Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
2011, 03-01 Study Session
AGENDA SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION FORMAT Tuesday,March 1, 2011 6:00 p.m. CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 11707 East Sprague Avenue,First Floor (Please Silence Your Cell Phones During the Meeting) DISCUSSION LEADER SUBJECT/ACTIVITY GOAL 1. Steve Worley Draft Amended 2011 Transportation Discussion/Information Improvement Plan(TIP) 2.Neil Kersten Maintenance Shop Discussion/Information 3. Morgan Koudelka Animal Control Update Discussion/Information 4. Lori Barlow Shoreline Master Program Update Discussion/Information 5. Kathy McClung Comprehensive Plan Review Process Discussion/Information 6. Mayor Towey Advance Agenda Discussion/Information 7. Information Only(will not be reported or discussed): a. Transfer Portion of Havana Street b. Community Survey 8. Mayor Towey Council Check in Discussion/Information 9. Mike Jackson City Manager Comments Discussion/Information ADJOURN Note: Unless otherwise noted above, there will be no public comments at Council Study Sessions. However, Council always reserves the right to request information from the public and staff as appropriate. During meetings held by the City of Spokane Valley Council, the Council reserves the right to take "action" on any item listed or subsequently added to the agenda. The term "action"means to deliberate,discuss,review,consider,evaluate,or make a collective positive or negative decision. NOTICE: Individuals planning to attend the meeting who require special assistance to accommodate physical, hearing, or other impairments,please contact the City Clerk at(509)921-1000 as soon as possible so that arrangements may be made. Study Session Agenda,March 1,2011 Page 1 of 1 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: March 1, 2011 City Manager Sign-off: Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ® admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Draft Amended 2011 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 35.77.010 PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Adopted 2011-2016 Six Year TIP on June 29, 2010, Resolution #10-013; Approved STP Enhancement Project Applications on September 7, 2010; Approved Transportation Improvement Board (TIB) Applications on July 27th, 2010; Approved Freight Mobility Strategic Investment Board (FMSIB) Applications on May 25th, 2010; Approved Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Applications on October 12th, 2010; Approval of STEP Paveback Projects for 2011 on February 8th, 2011. BACKGROUND: Council adopted the 2011-2016 TIP based upon information staff had at that time relative to available funds and how these funds could be utilized for transportation projects. Since the adoption of the 2011-2016 TIP, staff submitted applications for a federal Surface Transportation Program Enhancement (STP(E)) grant, a Transportation Improvement Board (TIB) Urban Sidewalk Program (USP) grant, a Freight Mobility Strategic Investment Board (FMSIB) grant, a federal Bridge Program (BR) grant and a Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) for the following projects that were selected for funding: • Spokane Valley— Millwood Trail (PE Only) (STP(E)) • 24th Sidewalk — (TIB-USP) • Sullivan West Bridge— (BR, FMSIB) • Green Haven STEP Paveback— (CDBG) • Broadway Ave. Overlay— (CDBG) Additional proposed changes identified in the Amended 2011 TIP include the following: • Broadway Avenue Safety Project was rescheduled from 2010 to 2011 due to delays from the temporary suspension of the design. • The Corbin, Cronk, South Greenacres and West Farms Sewer Paveback projects were not completed in 2010 and will carry over into 2011. • The Barker Road Bridge, Pines-Mansfield, Broadway Ave Reconstruction (Moore to Flora), Park Rd./BNSF Barrier Curb, and Sprague ITS projects are carryovers from 2010. • The Pavement Management Program-Arterials & Local Access projects have been deleted from the 2011 TIP. The Pavement Management Program for arterials and local access streets is currently unfunded. • The Barker Road/BNSF Grade Separation (PE Only) was deleted due to unsuccessful funding application for FY2011 Federal Earmark. • The 2011 STEP Paveback projects (Green Haven and Mica View) have been added based on Council approval on February 8, 2011. • The Flashing Yellow Arrow Installation and Traffic Signal LED Replacement Projects are carryovers from 2010. • The Greenacres Trail (PE Only) was added after reallocation of Energy Efficiency & Conservation Block Grant (EECBG) funds that were previously awarded in 2009. Based on this information, it is recommended that the 2011 TIP be amended to reflect the deletion of the projects that did not receive funding, include those projects that were not completed in 2010 and have been carried over to the 2011 construction year, and those projects added to the 2011 construction year. Attached is a summary of the proposed changes. A public hearing on these changes to the 2011 TIP is currently scheduled for March 22nd, 2011. Adoption of the Amended 2011 TIP is currently scheduled for March 29th, 2011. OPTIONS: Discussion Only RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Discussion Only BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: The projects costs shown in the draft Amended 2011 TIP are preliminary and will be adjusted prior to adoption to reflect 2010 yearend adjustments. There are sufficient capital project funds in the 2011 budget to cover the local match for these projects. STAFF CONTACT: Steve Worley, Senior Capital Projects Engineer Neil Kersten, Public Works Director; ATTACHMENTS: Draft Amended 2011 TIP City of Spokane Valley Department of Public Works Adopted 2011 Transportation Improvement Program Primary City Total 2011 Proj.# Project From To Source Amount Project Costs 1 0069 Park Road Project 2(PE Only) Broadway Indiana STP(U) $ 5,000 $ 35,000 2 0112 Indiana Ave. Extension e/o Sullivan Flora TIB-UCP $ 53,000 $ 375,000 3 0060 Argonne Road Corridor Improvements 1-90 Trent CMAQ $ 101,000 $ 713,000 4 0113 Indiana/Sullivan Intersection PCC Indiana @Sullivan STA $ 249,000 $ 1,216,000 5 0061 Pines Corridor ITS Sprague Trent CMAQ $ 216,000 $ 1,609,000 6 0143 Barker Road/BNSF Grade Separation(PE Only) Barker @Trent Other Fed $ - $ 1,900,000 7 0142 Broadway @ Argonne/Mullan Intersections PCC Broadway @Argonne/Mullan STP(U) $ 37,000 $ 271,000 8 0123 Mission Ave Improvement Project Flora Barker STP(U) $ 66,000 $ 488,000 9 Pavement Management Program-Arterials Various locations City $ 2,000,000 $ 4,000,000 10 Pavement Management Program-Local Access Various locations City $ 2,000,000 $ 2,000,000 11 STEP Paveback Various locations City $ 602,000 $ 602,000 12 0141 Sullivan/Euclid PCC Intersection(PE/RW Only) Sullivan Euclid STP(U) $ 22,000 $ 163,000 13 Sullivan West Bridge Sullivan @Spokane River BR $ - $ 668.000 $ 5.351.000 $ 14.040.000 Funded Projects Added Projects City of Spokane Valley Department of Public Works DRAFT Amended 2011 Transportation Improvement Program Resolution 11-XXX,XXXXXXX,2011 Primary City Total 2011 Proj.# Project From To Source Amount Project Costs 1 0003 Barker Road Bridge @ Spokane River City $ 140,000 $ 140,000 2 0005 Pines/Mansfield Montgomery Pines(SR-27) City $ 500,000 $ 500,000 3 0088 Broadway Ave Reconstruction 180 ft. E of Moore Flora TIB-UAP $ 30,000 $ 150,000 4 0069 Park Road Project 2(PE Only) Broadway Indiana STP(U) $ 20,300 $ 150,000 5 0063 Broadway Ave Safety Project Pines(SR 27) Park TIB-UAP $ 172,300 $ 861,500 6 0112 Indiana Ave. Extension e/o Sullivan Flora TIB-UCP $ 291,400 $ 1,833,300 7 0060 Argonne Road Corridor Improvements 1-90 Trent CMAQ $ 171,100 $ 1,267,200 8 0113 Indiana/Sullivan Intersection PCC Indiana @Sullivan STA $ 247,600 $ 1,208,000 9 0061 Pines Corridor ITS Sprague Trent CMAQ $ 216,000 $ 1,609,000 10 0142 Broadway @ Argonne/Mullan Intersections PCC Broadway @Argonne/Mullan STP(U) $ 37,000 $ 271,000 11 0123 Mission Ave Improvement Project Flora Barker STP(U) $ 66,000 $ 488,000 STEP Paveback Various locations 12 -Corbin(Received$330,733 CDBG Grant) CDBG $ - $ 82,000 13 -Cronk City $ 16,100 $ 16,100 14 -South Greenacres 3 City $ 7,000 $ 7,000 15 -South Greenacres 4 City $ 205,000 $ 205,000 16 -West Farms City $ 97,000 $ 97,000 17 -Green Haven($247,000 CDBG Grant Anticipated) City/CDBG $ 303,000 $ 550,000 18 -Mica View City $ 250,000 $ 250,000 19 0141 Sullivan/Euclid PCC Intersection(PE/RW Only) Sullivan Euclid STP(U) $ 22,000 $ 163,000 20 Sullivan West Bridge Sullivan @Spokane River BR $ 90,200 $ 668,000 21 0133 Sprague ITS University Sullivan EECBG $ - $ 330,920 22 0139 Park Rd/BNSF Barrier Curb Trent(SR 290) Indiana WUTC $ 4,000 $ 39,000 23 0145 Spokane Valley-Millwood Trail(PE Only) SCC Valley Mall STP(E) $ - $ 320,000 24 0146 24th Avenue Sidewalk Project Adams Sullivan TIB-USP $ 19,650 $ 33,700 25 0148 Greenacres Trail(PE Only) Sullivan Hodges EECBG $ - $ 100,000 26 0135 Flashing Yellow Arrows Various locations EECBG $ - $ 33,550 27 0136 Traffic Signal LED Replacement Various locations EECBG $ - $ 74,000 28 Broadway Ave.Overlay(Approx$88.7K CDBG grant) Park Vista City/CDBG $ 257,300 $ 346,000 $ 3,162,950 $ 11,793,270 Projects and timeframes identified in the TIP are to be considered estimates only that may change due to a variety of circumstances,and are not intended by the City to be relied upon by property owners or developers in making development decisions. Funded Projects Added Projects 2010 Carry Over Projects C:\Documents and Settings\sworley\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\YTQXEHVP\Draft Amended 2011 