Agenda packet — Cypress City Council, June 27, 2022 (part 6 of 6)

EFT/ Warrant
Number Vendor Payment Amount Description Invoice Invoice Amount City of Cypress
Payment Register
06/04/22-06/17/22
59678 105442 - ALL CITY MANAGEMENT SERVICE INC $ 15,251.58 Crossing Guard Svcs(30 Hrs)/Orange & Grindlay 4/17-4/30 77580(A) $ 678.30 Crossing Guard Svcs(644.55 Hrs) 4/17-4/30 77580 $ 14,573.28 59679 1403 - ALL STAR ELITE SPORTS $ 668.67
Shirts(81)/Challenger Basketball 2923 $ 668.67
59680 102587 - AMERICAN RENTALS $ 108.02
Rent/Concrete Jack Hammer 5/25-5/26 504686 $ 108.02
59681 63 - ANAHEIM RUBBER & IND SUPPLY CO $ 247.07
Replace/Tire Flap(1)/Gasket(1)/Sewer Truck Unit #142 106305 $ 247.07 59682 1200 - ANNEALTA GROUP $ 5,696.25
Svc/Planning Project Manager/Housing Element Implementation 5/22 2403 $ 5,696.25 59683 1619 - ARDURRA GROUP, INC-ANDERSON PENNA PARTNERS $ 4,400.00 Svc/City Engineer 4/22 123788 $ 4,400.00
59684 110860 - AT&T $ 824.23
Svc/Internet 5/22 18290449 $ 824.23
59685 110860 - AT&T $ 2,354.41
Cell Svc/Maint 5/22 5/22(D) $ 54.19
Cell Svc/PD 5/22 5/22(E) $ 239.02
PD Svc/Mobile Data 5/22 5/22(G) $ 1,888.28
Svc/Planning iPads 5/22 5/22(F) $ 86.46
Wireless Svc/Myra Pump Station #2 5/22 5/22(C) $ 86.46
59686 110860 - AT&T $ 4.76
2481347232-Admin Phone Svc 6/22 6/22 $ 4.76
59687 110860 - AT&T $ 25.04
9391033696-PD Phone Svc 5/22 5/22(A) $ 25.04
59688 110860 - AT&T $ 1.54
East Wing Fax Line 5/22 5/22(B) $ 1.54
59689 1822 - BENEFITS COORDINATORS CORPORATION BCC $ 11,247.30 Insurance/Dental & Vision/City & Dist 6/22 B05Q7Z $ 10,174.10 Insurance/Dental & Vision/West Comm 6/22 B05Q8M $ 1,073.20 59690 1011 - BIT DIRECT INC $ 3,383.64
Projector(1)/Sr Center 5/23 5030359 $ 3,383.64
59691 111882 - CALIFORNIA YELLOW CAB CORP $ 1,298.00
Sr Center/Nutrition Program 4/22 4503022 $ 792.00
Taxi Voucher Program/Sr Center 4/22 4501022 $ 506.00
59692 103016 - CAMERON WELDING CO $ 68.00
Cylinder Charges 4/22 09241183 $ 68.00
59693 122396 - CARRILLO, JUAN $ 12.00
Meal/First Aid/CPR 5/20 6/10/22 $ 12.00
59694 123012 - CHARLES ABBOTT ASSOCIATES $ 3,298.75
Svc/NPDES/WQMP Review 4/22 64194 $ 3,298.75

Page 2 of 10 ends

EFT/ Warrant
Number Vendor Payment Amount Description Invoice Invoice Amount City of Cypress
Payment Register
06/04/22-06/17/22
59695 2090 - CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS HOLDINGS LLC $ 1,378.88 W/C CAD/RMS Ethernet Services 5/4-6/3 0026082050522 $ 1,378.88 59696 110067 - COMLINK LASER CARE $ 130.71
Toner(1)/PD 5/26 74020 $ 130.71
59697 115003 - COUNTY OF ORANGE $ 1,104.51
PD Svc/OC Automated Telecommunication System 5/22 SH61985 $ 1,104.51 59698 129969 - CROWN TROPHY COLOMRICAN, INC $ 297.77
Medals(40)/Youth Volleyball 4/21 15930 $ 215.07
Plaque(1)/Sr Center Volunteer Award 4/8 15912 $ 82.70
59699 107980 - CYPRESS COLLEGE-NOCCCD $ 500.00
Rental/Room #118/Staff/Salute to America 7/1 2013 $ 500.00 59700 734 - CYPRESS YOUTH BASEBALL $ 930.00
Reimb/Suspended Ceiling Grid/Oak Knoll Park Reimb 6/10/22 $ 930.00 59701 16 - DASH MEDICAL GLOVES, INC $ 671.93
PD Exam Gloves(4K) 5/18 INV1263204 $ 671.93
59702 1158 - DIRECTV $ 175.99
W/C Svc/Satellite TV 5/25-6/24 006762204X220526 $ 175.99 59703 107921 - DRAPER, JEFF $ 50.00
Reimb/ABC License Application/Salute to America 7/1 Reimb 6/10/22 $ 50.00 59704 693 - DUNN RIGHT ELECTRICAL-KEVIN DUNN $ 1,684.89 Install/Scoreboard Sub Panel/Oak Knoll Park 2/15 5691 $ 930.44 Repair/Underground Electrical Line Break/Oak Knoll Park 2/18 5642 $ 754.45 59705 1296 - EDCO CNG $ 2,267.34
Natural Gas(489.19 Gls)/Sweepers(2)/Sewer Truck(1) 4/16-4/30 04302022-6 $ 1,040.51 Natural Gas(576.79 Gls)/Sweepers(2)/Sewer Truck(1) 4/1-4/15 04152022-6 $ 1,226.83 59706 1169 - EVER AFTER EVENT PRODUCTIONS, LLC $ 2,564.25 Instruct/Dance 5/3-6/1 6/1/22 $ 2,564.25
59707 104530 - EXPERIAN $ 77.48
PD Credit Reports 5/22 CD2302003626 $ 77.48
59708 2054 - FAST UNDERCAR BM INDUSTRY INC $ 341.45
Strut Assemblies(2) 4/29 27EW7760 $ 341.45
59709 1127 - FLORES, THOMAS $ 242.00
Meal/First Aid/CPR 5/13 Reimb(A) 6/10/22 $ 12.00
Reimb/Rifle Marksmanship 5/23-5/27 Reimb 6/10/22 $ 230.00 59710 1115 - FRONTIER $ 375.53
W/C Phone Svc/5624931036 6/22 6/22(A) $ 84.49
W/C Svc/Circuit Line 5/13-6/12 5/13/22-6/12/22 $ 291.04 59711 129619 - GENERAL BINDING CORP-GBC $ 99.78
Laminating Film(1 Rl) 5/21 4719781353 $ 99.78

Page 3 of 10 ends

EFT/ Warrant
Number Vendor Payment Amount Description Invoice Invoice Amount City of Cypress
Payment Register
06/04/22-06/17/22
59712 119018 - GOLDEN STATE WATER COMPANY $ 7,253.29
Svc/Athletic Fields 5/22 5/22(A) $ 128.51
Svc/Maint Yard Landscaping 4/22 4/22(L) $ 862.63
Svc/Parks Landscaping 4/22 4/22(M) $ 1,996.76
Svc/Parkway Maint 4/22 4/22(N) $ 1,876.49
Svc/Parkway Maint 5/22 5/22(B) $ 1,519.96
Svc/Stanton Channel Berm 4/22 4/22(K) $ 619.93
Svc/Storm Drain 5/22 5/22 $ 249.01
59713 103008 - HARTZOG & CRABILL $ 2,025.00
Svc/Monitor Traffic Signals 4/22 22-0260 $ 2,025.00
59714 112187 - HEALY, BRIAN $ 12.00
Meal/First Aid/CPR 5/13 Reimb 6/10/22 $ 12.00
59715 1814 - HORIZONS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY INTL., INC $ 445,607.40 Construct/Lexington Park 2/22 14-2/22 $ 445,607.40
59716 6 - HUNTER SECURITY, INC $ 1,297.50
Svc/Restroom & Tennis Court Lockup 4/22 12205 $ 1,297.50 59717 1493 - IMPERIAL SPRINKLER SUPPLY $ 300.00
Svc/Troubleshoot/Irrigation Solar System/Moody Median 9/13 4821811-00 $ 300.00 59718 1771 - INNOVATIVE LOCK SERVICES/DORANTES, DREW K $ 6,361.22 Install/Door Hardware/PD 5/9 INV0844 $ 4,710.68
Install/Door Locks(23)/Keys(70)/PD 6/6 INV0872 $ 1,650.54 59719 103024 - JHM & CARSON SUPPLY $ 238.69
Grass Seed(25 Lbs)/Darrell Essex Park 5/2 76882/3 $ 134.69 Sprinkler Head(1)/Irrigation Box Cover(1)/Couplings(25) 5/26 77809/3 $ 23.78 Sprinkler Heads(2)/Coupling(1) 5/6 77115/3 $ 80.22
59720 2023 - KELLEY, JORDAN $ 12.00
Meal/Informant Development & Management 5/24 Reimb 6/10/22 $ 12.00 59721 2039 - KELLY SPICERS INC KELLY SPICER STORES $ 430.08 Specialty Paper(6 Rms) 6/8 10976256 $ 430.08
59722 112054 - LAKEWOOD NURSERY $ 361.14
Plants(21)/Darrel Essex Park 4/28 12542 $ 361.14
59723 1607 - LEMMON, BRADLEY $ 12.00
Meal/First Aid/CPR 5/13 Reimb 6/10/22 $ 12.00
59724 122069 - LIEBERT CASSIDY WHITMORE $ 1,691.00
Legal Svc/PD Matter #CY020-00037 4/22 217272 $ 1,691.00 59725 1973 - MARINA LANDSCAPE, INC $ 4,743.20
Construct/Katella Ave Median Restoration 3/22 152116-06 $ 4,363.20 Construct/Katella Ave Median Restoration 4/22 152116-07 $ 380.00 59726 300 - MARSHALL, BROOK $ 12.00
Meal/First Aid/CPR 5/13 Reimb 6/10/22 $ 12.00
59727 1061 - MARTINEZ, DIANA $ 12.00
Meal/First Aid/CPR 4/20 Reimb 6/10/22 $ 12.00

Page 4 of 10 ends

EFT/ Warrant
Number Vendor Payment Amount Description Invoice Invoice Amount City of Cypress
Payment Register
06/04/22-06/17/22
59728 110492 - MCBAIN, MICHAEL $ 24.00
Reimb/Parking/Traffic Safety Forum 5/10 Reimb 6/10/22 $ 24.00 59729 113056 - MCMASTER CARR SUPPLY CO $ 845.32
Corner Guards(48 Ft)/PD Interior Walls 5/2 77957996 $ 845.32 59730 1483 - MERCADO, HENRY $ 242.00
Advance/Terrorist Interdiction Conference 6/26-6/30 Adv 6/26-6/30 $ 230.00 Meal/First Aid/CPR 5/20 Reimb 6/10/22 $ 12.00
59731 578 - MIG-MOORE IACOFANO GOLTSMAN/HOGLE-IRELAND, INC $ 4,412.50 Design/Arnold Cypress Park Rehab 4/22 0075351 $ 4,412.50 59732 80 - MORRIS, LETICIA $ 331.50
Instruct/Zumba 5/7-5/28 5/28/22 $ 179.40
Instruct/Zumba Gold 5/5-5/26 5/26/22 $ 152.10
59733 129801 - MUTUAL LIQUID GAS & EQUIP $ 30.00
Rent/Propane Tank 12/1/21-2/28/22 22250 $ 30.00
59734 116455 - O H CASEY INC $ 425.00
Svc/Porta-Pottie(1)/Maint Yard 5/12 0001512113(A) $ 85.00 Svc/Porta-Pottie(1)/Tennis Courts 5/13-6-9 0001512113 $ 340.00 59735 2047 - OMEGA INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY, INC $ 258.08
Graffiti Remover(12 Cans) 3/30 142373 $ 258.08
59736 100305 - ORANGE COUNTY RANGE STORE $ 803.82
Academy Books(5)/Uniform/Trainee JMcCormack 571 $ 401.91 Academy Books(5)/Uniform/Trainee SRamsey 572 $ 401.91
59737 129575 - PARKHOUSE TIRE INC $ 774.52
Sweeper Tires(2) 4/20 1020254911 $ 774.52
59738 2036 - PIPE TEC, INC $ 84,220.92
Inspect/CCTV & Sewer Systems/Citywide 4/22 9600 $ 84,220.92 59739 610 - POWER TOYOTA BUENA PARK $ 1,607.08
Replace/Instrument Cluster/Unit #145 763938 $ 1,607.08
59740 1310 - PRESTI, CAMERON $ 230.00
Reimb/Rifle Marksmanship 5/23-5/27 Reimb 6/10/22 $ 230.00 59741 1598 - RBL INC PLUMBING $ 1,200.00
Svc/Hydro Jet Sewer Line/Civic Center Green Restrooms 5/25 376 $ 600.00 Svc/Hydro Jet Sewer Line/Civic Center Green Restrooms 5/4 375 $ 600.00 59742 1966 - REIHANIFAM, CHRISTOPHER $ 242.00
Advance/Terrorist Interdiction Conference 6/26-6/30 Adv 6/26-6/30 $ 230.00 Meal/Informant Development & Management 5/24 Reimb 6/10/22 $ 12.00 59743 1322 - REMARKABLE ENTERTAINMENT $ 644.00
Rent/Movie Projection Screen/Summerfest on the Green 6/18 622 $ 644.00 59744 1344 - ROBERT BORDERS & ASSOC $ 23,571.19
Construct/Design Support/PD Modernization 5/22 14664 $ 10,587.25 Design/PD Building Modernization 5/22 14663 $ 12,983.94

Page 5 of 10 ends

EFT/ Warrant
Number Vendor Payment Amount Description Invoice Invoice Amount City of Cypress
Payment Register
06/04/22-06/17/22
59745 1109 - ROBIN KLEIN $ 650.00
W/C Svc/Psych Evals(2) 5/5-5/15 3-1-2022 $ 650.00
59746 106893 - SAFESHRED $ 40.00
W/C Svc/Shredding 4/12 332308 $ 40.00
59747 730 - SIERRA INSTALLATIONS, INC $ 2,040.00
Install/Cross Street Banners(2)/PD Open House 4/14 210401 $ 600.00 Remove/Cross Street Banners(2)/PD Open House 5/31 210402 $ 600.00 Update Banners(4)/Patriotic 5/31 210400 $ 840.00
59748 1181 - SITE ONE LANDSCAPE SUPPLY, LLC $ 287.74
Compost(7 CY)/Darrell Essex Park 5/2 118652917-001 $ 287.74 Compost(7 CY)/Darrell Essex Park 5/2 118653103-001 $ 287.74 Credit/Compost(7 CY)/Darrell Essex Park 5/2 118652980-001 $ (287.74) 59749 119051 - SMART & FINAL (REC & PARKS) $ 215.33
Food/Playground/Kids Night Out 5/19 20000801 $ 14.67
Food/Teens/Youth Action Committee Banquet 5/5 20040501 $ 32.21 Supplies/Emergency Bin 5/19 20011001 $ 20.08
Supplies/Facility Operations 5/19 20011102 $ 40.35
Supplies/Sr Center 5/18 20008601 $ 19.69
Supplies/Sr Center 5/18 20008706 $ 33.41
Supplies/Teens/Youth Action Committee Banquet 5/5 20024403 $ 54.92 59750 108459 - SMART & FINAL-POLICE ACCT $ 226.50
PD Hot Cups(1K)/Breakroom 5/26 300001201 $ 111.85
PD Knives(500)/Plates(375)/Breakroom 5/4 300011701 $ 57.59 PD Plates(375)/Forks(500)/Breakroom 5/19 300002201 $ 57.06 59751 119016 - SO CAL EDISON $ 80.60
700134894611 - Svc/Traffic Signal 5/22 5/22 $ 80.60
59752 119017 - SO CAL GAS CO $ 1,411.29
00840909006 Svc/Comm Center 5/22 5/22(C) $ 258.20
08131074000 Svc/Storm Drain 5/22 5/22(G) $ 14.30
12600890003 Svc/Maint Yard 5/22 5/22(D) $ 117.17
13230923008 Svc/Storm Drain 5/22 5/22 $ 22.51
14011061398 Svc/Storm Drain 5/22 5/22(E) $ 24.69
16111070716 Svc/Storm Drain 5/22 5/22(F) $ 20.93
18690942000 Svc/Sr Center 5/22 5/22(B) $ 231.15
19530910009 Svc/City Hall 5/22 5/22(A) $ 722.34
59753 543 - SORVILLO, BRYAN $ 1,244.00
Instruct/Private Tennis Lessons 5/22 5/31/22 $ 1,244.00 59754 125888 - SPARKLETTS $ 11.44
Sr Center Bottled Water 4/22 4104716 4/22 $ 11.44
59755 1241 - SPECTRUM SECURITY GROUP LLC $ 32.78
Irrigation Padlock Keys(12) 5/9 R15052 $ 32.78

Page 6 of 10 ends

EFT/ Warrant
Number Vendor Payment Amount Description Invoice Invoice Amount City of Cypress
Payment Register
06/04/22-06/17/22
59756 109248 - STAPLES CREDIT PLAN-POLICE $ 35.53
PD Certificate Holders(30)/PACE 4/27 36409 $ 35.53
59757 122963 - STERICYCLE INC $ 42.19
PD Med Waste Removal 6/22 3006030586 $ 42.19
59758 455 - STORETRIEVE, LLC $ 194.88
File Storage/Retrieval 5/22 0178214 $ 194.88
59759 1133 - SWAGIT PRODUCTIONS, LLC $ 695.00
Svc/Video Stream/Council Meetings 5/22 20543 $ 695.00
59760 2067 - THE ORIGINAL GOODIE'S UNIFORM $ 651.91
Safety Gear/Police Aid Yunjin Park 2280 $ 325.95
Safety Gear/Police Aid Yunjun Park 2280(A) $ 325.96
59761 110602 - TK ELEVATOR CORP THYSSENKRUPP ELEVATOR $ 481.36 Svc/Elevator Maint 4/1/22-6/30/22 3006537970 $ 481.36
59762 1170 - TOM'S PLUMBING & DRAIN SERVICE CORP $ 13,677.00 Install/Left Sink/Arnold Cypress Park Restroom 3/9 51540 $ 825.00 Install/Right Sink/Arnold Cypress Park Restroom 3/8 51541 $ 825.00 Repair/Broken Grease Line/Maint Yard 3/28 51765 $ 895.00 Replace/Faucet(1)/Arnold Cypress Park Restroom 3/10 51545 $ 395.00 Replace/Faucets(2)/Arnold Cypress Park Restrooms 3/2 51421 $ 837.00 Replace/Sloan Valve/Arnold Cypress Park Restroom 3/7 51427 $ 950.00 Service Call Fee 12/27 50053 $ 90.00
Svc/Clear Plumbing Clog/Maint Yard Restroom 12/3 50058 $ 750.00 Svc/Clear Plumbing Clog/Sr Center 3/29 51821 $ 90.00
Svc/Clear Plumbing Clog/Willow Park Restrooms 2/17 51165 $ 215.00 Svc/Hydro Jet Sewer Line/Civic Center Green Restrooms 1/3 50555 $ 725.00 Svc/Hydro Jet Sewer Line/Civic Center Green Restrooms 12/30 50347 $ 725.00 Svc/Hydro Jet Sewer Line/Civic Center Green Restrooms 12/6 50040 $ 725.00 Svc/Hydro Jet Sewer Line/Civic Center Green Restrooms 2/2 50827 $ 725.00 Svc/Hydro Jet Sewer Line/Civic Center Green Restrooms 2/24 51058 $ 725.00 Svc/Hydro Jet Sewer Line/Oak Knoll Park Restrooms 1/8 50480 $ 725.00 Svc/Hydro Jet Sewer Line/Oak Knoll Park Restrooms 2/18 51141 $ 725.00 Svc/Hydro Jet Sewer Line/Oak Knoll Park Restrooms 3/5 51441 $ 850.00 Svc/Hydro Jet Sewer Line/Willow Park Restrooms 2/11 51150 $ 725.00 Svc/Plumbing Leak/Broken Pipe/PD 1/4 50513 $ 1,155.00
59763 105052 - TOPAZ ALARM CORP. $ 60.00
Monitor Pumps 6/22 139071 $ 60.00
59764 591 - TRC-VALI COOPER AND ASSOCIATES, INC $ 8,976.00 Inspect/Various Non-CIP Engineering Permits 4/22 36957 $ 8,976.00 59765 127207 - UNDERGROUND SVS ALERT OF SO CA $ 123.85
Svc/DigAlert Tickets 5/22 520220211 $ 123.85
59766 1139 - UNIFIRST CORP $ 511.57
Uniforms/Mats/Mops/Towels 4/22 4/22 $ 511.57

