7% 16 8% 16 8% 19 10% 19 10% 11 8% 5 6% Lean no 8 2% 0 0% 1 2% 2 3% 2 2% 3 3% 0 0% 0 0% 3 3% 5 2% 2 1% 6 3% 4 2% 2 2% 2 2% Don't know/No opinion 41 10% 6 12% 4 7% 9 11% 13 13% 9 8% 3 9% 5 8% 7 7% 26 13% 18 9% 23 12% 18 10% 12 9% 11 13% Lean yes 4 1% 1 2% 0 0% 0 0% 2 2% 1 1% 0 0% 0 0% 1 1% 3 1% 3 1% 1 1% 1 1% 1 1% 2 2% Probably yes 70 18% 11 22% 12 21% 14 18% 16 16% 17 15% 3 9% 18 28% ++ 19 20% 30 15% 39 19% 31 16% 28 15% 23 18% 19 22% DEFINITELY YES 156 39% 21 43% 23 40% 30 38% 40 41% 42 36% 19 54% + 26 40% 35 37% 76 37% 87 42% 68 35% 83 45% ++ 38 29% --- 35 40% Mean S.D. 4.7 2.5 5.2 2.2 4.8 2.5 4.7 2.4 4.9 2.3 4.3 2.6 5.1 2.5 5.1 2.3 4.6 2.5 4.5 2.5 4.9 2.4 4.5 2.5 5.0 2.4 4.1 2.6 5.1 2.2 Chi Square 20.46 .670 21.33 .263 6.60 .359 22.86 .029 Prepared by Advanced Marketing Research, Inc. Attachment 3, Page 33 of 46 CITY OF SPRINGFIELD - 2012 —————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— Table 8: Now suppose that both the bond measure for Willamalane Park and Recreation District and the continuation of the police services local option levy were on the same ballot. Do you think that you would: READ CHOICES Total ———————— GENDER —————————————————— OWN/RENT —————————————————— WARD —————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— # ELECTIONS VOTED/FOUR ———————————————————————————————————————— Male ———————— Femal e ———————— Own ———————— Rent ———————— One ———————— Two ———————— Three ———————— Four ———————— Five ———————— Six ———————— One ———————— Two ———————— Three ———————— Four ———————— Base 400 199 201 321 77 72 64 62 50 75 77 60 65 76 199 Vote YES on just the POLICE SERVICES measure 90 23% 52 26% + 38 19% - 82 26% +++ 8 10% --- 21 29% 9 14% - 11 18% 9 18% 19 25% 21 27% 13 22% 15 23% 19 25% 43 22% Vote YES on just the WILLAMALANE measure 38 10% 20 10% 18 9% 26 8% - 11 14% 8 11% 7 11% 7 11% 8 16% + 4 5% 4 5% 6 10% 5 8% 9 12% 18 9% Vote YES on BOTH measures, or 182 46% 81 41% - 101 50% + 146 45% 35 45% 28 39% 33 52% 28 45% 22 44% 39 52% 32 42% 28 47% 27 42% 33 43% 94 47% Vote NO on BOTH measures 49 12% 26 13% 23 11% 37 12% 12 16% 9 13% 11 17% 9 15% 5 10% 9 12% 6 8% 9 15% 7 11% 9 12% 24 12% Don't know (DO NOT READ) 41 10% 20 10% 21 10% 30 9% 11 14% 6 8% 4 6% 7 11% 6 12% 4 5% 14 18% ++ 4 7% 11 17% + 6 8% 20 10% Chi Square 4.68 .322 11.17 .025 24.37 .227 5.97 .917 Attachment 3, Page 34 of 46 CITY OF SPRINGFIELD - 2012 —————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— Table 8: Now suppose that both the bond measure for Willamalane Park and Recreation District and the continuation of the police services local option levy were on the same ballot. Do you think that you would: READ CHOICES Total ———————— AGE ——————————————————————————————————————————————————— YRS LIVED IN SPFD ———————————————————————————————————————— ZIP CODE —————————————————— PARTY ————————————————————————————— 18-34 ———————— 35-44 ———————— 45-54 ———————— 55-64 ———————— 65+ ———————— 1-5 ———————— 6-10 ———————— 11-20 ———————— >20 ———————— 97477 ———————— 97478 ———————— Dem. ———————— Rep. ———————— Other ———————— Base 400 49 57 79 98 117 35 65 94 206 207 192 183 130 87 Vote YES on just the POLICE SERVICES measure 90 23% 9 18% 10 18% 15 19% 24 24% 32 27% 7 20% 10 15% 22 23% 51 25% 41 20% 49 26% 41 22% 35 27% 14 16% Vote YES on just the