TIP.xls 2/23/2011 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: March 1, 2011 City Manager Sign-off: Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ® admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE : Street Maintenance Facility— Site Selection GOVERNING LEGISLATION: PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: BACKGROUND: Continue discussion of possible street maintenance locations. OPTIONS: RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: STAFF CONTACT: Neil Kersten ATTACHMENTS Maintenance shop comparison spreadsheet and site information Maintenance Shop Site Comparison SITE Year Built Office S.F. Shop S.F. Storage S.F. Site Acres Overall.. Condition Paved Area County Sewer Zoning County Assessement 2011 Asking Price 11804 E. 1st 1955/1972 1573 2400 832 1.6 Poor $357,520 $578,850 School Dist. 0517 1972 2560 0.18 Poor $53,340 $165,000 School Dist. 0711 1950/1967 4900 0.31 Poor . $39,950 Total for 1st Street 1573 2400 8292 2.09 none Yes CMU* $450,810 $743,850 17711 E. Euclid 1987/2004 1200 5800 5.04 Good none No 1-2 $660,000 $990,000 17002 E. Euclid 1989/1999 900 4500 700 2.96 V. Good 19,000 S.F. Yes 1-2 $555,510 $750,000 * Grandfathered as a result of previous and current use. Byrd Real Estate Group L.L.C. M, I'RODUt.SAIL;Y'ROPERTY SULUTIO iiS fi,f :101 W. Cataldo Ave., Suite 210 �` Spokane, WA 99201 For Sale 11804 E 1st, Spokane Valley WA It IL 1111 I � : r- r.1. , I ...r,. z-"..A1�,1 .. cias Improvements: o�'`�: '. t ' • } Total Bldg: 4,736+/-sf (, ~I . - . :, J 1, :_ -I- Service Garage: 2,400+/-sf --. - _ Sprague Ave. , ::: g i - i g • F , ti: . :-`l ... ., - 11I- i r� Office: 2',336+/-sf _ I -11.':-' '} [ li :. ,_ �__ . " � '�, '-.. =_i. ,. , General Information I I ■ _., a r -41: ,,i� }_ 1 ,, H f Site Size: 69,696+1 sf 1.0 !�. ,, ., t;;-> • ,t. - i Zoning: CMU r 4 , IA`�= i!. �-* ��I { Tax Parcel#; 45211.0518, 0511, 0510 • s � c,w,',i,: 2009 Taxes: $4,708°96 Sale Price: For More Information Contact: Doug Byrd Byrd Real Estate Group, LLC �7 p 0� Dir(509) 789-4303 * Cell (509) 216-6575 1 O (509) 326-8080 * Fax(509) 326-3685 Doug @byrdrealestategroup.com Aft information is furnished by the Owner&tor Broker and believed to be complete and correct.The Owner 8Jor Broker,however,cannot be responsible for changes,errors,omissions or withdrawals of this offering.The above information is from sources deemed reliable but should be verified by parties that could be adversely affected by any statements or information. This Is not an offering of sub-agency,with commission splits to be determined. 1 Office/Warehouse for Sale . _ _ _ 17711 E. Euclid 11 , 1 lir III . I , ,:Im:, , 1 .. .. ,� - y . - - 'fi i C -r I .. k , _MI , ma — 1 1m. ' - F .:'!" — _ .. J ', I 1 J Lt -•-- - . :' '1 — - lls - I 1 j.� , ;_ • 219,500 SF (5.04 Acres) of Land, Zoned I-2 Heavy In- :, dustrial. • Building has 7000 total SF built in 2004 •J 1,200 SF Office w/kitchen, restroom & break room Dan Cantu • Office has forced air heating, cooling & fully finished Cell: 509-993-9939 • 5,800 SF Warehouse w/restroom, shower & coffee area danc @cantucommercial.com • 18' Clear Height with 5 14'w x 16'h Automatic Over- - r 111 head Doors (2 doors on the south end & 3 doors on the 1 I 11111 north end of the building allowing trucks to drive through) ry F1j 111111 lihi ".". :iv, Warehouse ceiling & walls are fully insulated with 11� „111 • uui .nu suspended gas fired heaters & fluorescent light fixtures CANTU • Heavy power & floor drainage system connected to an oil/water separator COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES LLC . 1410 N. Mullan Rd. Suite 110 Sale Price $990,000.00 Spokane Valley,WA 99206 ,. See Aerial Map & Floor Plan On Reverse Side Office: 509-777-1111 Fax: 509-777-1112 www.cantucommercial.com The property information on this flyer is for convenience only nod should not be relied upon for accuracy.All prospective purchasers and tenants should conduct their own analysis and inspections for their intended use. r • - .j t ZF w, { 5 1 ae • b 1 e , r l ` y= t 4 � W- f �. r Q ti, k i 4,, - s t 4 i ....".1 f 4 es ' i ; Ar !'1771 it ' , - : .' .. 1 i t 11:K4 '1111110111111k-1 41 c ,. �� � .' ,.I " Jig 1� - 1'_=L; R ,- rL. '-'.w `4 1 E Evcfa'Ave E ELreS1 Ave _ "�ra r} ., - Emil/WO=2 12 ,j� E ' - f Spo6 ,n r qh. _1.: _w .....—h..:...�ill 1 12W X16HOHD 12WX 16H OHD —MECHANIC PIT 11. 12WX 16H OHD 12W X 16H OHD CEILING BEEM HT. 16 9 TO 23 i 1 COFFEE BATHROOM — RECEPTION OFFICE 1-1, , 1 BATHROOM . LUNCH II _ 12W X 16H OHD OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE 17002 E. Euclid F li■■ •` r l 0. 0 • , ; a;• . . .. Ow...••- -'.t ., • $littaV . .. t.i ..„, $1,„; , . . . , . _ .. . ,,,......... , ......_ , N, - _ • .' . - \ • . ~ ' ,,F... �f• l i`- . - • ' • ti.,...i.,_ s• ,• i tittlit.,. ti 1 ti 4 V ti 1 Y t f y l '." v 1 r IP.F: VP- til ` I{ , 4- 8Ito (IL° 'Ivo • . '—, .... \ '", ,.....,ji:•. ". It i. '•-•-',. , • �If � to ' F L il. hilitramory . 1 4 . P . tb;"71115111r3IP: -6 ii .- 4, .. i \• , .1! iiii:iii . es ,u e. r.■ __ --. r o. .r 7. .. JI.I. I • • fr it 4 )r"11■r■■��� ` /S_ t a CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: March 1, 2011 City Manager Sign-off: Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ® admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Animal Control Regional Facility Update GOVERNING LEGISLATION: N/A PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: N/A BACKGROUND: The City of Spokane Valley has contracted with Spokane County for animal control services since the City's inception. According to the County, the current facility will require some costly upgrades in the next five years. The current location has some existing conditions that make it a poor candidate for future investments. Rather than spend money on a less than ideal facility, the County prefers to look at constructing a new facility that will fully meet the needs of the current users plus allow the City of Spokane to utilize these services as well. A previous update was provided on December 7, 2010. OPTIONS: The regional committee explored the feasibility of the non-ballot option, financed through cost savings, increased revenues, and contributions from the City of Spokane using an existing property and building owned by the City of Spokane. While cost savings were identified, the total price for property acquisition and facility renovation exceeded the amount the City of Spokane was able to finance. Spokane County does not have funds available to contribute toward the difference and would like to gauge support for a ballot measure. The preferred measure would be $10 million financed through a 9-year levy lid lift applied to Spokane County property taxes. This measure would require a simple majority approval and would add approximately $8/yr to property taxes for a $200K home. According to the County, a new facility is needed regardless of whether the City of Spokane joins. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: N/A BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: No contractual cost increase would occur under ballot option proposed. A 12% cost savings is projected if the City of Spokane joins regional animal control with the potential for additional savings up to 28%. STAFF CONTACT: Morgan Koudelka, Senior Administrative Analyst ATTACHMENT: PowerPoint Spokane .Valley Regional Animal Control Facility March 1 , 2011 Morgan Koudelka, Senior Administrative Analyst Background Spokane County Regional Animal Protection Services (SCRAPS) currently provides animal protection services for six jurisdictions , including Spokane Valley. The City of Spokane' s current provider, Spokanimal , will discontinue providing services to Spokane . Spokane intends to utilize SCRAPS. The current facility cannot accommodate the City of Spokane and is in need of significant updates . Officials from multiple jurisdictions toured the current facility on .June 11 , 2010 and agreed to have staffs work together on a cost analysis . The resultant Finance Committee met several times and has concluded its initial analysis . Original Questions for Committee 1 . From a financial perspective ,. are there operational cost savings in a regionally combined animal control operation versus each jurisdiction pursuing its own program? 2 . 1s there any way to fund a capital expenditure for a combined facility without going to a public vote? A) Could current operations absorb the capital cost of a combined facility? B) If the answer to (A) is "no," could the individual jurisdictions contribute "other funds" to cover the annual capital cost payments? 3 . In pursuing a combined facility, would there be savings by purchasing a pre-existing facility and remodeling it rather than cons ructing a new combined facility? Identified Facility Needs 6 acres including a dog park 42 , 000 square feet for facility with 22% for office / administrative function . Centrally located and visible , proximity to I - 90 preferred On a bus route Parking available Qptt0L - Expand Current Facility Cost $ 7-8 million for expansion $ 3 - 5 million for upgrades to insulation , sewage /drainage system , and mechanical / electrical system (Required with or without expansion in next five years) Challenges Connection to sewer and extension of new water/fire line would require boring underneath train tracks Stopped trains often block access to shelter No public transit for customers and volunteers Road department will begin charging $ 50,000 rent for use of land . Site smaller than ideal size Expanded facility would be elongated and inefficient option 1 ( Update ) Fire district rejected placement of temporary structures at current facility without access to fire hydrant . Current structure borders gravel pit and expansion is not possible . Option 2 - Purchase an Existing Structure - 1001 N . Havana Cost $ 8. 