09-023 Lew Edwards Group, UUT
- i.
AGREEMEI~l"I'
BETWEEI~f
CITY OF CUPEIZTINO
AND
THE LBW EDWARL)S GROUP
FOR
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
THIS IS AN AGREEMENT MADE AS OF MARCH 10,.2009, BETWEEN
CITY OF CUPERTINO (hereinafter referred to a:: City), and THE LEW EDWARDS
GROUP (hereina$er referred tP as Consultant).
WiTNESSETH:
WHFFtRA4~city intends to place revenue measures on the November 2009 ballot
(lip-~~r°*~°^ referred to as Project) and,
WI~REAS, City requires certain professional services in connection with Project
(hereinafter referred as Services); and
WHEREAS, Consultant is qualified and prepared to provide such Services;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the promises contained herein, the parties agree
as follows:
ARTICLE 1 -SERVICES TO BE PERFORMEI7~ BY CONSULTANT
Specific Services and the associated scope of senrlces, payment. schedule, and personnel
are defined in accompanying Consultant praposalls dated February 20, 2009 and March 6,
2009 (hereinafter referred as Proposal). "
ARTICLE 2 -COMPENSATION
2.1 Compensation for Consulting services pe[formed ender this Agreement shall be as
" stated in the March 6, 2009 Proposal under "Summary of Bid."
2.2 The fixed professional fee as discussed in the Proposal will,not be changed eoccept
in the case of a City decision not to proceed with the preparation project, or a
written amendment to the Agreement whiich alters the Scope of Services. City
rcJnm~crrY/FRMS/A92so2 I
and Consultant agree to negotiate an increase or decrease in the fixed fee for any
change in Scope of Services or a decision not to proceed with the measure at any
time during the term of this Agreement. Consultant will not commence work on
the altered Scope of Services until authorized by City.
2.3 Consultant shall submit monthly statements for Services rendered. City will
make prompt monthly payments in response to Consultant's monthly statements.
ARTICLE 3 -PERIOD OF SERVICE
3.1 ConsultanYa services will be performed and the specified services rendered and
deliverables submitted consistent with a working schedule based on the Sample
Timeline stipulated in Proposal. The panics agree that the Timeline is subject to
revision based on project needs and the approval of the City.
3.2 Consultant's services under this Agreement will be considered complete when the
'" services are rendered and/or final deliverable is submitted and accepted by City.
3.3 If any time period within or date by which any of the Consultant's services are to
be completed is exceeded through no fault of Consultant, all rates, measures and
amounts of compensation and the time for completion' of performance shall be
subject to equitable adjustment.
ARTICLE 4 CTi'Y'S RESPONSiBII,ITIBS
City will do the following in a timely manner so ass not to delay the services of
Consultant.
4.1 Provide all criteria and full information as to City's requirements for the
services assigmnent and designate in writing a person with authority to act on
City's behalf on all matters concerning the: Consultant's services.
4.2 Furnish to Consultant all existing studies, reports and other available data
pertinent to the Consultant's services, obtain or authorize Consultant to obtain or
provide additional reports and data as required, and furnish to Consultant services
of others required for the performance of //onsultant's services hereunder, and
Consultant shall be entitled to use and rel}~ upon all such information and services
provided by City or others in performing /consultant's services under this
Agr+eenient.
4.3 Arrange for access to and make all provisions for Consultant to euiter upon public
and private property as xquired for Consultant to perform services hereunder.
4.4 Perform such other functions as are indicaated in the Proposal related to duties
of City.
2
4.5 Bear all costs incident to compliance with the requirements of this Article.
ARTICLE 5 -STANDARD OF CARE -
Consultant shall exercise the same degree of care, skill, and diligence in the performance
of the Seavices as is ordinarily provided by a profi~sional Consultant under similar
circumstance and Consultant shall, at no cost to City, re-perform services which fail to
satisfy the foregoing standard of care.
ARTICLB 6 -SUBCONTRACTING
No subcontract shall be awarded by Consultant mmtil prior written approval is obtained
from the City.
ARTICLE 7 -CONSULTANT-ASSIGNED PERSONNEL
Consultant shall designate in writing an individual to have immediate responsibility for
the performance of the services and for all matter.; relating to performance under this
Agreement. Key personnel-to be assigned by Coi~sultant will be stipulated in the
Proposal. Substitution of any assigned person shs~ll require the prior written approval of
the City, which shall not be unreasonably withheld. If the City determines that a
proposed substitution is not responsible or qualified to perform the services then, at the
request of the City, Consultant shall substitute a qualified and responsible person.
,~RT7C`7 F R -OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS
8.1 All work products, drawings, data, reports, files, estimate and other such
information and materials (except proprietary computer programs including
source codes purchased or developed with. Consultant monies as maybe
- accumulated by Consultant to complete services under this Agreement shall be
owned by the City, if paid for by the City.
8.2 Consultant shall. retain custody of all projE~t data and documents other
• than deliverables specified in Proposal, but shall make access
thereto available to the City at all reasonable times the City may request.
City may make and retain copies for informmation and reference.
8.3 All deliverables and other information prc~ared by Consultant pursuant to this
Agreement are instruments of service in respect to this project. They are not
intended or represented to be suitable for reuse by City or others on- extensions of
this Project or on any other project. Any :reuse without written verification or
adaptation by City for the specific purpose intended will be at City's sole risk and
without liability or legal exposure to Consultant; and City shall indemnify and
hold harmless Consultant against all claims, damages, losses, and expenses,
including attorney's fees, arising out of or resulting from such reuse. Any such
verification or adaptation will entitle Consultant to fuaTher compensation at rates
to be agreed upon by City and Consultant.
ARTICLB 9 -RECORDS OF LABOR AND COSTS
9.1 Consultant shall maintain notes, drafts, production records, costs and work
products for services performed under this Agreement. These records must be
made available to the City upon reasonabl: notice of no more than 48 hours
during the period of the performance of this Agreement.
9.2 After delivery of Services under this Agrecmzent, the Consultants records of all
costs used in claim's for compensation under this Agreement shall be available to
City's accountants and auditors for inspectiion and verification. These records will
be maintained by Consultant and made reasonably accessible to the City for a
period of three (3) years after completion of Project under this Agreement.
9.3 Consultant agrees to cooperate and provide nay and all information concer~*ag
the Project costa which are a factor in detexrminirag compensation under this
Agnxanent as requested by the City or any public agency which has sny part in
providing financing for, or authority ova, the Services which are provided under
the Agreement.
9.4 Failure to provide documentation or subat~mtiation of all Project costs used as a
factor in compensation paid under Article 2 hereof will be grounds for City to
refuse payment of any statemerat submitted by the Consultant and for a back
charge for any City funds, including interest from payment; or grant, matching or
other funds from agencies assisting City iri financing the Services specified in this
Agreement.
ARTICLE 10 -INSURANCE
Consultant shall provide and maintain at all times during the performance of the
Agreement the following insurances:
1 O.1 Workers' Comvensation and Emnlover's Liability Insurance for protection of
Consultant's employees as required by law and as will protect Consultant from
lose or damage because of personal injuries, including death, to any of his
employees.