WILLAMALANE measure 38 10% 7 14% 3 5% 10 13% 10 10% 8 7% 2 6% 9 14% 13 14% 14 7% - 24 12% 14 7% 18 10% 8 6% 12 14% Vote YES on BOTH measures, or 182 46% 26 53% 32 56% + 33 42% 43 44% 48 41% 17 49% 35 54% 42 45% 88 43% 94 45% 87 45% 89 49% 53 41% 40 46% Vote NO on BOTH measures 49 12% 3 6% 6 11% 12 15% 12 12% 16 14% 6 17% 6 9% 9 10% 28 14% 31 15% + 18 9% - 20 11% 19 15% 10 11% Don't know (DO NOT READ) 41 10% 4 8% 6 11% 9 11% 9 9% 13 11% 3 9% 5 8% 8 9% 25 12% 17 8% 24 13% 15 8% 15 12% 11 13% Chi Square 12.58 .703 12.28 .424 7.70 .103 9.34 .314 Prepared by Advanced Marketing Research, Inc. Attachment 3, Page 35 of 46 CITY OF SPRINGFIELD - 2012 —————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— Table 9: Do you own or rent your residence? Total ———————— GENDER —————————————————— OWN/RENT —————————————————— WARD —————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— # ELECTIONS VOTED/FOUR ———————————————————————————————————————— Male ———————— Femal e ———————— Own ———————— Rent ———————— One ———————— Two ———————— Three ———————— Four ———————— Five ———————— Six ———————— One ———————— Two ———————— Three ———————— Four ———————— Base 400 199 201 321 77 72 64 62 50 75 77 60 65 76 199 Own 321 80% 158 79% 163 81% 321 100% +++ 0 0% 54 75% 48 75% 50 81% 39 78% 67 89% ++ 63 82% 37 62% --- 47 72% - 68 89% ++ 169 85% ++ Rent 77 19% 39 20% 38 19% 0 0% 77 100% +++ 17 24% 15 23% 12 19% 11 22% 8 11% -- 14 18% 23 38% +++ 18 28% + 7 9% -- 29 15% -- Own mobile home in leased space 1 0% 1 1% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1 1% ++ 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1 1% REFUSED 1 0% 1 1% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1 2% ++ 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1 1% ++ 0 0% Chi Square 2.08 .556 398.00 .001 15.51 .416 29.71 .001 Total ———————— AGE ——————————————————————————————————————————————————— YRS LIVED IN SPFD ———————————————————————————————————————— ZIP CODE —————————————————— PARTY ————————————————————————————— 18-34 ———————— 35-44 ———————— 45-54 ———————— 55-64 ———————— 65+ ———————— 1-5 ———————— 6-10 ———————— 11-20 ———————— >20 ———————— 97477 ———————— 97478 ———————— Dem. ———————— Rep. ———————— Other ———————— Base 400 49 57 79 98 117 35 65 94 206 207 192 183 130 87 Own 321 80% 27 55% --- 45 79% 64 81% 79 81% 106 91% +++ 20 57% --- 54 83% 78 83% 169 82% 157 76% -- 163 85% ++ 153 84% 107 82% 61 70% --- Rent 77 19% 22 45% +++ 12 21% 15 19% 19 19% 9 8% --- 15 43% +++ 11 17% 15 16% 36 17% 48 23% ++ 29 15% -- 29 16% 22 17% 26 30% +++ Own mobile home in leased space 1 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1 1% 0 0% 0 0% 1 1% + 0 0% 1 0% 0 0% 1 1% 0 0% 0 0% REFUSED 1 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1 1% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1 0% 1 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1 1% 0 0% Chi Square 35.24 .001 17.94 .036 6.25 .100 11.28 .080 Prepared by Advanced Marketing Research, Inc. Attachment 3, Page 36 of 46 CITY OF SPRINGFIELD - 2012 —————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— Table 10: Please tell me when I read the category that contains your age: Total ———————— GENDER —————————————————— OWN/RENT —————————————————— WARD —————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— # ELECTIONS