HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/05/2008 - Workshop Agenda Packet - City CouncilTraditional Values, Progressive Thinking
In the Research Valley
Mayor Councilmembers
Ben White John Crompton
Mayor ProTem James Massey
Lynn McIlhaney Dennis Maloney
City Manager Lawrence Stewart
Glenn Brown David Ruesink
Agenda
College Station City Council
Workshop Meeting
Wednesday, November 5, 2008 3:00 p.m.
City Hall Council Chambers, 1101 Texas Avenue
College Station, Texas
1. Presentation, possible action, and discussion on items listed on the consent agenda.
2. Presentation, possible action, and discussion of a brief from TAMU Vice President of Student Affairs
General Joe Weber on his plans and philosophy for the Division of Student Affairs which crosses a wide
range of many services.
3. Presentation, possible action and discussion on a briefing from Midway Companies regarding the
proposed Campus Pointe development.
4. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding changes to the City’s smoking ordinance.
5. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding tree preservation in College Station and
clarification on the policy options presented by staff.
6. Presentation, possible action, and discussion of the City Council’s 2008-2009 Strategic Plan.
7. Council Calendar
November 6 BCS Chamber of Commerce Annual Banquet 6:00 pm Hilton
November 7 CS Med Open House 12:30 pm Main Lobby
November 8 Veteran’s Day Parade, Bryan
November 11 Veteran’s Day Ceremony, 6:00 pm, Veterans Park and Athletic Complex
November 17 IGC Meeting, 12:00 pm, BVCOG office
November 20 Joint Meeting with Planning and Zoning Commission
November 24 City Council Meetings, 3:00 pm and 7:00 pm
November 25 Transportation Committee, 4:30 pm, City Hall
8. Presentation, possible action, and discussion on future agenda items: A Council Member may inquire
about a subject for which notice has not been given. A statement of specific factual information or the
recitation of existing policy may be given. Any deliberation shall be limited to a proposal to place the
subject on an agenda for a subsequent meeting
9. Discussion, review and possible action regarding the following meetings: Arts Council of the Brazos
Valley, Audit Committee, Brazos County Health Dept., Brazos Valley Council of Governments, Brazos
1
Council Workshop Meeting Wednesday, November 5, 2008 Page 2
Traditional Values, Progressive Thinking
In the Research Valley
Valley Wide Area Communications Task Force, Cemetery Committee, Design Review Board, Historic
Preservation Committee, Interfaith Dialogue Association, Intergovernmental Committee, Joint Relief
Funding Review Committee, Library Committee, Metropolitan Planning Organization, National League
of Cities, Outside Agency Funding Review, Parks and Recreation Board, Planning and Zoning
Commission, Sister City Association, TAMU Student Senate, Research Valley Partnership, Regional
Transportation Committee for Council of Governments, Texas Municipal League, Transportation
Committee, Wolf Pen Creek Oversight Committee, Wolf Pen Creek TIF Board, Zoning Board of
Adjustments (Notice of Agendas posted on City Hall bulletin board).
10. Executive Session will immediately follow the workshop meeting in the Administrative Conference
Room.
Consultation with Attorney {Gov’t Code Section 551.071}; possible action. The City Council may seek
advice from its attorney regarding a pending or contemplated litigation subject or settlement offer or
attorney-client privileged information. Litigation is an ongoing process and questions may arise as to a
litigation tactic or settlement offer, which needs to be discussed with the City Council. Upon occasion the
City Council may need information from its attorney as to the status of a pending or contemplated
litigation subject or settlement offer or attorney-client privileged information. After executive session
discussion, any final action or vote taken will be in public. The following subject(s) may be discussed:
a. Application with TCEQ for permits in Westside/Highway 60 area, near Brushy Water Supply
Corporation.
b. Sewer CCN permit requests.
c. Water CCN permit requests.
d. Water service application with regard to Wellborn Special Utility District.
e. Bed & Banks Water Rights Discharge Permits for College Station and Bryan
f. Attorney-client privileged information and possible contemplated litigation of prior expenditures
of College Station funds made by Paul Urso to Texcon.
g. Legal aspects of Water Well, permits and possible purchase of or lease of water well sites.
h. Cliff A. Skiles, DVM & C.A. Skiles Family Partnership, Ltd. Water permit applications with the
Brazos Valley Groundwater Conservation District.
i. JK Development v. College Station.
j. Taylor Kingsley v. College Station.
k. State Farm Lloyds as Subrogee of Mikal Klumpp v. College Station.
l. TMPA v. PUC (College Station filed Intervention).
m. City of Bryan suit filed against College Station, Legal issues and advise on Brazos Valley Solid
Waste Management Agency contract, on proposed methane gas contract. Update on legal
proceedings for Grimes County Landfill site and contracts for development of Grimes County site.
Competitive Matter {Gov’t Code Section 551.086}; possible action The City Council may deliberate,
vote, or take final action on a competitive matter in closed session. The City Council must make a good
faith determination, by majority vote of the City Council, that the matter is a Competitive Matter. A
“Competitive Matter” is a utility-related matter that the City Council determines is related to the City of
College Station’s Electric Utility Competitive Activity, including commercial information, which if
disclosed would give advantage to competitors or prospective competitors. The following is a general
representation of the subject(s) to be considered as a competitive matter.
a. Power Supply
2
Council Workshop Meeting Wednesday, November 5, 2008 Page 3
Traditional Values, Progressive Thinking
In the Research Valley
Economic Incentive Negotiations {Gov’t Code Section 551.087}; possible action
The City Council may deliberate on commercial or financial information that the City Council has
received from a business prospect that the City Council seeks to have locate, stay or expand in or near the
city with which the City Council in conducting economic development negotiations may deliberate on an
offer of financial or other incentives for a business prospect. After executive session discussion, any final
action or vote taken will be in public. The following subject(s) may be discussed:
a. Proposed Development generally located southeast of the Intersection of Earl Rudder Freeway and
Southwest Parkway
11. Action on executive session, or any workshop agenda item not completed or discussed in today’s
workshop meeting will be discussed in tonight’s Regular Meeting if necessary.
12. Adjourn.
APPROVED:
______________________________
City Manager
Notice is hereby given that a Workshop Meeting of the City Council of the City of College Station, Texas
will be held on the 5th day of November, 2008 at 3:00 pm in the City Hall Council Chambers, 1101 Texas
Avenue, College Station, Texas. The following subjects will be discussed, to wit: See Agenda
Posted this 1st day of November, 2008 at 2:00 pm
__
E-Signed by Connie Hooks
VERIFY authenticity with ApproveIt
__________________________
City Secretary
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 November 1, 2008 at 2:00 pm and remained so posted continuously
for at least 72 hours preceeding the scheduled time of said meeting.
This public notice was removed from the official board at the College Station City Hall on the following date
and time: _______________________ by ___________________________.
Dated this _____day of _______________, 2008.
