HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/23/2016 - Workshop Agenda Packet - City CouncilCity Council Workshop
College Station, TX
Meeting Agenda - Final
City Hall
1101 Texas Ave
College Station, TX 77840
City Hall Council Chambers4:30 PMThursday, June 23, 2016
1. Call meeting to order.
2. Executive Session will be held in the Administrative Conference Room.
Consultation with Attorney {Gov ’t Code Section 551.071}; 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. Juliao v. City of College Station, Cause No. 14-002168-CV-272, In the 272nd District
Court of Brazos County, Texas
b. Kathryn A. Stever-Harper as Executrix for the Estate of John Wesley Harper v. City
of College Station and Judy Meeks; No. 15,977-PC in the County Court No. 1, Brazos
County, Texas
Legal Advice
a. Legal issues related to the contracts associated with the Enterprise Resource
Planning (ERP) System
Competitive Matters {Gov't Code Section 551.086); possible action: The City Council
may deliberate, vote, or take final action on a competitive matter as that term is defined
in Gov't Code Section 552.133 in closed session. The following is a general
representation of the subject matter to be considered:
3. Take action, if any, on Executive Session.
4. Presentation, possible action and discussion on items listed on the consent agenda.
Presentation, possible action, and discussion of the proposed FY
2017 Community Development Budget and PY 2016 Action Plan to
be submitted to the U .S. Department of Housing and Urban
16-01795.
Page 1 College Station, TX Printed on 6/17/2016
June 23, 2016City Council Workshop Meeting Agenda - Final
Development as per the requirements of the Community
Development Block Grant and HOME Investment Partnership
Program grant.
Sponsors:Eller
Attachment 1 -FY 2017 Proposed Community Development Budget.docx
Attachment 2- FY 2017 Plan Development Process Summary
Attachment 3 - FY 2017 CDBG Public Service Funding Summary & Recommendations
Attachment 4 - FY 2017 CDBG Public Facility Funding Summary & Recommendations
Attachment 5 - 2015-2019 Community Development Goals
Attachment 6 - 2016 Income Limits
Attachment 7 - Map
Attachment 8 Community Development Project Descriptions
Attachments:
Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding a progress
update on Water and Wastewater Impact Fees and Roadway
Impact Fees.
16-03526.
Sponsors:Gibbs and Coleman
Presentation and discussion on the 2016 Citizens Survey.16-03687.
Sponsors:Killian
College Station 2016 Report FinalAttachments:
Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding the 2015
Compliance Report by the Research Valley Partnership.
16-03708.
Sponsors:Prochazka
9. Council Calendar - Council may discuss upcoming events.
10. 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.
11. Discussion, review and possible action regarding the following meetings: Animal
Shelter Board, Annexation Task Force, Arts Council of Brazos Valley, Arts Council
Sub-committee, Audit Committee, Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways Advisory
Board, Bio-Corridor Board of Adjustments, Blinn College Brazos Valley Advisory
Committee, Brazos County Health Dept ., Brazos Valley Council of Governments,
Bryan/College Station Chamber of Commerce, Budget and Finance Committee,
BVSWMA, BVWACS, Compensation and Benefits Committee, Convention & Visitors
Bureau, Design Review Board, Economic Development Committee, Gigabit Broadband
Initiative, Historic Preservation Committee, Interfaith Dialogue Association,
Page 2 College Station, TX Printed on 6/17/2016
City Council Workshop Meeting Agenda -Final June 23, 2016
Intergovernmental Committee, Joint Relief Funding Review Committee, Landmark
Commission, Library Board, Metropolitan Planning Organization, Parks and Recreation
Board, Planning and Zoning Commission, Research Valley Partnership, Research
Valley Technology Council, Regional Transportation Committee for Council of
Governments, Sister Cities Association, Transportation and Mobility Committee, TAMU
Student Senate, Texas Municipal League, Twin City Endowment, YMCA, Youth
Advisory Council, Zoning Board of Adjustments, (Notice of Agendas posted on City
Hall bulletin board).
12.Adjourn
The City Council may adjourn into Executive Session to consider any item listed on this
agenda if a matter is raised that is appropriate for Executive Session discussion. An
announcement will be made of the basis for the Executive Session discussion.
APPROVED
n�city ifj;�
I certify that the above Notice of Meeting was posted at College Station City Hall, 1101
Texas Avenue, College Station, Texas, on June 17, 2016 at 5:00 p.m.
��C:-:Z" � �.Q,.ry
� S M,..�\.. \:7
City Secretary t ""'"""'
This building is wheelchair accessible. Persons with disabilities who plan to attend this
meeting and who may need accommodations, auxiliary aids, or services such as
interpreters, readers, or large print are asked to contact the City Secretary's Office at
(979) 764-3541, TDD at 1-800-735-2989, or email adaassistance@cstx.gov at least
two business days prior to the meeting so that appropriate arrangements can be made .
If the City does not receive notification at least two business days prior to the meeting,
the City will make a reasonable attempt to provide the necessary accommodations.
Penal Code §30.07 Trespass by License Holder with an Openly Carried Handgun.
"Pursuant to Section 30.07, Penal Code (Trespass by License Holder with an
Openly Carried Handgun) A Person Licensed under Subchapter H, Chapter 411,
Government Code (Handgun Licensing Law), may not enter this Property with a
Handgun that is Carried Openly."
Codigo Penal §30.07 Traspasar Portando Armas de Mano al Aire Libre con
Licencia.
"Conforme a la Seccion 30.07 del codigo penal (traspasar portando armas de
mano al aire libre con licencia), personas con licencia bajo del Sub-Capitulo H,
Capitulo 411, Codigo de Gobierno (Ley de licencias de arma de mano), no deben
College Station, TX Page3 Printed on 611712016
June 23, 2016City Council Workshop Meeting Agenda - Final
entrar a esta propiedad portando arma de mano al aire libre.”
Page 4 College Station, TX Printed on 6/17/2016
City Hall
1101 Texas Ave
College Station, TX 77840
College Station, TX
Legislation Details (With Text)
File #: Version:116-0179 Name:FY 2017 Community Development Budget and
proposed Annual Action Plan
Status:Type:Presentation Agenda Ready
File created:In control:3/23/2016 City Council Workshop
On agenda:Final action:6/23/2016
Title:Presentation, possible action, and discussion of the proposed FY 2017 Community Development
Budget and PY 2016 Action Plan to be submitted to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development as per the requirements of the Community Development Block Grant and HOME
Investment Partnership Program grant.
Sponsors:Debbie Eller
Indexes:
Code sections:
Attachments:Attachment 1 -FY 2017 Proposed Community Development Budget.pdf
Attachment 2- FY 2017 Plan Development Process Summary
Attachment 3 - FY 2017 CDBG Public Service Funding Summary & Recommendations
Attachment 4 - FY 2017 CDBG Public Facility Funding Summary & Recommendations
Attachment 5 - 2015-2019 Community Development Goals
Attachment 6 - 2016 Income Limits
Attachment 7 - Map
Attachment 8 Community Development Project Descriptions
Action ByDate Action ResultVer.
Presentation, possible action, and discussion of the proposed FY 2017 Community Development
Budget and PY 2016 Action Plan to be submitted to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development as per the requirements of the Community Development Block Grant and HOME
Investment Partnership Program grant.
Relationship to Strategic Goals:
·Financially Sustainable City
·Core Services and Infrastructure
·Neighborhood Integrity
·Diverse Growing Economy
Recommendation(s):Staff recommends that Council receive a presentation regarding the proposed
FY 2017 Community Development Budget and PY 2016 Action Plan and provide any feedback and
or direction as desired.
