The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2019.05.13 Council Workshop PacketWorkshop Meeting AGENDA PASCO CITY COUNCIL 7:00 p.m. May 13, 2019 Page 1. CALL TO ORDER: 2. ROLL CALL: (a) Pledge of Allegiance 3. VERBAL REPORTS FROM COUNCILMEMBERS: 4. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION: 3 - 15 (a) Ben Franklin Transit Annual Report Presentation by Gloria Boyce, General Manager of Ben Franklin Transit 16 - 27 (b) 2020 Census Update 28 - 42 (c) Pasco Boat Basin-Schlagel Park RCO Grant Award Presentation Presentation by Dan Dotta, Facilities Manager and Brent Kubalek, Recreation Manager 43 - 91 (d) Regulation of Shared Mobility Devices Presentation by Matt Sturtevant, Kerr-Ferguson Law 92 - 110 (e) Pasco Process Water Reuse Facility (PWRF) Update 111 - 116 (f) Overnight Parking Ordinance - Peanuts Park/Farmers' Market Plaza 117 - 120 (g) Kiddy Utility Improvements Ordinance - Latecomer Agreement 5. MISCELLANEOUS COUNCIL DISCUSSION: 6. EXECUTIVE SESSION: 7. ADJOURNMENT. Page 1 of 120 Workshop Meeting May 13, 2019 REMINDERS: • Monday, May 13, 12:00 p.m.; Pasco Chamber of Commerce Lunch Meeting - Pasco Red Lion • Monday, May 13, 4:00 p.m.; PPFD Special Meeting - Conference Room 1 (Mayor Watkins, Rep; Councilmember Maloney, Alt.) • Thursday, May 16, 4:00 p.m.; Tri-Cities National Park Committee Meeting - Bechtel Board Room, Tri-Cities Regional Business & Visitor Center • Friday, May 17, 10:00 a.m.; Benton-Franklin Council of Governments - Ben Franklin Transit, 1000 Columbia Park Trail, Richland (Councilmember Barajas, Rep; Councilmember Alvarado, Alt.) This meeting is broadcast live on PSC-TV Channel 191 on Charter Cable and streamed at www.pasco-wa.gov/psctvlive. Audio equipment available for the hearing impaired; contact the Clerk for assistance. Spanish language interpreter service may be provided upon request. Please provide two business day's notice to the City Clerk to ensure availability. (Servicio de intérprete puede estar disponible con aviso. Por favor avisa la Secretaria Municipal dos días antes para garantizar la disponibilidad.) Page 2 of 120 AGENDA REPORT FOR: City Council May 10, 2019 TO: Dave Zabell, City Manager Workshop Meeting: 5/13/19 FROM: Stan Strebel, Deputy City Manager Executive SUBJECT: Ben Franklin Transit Annual Report I. REFERENCE(S): PowerPoint Presentation II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Presentation by Gloria Boyce, General Manager of Ben Franklin Transit III. FISCAL IMPACT: IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: V. DISCUSSION: Ben Franklin Transit to provide annual report. Representatives include Gloria Boyce, General Manager; Ali Madison, Director or Marketing and Communication; and Keith Hall, Director of Planning and Service Development. Page 3 of 120 Ben Franklin Transit Gloria Boyce General ManagerPage 4 of 120 Industry + Agency Overview History + Mission Funding Economic + Community Impact Industry Governance: Federal Transit Administration To provide exceptional and cost-effective transportation services that consistently exceed customer expectations while promoting the principles and practices of livable communities and sustainable development. REVENUES EXPENSES Page 5 of 120 Industry + Agency Overview Service Area: 616mi2 | 7 cities | 2 counties | 300,000 people Over 4.5 million miles driven annually | 3.1 million passenger trips Page 6 of 120 Staff Snapshot 10-Member Board General Manager 330 Employees 78% Drive + Maintain Fleet 22% Support Operations 2018 NATIONAL SAFETY COUNCIL AWARDS →159 at least one year accident free →74 at least 10 years accident freePage 7 of 120 Fleet + Services BFT-Operated Services Fixed Route Bus x17 Routes Dial-A-Ride General Demand (Bus Connector) Benton City and Prosser NEW in 2019! Finley and Tri-Cities User-Operated Programs Vanpool 243 active groups Community Van Van-Me-Down STATE OF GOOD REPAIR Federal fleet standards achieved in 2018 Page 8 of 120 Who We Serve Youth Transit-Dependent Economic limitations Mobility limitations (disabled) Seniors Commuters Choice riders Page 9 of 120 How We Serve: Pasco Board Rep: Mayor Matt Watkins Bus Routes: 7 established | 2 demonstration Hot Stops: 20th Ave and CBC CBC Partnership Vanpool: 48 groups originate (50% stay) 24 other groups arrive from elsewhere ROUTES: 64, 65, 66, 67, 150, 160, 225 DEMO ROUTES: 63D, 68D TRANSIT CENTER: 22nd Avenue Page 10 of 120 2018:State of Good Repair | Transit Asset Management Plan Transit Development Plan | 2019: Triennial Review Unique Operating Conditions in Transit Staff Disbursement + Construct: 69% of employees spend 100% of time on the road 24-hour operations, 6 days a week Compliance: Federal Transit Administration State/Regional Governance Cost Containment Fuel, maintenance, technology, labor, etc Changing Transportation Landscape Varying levels of control Innovation and partnerships are critical (land use, transit-oriented development, infrastructure) 2018: Investments in staff development and engagement programs Page 11 of 120 Agency Evolution Comprehensive Service Overhaul (September 2017) Streamlined routes + later service (+28,000 annual service hours) Fleet Investments 60 new vehicles in 2018 State of Good Repair + “Right-Sized” Technology Investments Better data + operational efficiencies Demonstration Services in 2018 New Pasco routes + seasonal Columbia Park trolley New Services in 2019 General Demand in Finley, Tri-Cities (Jan, Feb) Extended service hours for bus and Dial-A-Ride (Mar)Page 12 of 120 Demonstration Route Analysis Service + Title VI Analysis March passenger survey Developed service alternatives Staff Recommendations Streamline routes for reduced overlap and better service Integrate with future east/west hubs Next Steps Public comment period Final recommendations Board approval + implementation COMBINE WITH ROUTE 65 REALIGN WITH MODEST INCREASE Page 13 of 120 Progress Signs of ridership improvement in late 2018 Page 14 of 120 The Road Ahead 2019 Initiatives Facility modernization: new transit hubs, amenities, technology enhancements Continued investment in staff development + succession planning Cyclical requirements: FTA Triennial Review, strategic planning The Future of Transit: Mobility Management Mobility as a Service (MAAS) Alternative Fuels Autonomous Vehicles Page 15 of 120 AGENDA REPORT FOR: City Council May 8, 2019 TO: Dave Zabell, City Manager Rick White, Director Community & Economic Development Workshop Meeting: 5/13/19 FROM: Jeff Adams, Associate Planner Community & Economic Development SUBJECT: 2020 Census Update I. REFERENCE(S): PowerPoint Presentation II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Discussion III. FISCAL IMPACT: IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: Staff and representatives from the local and State Complete Count Committee will provide Council a brief presentation on the importance of an accurate count during the 2020 Census process. V. DISCUSSION: Page 16 of 120 2020 Census -Increasingly Challenging Task 1Page 17 of 120 Why does it matter? Purpose of Decennial Census Article I, Section 2 of US Constitution & apportionment Census-derived data influences Federal, state, and local budget and planning Business, developer, nonprofits 2 $16.7 billion in FY 2016 for Washington, or an average of $2,319 per person Over 10 years, that’s $5.8 million for every 100 households missed! Healthcare, Education, Highway and Rural assistance funding Page 18 of 120 2020 Census –High Level Facts to Know Methods of Response Internet, Phone, Mail Five Mailings 3Page 19 of 120 2020 Census –High Level Facts to Know Non-Response Visit/Admin. Records Questionnaire Short Ability to identify as bi-or multiracial More options to define residents relationship to head of HH, provides greater clarity to ensure children counted Citizenship Hispanic or not 4Page 20 of 120 Convergence of Challenge Hard to locate Hard to contact Hard to persuade Hard to interview 5 Participation hindered by language barriers, low literacy, lack of internet access Housing units not in the frame and/or people wanting to remain hidden Highly mobile, people experiencing homelessness, physical access barriers such as gated communities Suspicious of government, low levels of civic engagement Page 21 of 120 Traditionally Undercounted Populations •Young children •Highly mobile persons •Persons with complex living arrangements or crowded housing •Racial and ethnic minorities •Non-English speakers •Low income persons •Persons experiencing homelessness or not living in traditional house •Immigrants 6Page 22 of 120 “Hard to Count” Areas 7Page 23 of 120 Complete Count Committee Concept introduced with 1990 Census Committee of volunteers established to increase awareness and motivate residents to respond to the census Census ambassadors Great enthusiasm so far in 2020 38 states 411 local 8Page 24 of 120 What can you do? •Stay informed - www.ofm.wa.gov/2020census •Promote recruitment - https://2020census.gov/jobs •Bring your community together to launch their Complete Count Committees and what you can do to help •Organize and spread awareness in your own professional and personal communities 9Page 25 of 120 CONCLUSION: ORGANIZE & UNLEASH A WAVE OFM 5/8/2019 10 Think in terms of a wave Create awareness Educate Mobilize and organize resources $$ Organizations Research/Workplans Recruitment Hardware/venues Unleash the promotion April 1, 2020 Census Day Post census day (non-response)Page 26 of 120 Lisa McLean Complete Count Committee Coordinator Email: lisa.mclean@ofm.wa.gov Susan Meldazy 2020 Census Project Coordinator Email: susan.meldazy@ofm.wa.gov Website: www.ofm.wa.gov/2020census CONTACT INFORMATION Page 27 of 120 AGENDA REPORT