Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-26-13 TC Agenda PacketThe Regular Meeting of the Town of Westlake Town Council will begin immediately following the conclusion of the Town Council Workshop but not prior to the posted start time. Mission Statement On behalf of the citizens, the mission of the Town of Westlake is to be a one-of-a-kind community that blends our rural atmosphere with our vibrant culture and metropolitan location. Westlake, Texas – A Premier Knowledge Based Community Page 1 of 4 TOWN OF WESTLAKE, TEXAS Vision Points Sense of Place; Leadership; Caring Community; Exemplary Governance; and Service Excellence TOWN COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA August 26, 2013 WESTLAKE TOWN HALL 3 VILLAGE CIRCLE, 2ND FLOOR WESTLAKE, TX 76262 COUNCIL CHAMBERS or MUNICIPAL CONFERENCE ROOM Workshop Session: 5:30 p.m. Regular Session: 6:30 p.m. Page 2 of 4 Workshop Session 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. REVIEW OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS FOR THE AUGUST 26, 2013, TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA. (10 min) 3. REPORTS are prepared for informational purposes and will be accepted as presented. (there will no presentations associated with the report items) There will be no separate discussion unless a Council Member requests that report be removed and considered separately. a. Staff Action item 12.3: inventory and identify availability of recommended Emergency Operations Center components. 4. DISCUSSION ITEMS a. Presentation and discussion of DirectionFinders 2013 Citizens’ Survey Final Report. (30 min) b. Presentation and discussion of RFP for Comprehensive Plan Update services. (30 min) c. Continued discussion of the FY 2013/2014 Municipal Services Budget (15 min) d. Continued discussion, from the June 17, 2013 meeting, of applications for annual board and commission appointments. (15 min) e. Standing Item: Update and discussion regarding Westlake Academy Phase I expansion project and enrollment projections (Amendment to Steele & Freeman original contract for Phase I – Parts A & B). (15 min) 5. EXECUTIVE SESSION The Council will conduct a closed session pursuant to Texas Government Code, annotated, Chapter 551, Subchapter D for the following: a. Section 551.071(2) Consultation with Attorney - to seek advice of counsel on legal matters involving pending or contemplated litigation, settlement offers, or other legal matters not related directly to litigation or settlement. Pending or contemplated litigation and settlement offers include but are not limited to the following: Westlake Academy Facility Expansion b. Section 551.071 (2) Consultation with Attorney on a matter in which the duty of the attorney to the governmental body under the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct of the State Bar of Texas clearly conflicts with the is Chapter including but are not limited to the following: Town of Westlake Certificate of Convenience & Necessity (CCN) for water and sewer service. c. Section 551.074(a)(1): Deliberation Regarding Personnel Matters – to deliberate the appointment, employment, evaluation, reassignment, duties, of a public officer or employee: Town Manager 6. RECONVENE MEETING 7. TAKE ANY ACTION, IF NEEDED, FROM EXECUTIVE SESSION ITEMS. 8. COUNCIL RECAP / STAFF DIRECTION Page 3 of 4 9. ADJOURNMENT Regular Session 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. CITIZEN PRESENTATIONS AND RECOGNITIONS: This is an opportunity for citizens to address the Council on any matter whether or not it is posted on the agenda. The Council cannot by law take action nor have any discussion or deliberations on any presentation made to the Council at this time concerning an item not listed on the agenda. The Council will receive the information, ask staff to review the matter, or an item may be noticed on a future agenda for deliberation or action. 3. CONSENT AGENDA: All items listed below are considered routine by the Town Council and will be enacted with one motion. There will be no separate discussion of items unless a Council Member or citizen so requests, in which event the item will be removed from the general order of business and considered in its normal sequence. a. Consider approval of the minutes from the June 17, 2013, meeting. b. Consider approval of the minutes from the August 9, 2013, meeting. c. Consider approval of Resolution 13-22, Appointing and Reappointing Affiliate Board Members. d. Consider approval of Resolution 13-23, Approving a renewal of the Keller Police services contract e. Consider approval of Ordinance 707 – Amending the Town of Westlake Code Of Ordinances, Chapter 26, Community Development, Section 26-68; To allow the Mayor to Sit as an Alternate Member of the Zoning Board of Adjustments f. Consider approval of Ordinance 708 – Adding an Ordinance to Implement and Enforce the Texas State Rule on Locally Enforced Motor Vehicle Idling Limitations and to Approve a Memorandum of Agreement with the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality to Enforce this Rule Locally 4. Consider approval of Resolution 13-24 amending the original contract with Steele & Freeman, Inc., approved on June 17, 2013, for construction manager at-risk services establishing a guaranteed maximum price (GMP) of $8,578,694, which includes an amendment to Part A and adding Part B to Phase One of the Westlake Academy campus expansion project and authorize town staff to make funding changes not to exceed $25,000.00 on this project 5. Consider Approval of Resolution 13-25, authorizing the Town Manager to enter into a contract with Mesa Planning for the Town’s Comprehensive Plan Review and Update 6. EXECUTIVE SESSION The Council will conduct a closed session pursuant to Texas Government Code, annotated, Chapter 551, Subchapter D for the following: a. Section 551.071(2) Consultation with Attorney - to seek advice of counsel on legal matters involving pending or contemplated litigation, settlement offers, or other legal matters not related directly to litigation or settlement. Pending or contemplated Page 4 of 4 litigation and settlement offers include but are not limited to the following: Westlake Academy Facility Expansion b. Section 551.071 (2) Consultation with Attorney on a matter in which the duty of the attorney to the governmental body under the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct of the State Bar of Texas clearly conflicts with the is Chapter including but are not limited to the following: Town of Westlake Certificate of Convenience & Necessity (CCN) for water and sewer service. c. Section 551.074(a)(1): Deliberation Regarding Personnel Matters – to deliberate the appointment, employment, evaluation, reassignment, duties, of a public officer or employee: Town Manager 7. RECONVENE MEETING 8. TAKE ANY ACTION, IF NEEDED, FROM EXECUTIVE SESSION ITEMS. 9. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS: Any Council member may request at a workshop and / or Council meeting, under “Future Agenda Item Requests”, an agenda item for a future Council meeting. The Council Member making the request will contact the Town Manager with the requested item and the Town Manager will list it on the agenda. At the meeting, the requesting Council Member will explain the item, the need for Council discussion of the item, the item’s relationship to the Council’s strategic priorities, and the amount of estimated staff time necessary to prepare for Council discussion. If the requesting Council Member receives a second, the Town Manager will place the item on the Council agenda calendar allowing for adequate time for staff preparation on the agenda item. 10. COUNCIL CALENDAR 11. ADJOURNMENT ANY ITEM ON THIS POSTED AGENDA COULD BE DISCUSSED IN EXECUTIVE SESSION AS LONG AS IT IS WITHIN ONE OF THE PERMITTED CATEGORIES UNDER SECTIONS 551.071 THROUGH 551.076 AND SECTION 551.087 OF THE TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE. CERTIFICATION I certify that the above notice was posted at the Town Hall of the Town of Westlake, 3 Village Circle, August 22, 2013, by 5:00 p.m. under the Open Meetings Act, Chapter 551 of the Texas Government Code. _____________________________________ Kelly Edwards, TRMC, Town Secretary If you plan to attend this public meeting and have a disability that requires special needs, please advise the Town Secretary 48 hours in advance at 817-490-5710 and reasonable accommodations will be made to assist you. CONSENT AGENDA: All items listed below are considered routine by the Town Council and will be enacted with one motion. There will be no separate discussion of items unless a Council Member or citizen so requests, in which event the item will be removed from the general order of business and considered in its normal sequence. a. Consider approval of the minutes from the June 17, 2013, meeting. b. Consider approval of the minutes from the August 9, 2013, meeting. c. Consider approval of Resolution 13-22, Appointing and Reappointing Affiliate Board Members. d. Consider approval of Resolution 13-23, Approving a renewal of the Keller Police services contract e. Consider approval of Ordinance 707 – Amending the Town of Westlake Code Of Ordinances, Chapter 26, Community Development, Section 26-68; To allow the Mayor to Sit as an Alternate Member of the Zoning Board of Adjustments f. Consider approval of Ordinance 708 – Adding an Ordinance to Implement and Enforce the Texas State Rule on Locally Enforced Motor Vehicle Idling Limitations and to Approve a Memorandum of Agreement with the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality to Enforce this Rule Locally Town of Westlake Item # 2 – Review of Consent Agenda Items REPORTS Reports are prepared for informational purposes and will be accepted as presented. (there will no presentations associated with the report items) There will be no separate discussion unless a Council Member requests that report be removed and considered separately. a. Staff Action item 12.3: inventory and identify availability of recommended Emergency Operations Center components. Town of Westlake Workshop Item # 3– Reports Page 1 of 2 estlake Town Council TYPE OF ACTION Workshop - Report Westlake Town Council Meeting Monday, August 26, 2013 TOPIC: Staff Action Item 12.3: inventory and identify availability of recommended Emergency Operations Center components. STAFF CONTACT: Richard Whitten, Fire Chief DECISION POINTS Start Date Completion Date Timeframe: There are no hard dates for the timeline Funding: Amount- N/A Status- N/A Source- N/A Decision Alignment VVM Perspective Desired Outcome Exemplary Governance Customer Focus CF.Promote Community Health, Safety & Welfare Strategic Issue Outcome Strategy Staff Action Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness 12. Plan and inplement strategies to enhance the emergency preparedness of the residents and Town facilities. SA 12.3: EOC components Strategy Map or VVM Connection Strategic Issue Connection Page 2 of 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Emergency Preparedness will always be an ongoing process. Staff has been working to update the Town’s Emergency Management Program. There are several components to the Emergency Management Program; i.e. EOC, outdoor warning system, CodeRed, and NIMS compliance. Staff is currently not seeking the funding for the EOC components. Staff needs to find a suitable location for a temporary EOC to determine what will be necessary to operate the EOC. ORGANIZATIONAL HISTORY/RECOMMENDATION N/A ATTACHMENTS Report, EOC Component Submitted by Richard Whitten Fire Chief August 26, 2013 2 | Page In FY2012, the Town began the process of improving the Emergency Management Program. The Emergency Management Program consists of several components such as, National Incident Management System (NIMS) compliance, an early warning notification system, and an Emergency Operation Center (EOC). Until recently, the funding for the Emergency Management Program has not been available. This report reiterates what has been completed and summarizes the components necessary for the EOC, Staff Action 12.3. The first phase in improving the Emergency Management Program was Strategic Issue - Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness. The Outcome Strategy - Plan and implement strategies to enhance the emergency preparedness of the residents and Town facilities. Staff Action 12.1 is the evaluation on the local level that all departments have adequate training, equipment, and communication tools, to effectively address emergency situations as they arise. Part of Staff Action 12.1 was achieving NIMS compliance. Most of the objectives for NIMS compliance have been met. Staff is working to complete this process. In addition, Emergency preparedness information has been placed on the Town’s website for easy access for the public. See the following link: http://www.westlake-tx.org/index.aspx?nid=160 The second phase in improving the Emergency Management Program was the implementation of CodeRed. CodeRed is one of two components of an early warning notification system. CodeRed is an emergency communications network that enables staff to contact all residents and business partners in one quick process utilizing the telecommunication system. This was successfully implemented in FY2012. The second component of an early warning system is outdoor warning system. The outdoor warning sirens target the active outdoor population that is not covered by the CodeRed system. An outdoor warning system will provide notification of approaching severe storms to school children, joggers, golfers, workers, and citizens engaged in outdoor activities around their homes, etc. An outdoor warning system was proposed for the FY2014 budget. Next, staff began working on Staff Action 12.2, review Town and Academy Standard Operating Procedures and emergency plans to maintain readiness. The review of the emergency 3 | Page plans for the Academy has been completed. Staff will continue working on the emergency plans and procedures for Town staff. Staff Action 12.3 is the inventory and identify availability of recommended Emergency Operations Center components. Staff has been working on a temporary location for an EOC. However, due to limited space, a suitable location has not been determined. The ideal location for an EOC should be in a safe room or basement of a public building such as Town Hall or the fire station. Equipment that will need to be purchased for the EOC is:  Tables and chairs  TV monitors  Computers  Communication equipment  Back-up generator An estimated $20,000 will be required to supply the necessary equipment for the EOC. Staff will continue seeking a suitable location for a temporary EOC location. The consideration of a joint EOC with a neighboring community would not be a viable option since they would likely have their EOC activated during the same time that the Town’s EOC would be activated. Combining EOCs would potentially cause overcrowding and distractions during a time when isolation and functionality is critical. In conclusion, staff has been working to improve the emergency preparedness for the Town. We are close to achieving NIMS compliance. The two major components remaining for improving the emergency management program is purchasing an outdoor warning system and having an EOC. Staff will continue working to improve and maintain emergency preparedness for the community which will continue to be an ongoing process. DISCUSSION ITEMS a. Presentation and discussion of DirectionFinders 2013 Citizens’ Survey Final Report. (30 min) b. Presentation and discussion of RFP for Comprehensive Plan Update services. (30 min) c. Continued discussion of the FY 2013/2014 Municipal Services Budget (15 min) d. Continued discussion, from the June 17, 2013 meeting, of applications for annual board and commission appointments. (15 min) e. Standing Item: Update and discussion regarding Westlake Academy Phase I expansion project and enrollment projections (Amendment to Steele & Freeman original contract for Phase I – Parts A & B). (15 min) Town of Westlake Workshop Item # 4 – Discussion Items Page 1 of 2 estlake Town Council TYPE OF ACTION Workshop - Discussion Westlake Town Council Meeting Monday, April 23, 2012 TOPIC: Presentation and Discussion of 2013 DirectionFinders Citizen Survey Results STAFF CONTACT: Tom Brymer, Town Manager DECISION POINTS Start Date Completion Date Timeframe: Spring 2013 Final Report, Aug. 26, 2013 Administer Survey Funding: Amount - $9,500 Status- Funded Source - Visitors Fund Decision Alignment VVM Perspective Desired Outcome Exemplary Governance Customer Focus CS. Provide Outstanding Service and Program Delivery Strategic Issue Outcome Strategy Staff Action N/A N/A N/A Strategy Map or VVM Connection Strategic Issue Connection Page 2 of 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Town began conducting a citizens’ survey in 2009. The survey is called DirectionFinders as the results are intended to provide information to help formulate the direction of decisions the Town undertakes. Surveys were also conducted in 2010 and 2011. At that time it was determined to administer the survey on an every other year basis to help avoid survey fatigue for our residents. The 2013 survey is the first set of responses since we moved to conducting this every other year. These results are used to measure service performance and citizen satisfaction levels, to determine what the Town is doing well and where we can improve, and identify priorities so we know how to best allocate our finite resources to address areas our citizens have identified as priorities. The survey is also used to receive feedback and information from our residents’ perspective. Mr. Chris Tathum, President of the ETC Institute, will be at the workshop to present and discuss the results with the Town Council. ORGANIZATIONAL HISTORY/RECOMMENDATION No action required, report presented for Town Council information, review, and discussion. ATTACHMENTS 1. Final Report, 2013 Westlake DirectionFinders Citizens’ Survey 2. Appendix A, Benchmarking Analysis 3. Appendix B, Cross Tabulations by Age, Annual Income, and Gender 4. Appendix C, Cross Tabulations by Years lived in Subdivision and Town 222000111333 TTTooowww nnn ooofff WWWeeessstttlllaaakkkeee RRReeesssiiidddeeennnttt SSSuuurrrvvveeeyyy FFFiiinnnaaalll RRReeepppooorrrttt SSuubbmmiitttteedd TToo:: ETC Institute Project Manager: Chris Tatham 725 West Frontier Circle Phone: 913-829-1215 Olathe, Kansas Fax: 913-829-1591 66061 E-mail: ctatham@etcinstitute.com EEETTTCCC IIInnnssstttiiitttuuuttteee May 2013 ...helping organizations make better decisions since 1982 Contents Executive Summary ....................................................................... i Section 1 Charts and Graphs ........................................................................ 1 Section 2 Trend Analysis ............................................................................ 18 Section 3 Importance-Satisfaction Analysis ............................................... 32 I-S Matrix Graphs ............................................... 36 Section 4 Tabular Data ............................................................................... 38 Section 5 Survey Instrument ....................................................................... 71 Executive Summary i EXE C U T I V E SUM M A R Y Town of Westlake 2013 Resident Survey Executive Summary Overview and Methodology During April and May of 2013, ETC Institute administered a Resident Survey for the Town of Westlake. The purpose of the survey was to gather input from citizens to help Town leaders make critical decisions concerning the allocation of Town resources, to measure the effectiveness of Town Services, and to help decide the future direction of the community. This was the third time the Town had administered the resident survey; the previous surveys were administered in 2009, 2010 and 2011. The five-page survey was administered by mail and phone to a random sample of 250 households in the Town. The results for the random sample of 250 households have a 95% level of confidence with a precision of at least +/- 4.0%. This summary report contains: a summary of the methodology for administering the survey and major findings charts showing the overall results for most questions on the survey trend analysis benchmarking data that shows how the results for Westlake compare to other cities and towns in the U.S. and to other communities where the DirectionFinder® survey was administered. (TO BE ADDED) importance-satisfaction analysis tabular data that show the results for each question on the survey a copy of the survey instrument. The percentage of “don’t know” responses has been excluded from many of the graphs shown in this report to facilitate valid comparisons of the results from Westlake with the results from other communities in ETC Institute’s DirectionFinder® database. Since the number of “don’t know” responses often reflects the utilization and awareness of Town services, the percentage of “don’t know” responses has been provided in the tabular data section of this report. When the “don’t know” responses have been excluded, the text of this report will indicate that the responses have been excluded with the phrase “who had an opinion.” Executive Summary ii EXE C U T I V E SUM M A R Y Overall Satisfaction Seventy-four percent (74%) of residents, who had an opinion, were “very satisfied” or “satisfied” with the overall quality of government services provided by Westlake; 17% were neutral and 10% were dissatisfied. The highest levels of satisfaction with Town services, based upon a combination of “very satisfied” and “satisfied” responses among residents who had an opinion, were: the quality of public safety services (86%), Westlake’s emergency preparedness efforts (82%) and the maintenance of Town streets (81%). Composite Customer Satisfaction Index. To objectively assess the change in overall satisfaction with Town services from 2009, ETC Institute developed a Composite Customer Satisfaction Index for the Town. The Composite Satisfaction Index is derived from the mean rating given for all major categories of Town services that are assessed on the survey in 2009, 2011 and 2013. The index is calculated by dividing the mean rating for the current year by the mean rating for the base-year (year 2009) and then multiplying the result by 100. As the chart below shows, the Composite Customer Satisfaction Index for Westlake increased 1 point from 2009 to 2011 and then increased 12 points from 2011 to 2013. In comparison, the U.S. index has remained fairly stagnant, with a slight increase of just 1 point from 2011 to 2013. (In addition to these findings, more detailed analysis of how the survey results have changed from 2009, 2011 and 2013 is provided in Section 2 of this report). Executive Summary iii EXE C U T I V E SUM M A R Y Overall Priorities The top three major Town services that residents felt were most important were: 1) public safety services (73%), 2) overall value of Westlake Academy to the Town (44%) and 3) parks/trails/open spaces/streetscaping/facilities (34%). Satisfaction with Specific Town Services • Police Services. The police services that residents were most satisfied with, based upon a combination of “very satisfied” and “satisfied” responses among residents who had an opinion, were: the overall quality of local police protection (80%), how quickly police respond to emergencies (80%) and efforts of the Town to prevent crime (74%). • Fire and Emergency Medical Services. Residents were generally satisfied with fire and emergency medical services in Westlake. Based upon a combination of “very satisfied” and “satisfied” responses, among residents who had an opinion, eighty-eight percent (88%) of Westlake residents were satisfied with the quality emergency medical services, 88% were satisfied with the response time of fire and EMS personnel and 87% were satisfied with the overall quality of fire services. • Emergency Preparedness. Three-fourths (75%) of the residents surveyed, who had an opinion, were “very satisfied” or “satisfied” with the Town staff response during extreme weather and 73% were satisfied with efforts by the Town staff to inform residents of hazardous road conditions, potential inclement weather and closures. • Transportation Services. The transportation services that residents were most satisfied with, based upon a combination of “very satisfied” and “satisfied” responses among residents who had an opinion, were: the condition of major streets in Westlake (87%), the cleanliness of streets and other public areas (86%) and the condition of neighborhood streets (86%). • Communication/Citizen Engagement. The communication/citizen engagement services that residents were most satisfied with, based upon a combination of “very satisfied” and “satisfied” responses among residents who had an opinion, were: the usefulness of the Westlake Wire communications (77%), Town efforts to keep residents informed (70%) and the timeliness of information provided by the Town (64%). Executive Summary iv EXE C U T I V E SUM M A R Y • Parks and Recreation Services. The parks and recreation services that residents were most satisfied with, based upon a combination of “very satisfied” and “satisfied” responses among residents who had an opinion, were: the maintenance of streetscaping and open space (74%) and the maintenance of Town-owned Glenwyck Park (69%). • Utility Services. The utility services that residents were most satisfied with, based upon a combination of “very satisfied” and “satisfied” responses among residents who had an opinion, were: curbside recycling services (83%), yard waste/bulky item removal services (78%) and residential trash collection services (78%). • Customer Service. The customer service items that residents were most satisfied with, based upon a combination of “very satisfied” and “satisfied” responses among residents who had an opinion, were the friendliness of Town staff (83%), municipal court services (81%) and the participation of Town staff in community events/neighborhood meetings (77%). Other Findings • Eighty percent (80%) of the residents surveyed, who had an opinion, either “strongly agreed” or “agreed” that Westlake’s continued emphasis on attracting high-end development is important. • The most important reasons that residents indicated they will continue to stay in Westlake over the next five years were: 1) the quality of life (54%), 2) aesthetic appeal/high development standards (38%), 3) Westlake Academy (37%) and 4) the small town feel (35%). • The road improvements that residents felt were most beneficial, based upon the combined percentage of residents who rated the improvement as “very beneficial” or “beneficial” among residents who had an opinion, were: improvements to Dove Rd./J.T. Ottinger Rd. (75%) and Improvements to FM 1938/David Blvd. (70%). • Residents were generally satisfied with the efforts of the Town to respond and deal with burglary incidents. Eighty-one percent (81%) of residents who had an opinion, were “very satisfied” or “satisfied” with the police response to burglaries in Westlake; 83% were satisfied with the communication provided about burglaries and 77% were satisfied with Westlake’s efforts to implement safety measures from incidents. Executive Summary v EXE C U T I V E SUM M A R Y • The types of Town information that residents were most familiar with, based upon the combined percentage of residents who indicated they were “very familiar” or “somewhat familiar” with the information, were: zoning standards within the Town (74%), allowed uses for existing planned development districts within the Town (70%) and the Town's open space requirements for development (67%). • Of the residents who had attended public meetings held in their neighborhood this year, eighty-three percent (83%) felt the meeting was informative and 87% felt they had the opportunity to discuss their ideas and concerns at the meeting. • Ninety-five percent (95%) of the residents surveyed felt “very safe” or “safe” in the Town of Westlake; 3% of the residents felt “very unsafe” or “unsafe” and 2% of residents did not have an opinion. • Most (91%) of the residents surveyed thought Westlake was an “excellent” or “good” place to live; 2% felt it was an “average” place to live, 4% felt it was a “poor” place to live and 3% did not know. Section 1: Charts and Graphs Town of Westlake 2013 Resident Survey: Final Report ETC Institute (2013)Page 1 49% 43% 41% 54% 32% 42% 40% 35% 28% 29% 24% 37% 39% 40% 24% 42% 32% 33% 37% 43% 41% 31% 9% 13% 13% 13% 17% 12% 20% 23% 21% 21% 25% 6% 6% 6% 10% 10% 15% 7% 6% 9% 9% 20% Quality of public safety services Westlake's emergency preparedness efforts Maintenance of Town streets Overall value of Westlake Academy to the Town Overall quality of governmental services Effectiveness of Town communication Overall customer service provided by Town Parks/trails/open spaces/streetscaping/facilites Enforcement of codes and ordinances Quality of utility services Value received from City tax dollars and fees 0%20%40%60%80%100% Very Satisfied (5)Satisfied (4)Neutral (3)Dissatisfied (1/2) Q1. Overall Satisfaction With Town Services by Major Category by percentage of respondents who rated the item as a 1 to 5 on a 5-point scale (excluding don't knows) Source: ETC Institute DirectionFinder (2013 - Westlake, TX) 73% 44% 34% 31% 20% 20% 18% 12% 11% 10% 7% Quality of public safety services Overall value of Westlake Academy to the Town Parks/trails/open spaces/streetscaping/facilites Value received from City tax dollars and fees Maintenance of Town streets Quality of utility services Westlake's emergency preparedness efforts Overall quality of governmental services Enforcement of codes and ordinances Effectiveness of Town communication Overall customer service provided by Town 0%20%40%60%80% 1st Choice2nd Choice3rd Choice by percentage of respondents who selected the item as one of their top three choices Q2. Major Categories of Town Services That Residents Felt Were Most Important Source: ETC Institute DirectionFinder (2013 - Westlake, TX) Town of Westlake 2013 Resident Survey: Final Report ETC Institute (2013)Page 2 44% 44% 34% 33% 29% 36% 36% 40% 38% 37% 18% 20% 15% 20% 19% 3% 1% 11% 9% 15% Quality of local police protection How quickly police respond to emergencies Efforts of the Town to prevent crime Visibility of police in neighborhoods Level of traffic enforcement 0%20%40%60%80%100% Very Satisfied (5)Satisfied (4)Neutral (3)Unsatisfied (1/2) Q3a-e. Satisfaction with Police Services in the Town of Westlake by percentage of respondents who rated the item as a 1 to 5 on a 5-point scale (excluding don't knows) Source: ETC Institute DirectionFinder (2013 - Westlake, TX) 55% 53% 48% 33% 35% 39% 12% 12% 12% 1% 1% Overall quality of emergency medical services Response time of fire and EMS personnel Overall quality of fire services 0%20%40%60%80%100% Very Satisfied (5)Satisfied (4)Neutral (3)Unsatisfied (1/2) Q3f-g. Satisfaction with Fire and Medical Services in the Town of Westlake by percentage of respondents who rated the item as a 1 to 5 on a 5-point scale (excluding don't knows) Source: ETC Institute DirectionFinder (2013 - Westlake, TX) Town of Westlake 2013 Resident Survey: Final Report ETC Institute (2013)Page 3 35% 37% 40% 36% 23% 23% 2% 3% Town staff response during extreme weather 0%20%40%60%80%100% Very Satisfied (5)Satisfied (4)Neutral (3)Unsatisfied (1/2) Q3i-j. Satisfaction with Emergency Preparedness in the Town of Westlake by percentage of respondents who rated the item as a 1 to 5 on a 5-point scale (excluding don't knows) Source: ETC Institute DirectionFinder (2013 - Westlake, TX) Efforts by Town staff to inform residents of hazardous road conditions, potential inclement weather and closures 40% 38% 41% 29% 47% 48% 45% 49% 10% 6% 11% 16% 4% 8% 3% 6% Condition of major streets in Westlake Cleanliness of streets and other public areas Condition of neighborhood streets Traffic flow and congestion management 0%20%40%60%80%100% Very Satisfied (5)Satisfied (4)Neutral (3)Unsatisfied (1/2) Q3k-n. Satisfaction with Transportation Services in the Town of Westlake by percentage of respondents who rated the item as a 1 to 5 on a 5-point scale (excluding don't knows) Source: ETC Institute DirectionFinder (2013 - Westlake, TX) Town of Westlake 2013 Resident Survey: Final Report ETC Institute (2013)Page 4 36% 41% 34% 31% 29% 25% 26% 41% 29% 30% 31% 30% 33% 31% 18% 14% 21% 19% 25% 31% 37% 5% 16% 15% 19% 16% 12% 7% Usefulness of the Westlake Wire communications Timeliness of information provided by the Town Completeness of the information provided by the To Opportunities provided for public input Ease of use of the Town's website Availability/accessibility of Town records 0%20%40%60%80%100% Very Satisfied (5)Satisfied (4)Neutral (3)Unsatisfied (1/2) Q3o-u. Satisfaction with Communication and Citizen Engagement in the Town of Westlake by percentage of respondents who rated the item as a 1 to 5 on a 5-point scale (excluding don't knows) Source: ETC Institute DirectionFinder (2013 - Westlake, TX) Efforts of Town to keep you informed about Council Meetings/Town projects/issues/events 32% 28% 22% 42% 41% 41% 16% 24% 21% 11% 7% 16% Maintenance of streetscaping/open spaces Maintenance of Town-owned Glenwyck Park Number of publicly-accessible parks/trails 0%20%40%60%80%100% Very Satisfied (5)Satisfied (4)Neutral (3)Unsatisfied (1/2) Q3v-x. Satisfaction with Parks and Recreation Services in the Town of Westlake by percentage of respondents who rated the item as a 1 to 5 on a 5-point scale (excluding don't knows) Source: ETC Institute DirectionFinder (2013 - Westlake, TX) Town of Westlake 2013 Resident Survey: Final Report ETC Institute (2013)Page 5 41% 34% 39% 35% 23% 26% 24% 42% 44% 39% 38% 47% 39% 41% 13% 16% 11% 19% 24% 26% 27% 5% 6% 11% 7% 6% 10% 9% Curbside recycling services Yard Waste/bulky item removal services Residential trash collection services Quality of (drinking) water utility services Promote water conservation/protect water resources Household hazardous waste disposal service Efforts by the Town to manage storm water run-off 0%20%40%60%80%100% Very Satisfied (5)Satisfied (4)Neutral (3)Unsatisfied (1/2) Q3y-ee. Satisfaction with Utility Services in the Town of Westlake by percentage of respondents who rated the item as a 1 to 5 on a 5-point scale (excluding don't knows) Source: ETC Institute DirectionFinder (2013 - Westlake, TX) 46% 35% 33% 31% 36% 37% 46% 44% 45% 36% 14% 16% 20% 16% 25% 3% 2% 3% 8% 3% Friendliness of Town Staff Municipal court services Timeliness of Town Staff to concerns/ issues Jury service experience 0%20%40%60%80%100% Very Satisfied (5)Satisfied (4)Neutral (3)Unsatisfied (1/2) Q3ff-jj. Satisfaction with Customer Service in the Town of Westlake by percentage of respondents who rated the item as a 1 to 5 on a 5-point scale (excluding don't knows) Source: ETC Institute DirectionFinder (2013 - Westlake, TX) Participation by Town staff in community events/neighborhood meetings Town of Westlake 2013 Resident Survey: Final Report ETC Institute (2013)Page 6 32% 31% 41% 41% 26% 17% 2% 11% Enforcing sign regulations 0%20%40%60%80%100% Very Satisfied (5)Satisfied (4)Neutral (3)Unsatisfied (1/2) Q3kk-ll. Satisfaction with Code Enforcement in the Town of Westlake by percentage of respondents who rated the item as a 1 to 5 on a 5-point scale (excluding don't knows) Source: ETC Institute DirectionFinder (2013 - Westlake, TX) Enforcing exterior appearance/maintenance regulations for property 56% 32% 21% 24% 27% 28% 12% 29% 21% 9% 12% 30% 0%20%40%60%80%100% Strongly Agree (5)Agree (4)Neutral (3)Disagree (1/2) Q4. Level of Agreement With Various Statements About Westlake by percentage of respondents (excluding don't knows) Source: ETC Institute DirectionFinder (2013 - Westlake, TX) Westlake’s emphasis on attracting high-end development is important The connectivity of Westlake’s walking/biking trails is important Attracting retail development, which grows Westlake’s sales tax base, is important to me Town of Westlake 2013 Resident Survey: Final Report ETC Institute (2013)Page 7 Q5. Importance of Various Reasons in the Decision to Move to Westlake by percentage of respondents who felt the item was "extremely important,” "very important" or “important” Source: ETC Institute DirectionFinder (2013 - Westlake, TX) 96% 93% 92% 92% 90% 90% 86% 86% 82% 77% 67% 64% 58% 44% 32% 25% Quality of life Quality of your subdivision Low crime rates/quality of public safety Aesthetic appeal/high development standards Small town feel Type of housing available Access to major highways Sense of community Access to DFW airport Subdivision amenities Number of publicly accessible parks/trails Westlake Academy Westlake as a retirement destination Access to other public schools Proximity to private schools Employment opportunities in the Westlake area 0%20%40%60%80%100% Extremely ImportantVery ImportantImportant 0% 54% 38% 37% 35% 26% 25% 14% 14% 12% 10% 5% 5% 3% 3% 1% Quality of life Aesthetic appeal/high development standards Westlake Academy Small town feel Low crime rates/quality of public safety Quality of your subdivision Access to DFW airport Subdivision amenities Sense of community Type of housing available Access to other public schools Westlake as a retirement destination Access to major highways Number of publicly accessible parks/trails Proximity to private schools Employment opportunities in the Westlake area 0%20%40%60% 1st Choice2nd Choice3rd Choice by percentage of respondents who selected the item as one of their top three choices Q6. Reasons Residents Will Stay in Westlake Over the Next Five Years Source: ETC Institute DirectionFinder (2013 - Westlake, TX) Town of Westlake 2013 Resident Survey: Final Report ETC Institute (2013)Page 8 46% 52% 41% 37% 29% 18% 28% 30% 15% 17% 17% 26% 11% 12% 14% 7% Improvements to Dove Rd. / J.T. Ottinger Rd. Improvements to FM 1938 / Davis Blvd. Reconfigurations at Dove Rd/J.T. Ottinger Rd. Reconfigurations at Dove Rd./Pearson Ln. 0%20%40%60%80%100% Very Beneficial (5)Beneficial (4)Neutral (3)Not Beneficial (1/2) Q7. How beneficial do you feel the following road improvements are: by percentage of respondents who rated the item as a 1 to 5 on a 5-point scale (excluding don't knows) Source: ETC Institute DirectionFinder (2013 - Westlake, TX) Q8. Satisfaction With How Well Burglary Incidents Were Handled by percentage of respondents who rated the item as a 1 to 5 on a 5-point scale (excluding don't knows) Source: ETC Institute DirectionFinder (2013 - Westlake, TX) 48% 37% 40% 35% 44% 37% 7% 10% 17% 10% 9% 7% Communication provided about burglaries Police response to burglaries in Westlake 0%20%40%60%80%100% Very Satisfied (5)Satisfied (4)Neutral (3)Unsatisfied (1/2) Implementing safety measures resulting from the burglary incidents Town of Westlake 2013 Resident Survey: Final Report ETC Institute (2013)Page 9 Q9. Town Information Residents Were Familiar With by percentage of respondents who indicated they were "very familiar” or "somewhat familiar" with the information Source: ETC Institute DirectionFinder (2013 - Westlake, TX) 74% 70% 67% 66% 65% 62% Zoning standards within the Town Allowed uses for planned development districts Town's open space requirements for development Town's Comprehensive Plan Town's Strategic Plan Town's lighting standards 0%20%40%60%80%100% Very FamiliarSomewhat Familiar 11% 6% 14% 7% 9% 7% 3% 6% 6% 11% 14% 9% 8% 8% 11% 8% 18% 13% 7% 6% 9% Decoration Day Master Works concert series Arbor Day Community Tree Lighting Other Historical Preservation Society events Public Arts Society events 0%5%10%15%20% This YearLast YearTwo Years Ago by percentage of respondents who indicated they had participated in the event Q10. Percentage of Residents Who Participated in Activities and Events Sponsored by the Town Source: ETC Institute DirectionFinder (2013 - Westlake, TX) Westlake Historical Preservation Society's Classic Car Show Town of Westlake 2013 Resident Survey: Final Report ETC Institute (2013)Page 10 41% 18% Public meeting in neighborhood 0%10%20%30%40%50% This YearLast Year by percentage of respondents who said “Yes” Q11. Percent of Residents who Participated in Public Meetings Held in Their Neighborhood Source: ETC Institute DirectionFinder (2013 - Westlake, TX) 88% 86% 6% 8% 6% 6% The meeting was informative I had the opportunity to discuss ideas/concerns 0%20%40%60%80%100% YesNoNot Sure by percentage of respondents Q11a-b. Perceptions of Public Meetings THIS YEAR Source: ETC Institute DirectionFinder (2013 - Westlake, TX) Town of Westlake 2013 Resident Survey: Final Report ETC Institute (2013)Page 11 70% 87% 17% 9% 13% 4% The meeting was informative I had the opportunity to discuss ideas/concerns 0%20%40%60%80%100% YesNoNot Sure Source: ETC Institute DirectionFinder (2013 - Westlake, TX) Q11a-b. Perceptions of Public Meetings LAST YEAR by percentage of respondents 71% 78% 15% 6% 15% 16% I will attend a meeting in the future These types of meetings are useful to conduct 0%20%40%60%80%100% YesNoNot Sure by percentage of respondents who DID NOT attend a public meeting Source: ETC Institute DirectionFinder (2013 - Westlake, TX) Q11c-d. Other Questions Related to Public Meetings: Town of Westlake 2013 Resident Survey: Final Report ETC Institute (2013)Page 12 Q12. In your opinion, how often should neighborhood meetings be held? by percentage of respondents Annually 35% Twice a Year 42%Every Other Year 4% Don't Know 19% Source: ETC Institute DirectionFinder (2013 - Westlake, TX) Q13. Do any children in grades K-12 currently live in your home? Q13a. If YES, do any of these children currently attend Westlake Academy? by percentage of respondents Yes 48% No 51% Not provided 1% Yes 74% No 25% Not provided 1% Source: ETC Institute DirectionFinder (2013 - Westlake, TX) Town of Westlake 2013 Resident Survey: Final Report ETC Institute (2013)Page 13 Q13d. If your child previously attended Westlake, are you considering re-enrolling them in the future? by percentage of respondents who had children in grades K-12 living in their home who were not attending Westlake Academy Yes 10% No 37% Don't Know 53% Source: ETC Institute DirectionFinder (2013 - Westlake, TX) 18-34 years 7% 35 to 54 years 50% 55 to 74 years 34% 75+ years 5% Not provided 4% Q14. Demographics: Age of Survey Respondents by percentage of respondents Source: ETC Institute DirectionFinder (2013 - Westlake, TX) Town of Westlake 2013 Resident Survey: Final Report ETC Institute (2013)Page 14 Q15. Demographics: How many years have you lived in Westlake? by percentage of respondents Less than 5 years 44% 5-10 years 33% 11-15 years 5% 16-20 years 2% Over 20 years 13% Not provided 3% Source: ETC Institute DirectionFinder (2013 - Westlake, TX) Stagecoach Hills 12% Vaquero 39% Wyck Hill 4% Glenwyck Farms 23% Mahoeta Boone 4% Other 13% Not provided 5% Q16. Demographics: In which subdivision do you live? by percentage of respondents Source: ETC Institute DirectionFinder (2013 - Westlake, TX) Town of Westlake 2013 Resident Survey: Final Report ETC Institute (2013)Page 15 Under $50,000 5% $50,000 to $149,999 12% $150,000 to $500,000 31% $500,000+ 40% Not provided 12% Q17. Demographics: Household Income by percentage of respondents Source: ETC Institute DirectionFinder (2013 - Westlake, TX) Male 51% Female 49% Q18. Demographics: Respondents Gender by percentage of respondents Source: ETC Institute DirectionFinder (2013 - Westlake, TX) Town of Westlake 2013 Resident Survey: Final Report ETC Institute (2013)Page 16 Q19. Overall, how safe do you feel in the Town of Westlake? by percentage of respondents Very safe 52% Safe 43% Unsafe 2% Very unsafe 1% Don't know 2% Source: ETC Institute DirectionFinder (2013 - Westlake, TX) Q20. Overall, how would you rate the Town of Westlake as a place to live? by percentage of respondents Excellent 70% Good 21% Average 2% Poor 4% Don't know 3% Source: ETC Institute DirectionFinder (2013 - Westlake, TX) Town of Westlake 2013 Resident Survey: Final Report ETC Institute (2013)Page 17 Section 2: Trend Analysis Town of Westlake 2013 Resident Survey: Final Report ETC Institute (2013)Page 18 Anal ysis of Trends: 2011 versus 2013 Overview In 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2013 the Town of Westlake conducted a resident survey to assess resident satisfaction with the delivery of major city services. The charts on the following pages show how the results of the 2013 survey compare to the results surveys conducted in 2011 and 2009. Significant changes in the survey results from 2011 to 2013 are highlighted below; given the sample size of both surveys, changes of 4.0% or more are considered statistically significant. Significant Changes in Satisfaction Ratings Overall Satisfaction. There was a significant increase of 8% in satisfaction for the overall quality of government services provided by the Town from 66% in 2011 to 74% in 2013. Satisfaction with Major Categories of City Services. Among the eight major categories of city services that were rated in both 2011 and 2013, there were increases in satisfaction ratings in ALL areas, seven of which were significant. The areas with significant increases in satisfaction ratings are listed below: • Satisfaction with the maintenance of Town streets increased 21% from 60% in 2011 to 81% in 2013. • Satisfaction with parks, trails, open spaces, streetscaping and facilities increased 11% from 61% in 2011 to 72% in 2013. • Satisfaction with the quality of public safety services increased 8% from 78% in 2011 to 86% in 2013. • Satisfaction with Westlake’s emergency preparedness efforts increased 7% from 74% in 2011 to 82% in 2013. • Satisfaction with the overall quality of utility services increased 7% from 63% in 2011 to 70% in 2013. • Satisfaction with the overall quality of customer service provided by the Town increased 4% from 69% in 2011 to 73% in 2013. • Satisfaction with the enforcement of codes and ordinances increased 4% from 67% in 2011 to 71% in 2013. Town of Westlake 2013 Resident Survey: Final Report ETC Institute (2013)Page 19 Satisfaction with Police Services. Among the five police services that were rated in both 2011 and 2013, there were significant increases in satisfaction ratings in four areas and a slight decrease in one area (not significant). The areas with significant increases in satisfaction ratings from 2011 are provided below: • Satisfaction with the level of traffic enforcement increased 12% from 55% in 2011 to 66% in 2013. • Satisfaction with how quickly police respond to emergencies increased 10% from 70% in 2011 to 80% in 2013. • Satisfaction with Town efforts to prevent crime increased 7% from 67% in 2011 to 74% in 2013. • Satisfaction with the overall quality of local police protection increased 4% from 76% in 2011 to 80% in 2013. Satisfaction with Fire and Emergency Medical Services. There were increases in satisfaction ratings in all three of the fire and emergency medical services that were rated in both 2011 and 2013. The two areas with significant increases in satisfaction are listed below: • Satisfaction with the response time of fire and EMS personnel increased 6% from 82% in 2011 to 88% in 2013. • Satisfaction with the overall quality of emergency medical services increased 5% from 83% in 2011 to 88% in 2013. Satisfaction with Emergency Preparedness. There were significant increases in satisfaction in both of the emergency preparedness services that were rated in 2011 and 2013; the results are provided below: • Satisfaction with efforts by the Town staff to inform residents of hazardous road conditions, potential inclement weather and closures increased 12% from 61% in 2011 to 73% in 2013. • Satisfaction with the response efforts by the Town staff during extreme weather conditions increased 6% from 69% in 2011 to 75% in 2013. Satisfaction with Transportation Services. There were significant increases in satisfaction in all three of the transportation services that were rated in 2011 and 2013; the results are provided below: • Satisfaction with the condition of major streets in Westlake increased 26% from 61% in 2011 to 87% in 2013. • Satisfaction with the condition of neighborhood streets increased 19% from 67% in 2011 to 86% in 2013. • Satisfaction with the cleanliness of streets and other public areas increased 6% from 81% in 2011 to 86% in 2013. Town of Westlake 2013 Resident Survey: Final Report ETC Institute (2013)Page 20 Satisfaction with Communications and Citizen Engagement. Among the six communications and citizen engagement items that were rated in both 2011 and 2013, there were increases in satisfaction ratings in two areas, one of which was significant. The area that showed a significant increase in satisfaction ratings is listed below: • Satisfaction with the availability/accessibility of Town records increased 8% from 49% in 2011 to 57% in 2013. There were decreases in satisfaction ratings in three of the communications and citizen engagement services rated from 2011 to 2013, one of which was significant. The area that showed a significant decrease in satisfaction ratings is listed below: • Satisfaction with the ease of use of the Town’s website decreased 9% from 67% in 2011 to 58% in 2013. Satisfaction with Parks and Recreation Services. Among the three parks and recreation services that were rated in both 2011 and 2013, there were significant increases in two areas and a slight decrease in one area (not significant). The areas with significant increases in satisfaction ratings from 2011 are provided below: • Satisfaction with the number of publically accessible parks and trails increased 10% from 53% in 2011 to 63% in 2013. • Satisfaction with the maintenance of streetscaping and open spaces increased 5% from 69% in 2011 to 74% in 2013. Satisfaction with Utility Services. There were significant increases in satisfaction ratings in ALL five of the utility services rated from 2011 to 2013; the results are listed below: • Satisfaction with residential trash collection services increased 22% from 56% in 2011 to 78% in 2013. • Satisfaction with household hazardous waste disposal service increased 22% from 43% in 2011 to 65% in 2013. • Satisfaction with efforts by the Town to manage storm water run-off increased 18% from 47% in 2011 to 65% in 2013. • Satisfaction with efforts to promote water conservation and protect water resources increased 14% from 56% in 2011 to 70% in 2013. • Satisfaction with curbside recycling services increased 12% from 71% in 2011 to 83% in 2013. Satisfaction with Customer Service. There were increases in satisfaction ratings in ALL four of the customer service items rated from 2011 to 2013; three of these increases were significant. The areas with significant increases are listed below: Town of Westlake 2013 Resident Survey: Final Report ETC Institute (2013)Page 21 • Satisfaction with the timeliness of Town staff to concerns/issues increased 14% from 62% in 2011 to 76% in 2013. • Satisfaction with municipal court services increased 9% from 72% in 2011 to 81% in 2013. • Satisfaction with participation by the Town staff in community events and neighborhood meetings increased 6% from 71% in 2011 to 77% in 2013. Satisfaction with Code Enforcement. There were significant increases in satisfaction ratings in both of the code enforcement services rated from 2011 to 2013; the findings are listed below: • Satisfaction with the enforcement of the exterior appearance/maintenance regulations of property increased 9% from 63% in 2011 to 72% in 2013. • Satisfaction with the enforcement of sign regulations increased 6% from 67% in 2011 to 73% in 2013. Significant Changes in Other Areas • There was a significant increase in the percent of residents who agreed that Westlake's continued emphasis on attracting high-end development was important (16% increase from 64% in 2011 to 80% in 2013). • There was a significant decrease in the percent of resident who agreed that attracting retail development, which grows Westlake’s sales tax base, was important (19% decrease from 68% in 2011 to 49% in 2013). • There were significant increases in the percent of residents who felt the following items were important in their decision to move to Westlake: o Importance ratings for Westlake Academy increased 7% from 57% in 2011 to 64% in 2013. o Importance ratings for Westlake as a retirement destination increased 6% from 52% in 2011 to 58% in 2013. o Importance ratings for the sense of community in Westlake increased 4% from 82% in 2011 to 86% on 2013. o Importance ratings for the type of housing available in Westlake increased 4% from 86% in 2011 to 90% in 2013. There were significant decreases in the percent of residents who felt the following items were important in their decision to move to Westlake: o Importance ratings for the access to other public schools decreased 13% from 57% in 2011 to 44% in 2013. o Importance ratings for the proximity to private schools decreased 11% from 44% in 2011 to 32% in 2013. o Importance ratings for the access to DFW airport decreased 7% from 88% in 2011 to 82% in 2013. o Importance ratings for the access to major highways decreased 5% from 91% in 2011 to 86% in 2013. Town of Westlake 2013 Resident Survey: Final Report ETC Institute (2013)Page 22 • There was a significant increase in the percent of residents who indicated they had participated in a neighborhood meeting during the past year (10% increase from 31% in 2011 versus 41% in 2013). • There were significant decreases in the percent of residents who indicated they had attended the following events during the past year: o Attendance of Arbor Day decreased 11% from 25% in 2011 to 14% in 2013. o Attendance of the Community Tree Lighting decreased 7% from 14% in 2011 to 7% in 2013. o Attendance of Decoration Day decreased 5% from 16% in 2011 to 11% in 2013. Town of Westlake 2013 Resident Survey: Final Report ETC Institute (2013)Page 23 Trends: Overall Satisfaction With Town Services by Major Category (2013 vs 2011 vs. 2009) 86% 82% 81% 78% 74% 74% 73% 72% 71% 70% 55% 78% 74% 60% 72% 66% 69% 61% 67% 63% 80% 65% 63% 55% 74% 70% 77% 54% 61% 66% Quality of public safety services Westlake's emergency preparedness efforts Maintenance of Town streets Overall value of Westlake Academy to the Town Effectiveness of Town communication Overall quality of governmental services Overall customer service provided by Town Parks/trails/open spaces/streetscaping/facilites Enforcement of codes and ordinances Quality of utility services Value received from City tax dollars and fees 0%20%40%60%80%100% 201320112009 by percentage of respondents who rated the item as a 4 or 5 on a 5-point scale (excluding don't knows) Source: ETC Institute DirectionFinder (May 2013 - Westlake, TX) Not asked in 2011 Not asked in 2009 Not asked in 2011 Asked as "Parks, trails, recreation programs/facilites" in previous years Asked as just "Westlake Academy" in 2009 Trends: Satisfaction with Police Services in the Town of Westlake (2013 vs. 2011 vs. 2009) 80% 80% 74% 71% 66% 76% 70% 67% 73% 55% 78% 74% 66% 77% 64% Quality of local police protection How quickly police respond to emergencies Efforts of the Town to prevent crime Visibility of police in neighborhoods Level of traffic enforcement 0%20%40%60%80%100% 201320112009 by percentage of respondents who rated the item as a 4 or 5 on a 5-point scale (excluding don't knows) Source: ETC Institute DirectionFinder (May 2013 - Westlake, TX) Town of Westlake 2013 Resident Survey: Final Report ETC Institute (2013)Page 24 Trends: Satisfaction with Fire and EMS Services in the Town of Westlake (2013 vs. 2011 vs. 2009) 88% 88% 87% 83% 82% 84% 77% 82% 75% Overall quality of emergency medical services Response time of fire and EMS personnel Overall quality of fire services 0%20%40%60%80%100% 201320112009 by percentage of respondents who rated the item as a 4 or 5 on a 5-point scale (excluding don't knows) Source: ETC Institute DirectionFinder (May 2013 - Westlake, TX) Trends: Satisfaction with Emergency Preparedness in the Town of Westlake (2013 vs. 2011) 75% 73% 69% 61% Town staff response during extreme weather 0%20%40%60%80%100% 20132011 by percentage of respondents who rated the item as a 4 or 5 on a 5-point scale (excluding don't knows) Source: ETC Institute DirectionFinder (May 2013 - Westlake, TX) Efforts by Town staff to inform residents of hazardous road conditions, potential inclement weather and closures Town of Westlake 2013 Resident Survey: Final Report ETC Institute (2013)Page 25 Trends: Satisfaction with Transportation Services in the Town of Westlake (2013 vs. 2011 vs. 2009) 87% 86% 86% 78% 61% 81% 67% 64% 73% 66% Condition of major streets in Westlake Cleanliness of streets and other public areas Condition of neighborhood streets Traffic flow and congestion management 0%20%40%60%80%100% 201320112009 by percentage of respondents who rated the item as a 4 or 5 on a 5-point scale (excluding don't knows) Source: ETC Institute DirectionFinder (May 2013 - Westlake, TX) Not asked previously Trends: Satisfaction with Communications and Citizen Engagement in the Town of Westlake (2013 vs. 2011) 70% 64% 62% 59% 58% 57% 70% 65% 65% 56% 67% 49% Town efforts to keep residents informed Timeliness of information provided by the Town Completeness of the information provided by the To Opportunities provided for public input Ease of use of the Town's website Availability/accessibility of Town records 0%20%40%60%80% 20132011 by percentage of respondents who rated the item as a 4 or 5 on a 5-point scale (excluding don't knows) Source: ETC Institute DirectionFinder (May 2013 - Westlake, TX) Town of Westlake 2013 Resident Survey: Final Report ETC Institute (2013)Page 26 Trends: Satisfaction with Parks and Recreation in the Town of Westlake (2013 vs. 2011 vs. 2009) 74% 69% 63% 69% 71% 53% 70% 53% Maintenance of streetscaping/open spaces Maintenance of Town-owned Glenwyck Park Number of publicly-accessible parks/trails 0%20%40%60%80%100% 201320112009 by percentage of respondents who rated the item as a 4 or 5 on a 5-point scale (excluding don't knows) Source: ETC Institute DirectionFinder (May 2013 - Westlake, TX) Not asked in 2009 Trends: Satisfaction with Utility Services in the Town of Westlake (2013 vs. 2011 vs. 2009) 83% 78% 78% 73% 70% 65% 65% 71% 56% 56% 47% 43% 87% 90% 60% 53% Curbside recycling services Yard Waste/bulky item removal services Residential trash collection services Quality of (drinking) water utility services Promote water conservation/protect water resources Efforts by the Town to manage storm water run-off Household hazardous waste disposal service 0%20%40%60%80%100% 201320112009 by percentage of respondents who rated the item as a 4 or 5 on a 5-point scale (excluding don't knows) Source: ETC Institute DirectionFinder (May 2013 - Westlake, TX) Not asked previously Not asked previously Not asked in 2009 Town of Westlake 2013 Resident Survey: Final Report ETC Institute (2013)Page 27 Trends: Satisfaction with Customer Service in the Town of Westlake (2013 vs. 2011 vs. 2009) 83% 81% 77% 76% 72% 82% 72% 71% 62% 68% Friendliness of Town Staff Municipal court services Participation by Town staff in community events/ne Timeliness of Town Staff to concerns/ issues Jury service experience 0%20%40%60%80%100% 201320112009 by percentage of respondents who rated the item as a 4 or 5 on a 5-point scale (excluding don't knows) Source: ETC Institute DirectionFinder (May 2013 - Westlake, TX) Not asked previously Not asked in 2009 Not asked in 2009 Not asked in 2009 Trends: Satisfaction with Code Enforcement in the Town of Westlake (2013 vs. 2011 vs. 2009) 73% 72% 67% 63% 66% 66% Enforcing sign regulations 0%20%40%60%80%100% 201320112009 by percentage of respondents who rated the item as a 4 or 5 on a 5-point scale (excluding don't knows) Source: ETC Institute DirectionFinder (May 2013 - Westlake, TX) Enforcing exterior appearance/ maintenance regulations for property Town of Westlake 2013 Resident Survey: Final Report ETC Institute (2013)Page 28 Trends: Level of Agreement With Various Statements About Westlake (2013 vs. 2011) 80% 59% 49% 64% 57% 68% 0%20%40%60%80%100% 20132011 by percentage of respondents who rated the item as a 4 or 5 on a 5-point scale (excluding don't knows) Source: ETC Institute DirectionFinder (May 2013 - Westlake, TX) Westlake’s emphasis on attracting high-end development is important Attracting retail development, which grows Westlake’s sales tax base, is important to me The connectivity of Westlake’s walking/biking trails is important Trends: Importance of Various Reasons in the Decision to Move to Westlake (2013 vs. 2011) 96% 93% 92% 92% 90% 90% 86% 86% 82% 77% 67% 64% 58% 44% 32% 25% 94% 91% 95% 89% 90% 86% 91% 82% 88% 79% 65% 57% 52% 57% 44% 28% Quality of life Quality of your subdivision Low crime rates/quality of public safety Aesthetic appeal/high development standards Small town feel Type of housing available Access to major highways Sense of community Access to DFW airport Subdivision amenities Number of publicly accessible parks/trails Westlake Academy Westlake as a retirement destination Access to other public schools Proximity to private schools Employment opportunities in the Westlake area 0%20%40%60%80%100% 20132011 Source: ETC Institute DirectionFinder (May 2013 - Westlake, TX) by percentage of respondents who felt the item was "extremely important,” "very important" or “important” Town of Westlake 2013 Resident Survey: Final Report ETC Institute (2013)Page 29 Trends: Participation in Town Sponsored Events During the Past Year (2013 vs. 2011) 14% 11% 7% 6% 25% 16% 14% 9% Arbor Day Decoration Day Community Tree Lighting Master Works concert series 0%5%10%15%20%25%30% 20132011 by percentage of respondents Source: ETC Institute DirectionFinder (May 2013 - Westlake, TX) Trends: Attended a Neighborhood Public Meeting During the Past Year (2013 vs. 2011) 41% 31% 2013 2011 0%10%20%30%40%50% Yes by percentage of respondents who said “Yes” Source: ETC Institute DirectionFinder (May 2013 - Westlake, TX) Town of Westlake 2013 Resident Survey: Final Report ETC Institute (2013)Page 30 Trends: Overall, how safe do you feel in Westlake? (2013 vs. 2011 vs. 2010 vs. 2009) by percentage of respondents Source: ETC Institute DirectionFinder (May 2013 - Westlake, TX) 95% 98% 95% 97% 2013 2011 2010 2009 0%20%40%60%80%100% Very SafeSafe Trends: Overall Ratings of the Town of Westlake As a Place to Live (2013 vs. 2011) by percentage of respondents Excellent 70% Good 21% Average 2% Poor 4% Don't know 3% Source: ETC Institute DirectionFinder (2013 - Westlake, TX) 2013 2011 Excellent 59% Good 29% Average 9% Poor 1% Don't know 2% Town of Westlake 2013 Resident Survey: Final Report ETC Institute (2013)Page 31 Section 3: Importance-Satisfaction Analysis Town of Westlake 2013 Resident Survey: Final Report ETC Institute (2013)Page 32 2013 Importance-Satisfaction Analysis Westlake, Texas Overview Today, City and Town officials have limited resources to activities that are of the most benefit to their citizens. Two of the most important criteria for decision making are (1) to target resources toward services of the highest importance to citizens; and (2) to target resources toward those services where citizens are the least satisfied. The Importance-Satisfaction (I-S) rating is a unique tool that allows public officials to better understand both of these highly important decision making criteria for each of the services they are providing. The Importance-Satisfaction rating is based on the concept that cities and towns will maximize overall citizen satisfaction by emphasizing improvements in those service categories where the level of satisfaction is relatively low and the perceived importance of the service is relatively high. Methodology The rating is calculated by summing the percentage of responses for items selected as the most important services for the Town to emphasize. This sum is then multiplied by 1 minus the percentage of respondents that indicated they were positively satisfied with the Town's performance in the related area (the sum of the ratings of 4 and 5 on a 5-point scale excluding “don't know” responses). “Don't know” responses are excluded from the calculation to ensure that the satisfaction ratings among service categories are comparable. [I-S=Importance x (1- Satisfaction)]. Example of the Calculation. Respondents were asked to identify the major categories of Town services they thought were most important. Seventy-three percent (72.8%) of residents ranked the quality of public safety services as the most important Town service. With regard to satisfaction, the quality of public safety services was ranked first overall with 85.5% rating the quality of public safety services as a “4” or a “5” on a 5-point scale, excluding “don't know” responses. The I-S rating for public safety was calculated by multiplying the sum of the most important percentages by 1 minus the sum of the satisfaction percentages. In this example, 72.8% was multiplied by 14.5% (1-0.855). This calculation yielded an I-S rating of 0.1056, which was ranked second out of the eleven major service categories. Town of Westlake 2013 Resident Survey: Final Report ETC Institute (2013)Page 33 The maximum rating is 1.00 and would be achieved when 100% of the respondents select an activity as one of the items they felt was most important and 0% indicate that they are positively satisfied with the delivery of the service. The lowest rating is 0.00 and could be achieved under either one of the following two situations: • if 100% of the respondents were positively satisfied with the delivery of the service • if none (0%) of the respondents selected the service as one of the services they felt was most important. Interpreting the Ratings Ratings that are greater than or equal to 0.20 identify areas that should receive significantly more emphasis. Ratings from .10 to .20 identify service areas that should receive increased emphasis. Ratings less than .10 should continue to receive the current level of emphasis. • Definitely Increase Emphasis (IS>=0.20) • Increase Current Emphasis (0.10<=IS<0.20) • Maintain Current Emphasis (IS<0.10) The results for Westlake are provided on the following page. Town of Westlake 2013 Resident Survey: Final Report ETC Institute (2013)Page 34 Importance-Satisfaction Rating 2013 Town of Westlake Resident Survey Major Categories of Town Services Category of Service Most Important % Most Important Rank Satisfaction % Satisfaction Rank Importance- Satisfaction Rating I-S Rating Rank High Priority (IS .10-.20) Value received from City tax dollars and fees 31%455%110.14041 Quality of public safety services 73%186%10.10562 Medium Priority (IS <.10) Overall value of Westlake Academy to the Town 44%278%40.09593 Parks/trails/open spaces/streetscaping/facilites 34%372%80.09494 Quality of utility services 20%670%100.06085 Maintenance of Town streets 20%581%30.03846 Enforcement of codes and ordinances 11%971%90.03257 Westlake's emergency preparedness efforts 18%782%20.03248 Overall quality of governmental services 12%874%60.03189 Effectiveness of Town communication 10%1074%50.025010 Overall customer service provided by Town 7%1173%70.018211 Note: The I-S Rating is calculated by multiplying the "Most Important" % by (1-'Satisfaction' %) Most Important %: The "Most Important" percentage represents the sum of the first, second, and third most important responses for each item. Respondents were asked to identify the items they felt were most important Satisfaction %:The "Satisfaction" percentage represents the sum of the ratings "4" and "5" excluding 'don't knows.' Respondents ranked their level of satisfaction with the each of the items on a scale of 1 to 5 with "5" being very satisfied and "1" being very dissatisfied. © 2013 DirectionFinder by ETC Institute Town of Westlake 2013 Resident Survey: Final Report ETC Institute (2013)Page 35 Importance-Satisfaction Matrix Analysis. The Importance-Satisfaction rating is based on the concept that public agencies will maximize overall customer satisfaction by emphasizing improvements in those areas where the level of satisfaction is relatively low and the perceived importance of the service is relatively high. ETC Institute developed an Importance-Satisfaction Matrix to display the perceived importance of major services that were assessed on the survey against the perceived quality of service delivery. The two axes on the matrix represent Satisfaction (vertical) and relative Importance (horizontal). The I-S (Importance-Satisfaction) matrix should be interpreted as follows. • Continued Emphasis (above average importance and above average satisfaction). This area shows where the Town is meeting customer expectations. Items in this area have a significant impact on the customer’s overall level of satisfaction. The Town should maintain (or slightly increase) emphasis on items in this area. • Exceeding Expectations (below average importance and above average satisfaction). This area shows where the Town is performing significantly better than customers expect the Town to perform. Items in this area do not significantly affect the overall level of satisfaction that residents have with Town services. The Town should maintain (or slightly decrease) emphasis on items in this area. • Opportunities for Improvement (above average importance and below average satisfaction). This area shows where the Town is not performing as well as residents expect the Town to perform. This area has a significant impact on customer satisfaction, and the Town should DEFINITELY increase emphasis on items in this area. • Less Important (below average importance and below average satisfaction). This area shows where the Town is not performing well relative to the Town’s performance in other areas; however, this area is generally considered to be less important to residents. This area does not significantly affect overall satisfaction with Town services because the items are less important to residents. The agency should maintain current levels of emphasis on items in this area. A matrix chart showing the results for Westlake are provided on the following pages. Town of Westlake 2013 Resident Survey: Final Report ETC Institute (2013)Page 36 Satisfaction Rating , , , , , , , , ,, , mean satisfaction Op p o r t u n i t i e s f o r I m p r o v e m e n t 20 1 3 T o w n o f W e s t l a k e R e s i d e n t S u r v e y Im p o r t a n c e - S a t i s f a c t i o n A s s e s s m e n t M a t r i x -M a j o r C a t e g o r i e s o f T o w n S e r v i c e s - (p o i n t s o n t h e g r a p h s h o w d e v i a t i o n s f r o m t h e m e a n i m p o r t a n c e a n d S a t i s f a c t i o n r a t i n g s g i v e n b y r e s p o n d e n t s t o t h e s u r v e y ) me a n i m p o r t a n c e Im p o r t a n c e R a t i n g Lo w e r I m p o r t a n c e Higher Importance lo w e r i m p o r t a n c e / h i g h e r S a t i s f a c t i o n hi g her i m p o r t a n c e / h i g h e r S a t i s f a c t i o n lo w e r i m p o r t a n c e / l o w e r S a t i s f a c t i o n hi g h e r i m p o r t a n c e / l o w e r S a t i s f a c t i o n Ex c e e d e d E x p e c t a t i o n s Le s s I m p o r t a n t Co n t i n u e d E m p h a s i s So u r c e : E T C I n s t i t u t e ( 2 0 1 3 ) We s t l a k e ' s e m e r g e n c y p r e p a r e d n e s s e f f o r t s Ma i nte n a n c e o f T o w n s t r e e t s Ov e r a l l v a l u e o f W e s t l a k e Ac a d e m y t o t h e T o w n Pa r k s / t r a i l s / o p e n s p a c e s / s t r e e t s c a p i n g / f a c i l i t e s Qu a l i t y o f p u b l i c s a f e t y s e r v i c e s En f o r c e m e n t o f c o d e s a n d o r d i n a n c e s Ef f e c t i v e n e s s o f co m m u n i c a t i o n Va l u e r e c e i v e d f r o m C i t y t a x d o l l a r s a n d f e e s Qu a l i t y o f u t i l i t y s e r v i c e s Ov e r a l l q u a l i t y o f g o v e r n m e n t a l s e r v i c e s Cu s t o m e r s e r v i c e To w n of We s t l a k e 20 1 3 Re s i d e n t Survey: Final Report ET C In s t i t u t e (2 0 1 3 ) Page 37 Section 4: Tabular Data Town of Westlake 2013 Resident Survey: Final Report ETC Institute (2013)Page 38 Q1. Satisfaction with Major Categories of Town Services: Using a scale of 1 to 5, where 5 means "Very Satisfied" and 1 means "Very Dissatisfied," please circle your level of satisfaction with the following services provided by the Town of Westlake. (N=250) Very Very Satisfied Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied Dissatisfied Don't know Q1d Public safety (police, fire, emergency medical) 45.6% 34.8% 8.4% 3.2% 2.0% 6.0% Q1b Efforts to ensure Town is prepared for emergencies 38.4% 34.4% 11.2% 3.2% 2.0% 10.8% Q1c Maintenance of Town streets 40.0% 39.6% 12.4% 4.0% 2.0% 2.0% Q1d Effectiveness of communication by the Town 40.8% 30.8% 11.6% 8.0% 6.4% 2.4% Q1e Utility services 28.4% 40.0% 20.8% 9.2% 0.0% 1.6% Q1f Parks/trails/open spaces 33.2% 34.8% 21.2% 4.0% 1.2% 5.6% Q1g Customer service received by the Town 36.0% 30.0% 17.6% 3.6% 2.8% 10.0% Q1h Enforce codes/ordinances 23.6% 36.4% 18.0% 4.0% 3.6% 14.4% Q1i. Overall quality of government services 28.4% 37.2% 14.8% 5.6% 3.2% 10.8% Q1j Value received from City tax dollars and fees 23.2% 29.6% 23.6% 14.4% 4.4% 4.8% Q1k Overall value of Westlake Academy to the Town 47.6% 21.6% 11.2% 6.8% 1.6% 11.2% Town of Westlake 2013 Resident Survey: Final Report ETC Institute (2013)Page 39 WITHOUT DON’T KNOW Q1. Satisfaction with Major Categories of Town Services: Using a scale of 1 to 5, where 5 means "Very Satisfied" and 1 means "Very Dissatisfied," please circle your level of satisfaction with the following services provided by the Town of Westlake. (Without Don't Know) (N=250) Very Very satisfied Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied Dissatisfied Q1d Public safety (police, fire, emergency medical) 48.5% 37.0% 8.9% 3.4% 2.1% Q1b Efforts to ensure Town is prepared for emergencies 43.0% 38.6% 12.6% 3.6% 2.2% Q1c Maintenance of Town streets 40.8% 40.4% 12.7% 4.1% 2.0% Q1d Effectiveness of communication by the Town 41.8% 31.6% 11.9% 8.2% 6.6% Q1e Utility services 28.9% 40.7% 21.1% 9.3% 0.0% Q1f Parks/trails/open spaces 35.2% 36.9% 22.5% 4.2% 1.3% Q1g Customer service received by the Town 40.0% 33.3% 19.6% 4.0% 3.1% Q1h Enforce codes/ordinances 27.6% 42.5% 21.0% 4.7% 4.2% Q1i. Overall quality of government services 31.8% 41.7% 16.6% 6.3% 3.6% Q1j Value received from City tax dollars and fees 24.4% 31.1% 24.8% 15.1% 4.6% Q1k Overall value of Westlake Academy to the Town 53.6% 24.3% 12.6% 7.7% 1.8% Town of Westlake 2013 Resident Survey: Final Report ETC Institute (2013)Page 40 Q2. Which THREE of the services listed above are the most important to you? Q2 1st Choice Number Percent Public safety services 116 46.4 % Efforts to prepare for emergencies 3 1.2 % Maintenance of Town streets 1 0.4 % Effectiveness of communication 4 1.6 % Quality of utility services 7 2.8 % Quality of parks/trails/open spaces/streetscaping/facilities 9 3.6 % Quality of customer service 4 1.6 % Enforcement of codes and ordinances 3 1.2 % Government services provided by the Town 5 2.0 % Value you receive from your tax dollars/fees 22 8.8 % Value of Westlake Academy to the Town 67 26.8 % None chosen 9 3.6 % Total 250 100.0 % Q2. Which THREE of the services listed above are the most important to you? Q2 2nd Choice Number Percent Public safety services 49 19.6 % Efforts to prepare for emergencies 29 11.6 % Maintenance of Town streets 18 7.2 % Effectiveness of communication 10 4.0 % Quality of utility services 27 10.8 % Quality of parks/trails/open spaces/streetscaping/facilities 30 12.0 % Quality of customer service 4 1.6 % Enforcement of codes and ordinances 12 4.8 % Government services provided by the Town 13 5.2 % Value you receive from your tax dollars/fees 22 8.8 % Value of Westlake Academy to the Town 21 8.4 % None chosen 15 6.0 % Total 250 100.0 % Town of Westlake 2013 Resident Survey: Final Report ETC Institute (2013)Page 41 Q2. Which THREE of the services listed above are the most important to you? Q2 3rd Choice Number Percent Public safety services 17 6.8 % Efforts to prepare for emergencies 12 4.8 % Maintenance of Town streets 32 12.8 % Effectiveness of communication 10 4.0 % Quality of utility services 16 6.4 % Quality of parks/trails/open spaces/streetscaping/facilities 46 18.4 % Quality of customer service 9 3.6 % Enforcement of codes and ordinances 13 5.2 % Government services provided by the Town 12 4.8 % Value you receive from your tax dollars/fees 34 13.6 % Value of Westlake Academy to the Town 21 8.4 % None chosen 28 11.2 % Total 250 100.0 % Q2. Which THREE of the services listed above are the most important to you? (Top Three Choices) Q2 Sum of Top Three Choices Number Percent Public safety services 182 72.8 % Efforts to prepare for emergencies 44 17.6 % Maintenance of Town streets 51 20.4 % Effectiveness of communication 24 9.6 % Quality of utility services 50 20.0 % Quality of parks/trails/open spaces/streetscaping/facilities 85 34.0 % Quality of customer service 17 6.8 % Enforcement of codes and ordinances 28 11.2 % Government services provided by the Town 30 12.0 % Value you receive from your tax dollars/fees 78 31.2 % Value of Westlake Academy to the Town 109 43.6 % None chosen 9 3.6 % Total 707 Town of Westlake 2013 Resident Survey: Final Report ETC Institute (2013)Page 42 Q3. Satisfaction with Police Services Provided by the Town: Using a scale of 1 to 5, where 5 means "Very Satisfied" and 1 means "Very Dissatisfied," please circle your level of satisfaction with each of the following. (N=250) Very Very satisfied Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied dissatisfied Don't know Q3a Quality of local police protection 41.6% 34.0% 17.2% 2.8% 0.0% 4.4% Q3b Visibility of police in neighborhoods 32.8% 38.0% 19.6% 8.4% 0.4% 0.8% Q3c How quickly police respond to emergencies 30.8% 25.2% 14.4% 0.4% 0.0% 29.2% Q3d Efforts of the Town to prevent crime 30.8% 36.4% 13.6% 7.6% 2.4% 9.2% Q3e Level of traffic enforcement 28.0% 36.0% 18.0% 8.4% 6.0% 3.6% WITHOUT DON’T KNOW Q3. Satisfaction with Police Services Provided by the Town: Using a scale of 1 to 5, where 5 means "Very Satisfied" and 1 means "Very Dissatisfied," please circle your level of satisfaction with each of the following. (Without Don't Know) (N=250) Very Very satisfied Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied dissatisfied Q3a Quality of local police protection 43.5% 35.6% 18.0% 2.9% 0.0% Q3b Visibility of police in neighborhoods 33.1% 38.3% 19.8% 8.5% 0.4% Q3c How quickly police respond to emergencies 43.5% 35.6% 20.3% 0.6% 0.0% Q3d Efforts of the Town to prevent crime 33.9% 40.1% 15.0% 8.4% 2.6% Q3e Level of traffic enforcement 29.0% 37.3% 18.7% 8.7% 6.2% Town of Westlake 2013 Resident Survey: Final Report ETC Institute (2013)Page 43 Q3. Satisfaction with Fire & Medical Services Provided by the Town: Using a scale of 1 to 5, where 5 means "Very Satisfied" and 1 means "Very Dissatisfied," please circle your level of satisfaction with each of the following. (N=250) Very Very satisfied Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied dissatisfied Don't know Q3f Quality of fire services 32.0% 26.0% 8.0% 0.8% 0.0% 33.2% Q3g Quality of emergency medical services 36.4% 22.0% 8.0% 0.0% 0.0% 33.6% Q3h Response time of fire and emergency medical services personnel 31.2% 20.4% 6.8% 0.0% 0.4% 41.2% WITHOUT DON’T KNOW Q3. Satisfaction with Fire & Medical Services Provided by the Town: Using a scale of 1 to 5, where 5 means "Very Satisfied" and 1 means "Very Dissatisfied," please circle your level of satisfaction with each of the following. (Without Don't Know) (N=250) Very Very satisfied Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied dissatisfied Q3f Quality of fire services 47.9% 38.9% 12.0% 1.2% 0.0% Q3g Quality of emergency medical services 54.8% 33.1% 12.0% 0.0% 0.0% Q3h Response time of fire and emergency medical services personnel 53.1% 34.7% 11.6% 0.0% 0.7% Town of Westlake 2013 Resident Survey: Final Report ETC Institute (2013)Page 44 Q3. Satisfaction with Emergency Preparedness Provided by the Town: Using a scale of 1 to 5, where 5 means "Very Satisfied" and 1 means "Very Dissatisfied," please circle your level of satisfaction with each of the following. (N=250) Very Very satisfied Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied dissatisfied Don't know Q3i Response efforts by the Town Staff during extreme weather conditions 29.6% 34.0% 19.2% 1.2% 0.4% 15.6% Q3j Efforts by the Town Staff to inform residents of hazardous road conditions, potential inclement weather & closures 32.8% 31.6% 20.4% 2.4% 0.4% 12.4% WITHOUT DON’T KNOW Q3. Satisfaction with Emergency Preparedness Provided by the Town: Using a scale of 1 to 5, where 5 means "Very Satisfied" and 1 means "Very Dissatisfied," please circle your level of satisfaction with each of the following. (Without Don't Know) (N=250) Very Very satisfied Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied dissatisfied Q3i Response efforts by the Town Staff during extreme weather conditions 35.1% 40.3% 22.7% 1.4% 0.5% Q3j Efforts by the Town Staff to inform residents of hazardous road conditions, potential inclement weather & closures 37.4% 36.1% 23.3% 2.7% 0.5% Town of Westlake 2013 Resident Survey: Final Report ETC Institute (2013)Page 45 Q3. Satisfaction with Transportation Services Provided by the Town: Using a scale of 1 to 5, where 5 means "Very Satisfied" and 1 means "Very Dissatisfied," please circle your level of satisfaction with each of the following. (N=250) Very Very satisfied Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied dissatisfied Don't know Q3k Condition of major streets in Westlake 39.2% 46.8% 9.6% 2.0% 1.6% 0.8% Q3l Condition of streets in your neighborhood 41.2% 44.4% 11.2% 2.8% 0.0% 0.4% Q3m Cleanliness of streets and other public areas 38.0% 47.6% 6.0% 4.8% 2.8% 0.8% Q3n Traffic flow and congestion management in Westlake 28.8% 48.4% 16.0% 3.2% 2.8% 0.8% WITHOUT DON’T KNOW Q3. Satisfaction with Transportation Services Provided by the Town: Using a scale of 1 to 5, where 5 means "Very Satisfied" and 1 means "Very Dissatisfied," please circle your level of satisfaction with each of the following. (Without Don't Know) (N=250) Very Very satisfied Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied dissatisfied Q3k Condition of major streets in Westlake 39.5% 47.2% 9.7% 2.0% 1.6% Q3l Condition of streets in your neighborhood 41.4% 44.6% 11.2% 2.8% 0.0% Q3m Cleanliness of streets and other public areas 38.3% 48.0% 6.0% 4.8% 2.8% Q3n Traffic flow and congestion management in Westlake 29.0% 48.8% 16.1% 3.2% 2.8% Town of Westlake 2013 Resident Survey: Final Report ETC Institute (2013)Page 46 Q3. Satisfaction with Communications & Citizen Engagement Provided by the Town: Using a scale of 1 to 5, where 5 means "Very Satisfied" and 1 means "Very Dissatisfied," please circle your level of satisfaction with each of the following. (N=250) Very Very satisfied Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied dissatisfied Don't know Q3o Efforts by the Town to keep you informed about Council Meetings, Town projects, issues, and events 40.4% 28.4% 13.6% 8.0% 8.0% 1.6% Q3p Timeliness of information provided by the Town 33.6% 29.6% 20.0% 5.6% 8.8% 2.4% Q3q Completeness of the information provided by the Town 29.2% 28.8% 17.6% 6.4% 11.6% 6.4% Q3r Usefulness of the Westlake Wire communications 33.2% 38.0% 16.8% 2.0% 2.4% 7.6% Q3s Ease of use of the Town's website 20.8% 27.6% 26.0% 6.4% 3.6% 15.6% Q3t Availability/Accessibility of Town records 16.4% 19.6% 23.2% 2.8% 1.6% 36.4% Q3u Opportunities provided for public input 24.0% 24.4% 20.8% 6.4% 6.4% 18.0% Town of Westlake 2013 Resident Survey: Final Report ETC Institute (2013)Page 47 WITHOUT DON’T KNOW Q3. Satisfaction with Communications & Citizen Engagement Provided by the Town: Using a scale of 1 to 5, where 5 means "Very Satisfied" and 1 means "Very Dissatisfied," please circle your level of satisfaction with each of the following. (Without Don't Know) (N=250) Very Very satisfied Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied dissatisfied Q3o Efforts by the Town to keep you informed about Council Meetings, Town projects, issues, and events 41.1% 28.9% 13.8% 8.1% 8.1% Q3p Timeliness of information provided by the Town 34.4% 30.3% 20.5% 5.7% 9.0% Q3q Completeness of the information provided by the Town 31.2% 30.8% 18.8% 6.8% 12.4% Q3r Usefulness of the Westlake Wire communications 35.9% 41.1% 18.2% 2.2% 2.6% Q3s Ease of use of the Town's website 24.6% 32.7% 30.8% 7.6% 4.3% Q3t Availability/Accessibility of Town records 25.8% 30.8% 36.5% 4.4% 2.5% Q3u Opportunities provided for public input 29.3% 29.8% 25.4% 7.8% 7.8% Town of Westlake 2013 Resident Survey: Final Report ETC Institute (2013)Page 48 Q3. Satisfaction with Parks & Recreation Services Provided by the Town: Using a scale of 1 to 5, where 5 means "Very Satisfied" and 1 means "Very Dissatisfied," please circle your level of satisfaction with each of the following. (N=250) Very Very satisfied Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied dissatisfied Don't know Q3v Maintenance of Town-owned Glenwyck Park 18.4% 26.8% 15.2% 3.2% 1.2% 35.2% Q3w Number of publicly-accessible parks and trails 18.0% 33.6% 16.8% 11.2% 2.0% 18.4% Q3x Maintenance of streetscaping and open spaces 29.6% 38.4% 14.4% 5.2% 4.8% 7.6% WITHOUT DON’T KNOW Q3. Satisfaction with Parks & Recreation Services Provided by the Town: Using a scale of 1 to 5, where 5 means "Very Satisfied" and 1 means "Very Dissatisfied," please circle your level of satisfaction with each of the following. (Without Don't Know) (N=250) Very Very satisfied Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied dissatisfied Q3v Maintenance of Town-owned Glenwyck Park 28.4% 41.4% 23.5% 4.9% 1.9% Q3w Number of publicly-accessible parks and trails 22.1% 41.2% 20.6% 13.7% 2.5% Q3x Maintenance of streetscaping and open spaces 32.0% 41.6% 15.6% 5.6% 5.2% Town of Westlake 2013 Resident Survey: Final Report ETC Institute (2013)Page 49 Q3. Satisfaction with Utility Services Provided by the Town: Using a scale of 1 to 5, where 5 means "Very Satisfied" and 1 means "Very Dissatisfied," please circle your level of satisfaction with each of the following. (N=250) Very Very