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS By____________________________________
Subscribed and sworn to before me on this the ______day of _________________,
___________________Notary Public – Brazos County, Texas My commission expires:________
3
Council Workshop Meeting Wednesday, November 5, 2008 Page 4
Traditional Values, Progressive Thinking
In the Research Valley
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.
4
November 5, 2008
Workshop Agenda Item 2
Brief from TAMU Vice President of Student Affairs
General Joseph Weber ’72, USMC (Ret)
To: Glenn Brown, City Manager
From: Hayden Migl, Assistant to the City Manager
Agenda Caption: Presentation, possible action, and discussion of a brief from TAMU Vice
President of Student Affairs General Joe Weber on his plans and philosophy for the Division
of Student Affairs which crosses a wide range of many services.
Recommendation(s): N/A
Summary: Lieutenant General Joseph Weber ’72, USMC (Ret) was appointed Vice President
of Student Affairs this past August. Mr. Weber has a distinguished career with the U.S.
Marine Corps, having served in various capacities, most recently as the head of the Marine
Corps Forces Command. His background and experience are a testament to his tremendous
leadership skills, as well as his abilities as an effective administrator in large, complex
organizations.
The Division of Student Affairs impacts every single Texas A&M student through a wide
range of functions such as student government, counseling, student activities, health
services, Rec Sports and the operations of the Memorial Student Center. Student Affairs
also works in conjunction with student leaders to facilitate activities that are central to the
Aggie Spirit, such as Muster, Silver Taps, The Big Event, Fish Camp and Parents’ Weekend.
Budget & Financial Summary: N/A
Attachments: N/A
5
November 5, 2008
Workshop Agenda Item 3
Campus Pointe Presentation
To: Glenn Brown, City Manager
From: David Gwin, Director of Economic and Community Development
Agenda Caption: Presentation, possible action and discussion on a briefing from Midway
Companies regarding the proposed Campus Pointe development.
Recommendation(s): N/A
Summary: For several years, TAMU has been exploring the possibility of developing
University-owned property located northeast of the intersection of University Drive and
South College Avenue. This general area encompasses approximately 100 acres and is
currently home to Hensel Park and partially developed as University-owned and managed
student housing.
TAMU is considering entering into a long-term ground-lease with a private developer,
Midway Companies, to realize a very dense mixed use development that could include a
number of new uses including a hotel, retail, office and residential products. Midway
Companies will provide an update on their current proposal to redevelop the area as
Campus Pointe.
Budget & Financial Summary: There is no budget or financial impact at this time.
However, Midway Companies has asked that the City consider future financial participation
and support of this proposed development. A specific request in this regard will be made of
the City at a future date.
6
November 5, 2008
Workshop Agenda Item 4
Smoking Ordinance
To: Glenn Brown, City Manager
From: Hayden Migl, Assistant to the City Manager
Agenda Caption: Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding changes to the
City’s smoking ordinance.
Recommendation(s): Staff is seeking Council direction as to what changes they would
like made to the current smoking ordinance.
Summary: The City Council requested this item at its October 9 meeting. The College
Station City Council adopted a smoking ordinance on January 30, 2001 and it was amended
on July 31, 2001. This item includes a discussion of potential changes to the current
smoking ordinance as well as staff comments to some of the possible changes. Staff was
directed to examine the current ordinance and suggest possible ways to make it more
comprehensive. A white paper titled “Strengthening College Station’s Smoke-Free
Ordinance” provided by the American Cancer Society is attached, although some of the
recommendations, such as adding a penalty for violators, are included in the City’s current
ordinance.
The City Attorney suggests that amendments be made to the current smoking ordinance
rather than adopting an entirely new ordinance. This can be accomplished by removing the
exceptions in the current ordinance or adding additional restrictions. Some of the other staff
comments regarding expansion of the smoking ordinance include:
· Calls of smoking violations could not be treated as a high priority response and often
a letter will be sent to the property owner if the smoking occurs within their
business.
· The Fire Marshal currently enforces provisions of the smoking ordinance.
· Most of the smoking complaints are about smoking too close to the door and do not
involve business owners.
· There are a few businesses that are geared specifically toward smokers and
removing all of the current exceptions through a comprehensive smoking ordinance
may have significant effects on their business (e.g. Texas Ave. Cigars and Hookah
Station).
· A comprehensive smoking ordinance would effectively prohibit smoking in the
Northgate area except on the Promenade since there are few areas greater than 20
feet away from doors of businesses. This would include the portion of College Main
that is closed off on Thursday, Friday and Saturday nights due its width.
· Additional restrictions are needed to prohibit smoking at outdoor venues (e.g. Wolf
Pen Creek, Northgate Promenade, etc.)
Budget & Financial Summary: N/A
Attachments:
1. Current smoking ordinance - Chapter 7 Health and Sanitation, Section 9 Tobacco
Products and Smoking
2. Strengthening College Station’s Smoke-Free Ordinance
7
ORDINANCE NO. 2490 I
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 7, "HEALTH AND SANITATION", OF THE
CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS BY
REPEALING SECTION 9, "TOBACCO PRODUCTS AND SMOKING OF TOBACCO
PRODUCTS IN PUBLIC PLACES"; PROVIDING FOR A NEW SECTION 9,
"TOBACCO PRODUCTS AND SMOKING"; PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY
CLAUSE, DECLARING A PENALTY, AN EFFECTIVE DATE, AND DISPENSING
WITH CULPABLE MENTAL STATE.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COLLEGE STATION,
TEXAS:
PART 1. That Chapter 7, Section 9, of the Code of Ordinances of the City of College Station,
Texas, be repealed and is hereby amended to read as set out in Exhibit "A" attached
hereto.
PART 2: That if any provision of any section of this ordinance shall be held to be void or
unconstitutional, such holding shall in no way effect the validity of the remaining
provisions or sections of this ordinance, which shall remain in full force and effect.
PART 3: That any person, firm or corporation violating any of the provisions of this ordinance
shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof, shall be
punishable by a fine of not less than Twenty-five Dollars ($25.00) nor more than Two
Thousand Dollars ($2,000.00). Each day such violation shall continue or be
permitted to continue shall be deemed a separate offense. Said ordinance, being a
penal ordinance, becomes effective ten (10) days after its passage by the City
Council, as provided by Section 35' of the Charter of the City of College Station.
\
PART 4: There shall be no requirement of a culpable mental state for a violation of Chapter 7,
Section 9, except as provided in Subsection F.
PASSED, ADOPTED and APPROVED this 30th day of January, 2001.
ATTEST: APPROVED:
CONNIE HOOKS, City Secretary ILHANEY, ~a~o&
APPROVED:
8
SECTION 9: TOBACCO PRODUCTS AND SMOKING
A. Definitions
(1) Public Meeting means a meeting required to be open to the public under TEX. Govr.
CODE, Chapter 551.
