Loading...
06/23/2016 - Workshop Agenda Packet - City CouncilCity Council Workshop College Station, TX Meeting Agenda - Final City Hall 1101 Texas Ave College Station, TX 77840 City Hall Council Chambers4:30 PMThursday, June 23, 2016 1. Call meeting to order. 2. Executive Session will be held in the Administrative Conference Room. Consultation with Attorney {Gov ’t Code Section 551.071}; possible action. The City Council may seek advice from its attorney regarding a pending or contemplated litigation subject or settlement offer or attorney -client privileged information. Litigation is an ongoing process and questions may arise as to a litigation tactic or settlement offer, which needs to be discussed with the City Council. Upon occasion the City Council may need information from its attorney as to the status of a pending or contemplated litigation subject or settlement offer or attorney -client privileged information. After executive session discussion, any final action or vote taken will be in public. The following subject(s) may be discussed: Litigation a. Juliao v. City of College Station, Cause No. 14-002168-CV-272, In the 272nd District Court of Brazos County, Texas b. Kathryn A. Stever-Harper as Executrix for the Estate of John Wesley Harper v. City of College Station and Judy Meeks; No. 15,977-PC in the County Court No. 1, Brazos County, Texas Legal Advice a. Legal issues related to the contracts associated with the Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) System Competitive Matters {Gov't Code Section 551.086); possible action: The City Council may deliberate, vote, or take final action on a competitive matter as that term is defined in Gov't Code Section 552.133 in closed session. The following is a general representation of the subject matter to be considered: 3. Take action, if any, on Executive Session. 4. Presentation, possible action and discussion on items listed on the consent agenda. Presentation, possible action, and discussion of the proposed FY 2017 Community Development Budget and PY 2016 Action Plan to be submitted to the U .S. Department of Housing and Urban 16-01795. Page 1 College Station, TX Printed on 6/17/2016 June 23, 2016City Council Workshop Meeting Agenda - Final Development as per the requirements of the Community Development Block Grant and HOME Investment Partnership Program grant. Sponsors:Eller Attachment 1 -FY 2017 Proposed Community Development Budget.docx Attachment 2- FY 2017 Plan Development Process Summary Attachment 3 - FY 2017 CDBG Public Service Funding Summary & Recommendations Attachment 4 - FY 2017 CDBG Public Facility Funding Summary & Recommendations Attachment 5 - 2015-2019 Community Development Goals Attachment 6 - 2016 Income Limits Attachment 7 - Map Attachment 8 Community Development Project Descriptions Attachments: Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding a progress update on Water and Wastewater Impact Fees and Roadway Impact Fees. 16-03526. Sponsors:Gibbs and Coleman Presentation and discussion on the 2016 Citizens Survey.16-03687. Sponsors:Killian College Station 2016 Report FinalAttachments: Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding the 2015 Compliance Report by the Research Valley Partnership. 16-03708. Sponsors:Prochazka 9. Council Calendar - Council may discuss upcoming events. 10. Presentation, possible action, and discussion on future agenda items and review of standing list of Council generated agenda items: A Council Member may inquire about a subject for which notice has not been given. A statement of specific factual information or the recitation of existing policy may be given. Any deliberation shall be limited to a proposal to place the subject on an agenda for a subsequent meeting. 11. Discussion, review and possible action regarding the following meetings: Animal Shelter Board, Annexation Task Force, Arts Council of Brazos Valley, Arts Council Sub-committee, Audit Committee, Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways Advisory Board, Bio-Corridor Board of Adjustments, Blinn College Brazos Valley Advisory Committee, Brazos County Health Dept ., Brazos Valley Council of Governments, Bryan/College Station Chamber of Commerce, Budget and Finance Committee, BVSWMA, BVWACS, Compensation and Benefits Committee, Convention & Visitors Bureau, Design Review Board, Economic Development Committee, Gigabit Broadband Initiative, Historic Preservation Committee, Interfaith Dialogue Association, Page 2 College Station, TX Printed on 6/17/2016 City Council Workshop Meeting Agenda -Final June 23, 2016 Intergovernmental Committee, Joint Relief Funding Review Committee, Landmark Commission, Library Board, Metropolitan Planning Organization, Parks and Recreation Board, Planning and Zoning Commission, Research Valley Partnership, Research Valley Technology Council, Regional Transportation Committee for Council of Governments, Sister Cities Association, Transportation and Mobility Committee, TAMU Student Senate, Texas Municipal League, Twin City Endowment, YMCA, Youth Advisory Council, Zoning Board of Adjustments, (Notice of Agendas posted on City Hall bulletin board). 12.Adjourn The City Council may adjourn into Executive Session to consider any item listed on this agenda if a matter is raised that is appropriate for Executive Session discussion. An announcement will be made of the basis for the Executive Session discussion. APPROVED n�city ifj;� I certify that the above Notice of Meeting was posted at College Station City Hall, 1101 Texas Avenue, College Station, Texas, on June 17, 2016 at 5:00 p.m. ��C:-:Z" � �.Q,.ry � S M,..�\.. \:7 City Secretary t ""'"""' This building is wheelchair accessible. Persons with disabilities who plan to attend this meeting and who may need accommodations, auxiliary aids, or services such as interpreters, readers, or large print are asked to contact the City Secretary's Office at (979) 764-3541, TDD at 1-800-735-2989, or email adaassistance@cstx.gov at least two business days prior to the meeting so that appropriate arrangements can be made . If the City does not receive notification at least two business days prior to the meeting, the City will make a reasonable attempt to provide the necessary accommodations. Penal Code §30.07 Trespass by License Holder with an Openly Carried Handgun. "Pursuant to Section 30.07, Penal Code (Trespass by License Holder with an Openly Carried Handgun) A Person Licensed under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code (Handgun Licensing Law), may not enter this Property with a Handgun that is Carried Openly." Codigo Penal §30.07 Traspasar Portando Armas de Mano al Aire Libre con Licencia. "Conforme a la Seccion 30.07 del codigo penal (traspasar portando armas de mano al aire libre con licencia), personas con licencia bajo del Sub-Capitulo H, Capitulo 411, Codigo de Gobierno (Ley de licencias de arma de mano), no deben College Station, TX Page3 Printed on 611712016 June 23, 2016City Council Workshop Meeting Agenda - Final entrar a esta propiedad portando arma de mano al aire libre.” Page 4 College Station, TX Printed on 6/17/2016 City Hall 1101 Texas Ave College Station, TX 77840 College Station, TX Legislation Details (With Text) File #: Version:116-0179 Name:FY 2017 Community Development Budget and proposed Annual Action Plan Status:Type:Presentation Agenda Ready File created:In control:3/23/2016 City Council Workshop On agenda:Final action:6/23/2016 Title:Presentation, possible action, and discussion of the proposed FY 2017 Community Development Budget and PY 2016 Action Plan to be submitted to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development as per the requirements of the Community Development Block Grant and HOME Investment Partnership Program grant. Sponsors:Debbie Eller Indexes: Code sections: Attachments:Attachment 1 -FY 2017 Proposed Community Development Budget.pdf Attachment 2- FY 2017 Plan Development Process Summary Attachment 3 - FY 2017 CDBG Public Service Funding Summary & Recommendations Attachment 4 - FY 2017 CDBG Public Facility Funding Summary & Recommendations Attachment 5 - 2015-2019 Community Development Goals Attachment 6 - 2016 Income Limits Attachment 7 - Map Attachment 8 Community Development Project Descriptions Action ByDate Action ResultVer. Presentation, possible action, and discussion of the proposed FY 2017 Community Development Budget and PY 2016 Action Plan to be submitted to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development as per the requirements of the Community Development Block Grant and HOME Investment Partnership Program grant. Relationship to Strategic Goals: ·Financially Sustainable City ·Core Services and Infrastructure ·Neighborhood Integrity ·Diverse Growing Economy Recommendation(s):Staff recommends that Council receive a presentation regarding the proposed FY 2017 Community Development Budget and PY 2016 Action Plan and provide any feedback and or direction as desired. Summary:Staff will present the proposed 2017 Community Development Budget and PY 2016 Action Plan.Included in the Plan are goals,objectives,and funding recommendations for projects and programs.Each year,the City is required to submit to the U.S.Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)a one year Action Plan describing projects and activities to be funded College Station, TX Printed on 6/17/2016Page 1 of 3 powered by Legistar™ File #:16-0179,Version:1 Urban Development (HUD)a one year Action Plan describing projects and activities to be funded with the community development grants received.Action Plan activities must correspond to the 2015 - 2019 Consolidated Plan. HUD requires that the Action Plan and Budget be delivered by August 16,2016,therefore these are presented prior to the Councils consideration of the overall City budget.The new grant amounts available for PY 2016 includes $983,111 in Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)funds and $372,121 in HOME Investment Partnership Grant (HOME)funds.The budget includes previously programmed but unspent grant funds from current years in the amount of $291,526 in CDBG and $747,466 in HOME,in addition to expected program income in the amount of $33,930 (HOME)to be received from reconstruction loans executed in previous years and recaptured funds from the disposition of the Holleman property in the amount of $2,386,933 (CDBG). CDBG and HOME funds may only be used to:(1)benefit low-and moderate-income persons;(2)aid in the elimination of slum and blighting influences,and/or;(3)meet a particular urgent need.Further, CDBG funds may be used to meet local needs through a wide range of community development activities, while HOME funds may only be used for affordable housing activities. The proposed plans and budget were developed using input received from a series of public hearings,program committee meetings,and citizen input.The goals and objectives in the 2015-2019 Consolidated Plan were followed in preparing this years Plan.These goals and objectives were prepared to meet the specific needs of lower-income citizens,and to provide support for families working towards self-sufficiency and are now being presented to Council for discussion and input. Staff will return to Council at the July 28th meeting to make available its final draft of the Action Plan, Budget and to request approval. Historically,the City has utilized these funds for a variety of programs and activities,including: affordable housing programs (homebuyer assistance,security deposit assistance,rehabilitation, leveraged development for new construction,and minor repairs);funding of direct services to low- income families;economic development;code enforcement;acquisition;demolition;and park,street, infrastructure and public facility improvement in low-income areas of the city. Budget & Financial Summary: See attached financial summaries for the proposed FY 2017 Community Development Budget for CDBG and HOME funds. Staff will be prepared to answer questions regarding the proposed plans and/or budget Attachments: Attachment 1:Proposed FY 2017 Community Development Budget Summary Attachment 2:Plan Development Summary Attachment 3:Proposed FY 2017 Public Service Funding Recommendations Attachment 4:Proposed FY 2017 Public Facility Funding Recommendations Attachment 5: PY 2015 - 2019 Community Development Goals Attachment 6:2016 Median Income Limits Attachment 7:Map of Eligible Community Development Areas Attachment 8:Community Development Project Descriptions Attachment 9:Proposed FY 2017 (PY 2016)Action Plan and Budget -Available for Review in CSO College Station, TX Printed on 6/17/2016Page 2 of 3 powered by Legistar™ File #:16-0179,Version:1 College Station, TX Printed on 6/17/2016Page 3 of 3 powered by Legistar™ Attachment 1: FY 2017 Proposed Community Development Budget PROJECT CDBG & HOME CARRY-OVER CDBG & HOME NEW ALLOCATIONS CDBG & HOME TOTAL PROPOSED Owner-Occupied Rehabilitation $102,067 **$121,555 $223,622 Acquisition $0 ***$889,687 $889,687 Demolition $10,000 $0 $10,000 Interim Assistance $2,500 $0 $2,500 Homebuyer Assistance $145,502 $185,579 $331,081 CHDO $228,152 $55,864 $284,016 CHDO Operating Expenses $8,960 $18,621 $27,581 Construction/Leveraged Development $259,135 $0 $259,135 Housing Services $0 $20,000 $20,000 Rental Rehabilitation $6,917 $0 $6,917 Code Enforcement $2,602 $63,170 $65,772 Tenant Based Rental Assistance $0 $12,500 $12,500 Public Service Agency (See Attachment 3) *$38,732 $147,466 $186,198 Public Facility (See Attachment 4) $184,424 ***$1,978,159 $2,162,583 Economic Development $50,000 ***$50,000 $100,000 Grant Administration $0 $233,865 $233,865 Recaptured Funds/ Program Income CDBG HOME ***$2,386,996 **$33,930 Total Community Development Budget $4,815,457 * Carry-over funds represent 4th quarter payments for FY 2016 ** HOME Loan proceeds to be utilized for Rehabilitation when realized *** Includes FY 17 CDBG Grant and anticipated proceeds from sale of Holleman Attachment 2: Consolidated Plan and Budget Development Process Summary, FY 2017 Event Date Pre-proposal workshop for agencies Feb. 15, 2016 Public hearing on Consolidated Plan and Budget (Lincoln Center) Mar. 8, 2016 JRFRC proposals due Mar. 24, 2016 JRFRC Meeting Apr. 7, 2016 Apr. 14, 2016 Apr. 21, 2016 Apr. 28, 2016 May 5, 2016 May 18, 2016 JRFRC Public Service Agency public hearing May 18, 2016 30-Day Public Comment Period begins June 22, 2016 First presentation of Consolidated Plan and Budget to City Council June 23, 2016 Public hearing to present goal and objectives and public comments July 5, 2016 regarding the proposed PY 2016 Annual Action Plan (Lincoln Center) 30-Day Public Comment Period ends July 21, 2016 Request council approval by consent agenda of PY 2016 Annual Action Plan July 28, 2016 and Budget PY 2016 Annual Action Plan due to HUD no later than Aug. 16, 2016 Attachment 3: FY 2017 CDBG Public Service Funding Summary & Recommendations Agency Program Requested Recommended Funding Funded Items Funding City Big Brothers Big Sisters of South Texas Brazos Valley Mentoring Program $32,000 $25,606 Service Delivery Coordinator College Station Brazos Maternal & Child Health Clinic, Inc. The Prenatal Clinic $50,000 $30,000 Medical Items & Testing Medical Provider Bryan Catholic Charities BV Financial Stability Program $50,000 $21,432 Case Manager, Program Manager, Benefits, Rent/Utility Asst. Bryan & College Station Easter Seals East Texas, dba Brazos Valley Rehabilitation Center Counseling and Case Management Program $45,000 $33,750 Social Worker Contracted Services College Station Family Promise of Bryan-College Station Case Management $25,000 $20,000 Case Management College Station Mental Health Mental Retardation Authority of Brazos Valley Mary Lake Peer Support Center $39,499 $32,715 Therapist, Utilities, Auto, Maintenance Bryan Twin City Mission, Inc. Case Manager/Client Assistance Program $36,362 $27,489 Case Manager, Client Assistance College Sation Unity Partners dba Project Unity Safe Harbour Supervised Visitation Program $40,000 $30,000 Personnel, FICA, Security College