Courts Subcommittee - 01/01/2003CI'T'Y OF SPOKANE VALLEY TRANSITIDN rCE. N/t
CO V. fS J VB COMMI 1 1 L E
Table of Contents
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
SECTION 5
PUBLIC DEFENSE SERVICES
Objectives of Report 1
Methodology 1
The Courts Sub-committee 2
SECTION 2
NEW CITY OBLIGATIONS
Statutory / Constitutional Requirements 3
Criminal Justice Projections 3
SECTION 3
COURT SERVICES
Introduction
5
Statutory Alternatives - Overview
5
Establish a Municipal Court
6
Petition for Municipal Department of
Spokane County District Court
6
Contract for Court Services
7
Fiscal Analysis
9
Comparison Cities
11
SECTION 4
PROSECUTION SERVICES
Introduction
12
Alternatives for Providing Services
12
Establish Office of Prosecuting Attorne
y 13
Contract for Services
13
Spokane County Prosecuting Attorne
y 13
Private law Firm
14
Fiscal Analysis
14
Comparison Cities
15
Introduction
16
Alternatives for Providing Services
16
In House Public Defender
17
Contract for Services
17
Assigned Counsel
18
American Bar Association Standards
19
Potential Contract Service Providers
Spokane County Public Defender
19
City of Spokane Public Defender
19
Private Law Firms
19
Fiscal Analysis
20
Comparison Cities
21
SECTION G
PROBATION SERVICES
Introduction
22
Core Services
22
Fiscal Analysis
23
Comparison Cities
23
SECTION 7
INDIGENCY SCREENING SERVICES
Background Information
24
Determination Process
24
Indigency Screening
25
Table of Appendices 26
Contact List 27
S~
Section 1
INTRODUCTION
j The Public Safety Courts Subcommittee produced this report with the objective of
providing the newly elected members of the City of Spokane Valley City Council ~~7ch the
most complete, accurate and balanced set of options for meeting the city's statutory
responsibilities under RCW 39.34.150 regarding the prosecution, adjudication, and
sentencing of misdemeanor and gross misderneanor offenses committed by adults within
its boundaries, whether filed under state law or city ordinance.
~i~Iethalclc~
In order to i1sure the Court's Subcommittee was able to meet its objectives, it used die
following research methodologies to obtain the nw data, jurisdictional comparisons and
definitions options detailed in this report:
• Internet research of the web sites for 'Municipal Research Center of Washington,
Washington State Administrative Office of the Courts and the various
comparison cities.
• Formalized presentations to the Subcommittee by representatives of the
Administrative Office of the Courts and the Liberty Fake City Council.
• Informal presentations to the Subcommittee by the Court Administrator of
Spokane County District / Spokane Municipal Court and the Chief Civil Deputy
of the Spokane County Prosecuting Attorney's Office
Survey and analysis of seven comparison city s methods of providing court,
prosecution, public defense, probation and indegency screening services. The
cities selected included Bellingham, Bellevue, Everett, Federal Way, Kent,
r Tacoma, Vancouver, and Yakima.
Responses from the selected municipalities were marginal at best. Responses were
received as follow s:
f ♦ Courts: Federal Way, Kent and Vancouver,
♦ Prosecution: None
♦ Public Defender. Pierce County
♦ Probation: intone
Both samples of the original questionnaires and any responses received are reproduced in
Appendix 1.
Given the poor response rate to the Subcommittee's survey, as well as the projected
` volume of cases for the City of Spokane Valley, the City of Spokane was added as a
comparison city.
Pago 1
Ii
Defining potential "advantages" and "disadvantages" of the various options referenced in
this report were of concern to the Subcommittee members and were rather intensely
debated. Council members should please note the following lawyedy disclaimers
concerning all alleged "advantages" and /or "disadvantages" identified in this report:
> They should be considered primarily subjective in nature;
> They are primarily based upon the ocriniors of Subcommittee members or
individuals who produced external resource materials on the various topics
contained herein, or both;
> They do not necessarily, or even likely, represent opinions of the entire
Subcommittee
> They are in no way intended to persuade or dissuade the Cry Council with
respect to the defined option(s)
Canrs srA ztee
The Courts Subcomnuttee is fortunate enough to be composed of an excellent cross
section of both Spokane Valley residents and nonresidents with a genuine interest in the
success of the new city. Additionally, the subcommittee has a number of representatives
of the regional criminal justice system, U11th many years of experience in the criminal
justice challenges that will be faced by the leadership of the City of Spokane Valley.
The Courts Subcommittee aas chaired by Howard F. Delaney, an attorney employed by
the Spokane City Prosecuting Attorney's Office. A complete list of committee members
and their contact information is attached to this report as Appendix 2. The City Council
should note that all individuals who were present for one or more meetings are on the
committee list and that the list is not necessarily reflective of a participant's involvement
in the process.
Page 2
Section 2
THE NEW CITY
Statutory / arstitutwml C7irrnrtul ftaix WigttzaN
The basic premise for the leadership of the new city to keep in mind is that by
Washington State statute, a city is responsible for "the prosecution, adjudication,
sentencing, and incarceration of misdemeanor and gross misdemeanor offenses
committed by adults in their respective jurisdictions and referred from their respective
law enforcement agencies, whether filed under state law or city ordinance." R0V
39.34.180.
To fulfill its criminal justice obligations, a city requires access to the following criminal
justice components:
• Prosecution services to discharge its prosecution obligation.
• Access to a court of limited jurisdiction, which in Washington is either a district
or municipal court, to discharge its adjudication and sentencing obligations.
• Public defense services to discharge its federal and state constitutional obligation
to provide indigent defendants with representation by legal counsel. For practical
reasons, this rill also require some mechanism for indigency screening to
determine which defendants are eligible for such representation.
Additionally, although not statutorily or constitutionally required, certain policy decisions
by the new city leadership may create the need for probation services as an adjunct to
court services.
Gininal Justice Pr4ed om
Background
NVith a population of about 81,000 the City of Spoka.nc Valley is the 9`h largest city in the
State of Washington. In an attempt to estimate gross misdemeanor, misdemeanor and
civil infraction case volumes for the city our Sub-committee looked at jurisdictions of
similar population, and reviewed the case projections done by the Spokane County
District Court.
Our population leads one to the conclusion that our case loads should be close to Kent
with a population of 81,900, or Federal Way, With a population of 83,900. Using figures
derived from the Spokvne County District Count, excluding parking, Kent Municipal
Court has 16,599 and Federal Way Municipal Court has 11,798 case filings per year.
' Complete figures from the State of Washington Administrative Office of the Courts
detailing filings for all Courts of LirTited jurisdiction, excluding Seattle IVhuicipal Court,
'which does not use the state database, are attached as Appendix 3.
i
Page 3
Ile City of Spokane Valley comprises about 41.1% of the population of the previous]}'
unincorporated areas of Spokane County. Therefore, it naturally follows that the criminal
activity in the new City of Spokane Valley will represent some roughly equivalent
percentage of the -workload formerly processed as pan of the activities of the Spokane
County District Court and the Spokane County Sheriffs Office, plus an adjustment for
population density of the new city.
