Manhattan Beach City Council
August 6, 2024

Agenda Date: 7/16/2024
TO:

Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
THROUGH:

Bruce Moe, City Manager
FROM:

Steve S. Charelian, Finance Director
George Gabriel, Assistant to the City Manager
Julie Bondarchuk, Financial Controller
Libby Bretthauer, Financial Services Manager
SUBJECT:

Discussion of Whether to Consider Scheduling for the August 6, 2024, City Council Meeting Resolutions to Present to the Voters a Ballot Measure Establishing a One-Half Cent Sales Tax to Fund General City Services in Manhattan Beach, such as: Repairing/Upgrading Aging Community Facilities; Keeping Local Streets, Sidewalks, Infrastructure, and Parks Safe, Clean, and Well-Maintained; and Improving Parking Availability and Traffic Safety (City Manager Moe). (Estimated Time: 1 Hr.)

A) PROVIDE DIRECTION

B) ESTABLISH SUBCOMMITTEE
_________________________________________________________ RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Direct staff to return at the August 6, 2024, meeting with the required resolutions to place a ballot measure establishing a one-half cent sales tax at the November 5, 2024, General Municipal Election;

2. Establish a Subcommittee and assign members to assist with developing a community-led public outreach campaign.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

There are no fiscal implications associated with the recommended actions.

Should the City Council direct staff to return at the next meeting with the required resolutions to place a ballot measure establishing a one-half cent sales tax, sufficient funds are currently budgeted in the Fiscal Year 2024-2025 City Clerk budget to conduct the election and include a

City Council Meeting
July 10, 2024
247 of 338
File Number: 24-0247
ballot measure. Based on approximate costs provided by the Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk, including the ballot measure adds approximately $14,000 to our total election cost.

BACKGROUND:

At the May 21, 2024, meeting, City Council discussed and approved the proposed 5-Year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for Fiscal Year 2024-2025 through Fiscal Year 2028-2029.

During the discussion, the issue was raised as to the necessity of generating more revenue to address capital infrastructure and other needs, by potentially raising the City’s sales tax rate.

Following the meeting, staff sought the professional services of True North Research Inc., to design and conduct a statistically reliable survey of voters to assess the feasibility of a potential sales tax measure.

Currently, Sales tax is the City’s second-largest revenue source in the General Fund and accounts for approximately 12% ($11.4 million) of the FY 2024-2025 operating budget. The City’s current sales tax rate is 9.5%, which is the same as the Los Angeles County tax rate. Of the 9.5%, 7.25 % is the total statewide base sales and use tax and 2.25% are district voter-approved measures. The City only receives 1.0% (known as the Bradley-Burns local sales tax) of the statewide base. Attached to the report is a chart of how the 9.5% sales tax is currently allocated.

Based on an analysis provided by the City’s sales tax consultant, HdL Companies, 61.3% of the City’s 2023 actual sales tax revenue (driven by Bradley Burns) is generated by non-residents.

HdL specializes in public agency revenue analysis and has completed similiar analysis for 67 other cities. In looking at the Bradley Burns Local Sales Tax numbers, only four cities (Malibu, Pacific Grove, Monterey & El Monte) have a larger non-resident percentage of revenue than Manhattan Beach’s 61.3%.

To address funding needs and provide greater services, many cities in LA County have passed additional district voter-approved measures referred to as transaction and use tax (TUT). TUT may be approved locally and added to the combined state and use tax rate.

For many years, state law capped the maximum sales tax rate across LA County at 10.25%, with the exception of the City of Santa Fe Springs at 10.5%. Given the current 9.5% sales tax rate within the City, the City had a permissible increase up to 0.75% available to the City, LA County, or to certain regional agencies on a first-come, first-serve basis. However, in 2023, the State of California passed Assembly Bill (AB) 1679 which authorized L.A. County to impose a TUT of up to 0.5% that in combination with other transactions and use taxes, could exceed the combined rate limit to address homelessness. Therefore, this special statute for the County of Los Angeles was established to not infringe upon the10.25% cap.

DISCUSSION:

Polling Results Findings
As indicated in the background section of the report, True North Research, Inc.’s services were solicited to design and conduct a sales tax feasibility survey. The survey was administered

City Council Meeting
July 10, 2024
248 of 338
File Number: 24-0247
between June 19 and June 25, 2024, to a random sample of 409 voters in the City of Manhattan Beach who are likely to participate in the November 2024 election. The survey followed a mixed-method design that employed multiple recruiting methods (email, text, and telephone) and multiple data collection methods (telephone and online).

Staff has attached the sales tax feasibility survey summary report provided by True North Research, Inc, which details the findings. In summary, the report posed the following pertinent question to likely voters:

“To provide funding for general city services in Manhattan Beach, such as keeping local streets, sidewalks, infrastructure, and parks safe, clean, and well-maintained; repairing/upgrading aging community facilities; fixing potholes; and improving parking availability and traffic safety; shall City of Manhattan Beach's ordinance establishing a one-half cent sales tax be adopted, providing 5 million dollars annually until ended by voters for general government use that can't be taken away by the State, with citizen oversight, independent audits, and all money locally controlled? If the election were held today, would you vote yes or no on this measure?” After analysis, True North Research, Inc. concluded the following:
“Manhattan Beach voters have a high opinion of the quality of life in the City and value the services they receive from the City of Manhattan Beach. Together, these sentiments translate into solid natural support (64%) for establishing a one-half cent sales tax to provide funding for city services in Manhattan Beach, such as keeping local streets, sidewalks, infrastructure, and parks safe, clean, and well-maintained; repairing/upgrading aging community facilities; fixing potholes; and improving parking availability and traffic safety. The results of this survey indicate that a local sales tax measure is feasible for the November 2024 ballot provided that it focuses on the projects and services that voters identify as their priorities and is accompanied by robust community/opinion leader engagement, education, and communication.” Sales Tax Feasibility
When considering a sales tax increase, the City has two options on the type of TUT sales tax measures: general tax and special tax. As a general tax measure, a sales tax increase would require a majority vote of ballots cast to pass. Comparatively, special tax measures that are dedicated to fund specific projects or activities require a two-thirds vote to pass. A general tax measure for sales tax is preferable not only because it requires a majority vote, but it provides elected officials with the flexibility to fund future priorities which may be different than today. A special tax measure would dedicate the revenue stream to the specific purpose or project.

A sales tax increase must first be approved through at least a two-thirds vote of all members of the City Council (4 out of 5 Councilmembers) and then a majority vote in the next municipal election in November 2024. The chart below lists the potential TUT increase along with the estimated additional revenue to the City:

Percent Increase Estimated TUT Revenue

0.25% $2.58 Million

City Council Meeting
July 10, 2024
249 of 338
File Number: 24-0247

0.50% $5.23 Million

0.75% $7.87 Million
An approved local TUT measure would ensure that any potential sales tax revenue would be used for the direct benefit of Manhattan Beach residents and not diluted across the County should another sales tax measure be presented on the ballot by another taxing authority.

Generally speaking, a majority of voters throughout various cities in California have approved sales tax measures since 2020. Passing rate percentages from 2020-2024 have averaged 76% passage rate.

General Sales Tax Elections in California (Source: Ballotpedia) Year Pass Fail Total Passing Rate
2024 14 3 17 82%
2023 1 0 1 100%
2022 36 15 51 70.6%
2020 81 23 104 77.9%
TOTAL 132 41 173 76.3% (Average)
Sales Tax in the Region
One of the potential concerns about the upcoming November 2024 general election is that it will be a crowded ballot, in which voters will be asked to consider several state and local tax measures prior to having the opportunity to vote on the sales tax being considered by the City.

Countywide, the Affordable Housing, Homelessness Solutions and Prevention Now citizen initiative ballot measure, known as “Measure H 2.0,” has officially qualified and will appear on the November 2024 ballot. If passed by voters, Measure H 2.0 would fund housing and support services for the County’s homeless population by increasing the ¼ cent sales tax to ½ cent and removing the 2027 sunset clause to ensure the tax is only removed until repealed by voters. As mentioned in the background of the report, AB 1679 authorizes L.A. County to impose a new sales tax of up to 0.5% that “in combination with other transactions and use taxes, can exceed the combined state limit of 2% under certain conditions. This is shown in the table below which shows regional sales tax rates along with TUT’s and the impact of Measure H 2.0 passage.

Regional Sales Tax Rates
City Current Tax Sales Tax w/ TUT Sales Tax w/ TUT & Measure H 2.0 Manhattan 9.5% 10% 10.25 %
Hermosa 9.5% 10.25% 10.5 %
Redondo 9.5% N/A 9.75 %
El Segundo 9.5% 10.25% 10.5 %
Hawthorne 10.25% N/A 10.5 %
Torrance 10.0% N/A 10.25 %
Lawndale 10.25% N/A 10.5 %
Gardena 10.25% N/A 10.5 %
City of LA 9.5% N/A 9.75 %
Local Ballot Measures for Manhattan Beach Voters

City Council Meeting
July 10, 2024
250 of 338
File Number: 24-0247
In addition to a potential sales tax measure, Manhattan Beach voters will also consider two other fiscal ballot measures that will likely appear on the November 2024 ballot. This includes:

1. A proposal authorizing Manhattan Beach Unified School District to issue $200,000,000 in bonds for the repair and upgrade of local school facilities and;

2. A proposal authorizing Beach Cities Health District to issue $30,000,000 in bonds to build a youth mental health center.

In anticipation of these measures and the impact it may have on likely voters, True North Research, Inc. provided this information to survey respondents, prior to asking their opinion on a sales tax measure and received support ranging from 58%-67%.

Subcommittee Establishment
Staff recommends the City Council establish an ad hoc subcommittee of two Councilmembers to facilitate public information dissemination regarding the recommended measure.

CONCLUSION:

Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Direct staff to return at the August 6, 2024, meeting with the required resolutions to place a ballot measure establishing a one-half cent sales tax at the November 5, 2024, General Municipal Election;

2. Establish a Subcommittee and assign members to assist with developing a community-led public outreach campaign.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

The City Council's consideration of a sales tax ballot measure is not a “project” as defined under Section 15378 of the State California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines because it does not have a potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. Therefore, pursuant to Section 15060(c)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines, the activity is not subject to CEQA, and no environmental review is necessary.

LEGAL REVIEW:

The City Attorney has reviewed this report and determined that no additional legal analysis is necessary.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Sales Tax Feasibility Survey Summary Report Provided by True North Research, Inc.

