Docstoc

sustainability

Document Sample
sustainability Powered By Docstoc
					Sustainable Community

39

Sustainable Community

TRAFFIC AND ROAD MAINTENANCE SCORECARD
CUSTOMER PRIORITY AND SATISFACTION
C u sto m e r S a t i s f a c t io n H IG H
A re a o f L o w e s t C o n c e rn

C u sto m e r P r io r it y LO W
40% S a tis fa c tio n

84% P r io r i t y

C u sto m e r P r io r it y H IG H

A r e a o f H ig h e s t C o n c e rn

C u sto m e r S a t i s f a c t io n LO W

RESULTS
• • • • •

Since FY 1994, the percent of congested intersections has been increasing As a percentage, the lane miles rated as both satisfactory and unsatisfactory has Austin is below the ICMA average in percent of paved lane miles rated as being As a percentage, lane miles of street maintenance performed has increased With the exception of FY 1999, the percentage of Capital Improvement Program (CIP) projects achieving milestone dates and capital spending projects

NEGATIVE NEUTRAL NEGATIVE POSITIVE POSITIVE

INPUT
• •

Austin ranks second highest among the 5 major Texas cities in budgeted expenditures per capita Austin is higher than the ICMA average in operating and maintenance expenditures per paved lane mile

HIGH HIGH

Community Scorecard—August 2000

40

Sustainable Community

Traffic and Road Maintenance
Customer Priority: Citizens Prioritizing City Services - 1999 City Service Priority Traffic Flow/Signal Synchronization Street Repair and Maintenance Traffic Signal Maintenance Traffic Signs/Street Markings Average Ratings Percentage Ratings Percentage 88% 85% 84% 79% 84%

The results of the survey illustrate that citizens feel the above services provided by the City are important, with Traffic Flow/Signal Synchronization receiving the highest priority among the traffic and street maintenance services.

Customer Satisfaction: Voice of the Customer Survey - 1998 City Service Satisfaction Traffic Signals-Timing Street Maintenance and Repair Traffic Flow on Major Streets Average Ratings Percentage Very Good or Good Percentage 50% 47% 23% 40%

The results of the 1998 Voice of the Customer Survey show that those surveyed expressed low satisfaction with traffic flow, traffic signal timing and street maintenance and repair.

41

Community Scorecard—August 2000

Sustainable Community

Traffic and Road Maintenance
Percent of Congested Intersections To calculate Austin’s percent of conPercent of Congested Intersections gested intersections, actual travel times are compared against “acceptable” 40% travel times that have been determined for each corridor by the City’s street en28% 27% 27% 30% 25% 25% gineers. If the intersection travel time is higher than the acceptable amount, then 18% 20% that intersection is congested. In order to maintain continuity among the fiscal 10% years, the same streets and intersections are driven each year during the two peak times of 7-8:30 am and 4:30 - 6 0% pm. Approximately 30 streets and 275 FY 1994 FY 1995 FY 1996 FY 1997 FY 1998 FY 1999 intersections are studied once a year; Source: Public Works Department however, those under construction are not included in the calculations. The two times are then combined to determine an average travel time for each intersection. Traffic congestion in Austin has increased since Fiscal Year 1994 due to increases in the population of the city and surrounding areas and the number of vehicles traveling Austin’s streets. The decrease in Fiscal Year 1998 was due to improved traffic signal timing. Street Conditions The condition class of lane miles is deStreet Condition in Lane Miles termined by a comprehensive evaluation (Satisfactory vs. Unsatisfactory Condition) of street pavement. The Pavement Management System database managed 6,030 6,080 5,366 5,442 by the Street and Bridge division of 7,000 5,290 Public Works and Transportation lists 5,250 all of Austin’s streets and their condi4,227 4,192 3,710 3,686 3,650 3,500 tions, which are sorted into five quality classes. This graph combines those 1,750 1,853 1,838 1,732 1,640 1,680 classes into two conditions, 0 “Satisfactory” and “Unsatisfactory.” As FY 1995 FY 1996 FY 1997 FY 1998 FY 1999 the graph shows, the street inventory has increased steadily since Fiscal Year Satisfactory (Classes A, B & C) 1995. At the same time, the percentage Unsatisfactory (Classes D & F) of streets rated in Satisfactory condition has remained constant. The constant per- Source: Public Works Department centage maintained in light of increased road miles in the system is due in part to increased funding for preventive maintenance provided by the transportation user fee. In addition, the percentage of streets in Unsatisfactory condition has also remained steady.

