The URL can be used to link to this page

2024, 01-30 Study Session MeetingMINUTES City of Spokane Valley City Council Study Session Meeting Tuesday, January 30, 2024 Mayor- Haley called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. The meeting was held in person in Council Chambers, and also remotely via Zoom meeting. Attendance: Councilmembers Pam Haley, CounciImember• Rod Higgins, Councilt-nember Tim Hattenburg, Councilmember Laura Padden, Councilmember Al Merkel, Councilmember Ben Wick, Councilmember Jessica Yaeger, Councilmember Staff John Hoh.man, City Manager Erik Lamb, Deputy City Manager Chelsie Taylor, Finance Director Gloria Mantz, City Services Administrator Kelly Konkright, City Attorney Bill Helbig, Community & PW Director Virginia Clough, Legislative Policy Coordinator Tony Beattie, Sr. Deputy City Attorney Dave Ellis, Police Chief Jill Smith, Communications Manager John Bottelli, Parks & Ree Director Morgan Koudelka, Sr. Administrative Analyst Nikki Kole, IT Specialist Marci Patterson, City Cleric ROLL CALL: City Clerk Patterson called roll; all Councilmembers were present. APPROVAL OF AGENDA It was moved by Deputy Mayor Hattenburg, seconded and unanimously agreed to approve the agenda. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT OPPORTUNITY: After Mayor Haley explained the process, she invited public comment. Barb Howard Spokane Valle via Zoom :asked about the sheriff's contract and the scheduling of the deputies. Mr. Dan Allison, Spokane Valley: spoke about the budget meeting that Councilmember Merkel held. Ms. Diana Wilhite, Spokane Valley: spoke about the city logo. Mr. John Harding Spokane Valley: spoke about lawlessness in our area. Ms. Brandi Peetz, Spokane Valley: spoke about the prosecutor and the need for better services from that office. Ms. Laura Renz Spokane Valle spoke about the decor•urn of the council meetings in comparison to the City of Spokane. ACTION ITEM: 1. Motion Consideration: Ma oral Appointments, Planning Commission -- Ma or Hale It was moved by Deputy Mayor Hattenburg and seconded to confirm the Mayor's nomination of John Robertson and Justin Weatherman to the Planning Commission for terms beginning January 1, 2024 and ending December 31, 2026 and Vadim Sinelik to the Planning Commission for a term beginning January 1, 2024 and ending December 31, 2024. Mayor Haley opened the discussion with an explanation of the openings on the Planning Commission. The Mayor spoke about the section process and that she became aware of an additional opening and would invite Matthew Hurd to be appointed at the next meeting if he was still interested. Councilmember Merkel questioned the Mayor- as to whether or not she contacted the applicants. Councilmember Higgins poised a point of order. Mayor Haley asked him to speak to the point. Councilmember Higgins stated the city code and that it is the Mayor's appointment and that no where should the councilmembers be contacting the applicants. The Mayor noted that the point was taken and it violates our rules. This is not a debate over who was appointed, it is whether you agree with who I appointed or not. Councilmember Merkel asked for a hand vote on the point of order ruling. Those in favor of the ruling: Mayor Haley, Deputy Mayor Hattenburg, Councilmembers, Yaeger, Padden and Higgins. Opposed: Councilmembers Wick and Merkel. Councilmember Higgins poised a point of order. Mayor Haley asked Council Meeting Minutes, Study Session: 01-02-2024 Page 1 of Approved by Council: 04-23-2024 to speak to the point. Councilmember Higgins asked if another councilman was purposely trying to undercut the Mayor and make her look bad and requested a cease. Without being allowed to rule on the original point, Councihnernber Merkel poised a point of order that the comments were a direct accusation and would like to see the evidence for what was trying to be represented. Mayor Haley called on the attorney. City Attorney Konkright stated that it is not a debatable matter. Mayor Haley ruled on Councilmember Merkel's point of order as a personal attack and noted Robert's Rules of Order. Mayor Haley ruled that Councilmember Merkel was out of order. Mayor Haley ruled that Councilmember Higgins was not out of order. Councilmember Merkel requested to appeal that ruling. The Mayor called for all those who thought Councilmember Higgins was out of order. All those in favor: Mayor Haley, Deputy Mayor Hattenburg, Councilmembers Higgins, Padden, Yaeger and Wick. Opposed. Councilmember Merkel. Mayor Haley called for public comment. Councilmember Merkel asked if the Mayor was discontinuing questions from council right now. Mayor Haley stated yes. Mr. John Robertson Spokane Valley: happy to be on the Planning Commission and would like to understand the process for nominating people. Mr. Matthew Hurd, Spokane Valley: read a statement regarding his qualifications and spoke about his concern for the process for the appointments and open staff positions. Ms. Marchauna Rodgers, Spokane Valley: stated that she was disappointed and that we should reduce bureaucracy, but that she has an interest in the community. Mr. John Harding, Spokane Valley: feels that the Planning Commission positions are important and the process should be reexamined. Mr. Walt Haneke Spokane Valle : stated he was never contact and didn't get any information on why he wasn't selected. Council discussed the need for and importance of the Planning Commission as well as the process for choosing the candidates. After much debate regarding the process, Councilmember Higgins poised a point of order. Mayor Haley stated to speak to the point. Councilmember Higgins asked to call for the vote. Mayor Haley stated that it could be time to call for the vote. Councilmember Merkel stated a point of order and asked if silencing him called for a vote. Mayor Haley asked to speak to the point. Councilmember Merkel asked if a vote was needed to call for the question if wanting to end the discussion. Mayor called on the City Attorney and he stated if you want to end debate you can call for a vote to have the question called and then the motion. Mayor Haley staved to called for the question to end debate and Councilmember Merkel called for a point of order to reference what the city attorney had just stated. City Attorney Konkright noted that there is no special language necessary and that the Mayor may call to end the debate and then call for the vote on the motion. Mayor Haley then called for those who would like to end debate and call for the question. Those in favor: Mayor Haley, Deputy Mayor Hattenburg, Councilmembers Padden, Higgins, and Yaeger. Opposed: Councilmembers Wick and Merkel. Vote by acclamation on the original inotion: in favor. Mayor Haley, Deputy Mayor Hattenburg, Councilmembers Higgins, Yaeger and Padden. Opposed.- Councihneinbers Wick and Merkel. Motion carried NON -ACTION ITEMS: 2. Admin Report — Prosecuting Attorna Update Erik Lamb, Larry Haskell Mr. Lamb provided a brief overview of the prosecuting attorney services for the City and then introduced Mr. Larry Haskell, Spokane County Prosecuting Attorney. Mr. Haskell opened the discussion with a review of the current staffing levels of his office. He also provided council with details on the current caseloads and what costs are associated with the large caseloads. He also explained the time frarne for hiring and training new staff and what costs are associated with hiring new staff. Council discussed legislature that may require more public defenders be available and may be an additional unfunded mandate. There was also discussion regarding the conviction rates, the "3 strikes" rule, improving efficiencies in the prosecutor's office, and the need to review each case individually as opposed to specific metrics for overall cases. Mr. Haskell concluded the discussion by thanking council for their time and that he would gladly return at a later date with updated information to review. Mayor Haley called for a recess at 7:20 p.m.; she reconvened the meeting at 7:30 p.m. 4. Admin Report — Police Staffing Update — Erik Lamb, Chief Ellis Morgan Koudelka Mr. Lamb opened the discussion to introduce Chief Ellis and Senior Administrative Analyst Morgan Koudelka. Mr. Lamb proceeded with a review of a PowerPoint presentation regarding right -sizing the police. Mr. Lamb provided details regarding the background of the law enforcement services within the Council Meeting Minutes, Study Session: 01-02-2024 Page 2 of 4 Approved by Council: 04-23-2024 city and then provided details on the Matrix study findings as were previously reviewed at a prior council meeting. Mr. Lamb also reviewed the recommended increases in staffing submitted by Matrix. Chief Ellis detailed the staffing based on current needs in each department and provided a proposal on implementation of those additional staff. Mr. Koudelka reviewed the cost, both start-up costs and long-term costs for the additional hires. There was a breakdown of what considerations were being reviewed for those costs and what would be reviewed moving forward. Mr. Lamb provided details on the implementation considerations that should be considered with hiring additional staff to include training and hiring costs, prioritizing units and the need for specific officers. Finally, staff provided details regarding overall costs and what the next steps may look like depending on what council chose to do. Staff estimated that the implementation of all staff recommended in the Matrix Report would cost approximately $6.2 million for salaries, benefits, indirect costs, and vehicles, based solely on 2024 costs. Additional costs include costs for capital improvements that may be required for certain units, which are unknown at this time, costs to implement desired funding sources (such as election costs and informational materials for any identified election), annual and step increases in salaries, and potential downstream cost impacts in other public safety services. Total annual costs will depend on implementation selected by Council and costs will continue to be refined as further discussions occur. The Matrix study also noted recommended powershift changes and Chief Ellis noted that the change would be brought up with the next shift review. Council discussed multiple points including the positions and who would be hired first, how the hires would take place with the county, the calls for service, being proactive with patrols, community involvement with the process, prosecting services once more officers are hired, the opportunity for the public to provide feedback with the open houses that are being planned and getting the potential of 10 officers in place in order to continue reviewing the Matrix study and filling more positions. 