Station Voices for Children Court Appointed Special Advocates of BV $32,715 $19,755 Personnel/Salaries Benefits Bryan BV Affordable Housing Corporation BV Financial Fitness Center $39,145 $0 Heart of Texas Goodwill Industries, Inc. GoodPath $39,111 $0 Total $428,832 $240,747 Attachment 4: FY 2017 CDBG Public Facility Funding Summary & Recommendations Activity Recommended Funding Description Nimitz Street Rehabilitation $184,424 Funds were utilized in FY 14 for engineering and design of a standard 2-lane local street with sidewalk on Nimitz from Lincoln Avenue to Ash Street. The current street configuration is a substandard rural section and is not centered in the right-of-way and within 5 feet of several single-family dwellings on the western side lots. FY 15 funds will be used to complete easement acquisition and begin construction. San Saba Sidewalk Construction $188,578 FY 17 funds will be utilized to construct sidewalks on San Saba. Design was completed in FY 16 with CDBG funds. Northeast Sewer Trunkline PH1 $1,497,306 Funds from the FY 2107 grant and recaptured funds generated from the sale of the Holleman property will be utilized for design of the upgrade to this trunkline and Phase 1 of the construction. Georgie K. Fitch Park Improvements $127,875 FY 17 funds will be used for the design and construction of sidewalks connecting a parking lot throughout the park including the library. Southewest Parkway North Sidewalks – PH1 $164,400 FY 17 funds will be used for the design of sidewalks construction & improvements to meet ADA requirements and construction of sidewalks included in Phase 1 of the project. Total $2,162,583 Attachment 5: PY 2015-2019 Community Development Goals Goals Summary Information Sort Order Goal Name Start Year End Year Category Geographic Area Needs Addressed Funding Goal Outcome Indicator 1 Rental Housing - Rehabilitation 2015 2019 Affordable Housing Rental Housing Special Needs HOME: $75,000 Rental units rehabilitated: 10 Household Housing Unit 2 Rental Housing - Construction 2015 2019 Affordable Housing Rental Housing Special Needs HOME: $300,000 Rental units constructed: 50 Household Housing Unit 3 Owner Housing - Rehabilitation/Reconstruction 2015 2019 Affordable Housing Owner-Occupied Housing CDBG: $50,000 HOME: $275,000 Homeowner Housing Rehabilitated: 16 Household Housing Unit 4 Owner Housing - Demolition 2015 2019 Affordable Housing Non-Housing Community Development Owner-Occupied Housing Public Facilities & Infrastructure CDBG: $50,000 Buildings Demolished: 5 Buildings 5 Rental/Owner Housing - Code Enforcement 2015 2019 Non-Housing Community Development Rental Housing Owner-Occupied Housing CDBG: $500,000 Housing Code Enforcement/Foreclosed Property Care: 25000 Household Housing Unit 6 Homeownership - Down Payment Assistance 2015 2019 Affordable Housing Homeownership HOME: $500,000 Direct Financial Assistance to Homebuyers: 25 Households Assisted 7 Homeownership - Financial Literacy 2015 2019 Affordable Housing Homeownership Other: 375 Other 8 Homeownership - Construction 2015 2019 Affordable Housing Owner-Occupied Housing Homeownership CDBG: $400,000 HOME: $400,000 Homeowner Housing Added: 4 Household Housing Unit Sort Order Goal Name Start Year End Year Category Geographic Area Needs Addressed Funding Goal Outcome Indicator 9 Homelessness - TBRA Security Deposits 2015 2019 Homeless Rental Housing Homelessness Special Needs HOME: $125,000 Tenant-based rental assistance / Rapid Rehousing: 375 Households Assisted 10 Homelessness - Outreach and Assessment 2015 2019 Homeless Non-Homeless Special Needs Non-Housing Community Development Homelessness Special Needs Public Services CDBG: $10,000 Other: 20 Other 11 Homelessness - Services 2015 2019 Homeless Homelessness Public Services CDBG: $70,000 Public service activities other than Low/Moderate Income Housing Benefit: 1200 Persons Assisted 12 Special Needs - Services 2015 2019 Non-Homeless Special Needs Special Needs Public Services CDBG: $150,000 Public service activities other than Low/Moderate Income Housing Benefit: 1100 Persons Assisted 13 Public Services - Health Care Services 2015 2019 Non-Housing Community Development Special Needs Public Services CDBG: $350,000 Public service activities other than Low/Moderate Income Housing Benefit: 3600 Persons Assisted 14 Public Services - Youth Services 2015 2019 Non-Housing Community Development Public Services CDBG: $110,000 Public service activities other than Low/Moderate Income Housing Benefit: 850 Persons Assisted 15 Public Services - Senior Services 2015 2019 Non-Homeless Special Needs Non-Housing Community Development Special Needs Public Services CDBG: $20,000 Public service activities other than Low/Moderate Income Housing Benefit: 100 Persons Assisted Sort Order Goal Name Start Year End Year Category Geographic Area Needs Addressed Funding Goal Outcome Indicator 16 Public Services - Domestic Abuse & Neglect 2015 2019 Non-Homeless Special Needs Non-Housing Community Development Special Needs Public Services CDBG: $80,000 Public service activities other than Low/Moderate Income Housing Benefit: 850 Persons Assisted 17 Public Services - Other 2015 2019 Non-Housing Community Development Public Services CDBG: $20,000 Public service activities other than Low/Moderate Income Housing Benefit: 100 Persons Assisted 18 Public Facilities - Street Infrastructure 2015 2019 Non-Housing Community Development Public Facilities & Infrastructure CDBG: $1,500,000 Public Facility or Infrastructure Activities other than Low/Moderate Income Housing Benefit: 25000 Persons Assisted 19 Public Facilities - Sidewalk Infrastructure 2015 2019 Non-Housing Community Development Public Facilities & Infrastructure CDBG: $500,000 Public Facility or Infrastructure Activities other than Low/Moderate Income Housing Benefit: 15000 Persons Assisted 20 Public Facilities - Other Infrastructure 2015 2019 Non-Housing Community Development Public Facilities & Infrastructure CDBG: $100,000 Public Facility or Infrastructure Activities other than Low/Moderate Income Housing Benefit: 5000 Persons Assisted 21 Public Facilities - Park Improvements 2015 2019 Non-Housing Community Development Public Facilities & Infrastructure CDBG: $500,000 Public Facility or Infrastructure Activities other than Low/Moderate Income Housing Benefit: 20000 Persons Assisted 22 Economic Development - Business Loan Program 2015 2019 Non-Housing Community Development Economic Development CDBG: $150,000 Jobs created/retained: 25 Jobs Sort Order Goal Name Start Year End Year Category Geographic Area Needs Addressed Funding Goal Outcome Indicator 23 Economic Development - Job Training 2015 2019 Non-Housing Community Development Economic Development CDBG: $50,000 Public service activities other than Low/Moderate Income Housing Benefit: 250 Persons Assisted Goal Descriptions 1 Goal Name Rental Housing - Rehabilitation Goal Description Encourage and facilitate the rehabilitation of rental units. 2 Goal Name Rental Housing - Construction Goal Description Encourage and facilitate the construction of new affordable rental units through nonprofit or for-profit partners. Additional sources of funds include tax credits through the State of Texas and private funds. 3 Goal Name Owner Housing - Rehabilitation/Reconstruction Goal Description Encourage and facilitate maintenance of residential units by low- and moderate-income homeowners through minor repair grants (CDBG) and residential rehabilitation or reconstruction loans (HOME). 4 Goal Name Owner Housing - Demolition Goal Description Encourage and facilitate the removal of dilapidated residential structures and/or address community emergencies. 5 Goal Name Rental/Owner Housing - Code Enforcement Goal Description Utilize code enforcement regulations to maintain the integrity of older neighborhoods. Funds will support Code Enforcement Officer position(s). 6 Goal Name Homeownership - Down Payment Assistance Goal Description Encourage and support programs and projects that provide financial assistance to low- and moderate-income households purchasing existing or new affordable homes. 