FOR: City Council May 8, 2019 TO: Dave Zabell, City Manager Workshop Meeting: 5/13/19 FROM: Zach Ratkai, Director Administrative & Community Services SUBJECT: Pasco Boat Basin-Schlagel Park RCO Grant Award Presentation I. REFERENCE(S): Powerpoint Presentation II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Presentation by Dan Dotta, Facilities Manager and Brent Kubalek, Recreation Manager III. FISCAL IMPACT: Estimated total project cost of $895,000 $660,000: Washington State Recreation and Conservation Office (RCO) Grant $235,000: City match as allocated in the 2019-2020 Biennial Budget. IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: Pasco Boat Basin is owned by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), and leased by the City of Pasco through a long term lease for use by the public. The City has a sub-lease with a contractor, Columbia Marine Center, to manage the marina, a boat repair facility, and boat moorage. The property also has a three (3) acre park (Schlage) with a boat launch which is maintained by the City. The park restroom has been closed for the last twenty (20) years due to their degraded state and lack of funding. Currently, recreational users are limited to an on-site portable toilet rented throughout the year. The last time the launch and dock were upgraded was in 1975. In 2015, the east side of the launch was closed due to ramp failure caused by tree roots. The dock is in need of major repair, is inadequately designed to meet current and future needs, and is not accessible to disabled persons. Page 28 of 120 The 2018-2024 CIP includes a project to demolish and install a new restroom, redesign and improve the parking lot to a more boat-trailer friendly facility, and construction of a to designed launch boat new improve needs future and current and address accessibility. These planned upgrades are intended to compliment recent improvements within the vicinity, e.g. the new covered boat dock at the marina and the future plans such as the the Port of Pasco improvements at Osprey Point, planned Marine Terminal improvements Park. and connection of the Sacajawea trail to Schlage Once implemented, these combined improvements will improve the quality of life not only for the citizens of Pasco but the regional community as well. V. DISCUSSION: Staff recently applied for and the City was awarded the above referenced competitive RCO the to required funding of implement provide will which grant 75% budget,aforementioned improvements. The project is included in the biennial contingent on successful award of the RCO grant, and with this award and subsequent approvals staff anticipates completion within the next two years. Page 29 of 120 RCO Boating Facilities Program #18-2355D Schlagel Park Boating Facilities Updates 1 Port of Pasco Marine Terminal Redevelopment Site Port of Pasco Osprey Pointe Schlagel Park Columbia Marine Center and Marina Site Location Page 30 of 120 RCO Boating Facilities Program #18-2355D Schlagel Park Boating Facilities Updates Site Location 2Page 31 of 120 RCO Boating Facilities Program #18-2355D Schlagel Park Boating Facilities Updates Need: Existing Conditions 3Page 32 of 120 RCO Boating Facilities Program #18-2355D Schlagel Park Boating Facilities Updates Need: Existing Conditions 4Page 33 of 120 RCO Boating Facilities Program #18-2355D Schlagel Park Boating Facilities Updates Need: Existing Conditions 5Page 34 of 120 RCO Boating Facilities Program #18-2355D Schlagel Park Boating Facilities Updates Need: Existing Conditions 6Page 35 of 120 RCO Boating Facilities Program #18-2355D Schlagel Park Boating Facilities Updates Project Design 7Page 36 of 120 RCO Boating Facilities Program #18-2355D Schlagel Park Boating Facilities Updates Project Design 8Page 37 of 120 RCO Boating Facilities Program #18-2355D Schlagel Park Boating Facilities Updates Project Design 9Page 38 of 120 RCO Boating Facilities Program #18-2355D Schlagel Park Boating Facilities Updates Cost-Benefits 10Page 39 of 120 RCO Boating Facilities Program #18-2355D Schlagel Park Boating Facilities Updates Cost-Benefit 11 Schlagel Park Boating Facilities enables shortest emergency response times for: •Franklin County Sheriff •Pasco Fire Department •Washington State Fish and Wildlife Page 40 of 120 RCO Boating Facilities Program #18-2355D Schlagel Park Boating Facilities Updates Cost-Benefit 12 Develop Boat Ramp $352,000 Construct, Install Restroom $88,992 Develop Circulation Paths $13,000 Develop Parking $104,693 Install Power Utilities $55,002 Install Sewage System $30,390 Install Stormwater System $45,751 Install Water System $12,011 Cultural Resources $8,000 Obtain Permits $30,000 Architectural/Engineering $141,000 General Site Preparation $15,000 Total $895,839 Committed Sponsor Match (26.23%)$235,000 RCO Boating Facilities Grant Request $660,839 PROPOSED BUDGET COMPONENTS AND COSTS Page 41 of 120 RCO Boating Facilities Program #18-2355D Schlagel Park Boating Facilities Updates Closing 13 Schlagel Park Page 42 of 120 AGENDA REPORT FOR: City Council May 8, 2019 TO: Dave Zabell, City Manager Workshop Meeting: 5/13/19 FROM: Stan Strebel, Deputy City Manager Executive SUBJECT: Regulation of Shared Mobility Devices I. REFERENCE(S): PowerPoint Presentation - Shared Mobility Devices Dockless Electric Scooter Related Injury Study (Austin, TX - 4/2019) Pilot Ordinance (City of Santa Monica, CA) II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Presentation by Matt Sturtevant, Kerr-Ferguson Law III. FISCAL IMPACT: IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: V. DISCUSSION: Presentation of considerations for the possible regulation of Shared Mobility Devices, including scooters, and e-bikes, for Council discussion. Page 43 of 120 SHARED MOBILITY DEVICES: RISKS AND LIABILITY MATTHEW STURTEVANT KERR FERGUSON LAW, PLLC Page 44 of 120 WHAT THEY ARE •Commonly referred to as e-bikes and e- scooters •Resemble ordinary bicycles or stand-up kick scooters, but are powered by an electric motor •Shared devices are rented by companies, usually through a smartphone app •Are designed to be left on sidewalks or stalls and activated through the app KERR FERGUSON LAW, PLLC Page 45 of 120 WHAT THEY ARE KERR FERGUSON LAW, PLLC Page 46 of 120 HOW THEY WORK KERR FERGUSON LAW, PLLC •E-scooters work in a way somewhat similar to ride-sharing apps •Using the app, users can find the nearest available e-scooter on a map •Using a code, the app will “unlock” that e - scooter and allow the user to ride •Pricing varies per company and location, but roughly $1 to start and 10¢ to 33¢ a minute after Page 47 of 120 PRACTICAL EFFECTS KERR FERGUSON LAW, PLLC •Designed to be ridden on streets for relatively short distances, giving people another transportation option •Maximum speed varies, usually about 15 mph •E-scooter wheels are usually smaller than bicycle wheels, apparently making them more susceptible to street hazards like potholes, cracks, and raised sidewalk panels •Sometimes parked in inopportune places, like sidewalks Page 48 of 120 SAFETY CONCERNS KERR FERGUSON LAW, PLLC •CDC and City of Austin (Texas) considered e - scooter injuries from Sep. 5 to Nov. 30, 2018 in a study published May 1, 2019 •936,110 trips in that time •891,121 miles ridden •20 individuals injured per 100,000 e -scooter trips taken during the study period •Only considered individuals who sought care from emergency rooms or EMS, so the more serious injuries were analyzed by study Page 49 of 120 SAFETY CONCERNS KERR FERGUSON LAW, PLLC •Study found that nearly half of injured riders had severe injuries •15% had evidence suggesting a traumatic brain injury •Less than 1% were wearing a helmet •No deaths Page 50 of 120 SAFETY CONCERNS KERR FERGUSON LAW, PLLC •55% were riding in the street, 33% on the sidewalk •50% believed that a street surface condition (pothole, crack, etc.) contributed to their injury •10% collided with a car •10% involved a curb •7% involved objects like light poles and manhole covers Page 51 of 120 SAFETY CONCERNS KERR FERGUSON LAW, PLLC •47% occurred during nighttime (6 p.m. and 6 a.m.) •37% reported that excessive e -scooter speed contributed to their injury •19% believed the e-scooter had malfunctioned (brakes, wheels, etc.) Page 52 of 120 LEGAL CONCERNS KERR FERGUSON LAW, PLLC •A municipality owes a duty of ordinary care to build and maintain its roadways in a condition that is reasonably safe for ordinary travel. Keller v. City of Spokane, Wa . S. Ct. 2002 •Includes “foreseeable acts of those using the roadways.” Keller. •However, cities are not “the guarantors of public safety”. Keller. Page 53 of 120 “ORDINARY TRAVEL” KERR FERGUSON LAW, PLLC •A Washington court has held that bicycles are a mode of “ordinary travel” under the rule espoused in Keller. See O’Neill v. City of Port Orchard, Div. 2 Ct. App. 2016. •No Washington cases consider whether e - scooters are “ordinary travel”, but a 1949 Wash. Supreme Court case did not rule out that a “motor scooter” with a sidecar was “ordinary travel”. Bulette v. City of Bremerton, Wash. S. Ct. 1949. Page 54 of 120 LIABILITY CONCERNS KERR FERGUSON LAW, PLLC •If an e-scooter or e-bike rider were injured on a City street or sidewalk, it may open the City up to liability •The injured person might argue that their travel was “ordinary travel” and that the City’s design, construction, or maintenance of that public way was negligent Page 55 of 120 E-BIKE STATE REGULATION KERR FERGUSON LAW, PLLC •RCWs changed in 2018 to establish three classes of e-bikes based on how it assists the rider at various speeds; Class 1 is the “slowest”, Class 3 is the speediest and most like a motorcycle •Class 3 riders must be at least 16 •Class 3 e-bikes may not