3 Million Renovation + $ 2 . 7 Million Property Challenges Building must go through extensive retrofitting Demolition of concrete floors to run new plumbing Waterproof interior walls Enhance mechanical systems Areas for animal exercise Proper zoning Must get permission from Federal government option 2 - Update Renovation costs reduced from $ 8 . 3 million to $ 7 million . With the potential $ 2 . 7 million purchase price , this component is still 3 . 35 million over the money Spokane has available ( $ 6 . 35 million) . Revenue enhancements determined to be achievable . $ 200K in donations 20% increase in license revenues Overhead cost reductions identified as $ 31 5K- $ 350K instead of the $ 483K needed . Inmate labor, temp. help, reduced information syst. cost May require separate regional public or non-profit entity Option 2 - Nan - Ballot REGIONAL ANIMAL CONTROL NON-VOTED OPTION - DRAFT 10/18/10 REVENUES: License Fees Other Operating Revenues Donations Total Revenues EXPENSES: Salaries&Benefits M&O Overhead Capital/Debt Service Total Expenses NET ANNUAL OPERATIONS OPERATIONS County Proposal City Proposal Operations Operations $1,100,000 $1,100,000 $316,000 $316,000 $1,416,000 $1,416,000 $2,083,000 $2,083,000 $460,000 $460,000 $683,000 $200,000 $3,226,000 $2,743,000 $1,810,000 $1,327,000 ** $6.35 Million ammortized @ 3.0%over 20 years CAPITAL&OPERATIONS City Proposal Annual Amount No Voted Capital for Capital $1,320,000 $220,000 $316,000 $200,000 $200,000 $1,836,000 $420,000 $2,083,000 $460,000 $200,000 $420,000 ** $3,163,000 $1,327,000 "' May implement mandatory licensing through vets and/or breeder licensing and/or increased rates. Surplus revenue could also be used for spay/neutering programs OR To offset partner operations costs Option 3 - Purchase Land and Build New Structure Cost $ 15 million including land acquisition , design , and construction . Challenges Greater cost Conclusion Partners do not have the funds available to self-finance a new facility. A 9 year levy lid - lift is the recommended funding mechanism . Simple majority ( 50%+ 1 ) Adds $ . 04 to the existing County general levy. Original Questions for Committee 1 . From a financial . perspective, are there operational cost savings in a regionally combined animal control operation versus each jurisdiction pursuing its own program . Yes, approximately 12% operational savings with potential for 28% with identified cost reduction opportunities. 2 . Is there any way to fund a capital expenditure for a combined facility without going to a public vote? A) Could current operations absorb the capital cost of a combined facility? No B) If the answer to (A) is "no," could the individual jurisdictions contribute "other funds" to cover the annual capital cost payments? Spokane can cover a portion but the County does not currently have funds to contribute. 3 . In pursuing a combined facility, would there be savings by purchasin g a a re-existin facyit iand remodeling it, rather than constructing combined facility? Yes, if the -Spokane p ro e rt is available, the savings would be approximately $ 5 million . Tirneline By March 15 ' 2011 decide viability of non - ballot options . Complete By August 16 , 2011 regional animal control shelter on ballot , if consensus among jurisdictions If ballot measure passes , facility complete in late 2013 . Impact to Existing Interlocal Agreement An approved bond or levy measure would commit the City to a long -term agreement with the County. City costs would continue to be determined according to usage . SCRAPS anticipates economies of scale savings and lower utility costs . The total budget calculation , however, is still in progress . Next Steps for SCRAPS Finance Cornmittee Determine if ballot measure to be pursued City of Spokane decides if it will participate . Spokane determines cost for property and payment options . Develop public education program . Choices Do Nothing ballot issues Go to Ballot FutuLe C0 .,. ICL Feedback Would Council support Spokane County placing a levy lid - lift on the ballot , increasing the County general levy rate approximately $ . 04 for nine years , costing the owner of a $ 200 , 000 piece of property approximately $ 8 per year? CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: March 1, 2011 City Manager Sign-off: Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ® admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Shoreline Master Program Update GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 36.70A; RCW 90.58; WAC 173-26. PREVIOUS ACTION TAKEN: None BACKGROUND: Following incorporation, the City of Spokane Valley adopted the Spokane County Shoreline Master Program (SMP) as the interim SMP for the City. The County's SMP was adopted in 1975. The SMP must be updated by December 1, 2013 to be consistent with the Department of Ecology (DOE) Shoreline Management Program Guidelines. This will involve a participation process with the public, local and state agencies and affected tribes; an inventory and analysis of shoreline conditions, development of environment designations, shoreline goals, policies and regulations, and a restoration plan for the SMP. The process will culminate in a public review and adoption process conducted by the City Council. The City budgeted $150,000 to complete the process. Work on the update began in September 2009. URS Corporation, the consultant group hired to provide technical assistance to the city, completed an inventory of the shoreline conditions and began work on the Analysis Report. A public participation plan was developed by staff and accepted by Resolution #09-16 in October 2009 by Council. The public participation plan generally outlined the public outreach program that included the technical review group (TRG), and the shoreline advisory group (SAG). The plan was developed to meet the requirements of all governing legislation by providing early and continuous public participation opportunities that included open houses, public meetings, agency review, and committee review of the goals and policies. However, since the names of the persons were not included in the public participation plan, a list of persons invited to participate in the group were presented to council on December 15, 2009. The Draft Inventory report was completed in late 2009 and review by the public, Planning Commission and Council began in spring 2010. Council delayed accepting the inventory report at the request of Centennial Properties until additional information regarding their property's shoreline conditions could be provided. The additional material was included by reference in the report, and the Council accepted the inventory and analysis report by resolution #10-014 on September 14, 2010. While the original time line developed for the shoreline master program update indicated that the project would be completed by 2011, the process was put on hold until September 2010. During that timeframe staff was reassigned to assist with the review of the Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan. In October 2010, staff began drafting the goals and policies of the shoreline master program for the SAG review. The SAG first met on January 20, 2011, and was scheduled to meet the 1St and 3rd Thursday of each month, for 8 consecutive meetings, to review the draft goals and policies in preparation for public review. The group has met 3 times, with 5 more meetings scheduled. A current member list is attached for your information. The list is essentially the same as that provided on December 15, 2009, but reflects the participants at this time. The participants were selected in an effort to provide balanced representation of the diverse shoreline interests. At this time the group is comprised of 19% user groups, 24% business and property owners, 19% Special Interest/Environmental Groups, 14% government representatives, 14% neighborhood groups, and 10% interested parties. The group's primary role is to provide input on the development of the draft goals and policies that will become the basis for the subsequent development regulations. Preliminary work has been completed on the development of shoreline environment designations by URS, but staff is still reviewing maps and inventory conditions before releasing the draft designations. Work remaining to be completed on the shoreline master program includes drafting development regulations, a cumulative impacts analysis report, and restoration plan. As indicated in the public participation plan, once each individual component of the shoreline master program is complete, it will be presented to the public at an open house, reviewed by the Planning Commission with a public hearing conducted, and finally forwarded to the Council for review and acceptance by resolution. Once all components of the SMP are complete, it will be assembled and a formal review process, preceded by environmental review, will begin. Kathy McClung, the Community Development Director, Attorney Mike Connelly, and I will be present at the meeting to discuss this matter. OPTIONS: No Action Required RECOMMENDATION: N/A STAFF CONTACT: Lori Barlow, AICP-Associate Planner ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit 1: Resolution 09-16 and Public Involvement Plan Exhibit 2: December 15, 2009 Council memo and SAG member list Exhibit 3: Current SAG member list Exhibit 4: Resolution 10-014 Exhibit 5: SMP Update Process Work Program