7 Goal Name Homeownership - Financial Literacy Goal Description Encourage and support programs and projects that provide education and counseling to lower-income homeowners and prospective homebuyers. 8 Goal Name Homeownership - Construction Goal Description Encourage and support programs and projects that construct new housing units for low- and moderate-income homebuyers. 9 Goal Name Homelessness - TBRA Security Deposits Goal Description Preventing homelessness through the provision of assistance for low-income households to secure and sustain safe, decent affordable housing. This is a coordinated effort among affordable housing providers and the City to provide security deposit assistance to eligible households. 10 Goal Name Homelessness - Outreach and Assessment Goal Description Fostering coordination, collaboration, and increased resources to assess community needs, available services, and service gaps. This information may be used to target and improve service provision. 11 Goal Name Homelessness - Services Goal Description Assist homeless persons in meeting health and human service needs; provide training and counseling opportunities to help with the transition to self-sufficiency. This goal will be met through public service provision. 12 Goal Name Special Needs - Services Goal Description Encourage and facilitate organizations that provide social and/or housing services to special needs populations. 13 Goal Name Public Services - Health Care Services Goal Description Encourage and support nonprofit providers of health and dental care to deliver programs to low- and moderate-income families and individuals. 14 Goal Name Public Services - Youth Services Goal Description Encourage and support nonprofit providers of youth services and programs to deliver programs to low- and moderate-income families. 15 Goal Name Public Services - Senior Services Goal Description Encourage and support nonprofit providers of mental health care and substance abuse counseling services to deliver programs to low- and moderate-income families and individuals. 16 Goal Name Public Services - Domestic Abuse & Neglect Goal Description Encourage and support nonprofit providers of domestic abuse and neglect services and programs to deliver programs to low- and moderate-income families. 17 Goal Name Public Services - Other Goal Description Encourage and support nonprofit providers of other public services and programs to deliver programs to low- and moderate-income families. 18 Goal Name Public Facilities - Street Infrastructure Goal Description Rehabilitation and expansion of street infrastructure. 19 Goal Name Public Facilities - Sidewalk Infrastructure Goal Description Rehabilitation and expansion of sidewalk infrastructure. 20 Goal Name Public Facilities - Other Infrastructure Goal Description Rehabilitation and expansion of other infrastructure, including water and sewer lines and flood drain improvements. 21 Goal Name Public Facilities - Park Improvements Goal Description Improve or expand park facilities including green space, neighborhood parks, and recreational facilities. 22 Goal Name Economic Development - Business Loan Program Goal Description Rehabilitate and/or develop new spaces for businesses to better realize job creation. 23 Goal Name Economic Development - Job Training Goal Description Support and expand community-wide training and employment activities targeting low- and moderate-income households. Attachment 6: 2016 Median Income Limits 2016 MEDIAN INCOME LIMITS City of College Station Community Development This list supersedes all other lists of prior dates. Household 60% 80% 1 $24,780 $33,000 2 $28,320 $37,700 3 $31,860 $42,400 4 $35,340 $47,100 5 $38,220 $50,900 6 $41,040 $54,650 7 $43,860 $58,450 8 $46,680 $62,200 The left column (Household) refers to the number of people in the home. The two columns on the right refer to the maximum combined income allowed per year by HUD guidelines in order to qualify for a Community Development program at 60% and 80% of the Area Median Income (AMI). Attachment 7: Map of Eligible Community Development Areas This product is for informational purposes and may not have been prepared for or be suitable for legal, engineering, or surve ying purposes. It does not represent an on-the-ground survey and represents only the approximate relative location of property boundaries. No warranty is made by the City of College Station regarding specific accuracy or completeness. Attachment 8: Community Development Project Descriptions Owner-Occupied Housing Assistance HOME and CDBG funds will be used for housing rehabilitation, minor repairs, weatherization, home security, and reconstruction for low-moderate income homeowners; the removal of architectural barriers; and the inspection, testing and abatement of lead hazards. Funds will also be used for program delivery costs including staff salaries and benefits. Demolition CDBG funds will be used for clearance, demolition, and removal of dilapidated structures that have been deemed uninhabitable in accordance with City codes, including the movement of structure to other sites. Funds will also be used for program delivery costs including staff salaries and benefits. Interim Assistance In case of a community emergency affecting the health and safety of residents, CDBG funds will be utilized to address immediate threats and for financial and technical assistance to coordinate clean -up efforts to eligible households. Homebuyer Assistance Down payment and closing cost assistance provided to eligible, qualified homebuyers through deferred no interest loans, which include a shared equity component, with HOME funds. Funds will be used for program delivery costs including staff salaries and benefits. Community Housing Development Organization HOME funds will be made available to an eligible CHDO for the acquisition, development and construction of affordable housing units or the rehabilitation of existing housing units. CHDO Operating Expenses HOME funds are allowable for 5% of grant for operating/administration expenses incurred by eligible CHDO to build capacity to carry out current and future CHDO activities. Construction – Leveraged Development and Non-Profit Partners HOME funds will be used to facilitate the development of new affordable housing or the renovation of existing housing for low-income residents. Activities may include the acquisition of land, soft costs, or construction of single-family or multi-family units. Housing Services CDBG funds will be used for costs associated with processing applicants for all HOME housing assistance programs and marketing efforts. Expenses will include staff salaries and benefits and homebuyer/ homeowner counseling program. Rental Rehabilitation HOME funds will be matched with private funds to rehabilitate rental properties that will maintain affordable rents for low-income households for a specified period of time following the completion of the project. Projects will be selected based on the following priorities: bringing the unit up to City Codes and HUD standards, upgrade systems, energy conservation upgrades, exterior repairs, and other upgrades that increase marketability. Code Enforcement CDBG funds will be used for salary and benefits to support code enforcement activities in targeted low-to- moderate income areas in College Station. Two officers in the Community Services Department focus efforts in targeted areas. Tenant Based Rental Assistance Using HOME funds, CD staff will administer a security deposit assistance program for low income individuals and families who will reside in housing units located in a HTC property located in College Station. Current properties include The Haven Apartments, The Heritage at Dartmouth, and Santour Court. Other eligible properties include Terrace Pines Apartments and Villas of Rock Prairie. CD staff will work with the Housing Choice Voucher Program to provide security deposit assistance to qualified