In order to estimate the potential of City of Spokane Valley caseload, the Spokane :
County District Court used the following data. Some of this data %as compiled by the
Spokane County Sheriff's Office and some by the Spokane County District Court itself:
Criminal Justice Activity
% of Prior Unincorporated Activity
Source of Data
Non-felon y Jail Bookie
52%
Spokane Co. Sheriff
Non-felony Incidents
53%
Spokane Co. Sheriff
Sheriff Generated Citations
50%
Spokane District Ct.
Sheriff Enforcement Effort
49%
Spokane District Ct.
Based upon this data and a review of the court's other case data, the Spokane County
-
District Court estimates that municipal case filings for the City of the Spokane Valley will
be between 16,000 and 18,000 cases per year, excluding parking cases.
It is crucial for the City Council to note that these 12r - ons are based upon the cutrcnt
pattem of enforcement by the Spokane County Sheriff's Office of criminal. criminal
traffic traffic infraction and non-traffic infraction matters. Should the Cirv Council elect
to either increase or reduce that oattem of enforcement, caseloads for the new city will
rise or fall accordin
Looking at case distribution by type, the Spokane County District Court estimates a total
of 16,437 cases annually, excluding parking. The distribution follows:
Infractions
Criminal Traffic
DUI
Crim NonTaffic
DV
13,199
1,558
225
739
686
The caseload for Kent for 2001, excluding parking, was 14,714, distributed as follows:
Infections
Criminal Traffic
DUI
Crim NonTaffic
DV
12,540
1,727
274
1,987
11
As can be seen at a glance, the largest deviation between the 2 cities is in the area of
domestic violence cases, with Kent reporting 11 and the City of Spokane Valley projected
to have 686. This may be a reporting issue, with Kent DV cases primarily reported as
Criminal Non-traffic cases. -
Page 4
Section 3
COURT SERVICES
Irtra&clim
Much of the information contained in this section was derived from the New City Guide,
published by the Municipal Research Services Center of Washington (WSRC). It
seemed to the Subcommittee that the NISRC had done an excellent job sumnharizing this
area of Washington State law and that the material fit well into the Subconunittee's
J report.
rj A city requires access to a court of limited jurisdiction (district or municipal court) to
legally enforce municipal ordinances. 'T'he City need not enact municipal criminal code,
but still must contribute to the enforcement of state misdemeanor and gross
misdemeanor charges arising in the boundaries of Elie City. The county superior courts
do not hear cases involving violations of municipal ordinances, except on appeal from
municipal or district courts. A city may carry out these responsibilities either using its onvn
court, staff, and facilities, or by contracting with another jurisdiction for those services.
So, a new city has a number of options with respect to judicial services:
• Establish a municipal court tinder chapter 3.50 RCW1, with its own municipal
court judge
0 Petition the county to establish a municipal department within the county district
(1 court under chapter 3.46 RC M1
l • Contract for all judicial services with the county district court
• Contract with another city with its own municipal court
NVhich option is most beneficial to a new city depends, as usual, upon local ci runistances.
Obviously, need is an important factor.
Critical Timing Issues:
UI
1
There are some important timing issues with respect to establishment of a municipal
department or a municipal court. Under RCW 3.46.040, die petition to establish a
municipal department of a district court must be filed with the county legislative body not
less than 30 days prior to February 1. To establish a municipal court under chapter 3.50
RCW for the coming calendar year, the city must pass the appropriate ordinance on or
before December 1. RC\V 350.060. Thus, there may be some delay uh a new city's ability
to operate under either of these two options.
Paso 5
StaaaoryA lt&mtiza - axrdow
Establish a municipal court under chapter 3.50 RCNV
If a city chooses to establish its own municipal court, under the authority of chapter 350
RC 1, it -,vill control, through a mayor-appointed (pan-time) or elected (full-time) judge,
the financial and administrative affairs of the court. Some basic features of the municipal
court scheme under chapter 350 RCW are as follows:
• The municipal court has exclusive original jurisdiction over traffic infractions and
criminal violations arising under city ordinance. RCW 350.020.
• Full-time judge positions must be filled by election. RCW 3.50.055. Part-time
judges are appointed by the mayor and are subject to council confinnation,
although the council may provide, by ordinance, that the judge be elected.
RC"W3.50.040-.050. The judge's term is four years. RCW 3.50.040.
• The city is responsible for the judge's salary and for all operating costs of die
court. ROV 3.50.080.
• The judge has appointment authority over court employees, who are deemed city
employees and who serve "at the pleasure of the court." RCVV 3.50.080.
• All fees, fines, costs, and forfeitures imposed by the court for violation of a city
ordinance are deposited in the general fund or "such other fund of the city,"
except those portions, which go to the state by statutory mandate. RCW 3.50.100.
• To establish a municipal court under chapter 3.50 RC\V for the coming calendar
year, the city must pass the appropriate ordinance on or before December 1.
RCW 3.50.060.
Petition the county to establish a municipal department within the county district
court under chapter 3.46 RCW
A municipal department of a district court shares many of the basic features of a
municipal court under chapter 3.50 RC\V. These features include:
• A municipal department has exclusive jurisdiction over "matters arising from
ordinances of the city." RCW 3.46.030.
• Establishment of the municipal department is initiated by a petition from the city
council to the county legislative body. The petition must indicate the number of
full- and part-time judges needed, the amount of time a part-time judge will be
required, and whether full-time judges will be elected or appointed. RCW
3.46.040. The district court, however, controls the number of judges and whether
the judge or judges are full or part time. The coup is constrained by its districting
plan and by the statutory alloNvance for the number of judges it may have.
Page 6
• Full-time judicial positions must be filled by an election. RC\V 3.46.063. In court
districts having more diui one judge, pan-tune judges are appointed by the mayor
from existing district court judges. RC\V 3.46.060. The municipal judge of a
district court serves a four-}ear terra, as do all district court judges. RCW
3.46.050, 3.34.070.
• The city pays the salary of a full-time judge and a pro rata share of the salary of a
part-time judge. RC\V 3.46.090. Salaries of district court judges are set by the
NVashington Citizens' Commission on Salaries for Elected Officials. RC\V
355.010, .020. The current salary for a district court judge is $116,135. ROV
43.03.012.
• The city furnishes all courtroom, offices, facilities, and supplies for the operation
of the court. RCW 3.46.130. The city pays the salaries of court personnel, who are
deemed city employees. RC\V 3.46.140.
• The city receives all money received by the municipal department, including
penalties, fines, forfeitures, fees, and costs, and retains such moneys, except for
that mandated to be remitted to the state. RaV 3.46.120.
