SR-505-011 (3)~_
~ City of
Santa Monica
City Council Report
City Council Meeting: July 12, 2006
Agenda Item: ~ -' ~
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Craig Perkins, Director - Environmental and Public Works Management
Subject: Approval of Watershed Management Plan and Direction to Prepare
Materials for Council Review and Approval of a Clean Beaches and
Ocean Funding Measure for the November 2006 Ballot
Recommended Action
It is recommended that Council approve the Santa Monica Watershed Management
Plan, direct staff to issue a notice for a public hearing on proposed stormwater funding
increases for either July 25, 2006 or August 8, 2006, and direct staff to prepare the
materials required for official Council action on either July 25, 2006 or August 8, 2006 to
place a Clean Beaches and Ocean funding measure on the November 2006 ballot.
Executive Summary
Santa Monica has a long and abiding commitment to the protection of our beaches and
ocean resources. A number of programs, projects and ordinance changes have been
implemented over the past two decades to better control and reduce the negative
impacts from contaminated urban runoff that is caused both by storm events as well as
by the uninformed or irresponsible actions of citizens and visitors. These combined
1
efforts over the years have resulted in reduced levels of runoff pollution onto our
beaches and into Santa Monica Bay.
Due to the implementation by State and Federal agencies of more stringent regulatory
standards for broad categories of water pollutants, a considerable amount of additional
effort will be required of Santa Monica over the next several years. The recently
completed Watershed Management Plan sets forth the types of projects and programs
that are proposed to be implemented over the next ten years as part of a heightened
effort to protect Santa Monica beaches and the Bay. To pay for the additional capital
projects and new program initiatives that are required by the Plan as well as City
compliance with Total Maximum Daily Loadings TMDLs, an additional stormwater
funding measure should be placed before the voters at the November 2006 election.
A poll was conducted in late February to determine the potential level of support within
the community for a stormwater funding measure on the November ba4lot. The results
of the polling show that such a measure has a very good chance of receiving over two-
thirds support if the arguments in favor of the measure are effectively disseminated. In
order for Council to review and consider a proposed stormwater funding measure for
the November 2006 ballot, staff will need to prepare all required documents and return
to Council for review and final action by August 8, 2006. A noticed public hearing must
also be conducted and completed prior to this final action.
2
Discussion
Stormwater Manaqement Issues
The City's stormwater management program consists of operation and maintenance of
the City-owned stormwater system; compliance with Federal, State and local
regulations including inspections, monitoring and enforcement; implementation of the
Santa Monica Bay Restoration Plan; capital improvement projects to reduce and treat
polluted runoff; and an extensive public education and outreach effort. Santa Monica
operates and maintains 20 miles of stormdrains, 824 catch basins and other major
infrastructure assets such as the Santa Monica Urban Runoff Recycling Facility
(SMURRF). The Los Angeles County Public Works Department is responsible for the
operation and maintenance of the remaining stormwater conveyance infrastructure
within Santa Monica such as the Pico-Kenter drain. Santa Monica, though, is
responsible for the quality of the runoff and for all water quality permitting and
compliance related to stormdrain discharges into the ocean or other water channels
such as Ballona Creek. The City-owned stormdrains and catch basins are of varying
ages and conditions, some of them being over 60 years old. Certain sections of the
City's system have also been determined to have potentially insufficient hydraulic
capacify in the event of a major (25 year) storm.
The City of Santa Monica has long been committed to local and regional actions to
improve the condition of Santa Monica Bay and protect the health and safety of the
millions of residents and visitors who enjoy the renowned Santa Monica beaches and
ocean front each year. This commitment has been demonstrated over the past two
3
decades by a number of programs, policies and projects aimed at reducing the volume
and toxicity of urban runoff, the largest source of pollution into Santa Monica Bay.
Urban runoff management and pollution prevention activities have become significantly
more urgent and will become even more so over the next several years as regulations
promulgated by the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional
Board) that implement Total Maximum Daily Loadings (TMDLs) take effect. These new
standards are in addition to the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permit requirements for all municipalities within Los Angeles County which
have been in place since 1995. Santa Monica and every other municipality in Los
Angeles County must develop and implement action plans to each do their fair share to
comply with these new requirements and keep the beaches and ocean clean.
The TMDL milestones for which Santa Monica is responsible are those related to Santa
Monica Bay and Ballona Creek. The TMDL standards apply to both dry weather and
wet weather periods and cover a number of contaminants of concern such as bacteria,
trash, toxics, metals, pesticides and herbicides, and oil and grease. While most of the
standards for Santa Monica Bay are still under development by the Regional Board, the
bacteria reduction requirements have been established and are very stringent. As of
July 15, 2006, bacteria levels cannot exceed State-imposed bacterial thresholds in
Santa Monica Bay during dry weather periods, defined as April 1 to October 31 of each
year. Beginning in 2009, there must be a 10% reduction in wet weather bacteria
increasing to a 25% reduction by 2013, a 50% reduction by 2018 and a 100% reduction
by 2021. Concurrently, a reduction in the total number of days during the year when the
4
bacteria limits can be exceeded is also an element of the new regulations. A set of
additional contaminant reduction standards that have been promulgated by the
Regional Board will be applied to the runoff from the southeastern portion of Santa
Monica that flows into Ballona Creek, including trash, metals, toxics and bacteria.
