HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/26/2012 - Workshop Agenda Packet - City CouncilTable of Contents
Agenda 2
Workshop No. 5 - Economic Development Master Plan –
Update #1
Coversheet revised 5
Draft Report 6
Workshop No. 6 - Payroll Policies and Procedures Audit
Coversheet updated 71
1
CITY01: SI-.\'I-IONCOII.I~GI;
Mayor Horne of &s A&M U~~iuefiity' Council members
Nancy Berry Blanche Brick
Mayor Pro Tem Jess Fields
Dave Ruesink Karl Mooney
City Manager Katy-Marie Lyles
David Neeley Julie Schultz
Agenda
College Station City Council
Workshop Meeting
Thursday, July 26,2012,5:00 p.m.
City Hall Council Chambers, 1101 Texas Avenue
College Station, Texas
1. Call meeting to order.
2. Executive Session will be held in the Administrative Conference Room.
Consultation with Attorney {Gov't Code Section 55 1.071 1; possible action. The City Council may seek
advice from its attorney regarding a pending or contemplated litigation subject or settlement offer or
attorney-client privileged information. Litigation is an ongoing process and questions may arise as to a
litigation tactic or settlement offer, which needs to be discussed with the City Council. Upon occasion
the City Council may need information from its attorney as to the status of a pending or contemplated
litigation subject or settlement offer or attorney-client privileged information. After executive session
discussion, any final action or vote taken will be in public. The following subject(s) may be discussed:
Litigation
a. City of Bryan's application with TCEQ for water & sewer permits in WestsideIHighway 60 area,
near Brushy Water Supply Corporation to decertify City of College Station and certify City of
Bryan
b. Chavers et a1 v. Tyrone Morrow et al, No. 10-20792; Chavers v. Randall Hall et al, Case No. 10
CV-3922
c. College Station v. Star Insurance Co., Civil Action No. 4: 1 1 -CV-02023
d. Shirley Maguire and Holly Maguire vs. City of College Station, Cause No. 11-002516-CV-272, In
the 272nd District Court of Brazos County, Texas
e. Patricia Kahlden, individ. and as rep. of the Estate of Lillie May Williams Bayless v. Laura Sue Streigler,
City of College Station and James Steven Elkins, 1'40. 1 1-003 172-CV-272, in the 272"d District Court of
Brazos County, Tx.
f. Claim and potential litigation related to a June 24, 201 1 collision with a city vehicle.
Real Estate (Gov't Code Section 551.072); possible action The City Council may deliberate the
purchase; exchange, lease or value of real property if deliberation in an open meeting would have a
detrimental effect on the position of the City in negotiations with a third person. After executive session
discussion, any final action or vote taken will be in public. The following subject(s) may be discussed:
a. Property located generally northwest of the intersection of First Street and Church Avenue in
College Station.
Page 12
City Council Workshop Meeting
Thursday, July 26, 20 12
Economic Incentive Negotiations {Gov't Code Section 55 1.087); possible action The City Council may
deliberate on commercial or financial infornlatiorl that the City Council has received from a business
prospect that the City Council seeks to have locate, stay or expand in or near the city with which the City
Council in conducting economic development negotiations may deliberate on an offer of financial or other
incentives for a business prospect. After executive session discussion, any final action or vote taken will
be in public. The following subject(s) may be discussed:
a. Administrative Services in College Station Business Park
b. Behavioral healthcare facility
3. Take action, if any, on Executive Session.
4. Presentation, possible action, and discussion on items listed on the consent agenda.
5. Presentation and discussion regarding an update on the Econon~ic Development Master Plan.
6. Presentation, possible action, and discussion concerning the City Internal Auditor's Payroll Policies and
Procedures Audit.
7. Council Calendar
July 27 Scott & White Hospital Tour on Rock Prairie, 9:00 a.m.
August 2 P&Z WorkshopIMeeting in Council Chambers at 6:00 p.m. (Katy-Marie Lyles, Liaison)
August 8 BV Food Bank's Feast of Caring at Brazos Center, 11 :00 a.m.
August 9 City Council Executive/Workshop/Regular Meeting at 5:00, 6:00 and 7:00 p.m.
8. Presentation, possible action, and discussion on future agenda items and review of standing list of
Council generated agenda items: A Council Member may inquire about a subject for which notice has
not been given. A statement of specific factual information or the recitation of existing policy may be
given. Any deliberation shall be limited to a proposal to place the subject on an agenda for a
subsequent meeting.
9. Discussion, review and possible action regarding the following meetings: Animal Shelter Board, Arts
Council of the Brazos Valley, Arts Council Sub-committee, Audit Conln~ittee, Bicycle, Pedestrian, and
Greenways Advisory Board, Blinn College Brazos Valley Advisory Committee, Brazos County Health
Dept., Brazos Valley Council of Governments, BryandCollege Station Chamber of Commerce,
BVSWMA, BVWACS, Code Review Committee, Convention & Visitors Bureau, Design Review
Board, Historic Preservation Committee, Interfaith Dialogue Association, Intergovernmental
Committee, Joint Neighborhood Parking Taskforce, Joint Relief Funding Review Committee,
Landmark Commission, Library Board, Metropolitan Planning Organization, National League of
Cities, Outside Agency Funding Review, Parks and Recreation Board, Planning and Zoning
Con~n~ission,Research Valley Partnership, Regional Transportation Committee for Council of
Governments, Signature Event Task Force, Sister City Association, TAMU Student Senate, Texas
Municipal League, Youth Advisory Council, Zoning Board of Adjustments, (Notice of Agendas posted
on City Hall bulletin board).
Page 13
City Council Workshop Meeting
Thursday, July 26,20 12
10. Adjourn.
APPROVED: A
QC'h
City ~ana~er-
Notice is hereby given that an Executive Session and Workshop Meeting of the City Council of the City of
College Station, Texas will be held on the 12th day of July, 2012 at 5:00, 6:00, and 7:00 p.m.
respectively in the City Hall Council Chambers, 1101 Texas Avenue, College Station, Texas. The
following subjects will be discussed, to wit: See Agenda
I, the undersigned, do hereby certify that the above Notice of Meeting of the Governing Body of the City of
College Station, Texas, is a true and correct copy of said Notice and that I posted a true and correct copy of
said notice on the bulletin board at City Hall, 1 101 Texas Avenue, in College Station, Texas, and the City's
website, www.cstx.~ov . The Agenda and Notice are readily accessible to the general public at all times.
Said Notice and Agenda were posted on July 20, 2012 at 5.00 pm and remained so posted continuously for
at least 72 hours proceeding the scheduled time of said meeting.
This public notice was removed from the official board at the College Station City Hall on the following
date and time: by
Dated this day of ,2012.
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS BY
Subscribed and sworn to before me on this the day of ,2012.
Notary Public -Brazos County, Texas My commission expires:
This building is wheelchair accessible. Handicap parking spaces are available. Any request for sign interpretive service must be
made 48 hours before the meeting. To make arrangements call (979) 764-3517 or (TDD) 1-800-735-2989. Agendas may be
viewed on www.cstx.gov. Council meetings are broadcast live on Cable Access Channel 19.
July 26, 2012
Workshop Agenda Item No. 5
Economic Development Master Plan – Update #1
To: David Neeley, City Manager
From: Bob Cowell, AICP, CNU-A Executive Director – Planning & Development Services
Agenda Caption: Presentation and discussion regarding an update on the Economic
Development Master Plan
Relationship to Council Strategic Plan: Financially Sustainable City and Diverse Growing
Economy
Recommendation(s): Receive the Phase I Draft Report information from the Staff and City
Consultant
Summary: Earlier in 2012, the City Council contracted with a Consultant Team to, in
partnership with Staff; prepare an Economic Development Master Plan as a component of the
City’s Comprehensive Plan. The project scope divides the project into three distinct phases.
Upon completion of each phase, it is anticipated that a presentation will be conducted for the
Planning & Zoning Commission and Council following the completion of the draft report for each
phase.
The first phase of the plan focuses on demographics and socio-economic data, a preliminary
assessment of specific market conditions, and preliminary identification of opportunities and
challenges present in our local market.
Staff and the Consultant Team will present the information, answer questions, and provide
details of the work to be performed with Phase II.
Budget & Financial Summary: In 2012 Council approved a contract for an amount not to
exceed $94,885
Attachments:
Attachment 1: Draft Executive Summary of Phase One Report
5
June 2012
Economic Development Strategic Plan
College Station, Texas
Prepared for:
City of College Station
1101 Texas Avenue
College Station, Texas 77840
Economic Development Strategic Plan
Phase One
College Station, Texas
Economic Development Strategic Plan
6
Phase One – Economic Development Strategic Plan College Station, Texas
ii
Table of Contents
Table of Contents.................................................................................................................... ii
Table of Exhibits .................................................................................................................... iii
Executive Summary and General Points .................................................................................. 2
Area Economics and Demographics ........................................................................................................... 2
Retail / Commercial Market Analysis ......................................................................................................... 3
Office and Industrial Market Analysis ........................................................................................................ 4
Health and Wellness ................................................................................................................................... 4
Technology ................................................................................................................................................. 5
Hospitality and Entertainment ................................................................................................................... 5
Government and Higher Education ............................................................................................................ 6
Construction and Development ................................................................................................................. 6
Area Economics and Demographics ......................................................................................... 7
Employment and Industry Trends .............................................................................................................. 7
Population and Household Characteristics .............................................................................................. 11
Housing Characteristics ............................................................................................................................ 20
Workforce Characteristics: Education, Occupation, and Wages ............................................................. 22
Market Analysis .................................................................................................................... 28
Retail / Commercial .................................................................................................................................. 28
Office and Industrial ................................................................................................................................. 3 3
Office Users and Property Market ....................................................................................................... 33
Industrial Users and Property Market .................................................................................................. 35
Health and Wellness ................................................................................................................................. 38
Technology ............................................................................................................................................... 40
Hospitality and Entertainment ................................................................................................................. 42
Lodging ................................................................................................................................................. 42
Entertainment ...................................................................................................................................... 44
Government and Higher Education .......................................................................................................... 46
Construction and Development ............................................................................................................... 49
7
College Station Economic Development Strategic Plan Phase 1 College Station, Texas
iii
Table of Exhibits
Employment Estimates 2000 College Station-Bryan, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area .............. 7
Not Seasonally Adjusted ......................................................................................................... 7
High Growth Industries ........................................................................................................... 8
Location Quotients ................................................................................................................. 9
2010 Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages .................................................................. 9
Brazos Valley Largest Employers ........................................................................................... 10
Unemployment Trends – College Station - Bryan MSA ........................................................... 10
Population Trends by Age – City of College Station ................................................................ 11
Population by Age – MSA Comparative Overview .................................................................. 12
Household Profile – City of College Station ............................................................................ 14
Annual Household Income –City of College Station ................................................................ 15
Annual Household Income – MSA Comparative Overview ..................................................... 15
2010 Household Income by Age of Householder – City - MSA Comparison ............................. 17
2010 Median Household Income by Age of Householder – City - MSA Comparison ................ 18
Race and Ethnicity – City of College Station ........................................................................... 19
Housing Occupancy Status – City of College Station ............................................................... 20
Housing Occupancy Trends 2000 - 2010 – City of College Station ........................................... 21
Educational Attainment – Population 25 Years and Older ...................................................... 22
City of College Station ........................................................................................................... 22
Occupations – City of College Station .................................................................................... 23
Occupations – Geographical Comparison .............................................................................. 25
Comparison of Wage Levels by Occupation ........................................................................... 27
City of College Station Retail Sales 2003 – 2011 ..................................................................... 28
City of College Station Retail Sales 2003 - 2011 ...................................................................... 29
Gross Retail Sales per Capita 2011 – Urban Counties Comparison .......................................... 31
Trends in Office-Related Industries ....................................................................................... 33
Trends in Office-Related Occupations .................................................................................... 34
8
College Station Economic Development Strategic Plan Phase 1 College Station, Texas
iv
Trends in Industrial Employers .............................................................................................. 35
Trends in Industrial-Related Occupations .............................................................................. 36
Estimated and Forecast Health-Related Employment ............................................................ 38
College Station – Bryan Hotel Revenue 2002 - 2011 ............................................................... 42
Mixed Beverage Sales 2000 - 2011 ........................................................................................ 44
Major Employers .................................................................................................................. 46
City of College Station Residents by Occupation .................................................................... 47
Employment Growth by Industry .......................................................................................... 48
College Station Building Permits ........................................................................................... 50
2002 - 2004 ........................................................................................................................... 50
College Station Building Permits ........................................................................................... 51
2005 - 2008 ........................................................................................................................... 51
College Station Building Permits ........................................................................................... 52
2009 – 2012 YTD ................................................................................................................... 52
City of College Station Annual Total Permitted Improvement Value ...................................... 53
2002 - 2012 ........................................................................................................................... 53
City of Bryan Building Permit Information ............................................................................. 54
2003 - 2005 ........................................................................................................................... 54
City of Bryan Building Permit Information ............................................................................. 54
2000 - 2002 ........................................................................................................................... 54
City of Bryan Building Permit Information ............................................................................. 55
2009 - 2011 ........................................................................................................................... 55
City of Bryan Building Permit Information ............................................................................. 55
2006 - 2008 ........................................................................................................................... 55
City of Bryan Annual Permitted Improvement Value ............................................................. 56
2000 through 2011 ................................................................................................................ 56
City of College Station Development Horizon ........................................................................ 56
Quarterly Sales Tax Report – Construction Sector .................................................................. 57
Construction Sector Location Quotient .................................................................................. 58
MSA and State ...................................................................................................................... 58
9
College Station Economic Development Strategic Plan Phase 1 College Station, Texas
v
Construction Related Employment Estimates 2000 College Station-Bryan, TX Metropolitan
Statistical Area .................................................................................................................... 58
Non Seasonably Adjusted ..................................................................................................... 58
10
Phase One – Economic Development Strategic Plan College Station, Texas
2
Executive Summary and General Points
Many metropolitan areas of College Station – Bryan’s size increasingly rely on “eds and meds” –
education and health care – for their economic foundation. Essentially, they become educational and
medical service centers for a surrounding mostly rural region. The “eds” portion of this picture is usually
a moderate size public and / or private university and community college.
The presence of Texas A&M University (TAMU) – a very large research institution with national renown
– takes College Station’s “eds and meds” profile to an entirely different level. The large numbers of
well-educated faculty and staff paid well enough to be middle or upper middle class creates a
compelling demographic profile for the adult population in the City itself. The population tied to the
MSA’s blue collar heritage tends to reside in Bryan, satellite towns, or unincorporated areas.
Population growth in College Station has been led by the growth of the student population, though this
may be changing as enrollment growth levels off. This gives the chance for the adult population, which
also has been growing, to assert itself to a greater extent in the City’s local economy. The first response
has been the growth of the health care sector, illustrated by growth in the designated “Medical District”
in the southern part of the City.
Regarding growth in other sectors of the economy, particularly “basic” industries such as manufacturing
and technology, College Station has a mix of opportunities and challenges:
Opportunities and Advantages
• The City has access to a continuous stream of educated, innovative science and engineering
graduates emerging from TAMU, as well as its faculty and other intellectual resources.
• Its basic infrastructure and public services are considered good quality.
• The College Station Independent School District is considered very attractive to middle class and
affluent residents who value education – a value shared by skilled knowledge workers in
industries such as technology. Outside of the presence of TAMU, this should be considered the
City’s core competitive asset.
• The overall cost of living is moderate when compared against coastal knowledge worker
destinations (or Austin). This is achieved while still offering the basic services and conveniences
found in a typical suburban environment with less traffic congestion and a shorter commute.
• With its parks and trails, educational / athletic organizational infrastructure and facilities,
increasing health care services, and low crime rate the City’s general quality of life for families
and older residents is strong.
• Existing actors in economic development are actively working to foster additional knowledge-
based industries, with a focus on bioscience technology.
Challenges and Barriers
• Limited air service and convenient connections to Easterwood Airport are a significant
inconvenience for high-level workers in some industries as well as business and group visitors to
the City.
• The stock of older multifamily rental units may lose appeal to students as new properties come
online. The question of who will reside in the older units has repercussions for public service
11
Phase One – Economic Development Strategic Plan College Station, Texas
2
provision and in particular future public school performance in CSISD, which is critical to the
City’s appeal.
• It is difficult to compete with larger Texas metropolitan areas in appeal for newly minted
University graduates and young adults less than 10 years out of school. The vast employment
base in knowledge-intensive industries, relatively higher pay levels, and myriad opportunities for
career advancement in larger cities holds strong appeal to ambitious young workers.
• Energy companies continue to keep their operations and research consolidated in the Houston
area rather than locate offices close to TAMU’s related academic research facilities and
graduating students.
• New businesses and ventures dependent on public spending through the University or state and
federal government are at risk of contraction if public budgets become further constrained.
• The overall cost of living is not lower in College Station than in Houston, North Texas, or San
Antonio for suburban home buyers (though commute costs are probably lower), which removes
one form of potential competitive advantage over these metros.
• The City is only now starting to reach a critical mass of affluent adult households to create a
retail and service environment that is not heavily oriented to and patronized by college
students. The lack of an “adult shopping, dining, and culture world” can be off-putting to
knowledge workers who are used to having this at their disposal in larger cities. This also
correlates to the lack of an urban neighborhood environment with retail, entertainment, and
cultural offerings for adults that contrasts with both the Northgate college student
entertainment area and the typical non-unique suburban chain retail establishments.
• More upscale and destination channels for spending discretionary income – “name” designer
boutiques, luxury chain retail, cutting-edge chef-driven restaurants, and major cultural events
such as opera and major concerts – also require a trip to Houston or Austin and will continue to
do so for the foreseeable future.
