HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/08/2013 11A Council General InformationBUSINESS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
YAKIMA, WASHINGTON
AGENDA STATEMENT (/6
Item No.
For Meeting of: January 8, 2013
ITEM TITLE: Council General Information
SUBMITTED BY:
CONTACT
PERSON /TELEPHONE:
SUMMARY EXPLANATION:
1. December 18, 2012 letter from John Putney regarding car tab fee
2. December 18, 2012 letter from Jeanne Crawford regarding traffic calming on 45th Avenue
3. Response to Barge- Chestnut Neighborhood Association re: Fire Protection Concerns
4. City Meeting Schedule for week of January 7, 2013
5. Preliminary Future Activities Calendar as of January 7, 2013
6. Preliminary Council Agenda
7. 2013 Study Session Schedule
8. Newspaper /Magazine /Internet Articles:
* "2012 End of Year Public Records Alert," MRSC.com, December 2012
Resolution
Ordinance
Other
(specify)
Contract:
Mail to:
Contract Term:
Amount:
Expiration Date:
Insurance Required? No
Funding
Phone:
Source:
APPROVED FOR
City Manager
SUBMITTAL:
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
, V"
4 "gz
a
"Zj
BOARD /COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
ATTACHMENTS:
Click to download
171 info packet
3 Burning Tree Dr.
Yakima, 98902
December 17th, 2012
Micah Cawley, Mayor
129 N. 2nd Street
Yakima, WA 98901
Dear Mr. Cawley,
CITY OF YAK-1-MA
DEC 18 7017
OFFICE OF CITY COUNCIL
This letter is in regard to the proposed car -tab fee being considered to finance the much -
needed street repair in Yakima. You will likely find no one who doesn't see the need every day
they are driving on Yakima streets.
There are some aspects of the issue that had not occurred to me, until I read two of the
letters in the December 16th edition of the Yakima Herald - Republic. The letter written by Fred
Thompson, of Union Gap, points out that only 40 % of the drivers on Yakima streets reside in
Yakima. I have no idea how Mr. Thompson arrived at that figure, but one even 10 -20% higher
figure would still be of concern to me. According to Mr. Thompson's figures then, 60% of those
using our streets would not be assessed the proposed car -tab fee for repairing the very streets they
use. If 40% is the true figure, then assessing just that minority would not product enough income
over five years to do much in the way of the needed repairs /repaving.
Mr. Thompson also brings up the fact that the proposed fee would bring in no money from
truckers, whether they are long -haul rigs or the ones used by the local fruit industry. The writer
of the second letter, Donald Abbot, asks whether or not the fruit trucks and trailers using city
streets during the harvest season are ever weighed to see whether or not they conform to legal
load limits. Those trucks are weighed at the fruit warehouses, but are the results reported to the
city of Yakima? My guess is that many of those trucks do not conform to the weight limits for
commercial vehicles using Yakima's city streets. What percentage of the damage to our streets is
caused by those heavily laden fruit trucks?
Have you and the Yakima City council considered a special assessment on studded tires
sold to people living in Yakima? That could be better be tackled by the politicians in Olympia.
The studded tire effect on our streets is certainly noticeable when one is driving across any of
Yakima's major arterials.
Along with many voters, I will be watching the Yakima City Council's deliberations on the
car -tab issue.
Sincerely,
"in Putney
e. swan, 1p
to the editor Yakima's proposal to'
raiset.artab fees to-pay for street mainte-
nance seems. mispided. Why not'attack
source of deteriorating streets instead?
Asking 40 percent Of the population to
pay for damage caused by all ofus is unfair.
Sixty-percent of traffic is from outlying areas
whose residents choose to spend time and
money in Yakima.
Such ari-ordinance generates little - or no I
money from truckers"'
,Who have a greater
I impact on-streets, especially curbs and
comers..
Also, the-use of studded tiies also.addsto
wear and tea ' r'.of city streets, yet -ordifia . nce
proposalhiisses,th6 problem.
Thahkheavens I live in Union Gap and
use studded tires to feel safer on winter
roadsz Raising I ear tab fiees on Yakima
vebigles-fiypasses,me completely
P q g� l
0' rawm a attack
cause of problem. Don't tax afeWforthe sins
of the many.