voucher holders securing housing in College Station. CD Staff will also work with BVCAA, which offers affordable rental units to lower- income households in College Station. Public Services 15% of the City’s CDBG fund allocation will be used in partnership with CDBG funds from the City of Bryan to fund non-profit social service agencies in the community. The Joint Relief Funding Review Committee, a Citizen Committee comprised of three members from the City of College Station and three fr om the City of Bryan, review program proposals from area nonprofits and recommend funding amounts based on their review. Funds are awarded to nonprofit programs who serve primarily low and moderate income residents of College Station and Bryan. Public Facility Funds will be used to design, engineer, construct, or rehabilitate streets, sidewalks, parks, water and wastewater utilities, or other infrastructure improvements in College Station. Economic Development Funds will be utilized in the establishment of a revolving loan program to spur economic development and create or retain jobs for qualified low- and moderate-income persons. Program Administration HOME and CDBG funds will be used for management, planning and administration of the City’s PY 2014 CDBG, HOME and other eligible grant programs for LMI citizens. Staff will provide capacity building and technical assistance as needed to citizens, builders, developers, and service providers. Funds from the administrative budget are made available to Project Unity to provide planning and reporting support to CD staff and coordinate a variety of community meetings to address the needs of low- and moderate-income residents, available services, and resources among local service providers. The City will utilize administrative funds to provide education to the community regarding Federal Fair Housing laws and affirmatively further fair housing in College Station. City Hall 1101 Texas Ave College Station, TX 77840 College Station, TX Legislation Details (With Text) File #: Version:116-0352 Name:Progress Update on Impact Fees Status:Type:Presentation Agenda Ready File created:In control:6/3/2016 City Council Workshop On agenda:Final action:6/23/2016 Title:Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding a progress update on Water and Wastewater Impact Fees and Roadway Impact Fees. Sponsors:Alan Gibbs, David Coleman Indexes: Code sections: Attachments: Action ByDate Action ResultVer. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding a progress update on Water and Wastewater Impact Fees and Roadway Impact Fees. Relationship to Strategic Goals: ·Good Governance ·Financially Sustainable City ·Core Services and Infrastructure ·Neighborhood Integrity ·Diverse Growing Economy ·Improving Mobility Recommendation(s): N/A Summary: In November 2015, City Council directed staff to prepare contracts for engineering firms to perform studies, conforming to State law, regarding possible implementation of impact fees for water/wastewater and roadways. In January 2016, City Council executed engineering contracts with Freese and Nichols, Inc. and Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., respectively. In February 2016, City Council established the Impact Fee Advisory Committees (IFACs). These efforts have progressed with initial reports and meetings with the consultants and IFACs. Over the next three months, staff will be bringing several items for City Council action related to the subject impact fees in accordance with state law. This presentation will highlight background, progress, and future items related to these efforts. College Station, TX Printed on 6/17/2016Page 1 of 2 powered by Legistar™ File #:16-0352,Version:1 College Station, TX Printed on 6/17/2016Page 2 of 2 powered by Legistar™ City Hall 1101 Texas Ave College Station, TX 77840 College Station, TX Legislation Details (With Text) File #: Version:116-0368 Name:2016 Citizen Survey Status:Type:Presentation Agenda Ready File created:In control:6/7/2016 City Council Workshop On agenda:Final action:6/23/2016 Title:Presentation and discussion on the 2016 Citizens Survey. Sponsors:Colin Killian Indexes: Code sections: Attachments:College Station 2016 Report Final Action ByDate Action ResultVer. Presentation and discussion on the 2016 Citizens Survey. Relationship to Strategic Goals: ·Good Governance ·Financially Sustainable City ·Core Services and Infrastructure ·Neighborhood Integrity ·Diverse Growing Economy ·Improving Mobility ·Sustainable City Recommendation(s): Staff recommends Council receive the report. Summary: From April 1-30, National Service Research (NSR) of Fort Worth conducted a survey of College Station residents to help the city assess and prioritize a wide range of services and needs. The surveys were mailed to 8,000 randomly-selected households, which were also given the option of completing the survey online. Any College Station resident could complete the online survey. Participants were asked to rate various city services, quality of life issues and community characteristics, and to rank their priorities. The survey was publicized through local media outlets along with the city’s website, cable TV channel and social media. A total of 2,015 responses were received, including 1,472 online and 543 by mail. The sample also included 511 students from Texas A&M and Blinn College. The margin of error for this sample size at a 95 percent confidence level is plus or minus 2.2 percent. A representative sample was received from four geographic areas within the city. In addition, the survey includes a benchmark comparison with other Texas cities that conducted surveys within the last two years. College Station, TX Printed on 6/17/2016Page 1 of 2 powered by Legistar™ File #:16-0368,Version:1 NSR performed several surveys for the City of College Station in the late 1990s and early 2000s, as well as the city’s last survey in 2012. Budget & Financial Summary: The city paid NSR $9,850 to administer the survey. Other firms were considered, but NSR was selected because of its experience in conducting city surveys and its low bid. Attachments: 2016 NSR Citizen Survey Report College Station, TX Printed on 6/17/2016Page 2 of 2 powered by Legistar™ Citizen Survey April 2016 1 Page Survey Objectives 3 Methodology 4 Geographic Survey Distribution 6 City Service Priorities 7 Utility Service Ratings 15 Quality of Life 17 Importance of Community Characteristics 27 City Employees and Service 32 Public Safety 35 City Communication Efforts 38 Municipal Facilities 42 Benchmark Data 47 Demographics 53 Conclusions 57 National Service Research –Background/Contact Information 62 Table of Contents 2 Survey Objectives Identify Key Measures of Quality of Life Satisfaction with City Services (Quality vs. Importance) Assess Experience with City Communication Tools Identify and Prioritize City Resource Allocation, Budgeting and Policy Decisions Identify Where to Maintain and Improve City Services 3 The sampling plan included a mailed survey to 8,000 households proportionately distributed within four geographic areas. Households had the option of completing the mailed survey or completing the survey online via the City website. Residents were informed about the survey through a multifaceted approach: Press releases from the City (one introductory release prior to the survey mailing) Mailed survey to 8,000 households Promotional video -YouTube, city cable channel, social media (on-going throughout the data collection period) Email messages to all homeowner associations (on-going throughout the data collection period) Multiple social media posts –Facebook, Twitter (on-going throughout the data collection period) Paid Facebook ads (targeted toward all residents and specific demographic groups) City website front page online survey link (on-going throughout the data collection period) Surveys were mailed on March 25, 2016. Survey cut-off date was April 30, 2016. A total of 543 responded to the mailed survey and 1,472 responded to the online survey. The margin of error of this sample size (2,015) at a 95% confidence level is plus or minus 2.2%. The citizen survey and detailed survey tables are presented in the Appendix of the technical volume report. Methodology 4 Methodology Survey Design National Service Research (NSR) worked closely with the City of College Station staff throughout the research process. The survey design was based upon the 2012 citizen survey with additional input from city staff. This study provides a measurement of how citizens feel about city service delivery and programs. The data should be considered along with other factors such as input from city officials and city staff when making budget and policy decisions. 