Community Scorecard—August 2000

42

Sustainable Community

Traffic and Road Maintenance
Percent of Paved Lane Miles in Satisfactory Condition This graph compares the percent of paved lane miles assessed as in satisfactory condition. The percentages were calculated by dividing each jurisdiction’s satisfactory lane miles by its total number of paved lane miles (minus alleys). The comparison shows that Austin has the third highest percentage at 69.6%. Since FY 1995, the percentage of Austin’s streets in satisfactory condition has remained between 68% and 70%. Phoenix’s 77.9% rate is the highest while Fort Worth has the lowest rate at 27.6%. The ICMA average percentage among the reporting jurisdictions was 75.0%.
Percent of Paved Lane Miles Assessed as Satisfactory 1998-99

Phoenix Portland Austin San Antonio Calgary Fort Worth
0.0% 32.0% 29.4% 27.6% 69.6%

77.9% 77.7%

10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0%

Source: 1999 ICMA Comparative Performance Measures *the graph shows reporting jurisdictions with a population over 500,000.

Lane Miles of Street Maintenance The Public Works Street and Bridge DiLane Miles of Street Maintenance vision maintains Austin’s street inven645 700 tory using seal coat, overlay, and crack 622 600 sealing preventive maintenance strategies. This graph shows the amount of 437 500 426 seal coat and overlay applied in lane 400 289 284 miles since FY 1994. Sealcoating re300 225 194 quires covering the street surface with a 200 thin, asphalt emulsion surface treat100 ment, which will waterproof or “seal” 0 the existing street surface and increase FY1994 FY1995 FY1996 FY1997 FY1998 FY1999 FY2000 FY2001 skid resistance. Overlay involves one or Estimate Proposed more layers of hot mix asphaltic concrete to level, strengthen and restore the Sealcoat Crack Seal Overlay original street shape and ride. The transportation user fee approved by City Source: Public Works Department Council in 1991 provides funds for maintenance. The Public Works and Transportation Department’s goal is to annually maintain ten percent of its street inventory. The amount of sealcoat and overlay applied to Austin’s streets has markedly increased since FY 1995. Transportation user fee increases in Fiscal Years 1996 and 1998 provided additional funding to address the growing annual preventive maintenance need. The department anticipates that total lane miles of street maintenance, including crack sealing, will increase in FY 2000 and FY 2001.
43 Community Scorecard—August 2000

Sustainable Community

Traffic and Road Maintenance
Benchmarked Transportation CIP Projects The Department of Public Works and Transportation uses Capital Improvements Program (CIP) funding to reconstruct streets that have degraded beyond the point of preventative maintenance strategies, to construct new streets, and to provide a wide range of other transportation improvements such as traffic signalization, sidewalks and bikeways.
Benchmarked Transportation CIP Projects: Spending Plan Accomplished and On-Time Achievement
80% 80% 60% 64% 31% FY 1996 FY 1997 FY 1998 FY 1999 FY 2000 Estimate 63% 48% 65% 40% 20% 0% On-Time Achievement 100% Spending Plan Accomplished 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 54% 71% 72% 83% 100%

Each fiscal year, the department establishes an estimated spending plan and project benchmarks (anticipated mileSpending Plan Accomplished On-Time Achievement stone schedule dates) for major capital projects. The progress of both the ex- Source: Public Works Department penditures and project benchmarks is reported to Council quarterly as part of the performance reports. Generally, the percentage of spending plans accomplished has been increasing since 1996, indicating that spending estimates are more accurate. Additionally, the project benchmark dates accomplished on time has generally increased with the exception of 1999.

