The URL can be used to link to this page

2015_05.07 CC Packet KENNEDALE You're Here,Your Home www.cityofkennedale.com KENNEDALE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA SPECIAL MEETING May 7, 2015 CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 405 MUNICIPAL DRIVE WORKSHOP - 5:30 PM I. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL III. WORK SESSION *NOTE: Pursuant to Section 551.071, Texas Government Code, the City Council reserves the right to adjourn into Executive Session at any time during the work session or the regular session to discuss posted executive session items or to seek legal advice from the City Attorney on any item posted on the agenda. A. Presentation of the Ethical Climate Survey B. Presentation of the Citizens Survey C. Presentation of the Asset Management Plan IV. ADJOURNMENT 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 the City Secretary at 817.985.2104 or (TDD) 1.800.735.2989 CERTIFICATION I certify that a copy of the May 7,2015,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. Leslie Galloway, City S cretary 405 Municipal Drive, Kennedale, TX 76060 1 Telephone: 817-985-2100 1 Fax: 817-478-7169 KENNEDALE You're Here,Your Home www.cityofkennedale.com Staff Report to the Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: May 7, 2015 Agenda Item No: WORK SESSION -A. I. Subject: Presentation of the Ethical Climate Survey II. Originated by: III. Summary: Dr. Trisha Anderson, Associate Professor of Management School of Business Administration & Professional Programs at Texas Wesleyan University will present an analysis of the Ethical Dimensions Survey. The survey indicates the employee balance between principled based decision making versus a utilitarian approach. The staff desires a tilt toward utilitarian because it will help move the organization to the desired culture— integrative and developmental. The analysis by Dr. Anderson is based on a survey of city employees during the fall semester. IV. Fiscal Impact Summary: V. Legal Impact: VI. Recommendation: VII.Alternative Actions: VIII.Attachments: 1. Ethical Climate &Organizational Culture Kennedale Project-Ethic Climate.pdf Survey 2. Organizational Culture Assessment The Organizational Culture Assessment Modified Instrument 1 .docx City of Kennedale Ethical Climate and Organizational Culture Analysis By: Cathy Vallejo, Jasmine Lazarky and Oscar Lazarky TexasWesleyan Smaller. Smarter. SCHOOL OF RUSINESS AOMINISTGATION Table of Contents / History/Motivation for the Project 1 Project Outcomes 1 Ethical Climate / Compare employees and managers / Compare E/M from 2008, 2010, 2014 � Organizational Culture / Compare employees and managers 1 Discussion, Comments, and Questions 7 Smaller. Smarter. History/Motivation / Started in 2008 as a class assignment for Business Research Methods with Dr. Rodney Erakovich. / During Fall 2014 semester, a group of graduate students from Dr. Erakovich's Business Research Methods class at Texas Wesleyan University performed an Ethical Climate Assessment and Organizational Culture Assessment for the City of Kennedale. �',� Smaller. Smarter. Ethical Climate / Shared perceptions on what constitutes ethically correct behavior and how ethical issues should be handled (Victor and Cullen 1987). / While ethics vary from person to person, it can be influenced by the organizations' environment. / 2014 Ethical Climate Survey Target Population 75 58 Respondents ► Managers 19 ► Employees 39 77% Percent Response Rate ► Managers 33% ► Employees 67% �1 Smaller. Smarter. • 1 • 0 • Guiding Factors Examples Questions Applied to: Laws • Industry Laws& Pilegulations 1-4 (Etate & Federal) • Employment & Labors Laws • Environmental Laws Riles • Dress Code 5-7 • Attendance • Sexual Harassment • Drug Fblicy Caring • Sipportive 8-12 • Helpful • Team vs. Self-Interest • Family Unit Instrumental • Organizational Sirvival 13-15 • Goal Oriented • Competitors • Sjccessi Feputation ❑ 2oos Guiding Factors Analysis ■ 2010 ❑ 2014 Laws- expected to adhere strictly to the FalleS- expected to adhere strictly to oodesand regulationsof their profession the rules and mandatesof their or government. organization. 6 g 5 5 4 4 1 6 6 3 6 5 =Am 2 0 1 Employees Manager 0 Employees Managers Caring- ischaracterized by employees Instrumental - look out for their own who are sincerely interested in the well- self-interest, first and foremost, even to being of each other as well asthe work the exdusion of the interest of others rnj . � oonstituendes. who may be affected by their o- 5 5 7 7 6 g 5 5 4 4 2 4 5 2 5 5 1 1 0 0 Employees Managers Employees Managers Question 4 (Laws) The first consideration is whether a decision violates law. Employees Managers 100% 100% 90% 90% • •'. 80% 80% 60% 60% 50% 50% 30% 20% 20% 10% 10% 0% 0% 2008(21) 2010(23) 2014(39) 2008(9) 2010(11) 2014(19) 2010 compared to 2014 ■ Neutral 2010 compared to 2014 P- value = .18 >.05 P- value = .53 >.05 No significant difference Disagree No significant difference Agree Question 6 (Rules) To be successful , people in this organization go by the rules. Employees Managers 100% 100% 1'. 80% 35%(8) 80% ' 50% 50% 30% 67%(26) 30% 68%(13) 20/0 20/0 33%(3) 36%(4) 10% 10% 0% 0% 2008(21) 2010(23) 2014(39) 2008(9) 2010(11) 2014(19) 2010 compared to 2014 2010 compared to 2014 P- �/alue = .34 >.05 ® Neutral No significant difference Disagree No significant difference Agree Question 11 (Caring) In this organization, the most efficient way is not always the right way. Employees Managers 100% 100% 90% 90% 18%(2) ' 1' 50% 50% 40% 82%(9) 30% 20% 20% 10% 0% 0% 2008(21) 2010(23) 2014(39) 2008(9) 2010(11) 2014(19) 2010 compared to 2014 2010 compared to 2014 There is a significant difference. � Ne"trai There is a significant difference / �{IJ JiAfS ❑r�9 �$� Disagree / �{IJ JiAfS ❑i�� Agree Question 12 (Caring) The most important concern in this organization is what is best for the employees Employees Managers 100% 100% 29%(6) 80% 80% •% 50% 48%(10) 50% 30% 30% 58%(11) 0% 0% 2008(21) 2010(23) 2014(39) 2008(9) 2010(11) 2014(19) 2010 compared to 2014 Neutral less to 2014 P- �/alue = .26 >.05 disagree P- Ualue = .66 >.05 No significant difference No significant difference Agree Question 13 (Instrumental) Employees are expected to do whatever is needed to further the organization's interests. Employees Managers 100% 100% 90% 90% •�' •'. . 1.� .'. 1 27%(3) 80% 80% 70% 70% 30% 65%(15) 30% 0% 0% 2008(21) 2010(23) 2014(39) 2008(9) 2010(11) 2014(19) 2010 compared to 2014 2010 compared to 2014 There is a significant difference � Neutral P- value = .22 >.05 / �{ij jiAl'S ❑r�� Disagree No significant difference Agree Question 14 (Instrumental) Cost control is a major concern in this organization . Employees Managers 100% 100% , 90/0 14%(3) •'. ., � 80% 80% 70% 70% 60% 60% 50% 30% 30% 0% 0% 2008(21) 2010(23) 2014(39) 2008(9) 2010(11) 2014(19) 2010 compared to 2014 2010 compared to 2014 There is a significant difference � Neutral There is a significant difference / �{ij jiAi'S ❑r�� C��c� nisagree / �{ij jiArS CT�� Agree Question 15 (Instrumental) There is room for one's own personal morals or ethics in this organization. Employees Managers 100% 100% 9%(1) 26%(5) 80% 80% 70% dbL 60% 60% 50% 50% 91%(10) 58%(11) 70%(16) 30% 30% 0% 0% 2008(21) 2010(23) 2014(39) 2008(9) 2010(11) 2014(19) 2010 compared to 2014 2010 compared to 2014 There is a significant difference � Neutral There is a significant difference / �{Ij jiArs ❑r�� Disagree / �{Ij jArs CT�� Agree L■CC�'rrP f�Gds 9sC�'r�j� Gds h'r�A■�iAC�■ h'r�A■ ■ Deasions Internal Files external Files Based on Files Questions5 � Questions 1 -s (F3�les) (Laws) InternalOutoomes �xternalOutcomes Deasions Based on Outcomes Questions �� 9� Questions 4, 8, & 14 (Caring & Instrumental) (Laws, Caring, Ethical Analysis Instrumental) Smaller. Smarter. Ethical Climate Dimensions Internal Bales External Dales (Dales) (Laws) 7 7 6 6 5 5 4 4 3 5 S 3 5 5 , 2 2 1 1 Employees Managers Employees Managers Internal Outcomes External Outcomes (Caring&Instrumental) (Laws, Caring&Instrumental) 7 7 6 6 5 5 4 4 3 5 5 3 6 6 5 2 4 2 1 1 Employees Managers Employees Managers 2008 2010 201 Q 2008 Number. Employees 21 23 3 � 2010 Smaller. Smarter. Number of - -•- Q 2014 Organizational Culture Assessment / Culture of the City of Kennedale / Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument and Competing Values Framework (OCAI) / Electronic Survey / Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument ® Survey Monkey 1 Goal of 66 people ® 57% useable surveys (38) 11� Smaller. Smarter. Organizational Culture Assessment / The Four Culture Types 1 ) Human Relations Culture FlexIfty and fireedomto act Humm Relations Opm Systems Stabfty and control 2) Open Systems Culture 3) Rational Goal Culture , 4) Internal Process Culture . ��`1 Smaller. Smarter. Overview of Organizational City Results Today Preferred Overall Fbsults J 47of Kennedale Human Relations 29.84 36.18 1 Open Systems 22.05 21.48 Rational Goals 22.59 19.58 1 Internal Process 25.52 22.76 Flexibi&n and freedomto act • • 1 Human Relations S Poems _ 25 ' i H a 1 1 1 1 _ p 1 1 J Iatemal Process Rational Goal c Open Fbtional Relations 13jst ems Goal ••'s. Smaller. Smarter. Stability andcontrol \o«•Q Preferred � Organizational Managers Results City Results Today Preferred Managers Human Relations 34.55 40.32 1 Open Systems 22.69 24.42 Rational Goals 17.50 15.12 41 - anternalProtess 24.29 19.62 . Aexibilin• and!'retdomtoact_ 1 ' Him Rdaeons Opm$pstems n 3 7 i 1 — • • • • 1 . . . • a c 1 1 V ?. — Internal Process Rational Gael Human Open Rational Pelations Sjstem Goals Process Smaller. Smarter. Stab�n•and control Organizational Employee Results City Results Today Preferred Employees Human Relations 27.18 33.84 1 Open Systems 21.68 19.81 Rational Goals 25.83 22.42 1 Internal Process 26.22 24.54 Flex > t} snd fseedomto act 1 Htttnm Rd�eons Open S}stems ' ; � • 1 0 _ 1 z I , , 22.42, 24.54 7 ti o Iasered Process Rationd Gad Open Rational Stab>1i<•andcoauol Relations System •. Process Smaller. Smarter. Now Q Prefeaed Q Conclusion / Human Relations 4 Caring / Internal Processes 4 Rules / Rational Goals 4 Instrumental 7 Smaller. Smarter. Comments/Questions / Questions? / Thank you for your time. 7 Smaller. Smarter. 3.8.It is expected dvsv einpincees will always try in do what is right for the public sewed- 3.Ethical Climate Complrh tL Ncuhel C'ntupIrlely Do not. The orgamzatioual ethi-1 work eliutate foeu es ou the values and belie[,that rue lmowu grand perceived by Dimgree Agree Know groups and Individual members and the shared attinrdes of w'bar educally correct behavior is Please ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ respond to the Collowing swcna,ut,wncem g yotu GBG.ANI21LCGN'S ethical elimai.. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 3.1.Employ—interpret lave t, ]es goSati n5.pnliew,,prof—ional rerptlremeut5.,wa and federal taws, 3.9.A major ronslderanon is what is best fox'everyone m the organizaton. OC,}as it 3PPhey to[hair position and Them vmply with it - Compkwly Neutral Completely Do not Completely Neniral CoAgre7el'V Donut Disagrtt Agree Know Uiugree Agree Knmu ID ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ O ❑ E ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ] 2 3 4 5 6 7 - 1 _ _ 4 -5 6 7 3.3.The laws and nhwM code goveraiug au ewplo}w's profession are key iogrOwors Ifor educa1 behavior 3.14.In[his organization,meployees li ok our for each ollwr. l4 flil50rgarlilatlaA C—Wklely Nndnl Camlaleiely Du-L Completely Neutral Complerely Do not Disauee Agree Know' Disagree Agree Gnaw ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ I 3 4 5 6 7 1 t 3 4 5 6 7 3.11.Ili Ibis orRwizaROU.the must efkiuml wav inmul always the right way. 3.&fairpiay—follmv legal and pvufessioaal sI md.&exactly. Cnmplerely N—r Al Completely Do or Completely Neutnal Cmrrplcrely Do not Disagree Agree Know DlsaBree Agree Knnu' _ ❑ J ❑ C3 CI. ❑ 0 L ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 1 _ 4 5 6 7 _ I 2 3 4 5 6 7 A.k 31e fatal ausid.Afi-is AM—decisiaa tiolrfl.law. 3.I2.the most iulponaut cohcerm im this of_ewizanom is what is hest for the employees, [ompletely Nammal Cnmplerely De rwT Cowpklcly Nudial Corupletcly Do-1 Disagree Agree Knmu Disagree Agree Knmu ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ F 4 i 6 7 S 3 4 5 6 3.5,It i5 balporlam[to hollow%Aaiuzxtiou's rules and procedure,at all limes. 3.13.Employ—are expccitx3 to do whatever is uccded[u lu ,1 Ihr:orgauitaliou's iii rrs[s. Completely Neutral Completely Do mot Completely Nertrcal Conyilerdy Dn not Disagree Agree Krrow Disagree Agree Know ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ i.t l I ❑ L I 1 1_-1 1 3 4 5 6 7 3.6.To be successfirl.people in flits organimwn so by the Tales. 3.14-Cnsl cnim of is a major—n—n in ibis org warion- CompleTely Neatrnl Completely Do wT Disagree Agree Knrnv Cum pklrky Neutral Courplclely Do-1 Disagree Agree Know ❑ ❑ ❑ 17 LI d ❑ ❑ 3 2 3 4 5 6 7 ❑ ❑ ❑ 11 Q Q ❑ — 3 3 1 5 6 3.7.People pr—r their own imrerests bat nor ahwe all else., 3.15.there is room for one's own personal morals m ethics in dus oreaniiation, Cormplctcly Nculyd C'ourpladi Do uol Completely Neutral Completely DD Wt Uixaeree .Agree Know Disagree Agree K"v 11 13 11 0 11 11 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 1 _ 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 The Organizational Culture Assessment The Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument(OCAI) Instrument(OCA1)-Cont'd. 1. Dominant Characteristics Now Preferred A.The organization is a very personal place.It is like an extended family.People seem to share a lot of Demographic Information tew,e,c1v_gs. B.The organization is a very dynamic and entrepreneorial In order to provide comparative feedback,please provide the following information about place.People are milling to stick their necks out and take yourself_ risks. C.The organization is very resultsoriented.A major concern is with getting the job done.People are very 1. Person completing the survey(who are you?) competitive and achievement-oriented. D.The organization is a very controlled and structured a. Manager of department managers place.Formal procedures generally govern what people b. Department manager do Total 100 100 c. Manager,supervisor or team leader in the department d. Employee of the department 2. Number of years you have worked in the department 2. Organizational Leadership o,r Preferred A.The leadership in the organization is generally 3. Number of years you have worked in the organization considered to exemplify mentoring,facilitating,or nurturing. 4. Name of your department in the organization B.The leadership in the organization is generally a. Public Works consideredto exemplify entrepreneurship,innovation,or risk taking_ b. Police Department C.The leadership in the organization is generally considered to exemplify a no-nonsense,aggressive, c. Fire Department results-oriented focus. d. Finance,this includes the utility uildin IT,the court,and the Marshall's D.The considered to is the organization is generally Y S. considered to exemplify coordinating,organizing,or office smooth-running efficiency. Total 100 100 e. Library,Planning and Administration • • • • do • , The Organizational Culture Assessment The Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument(OCAI)-Cont'd. Instrument(OCAI)-Cont'd. 3.ManagementofEmployees Now Preferred 5.Strategic Emphases Now Preferred A.The management style in the organization is A.The organization emphasizes human development. characterized by teamwork,consensus,and High tins[,openness,and participation persist. participation. B. The organization emphasizes acquiring new B.The management style in the organization is resources and creating new challenges_Trying aew characterized by individual risk taking,innovation, things and prospecting for opportunities are valued. freedom,and uniqueness. .. C.The management style in the organization is C. The orement. i emphasizes competitive n d actions and characterized by hard-driving competitiveness,high dominant. Hitting stretch targets and winning are demands and achievement. dominant. D.The management style in the organization is D.The organization emphasizes permanence and characterized by security of employment,conformity, stability.Efficiency:control,and smooth operation predictability and stability in relationships. are importaut. Total 100 100 Total 100 100 4. Organization Glue Now Preferred 6. Criteria ofStwcess Now Preferred A.The glue that holds the organization together is loyalty A.The organization defines success on thebasis of the and mutual trust.Commitment to this organization runs development ofhuman resources,teamwork, high. employee commitment and concern for people. B. The glue that holds the organization together is B.The organization defines success on the basis of commitment to innovation and development.There is an being unique. emphasis on being on the cutting edge. C.The organization defines success on being the best;it C.The glue that holds the organization together is the sees other cities as the competition.Competitive emphasis on achievement and goal accomplishment. leadership is%M. D.The glue that holds the organization together is formal D.The organization defines success on the basis of rules andpolicies.Maintaining a smooth-running efficiency.Dependable delivery,smooth scheduling organization is important. and low-cost production are critical. Total 100 100 Total 100 100 The Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument (OCAI) 1 The Organizational Culture Assessment is to assess six key dimensions of the organizational culture for the City of Kennedale. In completing this instrument, you will be providing a picture of the fundamental assumptions on which the City of Kennedale operates and the values that characterize it. There are no right or wrong answers for these items, just as there is no right or wrong culture. Every organization, public, private and nonprofit, will most likely bedescribed by a different set of responses. Therefore, be as accurate as you can i n respondi ng to the items so that the cul tural di agnosi s w i I I be as preci se as possi bl e. I f you are not sure, gi ve i t your best descri pti on. You are asked to rate the organi zati onal culture for the City of Kennedale. You might consider your team, your department or the overall organization. To determ i ne w hat the best area to rate is consider the department that is managed by you or your boss. The OCAI consistsof six items; each item has f our al ternati ves. Divide 100 poi nts among these four alternatives, depending on the extent to which each alternative is similar to your own organization. Give a higher number of poi nts to the alternative that is most si m Iar to your organization. For example, on item 1, if you think alternative A isvery similar to your organization, B and C are someNhat similar and alternative D is hardly similar at a11, you might give 55 poi nts to A, 20 poi nts each to B and C and 5 poi nts to D. Just be sure your total equals 100 for each item. GI ance at the i nstrument and thi s exampl e may make more sense! Note that the left hand response col um i n the i nstrument is labeled "Now." These responses mean that you are rating the City of Kennedal6 s organizational culture as it is currently. Completethat rating first. When you have f i n i shed, think of t he organ i zat i onal culture of the City of Kennedale as you t h i n it should be in fiveyears i n order to be spectacularly successful. Write these responses i n the"Preferred" col umn. At the end of the instrument are questi ons concerning demographic data that will help in the anal ysi s. M ark your response di rectIV on the i nstrument. When you have f i n shed pl ace your comp)eted i nstrument i n the envel ope provi ded and i t w I I be col I ected. I f you have any questions, pleasee-mail usat mbatxwesa)_gmail.com. The next page provides i nformation concerni ng your rights under federal law. Thank you very much for your cooperation. The Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument (OCAI) As Texas Wesleyan University M BA students we want make you aware of details i n regards to confidentiality. Nothing will be attributed to you personal I y; only aggregate data will be used. You are Diagnosing and changing organizational culture: based on the competing values framework by CAMERON, KIM S & QUINN, R.E. Copyright 2006 by JOHN WILEY & SONS INC. - BOOKS. Reproduced with permission of JOHN WILEY& SONS INC. - BOOKS in the format Copy via Copyright Clearance Center. 1 being asked to parti ci pate in this survey for your management needs and possible future research study. Persons who parti ci pate in research are entitled to certain rights. These rights include but are not limited to the participant's right to: 1. Be i nformed of the nature and purpose of the research; 2. Be given an explanation of the procedures to be fol lowed i n the research, and any drug or device to be utilized; 3. Be given a description of any attendant discomforts and risks reasonable to be expected; 4. Be given a di scl osure of any benefits to the parti ci pant reasonable to be expected, if appl i cabl e; 5. Be given a disclosure of any appropriate alternatives, drugs, or devices that might be advantageous to the parti ci pant, thei r relative ri sks and benefits; 6. Be i nformed of the alternatives of medi cal treatment, i f any, avai I abl a to the parti ci pant duri ng or after the experi ment i f compl i cati ons ari se; 7. Be given an opportunity to ask any questions concerni ng the research and the procedures i nvolved; 8. Be i nstructed that consent to parti ci pate i n the research may be wi thdrawn at any ti me, and the parti ci pant may di sconti nue parti ci pati on wi thout prej udi ce, 9. Be given a copy of the si gned and dated consent form; 10. A nd be gi ven the opportuni ty to deci de to consent or not to consent to parti ci pate i n research wi thout the i ntervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, coercion, or undue i nfI uence on the parti ci pant's deci si on. The Organizational Culture Assessment I nstrument starts on the next page. 2 The Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument (OCAI) 1. Dominant Characteristics Now Preferred A. The organization is a very personal place. It is I i ke an extended f am i I y. Peopl e seem to share a I of of themselves. B. T he organ i zat i on isavery dynamic and entrepreneurial pl ace. Peopl e are w I I i ng to sti ck thei r necks out and take risks. C. Theorganization isvery results-oriented. A major concern i s w i th getting the j ob done. People are very competitive and achievement-oriented. D. The organization isavery controlled and structured place. Formal procedures generally govern what people do. Total 100 100 2. Organizational Leadership Now Preferred A. The leadership in the organi zati on is generally considered to exempl ify mentori ng, faci I itati ng, or nurturi ng. B. The leadership in the organizati on is generally considered to exemplify entrepreneurship, innovation, or risk taking. C. The leadership in the organizati on is generally considered to exempt ify a no-nonsense, aggressive, results-oriented focus. D. The leadership in the organization is generally considered to exemplify coordinating, organizing, or smooth-runni ng efficienc . Total 100 100 3 The Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument (OCA 1) - Cont'd. 3. Management of Employees Now Preferred A. The management style in the organization is characterized by teamwork, consensus, and participation. B. The management style in the organization is characterized by individual risk taking, innovation, freedom, and uniqueness. C. The management style in the organization is characterized by hard-driving competitiveness, high demands and achievement. D. The management style in the organi zati on is characterized by security of employment, conformity, predi ctabi I i ty and stabi I i ty i n rel at onshi ps. Total 100 100 4. Organization Glue Now Preferred A. Thegluethat holds the organization together is loyalty and mutual trust. Commitment to this organization runs high. B. Thegluethat holds the organization together is commitment to innovation and development. There isan emphasis on bei ng on the cutti ng edge. C. Thegluethat holds the organization together i s the emphasis on achievement and goal accomplishment. D. Thegluethat holds the organization together is formed rules and policies. Maintaining a smooth-running organization is important. Total 100 100 4 The Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument (OCA 1) - Cont'd. 5. 3rategi c Emphases Now Preferred A. The organization emphasizes human development. High trust, openness, and participation persist. B. The organization emphasizes acqui ri ng new resources and creati ng new chat I enges. Try i ng new t h i ngs and prospect ng for opportunities are val ued. C. T he organ i zat i on em phasi zes com pet i t i ve act i ons and achievement. Hitting stretch targets and winning are dominant. D. The organization emphasizes permanence and stabi I ity. Efficiency, control, and smooth operation are important. Total 100 100 6. Criteria of Siccess Now Preferred A. The organization defines success on the basis of the development of human resources, teamwork, employee commitment and concern for people. B. The organization deli nes success on the basis of bei ng unique. C. The organization deli nes success on bei ng the best; it sees other cities as the competition. Competitive I eadershi p is key. D. The organization defines success on the basis of efficiency. Dependable delivery, smooth scheduling and low-cost production arecritical. Total 100 100 5 The Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument (OCA 1) - Cont'd. Demographic I nformation I n order to provide comparative feedback, please provide the following information about yourself: 1. Person completing the survey (who are you?) a. Manager of department managers b. Department manager c. Manager, supervisor or team leader in the department d. Employee of the department 2. Number of years you have worked in the department 3. Number of years you have worked in the organization 4. Name of your department in the organization a. Public Works b. Pol ice Department c. Fi re Department d. Fi nance, thi s i ncl udes the uti I ity bui I di ng, I T, the court, and the M arshal I's off i ce e. Library, Planning and Administration 6 KENNEDALE You're Here,Your Home www.citygfkennedale.com Staff Report to the Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: May 7, 2015 Agenda Item No: WORK SESSION - B. I. Subject: Presentation of the Citizens Survey II. Originated by: III. Summary: Kristina Ashton, Jorge Pineda, Michael McFarland, and Jessica Serrano members of the Capstone Class from UTA will present a report on the Citizen's Opinion Survey conducted by their class. The survey was conducted during the spring semester. IV. Fiscal Impact Summary: V. Legal Impact: VI. Recommendation: VII.Alternative Actions: VIII.Attachments: 1. 2015 City of Kennedale Citizens Survey Report CitizenSatisfactionSurve 2015Re ort2. df THE CITY OF KENNEDALE CITIZEN SURVEY REPORT KENNEDALE MAY 2015 You're Here,Your Home ilrt University of Texas at Arlington The School of Urban and Public Affairs Capstone Project Kristina Ashton, Michael McFarland, Jorge Pineda, & Jessica Serrano Professor Bob Hart �i KENNEDALE Kennedale City Hall 405 Municipal Drive Kennedale, Texas 76060 www.cityofkennedale.com 817-985-2100 The City of Kennedale Citizen Survey Report May 2015 A ii KENNEDALE TABLE OF CONTENTS I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................ I II. CITY OF KENNEDALE............................................................................................................................ 3 A. Demographics............................................................................................................................................................5 B. A Place to Live, Work, and Play..............................................................................................................................21 C. Information and Engagement...................................................................................................................................31 III. SATISFACTION COMPARISONS......................................................................................................... 35 A. Baseline of All City Services...................................................................................................................................37 B. City Government......................................................................................................................................................43 C. Perceptions of Safety...............................................................................................................................................45 D. Police Department Services.....................................................................................................................................47 E. Fire and Emergency Medical Services(EMS).........................................................................................................53 F. Streets/Transportation..............................................................................................................................................55 G. Water Quality, Billing, and Services .......................................................................................................................57 H. Water Conservation .................................................................................................................................................61 I. Code Enforcement ...................................................................................................................................................65 J. Planning and Development......................................................................................................................................73 K. Library .....................................................................................................................................................................75 L. Storm Water.............................................................................................................................................................77 M. City Website.............................................................................................................................................................79 N. Customer Service.....................................................................................................................................................83 O. Recycling .................................................................................................................................................................85 IV. CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDATIONS........................................................................................... 87 V. APPENDIX A: 2015 CITY OF KENNEDALE CITIZEN SURVEY...................................................... 91 VI. APPENDIX B: QUESTION 1 ................................................................................................................ 103 VII. APPENDIX C: QUESTION 2................................................................................................................ 117 VIII. APPENDIX D: QUESTION 21.............................................................................................................. 133 IX. APPENDIX E: QUESTION 26 .............................................................................................................. 135 X. APPENDIX F: QUESTION 27 .............................................................................................................. 137 XI. APPENDIX G: COMPARISON TABLES ............................................................................................ 145 The City of Kennedale Citizen Survey Report A May 2015 KENNEDALE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A. Purpose This survey will identify the city's demographics and how it has changed throughout the years. This information will allow city leaders to gain a sense of who their residents are. Secondly, the survey will give city leaders and stakeholders knowledge of the public's attitudes about potential economic development and capital improvement projects. Most importantly, this survey will assess how satisfied the citizens of Kennedale are with various aspects of the city: quality of life, delivery of city services, and local government. Overall, the survey is another method to encourage civic participation and to inform the local policy decision-making process. B. Methodology The survey was developed using Survey Monkey to collect data on various areas of interest regarding citizens' satisfaction. Survey Monkey is a website that enables clients to create surveys for any purpose, which then provides data to be analyzed upon its completion. Areas to be assessed include: demographics, emergency services, quality of life, development, storm water issues, streets, recycling, as well as other city services. In order to obtain as many survey responses as possible, many avenues were used to disseminate the survey to the public. The link to the survey was posted on all the city's social media sites, including the city's website, Facebook, and Twitter accounts. An email with the link was also disseminated to all homeowner associations' presidents within the city, along with a cover letter explaining the purpose of the survey while encouraging residents to complete the survey online. An insert containing the link was also attached to the citizens' water bills and distributed via mail. In addition, in February and March the survey information was posted in the city's e-newsletter that is posted on the city's website and sent via email to citizens. To allow those who do not have access to the internet a chance to voice their opinions, paper copies were provided and placed at the library, city hall, and the senior center. A total of 198 surveys were received within the one-month timeframe. The margin of error is plus or minus seven percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. C. Challenge The 2015 City of Kennedale Citizen Survey is the fourth comprehensive citizen survey to be done by the city. The first survey was conducted in 2007 and is used as the baseline. Subsequent surveys have been completed biennially in 2011 and 2013. Each year the survey is revised to reflect the current issues affecting the city, and to collect the most pertinent and actionable information. While modifications are made, a core group of questions are maintained in order to track the city's progress throughout the years. Comparisons are made between 2013 responses and those from prior years, when available, but areas where data is only available for 2015 will be presented without comparison. On many of the questions in the survey, respondents could give an answer of"don't know" or "N/A". The proportion of respondents giving this reply is always shown in the appendices. However, "don't The City of Kennedale Citizen Survey Report / May 2015 1 1 KENNEDALE know" or"N/A" responses have generally been removed from the analyses presented in the body of the report, unless otherwise indicated. In other words, the majority of the tables and graphs in the body of the report display the responses from respondents who had an opinion about a specific item. Percentages showed on graphs were rounded to the nearest whole number. Throughout the survey open ended questions were asked. Open ended questions have no answer choices from which respondents select their response; instead, respondents create their own answers and state them in their own words. There are many advantages of using open-ended questions; for instance, responses are not prompted, which gives us a better opportunity to "hear" our audience and not miss important issues. The verbatim responses are categorized by topic area using codes. These responses will be seen in the appendix section. D. Introduction The City of Kennedale is located in the mid-south heart of the Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex, just southeast of the intersection of interstate highways I-820 and I-20. The city's population has grown 17% in the last decade and currently has over 8,000 residents. The city leaders continue to work together to aggressively attract and maintain businesses in Kennedale by building strong public-private partnerships. The city has attracted sixty-three businesses since 2013. In order to improve services so that the city of Kennedale can continue to attract new residents and businesses to the area, local officials from the city have partnered with the MPA students from the University of Texas at Arlington to conduct the 2015 survey, assessing citizens' satisfaction with the delivery of major city services and their local government. This is the fourth bi-annual survey the graduate students of the University of Texas at Arlington Public Administration program have provided the City of Kennedale with assistance in constructing and analyzing their citizen survey. The information collected and analyzed in previous years along with this year will reflect how citizen perceptions may be changing throughout the years, which can help local officials better understand their residents and their community. With the data gathered from this year's survey, the city of Kennedale will be able to identify the types of new businesses residents would like to see operating in the city, measure the satisfaction residents have with specific public services and government leadership, as well as their attitudes towards capital improvement projects. Lastly, local government can tailor their development strategies for the future of Kennedale by addressing what residents consider to be the most important challenges facing the city in the years to come. The research and data analysis conducted by the team will be presented to the city council of Kennedale for evaluation and implementation. The City of Kennedale Citizen Survey Report / May 2015 1 2 KENNEDALE CITY OF KENNEDALE Kennedale's history can be traced back to 1843 where a treaty was signed between Village Creek tribes and the Republic of Texas. In 1882, Oliver S. Kennedy, along with two other businessmen, purchased land in present day Kennedale at the sight of a mineral well. Two years later a local post office opened, and in 1886, the Town of Kennedale was platted and named after Mr. Kennedy. To attract a rail line to the community, Kennedy donated land to the railroad, and the Fort Worth & New Orleans Railway Company built a line through Kennedale to Waxahachie. Mr. Kennedy's investment paid off as it brought financial stability to the small town. It was not until 1947 that the City of Kennedale was incorporated and now operates under a home Rule Charter that was adopted in 1988. 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. The City Manager is accountable to the City Council for the proper administration of all the affairs of the city. With this history and structure of the city as a backdrop, the survey gathered information about current residents. This first section begins by examining the demographics of the city. Followed by a review of the city as a place to live, work and play. The last portion of this section looks at how respondents receive their information and how they are engaged. This segment lays a foundation to the report as it explains a lot about who the citizens are and what attracts them. In addition to respondents measuring these sections on a scale, respondents were also given the opportunity to list comments or concerns about many of the listed sections. The survey analysis speaks both quantitatively and qualitatively to the 2015 responses, then goes back and compares that data with the data from past years when available. This material can be valuable to the city as it allows them to be able to understand and gain insight about their residents. The City of Kennedale Citizen Survey Report / May 2015 1 3 KENNEDALE Demographics Respondents'Residency & Work The first demographic data taken was the residency and work location of respondents. Unsurprisingly, most of the respondents were citizens of Kennedale (97%). Nine percent of respondents work in Kennedale. Inexplicably, one percent of the respondents were neither a resident of Kennedale, nor did they work in Kennedale. Out of all the residents who responded to the survey, eight percent not only live in Kennedale but also work in Kennedale. Self Identification of Where Residents Work Respondents MMM •Live in city ■Out of city •Work in city ■In the city •Both 92% •Neither The City of Kennedale Citizen Survey Report / May 2015 1 5 KENNEDALE Age & Gender The age responses show that Kennedale has a fairly typical age distribution among its adult population, with the baby boomers making a significant showing. There were also more women responding to the survey than men, a pattern seen in the last two surveys. The fact that women are consistently responding to the city's surveys more than men may indicate that the city has a rather unequal distribution of gender, or it could indicate that women are more likely to be a/the member of the household to volunteer to respond to a survey. Ages of Respondents Gender of Respondents 24% L ■18-35 0% ■36-50 60% ■Male ■51-64 ■Female ■65&over Age Distribution by Gender 65&over 51-64 36-50 18-35 ■Male ■Female The City of Kennedale Citizen Survey Report / May 2015 1 6 KENNEDALE As can be seen in the following charts, Kennedale is gradually becoming younger and it appears that the female respondents continue to steadily grow faster than the male respondents. Age Brackets Over Time 40% 35% 30% 0 25% a 20% — 0 15% — u 10% s, 5% 0% 18-35 36-50 51-64 65 and older Ages of Respondents ■2011 ■2013 ■2015 Gender of Respondents Over Time 70% IX 60% 0 50% � - I a 40% 4. 30% an 20% U 10% a 0% Female Male ■2011 ■2013 ■2015 The City of Kennedale Citizen Survey Report May 2015 7 KENNEDALE Race/Ethnieitt9 Kennedale's racial and ethnic make-up is certainly where the city diverts from the average. With 90% of respondents identifying as "White," Kennedale is not nearly as diverse as the rest of Texas. The source of this homogeneity may be attributable to Kennedale's distant and recent past. Kennedale used to be a rural town made up of large land holders; historically, such rural landowners were overwhelmingly white. Recently, Kennedale has seen residential development of large homes on large lots in planned neighborhoods. When there tends to be few housing style options and affordability, the characteristics of a community tend to tilt toward a single group of individuals. As the city builds out, develops commercially, and otherwise matures into a more semi-urban/semi-suburban haven, diversity may follow. Still, racial and ethnic demographics usually change slowly. Race/Ethnicity of Respondents •Asian/Pacific Islander •White •American Indian •Black/African American •Hispanic/Latino/Spanish I ' . Race/Ethnicity (Comparison to Texas) 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% _j=j U Asian/Pacific White American Indian Black/ Hispanic/ Islander African American Latino/Spanish ■Kennedale ■Texas The City of Kennedale Citizen Survey Report May 2015 8 KENNEDALE Length of Residency Where Kennedale starts to look increasingly interesting is in the rest of the demographics. First of all, residents of Kennedale tend to stay in Kennedale for a long time. Nearly half of respondents had lived in Kennedale for more than 10 years. Length of Residency in Kennedale 45% 24%1 ■Less than 1 year ■1-5 years ■6-10 years ■More than 10 years Respondents ages 18 to 35 tend to have lived in Kennedale for 1 to 5 years. These young adults are not renting for 6 months and then getting out; they are signing long-term leases, buying homes, and starting families in Kennedale. Very few of these young adults have lived in Kennedale for more than 10 years, so these respondents grew up somewhere else or at least moved away for college and are coming to Kennedale by choice. The trend continues into the next age bracket. Respondents ages 36 to 50 have lived in Kennedale for either 6 to 10 years or for 1 to 5 years. These families are getting into Kennedale as young, growing families and staying for a long time or they are coming in for their children's high school years. This age bracket is more likely to be looking for a last family home and they are doing it in Kennedale. As we reach into the top age brackets the data is slightly more predictable. Respondents ages 51 and over have put down roots in Kennedale and have been in the city for a significant amount of time. Some have lived in Kennedale their whole lives. The City of Kennedale Citizen Survey Report May 2015 9 KENNEDALE Length of Residency by Age 45 40 35 30 25 — 20 15 10 5 0 18-35 36-50 51-64 65&over ■Less than 1 year ■1-5 years ■6-10 years ■More than 10 years The comparison of these responses over the last few surveys indicates that some of the long-term residents (10+ years of residency) may be moving out or that new residential developments are bringing in enough people to tip the scales. Long-term residents are still a plurality of the population, but they no longer hold the majority. For those that value a stable population full of familiar faces, the good news is that the group gaining the most ground is the group of people who have lived in Kennedale for 6 to 10 years. Length of Residency Over Time 60% 50% 40% — 30% 20% 10% 0% < 1 year 1-5 years 6-10 years 10+years ■2011 ■2013 ■2015 "I've raised my kids here, and now some of my grandkids are growing up here. I couldn't think of a better place to be. " "Having grown up in Kennedale and raised my children here (lived here 52 years), I have watched many changes and improvements in our city." The City of Kennedale Citizen Survey Report / May 2015 1 10 KENNEDALE Likelihood of Remaining in Kennedale When respondents reported whether or not they were likely to remain in Kennedale for the next 5 years, 95% said they would likely remain in the city. Kennedale is a destination that will continue to grow, according to these measures. Residents Likely to Remain in Kennedale ■Will remain in city 0 ■Will not remain in city The trends show that residents of retirement age intend to stay put, as is expected. Still, the fact that absolutely zero of respondents over the age of 65 intend to leave Kennedale in the near future is excellent. The age bracket with the next lowest percentage of respondents likely to leave Kennedale in the next 5 years is actually the young adults. Respondents ages 18 to 35 are more likely to stay in Kennedale than their counterparts aged 36 to 64. Likely to Remain: Age Likely to Remain: Age 18-35 36-50 4-,17W& 8 1%'. ■Will Remain ■Will Remain ■Will Not Remain ■Will Not Remain The City of Kennedale Citizen Survey Report May 2015 11 KENNEDALE Likely to Remain: Age Likely to Remain: Age 51-64 65 & over 0 ' I 0I I ■Will Remain Will Remain I ■Will Not Remain 1000/4 ■Will Not Remain When likelihood of staying in Kennedale is broken down by ownership status, the results are nearly identical for homeowners and renters. Since renters are more mobile, the idea that they would extend their lease or lease or buy another home in Kennedale on purpose at the same rate as the homeowners in the city is very good for Kennedale. Likely to Remain: Likely to Remain: Owners Renters ' 1 ■Likely ■Likely ■Not Likely ■Not Likely ' 1 94% I This high likelihood of remaining in Kennedale has not changed much over the years. In the last two years it has actually become slightly more likely that the residents would stay in Kennedale. This year's 95% is the highest percentage since the city began surveying, although that falls within the margin of error. The City of Kennedale Citizen Survey Report / May 2015 1 12 KENNEDALE Remaining in Kennedale Over Time 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 2011 2013 2015 ■Likely ■Not Likely The City of Kennedale Citizen Survey Report May 2015 13 KENNEDALE Homeownership Homeownership in Kennedale is very high. 91% of respondents said they own their homes. This indicates that Kennedale is very different from national and state averages. Even the state average of homeownership (62.2%) is significantly lower than in Kennedale. Homeownership in Kennedale ■Own ■Rent Homeownership Comparison to Texas 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Kennedale Texas ■Own ■Rent When this is broken down by age, the expected rates for each age bracket hold true. The younger the age bracket, the more likely the respondents were to rent. Conversely, the older the age bracket, the more likely the respondents were to own their homes. The City of Kennedale Citizen Survey Report May 2015 14 KENNEDALE Homeownership: Age Homeownership: Age 18-35 36-50 ?7 ■Own ■Own 76% ■Rent 88% ■Rent —.0g4A — j , —.aMA I Homeownership: Age Homeownership: Age 65 51-64 & over ,PPPP",— —qqqql ■Own ■Own ■Rent ■Rent These rates of homeownership have changed little over time. Homeownership Over Time 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 2011 2013 2015 ■Rent ■Own The City of Kennedale Citizen Survey Report May 2015 15 KENNEDALE Children at Home Respondents reported that 62%had no children under the age of 18 living at home with them. Children Living at Home ■Children at home 1 ■No children at home The majority of Kennedale's respondents continue to live without children, although there may be more children in Kennedale's future. Since 2011 the percentage of households with children has grown. Children at Home Over Time 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 2011 2013 2015 ■Yes ■No The City of Kennedale Citizen Survey Report May 2015 16 KENNEDALE Education Kennedale's citizenry is very educated. 82% of respondents have at least attended college with 60% having earned at least a bachelor's degree, if not more. In comparison to state and national averages, Kennedale stands well above the norm. Highest Education Achieved ■High School/GED ■Some College College Graduate ■Post Graduate Education Attainment Comparison 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% _. Kennedale Texas USA ■<High School ■High School —Bachelor's or higher The City of Kennedale Citizen Survey Report / May 2015 1 17 KENNEDALE Over time the number of college graduates with no more than a Bachelor's degree is out-growing the numbers of all other educational attainment levels. Some of this may be attributable to the influx of young adults who may not have had the time to go on to post-graduate degrees yet. Education Attainment Over Time 50% 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% High School/GED Some College College Grad Post Grad ■2011 ■2013 ■2015 The City of Kennedale Citizen Survey Report / May 2015 1 18 KENNEDALE Income Compared to other cities Kennedale is also slightly wealthier, with less than 25% of the respondents earning under$50K per year. Income of Respondents 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Less than$25K $25K to$49K $50K to$99K $100K to$149K $150K or more The general distribution of income holds true for most age groups, except for respondents ages 36 to 50. This age group has a disproportionate share of respondents making over$100K. Income by Age 12% — 10% — 8% ■Less than$25K ■$25K to$49K 6% ■$50K to$99K 4% ■$l OOK to$149K ■$150K or more 2% 0% 18-35 36-50 51-64 65&older The City of Kennedale Citizen Survey Report May 2015 19 KENNEDALE A Place to Live, Work, and Play Recommending Kennedule Most of the respondents (93%)who live in Kennedale would recommend Kennedale to someone interested. Recommending Living in Kennedale 0 •Would recommend Kennedale •Would not recommend g a Kennedale When this question is broken down by ownership, the reverse of what one would expect emerges. Every renter who responded to the survey would recommend Kennedale to a prospective resident. Eight percent of owners would not recommend Kennedale. Recommending Recommending Kennedale: Owners Kennedale: Renters i ' A& I ■Would ■Would Recommend Recommend ■Would Not ■Would Not Recommend Recommend When breaking down this same question by age brackets, surprising findings again emerge. The youngest age bracket of ages 18 to 35 would absolutely recommend Kennedale to everyone. The next highest bracket of ages 36 to 50 was the least likely to recommend Kennedale. From there the likelihood to recommend Kennedale went up steadily as the age brackets went up. Still, even the highest age bracket had a few (2%) who would not recommend living in Kennedale. In the youngest age bracket 100% of respondents would recommend living in Kennedale. The City of Kennedale Citizen Survey Report May 2015 21 KENNEDALE Recommending Recommending Kennedale: Age 18-35 Kennedale: Age 36-50 —"qqN ■Would ■Would Recommend Recommend Kennedale Kennedale 100% ■Would Not 86% ■Would Not Recommend Recommend Kennedale Kennedale Recommending Recommending Kennedale: Age 51-64 Kennedale: Age 65 & over L -..aA ■ ■i dj- M1, §0r % ■Would Y§00§f 4 Recommend ■ of ojiboC Kennedale MI'Cjjjj§Ef I Lim.:8 ■Would Not Ys■■sr Recommend Kennedale The City of Kennedale Citizen Survey Report May 2015 22 KENNEDALE Kennedale's residents have always been willing to recommend living in Kennedale to those interested. But, this year's respondents were especially willing with a new high of 93%. Along with the statistics about how many residents intend to stay in Kennedale, it is clear that Kennedale has done something right in the past couple of years and the residents are enjoying the benefits. Recommending Kenndale Over Time 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 2011 2013 2015 ■Likely ■Not Likely The City of Kennedale Citizen Survey Report May 2015 23 KENNEDALE Reasons Not to Recommend Kennedale Respondents were asked why they might not recommend living in Kennedale. The responses varied, but the most repeated responses were taxes and crime; residents would appreciate improvements in those areas the most. Why Residents Might Not Recommend Living in Kennedale ■Crime ■Miscellaneous 1 19% w Neighborhood Businesses ■Noise ' % ■School District ' Taxes I ' Water Billing Department Water Cost Water Quality no grocery store, meats,fresh fruits, veggies" "Water and taxes are to high" "lack of school programs and businesses in the city. " The City of Kennedale Citizen Survey Report / May 2015 1 24 KENNEDALE Reasons to Recommend Kennedale When respondents were asked why they chose Kennedale, the answers varied even more. With this in mind, one can infer that there are more good things about Kennedale than there are bad things. The residential development in Kennedale was a reason to move for many people but for different reasons. Some felt it was affordable, some felt it was a quality house or a quality neighborhood or both, and still others felt that the development created a desirable community atmosphere. The school district was the largest single response. The quality of life in general offered by living in Kennedale was also a popular answer. The location of Kennedale was another big answer in three different ways. Many moved to Kennedale to be near to work, some to be near family, and some to be near to the rest of the Metroplex without being in the big city. Interestingly, one percent of respondents actually moved to Kennedale to be near the racetracks. Why Residents Chose Kennedale ■Affordable Housing ■Quality Housing/Neighborhood P. ■Community Atmosphere V7% ■Good Schools ■Quality of Life 1 14 0%. _W ■Proximity to Work ■Location ■Family Nearby ■Grew Up Here/History Here ■Race Track "Brookstone Estates - beautiful homes, looks like the All-American neighborhood" "location in DFW area and we liked the large lot that had trees and the creek" "7th Generation Kennedahan" The City of Kennedale Citizen Survey Report May 2015 25 KENNEDALE Quality of Life Respondents rated Kennedale on a 5-point scale from "Very Poor" to "Excellent" in six general areas. Kennedale was rated very high as a place to live and raise children. The overall image of the city as well as the value that citizens receive for their tax dollars is rated between "Fair and "Good" and could use a little improvement. Kennedale as a place to work was rated the lowest. In fact, all of the services (Police, Water, Parks, Library, etc.) the city provides were rated above "Fair" on average, better than Kennedale as a place to work. The city should explore ways to recruit growing businesses, professional offices, and entrepreneurship. Quality of Life in Kennedale Overall image/appearance of the city Overall value that you receive for your city tax dollars and fees Kennedale as a place to work ■Poor ■Fair Kennedale as a place to raise children ■Good ■Excellent Your neighborhood as a place to live Kennedale as a place to live 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% The City of Kennedale Citizen Survey Report May 2015 26 KENNEDALE Participation Resident participation and involvement is important because involved citizens care about their city and can provide great feedback for improvements. Respondents were asked how many times in the last 12 months, if any, they or their household members participated in certain activities in Kennedale. This includes information from a wide variety of services, and the city can use this feedback to determine on what specific service they would like to focus resources. With approximately 60% of respondents having never attended a meeting of local elected officials or other local public meeting, it should be addressed and a program or committee should be created to improve this rate. In the past 12 months, how many times have you or household participated in the following city activities: 70% 60% IX 50% ■Never o ■Once/Twice 40% `" ■3 to 12 times 0 30% ■More than 12 � times a 20% — 10% 0% City libraries or City park Attended local Read city Volunteered in their services city meeting newsletter group or activity in city 66% of respondents stated that they have used library services less than twice with 30% never using this service. This shows that library services are not being fully utilized, but the positive part is that when they are being used,residents are very satisfied with all aspects of library services. Also, 40% of respondents stated they have visited city parks between 3-12 times in the last 12 months. City parks are highly rated and often used, so they should be maintained constantly along with providing a safe environment. As previously mentioned, 60% of respondents have never attended a public meeting. 32% have only been once or twice, which is an important statistic for the local government as they can focus on getting people more The City of Kennedale Citizen Survey Report / May 2015 1 27 KENNEDALE involved. One thing that the city can do is to highlight the importance of these meetings and show that the information discussed affects all residents as well as businesses. The Kennedale TownCenter Herald newsletter is popular among respondents. 45% of respondents stated that they have read the newsletter between 3-12 times in the past year. The majority of respondents (63%) have never volunteered their time to some group or activity in Kennedale; only a low 10% have done so 3-12 times. This could mean that residents are volunteering their time in surrounding cities or simply do not know that there are opportunities to volunteer within the city. In order to attract more volunteers, the city could put information in the city newsletter and let the residents know of the different activities in the near future where volunteers are needed. The City of Kennedale Citizen Survey Report / May 2015 1 28 KENNEDALE Best Qualities Respondents were asked to choose what they like most about the City of Kennedale and they made it clear that the size and location of the city are its strong points. People move to Kennedale to have that small town feeling, quiet atmosphere, country lifestyle, but also enjoy only being 10 minutes away from the busy city life. Respondents made it clear that they would like Kennedale to remain a small town as it is the reason why most people love Kennedale. What do you like most about Kennedale? Location in D/FW Schools Parks People Size Friendliness Special Events 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% With so much growth and development expected in the near future, city officials must keep Kennedale warm and inviting. To quote the city's Ends Statement, the City Council and staff should continue to strive to make Kennedale "... a family-oriented community providing a refuge from the hectic pace of the Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex." The challenge for the city government is to keep part of Kennedale's beautiful small-town feeling but also continue to positively grow. "Quiet living" "Love the country feeling, yet still in the city. Stop building new homes, will become too crowded and crime will increase." "Kennedale has the best of both worlds that small, hometown, quiet country feel, yet a huge Metroplex with everything available within a 10-20 [minute] drive.....I have lived in Kennedale going on 52 years... " "I love the rural setting" `It's a small town. Please keep it that way" The City of Kennedale Citizen Survey Report / May 2015 1 29 KENNEDALE Information and Engagement Communicating effectively to residents is crucial for local governments because it promotes civic engagement and allows residents to stay informed about current events or on-going issues within the city. By understanding where residents seek and obtain their information regarding the city, local officials can communicate more effectively to their residents about services, events, accomplishments, and future plans. Kennedale residents reported using a variety of sources to gain information about their community. The three most used sources by the citizens were the city website (73%), the Fort Worth Star-Telegram (42%), and the city newsletter (47%). The sources used the least were Twitter(7%) and city meetings (11%). Where Do Respondents Receive City Information? IX 80% 70% 0 60% 15.50% — — a 40% w 30% 20% to 10% PO 0% Fort Worth kennedale City of Facebook Twitter City City Star-Telegram news.com Kennedale page Meetings Newsletter website (available on the City website and via email subscription) Location for Information Throughout the years the residents have increased their usage of the city website and the Fort Worth Star- Telegram in order to obtain information regarding the city. There was a sharp decrease with residents using the city newsletter to obtain information; this may be due to the fact that the newsletter is now being sent out electronically versus sending paper copies in the mail with the utility bill. The City of Kennedale Citizen Survey Report / May 2015 1 31 KENNEDALE Where Do Respondents Receive City Information?