10.2 Comprehensive Automobile Liability Insurance. Consultant agrees to carry a
Comprehensive Automobile Liability Policy providing bodily injury liability.
This policy shall protect Consultant again::t all liability arising out of the use of
owned or leased automobiles both pasaetafer and commercial. Automobiles,
tracks, and other ve]aicles and equipment 1 owned, not owned, ar hired, licensed or
unlicensed for road use) shall be covered wader this policy. Limits of liability foi.
Comprehensive Automobile Liability Insurance shall not be less than $1,000,000
Combined Single Limit.
10.3 Comprehensive General Liabilitv. Insurance as will protect Consultant and
City from any and all claims for damages or personal injuries, including death,
which maybe suffered by persons or for damages to or destruction to the property
of others, which may arise from the Consuiltant's operations undeY this Agreement,
which insurance shall name the City as additional insured. Said insurance shall
provide a minimum of $1,000,000 Combined Single Limit coverage for personal
usjury, bodily injury, and property damage: for each occurrence and aggregate.
Such insurance-will insure Consultant and City from any and all claims arising
from the following:
1. Personal injury;
2. Bodily injury;
3. Property damage;
4. Broad form property damage; _
5. Independent contractors;
6. Blanket contractual liability.
10.4 Consultant shall maintain a policy of prof~esaional liability insurance, proteer:*+g it
against claims arising out of negligent ads, errors, or omissions of Consultant
pursuant to this Agreement, in an amount of not less than 51,000,000. The said
policy shall cover the indemnity provisions under this Agreement.
1 O.5 Consultant agrees to maintain such insurance at Consultant's expense in full force
and affect in a company or companies satiisfactory to the City. All coverage shall
remain in effect until completion of the Project.
10.6 Consultant will furnish the City with certificates of insurance issued by
Consultant's insurance carrier and countm-signed by sn authorized agent or
representative of the insurance oompaay. The certificatees shall show that the
insurance will not be cancelled, altered, or reduced without at least thirty (30)
days' prior written notice to the City. The: certificates for liability insurance will
show that liability assumed under this Agreement is included.
ARTICLE 11 -LIABILITY AND INDEMNIFICATION
11.1 Having considered the risks and potential. liabilities that may exist during the
performance of the Seavices; and in consideration of the promises included
herein, City and Consultant agree to allocate such liabilities in accordance with
this Article. Words and phrases used in this Article shall be interpreted in
accordance with customary insurance inciustry usage and practice.
11.2 Consultant shall inderi~nify and save hamnless and defend the City and all of
their agents, officers, and employees from t-nd against all claims, demand, or
cause of action of every name and nature a~YSing out of negligent error, omission,
or act of Consultant, its agents, servants, or employees in the performance of its
services under this Agreement. Claims, deimands or causes of action based on the
sole negligence or willful misconduct of th~~ City are expressly excluded.
11.3 In the event an action fur damages is filed in which negligence is alleged on the
part of City and Consultant, Consultant agrees to defend City. In the event City
accepts Consultant's defense, City agrees t<- indemnify and reimburse Consultant
on a pro rata basis for all expenses of defarise and any judgment or amount paid
by Consultant in resolution of such claim. Such pro rata share shall be based upon
a final judicial determination of negligence or, in the absence of such
determination, by mutual agreement.
11.4 Consultant shall indemnify City against lei;al liability for damages arising out
of claims by Consultant's employees. City shall indemnify Consultant against
legal liability for damages arising out of claims by City's employees.
11.5 Indemnity provisions will be incorporated into all Project contractual
arrangements entered into by City_ and will protect City and Consultant to the
same extent.
11.6 _ Upon completion of all services, obligations and duties provided for in the
Agreement, or in the event of termination Hof this Agreement for any reason, the
rPrma and conditions of this Article shall survive.
11.7 To the maximum extent permitted by law, Consultant's liability for City's
damage will not exceed the aggrogate comipensation received by Consultant under
this Agreement or the maximum amount cf professiotial liability ina,~rnnce
required by this Agreement, which ever is greater.
ARTICLE 12 -INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR
Consultant undertakes performance of the 3ervic~s3 as an independent contractor and shall
be wholly responsible for the methods of perfortniance_ City will have no right to
supervise the methods used, but City will have ri~r~ht to observe such performance.
Consultant shall work closely with City in performing Services under this Agreement.
®RTICLE 13 COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS
In performance of the Services, Consultant will comply with applicable regulatory
requirements including federal, state, and local laws, rules, regulations, orders, codes,
criteria and standards. Consultant shall procure the permits, certificates, and licenscs
necessary to allow Consultant to perform the Services.
ARTICLE 14 -NONDISCLOSURE OF PROPRIETARY 7NFC)RMATION
Consultant shall consider all information provided) by City sad all drawings, reports,
studies, designs, campaign materials, and other documents resulting from the Consultant's
performance of the Services to be proprietary unle:sa such information is available or
distributed from public sources. Consultant shall :not publish or disclose proprietary
information for any purpose other than the perfoanance of the Services without the prior
written authorization of City or in response to legasl process.
ARTICLE 15 -TERMINATION OF CONTRACT
15.1 The obligation to continue Services under this Agreement maybe terminated by
either party upon seven days written notice: in the event of substantial failure by
the other party to perform in accordance with the terms hereof through no_ fault of
the terminating party- i
15.2 City shall have the right to terminate this Agreement or suspend performance
thereof for City's convenience upon written notice to Consultant, and Consultant
. shall terminate or suspend performance of Services on a schedule acceptable to
City. In the event of termination of suaper~sion for City's convenience, City will
pay Consultant for all services performed :rr-d costa incurred including termination
or suspension expenses. Upon restart of a suspended project, equitable
adjustment shall be made to Consultant's compensation.
ARTICLE 16 -UNCONTROLLABLE FORCES
16.1 Neither City nor Consultant shall be considered to be in default of this
Agreement if delays in or failure of performance shall be due to uncontrollable
forces, the effect of which, by the exerrcise of reasonable diligence, the
nonperforming party could not avoid. The: term "uncontrollable forces" shall
mean any event which results in the prevention or delay of performance by a party
of its obligations under this Agreement and which is Beyond the control of the
nonperforming party. It includes, but is not limited to, fire, flood, earthquake,
storms, lightening, epidemic, war, riot, civil disturbance, sabotage, inability to
procure permits, licenses, or authorizations from any state, local, or federal
agency or person, for any of the supplies, raterials, accesses, or services required
to be provided by either City or Consultant under this Agreement, strikes, work
slowdowns or other labor disturbances, and judicial restraint.
16.2 Neither party shall,~however, be excused fiom performance if nonperformance is
due to uncontrollable forces which are removable or remediable, and which the
nonperforming party could have, with the exercise of reasonable diligence,
removed or remedied with reasonable dispatch. The provisions of this Article
shall not be interpreted or construed to require Consultant or City to prevent,
settle, or otherwise avoid a strike, work slowdown, or other labor action. The
nonperforming party shall, within a reasonable time of being prevented or delayed
from performance by an uncontrollable force, give written notice to the other
7
party describing the circumstances and uncontrollable forces preventing continued
performance of the obligations of this Agreement. The Consultant will be
allowed reasonable negotiated extension of time or adjustments for City initiated
temporary stoppage of services.