satisfied Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied dissatisfied Don't know Q3y Residential trash collection services 37.6% 38.0% 10.4% 9.6% 1.2% 3.2% Q3z Curbside recycling services 38.8% 39.6% 12.4% 4.0% 0.4% 4.8% Q3aa Yard Waste and bulky item removal services 28.0% 36.8% 13.2% 2.8% 2.0% 17.2% Q3bb Town efforts to promote water conservation and protect water resources 20.4% 41.6% 21.6% 4.0% 1.2% 11.2% Q3cc Household hazardous waste disposal service 17.2% 25.6% 16.8% 6.0% 0.4% 34.0% Q3dd Efforts by the Town to manage storm water run-off 16.0% 27.2% 18.0% 4.8% 1.2% 32.8% Q3ee Quality of (drinking) water utility services 30.0% 33.2% 16.8% 3.6% 2.8% 13.6% Town of Westlake 2013 Resident Survey: Final Report ETC Institute (2013)Page 50 WITHOUT DON’T KNOW Q3. Satisfaction with Utility Services Provided by the Town: Using a scale of 1 to 5, where 5 means "Very Satisfied" and 1 means "Very Dissatisfied," please circle your level of satisfaction with each of the following. (Without Don't Know) (N=250) Very Very satisfied Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied dissatisfied Q3y Residential trash collection services 38.8% 39.3% 10.7% 9.9% 1.2% Q3z Curbside recycling services 40.8% 41.6% 13.0% 4.2% 0.4% Q3aa Yard Waste and bulky item removal services 33.8% 44.4% 15.9% 3.4% 2.4% Q3bb Town efforts to promote water conservation and protect water resources 23.0% 46.8% 24.3% 4.5% 1.4% Q3cc Household hazardous waste disposal service 26.1% 38.8% 25.5% 9.1% 0.6% Q3dd Efforts by the Town to manage storm water run-off 23.8% 40.5% 26.8% 7.1% 1.8% Q3ee Quality of (drinking) water utility services 34.7% 38.4% 19.4% 4.2% 3.2% Town of Westlake 2013 Resident Survey: Final Report ETC Institute (2013)Page 51 Q3. Satisfaction with Customer Service Provided by the Town: Using a scale of 1 to 5, where 5 means "Very Satisfied" and 1 means "Very Dissatisfied," please circle your level of satisfaction with each of the following. (N=250) Very Very satisfied Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied dissatisfied Don't know Q3ff Level of participation by Town staff in community events/neighborhood meetings 26.8% 36.0% 16.4% 1.2% 0.8% 18.8% Q3gg Timeliness of Town Staff to concerns/ issues 24.8% 35.6% 12.8% 5.2% 0.8% 20.8% Q3hh Friendliness of Town Staff 39.2% 31.2% 12.0% 2.0% 0.8% 14.8% Q3ii Municipal court services 23.2% 30.4% 10.8% 1.2% 0.4% 34.0% Q3jj Jury service experience 24.0% 24.4% 17.2% 1.2% 0.8% 32.4% WITHOUT DON’T KNOW Q3. Satisfaction with Customer Service Provided by the Town: Using a scale of 1 to 5, where 5 means "Very Satisfied" and 1 means "Very Dissatisfied," please circle your level of satisfaction with each of the following. (Without Don't Know) (N=250) Very Very satisfied Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied dissatisfied Q3ff Level of participation by Town staff in community events/neighborhood meetings 33.0% 44.3% 20.2% 1.5% 1.0% Q3gg Timeliness of Town Staff to concerns/ issues 31.3% 44.9% 16.2% 6.6% 1.0% Q3hh Friendliness of Town Staff 46.0% 36.6% 14.1% 2.3% 0.9% Q3ii Municipal court services 35.2% 46.1% 16.4% 1.8% 0.6% Q3jj Jury service experience 35.5% 36.1% 25.4% 1.8% 1.2% Town of Westlake 2013 Resident Survey: Final Report ETC Institute (2013)Page 52 Q3. Satisfaction with Code Enforcement Provided by the Town: Using a scale of 1 to 5, where 5 means "Very Satisfied" and 1 means "Very Dissatisfied," please circle your level of satisfaction with each of the following. (N=250) Very Very satisfied Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied dissatisfied Don't know Q3kk Enforcing the exterior appearance and maintenance regulations for property 23.6% 30.8% 12.8% 6.4% 2.0% 24.4% Q3ll Enforcing sign regulations 23.2% 30.0% 19.2% 0.0% 1.2% 26.4% WITHOUT DON’T KNOW Q3. Satisfaction with Code Enforcement Provided by the Town: Using a scale of 1 to 5, where 5 means "Very Satisfied" and 1 means "Very Dissatisfied," please circle your level of satisfaction with each of the following. (Without Don't Know) (N=250) Very Very satisfied Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied dissatisfied Q3kk Enforcing the exterior appearance and maintenance regulations for property 31.2% 40.7% 16.9% 8.5% 2.6% Q3ll Enforcing sign regulations 31.5% 40.8% 26.1% 0.0% 1.6% Town of Westlake 2013 Resident Survey: Final Report ETC Institute (2013)Page 53 Q4. Using a scale of 1 to 5, where 5 means "Strongly Agree" and 1 means "Strongly Disagree," please circle your level of agreement with the following statements. (N=250) Strongly Strongly agree Agree Agree Disagree disagree Don't Know Q4a Attracting retail development, which grows Westlake's sales tax base, is important to me 20.4% 27.6% 21.2% 9.6% 20.4% 0.8% Q4b Westlake's continued emphasis on attracting high-end development is important to me 54.8% 23.2% 12.0% 2.8% 6.0% 1.2% Q4c The connectivity of Westlake's walking/ biking trails is important to me 32.0% 26.4% 29.2% 8.0% 3.6% 0.8% WITHOUT DON’T KNOW Q4. Using a scale of 1 to 5, where 5 means "Strongly Agree" and 1 means "Strongly Disagree," please circle your level of agreement with the following statements. (Without Don't Know) (N=250) Strongly Strongly agree Agree Agree Disagree disagree Q4a Attracting retail development, which grows Westlake's sales tax base, is important to me 20.6% 27.8% 21.4% 9.7% 20.6% Q4b Westlake's continued emphasis on attracting high-end development is important to me 55.5% 23.5% 12.1% 2.8% 6.1% Q4c The connectivity of Westlake's walking/ biking trails is important to me 32.3% 26.6% 29.4% 8.1% 3.6% Town of Westlake 2013 Resident Survey: Final Report ETC Institute (2013)Page 54 Q5. Reasons for Moving to Westlake: Using a scale of 1 to 5, where 5 means "Extremely Important" and 1 means "Not Important," please circle how important the following issues were in your decision to move to the Town of Westlake. (N=250) Extremely Very Less Not Important Important Important Important Important Don't know Q5a Sense of community 24.0% 30.4% 31.6% 6.0% 4.0% 4.0% Q5b Quality of life 66.8% 23.2% 6.4% 0.0% 0.8% 2.8% Q5c Small town feel 53.2% 22.4% 14.4% 5.6% 1.6% 2.8% Q5d Aesthetic appeal and high development standards 74.8% 11.6% 5.6% 2.8% 2.0% 3.2% Q5e Westlake Academy 42.4% 12.4% 9.2% 9.2% 22.0% 4.8% Q5f Access to other public schools 12.0% 15.6% 16.0% 20.4% 28.0% 8.0% Q5g Proximity to private schools 10.8% 8.4% 13.2% 19.2% 41.2% 7.2% Q5h Low crime rates/quality of public schools 55.2% 28.4% 8.8% 1.2% 2.0% 4.4% Q5i Employment opportunities in the Westlake area 5.6% 7.6% 11.6% 20.8% 47.2% 7.2% Q5j Access to DFW airport 27.6% 27.2% 26.8% 10.8% 4.8% 2.8% Q5k Access major highways 24.4% 37.6% 24.4% 8.4% 3.2% 2.0% Q5l Type of housing availability 51.6% 23.6% 14.8% 4.8% 3.2% 2.0% Q5m Quality of your subdivision 69.6% 18.4% 5.2% 1.6% 2.0% 3.2% Q5n Westlake as a retirement destination 24.0% 12.4% 21.2% 15.2% 22.4% 4.8% Q5o Number of publicly accessible parks and trails 16.8% 12.0% 38.4% 17.2% 11.6% 4.0% Q5p Subdivision amenities (airpark, golf club, parks and etc.) 36.8% 17.6% 22.8% 8.4% 10.4% 4.0% Town of Westlake 2013 Resident Survey: Final Report ETC Institute (2013)Page 55 Q6. Which THREE of the reasons listed above are the most important reasons why you will stay in Westlake for the next 5 years? Q6_1st Choice Number Percent Sense of community 12 4.8 % Quality of life 57 22.8 % Small town feel 23 9.2 % Aesthetic appeal/high development standards 18 7.2 % Westlake Academy 72 28.8 % Access to other public schools 1 0.4 % Proximity to private schools 2 0.8 % Low crime rates/quality of public safety 10 4.0 % Employment opportunities in the Westlake area 1 0.4 % Access to DFW airport 5 2.0 % Type of housing available 6 2.4 % Quality of your subdivision 19 7.6 % Westlake as a retirement destination 3 1.2 % Subdivision amenities 11 4.4 % None chosen 10 4.0 % Total 250 100.0 % Q6. Which THREE of the reasons listed above are the most important reasons why you will stay in Westlake for the next 5 years? Q6 2nd Choice Number Percent Sense of community 5 2.0 % Quality of life 39 15.6 % Small town feel 41 16.4 % Aesthetic appeal/high development standards 36 14.4 % Westlake Academy 16 6.4 % Access to other public schools 9 3.6 % Low crime rates/quality of public safety 28 11.2 % Access to DFW airport 10 4.0 % Access to major highways 2 0.8 % Type of housing available 5 2.0 % Quality of your subdivision 27 10.8 % Westlake as a retirement destination 2 0.8 % Subdivision amenities 17 6.8 % None chosen 13 5.2 % Total 250 100.0 % Town of Westlake 2013 Resident Survey: Final Report ETC Institute (2013)Page 56 Q6. Which THREE of the reasons listed above are the most important reasons why you will stay in Westlake for the next 5 years? Q6 3rd Choice Number Percent Sense of community 13 5.2 % Quality of life 39 15.6 % Small town feel 23 9.2 % Aesthetic appeal/high development standards 40 16.0 % Westlake Academy 5 2.0 % Access to other public schools 3 1.2 % Proximity to private schools 1 0.4 % Low crime rates/quality of public safety 26 10.4 % Access to DFW airport 20 8.0 % Access to major highways 6 2.4 % Type of housing available 15 6.0 % Quality of your subdivision 17 6.8 % Westlake as a retirement destination 8 3.2 % Number of publicly accessible parks/trails 7 2.8 % Subdivision amenities 6 2.4 % None chosen 21 8.4 % Total 250 100.0 % Q6. Which THREE of the reasons listed above are the most important reasons why you will stay in Westlake for the next 5 years? (Top Three Choices) Q6_Sum of Top Three Choices Number Percent Sense of community 30 12.0 % Quality of life 135 54.0 % Small town feel 87 34.8 % Aesthetic appeal/high development standards 94 37.6 % Westlake Academy 93 37.2 % Access to other public schools 13 5.2 % Proximity to private schools 3 1.2 % Low crime rates/quality of public safety 64 25.6 % Employment opportunities in the Westlake area 1 0.4 % Access to DFW airport 35 14.0 % Access to major highways 8 3.2 % Type of housing available 26 10.4 % Quality of your subdivision 63 25.2 % Westlake as a retirement destination 13 5.2 % Number of publicly accessible parks/trails 7 2.8 % Subdivision amenities 34 13.6 % None chosen 10 4.0 % Total 716 Town of Westlake 2013 Resident Survey: Final Report ETC Institute (2013)Page 57 Q7. Issues of Interest: Using a scale of 1 to 5, where 5 means "Very Beneficial" and 1 means "Not Beneficial at All," please rate how beneficial you think the following have been to the Town of Westlake: (N=250) Very Somewhat Not very Not at all beneficial beneficial Neutral beneficial beneficial Don't know Q7a Improvements to FM 1938 / Davis Blvd. 51.2% 18.0% 16.8% 7.2% 4.8% 2.0% Q7b Improvements to Dove Rd. / J.T. Ottinger Rd. 44.4% 27.6% 14.0% 5.2% 5.6% 3.2% Q7c Intersection reconfigurations at Dove Rd / J.T. Ottinger Rd. 39.6% 26.4% 16.4% 6.0% 7.2% 4.4% Q7d Intersection reconfigurations at Dove Rd. / Pearson Ln. 35.6% 29.2% 24.8% 2.8% 3.6% 4.0% WITHOUT DON’T KNOW Q7. Issues of Interest: Using a scale of 1 to 5, where 5 means "Very Beneficial" and 1 means "Not Beneficial at All," please rate how beneficial you think the following have been to the Town of Westlake: (Without Don't Know) (N=250) Very Somewhat Not very Not at all beneficial beneficial Neutral beneficial beneficial Q7a Improvements to FM 1938 / Davis Blvd. 52.2% 18.4% 17.1% 7.3% 4.9% Q7b Improvements to Dove Rd. / J.T. Ottinger Rd. 45.9% 28.5% 14.5% 5.4% 5.8% Q7c Intersection reconfigurations at Dove Rd / J.T. Ottinger Rd. 41.4% 27.6% 17.2% 6.3% 7.5% Q7d Intersection reconfigurations at Dove Rd. / Pearson Ln. 37.1% 30.4% 25.8% 2.9% 3.8% Town of Westlake 2013 Resident Survey: Final Report ETC Institute (2013)Page 58 Q8. Using a scale of 1 to 5, where 5 means "Very Satisfied" and 1 means "Very Dissatisfied," please circle your level of satisfaction with each of the following. (N=250) Very Very satisfied Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied dissatisfied Don't know Q8a Police response to burglaries in Westlake 31.2% 37.2% 8.4% 6.4% 1.2% 15.6% Q8b Communication provided to residents about the burglaries 46.0% 33.6% 6.4% 3.6% 5.6% 4.8% Q8c Efforts by the Town to implement safety measures resulting from the burglary incidents 36.4% 34.4% 15.2% 3.6% 2.4% 8.0% WITHOUT DON’T KNOW Q8. Using a scale of 1 to 5, where 5 means "Very Satisfied" and 1 means "Very Dissatisfied," please circle your level of satisfaction with each of the following. (Without Don't Know) (N=250) Very Very satisfied Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied dissatisfied Q8a Police response to burglaries in Westlake 37.0% 44.1% 10.0% 7.6% 1.4% Q8b Communication provided to residents about the burglaries 48.3% 35.3% 6.7% 3.8% 5.9% Q8c Efforts by the Town to implement safety measures resulting from the burglary incidents 39.6% 37.4% 16.5% 3.9% 2.6% Town of Westlake 2013 Resident Survey: Final Report ETC Institute (2013)Page 59 Q9. Overall, how familiar are you with the following information: (N=250) Somewhat Very familiar Familiar Not familiar Q9a Town’s Comprehensive Plan 13.6% 52.8% 33.6% Q9b Town’s Strategic Plan 14.4% 50.4% 35.2% Q9c Town’s lighting standards 18.8% 42.8% 38.4% Q9d The Town's open space requirements for development 15.6% 51.2% 33.2% Q9e Zoning standards within the Town 22.0% 52.0% 26.0% Q9f Allowed uses for existing planned development districts within the Town 17.2% 53.2% 29.6% Q10. When did you most recently attend the following events? (N=250) Never, But I Never, I Am 2 Years Ago or Am Aware Not Aware Not This Year Last Year More of Event of Event Provided Q10a Decoration Day 11.2% 6.4% 10.8% 40.4% 27.2% 4.0% Q10b Master Works concert series 5.6% 6.4% 8.4% 52.8% 22.4% 4.4% Q10c Arbor Day 13.6% 11.2% 18.0% 41.2% 12.4% 3.6% Q10d Community Tree Lighting 7.2% 14.0% 12.8% 45.2% 16.8% 4.0% Q10e Westlake Historical Preservation Society's Classic Car Show 9.2% 8.8% 6.8% 52.4% 19.2% 3.6% Q10f Other Westlake Historical Preservation Society events 7.2% 8.4% 5.6% 54.0% 20.4% 4.4% Q10g Public Arts Society events 3.2% 7.6% 8.8% 54.8% 21.6% 4.0% Town of Westlake 2013 Resident Survey: Final Report ETC Institute (2013)Page 60 Q11. Have you attended a public meeting in your neighborhood? Q11 Attended pub meetings in neighborhood Number Percent Yes-This Year 103 41.2 % Yes-Last Year 46 18.4 % No- But I Am Aware of the Meetings 72 28.8 % No- I Am Not Aware of Meetings 24 9.6 % Don't know 5 2.0 % Total 250 100.0 % Q11a. If yes, was the meeting informative? Q11a If yes was meetings informative Number Percent Yes 123 82.6 % No 14 9.4 % Don't Know 12 8.1 % Total 149 100.0 % Q11b. If yes, Did you have the opportunity to discuss your ideas/concerns? Q11b if yes discuss idea/concern Number Percent Yes 129 86.6 % No 12 8.1 % Don't Know 8 5.4 % Total 149 100.0 % Q11c. If no, will you attend a neighborhood meeting in the future? Q11c Attend meetings in future Number Percent Yes 68 70.8 % No 14 14.6 % Don't Know 14 14.6 % Total 96 100.0 % Q11d. If no, do you think these types of meeting are useful to conduct? Q11d Are meetings useful Number Percent Yes 75 78.1 % No 6 6.3 % Don't Know 15 15.6 % Total 96 100.0 % Town of Westlake 2013 Resident Survey: Final Report ETC Institute (2013)Page 61 RESIDENTS WHO HAD ATTENDED A MEETING THIS YEAR Q11a. If yes, was the meeting informative? Q11a If yes was meeting informative Number Percent Yes 91 88.3 % No 6 5.8 % Don't Know 6 5.8 % Total 103 100.0 % Q11b. If yes, did you have the opportunity to discuss your ideas/concerns? Q11b if yes discuss idea/concern Number Percent Yes 89 86.4 % No 8 7.8 % Don't Know 6 5.8 % Total 103 100.0 % RESIDENTS WHO HAD ATTENDED A MEETING LAST YEAR Q11a. If yes, was the meeting informative? Q11a If yes was meeting informative Number Percent Yes 32 69.6 % No 8 17.4 % Don't Know 6 13.0 % Total 46 100.0 % Q11b. If yes, did you have the opportunity to discuss your ideas/concerns? Q11b if yes discuss idea/concern Number Percent Yes 40 87.0 % No 4 8.7 % Don't Know 2 4.3 % Total 46 100.0 % Town of Westlake 2013 Resident Survey: Final Report ETC Institute (2013)Page 62 Q12. In your opinion, how often should neighborhood meetings be held? Q12 Now often neighborhood meeting held Number Percent Annually 87 34.8 % Twice a Year 106 42.4 % Every Other Year 11 4.4 % Don't Know 46 18.4 % Total 250 100.0 % Q13. Do any children in grades K-12 live in your home? Q13 Children K-12 live your home Number Percent Yes 121 48.4 % No 127 50.8 % Not provided 2 0.8 % Total 250 100.0 % Q13a. Do any of these children currently attend Westlake Academy? Q13a If yes any attend Westlake Academy Number Percent Yes 89 73.6 % No 30 24.8 % Not Provided 2 1.7 % Total 121 100.0 % Town of Westlake 2013 Resident Survey: Final Report ETC Institute (2013)Page 63 Q13b. Where do your children go to school? Q13b What school Number Percent CAROLL 1 3.7 % CAROLL ISD 1 3.7 % CARROLL 5 18.5 % CARROLL ISD 2 7.4 % CARROLL SR HIGH 2 7.4 % CISD 1 3.7 % HOME SCHOOLED 1 3.7 % KELLER 2 7.4 % KELLER ISD 1 3.7 % KSD 1 3.7 % LIBERY CHRISTIAN 1 3.7 % PRIVATE 1 3.7 % PRIVATE SCHOOL 3 11.1 % SOUTHLAKE CARROLL 1 3.7 % WALNUT GROVE 1 3.7 % WGES 1 3.7 % WINFREE ACADEMY CHARTER 1 3.7 % WIWNFREE ACADEMY CHARTER SCHOOL 1 3.7 % Total 27 100.0 % Not provided=3 Q13c. If any of your children previously attended Westlake Academy, why did they stop? Q13c Why stopped • BULLYING • DIFFERENCE IN PHILOSOPHIES • DONT LIKE ISB CURRICULUM • NO NEVER ATTENDED • NONE PREVIOUSLY ATTENDED WESTLAKE ACADEMY • NOT HAPPY WITH THE CURRICULUM • POOR LEADERSHIP • THE CURRICULUM • UNHAPPY WITH CURRICULUM Q13d. If your children previously attended Westlake Academy, are you considering re-enrolling them in the future? Q13d Are you considering re-enrolling them in the future? Number Percent Yes 3 10.0 % No 11 36.7 % Don't Know 16 53.3 % Total 30 100.0 % Town of Westlake 2013 Resident Survey: Final Report ETC Institute (2013)Page 64 Q14. What is your age? Q14 What is your age Number Percent 18-34 years 17 6.8 % 35-54 years 124 49.6 % 55-74 years 86 34.4 % 75+ years 13 5.2 % Not provided 10 4.0 % Total 250 100.0 % Q15. How many years have you lived in Westlake? Q15 Years lived in Westlake Number Percent Less than 5 years 110 44.0 % 5-10 years 83 33.2 % 11-15 years 12 4.8 % 16-20 years 5 2.0 % Over 20 years 33 13.2 % Not provided 7 2.8 % Total 250 100.0 % Q16. In which subdivision do you live? Q16 Subdivision live in Number Percent Stagecoach Hills 31 12.4 % Vaquero 98 39.2 % Wyck Hill 9 3.6 % Glenwyck Farms 57 22.8 % Mahotea Boone 10 4.0 % Other 33 13.2 % Not provided 12 4.8 % Total 250 100.0 % Q16. Other Q16 Other • ASPEN LN • NOTING SUBDIVISION • TARRA BELLA Town of Westlake 2013 Resident Survey: Final Report ETC Institute (2013)Page 65 Q17. Which of the following BEST describes your total annual household income? Q17 Total annual income Number Percent Under $50,000 12 4.8 % $50,000-$149,000 30 12.0 % $150,000-$500,000 78 31.2 % Over $500,000 100 40.0 % Not provided 30 12.0 % Total 250 100.0 % Q18. Gender: Q18 Gender Number Percent Male 126 50.4 % Female 123 49.2 % Not provided 1 0.4 % Total 250 100.0 % Q19. Overall, how safe do you feel in the Town of Westlake? Q19 How safe do you feel Number Percent Very safe 130 52.0 % Safe 107 42.8 % Unsafe 5 2.0 % Very unsafe 2 0.8 % Don't know 6 2.4 % Total 250 100.0 % Q20. Overall, how would you rate the Town of Westlake as a place to live? Q20 As place to live Number Percent Excellent 175 70.0 % Good 52 20.8 % Average 5 2.0 % Poor 9 3.6 % Don't know 9 3.6 % Total 250 100.0 % Town of Westlake 2013 Resident Survey: Final Report ETC Institute (2013)Page 66 Optional Comments: • I don't understand how or why any city officials or board members or committee members would ever consider allowing apartments in Westlake. Never, Never, Ever!! We need elected officials who understand this point. • The town is way behind other municipalities in automatic payment of water & trash bills. For instance, the City of Keller & Tri-county electric co-op would be good models to copy. • Town staff is not at all friendly, especially when you call with a water issue. They get very defensive. Water is much too expensive! Connect the sidewalks! The street coping is looking good. We need a grocery store. • Need to stencil "STOP" on Davis intersection - the existing stop signs are far apart on either side. Also need to negotiate with cell phone providers to improve signals. • I would like to see the town's sales tax base increase as a result of more commercial development. Additionally, I would like to see increased housing options and an increase in the percentage of Westlake residents who attend the Academy. • Town Council & Mayor selectively keeps vital information from the citizens of Westlake. • The major reason for my move to Westlake was no city taxes on property. I am for Westlake Academy to be self-sufficient and not for bonds which will have to be paid off as a source of revenue or increases in taxes. Most charter schools do not have the option to tax and I believe that should be true for this one also. • I would prefer a Tuesday for trash collection & recycling services. We are away on many consecutive weekends. Thank you. • Don't appreciate being ripped off with the new water rates • Please do not allow for ANY additional burden to Westlake Academy. • The handling of the Granada zoning change was a glaring example of sleazy small town politics. Someone in Westlake government is personally benefiting from that deal. • I feel unsafe after recent incidents. • As I stated last year, although I am proud to say I reside in Westlake, I would love to see attention given to my subdivision of Stagecoach Hills. It too could be a crown jewel of our unique community given the proper attention. • Please have trash collection twice a week • I live next door to a neighbor with barking dogs that ruins the peace and quiet in the area. It is miserable. We should not have this in a residential area. Please do something, please!!! • Need prominent "no outlet" signs at all dead end streets, Stagecoach Hills, Wyck Hill, Mahotea Boone, Aspen Lane and Paigebrooke. • The town marker on the corner of Dove & Randal Mill needs to be cleaned up and "beautified" - considering it's the only sign in Westlake. Flowers would be nice, instead of 1/2 dead bushes and rocks. Currently it is tasteless and does not add any aesthetic value to the city. In fact, it should be welcoming people, not be an eye-sore. Let's learn from Southlake! • Need a permanent street sign at Peason & Dove. • I am very concerned about recent proposed developments in Westlake and on Dove and Sam School in Southlake. I'm afraid Westlake will lose its small town, rural feel. • I would like to see the landscaping better maintained along the roads. There is a lot of trash along the roads. When I walk my dog I try to pick up as much as I can. • I have an 8 year-old granddaughter and we wondered if she is eligible to go to Westlake Academy – is there a "Grandparent clause" for eligibility? • Preferred the Westlake of 20 years ago; it had more of a community feel and was quieter. • I am looking forward to the new development/subdivision on 1938/Dove. Gas station, Starbucks, a small convenience store (high end) would be wonderful. • Need bike lanes; cannot have bicyclists going 5-10 mph on 2-lane roads where the speed limit is 30 and we are still give them the "right of way." Maybe I should have my 5 year-old get on his bicycle and ride up and down Dove Rd. Just because it's legal doesn't mean it is right. Leave the road for cars and build bike lanes instead of a 2-mile long sidewalk that nobody will walk on. Town of Westlake 2013 Resident Survey: Final Report ETC Institute (2013)Page 67 Optional Comments: • We feel so fortunate and blessed to live in Westlake. It is a wonderful place to live and raise kids! • The Mayor's vision for the town poorly reflects the vision of its citizens. Town Council seems to have a different agenda than the collective members of the community. Do not trust town Council. • Thank you for everything that the town is doing for the citizens. Nothing is perfect, but Westlake is a great place to live! Westlake Academy is fundamentally important to the town and its citizens! Please continue the focus on Westlake Academy. • I am very concerned with the recent attempt to rezone for high concentration housing. I do not want to see exceptions made to zoning ordinances. • Please double this for Gracie with exception to Question 19, where Gracie feels unsafe. Keep up the great work, Tom. We appreciate your leadership and service in our town! Blessings, John & Gracie Mills • Thought roundabouts might have been a better idea for Ottinger - Dove & Ottinger - Pearson intersections. Need sewer and better drainage on Mahotea. Too many police writing speeding tickets. Email residents about town news. Enjoy the events; just limited time. • Tom, you and Mayor Wheat have the best interests of Westlake first in all you do for the town. We are very supportive and truly appreciate your work. Thank you. • I would like to have an agreement about library access like Trophy Club has with Roanoke. Seems easy, but doesn't seem to be a priority at all. • I'd like to see Westlake keep its exclusivity and small-town feel. The Town’s wide open spaces and roaming cattle is what gives the Town its small-town feel, not more housing and development! • More utilities choices/information. Better cell phone towers. Growing too quickly; taking away open spaces. • We would like to see some high-end retail or continued development, but at a measured pace. • School expansion is not well thought out; portables as the answer is ridiculous. • I don't want multi-family/apartments/flats/townhomes in Westlake. • Utilities: One Source is a substandard cable company. Please initiate the availability of Verizon FIOS to Glenwyck Farms. • I don't like the increased water rates. Seems the town has made a poor decision that caused rates to increase. What caused this change to take place? Explain why on the Westlake Wire. • The park is not as well maintained since the town took over from Glenwyck. The Town Council & town needs to make sure to stay in touch with the citizens and work for the benefit of the majority. • The doggie bag stations in the Glenwyck Park are never stocked with bags. Nice stations, but with no bags in them they are useless. Whose responsibility is this? • The recent tree plantings on new Davis Blvd. are disappointing, and appear will be a drain on local water supply, with high maintenance required. • Main significant concern is the ongoing subsidy to cover costs of Westlake Academy, primarily benefitting students from outside of Westlake. Makes NO sense, particularly now that we are being assessed additional property tax. • I think that the town could do a better job of keeping medians and sides of the streets free of trash. I think that twice weekly trash service should be re-examined. I also think that the manner in which sewer rates are determined should be re-examined. • Council actions are not transparent and sometimes are misleading. Council of late disregards opinions and desires of majority of residents. Approval of Granada and Entrada violate the principles of the Comprehensive Plan. Enticement of residential projects with grants of public money is reprehensible. • Don't issue bonds, don't go into debt. There is apparently no reason to have a property tax if you can build new buildings at the academy without raising taxes. You ruined my yard with the new streets and made no attempt to correct the issues. Town of Westlake 2013 Resident Survey: Final Report ETC Institute (2013)Page 68 Optional Comments: • Heavily researched the area before moving here and would have said then that Westlake is an excellent place to live. No longer true because of crime in area and surrounding Southlake. Devastated by the burglaries in Westlake which happened within 3 month of relocating here. I feel unsafe during the day and night. I have never lived anywhere where I need to keep a house alarm on day and night. I feel our neighborhood and suburb is targeted. Two ways that the Town could help deter crime is add more police personnel to create a sense of police presence day and night. Previous communities I have lived in, there was not a day that would go by without seeing a police car. Not a police car taking radar, just a police car driving around. Second, change the lighting policies because it is no longer a good policy in light of the focus and targeting of crime in Westlake, The Town of Westlake should reconsidered the "no light" or low light policy around neighborhoods and parks. Outdated policy which is not helpful in deterring the crime which keeps reoccurring in or near us. Disappointed that the amphitheater being considered which will erode our sense of small community and quadruple the traffic on Dove and Davis. Would not have bought our lot in Westlake if I was made aware of the real possibility that traffic would increase on Dove Road. • I am appalled that Westlake is considering allowing “multi-family homes/condos (by permit only)” – whatever choice of word you would like to use – in our town. My husband and I choose this town because we fell in love with the small town feel and appreciated the high quality standards all homes had to follow in order to be built. Once you allow multi-family homes, OF ANY KIND, the value of our property and the small town community feel will disappear. I also believe that other families, of lower incomes, will move into the multi-family homes in order to be able to have a lower-valued home where they can still send their children to Westlake Academy. This action, will in turn, flood Westlake Academy with additional problems (over crowded classes, drugs, disciplinary issues, etc.) that our beloved school may not have too many cases of at this time. As the parent of a young child that will be attending Westlake Academy, if there is multi-family homes built that have the right to Westlake Academy, when the time comes for my child to attend school I will more than likely be sending him to a private school. I’ve been very lenient and understanding of all the new zoning developments and progress to our town, but I will never vote for multi-family homes. • I appreciate that Council has gone to great lengths to study all the development options and hear from the community in many forums. It is unfortunate that the loudest voices who oppose development are often uninformed or misinformed about what the zoning allows. • I fail to understand the continued expansion of Westlake Academy when it increasingly consumes a disproportionate amount of TOW revenue primarily for the benefit of non-residents. • I have concerns now that JT Ottinger and Dove have been reconfigured that the traffic travels at a very high rate of speed in both directions. • I wish you had built a roundabout at the intersection of Dove and Ottinger which would have slowed down traffic at that intersection, instead we now have a mini speedway. This is a concern since our entrance from Mahotea Boone is very close to that intersection. I appreciate you replacing some trees, but I don't see the value in destroying the huge 40 plus year old tree canopy that beautifully covered Dove. • I would like to see fewer speed traps. • It is CRITICAL that the town consider Westlake Academy when approving developments. There is already a space issue; it is very unfortunate that graduating students spend their last two years in portable buildings! And there is not nearly enough space in the dining hall or gym for the students attending now. Adding more families to the town guarantees more students at the highly acclaimed school, which is struggling desperately to resolve extreme problems with Spanish and Mathematics. It seems fundamental issues are overlooked for reasons that do not benefit the Westlake residents or the Academy's students. • Keep small town feel. No more tract home developments. No strip-shopping that lowers our values. Put in parks!!! Town of Westlake 2013 Resident Survey: Final Report ETC Institute (2013)Page 69 Optional Comments: • The biggest concern I have as a resident is the direction Town Council is taking without seeming to consider residents' wishes for the future of GlenWyck. That a vote would be held in December about such drastic changes to the size and make-up of our town without adequately informing residents is astonishing. I can only imagine the reason the Town Council and P&Z are looking to push through such development is to help us get out of the astronomical debt we face, which is roughly $42,000/household - four times any other city or town (of any size) in TX! And, that the Town Council passed an additional 9.5 Million in debt in a special vote held in early April (without communication of the vote through Westlake Wire) is also astonishing. Guidelines from the state recommend that any issuance of additional debt be put to a vote to the residents. But, the Town Council doesn't seem to want to truly incorporate residents' views. They allow residents to state their views in public hearings but there is no opportunity for discussion or to have questions answered. Despite overwhelming opposition, the Town passed the tax last year and that trend continues with the passing of the Grenada and (likely) Entrada developments in the face of similar opposition. From their past communications, they appear to communicate to residents for the purpose of meeting legal requirements and not for the purpose of engaging residents in deciding the future of our Town. As a resident who has been active in my community, I feel disengaged and disregarded by the current government, an, in particular from the P&Z commission where one member (who is now running for Town Council) has been insulting and dismissive to a number of residents on more than one occasion during the development discussions. Since I have moved to Westlake, we have taken on astronomical debt, introduced a tax, liquor stores and, now, it appears, massive retail and condos. I am very, very saddened by what I see happening to the Town I love so much. • The town staff lost a lot of credibility in the secretive handling of the two new zoning change cases that are being discussed. The way this was attempted to be crammed through last December with no public input is simply not acceptable. Posting information on a Friday before a Monday vote on such a monumental issue left many with undesirable perceptions of those in charge of this process. The two developments were clearly not aligned with the desires of the citizens, which leads me to believe that the town manager does not understand the desires of the citizens. Did he really believe apartments would be acceptable in Westlake? • There has to be a better way for sewer charges; I would recommend a flat rate based on household or square footage. • We love the rural feel of Westlake and hope that retail development is kept to a minimum. • We need a fire department; go back with Trophy Club. • We need new members on the town council. We are becoming stale and without any "non-political" ideas! • We need to keep Westlake as it is. Small town feel. Strong neighborhoods. Upscale subdivisions and homes. We have plenty of retail opportunities nearby. We do not need them in Westlake. • Westlake is currently the premier place to live arguably in the nation, ranking #1 on Forbes list. It is undisputedly the best place to live in the DFW area if you are looking for the highest end homes with open space. However, newly proposed projects (Granda and Entrada) threaten this premier and elite status. Entrada's small (2,000 s.f.), dense (over 300) townhomes do not fit in Westlake and threaten to lower property values of the multi-million dollar homes in Westlake. The same is true with Granada, which has smaller homes (3,000-4,000 s.f.) on small lots (.3-.5 acres) than the surrounding premier communities in 2 and 4. It is very disappointing to see the P&Z Commissioner and Town Counsel accept the substandard residential developments in Granda and Entrada when Westlake currently sits as the #1 community in the nation. Westlake will no longer be #1 going forward if these developments are allowed to proceed, and the result will be unhappy Westlake residents as they see their property values decrease. Town of Westlake 2013 Resident Survey: Final Report ETC Institute (2013)Page 70 Section 5: Survey Instrument Town of Westlake 2013 Resident Survey: Final Report ETC Institute (2013)Page 71 Town of Westlake 3 Village Circle, Suite #202 ♦ Westlake, Texas 76262 Metro: 817-430-0941 ♦ Fax: 817-430-1812 ♦ www.westlake-tx.org Dear Westlake Resident, It is that time again when the Town of Westlake is seeking feedback about the quality of municipal services provided to our residents. We are proud to present to you the 2013 DirectionFinders survey. If you have not previously participated in this survey before, we encourage you to take a moment to provide us with your responses. If you have completed this survey in years past, please know that we thank you for your continued participation in this effort and are looking forward to hearing from you again. This year marks the fourth administration of this survey and you may notice some changes. Most apparent of these is that the overall format and design of the document has been revamped in an effort to help the response process flow more quickly and easily. Because we appreciate your time, we are also pleased to offer for the first time this year, the survey in an online format for all residents. We hope that this courtesy will provide our busy respondents with a convenient option for providing the Town with your opinions. The feedback received from these surveys is critical to us in shaping our goals, evaluating our services, and uncovering the most important issues for you and your family. Please take a few minutes to complete the enclosed survey. Please answer any and all questions as accurately as possible and use the comment space provided at the end of the survey for any further information you would like us to know. Every adult resident in the Town has the opportunity to participate in this process and has been mailed an individual survey. If there has been an error and your family needs additional surveys, please contact us. If you would like to access the survey online in lieu of completing this paper copy, you can find it at: www.westlakesurvey.org Please return your completed paper survey in the enclosed postage-paid envelope to: ETC Institute 725 W. Frontier Circle Olathe, KS 66061 If you have any questions, please contact Ginger Awtry, Director of Communications & Community Affairs, in the Town Manager’s Office at (817) 490-5719, or via email at gawtry@westlake-tx.org. Thank you for helping to make Westlake a premier community! Thomas E. Brymer Town Manager/Superintendent Westlake Academy 1    TOWN OF WESTLAKE 2013 RESIDENT SURVEY 1. Satisfaction with Major Categories of Town Services: Using a scale of 1 to 5, where 5 means “Very Satisfied” and 1 means “Very Dissatisfied,” please circle your level of satisfaction with the following services provided by the Town of Westlake. Very Very Don’t Satisfied Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied Dissatisfied Know How satisfied are you with the: A. Overall quality of public safety services (police, fire, and emergency medical) 5…....….4..…..….3.........…..2……..….1…...…..9 B. Overall efforts by the Town to ensure the community is prepared for emergencies 5…....….4..…..….3.........…..2……..….1…...…..9 C. Overall quality of maintenance of Town streets 5…....….4..…..….3.........…..2……..….1…...…..9 D. Overall effectiveness of communication by the Town 5…....….4..…..….3.........…..2……..….1…...…..9 E. Overall quality of utility services 5…....….4..…..….3.........…..2……..….1…...…..9 F. Overall quality of parks, trails, open spaces, streetscaping, and facilities 5…....….4..…..….3.........…..2……..….1…...…..9 G. Overall quality of customer service by the Town 5…....….4……….3........…...2……..….1…...…..9 H. Overall quality of enforcement of codes and ordinances 5…....….4……….3........…...2……..….1…...…..9 I. Overall quality of government services provided by the Town of Westlake 5…....….4..…..….3.........…..2……..….1…...…..9 J. Overall value you receive from your tax dollars and fees 5…....….4..…..….3.........…..2……..….1…...…..9 K. Overall value of Westlake Academy to the Town 5…....….4..…..….3.........…..2……..….1…...…..9 2. Which THREE of the services listed above are the most important to you? (Write in the spaces below, using the letters from the list in Question #1, above.) 1st__________ 2nd__________ 3rd__________ 3. Satisfaction with Specific Types of Services Provided by the Town: Using a scale of 1 to 5, where 5 means “Very Satisfied” and 1 means “Very Dissatisfied,” please circle your level of satisfaction with each of the following. Very Very Don’t Satisfied Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied Dissatisfied Know How satisfied are you with the: Police Services A. Quality of local police protection 5…....….4..…..….3.........…..2……..….1…...…..9 B. Visibility of police in neighborhoods 5…....….4..…..….3.........…..2……..….1…...…..9 C. How quickly police respond to emergencies 5…....….4..…..….3.........…..2……..….1…...…..9 D. Efforts of the Town to prevent crime 5…....….4..…..….3.........…..2……..….1…...…..9 E. Level of traffic enforcement 5…....….4..…..….3.........…..2……..….1…...…..9 Fire & Medical Services F. Quality of fire services 5…....….4..…..….3.........…..2……..….1…...…..9 G. Quality of emergency medical services 5…....….4..…..….3.........…..2……..….1…...…..9 H. Response time of fire and emergency medical services personnel 5…....….4..…..….3.........…..2……..….1…...…..9 Emergency Preparedness I. Response efforts by the Town Staff during extreme weather conditions 5…....….4..…..….3.........…..2……..….1…...…..9 J. Efforts by the Town Staff to inform residents of hazardous road conditions, potential inclement weather & closures 5…....….4..…..….3.........…..2……..….1…...…..9 2    (Question #3 continued) Using a scale of 1 to 5, where 5 means “Very Satisfied” and 1 means “Very Dissatisfied,” please circle your level of satisfaction with each of the following.) Very Very Don’t Satisfied Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied Dissatisfied Know Transportation Services K. Condition of major streets in Westlake 5…....….4..…..….3.........…..2……..….1…...…..9 L. Condition of streets in your neighborhood 5…....….4..…..….3.........…..2……..….1…...…..9 M. Cleanliness of streets and other public areas 5…....….4..…..….3.........…..2……..….1…...…..9 N. Traffic flow and congestion management in Westlake 5…....….4..…..….3.........…..2……..….1…...…..9 Communications & Citizen Engagement O. Efforts by the Town to keep you informed about Council Meetings, Town projects, issues, and events 5…....….4..…..….3.........…..2……..….1…...…..9 P. Timeliness of information provided by the Town 5…....….4..…..….3.........…..2……..….1…...…..9 Q. Completeness of the information provided by the Town 5…....….4..…..….3.........…..2……..….1…...…..9 R. Usefulness of the Westlake Wire communications 5…....….4..…..….3.........…..2……..….1…...…..9 S. Ease of use of the Town’s website 5…....….4..…..….3.........…..2……..….1…...…..9 T. Availability/Accessibility of Town records 5…....….4..…..….3.........…..2……..….1…...…..9 U. Opportunities provided for public input 5…....….4..…..….3.........…..2……..….1…...…..9 Parks & Recreation Services V. Maintenance of Town-owned Glenwyck Park 5…....….4..…..….3.........…..2……..….1…...…..9 W. Number of publicly-accessible parks and trails 5…....….4..…..….3.........…..2……..….1…...…..9 X. Maintenance of streetscaping and open spaces 5…....….4..…..….3.........…..2……..….1…...…..9 Utility Services Y. Residential trash collection services 5…....….4..…..….3.........…..2……..….1…...…..9 Z. Curbside recycling services 5…....….4..…..….3.........…..2……..….1…...…..9 AA. Yard waste & bulky item removal services 5…....….4..…..….3.........…..2……..….1…...…..9 BB. Town efforts to promote water conservation and protect water resources 5…....….4..…..….3.........…..2……..….1…...…..9 CC. Household hazardous waste disposal service 5…....….4..…..….3.........…..2……..….1…...…..9 DD. Efforts by the Town to manage stormwater run-off 5…....….4..…..….3.........…..2……..….1…...…..9 EE. Quality of (drinking) water utility services 5…....….4..…..….3.........…..2……..….1…...…..9 Customer Service FF. Level of participation by Town Staff in community events/ neighborhood meetings 5…....….4..…..….3.........…..2……..….1…...…..9 GG. Timeliness of Town Staff to concerns/issues (≤24 hours) 5…....….4..…..….3.........…..2……..….1…...…..9 HH. Friendliness of Town Staff 5…....….4..…..….3.........…..2……..….1…...…..9 II. Municipal court services 5…....….4..…..….3.........…..2……..….1…...…..9 JJ. Jury service experience 5…....….4..…..….3.........…..2……..….1…...…..9 Code Enforcement KK. Enforcing the exterior appearance and maintenance regulations for property 5…....….4..…..….3.........…..2……..….1…...…..9 LL. Enforcing sign regulations 5…....….4..…..….3.........…..2……..….1…...…..9 4. Using a scale of 1 to 5, where 5 means “Strongly Agree” and 1 means “Strongly Disagree,” please circle your level of agreement with the following statements. Strongly Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Disagree Please rate your agreement with the following statements: A. Attracting retail development, which grows Westlake’s sales tax base, is important to me 5…....……4..…..…...3.........…….2……..…....1 B. Westlake’s continued emphasis on attracting high-end development is important to me 5…....……4..…..…...3.........…….2……..…....1 C. The connectivity of Westlake’s walking/biking trails is important to me 5…....……4..…..…...3.........…….2……..…....1 3    5. Reasons for Moving to Westlake: Using a scale of 1 to 5, where 5 means “Extremely Important” and 1 means “Not Important,” please circle how important the following issues were in your decision to move to the Town of Westlake. Extremely Very Less Not Don’t Important Important Important Important Important Know How important was: A. Sense of community 5…....….4..…..…...3.........….2………..1….......9 B. Quality of life 5…....….4..…..…...3..............2………..1….......9 C. Small town feel 5…....….4..…..…...3.........….2………..1….......9 D. Aesthetic appeal & high development standards 5…....….4..…..…...3.........….2………..1….......9 E. Westlake Academy 5…....….4..…..…...3.........….2………..1….......9 F. Access to other public schools (Keller, Northwest or Carroll ISD) 5…....….4..…..…...3.........….2………..1….......9 G. Proximity to private schools 5…....….4..…..…...3.........….2………..1….......9 H. Low crime rates/quality of public safety 5…....….4..…..…...3.........….2………..1….......9 I. Employment opportunities in the Westlake area 5…....….4..…..…...3.........….2………..1….......9 J. Access to DFW airport 5…....….4..…..…...3.........….2………..1….......9 K. Access to major highways 5…....….4..…..…...3.........….2………..1….......9 L. Type of housing available 5…....….4..…..…...3.........….2………..1….......9 M. Quality of your subdivision 5…....….4..…..…...3.........….2………..1….......9 N. Westlake as a retirement destination 5…....….4..…..…...3.........….2………..1….......9 O. Number of publicly accessible parks & trails 5…....….4..…..…...3.........….2………..1….......9 P. Subdivision amenities (airpark, golf club, parks, etc.) 5…....….4..…..…...3.........….2………..1….......9 6. Which THREE of the reasons listed above are the most important reasons why you will stay in Westlake for the next 5 years? (Write in the spaces below, using the letters from the list in Question #5, above.) 1st__________ 2nd__________ 3rd__________ 7. Issues of Interest: Using a scale of 1 to 5, where 5 means “Very Beneficial” and 1 means “Not Beneficial at All,” please rate how beneficial you think the following have been to the Town of Westlake: Very Not Don’t Beneficial Somewhat Neutral Not Very At All Know Do you feel the following road improvements are beneficial? Road Projects A. Improvements to FM 1938 / Davis Blvd. ..................... 5 ........... 4 ............. 3 .......... 2 ............... 1 ........ 9 B. Improvements to Dove Rd. / J.T. Ottinger Rd. ............. 5 ........... 4 ............. 3 .......... 2 ............... 1 ........ 9 C. Intersection reconfigurations at Dove Rd / J.T. Ottinger Rd. 5 ........... 4 ............. 3 .......... 2 ............... 1 ........ 9 D. Intersection reconfigurations at Dove Rd. / Pearson Ln. 5 ........... 4 ............. 3 .......... 2 ............... 1 ........ 9 8. Using a scale of 1 to 5, where 5 means “Very Satisfied” and 1 means “Very Dissatisfied,” please circle your level of satisfaction with each of the following. Very Very Don’t Satisfied Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied Dissatisfied Know How satisfied are you with the: Burglary Incidents A. Police response to burglaries in Westlake 5…....….4..…..….3.........…..2……..….1…...…..9 B. Communication provided to residents about the burglaries 5…....….4..…..….3.........…..2……..….1…...…..9 C. Efforts by the Town to implement safety measures resulting from the burglary incidents 5…....….4..…..….3.........…..2……..….1…...…..9 4    9. Overall, how familiar are you with the following information: A. The Town’s Comprehensive Plan _____(3) Very Familiar _____(2) Somewhat Familiar _____(1) Not Familiar B. The Town’s Strategic Plan _____(3) Very Familiar _____(2) Somewhat Familiar _____(1) Not Familiar C. The Town’s lighting standards _____(3) Very Familiar _____(2) Somewhat Familiar _____(1) Not Familiar D. The Town’s open space requirements for development _____(3) Very Familiar _____(2) Somewhat Familiar _____(1) Not Familiar E. Zoning standards within the Town _____(3) Very Familiar _____(2) Somewhat Familiar _____(1) Not Familiar F. Allowed uses for existing planned development districts within the Town _____(3) Very Familiar _____(2) Somewhat Familiar _____(1) Not Familiar 10. Please check the following boxes that apply to you (select ONE) When did you most recently attend the following events? This Year Last Year 2 Years Ago or More Never, But I Am Aware of Event Never, I Am Not Aware of Event A. Decoration Day 1 2 3 4 5 B. Any of the Master Works concert series Events 1 2 3 4 5 C. Arbor Day 1 2 3 4 5 D. Community Tree Lighting 1 2 3 4 5 E. Westlake Historical Preservation Society’s Classic Car Show 1 2 3 4 5 F. Other Westlake Historical Preservation Society events 1 2 3 4 5 G. Westlake Public Arts Society events 1 2 3 4 5 11. Have you attended a public meeting in your neighborhood? _____ (1) Yes- This Year (go to #11a-b) _____ (2) Yes- Last Year (go to #11a-b) _____ (3) No- but I Am Aware of the Meetings (go to #11c-d) _____ (4) No – I Am Not Aware of Meetings (go to #11c-d) If Yes: 11a. Was the meeting informative? ___(1) Yes ___ (2) No 11b. Did you have the opportunity to discuss your ideas/concerns? ___(1) Yes ___ (2) No If No: 11c. Will you attend a neighborhood meeting in the future? ___(1) Yes ___ (2) No 11d. Do you think these types of meeting are useful to conduct? ___(1) Yes ___ (2) No 12. In your opinion, how often should neighborhood meetings be held? _____ (1) Annually _____ (2) Twice a year _____ (3) Every other year _____ (4) Don’t know 13. Do any children in grades K-12 live in your home? _____ (1) Yes - (go to #13a) _____ (2) No - (go to #14) 5    13a. IF YES to #13: Do any of these children currently attend Westlake Academy? _____ (1) Yes (go to #14) _____ (2) No (go to #13b-d) 13b. Where do your children go to school? ___________________________________________ 13c. If any of your children previously attended Westlake Academy, why did they stop? ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ 13d. If your children previously attended Westlake Academy, are you considering re-enrolling them in the future? _____ (1) Yes _____ (2) No 14. What is your age? _____ (1) 18 – 34 years _____ (3) 55 – 74 years _____ (2) 35 – 54 years _____ (4) 75 + years 15. How many years have you lived in Westlake? ____________ years 16. In which subdivision do you live? _____ (1) Stagecoach Hills _____ (3) Wyck Hill _____ (5) Mahotea Boone _____ (2) Vaquero _____ (4) Glenwyck Farms _____ (6) Other 17. Which of the following BEST describes your total annual household income? _____ (1) Under $50,000 _____ (3) $150,000 - $500,000 _____ (2) $50,000 - $149,000 _____ (4) Over $500,000 18. Gender: _____ (1) Male _____ (2) Female 19. Overall, how safe do you feel in the Town of Westlake? _____ (4) Very Safe _____ (3) Safe _____ (2) Unsafe _____ (1) Very Unsafe _____ (9) Don’t Know 20. Overall, how would you rate the Town of Westlake as a place to live? _____ (4) Excellent _____ (3) Good _____ (2) Average _____ (1) Poor _____ (9) Don’t Know Optional: If you have any other comments, please write them in the space provided below. The Town of Westlake Thanks you for completing this survey. Please return your completed document in the enclosed postage-paid envelope, addressed to: ETC Institute 725 W. Frontier Circle Olathe, KS 66061 222000111333 TTTooowww nnn ooofff WWWeeessstttlllaaakkkeee RRReeesssiiidddeeennnttt SSSuuurrrvvveeeyyy AAAppppppeeennndddiiixxx AAA::: BBBeeennnccchhhmmmaaarrrkkkiiinnnggg AAAnnnaaalllyyysssiiisss SSuubbmmiitttteedd TToo:: ETC Institute Project Manager: Chris Tatham 725 West Frontier Circle Phone: 913-829-1215 Olathe, Kansas Fax: 913-829-1591 66061 E-mail: ctatham@etcinstitute.com EEETTTCCC IIInnnssstttiiitttuuuttteee May 2013 ...helping organizations make better decisions since 1982 B e n c h m a r k i n g A n a l y s i s DirectionFinder Survey Year 2013 Benchmarking Summary Report Overview ETC Institute's DirectionFinder® program was originally developed in 1999 to help community leaders across the United States use statistically valid community survey data as a tool for making better decisions. Since November 1999, the survey has been administered in more than 210 cities and counties in 43 states. This report contains benchmarking data from two sources. The first source is from a national survey that was administered by ETC Institute during the summer of 2012 that is part of a random sample of 4,000 residents in the continental United States. The second source is from 51 small/medium sized communities (with a population of less than 199,000) where the DirectionFinder® survey was administered between January 2010 and May 2013. The 51 communities included in the performance ranges that are shown in this report are listed below: • Abilene, Texas • Auburn, Alabama • Bensenville, Illinois • Blue Springs, Missouri • Bryan, Texas • Casper, Wyoming • Chapel Hill, North Carolina • Columbia, Missouri • Coral Springs, Florida • Davenport, Iowa • Dothan, Alabama • Fort Lauderdale, Florida • Garden City, Kansas • Gardner, Kansas • Hallandale Beach, Florida • Harrisonville, Missouri • High Point, North Carolina • Hyattsville, Maryland • Independence, Missouri • Indian Trail, North Carolina • Indio, California • Lawrence, Kansas • Merriam, Kansas • Mesa County, Colorado • Mission, Kansas • Naperville, Illinois • Narragansett, Rhode Island • Newport Beach, California • Norman, Oklahoma • North Kansas City, Missouri • Olathe, Kansas • Overland Park, Kansas • Panama City, Florida • Peoria, Arizona • Provo, Utah • Pueblo, Colorado • Raymore, Missouri • Riverside, Missouri • Round Rock, Texas • San Marcos, Texas • Shoreline, Washington • St. Joseph, Missouri • Tamarac, Florida • Tempe Arizona • Topeka, Kansas • Vancouver, Washington • Wentzville, Missouri • West Des Moines, Iowa • Westlake, Texas • Wilmington, North Carolina • Winchester, Virginia 2013 Town of Westlake Resident Survey: Appendix A - Benchmarking Analysis ETC Institute (2013)A - 1 Be n c h m a r k i n g A n a l y s i s Interpreting the Charts The first set of charts provides comparisons for several items that were rated on the survey. The percentages shown reflect the sum of the positive ratings given by respondents excluding “don’t knows.” The blue bars show the results for Westlake and the tan bars show the results of a national survey that was conducted by ETC Institute to 4,000 residents across the United States. On the second set of charts, the horizontal bar shows the range of performance among small/medium size communities in ETC Institute’s DirectionFinder® database with a population of less than 199,000. The yellow dot on each chart shows the rating for Westlake. The vertical green line shows the average rating for the medium size communities. 2013 Town of Westlake Resident Survey: Appendix A - Benchmarking Analysis ETC Institute (2013)A - 2 86% 82% 74% 73% 71% 80% 62% 48% 55% 50% Quality of public safety services Westlake's emergency preparedness efforts Effectiveness of Town communication Overall customer service provided by Town Overall code enforcement 0%20%40%60%80%100% Westlake U.S. by percentage of respondents who rated the item 4 or 5 on a 5-point scale where 5 was "very satisfied" and 1 was "very dissatisfied" (excluding don't knows) Source: 2013 ETC Institute Overall Satisfaction with Major Categories of Town Services - Westlake vs. the U.S 2013 Town of Westlake Resident Survey: Appendix A - Benchmarking Analysis ETC Institute (2013)A - 3 96% 94% 87% 83% 79% 69% 46% 47% 37% 36% Quality of public safety services Westlake's emergency preparedness efforts Overall customer service provided by Town Effectiveness of Town communication Overall code enforcement 0%20%40%60%80%100% Overall Satisfaction with Town Services by Major Category - 2013 by percentage of respondents who rated the item as a 4 or 5 on a 5-point scale LOW---------MEAN--------HIGH Westlake, TX 86% 73% 71% 82% Source: ETC Institute DirectionFinder (2013) 74% 74% 55% 58% 47% Overall quality of governmental services Value received from City tax dollars and fees 0%20%40%60%80%100% Westlake U.S. by percentage of respondents who rated the item 4 or 5 on a 5-point scale where 5 was "very satisfied" and 1 was "very dissatisfied" (excluding don't knows) Source: 2013 ETC Institute Satisfaction with Issues that Influence Perceptions of the Town Westlake vs. the U.S 2013 Town of Westlake Resident Survey: Appendix A - Benchmarking Analysis ETC Institute (2013)A - 4 93% 84% 42% 22% Overall quality of governmental services Value received from City tax dollars and fees 0%20%40%60%80%100% LOW---------MEAN--------HIGH Perceptions that Residents Have of the Community in Which They Live - 2013 by percentage of respondents who rated the item as a 4 or 5 on a 5-point scale 74% Westlake, TX Source: ETC Institute DirectionFinder (2013) 55% 80% 80% 74% 71% 66% 74% 70% 61% 61% 65% Local police protection Police response time to emergencies Efforts of the Town to prevent crime Visibility of police in neighborhoods Level of traffic enforcement 0%20%40%60%80%100% Westlake U.S. Overall Satisfaction with Police Services Westlake vs. the U.S by percentage of respondents who rated the item 4 or 5 on a 5-point scale where 5 was "very satisfied" and 1 was "very dissatisfied" (excluding don't knows) Source: 2013 ETC Institute 2013 Town of Westlake Resident Survey: Appendix A - Benchmarking Analysis ETC Institute (2013)A - 5 93% 92% 88% 88% 85% 57% 43% 41% 40% 46% Quality of local police protection How quickly police respond to emergencies Efforts of the Town to prevent crime Visibility of police in neighborhoods Level of traffic enforcement 0%20%40%60%80%100% LOW---------MEAN--------HIGH by percentage of respondents who rated the item as a 4 or 5 on a 5-point scale Satisfaction with Police Services Provided by Cities and Towns - 2013 80% 66% 80% Westlake, TX Source: ETC Institute DirectionFinder (2013) 74% 71% 88% 88% 87% 84% 84% 89% Overall quality of emergency medical services Response time of fire and EMS personnel Overall quality of fire services 0%20%40%60%80%100% Westlake U.S. Overall Satisfaction with Fire Services Westlake vs. the U.S by percentage of respondents who rated the item 4 or 5 on a 5-point scale where 5 was "very satisfied" and 1 was "very dissatisfied" (excluding don't knows) Source: 2013 ETC Institute 2013 Town of Westlake Resident Survey: Appendix A - Benchmarking Analysis ETC Institute (2013)A - 6 95% 94% 93% 70% 77% 78% Overall quality of emergency medical services Overall quality of fire services Response time of fire and EMS personnel 0%20%40%60%80%100% LOW---------MEAN--------HIGH by percentage of respondents who rated the item as a 4 or 5 on a 5-point scale Satisfaction with Fire Services Provided by Cities and Towns - 2013 88% 88% 87% Westlake, TX Source: ETC Institute DirectionFinder (2013) 87% 86% 86% 78% 58% 59% 66% 55% Condition of major streets Condition of neighborhood streets Cleanliness of streets and other public areas Traffic flow and congestion management 0%20%40%60%80%100% Westlake U.S. Overall Satisfaction with Maintenance Services Westlake vs. the U.S by percentage of respondents who rated the item 4 or 5 on a 5-point scale where 5 was "very satisfied" and 1 was "very dissatisfied" (excluding don't knows) Source: 2013 ETC Institute 2013 Town of Westlake Resident Survey: Appendix A - Benchmarking Analysis ETC Institute (2013)A - 7 93% 91% 87% 78% 36% 23% 29% 33% Cleanliness of streets and other public areas Condition of major streets in Westlake Condition of neighborhood streets Traffic flow and congestion management 0%20%40%60%80%100% LOW---------MEAN--------HIGH by percentage of respondents who rated the item as a 4 or 5 on a 5-point scale (excluding don't knows) Satisfaction with Maintenance Services Provided by Cities and Towns - 2013 87% Westlake, TX Source: ETC Institute DirectionFinder (2013) 86% 86% 78% NEW HIGH SET: 69% 77% Maintenance of local park 0%20%40%60%80%100% Westlake U.S. Overall Satisfaction with Parks and Recreation Westlake vs. the U.S by percentage of respondents who rated the item 4 or 5 on a 5-point scale where 5 was "very satisfied" and 1 was "very dissatisfied" (excluding don't knows) Source: 2013 ETC Institute 2013 Town of Westlake Resident Survey: Appendix A - Benchmarking Analysis ETC Institute (2013)A - 8 95%62%Maintenance of local park 0%20%40%60%80%100% LOW---------MEAN--------HIGH by percentage of respondents who rated the item as a 4 or 5 on a 5-point scale Satisfaction with Parks and Recreation Services Provided by Cities and Towns - 2013 69% Westlake, TX Source: ETC Institute DirectionFinder (2013) 83% 78% 78% 73% 65% 65% 73% 84% 71% 81% 54% 64% Curbside recycling services Residential trash collection services Yard waste/bulky item removal services Quality of water utility services Household hazardous waste disposal service Efforts by the Town to manage storm water run-off 0%20%40%60%80%100% Westlake U.S. Overall Satisfaction with Utility Services Westlake vs. the U.S by percentage of respondents who rated the item 4 or 5 on a 5-point scale where 5 was "very satisfied" and 1 was "very dissatisfied" (excluding don't knows) Source: 2013 ETC Institute 2013 Town of Westlake Resident Survey: Appendix A - Benchmarking Analysis ETC Institute (2013)A - 9 94% 92% 90% 89% 82% 65% 56% 47% 44% 54% 33% 43% Residential trash collection services Curbside recycling services Yard waste/bulky item removal services Quality of water utility services Efforts by the Town to manage storm water run-off Household hazardous waste disposal service 0%20%40%60%80%100% LOW---------MEAN--------HIGH by percentage of respondents who rated the item as a 4 or 5 on a 5-point scale (excluding don't knows) Satisfaction with Utility Services Provided by Cities and Towns - 2013 65% Westlake, TX Source: ETC Institute DirectionFinder (2013) 78% 83% 78% 73% 65% NEW HIGH SET: 72% 73% 49% 59% Enforcing exterior regulations for property Enforcing sign regulations 0%20%40%60%80%100% Westlake U.S. Overall Satisfaction with Code Enforcement Westlake vs. the U.S by percentage of respondents who rated the item 4 or 5 on a 5-point scale where 5 was "very satisfied" and 1 was "very dissatisfied" (excluding don't knows) Source: 2013 ETC Institute 2013 Town of Westlake Resident Survey: Appendix A - Benchmarking Analysis ETC Institute (2013)A - 10 73% 72% 31% 23% Enforcing sign regulations Enforcing exterior regulations for property 0%20%40%60%80%100% LOW---------MEAN--------HIGH by percentage of respondents who rated the item as a 4 or 5 on a 5-point scale Satisfaction with Code Enforcement Services Provided by Cities and Towns - 2013 73% Westlake, TX Source: ETC Institute DirectionFinder (2013) 72% NEW HIGH SET: NEW HIGH SET: 2013 Town of Westlake Resident Survey: Appendix A - Benchmarking Analysis ETC Institute (2013)A - 11 222000111333 TTTooowww nnn ooofff WWWeeessstttlllaaakkkeee RRReeesssiiidddeeennnttt SSSuuurrrvvveeeyyy AAAppppppeeennndddiiixxx BBB::: CCCrrrooosssssstttaaabbbsss bbbyyy AAAgggeee,,, AAAnnnnnnuuuaaalll HHHooouuussseeehhhooolllddd IIInnncccooommm eee aaannnddd GGGeeennndddeeerrr SSuubbmmiitttteedd TToo:: ETC Institute Project Manager: Chris Tatham 725 West Frontier Circle Phone: 913-829-1215 Olathe, Kansas Fax: 913-829-1591 66061 E-mail: ctatham@etcinstitute.com EEETTTCCC IIInnnssstttiiitttuuuttteee May 2013 ...helping organizations make better decisions since 1982 Q1 . S a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h M a j o r C a t e g o r i e s o f T o w n S e r v i c e s : U s i n g a s c a l e o f 1 t o 5 , w h e r e 5 m e a n s " V e r y S a t i s f i e d " a n d 1 m e a n s " V e r y Di s s a t i s f i e d , " p l e a s e c i r c l e y o u r l e v e l o f s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h t h e f o l l o w i n g s e r v i c e s p r o v i d e d b y t h e T o w n o f W e s t l a k e . ( W i t h o u t D o n ' t K n o w ) N= 2 5 0 Q1 4 W h a t i s y o u r ag e Q1 7 T o t a l a n n u a l i n c o m e Q1 8 G e n d e r To t a l Ag e s 18 - 5 4 Ag e s 5 5 + Un d e r $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 - $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ov e r $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ma l e Fe m a l e Q1 a P u b l i c s a f e t y ( p o l i c e , f i r e , e m e r g e n c y m e d i c a l ) Ve r y s a t i s f i e d 47 . 7 % 52 . 6 % 57 . 1 % 45 . 7 % 46 . 9 % 48 . 7 % 48 . 7 % 48 . 5 % Sa t i s f i e d 38 . 6 % 32 . 6 % 38 . 1 % 38 . 6 % 38 . 5 % 37 . 0 % 36 . 5 % 37 . 0 % Ne u t r a l 9. 1 % 8. 4 % 2. 4 % 11 . 4 % 6. 3 % 10 . 1 % 7. 8 % 8. 9 % Di s s a t i s f i e d 3. 8 % 3. 2 % 2. 4 % 2. 9 % 5. 2 % 2. 5 % 4. 3 % 3. 4 % Ve r y d i s s a t i s f i e d 0. 8 % 3. 2 % 0. 0 % 1. 4 % 3. 1 % 1. 7 % 2. 6 % 2. 1 % 20 1 3 To w n of We s t l a k e Re s i d e n t Su r v e y : Ap p e n d i x B - Cr o s s t a b s by Ag e , An n u a l Ho u s e h o l d Income and Gender ET C In s t i t u t e (2 0 1 3 ) B - 1 Q1 . S a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h M a j o r C a t e g o r i e s o f T o w n S e r v i c e s : U s i n g a s c a l e o f 1 t o 5 , w h e r e 5 m e a n s " V e r y S a t i s f i e d " a n d 1 m e a n s " V e r y Di s s a t i s f i e d , " p l e a s e c i r c l e y o u r l e v e l o f s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h t h e f o l l o w i n g s e r v i c e s p r o v i d e d b y t h e T o w n o f W e s t l a k e . ( W i t h o u t D o n ' t K n o w ) N= 2 5 0 Q1 4 W h a t i s y o u r ag e Q1 7 T o t a l a n n u a l i n c o m e Q1 8 G e n d e r To t a l Ag e s 18 - 5 4 Ag e s 5 5 + Un d e r $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 - $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ov e r $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ma l e Fe m a l e Q1 b E f f o r t s t o e n s u r e T o w n i s p r e p a r e d f o r e m e r g e n c i e s Ve r y s a t i s f i e d 43 . 3 % 43 . 8 % 42 . 1 % 46 . 4 % 43 . 8 % 42 . 1 % 44 . 4 % 43 . 0 % Sa t i s f i e d 38 . 6 % 37 . 1 % 44 . 7 % 37 . 7 % 37 . 1 % 36 . 0 % 40 . 7 % 38 . 6 % Ne u t r a l 11 . 8 % 14 . 6 % 13 . 2 % 8. 7 % 12 . 4 % 17 . 5 % 7. 4 % 12 . 6 % Di s s a t i s f i e d 3. 9 % 3. 4 % 0. 0 % 5. 8 % 3. 4 % 2. 6 % 4. 6 % 3. 6 % Ve r y d i s s a t i s f i e d 2. 4 % 1. 1 % 0. 0 % 1. 4 % 3. 4 % 1. 8 % 2. 8 % 2. 2 % 20 1 3 To w n of We s t l a k e Re s i d e n t Su r v e y : Ap p e n d i x B - Cr o s s t a b s by Ag e , An n u a l Ho u s e h o l d Income and Gender ET C In s t i t u t e (2 0 1 3 ) B - 2 Q1 . S a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h M a j o r C a t e g o r i e s o f T o w n S e r v i c e s : U s i n g a s c a l e o f 1 t o 5 , w h e r e 5 m e a n s " V e r y S a t i s f i e d " a n d 1 m e a n s " V e r y Di s s a t i s f i e d , " p l e a s e c i r c l e y o u r l e v e l o f s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h t h e f o l l o w i n g s e r v i c e s p r o v i d e d b y t h e T o w n o f W e s t l a k e . ( W i t h o u t D o n ' t K n o w ) N= 2 5 0 Q1 4 W h a t i s y o u r ag e Q1 7 T o t a l a n n u a l i n c o m e Q1 8 G e n d e r To t a l Ag e s 18 - 5 4 Ag e s 5 5 + Un d e r $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 - $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ov e r $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ma l e Fe m a l e Q1 c M a i n t e n a n c e o f T o w n s t r e e t s Ve r y s a t i s f i e d 45 . 3 % 35 . 1 % 33 . 3 % 46 . 8 % 39 . 4 % 38 . 5 % 43 . 4 % 40 . 8 % Sa t i s f i e d 36 . 0 % 47 . 4 % 52 . 4 % 36 . 4 % 41 . 4 % 37 . 7 % 42 . 6 % 40 . 4 % Ne u t r a l 13 . 7 % 11 . 3 % 9. 5 % 13 . 0 % 11 . 1 % 15 . 6 % 9. 8 % 12 . 7 % Di s s a t i s f i e d 2. 9 % 5. 2 % 4. 8 % 3. 9 % 4. 0 % 5. 7 % 2. 5 % 4. 1 % Ve r y d i s s a t i s f i e d 2. 2 % 1. 0 % 0. 0 % 0. 0 % 4. 0 % 2. 5 % 1. 6 % 2. 0 % 20 1 3 To w n of We s t l a k e Re s i d e n t Su r v e y : Ap p e n d i x B - Cr o s s t a b s by Ag e , An n u a l Ho u s e h o l d Income and Gender ET C In s t i t u t e (2 0 1 3 ) B - 3 Q1 . S a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h M a j o r C a t e g o r i e s o f T o w n S e r v i c e s : U s i n g a s c a l e o f 1 t o 5 , w h e r e 5 m e a n s " V e r y S a t i s f i e d " a n d 1 m e a n s " V e r y Di s s a t i s f i e d , " p l e a s e c i r c l e y o u r l e v e l o f s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h t h e f o l l o w i n g s e r v i c e s p r o v i d e d b y t h e T o w n o f W e s t l a k e . ( W i t h o u t D o n ' t K n o w ) N= 2 5 0 Q1 4 W h a t i s y o u r ag e Q1 7 T o t a l a n n u a l i n c o m e Q1 8 G e n d e r To t a l Ag e s 18 - 5 4 Ag e s 5 5 + Un d e r $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 - $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ov e r $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ma l e Fe m a l e Q1 d E f f e c t i v e n e s s o f c o m m u n i c a t i o n b y t h e T o w n Ve r y s a t i s f i e d 43 . 1 % 38 . 8 % 39 . 0 % 47 . 4 % 39 . 4 % 38 . 5 % 44 . 6 % 41 . 8 % Sa t i s f i e d 30 . 7 % 33 . 7 % 43 . 9 % 30 . 3 % 29 . 3 % 29 . 5 % 33 . 9 % 31 . 6 % Ne u t r a l 10 . 2 % 15 . 3 % 12 . 2 % 6. 6 % 13 . 1 % 12 . 3 % 11 . 6 % 11 . 9 % Di s s a t i s f i e d 8. 0 % 7. 1 % 4. 9 % 7. 9 % 8. 1 % 10 . 7 % 5. 8 % 8. 2 % Ve r y d i s s a t i s f i e d 8. 0 % 5. 1 % 0. 0 % 7. 9 % 10 . 1 % 9. 0 % 4. 1 % 6. 6 % 20 1 3 To w n of We s t l a k e Re s i d e n t Su r v e y : Ap p e n d i x B - Cr o s s t a b s by Ag e , An n u a l Ho u s e h o l d Income and Gender ET C In s t i t u t e (2 0 1 3 ) B - 4 Q1 . S a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h M a j o r C a t e g o r i e s o f T o w n S e r v i c e s : U s i n g a s c a l e o f 1 t o 5 , w h e r e 5 m e a n s " V e r y S a t i s f i e d " a n d 1 m e a n s " V e r y Di s s a t i s f i e d , " p l e a s e c i r c l e y o u r l e v e l o f s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h t h e f o l l o w i n g s e r v i c e s p r o v i d e d b y t h e T o w n o f W e s t l a k e . ( W i t h o u t D o n ' t K n o w ) N= 2 5 0 Q1 4 W h a t i s y o u r ag e Q1 7 T o t a l a n n u a l i n c o m e Q1 8 G e n d e r To t a l Ag e s 18 - 5 4 Ag e s 5 5 + Un d e r $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 - $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ov e r $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ma l e Fe m a l e Q1 e U t i l i t y s e r v i c e s Ve r y s a t i s f i e d 27 . 3 % 30 . 6 % 28 . 6 % 23 . 7 % 33 . 0 % 29 . 0 % 28 . 9 % 28 . 9 % Sa t i s f i e d 39 . 6 % 40 . 8 % 50 . 0 % 39 . 5 % 37 . 0 % 35 . 5 % 45 . 5 % 40 . 7 % Ne u t r a l 22 . 3 % 20 . 4 % 21 . 4 % 26 . 3 % 18 . 0 % 21 . 0 % 21 . 5 % 21 . 1 % Di s s a t i s f i e d 10 . 8 % 8. 2 % 0. 0 % 10 . 5 % 12 . 0 % 14 . 5 % 4. 1 % 9. 3 % 20 1 3 To w n of We s t l a k e Re s i d e n t Su r v e y : Ap p e n d i x B - Cr o s s t a b s by Ag e , An n u a l Ho u s e h o l d Income and Gender ET C In s t i t u t e (2 0 1 3 ) B - 5 Q1 . S a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h M a j o r C a t e g o r i e s o f T o w n S e r v i c e s : U s i n g a s c a l e o f 1 t o 5 , w h e r e 5 m e a n s " V e r y S a t i s f i e d " a n d 1 m e a n s " V e r y Di s s a t i s f i e d , " p l e a s e c i r c l e y o u r l e v e l o f s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h t h e f o l l o w i n g s e r v i c e s p r o v i d e d b y t h e T o w n o f W e s t l a k e . ( W i t h o u t D o n ' t K n o w ) N= 2 5 0 Q1 4 W h a t i s y o u r ag e Q1 7 T o t a l a n n u a l i n c o m e Q1 8 G e n d e r To t a l Ag e s 18 - 5 4 Ag e s 5 5 + Un d e r $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 - $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ov e r $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ma l e Fe m a l e Q1 f P a r k s / t r a i l s / o p e n s p a c e s Ve r y s a t i s f i e d 37 . 8 % 31 . 5 % 40 . 5 % 37 . 5 % 31 . 2 % 32 . 5 % 38 . 3 % 35 . 2 % Sa t i s f i e d 31 . 9 % 41 . 3 % 40 . 5 % 34 . 7 % 37 . 6 % 36 . 7 % 36 . 5 % 36 . 9 % Ne u t r a l 25 . 9 % 19 . 6 % 16 . 7 % 22 . 2 % 23 . 7 % 25 . 8 % 19 . 1 % 22 . 5 % Di s s a t i s f i e d 3. 0 % 6. 5 % 0. 0 % 4. 2 % 6. 5 % 3. 3 % 5. 2 % 4. 2 % Ve r y d i s s a t i s f i e d 1. 5 % 1. 1 % 2. 4 % 1. 4 % 1. 1 % 1. 7 % 0. 9 % 1. 3 % 20 1 3 To w n of We s t l a k e Re s i d e n t Su r v e y : Ap p e n d i x B - Cr o s s t a b s by Ag e , An n u a l Ho u s e h o l d Income and Gender ET C In s t i t u t e (2 0 1 3 ) B - 6 Q1 . S a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h M a j o r C a t e g o r i e s o f T o w n S e r v i c e s : U s i n g a s c a l e o f 1 t o 5 , w h e r e 5 m e a n s " V e r y S a t i s f i e d " a n d 1 m e a n s " V e r y Di s s a t i s f i e d , " p l e a s e c i r c l e y o u r l e v e l o f s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h t h e f o l l o w i n g s e r v i c e s p r o v i d e d b y t h e T o w n o f W e s t l a k e . ( W i t h o u t D o n ' t K n o w ) N= 2 5 0 Q1 4 W h a t i s y o ur ag e Q1 7 T o t a l a n n u a l i n c o m e Q1 8 G e n d e r To t a l Ag e s 18 - 5 4 Ag e s 5 5 + Un d e r $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 - $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ov e r $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ma l e Fe m a l e Q1 g C u s t o m e r s e r v i c e r e c e i v e d b y t h e T o w n Ve r y s a t i s f i e d 37 . 8 % 42 . 2 % 42 . 5 % 41 . 8 % 37 . 4 % 36 . 3 % 43 . 2 % 40 . 0 % Sa t i s f i e d 32 . 3 % 35 . 6 % 40 . 0 % 35 . 8 % 31 . 9 % 31 . 0 % 36 . 0 % 33 . 3 % Ne u t r a l 22 . 0 % 16 . 7 % 10 . 0 % 17 . 9 % 23 . 1 % 24 . 8 % 14 . 4 % 19 . 6 % Di s s a t i s f i e d 4. 7 % 3. 3 % 5. 0 % 0. 0 % 6. 6 % 4. 4 % 3. 6 % 4. 0 % Ve r y d i s s a t i s f i e d 3. 1 % 2. 2 % 2. 5 % 4. 5 % 1. 1 % 3. 5 % 2. 7 % 3. 1 % 20 1 3 To w n of We s t l a k e Re s i d e n t Su r v e y : Ap p e n d i x B - Cr o s s t a b s by Ag e , An n u a l Ho u s e h o l d Income and Gender ET C In s t i t u t e (2 0 1 3 ) B - 7 Q1 . S a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h M a j o r C a t e g o r i e s o f T o w n S e r v i c e s : U s i n g a s c a l e o f 1 t o 5 , w h e r e 5 m e a n s " V e r y S a t i s f i e d " a n d 1 m e a n s " V e r y Di s s a t i s f i e d , " p l e a s e c i r c l e y o u r l e v e l o f s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h t h e f o l l o w i n g s e r v i c e s p r o v i d e d b y t h e T o w n o f W e s t l a k e . ( W i t h o u t D o n ' t K n o w ) N= 2 5 0 Q1 4 W h a t i s y o u r ag e Q1 7 T o t a l a n n u a l i n c o m e Q1 8 G e n d e r To t a l Ag e s 18 - 5 4 Ag e s 5 5 + Un d e r $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 - $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ov e r $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ma l e Fe m a l e Q1 h E n f o r c e c o d e s / o r d i n a n c e s Ve r y s a t i s f i e d 30 . 6 % 23 . 5 % 25 . 6 % 32 . 8 % 26 . 4 % 27 . 8 % 26 . 7 % 27 . 6 % Sa t i s f i e d 38 . 8 % 48 . 2 % 51 . 3 % 37 . 5 % 44 . 8 % 40 . 7 % 44 . 8 % 42 . 5 % Ne u t r a l 18 . 2 % 23 . 5 % 15 . 4 % 17 . 2 % 23 . 0 % 21 . 3 % 21 . 0 % 21 . 0 % Di s s a t i s f i e d 6. 6 % 2. 4 % 2. 6 % 6. 3 % 4. 6 % 5. 6 % 3. 8 % 4. 7 % Ve r y d i s s a t i s f i e d 5. 8 % 2. 4 % 5. 1 % 6. 3 % 1. 1 % 4. 6 % 3. 8 % 4. 2 % 20 1 3 To w n of We s t l a k e Re s i d e n t Su r v e y : Ap p e n d i x B - Cr o s s t a b s by Ag e , An n u a l Ho u s e h o l d Income and Gender ET C In s t i t u t e (2 0 1 3 ) B - 8 Q1 . S a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h M a j o r C a t e g o r i e s o f T o w n S e r v i c e s : U s i n g a s c a l e o f 1 t o 5 , w h e r e 5 m e a n s " V e r y S a t i s f i e d " a n d 1 m e a n s " V e r y Di s s a t i s f i e d , " p l e a s e c i r c l e y o u r l e v e l o f s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h t h e f o l l o w i n g s e r v i c e s p r o v i d e d b y t h e T o w n o f W e s t l a k e . ( W i t h o u t D o n ' t K n o w ) N= 2 5 0 Q1 4 W h a t i s y o u r ag e Q1 7 T o t a l a n n u a l i n c o m e Q1 8 G e n d e r To t a l Ag e s 18 - 5 4 Ag e s 5 5 + Un d e r $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 - $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ov e r $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ma l e Fe m a l e Q1 i . O v e r a l l q u a l i t y o f g o v e r n m e n t s e r v i c e s Ve r y s a t i s f i e d 32 . 8 % 30 . 8 % 32 . 5 % 32 . 8 % 31 . 5 % 30 . 7 % 32 . 4 % 31 . 8 % Sa t i s f i e d 40 . 0 % 44 . 0 % 45 . 0 % 40 . 3 % 43 . 5 % 41 . 2 % 42 . 6 % 41 . 7 % Ne u t r a l 14 . 4 % 18 . 7 % 17 . 5 % 11 . 9 % 16 . 3 % 15 . 8 % 17 . 6 % 16 . 6 % Di s s a t i s f i e d 7. 2 % 5. 5 % 5. 0 % 10 . 4 % 5. 4 % 7. 9 % 4. 6 % 6. 3 % Ve r y d i s s a t i s f i e d 5. 6 % 1. 1 % 0. 0 % 4. 5 % 3. 3 % 4. 4 % 2. 8 % 3. 6 % 20 1 3 To w n of We s t l a k e Re s i d e n t Su r v e y : Ap p e n d i x B - Cr o s s t a b s by Ag e , An n u a l Ho u s e h o l d Income and Gender ET C In s t i t u t e (2 0 1 3 ) B - 9 Q1 . S a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h M a j o r C a t e g o r i e s o f T o w n S e r v i c e s : U s i n g a s c a l e o f 1 t o 5 , w h e r e 5 m e a n s " V e r y S a t i s f i e d " a n d 1 m e a n s " V e r y Di s s a t i s f i e d , " p l e a s e c i r c l e y o u r l e v e l o f s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h t h e f o l l o w i n g s e r v i c e s p r o v i d e d b y t h e T o w n o f W e s t l a k e . ( W i t h o u t D o n ' t K n o w ) N= 2 5 0 Q1 4 W h a t i s y o u r ag e Q1 7 T o t a l a n n u a l i n c o m e Q1 8 G e n d e r To t a l Ag e s 18 - 5 4 Ag e s 5 5 + Un d e r $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 - $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ov e r $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ma l e Fe m a l e Q1 j V a l u e r e c e i v e d f r o m C i t y t a x d o l l a r s a n d f e e s Ve r y s a t i s f i e d 24 . 4 % 24 . 2 % 28 . 2 % 23 . 3 % 23 . 5 % 18 . 5 % 31 . 0 % 24 . 4 % Sa t i s f i e d 32 . 6 % 29 . 5 % 33 . 3 % 35 . 6 % 28 . 6 % 31 . 5 % 31 . 0 % 31 . 1 % Ne u t r a l 20 . 7 % 30 . 5 % 20 . 5 % 24 . 7 % 27 . 6 % 27 . 4 % 22 . 1 % 24 . 8 % Di s s a t i s f i e d 17 . 0 % 12 . 6 % 12 . 8 % 9. 6 % 18 . 4 % 17 . 7 % 12 . 4 % 15 . 1 % Ve r y d i s s a t i s f i e d 5. 2 % 3. 2 % 5. 1 % 6. 8 % 2. 0 % 4. 8 % 3. 5 % 4. 6 % 20 1 3 To w n of We s t l a k e Re s i d e n t Su r v e y : Ap p e n d i x B - Cr o s s t a b s by Ag e , An n u a l Ho u s e h o l d Income and Gender ET C In s t i t u t e (2 0 1 3 ) B - 10 Q1 . S a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h M a j o r C a t e g o r i e s o f T o w n S e r v i c e s : U s i n g a s c a l e o f 1 t o 5 , w h e r e 5 m e a n s " V e r y S a t i s f i e d " a n d 1 m e a n s " V e r y Di s s a t i s f i e d , " p l e a s e c i r c l e y o u r l e v e l o f s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h t h e f o l l o w i n g s e r v i c e s p r o v i d e d b y t h e T o w n o f W e s t l a k e . ( W i t h o u t D o n ' t K n o w ) N= 2 5 0 Q1 4 W h a t i s y o u r ag e Q1 7 T o t a l a n n u a l i n c o m e Q1 8 G e n d e r To t a l Ag e s 18 - 5 4 Ag e s 5 5 + Un d e r $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 - $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ov e r $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ma l e Fe m a l e Q1 k O v e r a l l v a l u e o f W e s t l a k e A c a d e m y t o t h e T o w n Ve r y s a t i s f i e d 60 . 6 % 42 . 7 % 50 . 0 % 59 . 2 % 50 . 0 % 48 . 3 % 60 . 0 % 53 . 6 % Sa t i s f i e d 22 . 7 % 28 . 0 % 23 . 7 % 29 . 6 % 23 . 9 % 27 . 6 % 21 . 0 % 24 . 3 % Ne u t r a l 12 . 1 % 14 . 6 % 13 . 2 % 7. 0 % 17 . 0 % 12 . 9 % 12 . 4 % 12 . 6 % Di s s a t i s f i e d 3. 8 % 13 . 4 % 10 . 5 % 4. 2 % 8. 0 % 8. 6 % 6. 7 % 7. 7 % Ve r y d i s s a t i s f i e d 0. 8 % 1. 2 % 2. 6 % 0. 0 % 1. 1 % 2. 6 % 0. 0 % 1. 8 % 20 1 3 To w n of We s t l a k e Re s i d e n t Su r v e y : Ap p e n d i x B - Cr o s s t a b s by Ag e , An n u a l Ho u s e h o l d Income and Gender ET C In s t i t u t e (2 0 1 3 ) B - 11 Q2 . W h i c h T H R E E o f t h e s e r v i c e s l i s t e d a b o v e a r e t h e m o s t i m p o r t a n t t o y o u ? ( S u m o f T o p T h r e e C h o i c e s ) N= 2 5 0 Q1 4 W h a t i s y o u r ag e Q1 7 T o t a l a n n u a l i n c o m e Q1 8 G e n d e r To t a l Ag e s 18 - 5 4 Ag e s 5 5 + Un d e r $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 - $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ov e r $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ma l e Fe m a l e Q2 Su m o f T o p T h r e e C h o i c e s Pu b l i c s a f e t y s e r v i c e s 70 . 9 % 76 . 8 % 83 . 3 % 64 . 1 % 76 . 0 % 68 . 3 % 78 . 0 % 72 . 8 % Ef f o r t s t o p r e p a r e f o r em e r g e n c i e s 18 . 4 % 16 . 2 % 23 . 8 % 11 . 5 % 18 . 0 % 14 . 3 % 21 . 1 % 17 . 6 % Ma i n t e n a n c e o f T o w n s t r e e t s 11 . 3 % 33 . 3 % 26 . 2 % 15 . 4 % 19 . 0 % 27 . 0 % 13 . 8 % 20 . 4 % Ef f e c t i v e n e s s o f co m m u n i c a t i o n 9. 9 % 10 . 1 % 4. 8 % 7. 7 % 9. 0 % 10 . 3 % 8. 9 % 9. 6 % Qu a l i t y o f u t i l i t y s e r v i c e s 21 . 3 % 20 . 2 % 26 . 2 % 20 . 5 % 20 . 0 % 18 . 3 % 22 . 0 % 20 . 0 % Qu a l i t y o f p a r k s / t r a i l s / o p e n sp a c e s / s t r e e t s c a p i n g / f a c i l i t i e s 41 . 8 % 23 . 2 % 26 . 2 % 39 . 7 % 36 . 0 % 34 . 1 % 33 . 3 % 34 . 0 % Qu a l i t y o f c u s t o m e r s e r v i c e 3. 5 % 11 . 1 % 11 . 9 % 6. 4 % 3. 0 % 8. 7 % 4. 9 % 6. 8 % En f o r c e m e n t o f c o d e s a n d or d i n a n c e s 9. 2 % 14 . 1 % 2. 4 % 11 . 5 % 16 . 0 % 13 . 5 % 8. 9 % 11 . 2 % Go v e r n m e n t s e r v i c e s pr o v i d e d b y t h e T o w n 9. 2 % 16 . 2 % 16 . 7 % 10 . 3 % 12 . 0 % 10 . 3 % 13 . 8 % 12 . 0 % 20 1 3 To w n of We s t l a k e Re s i d e n t Su r v e y : Ap p e n d i x B - Cr o s s t a b s by Ag e , An n u a l Ho u s e h o l d Income and Gender ET C In s t i t u t e (2 0 1 3 ) B - 12 Q2 . W h i c h T H R E E o f t h e s e r v i c e s l i s t e d a b o v e a r e t h e m o s t i m p o r t a n t t o y o u ? ( S u m o f T o p T h r e e C h o i c e s ) N= 2 5 0 Q1 4 W h a t i s y o u r ag e Q1 7 T o t a l a n n u a l i n c o m e Q1 8 G e n d e r To t a l Ag e s 18 - 5 4 Ag e s 5 5 + Un d e r $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 - $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ov e r $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ma l e Fe m a l e Q2 Su m o f T o p T h r e e C h o i c e s (C o n t . ) Va l u e y o u r e c e i v e f r o m y o u r ta x d o l l a r s / f e e s 29 . 8 % 32 . 3 % 33 . 3 % 29 . 5 % 31 . 0 % 31 . 7 % 30 . 1 % 31 . 2 % Va l u e o f W e s t l a k e A c a d e m y to t h e T o w n 52 . 5 % 31 . 3 % 31 . 0 % 53 . 8 % 40 . 0 % 46 . 0 % 40 . 7 % 43 . 6 % No n e c h o s e n 3. 5 % 2. 0 % 2. 4 % 5. 1 % 3. 0 % 3. 2 % 4. 1 % 3. 6 % 20 1 3 To w n of We s t l a k e Re s i d e n t Su r v e y : Ap p e n d i x B - Cr o s s t a b s by Ag e , An n u a l Ho u s e h o l d Income and Gender ET C In s t i t u t e (2 0 1 3 ) B - 13 Q3 . S a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h P o l i c e S e r v i c e s P r o v i d e d b y t h e T o w n : U s i n g a s c a l e o f 1 t o 5 , w h e r e 5 m e a n s " V e r y S a t i s f i e d " a n d 1 m e a n s " V e r y Di s s a t i s f i e d , " p l e a s e c i r c l e y o u r l e v e l o f s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h e a c h o f t h e f o l l o w i n g . ( W i t h o u t D o n ' t K n o w ) N= 2 5 0 Q1 4 W h a t i s y o u r ag e Q1 7 T o t a l a n n u a l i n c o m e Q1 8 G e n d e r To t a l Ag e s 18 - 5 4 Ag e s 5 5 + Un d e r $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 - $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ov e r $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ma l e Fe m a l e Q3 a Q u a l i t y o f l o c a l p o l i c e p r o t e c t i o n Ve r y s a t i s f i e d 41 . 0 % 47 . 9 % 54 . 8 % 34 . 7 % 43 . 8 % 43 . 1 % 43 . 5 % 43 . 5 % Sa t i s f i e d 34 . 3 % 36 . 5 % 31 . 0 % 38 . 9 % 34 . 4 % 33 . 3 % 38 . 3 % 35 . 6 % Ne u t r a l 20 . 9 % 13 . 5 % 11 . 9 % 23 . 6 % 17 . 7 % 20 . 3 % 15 . 7 % 18 . 0 % Di s s a t i s f i e d 3. 7 % 2. 1 % 2. 4 % 2. 8 % 4. 2 % 3. 3 % 2. 6 % 2. 9 % 20 1 3 To w n of We s t l a k e Re s i d e n t Su r v e y : Ap p e n d i x B - Cr o s s t a b s by Ag e , An n u a l Ho u s e h o l d Income and Gender ET C In s t i t u t e (2 0 1 3 ) B - 14 Q3 . S a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h P o l i c e S e r v i c e s P r o v i d e d b y t h e T o w n : U s i n g a s c a l e o f 1 t o 5 , w h e r e 5 m e a n s " V e r y S a t i s f i e d " a n d 1 m e a n s " V e r y Di s s a t i s f i e d , " p l e a s e c i r c l e y o u r l e v e l o f s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h e a c h o f t h e f o l l o w i n g . ( W i t h o u t D o n ' t K n o w ) N= 2 5 0 Q1 4 W h a t i s y o u r ag e Q1 7 T o t a l a n n u a l i n c o m e Q1 8 G e n d e r To t a l Ag e s 18 - 5 4 Ag e s 5 5 + Un d e r $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 - $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ov e r $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ma l e Fe m a l e Q3 b V i s i b i l i t y o f p o l i c e i n n e i g h b o r h o o d s Ve r y s a t i s f i e d 30 . 