The URL can be used to link to this page

2013-04-09 City Council - Public Agenda-1490'4- o 90� AGENDA EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL Council Chambers — Public Safety Complex 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETINGS TUESDAY, APRIL 9, 2013 6:00 p.m. The City Council Committee meetings are work sessions for the City Council and staff. Members of the public are welcome to observe the meeting, but public participation is limited to making comments at the end of the meeting with a 3 minute limit per person. j, Finance Committee Jury Meeting Room A. (5 Minutes) Surplus of computers and monitors and donation to InterConnection. B. (5 Minutes) Authorization to Contract with James G. Murphy to Sell Surplus City Vehicles. C. (10 Minutes) February 2013 Monthly Financial Report D. (10 Minutes) Public Comments (3-Minute Limit Per Person) 2. Public Safety and Personnel Committee Meeting Room: Police Training Room A. (10 Minutes) FIR Reporting Director special assignment. B. (15 Minutes) Acting Development Services Director assignment. C. (15 Minutes) Consideration of mandatory bike helmets. D. (15 Minutes) Resolution regarding Robert's Rules E. (15 Minutes) Code of Ethics F . (10 Minutes) Public Comments (3-Minute Limit Per Person) Packet Page 1 of 145 AM-5604 City Council Committee Meetings Meeting Date: 04/09/2013 Time: 5 Minutes Submitted For: Ronald Cone Submitted By: Carl Nelson Department: Finance Committee: Finance Tyne: Action Information Subject Title Surplus of computers and monitors and donation to InterConnection. Recommendation Authorization to surplus 45 CPUs and donate them to Interconnection. Previous Council Action 1. A. Narrative From 2010 till February 2013 computers have come off warranty or, that have passed their useful life due to the upgrade to Windows 7. Of this equipment, some portion may have a useful life outside the City. It is 45 computers are proposed to be donated to InterConnection (http://www.interconnection.org/) a company who states: "We connect your computers with underserved communities around the world". Donating this equipment to Interconnection will insure that it will be given to a non-profit organization for a good cause. It also means that this equipment will not wind-up in a landfill. Attachments Surplus Asset List Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Finance Ronald Cone 03/18/2013 07:08 AM City Clerk Sandy Chase 04/02/2013 08:59 AM Mayor Sandy Chase 04/02/2013 09:00 AM Community Services/Economic Dev. Stephen Clifton 04/02/2013 10:38 AM Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase 04/02/2013 01:07 PM Form Started By: Carl Nelson Started On: 03/15/2013 05:09 PM Final Approval Date: 04/02/2013 Packet Page 2 of 145 Model SN# UNKNOWN 15679437UKA9N80P PZ583UA#ABA 2UA5470LQ7 PZ583UA#ABA 2UA5470LQJ EQ167US#ABA 2UA61302YJ EQ167US#ABA 2UA61302Y M EQ167US#ABA 2UA63108K3 EQ167US#ABA 2UA63108K4 EQ167US#ABA 2UA63108K5 RS352US#ABA 2UA7010DGJ DZ216AV 2UB50204HV DZ216AV 2UB505086H DZ216AV 2UB50SO86P DZ216AV 2UB505086R DZ216AV 2UB50SO86T DZ216AV 2UB505086Y DZ216AV 2UB50SO86Z DZ216AV 2UB5050870 DZ216AV 2UB50SO872 DZ216AV 2UB5050876 DZ216AV 2UB50SO87H DZ216AV 2UB505087J DZ216AV 2UB5050B6F DZ216AV 2UB51204X2 DZ216AV 2UB51204X3 DZ216AV 2UB515801ZP DZ216AV 2UB5310G B4 818932U KCFM4R4 830749U KCNBACY 8189D7U KCRA20B 8189D7U KCRA20N 830741U KCXSGLL 830749U KCZSLBX 830725U KLFZABM 830725U KLGPM7W 830725U KLNPWIZ PZ583UA#ABA MXL5370G8J PZ583UA#ABA MXL5370G9J PZ583UA#ABA MXL5370GB5 PZ583UA#ABA MXL5370GBB PZ583UA#ABA MXL54800G8 PZ583UA#ABA MXL602093Q PZ583UA#ABA MXL6020942 PZ583UA#ABA MXL6020B4C PZ583UA#ABA MXL6020B4F PZ583UA#ABA MXL60500NZ Packet Page 3 of 145 AM-5630 City Council Committee Meetings Meeting Date: 04/09/2013 Time: 5 Minutes Submitted For: Phil Williams Department: Public Works Committee: Finance Submitted By: Kody McConnell Tyne: Action Information Subject Title Authorization to Contract with James G. Murphy to Sell Surplus City Vehicles. 1. B. Recommendation It is recommended that authorization be given to contract with James G. Murphy Auctioneers to sell surplus City vehicles. Previous Council Action None. Narrative Previously, the City has utilized the services of James G. Murphy Auctioneers to sell surplus City vehicles and equipment. This has proven to be a cost-effective method to manage surplus items. The following surplus vehicles are ready to be auctioned: Unit # 650-POL 2008 Ford Crown Victoria Vin# 2FAHP71VX8X145650 Unit # 424-POL 2008 Ford Crown Victoria Vin# 2FAHP71V08X114424 Unit # 10-STR 2001 Dodge Ram 3500 Flatbed Vin# 3136MC36521M571411 Unit # 96-STR 1999 Chevrolet C3500 Flatbed Vin # 1GBKC34JIXF061017 Fiscal Year: 2013 Fiscal Impact Revenue: 16,000 Fiscal Impact• Monies will be deposited into B-Fund Replacement Account. Inbox City Clerk Community Services/Economic Dev. Finalize for Agenda Fonn Started By: Kody McConnell Final Approval Date: 04/02/2013 Form Review Reviewed By Date Sandy Chase 04/02/2013 08:59 AM Stephen Clifton 04/02/2013 10:38 AM Sandy Chase 04/02/2013 01:07 PM Started On: 04/01/2013 10:12 AM Expenditure: Packet Page 4 of 145 AM-5641 City Council Committee Meetings Meeting Date: 04/09/2013 Time: 10 Minutes Submitted For: Ronald Cone Department: Finance Committee: Finance Subject Title February 2013 Monthly Financial Report Recommendation N.A. For informational purposes only. Previous Council Action N.A. Narrative Submitted By: Sarah Mager Tyne: Information Attachments February 2013 Monthly Financial Report Form Review Inbox Finance City Clerk Community Services/Economic Dev. Finalize for Agenda Form Started By: Sarah Mager Final Approval Date: 04/04/2013 Information Reviewed By Date Ronald Cone 04/03/2013 02:05 PM Sandy Chase 04/03/2013 02:10 PM Stephen Clifton 04/03/2013 03:43 PM Sandy Chase 04/04/2013 09:00 AM Started On: 04/03/2013 01:20 PM 1. C. Packet Page 5 of 145 E �� of 0 FEBRUARY 2013 MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORT Ins. 1$90 General Fund activity year-to-date brought a deficit of $2.6 million to fund balances. Several specific revenue line items are tracking ahead of budget so far through February. These include Natural Gas Tax (24% of budget), Electric Utility Tax (22% of budget), Gas Utility Tax (27% of budget), Pull Tabs Tax (25% of budget), Amusements (66% of budget), Franchise Fees (average of 28% of budget), General Business License (73% of budget), Non -Resident Business License (54% of budget), Animal Licenses (24% of budget), and Real Estate Excise Tax (18% of budget). At the end of February, 17% of the year had expired. Overall, General Fund expenditures are on track with 18% of budget spent to date. Salaries and Wages for all departments are at 17% of budget, and Overtime is at 13% of budget. No departments are over budget. General Fund 14 12 $11.02 10 $8.47 $8.37 o 8 ❑ General 6 c — Fund 4 2 Dec 2012 Jan 2013 Feb 2013 1 CHANGE IN FUND BALANCES GENERAL FUND BALANCES FUND ---- ACTUAL ---- ---- ACTUAL ---- 12/31 /2012 1 /31 /2013 2/28/2013 Q1 YTD 001-General Fund $ 4,829,369 $ 2,312,440 $ 2,704,831 $ - $ (2,124,538) 009-Leoff-Medical Ins. Reserve 387,319 361,196 330,359 - (56,960) 011-Risk Management Fund 244,000 244,000 (220,078) - (464,078) 012 -Contingency Reserve Fund 5,283,425 5,283,425 5,284,166 - 741 013-Mulitmodal Transportation FD 55,859 55,859 55,859 - (0) 014-Historic Preservation Gift Fund 1,064 1,352 1,709 - 645 016-Building Maintenance 213,999 213,506 213,536 Total General Fund $ 11,015,035 $ 8,471,778 $ 8,370,382 $ - $ (2,644,653) Packet Page 6 of 145 FEBRUARY 2013 DASHBOARD YEAR TO DATE TREND COMPARED TO PROJECTIONS REFERENCE GENERAL FUND REVENUES General Fund Revenue Positive 23.14% Page 9 Sales & Use Tax Revenue Neutral Do 1.17% Page 10 Gas Utility Tax Revenue V Negatived -4.30% Page 10 Telephone Utility Tax Revenue Positive 10.07% Page 11 Electric Utility Tax Revenue Neutral 1.88% Page 11 EXPENDITURES General Fund Expenditures Page 12 NON —GENERAL FUND REVENUES Real Estate Excise Tax Positive 30.83% Page 9 Key to revenue trend indicators: Positive =Positve variance of> 2% compared to projections. 44 Neutral 110, =Variance of -1 % to +2% compared to projections. Warning =Negative variance of-1% to 4% compared to projections. TNegativeT =Negative variance of >-4% compared to projections. 2 Packet Page 7 of 145 GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS OVERVIEW Combined governmental fund activity through February brought a deficit of $2 million to fund balances. The General Fund was responsible for a deficit of $2.6 million, the special revenue funds for an increase of $687,607, and the remaining was due to an increase of $2,960 in the debt service funds. Governmental Fund Balances -By Fund Group Governmental Fund Balances - Combined 14 18 12 $14.56 $11.02 10 $12.16 $12.60 General 12 c g $8.37 Fund r_ 0 o — Special 6 Revenue Debt 6 4 $4.22 Service .67 2 $0.01 $0.011 1 Dec 2012 Jan 2013 Feb 2013 Dec 2012 Jan 2013 Feb 2013 3 CHANGE IN FUND FUND BALANCES BALANCES GOVERNMENTAL ---- ACTUAL ---- ---- ACTUAL ---- FUNDS 12/31 /2012 1 /31 /2013 2/28/2013 Q1 YTD General Fund $ 11,015,035 $ 8,471 ,778 $ 8,370,382 $ - $ (2,644,653) Special Revenue 3,530,072 3,671,304 4,217,679 - 687,607 Debt Service 11,014 13,971 13,974 - 2,960 Governmental Funds $ 14,556,121 $ 12,157,053 $ 12,602,035 $ - $ (1,954,086) Packet Page 8 of 145 SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS OVERVIEW Activity in all special revenue funds year-to-date brought an increase of $687,609. The graph below shows the total fund balances for all nineteen special revenue funds as of December 2012, January 2013, and the current ending balance as of February 2013. Special Revenue Funds 5 $4.22 4 $3.67 3 o Specia I 2 Revenue 1 Dec2012 Jan 2013 Feb 2013 4 FUND BALANCES CHANGE IN FUND BALANCES GOVERNMENTAL ---- ACTUAL ---- ---- ACTUAL ---- Special Revenue Packet Page 9 of 145 ENTERPRISE FUNDS OVERVIEW Utility Fund Activity through February brought an increase of $511,693 in the Enterprise Funds. 70,000,000 60,000,000 50,000,000 40,000,000 30,000,000 — 20,000,000 — Enterprise Funds- Fund Balances 43,942,247 44,227,513 43,961,906 10,000,000 22,592 Dec 2012 12,542.818 7,823,883 Feb2013 421- Water Utility Fund 422 - Storm Utility Fund 423 - Sewer/WWTP Utility Fund FUND BALANCES CHANGE IN FUND ENTERPRISE ---- ACTUAL ---- ---- ACTUAL ---- FUNDS 12/31 /2012 1 /31 /2013 2/28/2013 Q1 YTD 421 - Water Utility Fund $ 12,322,592 $ 12,670,274 $ 12,542,818 $ - $ 220,226 422 - Storm Utility Fund 7,552,075 7,649,140 7,823,883 - 271,808 423 - Sewer/WWTP Utility Fund 43,942,247 44,227,513 43,961,906 - 19,659 Enterprise Funds 1 $ 63,816,914 $ 64,546,926 $ 64,328,607 1 $ - $ 511,693 $47, 800,000 $37,800,000 $27, 800,000 $17, 800,000 $7,800,000 $(2,200,000) Enterprise Fund Balances as of February 28, 2013 � /,tSL.i,tStS.i Water Utility Fund Storm Utility Fund Sewer/WWTP Utility Fund Packet Page 10 of 145 5 SUMMARY OVERVIEW At the end of February, 17% of the year had expired. Year-to-date activity brought a deficit of $1.4 million to the City -Wide fund balances, bringing the total to $84 million. Of the year-to-date deficit, a $2 million deficit was generated by governmental funds, an increase of $543,745 was generated by Enterprise (Utility) Funds, an increase of $89,194 was generated by Internal Service Funds, and a deficit of $31,815 was generated by the Pension Trust Fund. CHANGE IN FUND FUND BALANCES BALANCES CITY-WIDE ---- ACTUAL ---- ---- ACTUAL ---- 12/31 /2012 1 /31 /2013 2/28/2013 Q1 YTD Governmental Funds $ 14,556,121 $ 12,157,053 $ 12,602,035 $ - $ (1,954,086) Enterprise Funds 63,816,914 64,546,926 64,360,659 - 543,745 Internal Services Fund 6,463,723 6,368,320 6,552,917 - 89,194 Pension Trust Fund 216,693 188,438 184,878 - (31,815) City-wide Total j $ 85,053,451 $ 83,260,738 $ 83,700,488 j $ - $ (1,352,963) Governmental Fund Balances as of February28, 2013 Limited Tax G.O. Bond Fund L.I.D. Guaranty Fund Sister City Commission Cemetery Maintenance Trust Fund Parks Trust Fund Parks Construction Fund Cemetery Maintenance/Improvement Special Projects Fund Gifts Catalog Fund Real Estate Excise Tax 1, Parks Acq Real Estate Excise Tax 2 Tourism Promotional Fund/Arts Youth Scholarship Fund Employee Parking Permit Fund Hotel/Motel Tax Revenue Fund Memodal Street Fund Municipal Arts Acquis. Fund Combined Street Const/Improve ($284,733) Street Fund Drug Enforcement Fund General Fund $1 $681 $22,238 $8,719 $ 20,545 $149,944 $827,872 $56,609 1 $18,385 $226,221 $423,936 $1,091,297 � $65,931 $15,079 $76,354 $114,543 $17,672 $419, 53 $37,609 $133,010 $2,000,000 ,370,3821 Packet Page 11 of 145 M. INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS OVERVIEW Internal Service Fund activity through February brought an increase of $89,194. We began the year with a fund balance of $6.5 million and currently at the end of February; we see an ending fund balance of $6.6 million. Internal Service Fund Balances 7 6.46 $6.37 $ 6.5 5 6 5 4 3 2 1 Dec2012 Jan 2013 Feb 2013 7 FUND BALANCES CHANGE IN FUND BALANCES INTERNAL SERVICE ---- ACTUAL ---- ---- ACTUAL ---- FUNDS 12/31 /2012 1 /31 /2013 2/28/2013 Q1 YTD 511 -Equipment Rental Fund $ 6,463,723 $ 6,368,320 $ 6,552,917 $ - $ 89,194 Internal Service Funds $ 6,463,723 $ 6,368,320 $ 6,552,917 $ - $ 89,194 Packet Page 12 of 145 INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO SUMMARY Agency/Issuer Investment Ty Washington State Local Investment Pool Government Investment Pool Opus Bank Certificate of Deposit FHLMC Bonds FHLMC Bonds FFCB Bonds TOTAL City of Edmonds Investment Portfolio Summary As of February 28, 2013 (a) Term Purchase Purchase Maturity/ Call* Yield to Weighted (months) Date Price Date Maturity Average Various $13,296,151 Various 0.17% 0.131 % Investment Mix State Investment Pool Certificate of Deposit Bonds (a) To maturityor call date, whichever occurs first. 24 9/17/2012 500,000 9/17/2014 0.60% 0.018% 60 12/28/2012 1,000,000 6/28/2013 ** 0.90% 0.054% 54 12/27/2012 1,000,000 6/27/2013 0.75% 0.045% 45 12/19/2012 1,000,000 3/19/2013 0.54% 0.032% 0.28% 0.279% % of Total Summary 79.2% Current 6-month treasury rate 0.11 % 3.0% Current State Pool rate 0.17% 17.9% Blended Edmonds rate 0.28% Packet Page 13 of 145 N City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Revenue Summary -General Fund 2013 General Fund Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals January $ 1,216,011 $ 1,216,011 $ 1,818,957 49.58% February 3,001,808 1,785,798 3,696,503 23.14% March 5,069,810 2,068,001 April 7,688,984 2,619,174 May 15,056,423 7,367,439 June 16,705,631 1,649,208 July 18,630,860 1,925,229 August 20,240,653 1,609,794 September 21,816,557 1,575,904 October 24,495,080 2,678,522 November 31,203,426 6,708,346 December 32,858,589 1,655,163 General Fund 15000000 10000000 5000000 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC tActuals/Trend Budget *The variance of 23.14% listed above, is a Year End Projected Variance. *The variance shown above is due to receipt of the 2012 4th quarter Franchise Agreement payments in January 2013. City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Revenue Summary -Real Estate Excise Tax 2013 Real Estate Excise Tax Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals January $ 55,653 $ 55,653 $ February 88,310 32,657 March 129,657 41,347 April 187,545 57,887 May 1,818,957 1,877,546 June 303,047 61,697 July 363,652 60,605 August 430,206 66,554 September 492,808 62,602 October 555,912 63,105 November 604,828 48,916 December 650,000 45,172 69,441 24.77% 115,535 30.83% Real Estate Excise Tax 900000 800000 700000 600000 500000 400000 300000 200000 100000 0 1818957.10onthly MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC ---*--Actuals/Trend Budget *The variance of 30.83% listed above, is a Year End Projected Variance. *The variance shown above is due to a larger number of sales transactions than were expected. 0 Packet Page 14 of 145 City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Revenue Summary -Sales and Use Tax 2013 Sales and Use Tax Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals January $ 390,013 $ 390,013 $ 406,956 4.34% February 884,364 494,351 894,736 1.17% March 1,235,989 351,625 April 1,600,252 364,263 May 2,031,316 431,064 June 2,414,769 383,453 July 2,801,571 386,802 August 3,255,906 454,335 September 3,657,629 401,723 October 4,069,329 411,700 November 4,525,665 456,336 December 4,913,150 387,485 1000000 *The variance of 1.17% listed above, is a Year End Projected Variance. Sales and Use Tax 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC �Actuals/Trend Budget City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Revenue Summary -Gas Utility Tax 2013 Gas Utility Tax Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals January $ 112,509 $ 112,509 $ 94,836-15.71% February 230,573 118,064 220,665 -4.30% March 338,041 107,468 April 428,064 90,023 May 504,039 75,974 June 561,033 56,994 July 602,742 41,709 August 632,326 29,584 September 659,759 27,432 October 688,968 29,210 November 738,628 49,660 December 811,174 72,546 Gas Utility Tax 900000 800000 700000 600000 500000 400000 300000 200000 100000 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC --4--Actuals/Trend Budget *The variance of -4.3% listed above, is a Year End Projected Variance. 10 Packet Page 15 of 145 City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Revenue Summary -Telephone Utility Tax 2013 Telephone Utility Tax Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals January $ February March April May June July August September October November December 95,577 $ 229,350 376,493 479,057 608,761 713,226 853,959 989,418 1,092,061 1,256,775 1,349,920 1,529,498 t 6 uuuuu 95,577 $ 134,596 40.82% 1600000 133,773 252,444 10.07% 1400000 147,142 1200000 102,564 1000000 129,705 104,465 800000 140,733 600000 135,459 400000 102,643 200000 164,714 0 Telephone Utility Tax 93,146 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC 179,578 ♦Actuals/Trend Budget *The variance of 10.07%listed above, is a Year End Projected Variance. *The Budget Forecast is taken from a five year average. Due to lower revenues in years 2008-2009, the variance from budget to actual is greater. City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Revenue Summary -Electric Utility Tax 2013 Flectric Utility Tax Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals January $ February March April May June July August September October November December 151,925 $ 320,049 474,600 631,769 769,731 882,641 989,535 1,081,971 1,180,465 1,265,812 1,372,881 1,475,638 1500000 151,925 $ 153,240 0.87% 168,124 326,077 1.88% 1250000 154,551 1000000 157,169 137,963 750000 112,909 106,895 500000 92,436 98,494 250000 Electric Utility Tax 85,346 107,070 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC 102,757 1 ---#--Actuals/Trend Budget *The variance of 1.88% listed above, is a Year End Projected Variance. 11 Packet Page 16 of 145 City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -General Fund 2013 General Fund Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals January $ 3,211,752 $ 3,211,752 $4,106,837 27.87% February 5,660,240 2,448,488 5,821,040 2.84% March 7,874,761 2,214,521 April 10,938,142 3,063,381 May 1,818,957 1,877,546 June 16,195,870 3,275,752 July 18,970,269 2,774,399 August 21,423,098 2,452,829 September 24,244,769 2,821,671 October 26,551,229 2,306,460 November 29,074,901 2,523,672 December 32,959,503 3,884,602 General Fund 15000000 10000000 5000000 0 1818957.Monthly MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC tActuals/Trend Budget *The variance of 2.84% listed above, is a Year End Projected Variance. City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -Non -Departmental 2013 Non -Departmental Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance BudeetForecast BudeetForecast Actuals 140000u I January $ 1,818,292 $ 1,818,292 $ 2,450,235 34.75% 12000000 February 2,358,291 539,999 2,488,604 5.53% March 2,684,562 326,271 10000000 April 3,827,781 1,143, 219 8000000 May 4,037,949 210,168 June 5,809,316 1,771,367 6000000 July 6,611,919 802,602 4000000 August 6,990,130 378,211 September 7,896,141 906,011 2000000 October 8,278,209 382,068 0 Non -Departmental November 8,689,214 411,005 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC December 11,467,569 2,778,355 ---0--Actuals/Trend Budget *The variance of 5.53% listed above, is a Year End Projected Variance. *The variance shown above is due to the 1st quarter Fire District #1 made in January 2013. 12 Packet Page 17 of 145 City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -City Council 2013 City Council Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals Clay COUriCII 300000 Office of Mayor 300000 250000 200000 150000 100000 50000 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY NN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC �Actuals/Trend Budget Packet Page 18 of 145 City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -Human Resources 2013 Human Resources Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Human Resources Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % 300000 January $ 21,417 $ 21,417 $ 19,264-10.05% 250000 February 43,437 22,020 39,680 -8.65% March 71,550 28,113 200000 April 94,953 23,403 May 119,752 24,799 150000 June 141,891 22,139 July 165,641 23,750 100000 August 186,678 21,037 50000 September 212,715 26,036 October 233,346 20,631 0 November 254,495 21,149 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC December 287,190 32,695 tActuals/Trend Budget *The variance of -8.65% listed above, is a Year End Projected Variance. City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -Municipal Court 2013 Municipal Court Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals Municipal Court 800000 Packet Page 19 of 145 City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -Economic Development/Community Services 2013 Economic Development/Community Services Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals Economic Development/Community Services 400000 600000 City Clerk 500000 400000 300000 200000 100000 0 1818957.MonthlyMAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC �Actuals/Trend Budget Packet Page 20 of 145 City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -Information Services 2013 Information Services Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % January $ 41,302 $ 41,302 $ 92,733 124.53% February 107,298 65,997 139,675 30.17% March 158,751 51,453 April 207,167 48,416 May 262,166 54,999 June 315,619 53,452 July 362,425 46,806 August 424,811 62,386 September 471,078 46,267 October 532,480 61,402 November 602,576 70,096 December 723,534 120,958 Information Services 1000000 800000 600000 400000 200000 0 ; 1 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC +Actuals/Trend Budget *The variance of 30.17 listed above, is a Year End Projected Variance. *The variance shown above is due to purchase of the new Broadcast System, as well the temporary contract work for Information Services.. Finance City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -Finance 2013 Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % January $ 72,772 $ 72,772 $ 57,510-20.97% February 139,622 66,850 132,734 -4.93% March 202,376 62,753 April 261,262 58,886 May 319,205 57,944 June 386,389 67,183 July 447,973 61,584 August 502,922 54,949 September 563,970 61,048 October 632,771 68,802 November 699,652 66,881 December 768,484 68,832 Finance 800000 700000 600000 500000 400000 300000 200000 100000 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC ♦Actuals/Trend Budget *The variance of -4.93% listed above, is a Year End Projected Variance. 16 Packet Page 21 of 145 City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -City Attorney 2013 City Attorney Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals City Att orney 600000 Packet Page 22 of 145 City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -Development Services 2013 Development Services Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Development Services Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % 1800000 January $ 130,011 $ 130,011 $ 134,416 3.39% 1600000 01 February 261,991 131,980 262,483 0.19% 1400000 March 406,268 144,277 1200000 April 539,522 133,254 1000000 May 673,721 134,199 800000 June 805,445 131,724 July 931,841 126,396 600000 August 1,069,195 137,354 400000 September 1,204,663 135,468 200000 October 1,348,572 143,909 0 November 1,481,034 132,462 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC December 1,619,042 138,008 ♦Actuals/Trend Budget *The variance of .19% listed above, is a Year End Projected Variance. City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -Parks & Recreation 2013 Parks & Recreation Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Parks & Recreation Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % 35 000 00 January $ 218,823 $ 218,823 $ 206,466 -5.65% 3000000 February 455,695 236,872 441,862 -3.04% March 711,038 255,343 2500000 April 958,565 247,527 2000000 May 1,214,257 255,692 June 1,530,104 315,847 1500000 July 1,920,254 390,150 1000000 August 2,310,306 390,052 September 2,615,670 305,363 500000 October 2,863,419 247,750 0 November 3,094,270 230,851 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC December 3,398,517 304,247 Actuals/Trend Budget *The variance of -3.04% listed above, is a Year End Projected Variance. 18 Packet Page 23 of 145 City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -Public Works 2013 Public Works Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % January $ 27,007 $ 27,007 $ 26,193 -3.01% February 52,806 25,799 53,241 0.82% March 79,315 26,509 April 104,820 25,505 May 130,712 25,892 June 156,718 26,006 July 192,014 35,296 August 217,880 25,866 September 244,097 26,217 October 270,921 26,824 November 295,226 24,305 December 324,517 29,291 400000 Public Works 350000 300000 250000 200000 150000 100000 50000 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC +Actuals/Trend Budget *The variance of .82% listed above, is a Year End Projected Variance. City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -Facilities Maintenance 2013 Facilities Maintenance Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % January $ February March April May June July August September October November December 106,672 $ 220,921 343,665 478,949 552,523 670,350 775,460 878,941 997,041 1,099,774 1,211,822 1,344,159 1400000 106,672 $ 98,355 -7.80% 1200000 114,249 209,083 -5.36% 122,743 1000000 135,284 800000 73,574 117,826 600000 105,110 400000 103,481 118,100 200000 102,733 0 Facilities Maintenance 112,048 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC 132,337 --#---Actuals/Trend Budget *The variance of -5.36% listed above, is a Year End Projected Variance. 19 Packet Page 24 of 145 City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -Engineering 2013 Engineering Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals i Engineering 1400000 January $ 114,878 $ 114,878 $ 116,885 1.75% 1200000 February 230,253 115,375 232,112 0.81% March 344,777 114,524 1000000 April 468,076 123,299 800000 May 577,613 109,537 June 692,774 115,161 600000 July 811,036 118,261 400000 August 927,998 116,962 September 1,048,742 120,745 200000 October 1,171,924 123,182 0 November 1,285,309 113,385 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC December 1,394,485 109,176 --#--Actuals/Trend Budget *The variance of .81 % listed above, is a Year End Projected Variance. 20 Packet Page 25 of 145 CITY OF EDMONDS REVENUES BY FUND - SUMMARY Fund No. Title 2013 Adopted Budget 2/28/2013 Revenues Variance 001 GENERAL FUND $ 32,858,589 $ 3,696,503 $ (29,162,086) 009 LEOFF-MEDICAL INS. RESERVE 350,350 52 (350,298) 011 RISK MANAGEMENT FUND 418,200 22 (418,178) 012 CONTINGENCY RESERVE FUND 123,223 741 (122,482) 014 HISTORIC PRESERVATION GIFT FUND 15,000 645 (14,355) 016 BUILDING MAINTENANCE 56,900 30 (56,870) 104 DRUG ENFORCEMENT FUND 20,175 15,836 (4,339) III STREET FUND 1,406,800 204,910 (1,201,890) 112 COMBINED STREET CONST/IMPROVE 6,223,755 333,652 (5,890,103) 117 MUNICIPAL ARTS ACQUIS. FUND 59,891 1,561 (58,330) 118 MEMORIAL STREET TREE 27 2 (25) 120 HOTEL/MOTEL TAX REVENUE FUND 52,870 8,743 (44,127) 121 EMPLOYEE PARKING PERMIT FUND 18,120 4,862 (13,258) 122 YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP FUND 2,025 2 (2,023) 123 TOURISM PROMOTIONAL FUND/ARTS 19,000 9,932 (9,068) 125 REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 2 662,600 115,679 (546,921) 126 REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 1, PARKS ACQ FUND 650,600 115,579 (535,021) 127 GIFTS CATALOG FUND 20,483 12,231 (8,252) 129 SPECIAL PROJECTS FUND 222,800 166,187 (56,613) 130 CEMETERY MAINTENANCE/IMPROVEMT 119,950 23,539 (96,411) 132 PARKS CONSTRUCTION FUND 2,010,350 143,231 (1,867,119) 136 PARKS TRUST FUND 228 71 (157) 137 CEMETERY MAINTENANCE TRUSTFD 14,600 2,808 (11,792) 138 SISTER CITY COMMISSION 3,517 1 (3,516) 139 TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT DISTRICT 645,000 100,901 (544,099) 211 L.I.D. FUND CONTROL 22,130 2,956 (19,174) 213 L.I.D. GUARANTY FUND 22,230 4 (22,226) 231 2012 LT GO DEBT SERVICE FUND 1,009,902 - (1,009,902) 234 LIMITED TAX G.O. BOND FUND, - - - 411 COMBINED UTILITY OPERATION - 32,052 32,052 421 WATER UTILITY FUND 10,625,680 895,895 (9,729,785) 422 STORM UTILITY FUND 3,486,716 721,420 (2,765,296) 423 SEWER/WWTP UTILITY FUND 11,020,123 1,377,796 (9,642,327) 511 EQUIPMENT RENTAL FUND 1,361,972 234,873 (1,127,099) 617 FIREMEN'S PENSION FUND 45,400 28 (45,372) $ 73.569.206 S 8.222.743 S (65.346.463) % Received 11 0 0 1 4 0 78 15 5 3 9 17 7 31 19 1 21 1 11 21 Packet Page 26 of 145 CITY OF EDMONDS EXPENDITURES BY FUND - S UMMARY Fund No. Title 2013 Adopted Budget 2/28/2013 Expenditures Variance 001 GENERAL FUND $ 32,959,503 $ 5,821,040 $ (27,138,463) 009 LEOFF-MEDICAL INS. RESERVE 619,400 57,012 (562,388) 011 RISK MANAGEMENT RESERVE FUND 661,000 464,100 (196,900) 014 HISTORIC PRESERVATION GIFT FUND 15,000 - (15,000) 016 BUILDING MAINTENANCE 205,000 493 (204,507) 104 DRUG ENFORCEMENT FUND 80,033 1,448 (78,585) Ill STREET FUND 1,557,715 281,447 (1,276,268) 112 COMBINED STREET CONST/IMPROVE 6,324,984 141,292 (6,183,692) 117 MUNICIPAL ARTS ACQUIS. FUND 139,800 3,349 (136,451) 118 MEMORIAL STREET TREE - - - 120 HOTEL/MOTEL TAX REVENUE FUND 68,500 100 (68,400) 121 EMPLOYEE PARKING PERMIT FUND 26,726 - (26,726) 122 YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP FUND 4,000 868 (3,132) 123 TOURISM PROMOTIONAL FUND/ARTS 19,000 - (19,000) 125 REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 2 1,286,500 9,273 (1,277,227) 126 REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 1, PARKS ACQ FUND 668,534 - (668,534) 127 GIFTS CATALOG FUND 32,317 2,482 (29,835) 129 SPECIAL PROJECTS FUND 222,800 7,993 (214,807) 130 CEMETERY MAINTENANCE/IMPROVEMT 152,761 20,523 (132,238) 132 PARKS CONSTRUCTION FUND 2,093,200 1,711 (2,091,489) 136 PARKS TRUST FUND - - - 138 SISTER CITY COMMISSION 4,600 63 (4,537) 139 TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT DISTRICT 645,000 101,570 (543,430) 211 L.I.D. FUND CONTROL 22,130 - (22,130) 213 L.I.D. GUARANTY FUND - - - 231 2012 LT GO DEBT SERVICE FUND 1,009,902 - (1,009,902) 234 LIMITED TAX G.O. BOND FUND, - - - 421 WATER UTILITY FUND 9,201,851 675,670 (8,526,181) 422 STORM UTILITY FUND 4,565,772 449,613 (4,116,159) 423 SEWER/WWTP UTILITY FUND 16,830,109 1,358,137 (15,471,972) 511 EQUIPMENT RENTAL FUND 1,095,372 145,680 (949,692) 617 FIREMEN'S PENSION FUND 108,790 31,842 (76,948) $ 80,620,299 $ 9,575,706 $ (71,044,593) % S 1 1 1% 1 12% 22 Packet Page 27 of 145 CITY OF EDMONDS CHANGE IN FUND BALANCE - S UMMARY Fund No. Title 001 GENERAL FUND 009 LEOFF-MEDICAL INS. RESERVE 011 RISK MANAGEMENT RESERVE FUND 012 CONTINGENCY RESERVE FUND 013 MULTIMODAL TRANSPORTATION FD. 014 HISTORIC PRESERVATION GIFT FUND 016 BUILDING MAINTENANCE TOTAL GENERAL FUND 104 DRUG ENFORCEMENT FUND III STREET FUND 112 COMBINED STREET CONST/IMPROVE 117 MUNICIPAL ARTS ACQUIS. FUND 118 MEMORIAL STREET TREE 120 HOTEL/MOTEL TAX REVENUE FUND 121 EMPLOYEE PARKING PERMIT FUND 122 YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP FUND 123 TOURISM PROMOTIONAL FUND/ARTS 125 REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 2 126 REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 1, PARKS ACQ 127 GIFTS CATALOG FUND 129 SPECIAL PROJECTS FUND 130 CEMETERY MAINTENANCE/IMPROVEMT 132 PARKS CONSTRUCTION FUND 136 PARKS TRUST FUND 137 CEMETERY MAINTENANCE TRUSTFD 138 SISTER CITY COMMISSION 139 TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT DISTRICT 211 L.I.D. FUND CONTROL 213 L.I.D. GUARANTY FUND 231 2012 LT GO DEBT SERVICE FUND 234 LIMITED TAX G.O. BOND FUND, 411 COMBINED UTILITY OPERATION 421 WATER UTILITY FUND 422 STORM UTILITY FUND 423 SEWER/WWTP UTILITY FUND 511 EQUIPMENT RENTAL FUND 617 FIREMEN'S PENSION FUND 1/1/2013 2013 2013 2/28/2013 Beg. Balance Revenues Expenditures Difference End. Balance $ 4,829,369 $ 3,696,503 $ 5,821,040 $ (2,124,538) $ 2,704,831 387,319 52 57,012 (56,960) 330,359 244,000 22 464,100 (464,078) (220,078) 5,283,425 741 - 741 5,284,166 55,859 - - - 55,859 1,064 645 - 645 1,709 213,999 30 493 (463) 213,536 11,015,035 3,697,992 6,342,645 (2,644,653) 8,370,382 118,622 15,836 1,448 14,388 133,010 114,146 204,910 281,447 (76,537) 37,609 (477,093) 333,652 141,292 192,360 (284,733) 421,142 1,561 3,349 (1,789) 419,353 17,669 2 - 2 17,672 105,899 8,743 100 8,643 114,543 71,492 4,862 - 4,862 76,354 15,945 2 868 (866) 15,079 55,999 9,932 - 9,932 65,931 984,892 115,679 9,273 106,405 1,091,297 308,357 115,579 - 115,579 423,936 216,473 12,231 2,482 9,749 226,221 (139,809) 166,187 7,993 158,194 18,385 53,593 23,539 20,523 3,016 56,609 686,352 143,231 1,711 141,520 827,872 149,873 71 - 71 149,944 817,737 2,808 - 2,808 820,545 8,781 1 63 (62) 8,719 - 100,901 101,570 (669) (669) 3,496 2,956 - 2,956 6,452 22,234 4 - 4 22,238 (15,397) - - - (15,397) 681 - - - 681 - 32,052 - 32,052 32,052 12,322,592 895,895 675,670 220,226 12,542,818 7,552,075 721,420 449,613 271,808 7,823,883 43,942,247 1,377,796 1,358,137 19,659 43,961,906 6,463,723 234,873 145,680 89,193 6,552,917 216,693 28 31,842 (31,814) 184,878 TOTALALLFUNDS $ 85,053,451 $ 8,222,743 $ 9,575,706 $ (1,352,963) $ 83,700,488 We are currently using the estimated 2012 ending fund balance numbers for funds 421, 422, and 423. These will be updated when actuals are in; due to the change in how these funds are structured. 23 Packet Page 28 of 145 This page is intentionally left blank. 24 Packet Page 29 of 145 Pagel of 3 Title REAL PERSONAL / PROPERTY TAX EMS PROPERTY TAX VOTED PROPERTY TAX LOCAL RETAIL SALES/USE TAX NATURAL GAS USE TAX 1/10 SALES TAX LOCAL CRIM JUST ELECTRIC UTILITY TAX GAS UTILITY TAX SOLID WASTE UTILITY TAX WATER UTILITY TAX SEW ER UT ILIT Y T AX ST ORMWAT ER UT ILIT Y TAX T.V. CABLE UTILITY TAX TELEPHONE UTILITY TAX PULLTABS TAX AMUSEMENT GAMES LEASEHOLD EXCISE TAX PENALTIES ON GAMBLING TAXES LICENSES AND PERMITS: FIRE PERMITS -SPECIAL USE PROF AND OCC LICENSE -TAXI AMUSEMENTS FRANCHISE AGREEMENT -COMCAST FRANCHISE AGREEMENT -VERIZON/FRONT IER FRANCHISE AGREEMENT -BLACKROCK FRANCHISE AGREMENT-ZAYO OLYMPIC VIEW WATER DISTRICT FRANCHISE GENERAL BUSINESS LICENSE DEV SERV PERMIT SURCHARGE NON-RESIDENT BUS LICENSE RIGHT OF WAY FRANCHISE FEE BUILDING STRUCTURE PERMITS ANIMAL LICENSES STREET AND CURB PERMIT OTR NON -BUS LIC/PERMIT S DIVE PARK PERMIT FEE INTERGOVERNMENTAL: DOJ 15-0404-0-1-754 - BULLET PROOF VEST TARGET ZERO TEAMS GRANT HIGH VISIBILITY ENFORCEMENT PUD PRIVILEDGE TAX MVET/SPECIAL DISTRIBUTION JUDICIAL SALARY CONTRIBUTION -STATE CRIMINAL JUSTICE -SPECIAL PROGRAMS DUI - CITIES LIQUOR EXCISE TAX LIQUOR BOARD PROFITS SHARED COURT COSTS MUNICIPAL COURT AGREEMENT W/LYNNWOOD CITY OF EDMO NDS REVENUES - GENERAL FUND 2013 Adopted 2/28/2013 Budget Revenues Variance %Received $ 9,781,109 $ 95,844 $ (9,685,265) 1% 2,775,282 29,698 (2,745,584) 1% 916,103 9,449 (906,654) 1% 4,913,150 894,736 (4,018,414) 18% 8,706 2,062 (6,644) 24% 520,417 103,185 (417,232) 20% 1,475,638 326,077 (1,149,561) 22% 811,174 220,665 (590,509) 27% 287,710 50,173 (237,537) 17% 904,613 136,504 (768,109) 15% 470,000 87,384 (382,616) 19% 274,600 55,286 (219,314) 20% 730,910 131,498 (599,412) 18% 1,529,498 252,444 (1,277,054) 17% 61,385 15,500 (45,885) 25% 731 51 (680) 7% 212,350 48,671 (163,679) 23% - - - 0% 25,673,376 2,459,227 (23,214,149) 10% 5,555 - (5,555) 0% 1,030 300 (730) 29% 6,060 4,025 (2,035) 66% 627,816 167,992 (459,824) 27% 95,806 22,058 (73,748) 23% 8,287 2,938 (5,349) 35% - 5,000 5,000 0% 214,415 52,692 (161,723) 25% 106,297 78,085 (28,212) 73% 18,422 3,345 (15,077) 18% 39,274 21,100 (18,174) 54% 9,500 9,773 273 103% 345,436 41,374 (304,063) 12% 13,205 3,184 (10,021) 24% 50,000 1,850 (48,150) 4% 7,070 2,019 (5,051) 29% - - - 0% 1,548,173 415,735 (1,132,438) 27% 1,191 - (1,191) 0% 10,000 1,061 (8,939) 11% 6,000 419 (5,581) 7% 185,181 - (185,181) 0% 8,828 2,281 (6,547) 26% 12,572 3,134 (9,438) 25% 33,290 8,546 (24,744) 26% 7,704 1,799 (5,905) 23% 20,000 - (20,000) 0% 301,761 - (301,761) 0% 3,030 - (3,030) 0% 1,500 - (1,500) 0% 591,057 17,240 (572,317) 3% Packet Page 30 of 145 25 Title C ITY OF EDMO NDS REVENUES - GENERAL FUND 2013 Adopted 2/28/2013 Budget Revenues Variance Page 2 of 3 %Received CHARGES FOR GOODS AND SERVICES: RECORD/LEGAL INSTRUMTS 1,065 179 (886) 17% D/M COURT REC SER 172 11 (161) 6% MUNIC.