Page 7 of 10 ends

EFT/ Warrant
Number Vendor Payment Amount Description Invoice Invoice Amount City of Cypress
Payment Register
06/04/22-06/17/22
59767 1242 - UNIFORM DEPOT, INC-MR UNIFORM $ 2,187.87
Uniform/Nameplate(1)/Trainee SRamsey 6411 $ 1,033.19
Uniform/PSO FDeLaRosa 6413 $ 136.77
Uniform/Trainee JMcCormack 6412 $ 1,017.91
59768 100308 - UNITED MAINTENANCE SYSTEMS $ 11,019.00
Svc/Janitorial/Citywide 4/22 15194 $ 5,286.50
Svc/Janitorial/Park Restrooms(7) 4/22 15196 $ 4,945.50
Svc/Weekend Enhanced Cleaning/PD 4/22 15195 $ 787.00
59769 1997 - VACCARO, FRANK WEST COAST OFFICIALS $ 990.00 Officials(18 Games)/Youth Basketball 6/18-6/25 1242 $ 990.00 59770 2089 - VAZQUEZ, JORGE M GREASE AWAY $ 600.00
Svc/Clean Exhaust Hood/Sr Center Kitchen 4/28 1488 $ 600.00 59771 1812 - VERONICA TAM & ASSOCIATES $ 2,760.00
Consult/Housing Element/Full Scope 4/22 3091 $ 2,760.00 59772 1993 - WATANABE , BRYCE I $ 1,266.20
Instruct/Karate 5/2-5/25 5/25/22 $ 1,266.20
59773 112149 - WESTERN EXTERMINATOR COMPANY $ 389.10
Svc/Pest Control/Citywide 3/22 75669C $ 362.60
Svc/Rodent Control/City Hall 3/23 14718099 $ 26.50
59774 2058 - WHITE, LEANGELO $ 60.00
Meals/Interview & Interrogation 5/2-5/6 Reimb 6/10/22 $ 60.00 59775 101980 - WORTHINGTON FORD $ 791.06
Fuel Injectors(6)/Coils(2) 3/21 5142054 $ 488.50
Replace/Fuel Injectors(6)/Unit #608 3/14 5141595 $ 302.56 59776 887 - YU, ANGUS $ 12.00
Meal/First Aid/CPR 4/21 Reimb 6/10/22 $ 12.00
59777 1974 - YUNEX LLC $ 14,290.14
Repair/Street Lights 4/22 5620039581 $ 2,138.75
Repair/Traffic Signal Cabinet/Walker & Vessels 5/18 5610280291 $ 4,475.00 Repair/Traffic Signals 4/22 5620039860 $ 3,356.25
Svc/Street Light Survey 4/22 5610280651 $ 189.07
Traffic Signal Maint 4/22 5610280657 $ 4,131.07
59778 0 - AHMED, ANOOSHA $ 100.00
Refund/Facility Deposit/Contract #5938 Rfd 6/10/22 $ 100.00 59779 0 - CYPRESS INFLUENCE CHURCH $ 300.00
Refund/Facility Deposit/Contract #5846 Rfd 6/10/22 $ 300.00 59780 0 - HODGES, JANICE $ 300.00
Refund/Facility Deposit/Contract #5829 Rfd 6/10/22 $ 300.00 59781 0 - KANDA, ANJALA $ 177.00
Refund/Writing Camp 6/13-6/17 Rfd 6/10/22 $ 177.00
59782 0 - LEE, LILY $ 177.00
Refund/Writing Camp 6/20-6/24 Rfd 6/10/22 $ 177.00

Page 8 of 10 ends

EFT/ Warrant
Number Vendor Payment Amount Description Invoice Invoice Amount City of Cypress
Payment Register
06/04/22-06/17/22
59783 0 - LOREA, BARBARA $ 300.00
Refund/Facility Deposit/Contract #5691 Rfd 6/10/22 $ 300.00 59784 0 - PIESTRZENIEWICZ, HEATHER $ 100.00
Refund/Facility Deposit/Contract #5924 Rfd 6/10/22 $ 100.00 59785 0 - REYES, SANTIAGO $ 1,000.00
Refund/5062 Olga Ave/CDD-22-48 & BS-22-739 Rfd 6/10/22 $ 1,000.00 59786 0 - SANCHEZ, LINDA $ 1,580.00
Refund/Facility Rental/Contract #4505 Rfd 6/10/22 $ 1,580.00 59787 0 - SUN, YAN $ 167.00
Refund/Writing Camp 6/20-6/24 Rfd 6/10/22 $ 167.00
59788 0 - TAKEUCHI, KARRIE $ 167.00
Refund/Writing Camp 6/13-6/17 Rfd 6/10/22 $ 167.00
59789 0 - TANAKA, CAROLYN $ 167.00
Refund/Writing Camp 6/27-7/1 Rfd 6/10/22 $ 167.00
59790 0 - VASQUEZ, JOSE $ 2,600.00
Refund/6758 Leilani Lane/CDD-22-46 & BS-22-729 Rfd 6/10/22 $ 2,600.00 59791 0 - WANG, TIMOTHY $ 354.00
Refund/Writing Camp 6/13-6/17 Rfd 6/10/22 $ 354.00
59792 0 - WANG, TIMOTHY $ 204.00
Refund/All Sorts of Sports Camp 8/8-8/12 Rfd 6/10/22 $ 204.00 59793 129969 - CROWN TROPHY COLOMRICAN, INC $ 330.79
Plaques(4)/Sr Center Volunteer Awards 3/23 15876 $ 330.79 59794 1061 - MARTINEZ, DIANA $ 36.00
Meals/Tactical Rifle Course 9/22-9/24 Reimb 10/15/21 $ 36.00 59795 1987 - SON, YOUNGJUN $ 36.00
Meals/Tactical Rifle Course 9/22-9/24 Reimb 10/29/21 $ 36.00 59796 0 - VAHED, SAL $ 151.00
Refund/Writing Camp 8/9-8/13 Rfd 8/20/21 $ 151.00
59797 0 - XIANGMING, CAI $ 40.00
Refund/Citation #CP464275 Rfd 12/22/21 $ 40.00
57617 0 - VAHED, SAL $ (151.00)
Refund/Writing Camp 8/9-8/13 Rfd 8/20/21 $ (151.00)
57981 1061 - MARTINEZ, DIANA $ (36.00)
Meals/Tactical Rifle Course 9/22-9/24 Reimb 10/15/21 $ (36.00) 58134 1987 - SON, YOUNGJUN $ (36.00)
Meals/Tactical Rifle Course 9/22-9/24 Reimb 10/29/21 $ (36.00) 58494 0 - XIANGMING, CAI $ (40.00)
Refund/Citation #CP464275 Rfd 12/22/21 $ (40.00)
59374 129969 - CROWN TROPHY COLOMRICAN, INC $ (330.79)
Plaques(4)/Sr Center Volunteer Awards 3/23 15876 $ (330.79)

Page 9 of 10 ends

EFT/ Warrant
Number Vendor Payment Amount Description Invoice Invoice Amount City of Cypress
Payment Register
06/04/22-06/17/22
Total EFTs $ 202,421.05 $ 202,421.05
Total Warrants 769,141.53 769,141.53
Transfer to Payroll (W1477) 686,355.55 Payroll 05/27/22-06/10/22 686,355.55 Grand Totals $ 1,657,918.13 $ 1,657,918.13

Page 10 of 10 ends

CITY OF CYPRESS
CITY COUNCIL REPORT
City Council Regular 20.

FROM: Alisha Farnell, City Clerk
DATE: 06/27/2022
SUBJECT: Receive and File the Results of the 2022 Community Survey

RECOMMENDATION
Receive and file the results of the 2022 Community Survey.

DISCUSSION
The City Council's Strategic Plan includes an objective to conduct a community survey to assess resident satisfaction with city services and public engagement. Earlier this year, the City Council approved a contract with True North Research, Inc. to conduct a formal, statistically accurate community survey that provides resident feedback on city programs and services. Cypress last conducted this type of survey in 2018, and this update serves as an important performance measurement and benchmarking tool for future decision-making.

The 2022 community survey used a stratified random sampling methodology that produces valid and reliable measures of opinions/interests and data that is representative of all of the estimated 37,783 adult residents in Cypress. A comprehensive database of Cypress households was utilized for this study, ensuring that all households in Cypress had an equal probability of being randomly selected for the survey. Once selected at random, residents were recruited to participate in the survey through a combination of mailed letters, email, text, and telephone calls. A unique passcode system was utilized to ensure that only Cypress residents who received an invitation could participate in the survey. A controlled random sample is necessary to reliably estimate the opinions of Cypress residents. Surveys that do not utilize a controlled random sample (e.g. surveys posted online or via social media) cannot provide reliable results representative of the city's population.

True North Research will provide a presentation of the survey results and a copy of the community survey summary report is attached to this report. Highlights include:

The survey was conducted from April 16 through May 5 and utilized a mixed methodology to recruit participants (via mail, email, text and phone); data collection was conducted online and via telephone in English, Spanish, and Korean. 707 randomly selected residents participated, resulting in a margin of error of 3.7%. 51% of participants are female; 38% are Caucasian, 34% Asian, 19% Hispanic; 65% 51% of participants are female; 38% are Caucasian, 34% Asian, 19% Hispanic; 65% own homes; 49% are employed full-time; 20% have lived in Cypress for < 5 years, 42% 5-19 years; 34% are seniors, 24% under 35.
93% rate Cypress as an excellent/good place to live.
91% rate Cypress as an excellent/good place to raise a family. 90% rate Cypress' quality of life as excellent/good.
84% are very/somewhat satisfied with the City's efforts to provide municipal services.

Public safety, maintaining city streets and roads, and maintaining parks and recreation areas were identified as the most important services for residents.

BUDGET IMPACT
None.

LEGAL REVIEW
None required.

APPROVED BY: Peter Grant, City Manager
Attachments
Survey Results Presentation
2022 Community Survey Report
6/23/2022

COMMUNITY OPINION SURVEY

CONDUCTED FOR THE

CITY OF CYPRESS

PRESENTED BY
TIMOTHY MCLARNEY PH.D.
2 oConducted April 16th to May 5th, 2022
oStratified random sample of 707 residents
o Mixed Methodology
oRecruited via mail, email, text and phone
oOnline and telephone data collection
oEnglish, Spanish & Korean
oAverage interview length: 17 minutes
oOverall margin of error of ± 3.7%

METHODOLOGY OF STUDY
2020 Census/ACS
Estimates
Sample of 707
Adult Residents
Age
18 to 24 years 9% 11%
25 to 34 years 13% 14%
35 to 44 years 18% 19%
45 to 54 years 20% 20%
55 to 64 years 18% 17%
65 years and over 21% 18%
Home Ownership
Own 69% 69%
Rent 31% 31%
Gender
Male 48% 48%
Female 52% 52%
Race/Ethnicity
African American / Black 3% 4%
Asian American 36% 34%
Caucasian / White 37% 39%
Latino / Hispanic 19% 19%
Mixed or other 5% 3%
3 RATING CYPRESS

45.5 49.0

38.6 28.1

20.6 47.1

42.2 51.0

40.7 31.0

6.6 6.2

8.5 16.8

14.3 4

6.4 1
1 1
1 1

20.6 18.8

17.9 13.5

9.9 9.1

7.8 7.5

5.0 3.4

17.3 14.9

8.5 7.9

6.7 5.7

5.2 4.9

3.6 3.2

3.1 2.5

2.0 3.4

BY STUDY YEAR

48.8 6.6

4.3 38.6 34.0

49.9 10.2†

2.6 1.5

3.0 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
2022 2018
Study Year
% Respondents
Prefer not to
answer
Not sure
Very
dissatisfied
Somewhat
dissatisfied
Somewhat
satisfied
Very
satisfied
7 SATISFACTION WITH CITY SERVICES

62.1 40.7

44.7 43.6

47.1 48.5

41.1 37.3

34.3 29.8

29.9 33.3

28.3 23.3

35.8 51.4

47.4 47.5

43.1 41.4

48.7 51.5

54.3 56.7

53.8 49.3

51.2 37.4

6.3 6.7

6.0 7.3

7.1 8.9

9.5 8.9

9.2 14.4

12.8 14.7

26.3 1
2 1
1 2
2 2
2 2
3 3

4.2 4.6

5.9 13.1
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Provide fire protection and emergency medical services
Provide services to seniors
Keep public buildings and facilities clean and attractive Maintain parks and recreation areas
Maintain city streets and roads
Provide police and crime prevention services
Hold special community events like summer concerts in the park, holiday celebrations Provide recreation programs for all ages
Maintain the City’s financial stability
Promote economic development for a healthy business community Provide cultural and performing arts
Manage traffic congestion in the city
Manage growth and development
Address homelessness
% Respondents Who Provided Opinion
Very satisfied Somewhat satisfied Somewhat dissatisfied Very dissatisfied 8 HOW SAFE IS CYPRESS?
Very unsafe

0.7 Somewhat
safe

44.9 Very safe

50.4 Somewhat
unsafe

4.0 9

66.0 32.6

31.8 35.5

28.0 22.1

28.3 47.1

43.7 36.2

FUNDING PRIORITIES
10 39.0

32.3 19.5

19.3 18.9

18.7 17.5

16.5 12.6

8.8 6.7

4.8 4.6

4.2 4.1

2.3 2.2

1.9 1.5

1.2 1.1

1.0 5.8

12.3 0 10 20 30 40
City Newsletter/The Progress
City’s website
Social Media (not a City source)
City’s Facebook
Email notification from City
Flyers or brochures (displayed at public facilities)
Friends/Family/Associates
Street banners
Local newspapers (print or online)
Internet/websites (not City’s site)
Letters or postcards from the City mailed to home
Cypress Central smart phone app
City’s Instagram
Community events
Senior Newsletter/Along the Way
City Council Meetings
Do Not Receive Information about City
Other source
Television (general)
Cable Channel 36
Not sure
City’s Twitter
Radio
Minute with the Mayor videos
% Respondents

INFORMATION SOURCE
11 SATISFACTION WITH COMMUNICATION

BY STUDY YEAR

50.4 11.4

5.0 22.2† 29.0

46.6 16.2†

3.8 6.2†

7.8†
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
2022 2018
Study Year
% Respondents
Prefer not to
answer
Not sure
Very
dissatisfied
Somewhat
dissatisfied
Somewhat
satisfied
Very
satisfied
12 14.7

14.5 14.2

14.1 8.9

7.6 7.3

4.9 4.1

2.7 2.7

2.0 1.6

3.5 2.1
0 5 10 15
Future planning, developments, zoning
Community events, activities
City Council agenda, minutes
Safety, crime activity, reports, solutions
Trash, recycling, waste management
City budgeting, allocation of funds
Homeless issues in general
Roadwork, construction, traffic control
Property, short-term rental guide, resources
Volunteer opportunities
Street cleaning, landscaping, maintenance
Senior programs, activities, resources
School information, issues
Not sure / Cannot think of anything specific
Animal, pest control
% Respondents Who Desire Additional Info

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION DESIRED FROM CITY
13 Despite the pandemic and challenges of the past two years, resident satisfaction remains high o Quality of life
o City’s Overall Performance
o Specific Service Areas – especially fire protection, EMS, senior services, keep City clean/attractive, parks, street maintenance, police
Community Priorities & Opportunities
o Addressing homelessness
o Managing growth & development
o Managing traffic
o Keeping streets in good condition
o Refurbishing/improving amenities at parks
o Revitalizing older commercial centers
o Cultural & performing Arts
o Communication

KEY CONCLUSIONS

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Table of Contents
City of Cypress True North Research, Inc. © 2022 i . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

T ABLE OF C ONTENTS
Table of Contents. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i List of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii List of Figures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Purpose of Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Overview of Methodology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Statistical Significance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Organization of Report. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Disclaimer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 About True North . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Just the Facts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Quality of Life. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 City Services. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Public Safety. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Funding Priorities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Communication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Conclusions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Quality of Life . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Overall Quality of Life. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Question 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 What Do You Like Most About Living in Cypress? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Question 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 What Should Be Changed? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Question 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 City Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Overall Satisfaction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Question 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Specific Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Question 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Question 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Differentiators of Opinion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Performance Needs & Priorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Public Safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Question 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Funding Priorities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Question 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Question 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Communication. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Sources of Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Question 11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Question 12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Satisfaction with Communication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Question 13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Question 14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Topics of Interest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Question 15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Question 16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 City Website & Communications from City . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Question 17 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Communication Preferences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Question 18 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Table of Contents
City of Cypress True North Research, Inc. © 2022 ii . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Attention Paid to City Government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Question 19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Background & Demographics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Questionnaire Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Programming, Pre-Test & Translation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Sample, Recruiting & Data Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Margin of Error due to Sampling. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 Data Processing & Weighting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 Rounding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 Questionnaire & Toplines. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 List of Tables
City of Cypress True North Research, Inc. © 2022 iii . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

L IST OF T ABLES
Table 1 Rating Cypress by Study Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Table 2 Rating Cypress by Years in Cypress, Survey Language & Overall Satisfaction (Showing % Excellent) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Table 3 Rating Cypress by Age & Gender (Showing % Excellent) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Table 4 Rating Cypress by Ethnicity & Home Ownership Status (Showing % Excellent) . . . . 12 Table 5 Like Most About Cypress by Study Year. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Table 6 Changes to Improve Cypress. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Table 7 Importance of Services by Study Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Table 8 Satisfaction with Services by Study Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Table 9 Satisfaction with Services by Overall Satisfaction with City. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Table 10 Resident Service Needs & Priorities Matrix. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Table 11 Funding Priorities by Study Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Table 12 Funding Priorities by Years in Cypress, Survey Language & Overall Satisfaction (Showing % High Priority) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Table 13 Funding Priorities by Age & Gender (Showing % High Priority) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Table 14 Funding Priorities by Ethnicity & Home Ownership Status (Showing % High Priority). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Table 15 Additional Entertainment Options Desired by Study Year. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Table 16 Additional Information Desired From City by Study Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Table 17 Effectiveness of Communication Methods by Study Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Table 18 Effectiveness of Communication Methods by Years in Cypress, Survey Language & Overall Satisfaction (Showing % Very Effective) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Table 19 Effectiveness of Communication Methods by Age & Gender (Showing % Very Effective). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Table 20 Effectiveness of Communication Methods by Ethnicity & Home Ownership Status (Showing % Very Effective) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Table 21 Demographics of Sample . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 List of Figures
City of Cypress True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv

L IST OF F IGURES
Figure 1 Rating Cypress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Figure 2 Like Most About Cypress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Figure 3 Changes to Improve Cypress. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Figure 4 Overall Satisfaction by Study Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Figure 5 Overall Satisfaction by Years in Cypress & Age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Figure 6 Overall Satisfaction by Ethnicity, Home Ownership Status, Gender & Survey Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Figure 7 Importance of Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Figure 8 Satisfaction with Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Figure 9 Resident Service Needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Figure 10 Perceived City Safety. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Figure 11 Perceived City Safety by Years in Cypress, Overall Satisfaction & Age . . . . . . . . . . 24 Figure 12 Perceived City Safety by Ethnicity, Home Ownership Status, Gender & Survey Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Figure 13 Funding Priorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Figure 14 Additional Entertainment Options Desired . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Figure 15 Information Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Figure 16 Information Sources by Overall, Age, Satisfaction with Communication. . . . . . . . . 30 Figure 17 Information Sources by Ethnicity & Home Ownership Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Figure 18 Newspaper Read Most Often . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Figure 19 Satisfaction with Communication by Study Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Figure 20 Satisfaction with Communication by Years in Cypress & Age. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Figure 21 Satisfaction with Communication by Ethnicity, Home Ownership Status, Gender & Survey Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Figure 22 Satisfaction with Communication by Overall Satisfaction, Attentiveness to Local Government & Employment Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Figure 23 City Communication Improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Figure 24 Desire Additional Information by Study Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Figure 25 Desire Additional Information by Years in Cypress, Attentiveness to Local Government & Gender. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Figure 26 Desire Additional Information by Age, Home Ownership Status & Survey Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Figure 27 Desire Additional Information by Employment Status & Ethnicity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Figure 28 Additional Information Desired From City . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Figure 29 Visited City’s Website or Received Communications in Past 12 Months by Study Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Figure 30 Visited City’s Website or Received Communications in Past 12 Months by Years in Cypress, Attentiveness to Local Government, Overall Satisfaction & Satisfaction with Communication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Figure 31 Visited City’s Website or Received Communications in Past 12 Months by Age, Home Ownership Status & Survey Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Figure 32 Visited City’s Website or Received Communications in Past 12 Months by Employment Status & Ethnicity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Figure 33 Effectiveness of Communication Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Figure 34 Attentiveness to City Issues by Study Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Figure 35 Attentiveness to City Issues by Years in Cypress & Age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Figure 36 Attentiveness to City Issues by Ethnicity, Home Ownership Status & Survey Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Figure 37 Attentiveness to City Issues by Employment Status, Overall Satisfaction & Satisfaction with Communication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Figure 38 Maximum Margin of Error . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 Introduction
City of Cypress True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

I NTRODUCTION
Encompassing 6.6 square miles in northwest Orange County, the City of Cypress was incorporated in 1956 and is known as the “City of Progress.” Cypress is home to an estimated 48,531 residents1 and the corporate home of several national and international companies, as well as the Los Alamitos Race Course.