(2) Public Place means an enclosed, indoor area to which the public has access and
includes, but is not limited to the following:
(a) the common areas of a retail store, office, grocery store, or other
commercial establishments;
(b) a restaurant or cafeteria;
(c) a public or private or secondary school;
(d) a public or private institution of higher education;
(e) a hospital or nursing home;
(f) an elevator;
(g) City and school buses;
(h) City building, owned or leased by the City and used for City purposes;
(i) an enclosed theater, auditorium, movie house, or arena; or
(j) a courtroom or a jury waiting or deliberation room
(3) Smoke or smoking includes:
(a) carrying or holding a lighted pipe, cigar or cigarette of any kind or any other
lighted smoking equipment or device;
(b) lighting a pipe, cigar, or cigarette of any kind or any other smoking
equipment or device; or
(c) emitting or exhaling the smoke of a pipe, cigar, or cigarette of any kind or
any other smoking equipment or device.
(4) Bar. A bar is an establishment that is dedicated predominately to the serving of alcohol
rather than food.
B. Offense; Penalty.
(1) A person commits an offense if the person smokes at a public meeting or in a public
place or in any other enclosed, indoor area in which "no smokingn signs are
conspicuously posted by the person in charge, and the person is not in an area
designated as a smoking area under Subsection C below.
(2) It is an exception to the application of provision (1) of this subsection that the person
is smoking:
(Ordinance No. 2490 of January 30,2001)
(a) (Reserved for future use)
(Ordinance No. 2503 of July 31,2001)
Rev. 05/06
9
(b) as a participant in an authorized theatrical performance;
(c) in a tobacco specialty shop; or
(d) inabar
Smoking shall be allowed and smoking signs are not required to be posted by the
person in charge under Subsection C or Subsection D when smoking is permitted by
Subsection B(2)a through B(2)d.
C. Desiqnation of No Smokinq and Smokinq Areas
(1) The person in charge shall designate the following areas as "non-smoking":
(a) food order areas, cashier areas, check-out lines for stores;
(b) City library;
(c) elevators;
(d) City and school buses, including associated terminals;
(e) restrooms;
(0 movie theaters, hospitals, and rest home facilities;
(g) within a twenty foot (20') radius of the entry way of all public places;
(h) restaurants or cafeterias with a seating capacity of fifty (50) people or less;
and
(i) all other public places, including restaurants and cafeterias with seating
capacity of more than fifty (50) people.
(2) The person in charge may designate a smoking area between the hours of 10:OO
p.m. to 6:00 a.m. in restaurants and cafeterias with a seating capacity greater than
fifty (50) persons; provided, however, the smokilig areas cannot be greater than fifty
percent (50%) of the seating capacity and there shall be a four foot (4') separation
between the smoking and non-smoking areas.
(3) Smoking areas shall not be designated to cover areas in provisions (l)(a) through
(l)(h) of this subsection. It is not required that any smoking areas be designated.
(1) The person in charge of a public place shall place signs visible at each entrance of
the building to notify persons entering that smoking is prohibited or that smoking is
prohibited except in areas designated as smoking areas.
(2) The person in charge shall conspicuously post signs in areas designated as a
smoking area that smoking is permitted in the area.
E. Facilities to Extinauish Smokinq Material
All public places shall be equipped for extinguishments of smoking materials. Facilities for
extinguishments of smoking materials that are located in areas of public places other than
designated smoking areas shall be accompanied by clearly visible signs, stating "no
smoking".
Rev. 05/06
10
F. Owner/Operator Responsible
A person commits an offense if he is the owner, operator, manager or an employee of an
establishment and he intentionally permits or fails to make a reasonable effort to prevent smoking
in a "no smoking" area.
(Ordinance No. 2490 of January 30,2001)
Rev. 05106
11
Strengthening College Station’s
Smoke-Free Ordinance
July 28, 2008
Presented by:
12
Strengthening the City of College Station Ordinance
t’s time for College Station to revisit the smoke-free ordinance it passed July 2001 – much has
changed in the past seven years when it comes to defining and understanding the dangers of
secondhand smoke:
• There’s no longer any debate about whether secondhand smoke is dangerous – it is an
undisputable scientific fact.
• There’s no argument on whether a municipality should protect its citizens with a smoke-
free ordinance – it’s how far those protections should go.
• There’s no need to listen to anecdotal evidence on whether smoke-free ordinances and
laws harm restaurants, bars or other businesses – sales tax data proves they do not.
More and more, municipalities are embracing the U.S. Surgeon General’s scientific finding that
“there’s no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke” and are passing comprehensive
smoke-free ordinances that cover all public and private workplaces, all indoor areas, all
restaurants and all bars.
College Station does not have a comprehensive smoke-free ordinance – smoking (and
secondhand smoke) is still permitted in smoking areas allowed in restaurants with more than 50
seats and other indoor public places. And no protection from secondhand smoke exposure is
provided in other workplaces, including private sector workplaces, bars in restaurants and stand-
alone bars.
Other cities in Texas and around the country are taking the lead when it comes to safeguarding
their residents. College Station’s smoke-free ordinance needs updating and expansion.
Simply put, College Station needs a comprehensive smoke-free ordinance.
This paper will show:
• How a comprehensive smoke-free ordinance is good for health, business, workers and
tourism.
• How lack of enforcement is a problem with College Station’s current ordinance.
• Which Texas cities that have passed and enacted comprehensive smoke-free ordinances.
For more information, please contact:
Kristine Weaver
Regional Director of Government Relations
American Cancer Society
(979) 776-1464
Kristine.weaver@cancer.org
I
13
A Smoke-Free College Station is … Good for Health
ny doubt that secondhand smoke is harmful to health was firmly put to rest in 2006, when
the U.S. Surgeon General issued the most comprehensive scientific report ever produced
on the health impact of secondhand smoke.
The report’s key findings:
• Many millions of Americans, both children and adults, are still exposed to secondhand
smoke in their homes and workplaces despite substantial progress in tobacco control.
• Secondhand smoke exposure causes disease and premature death in nonsmokers.
• Children exposed to secondhand smoke are at an increased risk for sudden infant death
syndrome (SIDS), acute respiratory infections, ear problems, and more severe asthma.
Smoking by parents causes respiratory symptoms and slows lung growth in their
children.
• Exposure of adults to secondhand smoke has immediate adverse effects on the
cardiovascular system and causes coronary heart disease and lung cancer.
• Scientific evidence indicates there is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand
smoke.
• Eliminating smoking in indoor spaces fully protects nonsmokers from exposure to
secondhand smoke. Separating smokers from nonsmokers, cleaning the air, and
ventilating buildings cannot eliminate exposures of nonsmokers to secondhand smoke.
n addition, numerous studies clearly show the dangers of secondhand smoke, and how
smoke-free ordinances and laws can make a difference in the health of nonsmokers. It is
particularly important that smoke-free ordinances cover workplaces – including restaurants and
bars. Employees should not have to choose between earning a living or protecting their health.
Secondhand smoke exposure is a serious workplace safety issue.
