Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ballot Measure Polling topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Survey shows mid‑50s support for half‑cent sales tax; board shifts focus toward 2028 and outreach
Summary
An FM3 poll presented to the Sacramento Transportation Authority found about 56% support for a hypothetical half‑cent countywide transportation sales tax but insufficient likely support for a two‑thirds measure; directors emphasized outreach, transparency about existing funds, and targeting 2028 rather than 2026.
An FM3 Research survey presented to the Sacramento Transportation Authority on Nov. 13 found measured public support for a hypothetical half‑cent county sales tax for transportation at roughly 56% yes and 39% no, though staff and board members said achieving the two‑thirds threshold needed for a special‑purpose sales tax appears unlikely under current conditions.
Curtis Bello, a partner at FM3 Research, told the board the countywide August–September poll used phone and online interviews in English and Spanish with additional oversamples in several cities. Bello said two‑thirds of likely November 2026 voters said there was "some" or a "great" need for additional transportation funding, and that repairing streets and improving transit were the top reasons voters gave for supporting a measure.
"Right now, we're at, this is a 56% yes, 39% no," Bello said, summarizing the topline result. He said sensitivity testing moved support modestly (to about 58% with favorable messaging and down to about 49% with negative messaging), suggesting a relatively narrow ceiling for a countywide measure.
The presentation flagged several political and practical barriers. About 47% of respondents said the county was headed "in the wrong direction," and cost‑of‑living and homelessness ranked as the most intense voter concerns, which FM3 said complicates messaging tied solely to transportation. Bello also reported geographic variation: support clustered higher in Sacramento and Rancho Cordova and lower in some other cities.
Board members seized on tactical implications. Director Rodriguez said past city‑level measures and differing local needs help explain why countywide measures have struggled: "When you send a measure out to the entire county... all of these cities have their own specific needs," she said, urging local engagement. Director Dickinson said outreach and education must be central to any future effort, arguing officials have sometimes emphasized long‑term goals over the immediate priorities voters express.
Senior staff told the board the transportation funding subcommittee had recommended a longer horizon and that the agenda intentionally reflected a shift away from pursuing a 2026 ballot placement toward building support for 2028. Director Busey said staff placed a "receive and file" item on the agenda so the board could see the subcommittee's recommendation and continue planning.
Board members and staff emphasized accountability and transparency as prerequisites for public support, including clearer explanations of how existing Measure A and gas‑tax dollars are spent. "People... feel that they are paying into transportation funding, but they're not seeing the results of that," Director Goh said.
Next steps conveyed to the board were: continued coordination among STA, cities and regional partners; targeted outreach with community organizations; and use of the subcommittee and professional advisory groups to refine messaging and priorities before any decision to place a measure on a ballot.
The board recorded guidance to receive the FM3 survey and continue work toward the 2028 timeline rather than taking action to place a measure in 2026.