To monitor its progress in meeting residents’ needs, the City of Cypress engages residents on a daily basis and receives periodic subjective feedback regarding its performance. Although these informal feedback mechanisms are a valuable source of information for the City in that they provide timely and accurate information about the opinions of specific residents, it is important to recognize that they do not necessarily provide an accurate picture of the community as a whole.

For the most part, informal feedback mechanisms rely on the resident to initiate feedback, which creates a self-selection bias—the City receives feedback only from those residents who are motivated enough to initiate the feedback process. Because these residents tend to be either very pleased or very displeased with the service they have received, their collective opinions are not necessarily representative of the City’s resident population as a whole.

PURPOSE OF STUDY The motivation for the current study was to design and employ a methodology that would avoid the self-selection bias noted above and thereby provide the City with a statistically reliable understanding of its residents’ satisfaction, priorities, and concerns as they relate to services, facilities, and policies provided by the City. Ultimately, the survey results and analyses presented in this report provide City Council and staff with information that can be used to make sound, strategic decisions in a variety of areas including service improvements and enhancements, measuring and tracking internal performance, budgeting, policy, planning, and community engagement.

To assist in this effort, the City selected True North Research to design the research plan and conduct the study. Broadly defined, the study was designed to:
• Identify key issues of importance for residents, as well as their perceptions of the quality of life in Cypress;
• Measure residents’ overall satisfaction with the City’s efforts to provide municipal services, and their satisfaction with a variety of specific services; • Gather opinions on topics such as public safety, planning, and funding priorities; • Determine satisfaction with (and perceived effectiveness of) the City’s communication with residents; and
• Collect additional background and demographic data that are relevant to understanding residents’ perceptions, needs, and interests.

OVERVIEW OF METHODOLOGY A full description of the methodology used for this study is included later in this report (see Methodology on page 44). In brief, the survey was administered to a random sample of 707 adults who reside within the City of Cypress. The survey followed a mixed-method design that employed multiple recruiting methods (mail, email,

1. California Department of Finance estimate, January 2021.

Introduction
City of Cypress True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 text, and telephone) and multiple data collection methods (telephone and online). Administered in English, Spanish, and Korean between April 13 and May 5, 2022, the average interview lasted 17 minutes.

STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE This is not the first statistically reliable community survey conducted for the City of Cypress. A similar study was conducted by True North for the City in 2018, and many of the questions included in the 2022 survey were purposely tracked from the prior survey. Because there is a natural interest in tracking the City’s performance in meeting the evolving needs of its residents, where appropriate the results of the current study are compared with the results of identical questions included in the 2022 survey. In such cases, True North conducted the appropriate tests of statistical significance to identify changes that likely reflect actual changes in public opinion between the prior survey (2018) and the current (2022), as opposed to being due to chance associated with selecting two samples independently and at random. Differences between the two studies are identified as statistically significant if we can be 95% confident that the differences reflect an actual change in public opinion between the two studies. Statistically significant differences within response categories over time are denoted by the † symbol which appears in the figure next to the appropriate response value for 2022.

ORGANIZATION OF REPORT This report is designed to meet the needs of readers who prefer a summary of the findings as well as those who are interested in the details of the results.

For those who seek an overview of the findings, the sections titled Just the Facts and Conclusions are for you. They provide a summary of the most important factual findings of the survey in bullet-point format and a discussion of their implications. For the interested reader, this section is followed by a more detailed question-by-question discussion of the results from the survey by topic area (see Table of Contents), as well as a description of the methodology employed for collecting and analyzing the data. And, for the truly ambitious reader, the questionnaire used for the interviews is contained at the back of this report (see Questionnaire & Toplines on page 47), and a complete set of crosstabulations for the survey results is contained in Appendix A.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS True North thanks the City of Cypress for the opportunity to conduct the study and for contributing valuable input during the design stage of this study. The collective experience, insight, and local knowledge provided by city representatives and staff improved the overall quality of the research presented here.

DISCLAIMER The statements and conclusions in this report are those of the authors (Dr. Timothy McLarney and Richard Sarles) at True North Research, Inc. and not necessarily those of the City of Cypress. Any errors and omissions are the responsibility of the authors.

ABOUT TRUE NORTH True North is a full-service survey research firm that is dedicated to providing public agencies with a clear understanding of the values, perceptions, priorities, and concerns of their residents and customers. Through designing and implementing scientific surveys, focus groups, and one-on-one interviews, as well as expert interpretation of the findings, True North helps its clients to move with confidence when making strategic decisions in a variety of areas—such as planning, policy evaluation, performance management, establishing fiscal priorities, passing revenue measures, and developing effective public information campaigns.

Introduction
City of Cypress True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 During their careers, Dr. McLarney (President) and Mr. Sarles (Principal Researcher) have designed and conducted over 1,200 survey research studies for public agencies—including more than 400 studies for California municipalities and special districts.

Just the Facts
City of Cypress True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

J UST THE F ACTS
The following is an outline of the main factual findings from the survey. For the reader’s convenience, we have organized the findings according to the section titles used in the body of this report. Thus, if you would like to learn more about a particular finding, simply turn to the appropriate report section.

QUALITY OF LIFE
• Residents generally shared favorable opinions of Cypress, with the most positive ratings provided for Cypress as a place to live (93% excellent or good), Cypress as a place to raise a family (91%), and the overall quality of life in the City (90%). • When asked to identify what they like most about living in the City of Cypress that the City government should preserve in the future, residents were most apt to cite safety/low crime rate (21%), followed by parks/recreation areas (19%), the clean, well-maintained appearance of the city/landscaping/trees (14%), good schools (10%), and its Police and Fire Departments (9%).
• When asked what city government could do to make Cypress a better place to live, nearly one-third (32%) of respondents could not think of any desired changes (17%) or reported that no changes are needed (15%). Among specific changes desired, the most common were limiting growth and development (9%), addressing homeless issues (8%), maintaining/adding park and recreation facilities (7%), improving public safety (6%), and improving government/communication (5%).

CITY SERVICES
• Eighty-four percent (84%) of Cypress residents indicated they were either very (34%) or somewhat (50%) satisfied with the City’s efforts to provide municipal services. Approximately 13% were very or somewhat dissatisfied, whereas 3% were unsure or unwilling to share their opinion.
• Among 14 specific service areas tested, those viewed as most important included providing fire protection and emergency medical services (95% extremely or very important), maintaining city streets and roads (92%), providing police and crime prevention services (92%), and maintaining parks and recreation areas (91%).
• The survey also asked about satisfaction with the City’s efforts to provide the same 14 services. Respondents were most satisfied with the City’s efforts to provide fire protection and emergency medical services (98% very or somewhat satisfied), followed by provide services to seniors (92%), keep public buildings and facilities clean and attractive (92%), maintain parks and recreation areas (91%), and maintain city streets and roads (90%).

PUBLIC SAFETY
• Overall, 95% of respondents indicated that they feel Cypress is a safe place to live, with 50% describing it as very safe. Conversely, 5% of residents reported that the City is either a very unsafe (<1%) or somewhat unsafe (4%) place to live.

Just the Facts
City of Cypress True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

FUNDING PRIORITIES
• When asked to prioritize among six services and projects that could receive funding in the future, maintaining streets and roads in good condition was assigned the highest priority (94% high or medium priority), followed by refurbishing and improving the amenities at existing community parks (80%) and working with property owners to revitalize older, outdated commercial centers (75%). • When compared to the other services tested, fewer respondents considered attracting more entertainment options to Cypress for families, kids, and adults (60%) to be a high or medium priority.
• Residents who assigned a high priority rating to attracting more entertainment options to Cypress for families, kids, and adults were subsequently asked to detail specific entertainment options that they would like available in the City. Nearly three-in-ten (29%) of those residents were unsure or could not provide specifics when prompted. Among specific mentions, concerts/events/plays (17%), movie theater/cinemas (14%), a downtown area with shops, cafés, and entertainment (13%), and multi-cultural events/festivals (9%) were the most commonly mentioned.

COMMUNICATION
• The most frequently cited source for city information was the City’s Newsletter “The Progress” (39%), followed by the City’s website (32%), social media (not the City’s sources, 20%), the City’s Facebook page (19%), email notifications from the City (19%), and flyers or brochures displayed at public facilities (19%). • Among respondents who referred to a local newspaper (print or online) as a primary information source, the Event-News Enterprise (29%) and the Orange County Register (27%) were the ones they most frequently read.
• Overall, 69% of respondents indicated they were satisfied with the City’s efforts to communicate with residents through newsletters, the Internet, local media, and other means. The remaining respondents were either dissatisfied with the City’s efforts in this respect (22%) or unsure of their opinion (9%).
• When asked if they had any suggestions for how the City could improve the way it communicated with them, more than six-in-ten residents (63%) did not have any suggestions (56%) or declined to state (7%). Among those who provided input, more email from the City was cited most often (8%), followed by more newsletters (5%), more social media posts (5%), and more flyers/brochures (5%).
• Three-in-ten residents (31%) indicated that they would like to receive more information about a particular topic or issue from the City. Among these residents, information about future plans, development, and zoning (15%), information about community events and activities (15%), City Council agendas and minutes (14%), and information on safety, crime activity, reports, and solutions (14%) were the most commonly mentioned topics of interest. • Sixty-five percent (65%) of residents reported that they had visited the City’s website and/or recalled receiving communications from the City during the 12 months prior to the interview. • Respondents cited direct mail, email, and electronic newsletters as the most effective methods for the City to communicate with them (each 88% very or somewhat effective), followed by the City’s website (83%).

Just the Facts
City of Cypress True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 • Overall, 18% of respondents claimed to be very attentive to matters of city government, 44% somewhat attentive, and 29% slightly attentive. Another 8% of respondents confided they do not pay any attention to the activities of their city government and 1% were unsure or declined to state.

Conclusions
City of Cypress True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

C ONCLUSIONS
As noted in the Introduction, this study was designed to provide the City of Cypress with a statistically reliable understanding of its residents’ opinions, satisfaction, and priorities as they relate to services and facilities provided by the City. As such, the findings of this study can provide the City with information needed to make sound, strategic decisions in a variety of areas including performance management, strategic planning, establishing budget priorities, and community engagement. Whereas subsequent sections of this report are devoted to conveying the detailed results of the survey, in this section we attempt to ‘see the forest through the trees’ and note how the results of the survey answer some of the key questions that motivated the research. The following conclusions are based on True North’s interpretations of the results, as well as the firm’s experience conducting similar studies for government agencies throughout the State.

How well is the City performing in meeting the
needs of Cypress residents?
The two years leading up to the 2022 Community Opinion Survey were punctuated by difficult and dramatic events in Cypress. The coronavirus pandemic that arrived in early 2020 has taken lives, threatened livelihoods, and forced dramatic changes in the way residents live, work, socialize, and play. Non-essential businesses were shuttered for weeks or months at a time to curb the spread of COVID-19, and the City’s operations were also adjusted to protect public health and adhere to State and County guidelines. Services that could be effectively moved to an online format were able to continue in that form, whereas other programs and services were modified, curtailed, or canceled to protect the safety of the public and city employees. Many city facilities were also closed periodically to prevent the spread of COVID-19, including City Hall.

Against this turbulent backdrop, residents’ opinions of their community and city government remained positive. The overwhelming majority of residents (84%) indicated they were satisfied with the City’s overall efforts to provide municipal services (which is statistically consistent with the 87% recorded in 2018), whereas just 13% were dissatisfied and the remaining 3% were unsure or did not provide a response. Additionally, satisfaction was widespread among subgroups, ranging from a low of 76% to a high of 92% (see Overall Satisfaction on page 15).

The high level of satisfaction expressed with the City’s performance in general was also mirrored in residents’ assessments of the City’s performance in providing most specific services, with the highest satisfaction scores assigned to the City’s efforts to provide fire protection and emergency medical services, provide services to seniors, keep public buildings and facilities clean and attractive, maintain parks and recreation areas, and maintain city streets and roads (see Specific Services on page 16). For all but one of the 14 service areas tested, the City is meeting or exceeding the needs and expectations of at least three-quarters of its residents—and for the majority of services the City is meeting the needs Conclusions
City of Cypress True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 of close to nine-in-ten residents (see Performance Needs & Priorities on page 21).

The City’s performance in providing municipal services has also contributed to a high quality of life for residents. Nine-in-ten residents surveyed (90%) rated the quality of life in Cypress as excellent or good (which is statistically consistent with the 89% recorded in 2018). This sentiment was also widespread, with the percentage who rated the quality of life as excellent or good exceeding 80% for nearly every identified subgroup (see Quality of Life on page 11).

Perhaps the best indicator of a well-managed city is that when offered an open-ended opportunity to suggest one change the City could make to improve the quality of life in Cypress, close to one-third (32%) of respondents could not think of a change they desired or stated flatly that no changes are needed—everything is fine. These were the two most frequently mentioned responses to the question! Where should the City
focus its efforts in the
future?
In addition to measuring the City’s current performance, a primary goal of this study is to look forward and identify opportunities to adjust services, improve facilities, and/or refine communications strategies to best meet the community’s evolving needs and expectations. Although residents are generally satisfied with the City’s performance, there is always room for improvement. Below we note some of the areas that present the best opportunities in this regard.

Considering respondents’ verbatim answers regarding what they most want to preserve about Cypress in the future (see What Do You Like Most About Living in Cypress? on page 12) and what city government could do to make Cypress a better place to live (see What Should Be Changed? on page 13), the list of services and their respective priority status for future attention (see Performance Needs & Priorities on page 21), and the manner in which residents prioritize among potential funding areas (see Funding Priorities on page 26), the themes of addressing homelessness, managing growth and development, reducing traffic congestion, maintaining a safe community, maintaining streets and roads, and improving and preserving parks and recreation areas stood out as key areas of opportunity and interest for Cypress residents.

With the recommendation that the City focus on these areas, it is equally important to stress that when it comes to improving satisfaction in service areas, the appropriate strategy is often a combination of better communication and actual service improvements. It may be, for example, that many residents are simply not aware of the City’s ongoing infrastructure improvement efforts, or the limits of what a city can do to address homelessness. Choosing the appropriate balance of actual service improvements and efforts to raise awareness on these matters will Conclusions
City of Cypress True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 be a key to maintaining and improving the community’s overall satisfaction in the short- and long-term.

It is also important to keep in mind that although these areas represent opportunities to improve resident satisfaction, the City should not oversteer. Indeed, the main takeaway from this study is that the City does many things very well, and emphasis should be on continuing to perform at that high level. The vast majority of residents are pleased with the City’s efforts to provide services and programs, and have a favorable opinion of the City’s performance in most areas. The top priority for the City should thus be to do what it takes to maintain the high quality of services that it currently provides.

How well is the City communicating with Cypress
residents, and what are
some of the main challenges?
The importance of city communication with residents cannot be overstated. Much of a city’s success is shaped by the quality of information that is exchanged in both directions, from the City to the community and from the community to the City. This study is just one example of Cypress’s efforts to enhance the information flow to the City to better understand the community’s concerns, perceptions, and needs. Some of Cypress’s many efforts to communicate with its residents include its newsletters, timely press releases, website, various social media accounts, and its Cypress Central app.

Keeping up with the challenge of communicating with residents has been difficult for many public agencies in recent years. As the number of information sources and channels available to the public have dramatically increased, so too has the diversity in where residents regularly turn for their information. Not only have entirely new channels arisen to become mainstream and nearly ubiquitous (e.g., social media), within these channels there exists a proliferation of alternative services. To add to the challenge, residents’ preferences for information sources are also dynamic, subject to change as new services are made available while others may fade in popularity, making thorough, effective communication a moving target for public agencies.

The present survey provides mixed-news with respect to city-resident communication. On the positive side, city-sponsored sources were wellrepresented among the sources respondents mentioned when asked where they turn to find out about City of Cypress news, information, and programming. Indeed, the City’s Newsletter “The Progress” and website were the top two sources. In True North’s experience, a high level of satisfaction with a city’s communication efforts is generally associated with and likely caused by a greater reliance among residents on city-sponsored sources of information such as newsletters, websites, and related publications (see Sources of Information on page 29).

Conclusions
City of Cypress True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 The above notwithstanding, the study did find a significant percentage of respondents who were either unsure (9%) or dissatisfied (22%) when asked about their satisfaction with the City’s efforts to communicate with residents through newsletters, the Internet, local media, and other means (see Satisfaction with Communication on page 31). The percentage who reported being satisfied with the City’s efforts to communicate with them (69%) also decreased significantly when compared to 2018 (79%), prior to the pandemic. The relationship between city-resident communication and perceptions of the City’s overall performance in providing municipal services was also pronounced, with those satisfied with the City’s communication efforts also being much more likely than their counterparts to be satisfied with the City’s overall performance in providing municipal services.

Looking forward, the 2022 survey does provide some guidance as to the most effective ways the City can communicate with residents, as well as how preferred methods of communication may vary based on factors such as age, ethnicity, and length of residence (see Communication Preferences on page 39).

Quality of Life
City of Cypress True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Q UALITY OF L IFE
The opening series of questions in the survey was designed to assess residents’ top of mind perceptions about the quality of life in Cypress, what they would most like to preserve about the City, as well as ways to improve the quality of life in Cypress.

OVERALL QUALITY OF LIFE At the outset of the interview, respondents were asked to rate the City of Cypress on a number of key dimensions—including overall quality of life, as a place to raise a family, and as a place to work—using a five-point scale of excellent, good, fair, poor, or very poor. As shown in Figure 1 below, residents generally shared favorable opinions of Cypress on each aspect tested, with the most positive ratings provided for Cypress as a place to live (93% excellent or good), Cypress as a place to raise a family (91%), and the overall quality of life in the City (90%). Although still positive, residents provided somewhat softer ratings for Cypress as a place to retire (69%) and as a place to work (52%), with these two items also having the highest percentage of unsure responses (7% and 29%, respectively).

Question 2 How would you rate: _____? Would you say it is excellent, good, fair, poor or very poor?
FIGURE 1 RATING CYPRESS
Table 1 displays the percentage of respondents who rated each dimension as excellent or good by study year. Between 2018 and 2022, the percentage who used excellent or good to describe Cypress as a place to retire exhibited a statistically significant increase of 8% and ratings for Cypress as a place to live increased by 3%. No other changes were large enough to achieve statistical significance. For the interested reader, tables 2-4 on the next page show how the ratings for each dimension tested in Question 2 varied according to key demographic traits.

TABLE 1 RATING CYPRESS BY STUDY YEAR
† Statistically significant change (p < 0.05) between the 2018 and 2022 studies.