• There is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke.1
• Secondhand smoke contains more than 4,000 chemicals – more than 60 are known or
suspected to cause cancer.2
• Secondhand smoke kills 53,000 non-smoking Americans yearly – it’s the third leading
cause of preventable death.3
• Secondhand smoke is a known cause of lung cancer, heart disease, low birth weight,
chronic lung ailments (such as bronchitis and asthma) and other health problems.4
• Smoke-free policies nationwide cover just 76 percent of white-collar workers, 52 percent
of blue-collar workers and 43 percent of food service workers.5
• Food service workers are 50 percent more likely to die from lung cancer than the general
public.6
• Secondhand smoke levels in bars are 3.9 to 6.1 times higher than in office worksites.7
• Smoke-free policies are the most economic and effective protection from secondhand
smoke exposure – separate areas, air cleaning or ventilation do not eliminate exposure.8
• Smoke-free workplace laws immediately and notably improved heart health (including
fewer heart attack hospitalizations), particularly in nonsmokers, according to studies in
Colorado, Indiana, Montana, New York, Ohio, Ireland, Italy and Scotland.9
A
I
14
Sources:
1 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to
Tobacco Smoke: A Report of the Surgeon General – Executive Summary. U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Coordinating Center for Health Promotion,
National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health, 2006.
2 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (1992). Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking: Lung
Cancer and Other Disorders. Washington, D.C.: EPA.
3 National Cancer Institute. Health Effects of Exposure to Environmental Tobacco Smoke: The Report of the
California Environmental Protection Agency. Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph no.10. Bethesda, MD.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute, NIH
Pub. No. 99-4645, 1999.
4 Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids.
5 Shopland, D.R., Anderson, C.M., Burns, D.M., and Gerlach, K.K. (2004). Disparities in smoke-free
workplaces among food service workers. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine 46(4): 347-356.
6 Siegel, Michael (1993). Involuntary Smoking in the Restaurant Workplace: A Review of Employee Exposure
and Health Effects. Journal of the American Medical Association 270(4): 490-493.
7 Siegel, Michael (1993). (Same as above).
8 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to
Tobacco Smoke: A Report of the Surgeon General – Executive Summary.(Same as footnote #1).
9 Summaries, Americans for Nonsmokers’ Rights, http://www.no-smoke.org/getthefacts.php?id=25.
15
A Smoke-Free College Station is … Good for Business & Workers
nderstandably, business owners are nervous when any law or ordinance is enacted that
affects how they do business. During public hearings on smoke-free ordinances and laws,
business owners – especially those who own bars or restaurants – have been vocal opponents.
They have been led to believe that going smoke-free will harm, if not end, their livelihoods.
Yet numerous studies of objective data, like sales tax receipts, show that going smoke-free does
not adversely impact the hospitality industry; in fact, these businesses ultimately save money on
health care costs, insurance, cleaning and other indirect costs of secondhand smoke.
In addition, Texans believe the rights of customers and employees to breathe clean air in
restaurants and bars (69%) is paramount to the rights of smokers to smoke and owners to allow
smoking inside restaurants and bars (20%).1
Revenue Impact
• Smoke-free policies do not affect restaurant revenue or the sale of alcoholic beverages in
bars, according to analysis of sales tax data in Texas and other states.2
• Texans would go out to bars and restaurants more (25 percent) or about as often as they
do now (66 percent) if the Legislature passes a law making all restaurants and bars
smoke-free.3
• Smoke-free policies do not affect restaurant revenue or the sale of alcoholic beverages in
bars, according to analysis of sales tax data in Texas and other states.4
• Alcoholic beverage sales were not affected by the El Paso smoke-free ordinance,
according to a study that examined the relationship between the smoke-free ordinance
and bar revenues that was conducted by the Texas Department of Health (TDH) and the
U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC).5
• No independent study has proven that smoke-free laws negatively affect the bar industry.
Research looking at communities in California, Massachusetts, Oregon, Texas, New
York, and Florida showed that smoke-free ordinances had no negative effect on bar
sales.6,7,8,9,10,11
• Researchers compared California bar sales for the first five cities and two counties
requiring all bars to be smoke-free with bar sales of comparable cities and counties in the
state that did not. Smoke-free ordinances were found to have no effect on aggregate bar
sales.12
• In Florida, retail receipts for taverns, night clubs, bars which serve food and liquor stores,
remained unaffected by the state’s smoke-free law. In addition, the number of people
employed in Florida’s drinking and eating establishments increased by 4.53 percent after
the smoke-free law went into place. 13
• The City of Houston’s smoke-free ordinance (passed in October 2006 and in effect Sept.
1, 2007) has had almost no affect on profits or customer relations in the city’s lodging
industry, according to a poll released in March 2008 by the Hotel and Lodging
Association of Greater Houston. 14
Ventilation
• Smoke-free policies are the most economic and effective protection from exposure to
secondhand smoke – separate areas, air cleaning and ventilating buildings do not
eliminate exposure.15
U
16
Healthcare Costs
• New York’s smoke-free air law led to $56 million savings in direct health care costs in
2004. 16
• An estimated $2.6 billion was spent in 2004 on the medical care of nonsmokers suffering
from lung cancer or heart disease caused by secondhand smoke exposure.17
• Medical costs and economic losses to nonsmokers suffering from lung cancer or heart
disease due to secondhand smoke are estimated at nearly $6 billion a year – costs likely
are even higher once costs associated with diseases and conditions among infants and
children caused by secondhand smoke are included.18
Other Business Costs
• If most businesses restricted smoking, $4 million to $8 million per year could be saved
nationwide in operating and maintenance costs.19
• Employer costs attributed to secondhand smoke or smoking in the workplace include
absenteeism; health insurance and life insurance costs and claims; workers’ comp
payments and health awards; accidents and fires (plus related insurance costs); property
damage (plus related insurance costs); smoke pollution (increased cleaning and
maintenance costs); illness and discomfort among non-smokers to secondhand smoke;
and liability
• Economic losses in 2004 due to lost wages and fringe benefits, as well as the value of lost
household services, were estimated at $3.2 billion for disability and premature deaths due
to lung cancer and heart disease caused by exposure to secondhand smoke.20
Sources
1 Baselice & Associates survey of 803 Texas adults, January 2007.
2 S. Hayslett, J.A. and P. Huang (2000). Impact of Clean Indoor Air Ordinances on Restaurant Revenues in
Four Texas Cities: Arlington, Austin, Plano and Wichita Falls 1987-1999. Texas Department of Health, Bureau
of Disease, Injury and Tobacco Prevention.and U.S. Centers for Disease Control (2004). Impact of a Smoking
Ban on Restaurant and Bar Revenues – El Paso, Texas, 2002. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 53(7):
150-152.
3 Baselice & Associates survey of 803 Texas adults, January 2007.
4 S. Hayslett, J.A. and P. Huang (2000); and U.S. Centers for Disease Control (2004). Impact of a Smoking Ban
on Restaurant and Bar Revenues – El Paso, Texas, 2002. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 53(7): 150-
152.
5 CDC (2004).
6 Glantz, S.A. (2000). Effect of Smokefree Bar Law on Bar Revenues in California. Tobacco Control 9
(Spring): 111-112.
