Loading...
2013_05.09 CC PacketI KENNEDALE You're Here, Your Home www.cityofkennedale.com KENNEDALE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REGULAR MEETING May 9, 2013 CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 405 MUNICIPAL DRIVE REGULAR SESSION - 5:30 PM I. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL III. INVOCATION IV. UNITED STATES PLEDGE V. TEXAS PLEDGE "Honor the Texas Flag; I Pledge Allegiance to Thee, Texas, One State under God; One and Indivisible." VI. REGULAR SESSION VII. CONSENT ITEMS All matters listed under consent agenda have been previously discussed, require little or no deliberation, or are considered to be routine by the council. If discussion is desired, then an item will be removed from the consent agenda and considered separately. A. Consider approval of meeting minutes from April 11, 2013 regular meeting. VIII. REGULAR ITEMS A. University of Texas at Arlington Capstone Project - Group 1: Presentation of 2013 Citizen Survey Results. B. Conduct drawing for 2013 Citizen Survey winners. C. University of Texas at Arlington Capstone Project - Group 2: Presentation of 2013 Governance /Board Survey report. D. University of Texas at Arlington Capstone Project - Group 3: Presentation of the 2013 Brownfields report. IX. VISITOR /CITIZENS FORUM At this time, any person with business before the Council not scheduled on the agenda may speak to the 405 Municipal Drive, Kennedale, TX 76060 I Telephone: 817- 985 -2100 1 Fax: 817- 478 -7169 Council. No formal action can be taken on these items at this meeting. X. REPORTS /ANNOUNCEMENTS In addition to any specific matters listed below, the city council may receive a report about items of community interest, including but not limited to recognition of individual officials, citizens or departments, information regarding holiday schedules, upcoming or attended events, etc. A. Updates and information from the Mayor. - Proclamation for National Kids to Parks Day B. Updates and information from Councilmembers, if any. C. Updates and information from the City Manager, if any. - Park Committee Appointments - May 21, 2013 Budget Workshop XI. REGULAR ITEMS, CONTINUED A. Oath of Office for Charles Overstreet, City Council Place 1, 2013 -2015 term. B. Oath of Office for Brian Johnson, City Council Place 3, 2013 -2015 term. C. Oath of Office for Frank Fernandez, City Council Place 5, 2013 -2015 term. D. Selection of a Mayor Pro -Tem. E. Consider a recommendation from the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board regarding an increase in pavilion rental rates. F. Consider approval of an Ordinance approving and adopting rate schedule RRM, Rate Review Mechanism, for Atmos Energy Corporation. G. Consider authorizing a letter of support for the submittal of an application for grant funding through Section 319 of the US Environmental Protection Agency's Clean Water Act regarding nonpoint source pollution. H. Discuss and consider approval of an Ordinance amending water and sewer service rate schedules. XII. EXECUTIVE SESSION A. The City Council will meet in closed session pursuant to Section 551.071 of the Texas Government Code for consultation with the City Attorney pertaining to any matter in which the duty of the City Attorney under the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct may conflict with the Open Meetings Act, including discussion of any item posted on the agenda and legal issues regarding the preparation of developer's agreements. XIII. RECONVENE INTO OPEN SESSION, AND TAKE ACTION NECESSARY PURSUANT TO EXECUTIVE SESSION, IF NEEDED XIV. ADJOURNMENT Page 2 of 3 In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, the City of Kennedale will provide for reasonable accommodations for persons attending City Council meetings. This building is wheelchair accessible, and parking spaces for disabled citizens are available. Requests for sign interpreter services must be made forty -eight (48) hours prior to the meetings. Please contact Amethyst Cirmo, City Secretary, at 817.985.2104 or (TDD) 1.800.735.2989 CERTIFICATION I certify that a copy of the May 9, 2013, agenda was posted on the City Hall bulletin board next to the main entrance of the City Hall building, 405 Municipal Drive, of the City of Kennedale, Texas, in a place convenient and readily accessible to the general public at all times and said agenda was posted at least 72 hours preceding the schedule time of said meeting, in accordance with Chapter 551 of the Texas Government Code. Amethyst G. Cirmo, City Secretary Page 3of3 KENNEDALE You're Here,Your Home www. cityofkenneda le.com Staff Report to the Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: May 9, 2013 Agenda Item No: CONSENT ITEMS - A. I. Subject: Consider approval of meeting minutes from April 11, 2013 regular meeting. II. Originated by: Amethyst G. Cirmo, City Secretary and Communications Coordinator III. Summary: Please see the attached minutes for approval. IV. Fiscal Impact Summary: V. Legal Impact: VI. Recommendation: Approve VII. Alternative Actions: VIII. Attachments: 1. 104.11.2013 CC Minutes 104.11.2013 CC Minutes.doc KENNEDALE You're Here, Your Home www.cityofkennedale.com KENNEDALE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES REGULAR MEETING April 11, 2013 CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 405 MUNICIPAL DRIVE I. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Clark called the meeting to order at 5:30 PM. II. WORK SESSION A. Tarrant County service and information discussion with Marcia Etie from County Commissioner Andy Nguyen's Office. Ms. Etie approached the Council, noting that her position was new in Commissioner Nguyen's Office and that she would be out in the community working with residents and the city on a variety of issues and would be available as a connection to the Commissioner's office. She currently works in the Mansfield Sub - Courthouse. Each of the councilmembers introduced themselves to Ms. Etie and welcomed her to the area. B. Presentation of Water & Sewer Rate Committee findings. Bob Hart presented information to the council regarding the findings of the city's Water & Sewer Rate Committee. Formed in late 2012, the committee was comprised of members Roy Boening, Hollis Matthews, Adrienne Kay, LaCresha Sanders, Mark Biondi, and Mitch Hanzik, has met several times to discuss options. The committee recommends an 18.5% increase in water rates and a 5.5% increase in sewer rates, which would amount to approximately $7.86 per month (based on an average of 7500 gallons per month). The committee also recommends adding a third usage tier at 50,000 gallons. Committee member Hollis Matthews also spoke to Council and noted that several problems would need to be dealt with, and that he encouraged a routine maintenance program, resident education on water conservation issues, and indicated that an increase in rates at the recommended level was highly necessary. C. Update from the Youth Advisory Council. The Youth Advisory Council was not available for an update and will report at a later date. III. REGULAR SESSION Mayor Clark called the regular session at 7:05 PM. IV. ROLL CALL Present: Mayor John Clark, Charles Overstreet, Kelly Turner, Brian Johnson, Liz Carrington, Frank Fernandez. 405 Municipal Drive, Kennedale, TX 76060 I Telephone: 817 -985 -2100 I Fax: 817-478-7169 V. INVOCATION VI. UNITED STATES PLEDGE VII. TEXAS PLEDGE VIII. VISITOR /CITIZENS FORUM One individual signed up to speak: 1. Pat Doescher, Chair of the Chamber of Commerce announced the next chamber luncheon. IX. REPORTS /ANNOUNCEMENTS In addition to any specific matters listed below, the city council may receive a report about items of community interest, including but not limited to recognition of individual officials, citizens or departments, information regarding holiday schedules, upcoming or attended events, etc. A. Updates and information from the Mayor. Mayor Clark declared 2013 Art in the Park a success and asked residents to begin being attentive to West Nile season issues. He then read a letter from Fort Worth resident Jean King thanking the city for eliminating the previous sexually oriented businesses. B. Updates and information from Councilmembers. Councilmember Johnson noted that long term planning for high speed rail in the area was ongoing, and that efforts to clean up the Interstate 20 /Business 287 interchange are being looked at by Fort Worth, Kennedale and Forest Hill. C. Updates and information from the City Manager. • Recent Art in the Park Festival Mr. Hart noted that this year's Art in the Park Festival was a success and thanked everyone involved. • 319 grant work group Mr. Hart noted that the city was working with Arlington, Fort Worth, and the Trinity River Authority on water quality issues in the Village Creek area. • Upcoming events Mr. Hart announced the National Day of Prayer and that Texas House Bill 1496 regarding cities' rights to regulate gas and oil drilling operations had been withdrawn. X. CONSENT ITEMS All matters listed under consent agenda have been previously discussed, require little or no deliberation, or are considered to be routine by the council. If discussion is desired, then an item will be removed from the consent agenda and considered separately. A. Consider approval of minutes from March 13, 2013 special session and March 14, 2013 regular session. B. Consider action regarding a notice from the Public Utility Commission (PUC) of Texas for a Page 2of5 Consumer Price Index (CPI) adjustment to municipal telecommunications right -of -way access line rates. C. Consider action to contract with Freese and Nichols Engineering to develop a Comprehensive Water and Wastewater Master Plan, and Phased Capital Improvement Plan. D. Consider action to approve an interlocal agreement with Tarrant County to expand and modify the West Nile Virus surveillance and response program. E. Consider action to approve a contract with Senior Citizen Services of Tarrant County, Inc for management of the senior center. F. Consider approval of a funding agreement with the State of Texas to use funds held in the State Highway 161 Subaccount - Sustainable Development Infrastructure. Motion To approve the consent agenda as presented. Action Approve, Moved By Charles Overstreet, Seconded By Kelly Turner Motion Passed Unanimously XI. REGULAR ITEMS A. Consider action to approve Ordinance 518, providing for the annexation of 0.723 acres of land located in the E.R. Mingus Survey, Abstract No. 1114, Tarrant County, TX, at the site of the previous Bowman Springs bridge. Bob Hart noted that all public hearings and postings regarding this item were completed, and that the approval of this ordinance will fully complete the Bowman Springs bridge project with Tarrant County. Motion To approve Ordinance 518 regarding the annexation of 0.723 acres of land located in the E.R. Mingus Survey, Abstract No. 1114, Tarrant County, TX, at the site of the previous Bowman Springs bridge as presented. Action Approve, Moved By Frank Fernandez, Seconded By Charles Overstreet. Motion Passed Unanimously B. Review and consider policy papers from the Planning & Zoning Commission on the following issues: 1. Zoning and subdivision regulations 2. Zoning /rezoning in the Oak Crest area Rachel Roberts approached the Council, explaining that Rachel Roberts approached the Council, explaining that the Planning and Zoning Commission had begun to look into possible methods to implement the recently passed Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Ms. Roberts noted that the recommendation made in these policy papers do not change any zoning, but are intended to lay out an idea of how decide which zoning uses in these areas would need to be considered in order to achieve the vision of the plan. Suggestions include holding meetings in the Oak Crest area to engage residents. Derek Hall of 6744 Oak Crest Dr, Kennedale, TX expressed concern that the city has not taken care of residents in Oak Crest since that area was annexed. He would like to have an opportunity to be involved in planning for the oak crest area. Page 3of5 C. Consider action to approve Progressive Waste Solutions residential and commercial garbage rate increase for 2013. Paul Hansen from Progressive Waste Solutions approached the Council, noting that the company was requesting a 2.15% rate increase for both residential and commercial customers that would amount to approximately $0.18 per home. Mr. Hansen noted that the costs of fuel, tires, vehicles, and facility improvements had increased over the past few years. The company has also added many compressed natural gas trucks to their fleet. Motion To approve the 2.15% rate increase as requested by Progressive Waste Solutions, Inc. Action Approve, Moved By Brian Johnson, Seconded By Liz Carrington Motion Passed Unanimously D. Consider action to appoint a Vice Chair to the Planning and Zoning Commission. Rachel Roberts noted that the Commission has been without a Vice Chair since Frank Fernandez left the Planning and Zoning Commission to run for City Council, and that the Commission has recommended the appointment of Thomas Pirtle to the position. Motion To approve appointment of Thomas Pirtle as the Vice Chair of the Planning and Zoning Commission. Action Approve, Moved By Charles Overstreet, Seconded By Kelly Turner. Motion Passed Unanimously E. Consider authorizing the Mayor to execute an Agreement to Participate in Tax Increment Reinvestment Zone Number One, City of Kennedale, Texas (New Hope Road) between the City of Kennedale and Tarrant County. Bob Hart noted that the agreements in items XI -E, XI -F, and XI -G are necessary to complete the formation of the Tax Increment Reinvestment Zone in Kennedale. Tarrant County would participate at at a rate of 75% for 25 years. The Commissioners Court has already approved this agreement. Motion To approve the consent agenda as presented. Action Approve, Moved By Brian Johnson, Seconded By Liz Carrington Motion Passed Unanimously F. Consider authorizing the Mayor to execute an Agreement to Participate in Tax Increment Reinvestment Zone Number One, City of Kennedale, Texas (New Hope Road) between the City of Kennedale and the Tarrant County Hospital District. (see notes from item XI -E) Bob Hart noted that the Health District, which has also already been approved, will be participating at a rate of 50% for 25 years. Motion To approve the consent agenda as presented. Action Approve, Moved By Kelly Turner, Seconded By Brian Johnson Motion Passed Unanimously G. Consider authorizing the Mayor to execute an Agreement to Participate in Tax Increment Reinvestment Zone Number One, City of Kennedale, Texas (New Hope Road) between the City of Kennedale and Tarrant County Community College District. Bob Hart noted that the agreement with Tarrant County Community College District would be discussed at their meeting on April 18t, 2013, and that their participation rates would be decided at Page 4 of 5 that point. Motion To approve the consent agenda as presented. Action Approve, Moved By Frank Fernandez, Seconded By Kelly Turner Motion Passed Unanimously No executive session was necessary. XII. EXECUTIVE SESSION A. The City Council will meet in closed session pursuant to Section 551.071 of the Texas Government Code for consultation with the City Attorney pertaining to any matter in which the duty of the City Attorney under the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct may conflict with the Open Meetings Act, including discussion of any item posted on the agenda and legal issues regarding the preparation of developer's agreements. XIII. RECONVENE INTO OPEN SESSION, AND TAKE ACTION NECESSARY PURSUANT TO EXECUTIVE SESSION, IF NEEDED No executive session was necessary. XIV. ADJOURNMENT Motion To adjourn. Action Adjourn, Moved By Brian Johnson, Seconded By Kelly Turner Motion Passed Unanimously The meeting was adjourned at 8:05 PM. APPROVED: Mayor John Clark ATTEST: City Secretary Amethyst G. Cirmo Page 5 of 5 KENNEDALE You're Here,Your Home www. cityofkenneda le.com Staff Report to the Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: May 9, 2013 Agenda Item No: REGULAR ITEMS - A. I. Subject: University of Texas at Arlington Capstone Project - Group 1: Presentation of 2013 Citizen Survey Results. II. Originated by: Amethyst G. Cirmo, City Secretary and Communications Coordinator III. Summary: At this time members of the UTA 2013 Citizen Survey team will present the report. IV. Fiscal Impact Summary: V. Legal Impact: VI. Recommendation: None VII. Alternative Actions: VIII. Attachments: 1. 12013 Citizen Survey (City of Kennedale Final Report (Compressed).pdf Kennedale City Hall 405 Municipal Drive Kennedale, Texas 76060 www.cityofkennedale.com 817 - 985 -2100 Table of Contents I. Executive Summary 1 A. Purpose 1 B. Methodology 1 C. Challenge 1 D. Introduction 1 II. The City of Kennedale 3 A. City of Kennedale Census Demographics 3 B. Map of Kennedale 4 C. 2013 Kennedale Citizen Survey Demographics 5 D. Analysis of Demographics 7 III. 2013 Kennedale Citizen Survey Results A. Public Safety Department 16 B. Development Services Department 33 C. Public Works Department 47 D. Citywide /Other Services 65 E. Characteristics of Kennedale 77 F. Strengths /Weaknesses /Areas to Emphasize 107 G. Stormwater 108 H. General Questions 109 I. Recycling 119 VI. Satisfaction Comparison of 2007, 2011, and 2013 Survey Results 125 V. Conclusions /Recommendations 144 VI. Appendices 146 A. Appendix A — Survey 147 B. Appendix B — Additional Comments 162 C. Appendix C — Kennedale's Favorite Attractions 182 D. Appendix D — Comparison Tables from 2007, 2011, and 2013 Surveys 184 I. Executive Summary I. Executive Summary A. Purpose The purpose is to evaluate the satisfaction of the citizens of Kennedale with various aspects of the city: quality of life, city services, citywide events, and future plans. 8. Methodology A survey was developed using Survey Monkey to collect data on various areas of interest regarding citizens' satisfaction. Survey Monkey is a website that allows clients to build surveys for any purpose, which then provides data to be analyzed upon its completion. Areas to be assessed are demographics, emergency services, quality of life, development, recycling, other city services, and storm water issues. The link to the survey has been posted in public buildings and distributed by mail with citizens' water bill. In addition the survey was distributed via the City of Kennedale's social media outlets: • Facebook :(https: / /www.facebook.com /pages /City -of- Kennedale- Texas) • Twitter ( @CityofKennedale) • Website ( http: / /www.cityofkennedale.com) C. Challenge Previous surveys were conducted in 2007 and 2011. All pertinent data was not collected in those surveys for comparison to the 2013 survey. Areas where data is present will be compared for all 3 years, but areas where data is only available for 2013, will be presented without comparison. In addition previous surveys only collected data measured by length of residency, but the current survey adds additional data in regards to what area of the city respondents reside. There are a few respondents who responded that they did not live in the City of Kennedale, and their responses were removed from the data for more accurate analysis. In the case a rating of Not Applicable was chosen, it is assumed that the respondent has not used the services and therefore could not accurately rate that question. D. Introduction The City of Kennedale is a tier one suburb in the DFW metroplex area. Its population is around 6,763 and it covers an area of six square miles (US Census, 2010). To ensure positive growth for the future, the city is actively pursuing enhancements and improvements to residential, commercial, and light industrial areas. The city is also pursuing development options for brownfields as well as opportunities to preserve and 2013 City of Kennedale Citizen Survey 1 I. Executive Summary enhance natural areas. The city is also beginning the process of converting several "brownfield" areas into new development. The city and MPA graduate students from the University of Texas at Arlington conducted a survey to assess the attitude of citizens towards the current state of the city and future development projects. With the data gathered from the survey, the City of Kennedale will be able to tailor its development plans and city services to meet the needs of the community. The research and data analysis conducted by the team will be presented to the Kennedale City Council for evaluation and implementation in future projects. 2013 City of Kennedale Citizen Survey 2 II. The City of Kennedale Demographics 11. The City of Kennedale Kennedale is 10 miles southeast of Fort Worth in southeastern Tarrant County and 35 miles west of Dallas. The City of Kennedale was incorporated in 1947 and operates under a Home Rule Charter that was adopted in 1998. The Charter allows for the Council- Manager form of government. City Council is comprised of a Mayor and five Council Members who are elected at large and serve staggering two year terms. The City Manager, City Secretary, City Attorney, City Judge, City Prosecutor, and all boards and commissions are appointed by the City Council. All department heads and employees serve under the direction of the City Manager. [Excerpt from Leading the Kennedale Way- A Values- Based Management and Leadership Guide] A. City of Kennedale Census Demographics According to the 2010 U.S. Census; The City of Kennedale • Total Population: 6,763 • Population 18 years and younger: 1,749 • Population 18 years and older: 5,014 • Total housing units: 2,617 • Total occupied housing units: 2,453 2013 City of Kennedale Citizen Survey 3 II. The City of Kennedale Demographics B. Map of Kennedale The following map is the map utilized in the survey so that respondents could identify what part of the city they reside in. This is utilized for analysis. The sections include the following subdivisions accordingly. • Section 1 o Oak Crest, Old Town Kennedale, and most rural southern areas of the city • Section 2 o Crestdale, Brookstone, Shady Creek, and Oak Hill Park • Section 3 o Steeplechase, Beacon Hill, Shady Creek East, Falcon Wood, and Rolling Acres BC( k `. kp LiAz DAISY OR OGJ f" p is MOST J// RN ST 5TH ST '_ f 0 R SiLXCRESt Tat BLUE MESA DR PE NNSYLVANIA AV[ LITTLE SCHOOL RD tsTATES DR EYERMAN KENNEDALE RD O'CK PRICE RD VILLAGE ST 2 of , \, n NootiwsTAtt W 0 GALE:457EW Ut. KENNFOALE SUIILL TT RD o o z S 0 $7 o z0` m c M 3a 0 a 0 N p JONAH RO LINDA LN Y414. SON RD GREEN CIR VALLEY 7FL G SYANEY 14417 RD CC gf COON RD 0 y r 1 KENMEOALE NEW HOPE RD HUDSON VILLAGE CREEK RO HUDSON RO 0 I[ !1N ■2AI2NM 2013 City of Kennedale Citizen Survey 4 11. The City of Kennedale Demographics C. 2013 Kennedale Citizen Survey Demographics The following responses were provided by 287 households in response to the 2013 Kennedale Citizen Survey (does not include non - responses): 1. What is your age? 18 -35 years 36 -50 years 51 -64 years 65+ years 12.98% 31.58% 35.44% 20% 2. What is your gender? Male Female 41.7% 58.3% 3. How long have you lived in Kennedale? Less than 1 year 1 -5 years 6 -10 years 10+ years Do not live in Kennedale 7.04% 24.3% 16.9% 47.18% 4.58% 4. If you live in Kennedale, do you have children under the age of 18 at home? Yes No N/A 37.01% 56.23% 6.76% 5. What is the highest level of education that you have completed? High School /GED Some College College Graduate Post Graduate 15.55% 33.92% 34.28% 16.25% 6. Currently, you: Own /rent /live in a home in Kennedale Own /work at a business in Kennedale Neither 93.73% 11.15% 2.9% 7. According to the Map, in which part of Kennedale do you reside /work? Section 1 Section 2 Section 3 Do not live in Kennedale 18.47% 50.52% 29.27% 1.74% 2013 City of Kennedale Citizen Survey 5 11. The City of Kennedale 8. If you live in Kennedale, do you rent or own your home? Demographics Rent Own Do not live in Kennedale 8.83% 86.57% 4.59% 2013 City of Kennedale Citizen Survey 6 11. The City of Kennedale D. Analysis of Demographics Note: Data excludes non - responses Age: Demographics • Most of the respondents were from the age group 36 -50 years old and 51 -64 years old. • When comparing the respondents' gender gap in different age groups, the widest gap is from the age group 51 -64 years old. • There were 63% female and 37% male. Percentage of male /female 100% 75% 50% 25% 0% 1 Percent of Male and Female vs Age 18 -35 36 -50 1 51 -64 65+ Age Group (Years of age) • Female • Male • Of the respondents who have lived in Kennedale for less than 1 year, the majority were 36 -50 years old (45 %). • Of those who lived in Kennedale from 1 -5 years and 6 -10 years, the majority are from the age group 36 -50 (35% & 50 %). • Of the respondents who lived in Kennedale for more than 10 years, the majority are 65 years and older (32 %). 2013 City of Kennedale Citizen Survey 7 II. The City of Kennedale Demographics 60% c 50% °a 40% a, cc v— 30% 0 a, by .9 20% a, U a, 10% d 0% Age Distribution - Length of Time in Kennedale <1 year 1 -5 years 6 -10 years Length of Time in Kennedale • 10+ years 18 -35 • 36 -50 • 51 -64 • 65+ • The majority of respondents who live in Section 1 are from the age group 65 and older (32 %). 51 -64 years old • Section 2 (34%) • Section 3 (40%). Percentage of Respondents 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Age Distribution - Locationin Kennedale Section 1 J I Section 2 Section 3 Location in Kennedale • 18 -35 • 36 -50 51 -64 • 65+ 2013 City of Kennedale Citizen Survey 8 II. The City of Kennedale Demographics • Similar to the data obtained, the US 2010 Census data reported that the majority of the respondents are from the age group 35 -49 years (23 %). 25% 0 v ▪ 20% c 0 v 15% cc 0 on 10% ris c a, U v 5% - a 0% Age Distribution: Census Data 2010 20 -34 35 -49 50 -64 Age Distribution 65+ • The survey showed that there are twice the percentages of respondents aged 65 and older in comparison to the 2010 US Census data. • The US Census reported that 11% of the respondents are aged 65 and older and the survey reported 20 %. 25% N c 20% a) c 0 a 15% a) cc 46 10% as c a.) v cu 5% a 0% Census Data Comparison: Age 65+ 2010 Census Survey Data Source 2013 City of Kennedale Citizen Survey 9 11. The City of Kennedale Gender: • The majority of the residents who responded were female. v 100% 10 C 0 CL N 4- • 75% 0 a, on as GU • 50% U L a) d 25% 0% Gender Distribution - Length of Time in Kennedale <1 year 1 1 1 1 -5 years 6 -10 years 10+ years Lenght of Time in Kennedale 1 Total Demographics • Male • The highest percentage of male respondents live in Section 1 of the city (73 %) • The highest percentage of female respondents live in Section 2 of the city (48 %). Percentage of Respondents 100% 75% 50% 25% 0% Gender Distribution - Location in Kennedale Section 1 Section 2 Section 3 Location in Kennedale • Male • Female 2013 City of Kennedale Citizen Survey 10 11. The City of Kennedale Demographics • Data from the survey suggested that there is a larger gap between male (42 %) and • Female (58 %) respondents versus the 2010 US Census data (male- 49.8 %, female- 50.2 %). Percentage of Respondents 100% 75% 50% 25% 0% Census Data Comparison: Gender Female Male Gender 2010 Census • Survey 2013 City of Kennedale Citizen Survey 11 II. The City of Kennedale Education Level: Demographics • 34% of the respondents have some college education and 34% are college graduates. Level of Education • Highschool /GED • Some College • College Graduate • Post Graduate 2013 City of Kennedale Citizen Survey 12 II. The City of Kennedale Residency: • 47% of the respondents have lived in Kennedale for more than 10 years • The majority of respondents live in Section 2 of the City of Kennedale. Percentage of Respondents In Which Part of Kennedale Do You Reside /Work? <1 year 1 -5 years Demographics 6 -10 years 10+ years Length of Time in Kennedale • Section 1 • Section 2 Section 3 2013 City of Kennedale Citizen Survey 13 11. The City of Kennedale Demographics Housing Choices: • 69% of the households who responded own their own home in the City of Kennedale. Do you currently rent or own your home? 4.59% Rent Own Do not live in Kennedale • The biggest gaps between respondents who own their home versus those who rent their home are respondents who have lived in Kennedale for more than 10 years. o 94% own their home and 5% rent their home. Percentage of Respondents 100% 75% 50% 25% 0% Housing Choice - Length of Time in Kennedale r • <1 year 1 -5 years 6 -10 years 10+ years Length of Time in Kennedale Rent Own 2013 City of Kennedale Citizen Survey 14 II. The City of Kennedale Demographics • The majority of respondents who own their home live in Section 3 of Kennedale (92 %) Respondents 100% 75% 50% 25% 0% Housing Choice - Location in Kennedale Section 1 Section 2 Section 3 Location in Kennedale • Rent • Own 2013 City of Kennedale Citizen Survey 15 III. 2013 Kennedale Citizen Survey Results Public Safety III. 2013 Kennedale Citizen Survey Results A. Public Safety The Public Safety Department consists of: • Police Department Services o Animal Services o Police Services • Fire Department Services • Emergency Medical Services 2013 Public Safety Department Results Animal Services Police- Keeping me Safe from Violent Crimes Police- Keeping my Property Safe from Burglary /Theft Police -Speed of Response Police- Physical Presence throughout the City Police- Customer Service Fire -Speed of Response Fire - Customer Service EMS -Speed of Response EMS - Customer Service 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Percentage of Respondents • Excellent • Good Fair • Poor • N/A 2013 City of Kennedale Citizen Survey 16 III. 2013 Kennedale Citizen Survey Results Public Safety Police Department Services • The majority of respondents rated the police department as Good. • The data reflects that citizens are not satisfied with animal services, which was rated Poor by 10.39% of respondents. • Customer service was rated Poor by 5.38% of respondents. • There is most likely a correlation between that rating and the animal services rating. Animal Services Percentage of Respondents 40.00% 35.00% 30.00% 25.00% 20.00% 15.00% 10.00% 5.00% 0.00% Animal Services - Location in Kennedale Section 1 Section 2 Section 3 Location in Kennedale • Excellent • Good Fair • Poor N/A 2013 City of Kennedale Citizen Survey 17 • III. 2013 Kennedale Citizen Survey Results Percentage of Respondents Percentage of Respondents 60% - 50% 40% 30% - 20% 10% 0% 45.00% 40.00% 35.00% 30.00% 25.00% 20.00% 15.00% 10.00% 5.00% 0.00% Public Safety Animal Services - Length of Time in Kennedale Less Than 1 Year 1 -5 Years 6 -10 Years Length of Time in Kennedale 10+ Years • Excellent • Good Fair • Poor N/A Animal Services - Comparison Year 2007 1 2011 Survey Year 2013 • Excellent • Good Fair • Poor 2013 City of Kennedale Citizen Survey 18 III. 2013 Kennedale Citizen Survey Results Public Safety Keeping Me Safe from Violent Crime Percentage of Respondents Percentage of Respondents Keeping Me Safe from Violent Crime - Location 50.00% 45.00% 40.00% 35.00% 30.00% 25.00% 20.00% 15.00% 10.00% 5.00% 0.00% in Kennedale Section 1 Section 2 Location in Kennedale Section 3 • Excellent • Good Fair • Poor .N /A Keeping Me Safe from Violent Crime - Length of Time in Kennedale 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Less Than 1 Year 1 -5 Years 6 -10 Years Length of Time in Kennedale .1 10+ Years • Excellent • Good Fair • Poor N/A 2013 City of Kennedale Citizen Survey 19 III. 2013 Kennedale Citizen Survey Results Public Safety Keeping My Property Safe from Burglary /Theft Percentage of Respondents 50% 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Keeping My Property Safe - Length of Time in Kennedale Less than 1 Year 1 -5 Years 6 -10 Years Length of Time in Kennedale Percentage of Respondents 50.00% 45.00% 40.00% 35.00% 30.00% 25.00% 20.00% 15.00% 10.00% 5.00% 0.00% - 10+ Years Keeping Me Safe - Location in Kennedale Section 1 Section 2 Location in Kennedale Section 3 • Excellent • Good Fair • Poor N/A • Excellent • Good k Fair • Poor • N/A 2013 City of Kennedale Citizen Survey 20 III. 2013 Kennedale Citizen Survey Results Speed of Response Percentage of Respondents 50% 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Speed of Response - Length of Time in Kennedale Less than 1 Year 1 -5 Years 6 -10 Years Length of Time in Kennedale 60.00% 50.00% -o v 0 40.00% 0 4- 30.00% 0 v ao ra 20.00% 41 a 10.00% 0.00% 10+ Years Speed of Response - Location in Kennedale Section 1 Section 2 Location in Kennedale MN Section 3 Public Safety • Excellent • Good Fair • Poor N/A • Excellent • Good Fair • Poor • N/A 2013 City of Kennedale Citizen Survey 21 III. 2013 Kennedale Citizen Survey Results Public Safety Percentage of Respondents 45.00% 40.00% 35.00% 30.00% 25.00% 20.00% 15.00% 10.00% 5.00% 0.00% Speed of Response - Comparison by Year 2007 2011 Survey Year 2013 • Excellent • Good Fair • Poor 2013 City of Kennedale Citizen Survey 22 III. 2013 Kennedale Citizen Survey Results Physical Presence Through -out the City Physical Presence - Length of Time in Kennedale Percentage of Respondents 60% 50% - 40% - 30% 20% - 10% - 0% Public Safety Less than 1 Year Percentage of Respondesnts 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 1 -5 Years 6 -10 Years Length of Time in Kennedale 10+ Years • Excellent • Good Fair • Poor N/A Physcial Presence - Location in Kennedale Section 1 Section 2 Location in Kennedale i Section 3 • Excellent • Good Fair • Poor N/A 2013 City of Kennedale Citizen Survey 23 III. 2013 Kennedale Citizen Survey Results Public Safety 60.00% 50.00% c v 0 40.00% Q vi v 30.00% 0 a. OA 4 20.00% v u '<r) - 10.00% 0.00% Physcial Presence - Comparison by Year ■ ■■ 2007 2011 Survey Year 1 IIIIIIIli i 2013 • Excellent • Good Fair • Poor 2013 City of Kennedale Citizen Survey 24 III. 2013 Kennedale Citizen Survey Results Customer Service (Courtesy, Follow -Up, etc.) Percentage of Respondents 50% 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Public Safety Customer Service - Length of Time in Kennedale Less than 1 Year 50.00% 45.00% 40.00% 35.00% 30.00% 25.00% 20.00% 15.00% 10.00% 5.00% - 0.00% 1� 1 -5 Years 6 -10 Years Length of Time in Kennedale 10+ Years • Excellent • Good Fair • Poor N/A Customer Service - Location in Kennedale Section 1 Section 2 Location in Kennedale Section 3 • Excellent • Good • Fair • Poor • N/A 2013 City of Kennedale Citizen Survey 25 III. 2013 Kennedale Citizen Survey Results Public Safety 45.00% 40.00% 35.00% 30.00% 25.00% 20.00% 15.00% 10.00% 5.00% 0.00% Customer Service - Comparison by Year 2007 2011 2013 Survey Year • Excellent • Good Fair • Poor 2013 City of Kennedale Citizen Survey 26 III. 2013 Kennedale Citizen Survey Results Public Safety Fire Department Services • Respondents overwhelming rated the fire department as Excellent or Good. • The ratings of Poor are less than 1 %. • Roughly 37% of respondents chose Not Applicable in regards to the questions regarding the department • The rating of Excellent was chosen by 39% and Good by 22% of all respondents. Speed of Response 70% 0 0 v 40% v • 30% tto v 20% L v a 10% 0% Speed of Response - Length of Time in Kennedale Less than 1 Year 1 -5 Years 6 -10 Years Length of Time in Kennedale 10+ Years • Excellent • Good Fair • Poor • N/A 2013 City of Kennedale Citizen Survey 27 III. 2013 Kennedale Citizen Survey Results Public Safety 50% 45% c 40% - 35% 0 ° 30% v cc 4- 25% 0 20% 5% 0% Speed of Response - Location in Kennedale Section 1 1 Section 2 Section 3 Location in Kennedale • Excellent • Good Fair • Poor N/A 50.00% 45.00% c ▪ 40.00% cu - 35.00% 0 Q' 30.00% 4- 25.00% inn 0 ca 20.00% aji ▪ ▪ 15.00% 10.00% d 5.00% 0.00% Speed of Response - Comparison by Year 2007 2011 Survey Year i 2013 • Excellent • Good Fair • Poor 2013 City of Kennedale Citizen Survey 28 III. 2013 Kennedale Citizen Survey Results Customer Service (courtesy, follow -up, etc.) 70% 60% N 0 0 v 40% cc 4— 0 a) 30% ao cu 20% • 10% 0% Public Safety Customer Service - Length of Time in Kennedale Less than 1 Year 1 -5 Years 6 -10 Years Length of Time in Kennedale 10+ Years • Excellent • Good Fair • Poor N/A 60.00% v) 50.00% a) 0 40.00% 0. v 45 0 30.00% v on ▪ 20.00% v U Customer Service - Location in Kennedale i a) - 10.00% — 0.00% Section 1 1 Section 2 Section 3 Location in Kennedale • Excellent • Good Fair • Poor N/A 2013 City of Kennedale Citizen Survey 29 III. 2013 Kennedale Citizen Survey Results Public Safety 40.00% 35.00% a) 30.00% a 25.00% cc g5 0 20.00% co • 15.00% au i 10.00% cT, 5.00% 0.00% Customer Service - Comparison by Year 2007 2011 Survey Year • Excellent • Good Fair • Poor 2013 2013 City of Kennedale Citizen Survey 30 III. 2013 Kennedale Citizen Survey Results Public Safety Emergency Medical Services • Respondents overwhelming rate EMS as Excellent or Good. • Ratings of Poor are less than 1 %. • Roughly 42% of respondents chose Not Applicable in regards to the questions regarding the department • The speed of service and quality are rated Excellent by 36% and Good by 26% of all respondents to the survey. • There is no comparison data for EMS as this was not assessed in the 2007 or 2011 surveys. Speed of Response 70% Ln 60% a) 50% 0 a Speed of Response - Length of Time in Kennedale (7 20% a) a 10% 0% Less than 1 Year 1 -5 Years 6 -10 Years Length of Time in Kennedale 10+ Years • Excellent • Good Fair • Poor N/A 60.00% 50.00% v O • 40.00% a a) q— 30.00% 0 a) on IS 20.00% a) U C3 10.00% 0.00% Speed of Response - Location in Kennedale 1 Section 1 Section 2 Section 3 Location in Kennedale • Excellent • Good • Fair • Poor • N/A 2013 City of Kennedale Citizen Survey 31 III. 2013 Kennedale Citizen Survey Results Public Safety Customer Service (Courtesy /Compassion, Knowledge, Ability, etc.) 70% 60% a, • 50% 0 0 40% 46 a, 30% on CO a0, 20% • 10% — 0% 60.00% 4, 50.00% 0 40.00% 0 a) 0 30.00% v 20.00% a) - 10.00% 0.00% Customer Service - Length of Time in Kennedale Less than 1 Year 1 -5 Years 6 -10 Years Length of Time in Kennedale 10+ Years Customer Service - Location in Kennedale Section 1 1 i Section 2 Section 3 Location in Kennedale • Excellent • Good Fair • Poor N/A • Excellent • Good Fair • Poor N/A 2013 City of Kennedale Citizen Survey 32 III. 2013 Kennedale Citizen Survey Results Development Services 8. Development Services Survey respondents were asked to evaluate their satisfaction with the Development Services Department by assessing six services provided by the department. The services for evaluation were: • Quality of Residential Development • Building Inspection Services • Appropriateness of Overall Development • Quality of Development in Kennedale Parkway • Resolution of Code Enforcement Complaints • Customer Service. Satisfaction with Development Services Department Quality of Residential Development Building Inspection Services Appropriateness of Overall Development Quality of Development on Kennedale Parkway Resolution of Code Enforcement Complaints Customer Service 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 1 ■ • Excellent • Good Fair • Poor N/A • Overall the majority of respondents expressed satisfaction regarding the services provided by the Planning Department. Almost 50% of the participants assessed the appropriateness of the planning department as Good, and around 25% rated it as Fair. The quality of residential development was described as Good by 54% of the respondents and as Excellent by approximately 15 %. 2013 City of Kennedale Citizen Survey 33 III. 2013 Kennedale Citizen Survey Results Development Services • Building inspection services were rated as Good by 30% of respondents however 39% of the participants did not give an answer when asked to assess this category of service. This proportion of participants represents respondents that have not used the service and thus prefer not to rate the service. • In terms of the quality of development on Kennedale Parkway approx. 49% of respondents rated it as Good, 23% as Fair and almost 16% as Excellent. • The majority of respondents did not provide an assessment when asked to evaluate the resolution of code enforcement complaints provided by the planning department, while out of respondents who rated the service 24% described it as Good. • The quality of the customer service provided by the planning department was rated as Excellent by approximately 18% of respondents and 41% expressed it was Good. • Among all the services provided by the planning department customer service was the category that was rated as Excellent by a higher number of respondents compared to the other categories; quality of residential development received the highest rating as Good; the appropriateness of the department was described as Fair by a larger number of residents than the rest of the services. • Although none of the services were assessed as Poor by a considerable number of respondents, the quality of development of Kennedale Parkway was rated as Poor by a higher number of respondents compared to the other services. 2013 City of Kennedale Citizen Survey 34 III. 2013 Kennedale Citizen Survey Results Development Services Residential Development • When analyzing the results by the Section of Kennedale in which respondents live the data suggests that while the majority of residents in each Section rate the quality of residential development as Good, o Almost 20% of respondents in each Section rated this service as Fair. o 18% of residents in Section 1 rated residential development as Excellent. Percentage of Respondents 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Quality of Residential Development - Location in Kennedale -i Section 1 Section 2 Section 3 Location in Kennedale • Excellent • Good Fair • Poor N/A • When comparing the results by the length of time respondents have lived in Kennedale the quality of residential development is still rated as Good by the majority of the respondents in each group. • The results suggest that respondents that have lived in Kennedale between 1 and 5 years rated this service as Excellent in a higher proportion compared to the other groups. • On the other hand, respondents that have lived in Kennedale for less than a year rated the service as Fair a higher proportion • While long -time residents (6 to 10 years) gave the highest Poor rating to this category. 2013 City of Kennedale Citizen Survey 35 III. 2013 Kennedale Citizen Survey Results Development Services Percentage of Respondents Quality of Residential Development - Length of Time in Kennedale 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 1 Less than 1 1 - 5 years 6 - 10 years 10+ years year Length of Time in Kennedale • Excellent • Good Fair • Poor N/A Percentage of Respondents 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Quality of Residential Development - Comparison by Year ■ �� �� •I 2007 2011 2013 Survey Year • Excellent • Good Fair • Poor N/A 2013 City of Kennedale Citizen Survey 36 III. 2013 Kennedale Citizen Survey Results Development Services Building Inspection Services • When evaluating building inspection services, 36% of respondents from Section 1 rated the service as Good o While 41% and 43% of residents in Sections 2 and 3 respectively, did not provide an assessment of this service. o Also in all three Sections a considerable amount of respondents rated the service as Fair. Percentage of Respondents 50% 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Building Inspection Services - Location in Kennedale Section 1 Section 2 Location in Kennedale Section 3 • Excellent • Good Fair • Poor ■ N/A • For building inspection services there is a slight change in the results when compared by length of time in Kennedale. • The majority of respondents in each category did not provide an assessment for this category however, respondents that have lived in Kennedale for less than one year rated this service as Good in a higher proportion than the other groups. 