-DIST. COURT CURREXPEN 188 20 (168) 11% SALE MAPS & BOOKS 72 55 (17) 76% PHOTOCOPIES 4,572 737 (3,835) 16% POLICE DISCLOSURE REQUESTS 4,500 630 (3,870) 14% ASSESSMENT SEARCH 5 - (5) 0% ENGINEERING FEES AND CHARGES 100,000 5,760 (94,240) 6% ELECTION CANDIDATE FILING FEES 1,011 - (1,011) 0% SNO-ISLE 57,236 14,445 (42,791) 25% PASSPORTSAND NATURALIZATION FEES 9,571 1,375 (8,196) 14% POLICE SERVICES SPECIAL EVENTS 26,000 - (26,000) 0% OCDETF OVERTIME - 1,113 1,113 0% CAMPUS SAFETY-EDM. SCH. DIST. 11,615 - (11,615) 0% WOODWAY-LAW PROTECTION 36,000 2,470 (33,530) 7% MISCELLANEOUS POLICE SERVICES 2,750 - (2,750) 0% DUI EMERGENCY FIRE SERVICES 532 176 (356) 33% FIRE DISTRICT #1 STATION BILLINGS 27,808 13,304 (14,504) 48% ADULT PROBATION SERVICE CHARGE 60,000 7,438 (52,562) 12% ELECTRONIC MONITOR DUI 165 - (165) 0% BOOKING FEES 5,711 577 (5,134) 10% FIRE CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION FEES 5,577 1,145 (4,432) 21% EMERGENCY SERVICE FEES 23,976 1,597 (22,379) 7% DUI EMERGENCY AID 67 - (67) 0% EMS TRANSPORT USER FEE 814,318 217,529 (596,789) 27% POLICE - FINGERPRINTING 496 35 (461) 7% CRIM CNV FEE DUI 698 74 (624) 11% CRIM CONV FEE CT 4,360 578 (3,782) 13% CRIM CONV FEE CN 1,624 115 (1,509) 7% FIBER SERVICES 36,438 5,480 (30,958) 15% INTERGOVERNMENTAL FIBER SERVICES 7,272 1,200 (6,072) 17% FLEX FUEL PAYMENTS FROM STATIONS 213 171 (42) 80% ANIMAL CONTROL SHELTER 6,616 625 (5,991) 9% ZONING/SUBDIVISION FEE 38,000 7,725 (30,275) 20% PLAN CHECKING FEES 216,457 33,239 (183,218) 15% FIRE PLAN CHECK FEES 2,911 425 (2,486) 15% PLANNING 1% INSPECTION FEE 1,200 - (1,200) 0% S.E.P.A. REVIEW 5,000 1,455 (3,545) 29% CRITICAL AREA STUDY 12,000 1,705 (10,295) 14% DV COORDINATOR SERVICES 10,921 1,845 (9,076) 17% SWIM POOL ENTRANCE FEES 56,000 - (56,000) 0% GYM AND WEIGHTROOM FEES 5,500 1,163 (4,337) 21% LOCKER FEES 300 - (300) 0% SWIM CLASS FEES 32,000 - (32,000) 0% INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVENUE-SSCCFH 69,300 - (69,300) 0% PROGRAM FEES 780,000 64,048 (715,952) 8% TAXABLE RECREATION ACTIVITIES 115,500 25,070 (90,430) 22% SWIM TEAM/DIVE TEAM 31,600 - (31,600) 0% BIRD FEST REGISTRATION FEES 660 - (660) 0% INTERFUND REIMBURSEMENT -CONTRACT SVCS 1,520,248 299,749 (1,220,499) 20% 4,148,225 713,264 (3,434,961) 17% 26 Packet Page 31 of 145 Page 3 of 3 CITY OF EDMO NDS REVENUES - GENERAL FUND 2013 Adopted 2/28/2013 Title Budget Revenues Variance %Received PROOF OF VEHICLE INS PENALTY 10,214 832 (9,382) 8% TRAFFIC INFRACTION PENALTIES 24,000 2,409 (21,591) 10% NC TRAFFIC INFRACTION 213,000 22,126 (190,874) 10% CRT COST FEE CODE LEG ASSESSMENT (LGA) 20,086 1,827 (18,259) 9% SPEEDING DOUBLE 77 - (77) 0% NON -TRAFFIC INFRACTION PENALTIES 2,034 - (2,034) 0% OTHER INFRACTIONS'04 1,002 93 (909) 9% PARKING INFRACTION PENALTIES 31,592 3,679 (27,913) 12% PR -HANDICAPPED 794 - (794) 0% PARKING INFRACTION LOC 404 - (404) 0% PARK/INDDISZONE 3,000 178 (2,822) 6% DWI PENALTIES 9,200 (639) (9,839) -7% DUI - DP ACCT 415 265 (150) 64% OTHER CRIMINAL TRAF MISDEM PEN 8 - (8) 0% CRIMINAL TRAFFIC MISDEMEANOR 8/03 33,000 2,502 (30,498) 8% OTHER NON-TRAF MISDEMEANOR PEN 539 20 (519) 4% OTHER NON TRAFFIC MISD. 8/03 14,000 (3,721) (17,721) -27% COURT DV P ENALT Y ASSESSMENT 1,491 225 (1,266) 15% CRIMINAL CONVICTION FEE CN - 29 CRIMINAL COSTS-RECOUPMENTS 113,265 11,635 (101,630) 10% PUBLIC DEFENSE RECOUPMENT 40,000 3,079 (36,921) 8% COURT INTERPRETER COSTS 292 3 (289) 1% BUS. LICENSE PERMIT PENALTY 7,444 300 (7,144) 4% MISC FINES AND PENALTIES 485 790 305 163% 526,342 45,632 (480,738) 9% MISCELLANEOUS: INVESTMENT INTEREST 8,000 106 (7,894) 1% INTEREST ON COUNTY TAXES 1,250 143 (1,107) 11% INTEREST - COURT COLLECTIONS 5,491 569 (4,922) 10% PARKING 8,790 1,580 (7,210) 18% SPACE/FACILITIESRENTALS 140,000 9,415 (130,585) 7% BRACKET ROOM RENTAL 3,040 1,480 (1,560) 49% LEASES LONG-TERM 143,000 27,763 (115,237) 19% VENDING MACHINE/CONCESSION 4,500 432 (4,068) 10% OTHER RENTS & USE CHARGES 6,200 - (6,200) 0% PARKS DONATIONS 4,300 1,700 (2,600) 40% BIRD FEST CONTRIBUTIONS 1,400 200 (1,200) 14% SALE OF JUNK/SALVAGE 1,486 - (1,486) 0% SALES OF UNCLAIM PROPERTY 1,750 862 (888) 49% CONFISCATED AND FORFEITED PROPERTY - 358 358 0% POLICE JUDGMENTS/RESTITUTION 465 10 (455) 2% CASHIER'S OVERAGES✓SHORTAGES 44 1 (43) 2% OTHER MISC REVENUES 3,000 561 (2,439) 19% SMALL OVERPAYMENT 66 2 (64) 3% NSF FEES - PARKS & REC 182 - (182) 0% NSF FEES - MUNICIPAL COURT 978 133 (845) 14% NSF FEES - POLICE 91 - (91) 0% NSF FEES - DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPT - 90 90 0% 334,033 45,404 (288,719) 14% TRANSFERS -IN: INSURANCE RECOVERIES - - - 0% INTERFUND TRANSFER -IN - - - 0% INTERFUND TRANSFER - In (From 121) 25,086 - (25,086) 0% INTERFUND TRANSFER (From 127) 12,297 - (12,297) 0% 37,383 - (37,383) 0% TOTAL GENERAL FUND REVENUE $ 32,858,589 $ 3,696,503 $ (29,160,705) 11% 27 Packet Page 32 of 145 This page is intentionally left blank. W:3 Packet Page 33 of 145 Title CITY OF EDMO NDS EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL 2013 Adopted 2/28/2013 Budget Expenditures Variance Page 1 of 6 %Used GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES (001) SALARIES AND WAGES $ 12,069,872 $ 2,002,204 $ (10,067,668) 17% OVERTIME 415,100 54,802 (360,298) 13% HOLIDAY BUY BACK 193,388 802 (192,586) 0% BENEFITS 4,094,462 672,693 (3,421,769) 16% UNIFORMS 61,110 8,087 (53,023) 13% SUPPLIES 374,244 33,948 (340,296) 9% SMALL EQUIPMENT 117,050 8,694 (108,356) 7% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,949,484 204,157 (1,745,327) 10% COMMUNICATIONS 204,660 24,237 (180,423) 12% TRAVEL 36,742 1,441 (35,301) 4% ADVERTISING 40,865 2,234 (38,631) 5% RENTAL/LEASE 834,943 135,425 (699,518) 16% INSURANCE 396,193 395,999 (194) 100% UTILITIES 414,600 63,127 (351,473) 15% REPAIRS& MAINTENANCE 320,547 62,547 (258,000) 20% MISCELLANEOUS 279,880 68,717 (211,163) 25% INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES 8,099,655 2,051,379 (6,048,276) 25% ECA CONTINGENCY RESERVE 190,000 - (190,000) 0% EXCISE TAXES 5,500 465 (5,035) 8% INT ERFUND TRANSFER (009,111,112,116) 1,325,185 - (1,325,185) 0% MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 85,000 21,603 (63,397) 25% GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND PRINCIPAL 946,595 - (946,595) 0% CAPITAL LEASES AND INSTALLMENT PURCHASES 64,014 - (64,014) 0% OTHER DEBT - 478 478 0% INTEREST ON LONG-TERM EXTERNAL DEBT 185,614 - (185,614) 0% DEBT ISSUE COSTS 5,000 (5,000) 0% INTERFUND SERVICES 201,800 - (201,800) 0% INTERFUND RENTAL 48,000 8,000 (40,000) 17% 32,959,503 5,821,040 (27,138,463) 18% LEOFF-MEDICAL INS. RESERVE(009) BENEFITS $ 435,000 $ 39,414 $ (395,586) 9% IN HOME LTC CLAIMS 176,400 17,598 (158,802) 10% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 8,000 - (8,000) 0% MISCELLANEOUS - - 0% 619,400 57,012 (562,388) 9% RISK MANAGEMENT RESERVE FUND (011) MISCELLANEOUS $ 661,000 464,100 (196,900) 70% 661,000 464,100 (196,900) 70% HISTORIC PRESERVATION GIFTFUND (014) SUPPLIES $ 2,000 $ - $ (2,000) 0% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 2,000 (2,000) 0% ADVERTISING 1,000 (1,000) 0% MISCELLANEOUS 10,000 (10,000) 0% 15,000 (15,000) 0% BUILDING MAINTENANCE SUBFUND (016) SUPPLIES $ 10,000 $ $ (10,000) 0% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 20,000 (20,000) 0% REPAIRS& MAINTENANENCE 5,000 493 (4,507) 10% CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS 170,000 - (170,000) 0% 205,000 493 (34,507) 0% DRUG INFO RCEMENTFUND (104) SUPPLIES $ $ - $ 0% FUEL CONSUMED 2,000 881 (1,119) 44% SMALL EQUIPMENT 5,000 - (5,000) 0% COMMUNICATIONS 2,233 567 (1,666) 25% REPAIR/MAINT 800 - (800) 0% MISCELLANEOUS 20,000 (20,000) 0% INTERGOVTL SVC 50,000 - (50,000) 0% 80,033 $ 1,448 $ (78,585) 2% 29 Packet Page 34 of 145 Page 2 of 6 C TIY OF EDMO NDS EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DEIAAIL 2013 Adopted 2/28/2013 Title Budget Expenditures Variance %Used SALARIES AND WAGES $ 447,655 $ 71,251 $ (376,404) 16% OVERTIME 18,400 3,679 (14,721) 20% BENEFITS 197,283 30,383 (166,900) 15% UNIFORMS 6,000 2,476 (3,524) 41% SUPPLIES 240,000 30,844 (209,156) 13% SMALL EQUIPMENT 26,000 - (26,000) 0% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 32,700 3,966 (28,734) 12% COMMUNICATIONS 3,500 380 (3,120) 11% TRAVEL 1,000 - (1,000) 0% ADVERTISING 350 - (350) 0% RENTAL/LEASE 159,134 26,225 (132,909) 16% INSURANCE 87,204 87,201 (3) 100% UTILITIES 267,750 22,639 (245,112) 8% REPAIRS& MAINTENANCE 25,000 2,313 (22,687) 9% MISCELLANEOUS 8,000 - (8,000) 0% INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES 4,000 89 (3,911) 2% INTERFUND TRANSFER - 0% GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND PRINCIPAL 31,665 (31,665) 0% INTEREST ON LONG-TERM EXTERNAL DEBT 2,074 - (2,074) 0% 1,557,715 281,447 (1,276,268) 18% COMBINED S TREET C 0 NS T/IMPRO VE (112) PROFESSIONAL SERVICES $ 1,152,100 $ 36,940 $ (1,115,160) 3% INTERFUND TRANSFER OUT (to 112,117) 378,500 - (378,500) 0% LAND 909,400 - (909,400) 0% CONST SURFACE CONST PROJECTS 3,502,300 75,590 (3,426,710) 2% INTERGOVERNMENTAL LOANS 72,203 - (72,203) 0% INTEREST ON INTERGOVERNMENTAL LOANS 4,481 - (4,481) 0% INTERFUND SERVICES 306,000 28,762 (277,238) 9% 6,324,984 141,292 (6,183,692) 2% MUNIC IPAL ARTS AC Q UIS. FUND (117) SUPPLIES $ 4,200 $ $ (4,200) 0% SMALL EQUIPMENT 1,000 (1,000) 0% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 116,700 1,875 (114,825) 2% TRAVEL 50 12 (38) 24% ADVERTISING 4,000 1,450 (2,550) 36% RENTAL/LEASE 550 - (550) 0% REPAIRS& MAINTENANCE 300 (300) 0% MISCELLANEOUS 10,000 12 (9,988) 0% INTERFUND TRANSFER 3,000 - (3,000) 0% 139,800 3,349 (136,451) 2% MEMO RIAL S TREET TREE FUND (118) SUPPLIES $ - $ - $ 0% 0% HO TEL/MO TEL TAX REVENUE FUND (120) PROFESSIONAL SERVICES $ 14,500 $ $ (14,500) 0% ADVERTISING 37,500 (37,500) 0% MISCELLANEOUS 2,500 100 (2,400) 4% INTERFUND TRANSFERS (to 117, 132) 14,000 - (14,000) 0% 68,500 S 100 (68,400) 0% EMPLOYEE PARKING PERMIT FUND (121) SUPPLIES $ 1,640 $ - $ (1,640) 0% INTERFUND TRANSFER (to 001) 25,086 (25,086) 0% 26,726 (26,726) 0% YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP FUND (122) MISCELLANEOUS $ 4,000 $ 868 $ (3,132) 22% 4,000 868 (3,132) 22% TOURISMPRO MOTIONALFUND/ARTS (123) PROFESSIONAL SVC $ 10,500 $ - $ (10,500) 0% ADVERTISING 4,500 (4,500) 0% MISCELLANEOUS 4,000 (4,000) 0% 19,000 (19,000) 0% 30 Packet Page 35 of 145 Title REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX (125) SUPPLIES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES ADVERTISING UTILITIES REPAIRS& MAINTENANCE INTERFUND TRANSFER (to 132) CONST RUCT ION PROJECTS INTERFUND SERVICES REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 1, PARKS ACQ (126) MISCELLANEOUS TRANSFER TO FUND 231 LAND GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS INTEREST GIFTS CATALOG FUND (127) SUPPLIES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES INTERFUND TRANSFER (to 001) SPECIAL PROJECTS FUND (129) PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS INTERFUND SERVICES CEMEITRY MAINTENANCEIMPROVEMENT(130) SALARIES AND WAGES OVERTIME BENEFITS UNIFORMS SUPPLIES SUPPLIES PURCHASED FOR INVENTORY/RESALE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES COMMUNICATIONS TRAVEL ADVERTISING RENT AL/LEASE UTILITIES REPAIRS& MAINTENANCE MISCELLANEOUS MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT INTERFUND SERVICES PARKS CONSTRUCTION FUND (132) SUPPLIES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES INTERFUND TRANSFER CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS INTERFUND SERVICES PARKS TRUSTFUND (136) INTERFUND TRANSFER SISTER CITY COMMISSION (138) SUPPLIES STUDENT TRIP MISCELLANEOUS TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT DIS TRIC T (139) PROFESSIONAL SERVICES INSURANCE INTERFUND TRANSFER CITY OF EDMO NDS EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL 2013 Adopted 2/28/2013 Budget Expenditures $ 29,000 $ 11,245 337,000 (2,079) - 107 Variance (17,755) (339,079) Page 3 of 6 % Used 39% -1% - 0% 185,000 (185,000) 0% 635,500 (635,500) 0% 100,000 (100,000) 0% - - 0% 1,286,500 9,273 $ (1,277,334) 1% $ $ $ 0% 438,910 (438,910) 0% 200,000 (200,000) 0% 17,550 (17,550) 0% 12,074 (12,074) 0% 668,534 (668,534) 0% $ 14,020 $ 432 $ (13,588) 3% 6,000 2,050 (3,950) 34% 12,297 - (12,297) 0% 32,317 2,482 (29,835) 8% $ 31,700 $ $ (31,700) 0% 171,600 (171,600) 0% 19,500 7,993 (11,507) 41% 222,800 7,993 (214,807) 4% 68,605 $ 11,624 $ (56,981) 17% 3,500 - (3,500) 0% 33,188 5,204 (27,984) 16% 1,000 - (1,000) 0% 7,000 245 (6,755) 4% 20,000 1,268 (18,732) 6% 1,000 - (1,000) 0% 1,412 233 (1,179) 17% 500 - (500) 0% 3,000 108 (2,892) 4% 5,256 876 3,800 (3,800) 0% 500 - (500) 0% 4,000 964 (3,036) 24% - - 0% - 0% 152,761 $ 20,523 $ (127,858) 13% $ - $ - $ 0% 1,907,500 911 (1,906,589) 0% - - 0% 182,700 - (182,700) 0% 3,000 800 (2,200) 27% 2,093,200 1,711 (2,091,489) 0% $ $ $ 0% 0°0 $ 500 $ $ (500) 0% 2,600 (2,600) 0% 1,500 63 (1,437) 4% 4,600 S 63 4,537 1% $ $ 1,714 $ 1,714 0% 5,000 5,000 - 100% 640,000 94,856 (545,144) 15% 645,000 101,570 (543,430) 16% Packet Page 36 of 145 31 Page 4 of 6 Title INTERFUND TRANSFER LID GUARANTY FUND (213) INTERFUND TRANSFER 2012 LTGO DEBT SERVIC FUND (231) GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND INTEREST DEBT ISSUE COSTS LIMITED TAX G.O. BOND FUND (234) GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS INTEREST WATER FUND (421) SALARIES AND WAGES OVERTIME BENEFITS UNIFORMS SUPPLIES FUEL CONSUMED WATER PURCHASED FOR RESALE SUPPLIES PURCHASED FOR INVENTORY/RESALE SMALL EQUIPMENT PROFESSIONAL SERVICES COMMUNICATIONS TRAVEL ADVERTISING RENT AL/LEASE INSURANCE UTILITIES REPAIRS& MAINTENANCE MISCELLANEOUS INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES INTERFUND TAXES INTERFUND TRANSFER (to 117,414) MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS REVENUE BONDS INTERGOVERNMENTAL LOANS INTEREST DEBT ISSUE COSTS OTHER INTEREST & DEBT SERVICE COSTS INTERFUND SERVICES CITY OF EDMO NDS EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL 2013 Adopted 2/28/2013 Budget Expenditures Variance %Used $ 22,130 $ $ (22,130) 0% 22,130 (22,130) 0% $ 825,372 $ $ (825,372) 0% 184,530 (184,530) 0% - 0% 1,009,902 (1,009,902) 0% $ $ $ 0% 0% #DIV/0! $ 756,455 $ 118,775 $ (637,680) 16% 24,180 2,753 (21,427) 11% 285,866 49,033 (236,833) 17% 6,840 364 (6,476) 5% 143,505 8,423 (135,082) 6% - - 0% 1,725,000 101,110 (1,623,890) 6% 140,000 16,915 (123,085) 12% 10,400 105 (10,295) 1% 173,136 15,163 (157,973) 9% 30,280 5,651 (24,629) 19% 3,400 - (3,400) 0% 560 - (560) 0% 91,205 15,632 (75,573) 17% 67,699 67,607 (92) 100% 28,000 5,108 (22,892) 18% 24,160 1,228 (22,932) 5% 307,630 51,587 (256,043) 17% 30,000 5,188 (24,812) 17% 904,893 136,504 (768,389) 15% 927,500 - (927,500) 0% 85,000 (85,000) 0% 2,532,580 (2,532,580) 0% 2,025 (2,025) 0% 209,471 (209,471) 0% 45,839 (45,839) 0% 280,306 (280,306) 0% 16,553 - (16,553) 0% - 175 175 0% 349,368 74,351 (275,017) 21% 9,201,851 $ 675,670 $ (8,526,181) 7% Packet Page 37 of 145 32 Page 5 of 6 Title S TO RM FUND (422) SALARIES AND WAGES OVERTIME BENEFITS UNIFORMS SUPPLIES SMALL EQUIPMENT PROFESSIONAL SERVICES COMMUNICATIONS TRAVEL ADVERTISING RENT AL/LEASE INSURANCE UT ILIT ES REPAIR & MAINTENANCE MISCELLANEOUS INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES INTERFUND TAXESAND OPERATING ASSESSMENT INTERFUND TRANSFER (to 112, 117) CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS REVENUE BONDS INTERGOVERNMENTAL LOANS INTEREST OTHER INTEREST & DEBT SERVICE COSTS INTERFUND PROFESSIONAL SERVICES SEWER FUND (423) SALARIES AND WAGES OVERTIME BENEFITS UNIFORMS SUPPLIES FUEL CONSUMED SUPPLIES PURCHASED FOR INV OR RESALE SMALL EQUIPMENT PROFESSIONAL SERVICES COMMUNICATIONS TRAVEL ADVERTISING RENT AL/LEASE INSURANCE UTILITIES REPAIR & MAINTENANCE MISCELLANEOUS INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES INTERFUND TAXESAND OPERATING ASSESSMENT INTERFUND TRANSFERS (to 414, 423) MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS REVENUE BONDS INTERGOVERNMENTAL LOANS INTEREST DEBT ISSUE COSTS OTHER INTEREST & DEBT SERVICE COSTS INTERFUND PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CITY OF EDMO NDS EXPENDPTURES BY FUND - DETAIL 2013 Adopted 2/28/2013 Budget Expenditures Variance %Used $ 568,591 $ 91,870 $ (476,721) 16% 6,000 1,068 (4,932) 18% 232,141 36,913 (195,228) 16% 6,540 2,819 (3,721) 43% 50,000 572 (49,428) 1% 4,400 - (4,400) 0% 599,190 77,273 (521,917) 13% 3,480 212 (3,268) 6% 4,300 - (4,300) 0% 500 - (500) 0% 217,412 35,704 (181,708) 16% 8,418 8,407 (11) 100% 10,000 1,481 (8,519) 15% 11,860 - (11,860) 0% 106,100 13,012 (93,088) 12% 45,000 16,682 (28,318) 37% 291,600 55,286 (236,314) 19% 237,766 - (237,766) 0% 1,458,400 (1,458,400) 0% 101,469 (101,469) 0% 82,906 (82,906) 0% 32,063 (32,063) 0% 187,245 - (187,245) 0% - 83 83 0% 300,391 108,233 (192,158) 36% 4,565,772 449,613 4,116,159 10% $ 1,653,859 $ 266,362 $ (1,387,497) 16% 73,000 27,657 (45,343) 38% 677,979 107,434 (570,545) 16% 11,190 1,450 (9,740) 13% 482,505 42,085 (440,420) 9% 90,000 28,691 (61,309) 32% 3,000 - (3,000) 0% 16,400 1,880 (14,520) 11% 1,024,236 300,008 (724,228) 29% 40,280 5,042 (35,238) 13% 7,400 - (7,400) 0% 2,500 - (2,500) 0% 133,736 22,203 (111,533) 17% 157,117 156,092 (1,025) 99% 931,200 129,647 (801,553) 14% 90,000 7,330 (82,670) 8% 211,100 37,106 (173,994) 18% 290,000 37,756 (252,244) 13% 470,000 87,384 (382,616) 19% 1,125,280 - (1,125,280) 0% 141,000 - (141,000) 0% 7,924,700 20,287 (7,904,413) 0% 195,602 - (195,602) 0% 222,625 (222,625) 0% 138,939 (138,939) 0% 125,421 (125,421) 0% 16,551 - (16,551) 0% - 41 41 0% 574,489 - 79,681 (494,808) 14% 16,830,109 S 1,358,137 (15,471,972) 8% Packet Page 38 of 145 33 Title CITY OF EDMONDS EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL 2013 Adopted 2/28/2013 Budget Expenditures Variance Page 6 of 6 %Used EQUIPMENTRENTAL FUND (511) SALARIES AND WAGES $ 228,064 $ 22,925 $ (205,139) 10% OVERTIME 1,000 886 (114) 89% BENEFITS 100,397 11,173 (89,224) 11% UNIFORMS 1,000 277 (723) 28% SUPPLIES 76,000 8,780 (67,220) 12% FUEL CONSUMED 1,000 - (1,000) 0% SUPPLIES PURCHASED FOR INVENTORY/RESALE 321,800 3,254 (318,546) 1% SMALL EQUIPMENT 8,000 329 (7,672) 4% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,000 227 (773) 23% COMMUNICATIONS 3,000 214 (2,786) 7% RENTAL/LEASE 9,996 1,548 (8,448) 15% INSURANCE 34,083 32,700 (1,383) 96% UTILITIES 14,000 2,013 (11,987) 14% REPAIRS& MAINTENANCE 60,000 12,992 (47,008) 22% MISCELLANEOUS 6,000 1,317 (4,683) 22% INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES 2,500 119 (2,381) 5% MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 217,532 46,927 (170,605) 22% INTERFUND SERVICES 10,000 - (10,000) 0% - 1,095,372 S 145,680 (949,692) 13% FIREMEN'S PENSION FUND (617) BENEFITS $ 63,000 $ 7,012 $ (55,988) 11% PENSION AND DISABILITY PAYMENTS 43,790 24,830 (18,960) 57% PROF SERVICES 2,000 - (2,000) 0% 108,790 31,842 (76,948) 29% TOTAL EXPENDITURE ALL FUNDS 80,620,299 9,575,706 (70,855,320) 12% 34 Packet Page 39 of 145 Title CITY COUNCIL OFFICE OF MAYOR HUMAN RESOURCES MUNICIPAL COURT CITY CLERK ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES CITY ATTORNEY NON -DEPARTMENTAL POLICE SERVICES COMMUNITY SERVICES DEVELOPMENT SERVICES PARKS & RECREATION PUBLIC WORKS FACILITIES MAINTENANCE Title WATER UTILITY FUND STORM UTILITY FUND SEWER/WWTP UTILITY FUND CITY OF EDMONDS EXPENDITURES - GENERAL FUND - BY DEPARTMENT IN SUMMARY 2013 Adopted Budget 273,623 $ 238,374 287,190 729,506 586,831 1,492,018 499,200 11,467,569 8,931,185 373,314 1,619,042 3,398,517 1,718,975 1,344,159 32.959.503 $ 2/28/2013 penditures 38,445 $ 38,426 39,680 115,327 83,146 272,409 85,261 2,488,604 1,406,388 54,572 262,483 441,862 285,354 1 Variance (235,178) (199,948) (247,510) (614,179) (503,685) (1,219,609) (413,939) (8,978,965) (7,524,797) (318,742) (1,356,559) (2,956,655) (1,433,622) CITY OF EDMONDS EXPENDITURES - UTILITY- BY FUND IN S UMMARY 2013 Adopted Budget $ 9,201,851 $ 4,565,772 16,830,109 $ 30,597,732 $ 2/28/2013 .penditures 675,670 $ 449,613 1,358,137 2,483,419 $ Variance (8,526,181) (4,116,159) (15,471,972) (28,114,313) % Used % Used 14% 16% 14% 16% 14% 18% 17% 22% 16% 15% 16% 13% 17% 16% 18% 7% 10% 8% 8% Packet Page 40 of 145 35 This page is intentionally left blank. 36 Packet Page 41 of 145 Page 1 of 4 C ITY O F EDMO NDS EXPENDITURES - GENERAL FUND - BY DEPARTMENT IN DETAIL 2013 Adopted 2/28/2013 Title Budget Expenditures Variance %Used CITY COUNCIL SALARIES $ 114,618 $ 20,000 $ (94,618) 17% OVERTIME 2,000 100 (1,900) 5 % BENEFIT S 68,165 11,620 (56,545) 17% SUPPLIES 1,000 88 (912) 9% PROFESSIONAL SVC 53,082 6,029 (47,053) 11% COMMUNICATIONS 3,000 260 (2,740) 9% TRAVEL 2,500 276 (2,224) 11 % RENTAL/LEASE 490 72 (418) 15% REPAIRS✓MAINT 1,500 - (1,500) 0% MISCELLANEOUS 27,268 - (27,268) 0% 273,623 387445 (235,178) 14% OFFICEOFMAYOR SALARIES $ 183,722 $ 30,998 $ (152,724) 17% OVERTIME - - - 0% BENEFITS 41,852 6,962 (34,890) 17% SUPPLIES 2,000 148 (1,852) 7% PROFESSIONAL SVC 1,500 - (1,500) 0% COMMUNICATION 1,400 85 (1,315) 6% TRAVEL 2,000 - (2,000) 0% RENTAL/LEASE 2,400 184 (2,216) 8% REPAIR/MAINT 500 - (500) 0% MISCELLANEOUS 3,000 50 (2,950) 2% 238,374 S 38,426 (199,948) 16% HUMAN RES O URC ES SALARIES $ 169,000 S 25,357 $ (143,643) 15% OVERTIME - - - 0% BENEFITS 6L680 7,897 (53,783) 13% SUPPLIES 2,000 532 (1,468) 27% SMALL EQUIPMENT 100 - (100) 0% PROFESSIONAL SVC 32,000 5,297 (26,703) 17% COMMUNICATIONS 500 30 (470) 6% TRAVEL 500 - (500) 0% ADVERTISING 5,000 311 (4,689) 6% RENTAL/LEASE 2,000 184 (1,816) 9% REPAIR/MAINT 6,000 - (6,000) 0% MISCELLANEOUS 8 410 72 (8,338) 1% 287,190 39,680 (247,510) 14% MUNIC IPAL C O URT SALARIES $ 464,471 $ 74,207 $ (390,264) 16% OVERTIME 100 - (100) 0% BENEFITS 168,526 24,625 (143,901) 15% SUPPLIES 9,159 1,822 (7,337) 20% SMALL EQUIPMENT 2,000 - (2,000) 0% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 60,500 11,605 (48,895) 19% COMMUNICATIONS 2,600 241 (2,359) 9% TRAVEL 1,250 461 (789) 37% RENTAL/LEASE 650 140 (510) 22% REPAIR/MAINT 1,000 281 (719) 28% MISCELLANEOUS 19,250 1,945 (17,305) 10% 729,506 115,327 (614,179) 16% 37 Packet Page 42 of 145 Title CITY OF EDMO NDS EXPENDITURES - GENERAL FUND - BY DEPARTMENT IN DETAIL 2013 Adopted 2/28/2013 Budget Expenditures Variance Page 2 of 4 %Used CITY C LERK SALARIES AND WAGES $ 305,572 $ 50,490 $ (255,082) 17% BENEFIT S 92,771 15,347 (77,424) 17% SUPPLIES 13,760 1,777 (11,983) 13% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 84,751 1,536 (83,215) 2% COMMUNICATIONS 50,000 9,321 (40,679) 19% TRAVEL 250 - (250) 0% ADVERTISING 3,690 978 (2,712) 27% RENTAL/LEASE 25,000 2,655 (22,345) 11 % REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 8,037 - (8,037) 0% MISCELLANEOUS 3,000 1,041 (1,959) 35% 586,831 S 83,146 503,685 14% ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES SALARIES $ 682,370 $ 129,018 $ (553,352) 19% OVERTIME 4,000 1,045 (2,955) 26% BENEFITS 220,100 37,550 (182,550) 17% SUPPLIES 35,700 1,093 (34,607) 3% SMALL EQUIPMENT 87,500 7,080 (80,420) 8% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 126,350 25,365 (100,985) 20% COMMUNICATIONS 58,960 7,991 (50,969) 14% TRAVEL 3,300 - (3,300) 0% RENTAL/LEASE 8,988 1,663 (7,325) 19% REPAIR/MAINT 171,750 34,257 (137,493) 20% MISCELLANEOUS 8,000 5,744 (2,256) 72% MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 85,000 21,603 (63,397) 25% 1,492,018 272,409 (1,219,609) 18% CITY ATTORNEY PROFESSIONAL SVC $ 499,200 $ 85,261 $ (413,939) 17% MISC PROSECUTOR - - - 0% 499,200 85,261 (413,939) 17% NON -DEPARTMENTAL SALARIES $ 136,000 $ - $ (136,000) 0% BENEFITS - UNEMPLOYMENT 40,000 2,931 (37,069) 7% PROFESSIONAL SVC 380,000 32,396 (347,604) 9% COMMUNICATIONS - - - 0% RENTAL/LEASE 3,600 3,600 - 100% INSURANCE 396,193 395,999 (194) 100% MISCELLANEOUS 55,156 40,065 (15,091) 73% INTERGOVT SVC 7,532,912 2,012,671 (5,520,241) 27% ECA LOAN PAYMENT 190,000 - (190,000) 0% EXCISE TAXES 5,500 465 (5,035) 8% INTERFUND TRANSFERS 1,325,185 - (1,325,185) 0% GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND 946,595 - (946,595) 0% INSTALLMENT PURCHASES 64,014 - (64,014) 0% OTHER DEBT - - - 0% INTEREST ON LONG-TERM DEBT 185,614 - (185,614) 0% DEBT ISSUANCE COSTS 5,000 - (5,000) 0% FISCAL AGENT FEES - 478 478 0% INTERFUND SERVICES 201,800 - (201,800) 0% 11,467,569 2,488,604 (8,978,965) 22% 38 Packet Page 43 of 145 Page 3 of 4 C ITY O F IDMO NDS EXPENDITURES - GENERAL FUND - BY DEPARTMENT IN DETAIL Title SALARIES OVERTIME HOLIDAY BUYBACK BENEFIT S UNIFORMS SUPPLIES SMALL EQUIPMENT PROFESSIONAL SVC COMMUNICATIONS TRAVEL ADVERTISING RENT AL/LEASE REPAIR/MAINT MISCELLANEOUS INTERGOVTL SVC INT ERFUND RENTAL COMMUNITY SERVICES ADMIN SALARIES BENEFIT S SUPPLIES SMALL EQUIPMENT PROFESSIONAL SVC COMMUNICATIONS TRAVEL ADVERTISING RENT AL/LEASE REPAIR/MAINT MISCELLANEOUS DEVELO PMENT S ERVIC ES /PLANNING SALARIES OVERTIME BENEFIT S UNIFORMS SUPPLIES MINOR EQUIPMENT PROFESSIONAL SVC COMMUNICATIONS TRAVEL ADVERTISING RENT AL/LEASE REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE MISCELLANEOUS ENGINEERING SALARIES OVERTIME BENEFIT S UNIFORMS SUPPLIES MINOR EQUIPMENT PROFESSIONAL SVC COMMUNICATIONS TRAVEL ADVERTISING RENT AL/LEASE REPAIR/MAINT MISCELLANEOUS 2013 Adopted 2/28/2013 Budget Expenditures Variance %Used $ 5,169,010 $ 882,277 $ (4,286,733) 17% 400,000 52,590 (347,410) 13% 193,388 802 (192,586) 0% 1,728,703 296,942 (1,431,761) 17% 52,410 7,134 (45,276) 14% 94,100 11,975 (82,125) 13% 14,300 1,077 (13,223) 8% 95,200 7,587 (87,613) 8% 33,592 2,163 (31,429) 6% 16,300 704 (15,596) 4% 375 36 (339) 10% 538,344 88,851 (449,493) 17% 16,115 526 (15,589) 3% 35,300 7,017 (28,283) 20% 496,048 38,708 (457,340) 8% 48,000 8,000 (40,000) 17% 8,931,185 1,406,388 (7,524,797) 16% $ 213,304 $ 35,623 $ (177,681) 17% 62,052 10,402 (51,650) 17% 1,500 164 (1,336) 11% 800 - (800) 0% 60,804 6,905 (53,899) 11 % 1,490 204 (1,286) 14% 2,000 - (2,000) 0% 24,500 - (24,500) 0% 2364 244 (2,120) 10% 500 - (500) 0% 4,000 1,030 (2,970) 26% 373,314 54,572 (318,742) 15% $ 1,032,549 $ 188,219 $ (844,330) 18% 1,300 25 (1,275) 2% 358,465 65,852 (292,613) 18% - - - 0% 13,000 1,033 (11,967) 8% 1,100 - (1,100) 0% 145,600 (1,532) (147,132) -1% 4,000 475 (3,525) 12% 1,600 - (1,600) 0% 3,000 291 (2,709) 10% 32,828 5,437 (27,391) 17% 500 - (500) 0% 25,100 2,684 (22,416) 11 % 1,619,042 262,483 (1,356,559) 16% $ 1,007,140 $ 166,641 $ (840,499) 17% 5,000 - (5,000) 0% 342,150 60,326 (281,824) 18% 360 - (360) 0% - - - 0% 2,000 320 (1,680) 16% 5,000 - (5,000) 0% 6,700 623 (6,077) 9% 600 - (600) 0% - 264 264 0% 13,408 2,234 (11,174) 17% 1,800 - (1,800) 0% 10,300 1,705 (8,595) 17% 1,394,458 232,112 (1,162,346) 17% Packet Page 44 of 145 39 Page 4 of 4 CITY OF EDMO NDS EXPENDITURES - GENERAL FUND - BY DEPARTMENT IN DETAIL Title PARKS & REC REATIO N SALARIES OVERTIME BENEFIT S UNIFORMS SUPPLIES MINOR EQUIPMENT PROFESSIONAL SVC COMMUNICATIONS TRAVEL ADVERTISING RENT AL/LEASE PUBLIC UTILITY REPAIR/MAINT MISCELLANEOUS INTERGOVTLSVC PUBLIC WORKS SALARIES OVERTIME BENEFIT S SUPPLIES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES COMMUNICATIONS TRAVEL RENTAL/LEASE PUBLIC UTILITY REPAIR/MAINT MISCELLANEOUS FACILITIES MAINTENANCE SALARIES OVERTIME BENEFIT S UNIFORMS SUPPLIES FUEL CONSUMED MINOR EQUIPMENT COMMUNICATIONS RENT AL/LEASE PUBLIC UTILITY REPAIR/MAINT MISCELLANEOUS TO TAL GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES 2013 Adopted 2/28/2013 Budget Expenditures Variance %Used $ 1,745,631 $ 254,325 $ (1,491,306) 15% - 1,043 1,043 0% 584,326 88,710 (495,616) 15% 5,340 720 (4,620) 13% 131,925 10,134 (121,791) 8% 3,250 - (3,250) 0% 405,297 23,704 (381,593) 6% 28,218 986 (27,232) 3% 5,942 - (5,942) 0% 4,300 354 (3,946) 8% 149,152 21,957 (127,195) 15% 135,000 17,130 (117,870) 13% 51,845 15,662 (36,183) 30% 77,596 7,137 (70,459) 9% 70 695 - (70,695) 0% 3,398,517 441,862 (2,956,655) 13% $ 225,381 $ 40,042 $ (185,339) 18% 200 - (200) 0% 76,157 10,898 (65,259) 14% 5,100 1,097 (4,003) 22% 200 5 (195) 2% 1,200 95 (1,105) 8% 500 - (500) 0% 10,779 714 (10,065) 7% 2,600 390 (2,210) 15% 1,000 - (1,000) 0% 1,400 - (1,400) 0% 324,517 S 53,241 (271,276) 16% $ 621,104 $ 105,006 $ (516,098) 17% 2,500 - (2,500) 0% 249,515 32,633 (216,882) 13% 3,000 233 (2,767) 8% 65,000 4,084 (60,916) 6% - - - 0% 6,000 217 (5,783) 4% 13,000 1,763 (11,237) 14% 44,940 7,490 (37,450) 17% 277,000 45,607 (231,393) 16% 60,000 11,821 (48,179) 20% 2 100 228 (1,872) 11% 1,344,159 209,083 (1,135,076) 16% 32,959,503 5,821,040 (27,138,463) 18% Packet Page 45 of 145 40 AM-5636 City Council Committee Meetings Meeting Date: 04/09/2013 Time: 10 Minutes Submitted For: Mayor's Office Department: Human Resources Committee: Public Safety, Personnel Subject Title HR Reporting Director special assignment. Submitted By: Mary Ann Hardie Tyne: Information 2. A. Recommendation The Mayor requests Council to approve the continuation of the special assignment, HR Reporting Director with Ms. Hite. As authorized by City Personnel Policy and City Ordinance and approved by the Mayor, the special assignment and Special Duty Pay is being requested for approval by Council for the Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Director, Carrie Hite for an additional one year period (from the previous approval date on 4/17/12). Previous Council Action The Mayor and Council approved Special Duty Pay for the Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Director, Carrie Hite to serve as the Reporting Director for HR for a one year period on 4/17/12. Narrative This reporting structure has been working well and continues to work well for the City and the Human Resources department. Several major projects and negotiations were successfully accomplished in the last year under this reporting arrangement. It is strongly recommended that this reporting structure continue for the benefit of the organization. Fiscal Year: 2013 Fiscal Impact Revenue Expenditure: $6980.30 Fiscal Impact• Special Duty Pay for 12 months (HR Reporting Director) = $6980.30 ($581.69 x 12 months). Does not include potential 2014 COLA or step increase impacts. Inbox Parks and Recreation City Clerk Community Services/Economic Dev. Finalize for Agenda Form Started By: Mary Ann Hardie Final Approval Date: 04/03/2013 Form Review Reviewed By Date Carrie Hite 04/02/2013 11:59 AM Sandy Chase 04/02/2013 01:06 PM Stephen Clifton 04/02/2013 02:12 PM Sandy Chase 04/03/2013 09:42 AM Started On: 04/02/2013 09:56 AM Packet Page 46 of 145 AM-5631 City Council Committee Meetings Meeting Date: 04/09/2013 Time: 15 Minutes Submitted For: Mayor's Office Department: Human Resources Committee: Public Safety, Personnel Subject Title Acting Development Services Director assignment. Submitted By: Mary Ann Hardie Tyne: Action Information 2. B. Recommendation The Mayor is requesting Council to approve an additional period of the appointment of acting Director for Development Services for Rob Chave to include Jan 1, 2013-December 31st, 2013, and the corresponding out of class pay. Previous Council Action The Mayor & Council originally approved the Acting Development Services Director and corresponding out of class pay assignment in March of 2012. Narrative Mr. Chave has been doing a great job in covering the duties of the Development Services Director. In addition, he has been working with a team of staff to improve customer service on the 2nd floor, and adjust work assignments with the Building Official departure. We have no additional funds in the budget to hire a new Development Services Director, and it makes sense to cotinue Mr. Chave's service in the acting position. Fiscal Year: 2013 Fiscal Impact Revenue Expenditure: $5742.72 Fiscal Impact: Acting out of Class Pay (Development Services Director) for 12 months = approximately $5,742.72 ($478.56 x 12 months). Does not include potential 2014 COLA or step increase impacts. Inbox Parks and Recreation City Clerk Community Services/Economic Dev. Finalize for Agenda Form Started By: Mary Ann Hardie Final Approval Date: 04/03/2013 Form Review Reviewed By Date Carrie Hite 04/02/2013 10:05 AM Sandy Chase 04/02/2013 11:14 AM Stephen Clifton 04/02/2013 02:12 PM Sandy Chase 04/03/2013 09:42 AM Started On: 04/01/2013 04:02 PM Packet Page 47 of 145 AM-5639 City Council Committee Meetings Meeting Date: 04/09/2013 Time: 15 Minutes Submitted For: Councilmember Johnson Department: City Council Committee: Public Safety, Personnel Subject Title Consideration of mandatory bike helmets. Recommendation Previous Council Action Submitted By: Jana Spellman Tyne: Information Information 2. C. During the March 5, 2013 Council Meeting, Mayor Earling proclaimed March Brain Injury Awareness Month. Below is an excerpt from the March 5, 2013 Council Meetings: "5. BRAIN INJURY AWARENESS MONTH PROCLAMATION Mayor Earling read a proclamation declaring March 2013 as Brain Injury Awareness Month. He explained when he taught at Shoreline Community College, he received a call that one of the drummers in his jazz group, Keith Scruggs, had been in a horrific accident and suffered a brain injury that troubles him to this day. Mayor Earling presented the proclamation to Lou Nash. Mr. Nash, a brain injury survivor since 1993, explained he facilitates a support group for caregivers and survivors. He expressed his appreciation for the proclamation, advising the Governor also signed a proclamation. Councilmember Johnson explained the proclamation is intended to raise awareness of brain injuries. The community's brain support group meets the first Tuesday of every month at Swedish -Edmonds Hospital from 6:30 to 8:30 p.m. in the cafeteria and everyone is welcome to attend. The community also has several local organizations that promote bicycle safety. She applauded the work of the Edmonds Kiwanis who through their school bike helmet project provide helmets to young bike riders. She also applauded the work of the Edmonds Bicycle Advisory Group who through their basics of bicycling program, teach elementary school children how to ride safely as well as work with other partners including the Hazel Miller Foundation. Councilmember Johnson explained the prevention of head injuries is an important public safety issue. The State does not require helmets for bicyclists or skateboarders. Over 30 jurisdictions in Washington have helmet laws including Seattle, Tacoma, Bellevue, Pierce and King Counties. She summarized this may be the right time for Edmonds to discuss whether to continue voluntary programs or have a mandatory bicycle helmet program to prevent brain injuries. She made the following motion in honor of brain injury awareness month: COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY MONILLAS, THAT THE CITY COUNCIL REFER THIS TO THE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE OF THE COUNCIL FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY." Narrative Packet Page 48 of 145 Mayor Earling proclaimed March 2013 as Brain Injury Awareness Month in the City of Edmonds. This proclamation was intended to raise awareness to brain injury. In honor of Brain Injury awareness month the City Council voted unanimously to request that the City Council's Public Safety and Personnel Committee consider a bicycle helmet policy to prevent injury and protect riders. As a community, we have taken great strides in educating children about bicycle safety. The Edmonds Kiwanis through their bike helmet project provide helmets to students. The Edmonds Bicycle Advisory Group through their Basics of Bicycling program teach elementary school children. They work with other partners, including the Hazel Miller Foundation. Finally Fire District 1 will provide, for a small donation, a properly fitted bike helmet at any of their fire stations. Children are not the only group subject to head injury; adults are also subject to head injuries. According to the Brain Injury Association of America, helmets make the difference for children and adults. Medical research shows that up to 85 percent of bicyclists' head injuries can be prevented by bicycle helmets. Yet, half of all riders do not wear a helmet regularly, although it is the single most effective protection against brain injury. Preventing head injuries is an important public safety issue. The State of Washington does not require helmets for bicyclists or skate boarders. Over thirty jurisdictions in Washington do have helmet laws including Seattle, Ellensburg, Bellevue and Bainbridge Island, as well as King and Pierce Counties. The time may be right for Edmonds to consider a helmet policy to prevent brain injuries. The City could become the leader for other jurisdictions in Snohomish County. Some of the issues that other jurisdictions have considered are listed below: 1. Should helmet be required just for children or for everyone? 2. Should helmets be required just for bicyclists or for skaters, skateboarders, scooters? 