7 Bartosch, W.J. and G.C. Pope (1999). The Economic Effect of Smoke-Free Restaurant Policies on Restaurant
Business in Massachusetts. Journal of Public Health Management Practice 5(1): 53-62
8 Dresser, J., S. Boles, E. Lichtenstein, and L. Strycker (1999). Multiple Impacts of a Bar Smoking Prohibition
Ordinance in Corvallis, Oregon. Eugene: Pacifica Research Institute.
9 CDC (2004).
10 New York City Department of Finance, et al. (2004).
11 Dai, Chifeng, et al. (2004). The Economic Impact of Florida’s Smoke-Free Workplace Law. Gainesville,
Florida: University of Florida, Warrington College of Business Administration, Bureau of Economic and
Business Research.
12 Glantz, S.A. and L.R.A. Smith (1997). The Effect of Ordinances Requiring Smoke-Free Restaurants and
Bars on Revenues: A Follow-Up. American Journal of Public Health (87)10: 1687- 1692.
13 Dai, Chifeng, et al. (2004).
14 “Smoking ban not clouding up Houston hotel business, poll says.” Houston Business Journal. March 19,
2008.
15 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to
Tobacco Smoke: A Report of the Surgeon General – Executive Summary. U.S. Department of Health and
17
Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Coordinating Center for Health Promotion,
National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health, 2006
16 Juster, Harlan, et al. (2007). Declines in Hospital Admissions for Acute Myocardial Infarction in New York
State After Implementation of a Comprehensive Smoking Ban. American Journal of Public Health, Sept. 27,
2007.
17 Behan, Donald; Eriksen, Michael; and Lin, Yija (2005). Economic Effects of Environmental Tobacco Smoke.
Schaumburg, IL: Society of Actuaries.
18 Behan, Donald; Eriksen, Michael; and Lin, Yija (2005).
19 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (1994). The Costs and Benefits of Smoking Restrictions: An
Assessment of the Smoke-Free Environmental Act of 1993 (H.R. 3434). Office of Air and Radiation.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. EPA.
20 Behan, Donald; Eriksen, Michael; and Lin, Yija (2005).
18
Smoke-Free Ordinances Do Not Harm Hospitality Businesses
Figure 1. Gross Restaurant, Bar and Mixed Beverage Revenues
By Fiscal Quarter*—El Paso, Texas, 1990-2002
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002
Year
Gr
o
s
s
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
(
$
M
il
l
i
o
n
s
)
Restaurants Bars Mixed Beverage Revenues
Smoking Ban in effect January 2, 2002
* First fiscal quarter of each year is January 1 –March 31
Austin Mixed Beverage Sales
0
5000000
10000000
15000000
20000000
25000000
30000000
35000000
20
0
0
20
0
1
20
0
2
20
0
3
20
0
4
20
0
5
20
0
6
Total Bars Restaurants
Ordinance
Slide source: Presentation, “Secondhand Smoke Issues,” Dr. Phillip Huang, MD, MPH, Texas Department of
State Health Services
19
A Smoke-Free College Station is … Good for Tourism
ust as the hospitality industry is not harmed by smoke-free laws and ordinances, neither is
tourism. In fact, smoke-free policies have been shown to increase tourism in Los Angeles
and New York City, and the top 10 travel destinations in the United States have all enacted
smoke-free laws, according to the American Cancer Society.
Businesses that cater to tourists, including some of the world’s largest hotel chains, are
recognizing the benefits of going smoke-free and have voluntarily announced smoke-free
policies.
• Smoke-free policies do not affect tourism or hotel/motel revenues. 1 2 3 4 5
• Smoke-free laws were associated with increased hotel revenues in four localities: Los
Angeles; New York City; Mesa, Ariz. and the state of Utah. 6
• The number of tourists who visited California and New York also increased after the
implementation of these states’ smoke-free policies. An examination of seven other
localities observed no significant changes in tourist rates following the implementation
of smoke-free policies. 7
• The state of Florida, known for its world-class theme and amusement parks,
implemented its smoke-free law on July 1, 2003. The law prohibits smoking in most of
the state’s enclosed workplaces. Approximately one year after the law took effect,
researchers found no significant change in the number of recreational admissions across
the state. Moreover, the number of people employed in the leisure and hospitality
industry increased almost 2 percent during that year. 8
• Westin was the first hotel chain to go smoke-free in January 2006 at its 77 properties in
the United States, Canada and Caribbean.
• Starwood Hotels & Resorts announced its Sheraton and Four Points by Sheraton Hotels
will make its 300 hotels and resorts in the United States, Canada and the Caribbean
smoke-free by Dec. 31, 2008.
• Other smoke-free hotel chains and their smoke-free dates include: Disney owned and
operated resort hotels and Disney Vacation Club resorts (June 1, 2007); Choice Hotels
International’s U.S. Comfort Suites hotels (May 1, 2007); all Gaylord Hotels (Feb. 12,
2007); and all Marriott company lodging brands (Oct. 16, 2006), including Marriott,
J.W. Marriott, Ritz-Carlton, Renaissance, Courtyard, Residence Inn, SpringHill Suites,
Fairfield Inn, TownePlace Suites and Mariott ExecuStay.
Sources
1 Glantz, S.A. and A. Charlesworth (1999). Tourism and Hotel Revenues Before and After Passage of Smoke-Free
Restaurant Ordinances. Journal of the American Medical Association 218(20): 1911-1918.
2 Sciacca, J.P. and M.I. Ratliff (1998). Prohibiting Smoking in Restaurants: Effects on Restaurant Sales. American
Journal of Health Promotion 12(3): 176-184.
3 Hyland, A., K.M. Cummings, and E. Nauenberg (1999). Analysis of Taxable Sales Receipts: Was New York
City’s Smoke-Free Air Act Bad for Restaurant Business? Journal of Public Health Management Practice 5(1): 14-
21.
4 Dai, Chifeng, et. Al. (2004). The Economic Impact of Florida’s Smoke-Free Workplace Law. Gainesville, Florida:
University of Florida, Arrington College of Business Administration, Bureau of Economic and Business Research.
5 Hahn, E.J., et al. (2005). Ecconomic Impact of Lexington’s Smoke-Free Law: A Progress Report. Lexington,
Kentucky: University of Kentucky, College of Nursing and Gatton College of Business and Economics.
6 Glantz, S.A. and A. Charlesworth (1999).
7 Glantz, S.A. and A. Charlesworth (1999).
8 Dai, Chifeng, et. Al. (2004).
J
20
College Station’s Current Ordinance: Enforceability Issues & Solutions
urrently, you can smoke in at least one area of many businesses in College Station – only smaller
restaurants with 50 seats or less and city-owned buildings offer 100 percent protection from
secondhand smoke. If you violate the city’s weak smoke-free ordinance, you might be asked to
extinguish your cigarette and shown a posted sign stating that smoking is not prohibited. Beyond that,
probably not much will happen – the ordinance does not set out enforcement authority, and penalties for
smokers or businesses that are in violation are vague and weak.