• Under RC\V 3.46.040, the petition to establish a municipal department of a
district court must be filed with the county legislative body not less than 30 days
prior to February 1.
The municipal court for the City of Spokane is a mtuvcipal department of the Spokane
County District Court. Yvonne Pettis, a representative of the Administrative Office of
the Courts for the State of Washington, indicated in her presentation to the Sub-
committee that the City of Spokane maintains the largest municipal department in the
state.
Contract for all judicial senices with the county district court
A small city may need only occasionally to enforce its ordinances in court; the cost of
establishing its own municipal court or a municipal. department Within the district court
could not be justified in such circumstances. For a small city with only occasional need
for judicial services, a contract with the district court where the city pays a certain fee to
file cases involving ordinance violations in that court would be most appropriate.
I
L
A filing fee is required by ROV 3.62.070, and the amount of the fee would be determined
by interloeal agreement between the county and the city pursuant to RC\V 39.34.150. If
the city and county cannot reach agreement on filing fees or other services included with
an agreement under RC\V 39.34.150, binding arbitration can be invoked by either parry.
RC\V 39.34.150 identifies principles that must be followed in negotiating interlocal
agreements for criminal justice services under that statute.
There are significant restrictions on when a City can terminate a contract for judicial
services. It can only be done at the end of a four-year judicial term and notice must be
given to the county at least one year prior to February 1 of the year in which district court
judges are subject to election. RC\V 39.50.510.
Pago 7
Contract Nvith anothercity with its own municipal court
Although the Municipal Research & Services Center of Washington (VTSRQ defines this
as a potential option for a new city to provide court services, the subcommittee ran into
the following issues related to this type of arrangement:
• The subcommittee was unable to define the statutory authority specific to this
option;
• Administrative Office of the Courts was of the opinion that it n as not necessarily
a viable option due to questionable legal underpinnings; and
• 'Ilaere is no city within reasonable geographic proxuavty- that maintains it own
municipal court with which the City of Spokane Valley could contract.
Based on these issues, although contracting with a city maintaining a municipal court may
rernain an option, the subcommittee was unable to obtain sufficient information to justify
dedicating nauay of its meager resources to pursuing this option.
However, in the event the City of Spokane should elect to form its oWM court, the
opportunity for the City of Spokane Valley to jointly operate a court system with the City
of Spokane could well produce economies of scale sufficient to justify an in-depth review
of this option.
An article regarding use of Intedocal Agreements written by judge McSeveney is attached as
Appendix 4. Judge ivlcSeveney has served as a municipal court judge for the past eight years
and has been twice elected to the Board for Judicial Administration by the DMgA
Weighing the Court Senices Options
As with any new city seeking to make decisions that regard providing statutorily
mandated court services, the primary factors to consider in making this choice are cost,
convenience, and local control.
Cost
Discussion of the cost aspects of the options is discussed in detail in the Fiscal Analysis
segment of this Court Services Section.
Convenience:
Establishment of a municipal court may result in greater convenience as the local court
may be better able to schedule trials at tunes convenient to city police and the city
attomey, and the location may simply be more convenient for city employees and
residents in general. While a district court may also attempt to accommodate schedules,
there may not be the same dedication by the court as there would be by a municipal _
court, unless the district court provides a full-time municipal judge for the city. How-ever,
RC-V 3.62.100 requires a district court to "take all necessary steps to promote efficiencies ~
in calenclaring in order to minimize costs to cities that use the district courts".
Pago 8
ContrY,rl
Local control over the judiciary has become rather a hot topic in NXIashington State. Croy
administrations tend to believe that municipal judges are more responsive to fiscal and
other policy goals of their city. Most judges, and many others, believe there is a tendency
for city adrnninistrations to exert far too much control over the local judiciary, to the point
of interfering ,~vith the separation of powers and the independence of the judiciary.
An article on judicial independence ;kas mitten for the Washington State Bar 1\rens by
Judge McSeveney and is attached as Appendix 5. Judge McSeveney «~ns recently honored
as the 2002 Outstanding judge for his efforts ii addressing judicial independence issues
and assisting other judges with matters of practice and procedure.
As can be seen from this article, local control V. judicial independence is a "hot topic"
that is far from settled and cities can expect to see and hear much more about the issue of
local control of municipal courts in the future.
Fiscal A na6sis
Under the statutory schemes for a municipal court under chapter 3.50 RC\V and a
municipal department of a district court under chapter 3.46 RC\tl, the relative costs of
these two options would not appear to be much, if at all, different.
One aspect of these costs, however, that can make some difference is the fact that the
salaries of full-time and part-time district count judges are determined by the Washington
Citizen's Commission on Salaries for Elected Officials. The city council, on the other
hand, determines the salary of a chapter 3.50 R0Xf municipal court judge. RC\V.
3.50.030. It is the understanding of the Subcommittee that there is some discussion of
enacting legislation to have salaries for Municipal Court Judges also set by the
Washington Citizen's Commission on Salaries for Elected Officials. If enacted, this type
of legislative change would probably eliminate this cost advantage to establishing a
municipal court.
The subcommittee defined the personnel, equipment, physical facilities and other items
necessary for the operation of a municipal court under either the form of a municipal
court or the option of a department of a distinct court. This analysis is attached to this
report as Appendix 6.
It should be noted that the cost associated with the coup's informtion systems will be
minimized by the fact the State, through the Administrative Office of the Courts, will
provide the core hardware and software necessary for court operations.
Based upon the projected caseloads for the City of Spokane Valley and the regional wage
variances between western and eastern Washington, the Subcommittee elected to use the
budgets for the Kent Nfunicipal Court and `Municipal Court of the City of Spokane as a
baseline for projecting the costs associated with the City of Spokane Valley, either
operating as a municipal court or operating as a department of the of the Spokane County
District Court.
Page 9
The 2002 budget for the City of Kent, operating as a stand-alone municipal court is a
total of $1,340,219.00. It should be noted that employee costs are a major factor in the
cost of operating a municipal court and Kent's budget maybe somewhat overstated vis-a-
vis a projection for the City of Spokane Valley due to regional salary variations.
The projected 2003 budget for the City of Spokane 'Nlunicipal Court, operating as a
Department of the Spokane County District Court is $3,287,237. A copy of the Spokane
Municipal Court budget is attached hereto as Appendix 7. Spokane ;Municipal Court has
about 35,269 filings per year, excluding parking. Therefore, at the projected figure of
16,407 cases for the City of Spokane Valley, it should only handle about 46% of the cases
handled by Spokane Municipal Court. This is slightly higher than would be anticipated
based upon the fact the City of Spokane Valley has only about 41% of the population of
the City of Spokane.
Using the aforementioned framework, a 12-month operating budget for the City of
Spokane Valley Municipal Court based upon 46% of the projected 2003 budget for
Spokane Municipal court would be approsinlately $1,512,129. As with the use of Kent's -
budget in making a projection, the 1.5 million figure may be somewhat overstated vis-a-
vis a projection for the City of Spokane Valley due to the fact many of employees of
Spokane municipal Court are at the top of the pay scales for their job classification.