(Comparison) 100% 90% o 80% 70% - a 60% 0 50% 40% 30% 20% a 10% 0% Fort Worth kennedale City of Facebook Twitter City City Star-Telegram news.com Kennedale page Meetings Newsletter website (available on the City Location for Information website and via email ■2015 Responses ■2013 Responses 2011 Responses subscription) A majority of individuals (53%) would prefer to go back to receiving the newsletter with their utility bill. The city may want to consider reverting back to printing the newsletter as well as keeping the electronic formats available. Going through the comments there were a couple of individuals who were not aware that the newsletter was still available and others who stated they missed having the paper copies sent via mail with the water bills: `I really miss the newsletters that used to be included with the water bills... " "Communication was better when we had the newsletter in the water bill... " "Poor communications..quit mailing the newsletter. " `7f you don't have internet access, at least give the option of mailing out newsletter. " `I wasn't aware I there was a city newsletter any more." The City of Kennedale Citizen Survey Report / May 2015 1 32 KENNEDALE How Residents Prefer to Receive the City's Newsletter 60% 50% 040% 0 30% an 20% U S. a 10% 0% By visiting the Via email Printed and Printed and I don't wish to website subscription mailed in the available at the receive the utility bill library&city hall newsletter Different options The City of Kennedale Citizen Survey Report / May 2015 1 33 KENNEDALE SA TISFA CTION COMPARISONS The satisfaction comparison section speaks to the "quality of life" services that the city provides for its residents. Understanding citizen satisfaction with each of the public goods listed will allow the city to prioritize future projects and focus areas. In addition to rating each of the services on a scale, respondents were also given the opportunity to list comments or concerns about each of the listed services. The survey includes a wide variety of services and speaks both quantitatively and qualitatively to the 2015 responses, then goes back and compares that data with the data from past years. The services listed in the 2015 survey are: Fire Department, Emergency Medical Services, Police Department, Library services, Maintenance of city parks, Customer service provided by city employees, Municipal Court, Residential development, Animal control, Air quality, Communication from the city, Development of Kennedale Parkway, Management of storm water run-off(flood prevention), Water billing, Water conservation, Conservation of creeks, Maintenance of city sidewalks, Recruitment of business, Code enforcement (weeds, abandoned buildings, etc...), and Water taste. This list of city services is by no means exhaustive,but it captures the issues that seem to be important to the respondents. The City of Kennedale Citizen Survey Report / May 2015 1 35 KENNEDALE Baseline of All City Services To begin the survey the respondents answered questions about all the city services, rating them on a 5-point scale from "Very Poor" to "Excellent." This nearly exhaustive list gave a baseline for interpreting the rest of the survey data. Together with the question about which services should be prioritized, this information helps to clarify the severity and importance of the issues in the survey. Average Ratings of City Services Excellent Good Fair Fire department Emergency medical services(EMS) Police department Library services Maintenance of city parks Customer service provided by city employees Municipal court Residential development Animal control Air quality Communication from city Development of Kennedale Pkwy Management of storm water run-off(flood prevention) Water billing Water conservation Conservation of creeks Maintenance of city streets and sidewalks Recruitment of business Code enforcement(weeds, abandoned buildings,etc.) Water taste The fire department, emergency medical services and police department received very high average ratings,just as they were rated overwhelmingly as "Strengths" in the previous survey from 2013. The City of Kennedale Citizen Survey Report / May 2015 1 37 KENNEDALE The lowest rated services were water taste/quality, code enforcement & recruitment of businesses which were all rated significantly lower than any other services. Of these services, code enforcement was not rated as strong in 2013 and recruitment of business was rated as a "Weakness" in the 2013 survey. Water taste/quality was not rated. Also rated lower than most other services were maintenance of city streets and sidewalks, conservation of creeks,water conservation &water billing. Prioritized City Services Zoning Water taste Water conservation Water billing Streets and sidewalks Storm water run-off(flood prevention) Residential development Recycling Recruitment of business Police department None Municipal court :Response Response 1 Maintenance of city parks 2 Library services ■Response 3 Image/Beautiflcation Fire department Emergency medical services(EMS) Development of Kennedale Pkwy Customer service provided by city employees Conservation of creeks Communication from city Code enforcement(weeds, abandoned.. Animal control Air quality 0 20 40 60 80 100 Number of Respondents The City of Kennedale Citizen Survey Report May 2015 38 KENNEDALE After rating the services respondents were asked to prioritize the services that the city should address in the next two years. Four services stand out above the rest: recruitment of businesses, maintenance of city streets and sidewalks, code enforcement, and water taste/quality. These four areas also comprise the bottom four performers in the average ratings, which indicate that the respondents perceive a lack of service and also determine the service to be important enough to need it improved. When respondents discussed why recruitment of businesses was rated unfavorably, many mentioned recruiting the right kinds of businesses and many tied it to the tax rates: "We need more businesses in Kennedale so that we don't have to spend our dollars elsewhere, possibly a grocery store, more places to eat. For the amount we spend in tax dollars I personally feel that Kennedale could be so much better. " "...this area has definitely improved a lot recently, but I would love to get a grocery store and a nice chain restaurant." "...this seems to have improved a little...there are some new businesses that have come in...how about a grocery store or coffee shop or frozen yogurt...something to excite the younger residents." "Kennedale Pkwy has had great improvements, but I would like to see more businesses that are not auto shops or commercial buildings further down from the city hall area. I would like to see these areas built up with more visually pleasing businesses." "Recruitment of business (need the correct businesses not just ANY business)" When respondents discussed why maintenance of city streets and sidewalks was rated unfavorably, many mentioned adding more sidewalks, especially to areas around schools, and some needed street repairs: "City streets and sidewalks - we need more sidewalks, especially on the streets leading to the elementary schools (Arthur and Delaney). Mistletoe, Ruth, Reeves and Arthur are all major walkways for kids walking to the schools, but there are no sidewalks so the kids have to walk on the street. Not safe." "The roads in and around Kennedale (Shady Creek neighborhood and Little Rd. specifically) are getting worse. There are large cracks in the pavement with steel sticking out for 2 years but no one has bothered to fix it." "Improve the quality of streets. Old town water run off is terrible because drainage ditches are not well maintained. No sidewalks in old town, but expectation is for this to be walk able for shopping/parks/recreation. " The City of Kennedale Citizen Survey Report May 2015 39 KENNEDALE When respondents discussed why code enforcement was rated unfavorably, most had very specific examples: "...horrible in my opinion, have a burned out home at 633 Winterwood, corner of Winterwood& Mansfield Cardinal, that has been in a state of disrepair for 11 months and they have not compelled the homeowner to rebuild. Druggies & wild animals now occupy the house... " "My other frustration is my neighbor who STILL has bricks/stone piled up beside his house and side driveway that has been there since they moved in a year ago!! There was also other DEBRIS AND TALL UNCUT GRASS NEARLY THE WHOLE SUMMER last year that I constantly complained about that was never completely cleaned up until another neighbor and myself took it upon ourselves to clean some of it" "I live in a rental duplex area on Woodland Court, and there are yards that have not been mowed since mid summer last year. Garbage is strewn down the street from a few people who don't bag their garbage properly or pick-up their own yard. Wrongly addressed mail was piling up in an open large compartment meant for package pick-up that has overflowed to the ground and is now spread out and covered in snow and slush... " When respondents discussed why water taste/quality was rated unfavorably, some had suggestions while others did not claim expertise but still want the issue addressed: "Idk, but the water is almost undrinkable, it has a nasty taste." "Our biggest single "complaint" is water quality and taste. Arlington's water is ozonated and is far superior in quality to Kennedale's. We would really like to see Kennedale explore purchasing water from Arlington as a wholesale customer, even if our bills are a bit higher." "Although water taste has improved since mixing Kennedale's water supply with Fort Worth's water supply, there is still room for improvement in the taste. Has Kennedale researched/analyzed contracting with Fort Worth for its (Kennedale's) entire water supply?" "Often the water has a bad odor and the taste is less than quality. This has occurred since Kennedale began getting the water from Fort Worth. I work downtown FW and this is how the water taste and smells. Miss our great tasting water we used to have. " After those four the next most requested service to be prioritized is the police department. This indicates that, even though the police department was rated as a strength,just as it was two years ago, the respondents desire more improvement. The City of Kennedale Citizen Survey Report May 2015 40 KENNEDALE The difference in the other emergency services and the police department also highlights the difference between the reactive and proactive roles, respectively, expected of the two groups. Citizens expect the fire department and EMS (Emergency Medical Services) to show up when they are needed and called. On the other hand, citizens expect the police department to patrol their neighborhood before they are called so as to prevent crime— not just to respond to it. When respondents discussed why the police department was rated unfavorably, many were unhappy with the outsourcing of dispatch and others described a disconnection between the department and the public: "911 dispatch needs to be back in Kennedale. It is ridiculous when you call and they have no idea where you are!" "The police dept, quit dispatching out of Mansfield and bring back local. Start arresting and run all these Meth heads out of town. " "Police, lacks public trust. Several residents get sarcastic remarks from police officers responding to 911 call. PNP was robbed and suspect is on video but never turned in to detectives and investigated. Resident has complained about a "drug house" in nothing ever gets investigated." "7 think it would be good to have a "Night" where our Law enforcement came out and addressed our citizens on ways for improving safety in our city: Porch lights on, Cars Locked, getting to know your neighbors and our Officers." Rounding out the desired priorities are development of Kennedale Parkway, water billing and residential development, with respondents voicing concerns mostly about the landscaping of Kennedale Parkway and the outsourcing of water billing. "Water Billing quit outsourcing and bring back to the City" "Get rid of the water billing company. They are liars and give us a hard time when we try to pay our bill." "The water service company was very difficult to switch to. The customer service department was very rude and not helpful." The City of Kennedale Citizen Survey Report / May 2015 1 41 KENNEDALE "The new shrubs on Kennedale Parkway have blocked views when trying to pull out of side streets. I have almost been hit numerous times, and have watched others have the same problem. I know this has been reported multiple times to the city...you have promised to do something but yet nothing happens... " "Development of Kennedale Parkway was a bust and it is EXTREMELY HAZARDOUS..I guess it's going to take a death to get your attention. " "Development of K Pkwy with high maintenance landscaping instead of zero-scaping is going to cost us all a lot of money and maintenance time in the long run...same can be said of Sublett Rd Parkways....why grass? ... Where are the new businesses, and the rest of the Town Center....Thought the Chicken Restaurant building was going to relocate and build new. It would also be great if the ATT building could landscape and tie into the town center theme....what an eyesore as one comes into the city from the north, into the "town center" great start with the town center....finish the job, how about a grocery store...again Thanks for asking...." Since this was posed as an open-ended question, there were extra categories that emerged, such as zoning and recycling. The City of Kennedale Citizen Survey Report May 2015 42 KENNEDALE City Government When local government leaders are trusted, an environment of cooperation is more likely to emerge within a community, which allows there to be easier communication between leaders and residents. This in turn will increase the likelihood that high-value policies and programs will be implemented to improve the quality of life of the entire community. Respondents were asked to rate various aspects of their city government on the same 5-point scale from "Very Poor" to "Excellent". None of these response averages came close to "Excellent," though 3 out of 4 of them were close to "Good." The perception of the overall effectiveness of appointed boards and commissions was rated worst with the least amount of "Excellent" and "Good" responses. The city could explore options to educate and train the board members. Alternatively, the city may only need to educate the public about how the city government works and the part played by board members. Kennedale Government Performance Overall confidence in Kennedale government Overall effectiveness of the city staff ■Poor ■Fair Overall effectiveness of appointed boards and ■Good commissions ■Excellent Overall quality of leadership provided by the city's elected officials 0% 5% 10% 15%20%25%30%35%40%45%50% Percentage of Respondents "I am very pleased with our Kennedale government and committees. They have done a fabulous job to improve and grow our community, without overdoing it. It is my hope that they will continue to improve and grow Kennedale..." "The support and friendliness of city staff has been outstanding. It is very apparent that the city manger has put together a strong, tremendous staff that is focused on the community and the residents of the community." The City of Kennedale Citizen Survey Report May 2015 43 KENNEDALE Perceptions of Safety One of the crucial, intangible services that every municipality should strive to provide its residents is the feeling of safety throughout the various parts of their city. The degree to which citizens feel safe varies from place to place, but understanding the degree of safety (or lack thereof) that the residents feel is critical to planning improvements or adjustments for everything from police presence to lighting in public parks. Overall feeling of safety in Kennedale 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Very Safe Safe Neutral Unsafe Very Unsafe The vast majority of respondents (80%) rate their feeling of safety in Kennedale as either"Very Safe" (39%) or "Safe" (48%). Just under one sixth (16%) of the respondents who had an opinion stated that they had a "Neutral" feeling of overall safety. Respondents who feel either "Unsafe" or "Very Unsafe" account for only 4% of respondents. The City of Kennedale Citizen Survey Report May 2015 45 KENNEDALE How safe do you feel in Kennedale? 60% 50% c 40% a. a ■Very Safe c 30% ■Safe Neutral 20% ■Unsafe p' 10% ■Ve ry Unsafe 0% In your neighborhood In your neighborhood In city parks during the day during the night Areas in Kennedale It is worth noting that none of the respondents claimed to feel "Very Unsafe" in their neighborhoods during the day, and the numbers only went up to 2% each for those who felt"Very Unsafe" in their neighborhoods at night and in city parks. From the data, we can see that more respondents feel "Unsafe" in their neighborhoods at night(7%), than those who feel "Unsafe" in their neighborhoods during the day (2%), and "Unsafe" in city parks combined. The City should explore measures that promote a feeling of safety during the night hours. The City of Kennedale Citizen Survey Report / May 2015 1 46 KENNEDALE Police Department Services In cities across the country, police departments play a vital role in the citizens' feeling of safety. Whether patrolling the streets as a visible crime deterrent, responding to calls, or enforcing animal control measures, police departments contribute greatly to a city's quality of life. Quality of Police Services 45% — 40% — 35% 30% IX a 25% 4. 20% ■Excellent 15% ■Good 10% ■Fair PO 5% - LA ■Poor_ L 0% Visibility of police Customer service Speed of response Animal control throughout the city/ your neighborhood Types of Services Respondents who rated their satisfaction as "Fair" or below were asked to suggest improvements areas. 911 dispatch needs to be back in Kennedale. It is ridiculous when you call and they have no idea where you are!" "I was so upset the day I called into 911 and found out Mansfield was handling our calls. They do not know anything about Kennedale and certainly didn't know where I was telling them about" "POLICE IS MORE CONCERNED IN WRITING TICKETS THEN HELPING THE RESIDENTS... " Respondents were given an opportunity to provide additional information regarding the Police Department. The City of Kennedale Citizen Survey Report / May 2015 1 47 KENNEDALE "Many years ago the Kennedale Police Department saved my life. " "it seems to me that we used to have a more regular police patrol on our street. I've been here over 6 years now. Maybe the department is patrolling more late at night, then during the day, or perhaps it hasn't changed and I just don't see them." "I see Police departments in other cities interacting with their residents. Kennedale only has the Christmas lighting. I think KPD should host auctions or other fun activities to raise money for our elderly, breast cancer, etc. Something to interact with residents and gain trust of the public." "Please confront the meth problem in Kennedale, one of the recent murders was over drugs. " Police-Visibility of Police/Presence in Neighborhood (Comparison) 60% 50% c 40% IX. ■2007 0 30% ■2011 ■2013 20% ■2015 U S. 10% 0% Excellent Good Fair Poor With regards to visibility/presence of police, there was little movement among those who rate the police "Fair" or above, rising from 94% in 2013 to 95% in 2015. There was however, an increase of those who feel that police visibility/presence is "Poor" in Kennedale; rising from 3% in 2013 to 5%in 2015. This is also significant since the percentage of people without an opinion has fallen from 3% to 1%. This should be taken into account in light of the abovementioned comments about citizens perceiving a decline in neighborhood patrolling. When comparing this to the 2011 data, we see that a higher percentage of respondents rated satisfaction as either "Excellent" or "Good" in 2011. In keeping with this trend, a lower percentage of"Poor" responses were recorded in 2011. Taking the comparison back to 2007, there were many more who rated visibility/presence as "Poor.,, The City of Kennedale Citizen Survey Report May 2015 48 KENNEDALE The trend in attitudes pertaining to satisfaction with police presence lost ground in the "Excellent" category most dramatically between 2011 and 2013. During this time, a majority of the responses fell in the "Good" or "Fair" category. It is worth noting that between 2013 and 2015, there has been a significant rebound in "Excellent" responses, bringing them almost to the pre-2011 levels. Also worth noting is the fact that the number of"Poor" responses has returned to its historic high level set in 2007. By analyzing this data, we see that satisfaction has become increasingly polarized, with a trend going toward those who either feel that police presence in the neighborhood as either "Excellent" or "Poor." Focusing on those who hold the extreme views will be key to addressing concerns and fortifying aspects that the respondents appreciate. Police-Customer Service (Comparison) IX Lai[] o �❑ IX ■s$$: a'' ��❑ ■s$ss w 0 s$❑ ■s$scs S. a S&❑ �l❑ 9s1's"■C Door 0% t odn The area of customer service has experienced positive gains in the most recent survey period: rising from 73% in 2013 to an even 80% in 2015. The percentage of those who consider customer service to be "Poor" remains constant at 5%. In 2015, 84% percent of respondents had an opinion, which is a 2% increase since 2013. It seems that some citizens see declines in police presence in the community; however, when they do have interactions with the police, they are getting a decent level of customer service. This could be a possible earmark of a department that is shifting from a patrol model to a response model of policing. When we compare the above data with the 2011 data, we see a significant decrease in "Excellent" responses in 2013, and that the 2015 data is an all-time high for those who rate customer service as "Excellent." Responses of "Poor" spiked between 2011 and 2013, and this should be researched further by analyzing the issues that faced the police department during that time period. Looking for long term trends going back to 2007, we see a solid increase in those who rated "Excellent," a statistically significant decline in "Good" and "Fair," ratings, and a slight decline in those who rated service as "Poor." Based on this, we can say that attitudes about police customer service have improved overall since 2007. The City of Kennedale Citizen Survey Report May 2015 49 KENNEDALE Police-Speed of Response (Comparison) 45% — IX 40% 35% 30% ■2007 IX a 25% ■2011 4. 20% ■2013 an 15% ■2015 10% p" 5% 0% i Excellent Good Fair Poor Opinions on response time also improved. In 2013, 76% of respondents rated the police department's performance in this area as "Fair," "Good," or"Excellent," this figure increased by 7% in 2015. Again, looking at this figure in light of the other categories may suggest that the police department has shifted emphasis from patrolling to responding. It is worth noting that there was a sharp decline in "Excellent" responses in 2013, when compared to responses from 2011 and 2007. It appears that the respondents mainly redistributed to the "Good" category, with "Fair" and "Poor" responses seeing only modest increases. Prior to the 2013 rating period, responses were virtually constant between 2007 and 2011, with an influx of"Good" ratings, and slight increases in"Fair" and "Poor." Analyzing the data for long term trends, we can see that there are fewer people rating the police response time as "Excellent" than in 2007 and 2001, though the figure has dramatically improved since 2013. Those rating the response time as "Good" has increased since 2007, though it peaked in the 2013 data. "Fair" responses have for the most part returned to 2007 levels, and there has been a decrease in the percentage of respondents rating "Poor" (though there was a significant increase in 2013). The City of Kennedale Citizen Survey Report / May 2015 1 50 KENNEDALE Police-Animal Control (Comparison) 45% 40% 35% IX 30% ■2007 25% ■2011 20% 2013 an Z' 15% ■2015 10% p' 5% 0% Excellent Good Fair Poor Respondents' attitudes on animal control also seemed to improve between 2013 and 2015, with the percentage of ratings that ranked "Fair" or above rising from 61% to 71%. Animal control did, however, see some pointed criticisms among those who ranked animal control below"Fair". As in all of the above categories of satisfaction, "Excellent" responses seemed to decrease to an all-time low level in 2013. In the 2011 and 2007 data, "Excellent" ratings were fairly constant at right around 20%. There was a large increase in the number of respondents who rated Animal control as "Good" between 2007 and 2011. Theses seemed to fall off in 2013, similar to the "Excellent" category. "Fair" responses have steadily declined since 2007, as have "Poor", with the exception of a spike in 2013. It seems that Animal control, and the police department as a whole lost ground in 2013, but seems to have recovered according to the 2015 numbers. � � a "Animal control is joke in my opinion. Every time I've needed them, no one has been able to help. Had stray dogs on my property that I couldn't get rid of, no help. Had a dog get run over and in eye sight of my children, no help." "Being able to actually reach someone in Animal Control would be a start." "Animal control is never available." "Animal Control needs to pick up dead animals." "Animal Dept. needs additional staff. " When analyzing the data on police services, it is important to harmonize the seemingly improving quantitative data in the 2015 responses that suggests that attitudes toward the department are improving, with the qualitative data that seems to be largely criticizing the department. Police services were listed highly among categories in need of improvement in the open response portion of the citizen survey. It is clear that while the data shows The City of Kennedale Citizen Survey Report / May 2015 1 51 KENNEDALE rising approval from the historically low 2013 ratings for the department, there is still room for improvement, and perhaps room for citizen input in reference to the city's dispatch and policing models. The City of Kennedale Citizen Survey Report / May 2015 1 52 KENNEDALE Fire and Emergency Medical Services (EMS) Quality of Fire and Emergency Services 60% 50%io c 40% IX a ■Excellent a 30% ° ■Good an 20% ■Fair � ■Poor 10% 0% Overall quality of Speed of response Quality of fire Quality of local fire protection safety education ambulance service programs In contrast with the data from the police department, respondents' attitudes about fire and emergency services were overwhelmingly positive. Of those with an opinion, responses indicating that the services were "Poor" account for 1% or less for all categories. As might be expected, there were a large number of"Don't Know" (27%) responses, as those who have never called on emergency services would not know about their quality. In an effort to understand the trends in resident attitudes since 2007 we will compare the 2015 results with the other available results_ The only category that the surveys hold in common is "Speed of Response," which is listed below. The City of Kennedale Citizen Survey Report May 2015 53 KENNEDALE Fire/ Emergency Services-Speed of Response (Comparison) 60% 50% — IX op 40% 0 I ■2007 a 30% ■2011 0 ■2013 u 20% ■2015 s, a 10% 0% Excellent Good Fair Poor The percentage of respondents who have an opinion has risen by 8% since 2013, and the category that has seen the greatest swell is "Excellent." The percentage of who rated response time as "Fair" or above has also risen from 63% in 2013 to 70% in 2015 It is interesting to note that the 2013 data indicates a decline in the percent of respondents who rated the speed of response as "Excellent" from 2007 and 2011, a trend that is shared with the police department. The earlier data (2007 and 2011) was fairly consistent; with modest gains in the "Excellent" and "Fair" categories. Long term analysis of the data shows that "Excellent" responses are at an all-time high, "Good" responses are at an all-time low, "Fair responses" are almost back to what they were in 2007 and 2011, and poor responses are just slightly down from the seemingly critical 2013 data. There were not many comments that spoke to improvement areas for fire and emergency services. One respondent wrote: "emergency medical- had incident in January and it took EMS over ten minutes to respond. I live in Shady Creek area." The City of Kennedale Citizen Survey Report May 2015 54 KENNEDALE Streets/Transportation The ability to travel efficiently throughout a community can greatly affect the quality of life of residents. By having uncongested roads, residents can travel quickly to their destinations and safely by modes other than automobiles. By knowing how the residents feel about mobility in Kennedale, local government can remove any barriers that prohibit quality opportunities for all modes of travel. Quality of Streets/Transportation 60% 50% c 40% a. c 30% ■Excellent 20% ■Good ■Fair a 10% ■Poor 0% Traffic flow Traffic Ease of Ease of Ease of Availability Adequacy on major signal travel by travel by walking of paths and of city streets system car bicycle walking street trails lighting Types of Travel The traffic flow on major streets, traffic signal system, and ease of travel by car categories had extremely high percentages of "Fair" or above ratings of 96%, 96%, and 98% respectively. 82% of respondents rated the adequacy of street lighting as "Fair" or above. Ease of walking weighed in with a 74% positive rating, being just edged out by availability of paths and walking trails at 75%. Only 58% of respondents rated ease of travel by bicycle as "Fair" or above, but the reason for this could be that 30% of the respondents did not know if it was easy to travel in Kennedale by bike. No other category of streets and transportation experienced that level of "Don't Know" responses. The format and subsections of the streets and transportation section has changed since 2013, so there is no comparison analysis for this section. One respondent gave this additional comment: "Nice job on Kennedale parkway. Bike trail would be awesome. I have noticed the addition of many sidewalks which I like." The City of Kennedale Citizen Survey Report May 2015 55 KENNEDALE Water Quality, Billing, and Services Water quality, billing, and services are important to all local governments because it can be used as a measuring tool for all other city services. Water is one of the most important services a city provides its residents, and if this service is poor, there are sure to be issues with other, less important services. The use of water is endless, from washing clothes, showering, watering the yard, to drinking. By understanding how residents feel about this topic, local officials can determine where changes need to be focused, if any. Kennedale residents reported a mixed response rate with the average rating to questions being"Good'. Water Quality, Billing, and Services 50% ■Excellent 45% ■Good 40% IX ■Fair 35% ■Poor &30% IX a 25% 0 an 20% U 15% a 10% 5% 0% Accuracy of Water Taste/odor of Home water Communication Resolution of Bill Drinking Water pressure about scheduled Billing Disputes disruptions to water service Residents expressed a satisfaction with the accuracy of their water bill. 70% of respondents rated the accuracy as Good or better. As for the taste/odor of drinking water, about 35% of respondents answered Poor. Only 11% of respondents rated the taste/odor of drinking water as Excellent. There is clearly an issue with the taste of the drinking water in Kennedale,which needs to be addressed. In 2013, 25% of respondents rated water quality as poor,which is a 10% increase for 2015. Home water pressure is not an issue as respondents expressed a satisfaction with the water pressure at home. 72% of respondents rated the water pressure at home as Good or better. Residents also expressed a satisfaction with how well the city keeps them informed about planned disruptions to water services. 69% of respondents rated the city as Good or better. Communications is this area is very important, and Kennedale is doing a great job. The City of Kennedale Citizen Survey Report May 2015 57 KENNEDALE 39% of respondents rated the resolution of billing disputes as good or better. There was a disproportionately high number of"Don't know" responses that made the responses low overall. This can be construed as most residents not having any billing disputes, which is great news in itself. With that said, 20% of residents that do have a dispute rated the resolution as poor or worse. Analyzing the data shows that this is one weakness in city services. There were numerous comments from respondents expressing their concern regarding water quality,billing, and services. From the comments it is clear that there is an issue with the outsourcing of billing services. Numerous residents are angry and do not understand why that decision was made. The city could have effective communication to the residents explaining the thought process and why outsourcing was the best decision moving forward. Water quality is a big issue for a lot of respondents and some type of communication needs to be disseminated explaining that the city is listening to the citizens and what the plan is for the future. There were many comments that spoke of improvement for water quality, billing, and services. Some of them are listed on the next page. The City of Kennedale Citizen Survey Report May 2015 58 KENNEDALE "Water Department needs to get rid of the outsourcing of billing and bring it back in house. The rate for water in the city is outrageous and the taste is hideous. Have had to bring bottled water in my house because I am embarrassed to have company drink Kennedale water. Customer service in the water department has been non-existent since I have been a resident in Kennedale." "Water billing...bring it back local. It doesn't make sense to have to call Arizona to take care of my local business. --Taste of water...I HATE having to always buy bottled water to drink. I paid less for water when I lived in Arlington and it tasted much better. The water in Kennedale costs almost twice as much for something that we don't even feel that we can drink straight out of the tap. "Water billing- the amount on the paper bill and the amount shown online don't always match. I've also gotten multiple paper bills in the same envelope, each with a different amount due. Very confusing. Water taste - don't know if anything can be done to make that acceptable. We drink bottled water. " "The water service company was very difficult to switch to. The customer service department was very rude and not helpful." "The water department needs to go back to being run by the city. The employees at fathom now nothing always have trouble paying bill, have had bill double paid because there system was messed up. Not personable. We need to keep that small town feeling and not outsource everything. The water in this town taste awful. I can not get my clothes clean and I can not cook with it at all. I have Sparkletts deliver every 2 weeks. " "Outsourcing water billing was one of the worst decisions the city has ever made. Customer service halted when this occurred. Don't see how it was a money saver at all." "Water taste, smell, and quality is poor. Water is also very expensive in Kennedale. Seems like expensive water would taste better and smell better. " The City of Kennedale Citizen Survey Report / May 2015 1 59 KENNEDALE Water Conservation In the next 50 years the number of people living in our region is expected to double, which means the demand for water will raise. Water conservation is needed in North Texas because droughts are a part of our life here and it extends the water necessary to supply the demand of eleven counties. The Tarrant Regional Water District (TRWD) is made of a system of reservoirs that are 76% full at this time. It is imperative that citizens recognize the need of conserving water. Overall, the majority of Kennedale citizens believe that water conservation is necessary; out of 188 total respondents only 9 believe water conservation is not necessary. The majority of residents conserve water by limiting their outside watering (93%) and maintaining their plumbing free from leaks (87%). How Do Respondents Conserve Water at Home? 100% 90% IX 80% 70% 0 60% x 50% 0 40% 30% s, a 20% 10% 0% Limit outside watering Upgrade to more efficient Maintain my plumbing Limit my personal use of I do no believe water appliances/faucets/toilets free of leaks water(shorter showers, conservation is necessary etc.) Conservation Methods The City of Kennedale Citizen Survey Report May 2015 61 KENNEDALE There seems to be a correlation between the length of years residents reside in Kennedale and the age of the residents when it comes to conserving water. The data showed that those who have lived in Kennedale for more than 10 years and are between the ages of 51-64 most actively conserve water. The younger individuals, 18-35 years of age, seem to be the ones who least conserve water. There could be many reasons for this, such as: they may not have the money to upgrade to more efficient appliances, their main priorities may not be on making sure their plumbing is free of leaks, especially if they are living in an apartment versus a house, or they may simply not be as cautious as the older generation. Water Conservation Respones by Age 120% 12- 100% 80% ^� ■18-35 60% ■36-50 IX a ■51-64 w 40% ■65 or older U a 20% 0% Limit outside watering Upgrade to more efficient Maintainmy plumbing Limitmy personal use of I do no believe water apphances/faucets toilets fiee ofleaks water(shorter showers, conservation is necessary etc) Those individuals who have only lived within the city of Kennedale for a year or less are less likely to conserve water. The data shows that the longer residents stay in Kennedale the more likely they are to actively conserve water by limiting their use of water and maintaining their household. The City of Kennedale Citizen Survey Report / May 2015 1 62 KENNEDALE Water Conservation-Length of Residency 100% 90% 80% - 70% 60% ■Less than 1 year ° 50% ■1-5 years w 40% ■6-10 years ■More than 10 years " 30% 20% a 10% 0% Limit outside watering Upgrade tomoie Maintammy plumbing Limitmy personal use of I do no believe water efficient f eeofleaks water(shorter showers, conser vation is necessary appliances/faucets/toilets etc) Since 2013 the number of residents who limit their outside watering and upgrade their appliances to be more efficient has increased. The number of residents who limit their personal use of water has decreased. Overall, residents continue to conserve water in the City of Kennedale. How Do Respondents Conserve Water at Home? (Comparisons) IX �$❑ I a All 4. L❑ a ,$❑ $❑ Limit outside watering Upgrade to more Maintain my plumbing Limit my personal use I do not believe water efficient free of leaks of water(shorter conservation is appliances/facets/toilets showers,etc.) necessary Conservation Methods ■2015 ■2013 The City of Kennedale Citizen Survey Report May 2015 63 KENNEDALE Code Enforcement Code Enforcement provides essential and beneficial services that safeguard quality of life in neighborhood communities. Communities in the United States struggle with vacant buildings, trash, tall grass and weeds, graffiti and abandoned vehicles. Homes and properties will always be aging and studies have shown that communities with deteriorated properties eventually lead to an increase in crime rate and significant decrease in property values. Code Enforcement's main purpose is to ensure that this does not happen to the City of Kennedale by making sure every business and resident follows rules and regulations dictated by the city. Kennedale residents seem satisfied with the city's Code Enforcement, which show that residents understand the importance of this function. Generally Satisfied with the Responsiveness and Helpfulness of Code Enforcement •Strongly Agree •Agree •Neutral ■Disagree ■Strongly Disagree Residents expressed a satisfaction with the responsiveness and helpfulness of code enforcement. 45% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed with generally being satisfied with the responsiveness and helpfulness. 45% of the respondents were neutral. With such a large amount of residents remaining neutral, the city might want to spend some resources finding out why such a large portion of respondents answered neutral over Agree or Strongly Agree. The City of Kennedale Citizen Survey Report May 2015 65 KENNEDALE The outreach materials available from and/or provided by Code Enforcement are helpful... f 1 1 ■Strongly Agree ■Agree 1 ■Neutral 1 ® ■Disagree 1 ■Strongly Disagree Respondents voiced that they were neutral (52%) about how helpful the outreach material available from and/or provided by code enforcement is. Only 17% strongly agreed that the material is helpful. This could be because most respondents might not be interested in the outreach materials provided or they see no need for it. With such a low percentage disagreeing with the statement, this is no concern for the city at this point. The City of Kennedale Citizen Survey Report / May 2015 1 66 KENNEDALE Item reported was corrected or if not, it was explained why it was not a violation... ■Strongly Agree ■Agree ■Neutral LL A57% ■Disagree Residents stated that they were neutral about how items reported to Code Enforcement are corrected or if not, a proper explanation is given. 57% of respondents rated neutral and only 14% strongly agreed with the statement. With such a low percentage disagreeing with the statement, this is no concern for the city at this point. The City of Kennedale Citizen Survey Report / May 2015 1 67 KENNEDALE Property standards are necessary to maintain/improve my neighboorhood... 9 f I � f 1 I I •Strongly Agree •Agree •Neutral •Disagree •Strongly Disagree I � Residents agreed that property standards are necessary to maintain or improve their neighborhood. 78% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that property standards are needed. This just proves the understanding the city has in regards to the importance of property standards. The City of Kennedale Citizen Survey Report / May 2015 1 68 KENNEDALE How do you feel the apperance of your neighborhood has changed over the past three years... ■Improved ■Stayed the same ■Gotten Worse 47% JA Over the past three years 47% of residents feel that the appearance of their neighborhood has not changed. Also important, 32% of respondents stated that their neighborhood has improved. 15% of respondents feel that their neighborhood has gotten worse. The city could spend some resources on figuring out what areas have gotten worse and possibly establish a plan to improve those sections. This could take time but it would be an investment that will pay off via citizen satisfaction. Even though respondents understand the importance of code enforcement and overall have seen improvement to the program, some feel that there is more to be done. They want stricter code enforcement and we believe that this stems from a concern that the city will be affected by the side effects of not having a strong code enforcement department. The City of Kennedale Citizen Survey Report May 2015 69 KENNEDALE "Code enforcement,junky yards, houses, excess of cars sitting in front of house, weeds etc.. Make these people clean their crap up. Start with the house across from the A High/Troy Neal's house. Taste of water it's horrible and didn't use to be a few years back. Undo water ever the change was, it's not fit to drink. The horrible smell from the landfill. Not sure hope the City is getting with the Landfill Mgmt about this one." "Code enforcement. Have made repeated request for 4 trashed yards to be cleaned since the summer and they still have piled aluminum cans in their yard(across from A High) Others piles of dead limbs and never get cleaned up. Have contacted Code enf via the on line application, email and in person. " "Enforce property maintenance codes that are on the books, code enforcement officer needs to drive around and look at the community and make the suggestions to property owners to be in compliance, this can be done amicably, but firmly. " "Enforce the codes... Don't put trash cans in the middle of someone's driveway... " "Do not believe the code enforcement enforces the rules enough. Many areas need to be cleaned up and that does not seem to be occurring. Do not know why this continues to be an issue." "I live in a rental duplex area on Woodland Court, and there are yards that have not been mowed since mid summer last year. Garbage is strewn down the street from a few people who don't bag their garbage properly or pick-up their own yard. Wrongly addressed mail was piling up in an open large compartment meant for package pick-up that has overflowed to the ground and is now spread out and covered in snow and slush. Some of us pick-up what we can, but the renters and landlords have let our neighborhood look like the ghetto as someone visiting the area said). This has gotten very bad in the last 1112 years. " The City of Kennedale Citizen Survey Report / May 2015 1 70 KENNEDALE Do You Feel that Run-Down Buildings and Junk Cars are a Problem within the City? ■Yes ■No ■Yes,But I Have Seen Improvements According to the data, 82% or respondents believe that run-down buildings and junk cars are a problem in Kennedale. Nearly half of that group (43%) claims that they have seen improvements in this area, but that these buildings and cars are still an issue. To put the 2015 numbers in perspective, 93% of respondents indicated that this area was a problem in 2013, a figure which has since dropped 9%. In the 2013 data, there was no response to indicate that improvements have been made in this area. These factors often times influence economic development and business recruiting in the area. A significant portion of those surveyed still see this as a problem, and attention should be placed on finding a solution. Some of the additional responses that were received on this subject are: "The city should tear down the abandoned buildings and homes. Force the homeowners to keep their yards cleaned with nothing laying in sight for others to see. We want to be proud of our city. I see too much of this and nothing is being done about it. If people do not keep their yards cut, the city should cut them and charge the home owners. Let's keep our city beautiful." "I would like to see Kennedale continue to improve the appearance of Kennedale by adding more greenery and reducing the amount of properties that don't represent Kennedale well because they are run down or not maintained well. " "Removal of old run down homes and buildings as well as current unsightly businesses. Would love to see salvage yards and used car businesses at least moved to much less visible areas of city. Currently provides a VERY unsightly, unflattering, unimpressive, and very negative view of our city to people passing through, especially down Kennedale Pkwy. " The City of Kennedale Citizen Survey Report May 2015 A 71 KENNEDALE Planning and Development Planning and Development is a never-ending cycle for all local governments. Quality planning is essential to the growth of the city because without proper and effective planning there will surely be wasteful development. Overall, Kennedale city survey respondents are satisfied with this part of local government. There are some areas of concern that the city might want to evaluate before they become serious issues. Satisfaction of Respondents with Development & City's Planning ■Very Satisfied ■Satisfied •Neutral ■Dissatisfied New Residential Development New Retail and Commercial Development Redevelopment of Abandoned/Under-Utilized Properties City's Planning for Future Growth 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Residents expressed a satisfaction with the new residential development in the city. 71% of respondents are satisfied or better with the development. A low 3% of respondents are dissatisfied. New residential development is one of the most important development areas for all local governments and Kennedale is doing a great job. Approximately 26% of respondents are dissatisfied with the overall quality of new retail and commercial development. It should be noted that only 10% of respondents are very satisfied with this portion of planning and development, as they want to see more business coming into city limits. Having new businesses in the city is great as it shows growth and a strong future. Kennedale has to find an effective way of drumming up business within its own city. Approximately 24% of respondents are dissatisfied with the redevelopment of abandoned or under-utilized properties. A low 10% of respondents are very satisfied; although this number is low, this means that some respondents have seen some improvements and there is progress occurring. The fact that there is a large amount of dissatisfaction could be that respondents want to see property values rise and the more abandoned properties, the less likely this is to happen. 43% of respondents are satisfied or very satisfied with Kennedale's planning for future growth. A very important statistic in this section is that 28% of respondents are neutral, which city representatives should take into consideration because it means that over the next couple of years these respondents will shift to either The City of Kennedale Citizen Survey Report / May 2015 1 73 KENNEDALE satisfied or dissatisfied. It is important that the city ensures that planning is a continuous process and never dies. If there is no planning for the future,nobody can expect the future to be successful. In future planning and development, the city should keep in mind the input that the citizens had in the survey. The couple comments that were made focused on developing in a way that promotes future business. Respondents overall are glad to see progress but are looking forward to seeing more. There were few comments that spoke regarding planning and development: "We need more businesses in Kennedale so that we don't have to spend our dollars elsewhere, possibly a grocery store, more places to eat. For the amount we spend in tax dollars I personally feel that Kennedale could be so much better. " "Recruit business other than those that cater to low or no income people such as Wal-Mart, Dollar Store, Payday Loans. And subsidized housing (retirement or otherwise). " "Bring more manufacturers into Kennedale, improving tax revenues & creating good jobs. " "Business recruitment is tough in a bedroom community. I agree with quality business'first, over quantity. I can see steps are being made to improve the quality of business' in our community and I support that trend." The City of Kennedale Citizen Survey Report May 2015 74 KENNEDALE Library Respondents were asked to rate the quality of certain library services offered in Kennedale and the majority are very satisfied with library services and employees. Libraries remain very important for all local governments and it is crucial to ensure great customer service and effective programs even though libraries may not be used as much as they were 10 years ago. A library offers adults and children an excellent resource as well as a very important tool, and Kennedale is doing a great job. Quality of Library Services Offered Courtesy of Employees Availability of Desired Books ■Excellent Apperance/Convenience of Library's Location and ■Good Hours ■Fair Quality of Library Programs ■Poor Availability of Internet Access 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 68% of respondents rated the courtesy of employees as Good or better with 48% of them being Excellent. Library staff rated really well and they should be applauded for their excellent customer service. 54% of respondents rated the availability of desired books as Good or better. 37% of respondents stated Don't know which means that they probably have not used the renting of books service. The city could possibly promote this service and let citizens experience availability of books. With that said, there is not much promotion that can be done as most people know that a library's main purpose is book rentals. 72% of respondents rated the appearance/convenience of library's location and hours as Good or better. The city libraries are well located and the hours of operation are effective. The quality of library programs and availability of internet access both had about 50% rated as good or better but the interesting statistic of this is the response rate of Don't know. 36% of the respondents do not know about the quality of library programs and 43% do not know of the availability of Internet access. Communication of different library programs offered could help inform people about the services. Information regarding special library events should be added to all city communication to include the newsletter and social media. The City of Kennedale Citizen Survey Report / May 2015 1 75 KENNEDALE Library services were highly rated but a few comments stood out. Respondents' main concerns are books. Some comments were: "Have a better, larger selection of books/media in library." "I tried to donate used books to the library but they would not accept "used" books. This seems silly as the books will become "used" after one use. If this rule was removed the library would be able to grow much faster." "The library staff are helpful, but the selection of books is tiny. We are thankful for the partnership with other libraries, because the Kennedale library rarely has what we need. " The City of Kennedale Citizen Survey Report / May 2015 1 76 KENNEDALE Storm Water The residents of Kennedale demonstrated knowledge regarding storm water and drainage in certain aspects, but many residents were still unsure about many of the questions asked. The city should still continue to educate the citizens on this subject by updating the information already on the website regarding storm water. There is no mention on the website on where the city drains the water or if the city has a storm water pollution problem. The majority of residents were unsure if the city has a storm water pollution problem (57%), what the street inlets do once the water is collected(56%), and where the city drains the water(56%). Please answer the following questions to the best of your knowledge: 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 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 an 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 storm water 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 ■Disagree ■Not Sure The City of Kennedale Citizen Survey Report May 2015 77 KENNEDALE City Website Respondents have used the website for many different reasons, but usually to gather information regarding special events and to pay their water/utility bill. The information below demonstrates how respondents use the website. The three main reasons residents visit the website are to gather information on special events (65%), to pay their water or utility bill(55%), and to gather information regarding trash collection (43%). Reasons Why Respondents Visit the City of Kennedale Website 70% 60% 50% IX0 I a 40% w 0 a� 30% an 20% U S. U a 10% 0% Pay Trash Construction Special Meeting Property tax Report a City budget I do not visit water/utility collection information Event times and information problem information the City bill information information agendas website Reasons to Visit Website There have been changes that can be seen throughout the years on why residents visit the City of Kennedale website. Since 2013 residents have increased their utilization of the website to pay their utility bill and to obtain special event information. There has been a decrease of residents using the website for trash collection information and to report a problem since 2013. There was also a big decrease on residents receiving city budget information. The City of Kennedale Citizen Survey Report May 2015 79 KENNEDALE Reasons Why Respondents Visit the City of Kennedale Website (Comparison) 100% 90% IX 80% 0 70% IX 60% x 50% 0 40% 30% U a 20% 10% 0% Pay Trash Construction Special Event Meeting Property tax Report a City budget I do not visit water/utility collection information information times and information problem information the City bill information agendas website Reasons to Visit Website ■2015 Results ■2013 Results w 2011 Results An important attribute of the City of Kennedale's website is its simplicity and effectiveness. Approximately 90% of respondents expressed that the website is easy to navigate and that they find what they are looking for. Was it easy to navigate the city website and find what you were looking for? ■Yes ■No The City of Kennedale Citizen Survey Report May 2015 80 KENNEDALE Respondents had comments regarding the website that ranged from complaints to praises. People had their own personal request and some of them seem quite simple to add to the website. For example, a request to post the winners of the "Yard of the Month" would be fairly simple to do and might encourage others to join in and continue to improve their yards. Also, recycling information seems to be hidden and could be made easier to find. Both of these suggestions are very simple to implement. "Would LOVE to he able to post information and photo on the site of the winner of our neighborhood's (Oak Hill Park) Yard of the Month winner." "Better animal control information" "very detailed and explains a lot. would like to see broader information on history of city" "... I really wanted to say some things are easy to find and others take longer to figure out. I really like the option of signing up for specific information if I want to receive it by email (seems to work very well)... " "I like it but I feel that it is a bit hard to navigate. I think the information should be more organized." "I could not find residential property ordinances." The City of Kennedale Citizen Survey Report / May 2015 1 81 KENNEDALE Customer Service The interaction the City of Kennedale employees have with their customers creates not only the first impression, but a lasting impression on the city residents. As such, it is important to know about residents' experience with the front line staff, who are in many ways the face of the organization. When employees appear to be knowledgeable, responsive and courteous, residents are more likely to feel that their needs or problems can be solved through positive and productive interactions with the City of Kennedale staff. Have you had contact with the city in the last 12 months? ■Yes ■No According to the 2015 data, nearly two thirds (64%) of respondents have had contact with an employee of the City of Kennedale in the last 12 months. Customer service should continue to be a priority, because if this trend persists, two out of three Kennedale residents will have contact with a representative of the city over the course of the next year, be it through email, telephone conversation, or in person. The City of Kennedale Citizen Survey Report / May 2015 1 83 KENNEDALE Customer Service with City Employees 70% 60% 0 50% a 40% o ■Excellent a� 30% ■Good 20% ■Fair s, p" 10% ■Poor 0% Courtesy Promptness Knowledge Making Respect Follow in responding citizens or through to calls or customer feel service valued requests The majority of residents seem to be pleased with the customer service the city employees provide. 90% of respondents rated city employees to be "Excellent" or "Good" when it came to being courteous. 80% of respondents rated city employees to be "Excellent" or "Good" at responding back to residents. 84% of respondents felt that city employees were knowledgeable in their jobs. 79% of respondents rated city employees as "Excellent" or "Good" at making citizens feel valued. 85% of respondents felt that city employees were respectful. 