FRED THOMSON
Union Gap
a
oaas.gfr pucks„
yj
To the editof—Since the fruit 0it harvest is
wih.dingdown; it is once a
9din-time to look
at the streets of Yakima. ma. I hav6",'alWays been
curious if the,6uXtrUcks ihatliavel
our
:streets are carrying more weight than for
which the streets are designed. These trucks
do notcrosS scales except at th"e-waieliouses
and I'm sure these entities do not s -
elPreport
any that are overweight. I suspect1fiese
trucks are a major cause of the deterioration
of our streets since- ibey start ha , tiling,fruit
in August When't'he wed th - edstot'And the
asphalt is softest.
I think it is time the city ,and',dounty-look
at this:issu,ie and determi he if irdee -d the-
truets are hauling more
se
weight-than,allowed
bylaw, rectify the pr6blemand take'
them pay more in ioad.ta'-
X,.
DONALD ABBOTT
Yakinia
KtIJCIVCU` .
CITY OF YAKIMA
Jeanne Crawford D E L 1 0 2012
2 North 44th Avenue
Yakima WA 98908 1 OFFICE OF CITY COUNCIL
December 13, 2012
Allyson Thompson
City of Yakima Traffic Engineering
2301 Fruitvale Blvd
Yakima WA 98902
Dear Ms. Thompson:
This is an addenda to my letter to you of October 25, stating what I hope to say at the
informational meeting this evening at the Harman Center, re your "Traffic Calming on
45th Avenue" proposal.
Your original letter uses the phrase "to improve safety and traffic flow ".
As it is now, traffic goes straight down 45th Avenue from Summitview, across Chestnut
and then Tieton, presumably to Eisenhower High School, or other destinations.
Your suggested route would include FOUR DIRECTION CHANGES AT FOUR
CORNERS, left from 45th to Barge (a very narrow street where six cars are usually
parked behind 105 N. 45th Avenue, presumably wanting to leave in the morning); right
onto North 44th Avenue at a tight corner where the would meet northbound traffic
headed for the house in the cul de sac; right on 44 Avenue at the corner of Chestnut
where the bus for six elementary kids comes at 8:11 am, and left at Chestnut and 45th
where they would make a turn across traffic, hopefully avoiding bikers, walkers and
joggers who are on Chestnut, a 20 mph street, at early morning hours.
"Safety" would not describe the above situation. A fast driver would only have to crash at
the corner of Barge and North 44th Avenue, or wipe out a school kid at Chestnut and
South 44th Avenue, or strike a jogger on Chestnut to disprove the suggestion of "safety"
and/or "calming."
Again, I propose speed bumps on 45th Avenue between Summitview and Chestnut. Even
better would be to direct the heavy traffic somehow to 48th Avenue, a wide street, well -
marked with stop -signs and traffic lights, certainly able to handle any additional traffic
headed for the schools.
Jeanne Crawford J r�
cc: Mayor Micah Cawley
cc: City Manager Tony,O'Rourke
Administration
-ire Suppression
re Investigation
& Education
Training
Communications
November 26, 2012
Mr Walt Ranta
BCNA
211 S24 th Avenue
Yakima, WA 98902
401 North Front Street, Yakima, WA 93901
Mr. Ranta and members of the Barge- Chestnut Neighborhood Association,
y� G
,s <4
(509) 575 -6060
Fax (509) 576 -6356
www.yakimafire.com
Thank you for taking the time to express your concerns with fire protection in the City of Yakima and
specifically in your neighborhood. In this era of stagnant revenues and escalating personnel costs,
fire departments and all City services are increasingly challenged to meet community needs while
living, within our means. Maintaining adequate services is quite a challenge for nearly all Fire Chiefs
All over the country, Fire Chiefs are applying new ideas and policies in an attempt to stave off the
necessity of terminating employees. The most recent announcements in our area last week
included layoffs of 17 firefighters in Tacoma, and 9 in Spokane. I want to assure you that my
decisions of operational policies are made with the citizen's best interest in mind; yet also require
fiscal stewardship.