• While College Station residents likely appreciate the City’s high standards for land use and
extensive regulatory framework, the resulting increased costs of developing and occupying
commercial space potentially discourage independent and startup businesses of various types –
both technology-oriented and retail businesses for example – from successfully locating in the
City. (It should be noted, however, that many who were interviewed during this research
process believed that the City has recently been improving its relationship with the business
community with regard to its regulatory environment.)
Area Economics and Demographics
• Total non-farm payroll employment in the College Station – Bryan MSA is projected to have
increased by 14,600 jobs between 2000 and 2012, reaching a total of 97,300 employees in the
MSA.
• The fastest growing industries in the College Station – Bryan MSA are “Food Services and
Drinking Places”, “Ambulatory Health Care Services”, and “Hospitals”
• Government and public sector employers make up a large percentage of the major employers
base in the MSA. Of the fifteen largest employers, seven of them are either public / higher
education related or local / regional government related.
12
Phase One – Economic Development Strategic Plan College Station, Texas
3
• Unemployment in both the City of College Station and the MSA are lower than in the State of
Texas as a whole.
• Population has grown significantly in the City of College Station, from 67,890 in 2000 to 93,857
in 2010. The 18 to 24 age bracket makes up an outsized 47.3 % portion of this population in
2010 (due primarily to Texas A&M), but this percentage is down from 51.2% in 2000.
• The population of the City of College Station is generally well educated with 64% of residents
aged 25 or older having achieved at least an Associates Degree, and the largest percentage of
that group has a professional or graduate degree (30.6% of total population).
• The City of College Station contains the majority of each the following Occupation Categories in
the entire MSA per the US Census:
o “Life, physical, and social science occupations” (82.8%)
o “Education, training, and library occupations” (72.3%)
o “Personal care and service occupations” (66.3%)
o “Education, legal, community service, arts, and media occupations” (64.1%)
o “Computer, engineering, and science occupations”(61.2%)
Retail / Commercial Market Analysis
• When compared to other high growth, metropolitan counties with a substantial population of
educated residents (Williamson, Montgomery, Collin), Brazos County has a substantially lower
level of retail spending per capita.
• When compared to smaller metropolitan counties in lower-growth areas (Nueces and
McLennan) Brazos County also has a somewhat lower level of retail spending per capita.
• These trends may be attributable to the departure of the student population during summer
and holiday breaks. Increasingly, this trend may also be attributable to College Station’s
location in close proximity to Houston and Austin. The Cypress Premium Outlets and The
Woodlands Mall / Woodlands Market Street are both less than one hour’s drive away from
College Station and provide a greater variety of stores and goods than does Post Oak Mall or
other CS-B MSA retailer areas.
• Interviewees indicated several key points related to retail and commercial development:
o Rental rates in College Station are generally higher than can be afforded by a startup
small business.
o University Drive is the heart of the market area for retailers or restaurants with just one
location in the MSA.
o As residential development continues to grow in southern College Station, a critical
mass of roof tops could materialize sufficient for additional upscale and “adult class”
retail development to be brought to market in that area.
o It is difficult for retailers without a current presence in the market to understand the
outsized buying power (relative to their income level) of the large student population.
This presents a continual challenge for retail and restaurant recruitment.
13
Phase One – Economic Development Strategic Plan College Station, Texas
4
Office and Industrial Market Analysis
• The office market in College Station – Bryan MSA was generally described as soft because the
employer base in the College Station area is not focused on firms that occupy typical office
space.
• Because of relatively little demand for office space being present in College Station, the City
should not likely expect any large scale new office building development in the near to middle
term. Any additions to inventory are likely to be small scale 1 to 2 story “local professional”
office buildings.
• The employment base in College Station – Bryan MSA is even less focused on manufacturing and
industrial users than office users.
• Nearly all manufacturing and industrial real estate observed in the market was located in Bryan
and not College Station. Interviewees spoke of past decisions by the College Station city
leadership to minimize and discourage location of heavy industry within the City boundaries
through development policy and regulation.
Health and Wellness
• Health and wellness care (as opposed to biomedical research) is one of College Station’s most
prominent growth industries and a significant part of its economic base.
• The Texas Workforce Commission estimates that the Brazos Valley Workforce Development
Area (Brazos, Burleson, Grimes, Leon, Madison, Robertson, and Washington Counties) had an
estimated 29,000 health related employees and this is projected to grow to 37,730 by 2018.
• College Station may be a larger than typical demand center for healthcare services because the
American Community Survey from the Census Bureau estimated that only 12.2% of College
Station residents were uninsured in 2010. This is far lower than the 23.7% estimate for Texas
and better than the overall 16.4% estimate for the College Station- Bryan MSA.
• Significant investment in new health care facilities is exhibited in the area, notably in South
College Station where the new Scott and White facility is under construction and in the Medical
District along Rock Prairie Road.
• Additionally, major investment has been made in Bryan in the initial development of the Health
Science Center (HSC) in far west Bryan.
• It should be anticipated that as overall population grows and specifically the increasing
population of affluent retired and senior adults, health and wellness businesses will continue to
expand.
• The Health Science Center’s expansion efforts will also likely continue to drive growth in this
sector in College Station and the College Station – Bryan MSA.
14
Phase One – Economic Development Strategic Plan College Station, Texas
5
Technology
• Various forms of entrepreneurial, cutting-edge businesses are a subject of focused economic
development interest in the College Station area. This could include electronics and digital
engineering , software, and bioscience and biotech, which has garnered the most significant
recent publicity.
• Census data indicates that College Station is a relatively highly educated community, which
could provide adequate human resources for Technology companies.
• Multiple interviewees noted that there may be opportunities to capture the research and
technology piece of energy companies. Many TAMU graduates are educated to work in such
fields and many firms engaged in such work are nearby in Houston. However there are few
industry facilities of this type in College Station to capitalize on both of these situations. Such
TAMU graduates typically end up moving to Houston or other larger metros to gain
employment.
• Two challenges to College Station increasing this employment sector were mentioned by
interviewees:
o The relative lack of ease of air travel out of Easterwood Airport for Technology firm
executive, and
o The potential need to add another dimension to the College Station urban experience
beyond suburban style development and college oriented venues in order to attract top
notch scientists and technology researchers from larger cities who provide the creative
brain power behind the success of technology firms.
Hospitality and Entertainment
• College Station – Bryan hotel revenue trended upward from 2002 to a peak of over $60,000,000
in 2008 but has since trended slightly downward.
• The College Station – Bryan hospitality market suffered less during the recent recession than
other larger markets, since it was bolstered by Texas A&M and its relative affordability for more
cost conscious events and conferences.
• The area is challenged by only having one full service conference hotel (The Hilton).
• Significant hospitality revenue is derived from Texas A&M football ticketholders. With TAMU’s
entry into the SEC, the local hospitality industry is excited by the prospect of how well the SEC
travels to away games, but is concerned about a potential period that TAMU home games could
be held in Houston or elsewhere while stadium renovations are made.
• Mixed beverage sales have continued to trend upward for the City of College Station (while
remaining flat for Bryan) during the period from 2000 through 2011.
• Opportunities likely exist for additional upscale adult (not college oriented) restaurants and
entertainment venues in College Station.
15
6
Government and Higher Education
• A large percentage of employees and major employers in College Station – Bryan MSA are
engaged in either education or government. Seven of the fifteen largest employers in the area
are engaged in these sectors.
• Per the 2010 Census, 18.5% of all employed College Station residents work in the “Education,
training, and library occupations”
• State government makes up the single largest industry by employment in the College Station –
Bryan MSA per the Texas Workforce Commission. This includes TAMU System employees and is
currently reported at 26,200 employees.
Construction and Development
• Construction and development are a sizable employment sector in the College Station – Bryan
MSA with annual permitted improvement value (both new construction and renovations of
existing properties) ranging from $200M to $500M combined in the cities of Bryan and College
Station.
• Significant land exists in and near College Station for additional real estate development should
the market demand it, and allowing for Construction and Development to continue to be a large
industry sector in the area.
• Annual gross sales of goods related to construction in the City of College range from $60M to
$110M in the period from 2002 to 2011, providing significant economic momentum to the
community.
16
7
Employment Estimates 2000 College Station-Bryan, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area
Not Seasonally Adjusted
Employment as of February
(thousands)
Change
2000 - 2008 - 2000 -
Industry 2000 2008 2012 2008 2012 2012
Mining, Logging, and Construction 4,500 7,000 6,500 2,500 (500) 2,000
Manufacturing 5,800 5,500 5,200 (300) (300) (600)
Wholesale Trade 1,400 1,800 1,800 400 - 400
Retail Trade 9,200 10,000 10,300 800 300 1,100
Transportation, Warehousing, and Utilities 800 1,400 1,400 600 - 600
Information 1,600 1,100 1,200 (500) 100 (400)
Financial Activities 3,300 3,300 3,700 - 400 400
Professional and Business Services 4,900 5,600 6,300 700 700 1,400
Educational and Health Services 7,900 10,000 10,000 2,100 - 2,100
Leisure and Hospitality 7,600 9,900 10,300 2,300 400 2,700
Other Services 2,600 2,900 3,100 300 200 500
Federal Government 1,100 1,000 900 (100) (100) (200)
State Government 23,400 25,400 26,200 2,000 800 2,800
Local Government 8,600 9,900 10,400 1,300 500 1,800
Total Non-Farm Payroll Employment 82,700 94,800 97,300 12,100 2,500 14,600
Source: Texas Workforce Commission
Area Economics and Demographics
Employment and Industry Trends
The table above summarizes employment by industry in the College Station-Bryan MSA (BCS) in the
period between 2000 and 2012. Total non-farm payroll employment increased meaningfully during this
twelve year period, by 14,600 employees or 17.7%. The recession that began in late 2008 through 2009
resulted in a slowdown in total job growth, but the metropolitan area has recovered and added more
jobs than were lost during that period.
Over the total twelve years, the industries that saw the greatest growth in number of employees are
State Government (which includes the Texas A&M University system), Leisure and Hospitality, and
Education and Health Services. During this same period Manufacturing, Information, and Federal
Government all saw decreases.
A significant percentage of MSA employees in the area are engaged in some part of the public sector.
Thirty nine percent are engaged in Federal, State, or Local government and an additional large share are
public employees in the Educational and Health Services field.
Professionals that were interviewed by CDS |Spillette indicated that they expect general employment
growth to continue. The BCS Chamber of Commerce polls local business people each year, and in the
most recent survey, 60% of respondents stated that sales in their businesses were up over last year.
Secondly, 40% reported that they will be adding additional staff in the next year.
The medical and health care industry sectors have also been growing in BCS.
17
8
High Growth Industries
Q2 2010 - Q1 2011
Rank College Station - Bryan MSA Brazos Valley WDA Statewide
1 Food Services and Drinking Places Food Services and Drinking Places Food Services and Drinking Places
2 Ambulatory Health Care Services Ambulatory Health Care Services Administrative and Support
Services
3 Hospitals Professional, Scientific, and
Technical Services Ambulatory Health Care Services
4 Professional, Scientific, and
Technical Services Hospitals Professional, Scientific, and
Technical Services
5 Specialty Trade Contractors Specialty Trade Contractors Specialty Trade Contractors
6 Food Manufacturing Food Manufacturing Hospitals
7 Health and Personal Care Stores Fabricated Metal Product
Manufacturing
Merchant Wholesalers, Durable
Goods
8 Administrative and Support
Services General Merchandise Stores General Merchandise Stores
9 General Merchandise Stores Food and Beverage Stores Credit Intermediation and Related
Activities
10 Food and Beverage Stores Administrative and Support
Services Food and Beverage Stores
WDA – Workforce Development Area
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Local Employment Dynamics
Employment challenges reported in the area include:
• Lack of employment opportunities for “trailing spouses” that follow their husbands or wives
into BCS for their career opportunities.
• Difficulty retaining Texas A&M graduates in the local workforce. They tend to gravitate towards
larger metros for a variety of reasons.
• Limited blue collar and industrial employment opportunities. There are few industrial facilities
in the area and little available land zoned for such development in College Station.
The table above summarizes the top 10 highest growth industries in the College Station – Bryan MSA,
the Brazos Valley Workforce Development Area, and the state as a whole. Food Services and Drinking
Places are the highest growth industry in all three geographies. Ambulatory Health Care services are
high growth in all three geographies as well – second highest in the MSA and WDA and third in the state
as a whole. Hospitals are the third highest growth industry in the College Station – Bryan MSA. This is
evidenced by continual expansion of Saint Joseph’s, The College Station Medical Center, and the new
Scott and White facility in south College Station. Food manufacturing and Health and Personal Care
Stores are both industries have high growth in the MSA but not in Texas as a whole.
18
9
Location Quotients
2010 Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages
Nongovernment Industries
Location Quotient vs. USA Total
Two-Digit NAICS Level Industry
Texas --
Statewide
College Station-
Bryan, TX MSA
Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting 0.64 1.31
Mining, quarrying, and oil and gas extraction 3.99 5.10
Utilities 1.11 1.01
Construction 1.31 1.52
Manufacturing 0.90 0.81
Wholesale trade 1.16 0.55
Retail trade 1.00 1.32
Professional and technical services 0.97 0.87
Management of companies and enterprises 0.54 0.10
Administrative and waste services 1.08 0.54
Educational services 0.63 ND
Health care and social assistance 0.92 ND
Transportation and warehousing 1.14 0.45
Information 0.92 0.69
Finance and insurance 1.03 0.54
Real estate and rental and leasing 1.13 1.51
Arts, entertainment, and recreation 0.73 0.97
Accommodation and food services 1.03 1.49
Other services, except public administration 0.86 0.97
Unclassified 0.37 0.20
(ND) Not Disclosable
(NC) Not Calculable, the data does not exist or it is
zero
The table above summarizes the location quotient of various industry sectors for the State of Texas and
the College Station-Bryan Texas MSA versus the Nation as a whole. Location Quotients compare the
frequency of presence of certain industries within certain geographies with the frequency of those same
industries’ presence in the nation as a whole. A location quotient of 1 indicates the industry has the
same concentration in a geography as the United State. Less than 1 indicates the industry is less
concentrated locally, and above 1 means the industry has higher concentration in a local geography than
the United States as a whole. Key findings to note:
• Firms engaged in mining, quarrying, and oil and gas extraction are located in both Texas and in
College Station-Bryan MSA to a much greater degree than the nation overall.
• Agriculture, forestry, fishing, and hunting related industry has a more significant presence in
College Station-Bryan MSA than it is in the State and Nation as a whole.
19
10
Brazos Valley Largest Employers
Employer Sector # Employees
Texas A&M University System Education 1,000 +
Bryan Independent School District Education 1,000 +
St. Joseph Regional Hospital Health care 1,000 +
Sanderson Farms Food processing 1,000 +
College Station School District Education 1,000 +
Reynolds & Reynolds Hardware / software 1,000 +
City of Bryan Government 500 - 999
City of College Station Government 500 - 999
Brazos County Government 500 - 999
Walmart Retail 500 - 999
HEB Grocery Retail 500 - 999
Scott & White Clinic Health care 500 - 999
College Station Medical Center Health care 500 - 999
Texas A&M Health Science Center Education 500 - 999
Penncro Associates Financial services 500 - 999
Source: Research Valley Partnership
Unemployment Trends – College Station - Bryan MSA
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics
3.0%
4.0%
5.0%
6.0%
7.0%
8.0%
9.0%
Jan
2002
Jan
2003
Jan
2004
Jan
2005
Jan
2006
Jan
2007
Jan
2008
Jan
2009
Jan
2010
Jan
2011
Jan
2012
College Station College Station -Bryan MSA Texas
• Similarly, firms that service a large college community such as Accommodation and food
services, and real estate and rental and leasing are more present in College Station-Bryan MSA
than in the State or Nation as a whole.
• Transportation and warehousing, wholesale trade, and administrative and waste services are all
much less frequently present in the College Station-Bryan MSA than they are in the State and
Nation as a whole. This correlates with a relative lack of industrial activity in the area which was
reported to CDS Spillette by multiple interviewees and generally observed by CDS | Spillette.
• Information and Finance and Insurance firms are also less present in College Station- Bryan MSA
than in the State and Nation as a whole. This condition corresponds to the statements by
interviewees regarding the low demand for office space in the area.
Public sector agencies, such as local school districts and various levels of government are heavily
represented on the list of the Brazos Valley’s Largest Employers. Not surprisingly Texas A&M University
20
11
Population Trends by Age – City of College Station
Census Estimates Change
2000 2010 2000 - 2010
Age Distribution Number Share Number Share Number % Change
Age 0 to 4 3,032 4.5% 4,526 4.8% 1,494 49.3%
Age 5 to 17 6,757 10.0% 9,326 9.9% 2,569 38.0%
Age 18 to 24 34,765 51.2% 44,398 47.3% 9,633 27.7%
Age 25 to 34 8,857 13.0% 13,922 14.8% 5,065 57.2%
Age 35 to 44 5,616 8.3% 7,134 7.6% 1,518 27.0%
Age 45 to 49 2,295 3.4% 2,895 3.1% 600 26.1%
Age 50 to 54 1,776 2.6% 2,901 3.1% 1,125 63.3%
Age 55 to 64 2,331 3.4% 4,380 4.7% 2,049 87.9%
Age 65 and over 2,461 3.6% 4,375 4.7% 1,914 77.8%
Total 67,890 100.0% 93,857 100.0% 25,967 38.2%
Estimated Median Age 21.90 22.30
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 American Community Survey, Census 2000 Summary File 3
System is shown the largest employer by the Research Valley Partnership. This recalls the overall
employment by industry statistics, which showed that state government employees are by far the
largest industry category for jobs in the region. Outside of government, the other large employment
sectors are the two area major hospitals and major retailers.