2. PowerPoint Presentation

City Council Meeting
July 10, 2024
251 of 338
City Council Meeting
July 10, 2024
252 of 338

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
City Council Meeting
July 10, 2024
253 of 338
Table of Contents
iCity of Manhattan Beach True North Research, Inc. © 2024 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

T ABLE OF C ONTENTS
Table of Contents. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i List of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii List of Figures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Motivation for Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Overview of Methodology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Organization of Report. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Disclaimer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 About True North . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Key Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Quality of Life & City Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Quality of Life. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Question 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Changes to Improve Manhattan Beach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Question 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Crowded Ballot Simulation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Question 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Initial Ballot Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Question 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Support by Subgroups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Reasons for Not Supporting Measure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Question 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Projects & Services. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Question 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Service Ratings by Initial Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Positive Arguments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Question 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Positive Arguments by Initial Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Interim Ballot Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Question 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Support by Subgroups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Negative Arguments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Question 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Negative Arguments by Initial Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Final Ballot Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Question 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Change in Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Fiscal Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Question 11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 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 City Council Meeting
July 10, 2024
254 of 338
List of Tables
True North Research, Inc. © 2024 ii
City of Manhattan Beach
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

L IST OF T ABLES
Table 1 Demographic Breakdown of Support by Initial Ballot Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Table 2 Top Projects & Services by Position at Initia l Ballot Test. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Table 3 Top Positive Arguments by Position at Initial Ballot Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Table 4 Demographic Breakdown of Support at Interim Ballot Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Table 5 Negative Arguments by Position at Initial Ballo t Test. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Table 6 Demographic Breakdown of Support at Final Ballot Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Table 7 Movement Between Initial & Final Ballot Test. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Table 8 Demographics of Samples. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 City Council Meeting
July 10, 2024
255 of 338
List of Figures
True North Research, Inc. © 2024 iii
City of Manhattan Beach
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

L IST OF F IGURES
Figure 1 Quality of Life . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Figure 2 Quality of Life by Child in Hsld, Age, Ho meowner on Voter File & Gender . . . . . . . . 6 Figure 3 Changes to Improve City. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Figure 4 Ballot Propositions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Figure 5 Initial Ballot Test. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Figure 6 Reasons for not Supporting Measure. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Figure 7 Projects & Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Figure 8 Positive Arguments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Figure 9 Interim Ballot Test. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Figure 10 Negative Arguments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Figure 11 Final Ballot Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2 Figure 12 Fiscal Management Rating. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Figure 13 Fiscal Management Rating by Child in Hsld, Party & Age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Figure 14 Fiscal Management Rating by Position at Initial Ballot Test, Homeowner Voter on File, Voting Propensity & Gender . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Figure 15 Maximum Margin of Error due to Sampling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 City Council Meeting
July 10, 2024
256 of 338
Introduction
True North Research, Inc. © 2024 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 34,195 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.

Over the past decade, the City of Manhattan Beach’s revenues have not kept pace with the grow- ing costs associated with providing municipal se rvices and facilities. Although the City has been proactive in responding to this challenge by reducing its costs where feasible, trimming services, deferring maintenance, and through effective financial management practices, the practical real- ity is that existing revenues simply do not support the high quality services that residents have come to expect. To provide additi onal funding for essential city services such as keeping local streets, sidewalks, infrastructure, and parks safe, clean, and well-maintained; repairing/upgrad- ing aging community facilities; fixing potholes; and improving parking availability and traffic safety, the City of Manhattan Beach is considering establishing a local sales tax measure.

MOTIVATION FOR RESEARCH The primary purpose of this study was to produce an unbiased, statistically reliable evaluation of voters' interest in supporting a general sales tax measure to provide the funding noted above. Addi tionally, should the City decide to move for- ward with a revenue measure, the survey can gu ide how best to structure the measure so it is consistent with the community's priorities and expressed needs. Specifically, the study was designed to:
• Gauge current, baseline support for enacting a local sales tax to provide funding for general municipal services;
• Identify the types of services voters are most interested in funding, should the measure pass;
• Expose voters to arguments in favor of, an d against, the proposed tax measure to assess how information affects support for the measure; and
• Estimate support for the measure once voters are presented with the types of information they will likely be exposed to during an election cycle.

It is important to note at the outset that voters’ opinions about tax measures are often some- what fluid, especially when the amount of information they initially have about a measure is lim- ited. How voters 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 information about the measure during the elec- tion cycle. Accordingly, to accurately assess th e feasibility of establishing a local sales tax to fund municipal services, it was importa nt that in addition to measuring current opinions about the measure (Question 4), the survey expose respon dents to the types of information voters are likely to encounter during an election cycle, including arguments in favor of (Question 7) and opposed to (Question 9) the measure, and gauge how this type of information ultimately impacts their voting decision (Questions 8 & 10).

1. Source: California Department of Finance Ci ty/County Population Estimates, January 2024.

City Council Meeting
July 10, 2024
257 of 338
Introduction
True North Research, Inc. © 2024 2City of Manhattan Beach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

OVERVIEW OF METHODOLOGY For a full discussion of the research methods and tech- niques used in this study, turn to Methodology on page 28. In brief, the survey was administered to a random sample of 409 voters in the City of Manhattan Beach who are likely to participate in the November 2024 election. The survey followed a mixed-method design that employed multi- ple recruiting methods (email, text, and telephon e) and multiple data collection methods (tele- phone and online). Administered between June 19 and June 25, 2024, the average interview lasted 16 minutes.

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 factual findings of the survey in a Question & Answer for- mat. 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, local knowledge, and insight 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 understanding 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, performance management, establishing fiscal priori- ties, passing revenue measures, and developing effective public information campaigns.

During their careers, Dr. McLarney and Mr. Sarl es have designed and conducted over 1,300 sur- vey research studies for public agencies, includ ing more than 500 revenue measure feasibility studies. Of the measures that have gone to ballot based on Dr. McLarney’s recommendation, 95% have been successful. In total, the research that Dr. McLarney has conducted has led to over $35 billion in voter-approved local revenue measures.

City Council Meeting
July 10, 2024
258 of 338
Key Findings
True North Research, Inc. © 2024 3
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 voters’ interest in establishing a general sales tax to fund city services. Whereas subsequent sections of this report are devoted to conveying the detailed results of the survey, in this section we attempt to ‘see the forest through the trees’ and note how the collective results of the survey an swer 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 experience conducting revenue measure studies for public agen- cies throughout the State.

Is it feasible to place a
local sales tax measure
on the November 2024
ballot?
Yes. Manhattan Beach voters have a high opinion of the quality of life in the City and value the services they receive from the City of Manhattan Beach. Together, these sentim ents translate into solid natural support (64%) for establishing a one-half cent sales tax to provide funding for city services in Manhattan Beach, such as keeping local streets, sidewalks, infrastructure, and parks safe, clean, and well-maintained; repairing/ upgrading aging community facilities; fixing potholes; and improving parking availability and traffic safety.

The results of this survey indicate that a local sales tax measure is feasi- ble for the November 2024 ballot provided that it focuses on the proj- ects and services that voters identify as their priorities and is accompanied by robust community/ opinion leader engagement, educa- tion, and communication (more on this below).

Having stated that a local sales tax measure appears feasible, it is impor- tant to note that the measure’s prospects will be shaped by external fac- tors (not within the City’s or an independent campaign’s control) and that a recommendation to place the measure on the November 2024 bal- lot comes with several qualificatio ns and conditions. Indeed, although the results are promising, all revenue measures must overcome chal- lenges prior to being successful. The proposed measure is no exception.

The following paragraphs discuss some of the challenges and the next steps that True North recommends.

Which services do Man-
hattan Beach voters
view as priorities for
funding?
A general tax is “any tax imposed for general governmental purposes” 2 and is distinguished from a special tax in that the funds raised by a gen- eral tax are not earmarked for a spec ific purpose(s). Thus, a general tax provides a municipality with a great deal of flexibility with respect to what is funded by the measure on a year-to-year basis.

Although the Manhattan Beach City Council would have the discretion to decide how to spend the sales tax revenues, the survey results indicate that voters are primarily interested in using the funding to fix potholes

2. Section 1, Article XIIIC, California Constitution.

City Council Meeting
July 10, 2024
259 of 338
Key Findings
True North Research, Inc. © 2024 4City of Manhattan Beach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
and maintain city streets (88% strongly or somewhat favor), keep local streets, sidewalks, infrastructure, and parks safe, clean, and well-main- tained (87%), improve e-bike traffic enforcement and safety (80%), make improvements to roads, intersections, bike lanes, and signals to improve traffic safety and reduce congestion (79%), and expand sidewalks down- town to allow outdoor dining and improved access (73%).

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 voters’ opinions about the proposal.

It is clear from the survey results that some voters’ opinions about the proposed measure are somewhat sensit ive to the nature and amount of information that they have about the measure. Information about the specific services that could be funded by the sales tax, as well as argu- ments in favor of the measure, were found by many voters to be compel- ling reasons to support the measure— effectively increasing support for the measure to 67% at the Interim Ballot Test. However, voters also exhibited sensitivity to opposition arguments, which cooled support for the measure down to 58% at the Final Ballot Test. There is also a risk that voters could be swayed by divisive and hyper-partisan campaigning dur- ing the 2024 election cycle. Accordingly, one of the keys to building and sustaining support for a local sales tax measure will be the presence of an effective, well-organized public outreach effort, as well as an indepen- dent campaign that focuses on the need for the measure as well as the many benefits 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 local sales tax measure is feasible.

Even with lingering concerns regarding inflation, high interest rates, high gas prices, and the trajectory of the economy, a clear majority of Manhat- tan Beach voters supported establishi ng a local sales tax to fund essen- tial city services.

On the other hand, the months leading up to the November 2024 elec- tion are likely to be punctuated with significant events on the economic and political fronts. Exactly how these events unfold and may shape vot- ers’ opinions remains to be seen. Should the economy and/or political climate improve, support for the measure could increase. Conversely, negative economic and/ or political developments (including devolving into a hyper-partisan environment), competing measures, and/or skewed City Council Meeting
July 10, 2024
260 of 338
Key Findings
True North Research, Inc. © 2024 5City of Manhattan Beach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
voter turnout could dampen suppor t for the measure below what was recorded in this study.

City Council Meeting
July 10, 2024
261 of 338
Quality of Life & City Services
True North Research, Inc. © 2024 6
City of Manhattan Beach
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Q UALITY OF L IFE & C ITY S ERVICES
The opening section of the survey was designed to gauge voters’ opinions regarding the quality of life in Manhattan Beach, their ideas for how it can be improved, as well as their assessment of the City’s performance in providing municipal 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, more than ni ne-in-ten voters (91%) shared favorable opinions of the quality of life in Manhattan Beach, with 54% reporting it is excellent and 37% stating it is good. Approximately 8% of voters surveyed rated th e quality of life in th e City as fair, whereas just 1% used poor or very poor to describe the quality of life in Manhattan Beach.

Question 1 Overall, how would you rate the overall quality of life in Manhattan Beach? Would you say it is excellent, good, fair, poor or very poor? FIGURE 1 QUALITY OF LIFE
Figure 2 shows how ratings of the quality of life in
the City of Manhattan Beach varied by presence of a
child in the home, age, homeownership, and gen-
der. The most striking pattern in the figure is the
consistency with which voters provided high ratings
for the quality of life in the City, with at least 85% of respondents in every subgroup rating the quality of
life in Manhattan Beach as excellent or good.