Every year the Yakima Fire Department budget has been increased. However, the budget increase
in 2012 was less than the increase in employee benefit costs. This resulted in not being able to fill
two vacant positions on the department. The Fire Department budget has a very small discretionary
margin to work with. Our budget is approximately 92% employee wages and benefits leaving only
8% to cover the costs of equipment, fuel, training, uniforms, firefighting clothing, apparatus repair,
fire station repair and maintenance, etc As you can imagine, our job is not easy in these economic
times.
Even in these tough economic times I am proud to say that we have not terminated an employee
due to funding. I do not cherish the thought of ending the career of a young firefighter trying to raise
a family and contributing to the community. I will explain my decision to implement the action of not
filing the extra , engine at station 91 on various occasions (brown out) and the implications that
decision carries with it. I will also address each concern you have brought to my attention in your
letter. By doing this, I hope you understand my decisions and why I have made them. I will address
your concerns in order by paragraph
In the first paragraph of your letter you make note of the closure of station 3 in the 3500 block of
Summitview. As the City grows, station location changes are necessary to deliver the best
service to the entire city.
Since the early 70's we have closed the fire stations at 3rd &Walnut, 7th & Chestnut, and 3500
block of Summitview and have opened stations at 807 E. Nob Hill, 401 N. Front St., 40th &
Englewood, and 7300 block of Summitview. This does equate to a longer response time to the
citizens that were near the old stations, but decreased times to the citizens near the new
stations and provides for better average response time for a majority of the citizens We have
made these changes using professional consultant's recommendations
a
The staffing levels for shift personnel is of the highest concern and has a direct correlation to
performing our core function which is responding to emergency calls. We have addressed this
concern by reducing the personnel on day shifts and placing them on shift work (on fire engines)
as our budget mandates In 2012 the Training Lieutenant was removed from teaching the YV
TECH students and placed in shift rotation to augment the shift roster. In 2013, 1 plan on
placing the extra person from the airport crash truck (one on each shift) on fire engines rather
than staying at the airport station 24 hours a day The FAA only requires these people to man
the crash truck four hours per day. This action will place more persons on fire engines than
ever before as you can see by the chart labeled exhibit 1. The change in daily staffing from
2011 to '2012 is due to the use of overtime to fully man the extra engine at Station 91 as
mandated in the 2011 labor contract. This contractual agreement ended on January 1, 2012
and the overtime budget was reduced from $318,000 to $170,000 which prevented the laying off
of two firefighters.
To make it clear on what the definition of a brown out is, please allow me to explain the term as
it is used on our Department. All five fire stations have at least one three person engine
company (this has never changed). When we have extra people on shift, we place them at
station 91 to make a 2 person aid car or an extra 3 person fire engine. When we do not have
the extra aid car or fire engine at station 91, we call it a brown out. Each day, an average of
25% to 33% of the workforce does not report for duty due to vacations, Kelly days, holidays,
sick leave, union business, or city business. So far this year, there have not been enough
personnel at work to man an extra aid car or fire engine just over 19% of the time. You have
noted that my "brown out" numbers do not match the numbers provided to you. I am basing my
numbers on exact hours from the City's official payroll /timekeeping system. When the
department experiences a brown out for two hours, I mark that as 2 hours of brown out, not the
full shift of 24 hours which is evidently being reported to you. The terms are being confused by
stating that a day was affected by brown out as being 24 hours of brown out rather than the two
hours that actually happened Please see exhibit #2 which contains three pages of explanatory
shift rosters and every shift roster from January 1, 2012 through October 31, 2012. Some days
are very confusing as you can see with many time fragmentations. You can analyze this official
data to confirm the percentage of brown out time.
When a fire occurs, the protocol for the City is to send five pieces of apparatus and a Battalion
Chief to residential structure fires. This still happens as it always has, there has been no
change what so ever in a structure fire response or medical response to your house whether the
extra apparatus is manned that day or not. The only difference is that during a brown out, there
is no extra apparatus standing by in the down town area to take a secondary call. On nearly
every fire that has happened this year, we have quickly called in one or two more crews of off
duty firefighters to man two more fire engines. The decision to not fill the extra apparatus was
made using one full year of statistics that showed successive fire calls are very rare and would
have happened only once in 2011 and has not happened in 2012
We are basically usinq overtime to man extra apparatus on an "as needed" basis rather than
24/7 as we did in 2011. We average a working fire every 56 hours in the City of Yakima.