Watershed Manaqement Plan
Over the past two years, City staff, a consultant team and various stormwater experts
have worked on the development of a Watershed Management Plan (Plan). The Plan
provides a set of recommended projects and activities, prioritized by specific public
benefit criteria, which will allow the City to improve the quality of its urban runoff, such
that the waters of Santa Monica Bay and its tributaries will meet the goals of the nation's
Clean Water Act. Consistent with current City practice, the Plan emphasizes reducing
urban runoff quantity (volume) as the most cost-effective strategy to reduce the water
pollution entering the Bay. Therefore, the identified capital projects in the Plan generally
mitigate wet weather runoff. Specific recommendations for improvements to Santa
Monica's storm water system have also been developed for each of the 13 sub-
watersheds throughout the City. The Plan breaks out these recommendations into
three primary categories: 1) stormdrain conveyance system upgrades; 2) multipurpose
capital improvement projects; and 3) on-site stormwater management systems. The
highest priority projects in the Plan are those that will best achieve the greatest number
of Plan goals:
• Reduce urban runoff pollution
• Reduce urban flooding
5
• Increase water reuse and conservation
• Increase recreational opportunities and open space
• Increase wildlife and marine habitat
The Plan's ambitious set of multi-benefit projects that are recommended by the Plan to
be built over the next 20 years carries an estimated construction and land acquisition
cost of over $200 million. The ongoing annual operation and maintenance costs for
these projects once they are completed are estimated at approximately $10 million. In
addition, a separate analysis covering current hydraulic deficiencies in the stormwater
conveyance system identified as much as $30 million in recommended system
upgrades over the next 20 years. It is noted, however, that most if not all of these
deficiencies could be addressed through the strategic application of the above-
mentioned urban runoff reduction and pollution control projects within the geographic
areas where the potential deficiencies have been noted.
Stormwater Fundinq Issues
The Watershed Management Plan presents a thorough analysis of the current funding
mechanism for the City's Stormwater Enterprise Fund, but also evaluates alternative
funding sources and approaches that may be available to the City. The report
describes the large increases in ongoing stormwater revenues that would be required to
fully implement the Plan. Since the completion of the Plan in April of this year, staff has
therefore been engaged in a careful examination of the essential fiscal needs of the
stormwater fund over the next ten year period to ensure that revenue increases are
6
limited to the amount that is absolutely necessary to cost-effectively achieve all the
City's compliance targets.
Santa Monica created a stand-alone Stormwater Enterprise Fund and adopted a
stormwater parcel fee in 1995. The fee is collected through the annual property tax bills
issued by the Los Angeles County Tax Assessor. For tax exempt parcels (City owned
property, public schools, Santa Monica College, etc.), a separate bill is generated by the
City and sent to each of the affected property owners. The current fee varies according
to parcel type and size. For example, the fee totals $3.02 per month for all single family
parcels, averages $1.05 per month for each condominium, averages $6.92 per month
for each apartment building, and averages $13.82 per month for each commercial
parcel. The fee levels that were established in 1995 have never been increased.
These stormwater fees generate approximately $1.25 million of revenue per year and
are the primary source of funds to cover capital and operational costs in the stormwater
fund. The current stormwater fee structure is a fair and equitable revenue option for the
Stormwater Enterprise Fund since the fee amounts are based on the average quantity
of runoff that is calculated to be generated (there is a distinct runoff factor for each
particular land use type) and the size of a parcel, and are therefore directly correlated to
a parcel's proportionate runoff flows that the City is responsible for conveying and
mitigating.
It is important to note that changes to the City's stormwater fee come under the purview
of State Proposition 218 that was passed in 1997. Under the current interpretation of
7
Proposition 218 by the courts, Santa Monica's stormwater fee is defined as a property-
related fee. Such a fee can be increased either through a two-thirds approval of the
locaf electorate or through majority approval from property owners obtained by a
Proposition 218 balloting process as defined by Article XIIID, §6, of the California
Constitution. Under the property owner balloting process, a mailed ballot would be sent
to each eligible Santa Monica property owner, whether they reside in Santa Monica or
not. All returned ballots would be counted and the measure could be approved by a yes
vote from a majority of the ballots received.
Another option that has been evaluated by staff is the implementation of a Clean
Beaches and Ocean Parcel Tax. This special tax would need to be approved by a two-
thirds vote of the local electorate and could be based on similar methodology to
determine the per parcel amount that is used for the existing stormwater fee. The
advantages of a stormwater parcel tax over a stormwater parcel fee are several: greater
flexibility is granted to the jurisdiction in determining the eligibility of stormwater projects
that can be funded; a parcel tax is less susceptible to challenge by individual property
owners than a parcel fee; reduced tax amounts or tax exemptions can be allowed in the
measure for specific property owners such as public schools and colleges; and, finally,
the Proposition 218 process that must be followed to place a special tax on the ballot
when compared to a property related fee is simpler. In fact, given the lead time required
to satisfy the various Proposition 218 public hearing and property owner protest
requirements for a property related fee, there is not sufficient time remaining to place a
stormwater property related fee increase on the ballot for November 2006.
8
Given the various considerations tied to each funding option discussed above, staff
recommends a special tax to be known as the "Clean Beaches and Ocean Parcel Tax"
as the most appropriate funding mechanism to generate the additional revenue
necessary to implement Santa Monica's Watershed Management Plan.
Funding Recommendations
Based on staff's analysis, it is estimated that a revenue increase of $3.0 million per
year, in the form of a Clean Beaches and Ocean Parcel Tax, would be required to
implement the minimum level of capital projects and operational enhancements needed
to implement an integrated Watershed Management Plan and comply, for at least the
next ten years, with all applicable regulatory standards. It is also projected that these
new revenues will need to be increased annually based on the Consumer Price Index
for the Stormwater Fund to remain financially viable over time. With these
enhancements, it is projected that no further revenue adjustments will be needed over
the next ten years. The additional revenue will allow the City to cover all anticipated
stormwater operations and maintenance costs as well as pay for up to $40 million in
capital projects over the next ten years. It is anticipated that Santa Monica will be able
to use its local funding to leverage access to outside capital funds from the State and
other sources that are expected to be available. It is hoped that these outside capital
grant funds could total as much as $15 million over the next ten years thereby allowing
the City to actually complete over $50 million in eligible capital projects over the period.
9
The proposed Clean Beaches and Ocean Parcel Tax would result in additional
Stormwater Fund revenues of approximately $3.0 million per year. Although the
proposed revenue increase is lower than what is recommended in the Watershed
Management Plan, staff is confident that with a focus on implementation of the most
cost-effective and strategic approaches the projected funds will be sufficient to
successfully proceed with the Plan. Since the new parcel tax would be collected by the
County as a part of their annual property tax assessment and then transferred to Santa
Monica, if the parcel tax were approved by the voters in November 2006, the new
revenues would not start to be received by the City until early 2008 due to the lag in
property tax billings by the County. New stormwater projects or programs therefore
could not be budgeted prior to FY 2007-2008.