Summary:Staff will present the proposed 2017 Community Development Budget and PY 2016
Action Plan.Included in the Plan are goals,objectives,and funding recommendations for projects
and programs.Each year,the City is required to submit to the U.S.Department of Housing and
Urban Development (HUD)a one year Action Plan describing projects and activities to be funded
College Station, TX Printed on 6/17/2016Page 1 of 3
powered by Legistar™
File #:16-0179,Version:1
Urban Development (HUD)a one year Action Plan describing projects and activities to be funded
with the community development grants received.Action Plan activities must correspond to the 2015
- 2019 Consolidated Plan.
HUD requires that the Action Plan and Budget be delivered by August 16,2016,therefore these are
presented prior to the Councils consideration of the overall City budget.The new grant amounts
available for PY 2016 includes $983,111 in Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)funds and
$372,121 in HOME Investment Partnership Grant (HOME)funds.The budget includes previously
programmed but unspent grant funds from current years in the amount of $291,526 in CDBG and
$747,466 in HOME,in addition to expected program income in the amount of $33,930 (HOME)to be
received from reconstruction loans executed in previous years and recaptured funds from the
disposition of the Holleman property in the amount of $2,386,933 (CDBG).
CDBG and HOME funds may only be used to:(1)benefit low-and moderate-income persons;(2)aid
in the elimination of slum and blighting influences,and/or;(3)meet a particular urgent need.Further,
CDBG funds may be used to meet local needs through a wide range of community development
activities, while HOME funds may only be used for affordable housing activities.
The proposed plans and budget were developed using input received from a series of public
hearings,program committee meetings,and citizen input.The goals and objectives in the 2015-2019
Consolidated Plan were followed in preparing this years Plan.These goals and objectives were
prepared to meet the specific needs of lower-income citizens,and to provide support for families
working towards self-sufficiency and are now being presented to Council for discussion and input.
Staff will return to Council at the July 28th meeting to make available its final draft of the Action Plan,
Budget and to request approval.
Historically,the City has utilized these funds for a variety of programs and activities,including:
affordable housing programs (homebuyer assistance,security deposit assistance,rehabilitation,
leveraged development for new construction,and minor repairs);funding of direct services to low-
income families;economic development;code enforcement;acquisition;demolition;and park,street,
infrastructure and public facility improvement in low-income areas of the city.
Budget & Financial Summary: See attached financial summaries for the proposed FY 2017
Community Development Budget for CDBG and HOME funds. Staff will be prepared to answer
questions regarding the proposed plans and/or budget
Attachments:
Attachment 1:Proposed FY 2017 Community Development Budget Summary
Attachment 2:Plan Development Summary
Attachment 3:Proposed FY 2017 Public Service Funding Recommendations
Attachment 4:Proposed FY 2017 Public Facility Funding Recommendations
Attachment 5: PY 2015 - 2019 Community Development Goals
Attachment 6:2016 Median Income Limits
Attachment 7:Map of Eligible Community Development Areas
Attachment 8:Community Development Project Descriptions
Attachment 9:Proposed FY 2017 (PY 2016)Action Plan and Budget -Available for Review in
CSO
College Station, TX Printed on 6/17/2016Page 2 of 3
powered by Legistar™
File #:16-0179,Version:1
College Station, TX Printed on 6/17/2016Page 3 of 3
powered by Legistar™
Attachment 1: FY 2017 Proposed Community Development Budget
PROJECT CDBG & HOME
CARRY-OVER
CDBG & HOME NEW
ALLOCATIONS
CDBG & HOME
TOTAL PROPOSED
Owner-Occupied
Rehabilitation $102,067 **$121,555 $223,622
Acquisition $0 ***$889,687 $889,687
Demolition $10,000 $0 $10,000
Interim Assistance $2,500 $0 $2,500
Homebuyer Assistance $145,502 $185,579 $331,081
CHDO $228,152 $55,864 $284,016
CHDO Operating
Expenses $8,960 $18,621 $27,581
Construction/Leveraged
Development $259,135 $0 $259,135
Housing Services $0 $20,000 $20,000
Rental Rehabilitation $6,917 $0 $6,917
Code Enforcement $2,602 $63,170 $65,772
Tenant Based Rental
Assistance $0 $12,500 $12,500
Public Service Agency
(See Attachment 3) *$38,732 $147,466 $186,198
Public Facility
(See Attachment 4) $184,424 ***$1,978,159 $2,162,583
Economic Development $50,000 ***$50,000 $100,000
Grant Administration $0 $233,865 $233,865
Recaptured Funds/
Program Income CDBG
HOME
***$2,386,996
**$33,930
Total Community
Development Budget $4,815,457
* Carry-over funds represent 4th quarter payments for FY 2016
** HOME Loan proceeds to be utilized for Rehabilitation when realized
*** Includes FY 17 CDBG Grant and anticipated proceeds from sale of Holleman
Attachment 2: Consolidated Plan and Budget Development Process Summary, FY 2017
Event Date
Pre-proposal workshop for agencies Feb. 15, 2016
Public hearing on Consolidated Plan and Budget (Lincoln Center) Mar. 8, 2016
JRFRC proposals due Mar. 24, 2016
JRFRC Meeting Apr. 7, 2016
Apr. 14, 2016
Apr. 21, 2016
Apr. 28, 2016
May 5, 2016
May 18, 2016
JRFRC Public Service Agency public hearing May 18, 2016
30-Day Public Comment Period begins June 22, 2016
First presentation of Consolidated Plan and Budget to City Council June 23, 2016
Public hearing to present goal and objectives and public comments July 5, 2016
regarding the proposed PY 2016 Annual Action Plan (Lincoln Center)
30-Day Public Comment Period ends July 21, 2016
Request council approval by consent agenda of PY 2016 Annual Action Plan July 28, 2016
and Budget
PY 2016 Annual Action Plan due to HUD no later than Aug. 16, 2016
Attachment 3: FY 2017 CDBG Public Service Funding Summary & Recommendations
Agency Program Requested Recommended
Funding Funded Items Funding
City
Big Brothers Big Sisters
of South Texas
Brazos Valley
Mentoring Program $32,000 $25,606 Service Delivery
Coordinator
College
Station
Brazos Maternal & Child
Health Clinic, Inc.
The Prenatal Clinic $50,000 $30,000
Medical Items & Testing
Medical Provider
Bryan
Catholic Charities BV Financial
Stability Program $50,000 $21,432
Case Manager,
Program Manager,
Benefits,
Rent/Utility Asst.
Bryan &
College
Station
Easter Seals East Texas,
dba Brazos Valley
Rehabilitation Center
Counseling and
Case Management
Program
$45,000 $33,750 Social Worker
Contracted Services
College
Station
Family Promise of
Bryan-College Station Case Management $25,000 $20,000 Case Management College
Station
Mental Health Mental
Retardation Authority of
Brazos Valley
Mary Lake Peer
Support Center $39,499 $32,715 Therapist, Utilities,
Auto, Maintenance Bryan
Twin City Mission, Inc.
