The document summarizes the results of College Station's 2019 citizen survey conducted by National Service Research. Over 1,200 residents responded. Most rated the overall quality and value of city services as good or excellent. Traffic congestion and street maintenance were seen as the highest priorities needing improvement based on their importance and lower quality ratings. Respondents felt safe in their neighborhoods and that College Station is moving in a positive direction, though some believe crime is increasing. Ease of car travel and medical facilities were most important community characteristics. Around three-quarters agreed growth and development have benefited quality of life.

1. City of College Station
2019 Citizen
Survey Results
N a t i o n a l S e r v i c e Re s e a r c h

2. CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC PLAN
Good Governance
Goal: The city is governed in a transparent,
efficient, accountable and responsive manner
on behalf of its citizens.
Actions: The city will conduct regular citizen
surveys about city services and priorities.

3. NATIONAL SERVICE RESEARCH
• Conducted Parks Needs Assessment last fall.
• Conducted College Station citizen surveys in 2012 and 2016.
About NSR
• Founded in 1989 and headquartered in Fort Worth
• Clients include City of Dallas, City of Fort Worth, TCU, DFW
Airport, Texas Department of Public Safety, U.S. Department
of Commerce, TxDOT, Coca-Cola, and Anheuser-Busch.

4. METHODOLOGY
• 8,000 surveys were mailed to random city addresses
proportionately selected within four geographic areas.
• Households had the option to complete the survey online.
• Widely publicized through traditional media, social media,
direct mail, promotional video, newsletters, website.

5. • Surveys were mailed March 25. The cut-off date was May 12.
• 1,236 responses were received (380 mailed, 856 online).
• The margin of error of this sample size at a 95 percent
confidence level was +/- 2.8 percent.
• About 22% of the respondents were college students.
METHODOLOGY

6. GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION
28%
25%
30%
17%

7. • Peer cities’ populations range between 60,000-180,000.
College Station’s April population was estimated at 121,994.
• The peer city surveys were conducted from 2017-19:
BENCHMARK CITIES
McKinney (2019) Mesquite (2018) Flower Mound (2017)
Tyler (2018) Round Rock (2018) New Braunfels (2017)
Missouri City (2018) Baytown (2018) Pflugerville (2017)
The Woodlands (2018) North Richland Hills (2018) Pearland (2017)
Georgetown (2018) Denton (2018) Sugarland (2017)

8. CITY SERVICES
% of respondents who selected EXCELLENT or GOOD 2019 2016 +/- Peers Texas
Overall quality of city services 78 84 -6 80 78
Value of services for tax dollars 59 68 -9 59 57

9. CUSTOMER SERVICE
% of respondents who selected EXCELLENT or GOOD 2019 2016 +/- Peers Texas
What was your impression of the
employee’s courtesy, knowledge
and responsiveness?
85 85 -- 74 75
About 52% of respondents indicated they had contact
with a city employee in the last 12 months. Those
respondents were then asked about their experience.

10. COLLEGE STATION UTILITIES
% of respondents who selected EXCELLENT or GOOD 2019 2016 +/- Peers Texas
Water services 83 80 +3 74 72
Wastewater services 81 81 -- 76 74
Electric services 77 77 -- 81 78

11. SERVICE IMPORTANCE / QUALITY
Rank % 2019 2016 +/- Peers Texas
1 95 Police department 86 86 -- 82 81
2 98 Managing traffic congestion 24 28 -4 42 43
3 98 Fire department 92 93 -1 91 90
4 99 Maintaining streets/roads 49 48 +1 53 51
5 83 Attracting business/jobs 63 67 -4 -- --
Ranking based on the % of respondents
who rated item among three MOST important
% of respondents who selected
EXCELLENT or GOOD
< Importance > <<<<<<<<<<< Quality >>>>>>>>>>

12. SERVICE IMPORTANCE / QUALITY
Rank % 2019 2016 +/- Peers Texas
6 82 Biking/walking facilities 58 56 +2 59 62
7 97 Managing trash/recycling 86 84 +2 85 84
8 89 Enforcing traffic laws 66 63 +3 69 70
9 88 Retaining/supporting business 44 45 -1 -- --
10 96 Managing storm water 70 68 +2 65 64
Ranking based on the % of respondents
who rated item among three MOST important
% of respondents who selected
EXCELLENT or GOOD
< Importance > <<<<<<<<<<< Quality >>>>>>>>>>

13. SERVICE IMPORTANCE / QUALITY
Rank % 2019 2016 +/- Peers Texas
11 91 Appearance of parks 74 75 -1 80 81
12 78 Youth recreation programs 71 69 +2 64 63
13 77 Library services 72 75 -3 84 83
14 82 Code enforcement services 57 53 +4 60 56
15 71 Special events 79 74 +5 72 76
Ranking based on the % of respondents
who rated item among three MOST important
% of respondents who selected
EXCELLENT or GOOD
< Importance > <<<<<<<<<<< Quality >>>>>>>>>>

14. SERVICE IMPORTANCE / QUALITY
Rank % 2019 2016 +/- Peers Texas
16 72 Senior citizen services 61 56 +5 62 57
17 64 Adult recreation programs 58 56 +2 59 58
18 56 Attracting tourism 62 62 -- -- --
19 77 Crime prevention education 55 50 +5 75 71
20 79 Animal control services 69 66 +3 72 68
Ranking based on the % of respondents
who rated item among three MOST important
% of respondents who selected
EXCELLENT or GOOD
< Importance > <<<<<<<<<<< Quality >>>>>>>>>>