5 30% 20% 33% Geographic Survey Distribution Q. In what area of College Station do you live? 17% 6 City Service Priorities 7 ImportanceQuality 80% 89% 90% 86% 97% 87% 99% 98% 98% 97% 69% 63% 45% 56% 84% 67% 48% 28% 93% 86% 0%50%100% Police Department Services Maintaining streets and roads Biking/walking facilities Programs to retain and support existing businesses Fire Department Services Managing traffic congestion Attracting business and jobs Managing trash and recycling Enforcing traffic laws RANK 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Providing a variety of youth recreation programs10 THE GAP –City Service Importance vs. Quality Rating RANK 1 -10 Q. How important are these city services? Q. How would you rate the quality of these City of College Station Services? 8 QUALITY ratings shown herein are for EXCELLENT/GOOD scores. IMPORTANCE ratings shown herein are for VERY IMPORTANT, SOMEWHAT IMPORTANT scores. RANK -Lists the city services n rank order based upon the respondents first, second and third most important service. ImportanceQuality 67% 81% 82% 75% 62% 77% 74% 83% 95% 93% 56% 66% 50% 56% 62% 73% 74% 53% 68% 75% 0%50%100% Maintaining appearance of parks Special events Senior citizen services Educating the public on crime prevention Managing stormwater drainage Code enforcement services Library services Attracting tourism Animal control services RANK 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Providing a variety of adult recreation programs20 THE GAP –City Service Importance vs. Quality Rating RANK 11 -20 9 Q. How important are these city services? Q. How would you rate the quality of these City of College Station Services? QUALITY ratings shown herein are for EXCELLENT/GOOD scores. IMPORTANCE ratings shown herein are for VERY IMPORTANT, SOMEWHAT IMPORTANT scores. RANK -Lists the city services n rank order based upon the respondents first, second and third most important service. ImportanceQuality 80% 89% 90% 86% 97% 87% 99% 98% 98% 97% 69% 63% 45% 56% 84% 67% 48% 28% 93% 86% 0%50%100% Police Department Services Maintaining streets and roads Biking/walking facilities Programs to retain and support existing businesses Fire Department Services Managing traffic congestion Attracting business and jobs Managing trash and recycling Enforcing traffic laws RANK 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Providing a variety of youth recreation programs10 THE BIGGEST GAP –Managing Traffic Congestion 98% Importance Rating and 28% Quality Rating 10 Increase Efforts 3.Managing traffic congestion (GAP 70%) 4.Maintaining streets (GAP 51%) 5.Attracting business/jobs (GAP 19%) 7.Biking/walking facilities (GAP 30%) 8.Retain/support businesses (GAP 45%) 9.Enforcing traffic laws (GAP 26%) 11.Maintaining appearance of parks (GAP 18%) 12.Managing stormwater drainage (GAP 27%) 13.Code enforcement services (GAP 30%) 18.Educating the public on crime prevention (GAP 32%) Maintain Efforts 1.Police services (GAP 11%) 2.Fire services (GAP 5%) 6.Managing trash/recycling (GAP 13%) Exceeds ExpectationsLess Important QUALITYIMPORTANCE HighLow High Low 10.Variety of youth recreation programs 11.Special events 14.Library services 15.Attracting tourism 16.Senior citizens services 19.Animal control 20.Variety of adult recreation programs GAP = difference between importance versus quality ranking RANK Service Prioritization RANK RANK 11 Service Prioritization •Maintain Efforts (High importance and high quality) •This area shows where the City is meeting residents’ expectations. Items in this area have a significant impact on the resident’s overall level of satisfaction. The City should maintain (or slightly increase) emphasis on items in this area. •Increase Efforts -Opportunities for Improvement (High importance, lower quality) •This area shows where the City is not performing as well as residents expect. Items in this area have an impact on citizen satisfaction and the City should increase emphasis on items in this area. •Exceeded Expectations (Less importance, high quality) •This area shows where the City is performing significantly better than residents expect. Items in this area do not significantly affect overall satisfaction. The City should maintain (or possible reduce) emphasis on items this area. •Less Important (Lower importance, lower quality) •This area shows where the City is not performing well relative to its performance in other areas. However, this area is generally considered to be less important. This area does not significantly affect overall satisfaction with City services because these items are less important to residents. The City should maintain current levels of emphasis in these areas. •RANK -Lists the city services in rank order based upon the respondents first, second and third most important service.12 Comments –Specific City Services or Departments Q. Do you have any additional comments about specific city services or departments? Word Clouds Several questions throughout the report were asked in an open-ended fashion which allowed respondents to answer without being prompted or restricted to a particular list of answer options. For these responses NSR prepared “word clouds”. Word that were mentioned more often appear larger and words that were mentioned less often appear smaller.13 Comments –Specific City Services or Departments 14% NSR grouped responses for the open-ended questions in order that they may be reported quantitatively. 702 Grouped Responses CITY –better growth planning , focus on infrastructure, too many apartments, protect neighborhoods, need affordable housing, more focus on family housing not just students 19% TRAFFIC –enforce traffic laws, improve traffic flow/congestion, ban texting and driving, need mass transit 18% PARKS, RECREATION –more bike/trail connections, more dog parks, more family friendly attractions, more kid, teen, senior activities 14% 17%POSITIVE COMMENTS –great job, keep up the good work STREETS/ROADS 11%UTILITIES –lower rates, drainage issues, water fluoride levels 6%PUBLIC SAFETY –expand staff to growth areas, improve courtesy, more aggressive law enforcement 4%BUSINESS –maintain existing businesses, develop downtown, attract new businesses 4% 4% TRASH AND RECYCLING CODE ENFORCEMENT 14 15 Utility Service Ratings 47% 51% 48% 30% 30% 32% -20%0%20%40%60%80%100% Electric Utility Services Waste Water Services Water Services Utility Quality Rating ExcellentGoodFairPoor 15% 16% 17% 5% 6% 4% 16 8 out of 10 participants rated the quality of College Station utilities as excellent or good. Quality of Life 17 59% 48% 36% 46% 49% 32% 40% 41% 49% 25% 20% 38% 34% 30% 57% 46% 50% 38% -20%0%20%40%60%80%100% Overall quality of city services Value for tax dollars Place to retire Place to work Place to do business Raise a family Place to live - Neighborhood Place to live - City Overall image reputation Quality of Life Characteristics in College Station ExcellentGoodPoor Fair 9 out of 10 participants rated College Station as a place to live and raise a family as excellent or good. 18 What Do You Value Most About Living in College Station? Word Cloud 19 32% 25% 21% 15% 5% 6% 6% 7% Small town feel but has quality services of a larger city (entertainment, cultural, religious, etc.) Friendly people, family friendly, good quality of life Quality education opportunities (schools, Texas A&M University), college atmosphere, proximity to TAMU Safety, low crime Ease of getting around town Parks and trails Good city government (services, progressive, clean) Entertainment/shopping/businesses What do You Value Most About Living in College Station? 