Case
Manager/Client
Assistance Program
$36,362 $27,489 Case Manager, Client
Assistance
College
Sation
Unity Partners dba
Project Unity
Safe Harbour
Supervised
Visitation Program
$40,000 $30,000 Personnel, FICA,
Security
College
Station
Voices for Children
Court Appointed
Special Advocates
of BV
$32,715 $19,755 Personnel/Salaries
Benefits Bryan
BV Affordable Housing
Corporation
BV Financial
Fitness Center $39,145 $0
Heart of Texas Goodwill
Industries, Inc. GoodPath $39,111 $0
Total $428,832 $240,747
Attachment 4: FY 2017 CDBG Public Facility Funding Summary & Recommendations
Activity Recommended
Funding Description
Nimitz Street
Rehabilitation $184,424
Funds were utilized in FY 14 for engineering and design of a
standard 2-lane local street with sidewalk on Nimitz from Lincoln
Avenue to Ash Street. The current street configuration is a
substandard rural section and is not centered in the right-of-way
and within 5 feet of several single-family dwellings on the western
side lots. FY 15 funds will be used to complete easement
acquisition and begin construction.
San Saba Sidewalk
Construction $188,578 FY 17 funds will be utilized to construct sidewalks on San Saba.
Design was completed in FY 16 with CDBG funds.
Northeast Sewer
Trunkline PH1 $1,497,306
Funds from the FY 2107 grant and recaptured funds generated
from the sale of the Holleman property will be utilized for design of
the upgrade to this trunkline and Phase 1 of the construction.
Georgie K. Fitch Park
Improvements $127,875
FY 17 funds will be used for the design and construction of
sidewalks connecting a parking lot throughout the park including
the library.
Southewest Parkway
North Sidewalks – PH1 $164,400
FY 17 funds will be used for the design of sidewalks construction &
improvements to meet ADA requirements and construction of
sidewalks included in Phase 1 of the project.
Total $2,162,583
Attachment 5: PY 2015-2019 Community Development Goals
Goals Summary Information
Sort
Order
Goal Name Start
Year
End
Year
Category Geographic
Area
Needs Addressed Funding Goal Outcome Indicator
1 Rental Housing - Rehabilitation 2015 2019 Affordable
Housing
Rental Housing
Special Needs
HOME:
$75,000
Rental units rehabilitated:
10 Household Housing Unit
2 Rental Housing - Construction 2015 2019 Affordable
Housing
Rental Housing
Special Needs
HOME:
$300,000
Rental units constructed:
50 Household Housing Unit
3 Owner Housing -
Rehabilitation/Reconstruction
2015 2019 Affordable
Housing
Owner-Occupied
Housing
CDBG:
$50,000
HOME:
$275,000
Homeowner Housing
Rehabilitated:
16 Household Housing Unit
4 Owner Housing - Demolition 2015 2019 Affordable
Housing
Non-Housing
Community
Development
Owner-Occupied
Housing
Public Facilities &
Infrastructure
CDBG:
$50,000
Buildings Demolished:
5 Buildings
5 Rental/Owner Housing - Code
Enforcement
2015 2019 Non-Housing
Community
Development
Rental Housing
Owner-Occupied
Housing
CDBG:
$500,000
Housing Code
Enforcement/Foreclosed Property
Care:
25000 Household Housing Unit
6 Homeownership - Down
Payment Assistance
2015 2019 Affordable
Housing
Homeownership HOME:
$500,000
Direct Financial Assistance to
Homebuyers:
25 Households Assisted
7 Homeownership - Financial
Literacy
2015 2019 Affordable
Housing
Homeownership Other:
375 Other
8 Homeownership - Construction 2015 2019 Affordable
Housing
Owner-Occupied
Housing
Homeownership
CDBG:
$400,000
HOME:
$400,000
Homeowner Housing Added:
4 Household Housing Unit
Sort
Order
Goal Name Start
Year
End
Year
Category Geographic
Area
Needs Addressed Funding Goal Outcome Indicator
9 Homelessness - TBRA Security
Deposits
2015 2019 Homeless Rental Housing
Homelessness
Special Needs
HOME:
$125,000
Tenant-based rental assistance /
Rapid Rehousing:
375 Households Assisted
10 Homelessness - Outreach and
Assessment
2015 2019 Homeless
Non-Homeless
Special Needs
Non-Housing
Community
Development
Homelessness
Special Needs
Public Services
CDBG:
$10,000
Other:
20 Other
11 Homelessness - Services 2015 2019 Homeless Homelessness
Public Services
CDBG:
$70,000
Public service activities other than
Low/Moderate Income Housing
Benefit:
1200 Persons Assisted
12 Special Needs - Services 2015 2019 Non-Homeless
Special Needs
Special Needs
Public Services
CDBG:
$150,000
Public service activities other than
Low/Moderate Income Housing
Benefit:
1100 Persons Assisted
13 Public Services - Health Care
Services
2015 2019 Non-Housing
Community
Development
Special Needs
Public Services
CDBG:
$350,000
Public service activities other than
Low/Moderate Income Housing
Benefit:
3600 Persons Assisted
14 Public Services - Youth Services 2015 2019 Non-Housing
Community
Development
Public Services CDBG:
$110,000
Public service activities other than
Low/Moderate Income Housing
Benefit:
850 Persons Assisted
15 Public Services - Senior
Services
2015 2019 Non-Homeless
Special Needs
Non-Housing
Community
Development
Special Needs
Public Services
CDBG:
$20,000
Public service activities other than
Low/Moderate Income Housing
Benefit:
100 Persons Assisted
Sort
Order
Goal Name Start
Year
End
Year
Category Geographic
Area
Needs Addressed Funding Goal Outcome Indicator
16 Public Services - Domestic
Abuse & Neglect
2015 2019 Non-Homeless
Special Needs
Non-Housing
Community
Development
Special Needs
Public Services
CDBG:
$80,000
Public service activities other than
Low/Moderate Income Housing
Benefit:
850 Persons Assisted
17 Public Services - Other 2015 2019 Non-Housing
Community
Development
Public Services CDBG:
$20,000
Public service activities other than
Low/Moderate Income Housing
Benefit:
100 Persons Assisted
18 Public Facilities - Street
Infrastructure
2015 2019 Non-Housing
Community
Development
Public Facilities &
Infrastructure
CDBG:
$1,500,000
Public Facility or Infrastructure
Activities other than Low/Moderate
Income Housing Benefit:
25000 Persons Assisted
19 Public Facilities - Sidewalk
Infrastructure
2015 2019 Non-Housing
Community
Development
Public Facilities &
Infrastructure
CDBG:
$500,000
Public Facility or Infrastructure
Activities other than Low/Moderate
Income Housing Benefit:
15000 Persons Assisted
20 Public Facilities - Other
Infrastructure
2015 2019 Non-Housing
Community
Development
Public Facilities &
Infrastructure
CDBG:
$100,000
Public Facility or Infrastructure
Activities other than Low/Moderate
Income Housing Benefit:
5000 Persons Assisted
21 Public Facilities - Park
Improvements
2015 2019 Non-Housing
Community
Development
Public Facilities &
Infrastructure
CDBG:
$500,000
Public Facility or Infrastructure
Activities other than Low/Moderate
Income Housing Benefit:
20000 Persons Assisted
22 Economic Development -
Business Loan Program
2015 2019 Non-Housing
Community
Development
Economic
Development
CDBG:
$150,000
Jobs created/retained:
25 Jobs
Sort
Order
Goal Name Start
Year
End
Year
Category Geographic
Area
Needs Addressed Funding Goal Outcome Indicator
23 Economic Development - Job
Training
2015 2019 Non-Housing
Community
Development
Economic
Development
CDBG:
$50,000
Public service activities other than
Low/Moderate Income Housing
Benefit:
250 Persons Assisted
Goal Descriptions
1 Goal Name Rental Housing - Rehabilitation
Goal
Description
Encourage and facilitate the rehabilitation of rental units.
2 Goal Name Rental Housing - Construction
Goal
Description
Encourage and facilitate the construction of new affordable rental units through nonprofit or for-profit partners. Additional sources of
funds include tax credits through the State of Texas and private funds.