Summary CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOKANE COUNTY,WASHINGTON RESOLUTION NO. 09-016 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON, ADOPTING A PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN FOR THE SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM UPDATE WHEREAS, the Washington State Legislature passed the Shoreline Management Act (SMA) in 1971 requiring, among other things, the development of a Shoreline Master Program for cities; and WHEREAS, following incorporation, the City of Spokane Valley adopted the Spokane County Shoreline Master Program (SMP) as the interim SMP for the City to comply with the requirements of the Shoreline Management Act; and WHEREAS, the City of Spokane Valley must take legislative action to update its Shoreline Master Program to ensure the program complies with the new 2003 Shoreline Master Program Guidelines requirements of the SMA(RCW 90.58 and WAC 173-26); and WHEREAS, the update of the City of Spokane Valley's Master Program must be completed on or before December 1, 2013, pursuant to the timetable mandated in RCW 90.58.080; and WHEREAS, the city of Spokane Valley must establish and broadly disseminate to the public a public participation program consistent with RCW 90.58.130 that identifies procedures and schedules whereby updates, proposed amendments, or revisions, are considered by the governing body; and WHEREAS, on October 8, 2009, the Spokane Valley Planning Commission voted to forward to the City Council a recommendation of approval of the Public Participation Plan for the Shoreline Master Program Update. NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley, Spokane County, Washington, as follows: Section 1. Adoption of Public Participation Plan for the Shoreline Master Program. The City Council adopts the attached Public Participation Plan for the City of Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program Update. Section 2. Effective Date. This Resolution shall be in full force and effect upon adoption. Adopted this 27th day of October, 2009. • CIT O • . ' ANEV• LLEY/ AT _S /. � //�.. � ' tchard M. Mu•.: or hristine Bainbridge, City Clerk Approved as to form: Office 6 he City Attorney Y Resolution No.09-016,Public Participation Plan for the SMP Update Page 1 o14 Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program and Development Regulations Update Public Participation Plan Project Update the Shoreline Master Program and Development Regulations consistent with the DOE Guidelines. The update process includes completion of inventory and analysis reports with corresponding maps and illustrations that characterize shoreline ecological conditions; development of shoreline policies, environment designations, and use regulations; as well as analysis of cumulative impacts and uses, and preparation of a shoreline restoration plan. Applicable Rules and Regulations The following regulations apply to this project: 1. WAC 173-26-201 Comprehensive process to prepare or amend shoreline master programs 2. WAC 173-26-100 Local process for approving/amending shoreline master programs 3. RCW 36.70A.140 Comprehensive Plans— Ensure public participation 4. RCW 90.58.130 Involvement of all persons having an interest, means 5. WAC 365-195-600 Public Participation. Public Involvement Plan Overview The public involvement plan is based on the following requirements or points: 1. Create opportunities for early and continuous involvement of all interested parties that include, shoreline property owners, state agencies, Tribes, local residents, neighboring jurisdictions, elected officials, recreational users, conservation groups, etc. 2. Include opportunities to identify shoreline management issues of local concern early in the process; 3. Inform the public of the process, opportunities to participate, decisions made, and next steps by utilizing various media methods. The plan includes the use of a Shoreline Advisory Committee and the identification of a Technical Advisory Group, community meetings, Planning Commission and Council workshops, meetings and briefings, creation of a shoreline page on the City's website, and mailings. The specific elements of the plan include: Citizens Advisory Committee and Technical Review Group A Technical Review Group (TRG) will consist of representatives from local, regional, state, and tribal agencies. The City is required to seek input, participation and recommendations from these groups. Completed phases of the update will be provided to the group for review and comment to share information, encourage cooperation and promote intergovernmental activity associated with the SMP update. A list of TRG members will be developed for distribution of materials. A Shoreline Advisory Committee(SAC) will be established to provide feedback and communication primarily during the development of goals, policies and supporting development regulations. However, the committee may be used throughout the process. The SAC will consist of property owners, interested neighborhood groups, recreational users, interested individuals and organizations with technical expertise. A limited number of government and agency representatives may be involved at this level. The Committee will review and discuss the findings and or recommendations associated with the phases listed below. Resolution No.9-016 Page 2 of 4 Key points for discussion with committees are: 1. Shoreline inventory, characterization, and analysis a. Present report and request feedback and issue identification 2. Shoreline environment designation a. Introduce designations and rationale—request input 3. Shoreline policy and regulation development a. Ongoing meetings to review the draft policy and regulation language 4. Cumulative impacts analysis and restoration planning a. Present reports and request input Open Houses/Community Meetings This format will be used to educate the public on the Shoreline Master Program and gain input from the public on issues or alternatives. Open Houses will be scheduled at the conclusion of the following tasks or other significant timeline events. 1 Shoreline inventory, characterization and analysis report 2 Development of the environment designations 3 Draft Shoreline policy and regulations 4 Draft cumulative impacts analysis and restoration plan 5 Final Draft Plan and Development Regulations City of Spokane Valley Web page Staff will create and maintain a web page. The web page will be used to issue press releases, SMP updates, and notices for public meeting. Content updates will occur as new information is available. The web page will also be used to distribute information and provide opportunity for public comment. Materials on the site will include fact sheets, reports, maps, as they become available, meeting notices, agendas, and summaries, and staff contact information. Informational Mailings Mailings will be sent to all the property owners within the shoreline jurisdictional area that describe the SMP update process, introduce the City of Spokane Valley web page where information can be consistently found regarding shoreline update process, and identify key staff for contact information. Property owners will be encouraged to provide their email addresses for the email distribution list. Additional mailings may be completed for open houses and public hearings to insure opportunity for feedback. E-mail Notification and Mailing Lists Staff will maintain an E-mail distribution list and a mailing distribution list for notices of scheduled public meetings. Notice will be provided by mail and/or email. Individuals and Organizations interested in being on the mailing list will be provided opportunity to add their names to the list at public meetings, on the shoreline website, or by contacting staff directly. Staff will distribute updates,notices for open houses, and notices for Planning Commission and Council meetings. Press Releases Press Releases will be prepared and published area wide prior to each open house. Planning Commission Updates/Public Hearings Staff will provide monthly updates to the Commission on process and progress. Study sessions will be scheduled at the conclusion of major tasks or other significant timeline events. Tasks and information to be reviewed will be the same as the Committee work program. The Commission will conduct a public hearing and provide a recommendation to the council to accept each completed phase of the SMP update Resolution No.9-016 Page 3 of 4 by resolution. Additional Study Sessions/workshops will be held prior to public hearings for final review by Commission. The Commission will hold a minimum of one public hearing and forward its final recommendations and findings to the City Council for further action. Joint Plan Commission and Council Review Meetings Joint work sessions may be held between the Planning Commission and Council to review preliminary Shoreline Master Program Information at the conclusion of major tasks. Joint sessions will be scheduled at the discretion of staff if it is determined to be a more efficient means to review information. Council Updates/Public Hearings Staff will provide quarterly updates to council. As major components of the SMP are completed Council will be asked to accept them individually by resolution (or other mechanism) including the public participation plan, inventory and analysis, environmental designations, goals and policies, and regulations. Study sessions will be conducted prior to a request for action on each component. Study • Sessions will be conducted prior to any public hearings conducted for final adoption of the plan. Additional