5. Advance Agenda — Mayor Haley Councilmember Yaeger would like to put forward a resolution or statement regarding that standing with our borders and keeping our communities safe. There was consensus to move the item forward. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember Wick may be attending virtually next but still not sure as his schedule will require him to be out of town attending other meetings. He requested a potential absence to next week's meeting. His request was noted and approved. Councilmember Merkel spoke about performance metrics in the contracts. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS Mr. Hohman introduced our Legislative Coordinator Virginia CIough to review the Spokane County Hazard Mitigation Plan. Council provided consensus to proceed with participation in the county plan. Ms. Clough also spoke about SB6076 granting local taxing authority to fluid criminal justice. Ms. Clough provided details on the bill and asked if council would like to take a position on it. After a brief discussion, council chose to have City Manager Hohman speak with our legislative lobbyist, Briahna Murray with Gordon Thomas Honeywell to potentially get some amendments added to the bill and report back to council. Mr. Hohman presented a letter of support for Kaiser for a plant expansion project to the Department of Commerce. Council provided consensus to sign the support letter. Mr. Hohman stated he spoke with Dan Wilson of the United Steel Workers Union regarding the future of the dams in Washington and presenting that information to council at a future meeting and potentially amending our Federal Legislative Agenda to include the support of the dams. Council provided consensus to move forward with the presentation. Mr. Hohman's final topic was the Glenrose area and the flood plain study associated with that area. He noted that there is a community meeting on February 7`' at Chase Middle School to hear about the flood plain mapping process with Spokane and Spokane County. It was moved by Mayor Haley, seconded and unanimously agreed to extend the council meeting by 30 minutes. Council Meeting Minutes, Study Session: 01-02-2024 Page 3 of 4 Approved by Council: 04-23-2024 Executive Session: It was moved b)).Depuly Mayor I-Iouenburg, seconded, and unanilnously agreed to (.m#ourti into exec utNe session fir 30 minutes to diseuss potential acquisition of real estate, and that no action ivi/I be taken ipon return to open session. Council adjourned into executive session at 8:58p.m. Deput.y Mayor Haftenburg declared Council ow of executive session at 9:28p.m., of tMich thne it wav tnoi,ed andseconded and unanimously agreed to ac(journ. ATTEST: Parn Haley, May& Marci\Pattersoii, City Clerk Council Meeting Minutes, Study Session: 0 1 -02-2024 Page 4 of 4 Approved by Council: 04-23-2024 10210 E Sprague Ave 4 SpOkaDe VaII0Y:, WA 99206 Phone (509) 720-5000 # Fax (509) 720-5075 www,spokanev-,tlleywa.gov January 30, 2024 The Honorable Gina Raimondo Secretary, Department of Commerce 1401 Constitution Ave NW Washington, DC 20230 Subject: Support for Kaiser Aluminum's application for grant funding under the (,TJIPS and Science Act, On behalf of the Spokane Valley City Council, I am writing in support of Kaiser Aluminum's application for grant funding under the CFHPS and Science Act, Kaiser has been an integral corporate citizen in our community since 1946, demonstrating an unwavering commitment to creating family wage jobs and making significant contributions to the local economy through wages, supply purchases, and contract services. Kaiser's longstanding partnership and its substantial contribution to our local, regional, and state economy has been hi.-iporfiant to the City of Spokane Valley, As a key player in the secondary alurnintan ni an utactu ring industry, Kaiser has played a pivotal role in advancing innovation and advanced manufacturing, aligning perfectly with the strategic focus of our community. The planned expansion of Kaiser at its Spokane Valley manufacturing plant marks a significant, stride forward, not only benefiting the company but also positively impacting local, regional, and state -based enterprises. This expansion solidifies our commitinent to fostering innovation and strengthening the semiconductor industry, consistent with our economic developinent and workforce goals. We support Kaiser's planned expansion to boost the production of a highly engineered alumina plate — a critical component in the U.S, semiconductor supply chain, Expanding Kaiser's Trentwood facility in the Spokane Valley is a strategic move that, enhances the resilience of the U.S. semiconductor supply chain, a crucial element for maintaining our technological edge and economic security. This not only enhances out- national security interests but also creates high -quality jobs, reducing our dependence on imports, especially from markets like China. Kaiser's position as one of only three U.S,Producers of this specialized aluminum plate underscores its critical role in advancing U.S. technology leadership in semiconductor materials. In conclusion, I extend my full support for Kaiser Aluminum's planned expansion, confident that it will make a Substantial contribution to our community's growth, technological leadership, workforce opportunities and economic resilience. We respectfully request that you give -full and fair consideration to Kaiser Aluminum for their MIPS and Sciencezict grant application. Sincerely, Pam Haley, Mayor On Behalf of the City of Spokane Valley Council cc: Mr. Michael Schmidt, Director of the CIEPS Program Office 119�-g 014iffiff As Reported by House Committee On: Community SaRly, Justice, & Reentry Title: An act relating to.judicial disniissal of misclCITMinor following completion of C0110- ordered conditions. Brief Deseflption: Concerning judicial dismissal of a misdemeanor following con-ipletion of court-ordcred conditions. Spomors: Representatives Farivar, Goodman, Reed, Alvarado, Ramos, Cortcs, Morgan, Reeves, Simmons, Ormsby, Macri, Street, Fosse and Pallet. Br -id Ifisfoj'y: Committee Activity: (.1.ommunity Safety, Justice, & Reentry: 1/9/24, 1/18/24 [DPS]. Brief Summary ol'Substitute Bill Authorizes the court, in its discretion or upon. motion of cithor party, to dismiss a dellenclant's clkialilying rnisdemeanor or gross inisdemeanor charge Upon the defetidant's subsuintial compliance With Court -ordered conditions.. HOUSE COMMITTEE ON COMM,UN'I-'.['Y SAFETY, JUSTICE, 8z REENTRY Majority Report: The :substitute bill be substituted therefor and the subsfilu(e bill do pa,. Signed by 6 members, Represeniatives Goodman, Chair; Simmons, Vice Chair; Davis, Farivar, Fosse and Rar-nos. Minority Report: Do not pass. Signed by 3 members: Representative.s Mosbrucker, Ranking Minority Member; Griffey, Assistant Ranking Minority Member; Graham. Staff: Corey Patton (786-7388). fin � III e use qflegislative membei-s in their deliberatioay. This anallwis is not parl, ofthe legislation nor does it constitute a slalemenf qflegislaiive inlenL Floase Bill Report HB 1994 Background: Under certain circurnstai ices, the prosecuting authority reviewing a case for possible. criminal charges against a person may use its discretion to offer a diversion opportunily to the person berbre filing charges, Generally, prefiliag diversions involve an agreenient. by tbc prosocuting authority to decline to file the pending char ges if the person complies with ccrtain conditions, such as Collipleting a treatment progran"i ori-cinaining crinie-ftoc for an -efiling diversions are typically operated by the agreed period oftime. These types ofpi prosecuting aUtI106t)r. I 1'eharges have been filed in a case, the defendant may seek other opportunities to resolve the case prior to tria I depending on the nature of the charges, For example, a defendant charged with a misdemeanor or gross misdernearior in district or municipal court may petition tile court for a deferred pl-09CCUtiOu, SLlbjCCt to meeting eligibility criteria, making certain stipulations and waivers, and complying with as specific treatment plan and other conditious. If the dcl.endatu, completes tl)e treatment plan and aH Other sLan-ILOry requirements, the couil must dismiss the dcfendam's charges. Alternatively, as defendant ntay enter into a dispositional continuance, such as as Stipulated Order of Contirwance, with the agreement of the prosecutor and approval of the court, A dispositional continuance typically requires the defendant to comply with agreed conditiorts in exchange for the dismissal of the defendant's charges., 'ro enter into a dispositional continuance,, the defendant must waive the right to a speedy trial. In some cases, tile defendant. must also waive the right to a trial by jury and agree to a stipulated facts trial if the defendant violates the conditions of the co nt] Tina Vice, Sunimary of Substitute Bill., T'ho court is authorized, in its discretion or upon rno6oji of either party, to offer to dismiss it defendant's misdemeanor or gross misdemeanor charge upon substantial compliancc with court -ordered ternis:, conditions, or programs. The following offenses are not eligible, to be disnus,wd through this process, - Driving Under the Influence or Physical Control; 0 Stalking; - Assault in the fourth degree; - Animal Cruelty in the second degree involving the knowing, reckless. or criminally negligent infliction of unnecessary suffering or pain upon ,in aninial, or abandonment of in animal that was involved iu animal fighting; . Communication with a Minor or Someone Believe([ to be a Minor for Immoral Purposes; domestic violence offenses involving an intimate partner; certain offenses related to aiming ordischarginga firearm or other specified weapon, or setting a so-called trap or other specified weaport; House Bill Report - 2 - FIB 1994 • any offense with a finding ofsexual motivation; • any traffic offense involving a commercial driver's license or ]earlier's permit, or involving the operation of a commercial motor vehicle; and • all), offense that was originally filed as a felony but subsequently amended to,, or refiled as, as misdemeanor or gross misdemeanor. lithe defendant agrees to waive the right to a. speedy trial, the court may continue the defendant's case for a period not to exceed 12 mon6ls and order the defendant to comply with terms, conditions, or programs that the court deems appropriate based oil the defendant's specific situation. 