ARTICLE 17 -MISCELLANEOUS
17.1 A waiver by either City or Consultant of a~iy breach of this Agreement shall
not be binding upon the waiving party unless such waiver is in writing. In the
event of a written waiver, such a waiver shall not affect the waiving party's rights
with respect to any other or further breach.
17.2 The invalidity, illegality, or unenforceability of any provision of this Agreement,
or the occurrence of any event rendering a~iy portion or provision of this
Agreement void, shall in no way effect the validity or enforceability of any other
portion or provision of the Agreement. Any void provision shall be deemed
severed from the Agreement and the balan~ :e of the Agreement shall be construed
and enforced as if the Agreement did not contain the particular portion or
provision bald to be void_
ARTICLE 18 -INTEGRATION AND MODIFICATION
18.1 This Agreement (consisting of pages 1 to S~), is adopted by City and Consultant as
a complete and exclusive statement of the. leans of the Agreement between City
and Consultant. This Agreement supersedes all prior agreements, contracts,
proposals, representations, negotiations, letters, or other communications between
the City and Consultant pertaining to the Services, whether written or oral.
18.2 The Agreement may not be modified unle:os such modifications are evidenced in
writing signed by both City and Consultant.
ARTICLE 19 -SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS
I9.1 City and Consultant each binds itself and its directors, officers, peciners,
successors, executors, administrators; assi}pts and legal representatives to the
other party to this Agreement and to the partners, successors, executors,
administrators, assigns, and legal representatives of such other party, in respect to
all covenants, agreements, sad obligations of this Agreement.
19.2 Neither City nor Consultant shall assign, sublet, or transfer any rights under or
interest in (including, but without limitation, monies that may become due or
_ monies that are due) this Agreement without the written consent of the other,
except to the extent that the egect of this liimitation maybe restricted bylaw.
Unless specifically stated to the contrary in any written consent to an assignment,
no assignment will release or discharge the assignor from any duty or
responsibility under this Agreement. NotYung contained in this paragraph shall
prevent Consultant from employing such independent consultants, associates, and
subcontractors as he may deem appropriate to assist him/her in the performance of
the Services hereunder and in accordancewith Article 6.
19.3 Nothing herein shall be construed to give »ny rights or benefits to anyone other
than City and Consultant.
ARTICLE 20- EXEC[]TION
IN WITNESS THEREOF, the parties hereto have made and executed this Agreement as
of the day and year first above written.
CITY OF CUPERTINO THE LE WARDS GROUP
Carol A. Atwood
Director of Administrative Services
Date: 3 -/O -0 9
LEGAL COUNSEL
sy:
Legal Counsel
By. -~~%Z~
Catherine Lew
President and CE//O
Date: ~' ~ V ~O
9
February 20, 2009
To: Finance Director David Woo
City of Cupertino
From: Catherine Lew, Esq. - Presider~t 8z CEO
Jessica Reynolds, Senior Vice President
VIA EMAIL TRANSMISSION
Dear David:
Thank you for your invitation to The Lew ]Edwards Group to submit a proposal
to address the City of Cupertino's revenue ~ix--d Utility Users Tax (UUT) needs.
We are pleased that the City found the League presentation in Foster City last
year, helpful. Our firm would welcome a partnership with the City of Cupertino
on a potential UUT and/or other revenue measure.
ABOUT THE LEW EDWARDS GROUP
The Lew Edwards Group CLEG) has passed more than $27 Billion in California Revenue
Measures with a 93% success rate, many o1= which have succeeded at the more
difficult, two-thirds requirement level.
Selected UUT Case Studies
LEG has extensive experience preparinf; cities for UUT measures, having
provided the following cities with winning UUT services: Emeryville,
Cathedral City, Grover Beach, Hermosa Beach, Inglewood, La Habra,
Lawndale, Pasadena, Santa Cruz, Sani:a Monica, Seaside, Stockton, and
Torrance. We are currently representing; the cities of Bellflower, Desert Hot
Springs, Dinuba, Gardena, Newark and Redondo Beach specifically on their
UUT preparation efforts.
• Citt~f Grover Beach. Developing a strong Revenue Measure Preparation
Program resulted in 82% support for renewal of their LZLIT. Education/Public
Outreach materials strongly linked service delivery to UUT funding,
"humanizing" the issue while effectively demonstrating what was at stake.
Existing city communications vehicles, such as the website and City Manager
newsletter, were maximized as opportunities for UUT messaging and city
officials were provided with user-friendly training and talking points for how
best to describe the measure in a factual and legally permissible manner.
• Citt~~La Habra: Known as "ground zero" for the Jarvis Taxpayer's anti-
tax movement, the City of La Habra lost the Supreme Court case years ago which
subsequently set precedent for requiring voter affirmation of all utility users
taxes. LEG was selected to lead Revenue Measure Preparation efforts in this
battleground city. LEG laid the groundwor]< for a successful election to renew its
UUT in its 2002 election, though the LILIT was contested and opposed. LEG also
represented the City on a successful General Purpose Sales Tax Measure in
November of this year.
• City of Lawndale: This City enjoyed 70% support for renewal of their
ULZT using an Education/Public Outreach Program developed by LEG. Again,
key-messaging points linked the revenue t~~ specific services that were at stake,
creating an environment of appropriate - not overstated - urgency to the
measure.
• Cite of Santa Cruz: The City's L7UT became the subject of a voter-
initiated "UUT-repeal" effort during an er,a of "anti-government" locally. LEG
built a broad coalition among City Council members, labor leaders, local
business leaders, and students and depl~~yed a multi-disciplinary campaign
utilizing fiscal/service facts, compelling cLirect mail, and an aggressive field
operation, effectively defeating the attempted ULIT repeal. LEG defeated a
similar UUT repeal attempt in the City of Seaside in November 2008.
• City of Cathedral Cites: Among our many successes in November 2008
was the City of Cathedral City, who contacted LEG and asked the firm to direct
their fifth revenue measure attempt, see]<ing to win a new UUT after four
revenue election disappointments (previous unsuccessful attempts were not
represented by LEG). As the Lead Strategist/Communications Consultant, LEG
designed an enormously successful Assessment and Communications Strategy,
culminating in the successful adoption of a new 3% utility users tax -one of the
most difficult types of new revenue measures to pass in California. The many
obstacles successfully overcome by LEG in ias winning strategy, included:
2
- Dissension between Citizen Stakeholders who were members of the City's
Finance Advisory Committee, who lacked consensus on the proper amount of
the UUT levy.
- Pessimism from stakeholders and the City Council of the viability of any
revenue measure passing.
- A split City Council -unfortunately, not all of the council members were in
support of the UUT. Further, two warring City Council members were both
running for Mayor at the same time as the UUT election, causing a
donnybrook of a local election environment.
- The indictment of the Finance Director for alleged financial improprieties.
