The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About01/28/2013 - Special Agenda Packet - City CouncilTable of Contents Agenda 2 Retreat Item No. 3 - Council Strategic Plan Update Coversheet Revised 4 Current Strategic Plan 5 Performance Measures 17 Survey results 37 Workbook 86 Retreat Item No. 4 - Boards & Commissions Cover Sheet Updated 119 Retreat Item No. 5 - Lick Creek Park Nature Center Cover Sheet Revised 120 Retreat Item No. 6 - Conference Center Coversheet revised 121 1 CITY OF COlLEGE STATION Home a/Texas A&M University·Mayor Council members Nancy Berry Blanche Brick Mayor Pro Tem Jess Fields Karl Mooney John Nichols Interim City Manager Julie Schultz Frank Simpson James Benham Agenda College Station City Council Retreat Monday, January 28, 2013, 8:00 a.m. MTF Assembly Room -1603 Graham Road College Station, Texas 1. Call meeting to order. 2. Presentation and overview of the Retreat Agenda. 3. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding the 2013 update of the City Council's Strategic Plan. 4. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding the timing of appointments to City Boards and Commissions. 5. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding the development of the Lick Creek Park Nature Center. 6. Presentation, possible action, and discussion on options for the future of the Conference Center facility and operations. 7. Presentation, recap and discussion regarding next steps. 8. Executive Session will be held in the MTF Assembly Room. 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 near the intersection of George Bush Drive and Holik Street in College Station 9. Take action, ifany, on Executive Session. 10. Adjourn. APPROVED: _________ City CouncifRetreat Monday, Janu 8 2 Page 12 Notice is hereby given that a Retreat of the City Council of the City of College Station, Texas will be held on the 28th day of January, 2013 at 8:00 a.m. respectively in the MTF Assembly Room -1603 Graham Road, College Station, Texas. The following subjects will be discussed, to wit: See Agenda Posted this 24th day of January, 2013 at 5:00 pm ~~ City Secret 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, 1101 Texas Avenue, in College Station, Texas, and the City's website, www.cstx.gov. The Agenda and Notice are readily accessible to the general public at all times. Said Notice and Agenda were posted on January 24, 2013 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 2013. CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS Subscribed and sworn to before me on this the day 2013. ~"nT<lll·" 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. January 28, 2013 Retreat Agenda Item No. 3 Council Strategic Plan Update To: Frank Simpson, Interim City Manager From: Bob Cowell, AICP, CNU-A, Executive Director - Planning & Development Services Agenda Caption: Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding the 2013 update of the City Council’s Strategic Plan. Recommendation: N/A Summary: For several years, the Council has developed and relied upon an annual Strategic Plan to aid them and the staff in the development of their annual budget and guide their major initiatives for the upcoming year. Staff assists the Council in the development of the strategic plan at their annual retreat. In 2011, Council adjusted the Plan development process so that this effort occurred in January to better align with the City’s budget development process and election cycle. Budget & Financial Summary: N/A Attachments: 1. Current Council Strategic Plan (2012 Update Version) 2. Current Strategic Plan Performance Measures Overview 3. Citizen Survey Results (2012) 4. Strategic Plan Development Workbook 4 5 Vision College Station…will be a vibrant, progressive, knowledge-based community which promotes the highest quality of life by… ensuring safe, tranquil, clean, and healthy neighborhoods with enduring character; increasing and maintaining the mobility of College Station citizens through a well-planned and constructed inter-modal transportation system; expecting sensitive development and management of the built and natural environment; supporting well planned, quality and sustainable growth; valuing and protecting our cultural and historical community resources; developing and maintaining quality cost-effective community facilities, infrastructure and services which ensure our city is cohesive and well connected; and pro-actively creating and maintaining economic and educational opportunities for all citizens College Station will continue to be among the friendliest and most responsive of communities and a demonstrated good partner in maintaining and enhancing all that is good and celebrated in the Brazos Valley. It will continue to be a place where Texas and the world come to learn, live, and conduct business! 2 6 Promotion and advancement of the community’s quality of life is what we, the Council view as our mission on behalf of the citizens of College Station. Through the Strategic Planning process, City Council has identified six key initiatives or focus areas: Financially Sustainable City Core Services and Infrastructure Neighborhood Integrity Diverse Growing Economy Improving Mobility Sustainable City By identifying and implementing strategies for each of these key initiatives, we stand committed to help the citizens of College Station realize their vision for the City. We, the Council are committed to the success of your great City! Mayor Nancy Berry Mayor Pro-tem Dave Ruesink Blanche Brick Jess Fields Karl Mooney Katy-Marie Lyles Julie Schultz 3 7 Financially Sustainable City Wise stewardship of the financial resources provided to the City resulting in its ability to meet current service demands and obligations without compromising the ability of future generations to the same 4 Strategies Balanced budget Diversity in revenue sources Keep property tax rate one of the lowest in State for similar size cities Maintain current ratings from bond-rating services Enterprise operations rates set to meet service demands Phased lowering of reliance on Utility Return on Investment for General Fund use Seek grants and other outside funding Maintain and rehabilitate equipment, facilities, and infrastructure on a strategic schedule Establish reserve funds to enable strategic maintenance and replacement of infrastructure and equipment Seek efficiencies in delivery of services and facilities Maximize transparency of expenditures and fiscal policies and procedures Conduct routine audits to ensure accountability, to maximize efficiencies, and to eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse Set fees to recover costs of delivery of services at appropriate levels Share information and communicate with citizens about City fiscal issues through various media outlets 8 Core Services and Infrastructure Efficiently, effectively, and strategically placed and delivered core services and infrastructure that maintains citizens health, safety, and general welfare and enables the City’s economic growth and physical development 5 Strategies Maintain program accreditations and certifications Employer of choice – Attracting and retaining an engaged and highly professional staff Meet or exceed all state/federal standards Guide private and public land use decisions Plan for and invest in infrastructure, facilities, services, personnel, and equipment necessary to meet projected needs and opportunities Maintain and rehabilitate equipment, facilities, and infrastructure on a strategic schedule Maintain an Fire ISO rating of 2 or better Provide opportunities for citizens to experience and learn about public safety programs (Citizens Police and Fire Academy) Provide opportunities for citizens to learn about City services and facilities (Citizens University) Share information and communicate with citizens about core services and infrastructure through various media outlets Continued use of technology to more effectively and efficiently deliver services to citizens Continued support of programs that support agencies engaged in social justice efforts – Twin City Mission, United Way, Project Unity, etc. Continued support of programs that promote fair and affordable housing 9 Neighborhood Integrity Long-term viable and appealing neighborhoods 6 Strategies Proactive code enforcement in identified target areas Use of Federal and State funds to assist in providing affordable housing Use of Federal and State funds to assist in addressing community development needs and opportunities Geographic-based approach to delivering police services Continue investments in maintaining and rehabilitating infrastructure and facilities in neighborhoods Continued partnerships with TAMU and others in addressing off- campus student housing Expansion of electronic opportunities to remain informed and to alert City to issues and concerns Continued planning with neighborhood residents to address concerns and capitalize on opportunities Share information and communicate with neighborhood groups through multiple media outlets 10 Diverse Growing Economy Diversified economy generating quality, stable full-time jobs bolstering the sales and property tax base and contributing to a high-quality of life 7 How will we support a diverse growing economy? Support expansion of “consumer-oriented” economy – retail, restaurant, and services Protect major economic assets from incompatible encroachments – Easterwood airport, TAMU, BioCorridor Support diversification of “consumer-oriented” economy – tourism, regional athletic events, regional medical center, etc Expand diversification efforts into bio-technology Plan for and invest in infrastructure, facilities, services, personnel, and equipment necessary to meet projected needs and opportunities Keep property tax rates as one of the lowest in State for comparable size cities Maintain competitive utility rates Ensure regulations and standards consider impacts on businesses Protect properties from crime and property damage Ensure adequate land is available and serviceable for economic needs and opportunities Maintain relationship with local and regional economic partners Share information and communicate with citizens and businesses about economic conditions through various media outlets 11 Improving Mobility Safe, efficient and well-connected multi-modal transportation system designed to contribute to a high-quality of life and be sensitive to surrounding uses 8 Strategies Provide complete streets that accommodate vehicles, bicyclists, and pedestrians Ensure streets have features that promote walkability - sidewalks, short block length, landscaping Enhance transit opportunities through partnerships Provide for land uses that support multi-modal opportunities Plan for infrastructure necessary to meet projected growth and physical development Seek federal and state funding to construct facilities Make investments to avoid traffic congestion for long periods of time Promote a well-connected system of residential streets and collector avenues to lessen strain on expensive arterial boulevards Identify and fund a multi-year capital improvements program Maintain and rehabilitate system to avoid costly replacement Maximize efficiency of system – intersection improvements, traffic signal timing, signage Participate in BCS mobility initiative with regional partners Share information and communicate with Citizens about mobility issues through various media outlets 12 Sustainable City Conservation and environmental awareness that is fiscally responsible and results in a real and tangible return on investment to the City 9 Strategies Enhance conservation efforts – electric, water, recycling Purchase of energy from renewable resources Protect potable water supply and ability expand to meet projected demands Support and implement green building practices for City facilities when a clear fiscal benefit is demonstrated Conduct sound land use planning guided by the Comprehensive Plan Maintain and enhance participation in FEMA CRS program Acquire flood-prone areas and their associated riparian areas through the Greenway acquisition program Support alternative energy production activities – solar, methane to energy, etc. Implement an energy efficient City fleet Continue to seek grants and other sources of outside funding to support efforts Community education and information about conservation efforts and City programs 13 City Leadership Team 2012 Management Team Bob Cowell, Jr., Executive Director Planning & Development Services Jeff Kersten, Executive Director Business Services Chief Robert Alley, Fire Department Chief Jeff Capps, Police Department David Coleman, Director Water Services Chuck Gilman, Director Public Works David Massey, Director Electric Utilities Alison Pond, Director Human Resources Ben Roper, Director Information Technology David Schmitz, Director Parks and Recreation Jay Socol, Director Public Communications Jason Stuebe, Assistant to the City Manager Council Appointees Ty Elliott, City Internal Auditor Sherry Mashburn, City Secretary Carla Robinson, City Attorney Judge Edward Spillane III, Municipal Judge Mayor Mayor Nancy Berry Mayor