'The court must rule on the i-notion in open court. Full JVStitl.16011 must he a required condition, but the defendant's inability tea pay restitution due to indigence inay not be grounds to (ten), a disinissal following progress towards compliance or as a basis for finding that the defcndant has failed to substantially comply. If the defendant substantially complies with the court -ordered terms and conditions, the court must dismiss the pending charges, If it appears to the PrOSCCUtor that, the defendant is not Substantially complying with the court -ordered terms and conditions, and after providing the defendant with written notice of the alleged violations and disclostire of all evidence to be offered tigainsi the defendant, the court must hold a hearing to determine whether the defendant has willfully failed to substantially comply with the court -ordered terms and conditions. The Rules of Evidence do not apply at the hearing. The defendant Must tie afforded the due process rights required for the revocation of probation, including the right to confront and cross-exantine all witnesses, and the defendant inust have the opportunity to be heard in person and present evidence. If the court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the del"endarit is willfully failing to substantially comply with the court -ordered terms and conditions, the Court may either continue the hearing to provide additionat time, liar substantial compliance or end the period of continuance. If the court offers to dismiss the defendant's charge, any written confirmation of completion of all asscssll.lent 01, statement indicating the defendant's enrollment orreferral to a specific service or program, or arty written update regarding treatment or services, is considered a treatment evaluation or compliance form ordered by the court, The prosecution may not use admissions made by the defendant in the Course of receiving treatment or services pursuant to the offer to dismiss in the prosecution's case in chief. The defendant's entry into as judicially authorized dismissal following substantial compliance with court -ordered conditions does not constitute a conviction for purposes of reponing certain convictions to the Department of Licensing. Substitute Bill Compared to Original Bill: The substitute bi.11: (1) lin-lits the newly established process for dismissing a, misderneanor or gross misdemeanor to cases ill as Court of finlitCdJUrisdiction, t2) requires the court to rule in open Court oil certain motions; (3) requires the defendant to substawially comply with House Bill Report - 3- 1.113 1994 court -order conditions to receive a dismissal; (4) lowers the applicable standard of prool"to - purposes otcertain cornpliance hearings; (5) a "preponderance of the evidence" standard for eliminates the provision in the orif inal. bill prohibiting the prosecution or the court l7roni. subpoenaing service providers to provide records or testimony; (6) reqLlit'eS certain confirmations and updates related to assessment for and enrollment in service,; or treatment to be considered a treatment evaluation or compliance form ordered by the court,; (7) prohibits the prosecutor frorn using certain admissions rnadc by the defendant in the cottrse of receiving treatment or set -vices in the prosecution's case it) chief; (8) expands the list of offenses that may not be disinissed, and (9) arnends current law related to 010 regulation Of motor vehicles and reporting of certain convictions to the Department ot'Licensing to sl ecity that entry into a, dismissal through the newly established process does not constitute a conviction, ApIwolwiation: None. Fiscal Note: Available, Effective Da(e of Substi(ute Bill: The bill takes effect 90 days after ad.journment of the session in which the bill is passed. staff taff Summary of Public Testimony: (111 SLIPI)011) Misdeineanors represent, 80 percent, Of the entire national cHininal docket and are the way most people will eriMtntefthe criminal legal system. 'rhey often have devastating consequences for persons., families, and communities. The system does not do a good.job of incentivizing thoughtful charging decision in a rigorous and equitable way in the c(.)iitcxt of misdemeanors, which are usually charged by less experienced prosecutors. Many people involved in the system due to misderneatior charges are there because of symptoms oftheir disabilities. This is especially apparent in light ofthe D-toeblood v. During the 2023 legislative session. it was found that I I percent of Thieblood class members enter into the syslein on misdemeanors. This bill provides an opportunity to divert people into treatment and support, rather than endlessly cycle then) through iiicarceratioiiand lioniciesstiess. C'Urrently, judges are limited in how they can address defendants with menial health or substance use issues. We cannot jail our way out of the fentanyl crisis bccaase that does not address the, underlying causes of crinic, We must be able to act quickly and effectively to ensure people CIO not go Oil to commit felonies. Irripor-tantly, this bill allows a judge, who is the only neutral party in the court, to dismiss a defendant's, case with terms and conditions in order to ensure meaningful accountability while giving a pathway out of the system. Adopting the process in this bill would be optional for each court, not mandatory. We could measure recidivism between courts that utilize this tool and courts that choose not to. Nothing here takes, away fi,oin the prosecutor's ability to file charges or abject to as motion. Home Bill Report - 4 - HB 1994 The separation of'powers means relying oil checks and balances butweca the branches to promote tile integrity of the SyStCTYI, This bill improves those checks and balances, There are some people with concern-, about procedural asp cc Is of this hill, but there is still broad support for specifically creating dismissal pathways for property crime and petty crimc. These categories of crime occur dire to lack of a social safety net, and this bill will act as an carly force for intervention by connecting defendants with resources and services, (Opposed) Tbis bill violates the separation of powets. During the 2023 legislative session, [here were similar attempts to pass legislation that would have; created a diversionprogram and given judges (lie authority to grant diversions, without tile pt-OSMI(or's agreement. Prosecutors have the inherent ability to l'ile, amend, and dismiss charges, and courts generally do not have the authority to offer diversions Without pFOSCCU101- iflVONCITIC11L Until sentencing occurs, judges do not take an active role in tile case or have the authority to make decisions and enter into agreements with the parties, This bill would fundamentally change that clytiamic by inappropriately givingjudges, authority conveyed to the executive branch and PLIttingjUdges in a position where they have (o become partial. Whether individuals are held responsible is not up to a, single entity in the crilninal justice system, This bill POUS an impossible burden oil prosecutors to prove as failure to, engage with, conditions without subpoenaing service providers. There are already many thoughtful prefiling and postfiling diversion programs, but this bill removes accountability, gUIS tile criminal j Listice system, and is aua affront to victirris. (Other) Criminal charging, dismissals, plea negotiations, and offers of settlement are executive functions that properly belong to tile prosecutor. The judge, while neutral, is frequently the person who knows the least about [lie parties and the circumstances of the alleged crime, and. is therefore probably in the worst position to fashion a continuance based. on agreed, conditions, These types of pretrial agreements arc usually crafted by the parties. Additionally, when there is an alleged violation of an agreenient, there are already established procedural reqUirel-nents, court rules, and case law that apply. This bill creates an entirely new set of procedures. Although this bill carves Out exemptions for domestic violence crimes, (here should be: additional exemptions fior sexual assault crimes as well, Sexual assault cases often resolve with pleas to lesser charges, many of which are misdemeanors, When SUI-Vivors ofsexual assault report crimes, there is a long wait in the process that makes them question their own rnotivations and truthfulness. Survivors often come ftorn the sarne marginalized communities as the persons who harmed them, and they are less likely to be taken Seriously when they do seek help. The criminal justice system should acknowledge their harin and (raunia, and ensure their experiences are not minimized, Dismissals often result in a truncated judicial record because a lot of the decision -snaking occurs in the mind of thejudge. This bill should provide for full and complete records of RoLISC Bill Report - 5 - HB 1994 jtidges' decisions and make those records J)Ublicly available. Persons Testifying: (In support) Representative Darya Farivar, prime �ponsor; Damon Shadid; Alexmidra Na(apoff, Harvard Law School; and Anita K Chandelwal, King County Departinent (if Public Defense, (Opposed,) Russell Brown, Washington Association of Prosecuting Attorneys; and Atin Davison, Seattle City Attorney's Office. (Other) CoMIIiiSSi0IICI- Paul Wohl, District and Municipal Court Judges' Assoeiat] 011, Rowhind 'Flionipson, Allied Daily Newspapers of Washington, Washington Newspaper Ptiblishers Association, Washington State Association of'Bcoadcasters; and Megan Allen, King County Sexual Assault Resource Center. [lei -sons Sighed In To Testit'y But Not Testifying: Mary Logall, House Bill Report - 6 - HB 1994 PDF RCW 69.50.4013 Possession, use of controlled substance —Penalty —Referral to assessment and services —Possession of useable cannabis, cannabis concentrates, or cannabis - infused prod u cts—De I ivery. (1) Except as otherwise authorized by this chapter, it is unlawful for any person to: (a), Knowingly possess a controlled substance unless the substance was obtained directly from, or pursuant to, a valid prescription or order of a practitioner while acting in the course of his or her profc�,ssional practice; or (b) Knowingly use a controlled substance in a public place, uniless the substance was, obtained directly frorn, or pursuant to, a valid prescription or order of a practitioner whiile acting in the course of his or her professional practice. (2)(a) Except as provided in RCW 69.50.4014 or 69.50.445, a violation, Of Subsection (1)(a) or (b) of this section is a gross misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment Of LIP to 180 days in jail, or by a fine of not rnore than $1,000, or by both such imprisonment and fine, however, if the defendant has two or snore prior convictions under subsection (1)(a) or (b) of this section occurring after July 1, 2023, a violatk)n of subsection (1)(a), or (b) of this section is punishable by imprisonment for up to 364 days, or by a fine of not more than $1,000, or by both such imprisonment and fine. The prosecutor is encouraged to divert such cases for