FIGURE 2 QUALITY OF LIFE BY CHILD IN HSLD, AGE, HOMEOWNER ON VOTER FILE & GENDER Excellent

54.3 Good

36.7 Fair

8.0 Poor

0.7 Very poor

0.1 Not sure

0.2 50.4 49.8 53.7 56.1

67.1 43.8

42.3 42.6 35.4

40.3 26.4

45.1 Excellent

53.2 54.6 61.0 57.0
Good

35.6 37.6 24.6 38.7
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Yes No Under 40 40 to 49 50 to 64 65 or older Yes No Male Female Child in Hsld (Q12) Age Homeowner on Voter File Gender
% Respondents
City Council Meeting
July 10, 2024
262 of 338
Quality of Life & City Services
True North Research, Inc. © 2024 7City of Manhattan Beach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

CHANGES TO IMPROVE MANHATTAN BEACH The next question in this series asked voters to indicate the one thing that city government could change to make Manhattan Beach a better place to live, now and in the future. Question 2 was po sed in an open-ended manner, allowing residents to mention any aspect or attribute that came to mind without being prompted by or restricted to a particular list of options. True North later reviewed the verbatim responses and grouped them into the categories shown in Figure 3.

Among specific changes desired, addressing e-bike i ssues (13%) and parking issues (11%) were the most common, followed by improving public safety/more police presence (9%), preserving/ supporting outdoor dining (8%), and limiting growth and development (6%). It is also worth not- ing that approximately 16% of respondents could not think of a change to Manhattan Beach that they desired (10%) or indicated that no changes are needed/everything is fine as is (6%).

Question 2 If the city government could change one thing to make Manhattan Beach a better place to live now and in the future, what change would you like to see? FIGURE 3 CHANGES TO IMPROVE CITY

12.9 10.5

10.4 8.7

7.5 6.4

6.1 4.9

4.2 3.6

3.5 3.4

3.1 2.9

2.8 2.3

2.1 2.1

1.8 1.8

1.8 1.7

1.7 1.7

3.8 3.5
0 5 10 15
Address e-bike issues
Address parking issues
Not sure / Cannot think of anything
Improve public safety, more police presence
Preserve, support outdoor dining
Limit growth, development
No changes needed / Everything is fine
Address street sweeping issues
Improve bike lane safety
Enforce traffic laws
Address construction issues
Provide more affordable housing
Reduce traffic congestion
Underground utilities
Improve walkability, sidewalks
Add, improve parks, rec facilities
Provide more activities, events for all ages
Enforce City codes, ordinances
Improve government leadership, communication
Address homeless issues
Stronger judicial sentencing, more criminal accountability Reduce taxes, fees
Beautify City, cleanliness, landscaping
Improve Begg pool, add aquatic center
Improve public transit
Improve permitting process
% Respondents
City Council Meeting
July 10, 2024
263 of 338
Crowded Ballot Simulation
True North Research, Inc. © 2024 8
City of Manhattan Beach
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

C ROWDED B ALLOT S IMULATION
Different election environments present differ ent opportunities and challenges. One of the potential concerns about the upcoming November 2024 general election is that it will be a crowded ballot, in which voters will be asked to consider several state and local tax measures prior to having the opportunity to vote on the sales tax being considered by the City. To simulate this experience in the survey, voters were first informed about two local measures that are likely to be on the ballot for Manhattan Beach voters this fall—a proposal authorizing Manhattan Beach Unified School District to issue $200,000,000 in bonds for the repair and upgrade of local school facilities, and a proposal authorizing Beach Cities Health District to issue $30,000,000 in bonds to build a youth mental health center.

As shown in Figure 4, approximately half of voters surveyed indicated they would support the proposed school bond measure (47%) and Beach Cities Health District bond (48%) as described in the survey. It is important to keep in mind that the point of Question 3 is to simulate a crowded ballot scenario, not accurately gauge voter support for the respective measures. Because trun- cated descriptions of each measure were provided (not the full 75 word ballot statements as they will appear on the ballot), the support levels recorded in Question 3 are not likely to be a reliable gauge of support for these two measures.

Question 3 This November, voters will be asked to vote on several ballot propositions at the State and local level. As I read the following propositions, please tell me whether you would vote yes or no on them if the election were held today.

FIGURE 4 BALLOT PROPOSITIONS

17.5 3.1 2.2

48.047.1

32.333.1

16.6 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
Manhattan Beach USD $200M bond Beach Cities HD $30M bond Ballot Propositions
% Respondents
Prefer not to
answer
Not sure
No
Yes
City Council Meeting
July 10, 2024
264 of 338
Initial Ballot Test
True North Research, Inc. © 2024 9
City of Manhattan Beach
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

I NITIAL B ALLOT T EST
The primary research objective of this survey was to estimate voters’ support for establishing a one-half cent sales tax to provide funding for ci ty services in Manhattan Beach, such as keeping local streets, sidewalks, infrastructure, and parks safe, clean, and well-maintained; repairing/ upgrading aging community facilities; fixing po tholes; and improving parking availability and traffic safety. To this end, Question 4 was designed to take an early assessment of voters’ sup- port for the proposed measure.

The motivation for placing Question 4 near the front of the survey is twofold. First, voter support for a measure can often depend on the amount of information th ey 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 voter casting a ballot with limited knowledge about 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 voter support 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 fr om which to judge the impact of various informa- tion items conveyed later in the survey on voter support for the measure.

Question 4 Later this year, voters in the City of Ma nhattan Beach may be asked to vote on a local ballot measure. Let me read you a summary of the measure. To provide funding for general city services in Manhattan Beach, such as keeping local streets, sidewalks, infrastructure, and parks safe, clean, and well-maintained; repairing/upgrading aging community facilities; fixing potholes; and improving parking availability and traffic safety; shall City of Manhattan Beach's ordinance establishing a one-half cent sales tax be adopted, providing 5 million dollars annually until ended by voters for general government use that can't be taken away by the State, with cit- izen oversight, independent audits, and all money locally controlled? 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, 64% of likely November
2024 voters surveyed indicated that they would
support the proposed one-half cent sales tax,
whereas 28% stated that they would oppose the
measure and 8% were unsure or unwilling to
share their vote choice. For general taxes in Cal-
ifornia, the level of support recorded at the Ini-
tial Ballot Test is approximately 14 percentage
points above the simple majority (50%+1)
required for passage.

Definitely yes

25.6 Probably yes

38.3 Probably no

14.3 Definitely no

14.1 Not sure

7.2 Prefer not to
answer

0.4 City Council Meeting
July 10, 2024
265 of 338
Initial Ballot Test
True North Research, Inc. © 2024 10City of Manhattan Beach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

SUPPORT BY SUBGROUPS For the interested reader, Table 1 shows how support for the measure at the Initial Ballot Test varied by key demographic traits. The blue column (Approxi- mate % of Universe) indicates the percentage of the likely November 2024 electorate that each subgroup category comprises. Support for th e proposed measure was widespread, exceeding a majority in all but one identified subgroup. When compared to their respective counterparts, support was strongest among voters who rate the quality of life in Manhattan Beach as excellent, rate the City’s fiscal management as excellent or good, have children in the home, Democrats, those living in dual Democrat ho useholds, voters 40 to 49 years of age, individuals who regis- tered to vote in Manhattan Beach since June 2 012, renters, low/medium propensity voters, and females.

TABLE 1 DEMOGRAPHIC BREAKDOWN OF SUPPORT BY INITIAL BALLOT TEST Approximate %
of Voter
Universe
% Probably or
Definitely Yes % Not sure
Overall 100.0 63.9 7.2
Excellent 54.4 67.2 7.7
Good 36.7 61.7 5.2
Fair, poor, very poor 8.8 54.4 10.5
Excellent, good 49.9 72.3 5.2
Fair 36.3 57.9 8.6
Poor, very poor 13.8 40.7 7.4
Yes 33.0 71.8 4.4
No 67.0 59.9 8.7
Democrat 41.9 75.4 5.2
Republican 27.6 52.6 8.5
Other / DTS 30.5 58.5 8.8
Single dem 17.1 77.2 3.5
Dual dem 13.9 81.8 3.2
Single rep 9.5 57.9 3.7
Dual rep 8.5 50.7 13.0
Other 16.5 60.5 4.7
Mixed 34.4 56.7 11.4
Under 40 29.0 68.2 10.9
40 to 49 15.8 83.6 2.3
50 to 64 29.3 60.9 7.1
65 or older 25.8 50.6 6.1
Since June 2012 32.6 67.7 12.0
Before June 2012 67.4 62.1 4.9
Yes 74.3 62.4 7.3
No 25.7 68.4 6.8
Yes 70.5 64.2 8.4
No 29.5 63.3 4.4
High 76.4 62.4 6.1
Medium / Low 23.6 68.8 10.6
Male 50.3 63.1 9.3
Female 49.7 67.2 5.4Gender
Registration Year
Homeowner on Voter File
Likely to Vote by Mail
Voting Propensity
Household Party Type
Age
Quality of Life (Q1)
Fiscal Management
Rating (Q11)
Party
Child in Hsld (Q12)
City Council Meeting
July 10, 2024
266 of 338
Initial Ballot Test
True North Research, Inc. © 2024 11City of Manhattan Beach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

REASONS FOR NOT SUPPORTING MEASURE Respondents who opposed the measure (or were unsure) at the Initial Ballot Test were subsequently asked if th ere was a particular rea- son for their position. Question 5 was asked in an open-ended manner, allowing respondents to mention any reason that came to mind without be ing prompted by, or restricted to, a particular list of options. True North later reviewed the verbatim responses and grouped them into the cat- egories shown in Figure 6.

Among the reasons offered for not supporting the measure, a belief that taxes are already too high (36%) was the most common, followed by the perception that city funds have been/will be mismanaged or misspent (22%) and a need for more information (21%).

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

35.8 22.2

21.2 7.7

7.1 6.7

4.7 4.1

2.4 1.9

1.8 2.1
0 1 02 03 04 0
Taxes already too high
Money is misspent, mismanaged
Need more information
Other ways to be funded
City services are okay as-is, no need for more money
Not sure / No particular reason
City has enough money
Other higher priorities in community
Mentioned past ballot measure
It will hurt local economy
M easure too expensive
M oney will go to employee salaries, pensions
% Respondents Who Do Not Support Measure
City Council Meeting
July 10, 2024
267 of 338
Projects & Services
True North Research, Inc. © 2024 12
City of Manhattan Beach
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

P ROJECTS & S ERVICES
The ballot language presented in Question 4 indicated that the proposed measure would provide funding for city services in Manhattan Beach, such as keeping local streets, sidewalks, infrastruc- ture, and parks safe, clean, and well-maintained; repairing/upgrading aging community facili- ties; fixing potholes; and improving parking availability and traffic safety. The purpose of Question 6 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 voters 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 voters ’ responses, are shown in Figure 7. 3 The order in which the
services were presented to respondents was randomized to avoid a systematic position bias.