The proposed Clean Beaches and Ocean Parcel Tax would be approximately $7.00 per
month for single family parcels; $2.50 per month for condominiums; $16.00 per month
for an average apartment building; and $32.00 per month for an average commercial
parcel. Under the proposed ballot measure, the parcel tax would thereafter be adjusted
annually based on changes in the Consumer Price Index. It is recommended that
Council exempt from the proposed parcel tax any property owned by the Santa Monica
Malibu Unified School District or Santa Monica College.
Results of Community Pollinq
A survey of 400 potential voters was conducted between February 23 and 26 of this
year to determine the level of pubfic support for revenue increases to finance expanded
10
stormwater program efforts. It is important to note that in the polling, potential voters
were asked their views on a proposed stormwater property related fee as opposed to a
special stormwater parcel tax. For purposes of interpreting the responses, it is believed
that voter attitudes are essentially the same for either approach. The polling results
(attached) show that over two-thirds of Santa Monica voters either support or lean
toward supporting a Clean Beaches and Ocean revenue measure to pay for the
expanded pollution prevention and cleanup activities that are necessary. The potential
voters were less supportive of a combined ongoing funding measure in conjunction with
a capital facilities bond measure. The polling also identifies that voters are very
concerned about protecting public health and the environment through efforts to keep
the Bay and beaches free of trash, bacteria and other contaminants as well as
upgrading aging stormdrain pipes and catch basins.
The surveyed residents were asked their opinion on two different funding approaches:
the first approach was a proposed Clean Beaches and Ocean Fee of $79 annually, and
the second approach was a combined $60 million capital bond and a$28 annual fee.
Each of these questions was asked both at the start of the interview as well as after
additional explanation and justification for the revenue increase had been shared. It is
important to note that for polling purposes it was necessary to use a single average
annual fee amount of $79 and $28, respectively, in the survey questions. In fact, these
figures overstate the additional annual amount that would be paid by most voters since
the actual amount would be less for a condominium owner or for each unit of an
apartment buitding. Accordingly, the polling consultants believe the survey results are
11
somewhat less positive than they would be if it had been possible to give each
~
interviewee the exact additional cost impact related to their specific circumstance.
When the question was first asked, 60% of the responses to the fee only question were
yes/leaning yes, and 21 % of the responses were no/leaning no. In terms of the
combined fee and bond question, 49% of the respondents were initially yes/leaning yes,
and 27% of the responses were no/leaning no. Once a fuller explanation of the purpose
and importance of the Watershed Management Plan and the necessary projects had
been shared, the yes/leaning yes responses to the fee only question rose to 67% and
the no/leaning no responses dropped to 17%. For the combined bond and fee question,
the yes/leaning yes responses rose to 64%, and the no/leaning no responses dropped
to 22%. Based on these polling results, it is recommended that a stand alone ongoing
funding increase as opposed to a combined bond and funding increase measure be
pursued. It is also the conclusion of the polling consultants that such a ballot measure
has a high likelihood of receiving the support of at least two-thirds of the voters if it is
accompanied by a fair presentation of public information allowed by law that focuses on
the water quality and beach/ocean protection themes that the voters care about most.
As can be seen from the attached polling results, additional valuable information was
generated about the potential ballot language that would be most effective in generating
voter support and the specific beach and ocean protection issues that resonate most
strongly with potential voters. In addition, the polling identifies the groups and
individuals from both within and outside Santa Monica who would be most believable in
12
speaking out on the issues of beach and ocean protection. The survey results have
also been tabulated according to demographic data, property ownership status,
education levels and various other factors.
Alternatives
An alternative funding approach that could be utilized for generation of financial
resources to deal with stormwater issues is a stand alone capital facilities bond. This is
the approach that was taken by the City of Los Angeles in the form of Proposition O, a
$500 million capital bond issue that was approved by more than finro-thirds of the Los
Angeles voters in fall 2004. Proposition O is a general obligation bond that will be
repaid over 20 years through increased property tax assessments based on the
assessed valuation of parcels within the City of Los Angeles. A capital bond measure, if
approved by two-thirds of the voters, would certainly provide the least expensive
borrowing alternative and a reliable source of funding for the capital projects that need
to be constructed over the next ten years to reduce beach and ocean pollution.
However, none of the bond proceeds would be legally available to pay for any
operation, maintenance and/or repair costs associated with new or existing capital
projects. Similarly, none of the bond proceeds would be legally available to pay for
water quality sampling and testing, inspections, code enforcement, catch basin
cleaning, SMURRF operations, screen and filter replacements, spill response and
cleanup, public information and education, or any other ongoing responsibilities of the
Stormwater Enterprise Fund. An increase in the stormwater fees or a new stormwater
13
parcel tax, in addition to a capital bond, would be necessary to pay for these critical
ongoing tasks.
Another important difference between a capital general obligation bond and a
stormwater fee or special tax is that bond repayment costs would be paid by each
property owner based on their particular assessed valuation. Properties of the same
type and size that have a significantly different assessed valuation would therefore pay
a significantly greater or lesser share of the bond costs. A stormwater parcel fee or
special tax, in comparison, would be much more equitable between parcels of the same
type and size. As was discussed above, the polling that has been completed by the City
shows that voters appear to be less likely to support a combined capital bond and
fee/tax than a stand alone fee/tax. In addition, a portion of the ongoing revenue stream
generated through increased stormwater fees/taxes would be available to cover the
debt service on stormwater revenue bonds that could be authorized by City Council to
pay for capital projects as necessary over time.
Contract Approval to Support Joint Aqency Efforts
For the past two years, Santa Monica has been working with the cities of Los Angeles
and EI Segundo, Los Angeles County and Caltrans on implementation of the Santa
Monica Bay Beaches Wet Weather Bacteria TMDL. The Regional Board is requiring
additional analytical work to supplement the Imptementation Pfan that was submitted
last year by the group to implement this TMDL. Camp, Dresser & McGee (CDM) is the
14
firm that completed the original Implementation Plan and is best qualified to prepare the
supplemental report. Staff will therefore be entering into a sole source contract with
CDM in an amount not to exceed $50,000 to complete the required data collection and
analysis. Although Santa Monica will implement the contract with CDM in order to
expedite the necessary work that must be submitted to the Regional Board, the other
partner agencies will directly reimburse Santa Monica for all but $9,453 of the $50,000
contract cost.
