1 / 24

City of Vancouver 2004 Budget Allocation Survey Research

This survey research aims to track residents' attitudes on main local issues, perceptions of City services, fiscal options, services funding priorities, and taxation alternatives for managing the City budget.

pittb
Download Presentation

City of Vancouver 2004 Budget Allocation Survey Research

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. January 2004 2004 City Budget Allocation Survey

  2. Research Objectives • Since 1997, tracking of City of Vancouver residents’ attitudes on: • Main local issues of concern • Perceptions of City services • Fiscal options for managing the City budget • Services funding priorities • Taxation alternatives

  3. Methodology • 600 random telephone interviews (±4% margin of error) • Residents 18 years of age & over • Representation of all City regions • Alternate language interviewing • Quality controls: • Random selection of households and individual within household • Up to 5 call attempts to reduce non-response bias • Matching age/gender/region to 2001 Census • Conducted January 12-22, 2004

  4. Most Important Issues Facing Vancouver

  5. Most Important Issues Facing Vancouver

  6. Perceptions of City of Vancouver Services

  7. Perceptions of City Services • Majority of residents continue to be satisfied with City services • Opinion is divided about perceived change in quality of City services over past few years • Perceived value of City services is skewed positive (good value vs. poor value)

  8. Fiscal Options for Managing City Budget

  9. Support for Broad Fiscal Management Options User fees still most popular option

  10. Preference for Dealing with the Budget Shortfall Continued preference for a “mixed approach” to deal with shortfall

  11. Preferred Method for Making Service Cuts Leave some areas alone if making service cuts

  12. Continued Support and Preference for User Fees • Continued support for higher user fees to pay for “other” City services • Preference for user fees vs. raising property taxes to cover costs of SOME services (2:1) • User fees widely preferred over cutting services for SOME services (almost 6:1)

  13. Taxation Alternatives

  14. Opinion on Property Taxes - Among Homeowners Perception of current tax balanced between “too high” & “about right”

  15. Willingness to Pay Property Tax Increases Property Tax Increase Support for property tax increases – tested at 3 levels

  16. Will Pay Extra $3 Rent to Maintain Current Service Levels Renters support a $3/month rent increase to maintain City services

  17. Service Priorities

  18. % Considering City Services Very Important Policing is the most important service followed by fire protection

  19. % Ranking Services as Top Priorities Ranked inTop 3 Policing is top priority, second are community services & fire protection

  20. Summary

  21. Conclusions • Crime continues as top issue that residents want given Council’s attention. Thus, the continued high priority for policing. • Socialissues, homelessness in particular, have come to the forefront, equaling transportation as a concern and high priority. • Mostresidents continue to be satisfied with the quality of City services and homeowners tend to perceive good value for their tax dollar.

  22. Conclusions, cont. • Userfees continue to be the most popular alternative fiscal management option. • Generally more resistance to service cuts and if needed, cuts should be limited to some areas, not across all areas. • People prefer a mixed approach, balancing tax increases and service cuts.

  23. Conclusions, cont. • Broad support for a 2% property tax increase among homeowners and majority support a 4% increase, but greater resistance at 6%. • Owners of lower-value homes are more cost sensitive this year. • Renters continue to support small rent increase to maintain current service levels. • The public appears to have a great appreciation of the services they receive with resistance to cuts.

  24. Thank you! Presented by: Jami Koehl, Principal Mustel Group Market Research

More Related