Question 6 The measure we've been discussing will provide funding for a variety of services in your community. If the measure passes, would you favor or oppose using some of the money to:
_____, or do you not have an opinion?
FIGURE 7 PROJECTS & SERVICES

3. For the full text of the services tested, turn to Question 6 in Questionnaire & Toplines on page 31.

58.1 57.0

60.0 47.4

51.1 22.3

26.9 25.7

29.8 30.4

19.5 31.7

21.9 39.9

28.9 23.9
0 1 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 0 1 0 0
Fix potholes and maintain city streets
Keep local streets, sidewalks, infrastructure, and
parks safe, clean, and well-maintained
Improve e-bike traffic enforcement and safety
Make improvements to roads, intersections, bike
lanes, signals to improv e traffic safety , reduce
congestion
Expand sidewalks downtown to allow outdoor dining
and improved access
Repair, upgrade aging community facilities such as
Joslyn Community Center, Heights Community
Center, Cultural Arts Center
Renovate or replace the City’s municipal swimming
pool - Begg Pool
Create additional parking downtown and North
Manhattan Beach
Q6fQ6dQ6hQ6gQ6eQ6aQ6bQ6c
% Respondents
Strongly favor Somewhat favor
City Council Meeting
July 10, 2024
268 of 338
Projects & Services
True North Research, Inc. © 2024 13City of Manhattan Beach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Most of the projects and services tested were popular with Manhattan Beach voters, with a major- ity of respondents indicating they would favor spending measure proceeds on all but one of the eight items tested. That said, the services that resonated with the largest percentage of respon- dents were fixing potholes and maintaining city streets (88% strongly or somewhat favor), keep- ing local streets, sidewalks, infrastructure, an d parks safe, clean, and well-maintained (87%), improving e-bike traffic enforcement and safety (80%), making improvements to roads, intersec- tions, bike lanes, and signals to improve traffic safety and reduce congestion (79%), and expand- ing sidewalks downtown to allow outdoor dining and improved access (73%).

SERVICE RATINGS BY INITIAL SUPPORT Table 2 on the next page presents the top five services (showing 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 give n service when compared with supporters. Never- theless, initial supporters, opponents, and the undecided did agree on four of the top five prior- ities for funding.

City Council Meeting
July 10, 2024
269 of 338
Projects & Services
True North Research, Inc. © 2024 14City of Manhattan Beach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

TABLE 2 TOP PROJECTS & SERVICES BY POSITION AT INITIAL BALLOT TEST Position at
Initial Ballot
Test (Q4) Item Project/Service Summary
% Strongly
Favor
Q6d Keep local streets, sidewalks, infrastructure, and parks safe, clean, and well- maintained 68
Q6f Fix potholes and maintain city streets 68
Q6h Improve e-bike traffic enforcement and safety 66
Q6e Expand sidewalks downtown to allow outdoor dining and improved access 58 Q6g Make improvements to roads, intersections, bike lanes, signals to improve traffic safety, reduce congestion 57
Q6h Improve e-bike traffic enforcement and safety 45
Q6e Expand sidewalks downtown to allow outdoor dining and improved access 40 Q6f Fix potholes and maintain city streets 40
Q6d Keep local streets, sidewalks, infrastructure, and parks safe, clean, and well- maintained 36
Q6g Make improvements to roads, intersections, bike lanes, signals to improve traffic safety, reduce congestion 22
Q6h Improve e-bike traffic enforcement and safety 73
Q6g Make improvements to roads, intersections, bike lanes, signals to improve traffic safety, reduce congestion 63
Q6f Fix potholes and maintain city streets 49
Q6d Keep local streets, sidewalks, infrastructure, and parks safe, clean, and well- maintained 46
Q6c Create additional parking downtown and North Manhattan Beach 40 Probably or
Definitely Yes
(n = 262)
Probably or
Definitely No
(n = 117)
Not Sure
(n = 29)
City Council Meeting
July 10, 2024
270 of 338
Positive Arguments
True North Research, Inc. © 2024 15
City of Manhattan Beach
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

P OSITIVE A RGUMENTS
If the City chooses to place a measure on an up coming ballot, voters will be exposed to various arguments about the measure in the ensuing months. Proponents of the measure will present arguments to try to persuade voters to support a measure, just as opponents may present argu- ments to achieve the opposite goal. For this study to be a reliable gauge of voter support for the proposed sales tax measure, 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 voters’ opinions about the measure.

The objective of Question 7 was thus to present respondents with arguments in favor of the pro- posed measure and identify whether they felt the arguments 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 20). Within each series, specific arguments were admin- istered in random order to avoid a systematic position bias.

Question 7 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 8 POSITIVE ARGUMENTS

31.1 25.6

38.6 39.2

33.6 39.8

28.8 30.9

29.5 44.3

47.4 33.3

29.6 34.9

28.2 38.7

32.4 33.3
0 1 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 0 1 0 0
City maintains 100 mi of streets, 9 community facilities, and 122 acres of parks, playfields; measure provides
funding we need to keep streets, parks, community
facilities in good condition
Due to their age, some of MB’s community facilities have structural problems, earthquake safety issues, asbestos, outdated electrical, plumbing, roof leaks; measure will fix these problems
Every dime raised by measure will be reinvested back into the community to fund essential services, facilities here in MB; by law, money can’t be taken away by State or County Currently, nearly all sales tax generated locally goes to State of CA or LA County; measure will ensure that a
higher percentage of sales tax dollars stay here in MB By keeping city safe, clean, well-maintained, measure will help protect quality of life, keep MB a special place to live Sizeable percentage of money will come from people who
visit, pass through MB, but don’t live here; measure will make sure v isitors pay fair share for facilities, serv ices they use while in city
Measure includes a clear system of accountability incl
citizen oversight, independent audits, public disclosure of how all funds are spent
M easure costs just 50 cents for ev ery $100 purchased, groceries, medicine, many other essential items are
excluded from the tax
M B has ov er $200M in needed repairs to streets, sidewalks, community facilities; the longer we wait to fix these
problems, the more expensive it will be
Q7d1Q7hQ7bQ7cQ7eQ7fQ7aQ7gQ7d2
% Respondents
Very convincing Somewhat convincing
City Council Meeting
July 10, 2024
271 of 338
Positive Arguments
True North Research, Inc. © 2024 16City of Manhattan Beach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Figure 8 on the prior page pres ents the truncated positive arguments tested, as well as voters’ reactions to the arguments. The arguments are ranked from most convincing to least convincing based on the percentage of respondents who indicated that the argument was either a ‘very con- vincing’ or ‘somewhat convincing’ reason to support the sales tax measure. Using this methodol- ogy, the most compelling positive arguments were: The City maintains 100 miles of streets, nine community facilities, and 122 acres of parks and playfields. This measure provides the funding we need to keep our streets, parks, an d community facilities in good condition (75% very or somewhat convincing), Due to their age, some of Manhattan Beach's community facilities have structural problems, earthquake safety issues, asbestos, outdated electrical and plumbing, and roof leaks that can cause water damage and mold. This measure will fix these problems (73%), Every dime raised by the measure will be reinvested back into the community to fund essential services and facilities here in Manhattan Beach. By law, the money can't be taken away by the State or County (72%), and Currently, nearly all of the sales tax generated locally goes to the State of California or Los Angeles County. This measure will ensure that a higher percentage of our sales tax dollars stay here in Manhattan Beach (69%).

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 Ballot Test. The positive arguments resonated with a much higher percentage of voters initially inclined to support the measure compared with those who initially oppose d the measure or were unsure. Nevertheless, four arguments were ranked among the top five most compelling by all three groups.

City Council Meeting
July 10, 2024
272 of 338
Positive Arguments
True North Research, Inc. © 2024 17City 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
Q7f
Sizeable percentage of money will come from people who visit, pass through MB, but don’t live here; measure will make sure visitors pay fair share for facilities, services they use while in city
50 Q7b
Every dime raised by measure will be reinvested back into the community to fund essential services, facilities here in MB; by law, money can’t be taken away by State or County
50 Q7c Currently, nearly all sales tax generated locally goes to State of CA or LA County; measure will ensure that a higher percentage of sales tax dollars stay here in MB 49 Q7d1
City maintains 100 mi of streets, 9 community facilities, and 122 acres of parks, playfields; measure provides funding we need to keep streets, parks, community facilities in good condition
42 Q7e By keeping city safe, clean, well-maintained, measure will help protect quality of life, keep MB a special place to live 42
Q7c Currently, nearly all sales tax generated locally goes to State of CA or LA County; measure will ensure that a higher percentage of sales tax dollars stay here in MB 18 Q7f
Sizeable percentage of money will come from people who visit, pass through MB, but don’t live here; measure will make sure visitors pay fair share for facilities, services they use while in city
18 Q7b
Every dime raised by measure will be reinvested back into the community to fund essential services, facilities here in MB; by law, money can’t be taken away by State or County
14 Q7a Measure includes a clear system of accountability incl citizen oversight, independent audits, public disclosure of how all funds are spent 14 Q7e By keeping city safe, clean, well-maintained, measure will help protect quality of life, keep MB a special place to live 13
Q7c Currently, nearly all sales tax generated locally goes to State of CA or LA County; measure will ensure that a higher percentage of sales tax dollars stay here in MB 39 Q7g Measure costs just 50 cents for every $100 purchased, groceries, medicine, many other essential items are excluded from the tax 37
Q7e By keeping city safe, clean, well-maintained, measure will help protect quality of life, keep MB a special place to live 37
Q7f
Sizeable percentage of money will come from people who visit, pass through MB, but don’t live here; measure will make sure visitors pay fair share for facilities, services they use while in city
37 Q7b
Every dime raised by measure will be reinvested back into the community to fund essential services, facilities here in MB; by law, money can’t be taken away by State or County
35 Probably or
Definitely Yes
(n = 262)
Probably or
Definitely No
(n = 117)
Not Sure
(n = 29)
City Council Meeting
July 10, 2024
273 of 338
Interim Ballot Test
True North Research, Inc. © 2024 18
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 voters may encounter during an election cycle, the survey again presented respondents with the ballot language used prev iously to gauge how support for the proposed sales tax measure may have changed. As shown in Figure 9, overall support among likely November 2024 voters increased to 67%, with 28% of voters indicating that they would definitely vote yes on the measure. Approximately 25% of respondents opposed the measure at this point in the survey, and an additional 8% were unsure or unwilling to state their vote choice.

