Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
FRANK WILSON & ASSOC INC - 2000-02-07
This Public Opinion Poll was conducted by Frank Wilson & Associates as part of the Public Education Program - Phase I & Il (See WI 600.10) Amending the Frank Wilson & Associates Contract to Start Phase III was TABLED on October 15 2001 (See above File No. WI 600.10) Please Note: On December 17, 2001 (F-3) Council Approved Recommended Action to: Revise the scope of work for the Public Education component of the Huntington Beach Infrastructure Improvement Program in an amount not to exceed $75,000. (See above File No. WI 600.10) • LAWRENCE (RESEARCH PUBLIC AFFAIRS • MARKETING A TELEPHONE SURVEY OF HIGH PROBABILITY VOTERS IN THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Prepared For Frank Wilson & Associates .duly, 2001 #1318 1450 North Tustin Ave.. Suite 150, Santa Ana, CA 92705 - 714 / 558-3725 - Fax 714 / 558-0403 • Methodology Between July 26 and 30, 2001, 400 high probability voters were interviewed by telephone in the City of Huntington Beach, California using the questionnaire which appears in the following section. Respondents were asked 89 question items, which included 12 open-ended questions, and the average interview lasted approximately 20 minutes. Results from a study of this size have a margin of error (95 times out of 100) of t 5.0 percentage points from the results, which would be obtained if literally every individual in the population of interest were interviewed. This margin of error applies to aggregate results in the range of 40% to 60%. For results that are higher than 60% or lower than 40%, the margin of error is proportionately smaller. We wish to thank Frank Wilson & Associates for commissioning this research with our firm. We stand ready to assist in the further interpretation or implementation of the results. L_J PERSONAUCONFI DENTIAL N = 400 High Probability Voters • LAWRENCE RESEARCH 1450 N. Tustin Avenue, Suite 150 Santa Ana, California 92705 Field: July 26-30, 2001 Huntington Beach Project #1318 Time Started Time Ended Hello, may I please speak with (NAME ON SAMPLE SHEET). This is of Lawrence Research, a national research firm. We're conducting a public opinion poll about issues in Huntington Beach and I'd like to ask you a few short questions if I may. (AS NEEDED:) This is a legitimate public opinion survey It is not a sales call [IF ASKED:] It will take about 12-15 minutes Could you help us out? Is now a good time to interview you? 1. VERSION CODE Split Sample 1..................................50 Split Sample 2..................................50 2. How long have you lived in Huntington Beach? Less than 3 years 3 years to less than 5 .........................4 5 years to less than 10 .....................13 10 years to less than 15 .....................9 15 years to less than 25 25 More than 25 years„ ...................46 [NO OPIN 1 REFUSED]......................0 3. Do you feel things in Huntington Beach are going in the right direction or do you feel things are pretty seriously off on the wrong track? Right Direction........ I.........................57 Wrong Track.....................................30 [NO OPINION]...........................I......13 4. What do you feel are two or three of the most important problems in Huntington Beach today -- the ones that you, yourself, are most concerned about? (PROBE FOR MULTIPLE MENTIONS) 5. Is the Huntington Beach of today ... better than you expected or worse than you expected when you first moved here? Better................................................48 Worse...............................................25 (VOL: No difference] ........................23 [NO OPINION]....................................5 #1318 (2) Generally speaking, do you ... strongly approve, somewhat approve, somewhat disapprove or strongly disapprove of the job the City of Huntington Beach is doing in the following areas? (READ IN ORDER) Str Smw Smw Sir [NO APP Apt Dis Dis OPIN 6. Providing needed public facilities for residents? 22 54 12 7 6 7. Solving traffic problems? 16 40 22 19 4 8. Making needed repairs to the infrastructure, 13 31 24 29 4 such as sewer and water systems 9. Protecting beaches from pollution 10. Encouraging re -development of rundown areas 11. Listening to the people and their problems? 12. (READ LAST:) The overall job they're doing? 12 30 22 33 4 14 37 22 14 14 13 37 22 15 13 15 54 20 9 3 I will now read you a list of things in Huntington Beach. For each one, please tell me whether you feel it is in ... good condition, fair condition, or poor condition. As you decide on each one, please keep this in mind: If it's in good condition, that means it does not need improvement. If it's in fair condition, it rop bably needs improvement. And if it's in poor condition, it definitel needs improvement. Here's the first one ... (READ IN RANDOM ORDER) 13. The sewer system 14. Storm drains and flood control systems 15. City streets, alleys and arterial highways 16. Curbs, gutters, sidewalks and medians 17. Traffic signals 18. Street lights 19. Street trees 20. Block walls along arterial highways 21. Public buildings 22. Beach facilities 23. Park facilities 24. Water system Good, Fair, Poor, Improv Prob Def Not Needs Needs [NO Needed Improve Improve OPINI 21 35 42 3 28 46 24 3 26 48 26 1 41 43 15 1 53 33 13 1 69 25 5 1 54 29 15 2 49 37 8 6 62 29 5 4 48 36 12 4 64 28 7 1 45 37 15 4 C] • 0 #1318 (3) Of all the items I just read you, what are the top three that you would most like to see the city work on next? (RE -READ ITEMS IF NEEDED. CIRCLE ONE CHOICE IN EACH COLUMN) 25. 26. 27. First Second Third Mention Mention Mention The sewer system 33 16 10 Storm drains and flood control systems 6 19 11 City streets, alleys and arterial highways 19 13 12 Curbs, gutters, sidewalks and medians 3 9 9 Traffic signals 7 6 6 Street lights 2 2 4 Street trees 5 5 7 Block walls along arterial highways 2 1 4 Public buildings 1 2 6 Beach facilities 10 11 13 Park facilities 4 6 4 Water system 6 7 7 [NO OPINION] 3 3 10 I will now read you some names of groups or organizations. Please tell me for each one whether you've heard of that group or organization. Then, if so, please tell me whether your impression is ... strongly favorable, somewhat favorable, somewhat unfavorable or strongly unfavorable. (READ IN RANDOM ORDER) Str Smw Smw Str Hrd No Fav Fav Unf Unf N/O Hrd 28. Huntington Beach Chamber of Commerce 20 44 9 4 17 7 29. Huntington Beach Tomorrow 9 12 4 4 9 63 30. Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association 35 26 5 10 9 16 31, Surfrider Foundation 29 19 5 2 9 36 32. Bolsa Chica Land Trust 35 22 7 11 12 14 33. Amigos de Balsa Chica 30 19 6 7 7 31 34. [READ NEXT TWO LAST]: The Huntington Beach City Council 13 42 18 18 7 3 35, The Citizens Infrastructure Advisory Committee 5 13 4 3 10 65 0 #1318 (4) IF STRONGLY OR SOMEWHAT UNFAVORABLE FOR CITIZENS INFRASTRUCTURE ADVISORY COMMITTEE, ASK: (N=28) . 36. And what are two or three reasons why you have an unfavorable impression of the Citizens Infrastructure Advisory Committee? (PROBE FOR MULTIPLE MENTIONS) As you may be aware, the Huntington Beach Infrastructure Improvement Program was started in 1995 to find out the condition of the city's infrastructure, such as sewers, drains, streets and roads, and so forth, and to identify ways to improve the infrastructure and finance repairs. 37. From everything you understand about this issue, would you say that improving the city infrastructure is ... the top problem the city should be working on, one of the top three, one of the top five, one of the top ten, or is a lower priority than the top ten problems the city should be working on? The top problem ........ :...................... 18 One of top three................................50 One of top five..................................16 One of top ten 10 Lower than top ten ..............................3 [NO OPINION]....................................4 [SPLIT SAMPLE 9 -- THROUGH Q 41]: One way of paying for infrastructure is to impose a property tax specifically for that purpose through a Community Facilities District, or CFD. In the CFD being considered, mobile home park residences and residences in gated communities would have a lower tax than residences located on public streets. 38. 1 will now read you a ballot measure -- let's call it Measure A -- that may be on your ballot sometime in the near future. After I do, please tell me, if the election were held today, whether you would vote ... definitely Yes, probably Yes, probably No or definitely No. Here it is. Measure A. Shall the City of Huntington Beach be authorized to establish a Community Facilities District to finance unfunded infrastructure projects, and to impose an increase in property taxes for such projects? The property tax increases would range from $136 to $289 per year per residential household for 20 years, and commercial and industrial properties would see property tax increases of $3000 to $8000 per acre per year. A citizens oversight committee would conduct an annual audit of the funds. Definitely Yes......................................4 Probably Yes ........13 Probably No......................................31 Definitely No.....................................51 [UNDECIDED] ....................................2 #1318 (5) • IF DEFINITELY OR PROBABLY YES, ASK: (N=33) 39. And what would be two or three of the main reasons why you would vote (definitely) (probably) Yes? (PROBE FOR MULTIPLE MENTIONS) IF DEFINITELY OR PROBABLY NO, ASK: (N=163) 40. And what would be two or three of the main reasons why you would vote (definitely) (probably) No? (PROBE FOR MULTIPLE MENTIONS) IF UNDECIDED, ASK: (N=4) 41. And what would be two or three of the questions you would first want to have answered before you could decide how to vote? (PROBE FOR MULTIPLE QUESTIONS) [SPLIT SAMPLE 2 — THROUGH Q 46]: One way of paying for infrastructure is to impose a property tax specifically for that purpose through a Community Facilities District, or CFD. In the CFD being considered, mobile home park residences and residences in gated communities would have a lower tax than residences located on public streets. I will now read you two ballot measures -- let's call them Measures A and B -- that may be on your ballot sometime in the near future. First let me read both of them to you and then I will read them a second time to see how you would vote. Measure A. Shall the City of Huntington Beach be authorized to establish a Community Facilities District to finance unfunded infrastructure projects, and to impose an increase in property taxes for such projects? The property tax increases would range from $136 to $289 per year per residential #1318 (6) household for 20 years, and commercial and industrial properties would see property tax increases of $3000 to $8000 per acre per year. A citizens oversight committee would conduct an annual audit of the funds. q 0 That was Measure A and here is Measure B. Measure B. Shall the City of Huntington Beach be authorized to increase property taxes by up to two -and -a -half times greater than those called for in Measure A when emergency infrastructure repairs are absolutely required and a direct threat to public health or safety exists? This tax would only be applied for that purpose. Now let's take them one at a time. After I re -read each one, please tell me, if the election were held today, whether you would vote ... definitely Yes, probably Yes, probably No or definitely No. Here it is. 42. Measure A. Shall the City of Huntington Beach be authorized to establish a Community Facilities District to finance unfunded infrastructure projects, and to impose an increase in property taxes for such projects? The property tax increases would range from $136 to $289 per year per residential household for 20 years, and commercial and industrial properties would see property tax increases of $3000 to $8000 per acre per year. A citizens oversight committee would conduct an annual audit of the funds. Definitely Yes......................................5 Probably Yes....................................15 Probably'No......................................25 Definitely No.....................................53 [UNDECIDED]....................................4 43. Measure B. Shall the City of Huntington Beach be authorized to increase property taxes by up to two -and -a -half times greater than those called for in Measure A when emergency infrastructure repairs are absolutely required and a direct threat to public health or safety exists? This tax would only be applied for that purpose. Definitely Yes......................................5 Probably Yes....................................16 Probably No......................................21 Definitely No.....................................52 [UNDECIDED] ....................................7 [REFER BACK TO MEASURE A (Q 42) AND NOTE HOW RESPONDENT VOTED] IF DEFINITELY OR PROBABLY YES ON MEASURE A IN Q 42, ASK: (N=38) 44. Think about the first measure you voted on -- Measure A. What would be two or three of the main reasons why you would vote (definitely) (probably) Yes on Measure A? (PROBE FOR MULTIPLE MENTIONS) 0 #1318 (7) IF DEFINITELY OR PROBABLY NO ON MEASURE A IN Q 42, ASK: (N=154) . 45. Think about the first measure you voted on -- Measure A. What would be two or three of the main reasons why you would vote (definitely) (probably) No on Measure A? (PROBE FOR MULTIPLE MENTIONS) IF UNDECIDED ON MEASURE A IN Q 42, ASK: (N=8) 46. Think about the first measure you voted on -- Measure A. What would be two or three of the questions you would first want to have answered before you could decide how to vote on Measure A? (PROBE FOR MULTIPLE QUESTIONS) i. EVERYBODY: 47. If the city's infrastructure does not get repaired or improved, what would be the things that would happen -- thethings that you, yourself, would be most concerned about? (PROBE FOR MULTIPLE MENTIONS) 0 #1318 (8) 1 will now read you some arguments that may be heard on both sides of the infrastructure issue. For each one, please tell me whether you have heard or read it somewhere before our interview (today) (this evening). Then, regardless of whether you have heard or read it, please tell me whether you feel it is ... very believable, somewhat believable, somewhat unbelievable or very unbelievable. (READ IN RANDOM ORDER) Not Vry SmwSmw Vry [NO Hrd Hrd Bel Bel Unb Unb OPIN 48.149. The Citizens Infrastructure Advisory Committee is 31 70 21 33 19 18 9 making a mountain out of a molehill when it says the city's infrastructure needs major rebuilding and repairs. 50.151. In the past, the city government has not done all it should have done to keep up on the repairs to the city's infrastructure. 52.153. If the people who lived in Huntington Beach in the 1970's and 1980's had paid their fair share, we would not be having this problem today. 54.155. [READ LAST]: The city has enough money to handle major infrastructure repairs if it would just spend taxpayer money more wisely. 58 42 42 33 11 8 6 21 79 7 13 17 55 9 56 45 50 26 - 11 6 8 IF VERY OR SOMEWHAT BELIEVABLE, ASK: (N=302) 56. Thinking of the entire city budget, where do you feel the city should cut back its spending, or spend money more wisely, so there will be enough money to repair the city's infrastructure? (PROBE FOR TWO OR THREE SPECIFIC ANSWERS) • • 0 #1318 (9) Here are the opinions of three people, call them Smith, Jones and Baker. After I read you these opinions, please tell me whose position comes closest to your own. 57. Smith feels the infrastructure in Huntington Beach is no worse than in many other cities and not as bad as the city council says it is. He says that occasional repairs here and there will keep everything in adequate condition. Jones feels there is definitely a need for major infrastructure repairs, but says the city has enough money to handle these repairs if it would just spend money more wisely. Baker feels there is definitely a need for major infrastructure repairs, but says it will take more money to handle these repairs than the city has in the budget, so therefore a tax increase is necessary. More like Smith...............................15 More like Jones...............................69 More like Baker...............................11 [NO OPINION]...................................5 Here are some things other people have said will happen if voters reject Measure A. For each one, please tell me whether you feel it is ... very believable, somewhat believable, somewhat unbelievable or very unbelievable. (READ IN RANDOM ORDER) Vry Smw Smw Vry [NO Bel Bel Unb Unb OpINI If Measure A is rejected ... 58. [SS1:] There will be a real possibility of people having more auto accidents. 59. [SS2:] There will be a real possibility of people having more auto accidents because the roads, traffic lights and signs are so bad. 60. [SS1:] There will be a real possibility of flood damage. 61. [SS2:] There will be a real possibility of flood damage because our flood control channels and storm drains are not up to date. 62. The city will deteriorate and property values will suffer. 63. The local economy will be hurt because fewer tourists will visit and the city will not be as attractive for new businesses. 64. Nothing will change. We'll get along just fine. 0 10 20 26 41 5 7 14 24 49 6 13 31 23 29 5 18 26 22 29 7 8 20 28 40 4 11 18 24 43 4 21 30 22 21 7 #1318 (10) 65. If you knew that funds from Measure A were protected by a charter amendment that guaranteed the funds would be spent solely for the construction, maintenance and repair of such things as storm drains, streets, curbs and gutters, sidewafks, beach facilities, traffic signals and street lights, would you then vote Yes or No on Measure A? Yes...................................................37 No..................................................... 52 [UNDECIDED] .................................. 11 66. If you knew that failure to repair Huntington Yes...................................................32 Beach's infrastructure could lead to a loss of No „ ..... .......... ........ .........56 as much as 20% in property values within the [UNDECIDED]..................................12 next five years, would you then vote Yes or No on Measure A? 67. If you knew that a Citizens Committee would be Yes...................................................33 appointed to conduct an annual review and No.....................................................55 performance audit of the infrastructure Fund, [UNDECIDED]„ .................. .........12 would you then vote Yes or No on Measure A? 68. if you knew that the City's current level of spending on infrastructure would be maintained in addition to those funds received. if Measure A passed, would you then vote Yes or No on Measure A? Yes...................................................33 No..................................................... 55 [UNDECIDED)..................................12 [SPLIT SAMPLE 1:] . 69. After all is said and done, if an independent outside review determines that additional revenue is needed to repair and rebuild Huntington Beach's infrastructure, would you be willing to pay an extra five dollars ($5) a month for the next twenty years to rebuild the infrastructure? Yes...................................................50 No (SKIP TO Q 75) ..........................44 [NO OPINION]...................................7 IF YES OR NO OPINION, ASK: (N=113) 70. Would you be willing to pay an extra fifteen dollars ($15) a month? Yes................................................ 30 No (SKIP TO Q 75) ..........................61 [NO OPINION]...................................9 IF YES OR NO OPINION, ASK:-(N=44) 71. Would you be willing to pay an extra twenty five dollars ($25) a month? Yes...................................................27 No (SKIP TO Q 75) , 48 [NO OPINION].................................25 #1318(11) U [SPLIT SAMPLE 2:] 72. After all is said and done, if an independent outside review determines that additional revenue is needed to repair and rebuild Huntington Beach's infrastructure, would you be willing to pay an extra twenty five dollars ($25) a month for the next twenty years to rebuild the infrastructure? Yes (SKIP TO Q 75).........................30 No..................................................... 66 [NO OPINION]...................................5 IF NO OR NO OPINION, ASK: (N=141) 73. Would you be willing to pay an extra fifteen dollars ($15) a month? Yes (SKIP TO Q 75).........................14 No........................................... 75 [NO OPINION].................................11 IF NO OR NO OPINION, ASK: (N=122) 74. Would you be willing to pay an extra five dollars ($5) a month? And a few questions for statistical purposes... 75. What is the last year of school you have completed? 76. Do you own or rent your dwelling? (THEN ASK:) Is your home a single- family home, an apartment, a condo or a mobile home? Yes (SKIP TO Q 75).........................30 No 58 ..................................................... [NO OPINION].................................12 Less than high school..... High school graduate ..... Some collegelvocational College graduate............ Post -graduate degree..... [REFUSED] .................... Own single-family home Own apartment .............. Own condo .................... Own mobile home........, Rent single-family home Rent apartment .............. Rent condo .................... Rent mobile home......... [REFUSED] ................... ,.1 12 30 36 19 3 80 2 7 2 „4 4 1 ................... ................... 2 77. Do you own any commercial or industrial Yes .................4 ..................................... property in Huntington Beach? No ................95 [REFUSED]........................................1 78. Do you work outside the home, either full Yes........................................53 ............ or part time? No 45 [REFUSED].................................I......2 #1318 (12) 79. Are you currently registered to vote as Republican a Republican, a Democrat, or something Democrat..........................................22 else? Independent/Other 11 [REFUSED].....................................14 80. What is your age, please? 18-24...................................................3 25-34................................................... 7 35-44.................................................17 45-54................................................. 21 55-64.............. 65+...................................................30 [REFUSED].......................................3 81. Which of these statements best describes how conservative or liberal you are? (ROTATE READING TOP -TO -BOTTOM OR VICE VERSA) Very conservative .............................16 Somewhat conservative 40 Neither consery nor liberal 22 Somewhat liberal , 13 Very liberal..........................................4 [REFUSED]........................................5 82. Do you have any children under the age of 18 Yes....................................................22 living with you at home? No ........... ........................................... 77 [REFUSED]........................................1 83. What is your zip code? 92647................................................26 92648................................................21 92649................................................18 84. Do you live East of Goldenwest, that is away from the ocean ... or West of Goldenwest, that on the ocean side of Goldenwest? IF EAST: Do you live North or South of Adams? IF WEST: Do you live North or South of Warner? East (away from ocean) of Goldenwest 1 North of Adams.................29 East (away from ocean) of Goldenwest 1 South of Adams ................20 West (on the ocean side) of Goldenwest 1 North of Warner..............28 West (on the ocean side) of Goldenwest 1 South of Warner .............23 Refused................................................................................................2 85. Sex Male..................................................50 Female.............................................. 50 And a couple of final questions. 86. We have now talked about Measure A, the tax increase to pay for infrastructure rebuilding and repair. All things considered, if the election were held today, would you vote ... definitely Yes, probably Yes, probably No or definitely No on Measure A? Definitely Yes......................................6 Probably Yes....................................19 Probably No......................................26 Definitely No.....................................42 [UNDECIDED] ....................................7 #1318 (13) IF VOTED YES OR UNDECIDED IN Qs 38 or 42, AND NO IN Q 86, ASK: (N=4) . 87. I note that this is a change from your previous vote. What one thing did you find out that has now caused you to vote No on Measure A? (PROBE) IF VOTED NO OR UNDECIDED IN Qs 38 or 42, AND YES IN Q 86, ASK: (N=34) 88. 1 note that this is a change from your previous vote. What one thing did you find out that has now caused you to vote Yes on Measure A? (PROBE) 0 - That completes our interview. Thank you for talking with us today. p Y 9 Y 89. PHONE: 1 rrr:rr:rrarr:rrrrrrrrrrrrr:rrr.rrrrrrrrrrrr♦rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr INTERVIEWER CERTIFICATION: I have re -read this completed questionnaire and certify that all questions requiring answers have been appropriately filled in and that this interview has been obtained from the individual designated. INTERVIEWER DATE NOTE: This interview is the property solely of Lawrence Research. Any attempt to duplicate or sell the contents constitutes an illegal act and is subject to prosecution. 0 Lawrence Research Aggregate Results Page 1 Huntington Beach / July 2001 1318 Q. 1: Version N 1. Split Sample 1 200 50.0 2. Split Sample 2 200 50.0 400 Q. 2: Length of Residence in Huntington Beach N % 1. Less than 3 Years 16 4.0 2. 3 Years to Less than 5 15 3.8 3. 5 Years to Less than 10 50 12.5 4. 10 Years to Less than 15 37 9.3 5. 15 Years to Less than 25 100 25.0 6. More than 25 Years 182 45.5 7. No Opinion / Refused 0 0.0 400 Q. 3: Right Direction / Wrong Track: Huntington Beach N 1. Right Direction 229 57.3 2. Wrong Track 119 29.8 3. No Opinion 13.0 rrr52 400 Q. 4: Most Important Problems in Huntington Beach (See Verbatim Responses) Q. 5: Huntington Beach Better or Worse Than Before N !k 1. Better 190 47.5 2. Worse 100 25.0 3. No Difference 91 22.8 4. No Opinion 19 4.8 400 Q. .6: Approval: Providing Needed Public Facilities For Residents N % 1. Strongly Approve 87 21.8 2. Somewhat Approve 214 53.5 3. Somewhat Disapprove 47 11.8 4. Strongly Disapprove 27 6.8 5. No Opinion 25 6.3 • 400 Lawrence Research Aggregate Results Page 2 Huntington Beach / July 2001 1318 • Q. 7: Approval: Solving Traffic Problems N % 1. Strongly Approve 63 15.8 2. Somewhat Approve 159 39.8 3. Somewhat Disapprove 89 22.3 4. Strongly Disapprove 74 18.5 5. No Opinion 15 3.8 400 Q. 8: Approval: Making Needed Repairs to the Sewer and Water Systems N 9, 1. Strongly Approve 53 13.3 2. Somewhat Approve 122 30.5 3. Somewhat Disapprove 94 23.5 4. Strongly Disapprove 115 28.8 5. No Opinion 16 4.0 400 Q. 9: Approval: Protecting Beaches From Pollution N % 1. Strongly Approve 48 12.0 2. Somewhat Approve 119 29.8 3. Somewhat Disapprove 88 22.0 4. Strongly Disapprove 130 32.5 5. No'Opinion 15 3.8 400 Q. 10: Approval: Encouraging Re -Development of Rundown Areas N %_ 1. Strongly Approve 56 14.0 2. Somewhat Approve 147 36.8 3. Somewhat Disapprove 86 21.5 4. Strongly Disapprove 57 14.3 S. No Opinion 54 13.5 400 Q. 11: Approval: Listening to the People and Their Problems N % 1. Strongly Approve 50 12.5 2. Somewhat Approve 149 37.3 3. Somewhat Disapprove 87 21.8 4. Strongly Disapprove 61 15.3 5. No Opinion 53 13.3 . 400 Lawrence Research Aggregate Results Page 3 Huntington Beach / July 2001 1318 i Q. 12: Approval: The Overall Job They're Doing N 1. Strongly Approve 58 14.5 2. Somewhat Approve 216 54.0 3. Somewhat Disapprove 79 19.8 4. Strongly Disapprove 36 9.0 5. No Opinion 11 2.8 400 Q. 13: Improvement: The Sewer System N lk 1. Good, Improvement Not Needed 85 21.3 2. Fair, Probably Needs Improvement 138 34.5 3. Poor, Def Needs Improvement 166 41.5 4. No Opinion 11 2.8 400 Q. 14: Improvement: Storm Drains and Flood Control SystemsN 1. Good, Improvement Not Needed 110 27.5 2. Fair, Probably Needs Improvement 3. Poor, Def Needs Improvement 182 97 45.5 24.3 4. No Opinion 11 2.8 400 Q. 15: Improvement: City Streets, Alleys and Arterial Highways N W 1. Good, Improvement Not Needed 104 26.0 2. Fair, Probably Needs Improvement 190 47.5 3. Poor, Def Needs Improvement 104 26.0 4. No Opinion 2 0.5 400 Q. 16: Improvement: Curbs, Gutters, Sidewalks and Medians N %- 1. Good, Improvement Not Needed 164 41.0 2. Fair, Probably Needs Improvement 172 43.0 3. Poor, Def Needs Improvement 59 14.8 4. No Opinion 5 1.3 400 is Lawrence Research Aggregate Results Huntington Beach / July 2001 1318 Page 4 Q. 17: Improvement: Traffic Signals N 1. Good, Improvement Not Needed 211 52.8 2. Fair, Probably Needs Improvement 132 33.0 3. Poor, Def Needs Improvement 52 13.0 4. No Opinion 5 1.3 400 Q. 18: Improvement: Street Lights N I. Good, Improvement Not Needed 274 68.5 2. Fair, Probably Needs Improvement 101 25.3 3. Poor, Def Needs Improvement 21 5.3 4. No Opinion 4 1.0 400 Q. 19: Improvement: Street Trees N I. Good, Improvement Not Needed 216 54.0 2. Fair, Probably Needs Improvement 117 29.3 3. Poor, Def Needs Improvement 59 14.8 4. No opinion 2.0 --_�8 400 Q. 20: Improvement: Block Walls Along Arterial Highways N $ I. Good, Improvement Not Needed 195 48.8 2. Fair, Probably Needs Improvement 147 36.8 3. Poor, Def Needs Improvement 33 8.3 4. No opinion 25 6.3 400 Q. 21: Improvement: Public Buildings N 96 I. Good, Improvement Not Needed 247 61.8 2. Fair, Probably Needs Improvement 116 29.0 3. Poor, Def Needs Improvement 20 5.0 4. No Opinion 17 4.3 400 0 • • 40 Lawrence Research Aggregate Results Page 5 Huntington Beach / July 2001 1318 Q. 22: Improvement: Beach Facilities N 1. Good, Improvement Not Needed 191 47.8 2. Fair, Probably Needs Improvement 143 35.8 3. Poor, Def Needs Improvement 49 12.3 4. No Opinion 17 4.3 400 Q. 23: Improvement: Park Facilities N $ 1. Good, Improvement Not Needed 257 64.3 2. Fair, Probably Needs Improvement 112 28.0 3. Poor, Def Needs Improvement 27 6.8 4. No Opinion 4 1.0 400 Q. 24: Improvement: Water System N % 1. Good, Improvement Not Needed 178 44.5 2. Fair, Probably Needs Improvement 149 37.3 3. Poor, Def Needs Improvement 58 14.5 4. No Opinion 3.8 ---15 400 Q. 25: Most Important City Projects: First Mention N Ik 1. The Sewer System 133 33.3 2. Storm Drains and Flood Control 24 6.0 3. City Streets, Alleys and Arterial Highways 77 19.3 4. Curbs, Gutters, Sidewalks, Medians 13 3.3 5. Traffic Signals 26 6.5 6. Street Lights 8 2.0 7. Street Trees 19 4.8 S. Block Walls Along Arterial Highways 7 1.8 9. Public Buildings 4 1.0 10. Beach Facilities 39 9.8 11. Park Facilities 15 3.8 12. Water System 22 5.5 13. No Opinion 13 3.3 400 Lawrence Research Aggregate Results Page 6 Huntington Beach / July 2001 1318 Q. 26: Most Important City Projects: Second Mention N 1. The Sewer System 59 15.5 2. Storm Drains and Flood Control 74 19.4 3. City Streets, Alleys and Arterial Highways 49 12.9 4. Curbs, Gutters, Sidewalks, Medians 33 8.7 5. Traffic Signals 22 5.8 6. Street Lights 6 1.6 7. Street Trees 20 5.2 8. Block Walls Along Arterial Highways 5 1.3 9. Public Buildings 9 2.4 10. Beach Facilities 41 10.8 11. Park Facilities 22 5.8 12. Water System 28 7.3 13. No Opinion 13 3.4 381 Q. 27: Most Important City'Projects: Third Mention N 1. The Sewer System 34 9.9 2. Storm Drains and Flood Control 36 10.5 3. City Streets, Alleys and Arterial Highways 40 11.6 4. Curbs, Gutters, Sidewalks, Medians 30 8.7 5. Traffic Signals 20 5.8 6. Street Lights 12 3.5 7. Street Trees 24 7.0 8. Block Walls Along Arterial Highways 13 3.8 9. Public Buildings 19 5.5 10. Beach Facilities 43 12.5 11. Park Facilities 15 4.4 12. Water System 25 7.3 13. No Opinion 33 9.6 344 Q. 28: Name ID: Huntington Beach Chamber of Commerce N 96 1. Strongly Favorable 79 19.8 2. Somewhat Favorable 175 43.8 3. Somewhat Unfavorable 34 8.5 4. Strongly Unfavorable 17 4.3 S. Heard / No Opinion 66 16.5 6. Never Heard Of 29 7.3 400 • • Lawrence Research Aggregate Results Page 7 Huntington Beach / July 2001 1318 Q. 29: Name ID: Huntington Beach Tomorrow N 1. Strongly Favorable 36 9.0 2. Somewhat Favorable 47 11.8 3. Somewhat Unfavorable 16 4.0 4. Strongly Unfavorable 14 3.5 5. Heard / No Opinion 34 8.5 6. Never Heard Of 253 63.3 400 Q. 30: Name ID: Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association N 1. Strongly Favorable 141 35.3 2. Somewhat Favorable 102 25.5 3. Somewhat Unfavorable 19 4.8 4. Strongly Unfavorable 39 9.8 5. Heard / No Opinion 35 8.8 6. Never Heard of 64 16.0 400 Q. 31: Name ID: Surfrider Foundation N % 1. Strongly Favorable 117 29.3 2. Somewhat Favorable 75 18.8 3. Somewhat Unfavorable 20 5.0 4. Strongly Unfavorable 7 1.8 5. Heard / No Opinion 36 9.0 6. Never Heard of 145 36.3 400 Q. 32: Name ID: Bolsa Chica Land Trust N 1. Strongly Favorable 139 34.8 2. Somewhat Favorable 87 21.8 3.. Somewhat Unfavorable 27 6.8 4. Strongly Unfavorable 42 10.5 5. Heard / No Opinion 49 12.3 6. Never Heard of 56 14.0 400 • Lawrence Research Aggregate Results Page 8 Huntington Beach / July 2001 1318 Q. 33: Name ID: Amigos de Bolsa Chica N Ik 1. Strongly Favorable 121 30.3 2. Somewhat Favorable 77 19.3 3. Somewhat Unfavorable 22 5.5 4. Strongly Unfavorable 27 6.8 5. Heard / No Opinion 28 7.0 6. Never Heard of 125 31.3 400 Q. 34: Name ID: The Huntington -Beach City Council N % 1. Strongly Favorable 52 13.0 2. Somewhat Favorable 167 41.8 3. Somewhat Unfavorable 71 17.8 4. Strongly Unfavorable 72 18.0 5. Heard / No Opinion 28 7.0 6. Never Heard of 10 2.5 400 Q. 35: Name ID: The Citizens Infrastructure Advisory Committee N g 1. Strongly Favorable 2. Somewhat Favorable 3. Somewhat Unfavorable 4. Strongly Unfavorable 5. Heard / No Opinion 6. Never Heard of 20 5.0 52 13.0 16 4.0 12 3.0 41 10.3 259 64.8 400 Q. 36: Why Unfavorable Toward Citizens Infrastructure Advisory Committee (See Verbatim Responses) Q. 37: Importance of the Problem of City Infrastructure N 1. The Top Problem 2. One of Top Three 3. One of Top Five 4. One of Top Ten 5. Lower Than Top Ten 6. No Opinion 70 17.5 199 49.8 64 16.0 40 10.0 12 3.0 15 3.8 400 • Lawrence Research Aggregate Results Page 9 Huntington Beach / July 2001 1318 Q. 38:' [SS1:]Vote: Measure A N 1. Definitely Yes 8 4.0 2. Probably Yes 25 12.5 3. Probably No 62 31.0 4. Definitely No 101 50.5 5. Undecided 4 2.0 200 Q. 39: [SS1:] Reasons For Voting Yes on Measure A (See Verbatim Responses) Q. 40: [SS1:] Reasons For Voting No on Measure A (See Verbatim Responses) Q. 41: [SS1:] Questions That Need To Be Answered Before Deciding Vote (See Verbatim Responses) Q. 42: [SS2:] Vote: Measure A (Conditioned) N 1. Definitely Yes 9 4.5 2. Probably Yes 29 14.5 3. Probably No 49 24.5 4. Definitely No 105 52.5 5. Undecided 8 4.0 200 Q. 43: [SS2:] Vote: Measure B (Conditioned) N %- 1. Definitely Yes 9 4.5 2. Probably Yes 31 15.5 3. Probably No 42 21.0 4. Definitely No 104 52.0 5. Undecided 14 7.0 200 Q. 44: [SS2:] Reasons For Voting Yes on Measure A (See Verbatim Responses) Q. 45: [SS2:] Reasons For Voting No on Measure A (See Verbatim Responses) Q. 46: [SS2:] Questions That Need To Be Answered Before Deciding Vote (See Verbatim Responses) 9 Lawrence Research Aggregate Results Page 10 Huntington Beach / July 2001 1318 • Q. 47: Important Concerns If Infrastructure Not Repaired (See Verbatim Responses) Q. 48: Heard: Committee is Overreacting Infrastructure Problem N 1. Heard 122 30.5 2. Not Heard 278 69.5 400 Q. 49: Believability: Committee is Overreacting Infrastructure Problem N % 1. Very Believable 83 20.8 2. Somewhat Believable 132 33.0 3. Somewhat Unbelievable 77 19.3 4. Very Unbelievable 72 18.0 5. No Opinion 36 9.0 400 Q. 50: Heard: City Government Has Not Done All It Could in Past N 1. Heard 232 58.0 2. Not Heard 168 42.0 400 Q. 51: Believability: City Government Has Not Done All It Could In Past N lk 1. Very Believable 169 42.3 2. Somewhat Believable 133 33.3 3. Somewhat Unbelievable 43 10.8 4. Very Unbelievable 32 8.0 5. No Opinion 23 5.8 400 Q. 52: Heard: People of 170's and 180's Did Not Pay Fair Share N $ 1. Heard 84 21.0 2. Not Heard 316 79.0 400 Lawrence Research Aggregate Results Page 11 Huntington Beach / July 2001 1318 Q. 53: Believability: People of 170's and-180's Did Not Pay Fair Share N % 1. Very Believable 27 6.8 2. Somewhat Believable 53 13.3 3. Somewhat Unbelievable 66 16.5 4. Very Unbelievable 218 54.5 5. No Opinion 36 9.0 400 Q. 54: Heard: City Has Enough Money If It Were Spent More Wisely N % 1. Heard 222 55.5 2. Not Heard 178 44.5 400 Q. 55: Believability: City Has Enough Money If It Were Spent More Wisely N %- 1. Very Believable 200 50.0 2. Somewhat Believable 102 25.5 . 3. Somewhat Unbelievable 43 10.8 4. Very Unbelievable 24 6.0 5. No Opinion 31 7.8 400 Q. 56: Areas of Budget That Should Be Cut To Fund City Infrastructure (See Verbatim Responses) Q. 57: S: Occasional Repairs / J: Spend More Wisely / B: Tax Increases N % 1. More Like Smith 60 15.0 2. More Like Jones 274 68.5 3. More Like Baker 45 11.3 4. No Opinion 21 5.3 400 Q. 58: [SS1:] Believability: Possibility of More Auto Accidents N 1. Very Believable 19 9.5 2. Somewhat Believable 40 20.0 3. Somewhat Unbelievable 51 25.5 4. Very Unbelievable 81 40.5 5. No Opinion 9 4.5 200 Lawrence Research Aggregate Results Page 12 Huntington Beach / July 2001 1318 Q. 59. [SS2:] Believability: Auto Accidents Due to Bad Roads, etc. N %I ' 1. Very Believable 14 7.0 2. Somewhat Believable 28 14.0 3. Somewhat Believable 48 24.0 4. Very Believable 98 49.0 5. No Opinion 12 6.0 200 Q. 60; [SS1:] Believability: There is a Possibility of Flood Damage N 1. Very Believable 26 13.0 2. Somewhat Believable 61 30.5 3. Somewhat Unbelievable 45 22.5 4. Very Unbelievable 58 29.0 5. No Opinion 10 5.0 200 Q. 61: [SS2:] Believability: Flood Damage Due to Outdated Systems N W & 1. Very Believable 35 17.5 2. Somewhat Believable 51 25.5 3. Somewhat Unbelievable 43 21.5 4. Very Unbelievable 58 29.0 5. No Opinion 13 6.5 200 Q. 62: Believability: City and Property Values Will Deteriorate N 96 1. Very Believable 33 8.3 2. Somewhat Believable 79 19.8 3. Somewhat Unbelievable 112 28.0 4. Very Unbelievable 159 39.8 5. No Opinion 17 4.3 400 Q. 63: Believability: Local Economy Will Suffer N P6 1. Very Believable 44 11.0 2. Somewhat Believable 72 18.0 3. Somewhat Unbelievable 97 24.3 4. Very Unbelievable 170 42.5 5. No Opinion 17 4.3 400 • .• • Lawrence Research Aggregate Results Page 13 Huntington Beach / July 2001 1318 Q. 64: Believability: Nothing Will Change. We'll Get Along Just Fine N 96 1. Very Believable 82 20.5 2. Somewhat Believable 118 29.5 3. Somewhat Unbelievable 89 22.3 4. Very Unbelievable 83 20.8 5. No Opinion 28 7.0 400 Q. 65: Push Vote: If Funds Used Solely For Infrastructure Repairs N % 1. Yes 2. No 3. Undecided 146 36.5 209 52.3 45 11.3 400 Q. 66: Push Vote: If 20% Decrease in Property Value if Not Fixed N 1. Yes 127 31.8 2. No 225 56.3 3. Undecided 48 12.0 400 Q. 67: Push Vote: If Citizen Committee Appointed To Review Funds N % 1. Yes 130 32.5 2. No 221 55.3 3. Undecided 49 12.3 400 Q. 68: Push Vote: If City's Current Spending Will Be Maintained N % 1. Yes 132 33.0 2. No 220 55.0 3. Undecided 48 12.0 400 Q. 69: [SS1:1 Willingness To Pay $5 a Month to Improve Infrastructure N % 1. Yes 100 50.0 2. No 67 43.5 3. No Opinion 13 6.5 200 Lawrence Research Aggregate Results Page 14 Huntington Beach / July 2001 1318 Q. 70: [SSJ:] Willingness To Pay $15 A Month To Improve Infrastructure N % 1. Yes 34 30.1 2. No 69 61.1 3. No opinion 10 8.8 113 Q. 71: [SS1:] Willingness To Pay $25 a Month To Improve Infrastructure N 96 1. Yes 12 27.3 2. No 21 47.7 3. No opinion 11 25.0 44 Q. 72: [SS2:] Willingness To Pay $25 a Month To Improve Infrastructure N %_ 1. Yes 59 29.5 2. No 132 66.0 3. No opinion 4.5 ---_9 200 Q. 73: [SS2:] Willingness To Pay $15 a Month To Improve Infrastructure N $ 1. Yes 19 13.5 2. No 106 75.2 3. No opinion 16 11.3 141 Q. 74: [SS2:] Willingness To Pay $5 a Month To Improve Infrastructure N 1. Yes 36 29.5 _ 2. No 71 58.2 3. No opinion 15 12.3 122 Q. 75: Education N 1. Less Than High School 4 1.0 2. High School Graduate 48 12.0 3. Some College / Vocational 120 30.0 4. College Graduate 142 35.5 5. Post -Graduate Degree 75 18.8 6. Refused 11 2.8 400 Lawrence Research Aggregate Results Huntington Beach / July 2001 1318 Page 15 Q. 76:. Dwelling: Rent or Own N W 1. Own Single -Family Home 320 80.0 2. Own Apartment 7 1.8 3. Own Condo 28 7.0 4. Own Mobile Home 6 1.5 5. Rent Single -Family Home 15 3.8 6. Rent Apartment 14 3.5 7. Rent Condo 2 0.5 8. Rent Mobile Home 1 0.3 9. Refused 7 1.8 400 Q. 77: Own Commercial or Industrial Property N 1. Yes 17 4.3 2. No 378 94.5 3. Refused 5 1.3 400 Q. 78: Work Outside Home N 1. Yes 213 53.3 2. No 180 45.0 3. Refused 7 1.8 400 Q. 79: Party N W 1. Republican 214 53.5 2. Democrat 89 22.3 3. Independent / Other 43 10.8 4. Refused 54 13.5 400 Q. 80: Age N 1. 18-24 12 3.0 2. 25-34 26 6.5 3. 35-44 67 16.8 4. 45-54 82 20.5 5. 55-64 79 19.8 6. 65* 121 30.3 7. Refused 13 3.3 400 Lawrence Research Aggregate Results Page 16 Huntington Beach / July 2001 1318 Q. 81: Ideology N % 1. Very Conservative 64 16.0 2. Somewhat Conservative 160 40.0 3. Neither Consery nor Liberal 87 21.8 4. Somewhat Liberal 52 13.0 5. Very Liberal 17 4.3 6. Refused 20 5.0 400 Q. 82: Children At Home N !k 1. Yes 87 21.8 2. No 309 77.3 3. Refused 4 1.0 400 Q. 83: Zip Code N %I 1. 92646 141 35.3 2. 92647 103 25.8 3. 92648 84 21.0 4. 92649 72 18.0 400 Q. 84: Area Live In N 1. East of Goldenwest / North of Adams 118 29.5 2. East of Goldenwest / South of Adams 80 20.0 3. West of Goldenwest / North of Warner 111 27.8 4. West of Goldenwest / South of Warner 91 22.8 5. Refused 0 0.0 400 Q. 85: Sex N 1. Male 200 50.0 2. Female 200 50.0 400 • • 0 • • is Lawrence Research Aggregate Results Page 17 Huntington Beach / July 2001 1318 Q. 86: Final Vote: Measure A N 1. Definitely Yes 25 6.3 2. Probably No 75 18.8 3. Probably No 105 26.3 4. Definitely No 169 42.3 5. Undecided 26 6.5 400 Q. 87: Reason For Change From Yes To No (See Verbatim Responses) Q. 88: Reason For Change From No To Yes (See Verbatim Responses) Q. 89: Phone (Misc Data Response) Q. 90: Length of Residence in Huntington Beach / C Q2 N 1* 1. Less Than Five Years 31 7.8 2. 5 Years to Less than 10 50 12.5 3. 10 Years to Less than 15 37 9.3 . 4. 15 Years to Less than 25 100 25.0 5. More than 25 Years 182 45.5 6. No Opinion / Refused 0 0.0 400 Q. 91: [SS1 : I Vote : Measure A / 'C Q3 8 N 1. Yes 33 16.5 2. No 163 81.5 3. Undecided 4 2.0 200 Q. 92: ISS2:1 Vote: Measure A (Conditioned) / C Q42 N $ 1. Yes 38 19.0 2. No 154 77.0 3. Undecided 8 4.0 200 Lawrence Research Aggregate Results Page 18 Huntington Beach / July 2001 1318 0 Q. 93: [SS2:] Vote: Measure B (Conditioned) / C Q43 N 1. Yes 40 20.0 2. No 146 73.0 3. Undecided 14 7.0 200 Q. 94: Education / C 075 N 1. High School or Less 52 13.0 2. Some College / Vocational 120 30.0 3. College Graduate 142 35.5 4. Post -Graduate Degree 75 18.8 5. Refused 11 2.8 400 Q. 95: Dwelling: Rent or Own / C Q76 N 1. Own 361 90.3 2. Rent 32 8.0 3. Refused 7 1.8 400 Q. 96: Age / C Q80 N 96 1. 18-34 .38 9.5 2. 35-44 67 16.8 3. 45-54 82 20.5 4. 55-64 79 19.8 5. 65+ 121 30.3 6. Refused 13 3.3 400 Q. 97: Ideology / C Q81 N 1. Very Conservative 64 16.0 2. Somewhat Conservative 160 40.0 3. Neither Consery nor Liberal 87 21.8 4. Liberal 69 17.3 5. Refused 20 5.0 400 0 • • 0 Lawrence Research Aggregate Results Page 19 Huntington Beach / July 2001 1318 Q. 98: Final Vote: Measure A / C Q86 N 96 1. Yes 100 25.0 2. No 274 68.5 3. Undecided 26 6.5 400 • CROSSTABS FORMAT EXPLANATION The crosstabs for each question are shown on a single page. The actual question wording used as well as the aggregate results are shown at the top of the page, as can be seers in the example below: 0.9: Smith Job Approval Do you approve or disapprove of the way Robert Smith is handling his job as U,S. Senator? 1. Strongly Approve 9 2. Somewhat Approve 37 3. Somewhat Disapprove e 4. Strongly Disapprove 2 5. No Opinion 44 Format 1 +2/3+4 Rank 1 +2, 3.+4 Approve Smith **- 0 Disapprove Smith 0-** Smith Favor 85- 4 Smith Unfavor 16-74 Capital City 71- 8 Slightly Liberal 37-18 Smith Voters 69- 4 Jones Unfavor 55-18 East Euphoria 65-11 Independent/Other 37-17 Central Lakes 63-11 Jones Voters 40-16 Farms and Rural 62-14 Jones Favor 60-16 Jones Favor • 60-16 Farms and Rural 62-14 North Euphoria 58-10 Undecided Voters 31-12 Jones Unfavor 55-18 55-64 48-12 Slightly Consery 53-11 Men 48-12 Republicans 53-8 Voted in Special 52-12 Quite Consery 52-4 Lo Prob Voters 43-12 Quite Liberal 52-9 Democrats 42-11 Voted in Special 52-12 Central Lakes 63-11 35-44 51-10 Slightly Consery 53-11 Med Prob Voters 49-11 East Euphoria 65-11 The crosstabs are shown in one, two or three columns. The numbers are the same in each column; they are simply rank ordered on different categories to highlight which groups score highest and lowest on these different categories. 0 In the example on the previous page, there are two columns, or rank orderings. Format indicates which categoryresults are resented for each subgroup. In the P present present example, the numbers shown are categories 1 + 2 added together (the first number) and categories 3 + 4 added together (the second number). Rank indicates which crosstab number the groups are rank ordered on. The first number is 1 + 2. This means that the rank ordering of the first column is based upon how each group answered categories 1 + 2. They are rank ordered from a high of 85 to a low of 49 in the numbers shown. The second number is 3 + 4. This means that the rank ordering of the second column is based upon how each group answered categories 3 + 4. These are ranked by a high of 74 to a low of 11 in the numbers shown. When there are additions of two or more categories, the categories are added together including tenths of a percent, Then the total is rounded. Sometimes two categories might individually be 33.3 and 30.4 and be shown in the heading separately as 33 and 30, but be shown in the column of groups as 64.- 0 0 Lawrence Research Column Groups And Cell Sizes Page 1 Huntington Beach / July 2001 1318 MC 1 Cell Group Size Derived From Q. 78: Work Outside Home Work Outside Home 213 1. Yes Nt Wk Outede Home 180 2. No Q. 79: Party Republican 214 1. Republican Democrat 89 2. Democrat Independent 43 3. Independent / Other Q. 82: Children Under 18 At Home Kids <18 @ Home 87 1. Yes Q. 83: Zip Code 92646 141 1. 92646 92647 103 2. 92647 92648 84 3. 92648 92649 72 4. 92649 Q. 85: Sex Men 200 1. Male . Women 200 2. Female Q. 90: Length of Residence in Huntington Beach / C Q2 Res: < 5 Yrs 31 1. Less Than Five Years Res: 5-10 Yrs 50 2. 5 Years to Less than 10 Res: 10-15 Yrs 37 3. 10 Years to Less than 15 Res: 15-25 Yrs 100 4. 15 Years to Less than 25 Res: 25+ Yrs 182 5. More than 25 Years Q. 94: Education / C Q75 HS or Less 52 1. High School or Less Some Coll/Voc 120 2. Some College / vocational College Graduate 142 3. College Graduate Post -Grad Degree 75 4. Post -Graduate Degree Q. 95: Dwelling: Rent or Own / C Q76 Renters 32 2. Rent Q. 96: Age / C Q80 18-34 38 1. 18-34 35-44 67 2. 35-44 45-54 82 3. 45-54 55-64 79 4. 55-64 65+ 121 S. 65+ Very Conservative 64 Q. 97: 1. Ideology / C Q81 Very Conservative Somewhat Consery 160 2. Somewhat Conservative Neither Con/Lib 87 3. Neither Consery nor Liberal Liberal 69 4. Liberal Lawrence Research Column Groups And Cell Sizes Page 2 Huntington Beach / July 2001 1318 MC 1 Cell Group Size Derived From Q. 98: Final Vote: Measure A / C Q86 Final Vote:Yes 100 1: Yes Final Vote:No 274 2. No • • • Lawrence Research CROSSTABS Page 1 Huntington Beach / July 2001 1318 0 Q. 3: Right Direction / Wrong Track: Huntington Beach Do you feel thinge in Huntington Beach are going in the right direction or do you feel things are pretty seriously off on the wrong track? 1. Right Direction 2. Wrong Track Format 1/2/3 MC 1 Rank 1, 2, 3 18-34 74-13-13 Res; 5-10 Yrs 72-16-12 Final Vote:Yes 71-20- 9 35-44 70-18-12 Kids <18 a& Home 69-17-14 Liberal 68-23- 9 Independent 67-19-14 Res: < 5 Yrs 65-26-10 Res: 15-25 Yrs 64-23-13 HS or Less 63-21-15 Renters 63-22-16 92646 62-26-12 Res: 10-15 Yrs 62-22-16 Neither Con/Lib 62-29- 9 Men 61-29-11 Work Outside Home 60-28-13 Democrat 60-28-12 Post -Grad Degree 59-27-15 92649 58-29-13 Aggregate 57-30-13 Republican 5-31-1 College Graduate. 56-32-11 Somewhat Consery 56-28-16 92648 56-35-10 Some Call/Voc 56-31-13 65+ 55-33-12 Nt Wk outsde Home 54-32-14 Women 54-31-16 45-54 52-30-17 Final Vote:No 51-34-15 92647 50-32-17 very Conservative 48-36-16 55-64 46-39-13 Res: 25+ Yrs 47-40-13 0 Res: 25+ Yrs 47-40-13 55-64 48-39-13 Very Conservative 48-36-16 92648 56-35-10 Final Vote:No 51-34-15 65+ 55-33-12 College Graduate 56-32-11 92647 50-32-17 Nt Wk outsde Home 54-32-14 Womeh 54-31-16 Republican 57-31-12 Some Coll/Vac 56-31-13 45-54 52-30-17 Aggregate 57-30-13 92649 58-29-13 Neither Con/Lib 62-29- 9 Men 61-29-11 Somewhat Consery 56-28-16 Democrat 60-28-12 Work outside Home 60-28-13 Post -Grad Degree 59-27-15 Res: < 5 Yrs 65-26-10 92646 62-26-12 Liberal 68-23- 9 Res: 15-25 Yrs 64-23-13 Renters 63-22-16 Res: 10-15 Yrs 62-22-16 HS or Less 63-21-15 Final Vote:Yes 71-20- 9 independent 67-19-14 35-44 70-18-12 Kids 08 a Home 69-17-14 Res: 5-10 Yrs 72-16-12 18-34 74-13-13 57 3. No Opinion 30 92647 50-32-17 45-54 52-30-17 Res: 10-15 Yrs 62-22-16 Somewhat Consery 56-28-16 Renters 63-22-16 Very Conservative 48-36-16 Women 54-31-16 HS or Less 63-21-15 Post -Grad Degree 59-27-15 Final Vote:No 51-34-15 Independent 67-19-14 Nt Wk Outsde Home 54-32-14 Kids <18 a Home 69-17-14 Some Coll/Voc 56-31-13 Res: 25+ Yrs 47-40-13 18-34 74-13-13 Res: 15-25 Yrs 64-23-13 Aggregate 57-30-13 Work outside Home 60-28-13 55-64 48-39-13 92649 58-29-13 Democrat 60-28-12 Republican 57-31-12 92646 62-26-12 Res: 5-10 Yrs 72-16-12 35-44 70-18-12 65+ 55-33-12 College Graduate 56-32-11 Men 61-29-11 Res: < 5 Yrs 65-26-10 92648 56-35-10 Neither Con/Lib 62-29- 9 Final Vote:Yes 71-20- 9 Liberal 68-23- 9 13 Lawrence Research CROSSTABS Page 2 Huntingt6n Beach / July 2001 1318 Q. 5: Huntington Beach Better or Worse Than Before Is the Huntington Beach of today . better than you expected or worse than you expected when you first moved here? 1. Better 48 3. No Difference 23 2. Worse 25 4. No Opinion 5 Format 1/2/3/4 MC Rank 1, 2, 3, 4 18-34 71-11-16- Res: 5-10 Yrs 60-14-20- Final Vote:Yes 60-12-22- Res: 10-15 Yrs 59-14-27- Renters 59-19-19- Kids <18 a Home 56-22-16- very Conservative 53-25-17- Neither Con/Lib 53-22-21- Democrat 53-19-25- Nt Wk Outsde Home 52-27-17- Res: 15-25 Yrs 51-20-28- Men 51-21-22- 92646 50-25-21- Republican 50-25-21- Post-Grad Degree 49-17-29- 35-44 49-15-31- College Graduate 49-23-25- 65+ 48-29-17- 92648 48-23-21- Aggregate 48-25-23- Some Coll/Voc 48-30-16- 92649 47-29-22- Liberal 46-19-33- HS or Less 46-23-27- Some►+hat Consery 46-29-20- Res: < 5 Yrs 45-26-23- 92647 45-24-27- Work Outside Home 45-23-27- Women 44-29-24- 45-54 44-28-24- Final Vote:No 43-30-24- Res: 25+ Yrs 40-33-20- independent 40-26-33- 55-64 37-32-27- 3 Res: 25+ Yrs 40-33-20- 7 6 55-64 37-32-27- 5 6 Finat Vote:No 43-30-24- 3 0 Some Cott/Voc 48-30-16- 7 3 92649 47-29-22- 1 6 women 44-29-24- 4 5 65+ 48-29-17- 7 5 Somewhat Consery 46-29-20- 6 3 45-54 44-28-24- 4 4 Nt Wk Outsde Home 52-27-17- 4 1 Res: < 5 Yrs 45-26-23- 6 6 Independent 40-26-33- 2 5 Aggregate 48-25-23- 5 4 Very Conservative 53-25-17- 5 4 92646 50-25-21- 5 4 Republican 50-25-21- 4 4 92647 45-24-27- 4 7 College Graduate 49-23-25- 4 8 HS or Less 46-23-27- 4 5 work outside Home 45-23-27- 6 7 92648 48-23-21- 8 1 Neither Con/Lib 53-22-21- 5 1 Kigs <18 is Home 56-22-16- 6 4 Men 51-21-22- 6 6 Res: 15-25 Yrs 51-20-28- 1 6 Democrat 53-19-25- 3 4 Liberat 46-19-33- 1 6 Renters 59-19-19- 3 4 Post -Grad Degree 49-17-29- 4 4 35-44 49-15-31- 4 3 Res: 5-10 Yrs 60-14-20- 6 7 Res: 10-15 Yrs 59-14-27- 0 2 Final Vote:Yes 60-12-22- 6 5 1B-34 71-11-16- 3 Liberal 46-19-33- 1 Independent 40-26-33- 2 35-44 49-15-31- 4 Post -Grad Degree 49-17-29- 4 Res: 15-25 Yrs 51-20-28- 1 92647 45-24-27- 4 Res: 10-15 Yrs 59-14-27- 0 HS or Less 46-23-27- 4 Work Outside Home 45-23-27- 6 55-64 37-32-27- 5 Democrat 53-19-25- 3 College Graduate 49-23-25- 4 45-54 44-26-24- 4 Final Vote:No 43-30-24- 3 Women 44-29-24- 4 Aggregate 48-25-23- 5 Res: < 5 Yrs 45-26-23- 6 92649 47-29-22- 1 Men 51-21-22- 6 Final Vote:Yes 60-12-22- 6 Republican 50-25-21- 4 92648 48-23-21- 8 Neither Con/Lib 53-22-21- 5 92646 50-25-21- 5 Res: 5-10 Yrs 60-14-20- 6 Somewhat Consery 46-29-20- 6 Res: 25+ Yrs 40-33-20- 7 Renters 59-19-19- 3 Nt Wk Outsde Home 52-27-17- 4 Very Conservative 53-25-17- 5 65+ 48-29-17- 7 Kids <18 a Home 56-22-16- 6 Some Coll/Voc 48-30-16- 7 18-34 71-11-16- 3 92648 48-23-21- Res: 25+ Yrs 40-33-20- Some toll/Voc 48-30-16- 65+ 48-29-17- Res: < 5 Yrs 45-26-23- Final Vote:Yes 60-12-22- Res: 5-10 Yrs 60-14-20- Men 51-21-22- Kids <18 8 Home 56-22-16- Work Outside Home 45-23-27- Somewhat Consery 46-29-20- 55-64 37-32-27- 92646 50-25-21- Aggregate 48-25-23- Very Conservative 53-25-17- Neither Can/Lib 53-22-21- 35-44 49-15-31- Republican 50-25-21- Post-Grad Degree 49-17-29- Nt Wk Outsde Home 52-27-17- 92647 45-24-27- RS or Less 46-23-27- 45-54 44-28-24- College Graduate 49-23-25- Women 44-29-24- Democrat 53-19-25- Renters 59-19-19- Final Vote:No 43-30-24- 18-34 71-11-16- Independent 40-26-33- Liberal 46-19-33- 92649 47-29-22- Res: 15-25 Yrs 51-20-28- Res: 10-15 Yrs 59-14-27- 8 7 7 7 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 2 0 0 • 0 • Lawrence Research CROSSTABS Page 3 Huntington Beach ( July 2001 1318 Q. 6:' Approval: Providing Needed Public Facilities For Residents Generally speaking, do you ... strongly a prove, somewhat approve, somewhat disapprove or strongly disapprove of the job the City of Huntington Beach is doing in the following areas? 1. strongly Approve 22 4. Strongly Disapprove 2. Somewhat Approve 54 5. No Opinion 3. Somewhat Disapprove 12 Format 1/2/3/4 MC 1 Rank 1, 2, 3, 4 18-34 34-58- 3- 0 Liberal 33-57- 6- 1 Final Vote:Yes 28-56- 5- 6 92649 - 26-44-15- 6 Res: < 5 Yrs 26-55- 6- 3 92646 26-55- 7- 4 35-44 25-46-18- 4 Very Conservative 25-38-20- 9 Res: 15-25 Yrs 25-55- 7- 5 College Graduate 25-50-12- 7 Men 25-52-11- 7 Republican 24-49-15- 5 Kids <18 0 Home 24-54-15- 3 Post -Grad Degree 24-55-12- 8 Democrat 24-60- 8- 6 Work Outside Home 23-55-10- 7 65+ Res: 5-10 Yrs 22--13- 7 22-5454-14- 4 Aggregate 22-54-12- 7 55-64 20-54-13- 8 Final Vote:No 20-52-15- 7 Res: 25+ Yrs 20-51-15- 9 Neither Con/Lib 20-61- 9- 8 Nt Wk Outsde Home 19-52-14- 7 Some Coll/Voc 19-58-10- 4 Women 19-56-13- 7 Res: 10-15 Yrs 19-59-11- 5 independent 19-49-16- 9 Somewhat Consery 18-54-13- 6 92647 17-50-17-12 HS or Less 17-48-15-12 92648 17-63-11- 6 Renters 16-69- 9- 3 45-54 15-60-10-10 0 Renters 16-69- 9- 3 92648 17-63.11- 6 Neither Con/Lib 20-61- 9- 8 45-54 15-60-10-10 Democrat 24-60- 8- 6 Res: 10-15 Yrs 19-59-11- 5 18-34 34-58- 3- 0 Some Coll/Voc 19-58-10- 4 Liberal 33-57- 6- 1 Final Vote:Yes 28-56- 5- 6 Women 19-56-13- 7 92646 26-55- 7- 4 Res: 15-25 Yrs 25-55- 7- 5 Work Outside Home 23-55-10- 7 Res: < 5 Yrs 26-55- 6- 3 Post -Grad Degree 24-55-12- 8 55-64 20-54-13- 8 somewhat Consery 18-54-13- 6 Kids <18 a Home 24-54-15- 3 Res: 5-10 Yrs 22-54-14- 4 Aggregate 22-54-12- 7 Final Vote:Ho 20-52-15- 7 Nt Wk Outsde Home 19-52-14- 7 Men 25-52-11- 7 Res: 25+ Yrs 20-51-15- 9 65+ 22-50-13- 7 College Graduate 25-50-12- 7 92647 17-5D-17-12 Independent 19-49-16- 9 Republican 24-49-15- 5 HS or Less 17-48-15-12 35-44 25-46-18- 4 92649 26-44-15- 6 Very Conservative 25-38-20- 9 Very Conservative 25-38-20- 9 35-44 25-46-18- 4 92647 17-50-17-12 Independent 19-49-16- 9 HS or Less 17-48-15-12 92649 26-44-15- 6 Republican 24-49-15- 5 Kids <18 & Home 24-54-15- 3 Res: 25+ Yrs 20-51-15- 9 Final Vote:No 20-52-15- 7 Nt Wk Outsde Home 19-52-14- 7 Res: 5-10 Yrs 22-54-14- 4 65+ 22-50-13- 7 Somewhat Consery 18-54-13- 6 Women 19-56-13- 7 55-64 20-54-13. 8 Post -Grad Degree 24-55-12- 8 College Graduate 25-50-12- 7 Aggregate 22-54-12- 7 Res: 10-15 Yrs 19-59-11. 5 92648 17-63-11- 6 Men 25-52-11- 7 Some Coll/Voc 19-58-10- 4 Work Outside Home 23-55-10- 7 45-54 15-60-10-10 Renters 16-69- 9. 3 Neither Con/Lib 20-61- 9. 8 Democrat 24-60- 8- 6 92646 26-55- 7- 4 Res: 15-25 Yrs 25-55- 7- 5 Res: < 5 Yrs 26-55- 6- 3 Liberal 33-57- 6. 1 Final Vote:Yes 28-56- 5- 6 18-34 34-58- 3- 0 92647 17-50-17-12 HS or Less 17-48-15-12 45-54 15-60-10-10 Very Conservative 25-38-20- 9 Res: 25+ Yrs 20-51-15- 9 Independent 19-49-16- 9 Neither Con/Lib 20-61- 9- 8 Post -Grad Degree 24-55-12- 8 55-64 20-54-13- 8 College Graduate 25-50-12- 7 Women 19-56-13- 7 Final Vote:No 20-52-15- 7 Aggregate 22-54-12- 7 Nt Wk Outsde Home 19-52-14- 7 65+ 22-50-13- 7 Work Outside Home 23-55-10- 7 Men 25-52-11- 7 Final Vote:Yes 28-56- 5- 6 92648 17-63-11- 6 somewhat Consery 18-54-13- 6 Democrat 24-60- 8- 6 92649 26-44-15- 6 Res: 10-15 Yrs 19-59-11- 5 Republican 24-49-15- 5 Res. 15-25 Yrs 25-55- 7- 5 35-44 25-46-18- 4 92646 26-55- 7- 4 Some Coll/Voc 19-58-10- 4 Res: 5-10 Yrs 22-54-14- 4 Kids <18 2 Home 24-54-15- 3 Res: < 5 Yrs 26-55- 6- 3 Renters 16-69- 9- 3 Liberal 33-57- 6- 1 18-34 34-58- 3- 0 Lawrence Research CROSSTABS Page Huntington Beach / July 2001 1318 Q. 6: Approval: Providing Needed Public Facilities For Residents Generally speaking, do you ... strongly a prove, somewhat approve, somewhat. disapprove or strongly disapprove of the job the City of Huntington Beach is doing in the following areas? 1. Strongly Approve 2. Somewhat Approve 3. Somewhat Disapprove Format 1+2/3+4/5 MC 1 Rank 1+2, 3+4, 5 18-34 Liberal Renters Final Vote:Yes Democrat 92646 Res: < 5 Yrs Neither Con/Lib Res: 15-25 Yrs 92648 Post -Grad Degree Work Outside Home Res: 10-15 Yrs Kids <18 M Home Some Coll/Voc Res: 5-10 Yrs Men Aggregate 55-64 Cdllege Graduate Women 45-54 Republican 65+ Somewhat Consery Final Vote:No 35-44 Nt Wk Outsde Home Res: 25+ Yrs 92649 Independent 92647 HS or Less Very Conservative 92- 3- 5 very Conservative 63-30- 8 90- 7- 3 92647 67-28- 5 84-13- 3 HS or Less 65-27- 8 84-11- 5 Independent 67-26- 7 83-13- 3 Res: 25+ Yrs 71-24- 5 81-11- 8 35-44 72-22- 6 81-10-10 Final Vote:No 72-22- 7 80-17- 2 Nt Wk Outsde Home 71-21- 8 80-12- 8 92649 71-21- 8 80-17- 4 55-64 75-20- 5 79-20- 1 Republican 73-20- 7 78-16- 5 Post -Grad Degree 79-20- 1 76-16- 5 Women 75-20- 6 78-1B- 3 65+ 73-20- 7 77-14- 9 45-54 74-20- 6 76-18- 6 College Graduate 75-19- 6 76-17- 7 Somewhat Consery 73-19- 9 75-19- 6 Aggregate 75-19- 6 75-20- 5 Kids 08 a Home 78-18- 3 75-19- 6 Res: 5-10 Yrs 76-18- 6 75-20- 6 Neither Con/Lib 80-17- 2 74-20- 6 Men 76-17- 7 73-20- 7 92648 80-17- 4 73-20- 7 Work Outside Home 78-16- 5 13-19- 9 Res: 10-15 Yrs 78-16- 5 72-22- 7 Some Coll/Voc 77-14- 9 72-22- 6 Democrat 83-13- 3 71-21- 8 Renters 84-13- 3 71-24- 5 Res: 15-25 Yrs 80-12- 8 71-21- 8 92646 81-11- 8 67-26- 7 Final Vote:Yes 84-11- 5 67-28- 5 Res: < 5 Yrs 81-10-10 65-27- 8 Liberal 90- 7- 3 63-30- 8 18-34 92- 3- 5 22 4. Stronglyy Disapprove 54 5. No Opinion 12 Res: < 5 Yrs 81-10-10 Some Coll/Voc 77-14- 9 Somewhat Consery 73-19- 9 92649 71-21- 8 Res: 15-25 Yrs 80-12- 8 Very Conservative 63-30- 8 92646 81-11- 8 Nt Wk Outsde Home 71-21- 8 HS or Less 65-27- 8 65+ 73-20- 7 Republican 73-20- 7 Men 76-17- 7 independent 67-26- 7 Final Vote:No 72-22- 7 College Graduate 75-19- 6 Aggregate 75-19- 6 45-54 74-20- 6 Res: 5-10 Yrs 76-18- 6 35-44 72-22- 6 Women 75-20- 6 Res: 10-15 Yrs 78-16- 5 18-34 92- 3- 5 Work outside Home 78-16- 5 55-64 75-20- 5 Final Vote:Yes 84-11- 5 Res: 25+ Yrs 71-24- 5 92647 67-28- 5 92648 80-17- 4 Kids 418 a Home 78-18- 3 Democrat 83-13- 3 Renters 84-13- 3 Liberal 90- 7- 3 Neither Con/Lib 80-17- 2 Post -Grad Degree 79-20- 1 4 • • J Lawrence Research CROSSTABS Page 5 Huntington Beach / July 2001 1318 7: Approval: Solving Traffic Problems Q. Solving Traffic Problems? 1. Strongly Approve 16 4. Strongly Disapprove 19 2. Somewhat Approve 40 5. No Opinion 4 3. Somewhat Disapprove 22 Format 1/2/3/4 MC 1 Rank 1, 2, 3, 4 Res: < 5 Yrs 23-26-19-19 Final Vote:Yes 14-47-20-15 Renters 9-38-34-13 Independent 9-40-12-35 Res: 10-15 Yrs 22-41-16-19 Res: 15-25 Yrs 11-46-25-16 Some Coll/Voc 10-40-29-16 Post -Grad Degree 13-40-19-25 Res: 5-10 Yrs 20-40-24-12 Nt Wk Outsde Home 10-46-22-18 92649 17-35-28-21 92648 14.33-21-25 Work Outside Home 20-35-23-19 Liberal 17-45-25-12 Very Conservative 13-38-27-20 45-54 17-39-20-22 35-44 19-40-22-18 HS or Less 19-44-17-15 18-34 13-42-26-16 Neither Con/Lib 17.34-22-22 HS or Less 19-44-17-15 92646 18-44-20-13 Democrat 12-44-26-13 Res: 25+ Yrs 15-38-22-21 College Graduate 19-37-21-20 Democrat 12-44-26-13 55-64 14-38-25-18 92649 17.35-28-21 92646 18-44-20-13 92647 13-43-22-19 Kids <18 a Nome 18-37-25-16 Final Vote -He 16-36-23-21 Kids 08 a Home 18-37-25-16 18-34 13-42-26-16 Res: 15-25 Yrs 11-46-25-16 Very Conservative 13-38-27-20 Liberal 17-45-25-12 Women 15-42-21-18 Republican 16-39-25-16 College Graduate 19-37-21-20 Neither Can/Lib 17-34-22-22 65+ 13-41-22-17 Liberal 17-45-25-12 92647 13-43-22-19 45-54 17-39-20-22 Res: 10-15 Yrs 22-41-16-19 Res: 5-10 Yrs 20-40-24-12 Res: < 5 Yrs 23-26-19-19 Men 17-38-24-19 35-44 19-40-22-18 Men 17-38-24-19 work Outside Home 20-35-23-19 92649 17-35-28-21 Post -Grad Degree 13-40-19-25 Final Vote:No 16-36-23-21 Men 17-38-24-19 Republican 16-39-25-16' Res: 5-10 Yrs ' 20-40-24-12 Work outside Home 20-35-23-19 Res: 10-15 Yrs 22-41-16-19 Aggregate 16-40-22-19 Some Coll/Vac 10-40-29-16 35-44 19-40-22-18 Somewhat Consery 15.40-21-19 Final Vote:No 16-36-23-21 Somewhat Consery 15-40-21-19 92647 13-43-22-19 Aggregate 16.40-22-19 Somewhat Consery 15-40-21-19 Aggregate 16-40-22-19 65+ 13-41-22-17 women 15.42-21-t8 Res: 25+ Yrs 15-38-22-21 Independent 9-40-12-35 Aggregate 16-40-22-19 35-44 19-40-22-18 Women 15-42-21-18 Republican 16-39-25-16 Nt Wk Outsde Home 10-46-22-18 Nt Wk Outsde Home 10-46-22-18 92648 14-33-21-25 45-54 17-39-21-22 Res: 25+ Yrs 15-38-22-21 55-64 14-38-21-18 Final Vote:Yes 14-47-20-15 Res: 25+ Yrs 15-38-22-21 Neither Con/Lib 17-34-22-22 65+ 13.41-22-17 55-64 14-38-25-18 Men 17-38-24-19 92648 14-33-21-25 Republican 16-39-25-16 Post -Grad Degree 13-40-19-25 55-64 14-38-25-18 Somewhat Consery 15-40-21-19 Kids <18 a Home 18-37-25-16 65+ 13-41-22-17 Very Conservative 13-38-27-20 College Graduate 19-37-21-20 Res: 15-25 Yrs 11-46-25-16 18-34 13-42-26-16 Renters 9-38-34-13 Women 15-42-21-18 Some Coll/Voc 10.40-29-16 92647 13-43-22-19 Kids <18 a Home 18-37-25-16 Final Vote:Yes 14-47-20-15 18-34 13-42-26-16 Very Conservative 13-38-27-20 College Graduate 19-37-21-20 92646 18-44-20-13 HS or Less 19.44-17-15 Democrat 12-44-26-13 Final Vote:No 16-36-23-21 45-54 17-39-20-22 Final Vote:Yes 14-47-20-15 Res: 15-25 Yrs 11-46-25-16 Work Outside Home 20-35-23-19 Res: < 5 Yrs 23-26-19-19 Democrat 12-44-26-13 some Coll/Voc 10-40-29-16 92649 17-35-28-21 Post -Grad Degree 13-40-19-25 92646 18-44-20-13 Nt Wk Outsde Home 10-46-22-18 Neither Con/Lib 17-34-22-22 HS or Less 19-44-17-15 Renters 9-38-34-13 Renters 9-38-34-13 92648 14-33-21-25 Res: 10-15 Yrs 22-41-16-19 Res: 5-10 Yrs 20.40-24-12 Independent 9-40-12-35 Res: < 5 Yrs 23-26-19-19 independent 9-40-12-35 Liberal 17-45-25-12 Lawrence Research CROSSTABS Page 6 Huntington Beach / July 2001 1318 Q. 7: Approval: Solving Traffic Problems Solving Traffic Problems? 1. Strongly Approve 16 4. Strongly Disapprove 19 2. Somewhat Approve 40 5. No Opinion 4 3. Somewhat: Disapprove 22 Format 1+2/3+4/5 MC 1 Rank 1+2, 3+4, 5 HS or Less 63-33- 4 92646 62-33- 5 Liberal 62-36- 1 Res: 10-15 Yrs 62-35- 3 Final Vote:Yes 61-35- 4 Res: 5-10 Yrs 60-36- 4 35-44 60-40- 0 Res: 15-25 Yrs 57-41- 2 Democrat 56-39- 4 45-54 56-41- 2 women 56-39- 5 College Graduate 56-41- 4 Republican 56-41- 3 Nt Wk Outsde Home 56-40- 4 Aggregate 56-41- 4 92647 55-42- 3 18-34 55-42- 3 Kids <18 a Home 55-41- 3 Somewhat Consery 55-40- 5 Men 55-43- 3 Work Outside Home 55-42- 3 65+ 55-40- 6 Post -Grad Degree 53-44- 3 Res: 25+ Yrs 53-43- 3 Final Vote:No 52-44- 4 55-64 52-43- 5 Neither Can/lib 52-44- 5 92649 51-49- 0 Very Conservative 50-47- 3 Some Coll/Voc 50-45- 5 Independent 49-47- 5 Res: < 5 Yrs 48-39-13 92648 48-46- 6 Renters 47-47- 6 92649 51-49- 0 Renters 47-47- 6 Very Conservative 50-47- 3 independent 49-47- 5 92648 48-46- 6 Some Coll/Voc 50-45- 5 Final Vote:No 52-44- 4 Post -Grad Degree 53-44- 3 Neither Con/Lib 52-44- 5 Res: 25+ Yrs 53-43- 3 55-64 52-43- 5 Men 55-43- 3 18-34 55-42- 3 Work Outside Home 55-42- 3 92647 55-42- 3 45-54 56-41- 2 Kids <18 a Home 55-41- 3 Republican 56-41- 3 Res: 15-25 Yrs 57-41- 2 College Graduate 56-41- 4 Aggregate 56-41- 4 35-44 60-40- 0 Nt Wk Outsde Home 56-40- 4 Somewhat Consery 55-40- 5 65+ 55-40- 6 Democrat 56-39- 4 Women 56-39- 5 Res: < 5 Yrs 48-39-13 Liberal 62-36- 1 Res: 5-10 Yrs 60-36- 4 Res: 10-15 Yrs 62-35- 3 Final Vote:Yes 61-35- 4 HS or Less 63-33- 4 92646 62-33- 5 Res: < 5 Yrs 48-39-13 Renters 47-47- 6 92648 48-46- 6 65+ 55-40- 6 55-64 52-43- 5 Somewhat Consery 55-40- 5 Women 56-39- 5 Some Coll/Voc 50-45- 5 92646 62-33- 5 Independent 49-47- 5 Neither Can/Lib 52-44- 5 Democrat 56-39- 4 Nt Wk Outsde Home 56-40- 4 Res: 5-10 Yrs 60-36- 4 Final Vote:Yes 61-35- 4 HS or Less 63-33- 4 Aggregate 56-41- 4 Final Vote:No 52-44- 4 College Graduate 56-41- 4 Kids <18 0 Home 55-41- 3 Res: 25+ Yrs 53-43- 3 Work Outside Home 55-42- 3 Republican 56-41- 3 Very Conservative 50-47- 3 92647 55-42- 3 Res: 10-15 Yrs 62-35- 3 Post -Grad Degree 53-44- 3 18-34 55-42- 3 Men 55-43- 3 45-54 56-41- 2 Res: 15-25 Yrs 57-41- 2 Liberal 62-36- 1 35-44 60-40- 0 92649 51-49- 0 r� • 0 Lawrence Research CROSSTABS Page 7 Huntington Beach / July 2001 1318 • Q. 8: Approval: Making Needed Repairs to the Sewer and Water Systems Making needed repairs to the infrastructure, such as sewer and water systems? 1. Strongly Approve 13 4. Strongly Disapprove 29 2. Somewhat Approve 31 S. No Opinion 4 3. Somewhat Disapprove 24 Format 1/2/3/4 MC 1 Rank 1, 2► 3, 4 Res: 5 Yrs 26-19-26-23 18-34 18-53-21- 5 Res: 10-15 Yrs 11-35-32-22 45-54 13-29-17-39 HS or Less 21-31-25-23 Renters 16-41-28-13 Democrat 11-27-30-28 College Graduate 11-30-20-38 Res; 5-10 Yrs 20-40-14-22 35-44 12-40-25-18 Post -Grad Degree 7-29-29-25 55-64 14-23-23-38 18-34 18-53-21. 5 Res; 5-10 Yrs 20-40-14-22 Renters 16-41-28-13 Res: 25+ Yrs 13-25-23-35 Very Conservative 17-30-19-30 92647 16-40-19-22 92648 15-25-27-31 Men 12-31-20-33 Final Vote:Yes 16-31-23-25 Kids <18 a Home 15-39-24-17 65+ 11-24-27-31 92646 11-28-23-33 Renters 16-41-28-13 Independent 9-37-21-30 Women 15-31-27-25 Nt Wk Outsde Home 12-26-26-31 92647 16-40-19-22 Res; 15-25 Yrs 8-37-26-26 92649 11-28-26-28 Neither Con/Lib 14-29-23-31 92648 15-25-27-31 Liberal 12-36-25-25 Nt Wk Outsde Home 12-26-26-31 92648 15-25-27-31 Some Coll/Voc 15-31-24-24 Res: 10-15 Yrs 11-35-32-22 Res: 15-25 Yrs 8-37-26-26 Final Vote:No 11-31-23-31 Kids <18 a Home 15-39-24-17 Work Outside Home 15-33-21-28 Res: < 5 Yrs 26-19-26-23 65+ 11-24-27-31 Work outside Home 15-33-21-28 Final Vote:No 11-31-23-31 35-44 12-40-25-18 Independent 9-37-21-30 Women 15-31-27-25 Final Vote:Yes 16-31-23-25 KS or Less 21-31-25-23 somewhat Consery 11-30-24-30 Republican 14-30-22-28 Some Coll/Voc 15-31-24-24 Liberal 12-36-25-25 Very Conservative 17-30-19-30 55-64 14-23-23-36 KS or Less 21-31-25-23 Somewhat Consery 11-30-24-30 Aggregate 13-31-24-29 Neither Con/Lib 14-29-23-31 Women 15-31-27-25 Some Coll/Vac 15-31-24-24 Democrat 11-27-30-28 45-54 13-29-17-39 Men 12-31-20-33 Kids <18 a Home 15-39-24-17 92649 11-28-26-28 Aggregate 13-31-24-29 Aggregate 13-31-24-29 Aggregate 13-31-24-29 Work Outside Home 15-33-21-28 Res: 25+ Yrs 13-25-23-31 Republican 14-30-22-28 Final Vote:Yes 16-31-23-25 Republican 14-30-22-28 Nt Wk Outsde Home Men 12-26-26-31 12-31-20-33 somewhat Consery very Conservative 11-30-24-30 17-30-19-30 Neither Can/Lib 55-64 14-29-23-31 14-23-23-38 Res: 15-25 Yrs Post -Grad Degree B-37-26-26 7-29-29-25 35-44 12-40-25-18 College Graduate 11-30-20-38 92646 11-28-23-33 Final Vote:Yes 16-31-23-25 Liberal 12-36-25-25 post -Grad Degree 7-29-29-25 Final Vote:No 11-31-23-31 Liberal 12-36-25-25 92646 11-28-23-33 45-54 13-29-17-39 Res: 25+ Yrs 13-25-23-35 Women 15-31-27-25 Final Vote:No 11-31-23-31 Neither Con/Lib 14-29-23-31 Republican 14-30-22-28 Some Coll/Voc 15-31-24-24 College Graduate 11-30-20-38 92646 11-28-23-33 Work Outside Home 15-33-21-28 H5 or Less 21-31-25-23 Somewhat Consery 11-30-24-30 92649 11-28-26-28 18-34 18-53-21- 5 Res: < 5 Yrs 26-19-26-23 Democrat 11-27-30-28 Democrat 11-27-30-28 Independent 9-37-21-30 92647 16-40-19-22 92649 11-28-26-28 Nt Wk Outsde Home 12-26-26-31 Men 12-31-20-33 Res: 5-10 Yrs 20-40-14-22 Res: 10-15 Yrs 11-35-32-22 Res: 25+ Yrs 13-25-23-35 College Graduate 11-30-20-38 Res: 10-15 Yrs 11-35-32-22 65+ 11-24-27-31 92648 15-25-27-31 92647 16-40-19-22 35-44 12-40-25-18 Independent 9-37.21-30 65+ 11-24-27-31 very Conservative 17-30-19-30 Kids <18 a Home 15-39-24-17 Res: 15-25 Yrs 8-37-26-26 55-64 14-23-23-38 45-54 13-29-17-39 Renters 16-41-28-13 Post -Grad Degree 7-29.29-25 Res; < 5 Yrs 26-19-26-23 Res: 5-10 Yrs 20-40-14-22 18-34 18-53-21- 5 0 Lawrence Research CROSSTABS Page 8 Huntington Beach / July 2001 1318 Q. 8: Approval: Making Needed Repairs to the Sewer and Water Making needed repairs to the infrastructure, such as sewer and water systems? 1. Strongly Approve 13 4. Strongly Disapprove 2. Somewhat Approve 31 S. No Opinion 3. Somewhat Disapprove 24 Format 1+2/3+4/5 MC 1 Rank 1+2, 3+4, 5 Systems . 29 4 18-34 71-26- 3 55-64 37-61- 3 Past -Grad Degree 36-55- 9 Res: 5-10 Yrs 60-36- 4 Democrat 38-58- 3 65+ 35-58- 7 Renters 56-41- 3 92648 40-58- 1 92649 39-54- 7 92647 55-42- 3 65+ 35-58- 7 Res: < 5 Yrs 45-48- 6 Kids <18 a Hone 54-41- 5 College Graduate 41-58- 1 Some Coll/Voc 46-48- 6 35-44 52-43- 4 Nt Wk Outsde Home 38-57- 4 Republican 45-50- 5 HS or Less 52-48- 0 Res: 25+ Yrs 38-57- 5 Final Vote:Yes 47-48- 5 Liberal 48-49- 3 45-54 43-56- 1 92646 40-55- 5 Work Outside Home 47-49- 4 92646 40-55- 5 Res: 25+ Yrs 38-57- 5 Final Vote:Yes 47-48- 5 Post -Grad Degree 36-55- 9 Very Conservative 47-48- 5 Very Conservative 47-48- 5 Somewhat Consery 41-54- 4 Kids <18 a Home 54-41- 5 independent 47-51- 2 92649 39-54- 7 Men 43-53- 5 Res: 10-15 Yrs 46-54- 0 Res: 10-15 Yrs 46-54. 0 35-44 52-43- 4 Some Coll/Voc 46-48- 6 Neither Con/Lib 43-54- 3 Nt Wk Outsde Home 38-57- 4 Res: < 5 Yrs 45-48- 6 Final Vote:No 43-53- 4 Somewhat Consery 41-54- 4 Res: 15-25 Yrs 45-52- 3 Men 43-53- 5 Final Vote:No 43-53- 4 Women 45-52- 4 Aggregate 44-52- 4 Aggregate 44-52- 4 Republican 45-50- 5 Res: 15-25 Yrs 45-52- 3 Res: 5-10 Yrs 60-36- 4 Aggregate 44-52- 4 Women 45-52- 4 Work Outside Home 47-49- 4 Finat Vote:No 43-53- 4 Independent 47-51- 2 Women 45-52- 4 45-54 43-56- 1 Republican 45-50- 5 Neither Con/Lib 43-54- 3 Neither Con/Lib 43-54- 3 Liberal 48-49- 3 Democrat 38-58- 3 Men 43-53- 5 work Outside Home 47-49- 4 Renters 56-41- 3 Somewhat Consery 41-54- 4 very Conservative 47-48- 5 -Res: 15-25 Yrs 45-52- 3 College Graduate 41-58- 1 Res: < 5 Yrs 45-48- 6 92647 55-42- 3 92648 40-58- 1 Some Coll/Voc 46-48- 6 Liberal 48-49- 3 92646 40-55- 5 HS or Less 52-48- 0 18-34 71-26- 3 92649 39-54- 7 Final Vote:Yes 47-48- 5 •55-64 37-61- 3 Nt Wk Outsde Home 38-57- 4 35-44 52-43- 4 Independent 47-51- 2 Democrat 38-58- 3 92647 55-42- 3 College Graduate 41-58- 1 Res: 25+ Yrs 38-57- 5 Kids <18 a Home 54-41- 5 45-54 43-56- 1 55-64 37-61- 3 Renters 56-41- 3 92648 40-58- 1 Post -Grad Degree 36-55- 9 Res: 5-10 Yrs 60-36- 4 Res: 10-15 Yrs 46-54- 0 65+ 35-58- 7 18-34 71-26- 3 HS or Less 52-48- 0 Lawrence Research CROSSTABS Page 9 Huntington Beach / July 2001 1318 Q. 9: Approval: Protecting Beaches From Pollution Protecting beaches from pollution 1. strongly Approve 12 2. Somewhat Approve 30 3. Somewhat Disapprove 22 Format 1/2/3/4 MC 1 Rank 1, 2, 3, 4 4. Stron 1yy Disapprove 5. No Op?nion 33 4 Res: 5-10 Yrs 22-18-26-32 Res: 15-25 Yrs 8-35-21-28 Res: 10-15 Yrs 8-27-32-27 18-34 8-29-24-39 Res: < 5 Yrs 19-26-16-39 Kids <18 a None 11-34-24-28 Democrat 11-25-29-30 Liberal 6-23-28-39 35-44 18-34-18-27 35-44 18-34-18-27 92648 10-27-29-30 Res: < 5 Yrs 19-26-16-39 Final Vote:Yes 16-34-15-29 Final Vote:Yes 16-34-15-29 45-54 10-29-28-30 Renters 9-31-19-38 Some Coll/Voc 15-32-23-27 Somewhat Consery 11-34-21-30 Liberal 6-23-28-39 55-64 10-25-24-37 neither Cm/Lih 15-26-25-32 women 12-34-18-33 Men 12-26-26-32 HS or Less 12-31-19-37 Very Conservative 14-31-19-31 Nt Wk Outsde Home 11-32-19-33 Res: 5-10 Yrs 22-18-26-32 Post -Grad Degree 9-27-23-36 92649 14-31-19-33 92647 12-32-22-31 Neither Can/Lib 15-26-25-32 College Graduate 11-27-23-36 nark Outside Home 13-27-24-32 Same Coll/Voc 15-32-23-27 Final Vote:No 10-28-24-35 Res: 25+ Yrs 11-31-20-35 92646 13-29-19-35 Res: 25+ Yrs 11-31-20-35 Work Outside Home 13-27-24-32 92646 13-29-19-35 65+ 12-28-19-34 Republican 12-31-21-33 Kids <18 N Home 11-34-24-28 Final Vote:No 10-28-24-35 Women 12-34-18-33 Renters 9-31-19-38 55-64 10-25-24-37 65+ 12-28-19-34 Aggregate 12-30-22-33 Very Conservative 14-31-19-31 18-34 8-29-24-39 92649 14-31-19-33 Men 12-26-26-32 HS or Less 12-31-19-37 Some CoLI/Voc 15-32-23-27 Women 12-34-18-33 Republican 12-31-21-33 92649 14-31-19-33 independent 12-28-23-33 Nt Wk Outsde Home 11-32-19-33 92647 12-32-22-31 Aggregate 12-30-22-33 College Graduate 11-27-23-36 Republican 12-31-21-33 Independent 12-28-23-33 45-54 10-29-28-30 Post -Grad Degree 9-27-23-36 independent 12-28-23-33 HS or Less 12-31-19-37 92646 13-29-19-35 92647 12-32-22-31 Aggregate 12-30-Z2-33 Kids <18 a Home 11-34-24-28 18-34 8-29-24-39 Aggregate 12-30-22-33 Work Outside Home 13-27-24-32 Somewhat Consery 11-34-21-30 65+ 12-28-19-34 Republican 12-31-21-33 Neither Con/Lib 15-26-25-32 Democrat 11-25-29-30 Independent 12-28-23-33 Res: 15-25 Yrs 8-35-21-28 Res: 5-10 Yrs 22-18-26-32 Res: 25+ Yrs Catlege Graduate 11-31-20-35 11-27-23-36 Final Vote:No 92648 10-28-24-35 10-27-29-30 Somewhat Consery Res: 25+ Yrs 11-34-21-30 11-31-20-35 Men very Conservative 12-26-26-32 14-31-19-31 Nt Wk Outsde Home 11-32-19-33 Work Outside Home 13-27-24-32 Nt Wk Outsde Nome 11-32-19-33 92647 12-32-22-31 Final Vote:No 10-28-24-35 Res: 10-15 Yrs 8-27-32-27 92649 14-31-19.33 45-54 10-29-28-30 55-64 10-25.24-37 College Graduate 11-27-23-36 HS or Less 12-31-19-37 Democrat 11-25-29-30 45-54 10-29-28-30 Post -Grad Degree 9-27-23-36 92646 13-29-19-35 Somewhat Consery 11-34.21-30 92648 10-27-29-30 Neither Con/Lib 15-26-25-32 65+ 12-28-19-34 92648 10-27-29-30 Renters 9-31-19-38 Men 12-26-26-32 very Conservative 14-31-19-31 Final Vote:Yes 16-34-15-29 Post -Grad Degree 9-27-23-36 Res: < 5 Yrs 19-26-16-39 Renters 9-31-19-38 Res: 15-25 Yrs 8-35.21-28 Res: 10-15 Yrs 8-27-32-27 55-64 10-25-24-37 Women 12-34-18-33 Kids <18 a Home 11-34-24-28 Res: 15-25 Yrs 8-35-21-28 Democrat 11-25-29-30 35-44 la-34-18-27 Res: 10-15 Yrs 8-27-32-27 18-34 8-29-24-39 Liberal 6-23-28-39 Res: < 5 Yrs 19-26-16-39 35-44 18-34-18-27 Liberal 6-23-28-39 Res: 5-10 Yrs 22-18-26-32 Final Vote:Yes 16-34-15-29 Some Colt/Voc 15-32-23-27 Lawrence Research CROSSTABS Page 10 Huntington Beach / July 2001 1318 Q. 9: Approval: Protecting Beaches From Pollution Protecting beaches from pollution 1. Strongly Approve 12 4. Strongly Disapprove 2. Somewhat Approve 30 5. No opinion 3. Somewhat Disapprove 22 Format 1+2/3+4/5 MC 1 Rank 1+2, 3+4, 5 35-44 52-45- 3 Final Vote:Yes 50-44- 6 Some Coll/Voc 47-50- 3 Kids 08 2 Home 46-52- 2 Women 46-51- 4 Very Conservative 45-507 5 Res: < 5 Yrs 45-55- 0 Somewhat Consery 45-51- 4 92649 44-53- 3 92647 44-53- 3 Res: 15-25 Yrs 43-49- 8 Republican 43-54- 3 Nt Wk Outsde Home 43-52- 5 Res: 25+ Yrs 42-55- 2 HS or Less 42-56- 2 92646 42-54- 4 Aggregate 42-55- 4 Neither Con/Lib 41-57- 1 Renters 41-56- 3 65+ 40-53- 7 Work Outside Home 40-57- 3 Res: 5-10 Yrs 40-58- 2 Independent 40-56- 5 45-54 39-59- 2 Men 38-58- 4 Final Vote:No 38-59- 3 College Graduate 37-59- 4 92648 37-58- 5 18-34 37-63- 0 Post -Grad Degree 36-59- 5 Democrat 36-60- 4 55-64 35-61- 4 Res: 10-15 Yrs 35-59- 5 Liberal 29-67- 4 Liberal 29-67- 4 18-34 37-63- 0 55-64 35-61- 4 Democrat 36-60- 4 Res: 10-15 Yrs 35-59- 5 College Graduate 37-59- 4 Final Vote:No 38-59- 3 Post -Grad Degree 36-59- 5 45-54 39-59- 2 92648 37-58- 5 Res: 5-10 Yrs 40-58- 2 Men 38-58- 4 Neither Con/Lib 41-57- 1 Work Outside Home 40-57- 3 Renters' 41-56- 3 Independent 40-56- 5 HS or Less 42-56- 2 Res: 25+ Yrs 42-55- 2 Res: < 5 Yrs 45-55- 0 Aggregate 42-55- 4 Republican 43-54- 3 92646 42-54- 4 92647 44-53- 3 65+ 40-53- 7 92649 44-53- 3 Nt Wk Outsde Home 43-52- 5 Kids 08 a Home 46-52- 2 Women 46-51- 4 Somewhat Consery 45-51- 4 Very Conservative 45-50- 5 Some Call/Voc 47-50- 3 Res: 15-25 Yrs 43-49- 8 35-44 52-45- 3 Finai Vote:Yes 50-44- 6 Res: 15-25 Yrs 43-49- 8 65+ 40-53- 7 Final Vote:Yes 50-44- 6 Res: 10-15 Yrs 35-59- 5 Post -Grad Degree 36-59- 5 Nt Wk Outsde Home 43-52- 5 92648 37-58- 5 Very Conservative 45-50- 5 Independent 40-56- 5 Democrat 36-60- 4 Somewhat Consery 45-51- 4 Liberal 29-67- 4 92646 42-54- 4 Men 38-58- 4 55-64 35-61- 4 Aggregate 42-55- 4 College Graduate 37-59- 4 Women 46-51- 4 Some Coll/Voc 47-50- 3 Renters 41-56- 3 35-44 52-45- 3 Final Vote:No 38-59- 3 92647 44-53- 3 Work Outside Home 40-57- 3 Republican 43-54- 3 92649 44-53- 3 45-54 39-59- 2 Kids 08 is Home 46-52- 2 Res: 25+ Yrs 42-55- 2 Res: 5-10 Yrs 40-58- 2 HS or Less 42-56- 2 Neither Con/Lib 41-57- 1 Res: c 5 Yrs 45-55- 0 18-34 37-63- 0 33 4 • .• 0 Lawrence Research CROSSTABS Page 11 Huntington Beach / July 2001 1318 Q. 10: Approval: Encouraging Re —Development of Rundown Areas Encouraging re —development of rundown areas 1. Strongly Approve 14 4. Strongly Disapprove 14 2. Somewhat Approve 37 5. No Opinion 14 3. Somewhat Disapprove 22 Format 1/2/3/4 MC 1 Rank 1, 2, 3, 4 Res: < 5 Yrs 32-23-13-16 Final Vote:Yes 17-49-14-11 92649 - 11-28-36- 8 HS or Less 10-37-13-23 35-44 21-39-19-15 Democrat 12-45-19-12 Res: 10-15 Yrs 8-35-35- 5 92647 13-42-14-21 92646 19-37-19-11 Neither Con/Lib 10-45-21-16 Men 13-35-26-15 Res: 25+ Yrs 13-36-20-18 Renters 19-34-22-16 18-34 16-42-24-11 Final Vote:No 12-33-25-16 Kids <18 is Home 16-38-17-17 Post -Grad Degree 17-37-21-11 92647 13-42-14-21 45-54 10-35-24-13 Very Conservative 14-36-17-17 Final Vote:Yes 17-49-14-11 Res: 15-25 Yrs 13-41-21-11 Republican 12-36-24-14 Res: < 5 Yrs 32-23-13-16 55-64 16-34-24-14 Res: 5-10 Yrs 12-40-24-14 55-64 16-34-24-14 Neither Con/Lib 10-45-21-16 Somewhat Consery 16-32-24-13 35-44 21-39-19-15 Res: 5-10 Yrs 12-40-24-14 Final Vote:No 12-33-25-16 Kids <18 a Home 16-38-17-17 Women 15-39-17-14 Somewhat Consery 16-32-24-13 Renters 19-34-22-16 Work Outside Home 16-36-23-15 Some Coll/Voc 13-38-23-13 18-34 16-42-24-11 92648 10-38-23-15 18-34 16-42-24-11 92648 10-38-23-15 Work outside Home 16-36-23-15 Men 13-35-26-15 Women 15-39-17-14 Kids <18 2 Home 16-38-17-17 College Graduate 15-35-23-15. 35-44 21-39-19-15 College Graduate 15-35-23-15 Nt Wk Outsde Home 12-38-19-13 Liberal 14-38-23-10 65+ 12-36-20-15 Liberal 14-38-23-10 Liberal 14-38-23-10 92648 10-38-23-15 College Graduate 15-35-23-15 Very Conservative 14-36-17-17 Post -Grad Degree 17-37-21-11 Some Coll/Voc 13-38-23-13 Work Outside Home 16-36-23-15 Aggregate 14-37-22-14 Independent 14-37-16-14 Renters 19-34-22-16 Aggregate 14-37-22-14 Independent 14-37-16-14 92646 19-37-19-11 Aggregate 14-37-22-14 Republican 12-36-24-14 Res: 25+ Yrs 13-36-20-18 Aggregate 14-37-22-14 Post -Grad Degree 17-37-21-11 Res: 5-10 Yrs 12-40-24-14 Res: 15-25 Yrs 13-41-21-11 HS or Less 10-37-13-23 Res: 15-25 Yrs 13-41-21-11 independent 14-37-16-14 Men 13-35-26-15 Republican 12-36-24-14 Neither Con/Lib 10-45-21-16 55-64 16-34-24-14 92647 13-42-14-21 65+ 12-36-20-15 65+ 12-36-20-15 Women 15-39-17-14 Some Coll/Voc 13-38-23-13 Res: 25+ Yrs 13-36-20-18 Res: 25+ Yrs 13-36-20-18 45-54 10-35-24-13 Democrat 12-45-19-12 Work Outside Home 16-36-23-15 35-44 21-39-19-15 Nt Wk Outsde Home 12-38-19-13 Nt Wk Outsde Home 12-38-19-13 Very Conservative 14-36-17-17 92646 19-37-19-11 Some Coll/Voc 13-38-23-13 Republican 12-36-24-14 45-54 10-35-24-13 Democrat 12-45-19-12 Somewhat Consery 16-32-24-13 Res: 5-10 Yrs 12-40-24-14 College Graduate 15-35-23-15 Nt Wk Outsde Home 12-38-19-13 Democrat 12-45-19-12 Final Vote:No 12-33-25-16 Res: 10-15 Yrs 8-35-35- 5 Kids <18 a Home 16-38-17-17 92646 19-37-19-11 65+ 12-36-20-15 Men 13-35-26-15 Very Conservative 14-36-17-17 Res: 15.25 Yrs 13-41-21-11 92649 11-28-36- 8 Renters 19-34-22-16 Women 15-39-17-14 Final Vote:Yes 17-49-14-11 Neither Con/Lib 10-45-21-16 55-64 16-34-24-14 Independent 14-37-16-14 Post -Grad Degree 17-37-21-11 45-54 10-35-24-13 Final Vote:No 12-33-25-16 Final Vote:Yes 17-49-14-11 18-34 16-42-24-11 HS or Less 10-37-13-23 Somewhat Consery 16-32-24-13 92647 13-42-14-21 Liberal 14-38-23-10 92648 10-38-23-15 92649 11-28-36- 8 HS or Less 10-37-13-23 92649 11-28-36- 8 Res: 10-15 Yrs 8-35-35- 5 Res: < 5 Yrs 32-23-13-16 Res: c 5 Yrs 32-23-13-16 Res: 10-15 Yrs 8-35-35- 5 • Lawrence Research CROSSTABS Page 12 Huntington Beach / July 2001 1318 Q. 10: Approval: Encouraging Re -Development of Rundown Areas Encouraging re -development of rundown areas 1. Strongly Approve 14 4. Strongly disapprove 2. Somewhat Approve 37 5. No Opinion 3. somewhat Disapprove 22 Format 1+2/3+4/5 MC 1 Rank 1+2, 3+4, 5 Final Vote:Yes 66-25- 9 35-44 60-34- 6 18-34 58-34- 8 Democrat 57-31-11 92646 56-30-13 Neither Con/Lib 55-37- 8 Res: < 5 Yrs 55-29-16 Post -Grad Degree 55-32-13 92647 54-35-11 Kids <18 a Home 54-34-11 Res: 15-25 Yrs 54-32-14 Women 54-31-16 Renters 53-38- 9 Liberal .52-33-14 Work Outside Home 52-38-10 Res: 5-10 Yrs 52-38-10 independent 51-30-19 some Coll/Voc 51-36-13 Aggregate 51-36-14 55-64 51-38-11 Cottage Graduate 50-38-12 Nt Wk Outsde Home 50-32-18 Very Conservative 50-34-16 Res: 25+ Yrs 49-37-13 Republican 49-38-13 Somewhat Consery 48-37-15 Men 48-41-11 65+ 48-35-17 92648 48.38-14 HS or Less 46-37-17 45-54 45.38-17 Final Vote:No 45-41-14 Res: 10-15 Yrs 43-41-16 92649 39-44-17 92649 39-44-17 Final Vote:No 45-41-14 Men 48-41-11 Res: 10-15 Yrs 43-41-16 Republican 49-38-13 92648 48-38-14 College Graduate 5D-38-12 Work Outside Home 52-38-10 Res: 5-10 Yrs 52-38-10 55-64 51-38-11 45-54 45-38-17 Renters 53-38- 9 Res: 25+ Yrs 49-37-13 Somewhat Consery 48-37-15 Neither Con/Lib 55-37- 8 Ns or Less 46-37-17 Some Coll/Voc 51-36-13 Aggregate 51-36-14 92647 54-35-11 65+ 48-35-17 Kids <18 a Home 54-34-11 Very Conservative 50-34-16 35-44 60-34- 6 18-34 58-34- 8 Liberal 52-33-14 Nt Wk Outsde Home 50-32-18 Post -Grad Degree 55-32-13 Res: 15-25 Yrs 54-32-14 Democrat 57-31-11 Women 54-31-16 92646 56-30-13 Independent 51-30-19 Res: < 5 Yrs 55-29-16 Final Vote:Yes 66-25- 9 independent 51-30-19 Nt Wk Outsde Home 50-32-18 65+ 48-35-17 HS or Less 46-37-17 45-54 45-38-17 92649 39-44-17 Res: 10-15 Yrs 43-41-16 Res: < 5 Yrs 55-29-16 Women 54-31-16 very Conservative 50-34-16 Somewhat Consery 48-37-15 Liberal 52-33-14 92648 48-38-14 Res: 15-25 Yrs 54-32-14 Final Vote:No 45-41-14 Aggregate 51-36-14 92646 56-30-13 Post -Grad Degree 55-32-13 Some Coll/Voc 51-36-13 Res: 25+ Yrs 49-37-13 Republican 49-38-13 College Graduate 50-38-12 Kids <18 a Home 54-34-11 55-64 51-38-11 Democrat 57-31-11 Men 48-41-11 92647 54-35-11 Res: 5-10 Yrs 52-38-10 Work Outside Home 52-38-10 Renters 53-38- 9 Final Vote:Yes 66-25- 9 Neither Con/Lib 55-37- 8 18-34 58-34- 8 35-44 60-34- 6 14 14 • • L Lawrence Research CRQSSTABS Page 13 Huntington Beach / July 2001 1318 Listening to the People Their Q. 11: Approval: and Problems Listening to the people and their problems 1. Strongly Approve 13 4. Strongly Disapprove 1s 2. Somewhat Approve 37 5. No Opinion 13 3. Somewhat Disapprove 22 Format 1/2/3/4 MC 1 Rank 1, 2, 3, 4 Res: < 5 Yrs 23-26-23-16 18-34 13-61-16- 5 45-54 9-29-30-16 55-64 6-42-23-20 Res: 5-10 Yrs 22-34-18-12 Renters 9-53-13-13 independent 0-35-28-14 Final Vote:No 9-35-25-19 Final Vote:Yes 20-45-14- 6 Res: 1D-15 Yrs 3-51-27- 8 work Outside Home 12-36-28-14 Res: 25+ Yrs 10-36-20-19 Liberal 17-35-17-12 Final Vote:Yes 20-45-14- 6 Res: 10-15 Yrs 3-51-27- 8 College Graduate 14-38-22-18 Very Conservative 17-30-17-17 _35-44 16-43-21-10 Some Coll/Voc 10-34-26-13 92647 16-35-21-17 Democrat 17-42-16-13 women 12-43-19-14 Neither Con/Lib 9-39-25-17 Neither Con/Lib 9-39-25-17 35-44 16-43-21-10 HS or Less 10-42-12-13 92648 12-35-25-14 Nt Wk Outsde Home 13-39-15-17 Kids <18 is Home 16-41-22-11 55-64 6-42-23-20 Final Vote:No 9-35-25-19 Very Conservative 17-30-17-17 65+ 16-31-16-17 Democrat 17-42-16-13 Men 14-32-25-17 Men 14-32-25-17 92647 16-35-21-17 Kids 0 B a Nome 16-41-22-11 Res: 15-25 Yrs 12-40-24-12 65+ 16-31-16-17 Post -Grad Degree 15-36-23-16 Somewhat Consery 11-41-23-14 Somewhat Consery 11-41-23-14 Res: < 5 Yrs 23-26-23-16 College Graduate 14-38-22-18 92649 11-40-22-13 Republican 13-37.23-14 Post -Grad Degree 15-36-23-16 Men 14-32-25-17 Res: 15-25 Yrs 12-40-24-12 55-64 6-42-23-20 45-54 9-29-30-16 18-34 13-61-16- 5 Neither Con/Lib 9-39-25-17 Post -Grad Degree 15-36-23-16 92646 11-39-20-16 Republican 13-37-23-14 92646 11-39-20-16 Res: < 5 Yrs 23-26-23-16 Aggregate 13-37-22-15 Nt Wk Outsde Home 13-39-15-17 Nt Wk Outsde Home 13-39-15-17 92649 11-40-22-13 Republican 13-37-23-14 Aggregate 13-37-22-15 College Graduate 14-38-22-18 Kids 08 M Home 16-41-22-11 Somewhat Consery 11-41-23-14 Work Outside Nome 12-36-28-14 Republican 13-37-23-14 College Graduate 14-38-22-18 92648 12-35-25-14 Res: 15-25 Yrs 12-40-24-12 Aggregate 13-37-22-15 Aggregate 13-37-22-15 Independent 0-35-28-14 92648 12-35-25-14 Post -Grad Degree 15-36-23-16 92647 16-35-21-17 Work Outside Home 12-36-28-14 Women 12-43-19-14 Res: 25+ Yrs 10-36-20-19 35-44 16-43-21-10 Women 12-43-19-14 92646 11-39-20-16 Work Outside Home 12-36-28-14 Res: 25+ Yrs 10-36-20-19 Democrat 17-42-16-13 92649 11-40-22-13 Final Vote:No 9-35-25-19 92646 11-39-20-16 HS or Less 10-42-12-13 Somewhat Consery 11-41-23-14 92647 16-35-21-17 Women 12-43-19-14 Some Coll/Voc 10-34-26-13 Res: 25+ Yrs 10-36-2D-19 Independent 0-35-28-14 Res: 5-10 Yrs 22-34-18-12 Renters 9-53-13-13 Some Coll/Voc 10-34-26-13 Liberal 17-35-17-12 Liberal 17-35-17-12 92649 11-40-22-13 HS or Less 10-42-12-13 92648 12-35-25-14 Very Conservative 17-30-17-17 Res: 15-25 .Yrs 12-40-24-12 Renters 9-53-13-13 Some Coll/Voc 10-34-26-13 18-34 13-61-16- 5 Res: 5-10 Yrs 22-34-18-12 Neither Con/Lib 9-39-25-17 Res: 5-10 Yrs 22-34-18-12 Democrat 17-42-16-13 Liberal 17-35-17-12 Final Vote:No 9-35-25-19 Men 14-32-25-17 65+ 16-31-16-17 Kids <18 a Home .16-41-22-11 45-54 9-29-30-16 65+ 16-31-16-17 Nt Wk Outsde Home 13-39-15-17 35-44 16-43-21-10 55-64 6-42-23-20 Very Conservative 17-30-17-17 Final Vote:Yes 20-45-14- 6 Res: 10-15 Yrs 3-51-27- 8 Res: 10-15 Yrs 3-51-27- 8 45-54 9-29-30-16 Renters 9-53-13-13 Final Vore:Yes 20-45-14- 6 Independent 0-35-28-14 Res: < 5 Yrs 23-26-23-16 HS or Less 10-42-12-13 18-34 13-61-16- 5 0 Lawrence Research CROSSTASS Page 14 Huntington Beach / July 2001 1318 Q. 11: Approval: Listening to the People and Their Problems Listening to the people and their problems 1. Strongly Approve 13 4. Stroncjiy Disapprove 2. Somewhat Approve 37 5. No Opinion 3. Somewhat Disapprove 22 Format 1+2/3+4/5 MC 1 Rank 1+2, 3+4, 5 18-34 74-21- 5 Final Vote:Yes 65-20-15 Renters 63-25-13 35-44 60-31- 9 Democrat 58-29-12 Kids <18 a Home 57-33- 9 Res: 5-10 Yrs 56-30-14 Res: 10-15 Yrs 54-35-11 Women 54-33-14 Liberal 52-29-19 College Graduate 52-40- 8 Res: 15-25 Yrs 52-36-12 HS or Less 52-25-23 Nt Wk Outsde Home 52-32-16 92649 51-35-14 Somewhat Consery 51-38-11 Post -Grad Degree 51-39-11 92647 50-39-11 Republican 50-37-12 92646 50-35-14 Aggregate 50-37-13 Res: < 5 Yrs 48-39-13 Neither Con/Lib 48-43- 9 55-64 48-43- 9 Work Outside Home 48-41-11 65+ 47-32-21 Very Conservative 47-34-19 92648 46-39-14 Res: 25+ Yrs 46-40-14 Men 46-42-13 Final Vote:No 45-44-11 Some Coll/Voc 44-39-17 45-54 38-46-16 Independent 35-42-23 45-54 38-46-16 Final Vote:No 45-44-11 55-64 48-43- 9 Neither Con/Lib 48-43- 9 Independent 35-42-23 Men 46-42-13 Work Outside Home 48-41-11 College Graduate 52-40- 8 Res: 25+ Yrs 46-40-14 92648 46-39-14 Some Coll/Voc 44-39-17 92647 50-39-11 Res: < 5 Yrs 48-39-13 Post -Grad Degree 51-39-11 Somewhat Consery 51-38-11 Republican 50-37-12 Aggregate 50-37-13 Res: 15-25 Yrs 52-36-12 92646 50-35-14 Res: 10-15 Yrs 54-35-11 92649 51-35-14 Very Conservative 47-34-19 Kids <18 2 Home 57-33- 9 Women 54-33-14 65+ 47-32-21 Nt Wk Outsde Home 52-32-16 35-44 60-31- 9 Res: 5-10 Yrs 56-30-14 Democrat 58-29-12 Liberal 52-29-19 Renters 63-25-13 HS or Less 52-25-23 18-34 74-21- 5 Final Vote:Yes 65-20-15 Independent 35-42-23 HS or Less 52-25-23 65+ 47-32-21 Liberal 52-29-19 Very Conservative 47-34-19 Some Coll/Voc 44-39-17 Nt Wk Outsde Home 52-32-16 45-54 38-46-16 Final Vote:Yes 65-20-15 Res: 25+ Yrs 46-40-14 92648 46-39-14 92646 50-35-14 Res: 5-10 Yrs 56-30-14 92649 51-35-14- Women 54-33-14 Aggregate 50-37-13 Men 46-42-13 Res: < 5 Yrs 48-39-13 Renters 63-25-13 Democrat 58-29-12 Republican 50-37-12 Res: 15-25 Yrs 52-36-12 Final Vote:No 45-44-11 Somewhat Consery 51-38-11 Res: 10-15 Yrs 54-35-11 Work outside Home 48-41-11 92647 50-39-11 Post -Grad Degree 51-39-11 Kids <18 a Home 57-33- 9 Neither Con/Lib 48-43- 9 35-44 60-31- 9 55-64 48-43- 9 College Graduate 52-40- 8 18-34 74-21- 5 15 13 �1 f U �7 Lawrence Research Huntington CROSSTABS Beach / July 2001 Page 15 1318 4 . 12: A roval: The Overall pp ' Job They're Y Doing 9 The overall job they're doing? 1. Strongly Approve 15 4. Strongly Disapprove 9 2. Somewhat Approve 54 5. No opinion 3 3. Somewhat Disapprove 20 Format 1/2/3/4 MC 1 Rank 1, 2, 3, 4 Res: c 5 Yrs 32-42-19- 6 Final Vote:Yes 19-64-11- 5 55-64 8-56-27- 9 independent 5-58-16-16 18-34 26-58-16- 0 Renters 16-63-16- 6 92648 13-51-25- 7 45-54 13-54-17-15 92647 20-47-19-10 92649 8-63-21- 6 Final Vote:No 12-51-24-11 Very Conservative 19-44-23-13 Res: 5-10 Yrs 20-58-14- 4 Liberal 12-62-17- 6 Very Conservative 19-44-23-13 College Graduate 12-54-20-12 35-44 19-55-13- 9 Res: 15-25 Yrs 9-62-17-10 Res: 25+ Yrs 12-51-23-11 HS or Less 15-56-15-12 Final vote:Yes 19-64-11- 5 Independent 5-58-16-16 Neither Con/Lib 13-51-22-11 Neither Con/Lib 13-51-22-11 Res: 10-15 Yrs 19-54-19- 5 Res: 5-10 Yrs 20-58-14- 4 Republican 16-52-21- 8 92646 14-57-16-11 Very Conservative 19-44-23-13 18-34 26-58-16- 0 Men 13-54-21-11 Men 13-54-21-11 Work outside Home 16-52-20-10 Democrat 16-57-17- 7 Some Coll/Voc 16-54-21- 7 Res: 25+ Yrs 12-51-23-11 Republican 16-52-21- 8 Nt Wk Outsde Home 12-57-20- 7 92649 8-63-21- 6 Final Vote:No 12-51-24-11 Kids c1s a Home 16-55-18- 7 92646 14-57-16-11 65+ 13-53-21- 8 Res: 15-25 Yrs 9-62-17-10 Yamen 16-54-19- 7 HS or Less 15-56-15-12 College Graduate 12-54-20-12 Work outside Home 16-52-20-10 Some Coll/Voc 16-54-21- 7 55-64 8-56-27- 9 Work Outside Home 16-52-20-10 92647. 20-47-19-10 Democrat 16-57-11- 7 Somewhat Consery 15-56-19- 7 Post -Grad Degree 15-55-20- 7 Aggregate 15-54-20- 9 Renters 16-63-16- 6 35-44 19-55-13- 9 Nt Wk Outsde Home 12-57-20- 7 35-44 19-55-13- 9 HS or Less 15-56-15-12 Kids 08 @ Home 16-55-18- 7 Aggregate 15-54-20- 9 55-64 8-56-27- 9 Somewhat Consery 15-56-19- 7 Post -Grad Degree 15-55-20- 7 92647 20-47-19-10 65+ 13-53-21- 8 Post -Grad Degree 15-55-20- 7 College Graduate 12-54-20-12 Somewhat Consery 15-56-19- 7 Republican 16-52-21- 8 Aggregate 15-54-20- 9 Some Coll/Voc 16-54-21- 7 Res: < 5 Yrs 32-42-19- 6 Nt Wk Outsde Home 12-57-20- 7 92646 14-57-16-11 Res: 10-15 Yrs 19-54-19- 5 Res: 10-15 Yrs 19-54-19- 5 92648 13-51-25- 7 45-54 13-54-17-15 Aggregate 15-54-20- 9 Women 16-54-19- 7 Women 16-54-19- 7 65+ 13-53-21- 8 Women 16-54-19- 7 Kids 08 a Home 16-55-18- 7 Kids <18 a Home 16-55-18- 7 92648 13-51-25- 7 Men 13-54-21-11 Liberal 12-62-17- 6 somewhat Consery 15-56-19- 7 Men 13-54-21-11 45-54 13-54-17-15 45-54 13-54-17-15 Democrat 16-57-17- 7 Neither Con/lib 13-51-22-11 65+ 13-53-21- 8 Res: 15-25 Yrs 9-62-17-10 Some Coll/Voc 16-54-21- 7 Res: 254 Yrs 12-51-23-11 Republican 16-52-21- 8 Democrat 16-57-17- 7 post -Grad Degree 15-55-20- 7 College Graduate 12-54-20-12 Work outside Home 16-52-20-10 92646 14-57-16-11 Res: < 5 Yrs 32-42-19- 6 Final vote:No 12-51-24-11 92648 13-57-25- 7 independent 5-58-16-16 Renters 16-63-16- 6 Nt Wk Outsde Home 12-57-20- 7 Final Vote:No 12-51-24-11 18-34 26-58-16- 0 Liberal 12-62-17- 6 Liberal 12-62-11- 6 Neither Con/Lib 13-51-22-11 Renters 16-63-16-.6 92649 8-63-21- 6 Res: 15-25 Yrs 9-62-11-10 Res: 25+ Yrs 12-51-23-11 HS or Less 15-56-15-12 Res: 10-15 Yrs 19-54-19- 5 92649 8-63-21- 6 92647 20-47-19-10 Res: 5-10 Yrs 20-58-14- 4 Final Vote:Yes 19-64-11- 5 55-64 B-56-21- 9 Very Conservative 19-44-23-13 35-44 19-55-13- 9 Res: 5-10 Yrs 20-58-14- 4 Independent 5-58-16-16 Res: < 5 Yrs 32-42-19- 6 Final Vote:Yes 19-64-11- 5 18-34 26-58-16- 0 Lawrence Research CROSSTABS Page 16 Huntington Beach / July 2001 1318 Q. 12: Approval: The Overall Job They're Doing The overall job they're doing? 1. Strongly Approve 15 4. Strongly Disapprove 9 2. Somewhat Approve 54 S. No Opinion 3 3. Somewhat Disapprove 20 Format 1+2/3+4/5 MC 1 Rank 1+2, 3+4, 5 18-34 84-16- 0 Very Conservative 63-36- 2 65+ 66-29- 5 Final Vote:Yes 83-16- 1 55-64 63-35- 1 Independent 63-33- 5 Renters 78-22- 0 Final Vote:No 63-35- 3 Women 70-26- 5 Res: 5-10 Yrs 78-18- 4 Res; 25+ Yrs 63-34- 3 Post -Grad Degree 69-27- 4 35-44 75-22- 3 Neither Con/Lib 63-33- 3 Res: 5-10 Yrs 78-18- 4 Res: < 5 Yrs 74-26- 0 Independent 63-33- 5 Nt Wk Outsde Home 69-27- 4 Liberal 74-23- 3 College Graduate 66-32- 1 92647 67-29- 4 Democrat 73-24- 3 92648 64-32- 4 92648 64-32- 4 Res: 10-15 Yrs 73-24- 3 Men 67-32- 1 Neither Can/Lib 63-33- 3 Kids <18 2 Home 71-25- 3 45-54 67-32- 1 Kids <18 al Home 71-25- 3 HS or Less 71-27- 2 Work Outside Home 68-30- 2 Democrat 73-24- 3 Res: 15-25 Yrs 71-27- 2 Republican 69-29- 2 Res: 25+ Yrs 63-34- 3 92646 71-28- 1 92647 67-29- 4 Somewhat Consery 71-26- 3 92649 71-26- 3 65+ 66-29- 5 35-44 75-22- 3 Somewhat.Consery 71-26- 3 Aggregate 69-29- 3 Liberal 74-23- 3 Women 70-26- 5 92646 71-28- 1 92649 71-26- 3 Some Call/Vac 70-28- 3 Some Coll/Voc 70-28- 3 Aggregate 69-29- 3 Post -Grad Degree 69-27- 4 Nt Wk Outsde Home 69-27- 4 Res: 10-15 Yrs 73-24- 3 Nt Wk Outsde Home 69-27- 4 Res; 15-ZS Yrs 71-27- 2 Final Vote:No 63-35- 3 Republican 69-29- 2 HS or Less 71-27- 2 Some Coll/Voc 70-28- 3 Aggregate 69-29- 3 Post -Grad Degree 69-27- 4 Res: 15-25 Yrs 71-27- 2 Work Outside Home 68-30- 2 92649 71-26- 3 HS or Less 71-27- 2 45-54 67-32- 1 Somewhat Consery 71-26- 3 Work Outside Home 68-30- 2 Men 67-32- 1 Res: c 5 Yrs 74-26- 0 Repubiican 69-29- 2 92647 67-29- 4 women 70-26- 5 Very Conservative 63-36- 2 College Graduate 66-32- 1 Kids 08 a Home 71-25- 3 92646 71-28- 1 65+ 66-29- 5 Res; 10-15 Yrs 73-24- 3 College Graduate 66-32- 1 92648 64-32- 4 Democrat 73-24- 3 55-64 63-35- 1 55-64 63-35- 1 Liberal 74-23- 3 45-54 67-32- 1 Neither Con/Lib 63-33- 3 35-44 75-22- 3 Final Vote:Yes 83-16- 1 Independent 63-33- 5 Renters 78-22- 0 Men 67-32- 1 Final Vote:No 63-35- 3 Res: 5-10 Yrs 78-18- 4 Res: < 5 Yrs 74-26- 0 Res: 25+ Yrs 63-34- 3 Final Vote:Yes 83-16- 1 Renters 78-22- 0 Very Conservative 63-36- 2 18-34 84-16- 0 18-34 84-16- 0 • r� �J Lawrence Research CROSSTABS Page 17 Huntington Beach / July 2001 1318 Q. 13: Improvement: The Sewer System I will now read you a list of things in Huntington Beach. for each one, please tell me whether you feel it Is in ... good condition, fair condition or poor condition. As you decide on each one, please keep this in Mind: If it's in good condition, that means it does not need improvement. If it's In fair condition, it probably needs improvement. And if it's in poor condition, it definitely nees improvement. Here's the first one ... The Sealer System I. Good. Improvement Not Needed 21 3. Poor, Def Needs Improvement - 42 2. Fair, Probably Needs Improveme 35 4. No Opinion 3 Format 1/2/3/4 MC I Rank 1, 2, 3, 4 Independent 40-23-35- Very Conservative 33-33-30- 18-34 32-47-21- 92647 31-34-31- some Coll/Voc 28-35-33- HS or Less 27-27-40- 65+ 26-30-40- 35-44 25-34-39- Kids 08 a Home 25-32-40- Men 25-31-44- Res: 25+ Yrs 24-34-40- Final Vote:No 23-33-41- Republican 23-32-43- Nt Wk Outsde Home 23-32-43- Renters 22-38-38- Somewhat Consery 92646 22-33-42- 21-34-43- Aggregate 21-35-42- Res: 15-25 Yrs 21-34-44- Work Outside Home 20-37-41- Res: < 5 Yrs 19-26-52- Res: 10-15 Yrs 19-43-32- College Graduate 18-33-49- Women 18-38-39- 92649 17-38-40- Neither Con/Lib 16-41-43- 45-54 16-32-49- Post-Grad Degree 15-39-43- Res: 5-10 Yrs 14-36-44- 92648 13-33-54- Liberal 13-33-49- final vote:Yes 13-39-46- Democrat 12-43-42- 55-64 10-41-46- 40 18-34 32-47-21- Res: 10-15 Yrs 19-43-32- Democrat 12-43-42- Neither Can/Lib 16-41-43- 55-64 10-41-46- Final Vote:Yes 13-39-46- Post-Grad Degree 15-39-43- Women 18-38-39- Renters 22-38-38- 92649 17-38-40- Work Outside Home 20-37-41- Res: 5-10 Yrs 14-36-44- Some Coll/Voc 28-35-33- Aggregate 21-35-42- 35-44 25-34-39- Res: 25+ Yrs 24-34-40- 92646 21-34-43- Res: 15-25 Yrs 21-34-44- 92647 31-34-31- 92648 13-33-54- LiberaL 13-33-49- Final Vote:No 23-33-41- somewhat Consery 22-33-42- College Graduate 18-33-49- very Conservative 33-33-30- Kids <18 a Home 25-32-40- Republican 23-32-43- 45-54 16-32-49- Nt Wk outsde Home 23-32-43- Men 25-31-44- 65+ 26-30-40- HS or Less 27-27-40- Res: c 5 Yrs 19-26-52- Independent 40-23-35- 92648 13-33-54- Res: < 5 Yrs 19-26-52- Liberal 13-33-49- 45-54 16-32-49- College Graduate 18-33-49- Final Vote:Yes 13-39-46- 55-64 10-41-46- Res: 5-10 Yrs 14-36-44- Res: 15-25 Yrs 21-34-44- Men 25-31-44- Nt Wk Outsde Home 23-32-43- Post-Grad Degree 15-39-43- 92646 21-34-43- Neither Can/Lib 16-41-43- Republican 23-32-43- Somewhat Consery 22-33-42- Democrat 12-43-42- Aggregate 21-35-42- Work Outside Home 20-37-41- Final Vote:No 23-33-41- 65+ 26-30-40- HS or Less 27-27-40- 92649 17-38-40- Kids 08 as Home 25-32-40- Res: 25+ Yrs 24-34-40- Women 18-38-39- 35-44 25-34-39- Renters 22-38-38- Independent 40-23-35- Some Coll/Voc 28-35-33- Res: 10-15 Yrs 19-43-32- 92647 31-34-31- Very Conservative 33-33-30- 18-34 32-47-21- Res: 5-10 Yrs 14-36-44- 6 HS or Less 27-27-40- 6 92649 17-38-40- 6 Women 18-38-39- 6 Res: 10-15 Yrs 19-43-32- 5 Very Conservative 33-33-30- 5 liberal 13-33-49- 4 Post -Grad Degree 15-39-43- 4 92647 31-34-31- 4 55-64 10-41-46- 4 45-54 16-32-49- 4 Democrat 12-43-42- 3 Some Coll/Voc 28-35-33- 3 65+ 26-30-41D- 3 Res: < 5 Yrs 19-26-52- 3 Somewhat Consery 22-33-42- 3 Renters 22-38-38- 3 Final vote:No 23-33-41- 3 Work Outside Home 20-37-41- 3 Republican 23-32-43- 3 Nt wk Outsde Nome 23-32-43- 3 Aggregate 21-35-42- 3 Independent 40-23-35- 2 Kids <18 51 Home 25-32-40- 2 Res: 25+ Yrs 24-34-40- 2 92646 21-34-43- 2 Final Vote:Yes 13-39-46- 2 35-44 25-34-39- 1 Res: 15-25 Yrs 21-34-44- 1 College Graduate 18-33-49- 1 Neither Con/Lib 16-41-43- 0 92648 13-33-54- 0 18-34 32-47-21- ❑ Men 25-31-44- 0 Lawrence Research CROSSTABS Page 18 Huntington Beach / July 2001 1318 Q. 14: Improvement: Storm Drains and Flood Control Systems Storm Drains and Flood Control Systems 1. Good, Improvement Not Needed 28 2. Fair, Probably Needs Improveme 46 Format 1/2/3/4 MC Rank 1, 2, 3, 4 Independent 44-40-16- 18-34 37-55- 8- Very Conservative 36-45-17- 92647 34-38-27- Men 33-41-24- Res: 15-25 Yrs 32-40-24- 35-44 31-45-22- Some CoIL/Voc 31-48-18- Kids 08 a Home 30-47-21- 92646 30-43-23- 65+ 30-40-24- Final Vote:No 29-45-23- Res: 25+ Yrs 29-43-24- Republican 29-44-23- Nt Ilk Outsde Home 28-44-24- 92649 28-49-22- Aggregate 28-46-24- Somewhat Consery 28-44-25- College Graduate 27-44-27- Res: 10-15 Yrs 27-51-22- work Outside Home 27-46-25- Post-Grad Degree 27-39-32- HS or Less 25-52-19- Final Vote:Yes 25-47-26- Liberal 25-46-29- Neither Con/Lib 24-49-23- 45-54 23-46-29- Res: c 5 Yrs 23-52-26- Democrat 22-52-26- Women 22-50-25- Renters 22-41-38- 55-64 22-47-30- Res: 5-10 Yrs 16-58-26- 92648 15-56-24- Res: 5-10 Yrs 16-58-26- 92648 15-56-24- 18-34 37-55- 8- HS or Less 25-52-19- Democrat 22-52-26- Res: c 5 Yrs 23-52-26- Res: 10-15 Yrs 27-51-22- Women 22-50-25- Neither Con/Lib 24-49-23- 92649 28-49-22- Some Coll/Vac 31-48-18- Kids 08 a Home 30-47-21- Final Vote:Yes 25-47-26- 55-64 22-47-30- Liberal 25-46-29- 45-54 23-46-29- Work Outside Home 27-46-25- Aggregate 28-46-24- Very Conservative 36-45-17- Final Vote:No 29-45-23- 35-44 31-45-22- Nt Ilk Outsde Home 28-44-24- Republican 29-44-23- Somewhat Consery 28-44-25- College Graduate 27-44-27- 92646 30-43-23- Res: 25+ Yrs 29-43-24- Men 33-41-24- Renters 22-41-38- 65+ 30-40-24- Res: 15-25 Yrs 32-40-24- Independent 44-40-16- Post-Grad Degree 27-39-32- 92647 34-38-27- 3. Poor, Def Needs Improvement 24 4. No Opinion 3 0 Renters 22-41-38- 0 5 Post -Grad Degree 27-39-32- 3 0 55-64 22-47-30- 1 4 45-54 23-46-29- 1 0 Liberal 25-46-29- 0 0 College Graduate 27-44-27- 1 0 92647 34-38-27- 1 3 Final Vote:Yes 25-47-26- 2 3 Res: 5-10 Yrs 16-58-26- 0 1 Democrat 22-52-26- D 4 Res: < 5 Yrs 23-52-26- 0 2 Mork Outside Home 27-46-25- 2 2 women 22-50-25- 3 1 Somewhat Consery 28-44-25- 4 0 Aggregate 28-46-24- 3 1 Res: 25+ Yrs 29-43-24- 4 2 Res: 15-25 Yrs 32-40-24- 4 3 65+ 30-40-24- 6 2 Nt A outsde Home 28-44-24- 4 3 92648 15-56-24- 5 1 Men 33-41-24- 3 4 92646 30-43-23- 4 4 Republican 29-44-23- 4 4 Final Vote:No 29-45-23- 3 1 Neither Can/Lib 24-49-23- 3 4 35-44 31-45-22- 1 4 92649 28-49-22- 1 3 Res: 10-15 Yrs 27-51-22- 0 0 Kids 08 2 Home 30-47-21- 2 6 HS or Less 25-52-19- 4 4 Some Coll/Voc 31-48-18- 4 0 Very Conservative 36-45-17- 2 3 Independent 44-40-16- 0 1 18-34 37-55- 8- 0 65+ 30-40-24- 92648 15-56-24- Republican 29-44-23- Some Colt/Voc 31-48-18- Res: 15-25 Yrs 32-40-24- Nt Ilk Outsde Home 28-44-24- Res: 25+ Yrs 29-43-24- HS or Less 25-52-19- Somewhat Consery 28-44-25- 92646 30-43-23- Neither Con/Lib 24-49-23- Women 22-50-25- Aggregate 28-46-24- Post-Grad Degree 27-39-32- Final Vote:No 29-45-23- Men 33-41-24- Kids <18 a Home 30-47-21- Final Vote:Yes 25-47-26- work outside Home 27-46-25- Very Conservative 36-45-17- 35-44 31-45-22- College Graduate 27-44-27- 92649 28-49-22- 55-64 22-47-30- 45-54 23-46-29- 92647 34-38-27- Renters 22-41-38- Independent 44-40-16- Res: c 5 Yrs 23-52-26- 18-34 37-55- 8- Res: 10-15 Yrs 27-51-22- Liberal 25-46-29- Res: 5-10 Yrs 16-58-26- Democrat 22-52-26- 6 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 • • r� u Lawrence Research CROSSTABS Page 19 Huntington Beach / July 2001 1318 Q. 15: Improvement: City Streets, Alleys and Arterial Highways City Streets, Alleys and Arterial Highways 1. Good, Improvement Not Needed 26 2. Fair, Probably Needs Improveme 48 Format 1/2/3/4 MC 1 Rank 1, 2, 3, 4 35-44 42-45-13- 0 Very Conservative 38-34-28- 0 92647 34-34-31- 1 Republican 33-42-25- 0 Res: 5-10 Yrs 30-56-14- 0 65+ 30-44-26- 1 Women 30-45-25- 1 18-34 29-55-13- 3 HS or Loss 29-42-29- 0 Kids <13 2 Home 29-54-17- 0 Neither Can/Lib 29-51-20- 1 some Coll/Voc 28-43-28- 2 Renters 28-31-36- 3 Res: 25+ Yrs 28-41-31- 1 Post -Grad Degree 27-49-24- 0 Final Vote:No . 27-44-29- 1 Work outside Home 26-46-27- 0 92646 26-52-22- 0 Aggregate 26-48-26- 1 Res: < 5 Yrs 26-48-26- 0 Nt Wk Outsde Home 26-49-24- 1 92649 25-49-25- 1 Somewhat Consery 24-47-2$- 1 Independent 23-47-30- 0 College Graduate 23-52-25- 0 Final Vote:Yes 23-57-20- 0 Men 23-50-28- 0 Res: 15-25 Yrs 22-55-23- 0 Res: 10-15 Yrs 22-49-27- 3 Democrat 19-56-22. 2 45-54 17-46-37- 0 92648 17-56-27- 0 55-64 15-52-33- 0 Liberal 14-59-26- 0 0 Liberal 14-59-26- Final Vote:Yes 23-57-20- Democrat 19-56-22- Res: 5-10 Yrs 30-56-14- 92648 17-56-27- 18-34 29-55-13- Res: 15-25 Yrs 22-55-23- Kids <18 a Home 29-54-17- College Graduate 23-52-25- 55-64 15-52-33- 92646 26-52-22- Neither Con/Lib 29-51-20- Men 23-50-28- Nt Wk Outsde Home 26-49-24- Post-Grad Degree 27-49-24- Res: 10-15 Yrs 22-49-27- 92649 25-49-25- Res: < 5 Yrs 26-48-26- Aggregate 26-48-26- Somewhat Consery 24-47-28- Independent 23-47-30- 45-54 17-46-37- Work Outside Home 26-46-27- Women 30-45.25- 35-44 42-45-13- 65+ 30-44-26- Final Vote:No 27-44-29- Sane Coll/Voc 28-43.28- HS or Less 29-42-29- Republican 33-42-25- Res: 25+ Yrs 28-41-31- Very Conservative 38-34-28- 92647 34-34-31- Renters 28-31-38- 3. Poor, Def Needs Improvement 26 4. No Opinion 1 Renters 28-31-38- 45-54 17-46-37- 55-64 15-52-33- 92647 34-34-31- Res: 25+ Yrs 28-41-31- Independent 23-47-30- HS or Less 29-42-29- Final Vote:No 27-44-29- Very Conservative 38-34-28- Somewhat Consery 24-47-28- Men 23-50-28- Some Coll/Voc 28-43-28- 92648 17-56-27- Work Outside Home 26-46-27- Res: 10-15 Yrs 22-49-27- Liberal 14-59-26- Aggregate 26-48-26- Res: < 5 Yrs 26-48-26- 65+ 30-44-26- 92649 25-49-25- Republican 33.42-25- College Graduate 23.52-25- Women 30-45-25- Nt Wk Outsde Home 26-49-24- Post-Grad Degree 27-49-24- Res: 15-25 Yrs 22-55-23- Democrat 19-56-22- 92646 26-52-22- Final Vote:Yes 23-57-20- Neither Con/Lib 29-51-20- Kids <18 @ Home 29-54-17- Res: 5-10 Yrs 30-56-14- 35-44 42-45-13- 18-34 29-55-13- Renters 28-31-38- 3 Res: 10-15 Yrs 22-49-27- 3 18-34 29-55-13- 3 Democrat 19-56-22- 2 Some Coll/Voc 28-43-28- 2 92649 25-49-25- 1 Neither Con/Lib 29-51-20- 1 Warren 30-45-25- 1 92647 34-34-31- 1 65+ 30-44-26- 1 Final Vote:No 27-44-29- 1 Somewhat Consery 24-47-28- 1 Nt Wk. Outsde Home 26-49-24- 1 Res: 25+ Yrs 28-41-31- 1 Aggregate 26-48-26- 1 Work Outside Home 26-46-27- 0 Kids <18 & Home 29-54-17- 0 Men 23-50-28- 0 Republican 33-42-25- 0 independent 23-47-30- 0 Res: < 5 Yrs 26-48-26- 0 Post -Grad Degree 27-49-24- 0 92646 26-52-22- 0 92648 17-56-27- 0 35-44 42-45-13- 0 45-54 17-46-37- 0 55-64 15-52-33- 0 College Graduate 23-52-25- 0 Very Conservative 38-34-28- 0 Res: 5-10 Yrs 30-56-14- 0 Res: 15-25 Yrs 22-55-23- 0 Liberal 14-59-26- 0 Final Vote:Yes 23-57-20- 0 HS or Less 29-42-29- 0 Lawrence Research CROSSTABS Page 20 Huntington Beach / July 2001 1318 Q. 16: Improvement: Curbs, Gutters, Sidewalks and Medians Curbs, Gutters, Sidewalks and Medians 1. Good, Improvement Not Needed 41 2. Fair, Probably Needs Improveme 43 Format 1/2/3/4 MC 1 Rank 1, 2, 3, 4 3. Poor, Def Needs 4. No Opinion Improvement 15 1 18-34 66-32- D- 3 45-54 28-55-17- 0 HS or Less 38-38-23- 0 Neither Con/Lib 44-47- 6- 3 independent 51-42- 7- 0 92648 30-55-14- 1 92647 42-36-21- 1 Democrat 34-46-17- 3 Res: < 5 Yrs 48-45- 3- 3 Final Vote:Yes 39-52- 9- 0 55-64 42-37-20- 1 Res: < 5 Yrs 48-45- 3- 3 Very Conservative 47-38-16- 0 Res: 15-25 Yrs 36-50-12- 2 Res: 25+ Yrs 41-40-19- 1 Renters 38-44-16- 3 92646 47-40-13- 1 Neither Gan/Lib 44-47- 6- 3 Liberal 39-42-19- 0 92649 42-46-1D- 3 Res: 10-15 Yrs 46-41-11- 3 Kids <18 a Home 43-47-10- 0 Final Vote:No 43-39-17- 1 Res: 10-15 Yrs 46-41-11- 3 Republican 46-38-15- 1 Democrat 34-46-17- 3 45-54 28-55-17- 0 Post -Grad Degree 41-43-13- 3 College Graduate 46-43-11- 1 92649 42-46-10- 3 Democrat 34-46-17- 3 18-34 66-32- 0- 3 Res: 5-10 Yrs 44-42-14- 0 Res: < 5 Yrs 48-45- 3- 3 Some Call/Voc 38-44-17- 2 65+ 42-41-14- 2 Neither Can/Lib 44-47- 6- 3 Men 39-45-17- 1 Men 39-45-17- 1 Nt Wk Outsde Home 41-42-15- 2 Women 44-42-13- 2 Some Coll/Voc 38-44-17- 2 Somewhat Consery 39-43-16- 1 Res: 15-25 Yrs 36-50-12- 2 35-44 43-43-13- 0 Work Outside Home 41-44-15- 0 Very Conservative 47-38-16- 0 Women 44-42-13- 2 Final Vote:No 43-39-17- 1 Renters 38-44-16- 3 Renters 38-44-16- 3 Some COIL/Voc 38-44-17- 2 Kids <18 a Home 43-47-10- 0 35-44 43-43-13- 0 Republican 46-38-15- 1 Final Vote:No 43-39-17- 1 65+ 42-41-14- 2 Somewhat Consery 39-43-16- 1 Nt Wk Outsde Home 41-42-15- 2 55-64 - 42-37-20- 1 55-64 42-37-20- 1 Aggregate 41-43-15- 1 Aggregate 41-43-15- 1 Aggregate 41-43-15- 1 92647 42-36-21- 1 College Graduate 46-43-11- 1 work Outside Home 41-44-15- 0 Somewhat Consery 39-43-16- 1 92649 42-46-10- 3 Post -Grad Degree 41-43-13- 3 92648 30-55-14- 1 92648 30-55-14- 1 Post -Grad Degree 41-43-13- 3 Nt Wk Outsde Home 41-42-15- 2 65+ 42-41-14- 2 92647 42-36-21- 1 Aggregate 41-43-15- 1 Liberal 39-42-19- 0 Res: 5-10 Yrs 44-42-14- 0 Republican 46-38-15- 1 Work Outside Home 41-44-15- 0 Res: 5-10 Yrs 44-42-14- 0 35-44 43-43-13- 0 92646 47-40-13- 1 Res: 25+ Yrs 41-40-19- 1 independent 51-42- 7- 0 Post -Grad Degree 41-43-13- 3 College Graduate 46-43-11- 1 Nt Wk Outsde Home 41-42-15- 2 Women 44-42-13- 2 Women 44-42-13- 2 Res: 25+ Yrs 41-40-19- Somewhat Consery 39-43-16- 1 65+ 42-41-14- 2 92646 47-40-13- 1 Men 39-45-17- 1 Liberal 39-42-19- 0 Res: 10-15 Yrs 46-41-11- 3 Res: 15-25 Yrs 36-50-12- 2 work Outside Home 41-44-15- 0 Final Vote:Yes 39-52- 9- 0 92646 47-40-13- 1 Res: 10-15 Yrs 46-41-11- 3 Kids 08 a Home 43-47-10- 0 Men 39-45-17- 1 Res: 25+ Yrs 41-40-19- 1 College Graduate 46-43-11- 1 45-54 28-55-17- 0 HS or Less 38-38-23- 0 Final Vote:No 43-39-17- 1 Kids <18 0 Home 43-47-10- 0 35-44 43-43-13- 0 Some Coll/Voc 38-44-17- 2 HS or Less 38-38-23- 0 92649 42-46-10- 3 Very Conservative 47-38-16- 0 Renters 38-44-16- 3 Republican 46-38-15- 1 Final Vote:Yes 39-52- 9- 0 Res: 5-10 Yrs 44-42-14- 0 Res: 15-25 Yrs 36-50-12- 2 Very Conservative 47-38-16- 0 Independent 51-42- 7- 0 Independent 51-42- 7- 0 Democrat 34.46-17- 3 55-64 42-37-20- 1 Neither Con/Lib 44-47- 6- 3 Liberal 39-42-19- 0 92648 30-55-14- 1 92647 42-36-21- 1 Res: < 5 Yrs 48-45- 3- 3 final Vote:Yes 39-52- 9- 0 45-54 28-55-17- 0 18-34 66-32- 0- 3 18-34 66-32- 0- 3 HS or Less 38-38-23- 0 • • • Lawrence Research CROSSTABS Page 21 • Huntington Beach / July 2001 1318 Q. 17: Improvement:: Traffic Signals Traffic Signals 1. Good, Improvement Not Needed 53 2. Fair, Probably Needs Improveme 33 Format 1/2/3/4 MC 1 Rank 1, 2, 3, 4 35-44 64-25-10- Liberal 59-29-12- 92646 59-28-12- Res: 5-10 Yrs 58-30-12- College Graduate 58-27-13- 92649 57-32-10- Res: 10-15 Yrs 57-22-16- Men 57-29-15- Renters 56-31- 9- Republican 56-33-11- 18-34 55-29-16- Kids 08 a home 54-31-15- 65+ 54-31-12- Independent 53-26-16- Very Conservative 53-31-13- work Outside Home 53-32-15- Nt wk Outsde Home 53-34-11- Aggregate 53-33-13- Final Vote:No 53-32-14- Res: 15-25 Yrs 52-38-10- Neither Con/Lib 52-31-15- Res: < 5 Yrs 45-54 52-32-13- 51-33-16- Res: 25+ Yrs 51-34-14- Finat Vote:Yes 51-38-11- Some Colt/Vac 51-36-12- Post-Grad Degree 51-33-16- women 49-38-12- 92648 49-40-10- Somewhat Consery 49-38-13- Demoerat 48-36-15- HS or Less 48-40-10- 55-64 46-41-13- 92647 45-35-19- 0 55-64 46-41.13- 92648 49-40-10- HS or Less 48-40-10- Res: 15-25 Yrs 52-38-10- Final Vote:Yes 51-38.11- women 49-38-12- Somewhat Consery 49-38-13- Democrat 48-36-15- Some Coll/Voc 51-36-12- 92647 45-35-19- Nt wk Outsde Home 53-34-11- Res: 25+ Yrs 51-34-14- Post-Grad Degree 51-33-16- Republican 56-33-11- Aggregate 53-33-13- 45-54 51-33-16- Res: < 5 Yrs 52-32-13- 92649 57-32-10- work outside Home 53-32-15- Final Vote:No 53-32-14- 55+ 54-31-12- Very Conservative 53-31-13- Renters 56-31- 9- Neither Con/Lib 52-31-15- Kids <18 a Home 54-31-15- Res: 5-10 Yrs 58-30-12- Liberal 59-29-12- 10-34 55-29-16- Men 57-29-15- 92646 59-28-12- College Graduate 58-27-13- independent 53-26-16- 35-44 64-25-10- Res: 10-15 Yrs 57-22-16- 3. Poor, aef Needs Improvement 13 4. No opinion 1 92647 45-35-19- Independent 53-26-16- Res: 10-15 Yrs 57-22-16- Post-Grad Degree 51-33-16- 45-54 51-33-16- 18-34 55-29-16- Kids <18 2 Home 54-31-15- Neither Con/Lib 52-31-15- Democrat 48-36-15- work Outside Home 53-32-15- Men 57-29-15- Res: 25+ Yrs 51-34-14- Final Vote:No 53-32-14- College Graduate 58-27-13- Somewhat Consery 49-38-13- Aggregate 53-33-13- Res: < 5 Yrs 52-32-13- 55-64 46-41-13- Very Conservative 53-31-13- 92646 59-28-12- Res: 5-10 Yrs 58-30-12- Some Call/Voc 51-36-12- Liberal 59-29-12- 65+ 54-31-12- women 49-38-12- Nt Wk. Outsde Home 53-34-11- Final Vote:Yes 51-38-11- Republican 56-33-11- 35-44 64-25-10- Res: 15-25 Yrs 52-38-10- 92649 - 57-32-10- HS or Less 48-40-10- 92648 49-40-10- Renters 56-31- 9- Res: 10-15 Yrs 57-22-16- Independent 53-26-16- 65+ 54.31.12- Res: < 5 Yrs 52-32-13- Renters 56-31- 9- Very Conservative 53-31-13- Neither Con/Lib 52-31-15- Nt wk Outsde Home 53-34-11- women 49-38-12- HS or Less 48-40-10- Some Cott/Voc 51-36-12- Final vote:ND 53-32-14- 92646 59-28-12- College Graduate 58-27-13- 92649 57-32-10- 55-64 46-41-13- Aggregate 53-33-13- 92648 49-40-10- Democrat 48-36-15- Res: 25+ Yrs 51-34-14- 92647 45-35-19- Somewhat Consery 49-38-13- Men 57-29-15- work Outside Home 53-32-15- Republican 56-33-11- 45-54 51-33-16- Res: 15-25 Yrs 52-38-10- 35-44 64-25-10- Post-Grad Degree 51-33-16- Res: 5-10 Yrs 58-30-12- Kids <18 2 Home 54-31-15- Liberal 59-29-12- Final Vote:Yes 51-38-11- 18-34 55-29-16- Lawrence Research CROSSTABS Huntington Beach / July 2001 Q. 18: Improvement: Street Lights Street Lights 1. Good, Improvement Not Needed 69 2. Fair, Probably Needs Improveme 25 Format 1/2/3/4 MC Rank 1, 2, 3, 4 Independent 79-19- 2- Very Conservative 77-16- 8- 65+ 76-19- 2- 45-54 73-22- 5- Final Vote:Yes 72-26- 2- Renters 72-25- 3- 92646 72-18- 9- Work outside Home 71-22- 6- Republican 71-24- 5- Res: 15-25 Yrs 71-28- 1- College Graduate 70-21- 8- Kids <18 a Home 70-26- 3- Men 70-23- 7- 92649 69-28- 1- Post-Grad Degree 69-27- 4- Res: 25+ Yrs 69-23- 6- Some CoLL/Voc 69-27- 3- Neither Con/Lib 69-24- 6- Aggregate 69-25- 5- Liberal 68-23- 9- Res: < 5 Yrs 68-23-10- 35-44 67-27- 6- Women 67-28- 4- Final Vote:No 67-25- 7- 92648 67-32- 1- Res: 5-10 Yrs 66-32- 2- Somewhat Consery 66-31- 3- HS or Less 65-27- 6- 92647 65-27- 7- Nt Wk Outsde Home 64-30- 4- 18-34 63-29- 8- Res: 10-15 Yrs 62-24-14- Democrat 62-33- 3- 55-64 61-33- 5- 55-64 61-33- 5- Democrat 62-33- 3- 92648 67-32- 1- Res: 5-10 Yrs 66-32- 2- Somewhat Consery 66-31- 3- Nt Wk Outsde Home 64-30- 4- 18-34 63-29- 8- Res: 15-25 Yrs 71-28- 1- Women 67-28- 4- 92649 69-28- 1- 92647 65-27- 7- HS or Less 65-27- 6- 35-44 67-27- 6- Some Coll/Vac 69-27- 3- Post-Grad Degree 69-27- 4- Kids 08 is Home 70-26- 3- FinaL Vote:Yes 72-26- 2- Aggregate 69-25- 5- FinaL Vote:No 67-25- 7- Renters 72-25- 3- Res: 10-15 Yrs 62-24-14- Neither Con/Lib 69-24- 6- Republican 71-24- 5- Liberal 68-23- 9- Res: < 5 Yrs 68-23-10- Res: 25+ Yrs 69-23- 6- Men 70-23- 7- Work Outside Home 71-22- 6- 45-54 73-22- 5- College Graduate 70-21- 8- 65+ 76-19- 2- Independent 79-19- 2- 92646 72-18- 9- Very Conservative 77-16- 8- Page 22 1318 i 3. Poor, Def Needs Improvement 4. No Opinion Res: 10-15 Yrs 62-24-14- 0 Res: < 5 Yrs 68-23-10- 0 Liberal 68-23- 9- 0 92646 72-18- 9- 1 18-34 63-29- 8- 0 Very Conservative 77-16- 8- 0 College Graduate 70-21- 8- 1 Men 70-23- 7- 1 92647 65-27- 7- 1 Final Vote:No 67-25- 7- 1 Work Outside Home 71-22- 6- 0 Res: 25+ Yrs 69-23- 6- 2 35-44 67-27- 6- 0 HS or Less 65-27- 6- 2 Neither Con/Lib 69-24- 6- 1 Aggregate 69-25- 5- 1 Republican 71-24- 5- 0 55-64 61-33- 5- 1 45-54 73-22- 5- 0 Post -Grad Degree 69-27- 4- 0 Nt Wk Outsde Home 64-30- 4- 2 Women 67-28- 4- 2 Kids <18 a2 Home 70-26- 3- 0 Democrat 62-33- 3- 2 Renters 72-25- 3- 0 Somewhat Consery 66-31- 3- 1 Some Coll/Voc 69-27- 3- 2 65+ 76-19- 2- 2 Independent 79-19- 2- 0 Final Vote:Yes 72-26- 2- 0 Res: 5-10 Yrs 66-32- 2- 0 92649 69-28- 1- 1 92648 67-32- 1- 0 Res: 15-25 Yrs 71-28- 1- 0 65+ 76-19- 2- 2 Democrat 62-33- 3- 2 Res: 25+ Yrs 69-23- 6- 2 HS or Less 65-27- 6- 2 Some CoIL/Voc 69-27- 3- 2 Nt Wk Outsde Home 64-30- 4- 2 Women 67-28- 4- 2 final Vote:No 67-25- 7- 1 92646 72-18- 9- 1 92649 69-28- 1- 1 55-64 61-33- 5- 1 Somewhat Consery 66-31- 3- 1 Neither Can/Lib 69-24- 6- 1 Aggregate 69-25- 5- 1 92647 65-27- 7- 1 College Graduate 70-21- 8- 1 lien 70-23- 7- 1 Work Outside Home 71-22- 6- 0 Kids 08 as Home 70-26- 3- 0 92648 67-32- 1- 0 Res: 15-25 Yrs 71-28- 1- 0 Post -Grad Degree 69-27- 4- 0 Renters 72-25- 3-f Res: < 5 Yrs 68-23-10- 0 35-44 67-27- 6- 0 45-54 73-22- 5- 0 18-34 63-29- 8- 0 Independent 79-19- 2- 0 Very Conservative 77-16- 8- 0 Res: 5-10 Yrs 66-32- 2- 0 Res: 10-15 Yrs 62-24-14- 0 Liberal 68-23- 9- 0 Final Vote:Yes 72-26- 2- 0 Republican 71-24- 5- 0 •Lawrence Research CROSSTABS Page 23 Huntington Beach / July 2001 1318 0 Q. 19: Improvement: Street Trees Street Trees 1. Good, Improvement Not Needed 54 2. Fair, Probably Needs Improveme 29 Format 1/2/3/4 MC Rank 1, 2, 3, 4 92649 69-18-11- 1 HS or Less 63-17-17- 2 Res: 10-15 Yrs 62-27-11- 0 35-44 61-24-15- 0 Liberal 61-28-12- 0 Neither Con/Lib 60-25-14- 1 45-54 60-21-16- 4 College Graduate 59-30-10- 1 Kids <18 a Home 57-26-16- 0 Res: 15-25 Yrs 57-31- 9- 3 Work Outside Home 57-27-15- 1 Very Conservative 56-25-17- 2 Res: 5-10 Yrs 56-32-12- 0 92648 56-32- 8- 4 Independent 56-35- 7- 2 Republican 55-27-16- 1 Women 55-29-15- 2 Final Vote:Yes 55-31-11- 3 Res: < 5 Yrs 55-35- 6- 3 Final Vote:No 55-27-16- 2 Aggregate 54-29-15- 2 Democrat 54-30-13- 2 Renters 53-38- 9- 0 Men 53-30-15- 3 65+ 52-29-15- 4 92646 52-31-15- 2 Nt Wk Outsde Home 51-32-14- 3 Res: 25+ Yrs 50-27-21- 2 18-34 50-45- 5- 0 Some Coll/Voc 49-29-20- 2 55-64 48-35-16--0 Somewhat Consery 47-34-16- 4 Post -Grad Degree 45-37-13- 4 92647 45-32-22- 1 • 18-34 50-45- 5- Renters 53-38- 9- Post-Grad Degree 45-37-13- Res: < 5 Yrs 55-35- 6- 55-64 48-35-16- independent 56-35- 7- Somewhat Consery 47-34-16- Nt Wk Outsde Home 51-32-14- 92648 56-32- 8- 92647 45-32-22- Res: 5-10 Yrs 56-32-12- 92646 52-31-15- Res: 15-25 Yrs 57-31- 9- Final Vote:Yes 55-31-11- Democrat 54-30-13- Men 53-30-15- College Graduate 59-30-10- Aggregate 54-29-15- Some Coll/Voc 49-29-20- 65+ 52-29-15- Women 55-29-15- Liberal 61-28-12- Republican 55-27-16- Res: 10-15 Yrs 62-27-11- Final Vote:No 55-27-16- Res: 25+ Yrs 50-27-21- Work Outside Home 57-27-15- Kids <18 @ Home 57-26-16- Neither Con/Lib 60-25-14- Very Conservative 56-25-17- 35-44 61-24-15- 45-54 60-21-16- 92649 69-18-11- HS or Less 63-17-17- 3. Poor, Def Needs Improvement 15 4. No Opinion 2 0 92647 45-32-22- 0 Res: 25+ Yrs 50-27-21- 4 Some Coll/Voc 49-29-20- 3 HS or Less 63-17-17- 0 Very Conservative 56-25-17- 2 55-64 48-35-16- 4' Final Vote:No 55-27-16- 3 Republican 55-27-16- 4 Kids <18 is Home 57-26-16- 1 45-54 60-21-16- 0 Somewhat Consery 47-34-16- 2 Work Outside Home 57-27-15- 3 Women 55-29-15- 3 35-44 61-24-15- 2 92646 52-31-15- 3 65+ 52-29-15- 1 Aggregate 54-29-15- 2 men 53-30-15- 2 Nt Wk Outsde Home 51-32-14- 4 Neither Con/Lib 60-25-14- 2 Democrat 54-30-13- 0 Post -Grad Degree 45-37-13- 1 Res: 5-10 Yrs 56-32-12- 0 Liberal 61-28-12- 2 92649 69-18-11- 2 Final Vote:Yes 55-31-11- 1 Res: 10-15 Yrs 62-27-11- 0 College Graduate 59-30-10- 1 Renters 53-38- 9- 2 Res. 15-25 Yrs 57-31- 9- 0 92648 56-32- 8- 4 Independent 56-35- 7- 1 Res: < 5 Yrs 55-35- 6- 2 18-34 50-45. 5- 65+ 52-29-15- 4 Post -Grad Degree 45-37-13- 4 Somewhat Consery 47-34-16- 4 45-54 60-21-16- 4 92648 56-32- 8- 4 Res: < 5 Yrs 55-35- 6- 3 Final Vote:Yes 55-31-11- 3 Res: 15-25 Yrs 57-31- 9- 3 Nt Wk Outsde Home 51-32-14- 3 Men 53-30-15- 3 Independent 56-35- 7- 2 Democrat 54-30-13- 2 Res: 25+ Yrs 50-27-21- 2 92646 52-31-15- 2 Aggregate 54-29-15- 2 HS or Less 63-17-17- 2 Final Vote:No 55-27-16- 2 Some Colt/Voc 49-29-20- 2 Very Conservative 56-25-17- 2 Women 55-29-15- 2 College Graduate 59-30-10- 1 Work Outside Home 57-27-15- 1 Republican 55-27-16- 1 92649 69-18-11- 1 Neither Con/Lib 60-25-14- 1 92647 45-32-22- 1 Renters 53-38- 9- 0 35-44 61-24-15- 0 Kids <18 a Home 57-26-16- 0 18-34 50-45- 5- 0 Res: 10-15 Yrs 62-27-11- 0 Liberal 61-28-12- 0 Res: 5-10 Yrs 56-32-12- 0 55-64 48-35-16- 0 Lawrence Research CROSSTABS Page 24 Huntington Beach / July 2001 1318 Q. 20: Improvement: Block Walls Along Arterial Highways Block walls along arterial highways 1. Good, Improvement Not Needed 49 2. Fair, Probably Needs Improveme 37 Format 1/2/3/4 MC Rank 1, 2, 3, 4 Renters 63-31- 3- 3 35-44 58-31- 6- 4 Very Conservative 58-31- 5- 6 Res: 15-25 Yrs 57-33- 4- 6 College Graduate 54-32-10- 4 Independent 53-33- 5- 9 Work Outside Home 53-35- 8- 4 Men 53-35- 7- 6 92649 53-31- 7-10 Neither Con/Lib 52-38- 6- 5 Res: < 5 Yrs 52-32- 3-13 65+ 51-32- 8- 8 Liberal 51-42- 3- 4 HS or Less 50-38- 6- 6 92648 .50-39- 6- 5 92646 50-39- 5- 6 Kids <18 is Home 49-38- 7- 6 Final Vote:No 49-36- 8- 6 Aggregate 49-37- 8- 6 Res: 10-15 Yrs 49-41- 8- 3 Democrat 48-40- 7- 4 Republican 48-36- 9- 7 Final Vote:Yes 47-38- 9- 6 Res: 25+ Yrs 45-38-10- 7 Women 45-39-10- 7 55-64 44-35-15- 5 Res: 5-1D Yrs 44-40-12- 4 45-54 44-41- 7- 7 92647 44-36-16- 5 Some Coll/Voc 43-38-10- 8 Nt Wk Outsde Home 43-40- 8- 9 Post -Grad Degree 41-45- 5- 8 Somewhat Consery 41-38-13- 8 18-34 39-55- 3- 3 18-34 39-55- 3- 3 Post -Grad Degree 41-45- 5- 8 Liberal 51-42- 3- 4 45-54 44-41- 7- 7 Res: 10-15 Yrs 49-41- 8- 3 Democrat 48-40- 7- 4 Nt Wk Outsde Home 43-40- 8- 9 Res: 5-10 Yrs 44-40-12- 4 92648 50-39- 6- 5 92646 50-39- 5- 6 Women 45-39-10- 7 HS or Less 50-38- 6- 6 Some Coll/Voc 43-38-10- 8 Somewhat Consery 41-38-13- 8 Final Vote:Yes 47-38- 9- 6 Neither Con/Lib 52-38- 6- 5 Kids <18 @ Home 49-38- 7- 6 Res: 25+ Yrs 45-38-10- 7 Aggregate 49-37- 8- 6 Final Vote:No 49-36- 8- 6 Republican 48-36- 9- 7 92647 44-36-16- 5 55-64 44-35-15- 5 Men 53-35- 7- 6 Work Outside Home 53-35- 8- 4 Res: 15-25 Yrs 57-33- 4- 6 independent 53-33- 5- 9 College Graduate 54-32-10- 4 Res: < 5 Yrs 52-32- 3-13 65+ 51-32- 8- 8 35-44 58-31- 6- 4 Renters 63-31- 3- 3 Very Conservative 58-31-:5- 6 92649 53-31- 7-10 3. Poor, Def Needs Improvement 8 4. No opinion 6 92647 44-36-16- 5 55-64 44-35-15- 5 Somewhat Consery 41-38-13- 8 Res: 5-10 Yrs 44-40-12- 4 Res: 25+ Yrs 45-38-10- 7 Women 45-39-10- 7 Some Coll/Voc 43-38-10- 8 College Graduate 54-32-10- 4 Republican 48-36- 9- 7 Final Vote:Yes 47-38- 9- 6 Work Outside Home 53-35- 8- 4 Final Vote:No 49-36- 8- 6 Nt Wk Outsde Home 43-40- 8- 9 65+ 51-32- 8- 8 Aggregate 49-37- 8- 6 Res: 10-15 Yrs 49-41- 8- 3 45-54 44-41- 7- 7 92649 53-31- 7-10 Kids <18 2 Home 49-38- 7- 6 Democrat 48-40- 7- 4 Men 53-35- 7- 6 35-44 58-31- 6- 4 92648 50-39- 6- 5 HS or Less 50-38- 6- 6 Neither Con/Lib 52-38- 6- 5 Post -Grad Degree 41-45- 5- 8 92646 50-39- 5- 6 Very Conservative 58-31- 5- 6 Independent 53-33- 5- 9 Res: 15-25 Yrs 57-33- 4- 6 Res: < 5 Yrs 52-32- 3-13 Renters 63-31- 3- 3 Liberal 51-42- 3- 4 18-34 39-55- 3- 3 Res: < 5 Yrs 52-32- 3-13 92649 53-31- 7-10 Independent 53-33- 5- 9 Nt Wk Outsde Home 43-40- 8- 9 Some Coll/Voc 43-38-10- 8 65+ 51-32- 8- 8 Somewhat Consery 41-38-13- 8 Post -Grad Degree 41-45- 5- 8 45-54 44-41- 7- 7 Republican 48-36- 9- 7 Women 45-39-10- 7 Res: 25+ Yrs 45-38-1D- 7 92646 50-39- 5- 6 Very Conservative 58-31- 5- 6 Aggregate 49-37- 8- 6 Final Vote:No 49-36- 8- 6 Final Vote:Yes 47-38- 9- 6 Res: 15-25 Yrs 57-33- 4- 6 HS or Less 50-38- 6- 6 Kids <18 8 Home 49-38- 7- 6 Men 53-35- 7- 6 55-64 44-35-15 92647- 5 92647 44-36-16- 92648 50-39- 6- 5 Neither Con/Lib 52-38- 6- 5 Democrat 48-40- 7- 4 35-44 58-31- 6- 4 Liberal 51-42- 3- 4 College Graduate 54-32-10- 4 Res: 5-10 Yrs 44-40-12- 4 work Outside Home 53-35- 8- 4 Renters 63-31- 3- 3 Res: 10-15 Yrs 49-41- 8- 3 18-34 39-55- 3- 3 0 0 Lawrence Research CROSSTABS Page 25 Huntington Beach / July 2001 1318 Q. 21: Improvement:: Public Buildings Public buildings 1. Good, Improvement Not Needed 62 3. Poor, oef Needs Improvement S 2. Fair, Probably Needs Improveme 29 4.ANo opinion 4 Format 1/2/3/4 MC 1 Rank 1, 2, 3, 4 45-54 71-23- 5- 1 Very Conservative 67-20- 8- 5 Res: 15-25 Yrs 66-26- 5- 3 65+ 64-24- 4- 7 Republican 64-26- 7- 4 Some Cott/Voc 63-28- 3- 6 92648 63-31- 4- 2 Final Vote:Yes 63-28- 5- 4 Democrat 63-30- 2- 4 Res: 25+ Yrs 63-30- 5- 3 92649 63-28- 3- 7 Women 63-30- 5- 4 College Graduate 62-26- 6- 6 Aggregate 62-29- 5- 4 92646 62-27- 7- 4 Nt Wk Outsde Home 62-29- 4- 6 Work Outside Home 62-30- 6- 3 Men 61-29- 6- 5 Neither Con/Lib 61-31- 2- 6 Liberal 61-30- 3- 6 18-34 61-34- 3- 3 Final Vote:No 92647 60-30- 60-31- 5- 4 5- 4 Res: 5-10 Yrs 60-30- 6- 4 Somewhat Consery 60-31- 6- 3 Kids <18 al Home 60-36- 3- 1 HS or Less 58-37- 4- 2 Post -Grad Degree 57-33- 8- 1 Res: 10-15 Yrs 57-27- 5-11 independent 56-37- 0- 7 35-44 55-36- 6- 3 55-64 54-33- 8- 5 Res: c 5 Yrs 52-35- 3-10 Renters 50-41- 3- 6 0 Renters 50-41- 3- 6 Independent 56-37- 0- 7 HS or Less 58-37- 4- 2 35-44 55-36- 6- 3 Kids <18 a Nome 60-36- 3. 1 Res: < 5 Yrs 52-35- 3-10 14-34 61-34- 3. 3 Post -Grad Degree 57-33- 8- 1 55-64 54-33- 8- 5 92647 60-31- 5- 4 Neither Con/Lib 61-31- 2- 6 92648 63-31- 4- 2 Somewhat Consery 60-31- 6- 3 Liberal 61-30- 3- 6 Democrat 63-30- 27 4 Final Vote:No 60-30- 5- 4 Res: 5-10 Yrs 60-30- 6- 4 Res: 25+ Yrs 63-30- 5- 3 Work outside Home 62-30- 6- 3 Women 63-30- 5- 4 Aggregate 62-29- 5- 4 Nt Wk Outede Home 62-29- 4- 6 Mtn 61-29- 6- 5 Some Coll/Voc 63-28- 3- 6 Final Vote:Yes 63-28- 5- 4 92649 63-28- 3- 7 Res: 10-15 Yrs 57-27- 5-11 92646 62-27- 7- 4 College Graduate 62-26- 6- 6 Res: 15-25 Yrs 66-26- 5- 3 Republican 64-26- 7- 4 65+ 64-24- 4- 7 45-54 71-23- 5- 1 Very Conservative 67-20- 8- 5 Post -Grad Degree 57-33- 8- 1 Very Conservative 67-20- 8- 5 55-64 54-33- 8- 5 92646 62-27- 7- 4 Republican 64-26- 7- 4 College Graduate 62-26- 6- 6 Somewhat Consery 60-31. 6- 3 York Outside Home 62-30- 6- 3 Res: 5-10 Yrs 60-30- 6- 4 35-44 55-36- 6- 3 Men 61-29- 6- 5 Final Vote:No 60-30- 5- 4 Res: 1D-15 Yrs 57-27- 5-11 Final Vote:Yes 63-28- 5- 4 Aggregate 62-29- 5- 4 Res: 15-25 Yrs 66-26- 5- 3 Res: 25+ Yrs 63-30- 5- 3 45-54 71-23- 5- 1 92647 60-31- 5- 4 Women 63-30- 5- 4 65+ 64-24- 4- 7 Nt Wk Outsde Home 62-29- 4- 6 HS or Less 58-37- 4- 2 92648 63-31- 4- 2 Kids <18 is Home 60-36- 3- 1 Res: < 5 Yrs 52-35- 3-10 Renters 50-41- 3- 6 Liberal 61-30- 3- 6 92649 63-28- 3- 7 18-34 61-34- 3- 3 Some Coll/Voc 63-28- 3- 6 Neither Con/Lib 61-31- 2- 6 Democrat 63-30- 2- 4 Independent 56-37- 0- 7 Res: 10-15 Yrs 57-27- Res: < 5 Yrs 52-35- 65+ 64-24- Independent 56-37- 92649 63-2B- Renters 50-41- Some Coll/Voc 63-28- Liberal 61-30- Neither Con/Lib 61-31- College Graduate 62-26- Nt Wk Outsde Home 62-29- 55-64 54-33- Men 61-29- Very Conservative 67-20- Democrat 63-30- 92646 62-27- Aggregate 62-29- Final Vote:No 60-30- Res: 5-10 Yrs 60-30- Final Vote:Yes 63-28- 92647 60-31- Republican 64-26- Women 63-30- Somewhat Consery 60-31- Res: 15-25 Yrs 66-26- 35-44 55-36- Work Outside Home 62-30- Res: 25+ Yrs 63-30- 18-34 61-34- 92648 63-31- HS or Less 58-37- Post-Grad Degree 57-33- 45-54 . 71-23- Kids <18 is Home 60-36- 5-11 3-10 4- 7 0- 7 3- 7 3- 6 3- 6 3- 6 2- 6 6- 6 4- 6 8- 5 6- 5 8- S 2- 4 7- 4 5- 4 5- 4 6- 4 5- 4 5- 4 7- 4 5- 4 6- 3 5- 3 6- 3 6- 3 5- 3 3- 3 4- 2 4- 2 8- 1 5- 1 3- 1 Lawrence Research CROSSTABS Page 26 Huntington Beach / July 2001 1318 Q. 22: Improvement: Beach Facilities Beach Facilities 1. Good, Improvement Not Needed 48 2. Fair, Probably Needs Improveme=36 Format 1/2/3/4 MC Rank 1, 2, 3, 4 Final Vote:Yes 57-31- 9- 3 Res: 15-25 Yrs 56-29-11- 4 55-64 56-33- 9- 3 very Conservative 55-27-16- 3 65+ 53-24-13-10 Nt Wk Outsde Home 52-31-11- 6 92646 52-31-11- 6 College Graduate 51-35-11- 2 92649 51-35-13- 1 Independent 51-33-12- 5 Res: 25+ Yrs 50-33-13- 4 HS or Less 50-35-13- 2 Republican 49-33-14- 4 Men 49-37-11- 4 Aggregate 48-36-12- 4 Somewhat Consery 48-37- 9- 6 Women 47-35-14- 5 Liberal 46-39-12- 3 Post -Grad Degree 45-31-20- 4 92647 45-42- 9- 5 Final Vote:No 44-39-14- 3 Kids 08 2 Home 44-41-15- 0 Work Outside Home 44-40-14- 3 Some Coll/Voc 43-41- 8- 8 35-44 43-39-16- 1 Res: 10-15 Yrs 43-49- 8- 0 Democrat 43-44-10- 3 92648 42-37-18- 4 45-54 40-46-11- 2 Neither Can/Lib 40-41-15- 3 18-34 39-47-13- 0 Res: 5-10 Yrs 36-50-12- 2 Res: < 5 Yrs 32-35-19-13 Renters 31-44-19- 6 Res: 5-10 Yrs 36-50-12- 2 Res: 10-15 Yrs 43-49- 8- 0 18-34 39-47-13- 0 45-54 40-46-11- 2 Democrat 43-44-10- 3 Renters 31-44-19- 6 92647 45-42- 9- 5 Kids 08 a Home 44-41-15- 0 Neither Con/Lib 40-41-15- 3 Some Coll/Voc 43-41- 8- 8 Work Outside Home 44-40-14- 3 Liberal 46-39-12- 3 Final Vote:No 44-39-14- 3 35-44 43-39-16- 1 92648 42737-18- 4 Somewhat Consery 48-37- 9- 6 Men 49-37-11- 4 Aggregate 48-36-12- 4 Res: < 5 Yrs 32-35-19-13 College Graduate 51-35-11- 2 Women 47-35-14- 5 92649 51-35-13- 1 HS or Less 50-35-13- 2 Republican 49-33-14- 4 Res: 25+ Yrs 50-33-13- 4 55-64 56-33- 9- 3 Independent 51-33-12- 5 92646 52-31-11- 6 Final Vote:Yes 57-31- 9- 3 Post -Grad Degree 45-31-20- 4 Nt Wk outsde Home 52-31-11- 6 Res: 15-25 Yrs 56-29-11- 4 Very Conservative 55-27-16- 3 65+ 53-24-13-10 3. Poor, Def Needs Improvement 12 4. No Opinion 4 Post -Grad Degree 45-31-20- 4 Res: < 5 Yrs 32-35-19-13 Renters 31-44-19- 6 92648 42-37-18- 4 35-44 43-39-16- 1 Very Conservative 55-27-16- 3 Neither Can/Lib 40-41-15- 3 Kids <18 @ Home 44-41-15- 0 Republican 49-33-14- 4 Work Outside Home 44-40-14- 3 Final Vote:No 44-39-14- 3 Women 47-35-14- 5 HS or Less 50-35-13- 2 65+ 53-24-13-10 18-34 39-47-13- 0 Res: 25+ Yrs 50-33-13- 4 92649 51-35-13- 1 Aggregate 48-36-12- 4 Res: 5-10 Yrs 36-50-12- 2 Independent 51-33-12- 5 Liberal 46-39-12- 3 92646 52-31-11- 6 College Graduate 51-35-11- 2 Nt Wk outsde Home 52-31-11- 6 Men 49-37-11- 4 Res: 15-25 Yrs 56-29-11- 4 45-54 40-46-11- 2 Democrat 43-44-10- 3 Somewhat Consery 48-37- 9- 6 Final Vote:Yes 57-31- 9- 3 55-64 56-33- 9- 3 92647 45-42- 9- 5 Some Coll/Voc 43-41- 8- 8 Res: 10-15 Yrs 43-49- 8- 0 Res: < 5 Yrs 32-35-19-13 65+ 53-24-13-10 Some Coll/Voc 43-41- 8- 8 Renters 31-44-19- 6 Somewhat Consery 48-37- 9- 6 Nt Wk Outsde Home 52-31-11- 6 92646 52-31-11- 6 92647 45-42- 9- 5 Independent 51-33-12- 5 Women 47-35-14- 5 Res: 25+ Yrs 50-33-13- 4 Aggregate 48-36-12- 4 Res: 15-25 Yrs 56-29-11- 4 Men 49-37-11- 4 Post -Grad Degree 45-31-20- 4 Republican 49-33-14- 4 92648 42-37-18- 4 Neither Con/Lib 40-41-15- 3 Democrat 43-44-10- 3 Final Vote:No 44-39-14- 3 Very Conservative 55-27-16- 3 Final Vote:Yes 57-31- 9- 3 Liberal 46-34-12- Work Outside Home 44-40-14- 3 55-64 56-33- 9- 3 45-54 40-46-11- 2 College Graduate 51-35-11- 2 Res: 5-10 Yrs 36-50-12- 2 HS or Less 50-35-13- 2 35-44 43-39-16- 1 92649 51-35-13- 1 Kids 08 a Home 44-41-15- 0 18-34 39-47-13- 0 Res: 10-15 Yrs 43-49- 8- 0 • 0 Lawrence Research CROSSTABS Page 27 • Huntington Beach / July 2001 Q. 23: Improvement: Park Facilities Park Facilities 1. Good, Improvement Not Needed 64 2. Fair, Probably Needs Improveme 28 Format 1/2/3/4 MC Rank 1, 2, 3, 4 Renters 75-22- 3- 92649 74-18- 7- Res: 10-15 Yrs 73-22- 5- Liberal 72-26- 1- 65+ 69-23- 6- final vote -Yes 69-26- 4- Democrat 69-27- 3- Nt Wk Outsde Home 68-27- 5- 55-64 67-25- 6- Men 66-26- 7- Res: 5-10 Yrs 66-28- 4- Res: 25+ Yrs 66-23-10- Very Consorvative 66-23- 9- Independent 65-33- 2- Some Colt/vac 65-28- 5- College Graduate 65-25- 9- Republican 64-26- 8- 92648 64-33- 2- Aggregate 64-28- 7- 92647 63-28- 8- Post-Grad Degree 63-31. 7. Women 63-30- 7- Final Vote:Na 62-29- 7- Somewhat Consery 62-33- 4- Res: < 5 Yrs 61-29-10- 45-54 61-32- 7- Neither Con/Lib 61-29-10- Kids <18 9 Home 61-34- 5- Work Outside Home 61-30- 8- 18-34 61-37- 3- 92646 60-30- 9- 35-44 60-31- 7- HS or Les$ 60-37- 2- Res: 15-25 Yrs 58-40- 1- Res: 15-25 Yrs 58-40- 1- 18-34 61-37- 3- HS or Less 60-37- 2- Kids <18 @ Home 61-34- 5- 92648 64-33- 2- Independent 65-33- 2- Somewhat Consery 62-33- 4- 45-54 61-32- 7- 35-44 60-31- 7- Post-Grad Degree 63-31- 7- Women 63-30- 7- 92646 60-30- 9- Work Outside Home 61-30- 8- FinaL Vote:No 62-29- 7- Res: < 5 Yrs 61-29-10- Neither Con/Lib 61-29-10- Some CoLL/Voc 65-28- 5- 92647 63-28- 8- Aggregate 64-28- 7- Res: 5-10 Yrs 66-28- 4- Democrat 69-27- 3- Nt Wk Outsde Home 68-27- 5- Liberal 72-26- 1- Men 66-26- 7- Final Vote:Yes 69-26- 4- Republican 64-26- 8- College Graduate 65-25- 9- 55-64 67-25- 6- Very Conservative 66-23- 9- 65+ 69-23- 6- Res: 25+ Yrs 66-23-10- Renters 75-22- 3- Res: 10-15 Yrs 73-22- 5- 92649 74-18- 7- 1318 3. Poor, fief Needs Improvement 7 4. No opinion 1 Res: 25+ Yrs 66-23-10- Neither Can/Lib 61-29-10- Res: < 5 Yrs 61-29-10- Very Conservative 66-23- 9- College Graduate 65-25- 9- 92646 60-30- 9- Work Outside Home 61-30- 8- Republican 64-26- 8- 92647 63-28- 8- 35-44 60-31- 7- 45-54 61-32- ]- Final Vote:No 62-29- 7- Men 66-26- 7- 92649 74-18- 7- Aggregate 64-28- 7- Post-Grad Degree 63-31- 7- Women 63-30- 7- 55-64 67-25- 6- 65+ 69-23- 6- Res: 10-15 Yrs 73-22- 5- Some Coll/Voc 65-28- 5- Nt Wk Outsde Home 68-27- 5- Kids <18 2 Home 61-34- 5- somewhat Consery 62-33- 4- Final Vote:Yes 69-26- 4- Res: 5-10 Yrs 66-28- 4- Democrat 69-27- 3- Renters 75-22- 3- 18-34 61-37- 3- 92648 64-33- 2- independent 65-33- 2- HS or Less 60-37- 2- Liberal 72-26- 1- Res: 15-25 Yrs 58-40- 1- Res: 5-10 Yrs 66-28- 4- HS or less 60-37- 2- Some Call/Voc 65-28- 5- 65+ ' 69-23- 6- Very Conservative 66-23- 9- 35-44 60-31- 7- 92646 60-30- 9- Work Outside Home 61-30- 8- Republican 64-26- 8- 92649 74-18- 7- 55-64 67-25- 6- Somewhat Consery 62-33- 4- Democrat 69-27- 3- Res: 25+ Yrs 66-23-10- Final Vote:No 62-29- 7- Women 63-30- 7- Res: 15-25 Yrs 58-40- 1- Aggregate 64-28- 7- Men 66-26- 7- Final Vote:Yes 69-26- 4- 92647 63-28- 8- College Graduate 65-25- 9- Nt Wk Outsde Home 68-27- 5- Kids <18 a Home 61-34- 5- Post-Grad Degree 63-31- 7- Res: 10-15 Yrs 73-22- 5- 18-34 61-37- 3- 92648 64-33- 2- Res: < 5 Yrs 61-29-10- Renters 75-22- 3- Independent 65-33- 2- Liberal 72-26- 1- 45-54 61-32- 7- Neither Con/Lib 61-29-10- Lawrence Research CROSSTABS Page 28 Huntington Beach / July 2001 1318 Q. 24: Improvement: Water System Water System 1. Good, Improvement Not Needed 45 3. Poor, Def Needs Improvement 15 2. Fair, Probably Needs Improveme 37 4. No Opinion 4 Format 1/2/3/4 MC Rank 1, 2, 3, 4 18-34 53-37- 8- 3 Nt Wk outsde Home 50-31-13- 6 65+ 50-27-17- 7 Res: 15-25 Yrs 49-36-12- 3 Republican 49-34-13- 4 Very Conservative 48-31-19- 2 HS or Less 48-35-13- 4 Final Vote:Yes 48-43- 8- 1 Res: 25+ Yrs 48-32-15- 4 Some Coll/Voc 47-37-12- 5 92647 47-34-15- 5 independent 47-33-16- 5 92648 46-37-15- 1 Somewhat Consery 46-36-14- 4 35-44 45-40-15- 0 Aggregate 45-37-15- 4 Men 45-42-12- 2 Women 45-33-18- 6 92649 44-43- 8- 4 Neither Con/Lib 44-40-13- 3 College Graduate 43-36-18- 4 Final Vote:No 42-36-17- 5 92646 42-37-17- 4 Post -Grad Degree 41-41-15- 3 Res: 10-15 Yrs 41-46-14- 0 55-64 41-41-16- 3 Res: 5-10 Yrs 40-44-10- 6 Work outside Home 39-42-16- 2 Kids <18 & Home 39-44-13- 5 Renters 38-38-25- 0 Democrat 37-45-16- 2 45-54 37-46-12- 5 Liberal 36-45-12- 7 Res: < 5 Yrs 23-48-26- 3 Res: < 5 Yrs 23-48-26- 45-54 37-46-12- Res: 10-15 Yrs 41-46-14- Democrat 37-45-16- Liberal 36-45-12- Res: 5-10 Yrs 40-44-10- Kids 08 a Home 39-44-13- 92649 44-43- 8- Final Vote:Yes 48-43- 8- work Outside Home 39-42-16- Men 45-42-12- Post-Grad Degree 41-41-15- 55-64 41-41-16- 35-44 45-40-15- Neither Con/Lib 44-40-13- Renters 38-38-25- Aggregate 45-37-15- 92648 46-37-15- 92646 42-37-17- 18-34 53-37- 8- Some Coll/Voc 47-37-12- Final Vote:No 42-36-17- Somewhat Consery 46-36-14- Res: 15-25 Yrs 49-36-12- College Graduate 43-36-18- HS or Less 48-35-13- Republican 49-34-13- 92647 47-34-15- Independent 47-33-16- Women 45-33-18- Res: 25+ Yrs 48-32-15- Very Conservative 48.31-19- Nt Wk Outsde Home 50-31-13- 65+ 50-27-17- 3 Res: < 5 Yrs 23-48-26- 3 5 Renters 38-38-25- 0 0 Very Conservative 48-31-19- 2 2 College Graduate 43-36-18- 4 7 women 45-33-18- 6 6 92646 42-37-17- 4 5 Final Vote:No 42-36-17- 5 4 65+ 5G-27-17- 7 1 55-64 41-41-16- 3 2 work Outside Home 39-42-16- 2 2 Independent 47-33-16- 5 3 Democrat 37-45-16- 2 3 92648 46-37-15- 1 0 Res: 25+ Yrs 48-32-15- 4 3 35-44 45-40-15- 0 0 Post -Grad Degree 41-41-15- 3 4 92647 47-34-15- 5 1 Aggregate 45-37-15- 4 4 Somewhat Consery 46-36-14- 4 3 Res: 10-15 Yrs 41-46-14- 0 5 HS or Less 48-35-13- 4 5 Republican 49-34-13- 4 4 Nt Wk Outsde Home 50-31-13- 6 3 Neither Con/Lib 44-40-13- 3 4 Kids <18 2 Home 39-44-13- 5 4 45-54 37-46-12- 5 4 Res: 15-25 Yrs 49-36-12- 3 5 Some Coll/Voc 47-37-12- 5 5 Liberal 36-45-12- 7 6 Men 45-42-12- 2 4 Res: 5-10 Yrs 40-44-10- 6 2 92649 44-43- 8- 4 6 Final Vote:Yes 48-43- 8- 1 7 18-34 53-37- 8- 3 Liberal 36-45-12- 65+ 50-27-17- Nt Wk Outsde Home 50-31-13- Res: 5-10 Yrs 40-44-10- Women 45-33-18- Some Colt/Voc 47-37-12- 45-54 37-46-12- 92647 47-34-15- Final Vote:No 42-36-17- Independent 47-33-16- Kids <18 a Home 39-44-13- Res: 25+ Yrs 48-32-15- 92646 42-37-17- Republican 49-34-13- 92649 44-43- 8- HS or Less 48-35-13- Somewhat Consery 46-36-14- Aggregate 45-37-15- College Graduate 43-36-18- Neither Con/Lib 44-40-13- Res: < 5 Yrs 23-48-26- Res: 15-25 Yrs 49-36-12- Post -Grad Degree 41-41-15- 18-34 53-37- 8- 55-64 41-41-16- Democrat 37-45-16- Men 45-42-12- Work Outside Home 39-42-16- Very Conservative 48-31-19- 92648 46-37-15- Final Vote:Yes 48-43- 8- 35-44 45-40-15- Renters 38-38-25- Res: 10-15 Yrs 41-46-14- 0 • C7 Lawrence Research CROSSTABS Page 29 Huntington Beach / July 2001 1318 Q. 28: Name IA: Huntington Beach Chamber of Commerce I will now read you some names of groups or organizations. Please tell me for each one wheter you've heard of that group or organization. Then, if so, please tell me whether your impression is ... strongly favorable, somewhat favorable, somewhat unfavorable or strongly unfavorable. Huntington Beach Chamber of Commerce 1. Strongly Favorable 20 2. somewhat Favorable 44 3. Somewhat Unfavorable 9 Format 1/2/3/4 MC Rank 1, 2, 3, 4 Final Vote:Yes 31-42- 5- 3 Kids <18 a Home 28-43-13- 6 Res: 5-10 Yrs 26-42-10- 8 35-44 25-40- 9- 9 92648 25-38- 8- 5 92649 24-43-11- 4 HS or Less 23-35- 6- 6 College Graduate 23-46-11- 5 Women 23-43- 7- 5 Republican 22-44- 8- 3 Nt Wk Outsde Home 22-41- 7- 2 Very Conservative 22-41- 9- 3 Liberat 22-42-13- 4 Somewhat Consery 21-43- 6- 4 Independent 21-40- 5- 7 65+ 21-39- 7- 2 Res: 25+ Yrs : 20-43- 9- 5 20-45- 8- 4 Aggregate 20-44- 9- 4 45-54 20-46- 9- 5 Res: 15-25 Yrs 19-40-10- 4 Some Cotl/Voc 18-42- 8- 3 Work outside Home 18-46-10- 6 Men 17-45-10- 4 55-64 16-46-10- 5 Res: 10-15 Yrs 16-43-14- 3 Res: < 5 Yrs 16-55- 0- 3 18-34 16-58- 8- 0 Democrat 16-46-12- 7 Post -Grad Degree 15-48- 8- 4 Final Vote:No 15-46-10- 5 Neither Con/Lib 14-54- 9- 6 92647 13-50- 7- 3 Renters 13-44- 6- 3 18-34 16-58- 8- Res: < 5 Yrs 16-55- 0- Neither Con/Lib 14-54- 9- 92647 13-50- 7- Post-Grad Degree 15-48- 8- College Graduate 23-46-11- 45-54 20-46- 9- Democrat 16-46-12- Work Outside Home 18-46-10- Final Vote:No 15-46-10- 55-64 16-44-10- Res: 25+ Yrs 20-45- 8- Men 17-45-10- Republican 22-44- 8- Renters 13-44- 6- Aggregate 20-44- 9- 92646 20-43- 9- Res: 10-15 Yrs 16-43-14- Somewhat Consery 21-43- 6- 92649 24-43-11- women 23-43- 7- Kids <18 a Home 28-43-13- Liberal 22-42-13- Res: 5-10 Yrs 26-42-10- Final Vote:Yes 31-42- 5- Some Coll/Voc 18-42- 8- Very Conservative 22-41- 9- Nt Wk Outsde Home 22-41- 7- 35-44 25-40- 9- Res: 15-25 Yrs 19-40-10- Independent 21-40- 5- 65+ 21-39- 7- 92648 25-38- 8- HS or Less 23-35- 6- 4. Strongly Unfavorable 4 5. Heard / No Opinion 17 6. Never Heard of 7 0 Res: 10-15 Yrs 16-43-14- 3 3 Liberal 22-42-13- 4 6 Kids 08 a Home 28-43-13- 6 3 Democrat 16-46-12- 7 4 92649 24-43-11- 4 5 College Graduate 23-46-11- 5 5 Work Outside Home 18-46-10- 6 7 Finat Vote:No 15-46-10- 5 6 55-64 16-46-10- 5 5 Res: 5-10 Yrs 26-42-10- 8 5 Res: 15-25 Yrs 19-40-10- 4 4 Men 17-45-10- 4 4 Very Conservative 22-41- 9- 3 3 Neither Con/Lib 14-54- 9- 6 3 35-44 25-40- 9- 9 4 45-54 20-46- 9- 5 5 92646 20-43- 9- 5 3 Aggregate 20-44- 9- 4 4 Republican 22-44- 8- 3 4 92648 25-38- 8- 5 5 Post -Grad Degree 15-48- 8- 4 6 18-34 16-58- 8- 0 4 Res: 25+ Yrs 20-45- 8- 4 8 Some Coll/Voc 18-42- 8- 3 3 Women 23-43- 7- 5 3 92647 13-50- 7- 3 3 Nt Wk Outsde Home 22-41- 7- 2 2 65+ 21-39- 7- 2 9 Renters 13-44- 6- 3 4 HS or Less 23-35- 6- 6 7 Somewhat Consery 21-43- 6- 4 2 Final Vote:Yes 31-42- 5- 3 5 Independent 21-40- 5- 7 6 Res: < 5 Yrs 16-55- 0- 3 35-44 25-40- 9- 9 Res: 5-10 Yrs 26-42-10- 8 Ind "ndent 21-40- 5- 7 Democrat 16.46-12- 7 Work Outside Home 18-46-10- 6 HS or Less 23-35- 6- 6 Kids <18 a Home 28-43-13- 6 Neither Con/Lib 14-54- 9- 6 55-64 16-46-10- 5 Women 23-43- 7- 5 92646 20-43- 9- 5 College Graduate 23-46-11- 5 45-54 20-46- 9- 5 92648 25-38- 8- 5 Final Vote:No 15-46-10- 5 Liberat 22-42-13- 4 Aggregate 20-44- 9- 4 92649 24.43-11- 4 Post -Grad Degree 15-48- 8- 4 Res: 15-25 Yrs 19-40-10- 4 Res: 25+ Yrs 20-45- 8- 4 Somewhat Consery 21-43- 6- 4 Men 17-45-10- 4 Some Coll/Voc 18-4Z- 8- 3 Res: < 5 Yrs 16-55- 0- 3 Renters 13-44- 6- 3 Very Conservative 22.41- 9- 3 Final Vote:Yes 31-42- 5- 3 92647 13.50- 7- 3 Republican 22-44- 8- 3 Res: 10-15 Yrs 16-43-14- 3 65+ 21-39- 7- 2 Nt Wk Outsde Home 22-41- 7- 2 18-34 16-58- 8- 0 Lawrence Research CROSSTABS Page 30 Huntington Beach / July 2001 1318 Q. 28: Name ID: Huntington Beach Chamber of Commerce I will now read you some names of groups or organizations. Please tell me for each one wheter you've heard of that group or organization. Then, if so, please tell me whether your impression is ... strongly favorable, somewhat favorable, somewhat unfavorable or strongly unfavorable. Huntington Beach Chamber of Commerce 1. Strongly Favorable 20 2. Somewhat Favorable 44 3. Somewhat Unfavorable 4 Format 1+2/3+4/5/6 VIC 1 Rank 1+2, 3+4, 5, 6 16-34 74- 8-11- 8 Final Vote:Yes 73- 8-16- 3 Res: < 5 Yrs 71- 3-23- 3 Kids <18 a Home 70-18- 7- 5 College Graduate 69-15-12- 4 Res: 5-10 Yrs 68-18- 8- 6 Neither Con/Lib 68-15-13- 5 92649 67=15-13- 6 Republican 66-11-18- 5 45-54 66-13-17- 4 35-44 66-18-10- 6 women 66-12-15- 8 Somewhat Consery 64- 9-19- 7 Work Outside Home 64-16-14- 6 Res: 25+ Yrs 64-12-17- 7 Liberal 64-17-13- 6 Aggregate 64-13-17- 7 92646 63-13-16- 8 92648 63-13-18- 6 Nt Wk Outsde Home 63- 9-19- 9 post -Grad Degree 63-12-15-11 Very Conservative 63-13-17- 8 92647 62-10-19- 9 55-64 62-15-14- 9 Democrat 62-19-12- 7 Men 62-14-19- 7 independent 60-12-12-16 Final Vote:No 60-15-17- 8 Some colt/Voc 60-11-23- 6 65+ 60- 9-22- 9 Res: 10-15 Yrs 59-16-19- 5 Res: 15-25 Yrs 59-14-17-10 HS or Less 58-12-15-15 Renters 56- 9-28- 6 Democrat 62-19-12- 7 Kids 08 a Home 70-18- 7- 5 Res: 5-10 Yrs 68-18- 8- 6 35-44 66-18-10- 6 Liberal 64-17-13- 6 Work Outside Home 64-16-14- 6 Res: 10-15 Yrs 59-16-19- 5 College Graduate 69-15-12- 4 92649 67-15-13- 6 55-64 62-15-14- 9 Final Vote:No 60-15-17- 8 Neither Con/Lib 68-15-13- 5 Res: 15-25 Yrs 59-14-17-10 Men 62-14-19- 7 92646 63-13-16- 8 45-54 66-13-17- 4 92648 63-13-18- 6 Aggregate 64-13-17- 7 Very Conservative 63-13-17- 8 Post -Grad Degree 63-12-15-11 Women 66-12-15- 8 Independent 60-12-12-16 H5 or Less 58-12-15-15 Res: 25+ Yrs 64-12-17- 7 Republican 66-11-18- 5 Some Coll/Voc 60-11-23- 6 92647 62-10-19- 9 Renters 56- 9-28- 6 Somewhat Consery 64- 9-19- 7 65+ 60- 9-22- 9 Nt Wk Outsde Home 63- 9-19- 9 Final Vote:Yes 73- 8-16- 3 18-34 74- 8-11- 8 Res: < 5 Yrs 71- 3-23- 3 4. Strongly Unfavorable 4 S. Heard / No Opinion 17 6. Never Heard Of 7 Renters 56- 9-28- 6 Some Coll/Voc 60-11-23- 6 Res: < 5 Yrs 71- 3-23- 3 65+ 60- 9-22- 9 Nt Wk Outsde Hone 63- 9-19- 9 92647 62-10-19- 9 Somewhat Consery 64- 9-19- 7 Res: 10-15 Yrs 59-16-19- 5 Men 62-14-19- 7 92648 63-13-18- 6 Republican 66-11-18- 5 Very Conservative 63-13-17- 8 45-54 66-13-17- 4 Res: 25+ Yrs 64-12-17- 7 Res: 15-25 Yrs 59-14-17-10 Final Vote:No 60-15-17- 8 Aggregate 64-13-17- 7 Final Vote:Yes 73- 8-16- 3 92646 63-13-16- 8 HS or Less 58-12-15-15 Post -Grad Degree 63-12-15-11 Women 66-12-15- 8 55-64 62-15-14- 9 Work Outside Home 64-16-14- 6 Liberal 64-17-13- 6 Neither Con/Lib 68-15-13- 5 92649 67-15-13- 6 Democrat 62-19-12- 7 College Graduate 69-15-12- 4 Independent 60-12-12-16 18-34 74- 8-11- 8 35-44 66-18-10- 6 Res: 5-10 Yrs 68-18- 8- 6 Kids <18 a Home 70-18- 7- 5 • Independent 60-1Z-12-16 HS or Less 58-12-15-15 Post -Grad Degree 63-12-15-11 Res: 15-25 Yrs 59-14-17-10 65+ 60- 9-22- 9 Nt Wk Outsde Home 63- 9-19- 9 55-64 62-15-14- 9 92647 62-10-19- 9 Final Vote:No 60-15-17- 8 Women 66-12-15- 8 18-34 74- 8-11- 8 Very Conservative 63-13-17- 8 92646 63-13-16- 8 Aggregate 64-13-17- 7 Res: 25+ Yrs 64-12-17- 7 Somewhat Consery Democrat 64- 9-19- 62-19-12- 7 T Men 62-14-19- Renters 56- 9-28- 6 Res: 5-10 Yrs 68-18- 8- 6 35-44 66-18-10- 6 92648 63-13-18- 6 Some Colt/Voc 60-11-23- 6 Liberal 64-17-13- 6 work Outside Home 64-16-14- 6 92649 67-15-13- 6 Res: 10-15 Yrs 59-16-19- 5 Republican 66-11-18- 5 Kids <18 2 Home 70-18- 7- 5 Neither Can/Lib 68-15-13- 5 45-54 66-13-17- 4 College Graduate 69-15-12- 4 Res: < 5 Yrs 71- 3-23- 3 Final Vote:Yes 73- 8-16- 3 0 Lawrence Research CROSSTABS Page 31 Huntington Beach / July 2001 1318 29: Name ID: Huntington Beach Tomorrow Q. Huntington Beach Tomorrow 1. Strongly Favorable 9 4. Strongly Unfavorable 4 2. Somewhat Favorable 12 5. Heard / No Opinion 9 3. Somewhat Unfavorable 4 6. Never Heard Of 63 Format 1/2/3/4 MC 1 Rank 1, 2, 3, 4 Democrat 18-16- 2- 3 55-64 10-19- 6- 4 55.64 10-19- 6- 4 92649 8-14- 1- 8 Liberal 17-17- 1- 3 Liberal 17-17- 1- 3 Somewhat Consery 9- 9- 6- 4 Res: 25+ Yrs 12-12- 5- 7 92648 13-13- 5- 4 Post -Grad Degree 9-16- 5- 3 Final Vote:Yes 11-15- 6- 3 Very Conservative 5-11- 2- 6 Res: 25t Yrs 12-12- 5- 7 Res: 15-25 Yrs 9-16- 5- 0 Republican 6-10- 6- 4 HS or Less 6-12- 2- 6 Nt Wk Dutsde Home 12. 9. 4- 4 Democrat 18-16- 2- 3 Post -Grad Degree 9-16- 5- 3 45-54 10-10- 4- 5 Women 12-10- 4- 3 Renters 0-16- 0- 0 18-34 8-11- 5- 0 Men 7-14- 5- 5 Final vote:Yes 11-15- 6- 3 Final Vote:Yes 11-15- 6- 3 Res: 15-25 Yrs 9-16- 5- 0 35-44 4- 6- 1- 4 55-64 10-19- 6- 4 92647 7-15- 4- 1 92646 9- 8- 5- 3 College Graduate 10-10- 4- 4 65+ 10-11- 3- 3 Independent 5-14- 0- 0 Res: 25+ Yrs 12-12- 5- 7 Republican 6-10- 6- 4 College Graduate 10-10- 4- 4 92649 8-14- 1- 8 92648 13-13- 5- 4 Nt Wk Outsde Home 12- 9- 4- 4 45-54 10-10- 4- 5 Neither Con/Lib 6-14- 5- 1 Neither Con/Lib 6-14- 5- 1 55-64 10-19- 6- 4 Somewhat Consery 9- 9- 6- 4 Men 7-14- 5- 5 Kids <18 Q Home 9- 6- 5- 3 Somewhat Consery 9- 9- 6- 4 Post -Grad Degree 9-16- 5- 3 92648 13-13- 5- 4 Men 7-14- 5- 5 Final Vote:No 7-12- 3- 4 Kids <16 a Home 9- 6- 5- 3 Res: < 5 Yrs 3-13- 3- 0 Work Outside Home 7-13- 4- 3 92648 13-13- 5- 4 Aggregate 9-12- 4- 4 Work Outside Home 7-13- 4- 3 College Graduate 10-10- 4- 4 Aggregate 9-12- 4- 4 Res: 15.25 Yrs 9-16- 5- 0 Res: 25+ Yrs 12-12- 5- 7 Some Coll/Voc 8-11- 4- 3 Kids 418 a Home 9- 6- 5- 3 92646 9- 8- 5- 3 Aggregate 9-12- 4- 4 Aggregate 9-12- 4- 4 Democrat 18-16- 2- 3 92649 B-14- 1- 8 Final Vote:No 7-12- 3- 4 Nt Wk Outsde Home 12- 9- 4- 4 65+ 10-11- 3- 3 18-34 8-11- 5- 0 HS or Less 6-12- 2- 6 92647 7-15- 4- 1 Work Outside Home 7-13- 4- 3 Some Call/Voc 8-11- 4- 3 Very Conservative 5-11- 2- 6 45-54 10-10- 4- 5 Final Vote:Yes 11-15- 6- 3 Work Outside Home 7-13- 4- 3 Some Coll/Voc 8-11- 4- 3 Women 12-10- 4- 3 Liberal 17-17- 1- 3 Final Vote:No 7-12- 3- 4 65+ 10-11- 3- 3 65+ 10-11- 3- 3 92646 9- 8- 5- 3 92647 7-15- 4- 1 18-34 8-11- 5- 0 Final Vote:No 7-12- 3- 4 Res: 10-15 Yrs 5- 3- 3- 3 Men 7-14- 5- 5 Women 12-10- 4- 3 Res: < 5 Yrs 3-13- 3- 0 Post -Grad Degree 9-16- 5- 3 HS or Less 6-12- 2- 6 College Graduate 10-10- 4- 4 Res: 10-15 Yrs 5- 3- 3- 3 Some Coll/Voc 8-11- 4- 3 Neither Con/Lib 6-14- 5- 1 Republican 6-10- 6- 4 Democrat 18-16- 2- 3 Women 12-10- 4- 3 Republican 6-10- 6- 4 45-54 10-10- 4- 5 HS or Less 6-12- 2- 6 Res: 5-10 Yrs 4- B- 0- 2 Res: 10-15 Yrs 5- 3- 3- 3 Nt Wk Outsde Home 12- 9- 4- 4 Very Conservative 5-11- 2- 6 Neither Con/Lib 6-14- 5- 1 Very Conservative 5-11- 2- 6 Somewhat Consery 9- 9- 6- 4 35-44 4- 6- 1- 4 92647 7-15- 4- 1 Independent 5-14- 0- 0 Res: 5-10 Yrs 4- 8- 0- 2 Liberal 17-17- 1- 3 Res: e 5 Yrs 3-13- 3- 0 35-44 4- 6- 1- 4 92646 9- 8- 5- 3 92649 8-14- 1- 8 Independent 5-14- 0- 0 Res: 5-10 Yrs 4- 8- 0- 2 35-44 4- 6- 1- 4 Renters 0-16- 0- 0 Res: 15-25 Yrs 9-16- 5- 0 Res: < 5 Yrs 3-13- 3- 0 Kids <18 a Home 9- 6- 5- 3 Res: 5-10 Yrs 4- 8- 0- 2 Renters 0-16- 0- 0 Renters 0-16- 0- 0 Res: 10-15 Yrs 5- 3- 3- 3 Independent 5-14- 0- 0 18-34 8-11- 5- 0 0 Lawrence Research CROSSTABS Page 32 Huntington Beach / July 2001 Q. 29: Name ID: Huntington Beach Tomorrow Huntington Beach Tomorrow 1. Strongly Favorable 9 2. Somewhat Favorable 12 3. Somewhat Unfavorable 4 Format 1+2/3+4/5/6 MC Rank 1+2, 3+4, 5, 6 Liberal 35- 4- 6-55 Democrat 34- 6- 7-54 55-64 29-10- 5-56 92648 26- 8- 7-58 Final Vote:Yes 26- 9- 8-57 Post -Grad Degree 25- 8- 7-60 Res: 15-25 Yrs 25- 5- 9-61 Res: 25+ Yrs 24-12-11-53 92649 22-10- 8-60 Women 22- 6- B-65 92647 21- 5- 7-67 Nt Wk Outsde Home 21- 8-10-61 Aggregate 21- 8- 9-63 65+ 21- 7-15-58 Men 20- 9- 9-62 Work Outside Home 20- 8- 8-65 College Graduate 20- 8-11-61 Neither Con/Lib 20- 6-10-64 45-54 20- 9- 9-63 Final Vote:No 19- 7- 8-67 Independent 19- 0-12-70 18-34 18- 5- 0-76 Some Coll/Voc 18- 7- 8-68 Somewhat Consery 18-10- 9-63 HS or Less 17- 8- 8-67 92646 16- 8-11-65 Res: < 5 Yrs 16- 3- 0-81 Renters 16- 0- 9-75 Very Conservative 16- 8- 9-67 Republican 15-10- 9-66 Kids <18 a Home 15- 8- 8-69 Res: 5-10 Yrs 12- 2- 6-80 35-44 10- 6- 7-76 Res: 10-15 Yrs 8- 5- 5-81 Res: 25+ Yrs 24-12-11-53 55-64 29-10- 5-56 Somewhat Consery 18-10- 9-63 Republican 15-10- 9-66 92649 22-10- B-60 Hen 20- 9- 9-62 Final Vote:Yes 26- 9- B-57 45-54 20- 9- 9-63 College Graduate 20- 8-11-61 92648 26- 8- 7-58 Kids <18 a Home 15- B- B-69 Post -Grad Degree 25- 8- 7-60 Very Conservative 16- 8- 9-67 92646 16- B-11-65 Nt Wk Outsde Home 21- 8-10-61 HS or Less 17- 8- 8-67 Work Outside Home 20- 8- 8-65 Aggregate 21- 8- 9-63 Final Vote:No 19- 7- 8-67 Some Coll/Voc 18- 7- 8-68 65+ 21- 7-15-58 Women 22- 6- 8-65 35-44 10- 6- 7-76 Neither Con/Lib 20- 6-10-64 Democrat 34- 6- 7-54 Res: 10-15 Yrs 8- 5- 5-81 18-34 18- 5- 0-76 Res: 15-25 Yrs 25- 5- 9-61 92647 21- 5- 7-67 Liberal 35- 4- 6-55 Res: < 5 Yrs 16- 3- 0-81 Res: 5-10 Yrs 12- 2- 6-80 Renters 16- 0- 9-75 Independent 19- 0-12-70 1318 4. Strongly Unfavorable 4 5. Heard / No Opinion 9 6. Never Heard Of 63 65+ 21- 7-15-58 Independent 19- 0-12-70 College Graduate 20- 6-11-61 Res: 25+ Yrs 24-12-11-53 92646 16- 8-11-65 Neither Can/Lib 20- 6-10-64 Nt Wk Outsde Home 21- 8-10-61 Renters 16- 0- 9-75 Very Conservative 16- 8- 9-67 Somewhat Consery 18-10- 9-63 Men 20- 9- 9-62 Res: 15-25 Yrs 25- 5- 9-61 Republican 15-10- 9-66 45-54 20- 9- 9-63 Aggregate 21- 8- 9-63 92649 22-10- 8-60 Kids <18 2 Home 15- 8- 8-69 Final VOte:Yes 26- 9- 8-57 Women 22- 6- 8-65 HS or Less 17- 8- 8-67 Final Vote:No 19- 7- 8-67 Work Outside Horne 20- 8- 8-65 Some COIL/Vac 18- 7- 8-68 35-44 10- 6- 7-76 92648 26- 8- 7-58 92647 21- 5- 7-67 Democrat 34- 6- 7-54 Post -Grad Degree 25- 8- 7-60 Res: 5-10-Yrs 12- 2- 6-80 Liberal 35- 4- 6-55 Res: 10-15 Yrs 8- 5- 5-81 55-64 29-10- 5-56 Res: < 5 Yrs 16- 3- 0-81 18-34 18- 5- 0-76 • Res: 10-15 Yrs 8- 5- 5-81 Res: < 5 Yrs 16- 3- 0-81 Res: 5-10 Yrs 12- 2- 6-80 18-34 18- 5- 0-76 35-44 10- 6- 7-76 Renters 16- 0- 9-75 Independent 19- 0-12-70 Kids 08 a Home 15- 8- 8-69 Some Coll/Voc IS- 7- B-68 HS or Less 17- 8- 8-67 Very Conservative 16- B- 9-67 92647 21- 5- 7-67 Final Vote:No 19- 7- 8-67 Republican 15-10- 9-66. Work Outside Home 20- 8- B-65 92646 16- 8-11-65 Women 22- 6- 8-65 Neither Con/Lib 20- 6-10-64 45-54 20- 9- 9-63 Aggregate 21- 8- 9-63 Somewhat Consery 18-10- 9-63 . Men 20- 9- 9-6; Nt Wk Outsde Home 21- 8-10-61 Res: 15-25 Yrs 25- 5- 9-61 College Graduate 20- 8-11-61 Post -Grad Degree 25- 8- 7-60 92649 22-10- 8-6D 92648 26- 8- 7-58 65+ 21- 7-15-58 Final Vote:Yes 26- 9- 8-57 55-64 29-10- 5-56 Liberal 35- 4- 6-55 Democrat 34- 6- 7-54 Res: 25+ Yrs 24-12-11-53 0 Lawrence Research CROSSTABS Page 33 • Huntington Beach / July 2001 Q. 30: Name ID: Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association 1. Strongly Favorable 35 2. somewhat Favorable 26 3. Somewhat Unfavorable 5 Format 1/2/3/4 HC Rank 1, 2, 3, 4 very Conservative 55-20- 0- 6 92649 50-15- 6-10 65+ 49-22- 4-10 55-64 48-22- 4-11 HS or Less 46-19- 0-10 Res: 25+ Yrs 45-27- 2- 9 Nt Ilk Outsde Home 43-22- 4-11 Final Vote:No 41-23- 5- 8 Men 40-24- 3-12 Republican 39-25- 4- 7 College Graduate 36-23- 7-12 Somewhat Consery 36-29- 2- 7 Aggregate 35-26- 5-10 Independent 35-21- 2-12 92646 34-23- 6-13 Neither Con/Lid 33-25- 9- 9 Some Colt/Voc 33-28- 3- 4 92647 31-32- 3- 6 Res: 15-25 Yrs 31-29- 7-10 Past -Grad Degree 31-31- 7.16 Women 31-28- 7- 8 92648 30-30- 4-1 Re!i: Rea: 10-15 Yrs 30-16- 3-14 work outside Home 28-29- 6- 8 Kids <18 a Nome 26-30- 1-13 Res: 5-10 Yrs 26-24- 6- 8 45-54 26-32- 5-12 Final Vote:Ye9 25-31- 4-14 35-44 24-30- 6-10 Democrat 22-30- 7-17 Liberal 19-23- 9-19 Renters 19- 9- 6-13 Res: < 5 Yrs 16-16-13-10 18.34 5-21- 5- 3 0 92647 31-32- 3- 6 45-54 26-32- 5-17 Final Vote:Yes 25-31- 4-14 Post -Grad Degree 31-31- 7-16 Democrat 22-30- 7-17 Kids <18 9 Home 26-30- 1-13 35-44 24-30- 6-10 92648 30-30- 4-10 Somewhat Consery 36-29- 2- 7 Res: 15-25 Yrs 31-29- 7-10 Mork Outside Home 28-29. 6- 8 Women 31-28- 7- 8 Some Coll/Voc 33-28- 3- 4 Res: 25+ Yrs 45-27- 2- 9 Aggregate 35-26- 5-10 Neither Con/Lib 33-25- 9- 9 Republican 39-25- 4- 7 Res: 5-10 Yrs 26-24- 6- 8 Men 40-24- 3-12 92646 34-23- 6-13 College Graduate 36-23- 7-12 Liberal 19-23- 9-19 Final Vote:No 41-23- 5- 8 65+ 49-22- 4-10 Nt Wk Outsde Home 43-22- 4-11 55-64 48-22- 4-11 18-34 5-21- 5- 3 Independent 35-21- 2-12 Very Conservative 55-20- 0- 6 HS or Less 46-19- 0-10 Res: 10-15 Yrs. 30-16- 3-14 Res: < 5 Yrs 16-16-13-10 92649 50-15- 6-10 Renters 19. 9- 6-13 1318 4. Strongly Unfavorable 10 S. Heard / No Opinion 9 6. Never Heard of 16 Res: < 5 Yrs 16-16-11-10 Neither Con/Lib 33-25- 9- 9 Liberal 19-23- 9-19 College Graduate 36-23- 7-12 Res: 15-25 Yrs 31-29- 7-10 Democrat 22-30- 7-17 Post -Grad Degree 31-31- 7-16 Women 31-28- 7- 8 92646 34-23- 6-13 Renters 19- 9- 6-13 Res: 5-10 Yrs 26-24- 6- 8 35-44 24-30- 6-10 Work Outside Home 28-29- 6- 8 92649 50-15- 6-10 18-34 5-21- 5- 3 45-54 26-3x- 5-12 Aggregate 35-26- 5-10 Final Vote:No 41-23- 5- 8 65+ 49-22- 4-10 Final Vote:Yes 25-31- 4-14 Nt Wk Outsde Home 43-22- 4-11 55-64 48-22- 4-11 Republican 39-25- 4- 7 92648 30-30- 4-10 Some Coll/Vac 33-28- 3- 4 Men 40-24- 3-12 92647 31-32- 3- 6 Res: 10-15 Yrs 30-16- 3-14 Independent 35-21- 2-12 Res: 25+ Yrs 45-27- 2- 9 Somewhat Consery 36-29- 2- 7 Kids <18 is Home 26-30- 1-13 Very Conservative 55-20- 0- 6 HS or Less 46-19- 0-10 Liberal 19-23- 9-19 Democrat 22-30- 7-17 Post -Grad Degree 31-31- 7-16 Final vote:Yes 25-31- 4-14 Res: 10-15 Yrs. 30-16- 3-14 92646 34-23- 6-13 Kids 08 a Home 26-30- 1-13 Renters 19- 9- 6-13 45-54 26-32- 5-12 Men 40-24- 3-12 College Graduate 36-23- 7-12 Independent 35-21- 2-12 55-64 48-22- 4-11 Nt Wk Outsde Home 43-22- 4-11 35-44 24-30- 6-10 Res: 15-25 Yrs 31-29- 7-10 65+ 49-22- 4-10 Aggregate 35-26- 5-10 92649 50-15- 6-10 Res: < 5 Yrs 16-16-13-10 HS or Less 46-19- 0-10 92648 30-30- 4-10 Res: 25+ Yrs 45-27- 2- 9 Neither Con/Lib 33-25- 9- 9 Work Outside Home 28-29- 6- 8 Final Vote:No 41-23- 5- 8 Res: 5-10 Yrs 26-24- 6- 8 Women 31-28- 7- 8 Republican 39-25- 4- 7 Somewhat Consery 36-29- 2- 7 Very Conservative 55-20- 0- 6 92647 31-32- 3- 6 Some Coll/Voc 33-28- 3- 4 18-34 5-21- 5- 3 Lawrence Research CROSSTABS Page 34 Huntington Beach / July 2001 1318 Q. 30: Name ID: Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association Howard Jarvia Taxpayers Association 1. Strongly Favorable 35 2. Somewhat Favorable 26 3. Somewhat Unfavorable 5 Format 1+2/3+4/5/6 MC Rank 1+2, 3+4, 5, 6 Very Conservative 75- 6- 3-16 Res: 25+ Yrs 72-12- 5-11 65+ 71-14- 7- 8 55-64 70-15- 8- 8 Nt Wk Outsde Home 66-15- 8-12 HS or Less 65-10- 8-17 92649 65-15- 8-11 Somewhat Consery 65- 9-10-16 Republican 64-11- 8-16 Final Vote:No 64-13- 8-16 Men 64-15- 9-13 92647 63- 9- 9-19 Post -Grad Degree 61-23- 5-11 Aggregate 61-15- 9-16 some Coll/Voc 60- B-13-20 Res: 15-25 Yrs 60-17-10-13 92648 60-13- 5-23 College Graduate 59-19- 7-15 Neither Con/Lib 59-18-10-13 Women 58-14- 9-19 92646 57-19-11-12 45-54 57-17-10-16 Work Outside Home 56-14-10-20 Kids <18 is Home 56-14-10-20 Final Vote:Yes 56-18-11-15 Independent 56-14- 7-23 35-44 54-16-13-16 Democrat 53-24-1D-13 Res: 5-10 Yrs 50-14-16-20 Res: 10-15 Yrs 46-16-14-24 Liberal 42-28- 7-23 Res: c 5 Yrs 32-23- 6-39 Renters 28-19-16-38 18-34 26- 8- 5-61 Liberal 42-28- 7-23 bemocrat 53-24-10-13 Post -Grad Degree 61-23- 5-11 Res: c 5 Yrs 32-23- 6-39 92646 57-19-11-12 College Graduate 59-19- 7715 Renters 28-19-16-38 Neither Con/Lib 59-18-10-13 Pinat Vote:Yes 56-18-11-15 45-54 57-17-10-16 Res: 15-25 Yrs 60-17-10-13 35-44 54-16-13-16 Res: 10-15 Yrs 46-16-14-24 92649 65-15- 8-11 55-64 70-15- B- B Ot Wk Outsde Home 66-t5- 8-12 Men 64-15- 9-13 Aggregate 61-15- 9-16 Work Outside Home 56-14-10-20 65+ 71-14- 7- 8 Res: 5-10 Yrs 50-14-16-20 Women 58-14- 9-19 independent 56-14- 7-23 Kids <18 a Home 56-14-10-20 92648 60-13- 5-23 Final Vote:No 64-13- B-16 Res: 25+ Yrs 72-12- 5-11 Republican 64-11- 8-16 HS or Less 65-10- 8-17 Somewhat Consery 65. 9-10-16 92647 63- 9- 9-19 18-34 26- 8- 5-61 Some Coll/Voc 60- 8-13-20 Very Conservative 75- 6- 3-16 4. Strongly Unfavorable 10 5. Heard / No opinion 9 6. Never Heard of 16 Res: 5-10 Yrs 50-14-16-20 Renters 28-19-16-38 Res: 10-15 Yrs 46-16-14-24 35-44 54-16-13-16 some Call/Voc 60- 8-13-20 92646 57-19-11-12 Final Vote:Yes 56-18-11-15 Kids 08 a Home 56-14-10-20 Neither Con/Lib 59-18-10-13 Democrat 53-24-10-13 Res: 15-25 Yrs 60-17-10-13 Somewhat Consery 65- 9-10-16 Work Outside Home 56-14-10-20 45-54 57-17-10-16 Women 58-14- 9-19 Aggregate 61-15- 9-16 92647 63- 9- 9-19 Men 64-15- 9-13 Republican 64-11- 8-16 92649 65-15- 8-11 Nt Wk Outsde Home 66-15- 8-12 HS or Less 65-10- 8-17 Final Vote:No 64-13- B-16 55-64 70-15- B- B Liberal 42-28- 7-23 College Graduate 59-19- 7-15 Independent 56-14- 7-23 65+ 71-14- 7- 8 Res: c 5 Yrs 32-23- 6-39 Res: 25+ Yrs 72-12- 5-11 Post -Grad Degree 61-23- 5-11 18-34 26- 8- 5-61 92648 60-13- 5-23 Very Conservative 75- 6- 3-16 18-34 26- B- S-61 Res: < 5 Yrs 32-23- 6-39 Renters 28-19-16-38 Res: 10-15 Yrs 46-16-14-24 Independent 56-14- 7-23 Liberal 42-28- 7-23 92646 60-13- 5-23 Some Coll/Voc 60- 8-13-20 Res: 5-10 Yrs 50-14-16-20 Work Outside Home 56-14-10-20 Kids 08 is Home 56-14-10-20 92647 63- 9- 9-19 Women 58-14- 9-19 HS or Less 65-10- 8-17 35-44 54-16-13-16 Somewhat Consery 65- 9-10-16 Aggregate 61-15- 9-16 Republican 64-11- 8-16 45-54 57-17-10-16 Final Vote:No 64-13- 8-16 very Conservative 75- 6- 3-16 Final Vote:Yes 56-18-11-1� College Graduate 59-19- 7-15 Democrat 53-24-10-13 Men 64-15- 9-13 Res: 15-25 Yrs 60-17-10-13 Neither Con/Lib 59-18-10-13 92646 57-19-11-12 Nt Wk Outsde Home 66-15. 