Manhattan Beach City Council
September 5, 2023

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Table of Contents
iCity of Manhattan Beach True North Research, Inc. © 2023 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

T ABLE OF C ONTENTS
Table of Contents. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i List of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii List of Figures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Stormwater Pollution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Motivation for Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Methodology Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Organization of Report. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Disclaimer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 About True North . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Key Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Quality of Life & City Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Quality of Life. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Question 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Overall Performance Rating . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Question 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Initial Ballot Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Question 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Support by Subgroups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Reasons for Opposing Measure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Question 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Fee Threshold . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Question 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Projects & Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Question 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Service Ratings by Initial Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Positive Arguments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Question 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Positive Arguments by Initial Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Interim Ballot Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Question 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Support by Subgroups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Negative Arguments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Question 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Negative Arguments by Initial Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Final Ballot Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Question 11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Change in Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Final Ballot Test at Lower Rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Question 12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Background & Demographics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Questionnaire Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Programming & Pre-Test. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Sample. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Statistical Margin of Error . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Recruiting & Data Collection. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Data Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Rounding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Questionnaire & Toplines. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 List of Tables
True North Research, Inc. © 2023 ii
City of Manhattan Beach
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

L IST OF T ABLES
Table 1 Demographic Breakdown of Support at Initial Ballot Test. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Table 2 Top Projects & Programs by Position at Initia l Ballot Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Table 3 Top Positive Arguments by Position at Initial Ballot Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Table 4 Demographic Breakdown of Support at Interim Ballot Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Table 5 Negative Arguments by Position at Initial Ballo t Test. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Table 6 Demographic Breakdown of Support at Final Ballot Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Table 7 Movement Between Initial & Final Ballot Test. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Table 8 Demographics of Sample . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 List of Figures
True North Research, Inc. © 2023 iii
City of Manhattan Beach
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

L IST OF F IGURES
Figure 1 Quality of Life . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Figure 2 Quality of Life by Years in Manhattan, Ho usehold Party Type & Gender . . . . . . . . . . 8 Figure 3 Satisfaction With City Services. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Figure 4 Satisfaction With City Services by Years in Manhattan, Household Party Type & Gender . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Figure 5 Initial Ballot Test. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 0 Figure 6 Reasons for not Supporting Measure. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Figure 7 Tax Threshold . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Figure 8 Projects & Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Figure 9 Positive Arguments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Figure 10 Interim Ballot Test. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Figure 11 Negative Arguments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Figure 12 Final Ballot Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 3 Figure 13 Final Ballot Test Rate C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Figure 14 Maximum Margin of Error Due to Sampling. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Introduction
True North Research, Inc. © 2023 1
City of Manhattan Beach
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

I NTRODUCTION
Located along the coastal edge of Los Angeles County, the City of Manhattan Beach is currently home to an estimated 34,284 residents.1 Incorporated in 1912 as a General Law city, Manhattan Beach’s current team of full-time and part-time employees provides a full suite of services through various departments includ ing City Attorney, City Cler k, City Manager, Community Development, Finance, Fire, Parks & Recreation, Human Resources, Police, and Public Works.

As Manhattan Beach has grown, so too have th e demands placed upon its facilities, services, infrastructure, and staff. Unfortunately, the City’s revenue streams have not kept pace with the growing demands and escalating costs, leading to shortfalls in the funding required to provide essential municipal services at the desired levels of service. One area, in particular, has consis- tently experienced costs that are well in exce ss of dedicated revenue streams: maintaining the City’s stormwater infrastructure and addressing stormwater pollution.

STORMWATER POLLUTION Under the Federal Clean Water Ac t, each county and munici- pality throughout the nation is issued a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit. The goal of the permit is to stop pollute d discharges from entering the storm drain sys- tem, local water sources, and coastal waters. Th e City of Manhattan Beach is responsible for developing and implementing public improvement s and services designed to not only meet the requirements of the federal NPDES Permit, but also improve public health by identifying, control- ling, and removing pollution from the stormdrain system, local water sources, and coastal waters.

In order to provide for the safety of the residents, protect property in the city from damage asso- ciated with flooding, and to m eet the requirements of the NPDES permit, it is necessary to design, construct, operate, maintain, improve and replace storm drainage facilities which collect storm and surface water runoff, as well as convey and treat such runoff in a safe manner to an acceptable point of discharge. It is also necessary to inspect, monitor, and take enforcement action related to illegal dumping and illicit discharges. To adequately fund such facilities and activities, the City has determined that it is necessary to update and increase the fee for storm drainage services.2
MOTIVATION FOR RESEARCH The primary purpose of this study was to produce an unbiased, statistically reliable evaluation of prop erty owners’ interest in supporting a local reve- nue measure to address stormwater infrastructure and pollution in the City of Manhattan Beach.

Additionally, should the City decide to move fo rward with a measure, the survey data can guide how best to structure a measure so that it is consistent with the community's priorities and expressed needs. Specifically, the study was designed to:
• Gauge current, baseline support for a local revenue measure to provide funding for storm- water infrastructure repairs and to reduce stormwater pollution • Identify the fee rate that the community is willing to support

1. Source: California Department of Finance Ci ty/County Population Estimates, January 2023.

2. Source: Preliminary Analysis for the Stormwater Utility Fee conducted for the City of Manhattan Beach by Harris & Associates.

Introduction
True North Research, Inc. © 2023 2City of Manhattan Beach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
• Identify the types of services and improvements that property owners are most interested in funding, should the measure pass
• Expose property owners to arguments in fa vor of, and against, the proposed measure to gauge how information affects support for the measure, and • Estimate support for the measure once proper ty owners are presented with the types of information they will likely be exposed to during the ballot proceeding.

It is important to note at the outset that pro perty owners’ opinions about revenue measures are often somewhat fluid, especially when the amount of information they initially have about a mea- sure is limited. How property owners think and feel about a measure today may not be the same way they think and feel once they have had a chance to hear more in formation about the mea- sure in the months leading up to a vote. Accord ingly, to accurately estimate the feasibility of establishing a revenue measure, it was important that in addition to measuring current opinions about the measure (Question 4), the survey expo se respondents to the types of information property owners are likely to encounter prior to a vote—including arguments in favor (Question 8) and opposed (Question 10) to the measure—and gauge how this information ultimately impacts their voting decision (Questions 9 and 11).

METHODOLOGY OVERVIEW To raise the funds needed to address stormwater pollution, the City is considering a property-related fee. A property-related fee is voted on by all property owners in the city who are being asked to pay th e new fee. In addition to residential property owners, owners of other types of properties (i. e., commercial, industri al, apartments, etc.) as well as absentee owners are eligible to participate. Because all affected property owners can par- ticipate in a property-related fee, a majority of ballots returned (one vote per parcel) is required for approval. In a property-related fee ballot proceeding, all property owners are typically mailed a ballot that includes an information sheet, but does not include arguments in support or oppo- sition as is the case with a special tax. Most of the funding measures for similar water and storm- water quality programs in California have been property-owner balloted, property-related fees. 3 The survey methodology was appropriately tailor ed to measure residential property owner sup- port for the proposed stormwater fee. Property owners were selected using a stratified, random sampling methodology to ensure the proper distribution of respondents within property size/fee categories. Once selected, property owners were recruited to participate in the survey using a combination of recruiting methods (email, text & telephone) and allow ed to participate either online or by telephone. During the data collection period (July 12 to July 22, 2023), 423 residen- tial property owners participated in the study, with telephone interviews averaging 15 minutes in length. For a full discussion of the research meth ods and techniques used in this study, turn to Methodology on page 28.4

3. Examples include fees establishe d in Rancho Palos Verdes, Palo Alto, Burlingame, and San Clemente.

4. It should be noted that residential property owners represent the vast majority of the individuals who are eli- gible to participate in a stormwater fee ballot proceeding. However, other types of property owners—includ- ing owners of commercial, industrial, and apartments properties—are also eligible to participate. The purpose of this survey was to profile the support levels among residential property owners only. However, we have factored in the anticipated vote total and ex pected levels of support from non-residential property owners when drawing conclusions about the feasibility of a stormwater fee measure and making recommen- dations to the City about how to proceed (see Key Findings on page 4).

Introduction
True North Research, Inc. © 2023 3City of Manhattan Beach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

ORGANIZATION OF REPORT This report is designed to me et 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 section titled Key Findings is for you. It pro- vides a summary of the most important findings of the survey and a discussion of their implica- tions. 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 anal yzing 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 31) and a complete set of crosstabulations for the survey results is contained in Appendix A.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS True North thanks the City of Manhattan Beach for the opportunity to assist the City in this important effort. The collective expertise, insight, and local knowledge provided by City staff and representatives improved the overall quality of the research presented here.

DISCLAIMER The statements and conclu sions 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 Manhattan Beach. 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 understandi ng of the values, perceptions, priorities and concerns of their residents and voters. 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, per formance management, organizational develop- ment, establishing fiscal priorities, passing re venue measures, and developing effective public information campaigns.

During their careers, Dr. McLarney and Mr. Sarl es have designed and conducted over 1,200 sur- vey research studies for public agencies, includ ing more than 400 revenue measure feasibility studies. Of the measures that have gone to ballot based on Dr. McLa rney’s recommendation, 95% have been successful. In total, the research that Dr. McLarney has conducted has led to over $35 billion in successful local revenue measures.

Key Findings
True North Research, Inc. © 2023 4
City of Manhattan Beach
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

K EY F INDINGS
As noted in the Introduction, this study was designed to prov ide the City of Manhattan Beach with a statistically reliable understanding of property owners’ interest in supporting a local reve- nue measure to fund stormwater infrastructure and address stormwater pollution. Whereas sub- sequent 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 collective 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 survey results and the firm’s collective experi- ence conducting revenue measure studies for public agencies throughout the State.