3. How will the helmet law be enforced, warnings and/or civil infraction ($10 - $50) 4. Should helmets be required only for the public right-of-way? 5. What are the liability issues for requiring helmets in city parks? This item has been placed on the agenda for consideration. Bike Helmet Information Safe Rider Citation Program Inbox City Clerk Community Services/Economic Dev. Finalize for Agenda Form Started By: Jana Spellman Final Approval Date: 04/04/2013 Attachments Form Review Reviewed By Date Sandy Chase 04/04/2013 10:15 AM Stephen Clifton 04/04/2013 12:46 PM Sandy Chase 04/04/2013 01:43 PM Started On: 04/03/2013 09:44 AM Packet Page 49 of 145 RCW 4.24.210: Liability of owners or others in possession of land and water areas for inj... Page 1 of 2 �'j 1•� 1 YLE - 1-gistat[o.:Nc�rr►eea ,�iruL crf. Re Ce9 ,tatives Caa7taGt IJs Search I Help RCWs > Title 4 > Chapter 4.24 > Section 4.24.210 Inside the Legislature * Find Your Legislator 4.24.200 << 4.24.210 » 4.24.220 * Visiting the Legislature * Agendas, Schedules and RCW 4.24.210 Calendars Bill Information Liability of owners or others in possession of * Laws and Agency Rules land and water areas for injuries to recreation Legislative Committees Legislative Agencies users — Known dangerous artificial latent Legislative Information Center conditions — Other limitations. E-mail Notifications Civic Education (1) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (3) or (4) of this section, any public or private History of the State landowners, hydroelectric project owners, or others in lawful possession and control of any Legislature lands whether designated resource, rural, or urban, or water areas or channels and lands adjacent to such areas or channels, who allow members of the public to use them for the Outside the Legislature purposes of outdoor recreation, which term includes, but is not limited to, the cutting, * Congress - the Other gathering, and removing of firewood by private persons for their personal use without Washington purchasing the firewood from the landowner, hunting, fishing, camping, picnicking, * TVW swimming, hiking, bicycling, skateboarding or other nonmotorized wheel -based activities, aviation activities including, but not limited to, the operation of airplanes, ultra -light airplanes, * Washington Courts hanggliders, parachutes, and paragliders, rock climbing, the riding of horses or other * OFM Fiscal Note Website animals, clam digging, pleasure driving of off -road vehicles, snowmobiles, and other vehicles, boating, kayaking, canoeing, rafting, nature study, winter or water sports, viewing or enjoying Access AIIWWU slhingtonll historical, archaeological, scenic, or scientific sites, without charging a fee of any kind therefor, shall not be liable for unintentional injuries to such users. (2) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (3) or (4) of this section, any public or private landowner or others in lawful possession and control of any lands whether rural or 2u 10 urban, or water areas or channels and lands adjacent to such areas or channels, who offer or allow such land to be used for purposes of a fish or wildlife cooperative project, or allow access to such land for cleanup of litter or other solid waste, shall not be liable for unintentional injuries to any volunteer group or to any other users. (3) Any public or private landowner, or others in lawful possession and control of the land, may charge an administrative fee of up to twenty-five dollars for the cutting, gathering, and removing of firewood from the land. (4)(a) Nothing in this section shall prevent the liability of a landowner or others in lawful possession and control for injuries sustained to users by reason of a known dangerous artificial latent condition for which warning signs have not been conspicuously posted. (i) A fixed anchor used in rock climbing and put in place by someone other than a landowner is not a known dangerous artificial latent condition and a landowner under subsection (1) of this section shall not be liable for unintentional injuries resulting from the condition or use of such an anchor. (ii) Releasing water or flows and making waterways or channels available for kayaking, canoeing, or rafting purposes pursuant to and in substantial compliance with a hydroelectric license issued by the federal energy regulatory commission, and making adjacent lands available for purposes of allowing viewing of such activities, does not create a known dangerous artificial latent condition and hydroelectric project owners under subsection (1) of this section shall not be liable for unintentional injuries to the recreational users and observers resulting from such releases and activities. (b) Nothing in RCW 4,24.200 and this section limits or expands in any way the doctrine of attractive nuisance. http:�aa ,ag� i a v/rew/default. aspx?cite=4.24.2 it 4/2/2013 RCW 4.24.210: Liability of owners or others in possession of land and water areas for inj... Page 2 of 2 (c) Usage by members of the public, volunteer groups, or other users is permissive and does not support any claim of adverse possession. (5) For purposes of this section, the following are not fees: (a) A license or permit issued for statewide use under authority of chapter 79A.05 RCW or Title 77 RCW; (b) A pass or permit issued under RCW 79A.80.020, 79A.80.030, or 79A.80.040; and (c) A daily charge not to exceed twenty dollars per person, per day, for access to a publicly owned ORV sports park, as defined in RCW 46.09.310, or other public facility accessed by a highway, street, or nonhighway road for the purposes of off -road vehicle use [2012 c 15 § 1. Prior: 2011 c 320 § 11; 2011 c 171 § 2; 2011 c 53 § 1; 2006 c 212 § 6; prior: 2003 c 39 § 2; 2003 c 16 § 2; 1997 c 26 § 1; 1992 c 52 § 1; prior: 1991 c 69 § 1; 1991 c 50 § 1; 1980 c 111 § 1; 1979 c 53 § 1; 1972 ex.s. c 153 § 17; 1969 ex.s. c 24 § 2; 1967 c 216 § 2.] Notes: Findings -- Intent -- 2011 c 320: See RCW 79A.80.005. Effective date -- 2011 c 320: See note following RCW 79A.80.005. Intent -- 2011 c 171: "This act is intended to reconcile and conform amendments made in chapter 161, Laws of 2010 with other legislation passed during the 2010 legislative sessions, as well as provide technical amendments to codified sections affected by chapter 161, Laws of 2010. Any statutory changes made by this act should be interpreted as technical in nature and not be interpreted to have any substantive policy or legal implications." [2011 c 171 § 1.] Effective date -- 2011 c 171: "Except for section 129 of this act, this act is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety, or support of the state government and its existing public institutions, and takes effect July 1, 2011." [2011 c 171 § 142.] Finding -- 2003 c 16: "The legislature finds that some property owners in Washington are concerned about the possibility of liability arising when individuals are permitted to engage in potentially dangerous outdoor recreational activities, such as rock climbing. Although RCW 4.24.210 provides property owners with immunity from legal claims for any unintentional injuries suffered by certain individuals recreating on their land, the legislature finds that it is important to the promotion of rock climbing opportunities to specifically include rock climbing as one of the recreational activities that are included in RCW 4.24.210. By including rock climbing in RCW 4.24.210, the legislature intends merely to provide assurance to the owners of property suitable for this type of recreation, and does not intend to limit the application of RCW 4.24.210 to other types of recreation. By providing that a landowner shall not be liable for any unintentional injuries resulting from the condition or use of a fixed anchor used in rock climbing, the legislature recognizes that such fixed anchors are recreational equipment used by climbers for which a landowner has no duty of care." [2003 c 16 § 1.]. Purpose --1972 ex.s. c 153: See RCW 79A.35.070. Off -road and nonhighway vehicles: Chapter 46.09 RCW. Snowmobiles: Chapter 46.10 RCW. http ///a� fag 'oq.Fwv/rcw/default.aspx?cite=4.24.2 0 4/2/2013 1J rarf atutaf Ilan City of Edmonds • Office of the Mayor Brain Injury Awareness Month March 2013 WHEREAS, for many decades brain injury has been the silent or hidden epidemic, and Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) and Acquired Brain Injury (ABI) are not just medical terms — they are challenging circumstances for those whose lives have been forever changed by a blow to the head or a neurological event; and WHEREAS, the Edmond's Brain Injury Group partner, Traumatic Brain Injury Survivors Network (TBISN), is a Washington -based organization with over 300 partners worldwide which provides services, meeting groups, information and education and works to instill hope for survivors of brain injury; it is not only the oldest organization of its kind in Washington State, but the Traumatic Brain Injury Survivors Network is the largest TBI and ABI support network in the world with affiliates in 43 states and 32 countries, endeavoring to bring about social change and awareness and prevention to communities; and WHEREAS, a Traumatic Brain Injury occurs every 21 seconds, and individuals with severe brain injury typically face five to ten years of intensive rehabilitation with cumulative costs exceeding $35 billion annually: this public health concern ranks as the leading cause of death and disability in children and young adults with over 52,000 deaths and, on an annual basis, 40,000 individuals over the age of 65 visit hospital emergency rooms for Traumatic Brain Injury as a result of a fall, leading to the hospitalization of 16,000 senior citizens and the death of4,000 senior citizens; and WHEREAS, this year, The Edmond's Brain Injury Group, a Traumatic Brain Injury Survivors Network partner, celebrates its 2013 theme, "For Us By Us," by redefining brain injury with the success of TBI and ABI survivors who diligently make their own future for themselves as vital members of our community; NOW THEREFORE BE FF RESOLVED, that I, David O. Earling, Mayor, do hereby proclaim March 2013 as Brain InjuryAwareness Month in the city of Edmonds and encourage all citizens to join in this special observance. -1 A—, David O. Earling, Mayor March 5, 2013 3 Packet Page 52 of 145 WSDOT - Bicycle Helmet Requirements in Washington Page 1 of 1 �� Wa�ingr ton state ►Ir Departr t of Thmsportak% Bicycle Helmet Requirements in Washington Currently, there is no state law requiring helmet use. However, some cities and counties do require helmet use with bicycles. Here is a list of those locations and when the laws were enacted. Location Name Who is Affected Effective Date Aberdeen All ages 2001 Bainbridge Island All ages 2001 Bremerton All ages 2000 DuPont All ages 2008 Eatonville All ages 1996 Fircrest All ages 1995 Gig Harbor All ages 1996 Kent All ages 1999 King County All ages 1993, 2003 updated to include Seattle Lakewood All ages 1996 Milton All ages 1997 Orting Under 17 1997 Pierce County All ages 1994 (unincorporated) Port Angeles All ages 1994 Port Orchard All ages 2004 Poulsbo Under 18 1995 Puyallup All ages 1994 Renton All ages 1999 Spokane All ages 2004 Steilacoom All ages 1995 Tacoma All ages 1994 University Place All ages 1996 Vancouver All ages 2008 All Military Installations All ages N/A Copyright WSDOT © 2013 http�/N K.gW 49#1W.a.gov/bike/helmets.htm 4 3/6/2013 MRSC Inquiries - Public Safety Page 1 of 1 8. 9. How many cities in Washington have a bike helmet ordinance? How many require bike helmets only for riders under a certain age? Reviewed: 12/11 We do not have a comprehensive list of all Washington cities that have a bike helmet ordinance. A search of our online codes found 30 cities that require that helmets be worn by bicyclists. Of these cities, three (Burlington, Ellensburg, and Goldendale) require helmets only for riders under a certain age. Cities requiring bicycle helmets: Auburn Municipal Code - Sec. 10.56.185 Bainbridge Island Municipal Code - Sec. 10.30.030 Bellevue Municipal Code - Sec. 11.60.090 Bremerton Municipal Code - Sec.10.14.030 Burien Municipal Code - Sec. 8.37.050 Burlington Municipal Code - Sec. 10.24.070 (requires riders under the age of 16 to wear a helmet) Des Moines Municipal Code - Sec. 10.12.010 DuPont Municipal Code- Sec 16.06.030 Edgewood Municipal Code - Sec. 10.22.020 Ellensburg Municipal Code - Sec. 8.52.030 (requires riders under the age of 16 to wear a helmet) Enumclaw Municipal Code - Sec. 10.46.010 Federal Way Municipal Code - Sec. 8.25.060 Gig Harbor Municipal Code - Sec. 10.22.030 Goldendale Municipal Code - Sec. 10.26.030 (requires riders under the age of 14 to wear a helmet) Hunts Point Municipal Code - Ch. 10.15 Issaquah Municipal Code - Ch 10.44.025 Kent Municipal Code - Sec. 9.41.030 SeaTac Municipal Code - Sec. 9.30.020 Snogualmie Municipal Code - Sec. 10.30.050 Spokane Municipal Code - Sec. 10.17.030 Tacoma Municipal Code - Sec. 11.30.030 University Place Municipal Code - Sec. 10.25.030 Vancouver Municipal Code - Ch. 9.62 http 4Wt&q, ram/askmrsc/pastingsubject.aspx?sld=31 3/6/2013 Page 1 of 2 LQ1 King County Bike helmets now the rule in Seattle NOTICE: This is an archived press release. Some dates and information may no longer be current. To inquire if you are viewing updated information, please contact us (http://info.kingcounty.gov/about/contacVdefault.aspx) . Friday, July 18, 2003 KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON - Today, the King County Board of Health voted unanimously to amend the King County bike helmet regulation to include Seattle. The new rule will go into effect on August 17, 2003. After that date, bicyclists in Seattle cited for violating the bike helmet regulation could receive a $30 fine. "This is an important step for reducing traumatic brain injuries," said King County Board of Health Chair Carolyn Edmonds. "As a result of this regulation, we will spare hundreds of local families the ordeal of watching their children or other family members suffer through a devastating injury or of losing a loved one in a senseless, preventable tragedy." Many communities in Washington State have recognized the importance of bike helmet ordinances and regulations as part of a sound injury prevention strategy. King County, outside of Seattle, has had the rule in place since 1994. Seattle, with its large number of bicyclists and bicycle injuries, will now join the growing list of communities with bike helmet regulations. "The evidence is clear. Requiring riders to wear bike helmets will save lives and reduce serious bicycle injuries," said Dr. Alonzo Plough, Director of Public Health — Seattle & King County. "This thoughtful action by the King County Board of Health protects the scores of Seattle residents who ride bicycles for pleasure or transportation every day." Several studies have shown that legislation in combination with education increases helmet usage and decreases head injuries. In addition, local researchers have found that bike helmets reduce head injuries by 65 - 85%. Moreover, Public Health — Seattle & King County, with support from the Harborview Injury Prevention and Research Center and the Centers for Disease Control, has estimated that $10 million a year could be saved if every bicyclist in King County wore a helmet. This Board of Health action is consistent with a Seattle City Council resolution, passed unanimously in June, supporting the extension of King County's mandatory bicycle helmet rule into City limits. Many organizations in Seattle and King County provide low cost bike helmets. Providing effective and innovative health and disease prevention services for over 1.8 million residents and visitors of King County, Public Health — Seattle & King County works for safer and healthier communities for everyone, every day. 6 http�1XWMiAji qV#ty.gov/healthservices/health/news/2003/03071801.aspx?print=l 4/2/2013 181met nequirementS On April 9, 2001, the City of Bainbridge Island City Council adopted Ordinance 2001-06, establishing helmet requirements for bicycles and similar recreational vehicles and created Chapter 10.30 of the City of Bainbridge Island Municipal Code. HOW DOES IT AFFECT YOU? If you ride a recreational vehicle on public roadways you must wear a helmet. In the best interest of the health, safety and welfare of its citizens, the City requires bicycle and other similar recreational vehicle users and riders to wear protective helmets. RCW 35.75.010 states that the City, may, by ordinance, regulate the riding of bicycles or other similar vehicles upon streets, alleys, highways or other public grounds within the City limits. WHY A HELMET ORDINANCE? There has been an increase in the use of skateboards, roller skates and scooter in out community and head injuries are a major cause of death and disability associated with the operation of a recreational vehicle on public roadways and bicycle paths. WHAT IS A RECREATIONAL VEHICLE? Bicycling, skateboarding, roller-skating, roller-blading, riding scooters and horseback riding are "sports" that will require the protection of a helmet. therefore, the vehicles used for such sports are considered recreational vehicles. WHAT IS A PUBLIC AREA? A "public area" means public roadways, bicycle paths, parks or any right-of-way, (publicly owned property) within the City of Bainbridge Island. HOW CAN I GET AN EXEMPTION? A rider is exempted from the requirements of this ordinance if the rider has in his or her possession a letter or memo signed by a medical doctor licensed in the State of Washington indicating that the use of any helmet is harmful to the health or safety of the rider. WHAT IF I CHOOSE NOT TO WEAR A HELMET? Any person or organization violating any of the provisions of this chapter shall have committed an infraction. The first time this infraction occurs a written warning of the violation may be issued, after a second violation the person shall be liable for monetary penalties as set forth in Chapter 7.80 RCW, not to exceed $10.0 exclusive of statutory assessments. SAFETY TIPS • Observe the rules of the road by obeying traffic signs and lights. Wear reflective apparel. • Routinely checks safety equipment such as lights, reflectors and brakes. Yield to pedestrians. For more information please contact: Mayor's Office 280 Madison Avenue North Bainbridge Island, WA 98110-1812 Phone: (2060 842-2545 Fax: (206) 780-7600 Email: cityadmin@ci.bainbridge-isl.wa.us 7 Packet Page 56 of 145 HIPRC: Best Practices Page 1 of 12 BEST PRACTICES Bicycle Injury Interventions Bicycle Helmet Effectiveness Background Although it makes inherent sense that helmets would be protective against head injury, establishing the real -world effectiveness of helmets is important. The magnitude of the protective effect is important for prevention programs. Laboratory data (ANSI or Snell) are not enough; real -world data are necessary to determine whether helmet use is effective in preventing head injuries. Randomized controlled trials (RCT) are neither feasible nor ethical toward this end. Cohort studies are also unfeasible because of the large population required for follow-up. Case -control studies are a good and efficient design, but should control for confounders such as age, sex, education, income, and crash severity. A number of case -control studies have been conducted demonstrating the effectiveness of bicycle helmets. Review of bicycle helmet effectiveness studies: Author Attewell, 2001 Study design Meta -analysis of 16 articles. and target population Included studies with individual injury and helmet use data published 1987-1998. Included all studies published in English in peer reviewed journals. Intervention Bicycle helmet use Outcomes Head injury, brain injury, facial injury as defined by the various studies as well as fatal injuries. 13 articles determined injury from medical record; 3 from self -report of injury. Results Strong protective effect among helmet users versus non -users for head, brain, facial, and fatal injuries. Head injury, OR=0.40 (0.29, 0.55), Brain injury, 8 httpp�&po6,gWg�bi4gon.edu/hiprc/practices/topic/bicycles/helmeteffect.html 4/2/2013 HIPRC: Best Practices Page 11 of 12 Facial in'ur (image) Brain injury (image) Summary of bicycle helmet studies In all studies reviewed, there are consistent data indicating that wearing an industry -approved bicycle helmet significantly reduces the risk of head injury during a crash or collision. The reduction in risk is somewhat dependent on whether the controls originate from the emergency department or the population at large. However, population -based controls provide the best estimate of helmet effectiveness and allow it greatest generalizability. Overall, helmets decrease the risk of head and brain injury by 70 to 88 percent and facial injury to the upper and mid face by 65 percent. Cochrane Review: Helmets for preventing head and facial injuries in bicyclists This evidence -based review contains a comments and criticisms section with our responses to 4 critics of bicycle helmet effectiveness: Bill Curnow, Dorothy Robinson, Richard Keatinge and Mayer Hillman. These criticisms and our replies are published on the Cochrane Injuries group web site http://www.cochrane- injuries.Ishtm.ac.uk/helmetcomment.pdf. This website, Bicycle Helmet Safety Institute, contains a broad range of bicycle helmet and safety information. Additionally, a comprehensive review of bike helmet effectivenss by Dr. Michael Henderson of NSW, Australia, can be accessed at httl)://www.helmets,orpjhenderso.htm. Recommendations on bicycle helmet programs The ongoing advances in bicycle helmet design may enable manufacturers and promoters of helmet use to circumvent obstacles against helmet use such as poor fit and poor air circulation, high cost, and the 'uncoolness' of wearing a helmet. These obstacles -especially peer pressure -are particularly difficult to overcome among children. The data here show that persons wearing helmets are most likely to ride with other wearers their own age (helmeted adults tend to ride with helmeted adults; helmeted childre n tend to ride with helmeted children). While it remains to be seen whether this trend will be come more prevalent as younger birth cohorts have children of their own. It should be made clear that arguments against using bicycle helmets are not evidence- based; bicycle helmets are the most effective means of preventing head and brain injury and should be a requirement for cyclists of all ages. httl)p,UA@o$gWWWVgton.edu/hiprc/practices/topic/bicycles/helmeteffect.html 4/2/2013 HIPRC: Best Practices Page 12 of 12 From the conclusive evidence compiled here, it is recommended that effective interventions (e.g., legislation maki ng helmet use mandatory; school -based educational programs; community -based interventions) designed to increase bicycle helmet use be implemented. Wearing an approved helmet in the proper manner (taut chin strap, helmet shifted forward on the head, proper -fitting helmet) is the most effective way one can prevent serious head injury or death from a bicycle incident. Even a modest increase in helmet use rates can prove beneficial in reducing these rates. Recommendations for future research The studies presented here are conclusive in their findings with respect to helmet use and head injury. However, important future research in bicycle helmet effectiveness might examine the protective effect of helmets with mouth and face guards. Without addressing cost, a randomized controlled trial comparing facial injuries between those randomized to receive standard bicycle helmets and those randomized to receive helmets with face guards would be ideal. In its place, one might consider evaluating the same exposure - outcome relationship among individuals who already use such modified helmets such as competitive cyclists (long-distance bicyclists and BMX riders). The prevalence of these extended bicycle helmets is probably not high enough among everyday cyclists to make such a study feasible. Review updated June 2001. httpp� d4pf4*#§bi on.edu/hiprc/practices/topic/bicycles/helmeteffect.html 4/2/2013 PEDIATRICS1 OFFICIAL J� !4L a. RlC ACAUEiV[Y ❑F PEDIATRICS Bicycle Helmets Committee on Injury and Poison Prevention Pediatrics 2001;108;1030 DOI: 10.1542/peds.108.4.1030 The online version of this article, along with updated information and services, is located on the World Wide Web at: http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/108/4/1030.full.html PEDIATRICS is the official journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics. A monthly publication, it has been published continuously since 1948. PEDIATRICS is owned, published, and trademarked by the American Academy. of Pediatrics, 141 Northwest Point Boulevard, Elk Grove Village, Illinois, 60007. Copyright 0 2001 by the American Academy of Pediatrics. All rights reserved. Print ISSN: 0031-4005. Online ISSN: 1098-4275. American Academy of Pediatrics f - T DEDICATED TO THE HEAL'rH OF ALI. CHILDRE,N'" Downloaded from pediatrics. aappublications.org by guest on April 2, 2013 11 Packet Page 60 of 145 AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS Committee on Injury and Poison Prevention Bicycle Helmets ABSTRACT. Bicycling remains one of the most popu- lar recreational sports among children in America and is the leading cause of recreational sports injuries treated in emergency departments. An estimated 23 000 children younger than 21 years sustained head injuries (excluding the face) while bicycling in 1998. The bicycle helmet is a very effective device that can prevent the occurrence of up to 88% of serious brain injuries. Despite this, most children do not wear a helmet each time they ride a bicycle, and adolescents are particularly resistant to hel- met use. Recently, a group of national experts and gov- ernment agencies renewed the call for all bicyclists to wear helmets. This policy statement describes the role of the pediatrician in helping attain universal helmet use among children and teens for each bicycle ride. ABBREVIATIONS. ANSI, American National Standards Institute; ASTM, American Society for Testing and Materials; CPSC, Con- sumer Product Safetv Commission. BACKGROUND 'cycling continues to be one of the most popu- lar recreational sports in America. An esti- mated 44.3 million children younger than 21 years ride bicycles in the United States.' It is a clean, efficient mode of transportation for children to make short neighborhood trips, and bicycling can be an enjoyable form of aerobic physical activity for chil- dren and adolescents. As with all physical activities, bicycling is not without hazards. Children are at risk of injury from falls resulting from either intrinsic factors, such as exceeding their ability level, or extrinsic factors, such as swerving from or striking a motor vehicle or fixed object. Bicycle -related injuries among children younger than 21 years resulted in approximately 275 deaths2 and an estimated 430 000 visits to emergency departments in 1998.3 Among all recreational sports, bicycling injuries are the leading cause of emergency department visits for children and adolescents. Trau- matic brain injury accounts for two thirds of all bi- cycle -related fatalities.4 An estimated 23 000 children required emergency care after sustaining a traumatic brain injury while bicycling in 1998, accounting for about 5% of all bicycle -related injuries 3 Use of a bicycle helmet can prevent or lessen the severity of brain injury during a bicycle crash. Hel- mets work by absorbing some of the energy and The recommendations in this statement do not indicate an exclusive course of treatment or serve as a standard of medical care- Variations, taking into account individual circumstances, may be appropriate. PEDIATRICS (ISSN 0031 4005). Copyright © 2001 by the American Acad- emy of Pediatrics. dissipating the sharp energy peak of the blow over a larger area for a slightly longer time. A bicycle hel- met typically consists of rigid crushable foam cov- ered with a thin layer of plastic. It is held to the head by a retention system (chin strap) composed of flex- ible straps and hardware. The skull provides another layer of protection and absorbs additional energy. If forces are not extreme and the helmet is intact and worn correctly, the helmet -skull system should pro- tect the brain from injury in most cases. Correctly placing and securing a helmet on the head is important to maximize protection. Because 4 helmet sizes exist and models fit slightly differently, a child should try on several sizes and models to find the best fit when purchasing a helmet. Correct fit involves positioning the helmet on the head so it sits low on the forehead and is parallel to the ground when the head is held upright (the wearer should be able to see its lower brim when looking all the way up); installing or removing inside pads to make the helmet snug; and adjusting the chin strap so it is comfortably snug: (ic, tight with room for only 2 fingers to be inserted between the strap and the chin). When in place with the chin strap secure, the helmet should not come off or shift over the eyes when the wearer tries to shake it loose. Even when worn properly, a helmet does not offer an unlimited degree of protection, particularly against high-energy crashes. Even in low -impact falls, the helmet may be damaged by the force deliv- ered, rendering it less effective in subsequent im- pacts. This damage may not be apparent to the eye. Accordingly, any helmet that has sustained a sub- stantial blow should be discarded and replaced, including any helmet involved in a crash in which the head has hit a hard surface or in which a fall has resulted in marks on the shell. Furthermore, helmet integrity does not persist throughout time. Because some helmet materials deteriorate with age, the Snell Memorial Foundation, a nonprofit organization established to test and certify helmet safety, recommends that a helmet be replaced at least every 5 years, or sooner if the manufacturer recommends it. Wearing a bicycle helmet is one of the most effec- tive safety measures a child can take to prevent in- jury. The first study of helmet effectiveness indicated that it could prevent 88% of serious brain injuries." In subsequent studies, helmets prevented 69% of head injuries6 and 65% of injuries to the mid and upper face.' Despite the enormous degree of protection afforded by a bicycle helmet, a 19% study indicated 1030 PEDIATRICS Vol. 108 No. 4 ctober001 Downloaded9rom pediatrics.aappublications.org by guest on April 2, 2013 12 Packet Page 61 of 145 that only 25% of children 5 to 14 years of age usually or always wore a helmet while bicycling.' In 1999, the percentage of children who reported always us- ing helmets varied among states from 13% to 65%.9 Reasons usually given for not using a helmet are discomfort (especially heat), perceived lack of impor- tance for casual riding (in contrast to sport or race bicycling), lack of style, or peer pressure.8,10 Cost was seldom cited as an important factor now that helmets are widely available for less than $20. Two factors are strongly associated with bicycle helmet use by young children —helmet use by an accompanying parent and a state mandatory helmet use law or local ordinance. In one study, a helmet was worn by 90% of children from a low-income neighborhood and 100% of children from a high - income neighborhood when an accompanying par- ent wore a helmet." After enactment of a helmet law in Georgia, reported helmet use increased from 35% to 53%,12 and in Oregon, enactment of a helmet law was associated with a doubling of observed helmet use to 49% among children and youth.13 Presently, 17 states and the District of Columbia have age - specific bicycle helmet laws, usually covering bicy- clists younger than 16 years. These laws affect 49% of all US children younger than 15 years. Another 2 states have recently enacted legislation. Such legisla- tion has been shown to be more cost-effective than community -based or school -based interventions14 and is a Healthy People 2010 objective.15 Recently, a group of national experts from safety organizations and government agencies called for universal helmet use by all bicyclists, regardless of age. This goal has 3 strategies: 1) creating a national bicycle helmet safety campaign; 2) creating tools to promote helmet use; and 3) assisting states and com- munities wishing to address helmet use through leg- islation.16 Voluntary helmet safety standards have existed for many years, with the American National Standards Institute (ANSI), Snell Memorial Foundation, and American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) each establishing their own safety standards based on the ability of a helmet to manage the energy of a drop onto a metal anvil and the strength of the strap system. In 1999, the US Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) issued a mandatory safety stan- dard for bicycle helmets, requiring all helmets man- ufactured or imported for sale in the United States after March 1999 to comply with this standard.17 Accordingly, parents should look for a sticker docu- menting CPSC approval on the inside liner of any new helmet purchased. Older helmets certified by the ASTM and/or the Snell Memorial Foundation may continue to be used, but helmets certified only by the ANSI should be discarded, because they were drop -tested from a height below the current 2 meter standard. Multisport helmets are designed for in -line skating, skateboarding, bicycling, and other sports. If a multisport helmet is intended or marketed (even by implication) to be used while bicycling, it must be certified to meet the CPSC standard for bicycle helmets. RECOMMENDATIONS Helmet Use L All bicyclists should wear properly fitted bicycle or multisport helmets each time they ride. A bi- cycle helmet or multisport helmet intended for bicycle use manufactured after March 1999 must have certification that it met the CPSC standard, regardless of whether it met the standards of any other organization. If a bicycle helmet manufac- tured before March 1999 meets the standards es- tablished by the Snell Memorial Foundation or ASTM (but not ANSI alone), it may be used. How- ever, once damaged or outgrown, it should be replaced with a new helmet that has been certified to meet the CPSC standard. 2. Young children who ride as passengers must wear an appropriately sized helmet and be placed se- curely in a bicycle -mounted child seat or, prefer- ably, a bicycle -towed child trailer. Children should never ride on the handlebars or crossbar.'' Passengers should be at least 1 year old, by which age most children have sufficient muscle strength to control head movement during a sudden stop, even with the additional weight of a helmet. 3. Pediatricians should emphasize that any helmet involved in a crash or otherwise damaged should be discarded and replaced. Otherwise, all helmets should be replaced at least every 5 years, or sooner if the manufacturer recommends it. Pur- chase of helmets from yard sales should be dis- couraged, because the age and integrity of the helmet cannot be assured. 4. Parents and children should learn all essential aspects of bicycle safety. Helmet use is only 1 aspect of bicycle safety and does not substitute for the child's knowledge and practice of the rules of the road, sufficient visibility to drivers, and other safety measures. Advocacy 1. Pediatricians should encourage parents and other child care providers to require children to wear a bicycle helmet when they begin riding tricycles or other wheeled vehicles or toys. Pe- diatricians should inform parents and patients of the importance of wearing a bicycle helmet and the dangers of riding without one. This information is especially important for adoles- cents, because they are particularly resistant to wearing a helmet. 2. Pediatricians should encourage parents to wear a helmet when bicycling to model safe behavior for their children. 3. Pediatricians should serve as community and leg- islative advocates to encourage state and local governments to enact legislation requiring helmet use by all bicyclists and mandating bicycle rental agencies to include helmets as part of the rental contract. The American Academy of Pediatrics has developed model state legislation titled "Child Bicycle Safety Act."19 Packet Page 62 of 145 AMERICAN AACAP�EMY OF PEDIATRICS 1031 Downloaded from pediatrics.aappublications.org y guest on pnl 2, 2013 13 4. 5. M Pediatricians should encourage school districts to make helmet wearing mandatory during bicycle rides to and from school and during school -re- lated bicycle trips. Coalitions of physicians, parents, and community leaders should develop and support community - based and school -based education programs to promote bicycle safety training that emphasizes helmet use. A national initiative to encourage all children to wear a helmet whenever bicycling de- serves support. Retail outlets are urged to carry affordable hel- mets and include them in the purchase of every new bicycle sold. Organizations promoting helmet use are encour- aged to provide attractive posters and educational videotapes for retailers and pediatricians to dis- play as well as other materials for parent groups to distribute, emphasizing the safety advantages and attractiveness of protective headgear. All ma- terials should teach how to wear a helmet cor- rectly. When bicyclists are shown in the popular media (including television, advertisements, movies, and promotional materials), those responsible are urged to consistently show them wearing a helmet. COMMITTEE ON INJURY AND POISON PREVENTION, 2001-2002 Marilyn J. Bull, MD, Chairperson Phyllis Agran, MD, MPH H. Garry Gardner, MD Danielle Laraque, MD Susan H. Pollack, MD Gary A. Smith, MD, DrPH Milton Tenenbein, MD Joseph Wright, MD, MPH LIAISONS Ruth A. Brenner, MD, MPH National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Stephanie Bryn, MPH Health Resources and Services Administration/Maternal and Child Health Bureau Richard A. Schieber, MD, MPH Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Alexander (Sandy) Sinclair National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Deborah Tinsworth US Consumer Product Safety Commission Lynn Warda, MD Canadian Paediatric Society CONSULTANTS Murray L. Katcher, MD, PhD Howard Spivak, MD Randy Swart Bicycle Helmet Safety Institute STAFF Heather Newland REFERENCES 1. Rodgers GB. Bicycle and bicycle helmet use patterns in the United States in 1998. ) Safety Res. 2000;31:149-158 2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics. 1998 Mortality Tapes. Hyattsville, MD: Division of Data Ser- vices, National Center for Health Statistics; 2000 3. US Consumer Product Safety Commission. National Electronic Injury Surveillance System (NEISS). Bethesda, MD: US Consumer Product Safety Commission; 1999 4. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Injury -control recommendations: bicycle helmets. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 1995; 44(RR-1):1-17 5. Thompson RS, Rivara FP, Thompson DC. A case control study of the effectiveness of bicycle safety helmets. N Engl J Med. 1989;320:1361-1367 6. Thompson DC, Rivara FP, Thompson RS. Effectiveness of bicycle safety helmets in preventing head injuries. A case -control study, JAMA. 1996; 276:1968-1973 7. Thompson DC, Nunn ME, Thompson RS, Rivara FP. Effectiveness of bicycle safety helmets in preventing serious facial injury. JAMA. 1996; 276:1974-1975 8. Sacks JJ, Kresnow M, Houston B, Russell J. Bicycle helmet use among American children, 1994. Inj Prev. 1997;2:258-262 9. National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion. Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS). Available at: http//www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/brfss. Accessed August 19, 2001 10. Howland J, Sargent J, Weitzman M, et al. Barriers to bicycle helmet use among children: results of focus groups with fourth, fifth, and sixth graders. Am J Dis Child, 1989;143:741-744 11. Parkin PC, Spence LJ, Hu X, Kranz KE, Shortt LG, Wesson DE. Evalu- ation of a promotional strategy to increase bicycle helmet use by chil- dren. Pediatrics. 1993;91:772-777 12. Schieber RA, Kresnow MJ, Sacks JJ, Pledger EE, O'Neil JM, Toomey KE. Effect of a state law on reported bicycle helmet ownership and use. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 1996;150:707-712 13. Ni H, Sacks JJ, Curtis L, Cieslak PR, Hedberg K. Evaluation of a statewide bicycle helmet law via multiple measures of helmet use. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 1997;151:59-65 14, Hatziandreu EJ, Sacks JJ, Brown R, Taylor WR, Rosenberg ML, Graham JD. The cost effectiveness of three programs to increase use of bicycle helmets among children. Public Health Rep, 1995;110:251-259 15. US Department of Health and Human Services. Healthy People 2010. Vol 1 and 2. 2nd ed. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office; 2000 16. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, and Federal Highway Administration. National Strategies for Advancing Bicycle Safety. Washington, DC: US Department of Transportation; 2001 17. Safety Standard for Bicycle Helmets. 