45.5 49.0

38.6 28.1

20.6 47.1

42.2 51.0

40.7 31.0

6.6 6.2

8.5 16.8

14.3 4

6.4 1
1 1
1 1

29.2 6.6
2 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Cypress as a place to live
Cypress as a place to raise a family
The overall quality of life in Cypress
Cypress as a place to retire
Cypress as a place to work
Q2a Q2b Q2e Q2c Q2d
% Respondents
Excellent Good Fair Poor Very poor Not sure
2022 2018
Cypress as a place to retire 68.7 60.7 +8.0†
Cypress as a place to live 92.6 89.6 +3.0†
The overall quality of life in Cypress 89.6 88.7 0.9
Cypress as a place to work 51.6 51.0 +0.6
Cypress as a place to raise a family 91.2 92.3 -1.1
Study Year Change in
Excellent +
Good
2018 to 2022
Quality of Life
City of Cypress True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 TABLE 2 RATING CYPRESS BY YEARS IN CYPRESS, SURVEY LANGUAGE & OVERALL SATISFACTION (SHOWING %

EXCELLENT)
TABLE 3 RATING CYPRESS BY AGE & GENDER (SHOWING % EXCELLENT) TABLE 4 RATING CYPRESS BY ETHNICITY & HOME OWNERSHIP STATUS (SHOWING % EXCELLENT) WHAT DO YOU LIKE MOST ABOUT LIVING IN CYPRESS? The next question in this series asked residents to identify what they like most about living in the City of Cypress that the City government should make sure to preserve in the future. Question 3 was posed in an openended manner, thereby allowing residents to mention any aspect or attribute that came to mind without being prompted by—or restricted to—a particular list of options. True North later reviewed the verbatim responses and grouped them into the categories shown in Figure 2 on the next page.

Cypress residents were most apt to cite safety/low crime rate (21%) as what they like most about living in the City of Cypress and would like to preserve, followed by parks/recreation areas (19%), clean, well-maintained appearance of the city/landscaping/trees (14%), good schools (10%), and its police and fire departments (9%). Approximately 18% of residents could not think of anything specific when asked what they like most about Cypress that should be preserved in the future.

Table 5 on the next page provides the top five responses to Question 3 in the 2018 and 2022 surveys. Responses were fairly consistent during this period, with four of the five categories remaining the same, and the order of the top three remaining unchanged. In 2022, references to Cypress’ good schools replaced open space areas/nature preserves as a top response category.

Less than 5 5 to 9 10 to 14 15 or more English Spanish Korean Satisfied Dissatisfied Cypress as a place to raise a family 48.3 45.3 44.3 51.5 49.1 49.8 47.6 53.8 19.7 Cypress as a place to live 44.1 44.7 41.5 47.1 45.1 56.7 44.2 48.8 23.5 The overall quality of life in Cypress 43.8 35.3 28.1 39.7 38.1 51.5 38.6 42.6 14.4 Cypress as a place to retire 22.4 33.0 27.6 29.1 27.3 34.6 35.6 31.6 8.3 Cypress as a place to work 18.1 21.2 19.3 21.5 19.9 17.0 33.9 22.1 10.9 Years in Cypress (Q1) Survey Language Overall Satisfaction (Q5) 18 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 or older Male Female Cypress as a place to raise a family 48.0 55.1 43.7 44.8 48.6 55.5 47.0 51.6 Cypress as a place to live 34.0 50.7 39.5 43.2 48.7 53.9 44.1 47.5 The overall quality of life in Cypress 29.9 36.3 32.1 39.8 39.3 48.6 37.2 40.6 Cypress as a place to retire 22.0 29.1 25.5 23.8 26.1 39.6 26.1 30.7 Cypress as a place to work 16.0 14.6 22.2 21.6 21.9 21.7 16.9 24.4 Age (QD1) Gender
Af Amer
/Black
Asian
American
Caucasian
/White
Latino/
Hispanic
Mixed or
other Own Rent
Cypress as a place to raise a family 35.7 43.1 51.1 58.4 44.7 50.9 45.7 Cypress as a place to live 36.0 37.0 49.7 55.4 31.3 47.3 42.4 The overall quality of life in Cypress 33.8 31.8 39.7 49.5 34.1 40.4 34.9 Cypress as a place to retire 19.7 23.1 27.2 38.4 38.8 28.7 26.4 Cypress as a place to work 28.3 17.4 18.2 31.4 10.5 21.1 19.3 Ethnicity (QD7)
Home Ownership
Status (QD2)
Quality of Life
City of Cypress True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Question 3 What do you like most about Cypress that the city government should make sure to preserve in the future?
FIGURE 2 LIKE MOST ABOUT CYPRESS
TABLE 5 LIKE MOST ABOUT CYPRESS BY STUDY YEAR
WHAT SHOULD BE CHANGED? In an open-ended manner similar to that described above for Question 3, all respondents were also asked to indicate the one thing that the City government could change to make Cypress a better place to live. True North reviewed the verbatim responses to Question 4 and grouped them into the categories shown in Figure 3 on page 14.

Close to one-third (32%) of respondents could not think of any desired changes (17%) or reported that no changes are needed (15%), both of which are indicative of a respondent who does not perceive any pressing issues or problems in the City. Among specific changes desired, the most common were limiting growth and development (9%), addressing homeless issues (8%), maintaining/adding park and recreation facilities (7%), improving public safety (6%), and improving government/communication (5%).

20.6 18.8

17.9 13.5

9.9 9.1

7.8 7.5

5.0 3.4

3.4 4.8
0 5 10 15 20 25
Public safety, low crime rate
Parks, recreation areas
Not sure / Cannot think of anything specific
Clean, well-maintained, landscaping, trees
Good schools
Police/Fire department
Open space areas, nature preserves
Quiet, friendly town, family oriented
Community activities, events
Small town atmosphere
Restaurants, shopping opportunities, small business
Infrastructure, streets, sidewalks
% Respondents
2022 2018
Public safety, low crime
rate
Public safety, low crime
rate
Parks, recreation
areas
Parks, recreation
areas
Not sure / Cannot think of
anything specific
Not sure / Cannot think of
anything specific
Clean, well-maintained,
landscaping, trees
Open space areas, nature
preserves
Good schools Clean, well-maintained,
landscaping, trees
Study Year
Quality of Life
City of Cypress True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Question 4 If the city government could change one thing to make Cypress a better place to live, what change would you like to see?
FIGURE 3 CHANGES TO IMPROVE CYPRESS
Table 6 provides the top five responses to Question 4 by study year, and shows that four of the five remained unchanged. Addressing homeless issues was new to the top five in 2022, replacing the category with responses related to public safety, crime, drugs, and police presence.

TABLE 6 CHANGES TO IMPROVE CYPRESS

17.3 14.9

8.5 7.9

6.7 5.7

5.2 4.9

3.6 3.2

3.1 2.5

2.0 3.4

3.0 0 5 10 15 20
Not sure / Cannot think of anything
No changes needed / Everything is okay
Limit growth, development
Address homeless issues
Maintain, add park and recreation facilities
Improve public safety
Improve government, communication
Affordable houses
Improve shopping, dining opportunities
Provide more events, entertainment for different ages
Provide more police presence
Clean, beautify public spaces
Reduce traffic congestion
Improve economy, jobs, business
Improve, maintain landscaping
% Respondents
2022 2018
Not sure / Cannot think of
anything
Not sure / Cannot think of
anything
No changes needed /
Everything is okay
Limit growth,
development
Limit growth,
development
No changes needed /
Everything is okay
Address homeless issues
Improve public safety,
crime, drugs, police
presence
Maintain, add park and
recreation facilities
Maintain, add park and
recreation facilities
Study Year
City Services
City of Cypress True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

C ITY S ERVICES
After measuring respondents’ perceptions of the quality of life in Cypress, the survey next turned to assessing their opinions about the City’s performance in providing various municipal services.

OVERALL SATISFACTION The first question in this series asked respondents to indicate if, overall, they were satisfied or dissatisfied with the job the City of Cypress is doing to provide city services. Because this question does not reference a specific program, facility, or service and requested that the respondent consider the City’s performance in general, the findings of this question may be regarded as an overall performance rating for the City.

As shown in Figure 4, the vast majority (84%) of Cypress residents indicated they were either very (34%) or somewhat (50%) satisfied with the City’s efforts to provide municipal services. Approximately 13% were very or somewhat dissatisfied, whereas 3% were unsure or unwilling to share their opinion. Although the total percentage satisfied remained statistically consistent from 2018 to 2022, the percentage somewhat dissatisfied experienced a statistically significant increase during this period (+4%).

Question 5 Next, I would like to ask a series of questions about services provided by the City of Cypress. Generally speaking, are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the job the City of Cypress is doing to provide city services?
FIGURE 4 OVERALL SATISFACTION BY STUDY YEAR
† Statistically significant change (p < 0.05) between the 2018 and 2022 studies.

The next two figures display how residents’ opinions about the City’s overall performance in providing municipal services varied by length of residence, age, ethnicity, home ownership status, gender, and survey language. The most striking pattern in the figures is that the high levels of satisfaction exhibited by respondents as a whole (see Figure 4 above) were generally echoed across resident subgroups, with satisfaction ranging from a low of 76% to a high of 92%.

48.8 6.6

4.3 38.6 34.0

49.9 10.2†

2.6 1.5

3.0 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
2022 2018
Study Year
% Respondents
Prefer not to
answer
Not sure
Very
dissatisfied
Somewhat
dissatisfied
Somewhat
satisfied
Very
satisfied
City Services
City of Cypress True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 FIGURE 5 OVERALL SATISFACTION BY YEARS IN CYPRESS & AGE FIGURE 6 OVERALL SATISFACTION BY ETHNICITY, HOME OWNERSHIP STATUS, GENDER & SURVEY LANGUAGE SPECIFIC SERVICES Whereas Question 5 addressed the City’s overall performance, the next series of questions asked respondents to rate the importance of specific services offered by the City, as well as their level of satisfaction with efforts to provide these services. For each service, respondents were first asked whether they thought a service was extremely important, very important, somewhat important, or not at all important. Respondents were then asked about their level of satisfaction with these same services. The order of the items was randomized for each respondent to avoid a systematic position bias.

Figure 7 presents the services in rank order of importance according to the proportion of respondents who rated a service as at least very important. In general, Cypress residents rated public safety, public works, and parks and recreation as the most important. More specifically,

34.0 30.4 31.3 32.1 36.0 41.3

58.0 56.5 51.9 48.0 45.5

42.9 Very
satisfied

41.7 41.8

26.1 29.8
Smwt
satisfied

46.4 58.9 53.4

38.5 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
Less than 5 5 to 9 10 to 14 15 or more 18 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 or older Years in Cypress (Q1) Age (QD1)
% Respondents

35.9 31.8

39.8 34.2 34.1 34.4 37.5

25.2 42.6 52.5 43.8 48.6 51.6 49.9 48.8

50.3 42.6 36.5

25.3 Very
satisfied

39.2 57.6

48.4 Smwt 43.3
satisfied

36.8 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
Af Amer /
Black
Asian
American
Caucasian
/ White
Latino /
Hispanic
Mixed or
other
Own Rent Male Female English Spanish Korean
Ethnicity (QD7) Home Ownership
Status (QD2)
Gender Survey Language
% Respondents
City Services
City of Cypress True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 providing fire protection and emergency medical services (95% extremely or very important), maintaining city streets and roads (92%), providing police and crime prevention services (92%), and maintaining parks and recreation areas (91%) received the highest importance ratings from residents.

At the other end of the spectrum, providing cultural and performing arts (54%) and holding special community events like summer concerts in the park and holiday celebrations (55%) were viewed as less important.

Question 6 For each of the services I read, please tell me whether the service is extremely important to you, very important, somewhat important, or not at all important.

FIGURE 7 IMPORTANCE OF SERVICES
Table 7 on the next page displays the percentage of respondents who viewed each service as extremely or very important in 2018 and 2022, along with the difference between the two studies. When compared with the prior survey, there was a statistically significant increase in the importance assigned to providing services to seniors (+7%) and addressing homelessness (+4%) and a statistically significant decline in the importance assigned to managing traffic congestion in the City (-7%).

65.4 54.8

65.4 49.4

55.1 55.1

45.6 41.8

39.8 34.7

33.7 34.2

23.2 21.7

29.8 37.5

26.8 41.6

34.4 31.6

38.7 37.2

38.4 42.8

41.9 36.6

32.1 31.8
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Providing fire protection and emergency medical services Maintaining city streets and roads
Providing police and crime prevention services
Maintaining parks and recreation areas
Maintaining the City’s financial stability
Addressing homelessness
Keeping public buildings and facilities clean and attractive Managing traffic congestion in the city
Managing growth and development
Providing services to seniors
Promoting economic development for a healthy business community Providing recreation programs for all ages
Holding special community events like summer concerts in the park and holiday celebrations
Providing cultural and performing arts
Q6b Q6e Q6a Q6h Q6n Q6m Q6k Q6d Q6f Q6c Q6j Q6g Q6l Q6i % Respondents
Extremely important Very important
City Services
City of Cypress True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 TABLE 7 IMPORTANCE OF SERVICES BY STUDY YEAR
† Statistically significant change (p < 0.05) between the 2018 and 2022 studies.

Turning to the satisfaction component, Figure 8 sorts the same list of services according to the percentage of respondents who indicated they were either very or somewhat satisfied with the City’s efforts to provide the service. For comparison purposes between the services, only respondents who held an opinion (satisfied or dissatisfied) are included in the figure. Those who did not have an opinion were removed from this analysis. The percentage of respondents who provided an opinion (satisfied or dissatisfied) is presented in brackets beside the service label in the figure, while the bars represent the answers of those with an opinion.

Question 7 For the same list of services I just read, I'd like you to tell me how satisfied you are with the job the City is doing to provide the service. Are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the City's efforts to: _____, or do you not have an opinion? FIGURE 8 SATISFACTION WITH SERVICES
2022 2018
Providing services to seniors 77.5 71.0 +6.6†
Addressing homelessness 86.6 82.4 +4.3†
Providing cultural and performing arts 53.5 51.5 2.1
Maintaining city streets and roads 92.4 92.1 0.2
Promoting economic development for a healthy business community 75.6 76.0 -0.4 Providing fire protection and emergency medical services 95.2 95.7 -0.5 Managing growth and development 78.3 79.5 -1.2
Maintaining parks and recreation areas 90.9 92.2 -1.3
Providing police and crime prevention services 92.2 94.1 -1.9 Keeping public buildings and facilities clean and attractive 84.3 86.7 -2.4 Providing recreation programs for all ages 70.9 73.4 -2.6 Holding special community events 55.3 59.6 -4.2
Managing traffic congestion in the city 78.9 85.7 -6.8† Maintaining the City’s financial stability 89.5 N/A N/A Study Year Change in
Extremely + Very
Important
2018 to 2022

62.1 40.7

44.7 43.6

47.1 48.5

41.1 37.3

34.3 29.8

29.9 33.3

28.3 23.3

35.8 51.4

47.4 47.5

43.1 41.4

48.7 51.5

54.3 56.7

53.8 49.3

51.2 37.4

6.3 6.7

6.0 7.3

7.1 8.9

9.5 8.9

9.2 14.4

12.8 14.7

26.3 1
2 1
1 2
2 2
2 2
3 3

4.2 4.6

5.9 13.1
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Provide fire protection and emergency medical services [93%] Provide services to seniors [77%]
Keep public buildings and facilities clean and attractive [96%] Maintain parks and recreation areas [99%]
Maintain city streets and roads [98%]
Provide police and crime prevention services [95%]
Hold special community events like summer concerts in the park and holiday celebrations [90%]
Provide recreation programs for all ages [89%]
Maintain the City’s financial stability [81%]
Promote economic development for a healthy business community [81%] Provide cultural and performing arts [84%]
Manage traffic congestion in the city [95%]
Manage growth and development [88%]
Address homelessness [90%]
% Respondents Who Provided Opinion
Very satisfied Somewhat satisfied Somewhat dissatisfied Very dissatisfied City Services
City of Cypress True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 At the top of the list, respondents were most satisfied with the City’s efforts to provide fire protection and emergency medical services (98% very or somewhat satisfied), followed by provide services to seniors (92%), keep public buildings and facilities clean and attractive (92%), maintain parks and recreation areas (91%), and maintain city streets and roads (90%). Although still positive, respondents were somewhat less satisfied with the City’s efforts to address homelessness (61%).

Table 8 displays the percentage of respondents who were satisfied with each service from 2018 to 2022, as well as the difference between the two most recent studies. As shown in the far right column, there were statistically significant increases in satisfaction for the City’s efforts to manage growth and development (+6%) and manage traffic congestion in the City (+5%) during this period. Although there was a statistically significant decline in satisfaction for providing cultural and performing arts (-5%), it should be recognized that this service was impacted by the pandemic and health-related regulations which limited the City’s ability to provide the service.

TABLE 8 SATISFACTION WITH SERVICES BY STUDY YEAR
† Statistically significant change (p < 0.05) between the 2018 and 2022 studies.

DIFFERENTIATORS OF OPINION For the interested reader, Table 9 on the next page displays how the level of satisfaction with each specific service tested in Question 7 varied according to residents’ overall performance ratings for the City (see Overall Satisfaction on page 15). The table divides residents who were satisfied with the City’s overall performance into one group and those dissatisfied into a second group. Also displayed is the difference between the two groups in terms of the percentage who indicated they were satisfied with the City’s efforts to provide each service tested in Question 7 (far right column). For convenience, the services are sorted by that difference, with the greatest differentiators of opinion near the top of the table.

When compared to their counterparts, those who were satisfied with the City’s overall performance in providing city services were also more likely to express satisfaction with the City’s efforts to provide each of the services tested in Question 7. That said, the greatest specific differentiators of opinion between satisfied and dissatisfied residents were found with respect to the City’s efforts to maintain the City’s financial stability, manage growth and development, promote economic development for a healthy business community, and address homelessness. Two of the top three differentiators in 2022 were also the top two differentiators in 2018 (maintaining the City’s financial stability is new to the 2022 survey). 2022 2018
Manage growth and development 79.4 73.1 +6.3†
Manage traffic congestion in the city 82.6 77.8 +4.8†
Promote economic development for a healthy business community 86.6 82.7 3.9 Maintain parks and recreation areas 91.2 90.1 +1.0
Provide services to seniors 92.1 91.2 +0.9
Provide fire protection and emergency medical services 98.0 97.4 +0.6 Address homelessness 60.6 61.0 -0.3
Keep public buildings and facilities clean and attractive 92.1 92.5 -0.4 Provide recreation programs for all ages 88.8 89.8 -1.0 Provide police and crime prevention services 89.9 91.5 -1.6 Hold special community events 89.8 91.8 -1.9
Maintain city streets and roads 90.2 92.8 -2.6
Provide cultural and performing arts 83.7 88.2 -4.5†
Maintain the City’s financial stability 88.6 N/A N/A
Study Year Change in
Satisfaction
2018 to 2022
City Services
City of Cypress True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 At the other end of the spectrum, there was much less difference between the two resident groups regarding their satisfaction with the City’s efforts to provide cultural and performing arts, hold special community events, and provide fire protection and emergency medical services.

TABLE 9 SATISFACTION WITH SERVICES BY OVERALL SATISFACTION WITH CITY Very or somewhat
satisfied
Very or somewhat
dissatisfied
Maintain the City’s financial stability 94.2 49.8 44.4
Manage growth and development 84.4 44.2 40.2
Promote economic development for a healthy business community 91.9 55.8 36.1 Address homelessness 64.4 36.2 28.2
Manage traffic congestion in the city 85.6 60.4 25.3
Keep public buildings and facilities clean and attractive 95.2 71.2 24.0 Maintain city streets and roads 93.2 70.1 23.1
Provide police and crime prevention services 92.6 70.0 22.6 Maintain parks and recreation areas 93.3 75.9 17.4
Provide recreation programs for all ages 90.8 76.5 14.3 Provide services to seniors 93.7 80.9 12.8
Provide fire protection and emergency medical services 98.8 91.0 7.9 Hold special community events 91.0 84.5 6.6
Provide cultural and performing arts 84.7 79.4 5.3
Satisfaction With Difference Between
Groups For Each
Service
% Respondents Satisfied With Each
Service
Performance Needs & Priorities
City of Cypress True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 P ERFORMANCE N EEDS & P RIORITIES With a measure of the importance of a service to residents as well as a measure of satisfaction with the City’s efforts to provide the service, True North is able to examine the relationship between these two dimensions and identify areas where the City has the greatest opportunities to improve resident satisfaction—and identify for which services the City is meeting, and even exceeding, the majority of residents’ needs.