VOTED/FOUR ———————————————————————————————————————— Male ———————— Femal e ———————— Own ———————— Rent ———————— One ———————— Two ———————— Three ———————— Four ———————— Five ———————— Six ———————— One ———————— Two ———————— Three ———————— Four ———————— Base 400 199 201 321 77 72 64 62 50 75 77 60 65 76 199 18-24 12 3% 7 4% 5 2% 4 1% --- 8 10% +++ 1 1% 3 5% 2 3% 0 0% 2 3% 4 5% 10 17% +++ 1 2% 0 0% 1 1% --- 25-34 37 9% 12 6% -- 25 12% ++ 23 7% --- 14 18% +++ 0 0% 6 9% 5 8% 8 16% + 11 15% + 7 9% 11 18% +++ 10 15% + 6 8% 10 5% --- 35-44 57 14% 28 14% 29 14% 45 14% 12 16% 9 13% 9 14% 8 13% 8 16% 9 12% 14 18% 13 22% + 15 23% ++ 11 14% 18 9% --- 45-54 79 20% 42 21% 37 18% 64 20% 15 19% 8 11% -- 12 19% 11 18% 14 28% 11 15% 23 30% ++ 9 15% 22 34% +++ 20 26% 28 14% --- 55-64 98 25% 56 28% + 42 21% - 79 25% 19 25% 24 33% + 15 23% 16 26% 8 16% 19 25% 16 21% 14 23% 12 18% 18 24% 54 27% 65 and over 117 29% 54 27% 63 31% 106 33% +++ 9 12% --- 30 42% ++ 19 30% 20 32% 12 24% 23 31% 13 17% --- 3 5% --- 5 8% --- 21 28% 88 44% +++ Chi Square 7.92 .161 35.22 .001 39.46 .033 117.31 .001 Attachment 3, Page 37 of 46 CITY OF SPRINGFIELD - 2012 —————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— Table 10: Please tell me when I read the category that contains your age: Total ———————— AGE ——————————————————————————————————————————————————— YRS LIVED IN SPFD ———————————————————————————————————————— ZIP CODE —————————————————— PARTY ————————————————————————————— 18-34 ———————— 35-44 ———————— 45-54 ———————— 55-64 ———————— 65+ ———————— 1-5 ———————— 6-10 ———————— 11-20 ———————— >20 ———————— 97477 ———————— 97478 ———————— Dem. ———————— Rep. ———————— Other ———————— Base 400 49 57 79 98 117 35 65 94 206 207 192 183 130 87 18-24 12 3% 12 24% +++ 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 2 6% 3 5% 5 5% 2 1% -- 6 3% 6 3% 1 1% --- 3 2% 8 9% +++ 25-34 37 9% 37 76% +++ 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 6 17% + 13 20% +++ 10 11% 8 4% --- 12 6% -- 25 13% ++ 19 10% 6 5% -- 12 14% + 35-44 57 14% 0 0% 57 100% +++ 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 6 17% 12 18% 19 20% + 20 10% --- 27 13% 30 16% 20 11% - 23 18% 14 16% 45-54 79 20% 0 0% 0 0% 79 100% +++ 0 0% 0 0% 7 20% 17 26% 26 28% ++ 29 14% --- 35 17% 44 23% 28 15% -- 28 22% 23 26% + 55-64 98 25% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 98 100% +++ 0 0% 8 23% 9 14% -- 18 19% 63 31% +++ 57 28% 41 21% 50 27% 30 23% 18 21% 65 and over 117 29% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 117 100% +++ 6 17% - 11 17% -- 16 17% --- 84 41% +++ 70 34% ++ 46 24% -- 65 36% ++ 40 31% 12 14% --- Chi Square 1000+ .001 63.60 .001 12.78 .026 37.83 .001 Prepared by Advanced Marketing Research, Inc. Attachment 3, Page 38 of 46 CITY OF SPRINGFIELD - 2012 —————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— Table 11: How long have you lived in Springfield? Total ———————— GENDER —————————————————— OWN/RENT —————————————————— WARD —————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— # ELECTIONS VOTED/FOUR ———————————————————————————————————————— Male ———————— Femal e ———————— Own ———————— Rent ———————— One ———————— Two ———————— Three ———————— Four ———————— Five ———————— Six ———————— One ———————— Two ———————— Three ———————— Four ———————— Base 