assessment, treatment, or other services. (b) No person may be charged under both subsection, (1)(a) and (b) of this section relating to the same course of conduct. (c) In lieu of jail booking and referral to the prosecutor, law enforcement is encouraged to offer a referral to assessment and services available under RCW 10.31.110 or other program or entity responsible for receiving referrals in lieu of legal system involvement,, which may include, but are not limited to, arrest and jail alternative programs established under RCW 36.28A.450, law, enforcement assisted diversion programs established under RCW 71.24.589, and the recovery navigator prograrn established Linder RCW 71.24.115. (3)(a) The possession, by a person 21 years of age or older, of useable cannabis, cannabis concentrates, or cannabis -infused products in amounts that do not exceed those set forth in RCW 69.50.360(3) is riot a violation of this section, this chapter, or any other provision of Washington state law. (b) The possession of cannabis, useable cannabis, cannabis concentrates, and cannabis -infused products being physically transported or delivered within the state, in amounts not exceeding those that may be established under RCW 69.50.385(3), by a licensed employee of a common carrier when performing the duties authorized in accordance with RCW 69.50.382 and 69.50.385, is not a violation of dais section, this chapter, or any other provision of Wash,ington, state law. (4)(a) The delivery by a person 21 years of age or older to one or more persons 21 years of age or older, during a single 24 hour period, for noncommercial purposes and not conditioned upon or done in connection with the provision or receipt of financial consideration, of any of the following cannabis products, is not a violation of this section, this chapter, or any other provisions of'Washington state law: (i) One-half ounce of useable cannabis; (R) Eight ounces of cannabis infused product in solid form; (iij) 36 ounces of cannabis -infused product in liquid form; or (iv) Three and one-half grams of cannabis concentrates. (b) The act of delivering cannabis or a cannabis product as authorized under this subsection (4.) must meet one of the following requirements. (1) The delivery must be done in a location outside of the view of general public and in a nonpublic place,- or (ii) The cannabis or cannabis product must be in the original packaging as purchased from the cannabis retailer. (5) No person under 21 years of age may manufacture, sell, distribute, or knowingly possess cannabis, cannabis -infused products, or cannabis concentrates, regardless of THC concentration. This does not include qualifying patients with a valid authorization. (6) The possession by a qualifying patient or designated provider of cannabis concentrates, useable cannabis, cannabis -infused products, or plants in accordance with chapter 69.51A RCW is not a violation of this section, this chapter, or any other provision of Washington state law. (7) For the purposes of this section, "public place" has the same meaning as defined in RCW 66.04.010, but the exclusions in RCW 66.04.011 do not apply. (8) For the purposes of this section, "use a controlled substance" means to introduce the substance into the human body by injection, inhalation, ingestion, or any other means. [ 2023 sp.s. c 1 § 2; 2022 c 16 § 86; (2022 c 16 § 85 expired July 1, 2023); (2021 c 311 § 9 expired July 1, 2023); 2017 c 317 § 15; 2015 2nd sp.s. c 4 § 503; 2015 c 70 § 14; 2013 c 3 § 20 (initiative Measure No. 502, approved November 6, 2012); 2003 c 53 § 334.] NOTES: Effective date--2023 sp.s. c 1 §§ 1-5, 7-11, and 41: See note following RCW 69.50.4011, Effective date-2022 c 16 §§ 5, 9, 86, and 88: "Sections 5, 9, 86, and 88 of this act take effect July 1, 2023." [ 2022 c 16 § 172.] Expiration date-2022 c 16 §§ 4, 8, 85, and 87: "Sections 4, 8, 85, and 87 of this act expire July 1, 2021" [ 2022 c 16 § 171.] Intent---Finding-2022 c 16: See note following RCW 69.50,101. Effective date-2021 c 311 §§ 1-11 and 13-21: See note following RCW 71.24.115, Expiration date-2021 c 311 §§ 8-10 and 12: See note following RCW 69.50.4011. Findings—Application---2017 c 317. See notes following RCW 69.50,325. Findings —Intent Effective dates-2015 2nd sp.s. c 4: See notes following RCW 69.50.334. Short title —Findings —intent References to Washington state liquor control board — Draft legislation-2015 c 70: See notes following RCW 66.08.012. Intent-2013 c 3 (Initiative Measure No. 502): See note following RCW 69.50.101. Intent —Effective date-2003 c 53: See notes following RCW 2.48.180. M RSq ,rlt Empowering local goverriment contact Us Partners Rosters & E-Bidding Search... '...V.. Ask, Home > Stay Informed > MRSC Insight Bldg > May 2023 > New Law on Drug Possession, Use Takes Effect July 1, 2023 New Law on Drug Possession, Use Takes Effect July 1, 2023 May 24,2023 by Flannary Collins Category: New Legislation and RegLItations, Drug Possession and Use SB 5536,the so-cfled "Blake Fix:' passed the Washington State Legislature (L.egistaturc) and was signed by Governor Jay Instee on May'16, 2023, with the provisions re[ating to use and possession of drugs taking effect ot) July 1, 2023. Passage of the bill was welcome new for i,nany Washington cities and 111it ", ,-p COUnties that were rushing to pass their own ordinances regt.I[a.,ting possession and use of drugs 41 the event of state decrirninalization. The bill makes it a gross misdemeanor to: 1. Knowingly possess Counterfeit substances and controlled substances (hereafter "prohibited substances"): or 2, Knowingly use prohibited substances in a public place. "]"his bill covers possession and LISP- of counterfeit or controlled substances, or "hard" drugs such as fentanyl arid other opioids, metharnphetamine, heroin, and cocaine. Also prohibited is the knowing possession of non, -prescribed legend drugs, as well as their knowing use in a public place, both classified as rnisdemeanors. The bill also creates a pre-trial diversion prograryiarid air'nost completely preempts local regulation of drug paraphernalia. This blob; will detail, the ins -and -ousts of the new taw and provide a historical refresher on how possession and use Of Counterfeit and controlled substances, in less than two and a half years, transfort-ned from a felony to a misdemeanor, and, finally, a gross, misdemeanor. M= cohtro'tied �s'u'bstanto. I I - � I., r• In July 2021, tl-,ie Legislature adopted ternporary legislation set to expire July 1, 2023, making it a r-nisclemeanor to knowingly possess prohibited substances and requiring that taw enforcement refer the individual to assessment and treatment for their first two arrests for simple possession. Upon the third arrest, the individuat could be prosecuted, This proved nearly in-ipossible for taw enforcement to implen,)ent, given that there was no state-wide tracking system for referrals. Fastforward to the 2022-2023 regular legislative session, which ended without passage of as new drug possession and use taw, placing cities and counties in the krAnfortunate situation of adopting their own patchwork of possession and use laws. However, in as speciat session on May 16, 2023, the L(-'_,gjstatUre adopted permanent drug-retated legislation in SB 556. Drug Possession and Use are Gross Misdemeanors; No Referral or Diversion Required Both knowing possession of prohibited substances and knowing use of a prohibited substance in a public place are gross misdemeanors. (Gross misdemeanors typically have a maximum imprisonment time of not more than 364 days, plus a fine of not more than $5,000; SB 5536 provides for modified imprisonment time and fines as detailed below.) Knowing possession and knowing use of a legend drug without a prescription remains a misdemeanor. (Misdemeanors have a maximum imprisonment time of not more than 90 days, plus a fine of not more than $1,000.) An individual cannot be charged with both possession and use relating to the same course of conduct. Notably, referral or diversion is no longer required, although law enforcement and prosecutors are encouraged to refer or divert such cases for assessment, treatment, or related services. bather, both possession and use of controlled and counterfeit substances are punishable by imprisonment of up to 180 days or by a fine of not more than $1,000, or both. If the defendant has two or more prior convictions of possession or use (after July 1, 2023), then imprisonment can be increased to up to 364 days (or the $1,000 fine, or both). Local Governments are Preempted from Regulating Drug Paraphernalia The state has adopted clear preemption language that overrides local regulation of drug paraphernalia. SB 5536 states: The state of Washington hereby fully occupies and preempts the entire field of drug paraphernalia regulation within the boundaries of the state, including regulation of the use, selling, giving, delivery, and possession of drug paraphernalia, except as provided in subsection (2) of this section.,. Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to prohibit cities or counties from enacting laws or ordinances relating to the establishment or regulation of harm reduction services concerning drug paraphernalia, Subsection (2) allows local governments to enact local laws related to the establishment and regulation of needle exchange programs and related harm reduction services. Harm reduction programs are defined in Section 12(1)(d) as: [P]rograms that emphasize working directly with people who use drugs to prevent overdose and infectious disease transmission, improve the physical, mental, and social well-being of those served, and offer low threshold options for accessing substance and use disorder treatment and other services. The bill regulates drug paraphernalia as follows: Selling or permitting drug paraphernalia to be sold is a class 1 civil infraction. ® Giving or permitting drug paraphernalia to be given previously a class 1 civil infraction -- is no longer prohibited. a Using drug paraphernalia continues to be a misdemeanor. See RCW 69.50.412(1). Littering or dumping drug paraphernalia continues to be either a civil infraction, a misdemeanor, or a gross misdemeanor, depending on the quantity. See RCW 70A.200.060. Notably, the definition of drug paraphernalia does not include cannabis - related paraphernalia or drug testing and analyzing equipment, and prohibitions on drug paraphernalia do not apply to distribution or use of public health supplies through pharmacies, public health programs, or other authorized community programs. Local Government Ordinances Many Washington cities and counties have passed ordinances regulating drug possession and use in the absence of permanent state legislation. Those ordinances no longer have any real effect because the state