Pro- Tem Dave Ruesink Blanche Brick Jess Fields Katy-Marie Lyles Karl Mooney Julie Schultz City Manager David Neeley Deputy City Manager Kathy Merrill Deputy City Manager Frank Simpson 10 14 City’s Recognition of Excellence - 2011 Accredited Police Department – Commission for Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies Accredited Parks and Recreation Department – Commission for Accreditation of Parks and Recreation Agencies Planning & Development Services – Certificate of Achievement for Planning Excellence – Texas Chapter American Planning Association] College Station Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways Master Plan – Planning Project of the Year – Texas Chapter American Planning Association Honorable Mention Bicycle Friendly City – League of American Bicyclists Reliable Public Power Provider – American Public Power Association Traffic Safety Award – Texas Municipal Courts Education Center Top 10 Cities for Raising Families – Kiplingers Top 10 Cities for Business – Forbes Top 10 Cities for Jobs/Career – Forbes Top 5 Best Small Metros in US – Miliken Institute Top 20 Cities for Education – Forbes Top 5 Cities for Military Retirement - USAA Marshall Wallace/Public Works Department - Employee of the Year 11 15 16 17 Strategic Plan Performance Measures Strategic Plan provides the direction. • Financial Forecast and Annual Budget • Department Business Plans • Day to day activities Multi level Monitoring, tracking and reporting system. • High Level – Council Review • Executive Level – City Manager Review • Management Level – Director Review Performance measures provide one means of determining progress being made on the Strategic Plan. • Survey Data • Strategy Updates Performance Measures are key to determining how successful we are at implementing the strategies. High level performance measures have been identified by strategy. These measures will be reported quarterly. Measures will continue to be refined. Key Indicators will also be identified. 2 18 Strategic Plan Performance Measures Strategic Goal • Tie to strategic plan Objectives and Measures Types of Measures • Effectiveness • Efficiency • Output Reporting Frequency – Quarterly Measure Trend • Positive • Neutral • Negative 3 19 Promotion and advancement of the community’s quality of life is what we, the Council view as our mission on behalf of the citizens of College Station. Through the Strategic Planning process, City Council has identified six key initiatives or focus areas: Financially Sustainable City Core Services and Infrastructure Neighborhood Integrity Diverse Growing Economy Improving Mobility Sustainable City By identifying and implementing strategies for each of these key initiatives, we stand committed to help the citizens of College Station realize their vision for the City. Performance Measures are key to determining how successful we are at implementing the strategies. 4 20 Financially Sustainable City Wise stewardship of the financial resources provided to the City resulting in its ability to meet current service demands and obligations without compromising the ability of future generations to the same 5 Strategies Balanced budget Diversity in revenue sources Keep property tax rate one of the lowest in State for similar size cities Maintain current ratings from bond-rating services Enterprise operations rates set to meet service demands Phased lowering of reliance on Utility Return on Investment for General Fund use Seek grants and other outside funding Maintain and rehabilitate equipment, facilities, and infrastructure on a strategic schedule Establish reserve funds to enable strategic maintenance and replacement of infrastructure and equipment Seek efficiencies in delivery of services and facilities Maximize transparency of expenditures and fiscal policies and procedures Conduct routine audits to ensure accountability, to maximize efficiencies, and to eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse Set fees to recover costs of delivery of services at appropriate levels Share information and communicate with citizens about City fiscal issues through various media outlets 21 Financially Sustainable City Wise stewardship of the financial resources provided to the City resulting in its ability to meet current service demands and obligations without compromising the ability of future generations to the same 6 Selected Key Performance Measures and Indicators Fiscal Services Provide transparent, timely and useful financial reporting. Prepare balanced budget annually and provide quarterly financial updates. Accounts payable/expenditures posted on the City website weekly. Internal Audit Perform audits in accordance with city needs. Percentage of annual audit plan completed. All Areas Manage consistent with City Manager direction, Council Strategic Plan, and approved budget. Expenditures are within budget. Negotiate and monitor service contracts to maximize efficiencies in service delivery. 22 Core Services and Infrastructure Efficiently, effectively, and strategically placed and delivered core services and infrastructure that maintains citizens health, safety, and general welfare and enables the City’s economic growth and physical development 7 Strategies Maintain program accreditations and certifications Employer of choice – Attracting and retaining an engaged and highly professional staff Meet or exceed all state/federal standards Guide private and public land use decisions Plan for and invest in infrastructure, facilities, services, personnel, and equipment necessary to meet projected needs and opportunities Maintain and rehabilitate equipment, facilities, and infrastructure on a strategic schedule Maintain an Fire ISO rating of 2 or better Provide opportunities for citizens to experience and learn about public safety programs (Citizens Police and Fire Academy) Provide opportunities for citizens to learn about City services and facilities (Citizens University) Share information and communicate with citizens about core services and infrastructure through various media outlets Continued use of technology to more effectively and efficiently deliver services to citizens Continued support of programs that support agencies engaged in social justice efforts – Twin City Mission, United Way, Project Unity, etc. Continued support of programs that promote fair and affordable housing 23 Core Services and Infrastructure Efficiently, effectively, and strategically placed and delivered core services and infrastructure that maintains citizens health, safety, and general welfare and enables the City’s economic growth and physical development 8 Selected Key Performance Measures and Indicators: Police Department Reduce Crime; and Increase Safety on Public Roadways Decrease the number of part 1 crimes and motor vehicle accidents through preventive patrol, education and enforcement. Reduce Fear of Crime Through Education and Developing Partnerships in the community Increase the number of presentations and public service announcements. Offer Citizen’s Police Academy twice annually. Fire Department Timely, effective and efficient response and mitigation to Fire, EMS, Hazardous Materials Emergencies Percent of time first arriving unit is on scene within 5.5 minutes. Percent of time ISO rating is 2 or better. Provide quality fire prevention, education, and investigation services Total number of Fire Prevention activities completed. Completion of Citizen’s Fire Academy. Planning and Development Services Ensure all new construction is designed, built and constructed in accordance with adopted City codes. Number of development permits and building permits issued annually. 24 Core Services and Infrastructure Efficiently, effectively, and strategically placed and delivered core services and infrastructure that maintains citizens health, safety, and general welfare and enables the City’s economic growth and physical development 9 Selected Key Performance Measures and Indicators Public Works Implement Street and Drainage Maintenance Plans Percentage of scheduled preventative/corrective and pavement rehabilitation completed. Percentage of scheduled drainage imp. projects completed. Deliver capital projects within defined scope, timeline and budget Number of capital projects in planning/design/under construction/complete. Maintain affordable and competitive sanitation rates Cost per ton of residential/commercial collection Number of residential/commercial customers per route manager Electric Provide customers with reliable, energy efficient electric system; and ensure safety of the public and employees Meet electric reliability indices Meet compliance goals and requirements/reliability indices/energy efficiency goals. Provide effective safety programs and maintain safe facilities Water/Wastewater Maintain Accreditation; meet or exceed all State/Federal standards; provide for water and wastewater demands Full Accreditation from APWA. Percent of water sold meeting all standards and effluent discharged meeting standards. Annual water demands below 85%. Utility Customer Service Fiscal Services Maintain standard for customer service excellence; obtain and record accurate and timely utility readings Percent of utility payments processed by electronic means. Percent of electric and water meter read accuracy. 25 Core Services and Infrastructure Efficiently, effectively, and strategically placed and delivered core services and infrastructure that maintains citizens health, safety, and general welfare and enables the City’s economic growth and physical development 10 Selected Key Performance Measures and Indicators Parks and Recreation Provide facilities and programs per the Parks and Recreation Master Plan Number of acres of community park land maintained. Provide diverse recreation programs that meet cost recovery policy. Citizen satisfaction with programs. Fiscal Services Maintain financial standards of excellence, and customer service standards of excellence Receipt of Certificate of Excellence in Financial Reporting, Budget Presentation, and Public Procurement. Municipal Court disposition rate. Human Resources Ensure the City has the ability to remain competitive in the labor market through compensation and benefits. Labor Market Surveys completed on a regular basis to ensure salaries and benefits align with market. City Secretary’s Office Improve the access to municipal records and information. Develop and implement a municipal records policy. Insure open records requests are responded to within 10 business days. 26 Core Services and Infrastructure Efficiently, effectively, and strategically placed and delivered core services and infrastructure that maintains citizens health, safety, and general welfare and enables the City’s economic growth and physical development 11 Selected Key Performance Measures and Indicators Public Communications Elevate the image of the City and expose information to a wide variety of audiences Increase number of social media likes, followers, shares, views, comments, etc. Participation in programs, services, meetings and events specifically marketed by Public Communications. Proactive “101” sessions with media to explain complicated issues. Information Technology Support strategic initiatives by providing support for technical services Percentage of critical system up time Technology Plan aligned with Council Strategic Plan. 27 Neighborhood Integrity Long-term viable and appealing neighborhoods 12 Strategies Proactive code enforcement in identified target areas Use of Federal and State funds to assist in providing affordable housing Use of Federal and State funds to assist in addressing community development needs and opportunities Geographic-based approach to delivering police services Continue investments in maintaining and rehabilitating infrastructure and facilities in neighborhoods Continued partnerships with TAMU and others in addressing off- campus student housing Expansion of electronic opportunities to remain informed and to alert City to issues and concerns Continued planning with neighborhood residents to address concerns and capitalize on opportunities Share information and communicate with neighborhood groups through multiple media outlets 28 Neighborhood Integrity Long-term viable and appealing neighborhoods 13 Selected Key Performance Measures and Indicators Planning and Development Services Provide proactive code enforcement in the most vulnerable neighborhoods. Percentage of proactive code enforcement cases initiated and resolved within 30 days. Percentage of reported code cases resolved within 30 days. Assist individuals in securing and retaining safe, affordable, decent housing in strong neighborhoods. Percentage of available HOME and CDBG funds disbursed. Assist residential associations in addressing neighborhood issues. Police Department Reduce Fear of Crime Through Education and Developing Partnerships in the community Provide feedback to the community through various means as it relates to crime patterns and or the lack of crime in their particular geographic area. Increase the number of citizen and business contacts made by officers in their assigned geographic areas. Track the number of Community Oriented Policing Projects addressed and resolved. Parks and Recreation Provide and maintain quality parks, facilities, and urban landscaping Number of park acres per 1,000 citizens. Park maintenance standard score. 