63 Federal Register 11711-11747 (1998) (codified at 16 CFR §1203) 18. Powell EC, Tanz RR. Tykes and bikes: injuries associated with bicycle - towed child trailers and bicycle -mounted child seats. Arch Pediatr Ado- lesc Med, 2000;154:351-353 19. American Academy of Pediatrics Child Bicycle Safety Act. Available at: http://www.aap.org/policy/m956.htm1. Accessed August 19, 2001 1032 BICYCLE HELMETS Downloaded from pediatrics. aappublications.org by guest on April 2, 2013 14 Packet Page 63 of 145 Bicycle Helmet Use Laws: Lessons Learned From Selected Sites Austin, Texas Jacksonville and Duval County, Florida State of Maryland State of Oregon Port Angeles, Washington Seymour, Connecticut 15 Packet Page 64 of 145 Section VIL Profiles E. Port Angeles, Washington Jurisdiction: City. Effective date: January 1, 1994; penalty provisions effective January 1, 1995. Ages covered: All ages and guardians of persons under age 16. Penalty: $15 fine. Agency enforcing the law: City police. Legislative language is reprinted in Section VIII E. Port Angeles, WA, is a predominately middle -income white suburban community; population is approximately 19,000. Impetus For Legislation: Port Angeles is among the many local jurisdictions in the State of Washington that have enacted a bicycle helmet use ordinance in the absence of a state law. According to the Bicycle Helmet Safety Institute, Port Angeles and 16 other Washington communities have adopted bicycle helmet use ordinances, most of them for bicyclists of all ages. (For information as of April 2002; see Helmet Use Laws for Bicycle Riders, Section IX A, page 154.) Jurisdictions considering bicycle helmet use laws may be motivated to do so as the result of a serious crash; however, that was not the case in Port Angeles. At the time of the bill's passage, the city manager was an avid bicyclist and, perhaps most importantly, one of the city's seven council members was a physician and a "sometime" bicycle rider. The support of this councilman and the city manager, as well as "a very vocal" retired physician and others in the medical community were key to the ordinance's introduction and passage. Their interest in preventing deaths and injuries and their awareness of the effectiveness of bicycle helmets in doing so motivated their efforts to enact the ordinance. The Bicycle Helmet Environment And Existing Efforts: Port Angeles is seen as bicycle -friendly, with an active bicycling community and a bicycle club. At the time the council was considering the bicycle helmet use law, the community had little in place in terms of bicycle helmet education, give-away programs, or activities to encourage bicycle helmet use. 100 16 Packet Page 65 of 145 The Process of Adoption: Spearheaded by the city council member who authored the ordinance, the council's consideration and adoption of the proposal was not controversial. The city council "batted around" a variety of approaches to the law, including requiring bicycle helmet use only by minors, an approach used in many jurisdictions. They concluded that the most sensible approach was an ordinance that applied to all bicyclists. Part of the council's consideration of the ordinance involved council hearings. According to one observer, the hearings did not contain a lot of conflict and not much testimony was submitted. The council heard primarily from supporters of a bicycle helmet use law, including health and medical experts. Some support also came from the bike community. Emergency medicine professionals and pediatricians were very helpful in passage of the bill. Involvement by law enforcement officials was somewhat helpful. Other professionals and community groups did not play a major role. Both statistical and anecdotal arguments were described as somewhat helpful in the process. The most influential arguments made by those who opposed the legislation were that the police were already overburdened and that the law would infringe on individuals' rights. Implementation of the Ordinance: The law was implemented in phases. The bill did not take effect until six and a half months after enactment. The ordinance directed the City Manager to work with public and private agencies "to develop a program of helmet awareness designed to promote use of helmets by all ages and a program to subsidize use of helmets by low-income families." The community also undertook a variety of programs between the bill's enactment and its effective date: education programs, bicycle helmet giveaways, and a news media awareness campaign. These efforts were conducted primarily through the police department. The education and giveaway programs were continued after the law took effect. The city's police department also sponsors an annual bicycle rodeo. The responsibility for educating as well as enforcing the ordinance fell to the Port Angeles police department. There has been little community or organizational involvement in promoting bicycle helmet use other than police department activities. The police believe this lack undermines the effectiveness of the law. "Unfortunately, like many laws, our bicycle helmet law was passed with good intentions to address a problem that should involve the community as a whole, not just the police," said one police official. Enforcement: The penalties for violating the law were also phased in. The ordinance allowed only written warnings to be issued for the first year the law took effect. The city police also had discretion in enforcing the bicycle helmet use law; officers could continue to issue warnings instead of fining 101 17 Packet Page 66 of 145 violators. A bicyclist's first infraction for violating the law could be dismissed upon proof of bicycle helmet ownership. The community reaction to the law seems to be acceptance. One reason for this may be the approach to enforcement taken by the police department, which is not focused on issuing citations. One official describes enforcement of the law as "casual; we prefer education. Increased enforcement might trigger public opposition. The police already make enough negative contacts." The many demands on a police department affect the resources that the department can direct toward enforcement of the law. "We usually have three or four patrol officers on duty at any given time in a city of 19,000 residents," said a police department official. "Officers do cite offenders who are involved in accidents or somehow otherwise blatantly ride a bicycle recklessly. Otherwise the officers tend to ignore violations. We also have a number of tourists who ride without helmets." Bicycle Helmet Use Law Effectiveness: The council's deliberations during passage of the ordinance did not include discussion of evaluating the law once enacted. The community has not undertaken any reviews of the law, ridership patterns or the community's crash statistics to determine the ordinance's effectiveness. No before -and -after measures of bicycle helmet use were gathered. One local official stated that it would make sense to look at the law's effectiveness, "but it has not been a priority. We only have so many resources. We should do an evaluation of many of our laws." Local officials did report that bicycle helmet use increased as a result of the ordinance, based on anecdotal information. Retrospective Analysis: From the bill's introduction (and even before) through its enactment and implementation, one observer felt that two facets were missing throughout: news media education and acknowledgement of the resources needed by police. The effort necessary for a successful bicycle helmet use law was likened to the constant effort many jurisdictions now use to support their seat belt law. Once the ordinance is in place, on -going efforts are necessary to inform the public about the effectiveness of bicycle helmets, the need for the law, and its provisions for enforcement. Getting this information out consistently through the news media is seen as the most effective means to meet this need. Bicycle helmet use law supporters must also be aware of the many competing demands on law enforcement time and resources. "Quite frankly, I don't think most law enforcement agencies will give bicycle helmet laws high priorities. Having said that, I do believe bicycle helmet laws are okay, but officers should have discretion in enforcing them. I think a state law would be effective or more effective." 102 18 Packet Page 67 of 145 "I wish we were more effective in addressing the issue. We're a small jurisdiction; I believe until we have a state law, it will be a problem for jurisdictions for getting the word out. If there is a state law, then education efforts would come forward from the state. You'll have a city council person that's supportive of the helmet law and will work to get it passed, then that person will leave office, so that after a while the support is not there." "The police can't do it alone. If you turn it into a state program, then there will be state resources behind the law, educational efforts; then all enforcement agencies can enforce the law. They will all know this is the law, they know the intricacies. Citizens move from town to town, you have tourists coming in, and they don't know the law (under local ordinances). It has not been that effective for us, it's been a tool. You need a coalition. I think it should be bumped up to another level." 103 19 Packet Page 68 of 145 Chapter 11.60 BICYCLES Page 1 of 1 Chapter 11.60 BICYC LES 11.60.070 Riding on sidewalk —General criteria. 11.60.090 Bicycle helmets. 11.60.120 Violations —Responsibility of parent 11.60.070 Riding on sidewalk — General criteria. Every person operating a bicycle upon any sidewalk shall operate the bicycle in a careful and prudent manner and at a rate of speed no greater than is reasonable and proper under the conditions existing at the point of operation, taking into account the amount and character of pedestrian traffic, grade and width of sidewalk, and condition of surface; and when because of the width of such sidewalk or the amount of pedestrian traffic thereon, riding a bicycle on such sidewalk would endanger or unreasonably inconvenience pedestrians, such person shall stop and dismount from such bicycle. (1961 code § 11.60.061.) 11.60.080 Right-of-way on sidewalk —Overtaking and passing. Every person operating a bicycle upon a sidewalk shall yield the right-of-way to any pedestrian thereon and shall give audible signal before overtaking and passing any pedestrian, (1961 code § 11.60.062.) 11.60.090 Bicycle helmets. A Requirements Regarding Bicycle Helmets. 1, Any person operating or riding on a bicycle or cycle not powered by motor on a public roadway, bicycle path, sidewalk or on any right-of-way or publicly owned facility under the jurisdiction of the city shall wear a protective helmet designed for bicycle safety. Such helmet shall meet or exceed the requirements of standard Z- 90.4 set by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) or the Snell Foundation, or such subsequent nationally recognized standard for bicycle helmet performance as the city may adopt. The helmet must be equipped with either a neck or chin strap that shall be fastened securely while the bicycle is in motion. 2. The parent or guardian of a person under the age of 16 years shall not knowingly allow, or fail to take reasonable steps to prevent, that person from operating or riding on a bicycle or any other cycle not powered by motor on a public roadway, bicycle path, sidewalk or on any right-of-way or publicly owned facility under the jurisdiction of the city unless that person is wearing a helmet that meets the requirements of subsection (A)(1) of this section. 3, No person shall transport another person upon a bicycle or any other cycle not powered by motor on a public roadway, bicycle path, sidewalk or on any right-of- way or publicly owned facility under the jurisdiction of the city, unless that other person is wearing a helmet that meets the requirements of subsection (A)(1) of this section. 4. No person shall rent a bicycle or cycle not powered by motor for use by his or her self or another person on a public roadway, bicycle path, sidewalk or on any right-of-way or publicly owned facility under the jurisdiction of the city unless the renter affirms in writing under penally of perjury that the person who will be riding the bicycle or cycle possesses a helmet that meets the requirements of subsection (A)(1) of this section, B- Enforcement 1. A violation of this section is a civil infraction to which the provisions of Chapter 7.80 RCW shall apply, except as set forth hereafter. 2. Any duly commissioned law enforcement officer having law enforcement authority at the place where a violation of this section occurs is authorized to enforce the provisions of this section. 3. Any person found to have committed a violation of this section shall be assessed a monetary penalty of $30.00 for each such violation, not including applicable court costs. 4. The court may waive, reduce or suspend the monetary penalty prescribed herein, and may impose such conditions on any waiver, reduction or suspension as it deems just If the court determines that a person has insufficient funds to pay the monetary penally, the court may order performance of a number of hours of community service in lieu of a monetary penalty, at the rate of the then state minimum wage per hour, 5. The first time a person has been issued a notice of infraction for violation of this section, if such person appears in person before the court and supplies the court with proof that between the date of the notice of infraction and the appearance dale in court the person purchased a helmet that meets the requirements of this regulation, the court shall dismiss the notice of infraction without costs, (Ord. 5411 § 1, 2002) 11.60.120 Violations — Responsibility of parent. It is unlawful for any person to do any act forbidden or fail to perform any act required in this chapter. The parent of any child and the guardian of any ward shall not authorize or knowingly permit any such child or ward to violate any of the provisions of this chapter; provided, that no violation of this chapter by any child under the age of 16 years, or by a parent or guardian of such child shall constitute negligence per se in any civil action brought or defended by or in behalf of such child (1961 code § 11.60.090.) The Bellevue City Code is current through Ordinance 6095, passed December 10, 2012. City Website: http://www.bellevuewa.gov/ (http://Www.bellevuewa.gov/) Disclaimer: The City Clerk's Office has the official version of the Bellevue City Code. Users should contact the City Telephone: (425) 452-6466 City Clerk's Office for ordinances passed subsequent to the ordinance cited above. Code Publishing Company(http://www.codepublishing.com/) eLibrary (http://www.codepubiishing.com/elibrary.html) httpp/dffiomCgdp,pi.4blishing.com/wa/bellevue/html/ eellevue11/Bellevue1160.html 4/2/2013 Chapter 8.52 HELMET REQUIREMENTS Page 1 of 5 Chapter 8.52 HELMET REQUIREMENTS Sections: 8.52.010 Purpose and policy. 8.52.020 Definitions. 8.52.030 Helmet required. 8.52.040 Special events, including but not limited to races, exhibitions, demonstrations, parades and events — Helmet required. 8.52.050 Rent, lease or loan of a bicycle, electric -assisted bicycle, skateboard, roller blade, roller skate, skate shoes or scooter — Helmet required. 8.52.060 Helmet sales — Safety standards. 8.52.070 Penalties — Civil infraction. 8.52.080 Enforcement. 8.52.090 Information and education. 8.52.010 Purpose and policy. A. This chapter is enacted as an exercise of the authority of the city of Ellensburg to protect and preserve the public health, safety and welfare. Its provisions shall be liberally construed for the accomplishment of these purposes. B. It is the express purpose of this chapter to provide for and to promote the health, safety and welfare of the general public, and not to create or otherwise establish or designate any particular class or group of persons who will or should be especially protected or benefited by the terms of this chapter. C. It is the specific intent of this chapter to place the obligation of complying with its requirements upon any person included within its scope, and no provision of, or term used in, this chapter is intended to impose any duty whatsoever upon the city of Ellensburg or any of its officers or employees for whom the implementation or enforcement of this chapter shall be discretionary and not mandatory. D. Nothing contained in this chapter is intended to be, nor shall be construed to create or to form the basis for, liability on the part of the city of Ellensburg or its officers, employees, or agents, for any injury or damage resulting from the failure of any person subject to this chapter to comply with this chapter, or by reason or in consequence of any act or omission in connection with the implementation or enforcement of this chapter on the part of the city of Ellensburg by its officers, employees or agents. [Ord. 4412 § 1, 2005.] 8.52.020 Definitions. As used in this chapter, the following terms shall have the meanings indicated, unless the context clearly requires otherwise: A. "Approved helmet" means a head covering designed for safety that shall meet or exceed the bicycle helmet safety standards adopted by the U.S. Consumer Products Safety Commission (CPSC), 16 CFR Part 1203, the American National Standards Institute (ANSI), the Snell Foundation, the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), or such subsequent nationally recognized standard for helmet performance as the city may adopt; provided, however, the applicable safety standard for an approved helmet for skateboarding shall meet or exceed American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) standard F-1492. The helmet http�'dwmwgzcrd�pvWishing.com/WA/Ellensburg/h mil/Ellensburg08/Ellensburg0852.html 4/2/2013 Chapter 8.52 HELMET REQUIREMENTS Page 2 of 5 must be equipped with either a neck or chin strap that shall be fastened securely while the wheeled vehicle is in motion. B. "Bicycle" means every device propelled solely by human power upon which a person or persons may ride, having two tandem wheels either of which is 11 inches or more in diameter, or three wheels, any one of which is more than 20 inches in diameter. Within this chapter, the term "bicycle" shall include any attached trailers, side cars, and/or other device being towed by a bicycle. C. "Electric -assisted bicycle" means a bicycle with two or three wheels, a saddle, fully operative pedals for human propulsion, and an electric motor. D. "Guardian" means a parent, legal guardian, adult with custody, or temporary guardian, who maintains responsibility, whether voluntary or otherwise, for the safety and welfare of a person under the age of 16 years. E. "In -line skates," "roller skates," and "skate shoes" means every device which is attached to the rider much like a pair of shoes or boots and which has two or more wheels attached in -line or next to each other beneath, and footwear which has internal or external wheels incorporated as a part the footwear, which wheels are incorporated either in -line or next to each other on the bottom of the footwear. F. "Public area" means city -owned roadways, sidewalks, bicycle paths, parks, rights -of -way, and other facilities or property owned by the city of Ellensburg. G. "Scooter" means every device with a platform having two or more wheels beneath it and a balancing handpost or steering device, which the rider balances on top of, and which is propelled solely by human power. H. "Skateboard" means every device with a platform having two or more sets of wheels beneath it, which the rider balances on top of, and which is either propelled solely by human power, or propelled by an attached or auxiliary electric or gasoline motor. [Ord. 4412 § 1, 2005.] 8.52.030 Helmet required. A. Any person under 16 years of age riding or otherwise operating any bicycle, electric - assisted bicycle, in -line skates, roller skate(s), skate shoe(s), scooter or skateboard, including any passenger thereon and/or person being towed thereby, on any public area in the city shall wear an approved helmet, and shall have either the neck or chin strap of the helmet fastened securely while the device is in motion. B. No person shall transport another person on or tow another person on a device listed in subsection (A) of this section upon any public area in the jurisdiction of the city, unless the passenger is wearing an approved helmet. C. A guardian is responsible for requiring that a child under the age of 16 years who is under the guardian's care wears an approved helmet, the neck or chin strap of which is fastened securely, while upon a device listed in subsection (A) of this section in motion, or riding as a passenger on a device listed in subsection (A) of this section in any public area in the city. D. It is an affirmative defense to a violation of this section that the guardian responsible for a child under the age of 16 did require the child to wear an approved helmet at all times that the child was in the guardian's presence. httpdcwypygggogpqblishing.com/WA/Ellensburg/htm—/EllensburgO8/EllensburgO852.html 4/2/2013 Chapter 8.52 HELMET REQUIREMENTS Page 3 of 5 E. It is an affirmative defense to a violation of this section for a person wearing an unapproved helmet that the helmet was furnished in conjunction with his or her rental, lease, or use of a device listed in subsection (A) of this section by a person or organization engaged in the business of renting, leasing, or loaning such devices, and that the helmet was fastened securely while riding. F. Provisions of this chapter shall not apply to any wheeled devices such as, but not limited to, electronic scooters or wheelchairs that are designed and being utilized for medically related reasons. [Ord. 4412 § 1, 2005.] 8.52.040 Special events, including but not limited to races, exhibitions, demonstrations, parades and events — Helmet required. A. Any person or organization managing a race, an organized event involving bicycling, a bicycle tour, or devices listed in ECC 8.52.030(A) which will take place in whole or in part in any public area in the city shall require that all participants under 16 years of age riding on or in tow wear approved helmets, and such persons and organizations shall reject participants who fail to comply with the provisions of this chapter. B. The person or organization managing any such event, race, or tour shall include in any promotional brochures and on registration materials the requirement that participants under 16 years of age wear approved helmets. C. It is an affirmative defense to a violation of this section for a person or organization managing an event, race, or tour that all participants under 16 years of age were wearing approved helmets at the start of the event, race, or tour and were instructed to discontinue their participation by a person responsible for management of the event, race, or tour at any point where the participant failed to comply with the requirement of wearing an approved helmet. [Ord. 4412 § 1, 2005.] 8.52.050 Rent, lease or loan of a bicycle, electric -assisted bicycle, skateboard, roller blade, roller skate, skate shoes or scooter — Helmet required. A. Any person engaging in the business of renting, leasing or loaning (e.g., "test ride") any of the devices listed in ECC 8.52.030(A) for use in any public area in the city shall supply the person(s) renting, leasing or using any of the devices with approved helmet(s) along with the devices unless the riders and passengers possess approved helmets of their own, and offer proof thereof, for use with the device and further shall notify such persons of the requirements of this chapter that persons under 16 years of age wear a helmet meeting the safety standards described in ECC 8.52.030. B. The rental, lease or loan documents (contract, agreement, brochure or receipt) shall advise the person renting, leasing or using any of the devices listed in ECC 8.52.030(A) of the helmet requirements of this chapter. [Ord. 4412 § 1, 2005.] 8.52.060 Helmet sales — Safety standards. A. No person shall sell or offer for sale a helmet that does not meet or exceed the safety standards described in ECC 8.52.020. B. It is an affirmative defense to a violation of this section that the sale or offer for sale was an isolated sale of used merchandise made by an individual who was not engaged in the business of selling or repairing recreational equipment, such as a seller at a garage or rummage sale. [Ord. 4412 § 1, 2005.] 8.52.070 Penalties — Civil infraction. httpWl W&�S"g4ishing.com/WA/Ellensburg/htmi/EllensburgO8/EllensburgO852.html 4/2/2013 Chapter 8.52 HELMET REQUIREMENTS Page 4 of 5 A. Any person, including any parent or guardian, violating any of the provisions of this chapter shall have committed a Class 4 civil infraction and shall be liable for a monetary penalty not to exceed $25.00. B. The court may waive, reduce or suspend the civil penalty and clear the civil infraction as a warning for a person who has not been cited under this chapter within one year and provides proof that he or she has acquired an approved helmet at the time of appearance in court. C. A guardian may be cited for a separate violation of this chapter for each child under 16 years of age riding on or in tow of a device listed in ECC 8.52.030(A) not wearing an approved helmet. D. Each event under subsection (A) of this section shall be a separate violation. [Ord. 4412 § 1, 2005.] 8.52.080 Enforcement. A. The Ellensburg police department shall be responsible for enforcement of the provisions of this chapter. B. For the purpose of this chapter, law enforcement officers may at their discretion: 1. Enter, during business hours, the premises of a business selling bicycles, skateboards, skates, scooters or selling sporting or recreation equipment to determine compliance with this chapter; 2. Post outside the premises of a business identified in subsection (13)(1) of this section a list of helmets that do not meet the safety standards of this chapter, so that the public is informed; and 3. Stop a participant in a race or organized event involving any of the devices listed in ECC 8.52.030(A) or a tour that takes place in a public area, when there is a violation of the requirements of this chapter. [Ord. 4412 § 1, 2005.] 8.52.090 Information and education. A. Information about the need for helmets, safe helmet use, traffic safety education and helmet safety programs are available at the Ellensburg police department. B. The city encourages any person engaging in the business of selling bicycles or any of the devices listed ECC 8.52.030(A) to include information on helmet safety and the helmet requirements of this chapter with each bicycle or device sold. C. The city encourages any person engaging in the business of selling helmets to include information on safe helmet usage with each helmet sold. [Ord. 4412 § 1, 2005.] http�/& �oAejp>�lishing.com/WA/Ellensburg/html/EllensburgO8/EllensburgO852.html 4/2/2013 Chapter 8.52 HELMET REQUIREMENTS Page 5 of 5 The Ellensburg Municipal Code is current through City Website: http://www.ci.ellensburg.wa.us/ Ordinance 4627, passed November 19, 2012. (http://www.ci.ellensburg.wa.us/) Disclaimer: The City Clerk's Office has the official version of the City Telephone: (509) 925-8614 Ellensburg Municipal Code. Users should contact the City Clerk's Code Publishing Company Office for ordinances passed subsequent to the ordinance cited(http://www.codepublishing.com/) above. e Li bra ry (http://www.codepublishing.com/elibrary.html) 25 httl:pokwwogeod"blishing.com/WA/Ellensburg/html/EllensburgO8/EllensburgO852.html 4/2/2013 2-11-08 2-25-08 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE requiring helmets be used by all people when operating or riding on bicycles, skateboards, roller blades, roller skates, unicycles and scooters in a public area within the City of Vancouver; providing for severability and an effective date. WHEREAS, as reflected in SR , the City of Vancouver is currently one of few jurisdictions in Washington State that does not have an ordinance requiring the use of helmets for at least bicycles if not other human powered vehicles; and WHEREAS, this ordinance is an exercise of the city of Vancouver's police and legislative authority derived from Wash. Const. art. XI, § 11 and is consistent with RCW 35.22.280 to pass ordinances to protect the public's health, safety and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY OF VANCOUVER: Section 1. A new Chapter designated as VMC 9.62 is hereby added to read as follows - VMC 9.62 NON -MOTORIZED VEHICLES - HELMET REQUIRED: VMC 9.62.010 PURPOSE AND POLICY VMC 9.62.020 DEFINITIONS ORDINANCE - 1 C8020401/PG:JB:MW 26 Packet Page 75 of 145 VMC 9.62.030 HELMET REQUIRED VMC 9,62.040 BICYCLE RACES AND EVENTS -HELMET REQUIRED VMC 9.62.050 BICYCLE RENTAL, LEASE OR LOAN -HELMET REQUIRED VMC 9.62.060 HELMET SALES -SAFETY STANDARDS VMC 9.62.070 PENALTIES —CIVIL INFRACTION VMC 9.62.080 ENFORCEMENT VMC 9.62.090 IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAMS VMC 9.62.010 PURPOSE AND POLICY This Chapter is enacted as an exercise of the police power of the City of Vancouver to protect and preserve public health, safety and welfare. Its provisions shall be liberally construed for the accomplishment of these purposes. It is the express purpose of this Chapter to provide for and to promote the health, safety and welfare of the general public and not to create or otherwise establish or designate any particular class or group of persons who will or should be especially protected or benefited by the terms of this Chapter. Nothing contained in this Chapter is intended to be, or shall be, construed to create or to form the basis for liability on the part of the City of Vancouver or it's officers, employees or agents for any injury or damage resulting from the failure of any person to comply with this Chapter. VMC 9.62.020 DEFINITIONS The following words and phrases when used in this Chapter shall have the meanings indicated, unless the context clearly requires otherwise: "Bicycle" means every device propelled solely by human power upon which a person or persons may ride, having two tandem wheels of any diameter or three wheels, any one of which is more than 20 inches in diameter and within this chapter shall include any attached trailers, sidecars and/or device being towed by a bicycle. "Bicycle Lane" means a portion of the roadway which has been designated by traffic -control devices for preferential or exclusive use by bicycles. "Guardian" means a parent, legal guardian, adult with custody or temporary custody, who maintains responsibility whether voluntary or otherwise for the safety and welfare of a person under the age of 18 years. ORDINANCE - 2 C8020401/PG:JB:MW 2% Packet Page 76 of 145 "Helmet" means a head covering designed for safety that meets or exceeds safety standards adopted by the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) or such subsequently nationally recognized standards for helmet performance. In the absence of an applicable CPSC standard, the head covering must meet or exceed the current standards adopted by either the American Society for Testing Materials (ASTM) or the Snell Foundation until such applicable CPSC standard exists or such subsequently nationally recognized standards for helmet performance is adopted. The helmet must be equipped with either a neck or chinstrap that shall be fastened securely while the wheeled -vehicle is in motion. "In -line skates and roller skates" means every device which is attached to the rider much like a pair of shoes or boots and which has two or more wheels attached inline or next to each other. "Public area" means public roadways, paths, parks, trails, bicycle lanes or any right-of-way publicly owned facility or publicly owned property within the city of Vancouver. "Scooter" means every device with a platform having two or more wheels beneath it and balancing handpost or steering device, which the rider balances on top of, and which is propelled solely by human power. "Skateboard" means every device with a platform having two or more sets of wheels beneath it, which the rider balances on top of, and which is propelled solely by human power. "Unicycle" means every device with a frame mounted over a single wheel propelled by pedals. VMC 9.62.030 HELMET REQUIRED A. No person shall operate or be a passenger on a bicycle, in -line skates, roller skates, scooter, unicycle or skateboard on in or upon any public area within the city unless he or she is wearing a protective helmet. The helmet shall have either a neck or chin -strap which is securely fastened while the bicycle, in -line skates, roller skates, scooter, unicycle or skateboard is in motion. B. A parent or guardian shall be responsible for requiring that a child under the age of 18 years wears a helmet, the neck or chin -strap of which must be fastened securely, while that child is on a bicycle, in -line skates, roller skates, scooter, unicycle or skateboard in any public area of the city. C. A police officer observing a person operating or riding as a passenger on a bicycle, in - line skates, roller skates, scooter, unicycle or skateboard without the required helmet, in violation of this section, may stop and detain such person for the purpose of establishing identity and issuing an appropriate warning or citation. D. A person is exempt from the requirements to wear a helmet under this Chapter, if wearing the helmet would violate a religious belief or practice of the person. ORDINANCE - 3 C8020401/PG:JB:MW 28 Packet Page 77 of 145 VMC 9.62.040 BICYCLE RACES AND EVENTS -HELMET REQUIRED A. Any person or organization managing a bicycle race, an organized event involving bicycling or a bicycle tour, which will take place in whole or in part in any public area, shall notify participants of the requirement to wear a helmet during the event, race or tour, and such persons and organizations shall reject participants who fail to comply with the provisions of this Chapter. B. The person or organization managing any such event, race or tour shall include helmet requirements in any promotional brochures and on registration materials. VMC 9.62.050 BICYCLE RENTAL, LEASE OR LOAN -HELMET REQUIRED A. Any person engaging in the business of renting, leasing or loaning any bicycle, in -line skates, roller skates, scooter, unicycle or skateboard for use in any public area shall offer to the person(s) renting, leasing or using such bicycle, in -line skates, roller skates, scooter, unicycle or skateboard a helmet and further shall notify such person of the requirements under this Chapter to wear a helmet. B. The rental or lease documents (contract, agreement, brochure or receipt) of any person engaging in the business of renting or loaning any bicycle, in -line skates, roller skates, scooter, unicycle or skateboard in the city must advise the person renting or leasing the bicycle, in -line skates, roller skates, scooter, unicycle or skateboard of the helmet requirement of this Chapter. 9.62.060 HELMET SALES -SAFETY STANDARDS A. No person shall sell or offer for sale a helmet that does not meet or exceed the safety standards set forth in this Chapter. B. It is an affirmative defense that the sale or offering for sale was an isolated sale of used merchandise made by an individual who was not engaged in the business of selling or repairing recreational equipment such as a seller at a garage or rummage sale. VMC 9.62.070 PENALTIES — CIVIL INFRACTION A. Any person, including a parent or guardian, violating any of the provisions of this Chapter shall have committed a civil infraction and shall be subject to a monetary penalty not to exceed $50.00. 