> Municipal Research News
Note: Some of the information on this archival Web page may no longer be current.
Municipal Research News
Municipal Research and Services Center of Washington
Fall 2004 Issue
What's Inside
This newsletter is also available in Adobe Acrobat format.
Motorized Scooters
Motorized scooters. You've likely all seen them and, if you
haven't, you almost certainly will. Zipping down the street, driven by a 14-year old or younger, going 20 miles per hour or faster and noisily interrupting the
tranquility of your neighborhood. Are they a problem, or are we just getting
old?
What is a motor scooter?
A motorized scooter (or, as referred to by state law, a
"motorized foot scooter") is essentially a skateboard with a small gasoline or
electric motor on the back and a set of handlebars, a brake lever, and a
hand-operated accelerator. Their cost will typically range from about $200 to
over $1,000, and they may have a top speed of 20 mph or more. Some models have
bicycle-type seats, although most riders seem to prefer the models with no
seats. Gas-powered scooters, which are faster than electrically-driven ones,
appear to be the scooters of choice, even though electric-driven models are
cheaper and quieter. (The fact that gas-powered scooters are faster and noisier
is, perhaps, why they are more popular.)
The problem
According to the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission
(CPSC), 5,900 emergency room injuries from electric and/or gas-powered scooters
were recorded in 2002 and, of those, almost 40 percent involved children 15
years of age and younger. Most of the more serious injuries have involved broken arms, hands, and legs, sustained from collisions with cars and other motor
vehicles. There have also been some recorded fatalities and, with the almost
exponential increase in the number of scooters on the road, more are likely to
follow. Although newer statistical information is not yet available, anecdotal
evidence suggests that the number of accidents involving motorized scooters has
skyrocketed and will continue to do so.
Motorized scooters and state law
Through legislation adopted in 2003, the state defines
"motorized foot scooters" and provides that such scooters do not require vehicle licenses; they are to be given the same access to streets and roads as are
bicycles. Ch. 353, Laws of 2003. The statute also provides that no driver's
license is required to operate a motorized foot scooter. The legislation
prohibits a motorized scooter's operation at any time from a half hour after
sunset to a half hour before sunrise, unless the scooter is equipped with
reflectors of a type approved by the state patrol. The state law that prohibits
the removal of muffling and pollution-control devices from mopeds does not apply to motorized scooters.
Motorized scooters may be used on multipurpose trails or
bicycle lanes, although local jurisdictions may "restrict or otherwise limit the access of" motorized scooters. Bicycle paths, trails, and equestrian or hiking
trails, among others, are off limits, if they have been either constructed or
are maintained with federal highway transportation funds. Other new or existing
trails or paths may be available for use by a motorized scooter, if they are
appropriately signed.
(Four bills were introduced in 2004 to further regulate the
use of motorized foot scooters. The bills, had they been enacted, would have
prohibited the use of motorized scooters on public roads and streets, required
operators to have a driver's license, established a minimum age for scooter
operators, and set a maximum speed for use. While none of the bills was adopted, it is quite possible that legislative attempts to regulate motorized foot
scooters will return during the 2005 legislative session.)
What local jurisdictions can do and are
doing
Local jurisdictions can limit or prohibit the use of
motorized scooters on sidewalks, on public trails, on public parking lots,
around public buildings, and in parks. (The use of scooters on private
facilities is not, in itself, unlawful; nothing limits the ability of a private
landowner, such as the operator of a shopping center or mall, from prohibiting
the use of a motorized scooter in a parking lot and/or the private or public
areas of the private facility.) Several cities have prohibited the use of
motorized scooters within their central business district.
As a public safety measure, a local government can probably
require that motor scooter operators wear safety helmets; a number of Washington communities have adopted such requirements. State law limits motorized scooter
use after sunset, unless the scooter is equipped with reflectors approved by the state patrol. Local regulations may be able to go further, requiring headlights, and, for example, requiring them to be sufficiently bright to be visible from
500 feet away. Some communities have suggested or required that a tail light,
bright enough to be visible from 600 feet away, be used in addition to a
red-colored rear reflector, which is required for nighttime use. Requiring the
use of a muffling device is possible, as such a requirement would not conflict
with state law. Stanwood requires that the scooters be equipped with "a switch,
lever, or other mechanism that, when released, will cause the drive motor to
disengage or cease to function," a "dead man's switch."