For most of the last ten years, unemployment has remained lower in College Station and the College
Station – Bryan MSA than the state of Texas. Since the onset of recession in Texas in 2008, the
unemployment rate in the College Station area rose from very low levels under 4.0% to in excess of
6.0%, even briefly reaching 7.0%. It has remained in the vicinity of 6.0% since 2009. However, the rate
for Texas overall, which was comparable to the College Station area in 2008, increased much more
dramatically in the recession, reaching over 8.0% by 2010 and has exceeded the College Station rate
typically by 100 to 150 basis points since then.
Population and Household Characteristics
The following table summarizes the distribution of the population by age group of residents of the City
of College Station and compares this distribution between 2000 and 2010. The total population of the
City has grown dramatically during that ten-year period, increasing by over a third to nearly 94,000. It
should be noted that the City added an estimated 658 residents through annexation of already-
populated areas during the period. The City estimates that its population had reached 96,641 as of
February 2012, which would include 648 residents added through annexation.
At the time of the 2000 Census, the largest percentage of College Station residents were aged 18 to 24.
This likely is the result of the large number Texas A&M University and Blinn College students who reside
in College Station. This was still the case as of the 2010 Census, but the percentage had dropped from
51.2% to 47.3%. Because the Census occurs in late winter / early spring when these institutions are in
session, most students will report their place of residence as their student housing. This age group’s
population, and thus the population of College Station overall, drops dramatically from late May
through mid-August during summer session.
21
12
Population by Age – MSA Comparative Overview
2010 Census Estimates
Number Share % Change 2000 - 2010
Age Distribution
College
Station
Brazos
County
College
Station
- Bryan
MSA
College
Station
Brazos
County
College
Station
- Bryan
MSA
College
Station
Brazos
County
College
Station
- Bryan
MSA
Age 0 to 4 4,526 12,506 14,742 4.8% 6.4% 6.4% 49.3% 31.8% 25.6%
Age 5 to 17 9,326 27,325 33,347 9.9% 14.0% 14.6% 38.0% 17.5% 29.1%
Age 18 to 24 44,398 60,112 62,695 47.3% 30.9% 27.4% 27.7% 23.1% 22.1%
Age 25 to 34 13,922 29,816 33,341 14.8% 15.3% 14.6% 57.2% 34.5% 29.3%
Age 35 to 44 7,134 19,168 23,127 7.6% 9.8% 10.1% 27.0% 10.2% 5.5%
Age 45 to 49 2,895 9,210 11,598 3.1% 4.7% 5.1% 26.1% 27.1% 22.5%
Age 50 to 54 2,901 9,008 11,657 3.1% 4.6% 5.1% 63.3% 52.3% 46.4%
Age 55 to 64 4,380 13,647 18,317 4.7% 7.0% 8.0% 87.9% 72.4% 64.0%
Age 65 and over 4,375 14,059 19,836 4.7% 7.2% 8.7% 77.8% 37.5% 27.2%
Total 93,857 194,851 228,660 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 38.2% 27.8% 23.7%
Median Age 22.30 24.50 25.80
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 American Community Survey, Census 2000 Summary File 3
Between 2000 and 2010 the age groups of 55-64 and 65 and older all rose in share by at least 100 basis
points. This supports a trend of Texas A&M affiliated empty nesters and retirees relocating to College
Station, as reported to CDS Spillette by professionals interviewed in the region. The median age of the
City’s population increased slightly as a result, though it is still quite young by typical standards.
The 25-34 age group increased between 2000 and 2010 and accounts for the second-highest share of
the population. Several persons interviewed by CDS | Spillette noted that TAMU graduates were leaving
the region after graduation, mostly for larger metropolitan areas. It is possible that a large amount of
this age cohort could then be explained by the graduate student enrollees at TAMU (estimated to be
9,000 to 10,000), many of whom likely live in College Station. This would also help explain the
significant drop in share for the age group 35-44; most of the graduate students probably also leave the
area upon obtaining their degrees. Several factors were mentioned during interviews as contributing to
the lack of retention of graduating students:
• Perception of a larger number of better / higher paid career advancement opportunities in
larger metros
• Relative lack of entry level professional jobs in College Station - Bryan
• Current suburban style development patterns of BCS do not offer the type of environment in
which urban-oriented young professionals of the “creative class” wish to live
The table above summarizes and compares the age distribution and total populations of residents in
College Station, the County and the MSA as a whole. College Station accounts for 48% of the County
population and 41% of the MSA, and has grown faster since 2000 than either of the larger geographies.
College Station has a significantly higher percentage of residents aged 18 to 24 than the County and
MSA. Over two-thirds of the MSA population in this age group live in College Station. Conversely,
22
13
College Station has a lower percentage of every age group aged 35 and older than the County and the
MSA. The greatest discrepancy is among residents aged 55 to 64, and 65 and older.
This can likely be attributed to housing development patterns. Until the 1980s, the largest portion of
single family housing was built in Bryan rather than College Station. Thus at the time that older
residents were establishing their households, many of the available single family housing units were in
Bryan. This began to change with the development of Southwood Valley and other neighborhoods in
South College Station. It should be noted that despite having fewer “empty nester” and retiree / senior
residents in 2000, these age groups are increasing much faster in College Station than the county or
MSA overall.
Many economically-relevant demographic characteristics are assessed at the household level. In College
Station, which discerning the impacts between student and permanent resident households is useful for
determining economic development strategies, this requires examining data on households closely.
23
14
Household Profile – City of College Station
Census Estimates Change
2000 2010 2000 - 2010
Household Type and Presence of Children Number Share Number Share Number % Change
1 Person Household: 6,691 27.1% 9,642 27.5% 2,951 44.1%
Male householder 3,537 14.3% 4,801 13.7% 1,264 35.7%
Female householder 3,154 12.8% 4,841 13.8% 1,687 53.5%
2 or More Person Household/Family Households: 18,000 72.9% 25,395 72.5% 7,395 41.1%
Married-couple family: 7,954 32.2% 10,936 31.2% 2,982 37.5%
With own children under 18 years 4,043 16.4% 5,222 14.9% 1,179 29.2%
No own children under 18 years 3,911 15.8% 5,580 15.9% 1,669 42.7%
Other family: 2,414 9.8% 3,953 11.3% 1,539 63.8%
Male householder, no wife present: 736 3.0% 1,260 3.6% 524 71.2%
With own children under 18 years 182 0.7% 371 1.1% 189 103.8%
No own children under 18 years 554 2.2% 889 2.5% 335 60.5%
Female householder, no husband present: 1,678 6.8% 2,693 7.7% 1,015 60.5%
With own children under 18 years 967 3.9% 1,558 4.4% 591 61.1%
No own children under 18 years 711 2.9% 1,135 3.2% 424 59.6%
Nonfamily households: 7,632 30.9% 10,506 30.0% 2,874 37.7%
Male householder 3,986 16.1% 5,531 15.8% 1,545 38.8%
Female householder 3,646 14.8% 4,975 14.2% 1,329 36.5%
College and Post-College Households:
Family households: 10,368 42.0% 14,889 42.5% 4,521 43.6%
Householder 15 to 24 years 1,472 6.0% 1,859 5.3% 387 26.3%
Householder 25+ years 8,896 36.0% 13,030 37.2% 4,134 46.5%
Nonfamily households: 14,323 58.0% 20,148 57.5% 5,825 40.7%
Householder 15 to 24 years 9,710 39.3% 12,603 36.0% 2,893 29.8%
Householder 25+ years 4,613 18.7% 7,545 21.5% 2,932 63.6%
Household Size:
1-person households 6,691 27.1% 9,642 27.5% 2,951 44.1%
2-person households 9,478 38.4% 11,957 34.1% 2,479 26.2%
3-person or more households 8,522 34.5% 13,438 38.4% 4,916 57.7%
Average Household Size 2.32 2.38 0.06 2.6%
Total Households 24,691 100% 35,037 100% 10,346 41.9%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 American Community Survey, Census 2000 Summary File 3
The preceding table summarizes the distribution of household types by householder and presence of
children for the City of College Station as reported in both the 2000 and 2010 US Censuses. The 2010
Census indicated that of the 35,037 households in College Station, 72.5% are 2 or more people in size.
However, only 31.2% are married couple households and only 14.9% of total households include their
own children 18 years of age or younger. This last percentage is down from 16.4% in 2000.
A relatively high 57.5% of households are Nonfamily households; over half of these contain two or more
people, indicating the large college student population that usually shares living quarters. The share of
such households remained relatively constant from 2000 to 2010.
24
15
Annual Household Income –City of College Station
Census 2000 ACS 2010 Estimate Change
Income Cohort Number Share Number Share Number % Change
Less than $15,000 9,888 40.2% 9,536 28.5% (352) -3.6%
$15,000 to $24,999 3,590 14.6% 4,818 14.4% 1,228 34.2%
$25,000 to $34,999 2,224 9.0% 2,374 7.1% 150 6.7%
$35,000 to $49,999 2,303 9.4% 4,114 12.3% 1,811 78.6%
$50,000 to $74,999 2,695 11.0% 4,279 12.8% 1,584 58.8%
$75,000 to $99,999 1,671 6.8% 3,336 10.0% 1,665 99.6%
$100,000 to $149,999 1,256 5.1% 2,632 7.9% 1,376 109.6%
$150,000 or more 972 4.0% 2,388 7.1% 1,416 145.7%
Total Households 24,599 100.0% 33,477 100.0% 8,878 36.1%
Median Household Income $27,319 $35,045 $7,726 28.3%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 American Community Survey, Census 2000 Summary File 3
Annual Household Income – MSA Comparative Overview
2010 ACS Estimates
Number Share % Change 2000 - 2010
Income Cohort
College
Station
Brazos
County
College
Station -
Bryan
MSA
College
Station
Brazos
County
College
Station -
Bryan
MSA
College
Station
Brazos
County
College
Station -
Bryan
MSA
Less than $15,000 9,536 17,744 19,665 28.5% 25.4% 24.1% -3.6% 8.8% 1.1%
$15,000 to $24,999 4,818 10,068 12,355 14.4% 14.4% 15.1% 34.2% 17.0% 16.8%
$25,000 to $34,999 2,374 6,865 7,831 7.1% 9.8% 9.6% 6.7% 10.7% -1.1%
$35,000 to $49,999 4,114 8,370 10,116 12.3% 12.0% 12.4% 78.6% 15.0% 6.8%
$50,000 to $74,999 4,279 10,339 12,439 12.8% 14.8% 15.2% 58.8% 28.5% 24.4%
$75,000 to $99,999 3,336 7,032 8,696 10.0% 10.1% 10.6% 99.6% 68.4% 72.9%
$100,000 to $149,999 2,632 5,144 5,572 7.9% 7.4% 6.8% 109.6% 85.4% 71.6%
$150,000 or more 2,388 4,388 5,046 7.1% 6.3% 6.2% 145.7% 143.4% 154.2%
Total 33,477 69,950 81,720 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 36.1% 26.7% 20.7%
Median Household
Income $35,045 $35,407 $35,961
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 American Community Survey, Census 2000 Summary File 3
The table above summarizes annual household income levels in the City of College Station as reported in
the 2000 Census and the ACS 2010 Estimate. (Please note that the decennial Census and the ACS may
different on estimated population and household counts even in the same year.) Every income range
$35,000 to $49,999 and higher saw an increased share of households in College Station between 2000
and 2010, while the lowest ranges generally saw decreases in share during this time period. This
correlates with a trend reported to CDS in which families (ostensibly at the higher income levels) are
choosing to live in College Station over Bryan due to a perception of public schools being superior in
College Station than in Bryan. Also, some decrease in the lowest income groups occurs “naturally”
through monetary inflation.
Households earning less than $15,000, plus those in the next higher cohort up to $25,000, constitute a
significant share of the community; however, these likely include many student households.
Furthermore, students may report less income than the resources to which they actually have access
(parents’ credit card, etc.). Evidence of this deceptively higher buying power comes from the growth
and success of restaurants, bars, and other retail uses in College Station that are heavily supported by
college students.
Strong growth has occurred in population earning from $35,000 to $99,999. These income levels are
indicative of the area having a large percentage of public sector white collar jobs that pay solidly middle
income salaries. It was reported to CDS | Spillette during interviews that there were few very high
paying jobs in College Station but many middle income positions.
Still, the share of households earning over $100,000 (15%), has also been growing strongly. Such
households have helped to boost the estimated median annual household income to over $33,000.
A comparison of household income estimates across the City of College Station, Brazos County, and the
MSA finds that the distribution of households by household income level is relatively consistent among
25
16
the three levels of geography. For all three, households with income levels at $75,000 and above saw
the largest percentage increase between 2000 and 2010.
26
17
2010 Household Income by Age of Householder – City - MSA Comparison
2010 1-Year ACS Estimates
Number of Households by Age of
Householder Share
Income Cohort Age under 25 Age 25+ Age under 25 Age 25+
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION
Less than $15,000 7,979 1,557 62.4% 7.5%
$15,000 to $24,999 1,689 3,129 13.2% 15.1%
$25,000 to $34,999 835 1,539 6.5% 7.4%
$35,000 to $49,999 1,266 2,848 9.9% 13.8%
$50,000 to $74,999 516 3,763 4.0% 18.2%
$75,000 to $99,999 497 2,839 3.9% 13.7%
$100,000 to $149,999 - 2,632 0.0% 12.7%
$150,000 or more - 2,388 0.0% 11.5%
Total 12,782 20,695 100.0% 100.0%
COLLEGE STATION - BRYAN MSA
Less than $15,000 10,685 19,566 58.0% 26.5%
$15,000 to $24,999 3,168 9,187 17.2% 12.4%
$25,000 to $34,999 1,423 6,408 7.7% 8.7%
$35,000 to $49,999 1,266 8,850 6.9% 12.0%
$50,000 to $74,999 1,310 11,129 7.1% 15.1%
$75,000 to $99,999 539 8,157 2.9% 11.0%
$100,000 to $149,999 - 5,572 0.0% 7.5%
$150,000 or more 42 5,004 0.2% 6.8%
Total 18,433 73,873 100.0% 100.0%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, CENSUS TABLE B19037 AND C19037
Differences in income profiles between geographies become more pronounced, however, when
examining data for different age classes of householders. The table above illustrates this comparison for
the City of College Station and the College Station - Bryan MSA.
A key finding is that the majority of very poor households (those that earn less than $15,000) in the City
of College Station are headed by people younger than 25; these are likely student households, which as
previously stated may have family and student aid related resources well above their actual reported
personal incomes. This compares to just over a third of all households in the total MSA earning less than
$15,000 being headed by people younger than 25 – and most of those are the College Station student
households. For the MSA overall, most of the poorest households are headed by adults over age 25.
Another interesting finding is a distinct preference among relatively prosperous young households for
living in College Station over elswhere in the MSA. Nearly all MSA households headed by people
younger than 25 that have household incomes $35,000 to $49,999 and $75,000 to $99,999 living within
the City of College Station. Similarly, nearly half of households headed by people younger than 25 with
household incomes between $50,000 and $74,999 reside within the City of College Station.
27
18
2010 Median Household Income by Age of Householder – City - MSA Comparison
Median Household Income - 2010 1-Year ACS Estimates
Age Cohort College Station
College Station - Bryan
MSA
Householder under 25 years $ 9,037 $ 9,495
Householder 25 to 44 years $ 44,302 $ 43,321
Householder 45 to 64 years $ 63,618 $ 51,448
Householder 65 years and over $ 68,869 $ 38,372
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 American Community Survey
The other notable difference is for households headed by those age 25 and older. These households are
substantially more affluent in College Station than overall MSA. In College Station, approximately 38%
of such households earn at least $75,000; for MSA, they constitute just a 25% share.
The equivalent geographic comparison of median household income by age of householder underscores
these points. Median household incomes for the two oldest age groups (householders age 45 and over)
are significantly higher in College Station than in the MSA as a whole. This reflects an upward spiral
intertwining demographics, market preferences, and new development: more affluent middle aged and
older households have chosen to live in College Station, leading to new home construction priced to sell
to these households. The desire to be among like demographics and associated amenities and services
such as strongly performing schools leads to an entrenchment of market appeal for new households
appearing in the market, which leads to more new housing construction, etc.
28
19
Race and Ethnicity – City of College Station
Census Estimates Change
2000 2010 2000 - 2010
Race / Ethnicity Number Share Number Share Number % Change
Total Population 67,890 100.0% 93,857 100.0% 25,967 38.2%
Once race 66,608 98.1% 91,622 97.6% 25,014 37.6%
White 54,673 80.5% 72,502 77.2% 17,829 32.6%
Black or African American 3,698 5.4% 6,383 6.8% 2,685 72.6%
American Indian and Alaska Native 206 0.3% 369 0.4% 163 79.1%
Asian 4,951 7.3% 8,576 9.1% 3,625 73.2%
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander 44 0.1% 59 0.1% 15 34.1%
Some Other Race 3,036 4.5% 3,733 4.0% 697 23.0%
Two or More Races 1,282 1.9% 2,235 2.4% 953 74.3%
Two races with Some Other Race 612 0.9% 613 0.7% 1 0.2%
Two races without Some Other Race 616 0.9% 1,531 1.6% 915 148.5%
Three or more races with Some Other Race 54 0.1% 15 0.0% (39) -72.2%
Three or more races without Some Other Race - - 76 0.1% - -
Hispanic or Latino (of any race) 6,759 10.0% 13,165 14.0% 6,406 94.8%
Mexican 4,437 6.5% 9,773 10.4% 5,336 120.3%
Puerto Rican 163 0.2% 328 0.3% 165 101.2%
Cuban 84 0.1% 189 0.2% 105 125.0%
Other Hispanic or Latino 2,075 3.1% 2,875 3.1% 800 38.6%
Not Hispanic or Latino 61,131 90.0% 80,692 86.0% 19,561 32.0%
One Race 66,608 98.1% 91,622 97.6% 25,014 37.6%
Hispanic or Latino 6,363 9.4% 12,451 13.3% 6,088 95.7%
Not Hispanic or Latino 60,245 88.7% 79,171 84.4% 18,926 31.4%
Two or More Races 1,282 1.9% 2,235 2.4% 953 74.3%
Hispanic or Latino 396 0.6% 714 0.8% 318 80.3%
Not Hispanic or Latino 886 1.3% 1,521 1.6% 635 71.7%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 American Community Survey, Census 2000 Summary File 3
Race and ethnicity within the City of College Station is summarized in the table above. In both the 2000
and 2010 Census white residents made up by far the largest percentage of the population. The share
reduced from 80.5% in 2000 to 77.2% in 2010. During this same period, Black or African American,
Asian, and Hispanic or Latino residents have all grown in their relative percentages of the entire
population. Latinos have shown rapid population growth, though they are still a relatively low share of
the population compared to many Texas cities.