400 199 201 321 77 72 64 62 50 75 77 60 65 76 199 Less than one year 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1-5 years 35 9% 16 8% 19 9% 20 6% --- 15 19% +++ 9 13% 9 14% 1 2% -- 7 14% 7 9% 2 3% -- 10 17% ++ 11 17% ++ 5 7% 9 5% --- 6-10 years 65 16% 35 18% 30 15% 54 17% 11 14% 9 13% 11 17% 9 15% 10 20% 14 19% 12 16% 16 27% ++ 7 11% 11 14% 31 16% 11-20 years 94 24% 48 24% 46 23% 78 24% 15 19% 15 21% 10 16% 16 26% 9 18% 16 21% 28 36% +++ 13 22% 20 31% 20 26% 41 21% Over 20 years 206 52% 100 50% 106 53% 169 53% 36 47% 39 54% 34 53% 36 58% 24 48% 38 51% 35 45% 21 35% --- 27 42% - 40 53% 118 59% +++ Don't know/Refused 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% Chi Square 0.85 .838 13.68 .003 22.85 .087 28.45 .001 Attachment 3, Page 39 of 46 CITY OF SPRINGFIELD - 2012 —————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— Table 11: How long have you lived in Springfield? Total ———————— AGE ——————————————————————————————————————————————————— YRS LIVED IN SPFD ———————————————————————————————————————— ZIP CODE —————————————————— PARTY ————————————————————————————— 18-34 ———————— 35-44 ———————— 45-54 ———————— 55-64 ———————— 65+ ———————— 1-5 ———————— 6-10 ———————— 11-20 ———————— >20 ———————— 97477 ———————— 97478 ———————— Dem. ———————— Rep. ———————— Other ———————— Base 400 49 57 79 98 117 35 65 94 206 207 192 183 130 87 Less than one year 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1-5 years 35 9% 8 16% ++ 6 11% 7 9% 8 8% 6 5% - 35 100% +++ 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 20 10% 15 8% 19 10% 7 5% - 9 10% 6-10 years 65 16% 16 33% +++ 12 21% 17 22% 9 9% -- 11 9% -- 0 0% 65 100% +++ 0 0% 0 0% 31 15% 34 18% 32 17% 18 14% 15 17% 11-20 years 94 24% 15 31% 19 33% + 26 33% ++ 18 18% 16 14% --- 0 0% 0 0% 94 100% +++ 0 0% 44 21% 50 26% 37 20% 37 28% 20 23% Over 20 years 206 52% 10 20% --- 20 35% --- 29 37% --- 63 64% +++ 84 72% +++ 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 206 100% +++ 112 54% 93 48% 95 52% 68 52% 43 49% Don't know/Refused 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% Chi Square 62.16 .001 1000+ .001 2.44 .487 5.49 .483 Prepared by Advanced Marketing Research, Inc. Attachment 3, Page 40 of 46 CITY OF SPRINGFIELD - 2012 —————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— Table 12: THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME! Hang up and record: Gender: Total ———————— GENDER —————————————————— OWN/RENT —————————————————— WARD —————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— # ELECTIONS VOTED/FOUR ———————————————————————————————————————— Male ———————— Femal e ———————— Own ———————— Rent ———————— One ———————— Two ———————— Three ———————— Four ———————— Five ———————— Six ———————— One ———————— Two ———————— Three ———————— Four ———————— Base 400 199 201 321 77 72 64 62 50 75 77 60 65 76 199 Male 199 50% 199 100% +++ 0 0% 158 49% 39 51% 45 63% ++ 36 56% 28 45% 22 44% 29 39% -- 39 51% 25 42% 37 57% 45 59% + 92 46% Female 201 50% 0 0% 201 100% +++ 163 51% 38 49% 27 38% -- 28 44% 34 55% 28 56% 46 61% ++ 38 49% 35 58% 28 43% 31 41% - 107 54% Chi Square 400.00 .001 0.05 .822 10.66 .059 6.61 .085 Total ———————— AGE ——————————————————————————————————————————————————— YRS LIVED IN SPFD ———————————————————————————————————————— ZIP