- The worst economy in a generation, witki rampant voter concerns about taxes,
cost of living, and unemployment.
Measure L passed decisively with 68.33°/~ of the vote (it required a simple
majority) following a proactive and strategic approach to addressing these
obstacles, and a Public Communication: Program that included six city-
sponsored mailings.
Additional Revenue Measure and Greater Bay Area Experience
Twenty-eight out of 30 of LEG's measures and campaigns -representing $11.5
Billion in local tax measures -- were successful in November 2008 during the
toughest economy in 70 years, including the UUTs for Cathedral City,
Inglewood, and Santa Monica. Inglewood's UUT measure won decisively
following a savvy City Information and separate Partisan Campaign. Santa
Monica's UUT was successful in spite of opposition from a prominent
Councilmember.
In addition to our UUT experience, LEG is extremely proud of its other revenue
measure successes, a firm specialty. LEG's past election cycles have included
wins on behalf of revenue measures condu~~ted in the cities of Arvin (Sales Tax),
Ceres (Sales Tax), Clovis (Sales Tax), Dinuba (Sales Tax), Escondido (Bond), Galt
(Sales Tax), Grover Beach (Sales Tax), Inglewood (Sales Tax), Kingsburg (TOT),
La Habra (Sales Tax), La Mesa (Bond and Belles Tax), Lawndale (UUT), Los Banos
(Sales Tax), Manteca (Sales Tax), Morro Bay (Sales Tax), Pinole (Sales Tax),
Porterville (Sales Tax), Reedley (Sales Tax), Sanger (Sales Tax), San Luis Obispo
(Sales Tax), Seaside (Sales Tax), Selma (Sales Tax), South Gate (Sales Tax),
Stockton (Sales Tax), Visalia (Sales Tax), Vista (Sales Tax), and West Hollywood
(TOT and BLT), to name a few.
3
LEG's many successful Greater Bay-area revenue measure clients have also
included Gavilan Community College, O:hlone Community College and San
Jose -Evergreen Community College di<_;tricts (bonds); the cities of Belmont
(CFD), Campbell (sales tax), El Cerrito I;sales tax), Gilroy (bond), Millbrae
(bond), Palo Alto (bond), San Leandro (~;uccessful defeat of tax repeal), San
Ramon (CLAD) and Saratoga (bond); Santa Cruz County Library (sales tax);
Oakland Unified School District (parcel tax), the Oakland KidsFirstTwo
Coalition (General Funding) and the Saratoga Fire District (bond). LEG is
currently representing the City of Burliingame (storm drain fee), City of
Emeryville (parking tax, CLAD), Ohlone f=ommunity College District (bond),
and Pleasanton Unified School District (Marcel tax) on their revenue measure
planning, among several others.
As you know, LEG principals, experts and consultants are frequently called upon
to appear at revenue measure training workshops on behalf of the League of
California Cities, Coalition for Adequate School Housing, Local Government
Commission, California Society of Municipal Finance Officers, California
Municipal Treasurers Association, As<.:ociation of California Healthcare
Districts, and Community College League of California.
Our management style is team-focused and consensus building, ensuring that
every client feels a high level of buy-in and confidence in the implementation of
our recommended activities.
KEY CONSIDERATIONS and OPPORTU]~TITIES
Though a number of cities have successfully passed their UUT
renewal/modernization measures:
As you have pointed out, unfortunately the City of Cupertino has a mixed
history on this issue. Other Bay Area cities with strong tech and business
constituencies -- such as the City of Emeryville -- were putting UUT
modernizations on their ballots in 2007 and passing them with
percentages as high as 86%. For this reason, careful and early outreach to
your business, start-up, and tech constituencies is absolutely critical in
building consensus early in the process.
• While it is standard practice for oizr UUT clients to proceed during a
regularly scheduled municipal electiion, Cupertino's unique UUT history
could increase the likelihood that local challengers to incumbent Council
4
members will use any UUT measure as a political issue. Only early
assessment, community engagement, and proper message framing can
best position the City for this possibility - it is imperative that the City
gets started as soon as possible. Th~~ugh we were still successful, opponents
did erode support bu as much as Z2-25 ~~oints in the cities of Pasadena and Santa
Monica. In one case, opponents used an anti- "cell phone tax" message; in
another, a prominent Councilmember created opposition.
Though LEG's UUT and revenue clients enjoyed strong success in
November, tax fatigue is a reality. This economy is a rough one, and we
are in a recession. Though your UUT is already in place, a lot of tech
employees are losing their jobs and voters are very sensitive about cost
issues.
Any consideration of a cap of thE~ UUT on commercial or corporate
ratepayers must be carefully considered and tested in either opinion
research or focus groups. LEG has experience with some UUT clients who
capped rates years ago for similar ratepayers, and now regret that
decision as their cap was clearly too low. Establishing a cap can garner
the consensus and buy-in the City needs, but may also create unnecessary
backlash among average citizens already resentful about corporate
bailouts in this sensitive environment.
Setting aside relationships the City may have generally, regarding the
UUT issue specifically, the dynamic between the City and the key
stakeholders will need to be changed to be successful. Court cases and
protests must not be the undercurrent of communications efforts. The City
will need to proceed positively and proactively, not defensively.
Cupertino residents are more likely to understand the complexities and
rather arcane nature of the actual Uij'T modernization ordinance language
than voters in other communities we have represented. You have
sophisticated voters and key stake]'nolders that will not be plied with
"basic" explanations. High-level communications, including private one-
on-one meetings with large stakeholders will be necessary to neutralize
vocal opposition.
• Finally, if you are considering multiple revenue measures on the same
ballot, the viability of that scenario must be carefully considered. We have
successfully represented local government and public entities seeking
sequential or multiple ballot measures. However, it is undisputable that
5
the current California environment i;; extremely unique. Not only are our
voters grappling with the effects of the national recession, but emotional
and ideological views on the State's fiscal crisis and the upcoming state
ballot measures projected for a May ballot. While we will carefully assess
and evaluate every option available i:o the City, it is also possible that two
measures on a municipal election during this period, could be overkill.
These considerations mean that a proactive, legally permissible Assessment and
Public Information program about the City of Cupertino's fiscal and service
challenges and the important role of the ULL"T and/or other revenue solution(s), is
critical. Also, any effective strategy must maximize the following opportunities:
/ Obviously, since 2007 more cities have gone to the ballot, and for average
residents these types of modernizations are now characterized more as
technical and routine in nature - in other words, as "no big deal."
/ Your key stakeholders and opinion leaders, specifically hi-tech businesses
and the phone company itself, will require outreach that encourages a
"partnership" between stakeholders and the City to maintain services and
a high quality of life for businesses, employees, and residents. In other
words, the stakeholders need to be ernpowered to be part of the solution -
and get credit for it.
/ In other cities, we strongly emphae;ize that any existing senior or low-
income UUT exemptions will be protected, as well as highlighting strong
fiscal accountability measures for the UUT and other revenue options
being considered.
Counter-intuitively, voters have only solidified around protecting their local
services as the budget situation in Sacramento became more dysfunctional.