29 Diverse Growing Economy Diversified economy generating quality, stable full-time jobs bolstering the sales and property tax base and contributing to a high-quality of life 14 How will we support a diverse growing economy? Support expansion of “consumer-oriented” economy – retail, restaurant, and services Protect major economic assets from incompatible encroachments – Easterwood airport, TAMU, BioCorridor Support diversification of “consumer-oriented” economy – tourism, regional athletic events, regional medical center, etc Expand diversification efforts into bio-technology Plan for and invest in infrastructure, facilities, services, personnel, and equipment necessary to meet projected needs and opportunities Keep property tax rates as one of the lowest in State for comparable size cities Maintain competitive utility rates Ensure regulations and standards consider impacts on businesses Protect properties from crime and property damage Ensure adequate land is available and serviceable for economic needs and opportunities Maintain relationship with local and regional economic partners Share information and communicate with citizens and businesses about economic conditions through various media outlets 30 Diverse Growing Economy Diversified economy generating quality, stable full-time jobs bolstering the sales and property tax base and contributing to a high-quality of life 15 Selected Key Performance Measures and Indicators Planning and Development Services Ensure all new construction is designed, built and constructed in accordance with adopted City codes. Number of building permits issued annually. Number of development projects approved annually. Public Works Deliver quality capital projects within the defined scope, timeline and budget. Number of capital projects in planning/design/under construction/complete. 31 Improving Mobility Safe, efficient and well-connected multi-modal transportation system designed to contribute to a high-quality of life and be sensitive to surrounding uses 16 Strategies Provide complete streets that accommodate vehicles, bicyclists, and pedestrians Ensure streets have features that promote walkability - sidewalks, short block length, landscaping Enhance transit opportunities through partnerships Provide for land uses that support multi-modal opportunities Plan for infrastructure necessary to meet projected growth and physical development Seek federal and state funding to construct facilities Make investments to avoid traffic congestion for long periods of time Promote a well-connected system of residential streets and collector avenues to lessen strain on expensive arterial boulevards Identify and fund a multi-year capital improvements program Maintain and rehabilitate system to avoid costly replacement Maximize efficiency of system – intersection improvements, traffic signal timing, signage Participate in BCS mobility initiative with regional partners Share information and communicate with Citizens about mobility issues through various media outlets 32 Improving Mobility Safe, efficient and well-connected multi-modal transportation system designed to contribute to a high-quality of life and be sensitive to surrounding uses 17 Selected Key Performance Measures and Indicators Public Works Maintain and repair traffic signals, traffic signs, and pavement markings. Percentage of traffic signal cabinets/intersections inspected and tested monthly. Linear miles of pavement markings installed or replaced. Number of traffic signs installed or replaced Number of internal/external transportation issues studied. Percentage of scheduled preventative/corrective and pavement rehabilitation completed. Number of capital projects in planning/design/under construction/complete. Planning and Development Services Neighborhood, District, and Corridor plans completed. Maintain and update as necessary transportation, sidewalk, greenways, Hike and Bike Trail Master Plans 33 Sustainable City Conservation and environmental awareness that is fiscally responsible and results in a real and tangible return on investment to the City 18 Strategies Enhance conservation efforts – electric, water, recycling Purchase of energy from renewable resources Protect potable water supply and ability expand to meet projected demands Support and implement green building practices for City facilities when a clear fiscal benefit is demonstrated Conduct sound land use planning guided by the Comprehensive Plan Maintain and enhance participation in FEMA CRS program Acquire flood-prone areas and their associated riparian areas through the Greenway acquisition program Support alternative energy production activities – solar, methane to energy, etc. Implement an energy efficient City fleet Continue to seek grants and other sources of outside funding to support efforts Community education and information about conservation efforts and City programs 34 Sustainable City Conservation and environmental awareness that is fiscally responsible and results in a real and tangible return on investment to the City 19 Selected Key Performance Measures and Indicators Public Works Increase solid waste landfill diversion through recycling programs/education. Percentage of landfill diversion due to recycling or clean green programs. Number of educational programs/seminars Total number of hybrid or alternative fuel vehicles in City fleet. Water/Wastewater Maximize use of reclaimed water systems, and encourage water conservation where practical. Number of gallons reclaimed in the last 12 months. Peak water demands below 90% of maximum. Minimize unaccounted for water to below 10%. Planning and Development Services Protect vulnerable natural areas from unsafe development practices Number of acres acquired for greenways annually. Number of acres of floodplain preserved. Number of water quality inspections conducted annually. 35 36 City of College Station Citizen Survey July 25, 2012 Conducted by: National Service Research 2601 Ridgmar Plaza, Suite 9 Fort Worth, TX 76116 37 2 Table of Contents Page Project Overview 3 Key Findings – City Service Priorities 7 Key Findings - Utility Service Ratings 17 Key Findings - Quality of Life 19 Key Findings – Importance of Community Characteristics 25 Key Findings – City Employees and Service 29 Key Findings – Public Safety 32 Key Findings – City Communication Efforts 34 Key Findings - College Station's Value Rating 37 Benchmark Data 40 Demographics 44 Conclusions 47 National Service Research – Background/Contact Information 49 38 3 Project Overview 39 4 Study Objectives National Service Research (NSR) completed a comprehensive research study for the City of College Station, Texas. The purpose of the citizen assessment study was to provide an indicator of the City’s performance measures for various city departments and programs. Identify key measures of quality of life, public safety and service delivery Input from citizens will assist city officials in resource allocation, budget and policy decisions Identify where to maintain and improve city services 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. NSR worked closely with the City of College Station staff throughout the research process. The survey design was based upon input from city staff. The citizen survey and detailed survey tables are presented in the Appendix of the technical volume report. Source: National Service Research Survey of College Station Residents, May 2012 40 5 Sampling Plan and Data Collection Overview 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 and one during the final week of data collection) Mailed survey to 8,000 households City manager’s blog (on-going throughout the data collection period) Video - YouTube, website, city cable channel (on-going throughout the data collection period) Email messages to all homeowner associations (on-going throughout the data collection period) Ad slide on the city cable channel (on-going throughout the data collection period) Social media – Facebook, Twitter ((on-going throughout the data collection period) City website front page online survey link (on-going throughout the data collection period) Surveys were mailed on April 30, 2012. Survey cut-off date was May 21, 2012. A total of 342 responses were received via the mailed survey and 511 from the online survey. The margin of error of this sample size (853) at a 95% confidence level is plus or minus 3.4%. The citizen survey and detailed survey tables are presented in the Appendix of the technical volume report. Source: National Service Research Survey of College Station Residents, May 2012 41 6 Geographic Areas A representative sampling was received from all four geographic areas. (Area A: 31%, Area B: 20%, Area C: 27% and Area D: 22%) Source: National Service Research Survey of College Station Residents, May 2012 42 7 KEY FINDINGS City Service Priorities 43 8 Importance / Quality Rating of City Services City Service Q. How Important are these city services? Q. Rate the Quality of these College Station city services Importance Rank Very/Somewhat Important % Importance Mean Score Excellent Good % Quality Mean Score Providing public safety (police, fire, etc.) 98.9% 3.88 92.9% 3.39 1 Maintaining streets and roads 98.4 3.79 70.6 2.82 2 Attracting business and jobs 88.5 3.38 63.3 2.65 3 Managing trash and recycling 95.4 3.63 85.5 3.25 4 Managing traffic congestion 94.6 3.59 50.3 2.44 5 Enforcing traffic laws 89.5 3.40 74.1 2.86 6 Programs to retain and support existing businesses 88.8 3.38 50.2 2.47 7 Providing pathways such as sidewalks, trails and bike paths 78.0 3.16 70.4 2.83 8 Maintaining appearance of parks, landscapes and facilities 89.1 3.37 79.4 3.02 9 Importance Rank – Is the sum of the first, second and third most important responses from each item. Source: National Service Research Survey of College Station Residents, May 2012 Mean score = A weighted average calculated on a scale of 1 to 4 with 4 being excellent or very important and 1 being poor or not at all important. (All Respondents) 44 9 Importance / Quality Rating of City Services City Service Q. How Important are these city services? Q. Rate the Quality of these College Station city services Importance Rank Very/Somewhat Important % Importance Mean Score Excellent Good % Quality Mean Score Managing storm water drainage 93.2% 3.52 79.4% 2.97 10 Library services 74.7 3.00 77.0 2.96 11 Code enforcement services 79.5 3.13 64.9 2.68 12 Providing a variety of recreation programs 68.0 2.85 77.6 2.97 13 Senior citizen services 65.4 2.77 66.7 2.75 14 Attracting tourism 69.1 2.80 57.4 2.58 15 Special events (Starlight Music Series, Christmas at the Creek, etc.) 55.7 2.58 77.2 2.96 16 Animal control services 78.1 3.05 69.8 2.78 17 Educating the public on crime prevention 75.1 2.97 57.7 2.62 18 (Continued) Source: National Service Research Survey of College Station Residents, May 2012 (All Respondents) 45 10 City Service Importance Mean Scores by Respondent Sub-Group All Respondents Online Mailed Owners Renters Students Providing public safety (police, fire, etc.) 3.88 3.86 3.90 3.89 3.85 3.80 Maintaining streets and roads 3.79 3.77 3.81 3.80 3.74 3.74 Attracting business and jobs 3.38 3.43 3.30 3.36 3.39 3.21 Managing trash and recycling 3.63 3.59 3.68 3.63 3.67 3.69 Managing traffic congestion 3.59 3.58 3.59 3.61 3.53 3.61 Enforcing traffic laws 3.40 3.39 3.41 3.47 3.16 3.21 Programs to retain and support existing businesses 3.38 3.41 3.33 3.35 3.41 3.26 Providing pathways such as sidewalks, trails and bike paths 3.16 3.14 3.19 3.07 3.48 3.59 Maintaining appearance of parks, landscapes and facilities 3.37 3.35 3.39 3.37 3.38 3.38 Importance Mean Scores by City Services by Respondent Sub-Groups 46 11 City Service Importance Mean Scores by Respondent Sub-Group All Respondents Online Mailed Owners Renters Students Managing storm water drainage 3.52 3.51 3.53 3.52 3.52 3.48 Library services 3.00 2.96 3.07 3.01 3.07 2.97 Code enforcement services 3.13 3.09 3.19 3.20 2.92 2.97 Providing a variety of recreation programs 2.85 2.83 2.89 2.82 2.96 2.94 Senior citizen services 2.77 2.67 2.91 2.78 2.70 2.66 Attracting tourism 2.80 2.84 2.75 2.84 2.58 2.49 Special events (Starlight Music Series, Christmas at the Creek, etc.) 2.58 2.57 2.61 2.55 2.70 2.83 Animal control services 3.05 3.01 3.11 3.07 2.98 2.98 Educating the public on crime prevention 2.97 2.94 3.02 2.96 3.04 3.12 Importance Mean Scores by City Services by Respondent Sub-Groups 47 12 Service Prioritization Most Important Least Important High Quality Rating Low Quality Rating Exceeded Expectations (Less importance and high quality) Providing a variety of recreation programs Special events Library services Continued Emphasis (High importance and high quality) Public Safety Managing trash and recycling Providing pathways (sidewalks, trails) Maintaining appearance of parks, landscapes and facilities Opportunities for Improvement (High importance and lower quality) Maintaining streets/roads Attracting businesses and jobs Managing traffic congestion Enforcing traffic laws Programs to retain/support existing businesses Managing storm water drainage Code enforcement services Less Importance (Lower importance and lower quality) Senior citizen services Attracting tourism Animal control services Educating the public on crime prevention Maintain spending Additional Dollars May be Required Citizens may be willing to give up dollars for the services that are less important Source: National Service Research Survey of College Station Residents, May 2012 48 13 Continued Emphasis (High importance and high quality) This area shows where the City is meeting customer expectations. Items in this area have a significant impact on the customer’s overall level of satisfaction. The City should maintain (or slightly increase) emphasis on items in this area. Opportunities for Improvement (High importance, lower quality) This area shows where the City is not performing as well as residents expect the City to perform This areas have an impact on customer 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 customers expect the City to perform. Items in this area do not significantly affect overall satisfaction of residents. 