1,496 Grouped Responses 20 What Would You Say Should Be College Station’s Highest Priority? Word Cloud 21 What Would You Say Should Be College Station’s Highest Priority? 1,567 Grouped Responses 31% 24% 22% 10% 6% 4% 8% PUBLIC SAFETY CITY –balanced budget, managed growth, sustainability, maintain small town feel, quality growth/development TRAFFIC –reduce congestion, alternative transportation methods JOB CREATION PARKS/RECREATION –maintain/grow P&R opportunities, create bike/pedestrian friendly city, provide culture/art events EDUCATION –Maintain quality education opportunities, support TAMU MAINTAIN STREETS/ROADS 22 What Types of Retail and Commercial Development Would You Like to See in College Station? Word Cloud 23 1,405 Grouped Responses What Types of Retail and Commercial Development Would You Like to See in College Station?? 9% NONE NEEDED 25% RESTAURANTS/RETAIL –more quality establishments that cater to adults/families and not just college students 19%BRAND MENTIONS -specific retail/restaurant brand mentions 9% ENTERTAINMENT –more entertainment venues, family friendly activities Improve mall, need more shopping areas Fewer chains, more local/independent businesses 6% 3%Mixed use development –retail, restaurants, parks, etc. 3%Water park, skate park, amusement park 13% 9%GROCERY –more upscale grocery stores (Whole Foods, HEB, Trader Joe’s, Central Market) 7% Attract businesses for job opportunities 24 How Likely Are You to Recommend College Station as a Place to Live? 38% 34% 56% 57% -20%0%20%40%60%80% 2012 2016 Somewhat Likely Very LikelyNot Likely Somewhat Unlikely 4%6% 4%3% 92%of all respondents in 2016 are likely to recommend College Station as a place to live 25 61% 56% 21% 29% -20%0%20%40%60%80% Agree Strongly AgreeDisagreeStrongly Disagree 14%4% 12%4%2016 2012 College Station –Moving in the Right Direction as a Community? 85%of all respondents in 2016 agree College Station is moving in the right direction, a 3%increase since 2012. 26 27 Importance of Community Characteristics Community Characteristics –Importance Rating -TOP TEN 78% 97% 92% 87% 96% 98% 86% 94% 99% 96% 0%20%40%60%80%100%120% 10 Support of sustainability, green issues 9 Appearance of neighborhoods 8 Sense of community 7 Quality shopping opportunities 6 Educational opportunities 5 Overall appearance of College Station 4 Availability of quality affordable housing 3 Job opportunities 2 Availability of medical/health facilities 1 Ease of travel around town % Rating Very Important/Important IMPORTANCE RANK 28 Q. How important to you are the following community characteristics? Q. Which THREE characteristics are the MOST important to you? The graph below depicts the respondents rating (very important/important) of each community characteristic. The importance rank lists the community characteristics in rank order based upon the respondents first, second and third most important characteristic. 73% 74% 82% 68% 92% 89% 90% 91% 92% 95% 0%20%40%60%80%100%120% 20 Volunteer opportunities 19 Opportunities to participate in local govt 18 Cultural activities 17 Ease of bicycle travel around town 16 Quality of new development 15 Availability of green space 14 Business opportunities 13 Entertainment opportunities 12 Recreational opportunities 11 Quality of business/service establishments % Rating Very Important/Important 29 IMPORTANCE RANK Community Characteristics –Importance Rating –RANK 11-20 Q. How important to you are the following community characteristics? Q. Which THREE characteristics are the MOST important to you? The graph below depicts the respondents rating (very important/important) of each community characteristic. The importance rank lists the community characteristics in rank order based upon the respondents first, second and third most important characteristic. If You Could Change One Thing About College Station, What Would it Be? Word Cloud 30 1,608 Grouped Responses If You Could Change One Thing About College Station, What Would it Be? 27% Traffic congestion, stricter traffic laws, ban texting/driving, improve traffic flow, need public transit 9%Improve road planning and maintenance 9% Efficient use of taxpayer funds, need sustainable growth, more responsive to citizens, maintain infrastructure 8% Less rental housing in residential neighborhoods, preserve neighborhood integrity 7%Parks/trails –bike/pedestrian friendly, more connection of trails throughout the city More employment and business opportunities 12% Improve retail options, more entertainment activities for teens, adults, seniors, tourists 5%More affordable housing options 5% Promote quality development , downtown city center 3% 2%Lower taxes 2% 2% 2% 2% More competitive utility rates Improve code enforcement Improve safety Less focus on TAMU, consider all citizens 1%No changes needed 31 32 City Employees and Service Rating of City Employee Contact 32% 30% 57% 55% -20%0%20%40%60%80% Good ExcellentFairPoor 2012 2016 52% of all respondents in 2016 have had contact with a city employee within the past 12 months. 85%reported the contact with city employees was excellent or good. 6%9% 8%3% 33 368 Grouped Responses How Could the City’s Customer Service be Improved? Quicker response, follow-up to inquiries 30%Improve customer service to citizens 29%POSITIVE comments –prompt, professional, courteous, helpful 7% COMMUNICATION –more communication to citizens, easier communication with specific departments Improve code enforcement 2% Improve website, more user friendly 10% 5%TRAINING =-better training of employees to respond to citizen needs/questions 5% More staff needed to respond to citizen inquiries 2% 34 Public Safety 35 40% Somewhat safe 59% Very safe 4% Somewhat unsafe How Safe do you Feel in your Neighborhood? 2016 53% Very safe 37% Somewhat safe 6% Somewhat unsafe2012 1% Not Safe 0.2% Not Safe 36 96%reported they feel very or somewhat safe in their neighborhood, a 3%increase since 2012 51% 51% 4% 5% 29% 27% 16% 17% 0%20%40%60%80%100% 2012 2016 Crime in College Station INCREASING SAME DON’T KNOW DECREASING 37 51%reported they feel crime is increasing, no change since 2012. Communication 38 City Government Communication 8% 31% 26% 35% 41% 52% 48% 0%20%40%60%80%100% 7 City cable channel 6 Utility bill newsletter 5 Local radio station 4 Local newspaper 3 Local TV stations 2 Social media 1 City website cstx.gov Q. How do you prefer to get information about city government activities?IMPORTANCE RANK 39 The graph below depicts the percentage of how respondents prefer to get information about city government activities. The importance rank lists the communications methods in rank order based upon the respondents first, second and third most preferred method. Q. How do you PREFER to get information about city government activities? Q. Which THREE methods are the MOST important to you? How Could the City Improve its Public Communication Efforts? Word Cloud 60% of respondents reported they receive enough information about city programs, activities and events 40 41 How Could the City Improve its Public Communication Efforts? 666 Grouped Responses Positive comments –currently doing a good job 26%Social media 13%Email newsletter 9% Mail, fliers, mailed newsletters 5% Billboards, electronic signs 10% 7%More communication about new developments, activities, events Newspaper/more local news 3% 41 3%More proactive media/advertising 3%Partnering with local businesses and schools regarding city news, activities and events 2%Text alerts/messages 2%Nextdoor.com, HOA’s 2%Newsletter in utility bill 2%Enhance communication with TAMU students and other schools 7%Improve website Municipal Facilities 42 17% 11% 15% 24% 52% 42% 44% 56% 26% 33% 28% 18% 5% 14% 14% 3% 0%20%40%60%80%100% Southwood Community Center Lincoln Recreation Center College Station City Hall Municipal Court Quality Rating of Municipal Facilities PoorFairGoodExcellent Percentages exclude no opinion responses.. 