be ridden on a sidewalk unless part of a bike/pedestrian path; Class 1 and 2 may be ridden there Page 56 of 120 E-BIKE STATE REGULATION KERR FERGUSON LAW, PLLC •All classes have access to highways just like bicycles (e.g., bike lanes), unless otherwise prohibited by state or cities •State e-bike regulations do not preempt city regulations of e-bikes, and cities may still regulate their use and facility access •With standardized e-bike classes, state e -bike regulations make it easier for cities to regulate them Page 57 of 120 E-SCOOTER STATE REGULATION KERR FERGUSON LAW, PLLC •E-scooters cannot be ridden on a sidewalk unless part of a bike/pedestrian path •E-scooters have access to highways just like bicycles (e.g., bike lanes, but not limited access highways) unless otherwise prohibited by state or cities •New RCW changes as of April 29, 2019 to regulate e-scooters; allows cities to regulate their use and specifically addresses e-scooter sharing programs; effective July 28, 2019 Page 58 of 120 E-SCOOTER STATE REGULATION KERR FERGUSON LAW, PLLC •Bicycle parking regulations now apply to e - scooters •Cities can now regulate e-scooters on all rights-of-way, not just highways •Must be 16 to ride an e-scooter, unless city provides otherwise •Maximum speed of 15 mph on streets, but cities can set maximum speeds on sidewalks and bike/pedestrian paths Page 59 of 120 E-SCOOTER STATE REGULATION KERR FERGUSON LAW, PLLC •RCWs now explicitly allows cities to regulate e-scooter sharing programs •Cities may prohibit e-scooter sharing, or require them to pay reasonable fees and taxes •Cities may require e-scooter sharing to be ADA -compliant and ensure “clear passage of pedestrian traffic on sidewalks” •Cities can penalize moving and parking violations involving e-scooters Page 60 of 120 E-SCOOTER STATE REGULATION KERR FERGUSON LAW, PLLC •RCWs now require specific language in some e-scooter sharing program contracts regarding insurance •RCWs now require e-scooter sharing companies to carry specified minimum insurance coverage Page 61 of 120 RIGHT-OF -WAY USE PERMITS KERR FERGUSON LAW, PLLC •Some Washington cities use right-of-way use permits, as authorized by their municipal codes, to regulate those businesses that use the public ways for private gain •The PMC only authorizes right-of-way use permits in the context of telecommunications regulations under Title 15 PMC Page 62 of 120 RIGHT-OF -WAY USE PERMITS KERR FERGUSON LAW, PLLC •Example: Bellevue Municipal Code 14.30.070(A): “It is unlawful for anyone to make private use of any public right-of-way without first having obtained a right-of-way use permit issued by the city or to use any right-of-way without complying with all the provisions of such right - of-way use permit issued by the city[.]” Page 63 of 120 RIGHT-OF -WAY USE PERMITS KERR FERGUSON LAW, PLLC •Example: Bellevue Municipal Code 14.30.160: “As a condition to the issuance of any permit under this chapter, the permittee shall agree to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the city, its officers, employees and agents, for any and all suits, claims or liabilities caused by, or arising out of any use authorized by any such permit.” Page 64 of 120 NUISANCE CONCERNS KERR FERGUSON LAW, PLLC •If left on sidewalks, e-scooters could constitute a public nuisance or a sidewalk obstruction •Bellevue: bicycles not near a bike hub for more than seven days without moving considered a nuisance, can be removed and stored by city for 70 days at permittee’s cost before disposal •Santa Monica (California): if abandoned or offered for rent without permit, subject to immediate impoundment Page 65 of 120 OPERATIONAL CONCERNS KERR FERGUSON LAW, PLLC •The City of Santa Monica has prohibited the rental of any shared mobility device within the City unless the company has a permit and a business license. •Also prohibits abandoning an e-bike or e- scooter in a right-of-way or public area “in such a way that the device is available for rent”, obstructs travel, or poses a safety hazard Page 66 of 120 OPERATIONAL CONCERNS KERR FERGUSON LAW, PLLC •Santa Monica requires an indemnification, defense, and hold harmless agreement from applicants for a permit •Also requires insurance, and the naming of the city as an additional insured •Also requires the applicant to reimburse the city for all costs and expenses that the city might be required to pay as a result of a legal challenge related to the city’s approval of the permit Page 67 of 120 OPERATIONAL CONCERNS KERR FERGUSON LAW, PLLC •Santa Monica requires an indemnification, defense, and hold harmless agreement from applicants for a permit •Also requires insurance, and the naming of the city as an additional insured •Also requires the applicant to reimburse the city for all costs and expenses that the city might be required to pay as a result of a legal challenge related to the city’s approval of the permit Page 68 of 120 OPTIONS FOR THE CITY KERR FERGUSON LAW, PLLC •City could take different steps if it finds that regulations are necessary •Could regulate e-scooter and e-bike sharing programs (e.g., times of operation, insurance requirements, etc.) •Could regulate parking of all e-scooters and e- bikes on rights-of-way, especially sidewalks •Could limit e-scooters and e-bikes to certain areas or types of public ways (e.g., bike paths) Page 69 of 120 THANK YOU! KERR FERGUSON LAW, PLLC Page 70 of 120 M E M O R A N D U M TO: Mayor and Council Members FROM: Stephanie Hayden, Director Austin Public Health Robert Spillar, P.E., Director Austin Transportation DATE: May 1, 2019 SUBJECT: MMAC: Dockless Electric Scooter-Related Injuries Study The purpose of this memorandum is to present the key findings of the Dockless Electric Scooter- Related Injuries study. The study was a collaborative effort of Austin Public Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Funding for the study was provided by the Austin Transportation Department (ATD). Background Rentable dockless electric scooters (e-scooters) are shared electric-assisted scooters that are an emerging transportation modality being introduced in cities nationwide. In early April 2018 e- scooters first appeared in Austin, Texas. Concurrently with this appearance, doctors at local hospitals and local emergency medical services began observing injuries associated with this emerging mode of transportation. To further advance knowledge on the public health impact of e-scooter use, Austin Public Health (APH), with assistance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and others, launched an epidemiological investigation to collect data on injuries involving rentable dockless e-scooters in Austin. In addition to collecting and analyzing data, staff conducted telephone interviews with the injured e-scooter riders to identify some risk factors associated with injuries. This study is believed to be the first study to conduct interviews with injured e-scooter riders. Attached please find a copy of the report prepared by Austin Public Health describing the findings of the study. If you have any questions or need additional information feel free to contact me at (512) 972-5010 or via email at Stephanie.Hayden@austintexas.gov or contact Jason JonMichael, Austin Transportation Department at (512) 974-7028 or via email at Jason.JonMichael@austintexas.gov. CC: Spencer Cronk, City Manager Elaine Hart, Deputy City Manager Chris Shorter, Assistant City Manager Jim Smith, Interim Assistant City Manager Attachment: Dockless Electric Scooter-Related Injuries Study Page 71 of 120 DOCKLESS ElectricSCOOTER-RELATEDINJURIES STUDY AUSTIN, TEXAS SEPTEMBER - NOVEMBER 2018 PUBLISHED APRIL 2019 EPIDEMIOLOGY AND DISEASE SURVEILLANCE UNIT EPIDEMIOLOGY AND PUBLIC HEALTH PREPAREDNESS DIVISION AUSTIN PUBLIC HEALTH Page 72 of 120 Page 73 of 120 1 Dockless Electric Scooter-Related Injuries Study — Austin, Texas, September–November 2018 Background Rentable dockless electric scooters (e-scooters) are shared electric-assisted scooters that are an emerging transportation modality being introduced in cities nationwide. E-scooters are rented for short periods of time via a phone application, have a narrow platform where the rider generally stands with one foot in front of the other, and travel at speeds up to approximately 15 miles per hour. In early April 2018 e-scooters first appeared in Austin, Texas. From September 5 through November 30, 2018, a total of 936,110 e-scooter trips were taken. These trips were associated with 182,333 hours of e-scooter use and 891,121 miles ridden on e-scooters. Concurrently with this appearance, doctors at local hospitals and the local emergency medical services began observing injuries associated with this emerging mode of transportation. This was not unique to Austin. In January 2019, researchers from Los Angeles, California published findings characterizing injuries associated with e-scooter use among patients seen at two emergency departments.1 To further advance knowledge on the public health impact of e-scooter use, the Austin Public Health Department (APH), with assistance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and others, launched an epidemiological investigation to collect data on injuries involving rentable dockless electric scooters in Austin. In addition, to identify risk factors associated with injuries telephone interviews were conducted with injured e-scooter riders. This is believed to be the first study to conduct interviews with injured e-scooter riders. Methodology Potential e-scooter related injury incidents occurring in Austin, Texas between September 5, 2018 and November 30, 2018 were identified by using two data sources: (1) Austin-Travis County Emergency Medical Services (ATCEMS) incident reports, and (2) Emergency Department (ED) syndromic surveillance chief complaint data from nine area hospitals. For ATCEMS reports, incident narratives for all incidents occurring during the study period were searched for the word “scooter”. Syndromic surveillance ED chief complaints occurring during the study period were searched using the following words: “scoot”, “scoter”, ”skoot”, “scotter”, “schoot”, or ”sccot.” As some injured patients may have used both ATCEMS and ED services or have multiple visits stemming from the e-scooter-related incident, results were examined to identify unique individuals using first and last name, incident date, ED name, age and, in some instances, the patient’s contact information. If patient contact information was unavailable through the ATCEMS or ED record, viable contact information was searched using LexisNexis® public databases or the Central Texas Indigent Care Collaboration information system. 