Besides leaving most workers exposed to secondhand smoke, enforceability is a major weakness of the
current College Station ordinance.
To insure that College Station’s ordinance is effective and enforceable, new ordinance language needs
to:
• Contain clear and simple language that prohibits smoking in all public and private workplaces,
including bars and restaurants. This creates a level playing field and avoids confusing questions
regarding exact percentages, percentage rules, etc.
• Clearly state who or which entity is charged with enforcing the ordinance – this greatly improves
the ability to enforce “no smoking.” The College Station ordinance does not grant enforcement
authority.
• Place some enforcement responsibility on the owner of the establishment or workplace, such as
requiring “no smoking” signs, removing ashtrays and the duty to ask a smoking patron to stop.
• Put the onus back on the smoker if the owner of the establishment or workplace has followed all
laws and can’t stop someone from blatantly smoking in the venue.
• Prescribe penalties for businesses or smokers who violate the ordinance.
C
21
Texas Cities Covered by Comprehensive
Smoke-Free Ordinances
CITY:
Abilene
Austin
Baytown
Beaumont
Benbrook
Copperas Cove
El Paso
Houston
Laredo
Marshall
Nacogdoches
Pearland
Plano
Portland (1)
Robinson (1)
Socorro
Southlake
Tyler
Vernon
Victoria
Woodway (1)
TOTAL:
POPULATION:
115,792
699,469
68,584
111,820
21,363
31,040
598,385
2,071,162
210,750
23,904
30.445
57,024
253,733
15,973
8,598
30,211
24,755
92,056
11,074
61,231
8,513
4,545,902
* TEXAS POPULATION 17,279,696
(Incorporated Municipalities)
26 percent of Texans are covered by comprehensive smoke-free ordinances
Source: University of Houston/Texas Department of State Health Services, http://txshsord.coe.uh.edu/
Comprehensive ordinances cover worksites, including smoke-free restaurants and bars. Separate
rooms, ventilation allowances, opt-out clauses, and other weakening provisions cause cities to be
excluded from the list.
(1) “Dry” cities whose smoke-free ordinances do not address bars; Smoke-Free Texas considers these
cities’ smoke-free ordinances to be comprehensive.
Population: 2005 Census estimate
22
November 5, 2008
Workshop Agenda Item 5
Tree Preservation
To: Glenn Brown, City Manager
From: Bob Cowell, AICP, Director of Planning & Development Services
Agenda Caption: Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding tree preservation
in College Station and clarification on the policy options presented by staff.
Recommendation(s): After consideration and discussion of options regarding tree
preservation standards, provide policy direction and clarification on the policy options
presented by staff.
Summary: At the direction of the City Council, Staff was asked to bring forth options for
tree preservation that span the regulatory spectrum.
Staff will briefly discuss tree preservation ordinances from other communities, the
comments to date from stakeholders and the Planning and Zoning Commission, and staff
commentary on items that could be included in a tree preservation ordinance for College
Station.
Staff has attached a brief summary of tree preservation ordinances that were surveyed from
15 cities across the state. This summary touches on four main points: how the ordinance is
applied, who administers and oversees it, the purpose of the ordinance, and what trees are
to be protected. To briefly summarize the survey, most ordinances do not apply to existing
single family developments and a majority of the communities employ a specialist such as
an arborist or urban forester to administer the ordinance. Additionally, of the cities surveyed
most specify that trees of eight-inch caliper or larger are to be protected, and that the
primary purpose of the tree preservation ordinance is to promote or encourage the
protection of trees that are usually removed during construction.
A stakeholder meeting was held on August 12th, 2008 to discuss elements to include in a
tree preservation ordinance and issues that will need to be considered. This meeting
included local residents, members of the Home Builders Association, and members of the
Brazos Land and Development Forum. A variety of ideas, suggestions and issues were
raised. There was a general concern, primarily amongst the development interests about
the creation of a tree preservation ordinance. Concerns raised included:
· Increased development costs;
· Reduced incentive to build within city limits;
· Conflicts with city standards;
· Site design issues.
Local residents were generally in favor of some form of a tree preservation ordinance as
they recognized the value trees provide to a community and that the ordinance can help to
ensure that College Station remains a place where people want to live. A few residents
voiced concern that creation of a tree preservation ordinance violates private property
rights.
At the October 16th Planning & Zoning Commission Workshop meeting, the commission
provided input and recommendations regarding a tree preservation ordinance. These
recommendations included: focusing on tree stands instead of individual trees, providing an
incentive based ordinance, limiting impervious cover, rethinking how utilities are placed and
23
off-setting removal of tree stands with additional landscaping requirements. There was a
consensus among the commissioners that an ordinance should not apply to existing single
family residential development.
Staff will present additional information regarding the August 12th stakeholder meeting, tree
preservation ordinances used in other Texas communities, and provide commentary on
items that could be included in a tree preservation ordinance.
Budget & Financial Summary: N/A – To be determined following policy direction
Attachments:
1. Summary of tree preservation ordinances
24
Applicability Administration Purpose Protected Trees
Austin Applies to all development including existing residential City Arborist Not explicitly provided, but the overal goal is to provide a diversified and
sustainable urban forest.
Any tree with a circumeference of 60 inches or
greater measured at DBH. All trees 8-inches or
greater in diameter for commercial and non-single
family development are scrutinized for preservation.
Arlington Does not apply to Single Family or Duplex City Arborist/Building Official
To promote quality development, encourage the preservation of trees,
preserve and enhance the natural environment, to safeguard and enhance
property values
Heritage Trees, not specifically stated
Carrollton Does not apply to existing Single Family or Duplex, does
apply to new residential development Development Review Committee None provided A tree listed in the approved plant list with a DBH of
4-inches or greater
Conroe Does not apply to single family Urban Forester
None provided, but it is stated that it is the expressed desire of the
citizens of the citizens of Conroe to preserve its heritage as an urban
forest
8-inch caliper or greater located in a tree
preservation zone
Denton Does not apply to existing single-family or two-family
residential dwelling units City Arborist
To promote the preservation of trees, tree stands, existing tree canopy,
protect trees during construction and to faciliate site design and
construction that contribute to the long term viability of existing trees
Any tree 18-inches or greater in DBH, Trees
designated as Historic
Flower Mound Does not apply to existing Single Family or Duplex Tree Preservation officer
Encourage the protection of healthy trees and provide for the replacement
that are necessarily removed during construction, provide for open space,
provide for shade, windbreaks and cooling of air, prevent the clear-cutting
of land, preserve the country atmosphere and natural environment, and to
mitigate the ill effects of rapid and intense urbanization
Any existing living tree of a species listed on the
town protected tree list that is at least 12' high with a
single trunk 6-inches in caliper width or greater, or a
multitrunk with a caliper width of 8-inches or greater.