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 the City’s performance in other areas, however, this area is generally considered to be less important to residents. This area does not significantly affect overall satisfaction with City services because these items are less important to residents. The City should maintain current levels of emphasis in these areas. Service Prioritization Source: National Service Research Survey of College Station Residents, May 2012 49 14 What Should be College Station’s Highest Priority? Approximately 500 responses were received and the top priorities can be summarized as follows: 28% - Public safety 24% - City Balanced budget (efficient use of city funds) Managed growth Sustainability Maintain infrastructure and core services Maintain small town feel/family friendly city Maintain quality growth and development 21% - Job creation, attract new businesses, retain existing businesses 11% - Traffic, reduce congestion, alternative transportation methods 6% - Roads – maintain roads 5% - Parks and recreation – maintain/grow P&R opportunities, create bike/pedestrian friendly city, provide cultural/arts events. 4% - Education - maintain quality education opportunities, support TAMU 4% - Lower taxes, maintain affordability of housing within the city 4% - Utilities – maintain quality, provide competitive utility and water rates Source: National Service Research Survey of College Station Residents, May 2012 50 15 General Comments about City Services/Departments City -15%: Maintain fiscal responsibility Focus on infrastructure Promote economic development Too many apartments Focus on core services (public safety, utilities and infrastructure) Parks and Recreation / Library 14%: More sidewalks/trails/bike paths and connections throughout the city Playscapes for children More special events Move Christmas in the Park back to Central Park Need recreation programs for seniors Add dog park Add nature center Expand Ringer Library More natural areas Approximately 300 comments were received, several of which (18%) praised the city for doing a good job. Other general comments are summarized below: Traffic – 13%: Enforcement of traffic laws Reinstate red-light cameras Improve traffic flow Utilities – 10%: Lower electric rates Deregulate electric providers Improve water quality (add fluoride to water) Need recorded message regarding power outages Business – 7%: Too many restrictions on businesses Renovate old unused buildings Lower tax rates to attract business Public Safety – 7%: More aggressive law enforcement Source: National Service Research Survey of College Station Residents, May 2012 51 16 General Comments about City Services/Departments Trash and Recycling – 7%: Need to recycle more items (i.e., cardboard, etc.) Recycling for apartments Need recycle bins Need recycle program for hazardous waste Code Enforcement – 5%: Preserve neighborhoods Enforce code laws Streets/Roads – 4%: Repair pot holes Maintain roads Animal control – 2%: Enforce leash laws Educate public on spay and neuter program Tourism – 1%: Improve convention bureau to enhance tourism Need convention center to increase tourism Need local festivals to attract tourism (Continued) Source: National Service Research Survey of College Station Residents, May 2012 52 17 KEY FINDINGS Utility Service Ratings 53 18 Quality Rating for Utility Services A majority (89% to 92%) of respondents rated the quality of utility services (water, wastewater and electric) as excellent or good. Mean score quality ratings for each service on a 4 point scale with 4 being excellent and 1 being poor are as follows: Water services 3.33 Wastewater services 3.33 Electric utility service 3.27 41.2%47.5%8.2% 41.8%50.4%6.5% 42.2%49.4%7.3% 0%20%40%60%80%100% Electric Utility Services Waste Water Services Water Services Excellent Good Fair Poor Source: National Service Research Survey of College Station Residents, May 2012 Q. Rate the quality of these College Station City Services: 54 19 KEY FINDINGS Quality of Life 55 20 Rating of College Station Q. How Would You Rate: Excellent / Good % Fair / Poor % Mean Score College Station as a place to live? 92.8% 7.2% 3.46 College Station as a place to raise a family? 93.3 6.7 3.51 Your neighborhood as a place to live? 86.7 13.3 3.33 College Station’s overall image/reputation? 85.8 14.2 3.16 The overall quality of city services? 85.1 14.9 3.12 College Station as a place to retire? 76.7 23.3 3.11 College Station as a place to work? 77.2 22.8 3.04 College Station as a place to do business? 73.5 26.6 2.95 The value of services you receive for your tax dollars? 68.8 31.2 2.83 Mean score = A weighted average calculated on a scale of 1 to 4 with 4 being excellent and 1 being poor Source: National Service Research Survey of College Station Residents, May 2012 92% of respondents are very or somewhat likely to recommend College Station as a place to live. 56 21 Q. How Would You Rate: Rating of College Station Mean Scores by Respondent Sub-Group All Respondents Online Mailed Owners Renters Students College Station as a place to live? 3.46 3.43 3.51 3.51 3.28 3.33 College Station as a place to raise a family? 3.51 3.51 3.52 3.59 3.24 3.24 Your neighborhood as a place to live? 3.33 3.32 3.34 3.45 2.90 2.94 College Station’s overall image/reputation? 3.16 3.11 3.24 3.19 3.05 3.11 The overall quality of city services? 3.12 3.06 3.21 3.15 2.99 3.01 College Station as a place to retire? 3.11 3.07 3.17 3.19 2.91 2.93 College Station as a place to work? 3.04 2.98 3.12 3.08 2.91 2.85 College Station as a place to do business? 2.95 2.88 3.05 2.98 2.88 2.92 The value of services you receive for your tax dollars? 2.83 2.73 2.96 2.85 2.74 2.82 Rating of College Station Mean Score Comparisons by Respondent Sub-Groups 57 22 College Station – Moving in the Right Direction as a Community? A majority (82%) of respondents strongly agree or agree that College Station is moving in the right direction as a community. 4%14% 61% 21% Strongly Agree Agree Somewhat Disagree Strongly Disagree Source: National Service Research Survey of College Station Residents, May 2012 Q. Do you agree with the statement: College Station is moving in the right direction as a community? 58 23 What do You Value Most About Living in College Station? Approximately 500 responses were received and can be summarized as follows: 27% - Small town feel but has quality services of a larger city (entertainment, cultural, religious, etc.) 23% - Friendly people, family friendly, good quality of life 20% - Quality education opportunities (schools, Texas A&M University), college atmosphere, proximity to TAMU 15% - Safety, low crime  5% - Ease of getting around town  5% - Parks and trails  5% - Good city government (services, progressive, clean)  5% - Entertainment/shopping College Station is a clean, progressive, quiet and safe community with an abundance of core services yet maintains the small town feel. Totals will add to more than 100% due to multiple answers provided. Source: National Service Research Survey of College Station Residents, May 2012 59 24 What Types of Retail and Commercial Development Would You Like to See in the City? Approximately 500 responses were received, the top mentions can be summarized as follows: 17% - More up-scale retail/restaurants including specialty retail and better diversity of sit-down restaurants 13% - Attract businesses - technology, manufacturing, health care and light industry business to new commercial/office developments 13% - Retail “Village” or “Town Center” type retail with entertainment and leisure venues that is family friendly (including a “downtown” College Station utilizing a mixed use concept) 11% none needed 10% - Fewer “big box”/chain businesses and more local/independent businesses 10% - specific retail/restaurant mentions  9% - Update/improve mall  5% - more entertainment venues  4% - More upscale grocery stores (Whole Foods, HEB, Central Market, etc.)  4% - Water park, skate park, amusement park  4% - development needs to be market driven  3% - Mixed use developments to include; commercial, residential, retail, hotel, conference center  3% - Renewal/renovation of older, vacant developments  3% - more retail/restaurants that cater to adults (not just college students) Source: National Service Research Survey of College Station Residents, May 2012 60 25 KEY FINDINGS Importance of Community Characteristics 61 26 Importance Rating of College Station Community Characteristics - Top Ten Community Characteristics Very Important / Important % Somewhat Unimportant / Not Important at All % Mean Score Importance Ranking Availability of medical/health care facilities 97.5% 2.4% 3.68 1 Ease of car travel around town 91.0 9.0 3.42 2 Overall appearance of College Station 96.5 3.5 3.52 3 Job opportunities 91.2 8.8 3.47 4 Educational opportunities 92.2 7.8 3.52 5 Business opportunities 86.9 13.1 3.33 6 Quality shopping opportunities 85.3 14.7 3.16 7 Appearance of neighborhoods 95.3 4.8 3.51 8 Availability of quality affordable housing 77.2 22.8 3.07 9 Quality of business and service establishments 93.6 6.3 3.36 10 Importance Rank – Is the sum of the first, second and third most important responses from each item. Mean score = A weighted average calculated on a scale of 1 to 4 with 4 being very important and 1 being not important at all. Q. How important are the following community characteristics in College Station? Source: National Service Research Survey of College Station Residents, May 2012 (All Respondents) 62 27 Importance Rating of College Station Community Characteristics – Next Ten Community Characteristics Very Important / Important % Somewhat Unimportant / Not Important at All % Mean Score Importance Ranking Sense of community 86.6% 13.5% 3.26 11 Support of sustainability, environmental and green issues 66.7 33.3 2.88 12 Ease of bicycle travel around town 60.5 39.6 2.71 13 Availability of open space 84.8 15.2 3.24 14 Recreational opportunities 84.2 15.8 3.15 15 Quality of new development 90.9 9.2 3.34 16 Entertainment opportunities 82.9 17.1 3.09 17 Cultural activities 72.8 27.2 2.94 18 Opportunities to participate in local government 68.8 31.2 2.82 19 Volunteer opportunities 61.9 38.2 2.69 20 Importance Rank – Is the sum of the first, second and third most important responses from each item. Mean score = A weighted average calculated on a scale of 1 to 4 with 4 being very important and 1 being not important at all. Q. How important are the following community characteristics in College Station? Source: National Service Research Survey of College Station Residents, May 2012 (All Respondents) 63 28 If You Could Change One Thing About College Station What Would it Be? Approximately 500 responses were received, the top responses can be summarized as follows: 17% - Traffic congestion, stricter traffic laws, bring back red light cameras 11% - Efficient use of taxpayer funds, need sustainable growth, more progressive, more responsive to citizens, maintain infrastructure, etc. 10% - Promote quality new development/variety of development (restaurants, retail, cultural, entertainment, etc.) 10% - Parks and trails (Bike/pedestrian friendly, more connectivity of trails throughout the city)  8% - More employment opportunities (higher paying jobs, expand business opportunities, less restrictions on businesses)  5% - Lower taxes  4% - Improve road planning and maintenance  4% - Fewer students in residential neighborhood areas  3% - More competitive utility rates  3% - no change needed  3% - improve code enforcement  2% - less focus on TAMU  2% - more recycling options, recycling needed for apartments  2% - improve safety  1% - Improve water quality Source: National Service Research Survey of College Station Residents, May 2012 64 29 KEY FINDINGS City Employees and Service 65 30 Contact with City Employee(s) Impression Rating of City Employee About half (58%) of respondents reported they have had contact with a city employee in the past 12 months. A majority (89%) of respondents who had contact with a city employee said their courtesy, knowledge and responsiveness was excellent or good. 3%8% 32%57% Good Excellent Fair Poor Q. Rate your impression with the city employee(s) regarding their courtesy, knowledge and responsiveness Source: National Service Research Survey of College Station Residents, May 2012 66 31 How Can the City’s Customer Service Be Improved? Approximately 150 responses were received and can be summarized as follows: 41% of comments received praised city employees at being prompt, professional, courteous, responsive and/or helpful. Other comments: 13% - Quicker response/follow-up to inquiries 11% - Improve customer service, in general, to citizens 10% - Better training of employees to respond to citizen questions/needs  9% - More communication to citizens in general / easier communication with specific departments  3% - Offer email delivery of bills or online bill paying  2% - Improve city website in general, make it more user friendly, list of departments and who to call for various inquiries  2% - More staff needed to respond to citizen inquiries  1% - More visibility of police in neighborhoods  1% - Improve code enforcement Source: National Service Research Survey of College Station Residents, May 2012 67 32 KEY FINDINGS Public Safety 68 33 Crime in College Station One third of respondents feel crime in College Station is decreasing or staying the same. However, half (51%) of respondents feel crime in College Station is increasing. 