Please remember that 76% of all of our alarms are for medical aid. Yakima is served by two
ambulance companies that arrive at the scene with paramedic and EMT trained personnel The
Private ambulance companies arrive before the Fire Department approximately 50% of the time.
This response does not change in accordance with Yakima Fire Department manning levels.
Paragraph three addresses the 'concern that safety rules require four firefighters to be on scene
to enter a house for rescue. This information is not accurate as you can see by the Washington
State Law that is outlined in exhibit 3. In a rescue situation, the state law allows us to perform
a rescue using 3 persons on scene. The last rescue on Tieton Drive was performed in this
exact manner even though we had the extra apparatus at station 91 that day. All rescues are
performed this way in a house fire unless two apparatus happen to arrive at exactly the same
time Your elderly and disabled residents are in no greater risk than they have been. before. All
firefighters know these rules and procedures, so there is no delay in rescue at the Yakima Fire
Department.
The extra apparatus at station 91 has no bearing on our mutual 'aid agreements with our
neighboring departments as mentioned in paragraph 4. We have a very effective mutual aid
program that has not changed dramatically over the last 5 years and certainly not because of
brown outs. The mutual aid task book outlines automatic dispatching procedures for our
communications division and does not take the extra apparatus manning at station 91 into
account. The labor agreement has a clause that calls for overtime, back filling if the City is
reduced to four engines for two hours or more due to mutual aid. The administrative staff usually
call overtime crews in before that time lapses. Our first concern is for our own citizens The
entire Upper Valley benefits from our great mutual aid program.
The fifth paragraph of your letter addresses the City of Yakima Fire Insurance rating as
determined by the Washington Survey and Rating Bureau. Yakima has had a rating of 4 since
1995. The WSRB attempts to re -rate each municipality every ten years. As you can see,
WSRB is about 7 years behind in their work load cases. Yakima was re -rated this year and we
are remaining, at a 4 rating until the next rating by WSRB (2024 or later)
I agree completely with your statement that fire protection should be given significant attention
and, in the City of Yakima, it is I appreciate your concern for the Fire Department and
willingness to get involved and make inquiries. .
I want you to know that the decisions being made on behalf of the community and the Fire
Department are thought out and weighed carefully. Every decision we make is done so with the
best interest of the citizen and the safety of our firefighters in mind I do keep the City Council
informed of the disposition of the Fire Department. The Council also has the best interest of the
citizens in mind when they make the tough decisions that they do. Before I make a demand for
more resources, I must be sure that we are using every resource we have in the most prudent
manner possible.
Thank you again for .your interest in the Fire Department. Please call on me if you have any
needs or concerns that I might be able to address.
Sincerely,
Dave Willson
Fire Chief
YFD SHIFT PERSONNEL
1981 -2013
YEAR
TOTAL # OF SHIFT
PERSONNEL
ARFF
(persons on airport
crash truck)
BATTALION
CHIEF
PERSONNEL
ON FIRE
APPARATUS
1981
68
3
3
62
1982
66
3
3
60
1983
66
3
3
60
1984
69
3
3
63
1985
67
3
3
61
1986
68
3
3
62
1987
62
3
3
56
1988
64
3
3
58
1989
63
3
3
57
1990
63
3
3
58
1991
58
3
3
52
1992
61
3
3
55
1993
62
3
3
56
1994
62
3
3
56
1995
62
3
3
56
1996
66
3
3
60
1997
66
3
3
60
1998
64
3
3
58
1999
63
3
3
57
2000
62
3
3
56
2001
62
3
3
56
2002
62
3
3
56
2003
60
3
3
54
2004
70
3
3
64
2005
74
3
3
68
2006
76
3
3
70
2007
78
3
3
72
2008
77
3
3
71
2009
77
3
3
71
2010
77
3
3
71
2011
77
3
3
71
2012
76
3
3
70
2013
76
0
3
73
NOTE: * In 2012 the Training Lt. was taken from the day position of teaching YV TECH and
place in engine company rotation.
* * In 2013 the three ARFF personnel (one from each shift) will be place into regular
engine company rotation increasing the number of personnel assigned to fire apparatus at the
highest number in the history of the department.