1 Injuries Associated With Standing Electric Scooter Use. JAMA Open. 2019 Jan 4;2(1):e187381. Page 74 of 120 2 Patients were contacted to request an interview via telephone calls, text messages, and mailed letters. An interviewer-administered questionnaire collected information on confirmation of rentable, dockless electric scooter use, demographic characteristics, types of injuries, situational factors associated with the injury incident, and e-scooter use history. For injured persons who were not interviewed, their ATCEMS and/or ED medical records were abstracted for injury and situational information. Scooter injury incidents were classified as confirmed, probable, suspect, or not a case. Only incidents that occurred within the City of Austin during the study period, September 5 through November 30, 2018 were included. The classification descriptions are noted below: 1. Confirmed: injury related to a rentable dockless electric scooter (e-scooter). 2. Probable: injury related to an electric scooter, not otherwise specified as rentable or dockless. 3. Suspect: information not sufficient to determine if an injury was related to a rental dockless, electric scooter or an electric scooter. 4. Not a case: information sufficient to classify that an injury was NOT related to rentable dockless electric scooter, or the incident occurred outside the City of Austin, or occurred outside the study period. Descriptive statistics, including means and frequencies, were calculated. The location of the incident associated with the e-scooter injury was geocoded for confirmed and probable incidents. The National Transportation Safety Board’s (NTSB) definition of severe injury was used for this investigation. The NTSB defines severe injury as: (1) requires hospitalization for more than 48 hours, commencing within seven days from the date of the injury was received; (2) results in a fracture of any bone (except simple fractures of fingers, toes, or nose); (3) causes severe hemorrhages, nerve, muscle, or tendon damage; (4) involves any internal organ; or (5) involves second- or third degree burns, or any burns affecting more than 5% of the body surface. Incidence rates were calculated by using the number of confirmed and probable scooter injured riders as the numerator and the number of e-scooter trips occurring during the study period, provided by the Austin Transportation Department, as the denominator. Page 75 of 120 3 Results A total of 271 persons with potential e-scooters-related injuries were identified during the study period. Figure 1 shows the outcomes of classifying persons and data sources for demographic characteristics, types of injuries and factors associated with the incident. All but one of the 271 individuals were classified into the four case classifications: 160 were confirmed cases, 32 were probable cases, 46 were suspect cases, and 32 were not cases. The specific vehicle was unknown for one person. Figure 1. Outcomes of Classifying Individuals with Potential Rentable, Dockless Electric Scooters Injuries *Not related to rentable dockless e-scooter, or the incident occurred outside the City of Austin, or occurred outside the study period (September 5-November 30, 2018). Further analyses in this report use the combined number of confirmed (160) and probable (32) cases, unless otherwise noted. Of these 192 individuals, 190 were riding the scooter at the time of their injury and two were non-riders (one pedestrian and one bicyclist). Of these 190 riders, 125 riders were interviewed. The characteristics of the 190 riders and 125 interviewed riders are described below. 271 injured persons 160 "rented dockless electric scooter" associated injuries 32 "electric scooter" associated injuries 192 injured persons 190 riders 125 interviewed 65 medical charts/ATCEMS reports reviewed 2 non-riders 1 person interviewed 1 medical chart reviewed 46 "scooter" associated injuries 32 not included in study* 1 unknown Page 76 of 120 4 People Of the 190 injured riders 55% identified as male. Riders ranged in age from 9 to 79 years. As Figure 2 shows, nearly half (48%) were aged 18-29 years. The median age was 29 years. Nearly two-thirds (65%) identified as White; 41 (22%) individuals identified as Hispanic/Latino. Figure 2. Number of Injured Riders by Age Group (Years) Sixty percent of the riders resided in Austin at the time of their injury. For the one-third of riders who resided outside of Austin, 22 riders resided in other Texas cities, 37 were from 22 other states, two were from international countries, and one individual’s residence was unknown. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 <18 18-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 ≥70Number of Injured RiderssAge Groups (Years) Page 77 of 120 5 As Figure 3 shows, 33% of the interviewed riders were injured during their first scooter ride. Of all interviewed riders, 38% indicated they will use a-scooter again. Figure 3. Percent of Interviewed Riders by Number of Scooter Rides Before Injury Of the 190 injured riders, 183 riders were alone on the scooter. Types of Injuries Of the 190 injured riders, nearly half (48%) had injuries (e.g., fractures, lacerations, abrasions) to the head. In addition, 70% sustained injuries to the upper limbs (hands/wrist/arm/shoulder), 55% to the lower limbs (leg/knee/ankle/feet), and 18% to the chest/abdomen; multiple injuries across body regions were possible. Many individuals sustained injuries on their arms (43%), knees (42%), face (40%), and hands (37%). Over a third (35%) of the injured riders sustained a bone fracture(s) (excluding nose/fingers/toes). Among this group, 19% had bone fractures (excluding nose/fingers/toes) involving multiple body regions. Figure 4 shows the bone fracture locations for injured riders. A high number experienced fractures on their arms and legs. Notably, six persons (3%) had fractures involving the head. 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 0 rides (first time riders) 1-9 rides 10-29 rides ≥30 ridesPercent of Interviewed RidersNumber of Rides Before Injury Page 78 of 120 6 Figure 4. Bone Fracture Locations for Injured Riders Almost half (80) of the injured riders had a severe injury. The severe injury for these riders included: 1. bone fractures (excluding nose/fingers/toes) (84%), 2. nerve, tendon, or ligament injuries (45%), 3. spending more than 48 hours in the hospital (8%), 4. severe bleed (5%), and 5. sustained organ damage (1%). Traumatic brain injuries include concussions and other forms of altered mental status or bleeding such as subarachnoid hemorrhage and subdural hematoma. Fifteen percent of riders had evidence suggestive of a traumatic brain injury. Less than one percent of individuals was wearing a helmet at the time of injury. Eighty-eight percent of injured riders were seen at an emergency department. Fourteen percent of all injured riders were hospitalized. None of the injured riders died during the study period. Page 79 of 120 7 Places Figure 5 shows a map of the location in the city where the injury incident occurred for 77% (147) of the injured riders. Thirty-one percent occurred in the downtown area (defined as an area with a western border of South Lamar Blvd., a southern border of Cesar Chavez St., an eastern border of IH-35 and a northern border of 12th St.). Additionally, 16% of the injury incidents were located on the University of Texas at Austin campus (defined as an area with a western border of Guadalupe St., a southern border of Martin Luther King Blvd., an eastern border of Interstate 35 and a northern border of East Dean Keaton Street). Almost half (47%) of the injured riders were injured within these two areas. Figure 5. Map of Locations of Scooter-Related Injury Incidents More than half (55%) of the interviewed riders were injured in the street; one-third (33%) were injured on the sidewalk. Eight individuals were injured in a path where no motor vehicle was allowed, four were injured in a parking lot, and one was injured in a parking garage. Two individuals did not know the type of surface they were on at the time of the injury. Sixteen percent of the incidents with injured riders involved a motorized vehicle. These incidents include colliding and swerving, stopping, and jumping off the scooter to avoid a collision. Page 80 of 120 8 Ten percent of the injured riders collided with a motor vehicle. In addition, 10% of the incidents with injured riders involved a curb and 7% involved an inanimate object, such as a light pole or manhole cover. Nearly two-thirds (65%) of interviewed riders were traveling on a level surface, 24% were traveling downhill, and 6% were traveling uphill. Interviewed riders started their trips at a