Rather than rely on averages to conduct this analysis, True North has developed an individualized approach to identifying priorities. This approach is built on the recognition that opinions will vary from resident to resident and that understanding this variation is required for assessing how well the City is meeting residents’ needs.
2 Table 10 on the next page presents a grid based
on the importance and satisfaction scales. The horizontal axis corresponds to the four importance options, and the vertical scale corresponds to the four satisfaction options. The 16 cells within the grid are grouped into one of six categories based on how well the City is meeting, or not meeting, a resident’s needs for a particular service. The six groups are as follows:

Exceeding Needs The City is exceeding a respondent’s needs if a respondent is satisfied and the level of expressed satisfaction is higher than the importance that the respondent assigned to the service.

Meeting Needs,
Moderately
The City is moderately meeting a respondent’s needs if the respondent is satisfied and the level of satisfaction is commensurate with the level of importance assigned to the service.

Meeting Needs,
Marginally
The City is marginally meeting a respondent’s needs if the respondent is satisfied with the City’s efforts to provide the service, but their level of satisfaction is lower than the level of importance assigned to the service.

Not Meeting Needs,
Marginally
The City is marginally not meeting a respondent’s needs if the respondent is somewhat dissatisfied, but the service is also viewed as just somewhat or not at all important.

Not Meeting Needs,
Moderately
The City is moderately not meeting a respondent’s needs if A) a respondent is very dissatisfied with the City’s efforts to provide the service, but the service is viewed somewhat or not at all important, or B) a respondent is somewhat dissatisfied and the service is very important.

Not Meeting Needs,
Severely
The City is severely not meeting a respondent’s needs if A) a respondent is dissatisfied and the service is viewed as extremely important, or B) a respondent is very dissatisfied and the service is viewed as very important.

2. Any tool that relies on the opinions of the average respondent will provide a limited and occasionally distorted picture of how well an agency is performing. The simple fact is that a city is not comprised of average residents—it is comprised of unique individuals who vary substantially in their opinions of the City’s performance in different service areas. Thus, although the arithmetic average of these individuals’ opinions is a useful statistic, it does not capture the variation in opinions that occurs among residents, and it is this variation that is critical for truly assessing how well the City is meeting the needs of its residents.

Performance Needs & Priorities
City of Cypress True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 TABLE 10 RESIDENT SERVICE NEEDS & PRIORITIES MATRIX Using this framework, True North categorized respondents individually for each of the 14 services tested in the study. Thus, for example, a respondent who indicated that addressing homelessness was somewhat important and they were very satisfied with the City’s efforts in this service area would be categorized in the exceeding needs group for this service. The same respondent may be grouped in the marginally not meeting needs group for another service (e.g., managing growth and development) if they were somewhat dissatisfied with the City’s efforts to provide the service, but the service was viewed as only somewhat important.

Figure 9 presents the 14 services tested, along with the percentage of respondents who were grouped into each of the six possible categories. For ease of interpretation, the color-coding in Figure 9 is consistent with that presented in Table 10. Thus, for example, in the service area of addressing homelessness, the City is exceeding the needs of 3% of respondents, moderately meeting the needs of 26% of respondents, marginally meeting the needs of 32% of respondents, marginally not meeting the needs of 2% of respondents, moderately not meeting the needs of 8% of respondents, and severely not meeting the needs of 29% of respondents.

As shown in the figure, the City is meeting the needs of at least three-quarters of residents for 13 of the 14 services tested. Operating from the management philosophy that, all other things being equal, the City should focus on improving those services that have the highest percentage of residents for which the City is currently not meeting their needs, the services have been sorted by order of priority. Thus, addressing homelessness is the top priority, followed by managing growth and development, managing traffic congestion in the City, and providing cultural and performing arts.

Not at all
important
Somewhat
important Very important
Extremely
important
Very satisfied Exceeding needs Exceeding needs Meeting needs, moderately
Meeting needs,
moderately
Somewhat satisfied Exceeding needs Meeting needs,
moderately
Meeting needs,
marginally
Meeting needs,
marginally
Somewhat dissatisfied Not meeting
needs, marginally
Not meeting
needs, marginally
Not meeting
needs,
moderately
Not meeting
needs, severely
Very dissatisfied
Not meeting
needs,
moderately
Not meeting
needs,
moderately
Not meeting
needs, severely
Not meeting
needs, severely
Importance
Satisfaction
Performance Needs & Priorities
City of Cypress True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 FIGURE 9 RESIDENT SERVICE NEEDS 144232 14 3
8 4
14 753
64 49
48 48
47 50
52 36
45 39
41 38
36 26
33 39
39 42
40 38
24 50
36 43
29 38
39 32
6 2
23 4
3356
4 5
8 67
2 7665
13 13
29 0
22 0014
12 2
1 2
2 1
3 2
1 43
7 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Providing fire protection and emergency medical services Providing services to seniors
Keeping public buildings and facilities clean and attractive Maintaining parks and recreation areas
Maintaining city streets and roads
Providing police and crime prevention services
Holding special community events
Maintaining the City’s financial stability
Providing recreation programs for all ages
Promoting economic development for a healthy business community Providing cultural and performing arts
Managing traffic congestion in the city
Managing growth and development
Addressing homelessness
% Respondents who Provided Opinion
Exceeding needs
Meeting needs
moderately
Meeting needs
marginally
Not meeting
needs marginally
Not meeting
needs moderately
Not meeting
needs severely
Public Safety
City of Cypress True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

P UBLIC S AFETY
Ensuring the personal safety of residents is the most basic function of local government. It is important to keep in mind, of course, that public safety is as much a matter of perceptions as it is a matter of reality. Regardless of actual crime statistics, if residents don’t feel safe then they will not enjoy the many cultural, recreational, and shopping opportunities available in the City of Cypress that will enhance their quality of life.

Overall, 95% of respondents indicated that they feel Cypress is a safe place to live, with 50% describing it as very safe. Conversely, 5% of residents reported that the City is either a very unsafe (<1%) or somewhat unsafe (4%) place to live (see Figure 10).

Question 8 Overall, how safe is the City of Cypress as a place to live? Would you say it is very safe, somewhat safe, somewhat unsafe, or very unsafe?
FIGURE 10 PERCEIVED CITY SAFETY
Figures 11-12 display perceptions of safety by a
host of demographic characteristics. Across nearly
every subgroup, at least nine-in-ten residents perceived Cypress to be a safe place to live. The exception to this pattern occurred among those
who were generally dissatisfied with the City’s
overall efforts to provide municipal services (79%
within this subgroup rated the City as safe), as well
as African-American/Black (80%) and mixed/other
(82%) ethnic groups.

FIGURE 11 PERCEIVED CITY SAFETY BY YEARS IN CYPRESS, OVERALL SATISFACTION & AGE Very unsafe

0.7 Somewhat
safe

44.9 Very safe

50.4 Somewhat
unsafe

4.0 57.0

9.1 60.0

50.8 50.3

42.5 48.5 55.0

40.9 69.6

38.0 43.4 45.6

49.8 48.6 40.8

49.4 53.8 50.2
Very
safe

50.5 46.0 40.1 45.8
Smwt
safe

45.1 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
Less than 5 5 to 9 10 to 14 15 or more Satisfied Dissatisfied 18 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 or older Years in Cypress (Q1) Overall Satisfaction (Q5) Age (QD1) % Respondents
Public Safety
City of Cypress True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 FIGURE 12 PERCEIVED CITY SAFETY BY ETHNICITY, HOME OWNERSHIP STATUS, GENDER & SURVEY LANGUAGE

47.8 50.2 49.3 51.1 50.6 49.8

75.3 44.5

33.8 45.1 45.9 43.3 45.5 45.2

24.7 52.1
Very
safe

62.4 42.8

53.1 54.5
Smwt
safe

17.7 43.9 43.3

52.2 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
Af Amer /
Black
Asian
American
Caucasian
/ White
Latino /
Hispanic
Mixed or
other
Own Rent Male Female English Spanish Korean
Ethnicity (QD7) Home Ownership
Status (QD2)
Gender Survey Language
% Respondents
Funding Priorities
City of Cypress True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

F UNDING P RIORITIES
It is often the case that residents’ desires for public facilities and programs exceed a city’s financial resources. In such cases, a city must prioritize projects and programs based upon a variety of factors, including the preferences and needs of residents.

Question 9 was designed to provide Cypress with a reliable measure of how residents, as a whole, prioritize a variety of services and projects to which the City could allocate resources in the future. The format of the question was straightforward: after informing respondents that the City does not have the financial resources to fund all of the services and projects that may be desired by residents, respondents were asked whether each service or project shown in Figure 13 should be a high, medium, or low priority for future city spending—or if the City should not spend money on the project at all. To encourage a sense of competition, respondents were instructed that not all of the services and projects could be high priorities.

The six services and projects are sorted in Figure 13 from high to low based on the percentage of respondents who indicated that an item was at least a medium priority for future city spending. Among the services and projects tested, maintaining streets and roads in good condition was assigned the highest priority (94% high or medium priority), followed by refurbishing and improving the amenities at existing community parks (80%) and working with property owners to revitalize older, outdated commercial centers (75%). When compared to the other services tested, fewer respondents considered attracting more entertainment options to Cypress for families, kids, and adults (60%) to be a high or medium priority.

Question 9 The City of Cypress has limited financial resources to provide local services and projects desired by residents. Because it can't fund every service and project, the City must set priorities. As I read each of the following items, please indicate whether you think the City should make the item a high priority, a medium priority, or a low priority for future city spending. If you feel the City should not spend any money on this item, just say so. Please keep in mind that not all of the items can be high priorities.

FIGURE 13 FUNDING PRIORITIES

66.0 32.6

31.8 35.5

28.0 22.1

28.3 47.1

43.7 36.2

42.0 37.5
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Maintain streets and roads in good condition
Refurbish and improve the amenities at existing community parks Work with property owners to revitalize older, outdated commercial centers
Provide incentives to attract new employers and jobs to the City Make more resources and City services available online for residents Attract more entertainment options to Cypress for families, kids, and adults
Q9c Q9b Q9e Q9d Q9a Q9f
% Respondents
High priority Medium priority
Funding Priorities
City of Cypress True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 When compared to the 2018 survey results (see Table 11), a statistically higher percentage of respondents in 2022 rated making more resources and city services available online for residents as a high or medium priority (+7%), whereas fewer rated providing incentives to attract new employers and jobs to the City as a high or medium priority (-5%). For the interested reader, tables 12-14 show how the percentage who rated each item a high priority varied across Cypress subgroups.

TABLE 11 FUNDING PRIORITIES BY STUDY YEAR
† Statistically significant change (p < 0.05) between the 2018 and 2022 studies.

TABLE 12 FUNDING PRIORITIES BY YEARS IN CYPRESS, SURVEY LANGUAGE & OVERALL SATISFACTION (SHOWING % HIGH

PRIORITY)
TABLE 13 FUNDING PRIORITIES BY AGE & GENDER (SHOWING % HIGH PRIORITY) TABLE 14 FUNDING PRIORITIES BY ETHNICITY & HOME OWNERSHIP STATUS (SHOWING % HIGH PRIORITY) As a follow-up, residents who assigned a high priority rating to attracting more entertainment options to Cypress for families, kids, and adults were asked to detail specific entertainment options that they would like available in the City. True North reviewed the verbatim responses to Question 10 and grouped them into the categories shown in Figure 14 on the next page.

Nearly three-in-ten residents (29%) who rated attracting more entertainment options as a high priority were nevertheless unsure or could not provide specifics when asked to describe the types of entertainment in which they were interested. Among specific mentions, concerts/ events/plays (17%), movie theater/cinemas (14%), a downtown area with shops, cafés, and entertainment (13%), and multi-cultural events/festivals (9%) were the most frequently cited. 2022 2018
Make more resources and City services available online for residents 69.9 62.6 +7.4† Work with property owners to revitalize older, outdated commercial centers 75.5 72.3 3.1 Maintain streets and roads in good condition 94.3 95.7 -1.4 Refurbish and improve the amenities at existing community parks 79.7 81.8 -2.1 Attract more entertainment options to Cypress for families, kids, and adults 59.6 62.9 -3.4 Provide incentives to attract new employers and jobs to the City 71.7 76.8 -5.1† Change in
High + Medium
Priority
2018 to 2022
Study Year
Less than 5 5 to 9 10 to 14 15 or more English Spanish Korean Satisfied Dissatisfied Maintain streets and roads in good condition 66.3 63.7 63.2 67.1 67.1 77.4 41.8 67.3 60.7 Provide incentives to attract new employers and jobs to the City 45.0 35.1 43.7 30.1 35.4 44.3 32.4 35.8 35.2 Refurbish and improve the amenities at existing community parks 38.6 32.9 26.0 31.2 31.8 61.5 26.7 32.8 32.6 Work with property owners to revitalize older, outdated commercial centers 37.6 26.6 30.5 31.3 30.3 44.2 47.6 32.1 29.8 Make more resources and City services available online for residents 36.5 32.2 28.7 22.7 27.3 41.1 29.6 27.3 33.0 Attract more entertainment options to Cypress for families, kids, and adults 30.2 17.1 25.1 19.3 22.5 12.7 21.6 22.5 19.9 Years in Cypress (Q1) Survey Language Overall Satisfaction (Q5) 18 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 or older Male Female Maintain streets and roads in good condition 56.0 69.6 60.1 63.5 68.2 73.6 62.6 68.4 Provide incentives to attract new employers and jobs to the City 46.0 27.5 39.6 34.3 38.7 29.7 38.2 32.8 Refurbish and improve the amenities at existing community parks 24.1 31.9 41.2 35.4 27.1 29.2 31.3 33.2 Work with property owners to revitalize older, outdated commercial centers 28.0 20.4 33.8 28.7 41.6 31.3 31.5 31.9 Make more resources and City services available online for residents 45.9 33.5 26.4 22.1 26.6 23.4 26.4 29.8 Attract more entertainment options to Cypress for families, kids, and adults 26.0 16.0 39.6 21.0 17.9 11.7 21.3 22.6 Age (QD1) Gender
Af Amer
/Black
Asian
American
Caucasian
/White
Latino/
Hispanic
Mixed or
other Own Rent
Maintain streets and roads in good condition 56.8 60.3 71.5 66.7 64.8 67.4 63.3 Provide incentives to attract new employers and jobs to the City 43.3 38.5 31.2 40.3 21.1 31.7 45.9 Refurbish and improve the amenities at existing community parks 38.4 29.9 30.7 40.3 30.3 30.2 37.0 Work with property owners to revitalize older, outdated commercial centers 15.0 34.7 29.6 37.4 23.9 31.5 31.5 Make more resources and City services available online for residents 37.8 33.7 22.6 31.9 6.0 24.0 34.4 Attract more entertainment options to Cypress for families, kids, and adults 23.4 24.1 19.5 23.6 21.8 18.7 27.4 Ethnicity (QD7)
Home Ownership
Status (QD2)
Funding Priorities
City of Cypress True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Question 10 You indicated that attracting more entertainment options to Cypress for families, kids, and adults should be a high priority. Do you have any specific entertainment options that you'd like available in the City of Cypress?
FIGURE 14 ADDITIONAL ENTERTAINMENT OPTIONS DESIRED
Table 15 provides the top five responses to Question 10 by study year and shows that four of the top five categories remained consistent from 2018 to 2022. Additional multi-cultural events/festivals were cited by a higher percentage of the subgroup of respondents who rated attracting more entertainment options as a high priority in 2022 than in 2018, taking the place of bowling alley/arcades in the top five.

TABLE 15 ADDITIONAL ENTERTAINMENT OPTIONS DESIRED BY STUDY YEAR

29.1 17.0

14.2 13.1

9.4 7.6

6.5 5.5

4.7 3.5

3.3 2.7

2.3 1.9

2.8 4.4
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Not sure / Cannot think of anything specific
Concerts, events, plays
Movie theater, cinemas
Downtown area with shops, cafes, entertainment
Multi-cultural events, festivals
Large community park for all ages
Entertainment fun center
Movies at the park
Trampoline, amusement parks
Bowling alley, arcades
Public swimming pool, aquatics
Community theater
Arts, crafts center
Nightlife, clubs
Dog park
Restaurants, high-end dining
% Respondents Who Feel That Attracting More Entertainment Options to Cypress Should Be a High Priority
2022 2018
Not sure / Cannot
think of anything
specific
Movie theater, cinemas
Concerts, events, plays
Not sure / Cannot
think of anything
specific
Movie theater, cinemas Concerts, events, plays
Downtown area with
shops, cafes,
entertainment
Downtown area with
shops, cafes,
entertainment
Multi-cultural events,
festivals Bowling alley, arcades
Study Year
Communication
City of Cypress True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

C OMMUNICATION
The importance of city communication with residents cannot be over-stated. Much of a city’s success is shaped by the quality of information that is exchanged in both directions, from the City to the community and from the community to the City. This study is just one example of Cypress’ efforts to enhance the information flow to the City to better understand the community’s concerns, perceptions, and needs. Some of Cypress’ many efforts to communicate with its residents include its newsletters, timely press releases, and its website. In this section, we present the results of several communication-related questions.

SOURCES OF INFORMATION To help the City identify the most effective means of communicating with residents, it is helpful to understand what information sources they currently rely on for this type of information. Question 11 asked respondents to identify the information sources they primarily use to find out about City of Cypress news, information, and programming. Because respondents were allowed to provide up to four sources, the percentages shown in Figure 15 represent the percentage of residents who mentioned a particular source and thus sum to more than 100. The most frequently cited source for city information was the City’s Newsletter “The Progress” (39%), followed by the City’s website (32%), social media (not the City’s sources, 20%), the City’s Facebook page (19%), email notifications from the City (19%), and flyers or brochures displayed at public facilities (19%).

Question 11 What information sources do you primarily use to find out about City of Cypress news, information and programming?
FIGURE 15 INFORMATION SOURCES

39.0 32.3

19.5 19.3

18.9 18.7

17.5 16.5

12.6 8.8

6.7 4.8

4.6 4.2

4.1 2.3

2.2 1.9

1.5 1.2

1.1 1.0

5.8 12.3
0 10 20 30 40
City Newsletter/The Progress
City’s website
Social Media (not a City source)
City’s Facebook
Email notification from City
Flyers or brochures (displayed at public facilities)
Friends/Family/Associates
Street banners
Local newspapers (print or online)
Internet/websites (not City’s site)
Letters or postcards from the City mailed to home
Cypress Central smart phone app
City’s Instagram
Community events
Senior Newsletter/Along the Way
City Council Meetings
Do Not Receive Information about City
Other source
Television (general)
Cable Channel 36
Not sure
City’s Twitter
Radio
Minute with the Mayor videos
% Respondents
Communication
City of Cypress True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Figures 16-17 present the information source categories by a number of key demographic traits.

For ease of interpretation, the bars representing city-sponsored sources are displayed in shades of green, and non-city sources in shades of orange.