1. If a child in violation of this Chapter is 11 years of age or younger, any citation issued shall by issued to the parent, legal guardian, or adult with custody or temporary custody, rather than to the child. ORDINANCE - 4 C8020401/PG:JB:MW 29 Packet Page 78 of 145 2. If a child in violation of this Chapter is at least 12 years of age and is under 16 years of age, a citation may be issued to the child or to the parent, legal guardian, or adult with custody or temporary custody. B. The court may waive, reduce or suspend the civil penalty and clear the civil infraction as a warning for a person who has not been cited under this Chapter within the previous one year period from the date of the current infraction and provides proof that he or she has acquired an approved helmet at the time of appearance in court. C. Each person not meeting the requirement of Section 9.62.030 shall represent a separate violation. D. Each rental and each event under sections 9.62.040 or 9.62.050 shall represent a separate violation. VMC 9.62.080 ENFORCEMENT A. The City of Vancouver police department shall be responsible for the enforcement of the provisions of this Chapter and is authorized to issue infractions to persons who fail to comply with this Chapter. B. For the purpose of this Chapter, law enforcement officers may at their discretion stop a bicycle race, an organized event involving bicycling or a bicycle tour that takes place in a public area when there is conspicuous disregard for the requirements of this chapter, involving multiple infractions. VMC 9.62.090 IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAMS A. The City encourages any person engaging in the business of selling bicycles, in -line skates, roller skates, scooters, unicycles or skateboards to include information on helmet safety and the requirements of this Chapter with each bicycle, in -line skates, roller skates, scooter, unicycle or skateboard sold. B. The City encourages any person engaging in the selling of helmets to include information on safe helmet usage with each helmet sold. Section 2. Severability. If any clause, sentence, paragraph, section, or part of this ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstance shall be adjudged by any court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, such order or judgment shall be confined in its operation to the controversy in which it was rendered and shall not effect or invalidate the remainder of any ORDINANCE - 5 C8020401/PG:JB:MW 30 Packet Page 79 of 145 parts thereof to any person or circumstances and to this end the provisions of each clause, sentence, paragraph, section or part of this law are hereby declared to be severable. Section 3. Effective date. This ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days following the date of final adoption. Read first time: Ayes: Councilmembers Nays: Councilmembers Absent: Councilmembers Read second time: PASSED by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Nays: Councilmembers Absent: Councilmembers Attest: SIGNED this day of 112008. Royce E. Pollard, Mayor Approved as to form: Lloyd Tyler, City Clerk Ted H. Gathe, City Attorney By: Carrie Lewellen, Deputy City Clerk ORDINANCE - 6 C8020401/PG:JB:MW 31 Packet Page 80 of 145 SUMMARY ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE requiring helmets be used by all people when operating or riding on bicycles, skateboards, roller blades, roller skates, unicycles and scooters in a public area within the City of Vancouver; providing for severability and an effective date thirty (30) days following the date of final adoption. ORDINANCE - 7 C8020401/PG:JB:MW 32 Packet Page 81 of 145 RCW 4.24.210: Liability of owners or others in possession of land and water areas for inj... Page 1 of 2 pI RCWs > Title 4 > Chapter 4.24 > Section 4.24.210 Inside the Legislature * Find Your Legislator 4.24.200 « 4.24.210 >> 4.24.220 * Visiting the Legislature * Agendas, Schedules and RCW 4.24.210 Calendars Bill Information Liability of owners or others in possession of * Laws and Agency Rules land and water areas for injuries to recreation * Legislative Committees * Legislative Agencies users — Known dangerous artificial latent Legislative Information Center conditions — Other limitations. E-mail Notifications * Civic Education (1) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (3) or (4) of this section, any public or private * History of the State landowners, hydroelectric project owners, or others in lawful possession and control of any Legislature lands whether designated resource, rural, or urban, or water areas or channels and lands adjacent to such areas or channels, who allow members of the public to use them for the Outside the Legislature purposes of outdoor recreation, which term includes, but is not limited to, the cutting, Congress - the Other gathering, and removing of firewood by private persons for their personal use without Washington purchasing the firewood from the landowner, hunting, fishing, camping, picnicking, swimming, hiking, bicycling, skateboarding or other nonmotorized wheel -based activities, * TVW aviation activities including, but not limited to, the operation of airplanes, ultra -light airplanes, Washington Courts hanggliders, parachutes, and paragliders, rock climbing, the riding of horses or other * OFM Fiscal Note Website animals, clam digging, pleasure driving of off -road vehicles, snowmobiles, and other vehicles, boating, kayaking, canoeing, rafting, nature study, winter or water sports, viewing or enjoying Access A"Washingtone historical, archaeological, scenic, or scientific sites, without charging a fee of any kind €S±,'rse7 Slaw Csvx:nm wnf Ka Fnfx therefor, shall not be liable for unintentional injuries to such users. (2) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (3) or (4) of this section, any public or private landowner or others in lawful possession and control of any lands whether rural or 207, urban, or water areas or channels and lands adjacent to such areas or channels, who offer or 1i tij, I1pEjry,• allow such land to be used for purposes of a fish or wildlife cooperative project, or allow AV4 access to such land for cleanup of litter or other solid waste, shall not be liable for unintentional injuries to any volunteer group or to any other users. (3) Any public or private landowner, or others in lawful possession and control of the land, may charge an administrative fee of up to twenty-five dollars for the cutting, gathering, and removing of firewood from the land. (4)(a) Nothing in this section shall prevent the liability of a landowner or others in lawful possession and control for injuries sustained to users by reason of a known dangerous artificial latent condition for which warning signs have not been conspicuously posted. (i) A fixed anchor used in rock climbing and put in place by someone other than a landowner is not a known dangerous artificial latent condition and a landowner under subsection (1) of this section shall not be liable for unintentional injuries resulting from the condition or use of such an anchor. (ii) Releasing water or flows and making waterways or channels available for kayaking, canoeing, or rafting purposes pursuant to and in substantial compliance with a hydroelectric license issued by the federal energy regulatory commission, and making adjacent lands available for purposes of allowing viewing of such activities, does not create a known dangerous artificial latent condition and hydroelectric project owners under subsection (1) of this section shall not be liable for unintentional injuries to the recreational users and observers resulting from such releases and activities. (b) Nothing in RCW 4.24.200 and this section limits or expands in any way the doctrine of attractive nuisance. 33 httpo'dapp,s:gev/rcw/default.aspx?cite=4.24.210 4/2/2013 RCW 4.24.210: Liability of owners or others in possession of land and water areas for inj... Page 2 of 2 (c) Usage by members of the public, volunteer groups, or other users is permissive and does not support any claim of adverse possession. (5) For purposes of this section, the following are not fees: (a) A license or permit issued for statewide use under authority of chapter 79A.05 RCW or Title 77 RCW; (b) A pass or permit issued under RCW 79A.80.020, 79A.80.030, or 79A.80.040; and (c) A daily charge not to exceed twenty dollars per person, per day, for access to a publicly owned ORV sports park, as defined in RCW 46.09.310, or other public facility accessed by a highway, street, or nonhighway road for the purposes of off -road vehicle use. [2012 c 15 § 1. Prior: 2011 c 320 § 11; 2011 c 171 § 2; 2011 c 53 § 1; 2006 c 212 § 6; prior: 2003 c 39 § 2; 2003 c 16 § 2; 1997 c 26 § 1; 1992 c 52 § 1; prior: 1991 c 69 § 1; 1991 c 50 § 1; 1980 c 111 § 1; 1979 c 53 § 1; 1972 ex.s. c 153 § 17; 1969 ex.s. c 24 § 2; 1967 c 216 § 2.] Notes: Findings -- Intent -- 2011 c 320: See RCW 79A.80.005. Effective date -- 2011 c 320: See note following RCW 79A.80.005. Intent -- 2011 c 171: "This act is intended to reconcile and conform amendments made in chapter 161, Laws of 2010 with other legislation passed during the 2010 legislative sessions, as well as provide technical amendments to codified sections affected by chapter 161, Laws of 2010. Any statutory changes made by this act should be interpreted as technical in nature and not be interpreted to have any substantive policy or legal implications." [2011 c 171 § 1.] Effective date -- 2011 c 171: "Except for section 129 of this act, this act is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety, or support of the state government and its existing public institutions, and takes effect July 1, 2011." [2011 c 171 § 142.] Finding -- 2003 c 16: "The legislature finds that some property owners in Washington are concerned about the possibility of liability arising when individuals are permitted to engage in potentially dangerous outdoor recreational activities, such as rock climbing. Although RCW 4.24.210 provides property owners with immunity from legal claims for any unintentional injuries suffered by certain individuals recreating on their land, the legislature finds that it is important to the promotion of rock climbing opportunities to specifically include rock climbing as one of the recreational activities that are included in RCW 4.24.210. By including rock climbing in RCW 4.24.210, the legislature intends merely to provide assurance to the owners of property suitable for this type of recreation, and does not intend to limit the application of RCW 4.24.210 to other types of recreation. By providing that a landowner shall not be liable for any unintentional injuries resulting from the condition or use of a fixed anchor used in rock climbing, the legislature recognizes that such fixed anchors are recreational equipment used by climbers for which a landowner has no duty of care." [2003 c 16 § 1.]. Purpose -- 1972 ex.s. c 153: See RCW 79A.35.070. Off -road and nonhighway vehicles: Chapter 46.09 RCW. Snowmobiles: Chapter 46.10 RCW. 34 httppdffps@Wg3,,6aagov/rew/default.aspx?cite=4.24.210 4/2/2013 O Activity © Helmet Type © Applicable Standard(s) Individual Activities — Wheeled Bicycling (including low speed, motor assisted) Roller & In -line Skating— Recreational Scooter Riding (including low speed, motor assisted) Bicycle CPSC, ASTM F1447, Snell B-90/95, Snell N-94t BMX Cycling BMX CPSC, ASTM F2032 Downhill Mountain Bike Racing Downhill CPSC, ASTM F1952 Roller & In -line Skating — Aggressive/Trick Skateboarding Skateboard ASTM F1492t, Snell N-94t Individual Activities —Wheeled Large Motor ATV Riding Dirt-& Mini -Bike Riding Motocrossing Motocross or Motorcycle DOT FMVSS 218, Snell M-2005 Karting/Go-Karting Karting or Motorcycle DOT FMVSS 218, Snell K-98, Snell M-2005 Moped Riding Powered Scooter Riding Moped or Motorcycle DOT FMVSS 218, Snell L-98, Snell M-2005 Individual Activities — Non -Wheeled Horseback Riding Equestrian ASTM F1163, Snell E-2001 Rock-& Wall -Climbing Mountaineering EN 12492t,Snell N-94t Team SportActivltles t Baseball, Softball & T-Ball Baseball Batter's NOCSAE ND022 Baseball Catcher's NOCSAE ND024 Football Football NOCSAE ND002, ASTM F717 Ice Hockey Hockey NOCSAE ND030, ASTM F1045 Lacrosse Lacrosse NOCSAE ND041 Winter Activities Skiing Snowboarding Ski ASTM F2040, CEN 1077, Snell RS-98 or S-98 Snowmobiling Snowmobile DOT FMVSS 218, Snell M-2000 Although a helmet has notyet been designed for the following two activities, until such helmets exist, wearing one of the three listed types of helmets may be preterable to wearing no helmet at all. Ice Skating Sledding Bicycle CPSC, ASTM F1447, Snell B-90/95 or N-94t Skateboard ASTM F1492t, Snell N-94t Ski ASTM F2040, CEN 1077, Snell RS-98 or S-98 The federal CPSC Safety Standard for Bicycle Helmets is mandatory for those helmets indicated by CPSC. t This helmet is designed to withstand more than one moderate impact, but protection is provided for only a limited number of impacts. Replace if visibly damaged (e.g., a cracked shell or crushed liner) and/or when directed by the manufacturer. t Team sport helmets are designed to protect against multiple head impacts typically occurring in the sport (e.g., ball, puck, or stick impacts; player contact; etc.), and, generally, can continue to be used after such impacts. Follow manufacturer's recommendations for replacement or reconditioning. Definitions: ASTM-ASTM International; CEN-European Committee for Standardization; DOT -Dept. of Transportation; EN- Euro-norm or European Standard; NOCSAE- National Operating Committee on Standards in Athletic Equipment; Snell -Snell Memorial Foundation,. Where can I find specific information a about which helmet to use? Look at the information in columns O-© of the f 1 table to the left and follow these easy steps: ti 1. Find the activity of interest in the first column (0).N. . 2. Read across the row to find the appropriate helmet type for that activity listed in the second column (©). 3. Once you've found the right helmet, look for a label or other marking stating that it complies with an applicable standard listed in the third column (©). For more information, please contact the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) at www.cpsc.gov or (800)638-2772 M 12 See inside for an answer to this and other questions. lw co ry Why are helmets so important? For many recreational activities, wearing a helmet can reduce the risk of a serious head injury and even save your life. How can a helmet protect my head? During a fall or collision, most of the impact energy is absorbed by the helmet, rather than your head and brain. Are all helmets the same? No. There are different helmets for different activities. Each type of helmet is made to protect your head from the impacts common to a particular activity or sport. Be sure to wear a helmet that is appropriate for the particular activity you're involved in. (See the table in this pamphlet for guidance). Other helmets may not protect your head as effectively. How can I tell which helmet is the right one to use? Bicycle and motorcycle helmets must comply with mandatory federal safety standards. Many other recreational helmets are subject to voluntary safety standards. substantial head protection when the helmet is used properly. The standard requires that chin straps be strong enough to keep the helmet on the head and in the proper position during a fall or collision. Helmets specifically marketed for exclusive use in an activity other than bicycling (for example, go- karting, horseback riding, lacrosse, and skiing) do not have to meet the requirements of the CPSC bicycle helmet standard. However, these helmets should meet other federal and/or voluntary safety standards. Don't rely on the helmet's name or claims made on the packaging (unless the packaging specifies compliance with an appropriate standard) to determine if the helmet meets the appropriate requirements for your activity. Most helmets _ that meet a particular standard will contain a special label that indicates compliance (usually found on the liner inside of the helmet). See the table in Are there any activities for which one shouldn't wear a helmet? Yes. Make sure your child takes off his/her helmet before playing on playgrounds or climbing trees. If a child wears a helmet during these activities, the helmet's chin strap can get caught on the equipment or tree and pose a risk of strangulation. The helmet itself may present an entrapment hazard. How can I tell if my helmet fits properly? A helmet should be both comfortable and snug. Be sure that it is level on your head —not tilted back on the top of the head or pulled too low over your forehead. It should not move in any direction, back-to-front or side -to -side. The chin strap should be securely buckled so that the helmet doesn't move or fall off during a fall or collision. Ifyou buy a helmet for a child, bring the child with you so that the helmet can be tested for a good fit. Carefully examine the helmet and accompanying instructions and safety literature. What can I do if I have trouble fitting the helmet? You may have to avnly the foam paddin¢ that Will I need to replace a helmet after an impact? That depends on the severity of the impact and whether the helmet can withstand one impact (a single -impact helmet) or more than one impact (a multiple -impact helmet). For example, bicycle helmets are designed to protect against a single severe impact, such as a bicyclist's fall onto the pavement. The foam material in the helmet will crush to absorb the impact energy during a fall or collision and can't protect you again from an additional impact. Even if there are no visible signs of damage to the helmet, you must replace it. Other helmets are designed to protect against multiple moderate impacts. Two examples are football and ice hockey helmets. These helmets are designed to withstand multiple impacts of the type associated with the respective activities. However, you may still have to replace the helmet after one severe impact, or if it has visibleCO signs of damage, such as a cracked shell or permanent dent in the shell or liner. Consult the manufacturer's instructions for guidance on when the helmet should be replaced. Skate Helmets with CPSC and ASTM Certification Page 1 of 5 Home How2Buy Helmets Children Promotions Pamphlets Statistics Laws Standards Quick New Briefs Services Press Links Sitemap Search Translate Bicycle Helmet Safety Institute Helmets Dual -Certified to Both Bike and Skateboard Standards Summary: A list of the helmets that we think are certified by the manufacturers to meet both the CPSC bicycle helmet standard and the ASTM F1492 Skateboard helmet standard. ASTM closed a loophole in 2011 that had enabled some manufacturers to put the F1492 on the box and not on a sticker in the helmet. We no longer find many helmets on the market with both CPSC bicycle and ASTM F1492 stickers, including most of the ones we list below. Something has changed in the marketplace, and even manufacturers who have helmets that would pass both standards are not usually certifying to anything but the CPSC bicycle standard. Consumers have to take special care when selecting a skateboard helmet. Some "skate style" helmets are not actually certified to a skateboard standard. If they meet the CPSC bicycle helmet standard they can legally be sold for bicycling and roller skating. Some manufacturers label their helmets for skateboarding and extreme or trick roller skating as well, but do not use the ASTM F1492 designation, so you do not know what you are getting. The ASTM skateboard standard requires a multi -impact httpr�4wwp&ItWum�wrg/dualcert.htm 37 3/6/2013 Skate Helmets with CPSC and ASTM Certification Page 2 of 5 helmet. In -line skating is similar to bicycle riding --fewer crashes, and more violent ones when they occur. So our advice on skateboard helmets differs from that on inline skating helmets. Check our page on skate helmets for the difference. CPSC has a very useful chart of helmets matched to various activities on their Web site. By law a bicycle helmet must meet the CPSC standard to be sold in the US market. But that law is unique to bicycle helmets, and there is no US law that says a helmet being marketed only for skateboarding has to meet any standard whatsoever. The manufacturers and retailers are mostly afraid of lawsuits if they don't meet a skateboard standard, but in fact they can sell anything at all as a skateboard helmet as long as they don't market it for bicycling. So for skateboard use look for the ASTM F 1492 sticker. Until 2011 the ASTM standard had a loophole that permitted the manufacturer to leave out the F 1492 on the helmet sticker, but that loophole has been eliminated. Note that some helmet models may be certified only to F 1492 in some sizes, and not in others. If the manufacturer makes one shell size and just uses thinner foam inserts for larger size heads, for example, the large may not be certified. Or it may be the other way around and the small is not certified. That sticker in the helmet is the only thing you can rely on. It must be there, or all bets are off. One of the significant advantages to a dual certified helmet is that the CPSC bicycle helmet standard test line is lower in front than the F 1492 skateboard standard, even though the skateboard standard has a lower test line in the back. So the helmet has to protect in front to a lower point on your head. It only has to offer bicycle protection (single impact) in that area, but at least it is tested at the lower point for one hard hit. Our page on helmets for the current season has 38 3/6/2013 httpp�WWNj;ejr4pl4Eprg/dualcert.htm Skate Helmets with CPSC and ASTM Certification Page 3 of 5 information on the models. The list is short: American Safety ASHP Safeguard 11 American Safety supplies bulk helmets for helmet programs, including a dual -certified skate -style helmet that meets both the CPSC bicycle helmet standard and ASTM F-1492 skateboard standard for only $11. Their minimum order is 40 helmets. Their Web site is clear that their other "multisport" models are not dual certified. Bell Faction Bell's "skate -inspired" BMX/skate model is a 2004 hard shell design with a dual -density foam liner. In previous designs by LT back in 1991 this technique was used to take the sting out of lesser bumps with the softer layer, but backed up by a harder layer that could still perform on the big hits. In the Faction the technique is used to provide a different liner density in the front to meet the CPSC standard while avoiding a thicker helmet. The Faction has the round, smooth exterior of the classic skate helmet, with small rectangular vents on top, front and rear. Curiously, the weight is the same as the Bellistic full face model, 32 oz. Graphics include five different skateboard celebs and include visible white. This model was said by Bell to have dual certification to both the CPSC bicycle helmet standard and the ASTM F1492 multi impact skateboard standard, but only for the larger sizes. If so, it must at a minimum have F 1492 on the box and a sticker inside that says it is "for skateboarding or trick rollerskating"" It retails for $30. For 2009 Bell added an extra small size called the Fraction. For 2011 the ASTM standard will require that they include "ASTM F 1492" on the helmet's inner sticker, eliminating any mystery. Bell Backlash, Rage, Mirra, Wicked httpp/dw&vXdg*ia,org/dualcert.htm 39 3/6/2013 Skate Helmets with CPSC and ASTM Certification Page 4 of 5 Three skate models in Bell's low-priced series, sold in big box stores and discount retailers. Their packaging says they are dual certified to the CPSC bicycle and ASTM F 1492 skateboard standards, and they may be if they have "for skateboarding or trick rollerskating" on the internal sticker. All are less expensive than the Faction. Model names change quickly in this series, so the best bet is to check inside the helmet you see in the store for a sticker saying it meets CPSC and ASTM F1492. We found the Backlash at Wal-Mart in the $19 to $22 range. Kong Kong is an Italian climbing company. They have one helmet called the Scarab that goes beyond dual certified to be certified to European standards for rock climbing, skateboarding, bicycling, horsback riding and whitewater. All of those standards are easier to meet than the US equivalent, and the Scarab can't be sold in the US as a bicycle helmet unless it meets the CPSC standard, but it is an interesting concept. The Scarab has a ring fit system with dial adjustment. It appears to have external strap anchors. It retails in the US for about $150. Nutcase Nutcase is a graphics -driven helmet company producing mostly skate -style helmets with eye-catching graphics. They added the Crossover for 2012, a helmet that is dual - certified to the CPSC bicycle standard and the ASTM F 1492 skateboard standard. It has an EPP foam liner for multi -impact. It sells for $60. They did not score well in Consumer Reports testing. POC POC is a Swedish company with a unique line of very protective helmets. They don't believe much in vents, but then skateboard helmets are traditionally not well vented, so their Receptor + model fits right in. It is a skate style 40 httpr/iwwwj&QbiactaBorg/dualcert.htm 3/6/2013 Skate Helmets with CPSC and ASTM Certification Page 5 of 5 helmet with hard outer shell, thin offset second shell, aramid or kevlar patches reinforcing the thin shell behind the vent openings and an Expanded PolyPropylene (EPP) multi -impact foam liner making it a true multi -impact and multi -sport helmet. The rectangular vents are fairly small for a bike helmet, but fairly large for a skate helmet. Can be equipped with ear covers for water use or an EVA cover to close the vent system for skiing. Can also be equipped with a visor, a rare feature in a skate -style helmet. Now said to be dual certified to ASTM F 1492 as well as the CPSC standard, although we have not yet seen one with an ASTM sticker inside. Retail is a steep $200. Pro -Tee Ace SXP and B2 SXP Pro-Tec was the pioneer skateboard helmet manufacturer many years ago, and most of their models are still the old - school style that skateboarders cling to. The shells are mostly similar skate style (Pro-Tec style) rounded ones, but the liners are very different from model to model. Some meet the CPSC bicycle and ASTM F1492 skateboard standards, and some do not. For 2011 Pro-Tec has resumed dual certification of some of their models. The Ace SXP and B2 SXP models are now listed as dual certified again, but the Classic and Odyssey models are certified only to the CPSC bicycle helmet standard. You will have to check for the sticker in the helmet to be sure. This page was last revised on: May 22, 2012. Contact us. 11 Home 11 How2Buv 11 Helmets 11 Children 11 Promotions 11 Pamphlets 11 Statistics 11 Laws 11 Standards 11 11 Quick. 11 New 11 Briefs 11 Services 11 Press 11 Links 11 Sitemap 11 Search 11 Contact 11 httpp✓d3cgbahpts5org/dualcert.htm 41 3/6/2013 From: John J. Westtall Sent: Friday, March 29, 2013 3:34 PM To:'kristiana.johnson@edmondswa.gov' Cc: 'Lawless, James'; 'Farling, Dave'; Kimberly Schroeder Subject: FW: Safe Rider Citation Program Kristiana: Thanks for the question on bike helmets. To reiterate, each of our fire stations has a supply of bicycle helmets that can be fitted specifically to interested kids (and parents) for a nominal donation (suggested $7). An envelope is provided to the recipient and/or parents so they may send money off to FD#1 from their home. FD1 Board agreed to the "voluntary" fee due to the expense of the helmets. We have helmets and we dispense them. I commend your interest in increasing helmet use for community safety. That can be a challenge for police in an outright lawful requirement, with many important law enforcement obligations already occurring through each day. FD prefers the incentives method for encouraging safe use, that also provides a safety discussion direct to our community members during their fitting. I'm also forwarding another incentive program FD participates in. The "citation" is actually a reward for a happy meal at McDonalds. "Food" for thought. Let me know if you have additional questions. John J. Westfaff Fire Marshal Fire Prevention Services 425-771-0213 Desk 425-775-7721 Fax 425-231-3644 Mobile FIRE 1` DISTRICT From: Kimberly Schroeder Sent: Friday, March 29, 2013 11:50 AM To: All A -Shift; All B Shift; All C-Shift; All D-Shift; All Volunteers; All HQ Staff Subject: Safe Rider Citation Program Fire District 1 will, once again, be participating in the Safe Kids' Safe Rider Citation Program sponsored by McDonald's corporation. Through this program, kids who use a helmet when riding their bike, scooter, skateboard or skates can be recognized for their positive behavior and receive this citation. Here's how it works: Uniformed fire service and law enforcement personnel will be given a supply of citations (business card size) to be kept on their rigs. When a kid is spotted wearing their helmet, a citation will be given to the parent of said child by uniformed fire service personnel or law enforcement personnel. The citation Packet Page 91 of 145 The McDonald's Food Pledge McDonald's is continuously working through menu evolution; offering more nutritious and balanced options for all of its customers, especially children. Since 2006, McDonald's has supported the Council for Better Business Bureaus ("CBBB") Children's Food and Beverage Advertising Initiative ("CFBAI") involving a voluntary Food Pledge to only nationally advertise products to kids that represent healthier dietary choices. McDonald's was actively engaged in the process to help develop CBBB's recently announced more rigorous pledge standards, which include stricter sodium and sugar criteria and zero grams artificial trans fat per labeled serving. In 2012, McDonald's also raised nutrition awareness among children and parents through national marketing initiatives. Nutrition messaging is now in 100 percent of its national kids' communications, including merchandising, advertising, digital and the Happy Meal packaging. McDonald's also provides funding for grass roots community nutrition awareness programs. McDonald's & Safe Kids Citations Abuse The local owner operators of The Washington State Owners Association are generously donating thousands of BOG ("Be Our Guests") cards, which are redeemable for free Happy Meals at each participating location. In alignment with our Food Pledge, each Happy Meal now offers all white meat Chicken McNuggets, apple slices, kids fries and fat -free milk. Child safety and balanced diet are issues that our local owner operators feel very strongly about. This commitment to Safe Kids is an example of the ongoing support the local owners/operators of Washington State are proud to provide to their communities. Each BOG card has a cash value, which comes directly from our local owner operators businesses. We ask that you please manage the distribution of these cards with the utmost integrity and responsibility. Please use discretion and help us ensure that these cards are being used for their intent... to reward the children in and our community and encourage them to practice safe riding habits. This offer is in conjunction with a supportive donation to the Safe Kids Coalitions of Washington. 2 Packet Page 92 of 145 can be redeemed by the parent for a complimentary Happy Meal which will include 4 Chicken McNuggets made with white meat, kids sized fries, apple slices and low fat milk. This is a great positive reinforcement program! McDonalds has really stepped up this year by increasing the reward to kids who demonstrate positive behavior and they have also very generously agreed to provide 1 box of citations to each and every fire & police agency in the State of Washington!!! 1 have contacted each of the McDonald's restaurants within Fire District 1's response area + a few of them just outside Fire District 1 to notify them that we intend to participate in this program. The citations should be here by the end of next week (April 5th or so). This program would not succeed without the continued support of McDonalds! Please help us keep this valuable contact by distributing citations responsibl". McDonalds has pledged to support this program and they ask that you read the attached Food Pledge and help them recognize kids behaving responsibly in their wheeled sports. If you have any of the old cards, please dispose of them or send them back to HQ to my attention. If you have any questions or concerns, please don't hesitate to notify me. I will be distributing these citations to each station when we receive them. Thankyou! Kim Schroeder Fire & Life Safety Education Specialist Snohomish County Fire District 1 12425 Meridian Ave S. Everett, WA 98208 (425) 551-1254, office (425) 754-1983, cell 3 Packet Page 93 of 145 www.firedistrictl.org FIRE".' CT Packet Page 94 of 145 AM-5607 City Council Committee Meetings Meeting Date: 04/09/2013 Time: 15 Minutes Submitted For: Councilmember Johnson Submitted By: Department: City Council Review Committee: Public Safety/Personnel Committee Action: Type: Information Information Subject Title Resolution regarding Robert's Rules Recommendation Jana Spellman 2. D. Previous Council Action This agenda item was discussed at the 2013 Council Retreat and forwarded to the Public Safety/Personnel Committee for further discussion. Below is an excerpt from those minutes: Edmonds City Council Retreat Approved Minutes February 1-2, 2013 Page 2 "4. CITY COUNCIL PROCESSES A. ROBERT'S RULES Councilmember Johnson explained the Council has been operating for the past 39 years under Resolution No. 292. She acknowledged there are other ways, but she feels Robert's Rules is the best alternative. She referred to Attachment 4, a decision tree for determining whether to continue using Resolution No. 292 or adopt Robert's Rules. City Attorney Jeff Taraday suggested the City Council adopt a complete set of Robert's Rules as its official rules and distribute a shorter primer on the rules to Councilmembers to allow the Council to familiarize themselves with the rules. Councilmember Johnson suggested training on Robert's Rules be provided during a work session. Summary: Schedule a work session and have an ordinance prepared for review by the Parks, Planning and Public Works Committee." This agenda item was discussed at the 2/12/2013 Public Safety and Personnel Committee. (Attachment 5: Feb. 12, 2013 PS/Personnel Committee Minutes). Narrative This item has been placed on the agenda for further discussion and review of the attached draft Resolution. Attachment 6: Draft Resolution regarding Adoption of Robert's Rules of Order Attachments Attachment 1 - Should Council Adont Robert's Rules of Order Attachment 2 - Which Parliamentary Authority Should Council Choose Attachment 3 - A Simple Technique for Improving Council Decision Making Attachment 4 - Decision Tree Attach 5: 2/12/13 PS/P Committee Minutes Packet Page 95 of 145 Attach 6: Draft Resolution re ag rdine Robert's Rules of Order Inbox City Clerk Community Services/Economic Dev. Finalize for Agenda Form Started By: Jana Spellman Final Approval Date: 04/04/2013 Form Review Reviewed By Date Sandy Chase 04/04/2013 10:15 AM Stephen Clifton 04/04/2013 12:46 PM Sandy Chase 04/04/2013 01:43 PM Started On: 03/19/2013 10:30 AM Packet Page 96 of 145 Jurassic ATTACHMENT 9 Should Our Council Adopt Robert's Rules of order? Ann G. Macfarlane, Professional Registered Parliamentarian "Council/Commission Advisor" published by the Municipal Research S�Services Center of Washington, April 2011 The State of Washington gives city councils wide authority to decide how they will carry on their business: "The council shall determine its own rules and order of business, and may establish rules for the conduct of council meetings and the maintenance of order." RCW 3$A.12,120 Some councils have adopted, by resolution or ordinance, a set of guidelines for this purpose, and others have not. Many of these guidelines include reference to Robert's Rules of order, using such language as "meetings shall be governed by Robert's Rules of Order and these council rules of procedure. In case of conflict, the council rules of procedure shall prevail." Recently it was suggested to Jurassic Parliament that Robert's Rules of order is too complicated for small cities and towns, and they would do better not to adopt it. We agree that the book is complicated, but we believe that Robert's Rules still provides the best and most useful set of rules of order for civic bodies in our state —provided that folks are willing to do a little work and learn how to use Robert's Rules properly. Our argument runs like this: 1. The fundamental principles in Robert are common to all our civic discourse and are not hard to learn. Everyone participating in council debate and discussion should understand that the majority will rule, that the minority have rights that must be respected, that members have a right to information to help make decisions, that courtesy and respect are required, that all members have equal rights, privileges and obligations, and that members have a right to an efficient meeting. z. The use of written motions and amendments provides an efficient and fair way to consider proposals and modify them in accord with the group's preferences. The method is a little unusual, in that amendments are taken up before the motion is voted on, but once groups get used to it, the system works well. 3. Robert's rule that no one may speak a second time until everyone who wishes to do so has spoken once is vital to equalizing power imbalances and giving everyone a fair shake in discussion. We believe that it should be observed by all groups, whether or not they have formally adopted Robert. I+ over 4 RW Packet Page 97 of 145 4. Robert provides "special rules for small boards" that can be useful for smaller councils, should they choose to apply them. 5. Robert also allows groups to develop and apply their own "special rules of order," so if a body wishes to change something in Robert, it is perfectly free to do so. 6. In sticky situations, "do-it-yourself" rulemaking can lead to ad hoc invention of rules, likely supplied by the chair on his own authority. A chair who makes up rules or improvises on the basis of vague memories from student government days is a sure path to problems, especially if the rule -maker has an air of authority about him (or her). 7. While councils often rely on their attorney for advice in this arena, in our experience few attorneys have had serious training in parliamentary procedure and few correct the common and widespread misunderstandings about Robert's Rules. 8. A body cannot do its work without some guidelines. Failing to adopt Robert doesn't mean that there are no guidelines —but without a specific "parliamentary authority," in times of conflict a group will be driven back to rely on "common parliamentary law.' Finding out what "common parliamentary law" requires and how it applies to a given situation is likely to be complicated and expensive, requiring time and attention from legal counsel and qualified parliamentary consultants. Far better to have set the terms of discourse in advance, so that everyone knows and agrees to the way they will consider matters. We believe that adopting a set of common-sense guidelines based on Robert's Rules, incorporating Robert by reference for the more unusual or complicated situations that may arise, and then committing to the education necessary to get everyone on the same page, will pay big dividends for every council willing to make the effort. That education can be quite affordable. Every city budget ought to be able to provide a copy of Robert's Rules of order Newly Revised in Brief to each council member. This little book is a splendid summary of the rules applicable to all but the most exceptional situations. At $7.Oo it's an amazing buy, and you can read it in an evening. Should our council adopt Robert's Rules of order? O Jurassic Parliament 2011. All rights reserved. TERMS OF USE This material is provided for your personal use Permission is hereby granted to make electronic or paper copies provided that the material Is left unchanged_The purchaser may not otherwise modify, copy, distribute, transmit, display, perform, reproduce, publish, license, create derivative works from, transfer or sell any information or services contained in this publication or obtained from our website, or use the content of our website for public or commercial purposes, including any text, images, audio or video, without the written permission of Jurassic Parliament- Jurassic Parliament reserves the right to update our website at anytime without noticetoyou. If you would liketo use or quote this material for any purpose other than expressly as authorized herein, contact the Jurassic Parliament office. DISCLAIMER This material is provided for general educational purposes. Jurassic Parliament makes no representation about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published as part ofthese servicesfor any purpose_ All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind.Jurassic Parliament herebydisdaims all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all warranties and conditions of merchantability, whether express, implied or statutory, fitnessfor a particular purpose,title and non -infringement- Nothingwritten here constitutes legal or business advice. Readerswith specific questions are advised to seek an appropriate credentialed authority to address their issue,. 