Frisco Does not apply to trees on existing Single Family or two
family lots that are contained within a plat of record
Director of Planning or his/her
designee
To prevent clear-cutting, define protective measures, increase the number
of protected trees and to encourage preservation of existing public and
private shade and ornamental trees
Any tree 8 inches or larger in DBH that normally
attains a height of 12' at maturity, 20.1 caliper inches
or larger, and a stand of trees
Georgetown Applies to all development including existing residential Urban Forester (Heritage Trees)To preserve and protect heritage trees and significant natural features
including protected trees and significant stands of natives trees
Any tree measuring 12" or larger at DBH. Heritage
trees (specific species) that have a 26" inch diameter
at DBH
Grapevine Applies to all property that has designated specimen or
heritage trees Director of Development Services
To encourage the protection of healthy trees and vegetation and to
provide for the replacement and replanting of trees that are necessarily
removed during construction, development or redevelopment
Any self-supporting woody perennial plant which has
a caliper of three inches or more when measured at
a point of 4 1/2 feet above ground level and which
normally attains an overall height of at least 20 feet
at maturity
Mesquite Does not apply to existing Single Family
Muncipal Arborist or Development
Review Committee/P&Z if in
conjuction with development or
building projects
Encourage the preservation and protection of significant trees, while
providing for replacement and replanting of trees that are necessarily
removed during constuction, development or redevelopment
Protected based on each category: large canopy
shade tree, small canopy shade tree, evergreen,
ornamental, and other trees
New Braunfels Does not apply to property zoned or used for agricultural
or single family/two-family dwellings Planning Director To protect existing protected and heritage trees
Any tree on the approved plant list with a trunk
circumeference of 25 inches or more (approximately
8-inch diameter), Heritage trees
Plano Does not apply to existing Single Family or duplex Landscape Architect To preserve and/or replace trees and to provide requirements for the
protection of trees during construction, development or redevelopment 8-inch caliper or larger unless in exempted areas
Round Rock
Does not apply to existing Single Family, manufactured
housing and townhouse zoning districts. On
undeveloped lots smaller than 15000 sq.ft. in the
previously mentioned zoning districts trees having a
DBH of 20 inches are protected
Forestry Manager (head of Urban
Forestry Program)
Maintain existing forest resources, to encourage resourceful and prudent
approach to development and to encourage protection and preservation
Trees with DBH of 8-inches or more are protected
trees, Monarch Trees cannot be removed
25
South Lake Applies to all development Administrative Official
Ensure environmentally sensitive site planning, protect trees during
construction, to faciliate site design and construction which contribute to
the long term viability of existing trees and to control the removal of trees
when necessary.
Any tree that has a DBH of 6-inches or greater
Sugar Land Does not apply to single-family dwellings Director None stated Any hardwood tree having a minimum caliper size of
8-inches or greater measured at DBH
26
November 5, 2008
Workshop Agenda Item 6
Council Strategic Plan
To: Glenn Brown, City Manager
From: City Manager’s Office
Agenda Caption: Presentation, possible action, and discussion of the City Council’s
2008-2009 Strategic Plan.
Recommendation(s): Adopt the 2008-2009 City Council Strategic Plan as modified by
Council discussion during the retreat.
Summary: The Council Strategic Plan presented with this item is being brought forward as
a result of City Council discussion during their Strategic Planning Retreat. The revised
Council Strategic Plan contains a few additions to the document adopted last year and these
changes are based on the input received by the Council at their July retreat. The main
additions to the plan are the inclusion of Neighborhood Integrity and Green College Station
as strategic issues. The document also now includes a Council Vision Statement Summary
as well as City Management Priorities.
Proposed additions and changes to the policy are underlined.
Budget & Financial Summary: None.
Attachments:
1. 2008-2009 Council Strategic Plan
27
Draft October 2008 Page 1
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION
Strategic Plan 2008-2009
In College Station, we strive to set the bar. We conduct daily business as a City aiming
to provide our citizens with the best quality of life possible. The City Council and City
staff work hard to ensure that we are moving in a direction that is best for the overall
character and betterment of our community based on the voices and opinions of those
living in College Station. A highly qualified workforce, an extremely engaged citizenry
and a set of focused goals are the cornerstones of what make this a successful
community.
As a rapidly growing city, we recognize the importance of neighborhood integrity as
well as responsible growth in our communities. We focus on forward thinking policies
that retain the integrity and standard of service to which our citizens have become
accustomed. Efforts made to Green College Station and constructing a new City Hall are
endeavors this City pursues in order to reach the next level.
The Strategic Plan is a collaboration of the City Council and the numerous City
departments working together to create a cohesive forward direction for College Station
in the upcoming years. Updates were made to the plan as a result of the City Council’s
annual strategic planning retreat. In addition to adding the two new strategic issues of
Neighborhood Integrity and Green College Station, other policy goals and direction are
interspersed throughout the document.
Following, you will find an outline for the goals and practices we have set to achieve in
the near future so that each citizen may enjoy a greater quality of life than ever before.
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.
28
Draft October 2008 Page 2
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION
Community Vision Statement
College Station, the proud home of Texas A&M University and the heart of
the Brazos Valley, will be a vibrant, progressive, knowledge-based
community which promotes the highest quality of life by …
Ø ensuring safe, tranquil, clean, and healthy neighborhoods with enduring
character;
Ø increasing and maintaining the mobility of College Station citizens through a
well planned and constructed inter-modal transportation system;
Ø expecting sensitive development and management of the built and natural
environment;
Ø supporting well planned, quality and sustainable growth;
Ø valuing and protecting our cultural and historical community resources;
Ø developing and maintaining quality cost-effective community facilities,
infrastructure and services which ensure our city is cohesive and well connected;
and
Ø pro-actively creating and maintaining economic and educational opportunities
for all citizens.
College Station will remain among the friendliest and most responsive of
communities and a demonstrated partner in maintaining and enhancing all that
is good and celebrated in the Brazos Valley. It will forever be a place where
Texas and the world come to learn.
29
Draft October 2008 Page 3
STRATEGIC PLAN
City of College Station Core Values
To promote:
• The health, 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
Organizational Values
• Respect everyone
• Deliver excellent service
• Risk, Create, Innovate
• Be one city, one team
• Be personally responsible
• Do the right thing – act with integrity and honesty
• Have fun
Using the community vision, mission statement, and values as a spring board,
the College Station City Council has set the strategic direction for the city
government through development of ten Strategic Issues and supporting Policy
Initiatives. The Strategic Plan focuses organizational resources and identifies
those intentional actions to be undertaken by city government to achieve the
desired outcomes.
30
Draft October 2008 Page 4
STRATEGIC PLAN
Citywide Safety & Security
Safety and security of College Station citizens is imperative. We want to ensure all
citizens and visitors to the community feel safe while enjoying the quality of life offered
by College Station.