0 % 37 . 4 % 45 . 2 % 28 . 2 % 33 . 3 % 29 . 8 % 35 . 8 % 33 . 1 % Sa t i s f i e d 40 . 0 % 37 . 4 % 26 . 2 % 39 . 7 % 40 . 4 % 38 . 7 % 38 . 2 % 38 . 3 % Ne u t r a l 22 . 1 % 15 . 2 % 19 . 0 % 17 . 9 % 21 . 2 % 19 . 4 % 20 . 3 % 19 . 8 % Di s s a t i s f i e d 7. 1 % 10 . 1 % 9. 5 % 12 . 8 % 5. 1 % 11 . 3 % 5. 7 % 8. 5 % Ve r y d i s s a t i s f i e d 0. 7 % 0. 0 % 0. 0 % 1. 3 % 0. 0 % 0. 8 % 0. 0 % 0. 4 % 20 1 3 To w n of We s t l a k e Re s i d e n t Su r v e y : Ap p e n d i x B - Cr o s s t a b s by Ag e , An n u a l Ho u s e h o l d Income and Gender ET C In s t i t u t e (2 0 1 3 ) B - 15 Q3 . S a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h P o l i c e S e r v i c e s P r o v i d e d b y t h e T o w n : U s i n g a s c a l e o f 1 t o 5 , w h e r e 5 m e a n s " V e r y S a t i s f i e d " a n d 1 m e a n s " V e r y Di s s a t i s f i e d , " p l e a s e c i r c l e y o u r l e v e l o f s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h e a c h o f t h e f o l l o w i n g . ( W i t h o u t D o n ' t K n o w ) N= 2 5 0 Q1 4 W h a t i s y o u r ag e Q1 7 T o t a l a n n u a l i n c o m e Q1 8 G e n d e r To t a l Ag e s 18 - 5 4 Ag e s 5 5 + Un d e r $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 - $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ov e r $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ma l e Fe m a l e Q3 c H o w q u i c k l y p o l i c e r e s p o n d t o e m e r g e n c i e s Ve r y s a t i s f i e d 41 . 6 % 46 . 4 % 51 . 7 % 41 . 7 % 39 . 5 % 34 . 8 % 51 . 7 % 43 . 5 % Sa t i s f i e d 37 . 6 % 34 . 8 % 24 . 1 % 31 . 3 % 44 . 7 % 40 . 4 % 31 . 0 % 35 . 6 % Ne u t r a l 19 . 8 % 18 . 8 % 24 . 1 % 25 . 0 % 15 . 8 % 23 . 6 % 17 . 2 % 20 . 3 % Di s s a t i s f i e d 1. 0 % 0. 0 % 0. 0 % 2. 1 % 0. 0 % 1. 1 % 0. 0 % 0. 6 % 20 1 3 To w n of We s t l a k e Re s i d e n t Su r v e y : Ap p e n d i x B - Cr o s s t a b s by Ag e , An n u a l Ho u s e h o l d Income and Gender ET C In s t i t u t e (2 0 1 3 ) B - 16 Q3 . S a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h P o l i c e S e r v i c e s P r o v i d e d b y t h e T o w n : U s i n g a s c a l e o f 1 t o 5 , w h e r e 5 m e a n s " V e r y S a t i s f i e d " a n d 1 m e a n s " V e r y Di s s a t i s f i e d , " p l e a s e c i r c l e y o u r l e v e l o f s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h e a c h o f t h e f o l l o w i n g . ( W i t h o u t D o n ' t K n o w ) N= 2 5 0 Q1 4 W h a t is y o u r ag e Q1 7 T o t a l a n n u a l i n c o m e Q1 8 G e n d e r To t a l Ag e s 18 - 5 4 Ag e s 5 5 + Un d e r $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 - $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ov e r $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ma l e Fe m a l e Q3 d E f f o r t s o f t h e T o w n t o p r e v e n t c r i m e Ve r y s a t i s f i e d 29 . 4 % 40 . 2 % 43 . 2 % 31 . 9 % 29 . 7 % 32 . 5 % 34 . 8 % 33 . 9 % Sa t i s f i e d 41 . 3 % 39 . 1 % 43 . 2 % 40 . 3 % 40 . 7 % 35 . 1 % 45 . 5 % 40 . 1 % Ne u t r a l 15 . 1 % 14 . 1 % 8. 1 % 12 . 5 % 16 . 5 % 18 . 4 % 11 . 6 % 15 . 0 % Di s s a t i s f i e d 10 . 3 % 5. 4 % 5. 4 % 11 . 1 % 9. 9 % 11 . 4 % 5. 4 % 8. 4 % Ve r y d i s s a t i s f i e d 4. 0 % 1. 1 % 0. 0 % 4. 2 % 3. 3 % 2. 6 % 2. 7 % 2. 6 % 20 1 3 To w n of We s t l a k e Re s i d e n t Su r v e y : Ap p e n d i x B - Cr o s s t a b s by Ag e , An n u a l Ho u s e h o l d Income and Gender ET C In s t i t u t e (2 0 1 3 ) B - 17 Q3 . S a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h P o l i c e S e r v i c e s P r o v i d e d b y t h e T o w n : U s i n g a s c a l e o f 1 t o 5 , w h e r e 5 m e a n s " V e r y S a t i s f i e d " a n d 1 m e a n s " V e r y Di s s a t i s f i e d , " p l e a s e c i r c l e y o u r l e v e l o f s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h e a c h o f t h e f o l l o w i n g . ( W i t h o u t D o n ' t K n o w ) N= 2 5 0 Q1 4 W h a t is y o u r ag e Q1 7 T o t a l a n n u a l i n c o m e Q1 8 G e n d e r To t a l Ag e s 18 - 5 4 Ag e s 5 5 + Un d e r $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 - $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ov e r $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ma l e Fe m a l e Q3 e L e v e l o f t r a f f i c e n f o r c e m e n t Ve r y s a t i s f i e d 26 . 1 % 31 . 6 % 32 . 5 % 29 . 7 % 27 . 3 % 22 . 8 % 35 . 0 % 29 . 0 % Sa t i s f i e d 38 . 8 % 34 . 7 % 32 . 5 % 31 . 1 % 41 . 4 % 35 . 8 % 39 . 3 % 37 . 3 % Ne u t r a l 19 . 4 % 19 . 4 % 20 . 0 % 16 . 2 % 19 . 2 % 21 . 1 % 16 . 2 % 18 . 7 % Di s s a t i s f i e d 9. 0 % 8. 2 % 10 . 0 % 12 . 2 % 7. 1 % 13 . 8 % 3. 4 % 8. 7 % Ve r y d i s s a t i s f i e d 6. 7 % 6. 1 % 5. 0 % 10 . 8 % 5. 1 % 6. 5 % 6. 0 % 6. 2 % 20 1 3 To w n of We s t l a k e Re s i d e n t Su r v e y : Ap p e n d i x B - Cr o s s t a b s by Ag e , An n u a l Ho u s e h o l d Income and Gender ET C In s t i t u t e (2 0 1 3 ) B - 18 Q3 . S a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h F i r e & M e d i c a l S e r v i c e s P r o v i d e d b y t h e T o w n : U s i n g a s c a l e o f 1 t o 5 , w h e r e 5 m e a n s " V e r y S a t i s f i e d " a n d 1 m e a n s "V e r y D i s s a t i s f i e d , " p l e a s e c i r c l e y o u r l e v e l o f s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h e a c h o f t h e f o l l o w i n g . ( W i t h o u t D o n ' t K n o w ) N= 2 5 0 Q1 4 W h a t i s y o u r ag e Q1 7 T o t a l a n n u a l i n c o m e Q1 8 G e n d e r To t a l Ag e s 18 - 5 4 Ag e s 5 5 + Un d e r $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 - $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ov e r $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ma l e Fe m a l e Q3 f Q u a l i t y o f f i r e s e r v i c e s Ve r y s a t i s f i e d 47 . 3 % 50 . 0 % 50 . 0 % 52 . 1 % 48 . 5 % 45 . 3 % 50 . 6 % 47 . 9 % Sa t i s f i e d 36 . 3 % 40 . 5 % 36 . 7 % 35 . 4 % 37 . 9 % 38 . 4 % 39 . 5 % 38 . 9 % Ne u t r a l 14 . 3 % 9. 5 % 13 . 3 % 12 . 5 % 12 . 1 % 15 . 1 % 8. 6 % 12 . 0 % Di s s a t i s f i e d 2. 2 % 0. 0 % 0. 0 % 0. 0 % 1. 5 % 1. 2 % 1. 2 % 1. 2 % 20 1 3 To w n of We s t l a k e Re s i d e n t Su r v e y : Ap p e n d i x B - Cr o s s t a b s by Ag e , An n u a l Ho u s e h o l d Income and Gender ET C In s t i t u t e (2 0 1 3 ) B - 19 Q3 . S a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h F i r e & M e d i c a l S e r v i c e s P r o v i d e d b y t h e T o w n : U s i n g a s c a l e o f 1 t o 5 , w h e r e 5 m e a n s " V e r y S a t i s f i e d " a n d 1 m e a n s "V e r y D i s s a t i s f i e d , " p l e a s e c i r c l e y o u r l e v e l o f s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h e a c h o f t h e f o l l o w i n g . ( W i t h o u t D o n ' t K n o w ) N= 2 5 0 Q1 4 W h a t i s y o u r ag e Q1 7 T o t a l a n n u a l i n c o m e Q1 8 G e n d e r To t a l Ag e s 18 - 5 4 Ag e s 5 5 + Un d e r $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 - $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ov e r $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ma l e Fe m a l e Q3 g Q u a l i t y o f e m e r g e n c y m e d i c a l s e r v i c e s Ve r y s a t i s f i e d 52 . 2 % 60 . 6 % 58 . 8 % 56 . 3 % 51 . 6 % 51 . 8 % 58 . 0 % 54 . 8 % Sa t i s f i e d 32 . 6 % 31 . 0 % 35 . 3 % 27 . 1 % 35 . 9 % 36 . 5 % 29 . 6 % 33 . 1 % Ne u t r a l 15 . 2 % 8. 5 % 5. 9 % 16 . 7 % 12 . 5 % 11 . 8 % 12 . 3 % 12 . 0 % 20 1 3 To w n of We s t l a k e Re s i d e n t Su r v e y : Ap p e n d i x B - Cr o s s t a b s by Ag e , An n u a l Ho u s e h o l d Income and Gender ET C In s t i t u t e (2 0 1 3 ) B - 20 Q3 . S a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h F i r e & M e d i c a l S e r v i c e s P r o v i d e d b y t h e T o w n : U s i n g a s c a l e o f 1 t o 5 , w h e r e 5 m e a n s " V e r y S a t i s f i e d " a n d 1 m e a n s "V e r y D i s s a t i s f i e d , " p l e a s e c i r c l e y o u r l e v e l o f s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h e a c h o f t h e f o l l o w i n g . ( W i t h o u t D o n ' t K n o w ) N= 2 5 0 Q1 4 W h a t i s y o u r ag e Q1 7 T o t a l a n n u a l i n c o m e Q1 8 G e n d e r To t a l Ag e s 18 - 5 4 Ag e s 5 5 + Un d e r $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 - $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ov e r $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ma l e Fe m a l e Q3 h R e s p o n s e t i m e o f f i r e a n d e m e r g e n c y m e d i c a l s e r v i c e s p e r s o n n e l Ve r y s a t i s f i e d 53 . 6 % 55 . 0 % 48 . 3 % 65 . 9 % 47 . 4 % 51 . 4 % 54 . 8 % 53 . 1 % Sa t i s f i e d 31 . 0 % 36 . 7 % 41 . 4 % 22 . 0 % 38 . 6 % 36 . 5 % 32 . 9 % 34 . 7 % Ne u t r a l 15 . 5 % 6. 7 % 10 . 3 % 12 . 2 % 12 . 3 % 12 . 2 % 11 . 0 % 11 . 6 % Ve r y d i s s a t i s f i e d 0. 0 % 1. 7 % 0. 0 % 0. 0 % 1. 8 % 0. 0 % 1. 4 % 0. 7 % 20 1 3 To w n of We s t l a k e Re s i d e n t Su r v e y : Ap p e n d i x B - Cr o s s t a b s by Ag e , An n u a l Ho u s e h o l d Income and Gender ET C In s t i t u t e (2 0 1 3 ) B - 21 Q3 . S a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h E m e r g e n c y P r e p a r e d n e s s P r o v i d e d b y t h e T o w n : U s i n g a s c a l e o f 1 t o 5 , w h e r e 5 m e a n s " V e r y S a t i s f i e d " a n d 1 m e a n s "V e r y D i s s a t i s f i e d , " p l e a s e c i r c l e y o u r l e v e l o f s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h e a c h o f t h e f o l l o w i n g . ( W i t h o u t D o n ' t K n o w ) N= 2 5 0 Q1 4 Wh a t i s y o u r ag e Q1 7 T o t a l a n n u a l i n c o m e Q1 8 G e n d e r To t a l Ag e s 18 - 5 4 Ag e s 5 5 + Un d e r $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 - $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ov e r $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ma l e Fe m a l e Q3 i R e s p o n s e e f f o r t s b y t h e T o w n S t a f f d u r i n g e x t r e m e w e a t h e r c o n d i t i o n s Ve r y s a t i s f i e d 33 . 9 % 35 . 3 % 44 . 1 % 27 . 9 % 38 . 5 % 28 . 2 % 41 . 1 % 35 . 1 % Sa t i s f i e d 44 . 1 % 37 . 6 % 29 . 4 % 44 . 3 % 42 . 9 % 36 . 9 % 43 . 9 % 40 . 3 % Ne u t r a l 18 . 6 % 27 . 1 % 26 . 5 % 24 . 6 % 16 . 5 % 31 . 1 % 15 . 0 % 22 . 7 % Di s s a t i s f i e d 2. 5 % 0. 0 % 0. 0 % 1. 6 % 2. 2 % 2. 9 % 0. 0 % 1. 4 % Ve r y d i s s a t i s f i e d 0. 8 % 0. 0 % 0. 0 % 1. 6 % 0. 0 % 1. 0 % 0. 0 % 0. 5 % 20 1 3 To w n of We s t l a k e Re s i d e n t Su r v e y : Ap p e n d i x B - Cr o s s t a b s by Ag e , An n u a l Ho u s e h o l d Income and Gender ET C In s t i t u t e (2 0 1 3 ) B - 22 Q3 . S a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h E m e r g e n c y P r e p a r e d n e s s P r o v i d e d b y t h e T o w n : U s i n g a s c a l e o f 1 t o 5 , w h e r e 5 m e a n s " V e r y S a t i s f i e d " a n d 1 m e a n s "V e r y D i s s a t i s f i e d , " p l e a s e c i r c l e y o u r l e v e l o f s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h e a c h o f t h e f o l l o w i n g . ( W i t h o u t D o n ' t K n o w ) N= 2 5 0 Q1 4 Wh a t i s y o u r ag e Q1 7 T o t a l a n n u a l i n c o m e Q1 8 G e n d e r To t a l Ag e s 18 - 5 4 Ag e s 5 5 + Un d e r $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 - $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ov e r $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ma l e Fe m a l e Q3 j E f f o r t s b y t h e T o w n S t a f f t o i n f o r m r e s i d e n t s o f h a z a r d o u s r o a d c o n d i t i o n s , p o t e n t i a l i n c l e m e n t w e a t h e r & c l o s u r e s Ve r y s a t i s f i e d 33 . 9 % 44 . 0 % 36 . 8 % 28 . 8 % 46 . 6 % 34 . 9 % 39 . 4 % 37 . 4 % Sa t i s f i e d 37 . 8 % 33 . 3 % 31 . 6 % 42 . 4 % 35 . 2 % 36 . 7 % 35 . 8 % 36 . 1 % Ne u t r a l 23 . 6 % 21 . 4 % 28 . 9 % 25 . 8 % 14 . 8 % 23 . 9 % 22 . 9 % 23 . 3 % Di s s a t i s f i e d 3. 9 % 1. 2 % 2. 6 % 1. 5 % 3. 4 % 3. 7 % 1. 8 % 2. 7 % Ve r y d i s s a t i s f i e d 0. 8 % 0. 0 % 0. 0 % 1. 5 % 0. 0 % 0. 9 % 0. 0 % 0. 5 % 20 1 3 To w n of We s t l a k e Re s i d e n t Su r v e y : Ap p e n d i x B - Cr o s s t a b s by Ag e , An n u a l Ho u s e h o l d Income and Gender ET C In s t i t u t e (2 0 1 3 ) B - 23 Q3 . S a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h T r a n s p o r t a t i o n S e r v i c e s P r o v i d e d b y t h e T o w n : U s i n g a s c a l e o f 1 t o 5 , w h e r e 5 m e a n s " V e r y S a t i s f i e d " a n d 1 m e a n s "V e r y D i s s a t i s f i e d , " p l e a s e c i r c l e y o u r l e v e l o f s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h e a c h o f t h e f o l l o w i n g . ( W i t h o u t D o n ' t K n o w ) N= 2 5 0 Q14 W h a t i s y o u r ag e Q1 7 T o t a l a n n u a l i n c o m e Q1 8 G e n d e r To t a l Ag e s 18 - 5 4 Ag e s 5 5 + Un d e r $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 - $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ov e r $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ma l e Fe m a l e Q3 k C o n d i t i o n o f m a j o r s t r e e t s i n W e s t l a k e Ve r y s a t i s f i e d 38 . 6 % 39 . 4 % 33 . 3 % 33 . 3 % 40 . 4 % 33 . 9 % 44 . 7 % 39 . 5 % Sa t i s f i e d 45 . 7 % 50 . 5 % 54 . 8 % 52 . 6 % 44 . 4 % 49 . 2 % 45 . 5 % 47 . 2 % Ne u t r a l 11 . 4 % 8. 1 % 7. 1 % 12 . 8 % 9. 1 % 11 . 3 % 8. 1 % 9. 7 % Di s s a t i s f i e d 2. 1 % 1. 0 % 2. 4 % 1. 3 % 3. 0 % 3. 2 % 0. 8 % 2. 0 % Ve r y d i s s a t i s f i e d 2. 1 % 1. 0 % 2. 4 % 0. 0 % 3. 0 % 2. 4 % 0. 8 % 1. 6 % 20 1 3 To w n of We s t l a k e Re s i d e n t Su r v e y : Ap p e n d i x B - Cr o s s t a b s by Ag e , An n u a l Ho u s e h o l d Income and Gender ET C In s t i t u t e (2 0 1 3 ) B - 24 Q3 . S a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h T r a n s p o r t a t i o n S e r v i c e s P r o v i d e d b y t h e T o w n : U s i n g a s c a l e o f 1 t o 5 , w h e r e 5 m e a n s " V e r y S a t i s f i e d " a n d 1 m e a n s "V e r y D i s s a t i s f i e d , " p l e a s e c i r c l e y o u r l e v e l o f s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h e a c h o f t h e f o l l o w i n g . ( W i t h o u t D o n ' t K n o w ) N= 2 5 0 Q1 4 W h a t i s y o u r ag e Q1 7 T o t a l a n n u a l i n c o m e Q1 8 G e n d e r To t a l Ag e s 18 - 5 4 Ag e s 5 5 + Un d e r $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 - $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ov e r $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ma l e Fe m a l e Q3 l C o n d i t i o n o f s t r e e t s i n y o u r n e i g h b o r h o o d Ve r y s a t i s f i e d 44 . 7 % 36 . 4 % 33 . 3 % 32 . 1 % 49 . 0 % 35 . 2 % 47 . 2 % 41 . 4 % Sa t i s f i e d 40 . 4 % 50 . 5 % 50 . 0 % 52 . 6 % 37 . 0 % 48 . 0 % 41 . 5 % 44 . 6 % Ne u t r a l 11 . 3 % 11 . 1 % 11 . 9 % 10 . 3 % 13 . 0 % 12 . 0 % 10 . 6 % 11 . 2 % Di s s a t i s f i e d 3. 5 % 2. 0 % 4. 8 % 5. 1 % 1. 0 % 4. 8 % 0. 8 % 2. 8 % 20 1 3 To w n of We s t l a k e Re s i d e n t Su r v e y : Ap p e n d i x B - Cr o s s t a b s by Ag e , An n u a l Ho u s e h o l d Income and Gender ET C In s t i t u t e (2 0 1 3 ) B - 25 Q3 . S a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h T r a n s p o r t a t i o n S e r v i c e s P r o v i d e d b y t h e T o w n : U s i n g a s c a l e o f 1 t o 5 , w h e r e 5 m e a n s " V e r y S a t i s f i e d " a n d 1 m e a n s "V e r y D i s s a t i s f i e d , " p l e a s e c i r c l e y o u r l e v e l o f s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h e a c h o f t h e f o l l o w i n g . ( W i t h o u t D o n ' t K n o w ) N= 2 5 0 Q1 4 W h a t i s y o u r ag e Q1 7 T o t a l a n n u a l i n c o m e Q1 8 G e n d e r To t a l Ag e s 18 - 5 4 Ag e s 5 5 + Un d e r $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 - $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ov e r $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ma l e Fe m a l e Q3 m C l e a n l i n e s s o f s t r e e t s a n d o t h e r p u b l i c a r e a s Ve r y s a t i s f i e d 35 . 7 % 40 . 4 % 40 . 5 % 25 . 6 % 43 . 4 % 31 . 5 % 45 . 5 % 38 . 3 % Sa t i s f i e d 51 . 4 % 45 . 5 % 47 . 6 % 59 . 0 % 42 . 4 % 52 . 4 % 43 . 9 % 48 . 0 % Ne u t r a l 5. 0 % 8. 1 % 4. 8 % 7. 7 % 6. 1 % 8. 1 % 4. 1 % 6. 0 % Di s s a t i s f i e d 5. 0 % 3. 0 % 2. 4 % 7. 7 % 3. 0 % 3. 2 % 5. 7 % 4. 8 % Ve r y d i s s a t i s f i e d 2. 9 % 3. 0 % 4. 8 % 0. 0 % 5. 1 % 4. 8 % 0. 8 % 2. 8 % 20 1 3 To w n of We s t l a k e Re s i d e n t Su r v e y : Ap p e n d i x B - Cr o s s t a b s by Ag e , An n u a l Ho u s e h o l d Income and Gender ET C In s t i t u t e (2 0 1 3 ) B - 26 Q3 . S a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h T r a n s p o r t a t i o n S e r v i c e s P r o v i d e d b y t h e T o w n : U s i n g a s c a l e o f 1 t o 5 , w h e r e 5 m e a n s " V e r y S a t i s f i e d " a n d 1 m e a n s "V e r y D i s s a t i s f i e d , " p l e a s e c i r c l e y o u r l e v e l o f s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h e a c h o f t h e f o l l o w i n g . ( W i t h o u t D o n ' t K n o w ) N= 2 5 0 Q1 4 W h a t i s y o u r ag e Q1 7 T o t a l a n n u a l i n c o m e Q1 8 G e n d e r To t a l Ag e s 18 - 5 4 Ag e s 5 5 + Un d e r $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 - $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ov e r $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ma l e Fe m a l e Q3 n T r a f f i c f l o w a n d c o n g e s t i o n m a n a g e m e n t i n W e s t l a k e Ve r y s a t i s f i e d 27 . 9 % 28 . 3 % 26 . 2 % 28 . 2 % 27 . 0 % 22 . 4 % 35 . 2 % 29 . 0 % Sa t i s f i e d 47 . 1 % 53 . 5 % 57 . 1 % 46 . 2 % 51 . 0 % 56 . 0 % 41 . 8 % 48 . 8 % Ne u t r a l 17 . 1 % 15 . 2 % 14 . 3 % 19 . 2 % 15 . 0 % 14 . 4 % 18 . 0 % 16 . 1 % Di s s a t i s f i e d 2. 9 % 3. 0 % 2. 4 % 2. 6 % 4. 0 % 1. 6 % 4. 9 % 3. 2 % Ve r y d i s s a t i s f i e d 5. 0 % 0. 0 % 0. 0 % 3. 8 % 3. 0 % 5. 6 % 0. 0 % 2. 8 % 20 1 3 To w n of We s t l a k e Re s i d e n t Su r v e y : Ap p e n d i x B - Cr o s s t a b s by Ag e , An n u a l Ho u s e h o l d Income and Gender ET C In s t i t u t e (2 0 1 3 ) B - 27 Q3 . S a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h C o m m u n i c a t i o n s & C i t i z e n E n g a g e m e n t P r o v i d e d b y t h e T o w n : U s i n g a s c a l e o f 1 t o 5 , w h e r e 5 m e a n s " V e r y Sa t i s f i e d " a n d 1 m e a n s " V e r y D i s s a t i s f i e d , " p l e a s e c i r c l e y o u r l e v e l o f s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h e a c h o f t h e f o l l o w i n g . ( W i t h o u t D o n ' t K n o w ) N= 2 5 0 Q1 4 W h a t i s y o u r ag e Q1 7 T o t a l a n n u a l i n c o m e Q1 8 G e n d e r To t a l Ag e s 18 - 5 4 Ag e s 5 5 + Un d e r $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 - $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ov e r $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ma l e Fe m a l e Q3 o E f f o r t s b y t h e T o w n t o k e e p y o u i n f o r m e d a b o u t C o u n c i l M e e t i n g s , T o w n p r o j e c t s , i s s u e s , a n d e v e n t s Ve r y s a t i s f i e d 42 . 1 % 39 . 2 % 35 . 7 % 46 . 8 % 40 . 8 % 39 . 0 % 42 . 6 % 41 . 1 % Sa t i s f i e d 26 . 4 % 32 . 0 % 47 . 6 % 27 . 3 % 22 . 4 % 24 . 4 % 33 . 6 % 28 . 9 % Ne u t r a l 12 . 9 % 15 . 5 % 9. 5 % 11 . 7 % 17 . 3 % 17 . 1 % 10 . 7 % 13 . 8 % Di s s a t i s f i e d 8. 6 % 8. 2 % 2. 4 % 3. 9 % 13 . 3 % 8. 9 % 7. 4 % 8. 1 % Ve r y d i s s a t i s f i e d 10 . 0 % 5. 2 % 4. 8 % 10 . 4 % 6. 1 % 10 . 6 % 5. 7 % 8. 1 % 20 1 3 To w n of We s t l a k e Re s i d e n t Su r v e y : Ap p e n d i x B - Cr o s s t a b s by Ag e , An n u a l Ho u s e h o l d Income and Gender ET C In s t i t u t e (2 0 1 3 ) B - 28 Q3 . S a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h C o m m u n i c a t i o n s & C i t i z e n E n g a g e m e n t P r o v i d e d b y t h e T o w n : U s i n g a s c a l e o f 1 t o 5 , w h e r e 5 m e a n s " V e r y Sa t i s f i e d " a n d 1 m e a n s " V e r y D i s s a t i s f i e d , " p l e a s e c i r c l e y o u r l e v e l o f s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h e a c h o f t h e f o l l o w i n g . ( W i t h o u t D o n ' t K n o w ) N= 2 5 0 Q1 4 W h a t i s y o u r ag e Q1 7 T o t a l a n n u a l i n c o m e Q1 8 G e n d e r To t a l Ag e s 18 - 5 4 Ag e s 5 5 + Un d e r $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 - $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ov e r $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ma l e Fe m a l e Q3 p T i m e l i n e s s o f i n f o r m a t i o n p r o v i d e d b y t h e T o w n Ve r y s a t i s f i e d 32 . 4 % 38 . 5 % 31 . 7 % 41 . 6 % 29 . 9 % 29 . 3 % 39 . 2 % 34 . 4 % Sa t i s f i e d 30 . 2 % 28 . 1 % 36 . 6 % 31 . 2 % 24 . 7 % 30 . 1 % 30 . 8 % 30 . 3 % Ne u t r a l 22 . 3 % 19 . 8 % 24 . 4 % 11 . 7 % 29 . 9 % 22 . 8 % 18 . 3 % 20 . 5 % Di s s a t i s f i e d 4. 3 % 7. 3 % 2. 4 % 3. 9 % 7. 2 % 7. 3 % 4. 2 % 5. 7 % Ve r y d i s s a t i s f i e d 10 . 8 % 6. 3 % 4. 9 % 11 . 7 % 8. 2 % 10 . 6 % 7. 5 % 9. 0 % 20 1 3 To w n of We s t l a k e Re s i d e n t Su r v e y : Ap p e n d i x B - Cr o s s t a b s by Ag e , An n u a l Ho u s e h o l d Income and Gender ET C In s t i t u t e (2 0 1 3 ) B - 29 Q3 . S a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h C o m m u n i c a t i o n s & C i t i z e n E n g a g e m e n t P r o v i d e d b y t h e T o w n : U s i n g a s c a l e o f 1 t o 5 , w h e r e 5 m e a n s " V e r y Sa t i s f i e d " a n d 1 m e a n s " V e r y D i s s a t i s f i e d , " p l e a s e c i r c l e y o u r l e v e l o f s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h e a c h o f t h e f o l l o w i n g . ( W i t h o u t D o n ' t K n o w ) N= 2 5 0 Q1 4 W h a t i s y o u r ag e Q1 7 T o t a l a n n u a l i n c o m e Q1 8 G e n d e r To t a l Ag e s 18 - 5 4 Ag e s 5 5 + Un d e r $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 - $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ov e r $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ma l e Fe m a l e Q3 q C o m p l e t e n e s s o f t h e i n f o r m a t i o n p r o v i d e d b y t h e T o w n Ve r y s a t i s f i e d 31 . 1 % 30 . 8 % 30 . 0 % 30 . 6 % 31 . 9 % 27 . 7 % 34 . 2 % 31 . 2 % Sa t i s f i e d 31 . 1 % 30 . 8 % 40 . 0 % 40 . 3 % 19 . 1 % 29 . 4 % 32 . 5 % 30 . 8 % Ne u t r a l 17 . 0 % 23 . 1 % 17 . 5 % 12 . 5 % 26 . 6 % 21 . 0 % 16 . 7 % 18 . 8 % Di s s a t i s f i e d 6. 7 % 6. 6 % 5. 0 % 4. 2 % 9. 6 % 5. 9 % 7. 9 % 6. 8 % Ve r y d i s s a t i s f i e d 14 . 1 % 8. 8 % 7. 5 % 12 . 5 % 12 . 8 % 16 . 0 % 8. 8 % 12 . 4 % 20 1 3 To w n of We s t l a k e Re s i d e n t Su r v e y : Ap p e n d i x B - Cr o s s t a b s by Ag e , An n u a l Ho u s e h o l d Income and Gender ET C In s t i t u t e (2 0 1 3 ) B - 30 Q3 . S a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h C o m m u n i c a t i o n s & C i t i z e n E n g a g e m e n t P r o v i d e d b y t h e T o w n : U s i n g a s c a l e o f 1 t o 5 , w h e r e 5 m e a n s " V e r y Sa t i s f i e d " a n d 1 m e a n s " V e r y D i s s a t i s f i e d , " p l e a s e c i r c l e y o u r l e v e l o f s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h e a c h o f t h e f o l l o w i n g . ( W i t h o u t D o n ' t K n o w ) N= 2 5 0 Q1 4 W h a t i s y o u r ag e Q1 7 T o t a l a n n u a l i n c o m e Q1 8 G e n d e r To t a l Ag e s 18 - 5 4 Ag e s 5 5 + Un d e r $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 - $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ov e r $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ma l e Fe m a l e Q3 r U s e f u l n e s s o f t h e W e s t l a k e W i r e c o m m u n i c a t i o n s Ve r y s a t i s f i e d 33 . 6 % 39 . 3 % 35 . 0 % 32 . 9 % 37 . 6 % 31 . 9 % 39 . 5 % 35 . 9 % Sa t i s f i e d 40 . 3 % 41 . 6 % 45 . 0 % 42 . 9 % 40 . 9 % 44 . 0 % 38 . 6 % 41 . 1 % Ne u t r a l 19 . 4 % 16 . 9 % 20 . 0 % 18 . 6 % 17 . 2 % 18 . 1 % 18 . 4 % 18 . 2 % Di s s a t i s f i e d 3. 0 % 1. 1 % 0. 0 % 0. 0 % 3. 2 % 3. 4 % 0. 9 % 2. 2 % Ve r y d i s s a t i s f i e d 3. 7 % 1. 1 % 0. 0 % 5. 7 % 1. 1 % 2. 6 % 2. 6 % 2. 6 % 20 1 3 To w n of We s t l a k e Re s i d e n t Su r v e y : Ap p e n d i x B - Cr o s s t a b s by Ag e , An n u a l Ho u s e h o l d Income and Gender ET C In s t i t u t e (2 0 1 3 ) B - 31 Q3 . S a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h C o m m u n i c a t i o n s & C i t i z e n E n g a g e m e n t P r o v i d e d b y t h e T o w n : U s i n g a s c a l e o f 1 t o 5 , w h e r e 5 m e a n s " V e r y Sa t i s f i e d " a n d 1 m e a n s " V e r y D i s s a t i s f i e d , " p l e a s e c i r c l e y o u r l e v e l o f s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h e a c h o f t h e f o l l o w i n g . ( W i t h o u t D o n ' t K n o w ) N= 2 5 0 Q1 4 W h a t i s y o u r ag e Q1 7 T o t a l a n n u a l i n c o m e Q1 8 G e n d e r To t a l Ag e s 18 - 5 4 Ag e s 5 5 + Un d e r $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 - $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ov e r $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ma l e Fe m a l e Q3 s E a s e o f u s e o f t h e T o w n ' s w e b s i t e Ve r y s a t i s f i e d 23 . 0 % 25 . 9 % 32 . 4 % 19 . 1 % 24 . 4 % 24 . 1 % 24 . 5 % 24 . 6 % Sa t i s f i e d 39 . 3 % 22 . 2 % 29 . 7 % 32 . 4 % 35 . 4 % 31 . 5 % 34 . 3 % 32 . 7 % Ne u t r a l 24 . 6 % 42 . 0 % 35 . 1 % 33 . 8 % 29 . 3 % 32 . 4 % 29 . 4 % 30 . 8 % Di s s a t i s f i e d 8. 2 % 7. 4 % 2. 7 % 8. 8 % 7. 3 % 6. 5 % 8. 8 % 7. 6 % Ve r y d i s s a t i s f i e d 4. 9 % 2. 5 % 0. 0 % 5. 9 % 3. 7 % 5. 6 % 2. 9 % 4. 3 % 20 1 3 To w n of We s t l a k e Re s i d e n t Su r v e y : Ap p e n d i x B - Cr o s s t a b s by Ag e , An n u a l Ho u s e h o l d Income and Gender ET C In s t i t u t e (2 0 1 3 ) B - 32 Q3 . S a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h C o m m u n i c a t i o n s & C i t i z e n E n g a g e m e n t P r o v i d e d b y t h e T o w n : U s i n g a s c a l e o f 1 t o 5 , w h e r e 5 m e a n s " V e r y Sa t i s f i e d " a n d 1 m e a n s " V e r y D i s s a t i s f i e d , " p l e a s e c i r c l e y o u r l e v e l o f s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h e a c h o f t h e f o l l o w i n g . ( W i t h o u t D o n ' t K n o w ) N= 2 5 0 Q1 4 W h a t i s y o u r ag e Q1 7 T o t a l a n n u a l i n c o m e Q1 8 G e n d e r To t a l Ag e s 18 - 5 4 Ag e s 5 5 + Un d e r $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 - $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ov e r $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ma l e Fe m a l e Q3 t A v a i l a b i l i t y / A c c e s s i b i l i t y o f T o w n r e c o r d s Ve r y s a t i s f i e d 25 . 3 % 25 . 8 % 22 . 6 % 23 . 5 % 27 . 1 % 25 . 3 % 26 . 3 % 25 . 8 % Sa t i s f i e d 32 . 2 % 25 . 8 % 29 . 0 % 35 . 3 % 28 . 8 % 30 . 1 % 31 . 6 % 30 . 8 % Ne u t r a l 33 . 3 % 43 . 9 % 48 . 4 % 29 . 4 % 35 . 6 % 34 . 9 % 38 . 2 % 36 . 5 % Di s s a t i s f i e d 5. 7 % 3. 0 % 0. 0 % 7. 8 % 5. 1 % 6. 0 % 2. 6 % 4. 4 % Ve r y d i s s a t i s f i e d 3. 4 % 1. 5 % 0. 0 % 3. 9 % 3. 4 % 3. 6 % 1. 3 % 2. 5 % 20 1 3 To w n of We s t l a k e Re s i d e n t Su r v e y : Ap p e n d i x B - Cr o s s t a b s by Ag e , An n u a l Ho u s e h o l d Income and Gender ET C In s t i t u t e (2 0 1 3 ) B - 33 Q3 . S a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h C o m m u n i c a t i o n s & C i t i z e n E n g a g e m e n t P r o v i d e d b y t h e T o w n : U s i n g a s c a l e o f 1 t o 5 , w h e r e 5 m e a n s " V e r y Sa t i s f i e d " a n d 1 m e a n s " V e r y D i s s a t i s f i e d , " p l e a s e c i r c l e y o u r l e v e l o f s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h e a c h o f t h e f o l l o w i n g . ( W i t h o u t D o n ' t K n o w ) N= 2 5 0 Q1 4 W h a t i s y o u r ag e Q1 7 T o t a l a n n u a l i n c o m e Q1 8 G e n d e r To t a l Ag e s 18 - 5 4 Ag e s 5 5 + Un d e r $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 - $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ov e r $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ma l e Fe m a l e Q3 u O p p o r t u n i t i e s p r o v i d e d f o r p u b l i c i n p u t Ve r y s a t i s f i e d 31 . 7 % 24 . 4 % 22 . 9 % 30 . 6 % 30 . 1 % 25 . 9 % 32 . 6 % 29 . 3 % Sa t i s f i e d 26 . 7 % 34 . 6 % 40 . 0 % 27 . 4 % 26 . 5 % 25 . 9 % 34 . 8 % 29 . 8 % Ne u t r a l 23 . 3 % 29 . 5 % 20 . 0 % 29 . 0 % 26 . 5 % 29 . 5 % 20 . 7 % 25 . 4 % Di s s a t i s f i e d 9. 2 % 6. 4 % 8. 6 % 4. 8 % 9. 6 % 8. 9 % 6. 5 % 7. 8 % Ve r y d i s s a t i s f i e d 9. 2 % 5. 1 % 8. 6 % 8. 1 % 7. 2 % 9. 8 % 5. 4 % 7. 8 % 20 1 3 To w n of We s t l a k e Re s i d e n t Su r v e y : Ap p e n d i x B - Cr o s s t a b s by Ag e , An n u a l Ho u s e h o l d Income and Gender ET C In s t i t u t e (2 0 1 3 ) B - 34 Q3 . S a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h P a r k s & R e c r e a t i o n S e r v i c e s P r o v i d e d b y t h e T o w n : U s i n g a s c a l e o f 1 t o 5 , w h e r e 5 m e a n s " V e r y S a t i s f i e d " a n d 1 me a n s " V e r y D i s s a t i s f i e d , " p l e a s e c i r c l e y o u r l e v e l o f s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h e a c h o f t h e f o l l o w i n g . ( W i t h o u t D o n ' t K n o w ) N= 2 5 0 Q1 4 W h a t i s y o u r ag e Q1 7 T o t a l a n n u a l i n c o m e Q1 8 G e n d e r To t a l Ag e s 18 - 5 4 Ag e s 5 5 + Un d e r $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 - $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ov e r $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ma l e Fe m a l e Q3 v M a i n t e n a n c e o f T o w n -ow n e d G l e n w y c k P a r k Ve r y s a t i s f i e d 26 . 3 % 29 . 8 % 24 . 1 % 27 . 8 % 29 . 5 % 30 . 6 % 26 . 0 % 28 . 4 % Sa t i s f i e d 41 . 4 % 42 . 1 % 41 . 4 % 38 . 9 % 42 . 6 % 36 . 5 % 46 . 8 % 41 . 4 % Ne u t r a l 23 . 2 % 26 . 3 % 31 . 0 % 24 . 1 % 21 . 3 % 25 . 9 % 20 . 8 % 23 . 5 % Di s s a t i s f i e d 6. 1 % 1. 8 % 3. 4 % 5. 6 % 6. 6 % 5. 9 % 3. 9 % 4. 9 % Ve r y d i s s a t i s f i e d 3. 0 % 0. 0 % 0. 0 % 3. 7 % 0. 0 % 1. 2 % 2. 6 % 1. 9 % 20 1 3 To w n of We s t l a k e Re s i d e n t Su r v e y : Ap p e n d i x B - Cr o s s t a b s by Ag e , An n u a l Ho u s e h o l d Income and Gender ET C In s t i t u t e (2 0 1 3 ) B - 35 Q3 . S a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h P a r k s & R e c r e a t i o n S e r v i c e s P r o v i d e d b y t h e T o w n : U s i n g a s c a l e o f 1 t o 5 , w h e r e 5 m e a n s " V e r y S a t i s f i e d " a n d 1 me a n s " V e r y D i s s a t i s f i e d , " p l e a s e c i r c l e y o u r l e v e l o f s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h e a c h o f t h e f o l l o w i n g . ( W i t h o u t D o n ' t K n o w ) N= 2 5 0 Q1 4 W h a t i s y o u r ag e Q1 7 T o t a l a n n u a l i n c o m e Q1 8 G e n d e r To t a l Ag e s 18 - 5 4 Ag e s 5 5 + Un d e r $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 - $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ov e r $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ma l e Fe m a l e Q3 w N u m b e r o f p u b l i c l y -ac c e s s i b l e p a r k s a n d t r a i l s Ve r y s a t i s f i e d 20 . 7 % 20 . 3 % 20 . 6 % 21 . 7 % 22 . 4 % 23 . 1 % 20 . 2 % 22 . 1 % Sa t i s f i e d 42 . 1 % 40 . 5 % 38 . 2 % 40 . 0 % 37 . 6 % 38 . 5 % 44 . 4 % 41 . 2 % Ne u t r a l 16 . 5 % 29 . 7 % 26 . 5 % 20 . 0 % 21 . 2 % 21 . 2 % 20 . 2 % 20 . 6 % Di s s a t i s f i e d 18 . 2 % 6. 8 % 11 . 8 % 16 . 7 % 15 . 3 % 13 . 5 % 14 . 1 % 13 . 7 % Ve r y d i s s a t i s f i e d 2. 5 % 2. 7 % 2. 9 % 1. 7 % 3. 5 % 3. 8 % 1. 0 % 2. 5 % 20 1 3 To w n of We s t l a k e Re s i d e n t Su r v e y : Ap p e n d i x B - Cr o s s t a b s by Ag e , An n u a l Ho u s e h o l d Income and Gender ET C In s t i t u t e (2 0 1 3 ) B - 36 Q3 . S a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h P a r k s & R e c r e a t i o n S e r v i c e s P r o v i d e d b y t h e T o w n : U s i n g a s c a l e o f 1 t o 5 , w h e r e 5 m e a n s " V e r y S a t i s f i e d " a n d 1 me a n s " V e r y D i s s a t i s f i e d , " p l e a s e c i r c l e y o u r l e v e l o f s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h e a c h o f t h e f o l l o w i n g . ( W i t h o u t D o n ' t K n o w ) N= 2 5 0 Q1 4 W h a t i s y o u r ag e Q1 7 T o t a l a n n u a l i n c o m e Q1 8 G e n d e r To t a l Ag e s 18 - 5 4 Ag e s 5 5 + Un d e r $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 - $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ov e r $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ma l e Fe m a l e Q3 x M a i n t e n a n c e o f s t r e e t s c a p i n g a n d o p e n s p a c e s Ve r y s a t i s f i e d 34 . 4 % 29 . 7 % 30 . 8 % 27 . 8 % 37 . 2 % 27 . 6 % 36 . 8 % 32 . 0 % Sa t i s f i e d 37 . 4 % 47 . 3 % 51 . 3 % 45 . 8 % 33 . 0 % 40 . 5 % 43 . 0 % 41 . 6 % Ne u t r a l 15 . 3 % 15 . 4 % 12 . 8 % 15 . 3 % 17 . 0 % 19 . 0 % 12 . 3 % 15 . 6 % Di s s a t i s f i e d 6. 9 % 3. 3 % 2. 6 % 6. 9 % 5. 3 % 5. 2 % 5. 3 % 5. 6 % Ve r y d i s s a t i s f i e d 6. 1 % 4. 4 % 2. 6 % 4. 2 % 7. 4 % 7. 8 % 2. 6 % 5. 2 % 20 1 3 To w n of We s t l a k e Re s i d e n t Su r v e y : Ap p e n d i x B - Cr o s s t a b s by Ag e , An n u a l Ho u s e h o l d Income and Gender ET C In s t i t u t e (2 0 1 3 ) B - 37 Q3 . S a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h U t i l i t y S e r v i c e s P r o v i d e d b y t h e T o w n : U s i n g a s c a l e o f 1 t o 5 , w h e r e 5 m e a n s " V e r y S a t i s f i e d " a n d 1 m e a n s " V e r y Di s s a t i s f i e d , " p l e a s e c i r c l e y o u r l e v e l o f s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h e a c h o f t h e f o l l o w i n g . ( W i t h o u t D o n ' t K n o w ) N= 2 5 0 Q1 4 W h a t is y o u r ag e Q1 7 T o t a l a n n u a l i n c o m e Q1 8 G e n d e r To t a l Ag e s 18 - 5 4 Ag e s 5 5 + Un d e r $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 - $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ov e r $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ma l e Fe m a l e Q3 y R e s i d e n t i a l t r a s h c o l l e c t i o n s e r v i c e s Ve r y s a t i s f i e d 34 . 5 % 44 . 7 % 37 . 5 % 38 . 2 % 36 . 7 % 37 . 1 % 40 . 2 % 38 . 8 % Sa t i s f i e d 41 . 7 % 36 . 2 % 52 . 5 % 40 . 8 % 38 . 8 % 41 . 1 % 37 . 6 % 39 . 3 % Ne u t r a l 12 . 2 % 9. 6 % 2. 5 % 7. 9 % 14 . 3 % 10 . 5 % 11 . 1 % 10 . 7 % Di s s a t i s f i e d 9. 4 % 9. 6 % 7. 5 % 10 . 5 % 10 . 2 % 8. 9 % 11 . 1 % 9. 9 % Ve r y d i s s a t i s f i e d 2. 2 % 0. 0 % 0. 0 % 2. 6 % 0. 0 % 2. 4 % 0. 0 % 1. 2 % 20 1 3 To w n of We s t l a k e Re s i d e n t Su r v e y : Ap p e n d i x B - Cr o s s t a b s by Ag e , An n u a l Ho u s e h o l d Income and Gender ET C In s t i t u t e (2 0 1 3 ) B - 38 Q3 . S a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h U t i l i t y S e r v i c e s P r o v i d e d b y t h e T o w n : U s i n g a s c a l e o f 1 t o 5 , w h e r e 5 m e a n s " V e r y S a t i s f i e d " a n d 1 m e a n s " V e r y Di s s a t i s f i e d , " p l e a s e c i r c l e y o u r l e v e l o f s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h e a c h o f t h e f o l l o w i n g . ( W i t h o u t D o n ' t K n o w ) N= 2 5 0 Q1 4 W h a t is y o u r ag e Q1 7 T o t a l a n n u a l i n c o m e Q1 8 G e n d e r To t a l Ag e s 18 - 5 4 Ag e s 5 5 + Un d e r $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 - $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ov e r $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ma l e Fe m a l e Q3 z C u r b s i d e r e c y c l i n g s e r v i c e s Ve r y s a t i s f i e d 36 . 8 % 43 . 8 % 41 . 5 % 44 . 6 % 32 . 3 % 34 . 7 % 46 . 6 % 40 . 8 % Sa t i s f i e d 42 . 9 % 42 . 7 % 56 . 1 % 37 . 8 % 45 . 8 % 46 . 3 % 37 . 1 % 41 . 6 % Ne u t r a l 15 . 0 % 10 . 4 % 2. 4 % 14 . 9 % 16 . 7 % 13 . 2 % 12 . 9 % 13 . 0 % Di s s a t i s f i e d 4. 5 % 3. 1 % 0. 0 % 1. 4 % 5. 2 % 5. 0 % 3. 4 % 4. 2 % Ve r y d i s s a t i s f i e d 0. 8 % 0. 0 % 0. 0 % 1. 4 % 0. 0 % 0. 8 % 0. 0 % 0. 4 % 20 1 3 To w n of We s t l a k e Re s i d e n t Su r v e y : Ap p e n d i x B - Cr o s s t a b s by Ag e , An n u a l Ho u s e h o l d Income and Gender ET C In s t i t u t e (2 0 1 3 ) B - 39 Q3 . S a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h U t i l i t y S e r v i c e s P r o v i d e d b y t h e T o w n : U s i n g a s c a l e o f 1 t o 5 , w h e r e 5 m e a n s " V e r y S a t i s f i e d " a n d 1 m e a n s " V e r y Di s s a t i s f i e d , " p l e a s e c i r c l e y o u r l e v e l o f s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h e a c h o f t h e f o l l o w i n g . ( W i t h o u t D o n ' t K n o w ) N= 2 5 0 Q1 4 W h a t is y o u r ag e Q1 7 T o t a l a n n u a l i n c o m e Q1 8 G e n d e r To t a l Ag e s 18 - 5 4 Ag e s 5 5 + Un d e r $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 - $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ov e r $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ma l e Fe m a l e Q3 a a Y a r d W a s t e a n d b u l k y i t e m r e m o v a l s e r v i c e s Ve r y s a t i s f i e d 34 . 5 % 31 . 0 % 38 . 2 % 31 . 8 % 28 . 4 % 32 . 1 % 35 . 1 % 33 . 8 % Sa t i s f i e d 47 . 4 % 40 . 5 % 41 . 2 % 53 . 0 % 42 . 0 % 45 . 0 % 44 . 3 % 44 . 4 % Ne u t r a l 12 . 1 % 22 . 6 % 17 . 6 % 10 . 6 % 22 . 2 % 14 . 7 % 17 . 5 % 15 . 9 % Di s s a t i s f i e d 2. 6 % 4. 8 % 2. 9 % 0. 0 % 4. 9 % 4. 6 % 2. 1 % 3. 4 % Ve r y d i s s a t i s f i e d 3. 4 % 1. 2 % 0. 0 % 4. 5 % 2. 5 % 3. 7 % 1. 0 % 2. 4 % 20 1 3 To w n of We s t l a k e Re s i d e n t Su r v e y : Ap p e n d i x B - Cr o s s t a b s by Ag e , An n u a l Ho u s e h o l d Income and Gender ET C In s t i t u t e (2 0 1 3 ) B - 40 Q3 . S a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h U t i l i t y S e r v i c e s P r o v i d e d b y t h e T o w n : U s i n g a s c a l e o f 1 t o 5 , w h e r e 5 m e a n s " V e r y S a t i s f i e d " a n d 1 m e a n s " V e r y Di s s a t i s f i e d , " p l e a s e c i r c l e y o u r l e v e l o f s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h e a c h o f t h e f o l l o w i n g . ( W i t h o u t D o n ' t K n o w ) N= 2 5 0 Q1 4 W h a t is y o u r ag e Q1 7 T o t a l a n n u a l i n c o m e Q1 8 G e n d e r To t a l Ag e s 18 - 5 4 Ag e s 5 5 + Un d e r $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 - $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ov e r $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ma l e Fe m a l e Q3 b b T o w n e f f o r t s t o p r o m o t e w a t e r c o n s e r v a t i o n a n d p r o t e c t w a t e r r e s o u r c e s Ve r y s a t i s f i e d 26 . 6 % 16 . 7 % 22 . 5 % 23 . 5 % 19 . 3 % 19 . 8 % 25 . 7 % 23 . 0 % Sa t i s f i e d 46 . 0 % 50 . 0 % 50 . 0 % 47 . 1 % 48 . 9 % 51 . 7 % 41 . 9 % 46 . 8 % Ne u t r a l 23 . 4 % 25 . 6 % 25 . 0 % 20 . 6 % 27 . 3 % 21 . 6 % 27 . 6 % 24 . 3 % Di s s a t i s f i e d 2. 4 % 6. 7 % 0. 0 % 5. 9 % 4. 5 % 5. 2 % 3. 8 % 4. 5 % Ve r y d i s s a t i s f i e d 1. 6 % 1. 1 % 2. 5 % 2. 9 % 0. 0 % 1. 7 % 1. 0 % 1. 4 % 20 1 3 To w n of We s t l a k e Re s i d e n t Su r v e y : Ap p e n d i x B - Cr o s s t a b s by Ag e , An n u a l Ho u s e h o l d Income and Gender ET C In s t i t u t e (2 0 1 3 ) B - 41 Q3 . S a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h U t i l i t y S e r v i c e s P r o v i d e d b y t h e T o w n : U s i n g a s c a l e o f 1 t o 5 , w h e r e 5 m e a n s " V e r y S a t i s f i e d " a n d 1 m e a n s " V e r y Di s s a t i s f i e d , " p l e a s e c i r c l e y o u r l e v e l o f s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h e a c h o f t h e f o l l o w i n g . ( W i t h o u t D o n ' t K n o w ) N= 2 5 0 Q1 4 W h a t is y o u r ag e Q1 7 T o t a l a n n u a l i n c o m e Q1 8 G e n d e r To t a l Ag e s 18 - 5 4 Ag e s 5 5 + Un d e r $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 - $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ov e r $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ma l e Fe m a l e Q3 c c H o u s e h o l d h a z a r d o u s w a s t e d i s p o s a l s e r v i c e Ve r y s a t i s f i e d 31 . 4 % 19 . 4 % 19 . 4 % 23 . 4 % 30 . 2 % 28 . 1 % 23 . 7 % 26 . 1 % Sa t i s f i e d 38 . 4 % 40 . 3 % 52 . 8 % 42 . 6 % 31 . 7 % 39 . 3 % 38 . 2 % 38 . 8 % Ne u t r a l 20 . 9 % 31 . 9 % 16 . 7 % 27 . 7 % 27 . 0 % 21 . 3 % 30 . 3 % 25 . 5 % Di s s a t i s f i e d 8. 1 % 8. 3 % 11 . 1 % 4. 3 % 11 . 1 % 10 . 1 % 7. 9 % 9. 1 % Ve r y d i s s a t i s f i e d 1. 2 % 0. 0 % 0. 0 % 2. 1 % 0. 0 % 1. 1 % 0. 0 % 0. 6 % 20 1 3 To w n of We s t l a k e Re s i d e n t Su r v e y : Ap p e n d i x B - Cr o s s t a b s by Ag e , An n u a l Ho u s e h o l d Income and Gender ET C In s t i t u t e (2 0 1 3 ) B - 42 Q3 . S a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h U t i l i t y S e r v i c e s P r o v i d e d b y t h e T o w n : U s i n g a s c a l e o f 1 t o 5 , w h e r e 5 m e a n s " V e r y S a t i s f i e d " a n d 1 m e a n s " V e r y Di s s a t i s f i e d , " p l e a s e c i r c l e y o u r l e v e l o f s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h e a c h o f t h e f o l l o w i n g . ( W i t h o u t D o n ' t K n o w ) N= 2 5 0 Q1 4 W h a t is y o u r ag e Q1 7 T o t a l a n n u a l i n c o m e Q1 8 G e n d e r To t a l Ag e s 18 - 5 4 Ag e s 5 5 + Un d e r $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 - $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ov e r $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ma l e Fe m a l e Q3 d d E f f o r t s b y t h e T o w n t o m a n a g e s t o r m w a t e r r u n -of f Ve r y s a t i s f i e d 23 . 7 % 22 . 1 % 12 . 5 % 19 . 6 % 30 . 4 % 21 . 3 % 26 . 9 % 23 . 8 % Sa t i s f i e d 41 . 9 % 41 . 2 % 50 . 0 % 39 . 1 % 39 . 1 % 40 . 4 % 41 . 0 % 40 . 5 % Ne u t r a l 25 . 8 % 29 . 4 % 28 . 1 % 34 . 8 % 23 . 2 % 25 . 8 % 28 . 2 % 26 . 8 % Di s s a t i s f i e d 6. 5 % 5. 9 % 6. 3 % 4. 3 % 5. 8 % 9. 0 % 3. 8 % 7. 1 % Ve r y d i s s a t i s f i e d 2. 2 % 1. 5 % 3. 1 % 2. 2 % 1. 4 % 3. 4 % 0. 0 % 1. 8 % 20 1 3 To w n of We s t l a k e Re s i d e n t Su r v e y : Ap p e n d i x B - Cr o s s t a b s by Ag e , An n u a l Ho u s e h o l d Income and Gender ET C In s t i t u t e (2 0 1 3 ) B - 43 Q3 . S a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h U t i l i t y S e r v i c e s P r o v i d e d b y t h e T o w n : U s i n g a s c a l e o f 1 t o 5 , w h e r e 5 m e a n s " V e r y S a t i s f i e d " a n d 1 m e a n s " V e r y Di s s a t i s f i e d , " p l e a s e c i r c l e y o u r l e v e l o f s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h e a c h o f t h e f o l l o w i n g . ( W i t h o u t D o n ' t K n o w ) N= 2 5 0 Q1 4 W h a t is y o u r ag e Q1 7 T o t a l a n n u a l i n c o m e Q1 8 G e n d e r To t a l Ag e s 18 - 5 4 Ag e s 5 5 + Un d e r $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 - $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ov e r $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ma l e Fe m a l e Q3 e e Q u a l i t y o f ( d r i n k i n g ) w a t e r u t i l i t y s e r v i c e s Ve r y s a t i s f i e d 33 . 9 % 34 . 5 % 38 . 5 % 27 . 7 % 37 . 9 % 38 . 9 % 29 . 9 % 34 . 7 % Sa t i s f i e d 33 . 9 % 44 . 8 % 43 . 6 % 46 . 2 % 33 . 3 % 33 . 3 % 43 . 9 % 38 . 4 % Ne u t r a l 22 . 3 % 16 . 1 % 17 . 9 % 15 . 4 % 20 . 7 % 18 . 5 % 20 . 6 % 19 . 4 % Di s s a t i s f i e d 5. 8 % 2. 3 % 0. 0 % 4. 6 % 4. 6 % 4. 6 % 3. 7 % 4. 2 % Ve r y d i s s a t i s f i e d 4. 1 % 2. 3 % 0. 0 % 6. 2 % 3. 4 % 4. 6 % 1. 9 % 3. 2 % 20 1 3 To w n of We s t l a k e Re s i d e n t Su r v e y : Ap p e n d i x B - Cr o s s t a b s by Ag e , An n u a l Ho u s e h o l d Income and Gender ET C In s t i t u t e (2 0 1 3 ) B - 44 Q3 . S a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h C u s t o m e r S e r v i c e P r o v i d e d b y t h e T o w n : U s i n g a s c a l e o f 1 t o 5 , w h e r e 5 m e a n s " V e r y S a t i s f i e d " a n d 1 m e a n s " V e r y Di s s a t i s f i e d , " p l e a s e c i r c l e y o u r l e v e l o f s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h e a c h o f t h e f o l l o w i n g . ( W i t h o u t D o n ' t K n o w ) N= 2 5 0 Q1 4 W h a t is y o u r ag e Q1 7 T o t a l a n n u a l i n c o m e Q1 8 G e n d e r To t a l Ag e s 18 - 5 4 Ag e s 5 5 + Un d e r $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 - $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ov e r $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ma l e Fe m a l e Q3 f f L e v e l o f p a r t i c i p a t i o n b y T o w n s t a f f i n c o m m u n i t y e v e n t s / n e i g h b o r h o o d m e e t i n g s Ve r y s a t i s f i e d 34 . 8 % 31 . 7 % 25 . 7 % 31 . 1 % 39 . 0 % 32 . 4 % 33 . 0 % 33 . 0 % Sa t i s f i e d 40 . 2 % 48 . 8 % 51 . 4 % 45 . 9 % 39 . 0 % 43 . 8 % 45 . 4 % 44 . 3 % Ne u t r a l 22 . 3 % 17 . 1 % 20 . 0 % 19 . 7 % 19 . 5 % 20 . 0 % 20 . 6 % 20 . 2 % Di s s a t i s f i e d 1. 8 % 1. 2 % 0. 0 % 1. 6 % 2. 4 % 1. 9 % 1. 0 % 1. 5 % Ve r y d i s s a t i s f i e d 0. 9 % 1. 2 % 2. 9 % 1. 6 % 0. 0 % 1. 9 % 0. 0 % 1. 0 % 20 1 3 To w n of We s t l a k e Re s i d e n t Su r v e y : Ap p e n d i x B - Cr o s s t a b s by Ag e , An n u a l Ho u s e h o l d Income and Gender ET C In s t i t u t e (2 0 1 3 ) B - 45 Q3 . S a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h C u s t o m e r S e r v i c e P r o v i d e d b y t h e T o w n : U s i n g a s c a l e o f 1 t o 5 , w h e r e 5 m e a n s " V e r y S a t i s f i e d " a n d 1 m e a n s " V e r y Di s s a t i s f i e d , " p l e a s e c i r c l e y o u r l e v e l o f s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h e a c h o f t h e f o l l o w i n g . ( W i t h o u t D o n ' t K n o w ) N= 2 5 0 Q1 4 W h a t is y o u r ag e Q1 7 T o t a l a n n u a l i n c o m e Q1 8 G e n d e r To t a l Ag e s 18 - 5 4 Ag e s 5 5 + Un d e r $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 - $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ov e r $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ma l e Fe m a l e Q3 g g T i m e l i n e s s o f T o w n S t a f f t o c o n c e r n s / i s s u e s Ve r y s a t i s f i e d 27 . 8 % 34 . 6 % 31 . 6 % 30 . 4 % 32 . 1 % 31 . 3 % 30 . 6 % 31 . 3 % Sa t i s f i e d 45 . 4 % 44 . 4 % 47 . 4 % 50 . 0 % 41 . 0 % 40 . 4 % 50 . 0 % 44 . 9 % Ne u t r a l 18 . 5 % 14 . 8 % 15 . 8 % 14 . 3 % 16 . 7 % 18 . 2 % 14 . 3 % 16 . 2 % Di s s a t i s f i e d 7. 4 % 4. 9 % 2. 6 % 3. 6 % 10 . 3 % 8. 1 % 5. 1 % 6. 6 % Ve r y d i s s a t i s f i e d 0. 9 % 1. 2 % 2. 6 % 1. 8 % 0. 0 % 2. 0 % 0. 0 % 1. 0 % 20 1 3 To w n of We s t l a k e Re s i d e n t Su r v e y : Ap p e n d i x B - Cr o s s t a b s by Ag e , An n u a l Ho u s e h o l d Income and Gender ET C In s t i t u t e (2 0 1 3 ) B - 46 Q3 . S a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h C u s t o m e r S e r v i c e P r o v i d e d b y t h e T o w n : U s i n g a s c a l e o f 1 t o 5 , w h e r e 5 m e a n s " V e r y S a t i s f i e d " a n d 1 m e a n s " V e r y Di s s a t i s f i e d , " p l e a s e c i r c l e y o u r l e v e l o f s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h e a c h o f t h e f o l l o w i n g . ( W i t h o u t D o n ' t K n o w ) N= 2 5 0 Q1 4 W h a t is y o u r ag e Q1 7 T o t a l a n n u a l i n c o m e Q1 8 G e n d e r To t a l Ag e s 18 - 5 4 Ag e s 5 5 + Un d e r $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 - $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ov e r $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ma l e Fe m a l e Q3 h h F r i e n d l i n e s s o f T o w n S t a f f Ve r y s a t i s f i e d 44 . 9 % 47 . 1 % 48 . 6 % 52 . 4 % 40 . 2 % 37 . 5 % 55 . 0 % 46 . 0 % Sa t i s f i e d 36 . 4 % 36 . 8 % 35 . 1 % 31 . 7 % 41 . 4 % 40 . 2 % 33 . 0 % 36 . 6 % Ne u t r a l 15 . 3 % 13 . 8 % 13 . 5 % 12 . 7 % 16 . 1 % 18 . 8 % 9. 0 % 14 . 1 % Di s s a t i s f i e d 1. 7 % 2. 3 % 2. 7 % 1. 6 % 1. 1 % 2. 7 % 2. 0 % 2. 3 % Ve r y d i s s a t i s f i e d 1. 7 % 0. 0 % 0. 0 % 1. 6 % 1. 1 % 0. 9 % 1. 0 % 0. 9 % 20 1 3 To w n of We s t l a k e Re s i d e n t Su r v e y : Ap p e n d i x B - Cr o s s t a b s by Ag e , An n u a l Ho u s e h o l d Income and Gender ET C In s t i t u t e (2 0 1 3 ) B - 47 Q3 . S a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h C u s t o m e r S e r v i c e P r o v i d e d b y t h e T o w n : U s i n g a s c a l e o f 1 t o 5 , w h e r e 5 m e a n s " V e r y S a t i s f i e d " a n d 1 m e a n s " V e r y Di s s a t i s f i e d , " p l e a s e c i r c l e y o u r l e v e l o f s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h e a c h o f t h e f o l l o w i n g . ( W i t h o u t D o n ' t K n o w ) N= 2 5 0 Q1 4 W h a t i s y o u r ag e Q1 7 T o t a l a n n u a l i n c o m e Q1 8 G e n d e r To t a l Ag e s 18 - 5 4 Ag e s 5 5 + Un d e r $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 - $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ov e r $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ma l e Fe m a l e Q3 i i M u n i c i p a l c o u r t s e r v i c e s Ve r y s a t i s f i e d 39 . 1 % 28 . 6 % 30 . 0 % 35 . 7 % 39 . 4 % 30 . 6 % 39 . 2 % 35 . 2 % Sa t i s f i e d 46 . 0 % 47 . 1 % 56 . 7 % 47 . 6 % 40 . 8 % 43 . 5 % 49 . 4 % 46 . 1 % Ne u t r a l 11 . 5 % 22 . 9 % 13 . 3 % 14 . 3 % 18 . 3 % 22 . 4 % 10 . 1 % 16 . 4 % Di s s a t i s f i e d 2. 3 % 1. 4 % 0. 0 % 0. 0 % 1. 4 % 2. 4 % 1. 3 % 1. 8 % Ve r y d i s s a t i s f i e d 1. 1 % 0. 0 % 0. 0 % 2. 4 % 0. 0 % 1. 2 % 0. 0 % 0. 6 % 20 1 3 To w n of We s t l a k e Re s i d e n t Su r v e y : Ap p e n d i x B - Cr o s s t a b s by Ag e , An n u a l Ho u s e h o l d Income and Gender ET C In s t i t u t e (2 0 1 3 ) B - 48 Q3 . S a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h C u s t o m e r S e r v i c e P r o v i d e d b y t h e T o w n : U s i n g a s c a l e o f 1 t o 5 , w h e r e 5 m e a n s " V e r y S a t i s f i e d " a n d 1 m e a n s " V e r y Di s s a t i s f i e d , " p l e a s e c i r c l e y o u r l e v e l o f s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h e a c h o f t h e f o l l o w i n g . ( W i t h o u t D o n ' t K n o w ) N= 2 5 0 Q1 4 W h a t i s y o u r ag e Q1 7 T o t a l a n n u a l i n c o m e Q1 8 G e n d e r To t a l Ag e s 18 - 5 4 Ag e s 5 5 + Un d e r $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 - $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ov e r $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ma l e Fe m a l e Q3 j j J u r y s e r v i c e e x p e r i e n c e Ve r y s a t i s f i e d 38 . 8 % 31 . 6 % 29 . 0 % 40 . 8 % 37 . 7 % 30 . 2 % 40 . 2 % 35 . 5 % Sa t i s f i e d 34 . 1 % 35 . 5 % 51 . 6 % 36 . 7 % 24 . 6 % 30 . 2 % 42 . 7 % 36 . 1 % Ne u t r a l 23 . 5 % 30 . 3 % 19 . 4 % 20 . 4 % 33 . 3 % 33 . 7 % 17 . 1 % 25 . 4 % Di s s a t i s f i e d 2. 4 % 1. 3 % 0. 0 % 0. 0 % 4. 3 % 3. 5 % 0. 0 % 1. 8 % Ve r y d i s s a t i s f i e d 1. 2 % 1. 3 % 0. 0 % 2. 0 % 0. 0 % 2. 3 % 0. 0 % 1. 2 % 20 1 3 To w n of We s t l a k e Re s i d e n t Su r v e y : Ap p e n d i x B - Cr o s s t a b s by Ag e , An n u a l Ho u s e h o l d Income and Gender ET C In s t i t u t e (2 0 1 3 ) B - 49 Q3 . S a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h C o d e E n f o r c e m e n t P r o v i d e d b y t h e T o w n : U s i n g a s c a l e o f 1 t o 5 , w h e r e 5 m e a n s " V e r y S a t i s f i e d " a n d 1 m e a n s " V e r y Di s s a t i s f i e d , " p l e a s e c i r c l e y o u r l e v e l o f s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h e a c h o f t h e f o l l o w i n g . ( W i t h o u t D o n ' t K n o w ) N= 2 5 0 Q1 4 W h a t is y o u r ag e Q1 7 T o t a l a n n u a l i n c o m e Q1 8 G e n d e r To t a l Ag e s 18 - 5 4 Ag e s 5 5 + Un d e r $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 - $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ov e r $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ma l e Fe m a l e Q3 k k E n f o r c i n g t h e e x t e r i o r a p p e a r a n c e a n d m a i n t e n a n c e r e g u l a t i o n s f o r p r o p e r t y Ve r y s a t i s f i e d 36 . 1 % 24 . 7 % 31 . 0 % 28 . 8 % 32 . 5 % 30 . 1 % 32 . 9 % 31 . 2 % Sa t i s f i e d 38 . 0 % 43 . 8 % 31 . 0 % 44 . 1 % 43 . 8 % 38 . 8 % 43 . 5 % 40 . 7 % Ne u t r a l 14 . 8 % 20 . 5 % 17 . 2 % 13 . 6 % 18 . 8 % 17 . 5 % 16 . 5 % 16 . 9 % Di s s a t i s f i e d 9. 3 % 6. 8 % 17 . 2 % 8. 5 % 3. 8 % 11 . 7 % 3. 5 % 8. 5 % Ve r y d i s s a t i s f i e d 1. 9 % 4. 1 % 3. 4 % 5. 1 % 1. 3 % 1. 9 % 3. 5 % 2. 6 % 20 1 3 To w n of We s t l a k e Re s i d e n t Su r v e y : Ap p e n d i x B - Cr o s s t a b s by Ag e , An n u a l Ho u s e h o l d Income and Gender ET C In s t i t u t e (2 0 1 3 ) B - 50 Q3 . S a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h C o d e E n f o r c e m e n t P r o v i d e d b y t h e T o w n : U s i n g a s c a l e o f 1 t o 5 , w h e r e 5 m e a n s " V e r y S a t i s f i e d " a n d 1 m e a n s " V e r y Di s s a t i s f i e d , " p l e a s e c i r c l e y o u r l e v e l o f s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h e a c h o f t h e f o l l o w i n g . ( W i t h o u t D o n ' t K n o w ) N= 2 5 0 Q1 4 W h a t i s yo u r ag e Q1 7 T o t a l a n n u a l i n c o m e Q1 8 G e n d e r To t a l Ag e s 18 - 5 4 Ag e s 5 5 + Un d e r $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 - $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ov e r $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ma l e Fe m a l e Q3 l l En f o r c i n g si g n r e g u l a t i o n s Ve r y s a t i s f i e d 34 . 3 % 27 . 6 % 27 . 3 % 27 . 3 % 37 . 8 % 29 . 0 % 34 . 4 % 31 . 5 % Sa t i s f i e d 38 . 2 % 43 . 4 % 42 . 4 % 41 . 8 % 40 . 5 % 39 . 8 % 42 . 2 % 40 . 8 % Ne u t r a l 24 . 5 % 28 . 9 % 30 . 3 % 25 . 5 % 21 . 6 % 29 . 0 % 22 . 2 % 26 . 1 % Ve r y d i s s a t i s f i e d 2. 9 % 0. 0 % 0. 0 % 5. 5 % 0. 0 % 2. 2 % 1. 1 % 1. 6 % 20 1 3 To w n of We s t l a k e Re s i d e n t Su r v e y : Ap p e n d i x B - Cr o s s t a b s by Ag e , An n u a l Ho u s e h o l d Income and Gender ET C In s t i t u t e (2 0 1 3 ) B - 51 Q4 . U s i n g a s c a l e o f 1 t o 5 , w h e r e 5 m e a n s " S t r o n g l y A g r e e " a n d 1 m e a n s " S t r o n g l y D i s a g r e e , " p l e a s e c i r c l e y o u r l e v e l o f a g r e e m e n t w i t h t h e fo l l o w i n g s t a t e m e n t s . ( W i t h o u t D o n ' t K n o w ) N= 2 5 0 Q1 4 W h a t i s y o u r ag e Q1 7 T o t a l a n n u a l i n c o m e Q1 8 G e n d e r To t a l Ag e s 18 - 5 4 Ag e s 5 5 + Un d e r $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 - $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ov e r $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ma l e Fe m a l e Q4 a A t t r a c t i n g r e t a i l d e v e l o p m e n t , w h i c h g r o w s W e s t l a k e ' s s a l e s t a x b a s e , i s i m p o r t a n t t o m e St r o n g l y a g r e e 21 . 3 % 19 . 6 % 31 . 0 % 24 . 7 % 11 . 1 % 15 . 2 % 25 . 4 % 20 . 6 % Ag r e e 24 . 1 % 33 . 0 % 23 . 8 % 23 . 4 % 34 . 3 % 24 . 0 % 32 . 0 % 27 . 8 % Ag r e e 19 . 1 % 24 . 7 % 31 . 0 % 19 . 5 % 18 . 2 % 20 . 0 % 23 . 0 % 21 . 4 % Di s a g r e e 7. 1 % 12 . 4 % 4. 8 % 10 . 4 % 12 . 1 % 14 . 4 % 4. 9 % 9. 7 % St r o n g l y d i s a g r e e 28 . 4 % 10 . 3 % 9. 5 % 22 . 1 % 24 . 2 % 26 . 4 % 14 . 8 % 20 . 6 % 20 1 3 To w n of We s t l a k e Re s i d e n t Su r v e y : Ap p e n d i x B - Cr o s s t a b s by Ag e , An n u a l Ho u s e h o l d Income and Gender ET C In s t i t u t e (2 0 1 3 ) B - 52 Q4 . U s i n g a s c a l e o f 1 t o 5 , w h e r e 5 m e a n s " S t r o n g l y A g r e e " a n d 1 m e a n s " S t r o n g l y D i s a g r e e , " p l e a s e c i r c l e y o u r l e v e l o f a g r e e m e n t w i t h t h e fo l l o w i n g s t a t e m e n t s . ( W i t h o u t D o n ' t K n o w ) N= 2 5 0 Q1 4 W h a t i s y o u r ag e Q1 7 T o t a l a n n u a l i n c o m e Q1 8 G e n d e r To t a l Ag e s 18 - 5 4 Ag e s 5 5 + Un d e r $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 - $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ov e r $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ma l e Fe m a l e Q4 b W e s t l a k e ' s c o n t i n u e d e m p h a s i s o n a t t r a c t i n g h i g h -en d d e v e l o p m e n t i s i m p o r t a n t t o m e St r o n g l y a g r e e 55 . 0 % 55 . 7 % 55 . 0 % 58 . 4 % 59 . 0 % 54 . 8 % 55 . 8 % 55 . 5 % Ag r e e 22 . 9 % 23 . 7 % 27 . 5 % 23 . 4 % 24 . 0 % 23 . 0 % 24 . 2 % 23 . 5 % Ag r e e 12 . 9 % 12 . 4 % 10 . 0 % 15 . 6 % 7. 0 % 13 . 5 % 10 . 8 % 12 . 1 % Di s a g r e e 2. 1 % 4. 1 % 5. 0 % 0. 0 % 2. 0 % 1. 6 % 4. 2 % 2. 8 % St r o n g l y d i s a g r e e 7. 1 % 4. 1 % 2. 5 % 2. 6 % 8. 0 % 7. 1 % 5. 0 % 6. 1 % 20 1 3 To w n of We s t l a k e Re s i d e n t Su r v e y : Ap p e n d i x B - Cr o s s t a b s by Ag e , An n u a l Ho u s e h o l d Income and Gender ET C In s t i t u t e (2 0 1 3 ) B - 53 Q4 . U s i n g a s c a l e o f 1 t o 5 , w h e r e 5 m e a n s " S t r o n g l y A g r e e " a n d 1 m e a n s " S t r o n g l y D i s a g r e e , " p l e a s e c i r c l e y o u r l e v e l o f a g r e e m e n t w i t h t h e fo l l o w i n g s t a t e m e n t s . ( W i t h o u t D o n ' t K n o w ) N= 2 5 0 Q1 4 W h a t i s y o u r ag e Q1 7 T o t a l a n n u a l i n c o m e Q1 8 G e n d e r To t a l Ag e s 18 - 5 4 Ag e s 5 5 + Un d e r $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 - $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ov e r $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ma l e Fe m a l e Q4 c T h e c o n n e c t i v i t y o f W e s t l a k e ' s w a l k i n g / b i k i n g t r a i l s i s i m p o r t a n t t o m e St r o n g l y a g r e e 37 . 6 % 24 . 7 % 40 . 5 % 36 . 4 % 23 . 2 % 32 . 0 % 32 . 0 % 32 . 3 % Ag r e e 24 . 1 % 27 . 8 % 19 . 0 % 26 . 0 % 30 . 3 % 25 . 6 % 27 . 9 % 26 . 6 % Ag r e e 25 . 5 % 37 . 1 % 33 . 3 % 26 . 0 % 33 . 3 % 28 . 8 % 30 . 3 % 29 . 4 % Di s a g r e e 7. 8 % 8. 2 % 4. 8 % 10 . 4 % 7. 1 % 9. 6 % 6. 6 % 8. 1 % St r o n g l y d i s a g r e e 5. 0 % 2. 1 % 2. 4 % 1. 3 % 6. 1 % 4. 0 % 3. 3 % 3. 6 % 20 1 3 To w n of We s t l a k e Re s i d e n t Su r v e y : Ap p e n d i x B - Cr o s s t a b s by Ag e , An n u a l Ho u s e h o l d Income and Gender ET C In s t i t u t e (2 0 1 3 ) B - 54 Q5 . R e a s o n s f o r M o v i n g t o W e s t l a k e : U s i n g a s c a l e o f 1 t o 5 , w h e r e 5 m e a n s " E x t r e m e l y I m p o r t a n t " a n d 1 m e a n s " N o t I m p o r t a n t , " p l e a s e ci r c l e h o w i m p o r t a n t t h e f o l l o w i n g i s s u e s w e r e i n y o u r d e c i s i o n t o m o v e t o t h e T o w n o f W e s t l a k e . N= 2 5 0 Q1 4 W h a t i s y o u r ag e Q1 7 T o t a l a n n u a l i n c o m e Q1 8 G e n d e r To t a l Ag e s 18 - 5 4 Ag e s 5 5 + Un d e r $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 - $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ov e r $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ma l e Fe m a l e Q5 a S e n s e o f c o m m u n i t y Ex t r e m e l y i m p o r t a n t 23 . 4 % 25 . 3 % 23 . 8 % 17 . 9 % 28 . 0 % 22 . 2 % 25 . 2 % 24 . 0 % Ve r y i m p o r t a n t 31 . 2 % 29 . 3 % 35 . 7 % 38 . 5 % 26 . 0 % 31 . 7 % 29 . 3 % 30 . 4 % Im p o r t a n t 35 . 5 % 28 . 3 % 28 . 6 % 30 . 8 % 35 . 0 % 33 . 3 % 30 . 1 % 31 . 6 % Le s s i m p o r t a n t 3. 5 % 9. 1 % 2. 4 % 6. 4 % 7. 0 % 7. 1 % 4. 9 % 6. 0 % No t i m p o r t a n t 4. 3 % 4. 0 % 4. 8 % 3. 8 % 2. 0 % 3. 2 % 4. 9 % 4. 0 % Do n ' t k n o w 2. 1 % 4. 0 % 4. 8 % 2. 6 % 2. 0 % 2. 4 % 5. 7 % 4. 0 % 20 1 3 To w n of We s t l a k e Re s i d e n t Su r v e y : Ap p e n d i x B - Cr o s s t a b s by Ag e , An n u a l Ho u s e h o l d Income and Gender ET C In s t i t u t e (2 0 1 3 ) B - 55 Q5 . R e a s o n s f o r M o v i n g t o W e s t l a k e : U s i n g a s c a l e o f 1 t o 5 , w h e r e 5 m e a n s " E x t r e m e l y I m p o r t a n t " a n d 1 m e a n s " N o t I m p o r t a n t , " p l e a s e ci r c l e h o w i m p o r t a n t t h e f o l l o w i n g i s s u e s w e r e i n y o u r d e c i s i o n t o m o v e t o t h e T o w n o f W e s t l a k e . N= 2 5 0 Q1 4 W h a t i s y o u r ag e Q1 7 T o t a l a n n u a l i n c o m e Q1 8 G e n d e r To t a l Ag e s 18 - 5 4 Ag e s 5 5 + Un d e r $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 - $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ov e r $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ma l e Fe m a l e Q5 b Q u a l i t y o f l i f e Ex t r e m e l y i m p o r t a n t 66 . 0 % 67 . 7 % 59 . 5 % 66 . 7 % 75 . 0 % 71 . 4 % 61 . 8 % 66 . 8 % Ve r y i m p o r t a n t 24 . 8 % 22 . 2 % 35 . 7 % 23 . 1 % 19 . 0 % 23 . 8 % 22 . 8 % 23 . 2 % Im p o r t a n t 7. 8 % 5. 1 % 2. 4 % 10 . 3 % 4. 0 % 3. 2 % 9. 8 % 6. 4 % No t i m p o r t a n t 0. 0 % 2. 0 % 0. 0 % 0. 0 % 1. 0 % 0. 0 % 1. 6 % 0. 8 % Do n ' t k n o w 1. 4 % 3. 0 % 2. 4 % 0. 0 % 1. 0 % 1. 6 % 4. 1 % 2. 8 % 20 1 3 To w n of We s t l a k e Re s i d e n t Su r v e y : Ap p e n d i x B - Cr o s s t a b s by Ag e , An n u a l Ho u s e h o l d Income and Gender ET C In s t i t u t e (2 0 1 3 ) B - 56 Q5 . R e a s o n s f o r M o v i n g t o W e s t l a k e : U s i n g a s c a l e o f 1 t o 5 , w h e r e 5 m e a n s " E x t r e m e l y I m p o r t a n t " a n d 1 m e a n s " N o t I m p o r t a n t , " p l e a s e ci r c l e h o w i m p o r t a n t t h e f o l l o w i n g i s s u e s w e r e i n y o u r d e c i s i o n t o m o v e t o t h e T o w n o f W e s t l a k e . N= 2 5 0 Q1 4 W h a t i s y o u r ag e Q1 7 T o t a l a n n u a l i n c o m e Q1 8 G e n d e r To t a l Ag e s 18 - 5 4 Ag e s 5 5 + Un d e r $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 - $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ov e r $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ma l e Fe m a l e Q5 c S m a l l t o w n f e e l Ex t r e m e l y i m p o r t a n t 54 . 6 % 48 . 5 % 50 . 0 % 52 . 6 % 55 . 0 % 57 . 9 % 48 . 0 % 53 . 2 % Ve r y i m p o r t a n t 23 . 4 % 23 . 2 % 38 . 1 % 24 . 4 % 17 . 0 % 23 . 8 % 21 . 1 % 22 . 4 % Im p o r t a n t 14 . 9 % 15 . 2 % 7. 1 % 11 . 5 % 19 . 0 % 12 . 7 % 16 . 3 % 14 . 4 % Le s s i m p o r t a n t 5. 0 % 7. 1 % 0. 0 % 10 . 3 % 6. 0 % 3. 2 % 8. 1 % 5. 6 % No t i m p o r t a n t 1. 4 % 2. 0 % 2. 4 % 1. 3 % 1. 0 % 1. 6 % 1. 6 % 1. 6 % Do n ' t k n o w 0. 7 % 4. 0 % 2. 4 % 0. 0 % 2. 0 % 0. 8 % 4. 9 % 2. 8 % 20 1 3 To w n of We s t l a k e Re s i d e n t Su r v e y : Ap p e n d i x B - Cr o s s t a b s by Ag e , An n u a l Ho u s e h o l d Income and Gender ET C In s t i t u t e (2 0 1 3 ) B - 57 Q5 . R e a s o n s f o r M o v i n g t o W e s t l a k e : U s i n g a s c a l e o f 1 t o 5 , w h e r e 5 m e a n s " E x t r e m e l y I m p o r t a n t " a n d 1 m e a n s " N o t I m p o r t a n t , " p l e a s e ci r c l e h o w i m p o r t a n t t h e f o l l o w i n g i s s u e s w e r e i n y o u r d e c i s i o n t o m o v e t o t h e T o w n o f W e s t l a k e . N= 2 5 0 Q1 4 W h a t i s y o u r ag e Q1 7 T o t a l a n n u a l i n c o m e Q1 8 G e n d e r To t a l Ag e s 18 - 5 4 Ag e s 5 5 + Un d e r $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 - $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ov e r $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ma l e Fe m a l e Q5 d A e s t h e t i c a p p e a l a n d h i g h d e v e l o p m e n t s t a n d a r d s Ex t r e m e l y i m p o r t a n t 79 . 4 % 68 . 7 % 69 . 0 % 74 . 4 % 84 . 0 % 79 . 4 % 69 . 9 % 74 . 8 % Ve r y i m p o r t a n t 10 . 6 % 14 . 1 % 14 . 3 % 14 . 1 % 9. 0 % 10 . 3 % 13 . 0 % 11 . 6 % Im p o r t a n t 6. 4 % 5. 1 % 4. 8 % 6. 4 % 4. 0 % 4. 0 % 7. 3 % 5. 6 % Le s s i m p o r t a n t 2. 8 % 2. 0 % 4. 8 % 2. 6 % 1. 0 % 2. 4 % 3. 3 % 2. 8 % No t i m p o r t a n t 0. 0 % 5. 1 % 4. 8 % 1. 3 % 1. 0 % 1. 6 % 2. 4 % 2. 0 % Do n ' t k n o w 0. 7 % 5. 1 % 2. 4 % 1. 3 % 1. 0 % 2. 4 % 4. 1 % 3. 2 % 20 1 3 To w n of We s t l a k e Re s i d e n t Su r v e y : Ap p e n d i x B - Cr o s s t a b s by Ag e , An n u a l Ho u s e h o l d Income and Gender ET C In s t i t u t e (2 0 1 3 ) B - 58 Q5 . R e a s o n s f o r M o v i n g t o W e s t l a k e : U s i n g a s c a l e o f 1 t o 5 , w h e r e 5 m e a n s " E x t r e m e l y I m p o r t a n t " a n d 1 m e a n s " N o t I m p o r t a n t , " p l e a s e ci r c l e h o w i m p o r t a n t t h e f o l l o w i n g i s s u e s w e r e i n y o u r d e c i s i o n t o m o v e t o t h e T o w n o f W e s t l a k e . N= 2 5 0 Q1 4 W h a t i s y o u r ag e Q1 7 T o t a l a n n u a l i n c o m e Q1 8 G e n d e r To t a l Ag e s 18 - 5 4 Ag e s 5 5 + Un d e r $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 - $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ov e r $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ma l e Fe m a l e Q5 e W e s t l a k e A c a d e m y Ex t r e m e l y i m p o r t a n t 53 . 2 % 27 . 3 % 31 . 0 % 51 . 3 % 41 . 0 % 42 . 9 % 41 . 5 % 42 . 4 % Ve r y i m p o r t a n t 12 . 1 % 14 . 1 % 14 . 3 % 11 . 5 % 13 . 0 % 11 . 9 % 13 . 0 % 12 . 4 % Im p o r t a n t 7. 8 % 11 . 1 % 7. 1 % 10 . 3 % 11 . 0 % 11 . 9 % 6. 5 % 9. 2 % Le s s i m p o r t a n t 8. 5 % 10 . 1 % 19 . 0 % 6. 4 % 8. 0 % 7. 9 % 10 . 6 % 9. 2 % No t i m p o r t a n t 14 . 9 % 32 . 3 % 26 . 2 % 16 . 7 % 23 . 0 % 21 . 4 % 22 . 8 % 22 . 0 % Do n ' t k n o w 3. 5 % 5. 1 % 2. 4 % 3. 8 % 4. 0 % 4. 0 % 5. 7 % 4. 8 % 20 1 3 To w n of We s t l a k e Re s i d e n t Su r v e y : Ap p e n d i x B - Cr o s s t a b s by Ag e , An n u a l Ho u s e h o l d Income and Gender ET C In s t i t u t e (2 0 1 3 ) B - 59 Q5 . R e a s o n s f o r M o v i n g t o W e s t l a k e : U s i n g a s c a l e o f 1 t o 5 , w h e r e 5 m e a n s " E x t r e m e l y I m p o r t a n t " a n d 1 m e a n s " N o t I m p o r t a n t , " p l e a s e ci r c l e h o w i m p o r t a n t t h e f o l l o w i n g i s s u e s w e r e i n y o u r d e c i s i o n t o m o v e t o t h e T o w n o f W e s t l a k e . N= 2 5 0 Q1 4 W h a t i s y o u r ag e Q1 7 T o t a l a n n u a l i n c o m e Q1 8 G e n d e r To t a l Ag e s 18 - 5 4 Ag e s 5 5 + Un d e r $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 - $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ov e r $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ma l e Fe m a l e Q5 f A c c e s s t o o t h e r p u b l i c s c h o o l s Ex t r e m e l y i m p o r t a n t 14 . 2 % 9. 1 % 7. 1 % 15 . 4 % 13 . 0 % 9. 5 % 14 . 6 % 12 . 0 % Ve r y i m p o r t a n t 14 . 2 % 18 . 2 % 23 . 8 % 14 . 1 % 14 . 0 % 15 . 1 % 16 . 3 % 15 . 6 % Im p o r t a n t 17 . 7 % 13 . 1 % 14 . 3 % 17 . 9 % 13 . 0 % 20 . 6 % 11 . 4 % 16 . 0 % Le s s i m p o r t a n t 22 . 7 % 18 . 2 % 31 . 0 % 24 . 4 % 15 . 0 % 19 . 8 % 21 . 1 % 20 . 4 % No t i m p o r t a n t 25 . 5 % 32 . 3 % 16 . 7 % 24 . 4 % 35 . 0 % 29 . 4 % 26 . 0 % 28 . 0 % Do n ' t k n o w 5. 7 % 9. 1 % 7. 1 % 3. 8 % 10 . 0 % 5. 6 % 10 . 6 % 8. 0 % 20 1 3 To w n of We s t l a k e Re s i d e n t Su r v e y : Ap p e n d i x B - Cr o s s t a b s by Ag e , An n u a l Ho u s e h o l d Income and Gender ET C In s t i t u t e (2 0 1 3 ) B - 60 Q5 . R e a s o n s f o r M o v i n g t o W e s t l a k e : U s i n g a s c a l e o f 1 t o 5 , w h e r e 5 m e a n s " E x t r e m e l y I m p o r t a n t " a n d 1 m e a n s " N o t I m p o r t a n t , " p l e a s e ci r c l e h o w i m p o r t a n t t h e f o l l o w i n g i s s u e s w e r e i n y o u r d e c i s i o n t o m o v e t o t h e T o w n o f W e s t l a k e . N= 2 5 0 Q1 4 W h a t i s y o u r ag e Q1 7 T o t a l a n n u a l i n c o m e Q1 8 G e n d e r To t a l Ag e s 18 - 5 4 Ag e s 5 5 + Un d e r $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 - $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ov e r $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ma l e Fe m a l e Q5 g P r o x i m i t y t o p r i v a t e s c h o o l s Ex t r e m e l y i m p o r t a n t 8. 5 % 12 . 1 % 16 . 7 % 9. 0 % 9. 0 % 8. 7 % 12 . 2 % 10 . 8 % Ve r y i m p o r t a n t 7. 1 % 11 . 1 % 14 . 3 % 10 . 3 % 7. 0 % 8. 7 % 8. 1 % 8. 4 % Im p o r t a n t 16 . 3 % 9. 1 % 11 . 9 % 15 . 4 % 9. 0 % 12 . 7 % 13 . 8 % 13 . 2 % Le s s i m p o r t a n t 17 . 7 % 22 . 2 % 21 . 4 % 25 . 6 % 14 . 0 % 16 . 7 % 22 . 0 % 19 . 2 % No t i m p o r t a n t 46 . 1 % 35 . 4 % 35 . 7 % 34 . 6 % 52 . 0 % 46 . 8 % 35 . 8 % 41 . 2 % Do n ' t k n o w 4. 3 % 10 . 1 % 0. 0 % 5. 1 % 9. 0 % 6. 3 % 8. 1 % 7. 2 % 20 1 3 To w n of We s t l a k e Re s i d e n t Su r v e y : Ap p e n d i x B - Cr o s s t a b s by Ag e , An n u a l Ho u s e h o l d Income and Gender ET C In s t i t u t e (2 0 1 3 ) B - 61 Q5 . R e a s o n s f o r M o v i n g t o W e s t l a k e : U s i n g a s c a l e o f 1 t o 5 , w h e r e 5 m e a n s " E x t r e m e l y I m p o r t a n t " a n d 1 m e a n s " N o t I m p o r t a n t , " p l e a s e ci r c l e h o w i m p o r t a n t t h e f o l l o w i n g i s s u e s w e r e i n y o u r d e c i s i o n t o m o v e t o t h e T o w n o f W e s t l a k e . N= 2 5 0 Q1 4 W h a t i s y o u r ag e Q1 7 T o t a l a n n u a l i n c o m e Q1 8 G e n d e r To t a l Ag e s 18 - 5 4 Ag e s 5 5 + Un d e r $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 - $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ov e r $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ma l e Fe m a l e Q5 h L o w c r i m e r a t e s / q u a l i t y o f p u b l i c s c h o o l s Ex t r e m e l y i m p o r t a n t 57 . 4 % 52 . 5 % 59 . 5 % 51 . 3 % 61 . 0 % 47 . 6 % 62 . 6 % 55 . 2 % Ve r y i m p o r t a n t 30 . 5 % 26 . 3 % 23 . 8 % 29 . 5 % 26 . 0 % 36 . 5 % 20 . 3 % 28 . 4 % Im p o r t a n t 7. 1 % 11 . 1 % 7. 1 % 11 . 5 % 8. 0 % 10 . 3 % 7. 3 % 8. 8 % Le s s i m p o r t a n t 2. 1 % 0. 0 % 2. 4 % 2. 6 % 0. 0 % 1. 6 % 0. 8 % 1. 2 % No t i m p o r t a n t 1. 4 % 3. 0 % 4. 8 % 1. 3 % 2. 0 % 0. 8 % 3. 3 % 2. 0 % Do n ' t k n o w 1. 4 % 7. 1 % 2. 4 % 3. 8 % 3. 0 % 3. 2 % 5. 7 % 4. 4 % 20 1 3 To w n of We s t l a k e Re s i d e n t Su r v e y : Ap p e n d i x B - Cr o s s t a b s by Ag e , An n u a l Ho u s e h o l d Income and Gender ET C In s t i t u t e (2 0 1 3 ) B - 62 Q5 . R e a s o n s f o r M o v i n g t o W e s t l a k e : U s i n g a s c a l e o f 1 t o 5 , w h e r e 5 m e a n s " E x t r e m e l y I m p o r t a n t " a n d 1 m e a n s " N o t I m p o r t a n t , " p l e a s e ci r c l e h o w i m p o r t a n t t h e f o l l o w i n g i s s u e s w e r e i n y o u r d e c i s i o n t o m o v e t o t h e T o w n o f W e s t l a k e . N= 2 5 0 Q1 4 W h a t i s y o u r ag e Q1 7 T o t a l a n n u a l i n c o m e Q1 8 G e n d e r To t a l Ag e s 18 - 5 4 Ag e s 5 5 + Un d e r $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 - $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ov e r $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ma l e Fe m a l e Q5 i E m p l o y m e n t o p p o r t u n i t i e s i n t h e W e s t l a k e a r e a Ex t r e m e l y i m p o r t a n t 5. 0 % 5. 1 % 9. 5 % 1. 3 % 8. 0 % 1. 6 % 9. 8 % 5. 6 % Ve r y i m p o r t a n t 7. 1 % 9. 1 % 11 . 9 % 11 . 5 % 3. 0 % 7. 9 % 7. 3 % 7. 6 % Im p o r t a n t 10 . 6 % 13 . 1 % 16 . 7 % 7. 7 % 10 . 0 % 9. 5 % 13 . 8 % 11 . 6 % Le s s i m p o r t a n t 23 . 4 % 18 . 2 % 28 . 6 % 26 . 9 % 14 . 0 % 20 . 6 % 21 . 1 % 20 . 8 % No t i m p o r t a n t 47 . 5 % 47 . 5 % 28 . 6 % 43 . 6 % 60 . 0 % 57 . 1 % 36 . 6 % 47 . 2 % Do n ' t k n o w 6. 4 % 7. 1 % 4. 8 % 9. 0 % 5. 0 % 3. 2 % 11 . 4 % 7. 2 % 20 1 3 To w n of We s t l a k e Re s i d e n t Su r v e y : Ap p e n d i x B - Cr o s s t a b s by Ag e , An n u a l Ho u s e h o l d Income and Gender ET C In s t i t u t e (2 0 1 3 ) B - 63 Q5 . R e a s o n s f o r M o v i n g t o W e s t l a k e : U s i n g a s c a l e o f 1 t o 5 , w h e r e 5 m e a n s " E x t r e m e l y I m p o r t a n t " a n d 1 m e a n s " N o t I m p o r t a n t , " p l e a s e ci r c l e h o w i m p o r t a n t t h e f o l l o w i n g i s s u e s w e r e i n y o u r d e c i s i o n t o m o v e t o t h e T o w n o f W e s t l a k e . N= 2 5 0 Q1 4 W h a t i s y o u r ag e Q1 7 T o t a l a n n u a l i n c o m e Q1 8 G e n d e r To t a l Ag e s 18 - 5 4 Ag e s 5 5 + Un d e r $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 - $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ov e r $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ma l e Fe m a l e Q5 j A c c e s s t o D F W a i r p o r t Ex t r e m e l y i m p o r t a n t 25 . 5 % 29 . 3 % 26 . 2 % 26 . 9 % 28 . 0 % 19 . 8 % 35 . 0 % 27 . 6 % Ve r y i m p o r t a n t 24 . 1 % 32 . 3 % 31 . 0 % 34 . 6 % 23 . 0 % 31 . 7 % 22 . 8 % 27 . 2 % Im p o r t a n t 34 . 8 % 16 . 2 % 21 . 4 % 23 . 1 % 29 . 0 % 27 . 8 % 26 . 0 % 26 . 8 % Le s s i m p o r t a n t 8. 5 % 15 . 2 % 14 . 3 % 10 . 3 % 12 . 0 % 14 . 3 % 7. 3 % 10 . 8 % No t i m p o r t a n t 5. 7 % 4. 0 % 4. 8 % 3. 8 % 5. 0 % 5. 6 % 4. 1 % 4. 8 % Do n ' t k n o w 1. 4 % 3. 0 % 2. 4 % 1. 3 % 3. 0 % 0. 8 % 4. 9 % 2. 8 % 20 1 3 To w n of We s t l a k e Re s i d e n t Su r v e y : Ap p e n d i x B - Cr o s s t a b s by Ag e , An n u a l Ho u s e h o l d Income and Gender ET C In s t i t u t e (2 0 1 3 ) B - 64 Q5 . R e a s o n s f o r M o v i n g t o W e s t l a k e : U s i n g a s c a l e o f 1 t o 5 , w h e r e 5 m e a n s " E x t r e m e l y I m p o r t a n t " a n d 1 m e a n s " N o t I m p o r t a n t , " p l e a s e ci r c l e h o w i m p o r t a n t t h e f o l l o w i n g i s s u e s w e r e i n y o u r d e c i s i o n t o m o v e t o t h e T o w n o f W e s t l a k e . N= 2 5 0 Q1 4 W h a t i s y o u r ag e Q1 7 T o t a l a n n u a l i n c o m e Q1 8 G e n d e r To t a l Ag e s 18 - 5 4 Ag e s 5 5 + Un d e r $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 - $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ov e r $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ma l e Fe m a l e Q5 k A c c e s s m a j o r h i g h w a y s Ex t r e m e l y i m p o r t a n t 24 . 1 % 25 . 3 % 21 . 4 % 24 . 4 % 28 . 0 % 19 . 0 % 29 . 3 % 24 . 4 % Ve r y i m p o r t a n t 39 . 7 % 36 . 4 % 38 . 1 % 37 . 2 % 39 . 0 % 41 . 3 % 34 . 1 % 37 . 6 % Im p o r t a n t 24 . 1 % 25 . 3 % 28 . 6 % 28 . 2 % 20 . 0 % 25 . 4 % 23 . 6 % 24 . 4 % Le s s i m p o r t a n t 9. 2 % 6. 1 % 7. 1 % 7. 7 % 9. 0 % 11 . 1 % 5. 7 % 8. 4 % No t i m p o r t a n t 2. 8 % 4. 0 % 4. 8 % 2. 6 % 3. 0 % 2. 4 % 4. 1 % 3. 2 % Do n ' t k n o w 0. 0 % 3. 0 % 0. 0 % 0. 0 % 1. 0 % 0. 8 % 3. 3 % 2. 0 % 20 1 3 To w n of We s t l a k e Re s i d e n t Su r v e y : Ap p e n d i x B - Cr o s s t a b s by Ag e , An n u a l Ho u s e h o l d Income and Gender ET C In s t i t u t e (2 0 1 3 ) B - 65 Q5 . R e a s o n s f o r M o v i n g t o W e s t l a k e : U s i n g a s c a l e o f 1 t o 5 , w h e r e 5 m e a n s " E x t r e m e l y I m p o r t a n t " a n d 1 m e a n s " N o t I m p o r t a n t , " p l e a s e ci r c l e h o w i m p o r t a n t t h e f o l l o w i n g i s s u e s w e r e i n y o u r d e c i s i o n t o m o v e t o t h e T o w n o f W e s t l a k e . N= 2 5 0 Q1 4 W h a t i s y o u r ag e Q1 7 T o t a l a n n u a l i n c o m e Q1 8 G e n d e r To t a l Ag e s 18 - 5 4 Ag e s 5 5 + Un d e r $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 - $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ov e r $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ma l e Fe m a l e Q5 l T y p e o f h o u s i n g a v a i l a b i l i t y Ex t r e m e l y i m p o r t a n t 51 . 1 % 51 . 5 % 40 . 5 % 56 . 4 % 57 . 0 % 53 . 2 % 49 . 6 % 51 . 6 % Ve r y i m p o r t a n t 23 . 4 % 25 . 3 % 21 . 4 % 26 . 9 % 23 . 0 % 25 . 4 % 22 . 0 % 23 . 6 % Im p o r t a n t 14 . 9 % 15 . 2 % 21 . 4 % 9. 0 % 13 . 0 % 9. 5 % 20 . 3 % 14 . 8 % Le s s i m p o r t a n t 6. 4 % 3. 0 % 11 . 9 % 5. 1 % 3. 0 % 6. 3 % 3. 3 % 4. 8 % No t i m p o r t a n t 3. 5 % 3. 0 % 4. 8 % 2. 6 % 3. 0 % 4. 8 % 1. 6 % 3. 2 % Do n ' t k n o w 0. 7 % 2. 0 % 0. 0 % 0. 0 % 1. 0 % 0. 8 % 3. 3 % 2. 0 % 20 1 3 To w n of We s t l a k e Re s i d e n t Su r v e y : Ap p e n d i x B - Cr o s s t a b s by Ag e , An n u a l Ho u s e h o l d Income and Gender ET C In s t i t u t e (2 0 1 3 ) B - 66 Q5 . R e a s o n s f o r M o v i n g t o W e s t l a k e : U s i n g a s c a l e o f 1 t o 5 , w h e r e 5 m e a n s " E x t r e m e l y I m p o r t a n t " a n d 1 m e a n s " N o t I m p o r t a n t , " p l e a s e ci r c l e h o w i m p o r t a n t t h e f o l l o w i n g i s s u e s w e r e i n y o u r d e c i s i o n t o m o v e t o t h e T o w n o f W e s t l a k e . N= 2 5 0 Q1 4 W h a t i s y o u r ag e Q1 7 T o t a l a n n u a l i n c o m e Q1 8 G e n d e r To t a l Ag e s 18 - 5 4 Ag e s 5 5 + Un d e r $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 - $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ov e r $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ma l e Fe m a l e Q5 m Q u a l i t y o f y o u r s u b d i v i s i o n Ex t r e m e l y i m p o r t a n t 68 . 8 % 70 . 7 % 52 . 4 % 69 . 2 % 80 . 0 % 69 . 8 % 69 . 1 % 69 . 6 % Ve r y i m p o r t a n t 19 . 9 % 17 . 2 % 28 . 6 % 21 . 8 % 10 . 0 % 19 . 8 % 17 . 1 % 18 . 4 % Im p o r t a n t 4. 3 % 7. 1 % 9. 5 % 1. 3 % 6. 0 % 6. 3 % 4. 1 % 5. 2 % Le s s i m p o r t a n t 2. 8 % 0. 0 % 2. 4 % 2. 6 % 1. 0 % 2. 4 % 0. 8 % 1. 6 % No t i m p o r t a n t 2. 1 % 2. 0 % 7. 1 % 2. 6 % 0. 0 % 0. 0 % 4. 1 % 2. 0 % Do n ' t k n o w 2. 1 % 3. 0 % 0. 0 % 2. 6 % 3. 0 % 1. 6 % 4. 9 % 3. 2 % 20 1 3 To w n of We s t l a k e Re s i d e n t Su r v e y : Ap p e n d i x B - Cr o s s t a b s by Ag e , An n u a l Ho u s e h o l d Income and Gender ET C In s t i t u t e (2 0 1 3 ) B - 67 Q5 . R e a s o n s f o r M o v i n g t o W e s t l a k e : U s i n g a s c a l e o f 1 t o 5 , w h e r e 5 m e a n s " E x t r e m e l y I m p o r t a n t " a n d 1 m e a n s " N o t I m p o r t a n t , " p l e a s e ci r c l e h o w i m p o r t a n t t h e f o l l o w i n g i s s u e s w e r e i n y o u r d e c i s i o n t o m o v e t o t h e T o w n o f W e s t l a k e . N= 2 5 0 Q1 4 W h a t i s y o u r ag e Q1 7 T o t a l a n n u a l i n c o m e Q1 8 G e n d e r To t a l Ag e s 18 - 5 4 Ag e s 5 5 + Un d e r $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 - $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ov e r $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ma l e Fe m a l e Q5 n W e s t l a k e a s a r e t i r e m e n t d e s t i n a t i o n Ex t r e m e l y i m p o r t a n t 14 . 9 % 37 . 4 % 21 . 4 % 20 . 5 % 28 . 0 % 21 . 4 % 26 . 0 % 24 . 0 % Ve r y i m p o r t a n t 12 . 1 % 12 . 1 % 23 . 8 % 11 . 5 % 6. 0 % 10 . 3 % 14 . 6 % 12 . 4 % Im p o r t a n t 24 . 1 % 19 . 2 % 26 . 2 % 25 . 6 % 15 . 0 % 22 . 2 % 20 . 3 % 21 . 2 % Le s s i m p o r t a n t 17 . 7 % 11 . 1 % 11 . 9 % 14 . 1 % 15 . 0 % 15 . 9 % 14 . 6 % 15 . 2 % No t i m p o r t a n t 28 . 4 % 14 . 1 % 14 . 3 % 24 . 4 % 30 . 0 % 27 . 8 % 17 . 1 % 22 . 4 % Do n ' t k n o w 2. 8 % 6. 1 % 2. 4 % 3. 8 % 6. 0 % 2. 4 % 7. 3 % 4. 8 % 20 1 3 To w n of We s t l a k e Re s i d e n t Su r v e y : Ap p e n d i x B - Cr o s s t a b s by Ag e , An n u a l Ho u s e h o l d Income and Gender ET C In s t i t u t e (2 0 1 3 ) B - 68 Q5 . R e a s o n s f o r M o v i n g t o W e s t l a k e : U s i n g a s c a l e o f 1 t o 5 , w h e r e 5 m e a n s " E x t r e m e l y I m p o r t a n t " a n d 1 m e a n s " N o t I m p o r t a n t , " p l e a s e ci r c l e h o w i m p o r t a n t t h e f o l l o w i n g i s s u e s w e r e i n y o u r d e c i s i o n t o m o v e t o t h e T o w n o f W e s t l a k e . N= 2 5 0 Q1 4 W h a t i s y o u r ag e Q1 7 T o t a l a n n u a l i n c o m e Q1 8 G e n d e r To t a l Ag e s 18 - 5 4 Ag e s 5 5 + Un d e r $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 - $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ov e r $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ma l e Fe m a l e Q5 o N u m b e r o f p u b l i c l y a c c e s s i b l e p a r k s a n d t r a i l s Ex t r e m e l y i m p o r t a n t 14 . 9 % 18 . 2 % 23 . 8 % 17 . 9 % 14 . 0 % 15 . 9 % 17 . 1 % 16 . 8 % Ve r y i m p o r t a n t 14 . 2 % 9. 1 % 9. 5 % 19 . 2 % 8. 0 % 12 . 7 % 11 . 4 % 12 . 0 % Im p o r t a n t 41 . 8 % 34 . 3 % 31 . 0 % 42 . 3 % 41 . 0 % 43 . 7 % 33 . 3 % 38 . 4 % Le s s i m p o r t a n t 16 . 3 % 20 . 2 % 14 . 3 % 16 . 7 % 17 . 0 % 14 . 3 % 20 . 3 % 17 . 2 % No t i m p o r t a n t 10 . 6 % 13 . 1 % 14 . 3 % 3. 8 % 18 . 0 % 11 . 1 % 12 . 2 % 11 . 6 % Do n ' t k n o w 2. 1 % 5. 1 % 7. 1 % 0. 0 % 2. 0 % 2. 4 % 5. 7 % 4. 0 % 20 1 3 To w n of We s t l a k e Re s i d e n t Su r v e y : Ap p e n d i x B - Cr o s s t a b s by Ag e , An n u a l Ho u s e h o l d Income and Gender ET C In s t i t u t e (2 0 1 3 ) B - 69 Q5 . R e a s o n s f o r M o v i n g t o W e s t l a k e : U s i n g a s c a l e o f 1 t o 5 , w h e r e 5 m e a n s " E x t r e m e l y I m p o r t a n t " a n d 1 m e a n s " N o t I m p o r t a n t , " p l e a s e ci r c l e h o w i m p o r t a n t t h e f o l l o w i n g i s s u e s w e r e i n y o u r d e c i s i o n t o m o v e t o t h e T o w n o f W e s t l a k e . N= 2 5 0 Q1 4 W h a t i s y o u r ag e Q1 7 T o t a l a n n u a l i n c o m e Q1 8 G e n d e r To t a l Ag e s 18 - 5 4 Ag e s 5 5 + Un d e r $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 - $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ov e r $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ma l e Fe m a l e Q5 p S u b d i v i s i o n a m e n i t i e s ( a i r p a r k , g o l f c l u b , p a r k s a n d e t c . ) Ex t r e m e l y i m p o r t a n t 31 . 9 % 43 . 4 % 38 . 1 % 35 . 9 % 36 . 0 % 31 . 7 % 41 . 5 % 36 . 8 % Ve r y i m p o r t a n t 19 . 1 % 16 . 2 % 16 . 7 % 19 . 2 % 21 . 0 % 16 . 7 % 18 . 7 % 17 . 6 % Im p o r t a n t 25 . 5 % 19 . 2 % 19 . 0 % 29 . 5 % 20 . 0 % 26 . 2 % 19 . 5 % 22 . 8 % Le s s i m p o r t a n t 9. 2 % 8. 1 % 9. 5 % 10 . 3 % 6. 0 % 9. 5 % 7. 3 % 8. 4 % No t i m p o r t a n t 12 . 1 % 8. 1 % 9. 5 % 3. 8 % 14 . 0 % 12 . 7 % 8. 1 % 10 . 4 % Do n ' t k n o w 2. 1 % 5. 1 % 7. 1 % 1. 3 % 3. 0 % 3. 2 % 4. 9 % 4. 0 % 20 1 3 To w n of We s t l a k e Re s i d e n t Su r v e y : Ap p e n d i x B - Cr o s s t a b s by Ag e , An n u a l Ho u s e h o l d Income and Gender ET C In s t i t u t e (2 0 1 3 ) B - 70 Q6 . W h i c h T H R E E o f t h e r e a s o n s l i s t e d a b o v e a r e t h e m o s t i m p o r t a n t r e a s o n s w h y y o u w i l l s t a y i n W e s t l a k e f o r t h e n e x t 5 y e a r s ? ( S u m o f To p T h r e e C h o i c e s ) N= 2 5 0 Q1 4 W h a t i s y o u r ag e Q1 7 T o t a l a n n u a l i n c o m e Q1 8 G e n d e r To t a l Ag e s 18 - 5 4 Ag e s 5 5 + Un d e r $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 - $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ov e r $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ma l e Fe m a l e Q6 S u m o f T o p T h r e e C h o i c e s Se n s e o f c o m m u n i t y 14 . 2 % 8. 1 % 11 . 9 % 14 . 1 % 10 . 0 % 10 . 3 % 13 . 8 % 12 . 0 % Qu a l i t y o f l i f e 49 . 6 % 62 . 6 % 64 . 3 % 52 . 6 % 57 . 0 % 55 . 6 % 52 . 8 % 54 . 0 % Sm a l l t o w n f e e l 41 . 1 % 24 . 2 % 47 . 6 % 30 . 8 % 29 . 0 % 36 . 5 % 32 . 5 % 34 . 8 % Ae s t h e t i c a p p e a l / h i g h de v e l o p m e n t s t a n d a r d s 39 . 7 % 35 . 4 % 21 . 4 % 42 . 3 % 46 . 0 % 44 . 4 % 30 . 9 % 37 . 6 % We s t l a k e A c a d e m y 48 . 2 % 23 . 2 % 11 . 9 % 53 . 8 % 36 . 0 % 38 . 1 % 35 . 8 % 37 . 2 % Ac c e s s t o o t h e r p u b l i c sc h o o l s 5. 7 % 5. 1 % 4. 8 % 5. 1 % 6. 0 % 4. 0 % 6. 5 % 5. 2 % Pr o x i m i t y t o p r i v a t e s c h o o l s 1. 4 % 1. 0 % 2. 4 % 2. 6 % 0. 0 % 0. 0 % 2. 4 % 1. 2 % Lo w c r i m e r a t e s / q u a l i t y o f pu b l i c s a f e t y 28 . 4 % 21 . 2 % 40 . 5 % 26 . 9 % 20 . 0 % 23 . 8 % 26 . 8 % 25 . 6 % Em p l o y m e n t o p p o r t u n i t i e s i n th e W e s t l a k e a r e a 0. 7 % 0. 0 % 2. 4 % 0. 0 % 0. 0 % 0. 8 % 0. 0 % 0. 4 % Ac c e s s t o D F W a i r p o r t 13 . 5 % 15 . 2 % 11 . 9 % 10 . 3 % 14 . 0 % 13 . 5 % 14 . 6 % 14 . 0 % 20 1 3 To w n of We s t l a k e Re s i d e n t Su r v e y : Ap p e n d i x B - Cr o s s t a b s by Ag e , An n u a l Ho u s e h o l d Income and Gender ET C In s t i t u t e (2 0 1 3 ) B - 71 Q6 . W h i c h T H R E E o f t h e r e a s o n s l i s t e d a b o v e a r e t h e m o s t i m p o r t a n t r e a s o n s w h y y o u w i l l s t a y i n W e s t l a k e f o r t h e n e x t 5 y e a r s ? ( S u m o f To p T h r e e C h o i c e s ) N= 2 5 0 Q1 4 W h a t i s y o u r ag e Q1 7 T o t a l a n n u a l i n c o m e Q1 8 G e n d e r To t a l Ag e s 18 - 5 4 Ag e s 5 5 + Un d e r $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 - $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ov e r $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ma l e Fe m a l e Q6 Su m o f T o p T h r e e C h o i c e s (C o n t . ) Ac c e s s t o m a j o r h i g h w a y s 2. 8 % 4. 0 % 4. 8 % 1. 3 % 5. 0 % 3. 2 % 3. 3 % 3. 2 % Ty p e o f h o u s i n g a v a i l a b l e 8. 5 % 14 . 1 % 4. 8 % 11 . 5 % 13 . 0 % 11 . 1 % 9. 8 % 10 . 4 % Qu a l i t y o f y o u r s u b d i v i s i o n 22 . 0 % 31 . 3 % 26 . 2 % 20 . 5 % 30 . 0 % 21 . 4 % 29 . 3 % 25 . 2 % We s t l a k e a s a r e t i r e m e n t de s t i n a t i o n 2. 1 % 10 . 1 % 11 . 9 % 3. 8 % 3. 0 % 4. 0 % 6. 5 % 5. 2 % Nu m b e r o f p u b l i c l y a c c e s s i b l e pa r k s / t r a i l s 2. 8 % 2. 0 % 0. 0 % 3. 8 % 4. 0 % 3. 2 % 2. 4 % 2. 8 % Su b d i v i s i o n a m e n i t i e s 9. 2 % 20 . 2 % 16 . 7 % 9. 0 % 16 . 0 % 16 . 7 % 10 . 6 % 13 . 6 % No n e c h o s e n 2. 1 % 5. 1 % 2. 4 % 1. 3 % 3. 0 % 2. 4 % 5. 7 % 4. 0 % 20 1 3 To w n of We s t l a k e Re s i d e n t Su r v e y : Ap p e n d i x B - Cr o s s t a b s by Ag e , An n u a l Ho u s e h o l d Income and Gender ET C In s t i t u t e (2 0 1 3 ) B - 72 Q7 . I s s u e s o f I n t e r e s t : U s i n g a s c a l e o f 1 t o 5 , w h e r e 5 m e a n s " V e r y B e n e f i c i a l " a n d 1 m e a n s " N o t B e n e f i c i a l a t A l l , " p l e a s e r a t e h o w be n e f i c i a l y o u t h i n k t h e f o l l o w i n g h a v e b e e n t o t h e T o w n o f W e s t l a k e : ( W i t h o u t D o n ' t K n o w ) N= 2 5 0 Q1 4 W h a t i s y o u r ag e Q1 7 T o t a l a n n u a l i n c o m e Q1 8 G e n d e r To t a l Ag e s 18 - 5 4 Ag e s 5 5 + Un d e r $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 - $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ov e r $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ma l e Fe m a l e Q7 a I m p r o v e m e n t s t o F M 1 9 3 8 / D a v i s B l v d . Ve r y b e n e f i c i a l 52 . 