City Council Services, Safety & Parks Committee · Tuesday, September 20, 2022 · City Council Digest

3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Minutes of July 19, 2022

packet pp.5–6

Open packet at p.5 ↗

Staff report:

APPROVAL OF MINUTES a) 07-19-22 City Council Services, Safety & Parks Page (0000) Committee Minutes CITY OF ISSAQUAH City Council Services, Safety & Parks Committee 6:30 PM Council Chambers, 135 E. July 19, 2022 MINUTES Sunset Way, Issaquah WA

4. AGENDA ITEMS

Vehicle Trespass Ordinance ID 1235

60 min · Rachel Bender-Turpin, City Attorney · packet pp.7–26

Topics: Land Use

▶ Watch from 0:34 Open packet at p.7 ↗

Staff report:

The Administration recommends adoption of the proposed ordinance as a measure to combat the growing tide of property crime in the region.

634 segments .txt ↗

0:00 ↗ I am ready when

0:02 ↗ the team is ready

0:08 ↗ welcome welcome everyone I council

0:11 ↗ member tolemartz call the Tuesday

0:14 ↗ September 20th 2022 city council

0:17 ↗ services safety and Parks committee

0:19 ↗ meeting to order

0:21 ↗ there are multiple public comment

0:22 ↗ opportunities at tonight's meeting

0:24 ↗ there's a general public comment

0:26 ↗ opportunity at the beginning of the

0:27 ↗ meeting or you can make comments after

0:29 ↗ the presentation and Council question

0:31 ↗ and answer period on tonight's single

0:34 ↗ agenda item

0:35 ↗ members of the public May address

0:37 ↗ council at this time in person or

0:39 ↗ virtually those who are signed up in

0:41 ↗ advance to make comments will be called

0:42 ↗ on first if you are joining us virtually

0:45 ↗ and would like to make comments please

0:46 ↗ raise your virtual hand that means if

0:48 ↗ you're on the phone press star 3 or if

0:51 ↗ you have joined by computer or

0:52 ↗ smartphone look for a hand icon this

0:55 ↗ varies by device one option may be

0:58 ↗ to go to the participant panel and

1:00 ↗ choose the raise hand icon in the lower

1:02 ↗ right hand corner

1:04 ↗ uh there's not anybody in the room so I

1:07 ↗ know we don't have any sign ups there uh

1:10 ↗ I uh I will ask for other speakers

1:12 ↗ before closing this portion of the

1:14 ↗ meeting I will wait for a moment to see

1:15 ↗ if anyone raises their hand either

1:17 ↗ electronically or well it would be

1:20 ↗ electronically

1:21 ↗ um clerk has anyone signed up to speak

1:22 ↗ or indicated a desire to speak this

1:24 ↗ evening

1:25 ↗ chair Martz no one has signed up to

1:28 ↗ speak previously and we have no virtual

1:30 ↗ attendees at the moment

1:32 ↗ well there we go thank you so much as a

1:34 ↗ reminder written comments can be

1:36 ↗ submitted at any time to city council at

1:39 ↗ issaquah.gov

1:44 ↗ so with that we will move on to as I

1:49 ↗ mentioned we have one item for

1:50 ↗ consideration this evening that is ID

1:53 ↗ one two three five vehicle trespass

1:56 ↗ ordinance and we're going to get a

1:57 ↗ presentation from Rachel Bender Turpin

2:00 ↗ our City attorney

2:16 ↗ hi everybody sorry I'm just trying to

2:18 ↗ figure out I want to make sure I was

2:20 ↗ unmuted but looks like you have me

2:21 ↗ unmuted and can you see the presentation

2:24 ↗ of my shirt I have to share my screen

2:25 ↗ here hold on a second

2:28 ↗ hey I want to share this one we

2:32 ↗ certainly hear you just fine

2:34 ↗ perfect

2:38 ↗ this is this is it okay I'm sure right

2:41 ↗ okay hello good evening thanks for

2:44 ↗ having me here um I'm Rachel Bender

2:46 ↗ Turpin I'm your City attorney and I'm

2:48 ↗ here to discuss this legislation which

2:50 ↗ is uh legislation establishing new

2:54 ↗ sections of the municipal code relating