3 Goal Name Owner Housing - Rehabilitation/Reconstruction
Goal
Description
Encourage and facilitate maintenance of residential units by low- and moderate-income homeowners through minor repair grants
(CDBG) and residential rehabilitation or reconstruction loans (HOME).
4 Goal Name Owner Housing - Demolition
Goal
Description
Encourage and facilitate the removal of dilapidated residential structures and/or address community emergencies.
5 Goal Name Rental/Owner Housing - Code Enforcement
Goal
Description
Utilize code enforcement regulations to maintain the integrity of older neighborhoods. Funds will support Code Enforcement Officer
position(s).
6 Goal Name Homeownership - Down Payment Assistance
Goal
Description
Encourage and support programs and projects that provide financial assistance to low- and moderate-income households purchasing
existing or new affordable homes.
7 Goal Name Homeownership - Financial Literacy
Goal
Description
Encourage and support programs and projects that provide education and counseling to lower-income homeowners and prospective
homebuyers.
8 Goal Name Homeownership - Construction
Goal
Description
Encourage and support programs and projects that construct new housing units for low- and moderate-income homebuyers.
9 Goal Name Homelessness - TBRA Security Deposits
Goal
Description
Preventing homelessness through the provision of assistance for low-income households to secure and sustain safe, decent affordable
housing. This is a coordinated effort among affordable housing providers and the City to provide security deposit assistance to eligible
households.
10 Goal Name Homelessness - Outreach and Assessment
Goal
Description
Fostering coordination, collaboration, and increased resources to assess community needs, available services, and service gaps. This
information may be used to target and improve service provision.
11 Goal Name Homelessness - Services
Goal
Description
Assist homeless persons in meeting health and human service needs; provide training and counseling opportunities to help with the
transition to self-sufficiency. This goal will be met through public service provision.
12 Goal Name Special Needs - Services
Goal
Description
Encourage and facilitate organizations that provide social and/or housing services to special needs populations.
13 Goal Name Public Services - Health Care Services
Goal
Description
Encourage and support nonprofit providers of health and dental care to deliver programs to low- and moderate-income families and
individuals.
14 Goal Name Public Services - Youth Services
Goal
Description
Encourage and support nonprofit providers of youth services and programs to deliver programs to low- and moderate-income families.
15 Goal Name Public Services - Senior Services
Goal
Description
Encourage and support nonprofit providers of mental health care and substance abuse counseling services to deliver programs to low-
and moderate-income families and individuals.
16 Goal Name Public Services - Domestic Abuse & Neglect
Goal
Description
Encourage and support nonprofit providers of domestic abuse and neglect services and programs to deliver programs to low- and
moderate-income families.
17 Goal Name Public Services - Other
Goal
Description
Encourage and support nonprofit providers of other public services and programs to deliver programs to low- and moderate-income
families.
18 Goal Name Public Facilities - Street Infrastructure
Goal
Description
Rehabilitation and expansion of street infrastructure.
19 Goal Name Public Facilities - Sidewalk Infrastructure
Goal
Description
Rehabilitation and expansion of sidewalk infrastructure.
20 Goal Name Public Facilities - Other Infrastructure
Goal
Description
Rehabilitation and expansion of other infrastructure, including water and sewer lines and flood drain improvements.
21 Goal Name Public Facilities - Park Improvements
Goal
Description
Improve or expand park facilities including green space, neighborhood parks, and recreational facilities.
22 Goal Name Economic Development - Business Loan Program
Goal
Description
Rehabilitate and/or develop new spaces for businesses to better realize job creation.
23 Goal Name Economic Development - Job Training
Goal
Description
Support and expand community-wide training and employment activities targeting low- and moderate-income households.
Attachment 6: 2016 Median Income Limits
2016 MEDIAN INCOME LIMITS
City of College Station
Community Development
This list supersedes all other lists of prior dates.
Household 60% 80%
1 $24,780 $33,000
2 $28,320 $37,700
3 $31,860 $42,400
4 $35,340 $47,100
5 $38,220 $50,900
6 $41,040 $54,650
7 $43,860 $58,450
8 $46,680 $62,200
The left column (Household) refers to the number of people in the home. The two columns on
the right refer to the maximum combined income allowed per year by HUD guidelines in order
to qualify for a Community Development program at 60% and 80% of the Area Median Income
(AMI).
Attachment 7: Map of Eligible Community Development Areas
This product is for informational purposes and may not have been prepared for or be suitable for legal, engineering, or surve ying
purposes. It does not represent an on-the-ground survey and represents only the approximate relative location of property
boundaries. No warranty is made by the City of College Station regarding specific accuracy or completeness.
Attachment 8: Community Development Project Descriptions
Owner-Occupied Housing Assistance
HOME and CDBG funds will be used for housing rehabilitation, minor repairs, weatherization, home security,
and reconstruction for low-moderate income homeowners; the removal of architectural barriers; and the
inspection, testing and abatement of lead hazards. Funds will also be used for program delivery costs
including staff salaries and benefits.
Demolition
CDBG funds will be used for clearance, demolition, and removal of dilapidated structures that have been
deemed uninhabitable in accordance with City codes, including the movement of structure to other sites.
Funds will also be used for program delivery costs including staff salaries and benefits.
Interim Assistance
In case of a community emergency affecting the health and safety of residents, CDBG funds will be utilized
to address immediate threats and for financial and technical assistance to coordinate clean -up efforts to
eligible households.
Homebuyer Assistance
Down payment and closing cost assistance provided to eligible, qualified homebuyers through deferred no
interest loans, which include a shared equity component, with HOME funds. Funds will be used for program
delivery costs including staff salaries and benefits.
Community Housing Development Organization
HOME funds will be made available to an eligible CHDO for the acquisition, development and construction
of affordable housing units or the rehabilitation of existing housing units.
CHDO Operating Expenses
HOME funds are allowable for 5% of grant for operating/administration expenses incurred by eligible CHDO
to build capacity to carry out current and future CHDO activities.
Construction – Leveraged Development and Non-Profit Partners
HOME funds will be used to facilitate the development of new affordable housing or the renovation of existing
housing for low-income residents. Activities may include the acquisition of land, soft costs, or construction of
single-family or multi-family units.
Housing Services
CDBG funds will be used for costs associated with processing applicants for all HOME housing assistance
programs and marketing efforts. Expenses will include staff salaries and benefits and homebuyer/
homeowner counseling program.
Rental Rehabilitation
HOME funds will be matched with private funds to rehabilitate rental properties that will maintain affordable
rents for low-income households for a specified period of time following the completion of the project. Projects
will be selected based on the following priorities: bringing the unit up to City Codes and HUD standards,
upgrade systems, energy conservation upgrades, exterior repairs, and other upgrades that increase
marketability.
Code Enforcement
CDBG funds will be used for salary and benefits to support code enforcement activities in targeted low-to-
moderate income areas in College Station. Two officers in the Community Services Department focus efforts
in targeted areas.
Tenant Based Rental Assistance
Using HOME funds, CD staff will administer a security deposit assistance program for low income individuals
and families who will reside in housing units located in a HTC property located in College Station. Current
properties include The Haven Apartments, The Heritage at Dartmouth, and Santour Court. Other eligible
properties include Terrace Pines Apartments and Villas of Rock Prairie. CD staff will work with the Housing
Choice Voucher Program to provide security deposit assistance to qualified voucher holders securing
housing in College Station. CD Staff will also work with BVCAA, which offers affordable rental units to lower-
income households in College Station.