Budget/Financial Impact
There are no budget impacts associated with the recommendations in the staff report
related to the Watershed Management Plan and the proposed Clean Beaches and
Ocean Parcel Tax.
Prepared by: Craig Perkins
Appr~ved:
r
Craig Perki s
Director --~nvironmental and Public
Works Management Department
Attachments
Forwarded to Council:
~mont Ew II
Manager
15
FAIRBANK, MASLIN, MAULLIN 8~ ASSOCIATES
FEBRUARY 23-26, 2006
CITY OF SANTA MONICA WATER ISSUES
JOB #220-1970
WFT N=400 - DRAFT '
Time Began
Time Ended
Minutes
Hello, I'm from FMA, a public opinion research company. We are not telemarketers trying to sell
anything, or ask for a donation of any type. We're conducting a public opinion survey about issues that
concern people in the City of Santa Monica. May I speak to ?(MUST SPEAK TO PERSON
LISTED. VERIFY THAT THE VOTER LIVES AT THE ADDRESS LISTED, OTHERWISE TERMINATE.)
First, do you think things in (READ ITEMS FROM LIST) are headed in the right direction, or
do you feel that they are off on the wrong track?
RIGHT WRONG (DK/
DIRECTION TRACK ~
(DO NOT ROTATE)
a. (T) Santa Monica ------------------------ ---------47% -------------- ------------30% ------------ ----------23%
b. (T) Your local neighborhood----------- ---------66% -------------- ------------20% ------------ ----------15%
FAIRBANK, MASLIN, MAULLIN & ASSOCIATES 220-1970 WFT PAGE 2
NOW I WOULD LIKE TO ASK YOU ABOUT A MEASURE THAT MAY APPEAR ON
A CITY OF SANTA MONICA BALLOT DURING AN UPCOMING ELECTION.
(ASK SPLIT SAMPLE A ONLY)
2. I am going to read you possible language for one ballot measure as it might appear on the ballot:
CLEAN WATER, OCEAN, BEACHES, BAY AND STORMWATER CLEAN- UP MEASURE.
To protect public health by
~ Keeping pollution, trash, toxic chemicals and dangerous bacteria off beaches;
• Cleaning up polluted stormwater,
• Increasing water conservation, and
• Protecting the Santa Monica Bay and Ocean from stormwater contamination;
shall the City of Santa Monica adjust the annual Clean Water/Clean Beaches Fee by 79 dollars, limited to
adjustments for inflation, with guaranteed annual independent financial and perFormance audits and citizen
oversight?
If the election were held today on this measure do you think you would vote yes in favor of it or no to oppose
it? (IF YES/N0 ASK:) "Is that definitely [YES/NO] or just probably?" (IF DON'T KNOW, ASK: "What are you
leaning towards, voting YES, or voting NO?")
Definitely Yes----------------------------------------------------- 33%
Probably Yes ----------------------------------------------------- 23%
Undecided, lean yes--------------------------------------------- 4%
Undecided, lean no --------------------------------------------- - 2%
Probably No ------------------------------------------------------ - 8%
Definitely No------------------------------------------------------ 11 %
(DON'T READ) Need More Information ------------------- 12%
(DON'T READ) DK/NA (SKIP TO Q5) --------------------- - 6%
FAIRBANK, MASLIN, MAULLIN & ASSOCIATES 220-1970 WFT PAGE 3
(ASK SPLIT SAMPLE B ONLY)
3. I am going to read you possible language for one ballot measure as it might appear on the ballot:
CLEAN WATER, OCEAN, BEACHES, BAY AND STORMWATER CLEAN-UP MEASURE.
To protect public health by
• Keeping pollution, trash, toxic chemicals and dangerous bacteria off beaches;
• Cleaning up polluted stormwater,
• Increasing water conservation, and
• Protecting the Bay and Ocean from stormwater contamination;
Shall the City of Santa Monica incur bond indebtedness totaling 60 miflion dollars, with no money for
administrators' salaries, and adjust the annual Clean Water/Clean Beaches Fee by 28 dollars, limited to
adjustments for inflation, all with annual audits and citizen oversight?
If the election were held today on this measure do you think you would vote yes in favor of it or no to oppose
it? (IF YES/NO ASK:) "fs that definitely [YES/NO) or just probably?" (IF DON'T KNOW, ASK: "What are you
leaning towards, voting YES, or voting NO?")
Definitely Yes-----------------------------------------------------28%
Probably Yes -----------------------------------------------------18%
Undecided, lean yes--------------------------------------------- 3%
Undecided, lean no ---------------------------------------------- 1 %
Probably No ------------------------------------------------------- 6%
Definitely No------------------------------------------------------20%
(DON'T READ) Need More Information -------------------20%
(DON'T READ) DK/NA------------------------------------------ 3%
FAIRBANK, MASLIN, MAULLIN & ASSOCIATES 220-1970 WFT
PAG E 4
(ASK SPLIT SAMPLE A ONLY)
4. What if the adjustment to the Clean Water/Clean Beaches Fee I just described to you was for
(READ EACH, RECORD), limited to adjustments for inflation, instead of 79 dollars per
year? Would you vote yes in favor of it or no to oppose it? (IF YES1N0 ASK): "Is that definitely
(YES/NO) or probably (YES/NO)?" (IF UNDECIDED, ASK:) Well, do you lean towards voting yes or
no?
DEF PROB LEAN LEAN PROB DEF (DK/
YES YES YES NO NO NO ~
(DO NOT ROTATE)
a. 65 dollars per year ---------- 36% --- -----18%---- -----5°/a ----- ---- 4% ---- ----- 7%------- ----11 %---- --- 19%
b. 49 dollars peryear---------- 41%--- -----17%---- -----2%----- ---- 5% ---- -----7%------- -----9%----- --- 18%
(ASK SPLIT SAMPLE B ONLY)
LET ME GIVE YOU A LITTLE MORE INFORMATION. BY LAW THE FUNDS FROM THE 60 MILLION
DOLLAR BOND CAN ONLY GO TO UPGRADING AND REPAIRING THE STORM WATER DRAIN
SYSTEM. IN THE CASE OF THE 28 DOLLAR CLEAN WATER/CLEAN BEACHES FEE ADJUSTMENT, IT
WILL ENSURE CONTINUED MAINTENANCE, AND MONITORING OF THE STORM WATER DRAIN
SYSTEM AND FUNDING REGULAR CLEAN-UP OF THE BEACHES.