CITY MEETING SCHEDULE
For January 7, 2013 — January 14, 2013
Please note: Meetings are subject to change
Monday, January 7
10:00 a.m. City Council Media Briefing — Council Chambers
3:30 p.m. Civil Service Commission — Council Chambers
Tuesday, January 8
10:00 a.m. County Commissioners Meeting — Council Chambers
5:30 p.m. City Council Executive Session — Council Chambers
6:00 p.m. City Council Meeting — Council Chambers
Wednesday, January 9
11:00 a.m. Boundary Review Board — Council Chambers
Thursday, January 10
9:00 a.m. Hearing Examiner — Council Chambers
1:00 P.M. Harman Center Board Meeting — Harman Center
1:30 p.m. Yakima Regional Clean Air Board Meeting — Council Chambers
5:30 p.m. YCDA Board Meeting — New Vision
6:00 p.m. Yakima Transit Public Hearing — Council Chambers
Friday, January 11
11:00 a.m. Bid Opening — Council Chambers
Monday, January 14
8.30 a.m. Pension Board Meetings — HR Conference Room
10:00 a.m. City Council Media Briefing — Council Chambers
{}ffioe Of Mayor/City Council
Preliminary Future Activities Calendar
Please Note Meetings are subject tochange
10.00 a m.
City Council Media Briefing
Scheduled Meeting
Cawley
Council Chambers
12 00 p m
Miscellaneous Issues
Scheduled Meeting
Cawley, Adkison
TBID
5:30 p m
City Council Executive
Scheduled Meeting
Council
Council Chambers
Session
6 00 P m
Citv Council Meetinq
Scheduled Mee
Council
Council Chambers
11 30 am
Sports Commission Meeting
Scheduled Meeting
Ettl
Clarion
Thur. Jan. 10
1 0opm
Harman Center Board
Scheduled Meeting
Cawley, Adkison
Harman Center
1 30 p m
Yakima Regional Clean Air
Scheduled Meeting
Lover
Council Chambers
2 00 p m
GFI Executive Committee
Scheduled Meeting
Adkison, Coffey,
Mayor's Office
Ettl
5.30 p m.
YCIDA Board
Board Meeting
Adkison
New Vision Office
Mon. Jan. 14
8:30 a m.
Pension Boards
Board Meeting
Coffey
Human Resources Conference
Room
10 00 a m
City Council Media Briefing
Scheduled Meeting
Adkison
Council Chambers
Tue. Jan. 15
12 00 p m.
Miscellaneous Issues
Scheduled Meeting
Cawley, Adkison
TBID
5.00 p.m.
(T) City Council Executive
Scheduled Meeting
Council
Council Chambers
Session
m
Ci Council Meetinq
Scheduled Meetinq
Council
Council Chambers
Wed. Jan. 16
12 00 p rn
PAL Board
Board Meeting
Coffey
PAL Center
3 30 p m
Arts Commission
Scheduled Meeting
— Adkison —.CED
Conference Room
PRELIMINARY FUTURE COUNCIL AGENDA
January 15, 2013
(T) 5.00 p m. Executive Session — Council Chambers
6 00 p.m. Business Meeting — Council Chambers
• Business Plan
• Formation of Citizens Committee for Transportation Improvement Benefit District
proposition
• Legislation regarding Charter amendment for supermajority council vote on tax
issues
• A Resolution naming a ballfield at Kiwanis Park in memory of an honored Lions
Club Member
• A Resolution naming a ballfield at Kiwanis Park in memory of an honored Kiwanis
Club Member
• A Resolution naming a ballfield at Kiwanis Park in memory of an honored Rotary
Club Member
• Resolution authorizing a Professional Services Agreement with the Yakima Valley
Basketball Officials Association (YVBOA) for Officiating Services during the 2013
Basketball Season
• Resolution authorizing Personal Services Agreements with Instructors, Officials
and Referees needed for various Parks and Recreation Division Programs
• Resolution authorizing the 2013 Agreement with the Yakima Valley Umpires
Association (YVUA) for officiating services for the Parks and Recreation Softball
Program
• Resolution authorizing and directing the City Manager of the City of Yakima to
execute an Interlocal Agreement with the City of Selah for public transportation
services in the city of Selah
• Union Contract /Insurance issues
• Ordinance amending the Classification and Compensation Plan
1/3/2013
7 59 AM
2013 STUDY SESSION SCHEDULE
Council Chambers
1000 a m.