2013 City of Kennedale Citizen Survey 37 III. 2013 Kennedale Citizen Survey Results 50% 45% 5 40% 0 35% • 30% cc 25% 0 en v 20% 15% 10% a0 5% 0% Development Services Building Inspection Services - Length of Time in Kennedale Less than 1 year 1 - 5 years 6 - 10 years 10+ years Length of Time in Kennedale • Excellent • Good Fair • Poor • N/A Percentage of Respondents 50% 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Building Inspection Services - Comparison by Year 2007 2011 2013 Survey Year • Excellent • Good Fair • Poor N/A 2013 City of Kennedale Citizen Survey 38 III. 2013 Kennedale Citizen Survey Results Development Services Appropriateness of Overall Development • The majority of respondents living in all Sections of Kennedale rated the appropriateness of overall development as Good. • More than 10% of respondents in each Section assessed this service as Excellent, o 20% of respondents in each group rated this category as Fair. 60% 50% a, 0 40% a a, cc w 30% 0 to 20% a, a 10% 0% Appropriateness of Overall Development - Location in Kennedale — . • Excellent • Good Fair • Poor Section 1 Section 2 Section 3 Location in Kennedale N/A • The appropriateness of overall development was rated as Good by the majority of respondents that have lived in Kennedale for less than a year, between one and five years and for more than 10 years. • However around 32% of participants that have lived in Kennedale between 6 and 10 years rated this service as Fair. 2013 City of Kennedale Citizen Survey 39 III. 2013 Kennedale Citizen Survey Results Development Services Percentage of Respondents 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Appropriateness of Overall Development - Length of Time in Kennedale Less than 1 year 1 - 5 years 6 - 10 years 10+ years 60% c 50% 0 40% a 0 - 30% v tin - 20% v i -.10% 0% Length of Time in Kennedale Appropriateness of Overall Development - Comparison by Year 1 2007 2011 2013 Survey Year • Excellent • Good Fair • Poor N/A • Excellent • Good Fair • Poor N/A 2013 City of Kennedale Citizen Survey 40 III. 2013 Kennedale Citizen Survey Results Development Services Quality of Development on Kennedale Parkway • The quality of development on Kennedale Parkway was rated as Good by residents from all areas of Kennedale. • While 25% of respondents in Section 1 and 2 rated this category as Fair. 70% cu 40% 4- o T 30% ra c 20% U a, C11_3 10% 0% Quality of Development on Kennedale Parkway - Location in Kennedale Section 1 Section 2 Location in Kennedale Section 3 • Excellent • Good Fair Poor N/A • Around 50% of respondents that have lived in Kennedale between less than a year and five years and for more than 10 years rated the quality of development on Kennedale Parkway as Good. • However, between 20 and 25% of respondents in all categories rated the quality of development on Kennedale Parkway as Fair. 2013 City of Kennedale Citizen Survey 41 III. 2013 Kennedale Citizen Survey Results Development Services Percentage of Respondents Quality of Development on Kennedale Parkway - Length of Time in Kennedale 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 60% r ■ Less than 1 1 - 5 years 6 - 10 years 10+ years year Length of Time in Kennedale • Excellent • Good Fair • Poor Quality of Development on Kennedale Parkway - Comparison by Year cc 030 % - 1::: 0% 2007 2011 Survey Year 2013 N/A • Excellent • Good Fair • Poor N/A 2013 City of Kennedale Citizen Survey 42 III. 2013 Kennedale Citizen Survey Results Development Services Resolution of Code Enforcement Complaints • The majority of respondents from Section 2 and 3 did not provide an assessment. • In Section 1, one -third of respondents rated the services as Good and one -fifth as Fair. 60% 50% v 0 40% Q v 30% aJ ao • 20% 10% 0% Resolution of Code Enforcement Complaints - Location in Kenendale 1 Section 1 1 Section 2 Section 3 Location in Kennedale • Excellent • Good Fa ir • Poor N/A • When evaluating the resolution of code enforcement complaints the majority of residents in every group did not provide an assessment to this service. • Although around 20% of respondents that have lived in Kennedale for more than a year rated this service as Good. 2013 City of Kennedale Citizen Survey 43 III. 2013 Kennedale Citizen Survey Results Development Services Resolution of Code Enforcement Complaints - Length of Time in Kennedale 70% -> c 60 a0 oc • 50% - a cc 40% - 0 a0o 30% - ro a, v a� 20% -+ 10% 0% Less than 1 year 1 - 5 years 6 - 10 years Length of Time in Kennedale 10+ years • Excellent • Good Fair • Poor • N/A Resolution of Code Enforcement Complaints - Comparison by Year 60% — c 50% a, -0 0 40% 0_ CC 0 30% 1::: 0% 2007 2011 2013 Survey Year • Excellent • Good Fair • Poor N/A 2013 City of Kennedale Citizen Survey 44 III. 2013 Kennedale Citizen Survey Results Development Services Customer Service • The majority of respondents rated the quality of customer service provided by the planning department as Good, • Although a considerable number of respondents did not provide a rating for this service, indicating that they have not used the service. 60% c ▪ 50% Q 40% tri a, cc 0 30% ao ;3 20% a, U a, 10% 0% Customer Service - Location in Kennedale Section 1 Section 2 Section 3 Location in Kennedale • Excellent • Good Fair • Poor N/A • Based on the length of residence of respondents, customer service delivered by the planning department was rated as Good by the majority of the residents living in Kennedale. 2013 City of Kennedale Citizen Survey 45 III. 2013 Kennedale Citizen Survey Results Development Services 50% 45% c 40% a, 2 35% 0 30% a 25% Customer Service - Length of Time in Kennedale Less than 1 year 1 - 5 years Length of Time 50% 45% v 40% c 35% 0 v 30% cc 0 25% bb 20% 15% v 10% a 5% 0% 6 - 10 years in Kennedale 10+ years • Excellent • Good Fair • Poor • N/A Customer Service - Comparison by Year 2007 2011 2013 Survey Year • Excellent • Good Fair — • Poor N/A 2013 City of Kennedale Citizen Survey 46 III. 2013 Kennedale Citizen Survey Results Public Works C. Public Works Department Respondents who participated in the survey evaluated their satisfaction with the development services department based on the assessment of eight of the services the department provides. The services for evaluation were: • Parks and Recreation Areas • Utility Billing Services • Water Quality • Trash Collection Quality • Drainage on your street • Responsiveness to street maintenance requests • Overall Quality of City Streets • Customer Service Satisfaction with Public Works Department Parks and Recreation areas Utility Billing Services Water Quality Trash collection quality Drainage on your street Responsiveness to street maintenance requests Overall quality of city streets Customer Service 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% • Excellent • Good Fair • Poor • N/A • In general, the majority of the residents of Kennedale expressed satisfaction regarding the services provided by the Planning Department. The category of parks and recreation was described as Good by 53% of respondents and as Excellent by approximately 32 %. Utility billing services were rated as Excellent by 26% of respondents while 51% described it as Good. 2013 City of Kennedale Citizen Survey 47 III. 2013 Kennedale Citizen Survey Results Public Works • Around 36% of the participants assessed the quality of water as Good, however 24% of the participants described it as Fair, and almost 25% as Poor. The survey suggests that the quality of water could be a category of improvement. • In terms of the quality of trash collection provided by the city 49% of respondents consider is Good, 32% Excellent, and almost 14% described it as Fair. • The majority of respondents did not provide an assessment when asked to evaluate the responsiveness of street maintenance requests, while out of respondents who rated the service 11% described it as Excellent, 26% as Good and almost 17% as Fair. • On the other hand 48% of respondents expressed that drainage in the street where they live or work is Good, 25% Excellent and 16% Fair. Meanwhile, overall quality of the streets was rated Good by 42% of respondents, Excellent by 11 %, Fair by 33 %, and Poor by 11 %. • When rating customer service provided by the Public Works Department 20% of the respondents expressed it is Excellent, 44% Good, 13% Fair, while 17% did not provide an answer for the question. • Among all the services provided by the public works department the services that received better ratings when compared to the other categories were parks and recreation, utility billing services, trash collection, and customer service. • The category that received the highest rating as Fair was overall quality of city streets. • Water quality was rated as Poor by a higher number of respondents when compared to the other services. 2013 City of Kennedale Citizen Survey 48 III. 2013 Kennedale Citizen Survey Results Public Works Parks and Recreation Areas • Respondents expressed a high level of satisfaction with parks and recreation available in their area. • More than 50% of respondents in each area rated these areas as Good, and o Respondents from Section 1 appear to be more satisfied, they have a higher number of residents rating the service as Excellent, o And the lowest ratings as Fair and Poor compared to the other areas. 60% Parks and Recreation Areas - Location in Kennedale c50 % a) 0 40% — a v, 1::' a) U L a10 %— 0% Section 1 ■ Section 2 Section 3 Location in Kennedale • Excellent • Good Fair • Poor N/A • When analyzing the data by the length of residence in Kennedale, Parks and Recreation is rated as Excellent by more than 25% of the residents in each category • The majority of respondents in each category rated the service as Good. • None of the participants that have lived in Kennedale for more than ten years rated this service as Poor which reflect a high level of satisfaction. 2013 City of Kennedale Citizen Survey 49 III. 2013 Kennedale Citizen Survey Results Public Works 60% c 50% 0 40% Q N d) CC 0 30% v ao c 20% a 10% 0% Parks and Recreation Areas - Length of Time in Kennedale Less than 1 year 1- 5years 6 -10 years Length of Time in Kennedale Percentage of Respondents 60% 50% 40% 30% 10+ years • Excellent • Good Fair • Poor N/A Parks and Recreation Areas - Comparison by Year 2011 2013 Survey Year • Excellent • Good • Fair • Poor u N/A 2013 City of Kennedale Citizen Survey 50 III. 2013 Kennedale Citizen Survey Results Public Works Utility Billing Services • The majority of respondents expressed satisfaction with utility billing service • 15% of participants in each area rated the service as Fair. 60.00% 50.00% c v 0 40.00% o_ N v cc 4- 30.00% 0 v eo +° 20.00% c v u fir) 10.00% 0.00% Utility Billing Services - Location in Kennedale Section 1 Section 2 Location in Kennedale Section 3 • Excellent • Good Fair • Poor N/A • The majority of respondents that live in Kennedale, regardless of length, rated utility billing services as Good. • More than 23% of respondents that have lived in Kennedale for 5 years or less or for more than ten years rated this service as Excellent. • However, among the respondents that have lived in Kennedale between 6 and 10 years 20% described the service as Fair and almost 15% as Poor. 2013 City of Kennedale Citizen Survey 51 III. 2013 Kennedale Citizen Survey Results Public Works 60% - 50% a) 0 40% CL CJ CC 30% 0 tin 20% i a 10% 0% Utility Billing Services - Length of Time in Kennedale 1 Less than 1 year 1 - 5 years 6 - 10 years Length of Time in Kennedale 10+ years • Excellent • Good • Fair • Poor • N/A 60% 50% 0 40% 0 au cc 4- 30% 0 CL 10% 0% Utility Billing Services - Comparison by Year 2007 2011 Survey Year 1 2013 • Excellen t • Good Fair • Poor 2013 City of Kennedale Citizen Survey 52 III. 2013 Kennedale Citizen Survey Results Public Works Water Quality • When evaluating water quality by area of residence, area for improvement can be identified. • While more than 30% of the participants that live in Kennedale rated the service as Good, o In each Section more than 20% rated the service as Fair, and o In Sections 2 and 3, 26% of respondents were dissatisfied with the quality of water. Percentage of Respondents 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Water Quality - Location in Kennedale I I Section 1 Section 2 Location in Kennedale Section 3 • Excellent • Good Fair • Poor N/A • When analyzing the data by length of residence water quality is still identified an area for improvement for respondents that have lived in Kennedale for six years or less. o Around 30% of the respondents in this group rated the service as Poor o While more than 20% described it as Fair. • Among residents that have lived in the city for more than 10 years, 17% think the quality of water is Excellent and 15% described it as Poor. 2013 City of Kennedale Citizen Survey 53 III. 2013 Kennedale Citizen Survey Results Public Works Percentage of Respondents 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Water Quality - Length of Time in Kennedale Less than 1 year 1 - 5 years 6 - 10 years Length of Time in Kennedale 10+ years • Excellent • Good Fair • Poor • N/A Percentage of Respondents 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Water Quality - Comparison by Year 2007 2011 Survey Year • Excellen t • Good 2013 2013 City of Kennedale Citizen Survey 54 III. 2013 Kennedale Citizen Survey Results Public Works Quality of Trash Collection • The majority of respondents in all Sections think trash collection quality is Good. • In Section 2 and 3 more than 30% of respondents rated it Excellent, • While in Section 1, 27% of respondents expressed is Fair. 60% 50% 0 40% 0_ 4- 30% 20% a) 10% 0% Quality of Trash Collection - Location in Kennedale Section 1 Section 2 Location in Kennedale MN Section 3 • Excellent • Good Fair • Poor N/A • The majority of respondents are satisfied with the quality of trash collection; o More than 40% of residents in each Section rated the service as Good o While more than 20% consider is Excellent. 2013 City of Kennedale Citizen Survey 55 III. 2013 Kennedale Citizen Survey Results Public Works 60% c 50% 0 40% 0. N 0 30% CIO ▪ 20% aL 0 10% 0% Quality of Trash Collection - Length of Time in Kennedale Less than 1 year 1 - 5 years 6 - 10 years Length of Time in Kennedale 10+ years • Excellent • Good Fair • Poor N/A 60% 50% a) 0 40% N v 4 30% - 0 a� tin IS 20% — c v U aL 10 %— 0% Quality of Trash Collection - Comparison by Year 1 • 2007 2011 Survey Year — • Excellen t • Good 1 2013 Fair • Poor 2013 City of Kennedale Citizen Survey 56 III. 2013 Kennedale Citizen Survey Results Drainage on Streets Public Works • Respondents from Sections 2 and 3 are satisfied with this service. • However, a third of respondents from Section one consider drainage on the streets is Fair and 15% rated it as Poor. 60% c 50% a, 0 40% a v) a, cc 0 30% cu ao 2 20% a, U a 10% 0% Drainage on Streets - Location in Kennedale Section 1 • Section 2 Location in Kennedale Section 3 • Excellent • Good Fair • Poor • N/A • Between 10% and 20% of the respondents in all categories rated this service as Fair. • The majority of respondents rated this service as Good or Excellent. 2013 City of Kennedale Citizen Survey 57 III. 2013 Kennedale Citizen Survey Results Public Works Percentage of Respondents 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Drainage on Streets - Length of Time in Kennedale Less than 1 year 1 - 5 years 6 - 10 years Length of Time in Kennedale 10+ years • Excellent • Good Fair • Poor N/A Percentage of Respondents 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% Drainage on Streets - Comparison by Year 2007 2011 Survey Year 2013 • Excellent • Good Fair • Poor N/A 2013 City of Kennedale Citizen Survey 58 III. 2013 Kennedale Citizen Survey Results Responsiveness To Street Maintenance Requests Public Works • When rating responsiveness to street maintenance requests the majority of respondents that reside in the city did not provide a rating. • Respondents from Section 1 expressed a high level of dissatisfaction; almost 20% rated the service as Poor and 13% as Fair. 50% 45% 1) • 40% c 35% ✓ 30% 25% g 20% ra + 15% t 10% 5% 0% Street Maintenance Requests - Location in Kennedale Section 1 ■ Section 2 Section 3 Location in Kennedale • Excellent • Good Fair • Poor N/A • Respondents that have lived in Kennedale for more than 1 year expressed a higher level of dissatisfaction with the responsiveness of street maintenance requests, between 15 and 20 percent of the respondents rated the service as Fair. • On the other hand, respondents that have lived in Kennedale for less than a year seem to be more satisfied with this service. o This group gave the lowest ratings as Fair and Poor and almost 60% of the respondents in this group rated the service as Excellent. 2013 City of Kennedale Citizen Survey 59 III. 2013 Kennedale Citizen Survey Results Public Works 60% c 50% 0 40% 0_ N cc 0 30% CIO ▪ 20% aL l 10% 0% Street Maintenance Requests - Length of Time in Kennedale Less than 1 year 1 - 5 years 6 - 10 years Length of Time in Kennedale 10+ years • Excellent • Good Fair • Poor N/A 40% 35% v 30% 0 25% Street Maintenance Requests - Comparison by Year i a 5% 0% 2007 2011 Survey Year 2013 • Excellen t • Good Fair • Poor 2013 City of Kennedale Citizen Survey 60 III. 2013 Kennedale Citizen Survey Results Public Works Overall Quality of City Streets • Respondents expressed different levels of satisfaction in terms of the overall quality of the streets in the city. • In Section 2 and 3 the majority of respondents rated the quality as Good, • Nearly 31% think the quality of the streets in the city is Fair. • 27% of respondents from Section 1 expressed dissatisfaction by rating the service Poor, and 43% as Fair. 50% 45% + 40% a, c 35% 0 a ai 30% cc 0 25% fa 20% 5% 0% Overall Quality of City Streets - Location in Kennedale I i ■ Section 1 Section 2 Location in Kennedale Section 3 • Excellent • Good Fair • Poor N/A • The data suggests that more than half of the respondents that have lived in Kennedale for 5 years or less think that the overall quality of the streets is Good, o Although more than 25% of them think it is Fair. • Approximately a third of the respondents that have lived in Kennedale for 6 years or more think the streets are Good, o However a similar proportion think the quality of the streets is Fair. 2013 City of Kennedale Citizen Survey 61 III. 2013 Kennedale Citizen Survey Results Public Works Percentage of Respondents 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Overall Quality of City Streets - Length of Time in Kennedale 1 Less than 1 year 1 - 5 years 6 - 10 years Length of Time in Kennedale 10+ years • Excellent • Good Fair • Poor N/A 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Overall Quality of City Streets - Comparison by Year 2007 2011 Survey Year 2013 • Excellent • Good Fair • Poor • N/A 2013 City of Kennedale Citizen Survey 62 III. 2013 Kennedale Citizen Survey Results Public Works Customer Service • The majority of respondents from all areas of Kennedale are satisfied with the quality of customer service provided by the Public Works department. • However, almost 20% of the respondents from Section 1 expressed that the department offers a Fair customer service, o 30% of non - residents agree with this rating. 50% 1) 45% 40% c 35% F 30% cc 25% g 20% ra + 15% t 10% 5% 0% Customer Service - Location in Kennedale Section 1 Section 2 Location in Kennedale ■ Section 3 • Excellent • Good Fair • Poor N/A • In terms of customer service provided by the Public Works Department the majority of the respondents expressed high satisfaction. • 20% respondents that have lived in Kennedale for less than a year rated this service as Fair. 2013 City of Kennedale Citizen Survey 63 III. 2013 Kennedale Citizen Survey Results Public Works 60% c 50% 0 40% 0_ N 0 30% CIO 20% aL l 10% 0% Customer Service - Length of Time in Kennedale Less than 1 year 1- 5 years 6 - 10 years 10+ years Length of Time in Kennedale e Excellent • Good Fair • Poor N/A 50% 45% 40% a.) c 35% 0 Q- 30% a, CC 4- 25% ao) 20% v 15% 0% Customer Service - Comparison by Year 1 1 2007 2011 2013 Survey Year • Excellent • Good Fair • Poor N/A 2013 City of Kennedale Citizen Survey 64 III. 2013 Kennedale Citizen Survey Results Citywide /Other Services D. Citywide /Other Services Citywide and Other Services includes the following categories: • Strategic Long -Term Planning o Collaboration between residents, departments, board /commissions, City Council, and city staff to ensure a well- rounded approach to community development and planning for a positive future. • Online Services o Online opportunities provided by the city that enhance the ease of use and availability of payment services, account information, special events, and general information. • Volunteer Services o Opportunities provided to encourage residents to be involved in community events and programs. • Library Services o The library provides books, computers with online access, magazines, movies, and special classes. • Municipal Court Services o The Municipal Court seeks to maintain proper handling of court documents, payments, etc. Citywide /Other Services The overall direction that Kennedale is pursuing The city's effort to welcome resident involvement Online E- payment Services Availiability of Information Online Opportunities to Volunteer Library Services Municipal Court Customer Service 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 7 • Excellent • Good Fair • Poor N/A 2013 City of Kennedale Citizen Survey 65 III. 2013 Kennedale Citizen Survey Results Citywide /Other Services The overall direction that Kennedale is pursuing • The majority of respondents are very satisfied with the overall direction the city is pursuing o 54% of respondents rating the overall direction as Good o 25% of respondents rating it as Excellent Percentage of Respondents 30% 25 %- 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Overall Direction - Location in Kennedale Section 1 Percentage of Respondents 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Section 2 Section 3 Location in Kennedale Overall Direction - Length of Time in Kennedale <1Year 1 - 5 Years 6- 10 Years Length of Time in Kennedale 10+ Years • Excellent • Good Fair • Poor N/A • Excellent • Good Fair • Poor N/A 2013 City of Kennedale Citizen Survey 66 III. 2013 Kennedale Citizen Survey Results Percentage of Respondents 70.0% 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% Overall Direction - Comparison Data 1 2011 1 Survey Year Citywide /Other Services 2013 • Excellent • Good • Fair • Poor N/A 2013 City of Kennedale Citizen Survey 67 III. 2013 Kennedale Citizen Survey Results Citywide /Other Services The city's efforts to welcome resident involvement • Respondents are satisfied with the city's efforts to welcome resident involvement, o 45% of respondents rating it as Good o 28% of respondents rating it as Excellent 25% a) 73 20% 0 0 I a) cc 15% 0 ao co 10% :33 5% 0% Resident Involvement - Location in Kennedale Section 1 • 1 Section 2 Section 3 Location in Kennedale 25% • Excellent • Good Fair • Poor N/A Resident Involvement - Length of Time in Kennedale 0% <1Year 1- 5Years 6 -10 Years 10+ Years Length of Time in Kennedale • Excellent • Good Fair • Poor N/A 2013 City of Kennedale Citizen Survey 68 III. 2013 Kennedale Citizen Survey Results Percentage of Respondents 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% Resident Involvement - Comparison Data 1 2011 Survey Year 2013 Citywide /Other Services • Excellent • Good Fair • Poor N/A 2013 City of Kennedale Citizen Survey 69 III. 2013 Kennedale Citizen Survey Results Citywide /Other Services Online e- payment services (water, trash, court, etc.) • The majority of respondents are satisfied with the online e- payment services offered by the City of Kennedale, o 41% of respondents rating the online services as Good o 26% of respondents rating it as Excellent • It might be worth looking into how the city can encourage residents to utilize these services given that: o 20% rated online services as N/A • Most of whom have resided in the city for ten years or more 25% 0% Online Services - Location in Kennedale Section 1 20% N 18% a) ao 6% 4% 20% 0% Section 2 Section 3 Location in Kennedale • Excellent • Good Fair • Poor N/A Online Services - Length of Time in Kennedale <1Year 1- 5 Years 6 - 10 Years 10+ Years Length of Time in Kennedale • Excellent • Good Fair • Poor N/A 2013 City of Kennedale Citizen Survey 70 III. 2013 Kennedale Citizen Survey Results Citywide /Other Services Availability of information online (www.cityofkennedale.com) • Respondents are very satisfied with the availability of information on the new website, o 51% of respondents rating it as Good o 27% of respondents rating it as Excellent 30% 25% CU -0 0 20% N a) 45 0 15% v 1':: 0% Availiability of Information Online - Location in Kennedale Section 1 25% 0% i Section 2 Section 3 Location in Kennedale • Excellent • Good Fair • Poor N/A Availability of Information Online - Length of Time in Kennedale ME <1Year 1 - 5 Years 6- 10 Years Length of Time in Kennedale 10+ Years • Excellent • Good Fair • Poor N/A 2013 City of Kennedale Citizen Survey 71 III. 2013 Kennedale Citizen Survey Results Citywide /Other Services Opportunities to Volunteer • The majority of respondents are satisfied with the opportunities provided by the City of Kennedale to volunteer. o 45% of respondents rating the online services as Good o 23% of respondents rating it as Excellent • It is important to consider in the future how these opportunities are presented, as o 17% of respondents rated this category as N/A o The majority of these respondents having lived in the city between one and five years and ten years or more. 30% N C aJ 73 25% 0 n v) ▪ 20% cc 0 own 15% ra c a . 10% a) a 5% 0% Opportunities to Volunteer - Location in Kennedale Section 1 1M_ ... Section 2 Location in Kennedale Section 3 • Excellent • Good Fair • Poor N/A 2013 City of Kennedale Citizen Survey 72 i III. 2013 Kennedale Citizen Survey Results Citywide /Other Services 25% • 20% 0 0 • 15% a) on ra 10% U 5% Opportunities to Volunteer - Length of Time in Kennedale 0% - <1Year 1- 5Years 6 -10 Years Length of Time in Kennedale 10+ Years • Excellent • Good Fair • Poor N/A Percentage o 50.0% 45.0% 40.0% 35.0% 30.0% 25.0% 20.0% 15.0% 10.0% 5.0% 0.0% Oppurtunities To Volunteer - Comparison Data I 1 • Excellent • Good Fair • Poor 2011 2013 Survey Year N/A 2013 City of Kennedale Citizen Survey 73 III. 2013 Kennedale Citizen Survey Results Citywide /Other Services Library Services • Respondents are quite satisfied with the City of Kennedale's library services, o 44% of respondents rating it as Good o 26% of respondents rating it as Excellent 25% cu c 20% cu0 0 4- 15% cu co0 ao c 10% N U a� 5% 0% Library Services - Location in Kennedale Section 1 Section 2 Location in Kennedale Percentage of Respondents 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Section 3 • Excellent • Good Fair • Poor N/A Library Services - Length of Time in Kennedale u 1 <1Year 1 - 5 Years 6- 10 Years Length of Time in Kennedale 10+ Years • Excellent • Good Fair • Poor • N/A 2013 City of Kennedale Citizen Survey 74 1 III. 2013 Kennedale Citizen Survey Results Citywide /Other Services Percentage of Respondents 50.0% 45.0% 40.0% 35.0% 30.0% 25.0% 20.0% 15.0% 10.0% 5.0% 0.0% Library Services- Comparison Data 2007 2011 Survey Year 2013 • Excellent • Good Fair • Poor • N/A 2013 City of Kennedale Citizen Survey 75 III. 2013 Kennedale Citizen Survey Results Citywide /Other Services Municipal Court customer service (courtesy, availability, etc.) • The majority of respondents have not had any experience with the municipal courts in the City of Kennedale. o 47% of respondents rated this category as N/A • However, of those who have had experience with the municipal court customer service department o 31% rated its services as Good o 13% rated it Excellent 25% c - 20% 0 0. T 15% CC 0 CU 10% an ra ✓ 5°% CL 0% Municipal Court Customer Service - Location in Kennedale L 20% Section 1 Section 2 Section 3 Location in Kennedale • Excellent • Good Fair • Poor N/A Municipal Court Customer Service - Length of Time in Kennedale • 12% cc 0 10% cu 8% ao ▪ 6% 4% • 20% 0% <1Year 1- SYears 6 -10 Years Length of Time in Kennedale 10+ Years • Excellent • Good • Fair • Poor • N/A 2013 City of Kennedale Citizen Survey 76 III. 2013 Kennedale Citizen Survey Results Characteristics of Kennedale E. Characteristics of Kennedale In this section, respondents were asked to rate the City of Kennedale on 15 different characteristics. • Overall, the city of Kennedale is doing a Good job according to respondents; with an average of 44% of respondents rating the various characteristics of Kennedale as Good. • It appears as if most respondents have lived in Kennedale ten years or more and live in Section 2 of the city. • Air quality, ease of vehicular travel, and traffic flow on major streets are certainly strengths for the City of Kennedale • While shopping, quality health care, and quality food establishments are weaknesses. Characteristics Sense of Community Overall Appearance Cleanliness Air Quality Quality of Natural Environment Ease of Vehicular Travel Traffic Flow on Major Streets Availability of Sidewalks Shopping Opportunities Quality of Development Variety of Housing Quality Health Care Quality Food Establishments Overall Image /Reputation Bsuiness Friendly 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Percentage of Respondents by Reponse • Excellent • Good Fair • Poor 2013 City of Kennedale Citizen Survey 77 III. 2013 Kennedale Citizen Survey Results Characteristics of Kennedale Sense of Community • The majority of respondents rated the sense of community in Kennedale as Excellent or Good; o 27% of respondents rated the sense of community as Excellent o 53% of respondents rated sense of community as Good Percentage of Respondents 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Sense of Community - By Location in Kennedale Section 1 1 wl Section 2 Section 3 Location in Kennedale • Excellent • Good Fair • Poor Percentage of Respondants 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Sense of Community - Length of Time in Kennedale <1Year 1- 5Years 6 -10 Years Length of Time in Kennedale 10+ Years • Excellent • Good Fair • Poor 2013 City of Kennedale Citizen Survey 78 III. 2013 Kennedale Citizen Survey Results Characteristics of Kennedale 60.0% 50.0% c a, 73 0 40.0% a a, cc 0 30.0% a, to ;° 20.0% c a, U i o_ 10.0% 0.0% Sense of Community - Comparison by Year 2011 Survey Year 2013 • Excellent • Good Fair • Poor 2013 City of Kennedale Citizen Survey 79 III. 2013 Kennedale Citizen Survey Results Characteristics of Kennedale Overall Appearance • The majority of respondents rated the overall appearance of Kennedale as Good or Fair o 50% of respondents rated the overall appearance of Kennedale as Good o 34% of respondents rated the overall appearance as Fair Percentage of Respondents 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Overall Appearance - Location in Kennedale Section 1 • Section 2 Section 3 Location in Kennedale 30% Overall Appearance - Length of Time in Kennedale ▪ 25% c a -a 0 20% Q a q- 15% 0 a) uo c 10% v u L a 5% 0% .1 < 1 Year o 1- 5Years 6 -10 Years Legnth of Time in Kennedale 10+ Years • Excellent • Good Fair • Poor • Excellent • Good Fair • Poor 2013 City of Kennedale Citizen Survey 80 III. 2013 Kennedale Citizen Survey Results Characteristics of Kennedale Percentage of Respondents 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0 %- Overall Appearance - Comparison by Year 2011 2013 Survey Year • Excellent • Good • Fair • Poor 2013 City of Kennedale Citizen Survey 81 III. 2013 Kennedale Citizen Survey Results Characteristics of Kennedale Cleanliness • The majority of respondents rated the overall appearance of Kennedale as Good or Fair; o 48% of respondents rated the cleanliness of Kennedale as Good o 33% of respondents rated the cleanliness as Fair Percentage of Respondents 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Cleanliness - Location in Kennedale Percentage of Respondents 25 %- 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Section 1 L Section 2 Section 3 Location in Kennedale Cleanliness - Length of Time in Kennedale <1Year 1- 5Years 6 -10 Years Length of Time in Kennedale 10+ Years • Excellent • Good Fair • Poor • Excellent • Good Fair • Poor 2013 City of Kennedale Citizen Survey 82 III. 2013 Kennedale Citizen Survey Results Characteristics of Kennedale 60.0% 50.0% v 0 40.0% a 4- 30.0% an its J 20.0% i a 10.0% 0.0% Cleanliness - Comparison by Year 2011 2013 Survey Year • Excellent • Good Fair • Poor 2013 City of Kennedale Citizen Survey 83 III. 2013 Kennedale Citizen Survey Results Characteristics of Kennedale Air Quality • The majority of respondents rated the air quality of Kennedale as Good; o 62% of respondents rated the air quality of Kennedale as Good o 20% of respondents rated the air quality as Excellent Percentage of Respondents 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Air Quality - Location in Kennedale Section 1 Section 2 Section 3 Location in Kennedale • Excellent • Good Fair • Poor Percentage of Respondents 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Air Quality - Length of Time in Kennedale JL <1Year 1 - 5 Years 6 - 10 Years 10 +Years Legnth of Time in Kennedale • Excellent • Good Fair • Poor 2013 City of Kennedale Citizen Survey 84 III. 2013 Kennedale Citizen Survey Results 70.0% ▪ 60.0% c a) c 50.0% 0 0 vi w 40.0% 4- o 6 30.0% 03 C 4-, v 20.0% U i a1 • 10.0% 0.0% Characteristics of Kennedale Air Quality - Comparison by Year 2011 Survey Year 2013 • Excellent • Good Fair • Poor 2013 City of Kennedale Citizen Survey 85 i III. 2013 Kennedale Citizen Survey Results Characteristics of Kennedale Quality of Natural Environment • The majority of respondents rated the quality of the natural environment in Kennedale as Good; o 57% of respondents rated the quality of natural environment in Kennedale as Good o 22% of respondents rated it as Fair and 17% rated it as Excellent Percentage of Respondents 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Quality of Natural Environment - Location in Kennedale ■ Section 1 so Section 2 Section 3 Location in Kennedale • Excellent • Good Fair • Poor 2013 City of Kennedale Citizen Survey 86 III. 2013 Kennedale Citizen Survey Results Characteristics of Kennedale Percentage of Respondents Percentage of Respondents Quality of Natural Environment - Length of Time in Kennedale 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% 60.0% • 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% <1Year 1- 5 Years 6 - 10 Years 10+ Years Length of Time in Kennedale Quality of Natural Environment - Comparison by Year 2011 2013 Survey Year • Excellent • Good Fair • Poor • Excellent • Good Fair • Poor 2013 City of Kennedale Citizen Survey 87 III. 2013 Kennedale Citizen Survey Results Characteristics of Kennedale Ease of Vehicular Travel • The majority of respondents rated the ease of vehicular travel in Kennedale as Excellent or Good; o 53% of respondents rated the ease of vehicular travel in Kennedale as Good o 23% of respondents rated it as Excellent and 18% rated it as Fair Percentage of Respondents 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Ease of Vehicular Travel - Location in Kennedale Percentage of Respondents 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Section 1 1 Section 2 Section 3 Location in Kennedale Ease of Vehicular Travel - Length of Time in Kennedale <1Year 1- 5Years 6 -10 Years Length of Time in Kennedale 10+ Years • Excellent • Good Fair • Poor • Excellent • Good Fair • Poor 2013 City of Kennedale Citizen Survey 88 III. 2013 Kennedale Citizen Survey Results Characteristics of Kennedale 70.0% vi • 60.0% v O 50.0% a iii cc 40.0% 4E, to 30.0% as c 0 20.0% '.3. 10.0% 0.0% Ease of Vehicular Travel - Comparison by Year 2011 2013 Survey Year • Excellent • Good Fair • Poor 2013 City of Kennedale Citizen Survey 89 III. 2013 Kennedale Citizen Survey Results Characteristics of Kennedale Traffic Flow on Major Streets • The majority of respondents rated the traffic flow on major streets in Kennedale as Good; o 58% of respondents rated the traffic flow on major streets in Kennedale as Good o 25% of respondents rated it as Excellent Percentage of Respondents 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Percentage of Respondents Traffic Flow on Major Streets - Location in Kennedale 30% 25% - 20% - 15% - 10 %- 5% - 0% Section 1 _- Section 2 Section 3 Location in Kennedale Traffic Flow on Major Streets - Length of Time in Kennedale <1Year 1- 5Years 6 -10 Years Length of Time in Kennedale 10+ Years • Excellent • Good Fair • Poor • Excellent • Good Fair • Poor 2013 City of Kennedale Citizen Survey 90 III. 2013 Kennedale Citizen Survey Results Characteristics of Kennedale Percentage of Respondents 70.0% 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0 %- Traffic Flow on Major Streets - Comparison by Year 2011 2013 Survey Year • Excellent • Good Fair • Poor 2013 City of Kennedale Citizen Survey 91 III. 2013 Kennedale Citizen Survey Results Characteristics of Kennedale Availability of Sidewalks • The majority of respondents rated the availability of sidewalks in Kennedale as Good or Fair; o 40% of respondents rated the availability of sidewalks in Kennedale as Good o 33% of respondents rated the availability of sidewalks as Fair o 19% rated it Poor Percentage of Respondents 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Availability of Sidewalks - Location in Kennedale Section 1 Section 2 Section 3 Location in Kennedale • Excellent • Good Fair Poor 2013 City of Kennedale Citizen Survey 92 III. 2013 Kennedale Citizen Survey Results Percentage of Respondents Characteristics of Kennedale Percentage of Respondents 20% 18% 16% 14% 12% 10% 8% 6% 4% 2% 0% 45.0% 40.0% 35.0% 30.0% 25.0% 20.0% 15.0% 10.0% 5.0% 0.0% Availability of Sidewalks - Length of Time in Kennedale . "hill" <1Year 1 - 5 Years 6- 10 Years 10 +Years Length of Time in Kennedale • Excellent • Good Fair • Poor Availability of Sidewalks - Comparison by Year _i r 2011 Survey Year 2013 • Excellent • Good Fair • Poor 2013 City of Kennedale Citizen Survey 93 III. 2013 Kennedale Citizen Survey Results Characteristics of Kennedale Shopping Opportunities • The majority of respondents rated the shopping opportunities available in Kennedale as Fair or Poor; o 46% of respondents rated the shopping opportunities in Kennedale as Poor o 40% of respondents rated the shopping opportunities as Fair Percentage of Respondents Percentage of Respondents 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Shopping Opportunities - Location in Kennedale 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Section 1 Section 2 Section 3 Location in Kennedale Shopping Opportunities - Length of Time in Kennedale <1Year 1- 5 Years 6 - 10 Years 10+ Years Length of Time in Kennedale • Excellent • Good Fair • Poor • Excellent • Good Fair • Poor 2013 City of Kennedale Citizen Survey 94 III. 2013 Kennedale Citizen Survey Results Characteristics of Kennedale Percentage of Respondents 70.0% 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% Shopping Opportunities - Comparison by Year 2011 Survey Year 2013 • Excellent • Good Fair • Poor 2013 City of Kennedale Citizen Survey 95 III. 2013 Kennedale Citizen Survey Results Characteristics of Kennedale Quality of Development • The majority of respondents rated the quality of development in Kennedale as Good or Fair; o 51% of respondents rated the quality of development in Kennedale as Good o 33% of respondents rated the quality of development as Fair Percentage of Respondents Percentage of Respondents 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Quality of Development - Location in Kennedale 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Section 1 Section 2 Location in Kennedale - Section 3 Quality of Development - Length of Time in Kennedale <1Year 1- 5Years 6 -10 Years Length of Time in Kennedale 10+ Years • Excellent • Good Fair • Poor • Excellent • Good Fair • Poor 2013 City of Kennedale Citizen Survey 96 III. 2013 Kennedale Citizen Survey Results Characteristics of Kennedale Percentage of Respondents 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0 %- Quality of Development - Comparison by Year 2011 2013 Survey Year • Excellent • Good a Fair • Poor 2013 City of Kennedale Citizen Survey 97 III. 2013 Kennedale Citizen Survey Results Characteristics of Kennedale Variety of Housing • The majority of respondents rated the variety of housing in Kennedale as Good; o 57% of respondents rated the variety of housing in Kennedale as Good o 26% of respondents rated it as Fair Percentage of Respondents 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% 1 Variety of Housing - Location in Kennedale Section 1 Section 2 Section 3 Location in Kennedale Percentage of Respondents 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% • Excellent • Good Fair • Poor Variety of Housing - Length of Time in Kennedale <1Year 1- 5 Years 6 - 10 Years 10+ Years Length of Time in Kennedale • Excellent • Good Fair • Poor 2013 City of Kennedale Citizen Survey 98 III. 2013 Kennedale Citizen Survey Results Characteristics of Kennedale 60.0% 50.0% a 40.0% a, cc 0 30.0% v bfl ra 20.0% a, • 10.0% 0.0% Variety of Housing- Comparison by Year 1 2011 2013 Survey Year • Excellent • Good Fair • Poor 2013 City of Kennedale Citizen Survey 99 III. 2013 Kennedale Citizen Survey Results Characteristics of Kennedale Quality Healthcare • The majority of respondents rated the quality of health care in Kennedale as Fair or Poor; o 36% of respondents rated the quality of health care in Kennedale as Fair o 38% of respondents rated the quality of development as Poor Percentage of Respondents 20% 18% 16% 14% 12% 10% 8% 6% 4% 2% 0% Quality Healthcare - Location in Kennedale Percentage of Respondents 20% 18% 16% 14% 12% 10% 8% 6% 4% 2% 0% Section 1 Section 2 Section 3 Location in Kennedale Quality Healthcare - Length of Time in Kennedale <1Year 1- 5Years 6 -10 Years Length of Time in Kennedale 10+ Years Excellent Good Fair Poor Excellent • Good Fair • Poor 2013 City of Kennedale Citizen Survey 100 III. 2013 Kennedale Citizen Survey Results Characteristics of Kennedale 40.0% ▪ 35.0% c a, 2 30.0% 0 v 25.0% cc O 20.0% a, ao ▪ 15.0% c a, i 10.0% d 5.0% 0.0% Quality Healthcare - Comparison by Year r 2011 2013 Survey Year • Excellent • Good Fair • Poor 2013 City of Kennedale Citizen Survey 101 III. 2013 Kennedale Citizen Survey Results Characteristics of Kennedale Quality Food Establishments • The majority of respondents rated the quality of food establishments in Kennedale as Fair or Poor; o 43% of respondents rated the quality of food establishments in Kennedale as Fair o 37% of respondents rated the quality of food establishments as Poor Percentage of Respondents 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Quality Food Establishments - Location in Kennedale Section 1 J Section 2 Section 3 Location in Kennedale • Excellent • Good Fair • Poor 2013 City of Kennedale Citizen Survey 102 III. 2013 Kennedale Citizen Survey Results Characteristics of Kennedale Percentage of Respondents 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Quality Food Establishments - Length of Time in Kennedale c CU 0 0 v cc 0 v ao c CU U L 50.0% 45.0% 40.0% 35.0% 30.0% 25.0% 20.0% 15.0% 10.0% 5.0% 0.0% <1Year �LJ 1 - 5 Years 6- 10 Years Length of Time in Kennedale 10+ Years • Excellent • Good Fair • Poor Quality Food Establishments - Comparison by Year J 1 2011 2013 Survey Year • Excellent • Good • Fair • Poor 2013 City of Kennedale Citizen Survey 103 III. 2013 Kennedale Citizen Survey Results Characteristics of Kennedale Overall Image /Reputation • The majority of respondents rated the overall image and reputation in Kennedale as Good or Fair; o 44% of respondents rated the overall image an reputation in Kennedale as Good o 34% of respondents rated it as Fair Percentage of Respondents Percentage of Respondents 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% -t Overall Image /Reputation - Location in Kennedale Section 1 Section 2 Section 3 Location in Kennedale Overall Image /Reputation - Length of Time in Kennedale < 1 Year 1- 5Years 6 -10 Years Length of Time in Kennedale 10+ Years • Excellent Good Fair • Poor Excellent Good Fair Poor 2013 City of Kennedale Citizen Survey 104 III. 2013 Kennedale Citizen Survey Results Characteristics of Kennedale 50.0% 45.0% 40.0% 35.0% 30.0% 25.0% 20.0% 15.0% 10.0% 5.0% 0.0% Overall Image /Reputation - Comparison by Year 1 2011 2013 Survey Year • Excellent • Good Fair • Poor 2013 City of Kennedale Citizen Survey 105 III. 2013 Kennedale Citizen Survey Results Characteristics of Kennedale Business Friendly • The majority of respondents rated the friendliness of businesses in Kennedale as Good or Fair; o 44% of respondents rated the friendliness of businesses in Kennedale as Good o 29% of respondents rated the friendliness of businesses as Fair Percentage of Respondents 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Business Friendly - Location in Kennedale Percentage of Respondents 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Section 1 I Section 2 Section 3 Location in Kennedale • Excellent • Good Fair • Poor Business Friendly - Length of Time in Kennedale <1Year 1� 1- 5Years 6 -10 Years Length of Time in Kennedale 10+ Years • Excellent • Good Fair • Poor 2013 City of Kennedale Citizen Survey 106 III. 2013 Kennedale Citizen Survey Results Strengths, Weaknesses, Areas to Emphasize F. Strength, Weakness, and Areas to Emphasize within Kennedale In this section, respondents were asked to rate the City of Kennedale on 18 different characteristics /areas. • They were asked to rate their responses to each as Strength, Weakness, or Need to Emphasize. • The responses show that citizens perceive many areas to be Strengths. • In fact, only 3 areas (overall image, commercial development and recycling) were perceived as a Weakness. Characteristics /Areas Please indicate which of the following you perceive to be strengths, weaknesses, or areas the city needs to emphasize? Police department services Fire department services Emergency medical services Residential development Commercial development Roads and intersections Customer service Code enforcement Communication to residents Storm water drainage Overall image /reputation Trash collection Recycling Parks and open space Special events Development standards Volunteer opportunities Water conservation 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Need to Emphasize Weakness Strength 2013 City of Kennedale Citizen Survey 107 III. 2013 Kennedale Citizen Survey Results Stormwater /Drainage H. Storm water /Drainage • The respondents demonstrated knowledge about specific aspects of stormwater and drainage, • but a majority answered as Unsure as to whether the City of Kennedale has a stormwater pollution problem • The selection of Unsure in these questions provides an opportunity for the city to continue outreach and educational programs that reassure the community as to the complete process of water drainage, collection and treatment. Please answer the following questions to the best of your knowledge: The street inlets collect drainage and discharge to creeks and lakes. The street inlets collect drainage and discharge to a treatment plant that discharge to a creek. The City of Kennedale drains into Lake Arlington, a primary source of local drinking water. Fats, oils, and grease dumped down the sink drain can cause sewage lines to overflow into our local creeks. The best way to clean up and oil spill is to scrub it with detergent and hose it off into the street, ditch or yard. Washing your car at home uses more water than a commercial car wash. Landscaping your yard can help reduce stromwater runoff. It is illegal to dump water containing soaps, paint, cleaning products, grease, or oil into streets, ditches, and storm drains. The City of Kennedale has a storm water pollution problem. 