75% of respondents thought the city employees' action of following through was either"Excellent" or"Good." The City of Kennedale Citizen Survey Report May 2015 84 KENNEDALE Recycling Recycling has become very popular among many counties and cities around the Dallas Fort-Worth Metroplex; it is a way of strengthening environmental concern within communities. Recycling also promotes, educates and involves residents in waste reduction. In 2013 a great majority of Kennedale residents were adamant about wanting a recycling program added within the city. Although a fee was to be imposed, many people were willing to pay a little extra in order to obtain the service. Due to the feedback the city decided to implement a single-stream recycling collection program for its residents that took effect in April 2015. Do you currently recycle? Yes No W4&77 L_ .0441 The residents of Kennedale were asked if they currently recycled and only 47% stated they did, while 53% stated they did not recycle_ Although this is the case, when asked if they would use their recycling bin when provided one 92% of residents stated they would. This data ultimately means that more individuals will start to recycle and contribute to waste reduction. When provided a recycling bin, will you use it? 0 •Yes •No The City of Kennedale Citizen Survey Report May 2015 85 KENNEDALE Many residents were still asking for the recycling program looking through the comments. "There is no recycling program or even an accessible bin to collect plastics, glass, etc. Recycling would reduce trash waste by 3/..." "I have to carry my own recycling to the dump on Dick Price" Once residents realized Kennedale was implementing a recycling program they were very pleased about the news. "Kudos for finally bringing curbside recycling to Kennedale residents" "Glad about the recycling and not having to take it anywhere, that wasn't convenient" `7 am very thrilled about the implementation of recycling." "Glad we are going to start recycling" The City of Kennedale Citizen Survey Report / May 2015 1 86 KENNEDALE CONCL USION& RECOMMENDA TIONS The 2015 Kennedale Citizen Satisfaction Survey was a quite successful endeavor, especially considering some of the constraints on responding to the survey: citizens only had one month to respond, they were not sent a paper copy via mail but were instead directed to the city website, and could only obtain paper versions from public buildings such as the library and city hall. There were a total of 198 responses. These responses were forthright and helpful, with hundreds of substantive, constructive comments in addition to the many rating and multiple-choice answers. The results provided a nearly complete picture of life in Kennedale with both over- arching themes and nuanced images. These results paint a picture of where Kennedale is and where the citizenry would like it to go. Kennedale had several successes surface in the survey. Residents generally like living in Kennedale. They would recommend the city to someone interested, and they plan to stay in Kennedale. The Fire Department and EMS continue to satisfy the needs of the community in general. The parks appear to be well loved and well used, which is great for a growing community. One improvement over the years is in the air quality; perhaps the air is not yet perfect, but the urgency with which the residents would like it addressed seems to have fallen based on comments. The respondents also reported a satisfaction with the level of customer service from city employees and with the library services offered. All these areas make Kennedale the place that residents rated as such a good place to live and raise their families. Any actions the city takes to maintain these high levels of service in these areas is important to keep Kennedale's community atmosphere consistent and even improving year to year. As for areas that the city should consider changing or investing in, one defined theme that was common throughout the Demographics section was the correlation of young adults with positive views and actions regarding Kennedale. Adults ages 51 to 64 are still the single largest block of the population responding to the survey, and they still hold generally positive views about Kennedale. However, if the statistics in the responses hold true, the younger age brackets of 18 to 35 and 36 to 50 may outgrow the older age brackets in population in a short amount of time. These young adults had even more universally positive views of their city. They were more likely to be recent incomers to Kennedale. They were also shown to be more likely to recommend Kennedale to someone interested. Efforts to coordinate residential and commercial development and other services, such as events, to further enhance this affinity may bolster the city's residential influx and may be an option worth exploring. Another theme seen in the data was the methods and preferences for interacting with the city. The biggest single request in this vein was for the city to return to mailing out the newsletter with the utility bills. Comments about the newsletter over and over again asked for it to be mailed and also alluded to the fact that residents had not attended as many events because they used to find out about them from the mailed newsletter. The city's parks seem to be the single most visited area or event. The availability of parks is constant and would not be affected by information contained in the newsletters, so it is possible that the parks weathered the drop in TownCenter readership better than some other events and areas. When it came to city-provided services, respondents asked the city to prioritize recruitment of business for various reasons. Many mentioned that they would prefer to work in Kennedale if possible and would like the city to bring in business that creates jobs for the residents. "Kennedale as a place to work" was voted the worst The City of Kennedale Citizen Survey Report / May 2015 1 87 KENNEDALE of the city qualities, and only about 8% of residents work within the city limits. Others were concerned with the quality of the businesses that Kennedale is recruiting. These respondents wanted businesses that better suited their needs or their vision of Kennedale; some wanted a grocery store, some wanted high-end eateries and retail, and still others wanted to see less big business in order to preserve the small-town feel Kennedale has historically cultivated. While these desires may seem at odds with each other, Carmel, California offers an example of how a city managed to achieve all three by actively recruiting useful, community business and high- end dining and retail while simultaneously banning chain businesses from operation within the city limits. This created plenty of revenue for the city,plenty of opportunities for citizens to spend money close to home, and the distinctive, small-town feeling of knowing the local business owners. One last reason that respondents asked the city to prioritize recruitment of business is because they, astutely, tied it to their tax rates. These respondents know that if the city can start making more revenue from sales tax and property tax improved by effective use, then they will no longer carry the lion's share of the burden for supporting the city services. While banning chain businesses would be a radical step to take, recruiting a good mix of chain and local businesses and also entrepreneurs would improve the business and shopping scene in Kennedale and could also bring jobs and revenue to the city. The next area respondents wanted prioritized was the city's streets and sidewalks. Many comments mentioned a lack of upkeep on certain streets, and subsequent questions revealed that Kennedale is still very car-centric. The city's "Complete Streets" vision and zoning will help to address many of these concerns as well as the plans for the creeks as corridors through the city. The respondents acknowledged the work done on some streets but want more progress made throughout the city. The third most requested priority was code enforcement. It seems as if the city anticipated the concerns they might hear, based on the number of questions in this and past years' surveys directed at measuring the satisfaction with this area. Many respondents took the opportunity to voice concerns over specific houses in the comments sections — even to the point of giving the area of the city, housing development, or even street where they live. The respondents said that the code enforcement department is doing a good job in many aspects, but the violations still remain. Based on the veracity of the comments made about code enforcement, many people might consider it to be a very high priority. As was mentioned before, code enforcement, when done well, can have a positive effect on many other areas, such as recruitment of business, residential development, property values, and crime — all of which fall within the list of concerns and priorities identified by respondents of this year's survey. Investment in the code enforcement department would likely produce a domino effect and a very high return for the city. Another subject on which comments proliferated was water. Water quality, taste, billing, and customer service were all heated subjects. In fact, they all made the list of why residents would not recommend Kennedale to someone interested in moving. They also were rated among the lowest in average ratings of services. They were also listed high among the priorities chosen by the respondents. In short, the various aspects of water services made every list in this report. The fact that the water both tastes bad and costs so much in the opinion of the respondents adds insult to injury. There were several stories in the comment sections about the water billing company. Obviously, any subject that performs so poorly and actually prevents some people from moving into the city or prevents them from telling their friends to move to the city is a subject that needs to be addressed urgently and comprehensively. The City of Kennedale Citizen Survey Report May 2015 88 KENNEDALE Just as was seen in previous surveys, the city's emergency services and first responders are highly rated. Fire and EMS were rated very high. Police was also rated high, but improvements were requested at the same time. While most aspects of Police were rated well, visibility and customer service could be improved. This was supported by the comments that mentioned wanting to see police in their neighborhood and interacting with the public. The comments also showed dissatisfaction with the dispatch outsourcing to Mansfield. The city may want to address this issue by exploring options to bring dispatch back or better informing and educating the Mansfield dispatchers so that they can deliver the kind of service the citizens need. Another facet of Police that could use a bit of improvement based on the comments is the Animal Control. A city that covers a geographical area as large as Kennedale and that is situated on the edge of a growing and encroaching metropolitan area is sure to have run-ins with pets and wildlife. The Animal Control department may need additional resources. While the survey explored many other topics and most showed some areas for improvement, these themes and priorities were the most overarching, showing up in several different questions and comment fields. Their opportunity for improvement is great and will provide a significant return on any investment made in these areas. If the city plans to continue its current pattern of biannual surveys, then this short list is enough fodder until the next survey season. In the meantime, among the areas the survey revealed to be successes are the city leaders and government itself, which received good ratings overall. So, while the public found areas in which the city could improve, they do have the faith that the city government is up to the task. The City of Kennedale Citizen Survey Report / May 2015 1 89 KENNEDALE APPENDIX A: 2015 CITY OF KENNEDALE CITIZEN SURVEY The City of Kennedale Citizen Survey Report / May 2015 1 91 KENNEDALE 2015 City of Kennedale Citizen Survey Please take a few minutes to complete this survey. Your input will be used to help KE N N E DALE improve the quality of city services and set priorities for the next budget year. You're Here,Your Home 1. Please rate the quality of each of the following services in Kennedale: Excellent Good Fair Poor Very Poor Police department ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Animal control ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Fire department ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Emergency medical services(EMS) ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Water billing ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Water taste ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Water conservation ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Air quality ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Management of storm water run-off ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ (flood prevention) Maintenance of city streets and ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ sidewalks Maintenance of city parks ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Communication from city ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Code enforcement (weeds, abandoned ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ buildings,etc.) Recruitment of business ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Residential development ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Development of Kennedale Pkwy ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Conservation of creeks ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Customer service provided by city ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ employees Library services ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Municipal court ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ For any department that was rated fair or below,what would best improve it? The City of Kennedale Citizen Survey Report / May 2015 1 92 KENNEDALE 2. Which THREE services listed above should receive the most emphasis from the city leaders over the next two years? 1. 2. 3. 3. Please rate each of the following aspects of quality of life in Kennedale: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Kennedale as a place to live ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Your neighborhood as a place to ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ live Kennedale as a place to raise ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ children Kennedale as a place to work ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Overall value that you receive for ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ your city tax dollars and fees Overall image/appearance of the ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ city 4. Please rate the following categories of Kennedale government performance: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Overall quality of leadership ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ provided by the city's elected officials Overall effectiveness of appointed ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ boards and commissions Overall effectiveness of the city ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ staff Overall confidence in Kennedale ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ government 5. How safe do you feel: Very Safe Neutral Unsafe Very Don't Safe unsafe know In your neighborhood during the day ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ In your neighborhood during the ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ night In city parks ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Overall feeling of safety in ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Kennedale The City of Kennedale Citizen Survey Report May 2015 93 KENNEDALE 6. Please rate the following services provided by the City of Kennedale police department: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Visibility of police throughout the ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ city/your neighborhood Customer service ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Speed of response ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Animal control ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 7. Please rate the following services provided by the Fire and Emergency Medical Services (EMS): Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Overall quality of fire protection ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Speed of response ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Quality of fire safety education ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ programs Quality of local ambulance service ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 8. Please rate the quality of streets/transportation in Kennedale: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Traffic flow on major streets ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Traffic signal system ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Ease of travel by car ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Ease of travel by bicycle ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Ease of walking ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Availability of paths and walking ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ trails Adequacy of city street lighting ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 9. Please rate: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know The accuracy of your water bill ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Taste/odor of your drinking water ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Water pressure in your home ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ How well the city keeps you ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ informed about planned disruptions to your water service Resolution of billing disputes ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ The City of Kennedale Citizen Survey Report / May 2015 1 94 KENNEDALE 10. Please rate your agreement with the following statements regarding property standards (code enforcement): Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Agree Disagree I am generally satisfied with the ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ responsiveness and helpfulness of code enforcement. The outreach materials available ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ from and/or provided by code enforcement are helpful. The item I reported was corrected or ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ if not was explained to me why it was not a violation. Property standards are necessary to ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ maintain or improve my neighborhood. 11. How do you feel your appearance of your neighborhood has changed over the past three years? ❑ Improved ❑ Stayed the same ❑ Gotten worse ❑ Don't know 12. How satisfied are you with the: Very Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied Don't know satisfied Overall quality of new residential ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ development Overall quality of new retail and ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ commercial development (stores, restaurants,etc.) Redevelopment of abandoned or ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ under-utilized properties City's planning for future growth ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ The City of Kennedale Citizen Survey Report / May 2015 1 95 KENNEDALE 13. Please rate the quality of how well these library services are offered: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Courtesy of employees ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Availability of desired books ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Appearance/convenience of ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ library's location and hours Quality of library programs ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Availability of Internet access ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 14. In the last 12 months, about how many times, if at all, have you or other household members participated in the following activities in Kennedale? Never Once or 3 to 12 More than 12 times twice times Used Kennedale public libraries or their ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ services Visited a city park ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Attended a meeting of local elected officials or ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ other local public meeting Read the newsletter (Kennedale TownCenter ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Herald) Volunteered your time to some group or activity ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ in Kennedale 15. How do you actively conserve water? (select all that apply) ❑ Limit outside watering ❑ Upgrade to more efficient appliances/faucets/toilets ❑ Maintain my plumbing free of leaks ❑ Limit my personal use of water(shorter showers, etc.) ❑ I do not believe water conservation is necessary The City of Kennedale Citizen Survey Report / May 2015 1 96 KENNEDALE 16. Please answer the following questions to the best of your knowledge: (Your answers to these questions help us maintain our storm water permit.Thank you for your responses.) Agree Disagree Not sure 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 an 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 storm water 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. ❑ ❑ ❑ 17. Which of the following sources do you currently use to obtain and/or receive information about the City of Kennedale? (select all that apply) ❑ Fort Worth Star-Telegram ❑ http://kennedalenews.com ❑ City of Kennedale website ❑ Facebook page ❑ Twitter ❑ City meetings ❑ City newsletter(available on the city website and via email subscription) 18. How would you prefer to receive the city's newsletter (Kennedale TownCenter Herald)? ❑ By visiting the website ❑ Via email subscription ❑ Printed and mailed in the utility bill ❑ Printed and available at the library & city hall ❑ I don't wish to receive the newsletter The City of Kennedale Citizen Survey Report / May 2015 1 97 KENNEDALE 19. Have you ever visited the city website (www.cilyofkennedale.com) for the following? (select all that apply) ❑ Pay water/utility bill ❑ Trash collection information ❑ Construction information ❑ Special Event information ❑ Meeting times and agendas ❑ Property tax information ❑ Report a problem ❑ City budget information ❑ I do not visit the city website 20. Was it easy to navigate the city website and find what you were looking for? ❑ Yes ❑ No 21. Do you have any specific suggestions for improving the website's functionality or appearance? 22. Do you feel that run-down buildings and junk vehicles are a problem within the city? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ Yes,but I have seen improvements 23. Have you had any in-person, phone or email contact with an employee of the city of Kennedale within the last 12 months (including police, receptionists, or planners, or any others)? ❑ Yes (if yes,please continue to question 24) ❑ No (if no,please continue to question 25) 24. Thinking of your most recent contact with the city, please rate city employees on each of the items below. Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Courtesy ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Promptness in responding to calls or service ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ requests Knowledge ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Making citizens or customers feel valued ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Respect ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Follow through ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ The City of Kennedale Citizen Survey Report May 2015 98 KENNEDALE 25. We are dedicated to bringing Kennedale residents the most efficient and cost effective residential single- stream recycling collection program possible. Starting in April 2015, we will implement our recycling program. Please respond to the following questions about the program. Yes No Do you currently recycle? ❑ ❑ When provided a recycling bin,will you use it? ❑ ❑ 26. What do you like most about Kennedale? (Please only check one.) ❑ Location in D/FW region ❑ Schools ❑ Parks ❑ People ❑ Size ❑ Friendliness ❑ Special Events (e.g. Art in the Park/Brickworks Festival, Christmas Tree Lighting, KidFish, etc.) ❑ Other(Please specify): 27. Please use this space to add any additional information that you would like us to know. The City of Kennedale Citizen Survey Report / May 2015 1 99 KENNEDALE Demographics 1. Please check all that apply: ❑ I live in Kennedale ❑ I work in Kennedale ❑ Neither 2. What is your age? ❑ 18 -35 ❑ 36 -50 ❑ 51 -64 ❑ 65 or older 3. What is your Gender? ❑ Male ❑ Female 4. Which of the following best describes your race/ethnicity? (check all that apply) ❑ Asian/Pacific Islander ❑ White ❑ American Indian/Eskimo ❑ Black/African American ❑ Hispanic/Latino/Spanish ❑ Other: 5. Approximately how many years have you lived in Kennedale? ❑ Less than 1 year ❑ 1 —5 years ❑ 6 — 10 years ❑ More than 10 years 6. Will you remain in Kennedale for the next 5 years? ❑ Most Likely ❑ Not Likely 7. If you live in Kennedale, do you own or rent your home? ❑ Own ❑ Rent S. Would you recommend living in Kennedale to someone interested? ❑ Yes ❑ No The City of Kennedale Citizen Survey Report May 2015 100 KENNEDALE 9. If you would not recommend living in Kennedale, what is the reason? 10. Why did you choose to live or move to Kennedale? (Please only check one.) ❑ Affordable housing ❑ Community atmosphere ❑ Good schools/ISD ❑ Quality of life ❑ Proximity to work ❑ Other: 11. Do you have children under the age of 18 living at home? ❑ Yes ❑ No 12. What is the highest level of education you have completed? ❑ High School/GED ❑ Some College ❑ College Graduate ❑ Post Graduate 13. Would you say your total annual household income is: ❑ Less than $25,000 ❑ $25,000 to $49,000 ❑ $50,000 to $99,999 ❑ $100,000 to 149,999 ❑ $150,000 or more 14. Would you like to be entered into a drawing for $100 off your utility bill? ❑ No ❑ Yes (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 response will remain anonymous) The City of Kennedale Citizen Survey Report / May 2015 1 101 KENNEDALE APPENDIX B: QUESTION 1 For any department that was rated fair or below, what would best improve it? Additional Comments (Verbatim) The City of Kennedale Citizen Survey Report / May 2015 1 103 KENNEDALE Animal Control ➢ Animal Control needs to pick up dead animals. ➢ Better response to barking dog problems ➢ Animal control is joke in my opinion. Every time I've needed them, no one has been able to help. Had stray dogs on my property that I couldn't get rid of, no help. Had a dog get run over and in eye sight of my children, no help. Call to ask questions, no one working that day. Water taste and quality, in my opinion, have been terrible since we moved here in 2001. Not sure how you fix it, but it could be better. As I'm sure most cities could be. Code Enforcement ➢ There are buildings and lots that tend to look uninhabited and tall weeds take a long time before anything is done it seems. ➢ Code Enforcement ➢ clean out rubbish, fallen trees, etc. ➢ Animal control is never available. I have an abandoned house beside me that has been there for 5 years. A lot of mischief has happened around there and I have had to call police. This house needs to be torn down. It is an eyesore and needs to go. ➢ Some buildings and residences along KP are run down and possibly vacant. Either clean up or tear down. ➢ Enforce the codes... Don't put trash cans in the middle of someone's driveway. Trees look great on the parkway. However, planting them in a drought... ➢ Code enforcement, cleanup junk at personal residents. ➢ There are a couple of houses on Timberline with weeds (front and back) trash and old vehicles with outdated tags. I hesitate to bring this up but if not for a couple of houses this street would be amazing. Thank you. ➢ Eliminate old/eye sore businesses from along Kennedale Parkway Communication ➢ I've been in the city since the later part of 2014 and have had no communication from the city to welcome me here or a newsletter to advise what is going on. If you don't have a newsletter, I would suggest getting one and either send it by email or US mail. I have no idea if have annual events or anything else. The City of Kennedale Citizen Survey Report May 2015 104 KENNEDALE ➢ Communications, jump on the social media bandwagon. Kennedale Facebook has only 200 likes, you can improve on that with a city size of 7,000. ➢ I have tried to find a way to be informed in the City and still haven't.... Kennedale Parkway Employment....Popeye's, Burger King. Customer Service ➢ One of my main concerns is the lack of customer service one gets when you go in. Women there behave as if we the residents are bothering/interrupting their day. ➢ better training, have real people answer phones rather than leaving messages that are unanswered, have employees at their jobs 8 hours a day, better law enforcement! Development ➢ Bring in more retail. ➢ Bring more manufacturers into Kennedale, improving tax revenues & creating good jobs. ➢ I wish we had a wider variety of businesses within Kennedale,but I do think it is getting better. Library ➢ Have a better, larger selection of books/media in library. Police Department ➢ 911 dispatch needs to be back in Kennedale. It is ridiculous when you call and they have no idea where you are! Senior Citizens ➢ Do more for the seniors ➢ Growth too quick for schools. What about seniors? The center why not help more? Pay for van driver, pick-up& take home most not too safely drive van. Seniors have no way to get here without a ride Storm Water ➢ we pay for storm drain service on water bill, but there are no storm drains in my neighborhood. my yard floods every single time it rains. Streets ➢ The streets coming& going to shady creek are getting bad would to see more high end homes devolep The City of Kennedale Citizen Survey Report / May 2015 1 105 KENNEDALE ➢ Side streets in Old Town Kennedale need work--pot holes are usually patched quickly and well,but some of the streets, such as North Road need to be redone-very bumpy and just needs improvement. Not sure about the other two subjects-air quality and flood prevention-as how improvement can be made. ➢ Kennedale Parkway, Street ➢ The roads in and around Kennedale (Shady Creek neighborhood and Little Rd. specifically) are getting worse. There are large cracks in the pavement with steel sticking out for 2 years but no one has bothered to fix it. ➢ Large hole on Little School Road near Pennsylvania is dangerous. ➢ Streets in my neighborhood are in poor shape. ➢ Dick Price Road is horrible when it rains and all the trucks go through you need to grate the mud off and fix more streets like Broadway needs widen ➢ We need cleaner streets. We spent a couple of million dollars improving Little & Sublett roads, as well as Kennedale Pkwy, and most of the time I see trash, rocks and dirt in the gutter. I'm not asking to clean every street in our fair city, but we should keep our main roads free of litter. ➢ Parkways of Sublett and Little Road are un-kept. ➢ Kennedale hwy has pot wholes that need to be filled. ➢ Chug holes should be filled more timely - especially on all of the streets that are heavily traveled by school traffic. ➢ Some more sidewalks would be great. Also, some of the streets need to be fixed. ➢ In the Shady Creek addition, some streets are in bad shape. Year after year they cut out a section and refill it with concrete and not too long after that are just as bad as before. Water/billinz/services ➢ Idk,but the water is almost undrinkable,it has a nasty taste. ➢ Water Department needs to get rid of the outsourcing of billing and bring it back in house. The rate for water in the city is outrageous and the taste is hideous. Have had to bring bottled water in my house becuase i am embarrassed to have company drink Kennedale water. Custmer service in the water department has been non existient since I have been a resident in Kennedale. ➢ Water improvement The City of Kennedale Citizen Survey Report May 2015 106 KENNEDALE ➢ Get rid of the water billing company. They are liars and give us a hard time when we try to pay our bill. ➢ Water is horrible and stinks. ➢ We're relatively new to Kennedale, having lived in Arlington for 30+ years. We haven't had much contact with City services - the contact we have had has been positive. Our biggest single "complaint" is water quality and taste. Arlington's water is ozonated and is far superior in quality to Kennedale's. We would really like to see Kennedale explore purchasing water from Arlington as a wholesale customer, even if our bills are a bit higher. The questions above didn't offer a "don't know" option, so I was forced to rate a few services I know nothing about . (I put "fair" for all of these) ➢ If you could improve in one area, improve the water. I am spending an additional $30 a month on bottled water service due to the poor taste of the water. Not to mention when I moved from Arlington, my water bill practically doubled for the same amount of usage, and I have to carry my own recycling to the dump on Dick Price! Kennedale Pkwy is improving on one end, but I'm not sure much can be done about "Car Par Central" on the other. ➢ The water service company was very difficult to switch to. The customer service department was very rude and not helpful. ➢ The water quality is very bad. Cannot drink tap water. Other county have drinkable water than why is Kennedale water taste so bad. ➢ The water department needs to set a specific day as to when the water bill is due. It changes every month and I am only paid once a month so to keep track of the billing is difficult. I have to have a water filter on my tap to make the water taste better. Perhaps someday I will not be bothered by the taste. ➢ The taste of the water is almost bad enough to have kept us from moving to Kennedale. Possibly switching to a different water source would be the only option. The excessive amount of minerals in the water is inescapable, even with a filtration system. The billing for water is very confusing and expensive. One month, we were billed for more than every other month combined, without any explanation. The various costs for the levels of water usage are also unfair, it charges more than double if you use a little more than necessary,but the "counter" of how much water is truly used is off. ➢ The taste of the water is not good. We purchase bottled water and are looking into a filter system for our home because the water is so hard and we have been in our new home since October 2014 (5 months) and are already seeing mineral deposit buildup in our drains. ➢ the taste of the water ➢ Even though the Kennedale water is rated fine I do not drink it at all. The taste is very bad. I buy gallon bottles of water at the grocery store to drink, make coffee etc. ➢ I've lived here 18 years, and still can't drink the water. Sometimes it smells bad and sometimes it reeks of bleach. I love the park in Kennedale, but the stickers are so bad that I can't walk my dog there. I do not like dealing with a company in another state to pay my water bill. This is a small town. Why is that The City of Kennedale Citizen Survey Report / May 2015 1 107 KENNEDALE necessary? Also, when I pay online it takes WAY too long for a payment to post. Longer than any bill I pay. Kudos for finally bringing curbside recycling to Kennedale residents!!! ➢ Allow recurring credit card billing ➢ Water billing - the due date varies every month and this can cause difficulties for individuals who are paid monthly ➢ Improve water taste ➢ Water quality is terrible. ➢ this is the only utility bill that I have that is not set up on a regular monthly automated billing to credit card...I have to go online every month to do recurring charges...It is a real pain... I am doing fair as a middle of road as the survey should have N/A...I have had very little interface with any of the above as we require no help...No children at home so really cannot answer except what I gave a low mark for and that only reflects the way billing and collections is set up... ➢ WATER BILLING--COMPANY IN ARIZONA CANNOT GET THEIR ACT TOGETHER. I WILL NOT DEAL WITH THEM AS I HAVE PAID ADDITIONAL CHARGES TO THEM FOR THEIR ERROR IN COLLECTING FROM MY BANK ( DIRECT DEPOSIT OR DIRECT WITHDRAWAL FROM MY ACCOUNT) PAID TWO LATE FEES . I WILL NOT HAVE ANY DEALINGS WITH THEM AGAIN I WILL PAY DIRECTLY TO THE WATER DEPT AT CITY OFFICES. tHIS IS AN INCONVENIENCE BUT AT LEAST I DONT HAVE TO COMMUNICATE WITH THE STAFF AT ARIZONA. ➢ Not sure what can be done to improve the taste of the water. ➢ I don't see many new businesses come to town. The water is extremely bad. Unfortunately that was news to us upon moving to Kennedale. I am not sure what can be done to improve it, but please try if possible. Thank you! ➢ The cost for water is higher than other surrounding cities. The taste is NASTY. I won't drink it& I have a filter for my ice maker even that sometimes doesn't help. Too often the water tanks have to be drained which is a huge waste so not much conservation there. I do like the watering your lawn schedule though. The water "retention ponds" don't work and a few close to my home retain water & become a mosquito breeding ground. ➢ The water tastes horrible unless it's filtered. Some streets are flooded after a storm. ➢ I don't know enough to tell you how to improve it, but it just tastes bad. I don't drink it, and I don't offer it to my guests either. We have not had a great deal of interaction with animal control lately. We did, however, have a raccoon in our attic and called several times for help and never got a call back. Since this has been several years ago, things may have gotten better by now -just don't know. ➢ Water taste is bad. Return to newsletters with bill The City of Kennedale Citizen Survey Report / May 2015 1 108 KENNEDALE ➢ Water need to be clean and taste good, as also reduce or change water source, so trees and flowers wont be die when water by city water. I use rain water now, cause trees and flower died when i use city water. Never happened when i lived in Arlington. Some curb side need to be fix. Need reduce traffic jam at Kennedale pkwy. Water Conservation ➢ Don't know what would improve water taste, but for water conservation I believe the following would improve it: Residents should be encouraged to conserve water by having rainwater collection tanks or barrels - maybe allowing people to buy them at a discount somewhere. Also, when water restriction are in place...ENFORCE THEM. If someone (and there are MANY MANY someone's just in my neighborhood ) watering on the wrong day, take a date stamped picture and send it along with a fine. In the water bills, include tips on saving water in the shower, or while washing dishes, or encourage and teach residents how to check for a possible leak. ➢ Enforce the water restrictions, -- I see people watering on days they are not supposed to. -- People that do water has water flowing down the street (excessive water or sprinklers watering the street& drive not the grass). I can consider a windy day but this is mostly in the early morning when wind isn't a factor. ➢ Water conservation - I see water sprinklers running on times or dates when there are watering restrictions. Residential development -there should be no more mobile homes and apartnents General(multiple concerns in one comment) ➢ Balance the best improve it keep us it? ➢ Too much to explain ➢ It would be great if the concern we have for our neighborhood regarding a very active "dope house" didn't fall on deaf ears. These people have been seen stripping copper wiring that I'm sure was stolen as well as dozens of cars stopping for 3-5 minute "visit" throughout the night several nights a week. My children shouldn't have to see this but it's right in our face. ➢ Kennedale Parkway - The new shrubs on Kennedale Parkway have blocked views when trying to pull out of side streets. I have almost been hit numerous times, and have watched others have the same problem. I know this has been reported multiple times to the city...you have promised to do something but yet nothing happens. Very frustrating when our safety is impacted this way and the city doesn't seem to care about it. Move the plants back a few feet and everything will be fine. How hard can that be? Also, the look and feel of Kennedale Parkway is still old and grungy. Buildings need to be modernized and updated to give us more appeal and a friendly atmosphere. There aren't any real shops like other downtowns, and everything has a very industrial feel to it. There isn't anything there that makes people gather and want to hang out. Water billing - the amount on the paper bill and the amount shown online don't always match. I've also gotten multiple paper bills in the same envelope, each with a different amount due. Very confusing. Water taste - don't know if anything can be done to make that acceptable. We drink bottled water. Air quality - sometimes the dump smell is really strong. It lays like a blanket over the city. City streets and sidewalks - we need more sidewalks, especially on the streets leading to the elementary schools (Arthur and Delaney). Mistletoe, Ruth, Reeves and Arthur are all major walkways for kids walking to the schools, but there are no sidewalks so the kids have to walk on The City of Kennedale Citizen Survey Report / May 2015 1 109 KENNEDALE the street. Not safe. Communication - I really miss the newsletters that used to be included with the water bills. I don't always remember to check the city website and therefore I miss some things that are going on. Recruitment of business - this area has definitely improved a lot recently, but I would love to get a grocery store and a nice chain restaurant. ➢ I pay $56.00 per month for sewer-more than for water. That is ridiculous ➢ Air quality — because it stinks, Code enforcement — enforce codes (too many abandoned non-livable properties, non-code fencing, businesses ran from homes, etc), Recruitment of business (need the correct businesses not just ANY business), Development of Kennedale Parkway was a bust and it is EXTREMELY HAZARDOUS...I guess it's going to take a death to get your attention. ➢ The water taste needs to be addressed. I think it would be good to have a "Night" where our Law enforcement came out and addressed our citizens on ways for improving safety in our city: Porch lights on, Cars Locked, getting to know your neighbors and our Officers. We need more businesses in Kennedale so that we don't have to spend our dollars elsewhere, possibly a grocery store, more places to eat. For the amount we spend in tax dollars I personally feel that Kennedale could be so much better. ➢ Water billing -when we moved into our new house the water department charged us for 90,O00gallons of water use!!!! That is three 18 wheeler tanker trucks full. Never happened, so my first experience with the City of Kennedale was getting robbed of $400. Water taste - not consistent, flavor changes constantly Ware Conservation- I see water sprinklers going off at all times in the heat of the summer(very wasteful) Maintenance of City Street & Sidewalks - no sidewalks on Little School road south of 287 for 1 mile Communication from city - could be better, need more ways of communicating to the homeowners Code Enforcement-horrible in my opinion,have a burned out home at 633 Winterwood, corner of Winterwood &Mansfield Cardinal, that has been in a state of disrepair for 11 months and they have not compelled the homeowner to rebuild. Druggies & wild animals now occupy the house. How can you let that get by for close to a year??? Recruitment of business - need to offer more tax incentives to attract more businesses Development of Kennedale Pkwy - what has been developed in the last couple years?? See Water billing above You also need to have a category of N/A is someone has not had an experience with that segment. ➢ It is hard to compete with Arlington being so close that has everything. I would try to get ➢ Code enforcement, junky yards, houses, excess of cars sitting in front of house, weeds etc.. Make these people clean their crap up. Start with the house across from the Jr High/Troy Neal's house. Taste of water it's horrible and didn't use to be a few years back. Undo water ever the change was, it's not fit to drink. The horrible smell from the landfill. Not sure hope the City is getting with the Landfill Mgmt about this one.The police dept, quit dispatching out of Mansfield and bring back local. Start arresting and run all these Meth heads out of town. Water Billing quit outsourcing and bring back to the City. Pkwy development:Allow in a decent eating establishment, something other than burgers,chicken and fried. ➢ I really don't have any suggestions on what can be done to improve the taste of the water. As far as code enforcement I think they should monitor the various locations on a monthly bases and document things that can be improved like cutting down weeds or people leaving old broken down cars on the streets for months at a time. I also think people with corner lots should be made to cut weeds or fix fences anything to give the neighborhood curb appeal. I think the creeks should be cleaned up and add landscape rocks and plants that will do well in Texas heat and drought. The perfect example would be the way my The City of Kennedale Citizen Survey Report / May 2015 1 110 KENNEDALE neighbor fixed up the creek on the side of his house on Hilltop Drive. I had a horrible experience with water billing my meter has been broken for over a year I made several calls to the people that oversee the billing and sent several emails with pics to show the defected meter. I made several calls and visits to the water department and was told the piece that needed repair would be in within 30 days. I was told this same excuse for every time I made a trip to the city about my bill. I paid extremely high water bill for almost all of 2014. I checked for leaks which they said I did not have any. I was very disappointed with the type of service I received in regards to my water bill and water meter issue. ➢ I am STILL appalled at how much my water bill runs for a family of two and overly appauled at how much my sewer bill runs for a family of two. Personally, I think it is a RIP OFF and has been since we moved here in October 2012. My other frustration is my neighbor who STILL has bricks/stone piled up beside his house and side driveway that has been there since they moved in a year ago!! There was also other DEBRIS AND TALL UNCUT GRASS NEARLY THE WHOLE SUMMER last year that I constantly complained about that was never completely cleaned up until another neighbor and myself took it upon ourselves to clean some of it with an OK from the homeowners mother, who also resides there that told us her son, the homeowner has no care in how his yard looks. This really bothers other neighbors and myself because we take serious pride in our property and, I also started up Oak Hill Parks YARD OF THE MONTH beautification award. ENOUGH SAID!!!!! ➢ Water billing...bring it back local. It doesn't make sense to have to call Arizona to take care of my local business. --Taste of water...I HATE having to always buy bottled water to drink. I paid less for water when I lived in Arlington and it tasted much better. The water in Kennedale costs almost twice as much for something that we don't even feel that we can drink straight out of the tap. --Storm water run off...look at the rolling meadows addition after a storm. There is a LOT of dirt in the road from run-off. -- Maintenance of streets/sidewalks...I still don't agree that Kennedale needs 4 roundabouts. -- Communication from city...it seems like it used to be better. Now I have to remember to come to the website to find out what is going on. --Code enforcement...there is someone in the rolling meadows addition who likes to park a motorcycle on the side walk and also has a basketball goal blocking the sidewalk. --Recruitment of business...this seems to have improved a little...there are some new businesses that have come in...how about a grocery store or coffee shop or frozen yogurt...something to excite the younger residents. --Development of Kennedale Pkwy...I know this is a work in progress. It ties into recruitment of businesses. --Customer service by city employees...I go back to the water department. It's been outsourced...so how much am I really dealing with city employees? ➢ Better tasting water. We pay some of the higher water prices in the area and have the poorest quality water. I have had well water that taste better. We have all these great new sidewalks to walk on, but they are covered in overgrown weeds or are surrounded by overgrown grass. Not pleasant to walk on. Kennedale Pkwy has had great improvements, but I would like to see more businesses that are not auto shops or commercial buildings further down from the city hall area. I would like to see these areas built up with more visually pleasing businesses. ➢ I've heard there may be a way to contract with Arlington to get a different water source. That would be great and the rates could be cheaper. I rated storm water as fair because of flooding in the bar ditch on Mansfield-Cardinal. While the improvement of the "town center" is appreciated, there is little worth visiting. The sidewalk and plantings are great additions to both Kennedale Pkwy and Little School/Sublett East, but maintenance is intermittent and litter does not get addressed in a timely manner. I rated maintenance of parks low because each time I have visited the baseball field, there is no grass The City of Kennedale Citizen Survey Report / May 2015 1 111 KENNEDALE outside the fields, there is a LOT of dog feces (I know it is owner responsibility, but obviously our Kennedale citizens are not picking up) and ants on the fields. ➢ Improve the quality of streets. Old town water run off is terrible because drainage ditches are not well maintained. No sidewalks in old town, but expectation is for this to be walk able for shopping/parks/recreation. Kennedale PKWY has many rundown buildings that look old and dilapidated. Grocery store is needed where the old Minyards used to be, or nearby. Recruitment of business is poor, need less fast food, and more dine in restaurants that bring people into the town to spend money at other places besides the fast food restaurant/gas stations. ➢ In most cases it is a matter of limited resources because of the economics of the city. ➢ Filter water more? Not happy about trash pick up. During inclement weather I understand it cannot be picked up. But when there is no corresponding adjustment to the bill, it amounts to mail fraud. Sending a bill via the USPS for services not provided is fraud. ➢ I don't see any signs of code enforcement taking place. There is a lot that needs to be cleaned up in Kennedale. Communication was better when we had the newsletter in the water bill. It is very difficult to get a hold of anyone for animal control when needed and she offers little help. ➢ Being able to actually reach someone in Animal Control would be a start. Police officers who cared about citizens rather than the power they have. Detectives who investigated crimes rather than closing cases within a week due to "no leads" when they never bothered to contact witnesses provided. And most importantly more domestic abuse training and handing out abuse resource materials for victims. Water used to be the best tasting around. Now I gag at the taste and have to buy bottled water which is horrible for the environment. ➢ For code enforcement: I live in a rental duplex area on Woodland Court, and there are yards that have not been mowed since mid summer last year. Garbage is strewn down the street from a few people who don't bag their garbage properly or pick-up their own yard. Wrongly addressed mail was piling up in an open large compartment meant for package pick-up that has overflowed to the ground and is now spread out and covered in snow and slush. Some of us pick-up what we can, but the renters and landlords have let our neighborhood look like the ghetto ( as someone visiting the area said ). This has gotten very bad in the last 1 1/2 years. Recruitment of business: We need more fast food choices and maybe some shops. Residential development: All the new homes are like Cookie-cutter neighborhoods with overly large houses squeezed together. Some homes should offer and acre or more of land. Maintenance of city streets: My own street, Woodland Court, has had an area dug up for maintenance underneath the street and roughly covered back up. There is loose cement chunks laying around the area and on some of the curbsides of some of the duplexes. Also, the sidewalk at the park is often covered in goose and duck feces. I don't know if the budget allows for someone to clean it often. Taste of Water: I don't think anything else can be done. The strong chemicals are needed even more in todays overcrowded places. Kennedale water is probably one of the best that exists today. I just don't like a strong chemical taste, but safe water is much more important. ➢ Water taste, smell, and quality is poor. Water is also very expensive in Kennedale. Seems like expensive water would taste better and smell better. Business recruitment is tough in a bedroom community. I agree The City of Kennedale Citizen Survey Report / May 2015 1 112 KENNEDALE with quality business' first, over quantity. I can see steps are being made to improve the quality of business' in our community and I support that trend. ➢ Improve drainage on Danny Drive. Respond to emails, phone calls and letters. Enforce code on weeds, debris, property etc..... ➢ The water here tastes dirty. We have having to buy water to make it drinkable for our family. Would love to see more businesses in downtown Kennedale. A farmer's market would be amazing. The library staff are helpful, but the selection of books is tiny. We are thankful for the partnership with other libraries, because the Kennedale library rarely has what we need ➢ Outsourcing water billing was one of the worst decisions the city has ever made. Customer service halted when this occurred. Don't see how it was a money saver at all. Poor communications....quit mailing the newsletter. Not all folks have internet access. Forgetting the older ones. Recruitment of business???? Where's that grocery store? ➢ The water department needs to go back to being run by the city. The employees at fathom now nothing always have trouble paying bill, have had bill double paid because there system was messed up. Not personable. We need to keep that small town feeling and not outsource everything. The water in this town taste awful. I can not get my clothes clean and I can not cook with it at all. I have Sparkletts deliver every 2 weeks. I was so upset the day I called into 911 and found out Mansfield was handling our calls. They do not know anything about kennedale and certainly didnt know where I was telling them about. I called in about fireworks being shot off and gave them the name of the subdivision and they had no clue! I certainly hope the day I have an emergency they can dispatch correctly where my house is. I feel we need to try harder to get more businesses to come to this town. Small business would be get. We could encourage citizens to shop Kennedale. ➢ Cost of water are excessively high, ..water conservation is to strick...... need more restaurants, not just fast food! ➢ 1) require property owners to repair and occupy homes in a timely manner. Leaving property vacant and in disrepair reduces surrounding property value and is a haven for crime. 2) Make changes to procedures so residents have clean and good tasting water 3) I tried to donate used books to the library but they would not accept "used" books. This seems silly as the books will become "used" after one use. If this rule was removed the library would be able to grow much faster. 