Properly framing your issue around the facts of protecting services and revenue
and doing so early, can deflect political hyperbole and rhetoric.
TYPICAL SCOPE OF SERVICES
To ensure that the City of Cupertino is effectively positioned for its UUT and/or
other revenue measure(s) in today's touF;h economy and with your unique
UUT/revenue history, LEG will provide o~~erall strategic direction and effective
project management for the City's educational activities, including City-
sponsored, nonpartisan Public Information Materials about your measure(s).
Direct mail produced bu The Lew Edwards Group was recognized bu the American
6
Association of Political Consultants in its prestigious annual Pollie Awards for
excellence. Additional UUT/revenue samples are included in this email
transmission as well as the postal package ~n~e sent you.
LEG prides itself on providing individualized, quality service to each of our
clients. LEG's typical scope of services for its UUT/other revenue clients
includes:
/ Reviewing the City's past public opiriion research and historical materials.
/ Developing a Project Timeline for the City's UUT/other Revenue Planning
efforts.
/ Working with Godbe Research to update current UUT/other Revenue-
specific opinion survey research.
/ Analyzing the survey results to assess risks and opportunities for the City.
/ Developing a Strategic Communications Plan to expand community
awareness of your service needs and funding challenges.
/ Conceiving, writing and producing all informational (nonadvocacy)
materials, including brochures, letters, and mailers.
/ Working with the City Attorney on the ballot question and other
submittals during all phases of project planning, to ensure that effective
communication as well as legal requirements .are met (the City Attorney
has final review and responsibility for all legal requirements).
/ Identifying and training City staff anal other community/city stakeholders
on the focused communications mee;sages that should be utilized during
the City's informational speakers' bureau activities and community
outreach.
/ Developing an Earned (nonpaid) Media plan for balanced, effective and
positive press coverage.
As noted, any information disseminated during the City's UUT/other Revenue
Public Information Program must be factual -- not partisan -- and approved by
the City Attorney. As a member of the California Bar, Catherine Lew has
enjoyed an outstanding relationship with all of our client City Attorneys, an
important consideration in light of heightened scrutiny of local government
communications from the Fair Political Pr~ictices Commission (FPPC), taxpayer
advocates and gadflies, and potential opporients to any potential measure.
7
Project Goals and Management
The Lew Edwards Group will work with the City of Cupertino to provide
strategic direction and Project Management for your UUT/other planning from
March 15' through October 31st.
As we discussed in the Foster City League of California Cities Workshop, aCity-
funded Assessment and Public Informa-lion Program is designed to raise
awareness about City facts and needs through a variety of avenues, including
informational Speakers' Bureau Outreach, an Earned (nonpaid) Media program
for balanced, effective, and positive news coverage, and informational mailings
to your voters that are funded by the City.
Working collaboratively to support and f~icilitate the efforts of City staff, The
Lew Edwards Group will oversee :end Project-Manage all of your
communications efforts towards a successful measure from start to finish.
A City-sponsored Assessment and Public Information Program is designed to:
1) Assess and analyze your UUT/other Revenue Measure(s) feasibility
through updated Public Opinion Research.
2) Better understand your public's priorities and their attitudes towards the
UUT and/or other Revenue Measure(rs).
3) Methodically conduct public outreach to your community on City facts
and needs through a variety of avenues, including informational
Speakers' Bureau Outreach, an Earned (nonpaid) Media program for
balanced, effective, and positive news coverage, and informational
mailings to your voters that are funded by the City.
4) Inform the development of import<nt voter information and handbook
materials that describe your UUT anti/or other revenue measure(s).
Initial Assessment and Evaluation
We have enjoyed an excellent working relationship with the City's current
pollster, Godbe Research, on other revenue projects. LEG's active engagement
with the research design process will assist us in evaluating important
perspectives on facts, messages, themes and strategic considerations related to
the City's Public Information effort.
Because of Cupertino's unique nuances and. the fact that the City may be placing
its measure(s) on the ballot sooner than wh:~t we typically advise, it is critical that
the Citu initiate its updated public opinion research on these revenue issues as soon as
possible, to assess voter attitudes towards your potential measure(s). This
research should:
/ Gauge voter attitudes across a variet~r of demographic categories.
/ Identify the messages and concerns that resonate with your voters.
/ Inform the development, refinement and deployment of the City's Public
Information Program to maximize the viability of your measure.
/ Inform the development and refinement of the potential language and
structure for the measure(s), including the ballot question(s).
LEG will work closely with Godbe Research to ensure that this research focuses
on and evaluates the issues that uniquely affect the City of Cupertino's UUT
and/or other revenue measure(s) to fully vet all voter concerns and viewpoints.
In so doing, the research findings will also influence LEG's design of the City's
Public Information efforts, and allow our team to fully advise the City on the
feasibility of your measure(s).
Several drafts of the survey will be reviewed by our team, to ensure that all the
information desired by the City is fully explored.
Design and Implementation of Public Information Program
Following our evaluation of your baseline research, LEG will provide overall
direction and project management for the City's Public Information efforts.
A methodical, city-sponsored Public Information effort is a critical component of
the City's planning. LEG will:
• Build on the City's award-winning tradition of citizen engagement on tough
issues like the budget.
• Assist the City in refining and focusing key messages for use in all
communications vehicles, with a focus ~~n articulating the continued benefits
for City of Cupertino residents.
• Develop and refine messages for inclusion on existing communications
vehicles to deliver your message, including city newsletters, guest columns,
9
copy for links on your City website, anti a focused Power Point Presentation
for the informational Speakers' Bureau presentations. We have already
reviewed the City's excellent community newsletter - an important avenue to
utilize.
• Recommend other strategic methods to message-target existing networks and
unique organizations in Cupertino to better focus your message, and solicit
and respond to questions from your public.
Communication Goals and Messaging
Our goals are to:
1. Develop effective and specific messages that effectively inform your
public, solicit perspectives, and Effectively respond to questions from
your public
2. Provide structure and copy for materials to educate City of Cupertino
stakeholders, opinion leaders and residents about the needs and the
measure(s)
3. Implement an earned (non-paid) media press strategy to highlight the
city's services, budget realities and challenges
4. Work with your team to implement a paid direct mail program to
highlight the city's budget realities, needs, and the facts contained in
the measure(s)
5. Identify potential constituencies who have concerns, and work to
address them in advance of placement of the measure on the ballot.
Information that the public wants to know typically includes:
a. information about the City's sound fiscal management and where
the City has made cuts in these tough economic times;
b. information about how the upcoming UUT and/or other measure(s)
will protect and maintain lo~.al services, in light of the fact that
Cupertino residents have already extended the UUT;
c. information about the why measure(s) are necessary, and "what's
at stake; ' and
d. how the City considered community needs in deciding to proceed
with these types of measure(s), at this time.
10
The fact that there may be two potential measures, with different funding and
focuses, presents a unique communicatio~zs challenge. Any communications
strategy must be carefully crafted to effectively minimize "tax fatigue" and
stakeholder/opinion leader opposition, while maximizing unique opportunities
available to the City of Cupertino.