Additionally, since the Spokane County District Court uses the Spokane County Superior
Court for jury management, some additional costs, around $25,000 annually, is associated
with this service. Council may contact Dave Lardy of the Spokane County Superior
Court for more information.
The Subcommittee recognizes that if the City of Spokane Valley makes the decision to
form its own court, there will undoubtedly be startup costs over and above the projected
budget. These startup costs may or may not be offset by any savings to be achieved in
operating such a court.
In the event that the City of Spokane Valley elects to become a department of the
Spokane County District Court, the projected budget of S1,512,129 may have to be
adjusted upwards to account for the addition of indirect costs which will billed by
Spokane County based upon the new city's proportional use the courthouse facilities and
the like. -
The costs associated with a contract for services are difficult to estimate, as there are
several options for remuneration schemes. The contract may be on a weighed per case
basis where a fixed fee is paid for each type of case or may be on the basis of an agreed
division of revenue where the jurisdiction providing the court services divide fee, fine and
civil penalties on negotiated percentage basis.
Fairfield :mid Liberty Lake ultimately chose this approach using a per-case fee based
contract. Copies of the contract between Fairfield and the Spokane County District
Court, as well as Liberty Lake and Spokane County are attached as Appendices 8 and 9
respectively.
Page 10
Using the Fairfield / Liberty Lake models, the City of the Spokvle Valley costs associated
with contract court services would be as follows:
Spokane Valle Court Services Contract Cost - Fairfield I Liberty Lake Model
Infraction Criminal Traffic
Nontraffic Criminal
DUI l PC
Number
13,199
1,55
1,42
225
Cost Per Case
S 24.48
S 178.22
$ 225.31
$ 506.60
Cost Per Class
$ 323,111.52
$ 277,666.76
$ 321,066.75
$113,985.00
Total Cost $1,035,830.03
It should be noted the Fairfield and Liberty Like Contracts do not breakout domestic
violence cases, which tend to be more resource intensive than standard gross
misdemeanor cnmrnal assault cases. As such, the total cost reflected for the City of
SpoLmne Valley using the Fairfield / Liberty Lake model may be somewhat lower than
what is possible to negotiate with the County of Spokane.
CaTTr~arison Gitaos
The following comparison information was derived from the suney responses from
Federal Way, Kent and Vancouver and from the city web sites for the remaining
jurisdictions:
Municipal Court Municipal Department Intedocal Agreement
Airway Heights` Spokane Bellevue
Bellingham Vancouver Fairf field
Cheney Liberty Lake
Deer Para: Millwood
Everett
Federal Way
- Kent
'Medical Lake"
Tacoma
Yakima
I Contract «ith Spokane County District Court to process inmate 1' Appearance Docket.
Lookuig at the three cities that responded to our servey, Vancouver operates as a Municipal
Deputment of the Clark County District Court, while Federal Way and Kent ultimately
elected to terminate their contactual relationships with their county districts coups in favor of
fonning their own municipal coon. The primary reasons identified by cities that chose to
terminate their relationship were local control, cost and inability to work effectively with
county govemment.
Pago 11
I
Section 4
PROSECUTION SERVICES
Intnwlirdion
The prosecuting attorney is statutorily authorized under RCW 36 27.020 to prosecute all
criminal cases brought under state statutes or county ordinances. However,"[e]ach
county, city, and town is responsible for the prosecution, sentencing, and incarceration of
misdemeanor and gross misdemeanor offenses committed by adults in their respective
jurisdictions, and referred from their respective law enforcement agencies, whether filed
under state law or city ordinance, and must carry out these responsibilities through the
use of their own courts, staff, and facilities, or by entering into contracts or interlocal
agreements under this chapter to provide these services." RC\V 39.34.130. Binding
arbitration is available if parties cannot agree on a level of compensation in a contract.
RC\V 39.34.180.
A gross misdemeanor is an offense that is punishable by up to one year in jail and a
maximum fine of five thousand dollars. A misdemeanor is an offense that is punishable
by up to ninety days in jail and a maximum fine of one thousand dollars. The bulk of
offenses are comprised of driving under the influence, shoplifting, theft, domestic
violence assaults and protection order violations, driving with a suspended license and
other driving violations. Infraction violations also comprise a large pan of a district or
municipal court caseload, where misdemeanors are traditionally handled.
A misdemeanor referral is usually generated by an arrest by a patrol officer. Gases are
typically not investigated as thoroughly by police since it is rare for a detective to be
assigned to a misdemeanor investigation. Trials tend to be short, typically lasting one to
two days, because there are usually few witnesses. Cases usually need to be adjudicated
quickly because of the high volume. This is also where most citizens get exposed to the -
criminal justice systern - either through a misdemeanor referral or an infraction.
Felonies, both adult and juvenile, as well as all juvenile gross misdemeanor and
misdemeanor prosecutions, would still be handled by the County Prosecutor. Gross
misdemeanor and misdemeanor arrests by another law enforcement agency, for example,
a DUI arrest by the Washington State Patrol within the boundaries of the City of
Spokane Valley, would also still be handled by the County Prosecutor
A hermtiza for Prozitling P7am4tim Seruca
In the context of prosecution services, the options for the new city for providing the
obligatory adult misdemeanor and gross misdemeanor prosecution services are to: (1)
start its own prosecutor's office, (2) contract with an entity currently providing
prosecution services, or (3) contract with private attorneys to provide service.
Page 12
~I
Establish an Office of City of Spokane Valley Prosecuting Attorney
Pstablishing its own internal prosecutors office requires the City of Spokane Valley to
assemble die physical facilities, personnel, equipment and supplies necessary to operate
almost any legal office.
Contract nvidi an Entity Currently Providing Prosecution Services
"his option entails identifying a local governmental entity currently providing prosecution
services and negotiating an interlocal agreement pursuant to the term of R.CW 39.34.150,
which deals with interlocal agreements on criminal justice issues. As with court
services, binding arbitration is available if parties cannot agree on a level of
l compensation in the interlocal agreement.
Presently, the Subcommittee has been able to identify one regional govemment entity
interested in entering into negotiations Rrith the new city to provide prosecution services. "file
SpokZme County Prosecuting Attorneys Office, which currently provides prosecution Services
for all cases generatedrri the geographical area encompassed by the new city; has expressed a
r consistent interest in contracting with the City of Spokane Valley to provide prosecution
services.
It should be noted that although the City of Spolnne Prosecuting Attorney's Office h2s the
requisite expertise to provide the necessary prosecution services for the City- of Spokane
Valley, the City of Spokane has elected not to pursue providing such services at this time.