9 % 51 . 5 % 59 . 5 % 61 . 0 % 44 . 9 % 48 . 4 % 55 . 8 % 52 . 2 % So m e w h a t b e n e f i c i a l 17 . 9 % 19 . 6 % 16 . 7 % 13 . 0 % 24 . 5 % 20 . 2 % 16 . 7 % 18 . 4 % Ne u t r a l 14 . 3 % 21 . 6 % 19 . 0 % 15 . 6 % 16 . 3 % 14 . 5 % 20 . 0 % 17 . 1 % No t v e r y b e n e f i c i a l 9. 3 % 4. 1 % 2. 4 % 7. 8 % 7. 1 % 8. 9 % 5. 8 % 7. 3 % No t a t a l l b e n e f i c i a l 5. 7 % 3. 1 % 2. 4 % 2. 6 % 7. 1 % 8. 1 % 1. 7 % 4. 9 % 20 1 3 To w n of We s t l a k e Re s i d e n t Su r v e y : Ap p e n d i x B - Cr o s s t a b s by Ag e , An n u a l Ho u s e h o l d Income and Gender ET C In s t i t u t e (2 0 1 3 ) B - 73 Q7 . I s s u e s o f I n t e r e s t : U s i n g a s c a l e o f 1 t o 5 , w h e r e 5 m e a n s " V e r y B e n e f i c i a l " a n d 1 m e a n s " N o t B e n e f i c i a l a t A l l , " p l e a s e r a t e h o w be n e f i c i a l y o u t h i n k t h e f o l l o w i n g h a v e b e e n t o t h e T o w n o f W e s t l a k e : ( W i t h o u t D o n ' t K n o w ) N= 2 5 0 Q1 4 W h a t i s y o u r ag e Q1 7 T o t a l a n n u a l i n c o m e Q1 8 G e n d e r To t a l Ag e s 18 - 5 4 Ag e s 5 5 + Un d e r $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 - $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ov e r $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ma l e Fe m a l e Q7 b I m p r o v e m e n t s t o D o v e R d . / J . T . O t t i n g e r R d . Ve r y b e n e f i c i a l 47 . 4 % 42 . 9 % 42 . 9 % 52 . 0 % 44 . 9 % 41 . 0 % 50 . 4 % 45 . 9 % So m e w h a t b e n e f i c i a l 27 . 0 % 31 . 6 % 38 . 1 % 26 . 7 % 26 . 5 % 26 . 2 % 31 . 1 % 28 . 5 % Ne u t r a l 14 . 6 % 15 . 3 % 4. 8 % 10 . 7 % 18 . 4 % 17 . 2 % 11 . 8 % 14 . 5 % No t v e r y b e n e f i c i a l 4. 4 % 6. 1 % 11 . 9 % 4. 0 % 4. 1 % 8. 2 % 2. 5 % 5. 4 % No t a t a l l b e n e f i c i a l 6. 6 % 4. 1 % 2. 4 % 6. 7 % 6. 1 % 7. 4 % 4. 2 % 5. 8 % 20 1 3 To w n of We s t l a k e Re s i d e n t Su r v e y : Ap p e n d i x B - Cr o s s t a b s by Ag e , An n u a l Ho u s e h o l d Income and Gender ET C In s t i t u t e (2 0 1 3 ) B - 74 Q7 . I s s u e s o f I n t e r e s t : U s i n g a s c a l e o f 1 t o 5 , w h e r e 5 m e a n s " V e r y B e n e f i c i a l " a n d 1 m e a n s " N o t B e n e f i c i a l a t A l l , " p l e a s e r a t e h o w be n e f i c i a l y o u t h i n k t h e f o l l o w i n g h a v e b e e n t o t h e T o w n o f W e s t l a k e : ( W i t h o u t D o n ' t K n o w ) N= 2 5 0 Q1 4 W h a t i s y o u r ag e Q1 7 T o t a l a n n u a l i n c o m e Q1 8 G e n d e r To t a l Ag e s 18 - 5 4 Ag e s 5 5 + Un d e r $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 - $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ov e r $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ma l e Fe m a l e Q7 c I n t e r s e c t i o n r e c o n f i g u r a t i o n s a t D o v e R d / J . T . O t t i n g e r R d . Ve r y b e n e f i c i a l 42 . 6 % 37 . 5 % 40 . 5 % 53 . 3 % 35 . 8 % 30 . 0 % 52 . 5 % 41 . 4 % So m e w h a t b e n e f i c i a l 26 . 5 % 30 . 2 % 28 . 6 % 22 . 7 % 30 . 5 % 31 . 7 % 23 . 7 % 27 . 6 % Ne u t r a l 16 . 9 % 18 . 8 % 11 . 9 % 14 . 7 % 21 . 1 % 20 . 0 % 14 . 4 % 17 . 2 % No t v e r y b e n e f i c i a l 7. 4 % 5. 2 % 7. 1 % 5. 3 % 7. 4 % 8. 3 % 4. 2 % 6. 3 % No t a t a l l b e n e f i c i a l 6. 6 % 8. 3 % 11 . 9 % 4. 0 % 5. 3 % 10 . 0 % 5. 1 % 7. 5 % 20 1 3 To w n of We s t l a k e Re s i d e n t Su r v e y : Ap p e n d i x B - Cr o s s t a b s by Ag e , An n u a l Ho u s e h o l d Income and Gender ET C In s t i t u t e (2 0 1 3 ) B - 75 Q7 . I s s u e s o f I n t e r e s t : U s i n g a s c a l e o f 1 t o 5 , w h e r e 5 m e a n s " V e r y B e n e f i c i a l " a n d 1 m e a n s " N o t B e n e f i c i a l a t A l l , " p l e a s e r a t e h o w be n e f i c i a l y o u t h i n k t h e f o l l o w i n g h a v e b e e n t o t h e T o w n o f W e s t l a k e : ( W i t h o u t D o n ' t K n o w ) N= 2 5 0 Q1 4 W h a t i s y o u r ag e Q1 7 T o t a l a n n u a l i n c o m e Q1 8 G e n d e r To t a l Ag e s 18 - 5 4 Ag e s 5 5 + Un d e r $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 - $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ov e r $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ma l e Fe m a l e Q7 d I n t e r s e c t i o n r e c o n f i g u r a t i o n s a t D o v e R d . / P e a r s o n L n . Ve r y b e n e f i c i a l 36 . 5 % 35 . 8 % 40 . 5 % 45 . 2 % 34 . 0 % 26 . 8 % 47 . 4 % 37 . 1 % So m e w h a t b e n e f i c i a l 33 . 6 % 27 . 4 % 31 . 0 % 28 . 8 % 30 . 9 % 34 . 1 % 26 . 7 % 30 . 4 % Ne u t r a l 23 . 4 % 30 . 5 % 19 . 0 % 21 . 9 % 29 . 9 % 30 . 1 % 21 . 6 % 25 . 8 % No t v e r y b e n e f i c i a l 2. 9 % 3. 2 % 2. 4 % 4. 1 % 2. 1 % 5. 7 % 0. 0 % 2. 9 % No t a t a l l b e n e f i c i a l 3. 6 % 3. 2 % 7. 1 % 0. 0 % 3. 1 % 3. 3 % 4. 3 % 3. 8 % 20 1 3 To w n of We s t l a k e Re s i d e n t Su r v e y : Ap p e n d i x B - Cr o s s t a b s by Ag e , An n u a l Ho u s e h o l d Income and Gender ET C In s t i t u t e (2 0 1 3 ) B - 76 Q8 . U s i n g a s c a l e o f 1 t o 5 , w h e r e 5 m e a n s " V e r y S a t i s f i e d " a n d 1 m e a n s " V e r y D i s s a t i s f i e d , " p l e a s e c i r c l e y o u r l e v e l o f s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h e a c h of t h e f o l l o w i n g . ( W i t h o u t D o n ' t K n o w ) N= 2 5 0 Q1 4 W h a t i s y o u r ag e Q1 7 T o t a l a n n u a l i n c o m e Q1 8 G e n d e r To t a l Ag e s 18 - 5 4 Ag e s 5 5 + Un d e r $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 - $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ov e r $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ma l e Fe m a l e Q8 a P o l i c e r e s p o n s e t o b u r g l a r i e s i n W e s t l a k e Ve r y s a t i s f i e d 31 . 9 % 44 . 7 % 50 . 0 % 37 . 5 % 31 . 8 % 33 . 0 % 41 . 3 % 37 . 0 % Sa t i s f i e d 46 . 2 % 42 . 4 % 36 . 1 % 43 . 8 % 47 . 7 % 47 . 2 % 41 . 3 % 44 . 1 % Ne u t r a l 10 . 9 % 8. 2 % 8. 3 % 10 . 9 % 9. 1 % 11 . 3 % 8. 7 % 10 . 0 % Di s s a t i s f i e d 8. 4 % 4. 7 % 5. 6 % 6. 3 % 10 . 2 % 8. 5 % 5. 8 % 7. 6 % Ve r y d i s s a t i s f i e d 2. 5 % 0. 0 % 0. 0 % 1. 6 % 1. 1 % 0. 0 % 2. 9 % 1. 4 % 20 1 3 To w n of We s t l a k e Re s i d e n t Su r v e y : Ap p e n d i x B - Cr o s s t a b s by Ag e , An n u a l Ho u s e h o l d Income and Gender ET C In s t i t u t e (2 0 1 3 ) B - 77 Q8 . U s i n g a s c a l e o f 1 t o 5 , w h e r e 5 m e a n s " V e r y S a t i s f i e d " a n d 1 m e a n s " V e r y D i s s a t i s f i e d , " p l e a s e c i r c l e y o u r l e v e l o f s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h e a c h of t h e f o l l o w i n g . ( W i t h o u t D o n ' t K n o w ) N= 2 5 0 Q1 4 W h a t i s y o u r ag e Q1 7 T o t a l a n n u a l i n c o m e Q1 8 G e n d e r To t a l Ag e s 18 - 5 4 Ag e s 5 5 + Un d e r $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 - $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ov e r $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ma l e Fe m a l e Q8 b C o m m u n i c a t i o n p r o v i d e d t o r e s i d e n t s a b o u t t h e b u r g l a r i e s Ve r y s a t i s f i e d 49 . 6 % 49 . 5 % 61 . 0 % 45 . 8 % 43 . 9 % 40 . 7 % 57 . 0 % 48 . 3 % Sa t i s f i e d 32 . 3 % 38 . 1 % 29 . 3 % 34 . 7 % 36 . 7 % 40 . 7 % 29 . 8 % 35 . 3 % Ne u t r a l 6. 8 % 6. 2 % 4. 9 % 6. 9 % 8. 2 % 8. 9 % 4. 4 % 6. 7 % Di s s a t i s f i e d 2. 3 % 4. 1 % 0. 0 % 5. 6 % 4. 1 % 3. 3 % 3. 5 % 3. 8 % Ve r y d i s s a t i s f i e d 9. 0 % 2. 1 % 4. 9 % 6. 9 % 7. 1 % 6. 5 % 5. 3 % 5. 9 % 20 1 3 To w n of We s t l a k e Re s i d e n t Su r v e y : Ap p e n d i x B - Cr o s s t a b s by Ag e , An n u a l Ho u s e h o l d Income and Gender ET C In s t i t u t e (2 0 1 3 ) B - 78 Q8 . U s i n g a s c a l e o f 1 t o 5 , w h e r e 5 m e a n s " V e r y S a t i s f i e d " a n d 1 m e a n s " V e r y D i s s a t i s f i e d , " p l e a s e c i r c l e y o u r l e v e l o f s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h e a c h of t h e f o l l o w i n g . ( W i t h o u t D o n ' t K n o w ) N= 2 5 0 Q1 4 W h a t i s y o u r ag e Q1 7 T o t a l a n n u a l i n c o m e Q1 8 G e n d e r To t a l Ag e s 18 - 5 4 Ag e s 5 5 + Un d e r $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 - $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ov e r $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ma l e Fe m a l e Q8 c E f f o r t s b y t h e T o w n t o i m p l e m e n t s a f e t y m e a s u r e s r e s u l t i n g f r o m t h e b u r g l a r y i n c i d e n t s Ve r y s a t i s f i e d 37 . 7 % 43 . 5 % 46 . 2 % 39 . 4 % 36 . 8 % 37 . 4 % 42 . 1 % 39 . 6 % Sa t i s f i e d 38 . 5 % 35 . 9 % 38 . 5 % 33 . 8 % 38 . 9 % 36 . 5 % 37 . 7 % 37 . 4 % Ne u t r a l 15 . 4 % 17 . 4 % 12 . 8 % 19 . 7 % 15 . 8 % 20 . 0 % 13 . 2 % 16 . 5 % Di s s a t i s f i e d 4. 6 % 2. 2 % 2. 6 % 1. 4 % 6. 3 % 3. 5 % 4. 4 % 3. 9 % Ve r y d i s s a t i s f i e d 3. 8 % 1. 1 % 0. 0 % 5. 6 % 2. 1 % 2. 6 % 2. 6 % 2. 6 % 20 1 3 To w n of We s t l a k e Re s i d e n t Su r v e y : Ap p e n d i x B - Cr o s s t a b s by Ag e , An n u a l Ho u s e h o l d Income and Gender ET C In s t i t u t e (2 0 1 3 ) B - 79 Q9 . O v e r a l l , h o w f a m i l i a r a r e y o u w i t h t h e f o l l o w i n g i n f o r m a t i o n : N= 2 5 0 Q1 4 W h a t i s y o u r ag e Q1 7 T o t a l a n n u a l i n c o m e Q1 8 G e n d e r To t a l Ag e s 18 - 5 4 Ag e s 5 5 + Un d e r $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 - $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ov e r $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ma l e Fe m a l e Q9 a T o w n s C o m p r e h e n s i v e P l a n Ve r y f a m i l i a r 12 . 1 % 15 . 2 % 14 . 3 % 14 . 1 % 13 . 0 % 17 . 5 % 9. 8 % 13 . 6 % So m ewh a t f a m i l i a r 56 . 0 % 50 . 5 % 57 . 1 % 52 . 6 % 51 . 0 % 51 . 6 % 53 . 7 % 52 . 8 % No t f a m i l i a r 31 . 9 % 34 . 3 % 28 . 6 % 33 . 3 % 36 . 0 % 31 . 0 % 36 . 6 % 33 . 6 % Q9 . O v e r a l l , h o w f a m i l i a r a r e y o u w i t h t h e f o l l o w i n g i n f o r m a t i o n : N= 2 5 0 Q1 4 W h a t i s y o u r ag e Q1 7 T o t a l a n n u a l i n c o m e Q1 8 G e n d e r To t a l Ag e s 18 - 5 4 Ag e s 5 5 + Un d e r $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 - $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ov e r $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ma l e Fe m a l e Q9 b T o w n s S t r a t e g i c P l a n Ve r y f a m i l i a r 14 . 9 % 14 . 1 % 19 . 0 % 12 . 8 % 13 . 0 % 17 . 5 % 11 . 4 % 14 . 4 % So m ewh a t f a m i l i a r 53 . 2 % 49 . 5 % 50 . 0 % 52 . 6 % 55 . 0 % 52 . 4 % 48 . 0 % 50 . 4 % No t f a m i l i a r 31 . 9 % 36 . 4 % 31 . 0 % 34 . 6 % 32 . 0 % 30 . 2 % 40 . 7 % 35 . 2 % 20 1 3 To w n of We s t l a k e Re s i d e n t Su r v e y : Ap p e n d i x B - Cr o s s t a b s by Ag e , An n u a l Ho u s e h o l d Income and Gender ET C In s t i t u t e (2 0 1 3 ) B - 80 Q9 . O v e r a l l , h o w f a m i l i a r a r e y o u w i t h t h e f o l l o w i n g i n f o r m a t i o n : N= 2 5 0 Q1 4 W h a t i s y o u r ag e Q1 7 T o t a l a n n u a l i n c o m e Q1 8 G e n d e r To t a l Ag e s 18 - 5 4 Ag e s 5 5 + Un d e r $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 - $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ov e r $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ma l e Fe m a l e Q9 c T o w n s l i g h t i n g s t a n d a r d s Ve r y f a m i l i a r 17 . 0 % 21 . 2 % 19 . 0 % 15 . 4 % 21 . 0 % 20 . 6 % 17 . 1 % 18 . 8 % So m ewh a t f a m i l i a r 45 . 4 % 40 . 4 % 35 . 7 % 41 . 0 % 47 . 0 % 39 . 7 % 45 . 5 % 42 . 8 % No t f a m i l i a r 37 . 6 % 38 . 4 % 45 . 2 % 43 . 6 % 32 . 0 % 39 . 7 % 37 . 4 % 38 . 4 % Q9 . O v e r a l l , h o w f a m i l i a r a r e y o u w i t h t h e f o l l o w i n g i n f o r m a t i o n : N= 2 5 0 Q1 4 W h a t i s y o u r ag e Q1 7 T o t a l a n n u a l i n c o m e Q1 8 G e n d e r To t a l Ag e s 18 - 5 4 Ag e s 5 5 + Un d e r $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 - $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ov e r $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ma l e Fe m a l e Q9 d T h e T o w n ' s o p e n s p a c e r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r d e v e l o p m e n t Ve r y f a m i l i a r 15 . 6 % 15 . 2 % 19 . 0 % 15 . 4 % 16 . 0 % 19 . 0 % 12 . 2 % 15 . 6 % So m ewh a t f a m i l i a r 55 . 3 % 47 . 5 % 50 . 0 % 47 . 4 % 55 . 0 % 47 . 6 % 54 . 5 % 51 . 2 % No t f a m i l i a r 29 . 1 % 37 . 4 % 31 . 0 % 37 . 2 % 29 . 0 % 33 . 3 % 33 . 3 % 33 . 2 % 20 1 3 To w n of We s t l a k e Re s i d e n t Su r v e y : Ap p e n d i x B - Cr o s s t a b s by Ag e , An n u a l Ho u s e h o l d Income and Gender ET C In s t i t u t e (2 0 1 3 ) B - 81 Q9 . O v e r a l l , h o w f a m i l i a r a r e y o u w i t h t h e f o l l o w i n g i n f o r m a t i o n : N= 2 5 0 Q1 4 W h a t i s y o u r ag e Q1 7 T o t a l a n n u a l i n c o m e Q1 8 G e n d e r To t a l Ag e s 18 - 5 4 Ag e s 5 5 + Un d e r $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 - $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ov e r $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ma l e Fe m a l e Q9 e Z o n i n g s t a n d a r d s w i t h i n t h e T o w n Ve r y f a m i l i a r 23 . 4 % 20 . 2 % 19 . 0 % 21 . 8 % 25 . 0 % 25 . 4 % 18 . 7 % 22 . 0 % So m ewh a t f a m i l i a r 54 . 6 % 50 . 5 % 57 . 1 % 46 . 2 % 53 . 0 % 50 . 0 % 53 . 7 % 52 . 0 % No t f a m i l i a r 22 . 0 % 29 . 3 % 23 . 8 % 32 . 1 % 22 . 0 % 24 . 6 % 27 . 6 % 26 . 0 % Q9 . O v e r a l l , h o w f a m i l i a r a r e y o u w i t h t h e f o l l o w i n g i n f o r m a t i o n : N= 2 5 0 Q1 4 W h a t i s y o u r ag e Q1 7 T o t a l a n n u a l i n c o m e Q1 8 G e n d e r To t a l Ag e s 18 - 5 4 Ag e s 5 5 + Un d e r $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 - $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ov e r $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ma l e Fe m a l e Q9 f All o w e d u s e s f o r e x i s t i n g p l a n n e d d e v e l o p m e n t d i s t r i c t s w i t h i n t h e T o w n Ve r y f a m i l i a r 17 . 0 % 17 . 2 % 16 . 7 % 16 . 7 % 19 . 0 % 19 . 8 % 14 . 6 % 17 . 2 % So m ewh a t f a m i l i a r 57 . 4 % 48 . 5 % 57 . 1 % 48 . 7 % 56 . 0 % 53 . 2 % 52 . 8 % 53 . 2 % No t f a m i l i a r 25 . 5 % 34 . 3 % 26 . 2 % 34 . 6 % 25 . 0 % 27 . 0 % 32 . 5 % 29 . 6 % 20 1 3 To w n of We s t l a k e Re s i d e n t Su r v e y : Ap p e n d i x B - Cr o s s t a b s by Ag e , An n u a l Ho u s e h o l d Income and Gender ET C In s t i t u t e (2 0 1 3 ) B - 82 Q1 0 . W h e n d i d y o u m o s t r e c e n t l y a t t e n d t h e f o l l o w i n g e v e n t s ? N= 2 5 0 Q 1 4 W h a t i s y o u r ag e Q1 7 T o t a l a n n u a l i n c o m e Q1 8 G e n d e r To t a l Ag e s 18 - 5 4 Ag e s 5 5 + U n d e r $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 - $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ov e r $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ma l e Fe m a l e Q1 0 a _ D e c o r a t i o n _ D a y Th i s Y e a r 1 1 . 3 % 1 1 . 1 % 1 1 . 9 % 1 0 . 3 % 1 2 . 0 % 8 . 7 % 1 3 . 8 % 1 1 . 2 % La s t Y e a r 5 . 0 % 9 . 1 % 1 4 . 3 % 6 . 4 % 1 . 0 % 5 . 6 % 7 . 3 % 6 . 4 % 2 Y e a r s A g o o r M o r e 9 . 9 % 1 3 . 1 % 2 1 . 4 % 6 . 4 % 1 0 . 0 % 1 1 . 1 % 1 0 . 6 % 1 0 . 8 % Ne v e r , B u t I A m A w a r e o f Ev e n t 41 . 8 % 4 0 . 4 % 3 5 . 7 % 4 1 . 0 % 4 5 . 0 % 46 . 8 % 3 4 . 1 % 4 0 . 4 % Ne v e r , I A m N o t A w a r e o f Ev e n t 28 . 4 % 2 4 . 2 % 1 6 . 7 % 3 0 . 8 % 2 9 . 0 % 25 . 4 % 2 9 . 3 % 2 7 . 2 % No t P r o v i d e d 3 . 5 % 2 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 5 . 1 % 3 . 0 % 2 . 4 % 4 . 9 % 4 . 0 % 20 1 3 To w n of We s t l a k e Re s i d e n t Su r v e y : Ap p e n d i x B - Cr o s s t a b s by Ag e , An n u a l Ho u s e h o l d Income and Gender ET C In s t i t u t e (2 0 1 3 ) B - 83 Q1 0 . W h e n d i d y o u m o s t r e c e n t l y a t t e n d t h e f o l l o w i n g e v e n t s ? N= 2 5 0 Q 1 4 W h a t i s y o u r ag e Q1 7 T o t a l a n n u a l i n c o m e Q1 8 G e n d e r To t a l Ag e s 18 - 5 4 Ag e s 5 5 + U n d e r $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 - $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ov e r $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ma l e Fe m a l e Q1 0 b M a s t e r W o r k s c o n c e r t s e r i e s Th i s Y e a r 5 . 7 % 6 . 1 % 1 4 . 3 % 6 . 4 % 1 . 0 % 6 . 3 % 4 . 9 % 5 . 6 % La s t Y e a r 3 . 5 % 1 1 . 1 % 1 1 . 9 % 6 . 4 % 5 . 0 % 4 . 0 % 8 . 9 % 6 . 4 % 2 Y e a r s A g o o r M o r e 7 . 8 % 1 0 . 1 % 1 6 . 7 % 7 . 7 % 6 . 0 % 7 . 9 % 8 . 9 % 8 . 4 % Ne v e r , B u t I A m A w a r e o f Ev e n t 53 . 9 % 5 3 . 5 % 3 8 . 1 % 4 4 . 9 % 6 3 . 0 % 57 . 9 % 4 8 . 0 % 5 2 . 8 % Ne v e r , I A m N o t A w a r e o f Ev e n t 27 . 0 % 1 5 . 2 % 1 4 . 3 % 3 0 . 8 % 2 3 . 0 % 21 . 4 % 2 3 . 6 % 2 2 . 4 % No t P r o v i d e d 2 . 1 % 4 . 0 % 4 . 8 % 3 . 8 % 2 . 0 % 2 . 4 % 5 . 7 % 4 . 4 % 20 1 3 To w n of We s t l a k e Re s i d e n t Su r v e y : Ap p e n d i x B - Cr o s s t a b s by Ag e , An n u a l Ho u s e h o l d Income and Gender ET C In s t i t u t e (2 0 1 3 ) B - 84 Q1 0 . W h e n d i d y o u m o s t r e c e n t l y a t t e n d t h e f o l l o w i n g e v e n t s ? N= 2 5 0 Q 1 4 W h a t i s y o u r ag e Q1 7 T o t a l a n n u a l i n c o m e Q1 8 G e n d e r To t a l Ag e s 18 - 5 4 Ag e s 5 5 + U n d e r $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 - $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ov e r $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ma l e Fe m a l e Q1 0 c A r b o r D a y Th i s Y e a r 1 7 . 0 % 1 0 . 1 % 1 6 . 7 % 1 7 . 9 % 1 2 . 0 % 1 1 . 1 % 1 6 . 3 % 1 3 . 6 % La s t Y e a r 1 5 . 6 % 6 . 1 % 7 . 1 % 1 0 . 3 % 1 4 . 0 % 1 4 . 3 % 8 . 1 % 1 1 . 2 % 2 Y e a r s A g o o r M o r e 1 5 . 6 % 2 1 . 2 % 3 1 . 0 % 1 0 . 3 % 1 4 . 0 % 2 3 . 0 % 1 3 . 0 % 1 8 . 0 % Ne v e r , B u t I A m A w a r e o f Ev e n t 39 . 7 % 4 5 . 5 % 3 8 . 1 % 4 4 . 9 % 4 3 . 0 % 39 . 7 % 4 3 . 1 % 4 1 . 2 % Ne v e r , I A m N o t A w a r e o f Ev e n t 10 . 6 % 1 4 . 1 % 7 . 1 % 1 2 . 8 % 1 5 . 0 % 9. 5 % 1 5 . 4 % 1 2 . 4 % No t P r o v i d e d 1 . 4 % 3 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 3 . 8 % 2 . 0 % 2 . 4 % 4 . 1 % 3 . 6 % 20 1 3 To w n of We s t l a k e Re s i d e n t Su r v e y : Ap p e n d i x B - Cr o s s t a b s by Ag e , An n u a l Ho u s e h o l d Income and Gender ET C In s t i t u t e (2 0 1 3 ) B - 85 Q1 0 . W h e n d i d y o u m o s t r e c e n t l y a t t e n d t h e f o l l o w i n g e v e n t s ? N= 2 5 0 Q 1 4 W h a t i s y o u r ag e Q1 7 T o t a l a n n u a l i n c o m e Q1 8 G e n d e r To t a l Ag e s 18 - 5 4 Ag e s 5 5 + U n d e r $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 - $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ov e r $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ma l e Fe m a l e Q1 0 d C o m m u n i t y T r e e L i g h t i n g Th i s Y e a r 8 . 5 % 4 . 0 % 7 . 1 % 5 . 1 % 8 . 0 % 4 . 8 % 9 . 8 % 7 . 2 % La s t Y e a r 1 6 . 3 % 1 2 . 1 % 2 3 . 8 % 1 7 . 9 % 7 . 0 % 1 5 . 1 % 1 3 . 0 % 1 4 . 0 % 2 Y e a r s A g o o r M o r e 1 2 . 1 % 1 5 . 2 % 2 6 . 2 % 1 1 . 5 % 1 0 . 0 % 1 1 . 1 % 1 4 . 6 % 1 2 . 8 % Ne v e r , B u t I A m A w a r e o f Ev e n t 44 . 0 % 4 8 . 5 % 4 0 . 5 % 3 9 . 7 % 5 3 . 0 % 50 . 0 % 4 0 . 7 % 4 5 . 2 % Ne v e r , I A m N o t A w a r e o f Ev e n t 16 . 3 % 1 8 . 2 % 2 . 4 % 2 3 . 1 % 1 8 . 0 % 15 . 9 % 1 7 . 9 % 1 6 . 8 % No t P r o v i d e d 2 . 8 % 2 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 2 . 6 % 4 . 0 % 3 . 2 % 4 . 1 % 4 . 0 % 20 1 3 To w n of We s t l a k e Re s i d e n t Su r v e y : Ap p e n d i x B - Cr o s s t a b s by Ag e , An n u a l Ho u s e h o l d Income and Gender ET C In s t i t u t e (2 0 1 3 ) B - 86 Q1 0 . W h e n d i d y o u m o s t r e c e n t l y a t t e n d t h e f o l l o w i n g e v e n t s ? N= 2 5 0 Q 1 4 W h a t i s y o u r ag e Q1 7 T o t a l a n n u a l i n c o m e Q1 8 G e n d e r To t a l Ag e s 18 - 5 4 Ag e s 5 5 + U n d e r $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 - $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ov e r $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ma l e Fe m a l e Q1 0 e W e s t l a k e H i s t o r i c a l P r e s e r v a t i o n S o c i e t y ' s C l a s s i c C a r S h o w Th i s Y e a r 7 . 8 % 1 1 . 1 % 1 4 . 3 % 9 . 0 % 6 . 0 % 6 . 3 % 1 2 . 2 % 9 . 2 % La s t Y e a r 6 . 4 % 1 3 . 1 % 1 6 . 7 % 2 . 6 % 1 0 . 0 % 7 . 9 % 9 . 8 % 8 . 8 % 2 Y e a r s A g o o r M o r e 5 . 7 % 9 . 1 % 1 6 . 7 % 5 . 1 % 5 . 0 % 9 . 5 % 4 . 1 % 6 . 8 % Ne v e r , B u t I A m A w a r e o f Ev e n t 61 . 7 % 4 1 . 4 % 4 7 . 6 % 5 7 . 7 % 5 4 . 0 % 57 . 9 % 4 7 . 2 % 5 2 . 4 % Ne v e r , I A m N o t A w a r e o f Ev e n t 17 . 0 % 2 2 . 2 % 4 . 8 % 2 1 . 8 % 2 3 . 0 % 15 . 9 % 2 2 . 8 % 1 9 . 2 % No t P r o v i d e d 1 . 4 % 3 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 3 . 8 % 2 . 0 % 2 . 4 % 4 . 1 % 3 . 6 % 20 1 3 To w n of We s t l a k e Re s i d e n t Su r v e y : Ap p e n d i x B - Cr o s s t a b s by Ag e , An n u a l Ho u s e h o l d Income and Gender ET C In s t i t u t e (2 0 1 3 ) B - 87 Q1 0 . W h e n d i d y o u m o s t r e c e n t l y a t t e n d t h e f o l l o w i n g e v e n t s ? N= 2 5 0 Q 1 4 W h a t i s y o u r ag e Q1 7 T o t a l a n n u a l i n c o m e Q1 8 G e n d e r To t a l Ag e s 18 - 5 4 Ag e s 5 5 + U n d e r $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 - $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ov e r $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ma l e Fe m a l e Q1 0 f O t h e r W e s t l a k e H i s t o r i c a l P r e s e r v a t i o n S o c i e t y e v e n t s Th i s Y e a r 6 . 4 % 8 . 1 % 9 . 5 % 7 . 7 % 4 . 0 % 6 . 3 % 8 . 1 % 7 . 2 % La s t Y e a r 4 . 3 % 1 3 . 1 % 9 . 5 % 5 . 1 % 1 0 . 0 % 9 . 5 % 7 . 3 % 8 . 4 % 2 Y e a r s A g o o r M o r e 5 . 0 % 7 . 1 % 1 6 . 7 % 2 . 6 % 4 . 0 % 6 . 3 % 4 . 9 % 5 . 6 % Ne v e r , B u t I A m A w a r e o f Ev e n t 60 . 3 % 4 8 . 5 % 4 7 . 6 % 5 7 . 7 % 5 6 . 0 % 61 . 1 % 4 7 . 2 % 5 4 . 0 % Ne v e r , I A m N o t A w a r e o f Ev e n t 21 . 3 % 1 9 . 2 % 1 4 . 3 % 2 3 . 1 % 2 3 . 0 % 15 . 9 % 2 5 . 2 % 2 0 . 4 % No t P r o v i d e d 2 . 8 % 4 . 0 % 2 . 4 % 3 . 8 % 3 . 0 % 0 . 8 % 7 . 3 % 4 . 4 % 20 1 3 To w n of We s t l a k e Re s i d e n t Su r v e y : Ap p e n d i x B - Cr o s s t a b s by Ag e , An n u a l Ho u s e h o l d Income and Gender ET C In s t i t u t e (2 0 1 3 ) B - 88 Q1 0 . W h e n d i d y o u m o s t r e c e n t l y a t t e n d t h e f o l l o w i n g e v e n t s ? N= 2 5 0 Q 1 4 W h a t i s y o u r ag e Q1 7 T o t a l a n n u a l i n c o m e Q1 8 G e n d e r To t a l Ag e s 18 - 5 4 Ag e s 5 5 + U n d e r $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 - $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ov e r $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ma l e Fe m a l e Q1 0 g _ P u b l i c _ A r t s _ S o c i e t y _ e v e n t s Th i s Y e a r 3 . 5 % 2 . 0 % 2 . 4 % 2 . 6 % 3 . 0 % 3 . 2 % 3 . 3 % 3 . 2 % La s t Y e a r 6 . 4 % 1 0 . 1 % 1 1 . 9 % 2 . 6 % 1 1 . 0 % 5 . 6 % 9 . 8 % 7 . 6 % 2 Y e a r s A g o o r M o r e 9 . 2 % 8 . 1 % 1 4 . 3 % 7 . 7 % 8 . 0 % 7 . 1 % 1 0 . 6 % 8 . 8 % Ne v e r , B u t I A m A w a r e o f Ev e n t 58 . 9 % 5 2 . 5 % 5 9 . 5 % 6 1 . 5 % 4 9 . 0 % 58 . 7 % 5 1 . 2 % 5 4 . 8 % Ne v e r , I A m N o t A w a r e o f Ev e n t 20 . 6 % 2 2 . 2 % 1 1 . 9 % 2 1 . 8 % 2 6 . 0 % 23 . 8 % 1 9 . 5 % 2 1 . 6 % No t P r o v i d e d 1 . 4 % 5 . 1 % 0 . 0 % 3 . 8 % 3 . 0 % 1 . 6 % 5 . 7 % 4 . 0 %   20 1 3 To w n of We s t l a k e Re s i d e n t Su r v e y : Ap p e n d i x B - Cr o s s t a b s by Ag e , An n u a l Ho u s e h o l d Income and Gender ET C In s t i t u t e (2 0 1 3 ) B - 89 Q1 1 . H a v e y o u a t t e n d e d a p u b l i c m e e t i n g i n y o u r n e i g h b o r h o o d ? N= 2 5 0 Q1 4 W h a t i s y o u r ag e Q1 7 T o t a l a n n u a l i n c o m e Q1 8 G e n d e r To t a l Ag e s 18 - 5 4 Ag e s 5 5 + Un d e r $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 - $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ov e r $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ma l e Fe m a l e Q1 1 A t t e n d e d p u b me e t i n g in n e i g h b o r h o o d Ye s -Th i s Y e a r 39 . 7 % 43 . 4 % 42 . 9 % 33 . 3 % 49 . 0 % 40 . 5 % 42 . 3 % 41 . 2 % Ye s -La s t Y e a r 14 . 9 % 25 . 3 % 26 . 2 % 16 . 7 % 18 . 0 % 18 . 3 % 18 . 7 % 18 . 4 % No - Bu t I A m A w a r e o f t h e Me e t i n g s 32 . 6 % 24 . 2 % 26 . 2 % 41 . 0 % 21 . 0 % 30 . 2 % 27 . 6 % 28 . 8 % No - I A m N o t A w a r e o f Me e t i n g s 12 . 1 % 7. 1 % 4. 8 % 9. 0 % 11 . 0 % 9. 5 % 9. 8 % 9. 6 % Do n ' t k n o w 0. 7 % 0. 0 % 0. 0 % 0. 0 % 1. 0 % 1. 6 % 1. 6 % 2. 0 % 20 1 3 To w n of We s t l a k e Re s i d e n t Su r v e y : Ap p e n d i x B - Cr o s s t a b s by Ag e , An n u a l Ho u s e h o l d Income and Gender ET C In s t i t u t e (2 0 1 3 ) B - 90 Q1 1 a . W a s t h e m e e t i n g i n f o r m a t i v e ? N= 1 4 9 Q1 4 W h a t i s y o u r ag e Q1 7 T o t a l a n n u a l i n c o m e Q1 8 G e n d e r To t a l Ag e s 18 - 5 4 Ag e s 5 5 + Un d e r $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 - $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ov e r $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ma l e Fe m a l e Q1 1 a I f y e s w a s me e t i n g in f o r m a t i v e Ye s 84 . 4 % 80 . 9 % 86 . 2 % 84 . 6 % 80 . 6 % 79 . 7 % 85 . 3 % 82 . 6 % No 9. 1 % 8. 8 % 10 . 3 % 7. 7 % 9. 0 % 10 . 8 % 8. 0 % 9. 4 % Do n ' t K n o w 6. 5 % 10 . 3 % 3. 4 % 7. 7 % 10 . 4 % 9. 5 % 6. 7 % 8. 1 % 20 1 3 To w n of We s t l a k e Re s i d e n t Su r v e y : Ap p e n d i x B - Cr o s s t a b s by Ag e , An n u a l Ho u s e h o l d Income and Gender ET C In s t i t u t e (2 0 1 3 ) B - 91 Q1 1 b . D i d y o u h a v e t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o d i s c u s s y o u r i d e a s / c o n c e r n s ? N= 1 4 9 Q1 4 W h a t i s y o u r ag e Q1 7 T o t a l a n n u a l i n c o m e Q1 8 G e n d e r To t a l Ag e s 18 - 5 4 Ag e s 5 5 + Un d e r $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 - $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ov e r $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ma l e Fe m a l e Q1 1 b i f y e s d i s c u s s i d e a / c o n c e r n Ye s 90 . 9 % 80 . 9 % 86 . 2 % 82 . 1 % 88 . 1 % 86 . 5 % 86 . 7 % 86 . 6 % No 6. 5 % 10 . 3 % 13 . 8 % 7. 7 % 7. 5 % 10 . 8 % 5. 3 % 8. 1 % Do n ' t K n o w 2. 6 % 8. 8 % 0. 0 % 10 . 3 % 4. 5 % 2. 7 % 8. 0 % 5. 4 % 20 1 3 To w n of We s t l a k e Re s i d e n t Su r v e y : Ap p e n d i x B - Cr o s s t a b s by Ag e , An n u a l Ho u s e h o l d Income and Gender ET C In s t i t u t e (2 0 1 3 ) B - 92 Q1 1 c . W i l l y o u a t t e n d a n e i g h b o r h o o d m e e t i n g i n t h e f u t u r e ? N= 9 6 Q1 4 W h a t i s y o u r ag e Q1 7 T o t a l a n n u a l i n c o m e Q1 8 G e n d e r To t a l Ag e s 18 - 5 4 Ag e s 5 5 + Un d e r $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 - $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ov e r $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ma l e Fe m a l e Q1 1 c A t t e n d me e t i n g in f u t u r e Ye s 69 . 8 % 71 . 0 % 69 . 2 % 76 . 9 % 68 . 8 % 74 . 0 % 67 . 4 % 70 . 8 % No 14 . 3 % 16 . 1 % 15 . 4 % 10 . 3 % 15 . 6 % 14 . 0 % 15 . 2 % 14 . 6 % Do n ' t K n o w 15 . 9 % 12 . 9 % 15 . 4 % 12 . 8 % 15 . 6 % 12 . 0 % 17 . 4 % 14 . 6 % 20 1 3 To w n of We s t l a k e Re s i d e n t Su r v e y : Ap p e n d i x B - Cr o s s t a b s by Ag e , An n u a l Ho u s e h o l d Income and Gender ET C In s t i t u t e (2 0 1 3 ) B - 93 Q1 1 d . D o y o u t h i n k t h e s e t y p e s o f m e e t i n g a r e u s e f u l t o c o n d u c t ? N= 9 6 Q1 4 W h a t i s y o u r ag e Q1 7 T o t a l a n n u a l i n c o m e Q1 8 G e n d e r To t a l Ag e s 18 - 5 4 Ag e s 5 5 + Un d e r $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 - $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ov e r $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ma l e Fe m a l e Q1 1 d A r e me e t i n g s us e f u l Ye s 79 . 4 % 74 . 2 % 69 . 2 % 79 . 5 % 81 . 3 % 82 . 0 % 73 . 9 % 78 . 1 % No 4. 8 % 9. 7 % 7. 7 % 2. 6 % 6. 3 % 4. 0 % 8. 7 % 6. 3 % Do n ' t K n o w 15 . 9 % 16 . 1 % 23 . 1 % 17 . 9 % 12 . 5 % 14 . 0 % 17 . 4 % 15 . 6 % 20 1 3 To w n of We s t l a k e Re s i d e n t Su r v e y : Ap p e n d i x B - Cr o s s t a b s by Ag e , An n u a l Ho u s e h o l d Income and Gender ET C In s t i t u t e (2 0 1 3 ) B - 94 RE S I D E N T S W H O A T T E N D E D A M E E T I N G T H I S Y E A R Q1 1 a . I f y e s , w a s t h e m e e t i n g i n f o r m a t i v e ? N= 1 0 3 Q1 4 W h a t i s y o u r ag e Q1 7 T o t a l a n n u a l i n c o m e Q1 8 G e n d e r To t a l Ag e s 18 - 5 4 Ag e s 5 5 + Un d e r $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 - $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ov e r $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ma l e Fe m a l e Q1 1 a I f y e s w a s m ee t i n g in f o r m a t i v e Ye s 89 . 3 % 88 . 4 % 94 . 4 % 88 . 5 % 85 . 7 % 86 . 3 % 90 . 4 % 88 . 3 % No 8. 9 % 0. 0 % 5. 6 % 3. 8 % 6. 1 % 5. 9 % 5. 8 % 5. 8 % Do n ' t K n o w 1. 8 % 11 . 6 % 0. 0 % 7. 7 % 8. 2 % 7. 8 % 3. 8 % 5. 8 % Q1 1 b . I f y e s , d i d y o u h a v e t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o d i s c u s s y o u r i d e a s / c o n c e r n s ? N= 1 0 3 Q1 4 W h a t i s y o u r ag e Q1 7 T o t a l a n n u a l i n c o m e Q1 8 G e n d e r To t a l Ag e s 18 - 5 4 Ag e s 5 5 + Un d e r $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 - $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ov e r $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ma l e Fe m a l e Q1 1 b i f y e s d i s c u s s i d e a / c o n c e r n Ye s 89 . 3 % 81 . 4 % 88 . 9 % 76 . 9 % 87 . 8 % 86 . 3 % 86 . 5 % 86 . 4 % No 8. 9 % 7. 0 % 11 . 1 % 7. 7 % 8. 2 % 9. 8 % 5. 8 % 7. 8 % Do n ' t K n o w 1. 8 % 11 . 6 % 0. 0 % 15 . 4 % 4. 1 % 3. 9 % 7. 7 % 5. 8 % 20 1 3 To w n of We s t l a k e Re s i d e n t Su r v e y : Ap p e n d i x B - Cr o s s t a b s by Ag e , An n u a l Ho u s e h o l d Income and Gender ET C In s t i t u t e (2 0 1 3 ) B - 95 RE S I D E N T S W H O A T T E N D E D A M E E T I N G L A S T Y E A R Q1 1 a . I f y e s , w a s t h e m e e t i n g i n f o r m a t i v e ? N= 4 6 Q1 4 W h a t i s y o u r ag e Q1 7 T o t a l a n n u a l i n c o m e Q1 8 G e n d e r To t a l Ag e s 18 - 5 4 Ag e s 55 + Un d e r $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 - $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ov e r $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ma l e Fe m a l e Q1 1 a I f y e s w a s m ee t i n g in f o r m a t i v e Ye s 71 . 4 % 68 . 0 % 72 . 7 % 76 . 9 % 66 . 7 % 65 . 2 % 73 . 9 % 69 . 6 % No 9. 5 % 24 . 0 % 18 . 2 % 15 . 4 % 16 . 7 % 21 . 7 % 13 . 0 % 17 . 4 % Do n ' t K n o w 19 . 0 % 8. 0 % 9. 1 % 7. 7 % 16 . 7 % 13 . 0 % 13 . 0 % 13 . 0 % Q1 1 b . I f y e s , d i d y o u h a v e t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o d i s c u s s y o u r i d e a s / c o n c e r n s ? N= 4 6 Q1 4 W h a t i s y o u r ag e Q1 7 T o t a l a n n u a l i n c o m e Q1 8 G e n d e r To t a l Ag e s 18 - 5 4 Ag e s 5 5 + Un d e r $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 - $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ov e r $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ma l e Fe m a l e Q1 1 b i f y e s d i s c u s s i d e a / c o n c e r n Ye s 95 . 2 % 80 . 0 % 81 . 8 % 92 . 3 % 88 . 9 % 87 . 0 % 87 . 0 % 87 . 0 % No 0. 0 % 16 . 0 % 18 . 2 % 7. 7 % 5. 6 % 13 . 0 % 4. 3 % 8. 7 % Do n ' t K n o w 4. 8 % 4. 0 % 0. 0 % 0. 0 % 5. 6 % 0. 0 % 8. 7 % 4. 3 % 20 1 3 To w n of We s t l a k e Re s i d e n t Su r v e y : Ap p e n d i x B - Cr o s s t a b s by Ag e , An n u a l Ho u s e h o l d Income and Gender ET C In s t i t u t e (2 0 1 3 ) B - 96 Q1 2 . I n y o u r o p i n i o n , h o w o f t e n s h o u l d n e i g h b o r h o o d m e e t i n g s b e h e l d ? N= 2 5 0 Q1 4 W h a t i s y o u r ag e Q1 7 T o t a l a n n u a l i n c o m e Q1 8 G e n d e r To t a l Ag e s 18 - 5 4 Ag e s 5 5 + Un d e r $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 - $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ov e r $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ma l e Fe m a l e Q1 2 N o w o f t e n n e i g h b o r h o o d me e t i n g he l d An n u a l l y 33 . 3 % 39 . 4 % 40 . 5 % 32 . 1 % 39 . 0 % 33 . 3 % 36 . 6 % 34 . 8 % Tw i c e a Y e a r 46 . 1 % 38 . 4 % 40 . 5 % 42 . 3 % 44 . 0 % 43 . 7 % 41 . 5 % 42 . 4 % Ev e r y O t h e r Y e a r 5. 7 % 3. 0 % 4. 8 % 2. 6 % 5. 0 % 4. 0 % 4. 9 % 4. 4 % Do n ' t K n o w 14 . 9 % 19 . 2 % 14 . 3 % 23 . 1 % 12 . 0 % 19 . 0 % 17 . 1 % 18 . 4 % 20 1 3 To w n of We s t l a k e Re s i d e n t Su r v e y : Ap p e n d i x B - Cr o s s t a b s by Ag e , An n u a l Ho u s e h o l d Income and Gender ET C In s t i t u t e (2 0 1 3 ) B - 97 Q1 3 . D o a n y c h i l d r e n i n g r a d e s K - 1 2 l i v e i n y o u r h o m e ? N= 2 5 0 Q1 4 W h a t i s y o u r ag e Q1 7 T o t a l a n n u a l i n c o m e Q1 8 G e n d e r To t a l Ag e s 18 - 5 4 Ag e s 5 5 + Un d e r $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 - $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ov e r $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ma l e Fe m a l e Q1 3 C h i l d r e n K -12 l i v e y o u r h o m e Ye s 66 . 0 % 25 . 3 % 26 . 2 % 56 . 4 % 57 . 0 % 52 . 4 % 44 . 7 % 48 . 4 % No 34 . 0 % 74 . 7 % 73 . 8 % 43 . 6 % 43 . 0 % 47 . 6 % 54 . 5 % 50 . 8 % No t p r o v i d e d 0. 0 % 0. 0 % 0. 0 % 0. 0 % 0. 0 % 0. 0 % 0. 8 % 0. 8 % 20 1 3 To w n of We s t l a k e Re s i d e n t Su r v e y : Ap p e n d i x B - Cr o s s t a b s by Ag e , An n u a l Ho u s e h o l d Income and Gender ET C In s t i t u t e (2 0 1 3 ) B - 98 Q1 3 a . D o a n y o f t h e s e c h i l d r e n c u r r e n t l y a t t e n d W e s t l a k e A c a d e m y ? N= 1 2 1 Q1 4 W h a t i s y o u r ag e Q1 7 T o t a l a n n u a l i n c o m e Q1 8 G e n d e r To t a l Ag e s 18 - 5 4 Ag e s 5 5 + Un d e r $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 - $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ov e r $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ma l e Fe m a l e Q1 3 a I f y e s a n y a t t e n d W e s t l a k e Ac a d em y Ye s 76 . 3 % 64 . 0 % 36 . 4 % 81 . 8 % 71 . 9 % 74 . 2 % 72 . 7 % 73 . 6 % No 21 . 5 % 36 . 0 % 63 . 6 % 15 . 9 % 26 . 3 % 24 . 2 % 25 . 5 % 24 . 8 % No t P r o v i d e d 2. 2 % 0. 0 % 0. 0 % 2. 3 % 1. 8 % 1. 5 % 1. 8 % 1. 7 % 20 1 3 To w n of We s t l a k e Re s i d e n t Su r v e y : Ap p e n d i x B - Cr o s s t a b s by Ag e , An n u a l Ho u s e h o l d Income and Gender ET C In s t i t u t e (2 0 1 3 ) B - 99 Q1 3 d . I f y o u r c h i l d r e n p r e v i o u s l y a t t e n d e d W e s t l a k e A c a d e m y , a r e y o u c o n s i d e r i n g r e - e n r o l l i n g t h e m i n t h e f u t u r e ? N= 3 0 Q1 4 W h a t i s y o u r ag e Q1 7 T o t a l a n n u a l i n c o m e Q1 8 G e n d e r To t a l Ag e s 18 - 5 4 Ag e s 5 5 + Un d e r $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 - $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ov e r $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ma l e Fe m a l e Q1 3 d A r e y o u c o n s i d e r i n g r e -en r o l l i n g t h e m i n t h e f u t u r e ? Ye s 15 . 0 % 0. 0 % 14 . 3 % 0. 0 % 13 . 3 % 12 . 5 % 7. 1 % 10 . 0 % No 25 . 0 % 55 . 6 % 28 . 6 % 28 . 6 % 40 . 0 % 43 . 8 % 28 . 6 % 36 . 7 % Do n ' t K n o w 60 . 0 % 44 . 4 % 57 . 1 % 71 . 4 % 46 . 7 % 43 . 8 % 64 . 3 % 53 . 3 % 20 1 3 To w n of We s t l a k e Re s i d e n t Su r v e y : Ap p e n d i x B - Cr o s s t a b s by Ag e , An n u a l Ho u s e h o l d Income and Gender ET C In s t i t u t e (2 0 1 3 ) B - 100 Q1 9 . O v e r a l l , h o w s a f e d o y o u f e e l i n t h e T o w n o f W e s t l a k e ? N= 2 5 0 Q1 4 W h a t i s y o u r ag e Q1 7 T o t a l a n n u a l i n c o m e Q1 8 G e n d e r To t a l Ag e s 18 - 5 4 Ag e s 5 5 + Un d e r $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 - $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ov e r $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ma l e Fe m a l e Q1 9 H o w s a f e d o y o u f e e l Ve r y s a f e 53 . 9 % 53 . 5 % 61 . 9 % 53 . 8 % 53 . 0 % 54 . 0 % 50 . 4 % 52 . 0 % Sa f e 42 . 6 % 43 . 4 % 38 . 1 % 43 . 6 % 41 . 0 % 41 . 3 % 44 . 7 % 42 . 8 % Un s a f e 2. 8 % 1. 0 % 0. 0 % 2. 6 % 3. 0 % 2. 4 % 1. 6 % 2. 0 % Ve r y u n s a f e 0. 0 % 2. 0 % 0. 0 % 0. 0 % 2. 0 % 0. 8 % 0. 8 % 0. 8 % Do n ' t k n o w 0. 7 % 0. 0 % 0. 0 % 0. 0 % 1. 0 % 1. 6 % 2. 4 % 2. 4 % 20 1 3 To w n of We s t l a k e Re s i d e n t Su r v e y : Ap p e n d i x B - Cr o s s t a b s by Ag e , An n u a l Ho u s e h o l d Income and Gender ET C In s t i t u t e (2 0 1 3 ) B - 101 Q2 0 . O v e r a l l , h o w w o u l d y o u r a t e t h e T o w n o f W e s t l a k e a s a p l a c e t o l i v e ? N= 2 5 0 Q1 4 W h a t i s y o u r ag e Q1 7 T o t a l a n n u a l i n c o m e Q1 8 G e n d e r To t a l Ag e s 18 - 5 4 Ag e s 5 5 + Un d e r $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 - $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ov e r $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ma l e Fe m a l e Q2 0 A s p l a c e t o l i v e Ex c e l l e n t 73 . 8 % 70 . 7 % 71 . 4 % 78 . 2 % 69 . 0 % 72 . 2 % 68 . 3 % 70 . 0 % Go o d 20 . 6 % 19 . 2 % 28 . 6 % 14 . 1 % 21 . 0 % 19 . 0 % 22 . 8 % 20 . 8 % Av e r a g e 2. 1 % 2. 0 % 0. 0 % 2. 6 % 3. 0 % 1. 6 % 2. 4 % 2. 0 % Po o r 2. 1 % 6. 1 % 0. 0 % 2. 6 % 7. 0 % 4. 8 % 2. 4 % 3. 6 % Do n ' t k n o w 1. 4 % 2. 0 % 0. 0 % 2. 6 % 0. 0 % 2. 4 % 4. 1 % 3. 6 % 20 1 3 To w n of We s t l a k e Re s i d e n t Su r v e y : Ap p e n d i x B - Cr o s s t a b s by Ag e , An n u a l Ho u s e h o l d Income and Gender ET C In s t i t u t e (2 0 1 3 ) B - 102 222000111333 TTTooowww nnn ooofff WWWeeessstttlllaaakkkeee RRReeesssiiidddeeennnttt SSSuuurrrvvveeeyyy AAAppppppeeennndddiiixxx CCC::: CCCrrrooosssssstttaaabbbsss bbbyyy NNNuuummm bbbeeerrr ooofff YYYeeeaaarrrsss LLLiiivvveeeddd iiinnn ttthhheee CCCiiitttyyy aaannnddd SSSuuubbbdddiiivvviiisssiiiooonnn SSuubbmmiitttteedd TToo:: ETC Institute Project Manager: Chris Tatham 725 West Frontier Circle Phone: 913-829-1215 Olathe, Kansas Fax: 913-829-1591 66061 E-mail: ctatham@etcinstitute.com EEETTTCCC IIInnnssstttiiitttuuuttteee May 2013 ...helping organizations make better decisions since 1982 Q1 . S a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h M a j o r C a t e g o r i e s o f T o w n S e r v i c e s : U s i n g a s c a l e o f 1 t o 5 , w h e r e 5 m e a n s " V e r y S a t i s f i e d " a n d 1 m e a n s " V e r y Di s s a t i s f i e d , " p l e a s e c i r c l e y o u r l e v e l o f s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h t h e f o l l o w i n g s e r v i c e s p r o v i d e d b y t h e T o w n o f W e s t l a k e . ( W i t h o u t D o n ' t K n o w ) N= 2 5 0 Q1 5 Y e a r s li v e d in W e s t l a k e Q1 6 S u b d i v i s i o n l i v e i n Total Le s s t h a n 5 ye a r s 5- 1 0 y e a r s 11 + y e a r s St a g e c o a c h Hi l l s Va q u e r o Gl e n w y c k Fa r m s Ot h e r Q1 a P u b l i c s a f e t y ( p o l i c e , f i r e , e m e r g e n c y m e d i c a l ) Ve r y s a t i s f i e d 51 . 0 % 48 . 1 % 49 . 0 % 35 . 7 % 51 . 0 % 31 . 5 % 77 . 1 % 48.5% Sa t i s f i e d 37 . 0 % 34 . 2 % 38 . 8 % 46 . 4 % 38 . 5 % 46 . 3 % 14 . 6 % 37.0% Ne u t r a l 9. 0 % 10 . 1 % 6. 1 % 14 . 3 % 5. 2 % 14 . 8 % 6. 3 % 8.9% Di s s a t i s f i e d 1. 0 % 5. 1 % 4. 1 % 3. 6 % 2. 1 % 7. 4 % 0. 0 % 3.4% Ve r y d i s s a t i s f i e d 2. 0 % 2. 5 % 2. 0 % 0. 0 % 3. 1 % 0. 0 % 2. 1 % 2.1% 20 1 3 To w n of We s t l a k e Re s i d e n t Su r v e y : Ap p e n d i x C - Cr o s s t a b s by Nu m b e r of Ye a r s Li v e d in th e City and Subdivision ET C In s t i t u t e (2 0 1 3 ) C - 1 Q1 . S a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h M a j o r C a t e g o r i e s o f T o w n S e r v i c e s : U s i n g a s c a l e o f 1 t o 5 , w h e r e 5 m e a n s " V e r y S a t i s f i e d " a n d 1 m e a n s " V e r y Di s s a t i s f i e d , " p l e a s e c i r c l e y o u r l e v e l o f s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h t h e f o l l o w i n g s e r v i c e s p r o v i d e d b y t h e T o w n o f W e s t l a k e . ( W i t h o u t D o n ' t K n o w ) N= 2 5 0 Q1 5 Y e a r s li v e d in W e s t l a k e Q1 6 S u b d i v i s i o n l i v e i n Total Le s s t h a n 5 ye a r s 5- 1 0 y e a r s 11 + y e a r s St a g e c o a c h Hi l l s Va q u e r o Gl e n w y c k Fa r m s Ot h e r Q1 b E f f o r t s t o e n s u r e T o w n i s p r e p a r e d f o r e m e r g e n c i e s Ve r y s a t i s f i e d 45 . 8 % 43 . 2 % 40 . 4 % 32 . 1 % 52 . 9 % 38 . 0 % 40 . 8 % 43.0% Sa t i s f i e d 40 . 6 % 32 . 4 % 40 . 4 % 39 . 3 % 31 . 0 % 42 . 0 % 49 . 0 % 38.6% Ne u t r a l 9. 4 % 14 . 9 % 14 . 9 % 25 . 0 % 12 . 6 % 12 . 0 % 4. 1 % 12.6% Di s s a t i s f i e d 2. 1 % 6. 8 % 2. 1 % 3. 6 % 2. 3 % 6. 0 % 2. 0 % 3.6% Ve r y d i s s a t i s f i e d 2. 1 % 2. 7 % 2. 1 % 0. 0 % 1. 1 % 2. 0 % 4. 1 % 2.2% 20 1 3 To w n of We s t l a k e Re s i d e n t Su r v e y : Ap p e n d i x C - Cr o s s t a b s by Nu m b e r of Ye a r s Li v e d in th e City and Subdivision ET C In s t i t u t e (2 0 1 3 ) C - 2 Q1 . S a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h M a j o r C a t e g o r i e s o f T o w n S e r v i c e s : U s i n g a s c a l e o f 1 t o 5 , w h e r e 5 m e a n s " V e r y S a t i s f i e d " a n d 1 m e a n s " V e r y Di s s a t i s f i e d , " p l e a s e c i r c l e y o u r l e v e l o f s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h t h e f o l l o w i n g s e r v i c e s p r o v i d e d b y t h e T o w n o f W e s t l a k e . ( W i t h o u t D o n ' t K n o w ) N= 2 5 0 Q1 5 Ye a r s li v e d in W e s t l a k e Q1 6 S u b d i v i s i o n l i v e i n Total Le s s t h a n 5 ye a r s 5- 1 0 y e a r s 11 + y e a r s St a g e c o a c h Hi l l s Va q u e r o Gl e n w y c k Fa r m s Ot h e r Q1 c M a i n t e n a n c e o f T o w n s t r e e t s Ve r y s a t i s f i e d 47 . 2 % 42 . 0 % 26 . 5 % 40 . 0 % 44 .3 % 39 . 3 % 41 . 2 % 40.8% Sa t i s f i e d 37 . 0 % 38 . 3 % 49 . 0 % 40 . 0 % 38 . 1 % 46 . 4 % 37 . 3 % 40.4% Ne u t r a l 10 . 2 % 14 . 8 % 14 . 3 % 6. 7 % 10 . 3 % 14 . 3 % 15 . 7 % 12.7% Di s s a t i s f i e d 3. 7 % 1. 2 % 10 . 2 % 10 . 0 % 7. 2 % 0. 0 % 0. 0 % 4.1% Ve r y d i s s a t i s f i e d 1. 9 % 3. 7 % 0. 0 % 3. 3 % 0. 0 % 0. 0 % 5. 9 % 2.0% 20 1 3 To w n of We s t l a k e Re s i d e n t Su r v e y : Ap p e n d i x C - Cr o s s t a b s by Nu m b e r of Ye a r s Li v e d in th e City and Subdivision ET C In s t i t u t e (2 0 1 3 ) C - 3 Q1 . S a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h M a j o r C a t e g o r i e s o f T o w n S e r v i c e s : U s i n g a s c a l e o f 1 t o 5 , w h e r e 5 m e a n s " V e r y S a t i s f i e d " a n d 1 m e a n s " V e r y Di s s a t i s f i e d , " p l e a s e c i r c l e y o u r l e v e l o f s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h t h e f o l l o w i n g s e r v i c e s p r o v i d e d b y t h e T o w n o f W e s t l a k e . ( W i t h o u t D o n ' t K n o w ) N= 2 5 0 Q1 5 Y e a r s li v e d in W e s t l a k e Q1 6 S u b d i v i s i o n l i v e i n Total Le s s t h a n 5 ye a r s 5- 1 0 y e a r s 11 + y e a r s St a g e c o a c h Hi l l s Va q u e r o Gl e n w y c k Fa r m s Ot h e r Q1 d E f f e c t i v e n e s s o f c o m m u n i c a t i o n b y t h e T o w n Ve r y s a t i s f i e d 43 . 0 % 51 . 9 % 22 . 4 % 33 . 3 % 48 . 5 % 35 . 1 % 42 . 0 % 41.8% Sa t i s f i e d 29 . 9 % 25 . 9 % 46 . 9 % 40 . 0 % 28 . 9 % 26 . 3 % 42 . 0 % 31.6% Ne u t r a l 10 . 3 % 9. 9 % 20 . 4 % 23 . 3 % 10. 3 % 12 . 3 % 6. 0 % 11.9% Di s s a t i s f i e d 8. 4 % 6. 2 % 6. 1 % 3. 3 % 6. 2 % 15 . 8 % 6. 0 % 8.2% Ve r y d i s s a t i s f i e d 8. 4 % 6. 2 % 4. 1 % 0. 0 % 6. 2 % 10 . 5 % 4. 0 % 6.6% 20 1 3 To w n of We s t l a k e Re s i d e n t Su r v e y : Ap p e n d i x C - Cr o s s t a b s by Nu m b e r of Ye a r s Li v e d in th e City and Subdivision ET C In s t i t u t e (2 0 1 3 ) C - 4 Q1 . S a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h M a j o r C a t e g o r i e s o f T o w n S e r v i c e s : U s i n g a s c a l e o f 1 t o 5 , w h e r e 5 m e a n s " V e r y S a t i s f i e d " a n d 1 m e a n s " V e r y Di s s a t i s f i e d , " p l e a s e c i r c l e y o u r l e v e l o f s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h t h e f o l l o w i n g s e r v i c e s p r o v i d e d b y t h e T o w n o f W e s t l a k e . ( W i t h o u t D o n ' t K n o w ) N= 2 5 0 Q1 5 Y e a r s li v e d in W e s t l a k e Q1 6 S u b d i v i s i o n l i v e i n Total Le s s t h a n 5 ye a r s 5- 1 0 y e a r s 11 + y e a r s St a g e c o a c h Hi l l s Va q u e r o Gl e n w y c k Fa r m s Ot h e r Q1 e U t i l i t y s e r v i c e s Ve r y s a t i s f i e d 32 . 1 % 27 . 2 % 26 . 5 % 26 . 7 % 32 . 0 % 19 . 3 % 37 . 3 % 28.9% Sa t i s f i e d 40 . 4 % 37 . 0 % 42 . 9% 33 . 3 % 44 . 3 % 33 . 3 % 45 . 1 % 40.7% Ne u t r a l 21 . 1 % 22 . 2 % 22 . 4 % 33 . 3 % 15 . 5 % 33 . 3 % 11 . 8 % 21.1% Di s s a t i s f i e d 6. 4 % 13 . 6 % 8. 2 % 6. 7 % 8. 2 % 14 . 0 % 5. 9 % 9.3% 20 1 3 To w n of We s t l a k e Re s i d e n t Su r v e y : Ap p e n d i x C - Cr o s s t a b s by Nu m b e r of Ye a r s Li v e d in th e City and Subdivision ET C In s t i t u t e (2 0 1 3 ) C - 5 Q1 . S a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h M a j o r C a t e g o r i e s o f T o w n S e r v i c e s : U s i n g a s c a l e o f 1 t o 5 , w h e r e 5 m e a n s " V e r y S a t i s f i e d " a n d 1 m e a n s " V e r y Di s s a t i s f i e d , " p l e a s e c i r c l e y o u r l e v e l o f s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h t h e f o l l o w i n g s e r v i c e s p r o v i d e d b y t h e T o w n o f W e s t l a k e . ( W i t h o u t D o n ' t K n o w ) N= 2 5 0 Q1 5 Y e a r s li v e d in W e s t l a k e Q1 6 S u b d i v i s i o n l iv e i n Total Le s s t h a n 5 ye a r s 5- 1 0 y e a r s 11 + y e a r s St a g e c o a c h Hi l l s Va q u e r o Gl e n w y c k Fa r m s Ot h e r Q1 f P a r k s / t r a i l s / o p e n s p a c e s Ve r y s a t i s f i e d 38 . 2 % 35 . 9 % 30 . 6 % 36 . 7 % 33 . 7 % 33 . 3 % 42 . 0 % 35.2% Sa t i s f i e d 30 . 4 % 34 . 6 % 51 . 0 % 33 . 3 % 40 . 4 % 38 . 6 % 24 . 0 % 36.9% Ne u t r a l 27 . 5 % 19 . 2 % 16 . 3 % 23 . 3 % 18 . 0 % 26 . 3 % 28 . 0 % 22.5% Di s s a t i s f i e d 2. 9 % 9. 0 % 0. 0 % 3. 3 % 7. 9 % 1. 8 % 2. 0 % 4.2% Ve r y d i s s a t i s f i e d 1. 0 % 1. 3 % 2. 0 % 3. 3 % 0. 0 % 0.0 % 4. 0 % 1.3% 20 1 3 To w n of We s t l a k e Re s i d e n t Su r v e y : Ap p e n d i x C - Cr o s s t a b s by Nu m b e r of Ye a r s Li v e d in th e City and Subdivision ET C In s t i t u t e (2 0 1 3 ) C - 6 Q1 . S a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h M a j o r C a t e g o r i e s o f T o w n S e r v i c e s : U s i n g a s c a l e o f 1 t o 5 , w h e r e 5 m e a n s " V e r y S a t i s f i e d " a n d 1 m e a n s " V e r y Di s s a t i s f i e d , " p l e a s e c i r c l e y o u r l e v e l o f s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h t h e f o l l o w i n g s e r v i c e s p r o v i d e d b y t h e T o w n o f W e s t l a k e . ( W i t h o u t D o n ' t K n o w ) N= 2 5 0 Q1 5 Y e a r s li v e d in W e s t l a k e Q1 6 S u b d i v i s i o n l i v e i n Total Le s s t h a n 5 ye a r s 5- 1 0 y e a r s 11 + y e a r s St a g e c o a c h Hi l l s Va q u e r o Gl e n w y c k Fa r m s Ot h e r Q1 g C u s t o m e r s e r v i c e r e c e i v e d b y t h e T o w n Ve r y s a t i s f i e d 44 . 2 % 42 . 1 % 27 . 7 % 39 . 3 % 44 . 3 % 26 . 9 % 46 . 8 % 40.0% Sa t i s f i e d 25 . 3 % 32 . 9 % 51 . 1 % 32 . 1 % 36 . 4 % 32 . 7 % 34 . 0 % 33.3% Ne u t r a l 26 . 3 % 15 . 8 % 10 . 6 % 14 . 3 % 17 . 0 % 30 . 8 % 17 . 0 % 19.6% Di s s a t i s f i e d 4. 2 % 3. 9 % 4. 3 % 10 . 7 % 2. 3 % 5. 8 % 0. 0 % 4.0% Ve r y d i s s a t i s f i e d 0. 0 % 5. 3 % 6. 4 % 3. 6 % 0. 0 % 3. 8 % 2. 1 % 3.1% 20 1 3 To w n of We s t l a k e Re s i d e n t Su r v e y : Ap p e n d i x C - Cr o s s t a b s by Nu m b e r of Ye a r s Li v e d in th e City and Subdivision ET C In s t i t u t e (2 0 1 3 ) C - 7 Q1 . S a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h M a j o r C a t e g o r i e s o f T o w n S e r v i c e s : U s i n g a s c a l e o f 1 t o 5 , w h e r e 5 m e a n s " V e r y S a t i s f i e d " a n d 1 m e a n s " V e r y Di s s a t i s f i e d , " p l e a s e c i r c l e y o u r l e v e l o f s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h t h e f o l l o w i n g s e r v i c e s p r o v i d e d b y t h e T o w n o f W e s t l a k e . ( W i t h o u t D o n ' t K n o w ) N= 2 5 0 Q1 5 Y e a r s li v e d in W e s t l a k e Q1 6 S u b d i v i s i o n l i v e i n Total Le s s t h a n 5 ye a r s 5- 1 0 y e a r s 11 + y e a r s Sta g e c o a c h Hi l l s Va q u e r o Gl e n w y c k Fa r m s Ot h e r Q1 h E n f o r c e c o d e s / o r d i n a n c e s Ve r y s a t i s f i e d 31 . 9 % 30 . 9 % 15 . 6 % 28 . 0 % 33 . 3 % 14 . 9 % 31 . 3 % 27.6% Sa t i s f i e d 43 . 6 % 42 . 6 % 40 . 0 % 28 . 0 % 47 . 6 % 44 . 7 % 43 . 8 % 42.5% Ne u t r a l 18 . 1 % 17 . 6 % 28 . 9 % 24 . 0 % 16 . 7 % 27 . 7 % 16 . 7 % 21.0% Di s s a t i s f i e d 5. 3 % 4. 4 % 4. 4 % 12 . 0 % 1. 2 % 6. 4 % 6. 3 % 4.7% Ve r y d i s s a t i s f i e d 1. 1 % 4. 4 % 11 . 1 % 8. 0 % 1. 2 % 6. 4 % 2. 1 % 4.2% 20 1 3 To w n of We s t l a k e Re s i d e n t Su r v e y : Ap p e n d i x C - Cr o s s t a b s by Nu m b e r of Ye a r s Li v e d in th e City and Subdivision ET C In s t i t u t e (2 0 1 3 ) C - 8 Q1 . S a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h M a j o r C a t e g o r i e s o f T o w n S e r v i c e s : U s i n g a s c a l e o f 1 t o 5 , w h e r e 5 m e a n s " V e r y S a t i s f i e d " a n d 1 m e a n s " V e r y Di s s a t i s f i e d , " p l e a s e c i r c l e y o u r l e v e l o f s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h t h e f o l l o w i n g s e r v i c e s p r o v i d e d b y t h e T o w n o f W e s t l a k e . ( W i t h o u t D o n ' t K n o w ) N= 2 5 0 Q1 5 Y e a r s li v ed in W e s t l a k e Q1 6 S u b d i v i s i o n l i v e i n Total Le s s t h a n 5 ye a r s 5- 1 0 y e a r s 11 + y e a r s St a g e c o a c h Hi l l s Va q u e r o Gl e n w y c k Fa r m s Ot h e r Q1 i . O v e r a l l q u a l i t y o f g o v e r n m e n t s e r v i c e s Ve r y s a t i s f i e d 30 . 9 % 40 . 5 % 22 . 2 % 37 . 9 % 34 . 5 % 19 . 6 % 37 . 5 % 31.8% Sa t i s f i e d 40 . 2 % 41 . 9 % 44 . 4 % 34 . 5 % 43 . 7 % 35 . 3 % 52 . 1 % 41.7% Ne u t r a l 18 . 6 % 8. 1 % 22 . 2 % 24 . 1 % 14 . 9 % 25 . 5 % 6. 3 % 16.6% Di s s a t i s f i e d 10 . 3 % 2. 7 % 4. 4 % 3. 4 % 6. 9 % 11 . 8 % 2. 1 % 6.3% Ve r y d i s s a t i s f i e d 0. 0 % 6. 8 % 6. 7 % 0. 0 % 0. 0 % 7. 8 % 2. 1 % 3.6% 20 1 3 To w n of We s t l a k e Re s i d e n t Su r v e y : Ap p e n d i x C - Cr o s s t a b s by Nu m b e r of Ye a r s Li v e d in th e City and Subdivision ET C In s t i t u t e (2 0 1 3 ) C - 9 Q1 . S a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h M a j o r C a t e g o r i e s o f T o w n S e r v i c e s : U s i n g a s c a l e o f 1 t o 5 , w h e r e 5 m e a n s " V e r y S a t i s f i e d " a n d 1 m e a n s " V e r y Di s s a t i s f i e d , " p l e a s e c i r c l e y o u r l e v e l o f s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h t h e f o l l o w i n g s e r v i c e s p r o v i d e d b y t h e T o w n o f W e s t l a k e . ( W i t h o u t D o n ' t K n o w ) N= 2 5 0 Q1 5 Y e a r s li v e d in W e s t l a k e Q1 6 S u b d i v i s i o n l i v e i n Total Le s s t h a n 5 ye a r s 5- 1 0 y e a r s 11 + y e a r s St a g e c o a c h Hi l l s Va q u e r o Gl e n w y c k Fa r m s Ot h e r Q1 j V a l u e r e c e i v e d f r o m C i t y t a x d o l l a r s a n d f e e s Ve r y s a t i s f i e d 23 . 6 % 31 . 6 % 17 . 4 % 33 . 3 % 25 . 3 % 20 . 0 % 22 . 9 % 24.4% Sa t i s f i e d 34 . 0 % 27 . 8 % 32 . 6 % 26 . 7 % 33 . 7 % 25 . 5 % 39 . 6 % 31.1% Ne u t r a l 25 . 5 % 20 . 3 % 28 . 3 % 26. 7 % 23 . 2 % 32 . 7 % 20 . 8 % 24.8% Di s s a t i s f i e d 15 . 1 % 16 . 5 % 10 . 9 % 10 . 0 % 17 . 9 % 12 . 7 % 12 . 5 % 15.1% Ve r y d i s s a t i s f i e d 1. 9 % 3. 8 % 10 . 9 % 3. 3 % 0. 0 % 9. 1 % 4. 2 % 4.6% 20 1 3 To w n of We s t l a k e Re s i d e n t Su r v e y : Ap p e n d i x C - Cr o s s t a b s by Nu m b e r of Ye a r s Li v e d in th e City and Subdivision ET C In s t i t u t e (2 0 1 3 ) C - 10 Q1 . S a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h M a j o r C a t e g o r i e s o f T o w n S e r v i c e s : U s i n g a s c a l e o f 1 t o 5 , w h e r e 5 m e a n s " V e r y S a t i s f i e d " a n d 1 m e a n s " V e r y Di s s a t i s f i e d , " p l e a s e c i r c l e y o u r l e v e l o f s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h t h e f o l l o w i n g s e r v i c e s p r o v i d e d b y t h e T o w n o f W e s t l a k e . ( W i t h o u t D o n ' t K n o w ) N= 2 5 0 Q1 5 Y e a r s li v e d in W e s t l a k e Q1 6 S u b d i v i s i on l i v e i n Total Le s s t h a n 5 ye a r s 5- 1 0 y e a r s 11 + y e a r s St a g e c o a c h Hi l l s Va q u e r o Gl e n w y c k Fa r m s Ot h e r Q1 k O v e r a l l v a l u e o f W e s t l a k e A c a d e m y t o t h e T o w n Ve r y s a t i s f i e d 54 . 6 % 57 . 3 % 48 . 8 % 48 . 3 % 58 . 3 % 33 . 3 % 68 . 8 % 53.6% Sa t i s f i e d 28 . 9 % 18 . 7 % 25 . 6 % 24 . 1 % 23 . 8 % 33 . 3 % 18 . 8 % 24.3% Ne u t r a l 11 . 3 % 13 . 3 % 16 . 3 % 17 . 2 % 11 . 9 % 13 . 7 % 12 . 5 % 12.6% Di s s a t i s f i e d 5. 2 % 9. 3 % 4. 7 % 6. 9 % 6. 0 % 17 . 6 % 0. 0 % 7.7% Ve r y d i s s a t i s f i e d 0.0 % 1. 3 % 4. 7 % 3. 4 % 0. 0 % 2. 0 % 0. 0 % 1.8% 20 1 3 To w n of We s t l a k e Re s i d e n t Su r v e y : Ap p e n d i x C - Cr o s s t a b s by Nu m b e r of Ye a r s Li v e d in th e City and Subdivision ET C In s t i t u t e (2 0 1 3 ) C - 11 Q2 . W h i c h T H R E E o f t h e s e r v i c e s l i s t e d a b o v e a r e t h e m o s t i m p o r t a n t t o y o u ? ( S u m o f T o p T h r e e C h o i c e s ) N= 2 5 0 Q1 5 Y e a r s li v e d in W e s t l a k e Q1 6 S u b d i v i s i o n l i v e i n Total Le s s t h a n 5 ye a r s 5- 1 0 y e a r s 11 + y e a r s St a g e c o a c h Hi l l s Va q u e r o Gl e n w y c k Fa r m s Ot h e r Q2 S u m o f T o p T h r e e C h o i c e s Pu b l i c s a f e t y s e r v i c e s 76 . 4 % 65 . 1 % 80 . 0 % 80 . 6 % 70 . 4 % 71 . 9 % 84 . 6 % 72.8% Ef f o r t s t o p r e p a r e f o r em e r g e n c i e s 14 . 5 % 21 . 7 % 20 . 0 % 16 . 1 % 23 . 5 % 7. 0 % 19 . 2 % 17.6% Ma i n t e n a n c e o f T o w n s t r e e t s 11 . 8 % 22 . 9 % 30 . 0 % 35 . 5 % 16 . 3 % 19 . 3 % 21 . 2 % 20.4% Ef f e c t i v e n e s s o f co m m u n i c a t i o n 10 . 9 % 6. 0 % 10 . 0 % 0. 0 % 13 . 3 % 14 . 0 % 3. 8 % 9.6% Qu a l i t y of u t i l i t y s e r v i c e s 22 . 7 % 16 . 9 % 22 . 0 % 29 . 0 % 20 . 4 % 22 . 8 % 13 . 5 % 20.0% Qu a l i t y o f p a r k s / t r a i l s / o p e n sp a c e s / s t r e e t s c a p i n g / f a c i l i t i e s 37 . 3 % 37 . 3 % 22 . 0 % 35 . 5 % 30 . 6 % 40 . 4 % 32 . 7 % 34.0% Qu a l i t y o f c u s t o m e r s e r v i c e 3. 6 % 8. 4 % 10 . 0 % 3. 2 % 5. 1 % 1. 8 % 15 . 4 % 6.8% En f o r c e m e n t o f c o d e s a n d or d i n a n c e s 10 . 9 % 15 . 7 % 4. 0 % 3. 2 % 19 . 4 % 5. 3 % 7. 7 % 11.2% Go v e r n m e n t s e r v i c e s pr o v i d e d b y t h e T o w n 11 . 8 % 9. 6 % 16 . 0 % 29 . 0 % 10 . 2 % 10 . 5 % 5. 8 % 12.0% 20 1 3 To w n of We s t l a k e Re s i d e n t Su r v e y : Ap p e n d i x C - Cr o s s t a b s by Nu m b e r of Ye a r s Li v e d in th e City and Subdivision ET C In s t i t u t e (2 0 1 3 ) C - 12 Q2 . W h i c h T H R E E o f t h e s e r v i c e s l i s t e d a b o v e a r e t h e m o s t i m p o r t a n t t o y o u ? ( S u m o f T o p T h r e e C h o i c e s ) N= 2 5 0 Q1 5 Y e a r s li v e d in W e s t l a k e Q1 6 S u b d i v i s i o n l i v e i n Total Le s s t h a n 5 ye a r s 5- 1 0 y e a r s 11 + y e a r s St a g e c o a c h Hi l l s Va q u e r o Gl e n w y c k Fa r m s Ot h e r Q2 S u m o f T o p T h r e e C h o i c e s ( C o n t . ) Va l u e y o u r e c e i v e f r o m y o u r ta x d o l l a r s / f e e s 30 . 9 % 31 . 3 % 28 . 0 % 25 . 8 % 29 . 6 % 33 . 3 % 32 . 7 % 31.2% Va l u e o f W e s t l a k e A c a d e m y to t h e T o w n 49 . 1 % 43 . 4 % 34 . 0 % 35 . 5 % 40 . 8 % 42 . 1 % 51 . 9 % 43.6% No n e c h o s e n 2. 7 % 4. 8 % 4. 0 % 0. 0 % 4. 1 % 5. 3 % 0. 0 % 3.6% 20 1 3 To w n of We s t l a k e Re s i d e n t Su r v e y : Ap p e n d i x C - Cr o s s t a b s by Nu m b e r of Ye a r s Li v e d in th e City and Subdivision ET C In s t i t u t e (2 0 1 3 ) C - 13 Q3 . S a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h P o l i c e S e r v i c e s P r o v i d e d b y t h e T o w n : U s i n g a s c a l e o f 1 t o 5 , w h e r e 5 m e a n s " V e r y S a t i s f i e d " a n d 1 m e a n s " V e r y Di s s a t i s f i e d , " p l e a s e c i r c l e y o u r l e v e l o f s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h e a c h o f t h e f o l l o w i n g . ( W i t h o u t D o n ' t K n o w ) N= 2 5 0 Q1 5 Y e a r s li v e d in W e s t l a k e Q1 6 S u b d i v i s i o n l i v e i n Total Le s s t h a n 5 ye a r s 5- 1 0 y e a r s 11 + y e a r s St a g e c o a c h Hi l l s Va q u e r o Gl e n w y c k Fa r m s Ot h e r Q3 a Q u a l i t y o f l o c a l p o l i c e p r o t e c t i o n Ve r y s a t i s f i e d 45 . 6 % 40 . 7 % 41 . 7 % 40 . 0 % 48 . 4 % 24 . 1 % 60 . 0 % 43.5% Sa t i s f i e d 34 . 0 % 38 . 3 % 37 . 5 % 33 . 3 % 32 . 6 % 42 . 6 % 34 . 0 % 35.6% Ne u t r a l 17 . 5 % 17 . 3 % 18 . 8 % 26 . 7 % 14 . 7 % 29 . 6 % 6. 0 % 18.0% Di s s a t i s f i e d 2. 9 % 3. 7 % 2. 1 % 0. 0 % 4. 2 % 3. 7 % 0. 0 % 2.9% 20 1 3 To w n of We s t l a k e Re s i d e n t Su r v e y : Ap p e n d i x C - Cr o s s t a b s by Nu m b e r of Ye a r s Li v e d in th e City and Subdivision ET C In s t i t u t e (2 0 1 3 ) C - 14 Q3 . S a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h P o l i c e S e r v i c e s P r o v i d e d b y t h e T o w n : U s i n g a s c a l e o f 1 t o 5 , w h e r e 5 m e a n s " V e r y S a t i s f i e d " a n d 1 m e a n s " V e r y Di s s a t i s f i e d , " p l e a s e c i r c l e y o u r l e v e l o f s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h e a c h o f t h e f o l l o w i n g . ( W i t h o u t D o n ' t K n o w ) N= 2 5 0 Q1 5 Y e a r s li v e d in W e s t l a k e Q1 6 S u b d i v i s i o n l i v e i n Total Le s s t h a n 5 ye a r s 5- 1 0 y e a r s 11 + y e a r s St a g e c o a c h Hi l l s Va q u e r o Gl e n w y c k Fa r m s Ot h e r Q3 b V i s i b i l i t y o f p o l i c e i n n e i g h b o r h o o d s Ve r y s a t i s f i e d 33 . 0 % 32 . 9 % 30 . 0 % 29 . 0 % 36 . 7 % 26 . 3 % 37 . 3 % 33.1% Sa t i s f i e d 38 . 5 % 46 . 3 % 30 . 0 % 48 . 4 % 33 . 7 % 40 . 4 % 37 . 3 % 38.3% Ne u t r a l 21 . 1 % 13 . 4 % 28 . 0 % 12 . 9% 22 . 4 % 24 . 6 % 17 . 6 % 19.8% Di s s a t i s f i e d 7. 3 % 7. 3 % 10 . 0 % 9. 7 % 7. 1 % 8. 8 % 7. 8 % 8.5% Ve r y d i s s a t i s f i e d 0. 0 % 0. 0 % 2. 0 % 0. 0 % 0. 0 % 0. 0 % 0. 0 % 0.4% 20 1 3 To w n of We s t l a k e Re s i d e n t Su r v e y : Ap p e n d i x C - Cr o s s t a b s by Nu m b e r of Ye a r s Li v e d in th e City and Subdivision ET C In s t i t u t e (2 0 1 3 ) C - 15 Q3 . S a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h P o l i c e S e r v i c e s P r o v i d e d b y t h e T o w n : U s i n g a s c a l e o f 1 t o 5 , w h e r e 5 m e a n s " V e r y S a t i s f i e d " a n d 1 m e a n s " V e r y Di s s a t i s f i e d , " p l e a s e c i r c l e y o u r l e v e l o f s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h e a c h o f t h e f o l l o w i n g . ( W i t h o u t D o n ' t K n o w ) N= 2 5 0 Q1 5 Y e a r s li v e d in W e s t l a k e Q1 6 S u b d i v i s i o n l i v e i n Total Le s s t h a n 5 ye a r s 5- 1 0 y e a r s 11 + y e a r s St a g e c o a c h Hi l l s Va q u e r o Gl e n w y c k Fa r m s Ot h e r Q3 c H o w q u i c k l y p o l i c e r e s p o n d t o e m e r g e n c i e s Ve r y s a t i s f i e d 48 . 0 % 32 . 8 % 50 . 0 % 44 . 4 % 41 . 3 % 37 . 8 % 52 . 6 % 43.5% Sa t i s f i e d 33 . 3 % 43 . 1 % 31 . 6 % 33 . 3 % 41 . 3 % 29 . 7 % 34 . 2 % 35.6% Ne u t r a l 17 . 3 % 24 . 1 % 18 . 4 % 22 . 2 % 17 . 3 % 29 . 7 % 13 . 2 % 20.3% Di s s a t i s f i e d 1. 3 % 0. 0 % 0. 0 % 0. 0 % 0. 0 % 2. 7 % 0. 0 % 0.6% 20 1 3 To w n of We s t l a k e Re s i d e n t Su r v e y : Ap p e n d i x C - Cr o s s t a b s by Nu m b e r of Ye a r s Li v e d in th e City and Subdivision ET C In s t i t u t e (2 0 1 3 ) C - 16 Q3 . S a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h P o l i c e S e r v i c e s P r o v i d e d b y t h e T o w n : U s i n g a s c a l e o f 1 t o 5 , w h e r e 5 m e a n s " V e r y S a t i s f i e d " a n d 1 m e a n s " V e r y Di s s a t i s f i e d , " p l e a s e c i r c l e y o u r l e v e l o f s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h e a c h o f t h e f o l l o w i n g . ( W i t h o u t D o n ' t K n o w ) N= 2 5 0 Q1 5 Y e a r s li v e d in W e s t l a k e Q1 6 S u b d i v i s i o n l i v e i n Total Le s s t h a n 5 ye a r s 5- 1 0 y e a r s 11 + y e a r s St a g e c o a c h Hi l l s Va q u e r o Gl e n w y c k Fa r m s Ot h e r Q3 d E f f o r t s o f t h e T o w n t o p r e v e n t c r i m e Ve r y s a t i s f i e d 37 . 5 % 33 . 8 % 22 . 7 % 20 . 8 % 37 . 0 % 27 . 3 % 43 . 5 % 33.9% Sa t i s f i e d 31 . 3 % 45 . 0 % 54 . 5 % 58 . 3% 38 . 0 % 40 . 0 % 39 . 1 % 40.1% Ne u t r a l 12 . 5 % 16 . 3 % 15 . 9 % 16 . 7 % 10 . 9 % 20 . 0 % 10 . 9 % 15.0% Di s s a t i s f i e d 15 . 6 % 2. 5 % 4. 5 % 4. 2 % 10 . 9 % 9. 1 % 6. 5 % 8.4% Ve r y d i s s a t i s f i e d 3. 1 % 2. 5 % 2. 3 % 0. 0 % 3. 3 % 3. 6 % 0. 0 % 2.6% 20 1 3 To w n of We s t l a k e Re s i d e n t Su r v e y : Ap p e n d i x C - Cr o s s t a b s by Nu m b e r of Ye a r s Li v e d in th e City and Subdivision ET C In s t i t u t e (2 0 1 3 ) C - 17 Q3 . S a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h P o l i c e S e r v i c e s P r o v i d e d b y t h e T o w n : U s i n g a s c a l e o f 1 t o 5 , w h e r e 5 m e a n s " V e r y S a t i s f i e d " a n d 1 m e a n s " V e r y Di s s a t i s f i e d , " p l e a s e c i r c l e y o u r l e v e l o f s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h e a c h o f t h e f o l l o w i n g . ( W i t h o u t D o n ' t K n o w ) N= 2 5 0 Q1 5 Y e a r s li v e d in W e s t l a k e Q1 6 S u b d i v i s i o n l i v e i n Total Le s s t h a n 5 ye a r s 5- 1 0 y e a r s 11 + y e a r s St a g e c o a c h Hi l l s Va q u e r o Gl e n w y c k Fa r m s Ot h e r Q3 e L e v e l o f t r a f f i c e n f o r c e m e n t Ve r y s a t i s f i e d 33 . 0 % 22 . 5 % 31 . 3 % 20 . 7 % 32 . 3 % 19. 6 % 38 . 8 % 29.0% Sa t i s f i e d 35 . 8 % 41 . 3 % 31 . 3 % 37 . 9 % 36 . 5 % 44 . 6 % 30 . 6 % 37.3% Ne u t r a l 17 . 0 % 20 . 0 % 22 . 9 % 31 . 0 % 18 . 8 % 14 . 3 % 18 . 4 % 18.7% Di s s a t i s f i e d 7. 5 % 10 . 0 % 8. 3 % 6. 9 % 7. 3 % 14 . 3 % 6. 1 % 8.7% Ve r y di s s a t i s f i e d 6. 6 % 6. 3 % 6. 3 % 3. 4 % 5. 2 % 7. 1 % 6. 1 % 6.2% 20 1 3 To w n of We s t l a k e Re s i d e n t Su r v e y : Ap p e n d i x C - Cr o s s t a b s by Nu m b e r of Ye a r s Li v e d in th e City and Subdivision ET C In s t i t u t e (2 0 1 3 ) C - 18 Q3 . S a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h F i r e & M e d i c a l S e r v i c e s P r o v i d e d b y t h e T o w n : U s i n g a s c a l e o f 1 t o 5 , w h e r e 5 m e a n s " V e r y S a t i s f i e d " a n d 1 m e a n s "V e r y D i s s a t i s f i e d , " p l e a s e c i r c l e y o u r l e v e l o f s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h e a c h o f t h e f o l l o w i n g . ( W i t h o u t D o n ' t K n o w ) N= 2 5 0 Q1 5 Y e a r s li v e d in W e s t l a k e Q1 6 S u b d i v i s i o n l i v e i n Total Le s s t h a n 5 ye a r s 5- 1 0 y e a r s 11 + y e a r s St a g e c o a c h Hi l l s Va q u e r o Gl e n w y c k Fa r m s Ot h e r Q3 f Q u a l i t y o f f i r e s e rv i c e s Ve r y s a t i s f i e d 59 . 7 % 42 . 6 % 37 . 1 % 52 . 2 % 48 . 5 % 41 . 9 % 53 . 7 % 47.9% Sa t i s f i e d 29 . 9 % 39 . 3 % 51 . 4 % 43 . 5 % 38 . 2 % 35 . 5 % 39 . 0 % 38.9% Ne u t r a l 9. 0 % 18 . 0 % 8. 6 % 4. 3 % 11 . 8 % 22 . 6 % 7. 3 % 12.0% Di s s a t i s f i e d 1. 5 % 0. 0 % 2. 9 % 0. 0 % 1. 5 % 0. 0 % 0. 0 % 1.2% 20 1 3 To w n of We s t l a k e Re s i d e n t Su r v e y : Ap p e n d i x C - Cr o s s t a b s by Nu m b e r of Ye a r s Li v e d in th e City and Subdivision ET C In s t i t u t e (2 0 1 3 ) C - 19 Q3 . S a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h F i r e & M e d i c a l S e r v i c e s P r o v i d e d b y t h e T o w n : U s i n g a s c a l e o f 1 t o 5 , w h e r e 5 m e a n s " V e r y S a t i s f i e d " a n d 1 m e a n s "V e r y D i s s a t i s f i e d , " p l e a s e c i r c l e y o u r l e v e l o f s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h e a c h o f t h e f o l l o w i n g . ( W i t h o u t D o n ' t K n o w ) N= 2 5 0 Q1 5 Y e a r s li v e d in W e s t l a k e Q1 6 S u b d i v i s i o n l i v e i n Total Le s s t h a n 5 ye a r s 5- 1 0 y e a r s 11 + y e a r s St a g e c o a c h Hi l l s Va q u e r o Gl e n w y c k Fa r m s Ot h e r Q3 g Q u a l i t y o f e m e r g e n c y m e d i c a l s er v i c e s Ve r y s a t i s f i e d 57 . 1 % 54 . 4 % 50 . 0 % 37 . 5 % 57 . 6 % 46 . 4 % 73 . 8 % 54.8% Sa t i s f i e d 34 . 3 % 29 . 8 % 36 . 1 % 62 . 5 % 31 . 8 % 28 . 6 % 16 . 7 % 33.1% Ne u t r a l 8. 6 % 15 . 8 % 13 . 9 % 0. 0 % 10 . 6 % 25 . 0 % 9. 5 % 12.0% 20 1 3 To w n of We s t l a k e Re s i d e n t Su r v e y : Ap p e n d i x C - Cr o s s t a b s by Nu m b e r of Ye a r s Li v e d in th e City and Subdivision ET C In s t i t u t e (2 0 1 3 ) C - 20 Q3 . S a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h F i r e & M e d i c a l S e r v i c e s P r o v i d e d b y t h e T o w n : U s i n g a s c a l e o f 1 t o 5 , w h e r e 5 m e a n s " V e r y S a t i s f i e d " a n d 1 m e a n s "V e r y D i s s a t i s f i e d , " p l e a s e c i r c l e y o u r l e v e l o f s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h e a c h o f t h e f o l l o w i n g . ( W i t h o u t D o n ' t K n o w ) N= 2 5 0 Q1 5 Y e a r s li v e d in W e s t l a k e Q1 6 S u b d i v i s i o n l i v e i n Total Le s s t h a n 5 ye a r s 5- 1 0 y e a r s 11 + y e a r s St a g e c o a c h Hi l l s Va q u e r o Gl e n w y c k Fa r m s Ot h e r Q3 h R e s p o n s e t i m e o f f i r e a n d e m e r g e n c y m e d i c a l s e r v i c e s p e r s o n n e l Ve r y s a t i s f i e d 60 . 0 % 50 . 0 % 48 . 6 % 42 . 1 % 57 . 6 % 57 . 7 % 55 . 6 % 53.1% Sa t i s f i e d 26 . 7 % 37 . 5 % 40 . 0 % 47 . 4 % 33 . 9 % 26 . 9 % 33 . 3 % 34.7% Ne u t r a l 13 . 3 % 12 . 5 % 8. 6 % 10 . 5 % 8. 5 % 15 . 4 % 8. 3 % 11.6% Ve r y d i s s a t i s f i e d 0. 0 % 0. 0 % 2. 9 % 0. 0 % 0. 0 % 0. 0 % 2. 8% 0.7% 20 1 3 To w n of We s t l a k e Re s i d e n t Su r v e y : Ap p e n d i x C - Cr o s s t a b s by Nu m b e r of Ye a r s Li v e d in th e City and Subdivision ET C In s t i t u t e (2 0 1 3 ) C - 21 Q3 . S a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h E m e r g e n c y P r e p a r e d n e s s P r o v i d e d b y t h e T o w n : U s i n g a s c a l e o f 1 t o 5 , w h e r e 5 m e a n s " V e r y S a t i s f i e d " a n d 1 m e a n s "V e r y D i s s a t i s f i e d , " p l e a s e c i r c l e y o u r l e v e l o f s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h e a c h o f t h e f o l l o w i n g . ( W i t h o u t D o n ' t K n o w ) N= 2 5 0 Q1 5 Y e a r s li v e d in W e s t l a k e Q1 6 S u b d i v i s i o n l i v e i n Total Le s s t h a n 5 ye a r s 5- 1 0 y e a r s 11 + y e a r s St a g e c o a c h Hi l l s Va q u e r o Gl e n w y c k Fa r m s Ot h e r Q3 i R e s p o n s e e f f o r t s b y t h e T o w n S t a f f d u r i n g e x t r e m e w e a t h e r c o n d i t i o n s Ve r y s a t i s f i e d 36 . 2 % 43 . 5 % 21 . 4 % 30 . 8 % 45 . 2 % 23 . 4 % 32 . 6 % 35.1% Sa t i s f i e d 42 . 6 % 34 . 8 % 45 . 2 % 38 . 5 % 45 . 2 % 38 . 3 % 39 . 1 % 40.3% Ne u t r a l 21 . 3 % 17 . 4 % 31 . 0 % 30 . 8 % 8. 3 % 36 . 2 % 26 . 1 % 22.7% Di s s a t i s f i e d 0. 0 % 4. 3 % 0. 0 % 0. 0 % 1. 2 % 2. 1 % 2. 2 % 1.4% Ve r y d i s s a t i s f i e d 0. 0 % 0. 0 % 2. 4 % 0. 0 % 0. 0 % 0. 0 % 0. 0 % 0.5% 20 1 3 To w n of We s t l a k e Re s i d e n t Su r v e y : Ap p e n d i x C - Cr o s s t a b s by Nu m b e r of Ye a r s Li v e d in th e City and Subdivision ET C In s t i t u t e (2 0 1 3 ) C - 22 Q3 . S a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h E m e r g e n c y P r e p a r e d n e s s P r o v i d e d b y t h e T o w n : U s i n g a s c a l e o f 1 t o 5 , w h e r e 5 m e a n s " V e r y S a t i s f i e d " a n d 1 m e a n s "V e r y D i s s a t i s f i e d , " p l e a s e c i r c l e y o u r l e v e l o f s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h e a c h o f t h e f o l l o w i n g . ( W i t h o u t D o n ' t K n o w ) N= 2 5 0 Q1 5 Y e a r s li v e d in W e s t l a k e Q1 6 S u b d i v i s i o n l i v e i n Total Le s s t h a n 5 ye a r s 5- 1 0 y e a r s 11 + y e a r s St a g e c o a c h Hi l l s Va q u e r o Gl en w y c k Fa r m s Ot h e r Q3 j E f f o r t s b y t h e T o w n S t a f f t o i n f o r m r e s i d e n t s o f h a z a r d o u s r o a d c o n d i t i o n s , p o t e n t i a l i n c l e m e n t w e a t h e r & c l o s u r e s Ve r y s a t i s f i e d 38 . 5 % 43 . 1 % 26 . 7 % 38 . 5 % 50 . 6 % 20 . 8 % 34 . 0 % 37.4% Sa t i s fi e d 37 . 5 % 31 . 9 % 40 . 0 % 30 . 8 % 31 . 8 % 52 . 1 % 34 . 0 % 36.1% Ne u t r a l 19 . 8 % 22 . 2 % 31 . 1 % 30 . 8 % 10 . 6 % 27 . 1 % 32 . 0 % 23.3% Di s s a t i s f i e d 4. 2 % 2. 8 % 0. 0 % 0. 0 % 7. 1 % 0. 0 % 0. 0 % 2.7% Ve r y d i s s a t i s f i e d 0. 0 % 0. 0 % 2. 2 % 0. 0 % 0. 0 % 0. 0 % 0. 0 % 0.5% 20 1 3 To w n of We s t l a k e Re s i d e n t Su r v e y : Ap p e n d i x C - Cr o s s t a b s by Nu m b e r of Ye a r s Li v e d in th e City and Subdivision ET C In s t i t u t e (2 0 1 3 ) C - 23 Q3 . S a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h T r a n s p o r t a t i o n S e r v i c e s P r o v i d e d b y t h e T o w n : U s i n g a s c a l e o f 1 t o 5 , w h e r e 5 m e a n s " V e r y S a t i s f i e d " a n d 1 m e a n s "V e r y D i s s a t i s f i e d , " p l e a s e c i r c l e y o u r l e v e l o f s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h e a c h o f t h e f o l l o w i n g . ( W i t h o u t D o n ' t K n o w ) N= 2 5 0 Q1 5 Y e a r s li v e d in W e s t l a k e Q1 6 S u b d i v i s i o n l i v e i n Total Le s s t h a n 5 ye a r s 5- 1 0 y e a r s 11 + y e a r s St a g e c o a c h Hi l l s Va q u e r o Gl e n w y c k Fa r m s Ot h e r Q3 k C o n d i t i o n o f m a j o r s t r e e t s i n W e s t l a k e Ve r y sa t i s f i e d 44 . 0 % 39 . 0 % 30 . 0 % 45 . 2 % 42 . 9 % 29 . 8 % 41 . 2 % 39.5% Sa t i s f i e d 45 . 9 % 48 . 8 % 48 . 0 % 45 . 2 % 45 . 9 % 57 . 9 % 39 . 2 % 47.2% Ne u t r a l 6. 4 % 12 . 2 % 12 . 0 % 6. 5 % 8. 2 % 8. 8 % 13 . 7 % 9.7% Di s s a t i s f i e d 0. 0 % 0. 0 % 10 . 0 % 3. 2 % 2.0 % 1. 8 % 2. 0 % 2.0% Ve r y d i s s a t i s f i e d 3. 7 % 0. 0 % 0. 0 % 0. 0 % 1. 0 % 1. 8 % 3. 9 % 1.6% 20 1 3 To w n of We s t l a k e Re s i d e n t Su r v e y : Ap p e n d i x C - Cr o s s t a b s by Nu m b e r of Ye a r s Li v e d in th e City and Subdivision ET C In s t i t u t e (2 0 1 3 ) C - 24 Q3 . S a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h T r a n s p o r t a t i o n S e r v i c e s P r o v i d e d b y t h e T o w n : U s i n g a s c a l e o f 1 t o 5 , w h e r e 5 m e a n s " V e r y S a t i s f i e d " a n d 1 m e a n s "V e r y D i s s a t i s f i e d , " p l e a s e c i r c l e y o u r l e v e l o f s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h e a c h o f t h e f o l l o w i n g . ( W i t h o u t D o n ' t K n o w ) N= 2 5 0 Q1 5 Y e a r s li v e d in W e s t l a k e Q1 6 S u b d i v i s i o n l i v e i n Total Le s s t h a n 5 ye a r s 5- 1 0 y e a r s 11 + y e a r s St a g e c o a c h Hi l l s Va q u e r o Gl e n w y c k Fa r m s Ot h e r Q3 l C o n d i t i o n o f s t r e e t s i n y o u r n e i g h b o r h o o d Ve r y s a t i s f i e d 44 . 5 % 42 . 7 % 34 . 0 % 22 . 6 % 51 . 0 % 31 . 6 % 44 . 2 % 41.4% Sa t i s f i e d 45 . 5 % 42 . 7 % 46 . 0 % 54 . 8 % 37 . 8 % 52 . 6 % 44 . 2 % 44.6% Ne u t r a l 8. 2 % 11 . 0 % 16 . 0 % 16 . 1 % 10 . 2 % 10 . 5 % 9. 6 % 11.2% Di s s a t i s f i e d 1. 8 % 3. 7 % 4. 0 % 6. 5 % 1. 0 % 5. 3 % 1. 9 % 2.8% 20 1 3 To w n of We s t l a k e Re s i d e n t Su r v e y : Ap p e n d i x C - Cr o s s t a b s by Nu m b e r of Ye a r s Li v e d in th e City and Subdivision ET C In s t i t u t e (2 0 1 3 ) C - 25 Q3 . S a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h T r a n s p o r t a t i o n S e r v i c e s P r o v i d e d b y t h e T o w n : U s i n g a s c a l e o f 1 t o 5 , w h e r e 5 m e a n s " V e r y S a t i s f i e d " a n d 1 m e a n s "V e r y D i s s a t i s f i e d , " p l e a s e c i r c l e y o u r l e v e l o f s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h e a c h o f t h e f o l l o w i n g . ( W i t h o u t D o n ' t K n o w ) N= 2 5 0 Q1 5 Y e a r s li v e d in W e s t l a k e Q1 6 S u b d i v i s i o n l i v e i n Total Le s s t h a n 5 ye a r s 5- 1 0 y e a r s 11 + y e a r s St a g e c o a c h Hi l l s Va q u e r o Gl e n w y c k Fa r m s Ot h e r Q3 m C l e a n l i n e s s o f s t r e e t s a n d o t h e r p u b l i c a r e a s Ve r y s a t i s f i e d 42 . 2 % 32 . 9 % 38 . 0 % 41 . 9 % 42 . 9 % 36 . 8 % 29 . 4 % 38.3% Sa t i s f i e d 40 . 4 % 62 . 2 % 44 . 0 % 48 . 4 % 46 . 9 % 56 . 1 % 45 . 1 % 48.0% Ne u t r a l 6. 4 % 1. 2 % 12 . 0 % 3. 2 % 3. 1 % 1. 8 % 13 . 7 % 6.0% Di s s a t i s f i e d 5. 5 % 3. 7 % 4. 0 % 3. 2 % 5. 1 % 3. 5 % 5. 9 % 4.8% Ve r y d i s s a t i s f i e d 5. 5 % 0. 0 % 2. 0 % 3. 2 % 2. 0 % 1. 8 % 5. 9 % 2.8% 20 1 3 To w n of We s t l a k e Re s i d e n t Su r v e y : Ap p e n d i x C - Cr o s s t a b s by Nu m b e r of Ye a r s Li v e d in th e City and Subdivision ET C In s t i t u t e (2 0 1 3 ) C - 26 Q3 . S a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h T r a n s p o r t a t i o n S e r v i c e s P r o v i d e d b y t h e T o w n : U s i n g a s c a l e o f 1 t o 5 , w h e r e 5 m e a n s " V e r y S a t i s f i e d " a n d 1 m e a n s "V e r y D i s s a t i s f i e d , " p l e a s e c i r c l e y o u r l e v e l o f s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h e a c h o f t h e f o l l o w i n g . ( W i t h o u t D o n ' t K n o w ) N= 2 5 0 Q1 5 Y e a r s li v e d in W e s t l a k e Q1 6 S u b d i v i s i o n l i v e i n Total Le s s t h a n 5 ye a r s 5- 1 0 y e a r s 11 + y e a r s St a g e c o a c h Hi l l s Va q u e r o Gl e n w y c k Fa r m s Ot h e r Q3 n T r a f f i c f l o w a n d c o n g e s t i o n m a n a g e m e n t i n W e s t l a k e Ve r y s a t i s f i e d 30 . 9 % 26 . 8 % 28 . 6 % 41 . 9 % 28 . 6 % 26 . 3 % 23 . 5 % 29.0% Sa ti s f i e d 47 . 3 % 51 . 2 % 49 . 0 % 41 . 9 % 51 . 0 % 45 . 6 % 56 . 9 % 48.8% Ne u t r a l 15 . 5 % 18 . 3 % 14 . 3 % 12 . 9 % 18 . 4 % 19 . 3 % 13 . 7 % 16.1% Di s s a t i s f i e d 5. 5 % 0. 0 % 2. 0 % 3. 2 % 2. 0 % 3. 5 % 2. 0 % 3.2% Ve r y d i s s a t i s f i e d 0. 9 % 3. 7 % 6. 1 % 0. 0 % 0. 0 % 5. 3 % 3. 9 % 2.8% 20 1 3 To w n of We s t l a k e Re s i d e n t Su r v e y : Ap p e n d i x C - Cr o s s t a b s by Nu m b e r of Ye a r s Li v e d in th e City and Subdivision ET C In s t i t u t e (2 0 1 3 ) C - 27 Q3 . S a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h C o m m u n i c a t i o n s & C i t i z e n E n g a g e m e n t P r o v i d e d b y t h e T o w n : U s i n g a s c a l e o f 1 t o 5 , w h e r e 5 m e a n s " V e r y Sa t i s f i e d " a n d 1 m e a n s " V e r y D i s s a t i s f i e d , " p l e a s e c i r c l e y o u r l e v e l o f s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h e a c h o f t h e f o l l o w i n g . ( W i t h o u t D o n ' t K n o w ) N= 2 5 0 Q1 5 Y e a r s li v e d in W e s t l a k e Q1 6 S u b d i v i s i o n l i v e i n Total Le s s t h a n 5 ye a r s 5- 1 0 y e a r s 11 + y e a r s St a g e c o a c h Hi l l s Va q u e r o Gl e n w y c k Fa r m s Ot h e r Q3 o E f f o r t s b y t h e T o w n t o k e e p y o u i n f o r m e d a bo u t C o u n c i l M e e t i n g s , T o w n p r o j e c t s , i s s u e s , a n d e v e n t s Ve r y s a t i s f i e d 48 . 6 % 41 . 3 % 24 . 0 % 43 . 3 % 48 . 5 % 28 . 1 % 43 . 1 % 41.1% Sa t i s f i e d 19 . 3 % 33 . 8 % 46 . 0 % 46 . 7 % 26 . 8 % 24 . 6 % 25 . 5 % 28.9% Ne u t r a l 14 . 7 % 11 . 3 % 16 . 0 % 6. 7% 13 . 4 % 19 . 3 % 15 . 7 % 13.8% Di s s a t i s f i e d 7. 3 % 10 . 0 % 6. 0 % 0. 0 % 9. 3 % 12 . 3 % 7. 8 % 8.1% Ve r y d i s s a t i s f i e d 10 . 1 % 3. 8 % 8. 0 % 3. 3 % 2. 1 % 15 . 8 % 7. 8 % 8.1% 20 1 3 To w n of We s t l a k e Re s i d e n t Su r v e y : Ap p e n d i x C - Cr o s s t a b s by Nu m b e r of Ye a r s Li v e d in th e City and Subdivision ET C In s t i t u t e (2 0 1 3 ) C - 28 Q3 . S a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h C o m m u n i c a t i o n s & C i t i z e n E n g a g e m e n t P r o v i d e d b y t h e T o w n : U s i n g a s c a l e o f 1 t o 5 , w h e r e 5 m e a n s " V e r y Sa t i s f i e d " a n d 1 m e a n s " V e r y D i s s a t i s f i e d , " p l e a s e c i r c l e y o u r l e v e l o f s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h e a c h o f t h e f o l l o w i n g . ( W i t h o u t D o n ' t K n o w ) N= 2 5 0 Q1 5 Y e a r s li v e d in W e s t l a k e Q1 6 S u b d i v i s i o n l i v e i n Total Le s s t h a n 5 ye a r s 5- 1 0 y e a r s 11 + y e a r s St a g e c o a c h Hi l l s Va q u e r o Gl e n w y c k Fa r m s Ot h e r Q3 p T i m e l i n e s s o f i n f o r m a t i o n p r o v i d e d b y t h e T o w n Ve r y s a t i s f i e d 32 . 1 % 41 . 3 % 27 . 1 % 45 . 2 % 41 . 1 % 22 . 8 % 32 . 0 % 34.4% Sat i s f i e d 26 . 6 % 32 . 5 % 37 . 5 % 38 . 7 % 27 . 4 % 26 . 3 % 34 . 0 % 30.3% Ne u t r a l 26 . 6 % 13 . 8 % 18 . 8 % 12 . 9 % 21 . 1 % 26 . 3 % 20 . 0 % 20.5% Di s s a t i s f i e d 4. 6 % 7. 5 % 4. 2 % 0. 0 % 5. 3 % 10 . 5 % 6. 0 % 5.7% Ve r y d i s s a t i s f i e d 10 . 1 % 5. 0 % 12 . 5 % 3.2 % 5. 3 % 14 . 0 % 8. 0 % 9.0% 20 1 3 To w n of We s t l a k e Re s i d e n t Su r v e y : Ap p e n d i x C - Cr o s s t a b s by Nu m b e r of Ye a r s Li v e d in th e City and Subdivision ET C In s t i t u t e (2 0 1 3 ) C - 29 Q3 . S a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h C o m m u n i c a t i o n s & C i t i z e n E n g a g e m e n t P r o v i d e d b y t h e T o w n : U s i n g a s c a l e o f 1 t o 5 , w h e r e 5 m e a n s " V e r y Sa t i s f i e d " a n d 1 m e a n s " V e r y D i s s a t i s f i e d , " p l e a s e c i r c l e y o u r l e v e l o f s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h e a c h o f t h e f o l l o w i n g . ( W i t h o u t D o n ' t K n o w ) N= 2 5 0 Q1 5 Y e a r s li v e d in W e s t l a k e Q1 6 S u b d i v i s i o n l i v e i n Total Le s s t h a n 5 ye a r s 5- 1 0 y e a r s 11 + y e a r s St a g e c o a c h Hi l l s Va q u e r o Gl e n w y c k Fa r m s Ot h e r Q3 q C o m p l e t e n e s s o f t h e i n f o r m a t i o n p r o v i de d b y t h e T o w n Ve r y s a t i s f i e d 36 . 6 % 32 . 5 % 16 . 3 % 27 . 6 % 39 . 6 % 20 . 0 % 30 . 0 % 31.2% Sa t i s f i e d 21 . 8 % 35 . 1 % 46 . 9 % 44 . 8 % 29 . 7 % 21 . 8 % 36 . 0 % 30.8% Ne u t r a l 17 . 8 % 22 . 1 % 16 . 3 % 24 . 1 % 16 . 5 % 23 . 6 % 18 . 0 % 18.8% Di s s a t i s f i e d 9. 9 % 3. 9 % 4. 1 % 0. 0 % 8. 8 % 10 . 9 % 4. 0 % 6.8% Ve r y d i s s a t i s f i e d 13 . 9 % 6. 5 % 16 . 3 % 3. 4 % 5. 5 % 23 . 6 % 12 . 0 % 12.4% 20 1 3 To w n of We s t l a k e Re s i d e n t Su r v e y : Ap p e n d i x C - Cr o s s t a b s by Nu m b e r of Ye a r s Li v e d in th e City and Subdivision ET C In s t i t u t e (2 0 1 3 ) C - 30 Q3 . S a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h C o m m u n i c a t i o n s & C i t i z e n E n g a g e m e n t P r o v i d e d b y t h e T o w n : U s i n g a s c a l e o f 1 t o 5 , w h e r e 5 m e a n s " V e r y Sa t i s f i e d " a n d 1 m e a n s " V e r y D i s s a t i s f i e d , " p l e a s e c i r c l e y o u r l e v e l o f s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h e a c h o f t h e f o l l o w i n g . ( W i t h o u t D o n ' t K n o w ) N= 2 5 0 Q1 5 Y e a r s li v e d in W e s t l a k e Q1 6 S u b d i v i s i o n l i v e i n Total Le s s t h a n 5 ye a r s 5- 1 0 y e a r s 11 + y e a r s St a g e c o a c h Hi l l s Va q u e r o Gl e n w y c k Fa r m s Ot h e r Q3 r U s e f u l n e s s o f t h e W e s t l a k e W i r e c o m m u n i c a t i o n s Ve r y s a t i s f i e d 38 . 8 % 36 . 8 % 28 . 9 % 24 . 1 % 47 . 3 % 18 . 2 % 42 . 6 % 35.9% Sa t i s f i e d 41 . 7 % 38 . 2 % 44 . 4 % 65 . 5 % 33 . 0% 49 . 1 % 36 . 2 % 41.1% Ne u t r a l 16 . 5 % 18 . 4 % 22 . 2 % 10 . 3 % 15 . 4 % 25 . 5 % 19 . 1 % 18.2% Di s s a t i s f i e d 1. 9 % 2. 6 % 0. 0 % 0. 0 % 4. 4 % 1. 8 % 0. 0 % 2.2% Ve r y d i s s a t i s f i e d 1. 0 % 3. 9 % 4. 4 % 0. 0 % 0. 0 % 5. 5 % 2. 1 % 2.6% 20 1 3 To w n of We s t l a k e Re s i d e n t Su r v e y : Ap p e n d i x C - Cr o s s t a b s by Nu m b e r of Ye a r s Li v e d in th e City and Subdivision ET C In s t i t u t e (2 0 1 3 ) C - 31 Q3 . S a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h C o m m u n i c a t i o n s & C i t i z e n E n g a g e m e n t P r o v i d e d b y t h e T o w n : U s i n g a s c a l e o f 1 t o 5 , w h e r e 5 m e a n s " V e r y Sa t i s f i e d " a n d 1 m e a n s " V e r y D i s s a t i s f i e d , " p l e a s e c i r c l e y o u r l e v e l o f s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h e a c h o f t h e f o l l o w i n g . ( W i t h o u t D o n ' t K n o w ) N= 2 5 0 Q1 5 Y e a r s li v e d in W e s t l a k e Q1 6 S u b d i v i s i o n l i v e i n Total Le s s t h a n 5 ye a r s 5- 1 0 y e a r s 11 + y e a r s St a g e c o a c h Hi l l s Va q u e r o Gl e n w y c k Fa r m s Ot h e r Q3 s E a s e o f u s e o f t h e T o w n ' s w e b s i t e Ve r y s a t i s f i e d 27 . 5 % 20 . 5 % 20 . 0% 15 . 4 % 31 . 7 % 15 . 7 % 26 . 2 % 24.6% Sa t i s f i e d 29 . 7 % 35 . 6 % 35 . 0 % 46 . 2 % 26 . 8 % 29 . 4 % 40 . 5 % 32.7% Ne u t r a l 29 . 7 % 35 . 6 % 27 . 5 % 30 . 8 % 31 . 7 % 35 . 3 % 26 . 2 % 30.8% Di s s a t i s f i e d 11 . 0 % 4. 1 % 7. 5 % 7. 7 % 7. 3 % 11 . 8 % 4. 8 % 7.6% Ve r y d i s s a t i s f i e d 2. 2 % 4. 1 % 10 . 0 % 0. 0 % 2. 4 % 7. 8 % 2. 4 % 4.3% 20 1 3 To w n of We s t l a k e Re s i d e n t Su r v e y : Ap p e n d i x C - Cr o s s t a b s by Nu m b e r of Ye a r s Li v e d in th e City and Subdivision ET C In s t i t u t e (2 0 1 3 ) C - 32 Q3 . S a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h C o m m u n i c a t i o n s & C i t i z e n E n g a g e m e n t P r o v i d e d b y t h e T o w n : U s i n g a s c a l e o f 1 t o 5 , w h e r e 5 m e a n s " V e r y Sa t i s f i e d " a n d 1 m e a n s " V e r y D i s s a t i s f i e d , " p l e a s e c i r c l e y o u r l e v e l o f s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h e a c h o f t h e f o l l o w i n g . ( W i t h o u t D o n ' t K n o w ) N= 2 5 0 Q1 5 Y e a r s li v e d in W e s t l a k e Q1 6 S u b d i v i s i o n l i v e i n Total Le s s t h a n 5 ye a r s 5- 1 0 y e a r s 11 + y e a r s St a g e c o a c h Hi l l s Va q u e r o Gl e n w y c k Fa r m s Ot h e r Q3 t A v a i l a b i l i t y / A c c e s s i b i l i t y o f T o w n r e c o r d s Ve r y s a t i s f i e d 30 . 2 % 24 . 1 % 21 . 6 % 20 . 8 % 31 . 0 % 12 . 9 % 32 . 4 % 25.8% Sa t i s f i e d 28 . 6 % 37 . 0 % 24 . 3 % 45 . 8 % 27 . 6 % 29 . 0 % 27 . 0 % 30.8% Ne u t r a l 34 . 9 % 33 . 3 % 43 . 2 % 33 . 3 % 32 . 8 % 48 . 4 % 40 . 5 % 36.5% Di s s a t i s f i e d 6. 3 % 3. 7 % 2. 7 % 0. 0 % 8. 6 % 6. 5 % 0. 0 % 4.4% Ve r y d i s s a t i s f i e d 0. 0 % 1. 9 % 8. 1 % 0. 0 % 0. 0 % 3. 2 % 0. 0 % 2.5% 20 1 3 To w n of We s t l a k e Re s i d e n t Su r v e y : Ap p e n d i x C - Cr o s s t a b s by Nu m b e r of Ye a r s Li v e d in th e City and Subdivision ET C In s t i t u t e (2 0 1 3 ) C - 33 Q3 . S a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h C o m m u n i c a t i o n s & C i t i z e n E n g a g e m e n t P r o v i d e d b y t h e T o w n : U s i n g a s c a l e o f 1 t o 5 , w h e r e 5 m e a n s " V e r y Sa t i s f i e d " a n d 1 m e a n s " V e r y D i s s a t i s f i e d , " p l e a s e c i r c l e y o u r l e v e l o f s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h e a c h o f t h e f o l l o w i n g . ( W i t h o u t D o n ' t K n o w ) N= 2 5 0 Q1 5 Y e a r s li v e d in W e s t l a k e Q1 6 S u b d i v i s i o n l i v e i n Total Le s s t h a n 5 ye a r s 5- 1 0 y e a r s 11 + y e a r s St a g e c o a c h Hi l l s Va q u e r o Gl e n w y c k Fa r m s Ot h e r Q3 u O p p o r t u n i t i e s p r o v i d e d f o r p u b l i c i n p u t Ve r y s a t i s f i e d 35 . 2 % 27 . 1 % 18 . 4 % 26 . 9 % 38 . 0 % 22 . 2 % 22 . 2 % 29.3% Sa t i s f i e d 23 .1 % 34 . 3 % 36 . 8 % 38 . 5 % 30 . 4 % 15 . 6 % 40 . 0 % 29.8% Ne u t r a l 26 . 4 % 24 . 3 % 26 . 3 % 19 . 2 % 31 . 6 % 33 . 3 % 15 . 6 % 25.4% Di s s a t i s f i e d 9. 9 % 7. 1 % 5. 3 % 11 . 5 % 0. 0 % 17 . 8 % 11 . 1 % 7.8% Ve r y d i s s a t i s f i e d 5. 5 % 7. 1 % 13 . 2 % 3. 8 % 0. 0 % 11 .1 % 11 . 1 % 7.8% 20 1 3 To w n of We s t l a k e Re s i d e n t Su r v e y : Ap p e n d i x C - Cr o s s t a b s by Nu m b e r of Ye a r s Li v e d in th e City and Subdivision ET C In s t i t u t e (2 0 1 3 ) C - 34 Q3 . S a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h P a r k s & R e c r e a t i o n S e r v i c e s P r o v i d e d b y t h e T o w n : U s i n g a s c a l e o f 1 t o 5 , w h e r e 5 m e a n s " V e r y S a t i s f i e d " a n d 1 me a n s " V e r y D i s s a t i s f i e d , " p l e a s e c i r c l e y o u r l e v e l o f s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h e a c h o f t h e f o l l o w i n g . ( W i t h o u t D o n ' t K n o w ) N= 2 5 0 Q1 5 Y e a r s li v e d in W e s t l a k e Q1 6 S u b d i v i s i o n l i v e i n Total Le s s t h a n 5 ye a r s 5- 1 0 y e a r s 11 + y e a r s St a g e c o a c h Hi l l s Va q u e r o Gl e n w y c k Fa r m s Ot h e r Q3 v M a i n t e n a n c e o f T o w n -ow n e d G l e n w y c k P a r k Ver y s a t i s f i e d 29 . 9 % 28 . 6 % 25 . 7 % 10 . 0 % 32 . 7 % 28 . 6 % 33 . 3 % 28.4% Sa t i s f i e d 46 . 3 % 37 . 5 % 40 . 0 % 70 . 0 % 34 . 6 % 36 . 7 % 39 . 4 % 41.4% Ne u t r a l 19 . 4 % 25 . 0 % 28 . 6 % 20 . 0 % 25 . 0 % 24 . 5 % 21 . 2 % 23.5% Di s s a t i s f i e d 4. 