Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-26-2005 - Agenda Packet10 �e MEDINA CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION AGENDA September 26, 2005 7:00 p.m. 501 Evergreen Point Road Medina, WA A. CALL TO ORDER 7:00 p.m. B. ROLL CALL (Adam, Blazey, Nunn, Odermat, Phelps, Rudolph, Vail-Spinosa) C. ANNOUNCEMENTS 1. Mayor 2. Council 3. Staff D. DISCUSSION 1. 2006 Budget 2. Citizen Survey Final Report 3. Council Agenda Calendar E. EXECUTIVE SESSION 1. Labor Negotiations 2. City Manager Annual Performance Evaluation F. ADJOURNMENT PUBLIC PARTICIPATION The Medina City Council encourages public participation and values input from citizens. In an effort to conduct meetings in a fair, but efficient manner, the City Council will follow previously adopted procedures, which are available in the City Clerk's Office. All comments shall be addressed to the Council as a whole in a courteous and respectful manner. Citizens wishing to address the Council should complete a speaker card and submit it to the recording secretary prior to the start of the meeting. Speaker cards are on the podium prior to the start of the City Council meetings. Meeting Agenda is subject to change prior to approval of the agenda during the meeting. Persons interested in a specific agenda item may wish to call the City Clerk at (425) 454-9222 before 4:00 p.m. on the date of the meeting to confirm agenda items. ITEM D 2 CITY OF MEDINA City Manager's Office 501 Evergreen Point Road, Medina, WA 98039 www.medina-wa.gov 425.233.6400 MEMORANDUM DATE: September 20, 2005 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Doug Schulze, City Manager RE: Citizen Survey Final Report RECOMMENDATION: Discuss options for communicating survey results to the public and use of survey results for future goal setting. BACKGROUND: �I I ire L 1 The final report from PRR, Inc. is anticipated by Friday, September 23r and will be distributed to members of the City Council as soon as possible after it has been delivered to City Hall. Several inquiries from residents have been made to City Hall regarding the City's plans for sharing the survey results with the public. The final report is a public document and will be made available for review and/or purchase, but other means of communicating the results to residents should be considered. City Website - The final report will be posted on the City website as a document that can be downloaded. Based on the survey responses, we know that less than 50% of Medina residents have visited the website. Therefore, this form of communication will only reach a limited number of residents, at best. Newsletter — Approximately 60% of Medina residents prefer the newsletter as the method of communication from the City of Medina. At best, a summary of the survey results could be published in the newsletter without significantly increasing the size and publication/distribution costs. Combining publication of a summary with future articles about some of the key topics/findings would be an effective approach. Separate Mailing — Publication of a brochure/report, which could be mailed to each household, would involve an additional cost, but may result in more people actually taking the time to review the survey results. Use of Survey Results -- The results from the citizen survey provide valuable information that can be used for future decisions. In addition, citizens will most likely expect "outcomes" of some form as a result of the input provided. Although the members of the City Council will change on January 1, 2006, it would be helpful for the current members to begin discussing options to ensure that the survey results are given appropriate consideration. City Council Retreat - A retreat or strategic planning workshop with the 2006 City Council could be an effective method to facilitate the transition of newly elected City Council members. In addition to discussing survey results, it will be important for the new City Council to discuss common goals and objectives, preferences for conducting meetings and communications, as well as ongoing projects and issues. The actual venue and related details for the retreat or strategic planning workshop do not need to be decided at this time. Study Session — A future study session could be dedicated to discussion of how the City Council will use the survey results, but other topics frequently fill study session agendas. CITY OF MEDINA City Manager's Office 501 Evergreen Point Road, Medina, WA 98039 www.medina-wa.gov ITEM D -1 425.233.6400 MEMORANDUM DATE: September 19, 2005 M: Mayor and City Council FROM: Doug Schulze, City Manager RE: 2006 Preliminary Budget RECOMMENDATION: Discuss 2006 Preliminary Budget and provide direction to City Manager for October 10th public hearing. BACKGROUND: The 2006 Preliminary Budget is attached for City Council review and discussion. Overall, the 2006 Preliminary Budget reflects an increase in total expenditures of $979,538, which is primarily attributable to non - operating expenditures within the Park Property Debt Fund and Capital Projects Fund. The 2006 operating expenditures (General Fund, Equipment Fund and Street Fund) reflect an increase of $78,515. Park Property YDebt expenditures include a balloon payment of $284,410 in 2006, which will be the final payment on park property purchased in 1996. The City will have no debt after this loan has been paid. The City has made debt service payments of approximately $36,500 annually for the past ten years. Expenditures of approximately $565,000 are included in the Capital Projects Fund as carryover from 2004 and 2005. This includes $100,000 for storm drainage projects and $464,000 for park improvements, which have not been completed. General Fund — Increase of 1.25% 2006 Preliminary Budget General Fund expenditures increase by $52,045 over the 2005 Budget, which is an increase of 1.25%. The 2005 Budget includes expenditures of $108,800 for the mobile command vehicle as well as $25,000 for the fiftieth anniversary celebration, which are one-time expenditures. The 2006 Preliminary Budget General Fund expenditures increase by $185,845, if an adjustment is made for these one-time expenditures, an increase of 4.6%. 1 General Fund Category 2005 Budget 2006 Budget $ Change % Change Salaries & Wages $1,409,323 $1,448,763 $39,440 3% Personnel Benefits 363,167 453,185 90,018 25% Supplies 107,200 158,005 50,805 47% Services & Charges 429,064 376,670 (52,394) -12% Professional Services 873,000 843,500 (29,500) -3% Intergovernmental 767,579 873,755 106,176 14% Capital Outlay 208,500 56,000 (152,500) -73% TOTAL $4,157,833 $4,209,878 52,045 1.25% 2006 Salaries and wages are budgeted to increase by three percent, but labor negotiations will be required with police, public works and office/clerical employees in represented positions. The 2006 Preliminary Budget for salaries and wages includes an increase of 2.3%, which is consistent with the June 2005 to June 2005 CPI — U, Seattle as well as step increases for employees who have not reached the top step of the pay scale for their positions. The increase amounts to $39,500 of the $160,200 General Fund increase. Personnel Benefits are budgeted to increase by twenty-five percent, but includes $40,000 for LEOFF I retiree medical benefits, which were not included in the 2005 Budget. The 2005 LEOFF I retiree benefits costs have been absorbed in the 2005 Budget without a budget amendment at this point. In 1974, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 296, which established the Medical Pension Reserve Fund (MPRF). Ordinance No. 296 states that the purpose of the MPRF was for the convenience of the city in making provision for future compliance with the LEOFF I Retirement System Act of 1970. Unfortunately, the MRPF was not maintained and records of retirees eligible for LEOFF I had to be created recently. The impact of this unfunded liability has become significant over the past two years due to a combination of increased insurance costs, retirees becoming eligible for full retirement benefits, and the apparent declining health of some retirees. The City is required by RCW to provide LEOFF I retiree benefits at this level for the life of police officers who retired under the LEOFF I system. The remaining $45,000 increase is based upon the projected 2006 rates provided by AWC Benefits Trust and the current labor agreements. Supplies are budgeted to increase by $50,800 or forty-seven percent. The entire increase is attributable to requested emergency preparedness supplies, which will continue the efforts and progress of the Emergency Services Committee. Other Services & Charges decline by $52,400 or 12%. This reduction is primarily attributable to cost savings within Information Technology related to repair and maintenance support. Professional services are also • Page 2 budgeted to decline by $30,000, which results in a total decline of $82,400 or 6% to Other Services & Charges. Intergovernmental expenditures are budgeted to increase by $106,176 or 14%. Approximately $20,000 of the increase is attributable to the increase in the contract fee with the City of Bellevue for fire protection services. The remainder is a result of increases for annual audit costs, marine patrol, dispatch services, jail services and various organizations fees (AWC, SCA, WRIA 8, ARCH, etc). Equipment Replacement Fund — Decrease of 21% The 2006 Preliminary Equipment Replacement Fund budget expenditures will decrease by $11,500 or 21 %. The 2006 budget includes $44,500 for replacement of one police vehicle. No other equipment replacement is planned for 2006. Equipment Replacement Fund Category 2005 Budget 2006 Budget $ Change % Change Capital Outlay $56,000 $44,500 ($11,500) -21% TOTAL $56, 000 $44,500 ($11,500) -21% is Street Fund — Decrease of 8% Total Street Fund expenditures will decrease by 8% or $39,000 in 2006. The reduction is primarily attributable to a decrease in the budget for Other Services and Charges, which includes small works projects, street cleaning, storm drainage maintenance and related services. Street Fund Category 2005 Budget 2006 Budget $ Change % Change Salaries & Wages $155,310 $165,000 $9,690 6% Personnel Benefits 40,220 48,500 8,280 21% Supplies 8,000 6,000 (2,000) -25% Services & Charges 247,000 187,000 (60,000) -24% Professional Services 60,000 65,000 5,000 8% Capital Outlay 0 0 0 TOTAL $510,530 $471,500 (39,030) -8% 0 • Page 3 Salaries and wages increase by $9,690 or six percent. The actual increases include a 2.3% cost of living increase as well as an additional $5,000 of the seasonal worker costs to split the total costs equally between the Parks budget and Street Fund. Personnel Benefits increase by $8,280 or twenty-one percent, which is based on the projected 2006 rates provided by AWC Benefits Trust and the current labor agreements. Supplies are budgeted to decline by $2,000 or twenty-five percent. Other Services/Charges will decrease by $60,000, which is a twenty-four percent reduction. Other services and charges include expenditures for street light utilities, street cleaning, storm drainage maintenance, equipment maintenance, traffic control devices and small works projects. Professional services will increase by $5,000 or 8%. Operating Expenditures Summary — Increase of less than 1% The combined budgets of the General Fund, Equipment Replacement Fund and Street Fund represent the operating expenditures. Salaries and wages within the operating funds are budgeted to increase by $49,440 or 3%. Personnel benefits are budgeted to increase by $98,300 or 24%, which is based on current labor agreements and 2006 rate projections provided by AWC Benefits Trust. An increase of $50,000 or 42% in the budget for supplies is attributable to an increase to the emergency preparedness budget, which is intended for acquisition of needed emergency preparedness supplies. Other services and charges will decrease by $112,000 or 17% as a result of the $60,000 reduction in the Street Fund and $62,000 from the General Fund. Professional services decline