4) Recruit business other than those that cater to low or no income people such as Wal-Mart, Dollar Store, Payday Loans. And subsidized housing (retirement or otherwise). ➢ Air quality has become an issue due to the Fort Worth landfill. Think our city should address this directly with Fort Worth as a way to help the Kennedale residents. Often the water has a bad odor and the taste is less than quality. This has occurred since Kennedale began getting the water from Fort Worth. I work downtown FW and this is how the water taste and smells. Miss our great tasting water we used to have. Do not believe the code enforcement enforces the rules enough. Many areas need to be cleaned up and that does not seem to be occurring. Do not know why this continues to be an issue. ➢ Minimal business' to attract people. Library resources are still small town. I applied for a library card and was told to come back for it, went back 3 times and they never could find it. I can go to other city The City of Kennedale Citizen Survey Report / May 2015 1 113 KENNEDALE libraries and have more resources and options and no problem borrowing anything. As far as Kennedale Pkwy it flows fine as far as traffic but not much to it other than that. ➢ enforce property maintenance codes that are on the books, code enforcement officer needs to drive around and look at the community and make the suggestions to property owners to be in compliance, this can be done amicably, but firmly. Fix streets and potholes correctly/permanently.Development of K Pkwy with high maintenance landscaping instead of zero-scaping is going to cost us all a lot of money and maintenance time in the long run...same can be said of Sublett Rd Parkways....why grass? (tons of maintenance and lot of precious water and money to keep it growing) (never been to muni court so disregard that answer) On the positive side, love the round-a-bouts great idea to keep traffic flowing. To keep the country feel of the city, when zoning new residential developments keep lot sizes at a min 1/4 acres and require developers to include parks and recreational areas, walking trails, in the developments. Where are the new businesses, and the rest of the Town Center....Thought the Chicken Restaurant building was going to relocate and build new. It would also be great if the ATT building could landscape and tie into the town center theme....what an eyesore as one comes into the city from the north, into the "town center" great start with the town center....finish the job, how about a grocery store...again Thanks for asking.... ➢ POLICE IS MORE CONCERNED IN WRITING TICKETS THEN HELPING THE RESIDENTS WATER BILLS ARE SO MUCH HIGHER THEN CITYS AROUND US LAST FEW TIMES I'VE BEEN INTO CITYHALL WERE VERY RUDE AND STAND OFFISH WE NEED MORE GOOD BUSINESS'S IN KENNEDALE TO ATTRACT NEW MEDIUM CLASS RESIDENCE WE SEEM TO BE GETTING MORE LOW INCOME PEOPLE MOVING IN (NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT EXCEPT THE DRUGS GENERALLY FOLLOW) ➢ It's nice to see a sidewalk being put up on Kennedale parkway. Unfortunately, the only people who walk around that area are the panhandlers as they are the only ones that live in that area. City seems anti- business friendly.The city should recognize that they have a majority of industrial businesses and should promote and encourage those businesses. While it would be nice to have a Transit center, golf course or other development in the north end of the city, the smell from the dump will remain within a 1-2 mile radius of the dump, depending on which direction the wind blows. Land use decisions are being implement based on a "vision" that ignores current land use zoning. ➢ (1) I prefer the taste of Ft. Worth water better. Kennedale water tastes a bit metallic to me. (2) Several neighbors on my street (Spring Branch Ln.) allow their yards to get overgrown with tall grass and weeds. Arlington newspapers are left on driveways for weeks at a time. Some neighbors leave garbage cans out for days. (3) It was nice to see the QT gas station come in and now the Burger King and Popeye's Chicken, but the liquor store and strip joint still remain vacant there near the old Chevron station. (4) The mini trailer park on the corner of the new Dick Price Rd. and Kn. Pkwy. needs to be replaced with some kind of viable business. ➢ It's no surprise to anyone that the water taste bad. I think that the added sidewalks on sublet are wonderful but the streets inside Shady Creek West are terrible. I do like what we have done on the east side of Sublet near High school. Good Job! We need more restaurants and shopping. Other than that you guys are doing a good job with what you have. ➢ Waste pickup. It is very good but could be better if one of the two pickups were for recycling . Much of the garbage that I see could be recycled. The City of Kennedale Citizen Survey Report May 2015 A 114 KENNEDALE ➢ I feel we are being over charged for our water bill and the water taste terrible. Sonora Park can be cleaned up better. Litter in creeks. ➢ Animal Dept. needs additional staff. Parks department does a great job on city parks, but as far as for our youth. The KYA fields are an embarrassment when hosting other cities. The grounds need more attention. Scoreboards are pathetic if working. ➢ emergency medical - had incident in January and it took EMS over ten minutes to respond. I live in Shady Creek area. ➢ Police, lacks public trust. Several residents get sarcastic remarks from police officers responding to 911 call. PNP was robbed and suspect is on video but never turned in to detectives and investigated. Resident has complained about a "drug house" in nothing ever gets investigated. Need sidewalks for students in Crestdale walking to Delaney and James Arthur. They have to walk in streets and people speed by. Many complaints reported to the police. Some employees never seem to return voice mail calls. Usually when you do call you get voice mail. Air stinks from landfill a big problem. Code enforcement. Have made repeated request for 4 trashed yards to be cleaned since the summer and they still have piled aluminum cans in their yard (across from Jr High) Others piles of dead limbs and never get cleaned up. Have contacted Code enf via the on line application, email and in person. ➢ In recent years, I've noticed a lot of water main breaks and having to release exorbitant amounts of water from the fire hydrants. The creeks are littered with trash. There is no recycling program or even an accessible bin to collect plastics, glass, etc. Recycling would reduce trash waste by 3/4. Most of what goes into the trash is recyclable material. ➢ My street w 3rd runs off into my backyard also we need sidewalks vs the ditches in front of our houses we are a main thoroughfare for most of the trailer park. also a light at north and w 3rd would be great ➢ I see many properties that represent Kennedale well, city needs a bike trail connecting parks and more parks, improve water taste and quality of water for instance corrosion of pipes ➢ prevent erosion of land next to creek by adding retaining structure on sides. ➢ Allowing trash to be put out several days before scheduled pick up. ➢ it used to be you could go to city hall and get answers from people. now it is like you go to city hall and are dealing with people who would rather not help you, and just figure if they say nothing you will go away. the air quality is terrible on days. yes it comes from the landfill. yes the landfill is in ft worth. but when you step outside and you start to gag the city of kennedale needs to take action. there are days in the summer you can smell it all the way to little rd. this is not going to help the city's property values or reputation. water taste has always been of poor quality regardless of the yearly report you send out saying it meets standards. thw workers who go out and do the outside work are the best of any in any of the cities around kennedale. they are nice, helpfull and quality workers. ➢ Although water taste has improved since mixing Kennedale's water supply with Fort Worth's water supply, there is still room for improvement in the taste. Has Kennedale researched/analyzed contracting with Fort Worth for its (Kennedale's) entire water supply ? My rating is based on the park on Sublett (east of Wildcat Way). I walk in this park, and the maintenance seems to have been delayed for long The City of Kennedale Citizen Survey Report / May 2015 1 115 KENNEDALE periods of time. The playground area needs upkeep. I realize there is a cost associated with the maintenance, but the park in general needs to be maintained better. The City of Kennedale Citizen Survey Report / May 2015 1 116 KENNEDALE APPENDIX C: QUESTION 2 Which three services listed above should receive the most emphasis from the city leaders over the next two years? Additional Comments (Verbatim) The City of Kennedale Citizen Survey Report / May 2015 1 117 KENNEDALE #1. Air Quality ➢ air quality ➢ Air Quality. The landfill has been very odiferous ➢ Air qulity Code Enforcement ➢ Code enforcement ➢ Code enforcement ➢ code enforcement ➢ Code Enforcement ➢ "f o■sr L_'J�i ➢ Code enforcement ➢ Code Enforcement ➢ Code Enforcement ➢ Code enforcement ➢ Code enforcement ➢ Code enforcement ➢ code enforcement ➢ code enforcement ➢ code ➢ Code enforcement, especially around homes &neighborhoods. Too many houses with junk. ➢ Code enforecement ➢ require property owners to repair and occupy homes in a timely manner. Leaving property vacant and in disrepair reduces surrounding property value and is a haven for crime. ➢ Business building placement- DON'T allow near residential areas ➢ Adherence to zoning laws. Not an "unapproved" vision with no zoning behind it. Communication ➢ Communication from the City ➢ Communication ➢ communication ➢ Communication ➢ Communication from city Conservation of creeks/water ➢ Conservation of Creeks ➢ Conservation of creeks ➢ Conservation of creeks. ➢ conservation of creeks/habitat ➢ Water Conservation ➢ water conservation ➢ Water conservation The City of Kennedale Citizen Survey Report May 2015 118 KENNEDALE Development ➢ We need better development downtown, a grocery store (Aldi)would be nice. ➢ business recruitment ➢ Residential Development ➢ Recruitment of business ➢ City development ➢ Recruitment of Business ➢ Development ➢ Development of Business 287 ➢ recruitment of business ➢ Recruitment of Business ➢ Recruitment of business ➢ Recruitment of business ➢ Recruitment of business ➢ Recruitment of Business ➢ Recruitment of business ➢ recruitment of businessed ➢ recruitment of businesses ➢ Recruitment of Businesses ➢ Recruitment of business' for shopping& eating& entertainment ➢ Recruitment of business!! ➢ recruitment of more businesses ➢ Recruitment of new business ➢ Recruitment the businesses ➢ recruiyment of new businesses ➢ Recruting businesses. ➢ Recruting more businesses ➢ New Business to help our tax base ➢ Residential development ➢ Residential Development ➢ Business ➢ Recriut Businesses ➢ recruitment and retainment of business ➢ Property tax reduction either through increased business or something else. EMS ➢ Emergency Medical Services ➢ EMS ➢ EMS Fire department ➢ Fire ➢ fire ➢ Fire Department The City of Kennedale Citizen Survey Report May 2015 119 KENNEDALE Maintenance ofStreets/sidewalks ➢ Kennedale parkway ➢ Fix the visibility problems on Kennedale Parkway caused by the shrubs ➢ Streets ➢ Streets ➢ City Street Maintenance ➢ Development of kennedale parkway ➢ Development of Kennedale parkway ➢ Development of kennedale parkway ➢ Development of Kennedale Parkway ➢ Development of Kennedale Parkway ➢ Development of Kennedale Pkwy ➢ Development of Kennedale Pkwy ➢ Development of Kennedale Pkwy ➢ Development of Kennedale pkwy ➢ Development of Kennedale Pkwy ➢ devoplment kennedale parkway ➢ maintenance of streets ➢ maintenance of streets ➢ Maintenance of streets and sidewalks ➢ street maintenance ➢ Street maintenance ➢ street repairs ➢ streets ➢ STREETS ➢ Roads ➢ Road striping and maintance ➢ remove turnabouts,poor use of money ➢ Repair of old city streets ➢ Maintenance of city streets and sidewalks ➢ maintenance of city streets and sidewalks ➢ Maintenance of city streets and sidewalks ➢ Maintenance of City streets and sidewalks ➢ Maintenance of city streets and sidewalks ➢ maintenance of city streets ➢ maintenance of city streets ➢ Maintenance of city streets ➢ Maintenance of city streets & sidewalks ➢ city sidewalks - I wish there were sidewalks along Hillside and Hilltop. It is so busy with so many different cars and we have a lot of children that walk to and from the schools ➢ Maintenance of city and sidewalks ➢ put sidewalks on old streets so kids don't have to walk in the streets Parks/Recreation ➢ maintenance of city parks ➢ Maintenance of city parks ➢ Park Maintenance The City of Kennedale Citizen Survey Report May 2015 120 KENNEDALE ➢ Parks ➢ City parks ➢ city parks Police Department ➢ Police dept. over steeping their power, dishonest ➢ Police department ➢ Police department ➢ Police department ➢ Police ➢ Police ➢ Police ➢ Police, bring back local dispatch and arrest and run the Meth heads out of town. ➢ Police ➢ Police ➢ Police ➢ Police ➢ Police ➢ Police ➢ Police ➢ Police ➢ Police ➢ police department Storm Water ➢ storm water run off ➢ Management of storm water run-off(flood prevention ➢ management of storm water-run off ➢ water run off ➢ Water runoff Water taste/billin ➢ Water Taste ➢ provide for future water needs ➢ Water taste ➢ water taste ➢ Water ➢ water billing company ➢ water ➢ Water ➢ Water ➢ Water ➢ Water ➢ taste of the water ➢ Make changes to procedures so residents have clean and good tasting water ➢ Water taste The City of Kennedale Citizen Survey Report May 2015 121 KENNEDALE ➢ Water Taste ➢ Water taste ➢ Water Taste ➢ Water Taste ➢ Water Taste ➢ Water taste ➢ Water taste ➢ Water taste ➢ Water supply/taste ➢ Water cost ➢ Water Department ➢ Water improvement ➢ Water Quality ➢ Water quality ➢ Water Quality ➢ water quality and cost ➢ water receivables ➢ water taste ➢ Water taste/billing ➢ Water billing ➢ Water Billing ➢ WATER BILLING ➢ water and sewer bills reduced ➢ cost of sewage treatment ➢ Bring back customer service in the water department----billing needs to be in-house. Out-sourcing this one was a very poor decision. Other ➢ na ➢ nothing ➢ Customer service at water dept. ➢ to grow much faster. ➢ It is not listed, but needs attention,recycling for plastics, cans, and glass. ➢ Library ➢ Don't allow any apartments to come in. Only residential housing ➢ response to phones real time ➢ Security - street lights and sidewalks ➢ continue cleaning up the city ➢ animal control ➢ Public trust in police investigating burglaries, etc. The City of Kennedale Citizen Survey Report / May 2015 1 122 KENNEDALE # 2. Animal Control ➢ animal control ➢ Animal control ➢ Animal control ➢ Animal Control ➢ Animal Control ➢ animal control ➢ Animal control (cats) ➢ Coyotes Code Enforcement ➢ Code enforcement ➢ Code enforcement ➢ code enforcement ➢ Code enforcement ➢ code enforcement ➢ code enforcement ➢ Code Enforcement ➢ Code Enforcement ➢ code enforcement ➢ code enforcement ➢ Code enforcement ➢ code enforcement ➢ code enforcement ➢ Code Enforcement(weeds, trash) ➢ Code enforcement issues ➢ Code enforcement issues I stated above ➢ Code enforcement unequal treatment ➢ Consistent code enforcement. ➢ Focus on remodeling or tearing down old homes/townhomes ➢ yard compliance -lots of abandoned vehicles and trash ➢ homeowners required to keep their property in kept manner with no tall grass and no stuff piled beside their home visible from the street ➢ tear down condemned buildings Communication ➢ communication ➢ communication from city ➢ communication from city ➢ Communication from the city ➢ Communications---let's not leave anyone out. If you don't have internet access, at least give the option of mailing out newsletter, etc (even this survey.......) ➢ communicaton The City of Kennedale Citizen Survey Report May 2015 123 KENNEDALE Conservation of Creeks/water ➢ Conservation of creeks ➢ conservation of creeks ➢ Conservation of creeks ➢ conservation of water ➢ water conservation ➢ Water conservation Development ➢ business ➢ business development ➢ business recruitment ➢ Development ➢ new business ➢ recruit more good paying companies/jobs ➢ Recruitment of business ➢ Recruitment of business ➢ recruitment of business ➢ recruitment of business ➢ Recruitment of business ➢ recruitment of business ➢ Recruitment of Business ➢ Recruitment of business ➢ Recruitment of Business ➢ recruitment of business ➢ Recruitment of business ➢ Recruitment of business ➢ recruitment of business ➢ Recruitment of business ➢ Recruitment of business ➢ Recruitment of business ➢ Recruitment of business ➢ Recruitment of Business ➢ Recruitment of business ➢ recruitment of business ➢ recruitment of business ➢ Recruitment of business ➢ Recruitment of business ➢ Recruitment of business ➢ Recruitment of business (restaurants) ➢ Recruitment of business.Get a Chipotles for us! ➢ recruitment of businesses ➢ Recruitment of businesses we need (i.e. grocery store/restaurants) Recruitment of new businesses ➢ Recruptment OF Business ➢ Residential development ➢ Residential development ➢ residential development The City of Kennedale Citizen Survey Report May 2015 124 KENNEDALE ➢ Residential Development ➢ residentual development ➢ Quality Development ➢ residental development Fire Department/EMS ➢ Fire Department ➢ Fire Department ➢ fire department ➢ fire department ➢ Fire ➢ Fire ➢ Fire ➢ Fire ➢ fire dept ➢ Emergency Services ➢ EMS ➢ EMT's ➢ strong emergency forces Library ➢ library services ➢ Library services Parks/Recreation ➢ maintenance of city parks ➢ parks ➢ Parks maintenance ➢ More recreational activities Police ➢ Police ➢ Police ➢ Police ➢ Police ➢ Police Department ➢ Police Department ➢ Police Dept. ➢ Access to local police department -not Mansfield ➢ 911 dispatching ➢ Police - I would love to see more patrol in the neighborhoods. Again, people speed through our neighborhoods and it is scary how fast they drive on Hillside Dr. The City of Kennedale Citizen Survey Report / May 2015 1 125 KENNEDALE Recyclin ➢ Recycling ➢ Recycling Programs ➢ Curbside recycling program Streets/Sidewalks ➢ city streets ➢ City Streets ➢ city streets ➢ Continue to develop Kennedale parkway ➢ Develop Kennedale Pkwy ➢ Development of Kennedale Parkway ➢ Development of Kennedale Parkway ➢ Development of Kennedale Pkwy ➢ Development of Kennedale Pkwy ➢ development of Kennedale Pkwy ➢ MAINTENANCE OF CITY STREETS ➢ Maintenance of city streets (including keeping it clean) ➢ Maintenance of city streets and sidewalks ➢ Maintenance of city streets and sidewalks ➢ Maintenance of city streets and sidewalks ➢ Maintenance of streets ➢ maintenance of streets and sidewalks ➢ Maintenance of Streets and Sidewalks ➢ Management of roads and sidewalks ➢ Street ➢ street and sidewalks in neighborhoods ➢ Street Maintenance ➢ Street Upgrades ➢ streets ➢ streets ➢ fix the well traveled streets such as north road and dick price ➢ Sidewalks ➢ sidewalks ➢ Sidewalks for school children, Delaney &james Arthur Water ➢ good tasting water ➢ taste of the water ➢ Taste of water ➢ taste of water ➢ Water ➢ Water ➢ Water billing The City of Kennedale Citizen Survey Report May 2015 126 KENNEDALE ➢ Water quality ➢ water quality ➢ Water quality ➢ Water taste ➢ water taste ➢ water department ➢ Water Dept ➢ Water taste ➢ Water taste ➢ Water taste ➢ water taste ➢ Water taste ➢ water taste ➢ Soft water Other: ➢ employees working full time rather than extensive time off ➢ cleaning Village Creek ➢ animal rescue program ➢ Customer Service from the City ➢ Deal with the stench from the dump ➢ Image ➢ Improve looks of town on main entry streets like Sublett& Kennedale ➢ Na ➢ Management of storm runoff ➢ POLICE DRUGS ➢ The beautification on Kennedale Pkwy is nice, but I am not able to see to pull out of a driveway because of the shrubbery or trees being in the way of seeing oncoming traffic. ➢ Remove or trim way back the bushes in front of the bank ➢ Residential Flooding ➢ Kennedale Parkway should open up more restaurants that are well known ➢ Continued overall beautification of Kennedale #3. Animal Control ➢ animal control ➢ animal control ➢ Animal Control ➢ Animal Control ➢ Animal Control ➢ Animal control . Better leash laws and enforcement The City of Kennedale Citizen Survey Report / May 2015 1 127 KENNEDALE Code Enforcement ➢ code enforcement ➢ Code Enforcement ➢ code enforcement ➢ Code enforcement ➢ Code Enforcement ➢ Code Enforcement ➢ code enforcement ➢ Code Enforcement ➢ Code Enforcement ➢ Code enforcement ➢ code enforcement ➢ code enforcement ➢ Code enforcement ➢ Code Enforcement ➢ Code Enforcement ➢ Code enforcement (weeds, abandoned buildings, etc.) ➢ ABANDON BUILDING ➢ abandoned buildings and houses ➢ Code enforcement (weeds, abandoned buildings, etc.) ➢ Code enforcement (weeds, abandoned buildings, etc.) ➢ Code enforcement to cleanup the city warehouse areas and neighborhoods ➢ more effective code enforcement ➢ remove old, trashed up areas/properties Communication ➢ communication ➢ communication from city ➢ Communication from the city Conversation of Creeks/Water ➢ Conservation of Creeks ➢ conservation of creeks ➢ Conservation of creeks ➢ CONSRVATION OF CREEKS ➢ water conservation ➢ Water conservation ➢ Water conservation Development ➢ Attracting basic retail services ➢ Bring small business to Kennedale Bringing ➢ more businesses in. The City of Kennedale Citizen Survey Report May 2015 128 KENNEDALE ➢ bringing more businesses to Kennedale ➢ business development ➢ business recruitment ➢ Business recruitment for Kennedale Pkwy ➢ Close monitoring of what businesses move into town ➢ Growth of business ➢ keeping business ➢ more businesses less houses ➢ more residential housing ➢ Recruit business that have an impact in community ➢ Recruitment of Business ➢ Recruitment of business ➢ recruitment of business ➢ Recruitment of business ➢ Recruitment of Business ➢ recruitment of business ➢ Recruitment of Business ➢ Recruitment of Business ➢ recruitment of business ➢ recruitment of business ➢ recruitment of business ➢ Recruitment of business ➢ Recruitment of business ➢ Recruitment of Business (pastry shop, restaurants, etc) ➢ Recruitment of business no more fast food Recruitment of business to help offset taxes for citizens ➢ recruitment of business/dev of kennedale pkwy ➢ Recruitment of businesses ➢ recruitment of businesses ➢ recruitment of businesses ➢ Recruitment of residential ➢ residential development ➢ Residential development ➢ Residential Development ➢ residential development ➢ Residential development ➢ Residential Development ➢ residential development ➢ Residential development ➢ Residential development ➢ Like the fact we now have a couple more restaurants....let's try for a grocery store now that changes are being made. EMS(Ememency Medical Services) ➢ Emergency services ➢ EMS ➢ EMS ➢ EMS The City of Kennedale Citizen Survey Report May 2015 129 KENNEDALE ➢ ems ➢ EMS Library Services ➢ Library ➢ library ➢ library ➢ Library - I would love to see more money invested in our city library. ➢ library services ➢ Library services ➢ Libray services Police ➢ Police ➢ Police ➢ Police ➢ police department ➢ Police Department ➢ Police department ➢ Police department doesn't seem to care about resolving issues when they have been called out to a residence. ➢ Police department....more mid-night patrols ➢ reduce crime with more police coverage ➢ move dispatch back to Kennedale Streets & Sidewalks ➢ development of Kennedale Pkwy ➢ Development of Kennedale Pkwy ➢ development of Kennedale Pkwy ➢ Development of Kennedale Pkwy ➢ Development of Kennedale Pkwy ➢ development of Kennedale Pkwy ➢ Development of Kennedale Parkway ➢ Development of Kennedale Parkway (CUT BACK HAZARDOUS BUSHES) ➢ Kennedale pkwy ➢ fix our potholes ➢ Maintain streets and city landscape maintenance ➢ Maintenance of city streets and sidewalks ➢ maintenance of city streets and sidewalks ➢ Maintenance of city streets and sidewalks ➢ Maintnance of city streets and sidewalks ➢ Street Department ➢ street maintenance ➢ Street maintenance ➢ Street maintenance ➢ street repairs The City of Kennedale Citizen Survey Report May 2015 130 KENNEDALE ➢ streets ➢ Streets & sidewalks, especially Dick Price road on bridge going towards landfill. ➢ The development of the parkway ➢ Add sidewalks ➢ city streets and sidewalks ➢ City Streets and Walkways Water ➢ better water quality (taste) ➢ Water ➢ water ➢ Water ➢ Water ➢ water bill ➢ taste of the water ➢ Taste of water and horrible smell in air taxes ➢ Water billing ➢ water billing and price ➢ Water billing-not handled in house cost of water lost of senior discount ➢ Water Dept ➢ Water has tons of chlorine in it! ➢ Water quality ➢ Water taste ➢ Water taste ➢ Water taste ➢ Water taste ➢ water taste ➢ water taste ➢ Water taste in the evenings Other ➢ City Parks ➢ clean up village creek area on kennedale pkw ➢ closing race tracks ➢ control speed on little road ➢ Fire ➢ Implement re-cycling ➢ Less roundabouts ➢ Maintenance of city parks ➢ Management of storm water run-off ➢ more street lights placed in our neighborhood ➢ na ➢ Park Maintenance/Community Education ➢ recycling ➢ Speeding ➢ svc from city hall workers ➢ Walkability The City of Kennedale Citizen Survey Report May 2015 131 KENNEDALE APPENDIX D: QUESTION 21 Do you have any specific suggestions for improving the website's functionality or appearance? Additional Comments (Verbatim) The City of Kennedale Citizen Survey Report / May 2015 1 133 KENNEDALE ➢ Do more for senior citizens ➢ NO ➢ No ➢ None ➢ Too busy. ➢ No,feel it is good. ➢ No ➢ I went to the website to find information about the city's home recycling program and could not find anything. ➢ Would LOVE to be able to post information and photo on the site of the winner of our neighborhood's (Oak Hill Park)Yard of the Month winner. ➢ the calendar did not include special functions such as art in the park ➢ No ➢ No ➢ video public meetings ➢ no ➢ no ➢ No ➢ Better animal control information ➢ Not at this time. ➢ No ➢ no ➢ The website is fairly easy to navigate. ➢ The newsletter seems to contain a lot of obsolete information. ➢ not at all ➢ no ➢ very detailed and explains a lot. would like to see brader information on history of city ➢ No ➢ I haven't visited the website ➢ Actually did not want to answer 'no' to question #20 above. I really wanted to say some things are easy to find and others take longer to figure out. I really like the option of signing up for specific information if I want to receive it by email(seems to work very well). ➢ I like it but I feel that it is a bit hard to navigate. I think the information should be more organized. ➢ I could not find residential property ordinances. ➢ no ➢ no ➢ No ➢ Not at this time. ➢ LOOKS BETTER THAN IT EVER HAS. ➢ no ➢ No ➢ No The City of Kennedale Citizen Survey Report May 2015 134 KENNEDALE APPENDIX E: QUESTION 26 What do you like most about Kennedale? Additional Comments (Verbatim) The City of Kennedale Citizen Survey Report / May 2015 1 135 KENNEDALE ➢ Close to family ➢ quiet living ➢ Love the country feeling, yet stil lin the city. Stop building new homes, will become too crowded and crime will increase. ➢ Kennedale has the best of both worlds--that small, hometown, quiet country feel, yet a huge metroplex with everything available within a 10-20 drive. I have lived in Kennedale going on 52 years, have raised two children here and love it here. ➢ My neighborhood (OAK HILL PARK) ➢ 9 2 parks, 93 people ➢ I love the rural setting ➢ size ➢ Quiet neighborhoods. ➢ Rich History ➢ Kennedale is accomadating to older people with limited resources. ➢ selected this home 20 years ago. like location,police and fire services and continuous home growth ➢ Small town feel....let's not loose it(because it sure appears it is headed that way). ➢ Nice, small library with great staff. ➢ It's a town with generations of families living here ➢ but we also like the schools, people, size, and the special events, and we have always felt very safe and secure here. ➢ Small town feel. ➢ I have lived in Kennedale since 1968 and like everything about it. ➢ I grew up here ➢ Churches ➢ Our neighborhood is in Kennedale had no other choice but to be here... ➢ It is a small town. Please keep it that way. The City of Kennedale Citizen Survey Report / May 2015 1 136 KENNEDALE APPENDIX F: QUESTION 27 Overall Additional Comments (Verbatim) The City of Kennedale Citizen Survey Report / May 2015 1 137 KENNEDALE ➢ We need more sidewalks! ➢ Do more for senior citizens ➢ I think making the race tracks go you will be sorry to loose the houses they made for all of us. ➢ Don't think we should be charged to recycle. Also think we should have the option to opt out. ➢ Need a turning signal on Kenneadle Pky and new hope rd. Cars turning from Crest view and new Hope tired to turn at the same time and it going to cause a wreck. ➢ Revamp the Water department billing and retrain staff to have a little common courtesy. ➢ I love Kennedale very much. I'm sure you are getting lots of negative feedback, from me as well as others...but I want you all to know that overall I'm very proud of this city and happy to live here. Sure there are several areas for improvement, but that's the case any place you live. I've raised my kids here, and now some of my grandkids are growing up here. I couldn't think of a better place to be. ➢ Hope the Shred it trucks comes again this spring. Glad about the recycling and not having to take it anywhere, that wasn't convenient. ➢ The city should tear down the abandoned buildings and homes. Force the homeowners to keep their yards ➢ cleaned with nothing laying in sight for others to see. We want to be proud of our city. I see too much of this and nothing is being done about it. If people do not keep their yards cut, the city should cut them and charge the home owners. Let's keep our city beautiful. ➢ Over the 18 years my family has lived in Kennedale, we have been thoroughly impressed by the caliber and vision of the city staff. I'm honestly thrilled with the improvements achieved within Kennedale's parks, schools, library, roadways, first responder teams, business outreach, and so on. Your efforts have made me proud to say I live in Kennedale. Bravo! ➢ Get rid of the Water Billing Department. Give Sara more control over problems and maybe she won't have an attitude when citizens have an issue. ➢ Having grown up in Kennedale and raised my children here (lived here 52 years), I have watched many changes and improvements in our city. I am very pleased with our Kennedale government and committees. They have done a fabulous job to improve and grow our community, without overdoing it. It is my hope that they will continue to improve and grow Kennedale, without overdoing it. Keep the small, hometown feel. Would love for Old Town Kennedale to stay small and have the old feel. But such things as street lights and improved streets to drive on would be a plus. The one thing I would love is to have underground utilities along Kennedale Parkway. Yes it would be costly, but a massive improvement when you look up the hill going into the main part--now all I see is telephone poles. Trying to communicate with and include the citizens is so appreciated! Keep up the good work. ➢ Failure to communicate is a big issue. Our family has enjoyed the Texas Independence Parade and Celebration in past years but this year there was nothing about it that I could find. The City of Kennedale Citizen Survey Report May 2015 A 138 KENNEDALE ➢ I would like to receive more communication from the City ➢ I have talked with neighbors and we have discussed the desire to have an attractive neighborhood sign for "Oak Hill Park" placed at the entrance at Bowen Springs Road and Pennsylvania Avenue, and we would like for our City to help us make this happen! If we are able to accomplish this, we then would like to adopt the area of the sign to place and maintain plants/shrubs and make the area OAK HILL PARK'S beautification project! PLEASE take a look at this request. ➢ I would like to see more businesses open in Kennedale...grocery store, Starbucks, and/or less fattening fast food restaurant. The junk yard look horrible. Mansfield Cardinal road looks trashy. I love the Flag idea...wish they could stay up a few days to enjoy! ➢ I like and appreciate the efforts being made to beautify the city with landscaping. I've noticed a lot of speeding cars where children are playing along Arthur Dr., behind the Intermediate school (from that corner to the stop sign). Perhaps a speed bump would help? The high school does not offer many choices for enrichment. For example, the only foreign language offered is Spanish...no ASL or French, etc. ➢ i am pleased with the direction the city is going but would like to avoid to much infringement on my rights on my property..i like being in the old part of kennedale and i like the nostaglia of it. NO HOMEOWNERS ASSOC FOR OUR NEIGHBORHOOD ➢ I would like to see Kennedale continue to improve the appearance of Kennedale by adding more greenery and reducing the amount of properties that don't represent Kennedale well because they are run down or not maintained well. Nice job on Kennedale parkway. Bike trail would be awesome. I have noticed the addition of many sidewalks which I like. ➢ This may sound trivial but it would be nice to see a restaurant in Kennedale that isn't fast food. ➢ Do not want to be required to recycle-- think it is a waste of time and money. ➢ We moved to Kennedale four years ago. We moved here specfically for schools because we are pro- public schools and want our kids to play in neighborhoods with the kids who attend their school. While many of my visitors make fun of our round-abouts, they have made a tremendous difference in keeping traffic moving, especially at school drop-off and pick up times. I am VERY thrilled about the implementation of recycling. We came from a city with a robust program and for four years, I have been hauling my recycling to work. The water in Kennedale is very expensive compared to cities where I have previously lived. This is ironic because I perceive water quality to be very low. I am mostly referring to taste as well as the mineral deposits have required the replacement of our shower cartridge twice. All in all, I like the small-town feel and diverse community of Kennedale. I wish there weren't so many junk yards, but if they are paying taxes, I guess I can live with it. It would be nice if we had more restaurants and shopping in our city...where our city could realize the tax income. ➢ Time to stop talking about improving town center, Kennedale Parkway, and the parks. It's time to start making an active effort to clean up these areas, aside from closing a lane of traffic to add a sidewalk. Give me a place to spend my money, give me a place to grocery shop, give me a place to have outdoor fun with my family, and make Kennedale a great place to live. The City of Kennedale Citizen Survey Report / May 2015 1 139 KENNEDALE ➢ The schools have gone down hill, can't even take my daughter to KISD because of the bullying problems, all three of my kids have had this issue and i wouldn't recommend anyone living there with children, getting worse with drug problems,but city has done alot to make it look alot nicer ➢ There are many intersections in the City with landscaping or signage blocking the sight lines and creating safety hazards for drivers waiting to turn. This is especially a problem on cross streets of Kennedale Parkway. ➢ Clean up Kennedale pwky landscaping ➢ I wasn't aware I there was a city newsletter any more or that you could get an email subscription. I did like getting it in the water bill keep it on the fridge as a reminder of events. ➢ Glad we are going to start recycling. ➢ We are new to Kennedale. Very happy and pleased to have made the choice to build in Kennedale. The support and friendliness of city staff has been outstanding. It is very apparent that the city manger has put together a strong, tremendous staff that is focused on the community and the residents of the community. You talk about user friendly, Kennedale is that type of city. Cannot say enough good things about our overall experience. Also, we attend probably 75% if not more of the council meetings and have experienced the same type of atmosphere in those council meetings. ➢ The trees planted in the medians and along Kennedale Pkwy. are beautiful and really make the city look nice along with the sidewalks and round-abouts. ➢ I support improving Kennedale parkway by removing the strip clubs and cutting back on junk yards. I also support doing something to lower the 2nd tier water cost or raising the consumption before you hit tier 2. ➢ We have been extremely happy since we moved to Kennedale. We like the small town atmosphere and that is"country" but readily accessible to services that are needed. I am glad to read that the City is going to be implementing a recycling program in a couple of months. It has been a long time coming. There is a typo in question 11. The word "fell" should be "feel". Better proof reading is needed prior to publishing such an important document. ➢ I am proud to live in Kennedale and support all Kennedale activities in anyway I can. ➢ Many years ago the Kennedale Police Department saved my life. ➢ I believe that Kennedale has been a safe city with good schools while living here and raising my children. I do fear crime is on the rise in this area, so I probably should have addressed that in my "top 3" concerns on the previous page. While I have not personally experienced any criminal activity, I am aware of several shootings that have occurred, either in our city or just on the outskirts. I hope that our police department is well staffed and I would like to see a stronger presence in my neighborhood (Steeplechase). I feel as though I don't see police cruising the neighborhood like I have in the past. The City of Kennedale Citizen Survey Report / May 2015 1 140 KENNEDALE ➢ speed limits need to be enforced better on sublet road from little road to arlington city limits. some vehicles are driving highway speeds. someday there will be a nasty accident due to the speed! ➢ We are new to Kennedale (moved in August'14). Really enjoying our time here. ➢ I hated it when we put buildings up that blocked our park from the hwy where you can't see the clock or Christmas tree. Also why did they stop on getting Chicken Express a new building that is one of our oldest buldings lets move it ➢ I have lived in Kennedale my entire life (except for a short time when my husband served in the military) and I have certainly seen wonderful improvements to Kennedale. So I don't want you to think that I am negative about Kennedale. As with any major growth problems appear such as having to tolerate the Fort Worth City dump near our city limits. But I feel confident that problems and difficulties can be resolved between cities if properly handled. I would really like to see the city tackle the problem of cleaning up areas of the city that seem to get overlooked which I believe falls under code enforcement. Kennedale still has an image problem (but it has really improved in many ways) but it will continue with some of that as long as the wrecking yard resides at one of the major entrances to the city. I really love my home and my Kennedale heritage and look forward to continued improvement to the city. ➢ Great news that you are implementing a recycling program! ➢ Please keep the property tax low by inviting new businesses to Kennedale ➢ I have lived here 10 years and now I also work within the City of Kennedale. I love it here! The people are friendly, schools are great, but like I said in the survey there are room for improvements. I am very happy we will finally have a recycling program. Would really like to see city continue to improve/advance the image of the city, through further development of new business, new residential development with minimum building standards, removal of old run down homes and buildings as well as current unsightly businesses. Would love to see salvage yards and used car businesses at least moved to much less visible areas of city. Currently provides a VERY unsightly,unflattering, unimpressive, and very negative view of our city to people passing through, especially down Kennedale Pkwy. Would love to see Kennedale Pkwy redone to a more aesthetically pleasing center piece of our community. As the city makes progress, wouldn't hurt to advertise improvements of city to surrounding areas to make others aware that Kennedale is on it's way to becoming a much more wonderful and appealing city to live in, with great schools, great location in the metroplex, but still maintaining that small town feel. Would help to erase the old images of Kennedale as a city of junk yards, salvage yards, used car part businesses, that many in the surrounding areas still seem to hang on to. Wouldn't hurt to advertise our wonderful school system and wonderful educators. ➢ City should promote the positive environmental impact auto recycling facilities provide to the environment, employment, Cost saving and revenue generation for the city, county and state. ➢ The drinking water is terrible! You should take a lesson from Arlington, the water there is excellent. ➢ Regarding city development and improvements, it would be nice to see some street lamps installed on our street (Spring Branch Ln.), especially for the sake of the many children in the area who become hard to see when they are playing outside at night during the warmer months of the year. Secondly, it seems The City of Kennedale Citizen Survey Report / May 2015 1 141 KENNEDALE to me that we used to have a more regular police patrol on our street. I've been here over 6 years now. Maybe the department is patrolling more late at night, then during the day, or perhaps it hasn't changed and I just don't see them. This is just my perception. I appreciate the shrubs that were planted along the parkway within the last two years. As they grow it will enhance the pkwy. I also think the new sidewalks on the west side of Kennedale Pkwy. are a nice improvement to the street. I'm also thankful for the new Dick Price Road that connects to Bowman Springs Rd., which makes my commute a bit easier in the morning. The plaza has come along nicely over the years. Hopefully, some more businesses can be attracted to locate there and elsewhere. We probably won't see expansive growth in business until there are more housing developments in Kennedale as you know. Overall, I really appreciate the town for it's solid city services and it's country-like feel even though it's in the Metroplex. I wish you could find a waste disposal company who would pick up the trash on a more regular time schedule. Especially NOT during the time that school is starting or getting out!!!! And also put the trash cans back on the curb/yard not in path of road where mail truck has to pull up. ➢ I'm very impressed with how you continue to reach out to the residents with these surveys and I get the feeling that you have my best interest in mind. I'm very concerned about the recent murders in the area and don't understand it. It seems from what I know that it is gang related. I'm hoping that with the new residential homes going up that the social economics of the city will increase which may help discourage gangs. Also, I would like to see restaurants and shops. Reds was great and I wish it was back. ➢ If there are any questions to this survey or you feel I was in error I maybe reached at 817-478-2905.... numerous TIMES I HAVE BEEN APPROACHED ON THE PURCHASE OF PROPERTY I OWN ON KENNEDALE PKWY. DUE TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY BUILDING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT (NO METAL BLDGS, ALL EXTERIOR OF BLDGS. MUST BE BRICK BLOCK, ETC EXTERIOR FINISH) BUSINESS'S HAVE FOREGONE THE KENNEDALE AREA AND WENT TO THE BURLESON AREA BECAUSE COMMERCIAL CAN HAVE METAL BLDGS. WITH ONLY THE FRONT BRICK OR MASONRY. WE ARE LOSING GOOD BUSINESS'S BECAUSE OF OUR REQUIREMENTS . ➢ Overall the cities image is improving in a positive way, however it will take continued dedication in shedding the image of junk yards and dirt tracks. The quality of homes are a great step as well as improving the image of downtown. Youth activities need to increase and have more focus so our youth leaving to play sports in surrounding cities will return to Kennedale and want to play sports here. Last is the rumor of rail transportation in Kennedale. HUGE NO, this small town does not need rail transportation. ➢ The re-development of Little Road and Sublett appears to be an ongoing expense the taxpayers will live with for many years to come. I speak of the continued maintenance of mowing. It appears it takes several days to complete and then it's not done often enough. It is a big chore and it needs to be done right to achieve the benefits which were sought. Maybe a low-maintenance landscape (without grass) would have been a better choice. Check out Trophy Club (close to the golf course) for some good ideas. ➢ I see Police departments in other cities interacting with their residents. Kennedale only has the Christmas lighting. I think KPD should host auctions or other fun activities to raise money for our elderly, breast cancer, etc. Something to interact with residents and gain trust of the public. I hear a lot of complaints about police when I first moved here in '93. I was determined to make my own opinion and I hate to say but I have come to think that KPD doesn't care. You go in person and complain about drug house, and nothing is ever done. Go back in a year later and the officer said he had no idea that was happening but he was the same officer the problem was reported to the year before. You call 911 and The City of Kennedale Citizen Survey Report / May 2015 1 142 KENNEDALE complain about gun shots and on more time than one time an officer says "well no one else reported hearing anything!" Well, maybe they're asleep. maybe their TV is on. I have heard complaints from many residents about the police and I now see what they mean, because I've been thru it also. Somehow, I don't think anything will ever get better though. ➢ Please confront the meth problem in Kennedale, one of the recent murders was over drugs. ➢ Please keep Kennedale small. I am not happy about the new Burger King or Popeyes chicken. People like and move to Kennedale BC its a small town. Please keep it that way. The City of Kennedale Citizen Survey Report / May 2015 1 143 KENNEDALE APPENDIX G: COMPARISON TABLES -increase _ -Decrease =Constant Demographics Table 1 18 to 35 Years of Age 35 to 50 Years of Age 51 to 64 Years of Age 65 and Older 2007 2011 2013 2015 2007 2011 2013 2015 2007 2011 2013 2015 2007 2011 2013 2015 Age 9.1% 13.0% 14.0% - 26.8% 31.6% 28.0% - 35.8% 34.4% 34.0% - 25.0% 20.0% 24.0% Table 2 Female Male 2007 RE::] 2013 12015 1 2007 12011 12013 12015 Gender 53.0% 1 58.3% 160.0% 1 - 145.1% 141.7% 140.0% Table 3 <1 Year 1 1-5 Years 6-10 Years 10+Years Length of 2007 12011 12013 2015 2007 12011 12013 12015 2007 12011 12013 2015 2007 12011 12013 2015 Residency 13.1% 1 7.0% 7.0% 24.7% 124.3% 124.0% - 1 18.7% 1 16.9% 124.0% - 1 51.2% 147.2% 45.0% Table 4 Yes No I N/A Children <18 2007 2011 2013 2015 2007 1 2011 2013 12015 1 2007 12011 12013 1 2015 yrs at Home 1 30.3% 1 37.0% 138.0% - 1 67.2% 1 56.2% 162.0% - 12.5% 16.7% - Table 5 High School/GED I Some College I College Graduate Post Graduate Education 2007 12011 2013 2015 1 2007 1 2011 12013 12015 1 2007 12011 12013 1 2015 1 2007 1 2011 12013 12015 Level 1 17.7% 15.6% 18.0% - 122.7% 133.9% 122.0% - 1 35.4% 134.3% 144.0% - 1 20.7% 1 16.3% 1 16.0% Table 6 Rent I Own I Do not live in Kennedale 2007 2011 2013 1 2015 1 2007 12011 12013 12015 12007 12011 12013 12015 Rent/Own 8.1% 8.8% 19.0% 90.4% 186.6% 191.0% - 4.6% The City of Kennedale Citizen Survey Report / May 2015 1 145 KENNEDA E Table 7 Very Likely Likely N/A Unlikely Recommend 2007 1 2011 1 2013 1 2015 2007 1 2011 1 2013 2015 2007 2011 2013 2015 2007 1 2011 1 2013 1 2015 Kennedale 1 33.8% 50.8% 1 84.2% 93.0% 3.6% 9.7% 1 15.9% 1 7.0% Table 7-Coot. Very Unlikely Recommend 1 2011 1 2013 1 2015 Kennedale 2.1% Table 8 Very Likely Likely N/A Unlikel Remain 2007 2011 2013 2015 2007 2011 2013 2015 2007 2011 2013 2015 2007 2011 2013 2015 in Kennedale - 60.8% 1 - - 27.3% 88.9% 95.0% 2.6% 5.2% 11.2% 5.0% Table 8-Coot. Very Unlikely Remain 2007 1 2011 1 2013 2015 in Kennedale 4.1% 1 - - Table 9 JECommunity Atmosphere Proximi to work Affordable housin Good Schools/ISD Why Kennedale 2007 2011 2013 2015 2007 2011 2013 20 2015 2007 11 2013 2015 2007 2011 2013 2015 16.8% 1 14.7% 9.9% 24.3% 19.6% 1 20.5% 27.7% 15.1% 1 21.9% - 14.4% 17.0% 1 29.89% Table 9-Cont. Quali of Life Why Kennedale 2007 2011 2013 2015 28.7% 28.3% 17.9% JL Public Safety Table 10 Excellent Good Fair Police-Presence 2007 2011 2013 2015 2007 2011 2013 2015 2007 2011 2013 2015 31.8% 38.3% 26.2% 37.6% 43.8% 47.3% 49.5% 42.1% 14.9% 10.6% 19.4% 14.7% Police-Speed 40.8% 40.5% 27.5% 38.5% 26.9% 34.7% 39.6% 33.9% 10.0% 6.3% 7.5% 9.7% Police-Customer 28.4% 32.1% 28.3% 37.6% 39.8% 36.4% 38.4% 34.5% 13.4% 11.8% 10.4% 7.6% Service Fire/EMS-Speed 1 43.3% 42.6% 39.4% 48.7% 27 %.9% 25.3% 21.9% 17.8% 3.5% 11.8% 0.7 2.5% Animal Control 19.9% 18.6% 15.4% 24.9% 27.4% 1 39.9% 1 30.5% 1 31.5% 1 25.4% 1 19.7% 1 15.8% The City of Kennedale Citizen Survey Report / May 2015 1 146 HENNEDA E Table 10 Cont. Poor Don't Know 2007 2011 2013 2015 2007 2011 2013 2015 Police-Presence 5.0% 0.5% 2.5% 5.08% - - 2.5% 0.5% Police-Speed 3.0% 2.1% 3.6% 2.1% 21.8% 15.9% Police-Customer Service 6.0% 2.1% 5.4% 4.6% 17.6% 16.2% Fire/EMS-Speed 0.0% 0.0% 0.7% 0.5% 37.3% 30.5% Animal Control 9.0% 8.0% 10.4% 7.1% 28.0% 21.3% Characteristics ofKennedale Table 11 Excellent Good Fair Poor 7007 2011 2013 2015 2007 2011 2013 2015 2007 2011 2013 2015 2007 2011 2013 2015 Overall Image/Reputation 5.9% 5.9% 18.4% - 39.3% 43.0% 40.8% - 34.6% 34.9% 30.1% - 19.1% 16.2% 10.2% Traffic Flow of Major Streets 12.6% 25.1% 37.2% - 56.3% 57.8% 47.9% - 26.3% 12.0% 11.2% - 2.6% 5.1% 3.06% Air Quality 10.6% 20.5% 23.0% - 56.1% 61.5% 56.6% - 22.8% 15.4% 12.8% - 4.2% 2.6% 5.1% Ease of Vehicular Travel 14.7% 23.4% 42.7% - 58.4% 52.8% 49.0% - 22.1% 18.7% 6.1% 4.2% 5.1% 1.5% Availability of sidewalks 6.8% 8.4% 17.9% - 22.9% 39.8% 31.6% - 31.3% 32.9% 25.0% - 33.3% 19.0% 13.8% Business Friendly - 10.8% 17.6% - - 42.5% 35.2% - - 29.5% 30.6% - - 17.2% 3.6% Shopping Opportunities 1.6% rJj,5% 10.4% - 6.7% 13.1% 36.8% - 32.6% 38.9% 22.3% - 57.3% 46.6% 26.4% Table 11-Coot. Don't know 2007 2011 2013 2015 Overall Image/Reputation - - - .5% Traffic Flow of Major - .5% Streets Air Quality - Ease of Vehicular Travel .5% Availability of sidewalks 11.7% Business Friendly - Shopping Opportunities 4.2% Water Billing/Services Table 12 Excellent Good Fair 2007 2011 2013 2015 2007 2011 2013 2015 2007 2011 2013 2015 Water Quality 18.4% 17.2% 13.6% 11.22% 27.9% 37.5% 36.3% 38.3% 22.4% 22.9% 24.0% 21% Water Billing 10.9% 31.4% 26.6% 31.1% 22.4% 52.4% 51.4% 42.4% 11.4% 9.4% 15.5% 13.8% Storm water Run-Off 13.9% 23.0% 25.8% 21% 34.3% 40.3% 48.4% 54.1% 19.4% 18.3% 16.4% 18.8% The City of Kennedale Citizen Survey Report May 2015 147 HENNEDA E Table 12 Cont. Poor Don't Know 2007 2011 2013 2015 2007 2011 2013 2015 Water Quality 0.0% 0.0% 0.7% 0.5% - - 1.1% - Water Billing 8.0% 4.2% 5.0% 6.6% 1.4% 6.1% Storm water Run-Off 29.9% 14.7% 8.0% 4.6% 1.5% - Development Services Table 13 Excellent Good Fair 2007 2011 2013 2015 2007 2011 2013 2015 2007 2011 2013 2015 Residential Development 7.5% 9.9% 14.9% 25.9% 35.3% 46.4% 54.2% 53.8% 19.9% 14.9% 19.3% 15.7% Kennedale Pkwy 7.0% 9.7% 15.8% 26.9% 19.4% 46.8% 48.9% 47.7% 32.3% 18.3% 23.0% 16.6% Code-Customer Service 13.9% 10.9% 17.9% 19.5% 22.9% 38.0% 41.6% 25.6% 15.9% 6.5% 13.1% 45.1% Code-Resolution of 7.0% 9.8% 8.8% 14.3% 12.9% 23.5% 24.5% 18.0% 16.4% 12.6% 16.4% 57.1% complaints Table 13-Continued Poor 2007 2011 2013 2015 Residential Development 11.9% 6.6% 4.0% 4.1% Kennedale Pkwy 19.9% 9.7% 9.4% 5.6% Code-Customer Service 6.5% 6.5% 4.4% 5.6% Code-Resolution of complaints 13.9% 8.7% 8.8% 3.2% Table 14 Excellent Good Fair Poor 2007 2011 12013 2015 2007 12011 2013 12015 2007 12011 1 2013 2015 2007 2011 2013 2015 Library 28.4% 26.8% 26.5% 43.9% 34.3% 44.2% 43.5% 45.9% 11.9% 8.9% 12.3% 8.7% 1.0% 1.6% 1.1% 1.0% Services Table 14-font. Don't know 2007 2011 12013 2015 Library - - 0.5% Services The City of Kennedale Citizen Survey Report May 2015 148 HENNEDA E Table 15 Fort Worth-Star Telegram City Newsletter City Website City Meetings 2007 2011 2013 2015 2007 2011 2013 2015 2007 2011 2013 2015 2007 2011 2013 2015 Where - 27.7% 17.5% 42.3% - 93.6% 90.5% 46.5% - 22.3% 51.3% 72.7% - 4.0% 9.1% 11.2% Respondents receive news Table 15-font. Twitter Facebook httn://kennedalenews.com 2007 2011 2013 2015 2007 2011 2013 2015 2007 2011 2013 2015 Where 6.4% 32.1% - - - 39.6% Respondents receive news Table 16 ay water[Utitity Bill Trash Collection Info. Construction Info. Special Event Info. 2007 12011 1 2013 1 2015 1 2007 1 2011 1 2013 1 2015 2007 1 2011 1 2013 2015 2007 1 2011 2013 2015 Reasons to visit city - 14.9% 17.5% 55.9% - 24.3% 90.5% 42.5% - 16.8% 51.3% 25.8% - 6.8%%t65.1% website Table 16-Coot. eeiin 'Emes/A enda I Property Tag Info. I Report a Problem I City Budget Info. 2007 2011 2013 2015 2007 2011 2013 2015 2007 2011 2013 2015 2007 2011 2013 2015 Reasons to visit 11.2% - 9.4% 17.5% 14.5% - 1.5% 90.5% 22.6% - 51.3% 9.7% city website Characteristics of Kennedale Table 17 Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Kennedale as a place to live 44.9% 43.4% 11.2% 0.5% 0% Your neighborhood as a place to 52.6% 34.7% 9.7% 2.6% 0.5% live Kennedale as a place to raise 48.0% 36.2% 9.7% 1.5% 5.0% children Kennedale as a place to work 16.8% 26.4% 14.7% 16.2% 25.9% Overall value that you receive for 16.9% 41.0% 28.2% 11.8% 2.1% our city tax dollars&fees The City of Kennedale Citizen Survey Report May 2015 149 HENNEDA E Leadership of Kennedale Table 18 Excellent I Good Fair Poor Don't know Overall quality of leadership provided by the city's elected officials 23.9% 44.7% 15.7% 2.0% 13.7% Overall Effectiveness of appointed boards and commissions 20.9% 42.4% 13.8% 3.8% 19.4% Overall Effectiveness of the city staff 28.1% 41.8% 13.3% 4.1% 12.8% Overall confidence in Kennedale government 25.0% 44.96% 15.8% 5.6% 8.7% Safety in Kennedale Table 19 Very Safe Safe Neutral Unsafe Very unsafe N/A In your neighborhood during the day 51.8% 33.5% 12.7% 2.0% 0% 0% In your neighborhood during the night 35.5% 42.6% 13.7% 6.6% 1.5% 0% In city parks 23.7% 35.0% 26.4% 3.1% 1.5% 10.2% Overall feeling of safety in Kennedale 1 31.5% 148.2% 16.2% 1 3.1% 0.5% 1 0.5% Wand Eme ency Medical Services Table 20 Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Overall quality of fire protection 48.5% 23.0% 1.5% 0% 27.0% Quality of fire safety education programs 31.5% 22.3% 6.1% 0.5% 30.5% Quality of local ambulance service 41.1% 18.8% 2.5% 1.0% 36.6% N reetfrransportation Table 21 Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Traffic Signal System 30.1% 54.1% 12.2% 3.1% 0.5% Ease of travel by bicycle 14.8% 24.1% 19.0% 12.3% 29.7% Ease of walking 20.5% 30.3% 22.6% 14.8% 11.8% Adequacy of city street lighting 12.3% 41.5% 27.7% 16.4% 2.1% The City of Kennedale Citizen Survey Report / May 2015 1 150 KENNEDA E IL Water Services Table 22 Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Taste/odor of your drinking water 11.3% 30.7% 22.6% 34.8% 1.0% Water pressure in your home 27.2% 45.1% 20.0% 6.7% 1.0% How well the city keeps you informed about planned disruptions to your water service 33.3% 36.4% 14.4% 6.2% 9.7% Resolution of billing disputes 13.9% 25.1% 12.3% 7.7% 41.0% Neighborhood Appearance Table 23 1 Improved Stayed the Same Gotten Worse Don't know How do you feel your appearance of your neighborhood has changed over the past three years? 32.0% 47.4% 14.4% 6.2% Library Services Table 24 Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Courtesy of employees 47.7% 19.7% 2.1% 1.6% 29.0% Availability of desired books 25.9% 28.0% 5.2% 3.6% 37.3% Appearance/convenience of library's location and hours 41.0% 31.1% 3.6% 0.5% 23.8% Quality of library programs 27.5% 27.0% 8.3% 1.0% Availability of Internet access 30.1% 21.2% 4.7% 1.0% The City of Kennedale Citizen Survey Report May 2015 151 KENNEDA E KENNEDALE You're Here,Your Home www.citygfkennedale.com Staff Report to the Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: May 7, 2015 Agenda Item No: WORK SESSION - C. I. Subject: Presentation of the Asset Management Plan II. Originated by: III. Summary: A joint presentation will be provided by Tom Dawe and Matthew Van Dommelen from the Public Sector Digest and William Fowler, Katelyn Francis, Kyle Gordon, Kathya Hattaway, Ryan Keenan, Jesica McEachern, and Cory Kyle from the UTA Capstone class. This analysis is an examination of the cost of maintaining and replacing city assets over their life cycle. Such an examination is common in Canada, England, New Zealand, and Australia; but is cutting edge in the United States. IV. Fiscal Impact Summary: V. Legal Impact: VI. Recommendation: VII.Alternative Actions: VIII.Attachments: Fl----FC—ity of Kennedale Asset Management Plan JKennedale AMP - Final - May 5 2015. df r I' reu j ='� =F,}: _ 4f lllillklllllll lIIIII�I IIIIIIII IIMJFy_ •6 r �--r THE ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE CITY OF KENNEDALE 2014 THE CITY OF KENNEDALE 405 MUNICIPAL DRIVE KENNEDALE,TX,76060 SUBMITTED APRIL 2015 BY PUBLIC SECTOR DIGEST 148 FULLARTON STREET,SUITE 1410 LONDON,ONTARIO,N6A 5P3 State of the Infrastructure The City of Kennedale AVERAGE ANNUAL FUNDING REQUIRED vs.AVERAGE ANNUAL FUNDING AVAILABLE F$169,000 $287,000 $5;89,000 $80,000 $265,000 $55,000 $0 $88,000 , -----; $37,000 -$99,000 -$84,000 -$72,000 -$68,000 _$137,000 WATER WASTEWATER STORMWATER BUILDINGS PARKS EQUIPMENT VEHICLES DISTRIBUTION COLLECTION DRAINAGE SYSTEM SYSTEM SYSTEM -$1,403,000 Total Annual Deficit: $1,657,000 Annual Funding Available - Annual Funding Deficit Annual Funding Surplus PUBLIC SECTOR DIGEST INTELLIGENCE FOR THE PUBLIC SECTOR. 148 Fullarton Street,Suite 1410 London,Ontario,N6A 5P3 T:519.690.2565 F:519.649.2010 www.publicsectordigest.com www.citywidesolutions.com May 7,2015 The Honorable Brian Johnson,Mayor and Members of the City Council, Bob Hart,City Manager City of Kennedale 405 Municipal Drive Kennedale,TX, 76060 We are pleased to submit the 2014 Asset Management Plan (AMP)for The City of Kennedale.This AMP will serve as a strategic,tactical,and financial document,ensuring the management of the municipal infrastructure follows sound asset management practices and principles,while optimizing available resources and establishing desired levels of service.Given the broad and profound impact of asset management on the community,and the financial & administrative complexity involved in this ongoing process,we recommend that senior decision-makers from across the organization are actively involved in its implementation. The performance of a community's infrastructure provides the foundation for its economic development, competitiveness,prosperity,reputation,and the overall quality of life for its residents.As such,we are appreciative of your decision to entrust us with the strategic direction of its infrastructure and asset management planning,and are confident that this AMP will serve as a valuable tool.We also appreciate the contributions of the UTA Capstone class and city staff in compiling the assets and financial data,a significant undertaking. Sincerely, The Public Sector Digest Inc. Matthew Dawe Israr Ahmad Vice President Managing Editor mdawe@publicsectordigest.com iahmad@publicsectordigest.com PUBLIC SECTOR DIGEST INTELLIGENCE FOR THE PUBLIC SECTOR. Contacts Matthew Dawe Vice President mdawe@publicsectordigest.com Israr Ahmad Managing Editor iahmad@publicsectordigest.com Lindsay Kay Data Analyst Ikay@publicsectordigest.com Jona Memo Data Analyst jmema@publicsectordigest.com Amadea Setiabudhi Data Analyst asetiabudhi @publicsectordigest.com Matthew Van Dommelen Regional Director mvandommelen @publicsectordigest.com Gabe Metron Regional Director gmetron@publicsectordigest.com Christine Beneteau Account Manager cbeneteau @publicsectordigest.com Holly Jennings Account Manager hjennings @publicsectordigest.com Tyler Sutton Senior Research Analyst tsutton@publicsectordigest.com Public Adminisfrafion Capsfone,URPA 5399-500 William Fowler Katelyn Francis Kyle Gordon Kathya Hattaway Ryan Keenan Jesica McEachern Cory Kyle LEGAL NOTICE This report has been prepared by The Public Sector Digest Inc. ("PSD")in accordance with instructions received from The City of Kennedale (the "Client") and for the sole use of the Client.The content of (and recommendations)this report reflects the best judgement of PSD personnel based on the information made available to PSD by the UTA Capstone class and city staff.Unauthorized use of this report for any other purpose,or by any third party,without the express written consent of PSD,shall be at such third party's sole risk without liability to PSD. This report is protected by copyright. THE ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE CITY OF KENNEDALE Table of Contents 1.0 Executive Summary...............................................................................................................................................5 2.0 Introduction............................................................................................................................................................8 2.1 Importance of Infrastructure.......................................................................................................................................................9 2.2 Asset Management Plan (AMP)-Relationship to Strategic Plan..........................................................................................9 2.3 AMP-Relationship to other Plans...............................................................................................................................................9 2.4 Purpose and Methodology.......................................................................................................................................................10 2.5 CityWide Software alignment with AMP..................................................................................................................................12 3.0 State of the Infrastructure(SOTI).........................................................................................................................13 3.1 Objective and Scope.................................................................................................................................................................13 3.2 Approach.....................................................................................................................................................................................13 3.2.1 Base Data...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 13 3.2.2 Asset Deterioration Review......................................................................................................................................................................... 13 3.2.3 Identify Sustainable Investment Requirements......................................................................................................................................... 14 3.2.4 Asset Rating Criteria..................................................................................................................................................................................... 14 3.2.5 Infrastructure Report Card...........................................................................................................................................................................14 3.2.6 General Methodology and Reporting Approach................................................................................................................................... 15 3.3 Streets............................................................................................................................................................................................16 3.3.1 What does the city own?............................................................................................................................................................................ 17 3.3.2 What is it worth?............................................................................................................................................................................................ 17 3.3.3 What condition is it in?................................................................................................................................................................................. 18 3.3.4 What does the city need to do to it?........................................................................................................................................................ 19 3.3.5 When does the city need to take action?................................................................................................................................................ 