8-12 92649 65-15- 8-11 Res: 25+ Yrs 72-12- 5-11 Post -Grad Degree 61-23- 5-11 65+ 71-14- 7- 8 55-64 70-15- 8- 8 is 0 Lawrence Research CROSSTABS Page 35 Huntington Beach / July 2001 1318 Q. 31: Name ID: Surfrider Foundation Surfrider Foundation 1. Strongly Favorable 29 4. Strongly Unfavorable 2 2. Somewhat Favorable 19 S. Heard / No Opinion 9 3. Somewhat Unfavorable 5 6. Never Heard of 36 Format 1/2/3/4 Mc 1 Rank 1, 2, 3, 4 18-34 42-29-11. 0 18-34 42-29-11- 0 Res: 10-15 Yrs 16-19-11- 8 Res: 10-15 Yrs 16-19-11- 92648 40-18- 6- 0 Res: 5-10 Yrs 32-26. 4- 0 18-34 42-29-11- 0 Post -Grad Degree 31-20- 8- Liberal 39-17- 3- 3 35-44 36-24- 4- 1 Renters 28-16- 9- 3 92646 25-17- 2- Kids <18 a Home 39-16- 5- 1 92647 24-23- 7- 1 Post -Grad Degree 31-20- 8- 5 Renters 28-16- 9- Final Vote:Yes 37-16- 5- 1 HS or Less 35-23- 2- 0 College Graduate 30-20- 8. 1 Very Conservative 17-16- 6- Democrat 36-18- 3- 1 Neither CanA fb 32-23- 5- 1 Res: 15-25 Yrs 33-14- 7- 1 Lfberai 39-17- 3- 35-44 36-24- 4- 1 Res: 25+ Yrs 28-21- 3- 2 92649 32-17- 7- 1 55-64 32-18- 4- Res: < 5 Yrs 35- 6- 3- 0 Independent 35-21- 5- 2 92647 24-23- 7- 1 65+ 18-14- 3- Independent 35-21- 5- 2 Men 29-21- 6- 2 Republican 27-20- 7- 2 Independent 35-21- 5- HS or Less 35-23- 2- 0 Final Vote;No 27-20- 5- 2 very Conservative 17-16- 6- 3 Final Vote:No 27-20- 5- Work Outside Home 34-20- 6- 2 College Graduate 30-20- 8- 1 Work Outside Home 34-20- 6- 2 Men 29-21- 6- Res: 15-25 Yrs 33-14- 7- 1 Post -Grad Degree 31-20- 8- 5 45-54 32-20- 6- 1 work Outside Home 34-20- 6- Neither Con/Lib 32-23- 5- 1 work Outside Home 34-20- 6- 2 92648 40-18- 6- 0 Republican 27-20- 7- Res: 5-10 Yrs 32-26- 4- 0 Republican 27-20- 7- 2 Men 29.21- 6- 2 Aggregate 29-19- 5- 92649 32-17- 7- 1 45-54 32-20- 6- 1 Final vote:No 27-20- 5- 2 Nt Wk Outsde Home 23-18- 4- 45-54 32-20- 6- 1 Res: 10-15 Yrs 16-19-11- 8 Aggregate 29-19- 5- 2 Res: 25+ Yrs 28-21- 3- 55-64 32-18- 4- 3 Aggregate 29-19- 5- 2 Somewhat Consery 28-19- 5- 1 women 30-17- 5- Post-Grad Degree 31-20- 8- 5 Somewhat Consery 28-19- 5- 1 Final Vote;Yes 37-16- 5- 1 35-44 36-24- 4- College Graduate 30-20- 8- 1 Democrat 36-18- 3- 1 independent 35-21- 5- 2 College Graduate 30-20- 8- women 30-17- 5- 2 92648 40-18- 6- 0 Kids 08 a Home 39-16- 5- 1 92649 32-17- 7- Aggregate 29-19- 5- 2 Nt Wk Outsde Home 23-18- 4- 2 Neither Con/Lib 32-23- 5- 1 Somewhat Consery 28-19- 5- 1�en 29-21- 6- 2 55-64 32-18- 4- 3 women 30-17- 5- 2 45-54 32-20- 6- Somewhat Consery 28-19- 5- 1 Liberal 39-17- 3- 3 35-44 36-24- 4- 1 Neither Con/Lib 32-23- 5- Renters 28-16- 9- 3 92646 25-17- 2- 4 Res: 5-10 Yrs 32-26- 4- 0 Kids 08 2 Home 39-16- 5- Res: 25+ Yrs 28-21- 3- 2 Women 30-17- 5- 2 Nt Wk Outsde Home 23-18- 4- 2 Democrat 36-18- 3- Final Vote:No 27-20- 5- 2 92649 32-17- 7- 1 55-64 32-18- 4- 3 Final Vote:Yes 37-16- 5- Republican 27-20- 7- 2 Kids <18 @ Home 39-16- 5- 1 Democrat 36-18- 3- 1 Res: 15-25 Yrs 33-14- 7- 92646 25-17- 2- 4 Final Vote:Yes 37-16- 5- 1 65+ 18-14- 3- 2 92647 24-23- 7- 92647 24-23- 7- 1 Some Coll/Voc 23-16- 2- 1 Res: 25+ Yrs 28-21- 3- 2 Some Coll/Voc 23-16- 2- Nt Wk Outsde Home 23-18- 4- 2 Very Conservative 17-16- 6- 3 Res: < 5 Yrs 35- 6- 3- 0 Res; < 5 Yrs 35- 6- 3- Some Call/Voc 23-16- 2- 1 Renters 28-16- 9- 3 Liberal 39-17- 3- 3 1B-34 42-29-11- 65+ 18-14- 3- 2 65+ 18-14- 3- 2 92646 25-17- 2- 4 92648 40-18- 6- Very Conservative 17-16. 6- 3 Res: 15-25 Yrs 33-14- 7- 1 HS or Less 35-23- 2- 0 Res: 5-10 Yrs 32-26- 4- Res: 10-15 Yrs 16-19-11- 8 Res: < 5 Yrs 35- 6- 3- 0 Some Coll/Voc 23-16- 2- 1 HS or Less 35-23- 2- 0 Lawrence Research CROSSTABS Page 36 Huntington Beach / July 2001 1318 Q. 31: Name ID: Surfrider Foundation Surfrider Foundation 1. Strongly Favorable 29 2. Somewhat Favorable 19 3. Somewhat Unfavorable 5 Format 1+2/3+4/5/6 MC Rank 1+2, 3+4, 5, 6 18-34 71-11- 3-16 35-44 60- 6- 4-30 92648 58- 6-11-25 Res: 5-10 Yrs 58- 4- 6-32 Hs or Less SB- 2- 6-35 Liberal 57- 6-10-28 independent 56- 7- 2-35 Kids <18 a Home S5- 6- B-31 Neither Con/Lib 55- 6- 6-33 Democrat S4- 4- 9-33 Work Outside Home S4- 8-10-29 Final Vote:Yes 53- 6-10-31 45-54 51- 7-10-32 College Graduate -Si- 9- 6-35 Post -Grad Degree 51-13- 9-27 Men SO- B-11-33 Res: 25+ Yrs 49- 5- 9-36 55-64 49- 6-10-34 92649 49- 8- 7-36 Aggregate 48- 7- 9-36 92647 48- 8-10-35 Final Vote:No 47- 7- 9-37 Res: 15-25 Yrs 47- 8- 8-37 Somewhat Consery 47- 6-10-37 Women 47- 6- 8-40 Republican 46- 8-11-34 Renters 44-13- 9-34 Res: < 5 Yrs 42- 3-10-45 92646 42- 6- 9-44 Nt Wk Outsde Home 41- 6- 8-46 Some Coll/Voc 39- 3-15-43 Res: 10-15 Yrs 35-19-14-32 Very Conservative 33- 9-13-45 65+ 32- 6-12-50 Res: 10-15 Yrs 35-19-14-32 Post -Grad Degree 51-13- 9-27 Renters 44-13- 9-34 18-34 71-11- 3-16 Very Conservative 33- 9-13-45 College Graduate 51- 9- 6-35 Republican 46- B-11-34 92649 49- 8- 7-36 Res: 15-25 Yrs 47- 8- 8-37 Work Outside Home 54- 8-10-29 92647 48- 8-10-35 Men 50- 8-11-33 45-54 51- 7-10-32 Final Vote:No 47- 7- 9-37 Independent 56- 7- 2-35 Aggregate 48- 7- 9-36 55-64 49- 6-10-34 Somewhat Consery 47- 6-10-37 Women 47- 6- 8-40 Final Vote:Yes 53- 6-10-31 35-44 60- 6- 4-30 92648 58- 6-11-25 Liberal 57- 6-10-28 65+ 32- 6-12-50 Kids <18 is Home 55- 6- 8-31 Neither con/Lib 55- 6- 6-33 92646 42- 6- 9-44 Nt Wk Outsde Home 41- 6- B-46 Res: 25+ Yrs 49- 5- 9-36 Democrat 54- 4- 9-33 Res: 5-10 Yrs 58- 4- 6-32 Res: < 5 Yrs 42- 3-10-45 Some Coll/Voc 39- 3-15-43 HS or Less 58- 2-.6-35 4. Strongly Unfavorable 2 5. Heard / No Opinion 9 6. Never Heard of 36 Some Coll/Voc 39- 3-15-43 Res: 10-15 Yrs 35-19-14-32 Very Conservative 33- 9-13-45 65+ 32- 6-12-50 Republican 46- 8-11-34 92648 58- 6-11-25 Men 50- 8-11-33 Liberal 57- 6-10-28 55-64 49- 6-10-34 Somewhat Consery 47- 6-10-37 final Vote:Yes 53- 6-10-31 Work Outside Home 54- 8-10-29 45-54 51- 7-10-32 92647 48- B-10-35 Res: < 5 Yrs 42- 3-10-45 Renters 44-13- 9-34 Res: 25+ Yrs 49- 5- 9-36 Post -Grad Degree 51-13- 9-27 Aggregate 48- 7- 9-36 Democrat 54- 4- 9-33 Final Vote:No 47- 7- 9-37 92646 42- 6- 9-44 Kids <18 2 Home 55- 6- 8-31 Res: 15-25 Yrs 47- 8- 8-37 Nt Wk Outsde Home 41- 6- 8-46 Women 47- 6- 8-40 92649 49- 8- 7-36 Res: 5-10 Yrs 58- 4- 6-32 HS or Less 58- 2- 6-35 Neither Con/Lib 55- 6- 6-33 College Graduate 51- 9- 6-35 35-44 60- 6- 4-30 18-34 71-11- 3-16 Independent 56- 7- 2-35 65+ 32- 6-12-50 Nt Wk Outsde Home 41- 6- 8-46 Very Conservative 33- 9-13-45 Res: < 5 Yrs 42- 3-10-45 92646 42- 6- 9-44 Some Coll/Voc 39- 3-15-43 Women 47- 6- 8-40 Res: 15-25 Yrs 47- 8- 8-37 Somewhat Consery 47- 6-10-37 Final Vote:No 47- 7- 9-37 Res: 25+ Yrs 49- 5- 9-36 Aggregate 48- 7- 9-36 92649 49- 8- 7-36 92647 46- B-10-35 Independent 56- 7- 2-35 HS or Less 56- 2- 6-35 College Graduate 51- 9- 6-35 Renters 44-13- 9-34 55-64 49- 6-10-34 Republican 46- 8-11-34 Neither Con/Lib 55- 6- 6-33 Democrat 54- 4- 9-3: Men 50- 8-11-33 Res: 10-15 Yrs 35-19-14-32 Res: 5-10 Yrs 58- 4- 6-32 45-54 51- 7-10-32 Kids <18 a Home 55- 6- 8-31 Final Vote:Yes 53- 6-10-31 35-44 60- 6- 4-30 Work Outside Home 54- 8-10-29 Liberal 57- 6-10-28 Post -Grad Degree 51-13- 9-27 92648 58- 6-11-25 18-34 71-11- 3-16 • • Lawrence Research CROSSTABS Page 37 Huntington Beach / July 2001 1318 Q. 32: Name ID: Bolsa Chica Land Trust Bolsa Chica Land Trust 1. Strongly Favorable 35 2. Somewhat. Favorable 22 3. Somewhat Unfavorable 7 Format 1/2/3/4 MG Rank 1, 2, 3, 4 92648 45-21- 5-11 Liberal 45-16- 3- 6 independent 44- 9- 9- 5 55-64 41-27- 8- 8 Democrat 40-19- 6-11 92649 40-17-14-10 College Graduate 40-27- 6- 8 Women 40-20- 6-10 18-34 39-26- 5- D Final Vote:Yes 39-23- 9- 6 Res: 15-25 Yrs 3a-20- 4-11 Work outside Home 37-22- 6- 8 Res: 25+ Yrs 37-21-10-13 65+ 36-18- 7-14 Res: 5-10 Yrs 36-26- 2- 4 Somewhat Consery 35-26- 8-10 Aggregate 35-22- 7-11 Neither Con/Lib 34-26- 5- 6 92646 33-23- 4- 9 Final Vote:No 32-22- 6-12 Res: < 5 Yrs 32-16- 3- 3 Nt Wk Outsde Home 32-22- 7-13 Some Coll/Voc 32-13- 5-14 Renters 31-16-13- 6 Men 30-24- 8-11 Post -Grad Degree 29-27-11- 9 HS or Less 29-23- 8-12 Kids <18 a Home 29-30- 5- 9 35-44 28-27- 3-12 45-54 28-17-10-10 Republican 28-26- 7-12 92647 25-23- 7-14 Very Conservative 22-16-13-22 Res: 10-15 Yrs 16-27- 8-16 11 Kids 08 a Home 29-30- 5- 9 Res: 10-15 Yrs 16-27- 8-16 35-44 28-27- 3-12 College Graduate 40-27- 6- 8 Post -Grad Degree 29-27-11- 9 55-64 41-27- 8- 8 Neither Con/Lib 34-26- 5- 6 18-34 39-26- 5- 0 Somewhat Consery 35-26- 8-10 Res: 5-10 Yrs 36-26- 2- 4 Republican 2$-26- 7-12 Men 30-24- 8-11 92646 33-23- 4- 9 92647 25-23- 7-14 HS or Less 29-23- 8-12 Final Vote:Yes 39-23- 9- 6 Final Vote:No 32-22- 6-12 Work Outside Home 37-22- 6- 8 Aggregate 35-22- 7-11 Nt Wk Outsde Home 32-22- 7-13 Res: 25+ Yrs 37-21-10-13 92648 45-21- 5-11 Res: 15-25 Yrs 38-20- 4-11 Women 40-20- 6-10 Democrat 40-19- 6-11 65+ 36-18- 7-14 45-54 28-17-10-10 92649 40-17-14-10 Res. < 5 Yrs 32-16- 3- 0 Liberal 45-16- 3- 6 Very Conservative 22-16-13-22 Renters 31-16-13- 6 Some Coll/Voc 32-13- 5-14 Independent 44- 9- 9- 5 4. Strongly Unfavorable 11 5. Heard / No Opinion 12 6. Never heard of 14 92649 40-17-14-10 Renters 31-16-13- 6 Very Conservative 22-16-13-22 Post -Grad Degree 29-27-11- 9 Res: 25+ Yrs 37-21-10-13 45-54 28-17-10-10 Independent 44- 9- 9- 5 Final Vote:Yes 39-23- 9- 6 Res: 10-15 Yrs 16-27- 8-16 HS or Less 29-23- 8-12 55-64 41-27- 8- 8 Men 30-24- 8-11 Somewhat Consery 35-26- 8-10 65+ 36-18- 7-14 Nt Ilk Outsde Home 32-22- 7-13 Republican 28-26- 7-12 92647 25-23- 7-14 Aggregate 35-22- 7-11 Work Outside Home 37-22- 6- 8 Women 40-20- 6-10 Final Vote:No 32-22- 6-12 College Graduate 40-27- 6- 8 Democrat 40-19- 6-11 18-34 39-26- 5- 0 Some Coll/Voc 32-13- 5-14 92648 45-21- 5-11 Kids 918 a Home 29-30- 5- 9 Neither Con/Lib 34-26- 5- 6 92646 33-23- 4- 9 Res: 15-25 Yrs 38-20- 4-11 Res: < 5 Yrs 32-16- 3- 0 35-44 28-27- 3-12 Liberal 45-16- 3- 6 Res: 5-10 Yrs 36-26- 2- 4 Very Conservative 22-16-13-22 Res: 10-15 Yrs 16-27- 8-16 Some Cool/vas 32-13- 5-14 65+ 36-18- 7-14 92647 25-23- 7-14 Nt Wk Outsde Home 32-22- 7-13 Res: 25+ Yrs 37-21-10-13 Republican 28-26- 7-12 Final Vote:No 32-22- 6-12 35-44 28-27- 3-12 HS or less 29-23- 8-12 Democrat 40-19- 6-11 Res: 15-25 Yrs 38-20- 4-11 Men 30-24- B-11 92648 45-21- 5-11 Aggregate 35-22- 7-11 somewhat Consery 35-26- B-10 Women 40-20- 6-1D 45-54 28-17-10-10 92649 40-17-14-10 Post -Grad Degree 29-27-11- 9 Kids <18 is Home 29-30- 5- 9 92646 33-23- 4- 9 Work Outside Home 37-22- 6- 8 College Graduate 40-27- 6- B 55-64 41-27- 8- 8 Renters 31-16-13- 6 Final Vote:Yes 39-23- 9- 6 Liberal 45-16- 3- 6 Neither Con/Lib 34-26- 5- 6 Independent 44- 9- 9- 5 Res: 5-10 Yrs 36-26- 2- 4 Res: < 5 Yrs 32-16- 3- 0 18-34 39-26- 5- 0 Lawrence Research CROSSTABS Page 38 Huntington Beach / July 2001 Q. 32: Name ID: Bolsa Chica Land Trust Bolsa Chica Land Trust 1. Strongly Favorable 35 4. Strongly Unfavorable 2. Somewhat Favorable 22 5. Heard / No Opinion 3. Somewhat Unfavorable 7 6. Never Heard of Format 1+2/3+4/5/6 MC 1 Rank 1+2, 3+4, 5, 6 55-64 67-15-11- 6 College Graduate 67-13- 8-12 92648 67-15-11- 7 18-34 66- 5-11-18 Res: 5-10 Yrs 62- 6-20-12 Final Vote:Yes 62-15-13-10 Somewhat Consery 61-18- 8-13 Neither Can/Lib 61-10-17-11 Liberal 61- 9-14-16 Democrat 60-17-12-11 Women 60-16-12-13 Work Outside Home 59-15-12-14 Kids <18 a Home 59-14-15-13 Res: 25+ Yrs 58-23- 7-12 Res: 15-25 Yrs 58-15-11-16 92649 57-24- 8-11 Aggregate 57-17-12-14 92646 56-13-16-15 Post -Grad Degree 56-20-15- 9 35-44 55-15-15-15 Final Vote:No 55-18-12-15 65+ 55-21-10-14 Nt Wk Outsde Home 54-20-12-14 Republican 54-19-14-14 Men 54-19-13-15 Independent 53-14- 9-23 HS or Less 52-19-10-19 92647 49-20-11-20 Res: < 5 Yrs 48- 3-29-19 Renters 47-19-13-22 45-54 45-20-16-20 Some Coll/Voc 45-19-18-18 Res: 10-15 Yrs 43-24-16-16 Very Conservative 38-34-13-16 Very Conservative 38-34-13-16 Res: 10-15 Yrs 43-24-16-16 92649 57-24- 8-11 Res: 25+ Yrs 58-23- 7-,12 65+ 55-21-10-14 92647 49-20-11-20 Nt Wk Outsde Home 54-20-12-14 Post -Grad Degree 56-20-15� 9 45-54 45-20-16-20 HS or Less 52-19-10-19 Some Gall/voc 45-19-18-18 Republican 54-19-14-14 Renters 47-19-13-22 Men 54.19-13-15 Final Vote:No 55-18-12-15 Somewhat Consery 61-18- B-13 Aggregate 57-17-12-14 Democrat 60-17-12-11 Women 60-16-12-13 92648 67-15-11- 7 55-64 67-15-11- 6 Final Vote:Yes 62-15-13-10 Res: 15-25 Yrs 58-15-11-16 35-44 55-15-15-15 Work Outside Home 59-15-12-14 Independent . 53-14- 9-23 Kids <18 a Home 59-14-15-13 CoLLege Graduate 67-13- B-12 92646 56-13-16-15 Neither Con/Lib 61-10-17-11 Liberal 61- 9-14-16 Res: 5-10 Yrs 62- 6-20-12 18-34 66- 5-11-18 Res: < 5 Yrs 48- 3-29-19 Res: < 5 Yrs 48- 3-29-19 Res: 5-10 Yrs 62- 6-20-12 some Coll/voc 45-19-18-18 Neither Con/Lib 61-10-17-11 92646 56-13-16-15 Res: 10-15 Yrs 43-24-16-16 45-54 45-20-16-20 Kids <18 a Home 59-14-15-13 35-44 55-15-15-15 Post -Grad Degree 56-20-15- 9 Liberal 61- 9-14-16 Republican 54-19-14-14 Final Vote:Yes 62-15-13-10 Men 54-19-13-15 Renters 47-19-13-22 Very Conservative 38-34-13-16 Democrat 60-17-12-11 Aggregate 57-17-12-14 Nt Wk Outsde Home 54-20-12-14 Work Outside Home 59-15-12-14 Final Vote:No 55-18-12-15 Women 60-16-12-13 55-64 67-15-11- 6 Res: 15-25 Yrs 58-15-11-16 92648 67-15-11- 7 92647 49-20-11-20 18-34 66- 5-11-18 65+ 55-21.10-14 HS or Less 52-19-10-19 independent 53-14- 9-23 92649 57-24- B-11 Somewhat Consery 61-18- 8-13 College Graduate 67-13- B-12 Res: 25+ Yrs 58-23- 7-12 1318 Independent Renters 92647 45-54 Res: < 5 Yrs HS or Less 18-34 Some CoLI/voc Res: 10-15 Yrs Res: 15-25 Yrs Liberal Very Conservative Final Vote:No Men 35-44 92646 Work Outside Home 65+ Aggregate Nt Wk Outsde Home Republican Somewhat Consery Women Kids <18 a Home Res: 25+ Yrs Res: 5-10 Yrs College Graduate Neither Con/Lib Democrat 92649 Final Vote:Yes Post -Grad Degree 92648 55-64 11 12 14 53-14- 9-23 47-19-13-22 49-20-11-20 45-20-16-20 48- 3-29-19 52-19-10-19 66- 5-11-18 45-19-18-18 43-24-16-16 58-15-11-16 61- 9-14-16 38-34-13-16 55-18-12-15 54-19-13-15 55-15-15-15 56-13-16-15 59-15-12-14 55-21-10-14 57-17-12-14 54-20-12-14 54-19-18-1 61-]8- -1= 60-16-12-13 59-14-15-13 58-23- 7-12 62- 6-20-12 67-13- 8-12 61-10-17-11 60-17-12-11 57-24- 8-11 62-15-13-10 56-20-15- 9 67-15-11- 7 67-15-11- 6 0 0 Lawrence Research CROSSTABS page 39 • 0 Huntington Beach / July 2001 Q. 33: Name I0: Amigos de Bolea Chica Amigos de Bolsa Chica 1. strongly Favorable 30 4. Strongly Unfavorable 2. Somewhat Favorable 19 5. Heard / No opinion 3. Somewhat Unfavorable 6 6. Never Heard of Format 1/2/3/4 MC 1 Rank 1, 2, 3, 4 55-64 92649 92648 Liberal Democrat Final Vote:Yes Women Post -Grad Degree Independent Res: 25+ Yrs HS or Less Work Outside Home Somewhat Consery 92647 Kids 08 a Home Res: 15-25 Yrs Aggregate 35-44 Res: < 5 Yrs College Graduate 45-54 nal Final Vote:No Neither Con/Lib Nt Wk outsde Home Republican Some Coll/vac 65+ Renters Men Res: 5-10 Yrs 92646 Res: 10-15 Yrs Very Conservative 18-34 43-16- 4- 4 Final VOte:Yes 37-27- 6- 4 40-18- 8-10 Renters 25-25- 9- 0 39-19- 6- 6 Liberal 39-25- 4- 1 39-25- 4- 1 College Graduate 29-23- 6- 6 38-16- 7- 6 Res: 15-25 Yrs 31-23- 5- 4 37-27- 6- 4 Men 24-23- 7- 8 37-16- 4- 6 Nt Wk Outsde Home 27-22- 6-10 36-17-12- 4 Res: 5-10 Yrs 22-22- 4- 4 35-16- 9- 5 Republican 27-21- 6- 6 35-19- 6- 9 35-44 30-21- 3- 4 35-19- 6- 6 65+ 26-21- 5-12 33-16- 5- 3 92646 19-21- 4- 7 31-18- 4- 7 Very Conservative 19-20- 9-11 31-18- 5- 5 45-54 28-20- 6- 7 31- 9- 7- 6 Aggregate 30-19- 6- 7 31-23- 5- 4 Res: 25+ Yrs 35-19- 6- 9 30-19- 4- 7 HS or Less 35-19- 6- 6 30-21- 3- 4 92648 39-19- 6- 6 29- 6- 6- 0 92647 31-18- 5- 5 29-23- 4- 6 18-34 16-18-16- 0 28-20- 4- 7 Neither Can/Lib 28-18- 8- 7 28-16- 5- 8 92649 40-18- 8-10 28-18- 8- 7 Somewhat Consery 31-18- 4- 7 27-22- 6-10 Post -Grad Degree 36-17-12- 4 27-21- 4- 6 55-64 43-16- 4- 4 27-16- 2- 9 Work Outside Home 33-16- 5- 3 26-21- 5-12 Final Vote:No 28-16- 5- 8 25-25- 4- 0 Independent 35-16- 9- 5 24-23- 7- 8 Res: 10-15 Yrs 19-16- 5-14 22-22- 4- 4 Some Coll/Voc 27-16- 2- 9 19-21- 4- 7 Democrat 38-16- 7- 6 19-16- 5-14 Women 37-16- 4- 6 19-20- 9-11 Kids <18 a Home 31- 9- 7- 6 16-18-16- 0 Res: -t 5 Yrs 29- 6- 6- 0 19-34 16-18-16- 0 Post -Grad Degree 36-17-12- 4 Renters 25-25- 9- D Very Conservative 19-20- 9-11 Independent 35-16- 9- 5 92649 40-18- 8-10 Neither Con/Lib 28-18- 8- 7 Men 24-23- 7- 8 Kids <18 & Home 31- 9- 7- 6 Democrat 36-16- 7- 6 Res: < 5 Yrs 29- 6- 6- 0 Nt Wk Outsde Home 27-22- 6-10 45-54 28-20- 6- 7 Res: 25+ Yrs 35-19- 6- 9 Final Vote:Yes 37-27- 6- 4 92648 39-19- 6- 6 HS or Less 35-19- 6- 6 College Graduate 29-23- 6- 6 Republican 27-21- 6- 6 Aggregate 30-19- 6- 7 Final Vote:No 28-16- 5- 8 Res: 10-15 Yrs 19-16- 5-14 Work Outside Home 33-16- 5- 3 Res: 15-25 Yrs 31-23- 5- 4 65+ 26-21- 5-12 92647 31-18- 5- 5 Liberal 39-25- 4- 1 92646 19-21- 4- 7 Res: 5-10 Yrs 22-22- 4- 4 Women 37-16- 4- 6 55-64 43-16- 4- 4 Somewhat Consery 31-18- 4- 7 35-44 30-21- 3- 4 Some Coll/Vac 27-16- 2- 9 1318 7 7 31 Res: 10-15 Yrs 19-16- 5-14 65+ 26-21- 5-12 Very Conservative 19-20- 9-11 Nt Wk Outsde Home 27-22- 6-10 92649 40-18- 8-10 Some Coll/Voc 27-16- 2- 9 Res: 25+ Yrs 35-19- 6- 9 Final Vote:No 28-16- 5- 8 Men 24-23- 7- 8 45-54 28-20- 6- 7 92646 19-21- 4- 7 Neither Con/Lib 28-18- 8- 7 Somewhat Consery 31-18- 4- 7 Aggregate 30-19- 6- 7 College Graduate 29-23- 6- 6 Republican 27-21- 6- 6 92648 39-19- 6- 6 HS or Less 35-19- 6- 6 Kids <18 a Home 31- 9- 7- 6 Democrat 38-16- 7- 6 Women 37-16- 4- 6 92647 31-18- 5- 5 Independent 35-16- 9- 5 35-44 30-21- 3- 4 Final Vote:Yes 37-27- 6- 4 Res: 5-10 Yrs 22-22- 4- 4 Res: 15-25 Yrs 31-23- 5- 4 Post-Qrad Degree 36-17-12- 4 55-64 43-16- 4- 4 Work Outside Home 33-16- 5- 3 Liberal 39-25- 4- 1 Res: c 5 Yrs 29- 6- 6- 0 Renters 25-25- 9- 0 18-34 16-18-16- 0 Lawrence Research CROSSTABS Page 40 Huntington Beach / July 2001 1318 Q. 33: Name ID: Amigos de Bolsa Chica Amigos de Bolsa Chica 1. Strongly Favorable 30 2. Somewhat Favorable 19 3. Somewhat Unfavorable 6 Format 1+2/3+4/5/6 MC Rank 1+2, 3+4, 5, 6 Final Vote:Yes 64-10- 4-22 Liberal 64- 6- 6-25 55-64 59- 8- 9-24 92648 58-12- 4-26 92649 58-18- 3-21 Res: 15-25 Yrs 54- 9- 9-28 Democrat 54-12- 9-25 Res: 25+ Yrs 54-15--7-25 HS or Less 54-12- 4-31 Post -Grad Degree 53-16- B-23 College Graduate 52-12- 4-32 Women 52-10- 9-30 Independent 51-14- 5-30 35-44 51- 7- 9-33 Renters 50- 9- 0-41 Work Outside Home 50- 8- B-34 92647 50-10- B-33 Aggregate 50-12- 7-31 Nt Wk Outsde Home 49-16- 6-28 Somewhat Consery 49-11- 5-36 Republican 48-12- 7-33 49-54 48-13- 9-30 65+ 47-17- 6-31 Men 47-15- 6-33 Neither Con/Lib 46-15-15-24 Final Vote:No 44-14- B-34 Res: 5-10 Yrs 44- 8- 6-42 Some Coll/Voc 43-11-10-37 Kids <18 a Home 40-13-10-37 92646 40-11-11-38 Very Conservative 39-20- 3-38 Res: < 5 Yrs 35- 6- 0-58 Res: 10-15 Yrs 35-19-11-35 18-34 34-16- 0-50 Very Conservative 39-20- 3-38 Res: 10-15 Yrs 35-19-11-35 92649 58-18- 3-21 65+ 47-17- 6-31 Nt Wk Outsde Home 49-16- 6-28 Post -Grad Degree 53-16- B-23 18-34 34-16- 0-50 Men 47-15- 6-33 Neither Con/Lib 46-15-15-24 Res: 25+ Yrs 54-15- 7-25 Independent 51-14- 5-30 Final Vote:No 44-14- B-34 45-54 48-13- 9-30 Kids <18 a Home 40-13-10-37 Democrat 54-12- 9-25 Aggregate 50-12- 7-31 College Graduate 52-12- 4-32 92648 58-12- 4-26 Republican 48-12- 7-33 HS or Less 54-12- 4-31 92646 40-11-11-3B Some Coll/Voc 43-11-10-37 Somewhat Consery 49-11- 5-36 Final Vote:Yes 64-10- 4-22 92647 50-10-.8-33 Women 52-10- 9-30 Renters 50- 9- 0-41 Res: 15-25 Yrs 54- 9- 9-28 Work Outside Home 50- 8- 8-34 Res: 5-10 Yrs 44- B- 6-42 55-64 59- 8- 9-24 35-44 51- 7- 9-33 Res: < 5 Yrs 35- 6- 0-58 Liberal 64- 6- 6-25 4. Strongly Unfavorable 7 5. Heard / No Opinion 7 6. Never Heard of 31 Neither Con/Lib 46-15-15-24 Res: 10-15 Yrs 35-19-11-35 92646 40-11-11-38 Kids <18 0 Home 40-13-10-37 Some Coll/Voc 43-11-10-37 Res: 15-25 Yrs 54- 9- 9-28 Democrat 54-12- 9-25 35-44 51- 7- 9-33 55-64 59- 8- 9-24 45-54 48-13- 9-30 Women 52-10- 9-30 Final Vote:No 44-14- 8-34 Post -Grad Degree 53-16- 8-23 Work Outside Home 50- 8- 8-34 92647 50-10- 8-33 Republican 48-12- 7-33 Aggregate 50-12- 7-31 Res: 25+ Yrs 54-15- 7-25 Nt Wk Outsde Home 49-16- 6-28 Res: 5-10 Yrs 44- 8- 6-42 Liberal 64- 6- 6-25 65+ 47-17- 6-31 Men 47-15- 6-33 Somewhat Consery 49-11- 5-36 Independent 51-14- 5-30 College Graduate 52-12- 4-32 Final Vote:Yes 64-10- 4-22 HS or Less 54-12- 4-31 92648 58-12- 4-26 Very Conservative 39-20- 3-38 92649 58-18- 3-21 Res: < 5 Yrs 35- 6- 0-58 Renters 50- 9- 0-41 18-34 34-16- 0-50 Res: < 5 Yrs 35- 6- 0-58 18-34 34-16- 0-50 Res: 5-10 Yrs 44- 8- 6-42 Renters 50- 9- 0-41 92646 40-11-11-38 Very Conservative 39-20- 3-38 Kids 08 a Home 40-13-10-37 Some Coll/Voc 43-11-10-37 Somewhat Consery 49-11- 5-36 Res: 10-15 Yrs 35-19-11-35 Final Vote:No 44-14- 8-34 Work Outside Home 50- 8- 8-34 Republican 48-12- 7-33 92647 50-10- 8-33 35-44 51- 7- 9-33 Men 47-15- 6-33 College Graduate 52-12- 4-32 Aggregate 50-12- 7-31 HS or Less 54-12- 4-31 65+ 47-17- 6-31 45-54 48-13- 9-30 Independent 51-14- 5-31 Women 52-10- 9-30 Nt Wk Outsde Home 49-16- 6-28 Res: 15-25 Yrs 54- 9- 9-28 92648 58-12- 4-26 Res: 25+ Yrs 54-15- 7-25 Democrat 54-12- 9-25 Liberal 64- 6- 6-25 Neither Con/Lib 46-15-15-24 55-64 59- 8- 9-24 Post -Grad Degree 53-16- 8-23 Final Vote:Yes 64-10- 4-22 92649 58-18- 3-21 • 0 Lawrence Research CROSSTABS Huntington Beach / July 2001 Page 41 1318 t 34: Name ID: The Huntington Beach City Council The Huntington Beach City Council 1. Strongly Favorable 13 4. Strongly Unfavorable 18 2. Somewhat Favorable 42 5. Heard / No opinion 7 3. Somewhat Unfavorable 18 6. Never Heard of 3 Format 1/2/3/4 MC 1 Rank 1, 2, 3, 4 Final Vote:Yes 20-46-15-10 Neither Con/Lib 9-51-15-17 18-34 11-47-26- 8 Very Conservative 14-33-16-28 Kids 08 Z Some 20-41-15-15 Res: 5-10 Yrs 18-50-16-10 Renters 6-38-25-19 Res: 25+ Yrs 12-41-16-24 HS or Less 19-40-15-13 Democrat 13-49-17-13 92649 17-39-25-14 55-64 10-37-19-24 Liberal 19-49-16- 6 Liberal 19-49-16- 6 Res: 10-15 Yrs 16-49-22- 5 Final Voto:No 9-41-19-22 Res: 5-10 Yrs 10-50-16-10 Res: 10-15 Yrs 16-49-22- 5 Res: 15-25 Yrs 14-37-21-15 65+ 17-40-17-21 35-44 18-45-15-12 18-34 11-47-26- 8 Somewhat Consery 13-40-20-18 Some Call/Voc 11-44-17-20 92649 17-39-25-14 Final Vote:Yes 20-46-15-10 College Graduate 13-42-20-19 45-54 9-44-16-2O 65+ 17-40-17-21 92648 11-45-18-19 Final Vote:No 9-41-19-22 92647 13-41-16-19 Res: 1D-15 Yrs 16-49-22- 5 35-44 18-45-15-12 55-64 10-37-19-24 Res: < 5 Yrs 6-42-16-19 Nt Wk Outsde Home 15-43-17-17 Some Coll/Vac 11-44-17-20 Post -Grad Degree 12-40-19-15 Republican 14-41-17-19 Women 15-43-18-18 45-54 9-44-16-20 work Outside Home 12-41-18-18 92648 11-45-18-19 Very Conservative 14-33-16-28 Nt Wk Outsde Home 15-43-17-17 Women 15-43-18-18 College Graduate 13-42-20-19 Republican 14-41-17-19 women 15-43-18-18 92648 11-45-18-19 Renters 6-38-25-19 Res: 15-25 Yrs 14-37-21-15 Res: < 5 Yrs 6-42-16-19 Aggregate 13-42-18-18 Men 12-41-18-19 Democrat 13-49-17-13 Independent 9-42-16-16 Men 12-41-18-19 92646 13-42-16-18 College Graduate 13-4Z-20-19 92646 13-42-16-18 Republican 14-41-17-19 Work Outside Hone 12-41-18-18 Somewhat Consery 13-40-20-18 Aggregate 13-42-18-18 Nt Wk Outsde Home 15-43-17-17 Somewhat Consery 13-40-20-18 Aggregate 13-42-18-18 College Graduate 13-42-20-19 Democrat 13-49-17-13 Aggregate 13-42-18-18 92646 13-42-16-18 Kids 08 a Home 20-41-15-15 Some Coll/Voc 11-44-17-20 Women 15-43-18-18 92647 13-41-16-19 Republican 14-41-17-19 65+ 17-40-17-21 Neither Con/Lib 9-51-15-17 Post -Grad Degree 12-40-19-15 Men 12-41-18-19 independent 9-42-16-16 Nt Wk Outsde Ham 15-43-17-17 Work outside Home 12-41-18-18 Final Vote:No Work Outside Home 9-41-19-22 12-41-18-18 Res: < 5 Yrs Res: 5-10 Yrs 6-42-16-19 18-50-16-10 Independent Res: 15-25 Yrs 9-42-16-16 14-37-21-15 Res: 25+ Yrs 12-41-16-24 µen 12-41-18-19 92647 13-41-16-19 Liberal 19-49-16- 6 Kids <18 0 Home 20-41-15-15 Some Coll/Voc 11-44-17-20 Res: 25+ Yrs 12-41-16-24 Res: 25+ Yrs 12-41-16-24 Post -Grad Degree 12-40-19-15 92648 11-45-18-19 HS or Less 19-40-15-13 45-54 9-44-16-20 92649 17-39-25-14 18-34 11-47-26- 8 Somewhat Consery 13-4D-2D-18 Very Conservative 14-33-16-28 Democrat 13-49-17-13 55-64 10-37-19-24 Post -Grad Degree 12-40-19-15 92646 13-42-16-18 HS or Less 19-40-15-13 Final Vote:No 9-41-19-22 65+ 17-40-17-21 92647 13-41-16-19 35-44 18-45-15-12 Independent 9-42-16-16 92649 17-39-25-14 HS or Less 19-40-15-13 Res: 5-10 Yrs 18-50-16-10 Neither Gan/Lib 9-51-15-17 Renters 6-38-25-19 Final Vote:Yes 2D-46-15-10 Final Vote:Yes 20-46-15-10 45-54 9-44-16-20 Res: 15-25 Yrs 14-37-21-15 Kids <18 a Home 20-41-15-15 18-34 11-47-26- 8 Res: < 5 Yrs 6-42-16-19 55-64 1D-37-19-24 Neither Con/Lib 9-51-15-17 Liberal 19-49-16- 6 Renters 6-38-25-19 Very Conservative 14-33-16-28 35-44 18-45-15-12 Res: 10-15 Yrs 16-49-2Z- 5 • Lawrence Research CROSSTABS Page 42 Huntington Beach / July 2001 1318 Q. 34: Name ID: The Huntington Beach City Council The Huntington Beach City Council 1. Strongly Favorable 13 2. Somewhat Favorable 42 3. Somewhat Unfavorable 18 Format 1+2/3+4/5/6 MC Rank 1+2, 3+4, 5, 6 Liberal 68-22- 6- Res: 5-10 Yrs 68-26- 6- Final Vote:Yes 66-25- 9- Res: 10-15 Yrs 65-27- 8- Democrat 63-30- 2- 35-44 63-27- 9- Kids 08 a Home 61-30- 9- Neither Con/Lib 60-32- 6- HS or Less 60-29-10- Nt Wk Outsde Home 58-34- 6- 18-34 58-34- 3- Women 57-36- 5- 65+ 56-37- 4- 92648 56-37- 5- 92649 56-39- 6- Republican 55-36- 8- Some Coll/Voc 55-37- 6- College Graduate 55-39- 4- Aggregate 55-36- 7- 92646 55-34- 9- 92647 53-35- 8- Somewhat Consery 53-38- 8- Work Outside Home 53-37- 8- Men 53-36- 9- 45-54 52-35-11- Res: 25+ Yrs 52-40- 5- Post-Grad Degree 52-33-13- Independent 51-33-14- Res: 15-25 Yrs 51-36- 9- Final Vote:No 50-41- 6- Res: c 5 Yrs 48-35-10- Very Conservative 47-44- 9- 55-64 47-43- 8- Renters 44-44- 9- Renters 44-44- 9- 3 Very Conservative 47-44- 9- 0 55-64 47-43- 8- 3 Final Vate:No 50-41- 6- 2 Res: 25+ Yrs 52-40- 5- 2 92649 56-39- 6- 0 College Graduate 55-39- 4- 3 Somewhat Consery 53-38- 8- 1 65+ 56-37- 4- 2 92648 56-37- 5- 2 Some Coll/Voc 55-37- 6- 3 Work Outside Home 53-37- 8- 2 Republican 55-36- 8- 0 Res: 15-25 Yrs 51-36- 9- 4 Men 53-36- 9- 3 Aggregate 55-36- 7- 3 Women 57-36- 5- 3 Res: < 5 Yrs 48-35-10- 6 45-54 52-35-11- 1 92647 53-35- 8- 4 18-34 58-34- 3- 5 92646 55-34- 9- 3 Nt Wk Outsde Home 58-34- 6- 2 Post -Grad Degree 52-33-13- 1 Independent 51-33-14- 2 Neither Con/Lib 60-32- 6- 2 Democrat 63-30- 2- 4 Kids <18 a Home 61-30- 9- 0 HS or Less 60-29-10- 2 Res: 10-15 Yrs 65-27- 8- 0 35-44 63-27- 9- 1 Res: 5-10 Yrs 68-26- 6- 0 Final Vote:Yes 66-25- 9- 0 Liberal 68-22- 6- 4 4. Strongly Unfavorable 18 5. Heard / No Opinion 7 6. Never Heard of 3 Independent 51-33-14- P05t-Grad Degree 52-33-13- 45-54 52-35-11- Res: < 5 Yrs 48-35-10- HS or less 60-29-10- Renters 44-44- 9- Very Conservative 47-44- 9- Kids <18 a Home 61-30- 9- Res: 15-25 Yrs 51-36- 9- Final Vote:Yes 66-25- 9- Hen 53-36- 9- 35-44 63-27- 9- 92646 55-34- 9- Work Outside Home 53-37- 8- Res: 10-15 Yrs 65-27- 8- Republican 55-36- 8- 92647 53-35- 8- 55-64 47-43- 8- somewhat Consery 53-38- 8- Aggregate 55-36- 7- Final Vote:No 50-41- 6- Res: 5-10 Yrs 68-26- 6- Some Call/Vac 55-37- 6- Liberal 68-22- 6- Neither Con/Lib 60-32- 6- Nt Wk Outsde Home 58-34- 6- 92649 56-39- 6- Res: 25+ Yrs 52-40- 5- Women 57-36- 5- 92648 56-37- 5- 65+ 56-37- 4- College Graduate 55-39- 4- 18-34 58-34- 3- Democrat 63-30- 2- Res: < 5 Yrs 48-35-10- 6 18-34 58-34- 3- 5 Democrat 63-30- 2- 4 Liberal 68-22- 6- 4 Res: 15-25 Yrs 51-36- 9- 4 92647 53-35- 8- 4 Renters 44-44- 9- 3 92646 55-34- 9- 3 College Graduate 55-39- 4- 3 55-64 47-43- 8- 3 Aggregate 55-36- 7- 3 Some Coll/Voc 55-37- 6- 3 Women 57-36- 5- 3 Men 53-36- 9- 3 65+ 56-37- 4- 2 92648 56-37- 5- 2 Work Outside Home 53-37- 8- 2 Independent 51-33-14- 2 Neither Con/Lib 60-32- 6- 2 Nt Wk Outsde Home 58-34- 6- 2 Res: 25+ Yrs 52-40- 5- 2 Final Vote:No 50-41- 6 HS or Less 60-29-10- 2 35-44 63-27- 9- 1 Post -Grad Degree 52-33-13- 1 Somewhat Consery 53-38- 8- 1 45-54 52-35-11- 1 Republican 55-36- 8- 0 92649 56-39- 6- 0 Res: 5-10 Yrs 68-26- 6- 0 Kids <18 2 Home 61-3D- 9- 0 Very Conservative 47-44- 9- 0 Final Vote:Yes 66-25- 9- 0 Res: 10-15 Yrs 65-27- 8- 0 • • Lawrence Research CROSSTABS Page 43 Huntington Beach / July 2001 1318 Advisory Committee Q. 35: Name ID: The citizens Infrastructure The Citizens Infrastructure-Advisary Committee I. Strongly Favorable 5 4. Strongly Unfavorable 3 2. Somewhat Favorable 13 S. Heard / No Opinion 10 3. Somewhat Unfavorable 4 6. Never Heard of 65 Format 1/2/3/4 MC 1 Rank 1, 2, 3, 4 Final Vote:Yes 11-15- 4- 2 Very Conservative 5-20- 3- 3 Res: < 5 Yrs 3- 6-10- 0 92647 3-17- 4- 6 92649 8-10- 4- 0 Res: 5-10 Yrs 4-18- 2- 4 92648 4-13- 8- 2 Res: 10-15 Yrs 5- 8- 3- 5 HS or Less 8-17- 4- 2 92647 3-17- 4- 6 Independent 2- 9- 7- 2 65+ 6-16- 3- 5 Somewhat Consery 8- 9- 5- 4 HS or Less 8-17- 4- 2 55-64 3-10- 6- 1 Nt Wk Outsde Home 6-15- 5- 4 45-54 7-10- 4- 4 Neither Con/Lib 2-16- 3- 2 Renters 3- 9- 6- 3 Res: 25+ Yrs 5-15- 4- 4 College Graduate 7-10- 3- 4 65+ 6-16- 3- 5 Some Call/Vac 3-13- 6- 4 Somewhat Consery 8- 9- 5- 4 Kids 118 a Home 7-10- 2- 2 Men 5-16- 3- 4 Somewhat Consery 8- 9- 5- 4 Some Call/Voc 3-13- 6- 4 Republican 6-13- 4- 3 Nt Wk Outsde Home 6-15- 5- 4 Nt Wk Outsde Home 6-15- 5- 4 Res: 5-10 Yrs 4-18- 2- 4 35-44 6-13- 3- 3 Final Vote:Yes 11-15- 4- 2 Women 5-11- 5- 2 Men 5-16- 3- 4 65+ 6-16- 3- 5 Res: 25+ Yrs 5-15- 4- 4 Democrat 3-11- 4- 3 45-54 7-10- 4- 4 92646 6-11- 1- 3 35-44 6-13- 3- 3 Res: 25+ Yrs 5-15- 4- 4 Final Vote:No 3-12- 4- 4 Nt Wk Outsde Home 6-15- 5- 4 Some Coll/Voc 3-13- 6- 4 Final Vote:No 3-12- 4- 4 College Graduate 7-10- 3- 4 Res: 25+ Yrs 5-15- 4- 4 Post -Grad Degree 4-13- 4- 1 Republican 6-13- 4- 3 Democrat 3-11- 4- 3 Res: 10-15 Yrs 5- 8- 3- 5 18-34 3-13- 3- 0 92649 8-10- 4- 0 Republican 6-13- 4- 3 Women 5-11- 5- 2 92648 4-13- 8- 2 final Vote:Yes 11-15- 4- 2 Very Conservative 5-20- 3- 3 Men 5-16- 3- 4 Republican 6-13- 4- 3 Aggregate 5-13- 4- 3 Renters 3- 9- 6- 3 Res: 15-25 Yrs 5-11- 3- 0 Aggregate 5-13- 4- 3 Post -Grad Degree 4-13- 4- 1 Aggregate 5-13- 4- 3 Aggregate 5-13- 4- 3 Final Vote:No 3-12- 4- 4 92647 3-17- 4- 6 35-44 6-13- 3- 3 Work Outside Home 5-11- 3. 1 92646 6-11- 1- 3 HS or Less 8-17- 4- 2 92646 6-11- 1- 3 very Conservative 5-20- 3- 3 Democrat 3-11- 4- 3 45-54 7-10- 4- 4 92648 4-13- 8- 2 Liberal 4-10- 3- 1 Res: 15-25 Yrs 5-11- 3- 0 Neither Con/Lib 2-16- 3- 2 Independent 2- 9- 7- 2 Res: 5-10 Yrs 4-18- 2- 4 Work outside Home 5-11- 3- 1 65+ 6-16- 3- 5 Kids c18 a Home 7-10- 2- 2 Post -Grad Degree 4-13- 4- 1 Women 5-11- 5- 2 Work Outside Home 5-11- 3- 1 Neither Con/Lib 2-16- 3- 2 92648 4-13- 8- 2 Kids <18 a Home 7-10- 2- 2 Very Conservative 5-20- 3- 3 Final vote:Yes 11-15- 4- 2 Democrat 3-11- 4- 3 Liberal 4-10- 3- 1 Res: 15-25 Yrs 5-11- 3- 0 Women 5-11- 5- 2 Res: < 5 Yrs 3- 6-10- 0 55-64 3-10- 6- 1 Men 5-16- 3- 4 HS or Less 8-17- 4- 2 Renters 3- 9- b- 3 College Graduate 7-10- 3- 4 35-44 6-13- 3- 3 Liberal 4-10- 3- 1 92647 3-17- 4- 6 45-54 7-10- 4- 4 Liberal 4-10- 3- 1 Work Outside Home 5-11- 3- 1 18-34 3-13- 3- 0 92649 8-10- 4- 0 Cottege Graduate 7-10- 3- 4 Post -Grad Degree 4-13- 4- 1 Final Vote:No 3-12- 4- 4 Renters 3- 9. 6- 3 Res: 10-15 Yrs 5- 8- 3- 5 55-64 3-10- 6- 1 55-64 3-10- 6- 1 Independent 2- 9- 7- 2 18-34 3-13- 3- 0 Res: < 5 Yrs 3- 6-10- 0 Some Coll/Voc 3-13- b- 4 Somewhat Consery 8- 9- 5- 4 Kids <18 a Home 7-10- 2- 2 Res: 15-25 Yrs 5-11- 3- 0 independent 2- 9- 7- 2 Res: 10-15 Yrs 5- 8- 3- 5 Res: 5-10 Yrs 4-18- 2- 4 92649 8-10- 4- 0 Neither Con/Lib 2-16- 3- 2 Res: < 5 Yrs 3- 6-10- 0 92646 6-11- 1- 3 18-34 3-13- 3- 0 • Lawrence Research CROSSTABS Page 44 Huntington Beach / July 2001 1318 Q. 35: Name ID: The Citizens Infrastructure Advisory Committee The Citizens Infrastructure Advisory Committee 1. Strongly Favorable 2. Somewhat Favorable 3. Somewhat Unfavorable Format 1+2/3+4/5/6 MC 1 Rank 1+2, 3+4, 5, 6 5 13 4 4. Strongly Unfavorable S. Heard / No Opinion 6. Never Heard of 3 10 65 Final Vote:Yes 26- 6-10-58 92648 17-11-11-62 Res: 10-15 Yrs 14- 8-19-59 18-34 16- 3- 5-76 HS or Less 25- 6-15-54 Some Coll/Voc 16-10-13-62 45-54 17- 7-17-59 Res: < 5 Yrs 10-10- 6-74 very Conservative 25- 6-11-58 92647 20-10-13-57 HS or Less 25- 6-15-54 92646 17- 4- 6-73 Res: 5-10 Yrs Z2- 6-14-58 Res: < 5 Yrs 10-10- 6-74 92649 18- 4-15-63 Liberal 14- 4- 9-72 65+ 21- 8-11-60 Nt Wk Outsde Hone 21- 9-10-60 Res: 5-10 Yrs 22- 6-14-58 College Graduate 17- 6- 5-72 Nt Wk Outsde Home 21- 9-10-60 Renters 13- 9- 9-69 Neither Con/Lib 18- 6-14-62 35-44 19- 6- 3-72 Men 21- 7-12-61 Somewhat Consery 16- 9- 9-65 92647 20-10-13-57 Kids 08 2 Home 17- 5- 7-71 92647 20-10-13-57 Independent 12- 9- 9-70 Some Coll/Voc 16-10-13-62 Res: 15-25 Yrs 16- 3-10-71 Res: 25+ Yrs 20- 9- 8-63 Res: 25+ Yrs 20- 9- 8-63 Post -Grad Degree 17- 5-12-65 Independent 12- 9- 9-70 35-44 19- 6- 3-72 65+ 21- 8-11-60 Men 21- 7-12-61 Work Outside Home 15- 5-11-69 Republican 19- 7-11-62 Res: 10-15 Yrs 14- B-19-59 55-64 13- 8-11-68 Renters 13- 9- 9-69 Neither Con/Lib 18- 6-14-62 Final Vote:No 15- B-10-67 Republican 19- 7-11-62 Women 16- 7- 9-69 92649 18- 4-15-63 Democrat 15- B-10-67 Very Conservative 25- 6-11-58 55-64 13- B-11-68 Aggregate 18- 7-10-65 55-64 13- B-11-68 Work Outside Home 15- 5-11-69 Democrat 15- B-10-67 Past -Grad Degree 17- 5-12-65 Republican 19- 7-11-62 65+ 21- 8-11-6D Final Vote:No 15- B-10-67 Kids <18 @ Home 17- 5- 7-71 45-54 17- 7-17-59 92648 17-11-11-62 Post -Grad Degree 17- 5-12-65 45-54 17- 7-17-59 Women 16- 7- 9-69 Aggregate 18- 7-10-65 Somewhat Consery 16- 9- 9-65 92646 17- 4- 6-73 Aggregate 18- 7-10-65 final Vote:No 15- 8-1D-67 Aggregate 18- 7-10-65 College Graduate 17- 6- 5-72 Men 21- 7-12-61 Democrat 15- 8-10-67 Res: 25+ Yrs 20- 9- B-63 92648 17-11-11-62 College Graduate 17- 6- 5-72 Final Vote:Yes 26- 6-10-58 92649 18- 4-15-63 Somewhat Consery 16- 9- 9-65 Very Conservative 25- 6-11-58 Res: 15-25 Yrs 16- 3-10-71 Republican 19- 7-11-62 Res: 15-25 Yrs 16- 3-10-71 Res: 5-10 Yrs 22- 6-14-58 Nt Wk Outsde Home 21- 9-10-60 Neither Con/Lib 18- 6-14 b� Some Coll/Voc 16-10-13-62 Final Vote:Yes 26- 6-10-58 Renters 13- 9- 9-69 92648 17-11-11-62 18-34 16- 3- 5-76 35-44 19- 6- 3-72 Somewhat Consery 16- 9- 9-65 Some Coll/Voc 16-10-13-62 Women 16- 7- 9-69 HS or Less 25- 6-15-54 Independent 12- 9- 9-70 Men 21- 7-12-61 Work Outside Home 15- 5-11-69 Neither Con/Lib 18- 6-14-62 Women 16- 7- 9-69 Nt Wk Outsde Home 21- 9-10-60 Final Vote:No 15- B-10-67 Post -Grad Degree 17- 5-12-65 Liberal 14- 4- 9-72 65+ 21- 8-11-60 Democrat 15- B-10-67 Work Outside Home 15- 5-11-69 Res: 25+ Yrs 20- 9- 8-63 Res: 10-15 Yrs 14- 8-19-59 Liberal 14- 4- 9-72. Kids 08 a Home 17- 5- 7-71 Kids 08 a Home 17- 5- 7-71 45-54 17- 7-17-59 Res: 10-15 Yrs 14- B-19-59 Liberal 14- 4- 9-72 Res: < 5 Yrs 10-10- 6-74 Res: 5-10 Yrs 22- 6-14-58 55-64 13- 8-11-68 92646 17- 4- 6-73 92646 17- 4- 6-73 Final Vote:Yes 26- 6-10-58 Renters 13- 9- 9-69 92649 18- 4-15-63 18-34 16- 3- 5-76 Very Conservative 25- 6-11-58 Independent 12- 9- 9-70 Res: 15-25 Yrs 16- 3-10-71 College Graduate 17- 6- 5-72 92647 20-10-13-57 Res: < 5 Yrs 10-10- 6-74 18-34 16- 3- 5-76 35-44 19- 6- 3-72 HS or Less 25- 6-15-54 • Lawrence Research CROSSTABS Page 45 Huntington Beach / July 2001 1318 0 Q. 37: Importance of the Problem of city Infrastructure As you may be aware, the Huntington Beach Infrastructure Improvement Program was started in 1995 to find out the condition of the city's infrastructure, such as sewers, drains, streets and roads, and so forth, and to identify ways to improve the infrastructure and finance repairs. From everything you understand about this issue, would you say that improving the city infrastructure is the top problem the city should be working on, on of the top 3, one of the top 5, one of the top 10, or lower 1. The Top Problem 18 4. One of Top Ten 10 2. One of Top Three 50 5. Lower Than Top Ten 3 3. One of Top Five 16- 6. No Opinion 4 Format 1/2/3 MC 1 Rank 1, 2, 3 Final Vote:Yes 25-55-12 Res: 10-15 Yrs 5-62-11 Res: < 5 Yrs 13-45-26 92648 23-46-15 Post -Grad Degree 16-57-15 Res: 15-25 Yrs 18-43-22 Neither Con/Lib 22-44-14 somewhat Consery 16-57-18 18-34 11-42-21 Independent 21-42-21 55-64 20-56-11 Independent 21-42-21 Res: 25+ Yrs 21-51-13 Final Vote:Yes 25-55-12 45-54 16-49-21 College Graduate 20-50-11 Republican 15-55-16 Very Conservative 11-48-20 Liberal 2D-48- 9 92646 16-54-13 Some Coll/Voc 15-49-2D 55-64 20-56-11 Democrat 18-53-13 92649 18-50-19 Men 20-48-14 Res: 5-10 Yrs 16-52-14 HS or Less 17-46-19 65+ 19-50-14 Women 16-52-19 women 16-52-19 Nt Wk Outsde Home 19-50-17 Res: 25+ Yrs 21-51-13 92647 16-47-18 92649 18-50-19 35-44 9-51-18 Kids <18 a Home 8-51-18 Res: 15-25 Yrs 18-43-22 Work Outside Home 15-51-15 35-44 9-51-18 Democrat 18-53-13 Kids 418 a Home 8-51-18 somewhat Consery 16-57-18 Aggregate 18-50-16 65+ 19-50-14 Nt Wk Outsde Home 19-50-17 HS or Less 17-46-19 College Graduate 20-50-11 Final Vote:No 15-49-16 Somewhat Consery 16-57-18 92649 18-50-19 Republican 15-55-16 Res: 5-10 Yrs 16-52-14 Nt Wk Outsde Home 19-50-17 Aggregate 18-50-16 Post -Grad Degree 16-57-15 Aggregate 18-50-16 Renters 13-47-16 45-54 16-49-21 Some Coll/Voc 15-49-20 Work Outside Home 15-51-15 92646 16-54-13 Final Vote:No 15-49-16 92648 23-46-15 92647 16-47-18 45-54 16-49-21 Post -Grad Degree 16-57-15 Women 16-52-19 Very Conservative 11-48-20 65+ 19-50-14 Work Outside Home 15-51-15 Men 20-48-14 Res: 5-10 Yrs' 16-52-14 Some COIL/Voc 15-49-20 Liberal 20-48- 9 Neither Con/Lib 22-44-14 Republican 15-55-16 Renters 13-47-16 Men 20-48-14 final Vote:No 15-49-16 92647 16-47-18 Democrat 18-53-13 Res: < 5 Yrs 13-45-26 92648 23-46-15 92646 16-54-13 Renters 13-47-16 HS or Less 17-46-19 Res: 25+ Yrs 21-51-13 very Conservative 11-48-20 Res: < 5 Yrs 13-45-26 Final Vote:Yes 25-55-12 18-34 11-42-21 Neither Con/Lib 22-44-14 55-64 20-56-11 35-44 9-51-18 Res: 15-25 Yrs 18-43-22 Res: 10-15 Yrs 5-62-11 Kids <18 is Home 8-51-18 18-34 11-42-21 College Graduate 20-50-11 Res: 10-15 Yrs 5-62-11 Independent 21-42-21 Liberal 20-48- 9 0 Lawrence Research CROSSTABS Page 46 Huntington Beach / July 2001 1318 Q. 37: Importance of the Problem of City Infrastructure As you may be aware, the Huntington Beach Infrastructure Improvement Program was started in 1995 to find out the condition of the city's Infrastructure, such as sewers, drains, streets and roads, and so forth, and to identify ways to improve the infrastructure and finance repairs. From everything you understand about this issue, would you say that improving the city infrastructure is the top problem the city should be working on, on of the top 3, one of the top 5, one of the top 10, or lower 1. The Top Problem is 4. One of Top Ten 10 2. One of Top Three 50 5. Lower Than Top Ten 3 3. One of Top Five 16 6. No Opinion 4 Format 4/5/6 MC 1 Rank 4, 5, 6 18-34 24- 0- 3 Renters 16- 9- 0 Independent 7- 2- 7 Kids <18 2 Home 20- 2- 1 Very Conservative 8- 9- 3 Res: < 5 Yrs 10- 0- 6 Res: 10-15 Yrs 19- 3- 0 Res: 15-25 Yrs 9- 6- 2 65+ 7- 3- 6 35-44 18- 3- 1 92649 6- 6- 1 Res: 25+ Yrs 8- 2- 5 Liberal 17- 1- 4 45-54 7- 5- 2 55-64 5- 3- 5 Neither Can/Lib 16- 1- 3 Final Vote:No 11- 4- 4 Nt Wk Outsde Home 8- 2- 5 Renters 16- 9- 0 Work Outside Home 11- 4- 3 92647 11- 4- 5 Democrat 15- 0- 1 Some Coll/Voc 8- 4- 3 Women 8- 2- 5 Res: 5-10 Yrs 14- 2- 2 Men 12- 4- 3 Final Vote:No 11- 4- 4 College Graduate 13- 2- 4 92647 11- 4- 5 Liberal 17- 1- 4 92646 12- 1- 4 HS or Less 10- 4- 4 92646 12- 1- 4 Men 12- 4- 3 65+ 7- 3- 6 Post -Grad Degree 5- 3- 4 Finat Vote:No 11- 4- 4 Republican 8- 3- 3 HS or Less 10- 4- 4 Work Outside Home 11- 4- 3 Aggregate 10- 3- 4 Aggregate 10- 3- 4 92647 11- 4- 5 35-44 18- 3- 1 Somewhat Consery 4- 1- 4 Aggregate 10- 3- 4 Res: 10-15 Yrs 19- 3- 0 92648 10- 2- 4 Res: < 5 Yrs 10- 0- 6 Post -Grad Degree 5- 3- 4 College Graduate 13- 2- 4 HS or Less 10- 4- 4 55-64 5- 3- 5 Neither Con/Lib 16- 1- 3 92648 10- 2- 4 92648 10- 2- 4 Some Coll/Vat 8- 4- 3 Res: 15-25 Yrs 9- 6- 2 Independent 7- 2- 7 Very Conservative 8- 9- 3 Some Coll/Voc 8- 4- 3 Kids <18 a Home 20- 2- 1 Men 12- 4- 3 Final Vote:Yes 8- 0- 0 Res: 25+ Yrs 8- 2- 5 Work Outside Home 11- 4- 3 Women 8- 2- 5 College Graduate 13- 2- 4 Republican 8- 3- 3 Republican 8- 3- 3 Res: 5-10 Yrs 14- 2- 2 18-34 24- 0- 3 Very Conservative 8- 9- 3- Women 8- 2- 5 45-54 7- 5- 2 Nt Wk Outsde Home 8- 2- 5 Nt Wk Outsde Home 8- 2- 5 Res: 5-10 Yrs 14- 2- 2 Res: 25+ Yrs 8- 2- 5 Liberal 17- 1- 4 Res: 15-25 Yrs 9- 6- 2 65+ 7- 3- 6 92646 12- 1- 4 35-44 18- 3- 1 45-54 7- 5- 2 Somewhat Consery 4- 1- 4 92649 6- 6- 1 Independent 7- 2- 7 Neither Con/Lib 16- 1- 3 Kids <18 2 Home 20- 2- 1 92649 6- 6- 1 18-34 24- 0- 3 Democrat 15- 0- 1 Post -Grad Degree 5- 3- 4 Res: < 5 Yrs 10- 0- 6 Renters 16- 9- 0 55-64 5- 3- 5 Final Vote:Yes 8- 0- 0 Final Vate:Yes 8- 0- 0 Somewhat Consery 4- 1- 4 Democrat 15- 0- 1 Res: 10-15 Yrs 19- 3- 0 Lawrence Research CROSSTABS Page 47 Huntington Beach / July 2001 1318 Q. 38: (s51:]Vote: Measure A One way to pay for infrastructure is to impose a property tax where some some areas would have a lower tax than resicences located on public streets I will now read you Measure A, After I do, please tell me, if the election were held today, whether you would vote Yea or No. Here it is Measure A: Shall the City of Huntington Beach be authorized to impose a property tax increase to finance unfunded infrastructure projects. A citizens oversight committee would conduct an annual audit of the funds 1. Definitely Yes 4 4. Definitely No 51 2. Probably Yes 13 5. Undecided 2 3. Probably No 31 Format 1/2/3/4 MC 1 Rank 1, 2, 3, 4 Final Vote:Yes 15-40-31-12 Final Vote:Yes 15-40-31-12 Res: 5-10 Yrs 6-13-42-39 Final Vote:No 0- 1-31-67 Independent 13- 9-17-57 18-34 6-33-39-22 HS or Less 4- 4-41-52 55-64 3- 6-29-61 Neither Con/Lib 13- 6-26-53 92648 3-21-16-55 Democrat 11- B-41-41 Res: < 5 Yrs 0-12-24-59 Democrat 11- B-41-41 Res: 15-25 Yrs 4-17-32-45 Renters 4- 8-40-44 Res: 25+ Yrs 4-lD-28-57 Post -Grad Degree 9-11-30-50 Somewhat Consery 0-16-31-52 35-44 0- 5-39-55 Independent 13- 9-17-57 45-54 8-11-28-53 Liberal 8-15-35-35 18-34 6-33-39-22 35-44 0- 5-39-55 Liberal 8-15-35-35 92649 2-15-32-51 Kids <18 a Home 2-10-39-49 92648 3-21-16-55 Men 7-12-27-52 Some Coll/Voc 2-14-27-52 very Conservative 07 6-39-55. Republican 0-14-3D-55 Res: 5-10 Yrs 6-13-42-39 Republican 0-14-30-55 92646 6-10-36-47 Nt Wk Outsde Home 3-10-27-55 92646 6-10-36-47 College Graduate 3-14-32-50 Work Outside Home 4-13-36-47 Very Conservative 0- 6-39-55 18-34 6-33-39-22 Res: 10-15 Yrs 5-14-32-50 92647 4- B-35-51 Neither Con/Lib 13- 6-26-53 Res: 10-15 Yrs 5-14-32-50 Work Outside Home 4-13-36-47 Women 1-13-35-49 45-54 8-11-28-53 Res: 15-25 Yrs 4-17-32-45 Women 1-13-35-49 Liberal 8-15-35-35 Men 7-12-27-52 65+ 4-13-29-49 Res: 5-10 Yrs 6-13-42-39 Res: 15-25 Yrs 4-17-32-45 HS or Less 4- 4-41-52 Aggregate 4-13-31-51 Aggregate 4-13-31-51 Res: 10-15 Yrs 5-14-32-50 Some Coll/Voc 2-14-27-52 Renters 4- 8-40-44 65+ 4-13-29-49 College Graduate 3-14-32-50 Somewhat Consery 0-16-31-52 92647 4- 8-35-51 Men 7-12-27-52 92649 2-15-32-51 92649 2-15-32-51 Work Outside Hone 4-13-36-47 Res: < 5 Yrs 0-12-24-59 Final Vote:No 0- 1-31-67 92647 4- 8-35-51 HS or Less 4- 4-41-52 Post -Grad Degree 9-11-30-50 Aggregate 4-13-31-51 Aggregate 4-13-31-51 Res: 25+ Yrs 4-10-28-57 45-54 8-11-28-53 Final Vote:Yes 15-40-31-12 Post -Grad Degree 9-11-30-50 Nt Wk Outsde Home 3-10-27-55 Kids <18 2 Home 2-10-39-49 Somewhat Consery 0-16-31-52 College Graduate 3-14-32-50 55-64 3- 6-29-61 92646 6-10-36-47 Republican 0-14-30-55 Res: 10-15 Yrs 5-14-32-50 College Graduate 3-14-32-50 Nt Wk outsde Home 3-10-27-55 Post -Grad Degree 9-11-30-50 Women 1-13-35-49 92648 3-21-16-55 Res: 25+ Yrs 4-10-28-57 65+ 4-13-29-49 Kids <18 is Home 2-10-39-49 92649 2-15-32-51 Independent 13- 9-17-57 55-64 3- 6-29-61 65+ 4-13-29-49 Kids <18 a Home 2-10-39-49 Democrat 11- 8-41-41 45-54 8-11-28-53 92646 6-10-36-47 Some Coll/Vac 2-14-27-52 Renters 4- 8-40.44 Res: 25+ Yrs 4-10-28-57 Work outside Home 4-13-36-47 Women 1-13-35-49 92647 4- B-35.51 Nt Wk Outsde Home 3-10-27-55 Res: 15-25 Yrs 4-17-32-45 Very Conservative 0- 6-39-55 Very Conservative 0- 6-39-55 Men 7-12-27-52 Renters 4- 8-40-44 Somewhat Consery 0-16-31-52 55-64 3- 6-29-61 Some Coll/Voc 2-14-27-52 Democrat 11- 8-41-41 Res: < 5 Yrs 0-12-24-59 Neither Con/Lib 13- 6-26-53 Neither Con/Lib 13- 6-26-53 Res: 5-10 Yrs 6-13-42-39 35-44 0- 5-39-55 35-44 0- 5-39-55 Res: < 5 Yrs 0-12-24-59 Liberal- 8-15-35-35 Republican 0-14-30-55 HS or Less 4- 4-41-52 Independent 13- 9-17-57 18-34 6-33-39-22 Final Vote:No 0- 1-31-67 Final Vote:No 0- 1-31-67 92648 3-21-16-55 Final Vote:Yes 15-40-31-12 r] Lawrence Research CROSSTABS Page 48 Huntington Beach / July 2001 1318 Q. 38: [SS1:]Vote: Measure A One.way to pay for infrastructure is to impose a property tax where some some areas would have a lower tax than resicences located on public streets I will now read you Measure A, After I do, please tell me, if the election were held today, whether you would vote Yes or No. Here it is Measure A: Shall the City of Huntington Beach be authorized to impose a property tax increase to finance unfunded infrastructure projects. A citizens oversight committee would conduct an annual audit of the funds 1. Definitely Yee 4 4. Definitely No 51 2. Probably Yes 13 5. Undecided 2 3. Probably No 31 Format 1+2/3+4/5 MC 1 Rank 1+2, 3+4, 5 Final Vote:Yes 56-42- 2 Final Vote:No 1-99- 0 Liberal 23-69- 8 18-34 39-61- 0 35-44 5-95- 0 Res: < 5 Yrs 12-82- 6 92648 24-71- 5 Very Conservative 6-94- 0 65+ 17-78- 6 Liberal 23-69- 8 HS or Less 7-93- 0 Some Coll/Voc 16-79- 5 Independent 22-74- 4 55-64 10-90- 0 92648 24-71- 5 Res: 15-25 Yrs 21-77- 2 Kids <18 a Home 12-88- 0 Nt Wk Outsde Home 13-82- 4 Post -Grad Degree 2G-80- 0 92647 12-86- 2 Independent 22-74- 4 45-54-19-81- 0 Republican 14-85- 1 Renters 12-84- 4 Res: 5-10 Yrs 19-81- 0 Res: 25+ Yrs 13-84- 2 Res: 25+ Yrs 13-84- 2 Neither Con/Lib 19-79- 2 Women 14-84- 2 Res: 15-25 Yrs 21-77- 2 Men 19-79- 2 Renters 12-84- 4 Neither Con/Lib 19-79- 2 Democrat 19-81- 0 92649 17-83- 0 Women 14-84- 2 Res: 10-15 Yrs 18-82- 0 92646 16-83- 1 Men 19-79- 2 Work Outside Home 17-83- 0 Work Outside Home 17-83- 0 Aggregate 17-82- 2 92649 17-83- 0 Nt Wk Outsde Home 13-82- 4 92647 12-86- 2 College Graduate 17-82- 2 Somewhat Consery 16-82- 1 Final Vote:Yes 56-42- 2 65+ 17-78- 6 Res: < 5 Yrs 12-82- 6 College Graduate 17-82- 2 Aggregate 17-82- 2 College Graduate 17-82- 2 92646 16-83- 1 Somewhat Consery 16-82- 1 Res: 10-15 Yrs 18-82- 0 Somewhat Consery 16-82- 1 Some Coll/Voc 16-79- 5 Aggregate 17-82- 2 Republican 14-85- 1 92646 16-83- 1 Democrat 19-81- 0 HS or Less 7-93- 0 Women 14-84- 2 Res: 5-10 Yrs 19-81- 0 Post -Grad Degree 20-80- 0 Republican 14-85- 1 45-54 19-81- 0 Democrat 19-81- 0 Res: 25+ Yrs 13-84- 2 Post -Grad Degree 20-80- 0 18-34 39-61- 0 Nt Wk Outsde Home 13-82- 4 Men 19-79- 2 92649 17-83- 0 Kids 08 a Home 12-88- 0 Neither Con/Lib 19-79- 2 45-54 19-81- 0 Renters 12-84- 4 Some Coll/Voc 16-79- 5 55-64 10-90- 0 Res: < 5 Yrs. 12-82- 6 65+ 17-78- 6 Kids <18 is Home 12-88- 0 92647 12-86- 2 Res: 15-25 Yrs 21-77- 2 Very Conservative 6-94- 0 55-64 10-90- 0 Independent 22-74- 4 Res: 5-10 Yrs 19-81- 0 HS or Less 7-93- 0 92648 24-71- 5 Res: 10-15 Yrs 1B-B2- 0 Very Conservative 6-94- 0 Liberal 23-69- B 35-44 5-95- 0 35-44 5-95- 0 18-34 39-61- 0 Work Outside Rome 17-83- 0 Final Vote:No 1-99- 0 Final Vote:Yes 56-42- 2 final Vote:No 1-99- 0 L_J .7 Lawrence Research CROSSTABS Page 49 Huntington Beach / July 2001 1318 Vote: Measure A Q. 42: [SS2:] (Conditioned) Measure A: Shall the City of Huntington Beach be authorized to establish a Community Facilities District to finance unfunded infrastructure projects, and to impose an increase in propperty taxes from for such projects? The property tax increases would range $136 to $289 per year per residential household for 20 years, and commercial and industrial properties would see property tax increases of $3000 to $8000 per acre per year. A citizens oversight committee would conduct an annual audit of the funds. I. Definitely Yes S 4. Befinitely No 53 2. Probably Yes 15 S. Undecided 4 3. Probably No 25 Format 1/2/3/4 MC 1 Rank 1, 2, 3, 4 Final Vote:Yes 19-58-10-10 Final Vote:Yes 19-58-10-10 18-34 0-20-45-30 Res: 10-15 Yrs 0- 7-20-73 Res: 5-10 Yrs 16- 5-21-58 Pcst-Grad Degree 3-23-23-42 92649 3-10-32-55 Renters 0-14-14-71 HS or Less 12-20-16-48 Neither Can/Lib 5-23-28-43 Independent 10-10-30-50 Very Conservative 3- 3-18.70 35-44 10- 3-21-66 Res: < 5 Yrs 0-21-21-50 Final Vote:No 0- 0-29-69 Final Vote:No 0- 0-29-69 independent 10-10-30-50 18-34 0-20-45-30 92647 2-10-29-48 35-44 10- 3-21-66 92646 7-17-20-55 Hs or Less 12-20-16-48 65+ 6- 8-29-55 Kids 418 a Home 5-13-16-63 65+ 6- 8-29-55 92648 4-20-22-52 Liberal 5-19-28-44 Some Coll/Voc 2-11-25-63 Men 6-15-22-56 Democrat 2-19-23-50 College Graduate 5-11-28-53 45-54 2-17-13-61 Nt A Outsde Home 6-15-25-54 55-64 4-19-27-46 Neither Con/Lib 5-23-28-43 Res: 5-10 Yrs 16- 5-21-58 Somewhat Consery 5-13-25-55 Liberal 5-19-28-44 55-64 4-19-27-46 Men 6-15-22-56 College Graduate 5-11-28-53 45-54 2-17-13-61 Women 3-14-27-49 65+ 6- 8-29-55 Kids 418 a Home 5-13-16-63 Res: 15-25 Yrs 4-17-25-51 Res: 25+ Yrs 4-15-26-49 92646 7-17-20-55 Neither Con/Lib 5-23-28-43 97646 7-17-20-55 Republican 5-13-26-54 92649 3-10-32-55 Republican 5-13-26-54 REs: 25+ Yrs 4-15-26-49 Somewhat Consery 5-13-25-55 Somewhat Consery 5-13-25-55 Liberal 5-19-28-44 Men 6-15-22-56 Some Cott/Voc 2-11-25-63 Republican 5-13-26-54 Aggregate 5-15-25-53 92648 4-20-22-52 Work Outside Home Nt Wk Outsde Home 4-15-23-52 6-15-25-54 Nt Wk Outsde Home Res: 15-25 Yrs 6-15-25-54 4-17-25-51 Nt Wk Outsde Home College Graduate 6-15-25-54 5-11-28-53 55-64 4-19-27-46 Aggregate 5-15-25-53 Aggregate 5-15-25-53 Aggregate 5-15-25-53 Res: 25+ Yrs 4-15-26-49 Renters 0-14-14-71 Democrat 2-19-23-50 Work Outside Home 4-15-23-52 Res: 15-25 Yrs 4-17-25-51 Women 3-14-27-49 Work Outside Home 4-15-23-52 92648 4-20-22-52 Work Outside Home 4-15-23-52 Somewhat Consery 5-13-25-55 Post -Grad Degree 3-23-23-42 Res: 15-25 Yrs 4-17-25-51 92649 3-10-32-55 Republican 5-13-26-54 Men 6-15-22-56 Independent 10-10-30-50 Post -Grad Degree 3-23-23-42 Kids <18 a Home 5-13-16-63 92648 4-20-22-52 Res: < 5 Yrs 0-21-21-50 Very Conservative 3- 3-18-70 Some Coll/Voc 2-11-25-63 Res: < 5 Yrs 0-21-21-50 Democrat 2-19-23-50 Women 3-14-27-49 College Graduate 5-11-28-53 Res: 5-10 Yrs 16- 5-21-58 Res: 25+ Yrs 4-15-26-49 45-54 2-17-13-61 Iddependent 10-10-30-50 35-44 10- 3-21-66 Women 3-14-27-49 Democrat 2-19-23-50 92649 3-10-32-55 Res: 10-15 Yrs 0- 7-20-73 92647 2-10-29-48 92647 2-10-29-48 92647 2-10-29-48 92646 7-17-20-55 HS or Less 12-20-16-48 Some Cotl/Voc 2-11-25-63 65+ 6- 8-29-55 Very Conservative 3- 3-18-70 55-64 4-19-27-46 18-34 0-20-45-30 Res: 10-15 Yrs 0- 7-20-73 HS or Less 12-20-16-48 Liberal 5-19-28-44 Res: 10-15 Yrs 0- 7-20-73 Res: 5-10 Yrs 16- 5-21-58 Kids 08 a Home 5-13-16-63 Neither Can/Lib 5-23-28-43 Res: < 5 Yrs 0-21-21-50 35-44 10- 3-21-66 Renters 0-14-14-71 Post -Grad Degree 3-23-23-42 Renters 0-14-14-71 Very Conservative 3- 3-18-70 45-54 2-17-13-61 18-34 0-20-45-30 Final Vote:No 0- 0-29-69 Final Vote:No 0- 0-29-69 Final Vote:Yes 19-58-10-10 Final Vote:Yes 19-58-10-10 • Lawrence Research CROSSTABS Page 50 Huntington Beach / July 2001 1318 Q. 42: [S52:] Vote: Measure A (Conditioned) Measure A: Shall the City of Huntington Beach be authorized to establish a Community Facilities District to finance unfunded infrastructure projects, and to impose an increase in property taxes for such projects? The property tax increases would range from $136 to $289 per year per residential household for 20 years, and commercial and industrial properties would see property tax increases of $3000 to $8000 per acre per year. A citizens oversight committee would conduct an annual audit of the funds. 1. Definitely Yes 2. Probably Yes 3. Probably No Format 1+2/3+4/5 MC 1 Rank 1+2, 3+4, 5 Final Vote:Yes 77-21- 2 HS or Less 32-64- 4 Neither Con/lib 28-70- 3 Post -Grad Degree 26-65-10 92646 24-75- 1 92648 24-74- 2 Liberal 23-72- 5 55-64 23-73- 4 Res: < 5 Yrs 21-71- 7 Democrat 21-73- 6 Res: 5-10 Yrs 21-79- 0 Men 21-78- 1 Res: 15-25 Yrs 21-75- 4 Nt Wk Outsde Home 20-79- 1 independent 20-80- 0 18-34 20-75- 5 45-54 20-74- 7 Res: 25+ Yrs 19-76- 5 Aggregate 19-77- 4 Somewhat Consery 19-80- 1 Kids <18 a Home 18-79- 3 Work Outside home 18-75- 6 Republican 18-80- 2 Women 17-76- 7 College Graduate 16-80- 4 Renters 14-86- 0 65+ 14-84- 2 35-44 14-86- 0 92649 13-87- 0 Some Coll/Voc 13-88- 0 92647 12-77-12 Res: 10-15 Yrs 7-93- 0 Very Conservative 6-88- 6 Final Vote:No 0-99- 1 Final Vote:No 0-99- 1 Res: 10-15 Yrs 7-93- 0 Very Conservative 6-88- 6 Some Coll/Voc 13-88- 0 92649 13-87- 0 35-44 14-86- 0 Renters 14-86- 0 65+ 14-84- 2 College Graduate 16-80- 4 Republican 18-80- 2 Somewhat Consery 19-80- 1 Independent 20-80- 0 Kids <18 9 Home 18-79- 3 Res: 5-10 Yrs 21-79- 0 Nt Wk Outsde Home 20-79- 1 Men 21-78- 1 Aggregate 19-77- 4 92647 12-77-12 Women 17-76- 7 Res: 25+ Yrs 19-76- 5 Res: 15-25 Yrs 21-75- 4 Work Outside Home 18-75- 6 18-34 20-75- 5 92646 24-75- 1 45-54 20-74- 7 92648 24-74- 2 Democrat 21-73- 6 55-64 23-73- 4 Liberal 23-72- 5 Res: < 5 Yrs 21-71- 7 Neither Can/Lib 28-70- 3 Post -Grad Degree 26-65-10 HS or Less 32-64- 4 Final Vote:Yes 77-21- 2 5 4. Definitely No 15 S. Undecided 25 92647 12-77-12 Post -Grad Degree 26-65-10 Res: < 5 Yrs 21-71- 7 Women 17-76- 7 45-54 20-74- 7 Work Outside Home 18-75- 6 Very Conservative 6-88- 6 Democrat 21-73- 6' Res: 25+ Yrs 19-76- 5 18-34 20-75- 5 Liberal 23-72- 5 55-64 23-73- 4 HS or Less 32-64- 4 Aggregate 19-77- 4 College Graduate 16-80- 4 Res: 15-25 Yrs 21-75- 4 Kids <18 a Home 18-79- 3 Neither Con/Lib 28-70- 3 92648 24-74- 2 Final Vote:Yes 77-21- 2 65+ 14-84- 2 Republican 18-80- 2 Final Vote:No 0-99- 1 92646 24-75- 1 Somewhat Consery 19-80- 1 Nt Wk Outsde Home 20-79- 1 Men 21-78- 1 Independent 20-80- 0 Renters 14-86- 0 Res: 5-10 Yrs 21-79- 0 Res: 10-15 Yrs 7-93- 0 35-44 14-86- 0 92649 13-87- 0 Some Coll/Yoe 13-88- 0 53 4 • • 0 Lawrence Research CROSSTABS Page 51 Huntington Beach / July 2001 1318 ig. Vote: Measure B 43: (SS2:j (Conditioned) Measure B. Shall the City of Huntington Beach be authorized to increase property taxes by up to two and a half times greater than those called for in Measure A when emergency infrastructure repairs are absolutely required and a direct threat to public health or safety exists? This tax would only be applied for that purpose 1. Definitely Yes 5 4. Definitely No 52 2. Probably Yes 16 5. Undecided 7 3. Probably No 21 Format 1/2/3/4 MC 1 Rank 1, 2, 3, 4 Final Vote:Yes 15-27-27-19 Final Vote:Yes 15-27-27-19 Res: < 5 Yrs 0- 7-43-43 Renters 0- 0-14-86 92648 11-13-26-43 92646 4-24-21-45 18-34 10-20-35-30 35-44 3-17- 7-69 18-34 10-20-35-30 Liberal 9-23-21-40 HS or Less 4-12-28-48 Res: 5-10 Yrs 0-16-11-68 Democrat' 10-15-23-42 Res: 15-25 Yrs 4-23-25-40 Final Vote:Yes 15-27-27-19 Very Conservative 3- 9-18-67 Liberal 9-23-21-40 Neither Con/Lib 5-20-23-43 92648 11-13-26-43 Res: 10-15 Yrs 0-13-13-67 65+ 8-10-18-53 18-34 10-20-35-30 92649 3- 6-26-65 Final Vote:No 1-12-19-65 Kids 08 W Home 8-18-18-53 Kids <18 a Home B-18-18-53 55-64 2-13-25-54 Independent 0-10-25-65 Res: 25+ Yrs 7-13-19-55 Work outside Home 5-17-18-53 independent 0-10-25-65 92649 3- 6-26-65 Some Coll/Voc 6-14-19-55 45-54 2-17-24-50 Res: 15-25 Yrs 4-23-25-40 92647 0-12-13-62 Women 5-16-20-51 35-44 3-17- 7-69 Somewhat Consery 3-11-24-57 Post -Grad Degree 3-13-23-5B Neither Con/Lib 5-20-23-43 College Graduate 4-17-20-51 45-54 2-17-24-50 Somewlat Consery 3-11-24-57 Work outside Home 5-17-18-53 Women 5-16-20-51 Nt Wk Outsde Home 4-12-24-52 Republican 3-15-21-55 Aggregate 5-16-21-52 Res: 5-10 Yrs 0-16-11-68 Democrat 10-15-23-42 Some Coll/Voc 6-14-19-55 Nt Wk outsde Home 4-12-24-52 Aggregate 5-16-21-52 Post -Grad Degree 3-13-23-58 Res: 25+ Yrs 7-13-19-55 92646 4-24-21-45 Democrat 10-15-23-42 Neither Con/Lib 5-20-23-43 55-64 2-13-25-54 HS or Less 4-12-28-48 Republican 3-15-21-55 Men 4-15-22-53 Work outside Home 5-17-18-53 Men 4-15-22-53 Men 4-15-22-53 92646 4-24-21-45 65+ B-10-18-53 College Graduate Yrs. 4-17-20-51 4-23-25-40 Some Coll/Vac Res: 10-15 Yrs 6-14-19-55 0-13-13-67 Aggregate Republican 5-16-21-52 3-15-21-55 Men Kids <18 a Home 4-15-22-53 B-18-18-53 Res: 15-25 35-44 3-17- 7-69 Res: 25+ Yrs 7-13-19-55 Liberal 9-23-21-40 Aggregate 5-16-21-52 Post -Grad Degree 3-13-23-58 92648 11-13-26-43 Women 5-16-20-51 Nt Wk Owtsde Home 4-12-24-52 92649 3- 6-26-65 Post -Grad Degree 3-13-23-58 College Graduate 4-17-20-51 College Graduate 4-17-20-51 Very Conservative 3- 9-18-67 55-64 2-13-25-54 Final Vote:No 1-12-19-65 Women 5-16-20-51 Republican 3-15-21-55 Nt Wk outsde Nome 4-12-24-52 Res: 25+ Yrs 7-13-19-55 45-54 2-17-24-50 Somewhat Consery 3-11-24-57 Final Vote:No 1-12-19-65 Some Coll/Voc 6-14-19-55 HS or Less 4-12-28-48 45-54 2-17-24-50 HS or Less 4-12-28-48 Kids <18 a Home 8-18-18-53 92646 4-24-21-45 55-64 2-13-25-54 92647 0-12-13-62 65+ 8-10-18-53 92648 11-13-26-43 Final Vote:No 1-12-19-65 Somewhat Consery 3-11-24-57 Work Outside Home 5-17-18-53 Res: < 5 Yrs 0- 7-43-43 Renters 0- 0-14-86 65+ B-10-18-53 Very Conservative 3- 9-18-67 Neither Con/Lib 5-20-23-43 92647 0-12-13-62 Independent 0-10-25-65 Renters 0- 0-14-86 Democrat 10-15-23-42 Independent 0-10-25-65 Very Conservative 3- 9-18-67 92647 0-12-13-62 Res: 15-25 Yrs 4-23-25-40 Res: c 5 Yrs 0- 7-43-43 Res: < 5 Yrs 0- 7-43-43 Res: 10-15 Yrs 0-13-13-67 Liberal 9-23-21-40 Res: 5-10 Yrs 0-16-11-68 92649 3- 6-26-65 Res: 5-10 Yrs 0-16-11-68 18-34 10-20-35-30 Res: 10-15 Yrs 0-13-13-67 Renters 0- 0-14-86 35-44 3-17- 7-69 Final Vote:Yes 15-27-27-19 u Lawrence Research CROSSTABS Page 52 Huntington Beach / July 2001 1318 Q.' 43: [SS2:] Vote: Measure B (Conditioned) Measure B. Shall the City of Huntington Beach be authorized to increase property taxes by up to two and a half times greater than those called for in Measure A when emergency infrastructure repairs are absolutely rerired and a direct threat to public health or safety exists? This tax would only be applied for that purpose 1. Definitely Yes 5 4. Definitely No 52 2. Probably Yes 16 S. Undecided 7 3. Probably No 21 Format 1+2/3+4/5 MC 1 Rank 1+2, 3+4, 5 Final Vote:Yes 42-46-13 Renters 0-**- 0 92647 12-75-13 Liberal 33-60- 7 92649 10-90- 0 Final Vote:Yes 42-46-13 18-34 30-65- 5 Independent 10-90- 0 65+ 18-71-10 92646 28-66- 6 Res: < 5 Yrs 7-86- 7 Neither Can/Lib 25-65-10 Res: 15-25 Yrs 26-64- 9 Very Conservative 12-85- 3 Democrat 25-65-10 Kids <18 2 Home 26-71- 3 Final Vote:No 14-84- 2 Res: 15-25 Yrs 26-64- 9 Neither Con/Lib 25-65-10 Somewhat Consery 13-81- 5 HS or Less 16-76- 8 Democrat 25-65-10 Post -Grad Degree 16-81- 3 Women 21-71- 8 92648 24-70- 7 Res: 10-15 Yrs 13-80- 7 College Graduate 21-71- 8 Work Outside Home 22-72- 6 55-64 15-79- 6 Nt Wk Outsde Home 17-75- 8 College Graduate 21-71- 8 Res; 5-10 Yrs 16-79- 5 Res: < 5 Yrs 7-86- 7 Women 21-71- 8 Republican 18-76- 6 Aggregate 20-73- 7 35-44 21-76- 3 HS or Less 16-76- 8 Liberal 33-60- 7 Same Coll/Voc 20-73- 6 35-44 21-76- 3 Res: 10-15 Yrs 13-80- 7 Res: 25+ Yrs 20-74- 6 Nt Wk Outsde Home 17-75- 8 45-54 20-74- 7 Aggregate 20-73- 7 92647 12-75-13 92648 24-70- 7 45-54 20-74- 7 Men 19-75- 6 Work outside Home 22-72- 6 Mc+n 19-75- 6 45-54 20-74- 7 Some Call/Voc 20-73- 6 65+ 18-71-10 Res: 25+ Yrs 20-74- 6 55-64 15-79- 6 Republican 18-76- 6 Some Coll/Voc 20-73- 6 Res: 25+ Yrs 20-74- 6 Nt Wk Outsde Home 17-75- 8 Aggregate 20-73- 7 Men 19-75- 6 Post -Grad Degree 16-81- 3 Work Outside home 22-72- 6 Republican 18-76- 6 HS or Less 16-76- 8 65+ 18-71-10 92646 28-66- 6 Res: 5-10 Yrs 16-79- 5 College Graduate 21-71- 8 'Somewhat Consery 13-81- 5 55-64 15-79- 6 Kids <18 @ Home 26-71- 3 Res: 5-10 Yrs 16-79- 5 Final Vote:No 14-84- 2 Women 21-71- 8 18-34 30-65- 5 Res: 10-15 Yrs 13-80- 7 92648 24-70- 7 35-44 21-76- 3 Somewhat Consery 13-81- 5 92646 28-66- 6 Post -Grad Degree 16-81- 3 Very Conservative 12-85- 3 Democrat 25-65-10 Very Conservative 12-85- 3 92647 12-75-13 18-34 30-65- 5 Kids <18 a Home 26-71- 3 Independent 10-90- 0 Neither Con/Lib 25-65-10 Final Vote:No 14-84- 2 92649 10-90- 0 Res: 15-25 Yrs 26-64- 9' Renters 0-**- 0 Res: < 5 Yrs 7-86- 7 Liberal 33-60- 7 92649 10-90- 0 Renters 0-**- 0 Final Vote:Yes 42-46-13 Independent 10-90- 0 0 Lawrence Research CROSSTABS Page 53 • Huntington Beach / July 2001 1318 Q. 48: Heard: Committee is Overreacting Infrastructure Problem I will now read you some arguments that may be heard on both sides of the infrastructure issue. For each one, please tell me whether you have heard it. Then whether you feel it is believable. The Citizens Infrastructure Advisory Committee is making a mountain out of a molehill when it says the city's infrastructure needs major rebuilding and repairs. 1. Heard Format 1/2 MC 1 Rank 1, 2 Very Conservative 42-58 65+ 42-58 Final vote:Yes 37-63 HS or Less 35-65 Res: 25+ Yrs 34-66 Nt Wk Outsde Home 34-66 92648 33-67 Kids <18 a Home 33-67 Republican 33-67 Res: 15-25 Yrs 33-67 92646 33-67 Women 33-68 Post -Grad Degree 32-68 Democrat 31-69 Neither Con/Lib 31-69 College Graduate 31-69 Somewhat Consery 31-69 Aggregate 31-7 92649 29-71 55-64 29-71 Final Vote:No 29-71 Men 29-72 Res: 5-10 Yrs 28-72 Work outside Home 28-72 Some Coll/Voc 27-73 92647 26-74 Renters 25-75 18-34 24-76 Liberal 23-77 35-44 22-78 45-54 22-78 Res: < 5 Yrs 19-81 Res: 10-15 Yrs 19-81 Independent 19-81 • Independent 19-81 Res: 10-15 Yrs 19-81 Res: < 5 Yrs 19-81 45-54 22-78 35-44 22-78 Liberal 23-77 18-34 24-76 Renters 25-75 92647 26-74 Some Coll/Voc 27-73 Work outside Home 28-72 Res:'5-10 Yrs 28-72 Men 29-72 Final Vote:No 29-71 55-64 29-71 92649 29-71 Aggregate 31-70 Somewhat Consery 31-69 College Graduate 31-69 Neither Con/Lib 31-69 Democrat 31-69 Post -Grad Degree 32-68 Women 33-68 92646 33-67 Res: 15-25 Yrs 33-67 Republican 33-67 Kids 08 a Home 33-67 92648 33-67 Nt Wk Outsde Home 34-66 Res: 25+ Yrs 34-66 HS or Less 35-65 Final Vote:Yes 37-63 65+ 42-58 Very Conservative 42-58 31 2. Not Heard 70 Lawrence Research CROSSTABS Page 54 Huntington Beach / July 2001 1318 Q. 49: Believability: Committee is Overreacting Infrastructure Problem The Citizens Infrastructure Advisory Committee is making a mountain out of a molehill when it says the city's infrastructure needs major rebuilding and repairing. 1. very Believable 21 4. very Unbelievable is 2. somewhat Believable 33 5. No Opinion 9 3. Somewhat Unbelievable 19 Format 1/2/3/4 MC 1 Rank 1, 2, 3, 4 Renters 38-38- 9-13 18-34 18-42-16-16 92649 18-31-26-17 Democrat 22-27-12-28 Neither Con/Lib 30-26-17-16 Somewhat Consery 14-42-23-16 Independent 21-26-26-21 45-54 18-30-17-28 Very Conservative 28-27-22-14 92646 21-41-13-13 92648 14-32-25-25 Liberal 19-28-13-28 92647 27-24-17-19 College Graduate 20-39-14-20 Some Coll/Voc 20-28-24-18 92648 14-32-25-25 HS or Less 25-31-23-13 Res: < 5 Yrs 13-39-13-23 35-44 13-37-24-13 Res: < 5 Yrs 13-39-13-23 65+ 25-31-20-17 Res: 15-25 Yrs 24-38-16-15 Republican 19-37-23-14 Independent 21-26-26-21 Res: 10-15 Yrs 24-30-22- 8 Kids 08 O Home 17-38-21-17 Res: 25+ Yrs 19-30-23-20 Res: 25+ Yrs 19-30-23-20 Res: 5-10 Yrs 24-32-14-20 Renters 38-38- 9-13 HS or Less 25-31-23-13 Res: 5-10 Yrs 24-32-14-20 Res: 15-25 Yrs 24-38-16-15 Republican 19-37-23-14 Somewhat Consery 14-42-23-16 College Graduate 20-39-14-20 Nt Wk Outsde Home 23-31-19-19 35-44 13-37-24-13 Women 21-30-22-18 92647 27-24-17-19 Final Vote:Yes 23-36-18-18 Men 21-36-17-19 Very Conservative 28-27-22-14 Nt Wk Outsde Home 23-31-19-19 Democrat _ 22-27-12-28 Final Vote:Yes 23-36-18-18 Res: 10-15 Yrs 24-30-22- 8 Post -Grad Degree 17-31-21-19 55-64 22-32-19-16 Work Outside Home 18-35-20-18 post -Grad Degree 17-31-21-19 Men 21-36-17-19 92646 21-41-13-13 Aggregate 21-33-19-18 Final Vote:No 20-32-21-18 Some Colt/vac 20-28-24-18 Men 21-36-17-19 92648 14-32-25-25 Kids 08 Q Home 17-38-21-17 Final Vote:Yes 23-36-18-18 Independent 21-26-26-21 Final Vote:No 20-32-21-18 Work Outside Home 18-35-20-18 Aggregate 21-33-19-18 Aggregate 21-33-19-18 Res: 5-10 Yrs 24-32-14-2D 65+ 25-31-20-17 Work Outside Home 18-35-20-18 Women 21-30-22-18 55-64 22-32-19-16 Aggregate 21-33-19-18 Final Vote:No 20-32-21-18 Final Vote:No 20-32-21-18 Nt Wk Outsde Home 23-31-19-19 55-64 22-32-19-16 Women 21-30-22-18 Some Coll/Voc 20-28-24-18 HS or Less 25-31-23-13 Nt Wk Outsde Home 23-31-19-19 Kids <18 & Home 17-38-21-1' College Graduate 20-39-14-20 Post -Grad Degree 17-31-21-19 Final Vote:Yes 23-36-18-18 92649 18-31-26-17 Liberal 19-28-13-28 65+ 25-31-20-17 92647 27-24-17-19 65+ 25-31-20-17 Republican 19-37-23-14 92649 18-31-26-17 Neither Con/Lib 30-26-17-16 55-64 22-32-19-16 Res: 25+ Yrs 19-30-23-20 45-54 18-30-17-28 45-54 18-30-17-28 Somewhat Consery 14-42-23-16 18-34 18-42-16-16 Res: 25+ Yrs 19-30-23-20 Men 21-36-17-19 Neither Con/Lib 30-26-17-16 Work outside Home 18-35-20-18 Women 21-30-22-18 Res: 15-25 Yrs 24-38-16-15 18-34 18-42-16-16 45-54 18-30-17-28 Res: 10-15 Yrs 24-30-22- 8 18-34 18-42-16-16 Res: 15-25 Yrs 24-38-16-15 92649 18-31-26-17 Some Coll/Voc 20-28-24-18 College Graduate 20-39-14-20 Very Conservative 28-27-22-14 Post -Grad Degree 17-31-21-19 Liberal 19-28-13-28 Res: 5-10 Yrs 24-32-14-20 Republican 19-37-23-14 Kids <18 & Home 17-38-21-17 Democrat 22-27-12-28 92646 21-41-13-13 92646 21-41-13-13 92648 14-32-25-25 very Conservative 28-27-22-14 Liberal 19-28-13-28 HS or Less 25-31-23-13 Somewhat Consery 14-42-23-16 Neither Can/Lib 30-26-17-16 Res: < 5 Yrs 13-39-13-23 35-44 13-37-24-13 35-44 13-37-24-13 Independent 21-26-26-21 Democrat 22-27-12-28 Renters 38-38- 9-13 Res: < 5 Yrs 13-39-13-23 92647 27-24-17-19 Renters 38-38- 9-13 Res: 10-15 Yrs 24-30-22- 8 Lawrence Research CROSSTABS Page 55 Huntington Beach / July 2001 1318 0 Q. 49: Believability: Committee is Overreacting Infrastructure Problem The Citizens Infrastructure Advisory Committee is making a mountain out of a molehill when it says the city's infrastructure needs major rebuilding and repairing. 1. Very Believable 2. Somewhat Believable 3. Somewhat Unbelievable Format 1+2/3+4/5 MC 1 Rank 1+2, 3+4, 5 Renters 75-22- 3 92646 62-27-11 Res: 15-25 Yrs 62-31- 7 18-34 61-32- 8 Final Vote:Yes 59-36- 5 College Graduate 58-34- 8 Men 57-35- 8 Neither Con/Lib 56-33-10 Republican 56-37- 7 Res: 5-10 Yrs 56-34-10 HS or Less 56-37- 8 Somewhat Consery 56-39- 6 65+ 55-36- 8 Kids <18 @ Home 55-38- 7 Very Conservative 55-36- 9 Nt Wk Outsde Home 54-38- 8 Res: 10-15 Yrs 54-30-16 Aggregate 54-37- 9 55-64 53-35-11 Work Outside Home 53-38- 9 Final Vote:No 53-38- 9 Res: < 5 Yrs 52-35-13 92647 51-37-12 35-44 51-37-12 Women 51-40-10 Democrat 49-40-10 Res: 25+ Yrs 49-43- 8 45-54 49-45- 6 92649 49-43- 8 Some Coll/Voc 48-43- 9 Post -Grad Degree 48-40-12 Independent 47-47- 7 92648 46-50- 4 Liberal 46-41-13 • 92648 46-50- 4 Independent 47-47- 7 45-54 49-45- 6 Res: 25+ Yrs 49-43- 8 92649 49-43- 8 Some Coll/Voc 48-43- 9 Liberal 46-41-13 Democrat 49-40-10 Post -Grad Degree 48-40-12 Women 51-40-10 Somewhat Consery 56-39- 6 Final Vote:No 53-38- 9 Work outside Home 53-38- 9 Kids 418 a Home 55-38- 7 Nt Wk Outsde Home 54-38- 8 Republican 56-37- 7 35-44 51-37-12 Aggregate 54-37- 9 92647 51-37-12 HS or Less 56-37- 8 65+ 55-36- 8 Final Vote:Yes 59-36- 5 very Conservative 55-36- 9 Res: < 5 Yrs 52-35-13 55-64 53-35-11 Men 57-35- 8 Res: 5-10 Yrs 56-34-10 College Graduate 58-34- 8 Neither Con/Lib 56-33-10 18-34 61-32- 8 Res: 15-25 Yrs 62-31- 7 Res: 10-15 Yrs 54-30-16 92646 62-27-11 Renters 75-22- 3 21 4. Very Unbelievable 33 5. No Opinion 19 Res: 10-15 Yrs 54-30-16 Liberal 46-41-13 Res: < 5 Yrs 52-35-13 Post -Grad Degree 48-40-12 35-44 51-37-12 92647 51-37-12 55-64 53-35-11 92646 62-27-11 Neither Con/Lib 56-33-10 Democrat 49-40-10 Women 51-40-10 Res: 5-10 Yrs 56-34-10 Very Conservative 55-36- 9 Some Coll/Voc 48-43- 9 Final Vote:No 53-38- 9 Aggregate 54-37- 9 Work Outside Home 53-38- 9 92649 49-43- 8 65+ 55-36- 8 Men 57-35- 8 18-34 61-32- 8 Nt Wk Outsde Home 54-38- 8 College Graduate 58-34- 8 HS or Less 56-37- 8 Res: 25+ Yrs 49-43- 8 Res: 15-25 Yrs 62-31- 7 Independent 47-47- 7 Kids <18 a Home 55-38- 7 Republican 56-37- 7 45-54 49-45- 6 Somewhat Consery 56-39- 6 Final Vote:Yes 59-36- 5 92648 46-50- 4 Renters 75-22- 3 18 9 Lawrence Research CROSSTABS Page 56 Huntington Beach / July 2001 1318 Q 50: Heard: CityGovernment Has Not Done All it Could in Past In the past, the city government has not done all it should have done to keep up on the repairs to the city's infrastructure. 1. Heard 58 2. Not Heard 42 Format 1/2 MC 1 Rank 1, 2 55-64 71-29 18-34 47-53 Post -Grad Degree 65-35 Res: 10-15 Yrs 49-51 Neither Con/Lib 64-36 Renters 50-50 Res: 15-25 Yrs 64-36 Some Coll/Voc 51-49 Final Vote:Yes 62-38 92647 52-48 92648 62-38- Very Conservative 53-47 92649 61-39 35-44 54-46 Democrat 61-39 Res: < 5 Yrs 55-45 Res: 5-10 Yrs 60-40 Kids <18 a Home 55-45 College Graduate 60-40 654- 55-45 HS or less 60-40 Res: 25+ Yrs 57-43 Work outside Home 59-41 Ht Wk. Outsde Home 57-43 45-54 59-41 Somewhat Consery 57-43 Men 59-42 Republican 57-43 92646 58-42 women 58-43 Independent 58-42 final Vote:No 58-42 Aggregate 58-42 Liberal 58-42 Liberal 58-42 Aggregate 58-42 Final Vote:No 58-42 Independent 58-42 Women 58-43 92f,46 58-42 Republican 57-43 Men 59-42 Somewhat Consery 57-43 45-54 59-41 Nt Wk Outsde Home 57-43 Work Outside Home 59-41 Res: 25+ Yrs 57-43 HS or Less 60-40 65+ 55-45 College Graduate 60-40 Kids <18 a Home 55-45 Res: 5-10 Yrs 60-40 Res: < 5 Yrs 55-45 Democrat 61-39 35-44 54-46 92649 61-39 very Conservative 53-47 92648 62-38 92647 52-48 Final Vote:Yes 62-38 Some Coll/Voc 51-49 Res: 15-25 Yrs 64-36 Renters 50-50 Neither Con/Lib 64-36 Res: 10-15 Yrs 49-51 Post -Grad Degree 65-35 18-34 47-53 55.64 71-29 • C] Lawrence Research CROSSTABS Page 57 Huntington Beach / July 2001 1318 Q. 51: Believability: City Government Has Not pone All It Could In Past In the past, the city government has not done all it should have done to keep up on the repairs to the city's infrastructure. 1. Very Believable 42 4. Very Unbelievable 8 2. somewhat Believable 33 5. No Opinion 6 3. Somewhat Unbelievable 11 Format: 1/2/3/4 MC 1 Rank 1, 2, 3, 4 45-54 56-28- 4- 5 HS or Less 56-23- 8- 6 55-64 54-23-11-11 Men 48-27-10- B Kids <18 @ Home 47-30-14- 6 Res: 15-25 Yrs 47-35- 5- 6 Independent 47-30- 7- 9 92648 46-33- 7- 8 Liberat 46-32- 7- 9 92649 46-32-10- 8 Res: 25+ Yrs 46-28-13- 9 Final Vote:No 45-29-11- 9 Democrat 45-29-12- 8 College Graduate 44-34-10- 7 Work Outside Home 43-34- 9- 8 Somewhat Consery 43-36-10- 6 Aggregate 42-33-11- 8 Nt Wk Outsde Home 42-31-13- 8 Neither Con/Lib 41-33-11- 8 Post -Grad Degree 92646 41-35- 9- 7 41-35-12- 6 Very Conservative 41-28-17-11 65+ 38-31-14- 9 92647 38-32-13-11 Renters 38-41- 6-16 Republican 37-36-13- 8 Final Vote:Yes 37-44-10- 4 Women 37-40-12- 8 some Coll/Voc 36-34-15-11 Res: < 5 Yrs 35-45- 0-13 Res: 10-15 Yrs 35-43-11- 5 35-44 33-39-13- 7 Res: 5-10 Yrs 30-34-22- 8 18-34 18-55-13- 8 • 18-34 18-55-13- 8 Res: < 5 Yrs 35.45- 0-13 Final Vote:Yes 37-44-10- 4 Res: 10-15 Yrs 35-43-11- 5 Renters 38-41- 6-16 Women 37-40-12- 8 35-44 33-39-13- 7 Republican 37-36-13- 8 Somewhat Consery 43-36-10- 6 Res: 15-25 Yrs 47-35- 5- 6 92646 41-35-12- 6 Post -Grad Degree 41-35- 9- 7 Work Outside Home 43-34- 9- B. Some Coll/Voc 36-34-15-11 Res: 5-10 Yrs 30-34-22- 8 College Graduate 44-34-10- 7 Neither Con/Lib 41-33-11- 8 92648 46-33- 7- 8 Aggregate 42-33-11- 8 92647 38-32-13-11 92649 46-32-10- 8 Liberal 46-32- 7- 9 65+ 38-31-14- 9 Nt Wk Outsde Home 42-31-13- 8 Independent 47-30- 7- 9 Kids 08 a Home 47-30-14- 6 Democrat 45-29-12- B Final Vote:No 45-29-11- 9 Very Conservative 41-28-17-11 45-54 56-28- 4- 5 Res: 25+ Yrs 46-28-13- 9 Men 48-27-10- 8 HS or Less 56-23- 8- 6 55-64 54-23-11-11 Res: 5-10 Yrs 30-34-22- 8 Very Conservative 41-28-17-11 Some Coll/Voc 36-34-15-11 65+ 38-31-14- 9 Kids <18 2 Home 47-30-14- 6 35-44 33-39-13- 7 18-34 18-55-13- 8 Republican 37-36-13- 8 Nt Wk Outsde Home 42-31-13- 8 Res: 25+ Yrs 46-28-13- 9 92647 38-32-13-11 Democrat 45-29-12- 8 92646 41-35-12- 6 Women 37-40-12- 8 Neither Con/Lib 41-33-11- 8 55-64 54-23-11-11 Final Vote:No 45-29-11- 9 Res: 10-15 Yrs 35-43-11- 5 Aggregate 42-33-11- 8 Final Vote:Yes 37-44-10- 4 Men 48-27-10- 8 Somewhat Consery 43-36-10- 6 College Graduate 44-34-10- 7 92649 46-32-10- 8 Work Outside Home 43-34- 9- 8 Post -Grad Degree 41-35- 9- 7 HS or Less 56-23- 8- 6 Liberal- 46-32- 7- 9 92648 46-33- 7- 8 Independent 47-30- 7- 9 Renters 36-41- 6-16 Res: 15-25 Yrs 47-35- 5- 6 45-54 56-28- 4- 5 Res: < 5 Yrs 35-45- 0-13 Renters 38-41- 6-16 Res: < 5 Yrs 35-45. 0-13 55-64 54-23-11-11 Very Conservative 41-28-17-I1 Some Coil/Voc 36-34-15-11 92647 38-32-13-11 Independent 47-30- 7- 9 Final Vote:No 45-29.11- 9 65+ 38-31-14- 9 Res: 25+ Yrs 46-28-13- 9 Liberal 46-32- 7- 9 Work Outside Home 43-34- 9- 8 92649 46-32-10- 8 92648 46-33- 7- 8 Neither Con/Lib 41-33-11- 8 Women 37-40-12- 8 Aggregate 42-33-11- 8 Res: 5-10 Yrs 30-34-22- 8 Men 48-27-10- 8 Republican 37-36-13- 8 18-34 18-55-13- 8 Democrat 45-29-12- 8 Nt Wk Outsde Home 42-31-13- 8 35-44 33-39-13- 7 College Graduate 44-34-10- 7 Post -Grad Degree 41-35- 9- 7 Somewhat Consery 43-36-10- 6 Res: 15-25 Yrs 47-35- 5- 6 HS or Less 56-23- 8- 6 Kids <18 0 Home 47-30-14- 6 92646 41-35-12- 6 Res: 10-15 Yrs 35-43-17- 5 45-54 56-28- 4- 5 Final Vote:Yes 37-44-10- 4 Lawrence Research CROSSTABS Page 58 Q. 51: Huntington Beach / July 2001 1318 Believability: City Government Has Not Done All It Could In Past In the past, the city government has not done all it should have done to keep up on the repairs to the city's infrastructure. 1. Very Believable 2. Somewhat Believable 3. Somewhat Unbelievable Format 1+2/3+4/5 MC 1 Rank 1+2, 3+4, 5 45-54 84- 9- Res: 15-25 Yrs 82-11- Final Vote:Yes 81-14- Res: < 5 Yrs 81-13- 92648 80-15- HS or Less 79-13- Res: 10-15 Yrs 78-16- Liberal 78-16- Renters 78-22- Somewhat Consery 78-16- 92649 78-18- College Graduate 77-17- 55-64 77-23- Kids <18 a Home 77-20- Work outside Home 77-18- Independent 77-16- Women 76-20- Post-Grad Degree 76-16- 92646 76-18- Aggregate 76-19- Men 75-18- Neither Con/Lib 75-20- Democrat 74-20- Final Vote:No 74-20- Republican 74-21- 18-34 74-21- Res: 25+ Yrs 74-21- Nt Wk Outsde Home 73-21- 35-44 72-21- Some Coll/Voc 70-26- 92647 70-23- Very Conservative 69-28- 65+ 69-23- Res: 5-10 Yrs 64-30- Res: 5-10 Yrs 64-30- Very Conservative 69-28- Some Coll/Voc 70-26- 92647 70-23- 65+ 69-23- 55-64 77-23- Renters 78-22- Res: 25+ Yrs 74-21- 18-34 74-21- Republican 74-21- 35-44 72-21- Nt Wk Outsde Home 73-21- Final Vote:No 74-20- Democrat 74-20- Neither Con/Lib 75-20- Kids <18 a Home 77-20- Women 76-20- Aggregate 76-19- 92649 78-18- Men 75-18- Work Outside Home 77-18- 92646 76-18- College Graduate 77-17- Independent 77-16- Somewhat Consery 78-16- Res: 10-15 Yrs 78-16- Post-Grad Degree 76-16- Liberal 78-16- 92648 80-15- Final Vote:Yes 81-14- HS or Less 79-13- Res: < 5 Yrs 81-13- Res: 15-25 Yrs 82-11- 45-54 84- 9- 42 4. Very Unbelievable 33 5. No Opinion 11 65+ 69-23- Post-Grad Degree 76-16- HS or Less 79-13- 35-44 72-21- 45-54 84- 9- Res: 15-25 Yrs 82-11- Men 75-18- independent 77-16- 92647 70-23- Nt Wk Outsde Home 73-21- Res: < 5 Yrs 81-13- 92646 76-18- Res: 5-10 Yrs 64-30- Liberal 78-16- Aggregate 76-19- Neither Con/Lib 75-20- College Graduate 77-17- Somewhat Consery 78-16- Democrat 74-20- Final Vote:No 74-2D- Res: 10-15 Yrs 78-16- 18-34 74-21- Work outside Home 77-18- Republican 74-21- final Vote:Yes 81-14- Res: 25+ Yrs 74-21- 92648 80-15- Women 76-20- Some Coll/Voc 70-26- 92649 78-18- Kids <18 a Home 77-20- Very Conservative 69-28- Renters 78-22- 55-64 77-23- 0 • Lawrence Research CROSSTABS Page 59 Huntington Beach / July 2001 1318 Q. 52: Heard: People of '70's and '80's Did Not Pay Fair Share If the people who lived in Huntington Beach in the 1970's and 1980's had paid their fair share, we would not be having this problem today. 1. Heard 21 2. Not Heard 79 Format 1/2 MC 1 Rank 1, 2 65+ 27-73 45-54 10-9D Kids <18 a Home 26-74 Renters 13-88 Neither Con/Lib 25-75 Post -Grad Degree 15-85 Very Conservative 25-75 92649 15-85 92648 25-75 Res: < 5 Yrs 16-84 College Graduate 25-75 Somewhat Consery 18-82 Final Vote. -Yes 24-76 92647 18-82 92646 23-77 Independent 19-81 Nt Wk Outsde Home 23-77 Work Outside Home 19-81 Women 23-77 Res: 10-15 Yrs 19-81 Res: 5-10 Yrs 22-78 Final Vote:No 19-81 Res: 25+ Yrs 22-78 Men 19-81 55-64 22-78 35-44 19-81 Republican 21-79 Some Coll/Vac 20-80 HS or Less 21-79 Democrat 20-80 18-34 21-79 Liberal 20-80 Aggregate 21-79 Aggregate 21-79 Res: 15-25 Yrs 21-79 Res: 15-25 Yrs 21-79 Liberal 20-80 18-34 21-79 Democrat 20-80 HS or Less 21-79 Some Coll/Vac 20-80 Republican 21-79 35-44 19-81 55-64 22-78 Men 19-81 Res: 25+ Yrs 22-78 Final Vote:No 19-81 Res: 5-10 Yrs 22-78 Res: 10-15 Yrs 19-81 Women 23-77 Work Outside Home 19-81 Nt Wk Outsde Home 23-77 Independent 19-81 92646 23-77 92647 18-82 Final Vote:Yes 24-76 Somewhat Consery 18-82 College Graduate 25-75 Res: < 5 Yrs 16-84 Very Conservative 25-75 92649 15-85 92648 25-75 Post -Grad Degree 15-85 Neither Con/Lib 25-75 Renters 13-88 Kids 08 a Home 26-74 45-54 10-90 65+ 27-73 • Lawrence Research CROSSTABS Page 60 Huntington Beach / July 2001 1318 Q. 53: Believability: People of '70's and '80's Did Not Pay Fair Share If the people who lived in Huntington Beach in the 1970's and 1980's had paid their fair share, we would not be having this problem today. 1. Very Believable 7 4. Very Unbelievable 55 2. Somewhat Believable 13 5. No Opinion 9 3. Somewhat Unbelievable 17 Format 1/2/3/4 MC 1 Rank 1, 2, 3, 4 35-44 12- 9-16-52 Final Vote:Yes 10-24-17-38 18-34 3-21-26-37 45-54 4- 7-13-71 Kids 08 a Home 11- 7-22-52 Renters 6-22-22-41 Res: 5-10 Yrs 10-14-24-42 Independent 7- 9-16-63 Final Vote:Yes 10-24-17-38 18-34 3-21-26-37 92648 2-13-23-49 Res: 25+ Yrs 6-12-13-62 Res: 5-1D Yrs 10-14-24-42 Democrat 8-20-11-52 Res: < 5 Yrs 10-16-23-35 Final Vote:No 5- 9-18-61 Res: < 5 Yrs 10-16-23-35 Liberal 6-17-14-55 Some Coll/Voc 6-13-23-52 92649 7-10-19-60 Post -Grad Degree 9-12- 8-59 HS or Less 4-17- B-60 Renters 6-22-22-41 HS or Less 4-17- B-60 92646 9-16-12-52 Neither Con/Lib 8-17-15-52 Kids <18 a Home 11- 7-22-52 Res: 10-15 Yrs 8-11-19-59 Nt Wk Outsde Home 8-13-16-52 55-64 5-16-15-57 Republican 6-13-20-53 Post -Grad Degree 9-12- 8-59 65+ 8-14-17-49 92646 9-16-12-52 92649 7-10-19-60 92647 7-12-16-58 Res: 10-15 Yrs 8-11-19-59 Res: < 5 Yrs 10-16-23-35 Res: 10-15 Yrs 8-11-19-59 Very Conservative 5-11-19-58 Neither Con/Lib 8-17-15-52 Res: 15-25 Yrs 5-16-16-51 Very Conservative 5-11-19-58 Women 6-13-16-57 Men 8-14-17-52 65+ B-14-17-49 Somewhat Consery 6-11-18-54 55-64 5-16-15-57 Democrat 8-20-11-52 Men 8-14-17-52 College Graduate 7-13-18-54 Work Outside Home 6-13-17-56 College Graduate 7-13-18-54 Res: 5-10 Yrs 10-14-24-42 Final Vote:No 5- 9-18-61 Liberal 6-17-14-55 Independent 7- 9-16-63 Nt Wk Outsde Home 8-13-16-52 Men B-14-17-52 Aggregate 7-13-17-55 92649 7-10-19-60 Aggregate 7-13-17-55 Final Vote:Yes 10-24-17-38 College Graduate 7-13-18-54 92647 7-12-16-58 work outside Home 6-13-17-56 Work -Outside Home 6-13-17-56 Somewhat Consery 6-11-18-54 Aggregate 7-13-17-55 92648 2-13-23-49 65+ B-14-17-49 Republican 6-13-20-53 Renters 6-22-22-41 Republican 6-13-20-53 Aggregate 7-13-17-55 92646 9-16-12-52 Somewhat Consery 6-11-18-54 College Graduate 7-13-18-54 35-44 12- 9-16-52 35-44 12- 9-16-52 Res: 25+ Yrs 6-12-13-62 Some Cott/vac 6-13-23-52 Independent 7- 9-16-63 Nt wk Outsde Home 8-13-16-5: Some Coll/Voc 6-13-23-52 Women 6-13-16-57 Res: 15-25 Yrs 5-16-16-51 Men 8-14-17-52 Liberal 6-17-14-55 Post -Grad Degree 9-12- 8-59 Women 6-13-16-57 Kids <18 a Home 11- 7-22-52 Work Outside Home 6-13-17-56 92647 7-12-16-58 Nt Wk Outsde Home B-13-16-52 Neither Con/Lib •8-17-15-52 Republican 6-13-20-53 Res: 25+ Yrs 6-12-13-62 92647 7-12-16-58 Democrat 8-20-11-52 Women 6-13-16-57 Very Conservative 5-11-19-58 55-64 5-16-15-57 Some Coll/Vac 6-13-23-52 Final Vote:No 5- 9-18-61 Res: 10-15 Yrs 8-11-19-59 Neither Con/Lib B-17-15-52 Res: 15-25 Yrs 5-16-16-51 55-64 5-16-15-57 Somewhat Consery 6-11-18-54 Liberal 6-17-14-55 92648 2-13-23-49 Res: 15-25 Yrs 5-16-16-51 92649 7-10-19-60 45-54 4- 7-13-71 65+ 8-14-17-49 Very Conservative 5-11-19-58 Independent 7- 9-16-63 Res: 25+ Yrs 6-12-13-62 Res: 5-10 Yrs 10-14-24-42 HS or Less 4-17- 8-60 35-44 12- 9-16-52 92646 9-16-12-52 Renters 6-22-22-41 45-54 4- 7-13-71 Final Vote:No 5- 9-18-61 Democrat B-20-11-52 Final Vote:Yes 10-24-17-38 18-34 3-21-26-37 45-54 4- 7-13-71 Post -Grad Degree 9-12- B-59 18-34 3-21-26-37 92648 2-13-23-49 Kids <18 a Home 11- 7-22-52 HS or Less 4-17- B-60 Res: < 5 Yrs 10-16-23-35 L_J �J Lawrence Research CROSSTABS Page 61 Huntington Beach / July 2001 1318 People '70's '80's Pay Q. 53: Believability: of and Did Not Fair Share If the people who lived in Huntington Beach in the 1970's and 1980's had paid their fair share, we would not be having this problem today. 1. Very Believable 7 4. Very Unbelievable 55 2. Somewhat Believable 13 5. No Opinion 9 3. Somewhat Unbelievable 17 Format 1+2/3+4/5 MC 1 Rank 1+2, 3+4, 5 Final Vote:Yes 34-55-11 45-54 11-84- 5 Res: < 5 Yrs 26-58-16 Renters 28-63- 9 92649 17-79- 4 18-34 24-63-13 Democrat 28-63- 9 Independent 16-79- 5 92648 15-71-13 Res: < 5 Yrs 26-58-16 Res: 10-15 Yrs 19-78- 3 65+ 22-65-12 92646 26-65-10 Final Vote:No 14-78- 8 Post -Grad Degree 21-67-12 Neither Con/Lib 25-67- 8 Very Conservative 16-77- 8 Res: 15-25 Yrs 21-67-12 Res: 5-10 Yrs 24-66-10 Res: 25+ Yrs 18-75- 7 HS or Less 21-67-12 16-34 24-63-13 Some Coll/Voc 18-74- 8 Somewhat Consery 17-72-11 Liberal 23-70- 7 92647 18-74- 8 Finat Vote:Yes 34-55-11 65+ 22-65-12 Kids <18 a Nome 18-74- 8 Nt Wk Outsde Home 22-68-11 Men 22-69- 9 Work Outside Home 19-73- 8 35-44 21-69-10 Nt Wk Outsde Home 22-68-11 Women 18-73- 9 Res: 5-10 Yrs 24-66-10 55-64 22-72- 6 Republican 19-73- 8 92646 26-65-10 Post -Grad Degree 21-67-12 55-64 22-72- 6 Renters 28-63- 9 HS or Less 21-67-12 Somewhat Consery 17-72-11 Aggregate 20-71- 9 Res: 15-25 Yrs 21-67-12 College Graduate 20-72- 8 Women 18-73- 9 35-44 21-69-10 92648 15-71-13 Men 22-69- 9 Aggregate 20-7i- 9 Aggregate 20-71- 9 Democrat 28-63- 9 College Graduate 20-72- 8 Liberal 23-70- 7 College Graduate 20-72- 8 Res: 10-15 Yrs Work Outside Home 19-18- 3 19-73- 8 Men 35-44 22-69- 9 21-69-10 Republican Neither Con/Lib 19-73- 8 25-67- 8 Republican 19-13- 8 Nt Wk Outsde Home 22-68-11 Kids 418 a Home 18-74- 8 92647 18-74- 8 HS or less 21-67-12 Bork Outside Home 19-73- 8 Kids 08 a Home 18-74- 8 Res: 15-25 Yrs 21-67-12 Very Conservative 16-77- 8 Some Coll/Voc 18-74- 8 Post -Grad Degree 21-67-12 92647 18-74- 8 Women 18-73- 9 Neither Con/Lib 25-67- 8 Final Vote:No 14-78- 8 Res: 25+ Yrs 18-75- 7 Res: 5-10 Yrs 24-66-10 Some Colt/Vac 18-74- 8 Somewhat Consery 17-72-11 65+ 22-65-12 Liberal 23-70- 7 92649 17-79- 4 92646 26-65-10 Res: 25+ Yrs 18-75- 7 Independent 16-79- 5 18-34 24-63-13 55-64 22-72- 6 Very Conservative 16-77- 8 Democrat 28-63- 9 45-54 11-84- 5 92648 15-71-13 Renters 28-63- 9 Independent 16-79- 5 Final Vote:No 14-78- 8 Res: < 5 Yrs 26-58-16 92649 17-79- 4 45-54 11-64- 5 Final Vote:Yes 34-55-11 Res: 10-15 Yrs 19-78- 3 • Lawrence Research CROSSTABS Page 62 Huntington Beach / July 2001 1318 Q. 54: Heard: City Has Enough Money If It Were Spent More Wisely The city has enough money to handle mayor infrastructure repairs if it would just spend taxpayer money more wisely. 1. Heard 56 2. Not Heard 45 Format 1/2 MC 1 Rank 1, 2 Res: 5-10 Yrs 66-34 Renters 38-63 55-64 66-34 Res: 10-15 Yrs 41-59 92649 63-38 18-34 47-53 Cottege Graduate 62-38 HS or Less 48-52 Liberal 61-39 Res: < 5 Yrs 48-52 Independent 60-40 92648 49-51 Kids <18 a Home 60-40 45-54 51-49 Final Vote:No 59-41 Final Vote:Yes 52-48 Neither Con/lib 57-43 Post -Grad Degree 52-48 Democrat 57-43 35-44 52-48 65+ 57-43 Very Conservative 53-47 Res: 15-25 Yrs 57-43 Somewhat Consery 54-46 92646 57-43 Some Coll/Voc 54-46 Women 57-44 92647 54-46 Nt Wk Outsde Home 56-44 Men 55-46 Res: 25+ Yrs 56-44 Work Outside Home 55-45 Republican 56-44 Aggregate 56-45 Aggregate 56-45 Republican 56-44 Work Outside Home 55-45 Res: 25+ Yrs 56-44 Men 55-46 Nt Wk Outsde Home 56-44 92647 54-46 Women 57-44 Some Colt/voc 54-46 92646 57-43 Somewhat Consery 54-46 Res: 15-25 Yrs 57-43 Very Conservative 53-47 65+ 57-43 35-44 52-48 Democrat 57-43 Final Vote:Yes 52-48 Neither Can/Lib 57-43 Post -Grad Degree 52-48 Final Vote:No 59-41 45-54 51-49 Kids 08 0 Home 60-40 92648 49-51 Independent 60-40 Res: < 5 Yrs 48-52 Liberal 61-39 HS or Less 48-52 College Graduate 62-38 18-34 47-53 92649 63-38 Res: 10-15 Yrs 41-59 55-64 66-34 Renters 38-63 Res: 5-10 Yrs 66-34 0 Lawrence Research CROSSTABS Page 63 Huntington Beach / July 2001 1318 0 Q. 55: Believability: City Has Enough Money If It Were Spent More Wisely The city has enough money to handle major infrastructure repairs if it would just spend taxpayer money more wisely. 1. Very Believable 50 4. Very Unbelievable 6 2. Somewhat Believable 26 5. No Opinion 8 3. Somewhat Unbelievable 11 Format 1/2/3/4 MC 1 Rank 1, 2, 3, 4 final vote -No 59-21- 7- 5 55-64 57-24-10- 6 92649 56-24-10- 4 Kids <18 a Home 55-21- 9- 9 Res: 25+ Yrs 55-25-10- 3 HS or Less 54-27- 8- 0 Some Calf/Voc 5346- 8- 4 Somewhat Consery 53-29- 8- 4 Very Conservative 53-20-11- 6 Men 53-21-10- 7 Nt Wk Outsde Home 52-24-10- 5 92647 51-25-11- 7 Republican 51-28- 9- 5 45-54 51-27- 6- 9 92648 51-25-12- 8 Independent 51-19-14-12 35-44 51-27- 9- 4 Aggregate 50-26-11- 6 65+ 49-24-12- 4 Res: 10-15 Yrs 49-27- 5- 8 College Graduate 49-26-15- 6 Res: c 5 Yrs 48-32- 3-10 Mork Outside Homo 48-27-11- 7 Neither Con/Lib 48-24-13- 8 Women 48-30-12- 5 Renters 47-34- 6- 3 Democrat 46-27-11- 9 92646 45-27-11- 5 Res: 15-25 Yrs 45-24-12- 9 Post -Grad Degree 44-25- 7-15 Res: 5-10 Yrs 44-24-18- 6 Liberal 41-29-12- 9 18-34 34-29-18-11 Final Vote:Yes 24-40-18- 8 • Final Vate:Yes 24-40-18- 8 Renters 47-34- 6- 3 Res: < 5 Yrs 48-32- 3-10 Women 48-30-12- 5 Liberal 41-29-12- 9 18-34 34-29-18-11 somewhat Consery 53-29- 8- 4 Republican 51-28- 9- 5 Work Outside Home 48-27-11- 7 Res: 10-15 Yrs 49-27- 5- 8 Democrat 46-27-11- 9 92646 45-27-11- 5 HS or Less 54-27- 8- 0 35-44 51-27- 9- 4 45-54 51-27- 6- 9 College Graduate 49-26-15- 6 Some Coll/Voc 53-26- 8- 4 Aggregate 50-26-11- 6 Post -Grad Degree 44-25- 7-15 Res: 25+ Yrs 55-25-10- 3 92647 51-25-11- 7 92648 51-25-12- 8 %either Con/Lib 48-24-13- 8 55-64 57-24-10- 6 Res: 5-10 Yrs 44-24-18- 6 Res: 15-25 Yrs 45-24-12- 9 65+ 49-24-12- 4 Nt Wk Outsde Home 52-24-10- 5 92649 56-24-10- 4 Final Vote:No 59-21- 7- 5 Hen 53-21-10- 7 Kids <18 a Home 55-21- 9- 9 Very Conservative 53-20-11- 6 Independent 51-19-14-12 18-34 34-29-18-11 Res: 5-10 Yrs 44-24-18- 6 Final Vate:Yes 24-40-18- 8 College Graduate 49-26-15- 6 Independent 51-19-14-12 Neither Con/Lib 48-24-13- 8 65+ 49-24-12- 4 Res: 15-25 Yrs 45-24-12- 9 92648 51-25-12- 8 Liberal 41-29-12- 9 Women 48-30-12- 5 Work Outside Home 48-27-11- 7 Democrat 46-27-11- 9 Very Conservative 53-20-11- 6 Aggregate 50-26-11- 6 92647 51-25-11- 7 92646 45-27-11- 5 Res: 25+ Yrs 55-25-10- 3 55-64 57-24-10- 6 Nt Wk Outsde Home 52-24-10- 5 Men 53-21-10- 7 92649 56-24-10- 4 Kids c18 fit Home 55-21- 9- 9 35-44 51-27- 9- 4 Republican 51-28- 9- 5 Some Coll/Vac 53-26- 8- 4 HS or Less 54-27- 8- 0 somewhat Consery 53-29- 8- 4 Final Vote:No 59-21- 7- 5 Post -Grad Degree 44-25- 7-15 Renters 47-34- 6- 3 45-54 51-27- 6- 9 Res: 10-15 Yrs 49-27- 5- 8 Res: < 5 Yrs 48-32- 3-10 Post -Grad Degree 44-25. 7-15 Independent 51-19.14-12 18-34 34-29-18-11 Res: < 5 Yrs 48-32. 3-10 Kids 08 a Home 55-21- 9- 9 Res: 15-25 Yrs 45-24.12- 9 Democrat 46-27-11- 9 Liberal 41-29.12- 9 45-54 51-27- 6- 9 92648 51-25-12- 8 Res: 10-15 Yrs 49-27. 5- 8 Neither Con/Lib 48-24-13- 8 Final Vote:Yes 24-40.18- 8 Work Outside Home 48-27-11- 7 Men 53-21-10- 7 92647 51-25-11- 7 55-64 57-24-10- 6 Very Conservative 53-20-11- 6 .Aggregate 50-26-11- 6 Res: 5-10 Yrs 44-24-18- 6 College Graduate 49-26-15- 6 Final Vote:No 59-21- 7- 5 Women 48-30-12- 5 Nt Wk Outsde Home 52-24-10- 5 92646 45-27-11- 5 Republican 51-28- 9- 5 35-44 51-27- 9- 4 Somewhat Consery 53-29- 8- 4 Some CoLL/Voc 53-26- 8- 4 92649 56-24-10- 4 65+ 49-24-12- 4 Res: 25+ Yrs 55-25-10- 3 Renters 47-34- 6- 3 HS or Less 54-27- 8- 0 Lawrence Research CROSSTABS Page 64 Huntington Beach / July 2001 1318 Q. 55: Believability: City Has Enough Money If It Were Spent More Wisely The city has enough money to handle major infrastructure repairs if it would just spend taxpayer money more wisely. 1. Very Believable 50 4. Very Unbelievable 6 2. Somewhat Believable 26 5. No Opinion 8 3. somewhat Unbelievable 11 Format 1+2/3+4/5 MC 1 Rank 1+2, 3+4, 5 Somewhat Consery 82-12- 6 Renters 81- 9- 9 55-64 — 81-16- 3 HS or Less 81- 8-12 Final Vote:No 81-13- 7 Res: < 5 Yrs 81-13- 6 Res: 25+ Yrs 80-14- 6 Republican 79-14- 7 Some Coll/Vac 79-13- 8 92649 79-14- 7 45-54 78-15- 7 35-44 78-13- 9 Women 78-17- 6 92647 77-17- 6 92648 76-20- 4 Kids <18 2 Home 76-18- 6 Res: 10-15 Yrs 76-14-11 Work outside Home 76-18- 6 Nt Wk Outsde Home 76-15- 9 Aggregate 76-17- 8 Cdllege Graduate 75-21- 4 Men 74-17-10 Very Conservative 73-17- 9 Democrat 73-20- 7 65+ 73-17-11 Neither Con/Lib 72-21- 7 92646 72-16-12 Independent 70-26- 5 Liberal 70-20-10 Post -Grad Degree 69-21- 9 Res: 15-25 Yrs 69-21-10 Res: 5-10 Yrs 68-24- 8 Final Vote:Yes 64-26-10 18-34 63-29- 8 18-34 63-29- 8 Final Vote:Yes 64-26-10 independent 70-26- 5 Res: 5-10 Yrs 68-24- 8 Post -Grad Degree 69-21- 9 College Graduate 75-21- 4 Res: 15-25 Yrs 69-21-10 Neither Con/Lib 72-21- 7 Liberal 70-20-10 92648 76-20- 4 Democrat 73-20- 7 Kids <18 a Home 76-18- 6 Work Outside Home 76-18- 6 92647 77-17- 6 Very Conservative 73-17- 9 Men 74-17-10 Aggregate 76-17- 8 65+ 73-17-11 Women 78-17- 6 55-64 81-16- 3 92646 72-16-12 Nt Wk Outsde Home 76-15- 9 45-54 78-15- 7 92649 79-14- 7 Rea: 25+ Yrs 80-14- 6 Republican 79-14- 7 Res: 10-15 Yrs 76-14-11 35-44 78-13- 9 Res: < 5 Yrs 81-13- 6 Final Vote:No 81-13- 7 Some Coll/Voc 79-13- 8 Somewhat Consery 82-12- 6 Renters 81- 9- 9 HS or Less 81- 8-12 92646 72-16-12 HS or Less 81- 8-12 Res: 1D-15 Yrs 76-14-11 65+ 73-17-11 Liberal 70-20-10 Res: 15-25 Yrs 69-21-10 Final Vote:Yes 64-26-10 Men 74-17-10 Nt Wk Outsde Home 76-15- 9 Very Conservative 73-17- 9 Renters 81- 9- 9 Post -Grad Degree 69-21- 9 35-44 78-13- 9 Some Coll/vac 79-13- 8 Res: 5-10 Yrs 68-24- 8 18-34 63-29- 8 Aggregate 76-17- 8 45-54 78-15- 7 Republican 79-14- 7 92649 79-14- 7 Neither Can/Lib 72-21- 7 Democrat 73-20- 7 Final Vcte:No 81-13- 7 Res: < 5 Yrs 81-13- 6 Somewhat Consery 82-12- 6 Work Outside Home 76-18- 6 Res: 25+ Yrs 80-14- 6 Women 78-17- 6 92647 77-17- 6 Kids <18 & Home 76-18- 6 Independent 70-26- 5 College Graduate 75-21- 4 92648 76-20- 4 55-64 81-16- 3 • • • Lawrence Research CROSSTABS Page 65 Huntington Beach / July 2001 1318 Q. 57: S: Occasional Repairs / J: Spend More Wisely / B: Tax Increases Smith feel the infrastructuren in Huntington Beach is not as bad as the city council says it is. He says that occational repairs will suffice Jones feels there is definitely a need for major repairs but says the city has enough money to handle these repairs if it would ust spend wisely Baker feels there is definitely a need for major repairs, but says it will take more money to handle these repairs than the city has in the budget, so therefore a tax increase is necessary. 1. More Like Smith 15 3. More Like Baker 11 2. More Like Jones 69 4. No Opinion 5 Format 1/2/3/4 MC 1 Rank 1, 2, 3, 4 Res: 10-15 Yrs 32-54- 8- 0 Res: < 5 Yrs 10-84- 0- 6 Final Vote:Yes 9-53-33- 5 Independent 12-60-16-12 Res: 5-10 Yrs 24-60-14- 2 HS or Less 13-75-10- 2 Liberal 20-55-20- 4 Some Coll/Voc 20-62-10- 8 35-44 24-63- 9- 4 Republican 12-75- 9- 4 Post -Grad Degree 9-64-19- 8 Post -Grad Degree 9-64-19- 8 18-34 24-63-11- 3 Final Vote:No 18-74- 3- 5 Democrat 22-57-17- 3 92647 20-62-10- 8 Democrat 22-57-17- 3 Somewhat Consery 12-74- 9- 6 independent 12-60-16-12 65+ 13-67-13- 7 Renters 22-66- 9- 3 92649 13-74-10- 4 Res: 15-25 Yrs 13-65-16- 6 Res: 25+ Yrs 11-72-10- 7 92647 20-62-10- 8 College Graduate 14-73-10- 3 92648 13-68-15- 4 Res: < 5 Yrs 10-84- 0- 6 Liberal 20-55-20- 4 45-54 11-73-13- 2 Res: 5-10 Yrs 24-60-14- 2 55-64 11-72-10- 6 Some Coll/Voc 20-62-10- 8 55-64_ 11-72-10- 6 Nt Wk Outsde Home 13-68-14- 6 Res: 15-25 Yrs 13-65-16- 6 Final Vote:No 18-74- 3- 5' Res: 25+ Yrs 11-72-10- 7 Neither Can/Lib 16-66-14- 5 Women 15-69-10- 6 Very Conservative 17-72- 6- 5 Very Conservative 17-72- 6- 5 45-54 11-73-13- 2 Somewhat Consery 12-74- 9- 6 Work Outside Home 16-69- 9- 5 Kids <18 2 Home 14-71-11- 3 65+ 13-67-13- 7 Nt Wk Outsde Home 13-68-14- 6 Neither Con/Lib 16-66-14- 5 92646 13-71-11- 5 Men 15-68-13- 5 Aggregate 15-69-11- 5 Women 15-69-10- 6 Work Outside Home 16-69- 9- 5 Kids 418 a Home 14-71-11- 3 Final Vote:No 18-74- 3- 5 Aggregate 15-69-11- 5 Women 15-69-lD- 6 - Aggregate 15-69-11- 5 Final Vote:Yes 9-53-33- 5 Men 15-66-13- 5 Aggregate 15-69-11- 5 92646 13-71-11- 5 92646 13-71-11- 5 College Graduate 14-73-10- 3 Men 15-68-13- 5 18-34 24-63-11- 3 Work Outside Home 16-69- 9- 5 Kids <18 a Home 14-71-11- 3 92648 13-68-15- 4 Res: 25+ Yrs 11-72-10- 7 Very Conservative 17-72- 6- 5 92646 13-71-11- 5 Nt Wk Outsde Home 13-68-14- 6 55-64 11-72-10- 6 Neither Con/Lib 16-66-14- 5 HS or Less 13-75-10- 2 65+ 13-67-13- 7 Women 15-69-10- 6 Men 15-68-13- 5 65+ 13-67-13- 7 Renters 22-66- 9- 3 Some Coll/Voc 20-62-10- 8 35-44 24-63- 9- 4 92648 13-68-15- 4 Neither Con/Lib 16-66-14- 5 College Graduate 14-73-10- 3 Liberal 20-55-20- 4 Res: 15-25 Yrs 13-65-16- 6 Res: 15-25 Yrs 13-65-16- 6 92649 13-74-10- 4 Republican 12-75- 9- 4 Nt Wk Outsde Home 13-68-14- 6 Post -Grad Degree 9-64-19- 8 92647 20-62-10- 8 92649 13-74-10- 4 92649 13-74-10- 4 18-34 24-63-11- 3 HS or Less 13-75-10- 2 92648 13-68-15- 4 Somewhat Consery 12-74- 9- 6 35-44 24-63- 9- 4 Work Outside Home 16-69- 9- 5 Kids <18 is Home 14-71-11- 3 Republican 12-75- 9- 4 92647 20-62-10- 8 Renters 22-66- 9- 3 Democrat 22-57-17- 3 Independent 12-60-16-12 Some Coll/Voc 20-62-10- 8 Republican 12-75- 9- 4 Renters 22-66- 9- 3 55-64 11-72-10- 6 Independent 12-60-16-12 35-44 24-63- 9- 4 College Graduate 14-73-10- 3 Res: 25+ Yrs 11-72-10- 7 Res: 5-10 Yrs 24-60-14- 2 Somewhat Consery 12-74- 9- 6 18-34 24-63-11- 3 45-54 11-73-13- 2 Res: 10-15 Yrs 32-59- 8- 0 Res: 10-15 Yrs 32-59- 8- 0 45-54 11-73-13- 2 Res: < 5 Yrs 10-84- 0- 6 Democrat 22-57-17- 3 very Conservative 17-72- 6- 5 Res: 5-10 Yrs 24-60-14- 2 Post -Grad Degree 9-64-19- 8 Liberal 2D-55-20- 4 Final Vote:No 18-74- 3- 5 HS or Less 13-75-10- 2 Final Vote:Yes 9-53-33- 5 Final Vote:Yes 9-53-33- 5 Res: < 5 Yrs 10-84- 0- 6 Res: 10-15 Yrs 32-59- 8- 0 0 Lawrence Research Huntington CROSSTABS Beach / July 2001 Page 1318 66 Q. 58: (SS1:] Believability: Possibility of More Auto Accidents Here are some things other people have said will happen if voters reject Measure A. For each one please tell me whether you feel it is ... very believable, somewhat believable, somewhat unbelievable, or very unbelievable. There will be a real possibility of people having more auto accidents 1. Very Believable 10 4. Very Unbelievable 41 2. Somewhat Believable 20 5. No Opinion 5 3. somewhat Unbelievable 26 Format 1/2/3/4 Mc 1 Rank 1, 2, 3, 4 Liberal 23-31-15-27 Res: 10-15 Yrs 9-41- 5-45 92649 7-17-44-32 Very Conservative 3-19-23-55 18-34 17-17-33-28 HS or Less 4-37-22-37 Res: 15-25 Yrs 4-19-34-36 Post -Grad Degree 7-20-20-52 Res: 5-10 Yrs 16-19-26-35 Final Vote:Yes 8-31-27-33 18-34 17-17-33-28 35-44 8-16-26-47 92646 16-21-20-40 Liberal 23-31-15-27 Independent 9-22-30-39 45-54 11-19-17-47 55-64 13-23-23-42 92648 B-26-16-42 Some Coll/Voc 9-14-30-38 92647 4-16-25-47 College Graduate 12-18-26-39 Democrat 11-24-30-27 Democrat 11-24-30-27 Republican 6-21-25-46 Renters 12-20-20-44 55-64 13-23-23-42 Somewhat Consery 6-18-29-45 Res: 10-15 Yrs 9-41- 5-45 Res: < 5 Yrs 12-18-24-41 Kids <18 a Home 10-22-22-45 65+ 6-22-29-38 Kids <18 a Home 10-22-22-45 45-54 11-19-17-47 65+ 6-22-29-38 Nt Wk Outsde Home B-21-29-38 Final Vote:No 9-16-26-45 Men 11-18-26-41 Women B-22-25-40 Neither Con/Lib 11-19-28-34 Somewhat Consery 6-18-29-45 Democrat 11-24-30-27 independent 9-22-30-39 Final Vote:Yes 8-31-27-33 work Outside Home 10-19-23-44 Neither Con/Lib 11-19-28-34 92646 16-21-20-40 Res: 25+ Yrs 10-16-27-43 Renters 12-20-20-44 Kids <18 a Home 10-22-22-45 Republican 6-21-25-46 35-44 B-16-26-47 Res: 25+ Yrs 10-16-27-43 Res: 25+ Yrs 10-16-27-43 Nt Wk Outsde Home 8-21-29-38 Final Vote:No 9-16-26-45 92648 B-26-16-42 Work Outside Home 10-19-23-44 Post -Grad Degree 7-20-20-52 Men 11-18-26-41 55-64 13-23-23-42 Aggregate 10-20-26-41 Aggregate 10-20-26-41 Res: 5-10 Yrs 16-19-26-35 Res: < 5 Yrs 12-18-24-41 Res: 10-15 Yrs 9-41- 5-45 Renters 12-20-20-44 College Graduate 12-18-26-39 Men 11-18-26 Final Vote:N0 9-16-26-45 45-54 11-19-17-47 Aggregate 10-20-26-41 Aggregate 10-20-26-: Some Coll/Voc 9-14-30-38 Very Conservative 3-19-23-55 92647 4-76-25-47 92646 16-21-20-40 Independent 9-22-30-39 Res: 5-10 Yrs 16-19-26-35 women 8-22-25-40 Women 8-22-25-4D Women 8-22-25-40 Work Outside Home 10-19-23-44 Republican 6-21-25-46 College Graduate 12-18-26-39 35-44 B-16-26-47 Neither Can/Lib 11-19-28-34 Res: < 5 Yrs 12-18-24-41 Independent 9-22-30-39 92648 B-26-16-42 Res: 15-25 Yrs 4-19-34-36 Work Outside Home 10-19-23-44 Nt Wk Outsde Home 8-21-29-38 Final Vote:Yes B-31-27-33 College Graduate 12-18-26-39 Very Conservative 3-19-23-55 Some Coll/Voc 9-14-30-38 Nt Wk Outsde Home 8-21-29-38 Men 11-18-26-41 55-64 13-23-23-42 65+ 6-22-29-38 92649 7-17-44-32 Res: < 5 Yrs 12-18-24-41 Kids <18 a Home 10-22-22-45 HS or Less 4-37-22-37 Post -Grad Degree 7-20-20-52 Somewhat Consery 6-18-29-45 HS or Less 4-37-22-37 Res: 15-25 Yrs 4-19-34-36 Republican 6-21-25-46 92649 7-17-44-32 Post -Grad Degree 7-20-20-52 Res: 5-10 Yrs 16-19-26-35 Somewhat Consery 6-18-29-45 18-34 17-17-33-28 92646 16-21-20-40 Neither Con/Lib 11-19-28-34 65+ 6-22-29-38 35-44 8-16-26-47 Renters 12-20-20-44 Final Vote:Yes B-31-27-33 Res: 15-25 Yrs 4-19-34-36 92647 4-16-25-47 45-54 11-19-17-47 92649 7-17-44-32 92647 4-16-25-47 Final Vote:No 9-16-26-45 92648 B-26-16-42 18-34 17-17-33-28 HS or Less 4-37-22-37 Res: 25+ Yrs 10-16-27-43 Liberal 23-31-15-27 Democrat 11-24-30-27 Very Conservative 3-19-23-55 Some Coll/Voc 9-14-30-38 Res: 10-15 Yrs 9-41- 5-45 Liberal 23-31-15-27 • Lawrence Research CROSSTABS Page 67 Huntington Beach / July 2001 1318 0 Q. 58: [SS1:] Believability: Possibility of More Auto Accidents Here are some things other people have said will happen if voters reject Measure A. For each one please tell me whether you feel it is ... very believable, somewhat believable, somewhat unbelievable, or very unbelievable. There will be a real possibility of people having more auto accidents 1. very Believable 2. Somewhat Believable 3. Somewhat Unbelievable Format 1+2/3+4/5 MC 1 Rank 1+2, 3+4, 5 Liberal 54-42- Res: 10-15 Yrs 50-50- HS or Less 41-59- final Vote;Yes 38-60- 92646 37-60- Res: 5-10 Yrs. 35-61- 55-64 35-65- Democrat 35-57- 92648 34-58- 18-34 33-61- Kids <18 s Home 33-67- Renters 32-64- 45-54 31-64- Independent 30-70- College Graduate 30-65- Women 30-65- Neither Con/Lib 30-62- Aggregate 30-66- Res: < 5 Yrs 29-65- Men 29-67- Work Outside Home 29-67- Nt Wk Outsde Home 29-67- 65+ 28-67- Republican 28-71- Past-Grad Degree 27-73- Res: 25+ Yrs 25-7D- final Vote:No 25-71- 92649 24-76- 35-44 24-74- Somewhat Consery 24-74- Res: 15-25 Yrs 23-70- 5ome Colt/Voc 23-68 - Very Conservative 23-77- 92647 20-73- Very Conservative 23-77- 9Z649 24-76- Somewhat Conserv, 24-74- 35-44 24-74- Past-Grad Degree 27-73- 92647 20-73- Final Vote:No 25-71- Republican 28-71- Res: 15-25 Yrs 23-70- Res: 25+ Yrs 25-70- Ihdependent 30-70- Some Coll/Voc 23-68- Kids <18 s Home 33-67- Work Outside Home 29-67- Nt Wk Outsde Home 29-67- Men 29-67- 6$+ 28-67- Aggregate 30-66- College Graduate 30-65- Women 30-65- Res: < 5 Yrs 29-65- 55-64 35-65- Renters 32-64- 45-54 31-64- Neither Con/Lib 30-62- Res: 5-10 Yrs 35-61- 18-34 33-61- 97646 37-60- Final Vote:Yes 38-60- HS or Less 41-59- 92648 34-58- Democrat 35-57- Res: 10-15 Yrs 50-50- Liberal 54-42- 10 4. Very Unbelievable 20 5. No Opinion 26 0 Some Coll/VOC 23-68- 0 Neither Con/Lib 30-62- 2 Democrat 35-57- 3 92648 34-58- 0 92647 20-73- 8 Res: 15-25 Yrs 23-70- 4 Res: < 5 Yrs 29-65- 2 45-54 31-64- 6 18-34 33-61- 5 65+ 28-67- 0 women 30-65- 9 Res: 25+ Yrs 25-70- 0 College Graduate 30-65- 4 Aggregate 30-66- 4 Final Vote:No 25-71- 4 Nt Wk Outsde Home 29-67- 6 Men 29-67- 5 Renters 32-64- 5 Work Outside Home 29-67- 5 Liberal 54-42- 6 Res; 5-10 Yrs 35-61- 0 92646 37-60- 4 35-44 24-74- 6 Somewhat Consery 24-74- 9 Final Vote:Yes 38-60- 3 Republican 28-71- 6 Post -Grad Degree 27-73- 3 Kids <18 a Home 33-67- 2 Independent 30-70- D 55-64 35-65- 8 Res: 10-15 Yrs 50-50- 8 Very Conservative 23-77- 0 92649 24-76- 4 HS or Less 41-59- 41 5 Lawrence Research CROSSTABS Page 68 Huntington Beach / July 2001 1318 49 Q. 59: [SS2:] Believability: Auto Accidents Due to Bad Roads, etc. There will be a real possibility of people having more auto accidents because the roads, traffic lights and signs are so bad. 1. Very Believable 7 4. Very Believable 49 2. Somewhat Believable 14 5. No Opinion 6 3. Somewhat Believable 24 Format 1/2/3/4 MC 1 Rank 1, 2, 3, 4 Renters 29-14-14-43 Final Vote:Yes 10-29-33-21 Independent 0-15-40-45 Kids 08 @ Home 0-11-16-68 18-34 15- 5-25-40 Post -Grad Degree 3-23-19-48 92648 7- 7-37-48 Very Conservative 3-12-18-64 Res: < 5 Yrs 14-14-36-29 Res: 5-10 Yrs 0-21-16-53 Res: < 5 Yrs 14-14-36-29 35-44 0-14-17-62 Liberal 14-16-19-42 55-64 10-21-19-46 Final Vote:Yes 10-29-33-21 Res: 10-15 Yrs 0- 7-27-60 92647 12-13-13-52 Neither Con/Lib B-20-33-35 Neither Con/Lib 8-20-33-35 Final Vote:No 4- 9-21-60 Final Vote:Yes 10-29-33-21 92646 6-18-28-44 HS or Less 4- 4-32-48 92649 3-16-13-58 55-64 10-21-19-46 Democrat B-17-19-48 45-54 4- 9-30-52 Somewhat Consery 4-12-24-55 Res: 15-25 Yrs 9-17-21-47 Res: 15-25 Yrs 9-17-21-47 92646 6-18-28-44 65+ 0-16-24-53 Work Outside Home 8-16-23-50 65+ 0-16-24-53 Res: 10-15 Yrs 0- 7-27-60 Res: 5-10 Yrs 0-21-16-53 Women 8-15-24-47 Liberal 14-16-19-42 Nt Wk Outsde Home 6-12-26-48 45-54 4- 9-30-52 Cottege Graduate B-16-22-50 92649 3-16-13r58 Res: 25+ Yrs 7-12-25-51 92647 12-13-13-52 Some COIL/vac 8-11-25-52 College Graduate 8-16-22-50 Some Cott/Voc 8-11-25-52 Some Coll/Voc 8-11-25-52 Democrat 8-17-19-48 Work Outside Home 8-16-23-50 18-34 15- 5-25-40 Republican 3-15-25-51 . Neither Con/Lib B-20-33-35 Republican 3-15-25-51 Republican 3-15-25-51 Men 6-13-24-51 Res: 25+ Yrs 7-12-25-51 Independent 0-15-40-45 65+ 0-16-24-53 Res: 25+ Yrs 7-12-25-51 Aggregate 7-14-24-49 Women 8-15-24-47 Warren 8-15-24-47 College Graduate 8-16-22-50 92648 7- 7-37-48 Renters 29-14-14-43 Aggregate 7-14-24-49 Work Outside Home 8-16-23-50 Men 6-13-24-51 Res: < 5 Yrs 14-14-36-29 Somewhat Consery 4-12-24-55 Aggregate 7-14-24-49 92646 6-18-28-44 Aggregate 7-14-24-49 Men 6-13-24-51 Post -Grad Degree 3-23-19-48 Nt Wk Outsde Home 6-12-26-48 35-44 0-14-17-62 Work Outside Hone 8-16-23-50 Nt Wk Outsde Home 6-12-26-48 45-54 4- 9-30-52 92647 12-13-13-52 College Graduate 8-16-22-50 Democrat 8-17-19-41 Final Vote:No 4- 9-21-60 Men 6-13-24-51 Res: 15-25 Yrs 9-17-21-47 HS or Less 4- 4-32-48 HS or Less 4- 4-32-48 Nt Wk Outsde Home 6-12-26-48 Final Vote:No 4- 9-21-60 92648 7- 7-37-48 Somewhat Consery 4-12-24-55 Res: 25+ Yrs 7-12-25-51 Post -Grad Degree 3-23-19-48 Res: 15-25 Yrs 9-17-21-47 Post -Grad Degree 3-23-19-48 Very Conservative 3-12-18-64 Democrat 8-17-19-48 Warren B-15-24-47 92649 3-16-13-58 Somewhat Consery 4-12-24-55 55-64 10-21-19-46 55-64 10-21-19-46 Very Conservative 3-12-18-64 Some Coll/Voc B-11-25-52 Liberal 14-16-19-42 Independent 0-15-40-45 Republican 3-15-25-51. Kids <18 a Hone 0-i1-16-68 Very Conservative 3-12-18-64 92646 6-18-28-44 Kids <18 2 Home 0-11-16-68 Final Vote:No 4- 9-21-60 35-44 0-14-17-62 Renters 29-14-14-43 Independent 0-15-40-45 45-54 4- 9-30-52 Res: 5-10 Yrs 0-21-16-53 Liberal 14-16-19-42 65+ 0-16-24-53 Res: 10-15 Yrs 0- 7-27-60 Kids <18 a Home 0-11-16-68 18-34 15- 5-25-40 35-44 0-14-17-62 92648 7- 7-37-48 Renters 29-14-14-43 Neither Con/Lib 8-20-33-35 Res: 5-10 Yrs 0-21-16-53 18-34 IS- 5-25-40 92647 12-13-13-52 Res: < 5 Yrs 14-14-36-29 Res: 10-15 Yrs 0- 7-27-60 HS or Less 4- 4-32-48 92649 3-16-13-58 Final Vote:Yes 10-29-33-21 0 Lawrence Research CROSSTABS Page 69 • 40 Huntington Beach / July 2001 1318 Q. 59: [SS2:] Believability: Auto Accidents Due to Bad Roads, etc. There will be a real possibility of people having more auto accidents because the roads, traffic lights and signs are so bad. 1. Very Believable 7 4. Very Believable 49 2. Somewhat Believable 14 5. No Opinion 6 3. Somewhat Believable 24 Format 1+2/3+4/5 VIC l Rank 1+2, 3+4, 5 Renters 43-57- 0 Final Vote:Yes 40-54- 6 55-64 31-65- 4 Liberal 30-60- 9 Res: < 5 Yrs 29-64- 7 Neither Can/Lib 28-68- 5 Res: 15-25 Yrs 26-68- 6 Post -Grad Degree 26-68- 6 92647 25-65-10 Democrat 25-67- 8 92646 24-72- 4 Work Outside Home 24-72- 4 College Graduate 24-72- 4 Women 23-71- 6 Res: 5-10 Yrs 21-68-11 Aggregate 21-73- 6 18-34 20-65-15 92649 19-71-10 Res: 25+ Yrs 19-76- 5 Men 19-75- Some Col{lVoc 19-77- 5 5 Republican 18-76- 6 Nt Wk Outsde Home 18-74- 8 65+ 16-78- 6 Somewhat Consery 16-79- 5 Very Conservative 15-82- 3 Independent 15-85- 0 35-44 14-79- 7 Final Vote:No 14-81- 6 92648 13-85- 2 45-54 13-83- 4 Kids <18 a Home 11-84- 5 HS or Less 8-80-12 Res: 10-15 Yrs 7-87- 7 Res: 10-15 Yrs 7-87- 7 Independent 15-85- 0 92648 13-85- 2 Kids 08 is Hone 11-84- 5 45-54 13-83- 4 Very Conservative 15-82- 3 Final Vote:No 14-81- 6 HS or Less 8-80-12 35-44 14-79- 7 Somewhat Consery 16-79- 5 65+ 16-78- 6 Some Coll/Voc 19-77- 5 Republican 18-76- 6 Res: 25+ Yrs 1946- 5 Men 19-75- 6 Nt Wk Outsde Home 18-74- 8 Aggregate 21-73- 6 Work Outside Home 24-72- 4 College Graduate 24-72- 4 92646 24-72- 4 Women 23-71- 6 92649 19-71-10 Res: 5-10 Yrs 21-68-11 Res: 15-25 Yrs 26-68- 6 Post -Grad Degree 26-68- 6 Neither Con/Lib 26-6B- 5 Democrat 25-67- 8 92647 25-65-10 18-34 20-65-15 55-64 31-65- 4 Res: < 5 Yrs 29-64- 7 Liberal 30-60- 9 Renters 43-57- 0 Final Vote:Yes 40-54- 6 18-34 20-65-15 HS or Less 8-80-12 Res: 5-10 Yrs 21-68-11 92649 19-71-10 92647 25-65-10 Liberal 30-60- 9 Nt Wk Outsde Home 18-74- 8 Democrat 25-67- 8 Res: < 5 Yrs 29-64- 7 35-44 14-79- 7 Res: 10-15 Yrs 7-87- 7 Post -Grad Degree 26-68- 6 Final Vote:Yes 40-54- 6 65+ 16-78- 6 Men 19-75- 6 Women 23-71- 6 Aggregate 21-73- 6 Final Vote:No 14-81- 6 Republican 18-76- 6 Res: 15-25 Yrs 26-68- 6 Somewhat Consery 16-79- 5 Kids <18 a Home 11-84- 5 Res: 25+ Yrs 19-76- 5 Neither Con/Lib 28-68- 5 Some Coll/Vac 19-77- 5 45-54 13-83- 4 92646 24-72- 4 55-64 31-65- 4 College Graduate 24-72- 4 Work Outside Home 24-72- 4 Very Conservative 15-82- 3 92648 13-85- 2 Renters 43-57- 0 Independent 15-85- 0 Lawrence Research CROSSTABS Page 70 Huntington Beach / July 2001 1318 x Q. 60: [SS1:l Believability: There is a Possibility of Flood Damage There will be a real possibility of flood damage I. Very Believable 13 4. Very Unbelievable 29 2. Somewhat Believable 31 5. No Opinion 5 3. Somewhat Unbelievable 23 Format 1/2/3/4 MC Rank 1, 2, 3, 4 Res: 5-10 Yrs 32-23-19-23 Res: < 5 Yrs 12-47-12-29 Very Conservative 6-19-42-32 Somewhat Consery 4-25-22-40 Liberal 27-42-15-15 Democrat 19-46-19-11 55-64 10-23-32-32 Res: 10-15 Yrs 23-27- 9-36 Neither Can/Lib 26-40-15-17 Liberal 27-42-15-15 Res: 15-25 Yrs 4-34-32-21 College Graduate 15-23-23-35 Final Vote:Yes 23-42-13-17 Final Vote:Yes 23-42-13-17 92649 7-27-32-29 Final Vote:No 9-25-27-34 Res: 10-15 Yrs 23-27- 9-36 HS or Less 7-41-30- 7 HS or Less 7-41-30- 7 Post -Grad Degree 18-32-16-34 18-34 22-33-22-22 Neither Con/Lib 26-40-15-17 Warren 13-29-29-24 Men 13-32-16-34 Democrat 19-46-19-11 65+ 8-39-19-28 92647 10-29-27-29 Republican 10-26-27-34 35-44 18-21-26-32 92646 17-39-13-27 Final Vote:No 9-25-27-34 Res: 25+ Yrs 8-29-24-34 Post -Grad Degree 18-32-16-34 Renters 12-36-20-28 Republican 10-26-27-34 45-54 14-31-14-33 92646 17-39-13-27 Nt Wk Outsde Home 10-35-23-27 Kids <18 2 Home 12-27-27-31 55-64 10-23-32-32 92648 16-21-24-32 Res: 15-25 Yrs 4-34-32-21 35-44 18-21-26-32 Very Conservative 6-19-42-32 College Graduate 15-23-23-35 Some Coll/Voc 7-34-23-30 Independent 13-30-26-22 Work Outside Home 14-27-22-32 Work Outside Home 14-27-22-32 18-34 22-33-22-22 Res: 25+ Yrs 8-29-24-34 92648 16-21-24-32 45-54 14-31-14-33 -Men 13-32-16-34 92648 16-21-24-32 35-44 18-21-26-32 Independent 13-30-26-22 Post -Grad Degree 18-32-16-34 Some Coll/Voc 7-34-23-30 Kids <18 2 Home 12-27-27-31 Men 13-32-16-34 45-54 14-31-14-33 Nt Wk Outsde Home 10-35-23-27 Some Coll/Voc 7-34-23-30 Women 13-29-29-24 Aggregate 13-31-23-29 College Graduate 15-23-23-35 Res: < 5 Yrs 12-47-12-29 Aggregate 13-31-23-29 Independent 13-30-26-22 Aggregate 13-31-23-29 92647 10-29-27-29 Kids <18 2 Home 12-27-27-31 92647 10-29-27-29 Somewhat Consery 4-25-22-40 92649 7-27-32-29 Renters 12-36-20-28 Women 13-29-29-24 18-34 22-33-22-22 Aggregate 13-31-23-29 Res: < 5 Yrs 12-47-12-29 Res: 25+ Yrs 8-29-24-34 Work outside Home 14-27-22-32 Renters 12-36-20-28 Republican 10-26-27-34 Res: 10-15 Yrs 23-27- 9-36 Renters 12-36-20-28 65+ 8-39-19-`LF Nt Wk Outsde Home 10-35-23-27 Work Outside Home 14-27-22-32 65+ 8-39-19-28 Nt Wk Outsde Hare 10-35-23-27 92647 10-29-27-29 92649 7-27-32-29 Res: 5-10 Yrs 32-23-19-23 92646 17-39-13-27 55-64 10-23-32-32 Kids <18 0 Home 12-27-27-31 Democrat 19-46-19-11 Warren 13-29-29-24 Final Vote:No 9-25-27-34 Republican 10-26-27-34 Men 13-32-16-34 Res: 5-10 Yrs 32-23-19-23 Res: 25+ Yrs B-29-24-34 Final Vate:No 9-25-27-34 Post -Grad Degree 18-32-16-34 18-34 22-33-22-22 65+ B-39-19-28 Somewhat Consery 4-25-22-40 Liberal 27-42-15-15 independent 13-30-26-22 HS or Less 7-41-30- 7 College Graduate 15-23-23-35 Neither Con/Lib 26-40-15-17 Res: 15-25 Yrs 4-34-32-21 92649 7-27-32-20 55-64 10-23-32-32 45-54 14-31-14-33 Final Vote:Yes 23-42-13-17 Some Coll/Voc 7-34-23-30 Res: 5-10 Yrs 32-23-19-23 Final Vote:Yes 23-42-13-17 Neither Can/Lib 26-40-15-17 Very Conservative 6-19-42-32 35-44 18-21-26-32 92646 17-39-13-27 Liberal 27-42-15-15 Res: 15-25 Yrs 4-34-32-21 92648 16-21-24-32 Res: < 5 Yrs 12-47-12-29 Democrat 19-46-19-11 Somewhat Consery 4-25-22-40 Very Conservative 6-19-42-32 Res: 10-15 Yrs 23-27- 9-36 HS or Less 7-41-30- 7 L71 Lawrence Research CROSSTABS Page 71 • Huntington Beach / July 2001 1318 Q. 60: [SS1:] Believability: There is a Possibility of Flood Damage There will be a real possibility of flood damage 1. Very Believable 13 4. Very Unbelievable 29 2. Somewhat Believable 31 S. No Opinion 5 3. Somewhat Unbelievable 23 Format 1+2/3+4/5 MC 1 Rank 1+2, 3+4, 5 Liberal 69-31- 0 Very Conservative 26-74- 0 HS or Less 48-37-15 Neither Con/Lib 66-32- 2 55-64 32-65- 3 Somewhat Consery 28-62- 9 Final Vote:Yes 65-31- 4 Somewhat Consery 28-62- 9 Independent 43-48- 9 Democrat 65-30- 5 Final Vote:No 34-61- 4 Res: 15-25 Yrs 38-53- 9 Res: < 5 Yrs 59-41- 0 92649 34-61- 5 45-54 44-47- 8 92646 56-40- 4 Republican 36-61- 4 92648 37-55- 8 18-34 56-44- 0 35-44 39-58- 3 65+ 47-47- 6 Res: 5-10 Yrs 55-42- 3 Res: 25+ Yrs 37-58- 5 Democrat 65-30- 5 Res: 10-15 Yrs. 50-45- 5 Coitege Graduate 38-58- 5 Some CoLL/Voc 41-54- 5 Post -Grad Degree 50-50- 0 Kids 08 a Home 39-57- 4 Men 45-50- 5 HS or Less 48-37-15 92647 39-57- 4 Women 42-53- 5 Renters 48-48- 4 92648 37-55- 8 Aggregate 44-52- 5 65+ 47-47- 6 Work outside Home 41-54- 5 92649 34-61- 5 Nt Wk Outsde Home 45-51- 4 Some Coll/Vac 41-54- 5 Res: 25+ Yrs 37-58- 5 Men 45-50- 5 Res: 15-25 Yrs 38-53- 9 Work Outside Home 41-54- 5 45-54 44-47- 8 Women 42-53- 5 Res: 10-15 Yrs 50-45- 5 Aggregate 44-52- 5 Aggregate 44-52- 5 College Graduate 38-58- 5 Independent 43-48- 9 Nt Wk Outsde Home 45-51- 4 Final Vote:No 34-61- 4 Women 42-53- 5 Post -Grad Degree 50-50- 0 Nt Wk Outsde Home 45-51- 4 Work Outside Hone 41-54- 5 Men 45-50- 5 92646 56-40- 4 Some Colt/Voc 35-44 41-54- 39-58- 5 Renters 3 Independent 48-48- 43-48- 4 Kids <18 & Home 9 Renters 39-57- 48-48- 4 4 92647 39-57- 4 45-54 44-47- 8 92647 39-57- 4 Kids <18 2 Home 39-57- 4 65+ 47-47- 6 Final Vote:Yes 65-31- 4 Iles: 15-25 Yrs 38-53- 9 Res: 10-15 Yrs 50-45- 5 Republican 36-61- 4 College Graduate 38-58- 5 18-34 56-44- 0 55-64 32-65- 3 Res: 25+ Yrs 37-58- 5 Res: 5-10 Yrs 55-42- 3 Res: 5-10 Yrs 55-42- 3 92648 37-55- 8 Res: < 5 Yrs 59-41- 0 35-44 39-58- 3 Republican 36-61- 4 92646 56-40- 4 Neither Can/Lib 66-32- 2 Final Vote:No 34-61- 4 HS or Less 48-37-15 Post -Grad Degree 50-50- 0 92649 34-61- 5 Neither Con/Lib 66-32- 2 Very Conservative 26-74- 0 55-64 32-65- 3 Liberal 69-31- 0 Res: < 5 Yrs 59-41- 0 Somewhat Consery 28-62- 9 Final Vote:Yes 65-31- 4 Liberal 69-31- 0 Very Conservative 26-74- 0 Democrat 65-30- 5 18-34 56-44- 0 is Lawrence Research CROSSTABS Page 72 Huntington Beach / July 2001 1318 Q. 61: (SS2:1 Believability: Flood Damage Due to Outdated Systems There will be a real possibility of flood damage because our flood control channels and storm drains are not up to date. 1. Very Believable 2. Somewhat Believable 3. Somewhat Unbelievable Format 1/2/3/4 MC Rank 1, 2, 3, 4 i8 4. Very Unbelievable 26 5, No Opinion 22 29 7 • Renters 43-29-14-14 18-34 10-40-20-25 Res: 10-15 Yrs 13-27-40-20 Independent 15-10-3D-45 Final Vote:Yes 33-40-19- 4 Final Vote:Yes 33-40-19- 4 Kids 08 a Now 8-24-32-29 HS or Less 12-24-20-40 Res: < 5 Yrs 29-14-74-36 Post -Grad Degree 10-35-26-23 Very Conservative 12-15-30-36 Final Vore:No 11-21-23-39 Liberal 28-30-21-19 Democrat 25-33-17-19 Independent 15-10-30-45 92649 10-29-19-39 Democrat 25-33-17-19 Res: 5-10 Yrs 21-32-11-32 45-54 13-30-28-28 Very Conservative 12-15-30-36 Res: 15-25 Yrs 25-21-21-23 45-54 13-30-28-28 92648 17-20-26-28 Men 16-25-17-36 Neither Con/Lib 23-28-15-30 Liberal 28-30-21-19 women 19-26-26-22 Res: < 5 Yrs 29-14-14-36 College Graduate 22-22-24-26 92649 10-29-19-39 Nt Wk outsdo Home 17-22-26-29 65+ 20-18-20-35 Res: 5-10 Yrs 21-32-11-32 92647 19-29-23-25 Post -Grad Degree 10-35-26-23 Somewhat Consery 11-25-21-33 35-44 21-21-21-31 Republican 10-29-25-30 Republican 10-29-25-30 Some Coll/Vac 17-25-17-33 65+ 20-18-20-35 Renters 43-29-14-14 College Graduate 22-22-24-26 Res: 25+ Yrs 12-28-22-32 92646 20-25-18-28 Res: 25+ Yrs 12-28-22-32 92647 19-29-23-25 Res: 5-10 Yrs 21-32-11-32 92647 19-29-23-25 Work Outside Home 18-28-18-28 Final Vote:No 11-21-23-39 35-44 21-21-21-31 Women 19-26-26-22 Neither Con/Lib 23-28-15-30 Res: 25+ Yrs 12-28-22-32 Republican 10-29-25-30 Work Outside Home 18-28-18-28 55-64 15-27-19-29 Aggregate 18-26-22-29 Neither Con/Lib 23-28-15-30 Aggregate 18-26-22-29 Res: 10-15 Yrs 13-27-40-20 Somewhat Consery 11-25-21-33 Nt Wk Outsde Home 17-22-26-29 92648 17-20-26-28 Women 19-26-26-22 Liberal 28-30-21-19 55-64 15-27-19-29 Some Coll/Voc 17-25-17-33 Aggregate 18-26-22-29 Res: 15-25 Yrs 25-21-21-23 Aggregate 18-26-22-29 Nt Wk Outsde Home 17-22-26-29 92646 20-25-18-28 35-44 21-21-21-31 Kids <18 a Home 8-24-32-29 Men 16-25-17-36 Somewhat Consery 11-25-21-33 65+ 20-18-20-35 Work Outside Home 18-28-18-28 Independent 15-10-30-45 Some Co((/Voc 17-25-17-33 HS or Less 12-24-20-40 45-54 13-30-28-2£ 55-64 15-27-19-29 Men 16-25-17-36 18-34 10-40-20-25 92648 17-20-26-28 Res: 10-15 Yrs 13-27-40-20 HS or Less 12-24-20-40 92649 10-29-19-39 92646 20-25-18-28 45-54 13-30-28-28 Kids <18 a Home 8-24-32-29 Final Vote:Yes 33-40-19- 4 College Graduate 22-22-24-26 Res: 25+ Yrs 12-28-22-32 Nt Wk Outsde Home 17-22-26-29 55-64 15-27-19-29 18-34 10-40-20-25 Very Conservative 12-15-30-36 College Graduate 22-22-24-26 Work Outside Home 18-28-18-28 92647 19-29-23-25 HS or Less 12-24-20-40 Res: 15-25 Yrs 25-21-21-23 92646 20-25-18-28 Res: 15-25 Yrs 25-21-21-23 Final Vote:No 11-21-23-39 Final Vote:No 11-21-23-39 Democrat 25-33-17-19 Post -Grad Degree 10-35-26-23 Somewhat Consery 11-25-21-33 35-44 21-21-21-31 Some Coll/Voc 17-25-17-33 Women 19-26-26-22 Republican 10-29-25-30 92648 17-20-26-28 Men 16-25-17-36 Res: 10-15 Yrs 13-27-40-20 18-34 10-40-20-25 65+ 20-1B-20-35 Neither Can/Lib 23-28-15-30 Democrat 25-33-17-19 92649 10-29-19-39 Very Conservative 12-15-30-36 Renters 43-29-14-14 Liberal 28-30-21-19 Post -Grad Degree 10-35-26-23 Res: < 5 Yrs 29-14-14-36 Res: < 5 Yrs 29-14-14-36 Renters 43-29-14-14 Kids <18 @ Home B-24-32-29 Independent 15-10-30-45 Res: 5-10 Yrs 21-32-11-32 Final Vote:Yes 33-40-19- 4 J Lawrence Research CROSSTABS Page 73 Huntington Beach / July 2001 1318 0 Q. 61: [SS2:] Believability: Flood -Damage Due to Outdated Systems There will be a real possibility of flood damage because our flood control channels and storm drains are not up to date. 1. Very Believable 2. Somewhat Believable 3. Somewhat Unbelievable Format 1+2/3+4/5 MC 1 Rank 1+2, 3+4, 5 Final Vote:Yes 73-23- 4 Renters 71-29- 0 Liberal 58-40- 2 Democrat 58-37- 6 Res: 5-10 Yrs 53-42- 5 Neither Con/Lib 50-45- 5 18-34 50-45- 5 92647 48-48- 4 Work Outside Home 46-47- 7 Res: 15-25 Yrs 45-43-11 Post -Grad Degree 45-48- 6 92646 45-46- 8 Women 45-48- 7 College Graduate 45-50- 5 45-54 43-57- 0 Aggregate 43-51- 7 Res: < 5 Yrs 43-50- 7 Some Coll/Voc 42-50- 8 55-64 42-48-10 .11-44 Men Men 41-52- 7 41-53- 6 Res: 25+ Yrs 40-55- 5 Res: 10-15 Yrs 40-60- 0 Nt Wk Outsde Home 39-55- 6 Republican 39-55- 6 65+ 39-55- 6 92649 39-58- 3 92648 37-54- 9 Somewhat Consery 36-55- 9 HS or Less 36-60- 4 Kids 08 a Home 32-61- 8 Final Vote. -No 31-62- 6 Very Conservative 27-67- 6 Independent 25-75- 0 Independent 25-75- 0 Very Conservative 27-67- 6 Final Vote:No 31-62- 6 Kids <18 M Home 32-61- 8 Res: 10-15 Yrs 40-60- 0 HS or Less 36-60- 4 92649 39-58- 3 45-54 43-57- 0 Republican 39-55- 6 65+ 39-55- 6 Nt Wk Outsde Home 39-55- 6 Somewhat Consery 36-55- 9 Res: 25+ Yrs 40-55- 5 92648 37-54- 9 Hen 41-53- 6 35-44 41-52- 7 Aggregate 43-51- 7 Res: < 5 Yrs 43-50- 7 College Graduate 45-50- 5 Some Coll/Voc 42-50- 8 Post -Grad Degree 45-48- 6 92647 48-48- 4 Women 45-48- 7 55-64 42-48-10 Work Outside Home 46-47- 7 92646 45-46- 8 18-34 50-45- 5 Neither Con/Lib 50-45- 5 Res: 15-25 Yrs 45-43-11 Res: 5-10 Yrs 53-42- 5 Liberal 58-40- 2 Democrat 58-37- 6 Renters 71-29- 0 Final Vote:Yes 73-23- 4 18 4. Very Unbelievable 26 5. No Opinion 22 Res: 15-25 Yrs 45-43-11 55-64 42-48-10 Somewhat Consery 36-55- 9 92648 37-54- 9 92646 45-46- 8 Kids <18 a Home 32-61- 8 Some Coll/Vac 42-50- 8 Work Outside Home 46-47- 7 Res: < 5 Yrs 43-50- 7 Women 45-48- 7 35-44 41-52- 7 Aggregate 43-51- 7 Post -Grad Degree 45-48- 6 Final Vote:No 31-62- 6 65+ 39-55- 6 Very Conservative 27-67- 6 Men 41-53- 6 Democrat 58-37- 6 Republican 39-55- 6 Nt Wk Outsde Home 39-55- 6 Res: 5-10 Yrs 53-42- 5 College Graduate 45-50- 5 Res: 25+ Yrs 40-55- 5 18-34 50-45- 5 Neither Con/Lib 50-45- 5 Final Vote:Yes 73-23- 4 HS or Less 36-60- 4 92647 48-48- 4 92649 - 39-58- 3 Liberal 58-40- 2 Renters 71-29- o independent 25-75- 0 45-54 43-57- 0 Res: 10-15 Yrs 40-60- 0 29 7 Lawrence Research CROSSTABS Page 74 Huntington Beach / July 2001 1318 N' Q. 62: Believability: City and Property Values will Deteriorate • 4 Y Y P The city will deteriorate and property values will suffer 1. Very Believable 2. Somewhat Believable 3. Somewhat Unbelievable Format 1/2/3/4 MC 1 Rank 1, 2, 3, 4 8 20 28 4. Very Unbelievable 5. No Opinion 40 4 Res: < 5 Yrs 19-19-29-26 Final Vote:Yes 17-33-29-20 Kids <18 a Hone 7-21-37-34 HS or Less 4-12-29-56 Liberal 19-28-26-26 18-54 8-29-32-29 Very Conservative 6- 8-36-48 Res: 10-15 Yrs 3-22-27-49 Final Vote:Yes 17-33-29-20 Liberal 19-28-26-26 Renters 13-13-34-38 Very Conservative 6- 8-36-48 Renters 13-13-34-38 Democrat 10-27-29-28 92648 12-13-33-38 Final vote:No 4-15-29-47 45-54 12-20-28-40 92646 5-27-24-39 92649 8-19-33-36 Somewhat Consery 4-19-25-47 92648 12-13-33-38 Post -Grad Degree 9-27-29-31 55-64 9-15-32-41 Independent 12-14-26-47 Independent 12-14-26-47 Neither Can/Lib 10-24-30-32 18-34 B-29-32-29 35-44 6-22-24-45 Neither Con/Lib 10-24-30-32 WorK Outside Home 9-23-26-40 Nt Wk Outsde Home 7-16-31-41 92647 10-16-25-45 Democrat 10-27-29-28 35-44 6-22-24-45 Res: 15-25 Yrs 9-21-30-35 Republican 4-21-29-44 92647 10-16-25-45 women 9-22-29-36 Neither Lon/Lib 10-24-30-32 Res: 5-10 Yrs 6-22-24-44 Post -Grad Degree 9-27-29-31 Res: 5-10 Yrs 6-22-24-44 Post -Grad Degree 9-27-29-31 Men 8-18-27-44 College Graduate 9-21-27-40 Res: 10-15 Yrs 3-22-27-49 Democrat 10-27-29-28 65+ 3-21-26-42 Res: 15-25 Yrs 9-21-30-35 College Graduate 9-21-27-40 Res: < 5 Yrs 19-19-29-26 Res: 25+ Yrs B-18-28-42 Women 9-22-29-36 Res: 15-25 Yrs 9-21-30-35 Final Vote:Yes 17-33-29-20 Some Coll/Voc 7-18-28-41 Work Outside Home 9-23-26-40 Kids <18 is Home 7-21-37-34 women 9-2Z-29-36 Nt Wk Outsde Home 7.16-31-41 55-64 9-15-32-41 65+ 3-21-26-42 HS or Less 4-12-29-56 55-64 9-15-32-41 92649 8-19-33-36 Republican 4-21-29-44 Final Vote:No 4-15-29-47 45-54 12-20-28-40 Aggregate 8-20-28-40 Aggregate 8-20-28-40 Republican 4-21-29-44 College Graduate 9-21-27-40 18-34 8-29-32-29 45-54 12-20-28-40 45-54 12-20-28-40 work Outside Home 9-23-26-40 Res: 25+ Yrs 8-18-28-42 92649 8-19-33-36 Res: 25+ Yrs B-18-28-42 Aggregate 8-20-28-40 Men 8-18-27-44 Res: < 5 Yrs 19-19-29-26 Aggregate 8-20-28-40 92646 5-27-24 39 Kids <18 & Home 7-21-37-34 Somewhat Consery 4-19-25-47 Some Coll/Voc 7-18-28-41 92648 12-13-33-3F Some Colt/Voc 7-18-28-41 Some Coll/Voc 7-18-28-41 Res: 10-15 Yrs 3-22-27-49 Renters 13-13-34-38 Nt Wk Outsde Home 7-16-31-41 Res: 25+ Yrs 8-18-28-42 Men 8-18-27-44 92649 B-19-33-36 Very Conservative 6- B-36-48 Men 8-18-27-44 College Graduate 9-21-27-40 Women 9-22-29-36 Res: 5-10 Yrs 6-22-24-44 Nt Wk Outsde Home 7-16-31-41 65+ 3-21-26-42 Res: 15-25 Yrs 9-21-30-35 35-44 6-22-24-45 92647 10-16-25-45 Work Outside Home 9-23-26-40 Kids <18 is Home 7-21-37-34 92646 5-27-24-39 55-64 9-15-32-41 Liberal 19-28-26-26 Neither Con/Lib 10-24-30-32 Final Vote:No 4-15-29-47 Final 11ote:No 4-15-29-47 Independent 12-14-26-47 Post -Grad Degree 9-27-29-31 HS or Less 4-12-29-56 independent 12-14-26-47 92647 10-16-25-45 18-34 8-29-32-29 Somewhat Consery 4-19-25-47 92648 12-13-33-38 Somewhat Consery 4-19-25-47 Democrat 10-27-29-28 Republican 4-21-29-44 Renters 13-13-34-38 92646 5-27-24-39 Liberal 19-28-26-26 65+ 3-21-26-42 HS or Less 4-12-29-56 Res: 5-10 Yrs 6-22-24-44 Res: < 5 Yrs 19-19-29-26 Res: 10-15 Yrs 3-22-27-49 Very Conservative 6- 8-36-48 35-44 6-22-24-45 Final Vote:Yes 17-33-29-�O 0 Lawrence Research CROSSTABS Page 75 Huntington Beach / July 2001 1318 Q. 62: Believability: City and Property Values will Deteriorate The city will deteriorate and property values will suffer 1. Very Believable 8 4. Very Unbelievable 40 2. Somewhat Believable 20 5. No Opinion 4 3. Somewhat Unbelievable 28 Format 1+2/3+4/5 MC 1 Rank 1+2, 3+4, 5 Final Vote:Yes 50-49- Liberal 46-52- Res: < 5 Yrs 39-55- Democrat 37-57- 18-34 37-61- Post-Grad Degree 36-60• Neither Con/Lib 34-62- 92646 32-63- 45-54 32-68• Mork outside Home 31-66- Women 31-65- College Graduate 30-67- Res: 15-25 Yrs 3D-65- 35-44 28-69- Res: 5-10 Yrs 28-68- Aggregate 28-68- 92649 28-69- Kids <18 a Home 28-71- Res: 25+ Yrs 26-70• Independent 26-72- 92647 25-70- Some Coll/Voc 25-68- Men 25-71- Renters 25-72- 92648 25-71- Res: 10-15 Yrs 24-76- Republican 24-73- 55-64 24-72- 65+ 24-69- Nt Wk Outsde Home 23-71- Somewhat Consery 23-72- Final Vote:No 19-76- HS or Less 15-85- very Conservative 14-84- is 1 HS or Less 15-85- 1 very Conservative 14-84- 6 Final Vote:No 19-76- 6 Res: 10-15 Yrs 24-76- 3 Republican 24-73- 4 55-64 24-72- 3 independent 26-72- 5 Renters 25-72- 0 Somewhat Consery 23-72- 2 92648 25-71- 5 Kids 08 a Home 28-71- 3 Nt Wk Outsde Home 23-71- 5 Men 25-71- 3 92647 25-70- 4 Res: 25+ Yrs 26-70- 4 92649 28-69- 3 35-44 28-69- 1 65+ 24-69- 4 Some Coil/Voc 25-68- 2 45-54 32-68- 5 Res: 5-10 Yrs 28-68- 7 Aggregate 28-68- 4 College Graduate 30-67- 3 Work Outside Home 31-66- 4 Res: 15-25 Yrs 30-65- 0 Women 31-65- 3 92646 32-63- 4 Neither Con/Lib 34-62- 7 1B-34 37-61- 6 Post -Grad Degree 36-60- 6 Democrat 37-57- 4 Res: < 5 Yrs 39-55- 0 Liberal 46-52- 2 Final Vote:Yes 50-49- 65+ 24-69- some Coll/Voc 25-68- Res: < 5 Yrs 39-55- Nt Wk Outsde Home 23-71- Somewhat Consery 23-72- Democrat 37-57- Res: 15-25 Yrs 30-65- 92646 32-63- 92647 25-70- Women 31-65- Res: 25+ Yrs 26-70- Final Vote:No 19-76- Aggregate 28-68- Res: 5-10 Yrs 28-68- Men 25-71- Post-Grad Degree 36-60- 55-64 24-72- 92648 25-71- Neither Con/Lib 34-62- Renters 25-72- 35-44 28-69- College Graduate 30-67- Republican 24-73- 92649 28-69- 18-34 37-61- Work Outside Home 31-66- independent 26-72- Very Conservative 14-84- Liberal 46-52- Kids <18 a Home 28-71- Final Vote:Yes 50-49- Res: 10-15 Yrs 24-76- 45-54 32-68- HS or Less 15-85- Lawrence Research CROSSTABS Page 76 Huntington Beach / July 2001 1318 Q. 63: Believability: Local Economy 4 Y Y Will Suffer The local economy will be hurt because city will not be as attractive for new 1. Very Believable 11 2. Somewhat Believable 18 3. Somewhat Unbelievable 24 Format 1/2/3/4 MC 1 Rank 1, 2, 3, 4 fewer tourists will visit and the businesses. 4. Very Unbelievable 5. No Opinion 43 4 Final Vote:Yes 19-30-26-20 Final Vote:Yes 19-30-26-20 Res: < 5 Yrs 16-10-39-32 35-44 3-18-19-55 Renters 19-13-22-47 Res: 10-15 Yrs 5-24-19-51 18-34 13-18-32-37 Final Vote:No 7-13-24-52 92648 17-13-24-44 Res: 15-25 Yrs 10-22-22-41 Democrat 9-17-31-38 Res: 10-15 Yrs 5-24-19-51 Res: < 5 Yrs 16-10-39-32 Neither Con/Lib 11-22-25-40 55-64 14-16-30-38 Independent 9-16-23-51 Liberal 16-16-29-35 92647 11-21-21-42 Some Coll/Vac 10-18-30-36 92649 7-15-24-50 Very Conservative 16-11-25-45 Post -Grad Degree 7-21-24-45 Kids <18 2 Home 6-17-30-46 HS or Less 13-15-19-50 55-64 14-16-30-38 Somewhat Consery 6-21-23-46 Liberal 16-16-29-35 45-54 10-18-22-48 HS or Less 13-15-19-50 Nt Wk Outsde Home 11-21-24-40 92646 10-20-27-38 Renters 19-13-22-47 18-34 13-18-32-37 Republican B-21-24-44 Final Vote:Yes 19-30-26-20 Res: 5-10 Yrs 10-16-24-46 College Graduate 13-18-22-45 Women 11-21-24-41 Neither Con/Lib 11-22-25-40 Kids <18 2 Home 6-17-30-46 Res: 25+ Yrs 12-16-24-42 92646 10-20-27-38 Men 12-15-25-45 Somewhat Consery 6-21-23-46 Men 12-15-25-45 65+ 11-20-23-39 Very Conservative 16-11-25-45 .Work Outside Home 11-15-25-46 Neither Can/Lib 11-22-25-40 16-34 13-18-32-37 Work Outside Home 11-15-25-46 Past -Grad Degree 7-21-24-45 Aggregate 11-18-24-43 College Graduate 13-18-22-45 Final Vote:No 7-13-24-52 Very Conservative 16-11-25-45 work Outside Home 11-15-25-46 45-54 10-18-22-48 Aggregate 11-18-24-43 College Graduate 13-18-22-45 65+ 11-20-23-39 Aggregate 11-18-24-43 Res: 25+ Yrs 12-16-24-42 Men 12-15-25-45 92647 11-21-21-42 35-44 3-18-19-55 Post -Grad Degree 7-21-24-45 92648 17-13-24-44 Nt Wk Outsde Home 11-21-24-40 Some Call/Voc 10-18-30-36 Res: 5-10 Yrs 10-16-24-46 Republican 8-21-24-44 Women 11-21-24-41 Kids <18 a Home 6-17-30-46 Nt Wk Outsde Home 11-21-24-40 Aggregate 11-18-24-43 Same Coll/Voc 10-18-30-36 Democrat 9-17-31-38 Republican B-21-24-44 Res: 25+ Yrs 12-16-24-42 Reg: 15-25 Yrs 10-22-22-41 Res: 25+ Yrs 12-16-24-42 92648 17-13-24-44 92647 11-21-21-4; Res: 5-10 Yrs 10-16-24-46 55-64 14-16-30-38 92649 7-15-24-50 Res: 15-25 Yrs 10-22-22-41 92646 10-20-27-38 Independent 9-16-23-51 Women 11-21-24-41 Women 11-21-24-41 45-54 10-18-22-48 Res: 5-10 Yrs 10-16-24-46 Independent 9-16-23-51 Neither Con/Lib 11-22-25-40 Independent 9-16-23-51 Liberal 16-16-29-35 65+ 11-20-23-39 Nt Wk Outsde Home 11-21-24-40 Democrat 9-17-31-38 Work Outside Home 11-15-25-46 Somewhat Consery 6-21-23-46 65+ 11-20-23-39 Republican 8-21-24-44 HS or Less 13-15-19-50 Res: 15-25 Yrs 10-22-22-41 92646 10-20-27-38 92649 7-15-24-50 92649 7-15-24-50 45-54 10-18-22-48 Democrat 9-17-31-38 Final Vote:No 7-13-24-52 Men 12-15-25-45 Renters 19-13-22-47 55-64 14-16-30-38 Post -Grad Degree 7-21-24-45 Final Vote:Flo 7-13-24-52 College Graduate 13-18-22-45 18-34 13-18-32-37 Kids <18 0 Home 6-17-30-46 92648 17-13-24-44 92647 11-21-21-42 Some Call/Vac 10-18-30-36 Somewhat Consery 6-21-23-46 Renters 19-13-22-47 35-44 3-18-19-55 Liberal 16-16-29-35 Res: 10-15 Yrs 5-24-19-51 Very Conservative 16-11-25-45 HS or Less 13-15-19-50 Res: < 5 Yrs 16-10-39-32 35-44 3-18-19-55 Res: < 5 Yrs 16-10-39-32 Res: 10-15 Yrs 5-24-19-51 Final Vote:Yes 19-30-26-20 0 Lawrence Research CROSSTABS Page 77 Huntington Beach / July 2001 1318 0 Q. 63: Believability: Local Economy Will Suffer The local economy will be hurt because fewer tourists will visit and the city will not be as attractive for new businesses. 1. Very Believable 2. somewhat Believable 3. Somewhat Unbelievable Format 1+2/3+4/5 MC 1 Rank 1+2, 3+4, 5 Final Vote:Yes 49.46- Neither Con/Lib 33-66- 92647 32-63- Res: 15-25 Yrs 32-63- Liberal 32-64- 11t Wk Outsde Home 32-64- 18-34 32-68- Women 32-64- Renters 31-69- Cottege Graduate 31-67- 65+ 31-62- 55-64 30-68- 92646 30-65- 92648 30-68- Res: 10-15 Yrs 30-70- Aggregate 29-67- Republican 29-68- HS or Less 29-69- Res: 25+ Yrs 29-66- 45-54 28-70- Post - Post -Grad Degree 28-69- Some Coll/Voc 28-66- Somewhat Consery 27-69- Very Conservative 27-70- Men 27-70- Work Outside Home 26-70- Res: 5-10 Yrs 26-70- Democrat 26-70- Res: < 5 Yrs 26-71- Independent 26-74- Kids <18 a Home 23-76- 92649 22-74- 35-44 21-75- Final Vote:No 20-76- 0 5 Final Vote:No 20-76- 4 1 Kids <18 g Home 23-76- 1 5 35-44 21-75- 4 5 Independent 26-74- 0 4 92649 22-74- 4 4 Res: < 5 Yrs 26-71- 3 0 Work outside Home 26-70- 3 5 Very Conservative 27-70- 3 0 Res: 10-15 Yrs 30-70- 0 2 Res: 5-10 Yrs 26-70- 4 7 Democrat 26-70- 4 1 45-54 28-70- 2 5 Men 27-70- 4 2 Post -Grad Degree 28-69- 3 0 HS or Less 29-69- 2 4 Somewhat Consery 27-69- 4 3 Renters 31-69- 0 2 18-34 32-68- 0 5 55-64 30-68- 1 2 92648 30-68- 2 3 Republican 29-68- 3 7 College Graduate 31-67- 2 4 Aggregate 29-67- 4 3 Res: 25+ Yrs 29-66- 5 4 Some Coll/Voc 28-66- 7 3 Neither Con/Lib 33-66- 1 4 92646 30-65- 5 4 Women 32-64- 5 3 Nt Wk Outsde Home 32-64- 4 0 Liberal 32-64- 4 1 92647 32-63- 5 4 Res: 15-25 Yrs 32-63- 5 4 65+ 31-62- 7 4 Final Vote:Yes 49-46- 5 11 4. Very Unbelievable 18 5. No Opinion 24 65+ 31-62- 7 Some Coll/Voc 28-66- 7 Final Vote:Yes 49-46- 5 Res: 15-25 Yrs 32-63- 5 92646 30-65- 5 Res: 25+ Yrs 29-66- 5 92647 32-63- 5 Women 32-64- 5 Democrat 26-70- 4 35-44 27-75- 4 Nt Wk Outsde Home 32-64- 4 Somewhat Consery 27-69- 4 Liberal 32-64- 4 Aggregate 29-67- 4 92649 22-74- 4 Res: 5-10 Yrs 26-70- 4 Men 27-70- 4 Final Vote:No 20-76- 4 Work Outside Home 26-70- 3 Republican 29-68- 3 Res: < 5 Yrs 26-77- 3 Very Conservative 27-7D- 3 Post -Grad Degree 28-69. 3 45-54 28-70. 2 92648 30-68- 2 College Graduate 31-67. 2 HS or Less 29-69- 2 55-64 30-68- 1 Neither Can/Lib 33-66- 1_ Kids <18 a Home 23-76- 1 18-34 32-68- 0 Independent 26-74- 0 Renters 31-69- 0 Res: 10-15 Yrs 30-70- 0 43 4 Lawrence Research CROSSTABS Page 78 Huntington Beach / July 2001 1318 Q. 64: Believability: Nothing Will Change. We'll Get Along Just Fine Nothing will change. we'll get along just fine • 1. Very Believable 21 4. Very Unbelievable 21 2. Somewhat Believable 30 5. No Opinion 7 3. Somewhat Unbelievable 22 Format 1/2/3/4 MC l Rank 1, 2, 3, 4 55-64 30-19-25-22 Renters 22-50- 9-16 Final Vote:Yes 5-23-35-31 Final Vote:Yes 5-23-35-31 Final Vote:No 26-32-19-16 18-34 16-45-32- 5 Neither Con/Lib 11-21-32-26 Liberal 16-25.25-29 Somewhat Consery 25-34-21-15 35-44 18-40-16-18 18-34 16-45-32- 5 45-54 18-29.20-28 92649 25-25-21-19 Res: 10-15 Yrs 16-35-22-14 Democrat 13-24-30-22 Neither Con/Lib 11-21.32-26 Some Coll/Voc 25-30-24-13 Kids <18 a Home 21-34-23-20 92648 20-26-29-23 College Graduate 15-32-20-25 Very Conservative 25-34-14-17 somewhat Consery 25-34-21-15 Independent 23-28-28-19 HS or Less 19-31.23-25 Res: 5-10 Yrs 24-32-18-20 Very Conservative 25-34-14-17 Post -Grad Degree 23-25-27-20 Res: 15-25 Yrs 21-26.23-25 92647 23-34-20-16 92647 23-34-20-16 55-64 30-19-25-22 92646 16-30-21-24 Independent 23-28-28-19 College Graduate 15-32-20-25 Liberal 16-25-25-29 92648 20-26-29-23 Post -Grad Degree 23-25-27-20 Res: < 5 Yrs 19-32-23-23 Some Coll/Voc 25-30-24-13 Res: < 5 Yrs 19-32.23-23 Republican 22-32-21-19 Republican 22-32-21-19 Nt Wk Outsde Home 18-31-24-19 Work Outside Home 22-29-22-23 Work outside Home 22-29-22-23 Res: 5-10 Yrs 24-32-18-20 65+ 19-27-23-20 Democrat 13-24-30-22 Men 22-30-23-21 Final Vote:No 26-32-19-16 Res: 25+ Yrs 20-29-23-20 55-64 30-19-25-22 Renters 22-50- 9-16 H5 or Less 19-31-23-25 HS or Less 19-31-23-25 Women 19-30-22-21 Res: 15-25 Yrs 21-26-23-25 Nt Wk Outsde Home 18-31-24-19 Res: 15-25 Yrs 21-26-23-25 Aggregate 21-30-22-21 Kids <18 @ Home 21-34-23-20 92646 16-30-21-24 Kids <18 a Home 21-34-23-20 Men 22-30-23-21 Aggregate 21-30-22-21 Some Cott/Vac 25-30-24-13 Res: < 5 Yrs 19-32-23-23 Res: 5-10 Yrs 24-32-18-20 Res: 25+ Yrs 20-29-23-20 Women 19-30-22-21 Men 22-30-23-21 Post -Grad Degree 23-25-27-20 92648 20-26-29-23 Aggregate 21-30-22-21 Aggregate 21-30-22-21 65+ 19-27-23-20 Res: < 5 Yrs 19-32-23-23 Men 22-30-23-21 Women 19-30-22-21 Res: 25+ Yrs 20-29-23-20 HS or Less 19-31-23-25 45-54 18-29-20-28 Res: 10-15 Yrs 16-35-22-14 Kids <18 0 Home 21-34-23-20 65+ 19-27-23-20 Res: 25+ Yrs 20-29-23-20 Work Outside Home 22-29-22-23 92649 25-25-21-14 Women 19-30-22-21 Work Outside Home 22-29-22-23 Republican 22-32-21-19 Nt Wk Outsde Home 18-31-24-19 45-54 18-29-20-28 Independent 23-28-28-19 Somewhat Consery 25-34-21-15 Republican 22-32-21-19 35-44 18-40-16-18 65+ 19-27-23-20 92649 25-25-21-19 independent 23-28-28-19 Nt Wk Outsde Home 18-31-24-19 92648 20-26-29-23 92646 16-30-21-24 35-44 18-40-16-18 92646 16-30-21-24 Res: 15-25 Yrs 21-26-23-25 92647 23-34-20-16 Very Conservative 25-34-14-17 Res; 10-15 Yrs 16-35-22-14 Post -Grad Degree 23-25-27-20 College Graduate 15-32-20-25 Final Vote:No 26-32-19-16 Liberal 16-25-25-29 92649 25-25-21-19 45-54 18-29-20-28 Renters 22-50- 9-16 18-34 16-45-32- 5 Liberal 16-25-25-29 Final Vote:No 26-32-19-16 92647 23-34-20-16 College Graduate 15-32-20-25 Democrat 13-24-30-22 Res: 5-10 Yrs 24-32-18-20 Somewhat Consery 25-34-21-15 Democrat 13-24-30-22 Final VDte:Yas 5-23-35-31 35-44 18-40-16-18 Res: 10-15 Yrs 16-35-22-14 Neither Con/Lib 11-21-32-26 Neither Con/Lib 11-21-32-26 Very Conservative 25-34-14-17 Some Loll/Voc 25-30-24-13 Final Vote:Yes 5-23-35-31 55-64 30-19-25-22 Renters 22-50- 9-16 18-34 16-45-32- 5 Lawrence Research CROSSTABS . Page 79 • Huntington Beach / July 2001 1318 Q. 64: Believability: Nothing Will Change. We'll Get Along Just Fine Nothing will change. We'll get along just fine 1. Very Believable 2. Somewhat Believable 3. Somewhat Unbelievable Format 1+2/3+4/5 MC 1 Rank 1+2, 3+4, 5 21 4. Very Unbelievable 30 S. No Opinion 22 21 7 Renters 72-25- 3 Final Vote:Yes 28-66- 6 Rea: 10-15 Yrs 51-35-14 18-34 61-37- 3 Neither Con/Lib 32-59- 9 65+ 46-43-11 Very Conservative 59-31- 9 Liberal 41-54- 6 Democrat 37-53-10 Somewhat Consery 59-36- 4 Democrat 37-53-10 92649 50-40-10 35-44 58-34- 7 92648 46-51- 2 Very Conservative 59-31- 9 Final Vote:No 58-35- 7 HS or Less 50-48- 2 Neither Con/Lib 32-59- 9 92647 57-36- 7 Res: 15-25 Yrs 47-48- 5 Nt Wk Outsde Home 48-43- 9 Res: 5-10 Yrs 56-38- 6 45-54 48-48- 5 92646 47-45- 9 Kids 08 a Home 55-43- 2 55-64 49-47- 4 Women 49-43- 9 Some Cali/Voc 55-38- 8 Post -Grad Degree 48-47- 5 Res: 25+ Yrs 49-43- 8 Republican 55-40- 5 Independent 51-47- 2 Some Coll/Voc 55-38- 8 Res: < 5 Yrs 52-45- 3 Res: < 5 Yrs 52-45- 3 35-44 58-34- 7 Men 52-43- 6 College Graduate 48-45- 7 College Graduate 48-45- 7 Res: 10-15 Yrs 51-35-14 92646 47-45- 9 Aggregate 50-43- 7 Work Outside Home 51-44- 5 Work Outside Horne 51-44- 5 Final Vote:No 58-35- 7 Independent 51-47- 2 Women 49-43- 9 92647 57-36- 7 92649 50-40-10 Aggregate 50-43- 7 Res: 5-10 Yrs 56-38- 6 HS or Less 50-48- 2 Men 52-43- 6 Final Vote:Yes 28-66- 6 Aggregate 50-43- 7 65+ 46-43-11 Liberal 41-54- 6 Res: 25+ Yrs 49-43- 8 Res: 25+ Yrs 49-43- 8 Men 52-43- 6 55-64 Women 49-47- 49-43- 4 Nt Wk Outsde Home 9 Kids <18 2 Home 48-43- 55-43- 9 Post -Grad Degree 2 Republican 48-47- 55-40- 5 5 Nt Wk Outsde Home 48-43- 9 92649 50-40-10 Res: 15-25 Yrs 47-48- 5 Post -Grad Degree 48-47- 5 Republican 55-40- 5 45-54 48-48- 5 College Graduate 48-45- 7 Res: 5-10 Yrs 56-38- 6 Work Outside Home 51-44- 5 45-54 48-48- 5 Some Coll/Voc 55-38- 8 Somewhat Consery 59-36- 4 Res: 15-25 Yrs 47-48- 5 18-34 61-37- 3 55-64 49-47- 4 92646 47-45- 9 Somewhat Consery 59-36- 4 Res: c 5 Yrs 52-45- 3 92648 46-51- 2 92647 57-36- 7 Renters 72-25- 3 65+ 46-43-11 Res: 10-15 Yrs 51-35-14 18-34 61-37- 3 Liberal 41-54- 6 Final Vote:Ho 58-35- 7 92648 46-51- 2 Democrat 37-53-10 35-44 58-34- 7 Independent 51-47- 2 Neither Con/Lib 32-59- 9 Very Conservative 59-31- 9 Kids <18 a Home 55-43- 2 Final Vote:Yes 28-66- 6 Renters 72-25- 3 HS or Less 50-48- 2 0 Lawrence Research CROSSTABS Page 80 Huntington Beach / July 2001 1318 Q. 65: Push Vote: If Funds Used Solely For Infrastructure Repairs If you knew that funds from Measure A were protected by a charter amendment that guaranteed the funds would be spent solely for the construction, mainterance and repair of such things as storm drains, streets, curbs and gutters, sidewalks, beach facilities, traffic signals and street lights, would you then vote Yes or No on Measure A 1. Yes 37 3. Undecided 11 2. No 52 -r Format 1/2/3 MC 1 Rank 1, 2, 3 Final Vote:Yes 90- 4- 6 18-34 58-39- 3 Res: 15-25 Yrs 45-43-12 92646 43-45-12 Neither Con/Lib 43-49- 8 HS or Less 42-44-13 92648 42-48-11 Renters 41-53- 6 Res: 5-10 Yrs 40-50-10 Post -Grad Degree 40-48-12 Democrat 39-49-11 65+ 38-52-10 Kids <18 0 Home 38-54- 8 Women 38-50-13 Republican 37-54- 8 Work Outside Home 37-52-11 Somewhat Consery 37-54- 9 Some Coll/Voc 37-55- 8 Aggregate 37-52-11 Liberal 36-42-22 Men 36-55-10 Nt Wk outsde Home 35-54-11 Res: 25+ Yrs 34-55-11 45-54 33-55-12 55-64 33-52-15 Independent 33-51-16 Res: < 5 Yrs 32-52-16 Cottege Graduate 31-58-11 92649 29-60-11 92647 29-60-11 35-44 28-58-13 Very Conservative 28-64- 8 Res: 10-15 Yrs 27-65- 8 Finat Vote:No 17-73-10 Final Vote:NG 17-73-10 Res: 10-15 Yrs 27-65- 8 Very Conservative 28-64- 8 92647 29-60-11 92649 29-60-11 35-44 28-58-13 College Graduate 31-58-11 Res: 25+ Yrs 34-55-11 Some Coil/Voc 37-55- 8 Men 36-55-10 45-54 33-55-12 Republican 37-54- 8 Kids <18 a Home 38-54- 8 Nt Wk Outsde Home 35-54-11 Somewhat Consery 37-54- 9 Renters 41-53- 6 Aggregate 37-52-11 65+ 38-52-10 55-64 33-52-15 Work outside Home 37-52-11 Res: < 5 Yrs 32-52-16 Independent 33-51-16 Res: 5-10 Yrs 40-50-10 Women 38-50-13 Oemocrat 39-49-11 Neither Con/Lib 43-49- 8 Post -Grad Degree 40-48-12 92648 42-48-11 92646 43-45-12 HS or Less 42-44-13 Res: 15-25 Yrs 45-43-12 Liberal 36-42-22 1B-34 58-39- 3 Final Vote:Yes 90- 4- 6 Liberal 36-42-22 Independent 33-51-16 Res: < 5 Yrs 32-52-16 55-64 33-52-15 HS or Less 42-44-13 35-44 28-58-13 Women 38-50-13 45-54 33-55-12 92646 43-45-12 Res: 15-25 Yrs 45-43-12 Post -Grad Degree 40-48-12 College Graduate 31-58-11 Work Outside Home 37-52-11 Aggregate 37-52-11 Democrat 39-49-11 92649 29-60-11 Nt Wk Outsde Home 35-54-11 Res: 25+ Yrs 34-55-11 92648 42-48-11 92647 29-60-11 Res: 5-10 Yrs 40-50-10 65+ 38-52-10 Finat Vote:No 17-73-10 Men 36-55-10 Somewhat Consery 37-54- 9 Republican 37-54- 8 Some Coll/Vac 37-55- 8 Res: 10-15 Yrs 27-65- 8 Neither Con/Lib 43-49- 8 Kids <18 W Home 38-54- 8 Very Conservative 28-64- 8 Renters 41-53- 6 Final Vote:Yes 90- 4- 6 18-34 58-39- 3 • • • Lawrence Research CROSSTABS Page 81 • Huntington Beach / July 2001 1318 Q. 66: Push Vote: If 20% Decrease in Property Value if Not Fixed If you knew that failure to repair Huntington Beach's infrastructure could lead to a loss of as much as 20% in property values within the next five years, would you then vote Yes or No on Measure A7 1. Yes 2. No Format 1/2/3 MC 1 Rank 1, 2, 3 Final Vote:Yes 80-11- 9 Liberal 42-42-16 Res: 5-10 Yrs 42-52- 6 Post -Grad Degree 40-49-11 18-34 39-58- 3 Kids <18 a Home 38-54- 8 Res: 15-25 Yrs 36-50-14 Republican 36-53-11 Res: < 5 Yrs 35-45-19 92648 35-52-13 Very Conservative 34-53-13 45-54 34-52-13 92649 33-57-10 Nt Wk Outsde Home 33-54-13 65+ 33-51-16 Men 33-59- 9 92646 32-55-13 Aggregate 32-56-12 Women 31-54-16 Democrat 30--1 Some Coll/Yoc 30-585$-12 Neither Con/Lib 30-61- 9 Work outside Home 30-59-12 College Graduate 29-60-11 92647 28-61-11 Somewhat Consery 28-61-11 Res: 25+ Yrs 27-60-12 HS or Less 27-58-15 55-64 27-63-10 Renters 25-59-16 Res: 10-15 Yrs 24-68- 8 35-44 24-64-12 Independent 23-56-21 Final Vote:No 14-76-10 0 Final Vote:No 14-76-10 Res: 10-15 Yrs 24-68- 8 35-44 24-64-12 55-64 27-63-10 92647 28-61-11 Neither Con/Lib 30-61- 9 Somewhat Consery 28-61-11 Res: 25+ Yrs 27-60-12 College Graduate 29-60-11 Democrat 30-60-10 Renters 25-59-16 Work Outside Home 30-59-12 Men 33-59- 9 Some Coll/Vac 30-58-12 18-34 39-58- 3 HS or Less 27-58-15 92649 33-57-10 Aggregate 32-56-12 Independent 23-56-21 92646 32-55-13 Kids 08 a Home 38-54- 8 Women 31-54-16 Nt Wk Outsde Home 33-54-13 Republican 36-53-11 Very Conservative 34-53-13 45-54 34-52-13 92648 35-52-13 Res: 5-10 Yrs 42-52- 6 65+ 33-51-16 Res: 15-25 Yrs 36-50-14 Post -Grad Degree 40-49-11 Res: < 5 Yrs 35-45-19 Liberal 42-42-16 Final Vote:Yes 80-11- 9 32 3. Undecided 56 Independent 23-56-21 Res: < 5 Yrs 35-45-19 Liberal 42-42-16 65+ 33-51-16 Renters 25-59-16 Women 31-54-16 HS or Less 27-58-15 Res: 15-25 Yrs. 36-50-14 92646 32-55-13 45-54 34-52-13 92648 35.52.13 Nt Wk Outsde Home 33-54-13 Very Conservative 34-53-13 Res. 25+ Yrs 27-60-12 Aggregate 32-56-12 35-44 24-64-12 Work Outside Home 30-59-12 Some Cott/Voc 30-58-12 College Graduate 29-60-11 somewhat Consery 28-61-11 Republican 36-53-11 92647 28-61-11 Post -Grad Degree 40-49-11 55-64 27-63-10 Democrat 30-60-10 Final Vote:No 14-76-10 92649 33-57-10 Neither Con/Lib 30-61- 9 Final Vote:Yes 80-11- 9 Men 33-59- 9 Res: 10-15 Yrs 24-68- 8 Kids <18 a Home 38-54- 8 Res: 5-10 Yrs 42-52- 6 18-34 39-58- 3 12 Lawrence Research CROSSTABS Page 82 Huntington Beach / July 2001 1318 Q. 67: Push Vote: If Citizen Committee Appointed To Review Funds If you knew that a Citizens Committee would be appointed to conduct an annual review and performance audit of the infrastructure Fund, would you then vote Yes or No on Measure A? 1. Yes 2. No Format 1/2/3 MC 1 Rank 1, 2, 3 Final Vote:Yes 86- 7- 7 18-34 50-45- 5 Res: < 5 Yrs 42-55- 3 Independent 40-56- 5 92648 39-52- 8 Res; 15-25 Yrs 38-47-15 Post -Grad Degree 37-51-12 Liberal 36-43-20 Neither Con/Lib 36-53-11 92646 35-50-15 65+ 35-53-12 Kids <18 @ Home 34-55-10 Renters 34-56- 9 Men 34-57-10 Res: 5-10 Yrs 34-52-14 Democrat 34-53-13 Work Outside Home 33-55-12 Somewhat Consery 33-58- 9 Aggregate 33-55-12 Republican 32-56-12 45-54 32-54-15 Nt Wk Outsde Home 32-56-12 Some Coll/Voc 32-56-13 Women 31-54-15 College Graduate 31-57-12 HS or Less 31-62- 8 Res: 25+ Yrs 30-58-12 55-64 29-59-11 92649 28-60-13 92647 27-61-12 Very Conservative 27-63-11 35-44 24-66-10 Res; 10-15 Yrs 19-68-14 Final Vote:No 14-77-10 Final Vote:No 14-77-10 Res: 10-15 Yrs 19-68-14 35-44 24-66-10 Very Conservative 27-63-11 HS or Less 31-62- 8 92647 27-61-12 92649 28-60-13 55-64 29-59-11 Res: 25+ Yrs 30-58-12 Somewhat Consery 33-58- 9 College Graduate 31-57-12 Men 34-57-10 Renters 34-56- 9 Nt Wk Outsde Home 32-56-12 Republican 32-56-12 Some Coll/Voc 32-56-13 Independent 40-56- 5 Aggregate 33-55-12 Kids <18 a Home 34-55-10 Mork Outside Home 33-55-12 Res: c 5 Yrs 42-55- 3 Women 31-54-15 45-54 32-54-15 65+ 35-53-12 Neither Con/Lib 36-53-11 Democrat 34-53-13 92648 39-52- 8 Res: 5-10 Yrs 34-52-14 Post -Grad Degree 37-51-12 92646 35-50-15 Res: 15-25 Yrs 38-47-15 18-34 50-45- 5 Liberal 36-43-20 Final Vote:Yes 86- 7- 7 33 3. Undecided 55 Liberal 36-43-20 Res; 15-25 Yrs 38-47-15 Women 31-54-15 92646 35-50-15 45-54 32-54-15 Res; 5-10 Yrs 34-52-14 Res: 10-15 Yrs 19-68-14 Democrat 34-53-13 Some Coll/Vac 32-56-13 92649 28-60-13 65+ 35-53-12 Aggregate 33-55-12 Nt Wk Outsde Home 32-56-12 Work Outside Home 33-55-12 Post -Grad Degree 37-51-12 College Graduate 31-57-12 Republican 32-56-12 92647 27-61-12 Res: 25+ Yrs 30-58-12 Neither Can/Lib 36-53-11 55-64 29-59-11 Very Conservative 27-63-11 35-44 24-66-1D Kids <18 61 Home 34-55-10 Final Vote:No 14-T7-10 Men 34-57-10 Renters 34-56- 9 Somewhat Consery 33-58- 9 92648 39-52- 8 HS or Less 31-62- 8 Final Vote:Yes 86- 7- 7 18-34 50-45- 5 Independent 40-56- 5 Res: c 5 Yrs 42-55- 3 12 • • Lawrence Research CROSSTABS Page 83 • Huntington Beach / July 2001 1318 Q. 68: Push Vote: If City's Current Spending will Be Maintained If ou knew that the city's current level of spending on infrastructure would be maintained in addition to those funds received if Measure A passed would you then vote Yes or No on Measure A? 1. Yes 33 3. Undecided 12 2. No 55 Format 1/2/3 MC 1 Rank 1, 2, 3 Final Vote:Yes 88- 9- 3 18-34 45-47- 8 Res: 5-10 Yrs 42-50- 8 Liberal 41-45-14 Democrat 40-48-11 Post -Grad Degree 40-51- 9 92648 39-52- 8 Neither Con/Lib 38-53- 9 Kids <18 a Home 38-56- 6 Res: 15-25 Yrs 37-53-10 HS or Less 37-56- 8 92646 35-51-13 45-54 34-57- 9 Work Outside Home 34-54-12 Republican 34-56-11 Women 34-52-15 65+ 33-51-16 Aggregate 33-55-12 Men 33-59- 9 Res: < 5 Yrs rtiollege Graduate 32-5-16 32-58-11 Somewhat Consery 31-58-11 lit Wk Outsde Home 31-57-12 Res: 25+ Yrs 31-55-14 92647 30-58-12 35-44 30-61- 9 Renters 28-59-13 Independent 28-65- 7 55-64 28-59-13 Some Coll/Voc 27-58-16 very Conservative 25-61-14 92649 25-61-14 Res: 10-15 Yrs 22-68-11 Final Vote:No 15-76- 9 • Final Vote:Mo 15-76- 9 Res: 10-15 Yrs 22-68-11 Independent 28-65- 7 35-44 30-61- 9 92649 25-61-14 Very Conservative 25-61-14 55-64 28-59-13 Renters 28-59-13 Men 33-59- 9 92647 30-58-12 College Graduate 32-58-11 some Coll/Voc 27-58-16 Somewhat Consery 31-58-11 45-54 34-57- 9 Nt Wk outsde Home 31-57-12 Kids <18 a Home 38-56- 6 HS or Less 37-56- 8 Republican 34-56-11 Res: 25+ Yrs 31-55-14 Aggregate 33-55-12 Work Outside Home 34-54-12 Res: 15-25 Yrs 37-53-10 weither Con/Lib 38-53- 9 92648 39-52- 8 Res: < 5 Yrs 32-52-16 Women 34-52-15 65+ 33-51-16 92646 35-51-13 Post -Grad Degree 40-51- 9 Res: 5-10 Yrs 42-50- 8 Democrat 40-48-11 18-3L 45-47- 8 Liberal 41-45-14 Final Vote:Yes 88- 9- 3 Res: < 5 Yrs 32-52-16 Some Coll/Voc 27-58-16 65+ 33-51-16 Women 34-52-15 Liberal 41-45-14 Very Conservative 25-61-14 92649 25-61-14 Res: 25+ Yrs 31-55-14 92646 35-51-13 55-64 28-59-13 Renters 28-59-13 Nt Wk Outsde Home 31-57-12 Aggregate 33-55-12 Work Outside Home 34-54-12 92647 30-58-12 Somewhat Consery 31-58-11 Democrat 40-48-11 Res: 10-15 Yrs 22-68-11 Republican 34-56-11 College Graduate 32-58-11 Res: 15-25 Yrs 37-53-10 Final Vote:No 15-76- 9 Post -Grad Degree 40-51- 9 Neither Can/Lib 38-53- 9 Men 33-59- 9 35-44 30-61- 9 45-54 34-57- 9 92648 39-52- 8 Res: 5-10 Yrs 42-50- 8 18-34 45-47- 8 HS or Less 37-56- 8 Independent 28-65- 7 Kids <18 is Home 38-56- 6 Final Vote:Yes 88- 9- 3 Lawrence Research CROSSTABS Page 84 Huntington Beach./ July 2001 1318 Q. 69: (SSI:j Willingness To Pay $5 a Month to Improve Infrastructure After all is said and done, if an independent outside review determines that additional revenue is needed to repair and rebuild the Huntington Beach's infrastructure, would you be willing to pay an extra five dollars a month for the next twenty years to rebuild the infrastructure? 1. Yes 2. No Format 1/2/3 MC 1 Rank 1, 2, 3 Final Vote:Yes 77-23- 0 HS or Less 67-30- 4 18-34 67-28- 6 Res: 5-10 Yrs 65-32- 3 Democrat 59-32- 8 Liberal 58-31-12 Neither Con/Lib 57-40- 2 Men 56-40- 4 Mork Outside Home 56-36- 9 45-54 56-33-11 Res: 75-25 Yrs 55-45- 0 35-44 •55-45- 0 Kids <18 @ Home 55-41- 4 Very Conservative 55-35-10 Post -Grad Degree 55-43- 2 92646 53-43- 4 Independent 52-43- 4 92647 51-45- 4 Aggregate 50-44- 7 Republican 49-46- 6 College Graduate 48-48- 3 Renters 48-40-12 92648 47-45- 8 Res: < 5 Yrs 47-47- 6 92649 46-41-12 65+ 46-49- 6 Somewhat Consery 45-48- 7 Res: 25+ Yrs 45-46-10 Women 44-47- 9 Nt Wk Outsde Home 44-52- 4 Some Coll/Vat 43-41-16 Res: 10-15 Yrs 41-45-14 Final Vote:No 40-53- 7 55-64 35-55-10 55-64 35-55-10 Final Vote:No 40-53- 7 Nt Wk Outsde Home 44-52- 4 65+ 46-49- 6 College Graduate 48-48- 3 Somewhat Consery 45-48- 7 Res: < 5 Yrs 47-47- 6 Women 44-47- 9 Republican 49-46- 6 Res: 25+ Yrs 45-46-10 Res: 70-75 Yrs 41-45-74 92647 51-45- 4 35-44 55-45- 0 92648 47-45- 8 Res: 15-25 Yrs 55-45- 0 Aggregate 50-44- 7 Independent 52-43- 4 Post -Grad Degree 55-43- 2 92646 53-43- 4 92649 46-41-12 Some Coll/Voc 43-41-16 Kids <18 2 Home 55-41- 4 Neither Con/Lib 57-40- 2 Men 56-40- 4 Renters 48-40-12 Work Outside Home 56-36- 9 Very Conservative 55-35-10 45-54 56-33-11 Democrat 59-32- 8 Res: 5-10 Yrs 65-32- 3 Liberal 58-31-12 HS or Less 67-30- 4 18-34 67-28- 6 Final Vote:Yes 77-23- 0 50 3. No Opinion 44 Some Coll/Voc 43-41-16 Res: 10-15 Yrs 41-45-14 92649 46-41-12 Renters 48-40-12 Liberal 58-31-12 45-54 56-33-11 Very Conservative 55-35-10 55-64 35-55-10 Res: 25+ Yrs 45-46-10 Women 44-47- 9 Work Outside Home 56-36- 9 Democrat 59-32- 8 92648 47-45- 8 Somewhat Consery 45-48- 7 Final Vote. -No 40-53- 7 Aggregate 50-44- 7 Res: < 5 Yrs 47-47- 6 65+ 46-49- 6 18-34 67-28- 6 Republican 49-46- 6 Nt Wk Outsde Home 44-52- 4 independent 52-43- 4 92646 53-43- 4 Kids <18 al Home 55-41- 4 Men 56-40- 4 92647 51-45- 4 HS or Less 67-30- 4 Res: 5-10 Yrs 65-32- 3 College Graduate 48-48- 3 Post -Grad Degree 55-43- 2 Neither Con/Lib 57-40- 2 Res: 15-25 Yrs 55-45- 0 Final Vote:Yes 77-23- 0 35-44 55-45- 0 �J • 0 Lawrence Research CROSSTABS Page 85 Huntington Beach / July 2001 1318 R. 70: [SS1:] Willingness To Pay $15 A Month To Improve Infrastructure Would you be willing to pay an extra fifteen dollars a month 1. Yes 3. No Opinion 9 2. NO 60 Format 1/2/3 MC 1 Rank 1, 2, 3 Final Vote:Yes 50-48- 3 35-44 24-76- 0 Res: 10-15 Yrs 42-33-25 Res: 5-10 Yrs 43-57- 0 Renters 20-73- 7 45-54 42-33-25 HS or Less 42-58- 0 55-64 14-71-14 92649 33-46-21 Res: 10-15 Yrs 42-33-25 92646 25-70- 5 Some Coll/Voc 21-61-18 45-54 42-33-25 Democrat 24-68- 8 Very Conservative 25-60-15 Neither Can/Lib 39-50-11 Res: 25+ Yrs 22-67-11 55-64 14-71-14 Independent 38-54- 8 Res: < 5 Yrs 22-67-11 Work Outside Home 30-58-12 92648 38-57- 5 Liberal 28-67- 6 Final Vote:No 22-67-11 College Graduate 35-59- 6 Final Vote:No 22-67-11 Res: < 5 Yrs 22-67-11 Republican 34-58- 8 Somewhat Consery 27-66- 7 Rea: 25+ Yrs 22-67-11 92649 33-46-21 Res: 15-25 Yrs 31-65- 4 Neither Con/Lib 39-50-11 65+ 32-65- 3 65+ 32-65- 3 Men 30-60-10 Nt Wk outsde Home 32-64- 5 92647 29-64- 7 Aggregate 30-61- 9 Kids <18 @ Home 31-62- 7 Post -Grad Degree 28-64- 8 Republican 34-58- 8 18-34 31-62- 8 Nt Wk Outsde Home 32-64- 5 Post -Grad Degree 28-64- 8 Res: 15-25 Yrs 31-65- 4 Women 30-62- 8 Democrat 24-68- 8 Women 30-62- 8 Kids <18 a Home 31-62- 7 Independent 38-54- 8 Aggregate 30-61- 9 18-34 31-62- 8 18-34 31-62- 8 Men 30-60-10 Aggregate 30-61- 9 Women 30-62- 8 Work outside Home 30-58-12 some Coll/Voc 21-61-18 92647 29-64- 7 92647 29-64- 7 Men 30-60-10 Kids <18 a Home 31-62- 7 Post -Grad Degree 28-64- 8 Very Conservative 25-60-15 Somewhat Consery 27-66- 7 Liberal 28-67- 6 College Graduate 35-59- 6 Renters 20-73- 7 Somewhat Consery 27-66- 7 Work outside Home 30-58-12 College Graduate 35-59- 6 92646 25-70- 5 Hs or Less 42-58- 0 Liberal 28-67- 6 Very Conservative 25-60-15 Republican 34-58- 8 92646 25-70- 5 Democrat 24-68- 8 Res: 5-10 Yrs 43-57- 0 92648 38-57- 5 35-44 24-76- 0 92648 38-57- 5 Nt Wk Outsde Home 32-64- 5 Res: 25+ Yrs 22-67-11 Independent 38-54- 8 Res: 15-25 Yrs 31-65- 4 Final Vote:No 22-67-11 Neither Con/Lib 39-50-11 65+ 32-65- 3 Res: < 5 Yrs 22-67-11 Final Vote:Yes 50-48- 3 Final Vote:Yes 50-48- 3 Some Coll/Voc 21-61-18 92649 33-46-21 35-44 24-76- 0 Renters 20-73- 7 45-54 42-33-25 Res: 5-10 Yrs 43-57- 0 55-64 14-71-14 Res; 10-15 Yrs 42-33-25 H5 or Less 42-58- 0 0 Lawrence Research CROSSTABS Page 86 Huntington Beach / July 2001 1318 Q. 71; [Ssl:] willingness To Pay $25 a Month To Improve Infrastructure Would you be willing to pay an extra twenty five dollars a month? 1. Yes 27 3. No Opinion 25 2. No 48 Format 1/2/3 Mc 1 Rank 1, 2; 3 Neither Con/Lib 57-21-21 Res: < 5 Yrs 0-**- D 55-64 0-50-50 Res: 5-10 Yrs 44-44-11 35-44 20-80- 0 92649 23-31-46 Post -Grad Degree 44-33-22 92648 22-78- D 45-54 38-25-38 18-34 40-60- 0 Somewhat Consery 7-73-2D Liberal 17-50-33 92647 40-40-20 HS or Less 25-63-13 Res: 15-25 Yrs 22-44-33 Final Vote:Yes 38-48-14 Nt Wk Outsde Home 19-63-19 Res: 25+ Yrs 20-47-33 45-54 38-25-38 65+ 23-62-15 Independent 33-33-33 Democrat 38-5D-13 18-34 40-60- 0 Some Colt/Voc 15-54-31 Res: 10-15 Yrs 38-38-25 Kids <18 a Home 36-55- 9 Men 21-50-29 Kids <18 a Home 36-55- 9 Some CoLI/Voc 15-54-31 Final Vote:No 19-52-29 Women 35-45-20 Final Vote:No 19-52-29 College Graduate 29-43-29 Independent 33-33-33 Republican 28-52-20 York outside Home 32-39-29 Work outside Home 32-39-29 Renters 25-50-25 92646 25-50-25 College Graduate 29-43-29 Liberal 17-50-33 Res: 10-15 Yrs 38-38-25 Republican 28-52-20 92646 25-50-25 Very Conservative 25-50-25 Aggregate 27-48-25 Men 21-50-29 Aggregate 27-48-25 HS or Less 25-63-13 Democrat 38-50-13 Renters 25-50-25 Very Conservative 25-50-25 55-64 0-50-50 Post -Grad Degree 44-33-22 92646 25-50-25 Very Conservative 25-50-25 Neither Con/Lib 57-21-21 Renters 25-50-25 Aggregate 27-48-25 Women 35-45-20 92649 23-31-46 Final Vote:Yes 38-48-14 Somewhat Consery 7-73-20 65+ 23-62-15 Res: 25+ Yrs 20-47-33 Republican 28-52-20 92648 22-78- D Women 35-45-20 92647 40-40-20 Res: 15-25 Yrs 22-44-33 Res: 5-10 Yrs 44-44-11 Nt Wk Outsde Home 19-63-19 Men 21-50-29 Res: 15-25 Yrs 22-44-33 65+ 23-62-15 Res: 25+ Yrs 20-47-33 College Graduate 29-43-29 Final Vote:Yes 38-48-14 35-44 20-80- 0 92647 40-40-20 Democrat 38-50-13 Final Vote:No 19-52-29 Work Outside Home 32-39-29 HS or Less 25-63-13 Nt Wk Outsde Home 19-63-19 Res: 10-15 Yrs 38-38-25 Res: 5-10 Yrs 44-44-11 .Liberal 17-50-33 Posi-Grad Degree 44-33-22 Kids <18 @ Nome 36-55- 9 Some Coll/Voc 15-54-31 independent 33-33-33 ' Res: < 5 Yrs 0.**. 0 Somewhat Consery 7-73-20 92649 23-31-46 35-44 20-80- 0 Res: < 5 Yrs 0-**- 0 45-54 38-25-38 92648 22-78- 0 55-64 0-50-50 Neither Con/Lib 57.21-21 18-34 40-60- 0 • Lawrence Research CROSSTABS Page 87 Huntington Beach / July 2001 1318 10 Q. 72: [SS2:] Willingness To Pay $25 a Month To improve Infrastructure After all is said and done, if an independent outside review determines that additional revenue is needed to repair and rebuild the Huntington Beach's infrastructure, would you be willing to pay an extra twenty five dollars a month for the next twenty years to rebuild the infrastructure? 1. Yes 2. No Format 1/2/3 MC 1 Rank 1, 2, 3 Final Vote:Yes 63-31- 6 Post -Grad Degree 45-48- 6 Res: 25+ Yrs 41-56- 3 92648 39-59- 2 Somewhat Consery 37-55- 8 65+ 37-61- 2 Nt Wk Outsde Home 34-65- 1 55-64 33-60- 6 Democrat 33-65- 2 HS or Less 32-64- 4 Liberal 30-67- 2 18-34 30-65- 5 Women 3D-64- 6 Aggregate 30-66- 5 Men 29-68- 3 92647 29-63- 8 Republican 29-66- 6 Res: < 5 Yrs 29-64- 7 45-54 28-70- 2 92646 28-70- 1 Some Coll/Voc 27-70- 3 College Graduate 26-71- 3 Independent 25-70- 5 Work Outside Ham 25-68- 7 Neither Con/Lib 23-75- 3 Kids <18 a Home 21-71- 8 Res: 10-15 Yrs 20-80- 0 92649 19-71-10 Final Vote:No 19-77- 4 Very Conservative 18-79- 3 Res: 15-25 Yrs 17-77- 6 Renters 14-86- 0 35-44 14-79- 7 Res: 5-10 Yrs 11-79-11 0 Renters 14-86- 0 Res: 10-15 Yrs 20-80- 0 35-44 - 14-79- 7 Res: 5-10 Yrs 11-79-11 Very Conservative 18-79- 3 Res: 15-25 Yrs 17-77- 6 Final Vote:No 19-77- 4 Neither Con/Lib 23-75- 3 Kids <18 a Home 21-71- 8 College Graduate 26-71- 3 92649 19-71-10 92646 28-70- 1 Some Coll/Voc 27-70- 3 Independent 25-70- 5 45-54 28-70- 2 Men 29-68- 3 Work Outside Home 25-68- 7 Liberal 30-67- 2 Aggregate 30-66- 5 Republican 29-66- 6 Democrat 33-65- 2 Mr Wk Oursde Nome 34-65- 1 18-34 30-65- 5 Res: < 5 Yrs 29-64- 7 Women 30-64- 6 HS or Less 32-64- 4 92647 29-63- 8 65+ 37-61- 2 55-64 33-60- 6 92648 39-59- 2 Res: 25+ Yrs 41-56- 3 Somewhat Consery 37-55- 8 Post -Grad Degree 45-48- 6 Final Vote:Yes 63-31- 6 30 3. No opinion 66 Res: 5-10 Yrs 11-79-11 92649 19-71-10 Somewhat Consery 37-55- 8 Kids <18 is Home 21-71- 8 92647 29-63- 8 Work Outside Home 25-68- 7 Res: < 5 Yrs 29-64- 7 35-44 14-79- 7 Post -Grad Degree 45-48- 6 55-64 33-60- 6 Final Vote:Yes 63-31- 6 Women 3D-64- 6 Republican 29-66- 6 Res: 15-25 Yrs 17-77- 6 18-34 30-65- 5 Independent 25-70- 5 Aggregate 30-66- 5 HS or Less 32-64- 4 Final Vote:No 19-77- 4 Some Coll/Voc 27-70- 3 Res: 25+ Yrs 41-56- 3 Very Conservative 18-79- 3 Men 29-68- 3 College Graduate 26-71- 3 Neither Con/Lib 23-75- 3 Liberal 30-67- 2 45-54 28-70- 2 92648 39-59- 2 65+ 37-61- 2 Democrat 33-65- 2 92646 28-70- 1 Nt Wk Outsde Home 34-65- 1 Renters 14-86- 0 Res: 10-15 Yrs 20-80- 0 5 Lawrence Research CROSSTABS Page 88 Huntington Beach / July 2001 1318 Q. 73: [SS2:] Willingness To Pay $15 a Month To Improve Infrastructure Would you be willing to pay an extra fifteen dollars a month? 1. Yes 13 3. No Opinion 11 2. No 75 Format 1/2/3 MC 1 Rank 1, 2, 3 Final Vote:Yes 61-17-22 Res: 10-15 Yrs 8-92- 0 Post -Grad Degree 6-65-29 Res: 5-10 Yrs 24-71- 6 Very Conservative 7-89- 4 55-64 13-63-25 HS or Less 24-65-12 Independent 7-87- 7 Somewhat Consery 17-60-23 18-34 21-71- 7 Final Vote:No 6-85- 9 Final Vote:Yes 61-17-22 92649 20-68-12 65+ 6-84-10 Res: < 5 Yrs 20-60-20 35-44 20-72- 8 Nt wk outsde Home 14-83- 3 work Outside Home 13-70-17 Kids 08 is Home 20-67-13 College Graduate 13-82- 5 Renters 17-67-17 Res: < 5 Yrs 20-60-20 92648 11-82-.7 92647 8-76-16 Democrat 17-74- 9 45-54 12-82- 6 Res: 15-25 Yrs 9-75-16 Somewhat Consery 17-60-23 Neither Cars/Lib 16-81- 3 Kids <18 a Home 20-67-13 Men 17-72-11 women 10-79-11 92649 20-68-12 Renters 17-67-17 Liberal 13-77-10 HS or Less 24-65-12 Neither Con/Lib 16-81- 3 Some Coll/Voc 13-77-11 women 10-79-11 92646 16-75-10 Res: 25+ Yrs 14-76-1D Aggregate 13-75-11 Republican 15-75-11 92647 8-76-16 Men 17-72-11 Res: 25+ Yrs 14-76-10 Aggregate 13-75-11 Republican 15-75-11 Nt wk Outsde Home 14-83- 3 Res: 15-25 Yrs 9-75-16 Some Coll/Voc 13-77-11 Aggregate 13-75-11 Republican 15-75-11 Res: 25+ Yrs 14-76-10 Work Outside Home 13-70-17 92646 16-75-10 Liberal 13-77-10 Liberal 13-77-10 Democrat 17-74- 9 92646 16-75-10 Some Coll/Voc 13-77-11 35-44 20-72- 8 65+ 6-84-10 College Graduate 13-82- 5 Men 17-72-11 Final Vote:No 6-85- 9 59-64 13-63-25 18-34 21-71- 7 Democrat 17-74- 9 45-54 12-82- 6 Res: 5-10 Yrs 24-71- 6 35-44 20-72- 8 92648 11-82- 7 work Outside Home 13-70-17 18-34 21-71- 7 Women 10-79-11 92649 20-68-12 92648 11-82- 7 Res: 15-25 Yrs 9-75-16 Kids <18 a Home 20-67-13 Independent 7-87- 7 Res: 10-15 Yrs 8-92- 0 Renters 17-67-17 45-54 12-82- 6 92647 8-76-16 HS or Less 24-65-12 Res: 5-10 Yrs 24-71- 6 Very Conservative 7-89- 4 Post -Grad Degree 6-65-29 College Graduate 13-82- 5 Independent 7-87- 7 55-64 13-63-25 very Conservative 7-89- 4 65+ 6-84-10 Res: < 5 Yrs 20-60-20 Nt wk outsde Home 14-83- 3 Final Vote:No 6-85- 9 Somewhat Consery 17-60-23 Neither Con/Lib 16-81- 3 Post -Grad Degree 6-65-29 Final Vote:Yes 61-17-22 Res: 10-15 Yrs 8-92- 0 0 Lawrence Research CROSSTABS Page 89 • Huntington Beach / July 2001 1318 Q. 74: [SS2:] Willingness To Pay $5 a Month To Improve Infrastructure Would you be willing to pay an extra five dollars a month? 