Question 8 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. To provide funding for general city services in Manhattan Beach, such as keeping local streets, sidewalks, infrastructu re, and parks safe, clean, and well-maintained; repairing/upgrading aging community facilities; fixing potholes; and improving parking avail- ability and traffic safety; shall City of Manhattan Beach's ordinance establishing a one-half cent sales tax be adopted, providing 5 million dollars annually until ended by voters for general gov- ernment use that can't be taken away by the State, with citizen oversight, independent audits, and all money locally controlled? If the election were held today, would you vote yes or no on this measure?
FIGURE 9 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 voter subgroups, as well as the change in subgroup sup- port when compared with the Initial Ballot Test . Positive differences appear in green, whereas negative differences appear in red. As shown in the table, support for the sales tax measure increased or decreased by substantial amounts (8 percentage points or more) between the Initial and Interim Ballot Test for several voter subgroup s. The largest shifts in support were found among voters who registered in Manhattan Beach since June 2012 (+17), voters under the age of 40 (+16%), dual Republican households (-16%), those who rated the City’s fiscal management as poor/very poor (-15%), those residing in mixed partisan households (+14%), and medium/low propensity voters (+13%).

Prefer not to
answer

0.5Not sure

7.2 Definitely no

13.5 Probably no

11.7 Probably yes

39.1 Definitely yes

28.0 City Council Meeting
July 10, 2024
274 of 338
Interim Ballot Test
True North Research, Inc. © 2024 19City 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 67.2 +3.2
Excellent 54.4 75.8 +8.6
Good 36.7 58.9 -2.7
Fair, poor, very poor 8.8 49.1 -5.3
Excellent, good 49.9 78.7 +6.4
Fair 36.3 68.5 +10.6
Poor, very poor 13.8 26.0 -14.6
Yes 33.0 74.4 +2.6
No 67.0 63.5 +3.6
Democrat 41.9 77.7 +2.4
Republican 27.6 49.9 -2.7
Other / DTS 30.5 68.2 +9.7
Single dem 17.1 73.9 -3.3
Dual dem 13.9 83.6 +1.8
Single rep 9.5 51.1 -6.8
Dual rep 8.5 34.9 -15.8
Other 16.5 65.0 +4.4
Mixed 34.4 70.6 +13.9
Under 40 29.0 83.9 +15.7
40 to 49 15.8 80.2 -3.3
50 to 64 29.3 58.8 -2.1
65 or older 25.8 49.7 -0.8
Since June 2012 32.6 84.3 +16.6
Before June 2012 67.4 58.9 -3.2
Yes 74.3 67.3 +4.9
No 25.7 66.7 -1.7
Yes 70.5 68.9 +4.7
No 29.5 63.1 -0.3
High 76.4 62.6 +0.2
Medi
um / Low 23.6 81.9 +13.1
Male 50.3 67.6 +4.4
Female 49.7 69.8 +2.6
Likely to Vote by Mail
Voting Propensity
Gender
Household Party Type
Age
Registration Year
Homeowner on Voter File
Quality of Life (Q1)
Fiscal Management
Rating (Q11)
Child in Hsld (Q12)
Party
City Council Meeting
July 10, 2024
275 of 338
Negative Arguments
True North Research, Inc. © 2024 20
City of Manhattan Beach
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

N EGATIVE A RGUMENTS
Whereas Question 7 of the survey presented respondents with arguments in favor of the sales tax measure, Question 9 presented respondents with arguments designed to elicit opposition to the measure. In the case of Question 9, howeve r, respondents were asked whether they felt that the argument was a very convincing, somewhat convincing, or not at all convincing reason to oppose the measure. The arguments tested, as well as voters’ opinions about the arguments, are presented below in Figure 10.

Question 9 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 10 NEGATIVE ARGUMENTS
The most compelling negative arguments were: Residents are already paying too many taxes - including state and county taxes, school bonds, and other taxes. There are also a lot of new taxes on the November ballot. Enough is enough. We can't afford to keep raising our taxes (72%), There are no guarantees on how funds will be spent, which means the City can divert the money to pet projects without any say from voters. We can't trust the City with our tax dollars (68%), and Man- hattan 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 (64%).

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.

43.0 32.6

32.0 37.5

33.7 28.5

35.5 31.9

26.4 29.6
0 1 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 0 1 0 0
Residents already paying too many taxes, state and
county taxes, school bonds, other taxes; a lot of new
taxes on Nov ballot; enough is enough; we can’t afford
to keep raising taxes
There are no guarantees on how funds will be spent,
which means City can divert money to pet projects
without any say from voters; we can’t trust City with tax dollars
MB is an expensive place to live, especially for young
families, seniors, those on fixed incomes; passing this tax will make it even less affordable
This tax will last forever, it will never expire
Local residents, businesses have been hit hard by
inflation, high interest rates, high gas prices; many are struggling to stay afloat; now is not the time to raise taxes
Q9dQ9cQ9bQ9eQ9a
% Respondents
Very convincing Som ewhat convincing
City Council Meeting
July 10, 2024
276 of 338
Negative Arguments
True North Research, Inc. © 2024 21City of Manhattan Beach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

TABLE 5 NEGATIVE ARGUMENTS BY POSITION AT INITIAL BALLOT TEST Position at
Initial Ballot
Test (Q4) Item Negative Argument Summary
% Very
Convincing
Q9d
Residents already paying too many taxes, state and county taxes, school bonds, other taxes; a lot of new taxes on Nov ballot; enough is enough; we can’t afford to keep raising taxes
28 Q9c
There are no guarantees on how funds will be spent, which means City can divert money to pet projects without any say from voters; we can’t trust City with tax dollars
26 Q9e This tax will last forever, it will never expire 24 Q9b
MB is an expensive place to live, especially for young families, seniors, those on fixed incomes; passing this tax will make it even less affordable 20 Q9a Local residents, businesses have been hit hard by inflation, high interest rates, high gas prices; many are struggling to stay afloat; now is not the time to raise taxes 20 Q9d
Residents already paying too many taxes, state and county taxes, school bonds, other taxes; a lot of new taxes on Nov ballot; enough is enough; we can’t afford to keep raising taxes
75 Q9e This tax will last forever, it will never expire 69 Q9a Local residents, businesses have been hit hard by inflation, high interest rates, high gas prices; many are struggling to stay afloat; now is not the time to raise taxes 60 Q9b
MB is an expensive place to live, especially for young families, seniors, those on fixed incomes; passing this tax will make it even less affordable 55 Q9c
There are no guarantees on how funds will be spent, which means City can divert money to pet projects without any say from voters; we can’t trust City with tax dollars
46 Q9a Local residents, businesses have been hit hard by inflation, high interest rates, high gas prices; many are struggling to stay afloat; now is not the time to raise taxes 50 Q9d
Residents already paying too many taxes, state and county taxes, school bonds, other taxes; a lot of new taxes on Nov ballot; enough is enough; we can’t afford to keep raising taxes
47 Q9b MB is an expensive place to live, especially for young families, seniors, those on fixed incomes; passing this tax will make it even less affordable 44 Q9c
There are no guarantees on how funds will be spent, which means City can divert money to pet projects without any say from voters; we can’t trust City with tax dollars
42 Q9e This tax will last forever, it will never expire 31 Probably or
Definitely Yes
(n = 262)
Probably or
Definitely No
(n = 117)
Not Sure
(n = 29)
City Council Meeting
July 10, 2024
277 of 338
Final Ballot Test
True North Research, Inc. © 2024 22
City of Manhattan Beach
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

F INAL B ALLOT T EST
Voters’ opinions about ballot measures are often not rigid, especially when the amount of infor- mation presented to the public on a measure has been limited. A goal of the survey was thus to gauge how voters’ opinions about the proposed measure may be affected by the information they could encounter during the course of an election cycle. After pr oviding respondents with the wording of the proposed measure, services th at 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 sales tax measure.

Question 10 Now that you have heard a bit more about the measure, let me read you a sum- mary of it one more time. To provide funding for general city services in Manhattan Beach, such as keeping local streets, sidewalks, infrastructure, and parks safe, clean, and well-maintained; repairing/upgrading aging community facilities; fixing potholes; and improving parking avail- ability and traffic safety; shall City of Manhattan Beach's ordinance establishing a one-half cent sales tax be adopted, providing 5 million dollars annually until ended by voters for general gov- ernment use that can't be taken away by the State, with citizen oversight, independent audits, and all money locally controlled? If the election were held today, would you vote yes or no on this measure?
FIGURE 11 FINAL BALLOT TEST
At this point in the survey, support for the one-half cent sales tax measure was found among 58% of likely November 2024 voters, with 26% indicating that they would definitely support the measure. Approximately 34% of respondents were opposed to the measure at the Final Ballot Test, and 9% were unsure or unwilling to state their vote choice.

Definitely yes

26.4 Probably yes

31.3 Probably no

17.4 Definitely no

16.2 Not sure

7.9 Prefer not to
answer

0.7 City Council Meeting
July 10, 2024
278 of 338
Change in Support
True North Research, Inc. © 2024 23
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 voters. 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 di fference 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, voters generally responded to the negative arguments with a reduction in their sup- port for the sales tax measure when compared with the levels recorded at the Interim Ballot Test.

The general trend over the course of the entire survey (Initial to Final Ballot Test) was also one of declining support across voter subgroups, averaging -6% overall. Even with this trend, however, support for the proposed sales tax measure at the Final Ballot Test (58%) remained 8% above the simple majority (50%+1) required for passage.

Whereas Table 6 displays changes in support for the measure over the course 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 Approximate %
of Voter
Universe
% Probably or
Definitely Yes
Change From
Initial Ballot
Test (Q4)
Change From
Interim Ballot
Test (Q9)
Overall 100.0 57.7 -6.2 -9.4
Excellent 54.4 68.0 +0.8 -7.9
Good 36.7 47.5 -14.2 -11.5
Fair, poor, very poor 8.8 38.1 -16.3 -11.0
Excellent, good 49.9 72.0 -0.2 -6.7
Fair 36.3 55.3 -2.6 -13.2
Poor, very poor 13.8 12.4 -28.3 -13.7
Yes 33.0 67.8 -4.1 -6.6
No 67.0 52.5 -7.4 -10.9
Democrat 41.9 68.7 -6.7 -9.0
Republican 27.6 37.8 -14.8 -12.1
Other / DTS 30.5 60.7 +2.1 -7.6
Single dem 17.1 69.4 -7.7 -4.4
Dual dem 13.9 74.0 -7.8 -9.6
Single rep 9.5 42.4 -15.5 -8.7
Dual rep 8.5 30.9 -19.8 -4.1
Other 16.5 61.2 +0.6 -3.8
Mixed 34.4 54.5 -2.2 -16.1
Under 40 29.0 66.0 -2.2 -18.0
40 to 49 15.8 77.9 -5.7 -2.3
50 to 64 29.3 51.5 -9.4 -7.3
65 or older 25.8 43.1 -7.5 -6.7
Since June 2012 32.6 67.9 +0.1 -16.4
Before June 2012 67.4 52.8 -9.3 -6.1
Yes 74.3 56.3 -6.1 -11.0
No 25.7 61.8 -6
.6 -4.9
Yes 70.5 59.4 -4.8 -9.5
No 29.5 53.8 -9.6 -9.3
High 76.4 55.3 -7.1 -7.3
Medium / Low 23.6 65.3 -3.4 -16.5
Male 50.3 60.1 -3.1 -7.5
Female 49.7 57.9 -9.3 -11.9
Likely to Vote by Mail
Voting Propensity
Gender
Household Party Type
Age
Registration Year
Homeowner on Voter File
Quality of Life (Q1)
Fiscal Management
Rating (Q11)
Child in Hsld (Q12)
Party
City Council Meeting
July 10, 2024
279 of 338
Change in Support
True North Research, Inc. © 2024 24City of Manhattan Beach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
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.