At least four cities have included parental responsibility
provisions in their motorized scooter ordinances, extending to parents the legal responsibility of assuring their minor children's adherence to motor scooter
operational requirements.
Some communities have established age requirements. Mount
Vernon, Sedro-Woolley, and Stanwood, for example, require that scooter operators be at least 16-years old; Puyallup sets its limit at 14 years. Some cities have
established maximum operational speed limits, typically 25 miles per hour.
Almost universally, in those cities that have already adopted motorized foot
scooter regulations, rules that make it unlawful to operate a motorized scooter
in a careless, reckless, unsafe, or negligent manner have been adopted, along
with a notation that traffic laws and rules of the road apply. Stanwood's
ordinance prohibits the carrying of passengers.
What can be done if a person violates a local regulation? Of
the code provisions Municipal Research has reviewed, the cities that have
adopted regulations have made a motorized scooter offense a civil infraction,
punishable by a penalty of up to $250. In addition, several of the cities have
provided for the seizure of a scooter, its temporary impoundment, and, for
multiple offenses, forfeiture. Seizure, impoundment, or forfeiture deprives the
owner of his or her property. Under due process, if a jurisdiction intends to
take a person's property, it must provide the property owner with notice of its
intent and a hearing at which he or she may contest the taking. The hearing need not be elaborate, but it must provide the property owner with a chance to be
heard by a person empowered to make adjustments, depending upon the evidence and argument made at the hearing.
What local jurisdictions (probably) cannot
do
It is clear that counties, cities, and towns cannot prohibit
the use of motorized scooters altogether; the state law that allows their use
preempts the ability of local jurisdictions to provide otherwise. Local
jurisdictions arguably cannot require that the operators be licensed and, it
would seem, under this limitation, it is likely that a jurisdiction cannot
mandate that operators obtain training before using a scooter, which might be
construed as a form of licensing. ("Arguably," since several cities have adopted
ordinances requiring operators be licensed.)
What can be done by members of the public?
While many communities are wrestling with what they should
do about motorized scooters, there are some safety suggestions that can be
followed by anyone even contemplating travel by scooter. The CPSC recommends the
following:
- Wear a helmet that meets CPSC's standards, along with
knee and elbow pads.
- Ride the scooters on smooth, paved surfaces without any
traffic.
- Wear sturdy shoes.
- Avoid streets, or surfaces with water, sand, gravel, or
dirt.
- Do not ride the scooter at night - riders can't see
where they're going or be seen by others.
Local governments may wish to share these suggestions with
their citizens through their police or sheriff departments or by public safety
notices posted on their websites or in their community bulletins.
Help is just a click or a phone call away
Municipal Research has been accumulating sample ordinances
from jurisdictions across the state. Some are available online. If you want to
review some samples, give us an e-mail or telephone call, or visit our Web page
devoted to motorized scooters at http://www.mrsc.org/Subjects/PubSafe/scooters.aspx. Consultants will be happy to
respond to any questions you may have. Of course, it is highly recommended that
your city, town, or prosecuting attorney be consulted before taking any final
action to adopt regulations or restrictions.
The scooters will probably not just go
away
Unless and until the legislature again considers what
further limits should be placed on the use of motorized foot scooters, it may be necessary for local jurisdictions to address the safety and noise issues being
voiced by many of their citizens. Local regulation may not be the answer for
every community, but consideration of the impact that motorized scooters have on local roadways may nevertheless be a good idea. Then we can begin worrying about other things, like pocket or mini-motorcycles.
By Paul Sullivan
Legal Consultant
Municipal Research and Services Center
Ask MRSC
Summary of recent inquiries answered by MRSC consultants
Annexation - May a city annex the whole of a lot that is
bisected by the urban growth boundary?