1. Yes 2. No Format 1/2/3 MC 1 Rank 1, 2, 3 Final Vote:Yes 71- 0-29 Liberal 46-46- 8 Res: 10-15 Yrs 45-55- 0 Democrat 45-41-14 Post -Grad Degree 44-38-19 Kids <18 a Home 42-46-13 Renters 40-60- 0 College Graduate 39-53- 8 45-54 38-52-10 Res: < 5 Yrs 38-25-38 18-34 36-55- 9 Res: 15-25 Yrs 35-55-10 Nt Wk Outsde Home 33-61- 6 Women 33-52-14 92646 33-53-14 55-64 32-50-18 35-44 30-60-10 Aggregate 30-58-12 92647 29-53-18 Independent 29-57-14 Very Conservative 28-68- 4 92648 Final Vote:No 28-64- 8 27-63- 9 Work Outside Home 27-56-17 Somewhat Consery 26-46-28 Men 25-64-10 92649 25-70- 5 Republican 23-69- 8 Res: 5-10 Yrs 23-62-15 Neither Con/Lib 23-73- 4 Res: 25+ Yrs 22-66-12 Some Coll/Vac 20-66-15 65+ 17-69-14 HS or Less 8-85- 8 0 30 3. No opinion 58 HS or Less 8-85- 8 Res: < 5 Yrs 38-25-38 Neither Con/Lib 23-73- 4 Final Vote:Yes 71- 0-29 92649 25-70- 5 Somewhat Consery 26-46-28 65+ 17-69-14 Post -Grad Degree 44-38-19 Republican 23-69- 8 55-64 32-50-18 Very Conservative 28-68- 4 92647 29-53-18 Res: 25+ Yrs 22-66-12 Work Outside Home 27-56-17 Some Coll/Voc 20-66-15 Res: 5-10 Yrs 23-62-15 Men 25-64-10 Some Cott/Voc 20-66-15 92648 28-64- 8 Women 33-52-14 Final Vote:No 27-63- 9 Independent 29-57-14 Res: 5-10 Yrs 23-62-15 92646 33-53-14 Nt Wk Outsde Home 33-61- 6 Democrat 45-41-14 Renters 40-60- 0 65+ 17-69-14 35-44 30-60-10 Kids <18 al Home 42-46-13 Aggregate 30-58-12 Aggregate 30-58-12 independent 29-57-14 Res: 25+ Yrs 22-66-12 Work Outside Home 27-56-17 45-54 38-52-10 Res: 15-25 Yrs 35-55-10 Men 25-64-10 Res: 10-15 Yrs 45-55- 0 35-44 30-60-1D 18-34 36-55- 9 Res: 15-25 Yrs 35-55-10 92646 33-53-14 Final Vote:No 27-63- 9 College Graduate 39-53- 8 18-34 36-55- 9 92647 29-53-18 College Graduate 39-53- 8 Women 33-52-14 92648 28-64- 8 45-54 38-52-10 Republican 23-69- 8 55-64 32-50-18 HS or Less 8-85- 8 Liberal 46-46- 8 Liberal 46-46- 8 Somewhat Consery 26-46-28 Nt Wk Outsde Home 33-61- 6 Kids <18 is Home 42-46-13 92649 25-70- 5 Democrat 45-41-14 Very Conservative 28-68- 4 Post -Grad Degree 44-38-19 Neither Con/Lib 23-73- 4 Res: < 5 Yrs 38-25-38 Renters 40-60- 0 Final Vote:Yes 71- 0-29 Res: 10-15 Yrs 45-55- 0 12 Lawrence Research CROSSTABS Page Huntington Beach / July 2001 1318 Q. 86: Final Vote: Measure A We have now talked about Measure A, the tax increase to pay for infrastructure rebuilding and repair. All things considered, if the election were held today, would you vote.. definitely Yes, probably Yee, probably No or definitely No on Measure A2 1. Definitely Yes 2. Probably No 3. Probably No Format 1/2/3/4 MC 1 Rank 1, 2, 3 6 4. Definitely No 19 5. Undecided 26 Final Vote:Yes 25-75- 0- 0 Final Vote:Yes 25-75- 0- 0 Final Vote:No 0- 0-38-62 Independent 12-12-23-47 18-34 5-32-34-26 Res: 5-10 Yrs 8-20-38-32 H5 or Less 12-19-29-40 Post -Grad Degree 9-25-21739 35-44 3-10-37-45 Neither Con/Lib 10-22-25-37 Liberal 7-25-23-38 Renters 6-22-34-34 55-64 10-14-27-43 Democrat 10-22-26-38 18-34 5-32-34-26 Oamocrat 10-22-26-38 Res: 15-25 Yrs 7-22-25-42 Kids <18 a Home 6-15-33-43 Post -Grad Degree 9-25-21-39 Renters 6-22-34-34 Res: < 5 Yrs 3-19-32.32 Res: 5-10 Yrs 8-20-38-32 Neither Con/Lib 10-22-25-37 92649 1-19-32-46 92646 8-19-25-39 65+ 7-21-21-43 Republican 4-20-3D-43 Nt Wk Outsde Home 8-18-23-44 92648 6-21-21-43 Somewhat Consery 4-21-30-40 M47 8-16-28-44 45-54 4-21-23-48 Some Coll/Voc 3-18-30-44 Men 8-20-24-46 Somewhat Consery 4-21-30-40 Res: 10-15 Yrs 5-11-30.54 65+ 7-21-21-43 Republican 4-20-30-43 Work Outside Home 5-19-30-40 Liberal 7-25-23-38 Res: 5-10 Yrs 8-20-38-32 HS or Less 12-19-29.40 Res: 15-25 Yrs 7-22-25-42 Men 8-20-24-46 women 5-18-29-39 Aggregate 6-19-26-42 92649 1-19-32-46 92647 8-16-28-44 Very Conservative 6- 6-27-56 Res: < 5 Yrs 3-19-32-32 55-64 10-14-27-43 Renters 6-22-34-34 Work outside Home 5-19-30-40 Very Conservative 6- 6-27.56 Res: 25+ Yrs 6-18-22-45 HS or Less 12-19-29-40 Aggregate 6-19-26-42 9Z648 6-21-21-43 92646 B-19-25-39 College Graduate 6-16-26-45 Kids 08 a Home 6-15-33-43 Aggregate 6-19-26-42 Democrat 10-22-26-38 College Graduate 6-16-26-45 Nt wk Outsde Home B-18-23-44 Neither Can/Lib 10-22-25-37 Res: 10-15 Yrs 5-11-30-54 Res: 25+ Yrs 6-18-22-45 Res: 15-25 Yrs 7-22-25-42 14-34 5-32-34-26 women 5-18-29-39 92646 8-19-25-39 women 5-18-29-39 Some Coll/Voc 3-18-30-44 Men 8-20-24-46 work outside Home 5-19-30-40 College Graduate 6-16-26-45 Independent 12-12-23-47 Somewhat Consery 4-21-30-40 92647 B-16-26-44 Liberal 7-25-23-38 Republican 4-20-30-43 Kids 08 a Home 6-15-33-43 45-54 4-21-23-48 4S-54 4-21-23-48 55-64 10-14-27-43 Nt wk Outsde Home 8-18-23-44 Some Coll/Voc 3-18-30-44 Independent 12-12-23-47 Res: 25+ Yrs 6-18-22-45 Res: < 5 Yrs 3-19-32-32 Res: 10-15 Yrs 5-11-30-54 65+ 7-21-21-43 33-44 3-10.37-45 35-44 3-10-37-45 92648 6-21-21-43 92649 1-19-32-46 Very Conservative 6- 6-27-56 Post -Grad Degree 9-25-21-39 Final Vote:No 0- D-38-62 Final Vote:No 0- 0-38-62 Final Vote:Yes 25-75- 0- 0 42 7 M • • 0 Lawrence Research CROSSTABS Page 91 Huntington Beach / July 2001 1318 Q. 86: Final Vote: Measure A We have now talked about Measure A, the tax increase to pay for infrastructure rebuilding and repair. All things considered, if the election were held today, would you vote.. definitely Yes, probably Yes, probably No or definitely No on Measure A? 1. Definitely Yes 6 4. Definitely No 42 2. Probably No 19 5. Undecided 7 3. Probably No 26 Format 1+2/3+4/5 MC 1 Rank 1+2, 3+4, 5 Final Vote:Yes **- 0- 0 Final Vote:No 0-**- 0 Res: < 5 Yrs 23-65-13 18-34 37-61- 3 Res: 10-15 Yrs 16-84- 0 Women 23-67-10 Post -Grad Degree 35-60- 5 Very Conservative 13-83- 5 Res: 25+ Yrs 24-66- 9 Democrat 33-64- 3 35-44 13-82- 4 92646 27-64- 9 Neither Con/Lib 32-62- 6 92649 21-78- 1 92648 27-64- 8 Liberal 32-61- 7 Kids 0B @ Home 21-76- 3 Liberal 32-61- 7 HS or Less 31-69- 0 Some COIL/Voc 21-74- 5 College Graduate 22-71- 7 Res: 15-25 Yrs 29-67- 4 Republican 24-73- 3 Independent 23-70- 7 65+ 29-64- 7 92647 23-72- 5 Nt Wk Outsde Home 26-67- 7 Renters 28-69- 3 College Graduate ZZ-71- 7 65+ 29-64- 7 Res: 5-10 Yrs 2B-70- 2 45-54 24-71- 5 Aggregate 25-69- 7 92648 27-64- 8 Somewhat Consery 24-70- 6 55-64 24-70- 6 Men 27-70- 3 Men 27-70- 3 Work Outside Home 24-70- 6 92646 27-64- 9 Res: 5-10 Yrs 28-70- 2 Neither Con/Lib 32-62- 6 Nt Wk Outsde Home 26-67- 7 Work Outside Home 24-70- 6 Somewhat Consery 24-70- 6 Aggregate 25-69- 7 independent 23-70- 7 Post -Grad Degree 35-60- 5 45-54 24-71- 5 55-64 24-70- 6 Some Coil/Voc 21-74- 5 Somewhat Consery 24-70- 6 HS or Less 31-69- 0 45-54 24-71- 5 Res: 25+ Yrs 24-66- 9 Renters 28-69- 3 92647 23-72- 5 55-64 24-70- 6 Aggregate 25-69- 7 Very Conservative 13-83- 5 Work outside Home 24-70- 6 Nt Wk Outsde Home 26-67- 7 35-44 13-82- 4 Republican 24-73- 3 Women 23-67-10 Res: 15-25 Yrs 29-67- 4 92647 23-72- 5 Res: 15-25 Yrs 29-67- 4 Kids <18 a home 21-76- 3 Independent 23-70- 7 Res: 25+ Yrs 24-66- 9 Democrat 33-64- 3 Women 23-67-10 Res: < 5 Yrs 23-65-13 Republican 24-73- 3 Res: < 5 Yrs 23-65-13 65+ 29-64- 7 Renters 28-69- 3 CotLege Graduate 22-71- 7 92648 27-64- 8 Men 27-70- 3 Some CoLL/Voc 21-74- 5 Democrat 33-64- 3 18-34 37-61- 3 92649 21-78- 1 92646 27-64- 9 Res: 5-10 Yrs 28-70- 2 Kids <18 a Home 21-76- 3 Neither Con/Lib 32-62- 6 92649 21-78- 1 Res: 10-15 Yrs 16-84- 0 Liberal 32-61- 7 Res: 10-15 Yrs 16-84- 0 35-44 13-82- 4 18-34 37-61- 3 HS or Less 31-69- 0 Very Conservative 13-83- 5 Post -Grad Degree 35-60- 5 Final Vote:Yes **. 0- 0 Final Vote:No 0-**- 0 Final Vote:Yes **- 0- 0 Final Vote:No 0.**- 0 40 • • 0 LAWRENCE VRESEARCH PUBLIC AFFAIRS • MARKETING Verbatim Summary Survey No: 1318 Huntington Beach Voters 0.4 What do you feel are two or three of the most important problems in Huntington Beach today -- the ones that you, yourself, are most concerned about? (N=400) Categories Frequency Percent Total Sample Percent Eligible Sewer System/Pollution 113 28.3 %, 28 3 % Traffic 52 13.0 % 13.0 % Infrastructure 75 18.8 % 18.8 % Street Lights 4 1.0 % 1.0 % City Appearance/Cleanline 21 5.3% 5.3 % Parking 15 3.8 %, 3.8 % Overdevelopment 62 15.5 % 15.5 % Growth/Overcrowding 35 8.8 % 0 • u Too Many Businesses 6 1.5 % 1.5 % Bolsa Chica/Wetlands 24 6.0 % 6.0 % City Government 40 10.0 %, 10.0 % Government Spending 29 7.3 % 7.3 % Taxes 35 8.8 % 8.8 % Economy/Need Businesses 23 5.8 % 5.8 % Electricity 1 Power Plant 7 1.8 %, 1.8 % Elderly 1 Senior Citizens 2 0.5 % 0.5 % Lack of Recreation 12 3.0 % 3.0 % The Mall 13 3.3 % 3.3 % Schools 1 Education 37 9.3 %, 9.3 % Crime i Safety 32 8.0 % 8.0 % No Problems/No Concerns 26 6.5 %0 6.5 % Don't Know 1 No Opinion 8 2.0 % 2.0 % Miscellaneous 8 2.0 % 2.0 % LAWRENCE Huntington Beach Voters Verbatim SUMMary MESEARCH Page, PUBLIC AFFAIRS • MARKETING 0 Q. 39 And what would be two or three of the main reasons why you would vote (definitely/probably) Yes? (N=33) Categories Frequency Percent Total Sample Percent Eligible It Is Needed 15 7.5 %, 45.5 % Infrastructure Needs Help 12 6.0 % 36.4 % Tax Is Not Too Much 7 3.5 % 21.2 % It Will Get Worse 1 0.5 % 3.0 % Don't Know 1 No Opinion 1 0.5 % 3.0 % Miscellaneous 1 0.5 % 3.0 % • • LAWR E N C E Huntington Beach Voters lVerbatim Summary iARESEARCH Paye: PUBLIC AFFAIRS • MARKETING Q. 40 And what would be two or three of the main reasons why you would vote (definitely/probably) No? (N=163) Categories Frequency Percent Total Sample Percent Eligible It Is Not Needed .7 3.5 % 4.3 % Money Is Wasted 23 11.5 % 14.1 % No More Taxes 94 47.4 % 57.7 Use Existing Funds 20 10.0 % 12.3 Won't Benefit Me 2 1.0 % 1.2 % Poor City Management 16 8.0 % 9.8 % It Isn't Fair 14 7.0 % 8.6 Get Funds Elsewhere 9 4.5 % 5.5 % Need More Information 7 3.5 % 4.3 % Don't Know 1 No Opinion 1 0.5 % 0.6 % Miscellaneous 5 2.5 % 3.1 % • 0 LAW R E N C E Huntington Beach Voters I Verbatim Su=aryj c%RESEARCH age: PUBLIC AFFAIRS • MARKETING Q. 44 Think about the first measure you voted on --Measure A. What would be two or three of the main reasons why you would vote (definitely/probably) Yes on Measure A? (N=38) Categories Frequency Percent Total Sample Percent Eligible It Is Needed 14 7,0 % 36.8 % Infrastructure Needs Help 12 6,4 �/, 0 31.6 /o Tax Isn't Too Much 13 6,5 % 34.2 % It Will Get Worse 1 0.5 % 2.6 % Don't Know f No Opinion 2 1,0 % 5.3 % Miscellaneous • 0 LAV lI R E N C E Huntington Beach Voters Verbatim ummary IRESEARCH age: 10 PUBUC AFFAM , MARKETING Q. 45 Think about the first measure you voted on -- Measure A. What would be two or three of the main reasons why you would vote (definitely/probably) No on Measure A? (N=154) Categories Frequency Percent Total Sample Percent Eligible it Is Not Needed 5 2.5 % 3.2 % Money Is Wasted 20 10.0 % 13.0 % No More Taxes 97 48.5 % 63.0 % Use Existing Funds 18 9.0 % 11.7 % Won't Benefit Me 1 0.5 %, 0.6 % Poor City Management 9 4.5 % 5.8 % It Isn't Fair 11 5.5 % . 7.1 % Get Funds Elsewhere 13 6.5 % 8.4 % Need More Information 6 3.0 %, 3.9 % Don't Know I No Opinion 1 0.5 % o.6 % Miscellaneous 6 3.0 %Q 3.9 % • 0 0 LAWRENCE Huntington Beach Voters Verbatim summarv MESEARCH age: PUBLIC AFFAIRS • MARKETING Q. 47 If the city's infrastructure does not get repaired or improved, what would be the things that would happen -- the things that you, yourself, would be most concerned about? (N=400) Categories Frequency Percent Total Sample Percent Eligible Will Get Worse - 51 12.8 % 12.8 %, City Quality Will Decline 43 1 D.$ % 10.8 % Decline in Property Value 11 2.8 % 2.8 % Public Safety 1 Accidents 38 9.5 % 9.5 % Traffic Problems 14 3.5 % 3.5 % Vehicle Damage 8 2.0 % 2.0 % Pay More Later 15 3.8 % 3.8 % Water 1 Sewer Problems 117 29.3 % 29.3 % Flooding 31 7.8 % 7.8 % Environment/ Pollution 54 13.5 % 13.5 % Health Issues 28 7.0 % 7.0 % No Concerns/No Worries 33 8.3 % 8.3 % City Council - Negative 10 2.5 % 2.5 % General Negative 24 6.0 % 6.0 % Don't Know 1 No Opinion 24 6.0 % 6.0 % Miscellaneous 27 6.8 % 6.8 % t� LAWR E N C E Huntington Beach Voters verbatim summmy ARESEARCH age: PUBLIC AFFAIRS a MARKETING Q. 56 Thinking of the entire city budget, where do you feel the city should cut back its spending, or spend money more wisely, so there will be enough money to repair the city's infrastructure? (N=302) Categories Frequency Percent Total Sample Percent Eligible Reduce Personnel 15 3.8 % 5.0 % Less on Salaries/Benefits 57 14.3 % 18.9 % Less on Building 19 4.8% 6.3 % Less on Downtown 13 3.3 % 4.3 % Less on Beautification 15 3.8% 5.0 % Less on (Misc.) 32 8.0 % 10.6 More On Cleaner Water 3 0.8 % 1.0 % More on Cleaner Ocean 5 1.3 % 1.7 % More on Repair 17 4.3 % 5.6 % More on Law Enforcement 6 1.5 % 2.0 % More on Schools 4 1.0 % 1.3 % Use Better Judgment Need A New City Council 19 3 4.8 % 0.8 % 6.3 % 1.0 % Don't Know 1 No Opinion 103 25.8 % 34.1 % Miscellaneous 24 6.0 % 7.9 % 0 LAWR E N C E Huntington Beach Voters Verbatia Swary /RESEARCH age: PUBLIC AFFAIRS + MARKETING Q. 88 1 note that this is a change from your previous vote. What one thing did you find out that has now caused you to vote Yes on Measure A? (N=34) Categories Frequency Percent Total Sample Percent Eligible Small Tax Increase 4 1.0 % 11.8 % For Infrastructure 8 2.0 %, 23.5 % Benefits the City 4 1.0 %, 11.8 % Will Be Monitored 1 0.3 %, 2.9 % Became More Aware - Gen 4 1.0 % 11.8 % Need More Information 4 1.0 % 11.8 % Don't Know 1 No Opinion 4 1.0 %, 11.8 % Miscellaneous 5 1.3 % 14.7 % • 7 LAWRENCE c%RESEARCH PUBLIC AFFAIRS a MARKETING Verbatims Survey :1318 Huntington Beach Voters The following pages contain all of the answers to the open-ended questions as follows: What do you feel are two or three of the most important problems in Huntington Beach today -- the ones that you, yourself, are most concerned about? (N=400) And what are two or three reasons why you have an unfavorable impression of the Citizens Infrastructure Advisory Committee? (N=28) And what would be two or three of the main reasons why you would vote (definitely/probably) Yes? (N=33) And what would be two or three of the main reasons why you would vote (definitely/probably) No? (N=163) And what would be two or three of the questions you would first want to have answered before you could decide how to vote? (N=4) Think about the first measure you voted on -- Measure A. What would be two or three of the main reasons why you would vote (definitely/probably) Yes on Measure A? (N=36) Think about the first measure you voted on -- Measure A. What would be two or three of the main reasons why you would vote (definitely/probably) No on Measure A? (N=154) Think about the first measure you voted on -- Measure A. What would be two or three of the questions you would first want to have answered before you could decide how to vote on Measure A? (N=8) If the city's infrastructure does not get repaired or improved, what would be the things that would happen --.the things that you, yourself, would be most concerned about? (N=400) Thinking of the entire city budget, where do you feel the city should cut back its spending, or spend money more wisely, so there will be enough money to repair the city's infrastructure? (N=302) I note that this is a change from your previous vote. What one thing did you find out that has now caused you to vote No on Measure A? (N=4) 0 LAWRENCE efRESEARCH PUBLIC AFFAIRS • MARKETING I note that this is a change from your previous vote. What one thing did you find out that has now caused you to vote Yes on Measure A? (N=34) The answers are sorted according to key words and -phrases. Following the verbatim report is a summary tabulation of the responses. The last section contains crosstab reports that tabulate each demographic characteristic to each category within each question. The following tag codes identify which demographic characteristics were included: Party = Party Zip = Zip Code Sex = Sex Educ = Education Age = Age Ideol = Ideology Descriptor : Party Descriptor : Sex Descriptor: Zip Code Abbreviation Reps = Dems = Ind - Choice Text Republicans Democrats Independents Abbreviation Choice Text Men - Males Women = Female Abbreviation Choice Text 92646 = 92646 92647 - 92647 92648 = 92648 92649 = 92649 Page 2 • 0 LAWRENCE cfRESEARCH PUBLIC AFFAIRS + MARKETING Descriptor: Age Descriptor : Education • Descriptor: Ideology 11 Abbreviation Choice Text 18-34 = 18-34 35-44 = 35-44 45-54 — 45-54 55-64 = 55-64 65+ = 65+ Abbreviation Choice Team HS< = Nigh School or Less SCNoc = Some CollegelVocational ClgGrad = College Graduate PstGrad — Post -Graduate Degree Abbreviation Choice Text VryCns = Very Conservative SmwCns W Somewhat Conservative Neither — Neither Con Nor Lib Liberal — Liberal Page 3 LAWRENCE /RESEARCH PUBLIC AFFAIRS * MARKETING Cross Tabulations Survey No:1318 Huntington Beach Voters 0.4 What do you feel are two or three of the most important problems in Huntington Beach today -- the ones that you, yourself, are most concerned about? (N=400) Sex & Age Categories Men Women 18-34 35.44 45-54 55-64 65+ Sewer SystemlPollution 30 % 27 % 32 % 31 % 28 % 29 % 26 % Traffic 11 % 15% 13% 12% 10% 15%a 15% Infrastructure 18 % 20 % 8 % 15 % 16 % 24 % 21 %n Street Lights 1 % 1 % 1 % 2% 1 City Appearance/Cleanline 4% 7 % 5 % 7 % 5 % 4% 4% Parking 2% 6% 3% 4% 4% 3% 5% Overdevelopment 15% 17 % 13 % 16 % 21 % 24 % 7 % Growth/Overcrowding 7 % 11 % 5% 13 % 9 % 10% 7 % Too Many Businesses 3% 1 % 2% 3% 2% Bolsa ChicaNVetlands 5% 7 % 5 % 10% 9 % 5 % 3% City Government 14 % 6% 5 % 13 % 12% 9 % 10% Government Spending 9 % 6% .3% 4% 10% 9 % 7 % Taxes 12% 6% 5% 10% 7% 8% 8% Economy/Need Businesses 4% 8 % 5% 6% 9 % 6% 2% Electricity / Power Plant 2% 2% 1 % 1 % 3% 2% Elderly / Senior Citizens 1 % 2% Lack of Recreation 2% 5% 6% 4% 3% 2% The Mall 4% 3% 3% 4% 5% 1 % 2% Schools 1 Education 7 % 12% 11 % 7 % 10% 9 % 10% Crime ! Safety 8 % 9 % 11 % 7 % 10% 14 % 3% No ProblemsiNo Concerns 6% 8 % 11 % 7 % 4% 3% 10% Don't Know 1 No Opinion 3% 2% 4% 2% Miscellaneous 2% 2% 2% 5% 2% • • LAWRENCE ARESEARCH PUBLIC AFFAIRS • MARKETING • Categories Huntington Beach Voters LGross Tabulations Page 2 0.39 And what would be two or three of the main reasons why you would vote (definitelylprobably) Yes? (N=33) Sex & Age It Is Needed Infrastructure Needs Help Tax Is Not Too Much It Will Get Worse Don't Know 1 No Opinion Miscellaneous • .7 Men Women 18-34 35-44 45-54 55.64 37 % 57 % 43 % 50 % 29 % 33 % 53 % 14 % 29 % 50 % 43 % 16 % 29 % 43 % 43 % 33 % 5% 14% 5% 7% 33 % 65+ 50 % 50 % 8% LAWRENCE Huntington Beach Voters I Cross labulations c%RESEARCH Page 3 PUBLIC AFFAIRS • MARKETING Q.40 And what would be two or three of the main reasons why you would vote (definitely/probably) No? (N=163) Sex & Age Categories It Is Not Needed Money Is Wasted No More Taxes Use Existing Funds Won't Benefit Me Poor City Management It Isn't Fair Get Funds Elsewhere Need More Information Don't Know 1 No Opinion Miscellaneous Men Women 18-34 35-44 45-54 55.64 65+ 4% 5% 8% 7% 4% 2% 16% 12% 9% 14% 14% 18% 13% 61 % 55% 82% 47% 46% 54% 66% 10% 14% 9% 14% 18% 11 % 11 % 3% 4% 2% 10% 10% 9% 8% 14% 7% 11 % 8% 10% 9% 14% 11 % 11 % 4% 6% 5% 8% 4% 7% 5% 3% 6% 3% 4% 7% 5% 1% 3% 3% 4% 9% 4% 4% 4% is • 0 LAWRENCE Huntington Beach Voters Gross a u a ions ARESEARCH Page PUBLIC AFFAIRS • MARKETING Q.44 Think about the first measure you voted on -- Measure A. What would be two or three of the main reasons why you would vote (definitely/probably) Yes on Measure A? (N=38) Categories It Is Needed Infrastructure Needs Help Tax Isn't Too Much It Will Get Worse Don't Know 1 No Opinion • !7 sex & Age Men Women 18-34 35-44 45.54 55-64 43 % 29 % 25% 25% 44 % 27 % 19% 47% 50% 25% 11 % 36% 38% 29% 25% 50% 33% 64% 6% 11% 10 % 11 % 65+ 57 % 29 % 14% LAWRENCE Huntington Beach Voters Cross a u a Ions /RESEARCH Page 5 PUBLIC AFFAIRS 0 MARKETING 0.45 Think about the first measure you noted on -- Measure A. What would be two or three of the main reasons why you would vote (definitely/probably) No on Measure A? (N=154) Categories sex & Age Men Warren 18.34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+ It Is Not Needed 3% 4% 7% 8% 3% 3% Money Is Wasted 14 % 12 % 4% 12 % 20% 20 % No More Taxes 65 % 61 % 73 % 72 % 56 % 49 % 73 % Use Existing Funds 17 % 7% 7% 8% 6 % 20% 12 % Won't Benetit Me 1 % 3% Poor City Management 5% 7% 9 % 11 % 5% It Isn't Fair 4% 11 % 7% 8% 12% 5% Get Funds Elsewhere 6 % 11 % 13 % 12 % 15 % 6 % 2 % Need More Information 1 % 7% 7% 11 % 2 % Don't Know 1 No Opinion 1 % 7% Miscellaneous 5% 3% 7% 6% 3% 5% • • LAWRENCE Huntington Beach Voters [Gross a u a Ions c%RESEARCH Page 6 PUBLIC AFFAIRS • MARKETING • Q.47 If the city's infrastructure does not get repaired or improved, what would be the things that would happen -- the things that you, yourself, would be most concerned about? (N=400) Categories Will Get Worse City Quality Will Decline Decline in Property Value Public Safety 1 Accidents Traffic Problems Vehicle Damage Pay More Later Water ! Sewer Problems Flooding Environment 1 Pollution Health Issues No ConcernslNo Worries City Council - Negative General Negative Don't Know I No Opinion Miscellaneous 0 Sex & Age Men Women 18-34 35.44 45-54 55-64 65+ 11 % 15% 16% 7% 12% 15% 14% 10% 12% 13% 12% 10% 15% 7% 3% 3% 3% 1% 4% 4% 2% 9% 10% 5% 12% 13% 11 % 5% 5% 3% 3% 4% 6% 3% 2% 2% 2% 3% 1% 4% 3% 1% 3% .5% 5% 3% 7% 5% 1% 28% 31 % 18% 31 % 40% 33% 23% 8% 8% 13% 12% 7% 4% 7% 11 % 16% 5% 13% 23% 13% 10% 6% 8% 11 % 6% 9% 5% 5% 11% 6% 13% 7% 11% 1% 11% 5% 1% 4% 1% 5% 2% 7% 6% 5% 6% 2% 5% 9% 4% 8% 5% 4% 2% 3% 12% 9% 5% 3% 9% 1% 8% 9% LAWRENCE Huntington Beach Voters I Gross a Lla Ions cARESEARCH Page 7 PUBLIC AFFAIRS • MARKETING Q.56 Thinking of the entire city budget, where do you feel the city should cut back its spending, or spend money more wisely, so there will be enough money to repair the city's infrastructure? (N=302) Sex & Age (categories Men Women 18-34 35.44 45.54 55-64 65+ Reduce Personnel 10 % 1 % 13 % 2 % 2 % 8% 6 % Less on Salaries/Benefits 21 % 17 % 17 % 23 % 20 % 22 % 14 % Less on Building' 7 % 5% 8% 6 % 11 % 3 % 6 % Less on Downtown 5% 3 % 8% 4 % 5% 5% 3 % Less on Beautification 4 % 6 % 8% 6 % 2 % 7 % Less on (Misc.) 9 % 12 % 21 % 8% 13 % 9 % 8% More On Cleaner Water 2 % 4 % 2 % More on Cleaner Ocean 1 % 2 % 2 % 2 % 3 % More on Repair 7% 4% 8% 8% 5% 5% 6% More on Law Enforcement 2 % 2 % 3 % 5% 1 % More on Schools 1 % 2 % 3 % 2 % 1 % Use Better Judgment 5% 7 % .4 % 6 % 2 % 5 % 13 % Need A New City Council 1 % 1 % 2 % Don't Know 1 No Opinion 31 % 37 % 25 % 38 % 30 % 39 % 33 % Miscellaneous 7 % 9 % 4 % 10 % 9 % 3 % 10 % LAWRENCE t%RESEARCH PUBLIC AFFAIRS • MARKETING Categories Huntington Beach Voters I Cross a u a ions Page 8 Q.88 1 note that this is a change from your previous vote. What one thing did you find out that has now caused you to vote Yes on Measure A? (N=34) Small Tax Increase For Infrastructure Benefits the City Will Be Monitored Became More Aware - Gen Need More Information Don't Know 1 No Opinion Miscellaneous • 0 Sex & Age Men Women 18-34 35.44 45-54 55.64 65+ 20% 5% 25% 25% 12% 27% 21 % 50% 17% 29% 7% 16% 33% 25% 12% 5% 6% 13% 11 % 25% 17% 12% 13% 11 % 33% 50% 17% 13% 11 % 33% 12% 7% 21 % 33% 17% 18% LAWRENCE MESEARCH PUBLIC AFFAIRS is MARKETING Cross Tabulations Survey No:1318 Categories Huntington Beach Voters Q.4 What do you feel are two or three of the most important problems in Huntington Beach today -- the ones that you, yourself, are most concerned about? (N=400) Education & Ideology H5< SCNoc ClgGrad PstGrad VryCns SmwCns Neither Liberal Sewer System/Pollution 33 % 24 % 34 % 21 % 30 % 31 % 26 % 25 % Traffic 13% 12% 13% 16% 17% 15% 13% 6% Infrastructure 19 % 14 % 22 % 19 % 20 % 19 % 16 % 20 % Street Lights 1 % 4% 2 % 1 % 1 % City Appearance/Cleanline 4% 5% 5% 8% 5% 4% 7 % 7 % Parking 6% 1 % 9% 5% 3% 5% 4% Overdevelopment 13% 14 % 13% 21 % 13% 13% 20 % 19 % Growth/Overcrowding 12 % 8% 8% 8% 9% 9% 6% 12 % Too Many Businesses 3% 1 % 1 % 2 % 1 % 2 % 1 % Bolsa Chica/Wetlands 4% 4% 7 % 9% 6% 6% 13% City Government 12 % 9% 11 % 9% 16 % 9% 10 % 7 % Government Spending 4% 7 % -8% 9% 9% 8% 5% 9% Taxes 8% 8% 9% 9% 9% 5% 14% 9% Economy/Neep Businesses 2 % 7 % 5% 7 % 8% 6% 3% 7 % Electricity I Power Plant 3% 2 % 1 % 2 % 1 % 4% Elderly 1 Senior Citizens 2 % 1 % 1 % 1 % Lack of Recreation 4% 4% 1 % 2 % 3% 5% The Mall 4% 4% 3% 3% 4%n 3% 1 % Schools I Education 12 % 9% 8% 9% 11 % 11 % 3% 12 % Crime I Safety 8% 11 % 6% 8% 6% 10 % 8% 7 % No Problems/No Concerns 10 % 7 % 8% 1 % 3% 6% 7 % 10 % Don't Know I No Opinion 4% 1 % 4% 2 % 1 % 2 % 3% Miscellaneous 2% 4% 1% 3% 1% 3% 1% • • LAWRENCE r%RESEARCH PUBLIC AFFAIRS • MARKETINg Categories Huntington Beach Voters 0.39 And what would be two or three of the main reasons why you would vote (definitely/probably) Yes? (N=33) Education & Ideology It Is Needed Infrastructure Needs Help Tax Is Not Too Much It Will Get Worse Don't Know 1 No Opinion Miscellaneous • • Cross Tabulations Page 2 HS< SCfVoc ClgGrad PstGrad VryCns SmwCns Neither Liberal 100 % 44 % 55 % 11 % 50% 50% 33 % 33 % 50% 33 % 36 % 44 % 21 % 67 % 50% 22% 9% 44% 21 % 11 % 50% 11 % 11 % 9% 50% 7% LAWRENCE ✓✓RESEARCH PUBUC AFFAIRS • MARKETING Categories Huntington Beach Voters I Gross a u a ions Page 3 Q.40 And what would be two or three of the main reasons why you would vote (definitely/probably) No? (N=163) Education & Ideology HSa SC/Voc ClgGrad PstGrad VryCns SmwCns Neither Liberal It Is Not Needed 12% 5% 2% 3% 7% 4% 3% 6% Money Is Wasted 12 % 16 % 17 % 12 % 14 % 13 % 19 % 6% No More Taxes 68 % 66 % 50 % 50 % 72 % 51 % 47 % 72 % Use Existing Funds 12 % 9 % 11 % 21 % 10 % 13 % 19 % 6% Won't Benefit Me 4 % 1 % 3% Poor City Management 14 % 15 % 6% 14 % 9 % 11 % It Isn't Fair 8% 9% 7% 9% 13% 6% 17% Get Funds Elsewhere 2 % 7% 12 % 7% 3% 8 % 11 % Need More Information 8 % 7% 4 % 9 % 3% Don't Know / No Opinion 3% 3% Miscellaneous 5 % 6% 4 % 3% • • �.J LAWRENCE Huntington Beach Voters Cross a u a Ions AR E S EAR C H Page 4 PUBLIC AFFAIRS a MARKETING • 0.44 Think about the first measure you voted on -- Measure A. What would be two or three of the main reasons why you would vote (definitely/probably) Yes on Measure A? (N=38) Categories It Is Needed Infrastructure Needs Help Tax Isn't Too Much It Will Get Worse Don't Know I No Opinion • Education & Ideology HSc SCNoc ClgGrad PstGrad VryCns SmwCns Neither Liberal 13 % 38 % 50 % 38 % 100 % 21 % 64 % 20 % 38% 33% 50% 29% 18% 60% 63 % 50 % 17 % 25 % 43 % 27 % 30 % 8% 7% 25% 7% 9% LAWRENCE Huntington Beach Voters lGross a ualons /RESEARCH Page 5 PUBLIC AFFAIRS • MARKETING r Q.45 Think about the first measure you voted on -- Measure A. What would be two or three of the main reasons why you would vote (definitelylprobably) No on Measure A7 (N=154) Categories It Is Not Needed Money Is Wasted No More Taxes Use Existing Funds Won't Benefit Me Poor City Management It Isn't Fair Get Funds Elsewhere Need More Information Don't Know 1 No Opinion Miscellaneous Education & Ideology HS< SCNoc ClgGrad PstGrad VryCns SmwCns Neither Liberal 4% 3% 5% 3% 3% 6% 19% 9% 18% 5% 21 % 15% 11 % 3% 63 % 68 % ' 61 % 55 % 72 % 63 % 61 % 55 % 6% 18% 7% 15% 10% 10% 7% 19% 2% 4% 6% 7% 3% 10% 10% 8% 4% 6% 5% 10% 5% 3% 10% 11 % 3% 9% 8% 15% 12% 4% 10% 3% 20% 5% 4% 6% 2% 3% 19% 3% 5% 3% 4% 10% • 0 LAWRENCE c%RESEARCH PUBLIC AFFAIRS • MARKETING • Categories Huntington Beach Voters cross a u a Ions Page 6 Q.47 if the city's infrastructure does not get repaired or improved, what would be the things that would happen -- the things that you, yourself, would be most concerned about? (N=400) Will Get Worse City Quality Will Decline Decline in Property Value Public Safety 1 Accidents Traffic Problems Vehicle Damage Pay More Later Water 1 Sewer Problems Flooding Environment/ Pollution Health Issues No ConcernslNo Worries City Council - Negative General Negative Don't Know 1 No Opinion Miscellaneous L� Education & Ideology HST SCNoc ClgGrad PstGrad VryCns SmwCns Neither Liberal 13% 15% 13% 8% 9% 14% 10% 16% 15% 7% 10% 12% 9% 11 % 9% 12% 2% 4% 5% 2% 4% 3% 4% 6% 13% 13% 5% 8% 13% 14% 2% 3% 4% 4% 5% 3% 4% 1% 3% 4% 2% 3% 4% 4% 2% 6% 4% 5% 2% 8% 3% 27% 28% 28% 39% 20% 26% 37% 38% 4% 6% 11 % 9% 3% 8% 9% 12% 6% 13% 14% 20% 3% 11 % 24% 16% 8% 8% 6% 8% 6% 7% 10% 4% 8% 10% 8% 8% 14% 8% 8% 6% 4% 2% 3% 3% 3% 3% 2% 3% 8% 7% 7% 3% 13% 6% 2% 4% 12% 8% 4% 1 % 13% 8% 1 % 4% 8% 5% 5% 8% 9% 8% 1 % 4% LAWRENCE Huntington Beach Voters Gross I a ua ions c%RESEARCH Page 7 PUBLIC AFFAIRS • MARKETING 0.56 Thinking of the entire city budget, where do you feel the city should cut back its spending, or spend money more wisely, so there will be enough money to repair the city's infrastructure? (N=302) Categories Education & Ideology HS< SCIVoc ClgGrad PstGrad VryCns SmwCns Neither Liberal Reduce Personnel 3% 8% 6 % 4 % 6 % 3% 4 % Less on Salaries/Benefits 14 % 18 % 18 % 27 % 17 % 16 % 29 % 17 % Less on Building 12 % 8% 5 % 2% 6 % 5 % 11 % 4 % Less on Downtown 5 % 6 % 3% 4 % 6 % 5 % 5 % 2% Less on Beautification 2% 6 % 4 % 8% 6 % 7% 3% 2% Less on (Misc.) 17% 9% 9% 10% 9% 10% 11 % 15% More On Cleaner Water 2%, 2% 2% 2% More on Cleaner Ocean 1 % 4 % 1 % 3% 2% More on Repair 2% 7% 7% 2% 2% 3% 8% 10% More on Law Enforcement 2% 2% 4 % 2% 6 % More on Schools 1 % 1 % 4 % 1 % 6 % Use Better Judgment 10% 5% 8% 2% 9% 7% 3% 6% Need A New City Council 2% 2% 2% 1 % Don't Know 1 No Opinion 33 % 37 % 34 % 27 % 30 % 38 % 27 % 35 % Miscellaneous 12 % 4 % 7% 13 % 15 % 7% 8% 4 % 0 �J LAWRENCE ARESEARCH PUBUC AFFAIRS • MARKETING • Categories Huntington Beach Voters 0.88 1 note that this is a change from your previous vote. What one thing did you find out that has now caused you to vote Yes on Measure A? (N=34) Education & Ideology Small Tax Increase For Infrastructure Benefits the City Will Be Monitored Became More Aware - Gen Need More Information Don't Know 1 No Opinion Miscellaneous • 0 Gross Tabulations Page 8 HS< SCIVoc ClgGrad PstGrad VryCns SmwCns Neither Liberal 20% 22% 13% 13% 14% 17% 33% 20% 22% 33% 25% 14% 22% 10% 11 % 25% 13% 29% 10% 7% 17% 11 % 22% 7% 25% 14% 17% 11 % 20% 25% 13% 14% 17% 11 % 10% 11 % 25% 13% 13% 33% 11 % 10% 11 % 25% 13% 13% 14% LAWRENCE c%RESEARCH PUBUC AFFAIRS • MARKETING Cross Tabulations Survey No:1318 Categories Huntington Beach Voters 0.4 What do you feel are two or three of the most important problems in Huntington Beach today -- the ones that you, yourself, are most concerned about? (N=400) Party & Zip Code Reps Dems Ind 92646 92647 92648 92649 Sewer SystemlPollution 29 % 31 % 19 % 30 % 18 % 29 % 38 % Traffic 15% 12% 14% 12% 15% 17% 8% Infrastructure 17 % 25 % 12% 18 % 18 % 17 % 24 % Street Lights 1 % 1 % 1 % 1 % 3% City Appeara nce/C I ean line 4% 9 % 8 % 5% 2% 4% Parking 5% 3% 6% 1% 5% 1% Overdevelopment 16 % 16 % 16 % 11 % 18 % 23 % 13 % Growth/Overcrowding 8 % 11 % 7% 9 % 10% 10% 6% Too Many Businesses 1 % 3% 2% 1 % 2% Bolsa Chica/Wetlands 6% 9 % 5% 5% 4% 6% 11 % City Government 10% 8 % 12% 11 % 10% 11 % 8 % Government Spending 7% 6% 9 % 9 % 6% 8 % 6% Taxes 7% 11 % 14% 6% 10% 6% 15% Economy/Need Businesses 6% 6% 2% . 4% 6% 7% 7% Electricity 1 Power Plant 1 % 2% 5% Elderly 1 Senior Citizens 0 % 1 % Lack of Recreation 4% 5% 2% 7% 3% The Mall 3% 3% 2% 2% 6% 4% 1 % Schools 1 Education 9 % 9 % 7% 10% 11 % 11 % 4% Crime/Safety 10% 4% 9% 6% 10% 7% 10% No Problems/No Concerns 6% 8 % 9 % 4% 9 % 6% 8 % Don't Know 1 No Opinion 1 % 1 % 2% 3% 1 % 2% 1 % Miscellaneous 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 1% • • 0 LAWRENCE ,//RESEARCH PUBLIC AFFAIRS • MARKETING • Categories Huntington Beach Voters 0.39 And what would be two or three of the main reasons why you would vote (definitely/probably) Yes? (N=33) Party & Zip Code It Is Needed Infrastructure Needs Help Tax Is Not Too Much it Will Get Worse Don't Know ! No opinion Miscellaneous • 0 Reps Dems Ind 53 % 29 % 60 % 27 % 57 % 40 % 7% 29% 40% 20 % 7% 7% 92646 92647 92648 92649 18 % 50 % 78 % 43 % 45 % 33 % 11 % 57 % 36% 17% 22% 9% 17% 9% Gross Tabulations Page 2 LAWRENCE Huntington Beach Voters I Gross a ua Ions e%RESEARCH Page 3 PUBLIC AFFAIRS • MARKETING Q.40 And what would be two or three of the main reasons why you would vote (definitely/probably) No? (N=163) Party & Zip Code Categories It Is Not Needed Money Is Wasted No More Taxes Use Existing Funds Won't Benefit Me Poor City Management it isn't Fair Get Funds Elsewhere Need More Information Don't Know 1 No Opinion Miscellaneous Reps Dems Ind 92646 92647 92648 92649 4% 3% .- 5% 7% 4% 16% 3% 24% 5% 16% 35% 12% 57% 67% 53% 52% 66% 54% 62% 12% 13% 12% 12% 16% 15% 6% 7% 3% 10% 13% 12% 7% 11 % 12% 12% 9% 10% 12% 9% 7% 8% 12% 5% 7% 6% 9% 2% 9% 7% 6% 7% 5% 4% 1% 2% 2% 3% 2% 4% 3% • • 11 LAWRENCE Huntington Beach Voters lGrosS a u a ions AARESEARCH Page PUBLIC AFFAIRS • MARKETING Q.44 Think about the first measure you voted on -- Measure A. What would be two or three of the main reasons why you would vote (definitely/probably) Yes an Measure A? (N=38) Categories Party & Zip Code Reps Dems Ind 92646 92647 92648 92649 It Is Needed 37 % 45 % 25 % 29 % 67 % 27 % 50 % Infrastructure Needs Help 26 % 36 % 25 % 35 % 17 % 36 % 25 % Tax Isn't Too Much 37 % 36 % 25 % 41 % 50 % 18 % 25 % It Will Get Worse 5 % 9 % Don't Know 1 No Opinion 5 % 25 % 6 % 9 % • • LAWRENCE Huntington Beach Voters I Cross Tabula ions efRESEARC H Page 5 PUBLIC AFFAIRS • MARKETING 0.45 Think about the first measure you voted on -- Measure A. What would be two or three of the main reasons why you would vote (definitely/probably) No on Measure A? (N=154) Categories It Is Not Needed Money Is Wasted No More Taxes Use Existing Funds Won't Benefit Me Poor City Management It Isn't Fair Get Funds Elsewhere Need More Information Don't Know 1 No Opinion Miscellaneous Party & Zip Code Reps Dems Ind 92646 92647 92648 92649 2% 8% 2% 5% 3% 4% 12% 13% 6% 8% 15% 18% 15% 64 % 58 % 81 % 68 % 63 % 59 % 59 % 11 % 13% 6% 15% 18% 3% 7% 6% 2% 6% 3% 6% 9% 3% 6% 4% 8% 5% 6% 6% 8% 6% 11 % 12% 8% 6% 10% 6% 15% 2% 5% 13% 2% 8% 7% 3% 2% 4% 5% 8% 9% • 0 • LAWRENCE Huntington Beach Voters I Gross a u a Ions ARESEARCH Page 6 PUBLIC AFFAIRS * MARKETING Categories Q.47 If the city's infrastructure does not get repaired or improved, what would be the things that would happen -- the things that you, yourself, would be most concerned about? (N=400) Party & Zip Code Reps Dams Ind 92646 92647 92648 92649 Will Get Worse 13% 13% 16% 8% 11 % 24% 13% City Quality Will Decline 12 % 9 % - 2 % 13% 8 % 10 % 11 % Decline in Property Value 4 % 5% 4 % 2 % 1 % 4 % Public Safety ! Accidents 7% 12 % 9 % 13% 11 % 5% 7% Traffic Problems 4 % 3 % 2 % 3 % 4 % 5% 3 % Vehicle Damage 2 % 2 % 2 % 2 % 4 % Pay More Later 3 % 6%. 5% 8 % 7% 1 % Water/ Sewer Problems 24 % 44 % 42 % 30 % 31 % 24 % 32 % Flooding 7% 15 % 5% 11 % 10 % 2 % 6% Environment / Pollution 13% 21 % 9 % 9 % 14 % 12 % 24 % Health Issues 7% 7% 7% 7% 4 % 8 % 10 % No Concerns/No Worries City Council - Negative 8 % 4 % 4 % 1 % 16 % 9 % 1 % 7% 3 % 5% 5% 13% 1 % General Negative 7% 3 % 2 % 7% 6% 8 % 1 % Don't Know/No Opinion 7% 2% 6% 5% 6% 7% Miscellaneous 7% 4% 5% 9% 5% 7% 6% 0 LAWRENCE Huntington Beach Voters Gross Tabu a ions c%RESEARCH Page 7 PUBLIC AFFAIPS • MARKETING Q.56 Thinking of the entire city budget, where do you feel the city should cut back its spending, or spend money more wisely, so there will be enough money to repair the city's infrastructure? (N=302) Party & Zip Code Categories Reps Dems Ind 92646 92647 92648 92649 Reduce Personnel 7 % 2 % 3% 4 % 3% 8 % 7 % Less on Salaries/Benefits 19 % 15 % 27 % 19 % 10 % 27 % 23 % Less on Building 6 % 12 % 3% 8 % 5 % 6 % 5 % Less on Downtown 5 % 5 % 7 % 5 % 2 % 2 % Less on Beautification 6 % 3% 3% 7 % 6 % 2 % 4 % Less on (Misc.) 8 % 12 % 13 % 10 % 11 % 9 % 12 % More On Cleaner Water 1 % 3% 1 % 4 % More on Cleaner Ocean 1 % 5 % 2 % 3% 2 % More on Repair 2% 14% 3% 8% 4% 3% 7% More on Law Enforcement 2 % 2 % 3% 1 % 3% More on Schools 1 %' 3% 1 % 1 % 2 % 2 % Use Better Judgment 8 % 5 % 7 % 7 % 11 % 5 % Need A New City Council 1 % 3% 1 % 4 % Don't Know 1 No Opinion 36 % 28 % 33 % 30 % 38 % 33 % 37 % Miscellaneous 8 % 11 % 7 % 6 % 10 % 11 % 5 % • 0 LAWRENCE Huntington Beach Voters zfRESEARCH PUBLIC AFFAIRS • MARKETING • Categories Q.88 I note that this is a change from your previous vote. What one thing did you find out that has now caused you to vote Yes on Measure A? (N=34) Party & Zip Code Reps Dams Ind 92646 92647 92648 92649 Small Tax Increase 21 % 8 % 40 % 25 % For Infrastructure 21 % 18 % 50 % 25 % 31 % 25 % Benefits the City 36 % 25 % 8 % Will Be Monitored 8 % Became More Aware - Gen 5 % 27 % 17 % 20 % 25 % Need More Information 16 % 50 % 17 % 15 % Don't Know 1 No opinion 21 % 8 % 15 % 25 % Miscellaneous 16 % 18 % 8 % 15 % 40 % . 0. • Gross Tabulations Page 8 • • LAWRENCE VRESEARCH PUBUC AFFAIRS • MARKETING Verbatim Responses Survey No 1318 Huntington Beach Voters Q.4 What do you feel are two or three of the most important problems in Huntington Beach today -- the ones that you, yourself, are most concerned about? (N=400) Category: Sewer System/Pollution I am most concerned about the water pollution, because I live on the beach, and I am worried about crime and safety. The sewage at the beach is the most important problem. The storm drains and sewer systems are too old, and I'm worried about all of the beach pollution. Water pollution is the biggest problem. There are problems protecting the environment, and over development. I am worried about the ocean pollution, they also don't need the new tax they just put in, it is unconstitutional. I am worried about the sewage, and old lines downtown. Keeping the beach and streets up to par. I'm concerned with the sewer leakage, and also the overall appearance of the city. The beach closures and sand dumping. Sewer lines with contamination, sidewalks cracking and rising, because of tree roots. It's too expensive to live here in the future, and the pollution on the beach is a problem. The sewer systems needs improvement. The streets need repairs, and the beach contamination needs help. The sewers and streets need a lot of attention. There is a lot of beach pollution. They need to fix the road, pot holes, city streets, taxes, the phones, and water. The sewers and streets need repairs. The ocean pollution is bad. Better management of money, and better water. The council cannot make money, and there are sewer problems. Poor ocean water, overdevelopment, and lack of parks. It's overpopulated and the beaches need to be cleaner. LAWRENCE (RESEARCH PUBLIC AFFAIRS • MARKETING Huntington Beach Voters Category: Sewer System/Pollution The ocean pollution is bad. VerbatimResponses] Question; 4 Page: 2 The sewage system and drainage problems. Do something with the power plant, pollution, and flood control. I'm concerned about the wetlands and pollution on the beach as well as lack of open space. The pollution is horrible at the beaches. . The beaches being unclean, and the water being unsafe. School costs are too high. Pollution on beaches. Traffic problems. There are overbuilding, water, and air problems. The beach is a problem because it's closed, and the parking is bad. There is too much pollution on the beach and in the water. Sewer systems are bad, infrastructure needs repair, and education needs improvement. Bad environment, traffic, too many people. Bad sewage, poor education, underground piping, and the wetlands. Pollution and water pollution are our biggest problems. The safety of the water concerns me and also the amount of police to protect us. The traffic is too congested. The water is too polluted to swim in. The environment is in poor condition, Huntington Beach needs cleaner water. Pollution on the beach is bad. I feel there is a water problem in the ocean, and the beach needs to be shut down. The most important problems are the roads and storm drains. There is pollution on the beach and in the water. We have bad water problems. Lack of tax revenue, flooding problems, and traffic. The schools are bad, sewers suck, and crime needs to quit being covered up. Control the beach pollution and sewer system problems. Infrastructure, pollution, city hall. Keep the ocean and beaches cleaner. It's important to fix up the Huntington center. Growth - environment issues. The ocean water is getting bad especially with pollution. The sewer lines are in need of repair. Keep a balance of development with the favor of small town life. Overpopulation and air pollution. New development, ocean pollution, beach trash. • • �.i LAWRENCE cfRESEARCH PUBLIC AFFAIRS • MARKETING Huntington Beach Voters era m esponses Question: 4 Category: Sewer System<Pollutlon Page: 3 Roads are bad, beach safety, holidays, people give a bad publicity. Better handle ralph bower. The city infrastructure needs to improve. The ocean needs to be cleaned up. The beaches are dirty. Parking downtown. Bolsa Chica wetlands. We could probably use more industry. The water situation off our coast needs some attention. I am concerned about the growth and development and our water quality and what they want to do with the wetlands. Sewage in the ocean. Crime downtown. Street lights that don't go off when there is a full moon. it is a waste of electricity. The deterioration of streets and schools. The protection of the environment by the beach and Bolsa Chica. And overbuilding. Water quality, that is the beach water. They need to make the downtown area more user friendly, the police are too aggressive. We need more night life, they close shop at 1 0:00 pm. There is too much development of homes, it is getting overdeveloped. Between the opinions of the police and public. Another issue is OSHA and pollution, they're closing beaches. The expense of parking to go to Main Street. I don't I really have anything that bothers me except that the beaches are dirty. Our water quality. The amount of growth we have. Our severe traffic congestion and I am not too happy with our mayor. Crime and pollution in the ocean. Sanitation. The threat of fires. Property taxes. The sewer system. The pollution in the ocean. Growth. Our water quality, and the pollution of our beaches, and our beaches being closed because of it, and the sewers. Sewers and contamination of the waters. Rowdy kids. Crime on main street, and with beach and water. Sewage in the water. People polluting. Over crowding. The pier area is dirty. We shouldn't develop wetlands. We need to work on getting cleaner water. I haven't really thought about it, but the pollution is definitely a big problem. The sewer system in the downtown area is a problem. The old sewer pipes are collapsing. The streets are in bad shape. The maintenance of the infrastructure. Whether they are making the home owners pay for the repairs to the sewer systems. Also the contamination of the oceans from the sewers. And then always taxes. Destruction of the wetlands. They shouldn't be building the Walmart that they are building. The pollution problem. The sewer system is a major problem. Street maintenance is another problem. LAWRENCE /RESEARCH PUBLIC AFFAIRS • MARKETING Huntington Beach Voters Verbatim espouses Question: 4 Category: Sewer System/Pollution Page: 4 Ficus trees are ma or problem. Roots of trees give everyone plumbing problems and are a pest because they she sap. Sewers get backed up and cause a bug problem. Pollution and contamination. The city cannot find the solution to what it can do to repair and fix the pollution problem. Need to fix the infrastructure. Need to fix the sewage system on the old part of town where there was leakage. Maintain the streets and highways. Pollution, street and sewer problems. Taxes. Sewer. Wetlands. The property. Pollution of the ocean water. Conflict of interest between the politicians and the business owners. Traffic. Pollution on the beach. The high density building they are doing here. The waste water. The waste around the beaches. The infrastructure; the roads really need work. The ocean pollution problem. The running of the sewer system. Traffic is getting too busy. There are too many cars. Corrupt government. Excessive growth.. Pollution. The sewage system is a major problem. Corruption in the City Council is another problem. Water pollution. Beaches. Overdevelopment of housing projects. High cost of living, flooding, and congestion. The biological contaminants in the ocean. The progress on the Huntington Beach mall; it has kind of stalled out because the Burlington Coat Factory doesn't want to redo their building. The building of the sports complex is going well but it is important. The city being in the real estate business. The sewers going too long. Something should be done about the people who park on the streets even when they have garages. I believe that the beach pollution is a big problem. I also believe that there is not enough sales tax. There are too many environmentalists. Pollution of the ocean and beach. Over crowding. Traffic problems are terrible. The wetlands. Also the environmental issues. The down town area parking, and the water. Trying to keep as much of Bolsa Chica wetlands open as possible, pollution at the beach. don't like the street sweeping. It doesn't do an adequate job. It doesn't allow for alternative parking so we get a lot of tickets. We need more restrooms in local parks. The public beaches are frequently closed because of pollution. Huntington Beach needs to work with other cities to fix that problem. We need more opticoms to make the lights change in favor of emergency vehicles. The crime rate is too high. There aren't enough schools in the surrounding area. There is too much environmental pollution. Overcrowding. Traffic getting worse. PCH, Pacific Coast Highway, is always jammed. Water pollution on the beaches. Business taxes are too high. The property taxes contain payment for city employees. Retirement funds which I strongly oppose and would like to have it removed. • is 0 LAWRENCE Huntington Beach Voters Verbatim Responsesl WRESEARCH Question: a PUBLIC AFFAIRS • MARKETING Page: 5 Category: Sewer System/Pollution The water problem. Cleaning the beach up think that our water supply is getting scarcer. The beaches have bacteria making so we can't swim all the time. Ocean pollution, I am not happy with the pipes under the city. I think that infrastructure should be made better. I think that we are starting to overbuild. I think we need to keep the beaches clean. The sewer system, keeping up the parks, and the half percent tax. The pollution in the water. The Sanitation Department. I'm worried about the Banning Bridge. Our sewer system is wearing out. They can spend money on everything but the sewer system. The beach pollution, the people at city hall. Pollution. Sewage problem at beach. Too much development. The environmental beach. Over development. Sewage system. Category: Traffic It takes too much work in schools. Also, people don't follow traffic rules. Over development and traffic are serious problems. The city hall administration, city council, traffic, and school quality. I don't like all of the traffic in Huntington. It makes the air dirty. I worry about the schools and the traffic. Crime rate needs to go down, and traffic is a problem. Overdevelopment and congestion downtown. They are building too many condominiums, which leads to traffic and electricity problems. There is too much traffic. Too many homes are being built too close together. There needs to be an animal shelter. School costs are too high. Pollution on beaches. Traffic problems. There is too much development which causes too much traffic. The congested traffic and parking presents problems in the new shopping center, and the edison plan is causing pollution. The roads are in poor condition. Traffic. Spend less money on useless things. Bad environment, traffic, too many people. Helping downtown, traffic. LAWRENCE %RESEARCH PUBLIC AFFAIRS • MARKETING Category: Traffic Huntington Beach Voters Too much traffic and parking on streets. The traffic is too congested. The water is too polluted to swim in. The schools are falling down, the repair of the streets, and traffic. Too many homes, traffic. Not enough recreation areas for children. Verbatim espouses Question: 4 Page: 6 I am concerned about overbuilding and traffic. Our taxes are unreasonable. Lack of tax revenue, flooding problems, and traffic. There needs to be funding for public schools, home prices are too high, and traffic problems. No more building, traffic, and the Bolsa Chica project. Traffic, trashy kids, slums. Building too fast, traffic. Our water quality. The amount of growth we have. Our severe traffic congestion and I am not too happy with our mayor. Air quality, traffic, and bad neighborhoods. Development needs to go down. The traffic is pretty bad. Traffic keeps getting worse and the roads need to be repaired in the summer. Lots of traffic on Beach Boulevard. Traffic. I can't remember anything else. Too much growth. The infrastructure. The traffic. Over building and traffic. Traffic. Pollution on the beach. The high density building they are doing here. The ocean pollution problem. The running of the sewer system. Traffic is getting too busy. There are too many cars. The main problem for now is for the traffic problems to cleared up. I hate the traffic. The incompetence of City Hall is ridiculous. High cost of living, flooding, and congestion. They are letting too many people into the area. bumper to bumper traffic. They are building too many houses. We have They are overbuilding way too much. They need to do something about the traffic so they don't have to keep overbuilding. I think the overcrowding and congestion is a problem. Not getting help in property taxes to help in the up keep of the city. Pollution of the ocean and beach. Over crowding. Traffic problems are terrible. Overcrowding. Traffic getting worse. PCH, Pacific Coast Highway, is always jammed. Water pollution on the beaches. Business taxes are too high. The property taxes contain payment for city employees. Retirement funds which I strongly oppose and would like to have it removed. • 7 7 LAWRENCE tARESEARCH PUBLIC AFFAIRS • MARKETING Category: Traffic Huntington Beach Voters Verbatim ResponsFsl Question: 4 Page: 7 There are too many people in Huntington Beach. The traffic is horrendous. They need to provide free parking downtown. There are problems with youth running around without guidance. The traffic is bad. There is hardly any open space left. There is too much traffic in the area. There aren't enough policemen to go around. The governor needs to pay more attention to education. Education for the kids, traffic. Lack of traffic congestion, a lot of taxes, and the amount of programs. The traffic needs to be lessened. There needs to be improvement of the streets and highways. I would say the traffic issues. The one area known as Slater Slums. The traffic congestion is real bad to where you don't even dare to go outside at all. The schools are very poor when it comes to education. The traffic is getting out of hand. Category: Infrastructure A lack of real interest in senior citizens, they're building new streets, but not fixing old ones. The city is tax happy, we need new sidewalks and cleanup. The taxes are high and the infrastructure is in bad condition. Roads need improvement, and paint the stripes. Keeping the beach and streets up to par. Sewer lines with contamination, sidewalks cracking and rising, because of tree roots. Improve some roads, bolsa china coming down. The buildings are in poor condition and there's a city council problem. The streets need repairs, and the beach contamination needs help. The sewers and streets need a lot of attention. The school band is failing, and there are bad roads. They need to fix the road, pot holes, city streets, taxes, the phones, and water. The sewers and streets need repairs. These are infrastructure problems. Schools and roads need Improvement, and we need to lower police pay. I think the infrastructure of the town is in serious danger. The roads are in awful condition right now. There are potholes everywhere. Streets need major repairs. The mall is a trash bin and needs to be rebuilt for tourist and locals. 0 LAWRENCE VRESEARCH PUBLIC AFFAIRS @ MARKETING Category: Infrastructure Huntington Beach Voters I am concerned with overbuilding, overpopulation, and the infrastructure. Verbatim Responses Question: 4 Page: 8 There are bad roads and potholes, it's over crowded, and they need to widen the streets. The roads are in poor condition. Traffic. Spend less money on useless things. Sewer systems are bad, infrastructure needs repair, and education needs improvement. The schools are falling down, the repair of the streets, and traffic. Businesses are being run out. Infrastructure is in bad shape. Too many gangs. Better schools, better streets. I don't like all of the holes in the streets. The most important problems are the roads and storm drains. The mail needs improvement, utility taxes are to high, and we need to reduce the streets. Trees. Not enough income tax generating businesses. The infrastructure sucks. We need street repair. There is overgrowth. There's too much over development. The roads are awful. Repairing the old infrastructure. The government is not spending enough money for infrastructure. The infrastructure needs to be worked on. The conditions of downtown and the road conditions. I am worried about the strife in the city council. Wetlands need more protection. Redevelopment in downtown should be improved. Infrastructure, pollution, city hall. Keep the ocean and beaches cleaner. Its important to fix up the Huntington center. Potholes and streets need repairing and too many people. Roads are bad, beach safety, holidays, people give a bad publicity. Better handle ralph bower. The city infrastructure needs to improve. The ocean needs to be cleaned up. There are potholes everywhere and the schools are in very poor condition. The streets into the city. Too much money is wasted in downtown Instead of on the infrastructure. The deterioration of streets and schools. The protection of the environment by the beach and Bolsa Chica. And overbuilding. They need to spend more money on the paving of the streets. The property taxes are too high. The overbuilding. The infrastructure. Traffic keeps getting worse and the roads need to be repaired in the summer. The infrastructure is falling apart. All our roads are messed up and nothing seems to be done about it. Cleanliness and the entire infrastructure. • • 0 LAWRENCE r%RESEARCH • PUBLIC AFFAIRS - MARKETING • is Category. Infrastructure Huntington Beach Voters I Verbatim esponses Question: 4 Page: 9 Our streets are in need of repair. The citizens aren't given a voice on decisions. Especially as far as infrastructure goes. Citizens are not given a voice. Too much growth. The infrastructure. The traffic. Remodeling of the older sections. Infrastructure and street surfacing are key problems. The sewer system in the downtown area is a problem. The old sewer pipes are collapsing. The streets are in bad shape. The maintenance of the infrastructure. Whether they are making the home owners pay for the repairs to the sewer systems. Also the contamination of the oceans from the sewers. And then always taxes. The sewer system is a major problem. Street maintenance is another problem. The one that I am most concerned about is the wall on the side of my house that blocks the street. They won't fix it. I say that the Huntington Beach mail has laid dormant for so many years that the city needs to either rebuild or tear it down. The traffic signs need a lot of improvement. Ficus trees are major problem. Roots of trees give everyone plumbing problems and are a pest because they shed sap. Sewers get backed up and cause a bug problem. Need to fix the infrastructure. Need to fix the sewage system on the old part of town where there was leakage. Maintain the streets and highways. The tennis court on the corner of Ohio. The light at the harbor musical. It's just going to pot. I don't like cutting down Ettinger. It's just a mile of mud and it looks really bad. The school system. With all this stuff about how they are falling apart. They have old pipes and stuff that need repairing. We live near the northern part of Huntington Beach in the Westminster school district. Everyone seems to have forgotten about us. The sidewalks are atrocious, you can't even go for a walk at night or you'll trip. They never clean the sidewalks. We have to call in order to get someone to get out and fix anything. We just don't have a good planning commission in Huntington Beach city hall. Our school system is not good. The teachers are getting despondent. They're terrible children with the trashiest mouths. Most of the mothers are working. The kids are out on the street. I think it's ridiculous to charge $90 to get into the beaches to go swimming. Most families can't afford it. They turned down businesses a while ago. Now they're trying to get them back. Infrastructure. I am having problems with the sidewalks being damaged and nothing is being done about it. It will be 3 to 4 years before they even get around to fixing the sidewalks. The waste water. The waste around the beaches. The infrastructure; the roads really need work. There is over development of housing in the area. Better timing of the traffic signals. They need to be fixing the infrastructure. Streets are terrible. Patch jobs are lousy. They don't take care of trees. I think the overcrowding and congestion is a problem. Not getting help in property taxes to help in the up keep of the city. LAWRENCE efRESEARCH PUBLIC AFFAIRS • MARKETING Category: Infrastructure Huntington Beach Voters The road bridges and the infrastructure. Verbatim Responsfls Question: 4 Page: 10 I think they should leave some open space. There's not enough land around anymore. There are too many golf courses. When I try to go down the sidewalks they have trees and obstructions because elderly people can't get anywhere in their electric carts. I think that infrastructure should be made better. I think that we are starting to overbuild. I think we need to keep the beaches clean. Planning and the infrastructure. They won't fix my curb and gutter. They look for people not wearing seat belts too much. They write tickets for parking in the wrong places too much. Over development. The quality of the roads. The traffic needs to be lessened. There needs to be improvement of the streets and highways. Category: Street tights They need to fix the mall, and the traffic lights going north to south. Sewage in the ocean. Crime downtown. Street lights that don't go off when there is a full moon. It is a waste of electricity. There is over development of housing in the area. Better timing of the traffic signals. They need to be fixing the infrastructure. I don't like the street sweeping. It doesn't do an adequate job. It doesn't allow for alternative parking so we get a lot of tickets. We need more restrooms in local parks. The public beaches are frequently closed because of pollution. Huntington Beach needs to work with other cities to fix that problem. We need more opticoms to make the lights change in favor of emergency vehicles. Category: City Appearance/Cleanline The Mayor isn't doing everything that he needs to keep the city looking nice. Conflict of interest. The city council wants more buildings, but the people just want things to be nicer looking and cleaner. I'm concerned with the sewer leakage, and also the overall appearance of the city. The downtown area is bad, beaches are too populated, and there is inadequate support of the mall. Fix the mall, clean the fields, and a better moral code for the city council. No more shopping in city, dirty. They need to fix the slums. The schools are crowded. Trees. Not enough income tax generating businesses. The infrastructure sucks. The schools are horrible, and they need to stop making this look like san Francisco. • • �J LAWRENCE Huntington Beach Voters I Verbatim Responsesi AR E S EAR C H Question: a . PUBLIC AFFAIRS • MARKETING Page: 11 C: 0 Category: City Appearance/Cleanline Traffic, trashy kids, slums. Air quality, traffic, and bad neighborhoods. Cleanliness and the entire infrastructure. School district. Have to pay for bus rides and we have tax money for it. They are putting up too many homes in my area we are looking very cementy. The downtown area use to have more character we kind of have lost it. More open spaces. I think they should leave some open space. There's not enough land around anymore. There are too many golf courses. When I try to go down the sidewalks they have trees and obstructions because elderly people can't get anywhere in their electric carts. The condition of the downtown area. They need to bring in more business. The bushes along Warner Avenue lose their leaves all the time and there is no maintenance to clean them up. Too many lights. I would say the traffic issues. The one area known as Slater Slums. There's a shopping track around here that needs to be renovated. It takes down the value of the local houses. The developers should clean it up, it's on the corner of Adams and Brookhurst. The school system is poor. The quality of stores in downtown is bad. Our mini malls should be in the ghetto area. They look very bad. Schools are in pretty bad shape, main street is looking a little classy. Restaurants etc. Category: Parking Downtown is becoming more dangerous, the parking is too expensive, and the crime is going up. They need more parking spaces at the beach. The beach is a problem because it's closed, and the parking is bad. The congested traffic and parking presents problems in the new shopping center, and the edison plan is causing pollution. They shouldn't close the parking at the beach. They need more money for police, fire department, and schools. Too much traffic and parking on streets. I have problems with parking and with wildlife refuge becoming too commercialized. I am concerned for the Bolsa Chica land trust, I want it to stay wetland. The parking downtown is horrible. The beaches are dirty. Parking downtown. Solsa Chica wetlands. Between the opinions of the police and public. Another issue is OSHA and pollution, they're closing beaches. The expense of parking to go to Main Street. LAWRENCE c%RESEARCH PUBLIC AFFAIRS @ MARKETING Category: Parking Huntington Beach Voters Verbatim Responsesl Question: 4 Page. 12 The city being in the real estate business. The sewers going too long. Something should be done about the people who park on the streets even when they have garages. The down town area parking, and the water. I don't like the street sweeping. It doesn't do an adequate job. It doesn't allow for alternative parking so we get a lot of tickets. We need more restrooms in local parks. The public beaches are frequently closed because of pollution. Huntington Beach needs to work with other cities to fix that problem. We need more opticoms to make the lights change in favor of emergency vehicles. There are too many people in Huntington Beach. The traffic is horrendous. They need to provide free parking downtown. Not enough business. Rules are too strict on businesses. Residences should be able to park downtown for free. Category: Overdevelopment Over development and traffic are serious problems. There are problems protecting the environment, and over development. Over building and the population. Over development is a huge problem. There is over development and poor city planning. They need to control the budget better, they are taxing illegally, and there is too much development. Poor ocean water, overdevelopment, and lack of parks. Overdevelopment and congestion downtown. I think that they are building too many educational buildings. I am worried about downtown development, like the new wal-mart. We have a money hungry city council. All the land is being overdeveloped. The overdevelopment and the destroying of the wetlands. Overdevelopment is a problem, as is teacher pay. They are building too many condominiums, which leads to traffic and electricity problems. I am concerned with overbuilding, overpopulation, and the infrastructure. There is too much traffic. Too many homes are being built too close together. There needs to be an animal shelter. There are overbuilding, water, and air problems. There is too much development which causes too much traffic. Lack of soccer fields, there is too much overdevelopment. Too many homes, traffic. Not enough 'recreation areas for children. 0 • 0 LAWRENCE ARESEARCH PUBLIC AFFAIRS , MARKETING Category: Overdevelopment Huntington Beach Voters Verbatim esponses Question: 4 Page: 13 Lack of development. I am concerned about overbuilding and traffic. Our taxes are unreasonable. There's too much over development. The roads are awful. No more building, traffic, and the Bolsa Chica project. The mall needs to be fixed, quit building resorts. The ocean water is getting bad especially with pollution. The sewer lines are In need of repair. Keep a balance of development with the favor of small town life. New development, ocean pollution, beach trash. Building too fast, traffic. I am concerned about the growth and development and our water quality and what they want to do with the wetlands. The deterioration of streets and schools. The protection of the environment by the beach and Bolsa Chica. And overbuilding. Crime. The development of downtown has a lot of confusion. Water quality, that is the beach water. They need to make the downtown area more user friendly, the police are too aggressive. We need more night life, they close shop at 10:00 pm. There is too much development of homes, it is getting overdeveloped. Overcrowding, too much development, education. Every time that you turn around they are looking for another way to get more money out of us. Too much construction downtown. The overbuilding. The infrastructure. Development needs to go down. The traffic is pretty bad. I am concerned about the school system and the too fast development of the area. Overdevelopment. The over development of housing. There isn't enough trees and green space. There aren't enough public schools. Destruction of the wetlands. They shouldn't be building the Walmart that they are building. The pollution problem. They need more improvement. They're only building houses and not building enough commercial establishments. They need to get rid of the fire pits at the beach areas. Over building and traffic. Traffic. Pollution on the beach. The high density building they are doing here. There is too much development and it is too commercialized. Water pollution. Beaches. Overdevelopment of housing projects. There is over development of housing in the area. Better timing of the traffic signals. They need to be fixing the infrastructure. LAWRENCE MESEARCH PUBLIC AFFAIRS • MARKETING Category: Overdevelopment Huntington Beach Voters Verbatim Kesponsesl Question: 4 Page: 14 They are letting too many people into the area. They are building too many houses. We have bumper to bumper traffic. They are overbuilding way too much. They need to do something about the traffic so they don't have to keep overbuilding. There is a problem with impacted housing and expensive cost of living. And too much of a homogeneous area in central huntington beach. don't feel that they are taking into account into the people who live here and they're too concerned with the tax revenues and they're building too much houses. School district. Have to pay for bus rides and we have tax money for it. They are putting up too many homes in my area we are looking very cementy. The downtown area use to have more character we kind of have lost it. Eminent domain. Our City Council members are bad. Overdevelopment. Density. Over building in Huntington Beach. More city issues with a certain City Council member. The wetlands. I am most concerned about overbuilding. I do not approve of the mayor and the board. They are going in the wrong direction. Overpopulation. Too many apartment complexes. Inspection projects too expensive. The schools are in bad condition. Too much housing. I think that infrastructure should be made better. I think that we are starting to overbuild. I think we need to keep the beaches clean. There are too many homes being built and not enough businesses. The taxes are too high. More - golf courses to bring in revenue. Over development. The quality of the roads. I don't have too many problems. The police. They're building too much downtown. I appreciated that the police didn't harass people downtown on the Fourth of July. They're trying to stop people from Flying banners over the beach. I don't think that's right because they have a lot of other things downtown that make a lot of noise too. Too much development. The environmental beach. Over development. Sewage system. Category. Growth/Overcrowding They need to stop the growth. The city is over crowded, and too commercial. Over building and the population. The downtown area is bad, beaches are too populated, and there is inadequate support of the mall. The city focuses more on money than the residents, also over growth is bad. • �J 0 LAWRENCE efRESEARCH 4DPUBLIC AFFAIRS • MARKETING Category: Growth/Overcrowding Huntington Beach Voters Verbatim Responses Question: 4 Page: 15 It's overpopulated and the beaches need to be cleaner. I am concerned with overbuilding, overpopulation, and the infrastructure. There are bad roads and potholes, it's over crowded, and they need to widen the streets. There is an overgrowth and too many tourists. Bad environment, traffic, too many people. I don't like the overgrowth, the damage that is here started because of it . We need street repair. There is overgrowth. The city and streets are too crowded. The taxes are too high and we're becoming over crowded. Growth - environment issues. Overpopulation and air pollution.. Potholes and streets need repairing and too many people. am concerned about the growth and development and our water quality and what they want to do with the wetlands. It's getting overcrowded. l� Overcrowding, too much development, education. Every time that you turn around they are looking for another way to get more money out of us. Our water quality. The amount of growth we have. Our severe traffic congestion and I am not too happy with our mayor. The sewer system. The pollution in the ocean. Growth. Sewage in the water. People polluting. Over crowding. I don't like the growth. The crime is getting worse. Too much growth. The infrastructure. The traffic. Corrupt government. Excessive growth. Pollution. They are letting too many people into the area. They are building too many houses. We have bumper to bumper traffic. I think the overcrowding and congestion is a problem. Not getting help in property taxes to help in the up keep of the city. Pollution of the ocean and beach. Over crowding. Traffic problems are terrible. Density. Over building in Huntington Beach. More city issues with a certain City Council member. The wetlands. Overpopulation. Too many apartment complexes. Inspection projects too expensive. Overcrowding. Traffic getting worse. PCH, Pacific Coast Highway, is always jammed. Water pollution on the beaches. Business taxes are too high. The property taxes contain payment for city employees. Retirement funds which I strongly oppose and would like to have it removed. LAWRENCE MESEARCH PUBLIC AFFAIRS • MARKETING Category: Growth/Overcrowding Huntington Beach Voters I -Verbatim espouses Question: 4 Page: 16 There are too many people in Huntington Beach. The traffic is horrendous. They need to provide free parking downtown. I don't like the crowded streets. The overpopulation of the area. That's the only thing I can think of. Category: Too Many Businesses The city is over crowded, and too commercial. The city council should keep businesses out of Huntington Beach. The city is trying to encourage unneeded business. I have problems with parking and with wildlife refuge becoming too commercialized. The City Council is not listening to public opinions. The City Council is only interested in money and business. They don't care about the home owners, only the business. Not for the citizens. There is too much development and it is too commercialized. Category: Bolsa Chica/Wetlands The development of the wetlands. Improve some roads, balsa china coming down. The balsa china and the power plant. I'm concerned about the wetlands and pollution on the b6ach as well as lack of open space. The overdevelopment and the destroying of the wetlands. Bad sewage, poor education, underground piping, and the wetlands. We need more sports facilities for kids. I am also concerned with the development of the wetlands. I am concerned for the Balsa Chica land trust, I want it to stay wetland. The parking downtown is horrible. They should build homes on the wetlands, and zone changes. No more building, traffic, and the Balsa Chica project. Wetlands need more protection. Redevelopment in downtown should be improved. The beaches are dirty. Parking downtown. Balsa Chica wetlands. I'm happy to see increase in education reports. Kids doing better. I read a lot in the Thursday's part of paper, wave edition. Juvenile delinquency. I'm a strong advocate of keeping the wetlands together. I am concerned about the growth and development and our water quality and what they want to do with the wetlands. • is 0 ft • 0 LAWRENCE ✓%RESEARCH PUBLIC AFFAIRS • MARKETING Category: Bolsa Chica/Wetlands Huntington Beach Voters VerbatimResponses] Question: 4 Page: 17 The deterioration of streets and schools. The protection of the environment by the beach and Balsa Chica. And overbuilding. The pier area is dirty. We shouldn't develop wetlands. We need to work on getting cleaner water. Destruction of the wetlands. They shouldn't be building the Walmart that they are building. The pollution problem. Taxes. Sewer. Wetlands. The wetlands. Also the environmental issues. Trying to keep as much of Balsa Chica wetlands open as possible, pollution at the beach. There is too much building on wetlands. Density. Over building in Huntington Beach. More city issues with a certain City Council member. The wetlands. Preserving Balsa Chica wetlands. Making sure that police and fire departments get sufficient pay. Protecting the wetlands from development. Category: City Government A lack of adequate police force. We have a stupid city council. The city hall administration, city council, traffic, and school quality. The Mayor isn't doing everything that he needs to keep the city looking nice. Conflict of interest. The city council wants more buildings, but the people just want things to be nicer looking and cleaner. Political things, taxed on wrong things. The government isn't doing as good of a job, as they were in the past. I'm concerned about new council members. The buildings are in poor condition and there's a city council problem. The council is screwing us, they won't give us what we want and need. There is over development and poor city planning. The council cannot make money, and there are sewer problems. The city council is only concerned with redevelopment, and the police need a fair wage. We have a money hungry city council. All the land is being overdeveloped. The people involved in government need to change, we need big businesses to come in. Fix the mall, clean the fields, and a better moral code for the city council. The city council is too contract -oriented. They don't have enough parks and soccer fields. The conditions of downtown and the road conditions. I am worried about the strife in the city council. LAWRENCE /RESEARCH PUBLIC AFFAIRS • MARKETING Category. City Government Huntington Beach Voters Verbatim espouses Question: 4 Page: 18 Infrastructure, pollution, city hall. Our water quality. The amount of growth we have. Our severe traffic congestion and I am not too happy with our mayor. Whether the city government will have the foresight to keep everything good. The City Council is not listening to public opinions. The City Council is only interested in money and business. They don't care about the home owners, only the business. Not for the citizens. I'd like to see the property tax lowered . It's a pretty damn nice town. Just get rid of the crooked politicians. I don't like the City Council. I don't like what they are trying to do with the fire department. They are also trying to change the police station to a security building. We have a bad City Council. The property. Pollution of the ocean water. Conflict of interest between the politicians and the business owners. The City Council is concerned only with downtown and not with the rest of the city. Corrupt government. Excessive growth. Pollution. The sewage system is a major problem. Corruption in the City Council is another problem. I'm concerned about the city government. I hate the traffic. The incompetence of City Hall is ridiculous. I think that the City Council lacks listening to the public on an issue of Walmart, and I think there was poor planning involved. The congestion on the beach on Goldenwest. The unaffordable housing. I am also not very fond of the City Council. They spent all our money inappropriately. Eminent domain. Our City Council members are bad. Overdevelopment. Density. Over building in Huntington Beach. More city issues with a certain City Council member. The wetlands. I am most concerned about overbuilding. I do not approve of the mayor and the board. They are going in the wrong direction. I am concerned with the dissension in the council meetings. Not enough pay for police. The city should rid of the topless bars. The City Council doesn't always have public in mind The beach pollution, the people at city hall. Politicians and the city attorney are problems. The police are overly aggressive. The fact that the mayor is playing musical chairs. Lazy traffic division and police department. Law against excessive noise against exhaust pipes. is • is LAWRENCE ARESEARCH PUBLIC AFFAIRS * MARKETING Huntington Beach Voters I verbatim espouses Question: 4 Category. Government Spending Page: 19 They are not enforcing speed limits, not giving enough money for schools, and not keeping the streets in correct shape. The government spends too much money. The police salaries are too high, downtown is just trying to make money with parking and everything. The city focuses more on money than the residents, also over growth is bad. They need to control the budget better, they are taxing illegally, and there is too much development. Better management of money, and better water. Schools and roads need improvement, and we need to lower police pay. The city council is only concerned with redevelopment, and the police need a fair wage. I have concerns about the police department getting too much money. Overdevelopment is a problem, as is teacher pay. The roads are in poor condition. Traffic. Spend less money on useless things. They shouldn't close the parking at the beach. They need more money for police, fire department, and schools. Too much money has been spent on the plants on beach boulevard. The priorities are all wrong, they need to be more careful with money. The energy plant is too loud, taxes should be used to improve schools. The government is not spending enough money for infrastructure. The streets into the city. Too much money is wasted in downtown instead of on the infrastructure. They need to spend more money on the paving of the streets. The property taxes are too high. The funding for city things whether it's for infrastructure, police and fire services, beach pollution, or pollution from our expanded power plant. I wonder how they're going to pay for it. Spending money. Doing it wisely. Don't waste their money. The City Council is not listening to public opinions. The City Council is only Interested in money and business. They don't care about the home owners, only the business. Not for the citizens. I am concerned that the council is still collecting a tax that has been declared illegal. i don't think they have the proper spending priorities. Spending money on the right projects. The city being in the real estate business. The sewers going too long. Something should be done about the people who park on the streets even when they have garages. The congestion on the beach on Goldenwest. The unaffordable housing. I am also not very fond of the City Council. They spent all our money inappropriately. I am concerned with the dissension in the council meetings. Not enough pay for police. The city should rid of the topless bars. Our sewer system is wearing out. They can spend money on everything but the sewer system. L_J LAWRENCE c%RESEARCH PUBLIC AFFAIRS • MARKETING Category: Government Spending Huntington Beach Voters Verbatim espouses Question: 4 Page: 20 0 The school system the money that should have been spent on schools is not being spent there. The park system we need baseball diamonds soccer fields football stadiums and skateboard parks that should be allover the community not just in one place. Preserving Bolsa Chica wetlands. Making sure that police and fire departments get sufficient pay. Category: Taxes The taxes are high. The city is tax happy, we need new sidewalks and cleanup. I am worried about the ocean pollution, they also don't need the new tax they just put in, it is unconstitutional. The taxes are high and the infrastructure is in bad condition. Political things, taxed on wrong things. They need to fix the road, pot holes, city streets, taxes, the phones, and water. The taxes are way too high. There are problems with illegal taxes, and schools need improvement. I am only concerned about tax increases. They need to control the budget better, they are taxing illegally, and there is too much development. Relying on taxpayers to pay everything. I am concerned about overbuilding and traffic. Our taxes are unreasonable. The mall needs improvement, utility taxes are to high, and we need to reduce the streets. Lack of tax revenue, flooding problems, and traffic. The taxes are too high and we're becoming over crowded. Overcrowding, too much development, education. Every time that you turn around they are looking for another way to get more money out of us. They need to spend more money on the paving of the streets. The property taxes are too high. Sanitation. The threat of fires. Property taxes. The crime and high taxes. The maintenance of the infrastructure. Whether they are making the home owners pay for the repairs to the sewer systems. Also the contamination of the oceans from the sewers. And then always taxes. Taxes. I would like to see the gun range opened or built. They are taxing me to much and I'm retired. I'm having a hard time staying in my home. The utilities are too high. They are going to tax me to death before I die. I'd like to see the property tax lowered . It's a pretty damn nice town. Just get rid of the crooked politicians. • 0 LAWRENCE ARESEARCH PUBLIC AFFAIRS m MARKETING Category: Taxes Taxes. Sewer. Wetlands. Huntington Beach Voters I Verbatim Responsesi Question: 4 Page: 21 I am concerned that the council is still collecting a tax that has been declared illegal. I don't think they have the proper spending priorities. I think the overcrowding and congestion is a problem. Not getting help in property taxes to help in the up keep of the city. I believe that the beach pollution is a big problem. I also believe that there is not enough sales tax. There are too many environmentalists. I don't feel that they are taking into account into the people who live here and they're too concerned with the tax revenues and they're building too much houses. School district. Have to pay for bus rides and we have tax money for it. They are putting up too many homes in my area we are looking very cementy. The downtown area use to have more character we kind of have lost it. Overcrowding. Traffic getting worse. PCH, Pacific Coast Highway, is always jammed. Water pollution on the beaches. Business taxes are too high. The property taxes contain payment for city employees. Retirement funds which I strongly oppose and would like to have it removed. The sewer system, keeping up the parks, and the half percent tax. Taxes, I resent the fact they tax us so much. . There are too many homes being built and not enough businesses. The taxes are too high. More golf courses to bring in revenue. Lack of traffic congestion, a lot of taxes, and the amount of programs. I think that tax revenue is a problem, because we need more revenue. I didn't really like the shopping center. Category: Economy/Need Businesses They need to decide what to do with the mall, and we need more work opportunities. It's too expensive to live here in the future, and the pollution on the beach is a problem. Lack of base of income, and we need more businesses. School costs are too high. Pollution on beaches. Traffic problems. The people involved in government need to change, we need big businesses to come in. There is a lack of upscale resale, they need more upscale stores. Businesses are being run out. Infrastructure is in bad shape. The housing prices are too high. Trees. Not enough income tax generating businesses. The infrastructure sucks. There needs to be funding for public schools, home prices are too high, and traffic problems. We could probably use more industry. The water situation off our coast needs some attention. 0 LAWRENCE ARESEARCH PUBLIC AFFAIRS • MARKETING Huntington Beach Voters I verbatim Responsesl Question: 4 Category: Economy/Need Businesses Page: 22 They need more improvement. They're only building houses and not building enough commercial establishments. They need to get rid of the fire pits at the beach areas. The lack of sales tax base and commercial property that generates sales tax. High cost of living, flooding, and congestion. The land fill needs some attention. The cost of living is too high. I think that the police are too aggressive. There is a problem with impacted housing and expensive cost of living. And too much of a homogeneous area in central huntington beach. The congestion on the beach on Goldenwest. The unaffordable housing. I am also not very fond of the City Council. They spent all our money inappropriately. We're not getting enough big businesses like costco. We need more money and commerce. Some of the new homes are too expensive for our young people. They should be lower priced and they should be available to everybody. Overpopulation. Too many apartment complexes. Inspection projects too expensive. Not enough business. Rules are too strict on businesses. Residences should be able to park downtown for free. The condition of the downtown area. They need to bring in more business. Lack of income from commercial sources. There are too many homes being built and not enough businesses. The taxes are too high. More golf courses to bring in revenue. Category: Electricity / Power Plant The electricity is bad, there are some blackouts. The bolsa china and the power plant. Do something with the power plant, pollution, and flood control. They are building too many condominiums, which leads to traffic and electricity problems. The congested traffic and parking presents problems in the new shopping center, and the edison plan is causing pollution. The energy plant is too loud, taxes should be used to improve schools. The power plant on Newland and PCH, I am concerned about the environment because of the power plant, Category: Elderly / Senior Citizens A lack of real interest in senior citizens, they're building new streets, but not fixing old ones. • • 0 LAWRENCE MESEARCH isPUBLIC AFFAIRS • MARKETING • C� Huntington Beach Voters er a m espo"yes Question: 4 Category: Elderly / Senior Citizens Senior citizens need more benefits. Category: -Lack of Recreation Page: 23 Poor ocean water, overdevelopment, and lack of parks. Lack of soccer fields, there is too much overdevelopment. We need more sports facilities for kids. I am also concerned with the development of the wetlands. The city council is too contract -oriented. They don't have enough parks and soccer fields. Too many homes, traffic. Not enough recreation areas for children. The kids need places to play. We really need police and firemen. We really need sports facilities for our youth. Water quality, that is the beach water. They need to make the downtown area more user friendly, the police are too aggressive, We need more night life, they close shop at 10:00 pm. There is too much development of homes, it is getting overdeveloped. The over development of housing. There isn't enough trees and green space. There aren't enough public schools. Taxes. I would like to see the gun range opened or built. More space for sports facilities. The school system the money that should have been spent on schools is not being spent there. The park system we need baseball diamonds soccer fields football stadiums and skateboard parks that should be allover the community not just in one place. Category: The Mail They need to fix the mall, and the traffic lights going north to south. They need to decide what to do with the mall, and we need more work opportunities. The development of downtown is slow, fix the mall. The downtown area is bad, beaches are too populated, and there is inadequate support of the mall. Streets need major repairs. The mall is a trash bin and needs to be rebuilt for tourist and locals. I think that the mall is in bad condition and needs to be repaired. Fix the mall, clean the fields, and a better moral code for the city council. The mall needs improvement, utility taxes are to high, and we need to reduce the streets. The mall needs to be fixed, quit building resorts. We need to have our own central mall looking better. LAWRENCE (RESEARCH PUBWC AFFAIRS • MARKETING Category. The Mail Huntington Beach Voters Verbatim esFonses Question: 4 I'd like to get something done at the mall. Page: 24 I say that the Huntington Beach mall has laid dormant for so many years that the city needs to either rebuild or tear it down. The traffic signs need a lot of improvement. The biological contaminants in the ocean. The progress on the Huntington Beach mall; it has kind of stalled out because the Burlington Coat Factory doesn't want to redo their building. The building of the sports complex is going well but it is important. Category: Schools / Education It takes too much work in schools. Also, people don't follow traffic rules. The city hall administration, city council, traffic, and school quality. The police feel as if they're above the law, and the 6th grade shouldn't be in jr high. The school band is failing, and there are bad roads. I worry about the schools and the traffic. There are problems with illegal taxes, and schools need improvement. Schools and roads need improvement, and we need to lower police pay. Sewer systems are bad, infrastructure needs repair, and education needs improvement. Bad sewage, poor education, underground piping, and the wetlands. Education is not as good as it should be. The crime rate is rising. There are too many skinheads. The schools are falling down, the repair of the streets, and traffic. Too many gangs. Better schools, better streets. They need to fix the slums. The schools are crowded. There needs to be funding for public schools, home prices are too high, and traffic problems. The schools are horrible, and they need to stop making this look like san francisco. The schools are bad, sewers suck, and crime needs to quit being covered up. There are potholes everywhere and the schools are in very poor condition. Overcrowding in schools. I'm happy to see increase in education reports. Kids doing better. I read a lot in the Thursday's part of paper, wave edition. Juvenile delinquency. I'm a strong advocate of keeping the wetlands together. The deterioration of streets and schools. The protection of the environment by the beach and Bolsa Chica. And overbuilding. Overcrowding, too much development, education. Every time that you turn around they are looking for another way to get more money out of us. Golden West College. Incompetent instructors. He's still employed. He taught 18 weeks of the wrong class. • • 0 LAWRENCE MESEARCH PUBLIC AFFAIRS • MARKETING Category: Schools / Education Huntington Beach Voters I Verbatim Respouses Question: 4 Page: 25 I am concerned about the school system and the too fast development of the area. The over development of housing. There isn't enough trees and green space. There aren't enough public schools. Education would definitely be one of them. I'm not sure what else. The school system. With all this stuff about how they are falling apart. They have old pipes and stuff that need repairing. School district. Have to pay for bus rides and we have tax money for it. They are putting up too many homes in my area we are looking very cementy. The downtown area use to have more character we kind of have lost it. The crime rate is too high. There aren't enough schools in the surrounding area. There is too much environmental pollution. Lack of proper educational facilities, that's about it. There is too much traffic in the area. There aren't enough policemen to go around. - The governor needs to pay more attention to education. The schools are in bad condition. Too much housing. The closing of schools. The school system the money that should have been spent on schools is not being spent there. The park system we need baseball diamonds soccer fields football stadiums and skateboard parks that should be allover the community not just in one place. Education for the kids, traffic. The school system is poor. The quality of stores in downtown is bad. Our mini malls should be in the ghetto area. They look very bad. Schools are in pretty bad shape, main street is looking a little classy. Restaurants etc. The schools are very poor when it comes to education. The traffic is getting out of hand. Category: Crime / Safety I am most concerned about the water pollution, because I live on the beach, and I am worried about crime and safety. Downtown is becoming more dangerous, the parking is too expensive, and the crime is going up. The police feel as if they're above the law, and the 6th grade shouldn't be in jr high. There needs to be better law enforcement. I think the police are crazy. Crime rate needs to go down, and traffic is a problem. Education is not as good as it should be. The crime rate is rising. There are too many skinheads. The safety of the water concerns me and also the amount of police to protect us. 0 LAWRENCE oIhESEARCH PUBLIC AFFAIRS • MARKETING Category. Crime / Safety Huntington Beach Voters I am just concerned about crime. Too many gangs. Better schools, better streets. I am concerned about gangs and home invasion. The kids need places to play. We really need police and firemen. The schools are bad, sewers suck, and crime needs to quit being covered up. lVerbatim Responsesi Question: 4 Page: 26 Drugs and children are a problem. I want to see the police and firemen get their contracts signed. Sewage in the ocean. Crime downtown. Street lights that don't go off when there is a full moon. It is a waste of electricity. Crime. The development of downtown has a lot of confusion. Gangs and natural stuff. I don't know of any problems except a small amount of graffiti. Crime and pollution in the ocean. My biggest concern is bicycle safety on pacific coast highway. Crime on main street, and with beach and water. I don't like the growth. The crime is getting worse. Law enforcement. The attitude of the police department. They are very arrogant. The crime and high taxes. Safety of schools. Safety of road rage. How people treat'others. The crime rate is too high. There aren't enough schools in the surrounding area. There is too much environmental pollution. Crime. The laws in the courts are the biggest problem and not the enforcers. Then the crime could be reduced in the areas where it is worse. There is too much traffic in the area. There aren't enough policemen to go around. The governor needs to pay more attention to education. There is a lot of homeless people in the area. At night things happen behind the school in the park and the young people do drugs, stay up late and talk loud. Crime. Burglaries. The homeless people need shelters a place to go to so they are not wandering the streets. We have crime in the area. Like petty crime. Category: No Problems/No Concerns The city doesn't have any problems right now. • • 0 LAWRENCE ARESEARCH PUBLIC AFFAIRS @ MARKETING Huntington Beach Voters Category: No Problems/No Concerns I really don't think that there are any problems right now. There aren't any major problems right now. I can't think of any major problems that our city has right now. I think things are going just fine. I think that things are going pretty well. I am not concerned with anything at this point. I'm not really worried about too much right now. There are not any major problems. I really don't think there are any problems. We really don't need to worry about anything right now. I'm not concerned about anything. The city can handle it. I haven't encountered any problems just yet. I don't know of any important problems in Huntington Beach. don't have any problems that 1 am really concerned about. I don't see any problems. 1 don't have any problems. No problems. Nothing. It all seems to be in order. No problems really. I'm really not that concerned about anything. I am a senior and I don't get out that much. I am not aware of problems. I have no concerns or problems. Their is not a whole lot I am concerned about. I don't have any problems. i haven't noticed any problems. Category: Don't Know/ No Opinion Verbatim esponses Question: 4 Page: 27 I have never thought about it. I don't know what needs work, the cities already working on so much stuff right now. I don't know. l have not really given it much thought, I don't get out much. 0 LAWRENCE ARESEARCH PUBLIC AFFAIRS • MARKETING Huntington Beach Voters Category: Don't Know/ No Opinion No comment. I can't think of anything. I don't have any feeling on that at all. don't really have any opinion on that. Category: Miscellaneous Verbatim Respon.ses Question: 4 Page: 28 I'm worried that the town is out of control. The city is already working on fixing things right now. They don't pay enough attention to the northern part of Huntington Beach. No open freedom to the beach. Stores going out of business. I don't get out much . Everything seems pretty fine to me. They charge too much for beach passes. Concerned with the day in and day out things. I don't like what they're doing on these sports complexes by the library. They need to listen to the voice of the people. • • L-1 LAWRENCE Huntington Beach Voters I Verbatirri-Responses M E S EAR C H Question: 36 PUBLIC AFFAIRS • MARKETING Page: 29 Q. 36 And what are two or three reasons why you have an unfavorable impression of the Citizens Infrastructure Advisory Committee? (N=28) Category: Misc The city has not done a good enough job. They take too long to fix things. They have bad behavior outside of work. They are not telling us the complete story of both sides. They are a waste of time. Nobody pays much attention to them. There are a lot of ineffective changes. They are always just picking on people. They build too fast and are not set up to handle all the people. They should do a better jab all around, no one cares about the school. I have a bad impression of them because of what's going an right now with infrastructure. They are not moving fast enough. I don't like the way it's being run, and the citizens don't have any say. They are too interested in the sea cliff and downtown. They don't consider the rest of the city. They all have ego problems and try to take care of their areas. They stick their noses into too much bullshit. It doesn't seem like much is getting done around here. Our sidewalks are messed and need repairs and the trees need replanting. I feel that they are strongly influenced by the City Council. City Council doesn't seem to listen to them. Lack of direction. Lack of strong policies to move forward. They are arguing too much over how to improve the infrastructure. 1 don't know much about them. They didn't build a park area for so many homes. I don't disapprove strongly. I don't think that they need to take money out of our taxes. I just don't like the direction they are going in such as overbuilding and overtaxing. I think that they could be doing more for the people. They do a lot of taking and don't get a lot done. People aren't listening to public needs. They listen to the city needs instead. I think that the rules are too strict. They need to be more open minded and listen to people that live there. There always fighting. They never get anything done. They need to just make up there minds, Is LAWRENCE RESEARCH PUBLIC AFFAIRS • MARKETING Category. Mfsc Huntington Beach Voters We rbatim esponses Question: 36 Page: 30 I think that the infrastructure has been let go to long and that is why we are having problems today with the sewer system and the drains and the problems with the ocean, etc. Taking homes from people for redevelopment. They exaggerate little issues into big ones. Blow the smoke screen. The sewer system cover up. We've had a sewer problem for the last couple years. The politician knew about it and didn't let the state know. It's fraud. 0 • 0 LAWRENCE Huntington Beach Voters I Verbatim Responsesi ARESEARCH Question: 39 PUBLIC AFFAIRS s MARKETING Page: 31 Q. 39 And what would be two or three of the main reasons why you would vote (definitely/probably) Yes? (N=33) Category. It Is Needed I would vote to remove trees and to help school guards. There are other things to do, other than infrastructure. I would vote to help improve my community. The city needs help anywhere they can get it. To help the infrastructure and to provide more job opportunities. I want to help improve the city any way I can. l have heard that thing needed to be fixed. City needs help. Improvement needs to be made. To make sure that things were repaired and approved and things could be overseen. It sounds like it is needed. The infrastructure is decaying. We need to have it repaired. They need to do something. This is a good step in getting it done. I am in favor of those things. Rebuild the city's infrastructure. Maintaining the city buildings. It has to be done and the city is losing money for having the beach. I think it is needed. Category: Infrastructure Needs Help Any way of improving the infrastructure is a good thing. Infrastructure is important everywhere. To help the infrastructure and to provide more job opportunities. I would vote to improve the roads and beaches. The water and the sewers and the beaches. it sounds like it is needed. The infrastructure is decaying. We need to have it repaired. It could be improved. They need to keep Huntington Beach up. I am in favor of those things. Rebuild the city's infrastructure. Maintaining the city buildings. The infrastructure needs to be financed. 0 LAWRENCE WRESEARCH PUBLIC AFFAIRS • MARKETING Huntington Beach Voters Category: Infrastructure Needs Help verbatim esponses Question: 39 Page: 32 The infrastructure system is falling apart. The infrastructure is important and updating it is also important. I would like to have no potholes in the streets. I would like fresh trees. Clean streets and working streetlights and shopping centers that are respectable would be good. Category: Tax Is Not Too Much The taxes need to be raised to help improve the city. You must spend to receive, I don't own my own property, so I don't mind if they tax more. My husband works for the sewer system, if there is money needed then get it. It's not that much money and we need to improve the community. I would be happy to help, I have no problem paying taxes. It's not that much money and it consistently needs to be improved. If you don't fix it now it's going to cost a lot later on. I can write it off the assessment for my taxes. It's about time to do it. Category: It Will Get Worse If you don't fix it now it's going to cost a lot later on. I can write it off the assessment for my taxes. It's about time to do it. Category: Don't Know/ No Opinion i don't know. Category: Miscellaneous It irritates me that they don't have money. 7 • 0 LAWRENCE Huntington Beach Voters I Verbatim Responsesl efR E S EAR C H Question: 40 isPUBLIC AFFAIRS + MARKETING Page: 33 0.40 And what would be two or three of the main reasons why you would vote (definitely/probably) No? (N=963) Category: It Is Not Needed It's not required, no more taxes. It would be outrageous to pay that much more in taxes, for something that is not necessary. Schools need the money more than roads or sewers do. I don't feel that is a top priority in the city right now. I don't think that it is necessary. We don't need any improvement on the highways so why pay property tax. If its adequate why spend more money on it. Why pay more taxes on something we don't need. Things are fine so it would be a waste of money. The city has enough money and doesn't need to raise taxes. Category: Money Is Wasted They waste money, and they need to ground the helicopter. We are over taxed now, the city's not spending money prudently, and the city council is unconfident. Don't raise taxes, they just need to use our tax money more wisely. We spend too much money as it is. Our city is spending too much money in other areas. All they want is more tax money, when they don't even know what to use it for. I can't trust the people in the government, the money won't be spent properly. The taxes are too high, they should just spend money wisely and there would be no need for the raise. They don't take care of the money they have now, use it properly. A lot of money that's overspent. They're too busy spending money in places other than where it should be. The citizens are not there to see if they are carrying out the decisions being made. The new tax is high also. I would oppose raising taxes. They need to put aside lower priority improvements and take care of the infrastructure. Too much taxing. Stop taxing. They have too much money and they don't use it wisely. 0 LAWRENCE (RESEARCH PUBLIC AFFAIRS • MARKETING Category: Money Is Wasted Huntington Beach Voters Verbatim Responses Question: 40 Page: 34 The city spends the tax money more wisely. I don't think they do a good job with the money that they currently have. I don't like what they do with the money now. The politicians don't need any more. I am not so sure that the city is spending wisely. I feel they have enough funds in the budget to take care of this issue. They have plenty of money. Allocate it more wisely. We're already being taxed. They need to spend more wisely. I am not sure where all our tax money goes but I think they should prioritize their tasks. Take care of what is needed first. I don't have time for that. They've exhausted all their spending in the wrong places. We have to vote on it to see if we get another tax. The city of Huntington Beach gets a lot of money already because of the tourism. I just think that we make a lot of money on tourism I don't know where they spend their money but they make a lot. Category: No More Taxes The economy isn't doing very well right now, and the average person can't afford a tax increase. I can't pay that much more a year, taxes are already too high as they are. The taxes are too high already. It's not required, no more taxes. We are over taxed now, the city's not spending money prudently, and the city council is unconfident. We don't need anymore taxes. Don't raise taxes, they just need to use our tax money more wisely. We are taxed too much already. It would be outrageous to pay that much more in taxes, for something that is not necessary. We already have enough property taxes. The city has already taxed us to death, this is just one more reason to screw us. I don't believe the property tax should be to people that own, it should be based on the people that use the facilities. No more taxes. It would not benefit me, no reason to pay that much. We are being illegally taxed, so I wouldn't support them. I don't like the idea of more taxes. We don't need anymore taxes. • • 0 LAWRENCE ARESEARCH PUBLIC AFFAIRS a MARKETING Category. No More Taxes Huntington Beach Voters I don't want to pay more taxes. I don't want the city to raise the taxes too high. I don't like the idea of a tax increase. don't like taxes. The taxes are already too high. It would be too high of a tax increase. The taxes are already high enough as it is. VerbatlM Kesponsesl Question: 40 Page: 35 All they want is more tax money, when they don't even know what to use it for. I couldn't afford to pay more taxes. We pay quite a bit of taxes already. I am retired and I don't need to pay taxes. The taxes are too high, people can't afford them, they're always asking for more money. We keep getting taxed more and more and I'm tired of it. People pay enough in taxes already, I don't need to pay more if I don't even own land. . There are too many taxes, get funds from state or federal government. The taxes are hard on retired seniors, and young people just starting out. The taxes are high enough, they aren't doing good with what they have. The taxes are high enough, the senior citizens don't have enough to pay for it. The taxes are too high, they should just spend money wisely and there would be no need for the raise. There are too many taxes already, they should use bonds instead. We don't want our taxes to go up. We don't need our taxes raised at all. My kids don't even have enough money for a home, so a tax increase would be bad. I don't want taxes to go up. More money out of my pocket. We have to pay for everything, the taxes go up every day. This is one more reason for them to tax. Don't raise the property tax too high. Property tax is too high as it is. They have enough money, property tax is not the way to go. No property tax. Tax price too high already. 0 LAWRENCE IRESEARCH PUBLIC AFFAIRS • MARKETING Category: No More Taxes Huntington Beach Voters I Verbatim Responsesl Question: 40 Page: 36 I don't think it sounds like a good -idea to raise taxes. It calls for too much money, there's already enough in the funds. They are taking enough money now. With the state, federal,and city taxes as high they are they should be doing the best for the city with what they have. Against increase of taxes. We are taxed too much. They are taking enough taxes already. Property taxes are already high enough and it's not fair. Fixed income people can't handle higher property taxes. I don't want to see my property taxes go up. If we are going to have to do those things it should be spread out where everybody pays their fair share. The cost is too high. No more taxes. l am absolutely and totally against anything that would even remotely suggest that our taxes will be raised. I do not care what it is for I do not want any more taxes. I'm already paying too much. We don't have control over what they do with the money. The citizens are not there to see if they are carrying out the decisions being made. The new tax is high also. Enough taxes, and other cities don't get taxed higher. The suggested tax increase is too high. We already pay enough taxes. They should find other alternatives to get money. We are overtaxed as it is. with that our taxes would even go up higher. I would oppose raising taxes. They need to put aside lower priority improvements and take care of the infrastructure. Too much taxing. Stop taxing. They have too much money and they don't use it wisely. We don't need any improvement on the highways so why pay property tax. If its adequate why spend more money on it. Why pay more taxes on something we don't need. Tax increase. They will raise property taxes. I'm retired and I don't need any more taxes. The taxes, the trees, and the streets. The city has handled money badly in the past and our paying more taxes isn't going to change that. We don't need any more taxes. We pay enough taxes now. We don't need to pay for city employees' retirement. Don't want to pay any more taxes. Pay enough now. The businesses need a tax base for the city. The city taxes the small businesses to the point that they have to close and then the tax burden is put off on the residents. A • • • Is LAWRENCE c%RESEARCH PUBLIC AFFAIRS • MARKETING Category., No More Taxes Huntington Beach Voters Verbatim espouses Question: 40 To much taxation, there are always other ways to raise money than just the tax payer. Page: 37 The increased property taxes. The property taxes are already too high. They have to repair and increase the schools, buildings, and instructors. The high schools and middle schools especially need major repairjobs. Before the infrastructure they should work on the schools. Especially the 4ceanview School District. They need to build new classrooms and have a decent lab environment, like classes. And portables should be removed and the proper buildings with the proper classrooms should be built. I feel I am already overtaxed and I can't afford to pay any more. If they are on a fixed income like me. Mow all the prices are raising it would be hard for people to live here. I vote against anything that raises the taxes. There would be an increase in taxes. My taxes would double since I own a mobile home and business. We're already being taxed. They need to spend more wisely. Taxes are already too high. I don't want my property taxes raised, that's it. I would need to know more about it, I am not one to vote for more taxes on residential people. Things are fine so it would be a waste of money. The city has enough money and doesn't need to raise taxes. I need more information, it's increase is too high. Because I want the tax rate right now. I don't want any change on the current property tax for higher. The tax increase. I hardly ever vote for those types of issues. I don't like tax increases of any kind. 1 don't want to increase taxes. I don't want money to go to a general fund, because there is no control over what is going to be used for. I do not want to pay more taxes. We have enough taxes as it is hard enough to get by. Category. Use Existing Funds We have a general fund to take care of that stuff. The funding is already there, they don't need it. They need to work within their budget, the school district has been neglected. The money should come out of the city budget. There is mismanagement by the city council. They should work it into the budget. There are too many pensions. LAWRENCE /RESEARCH PUBLIC AFFAIRS * MARKETING Category: Use Existing Funds Huntington Beach Voters Taxation already in place to cover it. . They have enough money to pay for it. I don't know enough about it. They have enough money, property tax is not the way to go. It calls for too much money, there's already enough in the funds. Verbatim esponses Question: 40 Page: 38 We have money. They are asking for too much money. Mismanagement of monies they already have. I want people to realize the money they have. They already have enough money to solve the problem themselves. The infrastructure is a city requirement. It would be a special city requirement if passed. I am not so sure that the city is spending wisely. I feel they have enough funds in the budget to take care of this issue. The funding methods in place are sufficient. The schools are in more - dire need of funds. Until the city has shown proof that it has evaluated other funding sources. They have plenty of money. Allocate it more wisely. Things are fine so it would be a waste of money. The city has enough money and doesn't need to raise taxes. We have to vote on it to see if we get another tax. The city of Huntington Beach gets a lot of money already because of the tourism. I just think that we make a lot of money on tourism l don't know where they spend their money but they make a lot. I don't want to increase taxes. I don't want money to go to a general fund, because there is no control over what is going to be used for. Category: Won't Benefit Me It would not benefit me, no reason to pay that much. I don't see where it will help me. Category: Poor City Management We are over taxed now, the city's not spending money prudently, and the city council is unconfident. They need to get rid of all the council who do nothing. Measure a doesn't seem fair. If the council would budget better, there could be more money instead of taking it from the people. The money should come out of the city budget. There is mismanagement by the city council. I can't trust the people in the government, the money won't be spent properly. • 0 • Is L.AWRENCE Huntington Beach Voters MESEARCH PUBLIC AFFAIRS • MARKETING Gategory: Poor City Management Verbatim espouses Question: 40 Page: 39 The taxes are high enough, they aren't doing good with what they have. A good proportion of it is how they are allocating it, it is more of the county's problem than ours, we aren't the only ones who use roads. They are taking enough money now. With the state, federal,and city taxes as high they are they should be doing the best for the city with what they have. We have money. They are asking for too much money. Mismanagement of monies they already have. I'm already paying too much. We don't have control over what they do with the money. It is too much money. There aren't enough controls. We don't know who is accountable. The city never uses the money properly. I'd rather see money go to schools. The schools are in horrible shape. The buildings are not good. The city has enough money already. They just need to put it in the right direction, I don't think they're using the money now properly. I think the money will be used to take care of the rich. They have a rickety old senior center. The city should have been planning on it a long time ago before the jobs got out of hand. It is a job for city employees to be working on, not the people. The city has handled money badly in the past and our paying more taxes isn't going to change that. Category. It Isn't Fair It's unfair to be spending that much money. Measure a doesn't seem fair. If the council would budget better, there could be more money instead of taking it from the people. Make the tax the same for people in trailers. It isn't fair for some to pay less. The level of tax increase, that high a tax for business is unfair. Gated communities should pay the same. Property taxes are already high enough and it's not fair. All need to be taxed equally. I don't want to see my property taxes go up. If we are going to have to do those things it should be spread out where everybody pays their fair share. You've left out gated communities and mobile home parks. They use just as much water and sewer as everybody else. Everybody should pay their share. That will really hurt the businesses. Having to pay that much per acre per year will really hurt them. I don't mind paying a little more for my home to get things done. But business are usually on a larger lot and that could hurt them. LAWRENCE ARESEARCH PUBLIC AFFAIRS • MARKETING Category: It IsnI Fair Huntington Beach Voters Verbatim espouses Question: 40 Page: 40 The gated residents getting a lower tax is not fair. I think the taxes for business are too, might discourage business to stay here especially if they have too pay three to eight thousand every year. I don't think it is fair to tax certain people more than others. I think everyone should be taxed the same. I don't think people living on a busy street should be taxed more for improvements than people living in a less populated area. Category. Get Funds Elsewhere Invest in other ways, rather than raise taxes. Come up with a different way to get funds, every city should pay to help out. There are too many taxes, get funds from state or federal government., The funding process. There are other sources for funds, both state and federal. We need to develop more sales tax revenue. They can find money elsewhere. The suggested tax increase is too high. We already pay enough taxes. alternatives to get money. To much taxation, there are always other ways to raise money than just Too much money. Category. Need More Information I would want to learn more about it first, before I voted for it. I would want to learn more about it, and the costs involved. I don't know very much. I would like to do more research on the topic Lack of information. They should find other the tax payer. I need more information on it to make a good decision. I would need to know more about it, I am not one to vote for more taxes on residential people. I need more information, its increase is too high. Category: Don't Know / No Opinion None that I can think of. • • LAWRENCE c✓%RESEARCH PUBLIC AFFAIRS • MARKETING Category: Miscellaneous Huntington Beach Voters I Verbatim Response. Question: 40 Page: 41 Let them go to long without checking the infrastructure damage, they've already let it go this long. 1 don't think there are enough funds right now. No more development. We have put too much stuff downtown and making things bigger won't help any. I thought they were going to charge a monthly charge. I don't trust bond issues very much. 11 .7 LAWRENCE Huntington Beach Voters I Verbatim Responsesl ARESEARCH Question: 41 PUBLIC AFFAIRS • MARKETING Page: 42 Q.41 And what would be two or three of the questions you would first want to have answered before you could decide how to vote? (N=4) Category: Mlsc I want an outline of the project and what it would mean for citizens living in mobile home parks and public areas. See what they are doing. See if I like what they are doing. I would also want them to be honest. What infrastructure they are thinking about and what and where it is. I need more info. • 0 LAWRENCE Huntington Beach Voters Verbatim Responsgs /RESEARCH Question. 44 PUBLIC AFFAIRS , MARKETING Page: 43 Q.44 Think about the first measure you voted on --Measure A. What would be two or three of the main reasons why you would vote (definitely/probably) Yes on Measure A? (N=38) Category: It is Needed 1 own land, and it would benefit me personally. It's needed, you can't ignore what you can see. Anything to improve the city is a good thing. I believe it would be a good thing for the city. They have to allow for development improvement. I want to improve conditions in Huntington Beach. Need the improvement, they should clear programs for money. I want to help out. I'm aware of the problems that the city is having with the sewer and I'm willing to pa my part. I'm concerned about flooding in my area so anything that will help maintain that I'm all for. The roads Is are being exposed to more traffic than I think they planed for. They need to be updating that. It would make the sewers better. I also think that it would improve public facilities. I believe the city needs road and sewage repair. Funds are needed for this project. It will improve the city of Huntington Beach. It will make the city of Huntington Beach more attractive to all people. The work needs to be done and paid for. We need to take care of the problem and taxpayers should pay for it. Category: Infrastructure Needs Help Healthy infrastructure is valuable. I would do anything to improve streets and housing. They need to do things about infrastructure. If that's what it's going to take to fix the infrastructure. We really need to improve the infrastructure and this tax seems like a fair tax. Its sounds like an on going project to keep the infrastructure going. It is up and It is always there. I think that Plan B is only there once in a while. I just think it is important to keep the streets and sewers updated and if not enough money, we need to raise it . 0 L.,AWRENCE Huntington Beach Voters I Ver6allim Responsesi efR E S EAR C H Question: 44 PUBLIC AFFAIRS • MARKETING Page: 44 Category: Infrastructure Needs Help It would be helping to improve the infrastructure. I would like to seethe whole impact over 20 year period before deciding completely. I don't want this city to fall apart. I want it to keep improving. Specifically the things you listed. I want to see the infrastructure improved. Because it is an 80 year old system. The city structure needs repairs. Category: Tax 1sn7 Too Much The amount of money to fix the city would be raised. I am glad that my taxes are fairly low now. Taxes are too high. We really need to improve the infrastructure and this tax seems like a fair tax. Citizen review audit. Money not out of control. It is less money than measure b and I do not believe in emergency tax measures, they do not exist it would be a tax that would never stop. There would the possibility of misappropriation of funds. Its not that much of an increase. We need to get money from somewhere. It is our responsibility to vote for those.things. The tax has to be fair for the people. I'm aware of the problems that the city is having with the sewer and I'm willing to pa my part. I'm concerned about flooding in m area so anything that will help maintain that I'm all for. The roads are being exposed to more traffic than I think they planed for. They need to be updating that. Just because the money is therefor that reason so you have a steady income stream to finance repairs. I just think it is important to keep the streets and sewers updated and if not enough money, we need to raise it. We need to take care of the problem and taxpayers should pay for it. Category: It Will Get Worse The condition will only get worse, so it needs to be fixed. Category: Don't Know/ No Opinion Nothing. LAWRENCE c%RESEARCH PUBuC AFFAIRS • MARKETING Huntington Beach Voters I Ve-fFaflm Responsesj Question: 44 Category: Don Y Know/ No Opinion I really don't know what to vote yet. Category. Miscellaneous • • Page: 45 LAWRENCE Huntington Beach Voters Verbatim Responses RESEARCH Question: 45 PUBLIC AFFAIRS • MARKETING Page: 46 Q.45 Think about the first measure you voted on -- Measure A. What would be two or three of the main reasons why you would vote (definitely/probably) No on Measure A? (N=154) Category: It Is Not Needed Huntington's already so nice compared to everywhere else and the city already has enough money. I don't think it's necessary. They need to concentrate on important issues. The infrastructure isn't that bad. They're doing a good job with money now. Need funds for schools. Category: Money Is Wasted There's money in the city, they can find to take care of those things. Until the city can do things more efficiently, they should not have a property tax increase. They just want more money, all the money would just be in a grab bag. 1 don't like that they're always trying to raise our taxes. They should just spend more wisely. I think the city has wasted their money already. I don't think those in control right now have been spending their money wisely, so why would I give them more. I think the city should learn how to use the money they have better. If they would handle tax payers money better, we wouldn't have this problem. I think the money will be wasted by the city. They need to reevaluate their spending before they ask us for more money. I really don't understand why they keep taking money from us, and then they don't use it wisely. I'm on a fixed income and can't pay more taxes. The city spends way too much money. Paying for it for years and nothing has been done. They spend too much money. The City Council is not wisely handling the funds they already have. They already have the money but they spend it in the wrong places. More taxes and the committees don't do anything at all anyway. The committees are just a waste of time and money. Taxes are too high and the misuse of taxes. • • 0 LAWRENCE MESEARCH PUBLIC AFFAIRS • MARKETING Category: Money Is Wasted Huntington Beach Voters Verbatim Responses Question: 45 Page: 47 I'm not opposed to a tax increase but to take care of infrastructure but I do think that I need to know how they'll spend it. The taxes are too high and the city spends money badly. Category: No More Taxes They need to budget and not raise taxes. It's not necessary to raise our taxes. Huntington Beach is collecting illegal taxes. I don't like the idea of putting the power to raise taxes, in the hands of the city council. I don't want taxes raised at all, just make repairs with the money you have. The taxes are too high now. Until the city can do things more efficiently, they should not have a property tax increase. The taxes are too high already. They don't need any more taxes, they need to learn to work within their budget. Not crazy about taxes. Businesses need to pay their fair share. It would increase the tax which would mean more money. I pay my taxes to help schools and give police higher pay. Not through property taxes, it's the wrong way to raise money. I don't like the increase in taxes. The cost in general. They are already collecting property taxes. I don't trust them if they are raising our taxes. Everyone should pay taxes, not just the property owners. Not an important measure. We need to fix damaged areas not raise taxes. I don't like that they're always trying to raise our taxes. They should just spend more wisely. I don't want the city to raise taxes. We are already over taxed, find other ways to get funds. Property taxes are way too high already! Because why should I pay $300 more a year if I don't own property? I think it's too much money to be asking for. I don't own land and I already pay enough in taxes. The taxes are high enough now. LAWRENCE /RESEARCH PUBLIC AFFAIRS • MARKETING Category: No More Taxes Huntington Beach Voters Verbatim Responsem Question: 45 Page: 48 I don't want higher taxes when the city should budget better. I don't think they need to charge taxpayers even more they need to get the money elsewhere. I would vote no because only people on the public street would be taxed. The amount of tax is also a factor. Taxes are ridiculous already. Raising taxes would be bad. We need to use more money on parks. We do not need a tax increase. They get enough taxes already. Not an important reason to pay higher taxes. Taxes needed to be used for repairing. Don't want to pay taxes per acre. We already have plenty of taxes. I don't want an increase in our taxes. We pay enough. I just don't want higher taxes. Not necessary to impose on property holders. I need more information before I say okay to this. That's way too much money. They should just take the money they already have and use that to fix things. That is way too much of an increase. I'm weary of property taxes. We have enough property taxes. I don't own property and the tax is too high. I really don't want to pay more taxes right now. It should be a sales tax. Makes Huntington Beach less attractive. I think there's too much tax already, lack of citizen control. I'm on a fixed income and can't pay more taxes. The city spends way too much money. I don't want my taxes raised. The city's not that big to demand more taxes for sewers when the schools are falling apart. It's not fair that the gated communities aren't taxed equally. The property taxes are too high. Too much money. Every time we are in a bind they take out a bond and stick the public as being the only option. I'm still open for other options for making those infrastructure improvements. City is so resource -rich, to take care of those things they could find another way. We just defeated a bond for the school that was for way less, if it was too much more it would be just too much for me to bear. Everyone should have to pay, it shouldn't matter what you live as long as you're a citizen of Huntington you should have to help pay. I cannot take any further taxes, I have all I can handle. • • 0 • 0 LAWRENCE ARESEARCH PUKIC AFFAIRS • MA12KETING Category: No More Taxes Huntington Beach Voters I verbatim esponses Question: 45 Page: 49 don't want to give any more of my money away. Tax increases, I am very likely to be not in favor of tax increases. The city already owes us money. It's in litigation right now. I am against all the taxes. I'm not going to live another 20 years and I would like to have enough money to feed myself. Tax increases. It's just an extra burden on everybody's income. They should lower the salary of the government officials. It is a tax increase and I don't want any for any reason. I don't think that the city of Huntington Beach needs to raise property taxes. They make enough already that they should be able to handle the infrastructure problem with the money they already have. I would not reelect anyone that supported the property tax increase. I would not vote for them in any future elections either. Enough money comes into this city that we have no need to raise taxes. The taxes are already way too high and there is so much money coming into this city. If they don't have enough money, then they are not handling the finances right. I do not believe in letting politics raise real estate taxes. I do not believe in the property tax increase. The city needs to reevaluate the budget. There's already too many taxes. The elderly like my mother cannot afford it. Usually it is the city who wants it but I don't. We really need it at all. Already too high and I don't want them to be higher. They're already taxing the hell out of us. Property and sales taxes are too high. They are very corrupt and I wouldn't trust them with my money. I don't like the city increasing the taxes. We are t)eing taxed too much. We are not getting the use of our existing tax dollars. First of all 1 don't like the idea of establishing a new tax authority which is what would happen and there is no accountability on their behalf and the advisory group really has no say. The taxes are already too high on a per unit basis. The increase in the property taxes are not needed and the increases in the business property taxes are outrageous. I think that people are being taxed enough as it is. And even though it is not a large amount, it is a burden. I think that there are state funds available for this. Paying higher taxes is not for me. I will vote against it. I am retired and have a tight budget. So I wouldn't support anything that caused me to pay out more money. I don't want our taxes raised. Huntington Beach makes enough money on its own to repair the infrastructure. I'm not sure what the infrastructure people would do because we have been paying enough taxes. I don't vote for the raising of the taxes. I would have to spend time thinking about this measure if it were on the ballot. LAWRENCE WRESEARCH PUBLIC AFFAIRS • MARKETING Category: No More Taxes Huntington Beach Voters Verbatim espouses Question: 45 Page: 50 More taxes and the committees don't do anything at all anyway. The committees are just a waste of time and money. We already paid enough taxes. I think they should tax the power plants and the other contributors for the problems the city is having. Property taxes are ridiculously high now. There's more than just the residents here that benefit from the infrastructure. The tax that they put on is too high to me. That was the main reason. They think that the city should have been doing it all along. They don't want to pay anymore taxes. I think that it is a strong tax to begin with and hope we don't have to pay A. I think that it May not even be possible, because of the two percent increase yearly. Taxes are too high arid the misuse of taxes. Because we're already taxed enough. The city has enough of our money. I think it leads the city more money to spend. Keep away from taxes. 1 think that the city could have more money in other places with out having to raise property taxes. The main reason that I would vote no on Measure A is because they are trying to get around something that they began. I don't want my property taxes increased I pay enough already I don't feel an obligation to pay anymore. Because the taxes are already too high. I don't feel the need more taxes. They are messing with property tax again. The City Council finds ways to raise taxes. No need to increase taxes not in that bid of need that I know of. It is a exorbitant in tax. It is very expensive to the residence and business owners. The taxes are too high and the city spends money badly. There is no clear definition on what the money will be used for. Higher taxes. More taxes is more bullshit. They're all lawyers and they're all crooks. When there is anything to do with the taxes I don't vote at all. I would want a little more information before I decide. I think the tax increase they are asking for is too high. Category: Use Existing Funds They need to budget and not raise taxes. I don't want taxes raised at all, just make repairs with the money you have. I think they can cut funding in other areas and use it for repairs. They don't need any more taxes, they need to learn to work within their budget. • 0 • is LAWRENCE (RESEARCH PUSUC AFFAIRS • MARKETING Category: Use Existing Funds Huntington Beach Voters Verbatim espouses Question: 45 Page: 51 They need to use the money they have. The city is already getting enough money. They can get money out of management. Huntington's already so nice compared to everywhere else and the city already has enough money. That's way too much money. They should just take the money they already have and use that to fix things. They have money. Why don't they use it? I think they should have enough money from what they have. They should also manage it better. They city already has money that should be used for that purpose. They are already cheating me out of my retirement money. I don't think that the city of Huntington Beach needs to raise property taxes. They make enough already that they should be able to handle the infrastructure problem with the money they already have. I would not reelect anyone that supported the property tax increase. 1 would not vote for them in any future elections either. Enough money comes into this city that we have no need to raise taxes. The taxes are alreadyy way too high and there is so much money coming into this city. If they don't have enough money, tF�en they are not handling the finances right. I feel that there are funds there. I don't agree with the way the city has been spending money. If they hadn't spent money in other areas, they would have money to take care of this. They already have the money but they spend it in the wrong places. Money should come out of existing funds. I don't want our taxes raised. Huntington Beach makes enough money on its own to repair the infrastructure. They think that the city should have been doing it all along. They don't want to pay anymore taxes. Category: Won't Benefit Me It won't benefit me. Category: Poor City Management I don't want higher taxes when the city should budget better. We need to use more money on parks. We do not need a tax increase. I think they should have enough money from what they have. They should also manage it better. I do not believe in letting politics raise real estate taxes. I do not believe in the property tax increase. The city needs to reevaluate the budget. I feel that there are funds there. I don't agree with the way the city has been spending money. If they hadn't spent money in other areas, they would have money to take care of this. LAWRENCE Huntington Beach Voters I VerbatIM Kesponsesl IR E S EAR C H Question: 45 PUSUC AFFAIRS • MARKETING Page: 52 Category: Poor City Management They're already taxing the hell out of us. Property and sales taxes are too high. They are very corrupt and I wouldn't trust them with my money. The oversight of citizens has no power if the city blows all the money. If the city would just use the money appropriately they wouldn't have to raise taxes. What is the city doing with the 2 million dollars they got for the power increases. Why is the peoples prices still going up. Bill Gow up twice as much why does city need to keep up taxes very wealthy community. Because the City Council is corrupt. I would like to know in detail who the people are who run it. I don't trust the people in those positions now. Category: It Isn't Fair Not crazy about taxes. Businesses need to pay their fair share. Everybody should be responsible. The mobile home and gated areas don't have to pay as much as public houses. I don't like the 20 year time period limit. I don't like the money differences between businesses and residences. I don't want my taxes raised. The city's not that big to demand more taxes for sewers when the schools are falling apart. It's not fair that the gated communities aren't taxed equally. I'm not sure that big business should have to shoulder that much. Maybe larger companies would be able to do it. I don't think 1'd go for the 20 year deal. I don't think that only the landowners should have to pay more. Everyone should pay the taxes instead of just the landowners. Equal opportunity for everyone. Discrimination of the middle class. Unfair to people in gated communities. The increase in the property taxes are not needed and the increases in the business property taxes are outrageous. Property taxes are ridiculously high now. There's more than just the residents here that benefit from the infrastructure. We all need to pay, not just some of us. Category: Get Funds Elsewhere I don't think that the city is using their heads. They need to find new sources of revenue. We are already over taxed, find other ways to get funds. I don't think they need to charge taxpayers even more they need to get the money elsewhere. The city should drive businesses for more money. • • 0 LAWRENCE /RESEARCH PUBLIC AFFAIRS • MARKETING Category: Get Funds Elsewhere Huntington Beach Voters Verbatim esponses Question: 45 Page: 53 They can take the funds out of the illegal retirement funds that they had a while ago. Feds should be in charge. Cities should not be responsible for tax increases. They are going up the wrong tree. Tax increases. 1Ys 'ust an extra burden on everybody's income. They should lower the salary of the government officials. Most of the problems would be with new development or new people moving in. They should pay the price or all new taxes. I think that people are being taxed enough as it is. And even though it is not a large amount, it is a burden. I think that there are state funds available for this. We already paid enough taxes. I think they should tax the power plants and the other contributors for the problems the city is having. I think that the city needs to get more businesses in the area to get taxes to pay for the infrastructure. I think that the city could have more money in other places with out having to raise property taxes. Category: Need More Information I would want to know more about the business being taxed, and more about the measure itself. I would have to do more research on it. I would like to know the difference in why some properties would pay less than others. I would like to know if the citizens community is elected or appointed. I would like to know just exactly how the money going to be spent. The twenty years of time. I would need to know more about the Independent committee. I have to have more facts and an understanding of this measure so I could be persuaded. There is no clear definition on what the money will be used for. Higher taxes. I would want a little more information before I decide. I think the tax increase they are asking for is too high. Category, DonY Know/ No Opinion No comment. Category: Miscellaneous They need to rebuild the infrastructure and develop the city slower. I think there are too many loop holes. 9 LAWRENCE efRESEARCH PUBLIC AFFAIRS • MARKETING Category: Miscellaneous Huntington Beach Voters I verbatiM Risponses Question: 45 They need to focus on education and street damage. How they would stack the advisory committee. Who would be on that committee. Page: 54 Because mainly the quality of life here, which has to do more with streets, and they're growing too fast and they need to preserve the area. We build these things to get more tax revenue and it destroys the infrastructure. Things should have been taken care of all along. • LAWRENCE Huntington Beach Voters I Verbatirri Responseil AR E S EAR C H Question: 46 PUBUC AFFAIRS • MARKETING Page: 55 Q. 46 Think about the first measure you voted on -- Measure A. What would be two or three of the questions you would first want to have answered before you could decide how to vote on Measure A? (N=8) Category. Misc What's the money for, who is in charge? I can't think of which way I would want to go. I need to hear more information first. I'm still undecided on the issue. No opinion. I am not sure they'll spend the money for what they say. If its for all citizens. Equality of payment. I would want to know what other avenues their are for payment. Is it a true tax improvement. • 0 LAWRENCE Huntington Beach Voters Verbatim esponses cfR E S EAR C H Question: 47 PUBLIC AFFAIRS 6 MARKETING Page: 56 140 Q. 47 If the city's infrastructure does not get repaired or improved, what would be the things that would happen -- the things that you, yourself, would be most concerned about? (N=400) Category: Will Get Worse The roads will fall apart, there will be more accidents, and health levels will go down. Our streets would fall apart, and sewers would leak. More street damage and beach pollution. This is a loaded question, the infrastructure would get worse. The roads would be a major problem. There is a problem with sink holes in the streets, and the city council needs to get real work. I would be worried about having street repairs. The condition of the roads would deteriorate. The streets will die. I think the traffic is going to get worse and the roads won't be able to handle it. Pot holes and street graffiti will only get worse. I worry that the school buildings are going to get worse and the sewers are going to leak. I'm concerned about the leaks in the sewers a lot and roads are in horrible condition. I think if things don't get taken care of, that the roads are just going to get worse. The condition of the roads and damage they would cause to my car. Streets need repairing, too many potholes, and sewers need fixing. I would be worried that the streets and schools would get worse. The schools will break down, and the roads will fall apart. I'm not sure, but I'm sure the city won't be getting any better. I would be concerned with water quality, street conditions, and traffic. There would be flooding, poor water, and street repairs. The road conditions will deteriorate, the sidewalks would suffer too. I think the city would fall apart. The quality of the city streets, the overall quality of the city. The general maintenance will be poor, and the appeal of the city will decrease. Streets would fall apart, parks would not be clean and safe. The roads would get even worse. Roads, sewer, beach pollution. �J LAWRENCE c%RESEARCH . PUBLIC AFFAIRS • MARKETING Category. Will Get Worse Huntington Beach Voters Flooding for sure, and poor city street maintenance. Verbatim Responsesl Question: 47 Page: 57 I guess damage to my vehicles, and damaged roads. The sewage system would go to heck. The streets are bad enough now so they would get much worse. The collapse of sewer lines which would cause the street to collapse. The quality of the streets would go down with less maintenance. Sewage systems, water and roads. The city would fall apart, the buildings are in terrible condition. I hate to see the roads go to hell. We need clean water with no pollution. It would collapse. It has to be maintained, but the cost is way too high. A lot of potholes and nothing would get fixed. There wouldn't be any gutters. Flooding. Also the streets would continue to get worse. Continued pollution. Deterioration. The system would become dysfunctional. It will get improved but hypothetically speaking, it will make the beauty worse. Streets curbs gutters sidewalks pollution. . I am concerned about the health conditions created. There would be severe deteriorating. I'd be concerned that property values would drop. The city would deteriorate. Mainly the roads would suffer the most. Streets would disintegrate. They would be unsafe. Damage to the streets. Water problem. If all those things are not repaired then they obviously are going to get worse. 1 think the sewers would get bad. They seem to be doing good right now but would go back to it being worse. The infrastructure not getting any better. The streets would deteriorate. It would get worse, and when we do get around to it, it would be more expensive to fix it and pollution Is a big problem too. The streets going bad. I don't think any health hazards would exists, but road damage would be a hazard. Category. City Quality Will Decline There are not too many problems in my neighborhood, but downtown has become too overpopulated and trashed. is LAWRENCE eIRESEARCH PUBLIC AFFAIRS • MARKETING Huntington Beach Voters Verbatlm espouses Question: 47 Category: City Quality Will Decline Page: 58 I would be concerned with the overall appearance of the city. The city will go nowhere but downhill. I'm kind of worried that we won't be able to attract new businesses, because the city will be dumpy. I would be concerned about the residents lifestyle and attracting businesses. I think the oceans are going to get polluted. Also, I think the city will start looking trashy. Run down buildings are too common, just wear and tear over time. Pollution on the beach will continue, and businesses will shut down. Downtown would fall apart. No businesses will come. The quality of the city streets, the overall quality of the city. The general maintenance will be poor, and the appeal of the city will decrease. Downhill track of the city's situation. The condition of Huntington Beach would decline if they did not improve things. Wed become a crumbling, crappy place to live. We need drainage. The city won't be as enjoyable or efficient unless infrastructure is improved. I think the city would turn ugly, like la. The city will crumble. Accidents and an unattractive look. Ugly city and waste of money. The air pollution would get worse and the environment won't look as nice. Certainly the quality of life would change. The water and the beach would continue to be polluted. The degradation of the public buildings would cause physical and psychological damage to citizens. Downtown and pollution. It would degrade the quality of our ocean water and it would drastically affect our city's tourism. It would be run down more, like a lower. dwelling. I'm concerned about the appearance how we look aesthetically compared to other cities. The city would look ugly and nobody would want to live over here. lose jobs because of unattractiveness for businesses. They -need to keep the sewer system up otherwise we will have sanitation problems. There needs to be more trees. Pollution of the ocean. General degrading of life if things are not in good condition . It would be a less pleasant place to live. There would be an over population. It would decrease the property value and lower quality of life. l worry we'd get more transients through because I can see it now even in our area. • • 0 • • LAWRENCE Huntington Beach Voters tfRESEARCH PUBLIC AFFAIRS • MARKETING Category: City Qualify Will Decline er a m esponses Question: 47 Page: 59 The city would not be able to handle the weather conditions. The city would all go down hill. I would move. I think everyone would move who could. I would be gone. I have no idea. Obviously the quality would go down. The city would get rundown and might look dilapidated and I think that the taxes that we pay should be enough to help for anything to get repaired in the city. I'd be concerned that property values would drop. The city would deteriorate. Mainly the roads would suffer the most. It is going to cost more in future. Appearance of the city. Pollution of beaches. Wildlife. The water because of sewer problems. I believe overflowing would occur in homes and parks. There would be overpopulation because of all the new homes being built. Won't keep it clean. If I saw my city become a real dump, I would find myself moving to another location. Just general deterioration in the city and its quality. They would become run down. I wouldn't find Huntington Beach an enjoyable place to live. I would either move or make my voice heard if it got too bad. Category: Decline in Property Value The property value will go down if things are taken care of soon. Property values are going to go down. There would be more accidents, people won't take care of property and move away. Sewer system needs improvement. Property value will go down. Public health and safety, property value would decline. We would have lower property values. Ultimately the cost would be higher to fix it later after it is destroyed. Property would be near impossible to sell. Businesses would drop, and none would come. It would decrease the property value and lower quality of life. I'd be concerned that property values would drop. The city would deteriorate. Mainly the roads would suffer the most. The value of homes and safety for our children and environmental problems. Value of my land will decrease. Greater pollution. LAWRENCE ARESEARCH PUBLIC AFFAIRS • MARKETING Huntington Beach Voters Category. Public Safety/ Accidents Verbatim Responses Question: 47 Page: 60 Children would get stuck in vehicles, in heavy traffic, and it would be rough going by drains. The water. The sewer system would get more destructed and broken down. There would also be more traffic accidents. The roads will fall apart, there will be more accidents, and health levels will go down. There would be over crowding, pollution problems, and auto accidents. Health issues with water, and hazardous curbs. More over crowding, resulting in more accidents. I would be concerned about the safety of the city's infrastructure. I would be worried about the roads and car accidents. The injury and damage to citizens would be a problem. My concern would be public safety, these needs to be more firefighters and police. It would cause flooding, poor water sanity, and earthquake hazards. Safety would be a major problem. There would be more accidents, people won't take care of property and move away. : There will be development problems, and safety problems. The pipes could break, the general safety of the public would be threatened. More accident health and welfare for the city. I would worry about pollution and safety. Streets would fall apart, parks would not be clean and safe. There would be a traffic problem and more car accidents. Public safety. Affected lights and water. Public health and safety, property value would decline. Accidents and an unattractive look. Some of the streets are really bad and could cause accidents. Probably street conditions and safety. Public safety as far as flooding. They've got to take care of flood channels, as delicate as they are if they're not taken care of we can flood out our city as has been proven in the last five years. I'd be concerned about buildings and streets that are unsafe. Sad streets. Traffic accidents. I would be more concerned about public safety and pollution. Leaking sewers and storm drains. Public safety would be a problem because of contamination to water supply and poor living conditions. I think that there would be very dangerous conditions. There would be health hazards from leakage on the beach. • 0 LAWRENCE Huntington Beach Voters Verbatim Responsis c%R E S EAR C H Question: 47 PUBLIC AFFAIRS • MARKETING Page: $1 Category: Public Safety / Accidents The earthquakes are bad and I would not want to sink. I am in the flood area so it is a safety issue. Probably getting from place to place safely. Continued problems and pollution that will cost us more in the long run. Public safety. Service to seniors. Seniors are more inclined to rely on the public services. Car accidents. Problems with sewers. Flooding. Streets would disintegrate. They would be unsafe. The value of homes and safety for our children and environmental problems. If the streets get bad their will be more accidents. Sewers would be a health hazard. Driving on streets with bumps and holes on them. They could cause accidents. The sewers could back up. The streets could be dangerous. There would be property damage. Category. Traffic Problems The streets would flood, poor water quality, and traffic Jams. The roads tear up the cars, and time is wasted trying to get through traffic. There would be over taxing, poor sewage, and bad traffic. I think the traffic is going to get worse and the roads won't be able to handle it. Traffic is horrible and would only get worse. I would be concerned with water quality, street conditions, and traffic. I would be afraid of water pollution and traffic. The streets would cause bad traffic. There would be a traffic problem and more car accidents. More traffic problems. Space and traffic. The traffic is getting more crowded. Getting to some places that used to take 20 minutes now takes 30 minutes. They are now too many new cars on the roads. Mostly, we are overpopulated now. They should stop building because of the traffic situation. Everything ages but I am concerned about the beaches. Traffic congestion is bad. Nobody plans ahead to do anything about it. I think it is in pretty good shape except for the traffic caused by what they are improving now. Category: Vehicle Damage I would be concerned about the old sewer systems, and vehicle repair from bad roads. 