Public Works and Transportation Budgeted Expenditures per Capita The total budgeted expenditures per capita is for General Fund and other funds for the five cities, but does not include capital. Dallas, Fort Worth and San Antonio budget primarily general fund dollars while Austin and Houston have a mix between general fund and other funding sources. In Fiscal Year 1999, Austin budgeted the second most for Public Works at $43.52 per capita with Dallas the most and San Antonio the least.
Public Works and Transportation Expenditures per Capita

Dallas Austin Houston Fort Worth San Antonio $0.00 $10.00 $20.00 General Fund
Source: Financial Services Department

$47.47 $43.52 $43.49 $42.61 $40.28 $30.00 Other Funds $40.00 $50.00

Community Scorecard—August 2000

44

Sustainable Community

Traffic and Road Maintenance
Operating and Maintenance Expenditures per Paved Lane Mile This ICMA graph compares the operating and maintenance expenditures per paved lane mile of several cities. Austin has the highest expenditures per O p era tin g a n d M ain t en a n ce E x p en d it u res p e r P av ed L an e lane mile at $3,662 with Oklahoma M ile - 1 9 9 8 -9 9 City’s $619 per lane mile the lowest. $3,662 ** A us tin The ICMA average for all reporting juPortland $2,874 risdictions is $2,380. These costs inPhoenix $2,680 clude street rehabilitation from conLas V egas $2,364 tracted work and those rehabilitation costs paid from the CIP. These costs Sedgw ick County , KS $2,255 do not include new construction or exCalgary $2,072 pansion, traffic signals, bridge mainteJac ksonv ille $752 nance, debt service or overhead expenTucs on $711 ditures.
Oklahoma City $0 $500

$619
$1,000 $1,500 $2,000 $2,500 $3,000 $3,500 $4,000

Source: 1999 ICMA Comparative Performance Measures *the graph shows reporting jurisdictions with a population over 400,000 ** Since the publication of the ICMA data, Public Works staff determined that some expansion and new construction projects were included in the original calculation in error. The adjusted expenditure per paved lane mile is $2,904.

45

Community Scorecard—August 2000

Sustainable Community

AIR QUALITY SCORECARD
CUSTOMER PRIORITY AND SATISFACTION
C u sto m e r S a t i s f a c t io n H IG H
A re a o f L o w e s t C o n c e rn

C u sto m e r P r io r it y LO W

N /A S a tis fa c tio n

85% P r io r i t y

C u sto m e r P r io r it y H IG H

A r e a o f H ig h e s t C o n c e rn

C u sto m e r S a t i s f a c t io n LO W

RESULTS
•

The number of days per year where the ozone standard has been violated has been increasing since FY 1996 and the City fell out of compliance in FY 1999.

NEGATIVE

Community Scorecard—August 2000

46

Sustainable Community

Air Quality
Customer Priority: Citizens Prioritizing City Services - 1999 City Service Priority Services to Improve Air Quality Average Ratings Percentage Ratings Percentage 85% 85%

The Citizens Prioritizing City Services survey asks only one question with regard to air quality. For 1999, citizens felt that City services designed to improve air quality were a high priority, rating it at 85%.

Customer Satisfaction: Voice of the Customer Survey - 1998 City Service Satisfaction No questions asked on air quality Very Good or Good Percentage

47

Community Scorecard—August 2000

Sustainable Community

Air Quality
Days per Year Where Ozone Standard was Exceeded As indicated by the chart on the right, the number of days per year where the ozone standard has been exceeded has been increasing since FY 1996 with a large increase between FY 1998 and FY 1999.
N umber of Days per Year Where the Austin Region Exceeded the Ozone Standard 25 20 20 15 12 12 20

Since the City’s Air Quality program 10 was first implemented, its focus has 6 6 4 been on studying the emissions of vola5 1 tile organic compounds (VOCs) and 0 oxides of nitrogen (NOx), the principal FY 1994 FY 1995 FY 1996 FY 1997 FY 1998 FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 precursors of ozone in the Austin area. E ate P stim roposed In 1999 the City fell out of compliance with the federal 8-hour standard of 85 parts per billion for ozone. As a result, a non-attainment designation for ground level ozone is anticipated in 2000. The 1996 draft Emissions Inventory indicates that over 75% of our NOx emissions come from mobile sources. Some results from other Cities with regard to days of ozone violations:1 Cities Oklahoma City, OK Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill, NC Kansas City, MO Houston, TX2 1997 3 days 15 days 6 days 50 days 1998 8 days 21 days 6 days 40 days 1999 No data No data 5 days 50 days (est.)