CODE —————————————————— PARTY ————————————————————————————— 18-34 ———————— 35-44 ———————— 45-54 ———————— 55-64 ———————— 65+ ———————— 1-5 ———————— 6-10 ———————— 11-20 ———————— >20 ———————— 97477 ———————— 97478 ———————— Dem. ———————— Rep. ———————— Other ———————— Base 400 49 57 79 98 117 35 65 94 206 207 192 183 130 87 Male 199 50% 19 39% 28 49% 42 53% 56 57% + 54 46% 16 46% 35 54% 48 51% 100 49% 112 54% + 86 45% - 88 48% 66 51% 45 52% Female 201 50% 30 61% 29 51% 37 47% 42 43% - 63 54% 19 54% 30 46% 46 49% 106 51% 95 46% - 106 55% + 95 52% 64 49% 42 48% Chi Square 5.49 .241 0.85 .838 3.46 .063 0.39 .822 Prepared by Advanced Marketing Research, Inc. Attachment 3, Page 41 of 46 CITY OF SPRINGFIELD - 2012 —————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— Table 13: Zip code: Total ———————— GENDER —————————————————— OWN/RENT —————————————————— WARD —————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— # ELECTIONS VOTED/FOUR ———————————————————————————————————————— Male ———————— Femal e ———————— Own ———————— Rent ———————— One ———————— Two ———————— Three ———————— Four ———————— Five ———————— Six ———————— One ———————— Two ———————— Three ———————— Four ———————— Base 400 199 201 321 77 72 64 62 50 75 77 60 65 76 199 97477 207 52% 112 56% + 95 47% - 157 49% -- 48 62% ++ 72 100% +++ 63 98% +++ 62 100% +++ 9 18% --- 0 0% 1 1% --- 29 48% 27 42% - 44 58% 107 54% 97478 192 48% 86 43% - 106 53% + 163 51% ++ 29 38% -- 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 41 82% +++ 75 100% +++ 76 99% +++ 31 52% 38 58% + 32 42% 91 46% Other 1 0% 1 1% 0 0% 1 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1 2% ++ 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1 1% Chi Square 4.47 .107 4.63 .099 370.75 .001 5.58 .472 Total ———————— AGE ——————————————————————————————————————————————————— YRS LIVED IN SPFD ———————————————————————————————————————— ZIP CODE —————————————————— PARTY ————————————————————————————— 18-34 ———————— 35-44 ———————— 45-54 ———————— 55-64 ———————— 65+ ———————— 1-5 ———————— 6-10 ———————— 11-20 ———————— >20 ———————— 97477 ———————— 97478 ———————— Dem. ———————— Rep. ———————— Other ———————— Base 400 49 57 79 98 117 35 65 94 206 207 192 183 130 87 97477 207 52% 18 37% -- 27 47% 35 44% 57 58% 70 60% ++ 20 57% 31 48% 44 47% 112 54% 207 100% +++ 0 0% 93 51% 68 52% 46 53% 97478 192 48% 31 63% ++ 30 53% 44 56% 41 42% 46 39% -- 15 43% 34 52% 50 53% 93 45% 0 0% 192 100% +++ 89 49% 62 48% 41 47% Other 1 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1 1% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1 1% 0 0% 0 0% Chi Square 14.09 .079 3.38 .759 399.00 .001 1.28 .865 Prepared by Advanced Marketing Research, Inc. Attachment 3, Page 42 of 46 CITY OF SPRINGFIELD - 2012 —————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— Table 14: Political party: Total ———————— GENDER —————————————————— OWN/RENT —————————————————— WARD —————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— # ELECTIONS VOTED/FOUR ———————————————————————————————————————— Male ———————— Femal e ———————— Own ———————— Rent ———————— One ———————— Two ———————— Three ———————— Four ———————— Five ———————— Six ———————— One ———————— Two ———————— Three ———————— Four ———————— Base 400 199 201 321 77 72 64 62 50 75 77 60 65 76 199 Democrat 