1/22 Airport Issues
2/12 Jail issues /North 1St Street and signage issues
2/26 Regional Fire Authority
1/3/2013
758 AM
2012 End of Year Public Records Alert I MRSC Insight Page 1 of 4
2012 End of Year Public Records Alert
on December 12, 2012'li .iots evar:
As 2012 draws to a close, I want to call to the attention of local government officials and staff members some
recent developments related to public records law and requirements that I think are particularly significant.
hi previous posts on this Slog, I have written about a few key court decisions that I think provide useful guidance
on public records Issues that are commonly faced by local governments. In September, I wrote about the threshold
issue under our state's Public Records Act (PRA), chapter 42.,,() RCW: what is a public record? See, "Recent COLtrt
on VIlai a Public Llrl&r the Public Recui-ds Ad." In May, I wIote about What
constitutes an adequate search under the PRA. See, "Adc.gii.atc Starch finder- the 11I:A -- �uggcstcd. Best Practices."
More recently, in mid- November I co- presented with Scott Sackett of the Washington State Archives a
webinar entitled, "Public Records: Tackling the Tough Questions (Including Use of Smart Phones and Other
Thorny Issues)." In the webinar, we provided practical guidance on how to address PRA and records retention
issues related to use of non- agency laptops and other personal electronic devices, such as smart phones. Click
:nero to link to both the PowerPoint presentation and the webinar itself.
An important PRA court decision that was published the same day we conducted our webinar (November 13,
2012) is the decision by the Washington State Court of Appeals, Division I, in Forb4>s if. City pf Gold Dear (Case No.
66630 -4 -I). In that decision, the court addressed a situation, likely familiar to many local government officials
and staff, in which the mayor, city councilniernbers, and city staff were using their own personal desktop
computers, laptops, and other personal electronic devices (e.g., personal digital assistants) to conduct city
business. A citizen made a PRA request for, in part, emails of the mayor, city councilmembers, city staff, and
others, including records on private computer-systems and electronic devices, as Well as text messages and photos.
I think a couple of issues addressed by the court are particularly noteworthy for local governments. One, the court
addressed whether the city conducted an adequate search in response to a multitude of broad PRA requests. In
doing so, the court relied upon Neigl- iboi,1100(1Allic 71c;c V..5''VOk(OW `:0117411, 172 Wn.2d 702 (2011), which is the
decision that was the focus of my above - mentioned post on suggested best practices for conducting an adequate
search under the PRA. This more recent decision, horbes 11 Cita) of Gold 13crr•, is particularly instructive because it
gives a sense of how courts apply the requirements set out in the 1Veighborhood Allialtce decision related to
conducting an adequate search.
I think the challenge for local governments in the context of the Afeighborhood Alhance decision Is both to ensure
the agency conducts an adequate search in response to a PRA request, and to make sure the agency effectively and
accurately documents its search efforts. By so doing, an agency can properly defend itself if a PRA requester, as in
Forbes, later sues and alleges the agency has not conducted an adequate search.
If you read the Forbes decision In full, you will see that the city took several actions to respond to the more than
8o PRA requests It received from Ms. Forbes and those aligned with her. For example, the city contracted with a
computer consultant to search for and store the electronic records at issue, hired an additional employee, and
transferred an employee from one department to another to work on responding to the requests. The court noted
that the city, throughout, communicated with the requester about how long it would take to respond to the
Folios•
http: / /Insiglit.mrse.org /2012/12/12/2012 - end -of- year - public- records - alert/ 12/18/2012
2012 End of Year Public Records Alert I MRSC Insight Page 2 of 4
requests and that the city provided records as they became available. The requester, however, was unsatisfied with
the city's response and sued under the PRA.
In dismissing the requester's lawsuit and finding that the city acted appropriately, a touchstone for the court was
whether the city acted reasonably tinder the circumstances. The court found that the city responded to and
provided the requested records within a reasonable time. In so doing, the court analyzed aspects of the PRA and
its 'Model Rules," including RCW ,.1.2.5c,.52o, RCW 12.56.550, WAC 44- 1:1 -0000 i, and WAC .44 14- o400300).