fully occupies and preempts the entire field of setting penalties for violations of the controlled substances act, and local ordinances must be consistent with chapter 69.50 RCW — see RCW 69.50.608. As described in the previous blog section, the state also preempts the field of drug paraphernalia regulation. However, despite this state preemption, cities must adopt or incorporate state statutes into their municipal code in order to prosecute misdemeanor or gr-, cases in city municipal court — See City of Aubum E',,�(.k to "Op v. Gauntt,174 Wn.2d 321, 274 P.3d 1033 (2012), which held that cities with a municipal court created under chapter 3.50 RCW must prosecute misdemeanors and gross misdemeanors based on city code provisions or RCWs that have been incorporated into the code by reference. Other Notable Provisions SB 5536 also addresses pre-trial referraVd i version programs and opioid use disorder treatment facilities. Diversion programs The bill creates a pretrial diversion program for individuals charged with simple possession, where the defendant agrees to meaningfully engage in a treatment program in exchange for the state dismissing the charge. The judge must advise the defendant of a prograrrfs availability at arraignment and the prosecuting attorney must consent to the defendant's participation. Section 9 of the bill outlines all the details, and the Association of Washington Cities (AWC:) article, Blake fix bill passes Legislature during one - day special session, provides additional information about the practicality of pre-trial diversion programs. Treatment facilities Opioid use disorder treatment facilities (with the exception of safe injection sites) are now considered essential public facilities (EPFs), As such, cities and counties can only regulate opioid use disorder treatment facilities in the same manner in which they regulate other EPFs and health care settings. Maximum capacity cannot be imposed on these facilities. See Section 12 of the Bill. Conclusion Passage of SB 5536 provides standardization and avoids the problematic patchwork of laws that would have resulted if the state failed to pass new legislation on drug possession and use. For more details, see the Final Bill Report for SB 5536 and the Crosscut article, Washington lawmakers make drug possession a gross misdemeanor, from May 16, 2023. MRSC is a private nonprofit organization serving local governments in Washington Stare. Eligible government agencies in Washington State may use our free, one-on-one Ask MRSC service to get answers to legal, policy, or financial questions. About Flannary Collins Flannary Collins is the managing attorney for MRSC. She first joined MRSC as a legal consultant in August 2013 after serving as assistant city attorney for the city of Shoreline where she advised all city departments on a wide range of issues. Flannary became the managing attorney in 2018. In this role, she manages the MRSC legal teary, of five attorneys. At MRSC, Flannary enjoys providing legal guidance to municipalities on all municipal issues, including the OPMA, PRA, and elected officials roles and responsibilities. She also serves on the WSAMA Board of Directors as ,Secretary -Treasurer. VIEW ALL POSTS BY FLANNARY COLLINS Sample Documents Topics Budgets Economic Development Contracts/Agreements Environment Fee/Rate Schedules Finance Forms Governance Franchises Legal Job Descriptions Management Ordinances/Resolutions Parks and Recreation Other Documents Personnel Policies/Procedures Planning RFP/RFQJBid Documents Public Safety Public Works and Utilities Transportation Stay Informed Subscribe to E-Newsletters MRSC Insight BI.og Related Services www.mrscrosters.org Disclaimer: MRSC is a statewide resource that provides general legal, finance, and policy guidance to support local government entities in Washington State pursuant to chapter 43.110 RCW. MRSC website content is for informational purposes only and is not intended as legal advice, nor as a substitute for the legal advice of an attorney, You should contact your own legal counsel if you have a question regarding your legal rights or any other legal issue, Fr) 2024 Municipal Research and Services Center of Washington (MRSC). All rights reserved. Privacy & Terms. Follow us: :',t tc, I;SE; Haskell, Larry Front Russell Brown <rbrown@waprosecutors,org> Sent: Tuesday, January 3�O1, 2024 9:52 AM TO: Haskell, Larry Subject, FW Cities and drugs Idi Larry, See the list below. I searched for something from Kent, that was the only other city that might have another modification. But I couldn't find anything else. Here are a few articles from, each city. Good luck tonight! Russ City of Marysville —Three strikes drug offense. https:ZZwww.I(iro7.corn/news side rs-3-stri ke-An ljoca-�1marysyMe-con W11- I-,1W_wi,t,h-rriandatoryJ i -_time Q4JPBAW5AC JKB3SWBD QQand then they adopted the measure %/www I,iei-aldiiiet.com/news/marvsville-adol3i-ts--mandato.r jetTtences-fc)r-_iep�g_alteci-public- iso-rder( City of Everett - hl c Ame.-criminal-mil -vehicle-growl 30-ciay-fail.-time-tvlers-donuts-assault-harassmeiit ii-snonornisii-county-grcitqpn - D U b I i c- I o it e r ii n iz - a s s i s t a nt - att Z-Loc—a—lzelveret_t-stloll2mi,sh county-fig-day-iaiN-sentence-repeatLoffendersassault- liarassr-nent-t,ise-of-controlled-suibstatice-loitering-d.rug-related-activitv-criminal-mischief-vehicle-prowling-prosecutors- officeJe_q I.qe --o Ld -minority--cLommunities ffutt Jance �)t.t.l)jLwww,sqi-,)Iio.com/htmi/sto, entences.html From: Lindsey Hueer <Iindseyh@,awcnet,org> Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2024 9:10 AM To- Russell Brown <rbrown@waprosecutorsorg> Subject. Re: Cities and drugs 1I-xt(,n-rwl Sender] I'm only aware of two - Marysville and Everett. Y. " Ville adq_pJed.,D 30-day mandatory minimum jail sentence starting with the -third "public disorder" crime in 5 years (includes theft 3, crlrn trespass, public drug use, vehicle prowling) EvenejtAdapuad something similar, but it is an ordinance allowing prosecutors to seek a minimum of 30-days in jail for defendants has 2+ convictions in the prior 2 years for assault, harassment, theft, public drug use, trespassing, vehicle prowling, loitering, for purpose of engaging in drug -related activity, criminal mischief. The prosecutor can decide whether to file a motion seeking a "repeat offender sentence enhancement" and if the prosecutor does file the motion and dernonstrates the defendant has the requisite prior convictions, then the court is required to impose at least 30 days in jak, There may be others that I'm not aware of, aind I've asked Katherine to do a more comiprehensi:ve search. Lindsey Lindsey 1.11.1eer Pronouns: She/Her/Hers Government Relations Advocate Association of Washington Cities 1076 Franklin Street SE, Olympia, WA 98501-1346 360.764.9628, (mobile) 8100.562,8981 (tol!l-free), Lin d F jevhCc&awcnet.org Check out AWC's upcoming events! Disclaimer" , Docoments and correspondence are available under RCW 42.56, This e-mail may be disclosable to a third- I)ady requestor. From: Russell Brown <rbrown@wa,prosecutors.,org> Sent: Monday, January 29, 2024 5:47 PM To: Lindsey Hueer <lindse tt� n�etor > Subject: Cities and drugs FYCERNAL EMAIL Do Y10t didc links or open attachments unless you expected this ernalL Fli Lindsey, I know Marysville added a criminal penalty for repeat drug users. Do you know if other cities have done something similar? I know the City of Everett and Kent were the most active before Blake passed, but it doesn't look like they have passed something since. Russ Russell Brown Executive Director Washington Association of Prosecuting Attorneys 206 1.01r'Ave SE, Olympia, WA 98501 360 753-21,75 Sponsored Posts = Ab ' 10Hi dopts mandatory :;)i-19"FAQ f Ir repeated 'public Tued4s ardet614 A rn nimLirn of a s ffi iphnk t�bte Iven�t0 deeel'eri°cr'antS Cowan s aso�itleds Jobs Marketplace All sections W three "public disorder" crimes in five years. T By Jonathan Tall Wednesday, October 11, 2023 1:30am 3 LOCAL NEWS MARYSVILLE MARYSVILLE --- The Marysville City Council unanimously adopted an ordinance Monday setting mandatory minimum jail sentences for repeat offenders of certain crimes, such as theft and public drug use. The law identifies four "public disorder crimes," including third-degree theft, criminal trespassing, vehicle prowling and public drug use, "Those who continue to commit crimes in Marysville will face real consequences for their actions," Mayor Jon Nehring said in a statement, "along with an opportunity to choose a better path." Under the new local law, someone found guilty of their third public disorder crime in five years would be sentenced to at least 3o days in jail. The third conviction must come after the law took effect. The law was created in collaboration with the mayor, City Attorney Jon Walker and Police Chief Erik Scairpon. In an interview Tuesday, Nehring said most "public disorder" crimes are committed by people trying to finance a drug habit — often involving fentanyl. The ordinance was intended to get people into rehabilitation programs. After sentencing, a person who received a mandatory minimum sentence can petition the Marysville Municipal Court to enter treatment instead. After completing the program., defendants can have the rest of their jail term nixed. "With fentanyl, almost nobody will Voluntarily go into treatment," Nehring said. "The beauty of it is, we will have that jail sentence hanging out there to motivate them to stay in treatment. If they don't have a reason to stay, they'll walk out." Nehring said, as of now, the average stay in the Marysville Municipal Jail is five to six days. With the new city ordinance, his hope is people will have enough time to get medically assisted treatment and enter rehab. The law firm Feldman & Lee, which contracts with the city to do public defense work, didn't immediately respond to a request for comment Tuesday afternoon. Each minimum sentence jumps to 6o days if a defendant had four crimes, or go days if the defendant had six crimes within five years. if someone is -onvicted of two or more public disorder crimes on the same day, then a ,andatory minimum sentence must be imposed for each, City Council member Mark James also said the aim of the law was to get repeat offenders into treatment. "We're not a one-sided, hard -on -crime Bind of place," lames said. "Part of the idea is they'll be sitting there longer and we can get them thinking differently." Council President Kamille Norton strongly believes the local law will send a message. "Marysville residents and businesses have been victimized by chronic and repeat offenders of these public disorder crimes Long enough," Norton said. "We do not accept or tolerate this criminal behavior here." Mandatory minimum sentences are controversial. In 2010, the American Civil Liberties Union testified in front of Congress that mandatory minimums should be abolished because they "generate unnecessarily harsh sentences, tie judges' hands in considering individual circumstances, create racial disparities in sentencing and empower prosecutors to force defendants to bargain away their constitutional rights." lazmyn Clark, the Smart justice campaign policy program director for the ACLU of Washington, said in a statement last month that incarceration disrupts people's lives — and often, just makes recovery more difficult for vulnerable people. "City officials see this mandatory minimum proposal as a way to combat the fentanyl crisis and substance use disorder," Clark said. "But we cannot punish people into recovery." Jonathan Tall: 425-339-3486; jcnathan.tall@hera[dnet.com; TUdtter: snocc on. Jonathan Tall covers breaking news in Snohomish County for the Herald. Read more of Jonathan`s stories here. `fall to us > Give us your news. > Send us a letter to the editor. > More Herald contact information. WiraldVet Q 2024, Everett Herald + Sound Publishing, Inc. + Black Press Media About I Contact I Site Map I Newsletters I Media Solutions I Subscribe I Contests I Privacy policy I Terms of Use I Accessibility I Social Media NE,VP' ; EN E'.0 (WVIA I,� CI NI4 re AA> r,.i 21 , i.1 a� AOVU,nsr:rni_Nr "q Everett lawmakers approve measure that gives 30-day jails' repeat offenders by Ryan `ir7oms, KOMO News Reporter Wed, December 20t.h 2023 `;-V .. 