5. Now that you have heard more about it, I would like to ask you again about the CLEAN WATER,
OCEAN, BEACHES, BAY AND STORMWATER CLEAN-UP MEASURE. This measure would include
a 60 million dollar bond, with no money for administrators' salaries, and an adjustment to the annual
Clean Water/Clean Beaches Fee of 28 dollars, limited to adjustments for inflation, all with annual audits
and citizen oversight. If the election were held today, would you vote yes in favor of this measure or no
to oppose it? (IF YES/NO ASK): "Is that definitely (YES/NO) or just probably?" (IF DON'T KNOW,
ASK:) "What are you leaning towards, voting YES or voting NO?"
Definitely Yes ----------------------------- ----33%
Probably Yes------------------------------ ----23%
Undecided, lean yes--------------------- ----- 3%
Undecided, lean no---------------------- ----- 5%
Probably No ------------------------------- ----- 6%
Definitely No------------------------------- ----18%
(DON'T READ) Need More Informat ion 12%
(DON'T READ) DK/NA ----------------- ----- 2%
FAIRBANK, MASLIN, MAULLIN & ASSOCIATES 220-1970 WFT
PAGE 5
(RESUME ASKING ALL RESPONDENTS)
6. The final structure of this ballot measure has not yet been determined. I am going to read you a list of
specific individual components that might be included in the measure. After I read each one, please tell
me how important it is to you that each component be included in the measure: extremely important,
very important, somewhat important, or not important. (ROTATE)
(DON'T
EXT. VERY S.W. NOT READ)
IMP. IMP. IMP. IMP. DK/NA
(SPLIT SAMPLE A ONLY)
[]a. Providing citizen oversight and review of all
spending from the measures ----------------------------------------- 32% -- --- 35% ----- 24% -- ---- 5%-- ----- 4%
[ lb. Reducing polluted runoff ---------------------------------------------- 35% -- --- 48% ----- 11 %-- ---- 2%-- ----- 4%
[]c. Cleaning up pollution in Santa Monica Bay----------------------- 43%-- ---43%----- 11%-- ----2%-- ----- 1%
[]d. Keeping pollution and toxic chemicals out of the
ocean ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 46% -- --- 42% ----- - 9%--- ---- 2%-- -----1 %
[]e. Designing and building neighborhood parks so
that they help prevent polluted runoff and
protect water quality ---------------------------------------------------- 27% -- --- 39% ----- 22%-- ---- 5%-- ----- 7%
[]f. Increasing water conservation --------------------------------------- 30% -- --- 40% ----- 22%-- ---- 4%-- ----- 4%
I l9. Capturing and re-using rainwater ----------------------------------- 28% -- --- 38% ----- 22%-- ---- 8%-- ----- 5%
[]h. Cleaning trash and pollution out of storm drains
on a reg ular basis ------------------------------------------------------- 37% -- --- 47% ----- 14% -- ----1 %-- ----- 2%
[]i. Recycling stormwater to irrigate parks and fields --------------- 32% -- --- 41 %----- 20% -- ---- 3%-- ----- 4%
[]j. Building filters where pipes empty into the
beach to prevent additional toxic chemicals from
entering the Bay--------------------------------------------------------- 35% -- --- 44% ----- 10% -- ---- 2%-- ----- 8%
[]k. Ensuring that increases to the clean water/clean
beaches fee are limited to adjustments for
inflation -------------------------------------------------------------------- 24% -- --- 34% ----- 25% -- --- 11 %- ----- 5%
[]I. Keeping the Bay and beaches free of trash and
dangerous bacteria ----------------------------------------------------- 38% -- --- 46% ----- 13%-- ---- 2%-- -----1 %
[]m. Ensuring Santa Monica is in compliance with
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency clean
water requirements ----------------------------------------------------- 41 %-- --- 39% ----- 15% -- ---- 4%-- -----1 %
[]n. Preventing flooding on streets and at main
intersections throughout Santa Monica ---------------------------- 30% -- --- 34% ----- 26%-- ---- 7%-- ----- 3%
[]o. Helping protect fish and wildlife-------------------------------------- 34% -- --- 41 %----- 19%-- ---- 5%-- ----- 1%
[]p. Upgrading and repairing aging storm drains---------------------- 33% -- --- 46% ----- 15%-- ---- 3%-- ----- 2%
(SPLIT SAMPLE B ONLY)
[]q. Replacing asphalt in school playgrounds with
grass and trees ---------------------------------------------------------- 22% -- ---17% --- -- 30%--- -- 26%--- --- 5%
[]r. Cleaning up polluted stormwater------------------------------------ 35% -- --- 40% --- -- 11 %--- -- 10%--- --- 4%
[]s. Reducing pollution on Santa Monica beaches ------------------- 31 %-- --- 46% --- --13% --- --- 8%---- ---1 %
[]t. Requiring independent annual audits of all
spending from the measures ----------------------------------------- 30% -- --- 41 %--- --18%--- -- 10%--- --- 3%
[]u. Installing special screens to keep pollution out
of the drains that transport stormwater to the
ocean ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 31 %--- -- 41 %--- -- 15% --- --- 9%---- --- 4%
FAIRBANK, MASLIN, MAULLIN & ASSOCIATES 220-1970 WFT
PAGE 6
(DON'T
EXT. VERY S.W. NOT READ)
IMP. IMP. IMP. IMP. DK/NA
(SPLIT SAMPLE B ONLY CONTINUED)
[]v. Ensuring Santa Monica is in compliance with
the federal Clean Water Act ----------------------------------------- - 27% -- --- 41 %--- -- 18% -- ---- 8%-- ----- 6%
[]w. Protecting the ocean from pollution-------------------------------- - 40% -- --- 38% --- -- 14% -- ---- 6%-- ----- 2%
[]x. Ensuring greater eligibility for matching funds
from State and Federal Governments to reduce
polluted runoff----------------------------------------------------------- - 30% -- --- 33% --- -- 21 %-- ---- 9%-- ----- 6%
[]y. Keeping dangerous bacteria off beaches ------------------------ - 48% -- --- 36% --- --10% -- ---- 5%-- -----1 %
[]z. Guarantee that no money from the Bond is used
