Agenda Index City of Vancouver

ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT

TO:

Vancouver City Council

FROM:

City Manager

SUBJECT:

2002 Operating Budget: Public Consultation Process

 

INFORMATION

COUNCIL POLICY

PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is to review the returns from the public consultation initiative undertaken as part of the 2002 Operating Budget process.

BACKGROUND

On December 11, 2001, Council instructed the City Manager to implement a public consultation initiative related to the service level and taxation choices required to balance the 2002 Operating Budget.

DISCUSSION

The public consultation process to date has included a two major components: A public opinion survey conducted by MarkTrend Market Facts; and, the City Choices 2002 program undertaken by City staff.

1. Public Opinion Survey

From February 8 to 17, 2002, MarkTrend Market Facts conducted 600 telephone surveys with City residents to determine their views on the service and taxation issues facing theCity. The survey questionnaire utilized in this study was the same survey that the City has used in prior years to gauge public opinion so that not only can we determine the current perceptions of the public to our budget issues but we are able to track opinion over a number of years. The report from MarkTrend is attached as Appendix 1 (limited distribution -previously distributed) to this report and is available on the City's website with the Council agenda.

The survey methodology utilized in the study was intended to ensure that a statistically correct measure of public opinion was developed. Survey responses were sought from five geographical regions in the City and the responses were weighted to reflect the actual population in each area. The data was also weighted to reflect the age and ethnic characteristics of the population. Surveying was available to respondents in Mandarin and Cantonese and in Punjabi: about 28% of the completed surveys were in Chinese.

The report from MarkTrend details the responses to the survey. The following is the Conclusion section from this report:

3. CONCLUSIONS & IMPLICATIONS

1. Transportation remains the primary concern of Vancouver residents, although at a lower level than was evident last year. While crime remains a major concern for residents, it remains firmly in second place after transportation for the time being. No other issues come close in importance compared with the general concern over transportation and crime in Vancouver.
2. Most residents continue to find the quality of City services they receive satisfactory, and over half feel that the service they have received over the past few years has stayed the same or improved.
3. The majority of homeowners believe that they receive good value for their tax dollars. However, the proportion that rate what they receive as "very good value" is declining. In addition, this year saw the balance between judging their property taxes as too high or just right swinging towards a "too high" rating.
4. When residents are given the option of paying user fees, accepting service cuts, paying increased property taxes or a combination of these, the most popular option continues to be paying user fees for some services. This preference is strongest among property owners and Chinese residents. Similar with last year, while cutting services in some areas is the second most popular option overall, the declining trend in its support continues, highlighting that there is less tolerance for service cuts this year. A choice between increasing taxes and cuts to City services, results in almost one-in-two residents choosing the middle path, a mix between these. This is supported by the average dollar value that residents assign to service cuts and tax increases where the proportions are evenly split between these options.
5. If property taxes are to be increased, the majority of Vancouver homeowners wouldbe prepared to pay a 2% to 6% increase. However, there is a lot more sensitivity to tax increases this year than was evident in 2001 among those owning homes in the $200,000 and $400,000 range. At the $200,000 level, a significant increase in support is achieved by dropping the tax increase from 6% to 2%. At the $400,000 level, there is a significant increase in support when the tax increase is dropped from 6% to 4% and then again from 4% to 2%. At the $600,000 level, there is no gain in support by dropping the tax increase between 6% and 2%.
6. Residents who rent properties continue to be willing to pay an extra $3 per month in rental in order to maintain their current level of city services.
7. Policing and fire protection remain the most important and highest priority City services for Vancouver residents and have done so since 1997. Support for community service organizations, garbage collection and recycling, traffic management, city planning and maintenance are also important services, but at a lower level of priority than policing and fire protection. Those with the lowest level of priority and the ones which could be "the first places to cut" are support for arts and cultural organizations, community centres, ice rinks and swimming pools and the maintenance of parks and beaches. However, this reflects residents' relative priorities and not what they would choose, as cutting services receives a very low level of support overall.