No, that lot may not, as a whole, be annexed. Because of RCW
35A.14.005, which prohibits annexation outside of an urban growth area, only the portion of this lot that is inside the UGA may be annexed. (While it may not be
practical to annex only part of a lot, there is nothing that would strictly
prohibit it.) The statute is very specific - territory beyond an urban growth
area may not be annexed. We think a court would strictly apply this statute
according to its terms, and there is no "wiggle room" in its language. So, the
only way the whole lot could be annexed is to have the county amend the UGA to
include the whole lot.
Campaigning - May public officials use their titles to
identify themselves when campaigning on their private time for or against a
ballot initiative?
The answer is a cautious "yes". This specific question was
addressed in a Memorandum from the Office of the Attorney General, from Nancy
Krier, Assistant Attorney General, "Statutory Limits on the Use of Public
Funds/Facilities to Assist or Oppose Campaigns, Particularly Campaigns Involving
Ballot Measures or Initiatives," dated September 13, 2001:
While it may be prudent to avoid using a position or title,
primarily to avoid any implication that the agency or its officers are
"officially" supporting a particular candidate or proposition, the mere
identification of a person by stating his/her title or position would not seem
to be use of public facilities. However, it was wise for you to point out that
you were attending in your private capacity in order to avoid any
misunderstanding on that point.
A review of the local ethics rules that might limit this use
of titles was also suggested in the memorandum, which is viewable at http://www.mrsc.org/Subjects/Governance/aagmemo.aspx.
Impact Fees - Have any jurisdictions returned impact fees
because they were not used within six years of collection as per RCW
82.02.070(3)?
Not that we are aware of. RCW 82.02.080 sets forth the
process for refunds of impact fees when they are not expended or encumbered
within six years of the date paid or other period of time established in
RCW82.02.079(3).
MRSC did not find any jurisdictions that had actually
refunded impact fees because the funds had not been expended within the six-year
time frame. A few jurisdictions have refunded impact fees for other reasons.
Apparently most jurisdictions do not have a problem expending the funds within
six years, because the impact fees collected are relatively small in
relationship to the costs of the transportation, park, school, and fire projects
to which they are applied.
Interlocal Cooperation - May a city or county use a
public utility district to provide city construction management services?
Or,˙would the city or county need to include the public utility district on the
architectural and engineering roster to comply with Chapter 39.80
RCW?
Assuming that the district's construction management
personnel are bona-fide employees, the city or county can simply agree to use
them via an interlocal agreement.˙ Chapter 39.80 RCW only comes into play if the
district uses contract engineers or an engineering firm.
Note this excerpt from MRSC's bidding publication:
RCW 39.34.080, a section of the Interlocal Cooperation Act,
authorizes one public agency to contract with another public agency to perform
any function which each agency is authorized by law to perform. ˙Under this
statute, one public entity (e.g., the state, a city, a county, a special
district, etc.) could act as agent or contractor for one or more public
entities. RCW 39.34.030, another section of the Interlocal Cooperation Act,
authorizes cooperative action, including joint purchases, by different
governmental entities.
Open Meetings - May a city council, board of county
commissioners, or other governing body adopt a policy of providing special
meeting notice to its members by e-mail.
Technically speaking, this does not comply with the Open
Public Meetings Act (OPMA), which requires at least a 24-hour advance, written
notice "delivered personally or by mail" to each governing body member. This
language dates back to when the OPMA was first adopted in 1971, prior to the
existence of e-mail.
However, practically speaking, we do not see a problem with
such a practice, at least with respect to those councilmembers who specifically
agree to it. The only people who would have standing to challenge the notice
policy would be the governing body members themselves. The practice would, in
our opinion, clearly conform to the intent of the OPMA, if not its strict
letter. Perhaps sometime soon state law will catch up with technology.
Legislation introduced in 2004 (HB 2632) to allow for such means of meeting
notice did not, for whatever reason, pass; it passed the House 94-0 and, maybe
because of time constraints, did not come to the Senate for a vote.
Parking - May a city enter into a "revocable license and
permit" authorizing a private company to have exclusive use of parking spaces
located within the public right-of-way alongside the company's
building?