Public Meetings Staff may elect to hold additional meetings if it is determined that more meetings are needed to provide project information and/or provide additional opportunities for gathering public comments and public participation. Written comments Written comments will be considered throughout the SMP update.During formal comment periods, written comments must be received by the end of the public comment period (to be determined). All written comments should be sent to the address below or may be submitted through the Shorelines Master Program Update web page. City of Spokane Valley Community Development Department 11707 E Sprague Ave, Suite 106 Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Fax 509-921-1008 Staff Staff will be available to answer questions and provide information regarding the Shorelines Master Program update. The following individuals may be contacted for shoreline update information: Greg McCormick,AICP, Planning Manager, Project Lead (509)688-0023 Lori Barlow, Associate Planner, 509-688-0262 Micki Harnois, Associate Planner, 509-688-0048 Resolution No. 9-016 Page 4 of 4 S1Ô1 ; k 40000 Valley 11707 E Sprague Ave Suite 106 • Spokane Valley WA 99206 509.921.1000 • Fax: 509.921.1008 • cityhall@spokanevalley.org Memorandum To: City Council; Dave Mercier, City Manager From: SMP Update Team CC: Kathy McClung, Community Development Director Date: December 15, 2009 Re: SMP Update— Citizen Advisory Committee On October 27, 2009, City Council approved a Public Participation Plan for the Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program (SMP) Update. A key component of the Plan is to assemble a Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) whose purpose is to provide significant input into the development of the SMP, primarily the program goals, policies, and supporting development regulations. Attached for Council's information is the list of groups who will populate the CAC. The Committee includes property owners, neighborhood group representatives, industry, special interest groups and individuals with technical expertise. Please contact any of the SMP Update Team members below with questions you may have throughout the SMP Update process. Scott Kuhta, Project Lead - (688-0049) Lori Barlow, Associate Planner— (688-0262) Micki Harnois, Associate Planner - (688-0048) Greg McCormick, Planning Manager - (688-0023) Spokane Valley Shoreline Management Program Update Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) Member List Industry Kaiser Aluminum Homeowners Inland Paper Shelley Lake Homeowner's Association Avista Corporation Riverwalk Neighborhood Representative Central Pre-Mix N. Greenacres Neighborhood Representative Government COSV Parks and Recreation Department Recreational River Users Department of Ecology Friends of Centennial Trail Spokane County Conservation Futures Spokane Canoe and Kayak Club Spokane Indian Tribe Trout Unlimited Coeur d'Alene Tribe Spokane Fly Fishers Spokane River Forum Other/ Special Interest Groups Spokane Homebuilder's Association Spokane River Keeper's Futurewise December 2, 2009 SMP Advisory Group Member List Bill Abrahamse Trout Unlimited wsabrahamse@comcast.net Robin Bekkedahl Avista Corporation robin.bekkedahl@avistacorp.com John Bowditch N. Greenacres Neighborhood tripletzr@yahoo.com Andy Dunau Spokane River Forum info@spokaneriver.net Rick Eichstaedt Spokane Riverkeeper ricke@cforjustice.org Merl Gorton Riverwalk Homeowners mdgorton4,aol.com Chris Guidotti Washington State Parks chris.guidotti@parks.wa.gov Kat Hall Lands Council khall @landscouncil.org Bob Horrocks Spokane Canoe &Kayak bhorrocks@spokanecity.org Judy Kaufman Spokane Fly Fishers jktroutl@comcast.net Kitty Klitzke Futurewise kitty@futurewise.org Bud Leber Kaiser Aluminum bud.leber@kaisertwd.com Deanne Logan Centennial Properties dlogan@centennial-properties.com Jana McDonald Central Pre-Mix imcdonald@oldcastlematerials.com Sharon McHugo Shelley Lake Homeowners Sharon m@comcast.net Grant Person NAIBlack gperson@naiblack.com Doug Pineo Consultant dpineo@comcast.net Jamie Short Dept of Ecology jsho461@ecy.wa.gov Mike Stone COSV Parks &Rec mstone@spokanevalley.org Kaye Turner Friends of the Centennial Trail friends @spokanecentennialtrail.org Joel White Spokane Home Builder's Assn. jwhite@shba.com Staff Contact List Micki Harnoi s mharnois @spokanevalley.org (509) 720-5332 Marty Palaniuk mpalaniuk @spokanevalley.org (509) 720-5031 Lori Barlow lbarlow @spokanevalley.org (509) 720-5335 Scott Kuhta skuhta @spokanevalley.org (509) 720-5334 Mary Swank mswank @spokanevalley.org (509) 720-5325 Consultants: John Patrouch URS Corp Lunell Haught Haught Strategies CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOKANE COUNTY,WASHINGTON RESOLUTION NO. 10-014 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON,ACCEPTING THE DRAFT SHORELINE INVENTORY AND CHARACTERIZATION REPORT WHEREAS, the City initiated a Shoreline Management Program update process in 2009; and WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed a public participation plan for the Shoreline Update on October 27, 2009; and WHEREAS, the Shoreline Update process specifies that individual components of the Shoreline Management Program (SMP) update will be reviewed separately and accepted by Council resolution, and recognizing that as each component is completed, it will be used as a base upon which to develop the remainder of the SMP; and WHEREAS, the first component of the SMP Update is the Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report; and WHEREAS, an initial Shoreline Open House was conducted on November 5, 2009, where the SMP Update process was explained to interested parties; and WHEREAS, a second Open House was conducted on February 4, 2010, where findings from the Inventory and Analysis was presented to interested parties; and WHEREAS, the Technical Review Draft Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report was issued for review on February 19, 2010; and WHEREAS, a Joint City Council/Planning Commission study session was conducted on March 2, 2010,where the findings from the Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report were presented and discussed; and WHEREAS, a Public Review Draft Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report was issued for public review on April 6, 2010; and WHEREAS, the Spokane Valley Planning Commission conducted a properly noticed public hearing on the Public Review Draft Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report on April 22, 2010; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended that the Draft Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report be formally accepted; and WHEREAS,this Resolution informally accepts the document, with minor revisions anticipated to occur prior to formal adoption; and WHEREAS, the Draft Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report will be formally adopted as a part of the entire SMP document by Ordinance at a later date. Resolution 10-014 Accepting Draft Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report Page 1 of 2 NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley, Spokane County, Washington,that the Draft Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report, attached hereto and made a part hereof, is hereby accepted. Approved this 14th day of September,2010. ATTESR7 CITY O KANE VALL Y 611 ristine Bainbridge, City Clerk Thomas E. Towey, Mayor it Approved as to form: -_J1 • ' iWiJa J// Office 4, the City Attorney Resolution 10-014 Accepting Draft Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report Page 2 of 2 Shoreline Master Program Update — Work Program Summary 2009 2 a 2 a g o z o URS Corporation Selected 0 Shoreline Inventory Conducted (Consultants 0 conducted a field inventory) Public Participation Plan reviewed by PC and CC 0 Open House#1 (Nov 5 2009—Topic: General info 0 on SMP Update) Draft Shoreline Inventory and Analysis Report 0 Completed 2010 Open House#2 ( Feb 4 2010—Topic: Inventory and 0 Analysis Report) PC and CC Study Session (Inventory and Analysis 0 Report) PC PH on Draft Inventory and Analysis Report 0 CC Meeting(Review Draft Inv. and Analysis Report- 0 May 4, May 11) CC Resolution#10-014 (Accepting Draft Inv and 0 Analysis Report ) 4 2011 SAG Meeting#1 0 SAG meeting#2 0 SAG Meeting#3 0 SAG Meeting#4 3 SAG Meeting#5 17 SAG Meeting#6 7 SAG Meeting#7 21 SAG Meeting#8 5 Open House#3—Draft Goals and Policies * PC Public Hearing—Draft Goals and Policies * CC— Draft Goals and Policies (Review and * Resolution) Drat Environment Designation Complete * February 24, 2011 Page 1 Shoreline Master Program Update — Work Program Summary 2011 L L > to Q. .0 > U cu• LL 2 a 2 a 31, o z o Open House#4—Draft Environment Designations * PC Public Hearing—Draft Env Designations * CC— Draft Env. Designations (Review and * Resolution) Open House#5 Draft Development Regulations * PC Public Hearing—Draft Dev Regulations * CC— Draft Dev Regulations (Review and * Resolution) Draft Restoration Plan * Open House#6 Draft Restoration Plan * PC Public Hearing—Draft Restoration Plan * CC—Draft Dev Restoration Plan (Review and * Resolution) Draft Cumulative Impacts Analysis Report DRAFT SMP Complete * PC Public Hearing—Draft SMP CC— Draft SMP—Ordinance El Complete * Not scheduled or work-in-progress February 24, 2011 Page 2 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: March 1 , 2010 City Manager Sign-off: Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ® admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE : Preview Comprehensive Plan Update GOVERNING LEGISLATION: N/A PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: N/A BACKGROUND: The purpose of the presentation is to provide the City Council with a preview of the amendments that are progressing through the Planning Commission. The attached handout outlines the amendments proposed as part of the Comprehensive Plan Update. The changes are either citizen initiated or updates to current information. OPTIONS: N/A RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: N/A BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: N/A STAFF CONTACT: Kathy McClung, Community Development Director ATTACHMENTS: 2011 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket Exhibit 1 City of Spokane Valley 2011 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket PRIVATELY INITIATED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS File Number Map or Text Summary of Amendment CPA-01-11 Land Use Map 45231.0210 MUA to NC (Dwight Hume) CPA-02-11 Land Use Map 45174.2102 LDR to MDR (Ann Martin) CITY INITIATED COMPRENSIVE PLAN SITE SPECIFIC MAP AMENDMENTS File Number Map Summary of Amendment N/A Land Use Map N/A CITY INITIATED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TEXT AND MAP AMENDMENTS File Number Map or Text Summary of Amendment CPA-03-11 Text & Maps Remove the entire Sprague and Appleway Revitalization Plan CPA-04-11 Text Chapter 2 — Land Use: update land quantity analysis; Map 2.1 update the Land Use map; CPA-05-11 Text Chapter 3 —Transportation: update Bike and Map 3.2 Pedestrian System map with facilities constructed in the 2010 development cycle; CPA-06-11 Text Chapter 4 —Capital Facilities and Public Services: Map 4.1 update 6-year TIP; update Map 4.1 — Map 4.5 as Map 4.2 necessary to reflect the latest capital facilities and Map 4.3 public services; update special purpose district's and Map 4.4 other city service providers facility and service data; Map 4.5 ensure capital projects such as city hall, parks, and public works storage facility are included for the use of REET funding; add Myrtle Point trailhead to Parks & Recreation map; CPA-07-11 Map 7.1 Chapter 7 — Economic Development: update Map 7.1 to reflect the latest Development Activity; CPA-08-11 Map 8.3 Chapter 8 — Natural Environment: update Fish and Map 8.4 Wildlife Habitat map to reflect changes in DNR streams; and update FEMA Flood Hazards map to reflect the latest FIRM data. Updated 11/24/1 0 DRAFT ADVANCE AGENDA For Planning Discussion Purposes Only as of February 23, 2011; 2:30 p.m. Please note this is a work in progress; items are tentative To: Council & Staff From: City Clerk, by direction of City Manager Re: Draft Schedule for Upcoming Council Meetings March 8,2011,Formal Meeting Format,6:00 p.m. [due date Mon,Jan 28] 1. Consent Agenda(claims,payroll,minutes) (5 minutes) 2. First Reading Proposed Ordinance (CTA 01-11)Animal Raising &Keeping—Christina Janssen (20 min) 3. First Reading Proposed Ordinance Amending Adult Enter(Retail, CTA 03-10)—Lori Barlow (10 minutes) 4. Admin report: Livestock in mixed use areas—Christina Janssen (15 minutes) 5. Admin Report: Appleway Court Drainage License—Cary Driskell (10 minutes) 6. Admin Report: Indiana Avenue Extension— Steve Worley (15 minutes) 7. Admin Report: Sullivan Road Bridge Replacement Project— Steve Worley (30 minutes) 8. Admin Report: Advance Agenda (5 minutes) 9. Info Only: Railroad Quiet Zones (Park Road) [*estimated meeting: 110 minutes] NLC Congressional Conf, Wash.,D.C. March 12-16 March 15, 2011,NO MEETING(Council attends NLC Conference) March 22,2011, SPECIAL MEETING: Executive Session 5:00 p.m. [RCW 42.30.110(1)(h)] To review applications for council vacancy March 22,2011,Formal Meeting Format,6:00 p.m. [due date Mon,March 14] 1. PUBLIC HEARING: Draft Amended 2011 Tip— Steve Worley (15 minutes) 2. Consent Agenda(claims,payroll,minutes) (5 minutes) 3. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance (CTA 01-11)Animal Raising &Keeping—Christina Janssen(15 min) 4. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance Amending Adult Enter.(Retail, CTA 03-10)—Lori Barlow(10 minutes) 5. First Reading Proposed Ordinance dealing with livestock in mixed use—Christina Janssen (15 minutes) 6. Motion consideration: Appleway Court Drainage License— Cary Driskell (10 minutes) 7. Motion Consideration: Bid Award Indiana Ave Extension— Steve Worley (10 minutes) 8. Motions for March 29 Interviews of Applicants for Council Position#3 Vacancy—Mayor& Council(20 mins) 9. Admin Report Comp Plan 2011 Amendments—Mike Basinger (30 minutes) 10. Info Only: Dept Reports; Greenacres Park Bid [*estimated meeting: 130 minutes] March 28, 2011, 9 a.m. —noon;Special Joint Meeting with City of Spokane Meeting to be held at Spokane City Hall Council Chambers,W. 808 Spokane Falls Blvd March 29,2011, SPECIAL MEETING: Executive Session 5:00 p.m. To discuss applications for council vacancy [RCW 42.30.110(1)(h)] March 29,2011, Study Session Format,6:00 p.m. [due date Mon,March 21] ACTION ITEMS: NON-ACTION ITEMS: 1. Council Position#3 Candidate Interviews—Mayor&Council (120 minutes) 2. Admin Report: Greenacres Bid—Mike Stone (10 minutes) [*estimated meeting: 130 minutes] Draft Advance Agenda 2/25/2011 7:54:37 AM Page 1 of 4 April 5,2011, Study Session Format,6:00 p.m. [due date Mon,March 28] ACTION ITEMS: 1. Proposed Resolution Adopting Amended 2011 TIP— Steve Worley (15 minutes) 2. Greenacres Park Bid Award—Mike Stone (10 minutes) 3. Mayor and Councilmembers: Appt of Candidate to Council Position#3 1 3 public comment) (20 min) a. Nomination and second of candidate: vote. b. City Clerk Administers Oath of Office c. New Councilmember Takes Position at the Dias NON-ACTION ITEMS: 4. Pavement Management Program Update— Steve Worley (20 minutes) [*estimated meeting: 65 minutes] #1 Mayor's State of the City Address/Community Forum Monday, April 11, 2011; 7:00 pm to 8:00 pm. Valley Fourth Memorial Church, 2303 S. Bowdish Road April 12,2011,Formal Meeting Format,6:00 p.m. [due date Mon,April 4] 1. Consent Agenda(claims,payroll,minutes) (5 minutes) 2. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance Livestock in Mixed Use— Christina Janssen (10 minutes) 3. First Reading Proposed Ordinance for 2011 Comp Plan Amendments—Mike Basinger (20 minutes) [*estimated meeting: minutes] #2 Mayor's State of the City Address/Community Forum Thursday, April 14, 2011; 7:00 pm to 8:00 pm, Greenacres Christian Church, 18010 E. Mission Avenue April 19,2011, Study Session Format,6:00 p.m. [due date Mon,April 11] 1. Advance Agenda—Mayor Towey (5 minutes) #3 Mayor's State of the City Address/Community Forum Thursday, April 21, 2011; 7:00 pm to 8:00 pm, Seth Woodard Elementary School, 7401 E. Mission Ave. April 26,2011,Formal Meeting Format,6:00 p.m. [due date Mon,April 18] 1. Consent Agenda(claims,payroll,minutes) (5 minutes) 2. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance for 2011 Comp Plan Amendments—Mike Basinger (10 minutes) 3. Info Only: Dept Reports [*estimated meeting: minutes] #4 (and final)Mayor's State of the City Address/Community Forum Thursday, April 28, 2011; 12:30 to 1:30 pm, CenterPlace Regional Event Center 2426 N. Discovery Place Draft Advance Agenda 2/25/2011 7:54:37 AM Page 2 of 4 May 3,2011, Study Session Format,6:00 p.m. [due date Mon,April 25] 1. Draft 2012-2017 Six Year TIP— Steve Worley (20 minutes) May 10,2011,Formal Meeting Format,6:00 p.m. [due date Mon,May 2] 1. Consent Agenda(claims,payroll,minutes) (5 minutes) May 17,2011, Study Session Format,6:00 p.m. [due date Mon,May 9] 1. Admin Report: Draft 2012-2017 Six Year TIP— Steve Worley (15 minutes) May 24,2011,Formal Meeting Format,6:00 p.m. [due date Mon,May 16] 1. PUBLIC HEARING: Draft 2012-2017 Six Year TIP— Steve Worley (15 minutes) 2. Consent Agenda(claims,payroll,minutes) (5 minutes) 3. Info Only: Dept Reports [*estimated meeting: minutes] May 31,2011, Study Session Format,6:00 p.m. [due date Mon,May 23] June 7,2011, Study Session Format,6:00 p.m. [due date Mon,May 30] June 14,2011,Formal Meeting Format,6:00 p.m. [due date Mon,June 6] 1. Consent Agenda(claims,payroll,minutes) (5 minutes) 2. Proposed Resolution Adopting 2012-2017 Six Year TIP— Steve Worley (15 minutes) June 21, 2011, Possible no Meeting, (AWC Conference, Spokane, Wa.) June 28,2011,Formal Meeting Format,6:00 p.m. [due date Mon,June 20] 1. Consent Agenda(claims,payroll,minutes) (5 minutes) 2. Info Only: Dept Reports [*estimated meeting: minutes] July 5,2011, Study Session Format,6:00 p.m. [due date Mon,June 27] Draft Advance Agenda 2/25/2011 7:54:37 AM Page 3 of 4 OTHER PENDING AND/OR UPCOMING ISSUES/MEETINGS: Airway Heights Plan Review Renewal Alternative Analysis (contracts) Bidding Contracts (SVMC 3. —bidding exceptions) Budget 2012 (August/Sept 2011) Capital Projects Funding CDBG(Fall 2011) Centennial Trail Agreement Clean Air Agency East Gateway Monument Structure # Flashing Beacons Governance Manual (resolution) Update Joint Meetings: Planning Commission; Board of County Commissioners Liberty Lake City Sign Lodging Tax Funding for 2012 (Oct 2011) Milwaukee Right-of-way Monument(Veterans') Sign Outside Agencies 2012 (August 2011) Parking/Paving Options (for driveways, etc.) PEG Funds: Allocation of P&E Funding Permit Tracking System Reimbursement Assessment Amendment Retreat, Summer 2011 Sidewalks Signage (I-90) Site Selector Update Solid Waste Amended Interlocal Speed Limits Sprague Appleway Corridor Environ.Assessment Sprague Avenue: One-way vs.two-way Street Maintenance Facility WIRA,Water Protection Commitment, Public Education # =Awaiting action by others * =doesn't include time for public or council comments Draft Advance Agenda 2/25/2011 7:54:37 AM Page 4 of 4 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: March 1, 2011 City Manager Sign-off: Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ® information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Havana Street from 16th Avenue to Pratt Avenue GOVERNING LEGISLATION: PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: BACKGROUND: The City of Spokane has contacted the County on their desire to have a portion of Havana Street transferred to the City as illustrated in yellow on the attached map. The County has no desire to maintain jurisdiction on this portion of roadway since it lies between two cities, but prior to agreeing to the transfer they wanted to inform the City of Spokane Valley. Unless Council has objection, we will notify Spokane County that we agree to the transfer. OPTIONS: RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: STAFF CONTACT: Neil Kersten ATTACHMENTS Map Spokane County Half Ownership of Right-of-Way , II Pratt Av I • • . • • 10th A� 4 _._ — i mi • • • • , • 1 , , • . i. i'--. 