1 Central 2

Texas Indicators 2000, p. 41 Texas Natural Resources Conservation Commission. Houston’s data refers to days exceeding the 1-hour ozone standard
48

Community Scorecard—August 2000

Sustainable Community

RECYCLING AND WASTE DIVERSION SCORECARD
CUSTOMER PRIORITY AND SATISFACTION
C u sto m e r S a t i s f a c t io n H IG H
A re a o f L o w e s t C o n c e rn 81% S a tis fa c tio n 67% P r io r i t y

C u sto m e r P r io r it y LO W

C u sto m e r P r io r it y H IG H

A r e a o f H ig h e s t C o n c e rn

C u sto m e r S a t i s f a c t io n LO W

RESULTS
• • •

Austin’s waste diversion rate has been steadily increasing since FY 1993; howThe pounds of garbage per household per week is the same as FY 1998 — the lowest recorded since FY 1992 In FY 1999 the tons of yard trimmings collected decreased

NEUTRAL POSITIVE NEGATIVE

EFFICIENCY
• •

Austin is below the ICMA average for gross operations and maintenance expenditures per recycling account The cost per household for direct residential refuse collection continues to decrease in FY 1999

HIGH NEUTRAL

49

Community Scorecard—August 2000

Sustainable Community

Recycling and Waste Diversion
Customer Priority: Citizens Prioritizing City Services - 1999 City Service Priority Recycling Services Garbage Pickup Services Brush & Bulky Pickup Services Street Sweeping Average Ratings Percentage Ratings Percentage 79% 77% 61% 50% 67%

The results of the survey show that citizens place a moderately high priority on recycling and garbage pickup services, while brush and bulky pickup and street sweeping are a lower priority.

Customer Satisfaction: Voice of the Customer Survey - 1998

City Service Satisfaction Recycling Services Garbage Pickup Street Sweeping Services Average Ratings Percentage

Very Good or Good Percentage 83% 81% 80% 81%

Citizens surveyed place moderate satisfaction with recycling services, garbage pickup and street sweeping services in the City of Austin

Community Scorecard—August 2000

50

Sustainable Community

Recycling and Waste Diversion
Gross Operations and Maintenance per Recycling Account A comparison of the gross operations and maintenance expenditures for recycling services per recycling account shows that Austin has the fourth highest expenditures at $21.44. Virginia Beach has the highest cost, coming in at $38.93, while Los Angeles’ $7.04 is the lowest cost. The ICMA average for all reporting jurisdictions is $26.39.
Gross Operations and Maintenance Expenditures per Recycling Account - 1998-99
Virginia Beach Long Beach Houston Austin Oklahoma City Tucson San Antonio Los Angeles $0 $5

$38.93 $29.25 $21.46 $21.44 $18.02 $15.55 $10.04 $7.04
$10 $15 $20 $25 $30 $35 $40 $45

Source: 1999 ICMA Comparative Performance Measures *the graph shows reporting jurisdictions with a population over 400,000.

Waste Diversion Rate

For FY 1999, the waste diversion rate decreased 1.44% in comparison to FY 1998. However, it is anticipated the diversion rate will increase in FY 2000 and FY 2001. In general, waste diversion rates have been increasing since FY 1995. The Solid Waste Services department has instituted several additions to its recycling program over this time period — such as adding plastic bottles to the list of materials being accepted as recyclable, and the implementation of Extra Garbage Stickers program — which have contributed to the general increase in waste diversion.

City of Austin Waste Diversion Rate

40.00%
29.25%

30.00%
22.98% 20.80%

25.60%

27.81%

30.00%

30.75%

20.00% 10.00% 0.00%
FY 1995 FY 1996 FY 1997 FY 1998 FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 Estimated Proposed

Source: Solid Waste Services

51

Community Scorecard—August 2000

Sustainable Community

Recycling and Waste Diversion
Pounds of Garbage per Household per Week With the exception of FY 1996 and FY 1999, the pounds of garbage per household per week has been declining since FY 1992. This coincides with the start of the Pay-as-You-Throw program which began in 1991.
Pounds of Garbage per Household per Week 50 40 30 20 10 0
FY 1992 FY 1993 FY 1994 FY 1995 FY 1996 FY 1997 FY 1998 FY 1999
Source: Solid Waste Services