slightly by $24,500. Intergovernmental expenditures will increase by 14% or $106,000, which is primarily attributable to increased contract rates for fire protection services, marine patrol, dispatch and jail services. Finally, capital outlay expenditures will decline by $164,000 or 62% as a result of the one-time 2005 expenditure of $109,000 for the mobile command coach and $44,000 for communications equipment. Capital Projects Fund The Capital Projects Fund expenditures budget is an increase of $770,000 or 136%. This increase is caused by a carryover for Medina Beach Park of $464,000 as well as $100,000 for storm sewer construction that was not completed in 2005. The 2006 Preliminary Budget also includes $150,000 for city hall facility improvements, which serves as a placeholder for potential building improvements identified by a building analysis. The focus of the evaluation will be to determine the condition of the exterior cladding and underlying structure of City Hall, which will ensure appropriate measures are taken to preserve the structure. • Page 4 Revenue Proiections I� I• I• 0 Page 5 General Fund revenues are projected to decrease by 1.6% in 2006 or $70,000. The revenue decline is caused by the $108,800 grant received in 2005 for the mobile command coach, which was a one-time revenue, combined with a slight reduction in projected building permit revenue. The 2006 revenue projections include no increase to the property tax levy, which will result in a property tax decrease due to total valuation increases from new construction. The King County Assessor has not provided property tax levy calculations for 2006 so the estimated reduction is not available at this time. The City Council is limited to a maximum property tax increase of 1 %, if it is determined that the levy should be increased. The revenue generated from a 1 % property tax levy will be approximately $25,000. Currently, the City of Medina has an additional banked capacity of approximately $3,000. Sales tax revenues are projected to remain at $1,000,000 in 2006, which approximately $100,000 below the annual average collected during the past five years. Investment interest has improved and is projected to continue performing at 2005 rates through 2006. Revenue generated from investment interest is projected to be $125,000 in 2006, which is significantly more than the 2005 budget projection of $50,000, but comparable to the 2005 year-to- date investment interest of $90,000 as of August 31, 2005. Motor Fuel Tax revenues are currently projected to increase by 64% or $27,300 in 2006. The Motor Fuel Tax is the sole revenue source for the Street Fund, which requires a General Fund transfer (property and sales taxes) of $300,000 to $400,000 annually to meet funding needs. The Capital Projects Fund is supported by Real Estate Excise Tax (R.E.E.T.) receipts. REET is paid by the seller on all real estate transactions. The City of Medina collected $562,000 in 2004 and will collect approximately $700,000 in 2005. Use of REET is restricted by RCW to various public improvements (parks, streets, facilities, sidewalks). The salary & benefit costs for 2006 have been estimated based on current labor agreement language. Adjustments resulting from agreements reached during upcoming contract negotiations may require budget amendments during 2006. Caution should be exercised during budget discussions to refrain from making decisions regarding changes to benefits that are mandatory bargaining issues. a� o m qr N ti C)� N M N �' T c7 r O U oaolc»0to0 LO c�rnornor-o r o N 00 M 0 0 to O 00 00 N -li CO d r r U Efl ff} Eff Et? f� ffl �4 ffl M 0 0 O O 0 O 00 CO 00 O I-_ O LO O I. ++ f� O O Cfl Lf') I` Ln 00 CC M r 't CM 00 M O LO 00 1- O CO CO O N I- O N CO U-)r LO 0)00 r I— m r .1 �Q Esi 69' tFk 6C} EA EF? Ef} 64 H O MOO))MCON co f Lc) ,i CM Ln CO M I` �t " O O O r ti CM CO CO N N LO Zzr f CO O ti N P_ m r � Ef? (;O9 Q91 ER Ef)- tf? E4? EF} O O O O O O ++ O U) O O O ' ' LO tG d Ln 00 CO I` u r O CO � 00 CO I� N r r C m N L11 0)m O O O O O M M N O O O ' ' Lf) H N O LLO I M O,I. CO � CON r N LO O W co N X d E!} ff3 � EA Ei? Efi Efi � Lo w 0 0 N Z y., i i � Lei H IM m r O .� �t W U. N a m O 6,:.,, 6c.6n6F>t•3ea6r> 6n. E o 0 Q W I I i I 1 � O O CM W cr p 'a CEO U-) N = m 69 K? Ef} EfT Et} 60. EA Ef} M LLi Lf) O O LO O 00 CO 00 O I- O LO O Il- ++ I- r 00 LO I` O 00 C 00 M 00 CO M C'M CO O O d_ I r CM 0000 00 OCN C N m r d W Efi Eta Efi Efl ttJ EA EF} 69� N CO O CO O I-- O co 0) 4-0 M r N O O O O 00 (�j Ln C'7 C d CA I, C� M 1,- 00 t O .� O CO O N I- CO O U')N M r 00 I� N r m r � b9 4f? 69 Ef} Ef! Et} 4f} EA N (6 (n O N N ~ Co c U) a)> 0) ,m 06 L c L i O Q L O L L Q O Q u� 0- in 0 a c C) 2006 Budget - Version A 2002 2003 2004 2005 2005 2006 2006 2006 46E ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET PROJECTED PRELIMINARY $ % DESCRIPTION YEAR END BUDGET GENERAL FUND BEGINNING FUND BALANCE S 2,767,561.28 $ 2,484,427.09 ' $ 2,059,534.98 $ 2,018,490.30 S 2,018,490.30 $ 1,897,869.04 $ (120,621.26), -5.98% REVENUES 4,685,721.64 4,057,387.73 4,332,382.35 4,413,083.00 4,453,497.78 4,343,125.00 $ (69,958.00) - 1.59% OPERATING TRANSFERS -IN 41,000.00 - - - - - $ - #DIV/0! EXPENDITURES 3,684,395.83 3,802,404.84 3,868,427.03 4,157,832.58 4,175, t 19.04 4,209,877.82 S 52,045.24 1.25% _ OPERATING TRANSFERS -OUT 1,325,460.00 679.875.00 505,000.00 - 399,000.00 399,000.00 554.407.03 5 155,407.03 t 38.95% ENDING FUND BALANCE a S 2,484,427.09 15 2,059,534.98 S 2,018,490.30 ! S 1,874,740.72 S 1.,897,869.04 $ 1,476,709.19 S (398,031.53) t_-21.23% EQUIPMENT FUND BEGINNING FUND BALANCE $ 59.590.85 $ 102,168.77 $ 76,263.51 S 41,492.58 ' $ 41,492.58 1 $ 62,492.58 $ 21,000.00 50.61% REVENUES j - 4,140.00 9,045.70 4,000.00 - 4,000.00 $ 0.00% OPERATING TRANSFERS -IN 77,000.00 77,000.00 77,000.00 ; 77,000.001 77,000.00 77,000.00 $ - 0.00% EXPENDITURES 34,422.08 107,045.26 120,816.63 i 56,000.00 56,000.00 44,500.00 ' $ (11,500.00)1-20.54% OPERATING TRANSFERS -OUT 1 $ - ! #DIV/0! ENDING FUND BALANCE $ 102,168.77 $ 76,263.51 S 41,492.58 S. 66,492.58 ! S 62,492.58 $ 98,992.58 S 32,500.00 I 48.88% STREET FUND BEGINNING FUND BALANCE $ 486,985.40 ! S 476,862.92 S 173,832.14 $ 191,423.08 $ 191,423.08 $ 142,593.08 $ (48,830.00)1 -25.51% REVENUES 91,434.66 63,514.55 61,163.76 62,700.00 62,700.00 I 70,000.00 $ 7,300.00 11 11.640 OPERATING TRANSFERS -IN 348,460.00 - 400,000.00 322,000.00 ' 322,000.00 258,906.92 j $ (63,093.08)1 -19.59% EXPENDITURES 450,017.14 366,545.33 443,572.82 510,530.00 433,530.00 471,500.00 ,, $ 37,970.00 7.44% OPERATING TRANSFERS -OUT - - _ _ - $ #DIV/0! OTHER NON -EXPENDITURES $ - #DIV/0! ENDING FUND BALANCE $ 476,862.92 $ 173,832.14 $ 191,423.08 $ 65,593.08 ' S 142,593.08 ( S 0.00 I $ (142,593.08) -217.39% RESERVE FUND BEGINNING FUND BALANCE $ 917,380.33 $ 1,776,380.33 ! S 1,776,380.33 S 1,776,380.33 S 1,776,380.33 $ 1,776,380.33 $ - 0.00% REVENUES $ - 4DIV/0! OPERATING TRANSFERS -IN 900,000.00 - - - - - $ - 4DIV/0! EXPENDITURES - j - - - - $ #DIV/0! OPERATING TRANSFERS -OUT 41,000.00 $ - #DIV/0! NDING FUND BALANCE S 1,776,380.33 ($ 1,776,380.33 S 1,776,380.33 i S 1,776,380.33 $ 1,776,380.33 $ 1,776,380.33 S - 0.00% 1 t i f E FUND ! i BEGINNING FUND BALANCE $ 710.00 S I9,090.25 $ 69,59i.56 $ 69,591.56 $ 24,591.56 $ 45,000.00) -64.66% REVENUES ; $ 2,571.00 ' $ 47,240.97 53,924.60 - - $ - #DIV/0! OPERATING TRANSFERS -IN I$ - #DIVlO! EXPENDITURES $ 1,861.00 28,860.72 3,423.29 60,000.00 45,000.00 20,000.00 $ 40,000.00 -66.67% OPERATING TRANSFERS -OUT ; $ - I #DIV/0! ENDING FUND BALANCE $ 710.00 $ 19,090.25 $ 69,591.56 $ 9,591.56 $ 24,591.56 1 $ 4,591.56 ' $ 5,000.00 -52.13% PARK PROPERTY DEBT FUND BEGINNING FUND BALANCE S 211,460.00 S 175,072.40 S 138,684.80 $ 102,297.20 $ 102,297.20 ; S 65,909.60 $ 36,387.60 -35.57% REVENUES - - - - - - $ - #DIV/0! OPERATING TRANSFERS -IN - - - - - 218,500.11 $ 218,500.11 #DIV/0! EXPENDITURES j 36,387.60 36,387.60 36,387.60 36,387.60 36,387.60 284,409.71 . S 248,022.11 681.61% OPERATING TRANSFERS -OUT #DIV/0! ENDING FUND BALANCE S 175,072.40 ! $ 138,684.80 $ 102,297.20 $ 65,909.60 ' S 65,909.60 $ 0.00 $ 65,909.60) -100.00% i I CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND BEGINNING FUND BALANCE $ 106,157.71 1 S 117,770.70 1 $ 538,718.86 $ 739,599.69 $ 739,599.69 ! $ 1,239,599.69 $ 500,000.00 67.60% REVENUES 187,726.18 288,735.64 ' 562,227.55 575,000.00 700,000.00 698,605.00 1123,605.00 21.50% OPERATING TRANSFERS -IN - 602,875.00 28,000.00 - j - - $ - #DIV/0! EXPENDITURES 176,113.19 470,662.54 389,346.66 568,000.00 200,000.00 1,338,000.00 S 770,000.00 135.56% OPERATING TRANSFERS -OUT ! #DIV/01 ENDING FUND BALANCE S 117,770.70 ' $ 538,718.80 ' $ 739,599.69 S 746,599.69 $ 1,239,599.69 $ 600,204.69 1 $ (146,395.00)1 -19.61% TOTAL ALL FUNDS BUDGET BEGINNING FUND BALANCE 1 S 4,549,135.57 $ 5,133,392.21 S 4,782,504.81 $ 4,939,274.74 ! S 4,939,274.74 $ 5,209,435.88 S 270,161.14 5.47% _ REVENUES 4,967,453.48 4,461,018.89 5,018,743.96 5,054,783.00 5,216,197.78 5,115,730.00 $ 60.947.00 1.21% _ OPERATING TRANSFERS -IN 1,366,460.00 679,875.00 'i 505,000.00 399,000.00 399,000.00 1 554,407.03 $ 155,407.03 38.45% EXPENDITURES 4,383,196.84 ! 4,811,906.29 4,861,974.03 5,388,750.18 4,946,036.64 6,368,287.53 S 979,537.35 18.18% OPERATING TRANSFERS -OUT 1,366,460.00 679,875.00 505,000.00 399,000.00 399,000.00 554,407.03 1 S 155,407.03 38.95% OTHER NON -EXPENDITURES $ - #DIV/0! NDING FUND BALANCE S 5,133,392.21 $ 4,782,504.81 S 4,939,274.74 11 S 4,605,307.56 S 5,209,435.88 S 3,956,878.35 $ (648,429.21)-14.08% w 2005 ON Council Calendar • C Description January 10, 2005 Regular Meeting January 24, 2005 Study Session February 14, 2005 Regular Meeting February 28, 2005 Study Session 2005 Study Sessions Resolution Adopted 2005 Le g Action Plan Moved to 2/14 Approved 50th Anniversary Planning Completed Annual Retreat Date Completed ARCH Budget Approved Citizen Survey Moved to 2/14 Moved to 2/28 Moved to 3/14 Facilities° -City Comprehensive Plan Update Moved to 2/28 Moved to 3/14 consent FY 2003 Year End Financial Report Completed Labor Negotiation -Strategies/Health Ins. Moved to 3/14 Medina Park Off -leash Rules Completed Public Relations Policy Completed PW & Bldg Code Enforcement Contract Services Moved to 3/14 Sideyard Setbacks No Action Site Plan Review Moved to 4/11 for public hearing Special Event Policy/City Involvement Tree Replacement - 84th Avenue N.E. 09/21 /2005 Page 1 of 6 P:\2005 Agenda Packets\09262005\Item D-3, 2005 City Council Calendar.doc 49 0 2005 City Council Calendar March 14, 2005 Regular Meeting March 28, 2005 Study Session April 11, 2005 Regular Meeting April 25, 2005 Study Session 2006 Labor Agreement. Move to 4/11 DiGG 50 Anniversary Moved to 4/11 Budget Amend. Adopted -Planning Administrative Variances Moved to 5/9 for ublic hearing Citizen Survey Completed Contract Authorized Categories/collection methods approved Comprehensive Plan Update Adopted Critical Areas Ord. Adopted Financial Report - 1 s Quarter Moved to 5/9 K-9 Unit Gift Acceptance Authorized Moved to 5/9 Loop Driveway Access Policy Proceed with draft ord. & PC review Medina Beach Park Project DiISGuS Completed Newsletter Policy Moved to 5/23 PW/Code Enf Services Interlocal Agreement Discussion/Action Site Plan Review Hearing Continued to 5/9 Special Event Policy/CityPolicy/City Involvement Moved to 5/23 Tree Replacement - 84th Ave NE Moved to 5/23 WRIA 8 Conservation Plan Completed 09/21 /2005 Page 2 of 6 P:\2005 Agenda Packets\09262005\Item D-3, 2005 City Council Calendar.doc C C 2005 City Council Calendar Description May 9, 2005 Regular Meeting May 23, 2005 Study Session June 13, 2005 Regular Meeting June 27, 2005 Study Session 2004-05 Labor Agreement Continued Ratified Administrative Variances Continued to 6/13 Closed Hearing Moved to 8/8 mt CIP/TIP — 2006 - 2011 Adopted Citizen Survey Continued Continued Final Draft Approved 1 S Quarter Financial Report Completed Medina Park Playground Equip Moved to 7/11 mtg Newsletter Policy Continued Adopted Police Canine Unit Ord. Not Adopted Professional Service Contract Policy Completed Regional Communications Project