Public Services
15% of the City’s CDBG fund allocation will be used in partnership with CDBG funds from the City of Bryan
to fund non-profit social service agencies in the community. The Joint Relief Funding Review Committee, a
Citizen Committee comprised of three members from the City of College Station and three fr om the City of
Bryan, review program proposals from area nonprofits and recommend funding amounts based on their
review. Funds are awarded to nonprofit programs who serve primarily low and moderate income residents of
College Station and Bryan.
Public Facility
Funds will be used to design, engineer, construct, or rehabilitate streets, sidewalks, parks, water and
wastewater utilities, or other infrastructure improvements in College Station.
Economic Development
Funds will be utilized in the establishment of a revolving loan program to spur economic development and
create or retain jobs for qualified low- and moderate-income persons.
Program Administration
HOME and CDBG funds will be used for management, planning and administration of the City’s PY 2014
CDBG, HOME and other eligible grant programs for LMI citizens. Staff will provide capacity building and
technical assistance as needed to citizens, builders, developers, and service providers. Funds from the
administrative budget are made available to Project Unity to provide planning and reporting support to CD
staff and coordinate a variety of community meetings to address the needs of low- and moderate-income
residents, available services, and resources among local service providers. The City will utilize administrative
funds to provide education to the community regarding Federal Fair Housing laws and affirmatively further
fair housing in College Station.
City Hall
1101 Texas Ave
College Station, TX 77840
College Station, TX
Legislation Details (With Text)
File #: Version:116-0352 Name:Progress Update on Impact Fees
Status:Type:Presentation Agenda Ready
File created:In control:6/3/2016 City Council Workshop
On agenda:Final action:6/23/2016
Title:Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding a progress update on Water and Wastewater
Impact Fees and Roadway Impact Fees.
Sponsors:Alan Gibbs, David Coleman
Indexes:
Code sections:
Attachments:
Action ByDate Action ResultVer.
Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding a progress update on Water and Wastewater
Impact Fees and Roadway Impact Fees.
Relationship to Strategic Goals:
·Good Governance
·Financially Sustainable City
·Core Services and Infrastructure
·Neighborhood Integrity
·Diverse Growing Economy
·Improving Mobility
Recommendation(s): N/A
Summary: In November 2015, City Council directed staff to prepare contracts for engineering firms to
perform studies, conforming to State law, regarding possible implementation of impact fees for
water/wastewater and roadways. In January 2016, City Council executed engineering contracts with
Freese and Nichols, Inc. and Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., respectively. In February 2016, City
Council established the Impact Fee Advisory Committees (IFACs). These efforts have progressed
with initial reports and meetings with the consultants and IFACs.
Over the next three months, staff will be bringing several items for City Council action related to the
subject impact fees in accordance with state law. This presentation will highlight background,
progress, and future items related to these efforts.
College Station, TX Printed on 6/17/2016Page 1 of 2
powered by Legistar™
File #:16-0352,Version:1
College Station, TX Printed on 6/17/2016Page 2 of 2
powered by Legistar™
City Hall
1101 Texas Ave
College Station, TX 77840
College Station, TX
Legislation Details (With Text)
File #: Version:116-0368 Name:2016 Citizen Survey
Status:Type:Presentation Agenda Ready
File created:In control:6/7/2016 City Council Workshop
On agenda:Final action:6/23/2016
Title:Presentation and discussion on the 2016 Citizens Survey.
Sponsors:Colin Killian
Indexes:
Code sections:
Attachments:College Station 2016 Report Final
Action ByDate Action ResultVer.
Presentation and discussion on the 2016 Citizens Survey.
Relationship to Strategic Goals:
·Good Governance
·Financially Sustainable City
·Core Services and Infrastructure
·Neighborhood Integrity
·Diverse Growing Economy
·Improving Mobility
·Sustainable City
Recommendation(s): Staff recommends Council receive the report.
Summary: From April 1-30, National Service Research (NSR) of Fort Worth conducted a survey of
College Station residents to help the city assess and prioritize a wide range of services and needs.
The surveys were mailed to 8,000 randomly-selected households, which were also given the option
of completing the survey online. Any College Station resident could complete the online survey.
Participants were asked to rate various city services, quality of life issues and community
characteristics, and to rank their priorities.
The survey was publicized through local media outlets along with the city’s website, cable TV
channel and social media. A total of 2,015 responses were received, including 1,472 online and 543
by mail. The sample also included 511 students from Texas A&M and Blinn College. The margin of
error for this sample size at a 95 percent confidence level is plus or minus 2.2 percent.
A representative sample was received from four geographic areas within the city. In addition, the
survey includes a benchmark comparison with other Texas cities that conducted surveys within the
last two years.
College Station, TX Printed on 6/17/2016Page 1 of 2
powered by Legistar™
File #:16-0368,Version:1
NSR performed several surveys for the City of College Station in the late 1990s and early 2000s, as
well as the city’s last survey in 2012.
Budget & Financial Summary: The city paid NSR $9,850 to administer the survey. Other firms were
considered, but NSR was selected because of its experience in conducting city surveys and its low
bid.
Attachments:
2016 NSR Citizen Survey Report
College Station, TX Printed on 6/17/2016Page 2 of 2
powered by Legistar™
Citizen Survey
April 2016
1
Page
Survey Objectives 3
Methodology 4
Geographic Survey Distribution 6
City Service Priorities 7
Utility Service Ratings 15
Quality of Life 17
Importance of Community Characteristics 27
City Employees and Service 32
Public Safety 35
City Communication Efforts 38
Municipal Facilities 42
Benchmark Data 47
Demographics 53
Conclusions 57
National Service Research –Background/Contact Information 62
Table of Contents
2
Survey Objectives
Identify Key Measures of Quality of Life
Satisfaction with City Services (Quality vs. Importance)
Assess Experience with City Communication Tools
Identify and Prioritize City Resource Allocation, Budgeting
and Policy Decisions
Identify Where to Maintain and Improve City Services
3
The sampling plan included a mailed survey to 8,000 households proportionately
distributed within four geographic areas. Households had the option of completing the
mailed survey or completing the survey online via the City website.
Residents were informed about the survey through a multifaceted approach:
Press releases from the City (one introductory release prior to the survey mailing)
Mailed survey to 8,000 households
Promotional video -YouTube, city cable channel, social media (on-going throughout the data
collection period)
Email messages to all homeowner associations (on-going throughout the data collection
period)
Multiple social media posts –Facebook, Twitter (on-going throughout the data collection
period)
Paid Facebook ads (targeted toward all residents and specific demographic groups)
City website front page online survey link (on-going throughout the data collection period)
Surveys were mailed on March 25, 2016.
Survey cut-off date was April 30, 2016.
A total of 543 responded to the mailed survey and 1,472 responded to the online
survey. The margin of error of this sample size (2,015) at a 95% confidence level is
plus or minus 2.2%.
The citizen survey and detailed survey tables are presented in the Appendix of the
technical volume report.
Methodology
4
Methodology
Survey Design
National Service Research (NSR) worked closely with the City of College Station staff
throughout the research process. The survey design was based upon the 2012
citizen survey with additional input from city staff.
This study provides a measurement of how citizens feel about city service delivery
and programs. The data should be considered along with other factors such as
input from city officials and city staff when making budget and policy decisions.