FIGURE 16 INFORMATION SOURCES BY OVERALL, AGE, SATISFACTION WITH COMMUNICATION FIGURE 17 INFORMATION SOURCES BY ETHNICITY & HOME OWNERSHIP STATUS As a follow-up question, respondents who indicated that they refer to a local newspaper (print or online) as one of their primary information sources were asked which local newspaper they read most often. The Event-News Enterprise (29%) and the Orange County Register (27%) were the papers most frequently cited among this subgroup, whereas 20% were unsure or indicated that it depends or they read multiple papers and an additional 15% were unwilling to answer the question. 49 44 38 49 4847 60 52 46 33 26 36 30 15 27 32 26 37 36 32 28 24 11 20 36 32 20 16 26 2124 1115 2630 22 27 22 28 20 17 15 2427 20 1618 25 15 22 11 9 11
14 22
11 22
13 15
8 12
15 15
12 12
15 7
4 8
5 11
9 4
8 6
4 0
9 3
4 55
4 7
2 4
00 2
1 4
2 2
6 9
12 2
6 55
3 10
32 27
36 32
38 35
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 18 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 or older Satisfied Dissatisfied Overall Age (QD1) Satisfaction With
Communication (Q13)
% Respondents
City newsletter, mail
City website
Street banners, flyers
City social media
Friends, family, other
sources
Non-City Social Media
Newspapers, radio, TV
Non-City websites
City smart phone app
City Council Meetings
City TV, Channel 36
Not sure / No sources
59 49
51 44
29 52
43 50
42 30
36 36
25 36
30 24
7 32
26 29
37 5
18 30
26 22
26 20
22 33
19 23
25 23
18 26
20 22
32 15
16 21
25 14
22 17
18 40
16 14
20 10
7 17
15 15
20 25
12 13
11 9
13 12
12 19
8 8
6 8
3 7
6 7
6 2
4 4
6 7
4 4
3 16
0 2
3 00
1 4
2 3
7 56
3 32
6 6
5 5
41 34
33 28
33 30
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 Af Amer /
Black
Asian
American
Caucasian /
White
Latino /
Hispanic
Mixed or
other
Own Rent Satisfied Dissatisfied
Ethnicity (QD7) Home Ownership Status
(QD2)
Overall Satisfaction (Q5)
% Respondents
City newsletter, mail
City website
Street banners, flyers
City social media
Friends, family, other
sources
Non-City Social Media
Newspapers, radio, TV
Non-City websites
City smart phone app
City Council Meetings
City TV, Channel 36
Not sure / No sources
Communication
City of Cypress True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Question 12 Which local newspaper do you read most often? FIGURE 18 NEWSPAPER READ MOST OFTEN
SATISFACTION WITH COMMUNICATION Question 13 asked Cypress residents to report their satisfaction with city-resident communication. Overall, 69% of respondents indicated they were satisfied with the City’s efforts to communicate with residents through newsletters, the Internet, local media, and other means (see Figure 19). The remaining respondents were either dissatisfied with the City’s efforts in this respect (22%) or unsure of their opinion (9%).

Overall satisfaction experienced a statistically significant decline from 2018 to 2022 (-10%), while the percentage dissatisfied (+7%) and unsure (+3%) increased significantly.

Question 13 Overall, are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the City's efforts to communicate with residents through newsletters, the Internet, local media, and other means? FIGURE 19 SATISFACTION WITH COMMUNICATION BY STUDY YEAR † Statistically significant change (p < 0.05) between the 2018 and 2022 studies.

28.9 26.6

19.8 14.9

4.4 3.8

2.8 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Event-News Enterprise
The Orange County
Register
Not sure, depends, read
multiple
Prefer not to answer
Cypress Newsletter
LA Times
Orange County Breeze
% Respondents Who Cited Local Newspapers as a Source For News, Info, Programming

50.4 11.4

5.0 22.2† 29.0

46.6 16.2†

3.8 6.2†

7.8†
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
2022 2018
Study Year
% Respondents
Prefer not to
answer
Not sure
Very
dissatisfied
Somewhat
dissatisfied
Somewhat
satisfied
Very
satisfied
Communication
City of Cypress True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 The next three figures display how satisfaction with the City’s efforts to communicate with residents varied by a number of demographics. At least three-quarters (75%) of residents in each of the following subgroups reported being satisfied with city-resident communication: respondents who have lived in Cypress between 10 and 14 years, those 35 to 44 years of age, mixed/other ethnicity respondents, women, residents who took the survey in Spanish, and those who work part-time. Figure 22 on the next page also shows satisfaction with the City’s performance overall (Question 5) by residents’ satisfaction with the City’s efforts to communicate with them. Those satisfied with the City’s performance overall were much more likely toalso report being satisfied with the City’s communication efforts when compared to their counterparts (74% vs. 41%).

FIGURE 20 SATISFACTION WITH COMMUNICATION BY YEARS IN CYPRESS & AGE FIGURE 21 SATISFACTION WITH COMMUNICATION BY ETHNICITY, HOME OWNERSHIP STATUS, GENDER & SURVEY

LANGUAGE

28.0 16.0

28.0 21.0 22.1 19.6

44.0 46.3

47.3 46.3 48.0 48.7

18.5 28.6 25.3
Very
satisfied

24.3 44.6

46.7 47.0
Smwt
satisfied

48.2 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
Less than 5 5 to 9 10 to 14 15 or more 18 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 or older Years in Cypress (Q1) Age (QD1)
% Respondents

37.7 20.7 24.1 19.1 25.1 21.5

46.4 17.4

44.0 47.3 44.8

43.3 49.9

47.8 37.4

33.3 Very
satisfied

14.9 20.1 19.2

29.0 Smwt
satisfied

49.6 45.3

46.2 48.0
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Af Amer /
Black
Asian
American
Caucasian
/ White
Latino /
Hispanic
Mixed or
other
Own Rent Male Female English Spanish Korean
Ethnicity (QD7) Home Ownership
Status (QD2)
Gender Survey Language
% Respondents
Communication
City of Cypress True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 FIGURE 22 SATISFACTION WITH COMMUNICATION BY OVERALL SATISFACTION, ATTENTIVENESS TO LOCAL GOVERNMENT & EMPLOYMENT STATUS
Respondents were next asked, in an open-ended manner, if they had any suggestions for how the City could improve the way it communicated with them. Overall, more than six-in-ten residents (63%) did not have any suggestions (56%) or declined to state (7%). Among those who provided input, more email from the City was cited most often (8%), followed by more newsletters (5%), more social media posts (5%), and more flyers/brochures (5%).

Question 14 Do you have any suggestions for how the City could improve the way it communicates with you? FIGURE 23 CITY COMMUNICATION IMPROVEMENTS

17.7 22.5 25.7 20.1

31.0 15.8 18.1

49.1 47.0

54.8 46.6

37.9 44.6 47.1
Very
satisfied

25.3 1.6

26.3 25.1
Smwt
satisfied

48.2 42.1 46.3

39.0 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
Satisfied Dissatisfied Very Somewhat Slightly,
not at all
Full time Part time Self
employed
HomemakerStudent Retired
Overall Satisfaction (Q5) Attentiveness to Local Government (Q19)
Employment Status (QD3)
% Respondents

55.9 7.9

6.6 5.2

4.6 4.5

4.3 3.3

2.8 1.8

1.7 1.2

2.2 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
No suggestions
More emails
Prefer not to answer
More newsletters, deliver to everyone weekly, biweekly More social media
More flyers, brochures
Increase frequency, details of outreach in general
More postal mail
Improve City website
Send text message alerts
More Town Hall meetings, open door meetings
Improve City’s mobile app
Was not aware of City's communication efforts,
sources
% Respondents
Communication
City of Cypress True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 TOPICS OF INTEREST Respondents were next asked if there was a particular topic or issue that they would like to receive more information about from the City. Consistent with the results of the last survey, three-in-ten residents (31%) answered Question 15 in the affirmative and would like more information (see Figure 24). For the interested reader, figures 25 through 27 display the percentage of residents who desired additional information from the City by a variety of demographics.

Question 15 Is there a particular topic or issue that you'd like to receive more information about from the City?
FIGURE 24 DESIRE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION BY STUDY YEAR
FIGURE 25 DESIRE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION BY YEARS IN CYPRESS, ATTENTIVENESS TO LOCAL GOVERNMENT & GENDER

63.0 5.5

30.8 31.5

63.4 5.8
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
2022 2018
Study Year
% Respondents
Prefer not to
answer
Do not
desire
additional
info
Yes, desire
additional
info

41.0 34.2

21.3 32.5

28.8 28.8

30.9 20.0

33.9 0
10 20
30 40
50 Less than 5 5 to 9 10 to 14 15 or longer Very Somewhat Slightly, not at all
Male Female
Years in Cypress (Q1) Attentiveness to Local Government (Q19) Gender % Respondents That Desire
Additional Info From City
Communication
City of Cypress True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 FIGURE 26 DESIRE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION BY AGE, HOME OWNERSHIP STATUS & SURVEY LANGUAGE FIGURE 27 DESIRE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION BY EMPLOYMENT STATUS & ETHNICITY Residents who expressed interest in receiving additional information from the City were subsequently asked to describe their topic of interest. Question 26 was posed in an open-ended manner, meaning that respondents were at liberty to mention any topic that came to mind without being prompted by or restricted to a particular list of topics. The verbatim responses were later reviewed by True North and grouped into the categories shown in Figure 28 on the next page.

Respondents were allowed to mention more than one topic, so the percentage results shown in the figure indicate the percentage of respondents who mentioned each topic.

As shown in the figure, information about future plans, development, and zoning (15%), information about community events and activities (15%), City Council agendas and minutes (14%), and information on safety, crime activity, reports, and solutions (14%) were the most commonly mentioned topics of interest.

32.8 32.3 32.6

26.2 31.3

22.2 27.8

24.0 33.4

29.9 28.7
0 10
20 30
40 50
18 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 or
older
Own Rent English Spanish Korean
Age (QD1) Home Ownership
Status (QD2)
Survey Language
% Respondents That Desire
Additional Info From City

28.4 35.0

25.0 32.9

29.8 30.9

26.7 31.6

21.1 19.9

27.5 0
10 20
30 40
50 Full time Part time Self
employed
HomemakerStudent Retired Af Amer /
Black
Asian
American
Caucasian
/ White
Latino /
Hispanic
Mixed or
other
Employment Status (QD3) Ethnicity (QD7)
% Respondents That Desire
Additional Info From City
Communication
City of Cypress True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Question 16 Please briefly describe the topic
FIGURE 28 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION DESIRED FROM CITY
Table 11 compares responses in 2018 and 2022 and shows that three of the top five categories remained consistent over time (among residents who expressed interest in receiving additional information from the City).

TABLE 16 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION DESIRED FROM CITY BY STUDY YEAR

14.7 14.5

14.2 14.1

8.9 7.6

7.3 4.9

4.1 2.7

2.7 2.0

1.6 3.5

2.1 0 5 10 15
Future planning, developments, zoning
Community events, activities
City Council agenda, minutes
Safety, crime activity, reports, solutions
Trash, recycling, waste management
City budgeting, allocation of funds
Homeless issues in general
Roadwork, construction, traffic control
Property, short-term rental guide, resources
Volunteer opportunities
Street cleaning, landscaping, maintenance
Senior programs, activities, resources
School information, issues
Not sure / Cannot think of anything specific
Animal, pest control
% Respondents Who Desire Additional Info
2022 2018
Future planning,
developments, zoning
Future planning,
developments, zoning
Community events,
activities
Safety, crime activity,
reports, solutions
City Council agenda,
minutes
Community events,
activities
Safety, crime activity,
reports, solutions
Homeless issues in
general
Trash, recycling, waste
management
Information about road
work, traffic control
Study Year
Communication
City of Cypress True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 CITY WEBSITE & COMMUNICATIONS FROM CITY All respondents were next asked whether they had visited the City’s website or received communications from the City during the 12 months prior to the interview. As shown in Figure 29, 65% of residents reported that they have visited the City’s website and/or recalled receiving communications from the City during this period, which is statistically higher than the percentage recorded in the 2018 survey (+9%).

Question 17 In the past 12 months, have you visited the City's website or received communications from the City? FIGURE 29 VISITED CITY’S WEBSITE OR RECEIVED COMMUNICATIONS IN PAST 12 MONTHS BY STUDY YEAR † Statistically significant change (p < 0.05) between the 2018 and 2022 studies.

Figures 30 through 32 on the next page show how responses to this question varied across a host of resident subgroups. The subgroups most likely to state that they had visited the City’s website or received communications from the City were residents who have lived in the City at least 15 years, those very attentive to city issues, respondents satisfied with city-resident communication, those 35 to 44 years of age, home owners, respondents who took the survey in Spanish, respondents with an employment status other than homemaker, and African-American/ Black respondents.

36.4 6.5

65.4†

56.5 29.0†

5.2 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
2022 2018
Study Year
% Respondents
Prefer not to
answer
Not sure
Did not visit
website, receive
communications
Yes, visited
website,
received
communications
Communication
City of Cypress True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 FIGURE 30 VISITED CITY’S WEBSITE OR RECEIVED COMMUNICATIONS IN PAST 12 MONTHS BY YEARS IN CYPRESS,

ATTENTIVENESS TO LOCAL GOVERNMENT, OVERALL SATISFACTION & SATISFACTION WITH COMMUNICATION FIGURE 31 VISITED CITY’S WEBSITE OR RECEIVED COMMUNICATIONS IN PAST 12 MONTHS BY AGE, HOME OWNERSHIP

STATUS & SURVEY LANGUAGE
FIGURE 32 VISITED CITY’S WEBSITE OR RECEIVED COMMUNICATIONS IN PAST 12 MONTHS BY EMPLOYMENT STATUS &

ETHNICITY

80.1 68.1

56.6 65.9 63.4

70.7 60.2

68.2 55.4

64.8 63.2
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Less than
5 5 to 9 10 to 14 15 or
longer
Very Somewhat Slightly,
not at all
Satisfied DissatisfiedSatisfied Dissatisfied
Years in Cypress (Q1) Attentiveness to Local
Government (Q19)
Overall Satisfaction
(Q5)
Satisfaction With
Communication (Q13)
% Respondents That Visited
Website in Past 12 Months

69.8 60.8

69.3 59.9

66.4 71.1

46.5 42.0

66.6 75.8

65.8 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
18 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 or
older
Own Rent English Spanish Korean
Age (QD1) Home Ownership
Status (QD2)
Survey Language
% Respondents That Visited
Website in Past 12 Months

76.8 61.5

76.3 58.1

71.4 66.3

48.9 69.5 70.5

75.8 27.6
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Full time Part time Self
employed
HomemakerStudent Retired Af Amer /
Black
Asian
American
Caucasian
/ White
Latino /
Hispanic
Mixed or
other
Employment Status (QD3) Ethnicity (QD7)
% Respondents That Visited
Website in Past 12 Months
Communication
City of Cypress True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 COMMUNICATION PREFERENCES The next communication-related question presented residents with the methods shown to the left of Figure 33 and asked whether each would be an effective way for the City to communicate with them. Overall, respondents cited direct mail and email and electronic newsletters as the most effective methods (each 88% very or somewhat effective), followed by the City’s website (83%). At the other end of the spectrum, fewer than half of respondents perceived the Government Access Channel (30%) and advertisements in local papers (45%) as effective ways for the City to communicate with them.

Question 18 As I read the following ways that the City can communicate with residents, I'd like to know if you think they would be a very effective, somewhat effective, or not at all effective way for the City to communicate with you.

FIGURE 33 EFFECTIVENESS OF COMMUNICATION METHODS
Comparing the effectiveness of communication methods over time revealed an increase in the percentage of residents who cited direct mail (+5%) as an effective way for the City to commujnicate with them, and decreases for the percentage indicating the Cypress Central mobile app (-15%) and town-hall style meetings (-8%) are effective.

TABLE 17 EFFECTIVENESS OF COMMUNICATION METHODS BY STUDY YEAR † Statistically significant change (p < 0.05) between the 2018 and 2022 studies.

55.4 53.8

38.0 40.2

41.9 36.7

16.7 11.6

8.1 33.0

34.0 45.4

33.2 30.3

32.9 43.5

32.9 22.3
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Materials mailed directly to your house
E-mail & Electronic Newsletters
City website
Social Media sites such as Facebook, Twitter and Instagram Text messages
The Cypress Central mobile app, which allows you to communicate with the City, report issues, and receive updates
Town-hall style meetings
Advertisements in local papers
Channel 36 - Government Access Channel
Q18e Q18a Q18d Q18b Q18g Q18c Q18h Q18f Q18i
% Respondents
Very effective Somewhat effective
2022 2018
Materials mailed directly to your house 88.4 83.4 +5.0† E-mail & Electronic Newsletters 87.7 88.3 -0.6
Text messages 72.2 73.1 -1.0
Advertisements in local papers 44.5 46.4 -1.9
Social Media sites such as Facebook, Twitter and Instagram 73.4 75.7 -2.3 City website 83.4 85.9 -2.6
Channel 36 - Government Access Channel 30.4 34.8 -4.4
Town-hall style meetings 60.2 67.7 -7.5†
Cypress Central mobile app 69.6 84.2 -14.6†
Study Year
Change in
Very + Smwt
Effective
2018 to 2022
Communication
City of Cypress True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 The following tables display the percentage of respondents who perceived each proposed communication method as very effective by their years in Cypress, survey language, overall satisfaction with the City’s performance, age, gender, ethnicity, and home ownership, with the top five most effective methods within each subgroup highlighted green to ease comparisons.

TABLE 18 EFFECTIVENESS OF COMMUNICATION METHODS BY YEARS IN CYPRESS, SURVEY LANGUAGE & OVERALL SATISFACTION (SHOWING % VERY EFFECTIVE)
TABLE 19 EFFECTIVENESS OF COMMUNICATION METHODS BY AGE & GENDER (SHOWING % VERY EFFECTIVE) TABLE 20 EFFECTIVENESS OF COMMUNICATION METHODS BY ETHNICITY & HOME OWNERSHIP STATUS (SHOWING %

VERY EFFECTIVE)
ATTENTION PAID TO CITY GOVERNMENT The final question in this section asked respondents to rate how attentive they are to the issues, decisions, and activities of city government using a scale of very attentive, somewhat attentive, slightly attentive, or not at all attentive.

Overall, 18% of respondents claimed to be very attentive to matters of city government, 44% somewhat attentive, and 29% slightly attentive. Another 8% of respondents confided they do not pay any attention to the activities of their city government and 1% were unsure or declined to state (see Figure 34 on the next page). Responses to this question remained statistically unchanged from 2018 to 2022.

Less than 5 5 to 9 10 to 14 15 or more English Spanish Korean Satisfied Dissatisfied Materials mailed directly to your house 56.8 43.2 51.7 59.4 55.7 51.2 53.1 57.1 50.0 E-mail & Electronic Newsletters 54.1 60.0 55.9 51.3 53.3 69.4 50.8 56.4 45.5 Text messages 41.6 53.0 38.8 38.9 42.9 28.6 34.6 43.4 35.2 Social Media sites such as Facebook, Twitter and Instagram 44.5 39.7 46.6 36.9 39.7 58.3 35.6 40.9 36.4 City website 39.7 42.3 30.0 37.1 39.8 20.5 20.4 40.9 18.1 Cypress Central mobile app 41.7 42.4 35.4 32.6 36.7 40.5 34.0 38.3 25.9 Town-hall style meetings 12.9 19.8 19.8 16.4 17.4 13.7 8.6 16.8 18.1 Advertisements in local papers 9.8 8.7 14.5 12.4 12.5 2.6 3.2 11.1 17.0 Channel 36 - Government Access Channel 14.1 6.8 7.9 5.8 8.6 0.0 5.2 7.7 7.7 Years in Cypress (Q1) Survey Language Overall Satisfaction (Q5) 18 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 or older Male Female Materials mailed directly to your house 64.0 46.4 46.4 47.3 48.7 63.4 50.4 59.2 E-mail & Electronic Newsletters 60.0 46.4 46.4 54.7 53.5 59.0 51.6 56.0 Text messages 37.9 45.1 45.1 47.2 44.3 45.2 39.6 43.4
Social Media sites such as Facebook, Twitter and Instagram 51.9 50.8 50.8 50.3 44.7 35.8 32.3 47.4 City website 32.0 43.5 43.5 37.1 33.7 43.4 30.7 44.0
Cypress Central mobile app 47.9 32.0 32.0 34.6 37.1 39.4 33.6 39.5 Town-hall style meetings 14.0 18.9 18.9 10.7 13.3 23.8 16.5 15.9 Advertisements in local papers 16.0 14.5 14.5 4.1 10.0 14.4 9.9 12.8 Channel 36 - Government Access Channel 6.0 13.0 13.0 3.3 6.1 10.4 7.4 8.6 Age (QD1) Gender
Af Amer
/Black
Asian
American
Caucasian
/White
Latino/
Hispanic
Mixed or
other Own Rent
Materials mailed directly to your house 60.5 53.5 59.5 53.3 34.5 59.1 47.2 E-mail & Electronic Newsletters 62.2 52.8 53.7 55.4 40.5 54.5 49.8 Text messages 51.4 37.4 41.0 51.8 28.5 40.6 42.1
Social Media sites such as Facebook, Twitter and Instagram 38.9 34.0 39.6 50.5 57.4 38.1 45.4 City website 55.7 32.6 37.0 40.9 48.6 39.0 36.6
Cypress Central mobile app 52.4 31.3 38.2 39.9 28.5 34.8 42.2 Town-hall style meetings 12.4 14.6 16.8 20.2 8.8 17.2 13.8 Advertisements in local papers 22.1 12.4 10.2 11.9 2.8 10.9 12.0 Channel 36 - Government Access Channel 15.2 5.8 7.0 12.6 12.0 6.5 11.3 Ethnicity (QD7) Home Ownership
Communication
City of Cypress True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Question 19 How much attention do you pay to the issues, decisions and activities of your city government? Would you say that you are very attentive, somewhat attentive, slightly attentive, or not at all attentive?
FIGURE 34 ATTENTIVENESS TO CITY ISSUES BY STUDY YEAR
Figures 35 to 37 display how attentiveness to city government differed across a variety of demographics. Notably, attention paid to city government shared a positive relationship with years in Cypress and age of the respondent, with both the percentage very attentive and at least somewhat attentive generally increasing across each category. Residents 55 years and older, home owners, retirees, and those dissatisfied with the City’s overall performance were among the most likely to describe themselves as being very or somewhat attentive to the issues, decisions, and activities of city government.