0 LAWRENCE /RESEARCH PUBLIC AFFAIRS @ MARKETING Huntington Beach Voters Category: Vehicle Damage The roads tear up the cars, and time is wasted trying to get through traffic, The condition of the roads and damage they would cause to my car. I would be concerned about damage to my vehicles from potholes in the streets. Verbatim espouses Question: 47 Page: 62 I guess damage to my vehicles, and damaged roads. I think bad streets would do a number on our cars and make maintenance more expensive. Pot holes, I guess we might have problems with the water, or not having enough water, who knows. The sewers could back up. The streets could be dangerous. There would be property damage. Category: Pay More Later There would be over taxing, poor sewage, and bad traffic. I would be concerned about having to pay to have them repaired, and not having adequate services. We would have to pay more later. Money for improvement would result in higher taxes. I'm worried the city would just waste our money more. I think bad streets would do a number on our cars and make maintenance more expensive. Ugly city and waste of money. Too much money. Ultimately the cost would be higher to fix it later after it is destroyed. Property would be near impossible to sell. Businesses would drop, and none would come. Pollution. Flooding. The cost of maintaining the streets. They need to start spending money on other things. Probably getting from place to place safely. Continued problems and pollution that will cost us more in the long run. It is going to cost more in future. Appearance of the city. Pollution of beaches. Wildlife. The water because of sewer problems. It would get worse, and when we do get around to it, it would be more expensive to fix it and pollution is a big problem too. I think that there will be bigger costs down the road, pay me now or later. Category: Water / Sewer Problems The water. The sewer system would get more destructed and broken down. There would also be more traffic accidents. • �1 • LAWRENCE (RESEARCH PUBLIC AFFAIRS • MARKETING Huntington Beach Voters I Verbatim Responsis Question: 47 Category: Water/ Sewer Problems I would be concerned about the old sewer systems, and vehicle repair from bad roads. Our streets would fall apart, and sewers would leak. I would be most worried about the sewage system becoming bad. I would be concerned with raw sewage going into the ocean, and controlling the Bolsa Chica. The streets would flood, poor water quality, and traffic jams. The quality of the water. I would be worried about the roadways to waterways. Sewer lines and streets. Beach pollution will be a problem, due to sewers and street destruction. It would cause flooding, poor water sanity, and earthquake hazards. There would be over taxing, poor sewage, and bad traffic. I would be concerned about loss of water, garbage, and collection in the sewer system. Sewer contamination, and the function of the sewer would be a concern. I would be concerned with the health issues that come along with bad sewers. Let the state take over, and sewer problems. The water system could get worse. I would be worried about the drinking water. A break in the water system and sewer system problems. I worry that the school buildings are going to get worse and the sewers are going to leak. l would be concerned about the sewers backing up. I'm concerned about the leaks in the sewers a lot and roads are in horrible condition. I would be concerned at my sewer leaking. The flooding and water quality need to be improved. Streets need repairing, too many potholes, and sewers need fixing. I'm worried about all the sewer and water leaks. I would be concerned about the sewers and drains backing up. The beaches not being clean and therefore the water being unsafe. There are sewage problems. I would be concerned with water quality, street conditions, and traffic. There would be flooding, poor water, and street repairs. There is a shortage of water supply, and the sewers are contaminated. I am concerned about the drinking water and bad pipes. Page: 63 LAWRENCE MESEARCH PUBLIC AFFAIRS a MARKETING Huntington Beach Voters Category. Water / Sewer Problems Floods could happen, the sewage could leak. There will be school problems, and sewage problems. I would be concerned about my sewer and water. City beaches becoming polluted and more water and sewage problems. Flooding, more building, and overcrowding will make the water problem worse. Sewer system needs improvement. Property value will go down. Roads, sewer, beach pollution. ' The sewers and drainage backing up would be a major problem. There's too much damage to the environment. The sewer system is backed up. Public safety. Affected lights and water. We'd become a crumbling, crappy place to live. We need drainage. I would be concerned that water systems in my neighborhood would go bad. I am afraid the sewer will back up and empty into the ocean. I fear for the sewer system. I really don't want sewer water in our schools. Verbatim Responses Question: 47 Page: 64 More people and more problems with the sewer and water lines. Beach pollution getting out of control and sewage not being properly taken care of. I don't like the idea of drainage back up. That would be so gross. The sewage system would go to heck. The streets are bad enough now so they would get much worse. Flooding would be a major problem. The ocean would probably get worse. Flooding and poor water. The collapse of sewer lines which would cause the street to collapse. The quality of the streets would go down with less maintenance. Sewage systems, water and roads. I would be concemed that the sewer would back up into the schools and homes. I think the water would get contaminated and that would cause health problems. Sewage, water, and public facilities. The sewer systems leaking sewage into the ocean. They need to detail and deliberate more on how to take care of the infrastructure. The sewage and winter pumping of thesainfall. A lot of neighborhoods flood The water system and the beaches. Get rid of the power plant to have clean water. The sewer would back up water from storm drains. • • 0 • 0 LAWRENCE VRESEARCH PUBLIC AFFAIRS • MARKE7ING Huntington Beach Voters I Verbatim Responsesi Question: 47 Category: Wafer/ Sewer Problems Page: 65 I hate to see the roads go to hell. We need clean water with no pollution. It would degrade the quality of our ocean water and it would drastically affect our cfty's tourism. Safe water and things like that. Runoff from the rain. Sewage. I'm more concerned about the sewer and fresh water. Wetlands and cleaner water. Damage to the ground water is a problem. It would pose a health hazard. The sewer would run into the streets instead of into the ocean. The sewer system for one. Get the sewers in the downtown area fixed or it will collapse and they'll have to dig everything up and start from scratch. Raw sewage is seeping out into the water tables. The city knew about it for last six years. Some commission fined the city for hiding it for 6 years. Only recently the city fessed up. The pollution. The service with the sewers, and stuff such as that. I would be more concerned about public safety and pollution. Leaking sewers and storm drains. Water quality. Make sure it is good. Keep it suitable for drinking. The city would look ugly and nobody would want to live over here. Lose jobs because of unattractiveness for businesses. They need to keep the sewer system up otherwise we will have sanitation problems. There needs to be more trees. I say that the leakage onto the beach has caused businesses too close. It has also caused some of the beaches to close. The vector problem of too many bugs caused by backed up sewers. Schools, the sewer system and the water system. The sewer system is polluting too much. Sewers would not get repaired. Basically the sewer system would be the main concern. You have to be able to flush it. Pollution of the ground water. The problem with the sewer is the sewer pipes are old and leaking. They are polluting our drinking water. If they would fix our drinking water and ocean water. The ocean water has been polluted by the old sewer lines and more so when they put the old hydro plant back online. It caused the hot water that would go into the ocean to pollute the beaches by the ocean. That the sewer system would fail. The ocean would be polluted. The streets, the sewers, and the beach. Because of the sewers, and because of the uprooting the trees. The sewer system drainage can cause flood problems. We wouldn't have storm water capacity or sewer capacity. Water and sewage would be a key problem. LAWRENCE ARESEARCH PUBLIC AFFAIRS • MARKETING Huntington Beach Voters Category. Water/ Sewer Problems [Verbatim Responseil Question: 47 Page: 66 There would be overpollution. Major leaking in the sewer systems. The streets and drainage systems. The sewer lines. I am not that familiar with the infrastructures. I think that the water sewers, storm drains and things like that do need some improvement. The water, the sewage, make sure there is enough flood coverage. I guess the thing that concerns myself most would be the environment with the beaches. The storm drains carry pollution. Potholes, I guess we might have problems with the water, or not having enough water, who knows. Sewers spilling on to the road. Car accidents. Problems with sewers. Flooding. The sewage system. If the water system downtown isn't improved our well water might become contaminated. Damage to the streets. Water problem. Untreated sewage flowing into the ocean. I think the sewers would get bad. They seem to be doing good right now but would go back to it being worse. It is going to cost more in future. Appearance of the city. Pollution of beaches. Wildlife. The water because of sewer problems. Having clean drinking water. The drinking water is the most important. And the beaches are a problem as well. I would be most concerned about the drainage and sewer situations. The sewer wouldn't work and water would be a problem. They have been neglecting underground sewers they have had the money. People should not have to pay higher taxes for the problem. The infrastructure is already good, there is no need of improvement. Except to the sewer and water systems. I'm concerned that they are short in budget. It could be pollution. I'm concerned with the water. I think that the things that 1 would be the schools because I have grandchildren in the school system. I would be somewhat worried about the sewer system it isn't a problem here but on the south side it was awful. Health and water. Sewers drain flood control would need upkeep. We need to keep on top of it. The sewers could back up. The streets could be dangerous. There would be property damage. Sewer system and storm drains. High bacteria on beaches because of a power plant. • 0. 0 • 0 LAWRENCE Huntington Beach Voters ARESEARCH PUBLIC AFFAIRS • MARKETING Category: Wafer/ Sewer Problems Verbatim Responiis Question: 47 Page: 67 The sewer and drainage would get worse and overflow. The sewer system would be messy and health issues would be of top priority. I wouldn't want the sewer to back up in my house. The sewers would eventually ruin the streets so we can't drive. The streets would be flooded out eventually. Category: Flooding There would be lots of floods, and lots of new homes. The streets would flood, poor water quality, and traffic jams. I would be scared that the streets would flood. Flooding would definitely be a problem. It would cause flooding, poor water sanity, and earthquake hazards. Flood, famine, and pestilence. More flooding and bad teacher pay would be a huge factor. There could be a lot of flooding. The flooding and water quality need to be improved. There would be flooding, poor water, and street repairs. Floods could happen, the sewage could leak. There will be flooding problems if they don't cut the trees and take care of them. Flooding, more building, and overcrowding will make the water problem worse. Flooding for sure, and poor city street maintenance. Flooding for sure, and poor city street maintenance. Heavy rainstorms May cause flooding. Flooding would be a major problem. The ocean would probably get worse. Flooding and poor water. The sewage and winter pumping of the rainfall. A lot of neighborhoods flood Probably street conditions and safety. Public safety as far as flooding. They've got to take care of flood channels, as delicate as they are if they're not taken care of we can flood out. our city as has been proven in the last five years. Flooding. Also the streets would continue to get worse. If they had a flood I would be in bad shape or if they had an earthquake. I would like to be to be able to stay in my house without being taxed out of it. Pollution. Flooding. The cost of maintaining the streets. The sewer system drainage can cause flood problems. LAWRENCE MESEARCH PUBLIC AFFAIRS • MARKETING Category. Flooding Huntington Beach Voters Verbatim espouses Question: 47 Page: 68 The water, the sewage, make sure there is enough flood coverage. The earthquakes are bad and I would not want to sink. I am in the flood area so it is a safety issue. Flooding would be the main thing. Car accidents. Problems with sewers. Flooding. The right materials to be protected from flooding. Sewers drain flood control would need upkeep. We need to keep on top of it. I wouldn't want the sewer to back up in my house. The sewers would eventually ruin the streets so we can't drive. The streets would be flooded out eventually. Category: Environment / Pollution It will effect the conditions of our environment. There would be over crowding, pollution problems, and auto accidents. More street damage and beach pollution. The water pollution would be a problem. Beach pollution will be a problem, due to sewers and street destruction. I think the oceans are going to get polluted. Also, I think the city will start looking trashy. The beach will be more polluted and the schools will be bad. I would be concerned with roads, parking, and beach cleanup. I would be afraid of water pollution and traffic. Pollution on the beach will continue, and businesses will shut down. I would worry about pollution and safety. There will be even more pollution to the ocean. City beaches becoming polluted and more water and sewage problems. Polluting everything. Roads, sewer, beach pollution. There's too much damage to the environment. The sewer system is backed up. They would have to close the beach. I'm worried about the sewer pollution. Beach pollution getting out of control and sewage not being properly taken care of. Pollution in ocean needs to improve. Too many houses around Huntington Beach. The beach pollution will be worse. J C • 0 LAWRENCE MESEARCH PUSUC AFFAIRS • MARKETING Huntington Beach Voters Category. Environment / Pollution Verbatim esponses Question: 47 Page: 69 The air pollution would get worse and the environment won't look as nice. The beaches and keeping them clean. Certainly the qualify of life would change. The water and the beach would continue to be polluted. The degradation off the public buildings would cause physical and psychological damage to citizens. Downtown and pollution. I hate to see the roads go to hell. We need clean water with no pollution. Pollution in the oceans is dangerous. Beach pollution. It May cause pollution. Contamination and disease in the community and household and possibly the ocean. Pollution gets into the oceans and groundwater sources. The pollution. The service with the sewers, and stuff such as that. I would be more concerned about public safety and pollution. Leaking sewers and storm drains. Pollution. Flooding. The cost of maintaining the streets. Pollution of the ocean. General degrading of life if things are not in good condition . I say that the leakage onto the beach has caused businesses too close. It has also caused some of the beaches to close. Continued pollution. Deterioration. The system would become dysfunctional. Pollution of the ground water. The problem with the sewer is the sewer pipes are old and leaking. They are polluting our drinking water. If they would fix our drinking water and ocean water. The ocean water has been polluted by the old sewer lines and more so when they put the old hydro plant back online. It caused the hot water that would go into the ocean to pollute the beaches by the ocean. That the sewer system would fail. The ocean would be polluted. The streets, the sewers, and the beach. Because of the sewers, and because of the uprooting the trees. There would be overpollution. Major leaking in the sewer systems. I think that ocean pollution and polluted ground water are major problems. Streets curbs gutters sidewalks pollution. I guess the thing that concerns myself most would be the environment with the beaches. The storm drains carry pollution. Probably getting from place to place safely. Continued problems and pollution that will cost us more in the long run. The environment would get worse. Everything ages but I am concerned about the beaches. Traffic congestion is bad. Nobody plans ahead to do anything about it. LAWRENCE Huntington Beach Voters I Verbatim Responiws MESEARCH Question: 47 PUBLIC AFFAIRS • MARKETING Page: 70 Category. Environment / Pollution The value of homes and safety for our children and environmental problems. It is going to cost more in future. Appearance of the city. Pollution of beaches. Wildlife. The water because of sewer problems. Shore run off to ocean can make pollution. Start fixing the beaches. I'm concerned that they are short in budget. It could be pollution. I'm concerned with the water. It would get worse, and when we do get around to it, it would be more expensive to fix it and pollution is a big problem too. Value of my land will decrease. Greater pollution. Sewer system and storm drains. High bacteria on beaches because of a power plant. Category. Health Issues The roads will fall apart, there will be more accidents, and health levels will go down. Health issues with water, and hazardous curbs. Sewer contamination, and the function of the sewer would be a concern. I would be concerned with the health issues that come along with bad sewers. Flood, famine, and pestilence. Contamination of the ground water is a concern. The beaches not being clean and therefore the water being unsafe. There is a shortage of water supply, and the sewers are contaminated. Water contamination. More accident health and welfare for the city. It would smell. Poor health of citizens. Public health and safety, property value would decline. Contamination and dirty streets. I don't want to live in a city that's not healthy and clean. I think the water would get contaminated and that would cause health problems. Contamination and disease in the community and household and possibly the ocean. Health issues and sanitation problems. Damage to the ground water is a problem. It would pose a health hazard. The health of the people in the city. Public safety would be a problem because of contamination to water supply and poor living conditions. Ll • 0 • 0 LAWRENCE MESEARCH PUBLIC AFFAIRS • MARKETING Category: Health Issues Huntington Beach Voters Verbatim Responsesl Question: 47 Page: 71 Health, that's the only thing I can think of. I think that there would be very dangerous conditions. There would be health hazards from leakage on the beach. I am concerned about the health conditions created. There would be severe deteriorating. If the water system downtown isn't improved our well water might become contaminated. If the streets get bad their will be more accidents. Sewers would be a health hazard. Contamination to the water and beaches. Health and water. The sewer system would be messy and health issues would be of top priority. Category: No Concerns/No Worries I don't really worry about any of that stuff. I'm not worried about anything. There is nothing to be concerned about. There isn't that much wrong with it. I don't have any concerns right now. I'm not too worried about anything, I Figure it will get fixed either way. Everything is fine and will be fine. Things will get improved either way. The infrastructure is not that bad, and they are continuing to fix it. It will get fixed, no worries. I am not worried about it. I don't think anything is going to go wrong. Things are fine. I don't think there's too much to wont' about, the city's working on a lot of stuff right now. I don't have anything to add to that. I don't think they have a problem. I think everything is just fine. I do not feel that anything will happen. People will still want to come here regardless and the infrastructure is not as bad as they want us to believe. It isn't a huge problem. I wouldn't have any concern. I am not concerned about it. 1 don't know that much about the budget. LAWRENCE ARESEARCH PUBLIC AFFAIRS • MARKETING Huntington Beach Voters I Verbatim espouses Question: 47 Category: No Concerns/No Worries Page: 72 I'm not too worried about it. I think they're in good enough shape right now. There are constant improvements going on. Too old to be concerned about it. The city would issue bonds. I do not see any health or safety problems if the infrastructure was left with just minor fixes. No concern. I have no worry whatsoever. It is constantly being worked on. I can't see a major problem I am not too concerned about those things. They have a budget that would take care of it if they spent the money in more cost effective ways. I am not at all worried about it. I'm not concerned about the infrastructure. It's in pretty good condition as far as I'm concerned. Nothing bad would happen. I wouldn't be concerned about it. I am not concerned about anything. Category: City Councli.- Negative We should just fire everyone and get people in the city who will do a better job. Replacing the city council would hopefully happen. There is a problem with sink holes in the streets, and the city council needs to get real work. I think that they should impeach the city council and fire the administration. I don't think you should keep putting it on the taxpayer's back when the City Council should use their tax money more wisely. Get rid of the City Council. The 5 percent utilities tax is silly. It is foolish that they have ignored the sewer system for years. They come to us when they have been spending money on other projects. They need to vote out the City Council and the Mayor because they are not handling the finances correctly. If the money they have right now is not being used correctly then I would vote them all out and find someone who could do the job right. What they want from this proposal is to be able to blame the deteriorating of the infrastructure on the residents that don't want to pay higher taxes. Why can't we just vote out the people in charge so that we can get new people in that can handle the job properly and do it right and on time. The taxes are too high and the city spends money badly. I think that they need to take another look at the budget and there is a way to do it but they need to look at it differently. • 0 LAWRENCE ARESEARCH PUBLIC AFFAIRS • MARKETING Category. Genera! Negative Huntington Beach Voters verVa-tim Responsesl Question: 47 Page: 73 The media should make the people more aware of what the problems are. I haven't been affected, except for pot holes in the road, and watching people swim in polluted water. They need to slow the growth, fix the sewage, and lower the taxes. Infrastructure problems would concern me. There would be problems with streets and parks. What to do with new buildings that are causing population problems. I worry about everything getting run down. I really don't know how the city could get any worse. The damage has already been done. It can't get much worse than what it is now. The schools should be our first priority, the city has a very shortsighted attitude. They should put the money where it should go, in the streets. They would still allow more people to live here. They will do what they always do and take it from the property owner. Which is bullshit. l am not that familiar with how the City Council thinks or acts on things. Some of the buildings do need repairs. Every time it turns around and says pay more taxes. We're up to our necks in taxes. It's always in another part of the city. The million dollar homes on the Huntington Harbor west side of the city should pay for repairs made to their area. There has to be more input from the citizens at the City Council meetings. Paying higher taxes is not for me. I will vote against it. I think that it can be repaired without any further taxation. Nothing personally. Why would I have to pay for someone else to make money. More taxes. People will be mad. I think they should spend more money on schools. Many people are taking their dollars elsewhere. The city has money available, but it is not being allocated like other towns. I hate to live in a city that starts to fall apart, I would not be opposed to paying higher taxes. I think that it could be maintained better than it has in the past. We would be in deep shit. We would have a mutiny. Category. Don't Know! No Opinion I can't think of any one thing that would worry me right now. No comment. have no opinion. 0 LAWRENCE Huntington Beach Voters MESEARCH PUBLIC AFFAIRS • MARKETING Category: Don? Know/ No Opinion Verbatim Responsesi Question: 47 Page: 74 I don't know. I don't have an opinion at this time. My concerns are other things, I'm not sure. I don't have an opinion at this time. I have no opinion because I've never really thought about it. I really don't know. I don't know. I can't answer that. I don't know. I don't know. I don't really know enough about itto say. I have no idea. It has to happen first. You don't fix things unless they are broken. There is not enough information for me to make an educated decision. I do not know. I have not given it any thought. Nothing comes to mind. Nothing really. I don't really know off the top of my head. I don't have an answer. I have no idea, I don't know what the city needs improvement on. I don't know what would happen. I really haven't given it that much thought. I can't think of anything. Category. Miscellaneous There has already been a lot of improvements, they need to work faster. The city couldn't control the growth. It is the city's responsibility, so let them figure it out. Over building and over crowding. Not taking care of the infrastructure will make many people angry. I'm worried about street crime. Security needs to be better. Rates for bulk mail should be raised. • • 0 LAWRENCE (RESEARCH PUBLIC AFFAIRS + MARKETING Category: Miscellaneous Huntington Beach Voters Maintaining streets. I would call and tell them to get on it, if you call they get on it right away. Citizens action group. They need to fix the trees coming up under the sidewalks. The streets and the curbs and the trees. Verbatim Responsesl Question: 47 Page: 75 Do it a little slower. The streets need to be improved. The road conditions. There would be overpopulation. This would cause a problem with how much space and resources are available. Just the pot holes. I think the city should have been working on it all along. The streets will get holes. The streets and possibly the lighting as well. There is too much overbuilding. . The repairs and maintenance have to take place. Because the taxes are already too high. Wants the funds for schools instead of infrastructure. The trees sometimes get in the lighting poles. Street repairs of the pot holes. I don't plan on being here. L_J LAWRENCE Huntington Beach Voters verbatim espouses ARESEARCH Question: 56 PUBLIC AFFAIRS • MARKETING Page: 76 Q. 56 Thinking of the entire city budget, where do you feel the city should cutback its spending, or spend money more wisely, so there will be enough money to repair the city's infrastructure? (N=302) Category: Reduce Personnel They're over staffed, too many administrators and not enough workers. There are too many city employees. On personnel and personnel salary. A general reduction of bureaucracy. Cut back on police. Cut back in offices, police, parking control, and beach monitors. I think that they can cut back on prairie and beach maintenance, library staff, and city employees. Stop hiring so many advisers over stupid pointless committees. They need to stop trying to be the playground of la and cut back on police. I think the police force needs to be cut down. I think city employees, and the fire department. Less hours. Personnel. Across the board. We have a top heavy administration. Too many chiefs and not enough indians. All departments should be cut back to give them an eye opener to try and encourage spending less. On the internal administration. The building department. Category. Less on Salaries/Benefits They are paying the infrastructure committee way too much, and they aren't getting anywhere. Spend less money on elected officials. On personnel and personnel salary. There should be less money paid for by administration. The city needs to cut down on police and firefighter salaries. They could pay city employees less. They could out back bn the retirement fund. Reappraise benefits and general costs of personnel, and utilize Bolsa Chica land on a fiduciary basis. r -I L-A is • 0 LAWRENCE ARESEARCH PUBLIC AFFAIRS a MARKETING Huntington Beach Voters Category. Less on Salarles/Benefits Cut back on the increase of salaries. The salaries for the city employees could be lowered. I'd have to see the budget first, but I think they could cut back on city salaries. Employee retirement packages are a waste of money. Administration salaries should be lowered. City council could use less money. Cut back on salaries for the city council and administrators. City employees salaries should be lowered. Management salaries could be lowered. I think that the city workers could cut back on their salaries. Verbatim Responsesi Question: 56 Page: 77 I think the city could cut back tons on what they pay themselves. The city's employment could have lower salaries. They need to cut back in the pay for city employees. They should make council members pay, and city worker pensions. They could make a cut in pensions, salaries, and they don't need so many golf courses. They need to cut city council salaries. Need money for school, police, and fire. Cut back on sewage expenses. They shouldn't give city employees any more raises until we get this problem fixed. Pay city employees less, they don't do anything. On salaries that are paid to the city employees. Maybe they could cut back the money they use to pay the city council. They can take the money from their own paychecks. They don't need nine percent raises and paid pensions. Less pay for police and firemen. On high city officials and overpayment of items. The administrations could use a pay cut. I think city employees could cut back on their own salaries. They should cut back on city council salary. How much they are paying politicians. Allocation of funds. Cut back on the council's salaries. Look at salaries, the officials and firemen and policemen are being paid too much. Look at bonuses and contractors getting too much. The salaries. Intentions of all the city employees. LAWRENCE ARESEARCH PUBLIC AFFAIRS a MARKETING Huntington Beach Voters Category. Lesson Salaries/Benefits Verbatim espouses Question: 56 Page: 78 Administrative salaries. They're a waste and they're too high. I think that the areas that should be hit are the police and fire stations and their wages. They are taking up a lot of the budget. Spend more money on the commercial infrastructure and cut back on the salaries of government officials. Get them to work more. I don't know what the mayor makes a year but it's probably too much so therefore they should cut back on government official salaries. They should get more creative and smart on how they repair and make better quality. They should get Home Depot to donate stuff and that will give them a good name for their business. They should cut back on employee benefits. We should cut down on the benefits that city government officials get. Infringe benefits. They can cut down on frivolous law suits against the city. The salaries of the city workers are very high. The city servants are getting paid very well. There is not enough money in the city. They spend too much money on employee's benefits. They just gave the City Administrator huge raise. Cut back the salaries of the city employees. Spend less money on block walls. Cut back inflated salaries. Pay the employees of the City Council less. Cut back on overall spending. They spend too much on advise and consultations. They are always hiring to get advice. They have enough highly paid officials at City Hall. They should cut back on administrative costs retirement costs and the city attorney's office. They should hire more people and shouldn't pay so much overtime to people. I would have to look into it. Retirement, some people have a huge pension that I feel should be taken care of in the environment. Cut the pay of City Council members, legislators, and expenses like providing cars and food for politicians at events. Start with the mayor. Make sure the firefighters are paid. They need to reevaluate the payments some of them are getting more than they should be getting. Spend less on the salaries of City Council members and policemen. Category: Less on Building Cut back on buildings and focus more on needed areas. The city could cut back on their hotels and monuments. Why don't they cut back on building new houses, and focus on fixing up what's already here. Remember previous mistakes, and spend less on hotels. • • LAWRENCE MESEARCH PUSUC AFFAIRS • MARKETING Category. Less on Building Huntington Beach Voters Verbatim Responsesl Question: 56 Page: 79 Cut back on hotels and buildings. There's way too many of them. They want to spend money on more development, but they should be working on fixing up the already developed areas. They are building a lot right now and could cut back. Cut hack in all places, mostly from building houses. They put too much into redeveloping the beach when they just need to be worried about the pollution. They are rebuilding city streets that were fine before. Cut back on new houses. They need to stop building and start repairing. They should cut back on new development. Cut back on allowing a lot more development in areas that already have too much. They rely too much on development for income and then their plans always fail. They expect taxpayers to make up the difference. The whole downtown development area. Cut back on real estate purchase. I think they should spend less money to sue developers. They should put the money where it needs to be. I feel that they could cut their spending on building inspections and sewage waste. Water and power production. . Stop founding the buildings. Category. Less on Downtown They are spending too much money rebuilding downtown. Don't spend so much on downtown. They need to spend less on downtown repairs. They need to stop rebuilding downtown. I would like them to stop putting more stuff downtown. They need to stop rebuilding everything downtown. Stop re -building downtown. Forget about sea cliff and downtown. To get us out of the downtown development rut and to subsidize our vacant buildings. They are good enough to stand on their own. Quit developing down town and tourist attraction projects. LAWRENCE ,%RESEARCH PUBLIC AFFAIRS • MARKETING Category: Lesson Downtown Huntington Beach Voters verbatim espouses Question: 56 Page: 80 Away from the downtown area, and into the rest of the city. I would like to seethe infrastructure fixed. I don't want a tax increase. They rely too much on development for income and then their plans always fail. They expect taxpayers to make up the difference. The whole downtown development area. In the building of downtown Huntington Beach. That they shouldn't spend so much money on it. i don't think they get a lot back from what they built. Category: Less on Beautification The city could cut back on their hotels and monuments. Instead of spending money on monuments, they should concentrate more on city streets and the overloading of commercial and residential building. They should not put so much money into landscaping. Put it more into sewer problems and less into beauty projects. Less money should be spent on making the town beautiful. They should cut back on all those extra golf courses. They should spend less on statues. They should cut back on the pet projects. We need to be more careful all around and not spend so much on art. They spend too much money on pointless statues. They're spending a lot of money on decoration and statues even though they're nice they ought to go into back into the community. On Beach Boulevard they're redoing 3 to 4 miles of median in the street. It's all very nice red brick and plants and sprinklers the entire length. They should spend it on fixing the sewer system down town. They may be adding on to our sewer system and talk of a tax bill to pay for this. I don't object to increased taxes but everybody including gated communities and mobile home parks should pay their share. I don't like the city mindlessly spending money to fix less important things. Work on beautification issues and some substantial issues as well. We don't need the flowers in the streets. We certainly don't need any flowers. Several ways. I don't do things to look good it is a waste of money. I believe they could spend less money on the construction of the streets. They could also spend less money on landscaping. Category: Less on (Mist.) We waste millions of dollars a year on attorney fees and lobbyists. Stop taking money and using it on things we don't need, and fix the sidewalks. 0 LAWRENCE efRESEARCH PUBLIC AFFAIRS a MARKETING 0. Category. Less on (Mist.) Huntington Beach Voters I Verba mResponses Question: 56 Page: 81 The extra things are not necessary. The city should cut back the amount of money they spend on social services. Cut back on the money that goes into research. Cut out unnecessary spending. Just pay for what you need. The city pours money into unnecessary things. There won't be any for emergencies: They could make a cut in pensions, salaries, and they don't need so many golf courses. They spend too much to clean the beach. They should spend lees on the tourists. Spend less on beaches and more for expansion to help the overcrowding. They could cut back on all the unnecessary things for tourists. I'm not sure where exactly, but they should get rid of all the unneeded stuff. Most likely on advertising or sales. They could probably cut back on parks and concentrate on signals and streets. We should spend less on public facilities. Cut back street sweeping too once a month, within the neighborhoods. Continue sweeping the main roads twice a month. They need to stop spending money on the city library. We definitely don't need a helicopter airforce. They need to cut down some of their legal council. Their travel and seminar budgets. Studies. We should cut down on the benefits that city government officials get. Infringe benefits. They can cut down on frivolous law suits against the city. There's too much money in welfare and social programs. Cut back the salaries of the city employees. Spend less money on block walls. I think they should quit doing projects they don't need. They need to spend their money more wisely. Pay the employees of the City Council less. Cut back on overall spending. Don't spend so much money on the environmental issues. Thousands of dollar studies on things should be gotten rid of. The art museum too. i think the city should cut back on recreational type things and spend the money on things that are really important. They've done too many fancy things instead of maintaining the city. They spend too much on advise and consultations. They are always hiring to get advice. They have enough highly paid officials at City Hall. Cut the pay of City Council members, legislators, and expenses like providing cars and food for politicians at events. They should cut down on things that are not important to the public. LAWRENCE Huntington Beach Voters I Verbatim espouses c9RESEARCH Question: 56 PUBLIC AFFAIRS a MARKETING Page: 82 Category: Less on (Mist.) They shouldn't be spending money on those sports complexes. Category: More On Cleaner Water The city should spend more money on the streets and making the water safer. Put it more into sewer problems and less into beauty projects. Everywhere it's not needed. Spend more where it's necessary like the sewage and overpolluting. Category: More on Cleaner Ocean Spend more on streets, sidewalks, and keeping the ocean clean. They should spend on things that we need like ocean cleaning and street repair. They put too much into redeveloping the beach when they just need to be worried about the pollution. Everywhere it's not needed. Spend more where it's necessary like the sewage and overpolluting. Just spend more money on care taking of the beach and sewers. 0 Category: More on Repair Stop taking money and using it on things we don't need, and fix the sidewalks. Spend more on streets, sidewalks, and keeping the ocean clean. Instead of spending money on monuments, they should concentrate more on city streets and the overloading of commercial and residential building. They should spend on things that we need like ocean cleaning and street repair. Spend less on all things, and then put it into infrastructure. They want to spend money on more development, but they should be working on fixing up the already developed areas. The city should spend more money on the streets and making the water safer. Get the infrastructure fired and get city streets and highways repaired. Just spend more money on care taking of the beach and sewers. Spend on fixing the storm drains. It's the most important. They need to stop building and start repairing. They could probably cut back on parks and concentrate on signals and streets. On Beach Boulevard they're redoing 3 to 4 miles of median in the street. Its all very nice red brick and plants and sprinklers the entire length. They should spend it on fixing the sewer system down town. They may be adding on to our sewer system and talk of a tax bill to pay for this. I don't object to increased taxes but everybody including gated communities and mobile home parks should pay their share. I don't like the city mindlessly spending money to fix less important things. Go ID LAWRENCE MESEARCH PUBLIC AFFAIRS a MARKETING Category: More an Repair Huntington Beach Voters verbatim Respouses Question: 56 Page: 83 S end more money on the commercial infrastructure and cut back on the salaries of government officials. Get them to work more. Away from the downtown area, and into the rest of the city. I would like to see the infrastructure fixed. 1 don't want a tax increase. They should spend their money more wisely. In the lower housing, the sidewalks need to be fixed and they won't fix them. They should redo the infrastructure with money from beach passes. Category: More on Law Enforcement They need to spend more money on schools and law enforcement. They need to cut city council salaries. Need money for school, police, and fire. Cut back on sewage expenses. The city needs money for education, fire and police departments. I can't think of any cutbacks. More money for the police force. They should put more money into the lousy police force that they have. Start with the mayor. Make sure the firefighters are paid. Category: More on Schools They need to spend more money on schools and law enforcement. They need to spend more for public health and education. The city needs money for education, fire and police departments. I can't think of any cutbacks. That's a really good question, I'd have to look at their budget. They should spend more money on education but it depends on their budget. Category: Use Better Judgment Setting funds aside, for the purpose to stimulate money for the infrastructure. They should look at the budget and make cutbacks wherever they can. Be more careful all around, and get back to the basics. Remember previous mistakes, and spend less on hotels. They should spend more conservatively in general. We need to just be more careful all around. LAWRENCE MESEARCH PUBLIC AFFAIRS • MARKETING Category: Use Better Judgment Huntington Beach Voters Verbatim esponses Question: 56 Page: 84 I am not sure where the money goes, but they have spent a lot and neglected important things. I'm really not sure, but I don't think they spend our money wisely. We need to be more careful all around and not spend so much on art. I don't know where they're spending it, but obviously not where it should be. They shouldn't tax the playhouse. Big houses don't pay the right amount of taxes. I have no idea. They need to figure out how to spend the budget more wisely and Maybe have someone audit those who have access to these funds a little more often without being announced. Look for long term capital funds. This would make infrastructure repairs the most important issue. I don't know what the mayor makes a year but it's probably too much so therefore they should cut back on government official salaries. They should get more creative and smart on how they repair and make better quality. They should get Home Depot to donate stuff and that will give them a good name for their business. They should spend their money more wisely. In the lower housing, the sidewalks need to be fixed and they won't fix them. I really don't know. I really think that we are spending too much on public safety and making deals that we shouldn't be making at all. I think they should quit doing projects they don't need. They need to spend their money more wisely. They need to cut back in a lot of things not just one. They need to learn how to spread the money out a little better. They should spend the money wisely. Category: Need A New City Council They should fire the city council. I do not think that there is anything that the city would do no matter what it was to help cut back spending or to use the funds more wisely. They are going to do whatever they want with the money no matter what we think just like they are already doing. Get rid of some of the City Council members. Category: Don't Know / No Opinion 1 don't have any clue without seeing where all the money is going right now. I'm not sure, I'd have to see the budget first. Why would I know, I'm not in charge of the budget. I'm not sure right now. I wouldn't know where to start. 0 LAWRENCE efRESEARCH PUBLIC AFFAIRS • MARKETING Huntington Beach Voters Category: DonlKnow/No Opinion Show me the budget, and i'lI tell you where they should cut back. I really don't know where they could cut back without seeing the budget myself. really don't have any opinion on that right now. don't know, they should be able to figure that out themselves. I cannot give a good answer. No comment. No comment. No comment. I couldn't answer without knowing more. I don't know. I'm not sure where they could cut back, but they could. I really haven't given it much thought, so I really don't know. I don't know. I'm not knowledgeable in that area. I would like to see the budget first before I say. 1 have no idea. I wouldn't know how, but I know they could. I don't know, I'm not in charge of the budget. l would have to see the budget before I could say where they need to make cuts. I would need to see the budget first. I have no clue. I really wouldn't know. I'd have to think about it awhile. I really don't have a clue. I really don't know. I don't know where they're spending so much money. I don't really know enough about it but I'm sure there's somewhere. I can't answer that one now. I don't know at all. Verbatim Responsesi Question: 56 Page: 85 don't really have any idea where the budget goes. I can't say anything on that because I would need to review the budget more closely. I don't have enough information. • LAWRENCE /RESEARCH PUBLIC AFFAIRS • MARKETING Huntington Beach Voters Category: Donl Know/ No Opinion Verbatim espouses Question: 56 Page: 86 I really don't know that, I have no opinion. Not sure. I don't know how they spend the budget, and on what. That's too tough of a question for me to answer. I don't know. I wouldn't have any idea where to start. i really don't know where the money is going so I don't know where they could cut back. I couldn't even begin to tell you. I wouldn't know where to begin. I don't know anything about their budgets. I don't know enough about there budget to say. Spend the city budget more wisely. They could have more public meetings on the infrastructure. I don't know, I really don't. I can't make that decision. I don't know enough about how the funds are handled to answer this question. I don't know enough about that to comment. it is a good idea to take money away from other places but right off hand I don't know where. I can't answer this question because I do not look at the budget. It would be hard for me to know without seeing the plan of what the City Council is working on now, and what they plan to work on. I don't really know. 1 don't know what their budget is. They should just go along as they are doing. There is not enough information to make an educated decision. I have no opinioh on that. I don't know enough about what the budget includes. That's really hard to answer. I'm not too sure about that one. No opinion. I need to see the plan the city has laid out for what they are spending our money on now and for the future. I have no idea what the city budget is. I really don't know. I don't know. I have no idea, I cant think of anything. It should be put into priorities. • Is 0 • 0 LAWRENCE Huntington Beach Voters Iverballm Responsesl efRESEARC H Question. 56 PUBLIC AFFAIRS - MARKETING Page: 87 Category: Don't Know/ No Opinion I don't know enough about the budget. I don't have enough information to make an educated decision. I don't know without looking at the books. If they would let me look at the books and analyze them for them I would. I couldn't tell you on that one. I couldn't say. I really don't know about that, more research is needed. I don't know what the city is spending it's money on. I don't have a budget line in front of me. I don't know what I could do. I don't know anything about it. Would need to see the budget first. I don't know how they could either cut back on its spending or spend money wisely. If I could put more thought to that I could come up with something. How the city is run generally we could find some shortcuts. I need you to give me a list. I don't know at this point. I am not sure. I don't know. I am not sure and I haven't thought about it. I don't know. I really couldn't say. I don't know. I don't know what to do. I don't know. I've never seen the budget. I am not that familiar with how they spend the budget money. I don't know how the money is allocated. I don't know where they would cut back. I have no idea. I don't know. Outside projects that do not affect my personal environment. I have no idea where it should or should not be cut back and spend more money wisely. l don't know enough about the budget to give an opinion one way or the other. I really don't know I am not familiar enough with the budget. I know a lot of people who have moved here in the last ten years who pay a lot more than I do. I don't know enough about it to have an opinion. I don't know. I'm not in the City Council so I couldn't tell you. I don't pay much attention to it. Not qualified to make a comment. LAWRENCE ARESEARCH PUBLIC AFFAIRS & MARKETING Huntington Beach Voters Category: Don't Know/ No Opinion l don't know enough about the subject to have an opinion. Verbatim esponses Question: 56 Page: 88 i am not aware of where our tax money is being spent on. I would need to know first where the money is going. don't know a thing about it. 1 am not familiar with the budget and how they spend it. I don't know where they spend their money. I can't answer that. I really have no answer for that. Category: Miscellaneous 1 would like to calculate and make sure where the money goes. They need to listen to the people and then they will know, but they don't want to. The businesses aren't needed. They need to cut back in all places. Quit taxing and use the money they have. There has to be a better way than what they are doing. In the taxes, we have enough already. Federal grant for trees could have gone to sewage. 1 don't think it's that big of a deal right now. They need to do many things. Quit getting it from the federal government. No more federal grants. Every time you get a federal grant, you lose a right. They should quit worrying about Newport Beach, they'd have a lot of money. Where they can,. You go into the city offices and people are a little slow. We need better business practices. They should have a public poll to let the public decide on how the money should be spent since it's the tax payers' money. They should've had more businesses in here. They didn't think about it ahead of time. Overall. They could figure out new ways to bring in new businesses and more modern ideas. If they communicate better with others. On not building infrastructure. I cannot tell where they should watch spending because I don't know where they're spending the money. Self promotion. • • 0 LAWRENCE c%RESEARCH PUSUC AFFAIRS + MARKETING Category; Miscellaneous Huntington Beach Voters I VerbatIM Kesponsesl Question: 56 Page: 89 See what they are spending on now. If you take for example the billions of dollars we give away over seas, we're spending our dollars on nothing. From the corrupt officials who are spending our money as they please. • • LAWRENCE Huntington Beach Voters Verbatim esponses efRESEARCH Question. 87 PUBLIC AFFAIRS • MARKETING page: 90 . Q. 87 t note that this is a change from your previous vote. What one thing did you find out that has now caused you to vote No on Measure A? (N=4) Category: Misc I think they have plenty of money, they should pull it from other places. I just had to vote but I'm still undecided. It doesn't seem necessary. Anything else would be better. Need to do more research. 0. 0 LAWRENCE Huntington Beach Voters Verbatim espouses c✓%R E S EAR C H Question. 88 PUBLIC AFFAIRS - MARKETING rage: 91 Q. 88 1 note that this is a change from your previous vote. What one tiling did you find out that has now caused you to vote Yes on Measure A? (N=34) Category: Small Tax Increase Only increase taxes by $5. It might not cost as much as I thought it would. My contribution would be five dollar a month for the next twenty years. The amount of money to be spent I objected to. Category: For Infrastructure It could be guaranteed to be used for infrastructure and not be wasted. All proceeds go to that one reason (infrastructure). The roads definitely need improvement, and it sounds nice that might happen. The fact that this money would go into infrastructure correction. The money would go directly into the repairs and such. If it was limited purely to the infrastructure problems. The components of the infrastructure were better defined. Increase the infrastructure. I thought more about what the infrastructure needs it hasn't changed my income but I don't want my property taxes raised. Category: Benefits the City It's an old city and it needs improvement. The tax is hard on people, but it is needed. If the tax increase would go to benefit the city I would be all for it. At first I didn't know the tax increase would be used to fix -up the city and not for property value. They need to do something about it. Category. Will Be Monitored If there were a guarantee it would be monitored. 0 LAWRENCE /RESEARCH PUBLIC AFFAIRS • MARKETING Huntington Beach Voters Category. Became More Aware - Gen Verbatim espouses Question: 88 Page: 92 I just became more aware. It's just my gut feeling. I wasn't thinking of all the issues. Finding out about a measure. The lack of accountability. The increase in property tax. Category: Need More Information It would help to hear more. I would have to read it myself. Everything sounds good, but I need more information. I need to have more information. Category: Don't Know / No Opinion Didn't want to give an answer. I really can't answer that at this stage. I am only leaning that way. No reason. There is no real reason. Category. Miscellaneous Didn't vote yes on Measure A. I'm not sure l would support it. If I felt that what they were going to spend the money on was needed I would vote yes. I am concerned about the homeless people in the community who aren't being taken care of. Definitely yes, but I depends on how it works. The specific applications of the fund. • • 0 • GROUPTABS FORMAT EXPLANATION Grouptabs are best understood in comparison with crosstabs: A crosstab takes a guestion and shows you where the groups are. A grouptab takes a rq oup and shows you where the guestions are. In other words, grouptabs are the reverse of crosstabs. We focus on a subgroup of the population (for example, senior citizens) and show you how they answered each question. All of the numbers shown in grouptabs can also be found in crosstabs. But instead of having to look at every crosstab page to determine a particular group's patterns, we organize it for you on one grouptab page. This is a significant help in forming coalitions and determining themes for specific target groups. Each page of printout lists at the top the group which is being analyzed by the grouptab (such as Men, Republicans, Under $15K Income, Smith Voters, etc.). 0 The printout itself is organized into five columns: p Question: The question in point. Answer(s): The answer or combination of answers in point. Grp: The percentage the group gave to that answer. Agg: The percentage the total sample gave to that answer. Diff: The difference (plus or minus) between the group's percentage minus the total sample's percentage. The questions and answers are rank ordered on the difference between the group and the total sample. Answers which differ most on the high side from the average are found at the top of the list. Answers which differ most on the low side from the average are shown at the bottom of the list with negative numbers. 0 For example: 65+ (Senior Citizens) Question Answers Grp Agg Diff 27 Foreign Aid 2 Right Direction Nation 7 John Smith ID 44 Senate Vote This partial table indicates that: Approve 69 58 11 Right Direction 54 44 10 1 + 2 63 54 9 Smith 51 44 7 69% of senior citizens (the subject of this table) answered "approve" to 0.27 regarding foreign aid. This is 11 percentage points higher than the average answer of 58% for the whole sample. 54% of them answered "right direction" to 0.2 regarding whether the nation is going in the right direction or off on the wrong track. This is 10 points higher than average. 63% of senior citizens gave either answer #1 or answer #2 to 0.7 the John Smith ID question. Answer categories 1 and 2 are the favorable answers about John Smith and this percentage places seniors 9 points higher than average. (An upcoming improvement in the software will also print a descriptive label as well as show you when one or more categories are combined.) Smith gets 51 % of the senior citizen vote which is 7 points higher than the average from the total sample. When the reader scans down the rank -ordered questions and answers, a certain pattern of answers usually becomes apparent. In the above example, senior citizens can be seen to be optimists, pro -Republican and pro -foreign -aid in their orientation. The answers which do not deviate from the average by more than plus -or -minus five percentage points are not included in the printout. The suppression of mid -range values values (those that don't differ that much from the average) helps you see the highs and lows for each group more easily. Any group can thus be studied by itself without having to flip back and forth in the crosstabs. 0 Lawrence Research GROUPTABS Page 1 Question Huntington Beach / July 2001 1318 Work Outside Home Answer(s) 11 Approval: Listening to the Pe Somewhat Disapprove 69 [SS1:] Willingness To Pay $5 Yes 73 [SS2:] Willingness To Pay $15 No Opinion 24 Improvement: Water System Fair, Probably Needs Improveme Range of 5 Points High to 5 Points Low not included 24 Improvement: Water System Good, Improvement Not Needed 73 (SS2:] Willingness To Pay $15 No 30 Name ID: Howard Jarvis Taxpay Strongly Favorable 69 [SS1:] Willingness To Pay $5 No 71 [SS1:] Willingness To Pay $25 No • • Grp Agg Diff 28 22 6 56 50 6 17 11 6 42 37 5 ************* 39 45 -5 70 75 -6 28 35 -8 36 44 -8 39 48 -8 Lawrence Research GROUPTABS Page 2 Question Huntington Beach / July 2001 1318 Nt Wk Outsde Home Answer(B) 71 [SS1:] willingness To Pay $25 No 69 (SS1:] Willingness To Pay $5 No 30 Name ID: Howard Jarvis Taxpay Strongly Favorable 73 [SS2:] Willingness To Pay $15 No 7 Approval: Solving Traffic Pro Somewhat Approve 24 Improvement: Water system Good, Improvement Not Needed ************* Range of 5 Points High to 5 Points Low not included 22 Improvement: Beach Facilities Fair, Probably Needs Improveme 5 Huntington Beach Better or Wo No Difference 7 Approval: Solving Traffic Pro Strongly Approve 31 Name ID: Surfrider Foundation Strongly Favorable 20 Improvement: Block Walls Alan Good, Improvement Not Needed 69 [SS1:] Willingness To Pay $5 Yes 24 Improvement: Water System Fair, Probably Needs Improveme 71 [SS1:] Willingness To Pay $25 No Opinion 74 ... [SS2:] Willingness To Pay $5 No Opinion it Approval.: Listening to the Pe Somewhat Disapprove 73 [SS2:] Willingness To Pay $15 No opinion 71 [SSl:) Willingness To Pay $25 -Yes Grp Agg Diff 63 48 15 52 44 $ 43 35 8 83 75 8 46 40 6 50 45 6 31 36 -S 17 23 -6 10 16 -6 23 29 -6 43 49 -6 44 50 -6 31 37 -6 19 25 -6 6 12 -6 15 22 -7 3 11 -8 19 27 -9 • • • Lawrence Research GROUPTABS Page 3 Huntington Beach / July 2001 1318 MRepublican Question Answer(s) 74 [SS2:] Willingness To Pay $5 No 15 Improvement: City Streets, Al Good, Improvement Not Needed 57 S: occasional Repairs / J: Sp More Like Jones 58 [Ssl:] Believability: Possibi Very Unbelievable ************* Range of 5 Points High to 5 Points Low not included 16 Improvement: Curbs, Gutters, Fair, Probably Needs Improveme 15 Improvement: City Streets, Al Fair, Probably Needs Improveme 74 [SS2:] Willingness To Pay 65 Yes 32 Name ID: Bolsa Chica Land Tru Strongly Favorable 61 [SS2:] Believability: Flood D Very Believable • • Grp Agg Diff 69 58 11 33 26 7 75 69 6 46 41 5 ************* 38 43 -5 42 48 -5 23 30 -6 28 35 -7 10 18 -7 Lawrence Research GROUPTABS Page 4 Huntington Beach / July 2001 1318 Democrat i Question Answer(s) Grp Agg Diff 60 [SS1:] Believability: There i Somewhat Believable 46 31 15 74 [SS2:] Willingness To Pay $5 Yes 45 30 15 71 [SS1:] Willingness To Pay $25 Yes 38 27 10 49 Believability: Committee is O Very Unbelievable 28 18 10 38 (SS1:]Vote: Measure A Probably No 41 31 10 69 [SS1:] Willingness To Pay $5 Yes 59 50 9 29 Name ID: Huntington Beach Tom Strongly Favorable 18 9 9 15 Improvement: City Streets, Al .Fair, Probably Needs Improveme 56 48 9 13 Improvement: The Sewer System Fair, Probably Needs Improveme 43 35 8 10 Approval: Encouraging Re -Dave Somewhat Approve 45 37 8 64 Believability: Nothing will C Somewhat Unbelievable 30 22 8 22 Improvement: Beach Facilities Fair, Probably Needs Improveme 44 36 8 33 Name ID: AmigoB de Bolsa Chic Strongly Favorable 38 30 8 24 Improvement: Water System Fair, Probably Needs Improveme 45 37 8 34 Name ID: The Huntington Beach Somewhat Favorable 49 42 8 61 [SS2:] Believability: Flood D Very Believable 25 18 8 57 S: Occasional Repairs / J: Sp More Like Smith 22 15 7 68 Push Vote: If City's Current Yes 40 33 7 18 Improvement: Street Lights Fair, Probably Needs Improveme 33 25 7 62 Believability: City and Props Somewhat Believable 27 20 7 9 Approval: Protecting Beaches Somewhat Disapprove 29 22 7 63 Believability: Local Economy Somewhat Unbelievable 31 24 7 61 [SS2:] Believability :Flood D Somewhat Believable 33 26 7 30 Name ID: Howard Jarvis Taxpay Strongly Unfavorable 17 10 7 53 Believability: People of '70' Somewhat Believable 20 13 7 70 [SS1:] Willingness To Pay $15 No 68 61 7 8 Approval: Making Needed Repai Somewhat Disapprove 30 24 7 38 [SS1:]Vote: Measure -A Definitely Yes 11 4 7 31 Name ID: Surfrider Foundation Strongly Favorable 36 29 7 14 Improvement: Storm Drains and Fair, Probably Needs Improveme 52 46 6 6 Approval: Providing Needed Pu Somewhat Approve 60 54 6 60 [SS'1:] Believability: There i Very Believable 19 13 6 32 Name ID: Bolsa Chica Land Tru .Strongly Favorable 40 35 6 57 S: occasional Repairs / J: Sp More Like Baker 17 11 6 5 Huntington Beach Better or Wo Better 53 48 5 43 [SS2:] Vote: Measure B (Condi Definitely Yes 10 5 5 ************* Range of 5 Points High to 5 Points Low not included ************* 7 Approval: Solving Traffic Pro Strongly Disapprove 13 19 -5 14 Improvement: Storm Drains and Good, Improvement Not Needed 22 28 -5 9 Approval: Protecting Beaches Somewhat Approve 25 30 -5 22 Improvement: Beach Facilities Good, Improvement Not Needed 43 48 -5 53 Believability: People of '70' Somewhat Unbelievable 11 17 -5 5 Huntington Beach Better or Wo Worse 19 25 -6 64 Believability: Nothing Will C Somewhat Believable 24 30 -6 11 Approval: Listening to the Pe Somewhat Disapprove 16 22 -6 49 Believability: Committee is O Somewhat Believable 27 33 -6 70 [SS1:1 Willingness To Pay $15 Yes 24 30 -6 68 Push Vote: If City's Current No 48 55 -7 18 Improvement: Street Lights Good, Improvement Not Needed 62 69 -7 49 Believability: Committee is O Somewhat Unbelievable 12 19 -7 15 Improvement: City Streets, Al Good, Improvement Not Needed 19 26 -7 Lawrence Research GROUPTABS Page 5 Huntington Beach / July 2001 1318 0 Cont: _Democrat Question Answer(s) Grp Agg Diff 64 Believability: Nothing Will C. very Believable 13 21 -7 16 Improvement: Curbs, Gutters, Good, Improvement Not Needed 34 41 -7 24 Improvement: Water System Good, Improvement Not Needed 37 45 -7 13 Improvement: The Sewer System Good, Improvement Not Needed 12 21 -9 43 [SS2:) Vote: Measure B (Condi Definitely No 42 52 -10 61 [SS2:] Believability: Flood D Very Unbelievable 19 29 -10 38 [SS1:]Vote: Measure A Definitely No 41 51 -10 69 (SS1:] Willingness To Pay $5 No 32 44 -11 57 S: Occasional Repairs / J: Sp More Like Jones 57 69 -11 62 Believability: City and Prope Very Unbelievable 28 40 -12 71 [SS1:) Willingness To Pay $25 No Opinion 13 25 -13 30' Name ID: Howard Jarvis Taxpay Strongly Favorable 22 35 -13 58 [SS1:] Believability: Possibi Very Unbelievable 27 41 -13 74 [SS2:] willingness To Pay $5 No 41 58 -17 60 [SS1:] Believability: There i Very Unbelievable 11 29 -18 • 11 Lawrence Research GROUPTABS Page - 6 Huntington Beach / July 2001 1318 Independent . Question Answer(s) Grp Agg Diff 13 Improvement: The Sewer System Good, Improvement Not Needed 40 21 18 14 Improvement: Storm Drains and Good, Improvement Not Needed 44 28 17 7 Approval: Salving Traffic Pro Strongly Disapprove 35 19 16 61 [SS2:] Believability: Flood D Very Unbelievable 45 29 16 59 [SS2:] Believability: Auto Ac Somewhat Believable 40 24 16 43 [SS2:] Vote: Measure B (Condi Definitely No 65 52 13 48 Heard: Committee is Overreact Not Heard 81 70 12 73 (SS2:1 Willingness To Pay $15 No 87 75 11 18 Improvement: Street Lights Good, Improvement Not Needed 79 69 li 3 Right Direction / Wrong Track Right Direction 67 57 10 16 _ Improvement: Curbs, Gutters, Good, Improvement Not Needed 51 41 10 68 Push Vote: If City's Current No 65 55 10 5 Huntington Beach Better or Wo No Difference 33 23 10 32 Name ID: Bolsa Chica Land Tru Strongly Favorable 44 35 9 38 [SS1:]Vote: Measure A Definitely Yes 13 4 9 66 Push Vote: If 20% Decrease in Undecided 21 12 9 63 Believability: Local Economy Very Unbelievable 51 43 9 61 [SS2:] Believability: Flood D Somewhat Unbelievable 30 22 9 70 [SS1:] Willingness To Pay $15 Yes 38 30 8 71 [SS1:'] Willingness To Pay $25 No Opinion 33 25 8 53 Believability: People of '70' Very Unbelievable 63 55 8 21 Improvement: Public Buildings Fair, Probably Needs Improveme 37 29 8 12 Approval: The Overall Job The Strongly Disapprove 16 9 7 67 Push Vote: If Citizen Committ Yes 40 33 7 62 Believability: City and Prope Very Unbelievable 47 40 7 8 Approval: Making Needed Repai Somewhat Approve 37 31 7 57 S: Occasional Repairs / J: Sp No Opinion 12 5 6 49 Believability: Committee is O Somewhat Unbelievable. 26 19 6 it Approval: Listening to the Pe Somewhat Disapprove 28 22 6 71 [SS1:] Willingness To Pay $25 Yes 33 27 6 38 [SS1:]Vote: Measure A Definitely No 57 51 6 64 Believability: Nothing Will C Somewhat Unbelievable 28 22 6 19 Improvement: Street Trees Fair, Probably Needs Improveme 35 29 6 31 Name ID: Surfrider Foundation Strongly Favorable 35 29 6 55 Believability: City Has Enoug Very Unbelievable 12 6 6 42 [SS2:] Vote: Measure A {Condi Definitely Yes 10 5 6 42 [SS2:] Vote: Measure A (Condi Probably No 30 25 6 86 Final Vote: Measure A Definitely Yes 12 6 5 57 S: Occasional Repairs / J: Sp More Like Baker 16 11 5 65 Push Vote: If Funds Used Sole Undecided 16 11 5 ************* Range of 5 Points High to 5 Points Low not included ************* 68 Push Vote: If City's Current Undecided 7 12 -5 68 Push Vote: If City's Current Yes 28 33 -5 10 Approval: Encouraging Re-Deve Somewhat Disapprove 16 22 -5 43 [SS2:] Vote: Measure B (Condi Probably Yes 10 16 -6 62 Believability: City and Prope 'Somewhat Believable 14 20 -6 32 Name ID: Bolsa Chica Land Tru Strongly Unfavorable 5 11 -6 21 Improvement: Public Buildings Good, Improvement Not Needed 56 62 -6 14 Improvement: Storm Drains and Fair, Probably Needs Improveme 40 46 -6 7 Approval: Solving Traffic Pro Strongly Approve 9 16 -6 13 Improvement: The Sewer System Poor, Def Needs Improvement 35 42 -7 Lawrence Research GROUPTABS Page 7 Huntington Beach / July 2001 0 Cont: Independent • • Question 18 73 55 59 86 70 60 17 49 67 19 16 37 5 14 57 66 12 7 3 13 48 32 11 38 71 61 Improvement: Street Lights [SS2:] Willingness To Pay $15 Believability: City Has Enoug [SS2:] Believability: Auto Ac Final Vote: Measure A [SS1:] Willingness To Pay $15 [SS1:] Believability: There i Improvement: Traffic Signals Believability: Committee is O Push Vote: If Citizen Committ Improvement: Street Trees Improvement: Curbs, Gutters, Importance of the Problem of Huntington Beach Better or Wo Improvement: Storm Drains and S: Occasional Repairs / J: Sp Push Vote: If 20% Decrease in Approval: The overall Job The Approval: Solving Traffic Pro Right Direction / Wrong Track Improvement: The Sewer System Heard: Committee is Overreact Name ID: Bolsa Chica Land Tru Approval: Listening to the Pe [SSI:]Vote: Measure A [SS1:] willingness To Pay $25 [SS2:] Believability: Flood D Answer(s) 1318 Grp Agg Diff Fair, Probably Needs Improveme 19 25 -7 Yes 7 13 -7 Somewhat Believable 19 26 -7 Very Believable 0 7 -7 Probably No 12 19 -7 No 54 61 -7 Very Unbelievable 22 29 -7 Fair, Probably Needs Improveme 26 33 -7 Somewhat Believable 26 33 -7 Undecided 5 12 -8 Poor, Def Needs Improvement 7 15 -8 Poor, Def Needs Improvement 7 15 -8 One of Top Three 42 50 -8 Better 40 48 -8 Poor, Def Needs Improvement 16 24 -8 More Like Jones 60 69 -8 Yes 23 32 -8 Strongly Approve 5 15 -10 Somewhat Disapprove 12 22 -11 Wrong Track 19 30 -11 Fair, Probably Needs Improveme 23 35 -11 Heard 19 31 -12 Somewhat Favorable 9 22 -12 Strongly Approve 0 13 -23 Probably No 17 31 -14 No 33 48 -14 Somewhat Believable 10 26 -16 Lawrence Research GROUPTABS Page g Huntington Beach / July 2001 1318 Kids <18 @ Home Question Answer(s) Grp Agg Diff 59 [SS2:] Believability: Auto Ac Very Believable 68 49 19 74 [SS2:] Willingness To Pay $5 Yes 42 30 12 3 Right Direction / Wrong Track Right Direction 69 57 12 42 [SS2:] Vote: Measure A (Condi Definitely No 63 53 it 61 [SS2:] Believability: Flood D Somewhat Unbelievable 32 22 10 31 Name ID: Surfrider Foundation Strongly Favorable 39 29 10 71 [SS1:1 Willingness To Pay $25 Yes 36 27 9 5 Huntington Beach Better or Wo Better 56 48 9 62 Believability: City and Prope .Somewhat Unbelievable 37 28 9 8 Approval: Making Needed Repai Somewhat Approve 39 31 9 32 Name ID: Boisa Chica Land Tru .Somewhat Favorable 30 22 8 28 Name ID: Huntington Beach Cha Strongly Favorable 28 20 8 38 [SS1:]Vote: Measure A Probably No 39 31 8 86 Final Vote: Measure A Probably No 33 26 7 71 [SS1:] Willingness To Pay $25 No 55 48 7 21 Improvement: Public Buildings Fair, Probably Needs Improveme 36 29 7 34 Name ID: The Huntington Beach Strongly Favorable 20 13 7 73 [SS2:] Willingness To Pay $15 Yes 20 13 7 15 Improvement: City Streets, Al Fair, Probably Needs Improveme 54 48 7 23 improvement: Park Facilities Fair, Probably Needs Improveme 34 28 6 24 Improvement: Water System Fair, Probably Needs Improveme 44 37 6 66 Push Vote: If 20% Decrease in 'Yes 38 32 6 63 Believability: Local Economy Somewhat Unbelievable 30 24 6 22 Improvement: Beach Facilities Fair, Probably Needs Improveme 41 36 6 52 Heard: People of '70's and '8 Heard 26 21 5 53 Believability: People of 170' Somewhat Unbelievable 22 17 5 55 Believability: City Has Enoug Very Believable 55 50 5 69 [SS1:] Willingness To Pay $5 Yes 55 50 5 72 [SS2:] Willingness To Pay $25 No 71 66 5 ************* Range of 5 Points High to 5 Points Low not included ************* 63 Believability: Local Economy Very Believable 6 11 -5 62 Believability: City and Prope Very Unbelievable 34 40 -5 24 Improvement: Water System Good, Improvement Not Needed 39 45 -5 52 Heard: People of 170's and '8 Not Heard 74 79 -5 29 Name ID: Huntington Beach Tom Somewhat Favorable 6 12 -6 32 Name ID: Solea Chica Land Tru Strongly Favorable 29 35 -6 68 Push Vote: If City's Current Undecided 6 12 -6 53 Believability: People of 170' Somewhat Believable 7 13 -6 5 Huntington Beach Better or Wo No Difference 16 23 -7 59 (SS2:] Believability: Auto Ac Very Believable 0 7 -7 59 [SS2:] Believability: Auto Ac Somewhat Believable 16 24 -8 72 [SS2:] Willingness To Pay $25 Yes 21 30 -8 73 [SS2:] Willingness To Pay $15 No 67 75 -9 42 [SS2:1 Vote: Measure A (Condi Probably No 16 25 -9 15 Improvement: City Streets, Al Poor, Def Needs Improvement 17 26 -9 30 Name ID: Howard Jarvis Taxpay Strongly Favorable 26 35 -9 37 Importance of the Problem of The Top Problem 8 18 -9 61 [SS2:] Believability: Flood D Very Believable 8 18 -10 33 Name ID: Amigos de Bolsa Chic Somewhat Favorable 9 19 -10 8 Approval: Making Needed Repai Strongly Disapprove 17 29 -12 74 [SS2:] Willingness To Pay $5 No 46 58 -12 Lawrence Research GROUPTABS Page 9 Huntington Beach / July 2001 1318 Cont: Kids <18 @ Home Question Answer(a) Grp Agg Diff 3 Right Direction / wrong Track Wrong Track 17 30 -13 71 [SS1:] willingness To Pay $25 No Opinion 9 25 -16 • • Lawrence Research GRGUPTABS Page 10 Huntington Beach / July 2001 1318 92646 Question Answer(s) 70 [SS1:] Willingness To Pay $15 No 43 [SS2:] Vote: Measure B (Condi Probably Yes 49 Believability: Committee is 0 Somewhat Believable 60 [SS1:] Believability: There i Somewhat Believable 62 Believability: City and Prope Somewhat Believable 58 [SSI:] Believability: Possibi Very Believable 17 Improvement: Traffic Signals Good, Improvement Not Needed 65 Push Vote: If Funds Used Sole Yes 16 Improvement: Curbs, Gutters, Good, Improvement Not Needed 3 Right Direction / wrong Track Right Direction 10 Approval: Encouraging Re-Deve Strongly Approve ************* Range of 5 Points High to 5 Points Low not included 70 [S51:] Willingness To Pay $15 Yes 59 [SS2:] Believability: Auto Ac Very Believable 17 Improvement: Traffic Signals Fair, Probably Needs Improveme 58 ISS1:] Believability: Possibi Somewhat Unbelievable 7 Approval: Solving Traffic Pro strongly Disapprove 49 Believability: Committee is 0 •Somewhat Unbelievable 18 Improvement: Street Lights Fair, Probably Needs Improveme 65 Push Vote: If Funds Used Sole No 43 [SS2:] Vote: Measure B (Condi Definitely No 60 [SS1:] Believability: There i Somewhat Unbelievable 33 Name ID: Amigos de Bolsa Chic Strongly Favorable Grp Agg Diff 70 61 9 24 16 8 41 33 8 39 31 8 27 20 7 16 10 6 59 53 6 43 37 6 47 41 6 62 57 5 19 14 5 25 30 -5 44 49 -5 28 33 -5 20 26 -6 13 19 -6 13 19 -6 18 25 -7 45 52 -7 45 52 -7 13 23 -10 19 30 -11 LJ • • Lawrence Research GROUPTABS Page 11 Huntington Beach / July 2001 1318 92647 Question Answer(B) Grp Agg Diff 71 (SS1:] Willingness To Pay $25 Yes 40 27 13 13 Improvement: The Sewer System Good, Improvement Not Needed 31 21 10 43 [SS2:] Vote: Measure B (Condi Definitely No 62 52 10 8 Approval: Making Needed Repai Somewhat Approve 40 31 9 15 Improvement: City Streets, Al Good, Improvement Not Needed 34 26 8 65 Push Vote: If Funds Used Sole No 60 52 8 19 Improvement: Street Trees Poor, Def Needs Improvement 22 15 8 20 Improvement: Block Walls Alon Poor, Def Needs Improvement 16 8 7 10 Approval: Encouraging Re-Deve Strongly Disapprove 21 14 7 16 Improvement: Curbs, Gutters, Poor, Def Needs Improvement 21 15 7 58 [SS1:] Believability: Possibi Very Unbelievable 47 41 7 30 Name ID: Howard Jarvis Taxpay Somewhat Favorable 32 26 7 14 Improvement: Storm Drains and Good, Improvement Not Needed 34 28 6 49 Believability: Committee is 0 Very Believable 27 21 6 17 Improvement: Traffic Signals Poor, Def Needs Improvement 19 13 6 22 Improvement: Beach Facilities Fair, Probably Needs Improveme 42 36 6 67 Push Vote: If Citizen Committ No 61 55 6 12 Approval: The Overall Job The Strongly Approve 20 15 6 28 Name ID: Huntington Beach Cha Somewhat Favorable 50 44 6 50 Heard: City Government Has No Not Heard 48 42 6 57 S: Occasional Repairs / J: Sp More Like Smith 20 15 5 74 (SS2:] Willingness To Pay $5 No Opinion 18 12 5 . 15 Improvement: City Streets, Al Poor, Def Needs Improvement 31 26 5 ************* Range of 5 Points High to 5 Points Low not included ************* 20 Improvement: Block Walls Alon Good, Improvement Not Needed 44 49 -5 64 Believability: Nothing Will C Very Unbelievable 16 21 -5 74 [SS2:) Willingness To Pay $5 No 53 58 -5 67 Push Vote: If Citizen Committ Yes 27 33 -5 73 [SS2:] Willingness To Pay $15 Yes 8 13 -5 50 Heard: City Government Has No Heard 52 58 -6 58 [SS1:] Believability: Possibi Very Believable 4 10 -6 57 S: Occasional Repairs / J: Sp More Like Jones 62 69 -6 8 Approval: Making Needed Repai Strongly Disapprove 22 29. -6 3 Right Direction / Wrong Track Right Direction 50 57 -7 16 Improvement: Curbs, Gutters, Fair, Probably Needs Improveme 36 43 -7 28 Name ID: Huntington Beach Cha Strongly Favorable 13 20 -7 65 Push Vote: If Funds Used Sole Yes 29 37 -7 12 Approval: The Overall Job The Somewhat Approve 47 54 -7 43 [SS2:] Vote: Measure B (Condi Probably No 13 21 -8 14 Improvement: Storm Drains and Fair, Probably Needs Improveme 38 46 -8 71 [SS1:] Willingness To Pay $25 No 40 48 -8 10 Approval: Encouraging Re-Deve Somewhat Disapprove 14 22 -8 17 Improvement: Traffic Signals Good, Improvement Not Needed 45 53 -8 49 Believability: Committee is 0 Somewhat Believable 24 33 -9 19 Improvement: Street Trees Good, Improvement Not Needed 45 54 -9 32 Name ID: Bolsa Chica Land Tru Strongly Favorable 25 35 -10 13 59 Improvement: The Sewer System [SS2:] Believability: Auto Ac Poor, Def Needs Improvement Somewhat Believable 31 13 42 24 -10 -11 15 Improvement: City Streets, Al Fair, Probably Needs Improveme 34 48 -14 Lawrence Research GROUPTABS Page 12 Huntington Beach / July 2001 1318 92648 0 Question Answer(s) Grp Agg Diff 71 [SS1:] Willingness To Pay $25 No 78 48 30 59 [SS2:] Believability: Auto Ac- Somewhat Believable 37 24 13 13 Improvement: The Sewer System Poor, Def Needs Improvement 54 42 12 16 Improvement: Curbs, Gutters, Fair, Probably Needs Improveme 55 43 12 31 Name ID: Surfrider Foundation Strongly Favorable 40 29 11 32 Name ID: Bolsa Chico Land Tru Strongly Favorable 45 35- 10 14 Improvement: Storm Drains and Fair, Probably Needs Improveme 56 46 10 72 [SS2:] Willingness To Pay $25 Yes 39 30 10 6 Approval: Providing Needed Pu Somewhat Approve 63 54 10 33 Name ID: Amigos de Bolsa Chic Strongly Favorable 39 30 9 38 [SS1:]Vote: Measure A Probably Yes 21 13 9 15 Improvement: City Streets, Al Fair, Probably Needs Improveme 56 48 8 70 [SS1:] Willingness To Pay $15 'Yes 38 30 8 17 Improvement: Traffic Signals Fair, Probably Needs Improveme 40 33 7 49 Believability: Committee is O Very Unbelievable 25 18 7 73 (SS2:] Willingness To Pay $15 No 82 75 7 18 Improvement: Street Lights Fair, Probably Needs Improveme 32 25 7 67 Push Vote: If Citizen Committ Yee 39 33 7 54 Heard: City Has Enough Money Not Heard 51 45 7 9 Approval: Protecting Beaches Somewhat Disapprove 29 22 7 7 Approval: Solving Traffic Pro Strongly Disapprove 25 19 7 43 [SS2:] Vote: Measure B (Condi Definitely Yes 11 5 6 64 Believability: Nothing Will C Somewhat Unbelievable 29 22 6 58 (SSl:) Believability: Possibi Somewhat Believable 26 20 6 68 Push Vote: If City's Current 'Yes 39 33 6 53 Believability: People of 170, Somewhat Unbelievable 23 17 6 74 (SS2:) Willingness To Pay $5 No 64 58 6 49 Believability: Committee is O Somewhat Unbelievable 25 19 6 63 Believability: Local Economy Very Believable 17 11 6 22 Improvement: Beach Facilities Poor, Def Needs Improvement 18 12 6 62 Believability: City and Prope Somewhat Unbelievable 33 28 5 23 Improvement: Park Facilities Fair, Probably Needs Improveme 33 28 5 12 Approval: The Overall Job'The Somewhat Disapprove 25 20 5 28 Name ID: Huntington Beach Cha Strongly Favorable 25 20 5 65 Push Vote: If Funds Used Sole Yes 42 37 5 37 Importance of the Problem of The Top Problem 23 18 5 43 [SS2:] Vote: Measure B (Condi Probably No 26 21 5 42 (SS2:] Vote: Measure A (Condi Probably Yes 20 15 5 ************* Range of 5 Points High to 5 Points Low not included ************* 71 (SS1:] Willingness To Pay $25 Yes 22 27 -5 6 Approval: Providing Needed Pu Strongly Approve 17 22 -5 30 Name ID: Howard Jarvis Taxpay Strongly Favorable 30 35 -5 8 Approval: Making Needed Repai Somewhat Approve 25 31 -6 28 Name ID: Huntington Beach Cha Somewhat Favorable 38 44 -6 53 Believability: People of 170' Very Unbelievable 49 55 -6 61 [SS2:] Believability: Flood D Somewhat Believable 20 26 -6 22 Improvement: Beach Facilities Good, Improvement Not Needed 42 48 -6 19 Improvement: Street Trees Poor, Def Needs Improvement 8 15 -6 7 Approval: Solving Traffic Pro Somewhat Approve 33 40 -6 49 Believability: Committee is O Very Believable 14 21 -6 62 Believability: City and Prope Somewhat Believable 13 20 -7 7 0 Lawrence Research GROUPTABS Page 13 Huntington Beach / July 2001 1318 Is Cont: 92648 Question Answer(a) Grp Agg Diff 54 Heard: City Has Enough Money Heard 49 56 -7 72 (SS2:] Willingness To Pay $25 No 59 66 -7 59 [SS2:] Believability: Auto Ac Somewhat Believable 7 14 -7 13 Improvement: The Sewer System Good, Improvement Not Needed 13 21 -8 43 [SS2:] Vote: Measure B (Condi Definitely No 43 52 -9 15 Improvement: City Streets, Al Good, Improvement Not Needed 17 26 -9 60 [SS1:] Believability: There i Somewhat Believable 21 31 -9 58 [SS1:] Believability: Paseibi Somewhat Unbelievable 16 26 -10 16 Improvement: Curbs, Gutters, Good, Improvement Not Needed 30 41 -11 14 Improvement: Storm Drains and Good, Improvement Not Needed 15 28 -12 38 [SS1:]Vote: Measure A Probably No 16 31 -15 71 [SS1:] Willingness To Pay $25 No Opinion 0 25 -25 • 0 Lawrence Research GROUPTABS Huntington Beach / July 2001 92649 Question Answers) Page 14 1318 Grp Agg Diff 71 (SS1:] Willingness To Pay $25 No Opinion 46 25 21 58 [Ssl:] Believability: Possibi Somewhat Unbelievable 44 26 i8 19 Improvement: Street Trees Good,.Improvement Not Needed 69 54 15 30 Name ID: Howard Jarvis Taxpay Strongly Favorable 50 35 15 10 Approval: Encouraging Re-Deve Somewhat Disapprove 36 22 •15 43 [SS2:] Vote: Measure B (Condi Definitely No 65 52 13 70 [SS1:] Willingness To Pay $15 No Opinion 21 9 12 74 [SS2:] Willingness To Pay $5 No 70 58 12 33 Name ID: Amigos de Bolsa Chic Strongly Favorable 40 30 10 61 [SS2:] Believability: Flood D Very Unbelievable 39 29 10 23 Improvement: Park Facilities Good, Improvement Not Needed 74 64 9 60 [SS1:] Believability: There i Somewhat Unbelievable 32 23 9 59 [SS2:] Believability: Auto Ac Very Believable 58 49 9 12 Approval: The Overall Job The Somewhat Approve 63 54 9 42 [SS2:] Vote: Measure A (Condi Probably No 32 25 8 63 .. Believability: Local Economy Very Unbelievable 50 43 S 65 Push Vote: If Funds Used Sole No 60 52 7 34 Name ID: The Huntington Beach Somewhat Unfavorable 25 is 7 49 Believability: Committee is 0 Somewhat Unbelievable 26 19 7 32 Name ID: BOlBa Chica Land Tru Somewhat Unfavorable 14 7 7 54 Heard: City Has Enough Money Heard 63 56 7 73 [SS2;] Willingness To Pay $15 Yes 20 13 7 68 Push Vote: If City's Current No 61 55 6 24 Improvement: Water System Fair, Probably Needs Improveme 43 37 6 52 Heard: People of '70's and '8 Not Heard 85 79 6 69 [SS1:] Willingness To Pay $5 No Opinion 12 7 6 86 Final Vote: Measure A Probably No 32 26 6 55 Believability: City Has Enoug Very Believable 56 50 6 32 Name ID: Bolsa Chica Land Tru Strongly Favorable 40 35 6 7 Approval: Solving Traffic Pro Somewhat Disapprove 28 22 6 62 Believability: City and Prope Somewhat Unbelievable 33 28 5 53 Believability: People of '70' Very Unbelievable 60 55 5 72 [SS2:] Willingness To Pay $25 No Opinion 10 5 5 57 S: Occasional Repairs / J: Sp More Like Jones 74 69 5 ************* Range of 5 Points High to 5 Points Low not included ************* 16 Improvement: Curbs, Gutters, Poor, Def Needs Improvement 10 15 -5 7 Approval: Solving Traffic Pro Somewhat Approve 35 40 -5 32 Name ID: Bolsa Chica Land Tru Somewhat Favorable 17 22 -5 60 [SS1:] Believability: There 1 Very Believable 7 13 -6 52 Heard: People of 170's and '8 Heard 15 21 -6 10 Approval: Encouraging Re-Deve Strongly Disapprove 8 14 -6 12 Approval: The Overall Job The Strongly Approve 8 15 -6 24 Improvement: Water System Poor, Def Needs Improvement 8 15 -6 20 Improvement: Block Walls Alon Fair, Probably Needs Improveme 31 37 -6 54 Heard: City Has Enough Money Not Heard 38 45 -7 73 [SS2:] Willingness To Pay $15 No 68 75 -7 74 [SS2:] Willingness To Pay $5 No Opinion 5 12 -7 65 Push Vote: If Funds Used Sole Yes 29 37 -7 61 [SS2:] Believability: Flood D Very Believable 10 18 -8 68 Push Vote: If City's Current Yes 25 33 -8 58 [SS1:] Believability: Possibi Very Unbelievable 32 41 -9 • • Lawrence Research GROUPTABS Page 15 0 • • Cont: Huntington Beach / July 2001 1318 92649 Question Answer(s) Grp Agg Diff 10 Approval: Encouraging Re-Deve Somewhat Approve 28 37 -9 43 (SS2:) Vote: Measure B (Condi Probably Yes 6 16 -9 6 Approval: Providing Needed Pu Somewhat Approve 44 54 -9 23 Improvement: Park Facilities Fair, Probably Needs Improveme 18 28 -10 72 (SS2:] Willingness To Pay $25 Yes 19 30 -10 30 Name ID: Howard Jarvis Taxpay Somewhat Favorable 15 26 -10 59 [SS2:] Believability: Auto Ac Somewhat Believable 13 24 -11 19 Improvement: Street Trees Fair, Probably Needs Improveme 18 29 -11 70 (SS1:] Willingness To Pay $15 No 46 61 -15 71 (SS1:] Willingness To Pay $25 No 31 48 -17 Lawrence Research GROUPTABS Huntington Beach / July 2001 Men Question Answer(s) 61 [SS2:] Believability: Flood D Very Unbelievable 74 (SS2:] Willingness To Pay $5 No 69 [SS1:] Willingness To Pay $5 Yes 51 Believability: City Governmen Very Believable 14 Improvement: Storm Drains and Good, Improvement Not Needed ************* Range of 5 Points High to 5 Points Low not included 32 Name ID: Bolsa Chica Land Tru Strongly Favorable 11 Approval: Listening to the Pe Somewhat Approve 51 Believability: City Governmen Somewhat Believable 33 Name ID: Amigos de Bolsa Chic Strongly Favorable 71 [SSI:] Willingness To Pay $25 Yes 60 [SS1:] Believability: There i Somewhat Unbelievable Page 16 1318 Grp Agg Diff 36 29 7 64 58 6 56 50 6 48 42 6 33 28 6 *******ww*www 30 35 -5 32 37 -5 27 33 -6 24 30 -6 21 27 -6 16 23 -7 • • • Lawrence Research GROUPTABS Page 17 Huntington Beach / July 2001 1318 0 Women Question Anewer(s) Grp Agg Diff 71 [SS1:] Willingness To Pay $25 Yes 35 27 8 60 [SS1:] Believability: There i Somewhat Unbelievable 29 23 7 33 Name ID: AmigoB de Bolea Chic Strongly Favorable 37 30 6 51 Believability: City Governmen Somewhat Believable 40 33 6 11 Approval: Listening to the Pe Somewhat Approve 43 37 5 32 Name ID: Bolsa Chica Land Tru Strongly Favorable 40 35 5 ************* Range of 5 Pointe High to 5 Pointe Low not included ************* 14 Improvement: Storm Drains and Good, Improvement Not Needed 22 28 -6 51 Believability: City Governmen Very Believable 37 42 -6 74 [SS2:] Willingness To Pay $5 No 52 58 -6 69 [SSI:] Willingness To Pay $5 Yes 44 50 -6 61 [SS2:] Believability: Flood D Very Unbelievable 22 29 -7 • is Lawrence Research GROUPTABS Page 18 Huntington Beach / July 2001 1318 Res: < 5 Yrs Question Answer(s) Grp Agg Diff 71 [SSI:] Willingness To Pay $25 No 100 48 52 74 [SS2:] Willingness To Pay $5 No Opinion 38 12 25 43 [SS2:] Vote: Measure B (Condi Probably No 43 21 22 10 Approval: Encouraging Re-Deve Strongly Approve 32 14 18 12 Approval: The Overall Job The Strongly Approve 32 15 18 60 (SS1:] Believability: There i Somewhat Believable 47 31 17 57 S: Occasional Repairs / J: Sp More Like Jones 84 69 15 63 Believability: Local Economy Somewhat Unbelievable 39 24 14 8 Approval: Making Needed Repai Strongly Approve 26 13 13 51 Believability: City Governmen Somewhat Believable 45 33 12 59 [SS2:] Believability: Auto Ac Somewhat Believable 36 24 12 24 Improvement: Water.System Poor, Def Needs Improvement 26 15 11 48 Heard: Committee is Overreact Not Heard 81 70 11 24 Improvement: water System Fair, Probably Needs Improveme 48 37 11 62 Believability: City and Prope Very Believable 19 8 11 28 Name ID: Huntington Beach Cha Somewhat Favorable 55 44 11 61 [SS2:] Believability: Flood D Very Believable 29 18 11 13 Improvement: The Sewer System Poor, Def Needs Improvement 52 42 10 11 Approval: Listening to the Pe Strongly Approve 23 13 10 37 Importance of the Problem of One of Top Five 26 16 10 67 Push Vote: If Citizen Committ Yes 42 33 9 22 Improvement: Beach Facilities No Opinion 13 4 9 73 [SS2:] Willingness To Pay $15 No Opinion 20 11 9 38 [SS1:]Vote: Measure A Definitely No 59 51 8 30 Name ID: Howard Jarvis Taxpay Somewhat Unfavorable 13 5 8 74 [SS2:] Willingness To Pay $5 Yes 38 30 8 16 Improvement: Curbs, Gutters, Good, Improvement Not Needed 48 41 7 66 Push Vote: If 20% Decrease in Undecided 19 12 7 9 Approval: Protecting Beaches Strongly Approve 19 12 7 59 [SS2:] Believability: Auto Ac Very Believable 14 7 7 3 Right Direction / Wrong Track Right Direction 65 57 7 54 Heard: City Has Enough Money Not Heard 52 45 7 22 Improvement: Beach Facilities Poor, Def Needs Improvement 19 12 7 42 [SS2:] Vote: Measure A {Condi Probably Yes 21 15 7 7 Approval: Solving Traffic Pro Strongly Approve 23 16 7 55 Believability: City Has Enoug Somewhat Believable 32 26 7 61 [SS2:] Believability: Flood D Very Unbelievable 36 29 7 20 Improvement: Block Walls Alon No Opinion 13 6 7 73 [SS2:] Willingness To Pay $15 Yes 20 13 7 21 Improvement: Public Buildings Fair, Probably Needs Improveme 35 29 6 31 Name ID: Surfrider Foundation Strongly Favorable 35 29 6 19 Improvement: Street Trees Fair, Probably Needs Improveme 35 29 6 9 Approval: Protecting Beaches Strongly Disapprove 39 33 6 14 Improvement: Storm Drains and Fair, Probably Needs Improveme 52 46 6 53 Believability: People of 170, Somewhat Unbelievable 23 17 6 86 Final Vote: Measure A Probably No 32 26 6 49 Believability: Committee is 0 Somewhat Believable 39 33 6 35 Name ID: The Citizens Infrast Somewhat Unfavorable 10 4 6 70 [SS1:] Willingness To Pay $15 No 67 61 6 21 Improvement: Public Buildings No opinion 10 4 5 63 Believability: Local Economy Very Believable 16 11 5 Lawrence Research GROUPTABS Page 19 Huntington Beach / July 2001 1318 SCont: Res: < 5 Yrs • • Question 20 6 57 32 29 9 8 49 34 35 33 51 54 61 38 55 49 70 19 63 43 28 10 13 67 43 30 86 21 63 32 60 51 66 B 48 61 57 11 16 12 31 33 7 62 10 73 22 ******* Range of 5 Points High Improvement: Block Walla Alon Approval: Providing Needed Pu S: Occasional Repairs / J: Sp Name ID: Bolsa Chica Land Tru Name ID: Huntington Beach Tom Approval: Protecting Beaches Approval: Making Needed Repai Believability: Committee is O Name ID: The Huntington Beach Name ID: The Citizens Infrast Name ID: Amigos de Bolsa Chic Believability: City Governmen Heard: City Has Enough Money [SS2:] Believability: Flood D [SS1:]Vote: Measure A Believability: City Has Enoug Believability: Committee is 0 [SS1:1 Willingness To Pay $15 Improvement: Street Trees Believability: Local Economy [SS2:] Vote: Measure B (Condi Name ID: Huntington Beach Cha Approval: Encouraging Re-Deve Improvement: The Sewer System Push Vote: If Citizen Committ [SS2:] Vote: Measure B (Condi Name ID: Howard Jarvis Taxpay Final Vote: Measure A Improvement: Public Buildings Believability: Local Economy Name ID: Bolsa Chica Land Tru [SS1:] Believability: There i Believability: City Governmen Push Vote: If 20% Decrease in Approval: Making Needed Repai Heard: Committee is Overreact [SS2:j Believability: Flood D S: Occasional Repairs / J: Sp Approval: Listening to the Pe Improvement: Curbs, Gutters, Approval: The Overall Job The Name ID: Surfrider Foundation Name ID: Amigos de BOlsa Chic Approval: Solving Traffic Pro Believability: City and Prope Approval: Encouraging Re-Deve [SS2:] Willingness To Pay $15 Improvement: Beach Facilities Answer(s) to 5 Points Low not included Poor, Def Needs Improvement Somewhat Disapprove More Like Smith Somewhat Favorable Strongly Favorable Somewhat Disapprove Strongly Disapprove Somewhat Unbelievable Strongly Favorable Somewhat Favorable Strongly Unfavorable Very Believable Heard Somewhat Unbelievable Probably No Somewhat Unbelievable Very Believable Yes Poor, Def Needs Improvement Somewhat Believable Probably Yes Somewhat Unfavorable Somewhat Disapprove Fair, Probably Needs Improveme Undecided Definitely No Somewhat Favorable Definitely No Good, Improvement Not Needed Very Unbelievable Strongly Unfavorable Somewhat Unbelievable Somewhat Unbelievable No Somewhat Approve Heard Somewhat Believable More Like Baker Somewhat Approve Poor, Def Needs Improvement Somewhat Approve Somewhat Favorable Somewhat Favorable Somewhat Approve Very Unbelievable Somewhat Approve No Good, Improvement Not Needed Grp Agg Diff ************* 3 8 -5 6 12 -5 10 15 -5 16 -22 -6 3 9 -6 16 22 -6 23 29 -6 13 19 -6 .6 13 -7 6 13 -7 0 7 -7 35 42 -7 48 56 -7 14 22 -7 24 31 -7 3 11 -8 13 21 -8 22 30 -8 6 15 -8 10 18 -8 7 16 -8 0 9 -9 13 22 -9 26 35 -9 3 12 -9 43 52 -9 16 26 -9 32 42 -10 52 62 -10 32 43 -10 0 11 -11 12 23 -11 0 11 -11 45 56 -11 19 31 -11 19 31 -11 14 26 -11 0 11 -11 26 37 -11 3 15 -12 42 54 -12 6 19 -12 6 19 -13 26 40 -14 26 40 -14 23 37 -14 60 75 -15 32 48 -15 Lawrence Research GROUPTABS Page 20 Huntington Beach J July 2001 1318 Cont: Res: < 5 Yrs Question Answer(s) Grp Agg Diff 53 Believability: People of '70' Very Unbelievable 35 55 -19 30 Name ID: Howard Jarvis Taxpay Strongly Favorable 16 35 -19 59 [SS2:] Believability: Auto AC Very Believable 29 49 -20 24 Improvement: Water System Good, Improvement Not Needed 23 45 -22 71 [SS1:] Willingness To Pay $25 No opinion 0 25 -25 71 [SSl:] Willingness To Pay $25 Yes 0 27 -27 74 ISS2:1 Willingness To Pay $5 No 25 58 -33 • Lawrence Research GROUPTABS Page 21 Huntington Beach / July 2001 1318 Res: 5-10 Yrs Question Answer(B) Grp Agg Diff 60 [SSI:j Believability: There i Very Believable 32 13 19 71 [SS1:] Willingness To Pay $25 Yes 44 27 17 43 (SS2:] Vote: Measure B (Condi Definitely No 68 52 16 3 Right Direction / Wrong Track Right Direction 72 57 15 69 [Ssl:] willingness To Pay $5 Yes 65 50 15 22 Improvement: Beach Facilities Fair, Probably Needs Improveme 50 36 14 72 (SS2:] Willingness To Pay $25 No 79 66 13 70 [SS1:] Willingness To Pay $15 Yes 43 30 13 14 Improvement: Storm Drains and Fair, Probably Needs Improveme 58 46 13 5 Huntington Beach Better or Wo Better 60 48 13 86 Final Vote: Measure A Probably No 38 26 12 42 [SS2:] Vote: Measure A (Condi Definitely Yes 16 5 11 51 Believability: City Governmen Somewhat Unbelievable 22 11 11 38 [SS1:]Vote: Measure A Probably No 42 31 11 54 Heard: City Has Enough Money Heard 66 56 11 66 Push Vote: If 20% Decrease in Yea 42 32 10 73' [SS2:] Willingness To Pay $15 Yes 24 13 10 9 Approval; Protecting Beaches Strongly Approve 22 12 10 8 Approval: Making Needed Repai Somewhat Approve 40 31 10 11 Approval: Listening to the Pe Strongly Approve 22 13 10 68 Push Vote: If City's Current Yes 42 33 9 57 S: occasional Repairs / J: Sp More Like Smith 24 15 9 15 Improvement: City Streets, Al Fair, Probably Needs Improveme 56 48 9 34 Name ID: The Huntington Beach Somewhat Favorable 50 42 8 53 Believability: People of '70' Somewhat Unbelievable 24 17 8 31 Name ID: Surfrider Foundation Somewhat Favorable 26 19 7 55 Believability: City Has Enoug Somewhat Unbelievable 18 11 7 59 (SS2:] Believability: Auto Ac Somewhat Believable 21 14 7 18 Improvement: Street Lights Fair, Probably Needs Improveme 32 25 7 8 Approval: Making Needed Repai Strongly Approve 20 13 7 24 Improvement: Water System Fair, Probably Needs Improveme 44 37 7 58 [SS1:] Believability: Possibi Very Believable 16 10 7 28 Name ID: Huntington Beach Cha Strongly Favorable 26 20 6 61 [SS2:] Believability: Flood D somewhat Believable 32 26 6 72 (SS2:] Willingness To Pay $25 No Opinion it 5 6 12 Approval: The overall Job The Strongly Approve 20 15 6 42 [SS2:] Vote: Measure A (Condi Definitely No 58 53 5 17 Improvement: Traffic Signals Good, Improvement Not Needed 58 53 5 ************* Range of 5 Points High to 5 Points Low not included ************* 58 [SS1:] Believability: Possibi Very Unbelievable 35 41 -5 49 Believability: Committee is 0 Somewhat Unbelievable 14 19 -5 73 (SS2:) Willingness To Pay $15 No Opinion 6 11 -5 12 Approval: The overall Job The Somewhat Disapprove 14 20 -6 66 Push Vote: If 20% Decrease in Undecided 6 12 -6 55 Believability: City Has Enoug Very Believable 44 50 -6 60 [SS1:] Believability: There i Very Unbelievable 23 29 -6 74 [SS2:j Willingness To Pay $5 Yee 23 30 -6 7 Approval: Solving Traffic Pro Strongly Disapprove 12 19 -7 32 Name ID: BolBa Chica Land Tru Strongly Unfavorable 4 11 -7 8 Approval: Making Needed Repai Strongly Disapprove 22 29 -7 59 (SS2:] Believability: Auto Ac Very Believable 0 7 -7 Lawrence Research GROUPTABS Page 22 Huntington Beach / July 2001 1318 Cont: Res: 5-10 Yrs , Question 13 60 34 59 33 57 70 42 30 8 86 43 54 61 5 69 14 22 9 38 15 51 53 3 71 72 improvement: The Sewer System [SS1:] Believability: There i Name ID: The Huntington Beach (SS2:] Believability: Auto Ac Name ID: Amigos de Bolsa Chic S: Occasional Repairs / J: Sp ISSI:] Willingness To Pay $15 (SS2:] Vote: Measure A (Condi Name ID: Howard Jarvis Taxpay Approval: Making Needed Repai Final Vote: Measure A [SS2:] Vote: Measure B (Condi Heard: City Has Enough Money [SS2:] Believability: Flood D Huntington Beach Better or Wo [SS1:] Willingness To Pay $5. Improvement: Storm Drains and Improvement: Beach Facilities Approval: Protecting Beaches [SS1:]Vote: Measure A Improvement: City Streets, Al Believability: City Governmen Believability: People of '70' Right Direction / Wrong Track (SS1:] Willingness To Pay $25 [SS2:] willingness To Pay $25 Answer(s) Grp Agg Diff Good, Improvement Not Needed 14 21 -7 Somewhat Believable 23 31 -8 Strongly Unfavorable 10 18 -8 Somewhat Believable 16 24 -8 Strongly Favorable 22 30 -8 More Like Jones 60 69 -9 No Opinion .0 9 -9 Probably Yes 5 15 -9 Strongly Favorable 26 35 -9 Somewhat Disapprove 14 24 -10 Definitely No 32 42 -10 Probably No 11 21 -10 Not Heard 34 45 -11 Somewhat Unbelievable 11 22 -11 Worse 14 25 -11 No 32 44 -11 Good, Improvement Not Needed 16 28 -12 Good, Improvement Not Needed 36 48 -12 Somewhat Approve 18 30 -12 Definitely No 39 51 -12 Poor, Def Needs Improvement 14 26 -12 Very Believable 30 42 -12 Very Unbelievable 42 55 -13 Wrong Track 16 30 -14 No Opinion 11 25 -14 Yes 11 30 -19 • 0 Lawrence Research GROUPTABS Page 23 • 0 Question 58 42 61 57 73 70 74 54 43 11 72 10 22 65 68 37 67 5 86 48 70 66 59 9 71 51 60 50 8 62 63 13 23 24 18 19 60 69 34 33 21 31 63 6 7 14 31 32 64 11 32 Huntington Beach / July 2001 1318 Res: 10-15 Yrs (SS1:1 Believability: Possibi [SS2:] Vote: Measure A (Condi [SS2:1 Believability: Flood D S: Occasional Repairs / J: Sp (SS2:) Willingness To Pay $15 (SS1:1 Willingness To Pay $15 [SS2:1 Willingness To Pay $5 Heard: City Has Enough Money [SS2:1 Vote: Measure B (Condi Approval: Listening to the Pe [SS2:1 Willingness To Pay $25 Approval: Encouraging Re-Deve Improvement: Beach Facilities Push Vote: If Funds Used Sole Push Vote: If City's Current Importance of the Problem of Push Vote: If Citizen Committ Huntington Beach Better or Wo Final Vote: Measure A Heard: Committee is Overreact [SS1:] willingness To Pay $15 Push Vote: If 20% Decrease in [SS2:] Believability: Auto Ac Approval: Protecting Beaches [SS1:] willingness To Pay $25 Believability: City Governmen [SS1:] Believability: There i Heard: City -Government Has No Approval: Making Needed Repai Believability: City and Prope Believability: Local Economy Improvement: The Sewer System Improvement: Park Facilities Improvement: Water System Improvement: Street Lights Improvement: Street Trees [SSI:] Believability: There i [SS1:1 Willingness To Pay $5 Name ID: The Huntington Beach Name ID: Amigos de Bolsa Chic Improvement: Public Buildings Name ID: Surfrider Foundation Believability: Local Economy Approval: Providing Needed Pu Approval: Solving Traffic Pro Improvement: Storm Drains and Name ID: Surfrider Foundation Name ID: Balsa Chica Land Tru Believability: Nothing Will C Approval: Listening to the Pe Name ID: Balsa Chica Land Tru Answer(a) Grp Agg Diff Somewhat Believable 41 20 21 Definitely No 73 53 21 Somewhat Unbelievable 40 22 19 More Like Smith 32 15 17 No 92 75 16 No Opinion 25 9 16 Yes 45 30 16 Not Heard 59 45 15 Definitely No 67 52 15 Somewhat Approve 51 37 14 No 80 66 14 Somewhat Disapprove 35 22 14 Fair, Probably Needs Improveme 49 36 13 No 65 52 13 No 68 55 13 One of Top Three 62 50 12 No 68 55 12 Better 59 48 12 Definitely No 54 42 12 Not Heard 81 70 12 Yes 42 30 12 No 68 56 11 Very Believable 60 49 11 Somewhat Disapprove 32 22 10 Yes 38 27 10 Somewhat Believable 43 33 10 Very Believable 23 13 10 Not Heard . 51 42 9 Somewhat Disapprove 32 24 9 Very Unbelievable 49 40 9 Very Unbelievable 51 43 9 Fair, Probably Needs Improveme 43 35 9 Good, Improvement Not Needed 73 64 9 Fair, Probably Needs Improveme 46 37 9 Poor, Def Needs Improvement 14 5 8 Good, Improvement Not Needed 62 54 B Very Unbelievable 36 29 7 No Opinion 14 7 . 7 Somewhat Favorable 49 42 7 Strongly Unfavorable 14 7 7 No Opinion 11 4 7 Strongly Unfavorable 8 2 6 Somewhat Believable 24 18 6 Somewhat Approve 59 54 6 Strongly Approve 22 16 6 Fair, Probably Needs Improveme 51 46 6 Somewhat Unfavorable 11 5 6 Strongly Unfavorable 16 11 6 Somewhat Believable 35 30 6 Somewhat Disapprove 27 22 5 Somewhat Favorable 27 22 5 Lawrence Research GROUPTABS Page 24 Huntington Beach / July 2001 1318 Cont: Y Res: 10-15 Yrs Question Answer(s) Grp Agg Diff 28 Name ID: Huntington Beach Cha Somewhat Unfavorable 14 9 5 ************* Range of 5 Points High to 5 Points Low not included ************* 73 [SS2:1 Willingness To Pay $15 Yes B 13 -5 37 Importance of the Problem of one of Top Five 11 16 -5 57 S: Occasional Repairs / J: Sp No Opinion 0 5 -5 63 Believability: Local Economy Somewhat Unbelievable 19 24- -5 55 Believability: City Has Enoug Somewhat Unbelievable 5 it -5 9 Approval: Protecting Beaches : Strongly Disapprove 27 33 -5 30 Name ID: Howard Jarvis Taxpay Strongly Favorable 30 35 -6 62 Believability: City and Prope very Believable 3 8 -6 63 Believability: Local Economy Very Believable 5 11 -6 10 Approval: Encouraging Re-Deve' Strongly Approve 8 14 -6 7 Approval: Solving Traffic Pro Somewhat Disapprove 16 22 -6 18 Improvement: Street Lights Good, Improvement Not Needed 62 69 -6 23 Improvement: Park Facilities Fair, Probably Needs Improveme 22 28 -6 59 (SS2:] Believability: Auto Ac Very Believable 0 7 -7 51 Believability: City Governmen Very Believable 35 42 -7 8 Approval: Making Needed Repai, Strongly Disapprove 22 29 -7 11 Approval: Listening to the Pe Strongly Disapprove 8 15 -7 64 Believability: Nothing Will C Very Unbelievable 14 21 -7 59 [SS2:] Believability: Auto Ac Somewhat Believable 7 14 -7 66 Push Vote: If 20% Decrease in Yes 24 32 -7 . 43 (SS2:) Vote: Measure B (Condi Probably No 13 21 -8 42 [SS2:] Vote: Measure A (Condi Probably Yes 7 15 -8 86 Final Vote: Measure A Probably No it 19 -8 3 Right Direction / Wrong Track Wrong Track 22 30 -8 10 Approval: Encouraging Re-Deve Strongly Disapprove 5 14 -9 61 [SS2:] Believability: Flood D Very Unbelievable 20 29 -9 57 S: Occasional Repairs / J: Sp More Like Jones 59 69 -9 29 Name ID: Huntington Beach Tom Somewhat Favorable 3 12 -9 13 Improvement: The Sewer System Poor, Def Needs Improvement 32 42 -9 69 [SS1:] Willingness To Pay $5 Yes 41 50 -9 30 Name ID: Howard Jarvis Taxpay Somewhat Favorable 16 26 -9 50 Heard: City Government Has No Heard 49 58 -9 65 Push Vote: If Funds Used Sole Yes 27 37 -9 72 [SS2:] Willingness To Pay $25 Yes 20 30 -10 11 Approval: Listening to the Pe Strongly Approve 3 13 -10 49 Believability: Committee is 0 Very.Unbelievable 8 18 -10 71 [SS1:] Willingness To Pay $25 No 38 48 -10 33 Name ID: Amigos de Bolsa Chic Strongly Favorable 19 30 -11 73 (SS2:] Willingness To Pay $15 No Opinion 0 11 -11 17 Improvement: Traffic Signals Fair, Probably Needs Improveme 22 33 -11 68 Push Vote: If City's Current Yes 22 33 -11 5 Huntington Beach Better or Wo Worse 14 25 -11 48 Heard: Committee is Overreact Heard 19 31 -12 37 Importance of the Problem of The Top Problem 5 18 -12 74 [SS2:] Willingness To Pay $5 No Opinion 0 12 -12 34 Name ID: The Huntington Beach Strongly Unfavorable 5 18 -13 31 Name ID: Surfrider Foundation Strongly Favorable 16 29 -13 Lawrence Research GROUPTABS Page 25 Huntington Beach / July 2001 1318 Cant: Res: 10-15 Yrs Question Answer(s) Grp Agg Diff 60 (SS1:) Believability: There i Somewhat Unbelievable 9 23 -13 67 Push Vote: If Citizen Committ Yes 19 33 -14 54 Heard: City Has Enough Money Heard 41 56 -15 32 Name ID: Bolsa Chica Land Tru Strongly Favorable 16 35 -19 58 [SSl:] Believability: Possibi Somewhat Unbelievable 5 26 -21 70 [SS1:] Willingness To Pay $15 No 33 61 -28 • • Lawrence Research GROUPTABS Page 26 Huntington Beach / July 2001 1318 ' . Res: 15-25 Yrs Question .r Answer(s) Grp Agg Diff 23 Improvement: Park Facilities Fair, Probably Needs Improveme 40 28 12 72 [SS2:] Willingness To Pay $25 No 77 66 11 60 [SS1:) Believability: There i Somewhat Unbelievable 32 23 9 58 [SS1:] Believability: Possibi Somewhat Unbelievable 34 26 9 65 Push Vote: If Funds Used Sole Yes 45 37 9 71 (SS1:] Willingness To Pay $25 No Opinion 33 25 8 22 Improvement: Beach Facilities Good, Improvement Not Needed 56 48 8 20 Improvement: Block Walls Alon Good, Improvement Not Needed 57 49 B 12 Approval: The Overall Job The Somewhat Approve 62 54 B 15 Improvement: City Streets, Al Fair, Probably Needs Improveme 55 48 8 43 (SS2:] Vote: Measure B (Condi Probably Yes 23 16 7 61 (SS2:] Believability: Flood D Very Believable 25 18 7 16 Improvement: Curbs, Gutters, Fair, Probably Needs Improveme 50 ' 43 7 3 Right Direction / Wrong Track Right Direction 64 57 7 8 Approval: Making Needed Repai Somewhat Approve 37 31 7 7 .. Approval: Solving Traffic Pro Somewhat Approve 46 40 6 37 Importance of the Problem of One of Top Five 22 16 6 50 Heard: City Government Has No Heard 64 58 6 67 Push Vote: If Citizen Committ Yes 38 33 6 74 (SS2:] Willingness To Pay $5 Yes 35 30 5 69 9 (SS1:) Willingness To Pay $5 Approval: Protecting Beaches Yes Somewhat Approve 55 35 50 30 5 5 5 Huntington Beach Better or Wo No Difference 28 23 5 ************* Range of 5 Points High to 5 Points Low not included ************* 70 [SS1:) willingness To Pay $15 No Opinion 4 9 -5 71 [SS1:] Willingness To Pay $25 Yes 22 27 -5 58 (SS1:) Believability: Possibi Very Believable 4 10 -5 8 Approval: Making Needed Repai Strongly Approve 8 13 -5 12 Approval: The Overall Job The Strongly Approve 9 15 -6 14 Improvement: Storm Drains and Fair, Probably Needs Improveme 40 46 -6 19 Improvement: Street Trees Poor, Def Needs Improvement 9 15 -6 23 Improvement: Park Facilities Poor, .Def Needs Improvement 1 7 -6 51 Believability: City Governmen Somewhat Unbelievable 5 11 -6 38 [SS1:]Vote: Measure A Definitely No 45 51 -6 50 Heard: City Government Has No Not Heard 36 42 -6 23 Improvement: Park Facilities Good, Improvement Not Needed 58 64 -6 66 Push Vote: If 20% Decrease in No 50 56 -6 61 (SS2:) Believability: Flood D Very Unbelievable 23 29 -6 69 [SS1:] willingness To Pay $5 No Opinion 0 7 -7 22 Improvement: Beach Facilities Fair, Probably Needs Improveme 29 36 -7 3 Right Direction / Wrong Track Wrong Track 23 30 -7 37 Importance of the Problem of One of Top Three 43 50 -7 60 [SS1:] Believability: There i very Unbelievable 21 29 -8 67 Push Vote: If Citizen Committ No 47 55 -8 60 (SS1:] Believability: There i Very Believable 4 13 -9 65 Push Vote: If Funds Used Sole No 43 52 -9 43 (SS2:] Vote: Measure B (Condi Definitely No 40 52 -12 72 [SS2:] Willingness To Pay $25 Yes 17 30 -13 Lawrence Research GROUPTABS Page 27 Huntington Beach / July 2001 1318 0 Res: 25+ Yrs • • Question Anewer(s) 72 (SS2:] Willingness To Pay $25 Yes 3 Right Direction / Wrong Track Wrong Track 30 Name ID: Howard Jarvis Taxpay Strongly Favorable 71 [SS1:] Willingness To Pay $25 No Opinion 5 Huntington Beach Better or Wo Worse 74 [SS2:) Willingness To Pay $5 No 53 Believability: People of '70' Very Unbelievable 34 Name ID: The Huntington Beach Strongly Unfavorable 19 Improvement: Street Trees Poor, Def Needs Improvement 38 [SS1:]Vote: Measure A Definitely No 8 Approval: Making Needed Repai Strongly Disapprove 70 [SS1:] Willingness To Pay $15 No ************* Range of 5 Points High to 5 Points Low not included 8 Approval: Making Needed Repai Somewhat Approve 51 Believability: City Governmen Somewhat Believable 61 [SS2:] Believability: Flood D Very Believable 69 [SS1:] Willingness To Pay $5 Yes 23 Improvement: Park Facilities Fair, Probably Needs Improveme 15 Improvement: city Streets, Al Fair, Probably Needs Improveme 71 [SS1:] Willingness To Pay $25 Yes 5 Huntington Beach Better or Wo Better 74 [SS2:] Willingness To Pay $5 Yes 70 [SS1:1 Willingness To Pay $15 Yes 3 Right Direction / Wrong Track Right Direction 72 [SS2:] Willingness To Pay $25 No Grp Agg Diff 41 30 12 40 30 10 45 35 9 33 25 8 33 25 8 66 58 8 62 55 8 24 18 6 21 15 6 57 51 6 35 29 6 67 61 6 ************* 25 31 -5 28 33 -5 12 18 -5 45 5o -5 23 28 -5 41 48 -7 20 27 -7 40 48 -7 22 30 -8 22 30 -8 47 57 -10 56 66 -10 Lawrence Research GROUPTABS Page 28 Huntington Beach / July 2001 1318 r- HS or Less Question Answer(s) Grp Agg Diff 74 [SS2:] Willingness To Pay $5 No 85 58 26 58 [SS1:] Believability: Possibi Somewhat Believable 37 20 17 69 (SS1:] Willingness To Pay $5 Yes 67 50 17 62 Believability: City and Prope Very Unbelievable 56 40 16 71 [SS1:] Willingness To Pay $25 No 63 48 15 51 Believability: City Governmen Very Believable 56 42 14 70 [SS1:] Willingness To Pay $15 Yes 42 30 12 61 [SS2:] Believability: Flood D Very Unbelievable 40 29 it 30 Name ID: Howard Jarvis Taxpay Strongly Favorable 46 35 11 60 (SS1:) Believability: There i Somewhat Believable 41 31 10 73 [SS2:] Willingness To Pay $15 Yes 24 13 10 38 [SSi:]Vote: Measure A Probably No 41 31 10 19 Improvement: Street Trees Good, Improvement Not Needed 63 54 9 10 Approval: Encouraging Re-Deve Strongly Disapprove 23 14 9 23 Improvement: Park Facilities Fair, Probably Needs Improveme 37 28 9 16 Improvement: Curbs, Gutters, Poor, Def Needs Improvement 23 15 8 59 [SS2:] Believability: Auto Ac Somewhat Believable 32 24 8 8 Approval: Making Needed Repai strongly Approve 21 13 8 21 Improvement: Public Buildings Fair, Probably Needs Improveme 37 29 8 42 [SS2:] Vote: Measure A (Condi Definitely Yes 12 5 8 63 Believability: Local Economy Very Unbelievable 50 43 8 54 Heard: City Has Enough Money Not Heard 52 45 7 17 Improvement: Traffic Signals Fair, Probably Needs Improveme 40 33 7 60 (SS1:] Believability: There i Somewhat Unbelievable 30 23 7 43 [SS2:] Vote: Measure B (Condi Probably No 28 21 7 57 S: Occasional Repairs / J: Sp More Like Jones 75 69 7 14 Improvement: Storm Drains and Fair, Probably Needs Improveme 52 46 6 67 Push Vote: If Citizen Committ No 62 55 6 34 Name ID: The Huntington Beach Strongly Favorable 19 13 6 3 Right Direction / Wrong Track Right Direction 63 57 6 65 Push Vote: If Funds Used Sole Yes 42 37 6 13 Improvement: The Sewer System Good, Improvement Not Needed 27 21 6 42 [SS2:] Vote: Measure A (Condi Probably Yes 20 15 6 31 Name ID: Surfrider Foundation strongly Favorable 35 29 5 86 Final Vote: Measure A Definitely Yes 12 6 5 53 Believability: People of 1701 very Unbelievable 60 55 5 11 Approval: Listening to the Pe Somewhat Approve 42 37 5 ************* Range of 5 Points High to 5 Points Low not included ************* 14 Improvement: Storm Drains and Poor, Def Needs Improvement 19 24 -5 63 Believability: Local Economy Somewhat Unbelievable 19 24 -5 15 Improvement: City Streets, Al Fair, Probably Needs Improveme 42 48 -5 6 Approval: Providing Needed Pu Somewhat Approve 48 54 -5 61 (SS2:] Believability: Flood D Very Believable 12 18 -6 60 iSSl:] Believability; There i Very Believable 7 13 -6 8 Approval: Making Needed Repai Strongly Disapprove 23 29 -6 58 [SS1:] Believability: Possibi Very Believable 4 10 -6 32 Name ID:.Bolsa Chica Land Tru Strongly Favorable 29 35 -6 55 Believability: City Has Enoug Very Unbelievable 0 6 -6 30 Name ID: Howard Jarvis Taxpay Somewhat Favorable 19 26 -6 54 Heard: City Has Enough Money Heard 48 56 -7 13 Improvement: The Sewer System Fair, Probably Needs Improveme 27 3S -8 Lawrence Research GROUPTABS Page 29 Huntington Beach / July 2001 1318 • Cont: HS or Less Question Answers) Grp Agg Diff 65 Push Vote: If Funds Used Sole No 44 52 -8 10 Approval: Encouraging Re-Deve Somewhat Disapprove 13 22 -8 62 Believability: City and Prope Somewhat Believable 12 20 -8 42 [SS2:] Vote: Measure A (Condi Probably No .16 25 -9 3 Right Direction / Wrong Track Wrong Track 21 30 -9 38 [SS1:]Vote: Measure A Probably Yes 4 13 -9 53 Believability: People of '70' Somewhat Unbelievable 8 17 -9 70 [SS1:] Willingness To Pay $15 No Opinion 0 9 -9 28 Name ID: Huntington Beach Cha Somewhat Favorable 35 44 -9 59 [SS2:] Believability: Auto Ac Somewhat Believable 4 14 -10 51 Believability: City Governmen Somewhat Believable 23 33 -10 11 Approval: Listening to the Pe Somewhat Disapprove 12 22 -10 73 [SS2:1 Willingness To Pay $15 No 65 75 -10 19 Improvement: Street Trees Fair, Probably Needs Improveme 17 29 -12 71 [SS1:1 Willingness To Pay $25 No Opinion 13 25 -13 69 [SSl:] Willingness To Pay $5 No 30 44 -14 60 [SS1:] Believability: There i Very Unbelievable 7 29 -22 74 [SS2:] Willingness To Pay $5 Yes 8 30 -22 • • Lawrence Research GROUPTABS Page 30 Question Huntington Beach / July 2001 1318 Some Coll/Voc Answer(s) 42 [SS2:] Vote: Measure A (Condi Definitely No 69 [SS1:] Willingness To Pay $5 No Opinion 70 (SS1:] Willingness To Pay $15 No Opinion 74 (SS2:] Willingness To Pay $5 No 50 Heard: City Government Has No Not Heard 13 Improvement: The Sewer System Good, Improvement Not Needed 7 Approval: Solving Traffic Pro Somewhat Disapprove 71 [SS1:] Willingness To Pay $25 No 53 Believability: People of '70' Somewhat Unbelievable 71 [SS1:] Willingness To Pay $25 No Opinion 63 . Believability: Local Economy Somewhat Unbelievable 19 Improvement: Street Trees Poor, Def Needs Improvement 22 Improvement: Beach Facilities Fair, Probably Needs Improveme ************* Range of 5 Points High to 5 Points Low not included 20 Improvement: Block Walls Alon Good, Improvement Not Needed 30 Name ID: Howard Jarvis Taxpay Strongly Unfavorable 58 [SS1:] Believability: Possibi Somewhat Believable 7 Approval: Solving Traffic Pro Strongly Approve 9 Approval: Protecting Beaches Strongly Disapprove 60 [SSI:] Believability: There i Very Believable 31 Name ID: Surfrider Foundation Strongly Favorable 68 Push Vote: If City's Current Yes 51 Believability: City Governmen Very Believable 63 Believability: Local Economy Very Unbelievable 14 Improvement: Storm Drains and Poor, Def Needs Improvement 57 S: Occasional Repairs / J: Sp More Like Jones 5 Huntington Beach Better or Wo No Difference 69 [SS1:] Willingness To Pay $5 Yes 50 Heard: City Government Has No Heard 64 Believability: Nothing Will C Very unbelievable 13 Improvement: The Sewer System Poor, Def Needs Improvement 32 Name ID: Bolsa Chica Land Tru Somewhat Favorable 70 (SS1:] Willingness To Pay $15 Yes 74 (SS2:1 Willingness To Pay $5 Yes 71 [SS1:] Willingness To Pay $25 Yes Grp Agg Diff 63 53 10 16 7 10 18 9 9 66 58 B 49 42 7 28 21 7 29 22 7 54 48 6 23 17 6 31 25 6 30 24 6 20 15 5 41 36 5 wwwwwwwwwwww* 43 49 -5 4 10 -6 14 20 -6 10 16 -6 27 33 -6 7 13 -6 23 29 -6 27 33 -6 36 42 -6 36 43 -7 18 24 -7 62 69 -7 16 23 -7 43 5o -7 51 58 -7 13 21 -7 33 42 -8 13 22 -8 21 30 -9 20 30 -10 15 27 -12 • 0 Lawrence Research GROUPTABS Huntington Beach / July 2001 1318 Page 31 College Graduate Question Answer(s) Grp Agg Diff 8 Approval: Making Needed Repai Strongly Disapprove 38 29 9 74 [SS2:) Willingness To Pay $5 Yes 39 30 9 13 Improvement: The Sewer System Poor, Def Needs Improvement 49 42 7 73 [SS2:) Willingness To Pay $15 No 82 75 7 54 Heard: City Has Enough Money Heard 62 56 6 60 [SS1:] Believability: There i Very Unbelievable 35 29 6 49 Believability: Committee is O Somewhat Believable 39 33 6 65 Push Vote: If Funds Used Sole No 58 52 5 32 Name ID: Balsa Chica Land Tru Strongly Favorable 40 35 5 70 [SS1:] Willingness To Pay $15 Yes 35 30 5 19 Improvement: Street Trees Good, Improvement Not Needed 59 54 5 72 [SS2:] Willingness To Pay $25 No 71 66 5 32 Name ID: Bolsa Chica Land Tru Somewhat Favorable 27 22 5 ************* Range of 5 Points High to 5 Points Low not included ************* 64 Believability: Nothing Will C Very Believable 15 21 -5 74 [SS2:] willingness To Pay $5 No 53 58 -5 49 Believability: Committee is O Somewhat Unbelievable 14 19 -5 37 Importance of the Problem of One of Tap Five 11 16 -5 65 Push Vote: If Funds Used Sole Yes 31 37 -6 17 Improvement: Traffic Signals Fair, Probably Needs Improveme 27 33 -6 73 [SS2:] willingness To Pay $15 No Opinion 5 11 -6 54 Heard: City Has Enough Money Not Heard 38 45 -6 60 [SS1:j Believability: There i Somewhat Believable 23 31 -8 • Lawrence Research GRQUPTABS Page 32 Huntington Beach / July 2001 1318 Post -Grad Degree is Question Answers) Grp Agg Diff 73 [SS2:] Willingness To Pay $15 No Opinion 29 11 18 71 (SS1:j Willingness To Pay $25 Yes 44 27 17 72 (SS2:] Willingness To Pay $25 Yes 45 30 16 74 (SS2:] Willingness To Pay $S Yes 44 30 14 58 [SS1:] Believability: Possibi' Very Unbelievable 52 41 12 61 [SS2:) Believability: Flood D Somewhat Believable 35 26 10 55 Believability: City Has Enoug, Very Unbelievable 15 6 9 20 Improvement: Block Walls Alon Fair, Probably Needs Improveme 45 37 9 59 (SS2:) Believability: Auto Ac Somewhat Believable 23 14 9 66 Push Vote: If 20% Decrease in Yes 40 32 8 19 Improvement: Street Trees Fair, Probably Needs Improveme 37 29 8 42 [SS2:) Vote: Measure A (Condi Probably Yes 23 15 8 22 Improvement: Beach Facilities Poor, Def Needs Improvement 20 12 8 14 Improvement: Storm Drains and Poor, Ref Needs Improvement 32 24 8 37 Importance of the Problem of One of Top Three 57 50 8 57 S: Occasional Repairs / J: Sp More Like Baker 19 11 7 50 Heard: City Government Has No Heard 65 58 7 68 Push Vote: If City's Current Yes 40 33 7 62 Believability: City and Prope Somewhat Believable 27 20 7 7 Approval: Solving Traffic Pro Strongly Disapprove 25 19 7 5 Huntington Beach Better or Wo No Difference 29 23 7 86 Final Vote: Measure A Probably No 25 19 7 33 Name ID: Amigos de Bolsa Chic Somewhat Unfavorable 12 6 7 74 jSS2:1 Willingness To Pay $5 No Opinion 19 12 6 52 Heard: People of '70's and '8 Not Heard 85 79 6 30 Name ID: Howard Jarvis Taxpay Strongly Unfavorable 16 10 6 43 [SS2:] Vote: Measure B (Condi Definitely No 58 52 6 8 Approval: Making Needed Repai Somewhat Disapprove 29 24 6 33 Name ID: Amigos de Bolsa Chic Strongly Favorable 36 30 6 60 [SS1:] Believability: There i Very Believable 18 13 5 30 Name ID: Howard Jarvis Taxpay Somewhat Favorable 31 26 5 60 (SS1:1 Believability: There i Very Unbelievable 34 29 5 38 [SS1:]Vote: Measure A Definitely Yes 9 4 5 ************* Range of 5 Points High to 5 Points Low not included ************* 58 (SS1:) Believability: Possibi Somewhat Unbelievable 20 26 -5 28 Name ID: Huntington Beach Cha Strongly Favorable 15 20 -5 22 Improvement: Beach Facilities Fair, Probably Needs Improveme 31 '36 -5 32 Name ID: Bolsa Chica Land Tru Strongly Favorable 29 35 -'w-5 57 S: Occasional Repairs / J: Sp More Like Smith 9 15 -6 55 Believability: City Has Enoug Very Believable 44 50 -6 52 Heard: People of '70's and '8 Heard 15 21 -6 61 (SS2:) Believability: Flood D Very Unbelievable 23 29 -6 8 Approval: Making Needed Repai Strongly Approve 7 13 -7 13 Improvement: The Sewer System Good, Improvement Not Needed 15 21 -7 60 [SS1:] Believability: There i Somewhat Unbelievable 16 23 -7 14 Improvement: Storm Drains and Fair, Probably Needs Improveme 39 46 -7 66 Push Vote: If 20% Decrease in No 49 56 -7 50 Heard: City Government Has No Not Heard 35 42 -7 20 Improvement: Block Walls Alon Good, Improvement Not Needed 41 49 -7 73 [SS2:) Willingness To Pay $15 Yes 6 13 -8 5 Huntington Beach Better or Wo Worse 17 25 -8 • • Lawrence Research GROUPTABS Page 33 Huntington Beach / July 2001 1318 Cont: Post -Grad Degree Question Answer(s) Grp Agg Diff 61 [SS2:] Believability: Flood D Very Believable 10 18 -8 53 Believability: People of '70' Somewhat Unbelievable 8 17 -9 19 Improvement: Street Trees Good, Improvement Not Needed 45 54 -9 62 Believability: City and Prope Very Unbelievable 31 40 -9 73 [SS2:] Willingness To Pay $15 No 65 75 -10 42 [SS2:) Vote: Measure A (Condi Definitely No 42 53 -11 71 [SS1:) Willingness To Pay $25 No 33 48 -14 72 [SS2:) Willingness To Pay $25 No 48 66 -18 74 [SS2:1 Willingness To Pay $5 No 38 58 -21 • • Lawrence Research GROUPTABS Page 34 Huntington Beach / July 2001 1318 �- Renters • Question Answer(s) Grp Agg Diff 43 [SS2:] Vote: Measure B (Condi Definitely No 86 52 34 61 [SS2:] Believability: Flood D Very Believable 43 18 25 59 [SS2:] Believability: Auto Ac Very Believable 29 7 22 64 Believability: Nothing Will C Somewhat Believable 50 30 21 72 [SS2:] Willingness To Pay $25 No 86 66 20 42 [SS2:] Vote: Measure A (Condi Definitely No 71 53 19 54 Heard: City Has Enough Money Not Heard 63 45 18 49 Believability: Committee is 0 Very Believable 38 21 17 11 Approval: Listening to the Pe Somewhat Approve 53 37 16 6 Approval: Providing Needed Pu Somewhat Approve 69 54 15 20 Improvement: Block Wails Alon Good, Improvement Not Needed 63 49 14 14 Improvement: Storm Drains and Poor, Def Needs Improvement 38 24 13 70 [SS1:] Willingness To Pay $15 No 73 61 12 7 Approval: Solving Traffic Pro Somewhat Disapprove 34 22 12 5 Huntington Beach Better or Wo Better 59 48 12 21 Improvement: Public Buildings Fair,. Probably Needs Improveme 41 29 12 15 Improvement: City Streets, Al Poor, Def Needs Improvement 38 26 12 23 Improvement: Park Facilities Good, Improvement Not Needed 75 64 11 24 Improvement: water System Poor, Def Needs Improvement 25 15 11 74 [SS2:] Willingness To Pay $5 Yes 40 30 10 8 Approval: Making Needed Repai Somewhat Approve 41 31 10 38 [SS1:]Vote: Measure A Probably No 40 31 9 55 Believability: City Has Enoug Somewhat Believable 34 26 9 53 Believability: People of '70' Somewhat Believable 22 13 9 12 Approval: The Overall Jab The Somewhat Approve 63 54 9 52 Heard: People of '70's and 18 Not Heard 88 79 9 19 Improvement: Street Trees Fair, Probably Needs Improveme 38 29 8 86 Final Vote: Measure A Probably No 34 26 8 50 Heard: City Government Has No Not Heard 50 42 8 22 Improvement: Beach Facilities Fair, Probably Needs Improveme 44 36 8 63 Believability: Local Economy Very Believable 19 11 8 51 Believability: City Governmen Very Unbelievable 16 8 8 51 Believability: City Governmen Somewhat Believable 41 33 7 34 Name ID: The Huntington Beach Somewhat Unfavorable 25 18 7 57 S: Occasional Repairs / J: Sp More Like Smith 22 15 7 22 Improvement: Beach Facilities Poor, Def Needs Improvement 19 12 7 62 Believability: City and Prope Somewhat Unbelievable 34 28 6 33 Name ID: Amigos de Bolsa Chic Somewhat Favorable 25 19 6 32 Name ID: Bolsa Chica Land Tru Somewhat Unfavorable 13 7 6 69 [SS1:1 Willingness To Pay $5 No Opinion 12 7 6 48 Heard: Committee is Overreact Not Heard 75 70 6 60 [SS1:] Believability: There i Somewhat Believable 36 31 6 53 Believability: People of '70' Somewhat Unbelievable 22 17 5 73 [SS2:] willingness To Pay $15 No Opinion 17 11 5 3 Right Direction / Wrong Track Right Direction 63 57 S ************* Range of 5 Points High to 5 Pointe Low not included ************* 20 Improvement: Block Walls Alon Poor, Def Needs Improvement 3 8 -5 64 Believability: Nothing Will C Very Unbelievable 16 21 -5 33 Name ID: Amigos de Bolsa Chic Strongly Favorable 25 30 -5 19 Improvement: Street Trees Poor, Def Needs Improvement 9 15 -5 63 Believability: Local Economy Somewhat Believable 13 18 -6 Lawrence Research GROUPTABS Page 35 Huntington Beach / July 2001 1318 0 Cont: Renters • • Question Answer(s) Grp Agg Diff 48 Heard: Committee is Overreact Heard 25 31 -6 20 Improvement: Block Walls Alon Fair, Probably Needs Improveme 31 37 -6 58 [SS1:] Believability: Possibi Somewhat Unbelievable 20 26 -6 49 Believability: Committee is O Very Unbelievable 13 18 -6 14 Improvement: Storm Drains and Good, Improvement Not Needed 22 28 -6 7 Approval: Solving Traffic Pro Strongly Disapprove 13 19 -6 6 Approval: Providing Needed Pu Strongly Approve 16 22 -6 32 Name ID: Bolsa Chica Land Tru Somewhat Favorable 16 22 -6 23 Improvement: Park Facilities Fair, Probably Needs Improveme 22 28 -6 59 [SS2:] Believability: Auto Ac Very Believable 43 49 -6 5 Huntington Beach Better or Wo Worse 19 25 -6 7 Approval: Solving Traffic Pro Strongly Approve 9" 16 -6 38 [SS1:]Vote: Measure A Definitely No 44 51 -7 43 [SS2:] Vote: Measure B (Condi Probably No 14 21 -7 33 Name ID: Amigos de Bolsa Chic Strongly Unfavorable 0 7 -7 66 Push Vote: If 20% Decrease in Yes 25 32 -7 34 Name ID: The Huntington Beach Strongly Favorable 6 13 -7 24 Improvement: water System Good, Improvement Not Needed 38 45 -7 61 [SS2:] Believability: Flood D Somewhat Unbelievable 14 22 -7 62 Believability: City and Prope Somewhat Believable 13 20 -7 28 Name ID: Huntington Beach Cha Strongly Favorable 13 20 -7 86 Final Vote: Measure A Definitely No 34 42 -8 3 Right Direction / Wrong Track Wrong Track 22 30 -8 50 Heard: City Government Has No Heard 50 58 -8 52 Heard: People of '70's and '8 Heard 13 21 -9 73 [SS2:] Willingness To Pay $15 No 67 75 -9 29 Name ID: Huntington Beach Tom Strongly Favorable 0 9 -9 11 Approval: Listening to the Pe Somewhat Disapprove 13 22 -9 59 [SS2:] Believability: Auto Ac Somewhat Believable 14 24 -10 49 Believability: Committee is 0 Somewhat Unbelievable 9 19 -10 70 [SS1:] Willingness To Pay $15 Yes 20 30 -10 42 (SS2:] Vote: Measure A (Condi Probably No 14 25 -10 21 Improvement: Public Buildings Good, Improvement Not Needed 50 62 -12 74 [SS2:] Willingness To Pay $5 No Opinion 0 12 -12 64 Believability: Nothing Will C Somewhat Unbelievable 9 22 -13 53 Believability: People of '70' Very Unbelievable 41 55 -14 61 [SS2:] Believability: Flood D Very Unbelievable 14 29 -15 72 [SS2:] Willingness To Pay $25 Yee 14 30 .-15 43 [SS2:] Vote: Measure B (Condi Probably Yes 0 16 -16 30 Name ID: Howard Jarvis Taxpay Somewhat Favorable 9 26 -16 15 Improvement: City Streets, Al Fair, Probably Needs Improveme 31 48 -16 8 Approval: Making Needed Repai Strongly Disapprove 13 29 -16 22 Improvement: Beach Facilities Good, Improvement Not Needed 31 48 -17 30 Name ID: Howard Jarvis Taxpay Strongly Favorable 19 35 -17 54 Heard: City Has Enough Money Heard 38 56 -18 Lawrence Research GROUPTABS Page 36 Question Huntington Beach / July 2001 1318 18-34 Answer(s) Grp Agg Diff 16 Improvement: Curbs, Gutters, Good, Improvement Not Needed 66 41 25 5 Huntington Beach Better or Wo Better 71 48 24 11 Approval: Listening to the Pe Somewhat Approve 61 37 23 8 Approval: Making Needed Repai Somewhat Approve 53 31 22 51 Believability: City Governmen Somewhat Believable 55 33 22 65 Push Vote: If Funds Used Sole Yes 58 37 21 38 [SS1:]Vote: Measure A Probably Yes 33 13 21 42 [SS2:] vote: Measure A (Condi Probably No 45 25 21 20 Improvement: Block Walls Alon °Fair, Probably Needs Improveme 55 37 19 67 Push Vote: If Citizen Committ Yes 50 33 18 69 [SS1:] willingness To Pay $5 Yes 67 50 17 3 Right Direction / Wrong Track Right Direction 74 57 16 19 Improvement: Street Trees Fair, Probably Needs Improveme 45 29 15 64 Believability: Nothing will C Somewhat Believable 45 30 15 61 [SS2:] Believability: Flood 0 Somewhat Believable 40 26 15 28 Name ID: Huntington Beach Cha Somewhat Favorable 58 44 14 43 ISS2:] Vote: Measure B (Condi; Probably No 35 21 14 13 Improvement: The Sewer System Fair, Probably Needs Improveme 47 3S 13 31 Name Ib: Surfrider Foundation Strongly Favorable 42 29 13 86 Final Vote: Measure A Probably No 32 19 13 71 ISS1:1 Willingness To Pay $25 Yes 40 27 13 6 Approval: Providing Needed Pu Strongly Approve 34 22 12 71 [SS1:] Willingness To Pay $25 No 60 48 12 12 Approval: The Overall Job The Strongly Approve 26 15 12 68 Push Vote: If City's Current Yes 45 33 12 22 Improvement: Beach Facilities Fair, Probably Needs Improveme 47 36 12 50 Heard: City Government Has No Not Heard 53 42 11 13 Improvement: The Sewer System Good, Improvement Not Needed 32 21 10 33 Name ID: Amigos de Bolsa Chic Somewhat Unfavorable 16 6 10 31 Name ID: Surfrider Foundation Somewhat Favorable 29 19 10 53 Believability: People of '70' Somewhat Unbelievable 26 17 10 14 Improvement: Storm Drains and Fair, Probably Needs Improveme 55 46 10 14 Improvement: Storm Drains and Good, Improvement Not Needed 37 28 9 64 Believability: Nothing Will C Somewhat Unbelievable 32 22 9 60 ISS1:] Believability: There i Very Believable 22 13 9 62 Believability: City and Prope Somewhat Believable 29 20 9 49 Believability: Committee is O Somewhat Believable 42 33 9 23 Improvement: Park Facilities Fair, Probably Needs Improveme 37 28 9 57 S: Occasional Repairs / J: Sp More Like Smith 24 15 9 34 Name Ib: The Huntington Beach Somewhat Unfavorable 26 18 9 54 Heard: City Has Enough Money, Not Heard 53 45 8 24 Improvement: Water System Good, Improvement Not Needed 53 45 8 59 ISS2:1 Believability: Auto Ac Very Believable 15 7 8 86 Final Vote: Measure A Probably No 34 26 8 73 [SS2:] Willingness To Pay $15 Yes 21 13 8 38 [SS1:]Vote: Measure A Probably No 39 31 8 58 [SS1:] Believability: Possibi Somewhat Unbelievable 33 26 8 53 Believability: People of '70' Somewhat Believable 21 13 8 15 Improvement: City Streets, Al Fair, Probably Needs Improveme 55 48 8 66 Push Vote: If 20% Decrease in Yes 39 32 8 55 Believability: City Has Enoug Somewhat Unbelievable 18 11 8 • • Lawrence Research GROUPTABS Page 37 Huntington Beach / July 2001 1318 Cont: 18-34 Question Answer(s) Grp Agg Diff 63 Believability: Local Economy Somewhat Unbelievable 32 24 7 58 [SS1:] Believability: Possibi Very Believable 17 10 7 9 Approval: Protecting Beaches Strongly Disapprove 39 33 7 74 [SS2:] Willingness To Pay $5 Yes 36 30 7 48 Heard: Committee is Overreact Not Heard 76 70 7 34 Name ID: The Huntington Beach Somewhat Favorable 47 42 6 31 Name ID: Surfrider Foundation Somewhat Unfavorable 11 5 6 43 [SS2:] Vote: Measure B (Condi Definitely Yes 10 5 6 42 [SS2:] Vote: Measure A (Condi Probably Yes 20 15 6 10 Approval: Encouraging Re-Deve Somewhat Approve 42 37 5 21 Improvement: Public Buildings Fair, Probably Needs Improveme 34 29 5 8 Approval: Making Needed Repai Strongly Approve 18 13 5 37 Importance of the Problem of One of Top Five 21 16 5 ************* Range of 5 Points High to 5 Points Low not included ************* 57 S: Occasional Repairs / J: Sp More Like Jones 63 69 -5 18 Improvement: Street Lights Good, Improvement Not Needed 63 69 -5 20 Improvement:'Block Walls'Alon Poor, Def Needs Improvement 3 8 -6 63 Believability: Local Economy Very Unbelievable 37 43 -6 11 Approval: Listening to the Pe Somewhat Disapprove 16 22 -6 24 Improvement: Water System Poor, Def Needs Improvement 8 15 -7 33 Name ID: Amigos de Bolsa Chic Strongly Unfavorable 0 7 -7 6 Approval: Providing Needed Pu Strongly Disapprove 0 7 -7 60 [SS1:] Believability: There i Very Unbelievable 22 29 -7 48 Heard: Committee is Overreact Heard 24 31 -7 5 Huntington Beach Better or Wo No Difference 16 23 -7 37 Importance of the Problem of The Top Problem 11 18 -7 67 Push Vote: If Citizen Committ Undecided 5 12 -7 30 Name ID: Howard Jarvis Taxpay Strongly Unfavorable 3 10 -7 61 [SS2:] Believability: Flood D Very Believable 10 18 -8 68 Push Vote: If City's Current No 47 55 -8 37 Importance of the Problem of One of Top Three 42 50 -8 54 Heard: City Has Enough Money Heard 47 56 -8 22 Improvement: Beach Facilities Good, Improvement Not Needed 39 48 -8 65 Push Vote: If Funds Used Sole Undecided 3 11 -9 12 Approval: The Overall Job The Strongly Disapprove 0 9 -9 59 [SS2:] Believability: Auto Ac Somewhat Believable 5 14 -9 59 [SS2:] Believability: Auto Ac Very Believable 40 49 -9 6 Approval: Providing Needed Pu Somewhat Disapprove 3 12 -9 20 Improvement: Block Walls Alon Good, Improvement Not Needed 39 49 -9 66 Push Vote: If 20% Decrease in Undecided 3 12 -9 19 Improvement: Street Trees Poor, Def Needs,Improvement 5 15 -9 11 Approval: Listening to the Pe Strongly Disapprove 5 15 -10 34 Name ID: The Huntington Beach Strongly Unfavorable 8 18 -10 32 Name ID: BOlSa Chica Land Tru Strongly Unfavorable 0 11 -11 67 Push Vote: If Citizen Committ No 45 55 -11 50 Heard: City Government Has No Heard 47 58 -11 62 Believability: City and Prope Very Unbelievable 29 40 -11 • 16 Improvement: Curbs, Gutters, Fair, Probably Needs Improveme 32 43 -11 58 [SS1:] Believability: Possibi Very Unbelievable 28 41 -13 Lawrence Research Cont: Question GROUPTABS Huntington Beach / July 2001 18-34 Answer(a) Page 38 1318 Grp Agg Diff 65 Push Vote: If Funds Used Sole No 39 52 -13 15 Improvement: City Streets, Al Poor, Def Needs Improvement 13 26 -13 33 Name ID: Amigos de Bolsa Chic Strongly Favorable 16 30 -14 5 Huntington Beach Better or Wo Worse 11 25 -14 16 Improvement: Curbs, Gutters, Poor, Def Needs Improvement 0 15 -15 64 Believability: Nothing Will C Very Unbelievable 5 21 -15 69 [SS1:] Willingness To Pay $5 No 28 44 -16 55 Believability: City Has Enoug Very Believable 34 50 -16 86 Final Vote: Measure A Definitely No 26 42 -16 14 Improvement: Storm Drains and Poor, Def Needs Improvement 8 24 -16 3 Right Direction / Wrong Track Wrong Track 13 30 -17 53 Believability: People of '70' Very Unbelievable 37 55 -18 13 Improvement: The Sewer System Poor, Def Needs Improvement 21 42 --20 43 (SS2:] Vote: Measure B (Condi Definitely No 30 52 -22 42 (SS2:] Vote: Measure A (Condi Definitely No 30 53 -23 8 .. Approval: Making Needed Repai Strongly Disapprove 5 29 -23 51 Believability: City Governmen Very Believable 18 42 -24 71 (SS1:] Willingness To Pay $25 No Opinion 0 25 -25 38 (SS1:]Vote: Measure A Definitely No 22 51 -28 30 Name ID: Howard Jarvis Taxpay Strongly Favorable 5 35 -30 • • Lawrence Research GROUPTABS Page 39 Huntington Beach / July 2001 1318 35-44 Question Answer(s) Grp Agg Diff 71 [SS1:] Willingness To Pay $25 No 80 48 32 43 [SS2:] Vote: Measure B (Condi Definitely No 69 52 17 15 Improvement; City Streets, Al Good, Improvement Not Needed 42 26 16 70 [SS1:] Willingness To Pay $15 No 76 61 15 72 [SS2:] Willingness To Pay $25 No 79 66 13 59 [SS2:) Believability: Auto Ac Very Believable 62 49 13 42 [SS2:] Vote: Measure A (Condi Definitely No 66 53 13 3 Right Direction / Wrong Track Right Direction 70 57 13 63 Believability: Local Economy Very Unbelievable 55 43 13 17 Improvement: Traffic Signals Good, Improvement Not Needed 64 53 11 86 Final Vote: Measure A Probably No 37 26 11 64 Believability: Nothing will C Somewhat Believable 40 30 11 67 Push Vote: If Citizen Committ No 66 55 10 8 Approval: Making Needed Repai Somewhat Approve 40 31 10 20 Improvement: Block Walls Alon Good, Improvement Not Needed 58 49 9 57 S: Occasional Repairs / J: Sp More Like Smith 24 15 9 5 Huntington Beach Better or Wo No Difference 31 23 9 38 [SS1:]Vote: Measure A Probably No 39 31 8 48 Heard: Committee is Overreact Not Heard 78 70 8 66 Push Vote: If 20% Decrease in No 64 56 8 19 Improvement: Street Trees Good, Improvement Not Needed 61 54 7 10 Approval: Encouraging Re-Deve Strongly Approve 21 14 7 58 [SS1:] Believability: Possibi Very Unbelievable 47 41 7 21 Improvement: Public Buildings Fair, Probably Needs Improveme 36 29 7 31 Name ID: Surfrider Foundation Strongly Favorable 36 29 7 73 [SS2:] Willingness To Pay $15 Yes 20 13 7 68 Push Vote: If City's Current No 61 55 6 6 Approval: Providing Needed Pu Somewhat Disapprove 18 12 6 11 Approval: Listening to the Pe Somewhat Approve 43 37 6 65 Push Vote: If Funds Used Sole No 58 52 6 9 Approval: Protecting Beaches Strongly Approve 18 12 6 42 [SS2:] Vote: Measure A (Condi Definitely Yes 10 5 6 28 Name ID: Huntington Beach Cha Strongly Favorable 25 20 6 51 Believability: City Governmen somewhat Believable 39 33 6 60 (SS1:] Believability: There i Very Believable 18 13 5 69 [Ssl:] Willingness To Pay $5 Yes 55 50 5 53 Believability: People of '70' very Believable 12 7 5 31 Name ID: Surfrider Foundation Somewhat Favorable 24 19 5 32 Name ID: Bolsa Chica Land Tru Somewhat Favorable 27 22 5 62 Believability: City and Prope Very Unbelievable 45 40 5 ************* Range of 5 Pointe High to 5 Points Low not included ************* 19 Improvement: Street Trees Fair, Probably Needs Improveme 24 29 -5 20 Improvement: Block Walls Alon Fair, Probably Needs Improveme 31 37 -5 9 Approval: Protecting Beaches Strongly Disapprove 27 33 -6 29 Name ID: Huntington Beach Tom Somewhat Favorable 6 12 -6 57 S: Occasional Repairs / J: Sp More Like Jones 63 69 -6 64 Believability; Nothing Will C Somewhat Unbelievable 16 22 -6 34 Name ID: The Huntington Beach Strongly Unfavorable 12 18 -6 70 [SS1:] Willingness To Pay $15 Yes 24 30 -6 12 Approval: The Overall Job The Somewhat Disapprove 13 20 -6 32 Name ID: Bolsa Chica Land Tru Strongly Favorable 28 35 -6 Lawrence Research GROUPTABS Page 40 Huntington Beach / July 2001 1318 Cont: 35-44 Question 69 21 59 59 6 38 71 49 17 66 63 48 65 86 37 67 70 51 60 5 8 42 30 3 15 43 72 71 (SSI:] Willingness To Pay $5 Improvement: Public Buildings [SS2:] Believability: Auto Ac [SS2:] Believability: Auto Ac Approval: Providing Needed Pu [SS1:)Vote: Measure A [SS1:] Willingness To Pay $25 Believability: Committee is O Improvement: Traffic Signals Push Vote: If 20% Decrease in Believability: Local Economy Heard: Committee is Overreact Push Vote: If Funds Used Sole Final Vote: Measure A Importance of the Problem of Push Vote: If Citizen Committ ISS1:] Willingness To Pay $15 Believability: City Governmen (SS1:] Believability: There i Huntington Beach Better or Wo Approval: Making Needed Repai [SS2:] Vote: Measure A (Condi Name ID: Howard Jarvis Taxpay, Right Direction / Wrong Track Improvement: City Streets, Al [SS2:] Vote: Measure B (Condi• [SS2:) Willingness To Pay $25. [SS1:] Willingness To Pay $25 Answer(s) Grp Agg Diff No Opinion 0 7 -7 Good, Improvement Not Needed 55 62 -7 Somewhat Believable 17 24 -7 Very Believable 0 7 -7 Somewhat Approve 46 54 -7 Probably Yes 5 13 -7 Yes 20 27 -7 Very Believable 13 21 -7 Fair, Probably Needs Improveme 25 33 -8 Yes 24 32 -8 Very Believable 3 11 -8 Heard 22 31 -8 Yes 28 37 -8 Probably No 10 19 -8 The Top Problem 9 18 -9 Yes .24 33 -9 No Opinion 0 9 -9 Very Believable 33 42 -9 Somewhat Believable 21 31 -9 Worse 15 25 -10 Strongly Disapprove 18 29 -11 Probably Yes 3 15 -11 Strongly Favorable 24 35 -11 Wrong Track 18 30 -12 Poor, Def Needs Improvement 13 26 -13 Probably No 7 21 -14 Yes 14 30 -16 No Opinion 0 25 - -25 • Lawrence Research GROUPTABS Page 41 Huntington Beach / July 2001 1318 0 45-54 Question Answer(s) Grp Agg Diff 53 Believability: People of 170, Very Unbelievable 71 55 16 70 (SS1:] Willingness To Pay $15 No Opinion 25 9 16 51 Believability: City Governmen Very Believable 56 42 14 71 [SS1:] Willingness To Pay $25 No Opinion 38 25 13 16 Improvement: Curbs, Gutters, Fair, Probably Needs Improveme 55 43 12 70 [SS1:] Willingness To Pay $15 Yes 42 30 12 52 Heard: People of '70's and '8 Not Heard 90 79 11 22 Improvement: Beach Facilities Fair, Probably Needs Improveme 46 36 11 15 Improvement: city Streets, Al Poor, Def Needs Improvement 37 26 11 8 Approval: Making Needed Repai Strongly Disapprove 39 29 10 71 (SSI:] Willingness To Pay $25 Yes 38 27 10 49 Believability: Committee is O Very Unbelievable 28 18 10 24 Improvement: Water System Fair, Probably Needs Improveme 46 37 9 21 Improvement: Public Buildings Good, Improvement Not Needed 71 62 9 11 Approval: Listening to the Pe Somewhat Disapprove 30 22 9 48 Heard: Committee is Overreact Not Heard 78 70 9 74 [SS2:] Willingness To Pay $5 Yes 38 30 8 42 [SS2:] Vote: Measure A (Condi Definitely No 61 53 8 64 Believability: Nothing Will C Very Unbelievable 28 21 7 13 Improvement: The Sewer System Poor, Def Needs Improvement 49 42 7 61 (SS2:] Believability: Flood D Somewhat Unbelievable 28 22 7 58 [SSI:] Believability: Possibi Very Unbelievable 47 41 7 73 [SS2:] Willingness To Pay $15 No 82 75 7 59 [SS2:] Believability: Auto Ac Somewhat Believable 30 24 6 6 Approval: Providing Needed Pu Somewhat Approve 60 54 6 30 Name ID: Howard Jarvis Taxpay Somewhat Favorable 32 26 6 9 Approval: Protecting Beaches Somewhat Disapprove 28 22 6 19 Improvement: Street Trees Good, Improvement Not Needed 60 54 6 12 Approval: The Overall Job The Strongly Disapprove 15 9 6 69 [SS1:] Willingness To Pay $5 Yes 56 50 6 86 Final Vote: Measure A Definitely No 48 42 5 63 Believability: Local Economy Very Unbelievable 48 43 5 14 Improvement: Storm Drains and Poor, Def Needs Improvement 29 24 5 ************* Range of 5 Points High to 5 Points Low not included ************* 51 Believability: City Governmen Somewhat Believable 28 33 -5 73 (SS2:] willingness To Pay $15 No Opinion 6 11 -5 59 [SS2:] Believability: Auto Ac Somewhat Believable 9 14 -5 13 Improvement: The Sewer System Good, Improvement Not Needed 16 21 -5 21 Improvement: Public Buildings Fair, Probably Needs Improveme 23 29 -6 53 Believability: People of 170, Somewhat Believable 7 13 -6 8 Approval: Making Needed Repai Somewhat Disapprove 17 24 -6 74 (SS2:] Willingness To Pay $5 No 52 58 -6 32 Name ID: Bolsa Chica Land Tru Strongly Favorable 28 35 -7 51 Believability: City Governmen Somewhat Unbelievable 4 11 -7 6 Approval: Providing Needed Pu Strongly Approve i5 22 -7 22 Improvement: Beach Facilities Good, Improvement Not Needed 40 48 -8 24 Improvement: Water System Good, Improvement Not Needed 37 45 -8 . 11 Approval: Listening to the Pe Somewhat Approve 29 37 -8 19 Improvement: Street Trees Fair, Probably Needs Improveme 21 29 -9 48 Heard: Committee is Overreact Heard 22 31 -9 60 [SS1:] Believability: There i Somewhat Unbelievable 14 23 -9 Lawrence Research GROUPTABS Page 42 Huntington Beach / July 2001 1318 Cont: A 45-54 Question Anewer(s) Grp Agg Diff 58 [SS1:] Believability: POSsibi Somewhat Unbelievable 17 26 -9 15 Improvement: City Streets, Al Good, Improvement Not Needed 17 26 -9 30 Name ID: Howard Jarvis Taxpay Strongly Favorable 26 35 -10 69 (SS1:] Willingness To Pay $5 No 33 44 -10 52 Heard: People of '70's and '8 Heard 10 21 -11 42 [SS2:] Vote: Measure A (Condi Probably No 13 25 -11 16 Improvement: Curbs, Gutters, Good, Improvement Not Needed 28 41 -13 71 [SS1:) Willingness To Pay $25 No 25 48 -23 70 [SS1:] willingness To Pay $15 No 33 61 -28 • • Lawrence Research GROUPTAB S Page 43 • • • Question Huntington Beach / July 2001 55-64 Answer(s) 1318 Grp Agg Diff 71 [SS1:] Willingness To Pay $25 No Opinion 50 25 25 73 [SS2:] Willingness To Pay $I5 No Opinion 25 11 14 50 Heard: City Government Has No Heard 71 58 13 30 Name ID: Howard Jarvis Taxpay Strongly Favorable 48 35 13 33 Name ID: Amigos de Bolsa Chic Strongly Favorable 43 .30 13 51 Believability: City Governmen Very Believable 54 42 12 69 [SS1:] Willingness To Pay $5 No 55 44 11 38 [SSI:]Vote: Measure A Definitely No 61 51 11 70 [SS1:] Willingness To Pay $15 No 71 61 10 54 Heard: City Has Enough Money Heard 66 56 10 64 Believability: Nothing Will C Very Believable 30 21 10 60 (SS1:) Believability: There 1 Somewhat Unbelievable 32 23 10 3 Right Direction / Wrong Track Wrong Track 39 30 9 8 Approval: Making Needed Repai Strongly Disapprove 38 29 9 22 Improvement: Beach Facilities Good, Improvement Not Needed 56 48 8 18 Improvement: Street Lights Fair, Probably Needs Improveme 33 25 8 17 Improvement: Traffic Signals Fair, Probably Needs Improveme 41 33 8 29 Name ID: Huntington Beach Tom Somewhat Favorable 19 12 7 66 Push Vote: If 20% Decrease in No 63 56 7 55 Believability: City Has Enoug Very Believable 57 50 7 20 Improvement: Block Walls Alon Poor, Def Needs Improvement 15 8 7 15 improvement: City Streets, Al Poor, Def Needs Improvement 33 26 7 59 (SS2:) Believability: Auto Ac Somewhat Believable 21 14 7 12 Approval: The Overall Job The Somewhat Disapprove 27 20 7 5 Huntington Beach Better or Wo Worse 32 25 7 19 Improvement: Street Trees Fair, Probably Needs Improveme 35 29 6 63 Believability: Local Economy Somewhat Unbelievable 30 24 6 14 Improvement: Storm Drains and Poor, Def Needs Improvement 30 24 6 34 Name ID: The Huntington Beach Strongly Unfavorable 24 18 6 13 Improvement: The Sewer System Fair, Probably Needs Improveme 41 35 6 37 Importance of the Problem of One of Top Three 56 50 6 32 Name ID: Bolsa Chica Land Tru Strongly Favorable 41 35 6 74 [SS2:] Willingness To Pay $5 No Opinion 18 12 6 16 Improvement: Curbs, Gutters, Poor, Def Needs Improvement 20 15 6 70 [SSI:] Willingness To Pay $15 No Opinion 14 9 5 11 Approval: Listening to the Pe Strongly Disapprove 20 15 5 ************* Range of 5 Points High to 5 Points Low not included *******ww*www 34 Name ID: The Huntington Beach Somewhat Favorable 37 42 -5 68 Push Vote: If City's Current Yes 28 33 -5 66 Push Vote: If 20% Decrease in Yes 27 32 -5 59 [SS2:] Believability: Auto Ac Somewhat Believable 19 24 -5 72 [SS2:] Willingness To Pay $25 No 60 66 -6 19 Improvement: Street Trees Good, Improvement Not Needed 48 54 -6 14 Improvement: Storm Drains and Good, Improvement Not Needed 22 28 -6 38 [SS1:]Vote: Measure A Probably Yes 6 13 -6 11 Approval: Listening to the Pe Strongly Approve 6 13 -6 16 Improvement: Curbs, Gutters, Fair, Probably Needs Improveme 37 43 -6 42 [SS2:] Vote: Measure A (Condi Definitely No 46 53 -7 12 Approval: The Overall Job The Strongly Approve 8 15 -7 17 Improvement: Traffic Signals Good, Improvement Not Needed 46 53 -7 21 Improvement: Public Buildings Good, Improvement Not Needed 54 62 -7 Lawrence Research GROUPTABS Page 44 Cont: Huntington Beach / July 2001 1318 5-64 Question Answer(s) Grp Agg Diff 8 Approval: Making Needed Repai Somewhat Approve 23 31 -8 18 Improvement: Street Lights Good, Improvement Not Needed 61 69 -8 60 [SS1:] Believability: There i Somewhat Believable 23 31 -8 74 [SS2:] Willingness To Pay $5 No 5o $8 -8 3 Right Direction / Wrong Track Right Direction 48 57 -9 54 Heard: City Has Enough Money -Not Heard 34 45 -10 51 Believability: City Governmen Somewhat Believable 23 33 -10 64 Believability: Nothing Will C Somewhat Believable 19 30 -11 5 Huntington Beach Better or Wo Better 37 48 -11 15 Improvement: City Streets, Al -Good, Improvement Not Needed 15 26 -11 13 Improvement: The Sewer System Good, Improvement Not Needed 10 21 -11 73 [SS2:] Willingness To Pay $15 No 63 75 -13 50 Heard: City Government Has No Not Heard 29 42 -13 69 [SS1:] Willingness To Pay $5 Yes 35 50 -15 70 [SS1:] Willingness To Pay $15 Yes 14 30 -16 71 [SS1:] Willingness To Pay $25 Yes 0 27 -27 • • • Lawrence Research GROUPTABS Page 45 • Question Huntington Beach / July 2001 65+ Answer(s) 1318 Grp Agg Diff 71 (SS1:] Willingness To Pay $25 No 62 48 14 30 Name ID: Howard Jarvis Taxpay Strongly Favorable 49 35 14 48 Heard: Committee is Overreact Heard 42 31 12 74 (SS2:] Willingness To Pay $5 No 69 Be 11 73 [SS2:] Willingness To Pay $15 No 84 75 9 60 [SS1:] Believability: There i Somewhat Believable 39 31 8 18 Improvement: Street Lights Good, Improvement Not Needed 76 69 8 72 [SS2:] Willingness To Pay $25 Yes 37 30 7 52 Heard: People of '70's and '8 Heard 27 21 6 61 (SS2:] Believability: Flood D Very Unbelievable 35 29 6 22 Improvement: Beach Facilities No Opinion 10 4 6 13 Improvement: The Sewer System Good, Improvement Not Needed 26 21 5 23 Improvement: Park Facilities Good, Improvement Not Needed 69. 64 5 22 Improvement: Beach Facilities Good, Improvement Not Needed 53 48 5 69 [SS1:] Willingness To Pay $5 No 49 44 5 24 Improvement: Water System Good, Improvement Not Needed 50 45 5 ************* Range of 5 Points High to 5 Points Low not included ************* 14 Improvement: Storm ❑rains and Fair, Probably Needs Improveme 40 46 -5 66 Push Vote: If 20% Decrease in No 51 56 -5 21 Improvement: Public Buildings Fair, Probably Needs Improveme 24 29 -5 43 [SS2:] Vote: Measure B (Condi Probably Yes 10 16 -5 53 Believability: People of 170' Very Unbelievable 49 55 -6 11 Approval: Listening to the Pe Somewhat Approve 31 37 -6 11 Approval: Listening to the Pe Somewhat Disapprove 16 22 -6 70 [SS1:] Willingness To Pay $15 No Opinion 3 9 -6 5 Huntington Beach Better or Wo No Difference 17 23 -6 18 Improvement: Street Lights Fair, Probably Needs Improveme 19 25 -6 52 heard: People of '70's and '8 Not Heard 73 79 -6 42 [SS2:] Vote: Measure A (Condi Probably Yes 8 15 -6 8 Approval: Making Needed Repai Somewhat Approve 24 31 -7 59 [SS2:) Believability: Auto AC Very Believable 0 7 -7 73 [SS2:] Willingness To Pay $15 Yes 6 13 -7 61 [SS2:] Believability: Flood D Somewhat Believable 18 26 -7 71 [SS1:] Willingness To Pay $25 No Opinion 15 25 -10 24 Improvement: Water System Fair, Probably Needs Improveme 27 37 -10 31 Name ID: Surfrider Foundation Strongly Favorable 18 29 -11 48 Heard: Committee is Overreact Not Heard 58 70 -12 22 Improvement: Beach Facilities Fair, Probably Needs Improveme 24 36 -12 74 [SS2:] Willingness To Pay $5 Yes 17 30 -12 Lawrence Research GROUPTABS Page 46 Huntington Beach / July 2001 1318 Very Conservative Question Answer(s) Grp Agg Diff 30 Name ID: Howard Jarvis Taxpay Strongly Favorable 55 35 19 60 [SS1:] Believability: There i Somewhat Unbelievable 42 23 19 42 [SS2:] Vote: Measure A (Condi Definitely No 70 53 17 43 [SS2:] Vote: Measure B (Condi Definitely No 67 52 15 59 [SS2:] Believability: Auto Ac 'Very Believable 64 49 15 58 [SS1:] Believability: Possibi Very Unbelievable 55 41 14 86 Final Vote: Measure A Definitely No 56 42 14 73 [SS2:] Willingness To Pay $15 •No 89 75 14 72 [SS2:] Willingness To Pay $25 No 79 66 13 65 Push Vote: If Funds Used Sole No 64 52 12 48 Heard: Committee is Overreact Heard 42 31 12 13 Improvement: The Sewer System Good, Improvement Not Needed 33 21 12 15 Improvement: City Streets, Al Good, Improvement Not Needed 38 26 12 32 Name ID: Bolsa Chica Land Tru Strongly Unfavorable 22 11 11 34 Name ID: The Huntington Beach Strongly Unfavorable 28 18 10 74 [SS2:] Willingness To Pay $5.. No 68 58 10 20 Improvement: Block Walls Alon Good, Improvement Not Needed 58 49 9 61 [SS2:] Believability: Flood D Somewhat Unbelievable 30 22 9 62 Believability: City and Prope, Very Unbelievable 48 40 9 6 Approval: Providing Needed Pu Somewhat Disapprove 20 12 9 14 Improvement: Storm Drains and Good, Improvement Not Needed 36 28 8 18 Improvement: Street Lights Good, Improvement Not Needed 77 69 8 62 Believability: City and Prope Somewhat Unbelievable 36 28 8 38 [SS1:]Vote: Measure A Probably No 39 31 8 49 Believability: Committee is O Very Believable 28 21 7 61 [SS2:] Believability: Flood D Very Unbelievable 36 29 7 35 Name ID: The Citizens Infrast Somewhat Favorable 20 13 7 67 Push Vote: If Citizen Committ No 63 55 7 22 Improvement: Beach Facilities Good, Improvement Not Needed 55 48 7 51 Believability: City Governmen Somewhat Unbelievable 17 11 6 3 Right Direction / wrong Track wrong Track 36 30 6 70 [SS1:] Willingness To Pay $15 No opinion 15 9 6 68 Push vote: If City's Current No 61 55 6 16 Improvement: Curbs, Gutters, Good, Improvement Not Needed 47 41 6 32 Name ID: Bolea Chica Land Tru Somewhat Unfavorable 13 7 6 5 Huntington Beach Better or Wo Better 53 48 6 21 improvement: Public Buildings Good, Improvement Not Needed 67 62 5 Range of 5 Points High to 5 Points Low not included ************* 70 [SS1:] Willingness To Pay $15 Yes 25 30 -5 51 Believability: City Governmen Somewhat Believable 28 33 -5 30 Name ID: Howard Jarvis Taxpay Somewhat Favorable 20 26 -5 55 Believability: City Has Enoug Somewhat Believable 20 26 -5 61 [SS2:] Believability: Flood D Very Believable 12 18 -5 20 Improvement: Block Walls Alon Fair, Probably Needs Improveme 31 37 -6 16 Improvement: Curbs, Gutters, Fair, Probably Needs Improveme 38 43 -6 5 Huntington Beach Better or Wo No Difference 17 23 -6 59 [SS2:] Believability: Auto Ac Somewhat Believable 18 24 -6 67 Push Vote: If Citizen Committ Yes 27 33 -6 24 Improvement: Water System Fair, Probably Needs Improveme 31 37 -6 38 [SS1:]Vote: Measure A Probably Yes 6 13 -6 73 [SS2:] Willingness To Pay $15 Yes 7 13 -6 • • Lawrence Research GROUPTABS Page 47 Huntington Beach / July 2001 1318 0 Cont: Very Conservative • Question 32 58 42 43 49 6❑ 37 63 14 11 73 68 69 64 74 65 21 3 34 22 18 12 61 60 72 42 33 48 13 62 31 86 32 15 6 Name ID: Bolsa Chica Land Tru [SS1:] Believability: Possibi [SS2:] Vote: Measure A (Condi [SS2:] Vote: Measure B (Condi Believability: Committee is O [SS1:] Believability: There i Importance of the Problem of Believability: Local Economy Improvement: Storm Drains and Approval: Listening to the Pe [SS2:] willingness To Pay $15 Push Vote: If City's Current [SS1:] Willingness To Pay $5 Believability: Nothing Will C [SS2:] Willingness To Pay $5 Push Vote: If Funds Used Sole Improvement: Public Buildings Right Direction / wrong Track Name ID: The Huntington Beach Improvement: Beach Facilities Improvement: Street Lights Approval: The Overall Job The [SS2:] Believability: Flood D [SS1:] Believability: There i [SS2:] Willingness To Pay $25 [SS2:] Vote: Measure A (Condi Name ID: Amigos de Balsa Chic Heard: Committee is Overreact Improvement: The Sewer System Believability: City and Prope Name ID: Surfrider Foundation Final Vote: Measure A Name ID: Bolsa Chica Land Tru Improvement: City Streets, Al Approval: Providing Needed Pu Anewer(s) Grp Agg Diff Somewhat Favorable 16 22 -6 Very Believable 3 10 -6 Probably No 18 25 -6 Probably Yes 9 16 -6 Somewhat Believable 27 33 -6 Very Believable 6 13 -7 The Top Problem 11 18 -7 Somewhat Believable 11 18 -7 Poor, Def Needs Improvement 17 24 -7 Somewhat Approve 30 37 -8 No Opinion 4 11 -8 Yes 25 33 -8 No 35 44 -8 Somewhat Unbelievable 14 22 -8 No Opinion 4 12 -8 Yes 28 37 -8 Fair, Probably'Needs Improveme 20 29 -9 Right Direction 48 57 -9 Somewhat Favorable 33 42 -9 Fair, Probably Needs Improveme 27 36 -9 Fair, Probably Needs Improveme 16 25 -10 Somewhat Approve 44 54 -10 Somewhat Believable 15 26 -10 Somewhat Believable 19 31 -11 Yes 18 30 -11 Probably Yes 3 15 -11 Strongly Favorable 19 30 -12 Not Heard .