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% • • Unsure • Disagree Agree 2013 City of Kennedale Citizen Survey 108 III. 2013 Kennedale Citizen Survey Results General Questions G. General Questions Why Kennedale? • When asked why respondents choose to live in Kennedale, the top reasons were: o The quality of life in Kennedale (28 %), o Convenience to work (20 %) o Good schools (17 %). ,,, 30% c v 25% 0 a v 20% 0 w 15% to as E, 10% U v L a 5% 0% Why Do You Choose to Live in Kennedale? Community convenience to Affordable Good schools Quality of life atmosphere work housing Reasons 2013 City of Kennedale Citizen Survey 109 III. 2013 Kennedale Citizen Survey Results General Questions Neighborhood safety: • Of the total respondents, 63% feel that the City of Kennedale is very safe. • The longer the respondents remain the Kennedale, the less safe they feel in their neighborhood. O 78% of the respondents who feel that their neighborhood is very safe have only lived in Kennedale for less than 1 year. o Only 59% of the respondents who have lived in Kennedale for more than 10 years feel that their neighborhood is very safe. 100% V) v 75% v 50% 0 aao 25% ro cu U v 0% a Neighborhood Safety - Length of Time in Kennedale <1 year 1 -5 years 6 -10 years 10+ years Length of Time in Kennedale • Very Safe • Somewhat Safe • More than 60% of the respondents who live in Section 2 and 3 reported that their neighborhood is very safe, o Compared to 49% in Section 1 100% -. c a) 0 0 75% 0 0) v 50% 0 a) ao ra 25% a.) v a 0% Neighborhood Safety - Location in Kennedale Section 1 Section 2 Section 3 Location in Kennedale • Very Safe • Somewhat Safe Not Very Safe 2013 City of Kennedale Citizen Survey 110 III. 2013 Kennedale Citizen Survey Results General Questions Information Accessibility: • 99% of respondents have Internet access at home and most have visited the City of Kennedale website to get information about special events (70 %). Percentage of respondents 100% 75% 50% 25% 0% Reasons Why Respondents Visit the City of Kennedale Website I • Pay Trash Construction Special event Council and Property tax Report a City budget water /utility collection information information other meeting information problem information bill information times and agendas Reasons to Visit Website • 90% of respondents receive news and information about the City of Kennedale programs, services, policies, and events through the city newsletter mailed with utility bills. Percentage of respondents 100% 75% 50% 25% 0% Where Do Respondents Receive City Information? Fort Worth Star Newsletter City website Church or civil City meetings Chamber of Telegram mailed with group meetings Commerce utility bill Locations for Information 2013 City of Kennedale Citizen Survey 111 1 III. 2013 Kennedale Citizen Survey Results General Questions City attractions: • Two of respondents' most favorite attractions are: o City events and festivals (55 %) o Sonora Park (46 %). Percentage of Respondents 100% 75% 50% 25% 0% Kennedale's Favorite Attractions • • City events Sept 11 Red's Town Center Sonora Park Rogers TownCenter Other & festivals Memorial Roadhouse Park Farm Park Retail Areas Favorite Attractions • 52% of the respondents have attended Kennedale's "Art in the Park" event. • Other attractions that the respondents have listed as write -in answers (see Appendix C) include: o The Pier Skate Park o Library o High school events o Burger Box Percentage of Respondents 100% 75% 50% 25% 0% 4 Top Events Respondents Have Attended in the Past Year Texas Independence Day Parade Art in the Park Christmas Tree Lighting Cleanup events Festival Events 2013 City of Kennedale Citizen Survey 112 III. 2013 Kennedale Citizen Survey Results General Questions Water Conservation: • Based on the length of residency, those who most actively conserve water are respondents who have lived in Kennedale for more than 10 years (94 %). v) ▪ 100% a -a 0 C7- 75% a, cc 4- o a, 50% aJ 25% 0% <1year Water Conservation - Length of Time in Kennedale 1 -5 years 6 -10 years 10+ years Length of Time in Kennedale • Yes • No • Based on residency location, respondents who lived in Section 1 of Kennedale are the most active in water conservation (98 %). Percentage of Respondents 100% 75% 50% 25% 0% Water Conservation - Location in Kennedale Section 1 Section 2 Section 3 Location in Kennedale • Yes • No 2013 City of Kennedale Citizen Survey 113 III. 2013 Kennedale Citizen Survey Results General Questions • Of respondents who actively conserve water, the majority do so by limiting landscape irrigation and reducing running water at home. • 33% of respondents who actively conserve water do so by reducing running water • 33% limit landscape irrigation whenever possible. Percentage of Respondents 100% 75% 50% 25% 0% How Do Respondents Conserve Water at Home? • IL Install /use water efficient plumbling and appliances Reduce running water Limit landscape Landscape with irrigation drought- resistant native plants Conservation Methods • Total respondents • Respondents who actively conserve water 2013 City of Kennedale Citizen Survey 114 III. 2013 Kennedale Citizen Survey Results General Questions Likelihood to recommend living in Kennedale: • 84% of respondents stated that they would recommend living in Kennedale to anyone who asks. • When comparing by years of residency, those who have lived in Kennedale for 10 plus years have the highest percentages (88 %) 100% V) v 0 75% 0 v cc 0 50% ra v v 25% v Recommend Living in Kennedale - Length of Time in Kennedale 0% • z■ ■ <1 year 1 -5 years 6 -10 years 10+ years Length of Time in Kennedale • Likely • Unlikely • When comparing by the residency location, respondents who live in Section 1 have the highest percentage (88 %). Percentage of Respondents 100% 75% 50% 25% 0% Recommend Living in Kennedale - Location in Kennedale Section 1 Section 2 Section 3 Location in Kennedale • Likely • Unlikely 2013 City of Kennedale Citizen Survey 115 III. 2013 Kennedale Citizen Survey Results Likelihood to remain in Kennedale in the next 5 years: General Questions • 89% of respondents stated that they would remain in Kennedale in the next 5 years. • There's a positive relationship between the percentages of respondents who would remain in Kennedale in the next 5 years and their length of residency. • 95% of respondents who have lived in Kennedale for more than 10 years are likely to remain in Kennedale in the next 5 years. 100% c a, 0 75% Q in 1::: U 45 d O% Remain in Kennedale in the Next 5 years - Length of Time in Kennedale <1 year 1 -5 years 6 -10 years 10+ years Length of Time in Kennedale • Likely • Unlikely • Based on residency location, respondents who live in Section 3 of the city are most likely to remain in Kennedale in the next 5 years (93%) • Least likely are respondents who live in Section 2 (87 %). Percentage of Respondents 100% 75% 50% 25% 0% Remian in Kennedale in the Next 5 Years - Location in Kennedale • Likely • Unlikely Section 1 Section 2 Section 3 Location in Kennedale 2013 City of Kennedale Citizen Survey 116 III. 2013 Kennedale Citizen Survey Results General Questions Run -down Buildings and Junk Vehicle Problem: • The majority of respondents feel that run -down building and junk vehicles is a problem in Kennedale. o 35% feel that it's a moderate problem o 34% feel that it's a major problem. To what degree are run -down building and junk vehicles a problem? Not a Problem, 7% Minor Problem, 24% Major Problem, 34% Moderate Problem, 35% 2013 City of Kennedale Citizen Survey 117 III. 2013 Kennedale Citizen Survey Results General Questions • When comparing to the length of residency, the highest percentage of those who feel that run -down building and junk vehicles are a major problem are those who have lived in Kennedale for 6 to 10 years (43 %). 100% 75% a CC O 50% a, co c c • 25% 0% Run -down Building and Junk Vehicles - Length of Time in Kennedale <1year 1 -5 years 6 -10 years Length of Time in Kennedale 10+ years • Major • Moderate Minor • Not a problem • Respondents who live in Section 2 have the highest percentage (39 %) when asked if run- down building and junk vehicles is a major problem. 100% V) - • 75% 0 0 v cc 50% 0 a) ap v ▪ 25% 0% Run -down Buildings and Junk Vehicles - Location in Kennedale �L Section 1 Section 2 Section 3 Location in Kennedale • Major • Moderate Minor • Not a problem 2013 City of Kennedale Citizen Survey 118 III. 2013 Kennedale Citizen Survey Results Recycling 1. Recycling Services • Overall, the majority of the respondents feel that it is very important to continue providing the current level of trash pickup and would consider changing to once a week trash pickup to help offset the cost of once a week recycling pickup; o However, they are not willing to pay anything extra for the recycling services. Importance of Continuing Current Trash Service • Based on residency location, o 85% of the respondents feel that continuing the current level of trash pick up service is very important. o 73% in Section 2 o 72% in section 3 Percentage of Respondetns 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Current Trash Service - Location in Kennedale Section 1 Section 2 Location in Kennedale Section 3 • Very Important • Important Unimportant ■ Very Unimportant • Based on the length of residency, those who lived in Kennedale for more than 10 years have the highest percentage of respondents who feel the continuing the current level of trash service is very important (79 %). 2013 City of Kennedale Citizen Survey 119 III. 2013 Kennedale Citizen Survey Results Recycling 90% • 80% ac, 70% o 60% n u) 50% - ,- Unimportant Current Trash Service - Length of Time in Kennedale • Very Important • Important a0i40% an +° 30% c ai E 20% a, 10% 0% • Very Unimportant <1year 1 -5 years 6 -10 years Length of Time in Kennedale 10+ years • Most recent survey showed an increased in the percentage of respondents who feel that continuing the current level of trash service is very important (2011 -43 %; 2013 -75 %) 80% ,,, 70% c - 60% c 0 Q- 50% a, cc 0 40% a, mbro 30% c v 20% 0% Current Trash Service - Comparison by Year 2011 2013 Survey Year • Very Important • Important Unimportant • Very Unimportant 2013 City of Kennedale Citizen Survey 120 III. 2013 Kennedale Citizen Survey Results Recycling Changing to Once a Week Trash Pickup • 69% of respondents in Section 3 would consider changing to once a week trash pickup to help offset the cost of once a week recycling pickup. o 65% of respondents who live in Section 1 o 53% of respondents who live in Section 2 V) c 60% c 0 0- 50% cc 4- 40% 0 a.) 30% u 20% 10% 80% 70% 0% Changing to Once a Week Trash Pickup - Location in Kennedale Section 1 Section 2 Section 3 Location in Kennedale • Yes • No Unsure • The longer the respondents live in Kennedale, the less willing they are to change to once per week trash pickup to help offset the cost of adding once per week recycling pickup service. • Those who have lived in Kennedale for less than 1 year are more willing to changing (61 %) than those who have lived in Kennedale for more than 10 years (57 %). 2013 City of Kennedale Citizen Survey 121 III. 2013 Kennedale Citizen Survey Results Recycling 70% 60% v - 50% 0 a aJ 40% cc 0 a) 30% c'3 (15 ▪ 20% a 10% 0% Changing to Once a Week Trash Pickup - Length of Time in Kennedale <1year 1 -5 years 6 -10 years Length of Time in Kennedale 10+ years • Yes • No Unsure • In comparison to previous survey data , there is an increase in the percentage of respondents who are willing to change to once a week trash pickup to help offset the cost of providing once per week recycling pickup. (2011 -48 %; 2013 -60 %) Percentage of Respondents 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Changing to Once a Week Trash Pickup - Comparison by Year 2011 2013 Survey Year • Yes • No • Unsure 2013 City of Kennedale Citizen Survey 122 III. 2013 Kennedale Citizen Survey Results Recycling Price Increase to Add Recycling Services • Overall, 45% of respondents are not willing to pay any extra cost to add once a week curbside recycling pickup service. • The bigest gap between respondents who are not willing to pay extra for curbside recycling pickup service (60 %) and those who are willing to pay $5.00 per month (2 %) live in Section 1 of Kennedale. • The highest percentage of respondents who would be willing to pay $1.50 to $2.00 are those who live in Section 2 of Kennedale (33 %). Percentage of Respondents 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Price Increase to Add Recycling Service - Location in Kennedale Section 1 Section 2 Location in Kennedale Section 3 • None • $1.50 - $2.00 /month $2.00 - $5.00 /month • $5.00 or more /month • The highest percentage of respondents who are not willing to pay extra for curbside recycling pickup are those who have lived in Kennedale for less than 1 year (50 %). • The highest percentage of respondents who would be willing to pay $1.50 to $2.00 are those who have lived in Kennedale for 6 to 10 years (38 %). 2013 City of Kennedale Citizen Survey 123 III. 2013 Kennedale Citizen Survey Results Recycling Percentage of Respondents 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Price Increase to Add Recycling Service - Length of Time in Kennedale <1year 1 -5 years 6 -10 years Length of Time in Kennedale — — 10+ years • None • $1.50- $2.00 /month $2.00- $5.00 /month • $5.00 or more /month • In comparison to the survey in 2011, the most significant change is an increased in the percentage of respondents who are willing to pay a minimum increase ($1.50 - $2.00 /month) to add weekly recycling service (2011 -18 %; 2013 -30 %) Percentage of Respondents 50% 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Price Increase to Add Recycling Service - Comparison by Year 1 2011 2013 Survey Year • None • $1.50- $2.00 /month $2.00- $5.00 /month • $5.00 or more /month 2013 City of Kennedale Citizen Survey 124 IV. Satisfaction Comparison 2007, 2011, 2013 IV. Satisfaction Comparison 2007, 2011, 2013 In the following section data was reviewed from all three citizen satisfaction surveys that were taken in 2007, 2011, and 2013. The survey has evolved since its inception in 2007. There are sections of the report which have been removed from this section due to the lack of comparison data. There are also sections that only compare data from two surveys. Please see Appendix D for Comparison Data Tables identifying what years pertained to what data. Demographics (Data found in Appendix D, Tables 1 - 6) Age • In 2013 there was an increase in the percentage of respondents in age group 18 -35 years and 35 -50 years Gender • In 2013 there was an increase in the percentage of female respondents Length of Residency • In 2013 there was an increase in the percentage of respondents who lived in Kennedale less than 1 year Have Children Less Than 18 years at Home • In 2013 there was an increase in the percentage of respondents who have children less than 18 years of age at home. Education Level • In 2013 there was a decrease in the percentage of respondents who have a high school degree, college graduate, and post graduate. Rent or Own Home • In 2013 there was a decrease in respondents who own their home. 2013 City of Kennedale Citizen Survey 125 IV. Satisfaction Comparison 2007, 2011, 2013 Public Safety (Data found in Appendix D, Table 7) Police Services • Respondents were asked to rate the police services in three different areas: o physical presence, o speed of response, and o customer service • All three saw a reduction in Excellent ratings from 2011 to 2013. • However there was an increase in ratings of Good in all three areas. • Police physical presence o In 2013, 26.2% of respondents rated the police services as Excellent, while 38.3% rated it as Excellent in 2011 and 31.8% in 2007. o There was a steady increase in the rating of Good, from 43.8% in 2007 to 49.5% in 2013. o There was an increase in the Fair rating with an almost 10% increase in respondents rating police services in regard to physical response Fair and a 2% increase in Poor rating. • Speed of response o Residents were less satisfied with the police department then in the prior surveys. o In 2013, only 27.5% respondents gave the police services a rating of Excellent, compared to 40.8% in 2007 and 40.5% in 2011. o There was an increase in the rating of Good with 39.6% giving a rating of Good in 2013, as opposed to the 34.7% in 2011 and 26.9% in 2007. o There was an overall consistency in ratings of Fair and Poor with only slight increases from 2007 to 2013. • Customer service o Residents were slightly more disappointed with the services. o There was a 3.3% increase in the Poor rating from 2011 to 2013. o Yet there was only a slight reduction in the number of respondents giving an Excellent rating, 28.3% in 2013 and 32.1% in 2011 and 28.4% in 2007. o There was a 2% increase in the number of respondents who gave a rating of Good, from 36.4% in 2011 to 38.4% in 2013. 2013 City of Kennedale Citizen Survey 126 IV. Satisfaction Comparison 2007, 2011, 2013 Animal Services • In 2013 there was a reduction in ratings compared to 2007 and 2011, in all rating areas, except Poor. • In 2013, 10.4% of respondents rated animal services as Poor, o while only 9% and 8 %, in 2007 and 2011 respectively rated animal services as Poor. • 2011 saw an increase in Excellent and Good ratings over 2007 with 58.5% of respondents giving it either rating. • In 2013 these ratings dropped 12.6 %. Fire /Emergency Services • In 2013, respondents rated the Fire and Emergency Services slightly lower than they did in the two previous surveys. • However, there were a large portion of respondents, 37.3% (speed of response) and 37.6% (customer service), who rated these categories as Not Applicable (N /A). o It would be interesting to consider, what actions the city has taken that has seen to produce the reduction of the need for these services. • Speed of response o Ratings have dropped slightly each year. o In 2007 43.3% of respondents rated fire and emergency services as Excellent, while in 2011 42.6 percent rated it Excellent and 39.4% in 2013. o Good ratings also saw a decrease from year to year similar to that of the Excellent rating, 27.9% in 2007, 25.3% in 2011, and 21.9% in 2013. o There was a slight increase in 2013, compared to 2007 and 2011 with .7% of respondents rating the fire and emergency services speed of response Poor. • Customer service o Overall residents are satisfied by the job this department is doing. o Over the course of these three surveys, respondents have consistently given an Excellent rating for customer service; there was a .7% increase in this area over last year. 2013 City of Kennedale Citizen Survey 127 IV. Satisfaction Comparison 2007, 2011, 2013 Public Safety Department Overall Comparison 2007, 2011, and 2013 2013 co" a, ate, - 2011 2007 Average of Respondents Excellent Good Fair Poor 2013 City of Kennedale Citizen Survey 128 IV. Satisfaction Comparison 2007, 2011, 2013 Development Services Department (Data found in Appendix D, Table 8) Planning and Zoning • Satisfaction with the planning and zoning services is rated based on: o Quality of residential development. o Appropriateness of overall city development, and o Quality of development on Kennedale Parkway • In 2013 in each of the three categories it can be observed that residents are more satisfied with the services provided by the Development Services Department. • The quality of residential development improved between 2007 and 2013. o In 2013 the quality of residential development was described as Excellent by 15% of respondents, 5% more than in 2011, and 7% more than in 2007. o Similarly, in 2013 7% more respondents gave a Good rating to this category compared to 2011, and 18% more compared to 2007. o The proportion of participants that assessed the service as Fair increased by 4% between 2011 and 2013, after experiencing a 5% decrease from 2007 to 2011. • In 2013 the Good and Excellent ratings for appropriateness of city development experienced a 2% increase in 2013 compared to 2011. However, the proportion of participants that rated the service as Fair and Poor also increased by 2% between 2011 and 2013. • In general the quality of overall development on Kennedale Parkway has increased over years since 2007. More respondents rated as Excellent and Good the quality of development on Kennedale Parkway in 2013 compared to 2011, although a 5% more rated it as Fair. Code Enforcement • The satisfaction assessment of code enforcement is based on o Resolution of code enforcement complaints and o Quality of customer service provided by the public works department. • The data from the 2013 survey suggests that residents are less satisfied with the resolution of code enforcement complains. • Resolution of code enforcement complaints was rated as Fair by 4% more of respondents in 2013 compared to 2011, going back to 16 %, same percentage as in 2007. The rest of the categories did not change by more than 1 %. • When comparing the assessment of the customer service provided by the Public Works Department some residents expressed to be more satisfied while some others think the service is Fair. • The proportion of respondents that rated customer service provided by Development Services as Excellent remained stable between 2011 and 2013. 2013 City of Kennedale Citizen Survey 129 IV. Satisfaction Comparison 2007, 2011, 2013 o There was a 7% increase in the proportion of respondents that described the service as Good. o A 4% increase was observed in the percentage of respondents that rated the service as Fair between 2011 and 2013. Similarly, the percentage of respondents that rated the service as Poor increased by 2 %. 2013 v v 2011 L 2007 Development Services Overall Comparison 2007, 2011, 2013 1 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Average of Respondents • Excellent • Good Fair • Poor 2013 City of Kennedale Citizen Survey 130 IV. Satisfaction Comparison 2007, 2011, 2013 Public Works Department (Data found in Appendix D, Table 9) Parks and Recreation • Between 2007 and 2013 residents of Kennedale expressed higher satisfaction with parks and recreation areas in the city. o In 2011, 11% more respondents rated the service as Excellent and 22% more as Good, compared to 2007. Similarly, between 2011 and 2013 the respondents that rated this category as Excellent increased by 9 %. o The increase in satisfaction is illustrated by the 8% decrease in the proportion of residents that rated parks and recreation as Fair in 2013 compared to 2011. In 2007, 25% rated this service as Fair while only 15% of the 2011 respondents agreed with this rating. o The proportion of residents that evaluated the service as Poor decreased between 2007 and 2013, diminishing from 15% to 2.5 %. Utility Services • In 2011 and 2013 residents rated the overall satisfaction with Utility Services based on o The quality of draining on streets, o Quality of Garbage collection and o Water quality • Residents appear to be more satisfied with the quality of draining on the streets provided by the city. o In 2007, 2011 and 2013 draining services were rated as Excellent by 14 %, 23% and 26% of respondents respectively. o The percentage of respondents that rated the service as Good increased by 6% between 2007 and 2011 and by 8% between 2011 and 2013. o Conversely, the proportion of residents that rated the service as Fair and Poor decreased from 19% in 2007 to 16% in 2013 and from 29% to 8 percent, respectively. • Similarly, residents appear to be more satisfied with the garbage collection service. o The proportion of respondents that rated the trash collection service as Excellent decrease between 2011 and 2013 by 3% although 5% more of respondents in 2013 rated the service as Good compared to 2011. o The percentage of respondents that consider that the service is Fair remained the same while a 3% less expressed dissatisfaction with the service in 2013. • A decrease in satisfaction is observed when comparing the 2011 and 2013 ratings on the quality of water. o Between 2011 and 2013 the percentage of respondents that consider that the service is Excellent and Good decreased from 17% to 13% and from 38 to 36 percent, respectively. 2013 City of Kennedale Citizen Survey 131 IV. Satisfaction Comparison 2007, 2011, 2013 o The percentage of respondents that think that the quality of water is Fair and Poor increased by 1% and 4% respectively. Streets and Transportation • Streets and transportation services in assessed based on ratings provided for o Overall quality of the streets and o Responsiveness to street maintenance requests. • In 2013 there appears to be an improvement in satisfaction with the overall quality streets and transportation in the city compared to 2011. o The increase in satisfaction is illustrated by an increase of 5% on the percentage of residents that rated the service as Excellent between 2011 and 2013. o Followed by an increase of 8% of respondents who think the streets are in a Good condition during the same period. o Between 2011 and 2013 there was a decrease from 42% to 34% and from 14% to 11% in the proportion of respondents that rated the service Fair and Good respectively, which illustrates that residents are more satisfied. • In terms of the responsiveness to street maintenance requests the surveys show an increase in respondent's satisfaction. o Between 2007 and 2013 there was a 7% increase in the number of respondents that rated the service as Excellent. Similarly, the percentage of respondents who described this category as Fair and Poor decreased from 21% to 16% and from 18% to 7 %, respectively, between 2007 and 2013. 2013 2007 Public Works Overall Comparison 2007, 2011, 2013 7 0% 20% 40% 60% Average of Respondents 80% 100% • Excellent • Good Fair • Poor 2013 City of Kennedale Citizen Survey 132 IV. Satisfaction Comparison 2007, 2011, 2013 Citywide /Other Services (Data found in Appendix D, Table 10) Overall Direction That Kennedale is Pursuing • Over the last two surveys there has been a slight decrease in ratings of Excellent and Good o Excellent— From 25.3% in 2011 to 24.6% in 2013 o Good — From 57.4% in 2011 to 53.8% in 2013 • From 2011 to 2013 there has been an increase in the Fair rating of nearly 6% • Citizens are apparently Tess able to see the overall direction that Kennedale is pursuing from these ratings City's Efforts to Welcome Resident Involvement • In 2013 there was an increase in the Excellent rating, from 24.3% in 2011 to 27.4% in 2013 • However, there were fewer respondents that felt that resident involvement was Good between the two surveys. • The ratings of Fair and Poor also saw an increase o Fair— From 11.6% in 2011 to 19.1% in 2013 o Poor— From 2.6% in 2011 to 4.7% in 2013 Opportunities to Volunteer • Respondents did not appear to differ on their opinions about the opportunities to volunteer from 2011 to 2013 • Overall there were only slight increases or decreases. • The most significant increase was a 2.8% increase in the Good rating from 2011 to 2013. Library Services • Over the course of the last three surveys, ratings have dropped • In 2007, library services 28.4% of respondents gave an Excellent rating, while 34.3% rated it as Good. • In 2011, that percent dropped to 26.8% rating it as Excellent, however, 44.2 %, a 10% increase, rated library services as Good. • These trends remained steady from 2011 to 2013. • 2013 saw a sharp increase in the rating of Fair with 12.3% respondents rating library services as Fair. 2013 City of Kennedale Citizen Survey 133 IV. Satisfaction Comparison 2007, 2011, 2013 • Poor ratings remained fairly consistent throughout the three surveys. 2013 Citywide /Other Services Overall Comparison 2007, 2011, 2013 2007 0% 20% 40% 60% Average of Respondents 80% 100% • Excellent • Good Fair • Poor 2013 City of Kennedale Citizen Survey 134 IV. Satisfaction Comparison 2007, 2011, 2013 Characteristics of Kennedale (Data Found in Appendix D, Table 11) Sense of Community • In 2013 there was an increase in Excellent rating, from 22.9% in 2011 to 27.3% in 2013 • There was a reduction in the Good rating from 2011 to 2013 Overall Appearance • Trends in this category suggest that respondents are gaining approval of the appearance of Kennedale • There was an increase in the Excellent and Good rating, and • A decrease in the Fair and Poor ratings • The most significant increase being an 8.5% increase in the Good rating Cleanliness • The trends for this suggest that respondents are seeing a cleaner city • There was an increase in Excellent and Good ratings, and • A decrease in percentages of Fair and Poor ratings • There was a 4% increase in the Excellent rating from 2011 to 2013. Air Quality • Overall respondents are very pleased with the air quality. • There were dramatic increases in both the Excellent and Good ratings o Excellent -10.6% in 2011 to 20.5% in 2013 o Good — 56.1% in 2011 to 65.1% in 2013 • There were also reductions in the Fair and Poor ratings Quality of Natural Environment • Overall, respondents are quite pleased with the quality of the natural environment in Kennedale • There was a 7.2% increase in the Excellent rating from 2011 to 2013, and • A 7.4% increase in the Good rating Ease of Vehicular Travel • Overall respondents are satisfied with the street improvements that have taken place between the 2011 survey and the 2013 survey 2013 City of Kennedale Citizen Survey 135 IV. Satisfaction Comparison 2007, 2011, 2013 • There was a 12.6% increase in the Excellent rating • There was a slight reduction in the Good rating, which could be due to the increase in the Excellent rating • However, there was also a reduction in the percentage of respondents giving a rating of Fair. Traffic Flow on Major Streets • Overall respondents were satisfied with the traffic flow on major streets. • There was an increase in the Excellent and Good ratings, and • There was a reduction in the Fair • However, there was a 2.5% increase in the Poor rating Availability of Sidewalks • There was an increase in Excellent and Good ratings suggesting that some residents are satisfied with the availability of sidewalks. • However, there was an 1.6% increase in the Fair rating • The continued high percentage of respondents rating this category as Fair or Poor suggests that this is an area of potential improvement Shopping Opportunities • Overall, respondents are not satisfied with the shopping opportunities in Kennedale • While there was a small increase in the Good rating, 6.7% in 2011 to 13.1% in 2013, • 85% of respondents rated it Fair or Poor o In 2013 38.9% rated it Fair, 32.6% in 2011 o In 2013 46.6% rated it Poor, 57.5% in 2011 • There was a sharp reduction in the Poor rating Quality of Development • Overall respondents feel that the quality of development in Kennedale is growing • There was an increase in the Excellent and Good ratings from 2011 to 2013, and • There was a reduction in the Fair and Poor ratings • The most significant increase was from 44% in 2011 to 50% in 2013 in the Good rating Variety of Housing • Overall, respondents are satisfied with the variety of housing available in Kennedale 2013 City of Kennedale Citizen Survey 136 IV. Satisfaction Comparison 2007, 2011, 2013 • However, there was a reduction, from 14.2% in 2011 to 10.6% in 2013 in the Excellent rating • There was also an increase in the Good rating • There was a slight 2.7% increase in the Fair rating from 2011 to 2013 Quality of Health Care • Overall, respondents are not satisfied with the quality of health care in Kennedale • While there was an increase in the Excellent and Good ratings, • Poor and Fair ratings saw increases as well o Fair— 12.4% in 2011 to 35.6% in 2013 o Poor — 34.4% in 2011 to 37.8% in 2013 Quality Food Establishments • Overall, respondents are not pleased with the quality of food establishments in Kennedale. • While there was a slight increase, from 16.1% to 17.5% from 2011 to 2013 in the Good rating, however • There was an increase in the Poor rating, from 31.3% in 2011 to 36.9% in 2013 Overall Image /Reputation • Trends remained steady in this category from 2011 to 2013 • There was a slight increase in the Good rating, from 39.9% in 2011 to 43% in 2013 • There was a slight decrease in the Poor rating, from 19.1% to 16.2% 2013 L ra Q) a) m N 2011 Characteristics of Kennedale Overall Comparison 2007, 2011, 2013 I 0% 20% 1 40% 60% Average of Respondents 80% 100% • Excellent • Good Fair • Poor 2013 City of Kennedale Citizen Survey 137 IV. Satisfaction Comparison 2007, 2011, 2013 Strengths /Weaknesses /Areas to Emphasize (Data found in Appendix D, Table 12) Police Department Services • There was only a 1.8% increase in respondents who felt that police department services were a Strength • There was an increase in the percentage of respondents who felt that police department services was a Weakness Residential Development • There were slight increase in the Strengths and Weakness ratings from 2011 to 2013 Commercial Development • There was a 6.6% increase from 2013 to 2011 in the percentage of respondents who rated commercial development a Strength • There was a 4.4% increase in the Weaknesses rating Roads and Intersections • There was a 14.9% increase from 2011 to 2013 in the Strengths rating • There was a 15.7% decrease in the Areas to Emphasize rating Customer Service • There was an increase in the Strengths and Weaknesses rating from 2011 to 2013 • There was a decrease in the Areas to Emphasize rating Code Enforcement • In 2013 there was a slight increase in the Strengths rating • There was a slight decrease in the Weaknesses rating Communication to Residents • In 2013 there was an 8.1% increase in the percentage of respondents who rated communication the residents as a Strength Stormwater Drainage • There was an overwhelming increase, 58.3 %, in the percentage of respondents who rated storm -water drainage as a Strength in 2013 2013 City of Kennedale Citizen Survey 138 IV. Satisfaction Comparison 2007, 2011, 2013 • There were also large decreases in the ratings of Weaknesses and Areas of Emphasize Overall Image /Reputation • In 2013 there was a 7.8% increase in the percentage of respondents who rated the overall image /reputation of Kennedale as a Strength • However, there was a 10.4% increase in the percentage of respondents who rated the overall image /reputation of Kennedale as a Weakness Trash Collection • In 2011 there was 84% of respondents who rated trash collection as a Strength o In 2013, there was only a .4% increase • There was a 2.4% increase in the percentage of respondents who rated trash collection as a Weakness from 2011 to 2013 Recycling Services • In 2013 there was a 6.2% increase in the percentage of respondents who gave a rating of Strengths in regards to recycling services • There was also a 5.3% decrease in the percentage of respondents who gave it a rating of Weaknesses • 3.2% increase in the rating Area to Emphasize Parks and Open Spaces • There was a slight increase in the percentage of respondents rating the parks and open spaces a Strength • There was a 2.5% decrease in the percentage of respondents giving this section a rating of Weaknesses Special Events • In 2013 there was a 51% increase in the percentage of respondents who felt that special events were a Strength Development Standards • In 2013 there was a slight increase in the rating of Strengths and Weaknesses Volunteer Opportunities • There was a slight increase in the Strengths rating from 2011 to 2013 2013 City of Kennedale Citizen Survey 139 IV. Satisfaction Comparison 2007, 2011, 2013 • There was also a slight increase in the Weaknesses rating from 2011 to 2013 2013 2011 Characteristics of Kennedale Overall Comparison 2007, 2011, 2013 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Average of Respondents • Strengths • Weaknesses Areas to Emphasize 2013 City of Kennedale Citizen Survey 140 IV. Satisfaction Comparison 2007, 2011, 2013 General Questions (Data found in Appendix D, Tables 13 - 27) How Likely are You to Do the Following? • In 2013 there was an increase in the percentage of respondents who are likely to recommend living in Kennedale to other people when asked and • There was also an increase in respondents who are likely to remain in Kennedale in the next 5 years. Why Kennedale? • In 2013 there was an increase in the percentage of respondents who live in Kennedale because of the good schools • And a decrease in all other reasons (community atmosphere, convenience to work, affordable housing, and quality of life). Where Respondents Get There News • In 2013 there was an increase in the percentage of respondents who receive their news from the city website, civic group meetings, and city meetings. • A decreased in those who receive their news from the Fort Worth Star Telegram and the city newsletter in the utility bill. Reasons to Visit City Website • In 2013 there was an increase in the percentage of respondents who visited the city website to pay bill, get trash collection, construction, property tax, and special events information. Run -Down Buildings /Junk Vehicles Problem • There's a decreasing trend from 2011 to 2013 in the percentage of those who feel that run -down buildings and junk vehicles are a problem. 2013 City of Kennedale Citizen Survey 141 IV. Satisfaction Comparison 2007, 2011, 2013 Recycling Questions (Data found in Appendix D, Tables 28 - 30) Continue Weekly Trash Pickup • In 2013 there was an increase in the percentage of respondents who feel that it's very important to continue weekly trash pickup. Changing to Once a Week Trash Pickup • In 2013 there was an increase in the percentage of respondents who would change to weekly trash pickup to help offset the cost of providing recycling service. Price Increase for Recycling Services • In 2013 there was a slight increase in the percentage of respondents who are willing to pay a minimum increase to pay for recycling services • There was a 3.9% decrease in those willing to pay $5.00 or More to pay for recycling services 2013 City of Kennedale Citizen Survey 142 IV. Satisfaction Comparison 2007, 2011, 2013 Comparison Conclusions Between the 2013 survey and previous surveys the trends point to the fact that citizens are very satisfied with the overall direction the city is pursuing. There are only two areas that stand out as having a decrease in satisfaction: animal services and code enforcement. In these areas the ratings of Fair or Poor increased, but not drastically. The data reflects that citizens are content and happy to live in Kennedale. In addition the data also shows a growth in the populations of females and new residents. A large portion of respondents have children under the age of 18, which reflects a trend of family growth and development in the city. Citizens appear divided on the issue of recycling, but the data reflects that more respondents in 2013 are willing to reduce trash pickup days or pay more in fees to create a recycling program than in previous years. 2013 City of Kennedale Citizen Survey 143 V. Conclusions and Recommendations V. Conclusions and Recommendations The Kennedale Citizen Outlook is positive. Respondents agree with the direction the City is taking and they believe there is a strong sense of community. An interesting finding that respondents of over ten years and resident responses of those less than a year in the community rated sense of community highest. Newcomers and long- timers both felt a stronger sense of community than those in- between. The majority of respondents believe the city is doing well keeping citizens and property safe, with 63% of the total respondents rating Kennedale as Very Safe. Respondents viewed public safety, residential development, customer service, resident communication, trash collection, parks & recreation, special events, and volunteer opportunities, as strengths. The majority of those who took part in the survey also stated that they would recommend living in Kennedale to someone who asks, and that they would likely remain in Kennedale for the next five years. Of note, 84% of the respondents would recommend living in Kennedale to anyone who asks, and 89% of the respondents stated that they would remain in Kennedale for the next 5 years. When comparing by the years of residency, those who have lived in Kennedale for 10 years or more have the highest percentages. When comparing responses by the residency location, respondents from in Section 1 had the highest percentage. The overwhelming majority of citizens are able to access the city website. In fact, 99% of the households who responded have Internet access at home and most have visited the City of Kennedale website to get information about special events. S0% responded that they use the website to receive news and information about programs, services, policies, and events through the city newsletter mailed with utility bills. 90% of respondents indicated the paper newsletter as their primary source for community information. As for explicit areas of opportunity for improvement, the majority of the respondents felt that run -down buildings and junk vehicles are either a moderate problem (35 %), or a major 2013 City of Kennedale Citizen Survey 144 V. Conclusions and Recommendations problem (34 %). Recycling is seen as a Weakness for the city with a large number of responses choosing it as an area in which the city could improve. On the other hand, trash collection was rated as a Strength by a large margin of respondents. Air quality and the quality of the natural environment were rated by a majority (61 %) of respondents as Good. Including an overwhelming response in respondents viewing storm water drainage as a Strength in Kennedale. However, the question as to whether "The City of Kennedale has a storm water pollution problem ", left a majority responding with Unsure. This suggests that there are opportunities for public education concerning stormwater, recycling, and waste. With only a one response difference, the overall image /reputation of the city was seen as Weakness. Not to be discouraged, there was almost 25% who viewed it as an Area to Emphasized. In relation, of the 252 respondents, only 63 felt commercial developments was a Strength, while 189 felt it was a Weakness or Area to Emphasize. In transportation, roads and traffic intersections were rated as a Strength but also an Area to Emphasize. Traffic flow on major streets was rated as Excellent or Good by two - thirds of respondents. There appears to be an opportunity for improvement in ease of walking the city and availability of paths and walking trails, as the responses were heavy in the good and fair categories. The data reflects that Kennedale's municipal government is pursuing the right direction in terms of development and creating a sense of community. Satisfaction with almost all areas city has steadily increased with each survey. The municipal government appears to take the opinions of its citizens very seriously and is responding in a manner that citizens are satisfied with. Both citizens and officials have created a community to be proud of, which also appears to be attracting more residents every year. 2013 City of Kennedale Citizen Survey 145 VI. Appendices 2013 City of Kennedale Citizen Survey 146 Appendix A Survey 2013 City of Kennedale Citizen Survey 147 2013 Kennedale Citizen Survey Demographics *1. Please select all that apply: I own /rent /live in a home in Kennedale I own /work at a business in Kennedale Neither of the above *2. According to the Map, in which part of Kennedale do you reside /work? OSection 1 OSection 2 OSection 3 OI do not live or work in Kennedale 00 it `b m 3030 tl 'NOLEN RD 2g OP = ry in W tiP` i W s j a a ARTHUR DR RR IKOIAH SPG r > 10e /4G O a = --"CiRcimi I PotOMAg Pear ' • Mr4R i • . " -4---S ..._ _ . SILKCREST TRL C BLUE MESA DR PENNSYLVANIA AVE DAISY OR � ' sHApv EILI,(K p R l,i4.2. OR �y FC « 3 C z 7 Po G+ Z o o`S } r SRO ST SNACK Y IN 4TH ST 5TH ST _ - 4 � 0 AVERETT RD row EVERMAN KENNEOALE RO JONAH RO LINDA LH VOL SON RO GREEN CIR rel KEHHEOALE KEW HOPE RD LITTLE SCHOOL RD (STATES DR V I SUHRLSE OA V O'P� NORTHSTAR LN GRLE. \'11 W .N ILENNFAALE SULILETT NO g 2 O -A t i t - '1 g 3 1li g ........