2:57 ↗ to vehicle trespass and uh vehicle uh

3:02 ↗ trespass tools

3:06 ↗ the purpose of this presentation is to

3:08 ↗ provide you a brief overview of the

3:11 ↗ proposed ordinance and then to obtain

3:13 ↗ Council Direction on moving forward with

3:16 ↗ the legislation or committee or

3:19 ↗ committee recommendation back to the

3:20 ↗ full Council right recommendation thank

3:23 ↗ you

3:24 ↗ the direct specific Ally the darker

3:27 ↗ direction that we're looking for is

3:29 ↗ feedback on whether to proceed with

3:32 ↗ bringing forward uh proposed ordinance

3:35 ↗ amending chapter 9.40 of the Issaquah

3:39 ↗ Municipal Code which is

3:41 ↗ um the crimes pertaining to property to

3:45 ↗ add a new section criminalizing vehicle

3:48 ↗ trespass which we'll discuss in Greater

3:51 ↗ detail momentarily and adopting by

3:54 ↗ reference and an RCW which is a state

3:57 ↗ statute that criminalizes the making or

4:00 ↗ possessing of Motor Vehicle tools

4:05 ↗ all right

4:07 ↗ a little background for you uh there's

4:10 ↗ been a Statewide increase in crime over

4:13 ↗ the past year including vehicle prowls

4:16 ↗ and thefts according to a report from

4:19 ↗ the Washington Association of sheriffs

4:22 ↗ and police Chiefs there was a Statewide

4:26 ↗ increase in motor vehicle thefts of 27.3

4:30 ↗ percent and a hundred percent increase

4:32 ↗ in depth of motor vehicle parts over the

4:35 ↗ past or in um 2021

4:38 ↗ so that's a pretty significant increase

4:40 ↗ and so we are looking at additional

4:43 ↗ tools to help our police department and

4:45 ↗ prosecutor deal with those uh motor

4:48 ↗ vehicle theft is a felony which means

4:50 ↗ that it's typically uh well that means

4:52 ↗ that it can only be charged as a felony

4:54 ↗ by the King County prosecutor's office

4:56 ↗ here in Issaquah

4:59 ↗ um but it unfortunately due to caseload

5:03 ↗ demands it's not always charged there so

5:06 ↗ we're looking for ways that our police

5:09 ↗ department and our city prosecutor can

5:12 ↗ still deal with these important cases in

5:15 ↗ those instances when King County is not

5:18 ↗ able to proceed with a case whether it

5:20 ↗ be for Pace loads or maybe perhaps it

5:23 ↗ doesn't meet quite meet their

5:25 ↗ evidentiary standards

5:28 ↗ okay the the

5:30 ↗ proposed ordinance

5:32 ↗ uh would amend this chapter of the uh

5:37 ↗ the city's criminal code which is Title

5:39 ↗ IX to add a new section of code that

5:43 ↗ criminalizes what's called vehicle

5:45 ↗ trespass and then to add another section

5:48 ↗ of state law that we adopt by reference

5:52 ↗ will

5:54 ↗ this is the language for the vehicle

5:57 ↗ trespass code that would be added to uh

6:00 ↗ chapter 9.40 it would criminalize a

6:04 ↗ person being found or um knowingly

6:08 ↗ entering a vehicle and remaining

6:10 ↗ unlawfully in it

6:12 ↗ when they had not essentially not been

6:15 ↗ invited to be in that vehicle so if they

6:18 ↗ were in a vehicle without permission of

6:21 ↗ the vehicle's owner to be in that

6:24 ↗ vehicle and

6:26 ↗ um essentially broke into the vehicle or

6:29 ↗ were found in it under circumstances

6:32 ↗ that's for whatever reason didn't quite

6:35 ↗ reach the threshold of effect of a motor

6:39 ↗ vehicle that would be pursued as a

6:41 ↗ felony in King County we would be able

6:43 ↗ to cite them and punish them for a

6:47 ↗ misdemeanor in Issaquah Municipal Code

6:49 ↗ or Court under this code provision

6:55 ↗ and then this is making or possessing

6:58 ↗ motor vehicle theft tools which is a

7:00 ↗ state statute that is um one of the

7:04 ↗ state statutes that the City of Issaquah