Completed Site Plan Review PC to draft Ord Event Policy Continued Moved to 8/22 -Special Tree Replacement — 84Ih Avenue NE Approved Tree Removal WRIA 8 Conservation Plan Completed 09/21 /2005 Page 3 of 6 P:\2005 Agenda Packets\09262005\Item D-3, 2005 City Council Calendar.doc C 2005 City Council Calendar Description July 11, 2005 Regular Meeting July 25, 2005 Study Session August 8, 2005 Regular Meeting August 22, 2005 Study Session 2006 Budget Discussion 2006 Labor Agreements Discussion Admin Variance Ord. Not Adopted Cable TV Franchise Citizen Survey Preliminary Data Final Presentation Civil Service Commission Appt Completed Construction Mitigation Plans Discussion Emergency Srvc Cmte Presentation/Request Approved Financial Report — Mid Year Completed Medina Elementary Plan Modification Approved Medina Park Off -leash Rules Revisit Discussion Moved to 9/12 for action Medina Park Equipment Budget Amendment Adopted Completed -Playground Site Plan Review Special Event Policy Discussion Tree Code Discussion WRIA 8 Conservation Plan Approved 09/21 /2005 Page 4 of 6 P:12005 Agenda Packets10926200511tem D-3, 2005 City Council Calendar.doc 2005 City Council Calendar September 12, 2005 Regular Meeting September 26, 2005 Study Session October 10, 2005 Regular Meeting October 24, 2005 Study Session 2006 Budget Discussion Discussion Discussion Discussion 2006 Labor Agreements Discussion Discussion Cable TV Franchise Discussion/Action Citizen Survey Tentative Discussion City Manager Performance Eval Discussion Discussion Financial Report - 3rc,Discussion Quarter Medina Park Off -leash Rules Adopted Ord. Tax Levy Discussion -Property Site Plan Review Discussion Discussion/Action Special Event Policy Discussion/Action Tree Preservation Ord. Discussion Street Access Standards Discussion 09/21 /2005 Page 5 of 6 P:\2005 Agenda Packets\09262005\ltem D-3, 2005 City Council Calendar.doc • L__A 2005 City Council Calendar Description November 14, 2005 Regular Meeting November 28, 2005 Study Session December 12, 2005 Regular Meeting December 26, 2005 Study Session 2006 Budget Hearing Discussion Hearing/Action 2006 Labor Agreements Discussion Discussion Tax Levy Hearing/Action -Property 09/21 /2005 Page 6 of 6 P:\2005 Agenda Packets\09262005\Item D-3, 2005 City Council Calendar.doc 2005 C Prepared for City of Medina City Council August 2005 Prepared by PRR, Inc. Table of Contents Executive Summary, ........ _ . .................. . .. . ..1 Introduction. a .. 7 City Services... Infrastructure 15 Police And Safety ........... , 19 Parks ..... 23 Community Development And Permit Process— . .27 Communications— . .... . ....... .. . ......... . .............29 What Else Citizens Want The Council To Know ...... . .. . ....33 Appendix A: Letter From Mayor_ .35 Appendix B: Survey ..,... , . , 37 Appendix C: Frequencies For All Survey Questions..... 39 Executive Summary BACKGROUND, OBJECTIVES AND METHODOLOGY The Medina City Council sought to understand the opinions and prefer- ences of the population it serves so that resources can be best utilized and so that decisions will be informed and data -based. A multi -method survey was designed to assess attitudes toward: • City services • Police and safety • Parks and recreation • Community development • Communications from the City The primary data collection approach involved mailing two copies of a paper version of the survey to every household in the City of Medina. Enclosed in the mailing to each household was a letter from the Mayor designed to explain the purpose of the survey and to encourage participa- tion. A total of 582 paper surveys were completed. The second approach to data collection was an online version of the survey. The letter from the Mayor also explained that citizens could complete the survey online and provided two sets of unique IDs and passwords. A total of 58 surveys were completed online. The third approach to data collection involved a telephone version of the survey. A total of 86 citizens completed the survey by telephone. A total of 726 citizens completed the survey. This represents 32 percent of all citizens eighteen years of age or older and 45 percent of all City of Medina households. The margin of error for the survey is +/- 3.09 percent. Because the sample of 726 respondents was slightly skewed with fewer respondents less than 34 years of age and slightly more over 65 years of age (relative to 2000 census demographics), the data was weighted to adjust for this fact. Consequently, since 35 of the 726 respondents did not answer the question about their age the final analysis is based on a total of 691 respondents. Weighting of data is standard industry practice and ensures a more accurate reflection of residents' opinions. RESULTS City Services • Most Have Had Contact with City Hall Staff • 85% report contact with City Hall staff, with more than half in the last year. • Above Average Satisfaction with City Hall Services • City Hall staff courtesy and availability scored highest in satisfac- tion • Responding to citizen needs scored lowest in satisfaction • Factors which impact overall duality of City Fall staf'service are (in order of impact): • Helpfulness • Responsiveness to needs • Timeliness of addressing concerns • Availability • Courtesy • Most Not Interested in Being Part of a Citizen Volunteer Corps • Only 17% are interested, more so among those who have lived in Medina fewer years and who have kids under eighteen years of age • Most Think Property Taxes are "About Right" • A little more than half think property taxes are about right • A little less than a third think property taxes are too high Infrastructure • Highest Satisfaction is with Recreational Aspects of City Infrastructure • Satisfaction with all aspects of City infrastructure are above aver- age • Highest satisfaction is with the more recreational infrastructure aspects such as tennis courts, nature preserve, and parks • Lowest satisfaction is with street lighting, sidewalks, and Medina Park playground • Those with kids under eighteen are somewhat less satisfied with most infrastructure aspects (even when controlling for age of respondent) 2 City of Medina • Underground Utilities, More Sidewalks at Medina Elementary and Increased Street Lighting Received the Most Support for Infrastructure Improvements • Other infrastructure improvements received above average sup- port, with the exception of better signage at the entrances to the City • Strong Support for Reducing Noise Generated from Outside the City • Almost half (46.3%) think this is very important for the City Council to address Police and Safety • Many Have Had Contact with Police on Official Business • About half have had contact with the police on official business in the last year • Police Department Receives High Marks on All Satisfaction Aspects • The police department received very high satisfaction scores on all aspects, with response time and courtesy receiving the highest scores • Those who have lived in Medina longer (even when controlling for age of respondent) are somewhat less satisfied with the police providing a sense ofsecurity and with courtesy • Mixed Support for K-9 Unit • Thirty-nine percent are in favor of the City having it's own K-9 unit; thirty-three percent are not in favor • Relatively Strong Support for Installing Surveillance Cameras • Almost half (47.4%) support installing surveillance cameras to help reduce crime; a little more than a quarter (28.4%) do not support this i i 2005 Community Survey Report ■ u■ r�cr • Many Residents Use the Parks • Almost half use the parks often (21.2%) or very often (27%) • Upgrades to Medina Park Playground Equipment and Improved Land- scaping Top the List of Support for Park Improvements • There is noticeably less support for parks improvements than for City infrastructure improvements • Medina Park playground received the highest support for improve- ments, followed by improved landscaping • No Citizen Consensus on the Dog Leash Issue • A third (33.1%) of respondents prefer the current rule (on leash west part of the park seasonally, off -leash east part of park year round). Almost another third (28.5%) prefer the former rule (un- der voice control year round, no leash required). Community Development and Building Permit Process • Mixed Opinions about Whether Policies and Regulations Protect the Cit/s Character • Almost half (44.6%) think land use policies are too restrictive; about a third think they are about right • More than forty percent do not think the current zoning protects the character of the City • Permitting Process Seen as Area for Significant Improvement • More than third have used the permit services sometime in the last three years • More than half are dissatisfied to some degree with the permit process; about forty percent are very dissatisfied City of Medina Communications • All But County News is of Interest • Important City notices and news that affects Medina (such as SR 520 planning) are of most interest • Mixed Preferences for Communication Methods • Preferences for communication methods to receive information from the City are (in order of preference): • Newsletter • E-mail alerts • Special notices • Website • Direct mail • Preferences were impacted to some degree by gender, if they had kids under eighteen living at home, and how long they had lived in Medina • High Interest in Town Hall Meetings • Relatively high interest (35% or higher) for all topics • Topics of most interest are: • SR 520 upgrade alternatives (63.6%) • Should the City limit the size of houses that can be built on smaller lots (61.4%) 2005 Community Survey Report 5 Introduction Background and Objectives The Medina City Council sought to understand the opinions and prefer- ences of the population it serves so that resources can be best utilized and so that decisions will be informed and data -based. A survey was designed to assess attitudes toward: • City services • Police and safety • Parks and recreation • Community development • Communications from the City Methodology A multi -method approach was designed and implemented for data collec- tion. This multi -method approach was used to allow for and encourage the widest participation by citizens eighteen years of age or older. The first step in this process was to obtain list of all households in the City of Medina. This was supplied by the City and was the list that the City uses for its mailings to citizens. To further increase the response rate an announcement about the community survey appeared in the June edition of the City of Medina community newsletter. The primary data collection approach involved mailing two copies of a paper version of the survey to every household in the City of Medina'. Enclosed in the mailing to each household was a letter from the Mayor designed to explain the purpose of the survey and to encourage participa- I In addition, copies of the survey were mailed to all P.O. boxes in Medina. This was done to tion2. Each paper survey was consecutively numbered to ensure that no ensure that those citizens who had just a P.O. more than two surveys were completed per household. The paper survey Box (or whose address did not appear on the included pre -paid business reply postage and was designed to allow for mailing list) would also be able to participate in the study. This did leave open the possibil- accurate and efficient electronic scanning of quantitative survey responses'. ity that households that had both a street ad - Answers to open-ended questions were hand entered into the data base. A dress and a P.O. Box would receive more than two copies of the survey. However, it is our total of 582 paper version of the survey were completed. contention that this happened infrequently and that when it did happen most citizens would not complete more than two surveys The second approach to data collection was an online version of the sur- per household. Moreover, those who may have ve 4.The letter from the Mayor also explained that citizens could complete Y Y Phold completed more than two surveys per h°use- would be evenly distributed across citizen the survey online and provided two sets of unique 1Ds and passwords. attitudes and preferences, thereby canceling These passwords were keyed to the consecutive numbers on the paper out any potential bias. versions of the survey they received, thereby ensuring that no more than 2 See Appendix A for a copy of the letter from two surveys were completed per household (through some combination of the Mayor. paper and online versions). A total of 58 surveys were completed online. 