603 Stewart Street, Suite 6io, Seattle, WA 98iox TEL 206.542.8422 I FAX 206.626.0392 info@jurassicparliament.com E www.jurassicparliament.com Packet Page 98 of 145 ATTACHMENT 2 Q Jurassic Which Parliamentary Authority Should We Choose? Organizations intending to choose a parliamentary authority to guide their meetings have several different choices. This article describes some common authorities. We welcome feedback from our readers who use any of these authorities about the good points or disadvantages they find in them. Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised. This is the most commonly used authority in the United States. By some estimates about ninety percent of the voluntary associations in our country use Robert. Widespread use, breadth of coverage, and the availability of many excellent resources on Robert make this book our first choice. However, be warned that over the years, the book has become extremely detailed. At first glance, it is quite intimidating - the current official version is over 800 pages long. Jurassic Parliament offers many tools to help you get the most out of Robert and apply it in a pragmatic way to your meetings. Current version: iith edition. Be sure to use the official text, and not some publisher's knock -off based on earlier, out-of-date versions. See our article "Which Robert's Rules of order Should I Buy?" for guidance on this point. It is also useful to refer to Robert's Rules of Order In Brief - a short volume which is not an authority, but which serves as an introduction to Robert. The Standard Code of Parliamentary Procedure. Alice Sturgis wrote the original version of this authority, referred to as "TSC" or "Sturgis" It is well -written and easy to follow. Many medical associations use Sturgis as their authority. However, the book does not cover as many situations as Robert, and it shifts some authority from the group itself to the person running the meeting (the presider). This seems more efficient at first glance, but the added authority may go to the presider's head, and cause him or her to behave in a dictatorial fashion. Sturgis also differs from Robert in some parliamentary actions like "to reconsider" or "to fill a blank." Current version: gth edition The Modern Rules of Order. Donald Tortorice prepared this slim volume for the American Bar Association, though the ABA does not use it during its own meetings. A mere 6o pages long, it may seem a tempting choice. However, Michael Malamut, an attorney and professional registered r► over Price S0.99 May not be photocopied Contact our office for multiple copy permission and pricing Packet Page 99 of 145 parliamentarian, has given it a poor review in one of the leading parliamentary journals. He states that the author derived his expertise from sitting through business corporation meetings, not meetings of nonprofit associations, and the result shows in his work. This book includes "typical minutes" and a chart of motions. Current version: 3rd edition. The Democratic Rules of Order. Fred and Peg Francis of British Columbia, Canada wrote these rules, 76 pages. It seems a good compilation of standard procedure, without a lot of detail. Includes a two - page summary and an example of a meeting governed by these rules. Current version: gth edition. Rosenberg's Rules of Order. Dave Rosenberg, a Superior Court Judge in California, has prepared these rules, available as an eight -page PDF on the World Wide Web. The rules seem unobjectionable but obviously do not provide the detail that may be needed in complex situations. We found the mathematics on voting given in the addendum to be rather peculiar. Many legislatures in the U.S. use Mason's Manual of Legislative Procedure. Professional parliamentar- ians may turn to Demeter's Manual of Parliamentary Law and Procedure and Riddich's Rules of Procedure. Bourinot's Rules of order is widely used in Canada. Hugh Cannon has written Cannon's Concise Guide to Rules of Order, a lively introduction. And if all else fails, you can turn to Thomas Jefferson for A Manu al of Parliamentary Procedure. We welcome suggestions about adding to this list or modifying the descriptions. Contact us at info @jurassicparliament.com. Which Parliamentary Authority Should We Choose? © Jurassic Parliament 2011. All rights reserved. TERMS OF USE This material is sold for the personal use of the purchaser. Permission is hereby granted to make electronic or paper copies it number according tothe license which you have purchased. The purchaser may not otherwise modify, copy, distribute, transmit, display, perform, reproduce, publish, license, create derivative works from, transfer or sell any Information or services contained in this publication or obtained from our website, or use the content of our website for public or commercial purposes, including any text, images, audio or video, without the written permission of Jurassic Parliament. Jurassic Parliament reserves the right to update our website at anytime without notice to you. If you would liketo use or quote this material for any purpose other than expressly as authorized herein, contact the Jurassic Parliament office, URi-wwwJurassicparliament,com. DISCLAIMER This material is provided for general educational purposes. Jurassic Parliament makes no representation about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published as part of these services for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided `as is" without warrantyof anykind. Jurassic Parliament hereby disclaims ail warranties and conditions with regard to this information, indtiding all warranties and conditions of merchantability, whether express, implied or statutory, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non -infringement. Nothing written here constitutes legal cr business advice. Readers with specific questions are advised to seek an appropriate credentialed authorityto address their issues. urass1C 603 Stewart Street, Suite 6io, Seattle, WA 983oa TEL 206.542.8422 1 FAX 206.626.0392 info@jurassicparliament.com I www.jurassicparliament.com Packet Page 100 of 145 A Simple Technique for Improving Council Decision Making I MRSC Insight Page 1 of 3 ATTACHMENT 3 A Simple Technique for Improving Council Decision Making Posted on November 5. 2012 by Byron Katsuyame One of the things that has always fascinated me as a student and observer of local government has been the process that local legislative bodies use to discuss, debate, and formulate policy decisions. To my- mind, much of what constitutes "good government" is a direct consequence of an open, fair, and effective legislative decision - making process. The open and fair parts are regulated by state laws relating to issues such as campaign finance reporting, public records disclosure, and open public meetings. Effectiveness, on the other hand, is Ieft to the local legislative body. While there are a lot of moving parts in this process and, therefore, lots of opportunities to improve it, one critical aspect, and the focus of this blog post, has to do with the way local legislative bodies deliberate on the policy issues that come before them. When acting in their formal legislative capacity, local councils come together for a very specialized purpose — to discuss, debate, and finally decide on important issues affecting their communities. It is at this point during the give and take of their policy discussions, where arguments are put forth, opinions are swayed, and votes are taken. It's not true that councilmembers always come to such meetings with their minds already made up, as some citizens and members of the press seem to think. So, it is important not only that these discussions take place, but that they be conducted in ways that promote the best possible exchange of information and ideas. To this end, one simple but effective technique designed to improve this process was suggested by Ann Macfarlane, one of MRSC's long-time Council/Commission Advisors, in her 2009 column, "Using the Round Robin Method for Efficient Council Meetings." Ann's column contains some sage advice for local legislative bodies interested in improving both the efficiency and the quality of their meetings. In it she argues that the "round robin method" for council deliberation contained in Roberts Rules of Order is one of the best ways to promote a "fair and judicious discussion of issues in which each member has an equal opportunity to participate." Of course, local government advisory boards and commissions can also benefit from this type of discussion format. In a round robin format, each council or board member participating in key policy discussions is given the opportunity to speak once, going around the table, before anyone can speak a second time. While this may seem like a minor procedural issue, anyone who has spent any amount of time participating on a council, board, or commission knows that who speaks, when, and for how long, can often have profound impacts on the outcomes of many important policy discussions. The round robin format seeks to level the playing field a bit by ensuring that all council and board members have the opportunity and, in fact, are prompted to weigh in on particular issues. Councils or boards that have no rules of procedure or that do not pay attention to the details of how their meetings are conducted are more prone to falling into habits and routines that can reduce their effectiveness as decision - making bodies. How many times have you been at a meeting where one or two members dominate the discussion, either because they are always the ones who speak up first or because they feel compelled to answer every challenge to their point of view? Members don't have to be rude or inconsiderate to end up dominating the discussion. They may just be enthusiastic, which, unfortunately, can have the same negative impact. In either case, to the extent that other members who have valuable opinions to share become less inclined or able to add their thoughts to the mix, the quality of the discussion and ultimately the decision itself can stiffer. Then there are situations where, for whatever reasons, some members may just be reluctant to jump in and offer their opiniomi. http://insight.mrsc.orR12012111105la-simple-technique-for-improving-council-decision-ma... 1 /24/2013 Packet age 101 of 145 A Simple Technique for Improving Council Decision Making I MRSC Insight Page 2 of 3 Sometimes this is because they may feel that they are not as well-informed as they should be on an issue, or perhaps because they are concerned that their opinion will be rejected by the rest of the group, or may be unpopular with a wider audience. Ironically, when called upon, these same individuals often end up making key contributions to the overall discussion. In my experience as a member of the city of Kirkland's Planning Commission for the past eight years, including a year as the chair, I know that we make our best decisions when all our members have taken the opportunity to weigh in on whatever issue is before us. When, on the other hand, we have just one or two members who dominate the discussion, or where, for whatever reasons, some members are reluctant to offer their own point of view, then we become less effective. Particularly in our role as an advisory body to the city council, it is always more helpful to have a thorough discussion of the issues that will, in turn, provide a stronger record of our deliberations for the benefit of the city council as they go on to make their final policy decisions. To be effective, councils and boards should conduct their meetings in ways that promote the fullest discussion of the issues with the broadest possible participation by all of the council or board members. One of the simplest ways to ensure that this takes place is to make use of the round robin discussion format. I'm not suggesting that this approach is necessary for every single discussion. It is intended simply as a tool. Experienced mayors and board chairs know when their council or board will benefit most from a more structured discussion format. Share this: Twitter Facebook Email Like this: *Like Be the first to like this. About AByron Katsu ' Byron has over 30 years of experience in local government police and administration research including such areas as forms of government, strategic planning, performance measurement, and general local government management. In his ov+n community of Kirkland, Byron is a member of the city'S planning commission. C icw ,ill past. by 13} ron Kat�oy.nna -- This entry was posted in Best Practices. Governance. Polity, ©ookmark the permalink. 2 Responses to A Simple Technique for Improving Council Decision Making KHstiana Johnson says: Noveinber 16. 2012 at 3 45 pm Byron, Thank you for this timely post. We at the City of Edmonds are working to review our City, rules and procedures for our 2013 Council Retreat. i really appreciate your comments about the round robin approach in Roberts Rules of Order. i have been tasked with finding a modern and brief set of RRoO. Can you let me kno+, which publication you use? Kristian Johnson Reply Byron Katsuyama says: November 26, 2012 at 11.58 am Kristiana, Follow http�ll1'n ' ht.r sd.�O4r5,/2012/11/05/a-simple-technique-for-improving-council-decision-ma... 1/24/2013 Packet Age 1 o A Simple Technique for Improving Council Decision Making I MRSC Insight Page 3 of 3 I asked Ann Macfarlane, Professional Registered Parliamentarian, Jurassic Parliament, who is one of our Council/Commission Advisors, and an expert on Robert's Rules, what she recommends and she provided the following response and attachments: We recommend that everybody use Robert. The best strategy is to have the presider and clerk buy the "big book," Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised rFth edition, and also provide every member v ith a copy of the "little book," Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised In Brief, znd edition. This latter volume costs $7 and can be read in an evening. It covers most situations. However, it cannot be adopted as an authority in itself. It is a signpost to the big book. By purchasing both, a city council is sure to have at hand what is needed for any situation. Attached are three articles that you are welcome to share with Kristiana (or anybody- else) on this topic: ■ Which "Robert's Rules" Should I Buy? ■ Which Parliamentar\ Authority Should We Choose? ■ should Our Council Adopt Robert's Rules of Order? Repay MRSC Insight 'llwmrploy at S4 ordPrvss.cojn. FoH ow http://insigsht.mrse.or /2012/11105/a-simple-technique-for-improving-council-decision-ma... 1/24/2013 Packet Page 103 of 145' DECISION TREE Rules of Procedures for Conduct of Council Meetings Should the City Council continue using: Resolution 292 YES Action: • Add Resolution 292 to Council web page as a reference for City Council procedures. • Add Resolution 292 to the new Council Reference Manual. Adoptin Rules of Procedure, 1974 NO Should the City Council adopt procedures based on Robert's Rules of Order? Yes Action: IBC • Work Session on Procedures • MRSC — Robert's Rules revised summary. Packet Page 104 of 145 MINUTES PUBLIC SAFETY AND PERSONNEL COMMITTEE MEETING FEBRUARY 12, 2013 ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT: STAFF PRESENT: Councilmember Joan Bloom Councilmember Strom Peterson The meeting was called to order at 6:09 p.m. Edmonds City Code Updates Al Compaan, Chief of Police Jim Lawless, Assistant Chief of Police Debbie Dawson, Animal Control Officer Carrie Hite, HR Reporting Director Councilmember Bloom requested clarification on Item D. Even though this is the current language, she wanted to clarify the current practice. She would like to amend this to say "Council President approves travel and training for Councilmembers and Boards and Commissions." Councilmember Peterson agreed. This will be amended, and forwarded to City Council for approval on the consent agenda. 2. Robert's Rules Jeff recalled that council agreed to adopt Roberts Rules in its entirety, and use a shortened version. He also suggested that we may want to get training through Jurassic Parliament or perhaps MRSC. There are also self study options that could be purchased for Council library. We agreed to schedule training to be put on agenda for a work session. Suggest someone from MRSC be asked to present. 3. Amendment to Edmonds City Code Chapter 5.14 — Marijuana The Committee discussed a proposed ordinance amending the provisions of Edmonds City Code Chapter 5.14 relating to controlled substances, Paraphernalia, poisons and toxic fumes. The Committee forwarded the ordinance to City Council to place on the Consent Agenda with an approval recommendation. 4. Animals Roaming at Large With Al Compaan and animal control officer, Debbie Dawson, discussed adding "with the exclusion of licensed, spayed and neutered cats" to the animals roaming at large ordinance. Agreed that Debbie Dawson will bring information related to licensing of cats to next Public Safety/Personnel Committee meeting. 5. Discussion Regarding Language to Include on Agendas Related to Public Comment Agreed to adopt Frank Yamamoto's suggested language into the Council Meeting Procedures on the city website 6. Public Comment Bruce Witenberg: Re: questions at end of committee meeting- if not allowing, articulate what has been the problem in the past. Re: Adoption of Roberts' rules. Pointed out that there is a way to re -consider a vote. Can be brought back by someone on the opposing side of the issue. Don't know about time frame. Suggests training be held in council chambers so public can become educated about new rules as well. Roger Hertrich: Mr. Hertrich agreed with every one of Mr. Witenberg points. Re: roaming at large, suggested starting with a simple change such as licensing of cats. Evaluate the results. Re: Roberts' rules- Don't feel adoption of full rules is necessary. Like casual aspect of meeting, don't get too sticky about procedure. Re: Boards and commissions- choice of Mayor, sometimes in conflict with Council. Suggests applications be available to all (Council and Mayor) prior to final selection. Council members Peterson and Bloom explained to Mr. Wittenberg that it was not our intention to eliminate the option of citizens asking questions at a committee meeting. The intent was that the council members at the meeting would ask staff to answer the question(s), if the council member felt it was appropriate to do so. Meeting adjourned at 7:40 p.m. Public Safety and Personnel Committee February 12, 2013 Page 1 of 1 Packet Page 105 of 145 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, REPEALING RESOLUTION 292, WHICH ADOPTED RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR CONDUCT OF COUNCIL MEETINGS; ADOPTING ROBERT'S RULES OF ORDER AS THE CITY COUNCIL'S NEW RULES OF PROCEDURE. WHEREAS, the city council adopted Resolution 292 in 1974, which adopted rules of procedure for conduct of council meetings; and WHEREAS, Resolution 292 did not adopt Robert's Rules of Order; and WHEREAS, it has been recommended that the city council use Robert's Rules of Order, now therefore, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. REPEALER. Resolution 292 is hereby repealed. Section 2. ADOPTION OF ROBERT'S RULES. The city council hereby adopts Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised, 11t" Edition, as its official rules for conducting council meetings. The city council intends that the city official serving as parliamentarian should consult this version of Robert's Rules when asked to provide guidance on a procedural question. City council members wishing to use a shorter version of Robert's Rules for their own convenience should use Robert's Rules of Order In Brief, but the council does not recognize this volume as an authority nor as the city council's official rules. RESOLVED this day of April, 2013. CITY OF EDMONDS MAYOR, DAVE EARLING ATTEST: CITY CLERK, SANDRA CHASE FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: RESOLUTION NO. 4851-5533-3898, v. 1 Packet Page 106 of 145 AM-5606 City Council Committee Meetings Meeting Date: 04/09/2013 Time: 15 Minutes Submitted For: Councilmember Bloom Department: Committee: Subject Title Code of Ethics Recommendation City Council Public Safety, Personnel Submitted By. Jana Spellman Tyne: Action Information 2. E. Previous Council Action At the 2012 Council retreat, Council made this subject a priority for 2012 (Attachment 1: 2012 Retreat Minutes). This agenda items was discussed during the Public Safety and Personnel Committee on April 10, 2012 (Attachment 2: 4-10-12 Minutes). This item was discussed at the 2013 Council Retreat (Attachment 5: February 2, 2013 Council Minutes). This agenda item was discussed during the March 12, 2013 Public Safety and Personnel Committee (Attachment 7: March 12, 2013 PS/P Committee Minutes.) Narrative The Committee concluded that a further discussion on a Code of Ethics policy would be scheduled for the April Committee Meeting to determine which policy will be sent to the City Attorney. In reviewing other cities' code of ethics, it was found that code of ethics are inclusive of elected officials, members of commissions and boards, and employees of the city. Edmonds currently has a one page Code of Conduct (Attachment 3) and a Conflict of Interest ordinance (Attachment 4). We will be reviewing code of ethics from the following cities found at: Marysville: htg2:Hcodepublishine. com/wa/maasville/html/MaasvilleO2/MarysvilleO280.htm1#2.80 Lynnwood: Attachment 6 Monroe: http://www.codel2ublishinQ. com/WA/Monroe/html/Monroe02/MonroeO252.html#2.52 and the MRSC: h=://www.mrsc.or /e subjects/personnel/ethics.asl2x In addition we will review the Bainbridge Island Ethics Board materials, which are inclusive of code of ethics, and are very comprehensive: htW://www.ci.bainbrid,ge-ist.wa.us/ethics board.aspx Packet Page 107 of 145 Attachments Attach 1 Feb-03-12_Approved _City_Council _Retreat Minutes Attach 2 April- 10-12 Public Safety, Personnel Committee Attach 3 - Exerpt from 2012 FINAL Edmonds Personnel Policies Attach 4 - Ord 3689 Conflict of Interest Attach 5: Draft Feb 2 2013 Council Retreat Minutes Attach 6 -City of Lynnwood Code of Ethics Atttach 7 - 3-12-13 PS/P Committee Minutes Inbox City Clerk Community Services/Economic Dev. Finalize for Agenda Form Started By: Jana Spellman Final Approval Date: 04/04/2013 Form Review Reviewed By Date Sandy Chase 04/04/2013 10:15 AM Stephen Clifton 04/04/2013 12:46 PM Sandy Chase 04/04/2013 01:43 PM Started On: 03/19/2013 10:03 AM Packet Page 108 of 145 before the Council is first a committee meeting or work session. Issues that have a financial impact will be discussed at a work session rather than just by the Finance Committee. It was the consensus of the Council to change the name of the Community Services/Development Services Committee to the Public Works, Parks and Planning Committees. • Mission Statements Committees will determine whether to develop a mission statement. Councilmembers Buckshnis and Yamamoto will develop a mission statement for the Finance Committee. • Clarify the Public Safety/Human Resources Committee It was the consensus of the Council to change the name of the Public Safety/Human Resources to Committee to the Public Safety and Personnel Committee. • Community Outreach, Tree Board Council President Peterson explained there has been a proposal to restart the Community Outreach Committee. Councilmember Plunkett recalled the Community Outreach Committee was discontinued after 3 years; no new methods of communicating were identified. Mayor Earling commented on the potential for an electronic newsletter. Discussion followed regarding whether to form a code rewrite committee so that the code rewrite is Council and citizen driven, technical expertise required for the code rewrite, having staff make periodic presentations at Council work sessions regarding the rewrite, the proposal by staff to restructure the code, providing opportunity for citizen comment but having professionals assemble the changes, citizen knowledge that could benefit the process, concern with citizens participating for their own benefit or at least that perception, proposal to have user groups test the model, ability for any citizen to identify code conflicts regardless of whether there is a committee structure, and asking staff whether forming a committee in the future could be helpful. The Council agreed to seek feedback from Planning Manager Rob Chave and Building Official Leonard Yarberry regarding forming a code rewrite committee and schedule further discussion on a work session agenda. Council President Peterson suggested enhancing the Council portion of the website with more updates, etc. and working with the Mayor on an electronic newsletter and then consider whether a Community Outreach Committee is needed. It was the consensus of the Council to add a Council liaison to the Tree Board and to make it a paid committee position. 0 Ethics Council President Peterson recalled there has been discussion about developing a code of ethics for Councilmembers. Councilmembers Fraley-Monillas, Bloom and Petso offered to serve on an ad hoc committee that would review other cities' codes and present a draft to the Council. • Miscellaneous Mr. Taraday explained a special meeting notice must be issued for Tuesday committee meetings that begin at 6:00 p.m. If the Council wished to continue holding committee meetings at 6:00 p.m., he suggested revising the code to reflect that start time. Edmonds City Council Retreat Draft Minutes February 2-3, 2011 Page 17 Packet Page 109 of 145 PUBLIC SAFETY/PERSONNEL COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES April 10, 2012 Committee members present: Council Member K. Michael Plunkett Council Member Joan Bloom Others present: HR Manager Mary Ann Hardie Citizen Don Hall Council Member Plunkett called the meeting to order at 7:19 pm. DISCUSSION ON CODE OF ETHICS (RELATING TO COUNCIL MEMBERS) Council Member Michael Plunkett opened the discussion by stating it was unclear as to what action/direction should be taken at this point with regard to this as Council had not given any specific direction regarding this topic although one or some council member(s) may have wanted to discuss this further. Council Member Joan Bloom stated that she had reviewed the City of Kirkland's Code of Ethics and the Mountlake Terrace Code of Ethics and there were some concerns that she had with using a code of ethics similar to theirs. Council Member Bloom further stated that she was not aware that there was a code of ethics for Council Members. HR Manager Mary Ann Hardie affirmed this. Council Member Bloom stated that she would like to build a policy regarding a code of ethics and that this process needs to move forward. Council Member Plunkett stated that he was willing to discuss this topic since it was on the agenda, but that that he may not be interested in moving this forward [for Council consideration]. Ms. Hardie stated that she had discussed this HR Committee subject with Carrie Hite (Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Director) prior to the meeting and that they both agreed that HR would likely not be the best (nor most appropriate) committee for this forum. Additionally, while HR had provided samples of codes of ethics from other cities it would seem that the City Attorney and/or the City Clerk's Office [or Council] may be more appropriate for this process. Ms. Hardie also emphasized that HR was willing to continue to provide information as needed to the committee to assist with the process, but that this was not a [specific to] HR function since it did not pertain to employee related policies. There was some discussion that followed by the committee about what the process would be to create a code of ethics policy for Council members, creating a committee for this and whether or not the HR Committee was the appropriate committee for the discussion. Council Member Plunkett emphasized his concern about the subjectivity of some of the other policies from other cities and that [while the City may not have a specific code of ethics for Council Members] there are state laws that Council Members must follow. Council Member Bloom stated that she understood Council Member Plunkett's concerns but that due to the expressed interest/concern from the citizens about the possible need for this policy, she felt it was important for: 1) The City of Edmonds to have this policy; 2) this information to be available to citizens (as well as being part of transparency of information and citizen participation); and 3) there to be continued work toward the creation of such a policy. Council Member Plunkett stated that he would like to make this information easier for citizens to access. Council Member Bloom stated that since there does not usually appear to be a large agenda for the HR Committee, that the work on this code of ethics policy could be done at this committee and that the Cities of Kirkland, Mountlake Terrace and another city may be reviewed for further policy consideration. Council Member Plunkett agreed that this could be kept on the HR Committee Meeting agenda and that further review of the policy will occur at the next meeting. Packet Page 110 of 145 PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD Citizen Don Hall stated that he agreed with Council Member Plunkett that some of the code of ethics policies from other cities that he had come across did appear to be too subjective. Citizen Hall further stated that he became more interested in this topic of discussion after it was discovered that Council Members were not considered to be employees of the City and are not held to the same City Personnel Policy standards although [perhaps] they should be. This process will likely require a lot of "hands on" work and will be a difficult process. The meeting adjourned at 7:44 pm 2 Packet Page 111 of 145 CHAPTER X EMPLOYEE RESPONSIBILITIES AND CODE OF ETHICS 10.1 GENERAL CODE OF CONDUCT The City's primary function is to provide service to the citizens of Edmonds. To achieve that goal, all employees are expected to treat the public as their most valued customer. All employees are expected to serve the public in a professional manner, which is courteous, efficient and helpful. Employees must maintain a clean and neat appearance appropriate to their work assignment, as determined by their position and department head. Since the proper working relationship between employees and the City depends on each employee's on -going job performance, professional conduct and behavior, the City has established certain minimum standards of personal and professional conduct. Among the City's expectations are: tact and courtesy towards the public and fellow employees; adherence to City policies, procedures, safety rules and safe work practices; compliance with directions from supervisors; preserving and protecting the City's equipment, grounds, facilities and resources; and providing orderly and cost efficient services to its citizens. In addition, all persons representing the City of Edmonds are expected to conduct business in the following manner: • All persons, representing the City of Edmonds, shall conduct business in a professional manner, respecting all citizens' rights, and showing courtesy to all. • Their actions shall be conducted within compliance of the laws and regulations governing the City's actions, including but not limited to RCW Title 42. • City representatives are expected to conduct business in an open manner. • They shall not engage in any conduct which would reflect unfavorably upon City government or any of the services it provides. • They must avoid any action which might result in or create the impression of using their position for private gain, giving preferential treatment or privileged information to any person, or losing impartiality in conducting the City's business. 10.2 OUTSIDE EMPLOYMENT AND CONFLICTS OF INTEREST Employees shall not, directly or indirectly, engage in any outside employment or financial interest which may conflict, in the City's opinion, with the best interests of the City or interfere with the employee's ability to perform his/her assigned City job. Examples include, but are not limited to, outside employment which: 53 Packet Page 112 of 145 (1) prevents the employee from being available for work beyond normal working hours, such as emergencies or peak work periods, when such availability is a regular part of the employee's job; (2) is conducted during the employee's work hours; (3) utilizes City telephones, computers, supplies, credit, or any other resources, facilities or equipment; (4) is employed with a firm which has contracts with or does business with the City; or (5) may reasonably be perceived by members of the public as a conflict of interest or otherwise discredits public service. 10.3 REPORTING IMPROPER GOVERNMENT ACTION In compliance with the Local Government Employee Whistleblower Protection Act, RCW 42.41.050, this policy is created to encourage employees to disclose any improper governmental action taken by city officials or employees without fear of retaliation. This policy also safeguards legitimate employer interests by encouraging complaints to be made first to the City, with a process provided for speedy dispute resolution. Key Definitions: Improper Governmental Action is any action by a city officer or employee that is: (1) undertaken in the performance duties, whether or not the action employment, and of the official's or employee's official is within the scope of the employee's (2) in violation of any federal, state or local law or rule, is an abuse of authority, is of substantial and specific danger to the public health or safety, or is a gross waste of public funds. (3) "improper governmental action" does not include personnel actions (hiring, firing, complaints, promotions, reassignment, for example). In addition, employees are not free to disclose matters that would affect a person's right to legally protected confidential communications. City employees who become aware of improper governmental action should follow this procedure: • Bring the matter to the attention of his/her supervisor, if non-involved, in writing, stating in detail the basis for the employee's belief that an improper action has occurred. This should be done as soon as the employee becomes aware of the improper action. 54 Packet Page 113 of 145 • Where the employee believes the improper action involves their supervisor, the employee may raise the issue directly with Human Resources, their Department Director or the Mayor. Where the employee believes the improper action involves the Mayor, the employee may raise the issue with Human Resources or the City Attorney. • The Mayor or his/her designee, as the case may be, shall promptly investigate the report of improper government action. After the investigation is completed (within thirty (30) days of the employee's report), the employee shall be advised of the results of the investigation, except that personnel actions taken as a result of the investigation may be kept confidential. An employee who fails to make a good faith effort to follow this policy shall not be entitled to the protection of this policy against retaliation, pursuant to RCW 42.41.030. In the case of an emergency, where the employee believes that damage to persons or property may result if action is not taken immediately, the employee may bypass the above procedure and report the improper action directly to the appropriate government agency responsible for investigating the improper action. For the purposes of this section, an emergency is a circumstance that if not immediately changed may cause damage to persons or property. Employees may report information about improper governmental action directly to an outside agency if the employee reasonably believes that an adequate investigation was not undertaken by the City to determine whether an improper government action occurred, or that insufficient action was taken by the City to address the improper action or that for other reasons the improper action is likely to recur. Outside agencies to which reports may be directed include: Snohomish County Prosecuting Attorney M/S 504 Everett, WA 98201 (425)388-3333 Washington State Attorney General 1125 Washington Street SE P.O. Box 40100 Olympia, WA 98504 (360)753-6200 Washington State Auditor Capital Campus P.O. Box 40021 Olympia, WA 98504 (360)902-0370 If the above -listed agencies do not appear to appropriate in light of the nature of the improper action to be reported, contact information for other state and county agencies may be obtained via the following link: http://access.wa.gov/agency/agency.aspx. It is unlawful for a local government to take retaliatory action because an employee, in good faith, provided information that improper government action occurred. Retaliatory 55 Packet Page 114 of 145 Action is any material adverse change in the terms and conditions of an employee's employment. Employees who believe they have been retaliated against for reporting an improper government action should follow this procedure: Procedure for Seeking Relief against Retaliation: (1) Employees must provide a written complaint to the supervisor within thirty (30) days of the occurrence of the alleged retaliatory action. If the supervisor is involved, the notice should go to the Mayor. If the Mayor is involved, the notice should go to the City Attorney. The written charge shall specify the alleged retaliatory action and the relief requested. (2) The Mayor or his/her designee, as the case may be, shall investigate the complaint and respond in writing within thirty (30) days of receipt of the written charge. Additional time to respond may be necessary depending on the nature and complexity of the complaint. (3) After receiving the City's response, the employee may request a hearing before a state administrative law judges (ALJ) to establish that a retaliatory action occurred and to obtain appropriate relief under the law. The request for hearing must be delivered within the earlier of either fifteen (15) days of receipt of the City's response to the charge of retaliatory action or forty-five (45) days of receipt of the charge of retaliation to the Mayor for response. (4) Within five (5) working days of receipt of a request for hearing the City shall apply to the State Office of Administrative Hearing's for an adjudicative proceeding before an administrative law judge. Office of Administrative Hearings PO Box 42488 Olympia, WA 98504-2488 360.407.2700 800.558.4857 360.664.8721 Fax (5) At the hearing, the employee must prove that a retaliatory action occurred by a preponderance of the evidence in the hearing. The ALJ will issue a final decision not later than forty-five (45) days after the date of the request for hearing, unless an extension is granted. The Mayor or designee is responsible for implementing these policies and procedures. This includes posting the policy on the City bulletin board, making the policy available to any employee upon request, and providing the policy to all newly hired employees. Officers, managers and supervisors are responsible for ensuring the procedures are fully implemented within their areas of responsibility. 