I`he Subconnnuttee asked the Spoklne County- Prosecuting Attorneys Office to provide any
infomration or material it desired in support of its interest in negotiating an interlocal
agreement for prosecution services with the City of Spokane Valley. The administration of the
Spolmiie County Prosecuting Attorney's Office indicated it had previously made a presentation
L to the candidates for City Council and would likely seek to make an additional presentation
,when the City Council commences a regular meeting schedule. However, Ivlr. Tucker did ask
that we include a shortlist of what he and his office believe to be die compelling reasons for
selecting an interlocal agreement with the Spolztne Counry Prosecuting Attorneys Office as
the preferred option.
• The Spokane County Prosecutor's Office currently does the misdemeanor and
infraction cases that occur in the City of Spolume Valley; thereby having Elie expertise
to continue to do so;
• The Spokane County Prosecutor's Office currently has sufficient space, personnel
and equipment in place to provide the required services
- • The transition to provide prosecution service to Elie new city through Spokane
County-would be seamless
• This option would avoid the startup costs for the City of Spokane Valley associated
with finding a location to house the new office, qualifying and hiring new personnel,
as well as the initial cost of purchasing the necessary equipment with which to
operate.
Page 13
Contract with Private Law Firm(s) to Provide Prosecution Services.
Under this type of scenario, the Gry• of Spokane Valley would contract with one or more
private law firms to provide prosecution services on a straight contract basis. This
method essentially allows the City of Spokane Valley and the service provider to negotiate
a contact containing any and all terms on which the parties can agree.
If the City of Spokane Valley opted to pursue this option, it would likely publish a
Request for Proposal (RFP) defining the parameters according to which prosecution
services would be provided. The City would then choose among the responding law
firms based upon a set of predefined criteria.
A copy of sample contract for such services is attached as Appendii 10.
Fiscal A na6sis
The subcommittee defined the personnel, equipment, physical facilities and other items
necessary for the operation of a prosecutor's office. This analysis is attached to this
report as Appendix 11.
Based on the projected caseloads, an internal prosecutor's office would likely need 1 city
prosecutor, 4 staff attorneys, 3 support staff and 1 law student (temporary employee) to
operate. As such, a total 12 month operating budget would be between about $550,000
and $650,000 depending on the cost of office space and level of technology employed by
the office.
The Subcommittee has not been privy to the monetary figure at which the Spokane
County Prosecutor's Office would be willing to provide such services, so it will be
incumbent on the City Council to evaluate the economic aspects of pursuing this option.
However, if the $98.18 per case cost associated with the Fairfield contract with Mr.
T'ucker's office for prosecution services were unphed to the City of the Spokane Valley,
the cost of this type of contract with the following case distribution would be $1,613,785.
Infractions
Criminal Traffic
DUI
Crim NonTaffic
DV
13,199
1,558
225
739
686
If the 13,199 infractions were processed by the City itself, or at a reduced rate, the
remaining 3,208 misdemeanor and gross misdemeanor cases would cost the City of
Spokane Valley about $311,962 under a Fairfield style contract with the Spokane County.
The potential costs associated with using a private firm to provide prosecution services
are likewise difficult to evaluate. The costs of this option will likely vary by the caseload
and the other contractual terns such as professional habihry coverage and contract term.
Page 14
Corr w7S* on 065
The following comparison infomaation was derived from the survey responses from
responses Federal Way, Kent and Vancouver and from the city web sites for the
remaining jurisdictions:
In-House Interlocal Agreement Private Contract
Bellevue
Bellingham
Federal Way
Kent
Spokane
Tacoma
l I
Vancouver
Yakima
Page 15
i..
Section 5
PUBLIC DEFENSE SERVICES
Ba&gmitrrrl Information
The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution states in pan that: "In all
prosecutions, the accused parry shall enjoy the right to have the assistance of counsel
for his defense." Article 1, Section 22 of the Washington State Constitution provides in
part that: "In criminal prosecutions the accused shall have the right to appear and defend
in person, or by counsel...." The obligation of providing indigent defendants with
counsel was established in the case of Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. (1953) that held
that the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments require appointment of counsel for indigent
defendants in felony prosecutions. Later the Court in A ersinUr v. Hamlin, 407 U.S. 25
(1972) expanded Gideon to require counsel for any crone for which the defendant could
be imprisoned (misdemeanor and gross misdemeanor offenses).
In 1997, the Washington State Legislature mandated that all incorporated cities were
responsible for prosecution and defense of all misdemeanor, gross misdemeanor and
infractions that occur within their city limits. Based upon the foregoing information it
should be understood that upon incorporation the City of Spokane Valley becomes
responsible for and required to, provide representation of indigent defendants charged
with crimes occurring aTithin its city limits.
A lternatizes For Proudwg Incli Repmaration
There are three nationally recognized methods of providing indigent defense services.
They are 1) the in-house public defender system, 2) the contract public defender system
and 3) the assigned counsel system. A brief explanation of these systems for providing
indigent defense services is as follows:
In-house Public Defender
The in-house public defender system is a city, county or state office that provides
representation to the majority of indigent persons and has a set annual budget. The in-
house public defender system usually precludes attorneys from conducting a private
practice. Spokane County and the City of Spokane presently utilize in-house public
defender systems.
Contract Public Defender
A contract public defender system is simply one or more individuals or firms that
contract with the city, county or state to provide at a set fee a specified number and type
of cases per contract term. King County utilizes the contract public defender system and
in fact contacts with four non-profit corporations to handle approximately 95% of their
cases. The contract public defender system usually precludes attorneys from conducting a
private practice.
J
Page 16
L~
Assigned Counsel
The assigned counsel method generally consists of a list of private aaorneYs willing to
accept case assignments as made by the court or other office delegated the responsibility
of assigning cases. This method may have an agreed flat fee or hourl)T rate of pay but will
- not generally specify the number or t}pe of cases to be assigned. Attorneys receiving
cases through the assigned counsel system generally conduct a private practice in addition
to the indigent cases assigned.
Most jurisdictions utilize some combination of the indigent defense systems mentioned in
order to deal with conflict cases. King County, as mentioned earlier, utilizes the contract
public defender system for 95% of its cases and the assigned counsel system for the
remaining 5%. Only those cases that, for whatever reason, cannot be assigned to anv one
of the contract defenders are assigned to private counsel. Spokane utilizes the in-house
public defender system for 99% of its cases and the contract system for 1% of its cases.
A nal)szs of SerU'AX Options
In-House Public Defender System:
The new city may choose to create its own public defender office. Based upon the
assumed number of cases that would be assigned to this office, minimal staffing
requirements can be determined. RCW 10.101.030 directs cities and counties to set
standards for delivery of indigent defense services, but suggests that the standards
endorsed by the Washington State Bar Association (\VSBA) should be used as a guide.
The standards endorsed by the \VSBA suggest one attorney for every 300-misdemeanor
cases assigned, however standards can be greatly influenced by local practices. Spokane
city and county public defender offices currently have caseloads that average in the
neighborhood of 500 to 570 new files per attomey per )tar.