"Message discipline" and a clear, concise focus are critical to our
communications effort. We will draft and/~~r refine talking points for City staff
and leadership use.
Informational Communications Plan
Direct Mail: LEG recommends that a directt mail program be implemented, such
as the sample materials accompanying this proposal and included in the postal
package. We will also fully utilize all Internet or Web-based communications
vehicles available.
A minimum of three informational mailers is typically recommended -and as
many as five. In keeping with the City's established tradition of citizen
engagement, our direct mail products are designed to be interactive.
In consultation with City staff, we will also draft and/or refine information-only
articles for the newsletters, handouts, press releases and website, with
appropriate supporting materials (charts, graphs, visual aids, etc.) to
communicate key messages and inform residents. In addition, we will draft,
review and/or refine supporting fact sheets, flyers and other communications.
Sneakers Bureau and other Communicatfons Vehicles: We also recommend
maximizing use of your website, community television, and a Speakers' Bureau
program strategically directed to Cupertino's key stakeholder organizations.
LEG will develop Power Point and other presentation materials that deliver an
effective, persuasive message and train stal=f, City officials and key stakeholders
on how to deliver the message.
Ad Hoc Citizens Task Force. LEG has worked successfully in other cities to
engage the participation of External <~pinion Leaders and Community
Stakeholders such as business leaders, representatives of senior, civic or
neighborhood organizations, parents, civic leaders, and even taxpayer advocates
in a high-level Citizens Task Force to provide additional input to the process and
be visible in the community in addressing the City's service and revenue needs.
11
The City of Cathedral City had a Citizens Finance Advisory Commission in
place, which we interacted with, and we created a new Task Force in the City of
Newark. We look forward to discussing whether you feel that the City's existing
Fiscal Strategic Plan Committee plays this role, already.
Press Coverage: LEG will review earned (non-paid) media press opportunities
with key City staff and leaders as appropriate. Balanced or positive press
coverage will build additional awareness and support throughout the process --
critical to engaging community stakeholders and informing your public about
your needs.
Measure Refinement
LEG will collaborate with the City's UUT legal experts on the proper wording
and structure of the UUT measure, to address the public's concerns, if any. In
addition, we will work closely with the City Attorney to refine the ballot
questions and develop other submittals so that they are understandable to the
average person for all potential measure(s).
Rapid Response
We will redirect message points and materials to assist in rapid response to
problematic media or citizen inquiries as necessary.
PROPOSED FEE
Our proposed fee for preparing the City of Cupertino for a November 2009
election is $48,500 for a project period commencing March 1st through October
31st. If this is not the project period the City contemplates, we can discuss other
fee arrangements.
This fee is the City's cost to retain The Lev Edwards Group's (EEG's) strategic
expertise, including overall project direction and advice, strategy, planning,
assessment and conceiving communicati~~ns materials. These fees are for
strategic services only -- and do not include "hard" project costs such as polling,
mailing data, postage, printing and design of informational materials, mailers, or
brochures. Please note that the Lew Edv~ards Group does not charge on an
hourly basis.
12
Our standard practice is to develop a direct: mail budget upon the completion of
the updated UUT opinion research, when we can better gauge the difficulty of
the task and where your voters are. However, as you know, the City of
Cupertino has an active and engaged network, and healthy election
participation. Most cities your size under 1:hese circumstances, budget $30,000
$50,000 for informational mailers. These decisions are of course incumbent on
the City's budget and are properly made, later in the planning process. In
addition, it is as yet unknown how two ;potential measures will impact each
other, and the best way of communicating about both.
CONCLUSION
In closing, we want to thank the City of Cupertino for its invitation to The Lew
Edwards Group to provide assessment, strategic and communications services.
Few consultants can match the expertise of our firm in revenue measures,
grassroots organizing, community involvement, strategic planning, and
media/marketing services.
13
SAMPLE NOVEMBER 2009 PROTECT PLANNING TIMETABLE
2/20/09
All activities described below can legally be implemented by the City of
Cupertino if the City Attorney agrees they are informational and nonparrisan in
nature. This is a SAMPLE timeline onl
FEBRUARY -MARCH 0 Retain Corisultants (City)
2009 0 Conduct Kick Off Planning Session
0 Prepare for Fiscal Strategic Plan Committee Meeting
O Design updated Opinion Survey
0 Field u dated O inion Surve
APRIL 2009 O Analyze Survey Results
O Develop Strategic Recommendations, including Public
Information Plan, Project Budget, Updated Timeline
0 Debrief City Staff and Conduct Council briefings
0 Identify Key Messages
0 Refine Opinion Leader/Stakeholder database (City)
O Identif S Beakers' Bureau Hit List (Ci
MAY 2009 0 Update City website with targeted messaging
O Create Speakers' Bureau Toolkit
O Develop Speakers' Bureau materials
0 Conduct Speakers' Bureau/Messaging Training
O Launch community Speakers' Bureau (City)
0 Issue external O inion Leader U date #1
JUNE -JULY 2009 0 Issue external Opinion Leader Update #2
0 Mail citywide Informational Mailer #1
O Continue Speakers Bureau deployment (City)
O Begin developing UUT resolution and voter hand-book
materials
D Prepare for Council Adoption vote
0 Conduct Tracking Poll if necessary
0 Finalize all. resolution and voter hand-book materials
0 Prepare for adoption vote
O City Council places measure(s) on November '09 Ballot
0 Citywide P/Iailer announcing Board Action -Mailer #2
0 Issue external Opinion Leader Update #3
LEG advises our cities to wait until the statutory deadline (first week in August)
to place measures on the ballot'; to allow for as much consensus building as
ossible.
AUGUST-OCTOBER- City can legally continue infon`national efforts, but cannot engage in partisan
NOVEMBER 2009 activities.