44 40 38 35 36 33

31

31

Direct Cost per Household for Residential Refuse Collection Peaking in FY 1996, the cost per household has decreased every year, reaching a low of $48.15 in FY 1999. The reduction beginning in FY 1997 was due to the allocation of FTEs and resources to other programs and the transfer of the Yard Trimmings crew to another program.
Direct Cost per Household forResidential Refuse Collection $100.00 $80.00 $60.00 $40.00 $20.00 $0.00 FY 1996
Source: Solid Waste Services

$78.00 $54.20

$48.89

$48.15

FY 1997

FY 1998

FY 1999

Community Scorecard—August 2000

52

Sustainable Community

DRINKING WATER QUALITY SCORECARD
CUSTOMER PRIORITY AND SATISFACTION
C u sto m e r S a t i s f a c t io n H IG H
A re a o f L o w e s t C o n c e rn 83% S a tis fa c tio n

C u sto m e r P r io r it y LO W

86% P r io r i t y

C u sto m e r P r io r it y H IG H

A r e a o f H ig h e s t C o n c e rn

C u sto m e r S a t i s f a c t io n LO W

RESULTS
• •

Austin’s turbidity (measuring clarity of water) is well below the TNRCC permit Both repeat and total overflows increased in FY 1999

POSITIVE NEGATIVE

53

Community Scorecard—August 2000

Sustainable Community

Drinking Water Quality
Customer Priority: Citizens Prioritizing City Services - 1999 City Service Priority Drinking Water Quality Wastewater Treatment Water Pressure Average Ratings Percentage Ratings Percentage 94% 89% 74% 86%

Citizens prioritize drinking water quality and wastewater treatment highly, with water pressure rated somewhat lower. Overall, drinking water quality is a city service that citizens consider a high priority.

Customer Satisfaction: Voice of the Customer Survey - 1998 City Service Satisfaction Water and Wastewater Emergency Repairs and Response Drinking Water Quality Average Ratings Percentage Very Good or Good Percentage 87% 79% 83%

The respondents in the Voice of the Customer Survey expressed highest satisfaction with the response to water and wastewater emergency repairs. Customer satisfaction with drinking water quality was of moderate satisfaction.

Community Scorecard—August 2000

54

Sustainable Community

Drinking Water Quality
Drinking Water Quality—Turbidity One way of assessing drinking water quality is to examine its turbidity, measured in nephelometic turbidity units (NTU's). NTUs indicate the amount of floating particles in a water sample. Cloudy river water would receive a higher number of NTU's than clear drinking water. NTU's of 1.0 or less generally are not detected by the naked eye. The permit level for drinking water quality, as monitored by Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC) is 0.5 NTU's. Austin's drinking water has been well below the permit level and decreased between FY 1997 and FY 1999. Austin’s FY 1999 level is the second highest among the cities reported in the second chart to the right. It is anticipated that the NTUs will increase in FY 2000 and FY 2001. All of the cities shown are well under the 0.5 permit level.
Drinking Wat er Quality - Turbidit y (NTUs) 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0
FY 1995 FY 1996 FY 1997 FY 1998 FY 1999 FY 2000 Es timate FY 2001 Proposed 0.18 0.17 0.19 0.15 0.17 0.12 0.18

TN R C C Perm it Level - 0.5 N TU s

Source: Water and Wastewater Utility

Drinking Water Quality - Turbidity (in NTUs) 1998-99
Dallas Austin Phoenix San Jose Charlotte 0.05 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.15

0.00

0.04 NTUs

0.08

0.12

0.16

Source: Water and Wastewater Utility

Wastewater Overflows This indicator reflects the relationship between the number of overflows comTotal Wastewater Overflows per 100 Miles of Wastewater Main (Excluding Lift Stations) pared to the number of miles of main. Total overflows are all of the sewer line 10.0 overflows that occurred from a sewer 7.7 7.0 7.0 line operated by the City of Austin. A 8.0 5.5 5.4 5.2 repeat overflow occurs when a sewer 6.0 4.9 4.6 3.9 3.8 manhole overflows at the same location 3.0 2.8 4.0 within a 12-month period. It is used to 2.0 measure how well the collection system 0.0 is doing. A lower number indicates betFY 1996 FY 1997 FY 1998 FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 ter maintenance and condition of the Estimate Proposed system. There was a decrease in the number of repeat overflows starting in Repeat Total FY 1996, hitting a low of 3.8 in FY 1998 and then rising to 4.6 in FY 1999. Source: Water and Wastewater Utility Total overflows increased between FY 1997 and FY 1999, including a 40% increase in FY 1999 over FY 1998 levels. It is anticipated that decreases in both repeat and total overflows will occur in FY 2000 and FY 2001.
55 Community Scorecard—August 2000