Contract Public Defender System:
The City may choose to provide indigent representation by contracting for public
defender services with the City of Spokane Public Defender Office, The Spokane County
Public Defender Office or a private law firm willing to handle all cases from the city.
This method of providing indigent defense services can be accomplished through a
competitive bid process, however the American Bar Association (ABA) wams that
awarding a contract solely upon a low bid should not occur. 'T'he American Bar
Association in its 1992 third edition publication of die ABA Standards for Criminal
Justice - Providing Defense Services states that quality of senrice; workload maximums;
staffing ratios; and criminal law experience, expertise, training and supervision should be
considered in awarding a contract. The publication points out that numerous contracts
based upon low bid alone failed to survive judicial scrutiny on constitutional grounds.
The City of Spokane is a prime example of a city embarrassed by the failure of a low-bid
defense contract.
Page 17
1-'
The ABA and other sources suggest that a public defender contract should at a minimum
include the follo'%t ing basic terms:
1 - Quality representation w/perfomance monitoring provisions
2 - Cost of the contract
3 - Responsibilities for conflicts
4 - Responsibilities for appeals
S - Responsibilities for expert witnesses
6 - Payment mechanism
7 - Property oa,rerslvp
8 - Tenn of contract
9 - Provisions for termination
10 - Duration of responsibilityto represent
11 - Limitations on private practice
A sample contract used by the city of Tacoma is included in the Appendix 12.
Additionallyne Pierce County Department of Assigned Counsel reports that its contract
with the City of Tacoma is a flat fee of $1,719,241 for two years (2001 - 2002) or an
average of $859,621 each year.
The Assigned Counsel Method:
The assigned counsel method of providing for indigency representation requires a list of
attomeys willing to take cases assigned on a rotation basis at an hourly rate or flat fee rate
per case. Attorneys under this system usually also maintain a private practice. Very few
jurisdictions that have large caseloads utilize the assigned counsel method simply because
it is an administrative nightmare. The ABA reports in its previously referenced
publication that the National Legal Aid and Defender Association and the National
Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals strongly condemn the use
of the assigned counsel method of providing indigent defense. Among the numerous
reasons for their condemnation are, lack of quality control, frequent use of inexperienced
attorneys, discrimination in assignments, unavailability of lawyers for timely
representation, and etc.
If the assigned counsel method is utilized by the new City, contract terns as suggested in
the contract public defender method should be required of all counsel receiving cases to
assure quality of representation, certainty of length of representation, cost control and
ability to monitor workloads. A sample contract that could be utilized in the assigned
counsel system is located in the appendices. (Please don't confuse Pierce County's
Department of Assigned Counsel with the assigned counsel method of providing indigent
defense services - it is just the name they call themselves)
Page Ia
1 ~I
L.:
r
A rmican BarAssocation Staryb7r~
' The American Bar Association in its 1992 third edition publication of the ABA Standards
for Criminal Justice Providing Defense Services stated, "The primary component in every,
jurisdiction should be a public defender office". This publication speaks of advantages of
a public defender progrlm in describing thi.5 method of indigent defense delivery while
pointing out problems and the need for caution in discussing the contact and assigned
counsel methods of providing indigent defense systems.
Pot tai ll Inte ywal A grafrrzr Ser u-(e Proz&0-5
! Spokane County Public Defender.
The Spokane County Public Defender's Office, which currently provides indigent
repirsenLi6on services for all cases generated in the geographical atea encompassed by the
new city, has expressed a consistent interest in contracting with the City of Spokane Valley to
provide public defense services.
_ The Subcommittee has not been pray to the monetary figure at Nvlnich the Spol; ne
County Public Defender's Office would be willing to provide such services. As such, it Rill
be incumbent on the City Council to evaluate the economic aspects of pursuing this
option.
City of Spokane Public Defender
It should be noted that although the Guy of Spokane Public Defender's Office likely has the
requisite expertise to provide, the necessary defense services for the Guy of Spol-zrne Valley, the
i Cjty of Spokane has elected not to pursue providing such services at this time.
Poteroal Contract Sem*Ax Prozi&m
Private Law Firm
1
Under this type of scenario, the City of Spokane Valley would contract with one or more
private law firms to provide indigent representation services on a straight contract basis.
This method essentially allows the Gry of Spokane Valley and the service provider to
f negotiate a contact containing any and all terms on which the parties can agree.
If the City of Spokane Valley opted to pursue this option, it would likely publish a
Request for Proposal (RFP) defining the parameters according to which defense services
would be provided. The Gry would then choose among the responding law firms based
upon a set of predefined criteria.
A copy of samples of an indigent representation contract is attached as Appendix 13.
Page 19
Fiscal A nalys is
Without the information from the Spokane County Public Defender pertaining the indigent - -
representation caseloads projected for the City of Spokane Valley, fiscal projections in this are
reasonablydifficult to compile.
The City of Spokane Public Defender reports it currently handles approxutnately 9,700 cases
per year, with a 2003 projected budget of $1,700,000. Assuming, as '%ith courtt services, that
the City of Spokane Valley will have about 46% of the nroddoad of the City of Spokane, the
new city should have about 1,800 cases per year for indigent representation. This figure is new
cases and excludes representation on errant and show cause matters.
Utilizing local caseloads as a model and the anticipated caseload for the new city the
Spokane County Public Defender's Office estimates that staffing and office requirements
for the new cities public defender office would be as follows:
STAFF
1- Attorney Director (handling a caseload)
4 - Attorneys
1- Paralegal
1- Case Manager
1- Secretary/account tech
1 - receptionist/ file clerk
1- Investigator or funding to contract investigator work
OFFICE SPACE
S - Private offices
1 - Reception area to acconunodate 10 - 15 people
1- Copy/file storage/supply room
1 - Break room
1- Library
OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE COSTS
1 - NI<rlpractice Insurance
1- Expert witness costs
1- Files, paper, envelopes, miscellaneous office supplies
1- Bar dues for attorney staff and paralegal
1- Telephone
1- Postage
1- Repair and maintenance on equipment
1- Travel/mileage (especially an issue if the office is not located near the court or jail)
1 - 'T'raining (CLE's)
1- Publications/books/printing & binding/ legal research software
Page 20
E- -
START-UP EXPENDITURES
10 - Computers
3 - Computer printers
1- Computer software for word processing and case management
1- Copy machine
1-Fax
10 - Telephones
1- Libra, ry (Washington Reports, ROVA, Waslungton Practice, Court Rules & etc)
10 - Desks & Chairs 35 side chairs for offices, reception area, library &break room
10 - File cabinets
3 - Tables for library & break room
1- ivliscellaneous office equipmentlsupplies
The tor< cost of this option is bemeen $550,000 and S650,000, depending on the cost of
office space and the level of technology provided.