3 See Appendix B for a copy of the paper ver- sion of the survey. 4 Go to http://web.prr-seattle.com/Infopoll/ surveys/s78.htm to see the online version. 2005 Community Survey Report 7 5 See Appendix C for frequency tables for each survey question. 6 Cramer's V is a measure of the relationship between two variables and is appropriate to use when one or both of the variables are at the nominal level of measurement. Cramer's V ranges from 0 to +1 and indicates the strength of a relationship. The closer to +1, the stron- ger the relationship between the two variables. The Kendall's s tau c statistic is a measure of the relationship between two variables and is appropriate to use with ordinal level variables or with dichotomous nominal level variables. Kendall's tau c ranges from —1 to +l and indicates the strength and direction (inverse or direct) of a relationship. The closer to either +1 or —1, the stronger the relationship between the two variables. Partial correlations test for the presence and strength of relation- ships between variables at the ordinal or interval levels of measurement, while control- ling for the effects of a third variable. Partial correlations range from —1 to +1 and indicate the strength and direction (inverse or direct) of a relationship. The closer to either +1 or —1, the stronger the relationship between the two variables. The accompanying "p" scores pre- sented in this report for Cramer's V, Kendall's tau C, and partial correlations indicate the level of statistical significance. The third approach to data collection involved a telephone version of the survey. Each day the consecutive numbers from completed paper surveys and the unique IDs from the online version of the survey were compared to a master list keyed to citizen addresses. Approximately two weeks after the paper versions of the survey were mailed we conducted a reverse direc- tory search on the mailing list, thereby providing telephone numbers for approximately 76% of all households. Calls were made to those house- holds who had not completed the survey (either paper or online versions). Because of the potential lag time between citizens completing the paper version of the survey and our receiving it, potential respondents to the tele- phone version of the survey were asked if their household had already com- pleted the survey. A total of 86 citizens completed the survey by telephone. A total of 726 citizens completed the survey. This represents 32 percent of all citizens eighteen years of age or older, and 45 percent of all City of Medina households. The margin of error for the survey is +/- 3.09 percent. Data Processing, Data Weighting and Analysis Data processing consisted of electronic scanning of the returned paper surveys for quantitative variables and hand -entering qualitative com- ments. The data from the paper surveys was then merged with the data from the online and telephone survey versions. Response range and logic checks were then performed on quantitative variables in order to check for miscoded variables thereby cleaning the final data file. Data analysis was conducted with SPSS. Because the sample of 726 respondents was slightly skewed with fewer respondents less than 34 years of age and slightly more over 65 years of age (relative to 2000 census demographics), the data was weighted to adjust for this fact. Consequently, since 35 of the 726 respondents did not answer the question about their age the final analysis is based on a total of 691 respondents. Weighting of data is standard industry practice and ensures a more accurate reflection of residents' opinions. Data analysis involved the use of appropriate descriptive statistical tech- niques (frequencies5, percentages and means) and explanatory statistical techniques (in this case Cramer's V, Kendall's tau c, and partial correla- tions) to test for the statistical significance of relationships between vari- ables.6 Throughout this report relationships between variables that are sta- tistically significant at the .05 level or better, and that are meaningful to an understanding of the data will be reported. Another statistical technique, logistic regression, was performed to predict the factors that contribute most to satisfaction with the overall quality of service of City Hall staff. 8 City of Medina Sample Demographics Table 1- Sample Demographics Gender Sample 000 Census Male 49% 48% Fernale 51% 52°l0 18-24 5% 0.4% 25-34 3% 10°1 35-44 19% 23% 45-54 22% ` 23VII 55-64 22% 17% 65 & older 35 % 22% Childrenunder Yes 39% 36% No residentLength of time -d Less than 1 year na 0.3% 1-5 years 18/6 na 6-10 years 19% na 11-15 years 11% na 16-20 years 13% na 21 or more years 4Q% na 2005 Community Survey Report 9 10 City of Medina City Services Most Have Had Contact with City Hall Staff Although a small percent (14.4%) have never had contact with City Hall staff, most have with a third (33.4%) having had contact within the last three months. Another quarter (25.2%) has had contact within the last four to twelve months. Table 2 — Last Time Had Contact with City Hall Staff (n=680) Within last 3 months 33.4% Between 4 to 5 months ago 9.5% Between 6 to 12 months ago 15.7% More than a year ago 27.1% Never. 14.4% Not surprisingly, a large percent (66.3%) have had contact with the front desk staff at City Hall. A quarter (25.7%) has had contact with land use staff, while about a fifth 0 9.7%) has had contact with the City Manager. Those who mentioned "other" types of staff they had contact with speci- fied people such as police, building permit staff, the Planning Director, the City Attorney, the Mayor, and City Council members. Table 3 — Type of City Hall Staff Had Contact With (n=574) Frort desk staff 66.% City Manager 19.7% Public works staff 13.8% Land use staff 25.7% Land use consultants ` 15.8% Other 14.9% Above Average Satisfaction with City Hall Services When asked how satisfied they are with City Hall staff, respondents are generally satisfied with all aspects. Based on average (mean) satisfaction scores, respondents are most satisfied with courtesy and availability. They are least satisfied with responsiveness to needs, although even here more than a third (35.3%) is very satisfied. Females are somewhat more satisfied with City Hall staff availability' and somewhat less satisfied with City Hall staff responsiveness to needs. By combining the first five aspects of satisfaction (availability, helpfulness, courtesy, timeliness in addressing concerns, and responsiveness to needs) into a Satisfaction with City Hall Staff Index (scores of which can range from 5 to 25 points), we find that older respondents are somewhat more likely to be more satisfied'. 2005 Community Survey Report 7 Cramer's V = .166, P = .005 8 Cramees V = .149, p = .019 9 Kendall's tau c = .155, p = .000 To explain which factors have the most impact on ratings of overall qual- ity of City Hall staff service, a regression analysis was performed. Helpfulness and responsiveness to needs have the biggest impact. The factors which im- pact satisfaction with overall quality of City Hall staff service are (in order of their impact): • Helpfulness • Responsiveness to your needs • Timeliness of addressing your concerns • Availability • Courtesy Table 4 -Satisfaction with City Hall Staff D. Satisfied know Mean Availability (n=570) 4.3% 6.8% 16.9% 28.2% 40.3% 3.4% 3.97 Helpfulness (n=566) 5.7% 11A% 13.6% 27.7% 440.2% 1.7% 3.87 Courtesy (n=565) 6.0% 2.7% 15.1% 27.6% 47.1% 1.5% 4.09 Timeliness addressing 11.91X9.2°lo 17.6%21.4%` 36.6% 3.0% 3.64 concerns (n 559) Responsiveness to your 12.9% 10.9% 14.3% 24.9% 35.3% 1.7% 3.60 needs (n=561) Overall: quality of service 10.8°l0 6.10°l0 16.3%' 30.410' 34.7% 1.7% 3.73 (n=563) Most Not Interested in Being Part of a Citizen Volunteer Corps Respondents were asked if they would volunteer to be part of a citizen vol- unteer corps that would be highly trained and would perform significant roles in assisting City staff with assignments (such as answering phones, filing, meeting setups, landscape maintenance, emergency response or park patrol). Less than a fifth (17.2%) would volunteer. Those who are inter- j ested are somewhat more likely to have lived in Medina fewer years" or somewhat more likely to have kids under 18 years of age at home". i Most Think Property Taxes are "About Right" After explaining that only eight cents of every property tax dollar goes to I the City of Medina, respondents were asked what they thought about the to Partial correlation - -.l oi, _ .005 amount of property taxes they pay. A little more than half (53.3%) think 1 I Partial correlation = .163, P = .000 the property taxes are about right. However, almost a third (29.9%) think 12 City of Medina 12 Kendall's tau c = .115, p = .006 2005 Community Survey Report 13 City of Medina Infrastructure Highest Satisfaction is with Recreational Aspects of City Infrastructure When it comes to satisfaction with the City's infrastructure the highest satisfaction is with the more recreational aspects of the City such as tennis courts, the Fairweather Nature Preserve, parks and Medina Beach. The exception is satisfaction with the Medina Park playground which received lower satisfaction. Relatively lower satisfaction was also noted for aspects such as street conditions, drainage, street lighting and sidewalks. Females are somewhat more satisfied with waterfront docks" and City signage14, and somewhat less satisfied with the Medina Park playground15 and drain- age16. In looking at the relationship between the number of years one has lived in Medina and satisfaction with infrastructure elements it became clear that respondents' age was inter -correlated with the number of years one has lived in Medina. The same was the case for the inter -correlation between one's age and whether one has kids less than eighteen years of age living at home. In order to understand the relationship between years lived in Medina and infrastructure satisfaction (separate from the impact of age), as well as the relationship between having kids under eighteen living at home and infrastructure satisfaction (separate from the impact of age), a series of partial correlations were calculated in which age was controlled for. These partial correlations showed that those who have lived in Medina a 13 Kendall's tau c = .141, p = .004 longer period of time are somewhat more likely to be satisfied with parks", 14 Kendall's tau c = .104, p = .01.8 street lighting18 and the Medina Park playground', but somewhat less saris- fied with drainage20. 15 Cramer's V = .149, p = .029 16 Kendall's tau c = -A 05, p = .025 In regard to the presence of kids under eighteen years of age, those with 17 Partial correlation = .117, p = .001 such children living at home are somewhat less satisfied with the following 18 Partial correlation = .116, p = .002 infrastructure elements (especially with the Medina Park playground): 19 Partial correlation = .140, p = .001 • Street conditions' 20 Partial correlation = -.114, p = .003 • ParkS22 21 Partial correlation = -.130, p = .000 • Street lighting23 22 Partial correlation = -.264, p = .000 • SidewalkS24 23 Partial correlation = -.175, p = .000 • Medina Park playground25 24 Partial correlation = -.201, p = .000 • City signage2G 25 Partial correlation = -.310, p = .000 26 Partial correlation = -. 