16% 29%51% 4% Staying the same Increasing Don’t Know Decreasing Q. Do you think crime in College Station is increasing or decreasing? Source: National Service Research Survey of College Station Residents, May 2012 69 34 KEY FINDINGS City Communication Efforts 70 35 City Government Communication 8.2% 11.6% 27.0% 29.9% 42.3% 49.7% 50.1% 54.5% 0%20%40%60%80% Other City cable channel Social media Local radio stations Utility bill newsletter Local TV stations City website Local newspapers Total Respondents A majority of respondents prefer to utilize multiple methods to get information about local city government. The MOST important methods to get information to respondents about city government had similar responses. Respondents were asked to rank the three most important methods in order of preference: Local newspaper #1 Local TV stations #2 City website #3 Utility bill newsletter #4 Social media #5 Local radio stations #6 City cable #7 Q. How do you prefer to get information about city government services? Source: National Service Research Survey of College Station Residents, May 2012 71 36 How Could the City Improve its Public Communication Efforts? Approximately 200 responses were received and can be summarized as follows: 27% of responses praised the City’s communication efforts and feel they do an outstanding job. Other comments: 14% - Email newsletter with voluntary sign up with information on past/future events 8% - More communication regarding new developments 7% - Radio and TV PSA’s 7% - Newsletter in utility bill 6% - Social media - Facebook, Twitter, etc. keep it relevant and updated with a wide range of information 5% - Improve website 2% - Banners across roadways 4% - Text service to inform citizens of emergencies (severe weather, disasters, etc. Something similar to TAMU’s Code Maroon) 3% - More proactive with local media 2% - Newspaper - more local news information 2% - Billboards / electronic signs 1% - A student interface program with TAMU (Improve communication with TAMU students) 1% - Postings and partnering with local stores/businesses/restaurants regarding City news/activities 1% - Develop smart phone application 1% - Periodic town hall meetings Source: National Service Research Survey of College Station Residents, May 2012 72 37 KEY FINDINGS College Station’s Value Rating 73 38 Approach – Value Rating NSR developed a 4-star value rating system for the College Station citizen survey and included four “value” questions used to rate the city’s value in the eyes of citizen respondents overall. Each question was rated on a 4-point rating system whereby 4 is the highest rating and 1 is the lowest rating. Questions include: 1-Overall Quality of Life (overall combined scores of these questions: College Station as a place to; live, raise a family, work, retire, do business, your neighborhood, and the overall College Station image/reputation) 2-Direction City is Headed 3-Overall Quality of City Services 4-Value of Services for Tax Dollars Paid All value measures are combined to develop the City’s 4-star VALUE rating. Source: National Service Research Survey of College Station Residents, May 2012 74 39 Four-Star Value Rating Value Question % Rating “4” or “3” College Station Cities 50,000 to 150,000 Population* Quality of Life 84% 89% Quality of City Services 85% 85% Direction City is Headed 82% 74% Value of Services for Tax Dollars Paid 69% 72% Overall Average 80% 80% 80% of respondents rated College Station a “3” VALUE or higher which is comparable to cities of similar size. More than one-third (37%) rated College Station a value of “4”. Source: National Service Research Survey of College Station Residents, May 2012 *Averages included; McAllen, Flower Mound, Pearland 75 40 Benchmark Data 76 41 Benchmark Data Survey data presented on the following charts is from various municipal surveys conducted during 2011 and 2012 except for McKinney which was conducted in 2010. Percentages presented in the charts are for “excellent” and “good” ratings. Cities included in those with populations of: 50,000 to 150,000 are College Station, McAllen, Flower Mound, McKinney and Pearland. 150,000 or more are Arlington, Plano, El Paso and Dallas. 50,000 include LaPorte, San Marcos, Colleyville and Southlake. In a few cases not all cities listed above are included in the benchmark averages because some questions were not included in each municipal survey. 77 42 Benchmark Data – City Services City Characteristic College Station Average of Cities 50,000 to 150,000 Average of Cities with 150,000+ Average of Cities with 50,000 - Texas Average U.S. Average Public Safety 93% 84% 87% 83% 85% 83% Sewer / Wastewater 92 84 71 83 82 74 Garbage/Recycling 86 85 76 85 83 77 Maintenance/appearance of parks 79 82 86 86 86 77 Storm Drainage Management 79 71 72 70 71 62 Library 77 73 85 82 74 NA Traffic Enforcement 74 70 55 72 69 NA Street Maintenance 71 65 58 64 62 59 Animal Control 70 64 58 63 62 59 Senior Services 67 52 54 56 54 NA Code Enforcement 65 56 50 55 54 50 Traffic Management 50 51 51 55 52 54 Customer Service by Employees 89 82 77 76 79 69 Overall quality of city services 85 85 75 81 82 57 Percentages are for “excellent” or “good” ratings for each characteristic. 78 43 Benchmark Data – Quality of Life City Quality of Life Characteristics College Station Average of Cities 50,000 to 150,000 Average of Cities with 150,000+ Average of Cities with less than 50,000 Texas Average U.S. Average Your City as a place to live 93% 93% 75% 82% 86% NA You City as a place to raise a family 93 90 69 91 86 NA Your neighborhood as a place to live 87 89 69 91 86 NA Your City as a place to work 77 62 66 63 64 NA Your City as a place to retire 77 69 48 48 57 NA Overall direction of City 82 73 58 59 66 NA Value of services for taxes paid 69 72 59 60 64 45 Overall quality of life in City 84 89 74 82 83 80 Percentages are for “excellent” or “good” ratings for each characteristic. 79 44 KEY FINDINGS Demographics of Surveyed Respondents 80 45 Respondent Demographics 79% own their home and 21% rent. 50% were male and 50% female. 10% reported they attend Texas A& M University and 2% attend Blinn College. 56% of respondents have no children 18 or younger residing within their household, while 44% have children. The age of surveyed respondents is representative of the U.S. Census data for College Station. Mean Age: Online survey 46.6 Mailed survey 51.7 Renters 31.0 Students 29.0 23.0% 24.1% 16.9% 24.0% 12.0% 0%20%40%60%80% More than 20 11 to 20 years 7 to 10 years 3 to 6 years Less than 3 years How long have you lived in College Station? Age Category City of College Station Survey Census 2010 Under 35 25.7% 24.8% 35 to 44 19.5 20.1 45 to 54 15.5 20.0 55 to 64 15.7 16.9 65+ 23.7 18.2 Source: National Service Research Survey of College Station Residents, May 2012 81 46 Respondent Demographics Survey respondents are highly educated. 78% have completed college or have a graduate or advanced degree. 81% or respondents live in a single family home while the remaining respondents live in an apartment, town home, apartment or duplex. 42.0% 37.7% 2.2% 14.7% 3.0% 0.1% 0%20%40%60% Graduate or advanced degree Graduated college Completed technical school Some college or technical school Graduated high school Less than high school What is the highest level of education that you have completed? Source: National Service Research Survey of College Station Residents, May 2012 82 47 Conclusions 83 48 Conclusions College Station as a city and community is highly valued by its residents with 80% rating it a “3” or higher on a 4-point rating scale with regard to; quality of life, quality of city services, the direction the city is headed as a community and the overall value of services for the tax dollars they pay. Residents value College Station most because it is a clean, progressive, quiet and safe community with an abundance of core services yet maintains the small town feel. The top priorities the city should continue emphasis whereby citizens rated these with high importance and rated the current quality of services high: Public safety Managing trash and recycling Providing pathways (sidewalks, trails) Maintaining appearance of parks, landscapes and facilities Opportunities for improvement, citizens rated these with high importance and lower on quality: Maintaining streets and roads Attracting businesses and jobs Managing traffic congestion Enforcing traffic laws Programs to retain/support existing businesses Managing storm water drainage Code enforcement services Less emphasis can be placed on these services since respondents rated these services as less important and feel the city is providing them at a high quality level: Providing a variety of recreation programs Special events Library Services Source: National Service Research Survey of College Station Residents, May 2012 84 49 National Service Research (Background/Contact Information) Contact: Andrea Thomas, Owner 2601 Ridgmar Plaza, Suite 9 Fort Worth, Texas 76116 817-312-3606 817-326-6109-fax 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, has thirty-three years of professional market research experience. 85 FY2013-2014 Council Strategic Plan Development Page 1 2013 Council Strategic Plan Plan Development Workshop January 28th and 29th, 2013 86 FY2013-2014 Council Strategic Plan Development Page 2 2013 Council Strategic Plan Plan Development Workshop Table of Contents Tab A – Overview of Strategic Plan Development Process Tab B – Content and Purpose of Strategic Plan Tab C - Vision, Mission, and Core Values Tab D – Adopted City Plans and Policies Tab E - Socio-economic Conditions, Fiscal Condition, and Trends and Projections Tab F – Major Considerations and External/Internal Analysis Tab G – Key Strategic Focus Areas and Desired Outcomes Tab H – Preliminary Strategy and Performance Measures Development Tab I – Next Steps 87 FY2013-2014 Council Strategic Plan Development Page 3 Strategic Plan Development Process Council Workshop o Review Content and Purpose of Strategic Plan o Review Current City Vision, City Government Mission, and Core Values o Overview of Adopted City Plans & Policies o Overview of Existing Socio-economic Conditions, Fiscal Condition, and Trends and Projections o Overview of Major Considerations and Review of External and Internal SWOT o Review and Refinement of Key Strategic Focus Area and Discussion of Success Outcomes o Overview of Strategies vs Actions o Identification and Refinement of Key Strategies and Preliminary Identification of Performance Measures o Overview of How Actions will be Developed and Prioritized and Strategic Plan Completed Staff Refinement of Council Direction Staff Development of Final Strategies and Actions Council Workshop to Review and Approve Strategic Plan Implementation of Strategic Plan Quarterly Updates and Mid-Year Review 88 FY2013-2014 Council Strategic Plan Development Page 4 Strategic Planning and Budget Process – FY 2012-2013 January  Budget staff meets to go over general action plans for the upcoming budget season and assign duties and responsibilities.  Preliminary work begins on upcoming fiscal year budget for the Operating and Capital Improvement Program (CIP) budgets.  Personnel summaries and salary data is sent to City departments to begin preparation of the Salary and Benefits portion of the budget. February  Requests for fixed cost information as well as vehicle and equipment replacement data are sent out to the City departments.  