Does a property-related
fee to fund stormwater
improvements appear
feasible?
Yes. Manhattan Beach property owners value the high quality of life in the City and they recognize the role that stormwater infrastructure and clean water occupy in keeping Manh attan Beach a special place to live.

These sentiments translate to solid natural support (62%) for establish- ing a modest property-related fee to install and maintain devices in storm drains that keep trash and po llution off our beaches and out of local waterways and the ocean; monitor, investigate, and prosecute ille- gal discharges of pollution; recons truct or replace aging storm drains that are at risk for collapse or failure; reduce flooding in neighborhoods; and protect public health by removi ng pollutants, toxic chemicals, and infectious bacteria from runoff that drains to the ocean.

The results of this survey indicate that a stormwater measure is likely feasible in the current environment pr ovided that it is kept affordable, focuses on projects and improvements that property owners identify as their priorities, and is accompanied by robust community/opinion leader engagement, education, and communication (more on this below).

Having stated that a measure appears to be feasible, it is important to note that the measure’s prospects will be shaped by external factors and that a recommendation to move forward with a ballot proceeding comes with several qualifications and cond itions. Indeed, although the results are promising, all revenue measures must overcome challenges prior to being successful. The proposed measur e is no exception. The following paragraphs discuss some of the cha llenges and the next steps that True North recommends.

How might owners of
commercial, industrial,
an apartment properties
impact the measure’s
prospects?
Property-related fees are unique am ong the financial mechanisms avail- able to public agencies. Unlike spec ial tax measures that are decided by registered voters, a property-related f ee requires that those who partici- pate own property in the designed area . In addition to residential prop- erty owners, owners of other types of properties (i.e., commercial, industrial, apartments, etc.) as well as absentee owners 5 are eligible to

5. A person who does not live in the City but does own property in Manhattan Beach is still eligible to partici- pate in the ballot proceeding.

Key Findings
True North Research, Inc. © 2023 5City of Manhattan Beach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
participate. Assessment ballot proc eedings also employ different voting procedures, as all property owners are typically mailed a ballot that includes an information sheet, but does not include arguments in sup- port or opposition as is the case with a special tax.

Although the survey found strong support for the proposed stormwater measure among residential property owne rs, it is also the case that this support is likely to be tempered by lower support among owners of com- mercial properties, industrial proper ties, and apartments. Collectively, owners of these types of properties appear to account for less than 15% of parcels that would be impacted by th e fee, and they also tend to cast ballots at a lower rate than residen tial property owners. With this in mind, we estimate that factoring in the votes from commercial, industrial and apartment property owners woul d reduce the overall support level for the measure by approximately 6% to 56%.

How does the proposed
fee amount impact prop-
erty owner support for
the measure?
Naturally, the willingness of property owners to support a specific reve- nue measure is contingent, in part, on the price tag associated with a measure. The higher the fee, all othe r things being equal, the lower the level of aggregate support that can be expected. It is important that the rate be set at a level that the nece ssary proportion of property owners view as affordable.

As expected, support for the pr oposed stormwater measure was inversely related to the proposed f ee amount. However, support did not follow a linear pattern in relation to the fee. Owners of properties with a proposed fee under $75 annually were the most supportive of the mea- sure, with 69% indicating they would support the measure at the Initial Ballot Test. Once the fee eclipsed $75, support declined, but was rela- tively stable across the remaining fee categories, ranging between 58% to 61% across categories of $75 to $124, $125 to $149, and $150 or more.

It is also noteworthy that reducing the proposed fees at the individual level did not result in a large chan ge in aggregate support for the pro- posed measure. When the proposed fee per parcel was reduced by 25%, aggregate support for the stormwater measure increased just 3%. Even when the fee was cut in half (50%), overall support for the stormwater measure increased just 9%.

What services and proj-
ects do property owners
identify as priorities for
the measure?
One of the goals of this study was to identify property owners’ prefer- ences with respect to how the proc eeds of a successful measure should be spent. This information can be used to ensure that the resulting list of services to be funded by the measure is consistent with property owners’ priorities.

Key Findings
True North Research, Inc. © 2023 6City of Manhattan Beach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Residential property owners in Manh attan Beach clearly see a need for the proposed services and projects that could be funded by the measure.

In fact, all of the services and projec ts tested were favored by at least 65% of respondents. That said, property owners expressed the greatest interest in using measure proceeds to reconstruct or replace storm drains that are identified by engin eers as being at risk for collapse or failure (87% strongly or somewhat favor), install and maintain devices in storm drains that capture trash an d pollution before they enter our waterways (86%), inspect and test storm water quality on a regular basis to ensure that it meets clean water standards (84%), and keep trash and pollutants off our beaches and out of local waterways and the ocean (84%).

How might a public
information campaign
affect support for the
proposed measure?
As noted in the body of this report , individuals’ opinions about revenue measures are often not rigid, especially when the amount of information presented to the public on a measure has been limited. Thus, in addition to measuring current support for the measure, one of the goals of this study was to explore how the introd uction of additional information about the measure may affect property owners’ opinions about the pro- posal.

It is clear from the survey results th at property owners’ opinions about the proposed stormwater measure are somewhat sensitive to the nature—and amount—of information th at they have about the measure.

Information about the specific impr ovements that could be funded by the measure, as well as arguments in favor of the measure, were found by many property owners to be compelling reasons to support the pro- posal. However, respondents also exhibited sensitiv ity to opposition arguments, and there is a risk that property owners could be swayed by divisive and hyper-partisan campaign ing as the 2024 election cycle ramps up. Accordingly, one of the keys to building and sustaining sup- port for the stormwater measure will be the presence of an effective, well-organized public outreach effo rt, as well as an independent cam- paign that focuses on the need for the measure as well as the many ben- efits that it will bring.

How might changes to
the economic or politi-
cal climate alter support
for the measure?
A survey is a snapshot in time—which means the results of this study and the conclusions noted above mu st be viewed in light of the current economic and political climates. On the one hand, this should provide some reassurances to the City that a stormwater measure is feasible.

Even with lingering concerns regarding the pandemic, inflation, high gas prices, and the trajectory of the ec onomy, property owners were sup- portive of the proposed stormwater me asure. It is also noteworthy that support for the stormwater fee has re mained quite consistent over the past few years, as the 2023 survey re sults are strikingly similar to those of a similar survey conducted in 2020 even though the fee amounts pro- posed in 2023 were significantly higher.

Key Findings
True North Research, Inc. © 2023 7City of Manhattan Beach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

On the other hand, the months lead ing up to a ballot proceeding are likely to be punctuated with significan t events on the public health, eco- nomic, and political fronts. Exactly how these events unfold and may shape voters’ opinions remains to be seen. Should the economy and/or political climate improve, support for the measure could increase. Con- versely, negative economic and/or political developments (including devolving into a hyper-partisan 2024 election environment) could dampen support for the measure below what was recorded in this study.

Quality of Life & City Services
True North Research, Inc. © 2023 8
City of Manhattan Beach
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Q UALITY OF L IFE & C ITY S ERVICES
The opening section of the survey was designed to gauge respondents’ opinions regarding the overall quality of life in Manhattan Beach, as well as the City’s performance in providing munici- pal services.

QUALITY OF LIFE At the outset of the interview, voters were asked to rate the quality of life in the City of Manhattan Beach using a five-point scale of excellent, good, fair, poor, or very poor. As shown in Figure 1 below, nearly all respondents (92%) shared favorable opinions of the quality of life in Manhattan Beach, with 51% reporting it is excellent and 41% stating it is good.

Approximately 7% of respondents surveyed said the quality of life in the City is fair, whereas less than 1% used poor or very poor to describe the quality of life in Manhattan Beach.

Question 2 How would you rate the overall quality of life in the City? Would you say it is excel- lent, good, fair, poor or very poor?
FIGURE 1 QUALITY OF LIFE
Figure 2 shows how ratings of the quality of life in
Manhattan Beach varied according to length of resi-
dence, household party type, and gender. Although
some subgroups (e.g., those who have lived in the
City less than five years or between 10 and 14
years and single Democratic households) were
more likely than their counterparts to rate the qual-
ity of life in the City as excellent, the most striking pattern in the figure is the consistency of opinion.

At least eight-in-ten respondents in every subgroup
rated the overall quality of life in Manhattan Beach
as excellent or good.

FIGURE 2 QUALITY OF LIFE BY YEARS IN MANHATTAN, HOUSEHOLD PARTY TYPE & GENDER Not sure

0.4 Very poor

0.0Poor

0.7 Fair

6.9 Good

41.1 Excellent

50.9 59.3 52.6 52.1

44.0 45.9 48.6 51.5 55.9

34.9 40.0 41.5

41.7 40.3

45.5 43.7 33.8

50.1 58.2

42.7 Excellent

56.6 42.0

34.6 51.9
Good

43.4 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
Less than 5 5 to 9 10 to 14 15 or more Single dem Dual dem Single rep Dual rep Other Mixed Male Female Years in Manhattan Beach (Q1) Household Party Type Gender % Respondents
Quality of Life & City Services
True North Research, Inc. © 2023 9City of Manhattan Beach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

OVERALL PERFORMANCE RATING The next question in this series asked respondents to indicate if, overall, they were satisfied or dissatisfied with the job the City of Manhattan Beach 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 3 below, 87% of Manhattan Beach residents surveyed indicated that they were satisfied with the City’s efforts to provide municipal services, with 34% saying they were very sat- isfied and 53% somewhat satisfied. Approximately 10% reported that they were dissatisfied with the City’s overall performance, whereas 3% were unsure or unwilling to state their opinion. For the interested reader, Figure 4 displays how th e percentage of responde nts satisfied with the City’s overall performance varied across several demographic subgroups.