124, p = .001 • Waterfront accesS27 27 Partial correlation = -.117, p = .002 • Waterfront dockS28 28 Partial correlation = -.116, p = .004 • Medina Beach29 29 Partial correlation = -.165, p = .000 15 2005 Community Survey Report Finally, by combining the twelve infrastructure components into a Satisfac- tion with Infrastructure Index (scores of which can range from 12 to 60 points); it was found that older respondents are somewhat more likely to be more satisfied30- Table 6 - Satisfaction with Current City Infrastructure Street conditions 1.8% 8.1% 19.9% 41.2% 28.6% 0.4% 3.87 Parks 1.6°I 6.7% 1$.3°!0 0.4°f° 35,4°fo 1.6Yo ' 3.99 Fairweather Nature Preserve 0.7% 3.2% 15.4% 23.8% 24.3% 32.5% 4.01 Street lighting 7.5% 14.90/6 24.8%, 31.0% 19.9% 1.8% 3.42 Tennis courts 1.1% 2.1% 14.5% 21.5% 32.0% 28.8% 4.14 Sidewalks 11.81YO 16.6% 27.0%' 22.2% 18.1%; 4.3% 3. 19 Medina Park playground 8.3% 9.0% 16.4% 23.5% 17.6% 25.2% 3.44 Drainage 5.9% 7.6% 223% 31.09 183% 14.4% 3,57 City sign age 3.4% 10.0% 20.4% 32.6% 30.5% 3.1% 3.79 Waterfront access 5.6%, 8.4% 20.9% 2$.4% 26.8°/a 9.9% 3,59 Waterfront docks 6.2% 9.7% 22.2% 23.5% 18.6% 19.8% 3.48 Medina Beach 2.21e 5.7% 19.$%' 34.8% 27.0% 10.5°� 3.88 30 Kendall's tau c = .186, p = .000 31 Kendall's tau c = .112, p = .012 16 Underground Utilities, More Sidewalks at Medina Elementary and Increased Street Lighting Receive the Most Support Although all of the possible infrastructure improvements received above average mean support scores (with the exception of better signage at entrances to the City), it is clear that underground utilities received the highest level of support with more than half (53.8%) supporting this very much. Increased street lighting and more sidewalks near Medina Elemen- tary School also received relatively high support with a third or more very much supporting these improvements. Using the mean support scores from Table 7, we find that support for future infrastructure improvements is ordered as follows: • Underground utilities • More sidewalks near Medina Elementary School • Increase street lighting (females somewhat more so" City of Medina • More sidewalk construction on major streets • More sidewalk construction in general • Improved drainage (females somewhat more so") • Better signage at the entrances into Medina Those who have lived in Medina more years are somewhat less supportive of the following infrastructure improvements (even when controlling for i age) : - • More sidewalk construction in general" • More sidewalks near Medina Elementary School34 • More sidewalk construction on major streets35 32 Kendall's tau c = .112, p = .012 • Increase street lighting36 33 Partial correlation = -.180, p = .000 • Better signage at entrances to Medina 7 34 Partial correlation = -. 206, p = .000 35 Partial correlation = -.191, p = .000 Those with kids under 18 at home are somewhat more supportive of the following infrastructure improvements (even when controlling for age): 36 Partial correlation = -.114, p = .000 37 Partial correlation = -.163, p =.000 • More sidewalk construction in general" 38 Partial correlation = . 108, p =.000 • More sidewalks near Medina Elementary School39 39 Partial correlation = .240, p =.000 • More sidewalk construction on major streets'O 40 Partial correlation = .146, p = .000 • Improved drainage" 41 Partial correlation = .148, p = .000 Table 7 - Support for Infrastructure Improvements support i Support Don't very much know Mean More sidewalk construct- 21.4% 10.8% 17.2% 17.4% 30.9% 2.3% 3.26 ion in general (n=671) More sidewalks near Medina.13 2% 9,m 13.2°� 17.3% 37.8% 9.5% 3.53 Elementary School (n=669) More sidewalk construct- 19.1% 9.5% 20.9% 17.2% 30.8% 2.6% 3.32 ion on major streets (n=669) o ° ° Increase street lighting,,.:11.6/0 1O2%o 25.6/, 17.110 32.5% 3.2% 3.50 (n=667) Better signage at entrances 27 4% 18.8% 22.0% 12.2% 16.9% 2.7% 2.71 into Medina (n=672) Improved drainage (n=663) 11 5% 11 4% 29.8% 16.7% 14.2% 17.0% 3.23 Under -ground utilities 7.2% 5.0% 10.6% 14.3% 53.8% 9.1% 4.13 (n-673) 2005 Community Survey Report 17 i j 18 1 I i I i Other Infrastructure Improvements When asked if there were any other infrastructure improvements they would like to see, a large number (n=255) of people responded. A relatively large percent of those who did respond mentioned improvements that have to do with road and pedestrian safety, as well as traffic and parking (51.8%). Another third (32.5%) mentioned improvements that have to do with the aesthetics of the city and noise reduction. Also mentioned were improvements regarding: • Recreational areas and dogs (13.3%) • City government policies and practices (9.0%) • Environmental clean-up (3.5%) Strong Support for Reducing Noise Generated from Outside the City Almost half (46.3%) think it is very important the City Council work to reduce noise levels from outside the City such as airplane, highway and water traffic. Table 8 — Importance of Reducing Noise from Outside the City (n=675) 1 - Not important at all 9.8°10 2 9.0% 3 16.4% 4 16.7% 5 - Very important 45,2% Don't know 0.6% City of Medina Police and Safety Many Have Had Contact with Police on Official Business Although a small percent 03.8%) have never had contact with the police department on official business, a little more than a quarter (27.3%) has had contact within the last three months. Another quarter (24.1 %) has had contact within the last four to twelve months. Females are somewhat more likely to have had more recent contact with the police department42. Those who have had contact with the police more recently are: • Somewhat more likely to have lived in Medina for fewer years (even when controlling for age)43 • Somewhat more likely to have kids under 18 at home (even when controlling for age)44 Table 9 — Last Time Had Contact with Police Department (n = 680) Within last 3 monthS Between 4 to 5 months ago 6.4% Between 6 to 12 months ago 17.7% More than a year ago 33.2% Never 13.8 /0 Police Department Receives High Marks on All Satisfaction Aspects Given that the mean satisfaction scores are all well above the average (see Table 10), it is clear that respondents are satisfied with their police depart- ment. Satisfaction with aspects of the police department from most satis- fied to least satisfied are: • Response time • Courtesy • Patrol visibility • Providing sense of security • Investigation effectiveness 42 Kendall's tau c = .117, p = .007 • Follow-up 43 Partial correlation = .106, p =.003 44 Partial correlation = -.118, p = .001 Those more satisfied with police providingsense ofsecurity5 and with police courtesy46 were somewhat more likely to have had more recent contact with 45 Kendall's tau c = -.113, p = .000 the police in an official capacity. Females are somewhat more likely to be 46 Kendall's tau c = -.148, p = .000 more satisfied with patrol visibility47. 47 Kendall's tau c = .127, p = .002 2005 Community Survey Report 19 f Partial correlations (controlling for age) showed that those who have lived in Medina a longer period of time are somewhat less likely to be satisfied with police providing a sense ofsecurit)/' and with courtesy'. In regard to the presence of kids under eighteen years of age, those with such children are somewhat more satisfied with courtesy10 andfollow-up". Table 10 - Satisfaction with Police Department Do dissatisfied 2 3 4 Satisfied know Mean Response time (n=662) 1.8% 1.2% 5.5% 19.5% 51.3% 20.7% 4.48 Patrol visibility (n=668) 2.8% 3.9% 8.8% 30.5%52.1% 1.9% 4.28 Providing sense of 6.6% 12.8% 31.6% 44.7% 2.4% 4.13 security (n-669) 2.0% Courtesy (n=665) 2.6% 2.5% 8.0% 16.5%' 65.0% 5.5% ' 4,47 Investigation effectiveness 4.6% 2.1% 7.9% 13.4% 28.2% 43.9% 4.04 (n=664) Follow-up (n-=661) 5.5% 3.91° 4.9% 13:3% 31.4% 41.0% 4.03 Mixed Support for K-9 Unit With 38.3 percent supporting the City acquiring it's own K-9 unit (scores 4 & 5) and 32.3% not in support (scores 1 & 2), there is no clear consen- sus on this issue from the respondents to the survey. Table 11- Support for K-9 Unit (n=680) 1 - Do not support at ail 21.6% 2 10.7% 3 13.7 % 4 8.0% 5 - Very much support 30.3% Don't know 14.2% Relatively Strong Support for Installing Surveillance Cameras 48 Partial correlation = -.103, p = .004 With almost half (46.8%) agreeing (scores 4 & 5) with installation of 49 Partial correlation = -.202, p = .000 surveillance cameras at sites determined to help prevent crime (and with one-third [32.6%] strongly agreeing), it is clear that a large plurality of 50 Partial correlation = .157, p = .000 respondents are in favor of this. On the other hand, more than a quarter 51 Partial correlation = .118, p = .Ql 1 (28%) disagree (scores 1 & 2), with another 16 percent providing only __._.___ _mid -range_ support-._ 20 City of Medina Table 12 — Level of Agreement for Installing Surveillance Cameras (n=682) 1- Strongly disagree 2 9.9% 3 16.0% 4 14.2% 5 - Strongly agree 32.6% Don't know 7.8% Parks Many Residents Use the Parks Almost half (48.2%) use City parks frequently (scores 4 & 5), with more than a quarter (27%) using them very often. Less than 10 percent never use the City parks. Those who use parks more often are somewhat more likely to have kids under 18 living at home (even when controlling for age)52 and are more likely to be female51. Table 13 — Frequency of Park Use (n=683) Never 7.5% Rarely 11.6% Once in a while Often 21.2% Very often 27.0% Upgrades to Medina Park Playground Equipment and Improved Landscaping Top the List of Support for Park Improvements There is less support in general for park improvements compared to infra- structure improvements. Only two of the seven park improvement items received above average mean support scores. These were upgrading the Medina Park playground equipment and improving park landscaping. Using the mean support scores from Table 14, we find that support for park improvements is ordered as follows: • Upgrade Medina Park playground equipment • Improved landscaping • More picnic areas • Install lights at tennis courts in Medina Park • Install lights at tennis courts in Fairweather Nature Preserve • Construction of more athletic fields • More community organized park activities Those who use the parks more frequently are somewhat more likely to sup- port the installation of lights at tennis courts at Medina Park54. Females are somewhat more likely to support the upgrade o f Medina Park playground equipment". 52 Partial correlation = .137, p = .000 53 Kendall's tau c = .105, p = .014 54 Kendall's tau c = .102, p = .002 55 Kendall's tau c = .175, p = .000 i 2005 Community Survey Report 23 Those who have lived in Medina more years support the following park improvements somewhat less (even when controlling for age): • More community organized park activities56 • More picnic areas57 • Upgrade of Medina Park playground equipments$ 56 Partial correlation = -,147, p = .000 • Construction of more athletic fields59 57 Partial correlation = -.107, p = .003 Those with kids under 18 at home support the following park improve- 58 Partial correlation = -.135> p = .000 ments somewhat more (even when controlling for age): 59 Partial correlation = -.264, p = 000 • More community organized park activities60 60 Partial correlation = .144, p = .000 • More picnic areas61 61 Partial correlation = .122, p = .001 62 Partial correlation = .216, p = .000 • Upgrade of Medina Park playground equipment62 63 Partial correlation = .263, p = .000 • Construction of more athletic fields6 Table 14 -Support for Park Improvements DoSupport support Do - More community organized 23.7% ° ° 20.7% 28.5% 9.9/0 11.5/0 5.8% 2.62 park improvements (n=669) Improved landscaping 10.2% 14.8% 35.2%20.8% 15.9%; 3.1% 3,28 (n=665) More picnic areas (n=668) 16.5% 17.0% 30.4% 21.5% 11.1% 3.7% 2.93 Upgrade Medina Park play- 14.9% 12.2% 21.9% 13.6% 27.1%10,3% 3.29 ground (n=669) Construction of more athletic 25.4% 18.3% 21.3% 11.7% 18.0% 5.2% 2.77 fields (n=669) Install lights at tennis courts 27.9%0 10.4% 15.5%© 17.1% 21AY6 8.0% 2.92 in Medina Park (n=073) Install lights at tennis courts in Fairweather Nature Pre- 28.8% 10.8% 12.9% 13.4% 16.5% 17.6% 2.73 serve (n=669) Other Park Improvements When asked if there were any other improvements to the parks they would like to see, a large number (n=208) of