variety of locations. The three most frequently reported known starting points for their scooter trip were home (16%), restaurant/food truck (16%), and school/library (11%). Interviewed riders’ final destinations also varied. The three most frequently reported known final destinations for their scooter trip were home (25%), restaurant/food truck (14%), and joy ride/testing it out (10%). Among interviewed riders, 50% believed surface conditions like a pothole or crack in the street contributed to their injuries. Time During the study period, 24% of the riders were injured in September, 45% in October, and 31% in November. Figure 6 shows the highest number (30) of injured riders occurred during the week of October 7 through 13, 2018. With the exception of the weeks starting on September 2 (the first week of the study period) and October 14 (flooding and inclement weather that week), there were at least 11 injuries per week. On average, two injuries occurred per day. The highest number (10) of injured riders occurred on Saturday, October 13. Page 81 of 120 9 Figure 6. Number of Injured Riders by Week of Injury Occurrence As Figure 7 shows, 39% of the injured riders were injured on the weekend (Saturday and Sunday). Figure 7. Number of Injured Riders by Day of the Week of Injury Occurrence 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 8/26 9/2 9/9 9/16 9/23 9/30 10/7 10/14 10/21 10/28 11/4 11/11 11/18 11/25 12/2Number of Injured RidersWeek Starting on 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday SaturdayNumber of Injured RidersDay of the Week Page 82 of 120 10 Overall, of the injured riders, 39% were injured between 6pm and 6am. Of the 74 interviewed riders who were injured during the work week (Monday through Friday), almost half (47%) of the injuries occurred between 6pm and 6am. Other noted time periods are listed below:  4% occurred between 6am and 9am (morning rush hour),  8% between 11am and 1pm (lunch hour),  16% between 4pm and 6pm (afternoon rush hour)  22% between 9am and 11am, 1pm to 4pm (work hours) Additional Information Drinking an alcoholic beverage in the 12 hours preceding their injury was reported by 29% of interviewed riders. More than one-third (37%) reported that excessive scooter speed contributed to their injury. Nineteen percent believed the scooter malfunctioned (e.g., brakes, wheels, etc.). Seventy percent received training on scooter use. Most (60%) received that training via the scooter companies’ phone application. One person was injured while on a phone call; six persons reported listening to music/podcast when injured. During the study period, there were a total of 182,333 hours of e-scooter use, a total of 891,121 miles ridden on e-scooters, and a total of 936,110 e-scooter trips. Our calculations show that there were 20 individuals injured per 100,000 e-scooter trips taken during the study period. Page 83 of 120 11 Discussion Rentable, dockless, electric scooters are a new emerging mode of transportation. Austin Public Health initiated this investigation with the assistance of others in an effort to advance the knowledge on the public health impact of e-scooter use. Interviewing the e-scooter riders was an important contribution to furthering this knowledge. This study is believed to be the first to conduct interviews with injured e-scooter riders. This study likely underestimates the prevalence of e-scooter related injuries. The number and characteristics of injured riders seeking medical care at an urgent care center or physician’s office were not determined. This study was limited to investigating only those injured e-scooter riders and non-riders who sought care at a hospital emergency department or had care provided by emergency medical services. These riders are believed to experience more severe injuries compared with injured e-scooter riders whose injuries did not require care from a hospital emergency department or EMS. Almost half of the injured riders in this study sustained an injury to the head. A traumatic brain injury was experienced by 15%. These injuries may have been preventable. Only one of 190 injured scooter riders was wearing a helmet. Studies have shown that bicycle riders reduce the risk of head and brain injuries by wearing a helmet. Helmet use might also reduce the risk of head and brain injuries in the event of an e-scooter crash. Perceptions may be that most e-scooter riders are injured because of collisions with motorized vehicles. The findings of this study does not support that perception. While more than half of the interviewed riders were injured while riding a scooter in the street, few (10%) riders sustained injuries by colliding with a motor vehicle. Nevertheless, continuing education for motorized vehicle drivers and e-scooter riders is needed to prevent collisions. Another perception is that excessive e-scooter speed contributes to injuries. This perception may be true. More than one-third (37%) of injured riders reported that excessive e-scooter speed contributed to their injury. A key finding is a third of the interviewed riders were injured during their first e-scooter ride. Overall, 63% of the injured riders had ridden an e-scooter nine times or fewer before injury. While most (60%) of the riders in this study received training on using the e-scooter via a phone application, additional training may be necessary. Limitations Our study has several limitations. First, this investigation focused only on those who were seen by Austin-Travis County Emergency Medical Services (ATCEMS) or presented to an emergency department. The investigation did not identify those who sought medical care at urgent care facilities or private physician offices or those who were treated later in time. For this reason more severely injured patients were likely represented in this study. Second, it is also possible that injured individuals may not have been identified because some keywords were not used in the ATCEMS and emergency department reports/records. Page 84 of 120 12 Third, potential recall bias exists since interviews with injured individuals occurred up to several months after their injuries. Some participants may not have remembered everything that happened or may have recalled it differently than if they were interviewed shortly after their injury. Fourth, the individuals who did agree to be interviewed and provide responses may have differed from those who did not, leading to potential bias in the information presented in this study. Next Steps Considering the limitations and the study findings, Austin Public Health proposes the following: 1) Establish and strengthen injury surveillance related to emerging transportation vehicles. Questions will be asked about the risk of and types of injuries associated with the potential increased use of electric scooters, electric skateboards, unicycles, and Segway-type vehicles. Routine surveillance for injuries will be needed. 2) Increase the frequency and methods of educational messages on safe e-scooter riding practices. These educational messages should emphasize both wearing a helmet and maintaining a safe speed while riding an e-scooter. Educational messages should especially target young adults 18 to 29 years of age. Page 85 of 120 13 Acknowledgements We want to acknowledge the injured individuals we interviewed who graciously contributed information for this investigation. We would also like to acknowledge the following organizations, agencies, and individuals for their cooperation, collaboration, and assistance in this investigation: Ascension Seton Family of Hospitals St. David’s HealthCare Austin Transportation Department Austin Public Health Ashley Hawes Flor Hernandez-Ayala Rachel Holder Dr. Phil Huang Anna Klioueva Marissa Paz Janet Pichette Jessica Stradford Jeff Taylor Alice Tisdale David Zane Austin-Travis County Emergency Medical Services Pamela Quarles Centers for Disease Control and Prevention – Epidemic Intelligence Service (EIS) Team Dr. Anjoli Anand Dr. Sarah-Blythe Ballard Laurel Harduar-Morano Dr. Talia Pindyck Centers for Diseases Control and Prevention Supervisors Ann Dellinger Alexis Peterson Erin Sauber-Schatz Page 86 of 120 Santa Monica Municipal Code Article 3 PUBLIC SAFETY Chapter 3.21 SHARED MOBILITY DEVICE PILOT PROGRAM 3.21.010 Purpose.  Alert: This topic has been affected by . To view amendments and newly added provisions, please refer to the CodeAlert Amendment List. Consistent with the City’s goals of enhancing mobility and access, easing traffic congestion, and promoting sustainability, this Chapter creates a limited term pilot program to facilitate the use of shared mobility devices while ensuring the protection of public health and safety, including the safety of the public traveling by foot, bicycle, or vehicle on public sidewalks, streets, and other public rights-of-way. (Added by Ord. No. 2578CCS § 1, adopted 6/26/18) 3.21.020 Definitions.  