For example, in the first row we see that of the 25.6% of respondents who indicated that they would definitely support the measure at the Initial Ballot Test, 17.6% also indicated they would definitely support the measure at the Final Ballot Test. Approx imately 4.4% moved to the proba- bly support group, 1.5% moved to the probably oppose group, 0.7% moved to the definitely oppose group, and 1.4% 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 voters, it did not do so in a consistent way for all respondents.

Some respondents found the info rmation conveyed during the co urse of the interview to be a reason to become more supportive of the measure, whereas a larger percentage found the same information to be a reason to be less supportive. Despite 22% of respondents making a funda- mental
4 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 (58%) was just six percentage points dif- ferent than support at the Initial Ballot Test (64%).

4. This is, they changed from a position of support, opposition, or undecided at the Initial Ballot Test to a dif- ferent position at the Final Ballot Test.

Definitely
support
Probably
support
Probably
oppose
Definitely
oppose Not sure
Definitely support 25.6% 17.6% 4.4% 1.5% 0.7% 1.4%
Probably support 38.3% 8.0% 21.4% 5.7% 1.1% 2.1%
Probably oppose 14.3% 0.2% 3.4% 7.2% 2.4% 1.1%
Definitely oppose 14.1% 0.3% 0.3% 1.6% 11.8% 0.2%
Not sure 7.6% 0.3% 1.8% 1.5% 0.2% 3.8%
Initial Ballot Test (Q4)
Final Ballot Test (Q10)
City Council Meeting
July 10, 2024
280 of 338
Fiscal Management
True North Research, Inc. © 2024 25
City of Manhattan Beach
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

F ISCAL M ANAGEMENT
The final substantive question of the survey aske d respondents to rate the job the City of Man- hattan Beach has done in managing its financial resources. Approximately three-quarters of vot- ers gave the City positive or neutral marks, with 6% rating the City’s performance as excellent, 38% good, and 32% fair. Twelve percent (12%) of respondents rated the job the City has done in managing its finances as poor or very poor, while 13% confided they were not sure or preferred to not answer the question.

Question 11 In your opinion, has the City of Manhattan Beach done an excellent, good, fair, poor or very poor job of managing its financial resources? FIGURE 12 FISCAL MANAGEMENT RATING
For the interested reader, figures 13 and 14 show
how ratings of the City’s performance in managing its
finances varied across key voter subgroups (among
those with an opinion). It is worth noting the positive relationship between having a high opinion of the
City’s performance in managing its financial
resources and support for the proposed measure at
the Initial Ballot Test.

FIGURE 13 FISCAL MANAGEMENT RATING BY CHILD IN HSLD, PARTY & AGE Excellent

5.7 Good

38.0 Fair

31.7 Poor

9.7 Very poor

2.4 Not sure

11.5 Prefer not to
answer

1.1 6.5 7.7 13.4 7.7 7.6

39.1 47.0 41.4 40.3

34.7 57.5

47.8 40.0

30.0 39.2

35.6 37.4

36.1 50.5

16.7 31.1

37.7 8.0 12.6 9.3 12.1

12.8 9.6 9.5 10.5

2.6 1.5 1.4 5.6 0.0 2.8 3.8 4.2

6.7 5.26.6

52.4 14.2
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Yes No Democrat Republican Other / DTS Under 40 40 to 49 50 to 64 65 or older Child in Hsld (Q12) Party Age
% Respondents Who Provided Opinion
Very poor
Poor
Fair
Good
Excellent
City Council Meeting
July 10, 2024
281 of 338
Fiscal Management
True North Research, Inc. © 2024 26City of Manhattan Beach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

FIGURE 14 FISCAL MANAGEMENT RATING BY POSITION AT INITIAL BALLOT TEST, HOMEOWNER VOTER ON FILE, VOTING

PROPENSITY & GENDER

4.7 6.7 3.9 7.6 5.7

32.1 33.1

40.4 52.7 43.2 44.2

45.7 42.8

33.5 39.5

46.1 37.2

33.2 36.1 36.9 34.1 39.2

8.0 18.7 6.6 12.6

6.7 12.6 11.4 8.7

5.1 8.6 3.1 1.5 2.8 2.5 1.2 3.6

7.5 5.9 7.45.6

50.0 10.6
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Def, prob
yes
Def, prob no Not sure Yes No High Medium /
Low
Male Female
Position at Initial Ballot Test (Q4) Homeowner on Voter File Voting Propensity Gender % Respondents Who Provided Opinion
Very poor
Poor
Fair
Good
Excellent
City Council Meeting
July 10, 2024
282 of 338
Background & Demographics
True North Research, Inc. © 2024 27
City of Manhattan Beach
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

B ACKGROUND & D EMOGRAPHICS
TABLE 8 DEMOGRAPHICS OF SAMPLES
In addition to questions directly related to the proposed mea- sure, the study collected ba sic demographic information about respondents and their hous eholds. Some of this infor- mation was gathered during th e interview, although much of it was collected from the voter file. The profile of the likely November 2024 voter sample represented in this report is shown in Table 8.

Total Respondents 409
Fiscal Managment Rating (Q11)
Excellent 54.3
Good 36.7
Fair, poor, very poor 8.8
Prefer not to answer 0.2
Child in Hsld (Q12)
Yes 32.8
No 66.5
Prefer not to answer 0.7
Gender
Male 49.0
Female 48.5
Non-binary 0.1
Prefer not to answer 2.3
Party
Democrat 41.9
Republican 27.6
Other / DTS 30.5
Age
Under 40 29.0
40 to 49 15.8
50 to 64 29.3
65 or older 25.8
Registration Year
Since June 2012 32.6
Before June 2012 67.4
Household Party Type
Single dem 17.1
Dual dem 13.9
Single rep 9.5
Dual rep 8.5
Other 16.5
Mixed 34.4
Homeowner on Voter File
Yes 74.3
No 25.7
Likely to Vote by Mail
Yes 70.5
No 29.5
Voting Propensity
High 76.4
Medium / Low 23.6
City Council Meeting
July 10, 2024
283 of 338
Methodology
True North Research, Inc. © 2024 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 the items in a set order can lead to a system- atic position bias in responses, items were asked in random order for each respondent.

Some questions asked in this study were presented only to a subset of respondents. For exam- ple, only individuals who did not support the me asure (or were unsure) at the Initial Ballot Test (Question 4) were asked the follow-up, open-ended Question 5 regarding their reasons for not supporting the measure. In some cases, two versions of an argument were tested to identify how wording differences impact percept ion of the item. In such cases, half the sample received the item with version 1 wording (e.g., Question 7, item D1) and the other half received version 2 (e.g., Question 7, item D2). The questi onnaire included with this report (see Questionnaire & Toplines on page 31) identifies the skip patterns that were used during the interview 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 voters. The integrity of the questionnaire was pre-tested internally by True North and by dialing into voter households in the City prior to formally beginning the survey.

SAMPLE The survey was administered to a stratified and clustered random sample of regis- tered voters in the City who are likely to participate in the November 2024 general election. Con- sistent with the profile of this universe, the sample was stratified into clusters, each representing a combination of age, gender, and household party type. Individuals were then randomly selected based on their profile into an appropriate cluster. This method ensures that if a person of a particular profile refuses to participate, th ey 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 sa mple was representative of voters in the City who are likely to participate in the November 2024 general election. The results of the survey can thus be used to estimate the opinions of all voters likely to partic ipate in that election.

Because not all voters participated in the study, however, the results have what is known as a sta- tistical margin of error due to sampling. The ma rgin of error refers to the difference between what was found in the su rvey of 409 voters for a particular question and what would have been City Council Meeting
July 10, 2024
284 of 338
Methodology
True North Research, Inc. © 2024 29City of Manhattan Beach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
found if all of the estimated 24,406 likely Nove mber 2024 voters identified in the City had been surveyed for the study.

Figure 15 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 ± 4.8%.

FIGURE 15 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 age, gender, and partisan affilia tion. Figure 15 is thus useful for understanding how the maximum margin of error for a percentage estimate will grow as the number of individ- uals asked a question (or in a particular subgro up) shrinks. Because the margin of error grows exponentially as the sample size decreases, the reader should use caution when generalizing and interpreting the results for small subgroups.

RECRUITING & DATA COLLECTION The survey followed a mixed-method design that employed multiple recruiting methods (telephone, text, and email) and multiple data collection methods (telephone and online). Te lephone interviews averaged 16 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.

Voters recruited via email and text were assigned a unique passcode to ensure that only voters who received an invitation could access the online survey site, and that each voter could com- plete the survey one time only. 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 409 surveys were completed in English and Spanish between June 19 and June 25, 2024. 409 Respondents
± 4.8%
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Sample Size (Number of Respondents)
Margin of Error
City Council Meeting
July 10, 2024
285 of 338
Methodology
True North Research, Inc. © 2024 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 tables. Occasionally, these rounding rules lead to small discrepancies in the first decimal place when comparing tables and charts for a given question.

City Council Meeting
July 10, 2024
286 of 338
Questionnaire & Toplines
True North Research, Inc. © 2024 31
City of Manhattan Beach
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Q UESTIONNAIRE & T OPLINES

True North Research, Inc. © 2024 Page 1
City of Manhattan Beach
Sales Tax Survey
Final Toplines (n=409)
June 2024
Section 1: Introduction to Study
Hi, may I please speak to _____? Hi, my name is _____ and I’m calling from TNR on behalf of the City of Manhattan Beach. The City is conducting a survey about important issues in Manhattan Beach and we would like to get your opinions.

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

If needed: The survey should take about 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 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: Quality of Life & City Services
I’d like to begin by asking you a few questions about what it is like to live in Manhattan Beach.

Q1 Overall, how would you rate the overall quality of life in Manhattan Beach? Would you say it is excellent, good, fair, poor or very poor?
1 Excellent 54%
2 Good 37%
3 Fair 8%
4 Poor 1%
5 Very poor 0%
98 Not sure 0%
99 Prefer not to answer 0%
Q2
If the city government could change one thing to make Manhattan Beach a better place to live now and in the future, what change would you like to see? Verbatim responses recorded and later grouped into categories shown below.