No, such a grant of privilege would violate RCW
46.61.570(4):
(4) It shall be unlawful for any person to reserve or
attempt to reserve any portion of a highway for the purpose of stopping,
standing, or parking to the exclusion of any other like person, nor shall any
person be granted such right.
Extending exclusive parking privileges on a public
right-of-way to private corporate employees or their guests violates the statute
and the concept that the right-of-way is for the general use of the
public.
Personnel - Does the civil service commission have
jurisdiction to review a police department reduction in force decision by the
city council?
No. The decision of the city council to reduce the size of
the police force because of budget issues is not a decision that can be reviewed
by the civil service commission. This type of action does not constitute a
demotion or termination of service as the term is used in the civil service
statutes. It is a policy decision for the city council and such decisions do not
have to be approved by the civil service commission. MRSC has located only one
old case that is somewhat on point. In Wettrick v. Seattle, 115 Wash 548 (1921),
the court noted the general rule:
It is well settled that it is within the powers of a city
council to abolish a position in the classified civil service and thus separate
an incumbent from the service and discontinue the salary thereof.
How to "Ask MRSC." Assistance from MRSC may be obtained by Phone (206)
625-1300 or 1-800-933-6772 for long-distance calls; Letter 2601
4th Avenue, Suite 800, Seattle, WA, 98121-1280; Fax (206)
625-1220; or E-mail mrsc@mrsc.org. Telephone inquiry service is available from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. If
a consultant is not immediately available, you can record a detailed request on
voice mail 24-hours a day, and a staff member will call back as soon as
possible.
Heads Up
Emerging information for local government
Tourist $ Notes
According to Washington State's annual statewide report on
tourism, preliminary figures for 2003 travel spending in Washington State
increased by 3.9 percent over 2002. In 2002, travel spending was estimated at
$11.2 billion, generating $3.5 billion in earnings and 139,200 jobs. The report, dated January 2004, was prepared by Dean Runyon Associates for the Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development. (See http://www.deanrunyan.com/pdf/wa03p.pdf)
An American Farmland Trust Study estimated that wildlife
viewing in Skagit County provides a direct and indirect economic impact of $43.2 million annually. (American Farm Trust Study, 10-03). A U.S. Fish and
Wildlife-sponsored study reported that direct expenditures on wildlife viewing
in Washington for 2001 were over $979 million. The total economic contribution
from wildlife watching in Washington was $1.78 billion. (See WDFW Watchable
Wildlife at http://www.wdfw.wa.gov/viewing/wildview.htm)
The annual Northwest Washington Fair brings 200,000 visitors
to Lynden each August and takes in about $1.6 million, which is just the
beginning of the fair's economic impact. (Bellingham Herald)
The annual Bellingham Festival of Music (July-August)
attracted about 100 musicians from around the world and more than 10,000
visitors with their tourism dollars. In total, festival organizers say it
injects about a half-million dollars of lodging, dining, and shopping into the
local economy over its three-week duration. (Bellingham Herald)
Sponsors of the Sequim Lavender Festival estimated the
economic impact of the festival to be $1.4 million in new money. Overall, that
amount increases to $2.5 million for the 3 days (City Council Minutes, 2003).
According to Scott Nagel, executive director of this year's festival, the number
of attendees was about the same as last year (30,000), but most of the vendors
and local businesses reported an increase in profits over 2003. (Sequim
Gazette)
The annual Skagit County Tulip festival brings between
300,000 and 500,000 visitors to the county every year. Direct spending by these
visitors in 2000, when an estimated 350,000 visited the county, amounted to $14
million, accompanied by $2.8 million in wages, $192,000 in local tax revenue,
and $848,000 in state tax revenue. (American Farmland Trust Study, 10-03 http://www.farmland.org/pnw/Skagit%20Ag%20Impact%20Study.pdf)
Recently Seen for Sale - Fund Raisers
Blaine Boardwalk planks $100
Bellingham Farmer's Market - Engraved Brick Paver $50, Stone
Tablet $1000, Shelter Section $10,000, Park bench $4000, Major donor
acknowledgement $5000+ (Depot Market Square/)
Recent Awards and Other Distinctions
The city of Spokane is a 2004 All-America City. The city
received this honor from the National Civic League on Saturday, June 12, in
Atlanta, Ga.