19 3.3.6 How much money does the city need?....................................................................................................................................................20 3.3.7 How does the city reach sustainability?....................................................................................................................................................20 3.3.8 Recommendations.......................................................................................................................................................................................20 3.4 Water Distribution System...........................................................................................................................................................21 3.4.1 What does the city own?............................................................................................................................................................................22 3.4.2 What is it worth?............................................................................................................................................................................................22 3.4.3 What condition is it in?.................................................................................................................................................................................23 3.4.4 What does the city need to do to it?........................................................................................................................................................24 3.4.5 When does the city need to take action?................................................................................................................................................24 3.4.6 How much money does the city need?....................................................................................................................................................25 3.4.7 How does the city reach sustainability?....................................................................................................................................................25 3.4.8 Recommendations.......................................................................................................................................................................................26 3.5 Wastewater Collection System.................................................................................................................................................27 3.5.1 What does the city own?............................................................................................................................................................................28 3.5.2 What is it worth?............................................................................................................................................................................................28 3.5.3 What condition is it in?.................................................................................................................................................................................29 1 3.5.4 What does the city need to do to it?........................................................................................................................................................30 3.5.5 When does the city need to take action?................................................................................................................................................30 3.5.6 How much money does the city need?....................................................................................................................................................31 3.5.7 How does the city reach sustainability?....................................................................................................................................................31 3.5.8 Recommendations.......................................................................................................................................................................................32 3.6 Stormwater Drainage System....................................................................................................................................................33 3.6.1 What does the city own?............................................................................................................................................................................34 3.6.2 What is it worth?............................................................................................................................................................................................35 3.6.3 What condition is it in?.................................................................................................................................................................................36 3.6.4 What does the city need to do to it?........................................................................................................................................................36 3.6.5 When does the city need to take action?................................................................................................................................................37 3.6.6 How much money does the city need?....................................................................................................................................................37 3.6.7 How does the city reach sustainability?....................................................................................................................................................38 3.6.8 Recommendations.......................................................................................................................................................................................38 3.7 Buildings........................................................................................................................................................................................39 3.7.1 What does the city own?............................................................................................................................................................................40 3.7.2 What is it worth?............................................................................................................................................................................................40 3.7.3 What condition is it in?.................................................................................................................................................................................41 3.7.4 What does the city need to do to it?........................................................................................................................................................42 3.7.5 When does the city need to take action?................................................................................................................................................42 3.7.6 How much money does the city need?....................................................................................................................................................43 3.7.7 How does the city reach sustainability?....................................................................................................................................................43 3.7.8 Recommendations.......................................................................................................................................................................................44 3.8 Parks..............................................................................................................................................................................................45 3.8.1 What does the city own?............................................................................................................................................................................46 3.8.2 What is it worth?............................................................................................................................................................................................46 3.8.3 What condition is it in?.................................................................................................................................................................................47 3.8.4 What does the city need to do to it?........................................................................................................................................................48 3.8.5 When does the city need to take action?................................................................................................................................................48 3.8.6 How much money does the city need?....................................................................................................................................................49 3.8.7 How does the city reach sustainability?....................................................................................................................................................49 3.8.8 Recommendations.......................................................................................................................................................................................50 3.9 Equipment....................................................................................................................................................................................51 3.9.1 What does the city own?............................................................................................................................................................................52 3.9.2 What is it worth?............................................................................................................................................................................................52 3.9.3 What condition is it in?.................................................................................................................................................................................53 3.9.4 What does the city need to do to it?........................................................................................................................................................54 3.9.5 When does the city need to take action?................................................................................................................................................54 3.9.6 How much money does the city need?....................................................................................................................................................55 3.9.7 How does the city reach sustainability?....................................................................................................................................................55 3.9.8 Recommendations.......................................................................................................................................................................................56 3.10 Vehicles......................................................................................................................................................................................57 3.10.1 What does the city own?..........................................................................................................................................................................58 3.10.2 What is it worth?..........................................................................................................................................................................................58 3.10.3 What condition is it in?...............................................................................................................................................................................59 3.10.4 What does the city need to do to it?......................................................................................................................................................60 3.10.5 When does the city need to take action?..............................................................................................................................................60 2 3.10.6 How much money does the city need?.................................................................................................................................................61 3.10.7 How does the city reach sustainability?..................................................................................................................................................61 3.10.8 Recommendations.....................................................................................................................................................................................62 4.0 Infrastructure Report Card...................................................................................................................................63 5.0 Desired Levels of Service....................................................................................................................................65 5.1 Key factors that influence a level of service:.........................................................................................................................65 5.1.1 Strategic and Corporate Goals..................................................................................................................................................................65 5.1.2 Legislative Requirements.............................................................................................................................................................................65 5.1.3 Expected Asset Performance.....................................................................................................................................................................65 5.1.4 Community Expectations............................................................................................................................................................................65 5.1.5 Availability of Finances................................................................................................................................................................................66 5.2 Key Performance Indicators......................................................................................................................................................66 5.3 Transportation Services...............................................................................................................................................................68 5.3.1 Service Description.......................................................................................................................................................................................68 5.3.2 Scope of Services.........................................................................................................................................................................................68 5.3.3 Performance Indicators (reported annually)............................................................................................................................................68 5.4 Water/Wastewater/Stormwater Systems............................................................................................................................69 5.4.1 Service Description.......................................................................................................................................................................................69 5.4.2 Scope of services..........................................................................................................................................................................................69 5.4.3 Performance Indicators (reported annually)............................................................................................................................................69 5.5 Buildings and Facilities................................................................................................................................................................70 5.5.1 Service Description.......................................................................................................................................................................................70 5.5.2 Scope of services..........................................................................................................................................................................................70 5.5.3 Performance Indicators (reported annually)............................................................................................................................................70 5.6 Parks and Open Spaces............................................................................................................................................................71 5.6.1 Service Description.......................................................................................................................................................................................71 5.6.2 Scope of services..........................................................................................................................................................................................71 5.6.3 Performance Indicators (reported annually)............................................................................................................................................71 5.7 Vehicles........................................................................................................................................................................................72 5.7.1 Service Description.......................................................................................................................................................................................72 5.7.2 Performance Indicators (reported annually)............................................................................................................................................72 6.0 Asset Management Strategy..............................................................................................................................73 6.1 Objective......................................................................................................................................................................................73 6.2 Non-Infrastructure Solutions and Requirements.....................................................................................................................73 6.3 Condition Assessment Programs...............................................................................................................................................73 6.3.1 Pavement Network Inspections..................................................................................................................................................................74 6.3.2 Bridges&Culverts (greater than 10 feet) Inspections.............................................................................................................................75 6.3.3 Wastewater System Inspections(Wastewater&Stormwater)...............................................................................................................75 6.3.4 Water Distribution System inspections........................................................................................................................................................76 6.3.5 Facility inspections........................................................................................................................................................................................77 6.3.6 Parks and Open Spaces..............................................................................................................................................................................78 6.3.7 Fleet Inspections and Maintenance..........................................................................................................................................................79 6.4 AM Strategy—Life Cycle Analysis Framework........................................................................................................................80 6.4.1 Paved Roads.................................................................................................................................................................................................80 6.4.2 Wastewater and Stormwater......................................................................................................................................................................82 6.4.3 Bridges&Culverts (greater than 3m span)...............................................................................................................................................84 3 6.4.4 Water Distribution System............................................................................................................................................................................84 6.4.5 Buildings and Facilities..................................................................................................................................................................................85 6.4.6 Parks and Open Spaces..............................................................................................................................................................................86 6.4.7 Vehicles..........................................................................................................................................................................................................87 6.5 Growth and Demand.................................................................................................................................................................88 6.6 Project Prioritization.....................................................................................................................................................................88 6.6.1 Risk Matrix and Scoring Methodology.......................................................................................................................................................88 7.0 Financial Strategy................................................................................................................................................92 7.1 General overview of financial plan requirements.................................................................................................................92 7.2 Financial information relating to the City of Kennedale's AMP..........................................................................................93 7.2.1 Funding objective.........................................................................................................................................................................................93 7.3 Tax funded assets........................................................................................................................................................................93 7.3.1 Current funding position..............................................................................................................................................................................93 7.3.2 Recommendations for full funding.............................................................................................................................................................94 7.4 Rate funded assets.....................................................................................................................................................................96 7.4.1 Current funding position..............................................................................................................................................................................96 7.4.2 Recommendations for full funding.............................................................................................................................................................96 7.5 Use of debt...................................................................................................................................................................................98 7.6 Use of reserves...........................................................................................................................................................................101 7.6.1 Available reserves....................................................................................................................................................................................... 101 7.6.2 Recommendation......................................................................................................................................................................................102 8.0 Appendix A: Report Card Calculations...........................................................................................................103 4 1 .0 Executive Summary The performance of a community's infrastructure provides the foundation for its economic development, competitiveness, prosperity, reputation, and the overall quality of life for its residents. Reliable and well- maintained infrastructure assets are essential for the delivery of critical core services for the residents of a city. A technically precise and financially rigorous asset management plan, diligently implemented,will mean that sufficient investments are made to ensure delivery of sustainable infrastructure services to current and future residents.The plan will also indicate the respective financial obligations required to maintain this delivery at established levels of service. This Asset Management Plan (AMP) for the City of Kennedale will serve as a strategic, tactical, and financial document, ensuring the management of the municipal infrastructure follows sound asset management practices and principles,while optimizing available resources and establishing desired levels of service. Given the expansive financial and social impact of asset management on both a city, and its residents, it is critical that senior decision-makers, including department heads as well as the chief executives, are strategically involved. Measured in 2015 dollars, the replacement value of the asset categories analyzed totaled approximately $111.6 million for the City of Kennedale. 2015 Replacement Value by Asset Class Total Cost: $111 ,669,374 Buildings, Parks, Stormwater $5,972,830,5% $1,598,290,2% Drainage System, $3,369,082,3% 44, Wastewater Collection System $14,886,083, 14% Streets $59,580,410,54% Water Distribution System, $24,020,464, 22% 5 While the city is responsible for the strategic direction, it is the taxpayer in Kennedale who ultimately bear the financial burden. As such, a 'cost per household' (CPH) analysis was conducted for each of the asset categories to determine the financial obligation of each household in sharing the replacement cost of the city's assets.Such a measurement can serve as an excellent communication tool for both the administration and the council in communicating the importance of asset management to the resident. The diagram below illustrates the total CPH, as well as the CPH for individual asset categories. Infrastructure Replacement Cost Per Household Total: $48,951 per household Buildings Parks: :i Total Replacement Cost:$5,972,830 Cost Per Household:$2,510 Total Replacement Cost:$1,598,2901..../......; Vehicles Cost Per Household:$672: y Total Replacement Cost:$1,011,626 / Cost Per Household:$425 Equipment 1 :-s Total Replacement Cost:$1,230,589 r�� Streets Cost Per Household:$517 i ;-----j Total Replacement Cost:$59,580,410 Cost Per Household:$25,034 ■� ■ )♦ i Wastewater Collection System ■■ ■. ■ -- Total Replacement Cost:$14,886,08 3 TXA.7�0 Cost Per Household:7,380 ■■ ■■ ■■ 11 O- -------------- ---------------------..................................: , Stormwater Drainage System: Water Distribution System 'i---'-' '�_________ �'-- �------------ • -�-- ------------------- Total Replacement Cost:$3,369,082 Total Replacement Cost:$24,020,464 J. Cost Per Household:$1,416; .Cost Per Household:$10,998 , In assessing the city's state of the infrastructure,we examined, and graded, both the current condition of the asset categories (Condition vs. Performance), as well as the city's financial capacity to fund the asset's average annual requirement for sustainability (Funding vs. Need). We then generated the city's infrastructure report card based on these ratings for each asset category addressed.The city received a cumulative GPA of 'C',with an annual infrastructure deficit of$1,657,000. Kennedale received its highest grade of 'B+' in Condition vs. Performance in its parks assets,followed by a B' in both its streets and stormwater infrastructure. Its lowest grade, an 'F',was assigned in its equipment asset class. However, this asset category has a relatively minor financial value.The city received a 'D' and a 'C' in its vehicles and buildings assets respectively, indicative of disrepair. Kennedale's streets comprise the highest percentage of its infrastructure portfolio. For this category, the city received a grade of B'. Although the grade itself is of relatively minor concern, there is an accumulated backlog of needs to be addressed within the next five years totaling approximately$9.1 million. The city's grades in Funding vs. Need were inconsistent, and of concern. Kennedale received an 'F' in five of the eight asset classes analyzed in this document, including its streets with an annual deficit of$1.4 million. However, the city receive an 'A' in its water distribution and vehicles assets,with an annual surplus in each class. In order for an asset management plan to be effectively put into action, it must be integrated with financial planning and long-term budgeting.Scenarios have been developed that would enable Kennedale to achieve full funding within 5 to 10 years for the following: tax funded assets, including streets, buildings, 6 parks, equipment, and vehicles and; rate funded assets, including the city's water distribution,wastewater collection, and stormwater drainage system. The average annual investment requirement for streets, buildings, parks, equipment, and vehicles is $2,252,000. Annual revenue currently allocated to these assets is$609,000 leaving an annual deficit of $1,643,000.To put it another way, these infrastructure categories are currently funded at twenty-seven percent of their long-term requirements. Kennedale has annual tax revenues of$4,254,000 in 2014. Full funding would require an increase in tax revenue of 29.9 percent over time. Taking account the compounding effect of tax increases, it is recommended that a 17 year option which involves full funding being achieved over 17 years by: a) during the phase-in period,reallocating the surplus in vehicles to categories that have a deficit. b) increasing tax revenues by 2.0%each year for the next 17 years solely for the purpose of phasing in full funding to the asset categories covered in this section of the AMP. c) increasing existing and future infrastructure budgets by the applicable inflation index on an annual basis in addition to the deficit phase-in. The average annual investment requirement for wastewater collection,water distribution, and stormwater systems is$948,000. Annual revenue currently allocated to these assets for capital purposes is$934,000 leaving an annual deficit of$14,000. As a result, these infrastructure categories are currently funded at ninety-nine percent of their long-term requirements. In 2014, Kennedale has annual sanitary revenues of $1,175,000,water revenues of$1,998,000, and stormwater drainage revenues of$265,000.The wastewater collection system has an infrastructure deficit of$99,000, the water distribution system has a surplus of $169,000, and the storm drainage system has a deficit of$84,000. It is recommended a combination of an immediate transfer option as well as phased-in rate increases which involve full funding being achieved immediately by: a) increasing rate revenues by 8.4%for sanitary services resulting in a$99,000 increase in sanitary revenue and the elimination of the deficit in this category. b) decreasing rate revenues by 5.0%for water services resulting in a$99,000 decrease in water revenue (thus offsetting the increase in a). c) increasing rate revenues by 3.2%for storm drainage services each year for the next 10 years solely for the purpose of phasing in full funding to this asset category. d) increasing existing and future infrastructure budgets by the applicable inflation index on an annual basis in addition to the changes recommended above.We realize that this will add to the water services surplus,but this surplus should be reserved until further study confirms the surplus is not needed. Surplus from water collection services can be allocated to wastewater collection services to minimize or eliminate the associated deficit. Water rates are considered adequate for the current year. Reserves can certainly mitigate the financial burden as they play a critical role in long-term planning. At the City of Kennedale, the following guidelines are in place in the City's financial management policy: 1. General Fund:25 percent of expenditures 2. General Debt Service Fund: 10 percent of expenditures 3. Water/Sewer Fund(Working Capital):25 percent of expenditures 4. Water/Sewer Debt Service Fund:Compliance with Bond Covenants 5. Economic Development Corporation Fund:25 percent of expenditures Nonetheless, due to the relatively low level of reserves available for the tax based asset categories covered by this asset management plan, the scenarios developed in this report do not draw on those reserves during the phase-in period to full funding.The results of this plan, coupled with Kennedale's judicious use of debt in the past, allows the scenarios to assume that, if required, available reserves and debt capacity can be used for emergency situations until annual funding and reserves are built to desired levels. 7 2.0 Introduction This asset management plan will serve as a strategic, tactical, and financial document ensuring the management of the municipal infrastructure follows sound asset management practices and principles, while optimizing available resources and establishing desired levels of service.The following asset classes are addressed in this asset management plan: 1. Streets:Residential,collector,and minor arterial streets 2. Water Distribution System:Water mains,hydrants,facilities 3. Wastewater Collection System:Wastewater/sewer mains and manholes 4. Stormwater Drainage System:Stormwater drainage lines,ditches,flume,and inlets 5. Buildings:Administration,recreation,fire,police,library/community center,and senior center 6. Parks:Parks&playgrounds,fencing,lighting,signage,trails and equipment 7. Equipment:Miscellaneous departmental equipment 8. Vehicles:Community Development,police,fire,EMS,and public works At a strategic level,within the State of the Current Infrastructure section, it will identify current and future challenges that should be addressed in order to maintain sustainable infrastructure services on a long-term, life cycle basis. It will outline a Desired Level of Service (LOS) Framework for each asset category to assist the development and tracking of LOS through performance measures across strategic, financial, tactical, operational, and maintenance activities within the organization. At a tactical level,within the Asset Management Strategy section, it will develop an implementation process to be applied to the needs-identification and prioritization of renewal, rehabilitation, and maintenance activities, resulting in a 10 year plan that will include growth projections. At a financial level,within the Financial Strategy section, a strategy will be developed that fully integrates with other sections of this asset management plan, to ensure delivery and optimization of the 10 year infrastructure budget. Through the development of this plan, all data, analysis, life cycle projections, and budget models will be provided through the Public Sector Digest's CityWide suite of software products.The software and plan will be synchronized,will evolve together, and therefore,will allow for ease of updates, and annual reporting of performance measures and overall results. This will allow for continuous improvement of the plan and its projections. It is therefore recommended that the plan be revisited and updated on an annual basis, particularly as more detailed information becomes available. 8 2.1 Importance of Infrastructure Municipalities throughout Texas, large and small, own a diverse portfolio of infrastructure assets which in turn provide a varied number of services to their residents.The infrastructure, in essence, is a conduit for the various public services the city provides, e.g., the roads supply a transportation system; the water distribution system supplies a clean drinking water service. A community's prosperity, economic development, competitiveness, image, and overall quality of life are inherently and explicitly tied to the performance of its infrastructure. 2.2 Asset Management Plan (AMP) - Relationship to Strategic Plan The major benefit of strategic planning is the promotion of strategic thought and action. A strategic plan spells out the direction of the City's resource allocation, ensuring alignment to the strategic priorities and objectives. It will help identify priorities and guide how municipal tax dollars and revenues are spent into the future. The strategic plan usually includes a vision and mission statement, and key organizational priorities with alignment to objectives and action plans. Given the growing economic and political significance of infrastructure, the asset management plan will become a central component of most municipal strategic plans, influencing city priorities, objectives, and actions. 2.3 AMP - Relationship to other Plans An asset management plan is a key component of the city's planning process linking with multiple other corporate plans and documents. For example: • The Comprehensive Plan—The AMP should utilize and influence the land use policy directions for long-term growth and development as provided through the Comprehensive Plan. • Long Term Financial Plan—The AMP should both utilize and conversely influence the financial forecasts within the long- term financial plan. • Capital Budget—The decision framework and infrastructure needs identified in the AMP form the basis on which future capital budgets are prepared. • Infrastructure Master Plans—The AMP will utilize goals and projections from infrastructure master plans and in turn will influence future street and utility master plan recommendations. • Ordinances,standards,and policies—The AMP will influence and utilize policies and ordinances related to infrastructure management practices and standards. ■ Regulations—The AMP must recognize and abide by industry practices and state regulations. ■ Business Plans—The service levels,policies,processes,and budgets defined in the AMP are incorporated into operating budgets,management strategies,and performance measures. 9 2.4 Purpose and Methodology The following diagram depicts the approach and methodology, including the key components and links between those components that embody this asset management plan: INFRASTRUCTURE—STRATEGIC Strategic Plan Goals,Asset Performance &Community Expectations, Legislated Requirements STATE OF THE CURRENT INFRASTRUCTURE REPORTS Asset Inventory,Valuation,Current Condition/Performance, N• Sustainable • • Analysis 0 L U EXPECTED LEVELS OF SERVICE O - - • • - • • • Performance Measures, • N Engagement U N O ASSET MANAGEMENT STRATEGY — Lifecycle Analysis,Growth Requirements, Risk Management,Project > PCioCitization Methodologies FINANCING STRATEGY N Q Available - - Analysis, Develop Optional Sc- • • Define Op • Budget • • '• AMP PERFORMANCE REPORTING Project Implementation,Key Performance Measures Tracked, Progress Reported to Senior Management &Council It can be seen from the above that a city's infrastructure planning starts at the highest level of management with ties to the strategic plan, alignment to the community's expectations, and compliance with industry and government regulations. Then, through the State of the Infrastructure analysis, overall asset inventory, valuation, condition and performance are reported. In this initial AMP, due to a lack of current condition data for many of the asset classes, present performance and condition are estimated by using the current age of the asset in comparison to its overall useful design life. In future updates to this AMP, accuracy of reporting will be significantly increased through the use of holistically captured condition data. Also, a life cycle analysis of needs for each infrastructure class is conducted.This analysis yields the sustainable funding level, compared against actual current funding levels, and determines whether there is a funding surplus or deficit for each infrastructure program.The overall measure of condition and available funding is finally scored for each asset class and presented as a star rating (similar to the hotel star rating) and a letter grade (A-F) within the Infrastructure Report Card. 10 From the lifecycle analysis above, the city gains an understanding of the level of service provided today for each infrastructure class and the projected level of service for the future.The next section of the AMP provides a framework for a city to develop a Desired Level of Service (or target service level) and develop performance measures to track the year-to-year progress towards this established target level of service. The Asset Management Strategy then provides a detailed analysis for each infrastructure class. Included in this analysis are best practices and methodologies from within the industry which can guide the overall management of the infrastructure in order to achieve the desired level of service.This section also provides an overview of condition assessment techniques for each asset class; life cycle interventions required, including those interventions that yield the best return on investment; and prioritization techniques, including risk quantification, to determine which priority projects should move forward into the budget first. The Financing Strategy then fully integrates with the asset management strategy and asset management plan, and provides a financial analysis that optimizes the 10 year infrastructure budget. All revenue sources available are reviewed,such as the ad-valorem tax levy, debt allocations, rates, reserves, grants,sales tax, development charges, etc., and necessary budget allocations are analyzed to inform and deliver the infrastructure programs. Finally, in subsequent updates to this AMP, actual project implementation will be reviewed and measured through the established performance metrics to quantify whether the desired level of service is achieved or achievable for each infrastructure class. If shortfalls in performance are observed, these will be discussed and alternate financial models or service level target adjustments will be presented. 11 2.5 CityWide Software alignment with AMP The plan will be built and developed hand in hand with a database of municipal infrastructure information in the CityWide software suite of products.The software will ultimately contain the city's asset base, valuation information, life cycle activity predictions, costs for activities, sustainability analysis, project prioritization parameters, key performance indicators and targets, 10 year asset management strategy, and the financial plan to deliver the required infrastructure budget. The software and plan will be synchronized, and will evolve together year-to-year as more detailed information becomes available.This synchronization will allow for ease of updates, modeling and scenario building, and annual reporting of performance measures and results.This will allow for continuous improvement of the plan and its projections. It is therefore recommended that it is revisited and updated on an annual basis. The following diagram outlines the various CityWide software products and how they align to the various components of the AMP. INFRASTRUCTURE—STRATEGIC Strategic Plan Goals,Asset Performance &Community Expectations, Legislated Requirements CITYWIDE STATE OF THE CURRENT • . REPORTS TANGIBLE ASSETS Asset Inventory,Valuation,Current Condition/Performance, N• Sustainable • • Analysis 0 CITYWIDE -C WORKS U EXPECTED LEVELS OF SERVICE O Key Performance Indicators, Measures, • N Engagement U N CITYWIDE CAPITAL PLANNING & ANALYSIS ASSET MANAGEMENT STRATEGY O (D Lifecycle Analysis,Growth Requirements, Risk Management,Project > PCioCitization Methodologies N T w CITYWIDE GIS FINANCING STRATEGY Available - - Analysis, Develop Optional Sc- • • Define Op • Budget • • Plan • • CITYWIDE �•� PERFORMANCE AMP PERFORMANCE REPORTING Project Implementation,Key Performance Measures Tracked, Progress Reported to Senior Management &Council 12 3.0 State of the Infrastructure (SOTI) 3.1 Objective and Scope Objective:To identify the state of the city's infrastructure today and the projected state in the future if current funding levels and management practices remain as they are. The analysis and subsequent communication tools will outline future asset requirements,start the development of tactical implementation plans, and ultimately assist the organization to provide cost effective sustainable services to the current and future community. The approach was based on the following key industry state of the infrastructure documents: ■ GFOA Best practice, February 2011 ■ GFOA Advisory Circular,October 2002 ■ GFOA Asset Maintenance and Replacement,March 2010 ■ GFOA Technology in Capital Planning and Management,October 2011 ■ Canadian Infrastructure Report Card ■ City of Hamilton's State of the Infrastructure reports ■ Other Ontario Municipal State of the Infrastructure reports The above reports are themselves based on established principles found within key, industry best practices documents such as: ■ American Society of Civil Engineering Manuals (U.S.A.) ■ The International Infrastructure Management Manual (Australia/New Zealand) ■ The National Guide for Sustainable Municipal Infrastructure (Canada) Scope: Within this State of the Infrastructure report, a high level review will be undertaken for the following asset classes: 1. Streets:Residential,collector,and minor arterial streets 2. Water Distribution System:Water mains,hydrants,storage facilities,and meters 3. Wastewater Collection System:Wastewater/sewer mains and manholes 4. Stormwater Drainage System:Stormwater drainage lines,ditches,flume,and inlets 5. Buildings:Administration,parks,fire,police,library/community center,and senior center 6. Parks:Parks&playgrounds,fencing,lighting,signage,trails and equipment 7. Equipment:Miscellaneous departmental equipment 8. Vehicles:Community development,police,fire,EMS,and public works 3.2 Approach The asset classes above were reviewed at a very high level due to the nature of data and information available.Subsequent detailed reviews of this analysis are recommended on an annual basis, as more detailed condition assessment information becomes available for each infrastructure category. 3.2.1 Base Data In order to understand the full inventory of infrastructure assets within Kennedale, all tangible capital asset data was loaded into the CityWide Tangible AssetTM software module.This database now provides a detailed and summarized inventory of assets as used throughout the analysis within this report and the entire Asset Management Plan. 3.2.2 Asset Deterioration Review The city has supplied condition data for all streets, hydrants, and stormwater drainage, and parks. The condition data recalculates a new performance age for each individual asset and, as such, a far more 13 accurate prediction of future replacement can be established and applied to the future investment requirements within this AMP report. For those assets without condition data, i.e.,water mains,wastewater collection mains,facilities, equipment, and vehicles, the deterioration review will rely on the 'straight line' amortization schedule approach provided from the accounting data. Although this approach is based on age data and useful life projections, and is not as accurate as the use of detailed condition data, it does provide a relatively reliable benchmark of future requirements. 3.2.3 Identify Sustainable Investment Requirements A gap analysis was performed to identify sustainable investment requirements for each asset category. Information on current spending levels and budgets was acquired from the finance department,future investment requirements were calculated, and the gap between the two was identified. The above analysis is performed by using investment and financial planning models, and life cycle costing analysis, embedded within the CityWide software suite of applications. 3.2.4 Asset Rating Criteria Each asset category will be rated on two key dimensions: ■ Condition vs.Performance: Based on the condition of the asset today and how well performs its function. ■ Funding vs. Need: Based on the actual investment requirements to ensure replacement of the asset at the right time, versus current spending levels for each asset group. 3.2.5 Infrastructure Report Card The dimensions above will be based on a simple 1-5 star rating system,which will be converted into a letter grading system ranging from A-F. An average of the two ratings will be used to calculate the combined rating for each asset class.The outputs for all municipal assets will be consolidated within the CityWide software to produce one overall Infrastructure Report Card showing the current state of the assets. Grading Scale: Condition vs. Performance Based on the condition of the asset today and how well it performs its function. Star Rating Letter Grade Color Indicator Description ***** A Excellent: No noticeable defects **** B Good:Minor deterioration *** G Fair: Deterioration evident,function is affected ** D Poor:Serious deterioration. Function is inadequate F Critical: No longer functional.General or complete failure Grading Scale: Funding vs. Need Based on the actual investment requirements to ensure replacement of the asset at the right time,versus current spending levels for each asset group. Star Rating Letter Grade Description ***** A Excellent:91 to 100%of need *** B Good: 76 to 90%of need *** C Fair:61 to 75%of need ** D Poor:46-60%of need * F Critical:under 45%of need 14 3.2.6 General Methodology and Reporting Approach The report will be based on the seven key questions of asset management for Sustainable Municipal Infrastructure: ■ What does the city own and where is it? (inventory) ■ What is it worth? (valuation/replacement cost) ■ What is its condition/remaining service life? (function &performance) ■ What needs to be done? (maintain,rehabilitate,replace) ■ When does the city need to take action? (useful life analysis) ■ How much will it cost? (investment requirements) ■ How does the city ensure sustainability? (long-term financial plan) The above questions will be answered for each asset category in the following report sections. 15 .�. .� iiii iiii lig� dk ?� ~5 =.:e`•' -' if.., Via. �r`�..a"� �� .,ay �'"•- 'F w ra � 3.3 Streets 3.3.1 What does the city own? As shown in the summary table below,streets comprise approximately 42 miles of road. Streets Inventory Asset Type Asset Component Quantity/Units ............................................. Residential 179,016 ft Streets .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. Arterial 43,795 ft ........ ......... ..................................................................................s........................................................................................ The streets data was extracted from the Tangible Capital Asset module of the CityWide software suite. 3.3.2 What is it worth? The estimated replacement value of all streets, in 2015 dollars, is approximately$59.6 million.The cost per household for the street network is$25,034 based on 2,380 households. Streets Replacement Value Asset Type Asset Component Quantity/Units 2015 Unit Replacement 2015 Overall Replacement Cost Cost ... ......... .... ......... ......... ......... Residential 179,016 ft User-Defined $47,401,166 Streets ..................................................................................................................... Arterial 43,795 ft User-Defined $12,179,244 .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. $59,580,410 17 The pie chart below provides a breakdown of streets relative to the overall system value. Streets Components Arterial...:$12,179,244.150(20.44%) Residential:$47r401r166.40(79.566Jo) 3.3.3 What condition is it in? Approximately ninety percent of all streets, based on field condition data, is in fair to excellent condition. As a result, the city received a Condition vs. Performance rating of 'B'. Streets Condition by Length(feet) 120x000 100x000 80,000 60,000 40,000 20,000 0 Exrellent Goca 18 3.3.4 What does the city need to do to it? There are generally four distinct phases in an asset's life cycle that require specific types of attention and lifecycle activity.These are presented at a high level for the streets below. Further detail is provided in the ''Asset Management Strategy" section of this AMP. Addressing Asset Needs Phase Lifecycle Activity Asset Life Stage ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................._.................................................................................... Activities such as inspections,monitoring,sweeping,winter Minor maintenance lei Qtr control,etc. ...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................o..................................................................................... Activities such as repairing pot holes,grinding out roadway Major maintenance 2 h Qtr rutting,and patching sections of road. :...................................................................................................................:.................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................:...................................................................................... Rehabilitation activities such as asphalt overlays,mill and Rehabilitation 3,d Qtr paves,etc. ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................e..................................................................................... Replacement Full road reconstruction 4th Qtr ...................................................................................................................i.........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................i 3.3.5 When does the city need to take action? For the purpose of this report, 'useful life' data for each asset class was obtained from the accounting data within the CityWide software database.This proposed useful life is used to determine replacement needs of individual assets.These needs are calculated and quantified in the system as part of the overall financial requirements. Asset Useful Life in Years Asset Type Asset Component Useful Life Residential 20,50 Streets .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. Arterial 20,50 ......... ......... ............................................................................................................................................................................ Streets Replacement Profile $24,000,000.00 $22,000,000.00 $20,000,000.00 $LB,000,000.00 $16,000,000.90 $L4,000,000.00 $12,000,000.00 $10,000,000.00 $8,000,000.00 $6,000,000.00 $4,000,000.00 $2,000,000.00 $0.00 2015-2024 2025-2034 2035-2044 2045-2054 2055-2064 Arterial , Residential 19 3.3.6 How much money does the city need? The analysis completed to determine capital revenue requirements was based on the following constraints and assumptions: 1. Replacement costs are based upon the unit costs identified within the "What is it worth" section. 2. The timing for individual road replacement was defined by the replacement year as described in the "When does the city need to take action?" section. 3. All values are presented in 2015 dollars. 4. The analysis was run for a 50 year period to ensure all assets went through at least one iteration of replacement, therefore providing a sustainable projection. 3.3.7 How does the city reach sustainability? Based upon the above parameters, the average annual revenue required to sustain Kennedale's streets is approximately$1,690,000. Based on Kennedale's current annual funding of$287,000, there is an annual deficit of$1,403,000. As such, it received a Funding vs. Need rating of 'F' based on a weighted star rating of 0 stars.The following graph illustrates the expenditure requirements in five year increments against the sustainable funding threshold line. Sustainable Funding Requirements per Five Year Block $16,000,000.00 -1 $14,000,000.00 ' $12,000,000.00 $10,000,000.00 $8,000,000.00 $6,000,000.00 $4,000,000.00 $2,000,000.00 , $0.00 2015-2019 2020-2024 2025-2029 2030-2034 2035-2039 2040-2044 2045-2049 2050-2054 Z055-2059 2060-2064 Arterial , Residential , Average Annual Requirement tr tai per Five Year 91mck] In conclusion, based on assessed condition, the majority of street infrastructure is in fair to excellent condition.There is a backlog of needs to be addressed within the next 5 years totaling approximately$9.1 million.The condition assessment data, along with risk management strategies, should be reviewed together to aid in prioritizing overall needs for rehabilitation and replacement and assist with optimizing the long and short term budgets. Further detail is outlined within the ''asset management strategy'' section of this asset management plan. 3.3.8 Recommendations The city received an overall rating of 'D' for its streets, calculated from the Condition vs. Performance and the Funding vs. Need ratings. Accordingly,we recommend the following: • The condition assessment data,along with risk management strategies,should be reviewed together to aid in prioritizing overall needs for rehabilitation and replacement. • A tailored life cycle activity framework should be also be developed by the City as outlined further within the "Asset Management Strategy"section of this AMP. • An appropriate percentage of asset replacement value should be used for operations and maintenance activities on an annual basis.This should be determined through a detailed analysis of O&M activities and be added to future AMP reporting. • The Infrastructure Report Card should be updated on an annual basis. 20 � � r y� op" 4 ry. f fai JAL C J tea- �� e •_. -'yi 3.4 Water Distribution System 3.4.1 What does the city own? Kennedale is responsible for the following water distribution system inventory which includes approximately 48 miles of water mains: Water Distribution System Inventory Asset Type Asset Component Quantity/Units ....................................................................................................................................................: Water Pipe (1.5 inch) 3,644.62 ft i................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Water Pipe (2 inch) 7,079.26 ft .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. Water Pipe (6 inch) 73,576.03 ft .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Water Pipe (8 inch) 92,372.76 ft .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Water Pipe (10 inch) 7,301.84 ft Water Distribution Water Pipe (12 inch) 44,870.42 ft System ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................: Water Pipe (16 inch) 26,532.19 ft ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Hydrants 487 .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Equipment 6 .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Facilities 27 .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Vehicles 14 ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... The water distribution system data was extracted from the Tangible Capital Asset module of the CityWide software suite. 3.4.2 What is it worth? The estimated replacement value of the water distribution system, in 2015 dollars, is approximately$23.7 million.The cost per household for the water distribution system is$10,851 based on 2,184 households. Water Distribution System Replacement Value Asset Type Asset Component Quantity/Units 2015 Unit Replacement 2015 Overall Cost Replacement Cost Water Pipe (1.5 inch) 3,644.62 ft User-Defined $153,075 .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. Water Pipe (2 inch) 7,079.26 ft User-Defined $297,329 ............................................................................................................................................................e...................................................................e.............................................................................................................................................................................................................................. Water Pipe (6 inch) 73,576.03 ft User-Defined $3,090,196 ............................................................................................................................................................s................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Water Pipe (8 inch). 92,372.76 ft User-Defined $5,283,722 ..........................................................................................................................................................._................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Water Pipe (10 inch) 7,301.84 ft User-Defined $522,082 ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ........................................................................................................... Water Distribution Water Pipe (12 inch) 44,870.42 ft User-Defined $3,849,883 System ............................................................................................................................................................'...................................................................'. Water Pipe (16 inch) 26,532.19 ft User-Defined $3,035,280 ...........................................................................................................................................................o...................................................................o.............................................................................................................................................................................................................................. Hydrants 487 User-Defined $798,680 .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. Equipment 6 User-Defined $188,215 .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. Facilities 27 User-Defined $6,668,420 ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................€................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ Vehicles 14 User-Defined $133,583 ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... $24,020,465 22 The pie chart below provides a breakdown of each of the system components to the overall system value. Water Distribution System Components Hydrants:$798,68.0.00[3.32 Wa] �Fa cilities:$6,668,420.iS[27.7640] Equipment:$188,215.60(0.78%) Vehicles:$133,533.00[0.564u] Pipe:$16,231,566.06(67.57 Wa] 3.4.3 What condition is it in? Based on age based condition, approximately seventy-six percent of the city's water mains are in fair to excellent condition,while twenty-four percent are poor or critical condition. Nearly forty-two percent, by replacement value, of the city's facilities assets are in poor to critical condition. As such, the city received a Condition vs. Performance rating of 'C'. Water Pipe Condition by Length(ft) Water Facilities Condition by Replacement Cost so,oOG �„ $3,soo,000.00 —� 70 000 $3,200,000.00 –' w,000 � $zsoo,000.00 � - ■ $2.400,000.00 � - 50,000 7■ $2,000,000.00 40,000 $1,fi00,000.00 30.00p $1.200,000.00 zo,OG❑ $soo,000.o❑ L0,000 �._ $400,000.06 $0.00 2-11—t Good Fair Pc Critical F llent G—d Fair Pccr r;ri kial 23 3.4.4 What does the city need to do to it? There are generally four distinct phases in an asset's life cycle.These are presented at a high level for the water distribution system below. Further detail is provided in the ''Asset Management Strategy'' section of this AMP. Addressing Asset Needs Phase Lifecycle Activity Asset Age ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................ Minor Maintenance Activities such as inspections,monitoring,cleaning and flushing, hydrant flushing,pressure tests,visual inspections,etc. 1 st Qtr ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. Major Maintenance Such events as repairing water main breaks,repairing valves, replacing individual small sections of pipe etc. 2nd Qtr ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ Rehabilitation Rehabilitation events such as structural lining of pipes and a cathodic protection program to slow the rate of pipe deterioration. 3rd Qtr ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. Replacement Pipe replacements 4th Qtr .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 3.4.5 When does the city need to take action? For the purpose of this report ''useful life'' data for each asset class was obtained from the accounting data within the CityWide software database.This proposed useful life is used to determine replacement needs of assets,which are calculated in the system as part of the overall financial requirements. Asset Useful Life in Years Asset Type Asset Component Useful Life (Years) ................................................. ................ Water Pipe (1.5 inch) 80 ........... Water Pipe (2 inch) 80,90 ................................................................................................................................................................. Water Pipe (6 inch) 80,90 ........................................................................................ ...........................................................i...................................................................................................... Water Pipe (8 inch) 80,90 ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Water Pipe (10 inch) 80,90 Water .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Distribution Water Pipe (12 inch) 80,90 System ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Water Pipe (16 inch) 80 ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Hydrants 60 ................................................................................................................... Equipment 10 ........... Facilities 20,25,50 ...................................................................................................................................................i................................................................... ................................... Vehicles 8, 10, 12 ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... As field condition information becomes available in time, the data should be loaded into the CityWide system in order to increasingly have a more accurate picture of current asset age and condition, therefore, future replacement requirements. 