Car VYison Ciliz
The following comparison information. was derived from the survey responses from
responses Federal Way, Kent and Vancouver and from the city web sites for the
remaining jurisdictions:
In-House Intedocal Agreement PHNate Contract
Spokane Tacoma Federal Way
Yakima Kent
Vancouver
L
Pago 21
Section
PROBATION SERVICES
Irn~ion
Rule 11, Adrniristntivc Rules for Courts of Urnired jurisd don
Definition- ° A misdemeanor probation department, if a court elects to est;3bUsh one, is an enriry
that provides services designed to assist the coon in ilie nimagenient of crin- imal jmtice and
thereby aid in ncc prC5crvation of public order and safecv. 'I'bis enrity tnav consist of probarion
officers and probation clcrk, The method of providing These services shall be established by the
presiding judge of the local court to meet the specific needs of the court."
Care Sera-C5 o Pwbat n p nn~ Pe "ks
Conduct pre/post sentence investigations -with face to Face interviews and
extensive research that u-icludes, but is not limAcd to, trirninal history, conract
with victims, personal history, social and ecoinornic needs, community resource
needs, counseling/ treatment needs, work history, family ;end employer support,
and complete written pre/post sentence reports, which includes sentencing
recommendations to the court.
To determine offender risk to the conxrnunit using a standardized system with a
n~ riimuni of monthly face-to-Face interviews for offenders classified at the
highest level.
Evaluate offenders' social problems, amenability to different types of treatment
programs, and determine appropriate referral.
Supervise offenders with face-to-fa,.e interviews depending on risk classification
system.
Fersee communiryf agencies providing services required of offenders with input
ro the judicial officer (e.g. alc oho drug, domestic violence, sexual deviancy, and
mental illness),
Monitor compliance of treatment obligations with professional treatment
providers.
Report offender non-compliance with conditions of sentence to the court.
Coordinate treatment referral information, and monitor commurnit agencies for
statutory reporting compharice.
intently, there are over 60 misdemeanor probation departments throughout
communities of the state of ashingron. Misdemeanor probation services are not
mandated b law and cornmuniries have the option of employing such a pro-mm.
Page 22
Having a probation department does address public concems by n tyof:
Providing public safety
Sanctioning offenders and hold them accouneable for their behavior
Assisting with effective chmige in behavior
Providing cost effective monitoring as an alternative to incarceration
Reducing jail costs and overcrowding
i Reducing Lx\payer costs through collection of probation fees from offenders involved
in probation prograrr nung
Population: Currently wtiitltin the Spolchne District Court Probation Department the tATo
largest offender groups monitored are those arrested and convicted of Driving Under the
Influence or a lesser included offense, and Domestic Violence. Probation fees collected from
offenders more than cover the annual budget of die probation department.
I'isc;-,l. A nal).sis
"11he probation office for the City of Spokane presently haridles about 25CO cases per year.
Assuming the City of Spokane Valley, will have about 46% of those cases, the Cary could
expect 1150 probation referrals. A copy of the Spokarie proposed SpolMe Municipal Court
Probation Department budget for 2003 is attached as Appendix 14. It be noted that criminal
law enforcement patterns in the City of Spokane Valley may drastically alter the caseloads
projected herein.
The 2003 budget for the probation office for the City= of Spokane is S749,899. Again applying
a 46% analysis an operational budget for the City of Spokane Valley probation department
may be about $344,953. The probation office for tie City of Spokane has a history of
generating revenue from probation fees in e-\cess of its operational costs. Therefore, once the
City has recovered the stamrp costs, a municipal probation department niay be a positive
revenue generator.
However, it should be noted that recent case decisions in Washington could create liability for
a cirythat does not properly supervise its probationers. This is one of the primary reasons why
the Spokane County District Court and the Spokuhe Municipal Department thereof recently
absorbed the probation function in an effort to use judicial immunity to insulate tie probation
office from potential liability.
Garr "S' on Cities
The following comparison information wars derived from the survey responses from
responses Federal Way, Kent and Vancouver and from the city web sites for the
remarnrng Jurisdictions:
In House Interlocal Agreement Private Contract
Bellevue Federal Way
Kent
Spokane
Tacoma
Vancouver
Page 23
Section
INDI EN Y SCREENING SERVICES
Ba gmw7d1-rfm7m o
The Revised Code of Wash6gton {ROB} 10-101.020 (I) states, " A determination of
indigency shall be made for all persons wishing the appointment of counsel in criminal,
juvenile, involuntary commitrmem, and dependency cases, and any other cases where thP- -
right to co4rnse4 attaches, I'he court or its designee shall determine whether the person is
indigent pursuant to the standards set forth .
In 1994, a task force composed of county, legal court and probation representatives
recoirunended the formation of the Office of Pretrial Services (OPTS). OPTS was given
two primary rp-sponsibilkies. First, OPTS was to interview, investigate and n-aloe
recornmendations to District and Superior vurts on all Felons who were in custody and
had a First Appearance (Bond) Dearing. Second, both District and Superior GxIns
designated OPTS ro process Public Defender applications in order to n-oke a
deternunation of indigency,
Determinations are rmde at the jail, off ire and in some instances (Superior Court) in the
courtroom- All persons in jail are contacted about applying. Office inrerviews are mostly
-V0 III nury kmless a person has been told to apply by the court.
Pursuant to RCW 14.101.420 (3), "'Me court or its designee sba11 keep a written record of
the determination of indigenc Guidelines used ;n mal~ing d-terniiwtion in provided
by the Adminisuative Office of the Courts and follow Federal Poverty Guidelines. Also
determinations are g,~ded b It1~'s Ir,Forrnarion obtauied from applicant's relation to
mon&y income, monthly expenses and liquid assets. amts receiving Title I
Entitlernents (Public Assistance, SSI auton-Laticallyqualif .
One of three deter-nu-cations are made when an application is taken, 1) appointed, 2)
appointed with a fee. 3 denied. No one is asked to bring back further information before
a dettmunazion is made,
Appointed- Income - expenses and limited assets that fall under cutoffs or
receive Ttle M benefits. -
Appointed with Fee: Above federal guidelines but not more than 125` above are -
appointed with fee. Fees are esmbli hed b courr. -
Denied: Above guidelines by more than 125%, Assets above allowable.
Applicants can appeal a decision to the court after- getting 3 estirmtes from private
4
alro me),S
Page 24
L
Irtlz y Scr rnirt6 Sovc ~
Public Defender applications are taken in the office, at the jail or upon the request of the
court.
Office: Applications are taken 3 days per -week, Jvlonday - Friday. Hours to Apply are
_ 5:30 AIM - 11:4 AM and 1:00 IPNI - 4:30 PIvI. Applications are taken at the
Public Safety building but there has been consideration given to being
available at the neRr Sheriff's Valley Substation several tines during the meek
to serve that geographical area.
i
Jail: Applications are taken 6 days per week, Sunday - Friday. Interview's, nvith
determinations, are completed prior to an individual's Fi.rst COU1t
Appeance.