Question 3 Generally speaking, are you satisfied or di ssatisfied with the job the City of Man- hattan Beach is doing to provide city services?
FIGURE 3 SATISFACTION WITH CITY SERVICES
FIGURE 4 SATISFACTION WITH CITY SERVICES BY YEARS IN MANHATTAN, HOUSEHOLD PARTY TYPE & GENDER Very satisfied

33.8 Somewhat
satisfied

52.7 Somewhat
dissatisfied

8.2 Very
dissatisfied

2.1 Not sure

3.1 32.1

53.9 32.1 32.5 27.6 30.3 33.4 37.3

56.2 36.5

55.3 44.7 56.9 56.4 57.1 44.6
Ver y
satisfied

40.9 46.7

29.7 32.7
Smwt
satisfied

52.3 43.6

57.8 53.5
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Less than 5 5 to 9 10 to 14 15 or more Single dem Dual dem Single rep Dual rep Other Mixed Male Female Years in Manhattan Beach (Q1) Household Party Type Gender % Respondents
Initial Ballot Test
True North Research, Inc. © 2023 10
City of Manhattan Beach
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

I NITIAL B ALLOT T EST
The primary research objective of this survey was to estimate residential property owners’ sup- port for establishing a property-related fee to in stall and maintain devices in storm drains that keep trash and pollution off our beaches and ou t of local waterways and the ocean; monitor, investigate, and prosecute illegal discharges of pollution; reconstruct or replace aging storm drains that are at risk for collapse or failure; reduce flooding in neighborhoods; and protect pub- lic health by removing pollutants, toxic chemicals, and infectious bacteria from runoff that drains to the ocean. To this end, Question 4 was designed to take an early assessment of respon- dents’ support for the proposed measure.

The motivation for placing Question 4 near the front of the survey is twofold. First, support for a measure can often depend on the amount of info rmation individuals have about a measure. At this point in the survey, the respondent has not been provided inform ation about the proposed measure beyond what is presented in the ballot la nguage. This situation is analogous to a indi- vidual casting a ballot with limited knowledge ab out the measure, such as what might occur in the absence of an effective campaign. Question 4, also known as the Initial Ballot Test, is thus a good measure of respondent suppo rt for the proposed measure as it is today , on the natural.

Because the Initial Ballot Test provides a gauge of natural support for the measure, it also serves a second purpose in that it provides a useful baseline from which to judge the impact of various information items conveyed later in the survey on individual support for the measure. Note that each property owner was presented with a rate that was specific to their property based on anal- yses conducted for the City of Manhattan Beach by Harris & Associates.

Question 4 In order to install and maintain devices in storm drains that keep trash and pollu- tion off our beaches and out of local waterways and the ocean; monitor, investigate, and prose- cute illegal discharges of pollution; reconstruct or replace aging storm drains that are at risk for collapse or failure; reduce flooding in neighborhoods; and protect public health by removing pol- lutants, toxic chemicals, and infectious bacteria from runoff that drains to the ocean; shall prop- erty owners in Manhattan Beach be assessed an annual fee for each property that they own? The fee for your property would be approximately: $<<Rate A>> per year. If the election were held today, would you vote yes or no on this measure?
FIGURE 5 INITIAL BALLOT TEST
As shown in Figure 5, 62% of residential property
owners surveyed indicat ed that they would sup-
port the proposed stormw ater fee, whereas 30%
stated that they would oppose the measure and
8% were unsure or unwilling to share their vote
choice. For property-related fees in California, the
level of support recorded at the Initial Ballot Test
among residential property owners is approxi-
mately 12 percentage points above the simple
majority (50%+1) required for passage.

Prefer not to
answer

0.5Not sure

7.7 Definitely no

19.6 Probably no

10.1 Probably yes

40.2 Definitely yes

21.9 Initial Ballot Test
True North Research, Inc. © 2023 11City of Manhattan Beach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

SUPPORT BY SUBGROUPS Table 1 shows how support at the Initial Ballot Test for the stormwater measure varied by the proposed rate and key demographic traits. The blue column (Approximate % of Universe) indicates the percent age of the residential property owner universe that each subgroup category comprises. When co mpared to their respective counterparts, initial support for the proposed stormwater fee was hi ghest among Democrats, those generally satis- fied with the City’s overall pe rformance in providing municipal services, newer residents (less than 5 years), and those with a proposed fee (Rate A) of less than $75 per year.

TABLE 1 DEMOGRAPHIC BREAKDOWN OF SUPPORT AT INITIAL BALLOT TEST REASONS FOR OPPOSING MEASURE Respondents who opposed the measure (or were unsure) at the Initial Ballot Test were subsequent ly asked if there was a particular reason for their position. Question 5 was asked in an open-ended manner, allowing respondents to mention any reason that came to mind without being pr ompted by, or restricted to, a particular list of options.

Among the specific reasons offered for not supp orting the measure (see Figure 6 on the next page), a belief that taxes are al ready too high was the most common (33%), followed by a need for additional information about the measure (19%), and concerns that city funds have been/will be mismanaged or misspent (18%).

Approximate %
of Voter
Universe
% Probably or
Definitely Yes % Not sure
Overall 100.0 62.1 7.7
Single dem 20.2 72.1 10.5
Dual dem 13.6 83.5 3.2
Single rep 11.1 57.1 6.4
Dual rep 8.0 44.5 6.7
Other 15.4 63.5 7.6
Mixed 31.8 52.2 8.5
Satisfied 89.3 65.2 7.8
Dissatisfied 10.7 39.2 6.6
<2,500 13.6 58.6 10.7
2,500 to 3,999 20.7 68.6 5.6
4,000 to 4,999 20.0 60.1 5.1
5,000 to 6,999 21.9 61.2 8.2
7,000 to 8,999 20.3 61.5 11.1
9,000+ 3.6 58.1 0.0
Less than 5 7.0 76.0 3.9
5 to 9 5.1 55.8 9.3
10 to 14 10.5 57.5 7.1
15 or more 77.4 61.7 7.8
Less than $75 22.3 69.3 6.8
$75 to $124 34.6 60.1 7.6
$125 to $149 16.4 58.4 5.2
$150 or more 26.7 61.0 10.0
Male 63.5 62.7 5.7
Female 36.5 63.7 10.2
Household Party Type
Years in Manhattan Beach
(Q1)
Proposed Rate A
Overall Satisfaction (Q3)
Gender
Lot Size Sqft
Initial Ballot Test
True North Research, Inc. © 2023 12City of Manhattan Beach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Question 5 Is there a particular reason why you do not support or are unsure about the mea- sure I just described?
FIGURE 6 REASONS FOR NOT SUPPORTING MEASURE

33.1 18.6

17.8 16.9

8.4 6.5

5.7 4.3

4.3 2.0

1.7 1.7

0.7 1.7

2.4 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Taxes already too high
Need more information
Money is misspent, mismanaged
Not sure, no particular reason
Other ways to be funded
City has enough money
Unfair for property owners, others should share expense Other higher priorities in community
Should be covered by current taxes, budget
Mentioned past measure
Should have a sunset, term limit
Do not trust City, government
Money will go to salaries, pensions
M easure too expensive
Already paying enough utilities
% Respondents Who Do Not Support Measure
Fee Threshold
True North Research, Inc. © 2023 13
City of Manhattan Beach
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

F EE T HRESHOLD
Naturally, property owner support for a revenue me asure is often contingent on the cost of the measure. The higher the tax rate or fee, all other things being equal, the less likely an individual is to support the measure. One of the goals of this study was thus to gauge the impact that changes in the fee rate can be expected to ha ve on property owner support for the proposed stormwater fee.

Question 6 was designed to do just that. Responden ts were first instructed that the fee rate for the measure had yet to be determined, although several rates were being considered. They were then presented with the highest amount for their property base d on the preliminary engineer’s analysis (Rate A) and asked if they would support the proposed measure at that amount. If a respondent did not answer ‘definitely yes’, they were asked whether they would support the measure at the next lowest rate (Rate B), and so on. Note that Rate B was 75% of the Rate A amount, whereas Rate C was 50% of Rate A. The th ree rates tested, as well as the percentage of respondents who indicated they would vote in favor of the measure at each rate, are shown below in Figure 7 below.

Question 6 The measure I just described would raise money from residential and commercial property owners in the City. However, the amount to be charged to each parcel has not been determined yet. If you heard that the fee would be _____ per year for each property you own in Manhattan Beach, would you vote yes or no on the measure? FIGURE 7 TAX THRESHOLD
At the highest proposed rate for each property based on the engineer’s assessment, 59% of property owners surveyed indicated they would support the measure. Incremental reductions in the fee rate resulted in incremental increases in support for the measure, with support for the proposed measure at Rate C (half of Rate A) being found among 68% of property owners.

37.3 30.9

24.5 10.9

10.6 8.4

21.8 19.5

18.0 5.643.5

31.4 21.9

7.6 8.1
0 1 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 0 1 0 0
Rate A
Rate B
Rate C
% Respondents
Definitely yes Probably yes Probably no Definitely no Not sure 59% 33%
62%
68%
30%
26%
Projects & Programs
True North Research, Inc. © 2023 14
City of Manhattan Beach
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

P ROJECTS & P ROGRAMS
The ballot language presented in Question 4 indicated that the proposed measure would provide funding to install and maintain devices in storm drains that keep trash and pollution off our beaches and out of local waterways and the ocean; monitor, investigate, and prosecute illegal discharges of pollution; reconstruct or replace aging storm drains that are at risk for collapse or failure; reduce flooding in neighborhoods; and protect public health by removing pollutants, toxic chemicals, and infectious bacteria from runoff that drai ns to the ocean. The purpose of Question 7 was to provide respondents with a fu ll range of services that may be funded by the proposed measure, as well as identify which of these services respondents most favored funding with the proceeds of the measure.