In conclusion, while residents are prepared to pay more for the services they receive, there is a higher level of price sensitivity this year than was evident in 2001, particularly with regard to increasing property taxes. Overall, charging user fees appears to be the option most positively received, particularly among property owners, as well as some cuts in certain areas only. A mix of three measures therefore appears to be ideal, namely, a small increase in property tax, some cuts in areas that are a lower priority to residents and charging user fees for certain services. However, it does appear that residents have less tolerance for service cuts this year than was evident in the past, indicating that the maximum level of cuts acceptable has almost been reached. Overall, a balanced approach is clearly the preferred method for covering the shortfall rather than attempting to correct it using only one method, which is likely to have impact on only a portion of the City's population.

MarkTrend staff will present the results at the Council meeting of April 9, 2002.

8. City Choices 2002 Initiative

The City Choices initiative was modelled after the very successful City Choices program developed in 1997. This initiative included the following components:

· an information flyer outlining the structure of the City's operating budget, the budget challenge faced in 2002 and the options available to Council to address these issues and the consequence of either reducing services or increasing taxes. The flyer was available in both English and Chinese and was delivered with the Courier and Sing Tao newspapers and made available through library branches, community centres and other civic facilities throughout the City and on the City's website.
· a questionnaire based on the larger MarkTrend survey that provided the public the opportunity to make their views on the options known to Council. Approximately 1,150 questionnaires were returned to the City by fax and mail (625) or on-line on the City's website (525).
· both voice and e-mail message facilities were also available to the public. Where appropriate, staff provided responses to these messages for clarification purposes. Copies of the e-mails received have been attached as Appendix 6 (on file in City Clerk's Office).

It is important to remember in dealing with City Choices 2002 that the responses to the questionnaire are "self select" so that the results may not be as representative of the views of the community as would be the case with the more statistically significant MarkTrend survey. Staff have not attempted to weight the responses to reflect the geographic, age or ethnic characteristics of the population. In analysing the responses, attempts were made to ensure that duplicate responses were removed from the database.

Appendix 2 includes the questions asked in the City Choices questionnaire. Tables and graphs in Appendix 3 summarize the results. Appendix 4 provides text responses to a question on alternative tax increase - service reduction options. Appendix 5 provides text responses indicating where the public would support user fees. (Appendices 4 and 5 -LIMITED DISTRIBUTION - on file in City Clerk's Office.)

CONCLUSION

The public consultation process undertaken as part of developing the 2002 Operating Budget indicates that, when given a choice between increasing taxes to maintain City services, the public will accept a tax increase: 75% of respondents to the MarkTrend survey supported a tax increase of at least 4%.

However, if Council chooses to reduce the expenditure program to limit growth in the budget, the public supports reductions in selected areas rather than across-the-board reductions. Public Safety, Streets and Traffic, Libraries and support for Community Service organizations received the highest level of support from MarkTrend respondents. City Choices respondents also gave high priority to Public Safety, Libraries and Streets and Traffic. Lesser importance was given to services such as Parks, Recreation and support for cultural organizations. City Choices survey respondents were also likely to support reductions in Planning & Development, Support Services and Legislative Services.

- - - - -

Appendix 2
City Choices 2002 Questionnaire

1. Which ONE of the following choices would you prefer?

2. If there were a combination of service cuts and property tax increases, which combination would you support?

3. If there were service cuts of $20 million, which would you prefer?

4. Would you strongly support, moderately support, moderately oppose or strongly oppose the following:

5. Please identify your priorities for funding:


Libraries
Community Services
Cultural Services
Planning and Development
Support Services
Legislative Services

6. If you support more user fees, in which service areas do you think these should be applied?

* * * * *

ag020409.htm

Comments or questions? You can send us email.
[City Homepage] [Get In Touch]

(c) 1998 City of Vancouver