0 Ballot argument is submitted on behalf of Measure
0 Additional. Citywide Mailers are issued: one in September,
two in October
0 Issue external Opinion Leader Update #4
0 Update City website and communications vehicles
O ELECTIOl~l DAY
14
SELECTED REVENUE MEASURE REFERENCES
City of Emeryville -- Successful UUT Update
City Manager Patrick O'Keeffe 510-596-4371 pokeeffeCuci.emeryville.ca_us
Finance Director Edmund Suen 510-596-4328 esuen@ci.emerVVille.ca.us
City of Newark -- Current UUT client
City Manager John Becker 510-793-1100 iohn.becker<<~newark.or~
Asst. to the CM Dennis Jones 510-790-7:?04 dennis.jonesC~newark.or~
City of Santa Monica -- Successful UUT Update
Asst. to the CM Kate Vernez 310-458-8301 Kate.vernezC~?smgov.net
City of Cathedral City -Successful New UUT
City Manager Don Bradley 760-770-0372 dbradleyC~cathedralcitv.~ov
Asst. City Manager Allen Howe 760-770-0396 ahoweCWCathedralcity.gov
City of Pasadena -- Successful UUT Update
Asst. City Mgr. Julie Gutierrez 626- 744-7371 i~utierrezcQ~citvofpasadena.net
City of Campbell -Successful Local Sales 'Tax
City Manager Dan Rich 408-866-2:L25 emoffice<u?citvofcampbell.com
Finance Dir. Jesse Takahashi 408-866-2113 iessetC~cityofcampbell.com
City of Palo Alto -Successful Bond
Deputy CM Kelly Morariu 650-329-2452 kelly.morariuCo~citvofpaloalto.org
City of Gilroy -Successful Bond
Asst. City Admin. Anna jatczak 408-846-0202 anna.jatczak@ci. ig; lro~.ca.us
15
LEW EDWARDS GROUP ROCKS WITH 93% WIN RATE
PASSES $11.5 BILLION IN CALIFORNIA REVENUE
MEASU:[ZES
November 2008 Cycle
OAKLAND, CA -- The Lew Edwards Group, one of California's leading political
consulting firms, won 93% of its propositions in yesterday's General Election,
passing $11.5 Billion to improve public safety, schools, community colleges and
vital city services. Successful agencies, pro~~ositions and candidates represented
by the Lew Edwards Group Team include:
Los Angeles Unified School District
GO Bond
$7 Billion
SUCCESSFUL
Long Beach Unified School District
GO Bond
$1.2 Billion
SUCCESSFUL
Mt. SAC Community College District
GO Bond -YES on RR
$353 Million
SUCCESSFUL
Victor Valley Union High School District
GIB Bond -Yes on V
$500 million
SLJCCESSFUL
Imperial County
Transportation Sales Tax Extension
$940 Million over 40 years
SLJCCESSFUL
City of Santa Monica
Utility Users Tax Modernization
Protects $8-12 million annually
SLJCCESSFUL
Southwestern Community College
District
GO Bond -YES on R
$389 Million
SUCCESSFUL
Victor Valley Community College
District
GO Bond -YES on Jj
$297.5 Million
SUCCESSFUL
Victor Elementary School District
GO Bond -Yes on E
$150 million
SUCCESSFUL
Scie Chan
Fremont City Councilmember
SLJCCESSFUL
City of Cathedral City
General Purpose Utility Users Tax
$2.5 million annually
SLJCCESSFUL
Colton Joint Unified School District
G~~ Bond -YES on G
$225 million
SLJCCESSFUL
16
LEW EDWARDS GROUP ROCIKS THE VOTE...
City of La Habra City of La Mesa
General Purpose Sales Tax -YES on T General Purpose Sales Tax -Yes on L
$4 million annually SUCCESSFUL $7.2 Million annually SUCCESSFUL
City of Inglewood
Utility Users Tax Update -YES on UUT
$8 million annually SUCCESSFUL
City of Seaside
Defeat of Utility Users Tax Repeal
$3 million protected annually SUCCESSFUL
City of Kingsburg
Transient Occupancy Tax Increase
$20,000 - 50,000 annually SUCCESSFUL
City of Arvin
General Purpose Sales Tax
$600,000 annually SUCCESSFUL
City of Gilroy
Library Bond -YES on F
$37 million SUCCESSFUL
City of Campbell
General Purpose Sales Tax
$2.4 million annually SUCCESSFUL
City of Stockton
Utility Users Tax Modernization
$11.7 million annually SUCCESSFUL
Beaumont Unified School District
GO Bond -YES on Z
$125 million SUCCESSFUL
Westminster School District
GO Bond -YES on O
$130 million SUCCESSFUL
Helendale School District
GO Bond -YES on X
$20 million SUCCESSFUL
Ceres Unified School District
GO Bond -YES on U
$60 million SUCCESSFUL
City of Galt
Special Purpose Sales Tax
$1 million annually SUCCESSFUL
City of Palo Alto
Library Bond
$76 million SUCCESSFUL
Oakland Kids First Two Coalition
General Fund -YES on 00
$10 million annually SUCCESSFUL
17
Page 1
To: Dave Woo
From: Catherine Lew
Date: March 6, 2009
Re: Updated Proposal
Dear Dave:
I have enjoyed our discussions about how best to meet the City of Cupertino's needs for
a potential UUT modernization and other revenue. As we discussed, please consider
this an updated proposal.
In recognirion of the City's unique circumstances, we are extremely enthusiastic about a
partnership and eager to get started as soon as appropriate.
LEG Experiences from the March 2009 Election.
LEG had three UUT modernization measures on the March 3'd ballot in the cities of
Bellflower, Gardena and Redondo Beach. In all three cases, the dries opted to implement
LEG's successful approach of issuing legally permissible, City-sponsored mailings and
other informational outreach activities followirig Council placement of the measure on
the ballot. These mailings were produced and mailed with the full participation and
approval of each City Attorney, with the final mailings produced and disseminated in
the last week of February, preceding the March 3~d election. Examples of these mailings
are attached to this email transmission.
Unfortunately, in today's volatile economic environment and tough economy, not
disseminating any information about your UU']' or other revenue measure in the critical
month of October will dramatically affect the viability of your City's measure(s),
possibly leading to defeat. The City's permissible dissemination of factual materials
about your measure(s) up until your projected November 2009 election is strongly
advised. If you anticipate that the City feels it is inappropriate to do so, LEG
recommends:
1. That the City waits until the end of July or first week in August to place the
measure(s) on the ballot. Statute permits placement 88 days in advance of the
election to be called.
2. That a partisan campaign committed independent of the City raises adequate
funds to issue a minimum of two mailings in the month of October to
Page 2
address constituent informational needs. Following the natural conclusion of
LEG's contract with the City, we would advise the Committee.
All three of LEG's UUT measures were successful at margins ranging from 74% to 86%.
Many of our UUT clients -including two of our March clients -need additional revenue
measures in the future. The obvious success o1- our approach has positioned our client
cities well, not only with respect to an immediately successful election outcome, but also
with respect to proper positioning of a city for a~1y future revenue needs.
We look forward to thoughtful discussions on these important strategic issues.
Naturally, the City will make the final decisions on all strategic and project matters, with
the benefit of LEG's candid and straightforward advice.
Updated Fee Proposal
As noted in our February 20~' proposal, without exception The Lew Edwards Group
does not charge on an hourly or time/materials basis. However, in consideration of the
City's budget parameters, we have made the following accommodations on our flat
rates related to potential November 2009 revenue measure(s):
• Initial Rate Proposed: $48,500
• Reduced Rate for Project Period March -October 315c: $38,500*
*We have strongly advised that the City Council wait until the end of July or the first week of
August to place your revenue measure(s) on th~~ ballot, particularly if the City plans on
suspending its permissible informational activities thereafter. However, our firm will charge a
fee of $25,000 plus project expenses for services rendered from March through the placement of
the measures on the ballot. irrespective of the date that the City places the measures on the ballot,
due to the need to implement all activities within a shorter timeframe.
Should the City opt to extend our services through October 313, the balance of $13,500, on the
reduced rate will be charged for the extended project period. Our discounted rate presumes that
the bulk of services will be provided via teleconference and email, and in-person meetings will be
kept to a minimum irrespective of the project term.