After reading each service, respondents were as ked if they would favor or oppose spending some of the money on that particular item a ssuming that the measure passed. Descriptions of the services tested, as well as individuals’ responses, are shown in Figure 8 below. The order in which the services were presented to respondent s was randomized to av oid a systematic posi- tion bias.

Question 7 The measure we've been discussing will fund a variety of storm water-related proj- ects and services in the City. If the measure passes, would you favor or oppose using some of the money to: _____, or do you not have an opinion?
FIGURE 8 PROJECTS & PROGRAMS

61.9 63.1

51.5 63.3

55.4 55.5

50.2 42.4

41.9 38.2

32.1 25.3

22.7 32.6

20.7 26.5

25.3 25.9

28.3 26.4

27.7 33.0
0 1 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 0 1 0 0
Reconstruct or replace storm drains that are identified by engineers as being at risk for collapse or failures
Install and maintain devices in storm drains that capture trash and pollution before they enter our waterways
Inspect and test storm water quality on a regular basis to ensure that it meets clean water standards
Keep trash and pollutants off our beaches and out of local waterways and the ocean
Capture, store and treat rainwater and storm water runoff to reuse for irrigation
Remove pollutants, toxic chemicals, and infectious bacteria from runoff
Reduce illegal discharges of pollution into water conveyances, such as storm drains, Polliwog Park, through improved
monitoring, investigation, prosecution
Inspect and test storm water quality on a regular basis to ensure that it meets Federal and State clean water requirements Infiltrate storm water runoff so that it never reaches the ocean or other waterways
Reduce flooding in neighborhoods
Educate students, residents and businesses on how they can reduce water pollution
Q7aQ7cQ7e2Q7dQ7iQ7hQ7fQ7e1Q7jQ7bQ7g
% Respondents
Strongly favor Somewhat favor
Projects & Programs
True North Research, Inc. © 2023 15City of Manhattan Beach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Overall, the services that found the broadest supp ort for funding were reconstructing or replac- ing storm drains that are identified by engineer s as being at risk for collapse or failure (87% strongly or somewhat favor), installing and maintaining devices in storm drains that capture trash and pollution before they enter our waterw ays (86%), inspecting and testing storm water quality on a regular basis to ensure that it meets clean water standards (84%), and keeping trash and pollutants off our beaches and out of local waterways and the ocean (84%).

SERVICE RATINGS BY INITIAL SUPPORT Table 2 presents the top five services (show- ing the percentage of respondents who strongly favor each) by position at the Initial Ballot Test.

Not surprisingly, individuals who initially opposed the measure were generally less likely to favor spending money on a given service when compar ed with supporters. Nevertheless, initial sup- porters, opponents, and the undecided did agree on four of the top five priorities for funding.

TABLE 2 TOP PROJECTS & PROGRAMS BY POSITION AT INITIAL BALLOT TEST Position at
Initial Ballot
Test (Q4) Item Project or Programs Summary
% Strongly
Favor
Q7d Keep trash and pollutants off our beaches and out of local waterways and the ocean 82 Q7c Install and maintain devices in storm drains that capture trash and pollution before they enter our waterways 81
Q7a Reconstruct or replace storm drains that are identified by engineers as being at risk for collapse or failures 77
Q7h Remove pollutants, toxic chemicals, and infectious bacteria from runoff 73 Q7i Capture, store and treat rainwater and storm water runoff to reuse for irrigation 69 Q7a Reconstruct or replace storm drains that are identified by engineers as being at risk for collapse or failures 34
Q7c Install and maintain devices in storm drains that capture trash and pollution before they enter our waterways 32
Q7d Keep trash and pollutants off our beaches and out of local waterways and the ocean 30 Q7i Capture, store and treat rainwater and storm water runoff to reuse for irrigation 28 Q7e2 Inspect and test storm water quality on a regular basis to ensure that it meets clean water standards 26
Q7a Reconstruct or replace storm drains that are identified by engineers as being at risk for collapse or failures 51
Q7i Capture, store and treat rainwater and storm water runoff to reuse for irrigation 46 Q7e1 Inspect and test storm water quality on a regular basis to ensure that it meets Federal and State clean water requirements 45
Q7d Keep trash and pollutants off our beaches and out of local waterways and the ocean 43 Q7c Install and maintain devices in storm drains that capture trash and pollution before they enter our waterways 42
Probably or
Definitely Yes
(n = 263)
Probably or
Definitely No
(n = 126)
Not Sure
(n = 32)
Positive Arguments
True North Research, Inc. © 2023 16
City of Manhattan Beach
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

P OSITIVE A RGUMENTS
If the City chooses to present a stormwater f ee to the community for approval, property owners will be exposed to various argu ments about the measure in the ensuing months. Proponents of the measure will present arguments to try to persuade the community to support a measure, just as opponents may present arguments to achieve the opposite goal. For this study to be a reliable gauge of residential property owner support for the proposed stormwater fee, it is important that the survey simulate the type of discussion and debate that will occur prior to the vote taking place and identify how this information ultimately shapes individuals’ opinions about the mea- sure. The objective of Question 8 was thus to present respondents with arguments in favor of the proposed measure and identify whether they felt the argume nts were convincing reasons to support it. Arguments in opposition to the measure were also presented and are discussed later in this report (see Negative Arguments on page 21). Within each series, specific arguments were administered in random order to avoid a systematic position bias.

Question 8 What I'd like to do now is tell you what some people are saying about the measure we've been discussing. Supporters of the measure say: _____. Do you think this is a very convinc- ing, somewhat convincing, or not at all convincing reason to SUPPORT the measure? FIGURE 9 POSITIVE ARGUMENTS

47.5 42.8

37.4 39.9

44.9 41.3

35.5 33.0

28.9 27.2

33.4 27.5

31.5 35.7

33.0 27.2

29.5 34.4

34.4 38.2

37.3 29.6
0 1 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 0 1 0 0
M ost of City ’s storm drainpipes were installed 50+ y rs ago, are starting to fail, creating sinkholes, flooding that damage streets, private properties; measure provides funding needed to fix storm drains
It is a lot cheaper to fix a storm drain now than to pay for reconstruction, property damage and lawsuits when a pipe fails By capturing rainwater, storm water runoff to be recycled for irrigation, we can reduce the impacts of future droughts, preserve fresh drinking water
Storm water runoff carries tons of trash, infectious bacteria and toxic pollutants directly to ocean, local beaches; measure is one of best ways to protect ocean water quality, public health
By law, all of money raised by measure must be spent locally to protect water quality; it can’t be taken away by State, be used for other purposes
Ev ery y ear, thousands of pounds of trash from streets washes up on local beaches; measure will help prevent, clean up trash, pollution before it ends up in water, on shorelines, beaches
Measure is needed to cover actual costs of maintaining stormwater system, which includes repairing, maintaining 24 miles of pipes, hundreds of catch basins, removing trash, pollutants before they reach ocean, local beaches
By keeping local beaches and waterways clean, free of pollution, measure will help protect quality of life in Manhattan Beach It’s our responsibility to take care of the environment, natural resources for future generations; measure will help improve quality of life as well as theirs
The typical residential property owner in Manhattan Beach pays < $20 per yr to address stormwater pipes, infrastructure, pollution; the fee was established in 1996 (25+ yrs ago) has never increased There will be a clear system of accountability including annual independent audits to ensure that money is spent properly Q8hQ8iQ8kQ8cQ8fQ8jQ8bQ8gQ8eQ8aQ8d
% Respondents
Very convincing Somewhat convincing
Positive Arguments
True North Research, Inc. © 2023 17City of Manhattan Beach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Figure 9 presents the truncated positive argume nts tested, as well as respondents’ reactions to the arguments. The arguments are ranked from mo st convincing to least convincing based on the percentage of respondents who indicated that the argument was either a ‘very convincing’ or ‘somewhat convincing’ reason to support the stormwater measure. Using this methodology, the most compelling positive arguments were: Most of the City's storm drainpipes were installed more than 50 years ago and are starting to fail, creating sinkholes and flooding that damage streets and private properties. This measure provides the funding needed to fix our storm drains (75% very or somewhat convincing), It is a lot cheaper to fix a storm drain now than to pay for reconstruction, property damage and lawsuits when a pipe fails (74%), and By capturing rainwa- ter and storm water runoff to be recycled for irrigation, we can reduce the impacts of future droughts and preserve our fresh drinking water (73%).

POSITIVE ARGUMENTS BY INITIAL SUPPORT Table 3 on the next page lists the top five most convincing positive arguments (showing the percentage of respondents who cited it as very convincing) according to respondents’ vote ch oice at the Initial Ba llot Test. The positive arguments resonated with a higher percentage of voters initially inclined to support the measure compared with those who initially opposed the measure or were unsure. Nevertheless, four argu- ments were ranked among the top five most compelling by all three groups.