29
20
Housing Occupancy Status – City of College Station
Census Estimates Change
2000 2010 2000 - 2010
Housing Characteristic Number Share Number Share Number
%
Change
Occupancy Status:
Total housing units 26,054 100% 37,226 100% 11,172 42.9%
Occupied housing units 24,691 94.8% 35,037 94.1% 10,346 41.9%
Vacant housing units 1,363 5.2% 2,189 5.9% 826 60.6%
Tenure:
Occupied housing units 24,691 100.0% 35,037 100.0% 10,346 41.9%
Owner occupied 7,546 30.6% 11,633 33.2% 4,087 54.2%
Owned with a mortgage or loan - - 8,598 24.5% - -
Owned free and clear - - 3,035 8.7% - -
Renter occupied 17,145 69.4% 23,404 66.8% 6,259 36.5%
Vacancy Status:
Vacant housing units 1,363 100.0% 2,189 100.0% 826 60.6%
For rent 896 65.7% 1,240 56.6% 344 38.4%
Rented, not occupied - - 96 4.4% - -
For sale only 111 8.1% 245 11.2% 134 120.7%
Sold, not occupied - - 92 4.2% - -
For seasonal, recreational, or
occasional use 111 8.1% 264 12.1% 153 137.8%
For migratory workers 2 0.1% 0 0.0% (2) -100.0%
Rented or sold, not occupied 72 5.3% 0 0.0% - -
Other vacant 171 12.5% 252 11.5% 81 47.4%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 American Community Survey, Census 2000 Summary File 3
Housing Characteristics
The table above summarizes housing occupancy status for the City of College Station as reported in both
the 2000 and 2010 Census. Approximately only one third of the housing units in College Station were
recorded as owner-occupied in each Census, though there was a slight increase in share from 30.6% in
2000 to 33.2% in 2010. This increase can be attributed to new upscale single family housing that was
constructed in south College Station during this period. However, several interviewees expressed
concern that too much new student oriented rental housing was being brought to market in the next 1-3
years. Interviewees were concerned that this would reduce the values of existing single family and
multifamily rental housing in College Station, resulting in the decline of some older, existing rental
housing. Indeed, a study of student housing in 2011 by CDS documented nearly 6,000 apartment units
in College Station and Bryan that had been built since 1995, with over 900 more planned.
30
21
Housing Occupancy Trends 2000 - 2010 – City of College Station
Census Estimates Change
2000 2010 2000 - 2010
Number Share Number Share Number
%
Change
Occupied housing units 24,691 100.0% 35,037 100.0% 10,346 41.9%
Owner-occupied housing units 7,546 30.6% 11,633 33.2% 4,087 54.2%
Population in owner-occupied housing units 20,962 31,228 10,266 49.0%
Average household size of owner-occupied units 2.78 2.68 (0.10) -3.6%
Renter-occupied housing units 17,145 69.4% 23,404 66.8% 6,259 36.5%
Population in renter-occupied housing units 36,225 52,282 16,057 44.3%
Average household size of renter-occupied units 2.11 2.23 0.12 5.7%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 American Community Survey, Census 2000 Summary File 3
The table above further illustrates the distribution between renter and owner occupied housing units
within the City of College Station. It should be noted that in the period between 2000 and 2010, the
number of owner occupied housing units in College Station increased by 54.2% while the number of
renter occupied housing units only increased by 44.3%.
31
22
Metro Area Comparison
2010 ACS 1-Year Estimates
Population Age 25 and Over Share
Educational Attainment
College
Station
College
Station -
Bryan
MSA
Austin-
Round
Rock-San
Marcos
MSA
Houston-
Baytown-
Sugar
Land MSA
College
Station
College
Station -
Bryan
MSA
Austin-
Round
Rock-San
Marcos
MSA
Houston-
Baytown-
Sugar
Land MSA
Less than 9th grade 558 8,863 70,833 373,828 1.5% 7.5% 6.5% 10.0%
Some High School, no diploma 930 10,754 65,384 351,398 2.5% 9.1% 6.0% 9.4%
High School Graduate (or GED) 5,618 30,724 217,947 893,448 15.1% 26.0% 20.0% 23.9%
Some College, no degree 6,101 22,689 237,562 833,636 16.4% 19.2% 21.8% 22.3%
Associate Degree 2,455 7,208 69,743 224,297 6.6% 6.1% 6.4% 6.0%
Bachelor's Degree 10,156 20,089 280,062 695,320 27.3% 17.0% 25.7% 18.6%
Graduate or professional degree 11,384 17,844 149,294 366,351 30.6% 15.1% 13.7% 9.8%
High school graduate or higher 35,715 98,673 953,517 3,013,052 96.0% 83.5% 87.5% 80.6%
Bachelor's degree or higher 21,541 37,933 429,355 1,061,671 57.9% 32.1% 39.4% 28.4%
Total 37,203 118,171 1,089,734 3,738,278 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 American Community Survey, Census 2000 Summary File 3
Educational Attainment – Population 25 Years and Older
City of College Station
Census Estimates Change
2000 2010 2000 - 2010
Educational Attainment Number Share Number Share Number % Change
Less than 9th grade 485 2.1% 558 1.5% 73 15.1%
Some High School, no diploma 953 4.1% 930 2.5% (23) -2.4%
High School Graduate (or GED) 2,845 12.2% 5,618 15.1% 2,773 97.5%
Some College, no degree 4,323 18.6% 6,101 16.4% 1,778 41.1%
Associate Degree 1,156 5.0% 2,455 6.6% 1,299 112.4%
Bachelor's Degree 6,647 28.5% 10,156 27.3% 3,509 52.8%
Graduate or professional degree 6,892 29.6% 11,384 30.6% 4,492 65.2%
Total 23,301 100.0% 37,203 100.0% 13,902 59.7%
Workforce Characteristics: Education, Occupation, and Wages
The attractiveness of an area is heavily dependent upon the educational attainment and work
experience of its labor force. The Census gathers data regarding educational attainment and occupation
in the Census and the American Community Survey estimates.
The tables above summarize educational achievement for the population aged 25 years old and older.
The City of College Station is generally a well educated community. Sixty-four percent of residents aged
25 or older have at least an Associate Degree, and the largest percentage of that group has a graduate
or professional degree.
32
23
The second table compares educational achievement in College Station to the MSA as a whole as well as
the Austin and Houston MSAs. The percentage of residents with graduate or professional degrees in
College Station is twice that of the MSA as a whole, over twice the percentage in the Austin MSA, and
over three times the percentage in the Houston MSA. This can be directly attributed to the high
education levels needed to fill many positions within the Texas A&M University system in College Station
as well as other growth fields such as education and healthcare. In addition, the City of College Station
has a significantly lower percentage of residents of lower educational attainment levels (did not earn a
college degree). Of course, the overall number of the college-degreed is much lower in College Station
and its MSA than in the larger metros. Interestingly, all four geographies had very similar percentages of
residents who had achieved an Associate degree.
Occupations – City of College Station
Census Estimates Change
2000 2010 2000 - 2010
Occupation Category Number Share Number Share Number
%
Change
TOTAL EMPLOYED RESIDENTS: 31,807 100% 46,420 100% 14,613 45.9%
Management, professional, and related occupations: 14,675 46.1% - - - -
Management, business, and financial operations occupations: 3,415 10.7% 5,793 12.5% 2,378 69.6%
Management occupations, except farmers and farm managers 2,585 8.1% 4,240 9.1% 1,655 64.0%
Farmers and farm managers 54 0.2% - - - -
Business and financial operations occupations: 776 2.4% 1,553 3.3% 777 100.1%
Business operations specialists 416 1.3% - - - -
Financial specialists 360 1.1% - - - -
Professional and related occupations: 11,260 35.4% - - - -
Computer and mathematical occupations 983 3.1% 1,485 3.2% 502 51.1%
Architecture and engineering occupations: 766 2.4% 974 2.1% 208 27.2%
Architects, surveyors, cartographers, and engineers 467 1.5% - - - -
Drafters, engineering, and mapping technicians 299 0.9% - - - -
Life, physical, and social science occupations 1,450 4.6% 1,371 3.0% (79) -5.4%
Community and social services occupations 430 1.4% 785 1.7% 355 82.6%
Legal occupations 195 0.6% 53 0.1% (142) -72.8%
Education, training, and library occupations 5,098 16.0% 8,592 18.5% 3,494 68.5%
Arts, design, entertainment, sports, and media occupations 758 2.4% 425 0.9% (333) -43.9%
Healthcare practitioners and technical occupations: 1,580 5.0% 1,998 4.3% 418 26.5%
Health diagnosing and treating practitioners and technical
occupations 956 3.0% 1,151 2.5% 195 20.4%
Health technologists and technicians 624 2.0% 847 1.8% 223 35.7%
Service occupations 5,403 17.0% 7,621 16.4% 2,218 41.1%
Healthcare support occupations 405 1.3% 187 0.4% (218) -53.8%
Protective service occupations: 505 1.6% 536 1.2% 31 6.1%
Fire fighting/prevention and law enforcement, incl.
supervisors 325 1.0% - - - -
Other protective service workers, including supervisors 180 0.6% - - - -
Food preparation and serving related occupations 2,752 8.7% 3,195 6.9% 443 16.1%
Building and grounds cleaning and maintenance occupations 557 1.8% 1,868 4.0% 1,311 235.4%
Personal care and service occupations 1,184 3.7% 1,835 4.0% 651 55.0%
Sales and office occupations 8,245 25.9% 12,772 27.5% 4,527 54.9%
Sales and related occupations 3,188 10.0% 5,221 11.2% 2,033 63.8%
33
24
Census Estimates Change
2000 2010 2000 - 2010
Occupation Category Number Share Number Share Number
%
Change
Office and administrative support occupations 5,057 15.9% 7,551 16.3% 2,494 49.3%
Farming, fishing, and forestry occupations 188 0.6% 102 0.2% (86) -45.7%
Construction, extraction, and maintenance occupations 1,489 4.7% - - - -
Construction and extraction occupations: 743 2.3% 984 2.1% 241 32.4%
Supervisors, construction and extraction workers 263 0.8% - - - -
Construction trades workers 480 1.5% - - - -
Extraction workers - 0.0% - - - -
Installation, maintenance, and repair occupations 746 2.3% 1,306 2.8% 560 75.1%
Production, transportation, and material moving occupations 1,807 5.7% 2,159 4.7% 352 19.5%
Production occupations 786 2.5% 911 2.0% 125 15.9%
Transportation and material moving occupations: 1,021 3.2% - - - -
Supervisors, transportation and material moving workers 8 0.0% - - - -
Aircraft and traffic control occupations 35 0.1% - - - -
Motor vehicle operators 623 2.0% - - - -
Rail, water and other transportation occupations 46 0.1% - - - -
Material moving workers 309 1.0% 377 0.8% 68 22.0%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 American Community Survey, Census 2000 Summary File 3
The table above summarizes the distribution of employed residents by various occupations within the
City of College Station in both 2000 and 2010. (Not all the categories estimated in 2000 were also
estimated in 2010, creating missing values.) In 2010, the two largest groups of workers living in College
Station were “Education, Training, and Library Occupations” and “Office and Administrative Support
Occupations.” Several occupational categories saw significant increases between 2000 and 2010
including “Business and financial operations occupations” and “Building and grounds cleaning and
maintenance occupations,” which saw increases of 100.1% and 235.4% respectively. “Legal
Occupations” and “Healthcare support occupations” saw the greatest reduction between 2000 and
2010, decreasing 72.8% and 53.8% respectively. The latter of these two is counterintuitive, given the
growth in the health care sector observed by CDS | Spillette and reported by multiple interviewees.
34
25
Occupations – Geographical Comparison
2010 Estimate Share % Change 2000 - 2010
Occupation Category
College
Station
College
Station -
Bryan
MSA
College
Station
College
Station -
Bryan
MSA
College
Station
Share of
MSA
College
Station
College
Station -
Bryan
MSA
TOTAL EMPLOYED RESIDENTS 46,420 101,956 100% 100% 45.5% 45.9% 19.3%
Management, business, science, and
arts occupations 21,476 39,005 46.3% 38.3% 55.1% - -
Management, business, and
financial occupations: 5,793 12,628 12.5% 12.4% 45.9% 69.6% 30.7%
Management occupations 4,240 10,003 9.1% 9.8% 42.4% 64.0% 57.3%
Business and financial
operations occupations 1,553 2,625 3.3% 2.6% 59.2% 100.1% -1.2%
Computer, engineering, and science
occupations 3,830 6,255 8.3% 6.1% 61.2% - -
Computer and mathematical
occupations 1,485 2,728 3.2% 2.7% 54.4% 51.1% 45.0%
Architecture and engineering
occupations 974 1,872 2.1% 1.8% 52.0% 27.2% 33.0%
Life, physical, and social science
occupations 1,371 1,655 3.0% 1.6% 82.8% -5.4% -30.0%
Education, legal, community service,
arts, and media occupations 9,855 15,383 21.2% 15.1% 64.1% - -
Community and social service
occupations 785 1,764 1.7% 1.7% 44.5% 82.6% 44.5%
Legal occupations 53 744 0.1% 0.7% 7.1% -72.8% 67.2%
Education, training, and library
occupations 8,592 11,885 18.5% 11.7% 72.3% 68.5% 22.7%
Arts, design, entertainment, sports, and
media occupations 425 990 0.9% 1.0% 42.9% -43.9% -29.9%
Healthcare practitioners and technical
occupations 1,998 4,739 4.3% 4.6% 42.2% 26.5% 29.4%
Health diagnosing and treating
practitioners and other technical
occupations
1,151 2,718 2.5% 2.7% 42.3% 20.4% 22.8%
Health technologists and technicians 847 2,021 1.8% 2.0% 41.9% 35.7% 39.5%
Service occupations 7,621 17,194 16.4% 16.9% 44.3% 41.1% 22.2%
Healthcare support occupations 187 1,753 0.4% 1.7% 10.7% -53.8% 15.6%
Protective service occupations: 536 1,648 1.2% 1.6% 32.5% 6.1% -0.9%
Fire fighting and prevention, and
other protective service workers
including supervisors
371 636 0.8% 0.6% 58.3% - -
Law enforcement workers including
supervisors 165 1,012 0.4% 1.0% 16.3% - -
Food preparation and serving related
occupations 3,195 6,394 6.9% 6.3% 50.0% 16.1% 19.9%
Building and grounds cleaning and
maintenance occupations 1,868 4,632 4.0% 4.5% 40.3% 235.4% 60.8%
Personal care and service occupations 1,835 2,767 4.0% 2.7% 66.3% 55.0% 3.2%
Sales and office occupations 12,772 26,055 27.5% 25.6% 49.0% 54.9% 22.0%
Sales and related occupations 5,221 9,608 11.2% 9.4% 54.3% 63.8% 11.7%
Office and administrative support 7,551 16,447 16.3% 16.1% 45.9% 49.3% 28.9%
35
26
2010 Estimate Share % Change 2000 - 2010
Occupation Category
College
Station
College
Station -
Bryan
MSA
College
Station
College
Station -
Bryan
MSA
College
Station
Share of
MSA
College
Station
College
Station -
Bryan
MSA
occupations
Natural resources, construction, and
maintenance occupations 2,392 11,151 5.2% 10.9% 21.5% - -
Farming, fishing, and forestry
occupations 102 1,085 0.2% 1.1% 9.4% -45.7% 57.0%
Construction and extraction
occupations 984 6,223 2.1% 6.1% 15.8% 32.4% -25.4%
Installation, maintenance, and repair
occupations 1,306 3,843 2.8% 3.8% 34.0% - -
Production, transportation, and
material moving occupations 2,159 8,551 4.7% 8.4% 25.2% 19.5% -7.4%
Production occupations 911 3,564 2.0% 3.5% 25.6% 15.9% -25.5%
Transportation occupations 871 3,171 1.9% 3.1% 27.5% - -
Material moving occupations 377 1,816 0.8% 1.8% 20.8% 22.0% 10.5%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 American Community Survey, Census 2000 Summary File 3
The table above compares the distribution of employed residents by occupation type between College
Station and the MSA as a whole. There are several occupation types in which the majority of such
workers in the MSA are living in College Station. These include:
• “Life, physical, and social science occupations” (82.8%)
• “Education, training, and library occupations” (72.3%)
• “Personal care and service occupations” (66.3%)
• “Education, legal, community service, arts, and media occupations” (64.1%)
• “Computer, engineering, and science occupations” (61.2%)
• “Business and financial operations occupations” (59.2%)
• “Firefighters and related” (58.3%)
• “Management, business, science, and arts occupations” (55.1%)
• “Sales and related occupations” (54.3%)
Thus workers with occupations which require a greater amount of “formal” education, and those
considered “white collar,” appear to reside more frequently in College Station.