City Council participates in a Strategic Planning Retreat to review mission and vision statements and identify strategic priorities for the upcoming fiscal year.  Budget Staff prepares and distributes 1st quarter financial reports and departmental forecasts. March  Budget analysts prepare Department and Fund summaries, prepare and update the computer system, and finalize budget amounts for fixed costs.  Budget analysts develop and analyze forecasts and preliminary rate models.  Budget Staff meets with City Departments to review/discuss/revise CIP budget submissions. April  Budget department kicks off new budget year with City departments.  Analysts begin preliminary work with Departments and assist Departments in preparing their budget submittal.  Continue analysis and preparation of the CIP budget. May  Department budgets are due back to the Budget Office.  Budget Analysts analyze and review base budget requests, requests for increases in funding via service level adjustments (SLAs), as well as budget reduction submittals with departments.  Budget Staff prepares and distributes 2nd quarter financial reports and departmental forecasts.  Budget Staff and Capital Projects Department meet with City Manager to review proposed CIP. June  Budget Staff prepares Proposed Budgets and meets with Department Directors and City Manager to discuss budget requests and service levels.  Budget Staff and Capital Project Department present the proposed CIP to the Planning and Zoning Commission and Parks and Recreation Board. July  Budget Staff prepares Proposed Budget Document.  City Council participates in a Mid-Year Strategic Plan Review. August  Present Proposed Budget to City Council.  Conduct budget workshops during scheduled Council meetings to review Proposed Operating and Capital Improvement Program budgets.  Budget Staff prepares and distributes 3rd quarter financial reports and departmental forecasts. September  Publish required Tax Notices.  Conduct required Public Hearings.  Council adoption of Budget and Tax Rate. October  Prepare Approved Budget Document and Approved Capital Improvement Programs Document. November- December  Budget Staff prepares and distributes 4th quarter financial reports and departmental forecasts.  Conduct Departmental Reviews and Special Projects.  Monitor Budget.  Request for CIP budget submissions sent out to Departments. 89 FY2013-2014 Council Strategic Plan Development Page 5 Definitions of Important Terms – Quality of Life: “An all inclusive term that includes economic prosperity, affordable homes, gainful employment, clean air and water, safe and attractive neighborhoods, ample recreational opportunities, convenient transportation systems and an active and diverse community rich in art and cultural amenities.” Core Services: “The City’s core services are public safety, construction and maintenance of infrastructure, the planning for and accommodation of land use development, and the internal services necessary to support these functions.” Infrastructure: “Physical system of roads, bridges, sidewalks, water and wastewater facilities, electrical facilities, municipal buildings; in addition to the vehicle fleet, information technology, radio and telecommunication services utilized by the City to provide municipal services.” Content and Purpose of Strategic Plan What is a Strategic Plan and Why have One? A strategic plan is generally defined as “a disciplined effort to produce fundamental decisions and actions that shape and guide what an organization is, what it does, and why it does it”1. Strategic planning “provides a systematic process for gathering information about the big picture and using it to establish a long-term direction and then translate that direction into specific goals, objectives, and actions”2. Typically, strategic plans involve the development of a long-term vision, clarification of the organization’s mission and values, and analysis of external challenges and opportunities assessing internal strengths and weaknesses, development of goals or preferred outcomes, development of strategies to realize the desired outcomes, and finally an action plan for projects and initiatives that will implement the identified strategies. Critical to this process’ success is everyone doing their part and doing it well. Vision and mission are generally viewed as the purview of the community at-large; goals and desired outcomes, a partnership between the electorate and those elected; strategies jointly developed by elected officials and staff, and finally, actions developed and implemented by staff. If elected officials don’t understand the community vision or the City government’s mission, then they will likely suffer the ire of the electorate. If Council can’t or won’t clearly define its expectations and preferences, staff will struggle to devise strategies and actions to deliver results and precious resources will be wasted. If staff doesn’t ensure projects and initiatives are aligned with Council direction and oriented to achieve their desired outcomes, they are likely to fail to achieve the outcomes they ultimately will be held accountable for. 1 John Bryson “Strategic Planning for Public and Non-Profit Organizations: A Guide to Strengthening and Sustaining Organizational Achievement (1995) 2 Theodore H. Poister and Gregory Streib “elements of Strategic Planning and Management in Municipal Government: Status after Two Decades” (2005) 90 FY2013-2014 Council Strategic Plan Development Page 6 How do We Use Strategic Plan in College Station? College Station has used a strategic planning process for several years to aid in its decision-making. Most recently with the adoption of the City’s new Comprehensive Plan and through it, clarification of the community’s vision; the Council, through a couple of different intense planning workshops developed the current multi-year strategic plan. The following graphic illustrates the strategic decision- making model used in College Station. 91 FY2013-2014 Council Strategic Plan Development Page 7 Vision, Mission, and Core Values The following items were developed as a part of the City’s Comprehensive Plan and the Council’s Five Year Strategic Plan in 2009 and are utilized to develop the direction of the City government through goals that are established each year. Community Vision College Station…will be a vibrant, progressive, knowledge-based community which promotes the highest quality of life by… - ensuring safe, tranquil, clean, and healthy neighborhoods with enduring character; - increasing and maintaining the mobility of College Station citizens through a well-planned and constructed inter-modal transportation system; - expecting sensitive development and management of the built and natural environment; - supporting well planned, quality and sustainable growth; - valuing and protecting our cultural and historical community resources; - developing and maintaining quality cost-effective community facilities, infrastructure and services which ensure our city is cohesive and well connected; and - pro-actively creating and maintaining economic and educational opportunities for all citizens College Station will continue to be among the friendliest and most responsive of communities and a demonstrated good partner in maintaining and enhancing all that is good and celebrated in the Brazos Valley. It will continue to be a place where Texas and the world come to learn, live, and conduct business! City Government Mission Statement On Behalf of the Citizens of College Station, Home of Texas A&M University, We will continue to promote and advance the community’s quality of life. Core Values Promote: - The healthy, safety, and general well being of the community - Excellence in customer service - Fiscal responsibility - Involvement and participation of the citizenry - Collaboration and cooperation - Regionalism: be active member of the Brazos Valley community and beyond - Activities that promote municipal empowerment 92 FY2013-2014 Council Strategic Plan Development Page 8 Adopted City Plans and Policies In addition to the Community Vision and the Council Strategic Plan, the City relies on a number of plans and policies to guide its actions and investments. The following is not an exhaustive list but highlights some of the most significant plans and policies currently in effect: FY2013 Budget City of College Station Comprehensive Plan Water Master Plan Wastewater Master Plan Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways Master Plan Parks and Recreation Master Plan CSPD – Blueprint for the Future Fire Protection Master Plan 5 – Year Capital Improvements Program and Annual CIP Budget Emergency Operation Plan Public Communications Plan Central College Station, Eastgate, and Southside Neighborhood Plans Medical District Master Plan Wireless Network Plan Northgate Development Plan Water Conservation Plan Drought Contingency and Water Conservation Plan Consolidated Plan (For HUD Financial Assistance) 93 FY2013-2014 Council Strategic Plan Development Page 9 Socio-economic Conditions, Fiscal Condition, and Trends and Projections In any planning effort it is important to conduct a scan of current and projected conditions and trends on such diverse topics as population, development, and tax revenues. This scan, when combined with a similar scan of internal and external strengths and weaknesses aids decision makers in understanding the current context and possible future, thus helping ground their desired outcomes and preferred strategies. Population The current population estimate for College Station is 97,585. It is estimated that the City’s population increased by 26,752 or 39% between 2000 and 2010. Since 2010, it is estimated that the population has increased by an additional 3,732 or 4%. 94 FY2013-2014 Council Strategic Plan Development Page 10 The population is projected to increase by another 46,683 persons or 48% between 2011 and 2025. Year Population (Est/Projection) 2012 (December) 97,585 2020 124,067 2025 144,268 95 FY2013-2014 Council Strategic Plan Development Page 11 Housing & Development Currently, it is estimated that the existing population is housed in nearly 40,000 housing units, nearly 70% of those units are rentals. It is projected that approximately 20,000 new dwelling units will be constructed over the next 20 years, the majority likely to be in the form of multi-family units. In 2012, there were 555 permits issued for new single-family construction worth an estimated $79 Million. This was up from 466 issued in 2011 that were worth an estimated $60 Million. In 2012, there were 51 permits issued for new commercial construction worth an estimated $49 Million. This was down from 61 issued in 2011 worth an estimated $111 Million. Current trends reflect the state and national building trends and are anticipated to continue for the next few years. 96 FY2013-2014 Council Strategic Plan Development Page 12 Economic Indicators Employment It is estimated that there are slightly more than 76,000 persons eligible for employment in College Station. It is currently estimated that slightly more than 5% of those within the workforce (i.e., not retired or not seeking employment) are unemployed, significantly lower than the unemployment rates in Texas and the U.S. In 2010, it was estimated that there were slightly more than 1,500 business establishments located in College Station. More than 32% of these establishments were engaged in retail sales, accommodations, or other personal services, all indicative of the City’s college orientation. After these, the most significant categories of establishments are Professional, Technical and Scientific Services and Finance, Insurance and Real Estate roughly 12% for each category. Sales Tax Revenues In 2012 there was over a $1 Billion of sales in College Station. The City received more than $21 Million in sales tax receipts from these same sales. While sales tax revenues were projected to remain flat for FY2012 in comparison to FY2011, they grew by over 5%. This growth is expected to continue with modest increases in sales tax revenues projected over the next couple of years. $13.8 $15.0 $15.4 $16.7 $18.0 $19.8 $19.4 $19.3 $20.3 $21.3 $21.7 $22.2 $23.