Positive Arguments
True North Research, Inc. © 2023 18City of Manhattan Beach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

TABLE 3 TOP POSITIVE ARGUMENTS BY POSITION AT INITIAL BALLOT TEST Position at
Initial Ballot
Test (Q4) Item Positive Argument Summary
% Very
Convincing
Q8h
Most of City’s storm drainpipes were installed 50+ yrs ago, are starting to fail, creating sinkholes, flooding that damage streets, private properties; measure provides funding needed to fix storm drains
66 Q8f By law, all of money raised by measure must be spent locally to protect water quality; it can’t be taken away by State, be used for other purposes 62 Q8i It is a lot cheaper to fix a storm drain now than to pay for reconstruction, property damage and lawsuits when a pipe fails 60
Q8j
Every year, thousands of pounds of trash from streets washes up on local beaches; measure will help prevent, clean up trash, pollution before it ends up in water, on shorelines, beaches
58 Q8c
Storm water runoff carries tons of trash, infectious bacteria and toxic pollutants directly to ocean, local beaches; measure is one of best ways to protect ocean water quality, public health
57 Q8f By law, all of money raised by measure must be spent locally to protect water quality; it can’t be taken away by State, be used for other purposes 17 Q8k By capturing rainwater, storm water runoff to be recycled for irrigation, we can reduce the impacts of future droughts, preserve fresh drinking water 13 Q8h
Most of City’s storm drainpipes were installed 50+ yrs ago, are starting to fail, creating sinkholes, flooding that damage streets, private properties; measure provides funding needed to fix storm drains
13 Q8i It is a lot cheaper to fix a storm drain now than to pay for reconstruction, property damage and lawsuits when a pipe fails 13
Q8j
Every year, thousands of pounds of trash from streets washes up on local beaches; measure will help prevent, clean up trash, pollution before it ends up in water, on shorelines, beaches
12 Q8h
Most of City’s storm drainpipes were installed 50+ yrs ago, are starting to fail, creating sinkholes, flooding that damage streets, private properties; measure provides funding needed to fix storm drains
30 Q8i It is a lot cheaper to fix a storm drain now than to pay for reconstruction, property damage and lawsuits when a pipe fails 24
Q8c
Storm water runoff carries tons of trash, infectious bacteria and toxic pollutants directly to ocean, local beaches; measure is one of best ways to protect ocean water quality, public health
21 Q8j
Every year, thousands of pounds of trash from streets washes up on local beaches; measure will help prevent, clean up trash, pollution before it ends up in water, on shorelines, beaches
21 Q8f By law, all of money raised by measure must be spent locally to protect water quality; it can’t be taken away by State, be used for other purposes 18 Probably or
Definitely Yes
(n = 263)
Probably or
Definitely No
(n = 126)
Not Sure
(n = 32)
Interim Ballot Test
True North Research, Inc. © 2023 19
City of Manhattan Beach
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

I NTERIM B ALLOT T EST
After exposing respondents to services that could be funded by the measure as well as the types of positive arguments they may encounter duri ng the ballot proceeding, the survey again pre- sented respondents with the ballot language used previously to gauge how support for the pro- posed stormwater fee may have changed. As shown in Figure 10, overall support among residential property owners dipped slightly to 60%, with 27% indicating that they would definitely vote yes on the measure. Approximately 33% of respondents opposed the measure at this point in the survey, and an additional 7% were unsure or unwilling to state their vote choice.

Question 9 Sometimes people change their mind about a measure once they have more infor- mation about it. Now that you have heard a bit more about the measure, let me read you a sum- mary of it again. In order to install and maintain devices in storm drains that keep trash and pollution off our beaches and out of local waterways and the ocean; monitor, investigate, and prosecute illegal discharges of pollution; reconstr uct or replace aging storm drains that are at risk for collapse or failure; reduce flooding in neighborhoods; and protect public health by removing pollutants, toxic chemicals, and infectious bacteria from runoff that drains to the ocean; shall property owners in Manhattan Beac h be assessed an annual fee for each property that they own? The fee for your property woul d be approximately: $<<Rate A>> per year. If the election were held today, would you vote yes or no on this measure? FIGURE 10 INTERIM BALLOT TEST
SUPPORT BY SUBGROUPS Table 4 on the next page show s how support for the measure at this point in the survey varied by key subgro ups, as well as the change in subgroup support when compared with the Initial Ballot Test. Positive differences appear in green and negative dif- ferences appear in red. As shown in the tabl e, support for the stormwater fee increased or decreased by modest amounts (less than 4 perce ntage points) between the Initial and Interim Ballot Test for nearly all residential property owner subgroups, with notable exceptions being those in single Republican households (-6%) and those who have lived in Manhattan Beach less than five years (-7%).

Definitely yes

26.7 Probably yes

33.3 Probably no

12.8 Definitely no

20.8 Not sure

6.0 Prefer not to
answer

0.5 Interim Ballot Test
True North Research, Inc. © 2023 20City of Manhattan Beach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

TABLE 4 DEMOGRAPHIC BREAKDOWN OF SUPPORT AT INTERIM BALLOT TEST Approximate %
of Voter
Universe
% Probably or
Definitely Yes
Change From
Initial Ballot
Test (Q4)
Overall 100.0 60.0 -2.2
Single dem 20.2 73.3 +1.2
Dual dem 13.6 87.1 +3.6
Single rep 11.1 50.8 -6.3
Dual rep 8.0 41.3 -3.2
Other 15.4 60.7 -2.7
Mixed 31.8 47.4 -4.8
Satisfied 89.3 62.3 -2.8
Dissatisfied 10.7 39.2 No change
<2,500 13.6 60.0 +1.4
2,500 to 3,999 20.7 69.8 +1.2
4,000 to 4,999 20.0 55.6 -4.5
5,000 to 6,999 21.9 55.8 -5.4
7,000 to 8,999 20.3 58.9 -2.6
9,000+ 3.6 58.1 No change
Less than 5 7.0 69.1 -6.9
5 to 9 5.1 55.6 -0.3
10 to 14 10.5 55.4 -2.1
15 or more 77.4 59.8 -1.9
Less than $75 22.3 68.2 -1.1
$75 to $124 34.6 60.1 No change
$125 to $149 16.4 53.2 -5.2
$150 or more 26.7 57.0 -4.0
Male 63.5 58.3 -4.4
Female 36.5 66.5 +2.7
Proposed Rate A
Gender
Household Party Type
Overall Satisfaction (Q3)
Lot Size Sqft
Years in Manhattan Beach
(Q1)
Negative Arguments
True North Research, Inc. © 2023 21
City of Manhattan Beach
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

N EGATIVE A RGUMENTS
Whereas Question 8 of the survey presented respondents with arguments in favor of the storm- water measure, Question 10 presented respondents with arguments designed to elicit opposi- tion to the measure. In the case of Question 10, however, respondents were asked whether they felt that the argument was a very convincing, somewhat convincing, or not at all convincing rea- son to oppose the measure. The arguments test ed, as well as respondents’ opinions about the arguments, are presented below in Figure 11.

Question 10 Next, let me tell you what opponents of the measure are saying. Opponents of the measure say: _____. Do you think this is a very convincing, somewhat convincing, or not at all convincing reason to OPPOSE the measure?
FIGURE 11 NEGATIVE ARGUMENTS
Most respondents found the negative arguments tested to be less convincing than the positive arguments. The most compellin g negative arguments were: The City of Manhattan Beach receives 400 thousand dollars each year from the County to fix the storm drain system. We don't need another storm drain fee (68%), Property owners are already paying too many taxes - includ- ing school bonds, parcel taxes, and local taxes. Enough is enough. We can't afford to keep raising our taxes (65%), and This measure won't make a difference. Most of the water pollution is coming from Los Angeles and other cities (58%).

NEGATIVE ARGUMENTS BY INITIAL SUPPORT Table 5 on the next page ranks the negative arguments (showing the percentage of respondents who cited each as very convincing) according to respondents’ vote choice at the Initial Ballot Test.

31.4 37.2

23.2 22.9

37.0 27.8

34.3 26.8
0 1 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 0 1 0 0
City of Manhattan Beach receives $400K each year
from County to fix the storm drain system; we don’t
need another storm drain fee
Property owners are already paying too many taxes -
incl school bonds, parcel taxes, local taxes; enough is enough; we can’t afford to keep raising taxes
Measure won’t make a difference; most of the water
pollution is coming from Los Angeles, other cities
Manhattan Beach is an expensive place to live,
especially for young families, seniors, those on fixed incomes; passing this tax will make it even less
affordable
Q10aQ10cQ10dQ10b
% Respondents
Very convincing Somewhat convincing
Negative Arguments
True North Research, Inc. © 2023 22City of Manhattan Beach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

TABLE 5 NEGATIVE ARGUMENTS BY POSITION AT INITIAL BALLOT TEST Position at
Initial Ballot
Test (Q4) Item Ne gative Argument Summary
% Very
Convincing
Q10c Property owners are already paying too many taxes - incl school bonds, parcel taxes, local taxes; enough is enough; we can’t afford to keep raising taxes 20 Q10a City of Manhattan Beach receives $400K each year from County to fix the storm drain system; we don’t need another storm drain fee 20
Q10d Measure won’t make a difference; most of the water pollution is coming from Los Angeles, other cities 12
Q10b Manhattan Beach is an expensive place to live, especially for young families, seniors, 10 Q10c Property owners are already paying too many taxes - incl school bonds, parcel taxes, local taxes; enough is enough; we can’t afford to keep raising taxes 75 Q10a City of Manhattan Beach receives $400K each year from County to fix the storm drain system; we don’t need another storm drain fee 59
Q10b Manhattan Beach is an expensive place to live, especially for young families, seniors, those on fixed incomes; passing this tax will make it even less affordable 52 Q10d Measure won’t make a difference; most of the water pollution is coming from Los Angeles, other cities 45
Q10c Property owners are already paying too many taxes - incl school bonds, parcel taxes, local taxes; enough is enough; we can’t afford to keep raising taxes 33 Q10d Measure won’t make a difference; most of the water pollution is coming from Los Angeles, other cities 28
Q10a City of Manhattan Beach receives $400K each year from County to fix the storm drain system; we don’t need another storm drain fee 23
Q10b Manhattan Beach is an expensive place to live, especially for young families, seniors, those on fixed incomes; passing this tax will make it even less affordable 18 Probably or
Definitely
Yes
(n = 263)
Probably or
Definitely No
(n = 126)
Not Sure
(n = 32)
Final Ballot Test
True North Research, Inc. © 2023 23
City of Manhattan Beach
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

F INAL B ALLOT T EST
Opinions about ballot measures are often not rigid, especially when the amount of information presented to the public on a measure has been limited. A goal of the survey was thus to gauge how residential property owners’ opinions about the proposed measure may be affected by the information they could encounter during the course of an election cycle. After providing respon- dents with the wording of the proposed measur e, services that could be funded, and arguments in favor of and against the proposal, the survey again asked voters whether they would vote ‘yes’ or ‘no’ on the proposed stormwater measure.