„Im s S EDEN RD i+ i se z II 1111 x G HUDSONVILIAOf CRfEKRO HUDSON RO \ T R1 • 2 092 IPM 2013 City of Kennedale Citizen Survey Page 1 148 2013 Kennedale Citizen Survey 3. What is your age? O 18 -35 O 36 - 50 O 51 - 64 O 65 or older 4. What is your gender? O O Female Male 5. How long have you lived in Kennedale? O Less than 1 year O 1 - 5 years O 6 - 10 years O 10+ years O I do not live in Kennedale 6. If you live in Kennedale, do you have children under the age of 18 at home? O Yes O No O N/A 7. What is the highest level of education you have completed? O High School /GED O Some College O College Graduate O Post Graduate 8. If you live in Kennedale, you: O Rent your home O Own your home O I do not live in Kennedale 2013 City of Kennedale Citizen Survey Page 2 149 2013 Kennedale Citizen Survey Public Safety 9. How would you rate the following services provided by the City of Kennedale Police Department? Customer Service (courtesy, follow -up, etc.) Speed of response Keeping my property safe from burglary /theft Physical presence throughout the city Keeping me safe from violent crimes (assault, robbery, etc) Animal Services Excellent 0 Good Fair Poor N/A 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 10. How would you rate the following services provided by the City of Kennedale Fire Department? Speed of Response Customer Service (courtesy, follow -up, ect.) Excellent Good Fair Poor N/A O 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 11. How would you rate the following services provided by the City of Kennedale Emergency Medical Services? Excellent Good Fair Poor N/A O 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 Speed of Response Customer Service (courtesy /compassion, knowledge, ability, ect.) 2013 City of Kennedale Citizen Survey Page 3 150 2013 Kennedale Citizen Survey Development Services Department Planning, Permits, Inspections, Zoning, Code Enforcement, ect. 12. How would you rate the following services provided by the City of Kennedale Planning Department? Quality of residential development Building Inspection Services Appropriateness of overall development Quality of development on Kennedale Parkway Resolution of code enforcement complaints Customer Service (courtesy, knowledge, ability, availiability, ect.) Excellent 0 Good Fair Poor N/A 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 2013 City of Kennedale Citizen Survey Page 4 151 2013 Kennedale Citizen Survey Public Works Streets, Parks, Water, Storm water, Utility billing, ect. 13. How would you rate the following services provided by the City of Kennedale Public Works Department? Parks and Recreation areas Utility Billing Services Water Quality Trash collection quality Drainage on your street Responsiveness to street maintenance requests Overall quality of city streets Customer Services (courtesy, availability, ect.) Excellent Good Fair Poor N/A O 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 2013 City of Kennedale Citizen Survey Page 5 152 2013 Kennedale Citizen Survey Citywide /Other Services 14. How would you rate the following services provided by the City of Kennedale? The overall direction that Kennedale is pursuing The city's effort to welcome resident involvement Online e- payment services (water, trash, court, ect.) Availability of information online (www.cityofkennedale.com) Opportunities to volunteer Library Services Municipal Court customer service (courtesy, availability, ect.) Excellent 0 Good Fair 0 0 Poor N/A 0 0 o o 0 0 0 o o 0 0 0 o o 0 0 0 o o 0 0 0 o o 0 0 0 o o 0 0 0 2013 City of Kennedale Citizen Survey Page 6 153 2013 Kennedale Citizen Survey Kennedale Characteristics 15. Please rate the following Characteristics of the City of Kennedale: Sense of community Overall appearance Cleanliness Air quality Quality of natural environment Ease of vehicular travel Traffic flow on major streets Availability of sidewalks Shopping opportunities Quality of development Variety of housing Quality health care Quality food establishments Overall image /reputation Business friendly Excellent 0 0 0 0 0 0000000000 Good Fair Poor o 0 o o 0 o o 0 o o 0 o o 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 0000000000 2013 City of Kennedale Citizen Survey Page 7 154 2013 Kennedale Citizen Survey 16. Please indicate which of the following you perceive to be strengths, weaknesses, or areas the city needs to emphasize? Strength Police department services 0 Fire department services 0 Emergency medical 0 services Residential development Commercial development Roads and intersections Customer service Code enforcement Communication to residents Storm water drainage Overall image /reputation Trash collection Recycling Parks and open space Special events Development standards Volunteer opportunities Water conservation Weakness 0 0 0 Need to Emphasize 0 0 o o 0 o o 0 o o 0 o o 0 o o 0 o o 0 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 0 o o 000000000 2013 City of Kennedale Citizen Survey Page 8 155 2013 Kennedale Citizen Survey General Questions 17. How safe do you feel in your neighborhood? O Very Safe O Somewhat Safe O Not Very Safe 18. Do you actively conserve water? O Yes O No 19. How do you conserve water at home? (Select all that apply) Install /use water efficient plumbing and appliances Reduce running water (shorter showers, turn off tap when brushing teeth, ect.) 17 Limit landscape irrigation whenever possible Landscape with drought- resistant native plants I do not believe water conservation is necessary 20. What are Kennedale's favorite attractions? Please select your top two. City events and festivals September 11 Memorial Red's Roadhouse TownCenter Park Sonora park Rogers Farm Park TownCenter Retail Area Other (please specify) 2013 City of Kennedale Citizen Survey Page 9 156 2013 Kennedale Citizen Survey 21. Which of the following events /programs have you attended in the past year? (Select all that apply) n Texas Independence Day Parade Art in the Park Christmas Tree Lighting Festival Bark in the Park Kidfish n Cleanup /Recycling events (including bulk drop off and roadside cleanup) Prescription Drug Takeback Days Low -cost pet vaccination days n Bird Habitat /Bird Identification events I have not attended any events /programs 22. How likely or unlikely are you to do the following? Likely 0 Recommend living in Kennedale to someone who asks Remain in Kennedale for the next 5 years Unlikely 0 23. Why do you choose to live in Kennedale? (Choose the most important) O Community atmosphere O Convenience to work OAffordable housing OGood schools O Quality of life O I do not live in Kennedale 24. Where do you receive news and information about city programs, services, policies, and events? (Select all that apply) n Fort Worth Star Telegram City newsletter mailed with utility bill The city website (www.cityofkennedale.com) Church or civic group meetings City meetings (Council, P &Z, ect.) Chamber of Commerce 25. Do you have Internet access at home? O Yes O No 2013 City of Kennedale Citizen Survey Page 10 157 2013 Kennedale Citizen Survey 26. Have you ever visited the city website (www.cityofkennedale.com) for the following? (Select all that apply) Pay water /utility bill Trash collection information Construction information Special event information Council or other meeting times and agendas nProperty tax information Report a problem City budget information 27. To what degree are run -down buildings and junk vehicles a problem? O Major problem O Moderate problem O Minor problem O Not a problem 2013 City of Kennedale Citizen Survey Page 11 158 2013 Kennedale Citizen Survey Stormwater Questions Your answers to these questions help the city to maintain our stormwater permit. Thank you for your responses. 28. Please answer the following questions to the best of your knowledge: The street inlets collect drainage and discharge to creeks and lakes. The street inlets collect drainage and discharge to a treatment plant that discharge to a creek. The City of Kennedale drains into Lake Arlington, a primary source of local drinking water. Fats, oils, and grease dumped down the sink drain can cause sewage lines to overflow into our local creeks. The best way to clean up and oil spill is to scrub it with detergent and hose it off into the street, ditch or yard. Washing your car at home uses more water than a commercial car wash. Landscaping your yard can help reduce stromwater runoff. It is illegal to dump water containing soaps, paint, cleaning products, grease, or oil into streets, ditches, and storm drains. The City of Kennedale has a storm water pollution problem. Agree 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Disagree 0 Unsure 0 o o o o o o O 0 o o o o o o O 0 2013 City of Kennedale Citizen Survey Page 12 159 2013 Kennedale Citizen Survey Recycling 29. How important or unimportant would it be to continue providing once a week trash pickup? O Very important O Important O Unimportant O Very unimportant 30. Would you consider changing to once a week trash pickup to help offset the cost of once a week recycling pickup? O O O Yes No Unsure 31. How much per month are you willing to pay to add once a week curbside recycling pickup service? O Not willing to pay any extra for this service O Minimum increase ($1.50 - $2.00 per month) O Some increase ($2.00 - $5.00 per month) O $5.00 or more 2013 City of Kennedale Citizen Survey Page 13 160 2013 Kennedale Citizen Survey 32. Please use this space to add any additional information that you would like us to know. *33. Would you like to be entered into the drawing for $100 off of your utility bill ?* ( *or equivalent prize) ONo thank you. OYes! (In order to be entered you must provide an email and /or phone number. This information is confidential and will not be used in any other way aside from the survey drawing. Your survey responses will remain anonymous.) ank you,,fbr the time t e stir 2013 City of Kennedale Citizen Survey Page 14 161 Appendix 8 Additional Comments 2013 City of Kennedale Citizen Survey 162 2013 Kennedale Citizen Survey: Additional Comments - -Thank you for asking. Please immediately remove all trees /shrubs on the intersection of Cloverdale Lane & Kennedale Pkwy (in front of Wells Fargo Bank) and along Kennedale Pkwy on that same property. The recently placed plants created immediate obstruction to view and can constitute a traffic hazard upon our public street. It seems to be unlawful to place these structures in such a manner as to constitute an obstruction to view creating a traffic hazard. Even if the approval of the city engineer was obtained, you really need to evaluate and remove the landscaping. Whether in a small vehicle or large, and while sitting at the stop sign at Cloverlane Drive, the public view is obstructed when trying to see before turning onto or crossing Kennedale Pkwy. We completely appreciate the beautification taking place and admire the lovely landscaping throughout the city; however in this particular location it should be removed and placed elsewhere. Thank you. Under the section for Police, we selected "poor" in regards to Keeping My Property Safe from Burglary /Theft because there is no way to completely keep every Property Safe from Burglary /theft. Maybe you could restate your question next year. Same goes for the Assault question. We believe the Police do a great job. Theft is high, but we don't see how police can keep it from happening unless there are more cars visible all over the city around the clock. - -I BELIEVE KENNEDALE IS HEADING THE RIGHT DIRECTION TO BE A MORE FAMILY ORIENTED CITY. - -If an animal control problem takes place on a weekend /holiday no one at the city is willing to help. When two dogs were in my yard on Good Friday last year the police advised me to catch them and keep them tied up until Monday then take them to the animal shelter in Ft. Worth. The Recycle dumpster is always full at the senior center; when is it emptied? I recycle about 90% of my waste. - -We moved here less than a year ago and we love it! The areas I think could be improved include: 1) doing something about the appearance of business 287 and 2) attracting some more business, such as a small grocery store or two, like a Trader Joe's, or some mid- level restaurants like Panera. 3) Also, it would be nice if we could have more of a village or town- like feel in the city center. And 4) I would personally appreciate efforts to make the whole area a little more bike friendly. Thanks! - -I have lived all over and when I came to Kennedale I finally felt like I found home! - -Over the past month, our neighborhood has seen an increase in crime. Several folks have asked the police to increase their patrols. We have not seen or received a response. 2013 City of Kennedale Citizen Survey 163 - - Appreciate all the work you all do....I'm sure you are not adequately reimbursed for the tremendous jobs you do... - -Why were the round - abouts put in on Sublet Road? They are hard to understand and my car was hit on Sublet because of them. A nice straight road would have been so much better. - - Appreciate all the efforts and improvement in the city. Thank you. - -I think that bringing recycling to Kennedale is critical- it's difficult for me to believe that we don't have it. In general we love living here. Hate the roundabouts you have installed on little road, and we still need to work on cleaning up some areas. but Kennedale is a great place to live. - -What is most displeasing to me is Kennedale's reputation for speed traps. Increases the speed limits on little road and Mansfield cardinal from 30 to 35. Too many salvage yards on Business 287. - -Would love to see an EMS tornado alarm system put up either by the fire station or at the tail Center park for the people in the CRESTDALE neighborhood and others around in town - -Olde Towne streets need attention. Some have not been repaved since originally put down. Full of holes and patches. Please make this a priority when searching for grant money for the city. - - Efforts to clean up Kennedale Parkway are notable. However, the issue of compliance with new codes creates an atmosphere that is considered business Unfriendly. I am not in the automotive or racing business; budt I am cognizant that those businesses, including the salvage yards, are what made Kennedale. Driving them out of Kennedale could be costly. - -It would be great if Kennedale had an electric vehicle charging station somewhere. We're the - -I think we need to get more businesses in here to offset taxes. I want to know where all the water is coming from to water all these trees we have put into our street. When are we going to take care of all the streets in old Kennedale? Why were all these roundabouts necessary? When are we going to finish Bowman Springs Rd? - -There is a definite truck problem on Dick Price Road. They ruin the roads and speed all the time. There are way too many trucks going down this road. There should be an alternate route for them rather than taking them down a residential road. -- Definitely need more sidewalks. Landscaping in median and next to sidewalks needs to be maintained better. 2013 City of Kennedale Citizen Survey 164 - -The racetrack it a noise polluter and is extremely annoying. Our dear friends moved away from Kennedale just to get away from the noise. It should not be allowed to be even noisier several times a year. - -I think it is great that you care about the people that live in Kennedale and want their input! - -The apartments and duplexes near Sublet and Little road are a real eyesore. There is lots of trash and junk cars in people's front yards. The area by the junior high is the same way. - -Your water quality is poor. Since we moved here and built a pool it leaves a white powder residue on the pool, deck and sidewalk. I was told it was baking soda that is added to the drinking water. I do not want to drink that or have to scrub my pool every other day. I would not have moved her if I knew all the issues the town has. Water quality and cost, no proper Internet to work from home or cable TV availability. - -I do not want to pay extra for recycling pickup - -There is a trailer sitting in the yard at 500 North Rd. It was supposed to be moved after construction was done on the house. That was over 2 yrs. ago. I thought Kennedale was all about cleaning up the city? That looks like TRASH going down the street. - -I would like to see more done with the parks, recycling and better communication. I like the changes that have been taking place to make Kennedale a nicer place to live and look better. - -I am thankful to live in Kennedale so close to my family and my daughter's school and to be able to work I very seldom see a police car in our area; they do not want to get to know the public! - -I have lived in Fort Worth and Arlington. The only reason I would consider moving is because of the taste of the water. I wish it could be made to taste better. I use to never drink bottle water because the faucet water was so good, but since I moved that is all I drink. - -Not having recycling is very outdated and a severe weakness in a city selling point. - -The beauty of Kennedale is that it is a small community without a lot of junk. Don't want to see a lot of fast food restaurants and junk come in. Don't want to see big stores that bring in trash and thieves. What's wrong with staying small and quaint as long as it's well taken care of and thought out. 2013 City of Kennedale Citizen Survey 165 - - Whoever designed this survey is more about a pat on the back than dealing with real problems. We need sales tax revenue from grocery stores and specialty commercial stores. We have more pollution concerns from rainwater run off of auto parts and all the trash that is thrown in the creeks. - -We would like as much natural space as possible...we love the idea of native plant vouchers....adopting medians might be nice if they were tasteful...we dislike the statue of the girl reading at the roundabout - - Schools should be noted as strength - -I already pay Theresa Picard to pick up my recycling, and would absolutely love to see the city help her out, I also believe that recycling needs to be a mandatory thing that all Kennedale residents do. I pay her 12.00 a month to pick it up and she is one person, I truly think the city needs to pitch in and pick up everyone's recycling for an added fee. Not only would this decrease our wastes into our landfills, but would greatly impact our environment in a positive way. I really hope the city takes my thoughts seriously, as I know Theresa's main goal in the beginning was to get as many people to recycle as she could because the city of Kennedale does not have a recycling pick up curbside. Most people refuse to recycle because it is not picked up curbside. Would you consider adding a fee to our bills to have our recycling picked up weekly? - -I think the city officials have done an excellent job with recent development decisions - -The Bill Pay system could be more user friendly. For instance allowing one to set up own login names and passwords and allowing one to save their payment info so it doesn't have to be entered each time. The police department could use more training in domestic violence, sensitivity and courtesy. They should be required to have handouts available to give to people when called in on a domestic violence incident in regards to where to seek help, etc. The police report should reflect domestic violence instead of "people arguing" as statistically they are likely to be called out again for this and it would be helpful to know this wasn't the first time. If they don't want to do the paperwork, they should find another job. The website could be more user - friendly. It's hard to navigate and find things. - - Sonora Park is great. Storm water planning via development is terrible. My yard still floods. Have not had to use fire or medical services, but then appear to be prepared to assist. I appreciate the redevelopment, and reduction of old buildings and rezoning. - -We need better control of drug dealers and better control of leaks to drug dealers from city. - -We need more retail opportunities in Kennedale. How about an HEB on Kennedale Parkway? Also restaurants? Why let Arlington get all the tax breaks? 2013 City of Kennedale Citizen Survey 166 - - Overall I believe Kennedale is doing a good job at improving its overall appearance and image. These things take time. In the future I would like to see a small recreation center in the city for kids' activities and workout room areas. I believe this is something valuable to most. - -We should also survey the parents about the KISD - -I would love it if the city started picking up recycling curbside. It's inconvenient to take it to the Senior Citizen center to drop it off. - -So long as it continues to allow the car racetrack to operate, Kennedale will never be viewed as a favorable place to live. - -I think there should be more patrolling at Senora Park because we do not feel very safe there. Too many cars and trucks coming in there that are acting suspicious. They are certainly not there to use the park for it's there for. - -The noise from the racetrack on New Hope Road is very annoying and I'm not sure how this problem can be fixed but it needs to be addressed. - -One of the weird ideas was the circles on Little road, you can get killed. More time wasted, no way to pass anyone, especially garbage trucks, why you didn't *t come all the way with 2 lanes is beyond me. - - Street Lights are seriously needed at the new roundabouts and at the corner of Kennedale Pkwy and Meadowview Dr. This is an important safety issue. - -I definitely think that Kennedale would look better if the old, run down "for rent" buildings on business 287 would be replaced with new buildings or just taken down. Also, I hope that the city is looking at building new neighborhoods that are between the $250 -$350k range in wooded area, similar to Falcon Lakes but less expensive homes and taxes w/ same amenities like the pond, gate, etc. I have enjoyed watching the changes in Kennedale for the 12 years we have been here. I am excited to see what is in the future. Thank you for all your efforts. - -Old trailer house sitting yard of Soo North Rd. Many complaints. No results. It's been there 2 yrs. or more - -It is our hope the new landscaping on Little School Rd. will improve. 2013 City of Kennedale Citizen Survey 167 - -If your goal was to disrupt traffic flow on Little Rd. and Sublett Rd., you have achieved your city goal. A driver is in great danger when entering the turnabouts that are on these two major roads. The bridge on Sublett Rd. must be reconstructed for new traffic flow. Please work with Arlington to fix and expand the bridge. This is imperative to ensure the growth of Kennedale. Kennedale - Sublett Rd. is the premier entrance to Kennedale. Please tell me how anyone in their right mind could have constructed new major roads in this city, and not make them a four lane road. - -The City really needs to build a Youth Sports Complex. I would say that about 70% of the youth in Kennedale play sports in other cities. To me, that is something the City should be ashamed of. The youth programs are struggling trying to keep kids in there programs. The reasons mostly are 1. They have no football fields; they practice on the old baseball fields and have to work out a deal with the schools to use their fields. 2. The baseball fields are so old and there are only 3 fields that are not placed correctly. The concession stand is too old and not right. Yes, you'll redo the bathrooms, but that is like putting a band aid on a pig. If the city would take the time and go look at other cities sports complex's they would realize the City of Kennedale is stuck in the 1980's.. There needs to be a complex with at least 4 baseball fields, 1- 2 football fields and 1 -2 soccer fields. The City of Kennedale does not care about the youth in this town and never will. It is time for the City to wake up and stop building parks and putting more money into parks and they need to apologize to the residents of Kennedale for never supporting the Youth in there town and do something about it. - - Thanks for keeping an eye on our community (Oakcrest), a lot of us here aren't spring chickens anymore. - -I love living in Kennedale. Schools are great. Sense of community is strong. Convenient access to surrounding communities /work. - -Would love to have curbside recycling! - -The Kennedale police administration needs to be re- directed to stop the out of control theft in Kennedale. - -I love, love, love all of the new sidewalks provided by the city. (I have logged many, many miles walking on them already.) The landscaped medians along Little Rd and Sublett Rd are terrific, too. I appreciate all of the forward- thinking of our Mayor and City Counsel. It's paying off! The absence of the SOB's at our 1-20 entrance is a huge step in making our city one to be proud of! 2013 City of Kennedale Citizen Survey 168 - -The trees, which were meant to be an attraction, have become a hazard. you can't see oncoming traffic at certain locations (bank, school, etc.). Someone is going to have a wreck, if it hasn't already happened AND what about a decent grocery store in Kennedale ? ?? Don't you think it's time? - -I have asked repeatedly to get the letters on the welcome to Kennedale sign on little rd. painted 1 color (black) over the course of a year:( It reflects poorly that our letters are 2 different colors. - -I would love to see better shopping on Kennedale Pkwy. I would love to exchange one trash pickup for one recycling pick up per week. - -A 24 hour dog nuisance barking code is needed. The 10PM - 8AM timeframe is not sufficient for ongoing barking issues. The ongoing barking issues are greatly disruptive to households during the day. Code enforcement for folks dumping on their own properties is needed - similar to Fort Worth. This would enhance overall appearance. 3rd party income verification /service for all Current and Future residents obtaining the 30% water bill reduction should be put in place and not rely on resident documentation. - -There is no reason to reduce trash pickup from twice a week to once when other cities have both. Consider a once a week recycling day pick up. There is a recycling need that is not being met and change is hard for people so start off slow with once a week. - -The city does not do a sufficient job of maintaining historical buildings, sites, and information on founding fathers /families. Hey, let's tear all the buildings down and just build cheap, ugly, new ones. The city does NOT do a good job of communicating with residents. When an item severely impacts a small group, there should be a better effort in talking to those affected. You have dropped the ball consistently on this one. You ask about volunteer opportunities yet you do not communicate with those trying to volunteer, BBA, what is up with that. Tired of getting information via conversations with people who know a little, really, how hard is it to send an email? When you close my street, or allow a group to close it (fun run), why can't you notify me or require the group closing it to notify me. - -I have a problem with my gutter drainage in front of my house not draining to the nearest storm drain. The quality of our water is horrible and the cost of water in Kennedale is a big problem. 125 in the winter and 250 in the summer are ridiculous. Also, not happy that we don't receive the full tax discount on property tax. I would really like an explanation or a call regarding these issues. - -For as high profile as Kennedale seems to be, I am shocked that there is not a curb side recycling pickup in effect 2013 City of Kennedale Citizen Survey 169 - -I really like the planting of trees and shrubs down Kennedale Pkwy and it was done correctly with putting in the irrigation first. I do not like how the trees, shrubs and hydro mulch have not been taken care of down Little Rd. and Sublett. These streets are heavily driven down and it looks bad with all the dead trees and grass. I recommend you put a sprinkler system in since the irrigation is already there to keep all of the vegetation alive. I can't imagine how much money has been wasted in replacing the trees and hydro mulching. Plus having a truck water everything all day during the week that backs up traffic and wasting so much of our city's water filling up there tank. I think landscaping with rocks and Xeriscaping plants that don't require that much water would look nice. A dry creek bed would be good going down the middle of Little Rd and Sublett as this would take up space and then you could accent it with ornamental grasses and larger boulders. You could also seed Wildflowers in these areas, too. There is a company in Fredericksburg called "Wildseed Farms" that has every wildflower seed imaginable and they do online orders, too. You could even do Buffalo grass instead of hydro mulching Bermuda and buffalo is drought tolerant and since its not getting any foot traffic, it'll look nice. I'm not trying to bring out a negative as I love Kennedale, but since you have the "Keeping Kennedale Beautiful" campaign going, I don't think Little Rd & Sublett are falling into that category. - -Not willing to pay for recycling because we take our own in to be recycled. - -There is a big lack of internet and cable service in our area. - - Please work on reducing the cost of sewage treatment on our water bills. I conserve as much as possible during Dec., Jan and Feb but the cost is still high. - -Take notes from small cities like Southlake and Little Elm. They have planned extremely well. - -New bridge on dick price requires regular maintenance cleaning. Debris does not drain off bridge, it collects and needs to be swept. Also, creek could use yearly clean out as well. Love the new Sonora park and 911 memorial, BUT HATE the round a bouts. 2 yrs of construction and the road is no wider? Seems like a huge waste of tax dollars and city resources - -We need sidewalks along Broadway St. - - Nothing else - -More needs to be offered for children. The library does an excellent job but additional opportunities are needed. - -If I had known that the faucet water tasted undesirable, I would have continued living in Arlington. 2013 City of Kennedale Citizen Survey 170 - -We have great trash pickup, please don't change it. I deliver my recycles myself. The Shady Creek west streets are in need of some repair. Thank You for getting rid of the strip clubs near I- 20. Please make junk car businesses beautify there visionable areas. Would like sidewalks as a requirement for any new residential areas or any building improvements. - - Biggest issue for us is the junk yards and overall appearance of Kennedale Parkway. also in the older part of Kennedale (Section 1 ) in the map there are homes / yards with old junky cars, etc. - -I would like to see more commercial development. Kennedale is in a unique position, being a developing suburb very close to Ft. Worth. The opportunity exists for great success if the objectives for excellence are well defined. A grocery store like Aldi, Trader Joe's, or HEB would be a huge addition. "Higher" end fast /quick food restaurants, like Chick- fil -a, Corner Bakery, or Panera would be appealing. I don't want the main drag to just be a line of strip malls full of nail and tanning salons because rent is so cheap, but the existing shopping centers need a unified facelift and a plan to fill existing available retail space. Creating a business friendly environment helps with tax revenue, which could potentially help residents lower the KISD taxes, but there needs to be clear objectives regarding the kinds of businesses and people you want to attract and what they say about your community. (I recognize that the city and KISD are separate, but they do impact each other.) The town of Boerne, a suburb of San Antonio, has an old time felt with antique stores and unique fashions, and open markets once a month that attract people from all over. It's cool. The street beautifying projects are great, as long as they continue to be maintained. I didn't understand why all those trees were planted along Little Rd in the main heat of summer under drought conditions, did not seem like good planning and number of them died. It was also poorly maintained, it seems more well -kept in 2013. Also, encouraging neighborhoods, like Shady Creek East, to maintain their signage improves overall community image. The lettering on the city of Kennedale sign on Little Rd is not uniformed; they should all be painted to match. The City of Irving is in the middle of a massive beautification process, seeming to correct the urban sprawl of the last 20 years. It's great, but if Kennedale can do a good job with initial development, correction won't be necessary, resulting in long term cost savings to residents and business owners. A larger water /pool facility would be an added resource to the community. I know we are close to Arlington and they have large pool system that non - residents can use, but it would be nice to have our own. Irving just built a beautiful pool /recreation center (they have many), but their newest would be a great model. In addition, the library's collection of young children's books is pitiful. We need more books. Finally, there should be a way to get your initial water deposit back after a year or 2 of on time payments. As of now, there is no system in place, so my $90 deposits sits with you, until I move, seems very unfair. The east -west cross streets could also use a little straightening out. You can't really get across town very easily. 2013 City of Kennedale Citizen Survey 171 - -I love what Kennedale has to offer and the direction it's going! The main item needing to be addressed would the unsightly businesses on Business 287 (views of tires, rims & junkyards). It would be great if Kennedale or the businesses could landscape to hide it. Thanks! - -I enjoy living in Kennedale and I am aware of the time that the leaders put into making our community a great environment. I would like to suggest that there be more street lights placed in the area, especially on Sublett Road and Little School Road. Thank you!! - - Request redesign of left turn lanes on Kennedale Parkway in front of Burger Box access to Sublett Road. East bound traffic takes a chance crossing the double yellow line to make the radius to Sublett when westbound traffic is in the center lane. - -I did not like the long construction time for the round a bouts and side walk however I do like the use of them now that they are complete. - -If we are going to attract new residents in the 21st century we must provide curbside recycling. This should be a top on the list of things to provide the residents. this should be part of 2015 project. the city also must communicate with the citizens and not be so secretive about what is going on. - -Not impressed with the landscaping put in on the Little Road project. Think more signs need to be put in on Bowman Springs Road when turning right onto Pennsylvania Avenue. I'm not sure if this particular area is a turn lane or just extra space on the road. - -Great job on the Parkway Landscaping. Also Little School road ! Would really like to see improvment in water quality and taste. - -If the city does not add curbside recycling, at least add another recycling drop off or increase the times a week the current dumpster is emptied. - - Please bring weekly recycling to the City. Great job on all of the park reforms. We wish there were sidewalks leading to the park (Sonora) so we didn't have to walk our son in the street - -I've seen city improvement over the 4 years I've lived here but would like to see more progressive movement in a lot of quality of life areas. - -Go Wildcats : -) 2013 City of Kennedale Citizen Survey 172 - - Recycling could generate revenue for the city if done correctly. Construction SWPPP enforcement is poor. Too many homes in poor shape that should be removed. Too much money spent on road work rather than improving water utilities. Property taxes way too high. Property taxes may be partial cause to lack of business development in the area. City population is too small to afford larger city type of staffing. City website needs to have more real time information. Really enjoy the traffic enforcement by the police department, but believe with the size of the city, there should be more emphasis placed on patrolling residential areas. Engineering of new drainage is performed at the bare minimum. Older businesses should be required to keep property clean and up to date. ATT building should be blocked with attractive landscaping or a small business. Cost of water is close to unaffordable. There is potential to reduce the cost from Fort Worth, use capital to pay for the tie in instead of resident expense or enhance the well system. Food Service sanitation standards are not monitored effectively. Fire /Medical is very friendly, responsive and effective; however, the pay is not in line with comparable cities with the same square mileage of responsibility. I understand my opinions are strong, but cannot participate in the City Council as the meetings are routinely on weekdays and interferes with my career. - -I would like to hear more about curb side recycling. Trash pickup is more important but it would promote recycling if we didn't have to drive to the courthouse. I also wish trash pickup days could be changed (for instance M /Th pickup) - -I would like to see better street lighting at night. The street lights that are in service are not bright enough. - -I would like to see the city provide more parks in the future. It is very important to me that the city provide curb side recycling pick -up - - -WHOS EVER IDEA IT WAS TO PUT ROUND ABOUTS ON LITTLE SCHOOL ROAD AND SUBLET INSTEAD OF 4 LANE ROAD SHOULD BE FIRED.DOES NOT HELP THE TRAFFIC AND ARE HUGE HINDRANCES. - POLICE DEPARTMENT NEED HUGE REWORK VERY VERY LAZY AND UNFRIENDLY UNLESS ITS HARASSING YOU FOR TRAFFIC VIOLATIONS -THIS TOWN IS VERY UNFRIENDLY FOR NEW HOUSING AND BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT - -More neighborhood yard sales more block parties Sidewalks in the neighborhoods A club house or swimming pool in the area - -I do like the fact it is a quiet and safe community. I just wish there was more build up on the main road in Kennedale and that there was more shopping etc. Maybe a community pool would be nice as well or a community waterpark. 2013 City of Kennedale Citizen Survey 173 - -The round abouts on Little Road and Kennedale Sublet are, in my opinion, dangerous. - -Why can't Main Street be fixed like the other or is in the future plan - -Would be good to try to attract a major grocer to the area. - -I would like to see a traffic light installed at the corner of Pennsylvania and Little Road. The traffic there has increased quite a bit since living in that area and I feel a stop light would help traffic flow better and it eliminate that dangerous intersection. - -I have complained several times about the water being wasted during spring /summer to water trees on Little Road... Have never gotten a response. During these times I completely avoid area when possible because you cannot drive a car through there without getting mud slung on it. It's sad to see so much water running down the drains. - -We use the park next to city hall a lot and enjoy it - -I think it is extremely important for the city implement curbside recycling once a week. - -Water quality. Reduce noise from racing cars and train. Water bill department need to be right and correct. -- Sometimes we don't always HAVE to use money the state provides... - -We would love to see Kennedale start a curbside recycling program! - -Why should it cost us to add recycling service when there are free recycling locations nearby and when there are locations that will pay for recyclable material? - -The speed limit on Little School Road should be increased to 40mph. The police presence for traffic enforcement on this road can at times be excessive. - -Our biggest problem is with the high cost of taxes and utilities. We have lived many places around the country. Kennedale, by far, has the highest water, sewer, and garbage fees compared with anywhere we've lived! - -Put stop signs at the circles. No one yields. - -We recycle religiously!!!! Most of the time recycle containers are FULL! It is a real pain but we do to improve the environment. Yes Yes to recycle Program Please. - - Kennedale has really changed for the better in the past 23 years we have lived here. The biggest drawback for Kennedale is the noise from the race track on weekends and on Wednesdays evenings. 2013 City of Kennedale Citizen Survey 174 - - Kennedale is behind times regarding recycling. I believe residents would participate more in recycling if there was a weekly neighborhood pickup. It is inconvenient for people to drive to the discard site. Plus think of the car gas emissions we are all burning and putting into the air when we have to drive over there weekly. - -The Youth are the future. Kennedale really needs to focus on that. Kennedale also needs more businesses. Everybody always go out to Arlington because they have the mall and the highlands. Kennedale needs some of that. - -The Police Department needs to do a better job responding to emergency calls, once someone attempted to abduct my child, when I called the "Police" it was "they will be right there" they NEVER showed up. 45 minutes later I called back and the dispatcher said they would come by if they needed to In Kennedale as long as your Tags and Inspection are current you can get away with ANYTHING! The "Police" here are a JOKE! - -Twice a week trash pickup is important to me and I would love to see a recycle program for my recyclables. Please stop building homesll IIII I Our schools are overflowing and it is going to be like Mansfield schools, which are terrible now! Leave it a small town please! I love the open spaces and it was about three years ago we got a newsletter that there were shops coming next to Albertsons on Sublett... it is vacant but that building sits there What a waste! It could have remained open land! There is not one business in that shopping center! Think before you act! Delaney is busting at the seams with kids... please stop building more homes!! If this town gets too much bigger than it will not be attractive anymore. :( - -I'd like to see the PD in the residential areas more. I see them on the highway every time I'm out. I know they have a lot to do, but just driving each residential street once a day adds a bit of security. I would also like the city to do something about the cat population in our city. I can't even open my windows because my yard is used as a litter box and the smell is outrageous. - -I think our local government is run quite well and keeps us informed of items we need to know. I do not use many businesses in Kennedale due to not meeting my needs...wish there were more. I do use Wal -Mart which does give us tax revenue for the parking lot! - -I have lived in Kennedale for 17 years and have witnessed great improvement. There are, however, two things that are in need of improvement. Water quality - My entire family has never adjusted to the taste of Kennedale water. Sometimes it smells bad and sometimes it smells like bleach. We never drink it and our water bill is always high. We would love to see RECYCLING come to Kennedale residents. We use the city recycling dumpster and only need curbside trash pickup once per week anyway. Often times, we don't even need it once a week. Sonora Park is one of the best investments we have made as a city - along with road improvements. Keep up the good work! 2013 City of Kennedale Citizen Survey 175 - -Why is there not a code enforcement for residents to clean up their yards. If Kennedale is trying to clean up the city and have a better reputation and increase business, we need to start with the neighbors removing junk cars and trash sitting in their yards and driveways. Codes to keep grass, weeds and broken fences down. Although Kennedale Parkway is improving, the high walls need to be in place to hide the car junk yard and Ft Worth tower business on the left. Put some trees down this street. It was nice to put in the drive around circles, but money wasn't spent well on the landscaping. The grass looks terrible and half the trees are dying. Some of the trees could have been better selected for a more unified look. The Gandhi quote area is nice, but couldn't use something more Americanized there. Overall I like the improvements Kennedale is doing, but there is much much work to do. We moved into Kennedale since my stepdaughter is in the school system here and we want her to graduate from here, but after high school we are thinking of moving. I would like to see something down with the pond in our area. I am not sure who owns the property, but it would nice to have the brush cleaned up and walking area put around it, someplace the neighborhood could all enjoy. - -Take a look at smaller cities like Kennedale such as the Town of Little Elm and how they have planned the growth and future growth of that small Town. Very impressive building codes and extremely beautiful close nit community. - -Fix pot holes and rough streets. The intersections at Burger Box are dangerous. - -Since our code enforcer (Mort) left this city there is NO CODE ENFORCEMENT! We have people in this city that don't mow their lawns, park their cars in the yard, and have trashy yards. They have automobiles that don't run and aren't inspected with flats in the driveways. People have animals that run loose (pit bulls too), snakes get loose and so much more. Loud music can be played without anything but a continuous warning. Warnings are all that is ever done about any of this! Some people in this city, as I have been told personally) say that we can't do anything to them because they are friends with city officials, police and others. All of these complaints have been reported to the City Of Kennedale - Nothing has been done. We are told to police them ourselves! This is to no avail. Why should we have to provide the animal control, music control, yard maintenance and other complaints when people are on the payroll for the city to take care of these things and they don't do anything about it when they see for their selves? I can't even go get my mail from the mailbox without worry of a Pit Bull attacking me! ll II After 32 years of living in Kennedale - all I want is to get out!!! You can have my name also. - -The online bill payment is not very user friendly. It could use a makeover to make it more user friendly and more aesthetic. - - Kennedale is noisy town due to drag races. Need to stop early every night. 