56 Packet Page 115 of 145 Violations of this policy and these procedures may result in appropriate disciplinary action, up to and including dismissal. 10.4 POLITICAL ACTIVITIES City employees may participate in political or partisan activities of their choosing provided that City resources and property are not utilized, and the activity does not adversely affect the responsibilities of the employees in their positions. Employees may not campaign on City time or in a City uniform or while representing the City in any way. Employees may not allow others to use City facilities or funds for political activities without a paid rental agreement. Any City employee who meets with or may be observed by the public or otherwise represents the City to the public, while performing his/her regular duties, may not wear or display any button, badge or sticker relevant to any candidate or ballot issue during working hours. Employees shall not solicit, on City property or City time, for a contribution for a partisan political cause. Except as noted in this policy, City employees are otherwise free to fully exercise their constitutional First Amendment rights. 10.5 NO SMOKING POLICY The City maintains a smoke -free workplace. No smoking of tobacco products or electronic smoking devices is permitted anywhere in the City's buildings or vehicles, and offices or other facilities rented or leased by the City. If an employee chooses to smoke, it must be done outside at least 25 feet from entrances, exits, windows that open, and ventilation air intakes. 10.6 PERSONAL POSSESSIONS AND ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS The City cannot assume responsibility for any theft or damage to the personal belongings of City employees. Therefore, the City requests that employees avoid bringing valuable personal articles to work. Employees are solely responsible for ensuring that their personal belongings are secure while at work. Employees should have no expectation of privacy as to any items or information generated/stored on City systems. Employees are advised that work -related searches of an employee's work area, workspace, computer and electronic mail on the City's property may be conducted without advance notice. The City reserves the right to search employee desks, lockers and personal belongings brought onto City premises if necessary. Employees who do not consent to inspections may be subject to discipline, up to and including immediate termination. Please see Attachment A - INFORMATION SERVICES - ACCEPTABLE USE POLICY - for guidelines on use of City computers. 10.7 USE OF TELEPHONES AND CITY VEHICLES Use of City phones and City cellular phones for local personal phone calls and text messaging should be kept to a minimum; long distance personal use is prohibited. Other City equipment, including vehicles, should be used by employees for City business only, unless otherwise 57 Packet Page 116 of 145 approved by the Department Director. Employees' misuse of City services, telephones, vehicles, equipment or supplies can result in disciplinary action up to and including termination. The City reminds employees that Washington state law restricts the use of cell phones and PDA's while driving. Employees must comply with applicable laws while engaging in work for the City. 10.8 BULLETIN BOARDS Information of special interest to all employees is posted regularly on the City bulletin boards. Employees may not post any information on these bulletin boards without the authorization of the Department Head. 10.9 MEDIA RELATIONS The Mayor or designated department heads shall be responsible for all official contacts with the news media during working hours, including answering of questions from the media. The Mayor or department head may designate specific employees to give out procedural, factual or historical information on particular subjects. 10.10 USE OF SAFETY BELTS Per Washington law, anyone operating or riding in City vehicles must wear seat belts at all times. 10.11 DRIVER'S LICENSE REQUIREMENTS As part of the requirements for certain specific City positions, an employee may be required to hold a valid Washington State Driver's license and/or a Commercial Driver's License (CDL). If an employee fails his or her CDL physical examination or the license is revoked, suspended or lost, or is in any other way not current, valid, and in the employee's possession, the employee shall promptly notify his/her department head and will be immediately suspended from driving duties. The employee may not resume driving until proof of a valid, current license is provided to his/her department head. Depending on the duration of license suspension, revocation or other inability to drive, an employee may be subject to disciplinary action, up to and including termination. Failure on the part of an employee to notify their department director of the revocation, suspension, or loss of driving privileges may subject the employee to disciplinary action, up to and including termination. 10.12 SOLICITATIONS Most forms of selling and solicitations are inappropriate in the workplace. They can be an intrusion on employees and citizens and may present a risk to employee safety or to the security of City or employee property. The following limitations apply: Persons not employed by the City may not solicit, survey, petition, or distribute literature on our premises at any time. This includes persons soliciting for charities, salespersons, questionnaire surveyors, labor union organizers, or any other solicitor or distributor. Exceptions to this rule may be made in special circumstances where the City determines that an exception would serve the best interests of the organization and our employees. An example of an exception might be the United Way campaign or a similar, community -based fund raising effort. Packet Page 117 of 145 Employees may not solicit for any purpose during work time. Reasonable forms of solicitation are permitted during non -work time, such as before or after work or during meal or break periods. Soliciting employees who are on non -work time may not solicit other employees who are on work time. Employees may not distribute literature for any purpose during work time or in work areas, or through the City's electronic systems. The employee lunchroom is considered a non -work area under this policy. 10.13 USE OF CITY CREDIT Unless otherwise authorized by City policy or specifically authorized by the Mayor, no City employee is authorized to commit the City to any contractual agreement, especially an agreement that lends the City's credit in any way. Employees are prohibited from conducting personal business with companies in any way which improperly implies the employee is acting as an agent of the City. 10.14 SUBSTANCE ABUSE The City's philosophy on substance abuse has two focuses: (1) a concern for the well being of the employee and (2) a concern for the safety of other employees and members of the public. As part of our employee assistance program, we encourage employees who are concerned about their alcohol or drug use to seek counseling, treatment and rehabilitation. Although the decision to seek diagnosis and accept treatment is completely voluntary, the City is fully committed to helping employees who voluntarily seek assistance to overcome substance abuse problems. In most cases, the expense of treatment may be fully or partially covered by the City's benefit program. Please see the EAP counselor for more information. In recognition of the sensitive nature of these matters, all discussions will be kept confidential. Employers who seek advice or treatment will not be subject to retaliation or discrimination. Although the City is concerned with rehabilitation, it must be understood that disciplinary action may be taken when an employee's job performance is impaired because he/she is under the influence of drugs or alcohol on the job. The City may discipline or terminate an employee possessing, consuming, selling or using alcohol, or controlled substances (other than legally prescribed) during work hours or on City premises, including break times and meal periods. The City may also discipline or terminate an employee who reports for duty or works under the influence of alcohol or controlled substances. Employees may also not report for work when their performance is impaired by the use of prescribed or over-the-counter medications. The City reserves the right to search employee work areas, offices, desks, filing cabinets etc. to ensure compliance with this policy. Employees shall have no expectation of privacy in such areas. Any employee who is convicted of a criminal drug violation in the workplace must notify the organization in writing within five calendar days of the conviction. The organization will take appropriate action within 30 days of notification. Federal contracting agencies will be notified when appropriate. 59 Packet Page 118 of 145 Testing: Certain employees of the City, including those who must possess CDLs or who have safety sensitive positions, are subject to random drug and alcohol testing. Any employee may also be required to submit to alcohol or controlled substance testing when the City has reasonable suspicion that the employee is under the influence of controlled substances or alcohol. Refusal to submit to testing, when requested, may result in immediate disciplinary action, including termination. The City may also choose to pursue criminal charges, if violations of law are suspected. The City has adopted Drug and Alcohol Testing Policies and Procedures, which more specifically describe the City's substance abuse policy, and these are incorporated herein by reference as Appendix B. Z1 Packet Page 119 of 145 0006.90000 BFP: 5/21/08 ORDINANCE NO.3689 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF TITLE 3 ECC, REVENUE AND FINANCE, TO ADD A NEW CHAPTER 3.70 ECC, CONFLICT OF INTEREST, REGARDING CONTRACTS WITH FORMER EMPLOYEES; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the city has contracted for professional services with firms that have hired former city employees; and WHEREAS, Chapters 42.20 and 42.23 RCW, which regulates conflict of interest in municipal contracting, does not specifically address dealings with former employees; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds it to be in the best interest of the city to adopt regulations establishing criteria for contracting with former employees or firms that hire former employees; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. A new Chapter 3.70 ECC, Conflict of Interest., is hereby adopted in Title 3 ECC, Revenue and Finance., to read as follows: Chapter 3.70 CONFLICT OF INTEREST 3.70.000 Definitions. 3.70.010 Restrictions on future employment of city employees. 3.70.020 Disclosure of Privileged, Confidential, or Proprietary Information. {SFP696127.DOC;1/00006.900000/} - 1 - Packet Page 120 of 145 3.70.030 Exemption. 3.70.040 Penalties. 3.70.000 Definitions. The definition of words used in Chapter 3.70 ECC shall be consistent with the definitions, context and usage of the terms in Chapter 42.23 RCW, and their interpretation by Washington Courts. 3.70.010 Restrictions on future employment of city employees. No former city official, officer or employee may, within a period of one year from the date of termination or city employment, accept employment or receive compensation from an employer if: (a) The former city official, officer or employee, during the two years immediately preceding termination of city employment, was engaged in the negotiation or administration of one or more contracts on behalf of the city with that employer and was in a position to make discretionary decisions affecting the outcome of such negotiation or the nature of such administration; and (b) Such a contract or contracts have a total value of more than ten thousand dollars; and (c) The duties of the employment with the employer or the activities for which the compensation would be received include fulfilling or implementing, in whole or in part, the provisions of such a contract or contracts or include the supervision or control of actions taken to fulfill or implement, in whole or in part, the provisions of such a contract or contracts. This session shall not be construed to prohibit a city elected or appointed official or a city employee from accepting employment with a city employee organization. 2. No former city official, officer or employee may, within a period of one year following the termination of city employment, have a direct or indirect beneficial interest in a contract or grant that was expressly authorized or funded by specific legislative or executive action in which the former city official, officer or employee participated. {BFP696127.DOQ1/00006.900000/} - 2 - Packet Page 121 of 145 3. No former city official, officer or employee may, within a period of one year following the termination of city employment, represent any person before any city board, body, agency, department, committee, examiner, adjustor, or commission regarding a specific project the former official or employee worked on, and was in a position to make discretionary decisions or recommendations, during his/her term of service or employment unless: (a) The former city official, officer or employee receives no compensation for representing that person; or (b) The specific project was a legislative issue; or (c) The matter involved in the representation by the former city official, officer or employee directly affects properties owned by the former city official, officer or employee. 4. Any elected or appointed official having the power to perform an official act or action shall, for a period of one year after the termination of his or her employment or term of service, refrain from lobbying the city department, agency, elected body, commission, or board on which they last served unless: (a) The former city elected or appointed official is receiving no compensation for such lobbying; or (b) The matter being lobbied directly affects properties owned by the former elected or appointed official. 3.70.020 Disclosure of Privileged, Confidential, or Proprietary Information. No former city official, officer or employee shall disclose or use any privileged, confidential, or proprietary information gained because of his or her service or employment with the city. 3.70.030 Exemption. 1. The prohibitions of ECC 3.10.010 notwithstanding, the city may contract with a former city official, officer or employee for expert or consultant services within one year of the latter's leaving city service upon determination and approval by resolution from the City Council that: {BFP696127.DOC;1/00006.900000/} - 3 - Packet Page 122 of 145 (a) It is important for the city to obtain the services in the contract, and time is of the essence; (b) The former city official, officer or employee is best qualified to perform the services, and contracting with another would result in undue burden on the city; and (c) The interests of the city, including but not limited to legal, financial and operations, will not be undermined as a result thereof. 2. The prohibitions of ECC 3.10.010 shall not apply to a former official, officer or employee acting on behalf of a governmental agency, if the City Council determines that the service to the agency is not adverse to the interest of the city. 3. Nothing in this ordinance shall prohibit an official elected to serve a governmental entity other than the City of Edmonds from carrying out his or her official duties for that government entity. 3.70.040 Penalties. Any person violating any provision of ECC 3,70.010 and ECC 3.70.020 shall be guilty of a gross misdemeanor and subject to punishment in accordance with ECC 5.50.020. Section 2. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance. Section 3. Effective Date. This ordinance is subject to referendum, and shall take effect thirty (30) days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the title. APPRD D: Atle� - MAY G Y AAAKENSON {BFP696127.DOC;1/00006.900000/) - 4 - Packet Page 123 of 145 ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: Ad'o��- z &:�� ' TY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE APPROVEDYTA : OFFICE OF EY: BY W. SCOTT SNYDER FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: 06/13/2008 PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: 06/17/2008 PUBLISHED: 06/22/2008 EFFECTIVE DATE: 07/22/2008 ORDINANCE. NO, 3689 (8FF696127.n0C-.IA) a6.4000001y - 5 - Packet Page 124 of 145 SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO.3689 of the City of Edmonds, Washington On the 17th day of June, 2008, the City Council of the City of Edmonds, passed Ordinance No.3689. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting of the title, provides as follows: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF TITLE 3 ECC, REVENUE AND FINANCE, TO ADD A NEW CHAPTER 3.70 ECC, CONFLICT OF INTEREST, REGARDING CONTRACTS WITH FORMER EMPLOYEES; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request. DATED this 18th day of June, 2008, -'ear. CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE { €3FP696127.DOC; I/CD006.9000001} Packet Page 125 of 145 Humann, Debi From: Chase, Sandy Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 11:00 AM To: Humann, Debi Subject: RE: Ordinance Search Attachments: Ordinance 3689.pdf Hi Debi, I believe you are looking for Ordinance 3689 (attached) that was adopted in May 2008 that relates to "conflict of interest", former employees, etc. I did a quick word search for anything to do with "ethics" and nothing came up. Also, I do not recall any other ordinance that may apply. If I come across anything, I will be sure to let you know. Sandy From: Humann, Debi Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 9:34 AM To: Chase, Sandy Subject: Ordinance Search Hi Sandy: I know you are too busy for words but I need help when you get a chance. At last night's PS/HR Committee meeting, Wilson and Bernheim reviewed the Ethics Board issue. They requested that I supply the ordinance that apparently was prepared when Don Fiene went from being an employee to working for a private company. No idea what this is about. Don left our employment 4/08 if that helps. If you can think of any other ordinance that might deal with ethics, that would be appreciate also. Thank you. Debi Packet Page 126 of 145 to watch the January 23 joint meeting with the Planning Board, Economic Development Commission and the consultant. With regard to student volunteers, he recalled his son was a student volunteer on the skate park and worked three years to design and build it. He used that experience in college. If the Council pursues a parks levy, he recommended including a project for students in order to engage them in campaigning for the levy. He agreed with Mr. Hertrich's suggestion for the Council to appoint a representative to the School District and also suggested Councilmembers attend the Superintendent's monthly roundtable meetings. Councilmember Bloom explained she wanted the Council to adopt an ethics policy that addresses board/commission, elected officials and staff. There are many policies in Washington could be adapted for Edmonds. The next step is to form an ethics committee; if a citizen has a question about something such as a conflict of interest, they can go to the ethics committee and determine whether something is potentially an ethics violation. She recommended the Council, 1) adopt an ethics policy, and 2) form an ethics committee. She sought Council approval for the Public Safety & Personnel Committee to pursue this. Ms. Hite explained the recently adopted personnel policy has an extensive ethics policy for employees; that is the best place for policies regarding employees. She encouraged the Council to develop an ethics policy for boards/commissions and elected officials but not to include employees. Discussion followed regarding other cities' ethics policies, past unsuccessful efforts to develop a code of ethics policy, developing a policy with enough examples to provide direction, and the difference between a code of conduct and code of ethics. Summary: Refer development of code of ethics to Public Safety and Personnel Committee. 11. POTENTIAL ACTION AS A RESULT OF MEETING IN EXECUTIVE SESSION No action. 10. MISCELLANEOUS Based on yesterday's discussion regarding public comment at committee meetings, Council President Petso distributed language for committee meeting notices and asked Councilmember to submit comments/concerns to Ms. Chase. The retreat was adjourned at 11:37 p.m. Edmonds City Council Retreat Draft Minutes February 1-2, 2013 Page 21 Packet Page 127 of 145 CITY OF LYNNWOOD Chapter 2.94 CODE OF ETHICS Sections: 2.94.010 Policy. 2.94.020 Definitions. 2.94.030 Personal gain or profit — Use of persons, money or property. 2.94.040 Conflict of interest. 2.94.050 Acceptance of gifts. 2.94.060 Campaign activities. 2.94.070 Confidential information. 2.94.080 Board of ethics — Complaints against a councilmember, member of a board or commission, or mayor — Advisory opinions. 2.94.085 Conducting a board hearing on motions and a sufficient complaint. 2.94.090 Complaints against employees and officials other than the mayor, councilmembers, and members of advisory bodies. 2.94.095 Alternative procedure for complaints against employees and officials other than the mayor, council members, and members of advisory bodies. 2.94.100 Liberal construction — Limitation period — Effective date. 2.94.010 Policy. The city of Lynnwood is committed to conducting its business in a fair, open, efficient and accountable manner. Public officials and employees shall conduct their public and private actions and financial dealings in a manner that shall present no apparent or actual conflict of interest between the public trust and their private interest. Each official and employee is assumed and expected to act in accordance with all laws that may apply to his or her position, as well as striving to avoid even an appearance of impropriety in the conduct of his or her office or business. Each employee and official should be informed of this code and meet its requirements. Questions regarding its interpretation concerning employees and officials should be brought to that person's supervisor or mayor for interpretations of this code, and subject to any collective bargaining agreement, any action concerning violation of this code concerning officials and employees shall be determined by the mayor; provided questions regarding the interpretation of the code as applied to councilmembers, mayor and allegations of violation of this code by councilmembers, mayor, or members of advisory bodies shall be referred to the board of ethics through the process established herein. (Ord. 2112 § 2, 1996) 2.94.020 Definitions. Throughout this code, the following definitions shall apply: A. "Advisory body" means any board or commission, committee or other entity previously, or hereafter, and named a board or commission in the ordinance or resolutions creating the body, created by the city council to give advice on subjects and perform such other functions as prescribed by the city council. Advisory body does not mean task forces, informal committees, or working groups appointed by the mayor or created by the city council for short periods of time or for specific tasks. B. "Benefit," "gain," "profit," or "interest in a contract" applies only to situations or contracts involving business transactions, employment matters, and other financial interests, and does not apply to situations or contracts which confer no financial benefit. Packet Page 128 of 145 C. City of Lynnwood Officials, Officers or Employees. "City official, officer, or employee" means every individual elected or appointed to an office or position of employment, whether such individual is paid or unpaid. D. "Confidential information" means: 1. Specific information, rather than generalized knowledge, that is not available to the general public on request; or 2. Information made confidential by law including but not limited to as provided in taxpayer information, RCW 82.32.330; information regarding organized crime, RCW 43.43.856; criminal history information, Chapter 10.97 RCW; medical records, Chapter 70.02 RCW; and juvenile records, RCW 13.50.010; or 3. Information which is initially disclosed or discussed in executive session, and which is not available to the general public on request; or 4. "Confidential information" does not include information officially disclosed by the mayor or a majority vote of the city council. E. "Contract" includes any contract, sale, lease, or purchase. F. "Contracting party" includes any person, partnership, association, cooperative, corporation, or other business entity which is a party to a contract with a municipality. G. "Ethics" means standards of conduct that are regulated by this code. H. "Family" means an individual's spouse, and child, step -child, grandchild, parent, step-parent, grandparent, brother, half- brother, sister, or half-sister of the individual and the spouse of any such person and a child, step -child, grandchild, parent, step-parent, grandparent, brother, half-brother, sister, or half-sister of the individual's spouse and the spouse of any such person. I. "Gift" means anything of economic value for which no consideration is given. "Gift" does not include: 1. Items from family members or friends where it is clear beyond a reasonable doubt that the gift was not made as part of any design to gain or maintain influence in the city or with the recipient in connection with city matters; 2. Items related to the outside business of the recipient that are customary and not related to the recipient's performance of official duties; 3. Items exchanged among officials and employees or a social event hosted or sponsored by a city officer or city employee for co-workers; 4. Payments by a governmental or nongovernmental entity of reasonable expenses incurred in connection with a speech, presentation, appearance, or trade mission made in an official capacity. As used in this subsection, "reasonable expenses" are limited to travel, lodging, and subsistence expenses incurred the day before through the day after the event; 5. Items an official or employee is authorized by law to accept; Packet Page 129 of 145 6. Payment of enrollment and course fees and reasonable travel expenses attributable to attending seminars and educational programs sponsored by a bona fide nonprofit professional, educational, or trade association, or charitable institution. As used in this subsection, "reasonable expenses" are limited to travel, lodging, and subsistence expenses incurred the day before through the day after the event; 7. Items returned by the recipient to the donor within 30 days of receipt or donation to a charitable organization within 30 days of receipt; 8. Campaign contributions or other items reported or regulated under Chapter 42.17 RCW; 9. Discounts available to an individual as a member of an employee group, occupation, or similar broad -based group; and 10. Awards, prizes, scholarships, or other items provided in recognition of professional, academic or scientific achievement. J. "Person" means any individual, partnership, association, corporation, firm, institution, or other entity, whether or not operated for profit. (Ord. 2112 § 2, 1996) 2.94.030 Personal gain or profit — Use of persons, money or property. A. An official or employee shall not knowingly use his or her office or position for personal or family benefit gain or profit, or use his or her position to secure special privileges or exceptions for himself, herself, or for the benefit, gain, or profits of any other persons. B. No official or employee may employ or use any person, money, or property under the officer's or employee's official control or direction, or in his or her official custody, for the personal or family benefit, gain, or profit of the officer or employee, or another. C. This section does not prohibit the use of public resources to benefit others as part of an officer's or employee's public duties. D. Notwithstanding the provisions of LMC 2.94.030, the mayor shall have discretion, and may adopt rules, regarding the nature, scope and extent to which the city of Lynnwood, its officials and employees, may provide in -kind and other assistance, if any, to an activity or event; provided, that such assistance: 1. Does not unreasonably interfere with the proper performance of public duties and function; and 2. Provides a common benefit to the city; and 3. Is of a de minimus cost, or of reasonable value. Any terms, conditions, or mutual arrangements determined to be appropriate by the mayor, regarding the provision of any type of assistance, shall be in writing. (Ord. 2112 § 1, 1996) 2.94.040 Conflict of interest. A. An official or employee shall not be beneficially interested, directly or indirectly, in any contract which may be made by, through or under the supervision of such person, in whole or in part, or which may be made for the benefit of his or her office, or accept, directly or indirectly, any compensation, gratuity, or reward in connection with such contract from any other person beneficially interested therein, and shall not knowingly engage in activities which are in conflict, or which Packet Page 130 of 145 have the potential to create a conflict, with performance of official duties. Examples of conflicts, or potential conflicts of interest, include but are not necessarily limited to circumstances where the official or employee, or their families: 1. Influences the selection or nonselection of or the conduct of business between the city and any entity when the official or employee has a financial interest; 2. Solicits for himself or herself or for another a gift or any other thing of value from the city or from any person or entity having dealings with the city; provided, however, that no conflict of interest for the official or employee shall be deemed to exist with respect to solicitation for campaign contributions required to be reported under Chapter 42.17 RCW or for charitable contributions; 3. Accepts any retainer, compensation, gift or other thing of value which is contingent upon a specific action or nonaction by the official or employee; 4. Accepts a gift in any manner other than as provided in subsection (E) of this section; 5. Intentionally uses or discloses information not available to the general public and acquired by reason of his or her official position which financially benefits himself or herself, family, friends or others. B. An official or employee is not interested in a contract if he or she has only a "remote interest" in the contract. "Remote interest" means that of: 1. A nonsalaried officer of a nonprofit corporation; 2. An employee or agent of a contracting party where the compensation of such employee or agent consists entirely of fixed wages or salary; 3. A landlord or tenant of a contracting patty; and 4. A holder of less than one percent of the shares of a corporation or cooperative which is a contracting party. None of the provisions of this section are applicable to any officer or employee interested in a contract, even if the officer's or employee's interest is only remote, if the officer or employee influences or attempts to influence any other officer or employee of the city to enter into the contract. C. Repealed by Ord. 2493. D. A councilmember may not vote in the authorization, approval or ratification of a contract in which he or she is beneficially interested even though one of the exceptions allowing the awarding of such contract applies. A councilmember shall disclose the fact and extent of a remote interest for the official minutes of the city council prior to taking any action related to the interest and, thereafter. E. Restrictions after Leaving City. 1. For one year after leaving the city, a former official or employee may not hold or acquire a financial interest, direct or indirect, personally or through their family, in any contract or contracts having a total value of more than $5,000 made by, through, or under their supervision, or accept, directly or indirectly, any compensation, gratuity, or reward from any person interested in such a contract or transaction. Packet Page 131 of 145 2. For one year after leaving the city, a former official or employee may not: a. Assist anyone in proceedings involving the city where such official or employee worked on a matter in which they were officially involved in the course of their duties; b. Represent any private person as an advocate on a matter in which they were involved; or c. Compete for a city contract when they were involved in determining the scope of work or the selection process. 3. An official or employee may never disclose or use the city's privileged or proprietary information except to perform official duties. (Ord. 2493 §§ 1, 2, 2004; Ord. 2308 § 1, 2000; Ord. 2112 § 2, 1996) 2.94.050 Acceptance of gifts. A. Except for charitable contributions or campaign contributions required to be reported under Chapter 42.17 RCW, an official or employee may not accept gifts of cash in any amount that has any connection whatsoever with city employment or the performance of duties. B. Except as provided in subsection (E) of this section, an official or employee may not, directly or indirectly, give or receive or agree to receive, or ask for any compensation, gift, reward, or gratuity from a source for performing or omitting or deferring the performance of any official duty, except from the city. C. Except as provided in subsection (E) of this section, any and all gifts received by a city employee will be given immediately to the employee's supervisor with an explanation of the circumstances surrounding receipt of the gift. The supervisor or department head will return the gift to the sender with a written expression of thanks and an explanation of the city policy concerning gifts. A copy of the memo shall be sent to the mayor. D. Except as provided in subsection (E) of this section, any and all gifts received by an official will be returned immediately to the sender, with a written expression of thanks and an explanation of city policy concerning gifts. A copy of the memo shall be sent to the mayor, or placed with the mayor's records. E. 1. An officer or employee may accept an item or cash if it is regulated or reported under Chapter 42.17 RCW. 2. No officer of employee may accept gifts with an aggregate value in excess of $50.00 from a single source in a calendar year or a single gift from multiple sources with a value in excess of $50.00, and only if it could be reasonably expected that the gift, gratuity, or favor would not influence the vote, action, or judgment of the officer or employee, or be considered as part of a reward for action or inaction. For purposes of this section, "single source" means any person, corporation, or entity, whether acting directly or through any agent or other intermediary, and "single gift" includes any event, item, or group of items used in conjunction with each other or any trip including transportation, lodging, and attendant costs, not excluded from the definition of gift under LMC 2.94.020. The value of gifts given to an office's or employee's family member shall be attributed to the official or employee for the purposes of determining whether the limit has been exceeded, unless an independent business, family, or social relationship exists between the donor and the family member. 