24 The following graph shows the current projection of water distribution system replacements based on the age of the assets only. Water Distribution System Replacement Profile $8,000,000.00 $7,000,000.00 $6,000,000.00 $5,000,000.00 $4,000,000.00 $3,000,000.00 $2,000,000.00 $1,000,000.00 -- $0.00 ■ I .=.. .K. .I 2015-2024 2025-2034 2035-2044 2045-2054 2055-2064 2065-2074 2075-2094 2085-2094 2095-2104 Equipment _ Facil-rties , Hydrants . Pipe , vehicles 3.4.6 How much money does the city need? The analysis completed to determine capital revenue requirements was based on the following assumptions: 1. Replacement costs are based upon the unit costs identified within the "What is it worth" section above. 2. The timing for each water main replacement was defined by the replacement year as described in the "When does the city need to take action?" section above. 3. All values are presented in 2015 dollars. 4. The analysis was run for a 90 year period to ensure all assets went through at least one iteration of replacement, therefore providing a sustainable projection. 3.4.7 How does the city reach sustainability? Based upon the above assumptions, the average annual revenue required to sustain Kennedale's water distribution system is approximately$420,000. Based on Kennedale's current annual funding of$589,000, there is a surplus of$169,000. Given this surplus, the city received a Funding vs. Need rating of 'A' based on a weighted star rating of 5 stars.The following graph presents five year blocks of expenditure requirements against the sustainable funding threshold line. Sustainable Revenue Requirements per Five Year Block $7,000,000.00 —' — $6,000,000.00 $5,000,000.00 $4,000,000.00 $3,000,000.00 $2,000,000.00 $1,000,000.00 —; . $0.00 � �. ■ 20 -2019 2025-2029 2035-2039 2045-2049 2055-2059 2065-20G9 2075-2079 2085-2089 2095-2099 2020-2024 2030-2034 2040-2044 Z050-2054 ?060-2064 Z070-2074 2080-2084 Z090-2094 2100-2104 . Equipment 0 Facirilie , Hydrants Pipe , vehrtde , Average Annual Requirement Cratal per Five Year Block] 25 Based on age based condition, approximately seventy-six percent of the city's water mains are in fair to excellent condition, however nearly forty-two percent of the city's facilities assets are in poor to critical condition.There are needs to be addressed within the next 5 years totaling approximately$1.6 million. A condition assessment program should be established to aid in prioritizing overall needs for rehabilitation and replacement and to assist with optimizing the long and short term budgets. Further detail is outlined within the ''asset management strategy'' section of this AMP. 3.4.8 Recommendations The city received an overall rating of 'B' for its water distribution system, calculated from the Condition vs. Performance and the Funding vs. Need ratings. Accordingly,we recommend the following: • A more detailed study to define the current condition of the water distribution system should be undertaken as described furtherwithin the "Asset Management Strategy" section of this AMP. • Also,a detailed study to define the current condition of the water facilities and their components (structural, architectural,electrical,mechanical,process,etc.)should be undertaken,as collectively they account for twenty-eight percent of the water distribution system's value. • Once the above studies are complete,a new performance age should be applied to each asset and an updated "current state of the infrastructure" analysis should be generated. • An appropriate percentage of asset replacement value should be used for operations and maintenance activities on an annual basis.This should be determined through a detailed analysis of O&M activities and be added to future AMP reporting. ■ The Infrastructure Report Card should be updated on an annual basis. ■ The city just completed a water and wastewater utility master plan by Freese &Nichols Engineering Firm in 2014. 26 3.5 Wastewater Collection System C1 INFRASTRUCTURE REPORT CARD GRADE 1 - 1 L 4 0� _ r 1 rr v 27 3.5 Wastewater Collection System 3.5.1 What does the city own? The inventory components of the wastewater collection system are outlined in the table below.The entire system consists of approximately 48 miles of sanitary mains. Wastewater Collection System Inventory Asset Type Asset Component Quantity/Units ............................................... ............................................................ Sewer Pipe (6 Inch) 122,238 ft t.................................................................................................................................................................................?........................................................................... Sewer Pipe (8 Inch) 85,470 ft t.................................................................................................................................................................................?........................................................................... Wastewater Sewer Pipe (10 Inch) 5,997 ft Collection €............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ System Sewer Pipe (12 Inch) 37,848 ft ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Sewer Pipe (15 Inch) 811 ft : .................................................................................................................................................................................:...........................................................................: Sewer Pipe (18 Inch) 3,558 ft ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ The Wastewater Collection System data was extracted from the Tangible Capital Asset module of the CityWide software application. 3.5.2 What is it worth? The estimated replacement value of the wastewater collection system, in 2015 dollars, is approximately$14.9 million.The cost per household for the wastewater collection is$7,380 based on 2,017 households. Wastewater Collection System Replacement Value Asset Type Asset Component Quantity/Units 2015 Unit 2015 Overall i.............................................................s.................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Replacement Cost Replacement Cost . Sewer Pipe (6 Inch) 122,238 ft User-Defined $5,745,175 i............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. Sewer Pipe (8 Inch). 85,470 ft User-Defined $4,888,874 .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. Wastewater Sewer Pipe (10 Inch) 5,997 ft User-Defined $428,796 Collection ................................................................................................................................................................ System Sewer Pipe (12 Inch) 37,848 ft User-Defined $3,247,354 ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Sewer Pipe (15 Inch) 811 ft User-Defined. $87,435 ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ Sewer Pipe (18 Inch) 3,558 ft User-Defined $488,448 $14,886,083 28 The pie chart below provides a breakdown of each component of the wastewater collection system. Wastewater Collection System Components Sewer Pipe(18 Inch):$488,448.13[3.284/0] Sewer Pipe(15 Inch):$87,434.70(0.594/0) I I I I �I Sewer Pipe(12 Inch):$'.3,247,334.03(21.81W0) �l Sewer Pipe(6 Inch):$5,745,175.27(38.594/0) sewer Pipe(10 Inch):$428,796.48(2.98%) Sewer Pipe.(8 Inch):$4,888,874.16(32.844/0) 3.5.3 What condition is it in? Approximately sixty-nine percent of the city's sewer pipes are in fair to excellent condition, based on age data only,with approximately thirty-one percent in poor or critical condition. As such, the city received a Condition vs. Performance rating of 'C'. Wastewater Collection System Condition by Quantity soro00 70r000 ; G0r000 �t 50,000 40rOo0 1 a0r000 z0r000 ' 10r000 1 0 Excellent Good Fair Poor Critical 29 3.5.4 What does the city need to do to it? There are generally four distinct phases in an assets life cycle.These are presented at a high level for the wastewater collection system below. Further detail is provided in the ''Asset Management Strategy'' section of this AMP. Addressing Asset Needs Phase Lifecycle Activity Asset Life Stage _....................................................................................................................: Activities such as inspections,monitoring,cleaning and flushing,zoom Minor Maintenance camera and CCTV inspections,etc. 1 sf Qtr ......... ......... ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................._ Major Maintenance Activities such as repairing manholes and replacing individual small sections of pipe. 2nd Qtr ......... ......... ......... ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Rehabilitation events such as structural lining of pipes are extremely cost Rehabilitation effective and provide an additional 75 plus years of life. 3rd Qtr ......... ......... ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Replacement Pipe replacements 4}r Qtr ........ ......... .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 3.5.5 When does the city need to take action? For the purpose of this report ''useful life'' data for each asset class was obtained from the accounting data within the CityWide software database.This proposed useful life is used to determine replacement needs of individual assets,which are calculated in the system as part of the overall financial requirements. Asset Useful Life in Years Asset Type Asset Component Useful Life Sewer Pipe (6 Inch) 80,90 ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ Sewer Pipe (8 Inch) 80,90 Wastewater Sewer Pipe (10 Inch) 80,90 ' Collection ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ System Sewer Pipe (12 Inch) 80,90 i................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ Sewer Pipe (15 Inch) 80,90 ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. Sewer Pipe (18 Inch) 80,90 ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... As field condition information becomes available in time, the data should be loaded into the CityWide system in order to increasingly have a more accurate picture of current asset performance age and, therefore, future replacement requirements.The following graph shows the current projection of the replacement of wastewater collection mains based on the age of the asset only. 30 Wastewater Collection System Replacement Profile $3,600,000.00 $3,200,000.00 $2,800,000.00 $2,400,000.00 $2,000,000.00 $1,600,000.00 —' $1,200,000.00 . $800,000.00 $400,000.00 , $0.00 4: �- 2015-2024 2025-2034 2035-2044 2045-2054 2055-2064 2065-2074 2075-2084 2085-2094 2095-2104 Sewer Pipe(14 Inch) , Sewer Pipe(12 inch) 0 Sewer Pipe(15 Inch) . Sewer Pipe(18 Inch) Sewer Pipe(@ Inch) Sewer Pipe(B Inch) 3.5.6 How much money does the city need? The analysis completed to determine capital revenue requirements was based on the following assumptions: 1. Replacement costs are based upon the unit costs identified within the "What is it worth" section above. 2. The timing for individual sewer line replacement was defined by the replacement year as described in the "When does the city need to take action?" section above. 3. All values are presented in 2015 dollars. 4. The analysis was run for a 90 year period to ensure all assets went through at least one iteration of replacement, therefore providing a sustainable projection. 3.5.7 How does the city reach sustainability? Based upon the above assumptions, the average annual revenue required to sustain Kennedale's wastewater collection system is approximately$179,000. Based on Kennedale's current annual funding of $80,000, there is an annual deficit of$99,000. Given this deficit, the city received a Funding vs. Need rating of 'F' based on weighted star rating of 1 stars.The following graph presents five year blocks of expenditure requirements against the sustainable funding threshold line. Sustainable Revenue Requirements per Five Year Block 53.6001000.00 1 $3,200,000.00 1 $2,800,000.00 - $2.400,000.00 $2.000,000.00 �� ( $1,200,000.00 '� $ $800,000.00 $ $400,000.00 -ID $0.00 -------- 2015-20L9 2025-2029 2035-2039 2045-2049 2055-2059 2065-2069 2075-2079 Z085-2089 2095-2099 2020-2024 2030-2034 2040-2044 2050-2054 2060-2064 2070-2074 2080-2084 Z090-2094 2100-2104 sewer Pipe(1a Inch] M Sewer Pipe[32Inch] , sewer Pipe[15lneh} Sewer Pipe(SS Inch] , " er Pipe(6lnch} Sewer Pipe(S Inch) Average Annual RequiremcnY(TaEal perFve Year eh�ck} 31 In conclusion, the wastewater collection system infrastructure assets are in fair condition based on age data analysis only. As such, there are not any immediate needs over the next 5 years. However, based on age data alone many pipes are getting close to the end of their design lives. A condition assessment program should be established to aid in prioritizing overall needs for rehabilitation and replacement and to assist with optimizing the long and short term budgets. Further detail is outlined within the ''asset management strategy'' section of this AMP. 3.5.8 Recommendations The city received an overall rating of 'D' for its wastewater collection system, calculated from the Condition vs. Performance and the Funding vs. Need ratings. Accordingly,we recommend the following: • A condition assessment program should be established for the wastewater collection system to gain a better understanding of current condition and performance as outlined furtherwithin the "Asset Management Strategy" section of this AMP. • Once the above study is complete or underway,the condition data should be loaded into the CityWide software and an updated "current state of the infrastructure" analysis should be generated. • An appropriate percentage of asset replacement value should be used for operations and maintenance activities on an annual basis.This should be determined through a detailed analysis of O&M activities and be added to future AMP reporting. • The Infrastructure Report Card should be updated on an annual basis. 32 3.6 Stormwater Drainage System I:: INFRASTRUCTURE .OR ., GRADE ^F t 3.6 Stormwater Drainage System 3.6.1 What does the city own? The inventory components of the stormwater drainage system are outlined in the table below.The entire system consists of approximately 3.7 miles of stormwater main. Stormwater Drainage System Inventory Asset Type Asset Component Quantity Stormwater Pipe (12-15 inch) 555 ft ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. Stormwater Pipe (16-21 inch) 2,720 ft ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Stormwater Pipe (24 inch) 8,289 ft ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. Stormwater Pipe (27 inch) 1,921 ft ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. Stormwater Pipe (30 inch) 1,441 ft ............................................................................................................. Stormwater Pipe (32-36 inch) 2,775 ft Stormwater ........................................................................................................ .....: Drainage Stormwater Pipe (39-42 inch) 915 ft System Stormwate.r...P.pe...(48 5.1....inch)................................ 1..'.1.8 ...ft.............................. ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. Stormwater Pipe (54 inch) 70 ft ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. Culverts 22 ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. Ditch 36 miles ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. Flume 200 ft ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ Inlet 201 €......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... The stormwater drainage system data was extracted from the Tangible Capital Asset module of the CityWide software suite. 34 3.6.2 What is it worth? The estimated replacement value of the stormwater drainage system, in 2014 dollars, is approximately$3.3 million.The cost per household for the stormwater drainage system is$1,416 based on 2,380 households. Stormwater Drainage System Replacement Value Asset type Asset component Quantity/units 2015 Unit 2015 Overall Replacement Cost Replacement Cost Stormwater Pipe (12-15 inch) 555 ft User-Defined $15,175 ...................................................................................................................................................._........................................................................._.......................__......................................................................._............................................................_________ Stormwater Pipe (16-21 inch) 2,720 ft User-Defined $97,800 :....................................................................................................................................................:.........................................................................:.....................................................................................................:.............................................................................................: Stormwater Pipe (24 inch) 8,289 ft User-Defined $356,427 ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Stormwater Pipe (27 inch) 1,921 ft User-Defined $90,287 .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................e.....................................................................................................e............................................................................................. Stormwater Pipe (30 inch) 1,441 ft User-Defined $73,443 ...................................................................................................................................................o.........................................................................o.....................................................................................................o............................................................................................. Stormwater Pipe (32-36 inch) 2,775 ft User-Defined $185,225 ' Stormwater ..................................................................................................................................................... .....................................................................................................a............................................................................................. Drainage Stormwater Pipe (39-42 inch) 915 ft User-Defined $77,025 ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. _ ................................................................................... System Stormwater Pipe (48-51 inch) 1,186 ft User-Defined $130,460 ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................a............................................................................................. Stormwater Pipe (54 inch) 70 ft User-Defined $9,800 ...................................................................................................................................................._........................................................................._....................................................................................................._............................................................................................. Culverts 22 User-Defined. $809,400 .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. Ditch 36 miles User-Defined $270,000 .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................e.....................................................................................................e............................................................................................. Flume 200 ft User-Defined $48,000 .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................e................................................................................................................................................................................................... Inlet 201 User-Defined $1,206,000 .. $3,369,082 The pie chart below provides a breakdown of each component of the stormwater drainage system. Stormwater Drainage System Components mtch:$274,000.00(8:.014Yb) Flume:$48,0 06.60(1.42Dfa) y` Y �Cu4ve rt:$864,44Q.06[24.434 ] Inlet:$1,706,000.00(35.864k)-- S torm*ua ter Pipe:$1,035,642.00(30.74%) 35 3.6.3 What condition is it in? Based on assessed condition ratings, eighty-seven percent of the city's stormwater pipes and one hundred percent of culverts are in good to excellent condition. As such, the city received a Condition vs. Performance rating of `B'. Storm Sewer Pipes Condition by Length(ft) 12,000 ' 10,000 I 8,000 ' 6,000 1 4,000 I 2,000 ' 0 Excellent Good Fair Poor Critical 3.6.4 What does the city need to do to it? There are generally four distinct phases in an assets life cycle.These are presented at a high level for the stormwater drainage system below. Further detail is provided in the ''Asset Management Strategy'' section of this AMP. Addressing Asset Needs Phase Lifecycle Activity Asset Age Activities such as inspections,monitoring,cleaning and flushing,zoom Minor Maintenance 1 s Qtr camera and CCTV inspections,etc. ......... ......... ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Activities such as repairing manholes and replacing individual small Major Maintenance 2,d Qtr sections of pipe. ....... ......... ......... ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Rehabilitation events such as structural lining of pipes are extremely Rehabilitation 3rd Qtr cost effective and provide an additional 75 plus years of life. ......... ......... ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Replacement Pipe replacements 4th Qtr ....... ......... ......... ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 36 3.6.5 When does the city need to take action? For the purpose of this report ''useful life'' data for each asset class was obtained from the accounting data within the CityWide software database.This proposed useful life is used to determine replacement needs of individual assets,which are calculated in the system as part of the overall financial requirements. Asset Useful Life in Years Asset Type Asset Component Useful Life ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................€ Stormwater Pipe (12-15 inch) 80 .......................................................................................................................................................................................S.............................................................. Stormwater Pipe (16-21 inch) 30,80 Stormwater Pipe (24 inch) 30,80 .......................................................................................................................................................................................i............................................................. Stormwater Pipe (27 inch) 80 Stormwater Pipe (30 inch) 80 ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Stormwater Stormwater Pipe (32-36 inch) 30,80 Drainage Stormwater Pipe (39-42 inch) 80 System ................................................................................................................................................................................... ................................................... Stormwater Pipe (48-51 inch) 80 .................................................................................................................................................................................... Stormwater Pipe (54 inch) 80 ..............................o.............................................................? Culverts 80 .......................................................................................................................................................................................i............................................................. Ditch 60 .....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................? Flume 80 ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Inlet 60 ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Stormwater Drainage System Replacement Profile $1,400,000.00 –' $1,200,000.00 $1,000,000.00 $600,000.00 –; $600,000.00 ; $400,000.00 $200,000.00 2015-2024 2025-2034 2035-2044 2045-2054 Z055-2064 2055-2074 2075-20B4 2085-2094 1 C.1—A , reach , Flume Inlet , Stormwater Pipe 3.6.6 How much money does the city need? The analysis completed to determine capital revenue requirements was based on the following assumptions: 1. Replacement costs are based upon the unit costs identified within the "What is it worth" section above. 2. The timing for each stormwater pipe replacement was defined by the replacement year as described in the "When does the city need to take action?" section above. 3. All values are presented in 2015 dollars. 4. The analysis was run for an 80 year period to ensure all assets went through one iteration of replacement,therefore providing a sustainable projection. 37 3.6.7 How does the city reach sustainability? Based upon the above assumptions, the average annual revenue required to sustain Kennedale's stormwater drainage system is approximately$349,000. Based on Kennedale's current annual funding of $265,000, there is an annual defecit of$84,000. As such, the city received a Funding vs. Need rating of 'C' based on a weighted star rating of 5 stars. Stormwater Drainage System Replacement Profile per Five Year Block $1,400,000.00 $1,200,000.00 $1,000,000.00 $800,000.00 $600,000.00 $400,000.00 $200,000.00 $0.00 2015-2019 2025-2029 2035-2039 2045-2049 2055-2059 2065-2069 2075-2079 2085-2089 2020-2024 2030-2034 2040-2044 2050-2054 2060-2064 2070-2074 2080-2084 2090-2094 C.1—t , ❑itA I Flume llJ Inlet I St--t—pipe , Average Annua l Requirement(Tota1 per R—Year Black) In conclusion, Kennedale's storm pipes are largely in excellent condition.There are needs to be addressed within the next 5 years totaling approximately$27,000. Further management strategies and detail is outlined within the ''asset management strategy'' section of this AMP. The stormwater drainage fee was adopted in 2010 by the city council to maintain the MS4 permit reporting requirement with the Texas Council on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), maintaining stormwater assets, and to resolve localized flooding or drainage problems.The initial study identified 56 localized flooding or drainage projects totaling$11.8M or approximately$300,000 annually. 3.6.8 Recommendations The city received an overall rating of 'C' for its stormwater drainage system, calculated from the Condition vs. Performance and the Funding vs. Need ratings. Accordingly,we recommend the following: • The condition assessment data,along with risk management strategies,should be reviewed together to aid in prioritizing overall needs for rehabilitation and replacement. • Once the above study is complete or underway,the condition data should be loaded into the CityWide software and an updated "current state of the infrastructure" analysis should be generated. • An appropriate percentage of asset replacement value should be used for operations and maintenance activities on an annual basis.This should be determined through a detailed analysis of O&M activities and be added to future AMP reporting. ■ The Infrastructure Report Card should be updated on an annual basis. ■ The City has contracted with the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers to conduct a section 205 Flood Control Study of Village Creek.Implementation of any recommendations will require substantial local funds beginning in 2018. 38 3.7 Buildings INFRASTRUCTURE REPORT .D GRADE i y 3.7 Buildings 3.7.1 What does the city own? The table below outlines the city's buildings inventory: Buildings Inventory Asset Type Asset Component Quantity City Hall 1 Chamber of Commerce 1 Fire 4 Buildings Library 1 Parks 1 Police 1 Senior Citizen 1 The buildings data was extracted from the Tangible Capital Asset module of the CityWide software suite. 3.7.2 What is it worth? The estimated replacement value of the city's buildings, in 2015 dollars, is approximately$11.3 million.The cost per household for buildings is$4,760 based on 2,380 households. Buildings Replacement Value Asset Type Asset Component Quantity/Units 2015 Unit Replacement 2015 Overall Cost Replacement Cost ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ ......... ......... ......... City Hall 1 User Defined $2,240,460 ........ ......... ......... ......... ...... .,.,....... .......... ......... ......... ......... Chamber of Commerce 1 User-Defined $215,258 ........ ......... ......... ......... ...... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... Fire 4 User-Defined $1,238,392 ......... ......... ......... ......... Buildings Library 1 User-Defined $738,619 ........ ......... ......... ......... ......... ........., ......... ......... ......... Parks 1 User Defined $26,730 Police 1 User-Defined $1,232,707 .... ......... ......... ......... .... ......... ........., .... ......... ......... Senior Citizen 1 User-Defined $280,665 ......... $5,972,830 40 The pie chart below provides a breakdown of each of the buildings components to the overall structures value. Buildings Components City Han:$2,240,460.00(37.51%) Ar Chamber of Commerce:$215,257.50[3.604+0] Fire:$1,238,391.79(20.73%)— -- Seni®r Citizens:$280,565.00(4.7 DOM) Police:$1,232,706.60[20.644VaJ Library:$738,618.75[32.374+0] Parks 6.Recreate—$26,730.00(0.45%) 3.7.3 What condition is it in? Based on age data only, approximately seventy-nine percent of the city's buildings are in fair to excellent condition,while over twenty-one percent are in poor to critical condition. As such, the city received a Condition vs. Performance rating of 'C'. Buildings Condition by Replacement Cost $2,400,000.00 $2,2ao,000.00 $2,oao,000.oa $1,800,000.00 $1,500,000.00 $1,400,000.00 $1,200,000.00 $1,000,000.00 $800,000.00 $500,000.00 5400,000.00 $200,000.00 $0.00 ENXellient 5ccd Fair Paor Critical 41 3.7.4 What does the city need to do to it? There are generally four distinct phases in an asset's life cycle.These are presented at a high level for the buildings below. Further detail is provided in the ''Asset Management Strategy.'' Addressing Asset Needs Phase Lifecycle Activity Asset Age ....... ......................................................... ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Minor Maintenance Planned activities such as inspections,monitoring,etc. 1st Qtr ........ ......... ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ Maintenance and repair activities,generally unplanned,however, Major Maintenance anticipated activities that are included in the annual operating 2nd Qtr budget. Rehabilitation Major activities such as the upgrade or replacement of smaller individual facility components (e.g.windows) 3rd Qtr ........ ......... ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Replacement Complete replacement of asset components or a facility itself. 4th Qtr ........ ......... ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 3.7.5 When does the city need to take action? For the purpose of this report, 'useful life' data for each asset class was obtained from the accounting data within the CityWide software database.This proposed useful life is used to determine replacement needs of individual assets,which are calculated in the system as part of the overall financial requirements. Asset Useful Life in Years Asset Type Asset Component Useful Life in Years :........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ : City Hall 50 ...................................................................................................................................................................S.............................................................. Chamber of Commerce 50 .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................? Fire 7,20,50 ...................................................................................................................................................................e............................................................. ? Buildings Library 50 ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ Parks&Recreation 25 ...................................................................................................................................................................s............................................................. Police. .............................................................7,50 .................................................................................................................................................................._ € Senior Citizen 50 ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 42 The following graph shows the current projection of structure replacements based on the age of the asset only. Buildings Replacement Profile $2,800,000.00 7■ $2,600,000.00 ■■ $2,400,000.00 ■ $2,200,000.00 $2,000,000.00 �■■ $1,800,000.00 ■ $1,600,000.00 �■ $1,400,000.00 �■■ $1,200,000.00 ■ $1,000,000.00 �■ $800,000.00 $600,000.00 ■ $400,000.00 {■ $200,000.00 �■ $0.00 2015-2024 2025-2034 2035-2044 2045-2054 Z055-2064 Chamber of Commerce , City Hall . Ec©nomic OeVelopment Fire . Library , Parks&Recreation Poll e Senior Citizens 3.7.6 How much money does the city need? The analysis completed to determine capital revenue requirements was based on the following constraints and assumptions: 1. Replacement costs are based upon the "What is it worth" section above. 2. The timing for each structure replacement was defined by the replacement year as described in the "When does the city need to take action?" section above. 3. All values are presented in 2015 dollars. 4. The analysis was run for a 50 year period to ensure all assets cycled through at least one iteration of replacement, therefore providing a sustainable projection. 3.7.7 How does the city reach sustainability? Based upon the above assumptions, the average annual revenue required to sustain Kennedale's buildings is$127,000. Based on Kennedale's current annual funding of$55,000, there is an annual deficit of$72,000. As such, the city received a Funding vs. Need rating of 'F'.The following graph presents five year blocks of expenditure requirements against the sustainable funding threshold line. Sustainable Revenue Requirement per Five Year Block $2,600,000.00 $z,6DO,00D.oD $z,4DO,00D.oD $2.200.000.00 $z,oDD,00D.oD $L,eDD,DDD.DD $L,600,000.00 $1,400,000.00 $L,200,000.00 $L,000,000.00 $600,000.00 $600,000.00 $400,000.00 $200,000.00 $D.Dn 2015-2019 2020-2D24 2025-2029 2030-2034 2035-2039 2040-2044 2045-2049 2050-2054 2D55-2059 2060-2064 Chamber of Commerce City Hall , Economic D—I.pment Fire , Library , Parks&Recreation Police Senior Citizens , Average Annual Requirement(Total per Five Year Block) 43 In conclusion, the city's buildings, based on age data only, are generally in fair condition, however, the economic development buildings are in poor condition.There are needs to be addressed within the next 5 years totaling approximately only$61 thousand. A condition assessment program should be established to aid in prioritizing overall needs for rehabilitation and replacement and to assist with optimizing the long and short term budgets. Further detail is outlined within the ''asset management strategy'' section of this AMP. 3.7.8 Recommendations The city received an overall rating of 'D' for its buildings, calculated from the Condition vs. Performance and the Funding vs. Need ratings. Accordingly,we recommend the following: • A detailed study to define the current condition of the buildings and their components (structural,architectural, electrical,mechanical,site,etc.)should be undertaken,as described furtherwithin the "Asset Management Strategy." • Once the above study is complete,a new performance age should be applied to each asset and an updated "current state of the infrastructure" analysis should be generated. • An appropriate percentage of asset replacement value should be used for operations and maintenance activities on an annual basis.This should be determined through a detailed analysis of O&M activities and be added to future AMP reporting. • The Infrastructure Report Card should be updated on an annual basis. 44 • k F f i' ► + '•! a 1"; jrL 3.8 Parks 3.8.1 What does the city own? Kennedale is responsible for the following parks inventory: Parks Inventory Asset Type Asset Component Quantity/Units ....................................................................................................:............................................................................................................................................................................................:........................................................................... Benches 33 .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Equipment 99 : :...........................................................................................................................................................................................:.........................................................................: Fencing 2 ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Parks Lighting 29 ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Parks&Playgrounds 4 ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Signage 10 ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Trails 4 ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... The parks data was extracted from the Tangible Capital Asset module of the CityWide software suite 3.8.2 What is it worth? The estimated replacement value of all parks, in 2015 dollars, is$18 thousand.The cost per household for the Parks is$672 based on 2,380 households. Parks Replacement Value S Asset Component Quantity/Units 2014 Unit 2014 Overall tT Replacement Cost Replacement Cost Benches 33 CPI $9,576 ............................ _............................................................................................................................................. Equipment 99 CPI $906,513 i .... ......... ......... ......... ......... ...,,,,,,,, .....................................................................................................................................................................................! Fencing 2 CPI $23,555 ........ ......... ......... ......... ......... ...,,,,,,,, ....................................................................................e.................................................................................................? Parks Lighting 29 CPI $25,128 ........ ......... ......... ......... ......... ..................................................................................................................................................................................... Parks&Playgrounds 4 CPI $342,436 ........ ......... ......... ......... ......... ..,,,,,,,, ...................................................................................................................................................................................... Signage 10 CPI $75,711 ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ........ ......... ......... ... Trails 4 CPI $215,371 ........ ......... ......... ......... ......... ,,,,,,,,,,,,, $1,598,290 46 The pie chart below provides a breakdown of each component of parks. Parks Components Equipment:$905,513.75(55.72Wa) Benches:$9,575.68(0.6001o) Trails:$215,371.09(13.4SWa) Fencing:$23,554.62(1.47 Wa) Lighting:$25,127.51(1.57%) l Signage:$75,711.47(4.744Po) Parks Playrgrnunds:$342,435.72(21.43%) 3.8.3 What condition is it in? Based on assessed condition data, ninety-four percent of the city's parks are in fair to excellent condition. As such, the city received a Condition vs. Performance rating of 'B+'. Parks Condition by Replacement Cost $iraoor000.00 $IrzoorOOO.00 $Ir000rOOO.00 S800,000.00 s600,000,00 s400,000,00 x200,000.00 so,00 Excellent 47 3.8.4 What does the city need to do to it? There are generally four distinct phases in an asset's life cycle.These are presented at a high level for the parks below. Further detail is provided in the ''Asset Management Strategy'' section of this AMP. Addressing Asset Needs Phase Lifecycle Activity Asset Age ......................................................................................................o................................. Minor Maintenance Planned activities such as inspections,monitoring,etc 1st Qtr ................................................ ...................................... Maintenance and repair activities,generally unplanned,however, Major Maintenance anticipated activities that are included in the annual operating 2nd Qtr budget. ........ ......... ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. ........................................ Rehabilitation Upgrades or rehabilitation of components to ensure continuation of service 3rd Qtr ........ ......... ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Replacement Full asset or component renewal or replacement 4th Qtr ......... ......... ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 3.8.5 When does the city need to take action? For the purpose of this report ''useful life'' data for each asset class was obtained from the accounting data within the CityWide software database.This proposed useful life is used to determine replacement needs of individual assets,which are calculated in the system as part of the overall financial requirements. Asset Useful Life in Years Asset Type Asset Component Useful Life in Years ............................................_ ..................................... ........... Benches 15 ........................................................................................................................................................................................................... .............................. Equipment. 10, 15,20,25 .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. Fencing 10,25 i.................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Parks Lighting 25 i.......................................................................................................................................................................s............................................................................ Parks&Playgrounds. 10, 15,25 .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. Signage 20 .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Trails 25 ......... ......... ......... ...........................................................................................................................................................€ As field condition information becomes available in time, the data should be loaded into the CityWide system in order to increasingly have a more accurate picture of current asset age and condition, therefore, future replacement requirements.The following graph shows the current projection of water main replacements based on the age of the assets only. 48 Parks Replacement Profile $500,000.00 -� $400,000.00 $300,000.00 $200,000.00 $100,000.00 —� $0.00 —! 2015-2024 2025. -2034 2035-2039 t Benches , Equipment , Fencing Lighting . Parks&Playgrounds , Signage ® Trails 3.8.6 How much money does the city need? The analysis completed to determine capital revenue requirements was based on the following assumptions: 1. Replacement costs are based upon the unit costs identified within the "What is it worth" section above. 2. The timing for individual water main replacement was defined by the replacement year as described in the "When does the city need to take action?" section above. 3. All values are presented in 2015 dollars. 4. The analysis was run for a 25 year period to ensure all assets went through at least one iteration of replacement, therefore providing a sustainable projection. 3.8.7 How does the city reach sustainability? Based upon the above assumptions, the average annual revenue required to sustain Kennedale's parks is approximately$68,000. Based on Kennedale's current annual funding of$0, there is a deficit of$68,000. Given this deficit, the city received a Funding vs. Need rating of 'F'.The following graph presents five year blocks of expenditure requirements against the sustainable funding threshold line. Sustainable Revenue Requirements per Five Year Block $360,000.00 —' $320,000.00 ; $280,000.00 $240,000.00 —; $200,000.00 ; $160,000.00 $L2.0,000.00 $80,000.00 , $40,000.00 $0.00 IL x.. I NEW 2015-2019 2020-2024 2025-2029 2030-2034 2035-2039 Benches , Equipment , Fencing Lighting I Parks&Playgrounds Signage Trails , Average Annual Requirement[Total per Five Year Block] 49 In conclusion, Kennedale's parks are in good to excellent condition, based on assessed condition data. There are needs to be addressed within the next 5 years totaling approximately$100,000. The condition assessment data, along with risk management strategies, should be reviewed together to aid in prioritizing overall needs for rehabilitation and replacement and assist with optimizing the long and short term budgets. Further detail is outlined within the ''asset management strategy'' section of this AMP. 3.8.8 Recommendations The city received an overall rating of 'D' for its Parks, calculated from the Condition vs. Performance and the Funding vs. Need ratings. Accordingly,we recommend the following: • The condition assessment data,along with risk management strategies,should be reviewed together to aid in prioritizing overall needs for rehabilitation and replacement. • An appropriate percentage of asset replacement value should be used for operations and maintenance activities on an annual basis.This should be determined through a detailed analysis of O&M activities and be added to future AMP reporting. • The Infrastructure Report Card should be updated on an annual basis. 50 3. 9 Equipment INFRASTRUCTURE REPORT CARD GRADE ■','�f �TO■Ir 1• a 'f 4 s r 4 e+ �, 51 3.9 Equipment 3.9.1 What does the city own? The inventory components of the equipment class are outlined in the table below. Equipment Inventory T Asset Type Asset Component Quantity/Units ............... Fire 3 ........ ......... ......... ......... ......... ... Police 1 Equipment ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... Streets 15 ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... Information Technology 274 ........ ......... ......... . ........ ......... ......... ......... ......... .... The equipment class data was extracted from the Tangible Capital Asset module of the CityWide software application. 3.9.2 What is it worth? The estimated replacement value of the equipment class, in 2015 dollars, is$488,000.The cost per household for the equipment network is$596 based on 2,380 households. Equipment Replacement Value Asset Type Asset Component Quantity/ i 2015 Unit 2015 Overall Units Replacement Cost Replacement Cost ........ .............. Fire 3 User-Defined $37,379 €.. ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... .....a........ .................................................................................................................................................................... Police 1 User-Defined $1,000 Equipment ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ............................................................................................................................................................................... Streets 15 User-Defined $261,710 .. ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ..,,,,,,,, .................................................................................................................................................................................... Information Technology 274 User-Defined $930,500 $1,230,589 52 The pie chart below provides a breakdown of each of the network components to the overall system value. Equipment Class Components Information Technology:$930,500.00(75.61010) Fire:$37,379.66(3.640/0) streets:$261,71o.40(21.27%a) Police:$1,000.00(0-08-M 3.9.3 What condition is it in? Approximately seventy-six percent of the city's equipment is in poor to critical condition based on replacement cost. As such, the city received a Condition vs. Performance rating of F. Equipment Condition by Replacement Cost $900.000.00 $800,000.00 $700,000.00 $500,000.00 $500,000.00 —' 1 $400,000.00 $300,000.00 $200,000.00 51001000.00 50.00 , Excellent Good =_ ° __= Critical 53 3.9.4 What does the city need hzdohzit? There are generally four distinct phases in an assets life cycle.These are presented at a high level for the equipment class below. Further detail is provided in the ''Asset Management Strategy'' section of this AMP. Addressing Asset Needs Phase Lifecycle Activity Asset Age Minor Maintenance Planned activities such as inspections,monitoring,etc Maintenance and repair activities,generally unplanned,however, Major Maintenance anticipated activities that are included in the annual operating 2nd Qtr Upgrades or rehabilitation of components to ensure continuation of Rehabilitation serviice 3rd Qtr 4th Qtr Replacement Full asset or component renewal or replacement 3.9.5 When does the city need to take action? For the purpose of this report ''useful life'' data for each asset class was obtained from the accounting data within the CityVVide software database.This proposed useful life is used to determine replacement needs of individual assets,which are calculated in the system as part of the overall financial requirements. Asset Useful Life in years Asset Type Asset Component Useful Life in Years Fire 6,20 Police 5 Streets 6-20 Information Technology 3-15 As field condition information becomes available intime, the data should be loaded into the CityVVide system in order to increasingly have a more accurate picture of current asset performance age and, therefore, future replacement requirements.The following graph shows the current projection ofEquipment main replacements based on the age of the asset only. 54 Equipment Replacement Profile $2,600,000.00 �■■ $2,400,000.00 ■ $2,200,000.00 {■ $2,000,000.00 �■ $1,800,000.00 $1,600,000.00 —: $1,400,000.00 7 $1,200,000.00 $1,000,000.00 —: $600,000.00 —: $600,000.00 $400,000.00 ■. $200,000.00 ■ $0.00 �■ 2015-2024 2025-2034 1 Fire a Information Technology Police Struts 3.9.6 How much money does the city need? The analysis completed to determine capital revenue requirements was based on the following assumptions: 1. Replacement costs are based upon the unit costs identified within the "What is it worth" section above. 2. The timing for individual equipment replacement was defined by the replacement year as described in the "When does the city need to take action?" section above. 3. All values are presented in 2015 dollars. 4. The analysis was run for a 20 year period to ensure all assets went through at least one iteration of replacement, therefore providing a sustainable projection. 3.9.7 How does the city reach sustainability? Based upon the above assumptions, the average annual revenue required to sustain Kennedale's equipment class is approximately$225,000. Based on Kennedale's current annual funding of$88,000, there is an annual deficit of$137,000. Given this deficit, the city received a Funding vs. Need rating of 'F'.The following graph presents five year blocks of expenditure requirements against the sustainable funding threshold line. Sustainable Revenue Requirements per Five Year Block $1,400,000.00 -� $1,200,000.00 -; $1,000,000.00 -; $600,000.00 -� $4010=0.00 7 $200,000.00 —1 $0.00 2015-2019 2020-2024 2025-2029 2030-2034 Fire , information Technology Poke . Streets , Average Annual Requirement(Total per Five Year Block) 55 In conclusion, approximately seventy-six percent of the equipment class, from an age based analysis only, is in poor to critical condition.There are replacement needs to be addressed within the next 5 years totaling approximately$1.3 million. A condition assessment program, along with risk management analysis, should be established for these assets to aid in prioritizing overall needs for rehabilitation and replacement and to assist with optimizing the long and short term budgets. 3.9.8 Recommendations The city received an overall rating of 'F' for its Equipment class, calculated from the Condition vs. Performance and the Funding vs. Need ratings. Accordingly,we recommend the following: • A condition assessment program should be established for the Equipment class of assets to gain a better understanding of current condition and performance.This will assist with optimizing expenditures within the long and short term capital budgets. • Once the above study is complete or underway,the condition data should be loaded into the CityWide software and an updated "current state of the infrastructure" analysis should be generated. • An appropriate percentage of asset replacement value should be used for operations and maintenance activities on an annual basis.This should be determined through a detailed analysis of O&M activities and be added to future AMP reporting. • The Infrastructure Report Card should be updated on an annual basis. 56 1 � � R O . Ila y . 1 3.10 Vehicles 3.10.1 What does the city own? The inventory components of the vehicles class are outlined in the table below. Vehicles Inventory Asset Type Asset Component Quantity/Units €.................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................._? Administration 5 .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Fire 8 Vehicles ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................._........................................................................ Police 17 ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Public Works 16 ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ The vehicles class data was extracted from the Tangible Capital Asset module of the CityWide software suite. 3.10.2 What is it worth? The estimated replacement value of the vehicles class, in 2015 dollars, is$1.1 million.The cost per household for the vehicles class is$481 based on 2,380 households. Vehicles Replacement Value Asset Type V Asset Component Quantity/ 2015 Unit 2015 Overall Units Replacement Cost Replacement Cost ........ ......... ....... ........ ......... ...... ......... Administration 5 User-Defined $39,407 .................................................................................................................................................................................................................._.................................................................................................................................................................................... Fire 8 User-Defined $520,739 Vehicles ................................................................................................................................................ Police 17 User-Defined. $327,971 ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Public Works 16 User-Defined $123,509 $1,011,626 58 The pie chart below provides a breakdown of each of the network components to the overall system value. Vehicles Components Fire:$520,739.44(51.446/a) Administration:$39,407.00(3.90.61.) Pubiec Works:$123,509.00(12.2161.) Police:$32.7,971.00(32.42%) 3.10.3 What condition is it in? Nearly forty-two percent of the city's vehicles are in fair to excellent condition,with the remaining in poor to critical condition. As such, the city received a Condition vs. Performance rating of 'D'. Vehicles Condition by Replacement Cost $320,000.00 7 $300,000.00 $280,000.00 $250,000.00 $240,000.00 $2.20,000.00 $200,000.00 $180,000.00 $150,000.00 $140,000.00 $120,000.00 $100,000.00 $80,000.00 $60,000.00 $40,000.00 $20,000.00 $0.00 Exrellent flood Fair Poor Critical 59 3.lO.4 What does the city need hzdohzit? There are generally four distinct phases in an assets life cycle.These are presented at a high level for the vehicles class below. Further detail is provided in the ''Asset Management Strategy'' section of this AMP. Addressing Asset Needs Phase Lifecycle Activity Asset Age Minor Maintenance Planned activities such as inspections,monitoring,etc Maintenance and repair activities-optimally anticipated activities Major Maintenance that are included in the annual operating budget. 2nd Qtr Upgrades or rehabilitation of components to ensure continuation of Rehabilitation serviice 3rd Qtr Replacement Full asset or component renewal or replacement 4th Qtr 3.lO.5 When does the city need to take action? For the purpose of this report ''useful life'' data for each asset class was obtained from the accounting data within the CityVVide software database.This proposed useful life is used to determine replacement needs of individual assets,which are calculated in the system as part of the overall financial requirements. Asset Useful Life in Years Useful Life in Asset Type Asset Component Years Administration 3-20 Fire 5-20 Police 3-8 Public Works 8-12 As field condition information becomes available intime, the data should be loaded into the CityVVide system in order to increasingly have a more accurate picture of current asset performance age and, therefore' future replacement requirements.The following graph shows the current projection of vehicle replacements based on the age of the asset only. 60 Vehicles Replacement Profile $1,600,000.00 —� $1,400,000.00 $1,200,000.00 $1,000,000.00 $s 00,000.00 $6.00,000.00 $400,000.00 ; $200,000.00 ' $0.00 2015-2024 2025-2034 r Administration _ Fire . Police Pu6r Works 3.10.6 How much money does the city need? The analysis completed to determine capital revenue requirements was based on the following assumptions: 1. Replacement costs are based upon the unit costs identified within the "What is it worth" section above. 2. The timing for individual vehicle replacement was defined by the replacement year as described in the "When does the city need to take action?" section above. 3. All values are presented in 2015 dollars. 4. The analysis was run for a 20 year period to ensure all assets went through one iteration of replacement,therefore providing a sustainable projection. 3.10.7 How does the city reach sustainability? Based upon the above assumptions, the average annual revenue required to sustain Kennedale's vehicles class is approximately$142,000. Based on Kennedale's current annual funding of$179,000, there is an annual surplus of$37,000. As such, the city received a Funding vs. Need rating of 'A'. Vehicles Replacement Profile per Five Year Block $900,000.00 $SOO,000.00 $700,000.00 —; $600,000.00 $500,000.00 ; $400,000.00 , $300,000.00 ,• $200,000.00 •; $100,000.00 ■ $0.00 :� 2015-2019 2020-2024 2025-2029 2030-2034 . Administration . Fire , Police Public Works , Average Annual Requirement[Total per Five Year Block] 61 In conclusion, fifty-eight percent of Kennedale's fleet of vehicles, based on age data only, are in poor or critical condition,with the remaining forty-two percent in fair to excellent condition.There are replacement needs to be addressed within the next 5 years totaling approximately$654,000. If not already in place a preventative maintenance and life cycle assessment program should be established for these assets to aid in prioritizing overall needs for rehabilitation and replacement and to assist with optimizing the long and short term budgets. Further detail is outlined within the ''asset management strategy'' section of this AMP. 3.10.8 Recommendations The city received an overall rating of 'C+' for its vehicles class, calculated from the Condition vs. Performance and the Funding vs. Need ratings. Accordingly,we recommend the following: ■ An appropriate percentage of asset replacement value should be used for operations and maintenance activities on an annual basis.This should be determined through a detailed analysis of O&M activities and be added to future AMP reporting. ■ The Infrastructure Report Card should be updated on an annual basis. 62 4.0 Infrastructure Report Card T T Infrastructure Report Card �. Each asset category was rated on two key,equally weighted (50/50) dimensions:Condition vs. Performance,and Funding vs. Need. 2. See the"What condition is it in?"section for each asset category for its star rating on the Condition vs.Performance dimension. 3. See the"How does the city reach sustainability?"section for each asset category for its star rating on the Funding vs.Need dimension. 4. The'Overall Rating'below is the average of the two star ratings converted to a letter grade. Asset Condition vs. Funding vs. Overall Comments Category Performance Need Grade Approximately ninety percent of all streets,based on field condition B F data,is in fair to excellent condition.As a result,the city received a Streets D Condition vs.Performance rating of 'B'.The average annual revenue (4.2 Stars) (o Stars) required to sustain Kennedale's streets is approximately$1,690,000. Based on Kennedale's current annual funding of$287,000,there is an annual deficit of$1,403,000. Based on age based condition,approximately seventy-six percent of the city's water mains are in fair to excellent condition.However,based Water C+ A on replacement value,nearly forty-two percent of the city's buildings Distribution assets are in poor to critical condition.As such,the city received a (3.3Stars) (5 stars) Condition vs.Performance rating of 'C+'.The average annual revenue System required to sustain Kennedale's water distribution system is approximately$385,000. Based on Kennedale's current annual funding of$589,000,there is a surplus of$169,000. Approximately sixty-nine percent of the city's sewer pipes are in fair to Wastewater C F excellent condition,based on age data only.As such,the city received Collection D a Condition vs.Performance rating of 'C'.The average annual revenue (3.3 stars) (1 star) required to sustain Kennedale's wastewater collection system is System approximately$179,000. Based on Kennedale's current annual funding of$80,000,there is an annual deficit of$99,000. Based on assessed condition ratings,eighty-seven percent of the city's stormwater pipes and one hundred percent of culverts are in good to Stormwater B C excellent condition.As such,the city received a Condition vs. Drainage (4.0 Stars) (3 Stars) Performance rating of 'B'.The average annual revenue required to System C sustain Kennedale's stormwater drainage system is approximately $349,000. Based on Kennedale's current annual funding of$265,000, there is an annual defecit of$84,000. 