5
30%
20%
33%
Geographic Survey Distribution
Q. In what area of College Station do you live?
17%
6
City Service Priorities
7
ImportanceQuality
80%
89%
90%
86%
97%
87%
99%
98%
98%
97%
69%
63%
45%
56%
84%
67%
48%
28%
93%
86%
0%50%100%
Police Department Services
Maintaining streets and roads
Biking/walking facilities
Programs to retain and support
existing businesses
Fire Department Services
Managing traffic congestion
Attracting business and jobs
Managing trash and recycling
Enforcing traffic laws
RANK
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Providing a variety of youth
recreation programs10
THE GAP –City Service Importance vs. Quality Rating
RANK 1 -10
Q. How important are these city services?
Q. How would you rate the quality of these City
of College Station Services?
8
QUALITY ratings shown herein are
for EXCELLENT/GOOD scores.
IMPORTANCE ratings shown herein
are for VERY IMPORTANT,
SOMEWHAT IMPORTANT scores.
RANK -Lists the city services n rank
order based upon the respondents
first, second and third most important
service.
ImportanceQuality
67%
81%
82%
75%
62%
77%
74%
83%
95%
93%
56%
66%
50%
56%
62%
73%
74%
53%
68%
75%
0%50%100%
Maintaining appearance of parks
Special events
Senior citizen services
Educating the public on crime
prevention
Managing stormwater drainage
Code enforcement services
Library services
Attracting tourism
Animal control services
RANK
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Providing a variety of adult
recreation programs20
THE GAP –City Service Importance vs. Quality Rating
RANK 11 -20
9
Q. How important are these city services?
Q. How would you rate the quality of these City
of College Station Services?
QUALITY ratings shown herein are
for EXCELLENT/GOOD scores.
IMPORTANCE ratings shown herein
are for VERY IMPORTANT,
SOMEWHAT IMPORTANT scores.
RANK -Lists the city services n rank
order based upon the respondents
first, second and third most important
service.
ImportanceQuality
80%
89%
90%
86%
97%
87%
99%
98%
98%
97%
69%
63%
45%
56%
84%
67%
48%
28%
93%
86%
0%50%100%
Police Department Services
Maintaining streets and roads
Biking/walking facilities
Programs to retain and support existing
businesses
Fire Department Services
Managing traffic congestion
Attracting business and jobs
Managing trash and recycling
Enforcing traffic laws
RANK
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Providing a variety of youth recreation
programs10
THE BIGGEST GAP –Managing Traffic Congestion
98% Importance Rating and 28% Quality Rating
10
Increase Efforts
3.Managing traffic congestion (GAP 70%)
4.Maintaining streets (GAP 51%)
5.Attracting business/jobs (GAP 19%)
7.Biking/walking facilities (GAP 30%)
8.Retain/support businesses (GAP 45%)
9.Enforcing traffic laws (GAP 26%)
11.Maintaining appearance of parks (GAP 18%)
12.Managing stormwater drainage (GAP 27%)
13.Code enforcement services (GAP 30%)
18.Educating the public on crime prevention (GAP 32%)
Maintain Efforts
1.Police services (GAP 11%)
2.Fire services (GAP 5%)
6.Managing trash/recycling (GAP 13%)
Exceeds ExpectationsLess Important
QUALITYIMPORTANCE HighLow
High
Low
10.Variety of youth recreation programs
11.Special events
14.Library services
15.Attracting tourism
16.Senior citizens services
19.Animal control
20.Variety of adult recreation programs
GAP = difference between importance versus quality ranking
RANK
Service Prioritization
RANK
RANK
11
Service Prioritization
•Maintain Efforts (High importance and high quality)
•This area shows where the City is meeting residents’ expectations. Items in this area have a
significant impact on the resident’s overall level of satisfaction. The City should maintain (or
slightly increase) emphasis on items in this area.
•Increase Efforts -Opportunities for Improvement (High importance, lower quality)
•This area shows where the City is not performing as well as residents expect. Items in this
area have an impact on citizen satisfaction and the City should increase emphasis on items in
this area.
•Exceeded Expectations (Less importance, high quality)
•This area shows where the City is performing significantly better than residents expect. Items
in this area do not significantly affect overall satisfaction. The City should maintain (or
possible reduce) emphasis on items this area.
•Less Important (Lower importance, lower quality)
•This area shows where the City is not performing well relative to its performance in other
areas. However, this area is generally considered to be less important. This area does not
significantly affect overall satisfaction with City services because these items are less
important to residents. The City should maintain current levels of emphasis in these areas.
•RANK -Lists the city services in rank order based upon the respondents
first, second and third most important service.12
Comments –Specific City Services or Departments
Q. Do you have any additional comments about specific city services or departments?
Word Clouds
Several questions throughout the report were asked in an open-ended fashion which
allowed respondents to answer without being prompted or restricted to a particular list of
answer options. For these responses NSR prepared “word clouds”. Word that were
mentioned more often appear larger and words that were mentioned less often appear
smaller.13
Comments –Specific City Services or Departments
14%
NSR grouped responses for the open-ended questions in order that they may be reported quantitatively.
702 Grouped Responses
CITY –better growth planning , focus
on infrastructure, too many
apartments, protect neighborhoods,
need affordable housing, more focus
on family housing not just students
19%
TRAFFIC –enforce traffic laws, improve
traffic flow/congestion, ban texting and
driving, need mass transit
18%
PARKS, RECREATION –more bike/trail
connections, more dog parks, more
family friendly attractions, more kid,
teen, senior activities
14%
17%POSITIVE COMMENTS –great job,
keep up the good work
STREETS/ROADS
11%UTILITIES –lower rates, drainage
issues, water fluoride levels
6%PUBLIC SAFETY –expand staff to
growth areas, improve courtesy,
more aggressive law enforcement
4%BUSINESS –maintain existing
businesses, develop downtown,
attract new businesses
4%
4%
TRASH AND RECYCLING
CODE ENFORCEMENT
14
15
Utility Service Ratings
47%
51%
48%
30%
30%
32%
-20%0%20%40%60%80%100%
Electric Utility Services
Waste Water Services
Water Services
Utility Quality Rating
ExcellentGoodFairPoor
15%
16%
17%
5%
6%
4%
16
8 out of 10 participants rated the quality of College Station utilities as excellent or good.
Quality of Life
17
59%
48%
36%
46%
49%
32%
40%
41%
49%
25%
20%
38%
34%
30%
57%
46%
50%
38%
-20%0%20%40%60%80%100%
Overall quality of city services
Value for tax dollars
Place to retire
Place to work
Place to do business
Raise a family
Place to live - Neighborhood
Place to live - City
Overall image reputation
Quality of Life Characteristics in College Station
ExcellentGoodPoor Fair
9 out of 10 participants rated College Station as a place to live and raise a family as
excellent or good.
18
What Do You Value Most About Living in College Station?
Word Cloud
19
32%
25%
21%
15%
5%
6%
6%
7%
Small town feel but has quality services of a larger
city (entertainment, cultural, religious, etc.)
Friendly people, family friendly, good quality of life
Quality education opportunities (schools, Texas A&M
University), college atmosphere, proximity to TAMU
Safety, low crime
Ease of getting around town
Parks and trails
Good city government (services, progressive, clean)
Entertainment/shopping/businesses
What do You Value Most About Living in College Station?
1,496 Grouped Responses
20
What Would You Say Should Be College Station’s Highest
Priority?
Word Cloud
21
What Would You Say Should Be College Station’s Highest
Priority?
1,567 Grouped Responses
31%
24%
22%
10%
6%
4%
8%
PUBLIC SAFETY
CITY –balanced budget, managed growth, sustainability, maintain
small town feel, quality growth/development
TRAFFIC –reduce congestion, alternative transportation methods
JOB CREATION
PARKS/RECREATION –maintain/grow P&R opportunities,
create bike/pedestrian friendly city, provide culture/art events
EDUCATION –Maintain quality education opportunities, support TAMU
MAINTAIN STREETS/ROADS
22
What Types of Retail and Commercial Development Would You
Like to See in College Station?