_______________________________________________________________________
Policy Initiatives
§ Invest in our public safety infrastructure to provide consistent and high quality
public safety services
§ Benchmark our public safety services with other similar communities to ensure we
are setting the pace at a national level
Effective Communications
Effective two-way communications with both internal and external audiences is
essential to the continued success of the many programs and services offered by the
City of College Station. Utilizing a variety of media and technology, we will strive to
market our services, communicate our mission and values, engage our citizens in the
decisions of city government while telling the College Station story to our elected
officials, employees, citizens, community partners, and others nationwide.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Policy Initiatives
§ Implement a communication strategy which continually informs our citizens about
the city government
§ Market the City of College Station as a superior service provider
§ Cultivate citizen trust by fostering and practicing open, accountable and responsible
government
§ Interact with appointed committees to ensure the City Council’s vision and
expectations are known and adhered to when discussing policy
31
Draft October 2008 Page 5
STRATEGIC PLAN
Growing Sustainable Revenue Sources
Balanced with Needs
The ability of College Station to finance quality services, meet demands of growing our
infrastructure and provide for the quality of life quotient for the community, requires
fiscal soundness and growing our revenue sources. We will adhere to sound business
practices which obtain true value for dollars spent, diversify our revenue sources
through identification of innovative revenue strategies, and implement financial
policies which protect city resources.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Policy Initiatives
§ Develop innovative income strategies to diversify and strengthen income base
§ Re-evaluate and update financial policies to ensure they continually meet our needs
as a city government
§ Improve business practices to ensure we achieve the best value for dollars invested
Destination Place to Live and Work
We want College Station to be a destination city which attracts visitors, residents,
businesses, and investment. In promoting and maintaining a high quality of life, we
want to be a community which provides diverse opportunities for work, entertainment,
livable neighborhoods, and business development. We want College Station to be
among the best cool places to live in the United States.
_______________________________________________________________________
Policy Initiatives
§ Invest in infrastructure and programs that create a sense of place for College Station
citizens
§ Identify and invest in those programs and activities that promote College Station as a
cool place to live, work , and play
32
Draft October 2008 Page 6
STRATEGIC PLAN
Exceptional Multi-modal Mobility
The rapid growth of College Station is impacting our ability to provide an efficient
public and private transportation network to ensure mobility and safety to our citizens.
Development of an efficient multi-modal transportation system is needed to promote a
healthy local economy and support the community’s quality of life.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Policy Initiatives
§ Develop a transportation plan that supports the development of College Station in
regard to its land use and transportation needs
§ Implement our transportation plan to improve our overall transportation network
and support development of the community
§ Improve operational efficiency of our existing transportation network
§ Implement state of the art transportation management programs and systems
§ Lobby for state and federal transportation funds to continually improve our
transportation systems
Sustainable Quality City Workforce
Our employees are our most valued asset. We want to ensure the City of College
Station work environment is exceptional while encouraging innovation and creativity.
We want to be able to attract the best and brightest and retain highly competent
individuals who serve the citizens of College Station.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Policy Initiatives
§ Create a work environment that attracts and retains quality employees
33
Draft October 2008 Page 7
STRATEGIC PLAN
Exceptional Infrastructure and Core Services
Our core mission is the delivery of exceptional services to our citizens. Our
infrastructure is the backbone of our service delivery system and we will continually
make prudent investments to grow and maintain all infrastructure to support our
delivery of services. We will expect our core services to be to of the highest quality. We
expect our services to our customer to be focused, timely and cost effective.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Policy Initiatives
§ Ensure our infrastructure is well maintained and expands to meet the needs of our
citizens and various city services
§ Provide core city services that are customer focused, cost effective and of the highest
quality
Diverse Growing Economy
We want to promote through effective policies and programs the continued growth and
diversification of our economy. We will provide leadership to encourage the
diversification of our economy while actively collaborating with our community
partners to produce economic benefit to all citizens.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Policy Initiatives
§ Develop and implement specific plans to enhance and diversify our tax base
§ Develop and implement plans which promote redevelopment of strategic areas of
College Station
§ Seek economic development opportunities and partnerships which position College
Station as a national center for bio-technology
§ Enhance tourism with the development of needed infrastructure to support the
tourism segment of our economy
34
Draft October 2008 Page 8
STRATEGIC PLAN
Neighborhood Integrity
Neighborhoods are the basic building blocks of our city. Neighborhoods are where we
live, raise our families, and socialize with our friends and neighbors. In many ways our
city is only as strong and sustainable as our neighborhoods. Our challenge is to
welcome the increasing number of students while retaining the strength and vitality of
our neighborhoods.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Policy Initiatives
§ Promote comprehensive planning and management of growth
§ Ensure College Station remains a highly livable city driven by quality of life
§ Improve the capacity of neighborhoods to deal with planning and quality of life
issues
§ Orient service delivery toward neighborhoods
§ Enhance the City’s enforcement tools to better address the rental market
§ Educate key stakeholders and the community
§ Promote the development of sustainable neighborhoods that address the needs of
various population groups
35
Draft October 2008 Page 9
STRATEGIC PLAN
Green College Station
Sustainability and resource conservation has become a constant on the local
government landscape. There is a clear case to be made for sustainability and
conservation of resources in College Station. Our emphasis on the quality of life for the
community demands that we aggressively work towards creating a culture in the
community which embraces sustainability as its mantra.
_______________________________________________________________________
Policy Initiatives
§ Include renewable green energy in a portion of our purchased power while reducing
the overall energy consumption
§ Reduce our overall per capita water consumption
§ Develop mechanisms to reuse water in the community
§ Reduce the overall volume of waste generated in the community while developing
environmentally sound and economically feasible means to dispose of waste
§ Develop specific strategies to promote efficient use of our land while protecting our
natural resources
§ Promote open and green space as a prominent component of our community
character
§ Inventory global warming emissions in the City operations as well as in the
community and set realistic reduction targets
36
Draft October 2008 Page 10
STRATEGIC PLAN
City of College Station
City Council Priorities Summary 2008-2009
Ø Continue development and implementation of
Neighborhood Integrity Strategy
Ø Address needs for a new City Hall, Council Chamber, office
space, etc.
Ø Define opportunities for improved business and industrial
growth
Ø Continue building foundation for Green College Station
Initiative
Ø Promote strong intergenerational parks
Ø Analyze financial long term stability of the city while
continuing to evaluate ways to ensure growth pays for itself
Ø Improve overall political health within city government and
promote communication between various stakeholders
Ø Increased interaction with appointed committees to ensure
the Council’s vision and expectations are known
Ø Continue to address needs for a Convention Center
Ø Secure infrastructure for the next 20+ years, including
transportation issues
Ø Create an accessible wireless system
Ø Continue to build and expand hike and bike trails
37
Draft October 2008 Page 11
STRATEGIC PLAN
City of College Station
City Management Priorities 2008-2009
Ø Fill vacant upper management positions
Ø Green College Station initiatives
Ø Successful completion of 2008 bond issue
Ø Comprehensive Plan Update
Ø Capital Improvement Projects progress
Ø Address City Hall needs
Ø Make Hotel Convention Center a reality
Ø Complete overhaul of Neighborhood Services structure
Ø Complete Police Management Review and HR Classification
Study
Ø Continue to identify ways to motivate and re-energize staff
Ø Seek creative ways to fund City government and new
initiatives
38