63 Asset Condition vs. Funding vs. Overall Comments Category Performance Need Grade Based on age data only,approximately seventy-nine percent of the city's buildings are in fair to excellent condition.As such,the city Buildings C F received a Condition vs.Performance rating of 'C'.The average (3.5 stars) (o Stars) annual revenue required to sustain Kennedale's buildings is$127,000. Based on Kennedale's current annual funding of$55,000,there is an annual deficit of$72,000. Based on assessed condition data,94 percent of the city's parks are in fair to excellent condition.As such,the city received a Condition vs. Parks B+ F D Performance rating of 'B+'.The average annual revenue required to (4.7 Stars) (o Stars) sustain Kennedale's Parks is approximately$68,000. Based on Kennedale's current annual funding of$0,there is an annual deficit of $68,000. Approximately seventy-six percent of the city's equipment is in poor to critical condition based on replacement cost.As such,the city Equipment F F received a Condition vs.Performance rating of 'F'.The average annual (1.6 Stars) (1 Star) revenue required to sustain Kennedale's equipment class is approximately$225,000. Based on Kennedale's current annual funding of$88,000,there is an annual deficit of$137,000 Nearly forty-one percent of the city's vehicles are in fair to excellent condition,with the remaining in poor to critical condition.As such,the Vehicles D A city received a Condition vs.Performance rating of 'D'.The average C(2.3 stars) (5 stars) + annual revenue required to sustain Kennedale's vehicles class is approximately$142,000. Based on Kennedale's current annual funding of$179,000,there is an annual surplus of$37,000. bd 5.0 Desired Levels of Service Desired levels of service are high level indicators, comprising many factors, as listed below,which establish defined quality thresholds at which municipal services should be supplied to the community.They support the organization's strategic goals and are based on customer expectations, statutory requirements, standards, and the financial capacity of a city to deliver those levels of service. Levels of Service are used: ■ to inform customers of the proposed type and level of service to be offered; ■ to identify the costs and benefits of the services offered; ■ to assess suitability,affordability and equity of the services offered; ■ as a measure of the effectiveness of the asset management plan ■ as a focus for the AM strategies developed to deliver the required level of service In order for a city to establish a desired level of service, it will be important to review the key factors involved in the delivery of that service, and the interactions between those factors. In addition, it will be important to establish some key performance metrics and track them over an annual cycle to gain a better understanding of the current level of service supplied. Within this first Asset Management Plan, key factors affecting level of service will be outlined below and some key performance indicators for each asset type will be outlined for further review.This will provide a framework and starting point from which the city can determine future desired levels of service for each infrastructure class. 5.1 Key factors that influence a level of service: ■ Strategic and Corporate Goals ■ Legislative Requirements ■ Expected Asset Performance ■ Community Expectations ■ Availability of Finances 5.1.1 Strategic and Corporate Goals Infrastructure levels of service can be influenced by strategic and corporate goals. Strategic plans spell out where an organization wants to go, how it's going to get there, and helps decide how and where to allocate resources, ensuring alignment to the strategic priorities and objectives . It will help identify priorities and guide how municipal tax dollars and revenues are spent into the future.The level of importance that a community's vision is dependent upon infrastructure,will ultimately affect the levels of service provided or those levels that it ultimately aspires to deliver. 5.1.2 Legislative Requirements Infrastructure levels of service are directly influenced by many legislative and regulatory requirements. These may be established at the federal, state or local level are all legislative requirements that prevent levels of service from declining below a certain standard. 5.1.3 Expected Asset Performance A level of service will be affected by current asset condition, and performance and limitations in regards to safety, capacity, and the ability to meet regulatory and environmental requirements. In addition, the design life of the asset, the maintenance items required, the rehabilitation or replacement schedule of the asset, and the total costs, are all critical factors that will affect the level of service that can be provided. 5.1.4 Community Expectations Levels of services are directly related to the expectations that the general public has from the infrastructure. For example, the public will have a qualitative opinion on what an acceptable street looks like, and a quantitative one on how long it should take to travel between two locations. Infrastructure costs are projected to increase dramatically in the future, therefore it is essential that the public is not only 65 consulted, but also be educated, and ultimately make choices with respect to the service levels that they wish to pay for. 5.1.5 Availability of Finances Availability of finances will ultimately control all aspects of a desired level of service. Ideally, these funds must be sufficient to achieve corporate goals, meet legislative requirements, address an asset's life cycle needs, and meet community expectations. Levels of service will be dictated by availability of funds, or elected officials' ability to increase funds, or the community's willingness to pay. 5.2 Key Performance Indicators Performance measures or key performance indicators (KPIs) that track levels of service should be specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and timebound (SMART). Many good performance measures can be established and tracked through the CityWide suite of software products. In this way, through automation, results can be reviewed on an annual basis and adjustments can be made to the overall asset management plan, including the desired level of service targets. In establishing measures, a good rule of thumb to remember is that maintenance activities ensure the performance of an asset and prevent premature aging,whereas rehab activities extend the life of an asset. Replacement activities, by definition, renew the life of an asset. In addition, these activities are constrained by resource availability (in particular, finances) and strategic plan objectives.Therefore, performance measures should not just be established for operating and maintenance activities, but also for the strategic, financial, and tactical levels of the asset management program.This will assist all levels of program delivery to review their performance as part of the overall level of service provided. This is a very similar approach to the ''balanced score card'' methodology, in which financial and non- financial measures are established and reviewed to determine whether current performance meets expectations.The ''balanced score card'', by design, links day to day operations activities to tactical and strategic priorities in order to achieve an overall goal, or in this case, a desired level of service. The structure of accountability and level of indicator with this type of process is represented in the following table, modified from the InfraGuide's best practice document, ''Developing Indicators and Benchmarks'' published in April 2003. 66 LEVEL OF INDICATOR MUNICIPAL STRUCTURE WORKS CITY MANAGER PUBLIC DIRECTOR TACTICAL& WATER STREET OPERATIONAL OPERATIONAL 11111111111mr- T DEPARTMENT As a note, a caution should be raised over developing too many performance indicators that may result in data overload and lack of clarity. It is better to develop a select few that focus in on the targets of the asset management plan. Outlined below for each infrastructure class is a suggested service description, suggested service scope, and suggested performance indicators.These should be reviewed and updated in each iteration of the AMP. 67 5.3 Street System 5.3.1 Service Description The city's street system comprises approximately 42 miles of residential and arterial streets. Together, the above infrastructure enables the city to deliver transportation and pedestrian facility services and give people a range of options for moving about in a safe and efficient manner. 5.3.2 Scope of Services ■ Movement-providing for the movement of people and goods. ■ Access-providing access to residential,commercial,and industrial properties and other community amenities. ■ Recreation-providing for recreational use,such as walking,cycling,or special events such as parades. 5.3.3 Performance Indicators (reported annually) Performance Indicators (reported annually) ■ Percentage of total reinvestment compared to asset replacement value Strategic Indicators ■ Completion of strategic plan objectives (related to transportation) ......... ......... ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ■ Annual revenues compared to annual expenditures ■ Annual replacement value depreciation compared to annual expenditures Financial Indicators ■ Total cost of borrowing compared to total cost of service ■ Revenue required to maintain annual network growth ........ ......... ......... ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ ■ Percentage of streets rehabilitated/reconstructed ■ Value of bridge/large culvert structures rehabilitated or reconstructed ■ Overall road condition index as a percentage of desired condition index ■ Overall bridge condition index as a percentage of desired condition index ■ Annual adjustment in condition indexes Tactical Indicators ■ Annual percentage of network growth ■ Percent of paved road lane mile where the condition is rated poor or critical ■ Number of bridge/large culvert structures where the condition is rated poor or critical ■ Percentage of streets replacement value spent on operations and maintenance ■ Percentage of bridge/large culvert structures replacement value spent on operations and maintenance ......... ......... ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ■ Percentage of streets inspected within last 5 years ■ Percentage of bridge/large culvert structures inspected within last two years ■ Operating costs for paved roads per lane mile Operational Indicators ■ Operating costs for gravel roads per lane mile ■ Operating costs for bridge/large culvert structures per square foot ■ Number of resident requests received annually ■ Percentage of resident requests responded to within 24 hours ........ ......... ......... ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ AS 5.4 Water / Wastewater / Stormwater Systems 5.4.1 Service Description The city's water distribution system comprises 48 miles of water main,487 hydrants and various facilities.The wastewater collection system comprises 48 miles of wastewater collection mains. And the stormwater drainage system comprises 3.7 miles of storm main,36 miles of ditches, 200 feet of flume and 201 feet of inlet structures. Together, the above infrastructure enables the city to deliver a potable water distribution service, and a waste water and storm water collection service to the residents of the city. 5.4.2 Scope of services ■ The provision of clean safe drinking water through a distribution system of water mains and pumps. ■ The removal of waste water through a collection system of wastewater collection mains. ■ The removal of storm water through a collection system of stormwater pipes,and catch basins 5.4.3 Performance Indicators (reported annually) Performance Indicators (reported annually) ■ Percentage of total reinvestment compared to asset replacement value Strategic Indicators ■ Completion of strategic plan objectives (related water/sanitary/storm) ......... ......... ■ Annual revenues compared to annual expenditures ■ Annual replacement value depreciation compared to annual expenditures Financial Indicators ■ Total cost of borrowing compared to total cost of service ■ Revenue required to maintain annual network growth ■ Lost revenue from system outages .... ......... ......... ...;,,, ■ Percentage of water/wastewater/stormwater system rehabilitated/reconstructed ■ Overall water/wastewater/stormwater drainage condition index as a percentage of desired condition index ■ Annual adjustment in condition indexes Tactical Indicators ■ Annual percentage of growth in water/wastewater/stormwater drainage ■ Percentage of mains where the condition is rated poor or critical for each system ■ Percentage of water/wastewater/stormwater system replacement value spent on operations and maintenance ........ ......... ......... ..,,, ■ Percentage of water/sanitary/storm network inspected ■ Operating costs for the collection of wastewater per mile of main. ■ Number of wastewater main backups per 100 miles of main ■ Operating costs for storm water management (collection,treatment,and disposal) per mile of drainage system. ■ Operating costs for the distribution/transmission of drinking water per mile of water distribution Operational Indicators pipe. ■ Number of days when a boil water advisory issued by the medical officer of health,applicable to a municipal water supply,was in effect. ■ Number of water main breaks per 100 miles of water distribution pipe in a year. ■ Number of resident requests received annually per water/wastewater/stormwater drainage Percentage of resident requests responded to within 24 hours per water/wastewater/ stormwater drainage ........ ......... ......... ....,,, 69 5.5 Buildings and Facilities 5.5.1 Service Description The City's buildings and facilities enable the City to perform administrative functions and also provide social, cultural, recreational and educational amenities for the community at large. 5.5.2 Scope of services ■ Administrative (offices) ■ Social (community centers) ■ Recreational (recreation centers) ■ Educational (library) 5.5.3 Performance Indicators (reported annually) Performance Indicators (reported annually) ■ Percentage of total reinvestment compared to asset replacement value Strategic Indicators ■ Completion of strategic plan objectives (related to facilities) ....... ......... ......... ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. ■ Annual revenues compared to annual expenditures ■ Annual replacement value depreciation compared to annual expenditures Financial Indicators ■ Repair and maintenance cost per square foot ■ Energy,utility and water cost per square foot ......... ......... ......... ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. ■ Percentage of component value replaced ■ Overall facility condition index as a percentage of desired condition index ■ Annual adjustment in condition indexes Tactical Indicators ■ Annual percentage of new facilities (square feet) ■ Percent of facilities rated poor or critical ■ Percentage of facilities replacement value spent on operations and maintenance ......... ......... ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ■ Percentage of facilities inspected within the last 5 years Operational Indicators ■ Number/type of service requests ■ Percentage of resident requests responded to within 24 hours ......... ......... ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 70 5.6 Parks and Open Spaces 5.6.1 Service Description The City's parks and open spaces and related infrastructure provide recreation and conservation of natural resources, and ultimately contribute to the City's natural form, character and scenic value. 5.6.2 Scope of services ■ Parks&playgrounds ■ Trails ■ Natural Open Spaces 5.6.3 Performance Indicators (reported annually) Performance Indicators (reported annually) ■ Percentage of total reinvestment compared to asset replacement value Strategic Indicators ■ Completion of strategic plan objectives (related to parks) ......... ......... ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ■ Annual revenues compared to annual expenditures ■ Annual replacement value depreciation compared to annual expenditures Financial Indicators ■ Cost per capita for supplying parks/trails,etc. ■ Maintenance cost per square foot ......... ......... ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ■ Overall park condition index as a percentage of desired condition index ■ Annual adjustment in condition indexes ■ Annual percentage of new parkland Tactical Indicators ■ Percent of parkland and infrastructure rated poor or critical ■ Percentage of replacement value spent on operations and maintenance ■ Parkland per capita ......... ......... ......... ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. ■ Percentage of park and infrastructure inspected within the last 5 years Operational Indicators ■ Number/type of service requests ■ Percentage of resident requests responded to within 24 hours ........ ......... ......... ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 71 5.7 Vehicles 5.7.1 Service Description The city's diverse fleet of vehicles provides support to multiple departments as part of their delivery of various public programs and services to the residents. 5.7.2 Performance Indicators (reported annually) Performance Indicators (reported annually) ■ Percentage of total reinvestment compared to asset replacement value Strategic Indicators ■ Completion of strategic plan objectives (related to fleet) ....... ......... ......... ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... • Annual revenues compared to annual expenditures Financial Indicators ■ Annual replacement value depreciation compared to annual expenditures • Operating and maintenance cost per fleet category • Fuel costs per fleet category ....... ......... ......... ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ■ Percentage of all vehicles replaced Tactical Indicators • Average age of fleet vehicles ■ Percent of vehicles rated poor or critical ■ Percentage of fleet replacement value spent on operations and maintenance ........ ......... ......... ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ ■ Average downtime per fleet category ■ Average utilization per fleet category and/or each vehicle Operational Indicators ■ Ratio of preventative maintenance repairs vs reactive repairs ■ Percent of vehicles that received preventative maintenance ■ Number/type of service requests ■ Percentage of resident requests responded to within 24 hours ....... ......... ......... ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 72 6.0 Asset Management Strategy 6.1 Objective To outline and establish a set of planned actions, based on best practice, that will enable the assets to provide a desired and sustainable level of service,while managing risk, at the lowest life cycle cost. The Asset Management Strategy will develop an implementation process that can be applied to the needs identification and prioritization of replacement, rehabilitation, and maintenance activities.This will assist in the production of a 10 year plan, including growth projections, to ensure the best overall health and performance of the city's infrastructure. This section includes an overview of condition assessment techniques for each asset class; the life cycle interventions required, including interventions with the best ROI; and prioritization techniques, including risk, to determine which priority projects should move forward into the budget first. 6.2 Non-Infrastructure Solutions and Requirements The city should explore which non-infrastructure solutions should be incorporated into the budgets for all programs within this AMP. Non-Infrastructure solutions are such items as studies, policies, condition assessments, consultation exercises, etc., that could potentially extend the life of assets or lower total asset program costs in the future. Typical solutions for a city include linking the asset management plan to the strategic plan, growth and demand management studies, infrastructure master plans, better integrated infrastructure and land use planning, public consultation on levels of service, and condition assessment programs. As part of future asset management plans, a review of these requirements should take place, and a portion of the capital budget should be dedicated for these items in each programs budget. It is recommended, under this category of solutions, that the city implement holistic condition assessment programs for all asset categories.This will lead to greater understanding of infrastructure needs, enhanced budget prioritization methodologies, and at the defined path required to achieve sustainable infrastructure programs. 6.3 Condition Assessment Programs The foundation of good asset management practice is based on having comprehensive and reliable information on the current condition of the infrastructure. Municipalities need to have a clear understanding regarding performance and condition of their assets, as all management decisions regarding future expenditures and field activities should be based on this knowledge. An incomplete understanding about an asset may lead to its premature failure or premature replacement. Some benefits of holistic condition assessment programs within the overall asset management process are listed below: ■ Understanding of overall system condition leads to better management practices ■ Allows for the establishment of rehabilitation programs ■ Prevents future failures and provides liability protection ■ Potential reduction in operation/maintenance costs ■ Accurate current asset valuation ■ Allows for the establishment of risk assessment programs ■ Establishes proactive repair schedules and preventive maintenance programs ■ Avoids unnecessary expenditures ■ Extends asset service life therefore improving level of service 73 ■ Improves financial transparency and accountability ■ Enables accurate asset reporting which,in turn,enables better decision making Condition assessment can involve different forms of analysis such as subjective opinion, mathematical models, or variations thereof, and can be completed through a very detailed or very cursory approach. When establishing the condition assessment of an entire asset class, the cursory approach (metrics such as good, fair, poor, critical) is used.This will be a less expensive approach when applied to thousands of assets, yet will still provide up to date information, and will allow for detailed assessment or follow up inspections on those assets captured as poor or critical condition later. The following section outlines condition assessment programs available for road, bridge,wastewater, and water distribution systems that would be useful for the city. 6.3.1 Pavement Network Inspections Typical industry pavement inspections are performed by consulting firms using specialised assessment vehicles equipped with various electronic sensors and data capture equipment.The vehicles will drive the entire street network and typically collect two different types of inspection data-surface distress data and roughness data. Surface distress data involves the collection of multiple industry standard surface distresses,which are captured either electronically, using sensing detection equipment mounted on the van, or visually, by the van's inspection crew. Examples of surface distresses are: ■ For asphalt surfaces alligator cracking;distortion;excessive crown;flushing;longitudinal cracking;map cracking;patching;edge cracking; potholes;ravelling;rippling;transverse cracking;wheel track rutting ■ For concrete surfaces coarse aggregate loss;corner'C'and'D'cracking;distortion;joint faulting;joint sealant loss;joint spalling;linear cracking; patching;polishing;potholes;ravelling;scaling;transverse cracking Roughness data capture involves the measurement of the roughness of the road, measured by lasers that are mounted on the inspection van's bumper, calibrated to an international roughness index. Most firms will deliver this data to the client in a database format complete with engineering algorithms and weighting factors to produce an overall condition index for each segment of roadway.This type of scoring database is ideal for upload into the CityWide software database, in order to tag each road with a present condition and then further life cycle analysis to determine what activity should be completed on which road, in what timeframe, and to calculate the cost for the work will be completed within the CityWide system. The above process is an excellent way to capture road condition as the inspection trucks will provide detailed surface and roughness data for each road segment, and often include video or street imagery. A very rough industry estimate of cost would be about$160 per linear mile of road,which means it would cost the city approximately$5,440 for the 42 centerline miles of streets. Another option for a cursory level of condition assessment is for municipal road crews to perform simple windshield surveys as part of their regular patrol. Many municipalities have created data collection inspection forms to assist this process and to standardize what presence of defects would constitute a good, fair, poor, or critical score. Lacking any other data for the complete street network, this can still be seen as a good method and will assist greatly with the overall management of the streets.The CityWide Works software has a road patrol component built in that could capture this type of inspection data during road patrols in the field, enabling later analysis of rehabilitation and replacement needs for budget development. It is recommended that the city establish a pavement condition assessment program and that a portion of capital funding is dedicated to this. 74 6.3.2 Bridges & Culverts (greater than 10 feet) Inspections Structure inspections must be performed by, or under the guidance of, a structural engineer, should be performed on a biennial basis (once every two years), and include such information as structure type, number of spans,span lengths, other key attribute data, detailed photo images, and structure element by element inspection, rating and recommendations for repair, rehabilitation, and replacement. The best approach to develop a 10 year needs list for the city's structure portfolio would be to have the structural engineer who performs the inspections to develop a maintenance requirements report, and rehabilitation and replacement requirements report as part of the overall assignment. In addition to refining the overall needs requirements, the structural engineer should identify those structures that will require more detailed investigations and non-destructive testing techniques. Examples of these investigations are: ■ Detailed deck condition survey ■ Non-destructive delamination survey of asphalt covered decks ■ Substructure condition survey ■ Detailed coating condition survey ■ Underwater investigation ■ Fatigue investigation ■ Structure evaluation Through the inspections and additional detailed investigations, a 10 year needs list will be developed for the city's bridges. The 10 year needs list developed could then be further prioritized using risk management techniques to better allocate resources. Also, the results of the inspections for each structure,whether BCI (bridge condition index) or general condition (good, fair, poor, critical) should be entered into the CityWide software to update results and analysis for the development of the budget. 6.3.3 Wastewater System Inspections (Wastewater& Stormwater) The most popular and practical type of wastewater and storm pipe assessment is the use of Closed Circuit Television Video (CCTV).The process involves a small robotic crawler vehicle with a CCTV camera attached that is lowered down a maintenance hole into the sewer line to be inspected.The vehicle and camera then travels the length of the pipe providing a live video feed to a truck on the road above where a technician/inspector records defects and information regarding the pipe. A wide range of construction or deterioration problems can be captured including open/displaced joints, presence of roots, infiltration & inflow, cracking,fracturing, exfiltration, collapse, deformation of pipe and more.Therefore,sewer CCTV inspection is a very good tool for locating and evaluating structural defects and general condition of underground pipes. Even though CCTV is an excellent option for inspection of sewers it is a fairly costly process and does take significant time to inspect a large volume of pipes. Another option in the industry today is the use of Zoom Camera equipment.This is very similar to traditional CCTV, however, a crawler vehicle is not used but in it's a place a camera is lowered down a maintenance hole attached to a pole like piece of equipment.The camera is then rotated towards each connecting pipe and the operator above progressively zooms in to record all defects and information about each pipe.The downside to this technique is the further down the pipe the image is zoomed, the less clarity is available to accurately record defects and measurement.The upside is the process is far quicker and significantly less expensive and an assessment of the manhole can be provided as well. Also, it is important to note that eighty percent of pipe deficiencies generally occur within 65 feet of each manhole.The following is a list of advantages of utilizing Zoom Camera technology: ■ A time and cost efficient way of examining wastewater systems; ■ Problem areas can be quickly targeted; ■ Can be complemented by a conventional camera (CCTV),if required afterwards; ■ In a normal environment,20 to 30 manholes can be inspected in a single day,covering approximately 1 mile of pipe; ■ Contrary to the conventional camera approach,cleaning and upstream flow control is not required prior to inspection; ■ Normally detects eighty percent of pipe deficiencies,as most deficiencies generally occur within 65 feet of manholes. 75 The following table is based on general industry costs for traditional CCTV inspection and Zoom Camera inspection; however, costs should be verified through local contractors. It is for illustrative purposes only but supplies a general idea of the cost to inspect Kennedale's entire wastewater and stormwater. Wastewater Inspection Cost Estimates Wastewater Assessment Activity Cost Metres of Main/#of Manholes Total System Full CCTV $3 (per ft) 255,922 feet $767,766 Wastewater .............................................................................................:................................................................................................;................................................................................................................................................. ..................................; Zoom $300 (per mh) 984 manholes* $295,200 ?................ ..........................................o.............................................................................................s................................................................................................o...............................................................................................................................................................................................................? stormwater Full CCTV $3 (per m) 19,872 feet $59,616 ..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................! Zoom $300 (Per mh) 76 manholes* $22,800 * Manhole numbers estimated based on one man hole per 260 feet It can be seen from the above table that there is a significant cost savings achieved through the use of Zoom Camera technology. A good industry trend and best practice is to inspect the entire system using Zoom Camera technology and follow up on the poor and critical rated pipes with more detail using a full CCTV inspection. In this way, inspection expenditures are kept to a minimum, however, an accurate assessment on whether to rehabilitate or replace pipes will be provided for those with the greatest need. It is recommended that the city establish a wastewater condition assessment program and that a portion of capital funding is dedicated to this. In addition to receiving a video and defect report of each pipe's CCTV or Zoom camera inspection, many companies can now provide a database of the inspection results, complete with scoring matrixes that provide an overall general condition score for each pipe segment that has been assessed.Typically pipes are scored from 1 -5,with 1 being a relatively new pipe and 5 being a pipe at the end of its design life.This type of scoring database is ideal for upload into the CityWide software database, in order to tag each pipe with a present condition and then further life cycle analysis to determine what activity should be done to which pipe, in what timeframe, and to calculate the cost for the work will be completed by the CityWide system. 6.3.4 Water Distribution System inspections Unlike wastewater pipes, it is very difficult to inspect water pipes from the inside due to the high pressure flow of water constantly underway within the water distribution system. Physical inspections require a disruption of service to residents, can be an expensive exercise, and are time consuming to set up. It is recommended practice that physical inspection of water pipes typically only occurs for high risk, large transmission pipes within the system, and only when there is a requirement.There are a number of high tech inspection techniques in the industry for large diameter pipes but these should be researched first for applicability as they are quite expensive. Examples are: ■ Remote eddy field current (RFEC) ■ Ultrasonic and acoustic techniques ■ Impact echo (IE) ■ Georadar For the majority of pipes within the distribution system gathering key information in regards to the pipe and its environment can supply the best method to determine a general condition. Key data that could be used, along with weighting factors, to determine an overall condition score are listed below. ■ Age ■ Material Type ■ Breaks ■ Hydrant Flow Inspections ■ Soil Condition 76 Understanding the age of the pipe will determine useful life remaining, however,water pipes fail for many other reasons than just age.The pipe material is important to know as different pipe types have different design lives and different deterioration profiles. Keeping a water main break history is one of the best analysis tools to predict future pipe failures and to assist with programming rehabilitation and replacement schedules. Also, most municipalities perform hydrant flow tests for fire flow prevention purposes.The readings from these tests can also help determine condition of the associated water main. If a hydrant has a relatively poor flow condition it could be indicative of a high degree of encrustation within the attached water main,which could then be flagged as a candidate for cleaning or possibly lining. Finally, soil condition is important to understand as certain soil types can be very aggressive at causing deterioration on certain pipe types. It is recommended that the city develop a rating system for the mains within the distribution system based on the availability of key data, and that funds are budgeted for this development. Also, it is recommended that the city utilize the CityWide Works application to track water main break work orders and hydrant flow inspection readings as a starting point to develop a future scoring database for each water main. 6.3.5 Facility inspections The most popular and practical type of facility assessment involves qualified groups of trained industry professionals (engineers or architects) performing an analysis of the condition of a group of facilities, and their components, that may vary in terms of age, design, construction methods, and materials.This analysis can be done by walk-through inspection, mathematical modeling, or a combination of both. But the most accurate way of determining the condition requires a walk-through to collect baseline data. The following 5 asset classifications are typically inspected: ■ Site Components-property around the facility and includes the outdoor components such as utilities,signs,stairways, walkways,parking lots,fencing,courtyards and landscaping. ■ Structural Components-physical components such as the foundations,walls,doors,windows,roofs. ■ Electrical Components-all components that use or conduct electricity such as wiring,lighting,electric heaters,and fire alarm systems ■ Mechanical Components-components that convey and utilize all non-electrical utilities within a facility such as natural gas pipes,furnaces,plumbing,ventilation,and fire extinguishing systems ■ Vertical movement-components used for moving people between floors of buildings such as elevators. The data collection on the above components typically includes: type and category of component; estimated age; current condition; estimated repair, rehabilitation or replacement date; and estimated cost for the repair, rehabilitation or replacement. Once collected this type of information can be uploaded into the CityWide software database in order for short and long term repair, rehabilitation and replacement reports to be generated to assist with programming the short and long term maintenance and capital budgets. In addition, reports can be generated for each facility that accumulate all current repair, rehabilitation and replacement requirements and generate a facility condition index (FCI) for the overall facility.This allows senior management to assess the overall state of the facilities portfolio and determine which facilities have the greatest overall needs. The FCI of a facility is represented as a percentage and is calculated by taking the total replacement costs of components in a given year and dividing that figure by the total replacement value of the facility itself. A high FCI value reflects a high replacement requirement and therefore a poor condition facility. A facility with an FCI of less than 5%is in good condition, between 5%and 10%is in fair condition, between 10%and 30% poor condition, and over 30%is considered critical condition. 77 F. C. I. = Replacement Requirement in a Given Year (Facility Condition Index) Replacement Value of an Asset Good <5%, Fair 5- 10%, Poor 10%-30%, Critical >30% 6.3.6 Parks and Open Spaces There is currently no industry standard in place for the process or protocols in regards to the inspection of parks and their associated infrastructure. However, through the emergence of asset management as a discipline within North America, many municipalities are inspecting their parks with a similar approach to that of a facility condition inspection.The approach works well because the inspection is completed on a component by component basis. A facility has an external shell with many internal components that have unique life cycle requirements (i.e. foundation,windows, HVAC unit, etc.) and a park has an external boundary containing many internal components with unique life cycle requirements also (i.e. fences, pathways, bleachers, sport fields, etc.). The park inspection will involve qualified groups of trained industry professionals (engineers or landscape architects) performing an analysis of the condition of a group of parks and their components.The most accurate way of determining the condition requires a walk-through to collect baseline data. The following key asset classifications are typically inspected: ■ Physical Site Components-physical components on the site of the park such as: fences,utilities,stairways,walkways, parking lots,irrigation systems,monuments,fountains. ■ Recreation Components-physical components such as: playgrounds,bleachers,back stops,splash pads,and benches. ■ Land Site Components-land components on the site of the park such as:landscaping,sports fields,trails,natural areas, and associated drainage systems. ■ Minor Park Facilities-small facilities within the park site such as:sun shelters,washrooms,concession stands,change rooms,storage sheds. The data collection on the above components typically includes: type and category of component; estimated life cycle; estimated age; current condition; estimated repair, rehabilitation or replacement date; and estimated cost for the repair, rehabilitation or replacement. Once collected this type of information can be uploaded into the CityWide software database in order for short and long term repair, rehabilitation and replacement reports to be generated to assist with programming the short and long term maintenance and capital budgets. In addition, reports can be generated for each park that accumulate all current repair, rehabilitation and replacement requirements and generate a park condition index (PCI) for the overall park.This allows senior management to assess the overall state of the park portfolio and determine which parks have the greatest overall needs. The PCI of a park is represented as a percentage and is calculated by taking the total replacement costs of components in a given year and dividing that figure by the total replacement value of the park itself. A high PCI value reflects a high replacement requirement and therefore a poor condition park. A park with an PCI of less than 5%is in good condition, between 5%and 10%is in fair condition, between 10%and 30%poor condition, and over 30%is considered critical condition. 78 P. C. I. = Replacement Requirement in a Given Year (Park Condition Index) Replacement Value of an Asset Good <5%, Fair 5— 10%, Poor 10%-30%, Critical >30% 6.3.7 Fleet Inspections and Maintenance The typical approach to optimizing the maintenance expenditures of a city fleet of vehicles is through routine vehicle inspections, routine vehicle servicing, and an established routine preventative maintenance program. Most, if not all, makes and models of vehicles are supplied with maintenance manuals that define the appropriate schedules and routines for typical maintenance and servicing and also more detailed restoration or rehabilitation protocols. The primary goal of good vehicle maintenance is to avoid or mitigate the consequence of failure of equipment or parts. An established preventative maintenance program serves to ensure this, as it will consist of scheduled inspections and follow up repairs of vehicles and equipment in order to decrease breakdowns and excessive downtimes. A good preventative maintenance program will include partial or complete overhauls of equipment at specific periods, including oil changes, lubrications,fluid changes and so on. In addition,workers can record equipment or part deterioration so they can schedule to replace or repair worn parts before they fail.The ideal preventative maintenance program would move further and further away from reactive repairs and instead towards the prevention of all equipment failure before it occurs. Once a good preventative maintenance program is defined and scheduled for various categories and types of vehicles it becomes essential to have good software tools to track the scheduling and performance of the overall program.There are municipal maintenance software programs,such as CityWide, that are ideal for this purpose as they are designed to enable public works departments to prioritize,schedule and track projects including preventative maintenance schedules. In addition these software applications typically calculate resources utilized, inventory consumed, as well as direct and indirect labour, and will provide full management reporting. It is recommended that a preventative maintenance routine is defined and established for all fleet vehicles and that a software application such as Citywide is utilized for the overall management of the program. 79 6.4 AM Strategy - Life Cycle Analysis Framework An industry review was conducted to determine which life cycle activities can be applied at the appropriate time in an asset's life, to provide the greatest additional life at the lowest cost. In the asset management industry, this is simply put as doing the right thing to the right asset at the right time. If these techniques are applied across entire asset networks or portfolios (e.g., all streets), the city could gain the best overall asset condition while expending the lowest total cost for those programs. 6.4.1 Streets The following analysis has been conducted at a fairly high level, using industry standard activities and costs for streets. With future updates of this Asset Management Strategy, the city may wish to run the same analysis with a detailed review of city activities used for roads and the associated local costs for those work activities. All of this information can be input into the CityWide software suite in order to perform updated financial analysis as more detailed information becomes available. The following diagram depicts a general deterioration profile of a road with a 30 year life. Excellent-Maintenance 100 - - - - - - - - - - - I I I Good-Preventative Maintenance 75 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I I o I I Fair-Rehabilitation 50 I- - - - - - - - - - - - C I 0 I I I I 25 I- - - - Poor_Replace I I I I I 0 Years of Service 30 years As shown above, during the street's life cycle there are various windows available for work activity that will maintain or extend the life of the asset.These windows are: maintenance; preventative maintenance; rehabilitation; and replacement or reconstruction. an The windows cx thresholds for when certain work activities should be applied to also coincide approximately with the condition state of the asset as shown below: Asset Condition and Related Work Activity: Streets Condition Condition Range Work Activity Excellent condition (Maintenance only phase) 100-76 maintenance only crack sealing Good Condition (Preventative maintenance phase) 75-51 emulsions resurface-mill &pave resurface-asphalt overlay Fair Condition (Rehabilitation phase) 50-26 single&double surface treatment (for rural reconstruct-pulverize and pave Poor Condition (Reconstruction phase) 25-1 reconstruct-full surface and base reconstruction 0 critical includes assets beyond their useful Critical Condition (Reconstruction phase) 0 lives which make up the backlog.They require the same interventions as the ,,poor" category above. With future updates of this Asset Management Strategy the city may wish to review the above condition ranges and thresholds for when certain types of work activity occur, and adjust to better suit the city's work program. Also note:when adjusting these thresholds, it actually adjusts the level ofservice provided and ultimately changes the amount of money required.These threshold and condition ranges can be easily updated with the CityWide software suite and an updated financial analysis can be calculated.These adjustments will be an important component of future Asset Management Plans, as the Province requires each city to present various management options within the financing plan. The table below outlines the costs for various street activities' the added life obtained for each, the condition range at which they should be applied, and the cost of l year added life for each (cost of activity/ added life) in order to present an apples to apples comparison. Local unit costs may vary and as such this analysis b for illustrative purposes only. ---- � Street iifeoyo|e Activity Options ' Treatment Av- -~- - ' Cost A---- -- Condition Cost of Activity/Added Life (pe,,q.foot) (Years) Range Urban Reconstruction $62 30 25-0 $2.07 Urban Resurfacing $25 Rural Reconstruction $40 30 25-0 $1.34 Rural Resurfacing $12 15 50-26 $0.8 Double Surface Treatment $8 10 50-26 $0.8 81 As can be seen in the table above, preventative maintenance activities such as routing and crack sealing have the lowest associated cost (per sq.foot) in order to obtain one year of added life. Of course, preventative maintenance activities can only be applied to a road at a relatively early point in the life cycle. It is recommended that the city engage in an active preventative maintenance program for all streets and that a portion of the maintenance budget is allocated to this. Also, rehabilitation activities, such as urban and rural resurfacing or double surface treatments (tar and chip) for rural roads have a lower cost to obtain each year of added life than full reconstruction activities. It is recommended, if not in place already, that the city engages in an active rehabilitation program for urban and rural streets and that a portion of the capital budget is dedicated to this. Of course, in order to implement the above programs it will be important to also establish a general condition score for each road segment, established through standard condition assessment protocols as previously described. It is important to note that a ''worst first'' budget approach,whereby no life cycle activities other than reconstruction at the end of a roads life are applied, will result in the most costly method of managing streets overall. 6.4.2 Wastewater and Stormwater The following analysis has been conducted at a fairly high level, using industry standard activities and costs for wastewater and stormwater rehabilitation and replacement. With future updates of this asset management strategy, the city may wish to run the same analysis with a detailed review of city activities used for wastewater pipes and the associated local costs for those work activities. All of this information can be input into the CityWide software suite in order to perform updated financial analysis as more detailed information becomes available. The following diagram depicts a general deterioration profile of a wastewater pipe with a 100 year life. Excellent -Maintenance 100 - - - - - - - - - - - I I I Good-Major Maintenance 75 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I I o I I Fair- Rehabilitation - - :a 50 - - - - - - - - - - I C U I I I I Poor- Replace 25 I- - - - - - - - - - I I I I I 0 Years of Service 100 years As shown above, during the wastewater pipe's life cycle there are various windows available for work activity that will maintain or extend the life of the asset.These windows are: maintenance; major maintenance; rehabilitation; and replacement or reconstruction. 82 The windows cx thresholds for when certain work activities should be applied also coincide approximately with the condition state of the asset as shown below: Asset Condition and Related Work Activity: Wastewater Pipes Condition Condition Work Activity Range Excellent condition (Maintenance only phase) 100-76 maintenance only(cleaning &flushing etc.) mahhole repairs Good Condition (Preventative maintenance phase) 75-51 small pipe section repairs Fair Condition (Rehabilitation phase) 50-26 structural relining Poor Condition (Reconstruction phase) 25- 1 pipe replacement critical includes assets beyond their useful lives which Critical Condition (Reconstruction phase) 0 make up the backlog.They require the same interventions as the "poor" category above. With future updates of this Asset Management Strategy the city may wish to review the above condition ranges and thresholds for when certain types of work activity occur, and adjust to better suit the city's work program. Also note:when adjusting these thresholds, it actually adjusts the level ofservice provided and ultimately changes the amount of money required.These threshold and condition ranges can be easily updated with the CityWide software suite and an updated financial analysis can be calculated.These adjustments will be an important component of future Asset Management Plans, as the province requires each city to present various management options within the financing plan. The table below outlines the costs, by pipe diameter,for various wastewater pipe rehabilitation (lining) and replacement activities.The columns display the added life obtained for each activity, the condition range at which they should be applied, and the cost of l year added life for each (cost of activity/ added life) in order to present an apples to apples comparison. Wastewater pipe Lifecycle Activity Options Cost (per Category Added Life Condition Range I year Added Life Cost (Cost Added Life) Structural Rehab (foot) Replacement (foot) As can be seen in the above table, structural rehabilitation or lining of wastewater pipes is an extremely cost effective industry activity and solution for pipes with a diameter less than 25 inches.The unit cost of lining is approximately one half of replacement and the cost to obtain one year of added life is half the cost. For Kennecale, this diameter range would account for over one hundred percent of wastewater 83 collection pipes and approximately sixty-five percent of stormwater pipes.Structural lining has been proven through industry testing to have a design life (useful life) of 75 years. However, it is believed that liners will probably obtain 100 years of life (the same as a new pipe). For wastewater pipes with diameters greater than 25 inches specialized liners are required and therefore the costs are no longer effective. It should be noted, however, that the industry is continually expanding its technology in this area and therefore future costs should be further reviewed for change and possible price reductions. It is recommended, if not in place already, that the city engage in an active structural lining program for wastewater and stormwater pipes and that a portion of the capital budget be dedicated to this. In order to implement the above, it will be important to also establish a condition assessment program to establish a condition score for each wastewater pipe within the wastewater and stormwater collection system, and therefore identify which pipes are good candidates for structural lining. 6.4.3 Bridges & Culverts (greater than 3m span) The best approach to develop a 10 year needs list for the city's bridge structure portfolio would be to have the structural engineer who performs the inspections to develop a maintenance requirements report, a rehabilitation and replacement requirements report and identify additional detailed inspections as required.This approach is described in more detail within the ''Bridges & Culverts (greater than 3m) Inspections'' section above. 6.4.4 Water Distribution System As with streets and wastewater above, the following analysis has been conducted at a fairly high level, using industry standard activities and costs for water main rehabilitation and replacement. The following diagram depicts a general deterioration profile of a water main with an 80 year life. Excellent -Maintenance 100 — — — — — — — — — - I I Good—Major Maintenance 1 I °— 1 1 Fair— Rehabilitation Y 1—50 — — — — — — — — — U I I 25 L 1 I Poor— Replace I I I I 0 I Years of Service 80 years As shown above, during the water pipe's life cycle there are various windows available for work activity that will maintain or extend the life of the asset.These windows are: maintenance; major maintenance; rehabilitation; and replacement or reconstruction. 84 The windows cx thresholds for when certain work activities should be applied also coincide approximately with the condition state of the asset as shown below: Asset Condition and Related Work Activity: Water Distribution Pipes Condition Condition Work Activity Range excellent condition (Maintenance only phase) 100-76 maintenance only(cleaning &flushing etc.) water main break repairs good Condition (Preventative maintenance phase) 75-51 small pipe section repairs fair Condition (Rehabilitation phase) 50-26 structural water main relining poor Condition (Reconstruction phase) 25- 1 pipe replacement critical includes assets beyond their useful lives which critical Condition (Reconstruction phase) 0 make up the backlog.They require the same interventions as the "poor" category above. Unlike wastewater rehabilitation technologies,water rehabilitation technologies still require some digging (known as low dig technologies, due to lack of access) and are actually more expensive on a life cycle basis.Therefore the costs of these activities have not been projected within this report. However, if the road above the water pipe is in good condition lining avoids the cost of road reconstruction still resulting in a cost effective solution. It should be noted, that the industry is continually expanding its technology in this area and therefore future costs should be further reviewed for change and possible price reductions. At this time, it is recommended that the city only utilize water main structural lining when the road above requires rehabilitation or no work. 6.4.5 Buildings and Facilities The best approach to develop a 10 year needs list for the city's facility portfolio would be to have the engineers or architects who perform the facility inspections to also develop a complete portfolio maintenance requirements report and rehabilitation and replacement requirements report, and also identify additional detailed inspections and follow upstudies as required.This may be performed as a separate assignment once all individual facility audits/ inspections are complete. (]f course, ifthe inspection data is housed or uploaded into the CityWide software, then these reports can be produced automatically from the system. The above reports could be considered the beginning of a 10 year maintenance and capital plan, however,within the facilities industry there are other key factors that should be considered to determine over all priorities and future expenditures. Some examples would be functional/ legislative requirements, energy conservation programs and upgrades, customer complaints and health and safety concerns, and also customer expectations balanced with willingness to pay initiatives. Legislative requirements: Texas Accessibility standards will govern many functional aspects of facility upgrades, renewal or new construction.Therefore policies, practices and procedures on providing goods and services to people with disabilities should be reviewed as part of the lO year plan. Building Codes are established to protect public health, safety and general welfare as they relate to the construction and occupancy ofbuildings and structures. Building code requirements will become part of the 10 year plan. The initial 10 year requirements listings produced from the facility audits/inspections should be reviewed to ensure capital replacements and upgrades are compliant with industry standards and legislation and project prioritizations and estimates should be adjusted accordingly. Energy Conservation There are significant savings to be achieved within a facility portfolio through the implementation of energy conservation programs and the associated industry incentives available upon the market.Some examples would be: Mechanical &Structural components ■ Improve mechanical systems by replacing old inefficient systems (e.g HVAC,boilers)with new high efficiency systems; investigate if incentives for these improvements are available from utilities,federal government,etc. ■ Investigate the tightness and insulation of the building envelope in all properties and develop programs for improvement ■ Reduce solar gain through windows with awnings or landscaping. ■ Replace/upgrade all toilets with high efficiency toilets Electrical components ■ Install occupancy sensors ■ Implement energy efficiency lighting using compact fluorescent light bulbs and install timers where appropriate to control outside lights ■ Install fully programmable thermostats within all housing units Energy conservation should be studied in detail for the entire facilities portfolio and upgrade and replacement programs should be implemented through the capital program as part of the 10 year plan. Resident expectation and affordability or willingness to pay As discussed within the ''Desired Levels of Service'' section of this AMP, levels of service are directly related to the expectations of the customer and also their ability to pay for a level of service. Community facilities, such as recreation centers, in-door pools, senior centers, etc. are infrastructure service areas where customer surveys can be conducted to gain a better sense of what customer expectations are and to assist in the establishment of a standard level of provision or service. Information could be collected on:safety; security; esthetics; environment; comfort; affordability; cleanliness; functional use of space; etc. This would require a much more detailed review, however, the establishment of a level of service based on customer needs and expectations,while still balancing affordability,would directly affect the prioritization of programs and projects brought forward into the 10 year facility budget. It is recommended that the city develop a life cycle framework for the facility portfolio based on a detailed review of the above factors and that the results are brought forward into future iterations of this AMP. 6.4.6 Parks and Open Spaces The best approach to develop a 10 year needs list for the city's park and open space portfolio would be to have the engineers or landscape architects who perform the park inspections to also develop a complete portfolio maintenance requirements report and rehabilitation and replacement requirements report, and also identify additional detailed inspections and follow up studies as required.This may be performed as a separate assignment once all individual park audits/ inspections are complete. Of course, if the inspection data is housed or uploaded into the CityWide software, then these reports can be produced automatically from the system. It is important to note that the land site components within a park, trails and sports fields for instance, do not typically require full replacement, but instead a properly defined perpetual maintenance program that provides a defined level of service balanced to the overall use of those facilities.This could be provided as a separate assignment from a professionally trained landscape architect. 