FIGURE 35 ATTENTIVENESS TO CITY ISSUES BY YEARS IN CYPRESS & AGE

43.5 28.6

17.6 16.5

43.6 29.4

8.8 7.9
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
2022 2018
Study Year
% Respondents
Prefer not to
answer
Not sure
Not at all
attentive
Slightly
attentive
Somewhat
attentive
Very
attentive

10.1 17.3 18.2 24.8 21.8

33.9 46.5

42.9 44.1

45.1 47.6

2.0 19.1 19.5 14.8
Very
attentive

13.3 44.7
Smwt 42.0 43.4
attentive

44.6 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
Less than 5 5 to 9 10 to 14 15 or more 18 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 or older Years in Cypress (Q1) Age (QD1)
% Respondents
Communication
City of Cypress True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 FIGURE 36 ATTENTIVENESS TO CITY ISSUES BY ETHNICITY, HOME OWNERSHIP STATUS & SURVEY LANGUAGE FIGURE 37 ATTENTIVENESS TO CITY ISSUES BY EMPLOYMENT STATUS, OVERALL SATISFACTION & SATISFACTION WITH

COMMUNICATION

10.5 21.3

10.6 17.9 19.6 12.0

48.6 44.5

41.2 42.9 45.5 53.4
Very
attentive

19.3 16.3 16.6 21.9
Smwt
attentive

24.8 41.8

45.2 44.7
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Af Amer /
Black
Asian
American
Caucasian /
White
Latino /
Hispanic
Mixed or
other
Own Rent English Spanish Korean
Ethnicity (QD7) Home Ownership Status
(QD2)
Survey Language
% Respondents

23.7 26.2

15.9 29.9

17.5 23.6

33.2 42.8

44.9 38.5

45.2 44.0

13.3 15.8
Very
attentive

16.2 45.2 38.3

37.8 Smwt
attentive

45.7 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
Full time Part time Self
employed
HomemakerStudent Retired Satisfied Dis-satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Employment Status (QD3) Overall Satisfaction (Q5) Satisfaction With Communication (Q13)
% Respondents
Background & Demographics
City of Cypress True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 B ACKGROUND & D EMOGRAPHICS TABLE 21 DEMOGRAPHICS OF SAMPLE Table 21 presents the key demographic information collected during the survey by study year. Because of the probability-based sampling
methodology used in this study, the results
shown in the table are representative of adult
residents in the City of Cypress. The primary
motivation for collecting the background and
demographic information was to provide a better insight into how the results of the substantive questions of the survey vary by demographic characteristics, and ensure that
the resulting sample matched the profile of
Cypress’ adult population on key characteristics
(see Appendix A for more details).
2022 2018
Total Respondents 707 748
Years in Cypress (Q1)
Less than 5 21.0 17.4
5 to 9 16.9 14.2
10 to 14 10.4 12.0
15 or more 51.3 56.0
Prefer not to answer 0.5 0.4
Age (QD1)
18 to 24 10.1 12.9
25 to 34 13.9 14.0
35 to 44 18.6 16.9
45 to 54 19.3 21.9
55 to 64 16.2 16.5
65 or older 17.7 16.9
Prefer not to answer 4.1 0.9
Home Ownership Status (QD2)
Own 65.3 66.2
Rent 29.1 28.5
Prefer not to answer 5.5 5.2
Employment Status (QD3)
Full time 49.5 56.3
Part time 7.0 6.3
Self employed 8.8 0.0
Home- maker 5.9 2.9
Student 2.5 7.9
Retired 22.1 18.6
Between jobs 0.0 2.9
Prefer not to answer 4.2 5.1
Work Commute Status (QD4)
Working from home 11.8 N/A
Commuting outside home 34.4 N/A
Mixture of both 18.4 N/A
Do not work / Prefer not to answer 35.4 N/A
Gender (QD6)
Male 46.7 49.3
Female 51.3 47.2
Prefer not to answer 2.0 3.5
Ethnicity (QD7)
Af Amer / Black 4.3 2.7
Asian American 33.9 26.4
Caucasian / White 38.3 37.6
Latino / Hispanic 18.5 18.6
Mixed or other 3.4 7.1
Prefer not to answer 1.6 7.6
Survey Language
English 90.4 87.3
Spanish 3.6 7.2
Korean 5.9 5.6
Study Year
Methodology
City of Cypress True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

M ETHODOLOGY
The following sections outline the methodology used in the study, as well as the motivation for using certain techniques.

QUESTIONNAIRE DEVELOPMENT Dr. McLarney of True North Research worked closely with the City of Cypress to develop a questionnaire that covered the topics of interest and avoided the many possible sources of systematic measurement error, including position-order effects, wording effects, response-category effects, scaling effects, and priming. Several questions included multiple individual items. Because asking items in a set order can lead to a systematic position bias in responses, the items were asked in a random order for each respondent.

Some questions asked in this study were presented only to a subset of respondents. For example, only respondents who indicated there is a topic or issue they’d like to receive more information about from the City (Question 15) were subsequently asked to describe their topic of interest (Question 16). The questionnaire included with this report (see Questionnaire & Toplines on page 47) identifies the skip patterns used during the interview to ensure that each respondent received the appropriate questions.

PROGRAMMING, PRE-TEST & TRANSLATION Prior to fielding the survey, the questionnaire was CATI (Computer Assisted Telephone Interviewing) programmed to assist interviewers when conducting the telephone interviews. The CATI program automatically navigates the skip patterns, randomizes the appropriate question items, and alerts interviewers to certain types of keypunching mistakes should they happen during the interview. The survey was also programmed into a passcode-protected online survey application to allow online participation for sampled residents. The integrity of the questionnaire was pre-tested internally by True North and by dialing into random homes in the City prior to formally beginning the survey. The final questionnaire was also professionally translated into Spanish and Korean to allow for data collection in English, Spanish, and Korean.

SAMPLE, RECRUITING & DATA COLLECTION A comprehensive database of Cypress households was utilized for this study, ensuring that all households in Cypress had the opportunity to be randomly selected for the survey. Once selected at random, contact information was appended to each record including email addresses and telephone numbers for adult residents.

Individuals were subsequently recruited to participate in the survey through multiple recruiting methods. Using a combination of mailed letters, email, and text invitations, sampled residents were initially invited to participate in the survey online at a secure, passcode-protected website designed and hosted by True North. Each individual was assigned a unique passcode to ensure that only Cypress residents who received an invitation could access the online survey site, and that the survey could be completed only one time per passcode. An email reminder notice was also sent to encourage participation among those who had yet to take the survey. Following a period of online data collection, True North began placing telephone calls to land lines and cell phone numbers of sampled residents that had yet to participate in the online survey or for whom only telephone contact information was available.

Methodology
City of Cypress True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 Telephone interviews averaged 17 minutes in length and were conducted during weekday evenings (5:30PM to 9PM) and on weekends (10AM to 5PM). It is standard practice not to call during the day on weekdays because most working adults are unavailable and thus calling during those hours would bias the sample. A total of 707 completed surveys (639 English, 26 Spanish, and 42 Korean) were gathered online and by telephone between April 13 and May 5, 2022.

MARGIN OF ERROR DUE TO SAMPLING The results of the survey can be used to estimate the opinions of all adult residents of the City. Because not every adult resident of the City participated in the survey, however, the results have what is known as a statistical margin of error due to sampling. The margin of error refers to the difference between what was found in the survey of 707 adult residents for a particular question and what would have been found if all of the estimated 38,265 adult residents3 had been interviewed.

Figure 38 provides a plot of the maximum margin of error in this study. The maximum margin of error for a dichotomous percentage result occurs when the answers are evenly split such that 50% provide one response and 50% provide the alternative response. For this survey, the maximum margin of error is ± 3.7% for questions answered by all 707 respondents.

FIGURE 38 MAXIMUM MARGIN OF ERROR
Within this report, figures and tables show how responses to certain questions varied by demographic characteristics such as length of residence and age of the respondent. Figure 38 is thus useful for understanding how the maximum margin of error for a percentage estimate will grow as the number of individuals asked a question (or in a particular subgroup) shrinks. Because the margin of error grows exponentially as the sample size decreases, the reader should use caution when generalizing and interpreting the results for small subgroups.

3. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, estimate for 2021.

Sample of 707
Adult Residents
± 3.7%
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Sample Size (Number of Respondents)
Margin of Error
Methodology
City of Cypress True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 DATA PROCESSING & WEIGHTING Data processing consisted of checking the data for errors or inconsistencies, coding and recoding responses, categorizing verbatim responses, and preparing frequency analyses and cross-tabulations. The final data were weighted to balance the sample by age and ethnicity according to Census estimates.

ROUNDING Numbers that end in 0.5 or higher are rounded up to the nearest whole number, whereas numbers that end in 0.4 or lower are rounded down to the nearest whole number.

These same rounding rules are also applied, when needed, to arrive at numbers that include a decimal place in constructing figures and tables. Occasionally, these rounding rules lead to small discrepancies in the first decimal place when comparing tables and charts for a given question.

Questionnaire & Toplines
City of Cypress True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 Q UESTIONNAIRE & T OPLINES Copyright © 2022 True North Research, Inc. Page 1
City of Cypress
Community Opinion Survey
Final Toplines (n=707)
May 2022
Section 1: Introduction to Study
Hi, may I please speak to _____? Hi, my name is _____ and I’m calling from TNR on behalf of the City of Cypress. We’re conducting a survey about important issues in Cypress and we would like to get your opinions.

If needed: This is a survey about important issues in your community. I’m NOT trying to sell anything and I won’t ask for a donation.

If needed: The survey should take about 14 minutes to complete.

If needed: If now is not a convenient time, can you let me know a better time so I can call back?
If needed: Your responses to the survey will be confidential.

Section 2: Quality of Life
To begin, I’d like to ask you a few questions about what it is like to live in Cypress.

Q1 How long have you lived in the City of Cypress?
1 Less than 1 year 2%
2 1 to 4 years 19%
3 5 to 9 years 17%
4 10 to 14 years 10%
5 15 years or longer 51%
99 Prefer not to answer 0%
Q2 How would you rate: _____? Would you say it is excellent, good, fair, poor or very poor? Randomize A-D, always ask E last
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Very Poor
Not Sure
Prefer not to
answer
A Cypress as a place to live 46% 47% 7% 1% 0% 0% 0%
B Cypress as a place to raise a family 49% 42% 6% 1% 0% 2% 0% C Cypress as a place to retire 28% 41% 17% 6% 1% 7% 0%
D Cypress as a place to work 21% 31% 14% 4% 1% 27% 2%
E The overall quality of life in Cypress 39% 51% 8% 1% 1% 0% 0% Questionnaire & Toplines
City of Cypress True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 City of Cypress Community Survey May 2022
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 Page 2
Q3
What do you like most about Cypress that the city government should make sure to preserve in the future? Verbatim responses recorded and later grouped into categories shown below.

Public safety, low crime rate 21%
Parks, recreation areas 19%
Not sure / Cannot think of anything specific 18%
Clean, well-maintained, landscaping, trees 14%
Good schools 10%
Police, fire department 9%
Open space areas, nature preserves 8%
Quiet, friendly town, family oriented 8%
Community activities, events 5%
Small town atmosphere 5%
Infrastructure, streets, sidewalks 3%
Restaurants, shopping opportunities, small
business 3%
Minimal traffic congestion 2%
Everything, keep it as it is 2%
Q4
If the city government could change one thing to make Cypress a better place to live, what change would you like to see? Verbatim responses recorded and later grouped into categories shown below. Categories mentioned by at least 2% of respondents shown.

Not sure / Cannot think of anything 17%
No changes needed / Everything is okay 15%
Limit growth, development 8%
Address homeless issues 8%
Maintain, add park and recreation facilities 7%
Improve public safety 6%
Affordable houses 5%
Improve government, communication 5%
Improve shopping, dining opportunities 4%
Reduce traffic congestion 3%
Clean, beautify public spaces 3%
Provide more events, entertainment for
different ages 3%
Provide more police presence 3%
Improve, maintain landscaping 2%
Improve, maintain infrastructure, roads,
streets 2%
Reduce taxes, fees 2%
Questionnaire & Toplines
City of Cypress True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 City of Cypress Community Survey May 2022
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 Page 3
Enforce traffic laws 2%
Improve economy, jobs, business 2%
Improve city planning, development 2%
Section 3: City Services
Next, I would like to ask a series of questions about services provided by the City of Cypress.

Q5
Generally speaking, are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the job the City of Cypress is doing to provide city services? Get answer, then ask: Would that be very (satisfied/dissatisfied) or somewhat (satisfied/dissatisfied)? 1 Very satisfied 34%
2 Somewhat satisfied 50%
3 Somewhat dissatisfied 10%
4 Very dissatisfied 3%
98 Not sure 3%
99 Prefer not to answer 0%
Q6 For each of the services I read, please tell me whether the service is extremely important to you, very important, somewhat important, or not at all important.

Randomize.

Extremely Important
Very
Important
Somewhat
Important
Not at all
Important
Not sure
Prefer not
to answer
A Providing police and crime prevention
services 65% 27% 6% 1% 0% 0%
B Providing fire protection and emergency
medical services 65% 30% 4% 0% 0% 0%
C Providing services to seniors 35% 43% 20% 2% 1% 0%
D Managing traffic congestion in the city 42% 37% 18% 3% 0% 0% E Maintaining city streets and roads 55% 38% 7% 1% 0% 0% F Managing growth and development 40% 38% 18% 3% 1% 0%
G Providing recreation programs for all ages 34% 37% 25% 3% 1% 0% H Maintaining parks and recreation areas 49% 42% 8% 1% 0% 0% I Providing cultural and performing arts 22% 32% 34% 12% 1% 0% J Promoting economic development for a
healthy business community 34% 42% 21% 3% 0% 0%
K Keeping public buildings and facilities clean
and attractive 46% 39% 15% 1% 0% 0%
L
Holding special community events like
summer concerts in the park and holiday
celebrations
23% 32% 35% 9% 0% 0%
M Addressing homelessness 55% 32% 11% 2% 1% 0%
N Maintaining the City’s financial stability 55% 34% 9% 1% 1% 0% Questionnaire & Toplines
City of Cypress True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 City of Cypress Community Survey May 2022
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 Page 4
Q7
For the same list of services I just read, I’d like you to tell me how satisfied you are with the job the City is doing to provide the service.

Are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the City’s efforts to: _____, or do you not have an opinion? Get answer. If ‘satisfied’ or ‘dissatisfied’, then ask: Would that be very (satisfied/dissatisfied) or somewhat (satisfied/dissatisfied)? Randomize
Very
Satisfied
Somewhat
Satisfied
Somewhat
Dissatisfied
Very
Dissatisfied
Not sure
Prefer not to
answer
A Provide police and crime prevention
services 46% 39% 7% 3% 4% 1%
B Provide fire protection and emergency
medical services 58% 33% 1% 0% 7% 0%
C Provide services to seniors 31% 40% 5% 1% 21% 2%
D Manage traffic congestion in the city 32% 47% 12% 4% 3% 2% E Maintain city streets and roads 46% 42% 7% 2% 1% 1%
F Manage growth and development 25% 45% 13% 5% 11% 1%
G Provide recreation programs for all ages 33% 46% 8% 2% 10% 1% H Maintain parks and recreation areas 43% 47% 6% 3% 1% 0% I Provide cultural and performing arts 25% 45% 12% 2% 15% 2% J Promote economic development for a
healthy business community 24% 46% 7% 3% 18% 2%
K Keep public buildings and facilities clean
and attractive 43% 46% 6% 1% 3% 0%
L
Hold special community events like summer
concerts in the park and holiday
celebrations
37% 44% 8% 1% 9% 2%
M Address homelessness 21% 34% 24% 12% 9% 1%
N Maintain the City’s financial stability 28% 44% 7% 2% 18% 1% Q8 Overall, how safe is the City of Cypress as a place to live? Would you say it is very safe, somewhat safe, somewhat unsafe, or very unsafe?
1 Very safe 50%
2 Somewhat safe 45%
3 Somewhat unsafe 4%
4 Very unsafe 1%
99 Prefer not to answer 0%
Questionnaire & Toplines
City of Cypress True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 City of Cypress Community Survey May 2022
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 Page 5
Section 4: Priorities
The City of Cypress has limited financial resources to provide local services and projects desired by residents. Because it can’t fund every service and project, the City must set priorities.

Q9
As I read each of the following items, please indicate whether you think the City should make the item a high priority, a medium priority, or a low priority for future city spending. If you feel the City should not spend any money on this item, just say so.

Please keep in mind that not all of the items can be high priorities. Here is the (first/next) one: _____. Should this item be a high, medium or low priority for the City – or should the City not spend any money on this item?
Randomize
High Priority
Medium
Priority
Low Priority
Should not
spend money
Not Sure
Prefer not to
answer
A Make more resources and City services
available online for residents 28% 42% 23% 5% 2% 0%
B Refurbish and improve the amenities at
existing community parks 33% 47% 17% 3% 1% 0%
C Maintain streets and roads in good
condition 66% 28% 5% 1% 0% 0%
D Provide incentives to attract new employers
and jobs to the City 36% 36% 20% 6% 2% 0%
E Work with property owners to revitalize
older, outdated commercial centers 32% 44% 19% 4% 1% 0% F Attract more entertainment options to
Cypress for families, kids, and adults 22% 38% 28% 11% 1% 0% If Q9F=1, ask Q10.

Q10
You indicated that attracting more entertainment options to Cypress for families, kids, and adults should be a high priority. Do you have any specific entertainment options that you’d like available in the City of Cypress? If yes, ask: Please briefly describe them to me. Verbatim responses recorded and later grouped into categories shown below.

Not sure / Cannot think of anything specific 29%
Concerts, events, plays 17%
Movie theater, cinemas 14%
Downtown area with shops, cafes,
entertainment 13%
Multi-cultural events, festivals 9%
Large community park for all ages 8%
Entertainment fun center 6%
Trampoline, amusement parks 5%
Movies at the park 5%
Bowling alley, arcades 4%
Community theater 3%
Public swimming pool, aquatics 3%
Questionnaire & Toplines
City of Cypress True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 City of Cypress Community Survey May 2022
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 Page 6
Arts, crafts center 3%
Nightlife, clubs 3%
Restaurants, high-end dining 2%
Dog park 2%
Section 5: Communication
Q11
What information sources do you primarily use to find out about City of Cypress news, information and programming? Don’t read list. Record up to first 4 responses.

If mentions social media, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, etc., ask: Would that be the City’s social media, non-city sources, or both?
City Sources
1 City Newsletter/The Progress 39%
2 Senior Newsletter/Along the Way 5%
3 Cypress Central smart phone app 7%
4 City’s website 32%
5 Email notification from City 19%
6 Minute with the Mayor videos 1%
7 Letters or postcards from the City
mailed to home 9%
8 Flyers or brochures (displayed at public
facilities) 19%
9 Street banners 17%
10 City Council Meetings 4%
11 City’s Facebook 19%
12 City’s Instagram 6%
13 City’s Twitter 1%
14 Cable Channel 36 2%
Other Sources
15 Social Media (not a City source) 19%
16 Internet/websites (not City’s site) 12%
17 Local newspapers (print or online) 13%
18 Radio 1%
19 Television (general) 2%
20 Community events 5%
21 Friends/Family/Associates 18%
22 Other 2%
23 Do Not Receive Information about City 4%
98 Not sure 2%
99 Prefer not to answer 1%
Questionnaire & Toplines
City of Cypress True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 City of Cypress Community Survey May 2022
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 Page 7
If Q11=17, ask Q12. Otherwise skip to Q13.