7:06 ↗ hasn't yet adopted by reference and this

7:10 ↗ statute

7:11 ↗ uh prohibits and criminalizes the

7:15 ↗ possession or making of various tools

7:20 ↗ that are commonly

7:23 ↗ used for breaking into vehicles or uh

7:29 ↗ uh used to essentially hot wire vehicles

7:33 ↗ uh to to steal Vehicles so things like

7:37 ↗ Slim Jims

7:39 ↗ um is a very common example of it uh

7:43 ↗ the Jiggler tees are kind of fake keys

7:47 ↗ that are

7:48 ↗ um used to to start vehicles that don't

7:50 ↗ belong to you this

7:53 ↗ um and obviously there's a whole whole

7:56 ↗ list here of other of other tools that

7:58 ↗ would qualify as these types of tools

8:02 ↗ the in order to be found

8:05 ↗ um as having committed a violation of

8:08 ↗ this section it would have to be you

8:11 ↗ would have to be found to have

8:13 ↗ evidenced an intent to use these tools

8:17 ↗ to in the commission of a crime such as

8:20 ↗ theft of a motor vehicle or you know

8:22 ↗ breaking into a motor vehicle so it's

8:25 ↗ it's not intended or would it be able to

8:27 ↗ be used to

8:29 ↗ penalize locksmiths or anyone like that

8:32 ↗ who is

8:33 ↗ who has a lawful purpose to have those

8:37 ↗ tools with them this is this is for uh

8:40 ↗ people who

8:42 ↗ clearly have these tools

8:45 ↗ under circumstances that evidence and

8:49 ↗ intent to use them to break into a or

8:54 ↗ steal a vehicle

8:57 ↗ okay um I I have a I have a question so

9:02 ↗ um so so there's two parts of this right

9:04 ↗ the first is this vehicle trespass part

9:06 ↗ the second being the tools part what

9:09 ↗ does it mean well actually first things

9:11 ↗ first the vehicle trespass part what is

9:14 ↗ the regional pedigree of this of this

9:16 ↗ ordinance my understanding is other

9:19 ↗ municipalities have adopted it and how

9:21 ↗ how has that how has how has that worked

9:25 ↗ in our understanding

9:27 ↗ I well I took this I can't believe that

9:31 ↗ this language came from

9:37 ↗ I'm gonna say I looked at several I

9:39 ↗ think this one is from Auburn but it

9:41 ↗ might have been from Kent

9:43 ↗ well like you said many many

9:45 ↗ jurisdictions have

9:47 ↗ ones that are pretty similar to this

9:51 ↗ I was aware of the Auburn because I

9:53 ↗ believe Auburn was the first city in

9:55 ↗ King County to have uh this sort of an

9:57 ↗ ordinance so how has it worked how's it

10:00 ↗ worked for cities that have adopted it

10:03 ↗ well it allows them to to proceed when

10:06 ↗ King County won't

10:08 ↗ won't take action I mean I think that's

10:10 ↗ the the biggest yeah no I I wasn't I'm

10:13 ↗ sorry I wasn't I wasn't clear in my

10:14 ↗ question

10:15 ↗ um I mean what's been the public safety

10:17 ↗ impact and has there been any legal uh

10:20 ↗ issues associated with adopting this

10:24 ↗ any legal issues

10:27 ↗ are going to have any statistics on

10:29 ↗ whether or not there's been you know a

10:31 ↗ drop in property crimes there

10:35 ↗ okay now then on the second part

10:39 ↗ um I'm not as familiar uh with this one

10:42 ↗ about vehicle theft tools and what does

10:44 ↗ it mean to adopt the RCW what is the

10:47 ↗ Practical impact of of doing that

10:52 ↗ there are um there have actually been

10:54 ↗ cases uh in in court court cases about

10:58 ↗ this but

11:00 ↗ the state statutes essentially authorize

11:05 ↗ the state courts and the state

11:09 ↗ prosecutors to

11:12 ↗ enforce those laws they're enacted by

11:16 ↗ the state legislature and unless they

11:18 ↗ specifically

11:21 ↗ delegate

11:22 ↗ enforcement responsibility to local

11:25 ↗ jurisdictions

11:26 ↗ the the