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 18.0 20.0 22.0 24.0 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12* FY13* FY14* FY15* Millions of $ Sales Tax Revenue 97 FY2013-2014 Council Strategic Plan Development Page 13 108 138 101 127 126 161 165 83 93 124 128 38 49 115 31 57 75 154 46 162 124 57 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 YTDMillionsValue of New Development Residential Commercial Property Tax Revenues In 2012 private property in College Station was valued at nearly $6 Billion. The City received $25 Million in property tax receipts from the owners of these properties. Increases in ad valorem value this year are directly related to new construction and increases in existing value in the City. Public Safety Police Protection In 2012 the Police Department responded to more than 82,000 service calls. As the City continues to grow, service calls have continued to increase. In the last 5 years service calls have increased by more than 30%. Most major offense categories have decreased over time, even as service calls increase. Responses to crashes has decreased slightly recently, though alcohol-related crashes continue to increase. Fire Protection In 2012 the Fire Department responded to nearly 8,214 service calls. As the City continues to grow service calls have continued to increase. In the last couple of years service calls have increased approximately 4% annually. Most service calls (60%+) are medical-related emergencies. Utilities Electric Rates and Consumption The current electric system in College Station consists of the purchase and distribution of power to the majority of the City. Revenues generated from customers pay the expenses associated with the purchase and distribution of power. In FY12 revenues received equaled slightly more than $97 Million. Projections for FY12 are for revenues slightly in excess of $99 Million. 98 FY2013-2014 Council Strategic Plan Development Page 14 Water & Wastewater Rates and Consumption The current water distribution system provides potable water to a population of approximately 75,000. The City’s system is capable of producing approximately 29 Million Gallons per day. On average, the systems users demand somewhere between 13 and 15 million gallons per day, though peak demands can and do exceed 25 million gallons per day. The City has instituted a series of drought contingency and water conservation measures intended to help moderate these peak demands. In 2012, the City has experienced a slightly lower average daily use than in 2011 and saw peak demands remain below 22 million gallons per day. Revenues generated from customers pay the expenses associated with the provision of the potable water supply. In FY12 revenues received equaled $14.8 Million. Projections for FY 13 are for revenues to be slightly at $14.2 Million. The current wastewater collection and treatment system provides wastewater services for a population of approximately 80,000. This system consists of over 300 miles of pipes and two treatment facilities. For the most part, the system is functioning well below its design capacity, though a few capacity issues exist along certain trunk interceptor lines, where high levels of development are occurring. Both treatment plants are currently operating below their design capacity, though both will require capacity expansion in the next 10-15 years. As with electric and water services, revenues generated from customers pay the expenses associated with the collection and treatment of wastewater. In FY12 revenues received equaled approximately $12.9 Million. Projections for FY13 are for revenues to increase to $13.6 Million. 99 FY2013-2014 Council Strategic Plan Development Page 15 Fiscal Condition Revenues The City receives the revenue necessary to conduct its business from a variety of sources as noted in the following graphic. The most current City budget approved expenditures of more than $253 Million ($213 Million for Operations & Maintenance and $40 Million for Capital). Since 2009, the City’s overall budget has decreased by more than $6 Million ($259.5 Million in 2009). Ad Valorem Tax 25.32% Sales Tax 39.20% Mixed Drink & Franchise 4.49% Licenses & Permits 1.80% Intergovernmental 0.44% Parks & Recreation 0.27% Other Charges for Services 4.92% Fines, Forfeits & Penalties 6.26% Investment Earnings 0.12% Miscellaneous 0.66% Utility Transfer 16.51% General Fund - Sources Police Department 25.93% Fire Department 20.69% Public Works Department 11.67% Parks & Recreation Department 7.67% Public Library 1.59% Planning & Development Services 5.70% Information Technology 6.93% Fiscal Services 4.70% General Government 5.90% Public Agency Funding 1.50% Subsidy to Rec Fund 4.23% Other/Other Transfers Out 3.10% Contingency 0.39% General Fund - Uses 100 FY2013-2014 Council Strategic Plan Development Page 16 $0.00 $0.10 $0.20 $0.30 $0.40 $0.50 $0.60 $0.70 $0.80 $0.90 Tyler -0.207700 Sugarland -0.308950 The Woodlands -0.317300 Round Rock -0.420350 College Station -0.430687 Lewisville -0.440210 Midland -0.461088 Frisco -0.461910 Longview -0.500900 Odessa -0.512750 Mission -0.528800 Allen -0.552000 League City -0.597000 Carrollton -0.617875 Bryan -0.633308 Edinburg -0.635000 Wichita Falls -0.635260 Beaumont -0.640000 Abilene -0.686000 Denton -0.689750 Pearland -0.705100 San Angelo -0.781000 Waco -0.786232 FY2013 Ad Valorem Tax Rate Comparison of Texas Cities with a Population 75,000 to 125,000 O&M DEBT Property Tax The City has an approved tax rate of 43.0687 cents per $100 of valuation to fund growing demands for services. Current taxable property values are approximately $6 Billion. This value yielded approximately $25 Million in tax receipts in 2012. College Station continues to have one of the lowest property tax rates in Texas for a community of its size Though property values continue to increase in College Station, they are doing so at a decreasing rate. As tax rates remain consistent, the resulting tax revenue, likewise are increasing at a lower rate. 101 FY2013-2014 Council Strategic Plan Development Page 17 Sales Tax Sales tax is the largest single revenue source for the General Fund, accounting for nearly 39% of the General Fund revenues in the FY13 budget. Sales tax revenues decreased in 2009 and 2010 as a result of the national economic conditions. Prior to 2009, the City experienced increases of at least 7.5% annually. Sales tax revenues rebounded modestly in 2012 compared to 2011 (5.5% increase year over year comparision). Modest increases are projected in the next couple of years. Utility Revenues Utility revenues continue to increase from year to year. Changes in revenues have been affected by increased purchase power costs, rate changes, and weather conditions. In 2012 electric revenues were more than $97 Million, a decrease of approximately 2% over 2011 ($99 Million in 2011), which was a particularly hot year. FY13 revenue projections are estimated at slightly more than $99 Million. Annual expenditures and transfers for electric essentially match the revenues realized. In 2012 water revenues were nearly $15 Million, essentially unchanged from 2011. FY13 revenue projections are estimated at slightly more than $14 Million. The FY13 operating expenditures and transfers are projected to be slightly more than $6.5 Million, a 3.6% increase over 2011. In 2012 wastewater revenues were estimated at $12.9 Million, slightly higher than the 2011 revenues. FY13 revenue projections are estimated at slightly more than $13.6 Million. The FY13 operating expenditures and transfers are projected to be slightly more than $6.6 Million, a slight increase over 2012. Residential* 58.84% Commercial/ Industrial* 37.90% Other Operating 2.40% Investment Earnings 0.28% Other Non- Operating 0.58% Water Fund - Sources 102 FY2013-2014 Council Strategic Plan Development Page 18 Indebtedness The City’s most recent financial report (unaudited) indicated that the City’s assets exceed its liabilities by more than $422 Million. This is most directly related to the City’s investment in capital assets such as land, building, and equipment. These investments represent nearly 80% of the City’s net assets and combined with the City workforce essentially represent what City government is and does (that is provide services and facilities and equipment to deliver those services). Though these assets are essential to the mission of the City, as they are capital assets, for the most part they cannot be relied upon to pay the debt incurred by the City in acquiring the property, buildings, and equipment needed to provide services. As of 2012, the City had more than $77 Million in unrestricted net assets to meet its on-going obligations to citizens and creditors. It is estimated that the City holds investments with depreciated accumulated values of more than $543 Million (land, utilities, buildings, equipment, infrastructure, etc.) This figure represents the significant amount citizens have invested in their growing community over its 70 plus year history. With growth projected to continue, no less effort will be necessary into the foreseeable future. At the end of FY12, the City of College Station had a total debt outstanding of more than $241 Million. Of this amount, 81% comprised debt backed by the credit of the City, although a portion of this debt will be paid back with revenue sources such as electric, water, and wastewater. The remaining debt is secured primarily through electric, water, and wastewater revenues. The City’s total debt decreased by approximately 0.3% between 2011 and 2012. The City continues to maintain strong bond ratings. Fiscal and Economic Conditions and Trends The economy over the last couple of years has suffered at all levels, including locally. Though College Station has fared better than many and in the past year or two has shown renewed strength, the effects have certainly been felt locally and are expected to have impacts for the near future. Some key fiscal and economic indicators include: Modest property tax value increases. Though they continue to increase, property values are increasing at a slower rate than in previous years. Recovering but vulnerable development activities. Development activities have rebounded some in the past year or two compared to 2009 and 2010, but remain vulnerable to economic downturns. This is especially noticeable in commercial development activities. Modest sales tax revenue increases. Though more recently year over year revenues have shown modest increases, growth in revenues from these sources has slowed from previous years. It is projected sales tax revenues will continue to grow at a modest rate in the next several years. Increasing demand for services with decreasing revenues. Though revenue sources are slowing or decreasing, the population and its associated demand for public services continues to increase. 103 FY2013-2014 Council Strategic Plan Development Page 19 Between 2009 and 2013, the City’s General Fund Budget was reduced by more than $6 Million, all the while, the population is estimated to have increased by more than 4,000 people or more than 4%. 104 FY2013-2014 Council Strategic Plan Development Page 20 NOTES 105 FY2013-2014 Council Strategic Plan Development Page 21 NOTES 106 FY2013-2014 Council Strategic Plan Development Page 22 Major Considerations and External/Internal Analysis With a general understanding of the vision, the organization’s mission, its core values and the context within which decisions will be made attention can be given to some of the most significant considerations impacting the City. As part of its on-going strategic planning effort, the City has consistently conducted a scan of the external environment, paying attention to its political, economic, social, technological, environmental, and legal aspects along with an analysis of its own strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats. The following information is provided as an overview of some of the major considerations currently impacting the City as well as a refresher of the previous results of the environmental scan and SWOT analysis: Environmental Scan Political Continued skepticism of government at all levels by electorate Continued demand for accountability and results by electorate Increasing aversion toward “unnecessary” spending by government Continued expectation for high levels of public services Historically, strong local support for capital projects, even when requiring debt Continued political uncertainty and instability at the federal level Economic Vulnerable economic recovery Slow job growth Decreasing resources from state and national governments placing strains on state and county government budgets Vulnerable development activities in many sectors Locally resilient economy Costs of capital projects favorable but lessening Costs of many services increasing Strong presence of TAMU but questions of implications of outsourcing/privatizing Growing demand for medical services Implications of continued National debt Social Continued trending toward fiscally conservative policies by electorate Population growth continuing, especially in Texas with in-migration from other portions of country Population is aging 107 FY2013-2014 Council Strategic Plan Development Page 23 Locally, non-student population increasing but student-age population continues to dominate housing and market issues/considerations Technological Continued increases in demand for wireless and mobile services Technological changes continue exponentially Electorate continues demand for faster services and increased accessibility to data and records TAMU well-positioned to capitalize on growing bio-tech field Environmental Prolonged drought conditions straining natural resources and utilities locally and regionally Increased weather extremes increasing demands on services and increasing risk Increasing population and development placing strain on natural features and resources Continued increase in environmental regulations and societal expectations for clean environment Significant interest