Address E-bike issues 13%
Address parking issues 10%
Not sure / Cannot think of anything 10%
Improve public safety, more police presence 9%
Preserve, support outdoor dining 7%
Limit growth, development 6%
No changes needed / Everything is fine 6%
Address street sweeping issues 5%
Enforce traffic laws 4%
Improve bike lane safety 4%
Address construction issues 4%
City Council Meeting
July 10, 2024
287 of 338
Questionnaire & Toplines
True North Research, Inc. © 2024 32City of Manhattan Beach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

City of Manhattan Beach Baseline Survey June 2024
True North Research, Inc. © 2024 Page 2
Provide more affordable housing 3%
Reduce traffic congestion 3%
Underground utilities 3%
Improve walkability, sidewalks 3%
Add, improve parks, rec facilities 3%
Provide more activities, events for all ages 3%
Reduce taxes, fees 2%
Improve public transit 2%
Enforce City codes, ordinances 2%
Improve government leadership,
communication 2%
Beautify City, cleanliness, landscaping 2%
Address homeless issues 2%
Improve permitting process 2%
Improve Begg pool, add aquatic center 2%
Stronger judicial sentencing, more criminal
accountability 2%

Section 3: Crowded Ballot Simulation
Q3
This November, voters will be asked to vote on several ballot propositions at the State and local level. As I read the following propositions, please tell me whether you would vote yes or no on them if the election were held today.

Here is the (first/next) one: _____. Would you vote yes or no on this measure? Read in Order
Yes
No
Not sure
Prefer not to
answer
A
A proposal authorizing Manhattan Beach
Unified School District to issue 200 million
dollars in bonds for the repair and upgrade
local school facilities.
47% 33% 17% 3%
B
A proposal authorizing Beach Cities Health
District to issue 30 million dollars in bonds to
build a youth mental health center.
48% 32% 18% 2%

City Council Meeting
July 10, 2024
288 of 338
Questionnaire & Toplines
True North Research, Inc. © 2024 33City of Manhattan Beach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

City of Manhattan Beach Baseline Survey June 2024
True North Research, Inc. © 2024 Page 3

Section 4: Initial Ballot Test
Later this year, voters 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
To provide funding for general city services in Manhattan Beach, such as:

o Keeping local streets, sidewalks, infrastructure, and parks safe, clean, and well- maintained
o Repairing/upgrading aging community facilities
o Fixing potholes
o And improving parking availability and traffic safety

Shall City of Manhattan Beach’s ordinance establishing a one-half cent sales tax be adopted, providing 5 million dollars annually until ended by voters for general government use that can’t be taken away by the State, with citizen oversight, independent audits, and all money locally controlled?

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 26% Skip to Q6
2 Probably yes 38% Skip to Q6
3 Probably no 14% Ask Q5
4 Definitely no 14% Ask Q5
98 Not sure 7% Ask Q5
99 Prefer not to answer 0% Skip to Q6
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 36%
Money is misspent, mismanaged 22%
Need more information 21%
Other ways to be funded 8%
City services are okay as-is, no need for more
money 7%
Not sure / No particular reason 7%
City has enough money 5%
Other higher priorities in community 4%
Prefer not to answer 4%
Mentioned past ballot measure 2%
Measure too expensive 2%
It will hurt local economy 2%
Money will go to employee salaries, pensions 2%

City Council Meeting
July 10, 2024
289 of 338
Questionnaire & Toplines
True North Research, Inc. © 2024 34City of Manhattan Beach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

City of Manhattan Beach Baseline Survey June 2024
True North Research, Inc. © 2024 Page 4
Section 5: Projects & Services
Q6
The measure we’ve been discussing will provide funding for a variety of services in your community.

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
Strongly
favor
Somewhat
favor
Somewhat
oppose
Strongly
oppose
Not sure
Prefer not
to answer
A
Repair and upgrade aging community
facilities such as the Joslyn Community
Center, Heights Community Center, and
Cultural Arts Center
22% 40% 19% 8% 8% 3%
B Renovate or replace the City’s municipal
swimming pool – Begg Pool 27% 29% 19% 11% 11% 2%
C Create additional parking downtown and
North Manhattan Beach 26% 24% 22% 17% 8% 3%
D Keep local streets, sidewalks, infrastructure,
and parks safe, clean, and well-maintained 57% 30% 4% 2% 4% 2% E Expand sidewalks downtown to allow outdoor
dining and improved access 51% 22% 9% 11% 4% 3%
F Fix potholes and maintain city streets 58% 30% 4% 3% 4% 2% G
Make improvements to roads, intersections,
bike lanes, and signals to improve traffic
safety and reduce congestion
47% 32% 8% 5% 6% 2%
H Improve e-bike traffic enforcement and safety 60% 20% 7% 7% 4% 2%

Section 6: Positive Arguments
What I’d like to do now is tell you what some people are saying about the measure we’ve been discussing.

Q7 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? Randomize. Split Sample D1/D2
Very
convincing
Somewhat
convincing
Not at all
convincing
Don’ t
believe
Not sure
Prefer not to
answer
A
The measure includes a clear system of
accountability including citizen oversight,
independent audits, and public disclosure of
how all funds are spent.
29% 39% 14% 13% 3% 3%
B
Every dime raised by the measure will be
reinvested back into the community to fund
essential services and facilities here in
Manhattan Beach. By law, the money can’t be
taken away by the State or County.
39% 33% 12% 11% 2% 3%
City Council Meeting
July 10, 2024
290 of 338
Questionnaire & Toplines
True North Research, Inc. © 2024 35City of Manhattan Beach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

City of Manhattan Beach Baseline Survey June 2024
True North Research, Inc. © 2024 Page 5
C
Currently, nearly all of the sales tax
generated locally goes to the State of
California or Los Angeles County. This
measure will ensure that a higher percentage
of our sales tax dollars stay here in
Manhattan Beach.
39% 30% 18% 7% 2% 3%
D1
The City maintains 100 miles of streets, nine
community facilities, and 122 acres of parks
and playfields. This measure provides the
funding we need to keep our streets, parks,
and community facilities in good condition.
31% 44% 14% 3% 5% 3%
D2
Manhattan Beach has over $200 million in
needed repairs to streets, sidewalks, and
community facilities. The longer we wait to
fix these problems, the more expensive it will
be.
29% 33% 22% 9% 3% 3%
E
By keeping our city safe, clean, and well-
maintained, this measure will help protect our
quality of life and keep Manhattan Beach a
special place to live.
34% 35% 20% 6% 3% 3%
F
A sizeable percentage of the money raised by
the sales tax will come from people who visit
or pass through Manhattan Beach, but don’t
live here. This measure will make sure visitors
pay their fair share for the facilities and
services they use while in our city.
40% 28% 18% 9% 2% 3%
G
This measure costs just 50 cents for every
100 dollars purchased – and groceries,
medicine, and many other essential items are
excluded from the tax.
31% 32% 23% 7% 3% 3%
H
Due to their age, some of Manhattan Beach’s
community facilities have structural
problems, earthquake safety issues, asbestos,
outdated electrical and plumbing, and roof
leaks that can cause water damage and mold.

This measure will fix these problems.
26% 47% 15% 6% 3% 3%

City Council Meeting
July 10, 2024
291 of 338
Questionnaire & Toplines
True North Research, Inc. © 2024 36City of Manhattan Beach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

City of Manhattan Beach Baseline Survey June 2024
True North Research, Inc. © 2024 Page 6

Section 7: 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.

Q8
To provide funding for general city services in Manhattan Beach, such as:

o Keeping local streets, sidewalks, infrastructure, and parks safe, clean, and well- maintained
o Repairing/upgrading aging community facilities
o Fixing potholes
o And improving parking availability and traffic safety

Shall City of Manhattan Beach’s ordinance establishing a one-half cent sales tax be adopted, providing 5 million dollars annually until ended by voters for general government use that can’t be taken away by the State, with citizen oversight, independent audits, and all money locally controlled?

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 28%
2 Probably yes 39%
3 Probably no 12%
4 Definitely no 13%
98 Not sure 7%
99 Prefer not to answer 0%

Section 8: Negative Arguments
Next, let me tell you what opponents of the measure are saying.

Q9 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
Local residents and businesses have been hit
hard by inflation, high interest rates, and
high gas prices. Many are struggling to stay
afloat. Now is not the time to raise taxes.
34% 30% 27% 5% 3% 2%
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.
32% 32% 28% 5% 2% 2%
City Council Meeting
July 10, 2024
292 of 338
Questionnaire & Toplines
True North Research, Inc. © 2024 37City of Manhattan Beach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

City of Manhattan Beach Baseline Survey June 2024
True North Research, Inc. © 2024 Page 7

C
There are no guarantees on how funds will be
spent, which means the City can divert the
money to pet projects without any say from
voters. We can’t trust the City with our tax
dollars.
33% 36% 21% 6% 3% 2%
D
Residents are already paying too many taxes
– including state and county taxes, school
bonds, and other taxes. There are also a lot
of new taxes on the November ballot. Enough
is enough. We can’t afford to keep raising our
taxes.
43% 28% 23% 3% 1% 2%
E This tax will last forever – it will never expire. 38% 26% 23% 8% 3% 1%

Section 9: 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.

Q10
To provide funding for general city services in Manhattan Beach, such as:

o Keeping local streets, sidewalks, infrastructure, and parks safe, clean, and well- maintained
o Repairing/upgrading aging community facilities
o Fixing potholes
o And improving parking availability and traffic safety

Shall City of Manhattan Beach’s ordinance establishing a one-half cent sales tax be adopted, providing 5 million dollars annually until ended by voters for general government use that can’t be taken away by the State, with citizen oversight, independent audits, and all money locally controlled?

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 26%
2 Probably yes 31%
3 Probably no 17%
4 Definitely no 16%
98 Not sure 8%
99 Prefer not to answer 1%

City Council Meeting
July 10, 2024
293 of 338
Questionnaire & Toplines
True North Research, Inc. © 2024 38City of Manhattan Beach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

City of Manhattan Beach Baseline Survey June 2024
True North Research, Inc. © 2024 Page 8

Section 10: Background & Demographics
Thank you so much for your participation. I have just two background questions for statistical purposes.