people responded. A relatively large percent of those who did respond mentioned improvements that have to do with maintenance, drainage, and the sprinkler systems in the parks (41.8%). Another fifth (20.7%) mentioned improvements to the athletic fields and tennis courts. Also mentioned were improvements regarding the dog leash issue (20.2%), with comments reflecting support for the current leash rule and the former leash rule. 24 City of Medina i No Citizen Consensus on the Dog Leash Issue There is clearly mixed opinion on the dog leash rule. A third (33.1 %) of respondents prefer the current rule (on leash west part of the park season- ally, off -leash east part of park year round). Almost another third (28.5%) prefer the former rule (under voice control year round, no leash required). Another way of looking at this issue is to think in terms of those who want dogs on a leash in some way compared to those who want dogs off -leash in some way. From this perspective, 69 percent prefer leashing dogs in some fashion (choices 1, 3, and 4), while 62 percent prefer dogs unleashed in Community Development and Permit Process Mixed Opinions about Whether Policies and Regulations Protect the City's Character A surprisingly large percent (54.7%) of respondents report they are familiar with the City's land use policies. Those familiar with land use policies are somewhat more likely to have kids under 18 living at home (even when controlling for age)64. Males are somewhat more likely to be familiar with land use polices compared to females65 There are mixed opinions regarding the land use policies. While almost half (44.6%) think the policies are too restrictive, another third (31.9%) think they are about right. And another fifth (18.5%) think they are not restrictive enough. Those who think land use policies are too restrictive are: • Somewhat less likely to have kids under 18 at home (even when con- trolling for age)66 • Somewhat more likely to have lived in Medina for more years (even when controlling for age)' Table 16 — Level of Restrictiveness of Land Use Policies (n=386) Too restrictive 44.6% About right 31.9% Not restrictive enough 18.% Don't know 5.0% In contrast to respondents' opinions about the land use polices are their opinions toward whether the zoning regulations protect the character of the City. About a third (32%) does not think current zoning regulations protect the character of the City. More than forty percent (41.3%) think zoning regulations do protect the City's character. Those who think zon- ing regulations do not protect City character are somewhat more likely to have kids under 18 at home (even when controlling for age)61. They are also more likely to think that the City's land use policies are not restrictive - Permitting Process Seen as Area for Significant Improvement Somewhat related to the issue of land use policies and zoning is the issue of building permits. More than a third (37.8%) has used the City's permit services. Those who have used are: • Somewhat more likely to have lived in Medina for fewer years (even when controlling for age)70 • Somewhat more likely to have kids under 18 at home (even when controlling for age)71 An area for improvement is the permitting process. More than half (55.8%) are dissatisfied (scores 1 & 2), with forty percent being very dis- satisfied. Those more dissatisfied are: • Somewhat more likely to have lived in Medina for fewer years (even when controlling for age)72 • Somewhat more likely to have kids under 18 at home (even when controlling for age)73 • Somewhat more likely to be familiar with the land use policies74 Table 18 - Satisfaction with Permit Process (n=250) 1 -Very, dissatisfied 40.2% 2 15.6% 3 23.6% 4 14.8% 5 - Very satisfied 4,4% Don't know 1.4% 70 Partial correlation = -.151, P = .000 71 Partial correlation = .172, p = .000 72 Partial correlation = .112, p = .035 73 Partial correlation = -.195, P = .001 74 Kendall's tau c = -.171, p = .004 28 City of Medina Communications Keeping citizens informed is an important function of the City Council. The City currently utilizes a quarterly newsletter and a website. Gaining deeper understanding of the types of information citizens are most inter- ested in, as well as the preferred methods of communication was the focus of the last section of the survey. All But County News is of Interest Mixed Preferences for Communication Methods Also of importance is understanding the preferred methods for receiving information. Preferences in order from most preferred to least preferred (based on mean preference scores) are: • Newsletter • E-mail alerts • Special notices • Website • Direct mail It was found that some demographics were related to communication method preferences. For example, females are somewhat more likely to - prefer newsletters'S. Those who have lived in Medina more years (even 75 Kendall's tau c _ .140, p = .001 when controlling for age) have a somewhat lower preference for website0", 76 Partial correlation = -.172, p = .00c 2005 Community Survey Report 29 e-mail alerts", and special notices78. They also are somewhat likely to prefer direct mail39. Those with kids under 18 at home (even when controlling for age) have a somewhat lower preference for newsletters80, direct mail" and special notices82. They have a somewhat higher preference for e-mail alerts83. Table 20 -Preferences for Communication Methods Newsletter (n=653) 3.4% 2.1% 11.8% 25.2% 57.4% 4.31 Webste (n=530) ;$.°f° 12.°!0 227% 1$.5% 2$.6% 3.27 E-mail alerts (n=588) 16.8% 3.8% 10.5% 15.9% 53.1% 3.85 Direct mail (n=553) 20.7% 11.2% 20 9% 22.6% 24.6'% 3.19 Special notices (n=528) 12.4% 9.9% 23.6% 23.5% 30.6% 3.50 Other (n=34) 48.35/6 3.6% 20 3% 9 5% 18.396 2.46 77 Partial correlation = -.233, p = .000 78 Partial correlation = -.126, p = .000 79 Partial correlation = .103, p = .006 80 Partial correlation = -.104, p = .004 81 Partial correlation = -.176, p = .000 82 Partial correlation = -.156, p = .000 83 Partial correlation = .227, p = .000 84 Partial correlation = -.177, p = 002 30 The City's website has not been used by more than half (56.7%) of the respondents. Of those who have used it, about forty percent (40.7%) are satisfied to some degree (scores 4 & 5). A little more than a fifth (21.1 %) are dissatisfied to some degree (scores 1 and 2). Those who are more satis- fied with the website are somewhat less likely to have kids under 18 living at home". Table 21- Satisfaction with City Website (n=280) -'fiery dissatisfied.,6.9% 2 14.2% 3 38.3°f° 4 32.2% 5 - Very satisfied $.5% High Interest in Town Hall Meetings When asked which of a series of topics they would be very likely to at- tend a town hall meeting about, almost two-thirds indicated an interest in identification of citizen preferred SR 520 upgrade alternatives (63.6%) and whether the City should limit the size of houses that can be built on smaller lots (61.4%). Other topics also garnered interest from a third or more of respondents. City of Medina 31 32 City of Medina What Else Citizens Want the Council to Know The final question on the survey asked — "Are there any other comments you would like to share with us about the City of Medina?" Two -hundred and seventy-eight people responded to this question with many comments focusing on concerns with how the Council operates and/or with city codes, policies and procedures (47.5%). Another area that received com- ments involved concerns about the noise/aesthetics/environment in the City of Medina (14.7%). Smaller percents were concerned with roads/traf- fic/parking (9.4%), overdevelopment and maintaining the City's character (7.6%), crime/safety/emergency preparedness (7.2%), and support for underground utilities (4.3%). 2005 Community Survey Report 33 I Appendix A: Letter from Mayor City of Medina - City Hall PO Box 144/501 Evergreen Point Road Medina, WA 98039 ***********AUTO**5-DIGIT 98039 TO OUR NEIGHBORS AT: 7626 NE 8TH ST MEDINA WA 98039-4764 IILLJIIII,LL,LILIJLJLLIILJII 501 EVERGREEN POINT ROAD . P.O. BOX 144 . MEDINA, WA 98039-0144 TELEPHONE 425-233-6400 • FAX 425-454-8490 • www.medina-wa.ciov Dear Neighbor, Your City Council is sponsoring this important City-wide survey. Responses will assist the City Council and Staff in determining levels of consensus and diverse opinion surrounding significant issues. To acquire a valid understanding of our citizen's values and vision, we wish two adult members (18 years of age or older) of each household to complete and return the survey documents. Approximately 10 minutes of time is required to provide your responses. You may choose to use the ID's and Passwords listed below to access and complete the survey online (located at http://web.prr-seattle.com/infopoll/surveys.dll/P.sid=78). If you return the survey by mail, please be sure you fold the form so that the return address and prepaid postage is on the outside and affix tape to close. Answers will remain anonymous to the City Council and Staff. Codes on the survey are used only as a means of prohibiting individuals from filing more than a single set of responses. A professional survey firm will collect and manage all data. The firm's analysis will be put forth in a draft report, followed by a final report and public presentation currently scheduled to occur in early September. On behalf of your City Council, I thank you in advance for your efforts, enabling the Council and Staff to know your position on vital issues. please complete the survey and return by July 19, 2005. Respectfully yours, Mayor Online survey ID's and Passwords: ID's Passwords 971954 220323 88175 172341 2005 Community Survey Report 35 City of Medina Appendix B: Survey 8 ❑ • ❑ Al ❑❑❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Y = ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑❑ $ T rn R ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ O p ❑� Z oo ❑❑❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑cl • R E El L u C cL v ❑ O may. ❑ ❑ ❑ El El El El r = ... El.0 iO� ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ a .� 'p y _ Z ElO o. u > c o 4 o❑ R o❑❑ GC 6i 'o 0 o o o o= o nT o N o a n > C OOQG V N xoo y N is O adz S ❑ 1 El .. ❑ R El El Y ❑ ❑❑ ❑❑ c, ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑❑ v , _ x rn3 Q. o� sc: �rn o 3 Yc _2`o boa ao ^� `❑❑ ❑❑ ❑❑ �oY sav❑ a'' z 2 E El Y a osZ '6 3 0 `"❑ ❑ T R ❑❑ ❑❑ =Too „❑ El �� H ❑ C W vim,', 3 ❑❑ m❑ j G N L vi d —El El O El El ❑❑ O'er El +0+ T� p p75 _ .� $ T 61 m `e.'❑ El El El ❑❑ CO is-„ V R .L.' El 8 ` V .. Y O E �v R N d a+ - a R .. ❑ R<os a a H? c O N a' N .t' 01 ♦+ 1/1 vi = s'G+ C 16 T o LF O N R 6 dl �_ L_ .c s W ip d g O` > d R` O R W 2 V G_ "C >> O N N O N N �V O �6 :� O` O O _c a a' p, i- M 4 ❑❑ ❑ ❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑ [s = ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑❑ ❑ O O o « d `❑❑ ❑ ❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑ `0 2 `❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑❑ o 2. ��❑ O ` ^ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ S e ` ❑ ❑ c ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ V � O _ c r v m w R y _t2 c a. m 3 m v t o .& y o L Y c.N v -,E o` a m o. ?. io v c v d 'A �' m io m a s `o o a o c `v d o n' c o V1 a LL Z in H in 'v 'S L - Ou P2 0 m N tb h ',, '�, w m W i ❑❑❑ y - ❑❑❑El Q Q El El t� lAl a X C � � d O -El El El " I v c m vRi ❑. -El ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ El El El= w12 ❑ ❑ ❑ Q ?- = R Gov o I Y c V L~ �iD oo -❑❑❑ G c Ld ❑El0 Ey'v w V 2, N Y N O E..... E N N UI N t N � � �L vRUi 0 N . O O ai {� c L .n " LL -2 -2 A" Q. R U O p G -6 C .0 H '6 v w o Y o f > o o E LL o •-• - an w a' ._ �. w N 16 au H O. c • V I- o V N M '7 2005 Community Survey Report 37 38 vN Cp C ry Elsa_ E O , T V O L }�. GJ '~ •" yy, ~ � � Q h �_ � � N aCi � o p � � � m ep+i � c N a � _• �� ,�� c �i r c a� a• a, a: � � c� -Y � �,+-'• a' „p„ p p fi p p o J r E o a as E Q a s o p s o T ,ate: a R o p � y . j� �' c `} fw. a G c a .s y a, ate, a-,_ C 4+` L �^ p T c p o E_ a mN a> 0�_- T� �" O N + a �+ a E a— a: p Q e E - u c $ u a� _ a L E c a a L I'll'm 'm a. Q. j, T;c m c eS p ms a y "r'nu'Irrl�lm'r'nlrl�r�rrrr"Ilr��r't1'n'r" 9966- LO L26 VM 3111`d3 S 00C 31S 3AV 1S L 60 L L NNd a=�SSaaoU'dAe OIVd ae ITV, �Se1SOd VM31llb"3S 7-6 ON 11N83d lVN SSIVlZ)-1salJ TVN A-ld�Rl SSANIsns S31tl1S O311Nf1 3H1 NI (Ellhih JI ArJaSS303N ]OVISOd ON �df� ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ F s EQ a❑❑ ❑ • a r.E I I I �'f-Q.