for administrative salaries-------------------------------------------- - 25% -- --- 31 %--- -- 21 %-- --- 14%- ----- 9%
[]aa. Making the ocean and Santa Monica Bay safe
for swimming ------------------------------------------------------------ - 39% -- --- 43% --- --10% -- ---- 7%-- ----- 0%
[]bb. Preserving clean drinking water by protecting
groundwater quality---------------------------------------------------- -45% -- --- 39% --- --- 8%--- ---- 7%-- ----- 1%
[]cc. Keeping trash out of the Bay and the ocean and
off our beaches --------------------------------------------------------- - 45°/o -- --- 41 %--- --- 8%--- ---- 6%-- ----- 0%
[]dd. Treating toxic chemicals at the end of the pipe
before stormwater empties into the Bay -------------------------- - 41 %-- --- 42% --- --- 7%--- ---- 6%-- ----- 3%
[]ee. Cleaning out storm drains regularly-------------------------------- - 42% -- --- 37% --- -- 15%-- ---- 5%-- ----- 1%
(RESUME ASKING ALL RESPONDENTS)
7. Next, I am going to read you some statements made by supporters of this ballot measure. After hearing
each statement, please tell me if it makes you more inclined to vote for this ballot measure. If you do
not believe the statement, or if it has no effect on your thinking, one way or the other, please tell me
that too. (IF MORE INCLINED, ASK: "Is that much more orjust somewhat?") (ROTATE)
MUCH SW
MORE MORE (LESS DON'T NO
INCL. INCL. INCL) BEL. EFF. DK/NA
(ASK ALL RESPONDENTS)
[]a. Because of problems in our storm drain
system, polluted water carrying
everything from syringes to candy
wrappers runs into the Bay and the
Ocean, and washes up on our beaches.
Passing this measure allows us to clean
up the garbage, pollution and seven
million pounds of trash that contaminate
our beaches each year. -----------------------
[]b. Some of the City's storm drains were built
in the 1930s and are seriously
deteriorating. This measure will provide
the necessary funds to upgrade and
repair the storm drains, fix aging pipes
and install filters to treat bacteria and
toxic chemicals before stormwater
empties into the Bay.---------------------------
40% ----- 33% -----4% -------5% ------13% ------- 5%
43% ----- 34% -----4% -------5% ------10% ------- 4%
FAIRBANK, MASLIN, MAULLIN & ASSOCIATES
(ASK SPLIT SAMPLE A ONLY)
[]c. In 2005, 5 million visitors spent nine
hundred million dollars, supporting almost
ten thousand local jobs, and many of
these visitors came to our city to spend
time at our beaches. Unless we take
action now to reduce pollution on our
beaches and in the Bay, Santa Monica
could lose these visitors' dollars and the
jobs they support. -------------------------------
[ ]d. The U-S Federal Environmental
Protection Agency and the Los
Angeles Regional Water Quality
Control Board have ordered the City of
Santa Monica to make tens of millions
of dollars in improvements to its storm
drain system. Unless we pass this
ballot measure, improvements will
have to be funded through cuts in
other critical City services or the city
will be heavily fined for noncompliance
and the federal, State and County
Governments will withhold funding for
other City projects.------------------------------
[]e. For 48 weeks this past year, the
conservation group Heal the Bay gave a
grade of F to the water quality around the
Santa Monica Pier. This A to F scale,
which measures the water's health effects
on humans demonstrates the need to
improve and protect the Santa Monica
Bay for swimmers, surFers and those who
fish. -------------------------------------------------
(SPLIT SAMPLE B ONLY)
[]f. By passing this ballot measure, we
can protect and preserve Santa
Monica Beaches, Bay and Oceans as
a legacy for future generations ---------
220-1970 WFT
PAGE 7
MUCH SW
MORE MORE (LESS DON'T NO
INCL. INCL. INCL) BEL. EFF.
28% ----- 27% -----6% ------12% ----- 22%
34% ----- 27% -----5% ------11 % -----13%
42% -- --- 29% -- ---4% --- ----4% --- --- 16%
35% -- --- 30% -- ---4% --- ----8% --- --- 22%
DK/NA
4%
9%
5%
2 o~a
FAIRBANK, MASLIN, MAULLIN & ASSOCIATES
(SPLIT SAMPLE B ONLY CONTINUED)
[]g. Last winter, Santa Monica experienced
the second wettest rainfall season on
record, with approximately 37 inches of
rain. The rain caused a significant
increase in dangerous levels of
pollutants and bacteria flowing into the
Bay, Ocean and onto our beaches and
led to an unusually high number of
beach closings. By passing this
measure we can better protect the
health of our community and its
beaches from the dangers of future
winter storms and future beach
c I o s u re s.----------------------------------------
[]h. Studies show that people who swim
near storm drain outlets, like those
near Santa Monica beaches, are far
more likely to suffer from fevers, chills,
vomiting, and other illnesses. Passing
this bond measure will significantly
clean-up the toxic pollutants and
bacteria before they enter the Bay and
make swimming a lot safer activity-------
220-1970 WFT
PAGE 8
MUCH SW
MORE MORE (LESS DON'T NO
INCL. INCL. INCLI BEL. EFF.
DK/NA
31 % ----- 32% -----4% ------11 % -----19% ------- 2%
36% ----- 32% -----4% ------12% -----14% ------- 3%
(ASK SPLIT SAMPLE A ONLY)
8. Now that you have heard more about it, I would like to ask you again about the CLEAN WATER,
OCEAN, BEACHES, BAY AND STORMWATER CLEAN-UP MEASURE. This measure would adjust
the annual Clean Water/Clean Beaches Fee by 79 dollars, limited to adjustments for inflation, with
guaranteed annual independent financial and performance audits and citizen oversight. If the election
were held today, would you vote yes in favor of this measure or no to oppose it? (IF YES/NO ASK): "Is
that definitely (YES/NO) orjust probably?" (IF DON'T KNOW, ASK:) "What are you leaning towards,
voting YES or voting NO?"