43 Importance Rating –Additional Facilities to be Provided by the City 50% 45% 48% 39% 29% 29% 31% 48% -20%0%20%40%60%80%100% Community meeting and activity space Senior activities and programs City offices and services Youth activities and programs Very Important Somewhat Important Not important at all Somewhat Unimportant 87% of all respondents reported that youth activities and programs were important to be provided by the city. 44 45 Comments about College Station’s Municipal Buildings and Facilities Word Cloud 46 Comments about College Station’s Municipal Buildings and Facilities 235 Grouped Responses 5% 7% 2% 8% Existing facilities are adequate Need new city hall, centralize all departments, existing facilities old, outdated, small Need community center , need public meeting space Comments about library Comments about youth activities/programs Comments about senior center/programs 48% 8% Comments about parks 5% Benchmark Data 47 Benchmark Data In order to provide College Station a reference of how the city is performing, benchmark data is presented for peer cities and the State of Texas These peer city municipal surveys were conducted from 2014 to 2016. The peer cities included are listed below: Flower Mound 2014 Midland 2014 The Woodlands 2014 Round Rock 2014 New Branfels 2015 Pearland 2015 Baytown 2015 Lewisville 2015 Sugar Land 2015 North Richland Hills 2016 In some cases not all cities listed above are included in the benchmark averages because some questions were not included in each municipal survey. 48 Benchmark Data Quality of City Services -% for Excellent/Good Ratings Characteristic College Station 2016 College Station 2012 Peer Cities Texas Fire Services 93%93%91%89% Police Services 86 93 84 83 City’s Customer Service 85 89 77 77 Trash and Recycling 84 86 89 83 Wastewater Services 81 92 81 77 Water Services 80 92 82 78 Electric Utility 77 89 81 76 Maintaining Appearance of Parks 75 79 86 83 Library Services 75 77 87 84 Special Events 74 77 73 73 Variety of Youth Recreation Programs 69 78 65 62 Highlighted columns indicate a drop in ratings from 2012 to 2016 49 Benchmark Data Quality of City Services -% for Excellent/Good Ratings Highlighted columns indicate a drop in ratings from 2012 to 2016 Characteristic College Station 2016 College Station 2012 Peer Cities Texas Stormwater Drainage 68%79%71%66% Animal Control 66 70 68 65 Enforcing Traffic Laws 63 74 68 68 Biking/Walking Facilities 56 70 64 62 Variety of Adult Recreation Programs 56 78 61 57 Senior Citizen Services 56 67 64 64 Code Enforcement 53 65 60 55 Crime Prevention 50 58 -- Maintaining Streets/Roads 48 71 60 56 Managing Traffic Congestion 28 50 49 49 50 Benchmark Data Public Safety –Feel Safe in Your Neighborhood? 10% 20% 40% 30% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 10% 20% 40% 30% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 10% 20% 40% 30% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 10% 20% 40% 30% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%College Station 201696%93% 88%84% Feeling of safety in your neighborhood increased 3% from 2012 to 2016 College Station 2012Peer CitiesTexas51 Benchmark Data Quality of Life -% for Excellent/Good Ratings Characteristic College Station 2016 College Station 2012 Peer Cities Texas Your City as a Place to Live 91%93%89%84% Recommend Your City as Place to Live 91 92 90 86 Your City as a Place to Raise a Family 89 93 88 78 Your City’s Overall Image/Reputation 87 80 80 79 Your Neighborhood as a Place to Live 86 87 79 78 Quality of City Services 84 85 82 77 Your City as a Place to Work 80 77 71 65 Your City as a Place to do Business 79 74 -57 Your City as a Place to Retire 74 77 76 68 Value of City Services for Tax Dollars 68 69 62 59 Highlighted percentages indicate an increase in ratings from 2012 to 2016 52 Respondent Demographics 53 Respondent Age Respondent Demographics Own vs. Rent Gender Female 59% Male 41% 71%29%Own Rent Years Lived in College Station 28% 22% 14% 19% 17%Under 3 3-6 7-10 11-20 Over 20 11%21%19%15%16%18% Under 25 25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 and over 54 Household Size Housing Type Respondent Demographics 21%62%11%4%2% 1 2 3 4 5+ 76% Live in a single family home Age Groups of Children 61% 17% 20% 9% 9%15-18 13-15 6-12 Under 6 No kids 55 Respondent Demographics Attended Texas A&M or Blinn College? Neither 74% 23% 3% Highest Education Received 5% 19% 2% 38% 36% High School Some college/technical Completed technical school Graduated college Graduate/advanced degree 56 Conclusions 57 Maintaining Streets/Roads (GAP 51%, Importance Rank #4) Biking/walking facilities (GAP 30%, Importance Rank #7) Programs to retain/support businesses (GAP 45%, Importance Rank #8) Enforcing traffic laws (GAP 26%, Importance Rank #9) Manage Traffic Congestion (GAP 70%, Importance Rank #3) Conclusions –Top Candidates for Improvement 58 Conclusions –Quality of Life / Safety 9 out of 10 respondents rated College Station as an EXCELLENT or GOOD place to live. 9 out of 10 respondents rated College Station as an EXCELLENT or GOOD place to raise a family. 9 out of 10 are likely to recommend College Station as a place to live. 96%feel very or somewhat safe in their neighborhood 59 It was clear that throughout the report that managing traffic is a high priority among residents. Although several city service ratings were down since 2012, 85%of all respondents in 2016 agree College Station is moving in the right direction, a 3%increase since 2012. The study showed an increase in ratings among residents for: UP 7% -The City’s overall reputation and image UP 5% -The City as a place to do business UP 5%-Attracting tourism UP 4% -Attracting business and jobs UP 3% -The city as a place to work UP 1% -Programs to retain and support existing businesses The top five (in rank order) community characteristics of most importance to residents that should receive focus from the city: #1 Ease of car travel around town #2 Availability of medical/health facilities #3 Job opportunities #4 Availability of quality affordable housing #5 Overall appearance of College Station Conclusions 60 •Community •EmployeesCommunicate •Budgeting •Resource Allocation/ Planning Use results to inform decision making 62 Conclusions –WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE? 61 Contact: Andrea Thomas, Owner 2601 Ridgmar Plaza, Suite 2 Fort Worth, Texas 76116 817-312-3606 e-mail: andrea@nationalserviceresearch.com web site: www.nationalserviceresearch.com National Service Research (NSR), founded in 1989, is a full-service market research consulting firm and conducts market studies for the public and private sector. NSR conducts various types of consumer and business research including focus groups and surveys nationwide. NSR’s owner and founder, Andrea Thomas, over thirty - five years of professional market research experience. 63 National Service Research 62 City Hall 1101 Texas Ave College Station, TX 77840 College Station, TX Legislation Details (With Text) File #: Version:116-0370 Name:RVP Compliance Report Status:Type:Updates Agenda Ready File created:In control:6/8/2016 City Council Workshop On agenda:Final action:6/23/2016 Title:Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding the 2015 Compliance Report by the Research Valley Partnership. Sponsors:Jennifer Prochazka Indexes: Code sections: Attachments: Action ByDate Action ResultVer. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding the 2015 Compliance Report by the Research Valley Partnership. Relationship to Strategic Goals: ·Diverse Growing Economy Recommendation(s): None; no action is required. Summary: This item is in response to a City Council request for information from the Research Valley Partnership (RVP) regarding project compliance. Budget & Financial Summary: N/A Attachments: N/A College Station, TX Printed on 6/17/2016Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™