- 58 70 -12 Poor, Def Needs Improvement 30 42 -12 Somewhat Believable 8 20 -12 Strongly Favorable 17 29 -12 Probably No 6 19 -13 Strongly Favorable 22 35. -13 Fair, Probably Needs Improveme 34 48 -13 Somewhat Approve 38 54 -16 Lawrence Research GROUPTABS Page 48 Question Huntington Beach / July 2001 1318 Somewhat Consery Answer(s) 71 [SS1:] Willingness To Pay $25 No 74 [SS2:] Willingness To Pay $5 No Opinion 73 [SS2:] Willingness To Pay $15 No Opinion 60 [SS1:] Believability: There i Very Unbelievable 49 Believability: Committee is O Somewhat Believable 72 [SS2:] Willingness To Pay $25 Yes 62 Believability: City and Prope Very Unbelievable 37 Importance of the Problem of One of Top Three 59 [SS2:] Believability: Auto Ac Very Believable 18 Improvement: Street Lights Fair, Probably Needs Improveme 43 [SS2:] Vote: Measure B (Condi Definitely No 57 S: Occasional Repairs / J: Sp • More Like Jones ************* Range of 5 Points High to 5 Points Low not included Grp Agg Diff 73 48 26 28 12 16 23 11 12 40 29 11 42 33 9 37 30 8 47 40 7 57 50 7 55 49 6 31 25 5 57 52 5 74 69 5 69 [SS1:] Willingness To Pay $5 Yes 45 50 -5 63 Believability: Local Economy Very Believable 6 11 -5 64 Believability: Nothing Will C Very Unbelievable 15 21 -6 60 [SS1:] Believability: There i' Somewhat Believable 25 31 -6 61 [SS2:] Believability: Flood D Very Believable 11 18 -7 49 Believability: Committee is O' Very Believable 14 21 -7 19 Improvement: Street Trees Good, Improvement Not Needed 47 54 -7 20 Improvement: Block walls Alon Good, Improvement Not Needed 41 49 -B 60 [SS1:] Believability: There i Very Believable 4 13 -9 72 [SS2:] Willingness To Pay $25 No 55 66 -11 74 [SS2:] Willingness To Pay $5 No 46 58 -12 73 [SS2:] Willingness To Pay $15 No 60 75 -16 71 (SS1:) Willingness To Pay $25 Yes 7 27 -21 • • 0 Lawrence Research GROUPTABS Page 49 Huntington Beach / July 2001 1318 Neither Con/Lib Question Answer(B) Grp Agg Diff 71 [SSl:] Willingness To Pay $25 Yes 57 27 30 74 (SS2:] Willingness To Pay $5 No 73 58 15 60 [SS1:] Believability: There i Very Believable 26 13 13 28 Name ID: Huntington Beach Cha Somewhat Favorable 54 44 10 64 Believability: Nothing Will C Somewhat Unbelievable 32 22 10 60 [SS1:] Believability: There i Somewhat Believable 40 31 10 70 [SS1:] Willingness To Pay $15 Yes 39 30 9 49 Believability: Committee is O Very Believable 30 21 9 72 [SS2:] Willingness To Pay $25 No 75 66 9 34 Name ID: The Huntington Beach Somewhat Favorable 51 42 9 38 [551:}Vote: Measure A Definitely Yea 13 4 9 59 [SS2:] Believability: Auto Ac Somewhat Believable 33 24 9 10 Approval: Encouraging Re-Deve Somewhat Approve 45 37 8 42 (SS2%j Vote: Measure A (Condi Probably Yes 23 15 8 69 [SS1:] Willingness To Pay $5 Yes 57 50 7 6 Approval: Providing Needed Pu Somewhat Approve 61 54 7 13 Improvement:'The Sewer System Fair, Probably Needs Improveme 41 35 7 50 Heard: City Government Has No Heard 64 58 6 65 Push Vote: If Funds Used Sole Yes 43 37 6 59 [SS2:] Believability: Auto Ac Somewhat -Believable 20 14 6 19 Improvement: Street Trees Good, Improvement Not Needed 60 54 6 64 Believability: Nothing Will C Very Unbelievable 26 21 6 22 Improvement: Beach Facilities Fair, Probably Needs Improveme 41 36 6 73 [SS2:] Willingness To Pay $15 No 81 75 5 5 Huntington Beach Better or Wo Better 53 48 5 ************* Range of 5 Points High to 5 Points Low not included ************* 13 Improvement: The Sewer System Good, Improvement Not Needed 16 21 -5 7 Approval: Solving Traffic Pro Somewhat Approve 34 40 -5 38 [SS1:]Vote: Measure A Probably No 26 31 -5 86 Final Vote: Measure A Definitely No 37 42 -5 28 Name ID: Huntington Beach Cha Strongly Favorable 14 20 -6 37 Importance of the Problem of One of Top Three 44 50 -6 38 (SS1:]Vote: Measure A Probably Yes 6 13 -6 50 Heard: City Government Has No Not Heard 36 42 -6 74 [SS2:] Willingness To Pay $5 Yes 23 30 -6 58 [SS1:] Believability: Possibi Very Unbelievable 34 41 -6 15 Improvement: City Streets, Al Poor, Def Needs Improvement 20 26 -6 61 [SS2:] Believability: Flood D Somewhat Unbelievable 15 22 -7 49 Believability: Committee is O Somewhat Believable 26 33 -7 72 [SS2:] Willingness To Pay $25 Yea 23 30 -7 22 Improvement: Beach Facilities Good, Improvement Not Needed 40 48 -8 62 Believability: City and Prope Very Unbelievable 32 40 -8 60 (SS1:] Believability: There i Somewhat Unbelievable 15 23 -8 73 [SS2:1 Willingness To Pay $15 No Opinion 3 11 -8 74 [SS2:] Willingness To Pay $5 No Opinion 4 12 -8 64 Believability: Nothing will C Somewhat Believable 21 30 -9 16 Improvement: Curbs, Gutters, Poor, Def Needs Improvement 6 15 -9 64 Believability: Nothing Will C Very Believable it 21 -9 43 [SS2:] Vote: Measure B (Condi Definitely No 43 52 -10 42 [SS2:] Vote: Measure A (Condi Definitely No 43 53 -10 70 [SS1:] willingness To Pay $15 No 50 61 -11 Lawrence Research GROUPTABS Page 50 Huntington Beach / July 2001 1318 Cont: Neither Can/Lib Question Answer(s) Grp Agg Diff 60 [SS1:) Believability: There i Very Unbelievable 17 29 -12 59 [SS2:) Believability: Auto Ac Very Believable 35 49 -14 71 (SS1:) Willingness To Pay $25 No 21 48 -26 • • Lawrence Research GROUPTABS Page 51 Huntington Beach / July 2001 1318 MLiberal Question Answer(s) Grp Agg Diff 74 [SS2:] Willingness To Pay $5 Yes 46 30 17 60 [SS1:] Believability: There i Very Believable 27 13 14 58 [SSl:] Believability: Possibi Very Believable 23 10 14 15 Improvement: city Streets, Al Fair, Probably Needs Improveme 59 48 12 60 [SSl:] Believability: There i Somewhat Believable 42 31 12 6 Approval: Providing Needed Pu Strongly Approve 33 22 12 3 Right Direction / Wrong Track Right Direction 68 57 11 58 [SS1:] Believability: Possibi Somewhat Believable 31 20 11 62 Believability: City and Props Very Believable 19 8 11 5 Huntington Beach Better or Wo No Difference 33 23 11 65 Push Vote: If Funds Used Sole Undecided 22 11 10 61 [SS2:] Believability: Flood D Very Believable 28 18 10 66 Push Vote: If 20% Decrease in Yea 42 32 10 32 Name ID: Bolsa Chica Land Tru Strongly Favorable 45 35 10 31 Name ID: Surfrider Foundation Strongly Favorable 39 29 10 49 Believability: Committee is O Very Unbelievable 28 18 10 30 Name IDe Howard Jarvis Taxpay Strongly Unfavorable 19 10 9 57 S: Occasional Repairs / J: Sp More Like Baker 20 11 9 33 Name ID: Amigos de Bolsa Chic Strongly Favorable 39 30 9 29 Name ID: Huntington Beach Tom Strongly Favorable 17 9 B 71 [SSI:] Willingness To Pay $25 No Opinion 33 25 8 12 Approval: The Overall Job The Somewhat Approve 62 54 8 64 Believability: Nothing Will C Very Unbelievable 29 21 8 23 Improvement: Park Facilities Good, Improvement Not Needed 72 64 8 67 Push Vote: If Citizen Committ Undecided 20 12 8 62 Believability: City and Prope Somewhat Believable 28 20 8 13 Improvement: The Sewer System Poor, De€ Needs Improvement 49 42 8 43 [SS2:] Vote: Measure B (Condi Probably Yes 23 16 8 69 [SS1:] Willingness To Pay $5 Yes 58 50 8 24 Improvement: Water System Fair, Probably Needs Improveme 45 37 B 68 Push Vote: If City's Current Yes 41 33 8 34 Name ID: The Huntington Beach Somewhat Favorable 49 42 8 48 Heard: Committee is Overreact Not Heard 77 70 7 59 [SS2:) Believability: Auto Ac Very Believable 14 7 7 19 Improvement: Street Trees Good, Improvement Not Needed 61 54 7 17 Improvement: Traffic Signals Good, Improvement Not Needed 59 53 7 9 Approval: Protecting Beaches Strongly Disapprove 39 33 7 86 Final Vote: Measure A Probably No 25 19 6 34 Name ID: The Huntington Beach Strongly Favorable 19 13 6 8 Approval: Making Needed Repai Somewhat Approve 36 31 6 29 Name ID: Huntington Beach Tom Somewhat Favorable 17 12 6 70 [SS1:] Willingness To Pay $15 No 67 61 6 9 Approval: Protecting Beaches Somewhat Disapprove 28 22 6 33 Name ID: Amigos de Bolsa Chic Somewhat Favorable 25 19 5 54 Heard: City Has Enough Money Heard 61 56 5 57 S: Occasional Repairs / J: Sp More Like Smith 20 15 5 20 7 improvement: Block Walls Alon Approval: Solving Traffic Pro Fair, Probably Needs Improveme Somewhat Approve 42 45 37 40 5 5 69 [SS1:] Willingness To Pay $5 No Opinion 12 7 5 ************* Range of 5 Points High to 5 Points Low not included ************* 33 Name ID: Amigos de Bolsa Chic Strongly Unfavorable 1 7 -5 Lawrence Research GROUPTABS Page 52 Huntington Beach / July 2001 1318 Cont: Liberal Question 6 23 20 54 59 49 32 6 5 9 49 9 3 7 60 59 37 48 63 13 24 42 55 68 58 65 61 71 15 67 74 34 43 69 57 58 60 62 66 38 30 Approval: Providing Needed Pu Improvement: Park Facilities Improvement: Block Walls Alan Heard: City Has Enough Money [SS2:] Believability: Auto Ac Believability: Committee is O Name ID: Balsa Chica Land Tru Approval: Providing Needed Pu Huntington Beach Better or Wo Approval: Protecting Beaches Believability: Committee is 0 Approval: Protecting Beaches Right Direction / Wrong Track Approval: Solving Traffic Pro [SS1:] Believability: There i [SS2:1 Believability: Auto Ac Importance of the Problem of Heard: Committee is overreact Believability: Local Economy Improvement: The Sewer System Improvement: Water System [SS2:] Vote: Measure A (Condi Believability: City Has Enoug Push Vote: If City's Current [SS1:] Believability: Possibi Push Vote: If Funds Used Sole [SS2:] Believability: Flood D [SS1:] Willingness To Pay $25 Improvement: City Streets, Al Push Vote: If Citizen Committ [SS2:] Willingness To Pay $5 Name ID: The Huntington Beach [SS2:] Vote: Measure B (Condi [SS1:] Willingness To Pay $5 S: Occasional Repairs / J: Sp [SS1:] Believability: Possibi (SS1:] Believability: There i Believability: City and Props Push Vote: If 20% Decrease in [SS1:]Vote: Measure A Name ID: Howard Jarvis Taxpay Answers) Grp Agg Diff Strongly Disapprove 1 7 -5 Poor, Def Needs Improvement 1 7 -5 Poor, Def Needs Improvement 3 8 -5 Not Heard 39 45 -5 Somewhat Believable 19 24 -5 Somewhat Believable 28 33 -5 Somewhat Favorable 16 22 -6 Somewhat Disapprove 6 12 -6 Worse 19 25 -6 Strongly Approve 6 12 -6 Somewhat Unbelievable 13 19 -6 Somewhat Approve 23 30 -7 Wrong Track 23 30 -7 Strongly Disapprove 12 19 -7 Somewhat Unbelievable 15 23 -7 Very Believable. .42 49 -7 One of Top Five 9 16 -7 Heard 23 31 -7 Very Unbelievable 35 43 -8 Good, Improvement Not Needed 13 21 -8 Good, Improvement Not Needed 36 45 -8 Definitely No 44 53 -8 Very Believable 41 50 -9 No 45 55 -10 Somewhat Unbelievable 15 26 -10 No 42 52 -10 Very Unbelievable 19 29 -10 Yes 17 27 -11 Good, Improvement Not Needed 14 26 -12 No 43 55 -12 No 46 58 -12 Strongly Unfavorable 6 18 -12 Definitely No 40 52 —12 No 31 44 -13 More Like Jones 55 69 -13 Very Unbelievable 27 41 -14 Very Unbelievable 15 29 -14 Very Unbelievable 26 40 -14 No 42 56 -14 Definitely No 35 51 -16 Strongly Favorable 19 35 -16 0- 0 Lawrence Research GROUPTABS Page 53 Huntington Beach / July 2001 1318 0 Final Vote:Yes Question Answer(a) Grp Agg Diff 86 Final Vote: Measure A Probably No 75 19 56 68 Push Vote: If City'B Current Yes 88 33 55 67 Push Vote: If Citizen Committ Yes 86 33 54 65 Push Vote: If Funds Used Sole Yes 90 37 54 66 Push Vote: If 20% Decrease in Yes 80 32 48 73 [SS2:] Willingness To Pay $15 Yes 61 13 48 42 [SS2:] Vote: Measure A (Condi Probably Yes 58 15 44 74 [SS2:] Willingness To Pay $5 Yes 71 30 42 72 [SS2:] Willingness To Pay $25 Yes 63 30 33 38 [SS1:]Vote: Measure A Probably Yes 40 13 28 69 [SS1:] Willingness To Pay $5 Yes 77 50 27 57' S: Occasional Repairs / J: Sp More Like Baker 33 11 22 70 [SS1:] Willingness To Pay $15 Yee 50 30 20 86 Final Vote: Measure A Definitely Yes 25 6 19 74 [SS2:] Willingness To Pay $5 No Opinion 29 12 16 61 [SS2:] Believability: Flood D Very Believable 33 18 16 59 [SS2:] Believability: Auto Ac Somewhat Believable 29 14 15 55 Believability: City Has Enoug Somewhat Believable 40 26 15 42 [SS2:] Vote: Measure A (Condi Definitely Yes 19 5 14 61 [SS2:] Believability: Flood D Somewhat Believable 40 26 14 3 Right Direction / Wrong Track Right Direction 71 57 14 62 Believability: City and Props Somewhat Believable 33 20 13 64 Believability: Nothing Will C Somewhat Unbelievable 35 22 13 5 Huntington Beach Better or Wo Better 60 48 13 10 Approval: Encouraging Re-Deve Somewhat Approve 49 37 12 63 Believability: Local Economy Somewhat Believable 30 18 12 60 [SS1:] Believability: There i Somewhat Believable 42 31 12 43 [SS2:] Vote: Measure B (Condi Probably Yes 27 16 12 38 [SS1:]Vote: Measure A Definitely Yea 15 4 11 28 Name ID: Huntington Beach Cha Strongly Favorable 31 20 11 73 [SS2:] Willingness To Pay $15 No Opinion 22 11 11 71 [SS1:] Willingness To Pay $25 Yes 38 27 11 58 [SS1:] Believability: Possibi Somewhat Believable 31 20 11 53 Believability: People of '70' Somewhat Believable 24 13 11 51 Believability: City Governmen Somewhat Believable 44 33 11 64 Believability: Nothing Will C Very Unbelievable 31 21 10 43 [SS2:] Vote: Measure B (Condi Definitely Yes 15 5 10 60 [SS1:] Believability: There i Very Believable 23 13 10 12 Approval: The Overall Job The Somewhat Approve 64 54 10 15 Improvement: City Streets, Al Fair, Probably Needs Improveme 57 48 10 59 [SS2:] Believability: Auto Ac Somewhat Believable 33 24 9 22 Improvement: Beach Facilities Good, Improvement Not Needed 57 48 9 16 Improvement: Curbs, Gutters, Fair, Probably Needs Improveme 52 43 9 62 Believability: City and Prope Very Believable 17 8 9 63 Believability: Local Economy Very Believable 19 11 8 33 Name ID: Amigos de BolBa Chic Somewhat Favorable 27 19 8 • 31 11 Name ID: Surfrider Foundation Approval: Listening to the Pe Strongly Favorable Somewhat Approve 37 45 29 37 8 8 37 Importance of the Problem of The Top Problem 25 18 8 11 Approval: Listening to the Pe Strongly Approve 20 13 8 55 Believability: City Has Enoug Somewhat Unbelievable 18 11 7 Lawrence Research GROUPTABS Page 54 Huntington Beach / July 2001 1318 Cont: n Final Vote:Yes Question Answer(s) Grp Agg Diff 7 Approval: Solving Traffic Pro Somewhat Approve 47 40 7 34 Name ID: The Huntington Beach Strongly Favorable 20 13 7 33 Name ID: Amigos de Bolsa Chic Strongly Favorable 37 30 7 48 Heard: Committee is Overreact Heard 37 31 7 6 Approval: Providing Needed Pu Strongly Approve 28 22 6 43 [SS2:] Vote: Measure B. (Condi Probably No 27 21 6 35 Name ID: The Citizens Infrast 'Strongly Favorable 11 5 6 24 Improvement: Water System Fair, Probably Needs Improveme 43 37 6 30 Name ID: Howard Jarvis Taxpay Somewhat Favorable 31 26 6 37 Importance of the Problem of One of Top Three 55 50 5 ************* Range of 5 Points High to 5 Points Low not included ************* 67 Push Vote: If Citizen Committ Undecided 7 12 -5 51 Believability: City Governmen Very Believable 37 42 -5 65 Push Vote: If Funds Used Sole Undecided 6 11 -5 16 Improvement: Curbs, Gutters, Poor, Def Needs Improvement 9 15 -6 57 S: Occasional,Repairs / J: Sp, More Like Smith 9 15 -6 15 Improvement: City Streets, Al Poor, Def Needs Improvement 20 26 -6 70 (SS1:] Willingness To Pay $15 No opinion 3 9 -6 48 Heard: Committee is Overreact Not Heard 63 70 -7 69 [SS1:] Willingness To Pay $5 No Opinion 0 7 -7 24 Improvement: Water System Poor, Def Needs Improvement 8 15 -7 64 Believability: Nothing Will C Somewhat Believable 23 30 -7 6 Approval: Providing Needed Pu Somewhat Disapprove 5 12 -7 9 Approval: Protecting Beaches Somewhat Disapprove 15 22 -7 10 Approval: Encouraging Re-Deve somewhat Disapprove 14 22 -8 11 Approval: Listening to the Pe Somewhat Disapprove 14 22 -8 58 [SS1:] Believability: Possibi Very Unbelievable 33 41 -8 34, Name ID: The Huntington Beach Strongly Unfavorable 10 18 -8 13 Improvement: The Sewer System Good, Improvement Not Needed 13 21 -8 12 Approval: The Overall Job The Somewhat Disapprove 11 20 -9 68 Push Vote: If City's Current Undecided 3 12 -9 60 [sS1:] Believability: There i Somewhat Unbelievable 13 23 -9 11 Approval: Listening to the Pe strongly Disapprove 6 15 -9 3 Right Direction / Wrong Track Wrong Track 20 30 -10 30 Name ID: Howard Jarvis Taxpay Strongly Favorable 25 35 -10 71 [SS1:] Willingness To Pay $25 No Opinion 14 25 -11 60 [SS1:] Believability: There i Very Unbelievable 17 29 -12 5 Huntington Beach Better or Wo Worse 12 25 -13 70 [SS1:] Willingness To Pay $15 No 48 61 -14 42 [SS2:] Vote: Measure A (Condi Probably No 10 25 -14 57 S: occasional Repairs / J: Sp More Like Jones 53 69 -16 64 Believability: Nothing Will C Very Believable 5 21 -16 53 Believability: People of '70' Very Unbelievable 38 55 -17 62 Believability: City and Props Very Unbelievable 20 40 -20 69 [SS1:] Willingness To Pay $5 No 23 44 -20 63 Believability: Local Economy Very Unbelievable 20 43 -23 61 [SS2:] Believability: Flood D Very Unbelievable 4 29 -25 55 Believability: City Has Enoug Very Believable 24 50 -26 86 Final Vote: Measure A Probably No 0 26 -26 Lawrence Research GROUPTABS Page 55 Huntington Beach / July 2001 1318 Cont: Final Vote:Yes Question Answer(s) Grp Agg Diff 59 (SS2:] Believability: Auto Ac Very Believable 21 49 -28 43 (SS2:] Vote: Measure B (Condi Definitely No 19 52 -33 72 (SS2:] Willingness To Pay $25 No 31 66 -35 38 [SS1:]Vote: Measure A Definitely No 12 51 -39 42 (SS2:] Vote: Measure A (Condi Definitely No 10 .53 -42 86 Final Vote: Measure A Definitely No 0 42 -42 66 Push Vote: If 20% Decrease in No 11 56 -45 68 Push Vote: If City•s Current No 9 55 -46 67 Push Vote: If Citizen Committ No 7 55 -48 65 Push Vote: If Funds Used Sole No 4 52 -48 74 [SS2:] Willingness To Pay $5 No 0 58 -58 73 [SS2:] Willingness To Pay $15 No 17 75 -59 • • Lawrence Research GROUPTABS Page 56 Huntington Beach / July 2001 1318 Final Vote:No Question Answer(s) Grp Agg Diff 67 Push Vote: If Citizen Committ No 77 55 21 68 Push Vote: If City's Current No 76 55 21 65 Push Vote: If Funds Used Sole No 73 52 21 66 Push Vote: If 20% Decrease in No 76 56 20 86 Final Vote: Measure A Definitely No 62 42 19 42 (SS2:] Vote: Measure A (Condi Definitely No 69 53 17 38 [SS1:]Vote: Measure A Definitely No 67 51 17 43 [SS2:] Vote: Measure B (Condi Definitely No 65 52 13 86 Final Vote: Measure A Probably No 38 26 12 72 [SS2:) Willingness To Pay $25 No 77 66 11 59 [SS2:) Believability: Auto Ac very Believable 60 49 11 61 [SS2:) Believability: Flood D Very Unbelievable 39 29 10 73 [SS2:) Willingness To Pay $15 No 85 75 10 55 Believability: City Has Enoug •Very Believable 59 5o 9 69 (SS1:] Willingness To Pay $5 No 53 44 9 63 Believability: Local Economy Very Unbelievable 52 43 9 62 Believability: City and Prope Very Unbelievable 47 40 8 53 Believability: People of '70' Very Unbelievable 61 55 6 64 Believability: Nothing will C Very Believable 26 21 6 30 Name ID: Howard Jarvis Taxpay Strongly Favorable 41 35 6 70 [SS1:] Willingness To Pay $15 No 67 61 6 57 S: Occasional Repairs / J: Sp More Like Jones 74 69 6 . 60 [SS1:] Believability: There i Very Unbelievable 34 29 5 5 Huntington Beach Better or Wo Worse .30 25 5 74 (SS2:] Willingness To Pay $5 No 63 58 5 ************* Range of 5 Points High to 5 Points Low not included ************* 60 (SS1:] Believability: There i Somewhat Believable 25 31 -5 28 Name ID: Huntington Beach Cha Strongly Favorable 15 20 -5 3 Right Direction / Wrong Track Right Direction 51 57 -6 86 Final Vote: Measure A Definitely Yes 0 6 -6 61 [SS2:) Believability: Flood D Very Believable 11 18 -7 73 [SS2:) Willingness To Pay $IS Yes 6 13 -7 70 [SS1:) Willingness To Pay $15 Yes 22 30 -8 57 S: Occasional Repairs / J: Sp More Like Baker 3 11 -8 71 [SS1:] Willingness To Pay $25 Yes 19 27 -8 69 [SSI:] Willingness To Pay $5 Yes 40 50 -10 72 (SS2:] Willingness To Pay $2S Yes 19 30 -10 38 [SS1:]Vote: Measure A Probably Yes 1 13 -11 42 [SS2:] Vote: Measure A (Condi Probably Yes 0 15 -15 66 Push Vote: If 20% Decrease in Yes 14 32 -18 68 Push Vote: If City's Current Yes 15 33 -18 86 Final Vote: Measure A Probably No 0 19 -19 67 Push Vote: If Citizen Committ Yes 14 33 -19 65 Push Vote: If Funds Used Sole Yes 17 37 -19 r� u CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH i�.131~sYc� D, amo MEETING DATE: December 17, 2001 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: P1001-02 Council/Agency Meeting Held: Deferred/Continued to: X.Aroved ❑ Condi 'onally Approved ❑ Denied 1Z,P. City Cle 's Signature Council Meeting Date: December 17, 2001 Department ID Number: P1001-02 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH S REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION a Cn mac; SUBMITTED TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS czi SUBMITTED BY: RAY SILVER, City Admini rator0,,5P �, PREPARED BY: RICHARD BARNARNirector of Communications & SpecialPrActs -0 n SUBJECT: Approve the Revised Scope of Work for the Huntington Beach Infrastructure Improvement Public Education Program: Rebuilding Huntington Beach for 215t Century Statement of Issue: The City Council is being requested to approve a revised scope of work for the Public Education component of the Huntington Beach Infrastructure Improvement Program and to authorize an expenditure of up to $75,000 in support of the program. Funding Source: The adopted 2001/2002 Budget, under Public Information, Business Unit 10030301.69365, includes $175,000 of which up to $75,000 of that amount will be used to implement the revised scope of work for the Public Education Program. Recommended Action: Approve the revised scope of work for the Public Education component of the Huntington Beach Infrastructure Improvement Program in an amount not to exceed $75,000. Alternative Action(s): Do not approve the revised scope of work for the Public Education component of the Huntington Beach Infrastructure Improvement Program and provide additional direction to staff. Analysis: On October 15, 2001, City Council directed city staff to meet with members of the Citizen Infrastructure Planning Committee to re-examine the proposed scope of work for the Public Education component of the Huntington Beach Infrastructure Improvement Program and return to the City Council with an outreach program that would minimize the use of additional public funds to carry the program forward, while at the same time, provide a revised scope of work. Members of the Citizen Infrastructure Planning Committee have met 1216/2001 5:00 PM �3 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: December 17, 2001 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PIOOI-02 with city staff and have reviewed a revised Program and believe the program presented infrastructure messages to the general public. scope of the work for the Public Education below will be sufficient to communicate the The program will intensify efforts of the Speakers Bureau, implement distribution of educational materials and offer additional media resources. Elements that have been added to the existing scope of work (Attachment 1) includes improving the content & design of the `rebuildhb.org website, providing public tours of city infrastructure, creation and production of additional television Public Service Announcements, use of bumper stickers and signs on city vehicles, placement of signage within the public -right-of-way at Public Works construction sites, placement of information slides at local movie theaters located at the Charter Center and Pierside Pavilion, and adding a school component. Over the past three years local citizens have studied the city's infrastructure in-depth and in July 2000, presented a report with recommendations to the City Council. In April 2001, the City Council adopted a work program based on the recommendations of the citizen's group. One recommendation of the committee was to continue with the public outreach program. This recommendation was reinforced by the findings of the public opinion research which confirmed a lack of awareness about infrastructure issues,infrastructure funding, and financing constraints. During the first two phases of the public information program, the wheels of the public outreach program were set in motion: a theme and messages for the education program was developed, a program brochure along with a variety of supporting documents were designed and printed, a website (www.rebuildhb.org) and speakers bureau have been established. Based upon the City Council approval of an infrastructure work program in April 2001, the citizen volunteers are poised to continue to take the message directly to their fellow Huntington Beach residents. The Approach Under a previous contract with Frank Wilson & Associates, a public opinion poll was conducted as part of the Public Education Program. The poll indicated that Huntington Beach citizens were not prepared to pay additional taxes for needed infrastructure improvements and may not be fully aware of the possible impacts that could follow from a lack of adequate funding. Yet the need for additional funding sources calls for a continuing Public Education Program that will educate the community about the needed improvements. Therefore, the goal for the next phase of the public outreach program is to create an informed base of citizens who are more aware of the overall city's infrastructure needs and the associated cost and funding options that are available to address the city's infrastructure improvement needs. Local citizens who have studied the infrastructure of the community are prepared to carry the infrastructure messages to local residents using the following communications methods. 121612001 5:00 PM REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: December 17, 2001 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: P1401-02 Proposed Work Plan Goal of the Public Education Program The goal of the Public Education Program is to heighten the awareness of local residents_ about the important role infrastructure plays in their daily lives. It is also designed to share with residents all the work that is being done to maintain our current systems, and to share with the public the work that still needs to be done to ensure that the quality of life they all have come to enjoy in Huntington Beach is maintained. The Public Education Program also gives local residents information about the expense for each of the infrastructure systems, be it local streets or highways, storm drain facilities, sewer facilities, curbs, sidewalks, street lights, traffic signals, trees, landscaping, etc. The program also explores some of the unique features of Huntington Beach that add to the cost of building and maintaining these systems. Such unique features include the city's elevation, soil conditions, flatness of the terrain, and proximity to the ocean, all contribute to making many of the infrastructure systems more expensive than are found in other cities. Lastly, the program reminds the residents that all the infrastructure systems belong to them and they are the ultimate decision -makers in determining at what level these systems are be maintained. Infrastructure Improvement Program Speakers Bureau A Speakers Bureau for the Infrastructure Improvement has been initiated and is continuing to evolve. Speakers have been and will continue to be trained. A PowerPoint presentation was created, and several presentations to community groups have been scheduled in the next few months. Over the next twelve months, city staff proposes to maintain an aggressive Speakers Bureau schedule of four to five engagements per month. This will require an active solicitation of opportunities to address local groups, maintaining the calendar, scheduling speakers and support personnel and providing follow-up to each presentation by city staff. The speaking engagements are designed to offer to the audience an introduction to infrastructure issues, as well as engaging the audience in thinking about the dependence we all have on our infrastructure and the important role it plays in maintaining the lifestyle we enjoy in Huntington Beach. An audience evaluation of the presentation and a survey of infrastructure issues will close each presentation, securing names of interested citizens who have shown an interest in the city's infrastructure. These names will be added to a city database, which will be used to communicate updates to residents about city infrastructure topics. While the Speakers Bureau represents the primary communication tool to speak directly to local residents, a wide range of new and existing communication tools will be used to provide future information to local residents and support the Speakers Bureau Program. A summary of these communication tools is listed in Attachment 1 along with an estimated cost for each of the components of the Public Education -Program. 3 _ 4 12/6/2001 5.00 PM REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: December 17, 2001 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PI001-02 Supporting the efforts of the Public Education Program will be the city's Public Information and Public Works staff. PIO will ensure on -going awareness in the community of the Huntington Beach Infrastructure Improvement Program and will coordinate and follow-up to see that the components of the Public Educaiton Program are carried out. The overall effort of the Public Education Program is to build public awareness and to gain public support for all facets of the city's infrastructure. Environmental Status; Not Applicable Attachment(s): 1. Summary of Revised Scope of Work for the. Huntington Beach Infrastructure improvement Program, Public Education Program Components RCA Author: Richard Barnard 12/6/2001 5:00 PM ,E .3 {' y ll �, F _ .S _ ._F.�: - i5 � ATTACHMENT I Summary of Revised Scope of Work for the Huntington Beach Infrastructure Improvement Program Public Education Program Component rogram--� r'--5NdWjjExi Elements7fih-e "C%i'-� -4 7-1 1-F-Va -"-I*-.,--%,-. - .1;1 Z.'.E S pgiitp e m_ent9-1..0'_T,1 e G .10 6, Pro ram- - e A -i 4 wv F.- - U g� de cniption"of,worki rocluct-1-3- s 'Er . I ", -' �- A-.--' g--& cl Ill i �-Ibupportltie '. Aiie� W%f Z It I Speaker Bureau Existing Component, Arrange for a minimum of 4 speaking engagement per month. $2,000 Reach between Program with refinements Provide staff support to citizen volunteer speakers and provide City Staff and Citizen 1,500-2000 print materials and equipment for presentation. Also create a Volunteers residents database from Citizen survey sheets. 2. Brochure Existing Component 10,000 copies printed and on hand; distribute at public speaking $7,000 for additional 10,0000 copies opportunities, community sites. Funds are being budgeted for printing printed. Additional additional printing of brochures, if necessary. 10,000 if needed (e.g. city hall, libraries). 3. Website Existing Component, Continue to upgrade website making it more visually interesting - $15,000 Funds may be www.re.buildhb.or.q with refinements needs some interactive features; link to national public works City PIO staff to needed t o assist City sites that explain, "how things work" or are constructed (like monitor website e-mail staff with drainage, flood control, streets, etc.). Website name should be messages, prepare development and on City -vehicles (decal or bumper sticker) and related tracking reports and analysis of tracking informational materials. add and update web information from based information website 4. PSAs (television) New Component Existing PSA being used. To develop additional short PSAs, $5,000 On a daily basis has and brief 15 to 30-second spots that convey a single message HBTV-3 staff will the ability to reaches (e.g. "We have over 1000 miles of sidewalks in HBI It costs produce additional 68,000 households in about $xxx each year to maintain or repair them. Find out more video spots Huntington Beach about our infrastructure at www.rebuildhb.org, City Hall, and the Library!"). Attachment No. 1 12/6/2001 3-33 PM 5. Table top d 6. Bus Shelt( Program 7. HBTV-3 Programming 8. City Public ATTACHMENT I Summary of Revised Scope of Work for the Huntington Beach Infrastructure Improvement Program Public Education Program Component lisplay Existing Component Currently in use; always on display at library unless utilized at an City Staff to maintain Average Daily Library event. Will be regularly evaluated to stay current and Attendance is 3,000 incorporate accomplishments (e.g. sewer fee). persons per day. :r Ad Existing Component, Twenty-two bus shelter ads placed in bus shelter display panels $5,000 Current 22 locations with refinements around the city during beginning the week of 11/26/01. Displays Potential to add have Daily Effective will run for the duration of the Public Outreach Program. The additional locations Circulation of advertisement promotes the Rebuild Huntington Beach web site above and beyond 429,000 Daily www.rebuildhb.org. Budgeted funds for additional exposure current 22 free site impressions. opportunities that are available to the City. Existing Component Working with the City Council and City Department to have the City Staff to support On a daily basis a topic of infrastructure included within programs on HBTV-3 (HB work effort potential to reaches Report, Your City, Your Issues, etc. 68,000 households in Huntington Beach rations Existing Component Writing and placing infrastructure stories in city publications: City Staff to coordinate . Sands have a Sands, Community Connections, Neighborhood Watch, Senior quarterly circulation Outlook, Bookmarks of 78,000. • Community Connection has a monthly circulation of 6,000. • Neighborhood Watch has a monthly Circulation of 14,000. • Senior Bright Outlook has a monthly circulation of 3,800. 2 Attachment No. 1 12/6/2001 3.33 PM ATTACHMENT 1 Summary of Revised Scope of Work for the Huntington Beach Infrastructure Improvement Program Public Education Program Component 9. Press Releases Existing Component Preparing and distributing Press Releases to media outlets City Staff to prepare 2-4 per week regarding infrastructure Press Releases to be placed on the and distribute website 10. Short version New Component Produce "man on the street" style PSA interviews or tours S5,000 On a daily basis has PSAs (television) showing and talking about different components of HBTV-3 staff will the potential to infrastructure. Can be short (15- to 30- second) to fit between produce additional reaches 68,000 regular programming. Willing to talk to everyone from surfers to video spots households housewives to execs, to make it interesting to watch. 11. Information ads Existing Components, In lieu of direct or mass mail, an informational series of print City PIO to design in 60,000 Municipal with refinements advertisements about infrastructure. Format will be used as bill conjunction with Services Bill inserts included in the Municipal Services Bill. citizen volunteers distributed monthly 12. School New Component Effort will be made to inform teachers about the information Citizen volunteers to Provide Supporting curriculum found on the Rebuild Huntington Beach Website for use in make contact with materials to schools . classrooms. schools 13. Adult education 1 New Component Expanding on the public works open house, offer mini workshop $ 10,000 2 Tours per Month open houses on "How Does a City Work" from the public works perspective. If Out -side consultant to affordable, there could be tours of significant sites, "Huntington design self -guided Beach —Above and Below road tour", or development of a self- road map guided tour with map. City Staff to organize three road tours 14. Media Relations Existing Component All the above programs and materials will be introduced to the Citizen volunteers and Meet with media on a local media. Periodic briefings will be offered. Ongoing City Staff to meet with quarterly bases information regarding City infrastructure projects should continue local media to provide to be provided as regular practice. up -dates regarding infrastructure education efforts. 3 Attachment No. 1 12/6/2001 3:33 PM 15. Alternate Media 16. Signs at project sites 17. Print message on city envelopes 18. Informational slide at movie theaters ATTACHMENT I Summary of Revised Scope of Work for the Huntington Beach Infrastructure Improvement Program Public Education Program Component Existing Components New Component New Component New Component Prepared articles/updates for various community newsletters (e.g. HOAs, Neighborhood Watch) which provide general information, updates, and where -to -look for more information guidance. Develop graphically interesting signs for infrastructure improvement sites ("Rebuild Huntington Beach —Your Money at Work! Call xxxx for information. Visit www.rebuildhb_orQ"). Produce signs or bumper sticker for city vehicles Purchase a module that would allow the city to create messages indicia (postmark) for City mail or have printing on the outside of the envelope (e.g. "Rebuild Huntington Beach! Visit www_rebuild hb.org!"). Slide shown in Huntington Beach movie theaters prior to previews/main feature, to inform of "Rebuild Huntington Beach" effort and provide website address for more information. 4 City staff would encourage local organizations to insert informational articles in their newsletters or on their web sites. $$7,000 Public Works Staff to work with PIO Staff and Citizen volunteers to design and produce signage. $6,000 City Staff to explore possibility of having a message placed on city envelopes $5,000 City PIO Staff to work with theaters and citizen volunteer group to design and place ads City Staff to Contact and quantify during program Located at various Public Work construction sites. 140,000 envelops in stock. The city sends out about 5000 per day 247,000 viewers between January 2002 and September 2002. Attachment No. 1 121fi12001 3:33 PM 19. Feedback col lectionireporting 20. Unanticipated Cost Contingency ATTACHMENT I Summary of Revised Scope of Work for the Huntington Beach Infrastructure Improvement Program Public Education Program Component Existing Component New Component Define process and staff assistance for collection reporting of information collected at speaking engagements (mini survey). Information to be used as ongoing feedback to speakers and as part of regular reporting to City Council. As the program moves forward opportunities for additional means of communicating with the public may present itself or additional unanticipated expenses for existing components of the program may come to our attention. Total Estimated Cost Use feedback to improve Speaker Bureau presentations and develop informational updates $8,000 (unknown costs) e.g. Popularity of Public Tours, unanticipated cost) $75,000 Attachment No. 1 12/6/2001 3:33 PM RCA ROUTING SHEET INITIATING DEPARTMENT: Administration / P10 SUBJECT: Approve the Revised Scope of Work for the Huntington Beach Infrastructure improvement Public Education Program: Rebuilding Huntington Beach for 21st Century COUNCIL MEETING DATE: December 17, 2001 RCA ATTACHMENTS STATUS Ordinance (w/exhibits & legislative draft if applicable) Not Applicable Resolution (wlexhibits & legislative draft if applicable) Not Applicable Tract Map, Location Map and/or other Exhibits Not Applicable Contract/Agreement (w/exhibits if applicable) (Signed in full by the City Attorney) Not Applicable Subleases, Third Party Agreements, etc. (Approved as to form by City Attorney) Not Applicable Certificates of Insurance (Approved by the City Attorney) Not Applicable Financial Impact Statement (Unbudget, over $5,000) Not Applicable Bonds (If applicable) Not Applicable Staff Report (If applicable) Not Applicable Commission, Board or Committee Report (If applicable) Not Applicable Findings/Conditions for Approval and/or Denial Not Applicable EXPLANATION FOR MISSING ATTACHMENTS REVIEWED RETURNED FORWARDED Administrative Staff { ) ( ) Assistant City Administrator (Initial) { ) ( ) City Administrator (Initial) { ) ( ) City Clerk EXPLANATION FOR RETURN OF ITEM: RECEIVED MM vlJ�✓Y%Yl�LiOL �r�C��b')TG+ U The Huntington Beach Infrastructure Improvement Program Rebuilding for the 2111 Century Public Education Program December 17, 2001 The Huntington Beach Infrastructure Improvement Program Rebuilding for the 21ST Century Theme: Rebuilding for the 2111 Century Messages: -The Infrastructure is ours. Our tax dollars pay for it and we must ensure that it continues to work for us -The city has reevaluated its infrastructure investment program and has devised a proactive approach to address current and future infrastructure requirements -We, the residents, are what make HB special. Its important for all of us to be informed about issues that impact our quality of life and it's our obligation to actively participate in solutions The Huntington Beach Infrastructure Improvement Program Rebuilding for the 21ST Century -The Public Education Program 10/01/01 to 09/30/02 -There are 19 separate components to the Public Education Program. The program is designed to help define and educate local residents about what infrastructure is and the important roll it plays in our daily lives -The intent of the Public Education Program is to raise local resident's awareness about infrastructure, using various methods of communication found within the Public Education Program 1 The Huntington Beach Infrastructure Improvement Program Rebuilding for the 21ST Century Speaker Bureau: Citizen volunteers who have studied the city's infrastructure for the past 3 years are available to speak to community groups and organizations �WAX about the infrastructure needs of the Community. The public can schedule a speaker by calling 714.374-1696 or go to www.rebulldhb.arg ^� The Huntington Beach Infrastructure Improvement Program Rebuilding for the 21STCentury -Website has a rich assortment of information pertaining the City's Infrastructure. -Materials can be used by members of the public and by school educators. www.rebulldhb.or¢ rebuildlib.org Website The Huntington Beath Infrastructure Improvement Program Rebuilding for the 21s,r Century •10,000 broehnreS have been printed and are being distributed. -Funds are set aside for additional printing if necessary. Brochure r 2 i The Huntington Beach Infrastructure Improvement Program Rebuilding for the 215T Century City staff will continue to write informative articles and issue press releases about the City's Infrastructure programs and place the articles in carious city and community based publications and distribute press releases to the media. The Huntington Beach Infrastructure Improvement Program Rebuilding for the 21sT Century • A table topic display is located at the Huntington Central Library. Average of 3.000 visitors enter the Library per day. -The table trip display will be used at public events for the coming year { Public Works Open House, Pier Plaza Presents, Fire Fest, Police Open House, etc.}. Table Top Display The Huntington Beach Infrastructure Improvement Program Rebuilding for the 215T Century -Four Public Service announcements have been produced attd are being shown on I113TV-3. -Additional 15-30secondv,'tL-.i. Infrastructure Improvement video spots will be produced and aired on H©TV-3 in the coming _ `: year. The Huntington Beach Infrastructure Improvement Program Rebuilding for the 21ST Century REBUILDING H B - FOP, THE 21ST CENTURY FIND OUT MORE AT WWW.REBUILDH&OR Theater Slide The Huntington Beach Infrastructure improvement Program Rebuilding for the 20"'Century -There are 22 locations in the City where this bus shelter ad appears. Bus Shelter Ad The Huntington Beach Infrastructure Improvement Program Rebuilding for the 21ST Century Rebuilding Huntington Reach for the lift Century YOUR COMMUNITY! I YOUR TAX DOLLARS! i .1I Fin out moreat: rebulldhh.ort Phone 714-536-5523 Signage to be located at Public Construction Site as well es bumper stickers and signs on city vehicles. 4 Questions and Answers -—---cErvcoMNOM - - -- -- - - _-- — — --- -- AND COLW. w iNI<a� � OUlICL i qq�qq poll�jbpilY prYolBac What is it about think about. It is our city's infrastruc- rrEMa �� Huntington Beach that ture. It's the 4I I miles of local streets draws us together? Is it our and alleys and the 1 12 signalized inter - common appreciation of the sea? Is it sections. It's the 1, 197 miles of curbs the year-round mild climate? Or that and gutters that we share and [he we can enjoy the 81/2 miles of our 1,054 miles of sidewalks. It's 68 arteri- sandy beaches? As residents of at highway block walls and the city's Huntington Beach, we believe it is water system. its the 15 storm water these things and so much more. pump stations, the 575 miles of sewer We who live in Huntington Beach lines, and 28 sewer lift stations that 1 are hard workers... productive and serve our daily needs. As citizens of enterprising. Yet, we treasure the time Huntington Beach, we own these vital we have to play and relax. We live in systems and through our taxes we homes that either touch ocean inlets maintain and repair therm. of the Pacific or are but a few minutes from the breaking surf. We lie beneath Signs of advancing age the sun and listen to the rhythm of The truth is, our city's infrastructure is -the waves. We stroll the length of our i showing signs of age. Most of it was historic pier: We play baseball and designed and constructed more than Soccer in our -parks We ride bicycles- 40 years ago, before Huntington Beach became the modern city it is 'today. Back then our population was. barely 1000 people Today it exceeds `190,000 people. Miich of our_city's 9i on inal-infrastructure simply was not --- � -designed to serve j y that many residents. I along Our tranquil streets That's why, in and our oceanfront ty f' 19�95, our City Above all, we share a .. Council began a. . common te�spect.for the, v i natural envin)7f iient and m ke,sQriously our.respo tbilI to pro - _Y-" ect and enhance`.it We are �d of ; chosent pn Bea e a' -C££aCETO plaRFrot�tttamify ��} J; ewacds of our utys comprehensive inspethi our aryl nfrasfru-jute studyI'asted two: We also share a'.§fde ©f o r 41ry years and was conducted by our public ff even ewet us see an Works Depactrrtent, Publrc Works r Corr[missron and fire hlys rnancel Boagd tts purpose was Ip unctSve ` parts of our infrastructure that are failing, and to research what needs to be done to keep our infrastructure healthy for the foreseeable future. What they found was an infrastructure system in desperate need of repair. A system that, if left unattended, could threaten our public health and safety, our economy and our property values. What's more, the city's research found that the cost of supporting our.infra- structure to meet our needs over the next 20 yea rs'vvou Id ..cost approximately $1.37 billion. - we have come to enjoy as citizens of Huntington Beach. Rebuilding for the 21 st. Century Together, we can rebuild Huntington Beach's infrastructure and preserve the way of life we so enjoy. The question is "Howl Both the city's report and the report of the citizens' committee conclude that we will need to invest $1.37 billion over the next 20 years to protect our quality of life, our public safety and our health. Getting the citiens,involved More than $500 million of that will Recognizing lust. how complex and come from our city's general fund, expensive the rehabilitation of our infra-, gas tax revenues, development fees, structure`itioulcl be, our city' leaders rants and other existing sources. The g,, g asked the citizens to get involved.'In city is already' working hard to gener- 1998;"the City. Council formed the; ate.additional revenues=by. strea.mlin- -: Citizens Infrastructure Advisory ing city operations and reducing Committee. The cou-ncil asked the com= :. expenditures so more funds can,be . mittee of 64-,Huntington Beach citizens. redirected to meet.the needs of infra-:.'_... to conduct its own study of our city's structu re. mfrastucture with the help;of profes Still it.is vital that every Huntington sional,civil engineers;.lt asked the com Beach citizen become�informed and. rnittee`to confirm or'refute what the city `; involved:.Discoyer what our city's ; to : fund n its study is impor ifrastruturesandwhyito;had make=recommendations for:fixing.what tant Learn about how:-we.-pay`for our., is,,broken and replacing what is old::" infrastructure and why it is so -crucial Three years later, the committee that rt be_upgraded and:.main tame'd issued its report confirming _what the city Because :we care about our city we had found in:its study And :it recoi- can all be a part"of thesolution in mended what we as.;a city working rebuilding our infrastructure for;the together must do to'.make' sure our` 2l st century infrastructure supports the quality of Irfe ' ' Our- infrastructure... why we. must work together. Approximately 411 miles of sewer lines, . much of which were constructed nearly 50 years ago, serve all of us in Huntington Beach. Constructing new sewer lines and rehabilitating older ones should be our highest priority to avoid continued deterioration. They say it never rains in Southern California, but we know better. Huntington Beach's extensive storm drain infrastructure serves to rapidly drain rainwater from our' city streets. But heavy rainfall frequently causes flooding in some of our streets and intersections as a result of aging and deficient storm water pump stations. The Huntington Beach Infrastructure Improvement Program calls for enhancing the capacity of our city's storm drains and pumping stations so this kind of flooding does not occur. Much of Huntington Beach's 414 miles of surface streets and public alleys were constructed 40 to 50 years ago. Today, our city's surface streets and public alleys are plagued with the symptoms of heavy use. By working together through the Huntington Beach Infrastructure Improvement Program, we can find solutions to repair and maintain our streets and alleys. Visitors to our coast are vital to the Huntington Beach economy. The beauty of our beaches, and seat Pier the recreational opportunities they afford us, repre- Due to its flat topographyand low-lying sent the heart of who we are as a city. That's why Y 9 Both children and adults use areas (Five per cent of the city is below Huntington Beach's 7,054 miles of W E ; t �• it is important that the Infrastructure Improvement sea level), Huntington Beach has an sidewalks every day. Yet, many of our sidewalks are Program protect and maintain our beaches, extensive system of storm drains, drainage channels being uplifted by tree roots, creating public safety S , ensuring they remain a desirable place to visit. and storm water um stations. Most of the ci s I5 pump h'� hazards. Part of the Huntington Beach Infrastructure storm water pump stations will require expansion, Improvement Program is to make our sidewalks safe replacement or rehabilitation as they reach the end for pedestrians once again. of their useful life. . POPULATION: 815 .1,687 3,690 3,738 5,258 11,492 115,960 170,505 181,519 189,594 224,000?' 19 19 `,i9 9 E79 l9 19 =19 19 1 ' t 20 2020 7909 1930-1940 1960 to 1970 1978 1990 _ 1992-1999 1994 1996 1997 1998 2000 2001 Earliest Downtown alleys built Most local Prop. 13 Federal flood HB loses S34 million OC bankruptcy H8 begins IIMP identifies , HB City Council IAC recommends Implementation of HB infrastructure. streets and reduces control standards in city revenue to reduces county investigation of overall need appoints - infrastructure infrastructure improvement begins. built downtown arterials property raised, outdating State coffers. investment in infrastructure and funding Infrastru'Rure improvement and constructed. tax base. HB's flood control infrastructure. shortfall Advisory funding strategy. system. Committee IIAQ 'Sowre.'Cew, for D-;,irophir R—alb, CSUF The growth of Huntington Beach since its incorporation in ' 1909 is an indicator of the age and. condition of the city's infrastructure. Annexations in the late 1950's were followed soon after by development. Infrastructure built at that time is now in need 'of rehabilitation or replacement Stricter standards of infrastructure performance (such as storm drain capacity) also call for upgrading of facilities built at that time. Original City Limits 1909-1945 City Boundary 1959 Five percent. of Huntington Beach is below sea level. 21 per cent is below 10 feet in elevation. And 42 percent is below 15 feet. These �`���}Job'`wj�e,%v�trons�ose's�gn�ficant f. `� '�'� yCv� " llenges and require City Boundary 1955 Current City Boundary L6 �22- ry'i. }.,F Council/Agency Meeting Held: \8—j5--01 Deferred/Continued to:-TN5p \4ZN, I?--11-el J Approved ❑ Conditionally Approved ❑ Denied !• y Cle 's Signature Council Meeting Date: 10-15-01 Department ID Number: AD01-47 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION b � b � SUBMITTED TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS l ��1 SUBMITTED BY: RAt SI E , Cit Administrator~ M r' PREPARED BY: RICHA RNA D, Director of Communications & Speci Ivro9octs� SUBJECT: Approve amendment to the Frank Wilson & Associates Cont9ct for Consulting Services to Assist with the Implementation of the Huntington Beach Infrastructure Improvement Program, Public Outreach Program (Phase III) Statement of Issue, Funding Source, Recommended Action, Alternative Action(s), Analysis, Environmental Status, Attachment(s) Statement of Issue: In 1999 Frank Wilson & Associates was selected from a group of three finalists in a competitive bid process to work with the City to provide public information consulting services in support of the Infrastructure Improvement Program by collaborating with the City Council, the Public Works Department, the city's Public Information Department, the Citizen Infrastructure Advisory Committee, and the Infrastructure Planning Committee. Frank Wilson & Associates has completed the tasks outlined in Phase I and II. In order for the Citizen Committee to reach out to the local residents in a comprehensive manner with a grass roots educational program, it is necessary to amend the Frank Wilson & Associates contract. Funding Source: The adopted 2001/2002 Public Information Budget, under business unit HBTV-3 Other Professional Services (10030301.69365), in the amount of $175,000. Recommended Action: Approve and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute Amendment #1 to agreement with Frank Wilson & Associates to continue to provide public information and community outreach assistance to the city for the city's infrastructure improvement program. Alternative Action(s): Do not approve Contract Amendment #1 and discontinue the services of Frank Wilson & Associates providing support services to the city's Infrastructure Improvement Program. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 10-15-01 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: AD01-47 Analysis: Introduction After having solicited bids from interested parties and holding interviews with the top three candidates, city staff presented a recommendation to retain Frank Wilson & Associates. The City Council approved the contract. Since that approval, Frank Wilson & Associates has collaborated with the City's Public Information Department, the Department of Public Works, the Citizen Infrastructure Advisory Committee and the Infrastructure Planning Committee to carry out several tasks related to the development and implementation of a comprehensive Public Outreach Program in support of the city's Infrastructure Improvement Program. During the last three years the Citizen Infrastructure Advisory Committee (IAC) has developed and completed its report and their findings were presented to City Council in July 2000. Following the IAC Report the City Council created a new committee comprised of both City Council Members and citizen representatives from the the original Infrastrucutre Advisoiry Committee. This new committee is called the Infrastructure Planning Committee (IPC). The IPC has continued to meet, refine and bring forward various elements of the IAC findings and recommendations. On April 16, 2001, the City Council approved a work program related to the findings of both the IAC and IPC committees. Under both the IAC and IPC Committees recommendations, it was recognized that Public Education and Outreach to our local residents was an important element of the overall strategy to make improvements to the City's Infrastructure. This recommendation was reinforced by the findings of the public opinion research, which confirmed the lack of awareness about infrastructure issues, infrastructure funding and financing constraints. During the first two phases of the public information program, the wheels of the public outreach program were set in motion: materials were prepared, City Council actions initiated implementation of the IAC's recommendations, and citizen volunteers were poised to take the infrastructure messages directly to their fellow Huntington Beach residents. The Approach A public opinion poll, conduced as part of the Public Outreach Program, indicated that Huntington Beach citizens were not prepared to accept a tax such as the one proposed in the citywide Community Facilities District. Yet, the need for additional funding sources calls for a continuing public outreach program that will educate the public and, therefore create a demand for the needed improvements. To that end, the goal for the next phase of the public outreach program is to create an informed base of citizens who are poised to accept a measure that would fund the city's essential infrastructure improvements. Under Phase III, Frank Wilson & Associates, working with the citizen advisory committee, is prepared to carry the word to local residents using a three -pronged approach: 1. Outreach to local civic and special interest groups --This is what the Speakers Bureau accomplishes. Working with the IAC and IPC members, Frank Wilson will AARCA for Frank Wison Contract Amendment.doc -2- 1017101 5:48 PM REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 10-1"ll DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: AD01-47 bring the infrastructure messages to existing audiences, typically through a presentation to local groups at regular meetings of its members. 2. Target direct communication with residents in specific neighborhoods --This program, called Neighborhood Outreach, includes direct mail to local residents in a specific neighborhood, a discussion of the specific needs of that neighborhood in a group presentation, and direct mail follow-up with the same target audience. This format will be replayed throughout Huntington Beach in selected neighborhoods. 3. Communication with the general public —This prong of the communication plan includes Public Workshops, a quarterly infrastructure newsletter, and a presence through the Infrastructure Improvement Program display booth at local public events. Proposed Work Plan Infrastructure Improvement Program Speakers Bureau A Speakers Bureau for the Infrastructure Improvement has been established. Speakers have been trained. A PowerPoint presentation was created, and several presentations to community groups have been scheduled in the next few months. Over the next twelve months, FW&A proposes to maintain an aggressive Speakers Bureau schedule of four engagements per month. This requires active solicitation of opportunities to address local groups, maintaining the calendar, scheduling speakers and support personnel and providing follow-up after each presentation. The speaking engagements are designed to offer an introduction to infrastructure issues to the audience, as well as engaging the audience in thinking about the dependence we have on our infrastructure and its importance in maintaining the lifestyle we enjoy in Huntington Beach. An audience evaluation of the presentation and a survey of infrastructure issues will close each presentation, securing names of interested citizens for inclusion in the Infrastructure Improvement Program database (newsletter mailing list). Neighborhood Outreach The neighborhood outreach program is a very effective way to put infrastructure information into the hands of HB residents through direct communication from a concerned citizen. After a neighborhood area is selected, a local neighborhood -meeting place is identified, and a local meeting host is identified from among the existing citizen volunteers. A personal invitation from the host is mailed to the target audience that outlines the infrastructure program and personally invites them to learn more about its impact in the specific neighborhood. The scheduled meeting will be similar to a speaker's bureau presentation, but will include a focus on the infrastructure issues and implications for the neighborhood. A facilitated discussion will engage the audience in a problem -solving discussion to encourage an understanding of the complexity of the issues. A feedback mechanism will elicit a sense of priorities from the individuals attending the meeting. AARCA for Frank Wilson Coat Amendment.doc .3- 1017101 6.48 PM REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 10-15-01 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: AD01-47 Following the meeting, those invitees who did not attend will receive another letter from their neighborhood host explaining what happened at the meeting, and the priorities identified by those who attended. An opportunity to request future mailings on the subject will also be included, and will increase the number of individuals with whom we can continue to communicate over time. This sequence of letter -meeting -letter allows key infrastructure messages to be conveyed a minimum of two times in writing from a very credible neighborhood leader, initiating a word- of-mouth chain of communications that will help raise interest and awareness at the most local level. FW&A proposes to conduct fifteen neighborhood outreach meetings over the course of the next 12 months with the intended goal to reach approximately 20,000 voters. Public Workshops The FW&A team workshops will use a creative and interactive approach to generate sincere interest in the Infrastructure Improvement Program from a diverse mix of local business leaders, residents, elected officials and their staffs, environmental and minority community leaders and the general public. Two workshops will be scheduled. Each workshop will begin by introducing the Infrastructure Improvement Program and the community involvement process, past and present. Following the general introduction, the workshop will involve participants in a series of facilitated discussions that help to clearly define the problem, articulate consequences of not meeting the City's infrastructure needs, brainstorm possible solutions, and identify possible action items for various stakeholders. This focus on solutions will help develop a sense of ownership among participants and will, in effect, create a new set of stakeholders in the process --even if they didn't see themselves as such before the workshop. Following each workshop, a report will be provided to the city. The input received will help shape the response to the infrastructure needs of the city. Invitations will be mailed to organizations and individuals from the interest database, as recommended by the city. Dates and locations will also be publicized through press releases, announcements to local organizations, and other city publications. Each workshop will include: 1. An introduction to and focus on infrastructure issues 2. A pro -active, personal contact effort to ensure representation from stakeholders and opinion leaders 3. A cross section of interests that could play a role in developing program solutions 4. Involvement of and close coordination with local elected officials, city staff and committee members 5. An exit survey to provide quantifiable feedback 6. A participant evaluation A:IRCA for Frank Wilson Contract Amendment. doc -4- 1017101 5:48 PM REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 10-15-01 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: AD01-47 The workshops, led by a professional facilitator, will be approximately 2 hours long and scheduled at convenient times and locations. Frank Wilson & Associates will make arrangements with HBTV-3 to have at least one workshop video taped and air. The video, tabletop display, program brochure and other written materials will be the primary communication tools along with key questions targeted for the specific audiences. Community Events FW&A has developed a tabletop display that can serve in any environment -- from a casual Street Fair to a formal Economic Summit. This portable display will be scheduled at various community events, staffed by speaker's bureau members and other volunteers. Collateral materials will be accommodated in racks, and can also be placed on the table in front of the display itself. The featured collateral material includes the infrastructure program brochure, and an infrastructure survey that is used to secure additional names for our interest list, and offers an opportunity to engage booth visitors in a conversation about infrastructure. Community Survey Having conducted focus groups and a telephone survey as part of the first two phases of the public outreach program, FW&A proposes to measure the effectiveness of the public outreach effort through another telephone survey. The purpose of the survey will be to track awareness relative to the baseline survey that was conducted in July 2001, including: • Measuring overall awareness of the City of Huntington Beach's infrastructure. Identifying current perceptions and attitudes toward the City of Huntington Beach's infrastructure. • To measure the impact of a communication program and how these attitudes and perceptions change over time. As in the previous telephone survey, we propose to use a sample size of 400. The same questionnaire and methodology is recommended for the post-test as was used for the baseline, or pre -test, study. The results from the post-test will yield accurate information pertaining to current awareness and perceptions of the City of Huntington Beach's infrastructure afterthe communication plan has been executed. Additional information needs will be discussed during the design. phase and incorporated into the research questionnaire. ' Meeting Attendance, Committee Support & Project Management Frank Wilson & Associates will continue to meet with IPC members as needed to coordinate the activities of the public outreach program. Secondary Support Supporting the efforts of Frank Wilson and the Infrastructure Planning Committee will be the city's Public Information staff. PIO will ensure an on -going awareness in the community of the Rebuild Huntington Beach for the 21s! Century Infrastructure Improvement Program. The efforts by PIO will consist of the following work products. A:1RCA for Frank Wilson Contract Amendment doc .5- 1017101 5:48 PM REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 10-15-01 DEPARTMENT iD NUMBER: AD01-47 ✓ Maintain and add information to the Infrastructure Improvement Program web site: www.rebuildhb.orci ✓ The placement of infrastructure ad's on local bus shelters designed to reminding the public about infrastructure ✓ Playing Public Service Announcements on HBTV-3 about the Infrastructure ✓ Writing and placing infrastructure stories in city publications: Sands, Community Connections, Municipal Services Bill Inserts, Bookmarks ✓ Preparing and distributing Press Releases to media outlets about infrastructure ✓ Promoting the Information repositories ✓ Talking to the Media that covers Huntington Beach about the important role infrastructure plays in our community and request feature story about the important roll infrastructure plays in our daily lives. ✓ Providing periodic guided tours of the cities infrastructure to the public. ✓ Working with the City Council and other departments to have the topic of infrastructure included within programs on HBTV-3 (HB Report; Your City, Your Issues; Inside City Hall; Hot Topics; etc.). The overall effort of the Public Outreach Program is to build public awareness and to gain public support for all facets of city infrastructure. Environmental Status: Not Applicable Attachments): 1. Amendment No. 1 to agreement between City of Huntington Beach and Frank Wilson and Associates, Inc. for professional services to provide a public information and community outreach assistance to the City for the City's Infrastructure Improvement Program 2. Letter Dated October 2, 2001 from Frank Wilsion & Associates presenting their Proposed Work Plan for Phase III of the Public Outreach Program for the Infrastructure Improvement Program 3. Rebuiding Huntington Beach for the 21st Century, A Comprehensive Public Outreach Program in Support of the City's Infrastructure Improvement Program Plan. RCA Author: Richard Bamard AARCA for Frank Wilson Contract Amendment.doc -6- 1017/01 6:56 PM ATTACHMENT #1 AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AND FRANK WILSON AND ASSOCIATES, INC. FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES TO PROVIDE A PUBLIC INFORMATION AND COMMUNITY OUTREACH ASSISTANCE TO CITY FOR THE CITY'S INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM THIS AMENDMENT is made and entered into the day of , 2001, by and between the CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, a California municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as "City", and FRANK WILSON & ASSOCIATES, a California corporation hereinafter referred to as "CONSULTANT." WHEREAS, CITY and CONSULTANT are parties to that certain agreement, dated February 7, 2000 entitled "Professional Services Contract Between the City of Huntington Beach and Frank Wilson & Associates for Professional Services to Provide a Public Information and Community Outreach Assistance Program for the City's Infrastructure Improvement Program" which agreement shall hereinafter be referred to as the "Original Agreement," and Since the execution of the Original Agreement, CITY has requested additional work from CONSULTANT and CONSULTANT has agreed to perform such work; and CITY and CONSULTANT wish to amend the Original Agreement to reflect the additional work already performed by CONSULTANT, the additional work to be performed by CONSULTANT, and the additional compensation to be paid in consideration thereof by CITY to CONSULTANT. NOW, THEREFORE, it is agreed by CITY and CONSULTANT as follows: ADDITIONAL WORK CONSULTANT shall provide to CITY such additional services as required by CITY, including, implementation of Phase III Public Outreach Program of the Huntington Beach Infrastructure Improvement Program, as described in proposed work plan for Phase III Public Outreach Program for Infrastructure Improvement Program, to CITY dated October 2, 2001 a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A," and incorporated by this reference as though fully set forth herein. 2. ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION In consideration of the additional services to be performed hereunder as described in Section I above, CITY agrees to pay CONSULTANT, and CONSULTANT agrees to accept from CITY as full payment for services rendered, an additional sum not to exceed One Hundred Seventy Five Thousand Dollars (S175,000.00). 01agreetwilsnn amend V10Wol REAFFIRMATION Except as specifically modified herein, all other terms and conditions of the Original Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed by and through their authorized offices the day, month and year first above written. FRANK WILSON & ASSOCIATES, INC By: J—A - 4n print name ITS: (circle ones Chairma 'PresidentVice President AND ITS: (circle ofrejC Secretary - Treasurer CITY OF HL'NTINGTON BEACH, a municipal corporation of the State of California Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk name Chief Financial Officer rlsst. APPROV AS TO FORM: REVIEWED AND APPROVED ty Administrator 0 City Attorney 1AW 101� 101 iojq�( INITIATED AND APPROVED: Director of Communications and Special Projects 01aeree!wi!l on amend IIi04:61 7 ATTACHMENT #2 0 Frank Wilson & Associates, Inc. Marketing Communications 23332 Mill Creek Drive, Suite 155 Laguna Hills, CA 92653 Tel: 949.588.1124 Fax: 949.588.1829 Memorandum To: Rich Barnard Director of Communications, City of Huntington Beach From: Julie Chay Frank Wilson & Associates Date: October 2, 2001 RE. Proposed `Fork Plan for Phase III Public Outreach Program For Infrastructure Improvement Program Huntington Beach Infrastructure Improvement Program Public Outreach Phase 3 Background In 1999 the City of Huntington Beach retained Frank Wilson & Associates (FW&A), Inc. to provide public information consulting services in support of the Infrastructure Improvement Program and the Citizens Infrastructure Advisory Committee's (IAC) final report and outreach effort. The Scope of Work requested by the City of Huntington Beach focused on completion of the Final Report of the Citizens Advisory Committee, opinion research (focus groups), development of a public outreach strategy and preparation of materials to be used in the public outreach effort. During the first phase of work FW&A supported the work of the IAC by conducting focus groups that established a baseline of community understanding of infrastructure issues. by editing and publishing the IAC"s Final Report and by creating presentation materials to use in the reporting of the committee's work to the City Council and the community. In Phase 2 of the outreach effort, FW&A worked closely with the Infrastructure Planning Committee (IPC) to determine appropriate messages for the outreach effort. Based on the focus group and interview findings, the theme of "Rebuilding Huntington Beach for the 21 st Century" was established. This, combined with the key messages established by the committee, brought about a creative theme emphasizing the connection between the values people hold dearest about Huntington Beach and the infrastructure that supports those values. At the same time, the City Council approved the recommendations of the IPC and began implementing them. One of the recommendations was the continuation of the public outreach program. Also in Phase 2 FW&A worked closely with IPC members to produce collateral materials and establish a framework for carrying the infrastructure message to the community. Finally, FW&A conducted a telephone survey to determine the level of acceptance of a possible ballot measure to raise funds for implementation of the infrastructure improvement program. While the telephone survey revealed some knowledge on the part of the public about infrastructure problems, it also indicated that a tax measure was unlikely to succeed at this time. The findings reinforced the need to continue the outreach program. What follows is a detailed review of the activities and accomplishments of the first two phases, and a strategic plan for moving forward in Phase 3 of the Public Outreach Program. Public Outreach Accomplishments February 2000 through September 2001 Citizens Infrastructure Advisory Committee Interim & Final Reports During the first phase of the Public Outreach Program, FW&A actively supported the completion of the IAC's findings and recommendations, serving as editor and publisher of the final report. FW&A also wrote an interim report and executive summary for the final report, as well as PowerPoint presentations for City Council. Message Development To convey precise messages in interviews, speaking engagements or presentations, a specific list of key messages was produced in a facilitated brainstorming session. The messages developed by committee members in the session were incorporated into the collateral pieces, the PSA scripts and the Press Kit. Press Kit In response to media inquiries and also to be utilized on the Media Launch tour, a press kit was organized to offer the most accurate information for all members of the press. The press kit included a backgrounder on national and local infrastructure, IIP fact sheet, Huntington Beach infrastructure fact sheet and FAQ. A special CD-ROM was prepared with images depicting failing infrastructure and was accompanied by captions explaining each photo. Media Launch On June 8, 2001, a media tour was conducted to introduce reporters on the beat in Huntington Beach to the infrastructure issues that are plaguing the City. Members of the media were invited to take part in a bus tour that blanketed numerous spots in the City to provide visual examples of the City's infrastructure shortcomings. News coverage appeared the following day in the Orange County Register, Los Angeles Times, The Wave and Orange County News Channel. A second tour was held privately with Pat Haslam of KOCE's Real Orange. Although he was unavailable to attend the first tour, he received the same glimpse into the infrastructure plight of Huntington Beach. Program Brochure The Program Brochure was designed to be a stand-alone piece to explain the City's infrastructure dilemma without being presented with any other supporting materials. It was also the basis for the Web site and PowerPoint presentation. The copy included a definition of infrastructure, information into what needs to be repaired, pictures and information as to how residents can act to remedy the situation. PowerPoint Presentation A PowerPoint presentation was designed to highlight the need for rebuilding Huntington Beach's infrastructure. This presentation was created for use in the Infrastructure Improvement Program speaker's bureau. A definition of infrastructure, information as to what needs to be repaired, pictures and information as to how residents can act to remedy the state of disrepair were all contained in the presentation. Tabletop Display A tabletop display has been created to promote the City's Infrastructure Improvement Program at local community events and has already been featured at several events around the City. The design of the display is for easy set up and transport. Volunteers are recruited as needed to staff the booth at each event. Citizen Outreach Evaluation Form For the purpose of gauging the knowledge of infrastructure issues among city residents, an evaluation form was produced and distributed whenever the tabletop display was set up at community events. The evaluation also helps to define the infrastructure issues that are most important to residents. People participating in the survey could ask to receive further information about the HBIIP and, in doing so, registered themselves for a chance to win a vintage portrait of a popular Huntington Beach destination. Web Page In conjunction with the brochure, www.rebuildhb.org was created for the purpose of informing Huntington Beach residents of the failing infrastructure and the program designed to remedy the situation. The Web site, which is currently up and running, features PDF versions of the IAC report, program brochure and the press kit, along with various photos of infrastructure elements and notices of public events. Utility Bill Insert FW&A reviewed and edited the contents of a utility bill insert. The insert was included a discussion of the infrastructure issues as revealed in the IIMP. a discussion of the overall strategy recommended by IPC and to provide an explanation of the sewer service charge in context of the overall Infrastructure Improvement Program. The insert was delivered to residents prior to the discussion on the Sewer Service Charge that took place on August 6, 2001. Speakers Bureau FW&A has established a speakers bureau with volunteer speakers from the IAC. A total of three speaker orientation meetings have taken place to prepare the presenters for their engagements. The first presentation took place on Tuesday, September 18, 2001 with several more presentations scheduled for the weeks to come. Public Service Announcements A series of scripts for the Public Service Announcements have been written for the Infrastructure Answer Man. One PSA has already been produced in association with H133. The station is currently airing the PSA. The PSA is also being used as an introduction to the Speakers Bureau presentation. Sands Article An article introducing the Infrastructure Answer Man has already been produced for the fall issue of Sands. A follow-up article is in the works and will be ready for the Winter 2001 edition's deadline of October 30, 2001. Information Repositories Information Repositories have been produced and will be distributed to the Central Library, Banning Annex, Main Street Annex and the Graham Annex. These three-ring binders feature the IIMP, IAC report, press kit materials and the PowerPoint presentation. Phone Survey A phone survey was conducted among a sample of 400 Huntington Beach residents, asking them to respond to a series of questions concerning infrastructure issues. The survey was intended to identify the feasibility of a Community Facilities District to raise revenue, and pinpoint the amount of money residents would vote to tax themselves. The poll results indicated that more public awareness was necessary before moving forward with a vote on a proposed new tax. PHASE 3 OUTREACH PROGRAM STRATEGY During the first two phases of the public information program, the wheels of the public outreach program were set in motion: Materials were prepared, City Council actions initiated implementation of the IAC's recommendations, and the citizen volunteers are poised to take the message directly to their fellow Huntington Beach residents. The public opinion poll indicated that Huntington Beach citizens were not prepared to accept a tax such as the one proposed in the citywide Community Facilities District. Yet the need for additional funding sources calls for a continuing public outreach program that will create a demand for the needed improvements. Therefore, the goal for the next phase of the public outreach program is to create an informed base of citizens who are poised to accept a measure that would fund the city's essential infrastructure improvements. FW&A proposes to carry the word to local residents using a three -pronged approach: 1. Outreach to local civic and special interest groups -This is what the Speakers Bureau accomplishes. We bring the infrastructure messages to existing audiences, typically through a presentation to a local group at a regular meeting of its members. 2. Targeted direct communication with residents in specific neighborhoods -This program, called Neighborhood Outreach, includes direct mail to local residents in a specific neighborhood, a discussion of the specific needs of that neighborhood in a group presentation, and direct mail follow-up with the same target audience. This format will replayed throughout Huntington Beach in selected neighborhoods. 3. Communication with the general public -This prong of the communication plan includes Public Workshops, and a presence through the Infrastructure Improvement Program display booth at local public events. PROPOSED WORK PLAIN Infrastructure Improvement Program Speakers Bureau A Speakers Bureau for the Infrastructure Improvement has been established. Speakers have been trained. A PowerPoint presentation was created, and several presentations to community groups have been scheduled in the next few months. Over the next twelve months, FW&A proposes to maintain an aggressive Speakers Bureau schedule of four engagements per month. This requires active solicitation of opportunities to address local groups, maintaining the calendar, scheduling speakers and support personnel and providing follow-up following each presentation. The speaking engagements are designed to offer an introduction to infrastructure issues to the audience, as well as engaging the audience in thinking about the dependence we have on our infrastructure and its importance in maintaining the lifestyle we enjoy in Huntington Beach. An audience evaluation of the presentation and a survey of infrastructure issues will close each presentation, securing names of interested citizens for inclusion in the Infrastructure Improvement Program database (mailing list). Neighborhood Outreach The neighborhood outreach program is a very effective way to put infrastructure information into the hands of HB residents through direct communication from a concerned citizen. After a neighborhood area is selected, a local neighborhood -meeting place is identified, and a local meeting host is identified from among the existing citizen volunteers, a personal invitation from the host is mailed to the target audience that outlines the infrastructure program and personally invites them to learn more about its impact in the specific neighborhood. We plan to reach 20,000 households in 15 key areas of the city. The scheduled meeting will be similar to a speakers bureau presentation, but will include a focus on the infrastructure issues and implications for the neighborhood. A facilitated discussion will engage the audience in a problem -solving discussion to encourage an understanding of the complexity of the issues. A feedback mechanism will elicit a sense of priorities from the individuals attending the meeting. Following the meeting, those invitees who did not attend will receive another postcard from their neighborhood host explaining what happened at the meeting, and the priorities identified by those who attended. An opportunity to request future mailings on the subject will also be included, and will increase the number of individuals with whom we can continue to communicate over time. This sequence of mailings allows key infrastructure messages to be conveyed a minimum of two times in writing from a very credible neighborhood leader, to 20,000 households, initiating a word-of-mouth chain of communications that will help raise interest and awareness at the most local level. FW&A proposes to do fifteen neighborhood outreach meetings over the course of the next 12 months. Public Workshops The FW&A team workshops will use a creative and interactive approach to generate sincere interest in the Infrastructure Improvement Program from a diverse mix of local business leaders, residents, elected officials and their staffs, community leaders and the general public. Two workshops will be scheduled. Each workshop will begin by introducing the Infrastructure Improvement Program and the community involvement process, past and present. Following the general introduction, the workshop will involve participants in a series of facilitated discussions that help to clearly define the problem, articulate consequences of not meeting the City's infrastructure needs, brainstorm possible solutions, and identifv possible"action items for various stakeholders. This focus on solutions will help develop a sense of ownership among participants and will, in effect, create a new set of stakeholders in the process --even if they didn't see themselves as such before the workshop. Following each workshop, a report will be provided to the City. The input received will help shape the response to the infrastructure needs of the city. Invitations will be mailed to organizations and individuals from the interest database, and as recommended by the City. Dates and locations will also be publicized through press releases, announcements to local organizations, and other city publications. Each workshop will include: • An introduction to and focus on infrastructure issues • A pro -active, personal contact effort to ensure representation from stakeholders and opinion leaders • A cross section of interests that could play a role in developing program solutions • Involvement of and close coordination with local elected officials, city staff and committee members • An exit survey to provide quantifiable feedback • A participant evaluation The workshops, led by a professional facilitator, will be approximately 2 hours long and scheduled at convenient times and locations. We will work with HBTV-3 local access cable TV to air one or more of the workshops. The video, tabletop display, program brochure and other written materials will be the primary communication tools along with key questions targeted for the specific audiences. Connnunity Events FW&A has developed a tabletop display that can serve in any environment - from a casual Street Fair to a formal Economic Summit. This portable display will be scheduled at various community events, staffed by speakers bureau members and other volunteers. Collateral materials will be accommodated in racks, and can also be placed on the table in front of the display itself. The featured collateral material includes the infrastructure program brochure, and an infrastructure survey that is used to secure additional names for our interest list, and offers an opportunity to engage booth visitors in a conversation about infrastructure. Community Survey Having conducted focus groups and a telephone survey as part of the first two phases of the public outreach program, FW&A proposes to measure the effectiveness of the public outreach effort through another telephone survey. The purpose of the survey will be to track awareness relative to the baseline survey that was conducted in July 2001, including, Measuring overall awareness of the City of Huntington Beach's infrastructure. Identifying current perceptions and attitudes toward the City of Huntington Beach's infrastructure. To measure the impact of a communication program and how these attitudes and perceptions change over time. As in the previous telephone survey, we propose to use a sample size of 400. The same questionnaire and methodology is recommended for the post-test as was used for the baseline, or pre -test, study. The results from the post-test will yield accurate information pertaining to current awareness and perceptions of the City of Huntington Beach's infrastructure after the communication plan has been executed. Additional information needs will be discussed during the design phase and incorporated into the research questionnaire. Meeting Attendance, Committee Support chi Project Management FW&A will continue to meet with IPC members as needed to coordinate the activities of the public outreach program. Monthly progress reports will accompany each invoice. Huntington Beach Infrastructure Improvement Revised tasks for 12-month post -survey action plan Activity Estimated i Approximate cost labor hours I ' eaKers nureau • Identify potential audiences I • Secure speaking engagements • Maintain current speaking calendar ' • Schedule speakers and support personnel • Maintain speakers' kit with materials & equipment • Provide written confirmation in advance and after -event thank you (Avg. 4 engagements per month C 4 hrshveek) $25,000 i Neighborhood Outreach (15 total, 2 *341.25 $43,408.75 mailings per outreach, mail twice to ! � 20,000 voters in 50 key precincts, total ! i number of mail pieces: 40,000) ' • Purchase mailing list $1,168 ` • Design invites (postcards) $441.25 • Print invites (40,000) ' ! $11,250 • Preparing invites for Mailing (no I $25 625 rsvp) outside • Postage for (40,000) post cards @. $8,400 .21 per. • Coordinate activities & presentation at outreach -- 20 hours per program '"(labor) • Refreshments $282 • Follow up post -event requests for *(labor) information — 4 hours per program • Send letter to invitees who don't *(labor) j attend (outside cost of the second I i mailing is covered in the first mailing cost) ! • TOTAL (including sales tax) I � � ! $95,000 I Public Workshops (2) 75 S16,000 • Develop workshop agenda • Prepare workshop materials I (flyer/invitations, handouts, I I feedback surveys, graphic displays, ; a PowerPoint presentation) i I • Arrange location & logistics • Coordinate staff and volunteer participation in workshops • Mail workshop flyers to interest list and others (2,000 names) i i I Community Survey (1) 12 � $27,000 i I Meeting Attendance, Committee Support 72 $12,000 & Project Management Total 655 I $175,000 OCT-03-2001. 10:31 HTBC 949 599 1829 P.02/02 President Account Services STANDARD HOURLY RATES Frank "Wilson & Associates OCTOBER 2001 $260 Public Relations Director $160 Community Relations Director $160 Account Supervisor $115 Account Executive $95 Account Coordinator $95 Production Manager $95 Accounting (if applicable) Accounting Manager $100 Clerical (when applicable) $65 Charges for rush projects will increase billing rates by 50�a. OCT-03-2001 10:12 949 588 1e29 98% TOTFL P.02 P.02 ATTACHMENT #3 Rebuilding Huntington Beach for the 21 Century A Comprehensive Public Outreach Program in Support of The City's Infrastructure Improvement Program >Description'of.] Caskvt 1�1,P-20 __X 01� .z -2001" , :: IM4 2001 n. 262 2002. M "'A ;2602 5LL -2002 :Sept� 3 —6: 4 3 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 . 48 8 V� Neigbbqrhood-'A -,�A 0 —2 0 2 2 2 3 2 1 1 Ifflawo U, granisit. enls*. ,Vex (Titble.Top:Progrl=") 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 .18 -Conimunity Sur*eyk. I jl,Qurr 1i,Survcy::i HRIV-3 Progra PSA's 40 Airings !71rs 40 Airings PSA's 40 Airings PSA's 120 Airings PSA's 120 Airings PSA's 120 Airings PSA's 40 Airings PSA's 40 Airings PSA's 40 Airings PSA's 40 Airings PSA's 40 Airings PSA's 40 Airings I RAW 'n .720 PSA'Airin ;'6 HB; rt 11B Report HR Report 1113 Report HB Report Public Works HB Report 1113 Report slon Open House 7- 'isc Misc. Misc- misc. Misc. Misc. Misc- Misc. ;111ro . ras Programs Programs Programs Programs Programs Programs Programs City. Publications_ . pi . . SOW. 'A Np�-i Community Connections Community Connections Sands Conununity Community Connection Community Connections Sands Community Corruoutilty Connections Community Connections Sands Community Community Connections Community Connections Sands Community r ;Art2. a Connections Municipal Municipal Connections Bookmarks Bookmarks Connections Connections Services Bill NServices Bill Insert Insert Bookmarks Bookmarks Bookmarks Bookmarks 4 .*Bus SheherrAds!Z$ 15 locations _T5 ]ocalions 15 locations 2 Press Releases 15 locations 4 Press Releases 15 locations 4 Press Releases I locations 4 Press Releases 15 locations 4 Press Releases 15 locailons 4 Press Releases 15 locations 4 Press Releases 15 locations 4 Press Releases 15 locations 4 Press Releases.9 15 locations 4 Press Releases A 0 eA W 42 Press �.� I, "', "S r R �1'c 93+1 2 Press Releases -Y'Press Releases I Feature I Feature I Feature I Feature I Feature Fca.turc ._w 0%� "Articles in local, Article Article Article Article Article �.Web On-line on-line On-line On-line On-line On-line On-line Oil -line On-line On-line # Of.web-,.9 wwwxebuild?!c;iri�Ao� "Public— s_6tours.- Woirksfojprfiiurs i MeeLingAttendauce:.,;-. 6 hr. 6 hr. 6 hr. 6 hr, 6 hr. 6 hr. 6 hr. 6 hr. 6 hr. 6 hr- 6 hr. 72 boursx_.-,-�, RCA ROUTING SHEET INITIATING DEPARTMENT: Administration / Public Information SUBJECT: AMENDMENT TO FRANK WILSON & ASSOCIATES CONTRACT FOR CONSULTING SERVICES TO ASSIST WITH THE IMPLEMENTATION OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INFRASTRUCTURE PUBLIC OUTREACH PROGRAM Phase III COUNCIL MEETING DATE: October 15, 2001 RCA ATTACHMENTS STATUS Ordinance (w/exhibits & legislative draft if applicable) Not Applicable Resolution (w/exhibits & legislative draft if applicable) Not A plicab#e Tract Map, Location Map and/or other Exhibits Not Applicable Contract/Agreement (wlexhibits if applicable) (Signed in full by the Cgy Attome Attached Subleases, Third Party Agreements, etc. (Approved as to form by City Attome Not Applicable Certificates of Insurance (Ap roved by the City Attome) Attached Financial Impact Statement (Unbud et, over $5,000) Not Applicable Bonds If applicable) Not Applicable Staff Report (If applicable) Not Applicable Commission, Board or Committee Report If applicable) Not Applicable Findings/Conditions for Approval and/or Denial Not Applicable EXPLANATION FOR MISSING ATTACHMENTS REVIEWED RETURNED FORWARDED Administrative Staff Assistant City Administrator Initial } City Administrator Initial Gzr� City Clerk -EXPL&NATION FOR RETURN -OF ITEM: r:J CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH MEETING DATE: December 18, 2000 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER:AD 2000-04 r Council/Agency Meeting Held: lZ Deferred/Continued to: A proved ❑ Conditional Approved ❑ Denied Cle 's Signature Council Meeting Date: December 18, 2000 Department ID Number: AD 2000-04 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH = _ REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION T! i SUBMITTED TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS SUBMITTED BY: RAY SILVER, City Administrator awv PREPARED BY: RICHARD BARNAI1rector of Communications & Special Projects P 1 SUBJECT: Phase 2 of Frank Wilson & Associates' Consulting Contract for a Public Education and Community Outreach Program Statement of Issue, Funding Source, Recommended Action, Atternative Action(s), Analysis, Environmental Status, Attachments) Statement of Issue: Should the City Council authorize Phase 2 of the Frank Wilson & Associates (FW & A) Contract to carry out"a Public Information and Community Outreach Program in support of an educational program of the city's Infrastructure Program? Funding Source: Funds budgeted in FY2000 / 2001, under Gendera! Fund, Business Unit Accounts 10040101.79100 (Non -Departmental) and 10030301.69365 (Public Informaton). Total amount requested is $113,041. Relrommended Action: Authorize Frank Wilson & Associates to proceed with Phase 2 of their contract with the city. Alternative Action(s): 1. Defer Action to another date. 2. Deny the recommended action and provide staff alternative direction. Ana_ l]L: The City Council approved the selection of Frank Wilson & Associates on February 7, 2000, and authorized Frank Wilson to carry out Phase I of their two phase work program (see figure 1 below). The City Council directed that prior to FW & A beginning Phase II of their work program, city staff return to the City Council to seek Council's authorization to proceed with Phase II. RCA Frank Wilson and Associates 12-18-00 Version.doc -2- 12/06/00 2:34 PM REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: December 18, 2000 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER:AD 2000-04 Figure 1: Summary of Frank Wilson & Associates' Work Plan for Phase 1 and 2, and Phase I Under Phase 1, FW & A carried out research, strategy development and positioning of the Infrastructure Improvement Program. FW & Xs sub -contractor, Market Research Associates, conducted two separate focus group sessions, and FW & A conducted 20 individual ascertainment interviews. FW & A assisted Infrastructure Advisory Committee (IAC) in the preparation of their final report on infrastructure financing for presentation to the City Council. FW & A also developed a Public Information and Community Outreach Strategic Plan, which identifies the activities and timeframe for Phase 11 of the Community Outreach Program. Phase II Phase 11 of the contract calls for the implementation of a comprehensive Education and Public Outreach Program which is directed toward providing information to local residents as a result of the information that was learned from the two focus groups and the ascertainment interviews conducted under Phase I. A basic finding coming out of the focus groups is a RCA Frank Wilson and Associates 12-18-00 Version.doc -3- 12/08/00 2:34 PM REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: December 18, 2000 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER:AD 2000-04 general lack of understanding as to how, and on what, tax monies are spent. While it was clear to the participants of both focus groups about how focal residents are taxed, the question of which taxes and how much of those tax dollars go to support local government is not clear. The Community Education and Outreach Program is designed to inform the residents of Huntington Beach about how the city functions, from where the city gets its tax dollars, and how the city makes decisions on the allocation of the tax dollars to support city programs and services. The Outreach Program will provide information to residents about the condition of the city's infrastructure systems and the overall infrastructure needs of the city, and present the options the city can pursuing to address these needs. FW & A will work in concert with the Infrastructure Planning Committee ([PC) and the city's Public Information Office to carryout the elements of the Public Outreach Plan. Figure 2, presents Phase 2, of the Public Outreach Program, including the work tasks and time schedule to be undertaken by FW & A. Figure 2: Work Tasks and Time Schedule for the Huntington Beach Public Outreach Program Task Est. Labor , Jan Feb Mar Apt tOay Ain Jul Akiq Sep 1. Develop Program Theme 22 Q 2. Develop Program 12 Q Messages 3. Create Power Point Presentation/slides with 15 Q script 4. Refine Messages 6 Q 5. Create Program Brochure 46 —� Q 6. Develop Program Video 25 0 Write script 7. Design Tabletop Display 16 —� Q 8. Develop Web Page Content 20 —� Q 9. Plan Media Launch 10 10. News Releases/Story 40 —� Q Pitching 11. Write & place PSA's (2) 10 Q Q 12. Schedule Editorial Board 10 Q Briefings 13. Speakers Bureau Training 20 0 -� ,,,� _4 and Implementation 14. Research, schedule and 110 follow up presentations 15. Add F.A.Q. to HB Infoline 10 Q RCA Frank Wilson and Associates 12-18-00 Version.doc -4- 12/06/00 2:34 PM REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: December 18, 2000 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER:AD 2000-04 16. Sands Articles 20 Q Q 17. Bill Stuffers (3) 24 Q Q Q 18. Information Repository for five libraries 16 Q 19. Public Workshops 40 20. Community Survey 56 21. Progress Reports 16 Total Hours 544 Focus Groups and Ascertainment Interviews On March 20 and 21, 2000, a randomly selected group of local residents, participated in two separate focus groups, facilitated by Market Research Associates. During these focus group sessions residents revealed insight into the type of information that they would need in order for them to be convinced that challenges facing the city are real and of a serious nature before they would be willing to support any actions that would require them to pay additional taxes or fees. To gain local residents' confidence, the Market Research Associates findings from the focus group suggests that the city needs to communicate information to the residents that will: 1. Build trust between the City Council and local residents. 2. Explain to residents how local government functions, from where the city derives its funds, and more specifically, exactly how the City Council makes decisions about the allocation of the city's limited funds to support city programs and services, including city infrastructure. 3. Provide information to local residents about the condition of the community's infrastructure, the immediate and long-term infrastructure needs, and the funding options available to the City Council and local residents to ensure adequate funds are available to address community needs. In addition to the focus groups, FW & A conducted 20 interviews with City Council Members and representatives from a cross section of community based organizations in order to gain insight into the perceptions about the city. Information gathered from these two sourees will be used to help shape the messages included within the Public Outreach Program. Direct Communication The Public Outreach Program calls for work tasks that rely on both direct communication and indirect communication with local residents. Direct communication is work efforts that result RCA Frank Wilson and Associates 12-18-00 Version.doc -5- 12/06/00 2:34 PM REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: December 18, 2000 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER:AD 2000-04 in city representatives, or city prepared information, being communicated directly to local residents. This type of communication can take the form of in -person presentations before civic organizations, homeowner association groups, other groups or organizations, public workshops, television programs produced by the city, city newsletters, etc. Another form of direct communication is the preparation of a survey which directly asks local residents their opinions about community issues. The distinction between direct and indirect communication is, under direct communication the information being communicated comes directly from the city to the resident, while under indirect communication the information is filtered or modified by a third party prior it being received by the resident. The Public Outreach Program calls for work tasks which develop a program theme, and for the development of key messages. A Power Point/Slide Presentation will be created and used as a centerpiece of the city's Speakers Bureau. The Outreach Program includes the creation and distribution of supporting materials to the public which carries the main theme and key messages directly to the residents. Such supporting material will include a Program brochure, a video program, a static tabletop display, and placement of the Outreach Program's key messages and information on the city's website (ci.huntington.ca.us). The Outreach Program calls for the use of such direct methods of communication as the Sands' recreation publication, use of the Municipal Water Bill for information inserts, the writing and placement of Public Service Announcements (PSA's), the use of HBTV-3, holding Public Workshops, and carrying out a community survey. Indirect Communication Indirect communication takes the form of information being prepared by the city and presented by the city to a third party, and the third party takes on the responsibility of communicating the information to the public. Indirect methods of communicating the city's message take such forms as the preparation and distribution of Press Releases, meeting and talking with newspaper, television, and radio reporters, making presentations and providing information to newspaper and television editorial boards. The information that is gathered by the newspapers, television stations or radio stations is disseminated to local residents in the form of news stories, editorials, or sound bites. Usually space or time restrictions do not allow for all the information provided by the city to be presented in a newspaper or on a television or radio newscast. Along the way of getting the story into print or on the television or radio program, decisions are made by third party management to focus attention on only a small portion of the available information. Even so, the newspaper, television and radio are the primary sources by which local residents receive information about their city. Therefore, these indirect sources of communication play a significant role toward educating local residents about community needs and the actions taken by the City Council to meet these needs. Under the Education and Community Outreach Program, indirect methods of communicating with residents include: (1) meeting and briefing focal editorial boards about key messages and themes the city is attempting to have communicated to the local residents, (2) on a frequent basis write and distribute Press Releases to the local media reporters, editors, RCA Frank Wilson and Associates 12-18-00 Version.doc -8- 12108/00 2:34 PM REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: December 18, 2000 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER:AD 2000-04 media assignment desks and news services, (3) Make weekly contact with local reporters providing information and answers to any questions they may have regarding the Public Outreach Program, and (4) making use of newspaper column space to write editorial opinion pieces. Timeline The initial steps of creating materials for the Public Education and Outreach Program would be focused between January and April 2001 (theme and messages development, brochure layout and printing, preparation of PowerPoint/slide presentation, creation of a display, etc). The Education and Public Outreach Program would begin with a Media launch in either mid - April or the early part of May 2001. It is planned for Frank Wilson & Associates to be directly involved with the creation and implementation of the Education and Outreach Program throughout fiscal year 200012001, beginning with City Council authorization to proceed with Phase 2, and extending through to September 30, 2001. Additional funds will be requested during the Fiscal Year 200112002-budget process, which will allow Frank Wilson and Associates to continue its support of the Education and Public Outreach Program throughout next fiscal year. During Fiscal Year 2001/2002 Frank Wilson would continue to work with the city's Public Information staff and with the Infrastructure Planning Committee (IPC) in bringing the education material and outreach about municipal government and the city's infrastructure needs to local residents. nvironmental Status: Not Applicable. Attachment(s): .. 1. .:;. 2. RCA Author: Richard Bamard Public Outreach Strategy for the City of Huntington Beach Infrastructure Improvement Program, Dated July 2000. with Frank Wilson & Associates. RCA Frank Wilson and Associates 12-18-00 Version.doc -7- 12108100 2:34 PM ATTACHMENT #1 PUBLIC OUTREACH STRATEGY for the City of Huntington Beach Infrastructure Improvement Program Prepared for the City of Huntington Beach By Frank Wilson & Associates, Inc. July 2000 Table of Contents 4. Current Situation Page 2. Ascertainment Interview Findings 3 3. Public Outreach Strategy 7 APPENDICES Appendix A Ascertainment Interviewees Appendix B Focus Group Report 1. CURRENT SITUATION Frank Wilson & Associates (FW&A) has completed an intensive listening and information gathering exercise designed to define. a strategy for public outreach to support the City of Huntington Beach's Infrastructure Improvement Program. Our conclusion is simple: The state of the city's infrastructure presents -a daunting problem of which the public is virtually unaware. Yet public awareness about the problem and willingness to become a part of the solution is an essential ingredient for a sound, long-term solution. Developing public support for and participation in infrastructure solutions must begin by raising public awareness about the problem, informing residents about the possible consequences of inaction, and, finally, building consensus for particular solutions —a call to action. In preparing this plan, we talked with dozens of individuals from throughout the City of Huntington Beach in focus groups and one-on-one interviews. The findings were consistent. Residents care about their community and are willing to take action to maintain the lifestyle that brought them to Huntington Beach. However, certain prerequisites must be met before residents will step up to the plate: ■ Residents must be convinced there is a real problem; ■ They must believe that any proposed solution (especially one that they must pay more money for) will solve the problem; ■ A system must be in place to ensure that money raised is spent only on infrastructure improvements and maintenance; and, ■ The city is never faced with this problem again. These prerequisites present communication challenges that call for ongoing, hard-hitting information to create an informed public that is ready to consider difficult solutions equal to the problems they face. Focus group participants were skeptical about the existence of a problem, and were willing to consider paying for a solution only after considerable persuasion and information. Until there is an ongoing communication plan that keeps infrastructure issues in the forefront, the public simply won't be prepared to face the necessary decisions. Our Challenge The challenge for the public outreach program will be to build a base of infrastructure -aware residents in Huntington Beach. These informed residents will then have the necessary background to be able to hear and understand messages related to specific solutions —messages that will probably come out of a campaign for a specific funding solution. Without the deeper context of understanding, campaign messages ---calls to action will face the same fate as some of their unsuccessful predecessors. This challenge can be met if we adopt the following fundamental principles: ■ There must be a high level demonstration of commitment and open communication from City leaders. ■ There must be a united front and a common message throughout the outreach effort. ■ The communication' must be ongoing, at least until a specific call to action is taken --such as a ballot measure. ■ Hard information about infrastructure (sewage, flood control, etc.) is needed to communicate the consequences of not taking action. Framing and Message. Huntington Beach elected officials, IAC members, staff and all those involved in the infrastructure outreach program must properly frame the infrastructure program early in the process. Further, this framing and the messages associated with the project must be consistent. It is critical that all speak from the same script. Any perceived divide among city leaders on this issue will plant the seed of doubt that will create a vehicle for skeptics to gain credibility. Taking Advantage of Existing City Communications. The City of Huntington Beach has a rich array of communication vehicles that can serve as an ongoing medium for infrastructure messages. This is particularly important for maintaining a high profile for infrastructure —and discussing all facets of a complex issue. Utilizing the Citizens Infrastructure Advisory Committee. The skepticism that was evident in the focus groups and interviews was tempered by trust in one's fellow citizens. This was evident by the consistent suggestion that the existing citizens' committee offered the most credible spokespersons for the issue. Members of the IAC should form the core of a Speakers Bureau to carry the infrastructure message throughout the city. Carefully Managing Media Relations. The press activity around the infrastructure outreach program must be handled delicately. The difficult balance currently in the media is the awareness that is raised by continuing beach closures in Huntington Beach and elsewhere. While the high -profile coverage of the closures and the difficulty of identifying the source of the problem have obvious negative consequences, there is now a greater awareness about the importance of sound infrastructure. It is this type of story that will personalize the consequences of not acting to improve the infrastructure We need to work hard to manage what press attention we receive, choose our messengers carefully, and proactively organize the messages we put forward. If we work this right, we will receive some positive attention that will help us gain credibility about the severity of the infrastructure problem. City of Huntington Beach Page 2 Infrastructure Improvement Public Outreach Strategy Prank Wilson & Associates, Inc. 2. ASCERTAINMENT INTERVIEW FINDINGS Methodology. During the months of April and May, 28 leaders representing Huntington Beach's broad base of community groups were interviewed regarding their perceptions about their city and the current state of its. infrastructure and the resulting needs. All interviewees were asked the same series of questions to allow for consistency when comparing responses. A sample questionnaire is attached for reference. Findings. About Huntington Beach... Not surprisingly, the majority of the interviewees named "beach," "ocean," "coastline," "wetlands," "pier," and "surf city" when asked what they think of when they think of Huntington Beach. In addition, more personal answers were given that emphasized community such as "downtown," "small town beaches," "coastal community" and "residential." The city was also. defined as "quality of life" and giving "attention to environmental issues." Perhaps more importantly, a major theme emerged that emphasized the city being at a crossroads: "dynamic," "changing," "history," and "what do we want to hang on to and what do we want to jettison?" Quality of Life Defined... Many of the interviewees listed defined quality of life as safety; they considered all else to be secondary. Clean air, clean water, and open spaces are also necessary. In addition, nice parks, libraries, and schools were also emphasized along with caring neighbors, citizen participation, and a sense of community. Progression and accessible services beyond what is expected are also essential. Many believed that Huntington Beach had recently lost several of these qualities. Future Glimpse of Huntington Beach... For the majority of those who believed that Huntington Beach would be better in 20 years, their positive outlook was linked to economic development that would be more cohesive and better planned. As a result of new development, the city would be more resort -oriented with a focus on retail and restaurant growth, thereby increasing recreational amenities. As.long as the developers kept in mind the human element, economic growth was seen as a boon. There was also dope for less pollution. In addition, the city would be better. Due to an increase in full time residents, more people would show concern and be active participants in issues and activities within the city. Once again the crossroads theme emerged, as one interviewee stated that the city "is at a fork in the road, will City Council step up?" For those who believed that Huntington Beach would be worse in 20 years, their outlook was linked primarily to the environment. They believed that there would be a substantial increase in air and beach pollution. In addition, the city would struggle with issues pertaining to overcrowding due to too much poorly planned development. They felt that nothing was being done to correct these issues. City of Huntington Beach Infrastructure Improvement Public Outreach Strategy Page 3 Frank Wilson & Associates, Inc. Assets & Threats... The city's assets center around its residents and the environment. Many of the interviewees agreed that the active participation on the part of residents to work together to solve problems was an enormous asset. Residents were considered to be well informed and well educated. One interviewee explained it as the NIMBY (not in my backyard) attitude that. . motivates residents to act. Others pointed out that Huntington Beach has. a large number of citizen commissions and committees, and the most registered voters in Orange County. The beach and the lifestyle it represents were also considered to be a primary asset. In addition, a safe clean environment with open spaces and numerous parks helps set Huntington Beach apart from other cities. In the business realm, it was stated that the city's economic impetus draws people and that the Huntington Center could be a potential asset. A notable conflict in perceptions was highlighted when several of the items that were considered to be assets were also considered to be threats. Several interviewees described residents to be complacent, apathetic, close-minded, and unwilling to maintain their community. The lack of a growing economic base, the loss of open space due to inappropriate development, an increase in pollution due to urban runoff, and a lack of affordable housing were also cited as threats. An Evaluation of City Council... The majority of the interviewees simultaneously provided positive comments along with criticisms. City Council was considered to be responsive, receptive, and able to stretch a buck. They are'also impeded by cutbacks in county, state, and federal funding. However, it was pointed out that their initial convictions and enthusiasm appear to decrease the longer they are in office. Some felt that council members couldn't make "hard" decisions because they are always concerned about being reelected. Council members were recognized as being able to see problems, hold public forums, and handle the day-to-day running of the city. However, they were also perceived as not handling long-term issues (20 year increments) as well as the current, short-term ones. As a result, council was perceived as leaving the next council to deal with concerns and issues. Some believed the City Council could be more effective if there were greater emphasis on working together, rather than being divided. Taxes... The response to taxes was split. Several interviewees believed that there were not enough taxes and they could be raised a small amount. Others believed that taxes were being used wisely and that residents were years away from paying new taxes. One person even declared, "Local government is the biggest bargain in town -- pay so little and get so much." In contrast, several interviewees believed that the taxes were not being used appropriately. They questioned spending priorities, saying the City has to live within the budget because the community does not want to pay new taxes unless there is a good cause or demonstrated need. City of Huntington Beach Infrastructure Improvement Public Outreach Strategy Page a Franc Wilson & Associates, Inc. Nearly all of the respondents did not object to paying taxes themselves as long as the money was going where it was supposed to be going. Infrastructure... All of the interviewees could easily define infrastructure. Many listed specific items such' as sewers, storm drains, roads; walls, traffic impact, etc. whereas others gave broader answers such as infrastructure being the building block of the whole community. Solutions... The following solutions were offered as ways that the city could pay for infrastructure improvements and maintenance: • Increase property taxes. Many residents are underpaying since the passage of Proposition 13. • Increase sales tax revenue. • Build tax base through light industry. • Implement a sanitation fee. This would relate to protecting the beach and water quality. • Implement a sewer fee. • Institute a user fee for the millions who visit the city each summer. • Developers must pay for their own projects. • Wall ownership should be given over to residents and light ownership should be tamed over to Edison. • Issue a bond. • City Council needs to improve ability to prioritize — non -essential items or projects should not even be considered unless they can be self- supporting; everything should pay for itself. • Charter language needs to be broadened because it is too narrow. • The language pertaining to the percentage of the general fund that goes toward infrastructure needs to be broadened because it is too narrow. • Continue oversight committee. • Exhaust all existing means available to the city. Message... Several of the respondents emphasized the need for residents to view the problem as their own in order to get buy -in from them and that everyone involved needed to be sending the same message. In addition; they recommended that City Council lay out the situation (show where the city is at and what it needs) simply and concisely. The final step to be included, though, is how the residents would benefit. Still others pointed out that it was going to be difficult for the Council to get assistance from residents to solve the problem unless they could show that the infrastructure needs were not a result of fiscal irresponsibility. City Council would also have a difficult time gaining financial support when they were spending money on non -priority items and projects. Tactics... In order to get the message out and educate the residents, the following tactics were offered: city of Huntington Beach Infrastructure Improvement Public Outreach Strategy Page 5 Frank Wilson & Associates, Inc. • Community forum at council meetings. Small town hall meetings at schools. • Public Works open house. Mass communication through direct mail. • Speakers Bureau presentations at churches, schools_, PTA meetings and homeowner associations. • Once apprised of the situation, community -based organizations and groups should serve as the lead educators because residents will not believe the politicians. • Target 18-year-old voters; discuss in high school civics classes. • Target senior citizens. • Target unaffiliated residents, renters, and absentee owners. • Through the charter. • Person allindividual networking. Media... In addition to the tactics listed above, respondents agreed that it was essential that the media be involved. They stated that it was important for the newspapers and the cable television station to be involved. It was also suggested that a series of 20-30 minute segments be produced for cable and that the tapes be available for use by groups and organizations. Conclusions. Despite some differences of opinion, all of the respondents are genuinely concerned about the city's infrastructure problem and are Willing to take action now to address it. They recognize that it is imperative that money somehow be raised to bridge the gap between funds currently available and funds needed to make the improvements. Nearly every respondent was willing to pay money every month to help raise the necessary funds. They do not oppose the improvements, but they want some sort of system in place to ensure that the money raised goes towards infrastructure improvements and maintenance, and that the city is never faced with this problem again. City of Huntington Beach Infrastructure Improvement Public Outreach Strategy Page 6 Frank Wilson & Associates, Inc. 3. PUBLIC OUTREACH STRATEGY _ Background T The purpose of this plan is to outline strategy, objectives and tactics for the public outreach program in support of infrastructure improvement in Huntington Beach. The activities and tactics outlined in this strategy include those already identified in the approved scope of services, and -for which Frank Wilson & Associates has responsibility to carry out. Defining Strategy We propose that we begin the public outreach activity immediately, taking advantage of the IAC members' willingness to participate in the outreach program. - With a carefully crafted theme and messages, we will build an identity for the infrastructure improvement program, and create collateral materials to bring home the message as frequently as possible. The complexity of the issues, from the infrastructure, itself to the array of possible solutions and financing methods, calls for various focused messages and tactics. A description of the activities and a proposed schedule follow. Theme Development. The creation of the iAC's final report has spawned many creative ideas for possible themes for the infrastructure outreach program, from the "Tale of two cities" theme of the executive summary to ideas drawing analogies to skeletal structure or home maintenance. We believe the theme for the program must personalize the issues —bring them directly home for Huntington Beach residents, making the connection between infrastructure and life style. After initial client approval, the theme will be developed more fully for use in various collateral materials. We propose to create a unified look, with an identity that all residents can associate with the positive benefits of sound infrastructure. The identity would be adapted to each element of the outreach program. Framing and Communicating the Message. Framing the message of the Infrastructure Improvement Program is essential to establishing the need for sound infrastructure and building support to meet future infrastructure needs. A message platform will emerge from the theme development process, including a statement of features and benefits, message and copy points. This platform will be incorporated in all materials, briefings, presentations and outreach efforts. Finally, we must remember throughout the public education program to keep the message simple. This is especially important when discussing the complexities of infrastructure and financing. City of Huntington Beach Infrastructure Improvement Public Outreach Strategy Page T Frank Wilson & Associates, Inc. PowerPoint Presentation. Once.the key messages are developed, they will be incorporated into a PowerPoint presentation. Much valuable information was. already created in PowerPoint as part of the IAC's presentation of the Final Report. This information will be refined according to the theme and key messages, and will be available for Speakers Bureau Presentations. The audience for the presentation will be the general public. In addition to information about the IIP, the presentation will include process information, and, 'if possible, a call to action that invites viewers to continue to be involved though future meetings or other planned activities. The presentation will include maps, graphics, and photographs, using existing City materials whenever possible to minimize costs. Speaker's Bureau. The Speaker's Bureau will be a cornerstone of the outreach program. Frank Wilson and Associates will develop a list of prospective speaking opportunities for civic groups, neighborhood associations, and any group willing to hear the infrastructure story in Huntington Beach. FW&A will pro -actively schedule presentations for community groups, and will create a system for supporting an ongoing Speaker's Bureau that can eventually be turned over to the City. Speakers for the Speaker's Bureau could come from City Council, City staff and IAC members. FW&A also will design a feedback survey form for ongoing feedback on the presentations and the messages presented so that we can adjust, if necessary. FW&A will schedule lIP presentations to the following community groups as possible, including, but not limited to: Neighborhood Groups HB Downtown Residents Association Huntington Harbour Property Owners' Association HB Mobile Homeowners Association Meredith Gardens Homeowners' Association Southeast HB Neighborhood Assn. Friends and Neighbors of Seacliff Business Organizations Chamber of Commerce HB Downtown Business Association North Huntington Beach Business Association Orange County Association of Realtors Schools Huntington Beach City School District Huntington Beach Union High School District Ocean View School District City of Huntington Beach Infrastructure Improvement Public Outreach Strategy City Boards and Commissions Planning Commission Finance Board Citizen Participation Advisory Board Public Works Commission Community Services Commission Environmental Board Fraternal, Civic and Professional Organizations Amigos de Bolsa Chica AALIW Huntington Beach Tomorrow League of Women Voters —Orange Coast Republican and Democratic Associations Page 8 Frank Wilson & Associates, Inc. In addition to the information provided by way of the slide presentation, the Speaker's Bureau audiences will also receive collateral material enabling them to bring the message home. Program Brochure. A key collateral piece in the. program will be the creation of a brochure communicating the program's key messages. The UP brochure will be made available at community events, through presentations of the Speakers Bureau, at public workshops, and in press kits. Public Workshops. The FMA team workshops will use a creative and interactive approach to generate sincere interest in infrastructure issues among local business and community leaders and residents. Four workshops will be scheduled. The series should be spaced out across a couple of months, but should be announced as a series, so that residents who can't attend one can set time aside for another. Each workshop will begin by introducing the Infrastructure Improvement Program and the community involvement process, past and present. Following the general introduction, the workshop will involve participants in a series of facilitated discussions that help to clearly define the problem, articulate consequences of not meeting the City's infrastructure needs, brainstorm possible solutions, and identify possible action items for various stakeholders. This focus on solutions will help develop a sense of ownership among participants and will, in effect, create a new set of stakeholders in the process --even if they didn't see themselves as such before the workshop. Following each workshop, a report will be provided to the City. The input received will help shape the response to the infrastructure needs of the city. Invitations will be mailed to organizations and individuals identified in the ascertainment and recommended by the City. Dates and locations will also be publicized through the newspaper, announcements to local organizations, and other city publications. Each workshop will include: ■ An introduction to and focus on infrastructure issues • A pro -active, personal contact effort to ensure representation from stakeholders and opinion leaders ■ A cross section of interests that could play a role in developing program solutions ■ Involvement of and close coordination with local elected officials, city staff and committee members • An exit survey to provide quantifiable feedback ■ A participant evaluation City of Huntington Beach Infrastructure Improvement Public Outreach Strategy Page 9 Frank Wilson & Associates, Inc. The workshops, led by a professional facilitator, will be approximately 2 hours long and scheduled at convenient times and locations. We will work with HBTV-3 to air one or more of the workshops. The video, tabletop display, program brochure and other written materials will be the primary communication tools along with key questions targeted for the specific audiences. Tabletop Display for Community Events. FW&A proposes to develop a tabletop display that can serve in any environment -- from a casual Street Fair to a formal Economic Summit. It will be portable and will include eye-catching graphics. Collateral materials will be accommodated in racks, and can also be placed on the table in front of the display itself. The program brochure will be made available at the community events, and the PowerPoint Presentation could be displayed on a laptop at appropriate venues. Event announcements and fact sheets could also be made available. We also propose to use the display for the public workshops. Media Relations. Building media and editorial support will be a critical component in educating and creating broad awareness and community support for the Infrastructure Improvement Program. The positioning and framing of the infrastructure issues as well as the public information and outreach effort is an early and continuing priority. It can create an environment of support around the program early in the outreach process. We believe the following media relations activities should be carried out on behalf of the UP outreach effort. They include those requested in the request for proposal, among others: 30 and 60-second Public Service Announcements -- FW&A will write and disseminate monthly (six) public service announcements publicizing various outreach activities that are currently taking place and highlighting key messages. The PSAs will be disseminated to radio and TV stations. Creative assistance will be given to HBTV-3 to get the best coverage of the PSAs through cable programs. Additionally, FW&A will keep HBTV-3 informed of any outreach program activities so that they can be included among other announcements on the local cable channel. News releases, ditching and story placement -- Print and broadcast outlets will be targeted through a focused database to pitch and place positive stories about the Infrastructure Improvement Program. Special attention will. be paid to the major daily papers, the Los Angeles Times and The Register. The Huntington Beach Wave and the Huntington Beach Independent will offer other editorial opportunities. FW&A will also prepare and disseminate all news releases for the Public Workshops and other events requiring media interface. City of Huntington Beach Infrastructure Improvement Public outreach Strategy Page 10 Frank Wilson & Associates, Inc. Briefings with editorial boards — FW&A believes that reaching out to the media early on in the project to clearly explain the benefits of safeguarding infrastructure will build the foundation of accurate, fair and favorable coverage. FW&A will actively seek out opportunities for one-on-one media briefings and editorial boards. "Sands" Magazine Articles. FW&A will write two "Sands" articles for the next two issues. We recommend that an infrastructure feature continue indefinitely, since the City controls the content of the "Sands" magazine, and can make space available. Likewise, the upcoming schedule of events for the outreach program can be publicized in the magazine. Huntington Beach Infoline Information. The Huntington Beach Infoline provides a cost-effective means for dissemination of information. The fax -back feature is particularly useful because of the flexibility it offers for transmitting printed materials. FW&A will develop three features that provide more detailed background on key infrastructure issues. Some of the ways we propose to use the Infoline include: event announcements, brief messages or frequently asked questions, fact sheets, and possibly even an informal "poll" using the feedback technology that the City is acquiring. Key to the success of the Infoline will be the inclusion of the phone number and the three -digit codes for Infrastructure Improvement Program information in all collateral materials, press announcements, flyers, etc. Infrastructure Improvement Program Video. The program video will offer information about infrastructure and the issues faced by residents of Huntington Beach in maintaining it. FW&A will develop a script consistent with the outreach program theme and messages, and will collaborate with HBYV-3 to show the infrastructure issues and invite viewers to become part of the solution. It will be created with many possible uses in mind, such as the introduction to the project at public workshops, as a video file on the Web page (a short clip), and as the basis for b-roll for distribution to the media (Including HBTV-3). With both 3-5 minute and 30-minute formats, we will have the flexibility to meet almost any presentation need. Web Page. The Web Page will be the repository of all public -outreach information. We propose the Web page to include the following information: ■ Background information on the Infrastructure Improvement Program ■ Updates on the Public Information & Community Outreach effort ■ Portable document format (PDF) files of the brochure, fact sheets, reports, news releases and other relevant information ■ Low graphics mode for computer users unable to view full graphics versions of video or animation ■ Link allowing users to request additional information which can be added to an interest list ■ Link allowing users to view the project video. City of Huntington Beach Infrastructure Improvement Public Outreach Strategy Page 11 Frank Wilson & Associates, Inc. Municipal Services Bill Stuffers. The municipal services bill, like the "Sands" magazine, offers an opportunity to achieve a broad distribution of information by way of a familiar, well-read medium. FW&A proposes to develop a series of three infrastructure -related bill stuffers with a common look and theme consistent with other materials. Library Information Repositories: The library repositories are, quite simply, information notebooks. They contain key project information —all the collateral information that is produced to support the outreach program --in one notebook. FW&A proposes placing repositories in the Huntington Beach main library and its branches, along with City Hall, the Chamber of Commerce and any other public locations that might be appropriate. We will arrange with the librarians and others to make the notebooks available to patrons upon request, and publicize their presence. Opinion Research. The findings of the focus groups and ascertainment interviews gave a very consistent perspective of the public's awareness (or current lack thereof) of infrastructure issues. For this reason we propose to conduct telephone interviews among citizens of Huntington Beach to test possible themes and messages, and to assess the effectiveness of the outreach program once the outreach activities have been put in place. The telephone survey will be conducted as originally proposed, and will yield accurate information pertaining to current awareness and perceptions of the City of Huntington Beach's infrastructure. Additional information needs will be discussed during the design phase and incorporated into the research questionnaire. City of Huntington Beach Infrastructure Improvement Public Outreach Strategy Page 12 Frank Wilson & Associates, Inc. Proposed Implementation Schedule Infrastructure Improvement Public Outreach Program Activity Theme Development Task Number 2 Timeframe for Implementation August Message Development 3 August PowerPoint Presentation 3 August Program Brochure 3 August/September Tabletop Display - 3 September Web Page 3 September Media Relations ■ News Releases/Story Pitching ■ PSAs ■ Briefings & Editorial Boards 3 Ongoing Speaker's Bureau 3 August/Ongoing Video 3 September HB Infoline 3 August/Ongoing "Sands" Articles 3 Winter/Spring Municipal Services Bill Stuffers 3 Per Existing Schedule Information Repositories 3 September/Ongoing Public Workshops 3 September/October Community Survey 3 December City of Huntington Beach Infrastructure Improvement Public Outreach Strategy Page 13 Frank Wilson & Associates, Inc. Appendix A Ascertainment interviewees Mayor Dave Garofalo Councilman Ralph Bauer Councilwoman Shirley Detloff Councilman Peter Green Councilman Tom Harman Councilwoman Pam Julien Councilman Dave Sullivan Stan Cover: Columnist Ron Davis Dick Harlow Mary Urashima Ron Shenkman Sally & Chauncey Alexander Catherine McGough Art Rosen Chuck Bohle Gerald Chapman Dean Albright Ed Laird Alan Bell George Mason Joyce Riddell Pat Davis Bill Borden Chuck Scheid Ted Lewis Bob Biddle John Scott City of Huntington Beach Infrastructure Improvement Public Outreach Strategy Columnist IAC Chairman IAC Education Committee Chair Former Mayor West Orange County Democratic Club AAUW HB Downtown Residents Assn. HB Finance Board HB Planning Commission HB Tomorrow Community Leader Community Leader Southeast HB Neighborhood Assn. HB Chamber of Commerce Senior Activist Columnist Community Leader League of Women Voters HB Tomorrow Southeast HB Neighborhood Assn. Page 14 Frank Wilson & Associates, Inc. ATTACHMENT #2 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CONNIE BROCKWAY CITY CLERK LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL OF ITEM APPROVED BY -THE CITY COUNCIL/ REDEVELOPMENT. AGENCY OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH DATE: 2-11-00 TO: Frank Wilson & Associates, Inc. ATTENTION: Frank Wilson, Jr., Name Chairman 23332 Mill Creek Drive, Suite 155DEPARTMENT: Street Laguna Hills, CA 92653 REGARDING: Professional Services City, State, Zip Contract See Attached Action Agenda Item Date of Approval 2 - 7 - 0 0 Enclosed For Your Records Is An Executed Copy Of The Above Referenced Agenda Item. Connie Brockway City Clerk Attachments; Action Agenda Page Remarks: Agreement X Bonds Insurance X RCA Deed Other CC: R. Barnard Admin. Name _ Department R. Beardsley DPW Name Department G. Dysart DPW Name Department Name Department Risk Management Dept. X .X X Tr -A Agreement Insurance Other X X X RCA Agreement Insurance Other X X X RCA Agreement Insurance other RCA Agreement Insurance Other x .. Insurance G:FollowupfLetterslcoverltr (Telephone: 714-536-5227) � nand �dh:n CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH / PRO MEETING DATE: February 7, 2000 1) DEPARTMENT ID BER:AD2000-01 Council/Agency Meeting Held: Deferred/Continued to: ' 1M App oved ❑ Conditlo all A roved ❑ Denied 42z;pa� • City Clerk's Signature Council Meeting Date: February 7, 2000 Department ID Number: AD2000-01 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION SUBMITTED TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS SUBMITTED BY: RAY SILVER, City Administrator fl V PREPARED ByYV-RICHARD BARNARD, Director of Communications �y ROBERT F. BEARDSLEY, Director of Public Works ', � '-- SUBJECT: Approve Consulting Services for the Public Information and — f= Community Outreach Program for the Infrastructure Improven1vt m ::;50r_ Program Statement of Issue, Funding Source, Recommended Action, Alternative Action(s), Analysis, Environmental Status, Atfachnint(s) Statement of Issue: Should the City Council authorize the City to enter into a contractual agreement with the firm, Frank Wilson & Associates, to provide consulting services for the development and implementation of a Public Information and Community Outreach Program for the Infrastructure Improvement Program? Funding Source: A budget of $200,000 was approved for this project (AA-ND-863). Recommended Action: Motion to: 1. Approve and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the contractual agreement between the City of Huntington Beach and Frank Wilson & Associates for the purpose of providing consulting services for the development and implementation of a Public Information and Community Outreach Program for the Infrastructure Improvement Program. 2. Approve a waiver of the 30-day notice of cancellation of insurance. ! Z Infrastructure.doc 4- 01131100 1:22 PM REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: February 7, 2000 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER:AD2000-a9 Alternative Action(s): 1. Select another firm to provide consulting services for the creation and implementation of a Public Information and Community Outreach Program for the Infrastructure Improvement Program. 2. Solicit proposals from additional qualified firms. 3. Defer action until a later date. 4. Deny the recommended action and provide staff alternative direction. Analysis: On October 18, 1999 the City Council authorized a Request for Proposal (RFP) to consulting companies to assist the City with the development and implementation of the Public Information and Community Outreach portion of the Infrastructure Improvement Management Program (IIMP). On October 26, 1999 a pre -proposal conference was held with approximately 12 consulting firms interested in submitting a proposal to -the City. The deadline for receipt of proposals was November 22, 1999. Proposals were received from the following firms: Frank Wilson & Associates Waters & Faubel Nelson Communications Creamer Dickson Basford Kosmont & Associates Spinner Lamar & Associates Curt Pringle & Associates APCO Associates A selection panel comprised of, members of the Citizen Infrastructure Advisory Committee's Public Information Sub -Committee: Mary Urashima (Chairperson), Carol Ann Wall, Karen Jackel, and Ted Lewis; Richard Barnard, Director of Communications, Gary Dysart of PSOMAS & Associates, and the Purchasing Manager, Rick Amadril reviewed. each of the eight (8) proposals. After careful evaluation, the selection panel invited three firms to make a presentation to the panel. The three firms interviewed were: Waters & Faubel, Nelson Communications Group, and Frank Wilson & Associates, Inc. The panel requested the Purchasing Manager to contact references and ask for written comments. Based upon the evaluation of the written proposals, the interviews, and the references, the selection panel concluded that Frank Wilson & Associates should , be selected for recommendation to the Citizen Infrastructure Advisory Committee. The recommendation would then be submitted to the City Council. The Citizen Infrastructure Advisory Committee concurred with the recommendation of the selection panel and urges the City Council to Infrastructure.doc -3- 01/27/00 11:09 AM REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: February 7, 2000 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER:AD2000-01. proceed with the recommended action to employ the services of Frank Wilson & Associates. The panel selected FWA based on the experience of the firm and its key staff in working with public agencies on public information programs for infrastructure related projects, their experience in working with community groups for consensus building, their approach to conducting focus groups and community surveys to gain public attitudes and opinions, and their overall work plan in response to the City's Request for Proposals. Also, the panel felt the key consultant staff members would work well with the Citizens Infrastructure Advisory Committee and City staff. FWA is a recognized consulting firm, which specializes in community outreach, community assessment, public involvement and consensus building. The firm possesses a talented group of men and women who will bring to the City years of experience and knowledge in the area of public communication. A few infrastructure related projects FWA have provided consultant services for include: Santa Clarita Parkway Alignment Study: Public Involvement Strategy: This project involved the development of a Public Participation Strategy to help identify the preferred alignment for the extension of the Santa Clarita Parkway. Several groups had specific and conflicting interest in the future extension of the Parkway. FWA researched the interests of the involved parties, planned a consensus -building session, facilitated the consensus, and synthesized the consensus information into a report and strategy that guided the remaining steps of the alignment study. FWA's consensus building efforts resulted in the consensus on the highway alignment as well as an integrated, cohesive planning process for the overall Central City area in which the road project is located. Caltrans, District 7 — Earthquake Recovery Program: FWA developed and coordinated a fast -response public awareness program to alert motorists about damaged sections of Southern California's freeways and alternate routes/modes available following the 1994, Northridge earthquake. The purpose of the program was to reassure motorists that the repairs would proceed very quickly and that in the meantime there were many viable commute options. The corner stone of the program was "Accelerate", a four-color tabloid that detailed all the work being performed and the alternatives available to commuters. Over 3 million copies were placed in the hands of Los Angeles area motorists. In addition to distribution by mail and via the newspapers, "Accelerate" was given to targeted large employers and organization in the affected areas for their distribution. Also, FW&A partnered with Caltrans to set-up a' telephone information line with information on earthquake related road construction to help people make their daily commute choices more effectively. • Marketing and Public Affairs Programs (TCA): FWA has worked for the TCA sinc outreach, community relations, marketing, 'events services for the San Joaquin Hill s Infrastructure.doc .4. 01/27100 11:09 AM REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: February 7, 2000 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER:AD2000-01 Frank Wilson & Associates' written proposal and fee for schedule is attached. The scope of work has been reordered into a two phases after discussions between the Infrastructure Advisory Committee Steering Committee, -City Consultants and City Staff. City Council authorization would be required to proceed with Phase II and includes the following tasks: Phase I • Research, strategy development, positioning of the Infrastructure Improvement program, and 15 to 20 interviews with a cross section of individuals in the community. • Work with the the Infrastructure Advisory Committee (IAC) to review and finalize their written report scheduled to be presented to the City Council in April 2000. • Conduct two (2) focus group sessions. Each group will consist of 10-15 participants with each session scheduled for approximately 2 hours. • Develop a recommended Public Information and Community Outreach Plan which will identify the activities and timeframe for Phase Two implementation. • Carry out a community survey through the use of a telephone survey of 300 residents. Phase II • Development of the Community Outreach theme and messages and incorporate them into a broad range of media, from web page and video to print materials and HB Infoline announcements. • Implementation of the Public Information and Community Outreach Program which includes the use of a number of communication methods identified in the City's RFP as well as those recommended by FW&A. • Conduct a community survey to assist the City Council in identifying preferred solutions to the City's infrastructure problems. • Provide periodic progress reports The waiver of insurance is requested because the insurance provider is unable to guarantee a 30 day notice of cancellation. The company will, however, endeavor to notify the City as quickly as possible should the insurance be cancelled. Policy cancellation is not anticipated. The Consultant's fee for Part I of the Phasing Plan is $81,997, while Part II of the Phasing Plan is $113,041. The total fee for both phases is $195,038. Work will commence with Phase I upon the approval of the contract between the City and Frank Wilson & Associates. It is envisioned that the consultant will work closely with the Citizen Infrastructure Advisory Committee and with City Staff. FWA will not proceed with Phase II until authorized by the City Council. George T. Urch will serve as Project Director and Julie Chay will serve as Project Manager & Community Relations Manager, while Barbara Foster will provide support. Resumes of these principal members of the FW&A team are attached. The City's Office of Public Information will work closely with Frank Wilson & Associates, as well as with the Citizens Infrastructure Advisory Committee, and the Committee's Public Information Sub -Committee in the carrying out of this important public information program. Infrastructure.doc -5- 01/31100 1:26 PM REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: February 7, 2000 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER:AD2000-01. P10 will make available to the consultant, through the Director of Communications, city communication resources. Examples of the types of city resources are outlined within the RFP, and includes in part such resources as inserts in the Municipal Services Bill, HBTV-3, Sands Publication, News Releases, HB Infoline, to name a few. Environmental Status: Not Applicable Attachment(sl: 1 Memo dated January 10, 2000, from the Chairman of Citizen Infrastructure Advisory Committee and the Chair of the Public Information Sub -Committee. 2. Frank Wilson Associates revised Work Plan, Phasing Plan and Fee Schedule. 3. Resume of the Project Director, Project Manager, and Community Survey Consultant for Frank Wilson & Associates 4. Copy of the City's Request for Proposal for a Public Information and Community Outreach 5. Copy of Frank Wilson & Associates' original proposal. 6. 