Court: Staff are available to rzspond to requests of die court during normal working
hours. This includes taking applications on people in cotut or providing data to
the court on previous detemvnations.
Page 25
APPENDIX LIST
Appendix 1
Samples of Original Questionnaires
Appendix 2
Committee Members and Contact Information
!
Appendix 3
Administrative Office of the Courts Filing Figures
Appendix 4
Judge McSeveney Article on Interlocal Agreements
Appendix 5
Article on Judicial Independence by Judge McSeveney
Appendix 6
Analysis of Court Personnel, Equipment, etc.
Appendix 7
Spolmne Municipal Court Budget
Appendix 8
Contract for Liberty Lake
Appendix 9
Contract for Spol=e County District Court
Appendix 10
Contract with Private Law Firm
Appendix 11
Prosecutors Resource List
Appendix 12
Contract City of Tacoma
Appendix 13
Indigent Representation Contract
Appendix 14
Municipal Probation Budget
Appendix 15
Contracts, Budget, Agreements, Requests for Proposal
Bellingham
9 Kent
9 Bellevue
9 Feder.;l Way Home Detention Agreement
Federal Way RFP for Public Defender Services
Appendix 16
Staffing, Courts of Limited Jurisdiction 2001
Appendix 17
Revised Code of Washington ~
3.46 Petition to Become Department of District Coup
> 3.50 Establish Municipal Court
7 39.34 Interlocal Agreements
Appendix 18
Glossary of Court Terminology
Appendix 19
Glossary, Courts of Limited Jurisdiction -
Page 26
F1
CONTACT LIST
1
Administrative Office of the Courts
Yvonne Pettis
Street Address:
1206 Quince Street SE
Olympia, WA 98504-1170
Mailing Address:
P.O. Sox 41170
Olympia, WA 98504-1170
360-753-3365 Telephone
360-586-8869 Facsimile
Page 27
i
L~
City of Bellevue
Municipal Court:
Street Address:
585 112th Ave. S.E.
Bellevue, WA 98004
206-205-9200 Telephone
http://www.metrokc,govlkcdc/bellevue.htm - web page
bellevue.kcdc@metrokc.gov - e-mail
Prosecution:
Street Address:
3rd Floor of Bellevue City Hall
11511 Main Street,
Bellevue, Washington
425452-6822 Telephone
http:l/ivtvw.ci.bellevue.wa.us/page.asp?view=1144 - web page
Public Defender
http://www.ci.bellevue.wa.us/page.asp?view=1670 - web page
Probation
Tandra Schwamberg, Probation Manager, tschwamberg@ci.bellevue.wa.us
Susan Fraser, Assistant Probation Manager, sfraser@ci.bellevue.wa.us
Maritza Alfonso, EHD Coordinator, malfonso@ci.bellevue.wa.us
Lourdes Salazar, Volunteer Program Coordinator, Isalazar@ci.bellevue.wa.us
425-452-6956 Telephone
425-452-7883 Facsimile
Street Address:
475 112th Avenue SE
Bellevue, WA 98004-6430
Mailing Address:
PO Box 90012
Bellevue, WA 98009-9012
http://wwtv.ci.bellevue.wa.us/page.asp?view=3088
Pago 28
City of Bellingham
Municipal Court:
Street Address:
CITY HALL
2014 C STREET
BELLINGHAM, WA 98225
360-676-6978 Telephone
http://wv.N-~.cob.org/courL/index.litm - web page
Prosecution:
2014 C Street
Bellingham, WA 98225
(360) 738-7439
Public Defender
Probation
Page 2g
I` i
City of Everett
Municipal Court:
Street Address:
3028 Wetmore Ave.
Everett, WA 98201
(425) 257-8778 Telephone
253-835-3020 Facsimile
http:l/www.everettwa.org/default.asp - web page
Prosecution:
Street Address:
2930 Wetmore Avenue
Suite 10-C
Everett, WA 98201
http://www.everettwa,org/cityhall/citydeptsAega1.asp - web page
msoine@ci.everett.wa.us - email - City Attorney
425-257-8406 Telephone
425-257-8693 Facsimile
Public Defender
Probation
425-257-8766 Telephone
Page 30
City of Federal Way
Municioal Court:
I Sandy Warler - Court Administrator - 253-835-3000 - Sandra.Warter@ci.federal-way.wa.us
Street Address:
34004 9th Ave. S., Bldg. A
Federal Way, WA 98063-9717
Mailing Address:
P.O. Box 9717
1 Federal Way, WA 98063-9717
253-835-3000 Telephone
253-835-3020 Facsimile
wnsrr.ci.federal-way.wa.us - web page
Prosecution:
Arron Walls - gurjil.pandher@ci.federal-way.wa.us
253-661-4027 Telephone
253-661-4575 Facsimile
Public Defender
Probation
Pigo 31
City of Kent
Municipal Court:
Lynne Jacobs - Court Administrator - 253-835-3000
LJacobs@ci.kent.wa.us - e-mail
Street Address:
City of Kent
1220 S Central Ave
Kent, WA 98032
253-661-4027 Telephone
253-856-6730 Facsimile
htip:!lwww.ci.kent.wa.us/MunicipalCourt/default.htm - web page
i ammy White
Sharon Hayden - Domestic Violence Unit - 253-856-5900 -
Street Address:
220 4th Ave S
Kent, WA 98032 Public
253-856-5770 Telephone
253-856-6770 Facsimile
Public Defender
Probation
Bonnie Kostco - 253-856-5952 - Bkostco@ci.kent.wa
Indigency Screening
Denise Foxx - Kent Municipal Court - 253-856-5730
Page 32
r,
City of Tacoma
Municipal Court:
Street Address:
j City of Tacoma Municipal Court
930 Tacoma Avenue South, Room 841
I~
Tacoma, WA 98402-2181
253-591-5357 Telephone - Court Services
253-591-5301 Facsimile -Court Services
253-591-5259 Telephone - Court Administration
http://%-A-Ai,cityoftacoma.org/default.asp?main=/52munict/defauIt.asp - :reb page
Prosecution:
253-591-5834 Telephone
Public Defender
Department of Assigned Counsel
Jack Hill - Director
Street Address:
949 Market Street, Suite 334
Tacoma, WA 98402-2194
253-798-6062 Telephone
253-591-6715 Facsimile
Probation
Indigency Screening
Pretrial Services
253-798-3478 Telephone
CI
Page 33
City of Vancouver
Municipal Court:
Department of Clark County District Court
Bob Winsor - Court Administrator
Street Address:
1200 Franklin Street
Vancouver, WA 98660
Mailing Address:
P.O. Box 9806
Vancouver, WA 98666-9806
360-397-2424 Telephone
http:!lw%v%v.clark.wa.govIDstCourt/DC/Admin.him - web page
Public Defender
Probation
Page 34