The court found, further, that the city acted reasonably in making records available on a partial or installment
basis as allowed under RCW 42 )&o2o.
In analyzing whether the city acted reasonably, the court looked to measureable and objective information
provided by the city including through the mayor's affidavit and declaration submitted to the court. The court
noted that the city- spent 12 percent of its income responding to PRA requests in 2010, that the steps the city took
to comply with the f'RA request at issue were extensive, and that the city made available over 28,000 records
through ti disclosures, including via email, CD, and DVD.
In analyzing what is a "reasonable search," the court relied on the Neighborhood Alliance decision as well as
federal case law interpreting the federal Freedom of Information Act (FOI.A), which indicates that, in analyzing
whether an agency's search process is reasonable, the ley is whether the agency's search for responsive records
was adequate, riot whether any additional records might conceivably exist. The court found that the city
conducted an extensive search of multiple sites where the responsive records might be located, and that,
therefore, the search "was reasonably calculated to uncover all relevant documents,"
I think one of the significant messages here is "show your work." Because the city in Forbes was able to show
the court through affidavit and declaration that city officials and staff members tools reasonable steps to respond
to the PRA requests at issue and to conduct an adequate search, the court dismissed the PRA lawsuit against the
city. Of course, many PRA situations will be much less involved than that faced by Gold Bar in the Forbes
decision. What is reasonable will depend upon the particular facts at issue, which is why I think it's important for
local governments to pay close attention to how courts analyze such situations.
Another issue addressed by the court that I think is noteworthy and is particularly relevant for local governments
relates to use of personal electronic devices by various city officials to conduct city business. In Forbes, the PRA
requester sought from the court an "in camera" review (i.e., private review by the judge) of data obtained from the
PDAs (personal digital assistants) and emails of several city officials, and she contended that the city failed to
create a log as required by the PRA. The city argued that the emails not released were private emails the city
obtained in its attempt to recover work - related emails that existed on the personal electronic devices of various
city officials
The court also found in the city's favor on this issue, noting that a PRA case may be decided based on affidavits
alone. The court made clear that an agency's affidavit is accorded a presumption of good faith and "purely
speculative claims about the existence and discoverability of other documents will not overcome" such an
affidavit. Reinforcing the principle of "show your work" that I alluded to above, the court found that the city's
affidavits demonstrated a clear, consistent, and uncontradicted record evidencing that the city conducted an
adequate search for the-requested records and responded in a reasonable time.
Folow
http: / /lnsight.mrsc.org /2012/12/12 /2012- end -of- year - public- records -alert/ 12/18/2012
2012 End of Year Public Records Alert I MRSC Insight
- Page of 4
Regarding the personal emails that were requested, the court, distinguishing the situation addressed by the court
in? ec hlarur v. City of,M0111°0c, 152 Wn. App 830 (2009), review deified, 169 Wn.2d 1007 (2010), found that the
purely personal emails of the city officials at issue are not public records. The court explained that the emails at
issue in Mechling were subject to disclosure because those emails contained information relating to the conduct of
government. In the situation here, however, the court found that the records did not discuss governmental
conduct but rather were "emails in which there is no city business referenced or discussed." The court explained
further that the city was not required to claim as exempt personal emails that do not pertain to government
business. This is because such purely personal emails are not public records and PRA exemptions only apply to
public records.
One other issue that piqued my interest in the Forbes decision could become significant as PRA caselaw continues
to evolve. In a footnote at the end of the opinion, the court noted (referencing a footnote in another decision):
Because all of the officials consented to a search of their personal computers, we do not address whether such
a search would violated [sic] article I, section 7 of the State Constitution that `[n]o person shall be disturbed in
his private affairs, or his home invaded, without authority of law." See, 170 W11.2d (_ },Nreill [i,. City of
ShOr(- 1ir:e1 170 Wn.2d [138,] 119 [(201o)] at 165 11.1.
For me, these footnotes by the courts in Forbes and 0?,Teill v. City of',5horeline beg the question: what would
happen if a local government official in such a situation does not consent to a search of their personal computer?
This issue has not been addressed in Washington state case law. It seems to me that the courts in these
footnotes are recognizing that, at least in some circumstances, an argument could be made that a search of an
official's personal computer and /or personal electronic device could violate the official's privacy rights snider
article I, section 7 of our st£. k' c { i::::itatioi;. Perhaps one day our courts will address this issue directly.