2013 City of Kennedale Citizen Survey 176 - -The grafetti on the backside of the mailbox on Oakwood Lane needs to be painted over. I don't know if that would be a city or government problem but it is an eyesore/ embarrasment whenever we have friends come to visit. We need to help keep the community beautiful. - -I believe Kennedale, has a unique opportunity at the moment to change the image of the city completely. From the outsider's point of view, the city is still seen as a "trailer park /junkyard" town, and although the city has made huge strides to rid themselves of that image, it still remains. On Kennedale Parkway, there is a huge opportunity to bring in tons of business, corporate and small businesses. Kennedale Parkway gets tons of traffic, and new businesses (i.e. Starbucks, Chili's or other chain establishments) would provide the opportunity for more customers to stop and spend time in our small town. I truly believe the Parkway needs a huge facelift; destroy old, uninhabited or dilapidated buildings to clear way for more established companies to move in. Another issue I see is that the old town Kennedale severely lacks sidewalks. Broadway St, has multiple people speeding down the road on a daily basis, and if the town center and parks are to become accessible to residents safely it is highly necessary to reduce the speeds in neighborhood streets, via speedbumbs, or provide a safe alternative to walking in the street, or both. I believe that Kennedale is at a vital time right now, and if we can make the strides to give the main roads a huge facelift, and renovation that we can rid ourselves or the old stigma and make this town even better than it has been in the past. I went to Kennedale ISD from an early age, and graduated from KHS, brought my wife and son back into the town because I believe this is a great place to be, but as a two income household, that works in downtown Fort Worth, there is little reason or opportunity for us to spend our money within the city limits, which I feel is a big shortfall. If the opportunity presented itself, I would love the opportunity to purchase goods from local businesses, but unfortunately that is a limited proposition as it stands. I still believe in Kennedale, and truly hope a facelift can happen. - -I would not mind paying a moderate amount per month for recycling, but I would still want twice a week trash pick -up. I love our trash pick -up company. They do a very efficient and clean job on a consistent basis. - -I feel it would be A good ideal to put notice in water bill that you should not leave trash out for A long period of time.... like from Saturday afternoon until pick up time on Wednesday. - -Would appreciated increased police presence and strict enforcement of speed limits on South Little Road. Since completion of round about it seems that there is no enforcement and excessive speeding has dramatically increased. Race track noise most likely exceeds City Ordinances and which appear not to be enforced by the City of Kennedale Police Department. Most nights of the races their noise makes it uncomfortable to be outside our home and annoying inside of our home up until wee hours of the morning greatly affecting our quality of life. If we had known how loud the track noise was, we would have located in another city. 2013 City of Kennedale Citizen Survey 177 - -I am glad the city is trying to improve the look of our community, but I do feel like some of the changes are unnecessary and the money could be better spent in other ways. - -I think Kennedale has done a great job with street improvement with the exception of only having one lane on Little School and Sublett Roads. Traffic is stuck whenever the garbage truck or mail truck has to stop at every house or a fender bender happens. The turnarounds are very dangerous. People do not look or stop when they approach the turn around. I have almost been hit several times. A lot of people see how fast they can go around the circle. Also Kennedale Parkway NEEDS MORE LIGHTING. The street lights are very dim or in some areas there no street lights at all. For the safety of the policemen and businesses there should be more light throughout Kennedale but especially on Kennedale Parkway. - - Question 29 is confusing, "How important or unimportant would it be to continue providing once a week trash pickup." We current have TWICE a week trash pickup. To my family that is IMPORTANT. I didn't know how to respond to continuing once a week. if I say unimportant am I saying Zero is OK? I just didn't know how to answer. I think the results of this question will have no meaning in reviewing the survey. The question should have been how important is continuing twice a week trash pickup. - -We have some nice large homes. Unfortunately there are many that are un -kept with junk. Not sure if that could be addressed through code enforcement but it would be nice to see people do more to keep up their property. - -The height of the monument at Sublett and Wild Cat Way blocks the visibility of cars entering the traffic circle coming from the opposite direction. - -When I bought my house I was told Kennedale had plans to add parks and bike trails...I hope this plan begins soon - -We are paying too much for storm water drainage now. I handle all of my recycling, do not need the city getting in the recycle business just ends up being more taxes or FEES and we do not need either. the bank in Kennedale has been robbed three times the last time the response time was 9 minutes. the city has improved a lot we still have a long way to go. - - Kennedale needs to focus on cleaning up the main business road - a tin foil building with bricks on the front looks trashy. Mobile homes, run -down buildings - it looks disgusting. Also, animal control doesn't work here. Stray animals everywhere... - -You need to spell check your documents before you publish - -- several typos, etc. 2013 City of Kennedale Citizen Survey 178 - - Living on less than an acre, our Kennedale taxes are nearly $4,000 /year. With Kennedale having a median family income of only $55,000 and a population of a mere 6,900, this is OUTRAGEOUS. This is what we paid in Sugar Land, TX (median income of $113,261 and population of nearly 100,000). Such a huge difference. Big city taxes for a small, underdeveloped town. Where are the tax dollars going if Kennedale is getting grants for roads? Also, in the day and age of recycling, Kennedale does not have weekly curbside recycle pick up! Shameful! Also, our family has nicknamed Kennedale Pkwy the "junkyard ". The major road into Kennedale is old and junky. What are you all doing to encourage retail business growth, (stores, restaurants, fast food facilities)? We look stupid with a worn our Burger Box and Chicken Express. Overall the taxes will eventually drive us out of Kennedale. Simply too high for what Kennedale has to offer. - -A lot of the homes in Kennedale need to be forced to clean up front side and backyards of junk. If in back they need to have a privacy fence all around so not visible at all. All of this should be automatically enforced by City not just when someone reports its. RV's, 18 wheelers, travel trailers shouldn't be allowed to permanently park on street in front of residence. No parking in one's front yard of vehicles must be in driveway or on street. Some are parking in their yard once their drive is full it's trashy looking and stupid. People need to be more respectful of keeping our parks clean, they need to pick up after themselves and pets. Some at Sonora don't and just leave it to the city. - -We would like to see more volunteer opportunities, possibility of a technical school much like ben barber, and business partnerships with high school students for internships - -It seems that our water bill is higher than surrounding cities. I would love to see a comparison in one of your next news letters in bill. - - Traffic is horrible on Dick Price Rd. Truck drop trash and all kinds of containers in the bar ditches going to the dump. Why can't you keep the curbs cut and the roads clear of debris on the Dick Price /Kennedale Pkwy area? Need to slow trucks down on Dick Price Rd. We need a real grocery store like Brookshires, so we don't have to travel to Fort Worth, or Mansfield to get groceries. 2013 City of Kennedale Citizen Survey 179 - -We purchased our brand new home in October 2012 and we LOVE Kennedale and our new Neighborhood. However, we do wish there was a Homeowners Association for certain reasons. To keep people from parking on the streets, develop a "yard of the month" project /committee, and have a gated entry would be a few of my first goals /wishes. We would even be willing to be involved in the Homeowners Association planning. Other information that I would like to be known is: My husband works shift work and is gone most nights leaving me home alone. contacted the City about possibly having an additional street light placed on my CULDESAC STREET because it is VERY DARK in our culdesac. The response I got was basically it cost too much to do that and I was referred to my Electric Company who informed me they no longer install lights on owners property. I would still like for a City Official to take a look at this issue for me preferably at night time. Also, since we have lived here, I have seen the Police patrol down my street ONE TIME!! I do not mean to be a complainer, I am a very proud citizen of Kennedale my new home and I just want the best protection for everyone. Thank You for your consideration in this matter. - -Very displeased with the school system. My child has been taken out of the Kennedale school system. - -I would like to see Kennedale continue efforts to tear down old unsightly buildings and encourage building owners to improve the aesthetic looks of their businesses. Would also like to see Kennedale make an effort to encourage the salvage yards to relocate so that is not the look of our town along Kennedale Pkwy. Would like to see the racetracks closed for good, not good for the image and progression of our town moving forward. The town also might want to consider more advertising to surrounding areas of the progress Kennedale is making in an effort to draw more residents to the area, and possibly more desirable businesses rather than the auto parts and salvage yard businesses. - -You had error in trash pickup question number 29 - some of the questions were a little confusing to me and the lines were hard for me to follow across to use the correct box sometimes i had ended up on the wrong line and had to redo that page - -I am glad to see the many street and beautification projects taking place in Kennedale. - - Curbside recycling is needed in our area - -When I call city hall I always seem to get voice mail, which is very irritating. Sometimes I get a return call, but not usually. - -I have lived in Kennedale all of my 57 years and am a 5th of now 7 generations growing up and proud to call Kennedale my home town. Love it!!! 2013 City of Kennedale Citizen Survey 180 - - Kennedale is becoming a good bedroom community. Tearing down unstable buildings and cleaning up the main parkway is just great. - -Need sidewalks on 300 block of Mansfield Cardinal Rd. Police need to be more friendly to citizens. - -The trucks traveling dick price has become an issue due to speeding and unsecured loads. Several 18 wheelers a day. I have nails in my tires constantly 2013 City of Kennedale Citizen Survey 181 Appendix C Favorite Attractions in Kennedale 2013 City of Kennedale Citizen Survey 182 What are Kennedale's favorite attractions? • I don't know the name of it but the new little park by the high school is always heavily used. We love the tennis courts at the high school • It is NOT the racetrack! What an annoying business • The Pier Skate Park • Used auto parts and used cars • Volunteer at Sonora Park for nature trail • Sonora is fantastic! • Race tracks • Kennedale speedway • High School Events • Very weak in this area • Pitt Stop Cafe • High School Football Stadium • Races • We don't have any attractions • Race Track • Kennedale High School • Library • Great job on parks • Race tracks • Veterans Memorial and all of the above plus the race tracks • Kennedale high school football games • Fire Station Events / City Clean up • Churches of every kind (Mine FUMC Kennedale) • High School football • Burger box is the only decent establishment in the city 2013 City of Kennedale Citizen Survey 183 Appendix D Comparison Tables for 2007, 2011, and 2013 2013 City of Kennedale Citizen Survey 184 = Decrease = Increase = Constant DEMOGRAPHICS TABLE 1 18 TO 35 YEARS OF AGE 35 -50 YEARS OF AGE 51 TO 64 YEARS OF AGE 65 AND OLDER 2013 2007 2011 2013 2007 2011 2013 2007 2011 2013 2007 2011 2013 Age 3.1% 9.1% 13.0% 24.7% 26.8% 31.6% 18.7% 35.8% 34.4% 51.2% 25.0% 20.0% TABLE 2 FEMALE MALE 6 -10 YEARS 2007 2011 2013 2007 2011 2013 Gender 2013 53.0% 58.3% 2013 45.1% 41.7% TABLE 3 < 1 YEAR 1 -5 YEARS 6 -10 YEARS 10 + YEARS 2007 2007 2011 2013 2007 2011 2013 2007 2011 2013 2007 2011 2013 Length of residency 67.2% 3.1% 7.0% 2.5% 24.7% 24.3% 18.7% 16.9% 51.2% 47.2% TABLE 4 YES NO N/A POST GRADUATE 2007 2011 2013 2007 2011 2013 2007 2011 2013 Have children < 18yrs at home 2007 30.3% 37.0% Education level 67.2% 56.2% 15.6% 2.5% 6.7% TABLE 5 HIGH SCHOOL /GED SOME COLLEGE COLLEGE GRADUATE POST GRADUATE 2007 2007 2011 2013 2007 2011 2013 2007 2011 2013 2007 2011 2013 Education level 90.4% 17.7% 15.6% N/A 22.7% 33.9% 35.4% 34.3% 20.7% 16.3% TABLE 6 RENT OWN DO NOT LIVE IN KENNEDALE 2007 2011 2013 2007 2011 2013 2007 2011 2013 Rent /Own home 8.1% 8.8% 90.4% 86.6% N/A N/A 4.6% 2013 City of Kennedale Citizen Survey 185 = Decrease = Increase = Constant TABLE 7 - PUBLIC SAFETY EXCELLENT GOOD FAIR POOR 2007 2011 2013 2007 2011 2013 2007 2011 2013 2007 2011 2013 Police - Presence 31.8% 38.3% 26.2% 43.8% 47.3% 49.5% 14.9% 10.6% 19.4% 5.0% 0.5% 2.5% Police - Speed 40.8% 40.5% 27.5% 26.9% 34.7% 39.6% 10.0% 6.3% 7.5% 3.0% 2.1% 3.6% Police - Customer Service 28.4% 32.1% 28.3% 39.8% 36.4% 38.4% 13.4% 11.8% 10.4% 6.0% 2.1% 5.4% Fire /Emergency Services - Speed 43.3% 42.6% 39.4% 27.9% 25.3% 21.9% 3.5% 3.7% 0.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.7% Fire /Emergency Services - Customer Service 36.8% 37.2% 37.9% 31.3% 29.3% 21.7% 3.5% 2.7% 2.5% 0.5% 0.0% 0.4% Animal Services 19.9% 18.6% 15.4% 27.4% 39.9% 30.5% 25.4% 19.7% 15.8% 9.0% 8.0% 10.4% AVERAGE EXCELLENT GOOD FAIR POOR 2007 2011 2013 2007 2011 2013 2007 2011 2013 2007 2011 2013 30.2% 31.8% 26.6% 28.3% 28.8% 28.5% I 7.6% 5.8% 6.7% 2.4% 0.8% 2.1% TABLE 8 - DEVELOPMENT SERVICES EXCELLENT GOOD FAIR POOR 2007 2011 2013 2007 2011 2013 2007 2011 2013 2007 2011 2013 Planning - Residential Development 7.5% 9.9% 14.9% 35.3% 46.4% 54.2% 19.9% 14.9% 19.3% 11.9% 6.6% 4.0% Planning - Parkway Development 7.0% 9.7% 15.8% 19.4% 46.8% 48.9% 32.3% 18.3% 23.0% 19.9% 9.7% 9.4% Planning - Customer Service 13.9% 17.5% 17.9% 25.9% 34.4% 41.6% 10.0% 8.7% 13.1% 6.5% 1.6% 4.4% Planning - Appropriatness 4.5% 9.8% 12.3% 22.4% 45.7% 49.5% 25.4% 23.3% 24.9% 19.9% 6.0% 7.6% Building Inspection Services 11.9% 9.9% 8.8% 32.8% 31.9% 30.4% 22.4% 9.3% 16.1% 3.5% 4.9% 5.5% Code - Customer Service 13.9% 10.9% 17.9% 22.9% 38.0% 41.6% 15.9% 6.5% 13.1% 6.5% 6.5% 4.4% Code - Resolution of Complaints 7.0% 9.8% 8.8% 12.9% 23.5% 24.5% 16.4% 12.6% 16.4% 13.9% 8.7% 8.8% AVERAGE EXCELLENT GOOD FAIR POOR 2007 2011 2013 2007 2011 2013 2007 2011 2013 2007 2011 2013 9.4% 11.1% 13.8% 24.5% 38.1% 41.5% 20.3% 13.4% 18.0% 11.7% 6.3% 6.3% 2013 City of Kennedale Citizen Survey 186 = Decrease = Increase = Constant TABLE 9 - PUBLIC WORKS EXCELLENT GOOD FAIR POOR 2007 2011 2013 2007 2011 2013 2007 2011 2013 2007 2011 2013 Utility Services - Water Quality 18.4% 17.2% 13.6% 27.9% 37.5% 36.6% 22.4% 22.9% 24.0% 27.9% 20.8% 24.7% Utility Services - Quality of Garbage Collection 36.3% 35.2% 32.3% 39.3% 44.6% 49.5% 13.4% 13.0% 14.0% 5.0% 5.7% 2.5% Utility Billing Services 10.9% 31.4% 26.6% 22.4% 52.4% 51.4% 11.4% 9.4% 15.5% 8.0% 4.2% 5.0% Utility Services - Drainage on Streets 13.9% 23.0% 25.8% 34.3% 40.3% 48.4% 19.4% 18.3% 16.4% 29.9% 14.7% 8.0% Utility Services - Quality of Streets 6.0% 6.8% 11.9% 22.9% 34.6% 42.6% 35.3% 42.4% 33.9% 33.3% 14.1% 11.2% Streets - Reponse to Maintenance 4.5% 7.4% 11.8% 19.9% 30.9% 26.8% 21.4% 18.1% 16.9% 18.4% 10.6% 7.7% Parks & Recreation 11.9% 22.9% 32.3% 32.8% 54.7% 53.8% 24.9% 15.1% 6.8% 14.9% 1.0% 2.5% AVERAGE EXCELLENT GOOD FAIR POOR 2007 2011 2013 2007 2011 2013 2007 2011 2013 2007 2011 2013 14.6% 20.6% 22.0% 28.5% 42.1% 44.1% 21.2% 19.9% 18.2% 19.6% 10.2% 8.8% TABLE 10 - CITYWIDE /OTHER SERVICES EXCELLENT GOOD FAIR POOR 2007 2011 2013 2007 2011 2013 2007 2011 2013 2007 2011 2013 The overall direction that Kennedale is pursuing N/A 25.3% 24.6% N/A 57.4% 53.8% N/A 11.1% 17.0% N/A 3.2% 3.3% The city's effort to welcome resident involvement N/A 24.3% 27.4% N/A 52.9% 44.0% N/A 11.6% 19.1% N/A 2.6% 4.7% Online E- payment Services N/A N/A 25.9% N/A N/A 39.9% N/A N/A 9.4% N/A N/A 4.3% Availiability of Information Online N/A N/A 27.0% N/A N/A 50.7% N/A N/A 15.5% N/A N/A 2.9% Opportunities to Volunteer N/A 22.0% 23.5% N/A 40.9% 43.7% N/A 13.4% 12.3% N/A 2.2% 2.2% Library Services 28.4% 26.8% 26.5% 34.3% 44.2% 43.5% 11.9% 8.9% 12.3% 1.0% 1.6% 1.1% Municipal Court Customer Service N/A N/A 13.1% N/A N/A 30.9% N/A N/A 7.6% N/A N/A 1.5% AVERAGE EXCELLENT GOOD FAIR POOR 2007 2011 2013 2007 2011 2013 2007 2011 2013 2007 2011 2013 28.4% 24.6% 24.0% N/A 48.9% 43.8% N/A 11.3% 13.3% N/A 2.4% 2.8% 2013 City of Kennedale Citizen Survey 187 = Decrease = Increase = Constant TABLE 11 - CHARACTERISTICS OF KENNEDALE EXCELLENT GOOD FAIR POOR 2007 2011 2013 2007 2011 2013 2007 2011 2013 2007 2011 2013 Sense of Community N/A 22.9% 27.3% N/A 53.7% 51.6% N/A 17.2% 17.8% N/A 3.1% 3.3% Overall Appearance N/A 8.9% 9.5% N/A 40.8% 49.3% N/A 40.8% 34.7% N/A 8.9% 6.6% Cleanliness N/A 8.4% 12.4% N/A 46.6% 48.2% N/A 36.6% 32.5% N/A 7.9% 6.9% Air Quality N/A 10.6% 20.5% N/A 56.1% 61.5% N/A 22.8% 15.4% N/A 4.2% 2.6% Quality of Natural Environment N/A 9.7% 16.9% N/A 49.7% 57.1% N/A 26.5% 22.0% N/A 8.6% 4.0% Ease of Vehicular Travel N/A 14.7% 23.4% N/A 58.4% 52.8% N/A 22.1% 18.7% N/A 4.2% 5.1% Traffic Flow on Major Streets N/A 12.6% 25.1% N/A 56.3% 57.8% N/A 26.3% 12.0% N/A 2.6% 5.1% Availability of Sidewalks N/A 6.8% 8.4% N/A 22.9% 39.8% N/A 31.3% 32.9% N/A 33.3% 19.0% Shopping Opportunities N/A 1.6% 1.5% N/A 6.7% 13.1% N/A 32.6% 38.9% N/A 57.5% 46.6% Quality of Development N/A 8.7% 10.7% N/A 44.0% 50.0% N/A 33.2% 30.9% N/A 30.9% 8.5% Variety of Housing N/A 14.2% 10.6% N/A 53.2% 56.8% N/A 22.6% 25.3% N/A 7.9% 7.3% Quality Health Care N/A 1.6% 3.8% N/A 15.1% 22.9% N/A 12.4% 35.6% N/A 34.4% 37.8% Quality Food Establishments N/A 3.1% 2.2% N/A 16.1% 17.5% N/A 45.3% 43.4% N/A 31.3% 36.9% Overall Image /Reputation N/A 5.9% 5.9% N/A 39.9% 43.0% N/A 34.6% 34.9% N/A 19.1% 16.2% Bsuiness Friendly N/A N/A 10.8% N/A N/A 42.5% N/A N/A 29.5% N/A N/A 17.2% AVERAGE EXCELLENT GOOD FAIR POOR 2007 2011 2013 2007 2011 2013 2007 2011 2013 2007 2011 2013 N/A 8.6% 12.6% N/A 37.3% 44.3% N/A 27.0% 28.3% N/A 16.9% 14.9% 2013 City of Kennedale Citizen Survey 188 = Decrease = Increase = Constant TABLE 12 - STRENGTHS /WEAKNESSES /AREAS TO EMPHA STRENGTHS WEAKNESSES AREAS TO EMPHASIZE 2007 2011 2013 2007 2011 2013 2007 2011 2013 Police Department Services N/A 79.0% 80.8% N/A 6.8% 8.1% N/A 13.1% 11.2% Fire Department Services N/A N/A 92.3% N/A N/A 1.2% N/A N/A 6.5% Emergency Medical Services N/A N/A 87.3% N/A N/A 2.4% N/A N/A 10.4% Residential Development N/A 57.6% 59.3% N/A 22.1% 24.2% N/A 19.8% 16.5% Commercial Development N/A 18.4% 25.0% N/A 40.8% 45.2% N/A 39.1% 29.8% Roads and Intersections N/A 41.1% 56.0% N/A 24.6% 26.6% N/A 33.1% 17.4% Customer Service N/A 71.3% 75.6% N/A 9.6% 14.6% N/A 18.0% 9.8% Code Enforcement N/A 54.0% 56.3% N/A 26.1% 25.6% N/A 18.6% 18.1% Communication to Residents N/A 65.3% 73.4% N/A 18.2% 16.4% N/A 15.9% 10.2% Stormwater Drainage N/A 5.1% 63.4% N/A 43.9% 25.5% N/A 49.0% 11.1% Overall Image /Reputation N/A 29.9% 37.7% N/A 27.7% 38.1% N/A 39.5% 24.1% Trash Collection N/A 84.0% 84.4% N/A 7.7% 10.1% N/A 7.7% 5.5% Recycling Services N/A 10.1% 16.3% N/A 50.9% 45.6% N/A 34.9% 38.1% Parks and Open Space N/A 66.9% 72.9% N/A 14.5% 12.0% N/A 18.6% 15.1% Special Events N/A 23.8% 74.8% N/A 21.4% 13.0% N/A 54.8% 12.2% Development Standards N/A 53.2% 58.2% N/A 16.7% 23.4% N/A 27.6% 18.4% Volunteer Opportunities N/A 65.1% 68.4% N/A 10.2% 13.1% N/A 24.1% 18.4% Water Conservation N/A N/A 51.5% N/A N/A 24.5% N/A N/A 24.1% AVERAGE EXCELLENT GOOD FAIR 2007 2011 2013 2007 2011 2013 2007 2011 2013 N/A 48.3% 75.6% N/A 22.7% 24.7% N/A 27.6% 19.8% 2013 City of Kennedale Citizen Survey 189 =Decrease = Increase = Constant TABLE 13 - HOW LIKELY ARE YOU TO DO THE FOLLOWIN( VERY LIKELY LIKELY N/A UNLIKELY VERY UNLIKELY NOT VERY SAFE 2007 2011 2013 2007 2011 2013 2007 2011 2013 2007 2011 2013 2007 2011 2013 Recommend Living in Kennedale to Someone who asks N/A 33.8% N/A N/A 50.8% 84.2% N/A 3.6% N/A N/A 9.7% 15.9% N/A 2.1% N/A Remain in Kennedale for the next five years N/A 60.8% N/A N/A 27.3% 88.9% N/A 2.6% N/A N/A 5.2% 11.2% N/A 4.1% N/A AVERAGE VERY LIKELY LIKELY N/A UNLIKELY VERY UNLIKELY 2007 2011 2013 2007 2011 2013 2007 2011 2013 2007 2011 2013 2007 2011 2013 N/A 4T3% N/A N/A 39.0% 86.5% N/A 3.1% N/A N/A 7.4% 13.5% N/A 3.1% N/A TABLE 14 WATER EFFICIENT PLUMBING VERY SAFE TOWNCENTER RETAIL AREA SOMEWHAT SAFE DROUGHT RESISTANT PLANTS NOT VERY SAFE 2007 TOWNCENTER PARK 2007 2013 2011 2013 2007 2007 2011 2013 N/A 2007 2011 2013 Neighborhood safety N/A 2011 N/A 2007 63.0% N/A 2013 N/A 34.0% N/A N/A N/A 3.0% TABLE 15 WATER EFFICIENT PLUMBING YES TOWNCENTER RETAIL AREA NO DROUGHT RESISTANT PLANTS RED'S ROADHOUSE 2007 TOWNCENTER PARK 2011 2013 2011 2007 2007 2011 2013 Actively conserve water N/A 2007 N/A 2013 92.1% N/A 2011 N/A 2007 7.9% TABLE 16 WATER EFFICIENT PLUMBING REDUCE RUNNING WATER TOWNCENTER RETAIL AREA LIMIT IRRIGATION DROUGHT RESISTANT PLANTS RED'S ROADHOUSE NOT NECESSARY TOWNCENTER PARK 2011 2007 2011 2013 2007 2007 2011 2013 2007 2007 2011 2013 2007 2007 2011 2013 2007 2007 2011 2013 How respondents conserve water N/A 2013 N/A 55.1% N/A N/A N/A 84.4% N/A N/A N/A 86.3% N/A N/A N/A 34.2% N/A N/A N/A 1.5% TABLE 17 TX INDEPENDENT PARADE CITY EVENTS TOWNCENTER RETAIL AREA 9/11 MEMORIAL OTHER RED'S ROADHOUSE TOWNCENTER PARK 2011 SONORA PARK 2007 2007 2007 2011 2013 2007 2007 2011 2013 Favorite attractions cont. 2007 2011 2013 7.4% 2007 2011 2013 16.4% 2007 2011 2013 Favorite attractions N/A N/A N/A 54.5% N/A N/A N/A 15.6% N/A N/A N/A 15.6% N/A N/A N/A 36.1% N/A N/A N/A 46.3% TABLE 18 TX INDEPENDENT PARADE ROGER'S FARM PARK TOWNCENTER RETAIL AREA CHRISTMAS TREE LIGHTING OTHER BARK IN THE PARK 2007 2011 2013 2007 2007 2011 2013 2007 2007 2013 2011 2013 Favorite attractions cont. N/A N/A 7.4% N/A N/A 16.4% N/A 2013 N/A N/A 11.9% TABLE 19 TX INDEPENDENT PARADE ART IN THE PARK CHRISTMAS TREE LIGHTING BARK IN THE PARK KIDFISH 2007 2011 2013 2007 2011 2013 2007 2011 2013 2007 2011 2013 2007 2011 2013 Events respondents attended N/A N/A 24.5% N/A N/A 52.1% N/A N/A 40.8% N/A N/A 17.4% N/A N/A 5.7% 2013 City of Kennedale Citizen Survey 190 =Decrease = Increase = Constant TABLE 20 COMMUNITY ATMOSPHERE CLEANUP EVENTS RX DRUG TAKEBACK DAYS AFFORDABLE HOUSING PET VACCINATION DAYS GOOD SCHOOLS BIRD HABITAT DAYS HAVE NOT ATTENDED EVENT Events respondents attended cont. 2013 2007 2011 2013 2013 2007 2011 2013 2013 2007 2011 2013 2013 2007 2011 2013 2013 2007 2011 2013 N/A N/A N/A 37.4% N/A N/A N/A 3.4% N/A N/A N/A 12.5% N/A N/A N/A 5.7% N/A N/A N/A 24.5% TABLE 21 COMMUNITY ATMOSPHERE CONVENIENCE TO WORK CITY NEWSLETTER AFFORDABLE HOUSING CITY WEBSITE GOOD SCHOOLS CIVIC GROUP MEETINGS QUALITY OF LIFE CITY MEETINGS 2013 2007 2011 2013 2013 2007 2011 2013 2013 2007 2011 2013 2013 2007 2011 2013 2013 2007 2011 2013 Why Kennedale? N/A N/A 16.8% 14.7% N/A N/A 24.3% 19.6% N/A N/A 27.7% 15.1% N/A N/A 14.4% 17.0% N/A N/A 28.7% 28.3% TABLE 22 FORT WORTH STAR TELEGRAM Where respondents receive news cont. CITY NEWSLETTER 2011 CITY WEBSITE N/A CIVIC GROUP MEETINGS 4.6% CITY MEETINGS 2013 2013 2007 2011 2013 2013 2007 2011 2013 N/A 2007 2011 2013 9.4% 2007 2011 2013 1.5% 2007 2011 2013 Where respondents receive news N/A 35.0% 27.7% 17.5% N/A 23.9% 93.6% 90.5% N/A 6.7% 22.3% 51.3% N/A 4.5% 6.8% N/A 4.0% 9.1% TABLE 14 CHAMBER OF COMMERCE Where respondents receive news cont. 2007 2011 2013 N/A N/A 4.6% TABLE 23 YES TRASH COLLECTION INFO NO CONSTRUCTION INFO CITY BUDGET INFO 2007 NOT A PROBLEM 2011 2013 2013 2007 2011 2011 2013 Internet access at home N/A 2013 N/A 2007 98.9% N/A 9.4% N/A 2011 1.1% TABLE 24 PAY BILL TRASH COLLECTION INFO REPORT A PROBLEM CONSTRUCTION INFO CITY BUDGET INFO SPECIAL EVENT INFO NOT A PROBLEM COUNCIL MEETING INFO 2011 2013 2007 2011 2013 2013 2007 2011 2013 2013 2007 2011 2013 9.4% 2007 2011 2013 1.5% 2007 2011 2013 Reasons to visit city website N/A 35.0% 14.9% 17.5% N/A 23.9% 24.3% 90.5% N/A 6.7% 16.8% 51.3% N/A N/A 6.8% NA 13.9% 9.1% TABLE 25 PROPERTY TAX INFO REPORT A PROBLEM CITY BUDGET INFO NOT A PROBLEM 2007 2011 2013 2011 2007 2011 2013 2011 2007 2011 2013 Reasons to visit city website cont. N/A 9.4% 17.5% N/A N/A 1.5% 90.5% N/A N/A N/A 51.3% TABLE 26 MAJOR PROBLEM MODERATE PROBLEM MINOR PROBLEM NOT A PROBLEM Run -down buildings /junk vehicles problem 2007 2011 2013 2007 2011 2013 2007 2011 2013 2007 2011 2013 N/A 35.6% 34.0% N/A 25.7% 35.0% N/A 18.8% 23.9% N/A 12.4% 6.7% 2013 City of Kennedale Citizen Survey 191 =Decrease = Increase = Constant TABLE 28 RECYCLING SERVICES YES TABLE 27 VERY IMPORTANT IMPORTANT 2007 UNIMPORTANT 2013 VERY UNIMPORTANT 2007 2011 2007 2011 2013 2011 2007 2011 2013 2007 2011 2013 Price increase for recycling services 2007 2011 2013 Continue weekly trash pickup N/A 7.9% 43.1% 75.0% N/A 27.2% 17.9% N/A 20.8% 4.8% N/A 4.5% 2.4% TABLE 28 YES NO UNSURE $5.00 OR MORE 2007 2011 2013 2011 2007 2011 2013 2011 2007 2011 2013 Changing to weekly trash pickup N/A 48.0% 60.5% N/A Price increase for recycling services 40.1% 31.6% N/A 45.5% 8.4% 7.9% TABLE 29 NONE MINIMUM SOME $5.00 OR MORE 2007 2011 2013 2007 2011 2013 2007 2011 2013 2007 2011 2013 Price increase for recycling services N/A 45.0% 45.5% N/A 18.3% 30.3% N/A 27.7% 21.2% N/A 6.9% 3.0% 2013 City of Kennedale Citizen Survey 192 KENNEDALE You're Here,Your Home www. cityofkenneda le.com Staff Report to the Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: May 9, 2013 Agenda Item No: REGULAR ITEMS - B. I. Subject: Conduct drawing for 2013 Citizen Survey winners. II. Originated by: Amethyst G. Cirmo, City Secretary and Communications Coordinator III. Summary: At this time Mayor Clark will conduct the drawing. Three respondents will win $100 credit on their water utility bill. IV. Fiscal Impact Summary: V. Legal Impact: VI. Recommendation: None VII. Alternative Actions: VIII. Attachments: KENNEDALE You're Here,Your Home www. cityofkenneda le.com Staff Report to the Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: May 9, 2013 Agenda Item No: REGULAR ITEMS - C. I. Subject: University of Texas at Arlington Capstone Project - Group 2: Presentation of 2013 Governance /Board Survey report. II. Originated by: Bob Hart, City Manager III. Summary: At this time the UTA board and commission survey team will present the report. Please see the attached report. IV. Fiscal Impact Summary: V. Legal Impact: VI. Recommendation: None VII. Alternative Actions: VIII. Attachments: 1. 2013 Board and Commission Survey Report 2013 Governance & Board Survey Report - Rename.docx THE GOVERNANCE MODEL & THE CITY OF KENNEDALE Capstone Project Spring 2013: The Governance Model & The City of Kennedale Deanna Bird Kerston Crawford -Thorns Leigh Godfrey Ann -Maree Harrison Kellee Moore Sherrelle Roberts University of Texas at Arlington THE GOVERNANCE MODEL & THE CITY OF KENNEDALE Abstract This study focuses on the City of Kennedale and the Governance Policy for which it has recently introduced and plans to adopt. A survey was created and a Myer- Briggs assessment, attached with it, to assess organizational culture. These results and the team's findings are promulgated in the outcomes section and used to create recommendations for the City of Kennedale to be able to implement the Governance Policy and align all boards to follow this theory. It was indicated, through research, that there are some policy changes that will benefit the city. THE GOVERNANCE MODEL & THE CITY OF KENNEDALE The Governance Model John Carver is the author known for coining the term "Policy Governance." His model is a methodical theory used for boards based on Means and Ends, which can be applied to municipalities, nonprofits and private- sector organizations. The Ends reflect the organization's purpose and identify what results, benefits and changes can be made to accomplish the ultimate goal of the organization and at what cost; while the Means represent the organization's issues and unacceptable practices. The Governance Model separates the Ends from the Means. According to Carver, "...boards tend to be, in fact, incompetent groups of competent individuals "(www.carvergovernance.com, 3/27/13). Carver's motivation behind developing this model is to clarify just what a board is and its function within an organization. An additional focus of Policy Governance is to "empower boards of directors to fulfill their obligation of accountability for the organizations they govern" (www.carvergovernance.com, 3/27/13). The theory helps board members focus on the outcomes and issues that are most pertinent, those that affect the Ends; it helps them work with staff members by teaching how to delegate with clarity, while also empowering board members to help control management's job without interfering. The final component of Governance Policy is a stringent evaluation system. Combined, these learned tools help board members truly lead their organization. John Carver's 10 Universal Policy Governance Principles are: • Govern proactively • Address values about: o Ends o Staff Means 3 THE GOVERNANCE MODEL & THE CITY OF KENNEDALE o Board -Staff Linkage — how power is passed and accountability evaluated o Board Process — how the board will govern and on whose behalf • Focus most of board time on Ends with long term perspectives • Address Staff Means only in a constraining way in order to leave maximum freedom • The boards job contributions must include: o Linkage with ownership o Explicit governing values o Assurance of executive performance • The Chief Executive position exists solely to accomplish Ends without violating the constraints on Staff Means • Routinize the monitoring of staff performance against all board policies on Ends and Staff Means, recognizing this measurement as the evaluation of Executive performance. • Official board committees, if any, are there to help with the board's job, never with the staff's. Their best contribution is to prepare policy options for board deliberation. 1' • Use board time to create the future more than to review the past, to stimulate debate on Ends rather than Means and to look beyond the organization more than within. The City of Kennedale is working to improve the roles of the city council and boards. Collectively, the city council and city manager believe the Carver Governance Policy theory is the best model to use because of the current state of the community Kennedale is a smaller 4 THE GOVERNANCE MODEL & THE CITY OF KENNEDALE community with a complex makeup; the Governance Model has proven to be a good marriage for other communities with a similar dynamic. Requirements for the City of Kennedale's current, prospective and future board members will include: a well - defined and appropriate governance policy to deliver, maintain and operate board functions; current data and analysis of board attitudes and dynamics; effective board training and development programming; and a strategic board appointment process. Research, survey findings, data analysis and best practices outlined in this report will support the theory and create applicable steps to align each board and council. The intent of this report is to help Kennedale's board members better work together to reach goals now and in the future. Problem Statement The City of Kennedale is a first -tier suburb located on the southeast side of Fort Worth, Texas. The city is trying to move away from its image as solely a rural and industrial town. Kennedale intends to expand commercial and residential development by ridding the city of unsavory business establishments and entities that do not generate property taxes. As the city continues to improve the quality of life for citizens while developing commercial and residential property, the operation and function of city boards and their relationships with city council is becoming increasingly important. Kennedale operates under a council - manager form of government. In this type of government, city council is responsible for, but not limited to, establishing policy, passing local ordinances, and developing an overall vision for the city. Council members are voted into office by public election and have the authority to appoint a professional city manager that oversees administrative operations of council, implements council policies, and acts as an advisor to the council. There are five council members plus a "weak" mayor as well as nine volunteer 5 THE GOVERNANCE MODEL & THE CITY OF KENNEDALE governance boards: Arts and Cultural Advisory Board, Board of Adjustment, Building Board of Appeals, Keep Kennedale Beautiful Commission, Kennedale Economic Development Corporation, Library Advisory Board, Parks and Recreation Advisory Board, Planning and Zoning Commission, and Youth Advisory Council. Board and commission members are appointed by council. Currently, Kennedale has a stable political environment. By establishing a clear Governance Model, the city hopes to stabilize council and staff relations in the present and future, assist the city in hiring quality employees, align all boards and council to follow this model, provide a better focus on the future direction rather than micromanaging and provide for improved monitoring of staff work. The council is moving in the direction of adopting a policy governance model. The boards do not understand the model or its full implications. Due to the lack of a clearly communicated vision, relationships between the council and boards are somewhat mixed. Over the past six months, most boards have been briefed by council about the vision, which has improved the relationship between the two groups. Another issue for boards is that they sometimes assume staff roles by approving management decisions. The relationship between council and staff is strong but is based on personality and familiarity rather than process or policies. The City of Kennedale has enlisted the services of The University of Texas at Arlington's School of Urban and Public Affairs to provide a well- defined and appropriate Policy Governance Model to not only enhance relationships between council and boards but will also provide effective board training practices and strategic board appointment processes. The student -led team will be responsible for the development of surveys to assess current board dynamics, and will utilize findings to recommend a form of board governance policy. The team will work 6 THE GOVERNANCE MODEL & THE CITY OF KENNEDALE closely with the city manager, city officials and board members to satisfy the city's needs and the requirements of the project. Methodology The research team surveyed approximately sixty -two participants whom serve on a board and/or commission (collectively known as board) in the City of Kennedale. One survey was an independent questionnaire based on questions that reflect and determine organizational culture and the second survey was the Myers Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) as given by The Myers Briggs Foundation. Our aim was to gather data on board members attitudes based on the Competing Values Framework , compare results to a prior survey conducted in 2007, and identify any trends or differences in board members' dispositions. An email request, explaining the purpose of the independent survey and the second personality analysis was sent to each board member by a representative from the research team. In the early phase, results were dismal. Bob Hart, Kennedale's City Manager and the Capstone professor, followed up with four email requests asking each board member to complete both surveys. Ultimately, sixty -four percent of the city's board members completed the independent survey and produced adequate data for the team to analyze the trends. This survey reflected trends of Kennedale's organizational culture and will help in preparing the city manager and council in approaching policy governance with board members. The independent survey did not require the respondents to provide their names, however it did ask that they provide their tenure, experience in government and opinion on several process and policies enforced by the city. The survey offered respondents the opportunity to write explanations in response to the majority of questions. The content of the survey included 7 THE GOVERNANCE MODEL & THE CITY OF KENNEDALE evaluating the culture and environment of each board the overall, conducting neighborhood or community assessments and evaluating governance planning. The primary variables of interest were questions that reflected organizational culture, personality types and basic principles of policy governance. The survey also queried respondents to note any specific tools or resources they felt were needed to be successful in their current roles and to achieve the goals set forth in city's vision for the future of Kennedale. Survey items were assessed using a 5 -point Likert scale, the top rating of 5, indicating the most positive assessment; 3, representing neutral or somewhat helpful appraisals; and the lowest rating of 1, representing the most negative assessment. In addition to numerical responses, the survey gave participants the opportunity to add comments, and asked participants several open - ended questions regarding the lasting impact of the capstone project, overall satisfaction with the program and suggestions for further improvement. The Myers Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) was also administered to the sixty -two board members simultaneously and electronically. There was a discrepancy in results, as only 18 members responded to the analysis. These findings are not statistically significant but are reflected in this study. In addition, the research team observed two meetings hosted by the city council where dialogue about Carver's Governance Policy was openly discussed. The council expressed their thoughts and ideas about Governance Process Policies, Ends Policies, Executive Limitations Policies and Board - Management Delegation Policies. The result of these observations lead to a better understanding of the process in which the city will work to align the additional boards, the council and city staff to follow the Governance Model. 8 THE GOVERNANCE MODEL & THE CITY OF KENNEDALE Further research was conducted to discover best practices from other municipalities with experience in Policy Governance to help provide additional input on how this process might work, in addition to further examination of various monitoring systems. Multiple resources were used to obtain this information later discussed in this analysis. Organizational Culture Organizational Culture is known as a set of shared assumptions a group holds and determines how it perceives, contemplates and responds to its environment. The definition highlights three important characteristics commonly associated with a culture; primarily, the process of socialization passed on to new employees. Subsequently, organizational cultures influence behavior at work and allow for different levels of operations. Organizational culture influences the type of structure adopted by an organization as well as a host of practices, policies and procedures implemented in pursuit of organizational goals (Kinnicki and Tamkins, 36 -39),. These characteristics often affect a variety of groups and social processes. The structure adopts employee's attitudes, behavior and a variety of organizational outcomes. The culture is acknowledged as a contextual philosophy to influence individuals, groups, and organizational behavior. Organizational culture is shaped by four major components which include the founder's value, the industry and business environment, the national culture and the senior leader's vision and behavior. The four functions propose the following; • give members an organizational identity, • facilitate collective commitment, • promote social system stability, • shape behaviors by helping members make sense of their surroundings. 9 THE GOVERNANCE MODEL & THE CITY OF KENNEDALE There are several types of organizational behavior and researchers have proposed three frameworks to capture the various traits, including: Organizational Culture Inventory, Competing Values Framework, and Organizational Culture Profile. Competing Values Framework (CVF) is the most widely used approach for classifying organizational culture. It was also named one of the 40 most important frameworks in the study of organizations and has been shown to be valid approach for classifying organizational culture. The Competing Values Framework (CVF) provides a practical way for managers to understand measure and change organizational culture. CVF was originally developed for researchers to observe different ways to assess organizational effectiveness. The research exhibited that organizations are measured along two fundamental dimensions or axes. One axis pertains to whether an organization focuses its attention and efforts on internal dynamics and employees or external environments and its customers and shareholders. The second axis is concerned with an organization's preference for flexibility and discretion or control and stability. Merging these axes forms four types of organizational cultures that are based on different core values and sets of criteria for assessing organizational effectiveness. Integrative (Clan) Culture has an internal focus and values flexibility rather than stability and control. The Integrative culture is known to resemble a family type organization in which effectiveness is achieved by encouraging collaboration between employees. This style of culture focuses on the employee and strives to instill cohesion through consensus, job satisfaction and committed employee participation. An organization with a dominant Integrative Culture devotes considerable resources to hiring and developing their employees and they view customers as partners. 