3. The following are presumed not to influence the vote, action, or judgment of the official or employee, or be considered as part of a reward for action or inaction, so as to allow an official or employee to receive or accept them: Packet Page 132 of 145 a. Unsolicited advertising or promotional items of nominal value, such as pens and note pads. Employees should endeavor to use such items in the workplace instead of taking them home; b. Unsolicited tokens or awards of appreciation in the form of a plaque, trophy, desk item, wall memento, or similar item; c. Unsolicited items received for the purpose of evaluation or review, if the recipient has no personal beneficial interest in the eventual use or acquisition of the item; d. Informational material, publications, or subscriptions related to the recipient's performance of official duties; e. Food and beverages consumed at hosted receptions where attendance is related to the recipient's official duties; f. Admission to, and the cost of food and beverages consumed at, events sponsored by or in conjunction with a civic, charitable, governmental, or community organization; g. Those items excluded from the definition of gift in LMC 2.94.020(I); h. Payments by a governmental or nongovernmental entity of reasonable expenses incurred in connection with a speech, presentation, appearance, or trade mission made in an official capacity; i. Payments for seminars and educational programs sponsored by a bona fide nonprofit professional, educational, or trade association, or charitable institution; Flowers, plants, and floral arrangements. The employee receiving the gift shall: i. Notify the employee's supervisor of the gift; ii. Take the item to a recognized relief agency, or alternatively, make the items available for the enjoyment of all employees in the employee's work area; and iii. Send a thank -you card to the provider explaining what was done with the gift. k. Food and beverages on infrequent occasions in the ordinary course of meals where attendance is related to the performance of official duties. The presumption in this subsection is rebuttable and may be overcome by clear and convincing evidence based on the circumstances surrounding the giving and acceptance of the item. F. This section shall not apply to gifts made to the city. All such gifts shall be given to the mayor for official disposition. (Ord. 2112 § 2, 1996) 2.94.060 Campaign activities. A. Officials and employees may participate in the political process only on their own time, and only outside of the workplace by assisting a campaign for the elections of any person to any office, or for the promotion of or the opposition to any ballot proposition. Packet Page 133 of 145 B. Officials and employees shall not use or authorize the use of the facilities or resources of the city for the purpose of assisting a campaign for the election of any person to any office, or for the promotion or opposition to any ballot proposition, except as may be authorized by law under the provisions of Chapter 42.17.130 RCW. C. This section does not prohibit any activity permitted or regulated under Chapter 42.17 RCW. (Ord. 2112 § 2, 1996) 2.94.070 Confidential information. A. No official or employee may accept employment or engage in any business or professional activity that the official or employee might reasonably expect would require or induce him or her to disclose confidential information acquired by the official or employee by reason of the official's or employee's official position. B. No official or employee may disclose confidential information gained by reason of the officer's or employee's official position or otherwise use the information for his or her personal gain or benefit or the gain or benefit of another, unless the disclosure has been authorized by the mayor (or majority vote of the city council) or by terms of a contract involving: 1. The city; and 2. The person or persons who have authority to waive confidentiality of the information. C. An official or employee shall not use information acquired in confidence from a city customer, supplier, lessee or contractor for other than city purposes. D. This section does not prevent an official or employee from giving testimony under oath or from making statements required to be made under penalty of perjury or contempt. E. The mayor shall determine, acting in the best interest of the city, whether information is confidential; provided a majority of the city council may vote to release any information which is not by law required to be kept confidential. The types of information listed in RCW 42.17.310 are presumed confidential, unless the mayor (or city council by majority vote) determines it is not. In any matter involving an advisory body, the presiding officer shall determine, acting in the best interests of the city, whether information is confidential, subject to approval by the mayor or city council by majority vote. In any matter involving city employees, the higher ranking person shall determine, acting in the best interests of the city, whether information is confidential, subject to approval by the mayor. For example, a department head, meeting with employee B to discuss employee C's job performance, may determine that information discussed is confidential. (Ord. 2112 § 2, 1996) 2.94.080 Board of ethics — Complaints against a councilmember, member of a board or commission, or mayor — Advisory opinions. A. Board Established — Authority, Purpose and Duties — Membership — Officers — Policies and Procedures — Board Counsel — Staff. Board Established. There is established a board of ethics for the city of Lynnwood. 2. Authority, Purpose and Duties. The purpose of this board of ethics is: a. To issue advisory written opinions on the provisions of this code; Packet Page 134 of 145 b. To hear complaints and determine if violations of this ethics code, or state ethics law applicable to cities, have occurred by the mayor, a councilmember, a member of a board or commission, and to enter appropriate administrative orders and make recommendations to the city council; c. To hear and consider complaints referred to it by the mayor as provided for in LMC 2.94.095; d. To adopt policies, procedures and rules, as it may deem necessary and appropriate to accomplish its purpose and duties; e. To appoint a qualified individual or firm as "board counsel" who shall both provide the board with independent legal counsel apart from the city attorney, and be responsible to conduct investigations on complaints and conduct the functions and perform the duties set forth in subsection (A)(3) of this section; f. To manage the expenditure of appropriations for operation of the board, board counsel, and other staff; and g. To annually review: its budget; all service contracts to ensure ready availability of board counsel, third party investigators, and other staff, and to meet with contractors; activities for the proper training of such staff about this ethics code and the board's policies, rules and procedures for the administration thereof. 3. Board Counsel — Authority and Duties. Board counsel shall have the following authority and duties: a. To provide the ethics board with independent legal research, advice, assistance, and counsel on its organization and general operations, except in regard to any complaint once it has been filed and specifically in regard to such complaint during the time it is being considered by board counsel or the board under this section and LMC 2.94.085. b. To agree to settle complaints in accordance with the policies of the board and the purpose and intent of this ethics code, to enter appropriate administrative orders of settlement and administrative orders determining the sufficiency or insufficiency of a complaint, as set forth in subsection (B) of this section. c. To perform the functions of board counsel as set forth in this section and LMC 2.94.085. 4. Membership — Nomination, Confirmation and Alternates — Terms — Qualification — Removal. The board of ethics shall be composed of three members, none of whom shall be a city councilmember or city employee. a. The board members shall be nominated by the mayor and confirmed by the city council, for a term of three years or for fulfillment of an unexpired term. The original appointees' terms concluded as follows: Position No. 1: January 1, 1998 Position No. 2: January 1, 1999 Position No. 3: January 1, 2000 Any person may be removed from the board by the mayor, with the approval of the council. b. In addition to the members of the board, the mayor shall nominate, and the city council in its discretion shall confirm, first and second alternate board members. The alternates may attend all meetings of the Packet Page 135 of 145 board, and may participate as set forth in board rules, but shall have no voting rights unless they serve in the place of an appointed board member. In the event a board member must recuse himself or herself, or is not present, or is otherwise unavailable to conduct any board business, the first alternate member shall serve in his or her place. If a second alternate is needed, the second alternate shall then serve. c. Members and alternate members may be nonresidents of the city of Lynnwood. d. In filling any vacancy or making a nomination for membership on the board of ethics, the mayor shall strive to select persons with diverse perspectives and areas of expertise appropriate to the review of ethical matters, and who are of good general reputation and character. For proposed nominees who are nonresidents, the mayor shall state reasons that contributed to the decision to nominate a nonresident, including, but not limited to, particular expertise of the person to review ethics matters, and/or a desire to have a person or persons serve on the board who as nonresidents are less likely to have some personal, social, or business relationship with whomever may be the subject of an ethics complaint, and who would be less likely to be disqualified; and for other reasons deemed appropriate by the mayor. 5. Officers — Succession — Quorum — Procedures. The board shall elect from its membership a presiding officer who shall be the chief administrative officer of the board who shall be referred to as the board chair and a first vice -chair and a second vice -chair, who shall each serve for one year. If the board chair is unavailable, not present, or is recused from participation, the first vice -chair shall preside and have all authority and powers of the board chair during and, if necessary, between meetings of the board. If the board chair and the first vice -chair are both unavailable, not present, or are recused from participation, the second vice -chair shall preside and have all authority and powers of the board chair during and, if necessary, between meetings of the board. The board may elect any member to serve in additional offices or roles as the board deems necessary. The board shall provide a manner for minutes and records of all meetings to be kept. The board shall adopt policies, rules, and procedures; provided, a majority of the board shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business, and a majority of the board shall be necessary to carry any proposition. 6. Meetings — Notice. A meeting of the board shall be held as the board deems necessary and advisable on 72 hours' notice to all members, or as provided in board rules, or otherwise as agreed by a majority of the board. 7. Board Counsel, Investigative and Clerical Staff. The board of ethics shall receive the following staff support: a. Normal Board Operations and Budgeting. The mayor shall provide staff, as he or she deems appropriate, to assist the board of ethics. The board shall make a timely request for necessary biennial budget appropriation(s) for "on -call" contract services for independent legal counsel, and for other staff and other operational costs to the mayor, who shall include that request in the preliminary budget, when, if otherwise necessary, the board may request appropriations directly from the city council. b. Board Operations Involving a Complaint. If at any time a complaint creates a need for additional or special funding, the board shall make a supplemental request to the mayor or administrative services director who shall forward it to the city council for review and appropriate action. B. Specific Complaint Against the Mayor, a Councilmember, or a Member of a Board or Commission — Complaint Requirements — Preliminary and Final Determinations of Sufficiency. Packet Page 136 of 145 1. Complaint Requirements — Service. Any person may submit a written complaint to the finance director alleging one or more violations of this code by the mayor, a councilmember, or a member of a board or commission. The complaint must: a. Set forth specific facts with enough precision and detail for board counsel to make a determination of sufficiency; and b. Set forth the specific section(s) and subsection(s) of this code that the complaining party believes has been violated; and c. An explanation by the complaining party of the reasons why the alleged facts violate this code; and d. Be signed under penalty of perjury by the person(s) submitting it in a manner consistent with Chapter 9A.72 RCW; and e. State each complaining person's correct name, address at which mail may be personally delivered to the submitter, and the telephone number at which each complaining person may be contacted. The finance director shall promptly serve or mail, by return receipt requested, a copy of the complaint to the individual(s) complained against and to board counsel. The finance director shall not send a copy of the complaint to board members, but shall send a notice to all board members and alternates setting forth only the name, address and any other necessary information identifying all complaining parties and the individual(s) complained against. The finance director shall notify all complaining parties, board members and alternates, and board counsel, of the date of completion of service or mailing of a copy of the complaint. 2. Board Counsel Consideration of Complaint — Preliminary Determination of Sufficiency — Investigation. Upon receipt of the complaint, board counsel shall: a. Initially review the complaint to determine if it reasonably complies with the requirements of a complaint in subsection (B)(1) of this section, and shall: i. Meet at least once together with all parties to hear from them on all aspects of the complaint and issues involved; ii. Allow all parties to submit at meetings, or otherwise, any information they have concerning the complaint and issues involved; iii. Request, as needed, clarification, explanation or submission of information necessary to properly consider the complaint; iv. Promptly distribute to all parties any correspondence between board counsel and any party; and v. Meet or discuss with any party, at such time or times as board counsel determines appropriate, a settlement of one or more of the complaint allegations and issues involved. b. When in the discretion of board counsel it is necessary or appropriate, refer the complaint and any information gathered to the investigative third party(ies) approved by the board; provided, board counsel shall direct and control that investigation. Packet Page 137 of 145 c. At the conclusion of the third party investigation, distribute to all parties all information gathered by any third party investigator, and any report, findings, or conclusions therefrom. d. After distribution of information from the third party investigation, convene at least one meeting with all parties in attendance to discuss a settlement and resolution of the complaint and the issues involved, and board counsel may submit proposals for settlement of one or more issues involved and set deadlines for response by any or all parties, and further, if a settlement of one or more issues is agreed to, board counsel shall enter an appropriate administrative order of settlement. e. If a settlement of one or more issues cannot be achieved, then enter an administrative order that: i. Dismisses any complaint allegation which remains insufficiently stated; ii. Dismisses any complaint allegation which is not supported by substantial facts; iii. Identifies and sets forth the terms of any agreed settlement between the parties and board counsel; iv. Identifies any complaint allegations withdrawn; v. Determines the sufficiency of all other complaint allegations which are supported by substantial facts; and vi. Sets forth any additional allegations, if any, from evidence which board counsel has discovered during the investigation, and such allegations shall comply with subsection (B)(1) of this section. This administrative order shall be served or mailed to all parties within seven days of the date it was signed by board counsel. f. Board counsel may, with the concurrence of the board, refer any complaint allegation, or any matter discovered by board counsel during the course of an investigation, to a city or county prosecutor. The board shall adopt policies and procedures to receive a recommendation for such a referral, and when appropriate to concur in such a recommendation. All proceedings involving a recommendation for a referral to a city or county prosecutor shall not be open to the public, nor shall any party, any party's representative, or any party's attorney be allowed to participate. 3. Complaint — Final Determination of Sufficiency — Standard. Board counsel shall make the final determination of the sufficiency of a complaint. A complaint shall be sufficient if it precisely alleges and reasonably describes acts which if true would constitute a prima facie showing of a violation of a specific provision(s) of this code. The purpose of requiring that the board counsel make a determination of sufficiency of the complaint is to ensure that the complaint is supported by identifiable facts, and to ensure that the complaint is not based on frivolous, speculative, or vague allegations. 4. Final Determination of Sufficiency — Administrative Order — Appeal. Ten days after the last settlement meeting, board counsel shall make and enter a determination of sufficiency in the form of a written administrative order which shall be served or mailed to each party. The administrative order shall include findings of fact and conclusions upon which board counsel made the determination of sufficiency or insufficiency. The determination of sufficiency issued by board counsel shall become final and binding 10 days after service or mailing is completed, unless it is appealed to the board. If it is not appealed, the board shall conduct a hearing as set forth Packet Page 138 of 145 in LMC 2.94.085. If, upon appeal, the board determines that the complaint, or a portion thereof, is sufficient or insufficient, it shall enter an appropriate administrative order, and no administrative or other legal review or appeal is available. If the board on appeal finds that the complaint, or a portion thereof, is sufficient, a hearing will be conducted as set forth in LMC 2.94.085. 5. Rights of Parties. Except as provided in subsection (13)(2)(f) of this section, each party to the complaint and the person(s) against whom the complaint was filed, and any other parties as the board may determine should be involved, shall all have the right: a. To attend and participate in person or through a designated representative of a party, and an attorney, during any board counsel meetings, or board hearings; b. In any board hearing on a motion or appeal, to present written and oral argument, supported by affidavits or declarations as may be appropriate, on any legal or factual issues involved in the motion or appeal before the board; and c. In any board hearing on a sufficient complaint, to call witnesses, cross-examine witnesses, and to present written and oral argument on any legal or factual issues involved in the complaint before the board. 6. Violation of the Ethics Code — Remedies. In the event the board's administrative order determines that the individual against whom the complaint was made has violated the code, then the city council may take any of the following actions by a majority vote of the council: a. Admonition. An admonition shall be a verbal nonpublic statement approved by the city council and made by the council president, or his/her designee, to the individual. b. Reprimand. A reprimand shall be administered to the individual by a resolution of reprimand by the city council. The resolution shall be prepared by the city council and shall be signed by the mayor or council president. If the individual objects to the content of such resolution, he or she may file a request stating the reasons for objections with the council president and asking for a review of the content of the resolution of reprimand by the city council. The city council shall review the resolution of reprimand in light of the board's administrative order and the request for review, and may take whatever action appears appropriate under the circumstances. c. Censure. A resolution of censure shall be a resolution read personally to the individual in public. The resolution shall be prepared by the city council and shall be signed by the mayor or council president. The individual shall appear at a city council meeting at a time and place directed by the city council to receive the resolution of censure. Notice shall be given at least 20 calendar days before the scheduled appearance at which time a copy of the proposed resolution of censure shall be provided to the individual. Within seven days of receipt of the notice, if the individual objects to the contents of such resolution, he or she may file a request stating the reasons for objections with the council president and asking for a review of the content of the proposed resolution of censure by the city council. Such a request will stay the administration of the censure. The city council shall review the proposed censure in light of the board's administrative order and the request for review, and may take whatever action appears appropriate under the circumstances. The action of the city council shall be final and not subject to further review or appeal. If no such request is received, the resolution of censure shall be administered at the time and place set. It shall be read publicly, and the individual shall not make any statement in support of, or in opposition thereto, or in mitigation Packet Page 139 of 145 thereof. A censure shall be administered at the time it is scheduled whether or not the individual appears as required. d. Removal — Member of Board, Commission or Committee. In the event the individual against whom the complaint was made is currently a member of a city board, commission, committee, or other multimember bodies nominated by the mayor and confirmed by the city council, the city council may, in addition to the remedies set forth in subsections (13)(6)(a), (b), or (c) of this section, and notwithstanding any other provision of the Lynnwood Municipal Code, by a majority vote remove the individual from such board, commission or committee effective immediately. The action of the city council in the selection and carrying out of remedies shall be final and not subject to further review or appeal. 7. Proceedings Open/Closed. Proceedings by the board, when they relate to action involving a person, shall be made in executive session; however, consistent with RCW 42.30.110(1)(f), upon request of the individual against whom the complaint was made, one or more hearings before the board on a motion or the hearing on a sufficient complaint shall be open to the public. The deliberations of the board shall not be open to the public; however, any final action by the board on any administrative order shall be taken at a meeting open to the public and only after proper public notice is given. 8. Public Records. The complaint, board counsel's administrative order of settlement, an administrative order determining sufficiency or nonsufficiency of a complaint, and any other administrative order of the board shall be considered public records. An administrative order by board council determining that a complaint is sufficient shall contain at the beginning the following specific language: NOTICE: ANY PORTION OF THIS ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER DETERMINING SUFFICIENCY OF ANY PORTION OF A COMPLAINT DOES NOT DETERMINE THE TRUTH OR FALSITY OF THE ALLEGATIONS CONTAINED IN THE COMPLAINT FILED WITH THE BOARD. BOARD COUNCIL HAS ONLY DETERMINED THAT IF CERTAIN FACTS CONTAINED IN THE COMPLAINT ARE FOUND TO BE TRUE DURING A LATER BOARD HEARING THEN A VIOLATION(S) OF THE ETHICS CODE MAY BE FOUND TO HAVE OCCURRED. The city shall release copies of any written reports resulting from an investigation of a complaint and any written censures or reprimands issued by the city council, in response to public records requests consistent with Chapter 42.17 RCW and any other applicable public disclosure laws. 9. Council Action — Executive Session — Councilmember or Mayor Disqualification from Voting. Final action to decide upon remedies by the city council shall be by majority vote in a public meeting. If the proceeding involves a member of the city council, that member shall not vote on any matter involving the member. As provided in RCW 35A.12.100, the mayor may vote in the case of a tie, except if the action is against the mayor. Deliberations by the council may be in executive session; however, upon request of the individual against whom the complaint was made, a public hearing or public meeting before the council will be held on the issue of remedies. C. Advisory Opinions. 1. Upon request of any employee, the mayor or a member of the city council, or any official, the board of ethics may also render written advisory opinions concerning the applicability of the code to hypothetical circumstances and/or situations solely related to the persons making the request. Packet Page 140 of 145 2. Upon request of the mayor, or two members of the city council, the board of ethics may also render written advisory opinions concerning the applicability of the code to hypothetical circumstances and/or situations related to a matter of city-wide interest or policy. (Ord. 2493 § 3, 2004; Ord. 2133 § 1, 1997; Ord. 2112 § 2, 1996) 2.94.085 Conducting a board hearing on motions and a sufficient complaint. A. Evidentiary Standard for Violation — Burden of Proof — Motions — Procedural Administrative Orders — No Appeal. The board shall find a violation of this ethics code, or of state ethical laws which apply to cities, only upon a preponderance of the evidence presented and admitted during a hearing on a sufficient complaint. The burden of proof shall be upon board counsel to prove a violation by a preponderance of the evidence. The board is authorized to conduct hearings on any motion from the parties or board counsel, including motions for summary judgment. The standard of proof for summary judgment shall be that used by the trials courts of this state under Civil Rule 45. The board is authorized to determine and establish by administrative order all necessary and appropriate procedural matters including, but not limited to, scheduling, hearing procedures and other administrative matters regarding a hearing. Any board administrative order shall not be subject to review or appeal. B. Hearing — Time Periods — Tolling of Periods. The board shall conduct a hearing on a sufficient complaint or portion thereof which has not been otherwise disposed of as provided for in this chapter.The board shall begin a hearing no later than 15 working days after the final determination of sufficiency of the complaint unless a longer time period is requested by a party or board counsel, and approved by the board. The board shall render a final administrative order concluding the hearing no later than 90 calendar days after it begins the hearing unless a longer time period has been requested by the board and approved by the city council. However, the running of these two time periods shall be tolled and all proceedings of the board, or as may be applicable to the board counsel's activities in LMC 2.94.080(B), on the complaint, shall be stayed: 1. During any period from when the board files with the council president an application to the city council for subpoena power to the time a council decision on the application is made; 2. During any period from when the board becomes aware that any person refuses to obey such subpoena and until such time as a superior court issues an order on the subpoena and such person complies with that court order; 3. During any period from the date an appeal is made to the board regarding board counsel's administrative order of sufficiency until the board enters a final administrative order deciding the appeal; 4. During any period from the date a summary judgement motion is filed with the board until the board enters a final administrative order deciding the motion; or 5. During any period from the date a referral is made to a city or county prosecuting authority until a determination is made by each prosecuting authority that it will not proceed with a criminal prosecution concerning the matter(s) referred by the board or board counsel, or until a criminal proceeding is terminated or completed. C. Board Administrative Order — Finality — Reconsideration — Recommendations. The board shall render an administrative order and decision setting forth its findings of fact and conclusions of law as to whether or not the individual against whom the complaint was made has violated the code. Its administrative order and decision shall become final 10 working days after its entry, unless a motion for reconsideration is filed. The administrative order may include recommendations for the improvement of the city's ethics code as the board may in its discretion determine. Packet Page 141 of 145 D. Subpoenas — Requests — Authority to Issue — Service. The city council may issue subpoenas on behalf of any party in response to board counsel's or the board's application (which each shall include any party's requests and justification for subpoenas) for the attendance and testimony of witnesses, and the production of documentary evidence, at board counsel meetings of all parties, witness interviews, depositions, or hearings relating to any matter under investigation by board counsel or the board, or in connection with any hearing conducted by the board. Board counsel or the board shall request subpoena power by making a written application to the city council describing in detail the subject matter of the proposed subpoena and an explanation of why such information is reasonably necessary in order to conduct board counsel's or the board's investigation or hearing. The subpoena may be issued in the event the city council determines the subpoena request is reasonable. Board counsel shall be responsible to serve or mail all subpoenas authorized by the city council. In the event any person disobeys a subpoena, board counsel or the board may make a written application (which each shall include any party's requests and justification for enforcement) to the city council to direct the city attorney to invoke the aid of any superior court of the state. Such court may issue an order requiring such person to appear before board counsel or the board, to produce documentary evidence, and/or to provide testimony, and any failure to obey such order may be punished by that court as contempt. E. Right to Fully Participate. No administrative order may be issued by the board unless a person against whom a complaint was made has had a full opportunity to prepare for, and fully participate in, and present information, including affidavits in support or opposition to a motion before the board, and to cross-examine witnesses at the final hearing before the board on the merits of board counsel's final administrative order on sufficiency. F. Service of Administrative Order. A copy of the board's administrative order shall be served or mailed to the city council, the individual against whom the complaint was made, and the complaining party within seven calendar days of the board's presiding officer signing the order, unless a longer time period has been requested by the individual against whom the complaint was made, and has been approved by the board, or unless a longer time period has been requested by the board and has been approved by the city council. (Ord. 2493 § 4, 2004) 2.94.090 Complaints against employees and officials other than the mayor, councilmembers, and members of advisory bodies. Any and all complaints regarding city employees and officials, except for the mayor councilmembers, and members of advisory bodies shall be brought to the employee's supervisor, or mayor. The supervisor, or appropriate individual as determined by the mayor, shall investigate the complaint and recommend to the mayor appropriate action. Any action shall be determined by the mayor, and a report thereof shall be made to the city council in executive session. (Ord. 2112 § 2, 1996) 2.94.095 Alternative procedure for complaints against employees and officials other than the mayor, council members, and members of advisory bodies. A. If it appears after an administrative investigation that a person who reports directly to, or is supervised by, the mayor or that both a person who reports directly to, or is supervised by, the mayor and another employee may have both violated this chapter, then in either situation the mayor shall have an additional alternative procedure. In the discretion of the mayor, if the circumstances require it, or it is in the best interests of the city to strive to avoid even an appearance of impropriety in the conduct of the enforcement of this code, the mayor may refer any complaint within the scope of LMC 2.94.090 to the board of ethics and request it to either: 1. Begin its own investigation and issue written reports to the mayor on any alleged violations of this code which shall include recommendations for action by the mayor; or Packet Page 142 of 145 2. Review only the initial investigation materials provided with the referral, then issue written reports to the mayor on any alleged violations of this code which shall include recommendations for action by the mayor; or 3. Review the initial investigation materials provided with the referral and determine if additional investigation is needed, then issue written reports to the mayor on any alleged violations of this code which shall include recommendations for action by the mayor. B. The mayor's referral shall comply with the requirements for a "specific complaint" as outlined in LMC 2.94.080, except that: 1. The mayor's referral may also include any initial investigation materials or information prepared by third parties other than the mayor; and 2. Since the mayor has sworn to an oath of office and has a legal duty to enforce the law, the referral shall not be required to by signed under penalty of perjury. C. When considering a mayor's referral(s), board counsel and the board shall have: 1. All the authority and responsibilities that it would otherwise have under LMC 2.94.080 and 2.94.085, respectively, while investigating a complaint, holding hearings, and issuing an administrative order for disposition by the city council, including making an application(s) for subpoena powers and the issuing and enforcement of subpoenas under LMC 2.94.085(D); and 2. Authority to recommend to the mayor any action that would otherwise be available to the city council under LMC 2.94.080(B)(6). D. Any final action shall be determined by the mayor, and both the board's written report and a written report of final action taken by the mayor shall be provided to, and reviewed by, the city council in executive session. (Ord. 2493 § 5, 2004) 2.94.100 Liberal construction — Limitation period — Effective date. A. This code shall be liberally construed to effectuate its purpose and policy and to supplement existing laws that relate to the same subject. B. Any action taken under this code must be commenced within three years from the date of violation. C. This code shall take effect March 1, 1997. (Ord. 2112 § 2, 1996) Packet Page 143 of 145 Action: Take item to full Council for further discussion after draft discussion points and possible ordinance language received from Officer Dawson. C. Discussion and potential action regarding possible amendment of City Code 8.48, Parking, Paragraph 8.48.215 B.2. Joan Ferebee, Court Administrator, explained she attended a Parking Committee Meeting to bring to their attention the difficulty the Municipal Court is experiencing with the section of the City Code that allows citizens who receive a parking ticket to pay a reduced fine if the individual pays the fine by the end of the next business day after the issuance of the parking ticket. Generally, the Court does not have the tickets in their system that quickly. Therefore, the individuals can become very angry and upset when they come to the Municipal Court and are not able to pay. Ms. Ferebee stated that the Parking Committee recommended removing the section of the Code that allows for a reduced fine if it is paid by the end of the next business day. Councilmember Peterson stated that he was in agreement with eliminating the reduced fine. He stated that he would work with the City Attorney to create an ordinance to place on the consent agenda. Councilmember Bloom was in agreement. Action: Councilmember Peterson will work with the City Attorney to create an ordinance eliminating the reduced fine. The Ordinance is to be placed on a future Consent Agenda for approval. D. Student and Senior Volunteers Councilmember Bloom stated she would like to support the Boards and Commissions in obtaining student volunteers. She suggested that a senior volunteer could assist Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Assistant, in getting the word out to the various schools. Councilmember Peterson suggested Ms. Spellman could email the school board or a volunteer coordinator in the school system to determine if there are students interested in volunteering. Councilmember Bloom suggested a senior volunteer could work with Jana to develop a framework for contacting all of the schools with the appropriate person to contact and to advertise. Councilmember Peterson cautioned that managing a volunteer can take more time. He suggested talking with the Council President as she is in charge of Ms. Spellman's schedule. Councilmember Bloom also recalled that at the Council Retreat, Councilmember Johnson suggested an event be held to recognize city volunteers. Councilmember Bloom stated she will discuss with the Mayor the idea of scheduling a yearly event. E. Ethics Board and Code of Ethics Councilmember Bloom suggested narrowing down the list of sample policies from other cities for the City Attorney to work with in developing the policy for Edmonds. She suggested using the policies from the cities of Bainbridge Island, Lynnwood and Monroe. Public Safety & Personnel Committee March 12, 2013 Page 2 of 3 Packet Page 144 of 145 Councilmember Bloom stated that she would like the policy to include appointed officials (directors) in addition to elected officials and members of boards and commissions. Councilmember Peterson stated that he did not think the policy needed to address appointed officials (directors) as they answer to the Mayor. The Committee concluded that a further discussion on a Code of Ethics policy would be scheduled for the April Committee Meeting to determine which policy will be sent to the City Attorney. F. Discussion regarding taking minutes during Council Committee Meetings. Councilmember Peterson stated that if detailed/complete minutes are desired it would be necessary to pay someone to attend the meetings for this purpose. If action minutes are prepared (which is the way it has generally always been done), then he did not think councilmembers should take the minutes as it is difficult to participate in the discussion and take minutes. Councilmember Bloom agreed that councilmembers should not take minutes. After discussion, Councilmembers Bloom and Peterson agreed on the following recommendation: • Action minutes for committee meetings, prepared by staff members in attendance. • If a controversial item is scheduled, arrangements for more detailed minutes will be made. • Summary comments made by citizens should be included. Committee members will summarize citizen comments if no staff is available. • Work with Council President related to agenda items to make sure a staff member is available for each item discussed at the committee meeting. • Committee minutes are to be forwarded to committee chairs for review (as time allows). G. Public Comments There were no public comments. The committee meeting adjourned at 8:17 p.m. Public Safety & Personnel Committee March 12, 2013 Page 3 of 3 Packet Page 145 of 145