5 % 3. 6 % 5. 7 % 0. 0 % 5. 8 % 8. 2 % 3. 0 % 4.9% Ve r y d i s s a t i s f i e d 0. 0 % 5. 4 % 0. 0 % 0. 0 % 1. 9 % 2. 0 % 3. 0 % 1.9% 20 1 3 To w n of We s t l a k e Re s i d e n t Su r v e y : Ap p e n d i x C - Cr o s s t a b s by Nu m b e r of Ye a r s Li v e d in th e City and Subdivision ET C In s t i t u t e (2 0 1 3 ) C - 35 Q3 . S a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h P a r k s & R e c r e a t i o n S e r v i c e s P r o v i d e d b y t h e T o w n : U s i n g a s c a l e o f 1 t o 5 , w h e r e 5 m e a n s " V e r y S a t i s f i e d " a n d 1 me a n s " V e r y D i s s a t i s f i e d , " p l e a s e c i r c l e y o u r l e v e l o f s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h e a c h o f t h e f o l l o w i n g . ( W i t h o u t D o n ' t K n o w ) N= 2 5 0 Q1 5 Y e a r s li v e d in W e s t l a k e Q1 6 S u b d i v i s i o n l i v e i n Total Le s s t h a n 5 ye a r s 5- 1 0 y e a r s 11 + y e a r s St a g e c o a c h Hi l l s Va q u e r o Gl e n w y c k Fa r m s Ot h e r Q3 w N u m b e r o f p u b l i c l y -ac c e s s i b l e p a r k s a n d t r a i l s Ve r y s a t i s f i e d 25 . 9 % 17 . 4 % 18 . 6 % 8. 3 % 23 . 4 % 23 . 5 % 21 . 4 % 22.1% Sa t i s f i e d 38 . 8 % 39 . 1 % 48 . 8 % 50 . 0 % 39 . 0 % 41 . 2 % 42 . 9 % 41.2% Ne u t r a l 12. 9 % 26 . 1 % 27 . 9 % 29 . 2 % 20 . 8 % 11 . 8 % 28 . 6 % 20.6% Di s s a t i s f i e d 20 . 0 % 14 . 5 % 2. 3 % 8. 3 % 13 . 0 % 23 . 5 % 4. 8 % 13.7% Ve r y d i s s a t i s f i e d 2. 4 % 2. 9 % 2. 3 % 4. 2 % 3. 9 % 0. 0 % 2. 4 % 2.5% 20 1 3 To w n of We s t l a k e Re s i d e n t Su r v e y : Ap p e n d i x C - Cr o s s t a b s by Nu m b e r of Ye a r s Li v e d in th e City and Subdivision ET C In s t i t u t e (2 0 1 3 ) C - 36 Q3 . S a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h P a r k s & R e c r e a t i o n S e r v i c e s P r o v i d e d b y t h e T o w n : U s i n g a s c a l e o f 1 t o 5 , w h e r e 5 m e a n s " V e r y S a t i s f i e d " a n d 1 me a n s " V e r y D i s s a t i s f i e d , " p l e a s e c i r c l e y o u r l e v e l o f s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h e a c h o f t h e f o l l o w i n g . ( W i t h o u t D o n ' t K n o w ) N= 2 5 0 Q1 5 Y e a r s li v e d in W e s t l a k e Q1 6 S u b d i v i s i o n l i ve i n Total Le s s t h a n 5 ye a r s 5- 1 0 y e a r s 11 + y e a r s St a g e c o a c h Hi l l s Va q u e r o Gl e n w y c k Fa r m s Ot h e r Q3 x M a i n t e n a n c e o f s t r e e t s c a p i n g a n d o p e n s p a c e s Ve r y s a t i s f i e d 35 . 3 % 31 . 6 % 27 . 7 % 25 . 9 % 33 . 7 % 27 . 8 % 38 . 0 % 32.0% Sa t i s f i e d 40 . 2 % 38 . 2 % 48 . 9 % 55 . 6 % 37 . 1 % 46 . 3 % 40 . 0 % 41.6% Ne u t r a l 14 . 7 % 17 . 1 % 14 . 9 % 7. 4 % 19 . 1 % 16 . 7 % 10 . 0 % 15.6% Di s s a t i s f i e d 3. 9 % 9. 2 % 2. 1 % 3. 7 % 5. 6 % 5. 6 % 6. 0 % 5.6% Ve r y d i s s a t i s f i e d 5. 9 % 3. 9 % 6. 4 % 7. 4 % 4. 5 % 3. 7 % 6. 0 % 5.2% 20 1 3 To w n of We s t l a k e Re s i d e n t Su r v e y : Ap p e n d i x C - Cr o s s t a b s by Nu m b e r of Ye a r s Li v e d in th e City and Subdivision ET C In s t i t u t e (2 0 1 3 ) C - 37 Q3 . S a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h U t i l i t y S e r v i c e s P r o v i d e d b y t h e T o w n : U s i n g a s c a l e o f 1 t o 5 , w h e r e 5 m e a n s " V e r y S a t i s f i e d " a n d 1 m e a n s " V e r y Di s s a t i s f i e d , " p l e a s e c i r c l e y o u r l e v e l o f s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h e a c h o f t h e f o l l o w i n g . ( W i t h o u t D o n ' t K n o w ) N= 2 5 0 Q1 5 Y e a r s li v e d in W e s t l a k e Q1 6 S u b d i v i s i o n l i v e i n Total Le s s t h a n 5 ye a r s 5- 1 0 y e a r s 11 + y e a r s St a g e c o a c h Hi l l s Va q u e r o Gl e n w y c k Fa r m s Ot h e r Q3 y R e s i d e n t i a l t r a s h c o l l e c t i o n s e r v i c e s Ve r y s a t i s f i e d 42 . 2 % 34 . 6 % 39 . 6 % 35 . 5 % 37 . 5 % 29 . 1 % 54 . 0 % 38.8% Sa t i s f i e d 35 . 8 % 39 . 7 % 45 . 8 % 54 . 8 % 35 . 4 % 49 . 1 % 32 . 0 % 39.3% Ne u t r a l 13 . 8 % 10 . 3 % 6. 3 % 6. 5 % 12 . 5 % 10 . 9 % 10 . 0 % 10.7% Di s s a t i s f i e d 8. 3 % 12 . 8 % 6. 3% 3. 2 % 14 . 6 % 7. 3 % 4. 0 % 9.9% Ve r y d i s s a t i s f i e d 0. 0 % 2. 6 % 2. 1 % 0. 0 % 0. 0 % 3. 6 % 0. 0 % 1.2% 20 1 3 To w n of We s t l a k e Re s i d e n t Su r v e y : Ap p e n d i x C - Cr o s s t a b s by Nu m b e r of Ye a r s Li v e d in th e City and Subdivision ET C In s t i t u t e (2 0 1 3 ) C - 38 Q3 . S a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h U t i l i t y S e r v i c e s P r o v i d e d b y t h e T o w n : U s i n g a s c a l e o f 1 t o 5 , w h e r e 5 m e a n s " V e r y S a t i s f i e d " a n d 1 m e a n s " V e r y Di s s a t i s f i e d , " p l e a s e c i r c l e y o u r l e v e l o f s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h e a c h o f t h e f o l l o w i n g . ( W i t h o u t D o n ' t K n o w ) N= 2 5 0 Q1 5 Y e a r s li v e d in W e s t l a k e Q1 6 S u b d i v i s i o n l i v e i n Total Le s s t h a n 5 ye a r s 5- 1 0 y e a r s 11 + y e a r s St a g e c o a c h Hi l l s Va q u e r o Gl e n w y c k Fa r m s Ot h e r Q3 z C u r b s i d e r e c y c l i n g s e r v i c e s Ve r y s a t i s f i e d 42 . 5 % 41 . 6 % 33 . 3 % 35 . 5 % 40 . 9 % 32 . 1 % 54 . 0 % 40.8% Sa t i s f i e d 43 . 4 % 36 . 4 % 47 . 9 % 58 . 1 % 39 . 8 % 49 . 1 % 30 . 0 % 41.6% Ne u t r a l 13 . 2 % 14 . 3 % 12 . 5 % 6. 5 % 15 .1 % 17 . 0 % 10 . 0 % 13.0% Di s s a t i s f i e d 0. 9 % 7. 8 % 4. 2 % 0. 0 % 4. 3 % 1. 9 % 6. 0 % 4.2% Ve r y d i s s a t i s f i e d 0. 0 % 0. 0 % 2. 1 % 0. 0 % 0. 0 % 0. 0 % 0. 0 % 0.4% 20 1 3 To w n of We s t l a k e Re s i d e n t Su r v e y : Ap p e n d i x C - Cr o s s t a b s by Nu m b e r of Ye a r s Li v e d in th e City and Subdivision ET C In s t i t u t e (2 0 1 3 ) C - 39 Q3 . S a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h U t i l i t y S e r v i c e s P r o v i d e d b y t h e T o w n : U s i n g a s c a l e o f 1 t o 5 , w h e r e 5 m e a n s " V e r y S a t i s f i e d " a n d 1 m e a n s " V e r y Di s s a t i s f i e d , " p l e a s e c i r c l e y o u r l e v e l o f s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h e a c h o f t h e f o l l o w i n g . ( W i t h o u t D o n ' t K n o w ) N= 2 5 0 Q1 5 Y e a r s li v e d in W e s t l a k e Q1 6 S u b d i v i s i o n l i v e i n Total Le s s t h a n 5 ye a r s 5- 1 0 y e a r s 11 + y e a r s St a g e c o a c h Hi l l s Va q u e r o Gl e n w y c k Fa r m s Ot h e r Q3 a a Y a r d W a s t e a n d b u l k y i t e m r e m o v a l s e r v i c e s Ve r y s a t i s f i e d 51 . 8 % 21 . 6 % 18 . 6 % 22 . 2 % 34 . 2 % 27 . 7 % 45 . 5 % 33.8% Sa t i s f i e d 33 . 7 % 45 . 9 % 62 . 8 % 59 .3 % 43 . 0 % 48 . 9 % 36 . 4 % 44.4% Ne u t r a l 10 . 8 % 23 . 0 % 14 . 0 % 18 . 5 % 16 . 5 % 14 . 9 % 15 . 9 % 15.9% Di s s a t i s f i e d 2. 4 % 6. 8 % 0. 0 % 0. 0 % 5. 1 % 4. 3 % 2. 3 % 3.4% Ve r y d i s s a t i s f i e d 1. 2 % 2. 7 % 4. 7 % 0. 0 % 1. 3 % 4. 3 % 0. 0 % 2.4% 20 1 3 To w n of We s t l a k e Re s i d e n t Su r v e y : Ap p e n d i x C - Cr o s s t a b s by Nu m b e r of Ye a r s Li v e d in th e City and Subdivision ET C In s t i t u t e (2 0 1 3 ) C - 40 Q3 . S a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h U t i l i t y S e r v i c e s P r o v i d e d b y t h e T o w n : U s i n g a s c a l e o f 1 t o 5 , w h e r e 5 m e a n s " V e r y S a t i s f i e d " a n d 1 m e a n s " V e r y Di s s a t i s f i e d , " p l e a s e c i r c l e y o u r l e v e l o f s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h e a c h o f t h e f o l l o w i n g . ( W i t h o u t D o n ' t K n o w ) N= 2 5 0 Q1 5 Y e a r s li v e d in W e s t l a k e Q1 6 S u b d i v i s i o n l i v e i n Total Le s s t h a n 5 ye a r s 5- 1 0 y e a r s 11 + y e a r s St a g e c o a c h Hi l l s Va q u e r o Gl e n w y c k Fa r m s Ot h e r Q3 b b T o w n e f f o r t s t o p r o m o t e w a t e r c o n s e r v a t i o n a n d p r o t e c t w a t e r r e s o u r c e s Ve r y sa t i s f i e d 33 . 0 % 17 . 9 % 11 . 6 % 14 . 8 % 22 . 4 % 17 . 6 % 33 . 3 % 23.0% Sa t i s f i e d 42 . 6 % 44 . 9 % 62 . 8 % 59 . 3 % 40 . 0 % 49 . 0 % 56 . 3 % 46.8% Ne u t r a l 22 . 3 % 26 . 9 % 23 . 3 % 22 . 2 % 34 . 1 % 21 . 6 % 10 . 4 % 24.3% Di s s a t i s f i e d 0. 0 % 10 . 3 % 0. 0 % 3. 7% 3. 5 % 9. 8 % 0. 0 % 4.5% Ve r y d i s s a t i s f i e d 2. 1 % 0. 0 % 2. 3 % 0. 0 % 0. 0 % 2. 0 % 0. 0 % 1.4% 20 1 3 To w n of We s t l a k e Re s i d e n t Su r v e y : Ap p e n d i x C - Cr o s s t a b s by Nu m b e r of Ye a r s Li v e d in th e City and Subdivision ET C In s t i t u t e (2 0 1 3 ) C - 41 Q3 . S a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h U t i l i t y S e r v i c e s P r o v i d e d b y t h e T o w n : U s i n g a s c a l e o f 1 t o 5 , w h e r e 5 m e a n s " V e r y S a t i s f i e d " a n d 1 m e a n s " V e r y Di s s a t i s f i e d , " p l e a s e c i r c l e y o u r l e v e l o f s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h e a c h o f t h e f o l l o w i n g . ( W i t h o u t D o n ' t K n o w ) N= 2 5 0 Q1 5 Y e a r s li v e d in W e s t l a k e Q1 6 S u b d i v i s i o n l i v e i n Total Le s s t h a n 5 ye a r s 5- 1 0 y e a r s 11 + y e a r s St a g e c o a c h Hi l l s Va q u e r o Gl e n w y c k Fa r m s Ot h e r Q3 c c H o u s e h o l d h a z a r d o u s w a s t e d i s p o s a l s e r v i c e Ve r y s a t i s f i e d 38 . 3 % 22 . 2 % 16 . 2 % 12 . 5 % 27 . 5 % 9. 5 % 48 . 8 % 26.1% Sa t i s f i e d 33 . 3 % 34 . 9 % 54 . 1 % 58 . 3 % 33 . 3 % 42 . 9 % 34 . 1 % 38.8% Ne u t r a l 21 . 7 % 31 . 7 % 18 . 9 % 20 . 8 % 29 . 4 % 33 . 3 % 14 . 6 % 25.5% Di s s a t i s f i e d 6. 7 % 11 . 1 % 8. 1 % 8. 3 % 9. 8 % 14 . 3 % 2. 4 % 9.1% Ve r y d i s s a t i s f i e d 0. 0 % 0. 0 % 2. 7 % 0. 0 % 0. 0 % 0. 0 % 0. 0 % 0.6% 20 1 3 To w n of We s t l a k e Re s i d e n t Su r v e y : Ap p e n d i x C - Cr o s s t a b s by Nu m b e r of Ye a r s Li v e d in th e City and Subdivision ET C In s t i t u t e (2 0 1 3 ) C - 42 Q3 . S a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h U t i l i t y S e r v i c e s P r o v i d e d b y t h e T o w n : U s i n g a s c a l e o f 1 t o 5 , w h e r e 5 m e a n s " V e r y S a t i s f i e d " a n d 1 m e a n s " V e r y Di s s a t i s f i e d , " p l e a s e c i r c l e y o u r l e v e l o f s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h e a c h o f t h e f o l l o w i n g . ( W i t h o u t D o n ' t K n o w ) N= 2 5 0 Q1 5 Y e a r s li v e d in W e s t l a k e Q1 6 S u b d i v i s i o n l i v e i n Total Le s s t h a n 5 ye a r s 5- 1 0 y e a r s 11 + y e a r s St a g e c o a c h Hi l l s Va q u e r o Gl e n w y c k Fa r m s Ot h e r Q3 d d E f f o r t s b y t h e T o w n t o m a n a g e s t o r m w a t e r r u n -of f Ve r y s a t i s f i e d 33 . 8 % 18 . 2 % 16 . 7 % 14 . 3 % 26 . 7 % 18 . 4 % 30 . 8 % 23.8% Sa t i s f i e d 32 . 4% 50 . 9 % 44 . 4 % 47 . 6 % 45 . 0 % 42 . 1 % 33 . 3 % 40.5% Ne u t r a l 29 . 6 % 23 . 6 % 22 . 2 % 19 . 0 % 26 . 7 % 31 . 6 % 28 . 2 % 26.8% Di s s a t i s f i e d 2. 8 % 7. 3 % 11 . 1 % 14 . 3 % 1. 7 % 7. 9 % 5. 1 % 7.1% Ve r y d i s s a t i s f i e d 1. 4 % 0. 0 % 5. 6 % 4. 8 % 0. 0 % 0. 0 % 2. 6 % 1.8% 20 1 3 To w n of We s t l a k e Re s i d e n t Su r v e y : Ap p e n d i x C - Cr o s s t a b s by Nu m b e r of Ye a r s Li v e d in th e City and Subdivision ET C In s t i t u t e (2 0 1 3 ) C - 43 Q3 . S a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h U t i l i t y S e r v i c e s P r o v i d e d b y t h e T o w n : U s i n g a s c a l e o f 1 t o 5 , w h e r e 5 m e a n s " V e r y S a t i s f i e d " a n d 1 m e a n s " V e r y Di s s a t i s f i e d , " p l e a s e c i r c l e y o u r l e v e l o f s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h e a c h o f t h e f o l l o w i n g . ( W i t h o u t D o n ' t K n o w ) N= 2 5 0 Q1 5 Y e a r s li v e d in W e s t l a k e Q1 6 S u b d i v i s i o n l i v e i n Total Le s s t h a n 5 ye a r s 5- 1 0 y e a r s 11 + y e a r s St a g e c o a c h Hi l l s Va q u e r o Gl e n w y c k Fa r m s Ot h e r Q3 e e Q u a l i t y o f ( d r i n k i n g ) w a t e r u t i l i t y s e r v i c e s Ve r y s a t i s f ie d 38 . 7 % 31 . 5 % 27 . 9 % 24 . 0 % 31 . 3 % 23 . 5 % 56 . 3 % 34.7% Sa t i s f i e d 35 . 5 % 37 . 0 % 51 . 2 % 48 . 0 % 41 . 0 % 43 . 1 % 29 . 2 % 38.4% Ne u t r a l 18 . 3 % 20 . 5 % 18 . 6 % 20 . 0 % 20 . 5 % 25 . 5 % 10 . 4 % 19.4% Di s s a t i s f i e d 4. 3 % 5. 5 % 2. 3 % 4. 0 % 3. 6 % 5. 9 % 2. 1 % 4.2% Ve r y d i s s a t i s f i e d 3. 2 % 5. 5 % 0. 0 % 4. 0 % 3. 6 % 2. 0 % 2. 1 % 3.2% 20 1 3 To w n of We s t l a k e Re s i d e n t Su r v e y : Ap p e n d i x C - Cr o s s t a b s by Nu m b e r of Ye a r s Li v e d in th e City and Subdivision ET C In s t i t u t e (2 0 1 3 ) C - 44 Q3 . S a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h C u s t o m e r S e r v i c e P r o v i d e d b y t h e T o w n : U s i n g a s c a l e o f 1 t o 5 , w h e r e 5 m e a n s " V e r y S a t i s f i e d " a n d 1 m e a n s " V e r y Di s s a t i s f i e d , " p l e a s e c i r c l e y o u r l e v e l o f s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h e a c h o f t h e f o l l o w i n g . ( W i t h o u t D o n ' t K n o w ) N= 2 5 0 Q1 5 Y e a r s li v e d in W e s t l a k e Q1 6 S u b d i v i s i o n l i v e i n Total Le s s t h a n 5 ye a r s 5- 1 0 y e a r s 11 + y e a r s St a g e c o a c h Hi l l s Va q u e r o Gl e n w y c k Fa r m s Ot h e r Q3 f f L e v e l o f p a r t i c i p a t i o n b y T o w n s t a f f i n c o m m u n i t y e v e n t s / n e i g h b o r h o o d m e e t i n g s Ve r y s a t i s f i e d 35 . 6 % 40 . 9 % 18 . 6 % 29 . 6 % 39 . 2 % 18 . 8 % 44 . 2 % 33.0% Sa t i s f i e d 40 . 2 % 40 . 9 % 55 . 8 % 44 . 4 % 43 . 2 % 50 . 0 % 41 . 9 % 44.3% Ne u t r a l 23 . 0 % 16 . 7 % 18 . 6 % 25 . 9 % 17 . 6 % 27 . 1 % 11 . 6 % 20.2% Di s s a t i s f i e d 1. 1 % 1. 5 % 2. 3 % 0. 0 % 0. 0 % 4. 2 % 0. 0 % 1.5% Ve r y d i s s a t i s f i e d 0. 0 % 0. 0 % 4. 7 % 0. 0 % 0. 0 % 0. 0 % 2. 3 % 1.0% 20 1 3 To w n of We s t l a k e Re s i d e n t Su r v e y : Ap p e n d i x C - Cr o s s t a b s by Nu m b e r of Ye a r s Li v e d in th e City and Subdivision ET C In s t i t u t e (2 0 1 3 ) C - 45 Q3 . S a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h C u s t o m e r S e r v i c e P r o v i d e d b y t h e T o w n : U s i n g a s c a l e o f 1 t o 5 , w h e r e 5 m e a n s " V e r y S a t i s f i e d " a n d 1 m e a n s " V e r y Di s s a t i s f i e d , " p l e a s e c i r c l e y o u r l e v e l o f s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h e a c h o f t h e f o l l o w i n g . ( W i t h o u t D o n ' t K n o w ) N= 2 5 0 Q1 5 Y e a r s li v e d in W e s t l a k e Q1 6 S u b d i v i s i o n l i v e in Total Le s s t h a n 5 ye a r s 5- 1 0 y e a r s 11 + y e a r s St a g e c o a c h Hi l l s Va q u e r o Gl e n w y c k Fa r m s Ot h e r Q3 g g T i m e l i n e s s o f T o w n S t a f f t o c o n c e r n s / i s s u e s Ve r y s a t i s f i e d 26 . 8 % 43 . 3 % 16 . 7 % 40 . 0 % 32 . 0 % 20 . 8 % 35 . 0 % 31.3% Sa t i s f i e d 52 . 4 % 38 . 8 % 45 . 2 % 36 . 0 % 50 . 7 % 47 . 9 % 42 . 5 % 44.9% Ne u t r a l 12 . 2 % 16 . 4 % 26 . 2 % 20 . 0 % 13 . 3 % 20 . 8 % 17 . 5 % 16.2% Di s s a t i s f i e d 8. 5 % 1. 5 % 7. 1 % 4. 0 % 4. 0 % 10 . 4 % 2. 5 % 6.6% Ve r y d i s s a t i s f i e d 0. 0 % 0. 0 % 4. 8 % 0. 0 % 0. 0 % 0. 0 % 2. 5 % 1.0% 20 1 3 To w n of We s t l a k e Re s i d e n t Su r v e y : Ap p e n d i x C - Cr o s s t a b s by Nu m b e r of Ye a r s Li v e d in th e City and Subdivision ET C In s t i t u t e (2 0 1 3 ) C - 46 Q3 . S a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h C u s t o m e r S e r v i c e P r o v i d e d b y t h e T o w n : U s i n g a s c a l e o f 1 t o 5 , w h e r e 5 m e a n s " V e r y S a t i s f i e d " a n d 1 m e a n s " V e r y Di s s a t i s f i e d , " p l e a s e c i r c l e y o u r l e v e l o f s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h e a c h o f t h e f o l l o w i n g . ( W i t h o u t D o n ' t K n o w ) N= 2 5 0 Q1 5 Y e a r s li v e d in W e s t l a k e Q1 6 S u b d i v i s i o n l i v e i n Total Le s s t h a n 5 ye a r s 5- 1 0 y e a r s 11 + y e a r s St a g e c o a c h Hi l l s Va q u e r o Gl e n w y c k Fa r m s Ot h e r Q3 h h F r i e n d l i n e s s o f T o w n S t a f f Ve r y s a t is f i e d 45 . 1 % 48 . 6 % 45 . 5 % 48 . 1 % 46 . 4 % 24 . 4 % 65 . 2 % 46.0% Sa t i s f i e d 37 . 4 % 36 . 1 % 36 . 4 % 40 . 7 % 35 . 7 % 57 . 8 % 21 . 7 % 36.6% Ne u t r a l 15 . 4 % 13 . 9 % 13 . 6 % 7. 4 % 14 . 3 % 15 . 6 % 13 . 0 % 14.1% Di s s a t i s f i e d 1. 1 % 1. 4 % 2. 3 % 3. 7 % 2. 4% 2. 2 % 0. 0 % 2.3% Ve r y d i s s a t i s f i e d 1. 1 % 0. 0 % 2. 3 % 0. 0 % 1. 2 % 0. 0 % 0. 0 % 0.9% 20 1 3 To w n of We s t l a k e Re s i d e n t Su r v e y : Ap p e n d i x C - Cr o s s t a b s by Nu m b e r of Ye a r s Li v e d in th e City and Subdivision ET C In s t i t u t e (2 0 1 3 ) C - 47 Q3 . S a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h C u s t o m e r S e r v i c e P r o v i d e d b y t h e T o w n : U s i n g a s c a l e o f 1 t o 5 , w h e r e 5 m e a n s " V e r y S a t i s f i e d " a n d 1 m e a n s " V e r y Di s s a t i s f i e d , " p l e a s e c i r c l e y o u r l e v e l o f s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h e a c h o f t h e f o l l o w i n g . ( W i t h o u t D o n ' t K n o w ) N= 2 5 0 Q1 5 Y e a r s li v e d in W e s t l a k e Q1 6 S u b d i v i s i o n l i v e i n Total Le s s t h a n 5 ye a r s 5- 1 0 y e a r s 11 + y e a r s St a g e c o a c h Hi l l s Va q u e r o Gl e n w y c k Fa r m s Ot h e r Q3 i i M u n i c i p a l c o u r t s e r v i c e s Ve r y s a t i s f i e d 40 . 3 % 35 . 0 % 27 . 0 % 44 . 0 % 33 . 3 % 25 . 0 % 43 . 8 % 35.2% Sa t i s f i e d 51 . 6 % 43 . 3 % 43 . 2 % 48 . 0 % 49 . 2 % 44 . 4 % 43 . 8 % 46.1% Ne u t r a l 8. 1 % 18 . 3 % 27 . 0 % 8. 0 % 15 . 9 % 27 . 8 % 9. 4 % 16.4% Di s s a t i s f i e d 0. 0 % 3. 3 % 0. 0 % 0. 0 % 1. 6 % 2. 8 % 3. 1 % 1.8% Ve r y d i s s a t i s f i e d 0. 0 % 0. 0 % 2. 7 % 0. 0 % 0. 0 % 0. 0 % 0. 0 % 0.6% 20 1 3 To w n of We s t l a k e Re s i d e n t Su r v e y : Ap p e n d i x C - Cr o s s t a b s by Nu m b e r of Ye a r s Li v e d in th e City and Subdivision ET C In s t i t u t e (2 0 1 3 ) C - 48 Q3 . S a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h C u s t o m e r S e r v i c e P r o v i d e d b y t h e T o w n : U s i n g a s c a l e o f 1 t o 5 , w h e r e 5 m e a n s " V e r y S a t i s f i e d " a n d 1 m e a n s " V e r y Di s s a t i s f i e d , " p l e a s e c i r c l e y o u r l e v e l o f s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h e a c h o f t h e f o l l o w i n g . ( W i t h o u t D o n ' t K n o w ) N= 2 5 0 Q1 5 Y e a r s li v e d in W e s t l a k e Q1 6 S u b d i v i s i o n l i v e i n Total Le s s t h a n 5 ye a r s 5- 1 0 y e a r s 11 + y e a r s St a g e c o a c h Hi l l s Va q u e r o Gl e n w y c k Fa r m s Ot h e r Q3 j j J u r y s e r v i c e e x p e r i e n c e Ve r y s a t i s f i e d 47 . 5 % 29 . 7 % 21 . 1 % 34 . 8 % 31 . 8 % 24 . 2 % 51 . 3 % 35.5% Sa t i s f i e d 26 . 2 % 37 . 5 % 50 . 0 % 47 . 8 % 37 . 9 % 36 . 4 % 28 . 2 % 36.1% Ne u t r a l 24 . 6 % 28 . 1 % 26 . 3 % 17 . 4 % 27 . 3 % 36 . 4 % 17 . 9 % 25.4% Di s s a t i s f i e d 1. 6 % 3. 1 % 0. 0 % 0. 0 % 1. 5 % 3. 0 % 2. 6 % 1.8% Ve r y d i s s a t i s f i e d 0. 0 % 1. 6 % 2. 6 % 0. 0 % 1. 5 % 0. 0 % 0. 0 % 1.2% 20 1 3 To w n of We s t l a k e Re s i d e n t Su r v e y : Ap p e n d i x C - Cr o s s t a b s by Nu m b e r of Ye a r s Li v e d in th e City and Subdivision ET C In s t i t u t e (2 0 1 3 ) C - 49 Q3 . S a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h C o d e E n f o r c e m e n t P r o v i d e d b y t h e T o w n : U s i n g a s c a l e o f 1 t o 5 , w h e r e 5 m e a n s " V e r y S a t i s f i e d " a n d 1 m e a n s " V e r y Di s s a t i s f i e d , " p l e a s e c i r c l e y o u r l e v e l o f s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h e a c h o f t h e f o l l o w i n g . ( W i t h o u t D o n ' t K n o w ) N= 2 5 0 Q1 5 Y e a r s li v e d in W e s t l a k e Q1 6 S u b d i v i s i o n li v e i n Total Le s s t h a n 5 ye a r s 5- 1 0 y e a r s 11 + y e a r s St a g e c o a c h Hi l l s Va q u e r o Gl e n w y c k Fa r m s Ot h e r Q3 k k E n f o r c i n g t h e e x t e r i o r a p p e a r a n c e a n d m a i n t e n a n c e r e g u l a t i o n s f o r p r o p e r t y Ve r y s a t i s f i e d 37 . 2 % 27 . 9 % 25 . 6 % 18. 2 % 32 . 5 % 27 . 0 % 40 . 9 % 31.2% Sa t i s f i e d 37 . 2 % 42 . 6 % 43 . 6 % 22 . 7 % 48 . 1 % 32 . 4 % 45 . 5 % 40.7% Ne u t r a l 15 . 4 % 14 . 7 % 25 . 6 % 36 . 4 % 14 . 3 % 24 . 3 % 6. 8 % 16.9% Di s s a t i s f i e d 7. 7 % 10 . 3 % 5. 1 % 18 . 2 % 2. 6 % 10 . 8 % 6. 8 % 8.5% Ve r y d i s s a t i s f i e d 2. 6 % 4. 4 % 0. 0 % 4. 5 % 2. 6 % 5. 4 % 0. 0 % 2.6% 20 1 3 To w n of We s t l a k e Re s i d e n t Su r v e y : Ap p e n d i x C - Cr o s s t a b s by Nu m b e r of Ye a r s Li v e d in th e City and Subdivision ET C In s t i t u t e (2 0 1 3 ) C - 50 Q3 . S a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h C o d e E n f o r c e m e n t P r o v i d e d b y t h e T o w n : U s i n g a s c a l e o f 1 t o 5 , w h e r e 5 m e a n s " V e r y S a t i s f i e d " a n d 1 m e a n s " V e r y Di s s a t i s f i e d , " p l e a s e c i r c l e y o u r l e v e l o f s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h e a c h o f t h e f o l l o w i n g . ( W i t h o u t D o n ' t K n o w ) N= 2 5 0 Q1 5 Y e a r s li v e d in W e s t l a k e Q1 6 S u b d i v i s i o n l i v e i n Total Le s s t h a n 5 ye a r s 5- 1 0 y e a r s 11 + y e a r s St a g e c o a c h Hi l l s Va q u e r o Gl e n w y c k Fa r m s Ot h e r Q3 l l E n f o r c i n g s i gn r e g u l a t i o n s Ve r y s a t i s f i e d 36 . 8 % 31 . 4 % 22 . 5 % 9. 5 % 32 . 4 % 20 . 5 % 55 . 0 % 31.5% Sa t i s f i e d 38 . 2 % 42 . 9 % 40 . 0 % 38 . 1 % 52 . 7 % 35 . 9 % 27 . 5 % 40.8% Ne u t r a l 23 . 5 % 24 . 3 % 35 . 0 % 52 . 4 % 14 . 9 % 38 . 5 % 17 . 5 % 26.1% Ve r y d i s s a t i s f i e d 1. 5 % 1. 4 % 2. 5 % 0. 0 % 0. 0 % 5. 1 % 0. 0 % 1.6% 20 1 3 To w n of We s t l a k e Re s i d e n t Su r v e y : Ap p e n d i x C - Cr o s s t a b s by Nu m b e r of Ye a r s Li v e d in th e City and Subdivision ET C In s t i t u t e (2 0 1 3 ) C - 51 Q4 . U s i n g a s c a l e o f 1 t o 5 , w h e r e 5 m e a n s " S t r o n g l y A g r e e " a n d 1 m e a n s " S t r o n g l y D i s a g r e e , " p l e a s e c i r c l e y o u r l e v e l o f a g r e e m e n t w i t h t h e fo l l o w i n g s t a t e m e n t s . ( W i t h o u t D o n ' t K n o w ) N= 2 5 0 Q1 5 Y e a r s li v e d in W e s t l a k e Q1 6 S u b d i v i s i o n l i v e i n Total Le s s t h a n 5 ye a r s 5- 1 0 y e a r s 11 + y e a r s St a g e c o a c h Hi l l s Va q u e r o Gl e n w y c k Fa r m s Ot h e r Q4 a A t t r a c t i n g r e t a i l d e v e l o p m e n t , w h i c h g r o w s W e s t l a k e ' s s a l e s t a x b a s e , i s i m p o r ta n t t o m e St r o n g l y a g r e e 15 . 5 % 24 . 7 % 26 . 0 % 38 . 7 % 17 . 7 % 14 . 0 % 21 . 2 % 20.6% Ag r e e 26 . 4 % 33 . 3 % 26 . 0 % 35 . 5 % 30 . 2 % 19 . 3 % 25 . 0 % 27.8% Ag r e e 20 . 0 % 17 . 3 % 26 . 0 % 19 . 4 % 24 . 0 % 19 . 3 % 21 . 2 % 21.4% Di s a g r e e 10 . 0 % 6. 2 % 12 . 0 % 3. 2 % 9. 4 % 14 . 0 % 9. 6 % 9.7% St r o n g l y d i s a g r e e 28 . 2 % 18 . 5 % 10 . 0 % 3. 2 % 18 . 8 % 33 . 3 % 23 . 1 % 20.6% 20 1 3 To w n of We s t l a k e Re s i d e n t Su r v e y : Ap p e n d i x C - Cr o s s t a b s by Nu m b e r of Ye a r s Li v e d in th e City and Subdivision ET C In s t i t u t e (2 0 1 3 ) C - 52 Q4 . U s i n g a s c a l e o f 1 t o 5 , w h e r e 5 m e a n s " S t r o n g l y A g r e e " a n d 1 m e a n s " S t r o n g l y D i s a g r e e , " p l e a s e c i r c l e y o u r l e v e l o f a g r e e m e n t w i t h t h e fo l l o w i n g s t a t e m e n t s . ( W i t h o u t D o n ' t K n o w ) N= 2 5 0 Q1 5 Y e a r s li v e d in W e s t l a k e Q1 6 S u b d i v i s i o n l i v e i n Total Le s s t h a n 5 ye a r s 5- 1 0 y e a r s 11 + y e a r s St a g e c o a c h Hi l l s Va q u e r o Gl e n w y c k Fa r m s Ot h e r Q4 b W e s t l a k e ' s co n t i n u e d e m p h a s i s o n a t t r a c t i n g h i g h -en d d e v e l o p m e n t i s i m p o r t a n t t o m e St r o n g l y a g r e e 56 . 0 % 58 . 5 % 49 . 0 % 56 . 7 % 59 . 4 % 49 . 1 % 55 . 8 % 55.5% Ag r e e 19 . 3 % 29 . 3 % 22 . 4 % 23 . 3 % 25 . 0 % 21 . 1 % 21 . 2 % 23.5% Ag r e e 13 . 8 % 7. 3 % 18 . 4 % 13 . 3 % 10 . 4 % 15 . 8 % 13 . 5 % 12.1% Di s a g r e e 2. 8 % 1. 2 % 6. 1 % 3. 3 % 0. 0 % 7. 0 % 3. 8 % 2.8% St r o n g l y d i s a g r e e 8. 3 % 3. 7 % 4. 1 % 3. 3 % 5. 2 % 7. 0 % 5. 8 % 6.1% 20 1 3 To w n of We s t l a k e Re s i d e n t Su r v e y : Ap p e n d i x C - Cr o s s t a b s by Nu m b e r of Ye a r s Li v e d in th e City and Subdivision ET C In s t i t u t e (2 0 1 3 ) C - 53 Q4 . U s i n g a s c a l e o f 1 t o 5 , w h e r e 5 m e a n s " S t r o n g l y A g r e e " a n d 1 m e a n s " S t r o n g l y D i s a g r e e , " p l e a s e c i r c l e y o u r l e v e l o f a g r e e m e n t w i t h t h e fo l l o w i n g s t a t e m e n t s . ( W i t h o u t D o n ' t K n o w ) N= 2 5 0 Q1 5 Y e a r s li v e d in W e s t l a k e Q1 6 S u b d i v i s i o n l i v e i n Total Le s s t h a n 5 ye a r s 5- 1 0 y e a r s 11 + y e a r s St a g e c o a c h Hi l l s Va q u e r o Gl e n wy c k Fa r m s Ot h e r Q4 c T h e c o n n e c t i v i t y o f W e s t l a k e ' s w a l k i n g / b i k i n g t r a i l s i s i m p o r t a n t t o m e St r o n g l y a g r e e 36 . 4 % 29 . 6 % 24 . 0 % 45 . 2 % 24 . 0 % 31 . 6 % 38 . 5 % 32.3% Ag r e e 24 . 5 % 27 . 2 % 28 . 0 % 22 . 6 % 27 . 1 % 31 . 6 % 23 . 1 % 26.6% Ag r e e 25 . 5 % 32 . 1 % 38 . 0 % 25 . 8 % 38 . 5 % 24 . 6 % 21 . 2 % 29.4% Di s a g r e e 6. 4 % 9. 9 % 10 . 0 % 6. 5 % 7. 3 % 5. 3 % 13 . 5 % 8.1% St r o n g l y d i s a g r e e 7. 3 % 1. 2 % 0. 0 % 0. 0 % 3. 1 % 7. 0 % 3. 8 % 3.6% 20 1 3 To w n of We s t l a k e Re s i d e n t Su r v e y : Ap p e n d i x C - Cr o s s t a b s by Nu m b e r of Ye a r s Li v e d in th e City and Subdivision ET C In s t i t u t e (2 0 1 3 ) C - 54 Q5 . R e a s o n s f o r M o v i n g t o W e s t l a k e : U s i n g a s c a l e o f 1 t o 5 , w h e r e 5 m e a n s " E x t r e m e l y I m p o r t a n t " a n d 1 m e a n s " N o t I m p o r t a n t , " p l e a s e ci r c l e h o w i m p o r t a n t t h e f o l l o w i n g i s s u e s w e r e i n y o u r d e c i s i o n t o m o v e t o t h e T o w n o f W e s t l a k e . N= 2 5 0 Q1 5 Y e a r s li v e d in W e s t l a k e Q1 6 S u b d i v i s i o n li v e i n Total Le s s t h a n 5 ye a r s 5- 1 0 y e a r s 11 + y e a r s St a g e c o a c h Hi l l s Va q u e r o Gl e n w y c k Fa r m s Ot h e r Q5 a S e n s e o f c o m m u n i t y Ex t r e m e l y i m p o r t a n t 27 . 3 % 24 . 1 % 14 . 0 % 25 . 8 % 25 . 5 % 21 . 1 % 23 . 1 % 24.0% Ve r y i m p or t a n t 35 . 5 % 22 . 9 % 32 . 0 % 45 . 2 % 30 . 6 % 22 . 8 % 34 . 6 % 30.4% Im p o r t a n t 29 . 1 % 37 . 3 % 30 . 0 % 9. 7 % 32 . 7 % 43 . 9 % 32 . 7 % 31.6% Le s s i m p o r t a n t 5. 5 % 6. 0 % 6. 0 % 6. 5 % 5. 1 % 10 . 5 % 1. 9 % 6.0% No t i m p o r t a n t 0. 9 % 4. 8 % 10 . 0 % 6. 5 % 6. 1 % 0. 0 % 3. 8 % 4.0% Do n ' t k n o w 1. 8 % 4. 8 % 8. 0 % 6. 5 % 0. 0 % 1. 8 % 3. 8 % 4.0% 20 1 3 To w n of We s t l a k e Re s i d e n t Su r v e y : Ap p e n d i x C - Cr o s s t a b s by Nu m b e r of Ye a r s Li v e d in th e City and Subdivision ET C In s t i t u t e (2 0 1 3 ) C - 55 Q5 . R e a s o n s f o r M o v i n g t o W e s t l a k e : U s i n g a s c a l e o f 1 t o 5 , w h e r e 5 m e a n s " E x t r e m e l y I m p o r t a n t " a n d 1 m e a n s " N o t I m p o r t a n t , " p l e a s e ci r c l e h o w i m p o r t a n t t h e f o l l o w i n g i s s u e s w e r e i n y o u r d e c i s i o n t o m o v e t o t h e T o w n o f W e s t l a k e . N= 2 5 0 Q1 5 Y e a r s li v e d in W e s t l a k e Q1 6 S u b d i v i s i o n l i v e i n Total Le s s t h a n 5 ye a r s 5- 1 0 y e a r s 11 + y e a r s St a g e c o a c h Hi l l s Va q u e r o Gl e n w y c k Fa r m s Ot h e r Q5 b Q u a li t y o f l i f e Ex t r e m e l y i m p o r t a n t 79 . 1 % 63 . 9 % 42 . 0 % 54 . 8 % 71 . 4 % 64 . 9 % 65 . 4 % 66.8% Ve r y i m p o r t a n t 15 . 5 % 24 . 1 % 40 . 0 % 29 . 0 % 21 . 4 % 22 . 8 % 28 . 8 % 23.2% Im p o r t a n t 4. 5 % 7. 2 % 10 . 0 % 9. 7 % 5. 1 % 10 . 5 % 3. 8 % 6.4% No t i m p o r t a n t 0. 0 % 2. 4 % 0. 0 % 0. 0 % 1. 0 % 1. 8 % 0. 0 % 0.8% Do n ' t k n o w 0. 9 % 2. 4 % 8. 0 % 6. 5 % 1. 0 % 0. 0 % 1. 9 % 2.8% 20 1 3 To w n of We s t l a k e Re s i d e n t Su r v e y : Ap p e n d i x C - Cr o s s t a b s by Nu m b e r of Ye a r s Li v e d in th e City and Subdivision ET C In s t i t u t e (2 0 1 3 ) C - 56 Q5 . R e a s o n s f o r M o v i n g t o W e s t l a k e : U s i n g a s c a l e o f 1 t o 5 , w h e r e 5 m e a n s " E x t r e m e l y I m p o r t a n t " a n d 1 m e a n s " N o t I m p o r t a n t , " p l e a s e ci r c l e h o w i m p o r t a n t t h e f o l l o w i n g i s s u e s w e r e i n y o u r d e c i s i o n t o m o v e t o t h e T o w n o f W e s t l a k e . N= 2 5 0 Q1 5 Y e a r s li v e d in W e s t l a k e Q1 6 S u b d i v i s i o n l i v e i n Total Le s s t h a n 5 ye a r s 5- 1 0 y e a r s 11 + y e a r s St a g e c o a c h Hi l l s Va q u e r o Gl e n w y ck Fa r m s Ot h e r Q5 c S m a l l t o w n f e e l Ex t r e m e l y i m p o r t a n t 52 . 7 % 53 . 0 % 48 . 0 % 38 . 7 % 44 . 9 % 71 . 9 % 55 . 8 % 53.2% Ve r y i m p o r t a n t 21 . 8 % 19 . 3 % 32 . 0 % 35 . 5 % 24 . 5 % 19 . 3 % 15 . 4 % 22.4% Im p o r t a n t 18 . 2 % 18 . 1 % 2. 0 % 16 . 1 % 21 . 4 % 7. 0 % 11 . 5 % 14.4% Le s s i m p o r t a n t 6. 4 % 4. 8 % 6. 0 % 3. 2 % 7. 1 % 1. 8 % 9. 6 % 5.6% No t i m p o r t a n t 0. 0 % 2. 4 % 4. 0 % 3. 2 % 1. 0 % 0. 0 % 3. 8 % 1.6% Do n ' t k n o w 0. 9 % 2. 4 % 8. 0 % 3. 2 % 1. 0 % 0. 0 % 3. 8 % 2.8% 20 1 3 To w n of We s t l a k e Re s i d e n t Su r v e y : Ap p e n d i x C - Cr o s s t a b s by Nu m b e r of Ye a r s Li v e d in th e City and Subdivision ET C In s t i t u t e (2 0 1 3 ) C - 57 Q5 . R e a s o n s f o r M o v i n g t o W e s t l a k e : U s i n g a s c a l e o f 1 t o 5 , w h e r e 5 m e a n s " E x t r e m e l y I m p o r t a n t " a n d 1 m e a n s " N o t I m p o r t a n t , " p l e a s e ci r c l e h o w i m p o r t a n t t h e f o l l o w i n g i s s u e s w e r e i n y o u r d e c i s i o n t o m o v e t o t h e T o w n o f W e s t l a k e . N= 2 5 0 Q1 5 Y e a r s li v e d in W es t l a k e Q1 6 S u b d i v i s i o n l i v e i n Total Le s s t h a n 5 ye a r s 5- 1 0 y e a r s 11 + y e a r s St a g e c o a c h Hi l l s Va q u e r o Gl e n w y c k Fa r m s Ot h e r Q5 d A e s t h e t i c a p p e a l a n d h i g h d e v e l o p m e n t s t a n d a r d s Ex t r e m e l y i m p o r t a n t 83 . 6 % 75 . 9 % 52 . 0 % 58 . 1 % 81 . 6 % 75 . 4 % 71 . 2 % 74.8% Ve r y i m p o r t a n t 10 . 9 % 10 . 8 % 16 . 0 % 9. 7 % 13 . 3 % 14 . 0 % 9. 6 % 11.6% Im p o r t a n t 3. 6 % 6. 0 % 10 . 0 % 12 . 9 % 3. 1 % 5. 3 % 7. 7 % 5.6% Le s s i m p o r t a n t 0. 9 % 2. 4 % 8. 0 % 6. 5 % 1. 0 % 1. 8 % 3. 8 % 2.8% No t i m p o r t a n t 0. 0 % 2. 4 % 6. 0 % 6. 5 % 1. 0 % 1. 8 % 1. 9 % 2.0% Do n ' t k n o w 0. 9 % 2. 4 % 8. 0 % 6. 5 % 0. 0 % 1. 8 % 5. 8 % 3.2% 20 1 3 To w n of We s t l a k e Re s i d e n t Su r v e y : Ap p e n d i x C - Cr o s s t a b s by Nu m b e r of Ye a r s Li v e d in th e City and Subdivision ET C In s t i t u t e (2 0 1 3 ) C - 58 Q5 . R e a s o n s f o r M o v i n g t o W e s t l a k e : U s i n g a s c a l e o f 1 t o 5 , w h e r e 5 m e a n s " E x t r e m e l y I m p o r t a n t " a n d 1 m e a n s " N o t I m p o r t a n t , " p l e a s e ci r c l e h o w i m p o r t a n t t h e f o l l o w i n g i s s u e s w e r e i n y o u r d e c i s i o n t o m o v e t o t h e T o w n o f W e s t l a k e . N= 2 5 0 Q1 5 Y e a r s li v e d in W e s t l a k e Q1 6 S u b d i v i s i o n l i v e i n Total Le s s t h a n 5 ye a r s 5- 1 0 y e a r s 11 + y e a r s St a g e c o a c h Hi l l s Va q u e r o Gl en w y c k Fa r m s Ot h e r Q5 e W e s t l a k e A c a d e m y Ex t r e m e l y i m p o r t a n t 49 . 1 % 39 . 8 % 34 . 0 % 45 . 2 % 43 . 9 % 38 . 6 % 38 . 5 % 42.4% Ve r y i m p o r t a n t 14 . 5 % 9. 6 % 14 . 0 % 12 . 9 % 8. 2 % 12 . 3 % 23 . 1 % 12.4% Im p o r t a n t 10 . 0 % 8. 4 % 10 . 0 % 3. 2 % 14 . 3 % 7. 0 % 7. 7 % 9.2% Le s s i m p o r t a n t 9. 1 % 7. 2 % 12 . 0 % 3. 2 % 9. 2 % 12 . 3 % 11 . 5 % 9.2% No t i m p o r t a n t 13 . 6 % 28 . 9 % 26 . 0 % 29 . 0 % 20 . 4 % 28 . 1 % 13 . 5 % 22.0% Do n ' t k n o w 3. 6 % 6. 0 % 4. 0 % 6. 5 % 4. 1 % 1. 8 % 5. 8 % 4.8% 20 1 3 To w n of We s t l a k e Re s i d e n t Su r v e y : Ap p e n d i x C - Cr o s s t a b s by Nu m b e r of Ye a r s Li v e d in th e City and Subdivision ET C In s t i t u t e (2 0 1 3 ) C - 59 Q5 . R e a s o n s f o r M o v i n g t o W e s t l a k e : U s i n g a s c a l e o f 1 t o 5 , w h e r e 5 m e a n s " E x t r e m e l y I m p o r t a n t " a n d 1 m e a n s " N o t I m p o r t a n t , " p l e a s e ci r c l e h o w i m p o r t a n t t h e f o l l o w i n g i s s u e s w e r e i n y o u r d e c i s i o n t o m o v e t o t h e T o w n o f W e s t l a k e . N= 2 5 0 Q1 5 Y e a r s li v e d in W e s t l a k e Q1 6 S u b d i v i s i o n l i v e i n Total Le s s t h a n 5 ye a r s 5- 1 0 y e a r s 11 + y e a r s St a g e c o a c h Hi l l s Va q u e r o Gl e n w y c k Fa r m s Ot h e r Q5 f A c c e s s t o o t h e r p u b l i c s c h o o l s Ex t r e m e l y i m p o r t a n t 13 . 6 % 12 . 0 % 10 . 0 % 6. 5 % 7. 1 % 24 . 6 % 11 . 5 % 12.0% Ve r y i m p o r t a n t 19 . 1 % 12 . 0 % 12 . 0 % 16 . 1 % 9. 2 % 26 . 3 % 17 . 3 % 15.6% Im p o r t a n t 14 . 5 % 15 . 7 % 18 . 0 % 12 . 9 % 14 . 3 % 12 . 3 % 23 . 1 % 16.0% Le s s i m p o r t a n t 18 . 2 % 21 . 7 % 24 . 0 % 19 . 4 % 23 . 5 % 19 . 3 % 19 . 2 % 20.4% No t i m p o r t a n t 27 . 3 % 31 . 3 % 24 . 0 % 35 . 5 % 37 . 8 % 14 . 0 % 21 . 2 % 28.0% Do n ' t k n o w 7. 3 % 7. 2 % 12 . 0 % 9. 7 % 8. 2 % 3. 5 % 7. 7 % 8.0% 20 1 3 To w n of We s t l a k e Re s i d e n t Su r v e y : Ap p e n d i x C - Cr o s s t a b s by Nu m b e r of Ye a r s Li v e d in th e City and Subdivision ET C In s t i t u t e (2 0 1 3 ) C - 60 Q5 . R e a s o n s f o r M o v i n g t o W e s t l a k e : U s i n g a s c a l e o f 1 t o 5 , w h e r e 5 m e a n s " E x t r e m e l y I m p o r t a n t " a n d 1 m e a n s " N o t I m p o r t a n t , " p l e a s e ci r c l e h o w i m p o r t a n t t h e f o l l o w i n g i s s u e s w e r e i n y o u r d e c i s i o n t o m o v e t o t h e T o w n o f W e s t l a k e . N= 2 5 0 Q1 5 Y e a r s li v e d in W e s t l a k e Q1 6 S u b d i v i s i o n l i v e i n Total Le s s t h a n 5 ye a r s 5- 1 0 y e a r s 11 + y e a r s St a g e c o a c h Hi l l s Va q u e r o Gl e n w y c k Fa r m s Ot h e r Q5 g P r o x i m i t y t o p r i v a t e s c h o o l s Ex t r e m e l y i m p o r t a n t 10 . 9 % 10 . 8 % 10 . 0 % 3. 2 % 14 . 3 % 8. 8 % 9. 6 % 10.8% Ve r y i m p o r t a n t 7. 3 % 7. 2 % 12 . 0 % 12 . 9 % 8. 2 % 7. 0 % 9. 6 % 8.4% Im p o r t a n t 8. 2 % 19 . 3 % 12 . 0 % 6. 5 % 14 . 3 % 15 . 8 % 13 . 5 % 13.2% Le s s i m p o r t a n t 17 . 3 % 20 . 5 % 20 . 0 % 22 . 6 % 20 . 4 % 21 . 1 % 15 . 4 % 19.2% No t i m p o r t a n t 50 . 9 % 34 . 9 % 34 . 0 % 45 . 2 % 34 . 7 % 47 . 4 % 44 . 2 % 41.2% Do n ' t k n o w 5. 5 % 7. 2 % 12. 0 % 9. 7 % 8. 2 % 0. 0 % 7. 7 % 7.2% 20 1 3 To w n of We s t l a k e Re s i d e n t Su r v e y : Ap p e n d i x C - Cr o s s t a b s by Nu m b e r of Ye a r s Li v e d in th e City and Subdivision ET C In s t i t u t e (2 0 1 3 ) C - 61 Q5 . R e a s o n s f o r M o v i n g t o W e s t l a k e : U s i n g a s c a l e o f 1 t o 5 , w h e r e 5 m e a n s " E x t r e m e l y I m p o r t a n t " a n d 1 m e a n s " N o t I m p o r t a n t , " p l e a s e ci r c l e h o w i m p o r t a n t t h e f o l l o w i n g i s s u e s w e r e i n y o u r d e c i s i o n t o m o v e t o t h e T o w n o f W e s t l a k e . N= 2 5 0 Q1 5 Y e a r s li v e d in W e s t l a k e Q1 6 S u b d i v i s i o n l i v e i n Total Le s s t h a n 5 ye a r s 5- 1 0 y e a r s 11 + y e a r s St a g e c o a c h Hi l l s Va q u e r o Gl e n w y c k Fa r m s Ot h e r Q5 h L o w c r i m e r a t e s / q u a l i t y o f p u b l i c s c h o o l s Ex t r em e l y i m p o r t a n t 61 . 8 % 59 . 0 % 34 . 0 % 48 . 4 % 61 . 2 % 50 . 9 % 57 . 7 % 55.2% Ve r y i m p o r t a n t 25 . 5 % 27 . 7 % 34 . 0 % 25 . 8 % 25 . 5 % 31 . 6 % 32 . 7 % 28.4% Im p o r t a n t 9. 1 % 4. 8 % 16 . 0 % 12 . 9 % 7. 1 % 12 . 3 % 5. 8 % 8.8% Le s s i m p o r t a n t 0. 0 % 2. 4 % 2. 0 % 3. 2 % 1. 0 % 1. 8 % 0. 0 % 1.2% No t i m p o r t a n t 0. 9 % 1. 2 % 6. 0 % 3. 2 % 3. 1 % 1. 8 % 0. 0 % 2.0% Do n ' t k n o w 2. 7 % 4. 8 % 8. 0 % 6. 5 % 2. 0 % 1. 8 % 3. 8 % 4.4% 20 1 3 To w n of We s t l a k e Re s i d e n t Su r v e y : Ap p e n d i x C - Cr o s s t a b s by Nu m b e r of Ye a r s Li v e d in th e City and Subdivision ET C In s t i t u t e (2 0 1 3 ) C - 62 Q5 . R e a s o n s f o r M o v i n g t o W e s t l a k e : U s i n g a s c a l e o f 1 t o 5 , w h e r e 5 m e a n s " E x t r e m e l y I m p o r t a n t " a n d 1 m e a n s " N o t I m p o r t a n t , " p l e a s e ci r c l e h o w i m p o r t a n t t h e f o l l o w i n g i s s u e s w e r e i n y o u r d e c i s i o n t o m o v e t o t h e T o w n o f W e s t l a k e . N= 2 5 0 Q1 5 Y e a r s li v e d in W e s t l a k e Q1 6 S u b d i v i s i o n l i v e i n Total Le s s t h a n 5 ye a r s 5- 1 0 y e a r s 11 + y e a r s St a g e c o a c h Hi l l s Va q u e r o Gl e n w y c k Fa r m s Ot h e r Q5 i E m p l o y m e n t o p p o r t u n i t i e s i n t h e W e s t l a k e a r e a Ex t r e m e l y i m p o r t a n t 3. 6 % 8. 4 % 4. 0 % 6. 5 % 6. 1 % 5. 3 % 3. 8 % 5.6% Ve r y i m p o r t a n t 6. 4 % 7. 2 % 6. 0 % 9. 7 % 10 .2 % 5. 3 % 5. 8 % 7.6% Im p o r t a n t 9. 1 % 10 . 8 % 18 . 0 % 3. 2 % 14 . 3 % 7. 0 % 17 . 3 % 11.6% Le s s i m p o r t a n t 23 . 6 % 16 . 9 % 24 . 0 % 41 . 9 % 15 . 3 % 19 . 3 % 23 . 1 % 20.8% No t i m p o r t a n t 51 . 8 % 50 . 6 % 34 . 0 % 35 . 5 % 52 . 0 % 59 . 6 % 34 . 6 % 47.2% Do n ' t k n o w 5. 5 % 6. 0 % 14 . 0 % 3. 2 % 2. 0 % 3. 5 % 15 . 4 % 7.2% 20 1 3 To w n of We s t l a k e Re s i d e n t Su r v e y : Ap p e n d i x C - Cr o s s t a b s by Nu m b e r of Ye a r s Li v e d in th e City and Subdivision ET C In s t i t u t e (2 0 1 3 ) C - 63 Q5 . R e a s o n s f o r M o v i n g t o W e s t l a k e : U s i n g a s c a l e o f 1 t o 5 , w h e r e 5 m e a n s " E x t r e m e l y I m p o r t a n t " a n d 1 m e a n s " N o t I m p o r t a n t , " p l e a s e ci r c l e h o w i m p o r t a n t t h e f o l l o w i n g i s s u e s w e r e i n y o u r d e c i s i o n t o m o v e t o t h e T o w n o f W e s t l a k e . N= 2 5 0 Q1 5 Y e a r s li v e d in W e s t l a k e Q1 6 S u b d i v i s i o n l i v e i n Total Le s s t h a n 5 ye a r s 5- 1 0 y e a r s 11 + y e a r s St a g e c o a c h Hi l l s Va q u e r o Gl e n w y c k Fa r m s Ot h e r Q5 j A c c e s s t o D F W a i r p o r t Ex t r e m e l y i m p o r t a n t 31 . 8 % 25 . 3 % 24 . 0 % 25 . 8 % 31 . 6 % 22 . 8 % 28 . 8 % 27.6% Ve r y i m p o r t a n t 23 . 6 % 32 . 5 % 26 . 0 % 38 . 7 % 25 . 5 % 29 . 8 % 23 . 1 % 27.2% Im p o r t a n t 24 . 5 % 26 . 5 % 28 . 0 % 12 . 9 % 28 . 6 % 28 . 1 % 26 . 9 % 26.8% Le s s i m po r t a n t 10 . 0 % 9. 6 % 16 . 0 % 16 . 1 % 9. 2 % 12 . 3 % 11 . 5 % 10.8% No t i m p o r t a n t 8. 2 % 2. 4 % 2. 0 % 3. 2 % 5. 1 % 5. 3 % 5. 8 % 4.8% Do n ' t k n o w 1. 8 % 3. 6 % 4. 0 % 3. 2 % 0. 0 % 1. 8 % 3. 8 % 2.8% 20 1 3 To w n of We s t l a k e Re s i d e n t Su r v e y : Ap p e n d i x C - Cr o s s t a b s by Nu m b e r of Ye a r s Li v e d in th e City and Subdivision ET C In s t i t u t e (2 0 1 3 ) C - 64 Q5 . R e a s o n s f o r M o v i n g t o W e s t l a k e : U s i n g a s c a l e o f 1 t o 5 , w h e r e 5 m e a n s " E x t r e m e l y I m p o r t a n t " a n d 1 m e a n s " N o t I m p o r t a n t , " p l e a s e ci r c l e h o w i m p o r t a n t t h e f o l l o w i n g i s s u e s w e r e i n y o u r d e c i s i o n t o m o v e t o t h e T o w n o f W e s t l a k e . N= 2 5 0 Q1 5 Y e a r s li v e d in W e s t l a k e Q1 6 S u b d i v i s i o n l i v e i n Total Le s s t h a n 5 ye a r s 5- 1 0 y e a r s 11 + y e a r s St a g e c o a c h Hi l l s Va q u e r o Gl e n w y c k Fa r m s Ot h e r Q5 k A c c e s s m a j o r h i g h w a y s Ex t r e m e l y i m p o r t a n t 25 . 5 % 25 . 3 % 22 . 0 % 22 . 6 % 26 . 5 % 26 . 3 % 21 . 2 % 24.4% Ve r y i m p o r t a n t 41 . 8 % 38 . 6 % 28 . 0% 41 . 9 % 39 . 8 % 36 . 8 % 36 . 5 % 37.6% Im p o r t a n t 20 . 9 % 24 . 1 % 30 . 0 % 19 . 4 % 19 . 4 % 28 . 1 % 32 . 7 % 24.4% Le s s i m p o r t a n t 8. 2 % 6. 0 % 12 . 0 % 9. 7 % 9. 2 % 7. 0 % 5. 8 % 8.4% No t i m p o r t a n t 2. 7 % 3. 6 % 4. 0 % 3. 2 % 4. 1 % 1. 8 % 3. 8 % 3.2% Do n ' t k n o w 0. 9 % 2. 4 % 4. 0 % 3. 2 % 1. 0 % 0. 0 % 0. 0 % 2.0% 20 1 3 To w n of We s t l a k e Re s i d e n t Su r v e y : Ap p e n d i x C - Cr o s s t a b s by Nu m b e r of Ye a r s Li v e d in th e City and Subdivision ET C In s t i t u t e (2 0 1 3 ) C - 65 Q5 . R e a s o n s f o r M o v i n g t o W e s t l a k e : U s i n g a s c a l e o f 1 t o 5 , w h e r e 5 m e a n s " E x t r e m e l y I m p o r t a n t " a n d 1 m e a n s " N o t I m p o r t a n t , " p l e a s e ci r c l e h o w i m p o r t a n t t h e f o l l o w i n g i s s u e s w e r e i n y o u r d e c i s i o n t o m o v e t o t h e T o w n o f W e s t l a k e . N= 2 5 0 Q1 5 Y e a r s li v e d in W e s t l a k e Q1 6 S u b d i v i s i o n l i v e i n Total Le s s t h a n 5 ye a r s 5- 1 0 y e a r s 11 + y e a r s St a g e c o a c h Hi l l s Va q u e r o Gl e n w y c k Fa r m s Ot h e r Q5 l T y p e o f h o u s i n g a v a i l a b i l i ty Ex t r e m e l y i m p o r t a n t 65 . 5 % 49 . 4 % 24 . 0 % 35 . 5 % 62 . 2 % 50 . 9 % 40 . 4 % 51.6% Ve r y i m p o r t a n t 20 . 9 % 25 . 3 % 28 . 0 % 38 . 7 % 18 . 4 % 31 . 6 % 19 . 2 % 23.6% Im p o r t a n t 5. 5 % 16 . 9 % 30 . 0 % 6. 5 % 13 . 3 % 10 . 5 % 28 . 8 % 14.8% Les s i m p o r t a n t 2. 7 % 4. 8 % 10 . 0 % 12 . 9 % 3. 1 % 3. 5 % 5. 8 % 4.8% No t i m p o r t a n t 5. 5 % 1. 2 % 2. 0 % 0. 0 % 3. 1 % 3. 5 % 5. 8 % 3.2% Do n ' t k n o w 0. 0 % 2. 4 % 6. 0 % 6. 5 % 0. 0 % 0. 0 % 0. 0 % 2.0% 20 1 3 To w n of We s t l a k e Re s i d e n t Su r v e y : Ap p e n d i x C - Cr o s s t a b s by Nu m b e r of Ye a r s Li v e d in th e City and Subdivision ET C In s t i t u t e (2 0 1 3 ) C - 66 Q5 . R e a s o n s f o r M o v i n g t o W e s t l a k e : U s i n g a s c a l e o f 1 t o 5 , w h e r e 5 m e a n s " E x t r e m e l y I m p o r t a n t " a n d 1 m e a n s " N o t I m p o r t a n t , " p l e a s e ci r c l e h o w i m p o r t a n t t h e f o l l o w i n g i s s u e s w e r e i n y o u r d e c i s i o n t o m o v e t o t h e T o w n o f W e s t l a k e . N= 2 5 0 Q1 5 Y e a r s li v e d in W e s t l a k e Q1 6 S u b d i v i s i o n l i v e i n Total Le s s t ha n 5 ye a r s 5- 1 0 y e a r s 11 + y e a r s St a g e c o a c h Hi l l s Va q u e r o Gl e n w y c k Fa r m s Ot h e r Q5 m Q u a l i t y o f y o u r s u b d i v i s i o n Ex t r e m e l y i m p o r t a n t 76 . 4 % 68 . 7 % 56 . 0 % 54 . 8 % 76 . 5 % 77 . 2 % 61 . 5 % 69.6% Ve r y i m p o r t a n t 17 . 3 % 19. 3 % 20 . 0 % 22 . 6 % 15 . 3 % 17 . 5 % 23 . 1 % 18.4% Im p o r t a n t 1. 8 % 4. 8 % 12 . 0 % 9. 7 % 4. 1 % 5. 3 % 5. 8 % 5.2% Le s s i m p o r t a n t 2. 7 % 0. 0 % 2. 0 % 6. 5 % 0. 0 % 0. 0 % 3. 8 % 1.6% No t i m p o r t a n t 0. 9 % 1. 2 % 6. 0 % 6. 5 % 0. 0 % 0. 0 % 3. 8 % 2.0% Do n ' t k n o w 0. 9 % 6. 0 % 4. 0 % 0. 0 % 4. 1 % 0. 0 % 1. 9 % 3.2% 20 1 3 To w n of We s t l a k e Re s i d e n t Su r v e y : Ap p e n d i x C - Cr o s s t a b s by Nu m b e r of Ye a r s Li v e d in th e City and Subdivision ET C In s t i t u t e (2 0 1 3 ) C - 67 Q5 . R e a s o n s f o r M o v i n g t o W e s t l a k e : U s i n g a s c a l e o f 1 t o 5 , w h e r e 5 m e a n s " E x t r e m e l y I m p o r t a n t " a n d 1 m e a n s " N o t I m p o r t a n t , " p l e a s e ci r c l e h o w i m p o r t a n t t h e f o l l o w i n g i s s u e s w e r e i n y o u r d e c i s i o n t o m o v e t o t h e T o w n o f W e s t l a k e . N= 2 5 0 Q1 5 Y e a r s li v e d in W e s t l a k e Q1 6 S u b d i v i s i o n l i v e i n Total Le s s t h a n 5 ye a r s 5- 1 0 y e a r s 11 + y e a r s St a g e c o a c h Hi l l s Va q u e r o Gl e n w y c k Fa r m s Ot h e r Q5 n W e s t l a k e a s a r e t i r e m e n t d es t i n a t i o n Ex t r e m e l y i m p o r t a n t 20 . 9 % 26 . 5 % 28 . 0 % 19 . 4 % 33 . 7 % 14 . 0 % 19 . 2 % 24.0% Ve r y i m p o r t a n t 12 . 7 % 8. 4 % 16 . 0 % 32 . 3 % 10 . 2 % 1. 8 % 13 . 5 % 12.4% Im p o r t a n t 20 . 0 % 26 . 5 % 16 . 0 % 16 . 1 % 22 . 4 % 24 . 6 % 23 . 1 % 21.2% Le s s i m p o r t a n t 13 . 6 % 18 . 1 % 10 . 0 % 12 . 9 % 11 . 2 % 24 . 6 % 15 . 4 % 15.2% No t i m p o r t a n t 28 . 2 % 14 . 5 % 26 . 0 % 19 . 4 % 17 . 3 % 31 . 6 % 25 . 0 % 22.4% Do n ' t k n o w 4. 5 % 6. 0 % 4. 0 % 0. 0 % 5. 1 % 3. 5 % 3. 8 % 4.8% 20 1 3 To w n of We s t l a k e Re s i d e n t Su r v e y : Ap p e n d i x C - Cr o s s t a b s by Nu m b e r of Ye a r s Li v e d in th e City and Subdivision ET C In s t i t u t e (2 0 1 3 ) C - 68 Q5 . R e a s o n s f o r M o v i n g t o W e s t l a k e : U s i n g a s c a l e o f 1 t o 5 , w h e r e 5 m e a n s " E x t r e m e l y I m p o r t a n t " a n d 1 m e a n s " N o t I m p o r t a n t , " p l e a s e ci r c l e h o w i m p o r t a n t t h e f o l l o w i n g i s s u e s w e r e i n y o u r d e c i s i o n t o m o v e t o t h e T o w n o f W e s t l a k e . N= 2 5 0 Q1 5 Y e a r s li v e d in W e s t l a k e Q1 6 S u b d i v i s i o n l i ve i n Total Le s s t h a n 5 ye a r s 5- 1 0 y e a r s 11 + y e a r s St a g e c o a c h Hi l l s Va q u e r o Gl e n w y c k Fa r m s Ot h e r Q5 o N u m b e r o f p u b l i c l y a c c e s s i b l e p a r k s a n d t r a i l s Ex t r e m e l y i m p o r t a n t 21 . 8 % 12 . 0 % 8. 0 % 12 . 9 % 12 . 2 % 22 . 8 % 15 . 4 % 16.8% Ve r y i m p o r t a n t 10 . 0 % 13 . 3 % 10 . 0 % 9. 7 % 11 . 2 % 8. 8 % 19 . 2 % 12.0% Im p o r t a n t 36 . 4 % 44 . 6 % 38 . 0 % 29 . 0 % 41 . 8 % 50 . 9 % 28 . 8 % 38.4% Le s s i m p o r t a n t 16 . 4 % 20 . 5 % 16 . 0 % 22 . 6 % 22 . 4 % 7. 0 % 19 . 2 % 17.2% No t i m p or t a n t 14 . 5 % 6. 0 % 16 . 0 % 16 . 1 % 12 . 2 % 8. 8 % 11 . 5 % 11.6% Do n ' t k n o w 0. 9 % 3. 6 % 12 . 0 % 9. 7 % 0. 0 % 1. 8 % 5. 8 % 4.0% 20 1 3 To w n of We s t l a k e Re s i d e n t Su r v e y : Ap p e n d i x C - Cr o s s t a b s by Nu m b e r of Ye a r s Li v e d in th e City and Subdivision ET C In s t i t u t e (2 0 1 3 ) C - 69 Q5 . R e a s o n s f o r M o v i n g t o W e s t l a k e : U s i n g a s c a l e o f 1 t o 5 , w h e r e 5 m e a n s " E x t r e m e l y I m p o r t a n t " a n d 1 m e a n s " N o t I m p o r t a n t , " p l e a s e ci r c l e h o w i m p o r t a n t t h e f o l l o w i n g i s s u e s w e r e i n y o u r d e c i s i o n t o m o v e t o t h e T o w n o f W e s t l a k e . N= 2 5 0 Q1 5 Y e a r s li v e d in W e s t l a k e Q1 6 S u b d i v i s i o n l i v e i n Total Le s s t h a n 5 ye a r s 5- 1 0 y e a r s 11 + y e a r s St a g e c o a c h Hi l l s Va q u e r o Gl e n w y c k Fa r m s Ot h e r Q5 p S u b d i v i s i o n a m e n i t i e s ( a i r p a r k , g o l f c l u b , p a r k s a n d e t c . ) Ex t r e m e l y i m p o r t a n t 35 . 5 % 43 . 4 % 28 . 0 % 38 . 7 % 45 . 9 % 33 . 3 % 25 . 0 % 36.8% Ve r y i m p o r t a n t 18 . 2 % 19 . 3 % 16 . 0 % 29 . 0 % 20 . 4 % 17 . 5 % 5. 8 % 17.6% Im p o r t a n t 27 . 3 % 15 . 7 % 22 . 0 % 12 . 9 % 15 . 3 % 29 . 8 % 36 . 5 % 22.8% Le s s i m p o r t a n t 6. 4 % 8. 4 % 12 . 0 % 12 . 9 % 8. 2 % 7. 0 % 9. 6 % 8.4% No t i m p o r t a n t 12 . 7 % 7. 2 % 12 . 0 % 3. 2 % 9. 2 % 10 . 5 % 17 . 3 % 10.4% Do n ' t k n o w 0. 0 % 6. 0 % 10 . 0 % 3. 2 % 1. 0 % 1. 8 % 5. 8 % 4.0% 20 1 3 To w n of We s t l a k e Re s i d e n t Su r v e y : Ap p e n d i x C - Cr o s s t a b s by Nu m b e r of Ye a r s Li v e d in th e City and Subdivision ET C In s t i t u t e (2 0 1 3 ) C - 70 Q6 . W h i c h T H R E E o f t h e r e a s o n s l i s t e d a b o v e a r e t h e m o s t i m p o r t a n t r e a s o n s w h y y o u w i l l s t a y i n W e s t l a k e f o r t h e n e x t 5 y e a r s ? ( S u m o f To p T h r e e C h o i c e s ) N= 2 5 0 Q1 5 Y e a r s li v e d in W e s t l a k e Q1 6 S u b d i v i s i o n l i v e in Total Le s s t h a n 5 ye a r s 5- 1 0 y e a r s 11 + y e a r s St a g e c o a c h Hi l l s Va q u e r o Gl e n w y c k Fa r m s Ot h e r Q6 _ S u m o f T o p T h r e e C h o i c e s Se n s e o f c o m m u n i t y 14 . 5 % 8. 4 % 8. 0 % 16 . 1 % 7. 1 % 10 . 5 % 19 . 2 % 12.0% Qu a l i t y o f li f e 54 . 5 % 61 . 4 % 44 . 0 % 61 . 3 % 55 . 1 % 57 . 9 % 51 . 9 % 54.0% Sm a l l t o w n f e e l 32 . 7 % 26 . 5 % 50 . 0 % 41 . 9 % 24 . 5 % 43 . 9 % 34 . 6 % 34.8% Ae s t h e t i c a p p e a l / h i g h de v e l o p m e n t s t a n d a r d s 48 . 2 % 32 . 5 % 26 . 0 % 19 . 4 % 44 . 9 % 33 . 3 % 40 . 4 % 37.6% We s t l a k e A c a d e m y 36 . 4 % 43 . 4 % 28 . 0 % 29 . 0 % 34 . 7 % 36 . 8 % 44 . 2 % 37.2% Ac c e s s t o o t h e r p u b l i c sc h o o l s 6. 4 % 2. 4 % 4. 0 % 3. 2 % 0. 0 % 17 . 5 % 3. 8 % 5.2% Pr o x i m i t y t o p r i v a t e s c h o o l s 2. 7 % 0. 0 % 0. 0 % 3. 2 % 0. 0 % 3. 5 % 0. 0 % 1.2% Lo w c r i m e r a t e s / q u a l i t y o f pu b l i c s a f e t y 25 . 5 % 21 . 7 % 30 . 0 % 19 . 4 % 28 . 6 % 22 . 8 % 30 . 8 % 25.6% Em p l o y m e n t o p p o r t u n i t i e s i n th e W e s t l a k e a r e a 0. 0 % 0. 0 % 2. 0 % 0. 0 % 1. 0 % 0. 0 % 0. 0 % 0.4% Ac c e s s t o DF W a i r p o r t 11 . 8 % 16 . 9 % 12 . 0 % 22 . 6 % 16 . 3 % 10 . 5 % 9. 6 % 14.0% 20 1 3 To w n of We s t l a k e Re s i d e n t Su r v e y : Ap p e n d i x C - Cr o s s t a b s by Nu m b e r of Ye a r s Li v e d in th e City and Subdivision ET C In s t i t u t e (2 0 1 3 ) C - 71 Q6 . W h i c h T H R E E o f t h e r e a s o n s l i s t e d a b o v e a r e t h e m o s t i m p o r t a n t r e a s o n s w h y y o u w i l l s t a y i n W e s t l a k e f o r t h e n e x t 5 y e a r s ? ( S u m o f To p T h r e e C h o i c e s ) N= 2 5 0 Q1 5 Y e a r s li v e d in W e s t l a ke Q1 6 S u b d i v i s i o n l i v e i n Total Le s s t h a n 5 ye a r s 5- 1 0 y e a r s 11 + y e a r s St a g e c o a c h Hi l l s Va q u e r o Gl e n w y c k Fa r m s Ot h e r Q6 S u m o f T o p T h r e e C h o i c e s ( C o n t . ) Ac c e s s t o m a j o r h i g h w a y s 1. 8 % 3. 6 % 6. 0 % 6. 5 % 2. 0 % 5. 3 % 0. 0 % 3.2% Ty p e o f h o u s i n g a v a i l a b l e 10 . 9 % 13 . 3 % 6. 0 % 6. 5 % 14 . 3 % 7. 0 % 11 . 5 % 10.4% Qu a l i t y o f y o u r s u b d i v i s i o n 27 . 3 % 26 . 5 % 22 . 0 % 22 . 6 % 33 . 7 % 26 . 3 % 15 . 4 % 25.2% We s t l a k e a s a r e t i r e m e n t de s t i n a t i o n 4. 5 % 2. 4 % 12 . 0 % 6. 5 % 2. 0 % 10 . 5 % 3. 8 % 5.2% Nu m b e r o f p u b l i c l y a c c e s s i b l e pa r k s / t r a i l s 5. 5 % 0. 0 % 2. 0 % 0. 0 % 1. 0 % 5. 3 % 3. 8 % 2.8% Su b d i v i s i o n a m e n i t i e s 10 . 0 % 18 . 1 % 16 . 0 % 25 . 8 % 22 . 4 % 3. 5 % 1. 9 % 13.6% No n e c h o s e n 1. 8 % 6. 0 % 6. 0 % 3. 2 % 2. 0 % 0. 0 % 9. 6 % 4.0% 20 1 3 To w n of We s t l a k e Re s i d e n t Su r v e y : Ap p e n d i x C - Cr o s s t a b s by Nu m b e r of Ye a r s Li v e d in th e City and Subdivision ET C In s t i t u t e (2 0 1 3 ) C - 72 Q7 . I s s u e s o f I n t e r e s t : U s i n g a s c a l e o f 1 t o 5 , w h e r e 5 m e a n s " V e r y B e n e f i c i a l " a n d 1 m e a n s " N o t B e n e f i c i a l a t A l l , " p l e a s e r a t e h o w be n e f i c i a l y o u t h i n k t h e f o l l o w i n g h a v e b e e n t o t h e T o w n o f W e s t l a k e : ( W i t h o u t D o n ' t K n o w ) N= 2 5 0 Q1 5 Y e a r s li v e d in W e s t l a k e Q1 6 S u b d i v i s i o n l i v e i n Total Le s s t h a n 5 ye a r s 5- 1 0 y e a r s 11 + y e a r s St a g e c o a c h Hi l l s Va q u e r o Gl e n w y c k Fa r m s Ot h e r Q7 a I m p r o v e m e n t s t o F M 1 9 3 8 / D a v i s B l v d . Ve ry b e n e f i c i a l 46 . 8 % 58 . 8 % 53 . 1 % 58 . 1 % 53 . 6 % 40 . 4 % 62 . 0 % 52.2% So m e w h a t b e n e f i c i a l 22 . 9 % 10 . 0 % 22 . 4 % 12 . 9 % 20 . 6 % 28 . 1 % 8. 0 % 18.4% Ne u t r a l 16 . 5 % 20 . 0 % 16 . 3 % 25 . 8 % 14 . 4 % 17 . 5 % 18 . 0 % 17.1% No t v e r y b e n e f i c i a l 6. 4 % 7. 5 % 6. 1 % 3. 2 % 7. 2 % 10 . 5 % 4. 0 % 7.3% No t a t a l l b e n e f i c i a l 7. 3 % 3. 8 % 2. 0 % 0. 0 % 4. 1 % 3. 5 % 8. 0 % 4.9% 20 1 3 To w n of We s t l a k e Re s i d e n t Su r v e y : Ap p e n d i x C - Cr o s s t a b s by Nu m b e r of Ye a r s Li v e d in th e City and Subdivision ET C In s t i t u t e (2 0 1 3 ) C - 73 Q7 . I s s u e s o f I n t e r e s t : U s i n g a s c a l e o f 1 t o 5 , w h e r e 5 m e a n s " V e r y B e n e f i c i a l " a n d 1 m e a n s " N o t B e n e f i c i a l a t A l l , " p l e a s e r a t e h o w be n e f i c i a l y o u t h i n k t h e f o l l o w i n g h a v e b e e n t o t h e T o w n o f W e s t l a k e : ( W i t h o u t D o n ' t K n o w ) N= 2 5 0 Q1 5 Y e a r s li v e d in W e s t l a k e Q1 6 S u b d i v i s i o n l i v e i n Total Le s s t h a n 5 ye a r s 5- 1 0 y e a r s 11 + y e a r s St a g e c o a c h Hi l l s Va q u e r o Gl e n w y c k Fa r m s Ot h e r Q7 b I m p r o v e m e n t s t o D o v e R d . / J . T . O t t i n g e r R d . Ve r y b e n e f i c i a l 47 . 2 % 47 . 5 % 40 . 0 % 58 . 1 % 47 . 4 % 30 . 2 % 55 . 8 % 45.9% So m e w h a t b e n e f i c i a l 29 . 2 % 23 . 8 % 36 . 0 % 35 . 5 % 24 . 7 % 47 . 2 % 15 . 4 % 28.5% Ne u t r al 17 . 0 % 15 . 0 % 8. 0 % 0. 0 % 22 . 7 % 15 . 1 % 9. 6 % 14.5% No t v e r y b e n e f i c i a l 3. 8 % 3. 8 % 10 . 0 % 6. 5 % 2. 1 % 7. 5 % 3. 8 % 5.4% No t a t a l l b e n e f i c i a l 2. 8 % 10 . 0 % 6. 0 % 0. 0 % 3. 1 % 0. 0 % 15 . 4 % 5.8% 20 1 3 To w n of We s t l a k e Re s i d e n t Su r v e y : Ap p e n d i x C - Cr o s s t a b s by Nu m b e r of Ye a r s Li v e d in th e City and Subdivision ET C In s t i t u t e (2 0 1 3 ) C - 74 Q7 . I s s u e s o f I n t e r e s t : U s i n g a s c a l e o f 1 t o 5 , w h e r e 5 m e a n s " V e r y B e n e f i c i a l " a n d 1 m e a n s " N o t B e n e f i c i a l a t A l l , " p l e a s e r a t e h o w be n e f i c i a l y o u t h i n k t h e f o l l o w i n g h a v e b e e n t o t h e T o w n o f W e s t l a k e : ( W i t h o u t D o n ' t K n o w ) N= 2 5 0 Q1 5 Y e a r s li v e d in W e s t l a k e Q1 6 S u b d i v i s i o n l i v e i n Total Le s s t h a n 5 ye a r s 5- 1 0 y e a r s 11 + y e a r s St a g e c o a c h Hi l l s Va q u e r o Gl e n w y c k Fa r m s Ot h e r Q7 c I n t e r s e c t i o n r e c o n f i g u r a t i o n s a t D o v e R d / J . T . O t t i n g e r R d . Ve r y b e n e f i c i a l 39 . 4 % 47 . 5 % 36 . 7 % 48 . 4 % 38 . 7 % 29 . 1 % 54 . 9 % 41.4% So m e w h a t b e n e f i c i a l 28 . 8 % 22 . 5 % 32 . 7 % 22 . 6 % 32 . 3 % 34 . 5 % 17 . 6 % 27.6% Ne u t r a l 17 . 3 % 21 . 3 % 10 . 2 % 9. 7 % 20 . 4 % 23 . 6 % 11 . 8 % 17.2% No t v e r y b e n e f i c i a l 7. 7 % 3. 8 % 6. 1 % 9. 7 % 5. 4 % 10 . 9 % 0. 0 % 6.3% No t a t a ll b e n e f i c i a l 6. 7 % 5. 0 % 14 . 3 % 9. 7 % 3. 2 % 1. 8 % 15 . 7 % 7.5% 20 1 3 To w n of We s t l a k e Re s i d e n t Su r v e y : Ap p e n d i x C - Cr o s s t a b s by Nu m b e r of Ye a r s Li v e d in th e City and Subdivision ET C In s t i t u t e (2 0 1 3 ) C - 75 Q7 . I s s u e s o f I n t e r e s t : U s i n g a s c a l e o f 1 t o 5 , w h e r e 5 m e a n s " V e r y B e n e f i c i a l " a n d 1 m e a n s " N o t B e n e f i c i a l a t A l l , " p l e a s e r a t e h o w be n e f i c i a l y o u t h i n k t h e f o l l o w i n g h a v e b e e n t o t h e T o w n o f W e s t l a k e : ( W i t h o u t D o n ' t K n o w ) N= 2 5 0 Q1 5 Y e a r s li v e d in W e s t l a k e Q1 6 S u b d i v i s i o n l i v e i n Total Le s s t h a n 5 ye a r s 5- 1 0 y e a r s 11 + y e a r s St a g e c o a c h Hi l l s Va q u e r o Gl e n w y c k Fa r m s Ot h e r Q7 d I n t e r s e c t i o n r e c o n f i g u r a t i o n s a t D o v e Rd . / P e a r s o n L n . Ve r y b e n e f i c i a l 38 . 8 % 40 . 0 % 28 . 0 % 45 . 2 % 35 . 4 % 25 . 0 % 47 . 1 % 37.1% So m e w h a t b e n e f i c i a l 35 . 0 % 25 . 0 % 32 . 0 % 25 . 8 % 29 . 2 % 38 . 5 % 29 . 4 % 30.4% Ne u t r a l 19 . 4 % 31 . 3 % 30 . 0 % 22 . 6 % 32 . 3 % 26 . 9 % 13 . 7 % 25.8% No t v e r y b e n e f i c i a l 4. 9 % 1. 3 % 0. 0 % 3. 2 % 2. 1 % 7. 7 % 0. 0 % 2.9% No t a t a l l b e n e f i c i a l 1. 9 % 2. 5 % 10 . 0 % 3. 2 % 1. 0 % 1. 9 % 9. 8 % 3.8% 20 1 3 To w n of We s t l a k e Re s i d e n t Su r v e y : Ap p e n d i x C - Cr o s s t a b s by Nu m b e r of Ye a r s Li v e d in th e City and Subdivision ET C In s t i t u t e (2 0 1 3 ) C - 76 Q8 . U s i n g a s c a l e o f 1 t o 5 , w h e r e 5 m e a n s " V e r y S a t i s f i e d " a n d 1 m e a n s " V e r y D i s s a t i s f i e d , " p l e a s e c i r c l e y o u r l e v e l o f s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h e a c h of t h e f o l l o w i n g . ( W i t h o u t D o n ' t K n o w ) N= 2 5 0 Q1 5 Y e a r s li v e d in W e s t l a k e Q1 6 S u b d i v i s i o n l i v e i n Total Le s s t h a n 5 ye a r s 5- 1 0 y e a r s 11 + y e a r s St a g e c o a c h Hi l l s Va q u e r o Gl e n w y c k Fa r m s Ot h e r Q8 a P o l i c e r e s p o n s e t o b u r g l a r i e s i n W e s t l a k e Ve r y s a t i s f i e d 42 . 4 % 30 . 4 % 34 . 9 % 20 . 8 % 43 . 0 % 22 . 4 % 52 . 3 % 37.0% Sa t i s f i e d 38 . 0 % 52 . 2 % 48 . 8 % 70 . 8 % 33 . 7 % 57 . 1 % 36 . 4 % 44.1% Ne u t r a l 7. 6 % 13 . 0 % 7. 0 % 8. 3 % 11 . 6 % 8. 2 % 9. 1 % 10.0% Di s s a t i s f i e d 9. 8 % 2. 9 % 9. 3 % 0. 0 % 9. 3 % 10 . 2 % 2. 3 % 7.6% Ve r y d i s s a t i s f i e d 2. 2 % 1. 4 % 0. 0 % 0. 0 % 2. 3 % 2. 0 % 0. 0 % 1.4% 20 1 3 To w n of We s t l a k e Re s i d e n t Su r v e y : Ap p e n d i x C - Cr o s s t a b s by Nu m b e r of Ye a r s Li v e d in th e City and Subdivision ET C In s t i t u t e (2 0 1 3 ) C - 77 Q8 . U s i n g a s c a l e o f 1 t o 5 , w h e r e 5 m e a n s " V e r y S a t i s f i e d " a n d 1 m e a n s " V e r y D i s s a t i s f i e d , " p l e a s e c i r c l e y o u r l e v e l o f s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h e a c h of t h e f o l l o w i n g . ( W i t h o u t D o n ' t K n o w ) N= 2 5 0 Q1 5 Y e a r s li v e d in W e s t l a k e Q1 6 S u b d i v i s i o n l i v e i n Total Le s s t h a n 5 ye a r s 5- 1 0 y e a r s 11 + y e a r s St a g e c o a c h Hi l l s Va q u e r o Gl e n w y c k Fa r m s Ot h e r Q8 b C o m m u n i c a t i o n p r o v i d e d t o r e s i d e n t s a b o u t t h e b u r g l a r i e s Ve r y s a t i s f i e d 55 . 8 % 41 . 8 % 45 . 8 % 44 . 4 % 52 . 6 % 42 . 9 % 56 . 3 % 48.3% Sa t i s f i e d 26 . 9 % 39 . 2 % 45 . 8 % 51 . 9 % 29 . 9 % 32 . 1 % 33 . 3 % 35.3% Ne u t r a l 4. 8 % 8. 9 % 6. 3 % 0. 0 % 9. 3 % 3. 6 % 8. 3 % 6.7% Di s s a t i s f i e d 3. 8 % 5. 1 % 0. 0 % 3. 7 % 3. 1 % 7. 1 % 0. 0 % 3.8% Ve r y d i s s a t i s f i e d 8. 7 % 5. 1 % 2. 1 % 0. 0 % 5. 2 % 14 . 3 % 2. 1 % 5.9% 20 1 3 To w n of We s t l a k e Re s i d e n t Su r v e y : Ap p e n d i x C - Cr o s s t a b s by Nu m b e r of Ye a r s Li v e d in th e City and Subdivision ET C In s t i t u t e (2 0 1 3 ) C - 78 Q8 . U s i n g a s c a l e o f 1 t o 5 , w h e r e 5 m e a n s " V e r y S a t i s f i e d " a n d 1 m e a n s " V e r y D i s s a t i s f i e d , " p l e a s e c i r c l e y o u r l e v e l o f s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h e a c h of t h e f o l l o w i n g . ( W i t h o u t D o n ' t K n o w ) N= 2 5 0 Q1 5 Y e a r s li v e d in W e s t l a k e Q1 6 S u b d i v i s i o n l i v e i n Total Le s s t h a n 5 ye a r s 5- 1 0 y e a r s 11 + y e a r s St a g e c oa c h Hi l l s Va q u e r o Gl e n w y c k Fa r m s Ot h e r Q8 c E f f o r t s b y t h e T o w n t o i m p l e m e n t s a f e t y m e a s u r e s r e s u l t i n g f r o m t h e b u r g l a r y i n c i d e n t s Ve r y s a t i s f i e d 44 . 6 % 35 . 1 % 40 . 0 % 52 . 2 % 40 . 6 % 29 . 1 % 47 . 9 % 39.6% Sa t i s f i e d 32 . 7 % 39 . 0 % 42 . 2 % 47 . 8 % 30 . 2 % 43 . 6 % 35 . 4 % 37.4% Ne u t r a l 15 . 8 % 19 . 5 % 11 . 1 % 0. 0 % 17 . 7 % 21 . 8 % 16 . 7 % 16.5% Di s s a t i s f i e d 5. 0 % 3. 9 % 2. 2 % 0. 0 % 7. 3 % 3. 6 % 0. 0 % 3.9% Ve r y d i s s a t i s f i e d 2. 0 % 2. 6 % 4. 4 % 0. 0 % 4. 2 % 1. 8 % 0. 0 % 2.6% 20 1 3 To w n of We s t l a k e Re s i d e n t Su r v e y : Ap p e n d i x C - Cr o s s t a b s by Nu m b e r of Ye a r s Li v e d in th e City and Subdivision ET C In s t i t u t e (2 0 1 3 ) C - 79 Q9 . O v e r a l l , h o w f a m i l i a r a r e y o u w i t h t h e f o l l o w i n g i n f o r m a t i o n : N= 2 5 0 Q1 5 Y e a r s li v e d in W e s t l a k e Q1 6 S u b d i v i s i o n l i v e i n Total Le s s t h a n 5 ye a r s 5- 1 0 y e a r s 11 + y e a r s St a g e c o a c h Hi l l s Va q u e r o Gl e n w y c k Fa r m s Ot h e r Q9 a T o w n s C o m p r e h e n s i v e P l a n Ve r y f a m i l i a r 8. 2 % 16 . 9 % 22 . 0 % 16 . 1 % 10 . 2 % 17 . 5 % 11 . 5 % 13.6% So m e w h a t f a m i l i a r 59 . 1 % 47 . 0 % 44 . 0 % 61 . 3 % 54 . 1 % 47 . 4 % 55 . 8 % 52.8% No t f a m i l i a r 32 . 7 % 36 . 1 % 34 . 0 % 22 . 6 % 35 . 7 % 35 . 1 % 32 . 7 % 33.6% Q9 . O v e r a l l , h o w f a m i l i a r a r e y o u w i t h t h e f o l l o w i n g i n f o r m a t i o n : N= 2 5 0 Q1 5 Y e a r s li v e d in W e s t l a k e Q1 6 S u b d i v i s i o n l i v e i n Total Le s s t h a n 5 ye a r s 5- 1 0 y e a r s 11 + y e a r s St a g e c o a c h Hi l l s Va q u e r o Gl e n w y c k Fa r m s Ot h e r Q9 b T o w n s S t r a t e g i c P l a n Ve r y f a m i l i a r 9. 1 % 18 . 1 % 22 . 0 % 16 . 1 % 12 . 2 % 17 . 5 % 9. 6 % 14.4% So m e w h a t f a m i l i a r 57 . 3 % 48 . 2 % 40 . 0 % 54 . 8 % 49 . 0 % 45 . 6 % 61 . 5 % 50.4% No t f a m i l i a r 33 . 6 % 33 . 7 % 38 . 0 % 29 . 0 % 38 . 8 % 36 . 8 % 28 . 8 % 35.2% 20 1 3 To w n of We s t l a k e Re s i d e n t Su r v e y : Ap p e n d i x C - Cr o s s t a b s by Nu m b e r of Ye a r s Li v e d in th e City and Subdivision ET C In s t i t u t e (2 0 1 3 ) C - 80 Q9 . O v e r a l l , h o w f a m i l i a r a r e y o u w i t h t h e f o l l o w i n g i n f o r m a t i o n : N= 2 5 0 Q1 5 Y e a r s li v e d in W e s t l a k e Q1 6 S u b d i v i s i o n l i v e i n Total Le s s t h a n 5 ye a r s 5- 1 0 y e a r s 11 + y e a r s St a g e c o a c h Hi l l s Va q u e r o Gl e n w y c k Fa r m s Ot h e r Q9 c T o w n s l i g h t i n g s t a n d a r d s Ve r y f a m i l i a r 19 . 1 % 15 . 7 % 22 . 0 % 19 . 4 % 17 . 3 % 19 . 3 % 19 . 2 % 18.8% So m e w h a t f a m i l i a r 40 . 9 % 48 . 2 % 38 . 0 % 45 . 2 % 49 . 0 % 38 . 6 % 36 . 5 % 42.8% No t f a m i l i a r 40 . 0 % 36 . 1 % 40 . 0 % 35 . 5% 33 . 7 % 42 . 1 % 44 . 2 % 38.4% Q9 . O v e r a l l , h o w f a m i l i a r a r e y o u w i t h t h e f o l l o w i n g i n f o r m a t i o n : N= 2 5 0 Q1 5 Y e a r s li v e d in W e s t l a k e Q1 6 S u b d i v i s i o n l i v e i n Total Le s s t h a n 5 ye a r s 5- 1 0 y e a r s 11 + y e a r s St a g e c o a c h Hi l l s Va q u e r o Gl e n w y c k Fa r m s Ot h e r Q9 d T h e T o w n ' s o p e n s p a c e r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r d e v e l o p m e n t Ve r y f a m i l i a r 11 . 8 % 16 . 9 % 24 . 0 % 12 . 9 % 16 . 3 % 21 . 1 % 7. 7 % 15.6% So m e w h a t f a m i l i a r 54 . 5 % 51 . 8 % 38 . 0 % 61 . 3 % 44 . 9 % 57 . 9 % 53 . 8 % 51.2% No t f a mi l i a r 33 . 6 % 31 . 3 % 38 . 0 % 25 . 8 % 38 . 8 % 21 . 1 % 38 . 5 % 33.2% 20 1 3 To w n of We s t l a k e Re s i d e n t Su r v e y : Ap p e n d i x C - Cr o s s t a b s by Nu m b e r of Ye a r s Li v e d in th e City and Subdivision ET C In s t i t u t e (2 0 1 3 ) C - 81 Q9 . O v e r a l l , h o w f a m i l i a r a r e y o u w i t h t h e f o l l o w i n g i n f o r m a t i o n : N= 2 5 0 Q1 5 Y e a r s li v e d in W e s t l a k e Q1 6 S u b d i v i s i o n l i v e i n Total Le s s t h a n 5 ye a r s 5- 1 0 y e a r s 11 + y e a r s St a g e c o a c h Hi l l s Va q u e r o Gl e n w y c k Fa r m s Ot h e r Q9 e Z o n i n g s t a n d a r d s w i t h i n t h e T o w n Ve r y f a m i l i a r 21 . 8 % 19 . 3 % 30 . 0 % 19 . 4 % 19 . 4 % 33 . 3 % 15 . 4 % 22.0% So m e w h a t f a m i l i a r 53 . 6 % 54 . 2 % 44 . 0 % 54 . 8 % 53 . 1 % 43 . 9 % 61 . 5 % 52.0% No t f a m i l i a r 24 . 5 % 26 . 5 % 26 . 0 % 25 . 8 % 27 . 6 % 22 . 8 % 23 . 1 % 26.0% Q9 . O v e r a l l , h o w f a m i l i a r a r e y o u w i t h t h e f o l l o w i n g i n f o r m a t i o n : N= 2 5 0 Q1 5 Y e a r s li v e d in W e s t l a k e Q1 6 S u b d i v i s i o n l i v e i n Total Le s s t h a n 5 ye a r s 5- 1 0 y e a r s 11 + y e a r s St a g e c o a c h Hi l l s Va q u e r o Gl e n w y c k Fa r m s Ot h e r Q9 f a l l o w e d u s e s f o r e x i s t i n g p l a n n e d d e v e l o p m e n t d i s t r i c t s w i t h i n t h e T o w n Ve r y f a m i l i a r 14 . 5 % 19 . 3 % 22 . 0 % 12 . 9 % 18 . 4 % 24 . 6 % 7. 7 % 17.2% So m e w h a t f a m i l i a r 56 .4 % 51 . 8 % 42 . 0 % 58 . 1 % 49 . 0 % 54 . 4 % 61 . 5 % 53.2% No t f a m i l i a r 29 . 1 % 28 . 9 % 36 . 0 % 29 . 0 % 32 . 7 % 21 . 1 % 30 . 8 % 29.6% 20 1 3 To w n of We s t l a k e Re s i d e n t Su r v e y : Ap p e n d i x C - Cr o s s t a b s by Nu m b e r of Ye a r s Li v e d in th e City and Subdivision ET C In s t i t u t e (2 0 1 3 ) C - 82 Q1 0 . W h e n d i d y o u m o s t r e c e n t l y a t t e n d t h e f o l l o w i n g e v e n t s ? N= 2 5 0 Q 1 5 Y e a r s l i v e d i n W e s t l a k e Q1 6 S u b d i v i s i o n l i v e i n Total Le s s th a n 5 ye a r s 5- 1 0 y e a r s 11 + y e a r s S t a g e c o a c h Hi l l s Va q u e r o Gl e n w y c k Fa r m s Ot h e r Q1 0 a _ D e c o r a t i o n _ D a y Th i s Y e a r 9. 1 % 1 3 . 3 % 8 . 0 % 9. 7 % 1 4 . 3 % 1 0 . 5 % 5 . 8 % 1 1 . 2 % La s t Y e a r 3. 6 % 4 . 8 % 1 6 . 0 % 1 6 . 1 % 0 . 0 % 7 . 0 % 1 3 . 5 % 6.4% 2 Y e a r s A g o o r M o r e 6. 4 % 1 2 . 0 % 2 0 . 0 % 2 9 . 0 % 4 . 1 % 8 . 8 % 1 5 . 4 % 1 0 . 8 % Ne v e r , B u t I A m A w a r e o f Ev e n t 45 . 5 % 3 6 . 1 % 3 8 . 0 % 2 5 . 8 % 4 5 . 9 % 3 8 . 6 % 4 6 . 2 % 4 0 . 4 % Ne v e r , I A m N o t A w a r e o f Ev e n t 32 . 7 % 2 8 . 9 % 1 4 . 0 % 1 2 . 9 % 3 5 . 7 % 3 3 . 3 % 1 1 . 5 % 2 7 . 2 % No t P r o v i d e d 2. 7 % 4 . 8 % 4 . 0 % 6. 5 % 0 . 0 % 1 . 8 % 7 . 7 % 4.0% 20 1 3 To w n of We s t l a k e Re s i d e n t Su r v e y : Ap p e n d i x C - Cr o s s t a b s by Nu m b e r of Ye a r s Li v e d in th e City and Subdivision ET C In s t i t u t e (2 0 1 3 ) C - 83 Q1 0 . W h e n d i d y o u m o s t r e c e n t l y a t t e n d t h e f o l l o w i n g e v e n t s ? N= 2 5 0 Q 1 5 Y e a r s l i v e d i n W e s t l a k e Q1 6 S u b d i v i s i o n l i v e i n Total Le s s th a n 5 ye a r s 5- 1 0 y e a r s 11 + y e a r s S t a g e c o a c h Hi l l s Va q u e r o Gl e n w y c k Fa r m s Ot h e r Q1 0 b M a s t e r W o r k s c o n c e r t s e r i e s Th i s Y e a r 4. 5 % 1 . 2 % 1 4 . 0 % 2 2 . 6 % 3 . 1 % 3 . 5 % 3 . 8 % 5.6% La s t Y e a r 5. 5 % 8 . 4 % 6 . 0 % 1 6 . 1 % 3 . 1 % 5 . 3 % 7 . 7 % 6.4% 2 Y e a r s A g o o r M o r e 8. 2 % 6 . 0 % 1 4 . 0 % 1 6 . 1 % 4 . 1 % 1 2 . 3 % 7 . 7 % 8.4% Ne v e r , B u t I A m A w a r e o f Ev e n t 55 . 5 % 5 1 . 8 % 4 8 . 0 % 2 5 . 8 % 6 3 . 3 % 5 6 . 1 % 5 0 . 0 % 5 2 . 8 % Ne v e r , I A m N o t A w a r e o f Ev e n t 24 . 5 % 2 7 . 7 % 1 2 . 0 % 1 6 . 1 % 2 6 . 5 % 1 9 . 3 % 2 3 . 1 % 2 2 . 4 % No t P r o v i d e d 1. 8 % 4 . 8 % 6 . 0 % 3. 2 % 0 . 0 % 3 . 5 % 7 . 7 % 4.4% 20 1 3 To w n of We s t l a k e Re s i d e n t Su r v e y : Ap p e n d i x C - Cr o s s t a b s by Nu m b e r of Ye a r s Li v e d in th e City and Subdivision ET C In s t i t u t e (2 0 1 3 ) C - 84 Q1 0 . W h e n d i d y o u m o s t r e c e n t l y a t t e n d t h e f o l l o w i n g e v e n t s ? N= 2 5 0 Q 1 5 Y e a r s l i v e d i n W e s t l a k e Q1 6 S u b d i v i s i o n l i v e i n Total Le s s th a n 5 ye a r s 5- 1 0 y e a r s 11 + y e a r s S t a g e c o a c h Hi l l s Va q u e r o Gl e n w y c k Fa r m s Ot h e r Q1 0 c A r b o r D a y Th i s Y e a r 1 6 . 4 % 1 0 . 8 % 1 2 . 0 % 2 2 . 6 % 8 . 2 % 2 4 . 6 % 9 . 6 % 1 3 . 6 % La s t Y e a r 1 2 . 7 % 1 2 . 0 % 8 . 0 % 6. 5 % 5 . 1 % 1 4 . 0 % 2 3 . 1 % 1 1 . 2 % 2 Y e a r s A g o o r M o r e 1 0 . 9 % 1 8 . 1 % 3 0 . 0 % 2 2 . 6 % 1 1 . 2 % 1 4 . 0 % 3 2 . 7 % 1 8 . 0 % Ne v e r , B u t I A m A w a r e o f Ev e n t 44 . 5 % 3 9 . 8 % 4 2 . 0 % 3 2 . 3 % 5 7 . 1 % 3 6 . 8 % 2 6 . 9 % 4 1 . 2 % Ne v e r , I A m N o t A w a r e o f Ev e n t 14 . 5 % 1 5 . 7 % 4 . 0 % 1 2 . 9 % 1 8 . 4 % 7 . 0 % 3 . 8 % 1 2 . 4 % No t P r o v i d e d 0. 9 % 3 . 6 % 4 . 0 % 3. 2 % 0 . 0 % 3 . 5 % 3 . 8 % 3.6% 20 1 3 To w n of We s t l a k e Re s i d e n t Su r v e y : Ap p e n d i x C - Cr o s s t a b s by Nu m b e r of Ye a r s Li v e d in th e City and Subdivision ET C In s t i t u t e (2 0 1 3 ) C - 85 Q1 0 . W h e n d i d y o u m o s t r e c e n t l y a t t e n d t h e f o l l o w i n g e v e n t s ? N= 2 5 0 Q 1 5 Y e a r s l i v e d i n W e s t l a k e Q1 6 S u b d i v i s i o n l i v e i n Total Le s s th a n 5 ye a r s 5- 1 0 y e a r s 11 + y e a r s S t a g e c o a c h Hi l l s Va q u e r o Gl e n w y c k Fa r m s Ot h e r Q1 0 d C o m m u n i t y T r e e L i g h t i n g Th i s Y e a r 6. 4 % 8 . 4 % 6 . 0 % 3. 2 % 8 . 2 % 8 . 8 % 5 . 8 % 7.2% La s t Y e a r 1 1 . 8 % 1 3 . 3 % 2 0 . 0% 1 9 . 4 % 9 . 2 % 3 . 5 % 3 0 . 8 % 1 4 . 0 % 2 Y e a r s A g o o r M o r e 5. 5 % 1 2 . 0 % 3 0 . 0 % 3 5 . 5 % 3 . 1 % 1 7 . 5 % 1 1 . 5 % 1 2 . 8 % Ne v e r , B u t I A m A w a r e o f Ev e n t 53 . 6 % 3 9 . 8 % 3 8 . 0 % 2 2 . 6 % 5 3 . 1 % 4 5 . 6 % 5 0 . 0 % 4 5 . 2 % Ne v e r , I A m N o t A w a r e o f Ev e n t 20 . 9 % 2 0 . 5 % 4 . 0 % 1 2 . 9 % 2 4 . 5 % 2 2 . 8 % 0 . 0 % 1 6 . 8 % No t P r o v i d e d 1. 8 % 6 . 0 % 2 . 0 % 6. 5 % 2 . 0 % 1 . 8 % 1 . 9 % 4.0% 20 1 3 To w n of We s t l a k e Re s i d e n t Su r v e y : Ap p e n d i x C - Cr o s s t a b s by Nu m b e r of Ye a r s Li v e d in th e City and Subdivision ET C In s t i t u t e (2 0 1 3 ) C - 86 Q1 0 . W h e n d i d y o u m o s t r e c e n t l y a t t e n d t h e f o l l o w i n g e v e n t s ? N= 2 5 0 Q 1 5 Y e a r s l i v e d i n W e s t l a k e Q1 6 S u b d i v i s i o n l i v e i n Total Le s s th a n 5 ye a r s 5- 1 0 y e a r s 11 + y e a r s S t a g e c o a c h Hi l l s Va q u e r o Gl e n w y c k Fa r m s Ot h e r Q1 0 e W e s t l a k e H i s t o r i c a l P r e s e r v a t i o n S o c i e t y ' s C l a s s i c C a r S h o w Th i s Y e a r 8. 2 % 8 . 4 % 1 4 . 0 % 2 5 . 8 % 8 . 2 % 7 . 0 % 5 . 8 % 9.2% La s t Y e a r 7. 3 % 8 . 4 % 1 4 . 0 % 1 2 . 9 % 7 . 1 % 1 . 8 % 1 9 . 2 % 8.8% 2 Y e a r s A g o o r M o r e 5. 5 % 3 . 6 % 1 2 . 0 % 1 2 . 9 % 2 . 0 % 8 . 8 % 1 1 . 5 % 6.8% Ne v e r , B u t I A m A w a r e o f Ev e n t 56 . 4 % 5 0 . 6 % 5 0 . 0 % 2 9 . 0 % 6 0 . 2 % 5 6 . 1 % 5 1 . 9 % 5 2 . 4 % Ne v e r , I A m N o t A w a r e o f Ev e n t 21 . 8 % 2 5 . 3 % 6 . 0 % 1 6 . 1 % 2 2 . 4 % 2 2 . 8 % 7 . 7 % 1 9 . 2 % No t P r o v i d e d 0. 9 % 3 . 6 % 4 . 0 % 3. 2 % 0 . 0 % 3 . 5 % 3 . 8 % 3.6% 20 1 3 To w n of We s t l a k e Re s i d e n t Su r v e y : Ap p e n d i x C - Cr o s s t a b s by Nu m b e r of Ye a r s Li v e d in th e City and Subdivision ET C In s t i t u t e (2 0 1 3 ) C - 87 Q1 0 . W h e n d i d y o u m o s t r e c e n t l y a t t e n d t h e f o l l o w i n g e v e n t s ? N= 2 5 0 Q 1 5 Y e a r s l i v e d i n W e s t l a k e Q1 6 S u b d i v i s i o n l i v e i n Total Le s s th a n 5 ye a r s 5- 1 0 y e a r s 11 + y e a r s S t a g e c o a c h Hi l l s Va q u e r o Gl e n w y c k Fa r m s Ot h e r Q1 0 f O t h e r W e s t l a k e H i s t o r i c a l P r e s e r v a t i o n S o c i e t y e v e n t s Th i s Y e a r 5. 5 % 6 . 0 % 1 0 . 0 % 1 2 . 9 % 5 . 1 % 1 . 8 % 1 3 . 5 % 7.2% La s t Y e a r 2. 7 % 1 3 . 3 % 1 2 . 0 % 1 6 . 1 % 1 0 . 2 % 0 . 0 % 9 . 6 % 8.4% 2 Y e a r s A g o o r M o r e 3. 6 % 3 . 6 % 1 2 . 0 % 1 2 . 9 % 3 . 1 % 3 . 5 % 3 . 8 % 5.6% Ne v e r , B u t I A m A w a r e o f Ev e n t 60 . 9 % 4 9 . 4 % 5 0 . 0 % 4 1 . 9 % 5 4 . 1 % 6 3 . 2 % 5 7 . 7 % 5 4 . 0 % Ne v e r , I A m N o t A w a r e o f Ev e n t 23 . 6 % 2 2 . 9 % 1 2 . 0 % 6. 5 % 2 7 . 6 % 2 6 . 3 % 1 1 . 5 % 2 0 . 4 % No t P r o v i d e d 3. 6 % 4 . 8 % 4 . 0 % 9. 7 % 0 . 0 % 5 . 3 % 3 . 8 % 4.4% 20 1 3 To w n of We s t l a k e Re s i d e n t Su r v e y : Ap p e n d i x C - Cr o s s t a b s by Nu m b e r of Ye a r s Li v e d in th e City and Subdivision ET C In s t i t u t e (2 0 1 3 ) C - 88 Q1 0 . W h e n d i d y o u m o s t r e c e n t l y a t t e n d t h e f o l l o w i n g e v e n t s ? N= 2 5 0 Q 1 5 Y e a r s l i v e d i n W e s t l a k e Q1 6 S u b d i v i s i o n l i v e i n Total Le s s th a n 5 ye a r s 5- 1 0 y e a r s 11 + y e a r s S t a g e c o a c h Hi l l s Va q u e r o Gl e n w y c k Fa r m s Ot h e r Q1 0 g _ P u b l i c _ A r t s _ S o c i e t y _ e v e n t s Th i s Y e a r 2. 7 % 2 . 4 % 2 . 0 % 3. 2 % 5 . 1 % 0 . 0 % 1 . 9 % 3.2% La s t Y e a r 6. 4 % 7 . 2 % 1 2 . 0 % 1 6 . 1 % 8 . 2 % 1 . 8 % 9 . 6 % 7.6% 2 Y e a r s A g o o r M o r e 6. 4 % 1 0 . 8 % 1 2 . 0 % 2 2 . 6 % 5 . 1 % 7 . 0 % 9 . 6 % 8.8% Ne v e r , B u t I A m A w a r e o f Ev e n t 58 . 2 % 5 0 . 6 % 5 8 . 0 % 4 5 . 2 % 5 6 . 1 % 6 1 . 4 % 5 9 . 6 % 5 4 . 8 % Ne v e r , I A m N o t A w a r e o f Ev e n t 25 . 5 % 2 2 . 9 % 1 0 . 0 % 9. 7 % 2 3 . 5 % 2 6 . 3 % 1 5 . 4 % 2 1 . 6 % No t P r o v i d e d 0. 9 % 6 . 0 % 6 . 0 % 3. 2 % 2 . 0 % 3 . 5 % 3 . 8 % 4.0%   20 1 3 To w n of We s t l a k e Re s i d e n t Su r v e y : Ap p e n d i x C - Cr o s s t a b s by Nu m b e r of Ye a r s Li v e d in th e City and Subdivision ET C In s t i t u t e (2 0 1 3 ) C - 89 Q1 1 . H a v e y o u a t t e n d e d a p u b l i c m e e t i n g i n y o u r n e i g h b o r h o o d ? N= 2 5 0 Q1 5 Y e a r s li v e d in W e s t l a k e Q1 6 S u b d i v i s i o n l i v e i n Total Le s s t h a n 5 ye a r s 5- 1 0 y e a r s 11 + y e a r s St a g e c o a c h Hi l l s Va q u e r o Gl e n w y c k Fa r m s Ot h e r Q1 1 A t t e n d e d p u b m e e t i n g i n n e i g h b o r h o o d Ye s -Th i s Y e a r 44 . 5 % 41 . 0 % 34 . 0 % 29 . 0 % 50 . 0 % 47 . 4 % 28 . 8 % 41.2% Ye s -La s t Y e a r 11 . 8 % 19 . 3 % 32 . 0 % 32 . 3 % 15 . 3 % 7. 0 % 28 . 8 % 18.4% No - Bu t I A m A w a r e o f t h e Me e t i n g s 32 . 7 % 27 . 7 % 22 . 0 % 29 . 0 % 26 . 5 % 35 . 1 % 28 . 8 % 28.8% No - I A m N o t A w a r e o f Me e t i n g s 10 . 0 % 8. 4 % 12 . 0 % 9. 7 % 8. 2 % 10 . 5 % 11 . 5 % 9.6% Do n ' t k n o w 0. 9 % 3. 6 % 0. 0 % 0. 0 % 0. 0 % 0. 0 % 1. 9 % 2.0% 20 1 3 To w n of We s t l a k e Re s i d e n t Su r v e y : Ap p e n d i x C - Cr o s s t a b s by Nu m b e r of Ye a r s Li v e d in th e City and Subdivision ET C In s t i t u t e (2 0 1 3 ) C - 90 Q1 1 a . W a s t h e m e e t i n g i n f o r m a t i v e ? N= 1 4 9 Q1 5 Y e a r s li v e d in W e s t l a k e Q1 6 S u bd i v i s i o n l i v e i n Total Le s s t h a n 5 ye a r s 5- 1 0 y e a r s 11 + y e a r s St a g e c o a c h Hi l l s Va q u e r o Gl e n w y c k Fa r m s Ot h e r Q1 1 a I f y e s w a s m e e t i n g i n f o r m a t i v e Ye s 85 . 5 % 76 . 0 % 84 . 8 % 89 . 5 % 82 . 8 % 90 . 3 % 73 . 3 % 82.6% No 6. 5 % 12 . 0 % 12 . 1 % 10 . 5 % 7. 8 % 9. 7 % 6. 7 % 9.4% Do n ' t K n o w 8. 1 % 12 . 0 % 3. 0 % 0. 0 % 9. 4 % 0. 0 % 20 . 0 % 8.1% 20 1 3 To w n of We s t l a k e Re s i d e n t Su r v e y : Ap p e n d i x C - Cr o s s t a b s by Nu m b e r of Ye a r s Li v e d in th e City and Subdivision ET C In s t i t u t e (2 0 1 3 ) C - 91 Q1 1 b . D i d y o u h a v e t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o d i s c u s s y o u r i d e a s / c o n c e r n s ? N= 1 4 9 Q1 5 Y e a r s li v e d in W e s t l a k e Q1 6 S u b d i v i s i o n l i v e i n Total Le s s t h a n 5 ye a r s 5- 1 0 y e a r s 11 + y e a r s St a g e c o a c h Hi l l s Va q u e r o Gl e n w y c k Fa r m s Ot h e r Q1 1 b i f y e s d i s c u s s i d e a / c o n c e r n Ye s 90 . 3 % 88 . 0 % 78 . 8 % 78 . 9 % 89 . 1 % 96 . 8 % 76 . 7 % 86.6% No 8. 1 % 2. 0 % 15 . 2 % 15 . 8 % 4. 7 % 3. 2 % 13 . 3 % 8.1% Do n ' t K n o w 1. 6 % 10 . 0 % 6. 1 % 5. 3 % 6. 3 % 0. 0 % 10 . 0 % 5.4% 20 1 3 To w n of We s t l a k e Re s i d e n t Su r v e y : Ap p e n d i x C - Cr o s s t a b s by Nu m b e r of Ye a r s Li v e d in th e City and Subdivision ET C In s t i t u t e (2 0 1 3 ) C - 92 Q1 1 c . W i l l y o u a t t e n d a n e i g h b o r h o o d m e e t i n g i n t h e f u t u r e ? N= 9 6 Q1 5 Y e a r s li v e d in W e s t l a k e Q1 6 S u b d i v i s i o n l i v e i n Total Le s s t h a n 5 ye a r s 5- 1 0 y e a r s 11 + y e a r s St a g e c o a c h Hi l l s Va q u e r o Gl e n w y c k Fa r m s Ot h e r Q1 1 c A t t e n d m e e t i n g i n f u t u r e Ye s 76 . 6 % 70 . 0 % 52 . 9 % 10 0 . 0 % 67 . 6 % 76 . 9 % 47 . 6 % 70.8% No 10 . 6 % 20 . 0 % 17 . 6 % 0. 0 % 23 . 5 % 15 . 4 % 9. 5 % 14.6% Do n ' t K n o w 12 . 8 % 10 . 0 % 29 . 4 % 0. 0 % 8. 8 % 7. 7 % 42 . 9 % 14.6% 20 1 3 To w n of We s t l a k e Re s i d e n t Su r v e y : Ap p e n d i x C - Cr o s s t a b s by Nu m b e r of Ye a r s Li v e d in th e City and Subdivision ET C In s t i t u t e (2 0 1 3 ) C - 93 Q1 1 d . D o y o u t h i n k t h e s e t y p e s o f m e e t i n g a r e u s e f u l t o c o n d u c t ? N= 9 6 Q1 5 Y e a r s li v e d in W e s t l a k e Q1 6 S u b d i v i s i o n l i v e i n Total Le s s t h a n 5 ye a r s 5- 1 0 y e a r s 11 + y e a r s St a g e c oa c h Hi l l s Va q u e r o Gl e n w y c k Fa r m s Ot h e r Q1 1 d A r e m e e t i n g s u s e f u l Ye s 83 . 0 % 70 . 0 % 76 . 5 % 10 0 . 0 % 79 . 4 % 80 . 8 % 61 . 9 % 78.1% No 2. 1 % 13 . 3 % 5. 9 % 0. 0 % 11 . 8 % 3. 8 % 4. 8 % 6.3% Do n ' t K n o w 14 . 9 % 16 . 7 % 17. 6 % 0. 0 % 8. 8 % 15 . 4 % 33 . 3 % 15.6% 20 1 3 To w n of We s t l a k e Re s i d e n t Su r v e y : Ap p e n d i x C - Cr o s s t a b s by Nu m b e r of Ye a r s Li v e d in th e City and Subdivision ET C In s t i t u t e (2 0 1 3 ) C - 94 RE S I D E N T S W H O H A D A T T E N D E D A M E E T I N G T H I S Y E A R Q1 1 a . I f y e s , w a s t h e m e e t i n g i n f o r m a t i v e ? N= 1 0 3 Q1 5 Y e a r s l i ve d i n W e s t l a k e Q1 6 S u b d i v i s i o n l i v e i n Total Le s s t h a n 5 ye a r s 5- 1 0 y e a r s 11 + y e a r s St a g e c o a c h Hi l l s Va q u e r o Gl e n w y c k Fa r m s Ot h e r Q1 1 a I f y e s w a s m e e t i n g in f o r m a t i v e Ye s 89 . 8 % 82 . 4 % 94 . 1 % 10 0 . 0 % 87 . 8 % 88 . 9 % 86 . 7 % 88.3% No 4. 1 % 8. 8 % 5. 9 % 0. 0 % 4. 1 % 11 . 1 % 0. 0 % 5.8% Do n ' t K n o w 6. 1 % 8. 8 % 0. 0 % 0. 0 % 8. 2 % 0. 0 % 13 . 3 % 5.8% Q1 1 b . I f y e s , d i d y o u h a v e t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o d i s c u s s y o u r i d e a s / c o n c e r n s ? N= 1 0 3 Q1 5 Y e a r s l i ve d i n W e s t l a k e Q1 6 S u b d i v i s i o n l i v e i n Total Le s s t h a n 5 ye a r s 5- 1 0 y e a r s 11 + y e a r s St a g e c o a c h Hi l l s Va q u e r o Gl e n w y c k Fa r m s Ot h e r Q1 1 b i f y e s d i s c u s s i d e a / c o n c e r n Ye s 87 . 8 % 88 . 2 % 76 . 5 % 66 . 7 % 89 . 8 % 96 . 3 % 73 . 3 % 86.4% No 10 . 2 % 0. 0 % 17 . 6 % 22 . 2 % 4. 1 % 3. 7 % 13 . 3 % 7.8% Do n ' t K n o w 2. 0 % 11 . 8 % 5. 9 % 11 . 1 % 6. 1 % 0. 0 % 13 . 3 % 5.8% 20 1 3 To w n of We s t l a k e Re s i d e n t Su r v e y : Ap p e n d i x C - Cr o s s t a b s by Nu m b e r of Ye a r s Li v e d in th e City and Subdivision ET C In s t i t u t e (2 0 1 3 ) C - 95 RE S I D E N T S W H O H A D A T T E N D E D A M E E T I N G L A S T Y E A R Q1 1 a . I f y e s , w a s t h e m e e t i n g i n f o r m a t i v e ? N= 4 6 Q1 5 Y e a r s l i ve d i n W e s t l a k e Q1 6 S u b d i v i s i o n l i v e i n Total Le s s t h a n 5 ye a r s 5- 1 0 y e a r s 11 + y e a r s St a g e c o a c h Hi l l s Va q u e r o Gl e n w y c k Fa r m s Ot h e r Q1 1 a I f y e s w a s m e e t i n g in f o r m a t i v e Ye s 69 . 2 % 62 . 5 % 75 . 0 % 80 . 0 % 66 . 7 % 10 0 . 0 % 60 . 0 % 69.6% No 15 . 4 % 18 . 8 % 18 . 8 % 20 . 0 % 20 . 0 % 0. 0 % 13 . 3 % 17.4% Do n ' t K n o w 15 . 4 % 18 . 8 % 6. 3 % 0. 0 % 13 . 3 % 0. 0 % 26 . 7 % 13.0% Q1 1 b . I f y e s , d i d y o u h a v e t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o d i s c u s s y o u r i d e a s / c o n c e r n s ? N= 4 6 Q1 5 Y e a r s l i ve d i n W e s t l a k e Q1 6 S u b d i v i s i o n l i v e i n Total Le s s t h a n 5 ye a r s 5- 1 0 y e a r s 11 + y e a r s St a g e c o a c h Hi l l s Va q u e r o Gl e n w y c k Fa r m s Ot h e r Q1 1 b i f y e s d i s c u s s i d e a / c o n c e r n Ye s 10 0 . 0 % 87 . 5 % 81 . 3 % 90 . 0 % 86 . 7 % 10 0 . 0 % 80 . 0 % 87.0% No 0. 0 % 6. 3 % 12 . 5 % 10 . 0 % 6. 7 % 0. 0 % 13 . 3 % 8.7% Do n ' t K n o w 0. 0 % 6. 3 % 6. 3 % 0. 0 % 6. 7 % 0. 0 % 6. 7 % 4.3% 20 1 3 To w n of We s t l a k e Re s i d e n t Su r v e y : Ap p e n d i x C - Cr o s s t a b s by Nu m b e r of Ye a r s Li v e d in th e City and Subdivision ET C In s t i t u t e (2 0 1 3 ) C - 96 Q1 2 . I n y o u r o p i n i o n , h o w o f t e n s h o u l d n e i g h b o r h o o d m e e t i n g s b e h e l d ? N= 2 5 0 Q1 5 Y e a r s li v e d in W e s t l a k e Q1 6 S u b d i v i s i o n l i v e i n Total Le s s t h a n 5 ye a r s 5- 1 0 y e a r s 11 + y e a r s St a g e c o a c h Hi l l s Va q u e r o Gl e n w yc k Fa r m s Ot h e r Q1 2 N o w o f t e n n e i g h b o r h o o d m e e t i n g h e l d An n u a l l y 27 . 3 % 41 . 0 % 40 . 0 % 48 . 4 % 29 . 6 % 38 . 6 % 34 . 6 % 34.8% Tw i c e a Y e a r 49 . 1 % 32 . 5 % 44 . 0 % 32 . 3 % 54 . 1 % 33 . 3 % 40 . 4 % 42.4% Ev e r y O t h e r Y e a r 0. 0 % 12 . 0 % 2. 0 % 3. 2 % 4. 1 % 7. 0 % 3. 8 % 4.4% Do n ' t K n o w 23 . 6 % 14 . 5 % 14 . 0 % 16 . 1 % 12 . 2 % 21 . 1 % 21 . 2 % 18.4% 20 1 3 To w n of We s t l a k e Re s i d e n t Su r v e y : Ap p e n d i x C - Cr o s s t a b s by Nu m b e r of Ye a r s Li v e d in th e City and Subdivision ET C In s t i t u t e (2 0 1 3 ) C - 97 Q1 3 . D o a n y c h i l d r e n i n g r a d e s K - 1 2 l i v e i n y o u r h o m e ? N= 2 5 0 Q1 5 Y e a r s li v e d in W e s t l a k e Q1 6 S u b d i v i s i o n l i v e i n Total Les s t h a n 5 ye a r s 5- 1 0 y e a r s 11 + y e a r s St a g e c o a c h Hi l l s Va q u e r o Gl e n w y c k Fa r m s Ot h e r Q1 3 C h i l d r e n K -12 l i v e y o u r h o m e Ye s 57 . 3 % 49 . 4 % 26 . 0 % 41 . 9 % 42 . 9 % 61 . 4 % 50 . 0 % 48.4% No 42 . 7 % 49 . 4 % 74 . 0 % 58 . 1 % 57 . 1 % 38 . 6 % 50 . 0 % 50.8% No t p r o v i d e d 0. 0 % 1. 2 % 0. 0 % 0. 0 % 0. 0 % 0. 0 % 0. 0 % 0.8% 20 1 3 To w n of We s t l a k e Re s i d e n t Su r v e y : Ap p e n d i x C - Cr o s s t a b s by Nu m b e r of Ye a r s Li v e d in th e City and Subdivision ET C In s t i t u t e (2 0 1 3 ) C - 98 Q1 3 a . D o a n y o f t h e s e c h i l d r e n c u r r e n t l y a t t e n d W e s t l a k e A c a d e m y ? N= 1 2 1 Q1 5 Y e a r s li v e d in W e s t l a k e Q1 6 S u b d i v i s i o n l i v e i n Total Le s s t h a n 5 ye a r s 5- 1 0 y e a r s 11 + y e a r s St a g e c o a c h Hi l l s Va q u e r o Gl e n w y c k Fa r m s Ot h e r Q1 3 a I f y e s a n y a t t e n d W L A c a d e m y Ye s 71 . 4 % 80 . 5 % 69 . 2 % 76 . 9 % 85 . 7 % 54 . 3 % 80 . 8 % 73.6% No 27 . 0 % 19 . 5 % 23 . 1 % 23 . 1 % 14 . 3 % 42 . 9 % 19 . 2 % 24.8% No t P r o v i d e d 1. 6 % 0. 0 % 7. 7 % 0. 0 % 0. 0 % 2. 9 % 0. 0 % 1.7% 20 1 3 To w n of We s t l a k e Re s i d e n t Su r v e y : Ap p e n d i x C - Cr o s s t a b s by Nu m b e r of Ye a r s Li v e d in th e City and Subdivision ET C In s t i t u t e (2 0 1 3 ) C - 99 Q1 3 d . I f y o u r c h i l d r e n p r e v i o u s l y a t t e n d e d W e s t l a k e A c a d e m y , a r e y o u c o n s i d e r i n g r e - e n r o l l i n g t h e m i n t h e f u t u r e ? N= 3 0 Q1 5 Y e a r s li v e d in W e s t l a k e Q1 6 S u b d i v i s i o n l i v e i n Total Le s s t h a n 5 ye a r s 5- 1 0 y e a r s 11 + y e a r s St a g e c o a c h Hi l l s Va q u e r o Gl e n w y c k Fa r m s Ot h e r Q1 3 d A r e y o u c o n s i d e r i n g r e -en r o l l i n g t h e m i n t h e f u t u r e ? Ye s 17 . 6 % 0. 0 % 0. 0 % 0. 0 % 0. 0 % 6. 7 % 40 . 0 % 10.0% No 17. 6 % 62 . 5 % 33 . 3 % 33 . 3 % 16 . 7 % 40 . 0 % 40 . 0 % 36.7% Do n ' t K n o w 64 . 7 % 37 . 5 % 66 . 7 % 66 . 7 % 83 . 3 % 53 . 3 % 20 . 0 % 53.3% 20 1 3 To w n of We s t l a k e Re s i d e n t Su r v e y : Ap p e n d i x C - Cr o s s t a b s by Nu m b e r of Ye a r s Li v e d in th e City and Subdivision ET C In s t i t u t e (2 0 1 3 ) C - 100 Q1 9 . O v e r a l l , h o w s a f e d o y o u f e e l i n t h e T o w n o f W e s t l a k e ? N= 2 5 0 Q1 5 Y e a r s li v e d in W e s t l a k e Q1 6 S u b d i v i s i o n l i v e i n Total Le s s t h a n 5 ye a r s 5- 1 0 y e a r s 11 + y e a r s St a g e c o a c h Hi l l s Va q u e r o Gl e n w y c k Fa r m s Ot h e r Q1 9 H o w s a f e d o y o u f e e l Ve r y s a f e 58 . 2 % 53 . 0 % 42 . 0 % 54 . 8 % 56 . 1 % 45 . 6 % 59 . 6 % 52.0% Sa f e 40 . 0 % 36 . 1 % 56 . 0 % 45 .2 % 38 . 8 % 52 . 6 % 36 . 5 % 42.8% Un s a f e 0. 9 % 4. 8 % 0. 0 % 0. 0 % 4. 1 % 1. 8 % 0. 0 % 2.0% Ve r y u n s a f e 0. 0 % 1. 2 % 2. 0 % 0. 0 % 1. 0 % 0. 0 % 1. 9 % 0.8% Do n ' t k n o w 0. 9 % 4. 8 % 0. 0 % 0. 0 % 0. 0 % 0. 0 % 1. 9 % 2.4% 20 1 3 To w n of We s t l a k e Re s i d e n t Su r v e y : Ap p e n d i x C - Cr o s s t a b s by Nu m b e r of Ye a r s Li v e d in th e City and Subdivision ET C In s t i t u t e (2 0 1 3 ) C - 101 Q2 0 . O v e r a l l , h o w w o u l d y o u r a t e t h e T o w n o f W e s t l a k e a s a p l a c e t o l i v e ? N= 2 5 0 Q1 5 Y e a r s li v e d in W e s t l a k e Q1 6 S u b d i v i s i o n l i v e i n Total Le s s t h a n 5 ye a r s 5- 1 0 y e a r s 11 + y e a r s St a g e c o a c h Hi l l s Va q u e r o Gl e n w y c k Fa r m s Ot h e r Q2 0 A s p l a c e t o l i v e Ex c e l l e n t 74 . 5 % 69 . 9 % 62 . 0 % 77 . 4 % 67 . 3 % 68 . 4 % 86 . 5 % 70.0% Go o d 18 . 2 % 18 . 1 % 30 . 0 % 22 . 6 % 18 . 4 % 31 . 6 % 11 . 5 % 20.8% Av e r a g e 0. 9 % 2. 4 % 4. 0 % 0. 0 % 4. 1 % 0. 0 % 0. 0 % 2.0% Po o r 5. 5 % 1. 2 % 4. 0 % 0. 0 % 7. 1 % 0.0 % 1. 9 % 3.6% Do n ' t k n o w 0. 9 % 8. 4 % 0. 0 % 0. 0 % 3. 1 % 0. 0 % 0. 