10 THE GOVERNANCE MODEL & THE CITY OF KENNEDALE Developmental (Adhocracy) Culture has an external focus and values flexibility. This type of culture adopts the creation of innovation in products and services. Developmental Culture's main characteristics include adaptability, creativity and rapid or immediate reactions to changes in the marketplace. The culture does not rely on centralized power and authority relationships that are known to be part of production and administrative cultures. Organizations dominant in this culture type, empower and encourage employees to take risks, think outside the box, and experiment with new ways of completing assignments or projects. This culture is appropriate for startup businesses, industries in constant change and mature industries looking to enhance growth and innovation. Production (Market) Culture has a strong external focus and values stability and control. Organizations with this culture are driven by competition and a strong desire to deliver results and accomplish goals. Production Culture is motivated on the external environment; customers and profit take priority over employee development and satisfaction. The primary goal of the manager is to drive productivity, profits and customer satisfaction. Employees in this culture are expected to react fast, work hard and deliver quality work on time. Organizations governing these cultures tend to reward employees based on results. Administrative (Hierarchy) Culture has an internal focus, which produces a more formalized and structured work environment, and values stability and control over flexibility. The culture develops reliable internal processes, extensive measurement, and the implementation of a variety of control mechanisms. Control is the driving force within an Administrative Culture. The culture types represent the Competing Values Framework and reflect opposing core values. According to Kinnicki and Tamkins, the four quadrants focus on two diagonal comparisons. The Integrative Culture, in the upper left quadrant of the diagram, is represented by values that 11 THE GOVERNANCE MODEL & THE CITY OF KENNEDALE emphasize internal focus and flexibility, whereas Production Culture, in the bottom right quadrant, reflects an external focus and concern for stability and control. The same conflict can be seen between Developmental Cultures that value flexibility and external focus and Administrative Culture that endorses stability and control along with an internal focus. Long- Term Change internal Focus and Integration Flexibility and Discretion New Change Culture Type: Integrative Culture Type: Developmental Orientation: Collaborate Orientation: Create Leader Type: Facilitator Leader Type: Innovator Mentor Entrepreneur Team builder Visionary Value Drivers: Commitment Value Drivers: Innovative outputs Communication Transformation Development Agility Theory of Human development Theory of Innovativeness, vision, Effectiveness: and high commitment Effectiveness: hand constant change produce effectiveness produce effectiveness • ure Type: Administr ... Iture Type: Production r rientation: Control Orientation: Compete 'eader Type Coordinator Leader Type: Hard - driver Monitor Competitor Organizer Producer Value Drivers: Efficiency Value Drivers: Market Share Timeliness Goal Achievement Consistency & Profitability Uniformly Theory of Aggressively Theory of Control and efficiency Effectiveness: competing and Effectiveness: with capable customer focus processes produce effectiveness produce effectiveness Incremental Change Stability and Control 12 External Focus and Differentiation Fast Change THE GOVERNANCE MODEL & THE CITY OF KENNEDALE Survey Details and Outcomes A survey, utilizing an online survey tool called Survey Monkey, was created to gain a clear understanding of the organizational culture within the City of Kennedale's boards. A sample of the survey can be found in the appendix section (Appendix A). In 2007, a similar survey was administered by Kennedale's City Manager, Bob Hart. A sample of the 2007 survey can also be found in the appendix section (Appendix B). Our team took a unique look at the previous survey and identified how the questions could be improved to receive more accurate and scholarly data. Since the prior questions were based on Kim Cameron and Robert Quinn's Competing Values Framework (CVF) model, the questions for the 2013 survey were chosen by how they fit into this model of organizational culture diagnoses technique. i.e. the questions were designed to reflect the Integrative, Developmental, Administrative and Production cultures of the CVF. The CVF was introduced by Robert E. Quinn in his1988 book entitled, "Beyond Rational Management." In this book, Quinn introduces the framework and how it can be used in diagnosing organizational culture (Quinn, 44). Below is a map Quinn uses to show the setup of the CVF: (Quinn, 1998) Human Relations Model Mentor Role Toward a Responsive, Open Style Toward a Concerned, Supportive Style Mentor Role Caring, Empathetic (Shows Consideration) Group facilitator Role Process- Oriented (Facilitates interaction) if Broker Rote 35 Resource- Oriented S Potitwatly Astute (Acquires Resources) Innovator ROle Creative, Clever (Envisions Change) Open Systems Model Sponsor Role Toward Inventive, Risk- Taking Style Toward a Cooperative, longer Time Horizons Team•Oriented Style Internal Focus Monitor Role Technicalty Expert (Collects Information) o toward a Conservative, Coordinator Role " Cautious Style Dependable, Reliable (Maintains Structure) External Focus Shorter Time Horizons Critic Rote Producer Rote Task - Oriented Work - Focused (Initiates Action) Director Role Decisive, Directive (Provides Structure) Toward a Dynamic, Competitive Style Toward a Directive, Goat - Oriented Style Toward a Structured, Formal Style Institutional Role Internal Process Model Rational Goal Model 13 THE GOVERNANCE MODEL & THE CITY OF KENNEDALE As shown above, there are four "sections" the CVF, assesses. First, is the Human Relations Model, also known as the "Integrative" model. This model tends to focus on the morale of the group or organization and building up the culture by working on the development of human resources (Quinn, 50). The concern of the Human Relations Model is to build more participation and commitment within and towards the organization (Quinn, 54). Next, is the Open Systems Model, which is also known as the "Developmental" model, by those that study the CVF. This model focuses on moving the organization towards expansion or transformation. The organizational culture in this model tends to lean towards resource acquisition, adaptation, growth, and innovation (Quinn, 52). Following open systems, the Rational Goal Model, also known as the "Production" model, lends itself to organizational cultures that seek maximization of output. These organizational cultures also look at accomplishment, direction, productivity and goal clarification for means of success (Quinn, 51). Finally, the Internal Process Model, also known as the "Administrative" model, is the model in the CVF that looks for the most stability. This model has also been referred to as the "control" model because it describes an organizational culture that seeks stability, constant measurement of goals and outcomes, documentation and is more toward consolidation and equilibrium (Quinn, 53 -54). In the 2013 survey, the research team sent participants a series of statements they were asked to rank from 1 — 5, with 1 meaning Strongly Disagree and 5 meaning Strongly Agree; these statements sought to identify which organizational culture model within the Competing Values Framework the City of Kennedale's boards fit. The following is an example of four questions asked and their correlating model: 14 THE GOVERNANCE MODEL & THE CITY OF KENNEDALE Question #20: "We should have city wide Board/Commission /Council events at least once a year." — This is a Human Relations Model, or "Integrative," statement because it seeks to understand how much participation or commitment is sought by the survey participants. Question #22: "Actions are taken as a result of the Board/Commission /Council meetings." — This is an Open Systems Model, or "Developmental," statement because it seeks to understand how much insight and innovation is sought by the survey participants. Question #18: "The training I have received as a Board /Commission /Council member is adequate for the job that I do." — This is a Rational Goal Model, or "Production," statement because it seeks to understand the importance of direction, goal clarification, and accomplishment among the survey participants. Question #28: "Boards /Commissions make operational decisions for the City Staff." — This is an Internal Process Model, or "Market," statement because it seeks to understand how much measurement, stability, and control are sought after by the survey participants. Survey Outcomes The board survey link was sent to all 62 board, commission, and council members in the City of Kennedale. Out of 62 potential respondents, 40 responses were received. Below is a breakdown of board, commission, and council response percentages: • City Council — 6 Responses /100% of the Council — 15% of overall total • Planning and Zoning Commission — 6 Responses /75% of the Commission — 15% of overall total • Youth Advisory Council 6 Responses /60% of the Council 15% of overall total • Parks and Recreation Board — 5 Responses /71% of the Board — 12.5% of overall total • Board of Adjustment — 5 Responses /71% of the Board — 12.5% of overall total • Kennedale Economic Development Corporation — 5 Responses /71 % of the Board — 12.5% of overall total • Keep Kennedale Beautiful Commission — 3 Responses /10% of the Commission — 7.5% of overall total • Arts and Culture Board — 2 Responses /40% of the Board — 5% of overall total 15 THE GOVERNANCE MODEL & THE CITY OF KENNEDALE • Library Board — 2 Responses /40% of the Board — 5% of overall total (Appendix C) Board members were asked to provide their years of service at the beginning of the survey. The following is a breakdown of those responses: • One member did not wish to respond • 0 t 12 months- 7 -18 %- • 13 to 36 months — 8 — 20% • 37 to 60 months — 7 — 18% • 61 to 120 months— 10 -26% • 121 months and over — 7 — 18% 82% of the respondents indicated that have been members for more than one year (Appendix C). Trends Board communication was assessed in this survey by a series of questions. Certain questions were used to gain a better understanding of how members felt their boards communicated internally and how members felt their board communicated with others, including city council. Both in 2007 and 2013, respondents indicated they were satisfied or completely satisfied with the communication occurring within their specific board, as shown in question 5. In other questions dealing with communication, however, there seems to be much improvement that has been made. For example, question 6 shows satisfaction in board to board communication increased by 17.5% from 2007 to 2013. More than two- thirds (67.5 %) of the 2013 respondents agree they are satisfied with communication between different boards. Likewise, those taking the survey answered more favorably that priority planning was well communicated between boards jumping to 62.5% in 2013 from 44% in 2007. Further, question 9 reveals a decrease of 18% of respondents between 2007 and 2013 agreeing that there is a loss of good ideas due to a lack of communication with City Council, In question 33, 70% indicated that they did not find it 16 THE GOVERNANCE MODEL & THE CITY OF KENNEDALE difficult to communicate with each other, as in between individuals on the board. This was not a question evaluated in the 2007 survey. (Appendix B) (Appendix C). While there is always room for more improvement the overall trend in communication indicates a lot of progress has been made since 2007. Recognition and support of the boards was also assessed in this survey. The following questions were used to understand how boards felt they were recognized within the city and how they felt about the support they received from city employees. Survey results illustrate a huge improvement in how respondents believe they are recognized and supported. In question 8, 97.5% in 2013 expressed they were recognized for their contributions /service by the city whereas only 58 %, in 2007 answered the same way. In question 14, 95% indicated they were supported when asked for more information to make decisions, a 9% increase from 2007. Question 17, asked whether or not there was consistent treatment of Board members across the city. Here there was a remarkable 25.5% improvement from 2007 to 2013; up to 72.5% from 47 %. Similarly, in question 45, 82.5% indicated their success was celebrated within the community, while in 2007 only 53% responded positively, an increase of nearly 30 %. In question 30, 90% felt the facility their board met in was suitable for contact with residents in 2013 with 86% answering likewise in 2007. .In question 35, 82.5% indicated there was an adequate amount of city staff to support their board. This is was not a statistically relevant change from the 2007 survey which indicated 78% agreed there was adequate staff. (Appendix B) (Appendix C) These findings show a dramatic, positive shift in how board member's view they are being recognized and supported. Planning, goals, and the vision of the City of Kennedale were assessed in this survey. A set of questions were asked to understand how the board members felt about the city's vision as it 17 THE GOVERNANCE MODEL & THE CITY OF KENNEDALE stands and their planning processes. Here again, results from 2013 witness a more favorable outlook for City of Kennedale board member. In question 11, for instance, 85% indicated they agreed or strongly agreed they were confident in the City of Kennedale's vision compared to a meager 44% in 2007. In question 15, 77.5% agreed or strongly agreed the City of Kennedale has a clear vision.. In question 13, 80% agreed or strongly agreed the members of their respective boards work together effectively; up from 74% in 2007. In question 21, 90% agreed or strongly agreed that their board met often enough to adequately perform its responsibilities well. This is a vast improvement from the 2007 survey which found only 70% agreed. One important distinction, though, can be found in question 16 where results actually were less favorable in 2013. In 2007 there was 100% agreement that board members work in partnership with others to better influence the development of Kennedale whereas only 92.5% agreed or completely agreed in 2013. This last question shows specifically where the city can focus future efforts even though overall the city mostly demonstrated improvements in the "planning, goals, and vision" section (Appendix B) (Appendix C). Training practices were assessed in the survey. In question 18, 75% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed they received adequate training for the job they do. This is up from 64% in 2007. Interestingly question 44 asks if board member orientation would make members more effective. .60% of respondents in 2013 agreed or strongly agreed a decrease from 80% in 2007 who agreed that board member orientation would make them more effective. The decrease to this answer might be explained by the improvements indicated in training received. More respondents felt they already had adequate training; therefore, there is a lesser need for orientation (Appendix B) (Appendix C). 18 THE GOVERNANCE MODEL & THE CITY OF KENNEDALE Myers Briggs Survey The Myers- Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) assessment is "a psychometric questionnaire designed to measure psychological preference in how people perceive the world and make decisions" (www.myersbriggs.org, March 30, 2013). According to Isabel Myers, the essence of the evaluation is to prove that while some behavior may seem random, it actually has order and is consistent with the person's view on perception and judgment. "Perception involves all the ways of becoming aware of things, people, happenings, or ideas. Judgment involves all the ways of coming to conclusions about what has been perceived. If people differ systematically in what they perceive and in how they reach conclusions, then it is only reasonable for them to differ correspondingly in their interest, reactions, values, motivations and skills" (Isabel Myers, www.myersbriggs.org March 30, 2013). The actual test identifies 16 different personality types. It has been statistically proven to be both a valid and reliable instrument to determine personality type. For the sake of this research, the Myers Briggs Test will be used to identify the personality types that are currently serving on each board. The personality type of each participant will be analyzed based on and compared to the Competing Values Framework (CVF). This research will then collectively identify the personality type trend between council and board members and these points will be plotted on the CVF diagram. Myers Briggs Survey Outcomes The Myers Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) survey was administered to 62 potential respondents including the City Council and to the various Kennedale board and committee members. A limited number people responded to this survey, totaling 29% and only 7 out of the 19 THE GOVERNANCE MODEL & THE CITY OF KENNEDALE 16 personality types were reflected in the results of the survey. Below are the personality types reflected and their descriptions according to The Myers Briggs Foundation (www.myersbrigs.org, March 29,2013). INFJ: Seek meaning and connection in ideas, relationships, and material possessions. Want to understand what motivates people and are insightful about others. Conscientious and committed to their firm values. Develop a clear vision about how best to serve the common good. They are organized and decisive in implementing their vision. INTJ: Have original minds and great drive for implementing their ideas and achieving their goals. Quickly see patterns in external events and develop long -range explanatory perspectives. When committed, organize a job and carry it through. Skeptical and independent, have high standards of competence and performance — for themselves and others. ISTJ: Quiet, serious, earns success by thoroughness and dependability. They are practical, matter -of -fact, realistic, and responsible. Decide logically what should be done and work toward it steadily, regardless of distractions. Take pleasure in making everything orderly and organized — their work, their home, their life. They value traditions and loyalty. ISFJ: Quiet, friendly, responsible, and conscientious. Committed and steady in meeting their obligations. They are thorough, painstaking, and accurate. Loyal, considerate, notice and remember specifics about people who are important to them, concerned with how others feel. Strive to create an orderly and harmonious environment at work and at home. 20 THE GOVERNANCE MODEL & THE CITY OF KENNEDALE ESTJ: Practical, realistic, matter -of -fact. Decisive, quickly move to implement decisions. Organize projects and people to get things done, focus on getting results in the most efficient way possible. Take care of routine details. Have a clear set of logical standards, systematically follow them and want others to also. Forceful in implementing their plans ENFJ: Warm, empathetic, responsive, and responsible. This person is highly attuned to the emotions, needs, and motivations of others. Find potential in everyone; want to help others fulfill their potential. This person may act as catalysts for individual and group growth. They are loyal, responsive to praise and criticism. Sociable, facilitate others in a group, and provide inspiring leadership. ENTJ: Frank, decisive, assumes leadership readily. Quickly see illogical and inefficient procedures and policies, develop and implement comprehensive systems to solve organizational problems. Enjoy long -term planning and goal setting. Usually well informed, well -read, enjoy expanding their knowledge and passing it on to others. According to the Myers Briggs Foundation, the MBTI is comprised of four preferences, which together make up the respondents whole type (www.myersbriggs.org, March 29, 2013). The four preferences /pairs are as follows: • Extraversion or Introversion — E or I • Sensing or Intuition — S or N • Thinking or Feelings — T or F • Judging or Perceiving — J or P 21 THE GOVERNANCE MODEL & THE CITY OF KENNEDALE As mentioned above, there were only 18 members who completed the survey and there were only 7 personality types reflected which indicate that some personality types supersede others. Details are as follows: • 1 member identified ISFJ • 3 members identified as ISTJ • 2 members identified as INFJ • 4 members identified as INTJ Below are the personality types listed by council/board: • 1 member identified as ENTJ • 5 members identified as ENFJ • 3 members identified as ESTJ • City Council: ISFJ (1), ENFJ (1), ISTJ (1*), INFJ (1) • Planning and Zoning: ENTJ (1), ENFJ (1) • Arts and Culture: ENFJ (1), • Board of Adjustments: ENFJ (1), ISTJ (2) INTJ (1) • Youth Advisory: ENFJ (1), INFJ (1) • Library Advisory Board: ESTJ (1), INTJ (1) • Economic Development Board: ESTJ (1), INTJ (1) • Parks and Recreation: INTJ (1) According to the Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument (OCAI), the Competing Values Framework can be related to personality traits from the MBTI. "Looking at the Competing Values Framework, you can see that flexibility and stability relate to feeling versus thinking, internal focus versus external focus corresponds with introvert versus extravert. (www.ocai - online.com, April 22, 2013). 22 THE GOVERNANCE MODEL & THE CITY OF KENNEDALE Below is the Competing Values Framework (CVF) according to Kennedale that corresponds with the MBTI personality traits reflected in the results of the surveys: Long - Term Change Internal Focus and Integration Incremental Change Flexibility and Discretion N ew Change Culture Type: Integrative Introvert + Feeling INFJ (2) /ISFJ (1) • • • Culture Type: Deve of pmental Extravert + Feeling ENFJ (5) • • • • • • • • • • • • Culture Type: Administrative Introvert + Thinking ISTJ (4) / ISTJ (3) • • • Culture Type: Production Extravert + Thinking ESTJ (3) / ENTJ (1) Stability and Control 23 External Focus and Differentiation Fast Change THE GOVERNANCE MODEL & THE CITY OF KENNEDALE These connections exist between culture type and psychological type. Below reflects the culture type according to the city of Kennedale which replace the universal terms, like clan, adhocracy, market and hierarchy. • Integrative Culture (Clan) = introvert + feeling • Developmental Culture (Adhocracy) = extravert + feeling • Production Culture (Market) = extravert + thinking • Administrative Culture (Hierarchy) = introvert + thinking The results were analyzed and 10 of the 18 respondents were introverted and are more internally focused. The other 8 respondents are extraverted, reflecting differentiation and are externally focused. The culture type which reflects the greatest number of respondents, 7, is Administrative. Administrative types are those who like control, they are the coordinator or monitor of a situation. They value efficiency and timeliness, consistency and uniformity. The Developmental type reflects 5 respondents. These people are innovators, entrepreneurs and visionaries. They value innovative outputs, transformation and agility. Coming in close behind are the Production types, reflecting 4 respondents. The production traits include those who are competitive and who are hard - drivers and producers. They value market share, goal achievement and profitability. Lastly, 3 respondents followed the Integrative culture type. These people are facilitators, mentors and team builders. They value commitment, communication and development. Best Practices From Other Municipalities Taking a look at other municipalities that have successful governance policies can provide some helpful information to the city of Kennedale. New Zealand, for example, is very 24 THE GOVERNANCE MODEL & THE CITY OF KENNEDALE progressive in its policies particularly as they relate to boards and commissions. They are so dedicated to the establishment of good governance policies that they have created a "Community Resource Kit" that provides governmental agencies with the tools and information they need to get started. In this kit, the distinction between effective governance and management is stressed. Governance "is the role of leading an organisation and management is its day -to -day running or operating" ( "Community Resource Kit ", 2006). It is imperative to the success of each board that both the governing body and management have well - defined roles as well as a good working relationship. The kit also makes it clear that a governing body's most important duty is to determine the mission or vision of the board before it can move on to recruitment, retention, induction, succession planning and self - evaluation. Comparatively, organizations in Alberta, Canada have embraced a "Board Building" cycle in which emphasis is also placed on recruitment, training, and retention. Here, there is an ongoing process that starts with evaluating the needs of the board then leads to recruiting appropriate members. The next step of the cycle sees board members development into effective leaders and finally ends with retaining member's interests and commitment to the board. Both of these municipalities have highly evolved governance policies that can offer the City of Kennedale guidance in its own policies. Monitoring Systems Kennedale appliedcurrently uses the Carver Policy Governance model within the last year to create, implement and monitor governance policy. The model is ideal for board governance It is a comprehensive tool designed for universal application in any governing authority accountable for an enterprise, be it non - profit, corporate or city government. Carver's 25 THE GOVERNANCE MODEL & THE CITY OF KENNEDALE approach to board governance is focused primarily on the Ends and Means set by the board and the policy implementation supporting each. It holds the governing body responsible for governing the CEO of an enterprise, in the case of Kennedale, the City Manager. Most recently, the city council of Kennedale revised and set their Ends policies as is essential to the Carver Governance Policy model. The council's End policies will be applied to the objectives of the monitoring component. (Appendix F) The monitoring component of Carver's Policy Governance model is vague in design and allows governing bodies to formulate their own interpretation of monitoring priorities and frequencies based on policies in place. DOur directives from the City Manager wereas to determine if another model, specifically, the Balanced Score Card method could be well applied to address the lack in Carver's monitoring component. IOur initial research revealed some negative attributes of attempting to utilize both models for board governance and monitoring. Carver addressed the idea explicitly in an online forum and stated, "the Balanced Scorecard, along with other impressive and useful tools for management are just that, for management" (www.carvergovernance.com 4/1/2013). Carver makes it clear the board is only to act in a governing capacity under this model and should steer clear of crossing over into management functions. Kaplan and Norton, creators of the Balanced Scorecard, developed this method to solve performance measurement problems in organizations but recognized its potential to address strategy implementation issues as well. We explored Thethe idea of integrating Kaplan and Norton's Balanced Scorecard method with Carver's monitoring and reporting piece was explored. As it relates to the correlation and integration of the Balanced Scorecard and Policy Governance, there are a few things to take into consideration, such as the limitations, differences 26 THE GOVERNANCE MODEL & THE CITY OF KENNEDALE and similarities of both. A union of the Balanced Scorecard Method and Policy Governance model would require primary focus on the board's confirmation of accountability through honesty and agreement. In Policy Governance, honesty is achieved once the board sets policies. A board using Carver's policy governance attains agreement through contending on, reviewing and observing reports for the Ends and Executive LimitationMeans policies. Kaplan and Norton describe the board's obligations differently than Carver's Policy Governance Policy, arguing that boards must approve an enterprise strategy. Policy Governance's key enterprise strategy is the management tool, which does not need the board's approval. Kaplan and Norton however, believe boards should approve major financial decisions, such as yearly operational and assets finances, which are often management responsibilities. Proposals of Executive Limitation policies in certain zones of financial budgeting set the limitations where within the organization must function. As suggested by the authors of Balanced Scorecard method, the board shouldn't advise the city manager. Carver's model agrees that advice by the whole board creates uncertainty due to the absence of transparency with the city manager. Carver states, "Policy Governance challenges board members to govern, not advise" (www.lexology.com 3/21/2013). The Balanced Scorecard method plays a central role in governance, providing board members with monetary and non - monetary figures that are essential to their anticipated performance and duties. The Ends policies answer the vital questions, "what good shall we accomplish, for which people or needs, at what cost ?" ( www.lexology.com 3/21/2013) The perspective of Ends is the balance between supply distribution (cost) and consumer emphasis (good for people). Within Executive Limitations, there is stability because policies report an inclusive variety of issues including monetary, consumer, organizations and internal practices. Policy Governance offers a balanced 27 THE GOVERNANCE MODEL & THE CITY OF KENNEDALE perspective that supports and incorporates enterprise strategy within the organization, which will avoid the board interfering with decisions that should be efficiently and effectively made by solely management. Further research showed support of the integration. According to Peter Watson, editor of Public Sector Digest, the Balance Scorecard method can be used with Carver's Policy Governance Model as a monitoring component if both management and city council have set, established and agreed upon objectives. 0 The objectives must be shared and cannot differ without risking the validity of monitoring. The key variance would be the usage of metrics or indicators. For example, metrics used to measure an organizational strategy would be seen as evaluation indicators, which are reported to the city council to provide an evaluation of what transpired over the reporting period. There are five types of scorecards available to assist in accuracy of monitoring efforts: • Valuation • Navigation • Compensation • Calibration 1 • Evaluation Scorecards best used within board governance and monitoring would be those that serve as indicators of actions taken and the outcomes, actions requiring additional attention and actions items addressing the future. The practice and research of integrating Carver's Governance Policy model with Kaplan and Norton's Balanced Scorecard method as a means of monitoring is limited. Although initial 28 THE GOVERNANCE MODEL & THE CITY OF KENNEDALE research did not offer much support of the integration of methods, additional conversations amongst practicing professionals in the public sector revealed if used within context and rigidity, it could be utilized successfully. The City of Kennedale can use the Balanced Scorecard method to address the monitoring component of Carver's Governance Policy model. It is suggested, the various types of scorecards are considered in review of the current monitoring schedule. The board should decide which type of scorecard to use based on the end goal of each monitored development and adjust frequency as necessary. Executive Summary Recommendations 1. Board Selection Perhaps one of the most important aspects of a successful board is ensuring that the appropriate people are recruited for each position. The research of this paper has found that certain personality traits perform better in different boards. For example, those who like to have a strict set of codes and rules to follow would excel in a Zoning Board of Adjustment. It is crucial, then, to have a developed job description for each board that will help those who hire find the right person for the job. A written job description makes the recruitment process easier by showing prospective candidates their expected role to fill. Having clearly defined roles not only makes it easier to find candidates who meet those requirements but prospective members are more likely to volunteer if they know exactly what is expected of them. Another benefit to a well- thought job description is that it provides the information needed to create a relevant job application as shown in Appendix A. The Muttart Foundation in Canada has provided an outline 29 THE GOVERNANCE MODEL & THE CITY OF KENNEDALE of what should be included in job descriptions: the role and responsibilities of board position, the duties of board position, performance expectations, length of term, tenure of the position, benefits of being a board member and time and financial requirements. (www.muttart.org, "Developing Job Descriptions ", Pg 10) Though this outline was tailored specifically for non- profit agencies, it definitely has value for governmental entities. 2. Leadership Development A leadership development program for current and entering board members is recommended. The idea of developing board members in areas of leadership, team -work and conflict resolution is not a foreign concept. Many government agencies, non - profit organizations and corporate businesses utilize leadership focused curriculum to encourage members to equip themselves with information pertinent to their line of work. We understand individuals brought on to boards may be experts in their field or industry but may have limited to no experience serving in a board capacity. Ideally, a board leadership program will be treated as a learning opportunity; focused on leveraging the time, talent and skill of members to serve to the best of their ability. Proven programs such as Leadership Fort Worth and Project Blueprint are prime examples of comprehensive leadership development courses geared towards growing effective board and public sector leaders. The suggested frequency of leadership development training /workshops is twice a year depending on length of chosen program or in conjunction with set board trainings. 3. Board Consolidation It is recommended, based on conversations with board members, survey results and directives from the city manager, to consolidate the Arts & Culture Board with the Parks and Recreation 30 THE GOVERNANCE MODEL & THE CITY OF KENNEDALE Board. We understand the Arts & Culture Board is an integral part of the vision of Kennedale but feel it would best fit within the confines of Parks & Recreation. Many of the Arts & Culture programs occur in conjunction with Parks & Recreation. A consolidation of this manner would not adversely affect either board's goals or visions for the future. 4. Board Alignment with Governance Policies Once the Ends and Means are defined, and council has made the transition to follow the Governance Model, alignment of additional boards must occur. The process of culture change essentially begins with targeting one of the three layers of organizational culture — observable artifacts, espoused values or basic assumptions. Culture will not change in a significant way unless managers are able to change basic underlying assumptions. Ed Schein, OB scholar, notes, "Changing organizational culture involves a teaching process." Members of the organization teach each other about the organization's preferred values, beliefs, expectations and behaviors. This may be a timely process, but once the culture is changed to follow this model, Governance will be achieved as intended. 5. Training Board training conveys the knowledge and understanding needed by board members in order to effectively carry out their roles as members of the organization's board of directors. Selection of the particular training topics and training methods depend on the nature and needs of the organization. However, the following guidelines and sample agenda may prove useful to boards and councils as they develop their own approach to board training. (Schein, E. 18 -23) Schein recommends the following Regarding Timing of the Session 31 THE GOVERNANCE MODEL & THE CITY OF KENNEDALE 1. Conduct board training once a year, whether you have new board members or not. It's amazing how the "basics" helps to ground and integrate the knowledge and understanding of even highly experienced board members. Recurring training also helps to ensure that board members are all "working from the same script ". 2. Conduct board training shortly after new members are elected to the board. This scheduling helps new members quickly gain understanding of their roles and contributions to the organization. This understanding often increases their participation and fulfillment regarding their roles as board members. Who Should Be Involved in Planning the Session 1. Design of the board training should include at least the chief executive officer and board chair. Ideally, the organization also has a board development committee whose chair can provide strong participation in the training. If timing permits, discuss ideas with all board members to collect their feedback and review. Selecting Topics and Materials for Board Training 1. Results of the board self - evaluation should be carefully considered when selecting training topics. For example, if the evaluation indicated the board members don't understand their roles as board members, then ensure that training places strong focus on this topic during training 2. Be sure to include review of the board manual in the training session. The manual is the key resource for members to collect, organize and reference resources needed to carry 32 THE GOVERNANCE MODEL & THE CITY OF KENNEDALE out their roles as board member. Members should take seriously their manual and the use of it. 3. Materials you'll need often include: a) Board manual (for an idea of contents to include in the manual, see Sample Board Manual Index) b) Advertising and promotions materials about the organization and its programs c) Copy of the most recent strategic plan Members' Preparation for Training 1. Provide the board training agenda, board manual and promotions materials to members at least two weeks before the meeting. Ask them to review the materials before the meeting. 5. Performance Evaluation Performance Evaluation is a tool for both the decision - makers and leaders of an organization to formally analyze board members for the City of Kennedale. This evaluation will be a tool for the City Manager to gain a better understanding of the members of these boards. It is also a tool to ensure each member of the prospective board is held accountable to their responsibilities. This type of review would help the City Manager gain a better understanding of each board member's abilities, strengths and weaknesses. In addition after identifying each member's achievements and job progress, an evaluation will better enable the City Manager to design training for further development of their skills and strengths. It is recommended that the City of Kennedale adopt an annual evaluation policy that includes two components: a self - evaluation and a group evaluation. It is imperative that at the start of each board member's cycle, 33 THE GOVERNANCE MODEL & THE CITY OF KENNEDALE on their prospective board, that the City Manager meet with the newly elected member to formally review the responsibilities of their position. It is recommended that the formal evaluation take place annually, however, discussions about responsibilities and performance should occur consistently throughout the year, on an as- needed basis. According to The Muttart Foundation, there are many benefits of an appraisal system, including: "a better understanding of the work of each member, clarity on the progress of the organization towards its mission, more effective responses to changes in funding, community needs, and strategic direction, better communication between the City Manager, City Council and City Committees, identification of opportunities, challenges and areas of concern that can be addressed before problems arise, an agreement on specific priorities and goals for each period and improved performance" (www.muttart.org). (See Appendix E) Closing Statement The University of Texas at Arlington Capstone Project team concludes research on Governance Policy and its application to the City of Kennedale. The report details findings on governance best practices, board dynamics and organizational culture. These research findings support the feasibility of a successful Governance Policy implementation. Recommendations were made with knowledge of current challenges and a focus on opportunities for change; to redefine board selection processes, develop board leadership, offer comprehensive trainings, better align boards and evaluate board performance Enhancements to the identified areas of improvement and some innovation on the part of board and council will aid in an effective adoption of the Governance Policy model. It has been a distinct honor to work with the staff, board and council of the City of Kennedale on this project. The team's hope is that this report 34 THE GOVERNANCE MODEL & THE CITY OF KENNEDALE will be a useful tool of reference as the Kennedale continues efforts to apply the Governance Policy model. vi\)94, REFERENCES Bremer, M., Lamers, M., (2013, April). Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument Online Retrieved from www.ocai - online.com 35 THE GOVERNANCE MODEL & THE CITY OF KENNEDALE Briggs- Myers, I., (2013, April). The Myers Briggs & Foundation. Retrieved from www.myersbriggs.org Carver, M., Carver, J. (2013 March, April). Policy Governance. Retrieved from www.carvergovernance.org Kinnicki, A, Tamkins, M. Organizational Culture and Climate. Vancouver: Greenstones Books, 1999. Print Schien, Ed. Organizational Culture. Anchorage: Alaska Northwest Books, 1990. Print The Muttart Foundation (1995). Board building: Recruiting and developing effective board members for not-for-profit organizations. Retrieved from http: / /www.muttart.org Community Resource Kit. (2006). Retrieved from http://www.community.net.nz/NR/rdonlyres/5A1F72B8-D63E-46BB- 85 92- EB8A44B 71D79/76090/DIA_CRK Section 4.pdf The Muttart Foundation. (2013, April) Board Development. Hiring and Performance Appraisal of the Executive Director. Retrieved from www.muttart.org Quinn, R. (1988). Beyond rational management: mastering the paradoxes and competing demands of high performance. San Fransisco, Ca: Jossey -Bass. Appendix A — 2013 Survey Questions Q1: On which board do you serve? Q2: How long have you served on this board /commission /council? Q3: Have you served on other boards /commissions /councils, in addition to your current service? Q4: What is the total number of years you served on all boards /commissions /councils? Q5: I am satisfied with communication within my Board /Commission /Council Q6: I am satisfied with communication between Boards /Commissions /Councils in the City of Kennedale 36 THE GOVERNANCE MODEL & THE CITY OF KENNEDALE Q7: I am proud to serve the residents of Kennedale Q8: Board /Commission /City Council members are recognized by the City of Kennedale for service Q9: Many good ideas get lost because of the lack of communication between the Boards /Commissions WITH the City Council Q10: I have a clear understanding of the vision of Kennedale Q11: Are you confident in the vision of Kennedale? Q12: There is a good relationship between the community and my Board /Commission /Council 013: The City of Kennedale Staff and Board /Commission /Council members work together effectively Q14: I am supported when I ask for additional information to make decisions 015: We have a clear vision for the future of the Board /Commission /Council in its relationship with the City of Kennedale Q16: As a Board /Commission /Council we work in partnership with others to better influence the development of Kennedale 017: Treatment of Board and Commission members is consistent across the City of Kennedale 018: The training that I have received as a Board /Commission /Council member is adequate for the job that I do Q19: It is important for all Board /Commission members to understand their role Board /Commission in relation to other Boards /Commissions /Councils Q20: We should have city wide Board /Commission /Council events at least once a year Q21: My Board /Commission /Council meets often enough to adequately perform its responsibilities well Q22: Actions are taken as a result of the Board /Commission /Council meetings Q23: Board /Commission /Councils communicate with each other when setting priorities Q24: The City Council is open to new ideas and change Q25: Board /Commission Chairs (or in the case of City Council, Mayor) are open to new ideas and change Q26: Boards /Commissions make policy recommendations to the City Council Q27: Boards /Commissions monitor department outcomes and report to the City Council Q28: Boards /Commissions makes operational decisions for the City Council Q29: City of Kennedale employees have adequate training in communication skills Q30: The facility in which we meet in enables suitable contact with citizens Q31: We work well and cohesively with residents and organizations Q32: We have regular discussions as a Board /Commission /Council on expected outcomes and results from the work we are undertaking Q33: The Board /Commission /Council find it difficult to communicate with each other Q34: Our procedures impede how we can better work between Boards /Commissions and the City Council Q35: There is adequate City staff to provide support to my Board /Commission /Council Q36: Our Board /Commission /Council utilizes up to date equipment to gain efficiencies Q37: We work collectively as Board /Commission /City Council to reduce duplication and streamline our involvement time Q38: There are equal opportunities for all citizens to be appointed to Boards /Commissions and the City Council regardless of diversity, gender or age Q39: The City Council does not fully understand what Boards /Commissions does Q40: We tend to operate reactively rather than proactively Q41: We have regular discussion as a Board /Commission /Council on expected outcomes of decisions Q42: Information made available to the community about City initiatives is coordinated and consistent Q43: My Board /Commission /Council considers long -term implications when making decisions Q44: Enhanced Board /Commission /Council member orientation would make us more effective Q45: We celebrate our success within the community Q46: There is a variation across Boards /Commissions /Councils in resources to accomplish tasks Q47: I perceive my role as a leader of outcomes for my board Q48: Regular attendance of members on my Board /Commission /Council is a problem 37 THE GOVERNANCE MODEL & THE CITY OF KENNEDALE Appendix B — 2007 Survey Results Question Strong Disagreeme nt Disagre ement Some Disagreem ent Neu tral Some Agreeme nt Agree ment Strong n Agreemen t Q1: I am satisfied with communication within my Board /Commission /Council 3% 0% 8% 6% 36% 28% 19% 02: I am satisfied with communication between Boards /Commissions /Councils in the City of Kennedale 3% 17% 22% 8% 31% 8% 11% Q3: I am proud to serve the citizens of Kennedale 3% 0% 0% 3% 3% 31% 61% Q4: Board /Commission /City Council members are recognized by the City of Kennedale for doing a good job 3% 11% 8% 19% 25% 25% 8% 05: Many good ideas get lost because Boards and Commissions do not communicate with each other 6% 8% 14% 14% 39% 11% 8% Q6: We work in a co- operative manner across Boards and Commissions 8% 11% 36% 17% 8% 11% 8% Q7: A clear vision for the City of Kennedale is required 3% 0% 6% 3% 8% 28% 53% Q8: There is a good relationship with the community and my Board /Commission /Council 3% 3% 17% 14% 22% 25% 17% Q9: The City of Kennedale staff and Board /Commission /Council members work together effectively 0% 6% 19% 0% 22% 33% 19% 010: I am supported when I ask for additional information to make decisions 0% 0% 6% 8% 19% 39% 28% 011: The City is creative in developing programs across departments that advance the City 11% 14% 22% 17% 19% 17% 0% 012: We have a clear vision for the future of the Board /Commission /Council in its relationship with the City of Kennedale 17% 11% 19% 8% 25% 8% 11% 013: As an Board /Commission /Council we need to work in partnership with others to better influence the development of Kennedale 0% 0% 0% 0% 8% 28% 64% 014: Treatment of Board and Commission members is consistent across the City of Kenneda le 6% 6% 14% 28% 19% 22% 6% 015: The training that I have received as a Board /Commission /Council member is adequate for the job that I do 3% 3% 14% 17% 19% 39% 6% Q16: It is important for all Board /Commission members to understand where their Board /Commission fits in relation to other Boards /Commissions and the City Council 0% 0% 0% 0% 8% 36% 56% 017: We should have city wide Board /Commission /Council events at least once a year 0% 3% 3% 3% 11% 39% 42% 018: Board /Commission /Council should concentrate more on collective discussion with other Boards / Commissions /Councils rather than just their own function 3% 3% 11% 11% 25% 22% 25% 019: My Board /Commission /Council meetings are conducted at least once a month 3% 0% 3% 8% 6% 25% 56% Q20: My Board /Commission /Council meets often enough to adequately perform its responsibilities well 8% 3% 11% 8% 8% 31% 31% 021: Actions are taken as a result of the Board /Commission /Council meetings 0% 0% 8% 3% 25% 33% 31% Q22: Board /Commission /Councils communicate with each other when setting priorities 6% 17% 17% 17% 19% 17% 8% Q23: Different areas of the City organization find it difficult to communicate with each other 6% 11% 11% 31% 25% 8% 8% Q24: Board /Commission Chairs and the City Council are open to new ideas and change 3% 6% 19% 17% 25% 25% 6% Q25: Board /Commission Chairs and the City Council are open to new ideas and change 3% 0% 11% 19% 25% 39% 3% Q26: Boards /Commissions make policy recommendations to the City Council 0% 0% 3% 3% 47% 33% 14% Q27: Boards /Commissions monitor department outcomes and report to the City Council 3% 14% 17% 11% 25% 17% 14% 38 THE GOVERNANCE MODEL & THE CITY OF KENNEDALE Q28: Boards /Commissions makes operational decisions for the City Council 8% 14% 22% 31% 11% 11% 3% Q29: City of Kennedale employees that we have contact with have adequate training in communication skills 0% 6% 14% 6% 25% 28% 22% 030: The meeting facility in which we meet in enables suitable contact with citizens 6% 0% 6% 3% 14% 36% 36% Q31: We work well with citizens and organizations 3% 0% 11% 8% 25% 31% 22% Q32: We have regular discussions as a Board /Commission /Council on expected outcomes — results from the work we are undertaking 8% 14% 8% 11% 19% 22% 17% Q33: Our procedures impede how we can better work between Boards /Commissions and the City Council 6% 17% 19% 39% 8% 6% 6% Q34: There is adequate City staff to provide support to my Board /Commission /Council 0% 0% 8% 14% 17% 39% 22% Q35: Our Board /Commission /Council utilizes up to date equipment to enable efficiencies to be gained 0% 3% 17% 33% 11% 22% 14% Q36: We work collectively as Board /Commission /City Council to reduce duplication and streamline our involvement time 3% 3% 11% 33% 25% 17% 8% Q37: I feel supported by City organization staff 0% 0% 8% 11% 17% 28% 36% Q38: There are equal opportunities for all citizens to be appointed to Boards /Commissions and the City Council regardless of diversity, gender or age 3% 0% 6% 0% 11% 47% 33% Q39: The City Council does not fully understand what Boards /Commissions does 19% 22% 25% 8% 22% 3% 0% Q40: We tend to operate in crisis mode 22% 28% 22% 8% 17% 3% 0% 041: New ideas that are brought forward are considered 0% 0% 8% 6% 33% 33% 19% Q42: City of Kennedale information going into the community on City initiatives is coordinated and consistent 8% 14% 17% 19% 28% 14% 0% Q43: The long term implications are considered as part of organizational changes 0% 8% 17% 8% 33% 25% 8% Q44: Better Board /Commission /Council member orientation would make us more effective 0% 3% 3% 14% 28% 33% 19% Q45: We celebrate our success within the community 6% 11% 19% 11% 36% 11% 6% Q46: There is a variation across Boards /Commissions /Councils in resources to get things done 6% 8% 3% 53% 14% 17% 0% Q47: I perceive my role as a gate keeper 14% 11% 14% 31% 14% 17% 0% 39 THE GOVERNANCE MODEL & THE CITY OF KENNEDALE Appendix C — 2013 Survey Results Q1: On which Board do you serve? Answer Options City Council Arts & Culture Board Board of Adjustment Kennedale Economic Development Corporation Keep Kennedale Beautiful Commission Library Advisory Board Parks & Recreation Board Planning & Zoning Commission Youth Advisory Council Response Percent 15.0% 5.0% 12.5% 12.5% 7.5% 5.0% 12.5% 15.0% 15.0% Response Count 6 2 5 5 3 2 5 6 6 answered question skipped question 40 0 Q2: How long have you served on this board /commission /council? Answer Options Less than one year One to three years Three to five years Five or more years Response Percent 20.0% 37.5% 12.5% 30.0% Response Count 8 15 5 12 answered question skipped question 40 0 Have you served on other Boards /Commissions /Councils, in addition to your current service? Answer Options Response Percent Yes 45.0% No 55.0% Please specify which Board /Commission /Council, where and when you served Response Count 18 22 18 answered question skipped question 40 0 THE GOVERNANCE MODEL & THE CITY OF KENNEDALE 4. What is the total number of years you served on all boards /commissions /councils? Answer Options answered question Respons e Count 40 40 Num Response Text ber 1 06/07/2013 2 4 3 Five 4 4 5 0 6 5 7 approximately 4 plus years 8 Less than one year 9 1 10 11 years 11 less than one 12 I have served on the Library Board for about 10 years. 13 Do not wish to provide a response 14 15 months 15 2 16 6 17 05/06/2013 18 6 19 10 years 20 5 21 2 22 1 23 2 24 7 25 2 26 10 years '•,$) 27 3 28 18 29 10 to 15 30 3 31 8 32 3 33 10 34 23 35 Four 36 1 37 3 38 15 39 17 years 40 1 41 THE GOVERNANCE MODEL & THE CITY OF KENNEDALE Question Strong Disagre ement Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree 05: I am satisfied with communication within my Board /Commission /Council 0.0% 2.5% 10.0% 45.0% 42.5% Q6: I am satisfied with communication between Boards /Commissions /Councils in the City of Kennedale 0.0% 5.0% 27.5% 40.0% 27.5% 07: I am proud to serve the residents of Kennedale 2.5% 0.0% 2.5% 17.5% 77.5% 08: Board /Commission /City Council members are recognized by the City of Kennedale for service 0.0% 0.0% 2.5% 45.0% 52.5% Q9: Many good ideas get lost because of the lack of communication between the Boards /Commissions WITH the City Council 15.0% 45.0% 27.5% 12.5% 0.0% 010: I have a clear understanding of the vision of Kenneda le 0.0% 2.5% 12.5% 50.0% 14.0% 011: Are you confident in the vision of Kennedale? 0.0% 0.0% 15.0% 50.0% 35.0% Q12: There is a good relationship between the community and my Board /Commission /Council 0.0% 0.0% 22.5% 50.0% 27.5% Q13: The City of Kennedale Staff and Board /Commission /Council members work together effectively 0.0% 0.0% 20.0% 37.5% 42.5% 014: I am supported when I ask for additional information to make decisions 0.0% 0.0% 5.0% 37.5% 57.5% Q15: We have a clear vision for the future of the Board /Commission /Council in its relationship with the City of Kennedale 0.0% 5.0% 17.5% 45.0% 32.5% 016: As a Board /Commission /Council we work in partnership with others to better influence the development of Kennedale 0.0% 0.0% 7.5% 55.0% 37.5% 017: Treatment of Board and Commission members is consistent across the City of Kennedale 0.0% 5.0% 22.5% 55.0% 17.5% Q18: The training that I have received as a Board /Commission /Council member is adequate for the job that I do 0.0% 10.0% 15.0% 52.5% 22.5% 019: It is important for all Board /Commission members to understand their role Board /Commission in relation to other Boards /Commissions /Councils 0.0% 0.0% 5.0% 40.0% 55.0% 020: We should have city wide Board /Commission /Council events at least once a year 0.0% 2.5% 7.5% 37.5% 52.5% Q21: My Board /Commission /Council meets often enough to adequately perform its responsibilities well 1.0% 0.0% 7.5% 57.5% 32.5% Q22: Actions are taken as a result of the Board /Commission /Council meetings 2.5% 0.0% 10.0% 50.0% 37.5% Q23: Board /Commission /Councils communicate with each other when setting priorities 0.0% 7.5% 30.0% 42.5% 20.0% Q24: The City Council is open to new ideas and change 0.0% 2.5% 7.5% 65.0% 25.0% 025: Board /Commission Chairs (or in the case of City Council, Mayor) are open to new ideas and change 0.0% 0.0% 10.0% 65.0% 25.0% Q26: Boards /Commissions make policy recommendations to the City Council 0.0% 5.0% 25.0% 40.0% 30.0% Q27: Boards /Commissions monitor department outcomes and report to the City Council 0.0% 10.0% 45.0% 32.5% 12.5% Q28: Boards /Commissions makes operational decisions for the City Council 2.5% 27.5% 35.0% 27.5% 7.5% Q29: City of Kennedale employees have adequate training in communication skills 0.0% 0.0% 30.0% 45.0% 25.0% Q30: The facility in which we meet in enables suitable contact with citizens 0.0% 0.0% 10.0% 42.5% 47.5% 031: We work well and cohesively with residents and organizations 0.0% 5.0% 15.0% 60.0% 20.0% Q32: We have regular discussions as a Board /Commission /Council on expected outcomes and results from the work we are undertaking 0.0% 10.0% 15.0% 50.0% 25.0% Q33: The Board /Commission /Council find it difficult to communicate with each other 22.5% 47.5% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% 034: Our procedures impede how we can better work between Boards /Commissions and the City Council 15.0% 42.5% 25.0% 12.5% 5.0% Q35: There is adequate City staff to provide support to my Board /Commission /Council 0.0% 2.5% 15.0% 52.5% 30.0% Q36: Our Board /Commission /Council utilizes up to date equipment to gain efficiences 0.0% 12.5% 22.5% 55.0% 10.0% 037: We work collectively as Board /Commission /City Council to reduce duplication and streamline our involvement time 2.5% 7.5% 20.0% 52.5% 17.5% Q38: There are equal opportunities for all citizens to be appointed to Boards /Commissions and the City Council regardless of diversity, gender or age 0.0% 2.5% 10.0% 40.0% 47.5% Q39: The City Council does not fully understand what Boards /Commissions does 37.5% 40.0% 17.5% 2.5% 2.5% Q40: We tend to operate reactively rather than proactively 25.0% 37.5% 25.0% 12.5% 0.0% 041: We have regular discussion as a Board /Commission /Council on expected outcomes of decisions 2.5% 15.0% 17.5% 40.0% 25.0% 042: Information made available to the community about City initiatives is coordinated and consistent 0.0% 7.5% 12.5% 52.5% 27.5% 043: My Board /Commission /Council considers long -term implications when making decisions 0.0% 5.0% 5.0% 50.0% 40.0% Q44: Enhanced Board /Commission /Council member orientation would mnake us more effective 0.0% 5.0% 35.0% 40.0% 20.0% 045: We celebrate our success within the community 0.0% 5.0% 7.5% 55.0% 32.5% Q46: There is a variation across Boards /Commissions /Councils in resources to accomplish tasks 2.5% 20.0% 40.0% 27.5% 10.0% Q47: I perceive my role as a leader of outcomes for my board 0.0% 2.5% 22.5% 57.5% 17.5% Q48: Regular attendance of members on my Board /Commission /Council is a problem 20.0% 40.0% 17.5% 12.5% 10.0% APPENDIX D 42 THE GOVERNANCE MODEL & THE CITY OF KENNEDALE Myers Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) — Jung Typology Test * *The following questions were used in the MBTI administered to the City of Kennedale's council and board members. The answer options were "YES or NO" * *Test Web Address (Humanetrics): http:// www. humanmetrics .comicgi- win/JTypes2.asp 1. You are almost never late for your appointments 2. You like to be engaged in an active and fast -paced job 3. You enjoy having a wide circle of acquaintances 4. You feel involved when watching TV soaps 5. You are usually the first to react to a sudden event, such as the telephone ringing or unexpected question 6. You are more interested in a general idea than in the details of its realization 7. You tend to be unbiased even if this might endanger your good relations with people 8. Strict observance of the established rules is likely to prevent a good outcome 9. It's difficult to get you excited 10. It is in your nature to assume responsibility 11. You often think about humankind and its destiny 12. You believe the best decision is one that can be easily changed 13. Objective criticism is always useful in any activity 14. You prefer to act immediately rather than speculate about various options 15. You trust reason rather than feelings 16. You are inclined to rely more on improvisation than on prior planning 17. You spend your leisure time actively socializing with a group of people, attending parties, shopping, etc. 18. You usually plan your actions in advance 43 THE GOVERNANCE MODEL & THE CITY OF KENNEDALE 19. Your actions are frequently influenced by emotions 20. You are a person somewhat reserved and distant in communication 21. You know how to put every minute of your time to good purpose 22. You readily help people while asking nothing in return 23. You often contemplate the complexity of life 24. After prolonged socializing you feel you need to get away and be alone 25. You often do jobs in a hurry 26. You easily see the general principle behind specific occurrences 27. You frequently and easily express your feelings and emotions 28. You find it difficult to speak loudly 29. You get bored if you have to read theoretical books 30. You tend to sympathize with other people 31. You value justice higher than mercy 32. You rapidly get involved in the social life of a new workplace 33. The more people with whom you speak, the better you feel 34. You tend to rely on your experience rather than on theoretical alternatives 35. You like to keep a check on how things are progressing 36. You easily empathize with the concerns of other people 37. You often prefer to read a book than go to a party 38. You enjoy being at the center of events in which other people are directly involved 39. You are more inclined to experiment than to follow familiar approaches 40. You avoid being bound by obligations 41. You are strongly touched by stories about people's troubles 44 THE GOVERNANCE MODEL & THE CITY OF KENNEDALE 42. Deadlines seem to you to be of relative, rather than absolute, importance 43. You prefer to isolate yourself from outside noises 44. It's essential for you to try things with your own hands 45. You think that almost everything can be analyzed 46. Failing to complete your task on time makes you rather uncomfortable 47. You take pleasure in putting things in order 48. You feel at ease in a crowd 49. You have good control over your desires and temptations 50. You easily understand new theoretical principles 51. The process of searching for a solution is more important to you than the solution itself 52. You usually place yourself nearer to the side than in the center of a room 53. When solving a problem you would rather follow a familiar approach than seek a new one 54. You try to stand firmly by your principles 55. A thirst for adventure is close to your heart 56. You prefer meeting in small groups over interaction with lots of people 57. When considering a situation you pay more attention to the current situation and less to a possible sequence of events 58. When solving a problem you consider the rational approach to be the best 59. You find it difficult to talk about your feelings 60. You often spend time thinking of how things could be improved 61. Your decisions are based more on the feelings of a moment than on the thorough planning 62. You prefer to spend your leisure time alone or relaxing in a tranquil atmosphere 45 THE GOVERNANCE MODEL & THE CITY OF KENNEDALE 63. You feel more comfortable sticking to conventional ways 64. You are easily affected by strong emotions 65. You are always looking for opportunities 66. Your desk, workbench, etc. is usually neat and orderly 67. As a rule, current preoccupations worry you more than your future plans 68. You get pleasure from solitary walks 69. It is easy for you to communicate in social situations 70. You are consistent in your habits 71. You willingly involve yourself in matters which engage your sympathies 72. You easily perceive various ways in which events could develop * *Details of the MBTI according to the Myers & Briggs Foundation (www.myersbriggs.org). The 16 Personality Types of the MBTI instrument: ISTJ ISFJ INFJ INTJ ISTP ISFP INFP INTP ESTP ESFP ENFP ENTP ESTJ ESFJ ENFJ ENTJ The 16 MBTI Types - Descriptions ISTJ Quiet, serious, earn success by thoroughness and dependability. Practical, matter -of -fact, realistic, and responsible. Decide logically what should be done and work toward it steadily, regardless of distractions. Take pleasure in making everything orderly and organized — their work, their home, their life. Value traditions and loyalty. ISFJ Quiet, friendly, responsible, and conscientious. Committed and steady in meeting their obligations. Thorough, painstaking, and accurate. Loyal, considerate, notice and remember specifics about people who are important to them, concerned with how others feel. Strive to create an orderly and harmonious environment at work and at home. 46 THE GOVERNANCE MODEL & THE CITY OF KENNEDALE INFJ Seek meaning and connection in ideas, relationships, and material possessions. Want to understand what motivates people and are insightful about others. Conscientious and committed to their firm values. Develop a clear vision about how best to serve the common good. Organized and decisive in implementing their vision. INTJ Have original minds and great drive for implementing their ideas and achieving their goals. Quickly see patterns in external events and develop long -range explanatory perspectives. When committed, organize a job and carry it through. Skeptical and independent, have high standards of competence and performance — for themselves and others. ISTP Tolerant and flexible, quiet observers until a problem appears, then act quickly to find workable solutions. Analyze what makes things work and readily get through large amounts of data to isolate the core of practical problems. Interested in cause and effect, organize facts using logical principles, value efficiency. ISFP Quiet, friendly, sensitive, and kind. Enjoy the present moment, what's going on around them. Like to have their own space and to work within their own time frame. Loyal and committed to their values and to people who are important to them. Dislike disagreements and conflicts, do not force their opinions or values on others. INFP Idealistic, loyal to their values and to people who are important to them. Want an external life that is congruent with their values. Curious, quick to see possibilities, can be catalysts for implementing ideas. Seek to understand people and to help them fulfill their potential. Adaptable, flexible, and accepting unless a value is threatened. INTP Seek to develop logical explanations for everything that interests them. Theoretical and abstract, interested more in ideas than in social interaction. Quiet, contained, flexible, and adaptable. Have unusual ability to focus in depth to solve problems in their area of interest. Skeptical, sometimes critical, always analytical. ESTP Flexible and tolerant, they take a pragmatic approach focused on immediate results. Theories and conceptual explanations bore them — they want to act energetically to solve the problem. Focus on the here - and -now, spontaneous, enjoy each moment that they can be active with others. Enjoy material comforts and style. Learn best through doing. ESFP Outgoing, friendly, and accepting. Exuberant lovers of life, people, and material comforts. Enjoy working with others to make things happen. Bring common sense and a realistic approach to their work, and make work fun. Flexible and spontaneous, adapt readily to new people and environments. Learn best by trying a new skill with other people. ENFP Warmly enthusiastic and imaginative. See life as full of possibilities. Make connections between events and information very quickly, and confidently proceed based on the patterns they see. Want a lot of affirmation from others, and readily give appreciation and support. Spontaneous and flexible, often rely on their ability to improvise and their verbal fluency. ENTP Quick, ingenious, stimulating, alert, and outspoken. Resourceful in solving new and challenging problems. Adept at generating conceptual possibilities and then analyzing them strategically. Good at reading other people. Bored by routine, will seldom do the same thing the same way, apt to turn to one new interest after another. ESTJ Practical, realistic, matter -of -fact. Decisive, quickly move to implement decisions. Organize projects and people to get things done, focus on getting results in the most efficient way possible. Take care of routine details. Have a clear set of logical standards, systematically follow them and want others to also. Forceful in implementing their plans. ESFJ Warmhearted, conscientious, and cooperative. Want harmony in their environment, work with determination to establish it. Like to work with others to complete tasks accurately and on time. Loyal, follow through even in small matters. Notice what others need in their day -by -day lives and try to provide it. Want to be appreciated for who they are and for what they contribute. 47 THE GOVERNANCE MODEL & THE CITY OF KENNEDALE ENFJ Warm, empathetic, responsive, and responsible. Highly attuned to the emotions, needs, and motivations of others. Find potential in everyone, want to help others fulfill their potential. May act as catalysts for individual and group growth. Loyal, responsive to praise and criticism. Sociable, facilitate others in a group, and provide inspiring leadership. ENTJ Frank, decisive, assume leadership readily. Quickly see illogical and inefficient procedures and policies, develop and implement comprehensive systems to solve organizational problems. Enjoy long -term planning and goal setting. Usually well informed, well read, enjoy expanding their knowledge and passing it on to others. Forceful in presenting their ideas. 4€3 THE GOVERNANCE MODEL & THE CITY OF KENNEDALE APPENDIX E Self- Evaluation Board Member: 1. How do you assess your contribution to this ministry? (You might want to include such things as: attendance at board meetings, participation, promotion and fund - raising, prayer, committee work, or any other areas on which you would like to comment) 2. Do you feel that your financial contributions to the ministry are at a level which is "personally significant" for you? Why or why not? 3. How has our ministry invested in your growth as a board member? 4. What would you like to contribute to or involve yourself in if you were to serve another term? 5. How would you like our ministry to invest in and facilitate your personal development as a board member? 6. What changes would you suggest, as a board member, in the operation and involvement of the board? 1 FULL BOARD EVALUATION Rankings go from 1 = Low /Disagree up to 5 = High /Agree Board Activity 49 LOW HIGH 1 5 THE GOVERNANCE MODEL & THE CITY OF KENNEDALE The board operates under a set of policies, procedures, and guidelines with 1' which all members are familiar. 2. The Executive Committee reports to the board on all actions taken. There are standing committees of the board that meet regularly and report 3' to the board. 4. Board meetings are well attended, with near full turnout at each meeting. 5. Each board member has at least one committee assignment. 6. Nomination and appointment of board members follow clearly established procedures using known criteria. Newly elected board members receive adequate orientation to their role and 7' what is expected of them. '— $ Each board meeting includes an opportunity for learning about the organization's activities. 9. The board follows its policy that defines term limits for board members. 10. The board fully understands and is supportive of the strategic planning process of the ministry. 50 THE GOVERNANCE MODEL & THE CITY OF KENNEDALE Board members receive meeting agendas and supporting materials in time 11. for adequate advance review. 12 The board adequately oversees the financial performance and fiduciary accountability of the organization. The board receives regular financial updates and takes necessary steps to 13. ensure the operations of the organization are sound. 14. The board regularly reviews and evaluates the performance of the CEO. 15. The board actively engages in discussion around significant issues. The board chair effectively and appropriately leads and facilitates the board 16. meetings and the policy and governance work of the board. Mission and Purpose Statements of the organization's mission are well understood and supported 1 by the board. 51 LOW HIGH 1 2 3 4 5 THE GOVERNANCE MODEL & THE CITY OF KENNEDALE 2. Board meeting presentations and discussions consistently reference the organization's mission statement. 3. The board reviews the organization's performance in carrying out the stated mission on a regular basis. 1. Governance / Partnership Alignment The board exercises its governance role: 1) Ensuring that the organization supports and upholds the mission statement, core values, statement of faith, vision statement, and partnership policies. The board periodically reviews, and is familiar with, the organization's 2. partnership core documents. (Note: This item applies when a ministry has partnered with other ministries.) 3. The board reviews its own performance and measures its own effectiveness in governance work. 1 4. The board is actively engaged in the board development processes. Board Organization 1. Information provided by staff is adequate to ensure effective board governance and decision - making. 52 THE GOVERNANCE MODEL & THE CITY OF KENNEDALE 2. The committee structure logically addresses the organization's areas of operation. 3. All committees have adequate agendas and minutes for each meeting. 4. All committees address issues of substance. Board Meetings 1. Board meetings are frequent enough to ensure effective governance. 2. Board meetings are long enough to accomplish the board's work. 3. Board members fully and positively participate in discussions. LOW HIGH 1 2 3 4 5 Board Membership The board size is adequate to effectively govern the organization. 2. The board has a range of talents, experience, and knowledge to accomplish its role. 53 THE GOVERNANCE MODEL & THE CITY OF KENNEDALE 3. The board uses its members' talents and skills effectively. 4. The board makeup is diverse with experience, skills, ethnicity, gender, denomination, and age group. 5. Fellow board members review each member's performance at the end of every three -year term. 6. Each board member participates in financially supporting the organization on an annual basis. 7. The board demonstrates a deep spiritual commitment to Jesus Christ, to the Christian mission of our organization, and to obedience to God's word as revealed in the scriptures. Administration and Staff Support 1. The committee structure provides adequate contact with administration and staff. 2. Communication is strong and clear between the board and staff. 3. Staff support before, during, and after -board meetings is effective. 54 THE GOVERNANCE MODEL & THE CITY OF KENNEDALE Please make any other comments about the work and effectiveness of our boards: Appendix F - City of Kennedale - Ends Policies Ends Statement Kennedale is a family- oriented community (1.0) providing a refuge (2.0) from the hectic pace of the Dallas /Fort Worth Metroplex. Open spaces, green belts, and trails enhance our serenity (3.0), quality of life (4.0) and community (5.0). With easy access (6.0) from major roadways, Kennedale is economically prosperous, business friendly and conveniently located, providing opportunities to shop, work and play (7.0). Sub -ends 1.0 Residents are engaged in community, civic activities, and events. 1.1 Kennedale TownCenter is a community gathering point for events and retail services 1.2 Residents proactively receive accurate, timely dissemination of general information and emerging issues 1.3 Services are in place to support families 1.4 Kennedale is promoted locally, regionally, and nationally as desirable for home and work 1.5 Well planned community following sustainable principles 1.5.1 Kennedale has excellent neighborhoods and a wide range of home options 1.5.2 Residents have views of natural landscapes 1.5.3 Residents have access to adequate medical care, healthy foods, and opportunities to incorporate physical activity as part of their daily routines 55 THE GOVERNANCE MODEL & THE CITY OF KENNEDALE 1.5.4 Residents enjoy community based activities, e.g., Christmas Tree Lighting, Brickyard Festival /Art in the Park, and Texas Independence Day Parade, Kid Fish, Bark in the Park, a community theater, etc. 1.6 Business uses are compatible with residential areas 1.7 Kennedale has excellent educational services 1.7.1 Residents enjoy excellent library services 1.7.2 KISD is an exemplary school system 1.7.3 Fellowship Academy is a highly regarded private school within a Christian atmosphere 1.7.4 Home - school opportunities and networks are available 2.0 Kennedale entry points are pastoral and serene 2.1.1 The north entry point is defined by Village Creek as a natural open space 2.2 Kennedale Parkway is physically attractive 2.3 Sidewalks and landscaping are an integral to the community 2.4 Trees and natural spaces are preserved 3.0 Kennedale has an outstanding parks system that includes neighborhood parks, a comprehensive linear park system, and recreational facilities located throughout town. 3.1 Village Creek is restored as a linear park that provides excellent water quality and habitat 3.2 Hike and bike trails run throughout Kennedale and are connected to the regional trail system 4.0 Kennedale residents receive excellent municipal services with a staff that is proactive and responsive to residents needs 4.1 The Kennedale municipal government is well governed 4.2 Residents and stakeholders feel safe at home and at work in Kennedale. 4.2.1 Fire and EMS, police, and animal control services are provided promptly and skillfully 4.2.2 Residents enjoy a safe environment free from the threat of natural, technological, or man made threats 4.3 Fiscal Resources are managed productively, responsibly, and ethically. 4.4 Kennedale has a quality water, sewer, and stormwater drainage utility system 4.5 Residents and visitors receive fair treatment through the municipal court system 4.6 Buildings are constructed and maintained in compliance with national codes 4.7 Kennedale city government is financially responsible and sustainable 4.8 City staff maintains a cooperative and collaborative working relationships based on an Integrative work culture consistent with the core values of integrity, accountability, teamwork, innovation and commitment 5.0 Kennedale is a well planned community based on principles of a connected city, economic prosperity, and a thriving community 56 THE GOVERNANCE MODEL & THE CITY OF KENNEDALE 6.0 Kennedale is a connected city with a multi -modal transportation system designed and maintained to reduce auto congestion, increase accessibility, and accommodate pedestrians and cyclists safely and comfortably. 7.0 Kennedale is economically prosperous with an excellent business climate to support light industrial, employment centers, and distribution facilities which are compatible with the Kennedale vision. 57 KENNEDALE You're Here,Your Home www. cityofkenneda le.com Staff Report to the Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: May 9, 2013 Agenda Item No: REGULAR ITEMS - D. I. Subject: University of Texas at Arlington Capstone Project - Group 3: Presentation of the 2013 Brownfields report. II. Originated by: Bob Hart, City Manager III. Summary: The Brownfields report was submitted to the Corps of Engineers to support the section 205 flood study request. It will also be used to support the EPA application for a brownfield assessment grant and the 319 application for water quality. IV. Fiscal Impact Summary: V. Legal Impact: VI. Recommendation: None VII. Alternative Actions: VIII. Attachments: 1. 12013 Brownfields Report 1 KENNEDALE You're Here,Your Home www. cityofkenneda le.com Staff Report to the Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: May 9, 2013 Agenda Item No: REPORTS /ANNOUNCEMENTS - A. I. Subject: Updates and information from the Mayor. - Proclamation for National Kids to Parks Day II. Originated by: City Council, City Council III. Summary: At this time the Mayor will make announcements. IV. Fiscal Impact Summary: V. Legal Impact: VI. Recommendation: None VII. Alternative Actions: VIII. Attachments: 1. (Proclamation IKTP_Proclamation.doc National Kids to Parks Day: Saturday, May 18, 2013 A Proclamation WHEREAS, May 18th, 2013 is the third National Kids to Parks Day organized and launched by the National Park Trust; and WHEREAS, National Kids to Parks Day empowers kids and encourages families to get outdoors and visit America's parks; and WHEREAS, it is important to introduce a new generation to our nation's parks because of the decline in Park attendance over the last decades; and WHEREAS, we should encourage children to lead a more active lifestyle to combat the issues of childhood obesity, diabetes mellitus, hypertension and hypercholesterolemia; and WHEREAS, National Kids to Parks Day is open to all children and adults across the country to encourage a large and diverse group of participants; and WHEREAS, National Kids to Parks Day will broaden children's appreciation for nature and the outdoors; and NOW THEREFORE, (I /WE) of (City /Town) (State) do hereby proclaim to participate in National Kids to Parks Day. (I /WE) urge residents of (city) to make time May 18th, 2013 to take the children in their lives to a neighborhood, state or national park. Dated this day of (Month) 2013 (Name of body approving proclamation) By KENNEDALE You're Here,Your Home www. cityofkenneda le.com Staff Report to the Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: May 9, 2013 Agenda Item No: REPORTS /ANNOUNCEMENTS - B. I. Subject: Updates and information from Councilmembers, if any. II. Originated by: City Council, City Council III. Summary: Updates and information from Councilmembers, if any. IV. Fiscal Impact Summary: V. Legal Impact: VI. Recommendation: VII. Alternative Actions: VIII. Attachments: KENNEDALE You're Here,Your Home www. cityofkenneda le.com Staff Report to the Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: May 9, 2013 Agenda Item No: REPORTS /ANNOUNCEMENTS - C. I. Subject: Updates and information from the City Manager, if any. - Park Committee Appointments - May 21, 2013 Budget Workshop II. Originated by: Amethyst G. Cirmo, City Secretary and Communications Coordinator III. Summary: Updates and information from the City Manager. IV. Fiscal Impact Summary: V. Legal Impact: VI. Recommendation: None VII. Alternative Actions: VIII. Attachments: KENNEDALE You're Here,Your Home www. cityofkenneda le.com Staff Report to the Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: May 9, 2013 Agenda Item No: REGULAR ITEMS, CONTINUED - A. I. Subject: Oath of Office for Charles Overstreet, City Council Place 1, 2013 -2015 term. II. Originated by: Amethyst G. Cirmo, City Secretary and Communications Coordinator III. Summary: At this time the oath of office will be issued to Councilmember Charles Overstreet. IV. Fiscal Impact Summary: V. Legal Impact: VI. Recommendation: None VII. Alternative Actions: VIII. Attachments: KENNEDALE You're Here,Your Home www. cityofkenneda le.com Staff Report to the Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: May 9, 2013 Agenda Item No: REGULAR ITEMS, CONTINUED - B. I. Subject: Oath of Office for Brian Johnson, City Council Place 3, 2013 -2015 term. II. Originated by: Amethyst G. Cirmo, City Secretary and Communications Coordinator III. Summary: At this time the oath of office will be issued to Councilmember Brian Johnson. IV. Fiscal Impact Summary: V. Legal Impact: VI. Recommendation: None VII. Alternative Actions: VIII. Attachments: KENNEDALE You're Here,Your Home www. cityofkenneda le.com Staff Report to the Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: May 9, 2013 Agenda Item No: REGULAR ITEMS, CONTINUED - C. I. Subject: Oath of Office for Frank Fernandez, City Council Place 5, 2013 -2015 term. II. Originated by: Amethyst G. Cirmo, City Secretary and Communications Coordinator III. Summary: At this time the oath of office will be issued to Councilmember Frank Fernandez. IV. Fiscal Impact Summary: V. Legal Impact: VI. Recommendation: None VII. Alternative Actions: VIII. Attachments: KENNEDALE You're Here,Your Home www. cityofkenneda le.com Staff Report to the Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: May 9, 2013 Agenda Item No: REGULAR ITEMS, CONTINUED - D. I. Subject: Selection of a Mayor Pro -Tem. II. Originated by: Amethyst G. Cirmo, City Secretary and Communications Coordinator III. Summary: At this time the Council will appoint a member to serve as Mayor Pro -Tem. IV. Fiscal Impact Summary: V. Legal Impact: VI. Recommendation: Approve VII. Alternative Actions: VIII. Attachments: KENNEDALE You're Here,Your Home www. cityofkenneda le.com Staff Report to the Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: May 9, 2013 Agenda Item No: REGULAR ITEMS, CONTINUED - E. I. Subject: Consider a recommendation from the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board regarding an increase in pavilion rental rates. II. Originated by: Larry Hoover, Streets and Parks Supervisor III. Summary: The Parks and Recreation Board discussed and is recommending that City Council raise the pavilion rental rates to be more consistent with surrounding areas rental rates. This rate will help to offset some of the services that are offered as part of the rental packages, including free electrical, free lighting, the splash pad, gated pavilion in Sonora Park, and overall maintenance and services. Attached is a copy of our current rates as well as the recommended increased rates. IV. Fiscal Impact Summary: V. Legal Impact: VI. Recommendation: Approve VII. Alternative Actions: VIII. Attachments: 1. (Pavilion Rental Rates (Sonora and TownCenter Park Rental Rates.pdf Sonora and TownCenter Park Rental Rates (as of today) *Residents include anyone living within the boundaries of the Kennedale Independent School District ** A Full Day is described as a maximum of 6 am to 10:00 pm Hours Rental Rates Residents* Non - Residents 2 hours $35.00 $75.00 4 hours $65.00 $115.00 6 hours $90.00 $130.00 Full Day ** $115.00 $155.00 A $50.00 refundable deposit is required for all reservations Sonora and TownCenter Park Recommended Rental Rates ($25 increase to all residents and roughly 33.33% increase to all non - residents) Hours Rental Rates Residents* Non - Residents 2 hours $60.00 $80.00 4 hours $90.00 $120.00 6 hours $115.00 $150.00 Full Day ** $140.00 $200.00 A $50.00 refundable deposit is required for all reservations KENNEDALE You're Here,Your Home www. cityofkenneda le.com Staff Report to the Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: May 9, 2013 Agenda Item No: REGULAR ITEMS, CONTINUED - F. I. Subject: Consider approval of an Ordinance approving and adopting rate schedule RRM, Rate Review Mechanism, for Atmos Energy Corporation. 