36
27
Comparison of Wage Levels by Occupation
Median Annual Wage Rates ($)
Brazos Valley
Difference
Occupational Title
USA Texas
Brazos
Valley
LWDA From USA
From
Texas
All 33,840 31,489 29,027 (4,813) (2,462)
Management 91,440 88,258 75,603 (15,837) (12,655)
Business and Financial Operations 60,670 59,321 47,952 (12,718) (11,369)
Computer and Mathematical 73,720 73,590 49,935 (23,785) (23,655)
Architecture and Engineering 70,610 71,420 42,333 (28,277) (29,087)
Life, Physical, and Social Science 58,530 54,706 41,251 (17,279) (13,455)
Community and Social Service 39,280 39,448 38,373 (907) (1,075)
Legal 74,580 67,959 45,675 (28,905) (22,284)
Education, Training, and Library 45,690 47,440 44,214 (1,476) (3,226)
Arts, Design, Entertainment, Sports, and Media 42,870 39,600 42,418 (452) 2,818
Healthcare Practitioners and Technical 58,490 55,237 44,760 (13,730) (10,477)
Healthcare Support 24,760 21,707 21,784 (2,976) 77
Protective Service 36,660 35,147 35,372 (1,288) 225
Food Preparation and Serving Related 18,770 17,658 17,281 (1,489) (377)
Building and Grounds Cleaning and Maintenance 22,490 19,497 20,012 (2,478) 515
Personal Care and Service 20,640 18,111 17,935 (2,705) (176)
Sales and Related 24,370 23,041 19,695 (4,675) (3,346)
Office and Administrative Support 30,710 29,315 26,693 (4,017) (2,622)
Farming, Fishing, and Forestry 19,630 19,813 21,846 2,216 2,033
Construction and Extraction 39,080 31,919 31,158 (7,922) (761)
Installation, Maintenance, and Repair 40,120 36,723 32,509 (7,611) (4,214)
Production 30,330 28,163 25,946 (4,384) (2,217)
Transportation and Material Moving 28,400 26,679 22,877 (5,523) (3,802)
Source: Texas Workforce Commission
Despite the high levels of education featured in the Brazos Valley Workforce Development Area, median
wage rates are not higher than elsewhere in Texas – in fact, they are typically lower. The above table
compares annual wage levels by occupation category between the Brazos Valley, Texas, and the USA
overall. Only those with Farming, Fishing, and Forestry occupations earn more in the Brazos Valley than
in either Texas or the USA overall. In several categories, median wages are dramatically lower in the
Brazos Valley. These include Computer and Mathematical, Architecture and Engineering, and Legal
workers.
37
28
City of College Station Retail Sales 2003 – 2011
Gross Sales Trends – Adjusted for Inflation
Source: Texas State Comptroller’s Office
$-
$20,000,000
$40,000,000
$60,000,000
$80,000,000
$100,000,000
$120,000,000
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Motor Vehicle and Parts Dealers
Furniture and Home Furnishings Stores
Electronics and Appliance Stores
Building Material and Garden Equipment
$-
$20,000,000
$40,000,000
$60,000,000
$80,000,000
$100,000,000
$120,000,000
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Health and Personal Care Stores
Clothing and Clothing Accessories Stores
Sporting Goods, Hobby, Book, and Music Stores
Gasoline Stations
Market Analysis
Retail / Commercial
38
29
City of College Station Retail Sales 2003 - 2011
Gross Sales Trends – Adjusted for Inflation
Source: Texas State Comptroller’s Office
Source: Texas State Comptroller’s Office
$-
$50,000,000
$100,000,000
$150,000,000
$200,000,000
$250,000,000
$300,000,000
$350,000,000
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Miscellaneous Store Retailers Food Services and Drinking Places
Food and Beverage Stores General Merchandise Stores
$-
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1,000
$1,200
$1,400
$1,600
$1,800
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Sales ($
millions)Total Sales
Gross Taxable
The charts above and on the previous page summarize gross sales trends by category for businesses
located in College Station during the period from 2003 through 2011. The categories shown are those
which comprise a substantial share of typical retail space occupancy.
The data show that the retail sales categories with the highest gross sales during this period are General
Merchandise (Walmart, Target, dollar stores, department stores), food and beverage stores
(supermarkets), and food services and drinking places (restaurants and bars). The first two have
experienced increasing sales since 2009, after the initial shock of the recession began to wear off. These
are also retail categories closely associated with nearby residential population, which has continued to
grow in College Station.
39
30
Most retail categories, however, have yet to recover to their 2007-08 peaks, despite ongoing population
growth (and as noted in earlier the discussion of demographic trends, growth in higher income
households in College Station). There are three likely reasons for this:
• Continued reduction in personal retail spending, especially for non-essential goods and services,
due to weaker general economic trends in Texas and across the U.S.
• Transfer of spending from “bricks and mortar” establishments – physical stores – to Internet
shopping, which is not yet tied to a specific location for sales tax purposes. For some store
categories, such as books, music, and electronics stores, such patterns have led to many store
closures. It is notable in this regard that the decline in spending at these types of stores began
in 2007 in College Station before the recession actually hit.
• Leakage of spending to other markets, usually the greater Houston area. Most notably, the
Houston Premium Outlets, within a one hour drive of College Station, opened in 2008 in the
Cypress area of far northwest Houston. The Woodlands Mall and Market Street are also within
a relatively convenient drive.
Except for Building Material and Garden Equipment stores, which have increased sales with the local
population, most other categories have been relatively stagnant since 2008. The most surprising result
comes from Food Services and Drinking Places; despite new restaurants and bars having opened in the
last few years, plus the inability to substitute Internet spending, total spending at this category has been
essentially unchanged since 2008.
The increased spending after the main recession year of 2009 in General Merchandise, Food and
Beverage, and Building Material establishments has been enough to increase total gross sales (of the
selected retail categories) to a new high in 2011 of $1.55 billion. However, taxable sales, which do not
include tax exempt purchases by certain government agencies and charities plus a significant share of
regular consumer nontaxable grocery purchases (usually 25-30%), were $931 million, still slightly below
2008 levels.
40
31
A comparison of Brazos County retail sales per capita to other Texas counties with moderately sized
urban populations (albeit all larger than Brazos County) shows that Brazos County lags the others.
Compared to high-growth metropolitan counties with a substantial population of educated residents
(Williamson, Montgomery, and Collin), Brazos has a much lower level of retail spending per capita.
However, it is also below smaller metropolitan counties in lower-growth areas (Nueces and McLennan).
This may be due in part to the departure from the area of the student population during summer and
holiday breaks.
Statistics on the inventory and market performance of retail space in the College Station – Bryan MSA
were not available, so additional market assessment comes from anecdotal and qualitative research
through interviews with real estate professionals and others in the area. Such professionals who were
knowledgeable about the retail market mentioned that several sectors of retail have seen significant
development growth in the College Station area. For example, General Merchandise stores have
experienced recent and / or current expansion in the College Station - Bryan MSA; a new Walmart will
be developed in Bryan this year.
The Post Oak Mall, the largest retail property in the MSA at 775,000 square feet, has been experiencing
increased sales since 2010 and expects increases in occupancy and lease rates this year. It is undergoing
a needed renovation. Restaurants have also continued to develop new locations in College Station,
including pad sites at the Mall.
Other interviewee observations regarding the health of the retail market included:
• The MSA is beginning to see increased competition for retail sales from the Woodlands Mall and
Market Street and the Houston Premium Outlets in Cypress.
• Retail rents are relatively high in College Station, more than would be expected for a middle
class, moderately sized metropolitan area. This is challenging for startup retail businesses.
Gross Retail Sales per Capita 2011 – Urban Counties Comparison
Note: Does not include restaurants or drinking places.
Sources: Texas State Comptroller’s office; US Census
$8,000
$9,000
$10,000
$11,000
$12,000
$13,000
$14,000
$15,000
$16,000
$17,000
41
32
• Despite the sales data cited above, several interviewees felt that retail sales and development
activity were picking up as the recession has waned. No one felt that retail space was overbuilt
generally, although certain locations for new retail may be out ahead of building the necessary
middle class residential base around them.
• It is difficult for out of area retailers without an existing local presence to understand the buying
power of the student population. However, the success of existing restaurants appears to be a
confirmation that they have more buying power than raw household income statistics suggest.
• For retailers or restaurants with just one location in the MSA, University Drive is the heart of the
market area.
• Texas Avenue could use some revitalization or redevelopment of older retail and commercial
properties.
• There is growing potential for retail that is not a standard suburban chain establishment.
Based on the information and data regarding the retail sector presented above, CDS | Spillette has the
following assessment of market strength and outlook:
1. Retail activity very directly related to population and housing growth – providing essential goods
and services – will likely continue to expand with the growth of the City. This means increasing
grocery store and General Merchandise store sales (especially Walmart, Target, and dollar
stores), plus Building Material stores (Home Depot, Lowe’s, hardware stores and nurseries). It
should be noted that increasing sales may not necessarily mean quick conversion to new
physical locations, however, as the required market area population even for these uses is fairly
large – the rule of thumb for a new full-sized grocery store is 10,000 middle class or affluent
residents within a 1-3 mile radius.
2. Data on retail sales conflicts somewhat with the sentiments expressed by local real estate
professionals, at least in terms of discretionary, non-essential spending categories. This should
give pause to the assumption of future significant growth in these types of stores.
3. Retail development in more outlying areas, even if fast-growing like south College Station, risks
being “ahead of the rooftops” – because much of the drive-time trade area has yet to be
populated, built space may take substantial time to lease. College Station is a small enough city
that outlying residents do not yet face substantial traffic congestion or other hurdles in
patronizing existing retail locations along Texas Avenue, Harvey Road, or University Drive.
4. The increasing disparity between the income profiles between College Station and Bryan means
that new investments in retailers that primarily serve middle class and affluent residents will
tend to continue to consider a College Station location first.
5. It is likely that the spending power of the growing population of college students has been
underestimated by chain retailers with standard demographic evaluation formulas. This may
have become particularly true as Texas A&M University’s student base originated increasingly
from middle class and affluent suburbs of large metro areas, where parents often had sufficient
wealth to provide students with ample discretionary income that is not captured by Census
measurements. The success of non-QSR (quick service restaurant) eating places over the last 15
years is indicative of this. That said, tuition and fee increases, slowing enrollment growth, or
continued economic pressure on parental wealth may start to counteract this phenomenon.
6. As the population of professionally employed or wealthy retired adults in College Station and
environs increases (and most appear likely to live in College Station, particularly the southern
half of the City), it will increase the potential for small-scale shopping and dining environments
catering more specifically to that demographic instead of being dominated by college students.
This could imply more mid-priced boutiques, personal services, and restaurants that are unique
42
33
in the area. It is important to realize that a large-scale development of this sort like the kind
recently built in larger metros (the Woodlands Market Street, CityCentre in Houston, Shops at
Legacy in Plano, the Domain in Austin) is well beyond the scope of what could occur in College
Station in the near to midterm.
Office and Industrial
Office Users and Property Market
The employer base in the College Station area is not focused on firms that occupy typical office space
(not including medical office space). The above table contains a subset of employment statistics for
industries which typically drive office occupancy in Texas. The four industry categories shown account
for just 18% of MSA employment. As of 2012, an estimated 17,700 are employed in these industries. At
a rough estimate of 250 square feet of space per employee, this translates into demand for 4.4 million
square feet of leasable office area. However, it is entirely possible or probable that the Mining, Logging
and Construction industries in the MSA do not house their employees in office space, meaning total
demand would be substantially lower.
Still, these industries have shown substantial growth since 2000. Only Mining, Logging and Construction
showed a negative growth during the post-2008 recession period.
Trends in Office-Related Industries
College Station – Bryan MSA
Employment as of February
Change
2000 - 2008 - 2000 -
Industry 2000 2008 2012 2008 2012 2012
Mining, Logging, and Construction 4,500 7,000 6,500 2,500 (500) 2,000
Information 1,600 1,100 1,200 (500) 100 (400)
Financial Activities 3,300 3,300 3,700 - 400 400
Professional and Business Services 4,900 5,600 6,300 700 700 1,400
Total 14,300 17,000 17,700 2,700 700 3,400
Source: Texas Workforce Commission
43
34
The Census Bureau’s estimates of employed workers by occupation is imperfect, as the 2010 estimates
do not contain specific figures for certain categories that comprise a very small share of the City of
College Station’s total number of employed residents. Nevertheless, all office-oriented occupations for
which 2010 estimates were made showed growth from 2000 to 2010, except Legal occupations.
In major metropolitan areas, financial services are a significant user of space. Those interviewed by CDS
| Spillette generally felt that the supply of financial services firms in the College Station area was
adequate. However, this industry does not have a large number of employees relative to the overall
area job base, so it is not a major driver of office use.
The interviewees who commented on the office market all agreed that demand is weak and possibly
shrinking. Typical office users do not appear to be adding significant employment. The pattern of
technology replacing the need for some business / job functions and storage space may be contributing
to the lack of space demand. Unfortunately, statistics on the real estate market performance of office
space was unavailable for the MSA.
Texas A&M University and other educational institutions which are major occupants of office properties
have reportedly been pulling many of their office uses back onto their own properties, further
weakening the office property market.
Overall observations and conclusions regarding the economic conditions for typical office space users
include:
Trends in Office-Related Occupations
College Station Employed Residents
Census Estimates –
Employed Workers Change
2000 2010 2000 - 2010
Occupation Category Number Number Number
%
Change
Management, professional, and related occupations: 14,675 NA NA NA
Management, business, and financial operations occupations: 3,415 5,793 2,378 69.6%
Management occupations, except farmers and farm managers 2,585 4,240 1,655 64.0%
Business and financial operations occupations: 776 1,553 777 100.1%
Business operations specialists 416 NA NA NA
Financial specialists 360 NA NA NA
Professional and related occupations: 11,260 NA NA NA
Computer and mathematical occupations 983 1,485 502 51.1%
Architecture and engineering occupations: 766 974 208 27.2%
Architects, surveyors, cartographers, and engineers 467 NA NA NA
Drafters, engineering, and mapping technicians 299 NA NA NA
Legal occupations 195 53 (142) -72.8%
Sales and office occupations 8,245 12,772 4,527 54.9%
Sales and related occupations 3,188 5,221 2,033 63.8%
Office and administrative support occupations 5,057 7,551 2,494 49.3%
TOTAL 22,920 NA NA NA
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 American Community Survey, Census 2000 Summary File 3
44
35
1. Typical office users are mostly growing in employment but are a small part of the total College
Station – Bryan economy. Their locations do not appear to be more concentrating in either
College Station or Bryan, although Bryan has historically had a larger supply of large office
buildings.
2. Some future growth in office users such as financial services firms and accountants should be
expected as the area’s population increases, since many of these firms (particularly small firms
or small branches of large firms) directly serve the local residents and small businesses. This
growth will likely be incremental and small-scale, however. Given that the majority of middle
class and affluent residential growth is occurring in College Station, these businesses will be
more likely to locate there.
3. The City should not expect any large-scale new office building development in the near to
middle term. Any additions to inventory are likely to small scale, 1 to 2 story “local professional”
office buildings, or second stories to retail development.
Industrial Users and Property Market
The employment base in the College Station – Bryan MSA is even less focused on manufacturing and
industrial users than office users. Total jobs in industry categories that often occupy industrial facilities
(factories / fabrication yards, warehousing and logistics, light manufacturing) had net job growth of less
than 10% from 2000 to 2012, including a slight net loss during the recession period. Manufacturing
employment, which is mostly in Bryan, had a net loss of jobs during the 12-year period, which occurred
both before and during the recession.
Trends in Industrial Employers
College Station – Bryan MSA
Employment as of February
Change
2000 - 2008 - 2000 -
Industry 2000 2008 2012 2008 2012 2012
Manufacturing 5,800 5,500 5,200 -300 -300 -600
Wholesale Trade 1,400 1,800 1,800 400 - 400
Transportation, Warehousing, and Utilities 800 1,400 1,400 600 - 600
Other Services 2,600 2,900 3,100 300 200 500
Total Employment 10,600 11,600 11,500 1,000 -100 900
Source: Texas Workforce Commission
45
36
Again, the occupational data for 2010 is missing some categories. In 2000, nearly 14% of employed
residents in College Station had occupations that would likely be expected to occur in industrial settings,
including construction (construction companies often have industrial properties to store and maintain
equipment). For categories for which data was available, fewer than 1,000 workers in “Production,” or
manufacturing, occupations lived in College Station, with a minor increase of 125 workers during the 10
year period. Only “Installation, maintenance, and repair occupations” showed a significant increase,
though that category still totaled less than 1,500 residents.
Several interviewees spoke of past decisions by the College Station city leadership to minimize and
discourage location of heavy industry within the City boundaries through development policy and
regulation. Any manufacturing facilities are to be “light” or “clean” and affiliated with high-tech
industries. Empiric observation has shown that these policies have succeeded, as nearly all
manufacturing, particularly heavy manufacturing, is located in Bryan.
Overall observations and conclusions regarding the economic conditions for typical industrial property
users include:
1. Sites with freight rail access are available in Bryan, and the Research Valley Partnership (RVP)
and others are promoting the location of industrial users who benefit from rail at the northern
end of that city. An example of this is the Texas Triangle Business Park.