11:28 ↗ jurisdiction uh to enforce those is is

11:33 ↗ is state courts

11:35 ↗ and so there have been cases that have

11:39 ↗ found that when municipalities have

11:43 ↗ attempted to enforce those State

11:46 ↗ statutes

11:47 ↗ that they were it was invalid unless the

11:51 ↗ municipality had specifically adopted

11:54 ↗ those State statutes by reference which

11:58 ↗ means within their own Municipal Code

12:01 ↗ they

12:03 ↗ state that they have the intent to

12:07 ↗ adopt this particular

12:10 ↗ State Statute as though it were

12:15 ↗ set forth in their municipal code in its

12:17 ↗ entirety as though it were a City of

12:20 ↗ Issaquah

12:21 ↗ uh provision got it so that it would

12:25 ↗ that it could be enforced with uh by the

12:28 ↗ Issaquah police department and so that

12:31 ↗ jurisdiction is properly held within

12:34 ↗ Issaquah Municipal Court

12:36 ↗ all right

12:38 ↗ um have we talked to

12:42 ↗ um I've talked to the chief about the

12:45 ↗ vehicle trespass portion and I know the

12:48 ↗ ipd is is comfortable with this

12:51 ↗ potentially have we talked to the ipd

12:54 ↗ about the uh adopting the RCW on vehicle

12:58 ↗ theft tools do we know that the ipd is

13:00 ↗ supportive of this potential action

13:03 ↗ yes the ipd is supportive of both pieces

13:07 ↗ of the legislation as is the

13:09 ↗ prosecutor's office uh Lynn Moberly the

13:12 ↗ is a prosecutor was going to be here

13:14 ↗ this evening but unfortunately uh at a

13:18 ↗ last minute

13:19 ↗ um medical issue and couldn't attend but

13:22 ↗ yes she's reviewed it all and is

13:24 ↗ supportive and

13:26 ↗ um thought that it looked good

13:29 ↗ thank you Barb do you have any questions

13:31 ↗ right now before I I realize we're still

13:34 ↗ in the middle of the presentation but

13:35 ↗ since yeah but we're pretty close to the

13:37 ↗ end I think so

13:39 ↗ um I had sent I sent Rachel a couple of

13:41 ↗ questions ahead of time and I told her

13:43 ↗ not to respond

13:45 ↗ um because I wanted to ask them in

13:47 ↗ public so that the community knows the

13:50 ↗ answers

13:51 ↗ so my first question what what

13:54 ↗ distinguishes motor vehicle theft tools

13:57 ↗ from other tools and would such tools be

14:00 ↗ ready readily identifiable by officers

14:02 ↗ and I think he's sort of answered this

14:05 ↗ Rachel but the reason I asked that

14:07 ↗ question is

14:09 ↗ I'm wondering if an officer could spot

14:11 ↗ these as just motor vehicle theft tools

14:14 ↗ or if there has to be an Associated

14:16 ↗ crime to so identify the tools I think

14:20 ↗ you did answer that but do you want to

14:23 ↗ explain it again

14:25 ↗ absolutely well the the RCW is helpful

14:29 ↗ because it does give a pretty good

14:32 ↗ um list of what examples of Motor

14:36 ↗ Vehicle theft tools would include

14:40 ↗ it does say you know included but not

14:42 ↗ limited to so if folks get real creative

14:45 ↗ we um

14:47 ↗ we can

14:49 ↗ we can still bring charges against

14:51 ↗ people if they come up with another tool

14:53 ↗ or they're using creatively using a an

14:56 ↗ existing tool for these purposes but

14:59 ↗ it's essentially a tool that

15:03 ↗ shown by the facts and circumstances of

15:06 ↗ its use

15:07 ↗ is clearly be intended to be at to be

15:11 ↗ used in the commission of a motor

15:15 ↗ vehicle related theft so either to break

15:18 ↗ into a vehicle or to steal a vehicle

15:21 ↗ so a person just driving around with

15:24 ↗ tools in their trunk or something

15:27 ↗ um who's maybe stock for a traffic stop

15:29 ↗ is not going to be

15:31 ↗ would not be subject to this if there's