Q12 Which local newspaper do you read most often? Verbatim responses recorded and later grouped into categories shown below.

Event-News Enterprise 29%
The Orange County Register 27%
Not sure, depends, read multiple 20%
Prefer not to answer 15%
LA Times 4%
Cypress Newsletter 4%
Orange County Breeze 3%
Q13
Overall, are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the City’s efforts to communicate with residents through newsletters, the Internet, local media, and other means? Get answer, then ask: Would that be very (satisfied/dissatisfied) or somewhat (satisfied/dissatisfied)? 1 Very satisfied 22%
2 Somewhat satisfied 47%
3 Somewhat dissatisfied 16%
4 Very dissatisfied 6%
98 Not sure 8%
99 Prefer not to answer 1%
Q14
Do you have any suggestions for how the City could improve the way it communicates with you? If yes, ask: Please describe your suggested improvement. Verbatim responses recorded and later grouped into categories shown below.

No suggestions 56%
More emails 8%
More newsletters, deliver to everyone
weekly, bi-weekly 5%
More flyers, brochures 5%
More social media 5%
Increase frequency, details of outreach in
general 4%
More postal mail 3%
Improve City website 3%
More Town Hall meetings, open door
meetings 2%
Improve City’s mobile app 2%
Send text message alerts 2%
More community events 1%
Not aware of City’s communication efforts,
sources 1%
Questionnaire & Toplines
City of Cypress True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 City of Cypress Community Survey May 2022
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 Page 8
Q15 Is there a particular topic or issue that you’d like to receive more information about from the City?
1 Yes 31% Ask Q16
2 No 63% Skip to Q17
99 Prefer not to answer 6% Skip to Q17
Q16 Please briefly describe the topic. Verbatim responses recorded and later grouped into categories shown below.

Information about community events,
activities 15%
Future planning, developments, zoning 15%
Safety, crime activity, reports, solutions 14%
City Council agenda, minutes 14%
Trash, recycling, waste management 9%
City budgeting, allocation of funds 8%
Homeless issues in general 7%
Roadwork, construction, traffic control 5%
Property, short-term rental guide, resources 4%
Street cleaning, landscaping, maintenance 3%
Volunteer opportunities 3%
Senior programs, activities, resources 3%
Animal, pest control 2%
School information, issues 2%
Not sure / Cannot think of anything specific 2%
Q17 In the past 12 months, have you visited the City’s website or received communications from the City?
1 Yes 65%
2 No 29%
98 Not sure 5%
99 Prefer not to answer 0%
Questionnaire & Toplines
City of Cypress True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 City of Cypress Community Survey May 2022
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 Page 9
Q18
As I read the following ways that the City can communicate with residents, I’d like to know if you think they would be a very effective, somewhat effective, or not at all effective way for the City to communicate with you.

Randomize
Very
Somewhat Not at
all
Not sure
/ Prefer
not to
answer
A Email & Electronic Newsletters 54% 34% 7% 5%
B Social Media sites such as Facebook,
Twitter and Instagram 40% 33% 17% 10%
C
The Cypress Central mobile app, which
allows you to communicate with the City,
report issues, and receive updates
37% 33% 15% 15%
D City website 38% 45% 11% 6%
E Materials mailed directly to your house 55% 33% 8% 3% F Advertisements in local papers 12% 33% 44% 11%
G Text messages 42% 30% 19% 9%
H Town-hall style meetings 17% 43% 26% 13%
I Channel 36 – Government Access Channel 8% 22% 50% 20% Q19
How much attention do you pay to the issues, decisions and activities of your city government? Would you say that you are very attentive, somewhat attentive, slightly attentive, or not at all attentive?
1 Very attentive 18%
2 Somewhat attentive 44%
3 Slightly attentive 29%
4 Not at all attentive 8%
98 Not sure 1%
99 Prefer not to answer 1%
Section 6: Background & Demographics
Thank you so much for your participation. I have just a few background questions for statistical purposes.

D1 In what year were you born? Year recoded into age groups shown below. 18 to 24 10%
25 to 34 14%
35 to 44 19%
45 to 54 19%
55 to 64 16%
65 or older 18%
Prefer not to answer 4%
Questionnaire & Toplines
City of Cypress True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 City of Cypress Community Survey May 2022
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 Page 10
D2 Do you own or rent your residence in Cypress?
1 Own 65%
2 Rent 29%
99 Prefer not to answer 6%
D3
Which of the following best describes your employment status? Would you say you are employed full-time, part-time, self-employed, a student, a homemaker, retired, or are you in-between jobs right now?
1 Employed full-time 49% Ask D4
2 Employed part-time 7% Ask D4
3 Self-employed 9% Ask D4
4 Student 6% Skip to D6
5 Homemaker 3% Skip to D6
6 Retired 22% Skip to D6
7 In-between jobs 2% Skip to D6
99 Prefer not to answer 2% Skip to D6
D4 Are you currently working from home, commuting to a workplace outside of your home, or a mixture of both?
1 Working from home 18%
2 Commuting to a workplace outside
home 53%
3 Mixture of both 28%
99 Prefer not to answer 1%
D5 When you commute to a workplace outside of your home, approximately how many miles is your commute, one-way?
Less than 5 20%
5 to 9 9%
10 to 14 17%
15 to 19 16%
20 to 29 22%
30 to 39 10%
40 or more 5%
Prefer not to answer 1%
Questionnaire & Toplines
City of Cypress True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 City of Cypress Community Survey May 2022
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 Page 11
D6 What is your gender?
1 Male 47%
2 Female 51%
3 Other <1%
99 Prefer not to answer 2%
D7 What ethnic group do you consider yourself a part of or feel closest to? Read list if respondent hesitates
1 African-American/Black 4%
2 American Indian or Alaskan Native <1%
3 Asian -- Korean, Japanese, Chinese,
Vietnamese, Indian, Filipino or other
Asian
34%
4 Caucasian/White 38%
5 Latino/Hispanic 19%
6 Middle Eastern 2%
7 Pacific Islander 1%
8 Mixed Heritage 1%
98 Other <1%
99 Prefer not to answer 2%
Thanks so much for participating in this important survey! This survey was conducted for the City of Cypress.

Post-Interview & Sample Items
S1 Survey Language
English 90%
Spanish 4%
Korean 6%
Questionnaire & Toplines
City of Cypress True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 CITY OF CYPRESS
CITY COUNCIL REPORT
City Council Regular 21.

FROM: Paulo Morales, Mayor
DATE: 06/27/2022
SUBJECT: Adopt a Resolution Censuring Council Member Marquez for Violating the Laws of the State of California by Failing to Respond to Public Records Act Requests, Failing to Respond to Public Records Act Requests in a Timely Manner, and Disclosing Confidential Information from Closed City Council Session(s); Violating the Charter; Violating the Code of Ethics; and Violating the Civility, Conduct and Governance Policy

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution censuring Council Member Marquez for violating the laws of the State of California by failing to respond to Public Records Act requests, failing to respond to Public Records Act requests in a timely manner, and disclosing confidential information from closed City Council Session(s); violating the Charter; violating the Code of Ethics; and violating the Civility, Conduct and Governance Policy.

DISCUSSION
At its June 10 special meeting, the City Council placed the attached Resolution of Censure on its June 27 agenda. The Resolution has been modified for formatting, typographical corrections and to update the status of Council Member Marquez's response to the Public Records Act requests.

On June 17, the City Clerk provided Council Member Marquez with a list of outstanding issues related to the Fortis, LLP and Californians Aware Public Records Act requests and asked Council Member Marquez to address deficiencies in her previous Public Records Act responses no later than June 23. Council Member Marquez submitted additional information on June 23. The city's special legal counsel reviewed Council Member Marquez's supplemental submittal and deems it still incomplete.

Censure is an official City Council reprimand of a Council Member. Censure is disciplinary in nature and requires the City Council adopt a resolution setting forth the Council Member's speech, actions or behavior, that violates the law and/or City Council policy. The Municipal Code includes the process for the City Council to consider a resolution of censure, the fine for censure, revocation of special privileges arising from a censure, and the potential for a Council Member to be removed from a meeting at which they are censured.

Resolution of Censure
A resolution of censure may be approved by a majority of the City Council and may contain the penalties described below. Upon a motion to approve a resolution of censure, all Council Members present shall immediately vote on the motion and state whether they agree that the identified speech, actions, or behavior constitutes a violation of the adopted rules of decorum or the Civility, Conduct and Governance policy and justifies a vote of censure. If a majority of the Council Members present a vote for censure, then that vote shall be duly noted by the City Clerk and the subject of that vote shall have two minutes to make a rebuttal stating why the vote should be overturned. After such rebuttal, any Council Member shall be entitled to make a motion to overturn the vote of censure. If such motion is approved by a majority vote of those Council Members present, then the City Clerk shall remove such censure from the record. Motions to overturn a vote of censure may only be made at the meeting at which the vote of censure was made. There is no other administrative remedy to a vote of censure other than the two-minute rebuttal. If not so overturned, the resolution of censure shall be adopted.

Fines for Censure
Any Council Member who is censured by the City Council shall be subject to a $100 fine per censure. Such fine(s) shall be paid to the City Clerk within 30 days of the date imposed.

Failure to pay such fine(s) within 60 days shall give rise to a civil action by the City for collection, or shall be deducted or offset from the Council Member's compensation or per diem entitlements.

Revocation of Special Privileges
Any Council Member who is censured by the City Council shall be subject to revocation of his/her committee assignments, regional boards and commissions, and community-generated board/committee appointments; suspension of official travel, conference participation, access to a City credit card, City Council salary, stipends and benefits, and ceremonial titles.

Removal
Any Council Member who is censured by a majority of the City Council during a Council meeting, in addition to the attendant fines, shall also be subject to a vote, upon motion by any Council Member, by a majority of the City Council present, to remove such offender from the Council meeting. If a majority of the City Council votes for removal, then the subject of that vote shall have two minutes to make a rebuttal stating why the vote should be overturned. After such rebuttal any Council Member shall be entitled to make a motion to overturn the vote to remove. If such motion is approved by a majority vote of those Council Members present, then the City Clerk shall remove such vote from the record. If the vote to remove is not overturned, then such vote shall remain part of the administrative record and resolution of censure. Motions to overturn a vote of removal may only be made at the meeting at which the vote of removal was made.

BUDGET IMPACT
None.

LEGAL REVIEW
The City Attorney has reviewed the attached Resolution of Censure.

APPROVED BY:

Attachments
Resolution of Censure - Council Member Marquez
RESOLUTION NO.

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CYPRESS, CALIFORNIA,

CENSURING COUNCIL MEMBER FRANCES MARQUEZ FOR FAILING TO

RESPOND TO PUBLIC RECORDS ACT REQUESTS, FAILING TO RESPOND TO PUBLIC RECORDS ACT REQUESTS IN A TIMELY MANNER; DISCLOSING CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION FROM CLOSED CITY COUNCIL SESSION(S); VIOLATING THE CHARTER; VIOLATING THE CODE OF ETHICS; AND VIOLATING

THE CIVILITY, CONDUCT AND GOVERNANCE POLICY
WHEREAS, it is the duty of all Council Members to act in the public’s interest; respect good governance processes; and perform their duties professionally and ethically; and
WHEREAS, the laws of the State of California, the City of Cypress Charter, the Code of Ethics, and the City Council’s Civility, Conduct and Governance Policy establish legal and other obligations on Council Members’ behavior, conduct, and compliance with requests and direction from City management; and
WHEREAS, Council Member Marquez has repeatedly and intentionally violated laws of the State of California, the City of Cypress Charter, the Code of Ethics, and the City Council’s Civility, Conduct and Governance Policy; and WHEREAS, from November 2020 through the first quarter of 2021, Council Member Marquez repeatedly interfered with the City Manager’s selection of a department director by insisting in being included in the selection process and pressured the City Attorney to intervene in the selection process on her behalf; and WHEREAS, this is a direct violation of the Charter requirement that, “Neither the Council or any of its members shall interfere with the execution by the City Manager of his powers and duties, or order, directly or indirectly, the appointment by the City Manager or by any of the departmental officers in the administrative service of the City, of any person to an office or employment or his removal therefrom”; and WHEREAS, the Charter also requires that the City Manager shall, “Appoint and remove administrative officers, except those appointed by the Council, and when he deems it necessary for the good of the service suspend or remove any employee”; and WHEREAS, on November 15, 2021, in a meeting with a department director, Council Member Marquez made the director feel pressure to retire and told the director which City employee to appoint to fill the vacancy arising from the director’s retirement; and
WHEREAS, this is a direct violation of the Charter requirement that, “Neither the Council or any of its members shall interfere with the execution by the City Manager of his powers and duties, or order, directly or indirectly, the appointment by the City Manager or by any of the departmental officers in the administrative service of the City, of any person to an office or employment or his removal therefrom”; and WHEREAS, on January 4, 2022, Council Member Marquez directly engaged with a consultant regarding the California Voting Rights Act/Election System community forum presentation.

WHEREAS, Council Member Marquez contacted the consultant despite clear direction from the City Council at its December 27, 2021 meeting that all input regarding the presentation was due directly to the City Manager and was to be provided no later than January 3, 2022; and
WHEREAS, on January 10, 2022, Council Member Marquez revealed information from a closed City Council session in violation of the Brown Act; and WHEREAS, on January 13, 2022, Council Member Marquez made complaints to the Human Resources Administrator against Council Members and the City Manager; threatened a civil rights lawsuit against the City Council for racial discrimination; and made a verbal complaint of harassment against other Council Members; and WHEREAS, this is a direct violation of the Charter requirement that, “the Council and its members shall deal with the administrative service under the City Manager solely through the City Manager”; and
WHEREAS, Council Member Marquez violated the Charter when she made her complaint to an administrator-level position rather than the City Manager or City Attorney; and
WHEREAS, the Charter requires that, “Neither the Council or any of its members shall interfere with the execution by the City Manager of his powers and duties, or order…”; and
WHEREAS, Council Member Marquez violated the Charter when she complained to a City employee about the City Manager; and
WHEREAS, Council Member Marquez violated the City Council’s longstanding commitment to conduct City Council business through the City Manager or department directors; and
WHEREAS, Council Member Marquez violated the City Council’s commitment to address the City Manager’s performance directly with him and likely violated the employment agreement between the City and City Manager; and WHEREAS, the City Council has received training, and been advised by the City Manager and City Attorney that filing any verbal or written complaint to the Human Resources Division is not a right Council Members have per the City of Cypress Personnel Rules and Regulations; and
WHEREAS, on January 26, 2022 these Charter and other procedural violations forced the City Manager to protect the City, the Charter, and ensure the proper administration of all affairs of the City by requiring that Council Member Marquez conduct all City Council business exclusively and directly through the City Manager; and WHEREAS, Council Member Marquez has repeatedly violated the January 26, 2022 requirements that she conduct all City Council business exclusively and directly through the City Manager; and
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted the City of Cypress Civility, Conduct and Governance Policy on February 28, 2022 to promote mutual respect, civility, and orderly conduct among elected and appointed City officials, City staff, and our community; and WHEREAS, the City Council required Council Members to sign the Civility, Conduct and Governance Policy by March 8, 2022; and
WHEREAS Mayor Morales, Mayor Pro-Tem Hertz-Mallari, Council Member Minikus and Council Member Peat signed the Civility, Conduct and Governance Policy by March 8, 2022; and
WHEREAS, Council Member Marquez failed to sign the Civility, Conduct and Governance Policy by March 8, 2022; and
WHEREAS, Council Member Marquez signed the Civility, Conduct and Governance Policy on March 28, 2022 after Mayor Pro-Tem Hertz-Mallari placed an item on the City Council agenda to “Issue Direction to Correct to Council Member Marquez for refusing to sign the Civility, Conduct and Governance Policy and Code of Ethics as required by City Council action at its February 28, 2022 regular meeting”; and WHEREAS, Council Member Marquez has consistently failed to follow Code of Ethics and Civility, Conduct and Governance Policy protocols, especially those requiring Council Members to treat City staff professionally; prepare for and engage in meetings; preserve order and decorum during meetings; keep comments clear, concise, and ontopic; alert the City Manager or City Attorney in advance when asking questions about an agenda item; speak directly to the City Manager in a timely manner about concerns about City operations, City staff analyses, or City staff performance; and support a positive and constructive workplace environment for City employees and for citizens and businesses dealing with the City; and
WHEREAS, the City Clerk has received three requests for records under California’s Public Records Act. One each from Keep Cypress United, Fortis, LLP, and Californians Aware; and
WHEREAS, on March 29, 2022, Council Member Marquez was asked to provide records in response to the Keep Cypress United request by April 5, 2022; and WHEREAS, Council Member Marquez failed to meet the April 5, 2022 deadline and did not complete her response until April 11, 2022; and WHEREAS, on May 9, 2022, Council Member Marquez, was asked to provide records in response to the Fortis, LLP request by June 3, 2022; and WHEREAS, Council Member Marquez has failed to provide a complete response to the request; and
WHEREAS, on May 20, 2022, Fortis, LLP challenged the appropriateness of the City’s response to its request, presented a series of questions to the City and Council Member Marquez, and threatened legal action if records for which Council Member Marquez asserted attorney-client privilege with her personal legal counsel were not produced; and
WHEREAS, on May 22, 2022, the City Attorney referred the questions from Fortis, LLP to Council Member Marquez and her separate attorney; and WHEREAS, Council Member Marquez has failed to provide a complete response to Fortis, LLP; and
WHEREAS, on May 31, 2022, Council Members, including Council Member Marquez, were asked to provide records in response to the Californians Aware request by June 6, 2022; and
WHEREAS, Mayor Morales, Mayor Pro-Tem Hertz Mallari, Council Member Minikus and Council Member Peat responded to the request by June 6, 2022; and WHEREAS, Council Member Marquez has failed to provide a complete response to the request; and
WHEREAS, Council Member Marquez has repeatedly failed to communicate in a timely manner with City management about the Public Records Act requests; failed to provide timely responses to the Public Records Act requests; and failed to earnestly comply with the Public Records Act requests; and
WHEREAS, Council Member Marquez’s failure to respond (or respond timely) to the requests, as required by the Public Records Act, exposes the City to litigation; damages its reputation; wastes valuable City resources; and violates State law, the Charter, the Code of Ethics, and the Civility, Conduct and Governance Policy; and WHEREAS, records discovered and provided in response to the Public Record Act requests include communications between Council Member Marquez and third parties that disparage other Council Members; include racist language; and otherwise demonstrate that Council Member Marquez has violated the City’s Code of Ethics’ requirements that Council Members’ professional and personal conduct must be above reproach and should avoid even the appearance of impropriety; and that Council Members shall refrain from abusive conduct, personal charges or verbal attacks upon the character or motives of other members of the City Council, City staff or public; and WHEREAS, Council Members have spoken to Council Member Marquez informally on multiple occasions to try to resolve concerns regarding her misconduct; and WHEREAS, on January 6, 2022, Mayor Morales and the City Attorney met with Council Member Marquez for approximately two hours to resolve concerns regarding her misconduct;

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CYPRESS DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE, RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. The recitals set forth above are incorporated herein by this reference.

Section 2. The City Council finds that Council Member Marquez has repeatedly and intentionally violated the Public Records Act, the Charter, the Code of Ethics, and the Civility, Conduct and Governance Policy.

Section 3. The City Council formally censures Council Member Marquez for the reasons stated herein.

Section 4. This Resolution shall be effective on upon its adoption. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution.

PASSED, APPROVED and ORDERED by the City Council of the City of Cypress, California at a regular meeting held on ___ day of June, 2022. ________________________________

MAYOR OF THE CITY OF CYPRESS
ATTEST:
__________________________________

CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF CYPRESS

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )

COUNTY OF ORANGE ) SS
I, Alisha Farnell, City Clerk of the City of Cypress, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted at a regular meeting of the said City Council held on the ___ day of June, 2022, by the following roll call vote:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
________________________________

CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF CYPRESS

Cypress City CouncilJune 27, 2022

Cypress City Council
June 27, 2022