Sustainable Community

LAKE AND STREAM QUALITY AND WATER CONSERVATION SCORECARD
CUSTOMER PRIORITY AND SATISFACTION
C u sto m e r S a t i s f a c t io n H IG H
A re a o f L o w e s t C o n c e rn 80% S a tis fa c tio n

C u sto m e r P r io r it y LO W

84% P r io r i t y

C u sto m e r P r io r it y H IG H

A r e a o f H ig h e s t C o n c e rn

C u sto m e r S a t i s f a c t io n LO W

RESULTS
• • • •

Since FY 1994, the percent of reviews completed within code mandated deadSince FY 1996, the acreage of drainage area with improved water quality from publicly funded structural controls has increased While peak day reduction in water usage has fluctuated since FY 1993, the reReclaimed water has fluctuated since FY 1994

POSITIVE POSITIVE POSITIVE NEUTRAL

Community Scorecard—August 2000

56

Sustainable Community

Lake and Stream Quality and Water Conservation
Customer Priority: Citizens Prioritizing City Services - 1999 City Service Priority Lake and Stream Water Quality Water Conservation Programs Average Ratings Percentage Ratings Percentage 85% 83% 84%

In the prioritization of City Services, residents rate lake and stream water quality services and water conservation programs moderately high.

Customer Satisfaction: Voice of the Customer Survey - 1998

City Service Satisfaction City’s Water Conservation Efforts City’s Flooding, Erosion and Water Quality Control Efforts Average Ratings Percentage

Very Good or Good Percentage 83% 77% 80%

Complementing citizens’ high prioritization of lake and stream water quality and water conservation, Austin residents also have moderate satisfaction with the services that the City is providing in water quality and water conservation.

57

Community Scorecard—August 2000

Sustainable Community

Lake and Stream Quality and Water Conservation
Reviews Completed within Deadlines The Watershed Protection Department uses this performance measure as a key indicator regarding the development reviews completed within code mandated deadlines for a number of years. An increase in workload, changes in state law, and staff turnover affected the percentage achieved within deadlines in FY 1997. Reorganization into review teams and a better tracking system were implemented to improve performance in FY 1998. These changes allowed the department to continue the same high performance in FY 1999.
Percent Reviews Com pleted within Code-Mandated Deadlines 100%
85% 92% 95% 95%

75%
60%

50%
25%

25%

0% FY 94 FY 95 FY 96 FY 97 FY 98 FY 99

Source: Watershed Protection Department

Drainage Area with Improved Water Quality Through the master planning process, the Water Quality program is developing and implementing the most appropriate, effective, and cost efficient pollutant control strategies for problems assessed. The Stormwater Treatment activity manages design and construction of structural controls which reduce the discharge of pollutants to our creeks, rivers, and lakes. This key indicator reflects the total number of acres in the city with improved water quality from publicly funded structural controls, and is cumulative since the inception of the activity.
Drainage A rea with Improved Water Quality from Publicly Funded Structural Controls 4000 Cumulative Acres Treated
3,045 3,580