Additional Project Costs
Routine Out of Pocket Expenditures
As our fees do not include project costs, we recommend a Not to Exceed line item for
out-of-pocket expenses of $1,000 for such items as teleconferencing, mileage, messenger
or other expenses under a shorter project period. Only those expenses actually incurred
will be invoiced at cost.
Page 3
Direct Mail Program
As I have discussed, three mailers is strongly recommended to a legally permissible
subset of your electorate. ideally with two of the mailers dropping in October. The cost
of three mailers of various specifications is $30,000.
If the City is contemplating suspending its legally-permissible direct mail program once
placement occurs, we would recommend one mailer in May or-June and one mailer in
June or July, dependent on our agreed upon ~~ote placement date. For a mail budget
with one book-fold and one jumbo card, the cost would be $22,000.
SUMMARY OF BID FOR SERVICES TO BALLOT PLACEMENT ONLY
The following is a summary of the bid if we presume that our services would only go
through ballot measure placement:
LEG Fee $25,000
Direct Mail (2) $22,000
NTE Expenses $1,000
TOTAL $48,000
SAMPLE TIMELINE FOR SERVICES TO BALLOT PLACEMENT ONLY
The following is an updated Sample Timeline, which presumes services to vote
placement only (e.g., March - June/July):
SAMPLE NOVEMBER 2009 PROiIiCT PLANNING TIMETABLE
3/6/O~~
All activities described below can legally be implemented by the City of
Cupertino if the City Attorney agrees they are informational and
non artisan in nature. This is a SAMPLE timeline onl
MARCH 2009 O Retain Consultants (City)
O Conduct :Kick Off Planning Session
0 Design updated Opinion Survey
O Field u dated O inion Surve
APRIL 2009 O Analyze :survey Results
a Develop :strategic Recommendations, including Public
Information Plan, Project Budget, Updated Timeline
O Debrief City Staff and Conduct Council briefings
O Identify Frey Messages
O Refine Opinion Leader/Stakeholder database (City)
O Identif ~, Bakers' Bureau Hit List (Ci )
Page 4
MAY 2009 O Update City website with targeted messaging
0 Create Speakers' Bureau Toolkit
O Develop :ipeakers' Bureau materials
O Conduct Speakers' Bureau/Messaging Training
O Launch community Speakers' Bureau (City)
O Issue external Opinion Leader Update #1
O Mail ci vide Informational Mailer #1
JUNE -JULY 2009 O Issue external Opinion Leader Update #2
O Mail citywide Informational Mailer #2
O Continue and complete Speakers Bureau deployment
(City)
O Develop 1JUT resolution and voter hand-book materials
O Prepare for Council Adoption vote
O Conduct 'Tracking Poll if necessary
O Finalize all resolution and voter hand-book materials
O Prepare for adoption vote
O City Council places measure(s) on November '09 Ballot
LEG advises our cities to wait until the statutory deadline (first week in
August) to place measures on the ballot, to allow for as much consensus
buildin and re aration as ossible.
AUGUST 2009 City can legally continue in~Formational efforts, but cannot engage in
partisan activities.
O Ballot ar ument is submitted on behalf of Measure
PROFESSIONAL RESUMES
CATHERINE LEW. Esa.
President and CEO, The Lew Edwards Group
Catherine Lew, a co-founder and President/C:EO of The Lew Edwards Group, is a
premier consultant in California providing campaign management services,
communications and political strategy, and strategic advice to cities, counties, special
districts, transportation, K-12 school and community college districts, and other public
agencies, as well as private sector and nonprofit clients.
Lew has nearly 30 years of experience in the a~mmunications, organizing and political
arena. She is a veteran of approximately 500 political campaigns, specializing in difficult
California revenue measures. Selected clients represented by Lew include: the City of
Pasadena (contested but successful UUT renewal); cities of Bellflower, Gardena, Grover
Beach, Lawndale, Torrance (UUT renewals); cities of Santa Cruz and Seaside (successful
defeats of attempted UUT repeals).
Page 5
Under Lew's strategic direction, The Lew Edwards Group has enjoyed twelve years of
success in representing scores of public agencies that need professional leadership in
seeking community support at the ballot box. The firm has passed more than $27 Billion
in California revenue measures, with a 93% win rate. Oil March 3, 2009, all UUT cities
represented by the firm were successful. Lev prides herself on her firm's excellent
service to each and every client, diverse agencies and organizations that range
dramatically in size and scope of strategic needs.
Her many municipal clients have included cities and communities that have beaten the
odds to win their revenue measures. In 200<'!, she led efforts to win the City of La
Habra's Utility Users Tax Re-Authorization -one of the first in California - by a slim
margin following a bitter Supreme Court challE~nge to the UUT by the Jarvis Taxpayers
and paid opposition by Jarvis during the campaign. In addition to passing tough
municipal measures in plurality-Republican cities when pundits have predicted failure -
and working with cities to beat back taxpayer-initiated challenges to existing revenue
measures, often winning by a scant percentage or a handful of votes -she has earned a
reputation as one of the state's toughest adv~acates and tacticians on behalf of local
municipalities.
A graduate of the University of California, Berkeley and the University of San Francisco
School of Law, is also a member of the Califorriia State Bar. Ms. Lew can be reached at
(510) 594-0224 x 216, or at CatherineC~~lewedwardsgroup.com.
jESSICA REYNOLDS
Senior Vice President, The Lew Edwards Group
As Senior Vice President, Jessica Reynolds provides high level political consulting and
strategic planning to assist clients with their communication and public affairs needs
and to ensure successful election outcomes.
Prior to joining the Lew Edwards Group, Reynolds served as President of Grand
Parameter LLC, a prominent political consulting, communications and government
relations company based in Northern California. Her clients benefit tremendously from
her expertise in creative design, strategic political consulting, coalition building, and
event planning.
Reynolds has held multiple senior positions in i:he California State Assembly, where she
served as Creative Director to Speaker Emeritus Robert M. Hertzberg. She previously
served Speaker Hertzberg as his Special Elssistant and was Chief of Staff for
Assemblyman Simon Salinas (D-Salinas) during 2001. Reynolds was a senior staff
member at Assembly Democratic Leadership 2000, where she held critical campaign
roles in the successful central operation that: helped to elect 47 Democrats to the
Assembly.
Page 6
Reynolds was the Legislative Instructor and Creative Director for the CAPITOL Institute
from 1999-2000, where she helped to develop the core curriculum for freshman
Assembly member orientation and a comprehensive, now-mandatory, staff-training
program. In implementing these new classes o~z legislative policies and procedures she
trained more than 300 staff members from both Capitol and District offices.
Reynolds is the veteran of scores of state, initiative, and local campaigns. As a senior
member and consultant of the LEG team, her clients benefit significantly from her
previous hands-on experience as a campaign manager, field director, volunteer
coordinator, fundraiser and all- around campaigner.
Reynolds is the firm's UUT Specialist and his successfully represented the cities of
Emeryville (86% vote passage), Hermosa Beacl-i, Inglewood, Redondo Beach, and Santa
Monica (contested but successful UUT), amon€; others, on their UUTs, and is currently
advising the cities of Desert Hot Springs and ]Newark on their new and existing UUT
planning.