Alert: This topic has been affected by . To view amendments and newly added provisions, please refer to the CodeAlert Amendment List. (a) “Abandon” shall mean leaving an item unattended for any length of time. (b) “Director” shall mean the Director of Planning and Community Development or designee. (c) “Operator” shall mean any person or businesses entity selected by the City to participate in the Shared Mobility Device Pilot Program pursuant to this Chapter. (d) “Public area” shall mean any outdoor area that is open to the public for public use, whether owned or operated by the City or a private party. (e) “Public right-of-way” shall mean any public alley, parkway, public transportation path, roadway, sidewalk, or street that is owned, granted by easement, operated, or controlled by the City. (f) “Shared mobility device” shall mean any transportation device by which a person can be propelled, moved or drawn, that is displayed, offered or placed for rent in any public area or public right-of-way, except that a “shared mobility device” does not include any device being vended or made available for rent exclusively from a vehicle pursuant to a valid City vending permit; a car share vehicle, as defined by Chapter 3.06 of this Code; a device authorized by the City bike share system pursuant to Chapter 3.20 of this Code; a taxicab as regulated in Chapter 6.49 of this Code, a device operated by the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority; or any other device excluded pursuant to administrative regulations. (Added by Ord. No. 2578CCS § 1, adopted 6/26/18) 3.21.025 Administrative regulations.  Alert: This topic has been affected by . To view amendments and newly added provisions, please refer to the CodeAlert Amendment List. (a) The Director may adopt administrative regulations to implement the provisions of this Chapter, including, but not limited to, permit application procedures and permit standards, which may include regulations relating to lawful conduct, public safety, data sharing, data privacy, and/or the timely removal of hazards. (b) No person shall fail to comply with the City’s administrative regulations. Any violation of any administrative regulation issued pursuant to this Section shall constitute a violation of this Code and shall subject the violator to the penalties set forth in this Chapter. (Added by Ord. No. 2578CCS § 1, adopted 6/26/18) 3.21.030 Prohibited conduct.  Alert: This topic has been affected by . To view amendments and newly added provisions, please refer to the CodeAlert Amendment List. Tools Links  Page 87 of 120 Notwithstanding any other provision of this Code, no person may: (a) Display, offer or make available for rent any shared mobility device within the City, unless the person has first obtained: (1) a valid shared mobility operator permit; and (2) a business license issued in accordance with Chapter 6.04 of this Code; (b) Abandon a shared mobility device not authorized by this Chapter in the public right-of-way or a public area in such a way that the device is available for rent; and (c) Abandon a shared mobility device in the public right-of-way or a public area in a manner that: (1) obstructs travel upon or blocks access to a public right-of-way; (2) poses an immediate public safety hazard; or (3) is otherwise prohibited by applicable laws or administrative regulations. (Added by Ord. No. 2578CCS § 1, adopted 6/26/18) 3.21.040 Maximum number of shared mobility operator permits and shared mobility devices permitted.  Alert: This topic has been affected by . To view amendments and newly added provisions, please refer to the CodeAlert Amendment List. (a) The Director may issue up to four shared mobility operator permits authorizing the deployment of a shared mobility device within the City. Two shared mobility operator permits shall be issued to operators that propose to deploy electric scooters as shared mobility devices and two shared mobility operator permits shall be issued to operators that propose to deploy electric bikes as shared mobility devices. No shared mobility operator permits shall be issued to any operator that proposes to deploy a shared mobility device that is exclusively powered by the human body or powered by combustion engine. (b) The Director may establish the number of shared mobility devices authorized under each shared mobility operator permit. No more than on a weekly basis or within fourteen days following any City Council action adjusting the number of permitted operators or devices pursuant to Subsection (d), the Director may adjust the maximum number of devices authorized by each shared mobility operator permit. The Director shall take into consideration market needs, the number of devices deployed in the City, device utilization, and any other criteria set forth in administrative regulations. The Director shall first publish his or her tentative adjustment decision under this Section, along with reasons supporting the decision, and solicit comments prior to making a final determination. The Director’s determinations under this Section shall constitute the final decision of the City and are not subject to further administrative review. No person shall fail to comply with the Director ’s established device limitation. (c) No operator may be granted authorization for less than two hundred fifty shared mobility devices. (d) At any time, in the City Council’s discretion, the City Council may reassess the number of shared mobility operator permits authorized for issuance. The City Council, in its discretion, may determine by resolution that the number of shared mobility operator permits or the number of total authorized devices should be reduced or increased. (Added by Ord. No. 2578CCS § 1, adopted 6/26/18) 3.21.050 Shared mobility operator permit application procedure, fees and requirements.  Alert: This topic has been affected by . To view amendments and newly added provisions, please refer to the CodeAlert Amendment List. (a) Any person seeking to obtain a shared mobility operator permit shall submit a written application, signed under penalty of perjury, using the form designated by the Director for that purpose. (b) The City Council may establish permit fees and charges by resolution, which shall: (1) Defray the City’s costs in administering and enforcing the provisions of this Chapter; and (2) Reflect charges associated with use of public property pursuant to this Chapter. (c) The Director may specify the information that must be provided in connection with an application and the form in which the information is to be provided. The application shall contain, at a minimum, the following information: (1) The name and business address of each person or entity that: (i) has more than a ten percent equity, participation, or revenue interest in the applicant; or (ii) is a trustee, director, partner, or officer of that entity or of another entity that owns or controls the applicant, excepting persons serving in those capacities as volunteers, without compensation, for organizations exempt from income taxes under Section 501(c)(3), (4), or (6) of the Internal Revenue Code; (2) The name and business address of any parent or subsidiary of the applicant, namely, any other business entity owning or controlling the applicant in whole or in part, or owned or controlled in whole or in part by the applicant, and a statement describing the nature of any such parent or subsidiary business entity; Tools Links  Page 88 of 120 (3) Information sufficient to show that the applicant is financially, technically, and legally qualified to operate and maintain a shared mobility device system; (4) A description of the proposed plan of operation, including, at a minimum, a detailed description of: (i) The applicant’s current operations in the City and other jurisdictions, including copies of the applicant’s operating permits for all such jurisdictions, (ii) The applicant’s proposed operations in the City including the maximum number of shared mobility devices anticipated during the duration of the pilot program, the plan for balancing shared mobility devices for Citywide coverage, the plan for shared mobility device maintenance, levels of staff for operations and administration, and the plan for customer service, (iii) The applicant’s regulatory compliance program, (iv) The applicant’s history of, intent to, and ability to comply with, State and local law, (v) The applicant’s plans to implement safety programs, including, for example, a program by which the applicant will receive information about and notify users of inappropriate use, (vi) The applicant’s plans to educate users of shared mobility devices about applicable California Vehicle Code provisions and other applicable laws, regulations, and guidelines, (vii) The applicant’s plans to comply with applicable Federal, State, and local data privacy laws and otherwise to protect the privacy of personal information provided by users, and (viii) Any other requirements set forth by administrative regulation. (Added by Ord. No. 2578CCS § 1, adopted 6/26/18) 3.21.060 Shared mobility operator selection.  Alert: This topic has been affected by . To view amendments and newly added provisions, please refer to the CodeAlert Amendment List. (a) The Shared Mobility Operator Selection Committee shall be established by the Director. The Committee shall consist of City staff with appropriate knowledge and experience, as further set forth in the administrative regulations. (b) The Committee shall review all applications and make written recommendations to the Director based on a ranking of each qualified applicant in accordance with objective criteria set forth by this Chapter and administrative regulations. (c) Each qualified applicant shall be evaluated based upon objective criteria including: experience; proposed operations plan; financial wherewithal and stability; adequacy of insurance; ability to begin operations in a timely manner; public education strategies; relevant record of the applicant’s or officers’, owners’ or principals’ violations of Federal, State or local law, or rules and regulations; and any other objective criteria established by administrative regulation. (d) Each applicant shall be provided an opportunity to submit written comments or objections to the Committee’s recommendations. (e) The Director shall set forth, in writing, the reasons supporting his or her final determinations. The Director may request additional information from City staff, any applicant, or any other source that would assist in determining the final qualifications and rankings. (f) The Director shall grant a shared mobility operator permit to the highest four ranked applicants. Should two applicants receive the same score, a lottery shall be used to establish the final rankings for any applicants that achieved the same score. (g) The Director ’s determinations under this Section shall constitute the final decision of the City and shall not be subject to further administrative review. (h) The Director may impose, as part of any shared mobility operator permit issued, any and all conditions that are necessary to effectuate the purposes of this Chapter, mitigate traffic impacts, ensure accessibility of the public right-of-way and availability of public space for shared use by all, or protect the health, welfare, and safety of the public. No person shall fail to comply with such permit conditions. (Added by Ord. No. 2578CCS § 1, adopted 6/26/18) 3.21.070 Limitations on City liability.  