11. Originated by: Bob Hart, City Manager 111. Summary: The City, along with 154 other cities served by Atmos Energy Corporation, Mid -Tex Division ( "Atmos Mid - Tex" or "Company "), is a member of the Atmos Cities Steering Committee ( "ACSC" or "Steering Committee "). In 2007, ACSC and Atmos Mid -Tex agreed to implement an annual rate review mechanism for Atmos Mid -Tex, known as the Rate Review Mechanism ( "RRM "), as a temporary replacement for the statutory mechanism known as GRIP (the "Gas Reliability Infrastructure Program "). This first RRM tariff expired in 2011, and although ACSC and Atmos Mid -Tex met many times to attempt to reach an agreement on a renewed or replacement tariff, they were unable to do so. Atmos Mid -Tex filed a full rate case in 2012. The resulting rates were approved by the Railroad Commission in December 2012 in G.U.D. No. 10170. ACSC and the Company renewed discussions to develop revisions to the RRM tariff, and have reached a tentative agreement on the form of the RRM tariff to be in effect for a four -year period from 2013 to 2017. If the RRM process is to continue to function as a substitute for the GRIP process, cities that exercise original jurisdiction must adopt a tariff that authorizes the process. For the reasons outlined below, the ACSC Executive Committee and ACSC legal counsel recommend approval of the new RRM tariff by all ACSC member cities. RRM Background: The RRM tariff was originally approved by ACSC member cities as part of the settlement agreement resolving the Atmos Mid -Tex 2007 system -wide rate filing at the Railroad Commission. The RRM process was created collaboratively by ACSC and Atmos Mid -Tex as an alternative to the legislatively- authorized GRIP rate adjustment process. GRIP, like the RRM, is a form of expedited rate relief for gas utilities that avoids the long and costly process of a full rate filing. However, ACSC strongly opposes the GRIP process because it constitutes piecemeal ratemaking, does not allow any review by cities of the reasonableness of capital expenditures, and does not allow participation by cities in the Railroad Commission's review of the annual GRIP filings, or recovery by cities of their rate case expenses. The Railroad Commission undertakes only an administrative review of GRIP filings (instead of a full hearing) and the rate increases go into effect without any material adjustments. In ACSC's view, the GRIP process unfairly raises customers' rates without any real regulatory oversight. In contrast, the RRM process has allowed for a more comprehensive rate review and annual adjustment as a substitute for GRIP filings. Purpose of the Ordinance: The purpose of the Ordinance is to approve the RRM tariff ( "Attachment A ") that reflects the negotiated RRM process. For the RRM process to continue, cities exercising original jurisdiction must approve a tariff that authorizes the process. Reasons Justifying Approval of the Negotiated RRM Tariff: In the opinion of ACSC's Executive Committee, the RRM process is a better deal for customers than the GRIP process. Atmos Mid -Tex has stated if it were to file for a rate adjustment in 2013 under the GRIP provisions, it would request approximately $5 million more in rate relief than it plans to request in a filing under this revised RRM tariff. ACSC assumes that is because the GRIP process only evaluates changes to capital investment. The RRM process looks at revenues (that may be increasing) and expenses (that may be declining), as well as capital investment. Additionally, the statute authorizing the GRIP rate adjustment process allows the Company to place the entirety of any rate increase in the unavoidable monthly customer charge portion of its rates. If the Company were to file for an increase under the GRIP provisions, the entire amount of the increase would be collected through the fixed portion of the bill, rather than the volumetric charge that varies by a customer's usage. Between 2007 and 2012, ACSC was able to negotiate rate design results that constrained residential customer charges to the $7.00 to $7.50 range. However, the Railroad Commission has recently raised the residential customer charge to $17.70. The Company has agreed that for the first filing under the revised RRM tariff, there will be no increase to the residential customer charge. Thus, some of the primary benefits of the attached RRM tariff are that it moderates the impact of rate adjustments on residential customers by not changing the residential customer charge for the first RRM period. In subsequent years only 40% of the proposed increase in revenues to the residential class will be recovered through the fixed customer charge, and in no event will the residential customer charge increase by more than $.50 per month. No such constraints exist under the GRIP process. Additionally, the attached RRM tariff provides a discount as an incentive for cities permitting the Company annual rate relief. The RRM tariff includes an adjustment amount that is a reduction to the Company's requested increase. The adjustment lowers the Company's rate request by at least $3 million each year. Additional reductions will also be made each year depending on the size of the Company's requested increase. The attached RRM tariff also caps at 55% the percentage of equity that can be used to calculate the Company's capital structure. Railroad Commission policy allows rates to be based on a parent company's actual capital structure, which for Atmos could mean increases in equity above the most recent level of 52 %. Under the RRM tariff, cities are also able to review the Company's annual expenses and capital investments and make adjustments, or disallowances, for any such expenses or investments that are considered to be unreasonable or unnecessary. The cities' costs in reviewing the annual filings, such as fees associated with the hiring of expert consultants and legal counsel, will be reimbursed by the Company on a monthly basis. If cities do not approve the RRM tariff, the Company has stated that it will reinstitute its annual filings under the GRIP provisions. The anticipated GRIP adjustment for 2013 would be approximately $5 million higher than the Company anticipates requesting through an RRM filing. Additionally, GRIP rate adjustments would place the entire amount of the Company's requested increase into the customer charge. The ACSC Executive Committee recommends that ACSC city members take action to approve the Ordinance authorizing the RRM tariff. Page 2of3 Explanation of "Be It Ordained" Paragraphs: 1. This section approves all findings in the Ordinance. 2. This section adopts the attached RRM Tariff ( "Attachment A ") and finds the adoption of the tariff to be just, reasonable, and in the public interest. Note that only the new tariff being revised is attached to the Ordinance. The initial RRM Tariff has expired by its own terms, and other existing tariffs not being changed in any way are not attached to the Ordinance. 3. This section repeals any resolution or ordinance that is inconsistent with this Ordinance. 4. This section finds that the meeting was conducted in compliance with the Texas Open Meetings Act, Texas Government Code, Chapter 551. 5. This section is a savings clause, which provides that if any section is later found to be unconstitutional or invalid, that finding shall not affect, impair, or invalidate the remaining provisions of this Ordinance. This section further directs that the remaining provisions of the Ordinance are to be interpreted as if the offending section or clause never existed. 6. This section provides for an effective date upon passage. 7. This section paragraph directs that a copy of the signed Ordinance be sent to a representative of the Company and legal counsel for ACSC. IV. Fiscal Impact Summary: V. Legal Impact: VI. Recommendation: Approve VII. Alternative Actions: VIII. Attachments: 1. Info Sheet 2013 04 29 RRM info sheet comp to GRIP.DOCX 2. Ordinance 2013.04.29 model ordinance adopting RRM Tariff.DOC 3. Attachment A 2013.04.30 Atmos MidTex RRM FINAL (2).DOC Page 3of3 The New RRM: How Does It Stack Up? RRM (2007 -2011) • Negotiated limits to the amount of increase included in customer charge. • Less money requested from ratepayers, because it considers the Company's entire cost of providing service, including declining expenses. • Cities can review reasonableness of expenses and negotiate disallowances. • Reimbursement of Cities' rate case expenses. • Cities can order reductions to requested increase. • Better working relationship between Cities and Company. New RRM Tariff • Includes limits on percentage of increase to be included in monthly customer charge. • Shorter turn- around on discovery. • Technical conference to expedite receipt of information from Company. • No post -test year adjustments. • Time limit for O &M known and measurable adjustments. • Reduction in requested increase of at least $3 million each year. • Tracks the methodologies approved by the Railroad Commission in the most recent Mid -Tex rate case. 3561909.1 GRIP • All increase included in customer charge. • More costly to ratepayers, because it does not consider the Company's entire cost of providing service, including declining expenses. • Cities have no input as to reasonableness or recovery of expenses. • No reimbursement of Cities' rate case expenses. • No reduction in requested increase. • Poorer working relationship between Cities and Company. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENNEDALE, TEXAS, ( "CITY ") APPROVING AND ADOPTING RATE SCHEDULE "RRM — RATE REVIEW MECHANISM" FOR ATMOS ENERGY CORPORATION, MID -TEX DIVISION TO BE IN FORCE IN THE CITY FOR A PERIOD OF TIME AS SPECIFIED IN THE RATE SCHEDULE; ADOPTING A SAVINGS CLAUSE; DETERMINING THAT THIS ORDINANCE WAS PASSED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE TEXAS OPEN MEETINGS ACT; DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE; AND REQUIRING DELIVERY OF THIS ORDINANCE TO THE COMPANY AND ACSC LEGAL COUNSEL. WHEREAS, the City of Kennedale, Texas ( "City ") is a gas utility customer of Atmos Energy Corp., Mid -Tex Division ( "Atmos Mid -Tex" or "the Company "), and a regulatory authority with an interest in the rates and charges of Atmos Mid -Tex; and WHEREAS, the City is a member of the Atmos Cities Steering Committee ( "ACSC "), a coalition of cities, most of whom retain original jurisdiction over the rates and services of Atmos Mid -Tex; and WHEREAS, in 2007 ACSC member cities and Atmos Mid -Tex collaboratively developed the Rate Review Mechanism ( "RRM ") Tariff that allows for an expedited rate review process controlled by cities as a substitute for the legislatively - constructed Gas Reliability Infrastructure Program ( "GRIP "); and WHEREAS, the GRIP mechanism does not permit the City to review rate increases, and constitutes piecemeal ratemaking; and WHEREAS, the RRM process permits City review of requested rate increases and provides for a holistic review of the true cost of service for Atmos Mid -Tex; and WHEREAS, the initial RRM tariff expired in 2011; and 3562140.1 1 WHEREAS, ACSC's representatives have worked with Atmos Mid -Tex to negotiate a renewal of the RRM process that avoids litigation and Railroad Commission filings; and WHEREAS, the ACSC's Executive Committee and ACSC's legal counsel recommend ACSC members approve the negotiated new RRM tariff; and WHEREAS, the attached Rate Schedule "RRM — Rate Review Mechanism" ( "RRM Tariff') provides for a reasonable expedited rate review process that is a substitute for, and is superior to, the statutory GRIP process; and WHEREAS, the expedited rate review process as provided by the RRM Tariff avoids piecemeal ratemaking; and WHEREAS, the RRM tariff reflects the ratemaking standards and methodologies authorized by the Railroad Commission in the most recent Atmos Mid -Tex rate case, G.U.D. No. 10170; and WHEREAS, the RRM Tariff provides for an annual reduction in Atmos Mid -Tex's requested rate increase of at least $3 million; and WHEREAS, the RRM Tariff provides for a lower customer charge than if Atmos Mid - Tex pursued GRIP filings; and WHEREAS, the attached RRM Tariff as a whole is in the public interest; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENNEDALE, TEXAS: Section 1. That the findings set forth in this Ordinance are hereby in all things approved. Section 2. That the City Council finds that the RRM Tariff, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Attachment A, is reasonable and in the public interest, and is hereby in force and effect in the City. 3562140.1 2 Section 3. That to the extent any resolution or ordinance previously adopted by the City Council is inconsistent with this Ordinance, it is hereby repealed. Section 4. That the meeting at which this Ordinance was approved was in all things conducted in strict compliance with the Texas Open Meetings Act, Texas Government Code, Chapter 551. Section 5. That if any one or more sections or clauses of this Ordinance is judged to be unconstitutional or invalid, such judgment shall not affect, impair or invalidate the remaining provisions of this Ordinance and the remaining provisions of the Ordinance shall be interpreted as if the offending section or clause never existed. Section 6. That this Ordinance shall become effective from and after its passage. Section 7. That a copy of this Ordinance shall be sent to Atmos Mid -Tex, care of Christopher Felan, Vice President of Rates and Regulatory Affairs for Atmos Mid -Tex Division, Atmos Energy Corporation, 5420 LBJ Freeway, Suite 1600, Dallas, Texas 75240, and to Geoffrey Gay, General Counsel to ACSC, at Lloyd Gosselink Rochelle & Townsend, P.C., 816 Congress Avenue, Suite 1900, Austin, Texas 78701. PASSED AND APPROVED this 9th day of MAY 2013. ATTEST: City Secretary Amethyst G. Cirmo APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney Wayne K. Olson 3562140.1 3 Mayor John Clark ATMOS ENERGY CORPORATION MID -TEX DIVISION Attachment "A" RATE SCHEDULE: RRM — Rate Review Mechanism APPLICABLE TO: ALL AREAS IN THE MID -TEX DIVISION EXCEPT THE CITY OF DALLAS CUSTOMERS EFFECTIVE DATE: Bills Rendered on and after October 15, 2013 PAGE 1 OF 6 I. Applicability Applicable to Residential, Commercial, Industrial, and Transportation tariff customers in the Mid -Tex Division of Atmos Energy Corporation ( "Company ") except such customers within the City of Dallas. This Rate Review Mechanism ( "RRM ") provides for an annual adjustment to the Company's Rate Schedules R, C, I and T ( "Applicable Rate Schedules "). Rate calculations and adjustments required by this tariff shall be determined on a System -Wide cost basis. II. Definitions "Test Period" is defined as the twelve months ending December 31 of each preceding calendar year. The "Effective Date" is the date that adjustments required by this tariff are applied to customer bills. The annual Effective Date is June 1. The 2013 filing Effective Date is October 15, 2013. Unless otherwise noted in this tariff, the term "Final Order" refers the final order issued by the Railroad Commission of Texas in GUD 10170. The term "System- Wide" means all incorporated and unincorporated areas served by the Company. "Review Period" is defined as the period from the Filing Date until the Effective Date. The "Filing Date" is as early as practicable but no later than March 1 of each year with the exception of 2013, which shall have a Filing Date of July 15, 2013. The last annual Effective Date is June 1, 2017. III. Calculation The RRM shall calculate an annual, System -Wide cost of service ( "COS ") that will be used to adjust applicable rate schedules prospectively as of the Effective Date. The annual cost of service will be calculated according to the following formula: COS= OM +DEP +RI +TAX +CD -ADJ Where: OM = all reasonable and necessary operation and maintenance expenses from the ATMOS ENERGY CORPORATION MID -TEX DIVISION Attachment "A" RATE SCHEDULE: RRM — Rate Review Mechanism APPLICABLE TO: ALL AREAS IN THE MID -TEX DIVISION EXCEPT THE CITY OF DALLAS CUSTOMERS EFFECTIVE DATE: Bills Rendered on and after October 15, 2013 PAGE 2 OF 6 Test Period adjusted for known and measurable items and prepared consistent with the rate making treatments approved in the Final Order. Known and measurable adjustments shall be limited to those changes that have occurred prior to the Filing Date. OM may be adjusted for atypical and non - recurring items. Shared Services allocation factors shall be recalculated each year based on the latest component factors used during the Test Period, but the methodology used will be that approved in the Final Order. DEP = depreciation expense calculated at depreciation rates approved by the Final Order. RI = return on investment calculated as the Company's pretax return multiplied by rate base at Test Period end. Rate base is prepared consistent with the rate making treatments approved in the Final Order, except that no post Test Period adjustments will be permitted. Pretax return is the Company's weighted average cost of capital before income taxes. The Company's weighted average cost of capital is calculated using the methodology from the Final Order including the Company's actual capital structure and long term cost of debt as of the Test Period end (adjusted for any known and measurable changes) and the return on equity from the Final Order. However, in no event will the percentage of equity exceed 55 %. Regulatory adjustments due to prior regulatory rate base adjustment disallowances will be maintained. Cash working capital will be calculated using the lead /lag days approved in the Final Order. With respect to pension and other postemployment benefits, the Company will record a regulatory asset or liability for these costs until the amounts are included in the next annual rate adjustment implemented under this tariff. Each year, the Company's filing under this Rider RRM will clearly state the level of pension and other postemployment benefits recovered in rates. TAX = income tax and taxes other than income tax from the Test Period adjusted for known and measurable changes occurring after the Test Period and before the Filing Date, and prepared consistent with the rate making treatments approved in the Final Order. CD = interest on customer deposits. ADJ = Downward adjustment to the overall, System -Wide test year cost of service in the amount of $3,000,000.00, adjusted by a percentage equal to the total percentage increase in base -rate revenue sought pursuant to this tariff. ATMOS ENERGY CORPORATION MID -TEX DIVISION Attachment "A" RATE SCHEDULE: RRM — Rate Review Mechanism APPLICABLE TO: ALL AREAS IN THE MID -TEX DIVISION EXCEPT THE CITY OF DALLAS CUSTOMERS EFFECTIVE DATE: Bills Rendered on and after October 15, 2013 PAGE 3 OF 6 IV. Annual Rate Adjustment The Company shall provide schedules and work papers supporting the Filing's revenue deficiency /sufficiency calculations using the methodology accepted in the Final Order. The result shall be reflected in the proposed new rates to be established for the effective period. The Revenue Requirement will be apportioned to customer classes in the same manner that Company's Revenue Requirement was apportioned in the Final Order. For the Residential Class, 40% of the increase may be recovered in the customer charge. The increase to the Residential customer charge shall not exceed $0.50 per month in any given year. The remainder of the Residential Class increase not collected in the customer charge will be recovered in the usage charge. The Company will forgo any change in the Residential customer charge with the first proposed rate adjustment pursuant to this tariff. For all other classes, the change in rates will be apportioned between the customer charge and the usage charge, consistent with the Final Order. Test Period billing determinants shall be adjusted and normalized according to the methodology utilized in the Final Order. V. Filing The Company shall file schedules annually with the regulatory authority having original jurisdiction over the Company's rates on or before the Filing Date that support the proposed rate adjustments. The schedules shall be in the same general format as the cost of service model and relied -upon files upon which the Final Order was based. A proof of rates and a copy of current and proposed tariffs shall also be included with the filing. The filing shall be made in electronic form where practical. The Company's filing shall conform to Minimum Filing Requirements (to be agreed upon by the parties), which will contain a minimum amount of information that will assist the regulatory authority in its review and analysis of the filing. The Company and regulatory authority will endeavor to hold a technical conference regarding the filing within ten (10) calendar days after the Filing Date. The 2013 Filing Date will be July 15, 2013. A sworn statement shall be filed by an Officer of the Company affirming that the filed schedules are in compliance with the provisions of this Rate Review Mechanism and are true and correct to the best of his /her knowledge, information, and belief. No testimony shall be filed, but a brief narrative explanation shall be provided of any changes to corporate structure, accounting methodologies, allocation of common costs, or atypical or non- recurring items included in the filing. VI. Evaluation Procedures ATMOS ENERGY CORPORATION MID -TEX DIVISION Attachment "A" RATE SCHEDULE: RRM — Rate Review Mechanism APPLICABLE TO: ALL AREAS IN THE MID -TEX DIVISION EXCEPT THE CITY OF DALLAS CUSTOMERS EFFECTIVE DATE: Bills Rendered on and after October 15, 2013 PAGE 4 OF 6 The regulatory authority having original jurisdiction over the Company's rates shall review and render a decision on the Company's proposed rate adjustment prior to the Effective Date. The Company shall provide all supplemental information requested to ensure an opportunity for adequate review by the relevant regulatory authority. The Company shall not unilaterally impose any limits upon the provision of supplemental information and such information shall be provided within seven (7) working days of the original request. The regulatory authority may propose any adjustments it determines to be required to bring the proposed rate adjustment into compliance with the provisions of this tariff. The regulatory authority may disallow any net plant investment that is not shown to be prudently incurred. Approval by the regulatory authority of net plant investment pursuant to the provisions of this tariff shall constitute a finding that such net plant investment was prudently incurred. Such finding of prudence shall not be subject to further review in a subsequent RRM or Statement of Intent filing. During the Review Period, the Company and the regulatory authority will work collaboratively and seek agreement on the level of rate adjustments. If, at the end of the Review Period, the Company and the regulatory authority have not reached agreement, the regulatory authority shall take action to modify or deny the proposed rate adjustments. The Company shall have the right to appeal the regulatory authority's action to the Railroad Commission of Texas. Upon the filing of an appeal of the regulatory authority's order relating to an annual RRM filing with the Railroad Commission of Texas, the regulatory authority having original jurisdiction over the Company's rates shall not oppose the implementation of the Company's proposed rates subject to refund, nor will the regulatory authority advocate for the imposition of a third party surety bond by the Company. Any refund shall be limited to and determined based on the resolution of the disputed adjustment(s) in a final, non - appealable order issued in the appeal filed by the Company at the Railroad Commission of Texas. In the event that the regulatory authority and Company agree to a rate adjustment(s) that is different from the adjustment(s) requested in the Company's filing, the Company shall file compliance tariffs consistent with the agreement. No action on the part of the regulatory authority shall be required to allow the rate adjustment(s) to become effective on June 1. To the extent that the regulatory authority does not take action on the Company's RRM filing by May 31, the rates proposed in the Company's filing shall be deemed approved effective June 1. (2013 filing RRM rate will be effective October 15, 2013 if no action is taken). Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, a regulatory authority may choose to take affirmative action to approve a rate adjustment under this tariff. In those instances where such approval cannot reasonably occur by May 31, the rates finally approved by the regulatory authority shall be deemed effective as of June 1. ATMOS ENERGY CORPORATION MID -TEX DIVISION Attachment "A" RATE SCHEDULE: RRM — Rate Review Mechanism APPLICABLE TO: ALL AREAS IN THE MID -TEX DIVISION EXCEPT THE CITY OF DALLAS CUSTOMERS EFFECTIVE DATE: Bills Rendered on and after October 15, 2013 PAGE 5 OF 6 To defray the cost, if any, of regulatory authorities conducting a review of the Company's annual RRM filing, the Company shall reimburse the regulatory authorities on a monthly basis for their reasonable expenses incurred upon submission of invoices for such review. Any reimbursement contemplated hereunder shall be deemed a reasonable and necessary operating expense of the Company in the year in which the reimbursement is made. A regulatory authority seeking reimbursement under this provision shall submit its request for reimbursement to the Company no later than August 1 of the year in which the RRM filing is made and the Company shall reimburse regulatory authorities in accordance with this provision on or before August 30 of the year the RRM filing is made. To the extent possible, the provisions of the Final Order shall be applied by the regulatory authority in determining whether to approve or disapprove of Company's proposed rate adjustment. This Rider RRM does not limit the legal rights and duties of a regulatory authority. Nothing herein shall abrogate the jurisdiction of the regulatory authority to initiate a rate proceeding at any time to review whether rates charged are just and reasonable. Similarly, the Company retains its right to utilize the provisions of Texas Utilities Code, Chapter 104, Subchapter C to request a change in rates. The provisions of this Rider RRM are implemented in harmony with the Gas Utility Regulatory Act (Texas Utilities Code, Chapters 101 -105). The annual rate adjustment process set forth in this tariff shall remain in effect during the pendency of any Statement of Intent rate filing. VII. Reconsideration, Appeal and Unresolved Items Orders issued pursuant to this mechanism are ratemaking orders and shall be subject to appeal under Sections 102.001(b) and 103.021, et seq., of the Texas Utilities Code (Vernon 2007). VIII. Notice Notice of each annual RRM filing shall be provided by including the notice, in conspicuous form, in the bill of each directly affected customer no later than forty -five (45) days after the Company makes its annual filing pursuant to this tariff. The notice to customers shall include the following information: a) a description of the proposed revision of rates and schedules; ATMOS ENERGY CORPORATION MID -TEX DIVISION Attachment "A" RATE SCHEDULE: RRM — Rate Review Mechanism APPLICABLE TO: ALL AREAS IN THE MID -TEX DIVISION EXCEPT THE CITY OF DALLAS CUSTOMERS EFFECTIVE DATE: Bills Rendered on and after October 15, 2013 PAGE 6 OF 6 b) the effect the proposed revision of rates is expected to have on the rates applicable to each customer class and on an average bill for each affected customer; c) the service area or areas in which the proposed rates would apply; d) the date the annual RRM filing was made with the regulatory authority; and e) the Company's address, telephone number and website where information concerning the proposed rate adjustment be obtained. KENNEDALE You're Here,Your Home www. cityofkenneda le.com Staff Report to the Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: May 9, 2013 Agenda Item No: REGULAR ITEMS, CONTINUED - G. I. Subject: Consider authorizing a letter of support for the submittal of an application for grant funding through Section 319 of the US Environmental Protection Agency's Clean Water Act regarding nonpoint source pollution. II. Originated by: Bob Hart, City Manager III. Summary: Bob Hart will present information on this topic. IV. Fiscal Impact Summary: V. Legal Impact: VI. Recommendation: Approve VII. Alternative Actions: VIII. Attachments: KENNEDALE You're Here,Your Home www. cityofkenneda le.com Staff Report to the Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: May 9, 2013 Agenda Item No: REGULAR ITEMS, CONTINUED - H. I. Subject: Discuss and consider approval of an Ordinance amending water and sewer service rate schedules. II. Originated by: Amethyst G. Cirmo, City Secretary and Communications Coordinator Sakura Moten - Dedrick, Director of Finance & IT III. Summary: On April 2012, Council approved the creation of a Water & Sewer Rate Committee to study and make recommendations with regards to the city's current rate structure. It met on three separate occasions (Nov 5, 2012; Feb 11, 2013; March 18, 2013) to review, analyze and consideration various implementation philosophies. The committee was comprised of the following residents and staff: Mark Biondi, Roy Boenig, Mitch Hanzik, Adrienne Kay, Hollis Matthews, LaCresha Sanders, Bob Hart, Larry Ledbetter, Sakura Moten - Dedrick, and Amy Owens. Carolyn Marshall served as the water /sewer rate study consultant. She previously served as our interim finance director and assisted with the city's rate study since 2004. After careful consideration, the committee made several recommendations to meet our revenue requirements in a fair and equitable fashion. Staff presented these findings to Council at their March meeting last month. The recommended rate and other options that were considered follow. This item has been placed on the agenda for your consideration discussion, direction and /or action. Please see attachment 1 for option descriptions. Please note that staff is recommending Option 1. IV. Fiscal Impact Summary: V. Legal Impact: VI. Recommendation: Approve VII. Alternative Actions: VIII. Attachments: 1. Options Rates.pdf 2. FY2012 -13 Amended Water & Sewer Rates Ordinance To Amend Water & Sewer Rates.doc Page 2 of 2 Option 1 (Recommended) Water METER RES COMM SENIOR /DA MULTIPLE 3/4" $13.87 $13.87 $13.87 $13.87 1" $23.17 $23.17 $23.17 $13.87 1.5" $46.19 $46.19 $46.19 $13.87 2" $73.92 $73.92 $73.92 $13.87 3" $161.87 $161.87 $161.87 $13.87 4" $291.29 $291.29 $291.29 $13.87 0 - 5000 $2.79 $2.79 $2.79 N/A 5001 - 50000 $5.27 $5.27 $5.27 N/A 50001+ $6.19 $5.27 $6.19 N/A Sewer RES COMM SENIOR /DA MULTIPLE Minimum $17.19 $28.64 $17.19 N/A Volume /1000 $4.09 $4.48 $4.09 N/A Option 2 Water METER RES COMM SENIOR /DA MULTIPLE 3/4" $13.74 $13.74 $13.74 $13.74 1" $22.94 $22.94 $22.94 $13.74 1.5" $45.73 $45.73 $45.73 $13.74 2" $73.19 $73.19 $73.19 $13.74 3" $160.27 $160.27 $160.27 $13.74 4" $288.40 $288.40 $288.40 $13.74 0 - 5000 $2.76 $2.76 $2.76 N/A 5001 - 50000 $5.22 $5.22 $5.22 N/A 50001+ $6.13 $5.22 $6.13 N/A Sewer RES COMM SENIOR /DA MULTIPLE Minimum $16.93 $28.22 $16.93 N/A Volume /1000 $4.02 $4.41 $4.02 N/A Option 3 Water METER RES COMM SENIOR /DA MULTIPLE 3/4" $14.85 $14.85 $8.17 $14.85 1" $24.79 $24.79 $13.63 $14.85 1.5" $49.43 $49.43 $27.18 $14.85 2" $79.11 $79.11 $43.51 $14.85 3" $173.23 $173.23 $95.28 $14.85 4" $311.72 $311.72 $171.45 $14.85 0- 5000 $2.98 $2.98 $1.64 N/A 5001 + $5.64 $5.64 $5.64 N/A Sewer RES COMM SENIOR /DA MULTIPLE Minimum $17.42 $29.03 $9.58 N/A Volume /1000 $4.14 $4.54 $2.28 N/A Option 4 Water METER RES COMM SENIOR /DA MULTIPLE 3/4" $14.61 $14.61 $14.61 $14.61 1" $24.40 $24.40 $24.40 $14.61 1.5" $48.65 $48.65 $48.65 $14.61 2" $77.86 $77.86 $77.86 $14.61 3" $170.50 $170.50 $170.50 $14.61 4" $306.81 $306.81 $306.81 $14.61 0 - 5000 $2.94 $2.94 $2.94 N/A 5001 + $5.55 $5.55 $5.55 N/A Sewer RES COMM SENIOR /DA MULTIPLE Minimum $16.93 $28.22 $16.93 N/A Volume /1000 $4.02 $4.41 $4.02 N/A ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF KENNEDALE, TEXAS, REVISING THE RATE FOR WATER SERVICE AND SANITARY SEWER SERVICE; PROVIDING A DISCOUNT FOR QUALIFYING SENIOR CITIZENS AND DISABLED PERSONS; PROVIDING A PENALTY FOR VIOLATIONS HEREOF; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE FOR THE RATES CONTAINED HEREIN; PROVIDING THAT THIS ORDINANCE SHALL BE CUMULATIVE OF ALL ORDINANCES; PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; PROVIDING FOR PUBLICATION IN THE OFFICIAL NEWSPAPER; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City of Kennedale, Texas is a home rule city acting under its charter adopted by the electorate pursuant to Article XI, Section 5 of the Texas Constitution and Chapter 9 of the Local Government Code; and WHEREAS, the City of Kennedale has adopted ordinances establishing rates for water service and sanitary sewer service within and outside the city limits of Kennedale in compliance with Sections 23 -52 and 23 -79 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Kennedale; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that it is in the best interests of the City of Kennedale to adopt a revised rate schedule in accordance with the provisions of Section 23 -52 and 23 -79 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Kennedale. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENNEDALE, TEXAS: SECTION 1 WATER RATES In accordance with the provisions of Section 23 -52 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Kennedale, the following rate schedule is hereby adopted for monthly residential and commercial water usage. The total monthly charge shall be based on a base rate plus a volume charge. A. For service within the city limits: 1. Base Rate: METER SIZE BASE RATE BASE RATE BASE RATE MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL SENIOR/ RESIDENTIAL UNITS DISABLED* ON SINGLE METER 3/4" $13.87 $13.87 $13.87 $13.87/Per Unit 1" $23.17 $23.17 $23.17 $13.87/Per Unit 1.5" $46.19 $46.19 $46.19 $13.87/Per Unit 2" $73.92 $73.92 $73.92 $13.87/Per Unit 3" $161.87 $161.87 $161.87 $13.87 /Per Unit 4" $291.29 $291.29 $291.29 $13.87 /Per Unit *For senior /disabled rate, a credit of $7.50 per month/billing cycle will apply towards the applicable meter size for water service. 2. Volume Charge: VOLUME RESIDENTIAL RATE COMMERCIAL RATE SENIOR/ DISABLED RATE First 5000 Gallons* $2.79 Per 1000 Gallons $2.79 Per 1000 Gallons $2.79 Per 1000 Gallons 5001 - 50,000 Gallons $5.27 Per 1000 Gallons $5.27 Per 1000 Gallons $5.27 Per 1000 Gallons Over 50,000 Gallons $6.19 Per 1000 Gallons $5.27 Per 1000 Gallons ** $6.19 Per 1000 Gallons *For multiple residential units on a single water meter, the volume charge shall be calculated on a per unit basis by dividing the total volume of water used by the number of residential units. *For commercial rate, 2nd and 3rd tier volume charge is the same. B. For service outside the city limits: 1. Base Rate: METER SIZE BASE RATE RESIDENTIAL BASE RATE COMMERCIAL BASE RATE SENIOR/ DISABLED MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL UNITS ON SINGLE METER 3/4" $27.75 $27.75 N/A $27.75/Per Unit 1" $46.33 $46.33 N/A $27.75/Per Unit 1.5" $92.38 $92.38 N/A $27.75/Per Unit 2" $147.85 $147.85 N/A $27.75/Per Unit 3" $323.75 $323.75 N/A $27.75 /Per Unit 4" $582.58 $582.58 N/A $27.75 /Per Unit 2. Volume Charge: VOLUME RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL SENIOR/ RATE RATE DISABLED RATE First 5000 Gallons* $5.58 Per 1000 Gallons $5.58 Per 1000 Gallons N/A 5001 - 50,000 Gallons $10.54 Per 1000 Gallons $10.54 Per 1000 Gallons N/A Over 50,000 Gallons $12.38 Per 1000 Gallons $10.54 Per 1000 Gallons ** N/A *For multiple residential units on a single water meter, the volume charge shall be calculated on a per unit basis by dividing the total volume of water used by the number of residential units. *For commercial rate, 2nd and 3rd tier volume charge is the same. SECTION 2. SEWER RATES In accordance with the provisions of Section 23 -79 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Kennedale, the following rate schedule is hereby adopted for monthly residential and commercial sewer charges: A. For service within the city limits: *For senior /disabled rate, a credit of $7.50 per month/billing cycle will apply towards the applicable meter size for sewer service. B. For service outside the city limits: RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL SENIOR/ DISABLED RATE Minimum Base Rate $17.19 $28.64 $17.19* Volume $4.09 Per 1000 Gallons $4.48 Per 1000 Gallons $4.09 Per 1000 Gallons *For senior /disabled rate, a credit of $7.50 per month/billing cycle will apply towards the applicable meter size for sewer service. B. For service outside the city limits: SECTION 3. CREDIT Qualifying senior citizens and disabled individuals are eligible to receive a credit on the residential water rates and sewer charges as set forth in this ordinance. A. A qualifying senior citizen is defined as an individual 60 years of age and older, verified by a photo identification and /or birth certificate, who applies for the discount and meets the following criteria: RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL SENIOR/ DISABLED RATE Minimum Base Rate $34.37 $57.28 N/A Volume $8.17 Per 1000 Gallons $8.95 Per 1000 Gallons N/A SECTION 3. CREDIT Qualifying senior citizens and disabled individuals are eligible to receive a credit on the residential water rates and sewer charges as set forth in this ordinance. A. A qualifying senior citizen is defined as an individual 60 years of age and older, verified by a photo identification and /or birth certificate, who applies for the discount and meets the following criteria: 1. Must reside on property located within the corporate city limits of the City of Kennedale and present proof of residency, photo identification, and a current electric bill; and 2. Must provide proof of annual household income, inclusive of all household residents, by submitting a Federal income tax return and/or benefit letter from the Social Security Administration. The annual household income must not exceed $32,000; and 3. Must sign an affidavit verifying the accuracy of all information provided to the City to obtain the discount and agree to reimburse the City if any of the submitted information is found to be false. B. A qualifying disabled individual is defined as anyone whose disability is subject to verification by Tarrant County Appraisal District and/or Social Security Administration or Veterans Administration, who applies for the credit and meets the following criteria: 1. Must reside on property located within the corporate city limits of the City of Kennedale and present proof of residency, photo identification, and a current electric bill; and 2. Must sign an affidavit verifying the accuracy of all information provided to the City to obtain the discount and agree to reimburse the City if any of the submitted information is found to be false. C. Qualifying senior citizens or disabled individuals may only apply the credit on water rates and sewer charges to one residence in the City of Kennedale. All recipients of the discount must apply and complete an affidavit for the discount. Should a qualifying spouse become deceased, the surviving spouse will continue to receive the discount until the end of the fiscal year, which spans from October to the following September. D. If any of the submitted information in an application for a credit on the residential water rates and sewer charges established by this ordinance is found to be false, the individual who received the discount shall be required to reimburse the City for the amount of discount wrongfully received. SECTION 4. PENALTY Providing and/or verifying false information presented to the City for purposes of obtaining a discount pursuant to this ordinance is hereby declared a misdemeanor. A person convicted of verifying and/or providing false information to obtain a discount on water rates and sewer charges shall be punished by a fine not exceeding two hundred dollars ($200.00). SECTION 5. RATE EFFECTIVE DATE The rates established in this ordinance shall become effective the next billing cycle following the adoption of this ordinance (which is to begin the date after the meters are read for the current billing cycle). SECTION 6. CUMULATIVE CLAUSE This Ordinance shall be cumulative of all other ordinances of the City of Kennedale, and shall not repeal any of the provision of such ordinances except in those instances when provisions of such ordinances are in direct conflict with the provisions of this ordinance, in which the event the conflicting provisions of such ordinances are hereby repealed. SECTION 7. SEVERABILITY CLAUSE It is hereby declared to be the intention of the City Council that the phrases, clauses, sentences, paragraphs, and sections of this ordinance are severable, and if any phrase, clause, sentence, paragraph or section of this ordinance shall be declared unconstitutional by the valid judgment or decree of any court of competent jurisdiction, such unconstitutionality shall not affect any of the remaining phrases, clauses, sentences, paragraphs and sections of this ordinance, since the same would have been enacted by the City Council without the incorporation in this ordinance of any such unconstitutional phrase, clause, sentence, paragraph or section. SECTION 8. EFFECTIVE DATE This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage and publication as required by law, and it is so ordained. PASSED, ADOPTED AND APPROVED by the City Council of the City of Kennedale, Texas, this the 9th day of May 2013. APPROVED: Mayor, John Clark ATTEST: Amethyst Cirmo, City Secretary KENNEDALE You're Here,Your Home www. cityofkenneda le.com Staff Report to the Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: May 9, 2013 Agenda Item No: EXECUTIVE SESSION - A. I. Subject: The City Council will meet in closed session pursuant to Section 551.071 of the Texas Government Code for consultation with the City Attorney pertaining to any matter in which the duty of the City Attorney under the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct may conflict with the Open Meetings Act, including discussion of any item posted on the agenda and legal issues regarding the preparation of developer's agreements. II. Originated by: Bob Hart, City Manager III. Summary: At this time the city council will meet in executive session. IV. Fiscal Impact Summary: V. Legal Impact: VI. Recommendation: None VII. Alternative Actions: VIII. Attachments: J( You're Here,Your Home The following pages contain documents that were submitted or presented during the meeting. This form must be submitted to the Secretary BEFORE the meeting begins VISITOR /CITIZEN'S FORUM - Request to Speak ityCouncil ❑Planning & Zoning Comm, ❑Buliding Board of Appeals ❑Board of Adjustment ❑Library Advisory Board ❑Parks & Recreation Board D Arts & Culture Board ❑ Keep Kennedale Beautiful NAME: ADDRESS: EMAIL: if y54/1(\ So k -6 11ST -eG, n / I 'Mot; o ARE YOU A KENNEDALE RESIDENT? ONO YES PHONE: Ql P-` - I AM REPRESENTING: MYSELF LITHE FOLLOWING PERSONS /FIRMS /CORPORATIONS /GROUPS: • IS THE SUBJECT YOU WISH YO PRESENT RELATED TO AN ITEM ON No ❑Yes, Agenda Item # THE CURRENT AGENDA? MEMBERS OR CITY STAFF? • HAVE YOU DISCUSSED THIS SUBJECT WITH ANY COUNCIL /BOARD ❑ No JYes, (please list names) Al PLEASE DESCRIBE THE SUBJECT THAT YOU WISH TO PRESENT: Val SIGNATURE: KENNEDALE This form must be submitted to the Secretary BEFORE the meeting begins VISITOR /CITIZEN'S FORUM - Request to Speak ❑City Council ❑Planning & Zoning Comm, ❑Building Board of Appeals DBoard of Adjustment Olibrary Advisory Board ❑Parks & Recreation Board ❑Arts & Culture Board ❑Keep Kennedale Beautiful NAME: j / ADDRESS: E J /// /) 4. EMAIL: !`;'J /t/ PHONE: (10 VC- ARE YOU A KENNEDALE RESIDENT? ONO ❑`YES I AM REPRESENTING.-- ❑1VIYSELF LITHE FOLLOWING PERSONS /FIRMS /CORPORATIONS /GROUPS: • IS THE SUBJECT YOU WISH YO PRESENT RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THE CURRENT AGENDA? ❑No YeS, Agenda Item # • HAVE YOU DISCUSSED THIS SUBJECT WITH MANY COUNCIL /BOARD MEMBERS OR CITY STAFF? ❑ No • Yes, (please list names) / PLEASE DESCRIBE THE SUBJECT THAT YOU WISH TO PRESENT: SIGNATURE: KENNEDALE This form must be submitted to the Secretary BEFORE the meeting begins VISITOR/CITIZEN S FORUM ®' Request to Speak Today's Date: ❑City; Council ❑Planning & Zoning Comm. ❑Building Board of Appeals ❑Board of Adjustment ❑Library Advisory Board ❑Parks & Recreation Board ❑Arts & Culture Board ❑Keep Kennedale Beautiful NAME: jL& I �- L1�l7`11_�l�1 �. V PHONE: S` (-7 -04 1 6 ADDRESS: l5 �ii �cir IIIUY 1 �% EMAIL: l\t`E v Von 1 1 4 MkC/ ', (}( ARE YOU A KENNEDALE RESIDENT? o EYES I AM REPRESENTING: ❑MYSELF I 'fHE OLLOWING PERSONS /FIRMS /CORPORATIONS /GROUPS: v( t -i\ Ma_M 0-e crutltk' . • IS THE SUBJECT YOU WISH YO PRESENT RELATED (No • Yes, Agenda Item # TO AN ITEM ON THE CURRENT AGENDA? COUNCIL /BOARD MEMBERS OR CITY STAFF? • HAVE YOU DISCUSSED THIS SUBJECT WITH ANY • No Yes, (please list names) PA /IA PLEASE DESCRIBE THE SUBJECT THAT YOU WISH TO I �V nCC�(/�`�llk V A, 5 PRESENT: KENNEDALE This form must be submitted to the Secretary BEFORE the meeting begins ity Council ❑Planning & Zoning Comm, ❑Building Board of Appeals ❑Board of Adjustment ❑Library Advisory Board ❑Parks & Recreation Board ❑Arts & Culture Board ❑Keep Kennedale Beautiful NAME: C►Iw e QMWti/ St/" PHONE: (S /') /9.k7 ADDRESS: V Sto4 L)4 day 0, Jdb'f'oul :.13 eir 30,4 c o$4. ARE YOU A KENNEDALE RESIDENT? ORO OYES EMAIL: 760/7 I AM REPRESENTING: YSELF LITHE FOLLOWING PERSONS /FIRMS /CORPORATIONS /GROUPS: • IS THE SUBJECT YOU WISH YO PRESENT RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THE CURRENT AGENDA? „OKI° ❑Yes, Agenda Item # • HAVE YOU DISCUSSED THIS SUBJECT WITH ANY COUNCIL /BOARD MEMBERS OR CITY STAFF? I o ❑ Yes, (please list names) PLEASE DESCRIBE THE SUBJECT THAT YOU WISH TO PRESENT: . Lr, 4,0e0(4)c¢ n9 y Se/ -e S s e CAW K ev ©4' e2 4/43- /C)w iv1 4w .1 '1 // Cc •e a .'/ cbd.r71- C44 t S 4,e trea S )1( KENNEDALE