86 6.4.7 Vehicles Life Cycle Requirements The best approach to develop a 10 year needs list for the city's vehicles would first be through a defined preventative maintenance program as described in the ''Fleet inspections and maintenance section'', and secondly through an optimized life cycle vehicle replacement schedule. As previously described, the preventative maintenance program would serve to determine budget requirements for operating and minor capital expenditures for part renewal and major refurbishments and rehabilitations. An optimized vehicle replacement program will ensure a vehicle is replaced at the correct point in time in order to minimize overall cost of ownership, minimize costly repairs and downtime,while maximizing potential re-sale value.There is significant benchmarking information available within the Fleet industry in regards to vehicle life cycles which can be used to assist in this process. Once appropriate replacement schedules are established the short and long term budgets can be funded accordingly. Fleet Utilization One of the most critical factors in managing a fleet of vehicles and the associated costs is utilization. Over utilized vehicles may be used for additional shifts or operated in demanding environments while other vehicles are significantly under-utilized.To ensure preventative maintenance programs and vehicle replacement schedules are optimized,vehicle utilization must be managed and tracked. A good performance indicator to assist with managing fleet utilization is tracking engine hours of actual vehicle usage,whether it's being driven or not, as miles driven is not always a meaningful way to assess whether a vehicle is being utilized fully. Better management of utilization can lower costs by reducing preventative maintenance for some vehicles,selling certain vehicles, encouraging vehicle pooling, outsourcing the use of certain vehicle types, and encouraging the use of employee vehicles. 87 6.5 Growth and Demand Typically a city will have specific plans associated with population growth. It is essential that the asset management strategy should address not only the existing infrastructure, as above, but must include the impact of projected growth on defined project schedules and funding requirements. Projects would include the funding of the construction of new infrastructure, and/or the expansion of existing infrastructure to meet new demands.The city should enter these projects into the CityWide software in order to be included within the short and long term budgets as required. 6.6 Project Prioritization The above techniques and processes when established for the road,water distribution,wastewater collection systems will supply a significant listing of potential projects.Typically the infrastructure needs will exceed available resources and therefore project prioritization parameters must be developed to ensure the right projects come forward into the short and long range budgets. An important method of project prioritization is to rank each project, or each piece of infrastructure, on the basis of how much risk it represents to the organization. 6.6.1 Risk Matrix and Scoring Methodology Risk within the infrastructure industry is often defined as the probability (likelihood) of failure multiplied by the consequence of that failure. LIKELIHOOD RISK = OF • • OF The likelihood of failure relates to the current condition state of each asset,whether they are in excellent, good, fair, poor or critical condition, as this is a good indicator regarding their future risk of failure.The consequence of failure relates to the magnitude, or overall effect, that an asset's failure will cause. For instance, a small diameter water main break in a sub division may cause a few customers to have no water service for a few hours,whereby a large trunk water main break outside a hospital could have disastrous effects. The following table represents the scoring matrix for risk: High 17 Assets 24 Assets A..ts 1 Asset 5 17,170.23 feet 21,021.3 feet,sq ft 1,196.37 feet,uni-- 7;0:34AS et 438.45 feet $1,964,273.36 $3,208,071.10 $251,790.28 45 $50,159.25 47 Assets 22 Assets L7 Assets 14 Assets 5 Assets 4 68,912.6.8 feet,sq ft 17,571.72 feet,units 17,S92.92 feet,units,sq ft 18,194.01 feet,sq ft 561.01 feet,units i $14,465,291.35 $1,52.3,077.64 $1,981,994.68 $2,149,881.21 $276,328.13 0 L02 Assets 51 Assets 180 Assets fig Assets 7 Assets � 3 36,569.05 Feet,units,sq ft 17,555,75 feet,units 5$,591.54 feet,sq ft,units 31,155,23 Feet,units 224,28 feet,units m � $3,121,307.11 $1,275,796.11 $3,809,944.99 52,335,179.02 $203,585.45 Q V 0 225 Rssets 171 Assets 157 Assets 102 Assets 33 Assets 2 124,145,94 feet,units 93,464.19 feet,units 66,827.05 feet,units 56,415.14 feet,units 8,038.56 feet,units. $2.3,L79,956.60 $15,768,427.54 $9,523,202.32 56,622.,105.93 $1,932,132..03 62 Assets 679 Assets 205 Assets 165 Assets 222 Assets 1 7,577.48 feet,units 40,181.19 units,feet,sq ft 44,303.47 feet,units,mile 50,029.09 feet,units,sq ft 8,891.51 feet,units,s.q ft $593,615.84 $7,991,954.50 $2,780,437.42 $3,802,913:94 $2,160,343.45 Low L 2 3 4 5 High Probability of Failure All of the city's assets analyzed within this asset management plan have been given both a likelihood of failure score and a consequence of failure score within the CityWide software. 88 The following risk scores have been developed at a high level for each asset class within the CityWide software system. It is recommended that the city undertake a detailed study to develop a more tailored suite of risk scores, particularly in regards to the consequence of failure, and that this be updated within the CityWide software with future updates to this Asset Management Plan. The current scores that will determine budget prioritization currently within the system are as follows: All assets: The Likelihood of Failure score is based on the condition of the assets: Likelihood of Failure: All Assets Asset condition Likelihood of failure ..............................................................................................._....... .............................., Excellent condition Score of 1 .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. Good condition Score of 2 .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. Fair condition Score of 3 .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. Poor condition Score of 4 .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. Critical condition Score of 5 .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Streets (based on classification): The consequence of failure score for this initial AMP is based upon the road classification as this will reflect traffic volumes and number of people affected. In time, Kennedale should include further classifications of road to the model. Consequence of Failure: Streets Road Classification Consequence of failure ......... ......... .... Residential score of 2 .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. Arterial score of 4 ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Wastewater Collection Pipes (based on diameter): The consequence of failure score for this initial AMP is based upon pipe diameter as this will reflect potential upstream service area affected. Consequence of Failure: Wastewater Collection System Pipe Diameter Consequence of failure ......... ......... .... 0-6 inches score of 1 ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ... 6-8 inches score of 2 ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ... 8-12 inches score of 3 ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ... 12-15 inches score of 4 ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ... 15 inches and over score of 5 ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ... 89 Water Pipes (based on diameter): The consequence of failure score for this initial AMP is based upon pipe diameter as this will reflect potential service area affected. Consequence of Failure: Water Distribution Pipe Diameter Consequence of Failure ......... ....... ......... Up to 2 inches score of 1 ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ... 2-6 inches score of 2 ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... .... 6-8 inches score of 3 ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ... 8-12 inches score of 4 ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ........ 12 inches and over score of 5 ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ... Stormwater Drainage Pipes (based on diameter): The consequence of failure score for this initial AMP is based upon pipe diameter as this will reflect potential upstream service area affected. Consequence of Failure: Stormwater Drainage Replacement Value Consequence of failure .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. Up to 18 inches score of 1 [.................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 18-27 inches score of 2 .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 27-36 inches score of 3 ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 36-48 inches score of 4 ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. ........ 48 inches and over score of 5 ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Buildings: (based on valuation): The consequence of failure score for this initial AMP is based upon the replacement value of the facility component.The higher the value, probably the larger and more important the component to the overall function of the facility and therefore probably the higher the consequential risk of failure: Consequence of Failure: Facilities Replacement Value Consequence of failure ................................................................: Up to$50k Score of 1 i................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. $51 k to$1 OOk Score of 2 .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. $101 k to$500k Score of 3 [.................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. $501 k to$2 million Score of 4 ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. Over$2 million Score of 5 ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Parks: (based on valuation): The consequence of failure score for this initial AMP is based upon the replacement value of the asset or component.The higher the value, probably the larger and more important the component and therefore probably the higher the consequential risk of failure: Consequence of Failure: Parks Replacement Value Consequence of failure .............................................................. _............................................................... Up to$50k Score of 1 [.................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. $51 k to$100k Score of 2 ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. $101 k to$300k Score of 3 .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. $301 k to$600k Score of 4 ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Over$600k Score of 5 .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 90 Equipment: (based on valuation): The consequence of failure score for this initial AMP is based upon the replacement value of the asset or component.The higher the value, probably the larger and more important the component and therefore probably the higher the consequential risk of failure: Consequence of Failure: Equipment Replacement Value Consequence of failure s................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ Up to$1 Ok Score of 1 .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. $1 Ok to$20k Score of 2 .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. $20k to$40k Score of 3 _. ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ... $40k to$80k Score of 4 ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. Over$80k Score of 5 ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Vehicles: (based on valuation): The consequence of failure score for this initial AMP is based upon the replacement value of the asset or component.The higher the value, probably the larger and more important the component and therefore probably the higher the consequential risk of failure: Consequence of Failure: Vehicles Replacement Value Consequence of failure .......................................................................... ....................................................................... Up to$20k Score of 1 ..................................................................................... ........................................................................................ $21 k to$75k Score of 2 .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. $76k to$150k Score of 3 .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. $151 k to$300k Score of 4 ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Over$300k Score of 5 .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 91 7.0 Financial Strategy 7.1 General overview of financial plan requirements In order for an AMP to be effectively put into action, it must be integrated with financial planning and long- term budgeting.The development of a comprehensive financial plan will allow the City of Kennedale to identify the financial resources required for sustainable asset management based on existing asset inventories, desired levels of service, and projected growth requirements. The following pyramid depicts the various cost elements and resulting funding levels that should be incorporated into AMPS that are based on best practices. Funding atthis level is fully sustainable and covers future investment needs. These elements are required to fullyfund replacement costs. SERVICE ENHANCEMENTS Funding atthis level provides for replacement costs INFLATION Q at existing service levels. T RENEWAL REQUIREMENTS Funding atthis level provides for proven renewal Opportunities which delay the need and cost of full replacement. Funding at this level meets accounting rules but AMORT111TION OF HISTORICAL . does not adequately plan for the future. PRINCIPAL&INTEREST PAYMENTS Funding atthis level covers cash costs only and PF is significantly under-funded in terms of lifecycle costs. F OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE COSTS 1, This report develops such a financial plan by presenting several scenarios for consideration and culminating with final recommendations. As outlined below, the scenarios presented model different combinations of the following components: a) the financial requirements (as documented in the SOTI section of this report)for: • existing assets • existing service levels • requirements of contemplated changes in service levels (none identified for this plan) • requirements of anticipated growth (none identified for this plan) b) use of traditional sources of municipal funds: • ad-valorem tax levies • userfees ■ reserves • debt • sales taxes 92 c) use of non-traditional sources of municipal funds: • reallocated budgets • partnerships • procurement methods d) use of senior government funds: ■ grants If the financial plan component of an AMP results in a funding shortfall, a specific plan should be included that demonstrates how the impact of the shortfall will be managed. In determining the legitimacy of a funding shortfall, a municipality's approach to the following should be evaluated: a) in order to reduce financial requirements,consideration has been given to revising service levels downward b) all asset management and financial strategies have been considered.For example: • if a zero debt policy is in place,is it warranted? If not,the use of debt should be considered. • do user fees reflect the cost of the applicable service? If not,increased user fees should be considered. This AMP includes recommendations that avoid long-term funding deficits. 7.2 Financial information relating to the City of Kennedale's AMP 7.2.1 Funding objective We have developed scenarios that would enable the City of Kennedale to achieve full funding within five to 20 years for the following assets: a) Tax funded assets:Streets;Buildings; Equipment; Parks;Vehicles b) Rate funded assets:Wastewater Collection System;Water Distribution System;Stormwater Drainage System For each scenario developed we have included strategies,where applicable, regarding the use of tax revenues, user fees, reserves and debt. 7.3 Tax funded assets 7.3.1 Current funding position Tables 1 and 2 outline, by asset category, the City of Kennedale's average annual asset investment requirements, current funding positions, and funding increases required to achieve full funding on assets funded by taxes. Table 1. Summary of Infrastructure Requirements & Current Funding Available 2015 Annual Funding Available Average Asset Category Annual • Investment Total Deficit/Surplus Required Taxes Fees Other Funding Available Streets 1,690,000 ? 0 287,000 0 287,000 1,403,000 ................................................................................................_................................................................_.........................................................._......................................................._.................................................................................................................€.................................................................... Buildings 127,000 55,000 : 0 0 55,000 : 72,000 .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................?.................................................................... Equipment 225,000 0 0 88,000 : 88,000 : 137,000 ?................................................................................................o................................................................o..........................................................o.......................................................o.........................................................o.......................................................?.................................................................... Parks 68,000 0 0 0 0 68,000 ................................................................................................i................................................................;..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Vehicles 142,000 : 0 0 179,000 : 179,000 37,000 Total 2,252,000 55,000 287,000 : 267,000 609,000 1,643,000 93 7.3.2 Recommendations for full funding The average annual investment requirement for the above categories is$2,252,000. Annual revenue currently allocated to these assets for capital purposes is$609,000 leaving an annual deficit of$1,643,000. To put it another way, these infrastructure categories are currently funded at twenty-seven percent of their long-term requirements. In 2015, the City of Kennedale has annual tax revenues of$4,254,000. As illustrated in table 2, without consideration of any other sources of revenue, full funding would require the following tax change over time. Table 2. Tax Change Required for Full Funding Asset Category Tax Change Required for Full Funding Streets 33.0% .... ......... ......... ......... ......... Buildings 1.7% .... ......... ......... ......... ......... Equipment 3.2% Parks 1.6% Vehicles -0.9% Total 38.6% As illustrated in Table 1, there is currently$554,000 of non-tax revenue being allocated to the asset categories covered by this AMP.There are significant restrictions/capabilities to growing this non-tax revenue over time to assist in addressing the infrastructure deficit. Our analysis determined a best case scenario would be a total increase of$61,000 over 12 years. As a result,we have only included tax revenue changes to address the deficit.This would leave any growth of non-tax revenue available for other capital purposes. By State law, the City of Kennedale is restricted to a maximum of 4.0%annual tax increases.Their analysis of future operating pressures demonstrates a need for 2.0%increases for operational requirements.That leaves an annual maximum of 2.0%available for addressing the infrastructure deficit. As illustrated in table 9, the City of Kennedale's debt payments for these asset categories will be decreasing by$0 from 2015 to 2019 (five years) and by$20,000 from 2015 to 2024 (10 years). Our recommendations normally include capturing those decreases in cost and allocating them to the infrastructure deficit outlined above. However,we have not included those decreases in this AMP in order for them to be available for: a) the City of Kennedale has growth requirements that will require future debt financing and resulting tax increases (in addition to the recommendations in this plan). b) there may be requirements to finance projects through debt during the phase-in period to full funding. Through Table 3,we have expanded the above information to present multiple options. Due to the significant increases required,we have provided phase-in options of up to 20 years: Table 3. Revenue Options for Full Funding x Revenues 5 Years 10 Years 15 Years 17 Years 20 Years .........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................s...............................................s................ Annual tax increases required—with compounding 6.8% 3.4% 2.2% 2.0% 1.7% taken into account Annual tax increases required—without compounding 7.7% ? 3.9% ? 2.6% ? 2.3% ? 1.9% 94 Considering all of the above information,we recommend the 17 year option in Table 3 that takes into account the compounding effect of tax increases.This involves full funding being achieved over 17 years by: d) during the phase-in period,reallocating the surplus in vehicles to categories that have a deficit. e) increasing tax revenues by 2.0%each year for the next 17 years solely for the purpose of phasing in full funding to the asset categories covered in this section of the AMP. f) increasing existing and future infrastructure budgets by the applicable inflation index on an annual basis in addition to the deficit phase-in. Notes: 1. We realize that raising tax revenues by the amounts recommended above for infrastructure purposes will be very difficult to do.However,considering a longer phase-in window may have even greater consequences in terms of infrastructure failure. Although this option achieves full funding on an annual basis in 17 years and provides financial sustainability over the period modeled (to 2050), the recommendations do require prioritizing capital projects to fit the resulting annual funding available. As of 2015, age based data shows a pent up investment demand of$9,080,000 for streets, $61,000 for buildings, $514,000 for equipment, $0 for parks and $235,000 for vehicles. Prioritizing future projects will require the age based data to be replaced by condition based data. Although our recommendations include no further use of debt (except for assets due to growth), the results of the condition based analysis may require otherwise. 95 7.4 Rate funded assets 7.4.1 Current funding position Tables 4 and 5 outline, by asset category, the City of Kennedale's average annual asset investment requirements, current funding positions and funding increases required to achieve full funding on assets funded by rates. Table 4. Summary of Infrastructure Requirements & Current Funding Available 2015 Annual Funding Availa!Avaflabi Average Asset Category Annual Less: Investment Allocated l �- • Required Rates to Other g ................................................................................. . Operations . Wastewater Collection 179,000 1,175,000 1,125,000 30,000 80,000 : 99,000 S stem y................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ ............................................... ............................................. ......................................................... Water Distribution System 420,000 1,998,000 -1,409,000 : 0 589,000 -169,000 Storm Drainage System 349,000 265,000 0 0 265,000 : 84,000 Total 948,000 3,438,000 -2,534,000 30,000 934,000 14,000 7.4.2 Recommendations for full funding The average annual investment requirement for wastewater collection,water distribution and storm drainage is$948,000. Annual revenue currently allocated to these assets for capital purposes is$934,000 leaving an annual deficit of$14,000.To put it another way, these infrastructure categories are currently funded at ninety-nine percent of their long-term requirements. As illustrated in Table 5,without consideration of any other sources of revenue, full funding would require the following changes over time: Table 5. Rate Increases Required for Full Funding Asset Category Rate Change Required for Full Funding ........................................................................................................................................................................................:........................................................................................................................................................... Wastewater Collection System 8.4% ........................................................................................................................................................................................:.........................................................................................................................................................: Water Distribution System -8.5% ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Storm Drainage System 31.7% .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................s In 2015, the City of Kennedale has annual wastewater collection revenues of$1,175,000, annual water revenues of$1,998,000 and annual storm drainage revenues of$265,000. As outlined in Table 4, the wastewater collection system has an infrastructure deficit of$99,000, the water distribution system has a surplus of$169,000 and the storm drainage system has a deficit of$84,000. Water rates could be decreased by 8.5%to eliminate the surplus in that category. However,we don't recommend eliminating the entire surplus at this early stage in infrastructure planning. A portion of the surplus from water distribution services can be allocated to wastewater collection services to minimize or eliminate the associated deficit. Water rates are considered adequate for the current year. As illustrated in Table 9, the City of Kennedale's debt payments for water distribution services will be decreasing by$26,000 from 2015 to 2019 (five years) and by$26,000 from 2015 to 2024 (10 years). For wastewater collection and storm drainage, the amounts are$0 and $0 respectively. Our recommendations normally include capturing those decreases in cost and allocating them to the infrastructure deficit 96 outlined above. However, due to the City of Kennedale having growth requirements that will require debt, we have not included those decreases in this AMP. Although not recommend,Table 6 outlines a more traditional approach to phasing in the funding issue. Table 6. Phase-in Option vs. Transfer Option ... Not Recommended dstewater r s n v i" torm Drainage System Collection Systern _ � System 5 Years 10 Years 5 Years 10 Years 5 Years 10 Years .............................................................................................. .......................................-_................................................................- .......... Annual rate 1.7% 0.8% -1.7% -0.9% 6.3% 3.2% change required Considering all of the above information,we recommend a combination of the transfer option as described above plus phased-in rate increases.This involves full funding being achieved by: e) increasing rate revenues by 8.4%for sanitary services resulting in a$99,000 increase in sanitary revenue and the elimination of the deficit in this category. f) decreasing rate revenues by 5.0%for water services resulting in a$99,000 decrease in water revenue (thus offsetting the increase in a). g) increasing rate revenues by 3.2%for storm drainage services each year for the next 10 years solely for the purpose of phasing in full funding to this asset category. h) increasing existing and future infrastructure budgets by the applicable inflation index on an annual basis in addition to the changes recommended above.We realize that this will add to the water services surplus,but this surplus should be reserved until further study confirms the surplus is not needed. Notes: 1. Any increase in rates required for operations would be in addition to the above recommendations. Although this option achieves full funding on an annual basis and provides financial sustainability over the period modeled (to 2050), the recommendations do require prioritizing capital projects to fit the resulting annual funding available. As of 2015, age based data shows a pent up investment demand of$0 for sanitary services,$1,512,000 for water services and $27,000 for storm drainage services. Prioritizing future projects will require the age based data to be replaced by condition based data. Although our recommendations include no further use of debt (except for assets due to growth), the results of the condition based analysis may require otherwise. 97 7.5 Use of debt For reference purposes,Table 7 outlines the premium paid on a project if financed by debt. For example, a $1 M project financed at 3.0%over 15 years would result in a twenty-six percent premium or$260,000 of increased costs due to interest payments. For simplicity, the table does not take into account the time value of money or the effect of inflation on delayed projects. Table 7. Total Interest Paid as a % of Project Costs Number of Years Finances Interest Rate 5 10 15 20 25 30 ............................................................ ............. ......................... .................................................................................................................................. 7.0% 22% 42% 65% 89% 115% 142% ............................................................................................. .......................................................................... ................................................................................................................................................................................................... ; 6.5% 20% 39% 60% 82% 105% 130% ...................................................................................:......... .......................................................................... ......................o.............................................................................................................................................................................. ? 6.0% 19% 36% 54% 74% 96% 118% ........ ......... .... ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 5.5% 17% 33% 49% 67% 86% 106% i............................................................................................. i.................................................................................................................... ................................................................................................................................................................................ 5.0% 15% 30% 45% 60% 77% 95% ............................................................................................. .............................................................................................................................................................................s..............................................................s....................................................... ? 4.5% 14% 26% 40% 54% 69% 84% ............................................................................................. ...............................................................................................................................................................................s..............................................................s....................................................... 4.0% 12% 23% 35% 47% 60% 73% 3.5% 11% 20% 30% 41% 52% 63% ............................................................................................. ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 3.0% 9% 17% 26% 34% 44% 53% ...................................................................................:......... ....................................................................................................................o............................................................................................................................................................................... 2.5% 8% 14% 21% 28% 36% 43% ............................................................................................. ....................................................................................................................o.........................................................o..............................................................o....................................................... 2.0% 6% 11% 17% 22% 28% 34% i............................................................................................. ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 1.5% 5% 8% 12% 16% 21% 25% ......................................................................................,,,,,,,,, ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 1.0% 3% 6% 8% 11% 14% 16% ............................................................................................. €..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 0.5% 2% 3% 4% 5% 7% 8% 0.0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% ............................................................................................. ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 98 It should be noted that current interest rates are near all-time lows. Sustainable funding models that include debt need to incorporate the risk of rising interest rates.The following graph shows where historical lending rates have been: Historical Prime Business Interest Rate 16.00% 14.00% 12.00% 10.00% 8.00% 6.00% 4.00% 2.00% 0.00% 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 Year As illustrated in Table 7, a change in 15 year rates from 3%to 6%would change the premium from twenty- six percent to fifty-four percent.Such a change would have a significant impact on a financial plan. Tables 8 and 9 outline how the City of Kennedale has historically used debt for investing in the asset categories as listed.There is currently$1,545,000 of debt outstanding for the assets covered by this AMP. In terms of overall debt capacity, the City of Kennedale currently has$2,039,000 of total outstanding debt and $253,000 of total annual principal and interest payment commitments. Table 8. Overview of Use of Debt Current Debt Use Of Debt in the Last Five Year Asset Category Outstanding, 201 7 2011 2012 2013 2014 Streets 0 0 0 0 0 0 Buildings 0 0 0 0 0 0 Equipment 75,000 : 0 0 125,000 : 0 0 ........ ......... ......... ......... ........ ......... ......... ............................................... ........ ..., ....................................................€ Parks 0 0 0 0 0 0 Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 ........ ......... ......... ......... ............................................................................................ ................................................................................................. .................................................... Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Tax Funded 75,000 0 0 125,000 0 0 .... ......... ......... .... ......... .... .......................................... Wastewater Collection System 0 0 0 0 0 0 Water Distribution System 1,470,000 : 154,000 0 1,540,000 : 182,000 0 Stormwater Drainage System 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total rate Funded 1,470,000 : 154,000 : 0 1,540,000 : 182,000 0 ........ ......... ......... ......... ........ ......... ......... ............................................... ........ .., .................................................... Total AMP Debt 1,545,000 : 154,000 : 0 1,665,000 : 182,000 0 Non AMP Debt 494,000 0 1,700,000 0 0 0 Overall Total 2,039,000 154,000 1,700,000 1,665,000 182,000 0 99 Table 9. Overview of Debt Costs Principal &Interest Payments in the Next Five Years 3 Asset Category 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2024 Streets 0 0 0 0 0 0 Buildings 0 0 0 0 0 0 Equipment 20,000 20,000 : 20,000 : 20,000 : 20,000 0 Parks 0 0 0 0 0 0 Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 ......... ......... ......... ......... ...,,,, ......... ............................................................................................................................................................................................. Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Tax Funded 20,000 20,000 20,000 : 20,000 : 20,000 0 ........ ......... ......... ......... ..,,,, ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Wastewater Collection System 0 0 0 0 0 0 Water Distribution System 179,000 179,000 153,000 : 153,000 : 153,000 153,000 Stormwater Drainage System 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Rate Funded 179,000 179,000 153,000 : 153,000 : 153,000 : 153,000 ........ ......... ......... ......... .......................................................................................................................................................................[................................................ Total Amp Debt 199,000 ? 199,000 ? 173,000 ? 173,000 ? 173,000 ? 153,000 Non Amp Debt 54,000 54,000 : 54,000 : 54,000 : 54,000 54,000 Overall Total 253,000 253,000 : 227,000 227,000 227,000 207,000 The revenue options outlined in this plan allow the City of Kennedale to fully fund its long-term infrastructure requirements (other than infrastructure required due to growth) without further use of debt. However, as explained in sections 7.3.2 and 7.4.2, the recommended condition rating analysis may require otherwise. 100 7.6 Use of reserves 7.6.1 Available reserves Reserves play a critical role in long-term financial planning.The benefits of having reserves available for infrastructure planning include: ■ the ability to stabilize tax rates when dealing with variable and sometimes uncontrollable factors ■ financing one-time or short-term investments ■ accumulating the funding for significant future infrastructure investments ■ managing the use of debt ■ normalizing infrastructure funding requirements By infrastructure category,Table 10 outlines the details of the reserves currently available to the City of Kennedale. Table 10. Summary of Reserves Available Asset Category Balance at December 31, 2014 .......................................................................................................................................................................................... ......................................................... Streets 0 ...........................................................................................................................................S............................................................................................................................ Buildings 0 ...........................................................................................................................................s............................................................................................................................ Equipment 0 ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ Parks 0 .........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................: Vehicles 0 Total Tax Funded 0 ...........................................................................................................................................S............................................................................................................................ Water Distribution System 0 ..........................................................................................................................................o............................................................................................................................ Wastewater Collection System 0 ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Stormwater Drainage System 0 Total Rate Funded 0 There is considerable debate in the municipal sector as to the appropriate level of reserves that a municipality should have on hand. At the City of Kennedale, the following guidelines are in place in the City's financial management policy: 1. General Fund:25 percent of expenditures 2. General Debt Service Fund: 10 percent of expenditures 3. Water/Sewer Fund(Working Capital):25 percent of expenditures 4. Water/Sewer Debt Service Fund:Compliance with Bond Covenants 5. Economic Development Corporation Fund:25 percent of expenditures Factors that municipalities should take into account when determining their capital reserve requirements include: ■ breadth of services provided ■ age and condition of infrastructure ■ use and level of debt ■ economic conditions and outlook ■ internal reserve and debt policies. As outlined in Table 10 there are no reserves available for use during the phase-in period to full funding. Having said that, the City of Kennedale's judicious use of debt in the past allows the scenarios to assume that, if required, available debt capacity can be used for high priority and emergency infrastructure investments in the short to medium-term. 101 7.6.2 Recommendation As the City of Kennedale updates its AMP and expands it to include other asset categories,we recommend that future planning should include determining what its long-term reserve balance requirements are and a plan to achieve such balances. 102 i i 8.0 Appendix A: Report Card Calculations Key Calculations Letter Grade star Rating F 0 D 2 1. "Weighted, unadjusted star rating": D+ 2.5 C 2.9 (�of assets in given condition) (potential star rating) C+ 3.5 B 3.9 2. "Adjusted star rating" B+ 4.5 A 4.9 (weighted, unadjsted star rating) (7o of total replacement value) A 5 3. "Overall Rating" Funding star rating Grade (Condition vs. Performance star rating) (Funding vs. Need star rating) V- .D F 1 F 2 v.u'6 1.9 D 6_.u36 2.9 C v.u'.6 3.9 B _.C. 4.9 A 1100.0% 5 A 103 1. Condition vs. Performance Total category replacement value $59,580,410 figment gment value asa%oftotal category gment replacement value$59,580,410 pla cement value 100.0% �E � Segment 1(of 1) 3a rM gment adjusted starrating Excellent A 5 119,701 54% 2.7 Road base,surface, Good B 4 51,410 23% 0.9 and sidewalks Fair C 3 28,980 13% 0.4 (excludes gravel and 4.2 appurtenances) Poor D 2 17,120 8% 0.2 Critical F 1 5,600 3% 0.0 Tota Is 222,811 100% 4.2 Category star Category letter rating grade 42 6 2. Funding vs. Need Average annual 2015 funding Category star Category letter Funding percentage Deficit/(Surplus) investment required available rating grade $1.690.000 $287.000 17.0% $1.403.000 0.0 F 3. Overall Rating f Condition vs Perform Fu MA NeedlA&l Overall lettergrade 4.2 0.0 2.7 , Water Distribution d 1. Condition vs. Performance Total category replacement value$22,899,986 Seg ment replacement value$16,231,566 Segment value asa%oftotal category replacement value 70.9% Sag mant 1(of 3) Fxc a Ilent A 5 74,606 29% 1.46 Good B 4 47,485 19% 0.74 Water Pipes Fair C 3 73,133 29% 0.86 2A9 Poor D 2 54,499 21% 0.43 Critical F 1 5,655 2% 0.02 Totals 255,377 100% 3.51 Total category replacement value $22,899,988 Segment replacement value$8,668,420 Segment value as a%oftotal category re p la c e m e n t va lue 29.1% Sgment3(o;. �. _condr Iterratin. star mtng� Excellent A 1 5 $0 0% 0.0 Good B 4 $3,471,154 52% 2.1 Facilities Fair C 3 $385,358 6% 0.2 0.8 Poor D 2 $1,356,440 20% 0.4 Critical F 1 $1,455,469 22% 0.2 I Tota Is $6,668,420 100% 2.9 Category star rating Category lettergrade 3.3 C 2. Funding vs. Need Average annual 2015funding Funding percentage Deficit/(SLrplus) Category star Category lettergrade investment required available rating $420,000 $589,000 140.2% -$169,000 5.0 A 3. Overall Rating Condition vsPerfonnance starrating Funding vs.Need starrating Average starrating Overall letter - 3.3 5.0 4.2 - Wastewater Co Ile ction System:City of Ken ale 1. Condition vs. Performance Total category replacement value$14,886,083 Segment replacement value$14,886,083 Segment value asa replac replacement 100.0% replacement value Letter Quantity(ft)in given %ofAssetsin given Weighted,unadjusted S=.gment 1(of 3) dition U d-a condition condition starrating Excellent A 5 41,013 16% 0.80 Good B 4 66,202 26% 1.03 Sanitary mains Fa irl C 3 70_431 _ 28% 0.83 3.3 Poor D 2 77,917 30% 0.61 Critical F 1 359 0% 0.00 Totals 255,9221 100% 3.3 Category star Category letter rating grade 3.3 C 2. Funding vs. Need Average annual 2015 funding Funding percentage Deficit/(Surplus) Category star Category letter investment required available rating grade $179,000 $80,000 44.7% $99,000 — 1.0 F 3. Overall Rating G4nditionvsPerformance star ratingJ#tund ing vs.Need star rating .Average star rating Overall lettergrade 3.3 1.0 2.1 , Stormw ate r[Drainage System:City of Kenned ale 1.Condition vs. Performance Total cafe lacem mve lue$3,369,082 Sugm ant v alu s n s a%oft.tal c ategory gory rap gm enf reply cam entvalua$1,035,662 reel aye m e nt v alue 30.7% -1116 Letter ntity(m)ofasretsin of Asretsin given Weighted,unadjusted Sag dition 9rede_, ting an con ��n starratirw Segment adjusted Harry t` Excellent A 5 11.363 57% 2.86 Good a 4 4,730 24% 0.95 3onn Rpes Fair C 3 3,280 18% 0.53 1.3 Poor D 2 280 1% 0.03 Cntic.11 F 1 11 OI 0% 0.00 lbtals 19,8721 1 4.37 Totalcategoryreplac ement vs loe $3,369,082 Segment re placeme.tv.loe$2,015,440 Sogm enl vs loe as a 96 of totalcategory 598°/ replacement value � d Sa9men Excellent A 5_ 0.0%1 0.0 Good B 4 2231 100.0% 4.0 Culverts&Inlet Fair C 3 0.0% 0.0 235 Poor 1 0.0% 0.0 Cntical 1 0.0% 0.0 lbtels 223 100% 4.00 Total category re plac figment value ese%offotel c".."" 94% reply ce m e nt va lue Segment 2(of2) I d Sagmentadjusted Narrating Excellent A 5 48,000 15.1% 0.8 Good B 4 0.0% 0.0 Ditch&Flume Fair C 3 270,000 84.9°/ 2.5 931 Poor D 2 0.0% 0.0 Critical F 1 0.0% _0.0 lbtals 318,000 100% 3.30 Category star Category letter yin grade 40 B 2.Funding vs. Need Average annual 2015 fund' Category star Category letter Investment requ red vailable _-_ �� ,.:.tage Def itl(Srrplus) rating grade $349,000 $265,000 75.9% $84,000 2.9 C 3.Overa11 Rating Condition vsPerfonna nc a Na r rating Funding vs.Need sarrating Average sarrating • - - - - 4.0 2.9 I 3.5 Buildings:City of Kennedale 1. Condition vs. Performance L:,,Ial,c ate gory replace men tvalue $5,972,830 Segment replace me ntvalue$5,972,630 Segment value as a%of total category 100.0% replace me nt value Letter ighted,unadjusted G ddion Segment a djusle d sta r ra ting Excellent A 5 979,189 16% 0.8 Good B 4 2,240,460 38%1 1.5 Buildings Fair C 3 1,487,868 25%1 0.7 3.5 Poor D 2 1,204,774 20%1 0.41 Critical F 1 60,538 1%1 i0.0 Tota Is 5,972,829 100%1 3.5 Category star Category letter rating grade 3.5 C 2. Funding vs. Need Average annual 2015 funding Category star Category letter Funding percentage Deficit/(Surplus)lus) investment 2:auirsd a .alable rating grade $127,0001 $55,000 43.3% $72,000 1.0 F 3. Overall Rating Condition vs Performance star rating Funding vs Need starratin_g _ Average star rating Overall letter grade 3.5 1.0 2.2 , Parks:City of Kennedale 1. Condition vs. Performance Lo talcategory replacement value $1,598,290 fi figment value ass%oftotal category 100.0% gment replacement value$1,598,290 replacement value ant.1 fD f 11 g Replacement Cost($)in ' n ition hted,unadjusted given condition jMWstarrating I Excellent A 5 s.„ussYs 87% 4.3 Good B 4 117,221 7% 0.3 Land Improvements Fair C 3 - 0% 0.0 4.7 Poor D 2 96,777 6% 0.1 Critical F 1 1 - 0% 0.0 Tota Is I 1,598,290 100% 4.7 Category star Category letter rating grade 4.7 2. Funding vs. Need Average annual 2015 funding Funding percentage Deficit/(Sjrplus) Category star Categoryletter investment required available rating grade $68,000 $0 0.0% $68.000 0.0 F 3. Overall Rating Condition vsPerforailijidjUdWing ENverage star rating • - - r .r- 4.7 0.0 2A , Equipment:City ofKennedale 1. Condition vs. Performance Lo talcategory replacement value $1,230,589 Segment replacement value$1,230,589 Segment value ass%oftotal category rep la cement value 100.0°O%u ""t ter - - Ifil pt Cost($)in ighted,unadjusted en 1 f1.: --1n9 ition % ndition starrating Segmentadjusled 5(ca Ile nt A 5 2,500 0% 0.0 Good B 4 115,098 9% 0.4 Machinery& Fair C 3 181,889 15% 0.4 Equipment Poor D 2 56,844 5% 0.1 7.6 Critical F 11 874,258 71% 0.7 Tota Is 1 1,230,589 100% 1.6 Category star Category letter rating grade 1.6 F 2. Funding vs. Need Average annual 2015 funding JAMP= Categorystar Categoryletter Funding percentage Deficit/(Sjrplus) investment required available rating grade $225,000 $88,000 39.1% $137.000 1.0 F 3. Overall Rating Condition vsPerforailijidjUdWing r ge star rating • - r .r- 1.6 1.0 1.3 Vehicles:City of Kennedale 1. Condition vs. Performance Total category replacement value $1,011,626 fi figment value as %of total category Segment replacement value$1,011,62f replacement value 100.0% Letter h sty r ted,ra ling unadjusted Segment 1(of 1) Condition egment adjusted starry ling Excellent A 5 0% 0.0 Good B 4 197,6101 20% i 0.8 Vehicles Fair C 3 224,0211 22% 0.7 2.3 Poor D 2 314,314 31%1 0.6 Critical F 1 275,6811 27%1 0.3 Totals i 1,011,6261 100%1 2.3 Category star Categoryletter rating grade 2.3 D MEMO 2. Funding vs. Need Average annual 2015 funding Categ cry star Category letter Funding percentage Deficit/(Surplus)investment required available rating grade $142,000 $179,000 126.1% -$37.000 5.0 A 3. Overall Rating ondition vs ce starng rrati ge starrating Overall letter grade 2.3 5.0 3.7 City of Kennecale Infrastructure Replacement Cost Per Household Total: $48,951 per household Buildings Parks' Total Replacement Cost:$5,972,830 Total Replacement Cost:$1,598,290-............ Cost Per Household:$2,510 Vehicles Cost Per Household:$672: Total Replacement Cost:$1,011,626 Cost Per Household:$425 Equipment i Total Replacement Cost:$1,230,589 Streets Cost Per Household:$517 ............ Total Replacement Cost:$59,580,410 Cost Per Household:$25,034 ...................... i Wastewater Collection System ,230,589 ME Total Replacement Cost:$14,886,083 So no I . : : Cost Per Household:7,380 Elm .............................. • " I • --------------------- ------------------------ ------------ i, Stormwater Drainage System: is Water Distribution System Total Replacement Cost:$3,369,082>--' Total Replacement Cost:$24,020,464W:..; Cost Per Household:$1,416: Cost Per Household:$10,998 Daily Investment Required Per Household for Infrastructure Sustainability $4.00 Total daily investment per household: $3.76 $3.50 $3.00 $2.50 $2.0040 $1.95 - Daily cup of coffee: $1.56 $1.50 $1.00 $0.50 • $0.53 $0.40 • $0.24 0 $0.15 41 $0.26 00.16 $0.00 0 $n ng Streets Water Wastewater Stormwater Buildings Parks Equipment Vehicles Ci t y o f K e n n e d a l e E t h i c a l C l i m a t e a n d Or g a n i z a t i o n a l C u l t u r e A n a l y s i s By : C a t h y V a l l e j o , J a s m i n e L a z a r k y a n d O s c a r La z a r k y Ta b l e o f C o n t e n t s Hi s t o r y / M o t i v a t i o n f o r t h e P r o j e c t Pr o j e c t O u t c o m e s Et h i c a l C l i m a t e Co m p a r e e m p l o y e e s a n d m a n a g e r s Co m p a r e E / M f r o m 2 0 0 8 , 2 0 1 0 , 2 0 1 4 Or g a n i z a t i o n a l C u l t u r e Co m p a r e e m p l o y e e s a n d m a n a g e r s Di s c u s s i o n , C o m m e n t s , a n d Q u e s t i o n s Hi s t o r y / M o t i v a t i o n St a r t e d i n 2 0 0 8 a s a c l a s s a s s i g n m e n t f o r B u s i n e s s Re s e a r c h M e t h o d s w i t h D r . R o d n e y E r a k o v i c h . Du r i n g F a l l 2 0 1 4 s e m e s t e r , a g r o u p o f g r a d u a t e st u d e n t s f r o m D r . E r a k o v i c h ’ s B u s i n e s s R e s e a r c h Me t h o d s c l a s s a t T e x a s W e s l e y a n U n i v e r s i t y p e r f o r m e d an E t h i c a l C l i m a t e A s s e s s m e n t a n d O r g a n i z a t i o n a l Cu l t u r e A s s e s s m e n t f o r t h e C i t y o f K e n n e d a l e . Et h i c a l C l i m a t e Sh a r e d p e r c e p t i o n s o n w h a t c o n s t i t u t e s e t h i c a l l y c o r r e c t be h a v i o r a n d h o w e t h i c a l i s s u e s s h o u l d b e h a n d l e d (V i c t o r a n d C u l l e n 1 9 8 7 ) . Wh i l e e t h i c s v a r y f r o m p e r s o n t o p e r s o n , i t c a n b e in f l u e n c e d b y t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n s ’ e n v i r o n m e n t . 20 1 4 E t h i c a l C l i m a t e S u r v e y Ta r g e t P o p u l a t i o n 7 5 58 R e s p o n d e n t s Ma n a g e r s 1 9 Em p l o y e e s 3 9 77 % P e r c e n t R e s p o n s e R a t e Ma n a g e r s 3 3 % Em p l o y e e s 6 7 % Gu i d i n g F a c t o r s Gu i d i n g Fa c t o r s E x a m p l e s Q u e s t i o n s A p p l i e d to: La w s (S t a t e & Fe d e r a l ) • In d u s t r y La w s & R e g u l a t i o n s • Em p l o y m e n t & La b o r s La w s • En v i r o n m e n t a l La w s 1 ‐4 Ru l e s • Dr e s s Co d e • At t e n d a n c e • Se x u a l Ha r a s s m e n t • Dr u g Po l i c y 5 ‐7 Ca r i n g • Su p p o r t i v e • He l p f u l • Te a m vs . Se l f ‐In t e r e s t • Fa m i l y Un i t 8 ‐12 In s t r u m e n t a l • Or g a n i z a t i o n a l Su r v i v a l • Go a l Or i e n t e d • Co m p e t i t o r s • Su c c e s s / R e p u t a t i o n 13 ‐15 Gu i d i n g F a c t o r s A n a l y s i s 6 6 66 66 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Em p l o y e e s M a n a g e r La w s ‐ ex p e c t e d to ad h e r e st r i c t l y to th e co d e s an d re g u l a t i o n s of th e i r pr o f e s s i o n or go v e r n m e n t . 44 55 55 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Em p l o y e e s M a n a g e r s In s t r u m e n t a l ‐ lo o k ou t fo r their own se l f ‐in t e r e s t , fi r s t an d fo r e m o s t , even to th e ex c l u s i o n of th e in t e r e s t of others wh o ma y be af f e c t e d by th e i r decisions. 6 4 5 4 6 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Em p l o y e e s M a n a g e r s Ru l e s ‐ ex p e c t e d to ad h e r e strictly to th e ru l e s an d ma n d a t e s of their or g a n i z a t i o n . 55 55 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Em p l o y e e s M a n a g e r s Ca r i n g ‐ is ch a r a c t e r i z e d by em p l o y e e s wh o ar e si n c e r e l y in t e r e s t e d in th e we l l ‐ be i n g of ea c h ot h e r as we l l as th e wo r k gr o u p ’ s co n s t i t u e n c i e s . 2008 2010 2014 Qu e s t i o n 4 ( L a w s ) Th e f i r s t c o n s i d e r a t i o n i s w h e t h e r a d e c i s i o n vi o l a t e s l a w . 20 1 0 co m p a r e d to 20 1 4 P ‐ Va l u e = .1 8 >. 0 5 No si g n i f i c a n t di f f e r e n c e 20 1 0 co m p a r e d to 2014 P ‐ Va l u e = .5 3 >. 0 5 No si g n i f i c a n t di f f e r e n c e 81 % (1 7 ) 74 % (1 7 ) 59 % (2 3 ) 5% (1 ) 13 % (5 ) 14 % (3 ) 26 % (6 ) 28 % (1 1 ) 0% 10 % 20 % 30 % 40 % 50 % 60 % 70 % 80 % 90 % 10 0 % 20 0 8 (2 1 ) 2 0 1 0 (2 3 ) 2 0 1 4 (3 9 ) Em p l o y e e s 89 % (8 ) 73 % (8 ) 63% (12)11% (2) 11 % (1 ) 27 % (3 ) 26% (5) 0% 10 % 20 % 30 % 40 % 50 % 60 % 70 % 80 % 90 % 10 0 % 20 0 8 (9 ) 2 0 1 0 (1 1 ) 2 0 1 4 (19) Ma n a g e r s Qu e s t i o n 6 ( R u l e s ) To b e s u c c e s s f u l , p e o p l e i n t h i s o r g a n i z a t i o n g o by t h e r u l e s . 20 1 0 co m p a r e d to 20 1 4 P ‐ Va l u e = .3 4 >. 0 5 No si g n i f i c a n t di f f e r e n c e 20 1 0 co m p a r e d to 2014 P ‐ Va l u e = .0 8 >. 0 5 No si g n i f i c a n t di f f e r e n c e 86 % (1 8 ) 48 % (1 1 ) 67 % (2 6 ) 5% (1 ) 17 % (4 ) 10 % (4 ) 10 % (2 ) 35 % (8 ) 23 % (9 ) 0% 10 % 20 % 30 % 40 % 50 % 60 % 70 % 80 % 90 % 10 0 % 20 0 8 (2 1 ) 2 0 1 0 (2 3 ) 2 0 1 4 (3 9 ) Em p l o y e e s 33 % (3 ) 36 % (4 ) 68% (13) 11 % (1 ) 9% (1 ) 16% (3) 56 % (5 ) 55 % (6 ) 16% (3) 0% 10 % 20 % 30 % 40 % 50 % 60 % 70 % 80 % 90 % 10 0 % 20 0 8 (9 ) 2 0 1 0 (1 1 ) 2 0 1 4 (19) Ma n a g e r s Qu e s t i o n 1 1 ( C a r i n g ) In t h i s o r g a n i z a t i o n , t h e m o s t e f f i c i e n t w a y i s n o t al w a y s t h e r i g h t w a y . 76 % (1 6 ) 57 % (1 3 ) 21 % (8 ) 10 % (2 ) 13 % (3 ) 41 % (1 6 ) 14 % (3 ) 30 % (7 ) 38 % (1 5 ) 0% 10 % 20 % 30 % 40 % 50 % 60 % 70 % 80 % 90 % 10 0 % 20 0 8 (2 1 ) 2 0 1 0 (2 3 ) 2 0 1 4 (3 9 ) Em p l o y e e s 67 % (6 ) 82 % (9 ) 21% (4) 11 % (1 ) 18 % (2 ) 63% (12) 22 % 16% (3) 0% 10 % 20 % 30 % 40 % 50 % 60 % 70 % 80 % 90 % 10 0 % 20 0 8 (9 ) 2 0 1 0 (1 1 ) 2 0 1 4 (19) Ma n a g e r s 20 1 0 co m p a r e d to 20 1 4 Th e r e is a si g n i f i c a n t di f f e r e n c e . Ch i ‐Sq u a r e = .0 1 <. 0 5 20 1 0 co m p a r e d to 2014 Th e r e is a si g n i f i c a n t difference Ch i ‐Sq u a r e = .0 0 <.05 Qu e s t i o n 1 2 ( C a r i n g ) Th e m o s t i m p o r t a n t c o n c e r n i n t h i s o r g a n i z a t i o n i s wh a t i s b e s t f o r t h e e m p l o y e e s 24 % (5 ) 35 % (8 ) 51 % (2 0 ) 48 % (1 0 ) 39 % (9 ) 21 % (8 ) 29 % (6 ) 26 % (6 ) 28 % (1 1 ) 0% 10 % 20 % 30 % 40 % 50 % 60 % 70 % 80 % 90 % 10 0 % 20 0 8 (2 1 ) 2 0 1 0 (2 3 ) 2 0 1 4 (3 9 ) Em p l o y e e s 22 % (2 ) 45 % (5 ) 58% (11) 33 % (3 ) 18 % (2 ) 21% (4) 44 % (4 ) 36 % (4 ) 21% (4) 0% 10 % 20 % 30 % 40 % 50 % 60 % 70 % 80 % 90 % 10 0 % 20 0 8 (9 ) 2 0 1 0 (1 1 ) 2 0 1 4 (19) Ma n a g e r s 20 1 0 co m p a r e d to 2014 P ‐ Va l u e = .6 6 >.05 No si g n i f i c a n t di f f e r e n c e 20 1 0 co m p a r e d to 20 1 4 P ‐ Va l u e = .2 6 >. 0 5 No si g n i f i c a n t di f f e r e n c e Qu e s t i o n 1 3 ( I n s t r u m e n t a l ) Em p l o y e e s a r e e x p e c t e d t o d o w h a t e v e r i s n e e d e d t o fu r t h e r t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n ' s i n t e r e s t s . 20 1 0 co m p a r e d to 20 1 4 P ‐ Va l u e = .2 2 >. 0 5 No si g n i f i c a n t di f f e r e n c e 20 1 0 co m p a r e d to 20 1 4 Th e r e is a si g n i f i c a n t di f f e r e n c e Ch i ‐Sq u a r e = .0 0 <. 0 5 5% (1 ) 65 % (1 5 ) 10 % (4 ) 67 % (1 4 ) 4% (1 ) 64 % (2 5 ) 29 % (6 ) 30 % (7 ) 26 % (1 0 ) 0% 10 % 20 % 30 % 40 % 50 % 60 % 70 % 80 % 90 % 10 0 % 20 0 8 (2 1 ) 2 0 1 0 (2 3 ) 2 0 1 4 (3 9 ) Em p l o y e e s 22 % (2 ) 36 % (4 ) 16% (3) 78 % (7 ) 36 % (4 ) 68% (13) 27 % (3 ) 16% (3) 0% 10 % 20 % 30 % 40 % 50 % 60 % 70 % 80 % 90 % 10 0 % 20 0 8 (9 ) 2 0 1 0 (1 1 ) 2 0 1 4 (19) Ma n a g e r s Qu e s t i o n 1 4 ( I n s t r u m e n t a l ) Co s t c o n t r o l i s a m a j o r c o n c e r n i n t h i s or g a n i z a t i o n . 81 % (1 7 ) 48 % (1 1 ) 15 % (6 ) 14 % (3 ) 13 % (3 ) 56 % (2 2 ) 5% (1 ) 39 % (9 ) 28 % (1 1 ) 0% 10 % 20 % 30 % 40 % 50 % 60 % 70 % 80 % 90 % 10 0 % 20 0 8 (2 1 ) 2 0 1 0 (2 3 ) 2 0 1 4 (3 9 ) Em p l o y e e s 78 % (7 ) 73 % (8 ) 11% (2) 22 % (2 ) 27 % (3 ) 84% (16)5% (1) 0% 10 % 20 % 30 % 40 % 50 % 60 % 70 % 80 % 90 % 10 0 % 20 0 8 (9 ) 2 0 1 0 (1 1 ) 2 0 1 4 (19) Ma n a g e r s 20 1 0 co m p a r e d to 20 1 4 Th e r e is a si g n i f i c a n t di f f e r e n c e Ch i ‐Sq u a r e = .0 0 <. 0 5 20 1 0 co m p a r e d to 2014 Th e r e is a si g n i f i c a n t di f f e r e n c e Ch i ‐Sq u a r e = .0 0 <. 0 5 Qu e s t i o n 1 5 ( I n s t r u m e n t a l ) Th e r e i s r o o m f o r o n e ' s o w n p e r s o n a l m o r a l s o r e t h i c s i n th i s o r g a n i z a t i o n . 20 1 0 co m p a r e d to 20 1 4 Th e r e is a si g n i f i c a n t di f f e r e n c e Ch i ‐Sq u a r e = .0 0 <. 0 5 20 1 0 co m p a r e d to 2014 Th e r e is a si g n i f i c a n t di f f e r e n c e Ch i ‐Sq u a r e = .0 0 <. 0 5 33 % (7 ) 70 % (1 6 ) 18 % (7 ) 43 % (9 ) 9% (2 ) 44 % (1 7 ) 24 % (5 ) 22 % (5 ) 38 % (1 5 ) 0% 10 % 20 % 30 % 40 % 50 % 60 % 70 % 80 % 90 % 10 0 % 20 0 8 (2 1 ) 20 1 0 (2 3 ) 2 0 1 4 (3 9 ) Em p l o y e e s 33 % (3 ) 91 % (1 0 ) 16% (3) 11 % (1 ) 9% (1 ) 58% (11) 56 % (5 ) 26% (5) 0% 10 % 20 % 30 % 40 % 50 % 60 % 70 % 80 % 90 % 10 0 % 20 0 8 (9 ) 2 0 1 0 (1 1 ) 2 0 1 4 (19) Ma n a g e r s Et h i c a l A n a l y s i s In t e r n a l t o th e Or g a n i z a t i o n Ex t e r n a l to t h e Or g a n i z a t i o n De c i s i o n s Ba s e d o n Ru l e s In t e r n a l Ru l e s E x t e r n a l R u l e s Qu e s t i o n s 5 –7 (R u l e s ) Qu e s t i o n s 1 –3 (L a w s ) De c i s i o n s Ba s e d on Ou t c o m e s In t e r n a l Ou t c o m e s E x t e r n a l Ou t c o m e s Qu e s t i o n s 12 – 1 5 (C a r i n g & In s t r u m e n t a l ) Qu e s t i o n s 4, 8, & 14 (L a w s , Ca r i n g , In s t r u m e n t a l ) Et h i c a l C l i m a t e D i m e n s i o n s 6 5 5 6 55 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Em p l o y e e s M a n a g e r s In t e r n a l Ru l e s (R u l e s ) 6 4 5 4 55 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Em p l o y e e s M a n a g e r s Ex t e r n a l Ru l e s (L a w s ) 44 55 55 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Em p l o y e e s M a n a g e r s In t e r n a l Ou t c o m e s (C a r i n g & In s t r u m e n t a l ) 66 6 5 6 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Em p l o y e e s M a n a g e r s Ex t e r n a l Ou t c o m e s (L a w s , Ca r i n g & In s t r u m e n t a l ) 20 0 8 20 1 0 20 1 4 20 0 8 2 0 1 0 2 0 1 4 Nu m b e r of Em p l o y e e s 21 2 3 3 9 Nu m b e r of Ma n a g e r s 91 1 1 9 Or g a n i z a t i o n a l C u l t u r e A s s e s s m e n t Cu l t u r e o f t h e C i t y o f K e n n e d a l e Or g a n i z a t i o n a l C u l t u r e A s s e s s m e n t I n s t r u m e n t a n d C o m p e t i n g Va l u e s F r a m e w o r k ( O C A I ) El e c t r o n i c S u r v e y Or g a n i z a t i o n a l C u l t u r e A s s e s s m e n t I n s t r u m e n t Su r v e y M o n k e y Go a l o f 6 6 p e o p l e 57 % u s e a b l e s u r v e y s ( 3 8 ) Or g a n i z a t i o n a l C u l t u r e A s s e s s m e n t Th e F o u r C u l t u r e T y p e s 1) H u m a n R e l a t i o n s C u l t u r e 2) O p e n S y s t e m s C u l t u r e 3) R a t i o n a l G o a l C u l t u r e 4) I n t e r n a l P r o c e s s C u l t u r e Ov e r v i e w o f t h e O r g a n i z a t i o n a l C u l t u r e R e s u l t s 29 . 8 4 22 . 0 5 22 . 5 9 25.52 36 . 1 8 21 . 4 8 19 . 5 8 22.76 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Hu m a n Re l a t i o n s Op e n Sy s t e m s Ra t i o n a l Go a l Internal Process Ov e r a l l Re s u l t s –C i t y of Ke n n e d a l e Or g a n i z a t i o n a l C u l t u r e A s s e s s m e n t – Ma n a g e r s R e s u l t s 34 . 5 5 22 . 6 9 17 . 5 0 24.29 40 . 3 2 24 . 4 2 15 . 1 2 19.62 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Hu m a n Re l a t i o n s Op e n Sy s t e m Ra t i o n a l Go a l s Internal Process Ma n a g e r s Or g a n i z a t i o n a l C u l t u r e A s s e s s m e n t – Em p l o y e e R e s u l t s 27 . 1 8 21 . 6 8 25 . 8 3 26.22 33 . 8 4 19 . 8 1 22 . 4 2 24.54 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Hu m a n Re l a t i o n s Op e n Sy s t e m Ra t i o n a l Go a l s Internal Process Em p l o y e e s Co n c l u s i o n Hu m a n R e l a t i o n s  Ca r i n g In t e r n a l P r o c e s s e s  Ru l e s Ra t i o n a l G o a l s  In s t r u m e n t a l Co m m e n t s / Q u e s t i o n s Qu e s t i o n s ? Th a n k y o u f o r y o u r t i m e . Ap p e n d i x – E t h i c a l C l i m a t e S u r v e y Ap p e n d i x – O r g a n i z a t i o n a l C u l t u r e A s s e s s m e n t In s t r u m e n t ( O C A I ) Ap p e n d i x – O r g a n i z a t i o n a l C u l t u r e As s e s s m e n t I n s t r u m e n t ( O C A I )