Alert: This topic has been affected by . To view amendments and newly added provisions, please refer to the CodeAlert Amendment List. Tools Links  Page 89 of 120 To the fullest extent permitted by law, the City shall not assume any liability whatsoever with respect to having issued a shared mobility operator permit or otherwise approving the operation of any shared mobility device. As a condition to the issuance of any shared mobility operator permit, the applicant shall be required to meet all of the following conditions: (a) The applicant must execute an agreement, in a form approved by the City Attorney, agreeing to indemnify, defend (at applicant’s sole cost and expense), and hold harmless the City, and its officers, officials, employees, representatives, and agents from any and all claims, losses, damages, injuries, liabilities or losses which arise out of, or which are in any way related to, the City’s issuance of or decision to approve a shared mobility operator permit, the process used by the City in making its decision, or the alleged violation of any Federal, State or local laws by the applicant or any of its officers, managers, employees or agents. (b) Maintain insurance at coverage limits, and with conditions thereon determined necessary and appropriate from time to time, as determined by the Risk Manager and name the City of Santa Monica as additional insured. The applicant’s insurance policy shall be endorsed to state that coverage shall not be cancelled except after thirty days’ prior written notice by certified mail has been given to the City. If any insurance policy issued to a permittee is cancelled for any reason, the permit issued under this Chapter is automatically suspended. In order to reinstate the permit, the permittee shall provide a new certificate and policy of insurance to the City. (c) Reimburse the City for all costs and expenses, including, but not limited to, attorney fees and costs, which it may be required to pay as a result of any legal challenge related to the City’s approval of or activities conducted pursuant to the applicant’s shared mobility operator permit. The City may, at its sole discretion, participate at its own expense in the defense of any such action, but such participation shall not relieve any of the obligations imposed hereunder. (Added by Ord. No. 2578CCS § 1, adopted 6/26/18) 3.21.080 Grounds for revocation, suspension or denial.  Alert: This topic has been affected by . To view amendments and newly added provisions, please refer to the CodeAlert Amendment List. A shared mobility operator permit may be revoked, suspended, or denied by the Director based upon any of the following grounds: (a) An applicant or operator, including its employees, managers, officers, principals, directors, owners, contractors, representatives, or agents: (1) Making one or more false or misleading statements, or material omissions on the permit application, during the application process, or during the pilot program; (2) Failing to provide information requested or required by the City; (3) Operating or proposing to operate in a manner that endangers public health or safety; or (4) Failing to comply with any requirement imposed by the provisions of this Code (or successor provision or provisions) including any rule, regulation, condition or standard adopted pursuant to this Chapter, or any term or condition imposed on the shared mobility operator permit, or any provision of State law. (b) Conviction of the operator, to include any of its officers, owners or principals, of a criminal offense that is substantially related to the qualifications, functions or duties of the shared mobility business or profession, including, but not limited to, any criminal conviction involving a violent or serious felony, fraud, deceit, or embezzlement. (Added by Ord. No. 2578CCS § 1, adopted 6/26/18) 3.21.090 Pilot program term.  Alert: This topic has been affected by . To view amendments and newly added provisions, please refer to the CodeAlert Amendment List. Permits issued pursuant to this Chapter shall terminate and be of no further force or effect beyond December 30, 2019, unless otherwise extended or terminated earlier by the City. (Added by Ord. No. 2578CCS § 1, adopted 6/26/18) 3.21.100 Impoundment of devices.  Alert: This topic has been affected by . To view amendments and newly added provisions, please refer to the CodeAlert Amendment List. Tools Links  Page 90 of 120 (a) A shared mobility device that is displayed, offered, or made available for rent, or abandoned, in the public right-of-way or a public area in violation of Section 3.21.030 shall be subject to immediate impoundment by the City. (b) The City Council may adopt impound fees by resolution, which shall reflect the City’s enforcement, investigation, storage and impound costs. (c) No person shall retrieve any impounded shared mobility device except upon demonstrating proper proof of ownership of the device and payment of applicable impound fees. (Added by Ord. No. 2578CCS § 1, adopted 6/26/18) 3.21.110 Enforcement.  Alert: This topic has been affected by . To view amendments and newly added provisions, please refer to the CodeAlert Amendment List. (a) Any person who violates any provision of this Chapter, including any permit condition, shall be guilty of an infraction, which shall be punishable by a fine not exceeding two hundred fifty dollars, or a misdemeanor, which shall be punishable by a fine not exceeding five hundred dollars per violation or by imprisonment in the County Jail for a period not exceeding six months or by both such fine and imprisonment. (b) Any person who violates any provision of this Chapter, including any permit condition, shall be subject to administrative fines and administrative penalties pursuant to Chapter 1.09 and Chapter 1.10 of this Code. (c) Any person convicted of violating this Chapter in a criminal case, or found to be in violation of this Chapter in a civil or administrative case brought by a law enforcement agency, shall be ordered to reimburse the City and other participating law enforcement agencies their full investigative costs. (Added by Ord. No. 2578CCS § 1, adopted 6/26/18) Tools Links  Page 91 of 120 AGENDA REPORT FOR: City Council May 1, 2019 TO: Dave Zabell, City Manager Workshop Meeting: 5/13/19 FROM: Steve Worley, Director Public Works SUBJECT: Pasco Process Water Reuse Facility (PWRF) Update I. REFERENCE(S): Vicinity Map Presentation II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Discussion III. FISCAL IMPACT: None at this time IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: The City of Pasco has owned and operated the Pasco Process Water Reuse Facility (PWRF) since 1995. The PWRF and associated farm properties are located in an area of irrigated agriculture production fields on approximately 1,800 acres north of Pasco and east of Highway 395 in Franklin County. The PWRF has a State Waste Discharge Permit (No. ST0005369) from the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology). Effluent from five food processors located in Pasco is pretreated at the facility and then treated and disposed of through land application in the City Owned crop fields via irrigation circles onto land leased by agricultural operators. Pace Engineers Inc. is finalizing a facility plan for the PWRF. This facility plan assessed current capacity and condition of the facility and recommends a series of projects to increase capacity and treatment capabilities for the projected flows of the current 5 food processors, an additional food processor (currently discharging to the Municipal Sewer Treatment plan) and the potential for expansion by processors and/or Page 92 of 120 the addition of one or more additional processors. V. DISCUSSION: Robin Nelson,PE Senior Vice PResident with Pace Engineers, will provide an update on the PWRF Facility plan.The presentation will also cover the status of projects derived from said plan and funding summary. Page 93 of 120 Page 94 of 120 Pasco City Council Meeting May 13, 2019 Process Water Reuse Facility Update Page 95 of 120 PWRF EFFORTS 1.PWRF Capital Facilities Plan 2.New Irrigation Pump Station (IPS) 3.New Columbia East Pump Station 4.New Columbia East Force Mains 5.New Foster Wells Force Main 6.PWRF Pretreatment Improvements Coordination meetings with processors Page 96 of 120 PWRF Page 97 of 120 SERVICE AREAS Page 98 of 120 PWRF CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN DESCRIPTION: Regional Master Plan and Capital Improvements for Operation of PWRF STATUS: Completed Draft sent to Ecology 10/1/2018 Ecology Comments Received 3/22/2019 WORK IN PROGRESS: Consultant Team addressing Ecology review comments Resubmittal Scheduled for May 17, 2019 Page 99 of 120 PWRF CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN Page 100 of 120 PWRF CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN Page 101 of 120 PWRF CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN Page 102 of 120 FUNDING Page 103 of 120 IRRIGATION PUMP STATION (IPS) DESCRIPTION: Replacing key element of PWRF, Conveying 15,000 gpm process wastewater to Land Treatment System. STATUS: 90% Plans, Specs and Engineering Completed Received Ecology Review Comments March 13, 2019 Construction to begin in summer 2019 WORK IN PROGRESS: Consultant addressing Ecology review comments Preparing 100% Plans and Specifications Due to City May 31, 2019 ESTIMATE: $7 MillionPage 104 of 120 COLUMBIA EAST PUMP STATION DESCRIPTION: New 2200 gpm Pump Station to convey process wastewater from southerly processors to PWRF STATUS: Pump Station is under Construction WORK IN PROGRESS: Estimated 50% complete Completion in September 2019 CONSTRUCTION BID: $2.7 Million Page 105 of 120 COLUMBIA EAST FORCE MAINS DESCRIPTION: 4.3 miles of (Parallel) 20 inch Force Mains connecting New Pump Station to PWRF STATUS: Development of Plans and Specifications Underway Environmental Documentation Completed Construction to begin in Fall 2019 WORK IN PROGRESS: Consultant pursuing Utility Easement Acquisition 90% Submittal schedule for Mid June 2019 ESTIMATE: $9 Million Page 106 of 120 NEW FOSTER WELLS FORCE MAIN DESCRIPTION: 2.4 Miles of 20 inch Force Main connecting Foster Wells Pump Station to PWRF. Requested by processors to avoid shutdown due to condition of existing 25-year-old force mains STATUS: Bid Documents Complete Submitted to City 5/2/2019 Environmental Documentation Complete Construction to be performed during Summer 2019 WORK IN PROGRESS: Franklin County Right of Way Permit Submitted , BPA Crossing Permit Submitted, WSDOT Utility Franchise Permit Submitted, Utility Easement Negotiations Underway ESTIMATE: $4 MillionPage 107 of 120 PWRF Pretreatment Improvements DESCRIPTION: Improvements to the Process Water Reuse Facility (PWRF) to allow for additional capacity and improved treatment, including: ◦Existing Solids Removal and Disposal Locally, ◦8 MG EQ Basin Aerators ◦Install Third Drum Screen ◦New Primary Clarifier ◦pH Control Equipment ◦Solids Handling ◦100 MG New Storage STATUS: Upcoming WORK IN PROGRESS: Request for Qualifications for design services to be published in Summer 2019 ESTIMATE: $20 MillionPage 108 of 120 PWRF Update The City continues to work collaboratively with processors and oversight agencies to provide reliable service to the rate payers. Page 109 of 120 PWRF UPDATE QUESTIONS?Page 110 of 120 AGENDA REPORT FOR: City Council May 8, 2019 TO: Dave Zabell, City Manager Workshop Meeting: 5/13/19 FROM: Zach Ratkai, Director Administrative & Community Services SUBJECT: Overnight Parking Ordinance - Peanuts Park/Farmers' Market Plaza I. REFERENCE(S): Powerpoint Presentation Draft Ordinance II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Discussion III. FISCAL IMPACT: No Known Fiscal Impact IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: Currently, Section 10.65.070 of the Pasco Municipal Code prohibits parking of motor vehicles between the hours of 11:00pm and 5:00am on city-owned parking areas, specifically two parking lots associated with the former City Hall. With risks presented by unattended vehicles overnight or camping under the Farmer’s Market roof structures, redevelopment of the Market structures and Park, as well as an increase in the number of formal events occurring at Peanuts Park, staff requests that section 10.65.070 of the Pasco Municipal Code be amended to include the parking area at Peanuts Park. V. DISCUSSION: Direction to be sought in order to finalize ordinance to be presented at the May 20, 2019 Regular Meeting. Page 111 of 120 Overnight Parking Ordinance – Peanuts Park/Farmers’ Market Plaza Page 112 of 120 Overnight Parking Current Prohibition: Farmers’ Market Days Proposed, incorporation with current ordinance prohibition Construction, rehabilitation of the plaza Public Safety, Nuisance Future design has no parking Page 113 of 120 Overnight Parking Currently prohibited: Public Lots previously serving former City Hall Since 1995 Page 114 of 120 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON, AMENDING SECTION 10.65.070 OF THE PASCO MUNICIPAL CODE, PROHIBITING OVERNIGHT PARKING IN SPECIALLY IDENTIFIED LOTS. WHEREAS, public parking lots within the City of Pasco serve the need for parking of vehicles during daytime hours WHEREAS, future redevelopment plans for certain sites within the Pasco Central Business District will require clear and secure access to property. WHEREAS, in the interest of public safety, sanitary conditions, and overall appearance; THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That Section 10.65.070 of the Pasco Municipal Code entitled “Overnight Parking Prohibited – City Lots” shall be hereby amended and read as follows: 10.65.070 OVERNIGHT PARKING PROHIBITED – CITY LOTS Parking in the following City parking lots shall be limited to two hours in duration between the hours of 11:00 p.m. and 5:00 a.m.: The City parking lot located south of the alley between Bonneville and Clark Streets and north of Clark Street and lying approximately mid-block of Fourth Avenue and west of Third Avenue. The City parking lot located south of Clark Street and north of the alley between Lewis and Clark Streets and lying approximately mid-block east of Fourth Avenue and west of Third Avenue. [Ord. 3105 § 3, 1995; Code 1970 § 10.52.070.] The City parking lots located at the northeast corner of the intersection of South 4th Avenue and West Columbia Street, also commonly known as the Pasco Farmers’ Market and/or Peanuts Park. Section 2. This ordinance shall take full force and effect five (5) days after it approval, passage, and publication as required by law. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco, Washington, and approved as provided by law this _____ day of _______________, 2019. ____________________________ Matt Watkins, Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: _____________________ ________________________ Page 115 of 120 Angela Pashon, Interim City Clerk Eric Ferguson, City Attorney Page 116 of 120 AGENDA REPORT FOR: City Council May 1, 2019 TO: Dave Zabell, City Manager Workshop Meeting: 5/13/19 FROM: Steve Worley, Director Public Works SUBJECT: Kiddy Utility Improvements Ordinance - Latecomer Agreement I. REFERENCE(S): Parcel Map Proposed Ordinance RCW 35.91.020 II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Discussion III. FISCAL IMPACT: None IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: On August 31st 2018, the City received an Application for Developer Reimbursement Agreement (Latecomers Agreement) by Mr. Robert & Michelle Kiddy for a water main line extension to be constructed along parcel #119-101-170. RCW 35.91.020 permits a contract for such reimbursement of utility improvements for development property upon an owner’s request, only in a location where a municipality’s ordinances require the facilities to be improved or constructed as a prerequisite to further property development. In satisfaction of this requirement of RCW 35.91.020, this Ordinance specifically states such requirement. The Public Works Department considers the above mentioned Application to be complete to process in establishing the benefiting property being parcel #119-092-036 for repayment in accordance with RCW 35.91.020 and Pasco Municipal Code 14.12.030. The reimbursement is based on acreage. V. DISCUSSION: Page 117 of 120 Pursuant to the requirements established in RCW 35.91.020, we recommend that the City adopt an Ordinance requiring the water main line extension be constructed as a prerequisite to further property development. Page 118 of 120 Page 119 of 120 ORDINANCE NO.__________ AN ORDINANCE of the City of Pasco, Washington Requiring Construction of Utility Facilities as a Prerequisite to Development of Property WHEREAS, developers have made application for the development of certain real property known as Parcel Number 119101170, located within the municipal boundaries of the City of Pasco (“Property”); and WHEREAS, the City of Pasco has identified that there is a necessity for municipal water facilities at a location adjacent to the Property that must be constructed prior to the development of the Property; and WHEREAS, the City has identified potential development of other real property that may benefit from the water facilities described herein; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The City of Pasco requires the following municipal water facilities to be constructed as a pre-requisite to development of the property described above: Installation of 180 linear feet of 8” Class 52 Ductile Iron Pipe beginning at the intersection of Road 48 and Walker Way extending north and terminating at the northern property line of parcel #119101170, along with appurtenances to include two 8” gate valves, one 6” gate valve, and one fire hydrant assembly. Section 2. This Ordinance shall take full force and effect five (5) days after its approval, passage, and publication as required by law. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco, Washington, and approved as provided by law this ____ day of _________________, 2019. _____________________________ Matt Watkins, Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: ______________________________ ____________________________________ Angela Pashon, Interim City Clerk KERR FERGUSON LAW, City Attorney Page 120 of 120