Word Cloud
23
1,405 Grouped Responses
What Types of Retail and Commercial Development Would You
Like to See in College Station??
9%
NONE NEEDED
25%
RESTAURANTS/RETAIL –more quality
establishments that cater to
adults/families and not just college
students
19%BRAND MENTIONS -specific
retail/restaurant brand mentions
9%
ENTERTAINMENT –more
entertainment venues, family
friendly activities
Improve mall, need more shopping
areas
Fewer chains, more local/independent
businesses
6%
3%Mixed use development –retail,
restaurants, parks, etc.
3%Water park, skate park, amusement
park
13%
9%GROCERY –more upscale grocery
stores (Whole Foods, HEB, Trader
Joe’s, Central Market)
7%
Attract businesses for job
opportunities
24
How Likely Are You to Recommend College Station
as a Place to Live?
38%
34%
56%
57%
-20%0%20%40%60%80%
2012
2016
Somewhat
Likely Very LikelyNot
Likely
Somewhat
Unlikely
4%6%
4%3%
92%of all respondents in 2016 are likely to recommend College Station as a place to live
25
61%
56%
21%
29%
-20%0%20%40%60%80%
Agree Strongly
AgreeDisagreeStrongly
Disagree
14%4%
12%4%2016
2012
College Station –Moving in the Right Direction as a Community?
85%of all respondents in 2016 agree College Station is moving in the right direction,
a 3%increase since 2012.
26
27
Importance of Community
Characteristics
Community Characteristics –Importance Rating -TOP TEN
78%
97%
92%
87%
96%
98%
86%
94%
99%
96%
0%20%40%60%80%100%120%
10 Support of sustainability, green issues
9 Appearance of neighborhoods
8 Sense of community
7 Quality shopping opportunities
6 Educational opportunities
5 Overall appearance of College Station
4 Availability of quality affordable housing
3 Job opportunities
2 Availability of medical/health facilities
1 Ease of travel around town
% Rating Very Important/Important
IMPORTANCE
RANK
28
Q. How important to you are the following community characteristics?
Q. Which THREE characteristics are the MOST important to you?
The graph below depicts the respondents rating (very important/important) of each community
characteristic. The importance rank lists the community characteristics in rank order based upon the
respondents first, second and third most important characteristic.
73%
74%
82%
68%
92%
89%
90%
91%
92%
95%
0%20%40%60%80%100%120%
20 Volunteer opportunities
19 Opportunities to participate in local govt
18 Cultural activities
17 Ease of bicycle travel around town
16 Quality of new development
15 Availability of green space
14 Business opportunities
13 Entertainment opportunities
12 Recreational opportunities
11 Quality of business/service establishments
% Rating Very Important/Important
29
IMPORTANCE
RANK
Community Characteristics –Importance Rating –RANK 11-20
Q. How important to you are the following community characteristics?
Q. Which THREE characteristics are the MOST important to you?
The graph below depicts the respondents rating (very important/important) of each community
characteristic. The importance rank lists the community characteristics in rank order based upon the
respondents first, second and third most important characteristic.
If You Could Change One Thing About College Station, What
Would it Be?
Word Cloud
30
1,608 Grouped Responses
If You Could Change One Thing About College Station, What
Would it Be?
27%
Traffic congestion, stricter traffic
laws, ban texting/driving, improve
traffic flow, need public transit
9%Improve road planning and
maintenance
9%
Efficient use of taxpayer funds, need
sustainable growth, more responsive
to citizens, maintain infrastructure
8%
Less rental housing in residential
neighborhoods, preserve
neighborhood integrity
7%Parks/trails –bike/pedestrian
friendly, more connection of trails
throughout the city
More employment and business
opportunities
12%
Improve retail options, more
entertainment activities for teens,
adults, seniors, tourists
5%More affordable housing options
5%
Promote quality development ,
downtown city center 3%
2%Lower taxes
2%
2%
2%
2%
More competitive utility rates
Improve code enforcement
Improve safety
Less focus on TAMU, consider all
citizens
1%No changes needed
31
32
City Employees and Service
Rating of City Employee Contact
32%
30%
57%
55%
-20%0%20%40%60%80%
Good ExcellentFairPoor
2012
2016
52% of all respondents in 2016 have had contact with a city employee within the past 12 months.
85%reported the contact with city employees was excellent or good.
6%9%
8%3%
33
368 Grouped Responses
How Could the City’s Customer Service be Improved?
Quicker response, follow-up to
inquiries
30%Improve customer service to citizens
29%POSITIVE comments –prompt,
professional, courteous, helpful
7%
COMMUNICATION –more
communication to citizens, easier
communication with specific
departments
Improve code enforcement
2%
Improve website, more user friendly
10%
5%TRAINING =-better training of
employees to respond to citizen
needs/questions
5%
More staff needed to respond to
citizen inquiries
2%
34
Public Safety
35
40%
Somewhat
safe
59%
Very
safe
4%
Somewhat
unsafe
How Safe do you Feel in your Neighborhood?
2016
53%
Very
safe
37%
Somewhat
safe
6%
Somewhat
unsafe2012
1%
Not Safe
0.2%
Not Safe
36
96%reported they feel very or somewhat
safe in their neighborhood, a 3%increase
since 2012
51%
51%
4%
5%
29%
27%
16%
17%
0%20%40%60%80%100%
2012
2016
Crime in College Station
INCREASING SAME
DON’T
KNOW
DECREASING
37
51%reported they feel crime is increasing, no change since 2012.
Communication
38
City Government Communication
8%
31%
26%
35%
41%
52%
48%
0%20%40%60%80%100%
7 City cable channel
6 Utility bill newsletter
5 Local radio station
4 Local newspaper
3 Local TV stations
2 Social media
1 City website cstx.gov
Q. How do you prefer to get information about city government activities?IMPORTANCE
RANK
39
The graph below depicts the percentage of how respondents prefer to get information about city
government activities. The importance rank lists the communications methods in rank order based upon
the respondents first, second and third most preferred method.
Q. How do you PREFER to get information about city government activities?
Q. Which THREE methods are the MOST important to you?
How Could the City Improve its Public Communication Efforts?
Word Cloud
60% of respondents reported they receive
enough information about city programs,
activities and events
40
41
How Could the City Improve its Public Communication Efforts?
666 Grouped Responses
Positive comments –currently doing
a good job
26%Social media
13%Email newsletter
9%
Mail, fliers, mailed newsletters
5%
Billboards, electronic signs
10%
7%More communication about new
developments, activities, events
Newspaper/more local news
3%
41
3%More proactive media/advertising
3%Partnering with local businesses
and schools regarding city news,
activities and events
2%Text alerts/messages
2%Nextdoor.com, HOA’s
2%Newsletter in utility bill
2%Enhance communication with TAMU
students and other schools
7%Improve website
Municipal Facilities
42
17%
11%
15%
24%
52%
42%
44%
56%
26%
33%
28%
18%
5%
14%
14%
3%
0%20%40%60%80%100%
Southwood Community Center
Lincoln Recreation Center
College Station City Hall
Municipal Court
Quality Rating of Municipal Facilities
PoorFairGoodExcellent
Percentages exclude no opinion responses..
43
Importance Rating –Additional Facilities to be
Provided by the City
50%
45%
48%
39%
29%
29%
31%
48%
-20%0%20%40%60%80%100%
Community meeting and activity space
Senior activities and programs
City offices and services
Youth activities and programs
Very Important
Somewhat
Important
Not
important
at all
Somewhat
Unimportant
87% of all respondents reported that youth activities and programs were important to be
provided by the city.