Question 11 Now that you have heard a bit more about the measure, let me read you a sum- mary of it one more time. beaches and out of local waterways and the ocean; monitor, investi- gate, and prosecute illegal discharges of pollut ion; reconstruct or replace aging storm drains that are at risk for collapse or failure; reduce flooding in neighborhoods; and protect public health by removing pollutants, toxic chemicals, and infectious bacteria from runoff that drains to the ocean; shall property owners in Manhattan Beach be assessed an annual fee for each property that they own? The fee for your prop erty would be approximately: $<<Rate A>> per year. If the election were held today, would you vote yes or no on this measure? FIGURE 12 FINAL BALLOT TEST
At this point in the survey, support for the st ormwater measure was found among 59% of resi- dential property owners, with 26% indicating that they would definitely support the measure.

Approximately 35% of respondents were opposed to the measure at the Final Ballot Test, and 6% were unsure or unwilling to state their vote choice.

Prefer not to
answer

0.7Not sure

5.5 Definitely no

20.5 Probably no

14.7 Probably yes

33.2 Definitely yes

25.5 Change in Support
True North Research, Inc. © 2023 24
City of Manhattan Beach
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

C HANGE IN S UPPORT
Table 6 provides a closer look at how supp ort for the proposed measure changed over the course of the interview by calcul ating the difference in support bet ween the Initial, Interim, and Final Ballot tests within various subgroups of re spondents. The percentage of support for the measure at the Final Ballot Test is shown in the column with the heading % Probably or Definitely Yes. The columns to the right show the difference between the Final and the Initial, and the Final and Interim Ballot Tests. Positive differences appear in green, and negative differences appear in red.

TABLE 6 DEMOGRAPHIC BREAKDOWN OF SUPPORT AT FINAL BALLOT TEST As expected, survey participants generally resp onded to the negative arguments with a reduc- tion in their support for the stormwater meas ure when compared with levels recorded at the Interim Ballot Test. The trend over the course of the entire survey (Initial to Final Ballot Test) was also one of modestly declining support for ma ny subgroups, averaging -4 percentage points overall. Nevertheless, among residential property owners, support for the proposed measure at the Final Ballot Test remained approximately 9 percentage points above the simple majority required for passage of a stormwater fee.

Whereas Table 6 displays change in support for the measure over the cour se of the interview at the subgroup level, Table 7 displays the indivi dual-level changes that occurred between the Ini- tial and Final Ballot tests for the measure. On th e left side of the table is shown each of the response options to the Initial Ballot Test and the percentage of respondents in each group. The cells in the body of the table depict movement within each response group (row) based on the information provided throughout th e course of the survey as recorded by the Final Ballot Test.

Approximate %
of Voter
Universe
% Probably or
Definitely Yes
Change From
Initial Ballot
Test (Q4)
Change From
Interim Ballot
Test (Q10)
Overall 100.0 58.7 -3.5 -1.3
Single dem 20.2 72.0 -0.1 -1.3
Dual dem 13.6 83.6 +0.1 -3.5
Single rep 11.1 46.4 -10.7 -4.4
Dual rep 8.0 38.0 -6.5 -3.3
Other 15.4 59.0 -4.4 -1.7
Mixed 31.8 48.9 -3.4 +1.4
Satisfied 89.3 60.9 -4.3 -1.4
Dissatisfied 10.7 36.7 -2.4 -2.4
<2,500 13.6 58.1 -0.5 -1.9
2,500 to 3,999 20.7 65.6 -3.0 -4.2
4,000 to 4,999 20.0 54.5 -5.6 -1.1
5,000 to 6,999 21.9 56.4 -4.8 +0.5
7,000 to 8,999 20.3 58.7 -2.9 -0.3
9,000+ 3.6 58.1 No change No change
Less than 5 7.0 75.4 -0.6 +6.3
5 to 9 5.1 50.4 -5.4 -5.2
10 to 14 10.5 54.9 -2.6 -0.5
15 or more 77.4 57.9 -3.8 -1.9
Less than $75 22.3 67.0 -2.3 -1.1
$75 to $124 34.6 58.2 -1.9 -1.9
$125 to $149 16.4 55.8 -2.6 +2.6
$150 or more 26.7 54.0 -7.0 -3.0
Male 63.5 57.8 -5.0 -0.5
Female 36.5 65.8 +2.1 -0.6
Proposed Rate A
Gender
Household Party Type
Overall Satisfaction (Q3)
Lot Size Sqft
Years in Manhattan Beach
(Q1)
Change in Support
True North Research, Inc. © 2023 25City of Manhattan Beach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

For example, in the first row we see that of the 21.9% of respondents who indicated that they would definitely support the measure at the Initia l Ballot Test, 18.6% also indicated they would definitely support the measure at the Final Ballot Test. Approximately 2.6% moved to the proba- bly support group, 0.3% moved to the probably oppose group, 0.0% moved to the definitely oppose group, and 0.5% stated they were now unsure of their vote choice.

To ease interpretation of the table, the cells are color coded. Red shaded cells indicate declining support, green shaded cells indicate increasing support, whereas white cells indicate no move- ment. Moreover, within the cells, a white font indicates a fundamental change in the vote: from yes to no, no to yes, or not sure to either yes or no.

TABLE 7 MOVEMENT BETWEEN INITIAL & FINAL BALLOT TEST
As one might expect, the information conveyed in the survey had the greatest impact on individ- uals who either weren’t sure about how they would vote at the Initial Ballot Test or were tentative in their vote choice (probably yes or probably no). Moreover, Table 7 makes clear that although the information did impact some respondents, it did not do so in a consistent way for all respon- dents. Some respondents found the information conveyed during the course of the interview to be a reason to become more supportive of th e measure, whereas a slightly larger percentage found the same information to be a reason to be less supportive. Despite 13% of respondents making a fundamental
6 shift in their opinion about the measure over the course of the interview, the net impact is that support for the measure at the Final Ballot Test (59%) was just a few per- centage points different than support at the Initial Ballot Test (62%).

6. This is, they changed from a position of support, opposition or undecided at the Initial Ballot Test to a differ- ent position at the Final Ballot Test.

Definitely
support
Probably
support
Probably
oppose
Definitely
oppose Not sure
Definitely support 21.9% 18.6% 2.6% 0.3% 0.0% 0.5%
Probably support 40.2% 6.3% 27.9% 3.9% 0.0% 2.1%
Probably oppose 10.1% 0.2% 1.1% 6.1% 2.6% 0.0%
Definitely oppose 19.6% 0.0% 0.5% 1.6% 17.5% 0.0%
Not sure 8.2% 0.3% 1.2% 2.7% 0.4% 3.6%
Initial Ballot Test (Q4)
Final Ballot Test (Q11)
Final Ballot Test at Lower Rate
True North Research, Inc. © 2023 26
City of Manhattan Beach
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

F INAL B ALLOT T EST AT L OWER R ATE
The ballot language tested throughout the surv ey used the highest proposed fee amount (Rate A) based on the preliminary engineer’s analysis for the respondent’s property. Respondents who did not support the proposed measure at the Fina l Ballot Test (Question 11) were subsequently asked if they would support the measure if the rate were cut by 50% (Rate C).

As shown in Figure 13, reduci ng the proposed fee amount for a property by 50% to Rate C resulted in just 3% of respondents switching to a definitely yes position. An additional 7% of respondents indicated they would probably support the proposal if the rate were reduced to Rate C.

Question 12 What if the fee for your property were set at the lower amount of $<<Rate C>> per year? If the election were held today, would you vote yes or no on this measure? FIGURE 13 FINAL BALLOT TEST RATE C
Prefer not to
answer

0.7 Not sure

4.6 Definitely no

17.3 Probably no

9.1 Probably yes

6.7 Definitely yes

2.8 Def, prob yes @
Rate A (Q11)

58.7 Background & Demographics
True North Research, Inc. © 2023 27
City of Manhattan Beach
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

B ACKGROUND & D EMOGRAPHICS
TABLE 8 DEMOGRAPHICS OF SAMPLE
In addition to questions direct ly related to the proposed mea- sure, the study collected basic demographic information about respondents and their households . Some of this information was gathered during the intervi ew, although much of it was collected from the assessors file or voter file. The profile of the residential property owner sample used for this study is shown in Table 8.

Total Respondents 423
Years in Manhattan Beach (Q1)
Less than 5 6.9
5 to 9 5.0
10 to 14 10.3
15 or more 76.1
Prefer not to answer 1.7
Proposed Rate A
Less than $30 22.3
$30 to $49 34.6
$50 to $69 16.4
$70 or more 26.7
Lot Size Sqft
<2,500 13.6
2,500 to 3,999 20.7
4,000 to 4,999 20.0
5,000 to 6,999 21.9
7,000 to 8,999 20.3
9,000+ 3.6
Household Party Type
Single dem 20.2
Dual dem 13.6
Single rep 11.1
Dual rep 8.0
Other 15.4
Mixed 31.8
Gender
Male 59.4
Female 34.1
Non-binary 1.2
Prefer not to answer 5.3
Methodology
True North Research, Inc. © 2023 28
City of Manhattan Beach
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

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 Manhattan Beach to develop a qu estionnaire that covered the topics of interest and avoided possible sources of systematic measurement error, including position-order effects, wording effects, response-category effects, sc aling 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, items were asked in random order for each respondent.