0 % 3.6% 20 1 3 To w n of We s t l a k e Re s i d e n t Su r v e y : Ap p e n d i x C - Cr o s s t a b s by Nu m b e r of Ye a r s Li v e d in th e City and Subdivision ET C In s t i t u t e (2 0 1 3 ) C - 102 Page 1 of 3 estlake Town Council TYPE OF ACTION Workshop - Discussion Westlake Town Council Meeting Monday, August 26, 2013 TOPIC: Presentation and Discussion of Recommended Proposal for Town’s Comprehensive Plan Review and Update STAFF CONTACT: Tom Brymer, Town Manager DECISION POINTS Start Date Completion Date Timeframe: Recommended September, 2013 September 30, 2014 if work begins in Sept. ‘13 Estimated time frame as provided by recommended firm for this engagement. Funding: Amount- $384,950 Status- Funded Source- General Fund Note: proposal is recommended for funding in proposed FY13-14 Budget. Small amount of work could be expensed in FY12-13 if engagement begins in Sept. 2013. Decision Alignment VVM Perspective Desired Outcome Exemplary Governance Customer Focus CF. Promote Best Practice Policy Governance Strategic Issue Outcome Strategy Staff Action N/A N/A N/A Strategy Map or VVM Connection Strategic Issue Connection Page 2 of 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Reviewing and updating the Town’s existing 1992 Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan) has been identified as a Town Council priority. The existing Comprehensive Plan has not had a thorough, holistic review for possible updating since it was adopted, with the exception of changes to the land use plan portion of the Comp Plan that were made to reflect previous zoning decisions. As a point of comparison, in municipalities located in high growth areas like ours, it would be customary to perform a thorough review and update of their comprehensive plan at least once over a twenty (20) year time frame. Per that Council direction, Staff spent many hours drafting and reviewing an RFP (request for proposals) document for review and update of our Comp Plan. That RFP was issued on March 11, 2013 and posted on the Town’s web site home page for interested proposers to read and download. Electronic invitations to submit a proposal per the Town’s RFP for this engagement were sent to planning firms throughout the DFW metroplex on March 11, 2013. The RFP invitation was also placed on the American Planning Association website, the web site for the Texas chapter of the APA, and in the Star Telegram newspaper. A pre-proposal meeting to answer questions about the RFP was held on March 18, 2013 which was well attended by interested potential proposers. Proposals were accepted until April 22, 2013. The Town received two (2) proposals, both of which were responsive to the requested scope of services contained in the Town’s RFP. Both proposals are similar in total cost. A Staff team along with our outside independent consultant, Mr. Trent Petty of Petty & Associates, was assembled to review the 2 proposals and then interview the 2 teams which had submitted. Following those presentations and questions from Staff to the proposers, Staff ranked both proposals according to the criteria stated in the RFP document. The Staff ranked the proposal from the Mesa Planning team as most responsive and qualified for this engagement. Since then the Staff has been in conversation with Robin McCaffrey of Mesa Planning (Mesa) in asking further questions to clarify their proposal as well as check Mesa’s references. It is important to note that this proposed review and update of the Town’s Comp Plan utilizes an extensive public participation component utilizing a task force/steering committee appointed by the Town Council. This public involvement process helps to attain transparency in the process of reviewing the plan and insures input from the community’s various stakeholder groups in the Comp Plan’s updated content. The recommended proposal with Mesa totals $338,950. Funds are available in the Proposed FY13-14 Budget to cover this cost. Attachment No. 2 compares this proposal’s fees with those incurred by some other cities (including 2 in the DFW area, Prosper and Argyle), for the scope of planning work necessary to holistically review and update a Comp Plan. The attachment shows that the proposed fee is in alignment with the requested scope of work as compared to these other cities. Page 3 of 3 ORGANIZATIONAL HISTORY/RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends hearing the proposal presentation of Mesa Planning for this planning engagement followed by Council discussion and questions. Staff recommends this consultant and this scope of work for updating the Town’s Comp Plan. ATTACHMENTS 1. Proposal from Mesa Planning for Comp Plan review and update services in response to the Town’s requested scope of services defined in its March 2013 Request for Proposals. 2. Cost/Scope comparison of this proposed engagement with other Texas cities. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE TOWN OF WESTLAKE, TEXAS April 22, 2013 Mr. Eddie Edwards Director of Planning and Development Town of Westlake 3 Village Circle, Suite 202 Westlake, Texas 76202 Re: Proposal for the provision of Planning Services related to a Comprehensive Plan Update for Westlake, Texas Dear Mr. Edwards, MESA Planning welcomes this opportunity to present the enclosed proposal and statement of qualifi cations for preparation of a Comprehensive Plan Update for Westlake, Texas. Our Planning Team has particular interest in Westlake because of our long history of planning for cities and townships located within the sphere of an expanding metropolitan area (such as Dallas and Fort Worth, Texas). All the members of this planning team have been working together for many years addressing the issues related to the implementation of internal/ community objectives while the external/ surrounding conditions are rapidly changing. In addition, Westlake is at a pivotal point in its own development. With such a strong sense of vision prevalent across many segments of the community, this seems to be the right moment to make sure the town is fully equipped to manage growth toward desired outcomes for neighborhoods and quality of life, promote orderly form, strengthen Westlake Academy, and appropriately harvest the economic benefi ts of the town’s assets as well as locational advantages. Careful and creative planning is an important tool to facilitate all the above. Therefore, the planning team, described herein, has been assembled and this planning proposal has been formulated. The enclosed proposal is organized into sections as follows: • Statement of Understanding and project strategy • Scope of Work • Timeline • Cost of Services and staff allocations • Team Project Experience • Organizational Chart • Key Personnel Resumes • Team Availability • References All of our plans are built upon inclusive and transparent public participation which cultivates local leadership and a plan constituency. I believe that our Planning Team is the right team for Westlake and we look forward to working with you and the plan leadership. Together we can help you craft a vision for Westlake that will prove to be a valuable guide in managing growth. Sincerely, Robin H. McCaffrey AIA., AICP Senior Principal, MESA Planning MESA + PLANNING 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Statement of Understanding 2. Scope of Work 3. Representative Projects 4. Team Structure 5. Availability and Assignments 6. References MESA + PLANNING2 MESA + PLANNING 3 STATEMENT OF UNDERSTANDING 1 MESA + PLANNING4 STATEMENT OF UNDERSTANDING Robust growth associated with the Highway 114 corridor has had a dramatic impact on the form and character of cities and townships along its path. Only a few years ago much of the vicinity of Westlake was largely rural in visual character and built density. It was in the remoteness of this setting that Westlake grew into the unique town that exists today despite speculative pressures of the corridor itself. In towns, such as Westlake, growth management is needed to preserve and enhance both quality of life and quality of development, while maximizing economic opportunity associated with regional growth and the distinctions it bestows on Westlake. Projections indicate that development intensity along the 114 corridor is expected to continue, raising several challenges that the Westlake Comprehensive Plan Update must address. 1. Confl ict between regional and local movement systems: The form of development that is attracted to the interstate differs from the form of development attracted to local movement systems. The local system houses the community in which people live as well as the roadways that connect them to the goods and services accessed on a regular basis, such as the grocer, the dry cleaners, schools, etc. The regional system services a larger population, is typically defi ned on a larger scale, and has a tendency toward a uniformity of expression. The local system services the local community and tends to refl ect the unique attributes of character and form associated with it. Westlake is comprised of both regional and local elements, yet distinction is needed to ensure that one does not restrict or over shadow the other. Therefore, plan elements should be developed that defi ne and accommodate both the regional and local system. In this way, the tendency of regional movement through Westlake accessing 114 will not make the local system subservient to the regional corridor. This will prevent local streets from blending with the regional system and loosing identity of locally meaningful distinctions. 2. Highway 114 dominant infl uence over future development: Highway 114 has the potential to dominate the emerging city form. The nature of development attracted to such freeway corridors has a distinctly regional character. In such areas, large plate retailers and entertainment venues begin to displace local businesses, and the host city can assume an increasingly regional identity. As such development arrays itself along the freeway, it infl uences the value potential of the future and burdens the city with a “corridor-scape” that can negatively affect initiatives to express the local fabric. Therefore, Urban Design elements should be defi ned for Westlake that will promote expression of community culture and identity, while accommodating the potential value associated with freeway traffi c. 3. The pressures of high velocity growth upon environmental systems that are not jurisdictionally defi ned: Factors such as storm water management, water quality and quantity, air quality, biodiversity, and open spaces all contribute to the overall quality of life. As development continues in Westlake, there will be increased pressure placed upon natural systems that maintain these factors. In addition, due to Westlake’s relatively small MESA + PLANNING 5 size, many of the natural systems within the town are part of larger systems outside of the Town. This makes Westlake vulnerable to the effects of poor system management by surrounding communities. Therefore, a Parks, Open Space, and Systems Management Plan element is needed that facilitates environmental quality, namely surface water management, water quality/ quantity, air quality, vehicular trip reduction, and preservation of natural corridors. This plan should include special environmental enhancements that protect system components within the Town and, at the same time, establish natural assets that promote desired development. 4. Reconciliation of the preferred Land Use vision, Planned Development entitlements, and institutionalized speculation: Along the trajectory from founding to the present, certain entitlements for use of land became protected by Planned Development Ordinances (PDs). These PDs are largely speculative instruments that look to the growth opportunities associated with the 114 corridor and regional population growth. Properties, such as those in the vicinity of the proposed Circle “T” Mall, have experienced a sequence of transactions by investment parties, such as Hunt, General growth, Howard Hughes Corporation, etc.; each setting an increased increment of value not necessarily refl ected by agricultural tax valuation. These relatively hidden and imbedded values greatly infl uence land use capability and must be rationalized to the Town vision and, if need be, addressed in the implementation section of the plan. Therefore, the land use plan element must speak in a vernacular that expresses the Town’s goals without making the legally conveyed entitlements non-conforming or imposing value deprecation. Only in this way will there be a suffi ciently articulated public interest that informs the process of development review rather than negates development energy. 5. Community Sustainability: True sustainability is dynamic in the sense that it has attributes of a living organism. This means that systems are inherently diverse and, in that diversity, affording underpinnings needed to sustain the phenotype (form). Therefore, the community must be a living thing and have diversity within it. The same is true for natural systems. This broadness is refl ected by the mosaic of natural and human interdependencies that animate vitality. Therefore, the overall plan must seek to promote, preserve, and enhance that particular mosaic that is Westlake. This is refl ected in land use, economic development, natural open spaces, and design. 6. Community Design that refl ects a unique (meaning Westlake distinct) relationship between land and development: Westlake is a particular vision, painted with three primary colors: the landscape, the built-scape, and the community-scape. Design is the way these come together and the recognizable place they defi ne. Therefore, Design is an overarching concern of the future. Such design is more than an image; it is an internalization of design consciousness within the decision-making process of local government. Therefore, all aspects of the plan must establish a relationship to design and the implementation component must make that design consciousness actionable. MESA + PLANNING6 PROJECT APPROACH In light of the above described issues, this project approach for Westlake is built upon the following aspects of use and structure: 1. The formulation of a clear vision that ties together previous vision elements, stated goals, and mission: The vision must build the bridge between past, present, and future. 2. The creation of a true management tool that will give the decision making processes of local governance the analysis of impacts (fi nancial and natural) needed to reconcile tensions that the above described issues identify (tensions between regional/ local, external/ internal, vision/ entitlement, narrow/ broad community, and unique/ generic urban form). This tool is to be employed regularly: The plan must be useful to the decision making process so that it has justifi cation for its on-going use. 3. The creation of a planning framework that gives needed overall form to land use and urban design and internalizes current planning efforts as well as an expanding reliance on multiple modes of transportation: The Framework is the template upon which the individual plan elements are fashioned. Therefore, it is the guiding expression of goals and objectives in a physical form that refl ects their application. 4. The employment of a transparent public participation process that nurtures project leadership, constituency support, brings together regional/ local concerns, and facilitates adoption: Participatory input is active throughout the planning process and through its course transfers plan ownership to the participants. 5. The establishment of fi nancial performance objectives that assure attainment and maintenance of economic capacity necessary to build the vision: Financial performance is only possible with the identifi cation of fi nancial thresholds that are derived from the relationship of the cost of governance, services, and obligations to development capture and the subsequent value it transfers to the rest of the city. 6. The creation of clear fi nancial and environmental indicators that will track successful attainment of sustainability objectives refl ected by land use, economic development, and environmental strategies: Necessary changes to the plan as time goes on are refl ected by its performance relative to indicators of applicability. 7. The delivery of a useful product at each planning phase: The plan should be as useful during its development as it is when it is fully developed. MESA + PLANNING 7 SCOPE OF WORK 2 MESA + PLANNING8 SCOPE OF WORK Giving consideration to the Town’s Request for Proposal and the planning issues as identifi ed in the Statement of Understanding, the Planning Team presents the following Scope of Work. This Scope refl ects our view of work elements that serve the Town of Westlake. However, the Planning Team realizes that agreement regarding adjustments to this document and appropriate adjustments to fee may be the result of scope discussion between MESA Planning and the client group. The scope elements of this proposal have been organized in fi ve parts: PART ONE: ASSESSMENTS A CONTEXT FOR COMMUNITY VISION PART TWO: VISIONING A FRAMEWORK FOR THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PART THREE: PLAN ELEMENTS ARTICULATING THE VISION OF SUSTAINABILITY PART FOUR: IMPLEMENTATION REALIZING THE VISION PART FIVE: ENGAGEMENT/ COMMUNICATIONS GUIDING THE PLANNING PROCESS PART ONE: ASSESSMENTS A CONTEXT FOR COMMUNITY VISION To ensure informed public participation, plan recommendations are rooted in a true understanding of Westlake, and that signifi cant change since the 1992 plan is evaluated, the Planning Team will prepare various investigations and analyses that serve as a basis for the Westlake Comprehensive Plan Update. The Assessment fi ndings will be a key feature of workshop 1, described in the Engagement portion (Part Five) of this proposal. 1.1 Population and Demographic Profi le. The Planning Team will utilize population data to establish a demographic profi le for the Town of Westlake identifying trends for possible future growth within the defi ned planning horizon. These values will provide benchmarks for use in the various other assessments conducted for this project. Particular attention will be paid to Westlake’s comparison with other population trends in the larger planning context. This comparison has particular importance as Westlake will continue to shoulder the impacts of population growth of surrounding communities. Population projections will use an analogue approach; the outcome of which will be compared to NCTCOG projections and differences analyzed. Of particular focus in this projection is the effect of population growth on Westlake Academy and its expansion plans. 1.2 Existing Conditions. The Planning Team will assess the contextual fabric of the Town of Westlake identifying those natural, built, and economic systems that will infl uence the form and future patterns of growth for the Town. Elements such as drainage patterns, natural corridors, activity centers, development patterns, cultural landmarks/ features, and economic indicators will be evaluated, as well as current plans, studies, and zoning designations/ instruments. This assessment will identify signifi cant aspects of each that will infl uence future development physically, politically, and economically. Consideration will be given to the nature of emerging strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and liabilities. 1.3 Circulation Analysis. Prior to the fi rst public workshop, the Planning Team will conduct MESA + PLANNING 9 a circulation analysis of the Town of Westlake. Circulation is a critical element of the Comprehensive Plan for the Town. The relationship of community elements to Highway 114, the existing patterns of use and development, and the potential alignment of future transit in relation to vehicular traffi c patterns establish a need to investigate the effi ciency and physical infl uence of the circulation system. Consideration will be given to external traffi c demand on roadways within Westlake and the extent to which increased volumes infl uence land use suitability (discussed below). Of particular interest in this analysis is the extent to which existing PD ordinances identify right of way dedications and/ or other roadway provisions that in turn infl uence the overall character and operation of the local system. 1.4 Infrastructure Capacity Analysis: Due to Westlake’s small population, its potential for growth, and reliance upon private and neighboring public utilities to serve population expansion and commercial development, the Planning Team will identify limitations and chokepoints within the existing systems as well as project future demand. This Assessment will review and consider the individual plans of various private and neighboring public utility providers to the Town of Westlake. In this way, cooperative planning with private and neighboring public utilities can be initiated by this Comprehensive Plan Update. 1.5 Land Developability Analysis. Building upon the existing conditions and the circulation analysis (described above), the combined signifi cance of built and natural systems as they coexist within the Town will be portrayed in a map based sequence which defi nes areas most and least suitable for development. This analysis includes such considerations as topography, drainage, protected resources, jurisdictional overlays, vegetative communities, existing/ on-coming land uses, and circulation patterns. Attention will be given to the relationship between land developability and the trajectory of land development trends (Task 1.2). 1.6 Assessment Findings Report. The Planning Team will place each of the above described analyses into a combined document that portrays a diagnosis of the existing and emerging town fabric. This combined document will be presented in report form with all pertinent maps, charts, graphs, and illustrations, as well as a written summary of their signifi cance to the Comprehensive Plan. Of particular emphasis in this summation is the extent to which conditions informing the 1992 Comprehensive Plan have signifi cantly changed and, therefore, necessitate targeted updates of the existing document (a performance review of the existing plan). Recommendation of specifi c updates will be made in this report. At a minimum, updates will include those areas of concern identifi ed in the RFP. Deliverable for Part One: • An Assessment Findings Report (sub-component 1 of the Comprehensive Plan Update) with text and graphics for each of the tasks described above. • Assessment Findings presentation power point for Workshop 1 Meetings: • Workshop #1 (see Engagement: Part Five) MESA + PLANNING10 • Steering Committee Meeting • Focus Group Meetings and Interviews (see Engagement: Part Five) • Milestone meeting with staff PART TWO: VISIONING A FRAMEWORK FOR THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE The Vision Plan for the Town of Westlake must manifest the Goals and Objectives of the Community, while establishing a strategy for implementation that will effectively guide and direct future development within the Town. The Framework is the template of the Plan that assures its fulfi llment of community aspirations and values. 2.1 Community Goals and Objectives. Input from public workshop 1 will be incorporated as Community Goals and Objectives for the Westlake Comprehensive Plan Update; specifi cally as they pertain to land use, circulation, urban design, economic development, and the town relationship to Westlake Academy. Inputs from Workshop 1 will be analyzed and organized into strategic goals and objectives by comparing Assessment Findings (described above) to Community Inputs, thereby determining which goals potentially address the greatest range of issues. 2.2 The Framework Plan. Once Community Goals and Objectives are identifi ed, they will be physically expressed in a Planning Framework for the Town of Westlake. This Framework will serve as a graphic representation of the goals and objectives (identifi ed in 2.1 above), expressed in districts, edges, nodes, portals, linkages, zones, landmarks, and interfaces. In this way, true agreement as to the application of goals and objectives can be accomplished in Workshop 2 (see Engagement: Part Five). Deliverable for Part Two: • A summation of goals and objectives according to their strategic signifi cance. • A graphic Framework Plan with associated text and support graphics. • A Goals and Objectives and Framework Power point for Workshop #2 (see Engagement: Part Five) Meetings: • Workshop #2 (see Engagement: Part Five) • Steering Committee Meeting • 2 Milestone Reviews; one with staff and one other as staff directs. • Remaining Focus Groups or Interviews not completed in Part One (see Engagement: Part Five) PART THREE: PLAN ELEMENTS ARTICULATING THE VISION OF SUSTAINABILITY The Plan Elements identifi ed for the Westlake Comprehensive Plan Update will serve to direct and facilitate desired development in the future while preserving a city form consistent with the vision manifested in the Planning Framework. 3.1 Land Use and Land Use Sustainability. The Town of Westlake has experienced MESA + PLANNING 11 unprecedented growth over the past decade that has been largely residential and, thereby, garnished a shared interest in the quality of life that such growth has nurtured. At the same time, recognition of the economic importance of the Highway 114 Corridor and velocity of population growth along it has fostered the allocation of signifi cant non- residential entitlements within Planned Development Ordinances. In order to establish a Land Use Plan expressive of the Town’s Goals, Objectives, and Vision that avoids non-conformance with previously granted entitlements, the language of the Land Use Plan must be more form based and relate to the issues of form (density, square footage, value, and use ranges whose allocations are fi nancially derived), thereby establishing an ad valorem base that gives the Town fi nancial capacity to shoulder future cost burdens related to improved services and mitigation of impacts imposed by rapid growth in surrounding communities. The ability to translate use conveyed by entitlement to the fulfi llment of use established by the Land Use Plan, determines the extent to which the Land Use Plan is a useful guide to manage of growth. As Land Use Plans and Zoning Ordinances serve two very distinct roles in the regulation of use and development, it is important that the Land Use Plan informs and guides zoning decisions and deliberations so that they are mutually exclusive, yet complimentary roles are preserved and protected. The Future Land Use Plan should also address proper land use hierarchies and transitions throughout the Town. This attention to the relationship between uses is critical to the coherency of the emerging form. The extent to which land use enhances or degrades community sustainability is largely determined by the overall mosaic and the organic unity achieved through transition, hierarchy, and other dimensions of proper adjacency. The Future Land Use Plan would consist of a plan graphic and associated designations of land use districts that apply land use performance standards. 3.2 Transportation and Community Fabric Sustainability. This is a critical component of comprehensive planning because of the strong relationship between traffi c densities, economic value, and community development. It ultimately has greater infl uence on land use than entitlement. Many Comprehensive Plans fail due to a separation between land use and transportation. One (transportation) is viewed from a perspective of functionality, and the other (land use) is viewed from a perspective of vision. Value created by functionality alone will attract development that often confl icts with the community vision. Therefore, symmetry between creation of value (by traffi c density) and community vision (expressed in land use) is an essential component of growth management. In creation of the Transportation Plan, the regional and local systems that transit the Town of Westlake will be reconciled. The Planning Team will review the existing thoroughfare system and its potential for change as a result of surrounding growth in conjunction with the Future Land Use Plan and will also consider the introduction of alternative transportation. A Transportation Plan will then be defi ned that both accommodates anticipated traffi c levels and reinforces the intent of the Future Land MESA + PLANNING12 Use Plan. As a primary generator of value, transportation has the effect of stimulating the forces of transition even though physical transition has not occurred and can, therefore, precipitate instability, particularly in undeveloped areas where transportation often promotes speculation. Accordingly, attaining a balance between land use and transportation is a key component of community fabric sustainability and ultimately preserving value. The Transportation Plan will include both thematic and functional elements as well as recommended improvements to the existing system. The Transportation Plan will consist of a plan graphic with associated designations. 3.3 Town Design Structure. A Town Design Structure Plan is the creation of visual themes and hierarchies, as well as thematic identities within the Town of Westlake. Thematic elements, such as roadways, portals, districts/core areas, public spaces, key intersections, and connections, give a greater sense of legibility and identity to the Town and are essential to preserving a sense of place amid such rapid growth. The Town Design Structure Plan will focus upon enhancement of the public realm within the Town of Westlake. The Town Design Structure Plan will identify design initiatives that can be incorporated within the management and decision structure of the Town so that design consciousness becomes an ordinary part of Town decision making. 3.4 Parks, Open Space, and Trail Plan, and Environmental Sustainability. This Plan will serve as the green infrastructure of Westlake that defi nes and protects the natural assets of the community. Elements of the Parks and Open Space Plan includes both active and passive spaces creating a network of connectivity that would include parks, trails, recreational areas, and appropriate passive open spaces as well as protected natural assets. The Parks and Open Space Plan will promote the role that surface water management must play in sustaining biodiversity, habitat and visual identity. The connection of natural assets so that a matrix of natural features knits through the community fabric supports the tendency of natural elements to gather in lineated forms along distributions of water deposited soils, levels of hydration, and active water courses. Thereby, a key component of natural sustainability is addressed. 3.5 Housing. Housing responds to a contextually determined market. For this reason, it is seldom the case that mixtures of value exist in the same place, especially at higher price points. In fact, the higher the price point, the more singular the housing setting often is. Therefore, an expansion of housing options can only occur to the extent that such options do not depreciate the contextual elements supporting higher end price points. In the life cycle of housing tenancy, an existing yet aging population will seek higher price point housing options suitable for their changing spatial needs, while younger professionals and families will seek housing options closer to work and good schools. MESA + PLANNING 13 Therefore, the Housing Plan element will consider expansion of housing options to serve the changing needs of Westlake’s traditional markets and to make housing more accessible to younger buyers and those who work within the community. Housing demand, in all its forms, confronts an available land supply, as well as varied housing entitlements already imbedded in previously approved Planned Development Ordinances. Therefore, the Housing Plan will investigate means by which existing housing trends (in price and community design) can co-exists with externally driven housing demand able to be accommodated by PD entitlements. The Housing Plan will identify housing availability (housing stock inventory) in light of developable land (within the context of the Land Use Plan) and identify where existing contextually dependent housing options will likely continue and where newer, more diverse housing options can emerge. These allocations will take into consideration emerging housing trends generally and the extent to which those trends are fi nding market success locally. In the end, the constellation of housing options should support a coherent and graded distribution supporting commercial viability where feasible. 3.6 Public Facilities. To ensure services are provided for future population projections, recommendations will be made regarding emergency and other city services based on industry standards for the designated planning horizon. The issue of public service and the cost of such services will be considered in the fi nancial sustainability of land use so that quality of life, as measured by the cost of governance and services, is properly sustained in the future. A key component of this plan element is consideration of a new city hall in terms of size, location, and relationship to existing facilities, including Solana (described below). 3.7 Solana Revitalization and Town Center. As populations grow and greater residential and commercial differentiations emerge within the fabric of Westlake, it becomes critically important that the Town form is anchored by a viable center. At present, Solana offers potential to anchor and contribute to such a defi nition of place. A viable center includes public and private investment brought together around a shared public domain. Therefore, Solana is viewed as a component of a broader vision of center that possibly includes municipal facilities and an expanded public space. In addition, the center vision will consider the integration of housing and vertical mixed use. Other proposed projects for Westlake will be taken into consideration so Solana can fi nd its particular markets. The Solana and Town Center Plan will be an illustrated plan showing possible development with public and private components identifi ed. 3.8 Policy Recommendations and Plan Tabulations. Each of the aforementioned plan elements portrays the build out of Westlake. Therefore, summations of the Plan will be presented to identify population holding capacity and economic implications of build out in terms of employment and value added to the Town GDP. MESA + PLANNING14 The Westlake Comprehensive Plan will consist of a number of physical and programmatic plan elements that will help direct future growth and development for the Town. Once these plans are identifi ed, a list of policy recommendations will be generated and organized by plan element to facilitate implementation. Therefore, the realization of the community vision will occur as follows: Inputs---Goals and Objectives---Planning Framework---Plan Elements---Policy Recommendations Deliverable for Part Three: • A Plan Elements Report (sub-component 2 of the Comprehensive Plan Update) that brings the work of Part Two and Part Three into a single document with text and graphics for each of the tasks described above. • Assessment, Framework, and Plan Elements power point for Workshop #3 Meetings: • Workshop #3 (Engagement: Part Five) • Steering Committee Meeting • 2 Milestone Reviews, one with staff and one other as staff directs. • 2 Follow-Up Meetings with critical land owners PART FOUR: IMPLEMENTATION REALIZING THE VISION To facilitate realization of the Community Vision, certain elements are needed for plan implementation. These speak to the regulatory instruments, agencies, and measures that collectively guide future growth and development. 4.1 Economic Development Strategy. As Westlake continues to grow, it will become even more important to defi ne how development will occur within the Town. The processes, roles, and responsibilities of both public and private interest should be articulated so as to encourage the type of development desired and to provide the tax base necessary to support a quality of life preferred by the Westlake Community. The Planning Team will work in conjunction with Council, Staff, the Planning Steering Committee, and the Economic Development Committee to defi ne an economic development strategy for the Town. This would include features such as Funding Mechanisms/ District Designations, Administration and Oversight, and Project Prioritization criteria. The key role of economic development strategy is to promote value while the growth management elements (described below) direct both capture of value and the transfer of value through good design. 4.2 Growth Management Strategy. The ultimate objective of the Comprehensive Plan is to provide a tool to assist in the direction and management of future growth and development. In the implementation strategy, the attainment of values as represented by the Land Use Plan will be facilitated by allocation of various plan recommendations MESA + PLANNING 15 and actions to value related issues, such as capture of mature value and the transfer of value to promote orderly form and community viability. This will be presented as a growth management tool kit; elements of which are related to the above described value considerations. 4.3 Plan Benchmarks. Over time, it will become necessary to access the relevance and applicability of the Westlake Comprehensive Plan. Due to the potential for rapid change within the Highway 114 Corridor, it becomes important to be able to identify when the Comprehensive Plan requires recalibration and further updates. The Planning Team will work with the Town to develop an internal performance evaluation tool for the Comprehensive Plan to ensure the relevance of this plan in future years. This will allow for appropriate updates while preserving consistency and intent of the original document. 4.4 Code Performance Review. The institutionalization of entitlements within Planned Development ordinances, the changing conditions within Westlake, and the changing conditions outside of Westlake challenge the effectiveness of existing zoning and subdivision code. Therefore, the Planning Team will perform a Code Performance Review with recommendations regarding revision, reorganization, and rewriting. Deliverable for Part Four: • An Implementation Interim Report (sub-component 3 of the Comprehensive Plan Update) with text and graphics for each of the tasks described above. • Assessment, Framework, and Plan Elements power point for Workshop #3 Meetings: • Staff Work Session • Steering Committee Meeting • Milestone Review with staff. PART FIVE: ENGAGEMENT/ COMMUNICATIONS GUIDING THE PLANNING PROCESS The foundation of this Comprehensive Plan Update is the public participation in its formulation and public support of its adoption. Therefore, the Engagement/ Communications portion of this proposal is critically important. 5.1 Engagement. The engagement portion of this proposal will consist of workshops and focus groups engaged as follows: Workshop #1: Goals and Objectives Upon completion of the Assessments identifi ed in Part One, the Planning Team will conduct Public Workshop #1. At this workshop, the various assessments will be presented as informed participation creates more meaningful dialogue concerning community vision. After the assessments are presented, workshop participants will breakout into groups based upon character districts identifi ed in the assessment analysis. Each of MESA + PLANNING16 these breakout groups will have an appointed facilitator who will be a member of that particular region. Within that breakout group, workshop participants will be encouraged to explore the issues and attributes that the Comprehensive Plan should address. This will provide direction for elements of the plan that pertain to land use, circulation, urban design, and economic development. Workshop #2: Planning Framework A Planning Framework will be fashioned through the process of Workshop #2. This workshop starts with a presentation of the goals and objectives identifi ed in Workshop #1. These goals and objectives and their application to the Town fabric are once again discussed in breakout groups where their likely manifestation within smaller areas of consideration is deliberated. These applications are summarized by the Planning Team in a diagrammatic form called the Framework Plan. The workshop participants are asked to determine whether the Framework Plan effectively represents the goals and objectives established in Workshop #1. This is the publically crafted vision element that will guide the formulation of plan elements. Workshop #3: Putting It All Together At Workshop #3, the Planning Elements will be presented to all workshop participants. Key to the success of this project is the transfer of the Plan from the Planning Team to community leaders. For this reason, the steering committee who, up to this point, serve as facilitators will assume a more signifi cant role in the presentation of plan elements. This is important in the transition of the Plan from the Planning Team to the community. The success of this Plan will depend, to a large degree, on their continued leadership. This committee will ultimately advocate the Plan with regard to future planning activity. Workshop #3, therefore, becomes the point of transition and, ultimately, Plan ownership to the community it is intended to serve. Focus Groups and Interviews. During the Assessment Phase of the planning process, sessions will be held with particular community members who generally do not participate in public events. These include land owners, other jurisdictional interests, and the Academy. Therefore, individual focus group sessions will be conducted to solicit their input. Focus group parties include: • Land Owner/ Developer Stakeholders (Hillwood Properties, Solana, Terra Bella, Centurion American) • Educational Stakeholders (Westlake Academy, Deloitte University, overlying school districts) • Home Builders • Daytime population representatives • Business Stakeholders (Chamber, Fidelity, other major employers) Interviews will also be conducted. Parties to be interviewed include: • Agencies ( candidates include NCTCOG, Metroport City partnership, Tarrant County Transportation Council, I-35 Coalition, Trophy Club Municipal Utility District, MESA + PLANNING 17 City of Ft. Worth, Trinity River Authority, Local TxDOT) • Neighboring Municipal and County Governments (candidates include Trophy Club, Roanoke, Southlake, Ft. Worth, Keller, Tarrant County key offi cials) • Town Government (Mayor, Town Council, Planning and Zoning Commission, Historical Preservation Committee, Public Arts Society, Westlake Affi liate groups) 5.2 Communication. The communication portion of this proposal will consist of web portal and milestone touch points as follows: Interactive Web Portal The Planning Team will design and develop an interactive, user friendly website version for the Comprehensive Plan Update featuring maps, photos, commentary, presentation materials, and report summaries to inform the public about the plan process on an on-going basis. The website will enable citizens to post comments and to share the publications on social sites, such as Facebook and Twitter. The website will also feature a Content management System that will enable the administrator/ editor of the site to upload photos or maps and input text so that updating the site is easy and instantaneous. The content management feature will have blogging and sharing abilities. Features of the website include: • A homepage that identifi ed the Westlake Comprehensive Plan Update website (with link to it from the city website) • Links that correspond to the phases of the plan process. • Drop down menu or secondary navigation that has options such as maps, pictures, report summaries, workshops, citizen comments, etc. • A designated place for citizen comment • Content management system for managing web content Steering Committee Meetings The Planning Team will attend a pre-determined number of meetings with the Steering Committee (3 are recommended, one meeting before each workshop to review workshop material). The Steering Committee members will be appointed by the Client group. Milestone Updates As indicated in the meetings itemized in the above work description, there are points along the way for milestone updates with staff and, where indicated, others identifi ed by staff. These occur during Part Two, Part Three, and Part Four. These meetings are in addition to steering committee meetings, public hearings, focus groups, and interviews. Joint Council Commission Staff Work Session This joint council/ commission/ staff work session is critical to the use of the Plan, by each body and the staff, as a growth management tool. During this work session, the planning team will walk through the Comprehensive Plan document explaining its use in matters of zoning consideration. In this way, the joint session becomes a tutorial intended to make all parties conversant in the Plan’s use and content. MESA + PLANNING18 Final Plan Report The fi nal Comprehensive Plan Report will refl ect comments gathered at the fi nal workshop, staff review of the draft report and input from the joint work session. Upon completion of revisions, the planning team will provide 20 bound color copies and 2 digital pdf copies. The Client will have had opportunity to view the document through its component installments (described in the above deliverables) and will have had opportunity to comment on the Plan as it is developing. Public Hearings The Planning Team will present the Comprehensive Plan to both the Planning and Zoning Commission (public hearing to recommend approval) and Council (public hearing to consider approval). In accordance with the intent of the public process to promote community ownership of the Plan, these presentations will be shared with members of the Steering Committee. Deliverable for Part Five: • A Complete Plan Report (including sub-components 1, 2, and 3 as well as the remaining project recommendations), which constitutes the Comprehensive Plan Update, with text and graphics for each of the tasks described above. • Comprehensive Plan power point for presentation to the joint work session and public hearings. Meetings: • Workshops 1, 2, and 3 (as already indicated in meetings listed above) • 3 Steering Committee Meeting (as already indicated in meetings listed above) • Milestone Updates (as already indicated in meetings listed above) • Draft Plan Review with Staff • Joint Council/ Commission Work Session • Public hearings MESA + PLANNING 19 PROPOSED PROJECT TIMELINE July 2013 August 2013 Sept 2013 Oct 2013 Nov 2013 Dec 2013 Jan 2014 Feb 2014 Mar 2014 Abril 2014 Part One 1.1 Demographics 1.2 Existing Conditions 1.3 Circulation 1.4 Infrastructure 1.5 Developability 1.6 Assessment Summary Part Two 2.1 Goals and Objectives 2.2 Framework Part Three 3.1 Land Use 3.2 Transportation 3.3 Urban Design 3.4 Park, Open Space 3.5 Housing 3.6 Public Facilities 3.7 Solana Revitalization 3.8 Policy Rec/ Tabulation Part Four 4.1 Economic Development 4.2 Plan Implementation 4.3 Plan Benchmarks 4.4 Code Performance Review Part Five 5.1 Engagement Workshop #1 Workshop #2 Workshop #3 Focus Group/ Interviews 5.2 Communication Web Portal Steering Committee Joint Work Session Final Report Public Hearing Project Timeline MESA + PLANNING20 TASK HOURS ASSIGNMENTS BY CONSULTANT MESAPRCLCOGSPMosaicAshleyEliBrandora PartOne PartTwo PartThree PartFour PartFive 5.1Engagement 5.2Communication 532226293332705478100 ALLOCATIONOFHOURSBYCONSULTANT 1.1Demographics161618 8 1.3Circulation1614816 1.2ExistingConditions1662216 16 1.5LandDevelopability1610088 1.4Infrastructure8188 24 2.1GoalsandObjectives86912 1.6AssessmentSummary16201038 16 3.1LandUse44202816 2.2Framework8142018 24 3.3UrbanDesign403832 3.2Transportation446416 3.5Housing248730 3.4Park,OpenSpace,Trails,andNatural Sustainability 24128030 16 3.7SolanaRevitalization403832 3.6PublicFacilitiesandUtilities162130 80 4.1EconomicDevelopment32621640 3.8PolicyRec/Tabulation161520 4.3PlanBenchmarks44010 4.2GrowthManagement3240 32 Workshop#11216201215 4.4CodePerformanceReview3248 Workshop#31281215 Workshop#2121615 16 WebPortal4616100 Focusgroup/interviews24833 MilestoneUpdates122020 SteeringCommittee12815 Publichearings883218 FinalReport165788084 JointWorkSession81620 MESA + PLANNING 21 FEES BY TASK FEES PartOne$52,012 1.1Demographics$4,220 1.2ExistingConditions$8,533 1.3Circulation$6,075 1.4Infrastructure$4,915 1.5LandDevelopability$17,380 1.6AssessmentSummary$10,889 PartTwo$16,309 2.1GoalsandObjectives$6,440 2.2Framework$9,869 PartThree$101,743 3.1LandUse$9,780 3.2Transportation$12,134 3.3UrbanDesign$9,200 3.4Park,OpenSpace,Trails,andNaturalSustainability$17,972 3.5Housing$21,447 3.6PublicFacilitiesandUtilities$8,874 3.7SolanaRevitalization$11,200 3.8PolicyRec/Tabulation$11,136 PartFour$43,702 4.1EconomicDevelopment$21,982 4.2GrowthManagement$6,640 4.3PlanBenchmarks$6,840 4.4CodePerformanceReview$8,240 PartFive100,077 5.1Engagement$37,715 Workshop#1$13,432 Workshop#2$5,871 Workshop#3$8,186 FocusGroup/Interviews$10,226 5.2Communication$62,362 WebPortal$11,560 SteeringCommittee$4,645 MilestoneUpdates$8,462 JointWorkSession$5,080 FinalReport$21,311 PublicHearings$11,304 BASICFEE$313,843 REIMBURSABLES 8%ofBasicFee $25,027 TOTALFEE$338,950 ALLOCATIONOFFEESBYTASK MESA + PLANNING22 MESA + PLANNING 23 REPRESENTATIVE PROJECTS 3 MESA + PLANNING24 MESA PLANNING REPRESENTATIVE PROJECTS MESA + PLANNING Planning Architecture Economic Development Kyle Comprehensive Plan MESA + PLANNING 25 MESA PLANNING REPRESENTATIVE PROJECTS MESA + PLANNING Planning Architecture Economic Development Seguin Comprehensive Plan MESA + PLANNING26 MESA PLANNING REPRESENTATIVE PROJECTS MESA + PLANNING Planning Architecture Economic Development Brownsville Comprehensive Plan MESA + PLANNING 27 MESA PLANNING REPRESENTATIVE PROJECTS MESA + PLANNING Planning Architecture Economic Development Argyle Comprehensive Plan MESA + PLANNING28 MESA PLANNING REPRESENTATIVE PROJECTS MESA + PLANNING Planning Architecture Economic Development Brenham Downtown Plan MESA + PLANNING 29 MESA PLANNING REPRESENTATIVE PROJECTS MESA + PLANNING Planning Architecture Economic Development Iron Horse Station TOD Plan MESA + PLANNING30 MESA+PLANNING PlanningArchitectureEconomicDevelopment Strategic Infrastructure Plan MESA PLANNING REPRESENTATIVE PROJECTS MESA + PLANNING 31 MESA + PLANNING Planning Architecture Economic Development Montgomery Farm MESA PLANNING REPRESENTATIVE PROJECTS MESA + PLANNING32 MESA + PLANNING Planning Architecture Economic Development Brownsville Downtown Plan MESA PLANNING REPRESENTATIVE PROJECTS MESA + PLANNING 33 MESA PLANNING REPRESENTATIVE PROJECTS MESA+PLANNING PlanningArchitectureEconomicDevelopment Argyle Commercial Centers Plan MESA + PLANNING34 RCLCO REPRESENTATIVE PROJECTS Project Areas Affordable/Workforce Housing Corridor Planning Design Economics Downtown Revitalization Economic Development Economic & Fiscal Impact Industrial City Turnaround Metropolitan Growth Strategy Neighborhood Planning Public-Private Partnerships Transit-Oriented Development Alexandria Economic Development Partnership, Inc. Scope of Work Cluster Analysis Economic Impact Financial Modeling Fiscal Impact Implementation Market Analysis Partnership Structuring Public Financing Public Outreach Regional Economics Retail Tenanting Strategy Planning The Challenge The D.C. Metropolitan region is growing and Alex- andria is strongly positioned to capture new demand for offi ce space. Companies within the region are ex- panding, new companies are moving to DC, compa- nies already in Alexandria are growing, and together these forces will add to the regional demand for offi ce space in the coming decade. The city is home to a growing cluster of high tech, business services, and professional association headquarters. Alexandria Economic Development Partnership (AEDP) hired RCLCO to quantify growth within business cluster in the city and regionally, and identify location, busi- ness, and other advantages that the city provides that could help retain and recruit businesses in the city. Solution RCLCO was commissioned by AEDP to evalu- ate the local economic drivers and to create an economic development strategy that would assist the city in its long-term decision making. The eco- nomic development study evaluates sources of city revenue, identifi es established and emerging busi- ness clusters, analyzes the geographic distribution of business clusters, and evaluates the cost of do- ing business in Alexandria as compared to other competitive submarkets. The analysis identifi es the types of businesses that would most benefi t from locating in Alexandria and provides the city key data points that it can use to recruit and retain target industries. The end product of the analysis is an opportunities matrix, which summarizes key recommendations and tools for implementation. Impact The Alexandria Economic Development Strategic Plan is in the process of being developed and this eco- nomic development strategy will help shape the goals, timeline, and implementation strategy of the strategic plan. RCLCO will present its fi ndings to City Coun- cil and work with AEDP to facilitate implementation. www.rclco.com MESA + PLANNING 35 RCLCO REPRESENTATIVE PROJECTS DOWNTOWN DENTON IMPLEMENTATION PLAN Denton, TX Project Areas Affordable/Workforce Housing Corridor Planning Design Economics Downtown Revitalization Economic Development Economic & Fiscal Impact Industrial City Turnaround Metropolitan Growth Strategy Neighborhood Planning Public-Private Partnerships Transit-Oriented Development Scope of Work Cluster Analysis Economic Impact Financial Modeling Fiscal Impact Implementation Market Analysis Partnership Structuring Public Financing Public Outreach Regional Economics Retail Tenanting Strategy Planning Challenge Denton, Texas is in Denton County, one of the four major counties in the Dallas-Fort Worth metro- politan area. It is home to the University of North Texas and Texas Woman’s University and an in- creasingly thriving music and arts scene. The city recently created a downtown master plan, but did not have a plan to implement it. The pur- pose of the implementation plan was to provide the city with a roadmap towards implementation as well as the tools to help in decision-making. Solution RCLCO was part of a multidisciplinary team, lead by Jacobs, to craft a plan to help facilitate the imple- mentation of the master plan. RCLCO specifi cally focused on tools and strategies the City could utilize to help catalyze development and educate the pri- vate development community on the opportunities available in downtown Denton. We fi rst analyzed how the City was organized in its pursuit of econom- ic development initiatives and to what extent its or- ganization, or entities within the organization, were empowered to most effectively engage the private development community. Next, we looked at spe- cifi c public-private partnership structures the City could employ, once property organized, to help draw development downtown. These structures were in- tended to improve development economics, making development in downtown Denton more attractive to the development community. Finally, we analyzed available existing development incentives in down- town Denton and evaluated additional incentives and public fi nancing tools for the City to consider. Impact RCLCO’s recommendations became part of the City’s overall implementation plan for the Downtown Master Plan. RCLCO: ·Recommended an organizational structure necessary to not only execute economic development for the City of Denton, but also the implementation strategies for new City, business, and residential investment in Down- town Denton (i.e. the Downtown Implementa- tion Plan). ·Recommended various public-private partner ship structures with which the new organiza- tional structure could attract and incentivize development. ·Identifi ed various funding strategies to support the infrastructure required to accommodate new development in support of jobs related economic development, as well as incentives to encourage private investment downtown. The Downtown Implementation Plan for the City of Denton won a Development of Excellence Award from the North Central Texas Council of Govern- ments (NCTCOG). www.rclco.com MESA + PLANNING36 RCLCO REPRESENTATIVE PROJECTS ENVISION UTAH Salt Lake City, UT Project Areas Affordable/Workforce Housing Corridor Planning Design Economics Downtown Revitalization Economic Development Economic & Fiscal Impact Industrial City Turnaround Metropolitan Growth Strategy Neighborhood Planning Public-Private Partnerships Transit-Oriented Development Envision Utah Scope of Work Cluster Analysis Economic Impact Financial Modeling Fiscal Impact Implementation Market Analysis Partnership Structuring Public Financing Public Outreach Regional Economics Retail Tenanting Strategy Planning The Challenge Utahns have prospered since pioneers entered the state in the 1800s. However by 2050, the population RI8WDKZLOOQHDUO\GRXEOHWRRYHU¿YHPLOOLRQSHRSOH As one of America’s fastest-growing states, Utahns wanted to act proactively to grow in a way that pro- tects and enhances quality of life for existing and future citizens. In 1997, Envision Utah brought to- JHWKHUUHVLGHQWVHOHFWHGRI¿FLDOVGHYHORSHUVFRQ- servationists, business leaders, and other interested parties to make informed decisions about how we should grow. They retained RCLCO to construct for them a long-range growth model to forecast how re- FXUULQJWUHQGVLQRWKHUFLWLHVPLJKWLQÀXHQFHJURZWK in Salt Lake City. Solution In order to help Envision Utah meet its goals, RCLCO: ‡,QWHUYLHZHGORFDOHFRQRPLVWVVLJQL¿FDQWHP- ployers, and large land holders to understand the underlying drivers of regional growth; ‡Used interviews, GIS mapping, and proprietary research to identify key centers of economic activity ‡Developed a model to score those centers on a variety of factors and identify the proportion of future growth that each center might be able to attract; ‡Based on historic trends, case study research, and the results of the scoring exercise above, LGHQWL¿HGDUHDVOLNHO\WRHPHUJHDVQHZFHQWHUV over the next 30 years; ‡,GHQWL¿HGZD\VWKDWHDFKRIWKHH[LVWLQJFHQWHUV could be strengthened in order to better meet (QYLVLRQ8WDK¶VGH¿QLWLRQRI³VXVWDLQDEOHFHQ- ters”; ‡Created statistical models to determine the DPRXQWRIKRXVLQJUHWDLORI¿FHFLYLFDQGLQ- dustrial space that would be required to turn the Northwest Quadrant into a balanced, sustain- able center. Impact Since facilitating the Quality Growth Strategy, Envi- sion Utah has partnered with more than 100 com- munities in Utah. The Envision Utah approach of civic engagement has been replicated by dozens of regions around the country. RCLCO continues to work with Envision Utah, most recently to provide statistically-rigorous forecasts that support an initia- WLYHWREULQJPRUH¿[HGUDLOWUDQVLWWRWKH:DVDWFK Front. www.rclco.com MESA + PLANNING 37 RCLCO REPRESENTATIVE PROJECTS GO CINCINNATI Cincinnati, OH Project Areas Affordable/Workforce Housing Corridor Planning Design Economics Downtown Revitalization Economic Development Economic & Fiscal Impact Industrial City Turnaround Metropolitan Growth Strategy Neighborhood Planning Public-Private Partnerships Transit-Oriented Development Cincinnati USA Regional Partnership Scope of Work Cluster Analysis Economic Impact Financial Modeling Fiscal Impact Implementation Market Analysis Partnership Structuring Public Financing Public Outreach Regional Economics Retail Tenanting Strategy Planning The Challenge Cincinnati urban and regional economy had been hit especially hard by the nation’s economic restructur- ing and especially the decline of traditional manu- facturing. This decline had negative impacts on the City’s neighborhoods and downtown as well as its budget and overall competitiveness for future growth. City leaders and the regional chamber of commerce realized that Cincinnati needed a new strategy, one that would be place-based in nature, enhance the City’s fi scal health, and re-position the City and the region for economic growth in the 21st century. Solution RCLCO worked alongside the Brookings Institution to construct an economic analysis of the City, assess its potential competitive advantages in the regional and national economy, identify opportunity areas within the City suitable for development to accom- modate growth, and create place-based economic development strategies specifi c to each growth area. RCLCO brought together business, communi- ty, and political leaders to be part of the process and ultimately embrace the recommended economic de- velopment strategy. We also quantifi ed the impact that the strategy would have on jobs and revenues for the City. Finally, RCLCO delivered an implemen- tation plan tied to agencies, leaders, and resources, to carry the ideas set forth in the strategy into action. Impact The Mayor evaluated the recommendations and an- nounced those which he would like to move forward during his State of the City address on February 4, 2008. City Council unanimously adopted the strate- gy in February of 2010, and is working now to imple- ment the recommendations. The plan has resulted in hundreds of new jobs moving into the city, includ- ing those from companies such as Proctor & Gamble and KAO Brands. City leadership is aggressively acquiring and repositioning hundreds of acres of brownfi elds for new jobs-related activities, and pri- vate developers are now approaching the City to re- develop these and other sites for jobs-related activity. www.rclco.com MESA + PLANNING38 RCLCO REPRESENTATIVE PROJECTS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY Shaker Heights, OH Project Areas Affordable/Workforce Housing Corridor Planning Design Economics Downtown Revitalization Economic Development Economic & Fiscal Impact Industrial City Turnaround Metropolitan Growth Strategy Neighborhood Planning Public-Private Partnerships Transit-Oriented Development City of Shaker Heights Scope of Work Cluster Analysis Economic Impact Financial Modeling Fiscal Impact Implementation Market Analysis Partnership Structuring Public Financing Public Outreach Regional Economics Retail Tenanting Strategy Planning Challenge The City of Shaker Heights, Ohio, had enjoyed a po- sition of regional prominence and fi scal strength for a century. Economic restructuring throughout the Mid- west through the latter part of the 20th century ex- posed structural weaknesses in the Shaker Heights economy that threatened its near-term fi scal health as well as its “brand” – a residential destination of choice within the Cleveland metro area. It faced fi s- cal duress that threatened to deplete its reserve and general funds within fi ve years. City leaders recog- nized this threat and called for a new vision and eco- nomic development agenda to solidify the City’s eco- nomic health and carry it through the next century. Solution RCLCO worked with the Mayor and City leaders to construct a forward-looking forecast of the City’s potential trajectories within the regional economy. We recast the City’s economic development para- digm to target commercial development niches and outlined strategies by which City leaders could capture this activity. We developed sophisticated fi scal and fi nancial models that could quantify the impact of various incentives and subsidies upon the City’s overall development activity and tax rev- enues. Finally, we engineered a public process by which we collaborated with City leaders to author an economic development strategy to reposition the City for economic growth over the next 100 years. Impact Not only was the strategy unanimously accepted and adopted by the City Council, but private sector actors embraced the plan and moved quickly to implement its recommendations. Within months of the plan’s adoption, the City had successfully moved forward on a transit-oriented neighborhood redevelopment and negotiated a deal with a technology incubator and numerous related commercial developments that promise to revitalize an aging commercial and industrial corridor in the City. Moreover, the strategy has been integrated into the overall Management Plan for the City and has been used to create a sig- nifi cant developer and business interest in the City. www.rclco.com MESA + PLANNING 39 GS&P REPRESENTATIVE PROJECTS City of Cleburne COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CLEBURNE, TEXAS GS&P is part of a team, including MOSAIC and MESA Planning, responsible for the creation of a comprehensive plan for the City of Cleburne. The City is seeing a shift in development patterns, land values and market interest, altering patterns of development activity and impacting infrastructure systems. The team will provide careful planning to uphold the quality of life that residents enjoy while ensuring economic competiveness and growth management. GS&P is providing transportation and infrastructure systems planning. GS&P will participate in public meetings, making presentations to develop a vision for the plan. The public meetings will include a Town Hall Meeting, two Public Workshops and a Project Open House. As part of the contextual analysis, GS&P will perform a capacity analysis of the water/wastewater system and the thoroughfare system to determine their ultimate capacity for expansion. The Thoroughfare Plan will be developed to address both form and function, establishing capacity-based typologies that also carry design guidelines. An Infrastructure Plan we be developed that will focus on those systems that are operated and managed by the City: water, wastewater, solid waste and stormwater. Policies and recommendations for attracting desired franchises (such as telecommunications operators) will be developed as a way to promotes desirable growth patterns. Policies and best practices for natural gas production activity will also be crafted so that the impact of drilling and production activity is minimized. A list of prioritized public improvement projects will be created that could be included in the City’s Capital Improvement Plan. Douglas County HIGHWAY 92 CORRIDOR LIVABLE CENTERS INITIATIVE DOUGLAS COUNTY, GEORGIA Douglas County created a vision and plan for the Highway 92 corridor through the Atlanta Regional Commission’s awarding-winning Livable Centers Initiative (LCI). GS&P teamed with the County to help implement more than $100 million of proposed transportation infrastructure projects recommended for the corridor, including sidewalks, off-road trails, new street networks, streetscape enhancements and arterial BRT service. GS&P was tasked with measuring and evaluating the benefi ts of an interconnected, multi-modal network and integrating that network within new growth and development as it evolves along the corridor. The study took an innovative approach of balancing four factors—mobility, livability, market impact and physical constraints—in evaluating and prioritizing projects. The study also made recommendations for implementation, including federal grants, public-private partnerships and regulatory approaches. MESA + PLANNING40 GS&P REPRESENTATIVE PROJECTS City of Garland MUNICIPAL SUSTAINABILITY PLAN GARLAND, TEXAS GS&P was chosen by the City of Garland to prepare an internally-focused sustainability plan designed to improve City operations while ensuring that those efforts will be compatible with future community-wide sustainability efforts. As part of the development of the plan, GS&P assisted with sustainability visioning, updated the City Manager, worked with an internal green team on plan development, conducted a benchmark analysis of eight other cities, and assisted with baselining. The GS&P process for developing the sustainability included: • Documentation of the City’s expectations and needs for the plan through a sustainability mission and vision statement with management support. • Involvement by Garland staff to gain insight in cost-effective measures from front line employees. • Development of a range of sustainability ideas from innovative and out-of-the box to tried and true measures adopted by other local governments. • Collection of baseline information. • Cost/benefi t analysis for each measure and documentation of the analyses. • Identifi cation of metrics that are easy to collect and are effective and informative. • Goal setting of realistic and achievable objectives. • Use of implementation management systems to educate, build support and drive success of the program. • Engagement and active participation of Garland staff and stakeholders not only through the development of the plan but through implementation as well. • Assistance with scope development, data collection and report review of the greenhouse gas emission inventory. The resulting sustainability plan provides the means to achieve measurable and consistent benefi ts, facilitates active participation by staff and the community, and drives continual improvement. City of Atlanta Department of Watershed Management WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN ATLANTA, GEORGIA GS&P is responsible for the management and development of a comprehensive 50-year wastewater management plan for the City’s wastewater facilities, including treatment and collection systems. Phase I included a comprehensive study of the City’s four WRCs and eight CSO facilities. This work included condition and regulatory compliance assessments at each facility (including extensive headworks screening and grit removal system assessments at the four WRCs) as well as an investigation of historical operations and maintenance costs use to develop short-term and long-term cost saving strategies across the wastewater operations. Phase II includes a comprehensive system-wide assessment taking into account the immediate needs identifi ed in Phase I and projecting requirements at each facility and across the wastewater enterprise for the next 50 years. MESA + PLANNING 41 GS&P REPRESENTATIVE PROJECTS City of McKinney MUNICIPAL SUSTAINABILITY PLAN MCKINNEY, TEXAS The City of McKinney received a monetary grant from the U.S. Department of Energy’s Energy Effi ciency and Conservation Block Grant (EECBG) program for the development of a municipal sustainability plan, including identifying essential elements of sustainability and providing analysis and guidelines for the operation of community activities. The plan was developed in close coordination with City staff and built upon existing sustainability objectives and associated programs to drive continual improvement for the City. The plan was developed in a way that builds ongoing support, shared ownership and community champions. GS&P provided the City with measurable indicators and planning principles for all key areas, including the natural environment, built environment, purchasing, energy, economic development, air quality, water quality and quantity, and transportation. To support the City’s sustainable goals, GS&P’s approach helped the City to: • Foster stakeholder engagement and leveraging strategies within the City, including existing organizational efforts to identify and support sustainability objectives. • Identify and prioritize activities for leveraging fi scal and non-fi scal resources in support of the City’s objectives. • Identify and implement strategies to build the capacity of organizations, individuals and champions to participate in sustaining community-wide investment and participation. • Build and nurture a shared ownership of the City’s sustainability vision through partnerships between individuals, governments, corporations, and foundations working to identify physical, natural, and fi scal resources and achieve similar results. • Develop clear and measurable sustainability goals with associated implementation tools. Metroplan IMAGINE CENTRAL ARKANSAS: 2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS GS&P is partnering with Metroplan, the MPO for the Little Rock, AR region, in the development of a 2040 Long Range Plan. In addition to meeting FHWA requirements, the plan will result in a shared regional vision for transportation and land use that is focused on sustainability and livability. GS&P will provide expertise in multi-modal transportation and land use planning, sustainability and community engagement. The project comprises fi ve components: a Stakeholder Engagement Strategy that will use innovative web and mobile-based approaches to ensure the involvement of all interested local parties; analysis of alternative transportation and land use scenarios; technical support for the Metroplan staff and other involved organizations; development of a Greenhouse Gas Inventory; and fi nally, the development of a sustainable, multi- modal transportation plan. MESA + PLANNING42 GS&P REPRESENTATIVE PROJECTS City of San Marcos SUSTAINABILITY PLAN SAN MARCOS, TEXAS GS&P is working with the City of San Marcos to create a sustainability plan to expand its green initiatives, reduce environmental impacts, protect the local waterways and achieve fi nancial benefi ts by incorporating sustainability measures into everyday business operations. The sustainability plan will build on existing measures, include the means to continually improve the program over time and highlight San Marcos’ past sustainability successes and recommended future activities. The plan will include sustainability efforts under the categories of Environment—air quality and greenhouse gases, energy, water quality and conservation, waste management, and land use and habitat conservation; Economy—green purchasing, and budget and fi nance; and Society—education and outreach, workplace safety and wellness, and culture and diversity. City of Fort Worth SUSTAINABILITY OUTREACH AND EDUCATION PROGRAM FORT WORTH, TEXAS GS&P was chosen by the City of Fort Worth to develop a Sustainability Education and Outreach Program using EECBG funding provided through the U.S. Department of Energy. GS&P is working closely with the City of Fort Worth staff and community to build upon existing programs to drive continual sustainability improvements for the City, its staff, residents, and businesses. The primary goals of the Sustainability Education and Outreach Program are to: • Build awareness of issues in terms of social, economic and environmental impacts. • Inform, encourage, and change behaviors that protect, preserve, and restore the environment, economy, and community – ultimately promoting sustainability. • Build a coalition of advocates comprised of staff, business and elected leaders, corporations, neighborhoods, and like-minded groups. • Identify, create, deploy and manage messaging in a variety of formats for varied audiences. • Develop a measurement and assessment tool that displays sustainability progress in a way that promotes continual improvement. • Assist with reporting and management of the EECBG grant funding. GS&P is developing tools, messaging campaigns, PR packets and other additional outreach materials for use in the education of the community as well as internally to City staff. Project elements have ranged from branding and website development, to a school curriculum for the Parks and Recreation summer camp, to facilitating a symposium for the business community, to developing a metric tracking tool to communicate progress toward the City’s goals. This project is focused on the communication of sustainability and the differing information delivery techniques needed to reach the different audiences and stakeholders. MESA + PLANNING 43 GS&P REPRESENTATIVE PROJECTS Knoxville Regional Transportation Planning Organization KNOXVILLE REGIONAL COMPLETE STREETS STUDY KNOXVILLE, TENNESSEE Due to the increased number of residents and traffi c congestion in the urban areas of Knoxville, The Knoxville Regional Transportation Planning Organization (RTPO) identifi ed the need to transform corridors in the Knoxville region to make them friendlier to alternative modes of transportation for pedestrians, bicyclists and transit riders of all ages and abilities. The Knoxville RTPO received a grant from the Tennessee Department of Transportation (TDOT) to conduct the study and it included looking at two corridors in the region and how they could transform into more complete streets. Specifi c problems identifi ed included extra right-of-way on either side of one street, a two-way turning lane down the middle of both streets and a limited budget to pursue the project as well as time constraints to complete it. The Knoxville RTPO engaged GS&P to examine the two corridors and propose a complete streets concept that would make room for all user groups while balancing service to vehicles and managing overall congestion. GS&P fi rst met with the community to personally discover what the immense needs were for the area and the people who commute within Knoxville daily. Incorporating the community’s input as well as fi ndings from a week-long study of the streets, GS&P identifi ed innovative solutions that would immensely benefi t the commuters of Knoxville. For the extra right-of-way on either side of one of the streets, GS&P made recommendations for bike lanes that would not impact traffi c and would provide safety for bicyclists. For the two-way center turn lane running down the middle of both streets, GS&P recommended installing raised medians that could be used by pedestrians to cross mid-block. GS&P also developed a set of Complete Streets Design Guidelines for future complete streets transformations throughout the region. The Guidelines take advantage of fl exibility within the AASHTO Green Book and other accepted design standards to suggest techniques and general guidance for accommodating all modes within. The study resulted in an elegant, innovative design that is simple, rejuvenating and accessible to bicyclists, pedestrians, transit riders and motor vehicle operators. Knoxville now has additional safe and effi cient methods of alternative transportation, allowing the growing population to walk and ride bikes safely amongst motor vehicles. MESA + PLANNING44 MOSAIC REPRESENTATIVE PROJECTS Cleburne Comprehensive Plan. MOSAIC has recently begun work with Cleburne to develop a comprehensive plan for the City. The construction of the Chisholm Trail Parkway, an extension of SH121, will redefi ne Cleburne’s position with the DFW Metroplex, opening the door for new development expressions, employment opportunities and patterns of circulation. The comprehensive plan will provide a clear vision of community preferences for growth patterns, as well as a strategy for harnessing emerging development opportunities to improve the city’s economic competitiveness within the region. Brownsville Infrastructure Development Plan. MOSAIC has teamed with Needham-McCaffrey Associates and Cambridge Systematics to create a large scale infrastructure development plan for the greater Brownsville area. This region along the U.S.-Mexicoborder is attracting signifi cant development interest, related to power, energy, transportation and industry. Our team has been commissioned to identify core infrastructure projects with highest likelihood of success for a multi-jurisdictional area of interest. The team will also be creating land management plans that will impact growthwithin and around the areas of the Port of Brownsville and the Brownsville International Airport. Hickory Creek Town Center Code Development. MOSAIC is currently working with the Town of Hickory Creek to establish defi ne a commercial town center. With limited availability of commercial land and complex ownership patterns, the project involves defi nition of uniform standards but employment of diverse tools for their application. MESA + PLANNING 45 TEAM STRUCTURE 4 MESA + PLANNING46 ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE Principal in Charge And Project Manager Robin McCaffrey AIA, AICP Land Use, Urban Design, Growth Economics, Architecture Tia Primova Web Design Ashley Shook, LEED AP® Urban Planning and Design Eli Pearson, AICP, LEED AP® Urban Planning and Design Todd LaRue, Principal Land Use Economics Real Estate Alex Martinez, PE Civil Engineering Transportation Planning Carissa Cox, AICP Environmental Sustainability SUBCONSULTANTS MESA + PLANNING 47 MESA+PLANNING PlanningArchitectureEconomicDevelopment Firm and Contact Information x x x x MESA + PLANNING48 MESA+PLANNING PlanningArchitectureEconomicDevelopment Firm continued MESA + PLANNING 49 Robin H. McCaffrey AIA, AICP MESA + PLANNING50 Robin H. McCaffrey, continued MESA + PLANNING 51 Robin H. McCaffrey, continued MESA + PLANNING52 AUSTIN I LOS ANGELES I ORLANDO I WASHINGTON, D.C. OVERVIEW For over 40 years, RCLCO (Robert Charles Lesser & Co., LLC) has been the “first call” for real estate developers, financial institutions, public sector entities, private investors, anchor institutions, and Fortune 500 companies seeking strategic and tactical advice regarding property investment, planning, and development. As the largest independent real estate advisory firm in the nation—with experience in international markets—we provide end-to- end advisory and implementation solutions at an entity, portfolio, or project level. RCLCO has expertise in five major areas: Urban Development, Community and Resort Development, Public Strategies, Institutional Advisory, and Management Consulting. Our multidisciplinary team combines real world experience with the analytical underpinnings of the firm’s thousands of consulting engagements to develop and implement strategic plans that strengthen our client’s position in a market or sector, add value to a property or portfolio, mitigate price erosion, and strengthen a client’s position in the case of an acquisition or disposition. Each day, our consultants apply the knowledge gained from our body of work along with the insights stemming from our proprietary research—trends analysis, consumer research, project performance metrics, economic projections, etc.