Definitely Yes -------------------------- -------43%
Probably Yes--------------------------- -------21 %
Undecided, lean yes-------------------------- 3%
Undecided, lean no------------------- -------- 3%
Probably No ---------------------------- -------- 3%
Definitely No---------------------------- -------11 %
(DON'T READ) Need More Information 13%
(DON'T READ) DK/NA -------------- -------- 3%
FAIRBANK, MASLIN, MAULLIN ~ ASSOCIATES 220-1970 WFT PAGE 9
(ASK SPLIT SAMPLE B ONLY)
9. Now that you have heard more about it, I would like to ask you again about the CLEAN WATER,
OCEAN, BEACHES, BAY AND STORMWATER CLEAN-UP MEASURE. This measure would include
a 60 million dollar bond, with no money for administrators' salaries, and an adjustment to the annual
Clean Water/Clean Beaches fee of 28 dollars, limited to adjustments for inflation, all with annual audits
and citizen oversight. If the election were held today, would you vote yes in favor of this measure or no
to oppose it? (IF YES/NO ASK): "Is that definitely (YES/NO) orjust probably?" (IF DON'T KNOW,
ASK:) "What are you leaning towards, voting YES or voting NO?"
Definitely Yes ---------------------------------37%
Probably Yes----------------------------------18%
Undecided, lean yes-------------------------- 9°/o
Undecided, lean no--------------------------- 2%
Probably No ------------------------------------ 1 %
Definitely No-----------------------------------19%
(DON'T READ) Need More Information 10%
(DON'T READ) DK/NA ---------------------- 3%
(RESUME ASKING ALL
RESPONDENTS)
10. Next, I'm going to read some names of people and organizations that might speak out about issues
relating to the ballot measures we have been discussing. After you hear each name, please tell me
whether or not you would consider that person or organization to be a believable source of information
about these ballot measures. If you have never heard of the person or organization, or have no opinion
about it, please tell me that too. (IF BELIEVABLE/NOT BELIEVABLE, ASK): "Is that very or
somewhat believable/ not too or not at all believable?") (ROTATE)
NEVER
HEARD VERY
OF BEL
(ASK ALL RESPONDENTS)
[]a. The Santa Monica City Council
(ASK SPLIT SAMPLE A ONLY)
NOT
SMWT TOO
BEL BEL
NOT DK/
AT ALL NO
BEL OPIN.
5%-------26% ------- 34%----- 13%
[ Ib. The Ocean Conservancy---------------------------- 28%---- ---28%
[ ]c. Clean Water Alliance--------------------------------- 41 %---- ---20%
[ ]d. The Surfrider Foundation---------------------------- 37%---- ---25%
[]e. The Natural Resources Defense Council ------- 28%---- ---28%
[]f. Mark Gold, Executive Director of Heal the
Bay ------------------------------------------------------- 13%---- ---33%
[]g. The Santa Monica Chamber of Commerce------- 3%---- ---23%
[ ]h. Santa Monica firefighters----------------------------- -1 %---- ---37%
[]i. Citizens for Excellence in Public Schools,
also known as CEPS--------------------------------- 29%---- ---19%
[]j. Santa Monica Beach Lifeguards ------------------- - 5%---- ---44%
[]k. Santa Monica College Board of Trustees -------- - 5%---- ---24%
[ ]I. Santa Monica Baykeeper --------------------------- 35%---- ---23%
[]m. Scientific experts who specialize in water
quality---------------------------------------------------- 10%---- ---43%
12%-------11 %
24%--- ---- 3%--- ---- 3%---- ---15%
19%--- ---- 2%--- ---- 3%---- ---15%
16%--- ---- 2%--- ---- 2%---- ---19%
23%--- ---- 3%--- ---- 3%---- ---15%
27%--- ---- 6%--- ---- 4%---- ---17%
35%--- -- 12%--- ---11%---- ---17%
36%--- ---- 5%--- ---- 3%---- ---18%
14%--- ---- 7%--- ---- 5%---- ---25%
36%--- ---- 4%--- ----1 %---- ---10%
29%--- ---- 6%--- ---11 %---- ---26%
21 %--- ---- 2%--- ---- 4%---- ---15%
29%--- ---- 3%--- ---- 1 %---- ---14%
FAIRBANK, MASLIN, MAULLIN & ASSOCIATES
(ASK SPLIT SAMPLE A ONLY CONTINUED)
[ ]n. Local Veterans groups---------------------•
[]o. Santa Monica for Renters Rights, also
known as SMRR ----------------------------~
(ASK SPLIT SAMPLE B ONLY)
220-1970 WFT PAGE 10
NEVER NOT NOT
HEARD VERY SMWT TOO AT ALL
OF BEL BEL BEL BEL
4%-------14% ------- 26%----- 11 %------11 %
8%-------20% ------- 24%----- 12%------17%
[ lp. Sierra Club----------------------------------------------- - 8%---- ---42% ---- --- 29%--- ---- 7%--- ---- 6%
I lq. Clean Water Action----------------------------v----- 42%---- ---20% ---- --- 19%--- ---- 7%--- ---- 3%
[]r. The Ocean Futures Society ------------------------ 65%--- ----11 °lo ---- ----- 9°l0--- ---- 4%--- ----1 %
[ ls. Heal the Bay -------------------------------------------- - 9%---- ---47% ---- --- 34%--- ---- 3%--- ---- 0%
I]t. Santa Monica paramedics ---------------------------- 7%---- ---42% ---- --- 32%--- ---- 4%--- ---- 3%
[]u. Santa Monica Bay Restoration Commission --- 34%---- ---21 %---- --- 26%--- ---- 7%--- ---- 3%
[]v. The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association ----- 29%---- ---- 8% ---- --- 12%--- -- 19%--- ---22%
[]w. The League of Conservation Voters-------------- 29%---- ---19% ---- --- 27%--- ---- 6%--- ---- 4%
[ ]x. Santa Monica Apartment Owner's
Association --------------------------------------------- 13%---- ---19% ---- --- 17%--- -- 13%--- ---20%
[]y. The Coalition on the Environment and
Jewish Life of Southern Californian--------------- 47%---- ---14% ---- --- 14°l0--- ---- 3°l0--- ---- 6%
[]z. Santa Monica- Malibu Unified School
District Board of Trustees --------------------- -------- 9%--- ----30% --- ---- 24%--- -- 12%
[ laa. Tree People -------------------------------------- ------ 23%--- ----24% --- ---- 25%--- ---- 9%
L lbb. A biologist from UCLA ------------------------- -------- 7%--- ----37% --- ---- 35°l0--- ---- 3%
[]cc. Jean Michel Cousteau ------------------------- ------ 41 %--- ----22% --- ---- 14%--- ---- 5%
[]dd. The American Association of Retired
Persons, also known as A-A-R-P ----------- -------- 4%--- ----30% --- ---- 34%--- ---- 6%
(RESUME ASKING ALL RESPONDENTS)
DK/
NO
OPIN.