1Agreement between the City of Huntington Beach and Frank Wilson & Associates for Public Information and community Outreach Services for the Infrastructure Improvement Program RCA Author: Richafd Barnard & Gary Dysart:gcJm (h)rca-infrastructure Infrastructure.doc -6- 01/31/00 1:29 PM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AND FRANK WILSON & ASSOCIATES, INC. FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES TO PROVIDE A PUBLIC INFORMATION AND COMMUNITY OUTREACH ASSISTANCE TO CITY FOR THE CITY'S INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Table of Contents WorkStatement....................................................................................... CityStaff Assistance................................................................................................2 Timeof Performance...............................................................................................2 Compensation..........................................................................................................2 Priorities.......................................................................................3 ExtraWork...............................................................................................................3 Methodof Payment.................................................................................................3 Disposition of Plans, Estimates and Other Documents...........................................5 HoldHarmless.........................................................................................................5 Workers' Compensation Insurance...........................................................................6 General Liability Insurance......................................................................................6 Professional Liability Insurance..............................................................................7 Certificates of Insurance..........................................................................................7 Independent Contractor............................................................................................8 Termination of Agreement.......................................................................................8 Assignment and Subcontracting..............................................................................8 Copyrights/Patents...................................................................................................9 City Employees and Officials..................................................................................9 Notices....................................................................................................................9 Immigration..............................................................................................................9 Legal Services Subcontracting Prohibited....................................................... Arbitration....................................................................................9 AttorneysFees.......................................................................................................10 Entirety.....................................................................................................................10 a&2000agreefWilson 01/27/00 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AND FRANK WILSON & ASSOCIATES, INC. FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES TO PROVIDE A PUBLIC INFORMATION AND COMMUNITY OUTREACH ASSISTANCE PROGRAM FOR THE CITY'S INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this 7th day of February__ 2000, by and between the City of Huntington Beach, a municipal corporation of the State of California, hereinafter referred to as "CITY," and FRANK WILSON & ASSOCIATES, a California corporation, hereinafter referred to as "CONSULTANT." WHEREAS, CITY desires to engage the services of a consultant to provide professional services regarding the development and implementation of a public information and community outreach assistance program in connection with the City's Infrastructure Improvement Program in the City of Huntington Beach; and to provide community survey services to ascertain public opinions, attitudes and awareness about the City's infrastructure; and Pursuant to documentation on file in the office of the City Clerk, the provisions of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code, Chapter 3.03, relating to procurement of professional service contracts have been complied with; and CONSULTANT has been selected to perform said services, NOW, THEREFORE, it is agreed by CITY and CONSULTANT as follows: 1. WORK STATEMENT CONSULTANT shall provide all services as described in the Request for Proposal ("RFP'), and CONSULTANT's Proposal dated November 22, 1999, and Revised Work Plan dated January 25, 2000, (which are hereinafter referred to as EXHIBIT "A") which are attached hereto and incorporated into this AGREEMENT by this reference. The services will be undertaken in two phases based on separate City Council authorization to proceed on each phase. These services shall sometimes hereinafter be referred to as the "PROJECT." ad112000agree/wilson 01/27/00 CONSULTANT hereby designates Julie Chay, who shall represent it and be its sole contact and agent in all consultations with CITY during the performance of this AGREEMENT. 2. CITY STAFF ASSISTANCE CITY shall assign a staff coordinator to work directly with CONSULTANT in the performance of this AGREEMENT. 3. TIME OF PERFORMANCE Time is of the essence of this AGREEMENT. The services of CONSULTANT are to commence as soon as practicable after the execution of this AGREEMENT and all tasks specified in Exhibit A shall be completed no later than one year from the date of this AGREEMENT. These times may be- extended with the written permission of CITY. The time for performance of the tasks identified in Exhibit A are generally to be shown in the Scope of Services on the Work Program/Project Schedule. This schedule may be amended to benefit the PROJECT if mutually agreed by CITY and CONSULTANT. In order for CONSULTANT to perform many of its tasks as specified in Exhibit A, it must receive certain documents, data and supplies from the CITY; therefore, CITY agrees that it will supply to CONSULTANT, all documents, data, and other supplies as may be necessary or helpful to CONSULTANT in the performance of the tasks specified in Exhibit A and that it will provide such documents, data and supplies in a timely manner. In the event that the CITY does not timely provide said documents, data and supplies in a manner that allows CONSULTANT to complete its tasks identified in Exhibit A, within the one-year time limit for performance of this Agreement, the time period for performance of this Agreement shall be reasonably extended to allow CONSULTANT a reasonable period of time in which to complete said tasks. 4. COMPENSATION In consideration of the performance of the services described herein, CITY agrees to pay CONSULTANT a total fee not to exceed One Hundred Ninety -Five Thousand Thirty -Eight 2 ad112000agree/Wilson 01/27/00 Dollars ($195,038), comprised of a Phase I not to exceed fees of Eighty -One Thousand Nine Hundred Ninety -Seven Dollars ($81,997) and a Phase II not to exceed fees of One Hundred Thirteen Thousand Forty -One Dollars ($113,041). 5. PRIORITIES In the event there are any conflicts or -inconsistencies between this AGREEMENT, the CITY's RFP, the CONSULTANT's Proposal, or the REVISED WORK PLAN, the following order of precedence shall govern: (1) AGREEMENT,( 2) the REVISED WORK PLAN, (3) the CONSULTANT's Proposal, and (4) the CITY's RFP. b. EXTRA WORK In the event CITY requires additional services not included in Exhibit A, or changes in the scope of services described in Exhibit A, CONSULTANT will undertake such work only after receiving written authorization from CITY. Additional compensation for such extra work shall be allowed only if the prior written approval of CITY is obtained. 7. METHOD OF PAYMENT A. CONSULTANT shall be entitled to progress payments toward the fixed fee set forth herein in accordance with the progress and payment schedules set forth in Exhibit A. B. Delivery of work product: A copy of every memorandum, letter, report, calculation and other documentation prepared by CONSULTANT shall be submitted to CITY to demonstrate progress toward completion of tasks. In the event CITY rejects or has comments on any such product, CITY shall identify specific requirements for satisfactory completion. Any such product which has not been formally accepted or rejected by CITY shall be deemed accepted. C. CONSULTANT shall submit to CITY an invoice for each progress payment due. Such invoice shall: 1) Reference this AGREEMENT; 2) Describe the services performed; 3 adl/2000aFtdWilson 011271/00 3) Show the total amount of the payment due; 4) Include a certification by a principal member of CONSULTANT's firm that the work has been performed in accordance with the provisions of this AGREEMENT; and 5) For all payments include an estimate of the percentage of work completed. Upon submission of any such.invoice, if CITY is satisfied that CONSULTANT is making satisfactory progress toward completion of tasks in accordance with this AGREEMENT, CITY shall promptly approve the invoice, in which event payment shall be made within thirty (30) days of receipt of the.invoice by CITY. Such approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. If CITY does not approve an invoice, CITY shall notify CONSULTANT in writing of the reasons for non -approval within seven (7) calendar days of receipt of the invoice, and the schedule of performance set forth in Exhibit A shall be suspended until the parties agree that past performance by CONSULTANT is in, or has been brought into compliance, or until this AGREEMENT is terminated as provided herein. D. Any billings for extra work or additional services authorized by CITY shall be invoiced separately to CITY. Such invoice shall contain all of the information required above, and in addition shall list the hours expended and hourly rate charged for such time. Such invoices shall be approved by CITY if the work performed is in accordance with the extra work or additional services requested, and if CITY is satisfied that the statement of hours worked and costs incurred is accurate. Such approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. Any dispute between the parties concerning payment of such an invoice shall be treated as separate and apart from the ongoing performance of the remainder of this AGREEMENT. 8. DISPOSITION OF PLANS ESTIMATES AND OTHER DOCUMENTS CONSULTANT agrees that all materials prepared hereunder, including all original drawings, designs, reports, both field and office notices, calculations, maps, memoranda, letters and 4 ad1/2000agree/Wilson 01/27/00 other documents, shall be turned over to CITY upon termination of this AGREEMENT or upon PROJECT completion, whichever shall occur first. In the event this AGREEMENT is terminated, said materials may be used by CITY in the completion of the PROJECT or as it otherwise sees fit. Title to said materials shall pass to CITY upon payment of fees determined to be earned by CONSULTANT to the point of termination or completion of the PROJECT, whichever is applicable. CONSULTANT shall be entitled to retain copies of all data prepared hereunder. 9. HOLD HARMLESS CONSULTANT shall protect, defend, indemnify and save and hold harmless CITY, its officers, officials, employees, and agents from and against any and all liability, loss, damage, expenses, costs (including without limitation costs and fees of litigation of every nature) arising out of or in connection with CONSULTANT's performance of this AGREEMENT or its failure to comply with any of its obligations contained in this AGREEMENT by CONSULTANT, its officers, agents or employees except such loss or damage which was caused by the sole negligence or willful misconduct of CITY. CITY shall be reimbursed by CONSULTANT for all costs and attorney's fees incurred by CITY in enforcing this obligation. 10. WORKERS' COMPENSATION INSURANCE Pursuant to California Labor Code Section 1861, CONSULTANT acknowledges awareness of Section 3700 et seq. of said Code, which requires every employer to be insured against liability for workers' compensation; CONSULTANT covenants that it will comply with such provisions prior to commencing performance of the work hereunder. CONSULTANT shall maintain workers' compensation insurance in an amount of not less than One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000) bodily injury by accident, each occurrence, One Hundred Thousand Dollars (S 100,000) bodily injury by disease, each employee, Two Hundred Fifty Thousand,Dollars (S250,000) bodily injury by disease, policy limit. 5 ad 1/2000agrcdWilson 01/27i0o CONSULTANT shall require all subcontractors to provide such workers' compensation insurance for all bf the subcontractors' employees. CONSULTANT shall furnish to CITY a certificate of waiver of subrogation under the terms of the workers' compensation insurance and CONSULTANT shall similarly require all subcontractors to waive subrogation. 11. GENERAL LIABILITY INSURANCE In addition to the workers' compensation insurance and CONSULTANT's covenant to indemnify CITY, CONSULTANT shall obtain and furnish to CITY, a policy of general public liability insurance, including motor vehicle coverage covering the PROJECT. Said policy shall indemnify CONSULTANT, its officers, agents and employees, while acting within the scope of their duties, against any and all claims arising out of or in connection with the PROJECT, and shall provide coverage in not less than the following amount: combined single limit bodily injury and property damage, including products/completed operations liability and blanket contractual liability, of $1,000,000 per occurrence. If coverage is provided under a form, which includes a designated general aggregate limit, the aggregate limit must be no less than $1,000,000 for this PROJECT. Said policy shall name CITY, its agents, its officers, employees and volunteers as Additional Insureds, and shall specifically provide that any other insurance coverage which may be applicable to the PROJECT shall be deemed excess coverage and that CONSULTANT's insurance shall be primary. Under no circumstances shall the above -mentioned insurance contain a self -insured retention, or a "deductible" or any other similar form of limitation on the required coverage. 12. PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY INSURANCE The requirement for professional liability insurance was deleted by City Council action on October 18, 1999. 6 adl/2000agree/Wiison 01/27/00 13. CERTIFICATES OF INSURANCE Prior to commencing performance of the work hereunder, CONSULTANT shall furnish to CITY certificates of insurance subject to approval of the City Attorney evidencing the foregoing insurance coverages as required by this AGREEMENT; said -certificates shall: A. provide the name and policy number of each carrier and policy; B. shall state that the policy is currently in force; and C. shall promise that such policies shall not be suspended, voided or canceled by either party, reduced in coverage or in limits except after thirty (30) days prior written notice; however, ten (10) days prior written notice in the event of cancellation for nonpayment of premium. CONSULTANT shall maintain the foregoing insurance coverages in force until the work under this AGREEMENT is frilly completed and accepted by CITY. The requirement for carrying the�foregoing insurance coverages shall not derogate from the provisions for indemnification of CITY by CONSULTANT under the AGREEMENT. CITY or its representative shall at all times have the right to demand the original or a copy of all said policies of insurance. CONSULTANT shall pay, in a prompt and timely manner, the premiums on all insurance hereinabove required. 14. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR CONSULTANT is, and shall be, acting at all times in the performance of this AGREEMENT as an independent contractor. CONSULTANT shall secure at its expense, and be responsible for any and all payment of all taxes, social security, state disability insurance compensation, unemployment compensation and other payroll deductions for CONSULTANT and its officers, agents and employees and all business licenses, if any, in connection with the services to be performed hereunder. 7 adV2000agrtc/Wilson 01/27/00 15. TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT All work required hereunder shall be performed in a good and workmanlike manner. CITY may terminate CONSULTANT's services hereunder at any time with or without cause, and whether or not PROJECT is fully complete. Any termination of this AGREEMENT by CITY. shall be made in writing, notice of which shall be delivered to CONSULTANT as provided herein. Any termination by CITY hereunder shall be made only after 34-days prior written notice to CONSULTANT. CONSULTANT shall be entitled to compensation hereunder for the work performed through the date of receipt of notification of termination of the AGREEMENT, which compensation shall include, but is not limited to, payments to sub -contractors for work contracted prior to receipt of notice of termination. 16. ASSIGNMENT AND SUBCONTRACTING This AGREEMENT is a personal service contract and the supervisory work hereunder shall not be delegated by CONSULTANT to any other person or entity without the consent of CITY. 17. COPYRIGHTS/PATENTS CITY shall own all rights to any patent or copyright on any work, item or material produced as a result of this AGREEMENT. 18. CITY EMPLOYEES AND OFFICIALS CONSULTANT shall employ no CITY official nor any regular CITY employee in the work performed pursuant to this AGREEMENT. No officer or employee of CITY shall have any financial interest in this AGREEMENT in violation of the applicable provisions of the California Government Code. 19. NOTICES Any written notice or required submittals, given under the terms of this AGREEMENT, shall be delivered personally or mailed, certified mail, postage prepaid, addressed to the party concerned as follows: 8 ad1/2000agrcWJilson 01/27/00 TO CITY: Director of Public Works. City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 20. IMMIGRATION TO CONSULTANT: Frank Wilson Frank Wilson & Associates, Inc. 23332 Mill Creek Drive, Suite 1.55 Laguna Hills, CA 92653 . CONSULTANT shall be responsible for full compliance with the immigration and naturalization laws of the United States and shall, in particular; comply with the provisions of the United States Code regarding employment verification. 21. LEGAL SERVICES SUBCONTRACTING PROHIBITED CONSULTANT and CITY agree that CITY is not liable for payment of any subcontractor work involving legal services, and that such legal services are expressly outside the scope of services contemplated hereunder. CONSULTANT understands that pursuant to Huntington Beach City Charter Section 309, the City Attorney is the exclusive legal counsel for CITY; and CITY shall not be liable for payment of any legal services expenses incurred by CONSULTANT. 22. ARBI_TRATION Any controversy or claim arising from or relating to this AGREEMENT, or its making, performance, or interpretation, will be settled by arbitration in Orange County, California under the commercial arbitration rules of the American Arbitration Association then existing. Judgment on the arbitration award may be entered in any court having jurisdiction over the subject matter of the controversy. 9 add20002gree/Wilson 01/27/00 23.• ATTORNEY'S FEES In the event suit is brought by either party to enforce the terms and provisions of this AGREEMENT or to secure the performance hereof, each party shall bear its own attorney's fees. 24. ENTIRETY The foregoing, and EXHIBIT A attached hereto, set forth the entire AGREEMENT between the parties. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this AGREEMENT to be executed by and through their authorized offices the day, month and year first above written. F S S C TES, INC. By: L Ale - print name ITS: (circle one)airma resident/Vice President Zpnnt naITS: (circle oneecret /Chief Financial Officer/Asst. Secretary —Treasurer REVIEWED AND APPROVED: City AdminYstrator CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, a municipal corporation of the State of California ATTESTe City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Iv 'rney 1-Z6—�0 (-Mt- .91(1I'ggL06 r /,#1* '�'7 D AND APPROVED: Director of Public Works. ad112000agree/Wi15on 01/27/00 IN EXHIBIT A Public Education and Community Outreach for Infrastructure Improvement Program Revised Work Plan (January 25, 2000) The following Public Education and Community Outreach work plan proposed by Frank Wilson & Associates offers a two-phase approach in support of the City of Huntington Beach's Infrastructure Improvement Program. Phase One includes research, strategy development, and positioning of the Infrastructure improvement Program. Phase Two represents the implementation of the strategy developed in the first phase, and a final community survey to assist decision -makers in identifying preferred solutions to the City's infrastructure problems. Task 1 Become knowledgeable about he City's Infrastructure Improvement Program scoping The first step in the project will be a series of scoping meetings with City Officials, the Citizen Infrastructure Advisory Committee and its subcommittees, and other project consultants to gain an overall understanding of the Infrastructure Improvement Program and identify project priorities. This will include attending meetings of the CIAC, the CIAC Steering Committee, the CIAC Public Education Subcommittee and the Public Works Commission, along with other groups that can contribute to our understanding of the project. We will identify the respective roles of City staff, consultants and committees, and establish guidelines for working with each. Ascertainment We would begin with a community ascertainment. Through a series of individual focused interviews with leaders representing Huntington Beach's broad base of community groups, we would find out what they know and how they feel about the Infrastructure Improvement Program — how it will benefit them and their neighborhood. We would ask about the best ways to communicate with them, and with the members of their group. We would identify any potential community issues that stand in the way of the llp's success. The ascertainment results will help us to refine recommendations regarding appropriate media and messages. We will report out the ascertainment results in a written report, along with a list of interviewees. The findings will be made accessible and useful throughout the implementation of the UP's education and outreach program. Task 2 Create a program identity. Theme Development The creative process begins by generating some theme ideas that would communicate the connection between infrastructure and life style. After initial client review, the themes would be developed more fully. Once the theme ideas have been narrowed down, we propose to return to selected interviewees from the ascertainment process to test the themes. While focus groups have been the traditional way to test marketing messages, we believe utilizing individuals from the ascertainment process for this analysis will yield more valuable information and responses to our theme. And, again, the process will help to enlist individuals, families and groups in the grassroots program. Finally, we must remember throughout the public education program to keep the message simple. This is especially important when discussing the complexities of infrastructure and financing. We propose, then, to create a unified look, with an identity that all residents can associate with the positive benefits of sound infrastructure. The identity would be adapted to each element of the outreach program, but would still retain a unified look that is immediately associated with the program. Page 1 of 10 Task 3 Public Information and Community Outreach Program Elements Public Information and Community Outreach Program Development The development of the public information and community outreach strategic plan will address the issues and interest groups identified during the scoping and ascertainment. Its elements will include the tasks that follow, and will be strategically planned to coordinate with project milestones and other factors that come to our attention through research. The strategic plan will incorporate any possible synergies that yield cost.savings, many of which were suggested in the request for proposals (newsletter articles, utility bill inserts, community events, etc.) Implementation will begin upon approval of the plan by the City. Framing and Communicating the IIP Message Early and proper framing of the Infrastructure Improvement Program is essential to establishing the need for sound infrastructure, educating the public about financing issues, and building the support needed to meet future infrastructure needs. Inviting response from various constituencies about the IIP includes an inherent requirement to first inform those audiences about the program. We believe that understanding the initial perceptions, possible misunderstandings and perceived benefits of the UP will help us to properly frame and position the program in the public mind and craft effective messages for the outreach program. Based on the outcome of opinion research and community ascertainment we will develop a positioning statement for the program, and a message platform including themes, statement of features and benefits, message and copy points. This platform will be incorporated in all materials, briefings, presentations and outreach efforts. PowerPoint Slide Presentation Once the key messages are developed, they will be incorporated into a PowerPoint presentation. The anticipated audience for the presentation will figure into the writing of the script for the presentation. In addition to information about the UP, the presentation will include process information, and, if possible, a call to action that invites viewers to continue to be involved though future meetings or other planned activities. The presentation will include maps, graphics, and photographs, using existing City materials whenever possible to minimize costs. Speaker's Bureau Essential to the success of the Speaker's Bureau is a comprehensive list of community stakeholder groups and organizations that provide opportunities for outreach and information. These groups, along with the names and contact information for representatives, will be developed as part of the Community Ascertainment. FW&A will pro -actively schedule presentations for community groups, and will provide follow-up information for speakers and organization representatives to ensure timely and effective presentations. Speakers for the Speaker's Bureau could come from City staff and CIAC committee members, and could be supplemented by FW&A's outreach specialists, as needed. FW&A's bilingual staff could be most useful in in reaching Spanish and Asian language groups. In this way we hope to provide valuable information to residents, and to hear from them directly about their perceptions, experience, and expectations about the IIP. The feedback loop that the Speaker's Bureau encompasses is a valuable tool for ongoing communication. Page 2 of 10 FW&A will schedule UP presentations to the following community groups as possible, including, but not limited to: Neighborhood Groups • HB Downtown Residents Association • Huntington Harbour Property Owners' Association • HB Mobite Homeowners Association • Meredith Gardens Homeowners' Association • Southeast HB Neighborhood Assn. • Friends and Neighbors of Seacliff Business Organizations • Chamber of Commerce • HB Downtown Business Association • North Huntington Beach Business Association Orange County Association of Realtors Schools • Huntington Beach City School District • Huntington Beach Union High School District Ocean View School District City Boards and Commissions • Planning Commission • Finance Board • Citizen Participation Advisory Board • Public Works Commission • Community Services Commission • Environmental Board Fraternal, Civic and Professional Organizations • Amigos de Bolsa Chica • AAUW • Huntington Beach Tomorrow • League of Women Voters --Orange Coast • Republican and Democratic Associations In addition to the information provided by way of the slide presentation, the Speaker's Bureau audiences will also receive collateral material enabling them to bring the message home. Public Workshops The FW&A team workshops will use a creative and interactive approach to generate sincere interest in the UP from a diverse mix of local business leaders, residents, elected officials and their staffs, environmental and minority community leaders and the general public. Four workshops will be scheduled. Each workshop could be designed for a specific audience (business leaders, homeowner associations, etc), or they could designed as general workshops scheduled across the twelve-month time frame. Initial scoping and ascertainment results will reveal the most appropriate audience mix. Each workshop will begin by introducing the Infrastructure Improvement Program and the community involvement process, past and present. Following the general introduction, the workshop will involve participants in a series of facilitated discussions that help to clearly define the problem, articulate consequences of not meeting the City's infrastructure needs, brainstorm possible solutions, and identify possible action items for various stakeholders. This focus on solutions will help develop a sense of ownership among participants and will, in effect, create a new set of stakeholders in the process —even if they didnt see themselves as such before the workshop. Following each workshop, a report will be provided to the IAC, city staff, and other recipients designated by the city. The input received will help shape the response to the infrastructure needs of the city. Invitations will be mailed to organizations and individuals identified in the ascertainment and recommended by the City. Dates and locations will also be publicized through the newspaper, announcements to local organizations, and other city publications. Although the workshop formats could vary according to specific audiences, each workshop will include: 1. An introduction to and focus on infrastructure issues 2. A pro -active, personal contact effort to ensure representation from stakeholders and opinion leaders 3. A cross section of interests that could play a role in developing program solutions - 4. -Involvement of and close coordination with local elected officials, city staff and committee members 5. Art exit survey to provide quantifiable feedback 6. A participant evaluation Page 3 of 10 The workshops, led by a professional facilitator, will be approximately 2 hours long and scheduled at convenient times and locations. We will work with HBTV-3 local access cable TV to air one or more of the workshops. In addition, we will investigate the possibility of broadcasting the workshops on the Internet. The video, tabletop display, program brochure and other written materials will be the primary communication tools along with key questions targeted for the specific audiences. Develop a Tabletop Display for Community Events FW&A proposes to develop a tabletop display that can serve in any environment — from a casual Street Fair to a formal l3conomic Summit. It will be portable and will include eye-catching graphics.. Collateral materials will be accommodated in racks, and can also be placed on the table in front of the display itself. The key collateral piece that we propose to feature is a program brochure (see description below). Event announcements and fact sheets could also be made available. FW&A will deliver, set up and dismantle the display for a minimum of six events. We also propose to use the display for the public workshops. Program Brochure A key collateral piece in the program will be the creation of a brochure communicating the need for sound infrastructure, the obstacles faced in creating and maintaining it, possible consequences of deferring maintenance and/or infrastructure construction, and a call to action. The IIP brochure will be made available at community events, through presentations of the Speakers Bureau, at public workshops, and in press kits. The format will be 11 by 17 inches, folded once, printed in four colors on gloss cover. Media Relations Building media and editorial support will be a critical component in educating and creating broad awareness and community support for the Infrastructure Improvement Program. The positioning and framing of the infrastructure issues as well as the public information and outreach effort is an early and continuing priority. It can create an environment of support around the program early in the outreach process. We believe the following media relations activities should be carried out on behalf of the IIP outreach effort. 'They include those requested in the request for proposal, among others: 30 and 60-second Public Service Announcement — FW&A will write and disseminate monthly (twelve) public service announcements publicizing various outreach activities that are currently taking place and highlighting key messages that have been developed regarding the Infrastructure Improvement Program. The PSAs will be disseminated to radio and TV stations. Creative assistance will be given to HBTV-3 to get the best coverage of the PSAs through cable programs. Additionally, FW&A will keep HBTV-3 informed of any outreach program activities so that they can be included among other announcements on the local cable channel. News releases, pitching and story placement — Print and broadcast outlets will be targeted through a focused database to pitch and place positive stories about the Infrastructure Improvement Program. Special attention will be paid to the major daily papers, the Los Angeles Times and The Register. The Huntington Beach Wave and the Huntin on Beach Independent will offer other editorial opportunities. FW&A will also prepare and disseminate all news releases for the Public Workshops and other events requiring media interface. Briefings, editorial boards — FW&A believes that reaching out to the media early on in the project to clearly explain the benefits of safeguarding infrastructure will build the foundation of accurate, fair and favorable coverage. FW&A will identify opportunities for one-on-one media briefings and editorial boards. "Sands" Magazine Articles — FW&A has found that the quarterly magazines published by cities and delivered to all households are a very effective way of reaching a cross section of local residents. Since the City controls the content of the "Sands" magazine, space can be allocated to this key local issue. Likewise, the upcoming schedule of events for the outreach program can be publicized in the magazine. Page 4 of 10 Huntington Beach Infoline Information The Huntington Beach Infoline provides a cost-effective means for dissemination of information. The fax -back feature is particularly useful because of the flexibility it offers for transmitting printed materials. FW&A will consider this unique medium of communication throughout the course of the outreach program. We have used similar informational "Helplines" with great success on several projects, and we believe the flexibility of the Infoline can assist effectively in the outreach effort for the Infrastructure Improvement Program. Some of the ways we propose to use the Infoline include: event announcements, brief messages or frequently asked questions, fact sheets, and possibly even. an informal "poll' if the technology supports such feedback. Key to the success of the Infoline will be the inclusion of the phone number and the three -digit codes for Infrastructure Improvement Program information in all collateral materials, press announcements, flyers, etc. Infrastructure Improvement Program Video The program video will offer information about infrastructure and the issues faced by residents of Huntington Beach in maintaining it. Through the creative use of existing footage, the video will show the infrastructure issues and invite viewers to become part of the solution through participation in the outreach program. It will be created with many possible uses in mind, such as the introduction to the project at public workshops, as a video file on the Web page (a short clip), and as the basis for b-roll for distribution to the media (Including HBTV-3). With both 3-5 minute and 30-minute formats, we will have the flexibility to meet most any presentation need. The video can be produced in other languages if needed to meet the needs of a particular community. Develop Web Page The Web site will be the repository of all public -outreach information. We believe that, even within the short term of this project, the Web will continue to gain favor as a universal source of public information because of the easy access it offers. We propose the Web page to include the following information: • Background information on the Infrastructure Improvement Program • Updates on the Public Information & Community Outreach effort • News releases • Portable document format (PDF) files of the brochure, fact sheets, reports and other relevant information • Low graphics mode for computer users unable to view full graphics versions of video or animation • Link allowing users to request additional information which can be added to an interest list • Link allowing users to view the project video to gain a better understanding of the Infrastructure Improvement Program and its importance to the community. • Link users to live or rebroadcast public workshops Municipal Services Bill Stuffers The municipal services bill, like the "Sands" magazine, offers an opportunity to achieve a broad distribution of information by way of a familiar, well-read medium. FW&A proposes to print 3-color masters for all four billing cycles to achieve cost saving, followed by black imprints of the printed material for each edition of the insert. This method also allows us to use the familiar, recognizable program identity developed specifically for the Infrastructure Improvement Program. Library Information Repositories The library repositories are, quite simply, information notebooks. They contain key project information — all the collateral information that is produced to support the outreach program —in one notebook. The Huntington Beach main library and its branches, along with City Hall, the Chamber of Commerce and any other public locations which night be appropriate will be sought as locations to house the repositories. We will arrange with the librarians and others to make the notebooks available to patrons upon request, and publicize their presence. z Page 5 of 10 Task 4 Attend meetings to facilitate communication between City staff and committees and the City's consultant team. Meeting attendance is critical to ensure effective communication among consultants, City staff and committees. FW&A is prepared to attend monthly coordination meetings with the city, and to attend and make presentations on the status of the outreach program at monthly CIAC meetings and meetings of its Sub -Committees. City Council presentations will also be accommodated upon request. We have assumed the number of meetings cited in the RFP for our budgeting purposes. Task 5 Support the CUC in the preparation of the final report for submittal to the City Council. FW&A will work with the CIAC to assist in preparation of a final report to the City Council. This support will include copy preparation and editorial support, graphics support and support in preparing presentation materials for commission and council presentations. Task 6 Provide monthly progress reports (approximately 2 pages) Keeping City staff and committee members informed serves the very important purpose of having all parties remain well informed of the outreach program activities. From the project management perspective, having to articulate the progress of the outreach program can also call attention to issues or process steps that need attention along the way. We propose to make monthly written reports approximately two pages in length. Task 7 Make available key staff to work with the CUC and Its committees, City staff and the consultant team to assist on various issues and activities-40 hours. Projects of this magnitude inevitably require more coordination than can be anticipated in advance. FW&A will include 40 hours of time to the budget to be assigned as needed in order to ensure that all elements of the outreach plan are effectively implemented, and to ensure that our consulting services are put to work in any way possible on program -related activities. Task 8 Assess the community's awareness and knowledge about the City's infrastructure. . Frank Wilson & Associates, Inc. has enlisted the services of Market Research Associates, a leading Southern California based public policy and consumer research organization. We propose to use a three - step approach in order to meet the City of Huntington Beach's needs for the assessment of community awareness. The research is configured to accomplish four main objectives: • To measure overall awareness of the City of Huntington Beach's infrastructure. • To identify current perceptions and attitudes toward the City of Huntington Beach's infrastructure. • To evaluate the acceptance and understanding of a communication program and message statements. • To evaluate the acceptance of potential specific solutions to infrastructure funding to assist policy makers in their decision making. Approach The activities we propose to meet these objectives are as follows: 1. Focus Groups As one of the first activities in Phase One of the program we propose to conduct focus groups among citizens of Huntington Beach to gauge public understanding of the city's infrastructure needs. The focus group results will reveal current awareness and perceptions of the City of Huntington Beach's infrastructure at this point in time. 2. Initial Telephone Survey Following the focus groups, also in Phase One, an initial telephone survey will help identify relevant messages to include in the development of outreach program materials. The survey will'also provide an opportunity to understand public perceptions of the issues and potential solutions identified in the Citizens Infrastructure Advisory Committee's report to the City Council. Page 6 of 10 3. Final Telephone Survey This final "track" survey will be conducted during the second phase of the program, and is intended to provide the City with information related to specific potential funding solutions and infrastructure needs. It is expected that this survey will be among the last activities in the outreach program. Additional information needs will be discussed during the design phase and incorporated into the research activities. Focus Groups Design specifications for the focus groups follow: Group composition and location -- Market Research Associates recommends that two groups be conducted in the City of Huntington Beach. We recommend that one group be conducted among citizens between the ages of 18 and 34, and one group among citizens between the ages of 35 and 65. Screener and Discussion Guide -- With the City's agreement to proceed, Market Research Associates. will design a screening questionnaire for recruiting. Once the screener is approved, recruiting will begin and we can start discussion guide development. A typical discussion guide contains 8 to 10 pages of carefully worded investigation. As mentioned previously, the groups will be designed to investigate perceptions of the communication materials developed for this audience. Participants — All participants will be registered voters and citizens of the City of Huntington Beach. No participant will be an employee of any government or city entity. Additional qualifiers can be determined during the design phase of the screening questionnaire. Length — Each group will last approximately two hours. Where possible, the two groups will be conducted on the same day allowing for cost efficiencies. We recommend that a meal be served at each group. Observation and recording — All groups will be conducted at a focus group facility equipped to allow monitoring of the groups via a one-way mirror. In addition, the groups will be video and audio recorded to ensure a complete record for analysis purposes. Although all sessions will be audio and video recorded, we encourage representatives of the City of Huntington Beach to attend all focus groups. List source — Participants will be recruited from lists provided by Market Research Associates. The lists are designed specifically for market research purposes and will contain individual names and telephone numbers as specified by Market Research Associates. Market Research Associates does not use a database of focus group participants. This ensures that every group participant is selected based on pre- defined selection criteria and is not a professional participant who attends focus groups on a regular basis. Communication material — In order for participants to understand and evaluate potential communication materials, it is important that they see the materials under consideration. Frank Wilson & Associates, Inc. will be responsible for providing Market Research Associates with several proposed materials for discussion during the focus groups. Market Research Associates will work with Frank Wilson & Associates, Inc. to ensure proper display at the focus group that will eliminate any perceived bias. Moderation — Barbara Foster will moderate all groups. This will ensure consistency throughout the project. In addition, Barbara's experience with previous communication research will aid in complete probing of all issues. Page 7 of 10 Cooperation fee -- We have found that there are definite advantages to paying participants for their time and opinions. Since participants tend to view their time as valuable, a cooperation fee is helpful to encourage attendance. Based on past experience, we suggest participants receive a co-op fee of $50 each. Results — Results from the research will be interpreted and analyzed into a concise, comprehensive report. The written report will be precise and designed to be read and easily understood by parties having no direct involvement with the research. The report will also include specific, actionable recommendations on communication material selection. These recommendations are based on past experience and findings unique to the research. Market Research Associates' experience in conducting research makes these recommendations one of the most'valuable aspects of our service. Oral Presentation — Market Research Associates will also deliver a verbal presentation of the research results. The oral presentation will be a complete -review and interpretation of the results from the focus groups. The results presentation is a major benchmark that can make or break a research project. This forum helps facilitate understanding, support and team building towards effective use of research findings. In particular, the opportunity to ask questions and discuss results is appreciated by our clients. Initial Telephone Survey Design specifications for the survey follow: Sample size, distribution and reliability — Market Research Associates recommends a sample size of 300 be used. To provide the most accurate picture of perceptions in the City of Huntington Beach, we recommend this sample size emulate the current demographic breakdown of city demographics as shown below. Ethnic! Caucasian Hispanic African American Asian or Pacific Islander Other Age 18 - 34 34% 35 - 54 429b 55 or older 24% Income Under $25,000 $25,000 to $49,000 $50,000 to $74,999 $75,000 to $99,999 $100,000 to $149,999 $150,000 or more Percent in the City of Huntington Beach 72% 14% 1% 12% 1% 14% 27% 25 % 16% 12% 6% Statistically estimated sampling error is commonly used as a comparative measure of projectability of a survey sample. The "worst case" ((50150) split, 95% confidence level) theoretical reliability for a sample of 400 is +5.1%. List source — Respondents will be selected using a random digit dialing technique. This technique ensures that all residents of the City of Huntington Beach have equal opportunity to be included in the research, regardless of whether or not their phone number is listed. Page 8 of 10 Respondent criteria — Criteria for inclusion in the research will be a citizen of the City of Huntington ' Beach who is 18 or older. Additional qualifiers, if any, will be discussed during the design phase. Interviewing methodology — We have assumed a 10-minute interview with two open-ended questions. Additional open-ended questions can be added with adjustments to the budget. We believe this interview length to be sufficient for addressing all objectives as outlined in this proposal. Pre -test questionnaire design -- Market Research Associates will design the research questionnaire with input from Frank Wilson & Associates, Inc. and the City of Huntington Beach.. We invite all parties who will be required to take action based on the findings to be involved in the design process. No interviews will be conducted until the City of Huntington Beach has given approval to the questionnaire. Pretesting — Once we've agreed on the design,.we will pretest the survey instrument. A pretest of the instrument will allow us to: • Ensure that all questions are worded appropriately and that the survey flows smoothly. • Test our assumptions concerning the ease of locating respondents. • Refine the budget, if necessary, based on actual interview length and completion rates. Data collection and monitoring — Once the questionnaire is approved, the interviewing will begin. Experienced, professional interviewers will place all calls. Market Research Associates quality assurance program requires that supervisors monitor a minimum of 20% of all calls. Immediate feedback to interviewers guarantees that questioning is on target and probing is complete. To ensure a proper representation of Spanish, Mandarin and Vietnamese speaking respondents, bilingual interviewers will be used to interview these respondents. Data Processing — As data are collected, they will be entered into Market Research Associates computer database for analysis and processed into easy -to -read tables. Market Research Associates computer software is designed specifically for market research needs and is some of the most sophisticated available today. Additionally, we anticipate subjecting certain data to a variety of statistical analyses to. enhance usability of the findings. Results — Results from the questionnaire will be presented in written and oral reports to the City of Huntington Beach. Five bound copies of the report will be provided. The written analysis will include Executive Summary, Methods, Detailed Results, Recommendations for Action, Survey Questionnaire, and Computer Data Tabulations. The written report will be concise and designed to be read and easily understood by parties with no direct involvement with the research. We currently expect the report to include bar graphs, tables, and perceptual maps as a way of presenting the results in an easy -to -read format. The report will include a set of actionable recommendations based on past experience and findings unique to the research. Market Research Associates' experience in conducting similar research for non-profit organizations and our experience conducting research for Frank Wilson & Associates, Inc. and the City of Huntington Beach makes these recommendations one of the most valuable aspects of our service. Oral presentation — The oral presentation will be a complete review and interpretation of the results of the pre- and post-test telephone survey. Use of color graphics enhances the ease of understanding and interpreting the data. The results presentation is a major benchmark that can make or break a research project. This forum helps facilitate effective use of the research results through understanding, support and team building. In particular, the opportunity to ask questions and discuss results with the researcher is appreciated by our clients. Market Research Associates can include in the presentation a 15 to 20 minute videotape showing highlights from the focus groups for a small increase in the budget. These video excerpts are particularly effective for those individuals involved with this research but unable to attend all of the focus groups. Page 9 of 10 Post-test questionnaire design -- Market Research Associates will review the questionnaire used in the pre -test and recommend changes, if necessary. As with the post-test questionnaire, no interviews will be conducted until the City of Huntington Beach has given approval to this questionnaire. Final Telephone Survey The final community survey will be a brief track survey —no more than seven minutes long. There will be no open-ended questions and a brief analysis. The sample size, respondent criteria and interviewing methodology for this survey will be the same as for the initial survey. This survey is intended to provide the City of Huntington Beach with key information related to potential specific solutions to the infrastructure funding identified in the report to the Council. Page 10 of 10 EXHIBIT A CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PUBLIC INFORMATION AND COMMUNITY OUTREACH CONSULTING SERVICES PHASING PLAN &A Gn$ &A , Hou (In o udas re "(Incittdes k I .direct Costs dir Pcasts . - r r= n ;r ax F- .Task 2 L Create Program Identrty 0 '` xij U E�E. 32_', s $3-770 S - $3,770' iiZl- -fir sl Slr �1F__ r -S r �.v .. _..:- - - r•— - n - _ �� _"e 3k-�,.•--'rT - -.a;x'I,� - I" - .�' rss2r Task 3Devel9p &Implement Outreach =30 = $10,101 503 �WQ76,522 $Sfi,623 ' �.a.:•;°''- _ _' .� _ I._ : ilF._ ._R,.Tw dTask Attend Meet%ngs� -50 $5,808 �4 1001 i 4,$11,217 $ifi,825 # e y Task 5 fSuPreparat ppijrt ion`°of CIAC ; 90 - $10;350 Report to,Councr! M.j iTask 6 'Provide Monthly Progress 11 $1,380 21 � 60 $2,7$4,140 Report _ r Task? :,Support CIAC and Staff : =30 $3,550,,�' i 30 ��_$3,550 $71 0 - - Activnies : F ,Task 8 'Assess the'Communrty aiout 130 '` $49,588 56; $15,222 = $64810 - Infrastructure.lssues r 1 ;Total 351 $81,997 742 $113,041 $195,038 ir Phase One This phase of the outreach program includes research, strategy development, and positioning of the Infrastructure Improvement Program. Two focus groups and 15 to 20 indiyidual ascertainment interviews with community leaders will help define issues. Frank Wilson & Associates will assist in the preparation of the Infrastructure Advisory Committee's report to the City Council, ensuring that the research results benefit the formulation of their recommendations. Frank Wilson & Associates will also create a Public Information and Community Outreach Strategic Plan which will identify the activities and timeframe for Phase Two implementation. The last step in Phase One, the opinion research, will help identify residents' Issues and awareness of local infrastructure issues and will assist in the effort to formulate the outreach program's key messages. Phase Two In this phase of the outreach program, the project's theme and messages will be developed and incorporated into a broad range of media, from web page and video to print materials and HB Infoline announcements. Materials will reach Huntington Beach residents through existing and new channels of communication, from the City's "Sands" magazine and stuffers in municipal services bills, to a speakers program and public workshops. A final community survey will be provided to assist decision -makers in Identifying preferred solutions to the City's infrastructure problems. Page 1 of 2 President STANDARD HOURLY RATES Frank Wilson & Associates July 1999. $260 Account Services Director, Public Affairs $160 Public Relations Manager $115 Public Relations Specialist $ 95 Community Relations Specialist $115 Account Supervisor $115 Account Executive $ 95 _ Assistant Account Executive $ 80 Account Coordinator $ 65 Creative Services Creative Director $160 Production Manager $ 90 Assistant Production Manager $ 70 Accounting (when applicable) Accounting Manager $100 Clerical (wren applicable) $ 45 Charges for rush projects will increase billing rates by 50 percent. Page 2 of 2 ACORD RS CERTIFICATE OF LIABILITY INSURANC SR 5 OAODIYYJ 01/3 1J31/00 PRODUCER Solomon 6 Solomon Insurance THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE Brokers HOLDER. THIS CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AMEND, EXTEND OR 23332 Mill Creek Dr Ste 135 ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES BELOW. Laguna Hills CA 92653 Phone: 949-583--0300 Fax: 949-951-9342 INSURERS AFFORDING COVERAGE INSURED INSURER A: Republic indemnity Co. INSURER B: Commercial Union Insurance Co _ Frank Wilson & Associates Attn.: Betty Wilson INSURER C:_ Gulf Insurance Co. 23332 Mill Creek Dr. Ste. 155 Laguna Hills CA 9265i I INSURERD: INSURER E: COVERAGES THE POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD INDICATED. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY REQUIREMENT, TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN, THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HERE -IN 1S SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS, EXCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH POLICIES. AGGREGATE LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLAIMS, INS"LTA TYPE OF INSURANCE POLICY NUMBER IC7 EFFECTIVE DATE MM1DDlYY POLICY EXPIRATION DATE MM1001YY LIMITS GENERAL LIABILITY EACH OCCURRENCE $1 , 000 000 B X COMMERCIALGENERALLIABILTY CALK59395 6 01/01/00 01/01/01 FIRS DAMAGE (Any one fire) $ 100 000 CLAIMS MADE a OCCUR MED EXP (Any one person) S 5,000 PERSONAL a ADV INJURY S Excluded GENERAL AGGREGATE $2,000 000 GEN'L AGGREGATE LIMIT APPLIES PER. PRODUCTS - COMP/OP AGG $2 0 00 , 000 POLICY JECT n LOC AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY ANYAUTO COMBINED SINGLE LIMIT (Es aceidenQ S BODILY INJURY (Per person) S ALL OVJNED AUTOS SCHEDULED AUTOS BODILY INJURY (Per accident) S HIRED AUTOS NON -OWNED ALTOS PROPERTY DAMAGE (Per ecaidanQ S AY;':. . __ S TO F0?,:r): - GARAGE LIABILITY . i O ONLY - EA ACCIDENT AUTO S ER THAN EA ACC I ALIT AGG $ ANY AUTO �iOONLY: By: S EXCESS LIABILITY D ' µ r • i By EACH OCCURRENCE S OCCUR CLAIMS MADE AGGREGATE S S DEDUCTIBLE RETE. rTitON SkAtu- --- - - - -- - ... ;;� S A WORKERS COMPENSATION AND EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY 134481-02 09/22/99 09/22/00 x TORY LIMITS ER 151,000,000 E.L. EACH ACCIDENT E.L.DISEASE - EA EMPLOYE S I , 0 0 0 , 0 0 a E-L. DISEASE - POLICY LIMIT' 3 1 000 00 0 OTHER C Prof. Liability GU0408267 12/02/99 12/02/00 Limit 1,000,000 OESGRIPTION OF OPERATIONSILOCATIONSNEHICLESIEXCLUSIONS ADDED BY EN DORSEMENTISPECIAL PROVISIONS *10 days for non-payment of premium and/or non -reporting of payroll. City of Huntington Beach, its agents, officer, and employees are named as. additional insured per endorsement CG2010 1093, attached. UtK I I!-16A I M MULUCht Y I ADDITIONAL INSURED; INSURER LETTER: b L ANL r-LLJ1I IUIM HUNT101 SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED BEFORE THE EXPIRATION DATE THEREOF, THE ISSUING INSURER WILL ENDEAVOR TO MAIL 30 * DAYS WRITTEN NOTICE TO THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER NAMED TO THE LEFT, BUT FAILURE TO DO SO SHALL City pf Huntington Beach IMPOSE NO OBLIGATION OR LIABILITY OF ANY KIND UPON THE INSURER, ITS AGENTS OR Attn.: Gary Dysart 2000 Main St. REPRESENTATIVES. Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Solomon 6 Salomon Insurance ACORD 25S 171971 0ACORD CORPORATION 1988 NEWS VIEWS Commercial Union insurance Companies Richard Burnstein Solomon & Solomon Insurance Brokers 26024 Acero Mission Viejo, CA 92691 TO: All Producers i #! June 1, 1994 RE: CERTIFICATES OF INSURANCE we have had a number of calls requesting more information as a result of Ken"s 05-23--94, letter regarding Certificates of Insurance. It is acceptable to name the certificate holder as additional insured as long as the specific endorsement that applies is referenced. The job number or location must be included. An example of acceptable wording is as follows: "Certificate holder is named as an additional insured per CGXXXX as respects job #101 at,801 N. Brand, Glendale, CA." A listing of the more commonly used- additional insured endorsements is attached for your reference. Severability of interests and primary wording is contained in the Comprehensive General Liability coverage form CGO001 and if these provisions -are referred'to on the certificate it must state "per CG0001." Any of Waiver of Subrogation is not acceptable. Under the cancellation provision, we will not accept any S changes in the wording including striking out the wording "will endeavor." If you have any questions or special requirements, please contact your team.underwriter. 801 No. Brand Blvd., 8th Floor P. 0. Sort 29037 Glendale, California 91209-9037 s�osz-i - 11 fnsunnct Cc ao 10 10 93 ADDITIONAL INSURE D•-OWNERS, LESSEES OR CONTRACTORS (FORM B) This endorsement modifies insurance provided under the following: COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY COVERAGE PART This endorsement changes the policy effective on the inception date -of the policy unless another date is indicated. SCHEDULE CL 696 (10-93) Name of Person or Organization: City of Huntington . Beach, its agents, officers, and employees. (If no entry appears above, information required to complete this endorsement will be shown in the Declarations as applicable to this endorsement.) WHO IS AN INSURED (Section 11) is amended to include as an insured the person or organization shown in the Schedule, but only with respect to liability arising out of your ongoing operations performed for that insured. RCA ROUTING SHEE INITIATING DEPARTMENT: Public Information SUBJECT: Consulting Services for a Public Education and Community Outreach Program for the Infrastructure Improvement` Program _ COUNCIL MEETING DATE:_j December 18, 2000 .... .. ... ..... . .............. . . ............... ............... '�'CA:'ATTACHMENTS::::::::::::::::' .............. .. .......... ............ .. .. .............. ..... . ...... ......... ....... . ......................... ..................... ..... .. .. .... 'T ... ... :� . . .... -A -.US:;' "S , ...... i T ------- ...... .. .. . Ordinance (w/exhibits & legislative draft if applicabley_ Not Applicable Resolution (w/exhibits & legislative draft if applicable) Not Applicable Tract Map, Location Map and/or other Exhibits Not Applicable Contract/Agreement (w/exhibits if applicable) (Signed in full by the City Attorney) Attached Subleases, Third Party Agreements, etc. (Approved as to form by City Attomy) Not Applicable Certificates of Insurance (Approved by the City Attorney ) Not Applicable Financial Impact Statement _(Unbudget, over $5,000) Not Applicable Bonds If applicable) Not Applicable Staff Report If applicable) Not Applicable Commission, Board or Committee Report If applicable) Not Applicable Findings/Conditions for Approval and/or Denial Not Apelicable .............. ............ ...... ..................... .ATTACHMENTS t'"NATIONTOR.M .. . . .. ...- .. . .. .. ................... .. ... .............. . ..... . . ...... ............. ....... .. ..... ................... "EXPLANATIONTORRETURN 10FIT-EM ........................ .. ... .... ......... . ........ .. .. .. . . . .......... . .. .. ........... ME:...: .. .. ..... .. . ----- -- -- RECEIVED FROM AND MADE APART OF THE RECORpp COUNCIL MEETING OF `-J2l ld --..•� OFFICE OF THE'CITY CLERK"' " CONNIE BROCKWAY, CITY CLERK r ,.; is •, �' i:� Y . '=il � ,•r Iy� A+is !\ ` �'•, ••'i7 Summa_ry of Actions taken.by .the.=:City._Council 1995 City Council initiates major review of the Community's long-term infrastructure needs. 1997 The Integrated Infrastructure Management Program (IIMP) was prepared identifyng,community infrastructure needs and funding „ shortfall. . 1998 City Council creates Citizens Infrastructure Advisory Committee _ .(IAC) with 35 primary members and 24 alternates -to.review_'the IIMP and the funding options available to the city*to meet the community's infrastructure -needs. o i .0 .. 20 0.• City Council enters into a professional services contract with FW-A, received the Final IAC Report, and created the Infrastructure Plarining:,Committee (IPC) to. continue .the-refineme•nt of the, - Infrastructure 'Implementation Management_:Program.(IIMP).and to 1.4 address.th'e'recorrimendatio:ns�`#oundvithin'the-1A:CfEinal R6po:rt.,k-" -'l VI • Key Program Milest( -Assumptions • Agrowingrealization that the public needs more information about their community (City Finance Board,'IAC, Focus'Gr'-oups., Ascertainment Interviews): • A Community Education and Outreach: Program will help theL:public better _ understand how the -city functions, where city revenues come from,. anow revenues are allocated toward the SuYpport..o f city•.serv►ces,.and .p.rog-Yams. : . ...ti.� -mow 1_,.•...�...,� .. ,___.l..-:3..r+�.._::..._.-. _:. .__. .. u._...�_._. .. _r_. .e......-: -...-. ..._.. .. __"_. ___ .:.. ._ _ _ •_..i�s• _ _e.... ..max.. �.-�-.___�Z1....1. Key Program Milestones A. December 2000 Council Approval of FWA Phase 2 B: January! 2001 Begin pr=eparation of Community Education and Outreach Program materials C. April 200l, Launch Community Education and Outreach Program D. Through the 2001/2002 Budget Process request, City Council to allocate funds which will allow FWA to continue Community Outreach.. Program during Fiscal Year 2001/20.02. to .zo• 1- 19-i•1.Q/9nnnI • i i9,nni aignni ...,..f ~rs:;i` - - - �.-�• .:-�. ... ...._ .,. .�. .- .....:. ..1..�. ;_. r. ._ems• .__,. .. ,.•.. .. _�.�.. ;.....;...: — _ - . =�� ice. . �.... u......_�' _.._.j _,w JYA,=��-' _ ._ter .u_�y. _i_ •.: '��a.-..s �...,_s _. _..,..- - .-La....a :_.L._..:..� ... ._ �. ..v. .. .� ... ... ..__.__. __r. ... ... .. .. ... . ... ..._._ ... .�.. ._ _..__ _r T Community Education and Outreach Program • On 217100, the City Council entered into a Professional Services Contract with Frank Wilson & Associates---(FWA) to provide a Public Information and Community Outreach.-Assistanke Program. At that time, the- City Council- au"thorized FWA toi' •rn o ve f-o' Ward with Phas°er . -:_ Directed staff to re.turn to the City MOW -prior to__rr�ovir_�g forward wi-th :Phase 2.= - i SO ._ Sri-• ' :..., � _ _ � � • - - Lh' - •TL�•. Le dSLtii , 'N � .. .. _ .: s_'�u... �.ia�. �: �.L-i__: _..s:u�:.-�.r ..w. ,L. ..t-,.-..�_.t.r•.. ... �.r�... ��A} .:J-=�-�_. Outreach- Elements • •Program Theme..and'. Media., Relations Messages • Pgbllc Workshops • PowerPoint.. � { Presentation and • information Speakers Bureau Repositories In oline,.•,Bi.ll Staf ers, f tf • Program Brochure :. �• �� .. -�- � _ Sands Article's' rticles. • -Program Video.C6mmun,ity Survey } Tabletop Display • 'Re fine Messages, a: y . Web P e-���C`o et an R e co men of a:F " _ _ a h �s :-r 1�. ... .i.� .._ a -. .Ja+a—....a.r_-. ..'::: ': .. ... _ '7.. •. - .. a •...�. -- ...-_.•�. ...e. .�i--y. ._.-. ... .-�_� __. .w....- _.� .. _... _.. ._.. _. ... .. .i_ .. _._.-_..._. ....—.. . ,a- sed Implementation. Schedule January February/March April April/September Develop Create: Launch Outreach Ongoing Program . PowerPoint Program: Implementation: Theme and Presentation - Speakers Bureau - Speakers Bureau Messages - Brochure (+Training) - Workshops' V - Video . Infoline - Media Coverage - Tabletop . Bill Stu f fers .- City Display - Sands Articles Communications'-. - Web Page - Public t - Public Workshops Community. Survey - Workshop Plan --Media Event Refine Messages ' - - Information - and, Materidls. ... Repositories r•� , �. •-J . - �'� "S f • �. _`ram.'-. - .. - - ' a. a - '':;R � - - • - U,e.sti'lons and n s -wers mil- '. . _. - .. 'r' � � � .. • t, - �u�.. .Asti• , of �. f •v F ..Wj'�-� - r..3.r r ..•�- "._.. ,.. -..` �.. '.:�,y.,y, .__tea+ _�,...—s...�. ..-.... .. e.z�.: .� .« .a. _..�a� y..s1-�.__� . m:!e.: _J:: } I CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CONNIE BROCKWAY CRY CLERK LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL OF ITEM APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL/ REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF HtiNTINGTON BEACH DATE: 2-11-00 TO: Frank Wilson & Associates, Inc. ATTENTION: Frank Wilson, -Jr., Name Chairman 23332 Mill Creek Drive, Suite 155DEPARTMENT: Street Laguna Hills, CA 92653 City, State, Zip See Attached Action Agenda Item REGARDING. Professional Services Contract Date of Approval 2 - 7 - 0 0 Enclosed For Your Records Is An Executed Copy Of The Above Referenced Agenda Item. Remarks: Connie Brockway City Clerk Attachments: Action Agenda Page Agreement X Bonds Insurance X RCA Deed Other CC: R. Barnard Admin. X X X Name Department RCA Agreement _ Insurance Other R. Beardsley DPW X X X _ Name Department RCA Agreement Insurance Other G. Dysart DPW X X X Name Department RCA Agreement _ Insurance Other Name RCA Agreement Insurance Other Depastmerti c. "-jNDa—tAt >< X Risk Management Dept. Insurance Wollorcup,'Lenersicoverltr (Telephone: 714-536-6227 ) ,�,ru,a�sjcy, a?av CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, DPa) r� MEETING DATE: February 7, 2000 DEPARTMENT ID BER:AD2000-01 Council/Agency Meeting Held: 7 o O Deferred/Continued to: V Approved ZI Conditio all A roved Z) Denied ' .494&/c� • City Clerk's Signature Council Meeting Date: February 7, 2000 Department ID Number: AD2000-01 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION SUBMITTED TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS SUBMITTED BY: RAY SILVER, City Administrator ollY PREPARED B 4KRICHARD BARNARD, Director of Communications `j ROBERT F. BEARDSLEY, Director of Public Works wi SUBJECT: Approve Consulting Services for the Public Information and -- Community Outreach Program for the Infrastructure Improvement o- Program Statement of Issue, Funding Source, Recommended Action, Alternative Action(s), Analysis, Environmental Status, AffachZnt(s)1 Statement of Issue: Should the City Council authorize the City to enter into a contractual agreement with the firm, Frank Wilson & Associates, to provide consulting services for the development and implementation of a Public Information and Community Outreach Program for the Infrastructure Improvement Program? Funding Source: A budget of $200,000 was approved for this project (AA-ND-863). Recommended Action: Motion to: 1. Approve and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the contractual agreement between the City of Huntington Beach and Frank Wilson & Associates for the purpose of providing consulting services for the development and implementation of a Public Information and Community Outreach Program for the Infrastructure improvement Program. 2. Approve a waiver of the 30-day notice of cancellation of insurance. V Infrastructure.doc -2- 01/31/00 1:22 PM REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: February 7, 2000 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER:AD2000-01 Alternative Actionlsl: 1. Select another firm to provide consulting services for the creation and implementation of a Public Information and Community Outreach Program for the Infrastructure Improvement Program. 2. Solicit proposals from additional qualified firms. 3. Defer action until a later date. 4. Deny the recommended action and provide staff alternative direction. Analysis: On October 18, 1999 the City Council authorized a Request for Proposal (RFP) to consulting companies to assist the City with the development and implementation of the Public Information and Community Outreach portion of the Infrastructure Improvement Management Program (IIMP). On October 26, 1999 a pre -proposal conference was held with approximately 12 consulting firms interested in submitting a proposal to the City. The deadline for receipt of proposals was November 22, 1999. Proposals were received from the following firms: Frank Wilson & Associates Waters & Faubel Nelson Communications Creamer Dickson Basford Kosmont & Associates Spinner Lamar & Associates Curt Pringle & Associates APCO Associates A selection panel comprised of, members of the Citizen Infrastructure Advisory Committee's Public Information Sub -Committee: Mary Urashima (Chairperson), Carol Ann Wall, Karen Jackel, and Ted Lewis; Richard Barnard, Director of Communications, Gary Dysart of PSOMAS & Associates, and the Purchasing Manager, Rick Amadril reviewed each of the eight (8) proposals. After careful evaluation, the selection panel invited three firms to make a presentation to the panel. The three firms interviewed were: Waters & Faubel, Nelson Communications Group, and Frank Wilson & Associates, Inc. The panel requested the Purchasing Manager to contact references and ask for written comments. Based upon the evaluation of the written proposals, the interviews, and the references, the selection panel concluded that Frank Wilson & Associates should be selected for recommendation to the Citizen Infrastructure. Advisory Committee. The recommendation would then be submitted to the City Council. The Citizen Infrastructure Advisory Committee concurred with the recommendation of the selection panel and urges the City Council to Infrastructure.doc .3. 01127/00 11:09 AM REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: February 7, 2000 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER:AD2000-01 proceed with the recommended action to employ the services of Frank Wilson & Associates. The panel selected FWA based on the experience of the firm and its key staff in working with public agencies on public information programs for infrastructure related projects, their experience in working with community groups for consensus building, their approach to conducting focus groups and community surveys to gain public attitudes and opinions, and their overall work plan in response to the City's Request for Proposals. Also, the panel felt the key consultant staff members would work well with the Citizens Infrastructure Advisory Committee and City staff. FWA is a recognized consulting firm, which specializes in community outreach, community assessment, public involvement and consensus building. The firm possesses a talented group of men and women who will bring to the City years of experience and knowledge in the area of public communication. A few infrastructure related projects FWA have provided consultant services for include: Santa Clarita Parkway Alignment Study: Public Involvement Strategy: This project involved the development of a Public Participation Strategy to help identify the preferred alignment for the extension of the Santa Clarita Parkway. Several groups had specific and conflicting interest in the future extension of the Parkway. FWA researched the interests of the involved parties, planned a consensus -building session, facilitated the consensus, and synthesized the consensus information into a report and strategy that guided the remaining steps of the alignment study. FWA's consensus building efforts resulted in the consensus on the highway alignment as well as an integrated, cohesive planning process for the overall Central City area in which the road project is located. • Caltrans, District 7 — Earthquake Recovery Program: FWA developed and coordinated a fast -response public awareness program to alert motorists about damaged sections of Southern California's freeways and alternate routes/modes available following the 1994, Northridge earthquake. The purpose of the program was to reassure motorists that the repairs would proceed very quickly and that in the meantime there were many viable commute options. The corner stone of the program was "Accelerate", a four-color tabloid that detailed all the work being performed and the alternatives available to commuters. Over 3 million copies were placed in the hands of Los Angeles area motorists. In addition to distribution by mail and via the newspapers, "Accelerate" was given to targeted large employers and organization in the affected areas for their distribution. Also, FW&A partnered with Caltrans to set-up a telephone information line with information on earthquake related road construction to help people make their daily commute choices more effectively. • Marketing and Public Affairs Programs for the Transportation Corridor Agencies (TCA): FWA has worked for the TCA since 1993, conducting a wide variety of public outreach, community relations, marketing, creative, media, public relations and special events services for the San Joaquin Hills and Foothill/Eastern Toll Roads and their electronic toll -collection systems (FasTrak). Infrastructure.doc -4- 01127/00 11:09 AM REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: February 7, 2000 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER:AD2000-01 Frank Wilson & Associates' written proposal and fee for schedule is attached. The scope of work has been reordered into a two phases after discussions between the Infrastructure Advisory Committee Steering Committee, City Consultants and City Staff. City Council authorization would be required to proceed with Phase II and includes the following tasks: Phase I • Research, strategy development, positioning of the Infrastructure Improvement program, and 15 to 20 interviews with a cross section of individuals in the community. • Work with the the Infrastructure Advisory Committee (IAC) to review and finalize their written report scheduled to be presented to the City Council in April 2000. • Conduct two (2) focus group sessions. Each group will consist of 10-15 participants with each session scheduled for approximately 2 hours. • Develop a recommended Public Information and Community Outreach Plan which will identify the activities and timeframe for Phase Two implementation. • Carry out a community survey through the use of a telephone survey of 300 residents. Phase II • Development of the Community Outreach theme and messages and incorporate them into a broad range of media; from web page and video to print materials and HB Infoline announcements. • Implementation of the Public Information and Community Outreach Program which includes the use of a number of communication methods identified in the City's RFP as well as those recommended by FW&A. • Conduct a community survey to assist the City Council in identifying preferred solutions to the City's infrastructure problems. • Provide periodic progress reports The waiver of insurance is requested because the insurance provider is unable to guarantee a 30 day notice of cancellation. The company will, however, endeavor to notify the City as quickly as possible should the insurance be cancelled. Policy cancellation is not anticipated. The Consultant's fee for Part I of the Phasing Plan is $81,997, while Part II of the Phasing Plan is $113,041. The total fee for both phases is $195,038. Work will commence with Phase I upon the approval of the contract between the City and Frank Wilson & Associates. It is envisioned that the consultant will work closely with the Citizen Infrastructure Advisory Committee and with City Staff. FWA will not proceed with Phase II until authorized by the City Council. George T. Urch will serve as Project Director and Julie Chay will serve as Project Manager & Community Relations Manager, while Barbara Foster will provide support. Resumes of these principal members of the FW&A team are attached. The City's Office of Public Information will work closely with Frank Wilson & Associates, as well as with the Citizens Infrastructure Advisory Committee, and the Committee's Public Information Sub -Committee in the carrying out of this important public information program. Infrastructure.doc .5. 01131100 1:26 PM REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: February 7, 2000 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER:AD2000-01 P10 will make available to the consultant, through the Director of Communications, city communication resources. Examples of the types of city resources are outlined within the RFP, and includes in part such resources as inserts in the Municipal Services Bill, HBTV-3, Sands Publication, News Releases, HB Infoline, to name a few. Environmental Status: Not Applicable Attachmepysl: 1 Memo dated January 10, 2000, from the Chairman of Citizen Infrastructure Advisory Committee and the Chair of the Public Information Sub -Committee. 2. Frank Wilson & Associates revised Work Plan, Phasing Plan and Fee Schedule. 3. Resume of the Project Director, Project Manager, and Community Survey Consultant for Frank Wilson & Associates 4. Copy of the City's Request for Proposal for a Public Information and Community Outreach 5. Copy of Frank Wilson & Associates' original proposal. 6. Agreement between the City of Huntington Beach and Frank Wilson & Associates for Public Information and community Outreach Services for the Infrastructure Improvement Program RCA Author: Richard Barnard & Gary Dysart:gc:jm (h)rca-infrastructure Infrastructure.doc -6- 01/31100 1:29 PM CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INFRASTRUCTURE ADVISORY COMMITTEE (IAC) To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members From: Richard Harlow, Chair, Infrastructure Advisory CommitteeT Mary Urashima, Chair, CAC Public Information Sub -committee i �, Subject: Consultant Services for Public Information and Community Outreach for the Infrastructure Improvement Program Date: January 10, 2000 The Citizen Infrastructure Advisory Committee unanimously requests the City Council to approve the contractual agreement with Frank Wilson & Associates (FWA) of Laguna Hills, California to provide consultant services for Public Information and Community Outreach for the Infrastructure Improvement Program. Informed public consent is an important factor in the progressive approach taken by the City Council to address long-term community infrastructure needs. The timely and accurate dissemination of public information about the City's infrastructure programs is of utmost importance. In addition, actively pursuing public input will help to identify residents' issues and awareness of local infrastructure needs. The services to be provided by FWA will accomplish these important tasks. FWA emerged from the rigorous consultant selection process as the clear choice of the eight firms who submitted proposals for evaluation by the consultant review panel. The panel selected FWA based on the following considerations: • the experience of the firn and its key staff in working with public agencies on public education programs for infrastructure related projects. • their experience in working with community groups for consensus building. • their approach for conducting focus groups and community surveys to identify residents' issues and awareness of local infrastructure needs. • their demonstrated understanding of the City's needs and overall proposed approach for accomplishing a public education and community° outreach program for the City's Infrastructure Improvement Program. • the ability of the FWA's key staff to work effectively with the IAC members, the City's staff and consultant team, and the City Council. As the IAC prepares to deliver its findings and recommendations, this key public education assistance will help accomplish the community goal of a comprehensive and long term infrastructure plan. Public Education and Community Outreach for Infrastructure Improvement Program Revised Work Plan (January 25, 2000) The following Public Education and Community Outreach work plan proposed by Frank Wilson &. Associates offers a two-phase approach in support of the City of Huntington Beach's Infrastructure Improvement Program: Phase One includes research, strategy development, and positioning of the Infrastructure Improvement Program. Phase Two represents the implementation of the strategy developed in the first phase, and a final community survey to assist decision -makers in identifying preferred solutions to the City's infrastructure problems. Task 1 Become knowledgeable about he City's Infrastructure Improvement Program scoping The first step in the project will be a series of scoping meetings with City Officials, the Citizen Infrastructure Advisory Committee and its subcommittees, and other project consultants to gain an overall understanding of the Infrastructure Improvement Program and identify project priorities. This will include attending meetings of the CIAC, the CIAC Steering Committee, the CIAC Public Education Subcommittee and the Public Works Commission, along with other groups that can contribute to our understanding of the project. We will identify the respective roles of City staff, consultants and committees, and establish guidelines for working with each. Ascertainment We would begin with a community ascertainment. Through a series of individual focused interviews with leaders representing Huntington Beach's broad base of community groups, we would find out what they know and how they feel about the Infrastructure Improvement Program — how it will benefit them and their neighborhood. We would ask about the best ways to communicate with them, and with the members of their group. We would identify any potential community issues that stand in the way of the M's success. The ascertainment results will help us to refine recommendations regarding appropriate media and messages. We will report out the ascertainment results in a written report, along with a list of interviewees. The findings will be made accessible and useful throughout the implementation of the IIP's education and outreach program. Task 2 Create a program identity. Theme Development The creative process begins by generating some theme ideas that would communicate the connection between infrastructure and life style. After initial client review, the themes would be developed more fully. Once the theme ideas have been narrowed down, we propose to return to selected interviewees from the ascertainment. process to test the themes. While focus groups have been the traditional way to test marketing messages, we believe utilizing individuals from the ascertainment process for this analysis will yield more valuable information and responses to our theme. And, again, the process will help to enlist individuals, families and groups in the grassroots program. Finally, we must remember throughout the public education program to keep the message simple. This is especially important when discussing the complexities of infrastructure and financing. We propose, then, to create a unified look, with an identity that all residents can associate with the positive benefits of sound infrastructure. The identity would be adapted to each element of the outreach program, but would still retain a unified look that is immediately associated with the program. Task 3 Public Information and Community Outreach Program Elements Public Information and Community Outreach Program Development The development of the public information and community outreach strategic plan will address the issues and interest groups identified during the scoping and ascertainment. Its elements will include the tasks that follow, and will be strategically planned to coordinate with project milestones and other factors that come to our attention through research. The strategic plan will incorporate any possible synergies that yield cost.savings, many of which were suggested in the request for proposals (newsletter articles, utility bill inserts, community events, etc.) Implementation will begin upon approval of the plan by the City. Framing and Communicating the IIP Message Early and proper framing of the Infrastructure Improvement Program is essential to establishing the need for sound infrastructure, educating the public about financing issues, and building the support needed to meet future infrastructure needs. Inviting response from various constituencies about the UP includes an inherent requirement to first inform those audiences about the program. We believe that understanding the initial perceptions, possible misunderstandings and perceived benefits of the HP will help us to properly frame and position the program in the public mind and craft effective messages for the outreach program. Based on the outcome of opinion research and community ascertainment we will develop a positioning statement for the program, and a message platform including themes, statement of features and benefits, message and copy points. This platform will be incorporated in all materials, briefings, presentations and outreach efforts. PowerPoint Slide Presentation Once the key messages are developed, they will be incorporated into a PowerPoint presentation. The anticipated audience for the presentation will figure into the writing of the script for the presentation. In addition to information about -the IIP, the presentation will include process information, and, if possible, a call to action that invites viewers to continue to be involved though future meetings or other planned activities. The presentation will include maps, graphics, and photographs, using existing City materials whenever possible to minimize costs. Speaker's Bureau Essential to the success of the Speaker's Bureau is a comprehensive list of community stakeholder groups and organizations that provide opportunities for outreach and information. These groups, along with the names and contact information for representatives, will be developed as part of the Community Ascertainment. FW&A will pro -actively schedule presentations for community groups, and will provide follow-up information for speakers and organization representatives to ensure timely and effective presentations. Speakers for the Speaker's Bureau could come from City staff and CIAC committee members, and could be supplemented by FW&A's outreach specialists, as needed. FW&A's bilingual staff could be most useful in in reaching Spanish and Asian language groups. In this way we hope to provide valuable information to residents, and to hear from them directly about their perceptions, experience, and expectations about the HP. The feedback loop that the Speaker's Bureau encompasses is a valuable tool for ongoing communication. FW&A will schedule HP presentations to the fallowing community groups as possible, including, but not limited to: Neighborhood Groups • HB Downtown Residents Association • Huntington Harbour Property Owners' Association • HB Mobile Homeowners Association • Meredith Gardens Homeowners' Association • Southeast HB Neighborhood Assn. • Friends and Neighbors of Seacliff Business Organizations • Chamber of Commerce • HB Downtown Business Association • North Huntington Beach Business Association Orange County Association of Realtors Schools • Huntington Beach City School District • Huntington Beach Union High School District Ocean View School District City Boards and Commissions • Planning Commission • Finance Board • Citizen Participation Advisory Board • Public Works Commission • Community Services Commission • Environmental Board Fraternal, Civic and Professional Organizations • Amigos de Bolsa Chica • AAUW • Huntington Beach Tomorrow • League of Women Voters --Orange Coast • Republican and Democratic Associations In addition to the information provided by way of the slide presentation, the Speaker's Bureau audiences will also receive collateral material enabling them to bring the message home. Public Workshops The FW&A team workshops will use a creative and interactive approach to generate sincere interest in the IlP from a diverse mix of local business leaders, residents, elected officials and their staffs, environmental and minority community leaders and the general public. Four workshops will be scheduled. Each workshop could be designed for a specific audience (business leaders, homeowner associations, etc), or they could designed as general workshops scheduled across the twelve-month time frame. Initial scoping and ascertainment results will reveal the most appropriate audience mix. Each workshop will begin by introducing the Infrastructure Improvement Program and the community involvement process, past and present. Following the general introduction, the workshop will involve participants in a series of facilitated discussions that help to clearly define the problem, articulate consequences of not meeting the City's infrastructure needs, brainstorm possible solutions, and identify possible action items for various stakeholders. This focus on solutions will help develop a sense of ownership among participants and will, in effect, create a new set of stakeholders in the process --even if they didnt see themselves as such before the workshop. Following each workshop, a report will be provided to the IAC, city staff, and other recipients designated by the city. The input received will help shape. the response to the infrastructure needs of the city. Invitations will be mailed to organizations and individuals identified in the ascertainment and recommended by the City. Dates and locations wiH also be publicized through the newspaper, announcements to local organizations, and other city publications. Although the workshop formats could vary according to specific audiences, each workshop will include: 1. An introduction to and focus on infrastructure issues 2. A pro -active, personal contact effort to ensure representation from stakeholders and opinion leaders 3. A cross section of interests that could play a role in developing program solutions 4. Involvement of and close coordination with local elected officials, city staff and committee members 5. An exit survey to provide quantifiable feedback 6. A participant evaluation The workshops, led by a professional facilitator, will be approximately 2 hours long and scheduled at convenient times and locations. We will work with HBTV-3 local access cable TV to air one or more of the workshops. In addition, we will investigate the possibility of broadcasting the workshops on the Internet. The video, tabletop display, program brochure and other written materials will be the primary communication tools along with key questions targeted for the specific audiences. Develop a Tabletop Display for Community Events FW&A proposes to develop a tabletop display that can serve in any environment — from a casual Street Fair to a formal Economic Summit. It will be portable and will include eye-catching graphics. Collateral materials will be accommodated in racks, and can also be placed on the table in front of the display itself. The key collateral piece that we propose to feature is a program brochure (see description below). Event announcements and fact sheets could also be made available. FW&A will deliver, set up and dismantle the display for a minimum of six events. We also propose to use the display for the public workshops. Program Brochure A key collateral piece in the program will be the creation of a brochure communicating the need for sound infrastructure, the obstacles faced in creating and maintaining it, possible consequences of deferring maintenance and/or infrastructure construction, and a call to action. The HP brochure will be made available at community events, through presentations of the Speakers Bureau, at public workshops, and in press kits. The format will be l I by 17 inches, folded once, printed in four colors on gloss cover. Media Relations Building media and editorial support will be a critical component in educating and creating broad awareness and community support for the Infrastructure Improvement Program. The positioning and framing of the infrastructure issues as well as the public information and outreach effort is an early and continuing priority. It can create an environment of support around the program early in the outreach process. We believe the following media relations activities should be carried out on behalf of the IIP outreach effort. They include those requested in the request for proposal, among others: 30 and 60-second Public Service Announcement — FW&A will write and disseminate monthly (twelve) public service announcements publicizing various outreach activities that are currently taking place and highlighting key messages that have been developed regarding the Infrastructure Improvement Program. The PSAs will be disseminated to radio and TV stations. Creative assistance will be given to HBTV-3 to get the best coverage of the PSAs through cable programs. Additionally, FW&A will keep HBTV-3 informed of any outreach program activities so that they can be included among other announcements on the local cable channel. News releases, pitching and story placement — Print and broadcast outlets will be targeted through a focused database to pitch and place positive stories about the Infrastructure Improvement Program. Special attention will be paid to the major daily papers, the Los Angeles Times and The Register. The Huntingon Beach Wave and the Huntington Beach Independent will offer other editorial opportunities. FW&A will also prepare and disseminate all news releases for the Public Workshops and other events requiring media interface. Briefings, editorial boards — FW&A believes that reaching out to the media early on in the project to clearly explain the benefits of safeguarding infrastructure will build the foundation of accurate, fair and favorable coverage. FW&A will identify opportunities for one-on-one media briefings and editorial boards. "Sands" Magazine Articles — FW&A has found that the quarterly magazines published by cities and delivered to all households are a very effective way of reaching a cross section of local residents. Since the City controls the content of the "Sands" magazine, space can be allocated to this key local issue. Likewise, the upcoming schedule of events for the outreach program can be publicized in the magazine. Huntington Beach Infoline Information The Huntington Beach Infoline provides a cost-effective means for dissemination of information. The fax -back feature is particularly useful because of the flexibility it offers for transmitting printed materials. FW&A will consider this unique medium of communication throughout the course of the outreach program. We have used similar informational "Helplines" with great success on several projects, and we believe the flexibility of the Infoline can assist effectively in the outreach effort for the Infrastructure Improvement Program. Some of the ways we propose to use the Infoline include: event announcements, brief messages or frequently asked questions, fact sheets, and possibly even an informal "poll' if the technology supports such feedback. Key to the success of the Infoline will be the inclusion of the phone number and the three -digit codes for Infrastructure Improvement Program information in all collateral materials, press announcements, flyers, etc. Infrastructure Improvement Program Video The program video will offer information about infrastructure and the issues faced by residents of Huntington Beach in maintaining it. Through the creative use of existing footage, the video will show the infrastructure issues and invite viewers to become part of the solution through participation in the outreach program. It will be created with many possible uses in mind, such as the introduction to the project at public workshops, as a video file on the Web page (a short clip), and as the basis for b-roll for distribution to the media (Including HBTV-3). With both 3-5 minute and 30-minute formats, we will have the flexibility to meet most any presentation need. The video can be produced in other languages if needed to meet the needs of a particular community. Develop Web Page The Web site will be the repository of all public -outreach information. We believe that, even within the short term of this project, the Web will continue to gain favor as a universal source of public information because of the easy access it offers. We propose the Web page to include the following information: • Background information on the Infrastructure Improvement Program • Updates on the Public Information & Community Outreach effort • News releases • Portable document format (PDF) files of the brochure, fact sheets, reports and other relevant information • Low graphics mode for computer users unable to view full graphics versions of video or animation • Link allowing users to request additional information which can be added to an interest list • Link allowing users to view the project video to gain a better understanding of the Infrastructure Improvement Program and its importance to the community. • Link users to live or rebroadcast public workshops Municipal Services Bill Stuffers The municipal services bill, like the "Sands" magazine, offers an opportunity to achieve a broad distribution of information by way of a familiar, well-read medium. FW&A proposes to print 3-color masters for all four billing cycles to achieve cost saving, followed by black imprints of the printed material for each edition of the insert. This method also allows us to use the familiar, recognizable program identity developed specifically for the Infrastructure Improvement Program. Library Information Repositories The library repositories are, quite simply, information notebooks. They contain key project information — all the collateral information that is produced to support the outreach program —in one notebook. The Huntington Beach main library and its branches, along with City Hall, the Chamber of Commerce; and any other public locations which might be appropriate will be sought as locations to house the repositories. We will arrange with the librarians and others to make the notebooks available to patrons upon request, and publicize their presence. Task 4 Attend meetings to facilitate communication between City staff and committees and the. City's consultant team. Meeting attendance is critical to ensure effective communication among consultants, City staff and committees. FW&A is prepared to attend monthly coordination meetings with the city, and to attend and make presentations on the status of the outreach program at monthly CIAC meetings and meetings of its Sub -Committees. City Council presentations will also be accommodated upon request. We have assumed the number of meetings cited in the RFP for our budgeting purposes. Task 5 Support the CIAC in the preparation of the final report for submittal to the City Council. FW&A will work with the CIAC to assist in preparation of a final report to the City Council. This support will include copy preparation and editorial support, graphics support and support in preparing presentation materials for commission and council presentations. Task 6 Provide monthly progress reports (approximately 2 pages) Keeping City staff and committee members informed serves the very important purpose of having all parties remain well informed of the outreach program activities. From the project management perspective, having to articulate the progress of the outreach program can also call attention to issues or process steps that need attention along the way. We propose to make monthly written reports approximately two pages in length. Task 7 Make available key staff to work with the CLAC and its committees, City stab and the consultant team to assist on various issues and activities-40 hours. - Projects of this magnitude inevitably require more coordination than can be anticipated in advance. FW&A will include 40 hours of time to the budget to be assigned as needed in order to ensure that all elements of the outreach plan are effectively implemented, and to ensure that our consulting services are put to work in any way possible on program -related activities. Task 8 Assess the community's awareness and knowledge about the City's infrastructure. Frank Wilson & Associates, Inc. has enlisted the services of Market Research Associates, a leading Southern California based public policy and consumer research organization. We propose to use a three - step approach in order to meet the City of Huntington Beach's needs for the assessment of community awareness. The research is configured to accomplish four main objectives: • To measure overall awareness of the City of Huntington Beach's infrastructure. • To identify current perceptions and attitudes toward the City of Huntington Beach's infrastructure. • To evaluate the acceptance and understanding of a communication program and message statements. • To evaluate the acceptance of potential specific solutions to infrastructure funding to assist policy makers in their decision making. Approach The activities we propose to meet these. objectives are as follows: 1. Focus Groups As one of the first activities in Phase One of the program we propose to conduct focus groups among citizens of Huntington Beach to gauge public. understanding of the city's infrastructure needs. The focus group results will reveal current awareness and perceptions of the City of Huntington Beach's infrastructure at this point in time. 2. Initial Telephone Survey Following the focus groups, also in Phase One, an initial telephone survey will help identify relevant messages to include in the development of outreach program materials. The survey will also provide an opportunity to understand public perceptions of the issues and potential solutions identified in the Citizens Infrastructure Advisory Committee's report -to the City Council. 3. Final Telephone Survey This final "track" survey will be conducted during the second phase of the program, and is intended to provide the City with information related to specific potential funding solutions and infrastructure needs. It is expected that this survey will be among the last activities in the outreach program. Additional information needs will be discussed during the design phase and incorporated into the research activities. Focus Groups Design specifications for the focus groups follow: Group composition and location — Market Research Associates recommends that two groups be conducted in the City of Huntington Beach. We recommend that one group be conducted among citizens between the ages of 18 and 34, and one group among citizens between the ages of 35 and 65. Screener and Discussion Guide — With the City's agreement to proceed, Market Research Associates will design a screening questionnaire for recruiting. Once the screener is approved, recruiting will begin and we can start discussion guide development. A typical discussion guide contains 8 to 10 pages of carefully worded investigation. As mentioned previously, the groups will be designed to investigate perceptions of the communication materials developed for this audience. Participants — All participants will be registered voters and citizens of the City of Huntington Beach. No participant will be an employee of any government or city entity. Additional qualifiers can be determined during the design phase of the screening questionnaire. Length — Each group will last approximately two hours. Where possible, the two groups will be conducted on the same day allowing for cost efficiencies. We recommend that a meal be served at each group. Observation and recording — All groups will be conducted at a focus group facility equipped to allow monitoring of the groups via a one-way mirror. In addition, the groups will be video and audio recorded to ensure a complete record for analysis purposes. Although all sessions will be audio and video recorded, we encourage representatives of the City of Huntington Beach to attend all focus groups. List source — Participants will be recruited from lists provided by Market Research Associates. The lists are designed specifically for market research purposes and will contain individual names and telephone numbers as specified by Market Research Associates. Market Research Associates does not use a database of focus group participants. This ensures that every group participant is selected based on pre- defined selection criteria and is not a professional participant who attends focus groups on a regular basis. Communication material - In .order for participants to understand and evaluate potential communication . materials, it is important that they see the materials under consideration. Frank Wilson & Associates, Inc. will be responsible for providing Market Research Associates with several proposed materials for discussion during the focus groups. Market Research Associates will work with Frank Wilson & Associates, Inc. to ensure proper display at the focus group that will eliminate any perceived bias. Moderation -- Barbara Foster will moderate all groups. This will ensure consistency throughout the project. In addition, Barbara's experience with previous communication research will aid in complete probing of all issues. Cooperation fee — We have found that there are definite advantages to paying participants for their time. and opinions. Since participants tend to view their time as valuable, a cooperation fee is helpful to encourage attendance. Based on past experience, we suggest participants receive a co-op fee of $50 each. Results — Results from the research will be interpreted and analyzed into a concise, comprehensive report. The written report will be precise and designed to be read and easily understood by parties having no direct involvement with the research. The report will also include specific, actionable recommendations on communication material selection. These recommendations are based on past experience and findings unique to the research. Market Research Associates' experience in conducting research makes these recommendations one of the most valuable aspects of our service. Oral Presentation — Market Research Associates will also deliver a verbal presentation of the research results. The oral presentation will be a complete review and interpretation of the results from the focus groups. The results presentation is a major benchmark that can make or break a research project. This forum helps facilitate understanding, support and team building towards effective use of research findings. In particular, the opportunity to ask questions and discuss results is appreciated by our clients. Initial Telephone Survey Design specifications for the survey follow: Sample size, distribution and reliability — Market Research Associates recommends a sample size of 300 be used. To provide the most accurate picture of perceptions in the City of Huntington Beach, we recommend this sample size emulate the current demographic breakdown of city demographics as shown below. Ethnics Caucasian Hispanic African American Asian or Pacific Islander Other Age 18 - 34 34% 35 - 54 42% 55 or older 24% Income Under $25,000 $25,000 to $49,000 $50,000 to $74,999 $75,000 to $99,999 $100,000 to $149,999 $150,000 or more Percent in the City of Huntington Beach 72% 14% 1% 12% 1% 14% 27% 25% 16% 12% 6% Statistically estimated sampling error is commonly used as a comparative measure of projectability of a survey sample. The "worst case" ((50150) split, 95% confidence level) theoretical reliability for a sample of 400 is ±5.1%. List source -- Respondents will be selected using a random digit dialing technique. This technique ensures that all residents of the City of Huntington Beach have equal opportunity to be included in the research, regardless of whether or not their phone number is listed. Respondent criteria — Criteria for inclusion in the research will be a citizen of the City of Huntington Beach who is 18 or older. Additional qualifiers, if any, will be discussed during the design phase. Interviewing methodology — We have assumed a 10-minute interview with two open-ended questions. Additional open-ended questions can be added with adjustments to the budget. We believe this interview length to be sufficient for addressing all objectives as outlined in this proposal. Pre -test questionnaire design — Market Research Associates will design the research questionnaire with input from Frank Wilson & Associates, Inc. and the City of Huntington Beach. We invite all parties who will be required to take action based on the findings to be involved in the design process.. -No interviews will be conducted until the City of Huntington Beach has given approval to the questionnaire. Pretesting — Once we've agreed on the design, we will pretest the survey instrument. A pretest of the instrument will allow us to: • Ensure that all questions are worded appropriately and that the survey flows smoothly. • Test our assumptions concerning the ease of locating respondents. • Refine the budget, if necessary, based on actual interview length and completion rates. Data collection and monitoring — Once the questionnaire is approved, the interviewing will begin. Experienced, professional interviewers will place all calls. Market Research Associates quality assurance program requires that supervisors monitor a minimum of 20% of all calls. Immediate feedback to interviewers guarantees that questioning is on target and probing is complete. To ensure a proper representation of Spanish, Mandarin and Vietnamese speaking respondents, bilingual interviewers will be used to interview these respondents. Data Processing — As data are collected, they will be entered into Market Research Associates computer database for analysis and processed into easy -to -read tables. Market Research Associates computer software is designed specifically for market research needs and is some of the most sophisticated available today. Additionally, we anticipate subjecting certain data to a variety of statistical analyses to enhance usability of the findings. Results — Results from the questionnaire will be presented in written and oral reports to the City of Huntington Beach. Five bound copies of the report will be provided. The written analysis will include Executive Summary, Methods, Detailed Results, Recommendations for Action, Survey Questionnaire, and Computer Data Tabulations. The written report will be concise and designed to be read and easily understood by parties with no direct involvement with the research. We currently expect the report to include bar graphs, tables, and perceptual maps as a way of presenting the results in an easy -to -read format. The report will include a set of actionable recommendations based on past experience and findings unique to the research. Market Research Associates' experience in conducting similar research for non-profit organizations and our experience conducting research for Frank Wilson & Associates, Inc. and the City of Huntington Beach makes these recommendations one of the most valuable aspects of our service. Oral presentation — The oral presentation will be a complete review and interpretation of the results of the pre- and post-test telephone survey. Use of color graphics enhances the ease of understanding and interpreting the data. The results presentation is a major benchmark that can make or break a research project. This forum helps facilitate effective use of the research results through understanding, support and team building. In particular, the opportunity to ask questions and discuss results with the researcher is appreciated by our clients. Market Research Associates can include in the presentation a 15 to 20 minute videotape showing highlights from the focus groups for a small increase in the budget. These video excerpts are particularly effective for those individuals involved with this research but unable to attend all of the focus groups. Post-test questionnaire design —Market Research Associates will review the questionnaire used in the pre -test and recommend changes, if necessary. As with the post-test questionnaire, no interviews will be conducted until the City of Huntington Beach has given approval to this questionnaire. Final Telephone Survey The final community survey will be a brief track survey --no more than seven minutes long. There will be no open-ended questions and a brief analysis. The sample size, respondent criteria and interviewing methodology for this survey will be the same as for the initial survey. This survey is intended to provide the City of Huntington Beach with key information related to.potential specific solutions to the infrastructure funding identified in the report to the Council. CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PUBLIC INFORMATION AND COMMUNITY OUTREACH CONSULTING SERVICES PHASING PLAN '.T.ask 2 Create Program Identity ' 0 . 0 32 $3,770 $31770 ,, _.: .. .. _u .. Task 3 .:.. _ ..� .... Develop & Implement Outreach .30 $10,101 _ 503 ,:. $76,522 $86,623 Plan .... _._. Task 4 Attentl Meetings 50 $5,608 100 $11,217 $16,825 Task 5 Support Preparation of CIAO p $10,350 0 0 $10 350 Reportto Council Task 6 Prov'tle Monthly Progress , 11 $1,380 21 $2,760 $4;140 _ Report' Task 7 Support CIAC.'and Staff 30 $3,550 30.; $3,550 $7,100 Actrvdies Task 8 Assess';the Community about 130 $40,588 56 $15,222 ;; $64,810 _... lnfrastructure;Issues Total 351 $81,997 742 $113,04 $195038 Phase One This phase of the outreach program includes research, strategy development, and positioning of the Infrastructure Improvement Program. Two focus groups and 15 to 20 individual ascertainment interviews with community leaders will help define issues. Frank Wilson & Associateswill assist in the preparation of the Infrastructure Advisory Committee's report to the City Council, ensuring that the research results benefit the formulation of their recommendations. Frank Wilson & Associates will also create a Public Information and Community Outreach Strategic Plan which.will identify the activities and timeframe for Phase Two implementation. The last step in Phase One, the opinion research, will helpidentify residents' issues and awareness of local infrastructure issues and will assist in the effort to formulate the outreach program's key messages. Phase Two In this phase of the outreach program, the project's theme and messages will be developed and incorporated into a broad range of media, from web page and video to print materials and HB Infoline announcements. Materials will reach Huntington Beach residents through existing and new channels of communication, from the City's "Sands' magazine and stuffers in municipal services bills, to a speakers program and public workshops. A final community survey will be provided to assist decision -makers in identifying preferred solutions to.the City's infrastructure problems. Attachment 3 Resume of the Project Director, Project Manager, and Community Survey Consultant for Frank Wilson & Associates George Urch: Mr. Urch has over 20 years of public relations and communications work experience, most recently serving as the City of Ontario's Public Information Officer. In that capacity he developed and implemented a proactive communications and public relations program to provide information to the media, public, and business community about various City and Redevelopment Agency activities, projects, and accomplishments. He also provided media training for City Council, City Manager, Redevelopment Agency- Director, and City Department 'Heads and Staff, and assisted Ontario Convention Center, Ontario International Airport, Ontario Mill Mall, Ontario Museum of History and & Art, Ontario Chamber of Commerce, and Downtown Business Association with press activities and special events. Mr. Urch also has worked as an aide to elected officials at the state and federal levels of government, developing and managing their legislative and local district outreach programs, His extensive work experience on the federal, state, and local levels has given him a strong command of public agencies' needs, Politics, policy issues, and legislative process. Julie Chay: Julie Chay will serve as the Project Manager and the primary contact for the Community Outreach effort. Her experience includes seven years in city government, and numerous community outreach programs during the past ten years. She facilitated a group decision -making process related to sewer construction, and has developed consensus -based solutions for transportation issues such as road alignments and construction -related issues. Ms. Chay has developed community support for residential projects, and was instrumental in mobilizing grass -roots support for local transportation solutions like Newport Coast Road and the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor during their early planning stages. Barbara Foster: Barbara Foster founded Market Research Associates in 1993, and focuses on providing actionable research results and outstanding service to her clients. Market Research Associates has grown to a staff of eight full-time professionals and annual sales of approximately $1 million. Ms. Foster serves a variety of clients and industries. Among her projects for public agencies are market research studies for Los Angeles International Airports (LAX) and the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA). For LAX, Ms. Foster conducted a segmentation study of people who fly in and out of LAX, finding out which passengers would be more likely to try public transit to get to and from the airport. For OCTA, Market Research Associates demonstrated their ability to use innovative methods to get accurate data. When the specific audience could not be reached through traditional telephone surveys, polls were conducted on busses to determine the impact of proposed bus schedule changes, and to test awareness of information on bus signs. As the firm's Principal, Ms. Foster oversees all facets of the business, and ensures that every project is complete using the highest standards of the market research profession Ms. Foster holds a Masters Degree in Business Administration, and a Bachelor of Science Degree in Business Administration and Psychology. She is a member of the American Marketing Association, the Marketing Research Association and the Qualitative Research Consultants Association. She also has served on the Board of Directors for the Orange County American Marketing Association CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH RFP forPubhc bbma6m & Canmuviy Q teadi Corning Savioes for Irlfra1rudtuehVMV=% t %W= Page 1 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY ADMINISTRATION OFFICE OF PUBLIC INFORMATION REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS For Professional Public Information & Community Outreach Consulting Services For Infrastructure Improvement Program October 18, 1999 PROPOSAL SUBMITTALS: Responses to the Request for Proposal (RFP) are to be submitted to: Mr. Richard Amadril, Central Services Manager Administrative Services City of'Huntington Beach City Hall 2000 Main Street P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 714/536-5221, Fax # 714/374-1571 No later than 4:00 P. M. on November 22,1999. Fifteen (15) copies of the proposal shall be submitted in a sealed envelope and marked: "Proposal for Consultant Services, Public Information & Community Outreach for the City's Infrastructure Improvement Program." Proposals received after the specified time will not be accepted and will be returned unopened. A pre -proposal conference will be held for all consultants on October 28, 1999, at 9:00 A.M. at the Huntington Beach Civic Center, 2000 Main Street, in the City Council Chambers. Questions regarding this request may be addressed Richard Amadril, Central Service Manager in writing.. CONTENTS SECTION PAGE I. Introduction 2 I1. Schedule of Events 2 III. General Background 2 IV. Proposal Instructions and Conditions 4 V. Scope of Work 5 VI. Fee Proposal Requirements 8 VII. Proposal Requirements 9 VIII. General Requirements 11 IX. Consultant Evaluation & Selection Process 12 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH RFP forPublic k famra&an & CAm i * Ol,rtma& Cor>a,1ldrlg Savi= for k&Aft=nkWMV rneatPW9= Page 2 I. INTRODUCTION The City of Huntington Beach is requesting proposals from qualified firms for assisting the City in the development and implementation of a Public Information 86 Community Outreach Program for the City's Integrated Infrastructure Management Program (LIMP). Conducting community surveys will also be part of the proposed scope of work. II. SCHEDULE OF EVENTS October 20, 1999 Issuance of Request for Proposals October 28, 1999 A pre -proposal conference for consultants, 9:00 am. Huntington Beach Civic Center, 2000 Main street, Huntington Beach, CA, City Council Chambers November 22, 1999 Proposal due from consultants by 4:00 p.m. November 30, 1999 Consultant selection panel reviews proposals and establishes a short list to be interviewed December 6, 1999 Interview panel conducts consultant interviews (tentative date) January 4, 2000 City Council approval of Consultant Contract (tentative date) January 5, 2000 Issuance of notice -to -proceed (tentative date) III. GENERAL BACKGROUND Huntington Beach is a charter city, administered by a Council/Administrator form of government. Huntington Beach is a full service city encompassing an area of 28 square miles with a population of 196,700. The total annual City budget is approximately $234 million, with the General Fund portion of the budget totaling approximately $110 million. In April 1997, the Integrated Infrastructure Management Program (LIMP) was presented to the City Council. The 1IMP was the result of many years of effort by the City's Finance Board, Public Works Commission, and City Staff. In 1995, The City's Finance Board informed the City Council that the City's infrastructure needs, including required capital improvements, rehabilitation, reconstruction, and maintenance were under funded. The City Council directed the Public Works Department staff to compile a study of infrastructure needs and make recommendations for a financing strategy. In 1996, the City Council established the City's first Public Works Commission that undertook a series of infrastructure workshops with City Staff over approximately one year. These workshops culminated in the development and presentation of the Integrated Infrastructure Management Program (LIMP) to the City Council in April 1997. The IIMP is: • A comprehensive inventory of the City's capital assets; • A projection of required capital improvements, rehabilitation, reconstruction, and maintenance needs including estimated costs for the next 20 years; • A projection of funding available to the City for each infrastructure component for the 20 year period; and • The estimated shortfall of funds to meet the projected needs for each component. The IIMP has forecast a funding shortfall of approximately $600 million over the next 20 years. As a direct result of the IIMP, the City Council, in March 1998, appointed a Citizen Infrastructure Advisory Committee (CIAC) to begin a community -wide effort to address the City's infrastructure needs. This committee is comprised of 35 primary members and an equal number of alternates, representing a cross section of leaders from community and business IIMP-M-REVISEDDOC/g/contmets I0n0/9910:23 AM CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH RFP for Pubhe Information & Catm nmy OI.Itreadi Car>a1k% Savkxs for k&dstruch"Imp uyarwtPmgarn Page 3 organizations as well as City commissions and boards. The CIAC's mission is to review the LIMP and forecasted shortfall of public funding resources and make recommendations to the City Council regarding the optimum approach for financing/ funding the most critical and long term infrastructure needs of the community. This was to be accomplished by: • Becoming informed about the existing infrastructure conditions as well as projected long-term requirements of the City; • Becoming generally informed about the City's overall revenue sources, expenditures, and budgets; Evaluating and recommending possible financing/funding methods; and • Participating with the City Council in joint workshops/study sessions. The recommendations that are to be presented to the City Council by the CIAC will be designed to insure the future viability of the City's infrastructure systems. The CIAC studied such facilities as: the community drainage facilities, sewer facilities, streets and highways, public owned buildings, public owned parks and landscaped areas, sidewalks, curb and gutters, traffic signals, street lighting, and highway block walls. At the start of the process, many of the Committee members themselves had only a rudimentary understanding of the City's infrastructure. The CIAC has been meeting on a regular basis since March 1998 to: • Educate themselves about the current condition of the community's infrastructure; • Understand the immediate and long term (20 year) needs for the community's infrastructure; • Become knowledgeable about the cost to build, replace, and maintain required infrastructure systems; • Prioritize infrastructure needs as part of a twenty (20) year plan; and • Identify and understand the various financial methods that are available to fund city infrastructure. The City and the CIAC believe it is time to expand the infrastructure educational process they have gone through, to the community as a whole. The committee believes that the time has come for the City to make a concerted effort to inform the public on the real need to repair, replace, upgrade and maintain the City's infrastructure. The purpose of employing the services of a Consultant is to assist the City and the CIAC in presenting information about the City's infrastructure to Huntington Beach residents. The Consultant will be expected to provide leadership for educating the residents and the media about the condition of the community's infrastructure. The ultimate goal of the Public Information & Community Outreach Program is to insure that residents are fully aware of the infrastructure needs of the Community and the difficult choices that they and the City Council may be asked to make about the City's infrastructure. The CIAC anticipates bringing a series of findings, conclusions and recommendations forward to the City Council in December 1999 or January 2000. Under the Scope of Work (Task 5), the Consultant is required to assist the CIAC and City Staff in the preparation of the final report of the CIAC, with its findings, conclusions, and recommendations for submittal to the City Council. Following the release and presentation of the CIAC's report to the City Council, the City Council will consider the Committee's recommendations. Once the report has been reviewed and discussed by the City Council Members, it is anticipated that the City Council will provide direction based upon the findings and recommendations of the CIAC's report. It IIhIP-RFP-REVISED.DOGg/contracts 10/20/9910:23 ANI CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH RFP for Public In&mation & Communrity 0&each Corwlhng Services for Page 4 will be this City Council directed program that the Consultant will need to bring to the attention of the local residents. IV. PROPOSAL INSTRUCTIONS AND CONDITIONS 1. Pre -Contractual Expenses - Pre -Contractual expenses are defined as expenses incurred by proposers in: • Preparing a proposal in response to the RFP • Submitting that proposal to the City of Huntington Beach • Negotiating with the City of Huntington Beach in any matter related to this RFP, proposal, and/or contractual agreement • Any other expenses incurred by the proposer prior to the date of an executed contract. The City of Huntington Beach shall not, in any event, be liable for any pre -contractual expenses incurred by any proposer. In addition, no proposer shall include any such expenses as part of the price proposed to perform the requested services. 2. Authority to Withdraw RFP and/or Not Award Contract - The City of Huntington Beach reserves the right to withdraw the RFP at any time without prior notice. Further, the City makes no representations that any agreement will be awarded to any proposer responding to this RFP. The City expressly reserves the right to postpone the opening of proposals for its own convenience and to reject any and all proposals in response to this RFP without indicating any reasons for such rejection(s). 3. Right to Reiect Proposal -The City of Huntington Beach reserves the right to reject any or all proposals submitted. Any award made for this engagement will be made to the proposer which, in the opinion of the City, is best qualified to perform the services. 4. Discrepancies in Bid Documents - Should proposer find discrepancies in, or omissions from the request for proposal, or if the intent of the invitations are not clear, and if provisions of the specifications restrict proposer from proposing, they may request in writing that the deficiency(s) be modified. Such request must be received by the Central Services Manager five (5) days before due date. All proposers will be notified by addendum of any approved changes in request for proposal documents. 5. Oral Statements - The City of Huntington Beach is not responsible for oral statements made by any of their employees or agents concerning request for proposal. If the proposer required specific information, proposer must request that it be supplied in writing by the City of Huntington Beach. [IMP-RFP-REMED.DOC/g/ccntracts I 2019910:23 All CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH RR fbrPubfic Mbmafim & Caarnrnufty OW meach Cumilftg Services for hfRMUCt=hqXUV=er1tPhVdM Page 5 V. SCOPE OF WORK The Consultant will be expected to develop and implement a Public Information and Community Outreach Program, consistent with City Council direction that will educate local residents about the City's infrastructure needs. The Consultant will be expected to develop and implement overall communications strategies,. tactics and activities, as well as an implementation schedule. This will ensure that the local residents understand the City's infrastructure needs and what financial commitment is required to meet those needs. Also, coordination with the CIAC and the CIAC Public Education Sub -Committee and the City's Public Information Office (PIO) is mandatory, and attendance at meetings required. The Communications Consultant must provide for coordination between the City's PIO and the Consultant. In general, there are two Parts to the scope of work to be performed by the Consultant: Part I addresses the development and implementation of a Public Information and Community Outreach Program. Part II addresses the need to survey community members regarding their opinions, attitudes and awareness about the City's infrastructure needs. It is anticipated that the City will employ the Consultant from November 1999 till December 2000. The scope of work of the Consultant's services shall include, but not be limited to, the following Tasks: PART I - PUBLIC INFORMATION AND COMMUNITY OUTREACH TASK 1 - Become knowledgeable about the City's Infrastructure Improvement Program 1.1 Meet with the City Officials and the CIAC. 1.2 Attend meetings of the CIAC, the CIAC Steering Committee, the CIAC Public Education Sub -Committee, and the Public Works Commission; 1.3 Meet with other groups that can contribute to the Consultant's overall understanding of the City's Infrastructure Improvement Program. TASK 2 - Create a program identity 2.1 Develop a simple and effective format for communicating the most critical information generated by the City's Infrastructure Improvement Program, incorporating a consistent "look", i.e. theme, mastheads, fact sheets, etc. TASK 3 - The Consultant shall develop a comprehensive Public Information and Community Outreach Plan for approval by the City. The Plan shall include strategies, tactics, and an implementation schedule. Upon approval of the Plan, the Consultant shall be responsible for undertaking the tasks required to implement the Plait. The Plan shall include, but not be limited to, the following: 3.1 Identify the recommended target audience and the communication resources to be used to communicate with the audience (i.e. newsletters, speaker's bureau, voter registration programs, mailers, television, & media, etc.) Help the City focus on the most cost-effective media with the target audience in mind, rather than an array of methods that are not particularly cost-effective. CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH RFP fbrRlbbchfwnafion& Commauty Wmach CoruIfing Services for h*a= ltu>yImprova xtltProgram 6 3.2 The Public Information and Community Outreach Plan shall include a combination of elements from the following candidate list, or others that maybe brought forward, that combine to yield the most cost-effective package for gaining understanding and support for this program. Suggested elements to be evaluated for inclusion in the program include, but are not limited to: 3.2.1 Develop the key messages that need to be frequently shared with the 'residents about the CIAC process, City Budget & City's Infrastructure Improvement Program; 3.2.2 Write a script and prepare a PowerPoint slide presentation that provides current information about the Infrastructure Improvement Program; 3.2.3 Identify community stakeholder groups and organizations that will need to be communicated with under the Public Information and Community Outreach Program; 3.2.4 Develop a Speaker's Bureau, and schedule speaking engagements throughout the year 2000 at which the Infrastructure Improvement Program can be presented; 3.2.5 Conduct a minimum of four (4) public workshops; 3.2.6 Develop a display and collateral support materials for distribution at a minimum of six (6) community events; 3.2.7 Draft press releases and coordinate their dissemination with the City; 3.2.8 Using City video footage that is already available, work with HBTV-3 to write a video script for a short (3-5 minute) and longer (30 minute) video highlighting the salient points about the City's Infrastructure Improvement Program; 3.2.9 Write 30 and 60 second Public Service Announcements and provide creative input to HBTV-3 for distribution over cable television stations (assume 12 PSA's will be required); 3.2.10 Write articles about the Infrastructure for inclusion in each issue of the "Sands" magazine which is published quarterly by the City and distributed to Huntington Beach residents; 3.2.11 Develop and publish a Web page linked to the City's Web page containing information about the City's Infrastructure Improvement Program, and subsequent information that becomes available, resulting from the CIAC and City Council actions; 3.2.12 Develop 4" x 6'° information sheet for inclusion into the City's Municipal Services Bill at least four (4) times during the year 2000; 3.2.13 Prepare written material for insertion into mailers or to be handed out; 3.2.14 Develop information for inclusion on the Huntington Beach Infoline. TASK 4 -- The Consultant's proposal shall include a plan for attending meetings scheduled throughout the year 2000 which will facilitate communication between City Staff, the City's Consultant Team and the CIAC Steering Committee, the CIAC Public Information Sub -Committee, and Consultant's key staff. 4.1 Attend monthly coordination meetings with the City. Assume twelve (12) meetings; 4.2 Attend and make presentations at monthly CIAC meetings. Assume twelve (12) meetings; U.%IP-RFP-REVISED.DOC/g/contracts 10/20%9910:23 A.NI CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH RFP forPllblicR&ma6w & Catrmm6Ly OAmadi Com ft Services for hfflRSftUc IrTMvei= t Rog= Page? 4.3 Attend and make presentations at monthly CIAC Public Information Sub - Committee or other CIAC Sub -Committees as established from time -to - time. Assume twelve (12) meetings; and 4.4 Attend and make presentations at City Council meetings on an as -needed basis. Assume four (4) meetings. TASK 5 - Provide consultation and support to the CIAC in the preparation of the final report of the CIAC with its finding, conclusions, and recommendations for submittal to the City Council. TASK 6 -- The Consultant shall provide monthly progress reports (approximately 2 pages). TASK 7 - In addition to other Tasks the consultant shall make available key staff to work with the CIAC and its committees, City Staff, and the City's Consultant Team to provide input and assistance on various issues and activities that may come up during the course of the Consultant contract. It is intended these services be for tasks that are not otherwise covered under Tasks ! through 6 of Part I or Part II of the Scope of Work. A budget of a specified number of hours, not to exceed a specified amount, shall be set aside in the contract for this task. For the purposes of this proposal, the Consultant shall use forty (40) hours as the budget amount. PART 11 - ASSESSING COMMUNITY OPINION TASK 8 - Assess the community's awareness and knowledge about the City's infrastructure. 8.1 Establish a baseline of awareness about the community's infrastructure needs. Working with the CIAC, develop a plan which will enable the Consultant to gauge the awareness and knowledge of community stakeholders (i.e. editorial boards, elected officials, city boards, committees and commissions, service organizations, community and neighborhood -based groups, and organizations) about the City's Infrastructure Improvement needs and the Plan to address those needs. 8.2 . As may be required, eniploy and manage the services of a public opinion research consultant to assist in determining the public opinions, attitudes and awareness about the City's infrastructure needs. Techniques to be used by the Consultant in conducting community ascertainment studies are to be approved by the City. 8.1.1 Formulate the proposed process for obtaining a quantitative sample of public opinion. The City and CIAC shall approve the appropriate audience size which must be large enough to ensure an effective demographic and geographic cross tabulation of the results; 8.1.2 Collaborate with the public opinion consultant, CIAC, and the City staff in formulating the survey questions to be asked of local residents; IIMP.RFP-REVISED.DOC/gicontracts 10120/9910:23 AM CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH RFP forPubfic man & Coarlilu,uriry Wmach Carting Savioes for Iri 8&UCWM hTMM Xlt Program PaW$ 8.1.3 Conduct surveys using such public opinion techniques as telephone surveys,, focus groups, and other communications methods to determine local residents' attitudes and understanding about City infrastructure needs; . 8.1.4 Conduct a survey to assess community awareness of infrastructure needs and prevailing attitudes and or themes within approximately the first sixty (60) days following the notice to proceed; 8.1.5 The Consultant shall assume that two subsequent surveys may need to be conducted at specified intervals within a twelve (12) month period to assess any changes in the public's awareness and changing attitudes, as well as gather further information and data; 8.1.6 The Consultant shall prepare and deliver to the City, within two (2) weeks after each survey completion, a final report that includes an analysis of the survey results and summarization of public awareness and attitudes about the City infrastructure; 8.1.7 Develop a recommended means of monitoring the effectiveness of the Public Information and Outreach Program. Candidate methods include telephone surveys, focus groups, or other communication methods. V. FEE PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS In preparing the proposal fee schedule for the services identified under the scope of work, the Consultant shall take into consideration the following: Compensation for services provided in completing the tasks under Parts I and II shall be based upon an hourly rate, not to exceed the total compensation of the authorized budget amount for each part. 2. A work plan, together with a breakdown of labor hours by employee billing classification together with the cost of non -labor and sub -consultant services, shall be included with the fee proposal. The labor breakdown shall be compiled by project task, and be based on a listing of work tasks that correlates with the Consultant's defined scope of work for the project proposal. This information will be used by the City to evaluate the reasonableness of the Fee Proposal, and will be used in negotiating the final fee amounts for the contract agreement. 3. The Consultant shall state in the fee proposal the number of hours allotted in its fee amount for each task identified under the Scope of Work. Also, the Consultant shall state the fee for attending meetings with the CiAC, City staff, and others. Should the amount of hours expended during these tasks exceed the amount included in the fee quote, the Consultant may be authorized to invoice the City for the additional hours upon first notifying the City that the budget limit for meetings has been reached. The City shall then determine whether additional hours for meetings will be authorized. LIMP-RFP-REVISED.DOClg/contracts 10120i9910:23 Ali CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH RFP farPubfic h&mafim & Carmxviy Wmach Cawft Smioes for hfiaWucftnImp uMr0tProgwn Page 9 4. The Consultant's standard billing rates for all classifications of staff likely to be involved in the project shall be included with the fee proposal, along with the mark- up rate for any non -labor expenses and sub -consultants. 5. The Consultant shall prepare monthly progress billings, reflective of the project schedule. VI. PROPOSAL RFaQUIREMENTS Although no specific format is required by the City, this section is intended to provide guidelines to the Consultant regarding features which the City will look for and expect to be included in the proposal. 1. Content and Format The City requests that the proposals submitted be organized and presented in a neat and understandable format, and be relevant to these services. Consultant's proposals shall be clear, accurate, and comprehensive. Excessive or irrelevant material will not be favorably received. Proposals shall contain no more than twenty-five (25) typed pages using a 10-point minimum font size, including transmittal/offer letter and resumes of key people, but excluding Index/Table of Contents, tables, charts, and graphic exhibits. The purpose of these restrictions is to minimize the costs of proposal preparation, and to ensure that the response to the RFP is fully relevant to the project. The separately submitted Fee Proposal should contain only enough pages to clearly respond to the information that is requested in the RFP. The proposal should include the following: • Transmittal/offer letter; • Page numbering; • Index/Table of Contents; • Team Organization including an organization diagram; • Approach to the Project; • Descriptions of similar projects by key staff to be used on this assignment; • Brief resumes of key staff; • Project schedule. 2. Scope of Services A description of the work program that will be undertaken shall be included in this section. It should explain the technical approach, methodology, and specific tasks and activities that will be performed to address the specific issues and work items identified in the RFP. It should also include a discussion of constraints, problems, and issues that should be anticipated during the contract, and suggestions for approaches to resolving them. MMP-RFP-REVISED.DOC/glcontmcts 10/2019910:23 AM CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH RFP for Pabhc R mrafion& Colr><mmity Outreadi Cawlfirg Seavim for me h V Mvenlerlt Pingarn Page 10 3. Statement of Qualifications The information requested in this section is for the consulting firm to describe the qualifications of the firm, key staff, and sub -consultants used in performing projects within the past five (5) years, that are similar in scope and size, to demonstrate competence to perform these services. The projects listed should be those that the key staff named for the projects were responsible for performing services. Information shall include: • Names of key staff that participated on named projects and their specific responsibilities; • Client names, contact persons, addresses, and telephone numbers; • A brief description of type and extent of services provided; • Completion dates (estimated, if not yet completed); • Total costs of the projects. A sample format for presentation of the above -prescribed information is included as Attachment S for the Consultant's reference. There should be included in the section brief resumes of key personnel who Will provide these services, demonstrating their qualifications and experience. Resumes should highlight education, experience, licenses, relevant experience, and specific responsibilities for services described. 4. Project Team The purpose of this section is to describe the organization of the project team including sub -consultants and key staff. A project manager and an alternate project manager shall be named who shall be the prime contact and be responsible for coordinating all activities with the City. An organizational diagram shall be submitted showing all key team members and illustrating the relationship between the City, the project manager, key staff, and sub -consultants. There also should be a brief description of the role and responsibilities of all key staff and sub -consultants identified in the team organization. 5. Project Schedule A project schedule shall be included which identifies, in graphical format, the timetable for completion of tasks, activities, and phases of the project which correlate with the scope of work for the project. There should be a brief discussion of any key assumptions used in preparing the timetable, and identification of critical tasks and/or events that could impact the overall schedule. 6. Fee Proposal A Fee Proposal shall be submitted in a separate, sealed envelope and marked as 'Fee Proposal", along with the name of the project. The information and detail included in IIMP-UP-REVISED.DOCIg%contracts 10/20/9910:23 AM CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH RFP for Public hf0IYlk6m & Ca71II11.1I]Ry Owmadl COI1 ddrg &rAc 5 for heaAn_0 AE kprovwW PIgg= Pate 11 the Fee Proposal shall conform to the provisions of Section V., Fee Proposal Requirements, of this RFP. A work program, together with a breakdown of labor hours by employee billing classification with the cost of non -labor and sub -consultant services, shall be included with the Fee Proposal. The labor breakdown shall be compiled based on a listing of work tasks'that correlates with the Consultant's defined scope of work for the project proposal. This information will be used by the City staff to evaluate the reasonableness of the Fee Proposal, and may be used in negotiating the final fee amounts for the contract agreement. The Fee Proposal of the three (3) top ranked Consultants will be opened at the conclusion of the Consultant evaluation and selection process. Fees will not be used to determine the ranking of the Consultants. The Fee Proposals of those consultants not ranked in the top three will be returned to them unopened upon award of a contract to the selected Consultant. The city will negotiate the final fee with the top ranked Consultant. Reimbursable expenses shall not be allowed unless negotiated prior to a contract. Price escalations during the contract term are disfavored and shall be approved in negotiations prior to a contract. 7. Statement of Offer & Signature The proposal, including the Fee Proposal, shall be signed by an individual authorized to bind the Consultant. The proposal shall contain a statement that the proposal and accompanied fee is a firm offer for a 60-day period. VII. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS 1. Insurance Requirements The Consultant shall furnish, with the proposal, proof of the following minimum insurance coverage. These minimum levels of coverage are to be maintained for the duration of the project: A. General Llabilitg Coverage - $1,000,000 per occurrence for bodily injury and property damage.- If Commercial General Liability Insurance or other form with a general limit is used, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to this project/location or the general aggregate limit shall be twice the required occurrence limit. B. Worker's Compensation Coverage: State statutory limits. Deductibles, Self -Insurance Retention's, or Similar Forms of Coverage Limitations or Modifications must be declared to and approved by the City of Huntington Beach. IIXIP-RFP-REVISEID.DOC/p,1contracts 10120/9910:23 AM CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH RFP forPubhck&mahon & C.amnuurity Otdteach Cau. ftlg Services for h bra&I,IdlaekpDv=eItPtcg=m Page 12 A sample certificate is included as Attachment C. The Consultant is encouraged to contact its insurance carriers during the proposal stage to ensure that the insurance requirements can be met if selected for negotiation of a contract agreement. 2. Standard Form of Agreement The Consultant will enter into an agreement with the City based upon the contents of the RFP and the Consultant's proposal. The City's standard form of agreement is included as Attachment A. The Consultant shall carefully review the agreement, especially in regard to the indemnity and insurance provisions, and include with the proposal a description of any exceptions requested to the standard contract. If there are no exceptions, a statement to that effect shall be included in the proposal. 3. Assigned Representatives The City will assign a responsible representative to administer the contract and to assist the Consultant in obtaining information. The Consultant also shall assign a responsible representative (project manager) and an alternate who shall be identified in the proposal. The Consultant's representative will remain in responsible charge of the Consultant's duties from the notice -to -proceed through project completion. If the Consultant's primary representative should be unable to continue with the project, then the alternate representative, identified in the proposal, shall become the project manager. The City's representative shall first approve any substitution of representatives or sub -consultants identified in the written proposal. The City reserves the right to review and approve/disapprove all key staff and sub -consultant substitution or removal, and may consider such changes not approved to be a breach of contract. VIII. CONSULTANT EVALUATION &, SELECTION PROCESS The City's consultant evaluation and selection process is based on Qualifications Based Selection (QBS) for professional services. The following criteria will be used in evaluating the proposals using a point value system (100 points) based on the weighting indicated below. 1. Understanding of the project requirements including identification of critical elements and key issues; (10 points) 2. Technical approach and work plan for the project, including innovative approaches; (25 points) 3. Qualifications and experience of the, firm, project manager, other key individuals, and sub -consultants; (30 points) 4. Results of reference checks; (15 points). Reference checks will only be conducted for a short list of firms or the top rated firm; 5. Clarity of proposal; (10 points) 6. Compliance with proposal requirements including the twenty-five (25) page limitation. (10 points) IIMP.RFP-REVIS£D.DOC/gtcontrscts 10/2019910:23 AM CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH RFP forP&Ec man & Ca mnality OWeadi Cmu*g Sffvkn for h*aMixLnIffpDvan=EPMg= Page 13 The City may elect to interview a short list of qualified firms or -to interview only the top rated firm based on the proposals submitted for the project. The City will negotiate a contract with the best -qualified firm for the desired consulting services at compensation, which the City- staff determines is fair and reasonable to the City. Should the City be unable to negotiate a satisfactory contract with the firm considered to be the most qualified, negotiations with that firm shall be formally terminated. Negotiations will then be undertaken with the next most qualified firm. Failing accord with the second most qualified firm, the City will terminate negotiations and continue the negotiation process with the next most qualified firms, in order of their evaluation ranking, until an agreement is reached, a firm is selected, and an agreement is executed. ATTACHMONTS Attachment A ---Sample City Contract Attachment H --- Sample Staff Related Experience Attachment C--- Sample Insurance Certificate IIMP-RFP-REVISED.DOC/g/contracts 10/20/9910:23 AN A w:,:7 I 4 X 4 MIT Frank Wilson & Associates, Inc. Marketing Gomrn"ntcattoria 23332 Mill Creek Drive, Suite 155 Laguna Yillla. California 92653 Tel. 949 . 588 . 1124 Fax. 949 . 588 . 