Q11 In your opinion, has the City of Manhattan Beach done an excellent, good, fair, poor or very poor job of managing its financial resources?
1 Excellent 6%
2 Good 38%
3 Fair 32%
4 Poor 10%
5 Very poor 2%
98 Not sure 11%
99 Prefer not to answer 1%
Q12 Do you have children under the age of 18 living in your household? 1 Yes 33%
2 No 66%
99 Prefer not to answer 1%
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 Democrat 49%
2 Republican 49%
3 Non-binary 0%
4 Prefer not to answer 2%
S2 Party
1 Democrat 42%
2 Republican 28%
3 Other 8%
4 DTS 23%
City Council Meeting
July 10, 2024
294 of 338
Questionnaire & Toplines
True North Research, Inc. © 2024 39City of Manhattan Beach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

City of Manhattan Beach Baseline Survey June 2024
True North Research, Inc. © 2024 Page 9

S3 Age on Voter File
1 18 to 29 17%
2 30 to 39 12%
3 40 to 49 16%
4 50 to 64 29%
5 65 or older 26%
S4 Registration Date
1 Since Nov 2018 18%
2 Jun 2012 to before Nov 2018 15%
3 Jun 2006 to before Jun 2012 10%
4 Before June 2006 57%
S5 Household Party Type
1 Single Dem 17%
2 Dual Dem 14%
3 Single Rep 10%
4 Dual Rep 8%
5 Single Other 11%
6 Dual Other 6%
7 Dem & Rep 6%
8 Dem & Other 12%
9 Rep & Other 13%
0 Mixed (Dem + Rep + Other) 4%
S6 Homeowner on Voter File
1 Yes 74%
2 No 26%
S7 Likely to Vote by Mail
1 Yes 71%
2 No 29%
City Council Meeting
July 10, 2024
295 of 338
Questionnaire & Toplines
True North Research, Inc. © 2024 40City of Manhattan Beach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

City of Manhattan Beach Baseline Survey June 2024
True North Research, Inc. © 2024 Page 10

S8 Likely November 2024 Voter

1 Yes 100%
2 No 0%
S9 Voting Propensity

1 High 76%
2 Medium / Low 24%

City Council Meeting
July 10, 2024
296 of 338
City Council Meeting
July 10, 2024
297 of 338
7/10/2024

SALES TAX FEASIBILITY SURVEY

C O ND U CTED FO R TH E

C ITY OF M ANH AT TAN B EACH

P RESENTED BY
T I MOT H Y M CL ARNEY P H. D.

City Council Meeting
July 10, 2024
298 of 338
3 3
o Determine if a general sales tax measure is feasible
o Identify how to create a measure consistent with
community priorities
o Gather information needed for communications &
outreach

PURPOSE OF STUDY
City Council Meeting
July 10, 2024
299 of 338
4 4
o How did we select voters to survey?
o Stratified & Clustered Random Sample of likely voters (Nov 2024) using age, gender, partisanship, household party type, and sub - geographies
o Ensures balanced, representative sample of likely voters o How did we recruit participation?
o Personalized email, text, and telephone calls
o PINs to restrict access and ensure one complete per respondent o How were voters able to share their opinions?
o Secure, PIN -protected website that scales to the device o Telephone (land line or mobile)
o What was the sample size?
o 409 completed interviews
o Overall margin of error of ± 4.8% @ 95% level of confidence

METHODOLOGY OF STUDY
City Council Meeting
July 10, 2024
300 of 338
5 5

QUALITY OF LIFE
Excellent

54.3 Good

36.7 Fair

8.0 Poor

0.7 Very poor

0.1 Not sure

0.2 City Council Meeting
July 10, 2024
301 of 338
6 6

CHANGES TO IMPROVE CITY

12.9 10.5

10.4 8.7

7.5 6.4

6.1 4.9

4.2 3.6

3.5 3.4

3.1 2.9

2.8 2.3

2.1 2.1

1.8 1.8

1.8 1.7

1.7 1.7

3.8 3.5
0 5 10 15
Address E-bike issues
Address parking issues
Not sure / Cannot think of anything
Improve public safety, more police presence
Preserve, support outdoor dining
Limit growth, development
No changes needed / Everything is fine
Address street sweeping issues
Improve bike lane safety
Enforce traffic laws
Address construction issues
Provide more affordable housing
Reduce traffic congestion
Underground utilities
Improve walkability, sidewalks
Add, improve parks, rec facilities
Provide more activities, events for all ages
Enforce City codes, ordinances
Improve government leadership, communication
Address homeless issues
Stronger judicial sentencing, more criminal accountability Reduce taxes, fees
Beautify City, cleanliness, landscaping
Improve Begg pool, add aquatic center
Improve public transit
Improve permitting process
% Respondents
City Council Meeting
July 10, 2024
302 of 338
7 7

17.5 3.1 2.2

48.047.1

32.333.1

16.6 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
Manhattan Beach USD $200M bond Beach Cities HD $30M bond Ballot Propositions
% Respondents
Prefer not to
answer
Not sure
No
Yes

CROWDED BALLOT SIMULATION
City Council Meeting
July 10, 2024
303 of 338
8 8

INITIAL BALLOT TEST
To provide funding for general city services in Manhattan Beach, such as:
o Keeping local streets, sidewalks, infrastructure, and parks safe, clean, and well -maintained
o Repairing/upgrading aging community facilities
o Fixing potholes
o And improving parking availability and traffic safety Shall City of Manhattan Beach’s ordinance establishing a one - half cent sales tax be adopted, providing 5 million dollars annually until ended by voters for general government use that can’t be taken away by the State, with citizen oversight, independent audits, and all money locally controlled? If the election were held today, would you vote yes or no on this measure?
City Council Meeting
July 10, 2024
304 of 338
9 9

INITIAL BALLOT TEST
Prefer not to
answer

0.4 Not sure

7.2 Definitely no

14.1 Probably no

14.3 Probably yes

38.3 Definitely yes

25.6 64%
28%
City Council Meeting
July 10, 2024
305 of 338
10 10

PROJECTS & SERVICES

58.1 57.0

60.0 47.4

51.1 22.3

26.9 25.7

29.8 30.4

19.5 31.7

21.9 39.9

28.9 23.9
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Fix potholes and maintain city streets
Keep local streets, sidewalks, infrastructure, and
parks safe, clean, and well-maintained
Improve e-bike traffic enforcement and safety
Make improvements to roads, intersections, bike
lanes, signals to improve traffic safety, reduce
congestion
Expand sidewalks downtown to allow outdoor dining
and improved access
Repair, upgrade aging community facilities such as
Joslyn Community Center, Heights Community
Center, Cultural Arts Center
Renovate or replace the City’s municipal swimming
pool - Begg Pool
Create additional parking downtown and North
Manhattan Beach
% Respondents
Strongly favor Somewhat favor
City Council Meeting
July 10, 2024
306 of 338
11 11

POSITIVE ARGUMENTS

31.1 25.6

38.6 39.2

33.6 39.8

28.8 30.9

29.5 44.3

47.4 33.3

29.6 34.9

28.2 38.7

32.4 33.3
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
City maintains 100 mi of streets, 9 community facilities, and 122 acres of parks, playfields; measure provides funding we need to keep streets, parks, community facilities in good condition
Due to their age, some of MB’s community facilities have structural problems, earthquake safety issues, asbestos, outdated electrical, plumbing, roof leaks; measure will fix these problems
Every dime raised by measure will be reinvested back into the community to fund essential services, facilities here in MB; by law, money can’t be taken away by State or County
Currently, nearly all sales tax generated locally goes to State of CA or LA County; measure will ensure that a higher percentage of sales tax dollars stay here in MB
By keeping city safe, clean, well-maintained, measure will help protect quality of life, keep MB a special place to live
Sizeable percentage of money will come from people who visit, pass through MB, but don’t live here; measure will make sure visitors pay fair share for facilities, services they use while in city Measure includes a clear system of accountability incl citizen oversight, independent audits, public disclosure of how all funds are spent
Measure costs just 50 cents for every $100 purchased, groceries, medicine, many other essential items are excluded from the tax MB has over $200M in needed repairs to streets, sidewalks, community facilities; the longer we wait to fix these problems, the more expensive it will be
% Respondents
Very convincing Somewhat convincing
City Council Meeting
July 10, 2024
307 of 338
12 12

INTERIM BALLOT TEST
Prefer not to
answer

0.5Not sure

7.2 Definitely no

13.5 Probably no

11.7 Probably yes

39.1 Definitely yes

28.0 67%
25%
City Council Meeting
July 10, 2024
308 of 338
13 13

NEGATIVE ARGUMENTS

43.0 32.6

32.0 37.5

33.7 28.5

35.5 31.9

26.4 29.6
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Residents already paying too many taxes, state and
county taxes, school bonds, other taxes; a lot of new
taxes on Nov ballot; enough is enough; we can’t afford
to keep raising taxes
There are no guarantees on how funds will be spent,
which means City can divert money to pet projects
without any say from voters; we can’t trust City with tax dollars
MB is an expensive place to live, especially for young
families, seniors, those on fixed incomes; passing this tax will make it even less affordable
This tax will last forever, it will never expire
Local residents, businesses have been hit hard by
inflation, high interest rates, high gas prices; many are struggling to stay afloat; now is not the time to raise taxes
% Respondents
Very convincing Somewhat convincing
City Council Meeting
July 10, 2024
309 of 338
14 14

FINAL BALLOT TEST
Definitely yes

26.4 Probably yes

31.3 Probably no

17.4 Definitely no

16.2 Not sure

7.9 Prefer not to
answer

0.7 58%34%
City Council Meeting
July 10, 2024
310 of 338
15 15

KEY CONCLUSIONS
o Does a local sales tax measure appear to be feasible for November 2024? Yes .

Positive Signs
o Voters have a high opinion of the quality of life in Manhattan Beach and value the services they receive from the City, but also see room for improvements
o Solid natural support for measure to fund city services (64%) o Popular projects and services
o Positive arguments resonate
o All ballot tests are above the simple majority (50%+1) required for passage of general tax, even after opposition arguments Challenges
o Receptiveness to potential opposition arguments ( -9%) o AB1416
o Electoral climate: Hyper -partisanship, statewide initiatives & overlapping local measures
City Council Meeting
July 10, 2024
311 of 338
16 16
o Snapshot in time, not a crystal ball
o Funding Priorities: Fixing potholes; keeping streets, sidewalks, infrastructure, and parks safe, clean, well -maintained; improving e-bike enforcement/safety; improving traffic safety/reducing congestion; expanding sidewalks to allow outdoor dining / improved access.
o City Communications : Expand the conversation with the community to build awareness of ongoing needs and consensus on a proposal.
o Independent Campaign: Need to have solid independent
campaign to navigate through the election cycle, communicate key messages, turn out supporters, and weather uncertainties.

OBSERVATIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS
City Council Meeting
July 10, 2024
312 of 338
City Council Meeting
July 10, 2024
313 of 338
•
•
•
City Council Meeting
July 10, 2024
314 of 338
City Council Meeting
July 10, 2024
315 of 338
City Council Meeting
July 10, 2024
316 of 338
City Council Meeting
July 10, 2024
317 of 338
City Council Meeting
July 10, 2024
318 of 338
City Council Meeting
July 10, 2024
319 of 338
City Council Meeting
July 10, 2024
320 of 338