'GAL the fvuett o4i C'ourrcif discussing ail oi'dioance that eventuafv passed that -o lows prosecutors to Neel(a minimum 30-d, off�:ndeis. (KOMO New5) NY. §W5 EVERETT, Wash. ---' The Everett City Council approved an ordinance Wednesda would allow prosecutors to seek a minimum 30-dayjail sentence for repeat off,;..:k Everett's city council passed the measure by a vote of four to two. As part of th RE. FiNED offenders who commit certain crimes within city limits could be required to set day jail sentence if they have two or more prior offense convictions from anyw GAINIE CENTIHR Snohomish County in the two years prior. �. Qualifying prior offenses include assault, harassment, use of a controlled subs loitering to engage in drug -related activity, theft, criminal mischief, trespass, or prowling. CH0111M, NMI V RELATED: Everett City Council debates 30-day jail sentence ordinance for - --_. LN offenders rKI0PITS Srr, ND A. T�Pa City council members said the new sentencing guidelines will not be automatic instead, they told KOMO News the prosecutor's office would be required to file they are seeping the sentencing enhancement. From there, defendants would Additionally, defendants would still be able to opt for a diversion agreement th them into treatment programs. During a city council meeting last week, Assistp, Lacey Offutt spoke on the proposed ordinance. "The vision is that it will be a tool to help drive people into diversions to avoid 1= said offutt. She added this would help get repeat offenders into treatment. 7 time will impose enough time for them to detox and make dear decisions abot READ THE COMMENTS (18) IV As part of the new measure, Everett city departments will now be required to i- ----_ report on how the ordinance's arrests and convictions impacted minority come . VI&: MORE TO EXPLORE �4110RT-Q 'Pawn Stars' Rick Harrison slams border crisis after son's cause of death rev- —--- } ATHP 67-year-old woman fatally shot in Tukwila Costco parking lot identified I KOU s.,a 6tryL Massage business raided, 3 arrested and charged with prostitution activity I 1 SPONSORED CONTENT Grab Your Emergency Generator at Unbeatable Prices Before They're Gon Emergency Generators For Sale I Search Ads I SP0NS0RF.D Spokane: 2024 Senior Apartments - These Prices Might Surprise You! (See Senior Living I SPONSORED I GAIVIV, (A,",WT" New Silverado SPONSORED WrIvri A FIR4 N E D GAME C�-IANIH`, (H I M E 5 N TV LIVE AdChoices l Sponsored SPORTS conversation 18 Comments SVNID A'T�P Commenting on this article has ended Sort by Best - BadProgs 21 Decerriber, 2023 Many of these incidents are drug crimes. The threat of going through 30 day opiate withdrawal while locked up in jail wi these felons out of the area. Well done Everett. rt,,, 5 Share 4 1 reply LIbLeft 21 Decerr)ber, 2023 ix3f"_,1;1; VY EA iH ER NY—,'ENEEl 6AN1r Ck-Nb#;fie, VV 3F A I T F iF4. Trina 21 December, 2023 It's a great step for Snohomish. Unless it goes state-wide, surrounding counties RF�ilN E'() moving and prepare for the influx coming their way. r 3 ' %' 1 Share ��i= F, �" 1,N �1 :1 1M ri rM Capt.sk -- - 20 December, 2023 90 days for the 2nd offense would be a good start. .TR A FF1 8 L-)P' 1 v share ~� TV citizenRule 21 December, 2023 Everett could clean this up quickly and be cost respectfull of the taxpayers quit Narcan. This is a city that had access to 2 floors of beds ... empty for a long time .... just sit S€='OR` 5 homelessness became a 'thing'. Silence from the peanut gallery. The ability to -- See more SX N D A T ,P rY.Lj 4 „- 2 ^ Share----- seaittlecomrnonsense 21 December, 2023 YESI!! The pendulum seems to be swinging in the right direction! CU 3 (7, - Share Seattlesucks 21 December, 2023 Asking Everett City Council, what kind of sentence do they get when committin offences? rf_`_, 4 Cf- 2 Share MgOly111 21 December, 2023 Great start Everett, now hammer it to ern! Seattleite007 - 21 Decernber, 2023 Al Bread and water only. Have to give them incentive to stay out of jail. r2 `,l 2 • Share 1 reply 6 A apt' �-' C., U €`� �. ckr115 21 December, 2023 4.11 Nif Now, it falls directly on the prosecution's office. We will see just who is the faul _r offender problems. 1"RA ,] Share TV Powered by �,) OpenWeb A€DVERTISEN,%NT Loading ... Term, - �- - 4EW-11'11M, H�X<' i tdtQ1AW I p a s� a measure Wednesday in a 4-2 vote, It applies 4`1 to `a range Of public 6i1, ;oAer rih es. e-Editions tom Thursday, Deceffiber 21, 204:52pm I A bp ly 1� 10a SId Rer : e can, now seek a minim30 um of d iz 'r �cu I s in v (6 P"Aw dmiwalawacof ,cted repeatedlyof e6rtairi cfimes,,, including assatilt,' e. I u0s ay, jai) 2024 0 4- .Ile Eveuraera 8 p sentencing C tyr Council � as�sed the se en in drdinafimWRdriesday4h�a ap f g,qgid. e UN eVR C Ie N'sb t Pin n s 2 vot�, V " i Arlo he-11 N49SIr a'441 its Jobs Marketplace All sections ,�Jth cots me tPaij][8" neWS SpbftS PoO Uhe nicive follows a sirnilar measure in Marysville, where the council. recently adopted 30--day mandatory minimum sentences for "public disorder crimes.)? The Everett ordinance applies to the following crimes: assault,, harassment, theft, public drug use, trespassing, vehicle prowling, loitering for the purpose of engaging in drug -related activity and criminal mischief for damaging another persons property, Prosecutors can ask for the 0-day ri-iinimurn if a defendant has two or more convictions for those crimes in the two years before their new offense. The defendant could still enter a diversion program and avoid jail time. "Public safety is the number one issue that we hear most about from our residents," Mayor Cassie Franklin said at Wednesday's meeting, "and I believe tools like this are useful in addressing some of the challenges in a way that balances accountability and compassion." Council member Don Schwab argued the measure would reduce recidivism and, give crime victims hope that perpetrators will face consequences. Fosse" on the other hand, took issue with the law taking away judicial discretion. She also expressed skepticism about mandatory minimums. "All the data and information that 1 have been exposed to has shown that this is not where you get results," she said. "This is not where you get safer Communities." At F'osse's suggestion, the council amended the ordinance to require city staff to report to the council annually on the law's impact, Several public commenters opposed the measure. "If somebody has been charged and convicted of the same crime multiple times, then clearly jai] is riot working," said Chelaina Crews, a social worker I at the Snohomish County Public Defender Association, "The jail itself is also not a safe place for vulnerable people." Jason Cockburn, vice president and founder of the Second Chance Foundation,, also spoke at the meeting. The foundation helps people get access, to higher education, after they have dealt with homelessness, incarceration and addiction. When you're addicted to opioids, Cockburn said, jail is "akin to having the flu and having five officers come into your house and beat you with phone books. It's no place for somebody that's withdrawing." Another commenter, whose family member was a victim of murder, expressed her support for the law. Her niece "was homeless. She was addicted. She had two kids. She kept trying to help herself," said the commenter, who didn't state her full name. jail can be a way for people to get help, she noted. Assistant city attorney Lacey Offutt introduced the bill to the council floor. At the meeting, Offutt said the law could persuade defendants to choose diversion programs rather than jail time. The jail provides medical addiction treatment, she said, and social workers "can and do coordinate direct, orwarm, handoffs to the diversion center for individuals leaving jail to await treatment," including for mental health issues. "A central tenet of criminal sentencing is that it takes into consideration the impact of the crime on the victims and the community," Offutt said. "Devaluing that impact degrades our relationship with the community." Last week, Offutt estimated the ordinance could affect about 3o defendants a year, though she noted the number is difficult to predict. Sophia Gates: 425-339-3035; soPhla_9ates@heraid!?et.carrf; Twitter: @SophiaSGates. Sophia Gates covers Everett, Lake Stevens, Marysville, Snohomish, and other areas of Snohomish County for The Daily Herald. Read more of So hia s stories here, Talk to us > Give us your news tips. > Send us a letter to the editor. > More Herald contact information. �CaW lf/ EVERETT. WASHN4TOH © 2024, Everett Herald + Sound Publishing, Inc.+ Black Press Media About I Contact I Site Map I Newsletters I Media Solutions I Subscribe I Contests I Privacy policy I Terms of Use I Accessibility I Social Media fvereit Municipal Court (Kevin Clark/ The Herald) Subscribe Homepage 'Nerett a .-ones _ocal news Sports 4'`'s: §e t nk qp, s ) r Business opinion repeat E ERETT, WASr 1NGTGN offenders RCW -l. .1. 1 .,a. A. +, Equal application. The sentencing guidelines and prosecuting standards apply equally to offenders in all parts of the state, without discrimination as to any element that does not relate to the crime or the previous record of the defendant. [1953c115§5.] Introduction. These standards are intended solely for the guidance of prosecutors in the state of Washington. They are not intended to, do not and may not be relied upon to create a right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law by a party in litigation with the state. 