1 1 1 . __i_ ii_ v_ I .11 \ iil.., L\ ... - .. ..._. 1.____. ._ _....____._.____ __.T.... Cpty of . Sokan __ _ e City of 1 • Spokane 22 N Ca — I 1 ey i \ \ \ I H - } 1tY A_ i- > ____ _ ___\____ ' I-- i \ t 14th Al v YallI 1 „[ \ I _ I__ , __L 232543 15th A ..[___.t. 11 \I 11 ___\\_. — 13th Av I j •• Lir - y • i --\'' ------_—._ •\I it • 1 ` 1 I. Pr 1 6th!A1/ �_.. i • -.' i 27 2I 43 5 43, 1 . 5. Public WorksDeparlmenl Half of County Right-of-Way r Parcel 1i, Division of Engineering and Roads ' sidp'7} GIS Section 1026 W.Broadway Ave, Spam aCHn• Spokane,WA 99260 e1Yen '' Road Section (509)477-3600 Road I{ryI aI s{ r+ Thls product n far lnformagonatpnrynses and as a gene„I ptanniny and Non-County Road I.c...-..-�9 Quarter Section managomantmol,cam was used dmnaoolnplmuon of this data and gnat NNN il prntluct to insure accuracy,but it may ho based In whole or in Pod on rho Ole xu quality or e sun o dada and nutsldc sohnos or dlornalien.tern madder nvny not nays noon pro pared ror,or be sudaba far,legal,anglneadnp.ao N surveying purposes.Whew County end the hiykpn of€ngrno wino a nd Roads do nol occapl rasponsihlUly Ion errors and onhlmans,and thowlerc. ashes that accompany lhla material pears or this inhumation Miles gl� H. ehcvk reono ip the primary date a nd intaunnthmsc rces In aocodaln any (��a�.77 //�� .1 zehylty or Ns lnlarmallon..10 lnlarmegon may be poriodunty updalatl o V.VGS V.o5 o. I Esorn of thla Intarmatan sheuW check with the spnhane County plylslon of S Enalnoadng and Roads in ensure Ihat they have lira latest rovhan CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: March 1, 2011 City Manager Sign-off: Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ® information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE : 2011 Community Survey GOVERNING LEGISLATION: n/a PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: n/a BACKGROUND: In 2009, a statistically valid, professionally administered survey of Spokane Valley citizens was conducted to help measure citizen satisfaction with City services and provide benchmarks for improving our performance. In addition to providing performance benchmarks, the survey helped gauge citizen sentiment pertaining to a wide variety of community characteristics such as safety, appearance, housing, employment opportunities, and much more, helping assess areas of need and suggesting areas of possible focus. We are preparing the 2011 update of the survey, which will be conducted every two years. The updated survey will be administered by the National Research Center, Inc. a nationally recognized research firm that partners with ICMA to provide professional, low-cost survey services to local governments. Attached is a copy of the survey questionnaire. The majority of the questions are standardized to facilitate comparisons with other cities of similar size. The survey offers the opportunity to customize four questions of specific interest to Spokane Valley. Questions 18a, 18b, 18c and 18d have been customized to provide Council and staff with information and feedback to further help identify areas of need and possible future focus. Questionnaires will be mailed in April to 1200 randomly selected households throughout the city. Because at least 400 of the completed questionnaires must be returned for the survey to be considered statistically valid, a comprehensive public information campaign will be launched to encourage community participation. The survey results and report are expected to be provided by late June. OPTIONS: RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: $14,076.65— included in 2011 budget STAFF CONTACT: Carolbelle Branch, Public Information Officer ATTACHMENTS 2011 City of Spokane Valley Citizen Survey instrument Custom Questions for 2011 Community Survey (may be modified based on available space in survey document) CUSTOM QUESTION 18a: Please rank the following according to the importance/unimportance you believe the City should place on it. Most important Somewhat important Neutral/Don't know Somewhat unimportant Not important Animal control Bicycle/pedestrian facilities Business attraction, retention and expansion Communicating with citizens Court and jail system Parks and recreation Planning for new development Police services Snow plowing Solid waste/garbage Street maintenance CUSTOM QUESTION 18b: How likely/unlikely are you to support investment of City time/money to attract, retain and expand businesses in Spokane Valley? Very Likely Somewhat likely Neutral Somewhat unlikely Very Unlikely CUSTOM QUESTION 18c: Spokane Valley's Vision Statement is: "A community of opportunity where individuals and families can grow and play and businesses will flourish and prosper." How accurate or inaccurate do you think that statement is at describing Spokane Valley today? Very accurate Somewhat accurate Neutral/Don't know Somewhat inaccurate Very inaccurate OPEN-ENDED QUESTION 18d: What one thing do you believe the City can do to make Spokane Valley a better community? The XYZ of ABC 2011 Citizen Survey Please complete this questionnaire if you are the adult (age 18 or older) in the household who most recently had a birthday. The adult's year of birth does not matter. Please select the response (by circling the number or checking the box) that most closely represents your opinion for each question. Your responses are anonymous and will be reported in group form only. 1. Please rate each of the following aspects of quality of life in ABC: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know ABC as a place to live 1 2 3 4 5 Your neighborhood as a place to live 1 2 3 4 5 ABC as a place to raise children 1 2 3 4 5 ABC as a place to work 1 2 3 4 5 ABC as a place to retire 1 2 3 4 5 The overall quality of life in ABC 1 2 3 4 5 2. Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to ABC as a whole: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Sense of community 1 2 3 4 5 Openness and acceptance of the community toward people of diverse backgrounds 1 2 3 4 5 Overall appearance of ABC 1 2 3 4 5 Cleanliness of ABC 1 2 3 4 5 Overall quality of new development in ABC 1 2 3 4 5 Variety of housing options 1 2 3 4 5 Overall quality of business and service establishments in ABC 1 2 3 4 5 Shopping opportunities 1 2 3 4 5 Opportunities to attend cultural activities 1 2 3 4 5 Recreational opportunities 1 2 3 4 5 Employment opportunities 1 2 3 4 5 Educational opportunities 1 2 3 4 5 Opportunities to participate in social events and activities 1 2 3 4 5 Opportunities to participate in religious or spiritual events and activities 1 2 3 4 5 Opportunities to volunteer 1 2 3 4 5 Opportunities to participate in community matters 1 2 3 4 5 Ease of car travel in ABC 1 2 3 4 5 Ease of bus travel in ABC 1 2 3 4 5 Ease of rail or subway travel in ABC 1 2 3 4 5 Ease of bicycle travel in ABC 1 2 3 4 5 Ease of walking in ABC 1 2 3 4 5 Availability of paths and walking trails 1 2 3 4 5 Traffic flow on major streets 1 2 3 4 5 Amount of public parking 1 2 3 4 5 Availability of affordable quality housing 1 2 3 4 5 Availability of affordable quality child care 1 2 3 4 5 Availability of affordable quality health care 1 2 3 4 5 Availability of affordable quality food 1 2 3 4 5 Availability of preventive health services 1 2 3 4 5 Air quality 1 2 3 4 5 Quality of overall natural environment in ABC 1 2 3 4 5 Overall image or reputation of ABC 1 2 3 4 5 3. Please rate the speed of growth in the following categories in ABC over the past 2 years: Much Somewhat Right Somewhat Much Don't too slow too slow amount too fast too fast know Population growth 1 2 3 4 5 6 Retail growth (stores, restaurants, etc.) 1 2 3 4 5 6 Jobs growth 1 2 3 4 5 6 Page 1 of 5 A hs."e National Citizen Survey"" -- " 4. To what degree, if at all, are run down buildings, weed lots or junk vehicles a problem in ABC? 0 Not a problem 0 Minor problem 0 Moderate problem 0 Major problem 0 Don't know 5. Please rate how safe or unsafe you feel from the following in ABC: Very Somewhat Neither safe Somewhat Very Don't safe safe nor unsafe unsafe unsafe know Violent crime (e.g., rape, assault, robbery) 1 2 3 4 5 6 Property crimes (e.g., burglary,theft) 1 2 3 4 5 6 Environmental hazards, including toxic waste 1 2 3 4 5 6 6. Please rate how safe or unsafe you feel: Very Somewhat Neither safe Somewhat Very Don't safe safe nor unsafe unsafe unsafe know In your neighborhood during the day 1 2 3 4 5 6 In your neighborhood after dark 1 2 3 4 5 6 In ABC's downtown area during the day 1 2 3 4 5 6 In ABC's downtown area after dark 1 2 3 4 5 6 7. During the past 12 months, were you or anyone in your household the victim of any crime? 