Representatives of the Tacoma-Pierce County Sister Cities
Council and the city of Kent Sister Cities Association (KCSA) received awards in
July from Sister Cities International (SCI). Tacoma-Pierce County received the
innovation award for arts and culture. It was one of only 14 communities
nationwide to be recognized by Sister Cities International for its 2003
achievements. Kent received the Sister Cities International Award for Best
Overall Program (for Population of 50,000 to 100,000). This award recognized the many successful programs and projects of the KSCA, and the outstanding
healthcare and humanitarian programs and projects of the Kent-Kherson and the
Kent-El Grullo Committees. SCI also acknowledged the KSCA for its strong Young
Artist Program, education and cultural programs, Youth Ambassador Exchange
Program, and the business and trade promotion initiated by the Yangzhou China
Committee.
In July, the Washington State Department of Transportation
and the Federal Highways Administration selected four local agency projects for
the Award of Excellence awards. The awards program is a collaborative effort to
formally recognize federally-funded local agency projects that have achieved
excellence in safety enhancements, construction, innovative design,
environmental compatibility, and public involvement and satisfaction. The awards presented were Best City Project - City of Stevenson, SR 14 Couplet Project;
Best County Project - Clark County Padden Parkway Project; Best Special Project
- Douglas County Chief Joseph Dam Bridge Rehabilitation Project; and the
Director's Award - City of Tonasket, SR 20/SR 97 Sidewalk Improvements Project.
(See http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/TA/Awards/PE04/)
Bremerton was ranked one of top 50 best places to live in
the Cities Ranked and Rated: More than 400 Metropolitan Areas Evaluated in the
U.S. and Canada, by Bert Sperling and Peter Sander, published by John Wiley
& Sons, March 2004.
Bellingham was named as one of the best "adventure towns" in
the September 2004 issue of National Geographic Adventure Magazine.
Seattle was one of 5 recipients of the prestigious
Innovations in American Government Award for its Natural Drainage Systems
Program. The award is from the Ash Institute for Democratic Governance and
Innovation at Harvard University and the Council for Excellence in Government.
Seattle's program uses plants, trees, and soil to replicate traditional pipes
and vaults to purify and transport the city's storm water runoff to Seattle's
creeks and marine water bodies. The award was announced at the end of July. (See http://www.ashinstitute.harvard.edu/Ash/natdrain.htm)
Library Listings: New resource materials now available
New Acquisitions
This list contains new publications, ordinances, and other
materials recently received by the MRSC library. We also prepare a more
comprehensive list of new acquisitions each month which is posted on our Web
site at www.mrsc.org/library/newacq.aspx. If you would like to borrow one or more of these publications, please contact Electra Enslow in our library at (206) 625-1300 or
library@mrsc.org.
Airports
Metropolitan Transportation System - Regional
Airports, Puget Sound Milestones, 2004
Economic Development
25 Immutable Rules of Successful Tourism, by Roger A.
Brooks and Maury Forman, 2003
Governance
The Price of Government - Getting the Results We Need in
an Age of Permanent Fiscal Crisis, by David Osbourne and Peter Hutchinson,
2004
Information Services
E-Government, by Jennifer Cowley-Evans and Maria
Manta Conroy, 2004
Miscellaneous
20/21 Vision - Twentieth-Century Lessons for the
Twenty-First Century, by Bill Emmott, 2003
Planning And Land Use
City Comforts - How to Build an Urban Village, by
David Sucher, 2003
Crossroads, Hamlet, Village, Town - Design
Characteristics of Traditional Neighborhoods, Old and New, by Randall G.
Arendt, 2004
The Latest Illustrated Book of Development
Definitions, by Harvey S. Moskowitz, 2004
Open Ground - Effective Local Strategies for Protecting
Natural Resources, by John R. Nolon, 2003
Urban Containment in the United States - History, Models,
and Techniques for Regional and Metropolitan Growth Management, by Arthur C.