by electorate in increasing sustainability and green efforts Legal Continued erosion of home-rule authority Continued erosion of annexation abilities Continued issuances of un-funded mandates from state and federal government Increased regulatory environment, particularly in environmental, labor, and fiscal laws SWOT Analysis Strengths Strong customer service orientation Commitment to citizens current and future Highly skilled staff Very engaged electorate Well-defined operational structure and service delivery system Engaged elected and appointed officials Engaged stakeholder groups Resilient local economy History of strong conservative fiscal management Strong financial reserves Relatively new buildings and infrastructure Low cost of living High Quality of Life 108 FY2013-2014 Council Strategic Plan Development Page 24 Weaknesses Limited engagement of the “middle’ of the electorate, often addressing only “extreme” issues Lack of clearly defined desired policy outcomes Lack of clearly defined and consistent strategic approaches to achieving goals Limited success at implementing plans and policies Limited diversity in local economy Rental market weakening strength and viability of neighborhoods Adequate reserves in some governmental funds Opportunities Recently approved Master Plans can provide clarity in policies and investments Strategic Plan can provide clearly defined desired policy outcomes and preferred strategies Biocorridor and Medical Corridor present significant opportunities to diversify local economy and create quality employment Productive engagement with stakeholders and electorate can help identify solutions and address challenges Low construction costs for capital projects Increased partnerships can yield efficiencies and new opportunities Threats Stagnation in economic recovery or decline Loss of employment or research funds at TAMU due to state and national budget cuts Continued erosion of home-rule authority Inability to maintain/rehabilitate existing facilities and infrastructure Inability to expand facilities and infrastructure to keep pace with growth demands Continued weather extremes placing continued demands on utilities and services 109 FY2013-2014 Council Strategic Plan Development Page 25 Major Considerations Vulnerability of Economic Recovery Increased Service Demands by Growing Community Impacts of Budget Reductions and Service Cuts Stagnating Revenue Sources Establishing/Expanding Partnerships Balancing Capital Needs with Availability of Funds to Operate and Maintain Facilities Preferred Utility Rates and Need to Replace/Expand Aging Infrastructure How to Pay for Increasing Infrastructure Demands Citizen and Stakeholder Engagement Expanding Major Employment Opportunities Implementing Adopted Plans Completing Voter-Approved Projects Keeping Business Practices, Facilities, and Equipment Contemporary, Efficient, and Effective Continuing to Plan for Future Growth and Development Continuing to Attract, Motivate, and Retain Qualified and Engaged Staff 110 FY2013-2014 Council Strategic Plan Development Page 26 Key Strategic Focus Areas and Desired Outcomes See Attached Adopted Strategic Plan, Strategic Plan Performance Measures, and Citizen Survey Report Exercises: 1. Group Consensus on Key Strategic Focus Areas (these are the six areas identified in the Strategic Plan –does Council agree that these six areas are the “big” areas Council & Staff need to focus on) 2. Individual Idea Generation of Desired Outcomes (how would they determine success in each of the Focus Areas) 3. Individual Voting on Individually Identified Desired Outcomes 4. Group Consensus on Top 3-4 Desired Outcomes for each Focus Area Questions: Is it clear that the goals have at least some chance of being accomplished? Is it clear that the City government has a proper role in seeking the desired outcome? Has Council identified specific outcomes well enough to be able to monitor success/failure? Is it clear that the goals will move the City toward the identified vision? What assumptions are being made with the desired outcomes that may influence their success/viability? 111 FY2013-2014 Council Strategic Plan Development Page 27 NOTES 112 FY2013-2014 Council Strategic Plan Development Page 28 NOTES 113 FY2013-2014 Council Strategic Plan Development Page 29 Strategy and Preliminary Performance Measure Development The bridge between desired outcomes (goals) and specific projects or initiatives is a strategy. Strategies are simply a broadly described way to do something – a way of beginning to define the “how” of policy. Strategies are also the place where policy begins to intersect with action. It is at this location, that elected officials work closest with staff. As noted in the following graphic, vision and mission are really the purview of the community at-large, they make these decisions once or twice a generation and reinforce their beliefs through elections. 114 FY2013-2014 Council Strategic Plan Development Page 30 Goals and most importantly, the desired outcomes, are primarily the purview of elected officials. This is where policy begins to be set. With the vision and mission known, elected officials “translate” these “ideals” into slightly less abstract desired outcomes. Strategies begin to explain how the City proposes to achieve the desired outcomes. As one can imagine there are varied ways to achieve an outcome – one call walk, run, drive a car, ride a bike, take the short route, or take the long route to the store. No way is wrong, each is just different. Though visions, missions, and goals tend to stay fairly stable for long periods of time, strategies will change every few years as priorities change, conditions change, and expectations are altered. Staff helps Council identify the varied strategies that could be used to achieve the desired outcome, but ultimately Council must choose the strategy, clarifying the general direction they will and will not support. Staff can present the short-route and the long-route, the bicycle and the car, but in the end Council must choose whether they want to get to the store quickly or not, efficiently or not, etc. Only once the strategy is identified can staff select projects and initiatives to implement the strategy. Exercises: 1. Review each Focus Area Goal 2. Individually Identify Broad Policy Approaches (Strategies) for Each Focus Area Goal 2-3 for each Be general, focus on generally how to achieve desired outcome of goal Use phrases and words, don’t wordsmith at this point Highlight boundaries (what you will or will not support, where you draw the line) 3. Individually Vote for Top 2 Strategies for Each Goal Outcome 4. Group Consensus on Top 3 – 4 Strategies for Each Focus Area Goal Questions: Is it clear how these strategies can be accomplished? Is it clear that the City government is the proper party to implement the identified strategies? Has Council identified boundaries/parameters well enough for staff to develop specific actions for each strategy? Is it clear that the strategies will achieve the desired outcomes? What assumptions are being made with the strategies that may influence their success/viability? 115 FY2013-2014 Council Strategic Plan Development Page 31 NOTES 116 FY2013-2014 Council Strategic Plan Development Page 32 NOTES 117 FY2013-2014 Council Strategic Plan Development Page 33 Next Steps Plan Refinement and Adoption Staff Refinement of Goals, Desired Outcomes and Strategies – Staff will begin the “wordsmithing” process for the goals and desired outcomes provided by Council. Staff will do the same with the strategies. Staff will also conduct a preliminary “test” of the strategies against basic considerations such as legal aspects, fiscal considerations, etc. and will provide a refined list of strategies with recommendations for revisions, deletions, or additions. Finally, staff will make suggestions for additional strategies based on any relevant City Manager initiatives. Staff Development of Proposed Projects, Initiatives, and other Actions – Staff will identify the various projects, initiatives, and actions that will make up the bulk of the City’s work program for the next couple of years. Many of these will be continuation of efforts initiated with the last strategic plan but it is anticipated that several will be new or revised in response to the direction provided by Council in the strategic plan development. As part of this effort, the City Manager’s Office will identify “high-priority” projects, initiatives, and actions under each of the strategies. While progress will be expected on all of the efforts, these high-priority items will receive the greatest attention and be held to the highest standard of accountability. The results of these efforts will be presented in the form of a draft Strategic Plan at one of the Council’s workshops in March. Following further clarification by Council of the Strategic Plan, Council will be asked to adopt the Plan and staff will initiate its implementation. Plan Implementation and Monitoring Upon adoption, staff will initiate the Plan’s implementation, through the Departmental Service Plans (completed in April) and individual management and performance plans. On a quarterly basis (and if needed on a more frequent basis for high-priority items), the City Manager will provide Council with an update on progress and will notify Council of any impediments experienced limiting the ability to implement the action or impeding success of the related strategy. In July the Council will participate in a mid-year review of the Strategic Plan prior to the FY14 budget development, aiding staff in its completion prior to presentation to the Council. 118 January 28, 2013 City Council Strategic Planning Retreat Item No. 4 Board & Commission Appointments To: David Neeley, City Manager From: Sherry Mashburn, City Secretary Agenda Caption: Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding the timing of appointments to City Boards and Commissions. Summary: The City Secretary is recommending that board and commission appointments be moved to January to more closely follow the new election schedule. If the Council agrees, appointees will be notified of a 6 month holdover. Financial Summary: There is no fiscal impact. Attachments: None 119 January 28, 2013 City Council Strategic Planning Retreat Item No. 5 Lick Creek Park Nature Center To: Frank Simpson, Interim City Manager From: Chuck Gilman, P.E., PMP, Public Works Director Agenda Caption: Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding the development of the Lick Creek Park Nature Center. Relationship to Strategic Goals: Core Services and Infrastructure Recommendation(s): Staff recommends proceeding with Alternative 1. Summary: The Lick Creek Park Nature Center was included as a project in the 2008 bond authorization. The scope of the project is to design and construct an informational education center at Lick Creek Park. In June 2011 staff engaged a design team and a committee appointed by the City Council to begin developing design concepts and programming for the proposed facility. On September 13, 2012, staff delivered a presentation to the City Council that summarized three different design alternatives, and the committee recommendation. The Council requested that staff further develop the graphics and design concepts to show more detail in the renderings of the facilities and site plan, and provide an overview of programs that are being considered at the new facility. Additionally, the Council noted that convertible meeting space, restrooms, and indoor and outdoor educational opportunities remain a high priority. Staff will present two different alternatives for Council consideration. Both alternatives address the comments provided by Council at the September 13th meeting; however, the floor plan and site layout are different for each alternative. Budget & Financial Summary: Funds for this project are budgeted in the Parks Capital Improvement Project Fund in the amount of $2,495,000. Funds in the amount of $77,408 have been expended or committed to date, leaving a balance of $2,417,592 for the design and construction of this project. Attachments: None 120 January 28, 2013 Retreat Agenda Item No. 6 Conference Center To: Frank Simpson, Interim City Manager From: David Schmitz, Director, Parks and Recreation Relationship to Strategic Goal: Financially Sustainable City; Providing Core Services and Infrastructure; Neighborhood Integrity; Diverse Growing Economy Agenda Caption: Presentation, possible action, and discussion on options for the future of the Conference Center facility and operations. Recommendation(s): Staff is seeking direction from the City Council. Summary: The presentation will consist of a brief history of the facility, an overview of current operations, and several options for the future of the Conference Center facility and operations. Budget & Financial Summary: Depending on direction from the Council, there are several different budget scenarios. Currently, Conference Center operation funds are included in the FY13 proposed budget in the amount of $358,327. Attachments: None 121