Testing one, two, three.

Thank you very much.

We continue.

This chart represents some of the production and impact we have provided in specifically Oakland on the left hand of the chart and countywide on the right hand.

Every number on these charts represents a household that received assistance before a larger crisis occurred.

Statistics tell us how many people we serve, but the stories that I'm going to share with you show how healthy homes has changed lives.

During a home assessment for deteriorating pain, staff discovered a severe hoarding condition that posed a much greater health and safety risk.

Months later, the homeowner told staff that his home and life had significantly improved because of the coordinated support.

Recently, the department came to your board to receive approval to request permission to apply for a state climate climate resiliency grant in partnership with public health to address impacts of heat in the unincorporated area.

Healthy housing is both a public health intervention and a housing stability strategy.

Okay.

Healthy homes began in 1991, focused on childhood lead poisoning prevention in four CSA cities.

But as housing and health needs evolved, so did the department.

In 2013, we became the Healthy Homes Department.

Today we address issues beyond lid, as I mentioned, including moisture, asthma triggers, falls, and accessibility.

Our responsibilities have expanded, but the organizational funding structure has not.

Over the last three decades, costs have increased, housing risk have expanded, and countywide responsibilities have grown.

Today's work includes lead prevention plus modern environmental and environmental and housing challenges.

Healthy homes continues to secure state and federal grants for its work.

However, many grants are temporary, restricted, population specific and geographic specific.

We now have a countywide mission supported by a fragmented funding structure originally designed just for four cities.

And with that, I will turn it over to Team Civics to talk about the polling.

Thank you, Director Williamson.

Thank you, President Albert and members of the board of supervisors for having us.

My name is Jeremy Hauser.

I'm a partner with Team Civics.

We are a political consultant.

We are a political consulting and communications firm that specializes in working with public agencies to address their revenue goals through the ballot measure process.

I'm joined today by Jessica Polski with EMC Research, a nationally recognized opinion research firm that did the work to uh help us understand if a ballot measure for the Healthy Homes Department might be feasible.

I'm also joined by Danielle Wood from NBS.

She's joining remotely.

Um BS are the tax experts that did the underlying analysis to help us determine multiple different funding options and eventually land on a potential parcel tax as a recommendation for a potential long-term funding solution for the Healthy Homes Department.

As was mentioned, we are going to present the results of some polling that was conducted in October of last year.

In that polling, we tested a parcel tax measure at two different rates.

The first rate, which would give the department the resources they need at a $15 million annual revenue level, and then a second fallback rate that would get us the minimum needed to keep the department running as is, which would be a $5 million rate.

And with that, I'm going to kick it over to Jessica to walk through the results of that polling and explain the methodology that went into it.

Thanks so much.

Brief summary of the poll results on this feasibility study related to a potential parcel tax measure as mentioned.

We were looking at the feasibility of a measure for the November 2026 election.

So what we did was sample likely voters, likely November 2026 voters.

The sample included 800 interviews with these voters.

So keeping in mind an overall margin of error, plus or minus 3.5 percentage points.

You can see here on the slide, split A and split B are shown.

We tested two different amounts with unique sets of respondents.

The margin of error within each of these two splits is for 400 interviews is plus or minus 4.9 percentage points.

So over the course of the survey, we asked about a potential parcel tax measure for different times, and you can see what the results were over the course of the survey summarized here for the split A amount, which was a higher dollar amount that would provide the necessary level of funding at $78 per parcel, and then split B, a $26 flat rate parcel tax that would provide the minimum amount needed.

So initially, what we see when we ask if voters would support or oppose this parcel tax measure within split A, we saw 55% would vote yes for split B, the smaller amount, 56%.

There's no statistical difference between the two amounts, but both of them fall below the two-thirds threshold for passing a tax like this.

Then we provided additional information in the survey about some of the components that could be funded through a measure like this, as well as some of the potential benefits of a measure like this.

And after that information was provided, we then asked respondents again, given what you've heard.

Would you vote yes or no on this measure?

We do see a minor increase in support at both of the amounts tested with support going up to 58% for both samples, still short of the two-thirds threshold, however.

Then we also provided some of the things you might hear from an opponent of a parcel tax measure like this.

So simulating opposition messaging.

We then asked again, given uh what you've heard, would you vote yes or no?

And you can see opposition has a pretty significant impact with support for the measure going down to 45% for the 78 dollar parcel tax and 47% for the $26 parcel tax.

And then finally, at the end of the survey, we asked about an alternative type of parcel tax measure, a square footage, one that's based on square footage of building area of each parcel.

Um, and so this would have been associated with a either three cent per square foot or one cent per square foot parcel tax, uh, and would have uh the annual average cost per household would have been lower than these two flat rates.

Uh even still we see a little bit of a rebound, but not as much of a rebound in support that you know would be necessary to pass at the two-thirds level.

I just wanted to briefly share some of the uh components as well as the informational messages that did uh resonate with voters in the communities.