1993 c 115 § 14. Formerly RCW 9.94A.430.] k PDF 1- RCW 9.94A.411 (1) Decision not to prosecute. STANDARD: A prosecuting attorney may decline to prosecute, even though technically sufficient evidence to prosecute exists, in situations where prosecution would serve no public purpose, would defeat the underlying purpose of the law in question or would result in decreased respect for the law. GUIDELINE/COMMENTARY: Examples The following are examples of reasons not to prosecute which could satisfy the standard. (a) Contrary to Legislative Intent - It may be proper to decline to charge where the application of criminal sanctions would be clearly contrary to the intent of the legislature in enacting the particular statute. (b) Antiquated Statute - It may be proper to decline to charge where the statute in question is antiquated in that: (i) It has not been enforced for many years; and (ii) Most members of society act as if it were no longer in existence; and (Iii) It serves no deterrent or protective purpose in today's society, and (iv) The statute has not been recently reconsidered by the legislature. This reason is, not to be construed as the basis for declining cases because the law in question is unpopular or because it is difficult to enforce. (c) De Minimis Violation - It may be proper to decline to charge where the violation: of law is only technical or insubstantial and where no public interest or deterrent purpose would be served by prosecution. (d) Confinement on Other Charges - It may be proper to decline to charge because the accused has been sentenced on another charge to a lengthy period of confinement; and (i) Conviction of the new offense Would not merit any additional direct or collateral punishment; (k) The new offense is either a misdemeanor or a felony which is not particularly aggravated; and '(iii) Conviction of the new offense would not serve any significant deterrent purpose. (e) Pending Conviction on Another Charge - It may be proper to decline to charge because the accused is facing a pending prosecution in the same or another county; and (i) Conviction of the new offense would not merit any additional direct or collateral Punishment; (11) Conviction in the pending prosecution is imminent; (iii) The new offense is either a misdemeanor or a felony which is not particularly aggravated; and (iv) Conviction of the new offense would not serve any significant deterrent purpose. (f) High Disproportionate Cost of Prosecution - It may be proper to decline to charge where the cost of locating or transporting, or the burden on, prosecution witnesses is highly disproportionate to the importance of prosecuting the offense in question.This reason should be limited to minor cases and should not be relied upon in serious cases. (g) I miproper Motives of Complainant - It may be proper to decline charges because the motives of the complainant are improper and prosecution would serve no public purpose, Would defeat the underlying purpose of the law in question or would result in decreased respect for the law. (h) Immunity - It may be proper to decline to charge where immunity is to be given to an accused in order to prosecute another where the accused's information or testimony wilil reasonably lead to the conviction of others who are responsible for more serious criminal conduct or who represent a greater danger to the public interest. (i) Victim Request - It may be proper to, decline to charge because the victim requests that no criminal charges be filed and the case involves the following crimes or situations: (1) Assault cases where the victim has suffered little or no injury; (ii) Crimes against property, not involving violence, where no major loss was suffered; (iii) Where doing so would not jeopardize the safety of society. Care should be taken to insure that the victim's request is freely made and is not the product of threats or pressure by the accused. The presence of these factors may also justify the decision to dismiss a prosecution which has been commenced. Notification The prosecutor is, encouraged to notify the victim, when practical, and the law enforcement personnel, of the decision not to prosecute. (2) Decision to prosecute. (a) STANDARD: Crimes against persons will be filed if sufficient admissible evidence exists, which, when considered with the most plausible, reasonably foreseeable defense that could be raised under the evidence, would justify conviction by a reasonable and objective fact finder, With regard to offenses prohibited by RC' 9A.44,.040, 9A.44.050, 9A.44.073, 9A,.44.076, 9A.44.079, 9�A.44.083, 9A.44.086, 9A.44,08,9, and 9A.64.020 the prosecutor should avoid prefiling agreements or diversions intended to place the accused in a program of treatment or counseling, so that treatment, if determined to be beneficial, can be provided pursuant to RCW 9.94A.670. Crimes against property/other crimes will be flied if the admissible evidence is of such convincing force as to make it probable that a reasonable and objective fact finder would convict after hearing all, the admissible evidence and the most plausible defense that could be raised. See table below for the crimes within these categories. P 11, 11 11, 1 NO Aggravated Murder (RCW 10.95.020) 1st Degree Murder (RCW 9A.32.030) 2nd Degree Murder (RCW 9A.32.050) 1st Degree Manslaughter (RCW 9A.32.060) 2nd Degree Manslaughter (RCW 9A.32.070) 1 st Degree Kidnapping (RCW 9A.40.020) 2nd Degree Kidnapping (RCW 9A.4M y w Assault (RCW 9A.36.01 1) 2nd Degree Assault (RCW 9A.36.021) 3rd Degree Assault (RCW 9A.36.031) 4th Degree Assault (if a violation of RCW 9A.36.041(3)) 1 st Degree Assault of a Child (RCW 9A.36.120) 2nd Degree, Assault of a Child (RCW 9A.36.130) 3rd Degree Assault of a Child (�RCW 9A.36.140) 1 st Degree Rape (RCW 9A.44.040) 2nd Degree Rape (RCW 9A.44.050) 3rd Degree Rape (RCW 9A.44.060) 1st Degree Rape of a Child (RCW 9A.44.073) 2nd Degree Rape of a Child (RCW 9A.44.076)i 3rd Degree Rape of a Child (RCW 9A.44.079:) 1st Degree Robbery (RCW 9A.56.200) 2nd Degree Robbery (RCW 9A.56.210) 1 st Degree Arson (RCW 9A.48.020) 1 st Degree Burglary (RCW 9;A.52.020) I st Degree Identity The,ft (RCW 9.35.020(2)) 2nd Degree Identity Theft (RCW 9.,35.020(3)) 1st Degree Extortion (RCW 9A.56.120) 2nd Degree Extortion (RCW 9A.56.130) 1st Degree Criminal Mistreatment (RC'W 9A.42.020) 2nd Degree Criminal Mistreatment (RCW 9A.42.030) 1st Degree Theft from a Vulnerable Adult (RCW 9A.56.400(1)) 2nd Degree Theft from a Vulnerable Adult (RCW 9A. 56.400(2)) Hate Crime (RCW 91A.36.080) Indecent Liberties (RCW 9A.44.1 00) Incest (RCW 9A.64.020) Vehicular Homicide (RCW 46.61.520) Vehicular Assault (RCW 46.61.522) 1st Degree Child Molestation (RCW 9A.44.083) 2nd Degree Child Molestation (RCW 9A.44,086) 3rd Degree Child Molestation (RCW 9A.44.089) 1 st Degree Promoting Prostitution (RCW 9A.,88.070) Intimidating a Juror (RCW 9A.72.130) Communication with a Minor (RCW 9.68A.090) Intimidating a Witness (RCW 9A.72.110) Intimidating a Public Servant (RCW 9A.76.180) Bomb Threat (if against person) (RCW 9.61.160) Unlawful Imprisonment (RCW 9A.40.040) Promoting a Suicide Attempt (RCW 9A.36.060) Criminal Mischief (if against person) (RCW 9A.84.010) Stalking (RCW 9A.46,.110) Custodial Assault (RCW 9A.36.100) Domestic Violence Court Order Violation (RCW 7.105.450, 10.99.040, 10.99.050, 26.09.300, 26,2613.050, or 26.52.,070, or any of the former RCW 26,50.1110 and 74.34.14.9) Counterfeiting (if a violation of RCW 9.16.035(4)) Felony Driving a Motor Vehicle While Under the Influence of Intoxicating Liquor or Any Drug (RCW 46.61.502(6)) Felony Physical Control of a Motor Vehicle While Under the Influence of Intoxicating Liquor or Any Drug (RCW 46.0504(6)) Felony Hazing (RCW 2813.1 0.901(2)(b)) CRIMES AGAINST PROPERTY/OTHER CRIMES 2nd Degree Arson (RCW 9A.48.030) 1st Degree Escape (RCW 9A.76.11 0) 2nd Degree Escape (RCW 9A.76.120) 2nd Degree Burglary (RCW 9A.52.030) 1st Degree Theft (RCW 9A.56.030) 2nd Degree Theft (RCW 9A.56.040) 1 st Degree Perjury (RCW 9A.72.020) 2nd Degree Perjury (RCW 9A.72.030) 1st Degree Introducing Contraband (RCW 9A.76.140) 2nd Degree Introducing Contraband (RCW 9A.76.150) 1 st Degree Possession of Stolen, Property (RCW 9A.56.1 50) 2nd Degree Possession of Stolen Property (RCW 9A.56.160) Bribery (RCW 9A.68.010) Bribing a Witness (RCW 9A.72.090) Bribe received by a Witness (RCW 9A.72.100) Bomb Threat (if against property) (RCW 9.,61.160) 1 st Degree Malicious Mischief (RCW 9A.48.070) end Degree Malicious Mischief (RCW 9A.48.080) ist Degree Reckless Burning (RCW 9A.48.040) Taking a Motor Vehicle without Authorization (RCW 99.56.070 and 9A. 56.075,) Forgery (RCW 9A.60.020) 2nd Degree Promoting Prostitution (RCW 9A.88,080) Tampering with a Witness (RCW 9A.,72.120) Trading in Public Office (RCW 9A.68.040) Trading in Special Influence (RCW 9A.68-050) Receiving/Granting Unlawful Compensation (RCW 9A.68.030) Bigamy (RCW 9A,.64.010) Eluding a Pursuing Police Vehicle (RCW 46.61.024) Willful Failure to Return from Furlough Escape from Community Custody Criminal Mischief (if against property) (RCW 9A.84.01 0) 1st Degree Theft of Livestock (RCW 9A.56.080) 2nd Degree Theft of Livestock (RCW 9A.56.083) ALL OTHER UNCLASSIFIED FELONIES Selection of Charges/Degree of Charge (i) The prosecutor should file charges which adequately describe the nature of defendant's conduct. Other offenses may be charged only if they are necessary to ensure that the charges: (A) W'ill significantly enhance the strength of the state's case at trial; or (13) Will result in restitution to all victims. (fl) The prosecutor should not overcharge to obtain a guilty plea. Overcharging includes: (A) Charging a higher degree; (B) Charging additional counts. `This standard is intended to direct prosecutors to charge those crimes which demonstrate the nature and seriousness of a, defendant's criminal conduct, but to decline to charge crimes which are not necessary to such an indication. Crimes which do not merge as a matter of law, but which arise from the same course of conduct, do not all have to be charged. (b) GUIDELINES/COMMENTARY� (i) Police Investigation A prosecuting attorney is dependent upon law enforcement agencies to conduct the necessary factual investigation which must precede the decision to prosecute. The prosecuting attorney shall ensure that a thorough factual investigation has been conducted before a decision to prosecute is made. In ordinary circumstances the investigation should include the following: (A) The interviewing of all material witnesses, together with the obtaining of written