Loading...
02-15-1994 - BKK Landfill Public Opinion SurveyCity of West CMna Memorandum TO FROM : SUBJECT. city manager and City Council AGENDA Steven W. Wylie, Assistant City Mana er ITEM NO. K-2 BKX LANDFILL PUBLIC OPINION SURVEY DATE Feb. 15, 1994 SUMMARY: At the City Council 11 s direction, staf f . has solicited proposals to conduct a public opinion I survey of West Covina residents on their attitudes about issues relating to the,closure of the BKK Landf ill. This report conveys the responses . to the request for proposals. BACKGROUND on November 161 the City Council directed staff to solicit proposals for a public opinion survey of resident attitudes about the closure of the BKK Landfill. At that" meeting, the Council specifically declined to decide whether or not to,proceed with a public opinion survey, but directed staff to bring the proposals received back to the Council for further consideration. Thust the issue before the City Council is twofold: first, whether or not to proceed with the survey; and second,assuming an affirmative decision on the.first issue, which proposal to accept.. DISCUSSION Staff"s first step in this process -was to solicit requests for qualifications from a I number of public opinion firms. Our principal objectives at this step were to determine the experience overall qualifications for this assignment, and to determine whether the prospective firms had prior experience with waste management matters in general, and with the BKK. Corporation in particular. It was important to be sure that the prospective f irms were absolutely � unbiased and had an. unassailable reputation for integrity. Five f irms were contacted, - representing a wide spectrum ranging f rom nationally' recognized research f irms to sole �proprietorships. of these f ive, f our were invited to submit. proposals. , The f ifth firm was a nationally recognized firm which declined to partic . ipate, recognizing that it, probably could not compete on price with.the others. The four firms who submitted proposals include: 1. J.D. Franz Research, Sacramento 2. Price Research, San Ramon' 3. The Gallup organization, Irvine 4. Robert waste and Associates, Chico Each of these firms have impeccable.. credentials,' and all proved very knowledgeable.and helpful . in scoping the potential res . earch project envisioned here. Staff"s request for qualifications and request,for proposals form the basis for the discussion below. Together,these submittals provide sufficient information to scope the project. BASE PROJECT Each of the four firms has proposed a telephone survey as the most effective method of conducting this research. The telephone survey is developed in consultation with the City. concurrently, a randomly generated selection of telephone numbers is created by 1 0 . I � 0 computer program. This prog .found in West Covina, follow( 0000 to 9999. The program number of telephone -numbers way, unlisted numbers are (Additionally, non-existent .business numbers are als4 encountered and then discar therefore important -to generi up with sufficient valid res is then tested against a sm and effectiveness prior to c As discussed in previous repo it is impe rative to be sta response ' which is statistic rate, within a 5% margin of required. However, it may sampling. to a level sufficic done for various populati landfill, residents of long any subgroup the City -desire of confidence, most of thi sampling of approximately 80 there are certain benefits tc the survey, statistical relL * . mong them. only one firm, 9 * survey of 1,000 residents ' . Gallup has provided a proposi the others have also give Attached to this memo is a survey sizes. With the exce of the firms indicate that I cost/benefit standpoint. During the request for propc information to each firm a clarify the issues currentl, firms, it became evident 1: complex one from two perspe design. In order to mainta. cannot be too long. A i questions, including those c respondent, is all that can achieve consensus on the e- first complexity. Second, closure of the landfill are difficult to design a surve information for the respond introducing bias into the qu as simple as a product pre: potential bond issue. am consists of all telephone prefixes I by every four digit combination from then randomly generates the desired . or the researchers to call. In this �nerated as well as listed numbers. numbers, disconnected numbers, and randomly. generated. These are ad during the survey itself. it is ,e enough random numbers so as to wind lent numbers.) The survey instrument 11 number of respondents for clarity inducting the actual. survey. ts, when conducting a research study, istically reliable.. To. generate a 1.1y able to predict a 95% accuracy rror, a sampling of 400 residents is also be desirable to increase the it to enable subgroup analysis to be ns, including residents near the enure, residents of short*tenure, or to specify. -To generate this level proposing firms have suggested a residents. At the same time, while be gained from maximizing the size of Dility and cost effectiveness are not Le Gallup organization, has. suggested (For purposes of comparison, however, I fee for A 750 sampling as well, and quotes for the 1,000 sampling.) comparison of fees for the various tion of The Gallup Organization, all ie 800 sample size is Optimal from a ;al process, staff provided background ,out this assignment in an effort to. ,in the public arena. To each of the mediately that this task would be a :tives. First is,the issue of survey n the respondent's interest, a survey aximum of approximately twenty-five Bsigned to identify and categorize the ie expected for a telephone survey. To sential survey questions will be the. because the issues surrounding the themselves complex, it will be doubly r instrument that provides sufficient ,nt to react intelligently, while not tstions. In.short, this -project is not erence or an attitude survey about a While each of the firms is more knowledgeable than staff in these matters, staff did requestl from each firm any -additional costs which would be incurred due to additional efforts needed to achieve consensus on the survey ins�rument. These costs are identified on the comparison. The results of the survey, presented to the City Cc generated by the survey wi generate additional questio, further. research. For ex degrees of attitudes about alternatives which may or residents. To follow up on research can be helpful. T1 selection, by a. statistica.' the researcher conducts r, once tabulated and analyzed, will be uncil. Of course, the information Ll be public. The survey will likely is and issues which may be desirable for imple, the sur . vey may reveal varying courses the City could take, or about may not be supportable by the City's the results.of the,survey, focus group ese groups are generated through random ,ly valid methodology. Once convened, )undtable discussions and is able to 2 explore issues in much gie'ater detail than can be done by a telephone survey. Focus groups can therefore be extremely valuable in determining the depth of feelings about.a particular issue, and can "test the waters" about various alternatives. The request for proposals includes the cost for focus group research. Each firm has responded, and two firms, J.D. Franz and Robert Waste, have suggested that focus group research could also be done prior to the* survey, to assist.in survey design, The last element of the the project. Proposals long as eleven weeks. needed to achieve conse to be undertaken, and pr project would-be comple THE PROPONENTS request for proposals is the timeline for vary from as short as seven weeks to as These.timelines assume no additional time isus on survey design. If the survey were Bliminary steps begun immediately, the base :ed during the month of April. As stated above, four firms have responded to the City's RFP. All have experience in conducting complex research projects. None do what might be called "political" research for candidates., and -none are interested in trying to,validate predetermined outcomes. All could do this project, and staff would endorse each one. J.D. Franz, of Sacramento, for the League of California on -public attitudes and aw services. This research w Additionally, Franz has d clients in the f ield of issues. is a firm which has done -extensive work Cities.,, including focus group research ireness of local government issues and is recently published in Western City. :)ne research f or state and municipal recycling and other waste management The Gallup Organization of Princeton, New Jersey, is a nationally recognized . opinion. research f irm which also maintains an of f ice in Irvine.- Gallup has conducted research for a wide array of public and private sector clients. of all the proponents, The Gallup, Organization's proposal is the most - expensive. However, Gallup maintains -its own staff- of researchers and offers its unassailed reputation and quality control as features worth considering. Price Research of San Ramon is known statewide, and has performed research for municipal, county, and specialdistrict clients,.in addition to private sector clients and the media. Price has undertaken, research for nearly two hundred school districts in California. Robert Waste and. Associates is. a sole proprietorship located*in. Chico. ' Dr. Waste is a . professor I at Cal State Chico, and has performed opinion rese . arch and consulting services1to a number of California cities as well as the State. Senate Office. of Research and the Texas'Municipal League. Reference checks an each of these competing firms has produced satisfactory responses for each. Should the City Council elect to proceed with this project, staff would be comfortable recommending any of these firms. With this in mindf the most significant factor differentiating one firm from another is the cost of the project. From this per . spective, J.D. 'Franz Research has proposed the least costly project. If the* City Council were to choose the optimum sample si I ze (800), and not incur additional costs for survey.design, the cost of the base project would be $18,700. If focus group research were desired, each group would cost. approximately $3,750. The base project results would be reported to the City Council in eig . ht weeks. 3 0 CONCLUSIONS As stated' above, the f irst decision f acing the City Council is whether or not to undertake tAe project. This is. a matter of City Council policy, and staffmakes no recommendation. If, however, the City Council decides to undertake the project, Councilmembers may wish to consider. the timing of the project. In the end,. should the project be approved, staff recommends awarding the project to J.D. Franz Research of Sacramento. Lastly, no appropriation exists for this project, although fu I nds may be available from the budget approved by -the City Councillfor BKK-related expenses. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council first determine whether or If it is decided to not to proceed with the research project. proceed, staff recommends that the project.be awarded to J.D. Franz Research, and that.staff be d I irected to enter into a contract with J.D. Franz Research for the work to be done. teNven �W.Wylie :YYAssistant Cit anager attachment a V BASE PROJECT' 400 sampling 800 sampling 1,000 sampling BKK PUBLIC OPINION SURVEY COMPARISON OF SURVEY RESPONSES FRANZ GALLUP PRICE WASTE $11,250' N/R $18,200 $15, 000 - (n=383) 18,700 $40,000 26,700 25.,000 (n=750) (n=597) 22,250 50,000 30,700 35,000 EXTRA FOR SURV'EY,DESIGN WORK ABOVE BASE PROJECT $1,250 none., $728,50 $1,000 .2 extra per day per day meetings