0 No 4 Go to Question 9 0 Yes 4 Go to Question 8 0 Don't know 4 Go to Question 9 8. If yes, was this crime (these crimes) reported to the police? O No 0 Yes 0 Don't know 9. In the last 12 months, about how many times, if ever, have you or other household members participated in the following activities in ABC? Once or 3 to 12 13 to 26 More than Never twice times times 26 times Used ABC public libraries or their services 1 2 3 4 5 Used ABC recreation centers 1 2 3 4 5 Participated in a recreation program or activity 1 2 3 4 5 Visited a neighborhood park or XYZ park 1 2 3 4 5 Ridden a local bus within ABC 1 2 3 4 5 Attended a meeting of local elected officials or other local public meeting 1 2 3 4 5 Watched a meeting of local elected officials or other XYZ-sponsored public meeting on cable television,the Internet or other media 1 2 3 4 5 Read ABC Newsletter 1 2 3 4 5 Visited the XYZ of ABC Web site (at www. .com) 1 2 3 4 5 Recycled used paper, cans or bottles from your home 1 2 3 4 5 Volunteered your time to some group or activity in ABC 1 2 3 4 5 Participated in religious or spiritual activities in ABC 1 2 3 4 5 u Participated in a club or civic group in ABC 1 2 3 4 5 s Provided help to a friend or neighbor 1 2 3 4 5 al 10. About how often, if at all, do you talk to or visit with your immediate neighbors(people who live in the 10 or 20 households that are closest to you)? o 0 Just about every day z 0 Several times a week o 0 Several times a month O Less than several times a month o N © T i 7 N C N N U 7t C O Z s H Page 2 of 5 The XYZ of ABC 2011 Citizen Survey 11. Please rate the quality of each of the following services in ABC: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Police services 1 2 3 4 5 Fire services 1 2 3 4 5 Ambulance or emergency medical services 1 2 3 4 5 Crime prevention 1 2 3 4 5 Fire prevention and education 1 2 3 4 5 Municipal courts 1 2 3 4 5 Traffic enforcement 1 2 3 4 5 Street repair 1 2 3 4 5 Street cleaning 1 2 3 4 5 Street lighting 1 2 3 4 5 Snow removal 1 2 3 4 5 Sidewalk maintenance 1 2 3 4 5 Traffic signal timing 1 2 3 4 5 Bus or transit services 1 2 3 4 5 Garbage collection 1 2 3 4 5 Recycling 1 2 3 4 5 Yard waste pick-up 1 2 3 4 5 Storm drainage 1 2 3 4 5 Drinking water 1 2 3 4 5 Sewer services 1 2 3 4 5 Power(electric and/or gas) utility 1 2 3 4 5 XYZ parks 1 2 3 4 5 Recreation programs or classes 1 2 3 4 5 Recreation centers or facilities 1 2 3 4 5 Land use, planning and zoning 1 2 3 4 5 Code enforcement(weeds, abandoned buildings, etc.) 1 2 3 4 5 Animal control 1 2 3 4 5 Economic development 1 2 3 4 5 Health services 1 2 3 4 5 Services to seniors 1 2 3 4 5 Services to youth 1 2 3 4 5 Services to low-income people 1 2 3 4 5 Public library services 1 2 3 4 5 Public information services 1 2 3 4 5 Public schools 1 2 3 4 5 Cable television 1 2 3 4 5 Emergency preparedness (services that prepare the community for natural disasters or other emergency situations) 1 2 3 4 5 Preservation of natural areas such as open space, farmlands and greenbelts 1 2 3 4 5 12. Overall, how would you rate the quality of the services provided by each of the following? Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know The XYZ of ABC 1 2 3 4 5 The Federal Government 1 2 3 4 5 The State Government 1 2 3 4 5 CCC County Government 1 2 3 4 5 Page 3 of 5 he National Citizen Survey' 13. Have you had any in-person or phone contact with an employee of the XYZ of ABC within the last 12 months(including police, receptionists, planners or any others)? O No 4 Go to Question 15 0 Yes 4 Go to Question 14 14. What was your impression of the employee(s)of the XYZ of ABC in your most recent contact? (Rate each characteristic below.) Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Knowledge 1 2 3 4 5 Responsiveness 1 2 3 4 5 Courtesy 1 2 3 4 5 Overall impression 1 2 3 4 5 15. Please rate the following categories of ABC government performance: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know The value of services for the taxes paid to ABC 1 2 3 4 5 The overall direction that ABC is taking 1 2 3 4 5 The job ABC government does at welcoming citizen involvement 1 2 3 4 5 16. Please indicate how likely or unlikely you are to do each of the following: Very Somewhat Somewhat Very Don't likely likely unlikely unlikely know Recommend living in ABC to someone who asks 1 2 3 4 5 Remain in ABC for the next five years 1 2 3 4 5 17. What impact, if any, do you think the economy will have on your family income in the next 6 months? Do you think the impact will be: O Very positive 0 Somewhat positive 0 Neutral 0 Somewhat negative 0 Very negative 18. Please check the response that comes closest to your opinion for each of the following questions: a. Policy Question #1 Policy Question#1 Policy Question #1 Policy Question #1 Policy Question#1 Policy Question #1 Policy Question #1 Policy Question #1 Policy Question #1 Policy Question #1 Policy Question#1 Policy Question#1 Policy Question #1 Policy Question #1 Policy Question#1 Policy Question#1 Policy Question #1 0 Scale point 1 0 Scale point 2 0 Scale point 3 0 Scale point 4 0 Scale points b. Policy Question #2 Policy Question #2 Policy Question #2 Policy Question #2 Policy Question#2 Policy Question #2 Policy Question #2 Policy Question #2 Policy Question #2 Policy Question #2 Policy Question#2 Policy Question#2 Policy Question #2 Policy Question #2 Policy Question#2 Policy Question#2 Policy Question #2 O Scale point 1 0 Scale point 2 0 Scale point 3 0 Scale point 4 0 Scale points c. Policy Question #3 Policy Question #3 Policy Question #3 Policy Question #3 Policy Question#3 Policy Question #3 Policy Question #3 Policy Question #3 Policy Question #3 Policy Question #3 Policy Question#3 Policy Question#3 Policy Question #3 Policy Question #3 Policy Question#3 Policy Question#3 Policy Question #3 O Scale point 1 0 Scale point 2 0 Scale point 3 0 Scale point 4 0 Scale points O d. OPTIONAL[See Worksheets for details and price of this option] Open-Ended Question Open-Ended Question Open-Ended Question Open-Ended Question Open-Ended Question Open-Ended Question Open-Ended Question Open-Ended Question Open-Ended Question Open-Ended Question Open-Ended Question Open-Ended Question o z N N T i N N N U 0 O z N L H Page 4 of 5 The XYZ of ABC 2011 Citizen Survey Our last questions are about you and your household. Again, all of your responses to this survey are completely anonymous and will be reported in group form only. Dl. Are you currently employed for pay? D8. Are you or any other members of your household aged O No 4 Go to Question D3 65 or older? O Yes, full time 4 Go to Question D2 0 No 0 Yes O Yes, part time 4 Go to Question D2 D9. How much do you anticipate your household's total D2. During a typical week, how many days do you income before taxes will be for the current year? commute to work(for the longest distance of (Please include in your total income money from all your commute)in each of the ways listed below? sources for all persons living in your household.) (Enter the total number of days, using whole 0 Less than $24,999 numbers.) 0 $25,000 to $49,999 Motorized vehicle (e.g., car,truck, van, 0 $50,000 to $99,999 motorcycle, etc.) by myself days 0 $100,000 to $149,999 Motorized vehicle (e.g., car,truck, van, 0 $150,000 or more motorcycle, etc.) with other children or adults days Please respond to both question D10 and D11: Bus, Rail, Subway or other public transportation days D10. Are you Spanish, Hispanic or Latino? Walk days 0 No, not Spanish, Hispanic or Latino Bicycle days 0 Yes, I consider myself to be Spanish, Hispanic Work at home days or Latino Other days D11. What is your race? (Mark one or more races to D3. How many years have you lived in ABC? indicate what race you consider yourself to be.) 0 Less than 2 years 0 11-20 years 0 American Indian or Alaskan Native O 2-5 years 0 More than 20 years 0 Asian, Asian Indian or Pacific Islander O 6-10 years 0 Black or African American O White D4. Which best describes the building you live in? 0 Other O One family house detached from any other houses O House attached to one or more houses (e.g., a D12. In which category is your age? duplex or townhome) O 18-24 years O 55-64 years 0 Building with two or more apartments or 0 25-34 years 0 65-74 years condominiums 0 35-44 years 0 75 years or older 0 Mobile home 0 45 54 years O Other D13. What is your sex? D5. Is this house, apartment or mobile home... 0 Female 0 Male O Rented for cash or occupied without cash payment? D14. Are you registered to vote in your jurisdiction? O Owned by you or someone in this house with a 0 No 0 Ineligible to vote mortgage or free and clear? 0 Yes 0 Don't know D6. About how much is your monthly housing cost for D15. Many people don't have time to vote in elections. Did the place you live(including rent, mortgage payment, you vote in the last general election? property tax, property insurance and homeowners' 0 No 0 Ineligible to vote association (HOA)fees)? 0 Yes 0 Don't know O Less than $300 per month 0 $300 to $599 per month D16. Do you have a cell phone? 0 $600 to $999 per month O No O Yes O $1,000 to $1,499 per month D17. Do you have a land line at home? O $1,500 to $2,499 per month 0 No 0 Yes O $2,500 or more per month D18. If you have both a cell phone and a land line, which D7. Do any children 17 or under live in your household? do you consider your primary telephone number? O No 0 Yes 0 Cell 0 Land line 0 Both Thank you for completing this survey. Please return the completed survey in the postage-paid envelope to: National Research Center, Inc., PO Box 549, Belle Mead, NJ 08502 Page 5 of 5