statements whenever possible; (B) The completion of necessary laboratory tests; and (C); The obtaining, in accordance with constitutional requirements, of the suspect's version of the events. If the initial investigation is incomplete, a prosecuting attorney should insist upon further investigation before a decision to prosecute is made, and specify what the investigation needs to include. (ii) Exceptions In certain situations, a prosecuting attorney may authorize filing of a criminal complaint before the investigation is complete if: (A) Probable cause exists to believe the suspect is guilty; and (B) The suspect presents a danger to the community or is likely to flee if not apprehended; or (C) The arrest of the suspect is necessary to complete the investigation of the crime. In the event that the exception to the standard is applied, the prosecuting attorney shall obtain a commitment from the law enforcement agency involved to complete the investigation in a timely manner. If the subsequent investigation does not produce sufficient evidence to meet the normal charging standard, the complaint should be dismissed. (iii) Investigation Techniques The prosecutor should be fully advised of the investigatory techniques that were used in the case investigation including: (A) Polygraph testing; (B) Hypnosis; (C) Electronic surveillance; (D) Use of informants. (iv) Prefiling Discussions with Defendant Discussions with the defendant or his/her representative regarding the selection or disposition of charges may occur prior to the filing of charges, and potential agreements can be reached. (v) Prefiling Discussions with Victim(s) Discussions with the victim(s) or victims' representatives regarding the selection or disposition of charges may occur before the filing of charges. The discussions may be considered by the prosecutor in charging and disposition decisions, and should be considered before reaching any agreement with the defendant regarding these decisions. [ 2023 c 196 § 2; 2023 c 52 § 2; 2021 c 215 § 98; 2019 c 46 § 5008. Prior: 2017 c 272 § 2; 2017 c 266 § 5; prior: 2006 c 271 § 1; 2006 c 73 § 13; prior: 2000 c 119 § 28; 2000 c 28 § 17; prior: 1999 c 322 § 6; 1999 c 196 § 11; 1996 c 93 § 2; 1995 c 288 § 3; prior: 1992 c 145 § 11; 1992 c 75 § 5; 1989 c 332 § 2; 1988 c 145 § 13; 1986 c 257 § 30; 1983 c 115 § 15. Formerly RCW 9.94A.440.] NOTES: Reviser's note: This section was amended by 2023 c 52 § 2 and by 2023 c 196 § 2, each without reference to the other. Both amendments are incorporated in the publication of this section under RCW 1.12.025(2). For rule of construction, see RCW 1.12.025(1). Short title-2023 c 196: See note following RCW 2813.10.901. Effective date-2022 c 268; 2021 c 215: See note following RCW 7.105.900. Finding—Intent--2017 c 266: See note following RCW 9A.42.020. Effective date-2006 c 73: See note following RCW 46.61.502. Application-2000 c 119: See note following RCW 10.31.100. Technical correction twill-2000 c 28: See note following RCW 9.94A.015. Construction —Short title-1999 c 196, See RCW 72.09.904 and 72.09.905. Severability----1999 c 196: See note following RCW 9.94A.010. Effective date--Savings---Application-1988 c 145: See notes following RCW 9A.44.010. Severability-1986 c 257: See note following RCW 9A.56.010. Effective date-1986 c 257 §§ 17-35: See note following RCW 9.94A.030. 1. Why is council addressing anything to do with where the staffing should go? This is not a function of council, council's function is to evaluate need, and direct funds to need, not direct the police department use of resources. No one on council has the requisite experience to comment on which officers are needed where. Police Chief Ellis/Sheriff Nowels should direct resources as needed to provide progress on key indicators. Council should be identifying key indicators and setting standards based on negotiation with Sheriff. 2. What key indicators and measures do you anticipate this will make measurable gains in, and by how much? Workload Indicators (Provided quarterly unless otherwise agreed) Total incidents per Dedicated CITY Patrol Officer per shift Total citizen initiated Calls for Service Total citizen initiated Calls for Service with Dedicated CITY Patrol Officer response Total Dedicated CITY Officer initiated incidents Total Dedicated CITY Officer involved incidents Total incidents requiring written documentation Total incidents resulting in custodial arrest Total traffic non -criminal infractions/citations issued Total traffic control requests worked Total traffic collisions investigated Total Major Crime investigations Total Sex Crime investigations (Annual) Total Property/Drug Crime investigations (Annual) Behavioral Health Deputy —To match 2021 WASPC Grant Report (Annual) Separate Agency (Data provided as made available by agency) SCOPE - Number of active volunteers SCOPE — Number of volunteer hours SCOPE -- Number of business checks, vacation checks, tagged vehicles, towed vehicles and parking citations Performance Measures (Provided quarterly unless otherwise agreed) Average patrol staffing per shift Contracted Position Fill Rate (Identify positions that are active, in training, and unfilled). Training Completion Rate (Percentage of hired officer candidates that complete all phases of training and probationary period). Citizen complaints per 1,000 Dedicated CITY Officer incidents (Annual) Outcome of complaint investigations (% sustained, not sustained, exonerated, unfounded, pending, changed to inquiry) (Annual) Outcome of use of force incidents (% within policy and not within policy) (Annual) Average response time for priority 1, 2, and 3 Calls for Service Percentage of Calls for Service with deputy response Percentage of incidents that were deputy initiated Percentage of solvable property crime cases assigned (Annual) Percentage of assigned cases solved by investigative unit (Assigned) Percentage of assigned cases solved by charges filed by investigative unit (Assigned) State defined collisions per capita (Informative only) Percentage of traffic complaints worked Actual to Budget Cost Comparisons for all Dedicated and Shared units (Salary, overtime, fuel) Behavioral Health Deputy -- Time Saved (As long as data is required by State) 3. 1 would like to prioritize: I would like to see the following indicators prioritized: Total traffic collisions investigated Total Major Crime investigations Total Sex Crime investigations (Annual) Total Property/Drug Crime investigations (Annual) I would like the following Measures Prioritized: Average response time for priority 1, 2, and 3 Calls for Service Percentage of Calls for Service with deputy response Percentage of solvable property crime cases assigned (Annual) Percentage of assigned cases solved by investigative unit (Assigned) Percentage of assigned cases solved by charges filed by investigative unit (Assigned) State defined collisions per capita (Informative only) Behavioral Health Deputy — Time Saved (As long as data is required by State) Further I would like to propose the creation of the following performance measures: investigated of Total traffic collisions reported investigated of Total Major Crime reported investigated of Total Sex Crime reported (Annual) investigated of Total Property/Drug Crime reported (Annual) of total reports deemed credible but classified as unsolvable Overall I would like to see response times minimized, maximize citizen feeling of engagement, and minimize crime rates. If there are appropriate industry measures that the Sheriff/Police Chief would like to propose to both measure and set standards for these measures, I would support that. 4. How many officers can we conceivably get this year? 5. What is the associated budget figure for that many officers this year? 6. What could we conceivably cut from the budget to achieve sustainable funding for those officers? a. Can we use "Other funds" for policing needs? Why not? b. Since we cannot, looking at the general fund summary (Page 94) of the currently adopted budget, what would you conceivably suggest cutting? i. If none, suggest Park Funding, Economic Development, and Council Costs. 7. Looking back at previous years, the city's budget has not grown much since at least 2015. Why have city revenues not kept up with city growth and need? 8. If we go with property tax, who ends up paying for police? a. Why should property owners shoulder the burden? 9. If we go with utility tax who ends up paying? a. Why should utility payers shoulder the burden? 10. We have approximately 41 million in savings by end of year, how much of that do we conceivably need? 11. Plans: a. 1. PREFFERED: Use savings as start-up place sales tax increase on ballot ASAP to pay continual costs of officers for this year, push hard for marijuana tax return and policing sales tax credit from state legislature to fund continual costs, repeal sales tax once marijuana tax/state tax return are in place 2. Optional 1: Use savings as startup, wait and see if Marijuana or Sales Tax return pass, if not pass other tax package options through ballot to the people. 3. Optional 2 LEAST PREFFERED: Spend down savings and figure it out later. 4. Optional 3 (NOT AN OPTION AS FAR AS IM CONCERNED): Do nothing 12. if we go with Sales Tax who would pay? a. why should everyone shoulder the burden? b. will the county be likely passing this tax anyway? If so what happens? 13. What should the listening sessions aim to accomplish? a. Should we not identify performance measures and propose standards and ask the public whether they think should measures and standards are correct? 14. Regarding Space needs, these should also come from savings if there is room to reduce such savings. 1. How would you feel about introducing more performance metrics into this contract? a. Off the top of my head some metrics might be: i. % of submitted, credible cases prosecuted 1. Maybe categories? Serious crimes, medium crime, misdemeanors? ii. % of submitted credible cases pled out iii. % of sentencing on convictions (pled or tried) sentenced as per normal sentencing guidelines? iv. % of credible cased dropped b. These are just ideas, I leave it to you to suggest what metrics you would use to track performance of a prosecutors office if you had too. c. If you were going to do this what types of costs would be needed to track? 2. In general, does the office need more funds to keep up with growth, or does the bottleneck at sentencing/jail/prison/state law make it unnecessary at this point because even if you had more you wouldn't be able to jail/rehabilitate people until those issues are resolved? a. If more how much? 0 0 41 2� u 0 u QY -Y E ci E u _0 E Ln Ln QLJ 0 4� M E 10 �5 J2 Tt j E 3: w E .9 JR 5 t4 E OE E 43 'E Z 7Ej t4 1° t2 t; 2 a A 42 41? E .5 E E t4 CA2 N ft E E b Cl C a-. A jE 9