Some questions asked in this study were presen ted only to a subset of respondents. For exam- ple, only individuals who did not support or were unsure about the proposed fee at the Initial Ballot Test (Question 4) were asked the follow-up open-ended Question 5 regarding their reasons for not supporting the measure. The questi onnaire included with this report (see Questionnaire & Toplines on page 31) identifies the skip patterns used during the survey to ensure that each respondent received the appropriate questions.

PROGRAMMING & PRE-TEST Prior to fielding the survey, the questionnaire was CATI (Computer Assisted Telephone In terviewing) programmed to assist interviewers when conduct- ing telephone interviews. The CATI program auto matically navigates skip patterns, randomizes the appropriate question items, and alerts the interviewer to ce rtain types of keypunching mis- takes should they occur. The survey was also programmed into a passcode-protected online sur- vey application to allow online participation for sampled respondents. The integrity of the questionnaire was pre-tested internally by True North and by dialing into select households in Manhattan Beach prior to formally beginning the survey.

SAMPLE The survey was administered to a random sa mple of 423 residential property own- ers in the City who are eligible to participate in the ballot proceeding. Consistent with the profile of this universe, the sample was stratified into four property size/fee range categories to ensure that respondents represented the appropriate distri bution of residential properties in the City.

Individuals were then randomly selected for inclusion in the survey within their appropriate strata. This method ensures that if a property owner of a particular profile refuses to participate in the study, they are replaced by an individual who shares their same profile.

STATISTICAL MARGIN OF ERROR By using the probability-based sampling design noted above, True North ensured that the final sample was representative of residential property owners in the City of Manhattan Beach. The re sults of the sample can thus be used to estimate the opinions of all residential property owners in the ci ty. Because not all residential property owners participated in the study, 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 423 property owners for a particular qu estion and what would have been found if all of the estimated 12,974 residential property owners identified in the City who would receive a ballot had been surveyed for the study.

Methodology
True North Research, Inc. © 2023 29City of Manhattan Beach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Figure 14 provides a graphic plot of the maximum margin of error in this study. The maximum margin of error for a dichotomous percentage re sult occurs when the answers are evenly split such that 50% provide one response and 50% prov ide the alternative response. For this survey, the maximum margin of error is ± 4.7%.

FIGURE 14 MAXIMUM MARGIN OF ERROR DUE TO SAMPLING
Within this report, figures and tables show ho w responses to certain questions varied by sub- groups such as length of residence and partisan affiliation. Figure 14 is thus useful for under- standing 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 decrease s, the reader should use caution when general- izing and interpreting the results for small subgroups.

RECRUITING & DATA COLLECTION The survey followed a mixed-method design that employed multiple recruiting methods (email, text, and telephone) and multiple data collection methods (telephone and online). Te lephone interviews averaged 15 minutes in length and were conducted during weekday evenings (5:30PM to 9PM) and on weekends (10AM to 5PM). It is stan- dard practice not to call during the day on we ekdays because most working adults are unavail- able and thus calling during those hours would likely bias the sample.

Respondents recruited via email and text were a ssigned a unique passcode to ensure that only individuals who received an invitation could access the online survey site, and that each individ- ual could complete the survey only one time. During the data collection period, an email reminder notice was also sent to encourage participation among those who had yet to take the survey. A total of 423 surveys were completed between July 12 to July 22, 2023. 423 Respondents
± 4.7%
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 Sample Size (Number of Respondents)
Margin of Error
Methodology
True North Research, Inc. © 2023 30City of Manhattan Beach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

DATA PROCESSING Data processing consisted of checking the data for errors or inconsis- tencies, coding and recoding responses, weighting, and preparing frequency analyses and cross- tabulations.

ROUNDING Numbers that end in 0.5 or higher are rounded up to the nearest whole num- ber, 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 charts. Occasionally, these rounding rules lead to small discrepancies in the first decimal place wh en comparing tables and pie charts for a given question.

Questionnaire & Toplines
True North Research, Inc. © 2023 31
City of Manhattan Beach
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Q UESTIONNAIRE & T OPLINES

True North Research, Inc. © 2023 Page 1
City of Manhattan Beach
Storm Water Fee Survey
Final Toplines (n=423)
July 2023
Section 1: Introduction to Study
Hi, may I please speak to _____. My name is _____, and I’m calling from TNR on behalf of the City of Manhattan Beach. We’re conducting a confidential survey of property owners about important issues in Manhattan Beach and I’d 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 12 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: We’re an independent public opinion research firm. Your responses will be confidential and anonymous.

If the person asks why you need to speak to the listed person or if they ask to participate instead, explain: For statistical purposes, at this time the survey must only be completed by this particular individual.

Section 2: Screener for Inclusion in the Study
SC1 Before we begin, could you please tell me whether you currently rent or own your home in Manhattan Beach?
1 Rent 0% Terminate
2 Own 100% Go to Q1
99 Prefer not to answer 0% Terminate

Section 3: Quality of Life & City Services
I’d like to begin by asking you a few questions about what it is like to live in the City of Manhattan Beach.

Q1 How long have you lived in the City of Manhattan Beach? 1 Less than 1 year <1%
2 1 to 2 years 1%
3 3 to 4 years 5%
4 5 to 9 years 5%
5 10 to 14 years 10%
6 15 years or longer 76%
99 Prefer not to answer 2%
Questionnaire & Toplines
True North Research, Inc. © 2023 32City of Manhattan Beach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Manhattan Beach Storm Water Fee Survey July 2023
True North Research, Inc. © 2023 Page 2

Q2 How would you rate the overall quality of life in the City? Would you say it is excellent, good, fair, poor or very poor?
1 Excellent 51%
2 Good 41%
3 Fair 7%
4 Poor 1%
5 Very Poor 0%
98 Not sure 0%
99 Prefer not to answer 0%
Q3
Generally speaking, are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the job the City of Manhattan Beach 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 53%
3 Somewhat dissatisfied 8%
4 Very dissatisfied 2%
98 Not sure 3%
99 Prefer not to answer 0%

Section 4: Initial Ballot Test
Later this year, property owners in the City of Manhattan Beach may be asked to vote on a local ballot measure. Let me read you a summary of the measure.

Q4
In order to:

/g185 Install and maintain devices in storm drains that keep trash and pollution off our beaches and out of local waterways and the ocean
/g185 Monitor, investigate, and prosecute illegal discharges of pollution /g185 Reconstruct or replace aging storm drains that are at risk for collapse or failure /g185 Reduce flooding in neighborhoods
/g185 And protect public health by removing pollutants, toxic chemicals, and infectious bacteria from runoff that drains to the ocean

Shall property owners in Manhattan Beach be assessed an annual fee for each property that they own? The fee for your property would be approximately: $<<Rate A>> per year. If the election were held today, would you vote yes or no on this measure? Get answer, then ask: Would that be definitely (yes/no) or probably (yes/no)? 1 Definitely yes 22% Skip to Q6
2 Probably yes 40% Skip to Q6
3 Probably no 10% Ask Q5
4 Definitely no 20% Ask Q5
98 Not sure 8% Ask Q5
99 Prefer not to answer 1% Skip to Q6
Questionnaire & Toplines
True North Research, Inc. © 2023 33City of Manhattan Beach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Manhattan Beach Storm Water Fee Survey July 2023
True North Research, Inc. © 2023 Page 3
Q5
Is there a particular reason why you do not support or are unsure about the measure I just described? If yes, ask: Please briefly describe your reason. Verbatim responses recorded and later grouped into categories shown below.

Taxes already too high 33%
Need more information 19%
Money is misspent, mismanaged 18%
Not sure, no particular reason 17%
Other ways to be funded 8%
City has enough money 6%
Unfair for property owners, others should
share expense 6%
Other higher priorities in community 4%
Should be covered by current taxes, budget 4%
Do not trust City, government 2%
Measure too expensive 2%
Mentioned past measure 2%
Money will go to salaries, pensions 2%
Should have a sunset, term limit 2%
Already paying enough utilities 1%

Section 5: Fee Threshold
Only respondents with Rate A >= $10 receive this section.

All other respondents (i.e., those with Rate A < $10) skip to Q7.

Q6
The measure I just described would raise money from residential and commercial property owners in the City. However, the amount to be charged to each parcel has not been determined yet.

If you heard that the fee would be ______ per year for each property you own in Manhattan Beach, would you vote yes or no on the measure? Get answer, then ask: Is that definitely (yes/no) or probably (yes/no)?
Read in sequence starting with the highest amount (A), then the next highest (B), and so on.

If respondent says ‘definitely yes’, record ‘definitely yes’ for all LOWER dollar amounts and go to next section.

Ask in Order
Definitely
Yes
Probably
Yes
Probably
No
Definitely
No
Not Sure
Prefer not
to answer
A Rate A 22% 37% 11% 22% 8% 1%
B Rate B (75% of Rate A) 31% 31% 11% 19% 7% 0%
C Rate C (50% of Rate A) 44% 24% 8% 18% 5% 0%

Questionnaire & Toplines
True North Research, Inc. © 2023 34City of Manhattan Beach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Manhattan Beach Storm Water Fee Survey July 2023
True North Research, Inc. © 2023 Page 4

Section 6: Projects & Programs
Q7
The measure we’ve been discussing will fund a variety of storm water-related projects and services in the City.