Nelson and Casey J. Dawkins, 2004
Personnel
FSLA Special Report: DOL's New White-Collar Exemption
Rules - What Employers Need to Know, Thompson 2004
Public Safety
Wireless E 9-1-1, by Colin Haller, 2004
Telecommunications
Broadband Access - Local Government Roles, by Thomas
Asp, 2004
Transportation
Accessible Rights-of-Way: Sidewalks, Street Crossings,
and Other Pedestrian Facilities - A Design Guide, written by U.S. Access
Board and Federal Highway Administration staff
Resource Sharing
The Information Partnership Program seeks and
collects current materials from Washington local governments. The materials
received provide answers and support to the challenges faced by cities and
counties every day. You may order the materials below by contacting the MRSC
library at (206) 625-1300 or 1-800-933-6772 or e-mail us at mrsc@mrsc.org. Due to space limitations, the list below may not be complete. A comprehensive list of IP materials received may be requested from the library or viewed on our Web site at http://www.mrsc.org/library/rshare.htm.
Employee Satisfaction Surveys (Satisfaction With Working
Conditions)
Sammamish Employee survey, 2004 (PE
8.3000)
Employee Performance Evaluation Forms
Camas Employee performance appraisal;
Coupeville Performance appraisal - non-exempt employee; Des
Moines Performance plan and evaluation for department director,
Administrative support employees evaluation report, Camp Khaos 2004 staff
evaluation, Court security and court transport officer evaluation report,
Performance management process, performance evaluation, Marina employee
evaluation report, Parks and recreation department employee job performance
evaluation, Police department employee performance evaluation process, Police
officer evaluation report, Detective evaluation report, Professional/technical
employees evaluation report, Public works employee evaluation report, Rating
scale, Performance goals for new rating period, Performance evaluation form,
Performance improvement plan; Gig Harbor Employee appraisal form;
Olympia Performance review; Port Angeles Employee
self evaluation, Performance evaluation criteria definitions, Instructions for
using performance evaluation system, Performance improvement plan, Performance
evaluation form, Performance goals for new rating period;
Sammamish Performance review; Spokane Nonmanagerial
performance appraisal review (PE 8.1000)
International Building Code Adoption
East Wenatchee Ordinance No. 04-06, Adopts
International Building, Mechanical, Fire, Residential Codes; Resolution No.
04-04, Sets fees for building permits (C 4.2000) (see also MRSC Web page
http://www.mrsc.org/Subjects/Pubworks/ICCdocs.aspx)
Motorized Foot Scooter Ordinances
Auburn Ordinance No 5844, passed 6/7/04;
Everett Ordinance No. 2784-04, passed 8/11/04;
Kennewick Ordinance No. 5054, passed 7/20/04;
Kirkland Ordinance No. 3948, passed 7/6/04; Renton
Ordinance No. 5089, passed 6/28/04; Spokane Ordinance No. 1144,
passed 3/18/04; Yakima Ordinance No. 2004-39, passed 7/6/04 (LR
89.3000) (see also MRSC Web page http://www.mrsc.org/Subjects/PubSafe/scooters.aspx)
Two New Publications
Public Records Disclosure for Washington Cities and Counties
Report No. 61 - June 2004
The Open Public Meetings Act - How it Applies to
Washington Cities and Counties
Report No. 60 - June 2004
Need a copy?
These publications are available in Adobe Acrobat for
viewing and printing. Go to
http://www.mrsc.org/Subjects/PubSafe/scooters.aspx.
Want to purchase another copy or two? Go to http://www.mrsc.org/Subjects/PubSafe/scooters.aspx.
CONTACTING MRSC
Staff members may be reached through the Internet using
first initial and last name @mrsc.org: for example,
ryukubousky@mrsc.org.
Municipal Research News is published quarterly
by the Municipal Research and Services Center of Washington, 2601 4th Avenue,
Suite 800, Seattle, WA 98121-1280. Your ideas and comments are appreciated. If
you have news you would like to share or if you would like to write a short
feature article, please contact us.
Editor: Connie Elliot
Designer: Holly Stewart
2601 4th Avenue, Suite 800, Seattle, WA 98121-1280
206.625.1300 · Fax 206.625.1220
www.mrsc.org
mrsc@mrsc.org