3,957

3000

2,818

2,884

2000

1000

0 FY 1996 FY 1997 FY 1998 FY 1999 Estimate FY 1999 Actual

Source: Watershed Protection Department

Community Scorecard—August 2000

58

Sustainable Community

Lake and Stream Quality and Water Conservation
Peak Day Reduction in Water Usage
Peak Day Reduction in Water Usage The goals of the water conservation Gallons per Day (GPD) in Thousands program are focused on reducing the amount of water used during the peak 1,600 1,375 day in the summer. The peak day is the 1,400 1,224 1,250 1,250 day when most water is consumed usu- 1,200 ally due to outdoor irrigation. By reduc- 1,000 863 760 721 ing peak day water use, the City will be 800 621 604 able to substantially delay constructing 600 additional water plant capacity. Several 400 programs have been implemented to 200 reduce peak day consumption including 0 FY 1993 FY 1994 FY 1995 FY 1996 FY 1997 FY 1998 FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 irrigation audits, toilet, efficient clothes Est. Prop. washer and landscape incentives, public Source: Water and Wastewater Utility education, rainwater harvesting and commercial incentives. The Water Conservation Program was able to exceed the 98-99 peak day goal of 712,000 gallons per day and achieved a 1,250,000 reduction due to good participation in all programs including a substantial increase in participation in the efficient Clothes washer incentive program and the multi-family toilet retrofit program. In addition, Advanced Micro Devices (AMD) completed a large internal recycling project that made a substantial contribution toward exceeding the 98-99 goal. In August 1999, the Council passed amendments to the Emergency and Peak Day Regulations that prohibit certain types of water waste during the summer months. These regulations should make a significant contribution toward reducing peak day water use in the summer of 2000.

Reclaimed Water
Reclaim W ed ater (Millions of Gallons per Day) In December of 1990, the City Council established a Sustainability Initiative to 2.0 1.8 develop and implement a long-range water resource protection and conserva1.33 tion plan. The usefulness of reclaimed 1.5 1.21 1.1 1.1 water was one of the programs included 0.98 in that resolution. Reclaimed water is a 1.0 new water supply created by reusing treated effluent which would normally 0.5 be discharged to the Colorado River. Reclaimed water is a cost-effective way 0.0 to improve the City’s ability to provide FY1994 FY1995 FY1996 FY1997 FY1998 FY1999 water for non-potable water purposes. Reclaimed water can be used for irrigaSource: Water and Wastewater Utility tion, cooling systems, and manufacturing and is especially useful and reliable during times of drought. While fluctuating since FY 1994, the increase in reclaimed water in FY 1999 is due to Balcones and Davenport Golf Courses being irrigated from effluent from package treatment plants.

59

Community Scorecard—August 2000

Sustainable Community

ENERGY CONSERVATION SCORECARD
CUSTOMER PRIORITY AND SATISFACTION
C u sto m e r S a t i s f a c t io n H IG H
A re a o f L o w e s t C o n c e rn 86% S a tis fa c tio n

C u sto m e r P r io r it y LO W

77% P r io r i t y

C u sto m e r P r io r it y H IG H

A r e a o f H ig h e s t C o n c e rn

C u sto m e r S a t i s f a c t io n LO W

RESULTS
•

While megawatts saved since FY 1995 has decreased it is anticipated to increase

NEUTRAL

Community Scorecard—August 2000

60

Sustainable Community

Energy Conservation
Customer Priority: Citizens Prioritizing City Services - 1999 City Service Priority Electrical Line Maintenance Residential Electric Service Energy Conservation Programs Commercial Electric Service Average Ratings Percentage Ratings Percentage 84% 83% 77% 63% 77%

The results of the survey indicate that citizens rate electric service and energy conservation programs moderatley high. Commercial electric services is prioritized somewhat lower.

Customer Satisfaction: Voice of the Customer Survey - 1998 City Service Satisfaction Electric Line Maintenance Restoring Electricity after a Power Outage City’s Energy Conservation Efforts Electric Utility Services Average Ratings Percentage Very Good or Good Percentage 89% 85% 85% 83% 86%

The respondents in the Voice of the Customer Survey expressed a high level of satisfaction with line maintenance, the restoration of electricity after an outage and the City's energy conservation program and utility services.

61

Community Scorecard—August 2000

Sustainable Community

Energy Conservation
Megawatts Saved In FY 1999, the City of Austin’s energy Megawatts Saved conservation program achieved a total of 18 MW (megawatts saved) of electric 45.0 40.0 peak load reduction. This was lower 40.0 35.2 33.6 than the previous year total of 25 MWs. 32.2 35.0 29.3 The megawatt savings were achieved 30.0 25.3 23.1 25.0 primarily through regular rebates for 18.0 20.0 residential electric customers, new 15.0 home energy efficiency ratings, energy 10.0 codes applications, and commercial en5.0 0.0 ergy savings proposals. In FY 1999, FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY megawatts saved were 28% lower than 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 the FY 1998 actual, primarily due to the Est. transformation of the commercial rebate program and elimination of comSource: Austin Energy mercial rebates. Austin Energy is initiating new electric load management projects in both the residential and commercial sectors. Austin Energy anticipates a reduction of 29.3 in FY 2000.