15. SERVICE QUALITY
23
city services measured
7
significant
improvement
13
statistically
unchanged
3
slight
decline

16. IMPORTANCE SUMMARY
20
city services measured
+80%
12 services
+60%
19 services
-59%
1 service

17. BENCHMARK SUMMARY
16
city services comparable
to benchmark cities
6
higher than
peers
5
equal to
peers
5
lower than
peers

18. IMPORTANCE vs. QUALITY GAPS
Rank Qual. Imp. GAP
1 Managing traffic congestion 24 98 -74
2 Maintaining streets/roads 49 99 -50
3 Retaining/supporting business 44 88 -44
4 Managing storm water 70 96 -26
5 Code enforcement services 57 82 -25

19. IMPORTANCE vs. QUALITY GAPS
Rank Qual. Imp. GAP
6 Biking/walking facilities 58 82 -24
7 Enforcing traffic laws 66 89 -23
8 Crime prevention education 55 77 -22
9 Attracting business/jobs 63 83 -20
10 Parks appearance 74 91 -17

20. SERVICE PRIORITIZATION
Increase Efforts
Higher importance
Lower quality
Traffic congestion
Street maintenance
Support businesses
Stormwater drainage
Code enforcement
Bike/walking facilities
Enforcing traffic laws
Crime prevention
Attracting business
GAP – importance exceeds
quality by a large %

21. SERVICE PRIORITIZATION
Maintain Efforts
High importance
High quality
Parks appearance
Animal control
Trash/recycling
Senior citizen services
Police services
Youth programs
Adult programs
Fire services
Library services
GAP – importance exceeds
quality by a smaller %

22. SERVICE PRIORITIZATION
Exceeds
Expectations
Lower importance
High quality
Attracting tourism
Special events
GAP – quality exceeds
importance

23. QUALITY OF LIFE
% selecting EXCELLENT or GOOD 2019 2016 +/- Peers Texas
As a place to live 88 91 -3 85 86
Neighborhood as a place to live 86 86 0 80 81
As a place to raise a family 87 89 -2 80 78
As a place to retire 69 74 -5 69 69

24. QUALITY OF LIFE
% selecting EXCELLENT or GOOD 2019 2016 +/- Peers Texas
As a place to work 75 80 -5 69 68
As a place to do business 71 79 -8 69 68
Image and reputation 84 87 -3 76 78
College Station rated higher than peers and Texas cities
in six of the seven categories and were equal in the other.

25. % selecting VERY or SOMEWHAT LIKELY 2019 2016 +/- Peers Texas
Would you recommend College
Station as a place to live?
87 91 -4 91 91
QUALITY OF LIFE
% selecting STRONGLY or SOMEWHAT AGREE 2019 2016 +/- Peers Texas
“College Station is moving in the
right direction as a community”
76 85 -9 68 65

26. PUBLIC SAFETY
% of respondents selecting SAFE or SOMEWHAT SAFE 2019 2016 +/- Peers Texas
In general, how safe do you feel
in your neighborhood?
95 96 -1 89 88
The number of respondents choosing safe (68%)
was 9% higher than in 2016 (59%)

27. PUBLIC SAFETY
% of respondents 2019 2016 +/-
Crime is increasing 62 51 +11
Crime is decreasing 4 5 -1
Crime is staying the same 21 27 -6
13 percent responded that they don’t know

28. COMMUNITY CHARACTERISTICS
2019
Rank
2016
Rank
2019 2016 +/ -
1 1 Ease of car travel 95 96 -1
2 2 Medical/health facilities 98 99 -1
3 4 Quality affordable housing 84 86 -2
4 5 Appearance of community 97 98 -1
5 3 Job opportunities 91 94 -3
Ranking based on the % of respondents
who rated item among three MOST important

29. COMMUNITY CHARACTERISTICS
2019
Rank
2016
Rank
2019 2016 +/ -
6 9 Neighborhood appearance 96 97 -1
7 6 Educational opportunities 94 96 -2
8 10 Sustainability/green issues 76 78 -2
9 8 Sense of community 91 92 -1
10 15 Availability of open space 89 89 --
Ranking based on the % of respondents
who rated item among three MOST important

30. COMMUNITY CHARACTERISTICS
2019
Rank
2016
Rank
2019 2016 +/ -
11 7 Quality shopping 83 87 -4
12 12 Recreational opportunities 91 92 -1
13 13 Entertainment opportunities 89 91 -2
14 11 Business/service establishments 95 95 --
15 14 Business opportunities 85 90 -5
Ranking based on the % of respondents
who rated item among three MOST important

31. COMMUNITY CHARACTERISTICS
2019
Rank
2016
Rank
2019 2016 +/ -
16 17 Ease of bicycle travel 62 68 -6
17 16 Quality of new development 87 92 -5
18 18 Cultural activities 79 82 -3
19 19 Ways to participate in local
gov’t
74 74 --
20 20 Volunteer opportunities 70 73 -3Ranking based on the % of respondents
who rated item among three MOST important

32. GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT
About 76% of
respondents agree
or strongly agree
that growth and
development have
contributed
positively to College
Station’s quality
of life.
18%
58%
17%
7% Strongly
Agree
Agree
Disagree

33. City of College Station
2019 Citizen
Survey Results
N a t i o n a l S e r v i c e Re s e a r c h