If the measure passes, would you favor or oppose using some of the money to: _____, or do you not have an opinion? Get answer, if favor or oppose, then ask: Would that be strongly (favor/oppose) or somewhat (favor/oppose)?
Randomize. Split Sample E1/E2
Strongly
Favor
Somewhat
Favor
Somewhat
Oppose
Strongly
Oppose
Not sure
Prefer not
to answer
A
Reconstruct or replace storm drains that are
identified by engineers as being at risk for
collapse or failures
62% 25% 3% 4% 3% 2%
B Reduce flooding in neighborhoods 38% 28% 10% 11% 10% 4% C
Install and maintain devices in storm drains
that capture trash and pollution before they
enter our waterways
63% 23% 1% 6% 5% 2%
D Keep trash and pollutants off our beaches
and out of local waterways and the ocean 63% 21% 2% 6% 5% 2% E1
Inspect and test storm water quality on a
regular basis to ensure that it meets Federal
and State clean water requirements
42% 28% 8% 8% 7% 6%
E2
Inspect and test storm water quality on a
regular basis to ensure that it meets clean
water standards
51% 33% 2% 7% 5% 2%
F
Reduce illegal discharges of pollution into
water conveyances – such as storm drains and
Polliwog Park – through improved monitoring,
investigation and prosecution
50% 26% 6% 8% 7% 3%
G Educate students, residents and businesses
on how they can reduce water pollution 32% 33% 11% 13% 8% 3% H Remove pollutants, toxic chemicals, and
infectious bacteria from runoff 56% 25% 3% 7% 6% 2%
I Capture, store and treat rainwater and storm
water runoff to reuse for irrigation 55% 26% 5% 5% 6% 2% J Infiltrate storm water runoff so that it never
reaches the ocean or other waterways 42% 26% 7% 9% 12% 3%

Questionnaire & Toplines
True North Research, Inc. © 2023 35City of Manhattan Beach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Manhattan Beach Storm Water Fee Survey July 2023
True North Research, Inc. © 2023 Page 5

Section 7: Positive Arguments
What I’d like to do now is tell you what some people are saying about the measure we’ve been discussing.

Q8 Supporters of the measure say: _____. Do you think this is a very convincing, somewhat convincing, or not at all convincing reason to SUPPORT the measure? Read Items A & B first, then randomize
remaining items
Very
Convincing
Somewhat
Convincing
Not At All
Convincing
Don’ t
Believe
Not sure
Prefer not
to answer
A
The typical residential property owner in
Manhattan Beach pays less than $20 per year
to address stormwater pipes, infrastructure,
and pollution. The fee was established in
1996 (more than 25 years ago) and has never
increased.
27% 37% 22% 4% 6% 4%
B
This measure is needed to cover the actual
costs of maintaining the stormwater system,
which includes repairing and maintaining 24
miles of pipes, hundreds of catch basins, and
removing trash and pollutants before they
reach the ocean and local beaches.
36% 34% 16% 7% 3% 4%
C
Storm water runoff carries tons of trash,
infectious bacteria and toxic pollutants
directly to the ocean and local beaches. This
measure is one of the best ways to protect
our ocean water quality and public health.
40% 33% 16% 4% 3% 4%
D
There will be a clear system of accountability
including annual independent audits to
ensure that the money is spent properly.
33% 30% 20% 11% 2% 4%
E
It’s our responsibility to take care of the
environment and our natural resources for
future generations. This measure will help
improve our quality of life as well as theirs.
29% 38% 21% 5% 3% 4%
F
By law, all of the money raised by this
measure must be spent locally to protect our
water quality. It can’t be taken away by the
State or be used for other purposes.
45% 27% 13% 7% 4% 4%
G
By keeping our local beaches and waterways
clean and free of pollution, this measure will
help protect our quality of life in Manhattan
Beach.
33% 34% 19% 6% 3% 4%
H
Most of the City’s storm drainpipes were
installed more than 50 years ago and are
starting to fail, creating sinkholes and
flooding that damage streets and private
properties. This measure provides the
funding needed to fix our storm drains.
47% 27% 13% 5% 3% 4%
I
It is a lot cheaper to fix a storm drain now
than to pay for reconstruction, property
damage and lawsuits when a pipe fails.
43% 32% 14% 5% 3% 4%
Questionnaire & Toplines
True North Research, Inc. © 2023 36City of Manhattan Beach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Manhattan Beach Storm Water Fee Survey July 2023
True North Research, Inc. © 2023 Page 6
J
Every year, thousands of pounds of trash
from our streets washes up on local beaches.

This measure will help prevent and clean up
trash and pollution before it ends up in our
water and on our shorelines and beaches.
41% 30% 14% 7% 4% 4%
K
By capturing rainwater and storm water
runoff to be recycled for irrigation, we can
reduce the impacts of future droughts and
preserve our fresh drinking water.
37% 36% 13% 7% 3% 4%

Section 8: Interim Ballot Test
Sometimes people change their mind about a measure once they have more information about it. Now that you have heard a bit more about the measure, let me read you a summary of it again.

Q9
In order to:

/g185 Install and maintain devices in storm drains that keep trash and pollution off our beaches and out of local waterways and the ocean
/g185 Monitor, investigate, and prosecute illegal discharges of pollution /g185 Reconstruct or replace aging storm drains that are at risk for collapse or failure /g185 Reduce flooding in neighborhoods
/g185 And protect public health by removing pollutants, toxic chemicals, and infectious bacteria from runoff that drains to the ocean

Shall property owners in Manhattan Beach be assessed an annual fee for each property that they own? The fee for your property would be approximately: $<<Rate A>> per year. If the election were held today, would you vote yes or no on this measure? Get answer, then ask: Would that be definitely (yes/no) or probably (yes/no)? 1 Definitely yes 27%
2 Probably yes 33%
3 Probably no 13%
4 Definitely no 21%
98 Not sure 6%
99 Prefer not to answer 1%

Section 9: Negative Arguments
Next, let me tell you what opponents of the measure are saying.

Q10 Opponents of the measure say: _____. Do you think this is a very convincing, somewhat convincing, or not at all convincing reason to OPPOSE the measure? Randomize
Very
Convincing
Somewhat
Convincing
Not At All
Convincing
Don’ t
Believe
Not sure
Prefer not
to answer
A
The City of Manhattan Beach receives 400
thousand dollars each year from the County
to fix the storm drain system. We don’t need
another storm drain fee.
31% 37% 19% 3% 6% 3%
Questionnaire & Toplines
True North Research, Inc. © 2023 37City of Manhattan Beach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Manhattan Beach Storm Water Fee Survey July 2023
True North Research, Inc. © 2023 Page 7
B
Manhattan Beach is an expensive place to
live, especially for young families, seniors,
and those on fixed incomes. Passing this tax
will make it even less affordable.
23% 27% 36% 9% 2% 3%
C
Property owners are already paying too many
taxes – including school bonds, parcel taxes,
and local taxes. Enough is enough. We can’t
afford to keep raising our taxes.
37% 28% 25% 6% 1% 3%
D
This measure won’t make a difference. Most
of the water pollution is coming from Los
Angeles and other cities.
23% 34% 27% 7% 5% 3%

Section 10: Final Ballot Test
Now that you have heard a bit more about the measure, let me read you a summary of it one more time.

Q11
In order to:

/g185 Install and maintain devices in storm drains that keep trash and pollution off our beaches and out of local waterways and the ocean
/g185 Monitor, investigate, and prosecute illegal discharges of pollution /g185 Reconstruct or replace aging storm drains that are at risk for collapse or failure /g185 Reduce flooding in neighborhoods
/g185 And protect public health by removing pollutants, toxic chemicals, and infectious bacteria from runoff that drains to the ocean

Shall property owners in Manhattan Beach be assessed an annual fee for each property that they own? The fee for your property would be approximately: $<<Rate A>> per year. If the election were held today, would you vote yes or no on this measure? Get answer, then ask: Would that be definitely (yes/no) or probably (yes/no)? 1 Definitely yes 25% Skip to closing script
2 Probably yes 33% Skip to closing script
3 Probably no 15% Ask Q12
4 Definitely no 21% Ask Q12
98 Not sure 5% Ask Q12
99 Prefer not to answer 1% Skip to closing script
Only respondents with Rate A >= $10 receive this section.

All other respondents (i.e., those with Rate A < $10) skip to end script.

Q12
What if the fee for your property were set at the lower amount of $<<Rate C>> per year? If the election were held today, would you vote yes or no on this measure? Get answer, then ask: Would that be definitely (yes/no) or probably (yes/no)? Def, prob yes @ Rate A (Q11) 59%
1 Definitely yes 3%
2 Probably yes 7%
3 Probably no 9%
4 Definitely no 17%
98 Not sure 5%
99 Prefer not to answer 1%
Questionnaire & Toplines
True North Research, Inc. © 2023 38City of Manhattan Beach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Manhattan Beach Storm Water Fee Survey July 2023
True North Research, Inc. © 2023 Page 8
Those are all of the questions that I have for you. Thanks so much for participating in this important survey.

Post-Interview & Sample Items
S1 Gender
1 Male 59%
2 Female 34%
3 Non-binary 1%
99 Prefer not to answer 5%
S2 Household Party Type
1 Single Dem 20%
2 Dual Dem 14%
3 Single Rep 11%
4 Dual Rep 8%
5 Single Other 9%
6 Dual Other 6%
7 Dem & Rep 8%
8 Dem & Other 13%
9 Rep & Other 9%
0 Mixed (Dem + Rep + Other) 2%
S3 Proposed Rate A
Less than $75 22%
$75 to $124 35%
$125 to $149 16%
$150 or more 27%
S4 Lot Size
Less than 2,500 sqft 14%
2,500 to 3,999 sqft 21%
4,000 to 4,999 sqft 20%
5,000 to 6,999 sqft 22%
7,000 to 8,999 sqft 20%
9,000+ sqft 4%