Community Scorecard—August 2000

62

Sustainable Community

INSPECTIONS & SITE PLAN AND SUBDIVISION REVIEW SCORECARD
CUSTOMER PRIORITY AND SATISFACTION
C u sto m e r S a t i s f a c t io n H IG H
A re a o f L o w e s t C o n c e rn

C u sto m e r P r io r it y LO W

60% S a tis fa c tio n 66% P r io r i t y

C u sto m e r P r io r it y H IG H

A r e a o f H ig h e s t C o n c e rn

C u sto m e r S a t i s f a c t io n LO W

RESULTS
• •

While decreasing somewhat, the cycle time fell short of reaching its goal of 120 days for both site plan and subdivision review The percent of initial reviews completed on-time for site plans and subdivisions has fluctuated since FY 1994; while increasing over FY 1998 levels, the goal of 95% was not achieved

NEGATIVE NEGATIVE

63

Community Scorecard—August 2000

Sustainable Community

Inspections and Site Plan and Subdivision Review
Customer Priority: Citizens Prioritizing City Services - 1999 City Service Priority Inspection Services Average Ratings Percentage Ratings Percentage 66% 66%

The results of the survey illustrate that citizens prioritize inspection services somewhat lower than other services that the City provides.

Customer Satisfaction: Voice of the Customer Survey - 1998 City Service Satisfaction Building Inspections Application and Review Process for Building Permits Application and Review Process for Zoning Changes Application and Review Process of Site Development Plans Average Ratings Percentage Very Good or Good Percentage 71% 60% 54% 54% 60%

Survey respondents expressed moderate satisfaction with building inspections and lower satisfaction with the various application and review processes performed by the City.

Community Scorecard—August 2000

64

Sustainable Community

Inspections and Site Plan and Subdivision Review
Cycle Time Cycle time is defined as the number of days from the initial application to final approval. While not achieving the FY 1999 estimate of 120 days for both subdivision and site plan review, the cycle time, in general, has been decreasing since FY 1998.
Cycle Time (in Days) 250 201 In Days 200 150 100 50 169 205 180 178 158 180 145 120 120

With the initiation of the completeness 0 check in FY 1999, cycle times began a FY 1997 FY 1998 FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 Estimate Proposed steady decrease. While the completeness check ensures that applicants proSubdivision Site Plan vide all information necessary to review an application rather than accepting an Source: Development Review and Inspection Department incomplete application, it does not guarantee the quality of the submittal. For FY 2000, cycle times have begun to increase due to lack of quality submittals, a 17% increase in plan applications, high staff turnover and lack of training for new employees. Percent of Initial Reviews on Time As shown by the two graphs on the right, the percent of initial reviews completed on time for both subdivisions and site plans have fluctuated since FY 1994. In addition, the pattern of fluctuations has been similar for both types of reviews. For the most part, this fluctuation is due to a general increase in applications to be reviewed and various staffing decreases and increases that have occurred over the time period. The FY 1999 actual percentage of ontime reviews did not meet the FY 1999 goal of 95% for either subdivision or site plan review
Percent of Initial Reviews on Time - Subdivision 100% 75% 58% 50% 50% 25% 0%
FY 1994 FY 1995 FY 1996 FY 1997 FY 1998 FY 1999 Es timate FY 1999 A c tual

95% 74%

45% 21% 20%

Source: Development Review and Inspection Department

Percent of Initial Reviews on Time - Site Plan 100% 74% 75% 56% 50% 32% 25% 0%
FY 1994 FY 1995 FY 1996 FY 1997 FY 1998 FY 1999 Estimate FY 1999 Actual

95%

46% 30% 20%

Source: Development Review and Inspection Department

65

Community Scorecard—August 2000


				
Fighting Yank Fighting Yank
About These documents were primarily taken from government websites as part of a personal project to archive political and governmental documents on Docstoc. Please email gov.archive.project@gmail.com for prompt removal if you discover a copyrighted document. Thank you!