183 46% 88 44% 95 47% 153 48% 29 38% 33 46% 29 45% 28 45% 22 44% 42 56% ++ 29 38% 16 27% --- 18 28% --- 40 53% 109 55% +++ Republican 130 33% 66 33% 64 32% 107 33% 22 29% 27 38% 20 31% 15 24% 15 30% 16 21% -- 37 48% +++ 19 32% 16 25% 22 29% 73 37% + Other 87 22% 45 23% 42 21% 61 19% --- 26 34% +++ 12 17% 15 23% 19 31% + 13 26% 17 23% 11 14% - 25 42% +++ 31 48% +++ 14 18% 17 9% --- Chi Square 0.39 .822 7.98 .018 19.08 .039 63.76 .001 Total ———————— AGE ——————————————————————————————————————————————————— YRS LIVED IN SPFD ———————————————————————————————————————— ZIP CODE —————————————————— PARTY ————————————————————————————— 18-34 ———————— 35-44 ———————— 45-54 ———————— 55-64 ———————— 65+ ———————— 1-5 ———————— 6-10 ———————— 11-20 ———————— >20 ———————— 97477 ———————— 97478 ———————— Dem. ———————— Rep. ———————— Other ———————— Base 400 49 57 79 98 117 35 65 94 206 207 192 183 130 87 Democrat 183 46% 20 41% 20 35% - 28 35% -- 50 51% 65 56% ++ 19 54% 32 49% 37 39% 95 46% 93 45% 89 46% 183 100% +++ 0 0% 0 0% Republican 130 33% 9 18% -- 23 40% 28 35% 30 31% 40 34% 7 20% - 18 28% 37 39% 68 33% 68 33% 62 32% 0 0% 130 100% +++ 0 0% Other 87 22% 20 41% +++ 14 25% 23 29% + 18 18% 12 10% --- 9 26% 15 23% 20 21% 43 21% 46 22% 41 21% 0 0% 0 0% 87 100% +++ Chi Square 29.07 .001 5.49 .483 0.09 .957 800.00 .001 Prepared by Advanced Marketing Research, Inc. Attachment 3, Page 43 of 46 CITY OF SPRINGFIELD - 2012 —————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— Table 15: Ward: Total ———————— GENDER —————————————————— OWN/RENT —————————————————— WARD —————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— # ELECTIONS VOTED/FOUR ———————————————————————————————————————— Male ———————— Femal e ———————— Own ———————— Rent ———————— One ———————— Two ———————— Three ———————— Four ———————— Five ———————— Six ———————— One ———————— Two ———————— Three ———————— Four ———————— Base 400 199 201 321 77 72 64 62 50 75 77 60 65 76 199 One 72 18% 45 23% ++ 27 13% -- 54 17% 17 22% 72 100% +++ 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 8 13% 7 11% - 16 21% 41 21% Two 64 16% 36 18% 28 14% 48 15% 15 19% 0 0% 64 100% +++ 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 9 15% 12 18% 13 17% 30 15% Three 62 16% 28 14% 34 17% 50 16% 12 16% 0 0% 0 0% 62 100% +++ 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 12 20% 8 12% 10 13% 32 16% Four 50 13% 22 11% 28 14% 39 12% 11 14% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 50 100% +++ 0 0% 0 0% 3 5% - 16 25% +++ 10 13% 21 11% Five 75 19% 29 15% -- 46 23% ++ 67 21% ++ 8 10% -- 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 75 100% +++ 0 0% 15 25% 9 14% 13 17% 38 19% Six 77 19% 39 20% 38 19% 63 20% 14 18% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 77 100% +++ 13 22% 13 20% 14 18% 37 19% Chi Square 10.66 .059 5.68 .339 1000+ .001 19.17 .206 Attachment 3, Page 44 of 46 CITY OF SPRINGFIELD - 2012 —————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— Table 15: Ward: Total ———————— AGE ——————————————————————————————————————————————————— YRS LIVED IN SPFD ———————————————————————————————————————— ZIP CODE —————————————————— PARTY ————————————————————————————— 18-34 ———————— 35-44 ———————— 45-54 ———————— 55-64 ———————— 65+ ———————— 1-5 ———————— 6-10 ———————— 11-20 ———————— >20 ———————— 97477 ———————— 97478 ———————— Dem. ———————— Rep. ———————— Other ———————— Base 400 49 57 79 98 117 35 65 94 206 207 192 183 130 87 One 72 18% 1 2% --- 9 16% 8 10% -- 24 24% + 30 26% ++ 9 26% 9 14% 15 16% 39 19% 72 35% +++ 0 0% 33 18% 27 21% 12 14% Two 64 16% 9 18% 9 16% 12 15% 15 15% 19 16% 9 26% 11 17% 10 11% 34 17% 63 30% +++ 0 0% 29 16% 20 15% 15 17% Three 62 16% 7 14% 8 14% 11 14% 16 16% 20 17% 1 3% -- 9 14% 16 17% 36 17% 62 30% +++ 0 0% 28 15% 15 12% 19 22% + Four 50 13% 8 16% 8 14% 14 18% 8 8% 12 10% 7 20% 10 15% 9 10% 24 12% 9 4% --- 41 21% +++ 22 12% 15 12% 13 15% Five 75 19% 13 27% 9 16% 11 14% 19 19% 23 20% 7 20% 14 22% 16 17% 38 18% 0 0% 75 39% +++ 42 23% ++ 16 12% -- 17 20% Six 77 19% 11 22% 14 25% 23 29% ++ 16 16% 13 11% --- 2 6% -- 12 18% 28 30% +++ 35 17% 1 0% --- 76 40% +++ 29 16% 37 28% +++ 11 13% - Chi Square 33.43 .030 22.85 .087 365.48 .001 19.08 .039 Prepared by Advanced Marketing Research, Inc. Attachment 3, Page 45 of 46 CITY OF SPRINGFIELD - 2012 —————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— Table 16: Number of elections voted in out of the last four major elections: Total ———————— GENDER —————————————————— OWN/RENT —————————————————— WARD —————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— # ELECTIONS VOTED/FOUR ———————————————————————————————————————— Male ———————— Femal e ———————— Own ———————— Rent ———————— One ———————— Two ———————— Three ———————— Four ———————— Five ———————— Six ———————— One ———————— Two ———————— Three ———————— Four ———————— Base 400 199 201 321 77 72 64 62 50 75 77 60 65 76 199 One 60 15% 25 13% 35 17% 37 12% --- 23 30% +++ 8 11% 9 14% 12 19% 3 6% - 15 20% 13 17% 60 100% +++ 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% Two 65 16% 37 19% 28 14% 47 15% - 18 23% + 7 10% - 12 19% 8 13% 16 32% +++ 9 12% 13 17% 0 0% 65 100% +++ 0 0% 0 0% Three 76 19% 45 23% + 31 15% - 68 21% ++ 7 9% -- 16 22% 13 20% 10 16% 10 20% 13 17% 14 18% 0 0% 0 0% 76 100% +++ 0 0% Four 199 50% 92 46% 107 53% 169 53% ++ 29 38% -- 41 57% 30 47% 32 52% 21 42% 38 51% 37 48% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 199 100% +++ Chi Square 6.61 .085 24.39 .001 19.17 .206 1000+ .001 Total ———————— AGE ——————————————————————————————————————————————————— YRS LIVED IN SPFD ———————————————————————————————————————— ZIP CODE —————————————————— PARTY ————————————————————————————— 18-34 ———————— 35-44 ———————— 45-54 ———————— 55-64 ———————— 65+ ———————— 1-5 ———————— 6-10 ———————— 11-20 ———————— >20 ———————— 97477 ———————— 97478 ———————— Dem. ———————— Rep. ———————— Other ———————— Base 400 49 57 79 98 117 35 65 94 206 207 192 183 130 87 One 60 15% 21 43% +++ 13 23% + 9 11% 14 14% 3 3% --- 10 29% ++ 16 25% ++ 13 14% 21 10% --- 29 14% 31 16% 16 9% --- 19 15% 25 29% +++ Two 65 16% 11 22% 15 26% ++ 22 28% +++ 12 12% 5 4% --- 11 31% ++ 7 11% 20 21% 27 13% - 27 13% - 38 20% + 18 10% --- 16 12% 31 36% +++ Three 76 19% 6 12% 11 19% 20 25% 18 18% 21 18% 5 14% 11 17% 20 21% 40 19% 44 21% 32 17% 40 22% 22 17% 14 16% Four 199 50% 11 22% --- 18 32% --- 28 35% --- 54 55% 88 75% +++ 9 26% --- 31 48% 41 44% 118 57% +++ 107 52% 91 47% 109 60% +++ 73 56% + 17 20% --- Chi Square 96.11 .001 28.45 .001 4.56 .207 63.76 .001 Prepared by Advanced Marketing Research, Inc. Attachment 3, Page 46 of 46