2. Certain types of heavy manufacturing could grow out of research and high-tech activity of the
sort fostered by the TAMU and RVP, even if such manufacturing is not in a typical “high tech”
industry sector. Manufacturing is generally moving towards incorporating greater automation,
robotics, and cutting-edge techniques such as additive production (3-dimensional printing) that
Trends in Industrial-Related Occupations
College Station Employed Residents
Census Estimates –
Employed Workers Change
2000 2010 2000 - 2010
Occupation Category Number Number Number
%
Change
Construction, extraction, and maintenance occupations 2,232 NA NA NA
Construction and extraction occupations: 743 984 241 32.44%
Supervisors, construction and extraction workers 263 NA NA NA
Construction trades workers 480 NA NA NA
Extraction workers - NA NA NA
Installation, maintenance, and repair occupations 746 1,306 560 75.07%
Production, transportation, and material moving occupations 2,124 2,159 35 1.65%
Production occupations 786 911 125 15.90%
Transportation and material moving occupations: 1,021 NA NA NA
Supervisors, transportation and material moving workers 8 NA NA NA
Material moving workers 309 377 68 22.01%
TOTAL 4,356 NA NA NA
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 American Community Survey, Census 2000 Summary File 3
46
37
requires highly advanced equipment and the engineering to create it. It also requires the
technological know-how of the equipment operators, meaning that truly low-skill, low-
education manufacturing labor demand is diminishing. Thus advanced skills and equipment
training is increasingly required, enhancing the need for effective institutions such as Blinn
College that can address this field.
3. While the demand for skilled and highly trained labor may increase, the increased productivity
achieved through automation and other technological advances in manufacturing mean that
total labor demand often falls.
4. Improved highway infrastructure connecting College Station to other metropolitan areas means
that logistics uses are more viable.
5. Many small-scale industrial users are contractor services, especially in lower-cost property
types. These businesses tend to be tied closely to the construction industry (trades). Increasing
construction activity, both for new construction and renovation, in College Station will increase
demand for these businesses over time. Some may want to locate in College Station if that is
where the bulk of their revenue activities are; however, it is the team’s understanding that the
City discourages the development of the types of industrial properties that would typically
accommodate such users.
6. One interviewee reported that oil field services companies, who often locate in heavy
manufacturing space or properties with more minimal, low-cost enclosed buildings, declined in
the College Station area to relocate closer to activity around the Eagle Ford shale play in south
Texas. These companies may start returning over time, however.
47
38
Health and Wellness
Health and wellness care (as opposed to biomedical research, covered in the next section) is one of
College Station’s most prominent growth industries and a significant part of its economic base.
Examination of recent total employment statistics for the Brazos Valley Workforce Development Area
(WDA) (not shown here) indicates that health care occupations today make up in the vicinity of 20% to
25% of the job base in the region. As shown in the table above, the Texas Workforce Commission is
projecting an increase of 30% in health-care-related occupations by 2018 over 2008 levels within the
WDA. The number of jobs in all categories of health care occupations except “Other Ambulatory Care
Services” is expected to increase by over 20% during this time.
The American Community Survey from the Census Bureau estimated that only 12.2% of College Station
residents (civilian non-institutionalized population) were uninsured in 2010. This is far lower than the
23.7% estimate for Texas and better than the overall College Station – Bryan MSA average of 16.4%.
Thus health care providers find College Station an attractive market to serve, examining both the
income levels and insurance coverage of its residents. Further population growth sharing strong income
and insurance coverage will encourage more investment by health care providers, though changes to
federal health care policies may modify the form of that investment.
This investment is already occurring. Scott and White Healthcare is building a new hospital on State
Highway 6 at Rock Prairie Road in southern College Station. This 98-acre campus will contain a five-
Estimated and Forecast Health-Related Employment
Brazos Valley Workforce Development Area*
Employment Change
Industry
Estimated
2008
Projected
2018 Change % Change
Health Care and Social Assistance 11,980 15,470 3,490 29%
Ambulatory Health Care Services 4,920 6,630 1,710 34%
Offices of Physicians 1,780 2,420 640 36%
Offices of Dentists 470 620 150 31%
Offices of Other Health Practitioners 330 440 110 32%
Outpatient Care Centers 150 190 40 24%
Medical and Diagnostic Laboratories 100 130 30 22%
Home Health Care Services 1,660 2,380 720 43%
Other Ambulatory Health Care Services 420 450 30 8%
Hospitals, Public/Private 3,470 4,340 870 25%
Specialty (Ex. Psychiatric & Substance Abuse) Hospitals 30 40 10 32%
Nursing and Residential Care Facilities 2,040 2,560 520 25%
Nursing Care Facilities 1,650 2,060 410 24%
TOTAL 29,000 37,730 8,730 30%
* Brazos, Burleson, Grimes, Leon, Madison, Robertson, Washington counties
Source: Texas Workforce Commission
48
39
floor, 320,000 square foot hospital building with 143 beds. A four-story, 125,000 square foot office
building will be adjacent. The facility will provide a wide range of specialized care.
Across Highway 6 to the west on Rock Prairie Road – an area designated as a “Medical District” by the
City of College Station - the College Station Medical Center has a hospital plus 300,000 square feet of
medical office space on its campus that is 85% occupied. The MED, as it is popularly known, just
completed a $23 million expansion, the most recent of several that have occurred, and now employs
800. The MED’s campus also contains facilities developed and owned by others, such as a Gulf Coast /
Brazos Valley Regional Blood Center and a prosthetics practice. Two physician groups are also
developing their own medical office buildings on the campus and a Veterans Administration ambulatory
care center is coming. The MED is currently working with the RVP to obtain tax abatements for a
behavioral care hospital that will house 250 employees in a $12 million facility.
A major development in Bryan has been the initial development of the Health Science Center (HSC), a
publicly funded arm of the Texas A&M University System devoted to health care teaching, research, and
treatment. The first two buildings on its 200-acre campus along Highway 47 just northwest of the
College Station city limits are now open and staffed. Health care services are a by-product of the
missions of the various components of the campus. Expansion will continue for some time in the future,
including eventually possibly a full-scale hospital.
The other major regional medical facility is St. Joseph Regional Health Center in Bryan. It offers a 310
bed hospital and a Level III trauma center. It has been expanding with satellite facilities around the
greater Brazos Valley region, including a new emergency care center in south College Station.
Mr. Tom Jackson of the MED, interviewed during research for this report, stated that while the MED
itself does not have a mission of growth per se, the overall industry will continue to grow in the area.
The MED obtains most health care staff from the local population, benefiting from education and
training provided by Texas A&M and Blinn College. He reported that the local labor market does need
to produce more nursing and pharmacy workers. Regarding physicians, the MED often recruits from out
of the area, with little or no difficulty. The prestige and resources of the University and the high-quality
reputation of the College Station ISD schools are strong lures for this class of worker, along with the
appealing general quality of life in the city.
Overall observations and conclusions regarding the economic conditions for typical medical and health
care property users include:
1. It should be expected that with both overall population growth and specifically the increasing
population of affluent retired and senior adults, health and wellness businesses will continue to
expand. Many of these will prefer to locate in College Station, particularly on or close to the
MED and Scott and White campuses which are central to the residential areas housing this
desirable population.
2. The Health Science Center’s expansion, driven by the availability of public funds and research
fundraising, will be driven by other motivations than simply chasing the fruits of the local health
care market. Some more general locally-oriented health care establishments may seek to locate
close to the institutes and clinics on the HSC campus, which is easily large enough to
accommodate them.
49
40
Technology
Various forms of entrepreneurial, cutting-edge technology businesses are a subject of focused economic
development interest in the College Station area. This could include electronics and digital engineering,
software, and bioscience and biotech, which has garnered the most significant recent publicity.
Census data (see the Area Economics and Demographics section) showed that College Station is a
relatively highly educated community. It also indicated that College Station residents with “Computer
and Mathematical” occupations grew considerably from 2000 to 2010 but the number with “Life,
Physical, and Social Science” occupations remained relatively unchanged.
Texas A&M University obviously has a large number of faculty and researchers with advanced degrees in
science, engineering, and technology fields, but their presence and the large number of students
graduated in such fields has not historically translated into a large presence of technology companies.
The Location Quotient data showed that the amount of employment in Professional and Technical
Services was actually lower than that for the state as a whole.
That said, there is a productive technology sector in the College Station area. Biotech and related
industries have received support from existing economic development agencies, including the State of
Texas, and Texas A&M University. The City of College Station, the City of Bryan, Brazos County, and the
Research Valley Partnership are creating a formalized arrangement called the “Biocorridor” that
designates an area on the north side of State Highway 60 (University Avenue) near the TAMU’s School of
Veterinary Medicine as the location for innovative biotechnology and manufacturing related to research
performed at TAMU. Since 2005, three major facilities – the Texas A&M Institute for Genomics
Medicine (TIGM), the Texas A&M Institute for Preclinical Studies (TIPS), and the National Center for
Therapeutics Manufacturing (NCTM) are three University-related ventures that have located in this area.
In addition, two private firms have set up in the area. Caliber Biotherapeutics, which develops plant-
based therapeutics and vaccines, has located near the HSC. Another, G-Con, is a manufacturer that has
developed modular bioprocessing facilities for low-cost site-based projects by pharmaceutical and other
biotech firms.
The RVP reports that the array of biotech institutions and companies that have invested in the
Biocorridor are being coordinated to provide the full set of steps envisioned by the World Health
Organization’s “One Health Plus” standard. This would be unique in the U.S.
Other categories of “technology” are often less outwardly visible and may not be funded or promoted
by TAMU. In terms of other biosciences, research is occurring around the metropolitan area in biofuels,
and a biofuels manufacturing facility has located in Bryan. Non-bioscience technology includes a variety
of application developers (software programs for computing units such as mobile handsets) and
scientific research commercialization firms such as Lynntech, which engages in research projects
covering a variety of the areas such as fuel cells and advanced energy systems, materials science, and
industrial science. Firms like these have at least two incubator facilities in which to house their
operations – the Science Park at Research Valley (the former Westinghouse facility in College Station)
for laboratory space and the Fibertown facility in downtown Bryan which is designed for computing and
software-related ventures.
One local investment firm, Astin Partners, is prominent in purchasing area science and research groups
(including Lynntech) and putting them on a path towards becoming a fully commercially-oriented
business. Some of these business are part of the Small Business Innovation Research program of the
U.S. federal government.
50
41
These technology outfits tend to capitalize on the energy and brainpower of new TAMU science and
engineering graduates. Interviewees report that it can be difficult to lure more experienced scientists
that initially moved away to larger metros – at least until they are older and more settled. These highly
educated persons, if married or in a committed relationship, tend to do so with other highly educated
and career-oriented persons, who may have a difficult time finding employment in the College Station
area that is commensurate with their background.
In addition, these younger adult scientists and researchers tend to enjoy aspects of urban life that is not
yet present in the College Station – Bryan metro. Development of a more unique social and urban
environment that caters to adults, not students, would help in this regard. However, the College Station
Independent School District is a plus once these families have school aged children.
One other difficulty for the growth of technology industries in and around College Station is the gap
between the scientists and engineers who create technologies that can be commercialized and the
entrepreneurial managers and business administrators who can actually run companies. Interviewees
report that the latter group is limited in number in the local area.
Multiple interviewees also noted that the community is not succeeding at capturing research and
technology divisions of energy companies, despite the large number of TAMU graduates that are
educated and become employed in these firms. Energy companies (oil and gas) continue to keep their
operations and offices in the Houston area or other large metros.
Most recent of all, it has just been announced that the Texas A&M system has won a $1.5 to $2 billion
contract with a 25 year time horizon to create a Center for Advanced Development and Manufacturing.
This will allow TAMU to become one of the nation’s major hubs of vaccine production and bioterror
preparedness. University System Chancellor John Sharp states “it’s the biggest federal grant to come to
Texas since NASA, quite frankly.” It is anticipated that this center will create as many as 1,000 new jobs
in the College Station – Bryan MSA.
Overall observations and conclusions regarding the economic conditions for technology businesses
include:
1. Technology firm executives may need to travel often, and this is where the limited airline
connections to Easterwood Airport become problematic. This can discourage technology firms
from investing in facilities in the College Station area. While traveling by highway to Austin or
Houston for air connections is not difficult, the perception is that this could be an unnecessary
hassle for these executives or visiting businesspeople. Getting good high-speed rail service to
these airports, especially Houston with its long distance and international connections, would go
a long way toward mitigating this problem.
2. Adding another dimension to the College Station urban experience beyond suburban chain retail
and college student-oriented entertainment would help attract top-notch scientists and
technology researchers from larger cities who provide the creative brainpower behind the
companies. These workers also tend to be highly attuned to quality of life issues such as open
space and recreational opportunities.
3. It is possible (though speculative) that the limitations College Station puts on certain types of
commercial development may limit location opportunities for startup technology firms with too
little financial wherewithal to afford higher-quality space.
51
42
College Station – Bryan Hotel Revenue 2002 - 2011
Gross Sales Trends – Adjusted for Inflation
Source: Texas State Comptroller’s Office
$-
$10,000,000
$20,000,000
$30,000,000
$40,000,000
$50,000,000
$60,000,000
$70,000,000
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Gross Taxable
4. The Technology sector can be expected to grow slowly, although it will remain in a limited role
as far as its share of total employment is concerned. Many of the jobs that are added will be
well paid, and most such workers will likely locate their residence in College Station, further
evolving the City’s demographic profile towards a greater number of higher-income households.
5. Cutbacks in federal and state spending will be a risk for the future growth of Biocorridor
establishments, as several are dependent of public funding to support their work.
Hospitality and Entertainment
Lodging
The chart below summarizes College Station – Bryan MSA hotel sales revenue from 2002 to 2011. Sales
grew meaningfully from 2004 through 2008, increasing more than 50%, and then tapered off 15% (for
gross sales) from 2008 to 2011. Occupancy is somewhat weak in terms of the total market at less than
60%, though it is improving. Average daily room rates, at nearly $90, are relatively high for a metro of
this size in Texas. These have also been increasing slowly since the low point of the recession, which
was not a severe drop. Tourism professionals report that the area did not suffer nearly as much as other
markets in Texas after the recession hit. Instead of lowering rates, hotels offered more incentives and
services.
Interviewees indicated to CDS Spillette that the market mix for College Station – Bryan’s top hotels
(Hilton, La Salle, Holiday inn, and Best Western) is 40% non-TAMU groups, 45% leisure travelers
(including those traveling for TAMU events like football, graduation, and parents’ weekend), and, 15%
corporate travelers. In the fall during college football season it is 100% leisure on weekends.
52
43
For other hotels, there are small corporate groups using the newer properties, but overall this
component is minor. Instead, the general mix is 60% individual leisure and 40% groups.
Currently there are 28 hotel properties, plus several bed and breakfast inns, in the metro area. At least
nine properties, all in the limited service category, Interviewees reported to CDS Spillette that despite
the recent growth there is a considerable amount of interest from developers to add new high quality
limited service hotel product in College Station. One broker and developer mentioned he was working
with three groups currently that were considering developing additional limited service hotel product.
Although these properties, similar to a Staybridge or Courtyard by Marriot, are high quality and
command relatively high room rates, they would leave the College Station Hilton remaining as the only
true full service hotel in the area.
Leisure travel demand is nearly all related to University events and attractions, such as football. There
are initial indications that TAMU’s move to the Southeastern Conference of the NCAA will result in a rise
in leisure business for local hotels. The Bush Library created travel demand (not necessarily overnight
travel) early after opening, but this has died down.
April through October are the busiest convention months. The group business has been evolving over
the last few years as larger metros such as Houston and San Antonio have pursued state-level
associations to make up for lost corporate and nationwide group business due to the recession. Youth
and amateur sports groups, which are value-oriented, have increased, along with biomedical groups
which are willing to pay higher rates.
The major constraint to increasing group travel business is the lack of meeting facilities. The Hilton, as
the only true “full service” property, is the only one which can function as a “headquarters” hotel
(where both attendee guest rooms and the group’s meetings are located for groups of significant size).
Its facilities are in use frequently enough that groups must be turned away. The City of College Station
had planned to create a convention center in the Chimney Hill area, but these plans have been canceled.
Some value-sensitive groups have been turned away due key times when room rates are elevated
(football season). The inadequacy of air service is another principal limiting factor.
The Convention and Visitors Bureau already works closely with TAMU staff to help plan University-
related group meetings. Still, the Bureau would like to continue to integrate with TAMU’s meeting
planning and facilities infrastructure, as there are many potentially attractive meeting facilities on
campus that could be made more available. However, better local bus charters are necessary to make
up for campus parking constraints.
Overall observations and conclusions regarding the economic conditions for the lodging and meetings
market include:
1. Although hotel occupancies are not strong, they manage to have remained adequate despite a
number of additions to total local room inventory. This may have been helped the closure of to
obsolete properties, the Plaza and the Aggieland Inn.
2. Provided that general economic conditions continue to improve, the City of College Station
should expect additional limited-service hotel development. It is too early to be definitive about
the long term impact of the move to the SEC on leisure travel. However, value-oriented group
business such as sports groups remains strong and growing.
3. Corporate travel is a small aspect of the local market. There is little to indicate that it will grow
substantially. In cities where this segment constitutes a bigger share of the mix, it is easier to
sustain more upscale dining and entertainment.
53
44
Mixed Beverage Sales 2000 - 2011
Gross Sales Trends – Adjusted for Inflation
Source: Texas State Comptroller’s Office
$-
$1,000,000
$2,000,000
$3,000,000
$4,000,000
$5,000,000
$6,000,000
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
College Station Bryan Brazos County
4. The metro area is still almost totally reliant on TAMU for leisure travel. As the City’s adult
population grows, it could be possible to create events or programming that becomes popular
and established enough with local residents that it could begin to draw leisure travelers within
driving distance. It would be important to schedule this programming around other periods
when hotels and other venues are at capacity, such as football weekends; otherwise the
increment of travelers will not be able to stay overnight.
Entertainment
The table above summarizes mixed beverage sales, adjusted for inflation, in the period from 2000 to
2011. Sales are shown for the cities of College Station and Bryan as well as Brazos County as a whole.
Sales have trended upward significantly for College Station and Brazos County during this time period.
During the same period sales have remained generally stagnant in Bryan, although they have started to
trend upward since 2008. College Station’s success may be due to both bar / nightclub establishments
and restaurants with liquor licenses.