1829 November 22,1999 Mr. Richard Amadril Central Services Manager Administrative Services City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Subject: RFP for Public Information & Community Outreach Consulting Services for Infrastructure Improvement Program Dear Mr. Amadril: Frank Wilson & Associates (FW&A) is pleased to submit our proposal to develop and implement a creative public information and community outreach program for the Infrastructure Improvement Program. FW&A is uniquely qualified to execute the tasks described in the request for proposal, and to provide overall direction and management to the program for the indicated twelve month period. We have devised and managed similar public outreach programs across the United States over the last fifteen years. Local governments throughout California are struggling to meet their infrastructure needs in the face of capital improvement and maintenance funding shortfalls. Huntington Beach, like all cities, must create new ways to meet the infrastructure needs of the next century. The Public Information & Community Outreach effort for the Infrastructure Improvement Program offers a bold step toward a solution: Educating and engaging the community in the problem -solving process. We believe our team can meet the challenge of educating and building public support for infrastructure needs. We are a full -service marketing communications firm with extensive experience in transportation issues. Specifically, we have conducted public outreach programs for various cities, OCTA, Caltrans, and other transportation agencies in the region. We specialize in community relations, public affairs, marketing, and special events. Mr. Rick Arnadril November 22,1999 Page 2 I have revievbed the Citys standard form of agreement and find no exceptions to the standard contract. As the firm's President, I am authorized to represent Frank Wilson & Associates. This proposal and accompanied fee is a firm offer for a 60-day period. If you have any questions or comments, Please do not hesitate to contact me at (949) 588-1124. Sincerely, rank ViAlson President 4 City of Huntington Beach Proposal to Provide Public Information & Community Outreach Consulting Services for Infrastructure Improvement Program Table of Contents Introduction......................................................................................................................................2 ProjectDescriptions.........................................................................................................................5 Project Organization and Team Biographies....................................................................................7 The Frank Wilson & Associates Approach....................................................................................I I ProposedWork Plan.......................................................................................................................12 ProjectSchedule.............................................................................................................................22 Fee Proposal (Submitted under separate cover) Budget by Task --Parts I and 2 Standard Billing Rates Labor Hours by Employee Billing Classification Certificates of Insurance Frank Wilson & Associates 1 Introduction The City of Huntington Beach is embarking on an ambitious project that seeks to educate local residents about the City's infrastructure needs. The goal of the Public Information & Community Outreach effort for the city's Infrastructure Improvement Program (IPP) is to be commended. Few local governments attempt a broad -based outreach program for such a complex.issue..However, many will likely follow suit as growth and maintenance needs overtake local governments' financial resources. FW&A understands the connection between the lifestyle that brought residents to Huntington Beach and the "invisible" infrastructure network that makes that lifestyle possible. Huntington Beach has in its very name one of the costliest and most important infrastructures to be found in Southern California: the beach. It's what brought residents to the city, and what brings millions of local and out-of-town visitors to the city each year. When residents become educated about the issues --when they participate -in devising solutions to the funding shortfall --they will become messengers within their own social groups of the importance of keeping Huntington Beach the desirable city that it is. As part of Huntington Beach's Infrastructure Improvement Program, a Public Information and Community Outreach effort is essential to not only educating the public, but from a broader perspective, to ensuring a eventual solution that incorporates the views of local residents and other important local interests. Frank Wilson & Associates 2 Welcome to Frank Wilson & Associates Building Understanding and Support through Public Outreach Frank Wilson & Associates is widely recognized for its specialized capabilities in community outreach, public involvement, community assessment and coalition building, especially as they relate to infrastructure issues. -The collective experience of our staff includes decades of community involvement and consensus . building, expertise working in television, radio and print media, and award -winning creative/graphic efforts. Renowned in the industry for its achievements, FW&A has helped public agencies across the country build the vision to win over communities and other important audiences for new technologies, -infrastructure and other projects worthy of community support. Whatever the scope, FW&A is able to design and implement a Public Outreach Program to meet project goals with time- and cost-efficient expertise. For the Huntington Beach Infrastructure Improvement Program public information and community outreach project, FW&A has assembled a team with the depth of knowledge and expertise — a team that understands the local community, along with the appropriate technical knowledge. For FW&A, there are no communications challenges we have not encountered. We have marketed and promoted freeway, super street, and toll road construction, water systems and Super Fund remediation. We advise and provide community outreach and public participation services to regional, city, county and special agencies on a variety of public infrastructure ventures. We work with major planning, engineering, development and construction companies on a variety of groundbreaking projects. We assist agencies in promoting airport operations, rapid transit and new roads; and, build consensus and public support for a variety of technical innovations. The FW&A team stands ready to help make the Infrastructure Improvement Program outreach effort a success for the City of Huntington Beach and all its citizens. Frank Wilson & Associates is a California corporation. The address of our headquarters is: FRANK WILSON & ASSOCIATES, INC. 23332 Mill Creek Dr., Suite 155 Laguna Hills, CA 92653 Tel: 949-588-1124 1 Fax: 949-588-1829 The contact for the Huntington'Beach Public information & Community Outreach Consulting Services for Infrastructure Improvement Program is Frank Wilson. Please_ do not hesitate to call him at the above phone number. Frank Wilson & Associates Client List The following is a list of clients with whom FW&A has conducted some of the most highly -regarded projects in the country: Alameda Traffic Management Association Honolulu Mass Transit Arizona Department of Transportation Leeway, Lee County, FL Association for Commuter Transportation Lockheed Martin 1MS California Private Transportation Company Los Angeles World Airports . (91 Express Lanes) MCI California Department of Health and Human MFS Network Technologies Services National Cooperative Highway Research Program Chase Manhattan Bank New Hampshire Department of Transportation City of Irvine North Waterfront Traffic Management City of Los Angeles Association City of Pasadena Orange County Transportation Authority City of San Clemente Parsons Brinckerhoff City of Santa Clarita Parsons Transportation Group Caltrans (several districts statewide) Peter Kiewit Sons, Inc. Denver E-470 Riverside County Transportation Commission The E-ZPass Regional Consortium San Bernardino Associated Governments Delaware Department of Transportation San Diego Association of Governments New Jersey Department of Transportation- Southern California Association of Governments Port Authority of New York New Jersey Southern California Rapid Transit District New Jersey Turnpike Transportation Corridor Agencies North Jersey Transportation Authority --Atlantic Tri-Cities Water District City Expressway Vollmer & Associates HDR Engineering West Virginia Department of Transportation HELP, Inc. Wilbur Smith Associate Recent Award -Winning Campaigns (1998-1999) Recognized by the Public Relations Society of America (PRSA) June 1999 - Silver Anvil Award (PRSA National) FasTrak Launch on the I-15 Express Lanes June 1999 - Bronze Anvil Award (PRSA National) "www.ezpass.com - E-ZPass Web Site" June 1999 - The Jersey Award (New Jersey Ad Club) "www.ezpass.com - E-ZPass Web Site" June 1999 - PROTOS Award (PRSA Orange County) E-ZPass Graphic Standards Guidelines E-ZPass Press Kit Grand Opening of the Eastern Toll Road E-ZPass De1DOT Grand Opening Event "www.e ass.com - E-ZPass Web Site" March 1999 - Polaris Awards (PRSA Inland Empire) I-10 HOV Widening Project FasTrak "Time is on your side" FasTrak launch on I-15 TCA Annual Report August 1998-Edward L. Bernays Award (PRSA San I-15 FasTrak launch for the San Diego Diego Region) Association of Governments (SANDAG) June 1998 - PROTOS Award I-10 HOV Widening Project .15 FasTrak launch for SANDAG Frank Wilson & Associates 4 Client References Client: Co -Par Contact Person: Mr. Greg Hulsizer, General Manager 180 N. Riverview Dr., Suite 290 Anaheim, CA.92808 (714) 637-9191, fax (714) 637-9266 Project Name: Public Awareness and Marketing Campaigns for the 91 Express LanesTm Project Timeframe: 1994- present Key Staff: Frank Wilson, Project Director; Julie Chay, Community Relations Manager; Scott Simpkin, Art Director; Gustavo Santoyo, Media Relations Manager; Patrice Hickey, Production Manager Project Description: FW&A serves as marketing, advertising and public relations counsel for the first private toll road in modern California history. FW&A worked to successfully position the project to gain. official acceptance from government, public and business leaders who were unfamiliar with the toll road concept and the new toll collection technology it uses. FW&A also managed an in-depth community outreach and participation effort during the environmental processing for the project. We also managed community relations and media program to keep residents and potential users apprised during construction. Construction of the project dictated a cohesive and aggressive Public Information Program. FW&A coordinated this effort through a speakers bureau program, a construction hotline, and ongoing community outreach throughout the duration of the project. As construction neared an end, FW&A's work shifted again from a construction -related public awareness effort to marketing -related communications. The agency developed and executed a $1,5 million regional marketing campaign to sell.transponders accounts. Client: Transportation Corridor Agencies (TCA) Contact Person: Mike Stockstill, Director of External Affairs 201 Sandpointe Avenue Suite 200 Santa Ana, CA 92799-3402 (714) 436-9800; Fax: (714) 436-9848 Project Name: Various Marketing and Public_ Affairs Campaigns Project Timeframe: June 1993 - Present Awards: Public Relations Society of America (PRSA) trophies for excellence: Polaris Award, sponsored by the Inland Empire Chapter of PRSA—TCA Annual Report —Honorable Mention Polaris Award -Grand Opening of the Eastern Toll Road —Honorable Mention for Special Events Key. Staff: Frank Wilson, Principal; George Urch, Project Director; Julie Chay; Community Relations Manager; Scott Simpkin, Art Director; Gustavo Santoyo, Media Relations Mariager; Patrice Hickey, Production Manager Project Description: FW&A has worked for the Transportation Corridor Agencies (TCA) since 1993, conducting a wide variety of public outreach, community relations, marketing, creative, media, public relations and special events services for the San Joaquin Hills and Foothill/Eastern Toll Roads and their electronic toll -collection system (FasTrak7M). Today, we continue to provide a variety of professional services to TCA in building public participation, understanding and support for the completion of the final segment in the Agency's 70-mile network of toll roads. The project known as Foothill -South has attracted a firestorm of protest from the environmental community. Frank Wilson & Associates 5 Julie Chay Project Manager/Community Relations Manager Ms. Chay has more than 15 years experience in public affairs including public outreach, community issues management and legislative analysis. She has background in both the public and private sectors, including work at The Irvine Company, the City of Garden Grove and Santiago Canyon College: Ms. Chay has planned public community. support programs for a variety. of projects. Ms. Chay's project involvement' includes: San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor —Public Involvement and Support Strategy HDR Engineering —Facilitated consensus plan for Santa Clarita Parkway Alignment 91 Express Express Lanes —Managed community issues during planning and construction Disney Development Company —Newport Coast Resort Issues Management Earthquake Recovery Program —Spanish translation ofAccelerar brochure The Irvine Company —Newport Coast Project Entitlement Mary's Kitchen Homeless Feeding Program Ascertainment of Community Support Corona del Mar Chamber —Facilitated development of a 5-Year Strategic Plan Ms. Chay spent is bilingual in Spanish and German with reading and translation abilities in both. Gustavo Santoyo Media Relations Manager Mr. Santoyo brings more than 10 years of journalism and media experience to the project team. Mr. Santoyo has amassed several awards as an editor, reporter and columnist, most recently with the Pulitzer Prize-winning Orange County Register, California's fourth largest newspaper. Mr. Santoyo was responsible for launching two Times -Mirror publications in Orange County that collected eight journalism awards in its inaugural year. He also developed a marketing / community outreach plan to increase visibility of publications. In addition to his editing responsibilities, he served as the newspapers' columnist, writing about social and political issues in Orange County. Mr. Santoyo also worked as a reporter for the Orange County Register, covering social, police and education issues in the county's largest city — Santa Ana. He has also covered major sporting events for the Washington Post as a contract reporter. Mr. Santoyo started his journalism career in San Diego as a freelance sports reporter for the La Jolla Light and an associate editor for the now defunct San Diego News & Views. Mr. Santoyo, who is proficient in Spanish, is a key member of the Public Relations Department at FW&A, specializing in project management, strategic planning, and business.development. The Hennessey Group Mike Hennessey Michael Hennessey, founder and president of the Hennessey Group, has worked for more than 13 years for Southern California redevelopment agencies as well as commercial and residential development companies. Mr. Hennessey brings comprehensive expertise in the area of community outreach and an intimate understanding of redevelopment law and infrastructure issues as they pertain to the public sector. Prior to launching Hennessey Group, a real estate development and consulting firm, Mr. Hennessey served as the Orange County Director of Development for the Olson Company, where he was Frank Wilson & Associates 8 responsible for the development of nearly 500 homes spread over nine projects in urban in -fill locations. Mr. Hennessey has developed projects in several Southern California cities, including Garden Grove, Santa Ana, Anaheim, Brea and Huntington Beach where he managed the development of an 80-unit townhome project in the Seagate Master Planned Community. Prior to working at Olson, Mr. Hennessey was a project manager for the cityof Huntington Beach Economic Development Agency after working as a project manager for the Santa Ana Redevelopment Agency. Market Research Associates Barbara Foster, Principal Barbara Foster founded Market Research Associates in 1993, and focuses on providing actionable research results and outstanding service to the client. Market Research Associates has grown to a staff of eight full- time professionals and annual sales of approximately $1 million. Barbara Foster's duties include overseeing all facets of the business and ensuring that every project is complete using the highest standards according the market research profession. She has managed a variety of clients working in a variety of industries. Projects have ranged from political polls to customer satisfaction studies to focus groups. Ms. Foster holds a Masters Degree in Business Administration, and a Bachelor of Science Degree in Business Administration and Psychology. She is a member of the American Marketing Association, the Marketing Research Association and the Qualitative Research Consultants Association. She also has served on the Board of Directors for the Orange County American Marketing Association. Simpkin Design Scott Simpkin, Art Director Mr. Simpkin is a seasoned and award -winning art director and graphic designer. He has years of experience working with FW&A clients such as the Department of Transportation, San Bernardino Associated Governments, Riverside Transportation Commission, San Diego Association of Governments and other government entities. Mr. Simpkin's years of training and experience bring the highest standards of production and design to this project. Mr. Simpkin is an award -winning graphic designer who has served the creative needs of leading government agencies and Southern California corporations for over 15 years. Mr. Simpkin has produced a wide range of business, advertising, and communications materials including annual reports, brochures, catalogues, consumer and trade advertisements, product packaging, corporate identity programs, trade exhibits, audiovisual presentations, and still photography. Mr. Simpkin has produced work for a variety of organizations including United California Savings Bank, Landmark Bank, Caltrans, Unisen, Inc., MCS Anvil, Suzuki Outboards, Conrac, Alston, Disneyland, Rainbird, Secma, Fujitsu,, Pimco Advisors, Downey Savings, Westec, Varco, JWC Environmental, Rancho San Joaquin Community College District, Transportation Corridor Agencies, California Private Transportation Company and Squibb Cardiac Research. Patrice Hickey Production Manager Ms. Hickey's background in advertising and graphic design totals 12 years. She has worked as a graphic designer, illustrator, art director and as Production Manager in a variety of studios and advertising agencies. Her experience spans the business -to -business and consumer markets including finance, retail, real estate, Internet, and computer and technology related clients. She has worked on a variety of projects ranging from Frank Wilson & Associates 9 all types of print collateral, direct mail, signage, local, regional and national ad campaigns, outdoor media, Web site production and multimedia. Ms. Hickey has helped to establish high standards of quality in all her work, from concept to completion using her background as a designer as well as her technical know-how in the production of marketing materials.- She successfully manages the budgets of her clients with an -eye on the client's interests and the bottom line.... Huntington Beach Infrastructure Improvement Program Public Information & Community Outreach Frank Wilson & Associates Organizational Chart City a Huntington Beaah I elaA/CIAc Fra kvJsoa&Aasodates Frank Wilson Ptesldsnl George L'eeh Pralla Dh.emr (Primary Proi.d Mereysh Michael Herutasaer Market Research 1lssaeiatea Cetmaa+lI Dsvedpmant cemuurd Barbara Faster . Markel Ressareh Scott 5im kin Gustavo santa o ulie OrsPatrice Hicke Aek Dlnet�ar Meda Relallaro Msmg.r Cananw iy Aels%@m Mampar Production Manger {Akerrate Project Mamp j Heathee Underwood Aaaa ProducM" Memo., Figure 1 Frank Wilson & Associates 10 The Frank Wilson & Associates Approach Mitigating the challenges and difficulties associated with any large-scale project will rest on the effectiveness of a public information and community outreach plan. Therefore, each tactic/method in the Scope of Work outlined by FW&A is designed to meet head on the challenges identified above. FW&A will follow a specific process to launch a public information and community outreach program for the City of Huntington Beach: Assemble a Client Focus Team —The group assembled by FW&A to help the City of Huntington Beach meet its public information and community outreach needs has the local and technical knowledge, and expertise in infrastructure -related issues. This core group includes a project director, community relations specialist, media relations specialist, public opinion researcher, art director and production manager. Scope the Project with Huntington Beach staff. Before any effort is launched, a kick-off meeting with city staff will uncover the City's needs, desires and priorities to give FW&A a clear understanding of the City's expectations regarding the Infrastructure Improvement Program outreach effort objectives. Perform Assessment of Community issues and Concerns. FW&A then will enter the Huntington Beach. community via ascertainment interviews and focus groups around the City's infrastructure improvement needs and the plan to address those needs. The interviews will gauge the sentiments and values that stakeholders in the community have. This.understanding will help us shape a strategy, messages and prepare for the next step. Develop a Strategy and Plan. Based on feedback from the client and the community assessment, FW&A and the client will.formulate a formal strategy for public information and community outreach. Execute the Strategy. Once strategy is agreed upon, FW&A will move forward with implementing the integrated program with methods and tactics outlined in the strategy. The key strategy elements will be guided by the following values: Manage the Project to the Agreed Schedule and Budget. As a facet of project management, FW&A carefully tracks the overall schedule and budget and can produce periodic management reports to help control the timing and costs for the various communications programs, collateral development, and other services. FW&A is mindful of limited resources and will manage them judiciously to achieve desired results. Champion Infrastructure Improvement Program. Initially, FW&A's team will work with city staff and committee members to clearly define public information and community outreach objectives and strategies, unique challenges and other issues that may affect a campaign. FW&A will serve as advocates for the goals and objectives of the Infrastructure Improvement Program, and mobilize public support at appropriate times during the project life cycle Frank Wilson & Associates 11 Proposed Work Plan Task 1 Become knowledgeable about he Clty's Infrastructure Improvement Program scoping The first step in the project will be a series of scoping meetings with City Officials, the Citizen Infrastructure Advisory Committee and its -subcommittees, and other project consultants to gain an overall understanding of the Infrastructure Improvement Program and identify project priorities. This will include attending meetings of the CIAC, the CIAC Steering Committee, the CIAC Public Education Subcommittee and the Public Works Commission, along with other groups that can contribute to our understanding of the project. We will identify the respective roles of City staff, consultants and committees, and establish guidelines for working with each. Ascertainment We would begin with a community ascertainment. Through a series of individual focused interviews with leaders representing Huntington Beach's broad base of community groups, we would find out what they know and how they feel about the Infrastructure Improvement Program — how it will benefit them and their neighborhood. We would ask about the best ways to communicate with them, and with the members of their group. We would identify any potential community issues that stand in the way of the IIP's success. The ascertainment results will help us to refine recommendations regarding appropriate media and messages. We will report out the ascertainment results in a written report, along with a list of interviewees. The findings will be made accessible and useful throughout the implementation of the IIP's education and outreach program. Task 2 Create a program identity. Theme Development The creative process begins by generating some theme ideas that would communicate the connection between infrastructure and life style. After initial client review, the themes would be developed more fully. Once the theme ideas have been narrowed down, we propose to return to selected interviewees from the ascertainment process to test the themes. While focus groups have been the traditional way to test marketing messages, we believe utilizing individuals from the ascertainment process for this analysis will . yield more valuable information and responses to our theme. And, again, the process will help to enlist individuals, families and groups in the grassroots program. Finally, we must remember throughout the public education program to keep the message simple. This is especially important when discussing the complexities of infrastructure and financing. We propose, then, to create a unified look, with an identity that all residents can associate with the positive benefits of sound infrastructure. The identity would be adapted to each element of the outreach program, but would still retain a unified look that is immediately associated with the program. Task 3 Public Information and Community Outreach Program Elements Public Information and Community Outreach Program Development The development of the public information and community outreach strategic plan will address the issues and interest groups identified during the scoping and ascertainment. Its elements will include the tasks that follow, and will be strategically planned to coordinate with project milestones and other factors that come to our attention through research. The strategic plan will incorporate any possible synergies that yield cost savings, many of which were suggested in the request for proposals (newsletter articles, utility bill inserts, community events, etc.) Implementation will begin upon approval of the plan by the City. Frank Wilson & Associates 12 Framing and Communicating the HP Message Early and proper framing of the Infrastructure Improvement Program is essential to establishing the need for sound infrastructure, educating the public about financing issues, and building the support needed to meet future infrastructure needs. Inviting response from various constituencies about the UP includes an inherent requirement to first inform those audiences about the program. We believe that understanding the initial perceptions, possible misunderstandings and perceived benefits of the UP will help us to properly frame and position the program in the public mind and craft effective messages for the outreach program. -Based on the outcome of opinion research and community ascertainment we will develop a positioning statement for the program, and a message platform including themes, statement of features and benefits, message and copy points. This platform will be incorporated in all materials, briefings, presentations and outreach efforts. PowerPoint Slide Presentation Once the key messages are developed, they will be incorporated into a PowerPoint presentation. The anticipated audience for the presentation will figure into the writing of the script for the presentation. In addition to information about the UP, the presentation will include process information, and, if possible, a call to action that invites viewers to continue to be involved though future meetings or other planned activities. The presentation will include maps, graphics, and photographs, using existing City materials whenever possible to minimize costs. Speaker's Bureau Essential to the success of the Speaker's Bureau is a comprehensive list of community stakeholder groups and organizations that provide opportunities for outreach and information. These groups, along with the names and contact information for representatives, will be developed as part of the Community Ascertainment. FW&A will pro -actively schedule presentations for community groups, and will provide follow-up information for speakers and organization representatives to ensure timely and effective presentations. Speakers for the Speaker's Bureau could come from City staff and CIAC committee members, and could be supplemented by FW&A's outreach specialists, as needed. FW&A's bilingual staff could be most useful in reaching Spanish and Asian language groups. In this way we hope to provide valuable information to 'residents, and to hear from them directly about their perceptions, experience, and expectations about the HP. The feedback loop that the Speaker's Bureau encompasses is a valuable tool for ongoing communication. FW&A will schedule IIP presentations to the following community groups as possible, including, but not limited to: Neighborhood Groups • HB Downtown Residents Association • Huntington Harbour Property Owners' Association • HB Mobile Homeowners Association • Meredith Gardens Homeowners' Association • Southeast HB Neighborhood Assn. • Friends and Neighbors of Seacliff Business Organizations • Chamber of Commerce • HB Downtown Business Association • North Huntington Beach Business Association Orange County Association of Realtors Schools • Huntington Beach City School District • Huntington Beach Union High School District Ocean View School District City Boards and Commissions • Planning Commission • Finance Board + Citizen Participation Advisory Board • Public Works Commission • Community Services Commission • Environmental Board Fraternal, Civic and Professional Organizations • Amigos de Bolsa Chica • AAUW • Huntington Beach Tomorrow • League of Women Voters —Orange Coast • Republican and Democratic Associations Frank Wilson & Associates 13 In addition to the information provided by way of the slide presentation, the Speaker's Bureau audiences will also receive collateral material enabling them to bring the message home. Public Workshops The FW&A team workshops will use a creative and interactive approach to generate sincere interest in the IIP-from a diverse mix of local business leaders; residents, elected officials and their staffs, environmental and minority community leaders and the general public. Four workshops will be scheduled. Each workshop could be designed for a specific audience (business leaders, homeowner associations, etc), or they could be designed as general workshops scheduled across the twelve-month time frame. Initial scoping and ascertainment results will reveal the most appropriate audience mix. Each workshop will begin by introducing the Infrastructure Improvement Program and the community involvement process, past and present. Following the general introduction, the workshop will involve participants in a series of facilitated discussions that help to clearly define the problem, articulate consequences of not meeting the City's infrastructure needs, brainstorm possible solutions, and identify possible action items for various stakeholders. This focus on solutions will help develop a sense of ownership among participants and will, in effect, create a new set of stakeholders in the process --even if they didn't see themselves as such before the workshop. Following each workshop, a report will be provided to the IAC, city staff, and other recipients designated by the city. The input received will help shape the response to the infrastructure needs of the city. Invitations will be mailed to organizations and individuals identified in the ascertainment and recommended by the City. Dates and locations will also be publicized through the newspaper, announcements to local organizations, and other city publications. Although the workshop formats could vary according to specific audiences, each workshop will include: 1. An introduction to and focus on infrastructure issues 2. A pro -active, personal contact effort to ensure representation from stakeholders and opinion leaders 3. A cross section of interests that could play a role in developing program solutions 4. Involvement of and close coordination with local elected officials, city staff and committee members 5. An exit survey to provide quantifiable feedback 6. A participant evaluation The workshops, led by a professional facilitator, will be approximately 2 hours long and scheduled at convenient times and locations. We will work with HBTV-3 local access cable TV to air one or more of the workshops. In addition, we will investigate the possibility of broadcasting the workshops on the Internet. The video, tabletop display, program brochure and other written materials will be the primary communication tools along with key questions targeted for the specific audiences. Develop a Tabletop Display for Community Events FW&A proposes to develop a tabletop display that can serve in any environment — from a casual Street Fair to a formal Economic Summit. It will be portable and will include eye-catching graphics. Collateral materials will be accommodated in racks, and can also be placed on the table in front of the display itself. The key collateral piece that we propose to feature is a program brochure (see description below). Event announcements and fact sheets could also be made available. FW&A will deliver, set up and dismantle the display for a minimum of six events. We also propose to use the display for the public workshops. Program Brochure A key collateral piece in the program will be the creation of a brochure communicating the need for sound infrastructure, the obstacles faced in creating and maintaining it, possible consequences of deferring Frank Wilson & Associates 14 maintenance and/or infrastructure construction, and a call to action. The UP brochure will be made available at community events, through presentations of the Speakers Bureau, at public workshops, and in press kits. The format will be 11 by 17 inches, folded once, printed in four colors on gloss cover. Media Relations Building media and editorial support wili be a critical component in educating and creating broad awareness .and community support for the Infrastructure Improvement Program. The positioning and framing of the infrastructure issues as well as the public information and outreach effort is an early and continuing priority. It can create an environment of support around the program early in the outreach process. We believe the following media relations activities should be carried out on behalf of the UP outreach effort. They include those requested in the request for proposal, among others: 30 and 60-second Public Service Announcement -- FW&A will write and disseminate monthly (twelve) public service announcements publicizing various outreach activities that are currently taking place and highlighting key messages that have been developed regarding the Infrastructure Improvement Program. The PSAs will be disseminated to radio and TV stations. Creative assistance will be given to HBTV-3 to get the best coverage of the PSAs through cable programs. Additionally, FW&A will keep HBTV-3 informed of any outreach program activities so that they can be included among other announcements on the local cable channel. News releases, pitching and storyplacement— Print and broadcast outlets will be targeted through a focused database to pitch and place positive stories about the Infrastructure Improvement Program. Special attention will be paid to the major daily papers, the Los Angeles Times and The Re ister. The Huntington Beach Wave and the Huntington Beach Independent will offer other editorial opportunities. FW&A will also prepare and disseminate all news releases for the Public Workshops and other events requiring media interface. Briefings, editorial boards — FW&A believes that reaching out to the media early on in the project to clearly explain the benefits of safeguarding infrastructure will build the foundation of accurate, fair and favorable coverage. FW&A will identify opportunities for one-on-one media briefings and editorial boards. "Sands" Magazine Articles — FW&A has found that the quarterly magazines published by cities and delivered to all households are a very effective way of reaching a cross section of local residents. Since the City controls the content of the "Sands" magazine, space can be allocated to this key local issue. Likewise, the upcoming schedule of events for the outreach program can be publicized in the magazine. Huntington Beach Infoline Information The Huntington Beach Infoline provides a cost-effective means for dissemination of information: The fax - back feature is particularly useful because of the flexibility it offers for transmitting printed materials. FW&A will consider this unique medium of communication throughout the course of the outreach program. We have used similar informational "Helplines" with great success on several projects, and we believe the flexibility of the Infoline can assist effectively in the outreach effort for the Infrastructure Improvement Program. Some of the ways we propose to use the Infoline include: event announcements, brief messages or frequently asked questions, fact sheets, and possibly even an informal "poll" if the technology supports such feedback. Key to the success of the Infoline will be the inclusion of the phone number and the three -digit codes for Infrastructure Improvement Program information in all collateral materials, press announcements, flyers, etc. Frank Wilson & Associates 15 Infrastructure Improvement Program Video The program video will offer information about infrastructure and the issues faced by residents of Huntington Beach in maintaining it. Through the creative use of existing footage, the video will show the infrastructure issues and invite viewers to become part of the solution through participation in the outreach program. It will be created with many possible uses in mind, such as the introduction to the project at public workshops, as a video file on the Web page (a short clip), and as the basis'for b-roll for distribution to.the media (Including HBTV-3). With both 3-3 minute and 30-minute-formats, we will have the flexibility to meet most any presentation need. The video can be produced in other languages if needed to meet the needs of a particular community. Develop Web Page The Web site will be the repository of all public -outreach information. We believe that, even within the short term of this project, the Web will continue to gain favor as a universal source of public information because of the easy access it offers. We propose the Web page to include the following information: • Background information on the Infrastructure Improvement Program • Updates on the Public Information & Community Outreach effort • News releases • Portable document format (PDF) files of the brochure, fact sheets, reports and other relevant information • Low graphics mode for computer users unable to view full graphics versions of video or animation • Link allowing users to request additional information which can be added to an interest list • Link allowing users to view the project video to gain a better understanding of the Infrastructure Improvement Program and its importance to the community. • Link users to live or rebroadcast public workshops Municipal Services Bill Stuffers The municipal services bill, like the "Sands" magazine, offers an opportunity to achieve a broad distribution of information by way of a familiar, well-read medium. FW&A proposes to print 3-color masters for all four billing cycles to achieve cost saving, followed by black imprints of the printed material for each edition of .the insert. This method also allows us to use the familiar, recognizable program identity developed specifically for the Infrastructure Improvement Program. Library Information Repositories The library repositories are, quite simply, information notebooks. They contain key project information —all the collateral information that is produced to support the outreach program in one notebook. The Huntington Beach main library and its branches, along with City Hall, the Chamber of Commerce and any other public locations which might be appropriate will be sought as locations to house the repositories. We will arrange with the librarians and others to make the notebooks available to patrons upon request, and .publicize their presence. Task 4 Attend meetings to facilitate communication between City staff and committees and the City's consultant team. Meeting attendance is critical to ensure effective communication among consultants, City staff and committees. FW&A is prepared to attend monthly coordination meetings with the city, and to attend and make presentations on the status of the outreach program at monthly CIAC meetings and meetings of its Sub -Committees. City Council presentations will also be accommodated upon request, We have assumed the number of meetings cited in the RFP for our budgeting purposes. Frank Wilson & Associates a 16 Task 5 Support the CIAC in the preparation of the final report for submittal to the City Council. FW&A will work with the CIAC to assist in preparation of a final report to the City Council. This support will include copy preparation and editorial support; graphics support and support in preparing presentation materials for commission and council presentations. Task 6 Provide monthly progress reports (approximately 2 pages)' Keeping City staff and committee members informed serves the very important purpose of having all parties remain well informed of the outreach program activities. From the project management perspective, having to articulate the progress of the outreach program can also call attention to issues or process steps that need attention along the way. We propose to make monthly written reports approximately two pages in length. Task 7 Make available key staff to work with the CIAC and its committees, City staff and the consultant team to assist on various issues and activities-40 hours. Projects of this magnitude inevitably require more coordination than can be anticipated in advance. FW&A will include 40 hours of time to the budget to be assigned as needed in order to ensure that all elements of the outreach plan are effectively implemented, and to ensure that our consulting services are put to work in any way possible on program -related activities. Part H- Assessing Community Opinion Task S Assess the community's awareness and knowledge about the City's infrastructure. Frank Wilson & Associates, Inc. has enlisted the services of Market Research Associates, a leading Southern California based public policy and consumer research organization. We propose to use"a three -step approach in order to meet the City of Huntington Beach's needs for the assessment of community awareness. The research is configured to accomplish four main objectives: • To measure overall awareness of the City of Huntington Beach's infrastructure. • To identify current perceptions and attitudes toward the City of Huntington Beach's infrastructure. • To determine any needs not currently being met by the City of Huntington Beach's infrastructure. • To evaluate the acceptance and understanding of a communication program and message statements. a To measure the impact of a communication program and how these attitudes and perceptions change over time. Approach -- We propose to conduct telephone interviews among citizens of Huntington Beach as a baseline, or pre -test, by which to measure public understanding of the city's infrastructure needs. The results from the pre -test will yield accurate information pertaining to current awareness and perceptions of the City of Huntington Beach's infrastructure at this point in time. Additional information needs will be discussed during the design phase and incorporated into the research questionnaire. Following this baseline study and the development of creative communication materials, we recommend that focus groups be conducted among citizens of the City of Huntington Beach. Focus groups will ensure that the message being delivered by the communication material (listed under Task 3) is the same message being received. Following the execution of the Task 3 communication material, we suggest that a single post-test be conducted among citizens of the City of Huntington Beach. The same questionnaire and methodology is recommended for the post-test as was used for the baseline, or pre -test, study. The results from the post-test will yield accurate information pertaining to current awareness and perceptions of the City of Huntington Beach's infrastructure after the communication plan has been executed. Additional information needs will be discussed during the design phase and incorporated into the research questionnaire. Frank Wilson & Associates 17 While the Request for Proposal recommends two surveys following the baseline study, we believe this is not necessary given the time frame suggested in the proposal. Our experience has shown that public opinions are not likely to change within a short period of time and any measurement taken sooner than six months is not likely to present significant findings. Design specifications for the pre- and post-test survey follow: Sample size, distribution and reliability — Market Research Associates recommends a sample size of 400 be used for both the pre- and post-test survey. To provide the -most accurate picture of perceptions in the City of Huntington Beach, we recommend this sample size emulate the current demographic breakdown of city demographics as shown below. thnici Caucasian Hispanic African American Asian or Pacific Islander Other 18-34 35 - 54 55 or older Income Under $25,000 $25,000 to $49,000 $50,000 to $74,999 $75,000 to $99,999 $100,000 to $149, 999 $150,000 or more Percent in the City of Huntington Beach 72% 14% 1% 12% 1% 34% 42% 24% 14% 27% 25% 16% 12% 6% Statistically estimated sampling error is commonly used as a comparative measure of projectability of a survey sample. The "worst case" ((50150) split, 95% confidence level) theoretical reliability for a sample of 400 is ±5.1%. List source — Respondents will be selected using a random digit dialing technique. This technique ensures_ that all residents of the City of Huntington Beach have equal opportunity to be included in the research, regardless of whether or not their phone number is listed. Respondent criteria -- Criteria for inclusion in the research will be a citizen of the City of Huntington Beach who is 18 or older. Additional qualifiers, if any, will be discussed during the design phase. Interviewing methodology — We have assumed a 10-minute interview with two open-ended questions. Additional open-ended questions can be added with adjustments to the budget. We believe this interview length to be sufficient for addressing all objectives as outlined in this proposal. Pre -test questionnaire design — Market Research Associates will design the research questionnaire with input from Frank Wilson & Associates, Inc. and the City of Huntington Beach. We invite all parties who Frank Wilson & Associates 18 will be required to take action based on the findings to be involved in the design process. No interviews will be conducted until the City of Huntington Beach has given approval to the questionnaire. Pretesting — Once we've agreed on the design, we will pretest the survey instrument. A pretest of the instrument will allow us to: • Ensure that all questions are worded appropriately and that the survey flows.smoothly. • Test our assumptions concerning the, ease of locating respondents. • Refine the budget, if necessary, based on actual interview length and completion rates. Post-test questionnaire design -- Market Research Associates will review the questionnaire used in the pre- test and recommend changes, if necessary. As with the post-test questionnaire, no interviews will be conducted until the City of Huntington Beach has given approval to this questionnaire. Data collection and monitoring — Once the questionnaire is approved, the interviewing will begin. Experienced, professional interviewers will place all calls. Market Research Associates quality assurance program requires that supervisors monitor a minimum of 20% of all calls. Immediate feedback to. interviewers guarantees that questioning is on target and probing is complete. To ensure a proper representation of Spanish, Mandarin and Vietnamese speaking respondents, bilingual interviewers will be used to interview these respondents. Data Processing — As data is collected, they will be entered into Market Research Associates computer database for analysis and processed into easy -to -read tables. Market Research Associates computer software is designed specifically for market research needs and is some of the most sophisticated available today. Additionally, we anticipate subjecting certain data to a variety of statistical analyses to enhance usability of the findings. Results — Results from both the pre- and post-test questionnaire will be presented in written and oral reports to the City of Huntington Beach. Five bound copies of the report will be provided. The written analysis will include Executive Summary, Methods, Detailed Results, Recommendations for Action, Survey Questionnaire, and Computer Data Tabulations. The written report will be concise and designed to be read and easily understood by parties with no direct involvement with the research. We currently expect the report to include bar graphs, tables, and perceptual maps as a way of presenting the results in an easy -to -read format. The report will include a set of actionable recommendations based on past experience and findings unique to the research. Market Research Associates' experience in conducting similar research for non-profit organizations and our experience conducting research for Frank Wilson & Associates, Inc. and the City of Huntington Beach makes these recommendations one of the most valuable aspects of our service. Oral presentation —The oral presentation will be a complete review and interpretation of the results of the . pre- and post-test telephone survey. Use of color graphics enhances the ease of understanding and interpreting the data. The results presentation is a major benchmark that can make or break a research project. This forum helps facilitate effective use of the research results through understanding, support and team building. In particular, the opportunity to ask questions and discuss results with the researcher is appreciated by our clients. Focus Groups Design specifications for the focus groups follow: Group composition and location — Market Research Associates recommends that four groups be conducted in the City of Huntington Beach. We recommend that two groups be conducted among citizens between the ages of 18 and 34, and two groups among citizens between the ages of 35 and 65. Frank Wilson & Associates 19 Screener and Discussion Guide — With the City's agreement to proceed, Market Research Associates will design a screening questionnaire for recruiting. Once the screener is approved, recruiting will begin and we can start discussion guide development. A typical discussion guide contains 8 to 10 pages of carefully worded investigation. As mentioned previously, the groups will be designed to investigate perceptions of the communication materials developed for this audience. Participants — All participants will be registered voters and citizens of the City of Huntington Beach. No participant will be an employee of any government or city entity. Additional qualifiers can be determined during the design phase of the screening questionnaire. Length -- Each group will last approximately two hours. Where possible, the two groups will be conducted on the same day allowing for cost efficiencies. We recommend that a meal be served at each group. Observation and recording— All groups will be conducted at a focus group facility equipped to allow monitoring of the groups via a one-way mirror. in addition, the groups will be video and audio recorded to ensure a complete record for analysis purposes. Although all sessions will be audio and video recorded, we encourage representatives of the City of Huntington Beach to attend all focus groups. List source — Participants will be recruited from lists provided by Market Research Associates. The lists are designed specifically for market research purposes and will contain individual names and telephone numbers as specified by Market Research Associates. Market Research Associates does not use a database of focus group participants. This ensures that every group participant is selected based on pre -defined selection criteria and is not a professional participant who attends focus groups on a regular basis. Communication material -- In order for participants to understand and evaluate potential communication materials, it is important that they see the materials under consideration. Frank Wilson & Associates, Inc. will be responsible for providing Market Research Associates with several proposed materials for discussion during the focus groups. Market Research Associates will work with Frank Wilson & Associates, Inc. to ensure proper display at the focus group that will eliminate any perceived bias. Moderation — Barbara Foster will moderate all groups. This will ensure consistency throughout the project. In addition, Barbara's experience with previous communication research will aid in complete probing of all issues. Cooperation fee — We have found that there are definite advantages to paying participants for their time and opinions. Since participants tend to view their time as valuable, a cooperation fee is helpful to encourage attendance. Based on past experience, we suggest participants receive a co-op fee of $50 each. - Results — Results from the research will be interpreted and analyzed into a concise, comprehensive report. The written report will be precise and designed to be read and easily understood by parties having no direct involvement with the research. The report will also include specific, actionable recommendations on communication material selection. These recommendations are based on past experience and findings unique to the research. Market Research Associates' experience in conducting research makes these recommendations one of the most valuable aspects of our service. Oral Presentation — Market Research Associates will also deliver a verbal presentation of the research results. The oral presentation will be a complete review and interpretation of the results from the focus groups. The results presentation is a major benchmark that can make or break a research project. This Frank Wilson & Associates 20 forum helps facilitate understanding, support and team building towards effective use of research findings. In particular, the opportunity to ask questions and discuss results is appreciated by our clients. Market Research Associates can include in the presentation a 15 to 20 minute videotape showing highlights from the focus groups for a small increase in the budget. These video excerpts are particularly effective for those individuals involved with this research -but unable to attend all of the focus groups. Frank Wilson & Associates .21 FW&A conducts opinion research and develops a comprehensive and evolving public affairs program designed to counter distortions by opponents and to encourage public understanding of the project and participation in the environmental and planning process. The program includes community outreach and public participation activities such as speakers bureau; leadership and public workshops and dialogues with opponents; public awareness advertising; direct mail; collateral material, graphics and copy support; point of purchase material and utility bill inserts; and, media relations services, including story development and placement for the news'media. FW&A also provides media training, message development, and assistance to the agency's lobbyists. Client: San Diego Association of Governments Contact Person: Kim Kawada, Senior Regional Planner 401 B Street, Suite 800 San Diego, CA 92101-4287 (619) 595-5394 fax (619) 595-5305 Project Name: FasTrak on the I-15 Express Lanes Multimedia Campaign to Introduce HOT Lanes Multimedia Campaign to Introduce Electronic Toll Collection Project Timefrarae: June 1996 - Present Awards for excellence: Silver Anil Award, Sponsored by the National Chapter of PRSA, the society's highest honor in the category of Travel & Tourism/Hospitality Protos Award, sponsored by the Orange County chapter of PRSA---Best Total Program for Integrated Communications Edward L. Bernays Award, sponsored by the San Diego Chapter of PRSA Top honor for One-time Program: New Product Polaris Award, sponsored by the Inland Empire Chapter of PRSA—Top honor for FasTrak "Time is on your side." Direct Mail Campaign Polaris Award --Top honor for Marketing Communications Campaign for FasTrak Launch on I-15 Key Staff: Frank Wilson, Project Director; Scott Simpkin, Art Director; Gustavo Santoyo, Media Relations Manager; Patrice Hickey, Production Manager Project Description: In the fall of 1996, the reversible carpool lanes in the center median of the 1-15 Freeway in San Diego were selected for a three-year, federally -funded pilot program designed to find new ways to relieve traffic congestion. Initially, the I-15 ExpressPass program allowed a limited number of solo drivers to use the Express Lanes by paying a monthly fee. Phase II was designed to maximize use of the lanes by switching to "discount pricing" (a form of congestion pricing) administered through an electronic toll collection system, known as FasTrak. FW&A was retained to build public support for the project. We developed a comprehensive research program and public outreach plan that was successfully implemented by SANDAG. FW&A also provided support for SANDAG's community outreach program in support of the marketing effort.. Research consisted of focus groups, city population analysis, telephone surveys and face-to-face interviews. Following the approval of the project, we successfully designed, branded and launched the ExpressPass program, managed the conversion to FasTrak and built public support for this new innovation. FW&A produced numerous items for the campaign launch including: a brochure, an application, point of purchase materials; an instructional audio cassette, ExpressPass decal, FasTrak user manual, infographics, black & white print ads, traffic radio spots, and a number of press kit materials. Frank Wilson & Associates 6 Project Organization and Team Biographies The professional team FW&A has assembled for Huntington Beach's Infrastructure Improvement Program outreach effort understands how to communicate technical subject matter. They know how to create interest in public policy issues and relate the issues to the individual values held by local citizens. Infrastructure. - development - and the complex funding mechanisms required supporting it —'fits squarely within our area of communication expertise. Frank Wilson Principal Frank Wilson is president of Frank Wilson & Associates, Inc., and has more than 30 years public and community relations experience. He has served in key management roles and as a spokesperson for senior government and corporate leaders, and has worked extensively with business, community and government leaders on a variety of issues including infrastructure development, transportation, international trade, agriculture, environment and community development. Mr. Wilson has conducted numerous campaigns throughout the country and has directed award -winning, infi astructure-related campaigns for numerous federal, state and local agencies. These outstanding and innovative programs reached public officials, corporate decision makers, business owners and millions of residents in their homes and workplaces. George T. Urch Project Director George Urch brings over 20 years of government affairs, public relations, and communications work experience to the FW&A team, most recently serving as the City of Ontario's Public Information Officer where he was responsible for the City and Redevelopment Agency's public relations, marketing, and advertising activities. He has worked in the U.S. Senate, U.S. House of Representatives, California State Senate, and California State Assembly for a variety of elected officials for whom he managed their staffs, developed their legislative and district outreach programs, and handled their press activities. His extensive work experience on the federal, state, and local levels has given him a strong working knowledge of the public sector, its politics, its policy issues, and its legislative process. Kelly Poffenberger Account Executive Mr. Poffenberger provides Frank Wilson & Associates with a variety of knowledge and experience in areas of public relations, advertising and marketing. He serves as the project manager for the implementation of the electronic toll collection system (E-ZPass) in New Jersey, overseeing all marketing and public relations activities. His efforts, along with other members of the E-ZPass Team, have been recognized with awards presented by the Public Relations Society of America (PRSA) and the New Jersey Ad Club. Some of his responsibilities include serving as direct interface on all client requests, budget tracking, coordination and management of all production items and public relations activities, and coordination of special events. Mr. Poffenberger is a graduate of California State University, Fullerton with a degree in Communications - Public Relations and a Minor in Political Science. He is also a member of the International Association of Business Communicators - Orange County chapter (OC-IABC), and the Orange County Ad Club. Frank Wilson & Associates 7 INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PUBLIC INFORMATION & COMMUNITY OUTREACH SERVICES IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE Below is a schedule of the activities proposed by FW&A to execute the public information and community outreach effort. The activities -are listed in an.estimated implementation sequence. Activity Task Number 1 Tirnefrarne for Implementation First Quarter Ascertainment a First Quarter Baseline Market Research S First Quarter Support Preparation of Report to City Council 5 First Quarter Develop Theme/Program Identity 2 First Quarter Develop Public Information & Community Outreach Program 3 First Quarter Frame and Develop the IIP Message 3 First Quarter CreatePowerPoint Slide Presentation 3 First Quarter Develop Tabletop Display 3 First Quarter Develop Program Brochure 3 First Quarter CreatellP Video 3 First Quarter Develop Web Page' 3 First Quarter Create and Manage Speaker's Bureau 3 First Quarter/Ongoing Develop 30- and 60-Second PSAs 3 First Quarter/ Ongoing Write News Releases, Pitch Stories 3 First Quarter/Ongoing Conduct Briefings and Editorial Boards 3 First Quarter/Ongoing Write Sands" Magazine Articles 3 First OuarterlOngoing Develop HB Infoline Information 3 First Quarter/Ongoing Create Municipal Services Bill Stuffers 3 First Quarter/Ongoing Create & Maintain Information Repositories 3 First Quarter/Ongoing Attend Meetings 4 Ongoing Provide Monthly Progress Reports 6 Ongoing . Plan & Implement Public Workshops 3 Second Quarter /On oin Post -Program Market Research 8 Third Quarter Assist City Staff & Committees 7 As needed Figure 2 Frank Wilson & Associates 22 City of Huntington Beach Proposal to Provide Public Information & Community Outreach Consulting Services for Infrastructure Improvement Program FEE PROPOSAL Submitted by Frank Wilson & Associates 13332 Mill Creek Drive, Suite 155 Laguna Hills, Ca 92653 Phone: 949/588-1124 Fax: 949/588-1829 fwilson@fimnk'wilso'n.com November 20, 1999 Frank Wilson & Associates, Inc. Marketing Communications 23332 Mill Creak 17rlva, 5ut[a 155 Laguna 1g1115, California 92653 Tal. 949. 588. 1134 Fax. 949. 5ss . 1629 November 22,1999 Mr. Richard Amadril Central Services Manager Administrative Services City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Subject: RFP for Public Information & Community Outreach Consulting Services for Infrastructure Improvement Program Dear Mr. Amadril: Frank Wilson & Associates (FW&A) is pleased to submit our proposal to develop and implement a creative public information and community outreach program for the Infrastructure Improvement Program. FW&A is uniquely qualified to execute the tasks described in the request for proposal, and to provide overall direction and management to the program for the indicated twelve month period. We have devised and managed similar public outreach programs across the United States over the last fifteen years. Local governments throughout California are struggling to meet their infrastructure needs in the face of capital improvement and maintenance funding shortfalls. Huntington Beach, like all cities, must create new ways to meet the infrastructure needs of the next century. The Public Information & Community Outreach effort for the Infrastructure Improvement Program offers a bold step toward a solution: Educating and engaging the community in the problem -solving process. We believe our team can meet the challenge of educating and building; public support for infrastructure needs. We are a full -service marketing communications firm with extensive experience in transportation issues. Specifically, we have conducted public outreach programs for various cities, OCI'A, Caltrans, and other transportation agencies in the region. We specialize in community relations, public affairs, marketing, and special events. Mr. Rick Amadril November 22,1999 Page 2 I havereviewed the Cites standard form -of agreement and find no exceptions to.the standard contract. As the firm's president, I am authorized to represent Frank Wilson & Associates. This proposal and accompanied fee is a firm offer for a 60-day period. If you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact me at (949) 588-1124. Sincerely, F Wilson President City of Huntington Beach Proposal to Provide Public Information & Community Outreach Consulting Services for Infrastructure Improvement Program Fee Proposal Contents 1. Offer Letter 2. Budget by Task --Parts I and 2 3. Standard Billing Rates 4. Labor Hours by Employee Billing Classification 5. Certificates of Insurance LIME ITEM BUDGET (Confidential) Consultant: Frank Wilson & Associates Contract: RFP No, . 23332 Milt Creek Drive, Suite 155 - Public Information & Community Outreach Consulting Laguna Hills, GA 92653 Services for Infrastruclure Improvement Program March DIRECT' LABOR Hourly Staffer Hours Rate Amount Principal 22 $ 260.00 $ 5,720.00 Project Director Be 160.00 13,760.00 Community Relations Manager 232 115.00 26,680.00 Projct Manager 64 80.00 5,120.00 Production Management 86 90.00 7,740.00 Project Coordinator 48 65.00 2,990.00 Medla Manager .62 95.00 4,940.00 Total Hours 588 Sub -Total Direct Labor = 66,950.00 DIRECT COST Amount Simpkin Design 5 1,200.00 Concept/Design 8,500.00 Tempiates0esign 750.00 Powerpt. Production 3.125.00 Production 7,187.50 CopywrttinglEditing 9,000.00 Illustration 1,W2.50 Photography 2,500.00 Market Research Associates 56,250.00 Proofreader 1,462.60 Color Proofs 831.25 Printing 26,093.75 Michael Henneseey 5,625.00 .Total Direct Costs 123,587.50 SUBTOTAL $ 190,537.50 Sales Tax 4,500.00 TOTAL $ 195,037.50 i CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH PUBLIC INFORMATION AND.COMMUNrry OUTREACH CONSULTING SERVICES FOR INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM BUDGET BY TASK "F .. .. .......{erEx. �� —imn MTM--- U t.s ft - m- Q: Or .......... .. .... . ... ............ . .......... c ......... ..... ............. ....... womhi.� "W .. . . : : :A 20: . ammun ....... ..... .......... ............. ..... ............................. ........... .......... .................. . ................................. 44 �. . .1 � ....... ....... . ............................. 1h,f] ...... ....... ........................... ............................... ......................... ... .......... . . ...... .................................. . ......... ........ .. . . ........ ............ n. "66. ;2: ubt .. ........ .......... 123. 0. -.5.87-30. A w muldiTid bhls�, Labor Hours by Bmpi" Billing Classification (Dose not include subcontractors) Staffer Prtndpat Project Director Community Relations Manager Projct Manager Production Management Project Coordinator Media Manager Hours Rate 22.00 260.00 86.00 160.00 232.00 115.00 64.00 80.00 86.00 90.00 46.00 65.00 52.00 95.00 Total Hours 588.00 President STANDARD HOURLY RATES Frank Wilson & Associates -July 1999 . $260 Account Services Director, Public Affairs $160 Public Relations Manager $115 Public Relations Specialist $ 95 Community Relations Specialist $115 Account Supervisor $115 Account Executive $ 95 Assistant Account Executive $ 80 Account Coordinator $ 65 Creative Services Creative Director $160 Production Manager $ 90 Assistant Production Manager $ 70 Accounting (when applicable) Accounting Manager $100 Clerical (when applicable) $ 45 Charges for rush projects will increase billing rates by 50 percent. ATTACHMENT #6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AND FRANK WILSON & ASSOCIATES, INC. FORPROFESSIONAL SERVICES TO PROVIDE A PUBLIC INFORMATION AND COMMUNITY OUTREACH ASSISTANCE TO CITY FOR THE CITY'S INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Table of Contents WorkStatement.......................................................................................................1 CityStaff Assistance................................................................................................2 Time of Performance...............................................................................................2 Compensation..........................................................................................................2 Priorities........................................................................................3 ExtraWork...............................................................................................................3 Methodof Payment..................................................................................................3 Disposition of Plans, Estimates and Other Documents...........................................5 HoldHarmless.........................................................................................................5 Workers' Compensation Insurance...........................................................................6 General Liability Insurance......................................................................................6 Professional Liability Insurance..............................................................................7 Certificates of Insurance..........................................................................................7 Independent Contractor............................................................................................8 Termination of Agreement.......................................................................................8 Assignment and Subcontracting...............................................................................8 Copyrights/Patents...................................................................................................9 City Employees and Officials..................................................................................9 Notices.....................................................................................................................9 Immigration..............................................................................................................9 Legal Services Subcontracting Prohibited.......................................................I.......9 Arbitration.................................................................................... 9 Attorney's Fees.........................................................................................................10 Entirety.....................................................................................................................10 adl/2000agree/Wilson 01/27/00 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AND FRANK WILSON & ASSOCIATES, INC. FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES TO PROVIDE A PUBLIC INFORMATION AND COMMUNITY OUTREACH ASSISTANCE PROGRAM FOR THE CITY'S INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this 7th day of February 2000, by and between the City of Huntington Beach, a municipal corporation of the State of California, hereinafter referred to as "CITY," and FRANK WILSON & ASSOCIATES, a California corporation, hereinafter referred to as "CONSULTANT." WHEREAS, CITY desires to engage the services of a consultant to provide professional services regarding the development and implementation of a public information and community outreach assistance program in connection with the City's Infrastructure Improvement Program in the City of Huntington Beach; and to provide community survey services to ascertain public opinions, attitudes and awareness about the City's infrastructure; and Pursuant to documentation on file in the office of the City Clerk, the provisions of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code, Chapter 3.03, relating to procurement of professional service contracts have been complied with; and CONSULTANT has been selected to perform said services, NOW, THEREFORE, it is agreed by CITY and CONSULTANT as follows: 1. WORK STATEMENT CONSULTANT shall provide all services as described in the Request for Proposal ("RFP"), and CONSULTANT's Proposal dated November 22, 1999, and Revised Work Plan dated January 25, 2000, (which are hereinafter referred to as EXHIBIT "A") which are attached hereto and incorporated into this AGREEMENT by this reference. The services will be undertaken in two phases based on separate City Council authorization to proceed on each phase. These services shall sometimes hereinafter be referred to as the "PROJECT." ad]/2000agree/Wilson 01/27/00 CONSULTANT hereby designates Julie Chay, who shall represent it and be its sole contact and agent in all consultations with CITY during the performance of this AGREEMENT. 2. CITY STAFF ASSISTANCE CITY shall assign a staff coordinator to work directly with CONSULTANT in the performance of this AGREEMENT. 3. TIME OF PERFORMANCE Time is of the essence of this AGREEMENT. The services of CONSULTANT are to commence as soon as practicable after the execution of this AGREEMENT and all tasks specified in Exhibit A shall be completed no later than one year from the date of this AGREEMENT. These times may be extended with the written -permission of CITY. The time for.performance.of the tasks identified in Exhibit A are generally to be shown in the Scope of Services on the Work Program/Project Schedule. This schedule may be amended to benefit the PROJECT if mutually agreed by CITY and CONSULTANT. In order for CONSULTANT to perform many of its tasks as specified in Exhibit A, it must receive certain documents, data and supplies from the CITY; therefore, CITY agrees that it will supply to CONSULTANT, all documents, data, and other supplies as may be necessary or helpful to CONSULTANT in the performance of the tasks specified in Exhibit A and that it will provide such documents, data and supplies in a timely manner. In the event that the CITY does not timely provide said documents, data and supplies in a manner that allows CONSULTANT to complete its tasks identified in Exhibit A, within the one-year time limit for performance of this Agreement, the time period for performance of this Agreement shall be reasonably extended to allow CONSULTANT a reasonable period of time in which to complete said tasks. 4. COMPENSATION In consideration of the performance of the services described herein, CITY agrees to pay CONSULTANT a total fee not to exceed One Hundred Ninety -Five Thousand Thirty -Eight 2 adl/2000agree/Wilson 01127i00 Dollars ($195,038), comprised of a Phase I not to exceed fees of Eighty -One Thousand Nine Hundred Ninety -Seven Dollars ($81,997) and a Phase H not to exceed fees of One Hundred Thirteen Thousand Forty -One Dollars ($113,041). PRIORITIES In the event there are any conflicts or inconsistencies between this AGREEMENT, the CITY's RFP, the CONSULTANT's Proposal, or the REVISED WORK PLAN, the following order of precedence shall govern: ( 1) AGREEMENT,( 2) the REVISED WORK PLAN, (3) the CONSULTANT's Proposal, and (4) the CITY's RFP. 6. EXTRA WORK In the event CITY requires additional services not included in Exhibit A, -or changes in the scope of services described in Exhibit A, CONSULTANT will undertake such work only after receiving written authorization from CITY. Additional compensation for such extra work shall be allowed only if the prior written approval of CITY is obtained. 7. METHOD OF PAYMENT A. CONSULTANT shall be entitled to progress payments toward the fixed fee set forth herein in accordance with the progress and payment schedules set. forth in Exhibit A.. B. Delivery of work product: A copy of every memorandum, letter, report, calculation and other documentation prepared by CONSULTANT shall be submitted to CITY to demonstrate progress toward completion of tasks. In the event CITY rejects or has comments on any such product, CITY shall identify specific requirements for satisfactory completion. Any such product which has not been formally accepted or rejected by CITY shall be deemed accepted. C. CONSULTANT shall submit to CITY an invoice for each progress payment due. Such invoice shall: 1) Reference this AGREEMENT; 2) Describe the services performed; 3 adl/2000agreeM'ilson 01/27/00 3) Show the total amount of the payment due; 4) Include a certification by a principal member of CONSULTANT's firm that the work has been performed in accordance with the provisions of this AGREEMENT; and S) For all payments include an estimate of the percentage of work completed. Upon submission of any such invoice, if CITY is satisfied that CONSULTANT is making satisfactory progress toward completion of tasks in accordance with this AGREEMENT, CITY shall promptly approve the invoice, in which event payment shall be made within thirty (34) days of receipt of the invoice by CITY. -..Such approval shall not be unreasonably withheld.- If.CITY does not approve an invoice, CITY shall notify CONSULTANT in writing of.the reasons for non -approval within seven (7) calendar days of receipt of the invoice, and the schedule of performance set forth in Exhibit A shall be suspended until the parties agree that past -performance by CONSULTANT is in, or has been brought into compliance, or until this AGREEMENT is terminated as provided herein. D. Any billings for extra work or additional services authorized by CITY shall be invoiced separately to CITY. Such invoice shall contain all of the information required above, and in addition shall list the hours expended and hourly rate charged for such time. Such invoices shall be approved by CITY if the work performed is in accordance with the extra work or additional services requested, and if CITY is satisfied that the statement of hours worked and costs incurred is accurate. Such approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. Any dispute between the parties concerning payment of such an invoice shall be treated as separate and apart from the ongoing performance of the remainder of this AGREEMENT. 8. DISPOSITION OF PLANS ESTIMATES AND OTHER DOCUMENTS CONSULTANT agrees that all materials prepared hereunder, including all original drawings, designs, reports, both field and office notices, calculations, maps, memoranda, letters and 4 a V2000agree/Wilson 01/27r00 other documents, shall be turned over to CITY upon termination of this AGREEMENT or upon PROJECT completion, whichever shall occur first. In the event this AGREEMENT is terminated, said materials may be used by CITY in the completion of the PROJECT or as it otherwise sees fit. Title to said materials shall pass to CITY upon,payment of fees determined to be earned.by CONSULTANT to the point of termination or completion of the PROJECT, -whichever is applicable. CONSULTANT shall be entitled to retain copies of all data prepared hereunder. 9. HOLD HARMLESS CONSULTANT shall protect, defend, indemnify and save and hold harmless CITY, its officers, officials, employees, and agents from and against any and all liability, loss, damage, expenses, costs -(including without limitation costs and.fees-of litigation of every nature). arising out of or in connection with CONSULTANT's performance of this AGREEMENT or its failure to comply with any of its obligations contained in this -AGREEMENT by CONSULTANT, its officers, agents or employees except such loss or -damage which was caused by the sole negligence or willful misconduct of CITY. CITY shall be reimbursed by CONSULTANT for all costs and attorney's fees incurred by CITY in enforcing this obligation. 10. WORKERS' COMPENSATION INSURANCE Pursuant to California Labor Code Section 1861, CONSULTANT acknowledges awareness of Section 3700 et seq. of said Code, which requires every employer to be insured against liability for workers' compensation; CONSULTANT covenants that it will comply with such provisions prior to commencing performance of the work hereunder... CONSULTANT shall maintain workers' compensation insurance in an amount of not less than One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000) bodily injury by accident, each occurrence, One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000) bodily injury by disease, each employee, Two Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($250,000) bodily injury by disease, policy limit. 5 ad]/2000agreeM]son 01/27/00 CONSULTANT shall require all subcontractors to provide such workers' compensation insurance for all of the subcontractors' employees. CONSULTANT shall furnish to CITY a certificate of waiver of subrogation under the terms of the workers' compensation insurance and CONSULTANT shall similarly require all subcontractors to waive subrogation. 11. GENERAL LIABILITY INSURANCE In addition to the workers' compensation insurance. and CONSULTANT's covenant to indemnify CITY, CONSULTANT shall obtain and furnish to CITY, a policy of general public liability insurance, including motor vehicle coverage covering the PROJECT. Said policy shall indemnify CONSULTANT, its officers, agents and employees, while acting within the scope of their duties, against any and all claims arising out of or in connection with the PROJECT,.and shall provide, coverage in not less than the following amount: combined single limit bodily injury and property damage, including products/completed operations liability and blanket contractual liability, of $1,000,000 per occurrence.- If coverage,is provided -under a form, which includes a.designated general aggregate limit, the aggregate limit must be no less than $1,000,000 for this PROJECT. Said policy shall name CITY, its agents, its officers, employees and volunteers as Additional Insureds, and shall specifically provide that any other insurance coverage which may be applicable to the PROJECT.shall - be deemed excess coverage and that CONSULTANT's insurance shall be primary. Under no circumstances shall the above -mentioned insurance contain a self -insured retention, or a "deductible" or any other similar form of limitation on the required coverage. 12. PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY INSURANCE The requirement for professional liability insurance was deleted by City Council action on October 18, 1999. 6 ad112000agree/Wilson 01127J00 13. CERTIFICATES OF INSURANCE Prior to commencing performance of the work hereunder, CONSULTANT shall furnish to CITY certificates of insurance subject to approval of the City Attorney evidencing the foregoing insurance coverages as required by this AGREEMENT; said certificates shall: A. provide the name and policy number of each carrier and policy; B. shall state that the policy is currently in force; and C. shall promise that such policies shall not be suspended, .voided or- canceled by either party, reduced in coverage or in limits except after thirty (30) days prior written notice; however, ten (10) days prior written notice in the event of cancellation for nonpayment of premium. CONSULTANT shall maintain the foregoing insurance coverages in force until the work under this AGREEMENT is fully completed and accepted by CITY. .....The requirement for carrying the foregoing insurance coverages -shall not derogate from the provisions for indemnification of CITY by CONSULTANT under the AGREEMENT. CITY or its representative shall at all times have the right to demand the original or a copy of all said policies of insurance. CONSULTANT shall pay, in a prompt and timely manner, the premiums on all insurance hereinabove required. 14. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR CONSULTANT is, and shall be, acting at all times in the performance of this AGREEMENT as an independent contractor. CONSULTANT shall secure at its expense, and be responsible for any and all payment of all taxes, social security, state disability insurance compensation, unemployment compensation and other payroll deductions for CONSULTANT and its officers, agents and employees and all business licenses, if any, in connection with the services to be performed hereunder. 7 adl/2000agreeAVilson 01/27/00 15. TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT All work required hereunder shall be performed in a good and workmanlike manner. CITY may terminate CONSULTANT's services hereunder at any time with or without cause, and whether or not PROJECT is fully complete. Any termination of this AGREEMENT by CITY shall be made in writing, notice of which shall be delivered to CONSULTANT as provided herein. Any termination by CITY hereunder shall be made only after 30-days prior written notice to CONSULTANT. CONSULTANT shall be entitled to compensation hereunder for the work performed through the date of receipt of notification of termination of the AGREEMENT, which compensation shall include, but is not limited to, payments to sub -contractors for work contracted prior to receipt of notice of termination. 16. ASSIGNMENT AND SUBCONTRACTING This AGREEMENT is a personal service contract and the supervisory work hereunder -shall not be delegated by CONSULTANT to any other person or entity without the consent of CITY. 17. COPYRIGHTS/PATENTS CITY shall own all rights to any patent or copyright on any work, item or material produced as a result of this AGREEMENT. 18. CITY EMPLOYEES AND OFFICIALS CONSULTANT shall employ no CITY official nor any regular CITY employee in the work performed pursuant to this AGREEMENT. No officer or employee of CITY shall have any financial interest in this AGREEMENT in violation of the applicable provisions of the California Government Code. 19. NOTICES Any written notice or required submittals, given under the terms of this AGREEMENT, shall be delivered personally or mailed, certified mail, postage prepaid, addressed to the party concerned as follows: adV2000agree/Wilson 01/27/00 TO CITY: Director of Public Works City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 20. IMMIGRATION Ifohli)&I MI� a 6 Frank Wilson Frank Wilson & Associates, Inc. 23332 Mill Creek Drive, Suite 155 Laguna Hills, CA 92653 CONSULTANT shall be responsible for full compliance with the immigration and naturalization laws of the United States and shall, in -particular; comply with theiprovisions of the United States Code regarding employment verification. 21. LEGAL SERVICES SUBCONTRACTING PROHIBITED CONSULTANT and CITY agree that CITY is not liable for payment of any. subcontractor work involving legal services, and that such legal services are expressly outside the scope of services contemplated hereunder. CONSULTANT understands that pursuant to Huntington Beach City Charter Section 309, the City Attorney is the exclusive legal counsel for CITY; and CITY shall not be liable for payment of any legal services expenses incurred by CONSULTANT. 22. ARBITRATION Any controversy or claim arising from or relating to this AGREEMENT, or its making, performance, or interpretation, will be settled by arbitration in Orange County, California under the commercial arbitration rules of the American Arbitration Association then existing. Judgment on the arbitration award may be entered in any court having jurisdiction over the subject matter of the controversy. 9 adl/2000agreeMlson 01/27./00 23. ATTORNEY'S FEES In the event suit is brought by either party to enforce the terms and provisions of this AGREEMENT or to secure the performance hereof, each party shall bear its own attorney's fees. 24. ENTIRETY The foregoing, and EXHIBIT A attached hereto, set forth the entire AGREEMENT between the parties. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this AGREEMENT to be executed by and through their authorized offices the day, month and year first above written. FRANK-AIILS04 A Af�SgC�ATES, INC. LIM Ka1-1]ILSoYu ., print name ITS: (circle one) airma President/Vice President 1W� print na ITS: (circle one ecret /Chief Financial Officer/Asst. Secretary — Treasurer. REVIEWED AND APPROVED: City Admin trator CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, a municipal corporation of the State of California ATTEST City Clerk 1. APPROVED AS TO FORM: 1" C'ty A orney D AND APPROVED: Director of Public Works adE/2000agree!Wilson 01/27;:00 10 EXHIBIT A Public Education and Community Outreach for Infrastructure Improvement Program Revised Work Plan (January 25, 2000) The following Public Education and Community Outreach work plan proposed by Frank Wilson & Associates offers a two-phase approach in support of the City of Huntington Beach's Infrastructure Improvement Program. Phase One includes research, strategy development, and positioning of the Infrastructure Improvement Program. Phase Two represents the implementation of the strategy developed in the first phase, and a final community survey to assist decision -makers in identifying preferred solutions to the City's infrastructure problems. Task I Become knowledgeable about he City's Infrastructure Improvement Program scoping The first step in the project will be a series of scoping meetings with City Officials, the Citizen Infrastructure Advisory Committee and its subcommittees, and other project consultants to gain an overall understanding of the Infrastructure Improvement Program and identify project priorities. This will include attending meetings of the CIAC, the CIAC Steering Committee, the CIAC Public Education Subcommittee and the Public Works Commission, along with other groups that can contribute to our understanding of the project. We will identify the respective roles of City staff, consultants and committees, and establish guidelines for working with each. Ascertainment We would begin with a community ascertainment. Through a series of individual focused interviews with leaders representing Huntington Beach's broad base of community groups, we would find.out what they know and how they feel about the Infrastructure Improvement Program — how it will benefit them and their neighborhood. We would ask about the best ways to communicate with them, and with the members of their group. We would identify any potential community issues that stand in the way of the UP's success. The ascertainment results will help us to refine recommendations regarding appropriate media and messages. We will report out the ascertainment results in a written report, along with a list of interviewees. The findings will be made accessible and useful throughout the implementation of the lIP's education and outreach program. Task 2 Create a program identity. Theme Development The creative process begins by generating some theme ideas that would communicate the connection between infrastructure and life style. After initial client review, the themes would be developed more fully. Once the theme ideas have been narrowed down, we propose to return to selected interviewees from the ascertainment process to test the themes. While focus groups have been the traditional way to test marketing messages, we believe utilizing individuals from the ascertainment process for this analysis will yield more valuable information and responses to our theme. And, again, the process will help to enlist individuals, families and groups in the grassroots program. Finally, we must remember throughout the public education program to keep the message simple. This is especially important when discussing the complexities of infrastructure and financing. We propose, then, to create a unified look, with an identity that all residents can associate with the positive benefits of sound infrastructure. The identity would be adapted to each element of the outreach program, but would still retain a unified look that is immediately associated with the program. Page 1 of 10 Task 3 Public Information and Community Outreach Program Elements Public Information and Community Outreach Program Development The development of the public information and community outreach strategic plan will address the issues and interest groups identified during the scoping and ascertainment. Its elements will include the tasks that follow, and will be strategically planned to coordinate with project milestones and other factors that come to our attention through research. The strategic plan will incorporate any possible synergies that yield cost savings, many of which were suggested in the request for proposals (newsletter articles, utility bill inserts, community events, etc.) Implementation will begin upon approval of the plan by the City. Framing and Communicating the IIP Message Early and proper framing of the infrastructure Improvement Program is essential to establishing the need for sound infrastructure, educating the public about financing issues, and building the support needed to meet future infrastructure needs. Inviting response from various constituencies about the HP includes an inherent requirement to first inform those audiences about the program. We believe that understanding the initial perceptions, possible misunderstandings and perceived benefits of the UP will help us to properly frame and position the program in the public mind and craft effective messages for the outreach program. Based on the outcome of opinion research and community ascertainment we will.develop a positioning statement for the program, and a message -platform including themes, statement of features and -benefits, message and copy points. This platform will be incorporated in all materials,- briefings, presentations and outreach efforts. PowerPoint Slide Presentation Once the key messages are developed,•.they will be incorporated into a PowerPoint presentation. The anticipated audience for.the presentation will figure into the writing of the script for the presentation. In addition to information about the UP, the presentation will include process information, and, if possible, a call to action that invites viewers to continue to be involved though future meetings or other planned activities. The presentation will include maps, graphics, and photographs, using existing City materials whenever possible to minimize costs. Speaker's Bureau Essential to the success of the Speaker's Bureau is a comprehensive list of community stakeholder groups and organizations that provide opportunities for outreach and information. These groups, along with the names and contact information for representatives, will be developed as part of the Community Ascertainment. FW&A will pro -actively schedule presentations for community groups, and will provide follow-up information for speakers and organization representatives to ensure timely and effective presentations. Speakers for the Speaker's Bureau could come from City staff and CIAC comumittee members, and could be supplemented by FW&A's outreach specialists, as needed. FW&A's bilingual staff could be most useful in in reaching Spanish and Asian language groups. In this way we hope to provide valuable information to residents, and to hear from them directly about their perceptions, experience, and expectations about the IIP. The feedback loop that the Speaker's Bureau encompasses is a valuable tool for ongoing communication. Page 2 of 10 FW&A will schedule UP presentations to the following community groups as possible, including, but not limited to: Neighborhood Groups • HB Downtown Residents Association • Huntington Harbour Property Owners' Association • HB Mobile Homeowners Association • Meredith Gardens Homeowners' Association • Southeast HB Neighborhood Assn. • Friends and Neighbors of Seacliff Business Organizations • Chamber of Commerce • HB Downtown Business Association • North Huntington Beach Business Association Orange County Association of Realtors Schools • Huntington Beach City School District • Huntington Beach Union High School District Ocean View School District City Boards and Commissions • Planning Commission • Finance Board • Citizen Participation Advisory Board • Public Works Commission • Community Services Commission • Environmental Board Fraternal, Civic and Professional Organizations • Amigos de Bolsa Chica • AAUW • Huntington Beach Tomorrow • League of Women Voters range Coast • Republican and Democratic Associations In addition to the information provided by way of the slide -presentation, the Speaker's Bureau audiences will also receive collateral material enabling them to bring the message home. Public Workshops The FW&A team workshops will use a creative and interactive approach to generate sincere interest in the UP from a diverse mix of local business leaders, residents, elected officials and their staffs, environmental and minority community leaders and -the general public. Four workshops will be scheduled. Each workshop could be designed for a specific audience (business leaders, homeowner associations, etc), or they could designed as general workshops scheduled across•the twelve-month time frame. Initial scoping and ascertainment results will reveal the most appropriate audience mix. Each workshop will begin by introducing the Infrastructure Improvement Program and the community involvement process, past and present. Following the general introduction, the workshop will involve participants in a series of facilitated discussions that help to clearly define the problem, articulate consequences of not meeting the City's infrastructure needs, brainstorm possible solutions, and identify possible action items for various stakeholders. This focus on solutions will help develop a sense of ownership among participants and will, in effect, create a new set of stakeholders in the process --even if they didn't see themselves as such before the workshop. Following each workshop, a report will be provided to the IAC, city staff, and other recipients designated by the city. The input received will help shape the response to the infrastructure needs of the city. Invitations will be mailed to organizations and individuals identified in the ascertainment and recommended by the City. Dates and locations will also be publicized through the newspaper, announcements to local organizations, and other city publications. Although the workshop formats could vary according to specific audiences, each workshop will include: 1. An introduction to and focus on infrastructure issues 2. A pro -active, personal contact effort to ensure representation from stakeholders and opinion leaders 3. A cross section of interests that could play a role in developing program solutions 4. Involvement of and close coordination with local elected officials, city staff and committee members 5. An exit survey to provide quantifiable feedback 6. A participant evaluation Page 3 of 10 The workshops, led by a professional facilitator, will be approximately 2 hours long and scheduled at convenient times and locations. We will work with HBTV-3 local access cable TV to air one or more of the workshops. In addition, we will investigate the possibility of broadcasting the workshops on the Internet. The video, tabletop display, program brochure and other written materials will be the primary communication tools along with key questions targeted for the specific audiences. Develop a Tabletop Display for Community Events FW&A proposes to develop a tabletop display that can serve in any environment — from a casual Street Fair to a formal Economic Summit. It will be portable and will include eye-catching graphics. Collateral materials will be accommodated in racks, and can also be placed on the table in front of the display itself. The key collateral piece that we propose to feature is a program brochure (see description below). Event announcements and fact sheets could also be made available. FW&A will deliver, set up and dismantle the display for a minimum of six events. We also propose to use the display for the public workshops. Program Brochure A key collateral piece in the program will be the creation of a brochure communicating. the need for sound infrastructure, the -obstacles faced in creating and maintaining it, possible consequences of deferring maintenance and/or infrastructure construction, and a call to action. The IF brochure will be made available at community events, through presentations of the Speakers Bureau, at public workshops, and in press kits. The format will be 11 by 17 inches, folded once, printed in four colors on gloss cover. Media Relations Building media and editorial support will be a critical component in educating and creating broad awareness and community support for the Infrastructure Improvement Program. The positioning and framing of the infrastructure issues as well as the public information and outreach effort is an early and continuing priority. It can create an environment of support around the program early in the outreach process. We believe the following media relations activities should be carved out on behalf of the HP outreach effort. They include those requested in the request for proposal, among others: 30 and 60-second Public Service Announcement — FW&A will write and disseminate monthly (twelve) public service announcements publicizing various outreach activities that are currently taking place and highlighting key messages that have been developed regarding the Infrastructure Improvement Program. The PSAs will be disseminated to radio and TV stations. Creative assistance will be given to HBTV-3 to get the best coverage of the PSAs through cable programs. Additionally, FW&A will keep HBTV-3 informed of any outreach program activities so that they can be included among other announcements on the local cable channel. News releases, pitching and story placement — Print and broadcast outlets will be targeted through a focused database to pitch and place positive stories about the Infrastructure Improvement Program. Special attention will be paid to the major daily papers, the Los Angeles Times and The Register. The Huntington Beach Wave and the Huntington Beach Independent will offer other editorial opportunities. FW&A will also prepare and disseminate all news releases for the Public Workshops and other events requiring media interface. Briefings, editorial boards — FW&A believes that reaching out to the media early on in the project to clearly explain the benefits of safeguarding infrastructure will build the foundation of accurate, fair and favorable coverage. FW&A will identify opportunities for one-on-one media briefings and editorial boards. "Sands" Magazine Articles — FW&A has found that the quarterly magazines published by cities and delivered to all households are a very effective way of reaching a cross section of local residents. Since the City controls the content of the "Sands" magazine, space can be allocated to this key local issue. Likewise, the upcoming schedule of events for the outreach program can be publicized in the magazine. Page 4 of 10 Huntington Beach Infoline Information The Huntington Beach Infoline provides a cost-effective means for dissemination of information. The fax -back feature is particularly useful because of the flexibility it offers for transmitting printed materials. FW&A will consider this unique medium of communication throughout the course of the outreach program. We have used similar informational "Helplines" with great success on several projects, and we believe the flexibility of the Infoline can assist effectively in the outreach effort for the Infrastructure Improvement Program. Some of the ways we propose to use the Infoline include: event announcements, brief messages or frequently asked questions, fact sheets, and possibly even an informal "poll" if the technology supports such feedback. Key. to the success of the Infoline will be the inclusion of.the phone number and the three -digit codes for Infrastructure Improvement Program information in all collateral materials, press announcements, flyers, etc. Infrastructure Improvement Program Video The program video will offer information about infrastructure and the issues faced by residents of Huntington Beach in maintaining it. Through the creative use -of existing footage, the video will show the infrastructure issues and invite viewers to become part ofthe solution through participation in the outreach program. It -will be created with many possible uses in mind, such as the introduction to the project at public workshops, as a video file on the Web page (a short clip), and as the basis for b-roll for distribution to the media (Including HBTV-3). With both 3-5 minute and 30-minute formats, we will have the flexibility to meet most any presentation need. The video can be produced in other languages if needed to meet the needs of a particular community. Develop Web Page The Web site will be the repository of all -public -outreach information. We believe that, even within the short term of this project, the Web will continue to gain favor as a universal source of public information because of the easy access it offers. We propose the Web page to include the following information: • Background information on the Infrastructure Improvement Program • Updates on the Public Information & Community Outreach effort • News releases • Portable document format (PDF) files of the brochure, fact sheets, reports and other relevant information • Low graphics mode for computer users unable to view full graphics versions of video or animation • Link allowing users to request additional information which can be added to an interest list • Link allowing users to view the project video to gain a better understanding of the Infrastructure Improvement Program and its importance to the community. • Link users to live or rebroadcast public workshops Municipal Services Bill Stuffers The municipal services bill, like the "Sands" magazine, offers an opportunity to achieve a broad distribution of information by way of a familiar, well-read medium. FW&A proposes to print 3-color masters for all four billing cycles to achieve cost saving, followed by black imprints of the printed material for each edition of the insert. This method also allows us to use the familiar, recognizable program identity developed specifically for the Infrastructure Improvement Program. Library Information Repositories The library repositories are, quite simply, information notebooks. They contain key project information — all the collateral information that is produced to support the outreach program —in one notebook. The Huntington Beach main library and its branches, along with City Hall, the Chamber of Commerce=and any other public locations which might be appropriate will be sought as locations to house the repositories. We will arrange with the librarians and others to make the notebooks available to patrons upon request, and publicize their presence. Page 5 of 10 Task 4 Attend meetings to facilitate communication between City staff and committees and the City's consultant team. Meeting attendance is critical to ensure effective communication among consultants, City staff and committees. FW&A is prepared to attend monthly coordination meetings with the city, and to attend and make presentations on the status of the outreach program at monthly CIAC meetings and meetings of its Sub -Committees. City Council presentations will also be accommodated upon request. We have assumed the number of meetings cited in the RFP for our budgeting purposes. Task 5 Support the CIAC in the preparation of the final report for submittal to the City Council. FW&A will work with the CIAC to assist in preparation of a final report to the City Council. This support will include copy preparation and editorial support, graphics support and support in -preparing presentation materials for commission and council presentations. Task 6 Provide monthly progress reports (approximately 2 pages) Keeping City staff and committee members informed serves the very important purpose of having all parties remain well informed of the outreach program activities. From the project management perspective, having to articulate the progress of the outreach program can also call attention to issues or process steps that need attention along the way. We propose to make monthly written reports approximately two pages in length. .Task 7 Make available key staff to work with the CIAC and its committees,. City staff and the consultant team to assist on various issues and activities-40 hours. Projects of this magnitude inevitably require more coordination than can be anticipated in advance. FW&A will include 40 hours of time to the budget to be assigned as needed in order to ensure that all elements of the outreach plan are effectively implemented, and to ensure that our consulting services are put to work in any way possible on program -related activities. Task 8 --Assess the community's awareness and knowledge about the City's infrastructure. Frank Wilson & Associates, Inc. has enlisted the services of Market Research Associates, a leading Southern California based public policy and consumer research organization. We propose to use a three - step approach in order to meet the City of Huntington Beach's needs for the assessment of community awareness. The research is configured to accomplish four main objectives: • To measure overall awareness of the City of Huntington Beach's infrastructure. • To identify current perceptions and attitudes toward the City of Huntington Beach's infrastructure. • To evaluate the acceptance and understanding of a communication program and message statements. • To evaluate the acceptance of potential specific solutions to infrastructure funding to assist policy makers in their decision making. Approach The activities we propose to meet these objectives are as follows: 1. Focus Groups As one of the first activities in Phase One of the program we propose to conduct focus groups among citizens of Huntington Beach to gauge public. understanding of the city's infrastructure needs. The focus group results will reveal current awareness and perceptions of the City of Huntington Beach's infrastructure at this point in time. 2. Initial Telephone Survey Following the focus groups, also in Phase One, an initial telephone survey will help identify relevant messages to include in the development of outreach program materials. The survey will also provide an opportunity to understand public perceptions of the issues and potential solutions identified in the Citizens Infrastructure Advisory Committee's report to the City Council. Page 6 of 10 3. Final Telephone Survey This final "track" survey will be conducted during the second phase of the program, and is intended to provide the City with information related to specific potential funding solutions and infrastructure needs. It is expected that this survey will be among the last activities in the outreach program. Additional information needs will be discussed during the design phase and incorporated into the research activities. Focus Groups Design specifications for the focus groups follow; Group composition and location — Market Research Associates recommends that two groups be conducted in the City of Huntington- Beach. We recommend that one group be conducted among citizens between the ages of 18 and 34, and one group among citizens between the ages of 35 and 65. Screener and Discussion Guide — With the City's agreement to proceed, Market Research•Associates will design a screening questionnaire for recruiting. Once the screener is approved; -recruiting will begin and we can start discussion guide development. A typical discussion guide contains 8 to 10 pages of carefully worded investigation. As mentioned previously, the groups will be designed to investigate perceptions of the communication materials developed for this audience. Participants — All participants will be registered voters and citizens of the City of Huntington Beach. No participant will be an employee of any government or city entity. Additional qualifiers can be determined during the design phase of the screening questionnaire. Length — Each group will last approximately two hours. Where possible, the two groups will be conducted on the same day allowing for cost efficiencies. We recommend that a meal be served at each group. Observation and recording — All groups will be conducted at a focus group facility equipped to allow monitoring of the groups via a one-way mirror. In addition, the groups will be video and audio recorded to ensure a complete record for analysis purposes. Although all sessions will be audio and video recorded, we encourage representatives of the City of Huntington Beach to attend all focus groups. List source — Participants will be recruited from lists provided by Market Research Associates. The lists are designed specifically for market research purposes and will contain individual names and telephone numbers as specified by Market Research Associates. Market Research Associates does not use a database of focus group participants. This ensures that every group participant is selected based on pre- defined selection criteria and is not a professional participant who attends focus groups on a regular basis. Communication material — In order for participants to understand and evaluate potential communication materials, it is important that they see the materials under consideration. Frank Wilson & Associates, Inc. will be responsible for providing Market Research Associates with several proposed materials for discussion during the focus groups. Market Research Associates will work with Frank Wilson & Associates, Inc. to ensure proper display at the focus group that will eliminate any perceived bias. Moderation — Barbara Foster will moderate all groups. This will ensure consistency throughout the project. In addition, Barbara's experience with previous communication research will aid in complete probing of all issues. Page 7 of 10 Cooperation fee — We have found that there are definite advantages to paying participants for their time and opinions. Since participants tend to view their time as valuable, a cooperation fee is helpful to encourage attendance. Based on past experience, we suggest participants receive a co-op fee of $50 each. Results — Results from the research will be interpreted and analyzed into a concise, comprehensive report. The written report will be precise and designed to be read and easily understood by parties having no direct involvement with the research. The report will also include specific, actionable recommendations on communication material selection. These recommendations are based on past experience and findings unique to the research. Market -Research Associates' experience in conducting research makes these recommendations one of the most valuable aspects of our service. Oral Presentation — Market Research Associates will also deliver a verbal presentation of the research results. The oral presentation will be a complete review and interpretation of the- results -from the focus groups. The results presentation is a major benchmark that can make or break a research project. This forum helps facilitate understanding, support and team building towards effective use of research findings. In particular, the opportunity to ask questions and discuss.results is appreciated by our clients. Initial Telephone Survey Design specifications for the survey follow: Sample size, distribution and reliability — Market Research Associates recommends a sample size of 300 be used. To provide the most accurate picture of perceptions in the City of Huntington Beach, we recommend this sample size emulate the current demographic breakdown of city demographics as shown below. Ethnicity Caucasian Hispanic African American Asian or Pacific Islander Other Age 18-34 34% 35 - 54 42% 55 or older 24% Income Under $25,000 $25,000 to $49,000 $50,000 to $74,999 $75,000 to $99,999 $100,000 to $149,999 $150,000 or more Percent in the City of Huntington Beach 72% 14% 1% 12% 1% 14% 27% 25% 16% 12% 6% Statistically estimated sampling error is commonly used as a comparative measure of projectability of a' survey sample. The "worst case" ((50150) split, 95% confidence level) theoretical reliability for a sample of 400 is +5.1 %. List source — Respondents will be selected using a random digit dialing technique. This technique ensures that all residents of the City of Huntington Beach have equal opportunity to be included in the research, regardless of whether or not their phone number is listed. Page 8 of 10 Respondent criteria — Criteria for inclusion in the research will be a citizen of the City of Huntington Beach who is 18 or older. Additional qualifiers, if any, will be discussed during the design phase. Interviewing methodology — We have assumed a 10-minute interview with two open-ended questions. Additional open-ended questions can be added with adjustments to the budget. We believe this interview length to be sufficient for addressing all objectives as outlined in this proposal. Pre -test questionnaire design — Market Research Associates will design the research questionnaire with input from Frank Wilson & Associates, Inc. and the City of Huntington Beach. We invite all parties who will be required to take action based on the findings to be involved in the design process. -No interviews will be conducted until the City of Huntington Beach has given approval to the questionnaire. Pretesting — Once we've agreed on,the design, -we will pretest the survey instrument. A pretest -of the instrument will allow us to: • Ensure that all questions are worded appropriately and that the survey flows smoothly. • Test our assumptions concerning the ease of locating respondents. • Refine the budget, if necessary, based on actual interview length and completion rates. Data collection and monitoring — Once the questionnaire is approved, the interviewing will begin. Experienced, professional interviewers will place all calls. Market Research Associates quality assurance program requires that supervisors monitor a minimum of 20% of all calls. Immediate feedback to interviewers guarantees that questioning is on target and probing is complete. To ensure a proper representation of Spanish, -Mandarin and Vietnamese speaking respondents, bilingual interviewers :will be used to interview these respondents. Data Processing — As data are collected, they will be entered into MarketResearch Associates computer database for analysis and processed into easy -to -read tables. Market Research Associates computer software is designed specifically for market research needs and is some of the most sophisticated available today. Additionally, we anticipate subjecting certain data to a variety -of statistical analyses to enhance usability of the findings. Results — Results from the questionnaire will be presented in written and oral reports to the City of Huntington Beach. Five bound copies of the report will be provided. The written analysis will include Executive Summary, Methods, Detailed Results, Recommendations for Action, Survey Questionnaire, and Computer Data Tabulations. The written report will be concise and designed to be read and easily understood by parties with no direct involvement with the research. We currently expect the report to include bar graphs, tables, and perceptual maps as a way of presenting the results in an easy -to -read format. The report will include a set of actionable recommendations based on past experience and findings unique to the research. Market Research Associates' experience in conducting similar research for non-profit organizations and our experience conducting research for Frank Wilson & Associates, Inc. and the City of Huntington Beach makes these recommendations one of the most valuable aspects of our service. Oral presentation —The oral presentation will be a complete review and interpretation of the results of the pre- and post-test telephone survey. Use of color graphics enhances the ease of understanding and interpreting the data. The results presentation is a major benchmark that can make or break a research project. This forum helps facilitate effective use of the research -results through understanding, support and team building. In particular, the opportunity to ask questions and discuss results with the researcher is appreciated by our clients. Market Research Associates can include in the presentation a 15 to 20 minute videotape showing highlights from the focus groups for a small increase in the budget. These video excerpts are particularly effective for those individuals involved with this research but unable to attend all of the focus groups. Page 9 of 10 Past -test questionnaire design — Market Research Associates will review the questionnaire used in the pre -test and recommend changes, if necessary. As with the post-test questionnaire, no interviews will be conducted until the City of Huntington Beach has given approval to this questionnaire. Final Telephone Survey The final community survey will be a brief track survey --no more than seven minutes long. There will be no open-ended questions and a brief analysis. The sample size, respondent criteria and interviewing methodology for this survey will be the same as for the initial survey. This survey is intended to provide the City of Huntington Beach with key infonnation-related to potential specific solutions to the infrastructure funding identified in the report to the Council. Page 10 of 10 EXHIBIT A CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PUBLIC INFORMATION AND COMMUNITY OUTREACH CONSULTING SERVICES PHASING PLAN Task 1 Research' Infrastructure 10'� $1420 ' ' f 0 0 $1 420 ImpProgram t rovement Task . Create Program tdentity � 0 Task 3 . Cevelop &Implement Outreach 30 $1t?,10i 15t}3 $76,522 ;,j , _ $86, t- Plan 1. r-�-- ' _77-7_ _ Task 4,r ' Attend Mee `` " ' 5 r� ` �$5,608 : 100 r $11,217 :k Task 5 - Support Preparation ofCIAC t k S $ 350, 0 0 I F ✓ $10,350 Report to�,Councd '`_� �, ,� •�,,,•.: s,E �,- 7779 Task 6 Provide on Progress ` 11 ; $1,380 $2760 I� 2 ; ,{F f i $4,140 II � �. Report,_ ..�_ F ask 7 Support CIAO and Staff 30 $ 55D $7,100 „ Task 8 Assess the Commuroty about 130 _ $49,588 I1� r 1 ' $64;810 y !: " Infrastructure ISSUe3 I 1� $B1 9 2 f $� 13;041 $195;D38�IF elFF35� Phase One This phase of the outreach program includes research, strategy development, and positioning of the Infrastructure Improvement Program. Two focus groups and 15 to 20 individual ascertainment interviews with community leaders will help define issues. Frank Wilson & Associates will assist in the preparation of the Infrastructure Advisory Committee's report to the City Council, ensuring that the research results benefit the formulation of their recommendations. Frank Wilson & Associates will also create a Public Information and Community Outreach Strategic Plan which will identify the activities and timeframe for Phase Two implementation. The last step in Phase One, the opinion research, will help Identify residents' issues and awareness of local infrastructure issues and will assist in the effort to formulate the outreach program's key messages. Phase Two In this phase of the outreach program, the project's theme and messages will be developed and incorporated into a broad range of media, from web page and video to print materials and HB Infoline announcements. Materials will reach Huntington Beach residents through existing and new channels of communication, from the City's "Sands" magazine and stuffers in municipal services bills, to a speakers program and public workshops. A final community survey will be provided to assist decision -makers in identifying preferred solutions to the City's infrastructure problems. Page 1 of 2 President Account Services STANDARD HOURLY RATES Frank Wilson & Associates July '1999 $260 Director, Public Affairs $160 Public Relations Manager $115 Public Relations Specialist $ 95 Community Relations Specialist $115 Account Supervisor $115 Account Executive $ 95 Assistant Account Executive $ 80 Account Coordinator $ 65 Creative Services Creative Director $160 Production Manager $ 90 Assistant Production Manager $ 70 Accounting (when applicable) Accounting Manager $100 Clerical (when applicable) $ 45 Charges for rush projects will increase billing rates by 50 percent. Page 2 of 2 ACORD CERTIFICATE OF LIABILITY INSURANC 5R RS DATE{MMIDDIYY) -5 01/31/00 PRODUCER THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION Solomon & Solomon Insurance ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE Brokers HOLDER. THIS CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AMEND, EXTEND OR 23332 Mill Creek Dr Ste 135 ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES BELOW. Laguna Hills CA 92653 Phone:949-583-0300 Fax:949-951-9342 INSURED Frank Wilson & Associates'- Attn.: Betty Wilson 23332 Mill Creek Dr. Ste. 155 Laguna Hills CA 9265A COVERAGES INSURERS AFFORDING COVERAGE INSURER Republic Indemnity Co. INSURER - Commercial Union Insurance Co INSURER C: Gulf Insurance Co. INSURER C: INSURER E: THE POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BEl OW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD INDICATED. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY REQUIREMENT, TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN, THE INSURANCE AFFORD>D BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS, EXCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH POLICIES. AGGREGATE LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLAIMS. POLICY EFFECTIVE LTR TYPE OF INSURANCE POLICY NUMBER I 111 DATE MMIDDIYY DATE MMIDDIYY LIMITS i I EACH OCCURRENCE1 S 1 , 000 , 000 �FIREDAMAGE(Anyonefire) S 100,000 B XLGENERA�LLIABILITY CALK59395 6 01/01/00 01/01/01 FETY MADE I }%11 OCCUR MED EXP (Any one person) I $ 5,000 PERSONAL & ADV INJURY 4 S Excluded GENERAL AGGREGATE S2,000,000 GEN'L AGGREGATE LIMIT APPLIES PER: PRODUCTS - COMPIOP AGG s2,000,000 i POLICY PRO LOC J_CT • AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY COMBINED SINGLE LIMIT S ANY AUTO (Ea accideni) BODILY INJURY _ ALL OWNED AUTOS l SCHEDULED AUTOS y (Per person) BODILY INJURY $ HIRED A;,TOS I NON -OWNED AUTOS I (Per accident) PROPERTY DAMAGE S A'Y:_':. li✓ AS TO FOR14, :� Trr. r 'T (Per accident) GARAGE LIABILITY I r' rr - -�� I ALTO ONLY- EA ACCIDENT $ HER THAN EA ACC S ANY AUTO ' By: AUTO ONLY: AGG S EXCESS LIABILITY I DE u y Attbr>1ey EACH OCCURRENCE S OCCUR C CLAIMS MADE 1 AGGREGATE S S DECUGT,BLE A; S RETENTION $ WORKERS COMPENSATION AND X TORY LIMITS I I ER A EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY 134481-02 09/22/99 09/22/00 El EACH ACCIDENT IS1,000,000 E.L. DISEASE - EA EMPLOYEq $ 1,000,000 1 E.L. DISEASE- POLICYLIMT I S 1 000 000 OTHER C Prof. Liability GU0408267 12/02/99I 12/02/00 Limit 1,000,000 DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONSILOCATIONSIVEHICLESIEXCLUSIONS ADDED BY ENDORSEMENTISPECIAL PROVISIONS *10 days for non-payment of premium and/or non -reporting of payroll. City of Huntington Beach, its agents, officer, and employees are named as additional insured per endorsement CG2010 1093, attached. CERTIFICATE HOLT]FR I V i annITIONAL INSURED' INSURER LETTER_ A CANCELLATION HUNT101 SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED BEFORE THE EXPIRATION DATE THEREOF, THE ISSUING INSURER WILL ENDEAVOR TO MAIL 30 * RAYS WRITTEN City of Huntington Beach Attn.: Gary.Dysart 2000 Main St, NOTICE TO THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER NAMED TO THE LEFT, BUT FAILURE TO DO SO SHALL IMPOSE NO OBLIGATION OR LIABILITY OF ANY KIND UPON THE INSURER, ITS AGENTS OR REPRESENTATIVES. Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Solomon & Solomon Insurance ACURU 25-5 (7197) WAGO RU GURYURAI IUN IUdd NEWS & VIEWS Commercial Union Insurance Companies Richard Burnstein Solomon & Solomon Insurance Brokers 26024 Acero Mission Viejo, CA 92691 TO: All Producers iv RE: RE: CERTIFICATES OF INSURANCE June 1, 1994 We have had a number of calls requesting more information as a result of Ken'ss 05-23-94, letter regarding Certificates of Insurance. it is acceptable to name the certificate holder as additional insured as long as the specific endorsement that applies is referenced. The job number or location must be included. An example of acceptable wording is as follows: °Certificate holder is named as an additional insured per CGXXXX as respects job n101 at 801 N. Brand, Glendale, CA.° A listing of the more commonly used additional insured endorsements -is attached for your reference. Severability of interests and primary wording is contained in the Comprehensive General Liability coverage fore, CG0001 and if these provisions are referred'to on the certificate it must state "per CG0001." Any of Waiver of Subrogation is not acceptable. Under the Cancellation provision, we will not accept any changes in the wording including striking out the wording ,will endeavor." If you have any questions or special requirements, please contact your team underwriter. 9ytlo)l LAP•-T 801 No. Brand Blvd., 8th Floor P. 0. Box 29037 Glendale, California 91209-9037 ,���� 1 I:�� P59062-1 CL 690 CG 20 10 10 93 (10-93) ADDITIONAL INSURED --OWNERS, LESSEES OR CONTRACTORS (FORM B) This endorsement modifies insurance provided under the following: COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY COVERAGE PART ,This endorsement changes the policy effective on the inception date of the policy unless another date is indicated. SCHEDULE Name of Person or Organization: City of Huntington Beach, its agents, officers, and employees. (if no entry appears above, information required to complete -this endorsement will be shown in the Declarations as applicable to this endorsement.) WHO IS AN INSURED (Section li) is amended to include as an insured the person or organization shown in the Schedule, but only with respect to liability arising out of your ongoing operations performed for that insured. RCA ROUTING SHEET INITIATING DEPARTMENT: CITY ADMINISTRATION SUBJECT: Approve Consulting Services for the Public Information and Community Outreach Program for the Infrastructure Improvement Program COUNCIL MEETING DATE: February 7, 2000 RCA ATTACHMENTS STATUS Ordinance (w/exhibits & legislative draft if applicable) Not Applicable Resolution (wlexhibits & legislative draft if applicable) Not Applicable Tract Map, Location Map and/or other Exhibits Not Applicable Contract/Agreement (wlexhibits if applicable) (Signed in full by the City Attorney) Attached Subleases, Third Party Agreements, etc. (Approved as to form by City Attorney) Not Applicable Certificates of Insurance (Approved by the City Attorney) Attached Financial Impact Statement (Unbudget, over $5,000) Not Attached (Explain) Bonds (If applicable) Attached Staff Report (If applicable) Not Attached (Explain) Commission, Board or Committee Report (if applicable) Not Applicable Findings/Conditions for Approval and/or Denial Not Applicable EXPLANATION`FOR'MISSING ATTACHMENTS REVIEWED. Administrative Staff Assistant City Administrator (Initial) City Administrator (Initial) City Clerk EXPLANATION FOR RETURN OF ITEI DED /-Ij : REQUEST FOR LATE SUBMITTAL (To accompany RCA`s submitted after Deadline Department: City Subject LIMP PIO Outreach Program Administration Council Meeting Date: 217100 = Date of This Request: 1/31/00 EXPLANATION (Why is this RCA necessary to this agenda?): Program must move forward as soon as aossible. ature: Department Head 0 Approved 0 Denied Ray Silver City Administrator Department: City Subject IMP PIO Outreach Program Administration Council Meeting Date: 217100 Date of This Request: 1/31/00 EXPLANATION (Why is this RCA necessary to this agenda?): Program must move forward as soon as possible. CONSEQUENCES (How shall delay of this RCA adversely impact the City?): Proaram implementation will be delaved. ature: Department Head CI -Approved 0 Denied Ray Silver City Administrator it IIMP Public Information & Community Outreach Program f,il Infrastructure Advisory vrr Committee r V � 111 *Recommended hiring of consulting firm to provide public information and community outreach *Four members of the IAC Public Information Sub -Committee participated on the selection panel * IAC endorses panel recommendation z ry C February 7, 2004 1 0 IMP Public Information & Community Outreach Program ublic Information & Community Outreach Program Goals *Timely & accurate dissemination of information about the PIMP *Develop community awareness of local infrastructure needs *Identify residents' attitudes *Encourage informed public consent for the program 3 ;.z�' �f^Y` �- ♦ Selection Poi *Council authorized RFP in October 1999 *Pre -proposal meeting with twelve consulting firms *Eight proposals received & evaluated *Three firms invited to make presentation to selection panel *Frank Wilson & Associates selected 4 February 7, 2000 2 ]IMP Public Information & Community outreach Program 46 *Work with the IAC and City staff *Assist with preparation of the IAC final report *Interview community representatives to help define community issues & awareness *Conduct 2 focus group sessions Scope of Work Phase 1 (cont.) *Develop communication public outreach plan & time frame for Phase 2 implementation *Conduct survey of 300 residents to identify potential concerns and gauge awareness of infrastructure needs *Present findings & recommendations to City Council 5 B February 7, 2000 3 IIMP Public Information & Community Outreach Program Scope of Work Phase 2 *Must be authorized by City Council *Develop & implement community outreach theme & prepare education messages for a broad range of media *With the City PIO Department, implement the communication program *Conduct a community survey to identify preferred solutions to infrastructure needs Provide monthly progress reports Project Schedule Phase 1 ebruary ,(Work with IAC to understand IIMP ✓Interview community representatives * February - April • Focus group research • Assist preparation of IAC final report *February - May ./Meetings & progress reports ,(Community telephone survey ,(Develop communications program plan 8 February 7, 2000 y 4 IIMP Public Information & Community Outreach Program Frank Wilson & Associates Qualifications *Recognized consulting firm specializing in: ,.'Community outreach & assessment ✓ Public involvement ,(Consensus building *Infrastructure related projects: ✓Santa Clarita Parkway Alignment ✓Caltrans District 7 - earthquake recovery program Contract Budget .r Project budgeted FY 99100 $200,000 # Phase 1 $ 81,997 # Phase 2 {when authorized} $113,038 Total $195,035 9 10 February 7, 2000 5 IMP Public Information & Community Outreach Program -APR"- Recommendation *Approve selection of Frank Wilson & Associates for the I I M P Public Information and Community Outreach Program ■Approve the contract and authorize Phase 1 at a cost not to exceed $81,997 11 Y i l? I- J Infrastructure Advisory Committee Public Information and Community Outreach Program Phase 1 12 February 7, 2000 6 Ba.,e na.eit ,- Ad-yr,»j .s" Council/Agency Meeting Held: 4G -jo Deferred/Continued to: 61Clerk's �Approved ❑ ConditionallyApproved ❑ enied AIN FA Avv Signature sc A-o vli cn Reny Council Meeting Date: 10-1 T Department ID Number: AD99-23 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH'= REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION _ SUBMITTED TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS i= f; SUBMITTED BY: RAY SILVER, City Administrator PREPARED BY: RICHARD BARNARD�, Ddputy City Administrator SUBJECT: Request for Proposal for Professional Public Information & Community Outreach Consulting Services for the Infrastructure Improvement Program Statement of Issue, Funding Source, Recommended Action, Alternative Action(s), Analysis, Environmental Status, Attachments) Stateme,tr t of Issue: Seeking authorization from the City Council for the distribution of Request for Proposals (RFP's) for a professional consulting firm to provide Public Information & Community Outreach Services for the Infrastructure Improvement Program. The Citizen Infrastructure Advisory Committee (CIAC) supports issuing the RFP for Public Information and Community Outreach Consulting Services for the Infrastructure Improvement Program. Funding Source: No funds are needed to distribute the Request for Proposal. Two hundred thousand dollars ($200,000) is in the 1999/2000 Budget for professional consulting services for Public Information & Community Outreach. Recommended Action: 1. Approve the Request for Proposal (RFP) for professional consulting services for a Public Information & Community Outreach Program for the Infrastructure Improvement Program and authorize the deletion of Professional Liability Insurance Requirements as recommended by the City's Settlement Committee. 2. Authorize the City Administrator to distribute the RFP and return at a future date to the City Council with a recommended firm to provide Professional Public Information & Community Outreach Consulting Services for the Infrastructure Improvement Program. t+Vrf-h 47n on!y„CAV-eo c &ei{ge. ?1t 7 The--c.he, & 7na)sM/x F. Aa.L licPo� z C'. ar✓ c exoe�d��s a r� Alternative tlon(s). 1. Do not approve the RFP and direct staff accordingly. 2. Modify the RFP. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 10-18-99 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: AD99-23 Analysis: As a direct result of the Integrated Infrastructure Management Program (IIMP), the City Council, in March 1998, appointed a Citizen Infrastructure Advisory Committee (CIAC) to begin a community -wide effort to address the City's infrastructure needs. This committee is comprised of 35 primary members and an equal number of alternates, representing a cross section of leaders from community and business organizations as well as City commissions and boards. The CIAC's mission is to review the IIMP and forecasted shortfall of public funding resources and make recommendations to the City Council regarding the optimum approach for financing/funding.the most critical and long term infrastructure needs of the community. This was to be accomplished by: • Becoming informed about the existing infrastructure conditions as well as projected long-term requirements of the City; • Becoming generally informed about the City's overall revenue sources, expenditures, and budgets; • Evaluating and recommending possible financing/funding methods; and • Participating with the City Council in joint workshops/study sessions. Recommendations that are to be presented to the City Council by the CIAC will be designed to insure the future viability of the City's infrastructure systems. The _ CIAC studied such facilities as: the community drainage facilities, sewer facilities, streets and highways, public owned buildings, public owned parks and landscaped areas, sidewalks, curb and gutters, traffic signals, street lighting, and highway block walls. At the start of the process, many of the Committee members themselves had only a rudimentary understanding of the City's infrastructure. The CIAC has been meeting on a regular basis since March 1998 to: • Educate themselves about the current condition of the community's infrastructure; • Understand the immediate and long term (20 year) needs for the community's infrastructure; • Become knowledgeable about the cost to build, replace, and maintain required infrastructure systems; • Prioritize infrastructure needs as part of a twenty (20) year plan; and • Identify and understand the various financial methods that are available to fund city infrastructure. The City and the CIAC believe it is time to expand the infrastructure educational process they have gone through, to the community as a whole. The committee believes that the time has come for the City to make a concerted effort to inform the public on the real need to repair, replace, upgrade and maintain the City's infrastructure. The purpose of employing the services of a Consultant is to assist RCA RFP P10.doc -2- 10/05/99 3:10 PM REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 10-18-99 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: AD99-23 the City and the CIAC in presenting information about the City's infrastructure to Huntington Beach residents. The Public Information & Community Outreach Consultant will be expected to provide leadership for educating the residents and the media about the condition of the community's infrastructure. The ultimate goal of the Public Information & Community Outreach Program is to insure that residents are fully aware of the infrastructure needs of the community and the difficult choices that they and the City Council may be asked to make about the City's infrastructure. Once the interview process is completed and a firm is selected, a Professional Services Contract will be prepared and a recommendation to approve the firm and the Contract will be brought before the City Council. Also, on September 13, 1999 the City's Settlement Committee considered whether Professional Liability Insurance requirements would need to be a part of a contract for Public Information & Community Outreach Consulting Services. The Committee unanimously voted to recommend to the City Council to delete the requirement for Professional Liability Insurance from the contract that the City Council would ultimately consider for approval. Therefore City Settlement Committee and City Staff is requesting the City Council to authorize the distribution of the RFP without the requirement for Professional Liability Insurance due to minimal risk exposure for these types of services. Environmental Status: Not Applicable Request for Proposals (RFP's) for Professional Public Information & Community Outreach Consulting Services for Infrastructure Improvement Program, Dated, October 18, 1999. RCA Author: Richard Barnard, RCA RFP PIO.doc -3- 10/05/99 3:10 PM CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH RFP for Public Innfommon & Corr mmnity Wmadi Consulhing Rnices for hedzuambrPUMMIRug= - PagD 1. CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY ADMINISTRATION OFFICE OF PUBLIC INFORMATION REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS For Professional Public Information & Community Outreach Consulting Services For Infrastructure Improvement Program October 18, 1999 PROPOSAL SUBMITTALS: Responses to the Request for Proposal (RFP) are to be submitted to: Mr. Richard Amadril, Central Services Manager Administrative Services City of Huntington Beach City Hall 2000 Main Street P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 714/536-5221, Fax # 714/374-1571 No later than 4:00 P. M. on November 22,1999. Fifteen (15) copies of the proposal shall be submitted in a sealed envelope and marked: "Proposal for Consultant Services, Public Information & Community Outreach for the City's Infrastructure Improvement Program." Proposals received after the specified time will not be accepted and will be returned unopened. A pre -proposal conference will be held for all consultants on October 26, 1999, at 11:00 A.M. at the Huntington Beach Civic Center, 2000 Main Street, on the lower level in Room B-8. Questions regarding this request may be addressed Richard Amadril, Central Service Manager in writing.. CONTENTS SECTION PAGE I. Introduction 2 II. Schedule of Events 2 III. General Background 2 IV. Proposal Instructions and Conditions 4 V. Scope of Work 5 VI. Fee Proposal Requirements 8 VII. Proposal Requirements 9 VIII. General Requirements 11 IX. Consultant Evaluation & Selection Process 12 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH UP for Public k]f+o nadm & Comnnmi y Owewh C whing Savices for klnlchue Imp�ovarlart PIvg�In Page 2 I. INTRODUCTION The City of Huntington Beach is requesting proposals from qualified firms for assisting the City in the development and implementation of a Public Information & Community Outreach Program for the City's Integrated Infrastructure Management Program (IIMP). Conducting community surveys will also be part of the proposed scope of work. II. SCHEDULE OF EVENTS October 20, 1999 Issuance of Request for Proposals October 26, 1999 A pre -proposal conference for consultants November 22, 1999 Proposal due from consultants by 4:00 p.m. November 30, 1999 Consultant selection panel reviews proposals and establishes a short list to be interviewed December 6, 1999 Interview panel conducts consultant interviews (tentative date) January 4, 2000 City Council approval of Consultant Contract (tentative date) January 5, 2000 Issuance of notice -to -proceed (tentative date) III. GENERAL BACKGROUND Huntington Beach is a charter city, administered by a Council/Administrator form of government. Huntington Beach is a full service city encompassing an area of 28 square miles with a population of 196,700. The total annual City budget is approximately $234 million, with the General Fund portion of the budget totaling approximately $110 million. In April 1997, the Integrated Infrastructure Management Program ([IMP) was presented to the City Council. The IIMP was the result of many years of effort by the City's Finance Board, Public Works Commission, and City Staff. In 1995, The City's Finance Board informed the City Council that the City's infrastructure needs, including required capital improvements, rehabilitation, reconstruction, and maintenance were under funded. The City Council directed the Public Works Department staff to compile a study of infrastructure needs and make recommendations for a financing strategy. In 1996, the City Council established the City's first Public Works Commission that undertook a series of infrastructure workshops with City Staff over approximately one year. These workshops culminated in the development and presentation of the Integrated Infrastructure Management Program (IIMP) to the City Council in April 1997. The IIMP is: • A comprehensive inventory of the City's capital assets; A projection of required capital improvements, rehabilitation, reconstruction, and maintenance needs including estimated costs for the next 20 years; + A projection of funding available to the City for each infrastructure component for the 20 year period; and + The estimated shortfall of funds to meet the projected needs for each component. The IIMP has forecast a funding shortfall of approximately $600 million over the next 20 years. As a direct result of the IIMP, the City Council, in March 1998, appointed a Citizen Infrastructure Advisory Committee (CIAC) to begin a community -wide effort to address the City's infrastructure needs. This committee is comprised of 35 primary members and an equal number of alternates, representing a cross section of leaders from community and business IIMP-RFP-REVISI:D.DOc g;.contracts 10105 992:43 PM CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH RFP for Public Information & Cwman* Wmach Caging Services for hfflwftuckn kWmv=eM Plaglam Page 3 organizations as well as City commissions and boards. The CIAC's mission is to review the [IMP and forecasted shortfall of public funding resources and make recommendations to the City Council regarding the optimum approach for financing/ funding the most critical and long term infrastructure needs of the community. This was to be accomplished by: • Becoming informed about the existing infrastructure conditions as well as projected long-term requirements of the City; • Becoming generally informed about the City's overall revenue sources, expenditures, and budgets; • Evaluating and recommending possible financing/funding methods; and • Participating with the City Council in joint workshops/study sessions. The recommendations that are to be presented to the City Council by the CIAC will be designed to insure the future viability of the City's infrastructure systems. The CIAC studied such facilities as: the community drainage facilities, sewer facilities, streets and highways, public owned buildings, public owned parks and landscaped areas, sidewalks, curb and gutters, traffic signals, street lighting, and highway block walls. At the start of the process, many of the Committee members themselves had only a rudimentary understanding of the City's infrastructure. The CIAC has been meeting on a regular basis since March 1998 to: • Educate themselves about the current condition of the community's infrastructure; • Understand the immediate and long term (20 year) needs for the community's infrastructure; • Become knowledgeable about the cost to build, replace, and maintain required infrastructure systems; • Prioritize infrastructure needs as part of a twenty (20) year plan; and • Identify and understand the various financial methods that are available to fund city infrastructure. The City and the CIAC believe it is time to expand the infrastructure educational process they have gone through, to the community as a whole. The committee believes that the time has come for the City to make a concerted effort to inform the public on the real need to repair, replace, upgrade and maintain the City's infrastructure. The purpose of employing the services of a Consultant is to assist the City and the CIAC in presenting information about the City's infrastructure to Huntington Beach residents. The Consultant will be expected to provide leadership for educating the residents and the media about the condition of the community's infrastructure. The ultimate goal of the Public Information & Community Outreach Program is to insure that residents are fully aware of the infrastructure needs of the Community and the difficult choices that they and the City Council may be asked to make about the City's infrastructure. The CIAC anticipates bringing a series of findings, conclusions and recommendations forward to the City Council in December 1999 or January 2000. Under the Scope of Work (Task 5), the Consultant is required to assist the CIAC and City Staff in the preparation of the final report of the CIAC, with its findings, conclusions, and recommendations for submittal to the City Council. Following the release and presentation of the CIAC's report to the City Council, the City Council will consider the Committee's recommendations. Once the report has been reviewed and discussed by the City Council Members, it is anticipated that the City Council will provide direction based upon the findings and recommendations of the CIAC's report. It IIMP-RFP-REVISF.D.DOC:-"gcontracts IO!'05i992:43 Phi CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH RFP for Public Infarmafion & Community OMM& Carl Ulting Services for hffizq cu= ln10o Program Page 4 will be this City Council directed program that the Consultant will need to bring to the attention of t le local residents. IV. PROPOSAL INSTRUCTIONS AND CONDITIONS Pre -Contractual Expenses - Pre -Contractual expenses are defined as expenses incurred by proposers in: • Preparing a proposal in response to the RFP • Submitting that proposal to the City of Huntington Beach • Negotiating with the City of Huntington Beach in any matter related to this RFP, proposal, and/or contractual agreement • Any other expenses incurred by the proposer prior to the date of an executed contract. The City of Huntington Beach shall not, in any event, be liable for any pre -contractual expenses incurred by any proposer. In addition, no proposer shall include any such expenses as part of the price proposed to perform the requested services. 2. Aythority to Withdraw RFP and/or Not Award Contract - The City of Huntington Beach reserves the right to withdraw the RFP at any time without prior notice. Further, the City makes no representations that any agreement will be awarded to any proposer responding to this RFP. The City expressly reserves the right to postpone the opening of proposals for its own convenience and to reject any and all proposals in response to this RFP without indicating any reasons for such rejection(s). 3. Right to Reject Proposal - The City of Huntington Beach reserves the right to reject any or all proposals submitted. Any award made for this engagement will be made to the proposer which, in the opinion of the City, is best qualified to perform the services. 4. Discrepancies in Bid Documents - Should proposer find discrepancies in, or omissions from the request for proposal, or if the intent of the invitations are not clear, and if provisions of the specifications restrict proposer from proposing, they may request in writing that the deficiency(s) be modified. Such request must be received by the Central Services Manager five (5) days before due date. All proposers will be notified by addendum of any approved changes in request for proposal documents. 