44
45
Comments about College Station’s Municipal Buildings and
Facilities
Word Cloud
46
Comments about College Station’s Municipal Buildings and
Facilities
235 Grouped Responses
5%
7%
2%
8%
Existing facilities are adequate
Need new city hall, centralize all departments,
existing facilities old, outdated, small
Need community center , need public meeting space
Comments about library
Comments about youth activities/programs
Comments about senior center/programs
48%
8%
Comments about parks
5%
Benchmark Data
47
Benchmark Data
In order to provide College Station a reference of how the city is performing,
benchmark data is presented for peer cities and the State of Texas
These peer city municipal surveys were conducted from 2014 to 2016. The peer cities
included are listed below:
Flower Mound 2014
Midland 2014
The Woodlands 2014
Round Rock 2014
New Branfels 2015
Pearland 2015
Baytown 2015
Lewisville 2015
Sugar Land 2015
North Richland Hills 2016
In some cases not all cities listed above are included in the benchmark averages
because some questions were not included in each municipal survey.
48
Benchmark Data
Quality of City Services -% for Excellent/Good Ratings
Characteristic College
Station
2016
College
Station
2012
Peer
Cities
Texas
Fire Services 93%93%91%89%
Police Services 86 93 84 83
City’s Customer Service 85 89 77 77
Trash and Recycling 84 86 89 83
Wastewater Services 81 92 81 77
Water Services 80 92 82 78
Electric Utility 77 89 81 76
Maintaining Appearance of Parks 75 79 86 83
Library Services 75 77 87 84
Special Events 74 77 73 73
Variety of Youth Recreation Programs 69 78 65 62
Highlighted columns indicate a drop in ratings from 2012 to 2016
49
Benchmark Data
Quality of City Services -% for Excellent/Good Ratings
Highlighted columns indicate a drop in ratings from 2012 to 2016
Characteristic College
Station
2016
College
Station
2012
Peer
Cities
Texas
Stormwater Drainage 68%79%71%66%
Animal Control 66 70 68 65
Enforcing Traffic Laws 63 74 68 68
Biking/Walking Facilities 56 70 64 62
Variety of Adult Recreation Programs 56 78 61 57
Senior Citizen Services 56 67 64 64
Code Enforcement 53 65 60 55
Crime Prevention 50 58 --
Maintaining Streets/Roads 48 71 60 56
Managing Traffic Congestion 28 50 49 49 50
Benchmark Data
Public Safety –Feel Safe in Your Neighborhood?
10%
20%
40%
30%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
10%
20%
40%
30%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
10%
20%
40%
30%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
10%
20%
40%
30%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%College Station 201696%93%
88%84%
Feeling of safety in your neighborhood increased 3% from 2012 to 2016
College Station 2012Peer CitiesTexas51
Benchmark Data
Quality of Life -% for Excellent/Good Ratings
Characteristic College
Station
2016
College
Station
2012
Peer
Cities
Texas
Your City as a Place to Live 91%93%89%84%
Recommend Your City as Place to Live 91 92 90 86
Your City as a Place to Raise a Family 89 93 88 78
Your City’s Overall Image/Reputation 87 80 80 79
Your Neighborhood as a Place to Live 86 87 79 78
Quality of City Services 84 85 82 77
Your City as a Place to Work 80 77 71 65
Your City as a Place to do Business 79 74 -57
Your City as a Place to Retire 74 77 76 68
Value of City Services for Tax Dollars 68 69 62 59
Highlighted percentages indicate an increase in ratings from 2012 to 2016
52
Respondent Demographics
53
Respondent Age
Respondent Demographics
Own vs. Rent
Gender
Female
59%
Male
41%
71%29%Own
Rent
Years Lived in College Station
28%
22%
14%
19%
17%Under 3
3-6
7-10
11-20
Over 20
11%21%19%15%16%18%
Under 25 25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 and over
54
Household Size
Housing Type
Respondent Demographics
21%62%11%4%2%
1 2 3 4 5+
76%
Live in
a single
family
home
Age Groups of Children
61%
17%
20%
9%
9%15-18
13-15
6-12
Under 6
No kids
55
Respondent Demographics
Attended Texas A&M or Blinn College?
Neither
74%
23%
3%
Highest Education Received
5%
19%
2%
38%
36%
High School
Some college/technical
Completed technical school
Graduated college
Graduate/advanced degree
56
Conclusions
57
Maintaining Streets/Roads
(GAP 51%, Importance Rank #4)
Biking/walking facilities
(GAP 30%, Importance Rank #7)
Programs to retain/support
businesses
(GAP 45%, Importance Rank #8)
Enforcing traffic laws
(GAP 26%, Importance Rank #9)
Manage Traffic Congestion
(GAP 70%, Importance Rank #3)
Conclusions –Top Candidates for Improvement
58
Conclusions –Quality of Life / Safety
9 out of 10 respondents rated College
Station as an EXCELLENT or GOOD place to
live.
9 out of 10 respondents rated College
Station as an EXCELLENT or GOOD place to
raise a family.
9 out of 10 are likely to recommend College
Station as a place to live.
96%feel very or
somewhat safe in
their neighborhood
59
It was clear that throughout the report that managing traffic is a high priority among
residents.
Although several city service ratings were down since 2012, 85%of all respondents in
2016 agree College Station is moving in the right direction, a 3%increase since
2012.
The study showed an increase in ratings among residents for:
UP 7% -The City’s overall reputation and image
UP 5% -The City as a place to do business
UP 5%-Attracting tourism
UP 4% -Attracting business and jobs
UP 3% -The city as a place to work
UP 1% -Programs to retain and support existing businesses
The top five (in rank order) community characteristics of most importance to residents
that should receive focus from the city:
#1 Ease of car travel around town
#2 Availability of medical/health facilities
#3 Job opportunities
#4 Availability of quality affordable housing
#5 Overall appearance of College Station
Conclusions
60
•Community
•EmployeesCommunicate
•Budgeting
•Resource Allocation/
Planning
Use results to
inform decision
making
62
Conclusions –WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?
61
Contact: Andrea Thomas, Owner
2601 Ridgmar Plaza, Suite 2
Fort Worth, Texas 76116
817-312-3606
e-mail: andrea@nationalserviceresearch.com
web site: www.nationalserviceresearch.com
National Service Research (NSR), founded in 1989, is a full-service
market research consulting firm and conducts market studies for the
public and private sector. NSR conducts various types of consumer
and business research including focus groups and surveys
nationwide. NSR’s owner and founder, Andrea Thomas, over thirty -
five years of professional market research experience.
63
National Service Research
62
City Hall
1101 Texas Ave
College Station, TX 77840
College Station, TX
Legislation Details (With Text)
File #: Version:116-0370 Name:RVP Compliance Report
Status:Type:Updates Agenda Ready
File created:In control:6/8/2016 City Council Workshop
On agenda:Final action:6/23/2016
Title:Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding the 2015 Compliance Report by the Research
Valley Partnership.
Sponsors:Jennifer Prochazka
Indexes:
Code sections:
Attachments:
Action ByDate Action ResultVer.
Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding the 2015 Compliance Report by the
Research Valley Partnership.
Relationship to Strategic Goals:
·Diverse Growing Economy
Recommendation(s): None; no action is required.
Summary: This item is in response to a City Council request for information from the Research Valley
Partnership (RVP) regarding project compliance.
Budget & Financial Summary: N/A
Attachments: N/A
College Station, TX Printed on 6/17/2016Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™