Large volumes of new dining and entertainment development was both observed by CDS | Spillette and
reported by interviewees in several locations within College Station including a densifying Northgate,
pad sites around Post Oak Mall, and redevelopment sites along Texas Avenue. A lesser increase in such
development has happened in Bryan, notably in Downtown and Booneville Town Center.
Interviewees stated that although dining establishments have spread along University Avenue and to
Post Oak Mall, entertainment-oriented establishments (bars and nightclubs) have been consolidating to
Northgate. This is partly because the City has made public policy and investment efforts to attract more
activity to that area and improve the parking system.
54
45
Overall observations and conclusions regarding the economic conditions for the lodging and meetings
market include:
1. There is not yet an urban gathering area in College Station aimed at adults (beyond college age).
The City does have a few non-chain upscale restaurants that offer a more adult-oriented
environment. Downtown Bryan is slowly developing into a destination with such character.
Parks and athletic programs offer children’s activities, though whole-family entertainment is
mostly offered by schools and places of worship. The City lacks a major private entertainment
facility such as a full-scale water park or minor league baseball team.
2. While some non-TAMU events are programmed in College Station, none is designed to be a
destination-level event that draws significantly from outside the MSA and nearby counties.
Wolf Pen Creek offers popular music concerts but was not mentioned by interviewees as a
significant entertainment source.
3. The Northgate entertainment scene for students appears to have broadened its offerings in the
last several years to offer a variety of different experiences within a confined area.
55
46
Major Employers
College Station – Bryan MSA
Employer Sector
#
Employees
Texas A&M University System Education 1,000 +
Bryan Independent School District Education 1,000 +
St. Joseph Regional Hospital Health care 1,000 +
Sanderson Farms Food processing 1,000 +
College Station School District Education 1,000 +
Reynolds & Reynolds Hardware / software 1,000 +
City of Bryan Government 500 - 999
City of College Station Government 501 - 999
Brazos County Government 502 - 999
Walmart Retail 503 - 999
HEB Grocery Retail 504 - 999
Scott & White Clinic Health care 505 - 999
College Station Medical Center Health care 506 - 999
Texas A&M Health Science Center Education 507 - 999
Penncro Associates Financial services 508 - 999
Source: Research Valley Partnership
Government and Higher Education
College Station and the entire College Station – Bryan MSA have a large share of employment in the
Government and Higher Education sectors. Of course, notably, Texas A&M and its related faculty and
staff is a large part of this base. The table below summarizes the area’s major employers. Three of the
top five major employers in the region are educational in nature. These include Texas A&M and the
area’s two major school districts. Furthermore, seven of the area’s top employers are public or
education related. Each of these seven are highlighted and italicized in the table below. Other
educational institutions such as Blinn College and Allen Academy did not make this list of primary
employers but do employ a meaningful number of people as well.
56
47
City of College Station Residents by Occupation
Education Related Occupations
Census Estimates Change
2000 2010 2000 - 2010
Number Share Number Share Number % Change
Occupation: 31,807 100% 46,420 100% 14,613 45.9%
Education, training, and library occupations 5,098 16.0% 8,592 18.5% 3,494 68.5%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 American Community Survey, Census 2000 Summary File 3
A large percentage of employees in the City of College Station work in education related fields. The
table above illustrates that per the 2010 Census, 18.5% of residents of the City of College Station worked
in the “education, training, and library occupations.”
Several area professionals interviewed by CDS Spillette indicated that probably 50% of the residents of
the College Station – Bryan MSA were employed in education or the public sector.
57
48
Employment Growth by Industry
2000-2012
Employment as of February
(thousands)
Change
2000 - 2008 - 2000 -
Industry 2000 2008 2012 2008 2012 2012
Mining, Logging, and Construction 4,500 7,000 6,500 2,500 (500) 2,000
Manufacturing 5,800 5,500 5,200 (300) (300) (600)
Wholesale Trade 1,400 1,800 1,800 400 - 400
Retail Trade 9,200 10,000 10,300 800 300 1,100
Transportation, Warehousing, and Utilities 800 1,400 1,400 600 - 600
Information 1,600 1,100 1,200 (500) 100 (400)
Financial Activities 3,300 3,300 3,700 - 400 400
Professional and Business Services 4,900 5,600 6,300 700 700 1,400
Educational and Health Services 7,900 10,000 10,000 2,100 - 2,100
Leisure and Hospitality 7,600 9,900 10,300 2,300 400 2,700
Other Services 2,600 2,900 3,100 300 200 500
Federal Government 1,100 1,000 900 (100) (100) (200)
State Government 23,400 25,400 26,200 2,000 800 2,800
Local Government 8,600 9,900 10,400 1,300 500 1,800
Total Non-Farm Payroll Employment 82,700 94,800 97,300 12,100 2,500 14,600
Source: Texas Workforce Commission; Employment Estimates
2000 College Station-Bryan, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area
Non Seasonally Adjusted
The table above shows employment growth by industry between 2000 and 2008 for the College Station
– Bryan MSA. “Education and Health Services” and the three sectors of government comprise a large
percentage (48.8%) of total employment in 2012 and each of the proceeding years. The number of
employees in Education and Health Services remained constant at 10,000 employees from 2008 to 2012.
While it did not exhibit growth during this period, this is one of the largest categories. State government
employees (which includes Texas A&M University system employees) make up the largest category and
saw the largest growth between 2008 and 2012.
58
49
Construction and Development
Construction and development produce a
significant amount of employment and general
economic activity in the City of College Station
and the College Station – Bryan MSA in general.
This ranges from significant new home
development to commercial and institutional
development. This also includes infrastructure
improvements and remodeling activity.
This portion of the study will endeavor to allow
the reader to better understand the quantity of
construction activity in the area and it’s relative
impact on employment and the economy.
The city of College Station has seen significant recent new construction in the following areas:
• New single family housing in southern College Station
• Additional retail and restaurant development and redevelopment in southern College Station
and along Texas Avenue, University Drive, and near Post Oak Mall
• New medical facility development and campus expansions (including the new Scott and White
campus) in the College Station Medical District and elsewhere throughout the city.
• Large quantities of new “Class A” luxury apartment complexes geared primarily towards Texas
A&M University students. The majority of these new developments have occurred south and
the Texas A&M Campus and along or west of Wellborn Road.
• Continued expansion and redevelopment on the Texas A&M campus.
• Additional hotel space – several developers currently wish to develop high quality limited
service hotel facilities near University Drive and the Bypass
• Infrastructure improvements including road projects like William D Fitch Parkway expansion,
widened and improved thoroughfares and neighborhood collector streets in southern College
Station, and a variety of park and community asset improvements.
Bryan does have additional new construction and development occurring within its boundaries as well
including new housing in Traditions, Miramont, and Park Hudson, redevelopment downtown, and new
retail including a second Walmart Super Center on the western side of town.
59
50
College Station Building Permits
2002 - 2004
2002 2003 2004
Application Type Description Valuation Total Valuation Total Valuation Total
ACCESSORY/STORAGE $62,000 4 $14,700 5 $50 1
COMMERCIAL, ADDITION $219,000 3 $111,690 4 $5,399,100 10
COMMERCIAL,
AMUSEMENT/SOCIAL/RECREATION $10,000 1 $896,249 1 $4,585,000 3
COMMERCIAL, CHURCHES & OTHER RELIGIOUS $600,000 1 $10,611,314 5 $7,066,549 5
COMMERCIAL, HOSPITALS & INSTITUTIONS $305,000 1 $17,348,615 1
COMMERCIAL, HOTEL/MOTEL $3,000,000 1 $17,570,000 6
COMMERCIAL, OFFICES/BANKS/PROFESSION $13,235,126 10 $6,680,813 8 $30,345,085 14
COMMERCIAL, OTHER $3,198,480 5 $2,273,925 10 $2,947,575 12
COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL $2,670,000 1 $300,000 1
COMMERCIAL, PUBLIC WORKS & UTILITIES $3,638,026 68 $10,351,670 82
COMMERCIAL, REMODEL/RENOVATION $417,584 3 $150,000 1 $9,929,654 68
COMMERCIAL, SCHOOLS & OTHER EDUCATION $10,152,388 24 $9,309,117 18 $8,000,000 1
COMMERCIAL, STORES & CUSTOMER SERVICE $445,000 3 $7,122,004 27
COMMERCIAL, SERVICE STATION & REPAIR
GARAGE $734,975 8 $81,459 9 $600,000 1
COMMERCIAL, STRUCTURES OTHER THAN
BUILDINGS $7,000 1 $103,957 7
REROOF $2,617,808 71 $4,358,203 43
RESIDENTIAL, 1 UNIT ATTACHED NEW
(TOWNHOME) $6,852,171 64 $14,707,796 94 $1,406,373 14
RESIDENTIAL, 1 UNIT DETACHED NEW $68,985,187 634 $117,720,019 692 $83,432,958 589
RESIDENTIAL, 2 UNITS NEW (DUPLEX) $1,507,500 7 $600,000 2 $2,325,076 14
RESIDENTIAL, 3-4 UNITS NEW $19,179,480 17 $15,559,157 23 $1,468,870 6
RESIDENTIAL, 5+ UNITS NEW $694,061 27 $1,461,804 30 $6,340,075 18
RESIDENTIAL, ADDITION $38,860 3 $6,550 1 $1,274,577 37
RESIDENTIAL, GARAGE/CARPORT ADDITION $1,338,117 109 $1,631,068 71 $31,500 1
RESIDENTIAL, REMODEL & RENOVATION $198,000 3 $3,814,583 12 $1,178,730 103
SLAB ONLY COMMERCIAL $150,000 12 $148,000 12 $1,457,131 8
SLAB ONLY RES. (DUPLEX) $435,000 4 $421,473 9 $126,126 7
SLAB ONLY RES. (3&4 FAMILY)
SLAB ONLY RES. (MF) $71,058 11 $104,118 11 $277,660 7
SLAB ONLY RES. (SF) $116,761 32 $45,375 5 $296,083 27
Totals $137,426,582 $204,511,083 $210,932,748
Source: CDS Market Research, City of College Station
The table above summarizes City of College Station building permits by type and aggregate value for the
first three year period during the past decade. In the 2002 through 2004 period College Station issued
various permits with a total value of $552,870,413 in improvements.
60
51
College Station Building Permits
2005 - 2008
2005 2006 2007 2008
Application Type Description Valuation Total Valuation Total Valuation Total Valuation Total
ACCESSORY/STORAGE $400 1 $2,500 1 $71,000 1
COMMERCIAL, ADDITION $773,689 10 $685,825 17 $798,400 7 $9,779,985 16
COMMERCIAL, AMUSEMENT/SOCIAL/RECREATION $3,221,000 6 $10,354,284 17 $6,786,799 14 $554,000 4
COMMERCIAL, CHURCHES & OTHER RELIGIOUS $28,300 2 $1,200,000 1 $7,350,000 1 $220,000 1
COMMERCIAL, HOSPITALS & INSTITUTIONS $2,979,130 3 $273,570 2 $2,275,000 2 $5,872,000 7
COMMERCIAL, HOTEL/MOTEL $5,900,000 1
COMMERCIAL, OFFICES/BANKS/PROFESSION $7,879,582 20 $21,118,987 30 $9,479,632 40 $14,778,160 26
COMMERCIAL, OTHER $1,646,450 20 $2,652,510 19 $3,164,550 13 $11,322,366 15
COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL
COMMERCIAL, PARKING GARAGE $1,500,000 1 $3,710,000 1
COMMERCIAL, PUBLIC WORKS & UTILITIES $10,000 1 $750,000 1
COMMERCIAL, REMODEL/RENOVATION $7,139,701 99 $6,243,835 94 $15,040,402 148 $9,752,190 120
COMMERCIAL, SCHOOLS & OTHER EDUCATION $50,000 1 $42,000 1 $93,902,250 17
COMMERCIAL, STORES & CUSTOMER SERVICE $6,703,690 16 $10,360,160 17 $13,196,241 24 $2,526,000 9
COMMERCIAL, SERVICE STATION & REPAIR GARAGE
COMMERCIAL, STRUCTURES OTHER THAN
BUILDINGS $14,086 2 $421,000 3 $81,000 1
REROOF
RESIDENTIAL, 1 UNIT ATTACHED NEW
(TOWNHOME) $1,558,112 15 $1,626,725 14 $2,600,800 23 $1,066,100 10
RESIDENTIAL, 1 UNIT DETACHED NEW $78,975,882 525 $91,616,757 623 $90,079,549 591 $89,259,131 583
RESIDENTIAL, 2 UNITS NEW (DUPLEX) $4,123,324 23 $4,154,462 23 $4,338,992 25 $6,606,653 43
RESIDENTIAL, 3-4 UNITS NEW $5,366,733 30 $1,113,780 4 $502,500 2 $515,350 2
RESIDENTIAL, 5+ UNITS NEW $5,767,458 35 $20,714,218 32 $56,536,696 63 $51,508,345 51
RESIDENTIAL, ADDITION $1,725,175 61 $1,855,111 61 $1,486,771 51 $1,726,431 51
RESIDENTIAL, GARAGE/CARPORT ADDITION $96,760 3 $45,817 2 $31,410 2
RESIDENTIAL, REMODEL & RENOVATION $639,735 42 $927,502 48 $1,263,550 44 $1,765,400 139
SLAB ONLY COMMERCIAL $209,000 3 $2,666,514 34 $1,658,166 9 $1,451,110 10
SLAB ONLY RES. (DUPLEX) $164,000 10 $85,978 5
SLAB ONLY RES. (3&4 FAMILY) $23,000,000 1
SLAB ONLY RES. (MF) $356,160 10 $2,338,929 19
SLAB ONLY RES. (SF) $431,917 31 $43,382 3 $518,634 44 $668,073 38
SLAB ONLY RES. (TOWNHOME) $163,593 9
SWIMMING POOL $227,428 1
RETAINING WALL $498,848 5
Totals $152,280,124 $178,691,960 $225,781,820 $309,933,731
Sources: CDS Market Research, City of College Station
The table above summarizes City of College Station building permits by type and aggregate value for the
second three year period during the past decade. In the 2005 through 2008 period College Station
issued various permits with a total value of $866,684,653 in improvements. This includes a record year
in 2008 with peak permitted improvement value of $309,933,731.
61
52
College Station Building Permits
2009 – 2012 YTD
2009 2010 2011 2012
Application Type Description Valuation Total Valuation Total Valuation Total Valuation Total
COMMERCIAL, ADDITION $5,109,000 7 $1,544,030 11 $3,159,654 11 $70,536 7
COMMERCIAL,
AMUSEMENT/SOCIAL/RECREATION $1,541,732 4 $1,165,824 5 $370,000 5 $750,000 1
COMMERCIAL, CHURCHES & OTHER RELIGIOUS $1,187,112 1 $411,000 3 $3,000,000 1
COMMERCIAL, HOSPITALS & INSTITUTIONS $7,420,000 6 $13,600,000 1 $83,792,320 8
COMMERCIAL, HOTEL/MOTEL $6,000,000 2 $100,000 1
COMMERCIAL, OFFICES/BANKS/PROFESSION $3,468,000 12 $9,507,348 12 $5,258,600 6 $4,434,000 4
COMMERCIAL, OTHER $3,089,955 5 $1,063,900 8 $12,395,194 13 $57,000 3
COMMERCIAL, REMODEL/RENOVATION $22,200,409 95 $8,335,459 60 $7,689,267 79 $7,683,864 26
COMMERCIAL, SCHOOLS & OTHER EDUCATION $1,976,049 2 $109,716,108 9 $867,062 1
COMMERCIAL, STORES & CUSTOMER SERVICE $6,831,345 9 $14,171,000 21 $6,722,176 28 $1,612,000 5
COMMERCIAL, SERVICE STATION & REPAIR
GARAGE $701,030 2
COMMERCIAL, STRUCTURES OTHER THAN
BUILDINGS $4,500 1 $1,500 1 $6,000 1
RESIDENTIAL, 1 UNIT ATTACHED NEW
(TOWNHOME) $4,913,792 54 $4,883,164 54 $6,109,556 60 $9,425,038 85
RESIDENTIAL, 1 UNIT DETACHED NEW $69,717,624 483 $57,924,945 410 $54,345,910 406 $32,943,631 248
RESIDENTIAL, 2 UNITS NEW (DUPLEX) $137,280 1 $4,212,869 23 $5,310,901 30
RESIDENTIAL, 3-4 UNITS NEW $2,894,728 8 $285,000 1
RESIDENTIAL, 5+ UNITS NEW $4,940,000 5 $21,725,880 21 $44,110,347 61 $2,050,000 5
RESIDENTIAL, ADDITION $2,563,264 74 $1,989,466 60 $3,038,166 74 $894,025 22
RESIDENTIAL, GARAGE/CARPORT ADDITION $97,710 6 $141,400 9 $211,700 7 $47,600 5
RESIDENTIAL, REMODEL & RENOVATION $1,514,161 86 $2,232,627 115 $2,351,279 121 $1,272,145 45
SLAB ONLY COMMERCIAL $531,901 2 $199,900 3 $68,000 1
SLAB ONLY RES. (DUPLEX) 22 $193,412 10 $667,783 37
SLAB ONLY RES. (3&4 FAMILY) 5 $20,000 1
SLAB ONLY RES. (MF) $2,310,940 $3,180,980 25 $105,000 3
SLAB ONLY RES. (SF) $18,700 3 $32,940 $346,801 36 $462,919 71
SLAB ONLY RES. (TOWNHOME) $106,750 3 $173,459 16
RETAINING WALL $251,715 9 $513,311 11 $340,319 10 $58,223 2
Totals $143,372,469 $252,412,052 $243,919,528 $69,176,186
Source: CDS Market Research, City of College Station
The table above summarizes City of College Station building permits by type and aggregate value for the
period between 2009 and 2011 plus the first quarter of 2012. It is too early to project year end permit
value totals for 2012. However, during the period from 2009 through 2011 permits were issued for
$639,704,094 in improvements. This includes a peak year as well: 2010 saw $252,412,052 worth of
improvements permitted. This year was an outlier because it contained construction of 9 improvements
in the “Commercial, Schools, & Other Education” category valued at a total of $109,716,108.