�—a c ,�8 �eCoa d Aye • S o �e A a �❑ 0 i0 Ln O N _—E" ^. a 'a El m L I Q Q C- 0 0 ar - O. �.+ I r I i O a d C SO 'm t a m • E o� i0.c � �'. � a cis cL u�c—�'r ^ 'O oZ y � f- o �i a❑❑fi�t* '8� `a +_+ O C �� •� N a E fi{ s y o co n p o C '-' A ,a+ is. L a N M s E m o 8 ep - = O i LO �dOur•] d (O = N I }- N O on4L1 ~ C L H- j .00r 3UQ1 LW O E yQ, '3 �,' QL 0Lv a •AN m a' e y t0 CT O m cfl N O h•. G N Q -' R� •.- �6 O y N N M M o Elo❑ ❑ og000q El Cl y a�❑❑❑❑❑❑ a❑❑❑❑❑❑ cm �m 'c �Ga o I ❑❑❑❑❑❑ 5,� '� o o❑ g a ? I o-El El[IElQEl 3 r y, E o Z o• �` El m e e U z_ v m c I tea, a, o$ "' ❑ a, j d U y i ` O O C _ C I I d O H❑ 0 a c> -.I +� sy - _ aS, O m �- �e e ' �, . ce a, 9 u W C S C O b i _ c �'�° !2 H m O� E G �' Z'.,E gD e ;rj'.,.. _ °>'❑ .� m ? m 4 8 oaY� B °o< > a �u in ,� 'S •� c-S ::JZ v� Van �O 2$ Z'S W Gv,O O o rN V r 0 N N N O 12 a n1 erVi City of Medina OU) ■� d �N .G 20 CYO _v _ Q 4 N occ 0 s LLM O 0 U vi o E xW N C Oct � () c It LO OD 00 o � L :3 U It LO O O L6 O M NT-- O co } O CY) d I- N It CO O C: a)(� N On Ln T (0 N d' r 00 00 T O ir ^� LL a)N N CO O r 00 T O) 00 c0 r W co a> LL o c o � E O E cO Ch Ln r co Co r a to c C: co E a) a a)O a)O O 2 N p > . CO co CO co Z H cn C L Cl)U)U)O > 4, r M C'7 f� O 00 00 I� r CO O 00 r- Cf) r cfj It LO 0)r 00 r Cfl r N O T O 0O OO OO O O r E E E E E E : : : : :3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U U U U U U U U U U U U c as cc; = U CIS.� c co c c OU Y coO U) ccu G L � E O s O O :3 U- U CL CO.� -i O U U O CoCD V co ca >,, +. cz co 00 U cn L F- Z` o 8-0- o 0 0 0 0 % 00 r CO d I- I` O ,V O O CO O 4 r 0 cr r r M M O r = O � v7 CU o r� co N m r r- LO m CD r M co O 0 0000 N > / 0/0 a) a) co 0) co Il- O CD N O ct N LO r C M O r O L d :3 U) O junoo M I- r co r co 0 4 00 a) O r t- cfl � r r LO 4- c 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O % O N co �t 00 O O r r O I- r r N (D CO M O CD O r O O - L Cj O junoC) C~O LN T NO r N Ln O O O O 810 O O /0 O I,- r to r LO CD Cn W N LO I-- I, r O CD r N nt O � r O U junoo M Lrf' LOOO LLn rcoo 00 Lcoo (V LO O -0 O G O O O Cncn % s= LO r r M r ram- N O et r o O � r junoo N co M cD I` ti I� Lo 0o N O r (9 Zo O 2 r N LO 0000e1 M CO a) N CO 'I O 4 w (O r 00 N O ct M O O � r co QL() �uno� N rn M a)ca COr O M O N O I` r N LO N c co Lr-- co c _ > N CO � C) F- ID coO N O s= CO O (B N r � L =3 a- U C 00 N O N N I` G i CO r Cl C r a. c6 .� M M Lo LO O C 00 CD 4 Lo O a) O � r a� a. N M 00Lo M r N Lf) r O O cr U- E N ca Z �- H U) c co L o U o 0 0 0 0 0 0 cc % W O U7 O 0) m M N O m C �unoo Cl) CO cc0 m 00 1- a) 0000000 % N I� N t0 CO O O Oto Y CO m N m w m O N N O O U O ;uno� N mW Imo- q' N CO co v u, co >, 0 0000000 CO 1: O) lz� O 07 O W N N co O CaM junoo co co LO v rn m coo 1- Ca M CD o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0) % It It CO In O c M O O M M M O junoo N co co — cS N ^ {� 04 N C O 0000000 0) % O CO M O h er O CC C U7 h N — 00 1, 0 N M — — O junoo rn - rn � LO to oy MCOvoNrnco N CO C U� M IR U) CO N O Ca O ° O O O N r N LO O C g �uno:D co Ln coo LO °.° CO co 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y % 00 CO O N �- M O tII Cfl h (N 00 -T O N N — O 3 a� (n luno� 0) CV N O N O 't I- CO IO CN N 1- LO 00U�Lqoa\oo O % N d N 00 O y � }uno:D [I- C C � F N CO 00��000 % Lq rn ao o rn co 0 r N �uno:D cn o co o N O co 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N L ° �o h; N V 00 CM U? O N cDw � M m m It N O N N CO O C� _ z junoo LO CO O m 00 O N O CO CO (6 0- LL N CO 0000000 % CO I- CM CO O N CO CO CO Lo M O }uno LO Cl) LO 00 M N CV to 0000000 00 — C 7 N CO � O C O_ % r 00 01 - N O a C 0 U junoo cr LO c � rn �' r- N CO a) m V o W U) Z 2!1 c :° .7 N co 'T > 0 O O� O O C U N O O M 00 r 0 CD OL �0 I` U") O �t M O O r r LO O � � r junoo t M � CO rn No c co r- M co a o 0 0 LO ct M Imo- N O O > Co r r r r O c�1 CO r r ti r O 0 O r 0 junoo co I` co ti NT rn O r IT rn N r M c!J L r r r (4 O O O O (U 0 % d w O N m h- O C ca ti CV o6 r N N N r CO r N O O Juno 0o T -t co r � m N N \ \ \ \ \ c N % CO N O r 0 r O *L-cr, r 0 6 P-- N CM O ui 1. r cn _r_ Co_ juno'J I` ram- 00 CO r ti d r P- r TN -I` N co O C r r N co Y (B O L o �o r LO O N M CO O a) 0 (6 — O di O N 1` r O CO N C) CD E r a)U)C tOn L ° O }u noo w N M co CD rr r co O r- r m co r r r N co C N O N C) co LO O 0 3 o CO r .o E U junoo co cD 000o ° MLn c`o ZD r N CO Y o - o -. 0 ct3 •� o �� t 00 N� O M O v0 0 r N CO r Imo- r 1` r O CO N O O U N L () ^, L C O junoo � M LO 1` Nr M c- � cc L t�C O O_ O CL CL U in � � 0 E Y ca N M et > ►- 711 E 3 0 s 00 CJ CM LO M O C cu N r E^^Q) LL U C7 N 00 r M to O cD O a)t4 ti O O Lr r r d O a) r 0 70 00 O Rt 1- N to to ct O c: t4 to Ln r� CV O U r r d O O N ti N CO Co Nqzl U-) r- r to O r r r P- r 0)C CD r r CM Co CD CT LL cu m .. c cu r 0 0 0- E 0 � E E a) Z N M �t � 0 H U) 0) c ) o N N O > N 0 t4 O N U N 00 O 0) CV f� O Co M O � r 701 > CD 00 'I to O N N � M a O L� UO r qzr lc') co Imo- 00 r r O 'qt N t4 to a' N LL E a 0 (n a)Z Coi � cn GO cm c o cu U' > F- i M O 00 O 00 r 0 0 > tf) O M 00 N O . • C C'M u) 1- 00 0') O c4 4] r L CL U 00 r O M C) O O Uu-) u') N 4 M o0 O L M r N r O a) r a. N 00 cM U') O f0 CO It CO Cl (0 CA V) r M N Iq 00 Q Lr a) a N M u) r r M CO to r O d CO tt r N 00 o O N o CO N LL a� a) uV)i (n cu c (ti N M IP > 0 O C �2 CCcf) G O N It M O > ,F.,, LO o0 00 O r-+ C lO 00 O cu N 75 v r U C U u) Co O r 0 L N r O N r a. a) 4 c) N r cy) (.0 0 2- a) CL et u) d C4 O N r C M M ~ a) LL s 3 O s 0 O O O c4 +• .� cA F— Q O) c _ tU co cc� 0 N 1` N N O O C NCO LN 000 0 (0 N L IL r U ti LO O 1` O O N O 1-- N 0 00 T M CO d• T O O CD r M ti N 00 V Co O C 0) ir 1� CN 0 1� r M M M T 00 O r 0 O CD CL 0 00 00 zt V M N M N (D O O 00 r �- r O N r r N Cfl CO cr U- (n c cn o o E 0 0) ca M , toa) T- L co C/) �O O > E C: N N > v >_ O m O m N Z C o 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 LO M M r Z- CO r d• O r O juno'J M (Co. M o0O N N (To - O LL_ CD (q 8-0- o 0 0 e o 0 O tn 0 r O� N M O 0) % N f� N 0 O rt r w U junoo r o rn 0) c r N Co % to LO CD LO O 6 LO O O E N N N 00 CO 0 LO O T O U junoo r o O cM M CLD4 r Co o o 0 0 0 % O Cfl 00 CO 1` d O p . N CO C 4 N o M cn :3 > U C CO CO O O N a cn junoo v o , (oo N co Co ,.r o -0-0 o 0 0 0 % CO O 00 LO T O O N M 00 O CV r 0 to co LO O •> T O m junoo 0') T 0 O CV LO it 1`- C'M 00 r N m 0 0 CO N LO LO M I- Cl N r T LO a? r r LO 0 0 N O Q E r junoo T 0 M N cItD c~M c.'4 N r CO r CO O N a � > N CO d > Q M 0D ti 0o CD O > ,_ T CV t0 Ir LO O N M ItV) 00 O N L N � rn rn rn T ao � O N r O M 00 c, .4 O L N T r CO T O N r > 4- C T O co 00 O 4 00 T O N N T T CO — M O LT /N LJ.. O It Lo Lo O 00 O T T U T P- O o O w T M N N cr L U- m (0 O O CL O :3 U O F Y +- o N M �t > o co c :2 cn CU > En ; i° CI cI Cfl O T O > 0p 00 ';T O N O `- N d' Lo O O c r N U N o0 O O d' M tom- O Lr T r r M O � r CL m N MON tO 00 to ct O LT N U In 00 O 00 Lo 'T N O r CD N T CD r T O') N N Lo 00 co O CO cm m 0O cu Y E C C t- N L N M d � tj C > Z i° U) N 00 O O r LO i` O N ca75 r EL N U c u? cn ry a N 1- N T.-1 . O �- M N N O a. mot, M M ti M O E: i- N O CO 00 O N P CO N N 0) O L� O ~ CO LO d' CO 00 �- N N CD (D N L 3 (if � N > Z 0� O O C cu O H (� U N o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 % 00 w 0 � LC) '0 O tII N CO d N m (D t- 0 Nz 7( N O U C N W) - m C as Z }uno� M NW'- O d 00 O w r� o rn y LL P P coo Y Co N o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 IQ 0) "t LO P P O O O N P P P N O P junoo O L() Ln N �Y Ln r co CO o ti O ct - P P P P O U o 0 0 00 0 0 0 O U .. Ln CO P P Co Ln O N P 04 P P O P y � w C 0 }unoC) O M co. d P LO Cn � M� ti c) U -Ileo a o- a o 0 _ Z7 fC � o �0 d) N O CO P M O o a -o a � N P Mt- N P N P O 0 0 > :3 junoo O N f� P P 0)O O co mot- rn co co co :D a) E g a u P P P co 0000000 U % LO O "t LO P h• O V U p P P M 0 CM 04 P O Q m 07 junood c M 't � Co P P N P co o O O O O O O '� % N CO N 00 M P O 6 4 O 6 N > cu cM O P P cM N <- O 0 P - junoo CO CO "t 00 toP LO co m M M o N Co N P P (0 L O o O O -E, O ° t'- I--Ln 0) 't CO CD 't m O Co m P Lo O N N O EN N P .� �E'Et junoo 0) o) P W CO O M «� m m co ti M co UN LQ? Q P P C.0 m � N O a CL o a .c 3 M � Y o E N m 'ct > F- Q) 00 19T 0) C) O > c3i T-- 00 Irt 4 co o6 0) c5 0 E =3 LL L) co LO LO r 0 C) 0-) 06 N (6 cli CY) N6 Cl > ..— Cli r-� rN Im rm C, C: m r-_ N (D r co O N 0 0 LL >, co N M rl- N M (D co cr 2? U- CD (D > 0 m a) E — 2 4- a- 4- cn C: = 0 E 0 "0" CL U) m 0 U) C: 4- t�- 0 o w CO U ID U) 0 > C: 0 E w C: —0 m o 0- T cn Z o -a —a) 0 :3 2 c 0-0 r_ m fn 0 U') TO 0 z 4— U) U') CD .s U) (n — tQ 0 N co 0 > C) ca 0) E C: co r— CD a) Lo 4 C5 LO a LL ca 0) C) 0) — C) C: (Y) CY) (D co C) Q) IT LO 0) 0 d. >� co to C) C,4 0 C) CO C14 0) co m COP— (D or a) UL E co pr 0 z U) 0) CU Ln 2 F 0 C } d L m N� e cQ c0 O O ti rn O Co (D 75 L E CD r co O LO O O CD L d c} r C) 00 r Lo O O CL O CO Cl) 00 00 N O N ir N O N LO t 00 a U C:cr N ti M N r ti CA CD 00 LO O r O r r M M CO p L U- ..0 O O CD Uc ) O C .O L .-L. c E +- CO H Q z 0 F°- cn c cncn _ (6 > I— N N aF Cl co O j ., N cM O .r-- O CO I`- O cu CU r' —:3 2 N CL � U O co I- O CD L N co r d' CO N O O N r CL cu O I__ ct' r 00 O V N M N O O L N CL N r N O co N MO O Lo r OO N C C LL 0 E cn O U) zz}0f°-cn c U) U) CU cu > 2 O H 0 M 0 M O1:T OICT f` CD CQ r- 00 ti f` C4 r O O Lj L O Lo V ti Cn 00 CD 00 v c",00 ti m � O CA "' N ct r Lo co Cn 00 P, co a o 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 c c c c c c c c cEcEc���c�c�c�cE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U m c 0 N -- a) C � Q O C C +-' N -C lf) 0 0o aci U 3 3C: C) i > .r C N C C > 0 L (is m �0 C cm Q1 U C L CD c: c.} C? Z to U (� N O U U C 0 L ._, O 4-- 0 L_ (n H V c as L d L C. O E c m 0 ._ m E E O V CY 0 0 o 0 0 % Cl) CO Cl) Ln M O �- N 00 M O CA 00 O 'qT N r O L r r.+ }unoo (rr-Mc°M 0 0 0 o % v Cn Co Ln co 0 M O O ( N O m V T N N co O U a 0 CO C }Uno`J LO CM LO tt N 0o Zo Lo N N CO N r r LO 0 0 10-0 8-11 o� o %O r• N 0') CD Co O O CV 4 O N O r 0 }unoo It N CO LO Co CY) r Cp T N co Lo r T r T LA O O O Cn 00 CO LO O r O % CO M O L6 M O r r r lf) O r (a w}uno� M CO (0 M CO M LO O O O O O Pl 0 r • Lq Cfl O N r � 0 00 N N 00 00 O T r N r N O .Q r 0 }Unoo CO ;ZrO CO r O (n (o N (mLo M oPl o o o N % d' r 0o N Ct O M N T U) r O T N LO O r }UnO'J N d r Lf7 CO LiMCD N r I` Mi N Z (a a � U a :3 O E C L 0 N CO d' > i- C) T cp LO O > (Q T T O N LO M O L U 0) N co N LO O U 00 co M T ^� LL (a O ICT LO r oo LO 0 C N Lo Lo co co O c0 N 07 O (D r T d• LO LO O LT a. Q �O � N 000 0) - r 0) N T N CY) ct (Q LL a) A T (a ? U) 0 -0 L, (tea > > N M 41> �= U v F- C _ (a co > 2 O F- M 0 T- co N I` O cY 0r-- qtl. O N M M(o N M M� NLo a o 0 : E E : E = - = E - = E - 0 0 0 U U U U C) U CU c O CL cc L a) 0 CL 4-- 4- cn C cn >1 c >_ CD O� L p cn 4 OL O U U N N a) N n CD N U O c4 p) .�O. N a E .0 -6 O o c a) > c6 O c` C C O m Co -P" O O U C O ,J rZ c C C�0 U U)"= 5- Q C N a) Lo "O -0 O (0 0) Y C � in a) N cn N w ll� 0 L cn O -b U a.. O O U U -E0.3: I— CD N CO d LO C10 O N NT LO � O a) IL U a) i 4 CN O c- O Lo r C) N O 0 a) � IL N N I O O U') M I` O C m O U-) CA O O N L� N r- r- N O O Li U CUD O C4 co CA O 00 O It O (D 00 Lf) 6) a) N O (D a) LL O En U L L O a) �' �' O Lo O N L O M a) cn LO411 O O En A O C T O LO 0 L ^^a� :3 LL U r O O O i I-- N Ln ct O O ^O L 1.. r 19t M Il- M O N � LO � 0 r ci O r n O M M N N (D c) r CD N L LL E to ... w to Z O c cn Li co > F-- Q 1 Q M CY O O O O O O O > L6 Ln r 06 M T CD 06 f` O O co N L Ea r U O O O O O O O ULo i O M N C 5 N I` r N N O O N CL r c > C N In O r cM N M N I` r CV N O O Lr U O Ln M CA Cfl CA Lo M Lf� f � r N Lo r a) cr LL_ N M d' Lo co L > 0 0 0 0 0 0 i0 co N c ) 'T Lfj c a) ll� O > .