5. Oral Statements - The City of Huntington Beach is not responsible for oral statements made by any of their employees or agents concerning request for proposal. If the proposer required specific information, proposer must request that it be supplied in writing by the City of Huntington Beach. IIMP-RFP-REVISEI).DOC-"grcomracts IW05r992:43 PM CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH RFPforMhcb&mafim& Camuway OWmch Cawhng Sevioes for h*H0=n k*UM1W Rr09t= Page 5 V. SCOPE OF WORK The Consultant will be expected to develop and implement a Public Information and Community Outreach Program, consistent with City Council direction that will educate local residents about the City's infrastructure needs. The Consultant will be expected to develop and implement overall communications strategies, tactics and activities, as well as an implementation schedule. This will ensure that the local residents understand the City's infrastructure needs and what financial commitment is required to meet those needs. Also, coordination with the CIAC and the CIAC Public Education Sub -Committee and the City's Public Information Office (PIO) is mandatory, and attendance at meetings required. The Communications Consultant must provide for coordination between the City's PIO and the Consultant. In general, there are two Parts to the scope of work to be performed by the Consultant: Part I addresses the development and implementation of a Public Information and Community Outreach Program. Part 11 addresses the need to survey community members regarding their opinions, attitudes and awareness about the City's infrastructure needs. It is anticipated that the City will employ the Consultant from November 1999 till December 2000. The scope of work of the Consultant's services shall include, but not be limited to, the following Tasks: PART I - PUBLIC INFORMATION AND COMMUNITY OUTREACH TASK 1 - Become knowledgeable about the City's Infrastructure Improvement Program 1.1 Meet with the City Officials and the CIAC. 1.2 Attend meetings of the CIAC, the CIAC Steering Committee, the CIAC Public Education Sub -Committee, and the Public Works Commission; 1.3 Meet with other groups that can contribute to the Consultant's overall understanding of the City's Infrastructure Improvement Program. TASK 2 - Create a program identity 2.1 Develop a simple and effective format for communicating the most critical information generated by the City's Infrastructure Improvement Program, incorporating a consistent "loole, i.e. theme, mastheads, fact sheets, etc. TASK 3 -- The Consultant shall develop a comprehensive Public Information and Community Outreach Plan for approval by the City. The Plan shall include strategies, tactics, and an implementation schedule. Upon approval of the Plan, the Consultant shall be responsible for undertaking the tasks required to implement the Plan. The Plan shall include, but not be limited to, the following: 3.1 Identify the recommended target audience and the communication resources to be used to communicate with the audience (i.e. newsletters, speaker's bureau, voter registration programs, mailers, television, & media, etc.) Help the City focus on the most cost-effective media with the target audience in mind, rather than an array of methods that are not particularly cost-effective. CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH RR fore& is Infalr mfim & Commu * Outreach Cmi tarZg Savices for Ii>&astruar hTmVffMIProgram Page 6 3.2 The Public Information and Community Outreach Plan shall include a combination of elements from the following candidate list, or others that may be brought forward, that combine to yield the most cost-effective package for gaining understanding and support for this program. Suggested elements to be evaluated for inclusion in the program include, but are not limited to: 3.2.1 Develop the hey messages that need to be frequently shared with the residents about the CIAC process, City Budget & City's Infrastructure Improvement Program; 3.2.2 Write a script and prepare a PowerPoint slide presentation that provides current information about the Infrastructure Improvement Program; 3.2.3 Identify community stakeholder groups and organizations that will need to be communicated with under the Public Information and Community Outreach Program; 3.2.4 Develop a Speaker's Bureau, and schedule speaking engagements throughout the year 2000 at which the Infrastructure Improvement Program can be presented; 3.2.5 Conduct a,ninimum of four (4) public workshops; 3.2.6 Develop a display and collateral support materials for distribution at a minimum of six (6) community events; 3.2.7 Draft press releases and coordinate their dissemination with the City; 3.2.8 Using City video footage that is already available, work with HBTV-3 to write a video script for a short (3-5 minute) and longer (30 minute) video highlighting the salient points about the City's Infrastructure Improvemeent Program; 3.2.9 Write 30 and 60 second Public Service Announcements and provide creative input to HBTV-3 for distribution over cable television stations (assume 12 PSA's will be required); 3.2.10 Write articles about the Infrastructure for inclusion in each issue of the "Sands" magazine which is published quarterly by the City and distributed to Huntington Beach residents; 3.2.11 Develop and publish a Web page linked to the City's Web page containing information about the City's Infrastructure Improvement Program, and subsequent information that becomes available, resulting from the CIAC and City Council actions; 3.2.12 Develop 4" x 6" information sheet for inclusion into the City's Municipal Services Bill at least four (4) times during the year 2000; 3.2.13 Prepare written material for insertion into mailers or to be handed out; 3.2.14 Develop information for inclusion on the Huntington Beach Infoline. TASK 4 - The Consultant's proposal shall include a plan for attending meetings scheduled throughout the year 2000 which will facilitate communication between City Staff, the City's Consultant Team and the CIAC Steering Committee, the CIAC Public Information Sub -Committee, and Consultant's hey staff. 4.1 Attend monthly coordination meetings with the City. Assume twelve (12) meetings; 4.2 Attend and make presentations at monthly CIAC meetings. Assume twelve (12) meetings; IIMP-RFP-REVISED.DOCiecontraots 10105;992:43 Phi CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH RR for P&hchfmralim& Comnnu*y OMwch Consta4 Services for hfagn== hrPDVMnexrt PUgrdln 7 4.3 Attend and make presentations at monthly CIAC Public Information Sub - Committee or other CIAC Sub -Committees as established from time -to - time. Assume twelve (12) meetings; and 4.4 Attend and make presentations at City Council meetings on an as -needed basis. Assume four (4) meetings. TASK 5 - Provide consultation and support to the CIAC in the preparation of the final report of the CIAC with its finding, conclusions, and recommendations for submittal to the City Council. TASK 6 - The Consultant shall provide monthly progress reports (approximately 2 pages). TASK 7 - In addition to other Tasks the consultant shall make available key staff to work with the CIAC and its committees, City Staff, and the City's Consultant Team to provide input and assistance on various issues and activities that may come up during the course of the Consultant contract. It is intended these services be for tasks that are not otherwise covered under Tasks 1 through 6 of Part I or Part 11 of the Scope of Work. A budget of a specified number of hours, not to exceed a specified amount, shall be set aside in the contract for this task. For the purposes of this proposal, the Consultant shall use forty (40) hours as the budget amount. PART II - ASSESSING COMMUNITY OPINION TASK 8 - Assess the community's awareness and knowledge about the City's infrastructure. 8.1 Establish a baseline of awareness about the community's infrastructure needs. Working with the CIAC, develop a plan which will enable the Consultant to gauge the awareness and knowledge of community stakeholders (i.e. editorial boards, elected officials, city boards, committees and commissions, service organizations, community and neighborhood -based groups, and organizations) about the City's Infrastructure Improvement needs and the Plan to address those needs. 8.2 As may be required, employ and manage the services of a public opinion research consultant to assist in determining the public opinions, attitudes and awareness about the City's infrastructure needs. Techniques to be used by the Consultant in conducting community ascertainment studies are to be approved by the City. 8.1.1 Formulate the proposed process for obtaining a quantitative sample of public opinion. The City and CIAC shall approve the appropriate audience size which must be large enough to ensure an effective demographic and geographic cross tabulation of the results; 8.1.2 Collaborate with the public opinion consultant, CIAC, and the City staff in formulating the survey questions to be asked of local residents; LIMP-RFP-REVISED.DOClg/conracts 10!05!992:43 Phi CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH RFP for Mfic II>f fna& n & Caamuumy O barh C uhirg Services for h*aAWIIIr hT plvvernls t 13ag= Page8 8.1.3 Conduct surveys using such public opinion techniques as telephone surveys, focus groups, and other communications methods to determine local residents' attitudes and understanding about City infrastructure needs; 8.1.4 Conduct a survey to assess community awareness of infrastructure needs and prevailing attitudes and or themes within approximately the first sixty (60) days following the notice to proceed; 8.1.5 The Consultant shall assume that two subsequent surveys may need to be conducted at specified intervals within a twelve (12) month period to assess any changes in the public's awareness and changing attitudes, as well as gather further information and data; 8.1.6 The Consultant shall prepare and deliver to the City, within two (2) weeks after each survey completion, a final report that includes an analysis of the survey results and summarization of public awareness and attitudes about the City infrastructure; 8.1.7 Develop a recommended means of monitoring the effectiveness of the Public Information and Outreach Program. Candidate methods include telephone surveys, focus groups, or other communication methods. V. FEE PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS In preparing the proposal fee schedule for the services identified under the scope of work, the Consultant shall take into consideration the following: 1. Compensation for services provided in completing the tasks under Parts I and II shall be based upon an hourly rate, not to exceed the total compensation of the authorized budget amount for each part. 2. A work plan, together with a breakdown of labor hours by employee billing classification together with the cost of non -labor and sub -consultant services, shall be included with the fee proposal. The labor breakdown shall be compiled by project task, and be based on a listing of work tasks that correlates with the Consultant's defined scope of work for the project proposal. This information will be used by the City to evaluate the reasonableness of the Fee Proposal, and will be used in negotiating the final fee amounts for the contract agreement. 3. The Consultant shall state in the fee proposal the number of hours allotted in its fee amount for each task identified under the Scope of Work. Also, the Consultant shall state the fee for attending meetings with the CIAC, City staff, and others. Should the amount of hours expended during these tasks exceed the amount included in the fee quote, the Consultant may be authorized to invoice the City for the additional hours upon first notifying the City that the budget limit for meetings has been reached. The City shall then determine whether additional hours for meetings will be authorized. II'SIP-RFP-REVISED.DOC gicontracts 10 05i992:43 PXI CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH RFP for fthc h&mnaom& Community O keadi Cony, ft Services for h*aWudIne Irrlpluv=W Pmg= Page 4 4. The Consultant's standard billing rates for all classifications of staff likely to be involved in the project shall be included with the fee proposal, along with the mark- up rate for any non -labor expenses and sub -consultants. 5. The Consultant shall prepare monthly progress billings, reflective of the project schedule. VI. PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS Although no specific format is required by the City, this section is intended to provide guidelines to the Consultant regarding features which the City will look for and expect to be included in the proposal. 1. Content and Format The City requests that the proposals submitted be organized and presented in a neat and understandable format, and be relevant to these services. Consultant's proposals shall be clear, accurate, and comprehensive. Excessive or irrelevant material will not be favorably received. Proposals shall contain no more than twenty-five (25) typed pages using a 10-point minimum font size, including transmittal/offer letter and resumes of key people, but excluding Index/Table of Contents, tables, charts, and graphic exhibits. The purpose of these restrictions is to minimize the costs of proposal preparation, and to ensure that the response to the RFP is fully relevant to the project. The separately submitted Fee Proposal should contain only enough pages to clearly respond to the information that is requested in the RFP. The proposal should include the following: • Transmittal/offer letter; • Page numbering; • Index/Table of Contents; • Team Organization including an organization diagram; • Approach to the Project; • Descriptions of similar projects by key staff to be used on this assignment; • Brief resumes of key staff; • Project schedule. 2. Scope of Services A description of the work program that will be undertaken shall be included in this section. It should explain the technical approach, methodology, and specific tasks and activities that will be performed to address the specific issues and work items identified in the RFP. It should also include a discussion of constraints, problems, and issues that should be anticipated during the contract, and suggestions for approaches to resolving them. IIMP-RFP-RFVISF.D.DOC.'gfcontracts 10.'05/992:43 PM CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH RFP far P&hc ITIfO mafim & Camuirfty Outreach Ca u iT Savices for h&dMUMnhrPDV==RPV= Page 10 3. Statement of Qualifications The information requested in this section is for the consulting firm to describe the qualifications of the firm, key staff, and sub -consultants used in performing projects within the past five (5) years, that are similar in scope and size, to demonstrate competence to perform these services. The projects listed should be those that the key staff named for the projects were responsible for performing services. Information shall include: • Names of key staff that participated on named projects and their specific responsibilities; • Client names, contact persons, addresses, and telephone numbers; • A brief description of type and extent of services provided; • Completion dates (estimated, if not yet completed); • Total costs of the projects. A sample format for presentation of the above -prescribed information is included as Attachment B for the Consultant's reference. There should be included in the section brief resumes of key personnel who will provide these services, demonstrating their qualifications and experience. Resumes should highlight education, experience, licenses, relevant experience, and specific responsibilities for services described. 4. Project Team The purpose of this section is to describe the organization of the project team including sub -consultants and key stag: A project manager and an alternate project manager shall be named who shall be the prime contact and be responsible for coordinating all activities with the City. An organizational diagram shall be submitted showing all key team members and illustrating the relationship between the City, the project manager, key staff, and sub -consultants. There also should be a brief description of the role and responsibilities of all key staff and sub -consultants identified in the team organization. S. Project Schedule A project schedule shall be included which identifies, in graphical format, the timetable for completion of tasks, activities, and phases of the project which correlate with the scope of work for the project. There should be a brief discussion of any key assumptions used in preparing the timetable, and identification of critical tasks and/or events that could impact the overall schedule. 6. Fee Proposal A Fee Proposal shall be submitted in a separate, sealed envelope and marked as "Fee Proposal", along with the name of the project. The information and detail included in IIMP-RFP-REVISED.DOCIg+contracls I0/05/992:43 PM CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH RFP for PuMlic Information & Comr xu* OWeach Cbm t* Services for ftffasnucl= Lr>lxuvement Prr 9MM Page 11 the Fee Proposal shall conform to the provisions of Section V., Fee Proposal Requirements, of this RFP. A work program, together with a breakdown of labor hours by employee billing classification with the cost of non -labor and sub -consultant services, shall be included with the Fee Proposal. The labor breakdown shall be compiled based on a listing of work tasks that correlates with the Consultant's defined scope of work for the project proposal. This information will be used by the City staff to evaluate the reasonableness of the Fee Proposal, and may be used in negotiating the final fee amounts for the contract agreement. The Fee Proposal of the three (3) top ranked Consultants will be opened at the conclusion of the Consultant evaluation and selection process. Fees will not be used to determine the ranking of the Consultants. The Fee Proposals of those consultants not ranked in the top three will be returned to them unopened upon award of a contract to the selected Consultant. The city will negotiate the final fee with the top ranked Consultant. Reimbursable expenses shall not be allowed unless negotiated prior to a contract. Price escalations during the contract term are disfavored and shall be approved in negotiations prior to a contract. 7. Statement of Offer & Signature The proposal, including the Fee Proposal, shall be signed by an individual authorized to bind the Consultant. The proposal shall contain a statement that the proposal and accompanied fee is a firm offer for a 60-day period. VII. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS 1. Insurance Requirements The Consultant shall furnish, with the proposal, proof of the following minimum insurance coverage. These minimum levels of coverage are to be maintained for the duration of the project: A. General kt&bility Coverage - $1,000,000 per occurrence for bodily injury and property damage. If Commercial General Liability Insurance or other form with a general limit is used, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to this project/location or the general aggregate limit shall be twice the required occurrence limit. B. Worker's Compensation Coverage: State statutory limits. Deductibles, Self -Insurance Retention's, or Similar Forms of Coverage Limitations or Modifications must be declared to and approved by the City of Huntington Beach. LIMP-RFP-REVISF.D.DOC%g!contmcts 10;051992:43 PM CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH RFP fbrPublic h&madw & C=nm* OAuch Cann* Smi=for hfas1nu� improv== Plug= Page 12 A sample certificate is included as Attachment C. The Consultant is encouraged to contact its insurance carriers durinIg the proposal stage to ensure that the insurance requirements can bo met if selected for negotiation of a contract agreement. 2. Standard Form of Agreement The Consultant will enter into an agreement with the City based upon the contents of the RFP and the Consultant's proposal. The City's standard form of agreement is included as Attachment A. The Consultant shall carefiilly review the agreement, especially in regard to the indemnity and insurance provisions, and include with the proposal a description of any exceptions requested to the standard contract. If there are no exceptions, a statement to that effect shall be included in the proposal. 3. Assigned Representatives The City will assign a responsible representative to administer the contract and to assist the Consultant in obtaining information. The Consultant also shall assign a responsible representative (project manager) and an alternate who shall be identified in the proposal. The Consultant's representative will remain in responsible charge of the Consultant's duties from the notice -to -proceed through project completion. If the Consultant's primary representative should be unable to continue with the project, then the alternate representative, identified in the proposal, shall become the project manager. The City's representative shall first approve any substitution of representatives or sub -consultants identified in the written proposal. The City reserves the right to review and approve/disapprove all key staff and sub -consultant substitution or removal, and may consider such changes not approved to be a breach of contract. VIII. CONSULTANT EVALUATION & SELECTION PROCESS The City's consultant evaluation and selection process is based on Qualifications Based Selection (QBS) for professional services. The following criteria will be used in evaluating the proposals using a point value system (100 points) based on the weighting indicated below. 1. Understanding of the project requirements including identification of critical elements and key issues; (10 points) 2. Technical approach and work plan for the project, including innovative approaches; (25 points) 3. Qualifications and experience of the, firm, project manager, other key individuals, and sub -consultants; (30 points) 4. Results of reference checks; (15 points). Reference checks will only be conducted for a short list of firms or the top rated firm; 5. Clarity of proposal; (10 points) 6. Compliance with proposal requirements including the twenty-five (25) page limitation. (10 points) IIMP-RFP-RE VIS ED.DbC g contracts 10.,11S `992:43 PM CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH RP forP&hc � & CAITlI71LI ay OWMadi Coming Services for h*BAWM Irelprovarlert P D9W Page 13 The City may elect to interview a short list of qualified firms or to interview only the top rated firm based on the proposals submitted for the project. The City will negotiate a contract with the best -qualified firm for the desired consulting services at compensation, which the City staff determines is fair and reasonable to the City. Should the City be unable to negotiate a satisfactory contract with the firm considered to be the most qualified, negotiations with that firm shall be formally terminated. 'Negotiations will then be undertaken with the next most qualified firm. Failing accord with the second most qualified firm, the City will terminate negotiations and continue the negotiation process with the next most qualified firms, in order of their evaluation ranking, until an agreement is reached, a firm is selected, and an agreement is executed. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A ---Sample City Contract Attachment B--- Sample Staff Related Experience Attachment C--- Sample Insurance Certificate IIMP-RFP-REVISED.AOCrg'contracts 10 05,992:43 PM ATTACHMENT A SAMPLE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AND FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES TO PROVIDE A PUBLIC INFORMATION AND COMMUNITY OUTREACH ASSISTANCE PROGRAM FOR THE CITY'S INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM THIS AGREEMENT ("Agreement") is made and entered into this day of 1999, by and between the City of Huntington Beach, a municipal corporation of the State of California, hereinafter referred to as "CITY," and a referred to as "CONSULTANT." corporation, hereinafter WHEREAS, CITY desires to engage the services of a consultant to provide professional services regarding the development and implementation of a public information and community outreach assistance program in connection with the City's Infrastructure Improvement Program in the City of Huntington Beach; and to provide community survey services to ascertain public opinions, attitudes and awareness about the City's infrastructure; and Pursuant to documentation on file in the office of the City Clerk, the provisions of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code, Chapter 3.03, relating to procurement of professional service contracts have been complied with; and CONSULTANT has been selected to perform said services, NOW, THEREFORE, it is agreed by CITY and CONSULTANT as follows: 1. WORK STATEMENT CONSULTANT shall provide all services as described in the Request for Proposal ("RFP"), and CONSULTANT's Proposal dated (both of which are jmf/sampleshimp/08/25/99 SAMPLE hereinafter referred to as Exhibit "A"), which are attached hereto and incorporated into this AGREEMENT by this reference. These services shall sometimes hereinafter be referred to as the "PROJECT." CONSULTANT hereby designates who shall represent it and be its sole contact and agent in all consultations with CITY during the performance of this AGREEMENT. 2. CITY STAFF ASSISTANCE CITY shall assign a staff coordinator to work directly with CONSULTANT in the performance of this AGREEMENT. 3. TIME OF PERFORMANCE Time is of the essence of this AGREEMENT. The services of CONSULTANT are to commence as soon as practicable after the execution of this AGREEMENT and all tasks specified in Exhibit "A" shall be completed no later than from the date of this AGREEMENT. These times may be extended with the written permission of CITY. The time for performance of the tasks identified in Exhibit "A" are generally to be shown in the Scope of Services on the Work Program/Project Schedule. This schedule may be amended to benefit the PROJECT if mutually agreed by CITY and CONSULTANT. 4. COMPENSATION In consideration of the performance of the services described herein, CITY agrees to pay CONSULTANT a fee not to exceed dollars (S_____). 5. PRIORITIES In the event there are any conflicts or inconsistencies between this AGREEMENT, the CITY's RFP, or the CONSULTANT's Proposal, the following order of 2 imf/samples/iimp/08/25/99 SAMPLE precedence shall govern: 1) AGREEMENT, 2) the CONSULTANT's Proposal, and 3) the CITY's RFP. 6. EXTRA. WORK In the event CITY requires additional services not included in Exhibit "A," or changes in the scope of services described in Exhibit "A," CONSULTANT will undertake such work only after receiving written authorization from CITY. Additional compensation for such extra work shall be allowed only if the prior written approval of CITY is obtained. 7. METHOD OF PAYMENT A. CONSULTANT shall be entitled to progress payments toward the fixed fee set forth herein in accordance with the progress and payment schedules set forth in Exhibit "A." B. Delivery of work product: A copy of every memorandum, letter, report, calculation and other documentation prepared by CONSULTANT shall be submitted to CITY to demonstrate progress toward completion of tasks. In the event CITY rejects or has comments on any such product, CITY shall identify specific requirements for satisfactory completion. Any such product which has not been formally accepted or rejected by CITY shall be deemed accepted. C. CONSULTANT shall submit to CITY an invoice for each progress payment due. Such invoice shall: jmf/sampieshimp108/25/99 1) Reference this AGREEMENT; 2) Describe the services performed; 3) Show the total amount of the payment due; 3 SAMPLE 4) Include a certification by a principal member of CONSULTANT's firm that the work has been performed in accordance with the provisions of this AGREEMENT; and 5) For all payments include an estimate of the percentage of work completed. Upon submission of any such invoice, if CITY is satisfied that CONSULTANT is making satisfactory progress toward completion of tasks in accordance with this AGREEMENT, CITY shall promptly approve the invoice, in which event payment shall be made within thirty (30) days of receipt of the invoice by CITY. Such approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. If CITY does not approve an invoice, CITY shall notify CONSULTANT in writing of the reasons for non -approval within seven (7) calendar days of receipt of the invoice, and the schedule of performance set forth in Exhibit "A" shall be suspended until the parties agree that past performance by CONSULTANT is in, or has been brought into compliance, or until this AGREEMENT is terminated as provided herein. D. Any billings for extra work or additional services authorized by CITY shall be invoiced separately to CITY. Such invoice shall contain all of the information required above, and in addition shall list the hours expended and hourly rate charged for such time. Such invoices shall be approved by CITY if the work performed is in accordance with the extra work or additional services requested, and if CITY is satisfied that the statement of hours worked and costs incurred is accurate. Such approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. Any dispute between the parties concerning payment of such an invoice shall be treated as separate and apart from the ongoing performance of the remainder of this AGREEMENT. 4 jmflsamples/iimp/08/25/99 SAIMPLE 8. DISPOSITION OF PLANS, ESTIMATES AND OTHER DOCUMENTS CONSULTANT agrees that all materials prepared hereunder, including all original drawings, designs, reports, both field and office notices, calculations, maps, memoranda, letters and other documents, shall be turned over to CITY upon termination of this AGREEMENT or upon PROJECT completion, whichever shall occur first. In the event this AGREEMENT is terminated, said materials may be used by CITY in the completion of the PROJECT -or as it otherwise sees fit. Title to said materials shall pass to CITY upon payment of fees determined to be earned by CONSULTANT to the point of termination or completion of the PROJECT, whichever is applicable. CONSULTANT shall be entitled to retain copies of all data prepared hereunder. 9. HOLD HARMLESS CONSULTANT shall protect, defend, indemnify and save and hold harmless CITY, its officers, officials, and employees, and agents from and against any and all liability, loss, damage, expenses, costs (including without limitation, costs and fees of litigation of every nature) arising out of or in connection with CONSULTANT's performance of this AGREEMENT or its failure to comply with any of its obligations contained in this AGREEMENT by CONSULTANT, its officers, agents or employees except such loss or damage which was caused by the sole negligence or willful misconduct of CITY. 10. WORKERS' COMPENSATION INSURANCE Pursuant to Californian Labor Code Section 1861, CONSULTANT acknowledges awareness of Section 3700 et seq. of said Code, which requires every employer to be insured against liability for workers' compensation; CONSULTANT covenants that it will comply with such provisions prior to commencing performance of the work hereunder. 5 jmflsampleshimp/08/25/99 SAMPLE CONSULTANT shall maintain workers' compensation insurance in an amount of not less than One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000) bodily injury by accident, each occurrence, One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000) bodily injury by disease, each employee, Two Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($250,000) bodily injury by disease, policy limit. CONSULTANT shall require all subcontractors to provide such workers' compensation insurance for all of the subcontractors' employees. CONSULTANT shall furnish to CITY a certificate of waiver of subrogation under the terms of the workers' compensation insurance and CONSULTANT shall similarly require all subcontractors to waive subrogation. 11. GENMRAL LIABILITY INSURANCE In addition to the workers' compensation insurance and CONSULTANT's covenant to indemnify CITY, CONSULTANT shall obtain and furnish to CITY, a policy of general public liability insurance, including motor vehicle coverage covering the PROJECT. Said policy shall indemnify CONSULTANT, its officers, agents and employees, while acting within the scope of their duties, against any and all claims arising out of or in connection with the PROJECT, and shall provide coverage in not less than the following amount: combined single limit bodily injury and property damage, including products/completed operations liability and blanket contractual liability, of $1,000,600 per occurrence. If coverage is provided under a form which includes a designated general aggregate limit, the aggregate limit must be no less . _ than S1,000,000 for this PROJECT. Said policy shall name CITY, its agents, its officers, employees and volunteers as Additional Insureds, and shall specifically provide that any other insurance coverage which may be applicable to the PROJECT shall be deemed excess coverage and that CONSULTANT's insurance shall be primary. 6 jmf/sampleshimp/08/25/99 SAMPLE Under no circumstances shall the above -mentioned insurance contain a self- t insured retention, or a "deductible" or any other similar form of limitation on the required coverage. 12. PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY INSURANCE CONSULTANT. shall furnish a professional liability insurance policy covering the work performed by it hereunder. Said policy shall provide coverage for CONSULTANT's professional Iiability in an amount not less than $1,000,000 per occurrence and in the aggregate. A claims -made policy shall be acceptable if the policy further provides that: A. The policy retroactive date coincides with or precedes the professional services contractor's start of work (including subsequent policies purchased as renewals or replacements). B. CONSULTANT will make every effort to maintain similar insurance during the required extended period of coverage following project completion, including the requirement of adding all additional insureds. C. If insurance is terminated for any reason, CONSULTANT agrees to purchase an extended reporting provision of at least two (2) years to report claims arising from work performed in connection with this AGREEMENT. D. The reporting of circumstances or incidents that might give rise to future claims. 7 jmNamples/iimp/08/25/99 SAMPLE 13. CERTIFICATES OF INSURANCE Prior to commencing performance of the work hereunder, CONSULTANT shall furnish to CITY certificates of insurance subject to approval of the City Attorney evidencing the foregoing insurance coverages as'required by this AGREEMENT; said certificates shall: A. provide the name and policy number of each carrier and policy; B. shall state that the policy is currently in force; and C. shall promise that such policies shall not be suspended, voided or canceled by either party, reduced in coverage or in limits except after thirty (30) days prior written notice; however, ten (10) days prior written notice in the event of cancellation for nonpayment of premium. CONSULTANT shall maintain the foregoing insurance coverages in force until the work under this AGREEMENT is fully completed and accepted by CITY. The requirement for carrying the foregoing insurance coverages shall not derogate from the provisions for indemnification of CITY by CONSULTANT under the AGREEMENT. CITY or its representative shall at all times have the right to demand the original or a copy of all said policies of insurance. CONSULTANT shall pay, in a prompt and timely manner, the premiums on all insurance hereinabove required. 14. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR CONSULTANT is, and shall be, acting at all times in the performance of this AGREEMENT as an independent contractor. CONSULTANT shall secure at its expense, and be responsible for any and all payment of all taxes, social security, state disability insurance compensation, unemployment compensation and other payroll deductions for CONSULTANT 0 imf/sampleshimp/08/25/99 SAMPLE and its officers, agents and employees and all business licenses, if any, in connection with the services to be performed hereunder. 15. TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT All work required hereunder shall be performed in a good and workmanlike manner. CITY may terminate CONSULTANT's services hereunder at any time with or without cause, and whether or not PROJECT is fully complete. Any termination of this AGREEMENT by CITY shall be made in writing, notice of which shall be delivered to CONSULTANT as provided herein. 16. ASSIGNMENT AND SUBCONTRACTING This AGREEMENT is a personal service contract and the supervisory work hereunder shall not be delegated by CONSULTANT to any other person or entity without the consent of CITY. 17. COPYRIGHTS/PATENTS CITY shall own all rights to any patent or copyright on any work, item or material produced as a result of this AGREEMENT. 18. CITY EMPLOYEES AND OFFICIALS CONSULTANT shall employ no CITY official nor any regular CITY employee in the work performed pursuant to this AGREEMENT. No officer or employee of CITY shall have any financial interest in this AGREEMENT in violation of the applicable provisions of the California Government Code. 19. NOTICES Any notice or special instructions required to be given in writing under this AGREEMENT shall be given either by personal delivery to CONSULTANT's agent (as 9 jnTsamplesAimp/08/25/99 �"ui-2 IN N designated in Section 1 hereinabove) or to CITY's Director of Public Works as the situation shall warrant, or by enclosing the same in a sealed envelope, postage prepaid, and depositing the same in the United States Postal Service, addressed as follows: TO CITY: Director of Public Works City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 20. IMMIGR.ATION TO CONSULTANT: CONSULTANT shall be responsible for full compliance with the immigration and naturalization laws of the United States and shall, in particular, comply with the provisions of the United States Code regarding employment verification. 21. LEGAL SERVICES SUBCONTRACTING PROHIBITED CONSULTANT and CITY agree that CITY is not liable for payment of any subcontractor work involving legal services, and that such legal services are expressly outside the scope of services contemplated hereunder. CONSULTANT understands that pursuant to Huntington Beach City Charter Section 309, the City Attorney is the exclusive legal counsel for CITY; and CITY shall not be liable for payment of any legal services expenses incurred by CONSULTANT. 22. ATTORNEY'S FEES In the event suit is brought by either party to enforce the terms and provisions of this AGREEMENT or to secure the performance hereof, each party shall bear its own attorney's fees. SIGNATURES ON NEXT PAGE 10 imf/samples/iimp/08/25/99 SAMPLE 23. ENTIRETY The foregoing, and Exhibit "A" attached hereto, set forth the entire AGREEMENT between the parties. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this AGREEMENT to be executed by and through their authorized offices the day, month and year first above written. CONSULTANT By: print name ITS: (circle one) Chairman/President/Vice President AND By: print name ITS: (circle one) Secretary/Chief Financial Officer/Asst. Secretary -• Treasurer REVIEWED AND APPROVED: City Administrator CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, a municipal corporation of the State of California Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: ity Attorney 5 ,� � .zI WITIATED AND APPROVED: Director of Public Works 11 jm6samples/iimp/08/25/99 SAMPLE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 SAMPLE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AND FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES TO PROVIDE A PUBLIC INFORMATION AND COIN04UNITY OUTREACH ASSISTANCE TO CITY FOR THE . CITY'S INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Table of Contents WorkStatement.......................................................................................................I CityStaff Assistance................................................................................................2 Timeof Performance...............................................................................................2 Compensation..........................................................................................................2 Priorities........................................................................................2 ExtraWork....:..........................................................................................................2 Methodof Payment.................................................................................................3 Disposition of Plans, Estimates and Other Documents...........................................4 HoldHarmless..........................................................................................................5 Workers' Compensation Insurance..........................................................................5 General Liability Insurance......................................................................................6 Professional Liability Insurance..............................................................................6 Certificates of Insurance..........................................................................................7 , Independent Contractor............................................................................................8 Termination of Agreement.......................................................................................8 Assignment and Subcontracting..............................................................................9 Copyrights/Patents...................................................................................................9 City Employees and Officials..................................................................................9 Notices.. ...............................................................................................................9 Immigration..............................................................................................................10 Legal Services Subcontracting Prohibited...............................................................10 AttorneysFees.........................................................................................................10 Entirety.....................................................................................................................10 jmflsampleshimp/08/25/99 SAMPLE ATTACHMENT B SAMPLE RELATED EXPERIENCE OF KEY STAFF Client (including name of contact person and telephone no. CRY of Los Angeles, Street Division; Joe Smith 213/555-7777x321 Caltrans, District 7, James Allen 213/564-7891 Protect Description (including general description of project, scope of services provided, project cost and year project was completed or year estimated to be completed of not completed yet.( Preparation of plans, specifications and cost estimates for Wilshire Avenue widening project which included street improvements, storm drain, street lights, traffic signals, and utility relocation's; $1.2 million; 1996 Field survey, utility research, and preparation of design report and final plans, specifications, and cost estimates for 1-5/1-405 Interchange Project including bridges, ramps, storm drain, safety lighting, retaining walls, and detour road; $4.5 million; 1999 (estimated). Key Staff (including names and the role e.g. project manager, project engineer, on that project. Include only the staff who are included in your proposal for this project.) Jane Doe, Project mgr. Howard Jones, Project Engineer. William Job, Project Mgr. while employed by ABC Consultants. Note: Projects can be those that your staff worked on while employed with another firm. ATTACHMENT C Agency Name and Address: Insured's Name and Address: Certificate of Insurance THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUES AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. THIS CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AMEND, EXTEND OR ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED THE POLICIES LISTED BELOW, Companies Affording Coverage COVERAGES: THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD INDICATED. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY REQUIREMENT, TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN, THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS. EXCLUSIONS, AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH POLICES. CO: ' TYPE OF POLICY POLICY POLICY ' •:' . " h` LTR. INSURANCE. .NUMBER: `EFFECT DATE 'EXPIR.-DATE` :. LIMITS:_, GENERAL LIABILITY General Aggregate $ [ ] Comml. Gen. Liability Products-Com/Ops Agg. $ [ ] Claims Made Personal & Adv. Injury S [ ] Occurrence Each Occurrence S [ ] Owner's & Contractors Fire Damage (any one fire) $ Protective [ ] Contractual Liability Other $ AUTO LIABILITY Combined Single Limit $ [ ] Any Automobile [ ] All owned autos Bodily Injury (per person) [ ] Scheduled autos $ [ ] Hired autos � ry (per accident BodilyInjury [ ] Non -owned autos $ [ ] Garage liability Property Damage I ] $ . EXCESS LIABILITY [ ] Umbrella Form Each Occurrence [ ] Other than Umbrella Form Aggregate WORKERS' Statutory Limits: COMPENSATION Each Accident $ AND EMPLOYERS' Disease -Policy Limit $ LIABILITY Disease -Each Employee $ OTHER: Description of Operations/LocationsNehicles/Restrictions/Special Items: Certificate Holder: CANCELLATION: SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICES BE CANCELED BEFORE THE EXPIRATION DATE THEREOF, THE ISSUING COMPANY WILL MAIL 30 DAYS WRITTEN NOTICE TO THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER NAMED TO THE LEFT. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE Date DOC, #24880 ATTACHED TO AND FORMING PART OF CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE NO. COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY SECTION POLICY NO. It is hereby understood and agreed the City of Huntington Beach, its agents, officers, and employees are added as an additional insured under this policy but only insofar as their legal liability arises out of the operations of the Named Insured. DATED: Authorized Representative ", INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS If insurance is required, below are the City's requirements. To: Encroachment Permit Applicants and Providers of Contractual Services to the City. *** PLEASE GIVE THESE REQUIREMENTS TO YOUR INSURANCE AGENT*** City Council resolution 97-20 requires a certificate of General Liability insurance before you can get a permit to do work on city property or before you can provide contractual services to the city. CHECKLIST: All certificates must contain a maridatory 30 day cancellation notice. Be sure that the words "endeavor to" and "but failure to mail such notice shall impose no obligation or liability of any kind upon the company, its agents or representatives" have been removed or lined -out if they appear on the certificate. 2. Cancellation Clause Wording - The words "endeavor to" and "failure to mail such notice shall impose no obligation nor liability of any kind upon the company, its agents or representatives" have been removed or lined -out if they appear on the certificate. 3. Workers' Compensation. - Minimum California statutory requirements for workers' compensation of at least $100,000 bodily injury per disease or accident per occurrence. If you have no employees, you must sign a Declaration of Non - employee Status form, which is available from and submitted to the City's Risk Management Department. In lieu of a certificate of insurance, a certificate of Consent to Self -Insure issued by the California Director of Industrial Relations is also acceptable. 4. Deductible/SIR: - The City Council Resolution 97-20 requires an approved waiver for any deductibles and/or self insurance retention (SIR). The application for.a waiver is available from and submitted to Risk Management. 5. At least $1 000_,000 combined single limit coverage is required. 6. Insurance must be "per occurrence." "Claims made" is only acceptable for professional or pollution liability insurance. 7. The City of Huntington Beach must be named as certificate holder. B. The certificate must name the City of Huntington Beach, its agents, officers, and employees as additional insured on an endorsement that is a separate attachment to the certificate. The wording must be exact. 9 AD&..?-yj�, Council/Agency Meeting Held: 9�?-v Deferred/Continued to: ► D / 9 / 99 ',_. Aooroved ❑ Conditionally Approved ❑ Denied 4-7!�) - City Clerk's Signature Council Meeting Date: 09-20-99 Department ID Number: AD99-23 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION SUBMITTED TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS SUBMITTED BY: RAY SILVER, City Administrator eW PREPARED BY: RICHARD BARNARD, Deputy City Administrator SUBJECT: Request for Proposal for Professional Public Information & Community Outreach Consulting Services for the Infrastructure Improvement Program Statement of Issue, Funding Source, Recommended Action, :Wernative Action(s), Analcsis, Environmental Status, Attachment(s) Statement of Issue: Seeking authorization from the City Council for the distribution of Request for Proposals (RFP's) for a professional consulting firm to provide Public Information & Community Outreach Services for the Infrastructure Improvement Program. The Citizen Infrastructure Advisory Committee (CIAC) supports issuing the RFP for Public Information and Community Outreach Consulting Services for the Infrastructure Improvement Program. Funding So ree: No funds are needed to distribute the Request for Proposal. Two hundred thousand dollars (S200,000) is in the 1999/2000 Budget for professional consulting services for Public Information & Community Outreach. Recommended Action: 1. Approve the Request for Proposal (RFP) for professional consulting services for a Public Information & Community Outreach Program for the Infrastructure Improvement Program and authorize the waiver of Professional Liability- Insurance requirements as recommended by the City's Settlement Committee. 2. Authorize the City Administrator to distribute the RFP and return at a future date to the City Council with a recommended Firm to provide Professional Public Information & Community Outreach Consulting Services for the Infrastructure Improvement Program. Alternative Actions : 1. Do not approve the RFP and direct staff accordingly. 2. Modify the RFP. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERSDEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: AD99-23 Analysis: As a direct result of the Integrated Infrastructure Management Program (IIMP), the City Council, in March 1998, appointed a Citizen Infrastructure Advisory Committee (CIAC) to begin a community - wide effort to address the City's infrastructure needs. This committee is comprised of 3_5 primary members and an equal number of alternates, representing a cross section of leaders from community and business organizations as well as City commissions and boards. The CIAC's mission is to review the IIMP and forecasted shortfall of public funding resources and make recommendations to the City Council regarding the optimum approach for financing/funding the most critical and long term infrastructure needs of the community. This was to be accomplished by: • Becoming informed about the existing infrastructure conditions as well as projected long-term requirements of the City: • Becoming generally informed about the City's overall revenue sources. expenditures, and budgets. • Evaluating and recommending possible financing/funding methods: and • Participating with the City Council in joint workshops/study sessions. Recommendations that are to be presented to the City Council by the CIAC wi 11 be designed to insure the future viability of the City's infrastructure systenis. The CIAC studied such facilities as: the community drainage facilities, sewer facilities, streets and highways, public owned buildings, public owned parks and landscaped areas, sidewalks, curb and gutters, traffic signals, street lighting, and highway block walls. At the start of the process, many of the Committee members themselves had only a rudimentary understanding of the City's infrastructure. The CIAC has been meeting on a regular basis since March 1999 to: • Educate themselves about the current condition of the community's infrastructure; • Understand the immediate and long term (20 year) needs for the community's infrastructure; • Become knowledgeable about the cost to build, replace, and maintain required infrastructure systems: • Prioritize infrastructure needs as part of a twenty (20) year plan; and • Identifv and understand the various financial methods that are available to fund city infrastructure. The City and the CIAC believe it is time to expand the infrastructure educational process they have gone through, to the community as a whole. The committee believes that the time has come for the City to make a concerted effort to inform the public on the real need to repair. replace, upgrade and maintain the City's infrastructure. The purpose of employing the services of a Consultant is to assist the City and the CIAC in presenting information about the City's infrastructure to Huntington Beach residents. The Public Information & Community Outreach Consultant will be expected to provide leadership for educating the residents and the media about the condition of the communitv's infrastructure. The ultimate goal of the Public Information & Community Outreach Program is to insure that residents are fully aware of the infrastructure needs of the community and the difficult choices that they and the City Council may be asked to make about the City's infrastructure. RCAforPIO.doc .2. 09/14/99 11:07 AM REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERSDEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: AD99-23 Once the interview process is completed and a firm is selected. a Professional Services Contract will be prepared and a recommendation to approve the firm and the Contract will be brought before the City Council. Also, on September 13, 1999 the City's Settlement Committee considered whether Professional Liability Insurance requirements would need to be a part of a contract For Public Information & Community Outreach Consulting Services. The Committee unanimously voted to recommend to the City Council to waive the requirement for Professional Liability Insurance from the contract that the City Council would ultimately consider for approval. Therefore, the Cite Settlement Committee and City Staff are requesting the City Council to authorize distribution of the RFP without the requirements for Professional Liability Insurance due to minimal loss exposure for these type of services. Environmental Status: Not Applicable Attachments : 1. 1Request for Proposals (RFP's) for Professional Public Information & Community Outreach Consulting Services for Infrastructure Improvement Program, Dated, September 10. 1999. RCA Author: Richard Barnard, RCAtorPIO.doc -3- 09M4199 11:07 AM CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH RR for Public Info Tom & Canumulity affmch Consulti V Seivices for hffiUq ucM IWMV== Program Page 1 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY ADMINISTRATION OFFICE OF PUBLIC INFORMATION REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS For Professional Public Information & Community Outreach Consulting Services For Infrastructure Improvement Program September 22, 1999 PROPOSAL SUBMITTALS: Responses to the Request for Proposal (RFP) are to be submitted to: Mr. Richard Amadril, Central Services Manager Administrative Services City of Huntington Beach City Hall 2000 Main Street P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 714/536-5221, Fax # 714/374-1571 No later than 4:00 P. M. on October 25,1999. Fifteen (15) copies of the proposal shall be submitted in a sealed envelope and marked: "Proposal for Consultant Services, Public Information & Community Outreach for the City's Infrastructure Improvement Program." Proposals received after the specified time will not be accepted and will be returned unopened. A pre -proposal conference will be held for all consultants on September 28, 1999, at 11:00 A.M. at the Huntington Beach Civic Center, 2000 Main Street, on the lower level in Room B-7. Questions regarding this request may be addressed Richard Amadril, Central Service Manager in writing.. CONTENTS SECTION PAGE L Introduction 2 1I. Schedule of Events 2 III. General Background 2 IV. Proposal Instructions and Conditions 4 V. Scope of Work 5 VI, Fee Proposal Requirements 8 VII. Proposal Requirements 9 VIII. General Requirements 11 IX. Consultant Evaluation & Selection Process 12 CITY OF HLNTINGTON BEACH RFP for Public Ulfm=on & Comamnity Ouililch Consul ing Semices for Infiamam hTm- im Program Page 2 I. INTRODUCTION The City of Huntington Beach is requesting proposals from qualified firms for assisting the City in the development and implementation of a Public Information 8& Community Outreach Program for the City's Integrated Infrastructure Management Program (IIMP). Conducting community surveys will also be part of the proposed scope of work. II. SCHEDULE OF EVENTS September 22, 1999 Issuance of Request for Proposals September 28, 1999 A pre -proposal conference for consultants October 25, 1999 Proposal due from consultants by 4:00 p.m. October 28, 1999 Consultant selection panel reviews proposals and establishes a short list to be interviewed November 3, 1999 Interview panel conducts consultant inter -views (tentative date] December 6, 1999 City Council approval of Consultant Contract (tentative date) December 7, 1999 Issuance of notice -to -proceed (tentative date) III. GENERAL BACKGROUND Huntington Beach is a charter city, administered by a Council/Administrator form of government. Huntington Beach is a full service city encompassing an area of 28 square miles with a population of 196,700. The total annual City budget is approximately $234 million, with the General Fund portion of the budget totaling approximately $ 1 10 million. In April 1997, the Integrated Infrastructure Management Program (IIMP) was presented to the City Council. The IIMP was the result of many years of effort by the City's Finance Board, Public Works Commission, and City Staff. In 1995, The City's Finance Board informed the City Council that the City's infrastructure needs, including required capital improvements, rehabilitation, reconstruction, and maintenance were under funded. The City Council directed the Public Works Department staff to compile a study of infrastructure needs and make recommendations for a financing strategy. In 1996, the City Council established the City's first Public Works Commission that undertook a series of infrastructure workshops with City Staff over approximately one year. These workshops culminated in the development and presentation of the Integrated Infrastructure Management Program (IIMP) to the City Council in April 1997. The IIMP is: • A comprehensive inventory of the City's capital assets; • A projection of required capital improvements, rehabilitation, reconstruction, and maintenance needs including estimated costs for the next 20 years; • A projection of funding available to the City for each infrastructure component for the 20 yeor period; and + The estimated shortfall of funds to meet the projected needs for each component. The IIMP has forecast a funding shortfall of approximately S600 million over the next 20 years. As a direct result of the IIMP, the City Council, in March 1998, appointed a Citizen Infrastructure Advisory Committee (CIAO) to begin a community -wide effort to address the IIM1'-RIT-REVISCD.DOC/grcontracts 19 14,9911:17 AM CITE' OF HUNTINGTON BEACH RFP for Public Infamration & ConmRuwy Outreach Consulting Services for InfhaMuc U= Improvement Program Page 3 City's infrastructure needs. This committee is comprised of 35 primary members and an equal number of alternates, representing a cross section of leaders from community and business organizations as well as City commissions and boards. The CIAC's mission is to review the IIMF and forecasted shortfall of public funding resources and make recommendations to the City Council regarding the optimum approach for financing/ funding the most critical and long term infrastructure needs of the community. This was to be accomplished by: • Becoming informed about the existing infrastructure conditions as well as projected long-term requirements of the City; + Becoming generally- informed about the City's overall revenue sources, expenditures, and budgets; • Evaluating and recommending possible financing/funding methods; and + Participating with the City Council in joint workshops/study sessions. The recommendations that are to be presented to the City Council by the CIAC will be designed to insure the future viability of the City's infrastructure systems. The CIAC studied such facilities as: the community drainage facilities, sewer facilities, streets and highways, public owned buildings, public owned parks and landscaped areas, sidewalks, curb and gutters, traffic signals, street lighting, and highway block walls. At the start of the process, many of the Committee members themselves had only a rudimentary- understanding of the City's infrastructure. The CIAO has been meeting on a regular basis since March 1998 to: • Educate themselves about the current condition of the community's infrastructure; • Understand the immediate and Iong term (20 year) needs for the community's infrastructure; • Become knowledgeable about the cost to build, replace, and maintain required infrastructure systems; • Prioritize infrastructure needs as part of a twenty (201 year plan; and • Identify and understand the various financial methods that are available to fund city infrastructure. The City and the CIAC believe it is time to expand the infrastructure educational process they have gone through, to the community as a whole. The committee believes that the time has come for the City to make a concerted effort to inform the public on the real need to repair, replace, upgrade and maintain the City's infrastructure. The purpose of employing the services of a Consultant is to assist the City and the CIAC in presenting information about the City's infrastructure to Huntington Beach residents. The Consultant will be expected to provide leadership for educating the residents and the media about the condition of the community's infrastructure. The ultimate goal of the Public Information 8& Community Outreach Program is to insure that residents are fully aware of the infrastructure needs of the Community and the difficult choices that they and the City Council may be asked to make about the City's infrastructure. The CIAC anticipates bringing a series of findings, conclusions and recommendations forward to the City Council in December 1999 or January 2000, Under the Scope of Work (Task 5), the Consultant is required to assist the CIAC and City Staff in the preparation of the final report of the CIAC, with its findings, conclusions, and recommendations for submittal to the City Council. Following the release and presentation of the C1AC's report to the City Council, the City Council will consider the Committee's recommendations. Once the report has been IIA1P-RPi'-REVISED.DOCWcontracts 09.:14;9911:17 AM CITY OF HuNTI1GTON BEACH RFP for Public Information & Community uury Owimch Consulting Services for Inframcuure Improvernent Program Page 4 reviewed and discussed by the City Council Members, it is anticipated that the City Council will provide direction based upon the findings and recommendations of the CIAC's report. It will be this City Council directed program that the Consultant will need to bring to the attention of the local residents. IV. PROPOSAL INSTRUCTIONS AND CONDITIONS Pre -Contractual Expenses - Pre -Contractual expenses are defined as expenses incurred by proposers in: • Preparing a proposal in response to the RFP • Submitting that proposal to the City of Huntington Beach • ?negotiating with the City of Huntington Beach in any matter related to this RFP. proposal, and/or contractual agreement • Any other expenses incurred by the proposer prior to the date of an executed contract. The City of Huntington Beach shall not, in any event, be liable for any pre -contractual expenses incurred by any proposer. In addition, no proposer shall include any such expenses as part of the price proposed to perform the requested services. 2. Authority to Withdraw RFP and/or Not Award Contract - The City of Huntington Beach reserves the right to withdraw the RFP at any time without prior notice. Further, the City makes no representations that any agreement will be awarded to any proposer responding to this RFP. The City expressly reserves the right to postpone the opening of proposals for its own convenience and to reject any and all proposals in response to this RFP without indicating any reasons for such rejection(s). 3. Right to Reject Proposal - The City of Huntington Beach reserves the right to reject any or all proposals submitted. Any award made for this enclagement will be made to the proposer which, in the opinion of the City, is best qualified to perform the services. 4. Discrepancies in Bid Documents - Should proposer find discrepancies in, or omissions from the request for proposal. or if the intent of the invitations are not clear, and if provisions of the specifications restrict proposer from proposing, they may request in writing that the deficiency(s) be modified. Such request must be received by the Central Services Manager five (5) days before due date. All proposers will be notified by addendum of any approved changes in request for proposal documents. 5. Ural Statements - The City of Huntington Beach is not responsible for oral statements made by any of their employees or agents concerning request for proposal. If the proposer required specific information, proposer must request that it be supplied in writing by the City of Huntington Beach. m1111'-StFP-ArySSSD.DtICfgc7o„rats 0,9 14i9911:1' AM CITY OF HU TINGTOn BEACH RIP for Public Infam>adon & Commw* Outrrach Consd ng Services for Infi-� 1"mven = Ping = Page 5 V. SCOPE OF WORK The Consultant will be expected to develop and implement a Public Information and Community Outreach Program, consistent with City Council direction that will educate local residents about the City's infrastructure needs. The Consultant will be expected to develop and implement overall communications strategies, tactics and activities, as well as an implementation schedule. This will ensure that the local residents understand the City's infrastructure needs and what financial commitment is required to meet those needs. Also, coordination with the CIAC and the CIAC Public Education Sub -Committee and the City's Public Information Office (PIO) is mandatory, and attendance at meetings required. The Communications Consultant must provide for coordination between the City's PIO and the Consultant. In general, there are two Parts to the scope of work to be performed by the Consultant: Part I addresses the development and implementation of a Public Information and Community Outreach Program. Part II addresses the need to survey community members regarding their opinions, attitudes and awareness about the City's infrastructure needs. It is anticipated that the City will employ the Consultant from November 1999 till December 2000. The scope of work of the Consultant's services shall include, but not be limited to, the following Tasks: PART I - PUBLIC INFORMATION AND COMMUNITY OUTREACH TASK 1 - Become knowledgeable about the City's Infrastructure Improvement Program 1.1 Meet with the City Officials and the CIAC. 1.2 Attend meetings of the CIAC, the CIAC Steering Committee, the CIAC Public Education Sub -Committee, and the Public Works Commission; 1.3 Meet with other groups that can contribute to the Consultant's overall understanding of the City's Infrastructure Improvement Program. TASK 2 - Create a program identity 2.1 Develop a simple and effective format for communicating the most critical information generated by the City's Infrastructure Improvement Program, incorporating a consistent "look", i.e. theme, mastheads, fact sheets, etc. TASK 3 - The Consultant shall develop a comprehensive Public Information and Community Outreach Plan for approval by the City. The Plan shall include strategies, tactics, and an implementation schedule. Upon approval of the Plan, the Consultant shall be responsible for undertaking the tasks required to implement the Plan. The Plan shall include, but not be limited to, the following: 3.1 Identify the recommended target audience and the communication resources to be used to communicate with the audience (i.e. newsletters, speaker's bureau, voter registration programs, mailers, television, & media, etc.) Help the City focus on the most cost-effective media with the target audience in mind, rather than an array of methods that are not . particularly cost-effective. CITY Or HUN'TINGTON BEACH RFP for Public InfmnMon & Commmnity Outreach Consulting Services for h fi rift= InMveyWM Pm9am Page 6 3.2 The Public Information and Community Outreach Plan shall include a combination of elements from the following candidate list, or others that may be brought forward, that combine to yield the most cost-effective package for gaining understanding and support for this program. Suggested elements to be evaluated for inclusion in the program include, but are not limited to: 3.2.1 Develop the key messages that need to be frequently shared with the residents about the CIAC process, City Budget &, City's Infrastructure Improvement Program; 3.2.2 Write a script and prepare a PowerPoint slide presentation that provides current information about the Infrastructure Improvement Program; 3.2.3 Identify community' stakeholder groups and organizations that will need to be communicated with under the Public Information and Community Outreach Program; 3.2.4 Develop a Speaker's Bureau, and schedule speaking engagements throughout the year 2000 at which the Infrastructure Improvement Program can be presented; 3.2.5 Conduct a minimum of four (4) public workshops; 3.2.6 Develop a display and collateral support materials for distribution at a minimum of six (6) community. events; 3.2.7 Draft press releases and coordinate their dissemination with the City; 3.2.8 Using City video footage that is already available, work with HBTV-3 to write a video script for a short (3-5 minute) and longer (30 minute) video highlighting the salient points about the City's Infrastructure Improvement Program; 3.2.9 Write 30 and 60 second Public Service Announcements and provide creative input to HBTV-3 for distribution over cable television stations (assume 12 PSA's will be required); 3.2.10 Write articles about the Infrastructure for inclusion in each issue of the "Sands" magazine which is published quarterly by the City and distributed to Huntington Beach residents; 3.2.11 Develop and publish a Web page linked to the City's Web page containing information about the City's Infrastructure Improvement Program, and subsequent information that becomes available, resulting from the CIAC and City Council actions; 3.2.12 Develop 4" x 6" information sheet for inclusion into the City's Municipal Services Bill at least four (4) times during the year 2000; 3.2.13 Prepare written material for insertion into mailers or to be handed out; 3.2.14 Develop information for inclusion on the Huntington Beach Infoline. TASK 4 - The Consultant's proposal shall include a plan for attending meetings scheduled throughout the year 2000 which will facilitate communication between City Staff, the City's Consultant Team and the CIAC Steering Committee, the CIAC Public Information Sub -Committee, and Consultant's key staff. 4.1 Attend monthly coordination meetings with the City. Assume twelve (12) meetings; 11111' RI'P-RGVISIiR.DOC g'contracts G9i 1 4.99I l: 17 AN1 CITY OF HuNTINGTON BEACH RFP for Public Information & Conviu ity Ow=h Consulting Services for Wamuaur e Imprm°emeru Program Page 7 4.2 Attend and make presentations at monthly CIAC meetings. Assume twelve (12) meetings; 4.3 Attend and make presentations at monthly CIAC Public Information Sub - Committee or other CIAC Sub -Committees as established from time -to - time. Assume twelve (121 meetings; and 4.4 Attend and make presentations at City Council meetings on an as -needed basis. Assume four (4) meetings. TASK 5 - Provide consultation and support to the CIAC in the preparation of the final report of the CIAC with its finding, conclusions, and recommendations for submittal to the City Council, TASK 6 - The Consultant shall provide monthly progress reports (approximately 2 pages). TASK 7 - In addition to other Tasks the consultant shall make available key staff to work with the CIAC and its committees, City Staff, and the City's Consultant Team to provide input and assistance on various issues and activities that may come up during the course of the Consultant contract. It is intended these services be for tasks that are not otherwise covered under Tasks 1 through 6 of Part I or Part II of the Scope of Work. A budget of a specified number of hours, not to exceed a specified amount, shall be set aside in the contract for this task. For the purposes of this proposal, the Consultant shall use forty (40) hours as the budget amount. PART II -- ASSESSING COMMUNITY OPINION TASK 8 - Assess the community's awareness and knowledge about the City's infrastructure. 8.1 Establish a baseline of awareness about the community's infrastructure needs. Working with the CIAC, develop a plan which will enable the Consultant to gauge the awareness and knowledge of community stakeholders (i.e. editorial boards, elected officials, city boards, committees and commissions, service organizations, community and neighborhood -based groups, and organizations) about the City's Infrastructure Improvement needs and the Plan to address those needs. 8.2 As may be required, employ and manage the services of a public opinion research consultant to assist in determining the public opinions, attitudes and awareness about the City's infrastructure needs. Techniques to be used by the Consultant in conducting community ascertainment studies are to be approved by the City. 8.1.1 Formulate the proposed process for obtaining a quantitative sample of public opinion. The City and CIAC shall approve the appropriate audience size which must be large enough to ensure an effective demographic and geographic cross tabulation of the results; IIMP-RI'P-REVISEII.nOClgicontracts 09 1419911:17 ANI CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH PUT for Public InfomiMon & Comnu=y Qw=h Corrs dmig Services for hTra pucuar, hMm-vernert Progmin Page g 8.1.2 Collaborate with the public opinion consultant, C1AC, and the City staff in formulating the survey questions to be asked of local residents; 8.1.3 Conduct surveys using such public opinion techniques as telephone surveys, focus groups, and other communications methods to determine local residents' attitudes and understanding about City infrastructure needs; 8.1.4 Conduct a survey to assess community awareness of infrastructure needs and prevailing attitudes and or themes within approximately the first sixty (60) days following the notice to proceed; 8.1.5 The Consultant shall assume that two subsequent surveys may need to be conducted at specified intervals within a twelve (12) month period to assess any changes in the public's awareness and changing attitudes, as well as gather further information and data; 8.1.6 The Consultant shall prepare and deliver to the City, within two (2) weeks after each survey completion, a final report that includes an analysis of the survey results and summarization of public awareness and attitudes about the City infrastructure; 8.1.7 Develop a recommended means of monitoring the effectiveness of the Public Information and Outreach Program. Candidate methods include telephone surveys, focus groups, or other communication methods. V. FEE PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS In preparing the proposal fee schedule for the services identified under the scope of work, the Consultant shall take into consideration the following: Compensation for services pro-,zded in completing the tasks under Parts I and II shall be based upon an hourly rate, not to exceed the total compensation of the authorized budget amount for each part. 2. A work plan, together with a breakdown of labor hours by employee billing classification together with the cost of non -labor and sub -consultant services, shall be included with the fee proposal. The labor breakdown shall be compiled by project task, and be based on a listing of work tasks that correlates with the Consultant's defined scope of work for the project proposal. This information will be used by the City to evaluate the reasonableness of the Fee Proposal, and will be used iri negotiating the final fee amounts for the contract agreement. 3. The Consultant shall state in the fee proposal the number of hours allotted in its fee amount for each task identified under the Scope of Work. Also, the Consultant shall state the fee for attending meetings with the CIAC, City staff, and others. Should the amount of hours expended during these tasks exceed the amount 1IMP-1 P-ItrVISED-DOG!glcontracts 09f14i9911:17 A,I CITY OF HuNTINGTO\ BEACH RFP for Public Infonnadon & Community Owlexh CorNWdT Services for Intimmim re k provemert Program Page 9 inchtded in the fee quote, the Consultant may be authorized to invoice the Cite for the additional hours upon first notifying the City that the budget limit for meetings has been reached. The City shall then determine whether additional hours for meetings will be authorized. 4. The Consultant's standard billing rates for all classifications of staff likely to be involved in the project shall be included with the fee proposal, along with the mark- up rate for any non -labor expenses and sub -consultants. 5. The Consultant shall prepare monthly progress billings, reflective of the project schedule. VI. PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS Although no specific format is required by the City, this section is intended to provide guidelines to the Consultant regarding features which the City will look for and expect to be included in the proposal. 1. Content and Format The City requests that the proposals submitted be organized and presented in a neat and understandable format, and be relevant to these services. Consultant's proposals shall be clear, accurate, and comprehensive. Excessive or irrelevant material will not be favorably received. Proposals shall contain no more than twenty-five (25) typed pages using a 10-point minimum font size, including transmittal/offer letter and resumes of key people, but excluding Index/Table of Contents, tables, charts, and graphic exhibits. The purpose of these restrictions is to minimize the costs of proposal preparation, and to ensure that the response to the RFP is fully relevant to the project. The separately submitted Fee Proposal should contain only enough pages to clearly respond to the information that is requested in the RFP. The proposal should include the following: • Transmittal/offer letter; • Page numbering; * Index/Table of Contents; • 'Team Organization including an organization diagram; • Approach to the Project; • Descriptions of similar projects by key staff to be used on this assignment; • Brief resumes of key staff; • Project schedule. 2. Scope of Services A description of the work program that will be undertaken shall be included in this section. It should explain the technical approach, methodology, and specific tasks and activities that will be performed to address the specific issues and work items identified in the RFP. It should also include a discussion of constraints, problems, and issues Ili•4P-RFP-REVISED_DOGgicontracts 09/14/991 1:17 AM CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH RFP for Public Information & Conurnn Ky Ouhu ch ConsWdng Sen ices for 1nfh6l1Wtuir_ hTrovemefJ Program Page 10 that should be anticipated during the contract, and suggestions for approaches to resolving them. 3. Statement of Qualifications The information requested in this section is for the consulting firm to describe the qualifications of the firm, key staff, and sub -consultants used in performing projects within the past five (5) years, that are similar in scope and size, to demonstrate competence to perform these services. The projects listed should be those that the key staff named for the projects were responsible for performing services. Information shall include: • Names of key staff that participated on named projects and their specific responsibilities; • Client names, contact persons, addresses, and telephone numbers; • A brief description of type and extent of services provided; • Completion dates (estimated, if not yet completed); • TotaI costs of the projects. A sample format for presentation of the above -prescribed information is included as Attachment B for the Consultant's reference. There should be included in the section brief resumes of key personnel who will provide these services, demonstrating their qualifications and experience. Resumes should highlight education, experience, licenses, relevant experience, and specific responsibilities for services described. 4. Project Team The purpose of this section is to describe the organization of the project team including sub -consultants and key staff. A project manager and an alternate proiect manager shall be named who shall be the prime contact and be responsible for coordinating all activities with the City. An organizational diagram shall be submitted showing all key team members and illustrating the relationship between the City, the project manager, key staff, and sub -consultants. There also should be a brief description of the role and responsibilities of all key staff and sub -consultants identified in the team organization. S. Project Schedule A project schedule shall be included which identifies, in graphical format, the timetable for completion of tasks, activities, and phases of the project which correlate with the scope of work for the project. There should be a brief discussion of any kev assumptions used in preparing the timetable, and identification of critical tasks and/or events that could impact the overall schedule. N�11'-ft1 P-1tS_-VISED.DOCIPJwnir5cts IN.-I4 991 1:1? AM CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH RIFT for Public Information & Corm mity Oun wh Consulting Services for haft nticnu a hTM-, T= Program Page II 6. Fee Proposal A Fee Proposal shall be submitted in a separate, sealed envelope and marked as "Fee Proposal", along with the name of the project. The information and detail included in the Fee Proposal shall conform to the provisions of Section V., Fee Proposal Requirements, of this RFP. A work program, together with a breakdown of labor hours by employee billing classification with the cost of non -labor and sub -consultant services, shall be included with the Fee Proposal. The labor breakdown shall be compiled based on a listing of work tasks that correlates with the Consultant's defined scope of work for the project proposal. This information will be used by the City staff to evaluate the reasonableness of the Fee Proposal, and may be used in negotiating the final fee arnounts for the contract agreement. The Fee Proposal of the three (3) top ranked Consultants will be opened at the conclusion of the Consultant evaluation and selection process. Fees will not be used to determine the ranking of the Consultants. The Fee Proposals of those consultants not ranked in the top three will be returned to them unopened upon award of a contract to the selected Consultant. The city will negotiate the final fee with the top ranked Consultant. Reimbursable expenses shall not be allowed unless negotiated prior to a contract. Price escalations during the contract term are disfavored and shall be approved in negotiations prior to a contract. 7. Statement of Offer & Signature The proposal, including the Fee Proposal, shall be signed by an individual authorized to bind the Consultant. The proposal shall contain a statement that the proposal and accompanied fee is a firm offer for a 60-day period. VII. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS 1. Insurance Requirements The Consultant shall furnish, with the proposal, proof of the following minimum insurance coverage. These minimum levels of coverage are to be maintained for the duration of the project: A. General Liability Coverage - $1,000,000 per occurrence for bodily injury and property damage. If Commercial General Liability Insurance or other form with a general limit is used, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to this project/location or the general aggregate limit shall be twice the required occurrence limit. IIh1P-R1'P-REVISI-D.DO( WconV:tcls (19i14:9911:17 Aki CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH RFP for Public InfonTuion & Corwmity Oulich ConsultiT Services for Iniiasnuctum Improvemer>t Rro a Page 12 B. Worker's Compensation Coverage: State statutory limits. Deductibles, Self -Insurance Retention's, or Similar Forms of Coverage Limitations or Modifications must be declared to and approved by the City of Huntington Beach. A sample certificate is included as Attachment C. The Consultant is encouraged to contact its insurance carriers during the proposal stage to ensure that the insurance requirements can be met if selected for negotiation of a contract agreement. 2. Standard Form of Agreement The Consultant will enter into an agreement with the City based upon the contents of the RFP and the Consultant's proposal. The City's standard form of agreement is included as Attachment A. The Consultant shall carefully review the agreement, especially in regard to the indemnity and insurance provisions, and include with the proposal a description of any exceptions requested to the standard contract. If there are no exceptions, a statement to that effect shall be included in the proposal. 3. Assigned Representatives The City will assign a responsible representative to administer the contract and to assist the Consultant in obtaining information. The Consultant also shall assign a responsible representative (project manager) and an alternate who shall be identified in the proposal. The Consultant's representative will remain in responsible charge of the Consultant's duties from the notice -to -proceed through project completion. If the Consultant's primary representative should be unable to continue with the project, then the alternate representative, identified in the proposal, shall become the project manager. The City's representative shall first approve any substitution of representatives or sub -consultants identified in the written proposal. The City reserves the right to review and approve/disapprove all key staff and sub -consultant substitution or removal, and may consider such changes not approved to be a breach of contract. VIII. CONSULTANT EVALUATION & SELECTION PROCESS The City's consultant evaluation and selection process is based on Qualifications Based Selection (QBS) for professional services. The following criteria will be used in evaluating the proposals using a point value system (100 points) based on the weighting indicated below. 1. Understanding of the project requirements including identification of critical elements and key issues; (10 points) 2. Technical approach and work plan for the project, including innovative approaches; (25 points) 3. Qualifications and experience of the, firm, project manager, other key individuals, and sub -consultants; (30 points) I I M 13-RI-P-REVISED.D0C/o:Con1rae[5 09.,1419911:17 ANI CITY OF HUtiTINGTON BEACH RIP for Public Information & Conm u* Outmach Consulting Services for Infrasncn.ue Imptovelrlent PmgMM Page 13 4. Results of reference checks; (15 points). Reference checks will only be conducted for a short list of firms or the top rated firm; S. Clarity of proposal; (10 points) 6. Compliance with proposal requirements including the twenty-five (25) page limitation. (10 points) The City may elect to interview a short list of qualified firms or to interview only the top rated firm based on the proposals submitted for the pro}ect. The City will negotiate a contract with the best -qualified firm for the desired consulting services at compensation, which the City staff determines is fair and reasonable to the City. Should the City be unable to negotiate a satisfactory contract with the firm considered to be the most qualified, negotiations with that firm shall be formally terminated. Negotiations will then be undertaken with the next most qualified firm. Failing accord with the second most qualified firm, the City will terminate negotiations and continue the negotiation process with the next most qualified firms, in order of their evaluation ranking, until an agreement is reached, a firm is selected, and an agreement is executed. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A ---Sample City Contract Attachment B---Sample Staff Related Experience Attachment C---Sample Insurance Certificate IIMP-RFP-REVISED.DOC!g/wntracu 09f 1.1 991 ]A7 AM ATTACHMENT A SAMPLE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AND FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES TO PROVIDE A PUBLIC INFORMATION AND COMMUNITY OUTREACH ASSISTANCE PROGRAM FOR THE 'CITY'S INFRASTRUCTURE DeTROVEMENT PROGRAM THIS AGREEMENT ("Agreement") is made and entered into this day of 1999, by and between the City of Huntington Beach,a municipal corporation of the State of California, hereinafter referred to as "CITY," and ,a referred to as "CONSULTANT." corporation, hereinafter WHEREAS, CITY desires to engage the services of a consultant to provide professional services regarding the development and implementation -of a -public informatiowand community outreach assistance program in connection with the City's-Infrastructure Improvement Program in the City of Huntington Beach; and to provide community survey services to ascertain public opinions, attitudes and awareness about the City's infrastructure; and Pursuant to documentation'on file in the office of the City Clerk, the provisions of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code, Chapter 3.03, relating to procurement of professional service contracts have been complied with; and CONSULTANT has been selected to perform said services, NOW, THEREFORE, it is agreed by CITY and CONSULTANT as follows: 1. WORK STATEMENT CONSULTANT shall provide all services as described in the Request for Proposal ("RFP"), and CONSULTANT's Proposal dated (both of which are jmflsampleshimp/08/25/99 SAMPLE hereinafter referred to as Exhibit "A"), which are attached hereto and incorporated into this AGREEMENT by this reference. These services shall sometimes hereinafter be referred to as the "PROJECT." CONSULTANT hereby.designates who shall represent.it and be its sole contact and agent in all consultations with CITY during the performance of this AGREEMENT. 2. CITY STAFF ASSISTANCE CITY shall assign a staff coordinator to work directly with CONSULTANT in the performance of this AGREEMENT. 3. TIME OF PERFORMANCE Time is of the essence of this AGREEMENT. The services of CONSULTANT are to commence as soon -as practicable after the execution.of this.AGREEMENT.and all tasks specified in Exhibit "A" shall be completed no later than from the date of this AGREEMENT. These times may be extended with the written permission of CITY. The time for performance of the tasks identified in Exhibit "A" are generally to be shown in the Scope of Services on the Work Program/Project Schedule. This schedule may be amended to benefit the PROJECT if mutually agreed by CITY and CONSULTANT. 4. COMPENSATION In consideration of the performance of the services described herein, CITY agrees to pay CONSULTANT a fee not to exceed dollars {$ _. 5. PRIORITIES In the event there are any conflicts or inconsistencies between this AGREEMENT, the CITY's RFP, or the CONSULTANT's Proposal, the following order of jmflsampteshimp/08/25/99 2 SAIVIPLE precedence shall govern: 1) AGREEMENT, 2) the CONSULTANT's Proposal, and 3) the R CITY's RFP. 6. EXTRA WORK Iri.the event CITY requires additional services not included in -Exhibit "A," or changes in the scope of services -described in Exhibit "A," CONSULTANT -will. undertake such work only after receiving written authorization from CITY. Additional, compensation for such extra work shall be allowed only if the prior written approval -of CITY is obtained. 7. METHOD OF PAYMENT A. CONSULTANT shall be entitled to progress payments toward the fixed fee set forth herein in accordance with -the progress and payment schedules:set:.forth in Exhibit "A." B. Delivery.of work:product: A copy of every memorandum, letter, report, calculation. and.other:documentation-prepared by -CONSULTANT. shall be submitted -to CITY to demonstrate progress toward completion of tasks. In the event CITY rejects or has comments on any such product, CITY shall identify specific requirements for satisfactory completion. Any such product which has not been formally accepted or rejected by CITY shall be deemed accepted.- C. CONSULTANT shall submit to CITY an invoice for each progress payment due. Such invoice shall: jmf/samples/iimp/09/25/99 1) Reference this AGREEMENT; 2) Describe the services performed; 3) Show the total amount of the payment due; 3 SAMPLE 4) Include a certification by a principal member of CONSULTANT's firm that the work has been performed in accordance with the provisions of this AGREEMENT; and 5) For all payments include an estimate of the percentage of work completed. Upon submission of any such invoice, if CITY is satisfied that CONSULTANT is making satisfactory progress toward completion of tasks in accordance with this AGREEMENT, CITY shall promptly approve the invoice, in which event payment shall be made within thirty 11 (30) days of receipt of the invoice by CITY. Such approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. If CITY does not approve an invoice, CITY shall notify CONSULTANT in writing of the reasons for non -approval within seven (7) calendar days of receipt -of the invoice, and the - schedule of performance set forth in Exhibit "A" shall be suspended until the parties agree that past performance by CONSULTANT is in, or has been brought into compliance, or until this AGREEMENT is terminated as provided herein. D. Any billings for extra work or additional services authorized by CITY shall be invoiced separately to CITY. Such invoice shall contain all of the information required above, and in addition shall list the hours expended and hourly rate charged for such time. Such invoices shall be approved by CITY if the work performed is in accordance with the extra work or additional services requested, and if CITY is satisfied that the statement of hours worked and costs incurred is accurate. Such approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. Any dispute between the parties concerning payment of such an invoice shall be treated as separate and apart from the ongoing performance of the remainder of this AGREEMENT. 4 jmf/samples/iimp/08/25/99 SAIViPLE 8. DISPOSITION OF PLANS, ESTIMATES AND OTHER DOCUMENTS CONSULTANT agrees that all materials prepared hereunder, including all original drawings, designs, reports, both field and office notices, calculations, maps, memoranda, letters and other documents, shall be turned over to CITY upon termination of this AGREEMENT or upon PROTECT completion, whichever shall occur first., In the event this AGREEMENT is terminated, said materials may be used by CITY in the completion of the PROJECT -or as it otherwise sees fit. Title to said materials shall pass to CITY upon -payment of fees determined to be earned by CONSULTANT to the point of termination or completion of the PROJECT, whichever is applicable. CONSULTANT shall be entitled to retain copies of all data prepared hereunder. 9. HOLD HARMLESS CONSULTANT. shall protect; defend,:indemnify and save and.hold harmless CITY, its officers, -officials, and.employees, and agents from and.against any.and ail,liability, loss, damage, expenses, costs (including without limitation, costs and fees of litigation of every nature) arising out of or in connection with CONSULTANT's performance of this AGREEMENT or its failure to comply with any of its obligations contained in this AGREEMENT by CONSULTANT, its officers, agents or employees except such loss or damage which was caused by the sole negligence or willful misconduct of CITY. 10. WORKERS' COMPENSATION INSURANCE Pursuant to California Labor Code Section 1861, CONSULTANT acknowledges awareness of Section 3700 et seq. of said Code, which requires every employer to be insured against liability for workers' compensation; CONSULTANT covenants that it will comply with such provisions prior to commencing performance of the work hereunder. 5 jmflsamples/limp/08/25/99 SAIMPLE CONSULTANT shall maintain workers' compensation insurance in an amount of not less than One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000) bodily injury by accident, each occurrence, One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000) bodily injury by disease, each employee, Two Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($250,000) bodily injury -by disease, policy limit. CONSULTANT shall require all subcontractors to provide such workers' compensation insurance for all of the subcontractors'. employees. -CONSULTANT shall furnish to CITY a certificate of waiver of•subrogation under the terms- of the workers' .compensation insurance and CONSULTANT shall similarly require all subcontractors to waive subrogation. 11. GENERAL LIABILITY INSURANCE In addition to the workers' .compensation insurance and- CONSULTANT's covenant to indemnify CITY, CONSULTANT shall obtain and furnish to CITY, a policy of general public liability, insurance, including motor..vehicle coverage covering the PROJECT. Said policy shall indemnify CONSULTANT, its officers, agents and employees, while acting within the scope of their duties, against any and all claims arising out of or in connection with the PROJECT, and shall provide coverage in not less than the following amount: combined single limit bodily injury and property damage, including products/completed operations Iiability and blanket contractual liability, of S 1,000,000 per occurrence. If coverage is provided under a form which includes a designated general aggregate limit, the aggregate limit must be no less than $1,000,000 for this PROJECT. Said policy shall name CITY, its agents, its officers, employees and volunteers as Additional Insureds, and shall specifically provide that any other insurance coverage which may be applicable to the PROJECT shall be deemed excess coverage and that CONSULTANT's insurance shall be primary. 6 j mflsampleshimp/08/25/99 SAMPLE Under no circumstances shall the above -mentioned insurance contain a self - insured retention, or a "deductible" or any other similar form of limitation on the required coverage. 12. PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY INSURANCE CONSULTANT shall furnish a professional liability insurance policy covering the work performed by it hereunder. Said policy shall provide coverage for'CONSULTANT's professional liability in an amount not less than $1,000,000 per occurrence -and in,the.aggregate. A claims -made policy shall be acceptable if the policy further provides that: A. The policy retroactive date coincides with or precedes the professional services contractor's start of work (including -sub sequent:policies purchased as renewals or replacements). B. CONSULTANT will,make every -effort to maintain similar insurance during the required extended period of coverage following project completion, including the requirement of adding all additional insureds. C. If insurance is terminated for any reason, CONSULTANT agrees to purchase an extended reporting provision of at least two (2) years to report claims arising from work performed in connection with this AGREEMENT. D. The reporting of circumstances or incidents that might give rise to future claims. 7 imf/samp leshimp/08/25/99 SAMPLE R 13. CERTIFICATES OF INSURANCE Prior to commencing performance of the work hereunder, CONSULTANT shall furnish to CITY certificates of insurance subject to approval of the City Attorney evidencing the foregoing insurance coverages -as required by this AGREEMENT; said certificates.shall: A. provide the name and policy number of each carrier and policy; B. shall state that the policy is currently in force; and C. shall promise that such policies shall-not.be suspended; -voided or canceled by either party, reduced in coverage or in limits except after thirty (30) days prior written notice; however, ten (10) days prior written notice in the event of cancellation for nonpayment of premium. CONSULTANT shall maintain the foregoing insurance coverages in force until the work under -this AGREEMENT is fully completed and accepted by CITY. The requirement for carrying the foregoing insurance -coverages shall;not derogate from the provisions for indemnification of CITY by CONSULTANT under the AGREEMENT. CITY or its representative shall at all times have the right to demand the original or a copy of all said policies of insurance. CONSULTANT shall pay, in a prompt and timely manner, the premiums on all insurance hereinabove required. 14. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR CONSULTANT is, and shall be, acting at all times in the performance of this AGREEMENT as an independent contractor. CONSULTANT shall secure at its expense, and be responsible for any and all payment of all taxes, social security, state disability insurance compensation, unemployment compensation and other payroll deductions for CONSULTANT 8 j mf/samp1cs/iimp/08/25/99 SAMPLE and its officers, agents and employees and all business licenses, if any, in connection with the services to be performed hereunder. IS. TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT All work required hereunder shall be performed in a good and- workmanlike manner. CITY may terminate CONSULTANT's services hereunder at anytime with or without cause, and whether or not PROJECT is.fully complete. _Any.termination of.this AGREEMENT by. CITY shall be made in writing; -notice of which -shall be. delivered: to CONSULTANT -as provided herein. 16. ' ASSIGNMENT AND SUBCONTRACTING This AGREEMENT is a personal service contract and -the supervisory -work hereunder shall not be delegated by CONSULTANT to any other -person or entity without the consent of CITY. IT COPYRIGHTS/PATENTS CITY shall own all rights to any patent or copyright on any work, item or material produced as a result of this AGREEMENT. 18. CITY EMPLOYEES AND OFFICIALS CONSULTANT shall employ no CITY official nor any regular CITY employee in the work performed pursuant to this AGREEMENT. No officer or employee of CITY shall have any financial interest in this AGREEMENT in violation of the applicable provisions of the California Government Code. 19. NOTICES Any notice or special instructions required to be given in writing under this AGREEMENT shall be given either by personal delivery to CONSULTANT's agent {as 9 imP/samples/iimp/08/25/99 SAMPLE designated in Section I hereinabove) or to CITY's Director of Public Works as the situation shall warrant, or by enclosing the same in a sealed envelope, postage prepaid, and depositing the same in the United States Postal Service, addressed as follows: TO CITY: Director of Public Works City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 20. DAMIGRATION TO CONSULTANT: CONSULTANT shall be responsible for full compliance with the immigration and naturalization laws of the United States and shall, in particular, comply with the provisions of the United States Code regarding employment verification. 21. LEGAL SERVICES SUBCONTRACTING PROHIBITED CONSULTANT and CITY agree that CITY -is not liable for payment of any subcontractor work involving legal services, and that such legal services are expressly outside the scope of services contemplated hereunder. CONSULTANT understands that pursuant to Huntington Beach City Charter Section 309, the City Attorney is the exclusive legal counsel for CITY; and CITY shall not be liable for payment of any legal services expenses incurred by CONSULTANT. 22. ATTORNEY'S FEES In the event suit is brought by either party to enforce the terms and provisions of this AGREEMENT or to secure the performance hereof, each party shall bear its own attorney's fees. SIGNATURES ON NEXT PAGE 10 jmf/sampleshimp/08/25/99 SAMPLE 23. ENTIRETY The foregoing, and Exhibit "A" attached hereto, set forth the entire AGREEMENT between the parties. IN WITNESS. WHEREOF,.the parties hereto have caused this AGREEMENT to be executed by and through their authorized offices the day, month and year first above written. CONSULTANT By: print name ITS: (circle one) Chairman/President(Vice President /"� By: print name ITS: (circle one) Secretary/Chief Financial Officer/Asst. Secretary — Treasurer REVIEWED AND APPROVED: City Administrator jm6sampleshimp/08/75/99 CITY OF HUNTINGTON.BEACH, a municipal corporation of the State of California Mayor ATTEST: City CIerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: ity Attorney UO 5 iy 6 -�� �� I INITIATED AND APPROVED: Director of Public Works 11 SAMPLE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 SAMPLE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF HUNI'INGTON BEACH AND FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES TO PROVIDE A PUBLIC INFORMATION AND COMMUNITY OUTREACH ASSISTANCE TO CITY FOR THE CITYS INFRASTRUCTURE RvIPROVEMEN ' PROGRAM Table of Contents WorkStatement.......................................................................................................1 CityStaff Assistance................................................................................................2 Timeof Performance...............................................................................................2 Compensation..........................................................................................................2 Priorities........................................................................................2 ExtraWork...............................................................................................................2 Methodof Payment....................'..........................................................................3 Disposition of Plans, Estimates and.Other Documents.. .............. HoldHarmless.........................................................................................................5 Workers' Compensation Insurance..........................................................................5 General_ Liability Insurance......................................................................................6 Professional Liability Insurance..............................................................................6 Certificatesof Insurance..........................................................................................7. Independent Contractor............................................................................................8 Termination of Agreement.......................................................................................8 Assignment and Subcontracting..............................................................................9 Copyrights/Patents...................................................................................................9 City Employees and Officials..................................................................................9 Notices.....................................................................................................................9 Immigration..............................................................................................................10 Legal Services Subcontracting Prohibited...............................................................10 Attorney's Fees.........................................................................................................10 Entirety....................................................................................................................10 J jmf/samples/iimp/08/25/99 SAMPLE ATTACHMENT B SAMPLE RELATED EXPERIENCE OF KEY STAFF Client (including name of contact person and telephone no. City of Los Angeles, Street Division; Joe Smith 213/555-7777x321 Project Description (including general description of project, scope of services provided, project cost and year project was completed or year estimated to be completed of not completed yet.) Preparation of plans, .specifications and -cost estimates for Wilshire Avenue widening project which included street improvements, storm drain, street lights, traffic signals, and utility relocation's; $1.2 million; 1996 Caltrans District 7, Field survey, utility James Allen research, and 213/564-7891 preparation of design report and final plans, specifications, and cost estimates for 1-5/1-405 Interchange Project including bridges, ramps, storm drain, safety lighting, retaining walls, and detour road; $4.5 million; 1999 (estimated). Key Staff (includingnames and the role e.g. project manager, project engineer, on that project. Include only -the .staff who:are:included in ._.your. proposal for. this project.) Jane Doe, Project mgr. Howard Jones, .Project Engineer. William Job, Project Mgr. while employed by ABC Consultants. Note: Projects can be those that your staff worked on while employed with another firm. ATTACHMENT C Agency Name a Insured's Name and Address: Certificate of Insurance THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUES AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. THIS CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AMEND, EXTEND OR ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED THE POLICIES LISTED BELOW. Companies Affording Coverage COVERAGES: THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE. POLICY PERIOD INDICATED. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY REQUIREMENT, TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACTOR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN, THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO -ALL -.THE TERMS, EXCLUSIONS, -AND CONDITIONS OF SIICH POLICES CO. TYPE OF POLICY POLICY POLICY LTR. INSURANCE NUMBER EFFEC; DATE EXPIR. DATE" LIMITS ... __ GENERAL LIABILITY General Aggregate $ [ ] Comml. Gen. Liability Prod ucts-C om/Ops Agg. S [ ] Claims Made Personal & Adv. Injury S [ ] Occurrence Each Occurrence S [ ] Owner's & Contractors Fire Damage (any one fire) $ Protective _ [ ] Contractual Liability Other AUTO LIABILITY Combined Single Limit $ [ ] Any Automobile [ ] All owned autos Bodily Injury (per person) [ ] Scheduled autos $ [ ] Hired autos Bodily Injury (per accident [ ] Non -owned autos S ] Garage liability Property Damage [ ] S EXCESS LIABILITY [ ] Umbrella Form Each Occurrence [ ] Other than Umbrella Form Aggregate WORKERS' Statutory Limits: COMPENSATION Each Accident $ AND EMPLOYERS' Disease -Policy Limit S LIABILITY Disease -Each Employee S OTHER: Description of Operations/Locations/Vehicles/Restrictions/Special Items: Certificate Holder: CANCELLATION: SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICES BE CANCELED BEFORE THE EXPIRATION DATE THEREOF, THE ISSUING COMPANY WILL MAIL 30 DAYS WRITTEN NOTICE TO THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER NAMED TO THE LEFT. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE Date DOC. #24880 ATTACHED TO AND FORMING PART OF CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE NO. COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY SECTION POLICY NO. .It.is hereby understood and -agreed the City of. -Huntington Beach,. -its agents,.. officers, .and .employees are -added as an additional insured.under this polidy but only insofar as their -legal.. liability arises out of the operations of the Named Insured. 10 40:40 Authorized Representative INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS If insurance is required, below arb the City's requirements. To: Encroachment Permit Applicants and Providers of Contractual Services to the City. *** PLEASE GIVE THESE REQUIREMENTS TO YOUR INSURANCE AGENT*** City Council resolution 97-20 requires a certificate of General Liability insurance before you can get a permit to do work on city property or before you can provide contractual services to the city. CHECKLIST: 1. All certificates must contain a mandatory 30 day cancellation notice. Be sure that the words "endeavor to" and "but failure to mail such notice shall impose no obligation or liability of any kind upon the company, its agents or representatives" have been removed or lined -out if they appear on the certificate. 2. Cancellation Clause Wording - The words "endeavor to" and "failure to mail such notice shall impose no obligation nor liability of any kind upon the company, its agents or representatives" have been removed or lined -out if they appear on the certificate. 3. Workers' Compensation. - Minimum California statutory requirements for workers' compensation of at least $100,000 bodily injury per disease or accident per occurrence. If you have no employees, you must sign a Declaration of Non - employee Status form, which is available from and submitted to the City's Risk Management Department. In lieu of a certificate of insurance, a certificate of Consent to Self -insure issued by the California Director of Industrial Relations is also acceptable. 4. Deductible/SIR: - The City Council Resolution 97-20 requires an approved waiver for any deductibles and/or self insurance retention (SIR). The application for a waiver is available from and submitted to Risk Management. 5. At least $1,000,000 combined single limit coverage is required. 6. Insurance must be "per occurrence." "Claims made" is only acceptable for professional or pollution liability insurance. 7. The City of Huntington Beach must be named as certificate holder. 8. The certificate must name the City. of Huntington Beach, its agents, officers, and employees as additional insured on an endorsement that is a separate attachment to the certificate. The wording must be exact, '7/7 ���. RCA ROUTING SHEET INITIATING DEPARTMENT: City Administration SUBJECT:' 'Request for Proposal for Professional Public Information & Community Outreach Consulting Services for the Infrastructure Improvement Program COUNCIL MEETING DATE: September 20, 1999 ......... . .... ..... . ..... .... .... .... ... ..... . ........ . . ..'"..."RCKIAT-T-A .................... 'CHMENTS .... . . I .. . ..... .............. ... .................... ...... I ...... - - ----------------- N: ...... . .. ... .... . .. .... -A --US". --i T - T ............ - - Ordinance (w/exhibits & legislative draft if applicable) Not Applicable Resolution (w/exhibits & legislative draft if applicable) Not Applicable Tract Map, Location Map and/or other Exhibits Not Applicable Contract/Agreement (w/exhibits if applicable) (Sr ned in full by the qLty Attomey) Not Applicable - Subleases, Third Party Agreements, etc. (Approved as to form by gLty Attomy) Not Applicable - Certificates of Insurance (Approved by the City Attomey) Not Applicable Financial Impact Statement (Unbudaet, over $5,000) Not Applicable - Bonds if applicable) Not Applicable Staff Report If applicable) Not Applicable Commission, Board or Committee Report If applicable) Not Applicable Findings/Conditions for Approval and/or Denial Not Applicable .......... ...... ...... . . ........... LA ATIOWFOR.- S' ............ ... E N :M1 -:ATMHM ... I ........ XP ING: . ............. ------- m- .............. ... ....... .......................... : ...... ........ 7 ............. .... ......... .. . ...... ."E-XP '- "NA A. E N F %A. TIONTO -TUR ".."WATEM ...... . ... .............. w ................... Council/Agency Meeting Held:_ Deferred/Continued to: Approved ❑ Conditionally Apprded9 ❑ Denied Council Meeting Date: 09-07-99 ,619. City Clerk's Signature Department ID Number. AD99-23 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION SUBMITTED TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS SUBMITTED BY: RAY SILVER, City Adrrfin'stratoraW PREPARED BY: RICHARD BARNARWeputy, City Administrator SUBJECT: Request for Proposal for Professional Public Information & Community Outreach Consulting Services for the Infrastructure Improvement Program Statement of Issue, Funding Source, Recommended Action, Alternative Action(s), Analysis, Environmental Status, Attachments) Statement of issue: Seeking authorization from the City Council for the distribution of Request for Proposals (RFP's) for a professional consulting firm to provide Public Information & Community Outreach Services for the Infrastructure Improvement Program. The Citizen Infrastructure Advisory Committee (CIAO) supports issuing the RFP for Public Information and Community Outreach Consulting Services for the Infrastructure Improvement Program. Funding Source: Two hundred thousand dollars ($200,000) is in the 1999/2000 Budget for professional consulting services for Public Information & Community Outreach. Recommended Action: 1. Approve the Request for Proposal (RFP) for professional consulting services for a Public Information & Community Outreach Program for the Infrastructure Improvement Program. 2. Authorize the City Administrator to distribute the RFP and select a firm to provide Professional Public Information & Community Outreach Consulting Services for the Infrastructure Improvement Program. Alternative Action(s): 1. Do not approve the RFP and direct staff accordingly. 2. Modify the RFP. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 09-07-99 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: AD99-23 A_ nalvsis: As a direct result of the Integrated Infrastructure Management Program (IIMP), the City Council, in March 1998, appointed a Citizen Infrastructure Advisory Committee (CIAC) to begin a community -wide effort to address the City's infrastructure needs. This committee is comprised of 35 primary members and an equal number of alternates, representing a cross section of leaders from community and business organizations as well as City commissions and boards. The CIAC's mission is to review the IIMP and forecasted shortfall of public funding resources and make recommendations to the City Council regarding the optimum approach for financing/funding the most critical and long term infrastructure needs of the community. This was to be accomplished by: • Becoming informed about the existing infrastructure conditions as well as projected long-term requirements of the City; • Becoming generally informed about the City's overall revenue sources, expenditures, and budgets; • Evaluating and recommending possible financing/funding methods; and • Participating with the City Council in joint workshops/study sessions. Recommendations that are to be presented to the City Council by the CIAC will be designed to insure the future viability of the City's infrastructure systems. The CIAC studied such facilities as: the community drainage facilities, sewer facilities, streets and highways, public owned buildings, public owned parks and landscaped areas, sidewalks, curb and gutters, traffic signals, street lighting, and highway block walls. At the start of the process, many of the Committee members themselves had only a rudimentary understanding of the City's infrastructure. The CIAC has been meeting on a regular basis since March 1998 to: • Educate themselves about the current condition of the community's infrastructure; • Understand the immediate and long term (20 year) needs for the community's infrastructure; • Become knowledgeable about the cost to build, replace, and maintain required infrastructure systems; • Prioritize infrastructure needs as part of a twenty (20) year plan; and • Identify and understand the various financial methods that are available to fund city infrastructure. The City and the CIAO believe it is time to expand the infrastructure educational process they have gone through, to the community as a whole. The committee believes that the time has come for the City to make a concerted effort to inform the public on the real need to repair, replace, upgrade and maintain the City's infrastructure. The purpose of employing the services of a Consultant is to assist RCA RFP PID -2- 08/31/99 8:57 AM REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 09-07-99 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: AD99-23 the City and the CIAC in presenting information about the City's infrastructure to Huntington Beach residents. The Public Information & Community Outreach Consultant will be expected to provide leadership for educating the residents and the media about the condition of the community's infrastructure. The ultimate goal of the Public Information & Community Outreach Program is to insure that residents are fully aware of the infrastructure needs of the community and the difficult choices that they and the City Council may be asked to make about the City's infrastructure. Environmental Status: Not Applicable Attachment[s1: '!.. Request for Proposals (RFP's) for Professional Public Information & ..... ..................... ... Community Outreach Consulting Services for Infrastructure Improvement Program, Dated, September 10, 1999. RCA Author: Richard Bamard, RCA RFP PIO -3- 08/31199 8:57 AM ATTACHMENT 1 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY ADMINISTRATION OFFICE OF PUBLIC INFORMATION REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS For Professional Public Information & Community Outreach Consulting Services For Infrastructure Improvement Program September 10, 1999 PROPOSAL SUBMITTALS: Responses to the Request for Proposal (RFP) are to be submitted to: Mr. Richard Amadril, Central Services Manager Administrative Services City of Huntington Beach City Hall 2000 Main Street P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 No later than 4.00 P. M. on October 4,1999. Fifteen (15) copies of the proposal shall be submitted in a sealed envelope and marked: "Proposal for Consultant Services, Public Information & Community Outreach for the City's Infrastructure Improvement Program." Proposals received after the specified time will not be accepted and will be returned unopened. A pre -proposal conference will be held for all consultants on September 16, 1999, at 11:00 A.M. at the Huntington Beach Civic Center, 2000 Main Street, on the lower level in Room B-7. Questions regarding this request may be addressed to Richard Barnard, Deputy City Administrator at 714/536-5577. CONTENTS AP-0- ION PACE I. Introduction 2 II. Schedule of Events 2 III. General Background 2 IV. Scope of Work 4 V. Fee Proposal Requirements 8 VI. Proposal Requirements 9 VII. General Requirements 12 VIII. Consultant Evaluation & Selection Process 13 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH RR fr Public h6mla im & Co mmity Omwch COM16M Smim for Sgembw 10,1999 Paget I. INTRODUCTION The City of Huntington Beach is requesting proposals from qualified firms for assisting the City in the development and implementation of a Public Information &s Community Outreach Program for the City's Integrated Infrastructure Management Program (IIMP). Conducting community surveys will also be part of the proposed scope of work. II. SCHEDULE Op EVENTS September 10, 1999 Issuance of Request for Proposals September 16, 1999 A pre -proposal conference for consultants October 4, 1999 Proposal due from consultants by 4:00 p.m. October 7, 1999 Consultant selection panel reviews proposals and establishes a short list to be interviewed October 14, 1999 Interview panel conducts consultant interviews (tentative date) November 15, 1999 City Council approval of Consultant Contract (tentative date) November 16, 1999 Issuance of notice -to -proceed (tentative date) III. GENERAL BACKGROUND Huntington Beach is a charter city, administered by a Council/Administrator forth of government. Huntington Beach is a full service city encompassing an area of 28 square miles with a population of 196,700. The total annual City budget is approximately $234 million, with the General Fund portion of the budget totaling approximately $110 million. In April 1997, the Integrated Infrastructure Management Program (IIMP) was presented to the City Council. The IIMP was the result of many years of effort by the City's Finance Board, - Public Works Commission, and City Staff. In 1995, The City's Finance Board informed the City Council that the City's infrastructure needs, including required capital improvements, rehabilitation, reconstruction, and maintenance were under funded. The City Council directed the Public Works Department staff to compile a study of infrastructure needs and make recommendations for a financing strategy. In 1996, the City Council established the City's first Public Works Commission that undertook a series of infrastructure workshops with City Staff over approximately one year. These workshops culminated in the development and presentation of the Integrated Infrastructure Management Program (IIMP) to the City Council in April 1997. The IIMP is: • A comprehensive inventory of the City's capital assets; • A projection of required capital improvements, rehabilitation, reconstruction, and maintenance needs including estimated costs for the next 20 years; • A projection of funding available to the City for each infrastructure component for the 20 year period; and • The estimated shortfall of funds to meet the projected needs for each component. The IIMP has forecast a funding shortfall of approximately $600 million over the next 20 years. As a direct result of the IIMP, the City Council, in March 1998, appointed a Citizen Infrastructure Advisory Committee (CIAC) to begin a community -wide effort to address the City's infrastructure needs. This committee is comprised of 35 primary members and an equal CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH RFP fcr Public Inf+ mi3fion & C m miry Omwzh Ca aditg Sm icm for Ir dAft="hrVUvaertProgram som bw 10,1999 Page 3 number of alternates, representing a cross section of leaders from community and business organizations as well as City commissions and boards. The CIAC's mission is to review the IIMP and forecasted shortfall of public funding resources and make recommendations to the City Council regarding the optimum approach for financing/ funding the most critical and long term infrastructure needs of the community. This was to be accomplished by: • Becoming informed about the existing infrastructure conditions as well as projected long-term requirements of.the City; • Becoming generally informed about the City's overall revenue sources, expenditures, and budgets; • Evaluating and recommending possible financing/funding methods; and Participating with the City Council in joint workshops/study sessions. The recommendations that are to be presented to the City Council by the CIAC will be designed to insure the future viability of the City's infrastructure systems. The CIAC studied such facilities as: the community drainage facilities, sewer facilities, streets and highways, public owned buildings, public owned parks and landscaped areas, sidewalks, curb and gutters, traffic signals, street lighting, and highway block walls. At the start of the process, many of the Committee members themselves had only a rudimentary understanding of the City's infrastructure. The CIAC has been meeting on a regular basis since March 1998 to: • Educate themselves about the current condition of the community's infrastructure; • Understand the immediate and long term (20 year) needs for the community's infrastructure; • Become knowledgeable about the cost to build, replace, and maintain required infrastructure systems; • Prioritize infrastructure needs as part of a twenty (20) year plan; and • Identify and understand the various financial methods that are available to fund city infrastructure. The City and the CIAC believe it is time to expand the infrastructure educational process they have gone through, to the community as a whole. The committee believes that the time has come for the City to make a concerted effort to inform the public on the real need to repair, replace,. upgrade and maintain the City's infrastructure. The purpose of employing the services of a Consultant is to assist the City and the CIAC in presenting information about the City's infrastructure to Huntington Beach residents. The Consultant will be expected to provide leadership for educating the residents and the media about the condition of the community's infrastructure. The ultimate goal of the Public Information & Community Outreach Program is to insure that residents are fully aware of the infrastructure needs of the Community and the difficult choices that they and the City Council may be asked to make about the City's infrastructure. The CIAC anticipates bringing a series of findings, conclusions and recommendations forward to the City Council in December 1999 or January 2000. Under the Scope of Work (Task 5), the Consultant is required to assist the CIAC and City Staff in the preparation of the final report of the CIAC, with its findings, conclusions, and recommendations for submittal to the City CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH RFP for Public In trrwim & Omach Cauftg Savim for k&a=jctL=hrpDv=at September lq 1999 Page 4 Council. Following the release and presentation of the CIAC's report to the City Council, the City Council will consider the Committee's recommendations. Once the report has been reviewed and discussed by the City Council Members, it is anticipated that the City Council will provide direction based upon the findings and recommendations of the CIAC's report. It will be this City Council directed program that the Consultant will need to bring to the attention of the local residents. IV. SCOPE OF WORK The Consultant will be expected to develop and implement a Public Information and Community Outreach Program, consistent with City Council direction that will educate local residents about the City's infrastructure needs. The Consultant will be expected to develop and implement overall communications strategies, tactics and activities, as well as an implementation schedule. This will ensure that the local residents understand the City's infrastructure needs and what financial commitment is required to meet those needs. Also, coordination with the CIAC and the CIAC Public Education Sub -Committee and the City's Public Information Office (PIO) is mandatory, and attendance at meetings required. The Communications Consultant must provide for coordination between the City's PIO and the Consultant. In general, there are two Parts to the scope of work to be performed by the Consultant: Part I addresses the development and implementation of a Public Information and Community Outreach Program. Part II addresses the need to survey community members regarding their opinions, attitudes and awareness about the City's infrastructure needs. It is anticipated that the City will employ the Consultant from November 1999 till December 2000. The scope of work of the Consultant's services shall include, but not be limited to, the following Tasks: PART I - PUBLIC INFORMATION AND COMMUNITY OUTREACH TASK 1 - Become knowledgeable about the City's Infrastructure Improvement Program 1.1 Meet with the City Officials and the CIAC. 1.2 Attend meetings of the CIAC, the CIAC Steering Committee, the CIAC Public Education Sub -Committee, and the Public Works Commission; 1.3 Meet with other groups that can contribute to the Consultant's overall understanding of the City's Infrastructure Improvement Program. TASK 2 - Create a program identity 2.1 Develop a simple and effective format for communicating the most critical information generated by the City's Infrastructure Improvement Program, incorporating a consistent "look", i.e. theme, mastheads, fact sheets, etc. TASK 3 - The Consultant shall develop a comprehensive Public Information and Community Outreach Plan for approval by the City. The Plan shaU include strategies, tactics, and an implementation schedule. Upon approval of the Plan, the Consultant shall be responsible for undertaking the tasks required to implement the Plan. The Plan shall include, but not be limited to, the following: 3.1 Identify the recommended target audience and the communication CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH RFP for Ribk Unnafion & Com ulity OLUeKh Conte Services for September 10,1999 Page 5 resources to be used to communicate with the audience (i.e. newsletters, speaker's bureau, voter registration programs, mailers, television, & media, etc.) Help the City focus on the most cost-effective media with the target audience in mind, rather than an array of methods that are not particularly cost-effective. 3.2 The Public Information and Community Outreach Plan shall include a . conibixiation of elements from the following candidate list, or others that may be brought forward, that combine to yield the most cost-effective package for gaining understanding and support for this program. Suggrested elements to be evaluated for inclusion in the program include, but are not limited to: 3.2.1 Develop the key messages that need to be frequently shared with the residents about the CIAC process, City Budget & City's Infrastructure Improvement Program; 3.2.2 Write a script and prepare a PowerPoint slide presentation that provides current information about the Infrastructure Improvement Program; 3.2.3 Identify community stakeholder groups and organizations that will need to be communicated with under the Public Information and Community Outreach Program; 3.2.4 Develop a Speaker's Bureau, and schedule speaking engagements throughout the year 2000 at which the Infrastructure Improvement Program can be presented; 3.2.5 Conduct a minimum of four (4) public workshops; 3.2.6 Develop a display and collateral support materials for distribution at a minimum of six (6) community events; 3.2.7 Draft press releases and coordinate their dissemination with the City; 3.2.8 Using City video footage that is already available, work with HBTV-3 to write a video script for a short (3-5 minute) and longer (30 minute) video highlighting the salient points about the City's Infrastructure Improvement Program; 3.2.9 Write 30 and 60 second Public Service Announcements and provide creative input to HBTV-3 for distribution over cable television stations (assume 12 PSAs will be required); 3.2.10 Write articles about the Infrastructure for inclusion in each issue of the "Sands" magazine which is published quarterly by the City and distributed to Huntington Beach residents; 3.2.11 Develop and publish a Web page linked to the City's Web page containing information about the City's Infrastructure Improvement Program, and subsequent information that becomes available, resulting from the CIAC and City Council actions; 3.2,12 Develop 4" x 6" information sheet for inclusion into the City's Municipal Services Bill at least four (4) times during the year 2000; 3.2,13 Prepare written material for insertion into mailers or to be handed out; 3.2.14 Develop information for inclusion on the Huntington Beach Infoline. CITY OF 19UNTINGTON BEACH RFP for Mc 1&mmrion& Cry wm� Cawkg g &rvioes for T &d&UCb ekMMV=er1tR 9= squnibff 10,1999 Page 6 TASK 4 - The Consultant's proposal shall include a plan for attending meetings scheduled throughout the year 2000 which will. facilitate communication between City Staff, tho City's Consultant Team and the CIAC Steerinj Committee, the CIAC Public Information Sub -Committee, and Consultant's key staff. 4.1 Attend monthly coordination meetings with the City. Assume twelve (12) meetings; 4.2 Attend and make presentations at monthly CIAC meetings. Assume twelve (12) meetings; 4.3 Attend and make presentations at monthly CIAC Public Information Sub - Committee or other CIAC Sub -Committees as established from time -to - time. Assume twelve (12) meetings; and 4.4 Attend and make presentations at City Council meetings on an as -needed basis. Assume four (4) meetings. TASK b - Provide consultation and support to the CIAC in the preparation of the final report of the CIAC with its finding, conclusions, and recommendations for submittal to the City Council. TASK 6 - The Consultant shall provide monthly progress reports (approximately 2 pages). TASK 7 - In addition to other Tasks the consultant shall make available key staff to work with the CIAC and its committees, City Staff, and the City's Consultant Team to provide input and assistance on various issues and activities that may come up during the course of the Consultant contract. It is intended these services be for tasks that are not otherwise covered under Tasks I through 6 of Part I or Part II of the Scope of Work. A budget of a specified number of hours, not to exceed a specified amount, shall be set aside in the contract for this task. For the purposes of this proposal, the Consultant shall use forty (40) hours as the budget amount. MW.`Z-Iaiis.FZRla*3It' RX61616Ik1l )k,IyWdle)j0tICal �, TASK 8 - Assess the community's awareness and knowledge about the City's infrastructure. 8.1 Establish a baseline of awareness about the community's infrastructure needs. Working with the CIAC, develop a plan which will enable the Consultant to gauge the awareness and knowledge of community stakeholders (i.e. editorial boards, elected officials, city boards, committees and commissions, service organizations, community and neighborhood -based groups, and organizations) about the City's Infrastructure Improvement needs and the Plan to address those needs. CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH W forPublic h fomarion & Cammfity U&eadi Cog Swim for ir>frae Improvement P�ugcacn Sq tembm 10,1999 PoW 7 8.2 As may be required, employ and manage the services of a public opinion research consultant to assist in determining the public opinions, attitudes and awareness about the City's infrastructure needs. Techniques to be used by the Consultant in conducting community ascertainment studies are to be approved by the City. 8.1.1 Formulate the proposed process for obtaining a quantitative sample of public opinion. The City and CIAC shall approve the appropriate audience size which must be large enough to ensure an effective demographic and geographic cross tabulation of the results; 8.1.2 Collaborate with the public opinion consultant, CIAC, and the City staff in formulating the survey questions to be asked of local residents; 8.1.3 Conduct surveys using such public opinion techniques as telephone surveys, focus groups, and other communications methods to determine local residents' attitudes and understanding about City infrastructure needs; 8.1.4 Conduct a survey to assess community awareness of infrastructure needs and prevailing attitudes and or themes within approximately the first sixty (60) days following the notice to proceed; 8.1.5 The Consultant shall assume that two subsequent surveys may need to be conducted at specified intervals within a twelve (12) month period to assess any changes in the public's awareness and changing attitudes, as well as gather further information and data; 8.1.6 The Consultant shall prepare and deliver to the City, within two (2) weeks after each survey completion, a final report that includes an analysis of the survey results and summarization of public awareness and attitudes about the City infrastructure; 8.1.7 Develop a recommended means of monitoring the effectiveness of the Public Information and Outreach Program. Candidate methods include telephone surveys, focus groups, or other communication methods. V. FEE PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS In preparing the proposal fee schedule for the services identified under the scope of work, the Consultant shall take into consideration the following: 1. Compensation for services provided in completing the tasks under Parts I and II shall be based upon an hourly rate, not to exceed the total compensation of the authorized budget amount for each part. CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH RFP for P► hchfoff �& Cantu mhy Odm ch Ca wk% Savim for hfia&udaE hrpuv=ert Rogm Sept mbff 10,1999 Page 8 2. A work plan, together with a breakdown of labor hours by employee billing classification together with the cost of non -labor and sub -consultant services, shall be included with the fee proposal. The labor breakdown shall be compiled by project task, and be based on a listing of work tasks that correlates with the Consultant's defined -scope of work for the project proposal. This information will be used by the City to evaluate the reasonableness of the Fee Proposal, and will be used in negotiating the final fee amounts for the contract agreement. 3. The Consultant shall state in the fee proposal the number of hours allotted in its fee amount for each task identified under the Scope of Work. Also, the Consultant shall state the fee for attending meetings with the CIAC, City staff, and others. Should the amount of hours expended during these tasks exceed the amount included in the fee quote, the Consultant may be authorized to invoice the City for the additional hours upon first notifying the City that the budget limit for meetings has been reached. The City shall then determine whether additional hours for meetings will be authorized. 4. The Consultant's standard billing rates for all classifications of staff likely to be involved in the project shall be included with the fee proposal, along with the mark- up rate for any non -labor expenses and sub -consultants. 5. The Consultant shall prepare monthly progress billings, reflective of the project schedule. VI. PROPOSAL. REQUIREMENTS Although no specific format is required by the City, this section is intended to provide guidelines to the Consultant regarding features which the City will look for and expect to be included in the proposal. 1. Content and Format The City requests that the proposals submitted be organized and presented in a neat and understandable format, and be relevant to these services. Consultant's proposals shall be clear, accurate, and comprehensive. Excessive or irrelevant material will not be favorably received. Proposals shall contain no more than twenty-five (25) typed pages using a 10-paint minimum font size, including transmittal/offer letter and resumes of key people, but excluding Index/Table of Contents, tables, charts, and graphic exhibits. The purpose of these restrictions is to minimize the costs of proposal preparation, and to ensure that the response to the RFP is fully relevant to the project. The separately submitted Fee Proposal should contain only enough pages to clearly respond to the information that is requested in the RFP. The proposal should include the following: 0 Transmittal/offer letter; CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH RIP forPublic lr MM ion& Cominuuty O&ead3C.o"ng SerA=for h*a*uchnhMMvWatPmgram Sq twber 10,1999 PaW9 • Page numbering; • Index/Table of Contents; • Team Organization including an organization diagram; • Approach to the Project; • Descriptions of similar projects by key staff to be used on this assignment; • Brief resumes of key staff; • Project schedule. 2. Scope of Services A description of the work program that will be undertaken shall be included in this section. It should explain the technical approach, methodology, and specific tasks and activities that will be performed to address the specific issues and work items identified in the RFP. It should also include a discussion of constraints, problems, and issues that should be anticipated during the contract, and suggestions for approaches to resolving them. 3. Statement of Qualifications The information requested in this section is for the consulting firm to describe the qualifications of the firm, key staff, and sub -consultants used in performing projects within the past five (5) years, that are similar in scope and size, to demonstrate competence to perform these services. The projects listed should be those that the key staff named for the projects were responsible for performing services. Information shall include: • Names of key staff that participated on named projects and their specific responsibilities; • Client names, contact persons, addresses, and telephone numbers; • A brief description of type and extent of services provided; • Completion dates (estimated, if not yet completed); • Total costs of the projects. A sample format for presentation of the above -prescribed information is included as Attachment B for the Consultant's reference. There should be included in the section brief resumes of key personnel who will provide these services, demonstrating their qualifications and experience. Resumes should highlight education, experience, licenses, relevant experience, and specific responsibilities for services described. 4. Project Team The purpose of this section is to describe the organization of the project team including sub -consultants and key staff. A project manager and an alternate project manager shall be named who shall be the prime contact and be responsible for coordinating all activities with the City. An organizational diagram shall be submitted showing all key team members and illustrating the relationship between the City, the project manager, CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH RFP forPublic man & Com * Ohach CMMhV Savi= fear hda=XftnbVDVaM1R09raM September 10,1999 Pale 10 key staff, and sub -consultants. There also should be a brief description of the role and responsibilities of all key staff and sub -consultants identified in the team organization. 5. Project Schedule A project schedule shall be included which identifies, in graphical format, the timetable for completion of tasks, activities, and phases of the project which correlate with the scope of work for the project. There should be a brief discussion of any key assumptions used in preparing the timetable, and identification of critical tasks and/or events that could impact the overall schedule. 6. Fee Proposal A Fee Proposal shall be submitted in a separate, sealed envelope and marked as `Fee Proposal", along with the name of the project. The information and detail included in the Fee Proposal shall conform to the provisions of Section V., Fee Proposal Requirements, of this RFP. A work program, together with a breakdown of labor hours by employee billing classification with the cost of non -labor and sub -consultant services, shall be included with the Fee Proposal. The labor breakdown shall be compiled based on a listing of work tasks that correlates with the Consultant's defined scope of work for the project proposal. This information will be used by the City staff to evaluate the reasonableness of the Fee Proposal, and may be used in negotiating the final fee amounts for the contract agreement. The Fee Proposal of the three (3) top ranked Consultants will be opened at the conclusion of the Consultant evaluation and selection process. Fees will not be used to determine the ranking of the Consultants. The Fee Proposals of those consultants not ranked in the top three will be returned to them unopened upon award of a contract to the selected Consultant. The city will negotiate the final fee with the top ranked Consultant. Reimbursable expenses shall not be allowed unless negotiated prior to a contract. Price escalations during the contract term are disfavored and shall be approved in negotiations prior to a contract. 7. Statement of Offer & Signature The proposal, including the Fee Proposal, shall be signed by an individual authorized to bind the Consultant. The proposal shall contain a statement that the proposal and accompanied fee is a firm offer for a 60-day period. VII. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS 1. Insurance Requirements The Consultant shall furnish, with the proposal, proof of the following minimum insurance coverage. These minimum levels of coverage are to be maintained for the duration of the project: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH RFP for Pubic h fotr x6m & Conmw ity Ouumrh Comm Services for s4kniba 10,1999 Pawn A. General Liability Coverage - $1,000,000 per occurrence for bodily injury and property damage. If Commercial General Liability Insurance or other form with a general limit is used, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to this project/location or the general aggregate limit shall be twice the required occurrence limit. B. professional Liability Coverage - $1,000,000 per occurrence (note: A claims made" policy is acceptable). C. Worker's Compensation Coverage: State statutory limits. Deductibles, Self -Insurance Retention's, or Similar Forms of Coverage Limitations or Modifications must be declared to and approved by the City of Huntington Beach. A sample certificate is included as Attachment C. The Consultant is encouraged to contact its insurance carriers during the proposal stage to ensure that the insurance requirements can be met if selected for negotiation of a contract agreement. 2. Standard Form of Agreement The Consultant will enter into an agreement with the City based upon the contents of the RFP and the Consultant's proposal. The City's standard form of agreement is included as Attachment A. The Consultant shall carefully review the agreement, especially in regard to the indemnity and insurance provisions, and include with the proposal a description of any exceptions requested to the standard contract. If there are no exceptions, a statement to that effect shall be included in the proposal. 3. Disclaimer This RFP does not commit the City to award a contract, or to pay any costs incurred in the preparation of the proposal. The City reserves the right to extend the due date for the proposal, to accept or reject any or all proposals received as a result of this request, to negotiate with any qualified consultant, or to cancel this RFP in part or in its entirety. The City may require the selected Consultant to participate in negotiations and to submit such technical, fee, or other revisions of their proposals as may result from negotiations. 4. Assigned Representatives The City will assign a responsible representative to administer the contract and to assist the Consultant in obtaining information. The Consultant also shall assign a responsible representative (project manager) and an alternate who shall be identified in the proposal. The Consultant's representative will remain in responsible charge of the Consultant's duties from the notice -to -proceed through project completion. If the Consultant's primary representative should be unable to continue with the project, then CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH RFP fDrPubhc ft&mv6m & Comumiy Q&eadi Coming Sew for �U'��]'lpll PlDgialt7 SeWnber 10,1999 Pap 12 the alternate representative, identified in the proposal, shall become the project manager. The City's representative shall first approve any substitution of representatives or sub -consultants identified in the written proposal. The City reserves the right to review and approve/disapprove all key staff and sub -consultant substitution or removal, and may consider such changes not approved to be a breach of contract. VIII. CONSULTANT EVALUATION & SELECTION PROCESS The City's consultant evaluation and selection process is based on Qualifications Based Selection (QBS) for professional services. The following criteria will be used in evaluating the proposals using a point value system (100 points) based on the weighting indicated below. I. Grasp of the project requirements including identification of critical elements and key issues; (10 points) 2. Technical approach and work plan for the project, including innovative approaches; (25 points) 3. Qualifications and experience of the project manager, other key individuals, and sub -consultants; (30 points) 4. Results of reference checks; (15 points). Reference checks will only be conducted for a short list of firms or the -top rated firm; S. Clarity of proposal; (10 points) 6. Compliance with proposal requirements including the twenty-five (25) page limitation. (10 points) The City may elect to interview a short list of qualified firms or to interview only the top rated firm based on the proposals submitted for the project. The City will negotiate a contract with the best -qualified firm for the desired consulting services at compensation, which the City staff determines is fair and reasonable to the City. Should the City be unable to negotiate a satisfactory contract with the firm considered to be the most qualified, negotiations with that firm shall be formally terminated. Negotiations will then be undertaken with the next most qualified firm. Failing accord with the second most qualified firm, the City will terminate negotiations and continue the negotiation process with the next most qualified firms, in order of their evaluation ranking, until an agreement is reached, a firm is selected, and an agreement is executed. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A ---Sample City Contract Attachment B--- Sample Staff Related Experience Attachment C---Sample Insurance Certificate RCA ROUTING SHEET INITIATING DEPARTMENT: . City Administration SUBJECT: Request for Proposal for Professional Public Information & Community Outreach Consulting Services for the Infrastructure Improvement Program COUNCIL MEETING DATE: September 7, 1999 . .................................. .. ... ... .. ....... ....... . .......... .. .... ........ ..... ............................... :XX ................ ..................... . .. - . . ................................. RMATTACHMENTS . ................ ....... ... ...... .. ................ ........................ .. .................. ............. . . ........ ... ................... ........ .. ...... ... .. ........... ..... ........... ....... .......... A.. STATUS::......:.:.: ........ ..... ---- ........ ....... . . . ............. Ordinance (w/exhibits & legislative draft if applicable) Not Applicable Resolution (w/exhibits & legislative draft if applicable) Not Applicable —Tract Map, Location Map and/or other Exhibits Not Applicable Contract/Agreement (w/exhibits if applicable) (Signed in full by the gEtZ Attorney) Not Applicable Subleases, Third Party Agreements, etc. (Approved as to form by City Attomqy) Not Applicable Certificates of Insurance (Approved by the City Attorney) Not Applicable Financial Impact Statement (Unbudget, over $5,000) Not Applicable Bonds If applicable) Not Applicable Report if applicable) Not Applicable —Staff Board or Committee Report if applicable) Not Applicable —Commission, L Findings/Conditions for Approval and/or Denial Not Applicable ............. ........ . ... ... ... .............. .................................... . .. . .... ..... .. ACHMENT-S ..... . . . . ....... .. ..... . .. .. ...... ... ...................... . ................................. .... 0'"FORMISS1 G� TT .. ........ EXPLANATI: N...-. :"A :EXPLANATION ::FOR:'RETURN:o I'TEM'... .. .............M.. ....................... ... ........ . ....... ... . RCA ROUTING SHEET INITIATING DEPARTMENT: Ci!y Administration SUBJECT: Request for Proposal for Professional Public Information & Community Outreach Consulting Services for the Infrastructure -Improvement Program —COUNCIL MEETING DATE: I October 18, 1999 1 .............................. ................ .. .. .. .. .. .......... ........... ............. .. .. T.T.-ACHMENTS" ... ... .. ..... .. ....... ......................... ...... .. ............. .... ........... ... .............. . :':RCA'A ... ............ .. .......... . . .. .. .................................. ... ..... . ..... ..... .. ... .. . . . .. ............ - - .... .. .. . ......... ... .. ...... ... ............... . .. ....... .. .... STATUS: ........... ... . . ......... (w/exhibits & legislative draft if applicable) Not Applicable —Ordinance Resolution (w/exhibits & legislative draft if applicable) Not Applicable Tract Map, Location Map and/or other Exhibits Not Applicable Contract/Agreement (w/exhibits if applicable) in full bK the City Attomey) _ Not Applicable —(Signed Subleases, Third Party Agreements, etc. (Approved as to form by City Attomey)_ Not Applicable of Insurance (Approved by the City Afforney) Not Applicable —Certificates Financial Impact Statement (Unbudget, over $5,000) Not Applicable if applicable) Not Applicable —Bonds Staff Report If applicable) Not Applicable Board or Committee Report If applicable) Not Applicable —Commission, — Findings/Conditions for Approval and/or Denial Not Applicable . . ... ........ .: .... .. ............. . .. . ........ .. .. :: .: ............ . ...... .......... .:..'"::': ............ ...... ......... ..... ... ...EXPLANATIONFOR-MISSINGATTACHMENTS ............ ............... . . . . . . ................. ..................... ................... ................. M :M .................... EXPL-"-.'ANAT-..ION:::FO-R�RET-.URN; 0-FIT.EM" . .. ..... ... .. ........ ........................... ..............