As a final note, I want to call your attention to a significant records retention issue. The Washington State
Archives (WSA) recently announced that it has published revisions to its local government retention schedules. All
current retention schedules are currently available in PDF and Word formats through the "l),pe, of Agency and
Alphabc�ti� 'J List pages on the WSA's website. In case you missed it, the WSA sent out a notification on November
30, 2012, that provides:
20 records retention schedules were approved yesterday by the Local Records Committee. The following
versions are effective immediately; all previous versions have been superseded and no longer provide legal
disposition authority-
El Local Government Common Records Retention Schedule (CORE') (Version 3.0)
School Districts and Educational Service Districts Records Retention Schedule-, (17ersion 8.o)
Utility Services Records Retention Schedule (Version 1.2)
In additionNersion 5.2 of the Local Government General Records Retention Schedule (LGGRRS) has been
discontinued, and LGGRRS no longer. exists. The following new "sector schedules" were also approved
yesterday by the Local Records Committee. The LGGRRS Demolition Guide provides a crosswalk for every
section — and for each series that was not transferred directly into the new sector schedules listed below.
(Please note: The Public Works section was incorporated into the CORE Asset Management function.)
lir• Pollution Control Authorities Records Retention Schedule (Version l.o) ".:0110W
http: // insight .mrsc.org /2012/12/12/2012 - end -of -year- public - records- alert/ 12/18/2012
2012 End of Year Public Records Alert I MRSC Insight
Animal Services Records Retention Schedule (Version 1.o)
IM Cemeteries Records Retention Schedule (Version 1.a)
Conservation Districts Records Retention Schedule (VerSia711 0)
Coroners aril Nledlutl Exonri'ners Records Retentioni Schedule (Version 1.o)
IM F.conornic Development and Transport Records Retention Schedule (Version 1.o)
Emergency Commurncations Records Retention Schedule (Version l.o)
Fire and Emergency Medical Records Retention Schedule (Version 1.0)
Housing Authorities Records Retention Schedule (Version l.o)
Juvenile Courts and Services Records Retention Schedule (Version 1.o)
IM Land Use Planning and Permitting Records Retention Schedule (Version 1.o)
Licensing, Permitting and Taxation Records Retention Schedule (Version 1.o)
Parks, Recreation and (,'ultivre Records Retention Schedule (Version 1.o)
Prosecuting Attorneys and Assigned Counsel Records Retention Schedule (Version 1.o)
Social Services Records Retention Schedule (Version 1.o)
• 15-ansitAurthorities.Reco7-cis Retention Schedule (Version 1.0)
• llTeed and Pest Control Districts Records Retention Schedule (Version 1.0)
All current, approved retention schedules are available on our website at:
htt'p:lltitizv�l.sos.�, a.�;o� / archivrs;% 1; eci�rclsl .Zet.entionSchedules.asp� #.
Page 4 of 4
We are currently updating the database and will send a listsery bulletin to advise you when it is once again
available for your use. We are worldrig as quickly as possible and appreciate your patience as we complete this
very complex task.
Comments? Questions? Please send an email to: rectlydsnn 117a emeunt�r os,t� a.5r>v.
(Emphasis in original.)
Keep in mind that the contact information directly above is for the Washington State : u•cliives and relates to the
above referenced records retention requirements. As for us here at MRSC, we encourage officials and staff
members of cities, counties, and those special purpose districts we serve to contact us at (2o6) 625-1300 or (boo)
933 -6772 or via our tvebsite (r,vww.mrsc.org).
Share this. Twitter Facebook2. Ernail
Like this. ,. Like Be the first to like this.
y E•a E F j` I About Joe Levan
Joe has been a municipal attorney for many years, including as an iv -house city attornev, in private practice for two municipal
law firms throe h which he provided litigation and a range of other services to several Washington numici alities, and as
1`✓i'. -' g 1 e S' b p part of
the in- house 'legal team for Sound Transit.
Thi3 erary war poste' in e dal, r W)ic Recoric. Bcokmarn the permalink.
i`oilo`t:
http: / /insight.inrsc.org /2012/12/12/2012 - end -of- year - public- records- alert/ 12/18/2012