35%
19%
- 8%
- 9%
10%
- 6%
13%
- 9%
10%
15%
18%
16%
10%-------14%
- 6%-------12%
- 4%-------14%
- 4%-------14%
11 %-------15%
THESE ARE MY FINAL QUESTIONS, AND THEY ARE FOR CLASSIFICATION PURPOSES ONLY.
11. Do you own or rent your home?
Own ------------------------------~
Rent ------------------------------•
(DON'T READ) DK/Refused
34%
63%
- 3%
FAIRBANK, MASLIN, MAULLIN 8~ ASSOCIATES 220-1970 WFT PAGE 11
12. What was the last level of school you completed?
Grade 1 - 8 -------------------------~
Grade 9 - 11------------------------•
High School graduate------------~
Less than 4 years of college ---~
College graduate (4) -------------•
Post graduate study --------------~
(DON'T READ) DK/Refused ---~
13. Are you married, single or living with a partner?
- 2%
- 2%
- 8%
20°/a
43%
25%
- 1%
Married -----------------------------------------44%
Si ng le ------------------------------------------- 37%
Living with partner ---------------------------- 7%
(DIVORCED)----------------------------------- 5%
(WIDOWED) ----------------------------------- 5%
(DON'T READ) DK/NA/REFUSED------- 2%
14. Which of the following describes your family situation? (READ EACH) (ACCEPT MULTIPLE
RESPONSES UNLESS CODES 4 OR 5)
Have children under age 19 at home ------------------------------------------------------------------- 22%
Have children who are over the age of 19 who live at home ----------------------------------------9%
Have children over the age of 19 who no longer live at home ------------------------------------ 21 %
Do not have any children----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 50%
(DON'T READ) REFUSED ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------3%
(ASK Q15 IF CODE 2 OR 3 in Q14)
15. Do you have any grandchildren?
Yes ---------------------------------------------- 51 %
N o ------------------------------------------------ 4 9 %
(DON'T READ) Refused -------------------- 0%
(RESUME ASKING ALL RESPONDENTS)
16. Do you consider yourself to be Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, another religion or do you think of yourself
as having no religious affiliation?
C a t h o I i c----------------------------------------- 2 2%
Protestant -------------------------------------- 20%
Jewish ------------------------------------------ 13%
Other-------------------------------------------- - 5%
No affiliation ---------------------------------- 25%
(DON'T READ) DK/Refused -------------- 15%
FAIRBANK, MASLIN, MAULLIN & ASSOCIATES
17
18
$25,000 and under --------------------------- 5%
$25,001 to $50,000---------------------- ----14%
$50,001 to $75,000---------------------- ----14%
$75,001 to $100,000 -------------------- ----19%
$100,001 to $150,000------------------- ----11 %
$150,001 or more----------------------------- 7%
(DON'T READ) DK/Refused ---------- ----29%
THANK AND TERMINATE
Sex: By observation
Party:
Name
Address
Precinct
Interviewer
Verified by
Congressional
Senate
Assembly
In what year were you born?
220-1970 WFT PAGE 12
1988-1982 (18-24)--------------------------- - 2%
1981-1977 (25-29) --------------------------- - 4%
9 976-1972 (30-34) --------------------------- - 7%
1971-1967 (35-39)--------------------------- - 9%
1966-1962 (40-44)--------------------------- 11 %
1961-1957 (45-49) --------------------------- 11 %
1956-1952 (50-54) --------------------------- 11 %
1951-1947 (55-59) --------------------------- 10%
1946-1942 (60-64)--------------------------- - 9%
1941-1932 (65-74) --------------------------- 10%
1931 or earlier (75 & over)----------------- 12%
(REFUSED/ DK/NA) ------------------------ - 4%
I don't need to know the exact amount, but please stop me when I read the category that includes the
tota! income for your household before taxes in 2005. Was it:
Male ---------------------------------------------46%
Female -----------------------------------------54%
Democrat--------------------------------------- 60%
Republican ------------------------------------20%
DTS ---------------------------------------------16%
Other--------------------------------------------- 4%
Phone #
Registration Date
Zip
Cluster #
Page #_
FAIRBANK, MASLIN, MAUlLIN 8~ ASSOCIATES 220-1970 WFT PAGE 93
FLAGS
G96 -------------------------- 61 %
P98 --------------------------- 39 %
G98 -------------------------- 58%
P 0 0--------------------------- 5 5%
G00 -------------------------- 80%
P02 --------------------------- 44%
G02 -------------------------- 71%
R 03 --------------------------- 84 %
P04 --------------------------- 64%
G04 -------------------------- 93%
VOTE BY MAIL
1 ------------------------------18%
2 ------------------------------- 9%
3+-----------------------------18%
BLANK ----------------------55%
PERMANENT ABSENTEE
Yes ---------------------------- 8%
No ----------------------------92%
LIKELY JUNE 06 VOTER
Yes ---------------------------82%
No ----------------------------18%
ZIP
90401
90402
90403
90404
90405
- 6%
15%
28%
18%
33%
7