—to add value to our clients’ real estate activities at every point in the market cycle. We constantly refine our concepts and methods in order to identify the best means for helping our clients gain a competitive advantage in the marketplace. Our extensive network of clients, colleagues, professionals, and public officials, in the United States and abroad, provides us with a unique and comprehensive outlook on the industry—not to mention unmatched access to the best minds in real estate. Since we opened our door in 1967, RCLCO has been governed by our core values. We believe that excellence, integrity, honesty, respect, exceeding expectations, and quality are great goals that all firms must possess. These goals and values shape the culture and define the character of our firm. They guide how we behave and make decisions. Year Opened: 1967 Office Locations: Washington, DC (HQ) Los Angeles, CA Austin, TX Orlando, FL Staff: 45 Practice Groups: Community Development Institutional Advisory Management Consulting Public Strategies Urban Development Affiliations: Urban Land Institute Pension Real Estate Association International Economic Development Council National Multifamily Housing Council Society for College and University Planning MESA + PLANNING 53 RELEVANT PROJECT EXPERIENCE Envision Waco 2050; Waco, Texas RCLCO is currently a member of a larger team working with the City of Waco to assess and plan for the future development potential of Greater Downtown Waco, an area encompassing approximately five (5) square miles. The goal of the study is to maximize potential development opportunities to ensure the City’s long-term viability not only as an urban core, but also as a vibrant and sustainable mixed-use community. Our role is to work with the key stakeholders and planning team members to frame the strategic options for future development opportunities within Greater Downtown Waco through market and economic feasibility analysis and implementation strategies. Fourth Ward Livable Center; Houston RCLCO was on a team lead by Design Workshop to develop a livable centers plan for the 4th Ward neighborhood in central Houston, Texas. Our role was to provide the market and economic context for the long-term implementation plan, and to ensure that the final plan is grounded in market realities while fulfilling the needs of the local community. Downtown Denton, Texas RCLCO conducted market feasibility and strategic planning services for the City of Denton, which is striving to enhance and revitalize its downtown. Goals of project were to preserve existing historic downtown while adding new residential, retail, office, and entertainment uses to energize the area. In addition, there was a concerted effort to connect the historic downtown with a new transit station less than ½ mile away which would connect Denton with the greater DFW area. Other mixed-use: Four Corners; Farmers Branch, TX Downtown Northport, AL Perimeter Community Improvement District, Atlanta, GA Aventerra, Southlake, TX Downtown Duluth, GA Transit-Oriented Development; Leander, Texas (Austin) Todd LaRue Principal 512-215-3157 tlarue@rclco.com Areas of Specialization: Master-planned Communities, Mixed-Use Development, Attached/Detached Residential (infill, suburban), 2nd- Home/Resort Developments Mr. LaRue is a Principal and leads our Austin, Texas office. With his project teams, he advises developers, investors and public sector clients on the application of market, financial and consumer research to clients’ particular needs. Since joining RCLCO, Mr. LaRue has managed and directed engagements for a variety of land uses in Texas and the Southeast including Georgia, Florida, South Carolina, North Carolina, Alabama, Tennessee, Kentucky, and Mississippi. His work has included consulting for numerous types of mixed-use developments, residential housing, retail, office, and industrial developments. For these engagements, he conducts highest and best use analyses, opportunity analyses, market analyses, consumer research, economic development assessments, financial analyses, fiscal impact analyses and various other analytical tasks to meet clients’ particular objectives. Prior to joining RCLCO, Mr. LaRue’s professional career includes over seven years of experience in construction management with Beers Construction (now Skanska USA) in Atlanta, GA and W. H. Bass, Inc. in Norcross, GA. Much of his work was concentrated on managing construction projects in retail, banking, education, and telecommunication. In addition, he served as a construction manager for tenant improvement projects at Peachtree Center in downtown Atlanta. Mr. LaRue brings strong analytical skills in quantitative and qualitative analysis with his civil engineering degree from the University of Virginia and Master in Business Administration degree in real estate and finance from Emory University. He is an active member of the Urban Land Institute (member of the Executive Committee of ULI Austin) and has been a guest speaker/lecturer/panelist at numerous real estate industry events and graduate business schools including the Urban Land Institute, Congress for the New Urbanism, the University of Texas at Austin, and Emory University. MESA + PLANNING54 Tammy Shoham Vice President (240) 396-2349 tshoham@rclco.com Tammy Shoham is a Vice President based in RCLCO’s Washington, D.C. office. Tammy joined RCLCO in 2010 and has over six years of experience as a real estate and economic development consultant. Tammy has worked directly with a variety of clients in both the public and private sectors. Her experience includes highest and best use studies, financial feasibility analyses, and regional economic development strategies. She applies these methods of analysis to help developers and public sector clients craft development strategies for a variety of project types, including mixed-use development, transit-oriented development, neighborhood revitalization, and retail center repositioning. She has worked extensively throughout the northeast corridor, including the New York and Washington D.C. metro areas. Prior to joining RCLCO, Tammy worked for Economics Research Associates (ERA) in New York City for four years. At ERA, she provided market analysis and development strategy to public sector clients. RELEVANT PROJECT EXPERIENCE Alexandria Economic Development Analysis—Alexandria, VA Project manager for the economic development strategy for Alexandria Economic Development Partnership. The analysis considered projected job growth by industry in Alexandria and throughout the region to identify the city’s competitive advantages and industry targets for growth. Economic Development Strategy for West Broad Street—Columbus, OH Project Manager for economic development strategy for the neighborhood surrounding Westland Mall and the new Hollywood Casino. The analysis provided targeted strategies for redevelopment and identified specific implementation tools that can be used to fund and realize each strategy. Lake Travis Economic Impact Analysis— Travis County, TX Project manager for the fiscal and economic analysis of Lake Travis, which quantifies the total impact of the lake on Travis County and municipalities surrounding the lake, and the effects of fluctuating water levels on state, county, and municipal revenues. Union Station Master Planning Market Analysis—Los Angeles, CA RCLCO was retained by METRO LA to conduct an economic and market analysis for current conditions of the residential, office, retail and hospitality sectors. The analysis will forecast future demand each land use to help envision build-out of the site. Columbia Town Center Revitalization Strategy—Columbia, MD Project Manager for a strategy to revitalize Columbia Town Center, the mixed-use center of Columbia, MD, which is one of the first new town developments in the US. The analysis included market analysis for residential, retail, office, and commercial uses; highest and best use recommendations, consumer research to better understand local residential demand, case study analysis, and development recommendations. Other mixed-use: Strategic Planning Analysis; Cincinnati, OH Residential Market Analysis for a New Town Center Style Development; North Cincinnati, OH MESA + PLANNING 55 Gresham, Smith and Partners (GS&P) was founded in 1967 to plan and design built and natural environments for our clients. Today, we are made up of more than 600 talented men and women dedicated to the success of our clients’ programs. For more than 45 years, GS&P has focused on enhancing quality of life and sustainability within communities. The fi rm consistently ranks among the top architecture and engineering fi rms in the United States. Each member of GS&P’s staff is an expert in some facet of the design process, ranging from comprehensive planning, to architecture and engineering design, to environmental permitting and regulatory coordination, to sustainability planning, to water resources management, to public outreach and involvement. With our diversity of in-house expertise, we are able to offer a variety of tailored solutions to meet each of our clients’ individual needs. GS&P understands comprehensive planning and recognizes its importance in guiding the future physical, social and economic health of communities. Our planning efforts refl ect an understanding of the unique factors that defi ne a community. Planning is a process of discovery that effectively involves all community stakeholders. Successful planning ensures that growth responds to the long-range vision of the community and considers all aspects of development including land use, mobility, urban design and economic development, while respecting natural resources and providing the fl exibility necessary. MESA + PLANNING56 We offer comprehensive planning in the following areas: • Community revitalization plans • Comprehensive community plans • Site-specifi c master plans • District master plans • Design guidelines and development standards • Site assessments/due diligence/yield estimates • Zoning and regulatory compliance • Thoroughfare Plans • Stormwater Master Plans • Water and Wastewater Master Plans • Zoning and regulatory codes • Effective growth management tools • Greenway and public open space planning • Main Street and corridor revitalization • Streetscape/gateway planning and design • Smart growth techniques • Context-sensitive solutions • Transit-oriented development • Parking master plans GS&P has worked closely with a number of Texas municipalities, including the City of Dallas, Nueces County, City of Cleburne and the City of Fort Worth, among others. In addition, Alex Martinez, P.E., GS&P’s task leader, has worked with most municipalities within north Texas over the last 30 years, providing a range of services—civil/site planning and design, transportation planning and design, environmental and master planning, water/waste water planning and design, stormwater management and design and infrastructure analysis. Our team’s in-depth understanding of how municipalities operate gives us the ability to develop environmental programs that facilitate compliance, yet are tailored to the organizational needs of our clients. MESA + PLANNING 57 Alex Martinez, P.E. GS&P TASK LEAD/CIVIL With 30 years of experience in the management, design and construction of environmental and engineering projects, Alex has become a proven and diversifi ed public works practice leader in the North Texas Region. His experience includes environmental and comprehensive planning, civil/site planning and design, transportation planning and design, water/waste water planning and design, stormwater management and design and infrastructure analysis. Alex has worked on comprehensive master plans for the City of Mesquite, Nevada; the City of Corsicana, Texas; the Restoration Master Plan for Reverchon Park in Dallas, Texas; and the Integrated Water/Wastewater Master Plan for the City of Laredo, Texas. Also, he led the team to develop the Southern Dallas County Infrastructure Analysis Project, assessing the demographics; existing transportation, water, wastewater, drainage and franchised utilities capacities; and future needs to meet 2035 demands. EDUCATION 1982/Bachelor of Science, Civil Engineering, Texas A&M University REGISTRATIONS Professional Engineer: TX MEMBERSHIPS/AFFILIATIONS National Society of Professional Engineers Chamber of Commerce/Dallas Regional American Society of Civil Engineers/Dallas, Texas YEARS OF EXPERIENCE 31 RELEVANT PROJECTS City of Cleburne - Comprehensive Plan, Cleburne, TX—Principal. GS&P is part of a team, including MOSAIC and MESA Planning, responsible for the creation of a comprehensive plan for the City of Cleburne. The team will provide careful planning to uphold the quality of life that residents enjoy while ensuring economic competiveness and growth management. GS&P is providing transportation and infrastructure systems planning. City of Corsicana - Comprehensive Master Plan,* Corsicana, TX—Project Manager. Managed civil engineering on the planning team developing the comprehensive master plan. Conducted physical systems assessments that included paving, drainage, water and wastewater infrastructure. Participated in public meetings to develop stakeholders’ goals and priorities that were incorporated in the plan. City of Mesquite - Comprehensive Master Plan,* Mesquite, NV—Project Manager. Managed civil engineering on the planning team. Performed physical systems assessments including, paving, drainage, water and wastewater infrastructure. Participated in briefi ngs and public meetings to develop stakeholder goals and priorities. Gaylord Texan Roadways,* Grapevine, TX—Project Manager, Engineer-of-Record. Prepared plans, specifi cations and estimates for roadway improvements to 8,000 linear feet of Gaylord Trail and Ruth Wall Road. *Denotes individual experience MESA + PLANNING58 Kevin W. Tilbury, AICP TRANSPORTATION Kevin’s focus is on community and regional planning with an emphasis on integrating land use, transportation and community design. His vast skill set and diverse project experience enable him to perform at a high level of competency on a wide range of applications, including community visioning, land-use master plans, comprehensive plans, corridor studies and multi-modal plans. Kevin excels working within the public process to balance diverse interests and build consensus. EDUCATION 1997/Master of Science, Urban Planning, Florida State University 1995/Bachelor of Science, Geography, Florida State University MEMBERSHIPS/AFFILIATIONS American Institute of Certifi ed Planners American Planning Association, Transportation Planning Division, Information Technology Division Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals Institute of Transportation Engineers/TN Section ACCREDITATIONS/CERTIFICATIONS American Institute of Certifi ed Planners YEARS OF EXPERIENCE 17 RELEVANT PROJECTS Metroplan - Imagine Central Arkansas: 2040 Long-Range Transportation Plan, Little Rock, AR—Planner. Under contract to Metroplan, GS&P is leading the update of a new long- range transportation plan for the Central Arkansas region. The plan includes an exten- sive outreach effort using a comprehensive toolkit of both face-to-face and “virtual” engagement strategies. The plan will result in a regional vision linking transportation with land-use, housing, economic development and the environment as well as a list of trans- portation strategies and investment priorities for the next 40 years. Knoxville Knox County MPC - Plan East Tennessee (PlanET), Knox County, TN—Lead Plan- ner. GS&P is a major subconsultant partner on East Tennessee’s fi rst regional planning effort. Funded through the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) Sustainable Communities Initiative, the Knoxville Regional Plan for Livable Communities, more commonly known as Plan East Tennessee (PlanET), is a multi-year process to build capacity for regional collaboration and implementation. GS&P is playing a major role in the development and evaluation of alternative transportation and land use scenarios, community outreach and implementation plan. Douglas County Highway 92 Corridor Livable Centers Initiative, GA - Douglas County, GA—Project Professional. Douglas County created a vision and plan for the Highway 92 corridor through the Atlanta Regional Commission’s award-winning Livable Centers Initiative. GS&P teamed with the County to help implement more that $100 million of proposed transportation infrastructure projects recommended for the corridor, including sidewalks, off-road trails, new street networks, streetscape enhancements and arterial BRT service. MESA + PLANNING 59 Lauren J. Seydewitz, LEED AP BD+C ENVIRONMENTAL Lauren is an environmental professional experienced in environmental planning and program management, site assessment and compliance consulting, data collection and evaluation, stormwater and environmental permitting, sustainability planning and green infrastructure evaluation. Lauren’s past work has included working with the U.S. EPA, U.S. Navy and the City of Dallas as an environmental manager and scientist addressing innovative water and infrastructure projects. Lauren has much experience working with Texas municipalities and has gained valuable insight into typical operations, through both her role as a consultant and her previous role as a City of Dallas staff member. Her current projects include assisting the City of Dallas Water Utilities with evaluating procedures as part of the City-wide environmental management system as well as providing an energy consumption study for its Southside Wastewater Treatment Plant. EDUCATION 2008/Master of Science, Environmental Management, University of Maryland University College 2001/Bachelor of Science, Environmental Science, University of Delaware ACCREDITATIONS/CERTIFICATIONS LEED Accredited Professional YEARS OF EXPERIENCE 12 RELEVANT PROJECTS City of Cleburne - Comprehensive Plan, Cleburne, TX—Project Manager. GS&P is part of a team, including MOSAIC and MESA Planning, responsible for the creation of a comprehensive plan for the City of Cleburne. The team will provide careful planning to uphold the quality of life that residents enjoy while ensuring economic competiveness and growth management. GS&P is providing transportation and infrastructure systems planning. Metroplan - Imagine Central Arkansas: 2040 Long-Range Transportation Plan, Little Rock, AR—Project Professional. Under contract to Metroplan, GS&P is leading the update of a new long-range transportation plan for the Central Arkansas region. The plan includes an extensive outreach effort using a comprehensive toolkit of both face-to- face and “virtual” engagement strategies. The plan will result in a regional vision linking transportation with land-use, housing, economic development and the environment as well as a list of transportation strategies and investment priorities for the next 40 years. City of McKinney contracted with GS&P for the development of a city sustainability plan. GS&P worked collaboratively with the City on conducting public meetings, including a teen meeting on sustainability. GS&P provided the City with measurable indicators and planning principles for all key areas, including the natural environment, built environment, purchasing, energy, economic development, air quality, water quality and quantity, and transportation. MESA + PLANNING60 Chris Kaakaty, P.E. WATER/WASTEWATER Chris serves as a fi rmwide resource in GS&P’s Technical Leadership Program related to wet weather, SSO reduction and utility system management operations. He has worked in North Texas for 25 years, recently serving as the Director of Wastewater Operations for the City of Dallas Water Utilities. Because of this role, Chris brings great experience to the team regarding the operator perspective as well as how to effectively interface with the client on public works projects. Chris provides guidance and experience on regulatory matters based on his extensive permitting and regulatory compliance experience and network. Chris served on variety of complex, multidisciplinary wastewater projects for Dallas Water Utilities, specifi cally those involved with wastewater system evaluation and rehabilita- tion. The following are key Dallas Water Utilities projects that Chris has led from the start to fi nish: Wastewater Collection System Master Plan, Wastewater Strategic Master Plan, Wastewater System Odor Control Improvement and Wastewater Recycle Plan. EDUCATION 1983/Bachelor of Science, Chemical Engineering, University of Oklahoma REGISTRATIONS Professional Engineer: TX YEARS OF EXPERIENCE 25 RELEVANT PROJECTS City of Dallas, Dallas Water Utilities*—Director Wastewater Operations. Executive man- agement over the entire wastewater operation system for the City of Dallas, responsible for annual operating and capital budget exceeding $250 million. City of Dallas, Dallas Water Utilities*—Plant Engineer, Technical Services/Interim Assistant Manager, Maintenance & Operations for the Southside Wastewater Treatment Plant. Monitored wastewater regulations to identify possible impacts on utility operations; pro- vided input on proposed regulations; drafted discharge permit applications and annual sludge reports; and identifi ed research needs. Used data to solve diverse problems such as mitigation of odor generated by the sludge handling facilities, investigating material quality, inspecting fi eld conditions, and conducting environmental assessments. Per- formed quantitative analysis to identify and prioritize expenditures of funds for future proj- ects; calculated cost estimates; conducted feasibility studies; and forecasted day-to-day plan operation. City of Dallas, Dallas Water Utilities*—Senior Program Manager, Pretreatment & Labora- tory Services. Consultation with city, state, federal offi cials regarding facility needs, plant expansion and rehabilitation issues. Evaluation of short- and long-term capital improve- ment needs; due diligence for wastewater projects. 11400 N. Central at White Rock Creek,* Dallas, TX—Project Team Member, Executive Re- viewer and Approver. Replaced 300 feet of 30-inch sewer main under freeway. 3900 Buena Vista,* Dallas, TX—Project Team Member, Executive Reviewer and Approver. Bypass pumping of 18-inch for Pipeline for four months. *Denotes individual experience MESA + PLANNING 61 Therese Mehta, P.E. CIVIL With nearly 10 years of engineering and planning experience, Therese brings a wide range of expertise in stormwater runoff management, water quality improvement meth- ods, permitting and sustainable design, including green infrastructure and low impact development. Therese excels at incorporating low impact development—porous pave- ment, rainwater harvesting including rain barrels, natural bioretention facilities, vegeta- tive rooftops and rain gardens—into design and construction of projects as feasible based on site limitations. Therese has designed residential, industrial, hospital, commercial, mixed-use land development and roadway drainage projects. She has worked for a variety of municipal and private clients providing solutions to complex project challenges. Her management skills, coupled with her technical abilities, make her a strong asset to any project team. EDUCATION 2006/Master of Science, Civil Engineering, Focus on Water Resources, San Diego State University 2002/Bachelor of Science, Engineering Science, Focus on Management of Technology, Vanderbilt University REGISTRATIONS Professional Engineer: TX MEMBERSHIPS/AFFILIATIONS American Society of Civil Engineers/Texas Section; North Texas Chapter YEARS OF EXPERIENCE 8 RELEVANT PROJECTS City of Cleburne - Comprehensive Plan, Cleburne, TX—Supervisor. GS&P is part of a team, including MOSAIC and MESA Planning, responsible for the creation of a comprehensive plan for the City of Cleburne. The team will provide careful planning to uphold the quality of life that residents enjoy while ensuring economic competiveness and growth management. GS&P is providing transportation and infrastructure systems planning. Bird Rock Traffi c Slowing,* San Diego, CA—Engineer. Redesigned La Jolla Boulevard to reduce traffi c lanes; add bike lanes; and reduce traffi c speed with roundabouts, medians, turning pockets and bulb outs. Additional on-street parking and tree wells were also incorporated. Part of overall Walkable Community Plan. City of Dallas - Comprehensive Dredge Management Plan, Dallas, TX—Project Engineer. GS&P is assisting the City of Dallas with the development and implementation of a city- wide dredge management program. This includes the preparation of a plan for more than 100 city-managed retention/detention ponds, sumps, lakes and reservoirs. City of Dallas - Fuel Reconciliation and Perpetual Inventory Project, Dallas, TX—Project Engineer. GS&P is assisting the City to establish a perpetual fuel inventory to monitor and document fuel usage for its eight fuel islands. GS&P is reviewing collected data incorporating database spatial analysis and then recommending revised practices to address data discrepancies to assist the City with implementing a program that includes inventory processes that meet U.S. EPA standards for fuel inventory control. MESA + PLANNING62 Marshall Elizer, Jr., P.E., PTOE TRANSPORTATION Marshall, a registered professional engineer, joined the fi rm in 1997 after a distinguished 22-year career providing transportation and engineering services to local governments in Tennessee, Colorado, Texas and California. Marshall has extensive experience in identifying and improving traffi c fl ow and safety problems. As traffi c engineer for the City of Lakewood, Colorado and later as the trans- portation director for the City of Arlington, Texas, Marshall was a lead member of the engineering study teams that used innovative approaches to reduce congestion, im- prove effi ciency and enhance the safety at numerous urban/suburban intersections and streets. The success of these efforts was recognized nationally when the Institute of Trans- portation Engineers awarded two of the profession’s highest traffi c engineering awards to the Arlington Department of Transportation. EDUCATION 1989/Master of Science, Civil Engineering, University of Tennessee 1974/Bachelor of Science, Transportation Engineering, University of Tennessee REGISTRATIONS Professional Engineer: AL, AR, CO, GA, IN, KY, LA, MS, NC, OH, SC, TN, TX MEMBERSHIPS/AFFILIATIONS American Planning Association American Public Works Association American Road & Transportation Builders Association American Society of Civil Engineers American Society of Highway Engineers/Middle TN Chapter Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals Congress for New Urbanism Institute of Transportation Engineers Intelligent Transportation Society of America ACCREDITATIONS/CERTIFICATIONS Professional Traffi c Operations Engineer YEARS OF EXPERIENCE 38 RELEVANT PROJECTS City of Arlington - Abram Traffi c Analysis Study, Arlington, TX—Principal. The City of Arling- ton tasked GS&P with performing a traffi c study as a part of the Abram Street Pilot Project (Cooper Street to Collins Street) which launched in October 2010. The Pilot Project report noted that the Downtown Arlington Master Plan, adopted in 2004, envisioned a “pedes- trian-friendly, safe, vibrant and active Downtown Arlington.” GS&P’s traffi c study identifi es and estimates the potential diversion of Abram Street traffi c to other area roadways as travel lane capacity is removed from the corridor. Nashville Downtown Transportation Plan, Nashville, TN—Principal. Study to assess needs and coordinate all transportation plans and modes in the core downtown area. Central to this effort was the accommodation of traffi c, transit, pedestrian and parking needs for an expanded convention center, a new multi-modal transportation transfer station, downtown arena and NFL stadium. MESA + PLANNING 63 x x x x x MESA + PLANNING64 x x x Carissa Cox, AICP MESA + PLANNING 65 Carissa Cox, AICP MESA + PLANNING66 Carissa Cox, AICP MESA + PLANNING 67 Brandora is a Carrollton based design studio that specializes in creating meaningful experiences for businesses through interactive branding. Whether we are working on an identity, website or a video, we always strive to fi nd meaning, innovate through design and media, seek human involvement and challenge tradition. In today’s cluttered, saturated, and price-driven marketplace it is not enough to have excellent products/ services. This is to be expected. A company needs to bond emotionally with its desired customers in their daily life and create an emotional experience. Offering a meaningful experience is the defi ning element that separates success from indifference in the marketplace. At Brandora, our goals for every project are: • to Create A Visual Language that represents your true brand and speak on a personal level to your customers • to Differentiate Your Services from the competition through the strength of your culture and the uniqueness of your brand imagery • to Achieve Ubiquity and Visibility for your company by carefully assessing your marketing needs • to Connect With Your Audience in an emotional way by offering them a multisensorial brand experience • to Increase Profi tability Our services include: BRANDING - Identity Design / Nomenclature / Brand Guidelines / Color Systems / Brand Strategy PRINT - Brochures / Books / Business Systems / Posters / Direct Mail / Marketing Collateral INTERACTIVE – Web Design and Development / Newsletters / E-Commerce Sites / Flash Presentations / Interactive CD ROMs / Motion Graphics / Intranets / Extranets VIDEO - Video Shoots / Post Production / Special Effects / On Location Interviews EXPERIENCE - Packaging / Product Development / Environmental Graphics / Signage SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT - Content Management Systems / UI design / Custom web tools MESA + PLANNING68 Tia Primova Principal, Creative Services Tia has over ten years of experience designing identity and branding systems, brand guidelines, marketing collateral, websites and presentations for a wide range of clients including top brands like Nokia, Nokia Siemens Networks, ATI, AMD, Michael & Susan Dell Foundation, Ketchum.. Tia began her design education at the University of Texas in Ar- lington, where she received a BFA in Communication Arts and graduated summa cum laude. Born in Bulgaria, Tia provides a unique and global perspective to her design pro- cess. Drawing from fi ne art, design, fashion, literature, music and fi lm, Tia creates images that speak to contemporary audiences with emotional impact and appeal. Her design philosophy is to stay away from trends and complication but rather focus on the idea. Tia’s work has won numerous awards among which a Merit Award at the 2009 ReBrand 100® Global Awards, and her work has been featured on Adobe.com, published in Lo- goLounge 5: 2,000 International Identities by Leading Designers, Brand Identity Essentials and LogoLounge Master Library, Volume 3: 3,000 Shapes and Symbols Logos. Brandon Payton Principal, Interactive Services Brandon Payton has over fourteen years of interactive and video experience. He studied Computer Science and Architecture at Texas A&M University, and received a Bachelor of Arts at the University of Texas at Arlington. Before Brandora, Brandon was a part of Nokia’s interactive media team, where he created numerous videos, fl ash presentations, websites, interactive CD-ROMs and printed collateral for different business groups within Nokia. His unique approach to design and knowledge of video, 3D, programming and post production software makes him a valuable asset to clients, both large and small. Brandon has won over thirty awards for his interactive and multimedia work. MESA + PLANNING 69 ASHLEY SHOOK, LLC Ashley Shook, LEED AP® Education Master of City and Regional Planning – University of Texas at Arlington – 2012 Bachelor of Landscape Architecture – Texas Tech University – 2009 Current Work Experience Baldwin Associates – 3904 Elm St. Suite B, Dallas, Texas 75216 Land Use and Zoning Consulting Firm As a consultant, Ashley’s consistent involvement with Baldwin Associates includes zoning code and land use review and analysis for purposes of expediting land development opportunities for developers and private property owners. Additionally, she performs third party Green Ordinance review and inspection for the City of Dallas. As a Green Inspector, Ashley employs her knowledge of LEED building standards to promote the City’s efforts towards more sustainable development. Highlighted Projects: • Balch Springs Town Center Masterplan – in progress • David Weekley Homes Site Design and Lot Layout – Watters Creek, Allen, Texas – in progress • Green Review and Inspection for Trammel Crow’s Alexan Skyline (Mixed Use Development) - Dallas, Texas – in progress Team Better Block – 2139 Fort Worth Ave., Dallas, Texas 75211 Rapid Urban Revitalization As a consultant, Ashley’s growing involvement with Team Better Block includes creation and quick implementation of small area plans for under-utilized areas in declining neighborhoods with the primary use of a neighborhood’s strongest asset, its existing community network. Ashley facilitates community organization through local neighborhood outreach and creates a cohesive vision between the City and the existing community to perform a living charrette (Better Block) as a means to experiment with various urban design methods. In turn, she is able to review and recommend updates/ revisions to existing code, land use regulations and permitting processes that may otherwise hinder successful urban design methods proven to work during the Better Block. In an effort to make permanent change to such neighborhoods, she, with the Team, prepares follow-up reports with implementation recommendations based on observation from the Better Block. Highlighted Projects: • The Alamo Better Block - San Antonio, Texas – completed August 2012 • Brownsville Better Block – Brownsville, Texas – completed May 2012 • Saint Paul Better Block – Saint Paul, Minnesota - in progress MESA Design Group – 1807 Ross Ave., Dallas, Texas 75201 Landscape Architecture and Planning Firm As a former consultant, Ashley’s involvement with MESA Design Group included analysis of best practices and design guidelines pertaining to downtown revitalization and parks and open space plans. She was also tasked with creating various graphics for community meeting exhibits and fi nal reports. Highlighted Projects: • Kyle Comprehensive Plan – Kyle, Texas – completed 2010 MESA + PLANNING70 x x ® MESA + PLANNING 71 AVAILABILITY AND ASSIGNMENTS 5 MESA + PLANNING72 STATEMENT OF AVAILABILITY MESA Planning endeavors to maintain a project load of two signifi cant planning projects at a time. Therefore, MESA Planning does not pursue all RFP’s that are available but those: • With start dates that roughly coincide with the completion dates of other on-going projects, and thereby contribute to maintenance of the 2 principal projects at a time project load goal. • With a scope of work consistent with our project experience, thereby fi tting well with our project delivery system. • That present creative challenges, thereby enhancing our overall body of work MESA Planning maintains (to extent possible) 2-signifi cant projects at time workload because it assures the robust participation of Robin McCaffrey AIA, AICP. In this case, a signifi cant planning project for the Port of Brownsville will be concluding, making opportunity to start one new project such as the Westlake Comprehensive Plan Update. The Westlake Comprehensive plan Update will be personally managed by Robin McCaffrey. Mr. McCaffrey will be the continuing face of this plan process with his personal attendance at all meetings internally and as described in the MESA Planning Proposal. Mr. McCaffrey will be the primary point of contact. All the subcontractors have designated staff support and assure principal involvement. MESA + PLANNING 73 TASK ASSIGNMENTS BY DISCIPLINE MESA + PLANNING74 MESA + PLANNING 75 REFERENCES 6 MESA + PLANNING76 MESA PLANNING CLIENT REFERENCES Brownsville: Jason Hilts President and CEO Brownsville Economic Development Council 301 Mexico Street, Suite F-1 Brownsville, Texas Phone: 956-541- 1 183 e-mail: jhilts@bedc.com (relationship: Client Team leader for the Brownsville Comprehensive, Strategic Infrastructure Plan, 2012, see project sheet in work examples) Brenham: Thomas Upchurch Upchurch Architects, Inc. 404 East Main Street Brenham, Texas 77833 Phone: 979-830-1723 e-mail: tupchurch@upchurcharchitects.com (relationship: Chairman of Brenham Downtown Plan Steering Committee, 2011, see project sheet in work examples) NRH: John Pitstick Director of Planning City of North Richland Hills 731 NE Loop 820 North Richland Hills, Texas 76180 Phone: 817-462-6303 e-mail: jpitstick@nrhtx.com (relationship: Client for Iron Horse Station Area Plan, 2012, see project sheet in work examples) CLEBURNE KYLE CORSICANA ARGYLE WESTLAKE Engagement Engagement Engagement Engagement Engagement Appoint steering Committee Town Hall Meeting Workshop #1 Workshop #1 Workshop #1 Workshop 1 Workshop #1 Workshop #2 Workshop #2 Workshop #2 Workshop #2 Project Open House Workshop #3 Workshop #3 Workshop #3 Workshop #3 Facilitator Meetings EDC as Steering Committee Steering Committee Meetings: kick off, prior to each workshop, and before public hearing process Public hearing Public Hearings Public Hearings Public Hearings Public hearings Interactive Web Portal Interactive Web Portal Assessment Assessment Assessment Assessment Assessment Population Demographics Population Demographics City Form Assessment City Form Assessment Population Demographics Capacity Analysis Existing Conditions Economic Assessment Tax Gap Analysis Existing Conditions Land Developability Market capture Physical Systems Assessment Land Developability Analysis Report Urban Form Infrastructure Capacity Analysis Report Economic Indicators Circulation Analysis Report Visioning Visioning Visioning Visioning Visioning Goals and Objectives Goals and Objectives Goals and Objectives Goals and Objectives Goals and Objectives Framework plan Framework plan Framework Plan Framework Plan Framework Plan Plan Elements Plan Elements Plan Elements Plan Elements Plan Elements Land Use Land Use Land Use Land Use Land Use Thoroughfares Transportation Transportation Transportation Transportation Infrastructure Urban Design Infrastructure Urban Design Town Design Structure Parks Open Space Parks Open Space Urban Design Parks Open Space Park Open Space/ Trails Economic Development Public Services Code Performance Review Housing Public services Downtown Downtown Public Services Policy Recommendations Policy Recommendations/ Plan Tabulation Solana Revitalization Code Performance Review Implementation Implementation Implementation Implementation Implementation Catalyst Projects Economic Development Design Guidelines Development Densities/ Permitted Uses Economic Development CIP Inventory Plan Implementation Design Criteria Growth Management Planning Benchmarks Plan Benchmarks Planning Benchmarks Policies for Updates and Amendments Recommended Code Amendments Final Deliverables Final Deliverables Final Deliverables Final Deliverables Final Deliverables Plan Report Plan Report Plan Report Plan Report Plan Report Joint Work Session Joint Work Session Joint Work Session Map Graphics Package 2013 2010 2007 2009 2013-14 $345,000 $285,000 $290,000 $318,000** $338,950* *including reimbursables ** plus an additional $120,000 for the commercial centers plan (an additional component to the Comp Plan) Page 1 of 2 estlake Town Council TYPE OF ACTION Workshop - Discussion Item Westlake Town Council Meeting Monday, August 26, 2013 TOPIC: Discussion of the Proposed Budget for the Town of Westlake for FY 2013/2014 STAFF CONTACT: Tom Brymer, Town Manager / Superintendent DECISION POINTS Start Date Completion Date Timeframe: October 1, 2013 September 30, 2014 Annual budget. Funding: Amount - $00,000 Status - N/A Source - Multiple Sources - see comments below Decision Alignment VVM Perspective Desired Outcome Exemplary Governance Financial Stewardship FS.Sustain Fiscal Health Strategic Issue Outcome Strategy Staff Action Fiscal Stewardship & Organizational Effectiveness 5. Budget according to established service level provisions within departments. SA 05.1: Budget Preparation Strategy Map or VVM Connection Strategic Issue Connection Page 2 of 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Town Council held a workshop on the Proposed FY 13-14 Municipal Budget on August 9, 2013. Discussion at the workshop included an overview of the proposed revenues and expenditures of each fund as well as the 5-year Capital Improvement Plan. The purpose of this workshop item is to provide the Town Council an opportunity to ask any further questions or provide feedback/direction regarding the proposed FY 13-14 Municipal Budget prior to considering it for adoption next month. ORGANIZATIONAL HISTORY/RECOMMENDATION Recommend Town Council provide Staff any final feedback/direction regarding the proposed FY 13-14 Municipal Budget prior to considering it for adoption next month. ATTACHMENTS N/A Page 1 of 2 estlake Town Council TYPE OF ACTION Workshop - Discussion Item Westlake Town Council Meeting Continued from the meeting on June 17, 2013 Monday, August 26, 2013 TOPIC: Consider approval of a Resolution appointing and reappointing affiliate board members. STAFF CONTACT: Kelly Edwards, Town Secretary DECISION POINTS Start Date Completion Date Timeframe: 06/17/2013 08/26/2013 Funding: Amount- $0.00 Status- Funded Source- N/A N/A Decision Alignment VVM Perspective Desired Outcome Sense of Place Customer Focus CF.Enhance and Maintain a Sense of Community Strategic Issue Outcome Strategy Staff Action N/A N/A N/A Strategy Map or VVM Connection Strategic Issue Connection Page 2 of 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Members with expiring terms have been contacted by the Town Secretary and asked to respond as to their desire to continue to serve as a board, commission or committee member. The resolution indicates the names of the board commission, committee members and their current status. ORGANIZATIONAL HISTORY/RECOMMENDATION N/A ATTACHMENTS Board applications w/ Resolution Page 1 of 3 estlake Town Council TYPE OF ACTION Workshop - Discussion Item Westlake Town Council Meeting Monday, August 26, 2013 TOPIC: Consider approval of Resolution 13-24 amending the original contract with Steele & Freeman, Inc., approved on June 17, 2013, for construction manager at-risk services establishing a guaranteed maximum price (GMP) of $8,578,694, which includes an amendment to Part A and adding Part B to Phase One of the Westlake Academy campus expansion project and authorize town staff to make funding changes not to exceed $25,000.00 on this project. STAFF CONTACT: Troy J. Meyer, Director of Facilities and Parks/Recreation and Ben Nibarger, Assistant to the Town Manager DECISION POINTS Start Date Completion Date Timeframe: August 26, 2013 December 31, 2014 Click here to enter text. Funding: Amount- $8,578,694 Status- Funded Source- Bond Issuance This Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) includes the cost site work, construction, and CMR fees. Once agreed upon, the Construction Manager at Risk, Steele & Freeman, takes on the responsibility for completing the project within the GMP. Decision Alignment VVM Perspective Desired Outcome Exemplary Governance Financial Stewardship FS.Sustain Fiscal Health Strategic Issue Outcome Strategy Staff Action Capital Investment 3. Policy and Cost Analysis Drive by GRowth (Future Assets) SA 03.3: WA Campus Page 2 of 3 Strategy Map or VVM Connection Strategic Issue Connection EXECUTIVE SUMMARY November 12, 2012 the Town Council approved the Westlake Academy master plan presented by Bennett Benner Pettit, Inc (BB&P). On January 29, 2013 the Council instructed staff to have BB&P provides architectural services for Phase I of the campus expansion. The architectural scope of work includes three new buildings: (1) single-story Multipurpose Hall (approximately 9,600 sq. ft.) (2) a three story secondary classroom building (approximately 18,900 sq. ft.), and (3) a single story field house (approximately 9,600 sq. ft.) The next was to solicit Request for Qualification (RFQ) for a construction manager at-risk for the project. The RFQ for Westlake Academy Phase I Expansion project was published in the March 2nd and 3rd, 2013 edition of the Star-Telegram. We received four proposals on March 20th from the following firms: 1. Steele & Freeman- Fix Fee -1.90% 2. SEDALCO –Fix Fee - 5.50% 3. AUI-Fix Fee - 5.25% 4. Austin Commercial - Fix Fee -2.75% Interviews with the CM at Risk firms began on March 27, 2013 and completed on April 2, 2013. A team of Town Staff ranked each proposal based on experience in educational projects, team job experience, delivering the CM at Risk method of delivery, current jobs and fees. The staff is recommending Steele & Freeman as the CM at Risk contractor for the Westlake Academy Phase I campus expansion. In June of 2013, Steele & Freeman received bids on the project which came in over budget. Staff and S&F reviewed all the bids to start the value engineering process. Project cost reductions were found in the lighting package, roof materials, plumbing, appliances, and mechanical. Additional alternative items which could (lower) or raise the cost of the project include: 1. EIFS vs. stucco $(158,189) 2. EIFS (High Impact north side of Field House) (153,880) 3. EIFS (All High Impact) (105,248) 4. Lightning Protection (All buildings) 69,484 5. Electric Flush Valves 29,086 Additional items that could reduce the project cost by approximately $60,000 but would reduce the energy efficiency of the buildings including, the roof top HVAC units, windows and frames. There is also $116,000 being carried as an allowance for casing the piers. If casing is not necessary, these funds would become part of the projects betterment. ORGANIZATIONAL HISTORY/RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends Council authorizing the Town Manager to enter into contract with Steele & Freeman, Inc. for construction manager at-risk services too establishing a guaranteed maximum Page 3 of 3 price at $8,578,694for the Phase I of the Westlake Academy campus expansion project and authorize town staff to make funding changes not to exceed $25,000.00 on this project. ATTACHMENTS AIA document Addendum; Exhibit A to the AIA addendum document will be provided on Monday evening, August 26, 2013 EXECUTIVE SESSION The Council will conduct a closed session pursuant to Texas Government Code, annotated, Chapter 551, Subchapter D for the following: a. Section 551.071(2) Consultation with Attorney - to seek advice of counsel on legal matters involving pending or contemplated litigation, settlement offers, or other legal matters not related directly to litigation or settlement. Pending or contemplated litigation and settlement offers include but are not limited to the following: Westlake Academy Facility Expansion b. Section 551.071 (2) Consultation with Attorney on a matter in which the duty of the attorney to the governmental body under the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct of the State Bar of Texas clearly conflicts with the is Chapter including but are not limited to the following: Town of Westlake Certificate of Convenience & Necessity (CCN) for water and sewer service. c. Section 551.074(a)(1): Deliberation Regarding Personnel Matters – to deliberate the appointment, employment, evaluation, reassignment, duties, of a public officer or employee: Town Manager Town of Westlake Workshop Item # 5 – Executive Session Town of Westlake Westlake Item # 6 – Reconvene Meeting The Council will conduct a closed session pursuant to Texas Government Code, annotated, Chapter 551, Subchapter D for the following: a. Section 551.071(2) Consultation with Attorney - to seek advice of counsel on legal matters involving pending or contemplated litigation, settlement offers, or other legal matters not related directly to litigation or settlement. Pending or contemplated litigation and settlement offers include but are not limited to the following: Westlake Academy Facility Expansion b. Section 551.071 (2) Consultation with Attorney on a matter in which the duty of the attorney to the governmental body under the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct of the State Bar of Texas clearly conflicts with the is Chapter including but are not limited to the following: Town of Westlake Certificate of Convenience & Necessity (CCN) for water and sewer service. c. Section 551.074(a)(1): Deliberation Regarding Personnel Matters – to deliberate the appointment, employment, evaluation, reassignment, duties, of a public officer or employee: Town Manager Town of Westlake Workshop Item # 7 – Take any Necessary Action, if necessary COUNCIL RECAP / STAFF DIRECTION Town of Westlake Workshop Item #8 Council Recap / Staff Direction Town of Westlake Item # 9 – Workshop Adjournment Back up material has not been provided for this item. CITIZEN PRESENTATIONS AND RECOGNITIONS: This is an opportunity for citizens to address the Council on any matter whether or not it is posted on the agenda. The Council cannot by law take action nor have any discussion or deliberations on any presentation made to the Council at this time concerning an item not listed on the agenda. The Council will receive the information, ask staff to review the matter, or an item may be noticed on a future agenda for deliberation or action. Town of Westlake Item # 2 – Citizen’s Presentations and recognitions a. Consider approval of the minutes from the June 17, 2013, meeting. b. Consider approval of the minutes from the August 9, 2013, meeting. c. Consider approval of Resolution 13-22, Appointing and Reappointing Affiliate Board Members. d. Consider approval of Resolution 13-23, Approving a renewal of the Keller Police services contract e. Consider approval of Ordinance 707 – Amending the Town of Westlake Code Of Ordinances, Chapter 26, Community Development, Section 26-68; To allow the Mayor to Sit as an Alternate Member of the Zoning Board of Adjustments f. Consider approval of Ordinance 708 – Adding an Ordinance to Implement and Enforce the Texas State Rule on Locally Enforced Motor Vehicle Idling Limitations and to Approve a Memorandum of Agreement with the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality to Enforce this Rule Locally Town of Westlake Item # 3 – Consent items Town Council Minutes 06/17/13 Page 1 of 6 MINUTES OF THE TOWN OF WESTLAKE, TEXAS TOWN COUNCIL MEETING June 17, 2013 PRESENT: Mayor Laura Wheat and Council Members, Carol Langdon, Wayne Stoltenberg and Rick Rennhack. ABSENT: Clif Cox and Michael Barrett. OTHERS PRESENT: Town Manager Tom Brymer, Town Secretary Kelly Edwards, Assistant to the Town Manager Amanda DeGan, Town Attorney Cathy Cunningham, Finance Director Debbie Piper, Planning and Development Director Eddie Edwards, Facilities and Recreation Director Troy Meyer, Fire Chief Richard Whitten, Director of Public Works Jarrod Greenwood, Communications & Community Affairs Director Ginger Awtry and Special Projects Intern, John Zagurski. Workshop Session 1. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Wheat called the workshop to order at 5:26 p.m. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Wheat led the pledge of allegiance to the United States and Texas flags. 3. REVIEW OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS FOR THE JUNE 17, 2013, TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA. Town Manager Tom Brymer provided an overview of the Atmos RRM and RAMA Ground Storage Tank items. Town Council Minutes 06/17/13 Page 2 of 6 4. DISCUSSION ITEMS a. Update from Tarrant County Commissioner Gary Fickes. Commissioner Fickes provided an overview of the county statistics and transportation efforts in Northeast portion of the Tarrant County, and public health networks. Discussion ensued regarding the proposed Loop 9, construction of Interstate Highway 35W, State Highway 820, State Highway 114 and the lack of state funding for transportation and education during the last session. b. Status report and presentation from Texas Student Housing Authority. THSA Executive Director Pete Ehrenberg provided an overview of the properties and financial outlook. Discussion ensued regarding the current lawsuit in Brazos County, the amount of accrued principal and interest owed to bondholders, rental market in the Austin area, and funding for legal fees regarding the Cambridge litigation. c. Discussion of the FY 2013-2018 Capital Improvement Plan. Director of Public Works Greenwood provided an overview of the proposed plan. Discussion ensued regarding cumulative debt issuance, how to communicate to residents the revenue per capita and bond rating, unfunded projects, possible new Fire Station, the future of Ottinger Road, and any additional funding of the Stagecoach Hills drainage projects. d. Discussion of applications for annual board and commission appointments. No additional discussion. e. Standing Item: Update and discussion regarding Westlake Academy Phase I expansion project and enrollment projections. No additional discussion. Town Council Minutes 06/17/13 Page 3 of 6 5. EXECUTIVE SESSION The Council did not convene into executive session. The Council will conduct a closed session pursuant to Texas Government Code, annotated, Chapter 551, Subchapter D for the following: a. Section 551.071 (2) Consultation with Attorney on a matter in which the duty of the attorney to the governmental body under the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct of the State Bar of Texas clearly conflicts with the is Chapter including but are not limited to the following: Town of Westlake Certificate of Convenience & Necessity (CCN) for water and sewer service. b. Section 551.074(a)(1): Deliberation Regarding Personnel Matters – to deliberate the appointment, employment, evaluation, reassignment, duties, of a public officer or employee: Town Manager c. Section 551.087: Deliberation Regarding Economic Development Negotiations – to deliberate the offer of a financial or other incentive to a business prospect. 6. RECONVENE MEETING 7. TAKE ANY ACTION, IF NEEDED, FROM EXECUTIVE SESSION ITEMS. 8. COUNCIL RECAP / STAFF DIRECTION - None 9. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Wheat adjourned the workshop at 7:13 p.m. Regular Session 1. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Wheat called the meeting to order at 7:13 p.m. 2. CITIZEN PRESENTATIONS AND RECOGNITIONS Mayor Wheat recognized of former Town Council Member Dr. David Levitan for his service to the community. Mayor Wheat recognized Finance employee Sherry Whigham and Fire and EMS employee Lindsey Lee for their dedication of service. Town Council Minutes 06/17/13 Page 4 of 6 3. CONSENT AGENDA a. Consider approval of the minutes from the April 22, 2013, meeting b. Consider approval of the minutes from the May 6, 2013, meeting. c. Consider approval of the minutes from the May 17, 2013, meeting. d. Consider approval of the minutes from the May 31, 2013, meeting. e. Consider approval of the minutes from the June 3, 2013, meeting. f. Consider approval of Ordinance 706, Approving and adopting Rate Schedule “RRM – Rate Review Mechanism” for Atmos Energy Corporation, Mid-Tex division. g. Consider approval of Resolution 13-19, Authorizing a destruction of Municipal and Academy records. h. Consider approval of Resolution 13-20, Authorizing the Town Manager to execute a contract with RAMA General Contracting for construction of a 1 MG Ground Storage Tank. i. Consider approval of Resolution 13-21, Authorizing the Town Manager to enter into an agreement with Steel Freeman to complete the Site Utilities and Grading package for Phase I of the Westlake Academy Expansion project. j. Consider approval of Resolution 13-22, Appointing and Reappointing Affiliate Board Members. MOTION: Council Member Stoltenberg made a motion to approve items a-i the consent agenda. Council Member Langdon seconded the motion. The motion carried by a vote of 3-0. MOTION: Council Member Rennhack made a motion to table item j of the consent agenda until the August meeting. Council Member Stoltenberg seconded the motion. The motion carried by a vote of 3-0. 4. PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION 13-23, REGARDING A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED AS BEING THE TRACTS OF LAND TOTALING 84.28 ACRES, GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE NORTH EAST CORNER OF DAVIS BLVD. AND DOVE ROAD; COMMONLY KNOW AS THE GRANADA SUBDIVISION PROPERTY ZONED PD1, PLANNING AREA 3 (PD1-3) . Planning and Development Director Edwards provided an overview of the proposed plat. Mayor Wheat opened the public hearing. No one addressed the Council. Mayor Wheat closed the public hearing. Town Council Minutes 06/17/13 Page 5 of 6 MOTION: Council Member Langdon made a motion to approve Resolution 13-23. Council Member Stoltenberg seconded the motion. The motion carried by a vote of 3-0. 5. DISCUSSION AND CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION 13-24, A RIGHT-OF-WAY LICENSE AGREEMENT FOR AN ENTRYWAY AT 1755 DOVE ROAD. Mayor Wheat stated that the Council would discuss this item in Executive Session under section 551.072 prior to voting on this item. Planning and Development Director Edwards provided an overview of the item. Discussion ensued regarding the location of the entry way, the responsibility of maintenance of the structure currently in the right-of-way, the cost of moving the structure out of the right-of-way and the current utilities to the structure. Mrs. BeaAnn Arhtur, applicant, provided an overview of the structure. Mrs. Arthur stated that they would take full responsibility for the structure in the right-of-way and provide a secondary insurance if necessary. She also stated that the structure would be lighted with low voltage lanterns. Mayor Wheat stated that the Council was concerned with a private structure in the Town’s right-of-way. The Council will discuss this item under Section 551.072 during executive session. MOTION: Council Member Stoltenberg made a motion to deny Resolution 13-24. Council Member Rennhack seconded the motion. The motion carried by a vote of 3-0. 6. EXECUTIVE SESSION The Council convened into executive session at 8:23 p.m. The Council will conduct a closed session pursuant to Texas Government Code, annotated, Chapter 551, Subchapter D for the following: a. Section 551.071 (2) Consultation with Attorney on a matter in which the duty of the attorney to the governmental body under the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct of the State Bar of Texas clearly conflicts with the is Chapter including but are not limited to the following: Town of Westlake Certificate of Convenience & Necessity (CCN) for water and sewer service. b. Section 551.074(a)(1): Deliberation Regarding Personnel Matters – to deliberate the appointment, employment, evaluation, reassignment, duties, of a public officer or employee: Town Manager c. Section 551.087: Deliberation Regarding Economic Development Negotiations – to deliberate the offer of a financial or other incentive to a business prospect. Town Council Minutes 06/17/13 Page 6 of 6 d. Section 551.072: Deliberation Regarding Real Property, regarding item 5 of the agenda. A structure erected in the Town’s right-of-way at 1755 Dove Road. 7. RECONVENE MEETING Mayor Wheat reconvened the meeting at 10:56 p.m. 8. TAKE ANY ACTION, IF NEEDED, FROM EXECUTIVE SESSION ITEMS. MOTION: Council Member Langdon made a motion to approve Resolution 13-25 Centurion American, Inc., Development and Subdivision Improvement Agreement. Council Member Rennhack seconded the motion. The motion carried by a vote of 3-0. 9. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS - None 10. COUNCIL CALENDAR 11. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Council, Mayor Wheat asked for a motion to adjourn the meeting. MOTION: Council Member Rennhack made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Council Member Stoltenberg seconded the motion. The motion carried by a vote of 3-0. Mayor Wheat adjourned the meeting at 10:59 p.m. APPROVED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL ON AUGUST 26, 2013. ATTEST: _____________________________ Laura Wheat, Mayor _____________________________ Kelly Edwards, Town Secretary Town Council Minutes 08/0913 Page 1 of 3 MINUTES OF THE TOWN OF WESTLAKE, TEXAS TOWN COUNCIL MEETING August 9, 2013 PRESENT: Mayor Laura Wheat and Council Members, Michael Barrett, Wayne Stoltenberg and Rick Rennhack. ABSENT: Clif Cox and Carol Langdon. OTHERS PRESENT: Town Manager Tom Brymer, Town Secretary Kelly Edwards, Assistant Town Manager Amanda DeGan, Administrative Coordinator/Assistant to the Town Manager Ben Nibarger, Town Attorney Cathy Cunningham, Finance Director Debbie Piper, Planning and Development Director Eddie Edwards, Facilities and Recreation Director Troy Meyer, Fire Chief Richard Whitten, Director of Public Works Jarrod Greenwood, Communications & Community Affairs Director Ginger Awtry, Director of Human Resources and Administrative Services Todd Wood, and Director of IT Jason Power. Workshop Session 1. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Wheat called the workshop to order at 3:04 p.m. 2. EXECUTIVE SESSION The Council convened into executive session at 3:04p.m. The Council will conduct a closed session pursuant to Texas Government Code, annotated, Chapter 551, Subchapter D for the following: a. Section 551.071(2) Consultation with Attorney - to seek advice of counsel on legal matters involving pending or contemplated litigation, settlement offers, or other legal matters not related directly to litigation or settlement. Pending or Town Council Minutes 08/09/13 Page 2 of 3 contemplated litigation and settlement offers include but are not limited to the following: Westlake Academy Facility Expansion b. Section 551.071(2) Consultation with Attorney - to seek advice of counsel on legal matters involving pending or contemplated litigation, settlement offers, or other legal matters not related directly to litigation or settlement. Pending or contemplated litigation and settlement offers include but are not limited to the following: Trophy Club Municipal Utility District No. 1. 3. RECONVENE MEETING Mayor Wheat reconvened the meeting at 4:41 p.m. 4. TAKE ANY ACTION, IF NEEDED, FROM EXECUTIVE SESSION ITEMS. Mayor Wheat recommended the Council discuss the proposed budget prior to taking action on items from executive session. Mayor Wheat provided an overview regarding discussion with Trophy Club Municipal District. MOTION: Council Member Rennhack made a motion authorize the Mayor to extend a formal offer to Trophy Club Municipal District (MUD) No. 1 for a transition of Trophy Club MUD No. 1 customers within the Town of Westlake to be served by the Town of Westlake utilities. Council Member Barrett seconded the motion. The motion carried by a vote of 3-0. 5. DISCUSSION OF THE PROPOSED MUNICIPAL BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2013-2014 (INCLUDING WESTLAKE ACADEMY), AS WELL AS FUNDED AND UNFUNDED PROJECTS CONTAINED IN THE TOWN’S APPROVED FIVE (5) YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN. Town Manager Brymer and Finance Director Piper provided a presentation and overview of the proposed budget. Discussion ensued regarding Fiscal year 12-13 accomplishments, Fiscal year 13-14 short term trends, property tax rate, and the unfunded/under discussion items. Town Council Minutes 08/09/13 Page 3 of 3 6. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Wheat adjourned the workshop at 5:22 p.m. APPROVED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL ON AUGUST 26, 2013. ATTEST: _____________________________ Laura Wheat, Mayor _____________________________ Kelly Edwards, Town Secretary Page 1 of 2 estlake Town Council TYPE OF ACTION Regular Meeting - Consent Westlake Town Council Meeting Continued from the meeting on June 17, 2013 Monday, August 26, 2013 TOPIC: Consider approval of a Resolution appointing and reappointing affiliate board members. STAFF CONTACT: Kelly Edwards, Town Secretary DECISION POINTS Start Date Completion Date Timeframe: 06/17/2013 08/26/2013 Funding: Amount- $0.00 Status- Funded Source- N/A N/A Decision Alignment VVM Perspective Desired Outcome Sense of Place Customer Focus CF.Enhance and Maintain a Sense of Community Strategic Issue Outcome Strategy Staff Action N/A N/A N/A Strategy Map or VVM Connection Strategic Issue Connection Page 2 of 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Members with expiring terms have been contacted by the Town Secretary and asked to respond as to their desire to continue to serve as a board, commission or committee member. The resolution indicates the names of the board commission, committee members and their current status. ORGANIZATIONAL HISTORY/RECOMMENDATION N/A ATTACHMENTS Resolution Resolution 13-22 Page 1 of 5 TOWN OF WESTLAKE RESOLUTION NO. 13-22 REAPPOINTING AND APPOINTING MEMBERS TO THE 4B ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT BOARD; WESTLAKE HISTORICAL PRESERVATION SOCIETY; PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION; PUBLIC ART SOCIETY OF WESTLAKE; TEXAS STUDENT HOUSING AUTHORITY BOARD OF DIRECTORS; THE TEXAS STUDENT HOUSING AUTHORITY; THE TEXAS STUDENT HOUSING CORPORATION – DENTON PROJECT; AND THE WESTLAKE ACADEMY FOUNDATION, AND RESOLVING RELATED MATTERS. BE IT RESOLVED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF WESTLAKE, TEXAS: SECTION 1: That, all matters stated in the Recitals hereinabove are found to be true and correct and are incorporated herein by reference as if copied in their entirety. SECTION 2: THAT the following individuals are hereby appointed/reappointed to the 4B Economic Development Board: Term Expiration Laura Wheat, Mayor June 2013 Carol Langdon, Council Member June 2013 Michael Barrett, Council Member June 2013 Rick Rennhack, Council Member June 2013 David Brown, Non-Council Member June 2013 Gregg Malone, Non-Council Member June 2011 Vacant, Non-Council Member June 2013 As a result of the appointments heretofore stated, the 4B Economic Development Board is represented by the following: Term Expiration Laura Wheat, Mayor June 2015 Carol Langdon, Council Member June 2015 Michael Barrett, Council Member May 2015 Rick Rennhack, Council Member June 2015 David Brown, Non-Council Member June 2015 Gregg Malone, Non-Council Member June 2015 Vacant, Non-Council Member June 2015 Resolution 13-22 Page 2 of 5 SECTION 3: THAT the following individuals are hereby appointed/reappointed to the Westlake Historical Preservation Society: Term Expiration Kristi Layton June 2015 Karen Stoltenberg June 2015 Kelly Bradley June 2015 Stephen Thornton June 2013 Bert Schultz June 2013 Jim Budarf June 2013 Megan Brady June 2015 As a result of the appointment heretofore stated, the Westlake Historical Preservation Society, is represented by the following: Term Expiration Stephen Thornton June 2016 Wanda Brewster June 2015 Vacant June 2016 Vacant June 2016 Vacant June 2016 Vacant June 2015 Vacant June 2015 Staff Liaison- Town Manager or his appointee SECTION 4: THAT the following individuals are hereby appointed reappointed to the Planning and Zoning Commission: Term Expiration William Greenwood June 2013 Tim Brittan June 2013 Wayne Stoltenberg June 2014 Walter Copeland June 2014 Allen Heath June 2014 Sharon Sanden (Alternate member) June 2014 As a result of the appointments heretofore stated, the Planning and Zoning Commission is represented by the following: Term Expiration William Greenwood June 2015 Tim Brittan June 2015 Walter Copeland June 2014 Vacant June 2014 Allen Heath June 2014 Sharon Sanden (Alternate member) June 2014 Resolution 13-22 Page 3 of 5 SECTION 5: THAT the following individuals are hereby appointed/reappointed to the Westlake Public Art Society: Term Expiration Bryan Biddle June 2013 Amelia Johnson June 2013 Trish Biddle June 2012 Debra Hale June 2012 Kelly Cox June 2012 Gail James June 2013 Leah Rennhack June 2013 Vacant June 2013 April Gallagher June 2013 Staff Liaison- Town Manager or his appointee As a result of the appointment heretofore stated, the Westlake Public Art Society is represented by the following: Term Expiration Bryan Biddle June 2015 Amelia Johnson June 2015 Trish Biddle June 2015 Rebecca Neidich June 2015 Gail James June 2015 Kelly Cox June 2014 Vacant June 2014 Vacant June 2014 Vacant June 2014 Staff Liaison Town Manager or his appointee SECTION 6: THAT the following individuals are hereby reappointed to the Texas Student Housing Authority, the Texas Student Housing Corporation, the Texas Student Housing Corporation – Denton Project, the Texas Student Housing Corporation – College Station Project; Term Expiration Jim Carter June 2014 Vacant June 2014 Scott Bradley June 2014 Gregg Malone June 2014 George Ledak June 2013 Vacant June 2013 Vacant June 2013 Resolution 13-22 Page 4 of 5 As a result of the appointments heretofore stated, the Texas Student Housing Authority, the Texas Student Housing Authority, and the Texas Student Housing Corporation – Denton Project, are represented by the following: Term Expiration Jim Carter June 2014 Gregg Malone June 2014 Scott Bradley June 2014 George Ledak June 2015 Vacant June 2014 Vacant June 2015 Vacant June 2015 SECTION 7: THAT the following individuals are hereby appointed/reappointed to the Westlake Academy Foundation Board of Directors: Term Expiration Leah Rennhack June 2012 Casey Paulson June 2012 Kelly Cox June 2012 Bill Greenwood June 2012 Charlotte Ryan June 2012 Kevin Hansen June 2012 April Gallagher June 2012 Vacant June 2012 Ken Gorden June 2013 Rob Scott June 2013 Sean Shope June 2013 Zan Jones June 2013 Vacant June 2013 As a result of the appointments heretofore stated, the Westlake Academy Foundation is represented by the following: Term Expiration Leah Rennhack June 2014 Rebecca Neidich June 2014 Kelly Cox June 2014 Bill Greenwood June 2014 Charlotte Ryan June 2014 Kevin Hansen June 2014 April Gallagher June 2014 Andy Sedino June 2014 Ken Gorden June 2016 Sean Shope June 2016 Resolution 13-22 Page 5 of 5 Zan Jones June 2016 Jeff Watson ? June 2016 Karen Stoltenberg June 2016 Vacant June 2016 Vacant June 2016 SECTION 8: If any portion of this Resolution shall, for any reason, be declared invalid by any court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity shall not affect the remaining provisions hereof and the Council hereby determines that it would have adopted this Resolution without the invalid provision. SECTION 9: That this resolution shall become effective from and after its date of passage. PASSED AND APPROVED ON THIS 26th DAY OF AUGUST, 2013. ATTEST: _____________________________ Laura Wheat, Mayor ______________________________ ______________________________ Kelly Edwards, Town Secretary Thomas E. Brymer, Town Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: ______________________________ L. Stanton Lowry, Town Attorney Page 1 of 2 estlake Town Council TYPE OF ACTION Regular Meeting - Consent Westlake Town Council Meeting Monday, August 26, 2013 TOPIC: Consider approval of the contract renewal agreement with the City of Keller for police services. STAFF CONTACT: Amanda DeGan, Assistant Town Manager DECISION POINTS Start Date Completion Date Timeframe: October 1, 2013 September 30, 2018 Funding: Amount - $825,748 Status- Funded Source - General Fund Decision Alignment VVM Perspective Desired Outcome Service Excellence Customer Focus CF.Promote Community Health, Safety & Welfare Strategic Issue Outcome Strategy Staff Action N/A N/A N/A Strategy Map or VVM Connection Strategic Issue Connection Page 2 of 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Since June of 2002, the Town has contracted with the City of Keller for police related services. The arrangement has provided a cost effective method to deliver high-quality municipal services for our residents, while utilizing an interlocal agreement to help support our commitment to financial stewardship. The Keller Police Department is accredited with the Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies, which results in the department adhering to over 400 recognized standards and measures as they related to quality, and professional law enforcement services. Services offered through this contract include 24 hour police patrol, traffic enforcement, criminal investigation, accident investigation/reconstruction, crime prevention programs, public safety dispatch/communications, SWAT Team, jail services, and animal control. In addition, we utilize the department for situations related to Westlake Academy, such as traffic control/direction, safety discussions on campus, security evaluations for the facilities, etc. In 2008, staff recommended a transition to a five-year renewal option for the contract with either party retaining the right to terminate with two years notice. This term allows both municipalities adequate time to make alternative service arrangements in the case of termination. With the proposed draft, we have included additional language pertaining to the provision of expanded technology services through staff access to the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) and the Texas Crime Information Center (TCIC). These databases will allow the court staff to review warrant information and driver license history. The associated costs for the police contract are adjusted on an annual basis and presented to the Council during our summer budget discussions. ORGANIZATIONAL HISTORY/RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the contract renewal. ATTACHMENTS Resolution, Exhibit A Exhibit B INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR POLICE SERVICES THE STATE OF TEXAS )( COUNTIES OF TARRANT And DENTON )( THIS AGREEMENT, is made and entered into by the CITY OF KELLER, TEXAS, a Home Rule municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as “KELLER”, and the TOWN OF WESTLAKE, TEXAS, a Type A General Law municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as “WESTLAKE”, each acting by and through its duly appointed city managers: W I T N E S E T H: WHEREAS, WESTLAKE is desirous of providing its residents and businesses with full-time police protection and services, and WHEREAS, KELLER is desirous of furnishing full-time police protection and law enforcement services to WESTLAKE and has been doing so continuously under previous Interlocal Agreements since 2002, and WHEREAS, the parties hereto desire to enter into said agreement to continue to provide police protection and law enforcement services at the highest level possible for both communities in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth herein, and WHEREAS, all payments to be made hereunder shall be made from current revenues available to the paying party; and WHEREAS, KELLER and WESTLAKE have concluded that this Agreement fairly compensates the performing party for the services being provided hereunder; and WHEREAS, KELLER and WESTLAKE believe that this Agreement is in the best interests of KELLER and WESTLAKE; and WHEREAS, this Agreement has been approved by the governing bodies of KELLER and WESTLAKE; and WHEREAS, this agreement shall be in conformance with Chapter 791 of the Texas Government Code, more commonly known as the “Interlocal Cooperation Act”. NOW THEREFORE, IN CONSIDERATION OF THE MUTUAL PROMISES AND CONSIDERATION PROVIDED FOR HEREIN, THE RECEIPT AND SUFFICIENCY OF WHICH ARE HEREBY CONFIRMED, THE PARTIES HERETO AGREE TO THE FOLLOWING: 2 Section 1. All matters stated above in the preamble are found to be true and correct and are incorporated herein by reference as if copied in their entirety. Section 2. Term. This agreement shall be for a term of five (5) years commencing on October 1, 2013 and ending September 30, 2018. If either party wishes to terminate this agreement they may do so under the requirements in Section 7 below. However, in accordance with the Texas Interlocal Cooperation Act, not later than September 30 of each year, this Agreement, or amendments thereto, including any and all revisions/calculations relating to Exhibit “A” that may be applicable to a new payment schedule, shall be subject to approval by the governing bodies of KELLER and WESTLAKE in order that it shall remain in force and funds budgeted therefore. Section 3. Scope of Services, KELLER. KELLER hereby agrees to provide WESTLAKE the following equipment, services, personnel, and facilities (Section 3 a.-l.) hereinafter collectively referred to as “police services”: a. An adequate number of police patrol units and motorcycle units to provide routine neighborhood patrol, patrol of business establishments and traffic control on all roadways within WESTLAKE and enforce the laws of the State of Texas and WESTLAKE, in such a manner as to provide adequate police services considering factors such as but not limited to housing densities, commercial development, roadway conditions, traffic flow, etc. To calculate a price for this agreement the cost of eight (8) full-time equivalents (FTE) will be used during the term of this agreement. Both parties agree that this is not a static staffing number. By sharing patrol districts between the two municipalities as shown in Exhibit “B” there will be times when WESTLAKE will receive more resources than what can be delivered by eight (8) employees to handle peak events like traffic collisions, criminal investigations, and major disturbances. WESTLAKE will not be subject to “black-out time” where no officers are unable to respond to life threatening or high priority incidents because of lack of resources in Westlake/North Keller. KELLER agrees to utilize all available resources including the use of Mutual Aid with surrounding cities. b. KELLER agrees to notify WESTLAKE when any of the two dedicated motor officers assigned to WESTLAKE for traffic enforcement will be absent from the forty (40) hour per-week assignment in an excess of one week for training, vacation, illness, or injury. KELLER will also notify WESTLAKE should there be a change of assignment of personnel to the two dedicated motor officers in WESTLAKE. Should questions arise about the attendance, performance, and conduct of the motor officers assigned to WESTLAKE or any other police personnel employed by KELLER, the Town Manager (or his/her designee) of WESTLAKE shall contact the KELLER Chief of Police about the concerns. The KELLER Chief of Police shall respond to the concerns and take the appropriate action if warranted. c. KELLER agrees to remain accredited with the Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies during this agreement. This offers WESTLAKE a level of service excellence, performance measurement, and accountability that only a select number of other law enforcement agencies in the nation can offer. 3 d. KELLER agrees to provide WESTLAKE with the full services of a Criminal Investigations Division, Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) Team, and a Community Service Officer to conduct crime prevention programs in the community and at The Westlake Academy upon a timely request. e. KELLER agrees to provide WESTLAKE with 24-hour police dispatch services, including 911 dispatching for police, fire and emergency medical service (EMS) at the NETCOM communications center at the KELLER police facility. f. KELLER agrees to provide WESTLAKE Animal control and enforcement services, and animal impound space from the Regional Animal Services Center located at the KELLER police facility. g. KELLER agrees to provide WESTLAKE Jail capacity and services for housing WESTLAKE prisoners including providing booking services at the Regional Holding facility located at the KELLER police facility. h. All human resource services necessary for the recruitment, screening, employment, and training of all personnel required to provide services to WESTLAKE under this agreement, including providing all employee polices and procedures and the administration thereof. i. All general and personal liability coverage necessary for the adequate protection of KELLER personnel providing said police services to WESTLAKE at the same level of protection afforded officers and employees while performing the same or similar duties in KELLER, provided however, that neither party shall be responsible for the other parties’ employee retirement and/or pension benefits. j. All crime reporting and maintain all required law enforcement activity reports/statistics pertinent to WESTLAKE for the purpose of providing WESTLAKE performance measures relating to services provided by KELLER in accordance with this agreement. k. To provide access to WESTLAKE’s warrant information retained by KELLER Dispatch to the WESTLAKE Town Marshal and all other law enforcement agencies. l. KELLER agrees to hold a minimum of quarterly meetings with personnel from WESTLAKE assigned by their Town Manager (or his designee) to share information and WESTLAKE will also be invited to participate in the jail and dispatch meetings with the partner cities involved in NETCOM, the Regional Holding facility, and the Regional Animal Adoption Center. m. KELLER agrees to provide the necessary support to WESTLAKE for TCIC access in the Warrant Officer vehicle and the WESTLAKE Municipal Court Office. Section 4. WESTLAKE Obligations. WESTLAKE agrees to perform the following: 4 a. Pay to KELLER the sums provided in Section 5. b. In the event a conflict between the applicable Ordinances of KELLER and WESTLAKE creates a difficulty in enforcement, KELLER shall notify WESTLAKE of such conflict. If WESTLAKE fails or refuses to amend its Ordinance(s) to be consistent with KELLER within sixty (60) days of receipt of such notice, KELLER may refrain from enforcing the conflicting Ordinance. c. Provide a facility to hold WESTLAKE Municipal Court, as well as provide the services of a Municipal Judge and prosecuting attorney. WESTLAKE shall determine both the time and place for conducting such sessions; however, its Municipal Court sessions will not conflict with the time and place of KELLER’S Municipal Court sessions. d. Arrange for WESTLAKE Municipal Judge to conduct arraignments at the KELLER Police Department whenever necessary or notified to do so by KELLER. e. If they elect to utilize a Town Marshal, WESTLAKE will provide the Marshal who will be employed and supervised by WESTLAKE, for the purpose of serving WESTLAKE municipal warrants. WESTLAKE shall be responsible for the Law Enforcement Commission for said Marshal and shall provide the required re-certification training. The Town Marshal shall have access to WESTLAKE municipal warrants retained at the KELLER dispatch. Section 5. Payments for Services Performed. All payments referred to herein shall be paid by WESTLAKE to KELLER in four (4) equal installments on the 1st day of each calendar quarter beginning October 1, 2013 in advance of the services performed by KELLER for WESTLAKE for each calendar quarter of KELLER’S fiscal year. The annual payment amount shall be KELLER’s budgeted amount for the police services being provided as reflected in Exhibit “A”. KELLER shall provide to WESTLAKE on an annual basis the cost of police services, based on KELLER’s Fiscal Year Police Department Operating Budget adjusted annually to include KELLER’s annual Police Department budget increases in personnel costs and benefits, operating costs, capital costs, and General and Administrative Charges as anticipated to be approved by the KELLER City Council during the annual budgeting process for the upcoming Fiscal Year beginning October 1, as well as any direct expenditure increase(s) necessary to serve only WESTLAKE as the result of a significant addition of a commercial/retail establishment or housing sub-division requiring dedicated permanent police resources requested by the Town Council. In the event the WESTLAKE Town Council fails or refuses to approve the annual payment amount by October 1, of any year during the term of this Agreement, such failure or refusal shall be deemed a cancellation of the Agreement pursuant to Section 7.B. herein. Section 6. Revenues Retained. All revenues, fines, forfeitures, etc. that may be generated by performing law enforcement duties within the respective municipal boundaries of KELLER and WESTLAKE shall be retained by the respective city. 5 Section 7. Cancellation. A. Either party shall have the right to terminate this agreement by giving written notice to the other party at least two (2) years prior to the subsequent October 1. All payments by WESTLAKE to KELLER shall continue until the cancellation date is reached unless a mutual agreement to the contrary is reached. B. In addition, if WESTLAKE fails or refuses to approve the annual payment amount as provided for in Section 5 hereinabove, this Agreement shall continue to be in effect for a period of two (2) years with the calculated amount due under Section 5. Section 8. Notices. All written notices shall be sent to the following parties by certified mail – return receipt requested: KELLER WESTLAKE Steve Polasek, City Manager Tom Brymer, Town Manager City of Keller Town of Westlake P.O. Box 770 3 Village Circle, Suite 202 Keller, TX 76244 Westlake, TX 76262 Section 9. Dispute Resolution. In order to ensure an effective relationship between the parties and to provide the best possible police services, it is mutually agreed that all questions arising under this Agreement shall be handled and resolved between the City Manager’s of KELLER and WESTLAKE, except that citizens and/or residents of WESTLAKE shall be provided the same access to KELLER’S City Manager, Police Chief, officers and employees as KELLER residents enjoy as it pertains to said aforementioned police services. Any issues not resolved hereunder may be referred to the respective governing bodies for resolution who hereby agree to the appointment of a court-certified (certified in Tarrant County) mediator to assist in resolving said dispute as a prerequisite to the filing of any lawsuit over such issues. Section 10. Jurisdiction. By this agreement, WESTLAKE grants full and complete authorization and jurisdiction to KELLER for all police services provided by KELLER and contained in this agreement. Said jurisdiction shall apply to the town limits of WESTLAKE as shown on Exhibit “B” attached hereto. Section 11. Venue. Venue for any legal dispute arising pursuant to this agreement shall lie in Tarrant County, Texas. No litigation shall be commenced prior to affording the other party the opportunity to participate in mediation in accordance with Section 9. Section 12. At all times during the term of this agreement, all police officers and employees shall be under the supervision and control of the Chief of Police of KELLER or his duly authorized representative, and no other person. Section 13. Both parties mutually agree that KELLER is an independent contractor, and shall have exclusive control of performance hereunder, and that employees of KELLER in no way are to be considered employees of WESTLAKE. 6 Section 14. Indemnification. WESTLAKE agrees to hold harmless, save and indemnify KELLER for any and all claims for damages, personal injury and/or death that may be asserted against KELLER arising from its performance hereunder within WESTLAKE within limits of the Texas Tort Claims Act save and except intentional acts or acts of gross negligence by KELLER. The foregoing notwithstanding, the parties hereto reserve the right to all available legal defenses and all protections and limitations of liability provided by the Texas Tort Claims Act and the Texas Constitution relative to these parties. The provisions of this indemnification are solely for the benefit of the parties hereto and not intended to create or grant any rights, contractual or otherwise, to any other person or entity. Section 15. This agreement may only be modified, changed or altered at any time, upon mutual agreement of parties, provided that any such modification, change and/or alteration be reduced to writing, and approved by the governing bodies of KELLER and WESTLAKE. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we have hereunto set our hands this the 26th day of August, 2013, in duplicate originals. CITY OF KELLER, TEXAS TOWN OF WESTLAKE, TEXAS _______________________ _____________________ By: P.H .McGrail By: Laura Wheat Mayor Mayor ________________________ _____________________ By: Steve Polasek By: Tom Brymer City Manager Town Manager ATTEST: ATTEST: ________________________ _____________________ By: Sheila Stephens By: Kelly Edwards City Secretary Town Secretary APPROVED AS TO FORM: ________________________ By: L. Stanton Lowry City Attorney 7 FISCAL YEAR 2013/14 POLICE DEPARTMENT OPERATING And GENERAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE BUDGETS FOR POLICE SERVICES TO THE TOWN OF WESTLAKE. ESTIMATE as of 8/22/2013 OPERATING BUDGET $8,274,629 Includes approximately eighty-six and one-half (86.42) full-time employee equivalents (FTEs); police patrol; traffic control, dispatch services, records, and equipment; criminal investigation services; animal control services; departmental train- ing; and capital equipment; less credit for regional communications, jail, and animal control ÷ 86.42 FTEs Cost per Full-time Employee $ 95,749 Annual Service Level Calculation: 8 FTEs (1) x $ 95,749 $ 765,992 GENERAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE CHARGES (2) $59,753 Includes services of Administration, Finance Administration, Human Resources, and Non- Operating Expense. ___________ TOTAL ANNUAL COST $ 825,745 (1) 5 Police Patrol Officers 2 Police Motorcycle Officers 1 Records Clerk 8 FTEs (2) PERCENT (%) OF RESPECTIVE ANNUAL OPERATING BUDGET USED: Administration 1% Finance Admin 2.5% Human Resources 3% Non-operating 1% EXHIBIT A ST170 ab377 ST170 ST114 µ PATROL DISTRICT 1 PATROL DISTRICT 5 K E L L E R W E S T L A K E F O R T W O R T H Page 1 of 2 estlake Town Council TYPE OF ACTION Regular Meeting - Consent Westlake Town Council Meeting Monday, August 26, 2013 TOPIC: Amending Zoning Board of Adjustment Regulations to Allow the Mayor to Sit as an Alternate STAFF CONTACT: Eddie Edwards, Director of Planning and Development DECISION POINTS Start Date Completion Date Timeframe: August 26, 2013 August 26, 2013 Funding: Amount- None. Status- N/A Source- N/A . Decision Alignment VVM Perspective Desired Outcome Exemplary Governance Operational Processes CF.Promote Community Health, Safety & Welfare Strategic Issue Outcome Strategy Staff Action N/A N/A N/A Strategy Map or VVM Connection Strategic Issue Connection Page 2 of 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Approve an amendment to the Code of Ordinances, adding a sentence stating that the Mayor may sit as an alternate on the Board of Adjustment when necessary to make a quorum. ORGANIZATIONAL HISTORY/RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of this ordinance. ATTACHMENTS Ordinance 707 Ordinance 707 Page 1 of 2 TOWN OF WESTLAKE ORDINANCE NO. 707 AMENDING THE TOWN OF WESTLAKE CODE OF ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 26, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT, SECTION 26-68; TO ALLOW THE MAYOR TO SIT AS AN ALTERNATE MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS; PROVIDING A CUMULATIVE CLAUSE; PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; PROVIDING A SAVINGS CLAUSE; AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, Section 26-68 of the Town of Westlake Code of Ordinances requires that the Town Council shall sit as the Board of Adjustments, and that all cases before the board shall be heard by at least four members; and WHEREAS, There may be times when only three Town Council Members are available to sit as the Zoning Board of Adjustments; and WHEREAS, The Mayor sitting in as an alternate member of the Zoning Board of Adjustment could avoid the need to reschedule a board hearing due to a lack of a quorum; and WHEREAS, The Town of Westlake Town Council desires to amend the Town of Westlake code of Ordinance by specifically stating that the Mayor may sit as an alternate member of the Zoning Board of Adjustments when needed to make a quorum; and WHEREAS, The Town Council of the Town of Westlake finds that the amendment set forth is in the best interests of the Town of Westlake. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF WESTLAKE, TEXAS: SECTION 1: All matters stated in the Recitals above are found to be true and correct and are incorporated herein by reference as if copied in their entirety. SECTION 2: That Chapter 26, Community Development, Section 26-68, subsection (a), of the Town of Westlake Code of Ordinances, as amended, is hereby amended to read as follows: (a) Organization. The Town Council shall sit as the Board of Adjustment for the purposes of this section. The Mayor may sit as an alternate member when necessary to make a quorum. SECTION 3: That all provisions of the Westlake Code of Ordinances not hereby amended shall remain in full force and effect. Ordinance 707 Page 2 of 2 SECTION 4: That this Ordinance shall be cumulative of all other Town Ordinances and all other provisions of other Ordinances adopted by the Town which are inconsistent with the terms or provisions of this Ordinance are hereby repealed. SECTION 5: It is hereby declared to be the intention of the Town Council of the Town of Westlake, Texas, that sections, paragraphs, clauses and phrases of this Ordinance are severable, and if any phrase, clause, sentence, paragraph or section of this Ordinance shall be declared legally invalid or unconstitutional by the valid judgment or decree of any court of competent jurisdiction, such legal invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect any of the remaining phrases, clauses, sentences, paragraphs or sections of this Ordinance, since the same would have been enacted by the Town Council of the Town of Westlake, Texas, without the incorporation in this Ordinance, of any such legally invalid or unconstitutional, phrase, sentence, paragraph or section. SECTION 6: This Ordinance shall take effect immediately from and after its passage as the law in such case provides. PASSED AND APPROVED ON THIS 26TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2013. __________________________________ Laura Wheat, Mayor ATTEST: ___________________________ __________________________________ Kelly Edwards, Town Secretary Tom Brymer, Town Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: ___________________________ L. Stanton Lowry, Town Attorney Page 1 of 2 estlake Town Council TYPE OF ACTION Regular Meeting - Consent Westlake Town Council Meeting Monday, August 26, 2013 TOPIC: Consider approval of Ordinance 708 to Implement and Enforce Motor Vehicle Idling Limitations STAFF CONTACT: Eddie Edwards, Director of Planning and Development DECISION POINTS Start Date Completion Date Timeframe: August 26, 2013 August 26, 2013 Funding: Amount- None. Status- N/A Source- N/A . Decision Alignment VVM Perspective Desired Outcome Exemplary Governance Operational Processes CF.Promote Community Health, Safety & Welfare Strategic Issue Outcome Strategy Staff Action N/A N/A N/A Strategy Map or VVM Connection Strategic Issue Connection EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Page 2 of 2 As part of a regional plan to reduce air pollutants, on May 8, 2008, the Regional Transportation Council (RTC) approved a resolution supporting locally enforced motor vehicle idling restrictions in North Central Texas. Through this initiative, the RTC encourages local government adoption of the Texas Commission of Environmental Quality’s (TCEQ) idling limitations rule as well as entrance into a North Texas memorandum of agreement (MOA) with the TCEQ for the purpose of enforcement. The MOA aims to control air pollution from motor vehicles as defined and the enforcement of the provisions of the regulations. Local government support and participation is appreciated in this effort to reduce vehicle emissions and improve air quality within the region. By participating in this regional plan, the Town will enforce idling restriction on diesel powered vehicles with a gross vehicle weight of 14,000 pounds or greater. These vehicles, while idling produce roughly 15 times more emissions than light-duty gasoline vehicles. This regional plan targets these vehicles for compliance during peak ozone producing season – between April and October – but does not hinder their operation due to allowable exemptions. Enforcement is under provisions of the Texas Administrative Code, Title 30 – Environmental Quality, Part 1 – Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, Chapter 114 – Control of Air Pollution from Motor Vehicles, Subchapter J – Operational Controls for Motor Vehicles, Division 2 – Locally Enforced Motor Vehicle Idling Limitations. Violations under this provision are subject to a fine not to exceed $500. ORGANIZATIONAL HISTORY/RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of this ordinance. ATTACHMENTS Ordinance 708 Resolution 08-50 Westlake TCEQ MOA 2006-11-06 Idling implementation plan COG Mailed Adoptees Memo Ordinance 708 Page 1 of 3 ORDINANCE NO. 708 AN ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN OF WESTLAKE TO IMPLEMENT AND ENFORCE THE TEXAS STATE RULE ON LOCALLY ENFORCED MOTOR VEHICLE IDLING LIMITATIONS AND TO APPROVE ENTERING INTO A MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT WITH THE TEXAS COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY TO ENFORCE THIS RULE LOCALLY; PROVIDING A PENALTY CLAUSE; PROVIDING A SAVINGS CLAUSE; PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AUTHORIZING PUBLICATION; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE; WHEREAS, the Dallas-Fort Worth area is a federally designated nonattainment area for the pollutant ozone and air quality impacts the public and economic health of the entire region; and WHEREAS, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) and the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (“TCEQ”) jointly have considered emission reductions to control air pollution from motor vehicles, and the Texas Legislature has created the Texas Clean Air Act (“Act”), which addresses that purpose; and WHEREAS, Section 382.113 of the Act provides authority for municipalities to enact and enforce local laws and ordinances for the control and abatement of air pollution; and WHEREAS, Locally Enforced Idling Restrictions is a Voluntary Mobile Source Emissions Reduction Program commitment in the Dallas-Fort Worth 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Demonstration State Implementation Plan (SIP); and WHEREAS, the Town of Westlake desires to actively participate in improving the air quality of the region; and WHEREAS, the Town Council finds that the adoption of this ordinance serves a public purpose, and protects the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of the Town of Westlake, by limiting the pollution created by motor vehicles unnecessarily idling within the town’s jurisdiction; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY ORDAINED THAT: Section 1. The Town Council endorses the TCEQ Idling Limitations Rule as published in the Texas Administration Code, Title 30, Part 1, Chapter 114, Ordinance 708 Page 2 of 3 Subchapter J, Operational Controls for Motor Vehicles, Division 2, Locally Enforced Motor Vehicle Idling Limitation. Section 2. The Town Council approves the adoption and implementation of the TCEQ Idling Limitation Rule by reference. Section 3. The Town Council authorizes the Town Manager to execute a Memorandum Of Agreement, attached hereto, with the TCEQ for the purposes of local enforcement of the Idling Limitation Rule in the Town of Westlake. Section 4. That this Ordinance shall be cumulative of all other Town Ordinances and all other provisions of other Ordinances adopted by the Town which are inconsistent with the terms or provisions of this Ordinance are hereby repealed. Section 5. It is hereby declared to be the intention of the Town Council of the Town of Westlake, Texas, that sections, paragraphs, clauses and phrases of this Ordinance are severable, and if any phrase, clause, sentence, paragraph or section of this Ordinance shall be declared legally invalid or unconstitutional by the valid judgment or decree of any court of competent jurisdiction, such legal invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect any of the remaining phrases, clauses, sentences, paragraphs or sections of this Ordinance, since the same would have been enacted by the Town Council of the Town of Westlake, Texas, without the incorporation in this Ordinance, of any such legally invalid or unconstitutional, phrase, sentence, paragraph or section. Section 6. That any person, firm or corporation violating any of the provisions or terms of this ordinance shall be subject to the same penalty as provided for in the Code of Ordinances of the Town of Westlake, and upon conviction shall be punishable by a fine not to exceed the sum of Five-Hundred ($500.00) for each offense. Each day that a violation is permitted to exist shall constitute a separate offense. Section 7. PUBLICATION. The Town Secretary of the Town of Westlake is hereby directed to publish in the official newspaper of the Town of Westlake, the caption, penalty clause, publication clause and the effective date of this ordinance. Section 8. This Ordinance shall take effect immediately from and after its passage as the law in such case provides. Ordinance 708 Page 3 of 3 PASSED AND APPROVED ON THIS 26TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2013. __________________________________ Laura Wheat, Mayor ATTEST: ___________________________ __________________________________ Kelly Edwards, Town Secretary Tom Brymer, Town Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: ___________________________ L. Stanton Lowry, Town Attorney 3 Village Circle, Suite 202 ~Westlake, Texas 76262 Metro: 817-430-0941 ~ Fax: 817-430-1812 ~ www.westlake-tx.org TTTOOOWWWNNN OOOFFF WWWEEESSSTTTLLLAAAKKKEEE TOWN OF WESTLAKE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR LOCALLY ENFORCED MOTOR VEHICLE IDLING LIMITATION RULE Background Limiting motor vehicle idling is one component of the Dallas-Fort Worth 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Demonstration State Implementation Plan which is the federally mandated clean air plan for the region. The locally enforced motor vehicle idling limitation rule (Texas Administrative Code, Title 30, Subsections 114.510-114.517) has been adopted by the Town of Westlake in an effort to participate in regional programs aimed at reducing harmful emissions and improving air quality. The rule is applicable only within the jurisdiction of local governments that have signed a memorandum of agreement with the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) which extends the enforcement authority of the TCEQ to that governmental entity. Education will begin February 1, 2009. Enforcement will begin April 1, 2009. Enforcement through warnings and traffic citations, including penalties of up to $500 per offense, is allowable to ensure compliance with this rule and net maximum air quality benefits. Public Education and Outreach: • Educational brochures, developed by the North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG) will be distributed to area businesses, industry associations, and other targeted sectors identified to be most affected by the rule. These brochures will include information on rule details, anti- idling technologies, potential funding assistance, and other resources. • Anti-idling signs will be ordered and installed throughout the Town of Westlake to inform citizens and truck drivers of the anti-idling ordinance. Local businesses and target areas will be encouraged to order and post signs as well. Signs are available through the NCTCOG. • A link to the NCTCOG Idling Reduction web site will be posted on the Town of Westlake web site as a resource. 3 Village Circle, Suite 202 ~Westlake, Texas 76262 Metro: 817-430-0941 ~ Fax: 817-430-1812 ~ www.westlake-tx.org Enforcement: • Appropriate personnel will be identified for enforcement activities. Activities will include identifying target areas, spotting violators, and issuing citations. Apposite personnel may include code enforcement officers and/or peace officers. • Enforcement procedures used will be consistent with section 7.351 of the Texas Water Code and any applicable local government ordinances. Recommended penalties sought in civil action will be consistent with Subchapter D of the Texas Water Code. Each violation is considered a separate offense. • Town of Westlake enforcement training programs will be updated with information on regulatory requirements and compliance procedures. • Identified enforcement personnel will establish a relationship with the NCTCOG to share information on area idling. Violations of the rule may be reported: 1) directly to local enforcement division for immediate response; or 2) to the NCTCOG through a regional public outreach Web site, www.EngineOffNorthTexas.org, or toll-free line, 877-NTX-IDLE (877- 689-4353), resulting in a letter being mailed to the owner of the reported vehicle informing him/her of local idling restrictions in North Central Texas and options to help reduce excessive idling. • Violations and action taken will be tracked on a spreadsheet. This allows both a determination of rule effectiveness and adequate follow-up for noncompliant sources. At the end of each year, a summary of enforcement will be provided to the NCTCOG upon request. Page 1 of 3 estlake Town Council TYPE OF ACTION Regular Meeting - Action Item Westlake Town Council Meeting Monday, August 26, 2013 TOPIC: Consider approval of Resolution 13-24 amending the original contract with Steele & Freeman, Inc., approved on June 17, 2013, for construction manager at-risk services establishing a guaranteed maximum price (GMP) of $8,578,694, which includes an amendment to Part A and adding Part B to Phase One of the Westlake Academy campus expansion project and authorize town staff to make funding changes not to exceed $25,000.00 on this project. STAFF CONTACT: Troy J. Meyer, Director of Facilities and Parks/Recreation and Ben Nibarger, Assistant to the Town Manager DECISION POINTS Start Date Completion Date Timeframe: August 26, 2013 December 31, 2014 Click here to enter text. Funding: Amount- $8,578,694 Status- Funded Source- Bond Issuance This Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) includes the cost site work, construction, and CMR fees. Once agreed upon, the Construction Manager at Risk, Steele & Freeman, takes on the responsibility for completing the project within the GMP. Decision Alignment VVM Perspective Desired Outcome Exemplary Governance Financial Stewardship FS.Sustain Fiscal Health Strategic Issue Outcome Strategy Staff Action Capital Investment 3. Policy and Cost Analysis Drive by GRowth (Future Assets) SA 03.3: WA Campus Page 2 of 3 Strategy Map or VVM Connection Strategic Issue Connection EXECUTIVE SUMMARY November 12, 2012 the Town Council approved the Westlake Academy master plan presented by Bennett Benner Pettit, Inc (BB&P). On January 29, 2013 the Council instructed staff to have BB&P provides architectural services for Phase I of the campus expansion. The architectural scope of work includes three new buildings: (1) single-story Multipurpose Hall (approximately 9,600 sq. ft.) (2) a three story secondary classroom building (approximately 18,900 sq. ft.), and (3) a single story field house (approximately 9,600 sq. ft.) The next was to solicit Request for Qualification (RFQ) for a construction manager at-risk for the project. The RFQ for Westlake Academy Phase I Expansion project was published in the March 2nd and 3rd, 2013 edition of the Star-Telegram. We received four proposals on March 20th from the following firms: 1. Steele & Freeman- Fix Fee -1.90% 2. SEDALCO –Fix Fee - 5.50% 3. AUI-Fix Fee - 5.25% 4. Austin Commercial - Fix Fee -2.75% Interviews with the CM at Risk firms began on March 27, 2013 and completed on April 2, 2013. A team of Town Staff ranked each proposal based on experience in educational projects, team job experience, delivering the CM at Risk method of delivery, current jobs and fees. The staff is recommending Steele & Freeman as the CM at Risk contractor for the Westlake Academy Phase I campus expansion. In June of 2013, Steele & Freeman received bids on the project which came in over budget. Staff and S&F reviewed all the bids to start the value engineering process. Project cost reductions were found in the lighting package, roof materials, plumbing, appliances, and mechanical. Additional alternative items which could (lower) or raise the cost of the project include: 1. EIFS vs. stucco $(158,189) 2. EIFS (High Impact north side of Field House) (153,880) 3. EIFS (All High Impact) (105,248) 4. Lightning Protection (All buildings) 69,484 5. Electric Flush Valves 29,086 Additional items that could reduce the project cost by approximately $60,000 but would reduce the energy efficiency of the buildings including, the roof top HVAC units, windows and frames. There is also $116,000 being carried as an allowance for casing the piers. If casing is not necessary, these funds would become part of the projects betterment. ORGANIZATIONAL HISTORY/RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends Council authorizing the Town Manager to enter into contract with Steele & Freeman, Inc. for construction manager at-risk services too establishing a guaranteed maximum Page 3 of 3 price at $8,578,694for the Phase I of the Westlake Academy campus expansion project and authorize town staff to make funding changes not to exceed $25,000.00 on this project. ATTACHMENTS Resolution 13-24 with AIA document; Exhibit A to the AIA addendum document will be provided on Monday evening, August 26, 2013 Resolution 13-24 Page 1 of 2 TOWN OF WESTLAKE RESOLUTION NO. 12-24 A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL ALLOWING THE TOWN MANAGER TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH STEELE & FREEMAN, INC. FOR CONSTRUCTION MANAGER AT-RISK SERVICES FOR PHASE ONE-PART B OF THE WESTLAKE ACADEMY CAMPUS EXPANSION PROJECT OF THE WESTLAKE ACADEMY MASTER PLAN. WHEREAS, the Town of Westlake owns and operates the Westlake Academy and provides facilities for Town and Academy use; and, WHEREAS, construction manger at risk service will provide the Town with professional and technical expertise in order to effectively provide all necessary construction services of the proposed single-story multi-purpose building, three story secondary classroom building, and one single story field house; and, WHEREAS, the Town Council finds that the passage of this Resolution is in the best interest of the citizens of Westlake. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF WESTLAKE, TEXAS: SECTION 1: That, all matters stated in the Recitals hereinabove are found to be true and correct and are incorporated herein by reference as if copied in their entirety. SECTION 2: That the Town of Westlake Town Council does hereby authorizing the Town Manager to enter into agreement with Steele & Freeman, Inc. for construction manager at- risk services establishing a guaranteed maximum price for the Phase One-Part B of the Westlake Academy campus expansion project, attached as Exhibit “A”. SECTION 3: That the Town of Westlake Town Council hereby authorizes the Town Manger or his designee to approve change orders to this agreement up to $25,000, in the aggregate, on behalf of the Town of Westlake. SECTION 4: If any portion of this Resolution shall, for any reason, be declared invalid by any court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity shall not affect the remaining provisions hereof and the Council hereby determines that it would have adopted this Resolution without the invalid provision. SECTION 5: That this resolution shall become effective from and after its date of passage. Resolution 13-24 Page 2 of 2 PASSED AND APPROVED ON THIS 26th DAY OF AUGUST 2013. ATTEST: _____________________________ Laura L. Wheat, Mayor ____________________________ ______________________________ Kelly Edwards, Town Secretary Thomas E. Brymer, Town Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: ____________________________ L. Stanton Lowry, Town Attorney Page 1 of 3 estlake Town Council TYPE OF ACTION Regular Meeting – Action Item Westlake Town Council Meeting Monday, August 26, 2013 TOPIC: Consider Approval of Resolution 13-25, authorizing the Town Manager to enter into a contract with Mesa Planning for the Town’s Comprehensive Plan Review and Update STAFF CONTACT: Tom Brymer, Town Manager DECISION POINTS Start Date Completion Date Timeframe: Recommended September, 2013 September 30, 2014 if work begins in Sept. ‘13 Estimated time frame as provided by recommended firm for this engagement. Funding: Amount- $384,950 Status- Funded Source- General Fund Note: proposal is recommended for funding in proposed FY13-14 Budget. Small amount of work could be expensed in FY12-13 if engagement begins in Sept. 2013. Decision Alignment VVM Perspective Desired Outcome Exemplary Governance Customer Focus CF. Promote Best Practice Policy Governance Strategic Issue Outcome Strategy Staff Action N/A N/A N/A Strategy Map or VVM Connection Strategic Issue Connection Page 2 of 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Reviewing and updating the Town’s existing 1992 Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan) has been identified as a Town Council priority. The existing Comprehensive Plan has not had a thorough, holistic review for possible updating since it was adopted, with the exception of changes to the land use plan portion of the Comp Plan that were made to reflect previous zoning decisions. As a point of comparison, in municipalities located in high growth areas like ours, it would be customary to perform a thorough review and update of their comprehensive plan at least once over a twenty (20) year time frame. Per that Council direction, Staff spent many hours drafting and reviewing an RFP (request for proposals) document for review and update of our Comp Plan. That RFP was issued on March 11, 2013 and posted on the Town’s web site home page for interested proposers to read and download. Electronic invitations to submit a proposal per the Town’s RFP for this engagement were sent to planning firms throughout the DFW metroplex on March 11, 2013. The RFP invitation was also placed on the American Planning Association website, the web site for the Texas chapter of the APA, and in the Star Telegram newspaper. A pre-proposal meeting to answer questions about the RFP was held on March 18, 2013 which was well attended by interested potential proposers. Proposals were accepted until April 22, 2013. The Town received two (2) proposals, both of which were responsive to the requested scope of services contained in the Town’s RFP. Both proposals are similar in total cost. A Staff team along with our outside independent consultant, Mr. Trent Petty of Petty & Associates, was assembled to review the 2 proposals and then interview the 2 teams which had submitted. Following those presentations and questions from Staff to the proposers, Staff ranked both proposals according to the criteria stated in the RFP document. The Staff ranked the proposal from the Mesa Planning team as most responsive and qualified for this engagement. Since then the Staff has been in conversation with Robin McCaffrey of Mesa Planning (Mesa) in asking further questions to clarify their proposal as well as check Mesa’s references. It is important to note that this proposed review and update of the Town’s Comp Plan utilizes an extensive public participation component utilizing a task force/steering committee appointed by the Town Council. This public involvement process helps to attain transparency in the process of reviewing the plan and insures input from the community’s various stakeholder groups in the Comp Plan’s updated content. The recommended proposal with Mesa totals $338,950. Funds are available in the Proposed FY13-14 Budget to cover this cost. Attachment No. 2 compares this proposal’s fees with those incurred by some other cities (including 2 in the DFW area, Prosper and Argyle), for the scope of planning work necessary to holistically review and update a Comp Plan. The attachment shows that the proposed fee is in alignment with the requested scope of work as compared to these other cities. If this contract is approved, next steps for the Town would be Council appointment of steering committee/task force to work with the consultant and provide input into the process for updating our Comp Plan. Page 3 of 3 ORGANIZATIONAL HISTORY/RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of this resolution authorizing the Town Manager to sign this contract with Mesa Planning for review and updating the Town’s Comp Plan per the defined scope of services in the Town’s RFP for this engagement. ATTACHMENTS 1. Resolution 2. Contract with Mesa Planning for services to review and update the Town’s Comprehensive Plan. Resolution 13-25 Page 1 of 2 TOWN OF WESTLAKE RESOLUTION 13-25 A RESOLUTION BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF WESTLAKE, TEXAS APPROVING A CONTRACT WITH MESA PLANNING FOR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REVIEW AND UPDATE SERVICES. WHEREAS, the Westlake Town Council has determined that the Town’s Comprehensive Plan has not been examined and updated in its entirety in a holistic manner since its adoption in 1992; and, WHEREAS, the Westlake Town Council has identified reviewing and updating the Town’s Comprehensive Plan as a high strategic priority; and, WHEREAS, the Town Council recognizes that this review and update is necessary in light of the passage of time since 1992, changes in conditions, development that has occurred in and around Westlake along the State Highway 114 corridor, as well as the types of development that are being undertaken today that did not exist in 1992; and, WHEREAS, the Westlake Town Council desires to utilize the services of a professional planning services firm with its team of subcontractors representing a number of disciplines necessary to perform this Comprehensive Plan review and update; and, WHEREAS, the Town Council has budgeted funding in the FY 13-14 Proposed Budget for this purpose; and WHEREAS, the Town Council finds that the passage of this Resolution is in the best interest of the citizens of Westlake. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF WESTLAKE, TEXAS: SECTION 1. THAT, all matters stated in the Recitals hereinabove are found to be true and correct and are incorporated herein by reference as if copied in their entirety. SECTION 2. THAT, the Town Council of the Town of Westlake, Texas, hereby approves the attached Contract with Mesa Planning for planning services related to reviewing and updating the Town’s Comprehensive Plan attached hereto as Exhibit “A”; and further authorizes the Town Manager to execute said agreement on behalf of the Town of Westlake. PASSED AND APPROVED ON THIS 26TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2013. ___________________________________ Laura Wheat, Mayor Resolution 13-25 Page 2 of 2 ATTEST: ________________________________ ___________________________________ Kelly Edwards, TRMC, Town Secretary Thomas E. Brymer, Town Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: ________________________________ Stan Lowry, Town Attorney Agreement Between: Owner and Architect Page 1 of 17 Document No. OAB101 (modified) Page 1 of 17 Contract Agreement Date: August 26, 2013 BETWEEN MESA Planning (hereinafter identified as the Architect) and Town of Westlake, Texas (hereinafter identified as the Owner): The Owner: Town of Westlake Owner’s Representative- Thomas E. Brymer, Town Manager Town of Westlake 3 Village Circle, Suite 202 Westlake, Texas 76202 and the Architect: MESA Planning 11700 Preston Road Suite 660-229 Dallas, Texas 75230 for the following Project: Westlake, Texas, Comprehensive Plan Update The Owner and Architect agree as follows. Agreement Between: Owner and Architect Page 2 of 17 Document No. OAB101 (modified) Page 2 of 17 TABLE OF ARTICLES 1 INITIAL INFORMATION 2 ARCHITECT’S RESPONSIBILITIES 3 SCOPE OF ARCHITECT’S BASIC SERVICES 4 ADDITIONAL SERVICES 5 OWNER’S RESPONSIBILITES 6 COPYRIGHTS AND LICENSES 7 CLAIMS AND DISPUTES 8 TERMINATION OR SUSPENSION 9 MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS 10 COMPENSATION 11 SPECIAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS 12 SCOPE OF THE AGREEMENT ARTICLE 1 INITIAL INFORMATION § 1.1 This Agreement is based on the Initial Information set forth in this Article 1 and the Scope of Work set forth in Exhibit “A” incorporated into Section 12.2 of this agreement: § 1.2 The Owner’s anticipated dates for commencement of construction and Substantial Completion of the Work are set forth below: .1 Commencement of construction date: November 1, 2013 .2 Substantial Completion date: July 31, 2014 § 1.3 The Owner and Architect may rely on the Initial Information. Both parties, however, recognize that such information may materially change and, in that event, the Owner and the Architect shall appropriately adjust the schedule, the Architect’s services and the Architect’s compensation if agreed to by both parties. ARTICLE 2 ARCHITECT’S RESPONSIBILITIES § 2.1 The Architect shall provide the professional services as set forth in Section 12.2 of this Agreement. § 2.2 The Architect shall perform its services consistent with the professional skill and care ordinarily provided by architects practicing in the same or similar locality under the same or similar circumstances. The Architect shall perform its services as expeditiously as is consistent with such professional skill and care and the orderly progress of the Project. § 2.3 Robin H. McCaffrey AIA, AICP is a representative authorized to act on behalf of the Architect with respect to the Project. § 2.4 Except with the Owner’s knowledge and consent, the Architect shall not engage in any activity, or accept any employment, interest or contribution that would reasonably appear to compromise the Architect’s professional judgment with respect to this Project. § 2.5 The Architect shall maintain Professional Liability insurance for the duration of this Agreement. If any of the requirements set forth below exceed the types and limits the Architect normally maintains, the Owner shall reimburse Agreement Between: Owner and Architect Page 3 of 17 Document No. OAB101 (modified) Page 3 of 17 the Architect for any additional cost. The Architect’s liability policy shall be a claims made policy in an amount not less than $1,000,000 per occurrence and $1,000,000 annual aggregate ARTICLE 3 SCOPE OF ARCHITECT’S BASIC SERVICES § 3.1 The Architect’s Scope of Work consists of those Work Tasks described in Section 12.2 of this agreement as Exhibit “A” and Exhibit “C”. Said services under this contract can be generally described as comprehensive planning review and update services. Said services do not include any architectural design service. § 3.1.1 The Architect shall manage the Architect’s services, consult with the Owner, research applicable design criteria, attend Project meetings, communicate with members of the Project team and report progress to the Owner. § 3.1.2 The Architect shall coordinate its services with those services provided by the Owner and the Owner’s consultants. The Architect shall be entitled to rely on the accuracy and completeness of services and information furnished by the Owner and the Owner’s consultants. The Architect shall provide prompt written notice to the Owner if the Architect becomes aware of any error, omission or inconsistency in such services or information. § 3.1.3 The Architect shall perform the work in accordance with the timeline contained in Section 12.2 of this agreement as Exhibit “B”. § 3.1.4 The Architect shall not be responsible for an Owner’s directive or substitution made without the Architect’s approval. ARTICLE 4 ADDITIONAL SERVICES § 4.1 Services requested, but not specifically included in the scope of services described in Exhibit “A” (such as additional meetings not specified in the task description), will be considered additional services. Modifications to the instruments of service, after approval by Owner, as a result of changes requested by Owner will be considered additional services and billed at an hourly rate as follows: Principal $185.00 Associate-Planning $130.00 Associate Landscape Architecture $130.00 Project manager $110.00 Designer-Planner $ 90.00 Graphics/ Marketing/ Administration $ 75.00 Engineer $220.00 Financial Consultant $240.00 Both the Owner and the Architect will agree to which billing rate specific parties are assigned for billing purposes. § 4.2 Additional Services may be provided after execution of this Agreement, without invalidating the Agreement. Except for services required due to the fault of the Architect, any Additional Services provided in accordance with this Section 4.3 shall entitle the Architect to compensation pursuant to hourly fees specified in Section 4.1 and an appropriate adjustment in the Architect’s schedule. § 4.3.1 Upon recognizing the need to perform the following Additional Services, the Architect shall notify the Owner with reasonable promptness and explain the facts and circumstances giving rise to the need. The Architect shall not proceed to provide the Additional Services until the Architect receives the Owner’s written authorization. Additional Services include: .1 Services necessitated by a change in the Initial Information, previous instructions or approvals given by the Owner, or a material change in the Project including, but not limited to, size, quality, complexity, the Owner’s schedule or budget for Cost of the Work, or procurement or delivery method; .2 Services necessitated by the Owner’s request for extensive environmentally responsible design alternatives, such as unique system designs, in-depth material research, energy modeling, or LEED certification; .3 Changing or editing previously prepared Instruments of Service necessitated by the enactment or revision of codes, laws or regulations or official interpretations; .4 Services necessitated by decisions of the Owner not rendered in a timely manner or any other failure of performance on the part of the Owner or the Owner’s consultants or contractors; Agreement Between: Owner and Architect Page 4 of 17 Document No. OAB101 (modified) Page 4 of 17 .5 Preparing digital data for transmission to the Owner’s consultants and contractors, or to other Owner authorized recipients; .6 Preparation of design and documentation for alternate bid or proposal requests proposed by the Owner; .7 Preparation for, and attendance at, a public presentation, meeting or hearing, other then those specified in Exhibit “A”; .8 Preparation for, and attendance at a dispute resolution proceeding or legal proceeding, except where the Architect is party thereto; .9 Evaluation of the qualifications of bidders or persons providing proposals; .10 Consultation concerning replacement of Work resulting from fire or other cause during construction; .11 Assistance to the Initial Decision Maker, if other than the Architect. ARTICLE 5 OWNER’S RESPONSIBILITIES § 5.1 Unless otherwise provided for under this Agreement, the Owner shall provide information in a timely manner regarding requirements for and limitations on the Project.. Within 15 days after receipt of a written request from the Architect, the Owner shall furnish the requested information to the extent the Owner has such information and to the extent such information is such information is not available elsewhere and the information is necessary and relevant for the Architect to complete the Project. § 5.2 The Owner shall identify a representative authorized to act on the Owner’s behalf with respect to the Project. The Owner shall render decisions and approve the Architect’s submittals in a timely manner in order to avoid unreasonable delay in the orderly and sequential progress of the Architect’s services. § 5.3 When requested, the Owner shall furnish any available City materials related to the economic assessment considerations described in Exhibit “A” such as the City Budget and economic development initiatives. § 5.4 Upon request The Owner shall furnish all Plans, Studies, Ordinances, Policies, Surveys, and / or regulations regarding the Planning Area. § 5.5 The Owner shall furnish any useful base maps, digital map files, development proposals, and/ or zoning submittal documents in the possession of the Owner and as requested by the Architect. § 5.6 The Owner shall coordinate the services of its own consultants with those services provided by the Architect. Upon the Architect’s request, the Owner shall furnish copies of the scope of services in the contracts between the Owner and the Owner’s consultants to the extent those agreements or services are applicable to the Scope of Work in this Agreement, as determined by the Owner. The Owner shall furnish the instruments of service of consultants other than those designated in this Agreement when the Architect requests such information and demonstrates that they are reasonably required by the scope of the Project. ARTICLE 6 COPYRIGHTS AND LICENSES § 6.1 The Architect and the Owner warrant that in transmitting Instruments of Service, or any other information, the transmitting party is the copyright owner of such information or has permission from the copyright owner to transmit such information for its use on the Project. If the Owner and Architect intend to transmit Instruments of Service or any other information or documentation in digital form, they shall endeavor to establish necessary protocols governing such transmissions. § 6.2 The Architect and the Architect’s consultants shall release all rights as the authors and owners of their respective Instruments of Service, including the Drawings and Specifications, which shall be considered a Work for Hire, and shall belong to the Town. Submission or distribution of Instruments of Service to meet official regulatory requirements or for similar purposes in connection with the Project is not to be construed as publication in derogation of the rights of the Town. However, nothing in this section prohibits the Architect and the Architect’s consultants from utilizing summaries and provisions of the Instruments of Service, including the Drawings and Specifications, required by the Owner under this contract, for sales and marketing purposes. § 6.3 Upon execution of this Agreement, the Architect grants to the Owner a non-exclusive license to use the Architect’s Instruments of Service solely and exclusively for purposes of using, maintaining, altering and adding to the Instrument of Service, provided that the Owner substantially performs its obligations, including prompt payment of Agreement Between: Owner and Architect Page 5 of 17 Document No. OAB101 (modified) Page 5 of 17 all sums when due, under this Agreement. The Architect shall obtain similar nonexclusive licenses from the Architect’s consultants consistent with this Agreement. The license granted under this section permits the Owner to authorize the City Staff and others as well as the Owner’s consultants and separate contractors, to reproduce applicable portions of the Instruments of Service. If the Architect rightfully terminates this Agreement for cause as provided in Section 8.4, the license granted in this Section 6.3 shall terminate. ARTICLE 7 CLAIMS AND DISPUTES § 7.1 GENERAL § 7.1.1 The Owner and Architect shall commence all claims and causes of action, whether in contract, tort, or otherwise, against the other arising out of or related to this Agreement in accordance with the requirements of the method of binding dispute resolution selected in this Agreement within the period specified by applicable law, but in any case not more than 10 years after the date of Substantial Completion of the Work. The Owner and Architect waive all claims and causes of action not commenced in accordance with this Section 7.1.1. § 7.1.2 To the extent damages are covered by property insurance, the Owner and Architect waive all rights against each other and against the contractors, consultants, agents and employees of the other for damages, except such rights as they may have to the proceeds of such insurance. The Owner or the Architect, as appropriate, shall require of the contractors, consultants, agents and employees of any of them similar waivers in favor of the other parties enumerated herein. § 7.1.3 The Architect and Owner waive consequential damages for claims, disputes or other matters in question arising out of or relating to this Agreement. This mutual waiver is applicable, without limitation, to all consequential damages due to either party’s termination of this Agreement, except as specifically provided in Section 8.7. § 7.2 MEDIATION § 7.2.1 Any claim dispute or other matter in question arising out of or related to this Agreement shall be subject to mediation as a condition precedent to binding dispute resolution. If such matter relates to or is the subject of a lien arising out of the Architect’s services, the Architect may proceed in accordance with applicable law to comply with the lien notice or filing deadlines prior to resolution of the matter by mediation or by binding dispute resolution. § 7.2.2 The Owner and Architect shall endeavor to resolve claims, disputes and other matters in question between them by mediation. A request for mediation shall be made in writing, delivered to the other party to the Agreement, and filed with the person or entity administering the mediation. The request may be made concurrently with the filing of a Petition or other appropriate demand for binding dispute resolution but, in such event, mediation shall proceed in advance of binding dispute resolution proceedings, which shall be stayed pending mediation for a period of 60 days from the date of filing, unless stayed for a longer period by agreement of the parties or court order. § 7.2.3 The parties shall share the mediator’s fee and any filing fees equally. The mediation shall be held in the place where the Project is located, unless another location is mutually agreed upon. Agreements reached in mediation shall be enforceable as settlement agreements in any court having jurisdiction thereof. § 7.2.4 If the parties do not resolve a dispute through mediation pursuant to this Section 7.2, the method of binding dispute resolution shall be a trial in the District Court of Tarrant County, Texas pursuant to Section 7.3 of this Agreement ARTICLE 8 TERMINATION OR SUSPENSION § 8.1 If the Owner fails to make payments to the Architect in accordance with this Agreement, such failure shall be considered substantial nonperformance and cause for termination or, at the Architect’s option, cause for suspension of performance of services under this Agreement. If the Architect elects to suspend services, the Architect shall give seven days’ written notice to the Owner before suspending services. In the event of a suspension of services, the Architect shall have no liability to the Owner for delay or damage caused the Owner because of such suspension of services. Before resuming services, the Architect shall be paid all sums due prior to suspension and any expenses incurred in the interruption and resumption of the Architect’s services. The Architect’s fees for the remaining services and the time schedules shall be equitably adjusted. § 8.2 If the Owner suspends the Project, the Architect shall be compensated for services performed prior to notice of such suspension. When the Project is resumed, the Architect shall be compensated for expenses incurred in the interruption and resumption of the Architect’s services. The Architect’s fees for the remaining services and the time schedules shall be equitably adjusted. Agreement Between: Owner and Architect Page 6 of 17 Document No. OAB101 (modified) Page 6 of 17 § 8.3 If the Owner suspends the Project for more than 90 cumulative days for reasons other than the fault of the Architect, the Architect may terminate this Agreement by giving not less than seven days’ written notice. § 8.4 Either party may terminate this Agreement upon not less than seven days’ written notice should the other party fail substantially to perform in accordance with the terms of this Agreement through no fault of the party initiating the termination. § 8.5 The Owner or Architect may terminate this Agreement for their convenience and without cause upon not less than seven days’ written notice and their mutual consent to do so. § 8.6 In the event of termination not the fault of the Architect, the Architect shall be compensated for services performed prior to termination, together with Reimbursable Expenses then due. § 8.8 The Owner’s rights to use the Architect’s Instruments of Service in the event of a termination of this Agreement are set forth in Article 6 and Section 10.9. ARTICLE 9 MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS § 9.1 This Agreement shall be governed by the law of the place where the Project is located. § 9.3 The Owner and Architect, respectively, bind themselves, their agents, successors, assigns and legal representatives to this Agreement. Neither the Owner nor the Architect shall assign this Agreement without the written consent of the other. § 9.4 Nothing contained in this Agreement shall create a contractual relationship with or a cause of action in favor of a third party against either the Owner or Architect. § 9.5 Unless otherwise required in this Agreement, the Architect shall have no responsibility for the discovery, presence, handling, removal or disposal of, or exposure of persons to, hazardous materials or toxic substances in any form at the Project site. § 9.6 Subject to the provisions contained in Section 6.2, the Architect shall have the right to include photographic or artistic representations of the design of the Project among the Architect’s promotional and professional materials. The Architect shall be given reasonable access to the completed Project to make such representations. However, the Architect’s materials shall not include the Owner’s confidential or proprietary information if the Owner has previously advised the Architect in writing of the specific information considered by the Owner to be confidential or proprietary. § 9.7 If the Architect or Owner receives information specifically designated by the other party as “confidential” or “business proprietary,” the receiving party shall keep such information strictly confidential and shall not disclose it to any other person except to (1) its employees, (2) those who need to know the content of such information in order to perform services or construction solely and exclusively for the Project, or (3) its consultants and contractors whose contracts include similar restrictions on the use of confidential information. ARTICLE 10 COMPENSATION § 10.1 For the Architect’s Basic Services described in Exhibit “A”, the Owner shall compensate the Architect and total fee as follows: PART ONE: ASSESSMENTS $52,012 1.1 Population and Demographic Profile 1.2 Existing Conditions 1.3 Circulation Analysis 1.4 Infrastructure capacity Analysis 1.5 Land Developability Analysis 1.1 Assessment Findings Report PART TWO: VISIONING $16,309 2.1 Community Goals and Objectives 2.2 The Framework plan PART THREE: PLAN ELEMENTS $107,743 3.1 Land Use and Land Use Sustainability 3.2 Transportation and Community Fabric Sustainability Agreement Between: Owner and Architect Page 7 of 17 Document No. OAB101 (modified) Page 7 of 17 3.3 Town Design 3.4 Park, Open Space, Trails, and Environmental Sustainability 3.5 Housing 3.6 Public Facilities 3.7 Solana Revitalization d Town center 3.8 Policy Recommendations and Plan Tabulations PART FOUR: IMPLEMENTATION $48,702 4.1 Economic Development Strategy 4.2 Growth Management Strategy 4.3 Plan Benchmarks 4.4 Code Performance Review PART FIVE: ENGAGEMENT/ COMMUNICATION $94,077 5.1 Engagement 5.2 Communication SUBTOTAL (without Reimbursables) $318,843 REIMBURSABLES (not to exceed 6.3% of basic fee upon proof of allowable eexpense) $20,027 TOTAL FEE $338,950 § 10.2 For Additional Services, the Owner shall compensate the Architect in accordance with the following hourly fee schedule: Principal $185.00 Associate-Planning $130.00 Associate Landscape Architecture $130.00 Project manager $110.00 Designer-Planner $ 90.00 Graphics/ Marketing/ Administration $ 75.00 Engineer $220.00 Financial Consultant $240.00 Both the Owner and the Architect will agree to which billing rate specific parties are assigned for billing purposes. § 10.3 Compensation to the Architect shall be on a progress billing basis in which the Owner will be invoiced based on the percent of any Task (as described in Exhibit “A”) completed at the time of the invoice. § 10.8 COMPENSATION FOR REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES § 10.8.1 Reimbursable Expenses are in addition to compensation for Basic and Additional Services, are subject to cap shown in Section 10.8.2, and include only actual proven expenses incurred by the Architect and the Architect’s consultants directly related to the Project, as follows: .1 Transportation and authorized out-of-town travel and subsistence; .2 Long distance services, dedicated data and communication services, teleconferences, Project Web sites, acquisition of data, and extranets; .3 Fees paid for securing approval of authorities having jurisdiction over the Project, or other permit/ registration fees; .4 Printing, reproductions, plots, standard form documents, binding, scanning, digitizing; .5 Postage, handling and delivery; .6 Expense of overtime work requiring higher than regular rates, if authorized in advance by the Owner; .7 Renderings, models, mock-ups, professional photography, and presentation materials requested by the Owner; .8 Architect’s Consultant’s expense of professional liability insurance dedicated exclusively to this Project, or the expense of additional insurance coverage or limits if the Owner requests such insurance in excess of that normally carried by the Architect’s consultants; [Unless this provision is applicable to this contract, take it out) .9 All taxes levied on professional services and on reimbursable expenses; .10 Site office expenses; and Other similar Project-related expenditures. Agreement Between: Owner and Architect Page 8 of 17 Document No. OAB101 (modified) Page 8 of 17 § 10.8.2 Reimbursable Expenses shall not exceed $20,027 without the Owner’s consent. § 10.9 PAYMENTS TO THE ARCHITECT § 10.9.1 Unless otherwise agreed, payments for services shall be made monthly in proportion to services performed. Payments are due and payable within 45 days after presentation of the Architect’s invoice. § 10.9.3 The Owner shall not withhold amounts from the Architect’s compensation as a deferred payment or to impose a penalty or liquidated damages on the Architect, or to offset sums requested by or paid to contractors for the cost of changes in the Work unless the Architect agrees or has been found liable for the amounts in a binding dispute resolution proceeding. § 10.9.4 If the Owner fails to make payments to the Architect in accordance with this agreement, such failure shall be considered substantial non-performance and cause for termination or, at the Architect’s option, cause for suspension of performance of service under this agreement. If the Architect elects to suspend service, prior to suspension of services, the Architect shall give seven (7) days written notice to the Owner. In the event of a suspension of services, the Architect shall have no liability to the Owner for delay or damage caused to the Owner because of such suspension of services. Before resuming services, the Architect shall be paid all sums due prior to suspension As agreed to by Owner. § 10.9.5 Records of Reimbursable Expenses shall be provided prior to receiving reimbursement. Expenses pertaining to Additional Services, and services performed on the basis of hourly rates shall be available to the Owner within 5 calendar days after request. ARTICLE 11 SPECIAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS Special terms and conditions that modify this Agreement are as follows: § 11.1 Not included are the following: a. Utility Design Engineering (water, sewer, storm, electrical, cable, telephone, etc.) b. Illustrative plans, models and drawings not specifically described in the Scope of Services c. TDLR Submittal j. As Built Drawings k. Architectural Public Facility Space Needs Assessment § 11.2 The Architect may subcontract consultants in the performance of any services described in this agreement(with Owner approval). Approved sub-contractors include Gresham Smith and Partners, RCLCO, Mosaic, Ashley Shook, and Eli Pearson. § 11.3 The Architect does not act as a General Contractor or Prime Contractor in any way, or accept responsibility, for poor workmanship on the part of others that are not part of this consultant team. § 11.4 The Texas Board of Architectural Examiners has jurisdiction over complaints regarding the professional practices of persons registered as Architects in Texas. Texas Board of Architectural Examiners, P.O. Box 12337, Austin, Texas 78711-2337; tele: 512.305.9000; fax: 512.305.9005; e-mail: www.tbae.state.tx.us. § 11.10 The Architect shall indemnify and hold the Owner harmless from and against any and all loss, claims, actions, damages, liability and expense in connection with loss of life, personal injury, damage to property or any other loss or injury arising directly from or out of the negligent performance of the Work. The Architect shall not be required, however, to indemnify any party against a claim arising from the willful misconduct or negligence of that party. § 11.11 Should any provision contained in this Agreement for any reason be held to be void, invalid, illegal or unenforceable, such determination shall not affect any other provision hereof and this Agreement shall be considered as if the entirety of such void, invalid or unenforceable provision had never been contained in this Agreement. Agreement Between: Owner and Architect Page 9 of 17 Document No. OAB101 (modified) Page 9 of 17 § 11.12 Notification to either party by the other that is required under this Agreement shall be personally delivered or mailed to such party at the following respective addresses: Town of Westlake: Thomas E. Brymer, Town Manager Town of Westlake 3 Village Circle, Suite 202 Westlake, TX 76262 Phone: 817-490-5720 MESA Planning: Robin McCaffrey AIA, AICP MESA Planning 11700 Preston Road, Suite 660-299 Dallas, TX 75230 Phone: 214-535-7484 ARTICLE 12 SCOPE OF THE AGREEMENT § 12.1 This Agreement represents the entire and integrated agreement between the Owner and the Architect and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations or agreements, either written or oral. This Agreement may be amended only by written instrument signed by both Owner and Architect. § 12.2 This Agreement is comprised of the following documents listed below: .1 Document OAB101, Agreement Between Owner and Architect .2 Exhibit “A” Scope of Work to be done by MESA for Town, attached hereto and incorporated herein and MESA’s Proposal, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein. .3 Exhibit “B” Timeline .4 Exhibit C, Town’s Request for Proposal for Comprehensive Planning Update Services AND Architect’s Response for Request for Proposal, shall serve as an interpretive document for Exhibits A and B. This Agreement entered into as of August 26, 2013. OWNER (Signature) ARCHITECT (Signature) Thomas E. Brymer, Town Manager Robin H. McCaffrey AIA, AICP, Senior Principal Town of Westlake Agreement Between: Owner and Architect Page 10 of 17 Document No. OAB101 (modified) Page 10 of 17 This Page Blank Agreement Between: Owner and Architect Page 11 of 17 Document No. OAB101 (modified) Page 11 of 17 EXHIBIT “A” SCOPE OF SERVICES: PREPARATION OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BY MESA FOR TOWN OF WESTLAKE PART ONE: ASSESSMENTS A CONTEXT FOR COMMUNITY VISION • 1.1. Information Reports, Presentations, Graphics, Maps and other Tools - Architect will prepare an informational report prior to Workshops. The report will be based upon Architect’s investigations and analyses needed to inform Workshop participants of background, facts, legal framework, and other factors to allow participants to participate in the Workshops in an informed manner. • 1.2. Population and Demographic Profile – Architect will prepare a population and demographic profile of Town of Westlake, including benchmarks, comparison between Westlake and other cities in Tarrant and Denton counties, a comparison of population projections from MESA and those from NCTCOG, and a report on the effect of population growth and area demographics on Westlake Academy and expansion plans . • 1.3. Identify existing conditions, including drainage patterns, natural corridors, activity centers, development patterns, cultural landmarks or features, economic indicators, as well as current plans, studies, zoning designations or instruments. The assessment will identify significant aspects of any of the above listed items in regard to all aspects of future development, and will include strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and liabilities. • 1.4. Traffic / Transit Analysis – including existing and future patterns of traffic, demands on roadways within Westlake, review of traffic, alternate transit and pedestrian systems, the effect of such systems and increased volume on land use plans and consideration of the effect of these systems in regard to existing PD ordinances and the right-of-way dedications or other roadway provisions within those ordinances, and the effect of those provisions upon the overall Town. • 1.5. Infrastructure Capacity Analysis – includes public and private utilities, including neighboring utility systems, the effect on service to future population, including commercial development, identification of limitations and chokepoints within existing systems, and projection of future demand. • 1.6. Land Developability Analysis – Land Developability, when used in this Agreement, means the suitability of a defined or identified parcel of area of land for different types of development. Development of a report and a map that graphically portrays the traffic / transit analysis and infrastructure capacity analysis and defines areas most and least suitable for different types of development. This analysis includes topography, drainage, protected resources, jurisdictional overlays, vegetative communities, existing / on-coming land uses and other information set out in this Part One. The report will also cover the relationship between land developability and the trajectory of land development trends. • 1.7. Assessment Findings Report – MESA will prepare a combined document that will include all the above described analysis and information and will include findings, opinions and conclusions in regard to land development trends and land developability. The combined document will include an original report, and all pertinent maps, charts, graphs, and ilustrations as well as a written summary of their significance to the Town. The document will include a summary of the conditions existing when the 1992 Comprehensive Plan was developed and the extent to which those conditions have changed and require updates to the existing document. Recommendations of specific updates will be made. At a minimum, updates will include those areas of concern identified in the RFP. 1.2 Deliverable for Part One: • A written information report and presentation to be given at the start of the first Workshop. • Written Assessment Findings Report (sub-component 1 of the Comprehensive Plan Update) with text and graphics for each of the tasks described above. • Written Assessment Findings presentation power point for Workshop 1 Meetings: • Workshop #1 (see engagement, Part Five) • Steering Committee meeting • Focus group meetings and Interviews (see engagement, Part Five) • Milestone meeting with staff Agreement Between: Owner and Architect Page 12 of 17 Document No. OAB101 (modified) Page 12 of 17 PART TWO: VISIONING A FRAMEWORK FOR THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE The Vision Plan for the Town of Westlake must manifest the Goals and Objectives of the Community, while establishing a strategy for implementation that will effectively guide and direct future development within the Town. The Framework is the template of the Plan that assures its fulfillment of community aspirations and values. • 2.1. Development of Goals and Objectives for Comprehensive Plan – MESA will use input from participants in the first public workshop to develop goals and objectives for the Westlake Comprehensive Plan Update, including land use, traffic / transit and pedestrian systems, urban design, economic development, and the Town’s relationship to Westlake Academy. MESA will review and compare community input with Assessment Findings descried above in Part One and will determine which goals address the greatest range of issues. • 2.2. Framework Plan – As used in this Agreement, “Framework Plan” means a written report with any associated or necessary graphics (maps, charts, etc.) that sets out the goals and objectives both textually and graphically (districts, edges, nodes, portals, linkages, zones, landmarks and interfaces). MESA will prepare a Framework Plan that will effectively and clearly set out the consensus of the Workshop participants and the goals and objectives. Deliverable for Part Two: • A summation of goals and objectives according to their strategic significance. • A graphic Framework Plan with associated text and support graphics. • A Goals and Objectives and Framework Power point for Workshop #2 (see engagement section Part Five) Meetings: • Workshop #2 (see engagement, Part Five) • Steering Committee meeting • 2 Milestone reviews, one with staff and one other as staff directs. • Remaining focus groups or interviews not completed in Part One (see engagement, Part Five) PART THREE: PLAN ELEMENTS ARTICULATING THE VISION OF SUSTAINABILITY The Plan Elements identified for the Westlake Comprehensive Plan Update will serve to direct and facilitate desired development in the future, preserving the form of the Town consistent with the vision manifested in the Planning Framework. • 3.1. Land Use and Land Use Sustainability – provide a Land Use Plan (“Plan”) that will be more form based and relate the issues of form (density, square footage, value, and use ranges and the relationship of such items to ad valorem tax goals). Provide a Plan that will allow for growth of the ad valorem tax base to give the Town the financial capacity needed to provide for health, safety, welfare and education needs of the future. The Plan will set out sue hierarchies and transitions. The Plan will consist of a plan graphic and associated designation of land use districts that apply land use performance standards. • 3.2 Transportation and Community Sustainability – MESA will prepare a clear, understandable, written report setting out the relationship in Westlake between traffic densities, economic value, and community development. The report will set out a Transportation Plan which will address the regional and local systems of transit in the Town of Westlake, review the existing thoroughfare system and its potential for change in conjunction with the Future Land Use Plan and will consider the introduction of an alternative transportation system. The Transportation Plan will set out current and anticipated traffic levels and the effect of such traffic in regard to the Future Land Use Plan and factors or ways that a balance between land use and transportation can be achieved in order to maintain quality of life standards. The Transportation Plan will include both thematic and functional elements as well as recommended improvements to the existing system. The Transportation Plan will also consist of a plan graphic and associated designations. • 3. 3. Town Design Structure – The Town Design Structure Plan will be prepared as a written and graphic document that includes roadways, portals, district, core areas, public spaces, key intersections, and connections and will focus upon enhancement of the public realm in the Town of Westlake. It will identify design initiatives that can be incorporated within the management and design structure of the Town. • 3.4. Parks, Open Space and Trail Plan; and Environmental Sustainability – The Parks, Open Space and Trail Plan will set out in writing and graphically the green infrastructure of Westlake, defining and protecting the natural assets of the community. It will include both active and passive spaces; create a network of connectivity that includes parks, trails, recreational areas and passive open spaces as well as protected natural assets. The Parks, Open Space and Trail Plan will promote the role that surface water management Agreement Between: Owner and Architect Page 13 of 17 Document No. OAB101 (modified) Page 13 of 17 plays in sustaining biodiversity, habitat and visual identity. The Parks, Open Space and Trail Plan will seek to connect natural assets and natural corridors and preserve distributions of water deposited soils, plant communities, and active water courses. • 3.5. Housing – MESA will prepare a written and graphic Housing Plan that will consider expansion of housing options, while taking into account housing entitlements already existing in Planned Development Ordinances. The Housing Plan will investigate means by which existing housing trends (in price and community design) can co-exist with externally driven housing demands taking into account the ability to accommodate such demand in relation to established PD ordinances. The Housing Plan will identify housing availability (housing stock inventory) and developable land (within the context of the Land Use Plan) and identify where existing housing options will likely continue and where newer, more diverse housing option may emerge. These allocations will take into consideration emerging housing trends generally and the extent to which those trends are finding market success locally. • 3.6. Public Facilities – Written recommendations regarding emergency and fire services, based upon industry standards, for the future and identify a preferred location for Town Hall. Costs of emergency and fire services in relation to ad valorem tax values in relation to the Future Land Use Plan to sustain future quality of life. • 3.7. Solana Revitalization and Town Center – At present, Solana offers a potential to provide an anchor for a Town Center. A viable Town Center includes public and private investment around a shared public domain. A written report and graphic presentation setting out Solana as a Town Center that could include municipal facilities, integral housing, and an expanded public space will be provided. • 3.8. Policy Recommendations and Plan Tabulations – Each of the above described plan elements portrays the build out of Westlake. Summations of the Plans described above will be presented that identify population capacity and economic implications of build out in terms of employment and value added to the Town’s GDP. The Westlake Comprehensive Plan will consist of a number of physical and programmatic plan elements that will help direct future growth and development for the Town. Once these plan elements are identified, a list of written, clearly articulated policy recommendations will be generated and organized by plan element to facilitate implementation. Deliverable for Part Three: • A Plan Elements Report (sub-component 2 of the Comprehensive Plan Update that includes all the reports or graphics descried above) that brings the work of Part Two and Part Three into a single document (as described above) with text and graphics flowing from each of the tasks described above. • Assessment, Framework, and Plan Elements power point for Workshop 3 Meetings: • Workshop #3 (see engagement, Part Five) • Steering Committee meeting • 2 Milestone reviews, one with staff and one other as staff directs. • 2 follow up meetings with critical land owners PART FOUR: IMPLEMENTATION REALIZING THE VISION To facilitate realization of the Community Vision, certain elements are needed for plan implementation. These speak to the regulatory instruments, agencies, and measures that collectively guide future growth and development. 4.1 Economic Development Strategy. As Westlake continues to grow, it will become even more important to define how development will occur within the town. The processes, roles, and responsibilities of both public and private interest will be articulated, in a written, clearly articulated, easy-to understand report so as to encourage the type of development desired and to provide the tax base necessary to support a quality of life preferred by the Westlake Community. MESA will therefore work in conjunction with Council, Staff, Planning and Development Commission, the Planning Steering Committee, and the economic development committee to define an economic development strategy for the Town, Which will include features such as Funding Mechanisms/ District Designations, Administration and Oversight, and Project Prioritization criteria in the written report. The key role of economic development strategy in the Future Land Use Plan is to promote value while the growth management elements (described below) direct both capture of value and the transfer of value through good design. 4.2 Growth Management Strategy. The ultimate objective of the Comprehensive Plan is to provide a tool to assist in the direction and management of future growth and development. In the implementation strategy, to be prepared as a written, clearly articulated, easy to understand report, the attainment of values as represented by the Land Use Plan will be facilitated by allocation of various plan recommendations and actions to value related issues (such as Agreement Between: Owner and Architect Page 14 of 17 Document No. OAB101 (modified) Page 14 of 17 capture of mature value and the transfer of value to promote orderly form and community viability). This will be presented as a growth management “tool kit,” which includes the Future Land Use Plan, proposed regulations, written recommendations, elements of which are related to the above described value considerations. 4.3 Plan Benchmarks. Over time, it will become necessary to access the relevance and applicability of the proposed Westlake Comprehensive Plan also referred to in this document as the Future Land Use Plan. Due to the potential for rapid change within the Highway 114 Corridor, it becomes important to be able to identify when the Comprehensive Plan requires recalibration and further updates. MESA will work with the Town to develop an internal performance evaluation tool for the Comprehensive plan (Future Land Use Plan), to ensure the relevance of this plan in future years. This will allow for appropriate updates while preserving consistency and intent of the original document. 4.4 Code Performance Review. The institutionalization of entitlements within planned development ordinances, the changing conditions within Westlake, and the changing conditions outside of Westlake; challenge the effectiveness of existing zoning and subdivision code. Therefore, MESA will perform a Code Performance Review with recommendations regarding revision, reorganization, and rewriting. Deliverable for Part Four: • Reports and graphics as designated above. • An Implementation Interim Report (sub-component 3 of the Comprehensive Plan Update) with text and graphics flowing from each of the tasks described above. • Assessment, Framework, and Plan Elements power point for Workshop 3 Meetings: • Staff Work Session • Steering Committee meeting • Milestone review with staff. PART FIVE: ENGAGEMENT/ COMMUNICATIONS GUIDING THE PLANNING PROCESS The foundation of this Comprehensive Plan Update is the public participation in its formulation and public support of its adoption. Therefore, the Engagement/ Communications portion of this proposal is critically important. 5.1 Engagement. The engagement portion of this proposal will consist of workshops and focus groups engaged as follows: Workshop 1: Goals and Objectives Upon completion of the Assessments Identified in Part One, MESA will conduct public Workshop #1. At this workshop, the various assessments will be presented, as informed participation creates more meaningful dialogue concerning community vision. After the assessments are presented, workshop participants will break out into groups based upon character districts identified in the assessment analysis. Each of these breakout groups will have an appointed facilitator who will be a member of that particular region. Within that breakout group, workshop participants will be encouraged to explore the issues and attributes that the comprehensive plan should address. This will provide direction for elements of the plan that pertain to land use, circulation (including traffic / transit analysis and pedestrian areas), urban design, and economic development and other factors identified above. Workshop 2: Planning Framework A Planning Framework will be fashioned through the process of Workshop 2. This workshop starts with a presentation of the goals and objectives identified in Workshop 1. These goals and objectives and their application to the Town are once again discussed in breakout groups which will consider how those goals and objectives will take form in the Future Land Use Plan. These applications are summarized by the Planning Team in a diagrammatic form called the Framework Plan. The workshop participants are asked to determine whether the Framework Plan effectively represents the goals and objectives established in Workshop 1. This Planning Framework is the publically crafted vision element that will guide the formulation of plan elements. Workshop 3: Putting It All Together Agreement Between: Owner and Architect Page 15 of 17 Document No. OAB101 (modified) Page 15 of 17 At Workshop 3, the Planning Elements will be presented to all workshop participants. Key to the success of this project is the transition of the plan from MESA and workshop participants to community leaders. For this reason, the steering committee who up to this point serve as facilitators, will assume a more significant role in the presentation of plan elements. This change in duties is important in the transition of the plan from the MESA Planning Team to the community. The success of this plan will depend, to a large degree on their continued leadership, and this committee will ultimately advocate the plan with regard to future planning activity. Workshop #3 therefore, becomes the point of transition and ultimately, plan ownership by the community it is intended to serve. Focus Groups and interviews. During the Assessment Phase of this planning process sessions will be held with particular community members who generally do not participate in public events. These include land owners, other jurisdictional interests, and the Academy. Therefore, individual focus group sessions will be conducted to solicit their input. Focus group parties include: • Land Owner/ Developer Stakeholders (Hillwood Properties, Solana, Terra Bella, Centurion American) • Educational Stakeholders (Westlake Academy, Deloitte University, overlying school districts) • Home Builders • Daytime population representatives • Business Stakeholders (Chamber, Fidelity, other major employers) In addition, interviews/ surveys will be conducted. Parties to be interviewed/ surveyed include: • Agencies ( candidates include NCTCOG, Metroport City partnership, Tarrant County transportation Council, I-35 Coalition, Trophy Club Municipal Utility District, City of Ft. Worth, Trinity River Authority, Local TxDOT) • Neighboring Municipal and County Governments (candidates include Trophy Club, Roanoke, Southlake, Ft. Worth, Keller, Tarrant County key officials) • Town Government (Mayor, Town Council, Planning and Zoning Commission, Historical Preservation Committee, Public Arts Society, Westlake Affiliate groups) 5.2 Communication. The communication portion of this proposal will consist of web portal and milestone touch points as follows: Interactive Web portal. The Planning Team will design and develop an interactive, user friendly website version for the Comprehensive Plan Update capable of displaying maps, photos, commentary, presentation materials, and report summaries to inform the public about the plan process on an on-going basis. The website will enable citizens to post comments and to share the publications on social sites such as Facebook and Twitter. The website will also feature a Content Management System that will enable the administrator/ editor of the site to upload photos or maps and input text so that updating the site is easy and instantaneous. The content management feature will have blogging and sharing abilities. Features of the website include: • A homepage that identified the Westlake Comprehensive Plan Update website (with link to it from the city website) • Links that correspond to the phases of the plan process. • Drop down menu or secondary navigation that has options such as maps, pictures, report summaries, workshops, citizen comments, etc. • A designated place for citizen comment • Content management system for managing web content Steering Committee Meetings The Planning Team will attend a predetermined number of meetings with the Steering Committee (3 are recommended, one meeting before each workshop to review workshop material). The Steering Committee members will be appointed by the Client group. Milestone Updates. As indicated in the meetings itemized in the above work description, there are points along the way for milestone updates with staff and (where indicated) others identified by staff. These occur during Part Two, Part Three, and Part Four. These meetings are in addition to steering committee meetings, public hearings, focus groups, and interviews. Joint Council Commission Staff Work Session. This joint council/ commission/ staff work session is critical to the use of the plan, by each body and the staff, as a growth management tool. During this work session, the planning team will walk through the Agreement Between: Owner and Architect Page 16 of 17 Document No. OAB101 (modified) Page 16 of 17 Comprehensive Plan document, explaining its use in matters of zoning consideration. In this way, the joint session becomes a tutorial intended to make all parties conversant in the plan’s use and content. Final plan Report. The final Comprehensive Plan Report will reflect comments gathered at the final workshop, staff review of the draft report and input from the joint work session. Upon completion of revisions, the planning team will provide 20 bound color copies and and 2 digital pdf copies, provided that Town may request additional copies and Architect agrees to deliver such additional copies at cost or Town may make its own additional copies. The Client will have had opportunity to view the document through its component installments (described in the above deliverables) and thereby, will have had opportunity to comment on the plan as it is developing. Public hearings. The Planning team will present the Comprehensive Plan to both the Planning and Zoning Commission (public hearing to recommend approval) and Council (public hearing to consider approval). In accordance with the intent of the public process to promote community ownership of the plan, these presentations will be shared with members of the Steering Committee. Deliverable for Part Five: • A Complete Plan Report (including sub-components 1, 2, and 3 as well as the remaining project recommendations) which constitutes the Comprehensive Plan Update, with text and graphics flowing from each of the tasks described above. • Comprehensive Plan Power point for presentation to the joint work session and public hearings. Meetings: • Workshops 1,2, 3 (as already indicated in meetings listed above) • 3 Steering Committee meetings (as already indicated in meetings listed above) plus 4 additional meetings if required by Owner • Milestone updates (as already indicated in meetings listed above) • Draft Plan review with Staff • Joint Council/ Planning & Zoning Commission Work Session • Public hearings Agreement Between: Owner and Architect Page 17 of 17 Document No. OAB101 (modified) Page 17 of 17 EXHIBIT “B”: PROJECT TIMELINE Project Timeline Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Part One 1.1 Demographics 1.2 Existing Conditions 1.3 Circulation 1.4 Infrastructure 1.5 Land Developability 1.6 Assessment Summary Part Two 2.1 Goals and Objectives 2.2 Framework Part Three 3.1 Land Use 3.2 Transportation 3.3 Urban Design 3.4 Park, Open Space 3.5 Housing 3.6 Public facilities 3.7 Solana Revitalization 3.8 Policy Rec/ tabulation Part Four 4.1 Economic Development 4.2 Plan Implementation 4.3 Plan benchmarks 4.4 Code performance review Part Five 5.1 Engagement Workshop #1 Workshop #2 Workshop #3 Focus group/ interviews 5.2 Communication Web Portal Steering Committee Joint Work Session Final Report Public hearing EXECUTIVE SESSION The Council will conduct a closed session pursuant to Texas Government Code, annotated, Chapter 551, Subchapter D for the following: a. Section 551.071(2) Consultation with Attorney - to seek advice of counsel on legal matters involving pending or contemplated litigation, settlement offers, or other legal matters not related directly to litigation or settlement. Pending or contemplated litigation and settlement offers include but are not limited to the following: Westlake Academy Facility Expansion b. Section 551.071 (2) Consultation with Attorney on a matter in which the duty of the attorney to the governmental body under the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct of the State Bar of Texas clearly conflicts with the is Chapter including but are not limited to the following: Town of Westlake Certificate of Convenience & Necessity (CCN) for water and sewer service. c. Section 551.074(a)(1): Deliberation Regarding Personnel Matters – to deliberate the appointment, employment, evaluation, reassignment, duties, of a public officer or employee: Town Manager Town of Westlake Item # 6 – Executive Session Town of Westlake Item # 7 – Reconvene Meeting The Council will conduct a closed session pursuant to Texas Government Code, annotated, Chapter 551, Subchapter D for the following: a. Section 551.071(2) Consultation with Attorney - to seek advice of counsel on legal matters involving pending or contemplated litigation, settlement offers, or other legal matters not related directly to litigation or settlement. Pending or contemplated litigation and settlement offers include but are not limited to the following: Westlake Academy Facility Expansion b. Section 551.071 (2) Consultation with Attorney on a matter in which the duty of the attorney to the governmental body under the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct of the State Bar of Texas clearly conflicts with the is Chapter including but are not limited to the following: Town of Westlake Certificate of Convenience & Necessity (CCN) for water and sewer service. c. Section 551.074(a)(1): Deliberation Regarding Personnel Matters – to deliberate the appointment, employment, evaluation, reassignment, duties, of a public officer or employee: Town Manager Town of Westlake Item # 8 – Take any Necessary Action, if necessary FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS: Any Council member may request at a workshop and / or Council meeting, under “Future Agenda Item Requests”, an agenda item for a future Council meeting. The Council Member making the request will contact the Town Manager with the requested item and the Town Manager will list it on the agenda. At the meeting, the requesting Council Member will explain the item, the need for Council discussion of the item, the item’s relationship to the Council’s strategic priorities, and the amount of estimated staff time necessary to prepare for Council discussion. If the requesting Council Member receives a second, the Town Manager will place the item on the Council agenda calendar allowing for adequate time for staff preparation on the agenda item. - None Town of Westlake Item #9 - Future Agenda Items COUNCIL CALENDAR  Town Council Meeting August 26, 2013  WAAC Pancake Breakfast September 7, 2013 WA Dining Hall; 8-10:00 am  Coffee & Conversation September 9, 2013 DFW Marriott Solana – Living Room; 8-9:30 am  Board of Trustees Meeting September 9, 2013  Town Council Meeting September 16, 2013  New WA Parents’ Reception September 18, 2013 Home of Doug & Laura Wheat; 6:30 pm Town of Westlake Item # 10 – Council Calendar Town of Westlake Item # 11 – Adjournment Back up material has not been provided for this item.