- P- O O cu N L IL U �r Q0 O U �f LO O ^� L.L. r `co O O 0) r O E N Lr Lo ct LO � M O ^^(V U I- r N Lo 0) CD N N r 07 M co O co cr C� L LL E ECC cu v� LL CA c .a N O m > F- N O O O E OL CCD C1 0 N cn co cs� 00 C Q (Q f X C n CD i -a PI al a1 tG lG k N c� c a m C U) 0 N � �� V4�, Q 4 � OO' Q m0 U N CD co C:)_y v sDD O > Q` C Q _ � C � � Q, N N � CU C t7 � N O O Cis N O O C3? C a :° rn N O N 0 0 Ul (D co 1 Doug Schulze From: Rachel Baker Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2005 1:40 PM To: Doug Schulze Subject: Hurricane Relief options Attachments: Katrina Relief Options.xis Doug- Just following up per your request for hurricane relief options. I found a few websites that offered places & ideas for donations. National League of Cities (http://www.nlc.org/newsroom/press room/news alert/6319.cfm) provided the following ideas: • City to city assistance http://www.nlc.org/content/Files/Hurricane%20Relief%20form.doc • Louisiana Disaster Recovery Foundation (www.louisianahelp.org) FEMA website (http://www.usafreedomcorps.gov/katrina/donate.asp) has the following links to check out: • Alabama Governor's Emergency Relief Fund www.servealabama.gov • Louisiana Disaster Recovery Foundation www.louisianahelp.org • Mississippi Hurricane Recovery Fund www.mississippirecovery.com Other organizations accepting donations are: • America's Second Harvest — The Nations Food Bank Network - http://www.secondharvest.org/default.asp • American Red Cross - www.redcross.org • Habitat for Humanity - www.habitat.org • The Humane Society of the United States - www.la-spca.org • Mercy Corps - www.mercycorp.com • Salvation Army - www.salvationarmy.org • United Way of America - www.unitedway.org • World Concern - www.worldconcern.org • World Vision International - www.wvi.org Network for Good (http://www networkforgood org/topics/animal_environ/hurricanes/?source=USAFC) has more links for additional organizations collecting donations, including the ones above. I just pulled those, since they weren't linked to religious organizations, etc. Rachel (The attachment also lists the above organizations. It didn't sound like council wanted to donate to a specific city, but a few suggestions are listed for cities in need of assistance on the attachment, too.) 9/22/2005 C C cC U > O U) > > ' lll O E-0 = O O .O M -a m 0 c -C 0) m U E =o Q a) c in % c 0) -C cu c 'J a aNi a) a) �- O () cn Q) U) � o c o (A O O N O7 LO N CD U O C cca c 0 E a) co E(D a L O 0CL fl Q CDw` O to > 3 E O > -0 Q E > O N > a (n N lC 0 U 0 (6 Co ,C U 0 C E (n m C Y C (6 co (D �[ co (D 0 CD > Q (D a) fil L E > Q (u c-0 > -0 > C m C• � v O� co) O L L .O i N (�) L >+E N a) > Vs O "O L a) N = -3 0 N (o 0 C -C�0. N 0) a) N.- N a) U N C4 m u7 -C _Q V) (n N a 0 0 L> E Cco N E a) (n N C �� OL N� >o, c "a a3 �- L(U O LO r- v) cu a) Co a) p' N N (D O N L c 0 N (n O a) L> C �i a) U a) CO O •cu cmO (� a)O U N 0 'O O cu o o .> Co c cc (� _l c .o > �Ico a) .o c -0 CL a c U Y p �O (n c U a) () a) — _L1 C= O L -0 c .c o L m 0) cu C C O O O O-0 C N pU -= Q CC C: (D> U `) N (n w N O a) (� Y a) C O a) m a) c O Y a)cc m • ' V a) � w m i Y : a)v- O m C a E > OL L N u E E O 0 c a) E N a) a) O O m U Q a) o (DO O c U) m O U = a) U w .O —0C o M a) L U ' C 'p o U O C (6 Cccu 0 E� c m C c _O (0 O — i) C U C c ao) +- E O O p) U U p Q .� L a) (D i C (0 = O U p O cu .> U _ C 0 C p m. a p O Q L di+ O O E O O L O "'' D O O O p i N L a) w c c o o (n m o >, C z n U LL - Y -0 °) - o E m c 0 a) c W N if 2_ a) U � C m 0 iu p O c U m O c ° C O cu >, E a) L °) (u U >. Q c E m c U Z O 0 Q o C� as M c N o a) o Q C c O a) E > Co L c Q LL Q p Q U- 2 2 o -i (n — O U(U) S O Page 1 of 3 Rachel Baker From: Doug Schulze Sent: Monday, October 03, 2005 9:31 AM To: Rachel Baker; Wayne D. Tanaka Subject: FW: 2006 budget Email referenced during Sept. 26 Study Session and my response. Doug From: Doug Schulze Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2005 5:12 PM To: 'Diane Bocek' Cc: hemrhr@u.washington.edu; fierybiaze@msn.com; dspkep@msn.com; mo7171@aol.com; petevall@hotmail.com; toddn@prestongates.com; Jan Burdue; Jeff Chen; Joe Willis Subject: RE: 2006 budget Miles: Thank you for the questions in advance. For the benefit of all, I am copying my response to the entire Council. We have not requested any changes to the FTEs in the 2006 budget. The 23 FTEs listed in the 2005 Budget (below) are the same as requested for 2006. City Manager City Clerk Admin Assistant I.S. Coordinator Finance Officer Director of Dev Services DS Coordinator Police Chief Lieutenant Corporal Police Officer (6) Records Mgr Police Admin Assistant Director of PW Maint. Supervisor Maint. Worker (3) Seasonal Maint. Wkr (2) May - August Lifeguards (6) May - August As of August 31, operating expenditures are within 2% of our projections. Operating revenues are about 3% above budget projections. I would not be comfortable recommending adjustments to the projections when we are within 5% of our budget projections with 33% of the budget year remaining. LEOFF I (retired law enforcement officer benefits) expenses have been paid out of the police budget this year. Prior to 2004, LEOFF I expenses were less than $4,000 annually, but this expense has grown to almost $40,000 this year due to retirees reaching age 65, experiencing health problems and increased insurance premiums. We have been able to absorb some of the cost because we budgeted for a full compliment of officers, but had at least one position vacant for at least 6 months of the year. The remaining costs have been absorbed within the police budget and we are trying to find other places to delay expenses or identify cost savings so a budget amendment isn't required. There is no "offset" that is a result of budgeting too much in 2005. 10/3/2005 Page 2 of 3 The $51,000 budgeted for emergency supplies for 2006 is a placeholder. We know that this amount is well below the total cost of all the supplies we probably should have on hand, but I could not dedicate more than this amount and stay close to the 2% target (since 2% is roughly $90,000). To answer your question, we do not have to spend anything on emergency supplies. My professional recommendation is that the City of Medina should be in a better condition than it is today and the expenditure would look pretty small if we have the misfortune of needing the supplies, but have to explain why we don't have them. The variance with intergovernmental expenditures is a little difficult to break down, but I can provide some details. We do have pretty good protection built into the fire contract with Bellevue, but most of the intergovernmental expenditures are going to have limited options. For example, marine patrol options are limited to staying with Mercer Island; contracting with King County; or starting our own marine patrol. King County's rates are going to be similar to what Mercer Island charges and starting our own patrol would be very expensive and would require more police officers. The same is true for dispatch, prisoner transport, jail services, etc. As far as the one-time expenditures for the communications coach and anniversary celebration are concerned, I believe each member of the council will need to decide how to treat those expenditures. The $44,000 for the radios and communication equipment fit into an ongoing effort to improve our emergency response/recover capabilities and I do not necessarily see this as a one-time expense (i.e. the $50,000 referenced above). The capital projects variance is correctly explained in the memo. The $770,000 variance is created because we are carrying that expense over into 2006 in addition to the expenses that have been programmed for 2006 as part of the Six -year CIP. If we weren't carrying over the $770,000, we would a small variance between 2005 and 2006. Joe Willis will provide a list of the projects, but you can also find them in the Six -year CIP/TIP. Joe Willis will also explain the $150,000 budget request for city hall. The capiial projects fund is the appropriate place for this expenditure because it is not typical repair and maintenance such as, painting, custodial services, etc., which would be operating expenses. I cannot recommend projecting more than I have for 2006 sales tax revenue and believe that an estimate of 90% of the past 5 year average is a good conservative projection; especially since sales tax revenues are so unpredictable and elastic. I believe it is inappropriate and would be exercising poor judgment for me to project revenues other than using a conservative approach. Sales tax revenue is at $804,000 through 8/31 and we just received $86,000 for September to put us at $900,000. We have received as little as $25,000 in a month earlier this year so, it is not completely impossible to still come in at year end just below budget. I'm not ready to recommend adjusting our projections for this year. hope this answers your questions and helps with the discussion on Monday. From: Diane Bocek [mailto:dbocek@comcast.net] Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2005 10:43 AM To: Doug Schulze Subject: 2006 budget doug ----- i thought it would make next monday's meeting more productive and efficient if i provided you some of my budget questions in advance. what are the budgeted fte by position for 2005 and 2006? we are almost 9 months into the actuals for 2005------- the projected year-end for the operating expenses and revenues are still very close to budget for the year ----- is this our latest and best projection or could the actual numbers be more favorable than you are showing for the year? we must have paid the leoff 1 expenses in 2005 even if they were not budgeted so they must be somewhere in the actuals. if this is the case, then to include them as a budget variance for benefits for 2006 must mean there is 10/3/2005 Page 3 of 3 an offset somewhere else where we budgeted too much in 2005 to enable us to cover the costs in this year and stay on budget in total. i know this is a tough one to explain but if we paid the expenses in 2005, then i do not think there should be a budget variance for 2006 ---- we should have an offset ----- one budget number up (pensions) and one budget down( ? ) because actual expenses are at budget for 2005. do we have to spend all of the $51,000 for emergency supplies in 2006? what are they? what are the amounts of the other variances in intergovernmental expenses variance of $106,000 beyond the $20,000 for fire? this seems like a very large increase ------ could we see the details of what makes up the $874,000 total? do we have any contract protection to help us with any of the increases? on page 4 you explain the decrease in capial expenditures included in the operating expenditures by two one-time expenditures of $109,000 and $44,000. yet in your summary on page 1 you include only the $109,000 in your variance explanation. i believe that your analysis on page 4 is correct. this would mean that on page 1 the 2006 expenditures would increase from 2005 on an adjusted basis by an additional $44,000 to a total of $230,000, an increase of 5.8%. i believe these are the two key numbers that our analysis and discussion should focus on. in the capital projects fund discussion you show a variance 2006 over 2005 of $770,000 on a budget to budget basis. i am not sure if your variance explaination is consistent with that basis since the 2005 budget included money for medina beach park and for storm sewers so that would not be part of the variance explaination? ( i understand that on a projected actual 2005 to budget 2006 the carryover expenditures would be part of the variance explaination but that is not the basis you are using.) could you double-check the variance explaination because it does not seem correct? also, could we see a list of the major projects in the total expenditures of $1,338,000? you show a placeholder for $150,000 for city hall building improvements in the capital expenditures budget. are these capital items or are they repair and maintenance items that should show somewhere else? why are you projecting sales tax revenues to be 10% below the average for the last 5 years? what is the latest projection for sales tax revenues for 2005? i appreciate you help with these questions. thank you ----- miles 10/3/2005