62
53
City of College Station Annual Total Permitted Improvement Value
2002 - 2012
Sources: CDS Market Research, City of College Station
$0
$50,000,000
$100,000,000
$150,000,000
$200,000,000
$250,000,000
$300,000,000
$350,000,000
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 YTD
The tables on the previous pages summarize the total building permits by type and value associated
with each permit type by year from 2002 through 2012 year to date. Consistently, the largest number
of permits in most years were for new single family residential, new two family duplexes, and for
commercial remodeling. During this period anywhere from 406 to 692 single family homes were
constructed per year within the City of College Station. The highest dollar value permit categories
during this period were consistently also single family new development, commercial remodels, and
new commercial stores and service centers. The boom in new student oriented apartments in the
timeframe from 2006 forward is also illustrated by the significant permit values for Residential New 5+
Unit permits in 2007 ($56.5M), 2010 ($21.7M) and 2011 ($44M).
The chart above tracks total permitted improvement value within the City of College Station from 2002
through 2012 YTD. As indicated in this chart, 2008 and 2010 were peak years that bracketed 2009 which
was the lowest permitted value year within the ten tracked in this chart. All in all, the construction and
development industry sector in College Station has produced between $143M and $309M worth of
permitted improvements each year for the last decade.
63
54
City of Bryan Building Permit Information
2000 - 2002
2000 2001 2002
Type of Permit Permit Unit Amount Permit Unit Amount Permit Unit Amount
Residential 236 236 $21,667,622 228 228 $ 20,819,468 215 215 $ 20,662,350
Duplexes 43 86 $4,608,240 12 32 $ 1,070,400 26 52 $ 3,097,000
Apartments 16 369 $13,276,178 0 19 384 $ 17,193,280
Commercial New 57 $16,006,189 56 $ 18,084,436 65 0 $ 55,835,144
Commercial Rmd 170 $10,916,845 114 $ 8,351,477 144 0 $ 12,682,940
Residential Rmd 224 $2,641,979 153 $ 1,635,893 180 0 $ 1,817,325
Swimming Pools 13 $251,500 12 $ 292,950 22 0 $ 554,026
Demolition 55 37 31 0 $ -
Moving/Location 11 8 6 0 $ -
Mobile Homes 190 190 $4,187,015 187 187 $ 4,723,901 101 101 $ 2,480,366
Signs 130 93 136 0 $ -
TOTALS 1145 881 $73,555,568 900 447 $ 54,978,525 945 752 $ 114,322,431
Source: City of Bryan
City of Bryan Building Permit Information
2003 - 2005
2003 2004 2005
Type of Permit Permit Unit Amount Permit Unit Amount Permit Unit Amount
Residential 260 260 $ 27,912,850 255 255 $ 35,132,083 225 225 41,252,090
Duplexes 37 74 $ 5,325,264 1 2 $ 107,958 7 14 847,989
Apartments 28 228 $ 9,239,984 11 153 $ 7,511,715 25 330 18,702,802
Commercial New 61 0 $ 29,445,797 33 0 $ 24,678,800 42 0 35,063,180
Commercial Rmd 118 8 $ 8,675,568 111 0 $ 8,401,518 128 0 11,714,901
Residential Rmd 239 0 $ 2,223,979 211 0 $ 2,452,257 173 0 2,353,402
Swimming Pools 28 0 $ 925,065 20 1 $ 550,719 25 0 1,059,716
Demolition 24 0 $ - 24 0 $ - 53 0 -
Moving/Location 4 0 $ - 2 0 $ - 3 0 -
Mobile Homes 156 156 $ 3,068,162 110 110 $ 2,207,074 97 93 2,151,057
Signs 173 0 $ - 152 0 $ - 167 0 -
TOTALS 868 726 $ 86,816,669 930 521 $ 81,042,124 945 662 113,145,137
Source: City of Bryan
The tables below summarize building permit activity and total values of associated improvements within
the City of Bryan between 2000 and 2005. During this period, a total permitted improvement value of
$523,860,454 was achieved. Each year’s permitted value in Bryan is lower than the same year’s
permitted value in College Station.
64
55
City of Bryan Building Permit Information
2009 - 2011
2009 2010 2011
Type of Permit Permit Unit Amount Permit Unit Amount Permit Unit Amount
Residential 176 176 $30,777,776 191 191 $27,236,499 127 127 $24,511,435
Duplexes 6 12 $861,623 2 4 $290,000 1 4 $167,000
Apartments 6 130 $9,315,251 23 104 $7,279,999 32 339 $16,754,701
Commercial New 44 0 $27,077,095 45 0 $48,693,650 44 0 $37,740,764
Commercial Rmd 141 0 $17,784,113 154 0 $28,251,570 152 0 $15,823,244
Residential Rmd 452 0 $3,501,408 597 0 $6,161,340 598 0 $4,559,297
Swimming Pools 15 0 $666,058 17 0 $556,945 17 0 $800,729
Demolition 79 0 $0 58 0 $0 125 0 $0
Moving/Location 4 0 $0 1 0 $0 2 0 $0
Mobile Homes 65 65 $1,343,460 66 66 $2,187,120 52 52 $1,496,695
Signs 138 0 $0 138 0 $0 180 0 $0
TOTALS 1126 383 $ 91,326,784 1292 365 $120,657,123 1330 522 $101,853,865
City of Bryan
City of Bryan Building Permit Information
2006 - 2008
2006 2007 2008
Type of Permit Permit Unit Amount Permit Unit Amount Permit Unit Amount
Residential 236 236 40,562,513 249 249 $37,788,264 179 179 $33,062,458
Duplexes 3 6 484,000 0 0 $ - 1 2 $151,164
Apartments 24 236 12,322,211 8 46 $2,359,061 18 579 $42,711,820
Commercial New 36 36 73,858,746 65 0 $70,972,494 62 0 $92,394,059
Commercial Rmd 164 164 37,383,565 139 0 $21,634,889 146 0 $34,204,713
Residential Rmd 208 208 2,468,320 257 0 $3,094,426 364 0 $4,466,532
Swimming Pools 28 1,352,851 17 0 $659,064 25 0 $1,236,746
Demolition 69 69 0 84 0 $ - 61 0 0
Moving/Location 1 1 0 7 0 $ - 3 0 0
Mobile Homes 72 72 1,153,813 82 82 $1,475,612 65 65 $1,135,852
Signs 170 0 157 0 $ - 147 0 0
TOTALS 1011 1028 169,586,019 1065 377 $137,983,810 1071 825 $209,363,344
Source: City of Bryan
The tables above summarize building permit activity and total values of associated improvements within
the City of Bryan between 2006 and 2011. During this period, a total permitted improvement value of
$830,770,945 was achieved. Each year’s permitted value during this reporting period in Bryan is lower
than the same year’s permitted value in College Station. However, Bryan follows the same trend as
College Station in exhibiting a peak year in 2008 followed by a significant drop off in 2009. Single family
residential new construction followed by residential remodels were consistently the highest volume
permit categories
65
56
City of Bryan Annual Permitted Improvement Value
2000 through 2011
Source: CDS Market Research, City of Bryan
$0
$50,000,000
$100,000,000
$150,000,000
$200,000,000
$250,000,000
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
City of College Station Development Horizon
Owner Name Acreage
Unbuilda
ble Area
(Est.)
Road/Creek
Reduction
(10%)
Net
Acreage
Sewer/
No
Sewer
Develo
pment
Horizon
City/ETJ/
County
CSISD/NI
SD
Animate Habitat, Ltd 1,282.09 427.36 128.21 726.52 Sewer Short City CSISD
Pebble Creek Development 289.57 96.52 28.96 164.09 Sewer Short City CSISD
Pebble Creek Development 295.17 98.39 29.52 167.26 Sewer Short City CSISD
Timothy Crowley 130.17 43.39 13.02 73.76 Sewer Short City CSISD
Timothy Crowley 142.62 47.54 14.26 80.82 Sewer Short City CSISD
Spring Creek CS Development 41.86 13.95 4.19 23.72 Sewer Short City CSISD
Diebel Family Partnership 202.65 50.66 20.26 131.73 Sewer Short City CSISD
Esther McDougal 62.96 0.00 6.30 56.66 Sewer Short City CSISD
W.A. Dunlap 154.00 30.80 15.40 107.80 Sewer Short City CSISD
Edelweiss Garten 85.00 0.00 8.50 76.50 Sewer Short City CSISD
BCS Development Co. 50.81 0.00 5.08 45.73 Sewer Short City CSISD
Lisa Neely 30.74 0.00 3.07 27.67 Sewer Short City CSISD
Lisa Neely 69.20 0.00 6.92 62.28 Sewer Short City CSISD
Ed Froehling 23.28 0.00 2.33 20.95 Sewer Short City CSISD
Ed Froehling 27.66 6.91 2.77 17.98 Sewer Short City CSISD
Barron Rd Mdw/Seaback 136.00 0.00 13.60 122.40 Sewer Short City CSISD
Ed Froehling 49.35 0.00 4.94 44.41 Sewer Short City CSISD
Haupt Family 139.76 0.00 13.98 125.78 Sewer Short City CSISD
Green Prairie Ranch 369.89 36.99 36.99 295.91 Sewer Med City CSISD
Jerry Wyndham 229.26 34.39 22.93 171.94 Sewer Med City CSISD
Willis Ritchey 330.06 99.02 33.01 198.03 Sewer Med City CSISD
Totals 4,142.10 985.92 414.24 2,741.94
Source: City of College Station
The chart below illustrates total annual permitted improvement value within the City of Bryan from
2000 through 2011. Most of that period saw annual increases and a general growth trend through a
peak in 2008. Values then trended significantly down in the following years. The peak in 2008 included
much greater than typical value creation in the apartments, and new commercial development permit
categories.
Despite close proximty to flood plan areas, the City of College Station has a significant availability of
additional developable land. The table above lists currently vacant or lightly developed tracts within or
adjacent to the City of College Station that have been identified by the City as likely to be developed in
the short to medium term. In total, these 21 tracts represent 4,142 acres gross and 2,742 acres after
unbuildable areas and road and creek rights of way are accounted for.
66
57
This does not account for a 1,500 acre tract in south College Station that Clark Wyndham is developing
into the Indian Lakes master planned community.
A reasonably large pipeline of available developable land such as that listed above works to insure that
construction and development can remain a robust part of the local economy into the future. It is worth
noting, however, that significant areas around College Station are restricted by floodplains.
Quarterly Sales Tax Report – Construction Sector
City of College Station
Year Quarter Gross Sales
Amount
Subject to
State Tax Outlets
2002 1 18,686,960 1,696,796 41
2002 2 18,622,567 1,490,357 41
2002 3 19,312,415 1,519,851 43
2002 4 20,050,021 1,532,723 59
Total 76,671,963 6,239,727
2003 1 14,155,489 1,295,364 44
2003 2 21,634,557 1,418,776 50
2003 3 21,377,673 1,514,990 49
2003 4 23,400,010 1,270,648 67
Total 80,567,729 5,499,778
2004 1 15,766,324 1,322,202 51
2004 2 16,862,778 1,532,808 55
2004 3 21,141,593 2,062,801 62
2004 4 24,208,332 1,564,094 73
Total 77,979,027 6,481,905
2005 1 22,651,226 1,832,841 56
2005 2 26,383,908 2,337,568 58
2005 3 26,348,513 2,854,991 57
2005 4 27,285,728 5,086,721 67
Total 102,669,375 12,112,121
2006 1 21,738,616 4,056,277 80
2006 2 25,140,041 3,669,192 79
2006 3 24,550,609 3,103,881 80
2006 4 24,307,521 3,078,753 101
Total 95,736,787 13,908,103
2007 1 20,857,224 2,604,806 84
2007 2 25,557,303 3,749,045 85
2007 3 29,797,435 4,077,941 92
2007 4 34,283,833 5,386,462 100
Total 110,495,795 15,818,254
2008 1 24,645,759 4,853,371 81
2008 2 27,235,502 3,921,672 78
2008 3 28,952,613 3,506,174 79
2008 4 28,616,156 3,486,994 97
67
58
Year Quarter Gross Sales
Amount
Subject to
State Tax Outlets
Total 109,450,030 15,768,211
2009 1 18,238,751 2,767,354 81
2009 2 20,241,473 2,770,095 84
2009 3 18,264,337 2,805,695 89
2009 4 16,466,813 2,273,899 105
Total 73,211,374 10,617,043
2010 1 14,938,095 2,234,914 85
2010 2 15,748,840 2,457,868 86
2010 3 20,559,697 2,696,106 87
2010 4 16,362,278 2,681,560 110
Total 67,608,910 10,070,448
2011 1 18,962,926 3,042,753 93
2011 2 21,533,954 2,827,172 91
2011 3 24,749,065 2,535,337 91
Total 65,245,945 8,405,262
Source: City of College Station
Source: City of College Station, CDS Market Research
Construction related sales comprise a large gross dollar amount within the City of College Station each
year. The table and chart above and on the previous page outline total sales attributable within the City
of College Station to the “Construction” sector both quarterly and rolled up annually for each year from
2002 through third quarter 2011. In general, sales attributable to construction peaked between 2004
and 2008 with a downward trend since then. This follows a generally similar trend to the total annual
permitted improved value discussed on the previous pages. It also follows likely trends in the state and
region as a whole as new construction of most types has slowed down during the most recent economic
recession.
0
20,000,000
40,000,000
60,000,000
80,000,000
100,000,000
120,000,000
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 YTD
Gross Construction Sales
68
59
Construction Sector Location Quotient
MSA and State
Location Quotient vs.
USA Total
Two-Digit NAICS Level Industry
Texas --
Statewide
College
Station-
Bryan, TX
MSA
Construction 1.31 1.52
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics
Construction Related Employment Estimates 2000 College Station-Bryan, TX Metropolitan
Statistical Area
Non Seasonably Adjusted
Employment as of February (thousands)
Change
2000 - 2008 - 2000 -
Industry 2000 2008 2012 2008 2012 2012
Mining, Logging, and Construction 4,500 7,000 6,500 2,500 (500) 2,000
Total Non-Farm Payroll Employment 82,700 94,800 97,300 12,100 2,500 14,600
Mining, Logging, and Construction Share % 5.4% 7.4% 6.7%
Sources: Source: CDS Market Research, Texas Workforce Commission; Employment Estimates 2000 College Station-Bryan, TX Metropolitan
Statistical Area, Non Seasonally Adjusted
Construction is a larger employment
sector in College Station – Bryan MSA
than elsewhere. The table to the
right summarizes the location
quotient associated with construction
sector employment in both the
College Station – Bryan MSA and the
state of Texas as a whole.
Both geographies have quotients
greater than 1.00 meaning that there
are more employees engaged in work
fitting into the Construction two-digit
NAICS level industry code.
The College Station – Bryan MSA has a significantly higher number of construction related employees
than the nation as a whole, exhibiting a quotient of 1.52.
Mining, logging, and construction make up a meaningful percentage of total employment in the College
Station – Bryan MSA. The table above summarizes the total number of employees engaged in Mining,
Logging, and Construction in the College Station – Bryan MSA as reported in the 2000 Census and then
estimated for 2008 and 2012. It was estimated that the sector would see a considerable growth in
employees in the MSA by 2008 with a less dramatic reduction by 2012.
The table above also compares for each of the three years the percentage of total employment reflected
by Mining, Logging, and Construction. This percentage ranged from a low of 5.4% in 2000 to a high of
7.4% in 2008. Employment in this sector was estimated to shrink slightly between 2008 and 2012 while
total employment was estimated to grow.
69
60
CDS | Spillette
1001 South Dairy Ashford Suite 450
Houston, Texas 77077
713- 465-8866
www.cdsspillette.com
Avalanche Consulting
101 West 6th Street, Suite 612
Austin, Texas 78701
512-472-1555
www.avalancheconsulting.com
70
July 26, 2012
Workshop Agenda Item No. 6
Payroll Policies and Procedures Audit
To: Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Ty Elliott, City Internal Auditor
Agenda Caption: Presentation, possible action, and discussion concerning the City
Internal Auditor’s Payroll Policies and Procedures Audit.
Recommendation(s): Audit recommendations are on pages 24 through 26 of the report.
Summary:
Over 25,000, paychecks for $40 million are processed by the City each year to pay over
1,000 fulltime, part-time, and seasonal employees. In 2010, a payroll audit focusing
primarily on overtime and compensatory time was conducted. On September 22, 2011, the
City Council approved the City Auditor’s audit plan for fiscal year 2012, which included a
more comprehensive examination of the City’s payroll processes.
The objective of the audit was to evaluate internal controls, identify fraud risks, and assess
potential abuse of City policy and possible waste of city resources.
During this audit, we examined the City’s payroll policies, procedures, and practices to
determine whether or not adequate controls were in place to prevent fraud, waste, or abuse
of city resources. Although we did not discover any evidence leading us to believe that there
was material fraud, we found areas where internal controls could be strengthened to reduce
the City’s exposure to monetary risk. We also found indicators of abuse of the City’s sick
leave policies.
An interim audit was issued on February 24, 2012 and presented to the Audit Committee.
The final audit report with audit recommendations as well as management responses to
these recommendations was presented to the Audit Committee on July 12.
The complete audit report with recommendations and management responses to those
recommendations is file in the City Secretary’s Office.
Attachments: Citywide Payroll Audit Report (On file in the City Secretary’s Office)
71