15:34 ↗ no related vehicle break-in crime

15:37 ↗ associated with that person

15:40 ↗ no they would not they would not because

15:42 ↗ they wouldn't there would be no

15:43 ↗ circumstances evidencing a crime okay

15:47 ↗ um and then my other question was

15:49 ↗ um I'm assuming that a person using a

15:51 ↗ vehicle with the permission of the owner

15:54 ↗ is not entering unlawfully no matter how

15:57 ↗ long they remain in the vehicle and the

15:59 ↗ reason I asked that question is because

16:01 ↗ we do have a number of people in our

16:04 ↗ community experiencing homelessness some

16:07 ↗ of them it could happen that they could

16:10 ↗ be living in a car that doesn't belong

16:12 ↗ to them but with the permission of the

16:14 ↗ owner and so I'm wondering uh first of

16:17 ↗ all

16:18 ↗ I think it's pretty clear that that

16:21 ↗ wouldn't initially at least affect them

16:24 ↗ but what kind of documentation would you

16:26 ↗ have to have for a police officer to

16:29 ↗ know that you had the permission of the

16:31 ↗ owner

16:32 ↗ I think that you would well I think in

16:35 ↗ order to to prosecute this you would

16:38 ↗ have to have a statement from the owner

16:40 ↗ saying that you didn't have that they

16:42 ↗ didn't have permission I think is the

16:44 ↗ most important thing here because you

16:46 ↗ wouldn't be able to proceed with this

16:48 ↗ unless we could established that they

16:51 ↗ didn't have permission

16:53 ↗ so there there would no be no assumption

16:57 ↗ that they didn't have permission but I

16:58 ↗ think if they had you know even a note

17:00 ↗ that would be enough and then of course

17:02 ↗ the police might need to follow up on

17:04 ↗ that but they're not

17:06 ↗ duress someone

17:08 ↗ from what you know if they haven't they

17:11 ↗ have some sort of you know documentation

17:13 ↗ from an owner from a registered owner

17:16 ↗ I just always worry about how people

17:19 ↗ inter interpret laws

17:22 ↗ um but in your mind it's clear that that

17:25 ↗ would not apply to someone who has

17:27 ↗ permission even if they're homeless and

17:29 ↗ living in a car

17:32 ↗ no yeah correct yes because they yeah as

17:35 ↗ long as they've been

17:37 ↗ it's it's it's someone's only not

17:41 ↗ invited if they are not licensed or

17:44 ↗ invited or otherwise privileged so if

17:47 ↗ someone's given them permission then the

17:50 ↗ elements of this crime are not met and

17:53 ↗ you can't that couldn't be established

17:54 ↗ in court you wouldn't even have probable

17:57 ↗ cause okay thank you

18:00 ↗ those are my two questions

18:02 ↗ I want to expound on that last one so

18:04 ↗ I'm driving down the street in a car and

18:07 ↗ the ipd pulls me over and they say

18:11 ↗ license and registration and I give them

18:13 ↗ my license and I pull the registration

18:16 ↗ on the glove box and the car is

18:17 ↗ registered to Bob Smith

18:19 ↗ and uh they say you're not Bob Smith and

18:22 ↗ I say no but I have Bob Smith's

18:24 ↗ permission

18:25 ↗ to use this car what happens then

18:32 ↗ I

18:34 ↗ I think at that point they would

18:40 ↗ they would then contact Bob Smith I mean

18:43 ↗ in general normally normally when what

18:47 ↗ to to pursue they assume that you have

18:50 ↗ permission to

18:51 ↗ people drive people other people's cars

18:54 ↗ all the time when you typically when you

18:56 ↗ get cited for stealing a car

18:59 ↗ um

19:00 ↗ there's it's because there's a there's a

19:03 ↗ there's a I can blinking on the word but

19:06 ↗ there's a

19:08 ↗ um

19:10 ↗ it's reported stolen

19:11 ↗ it's the report it's stolen yeah they

19:14 ↗ put out a

19:15 ↗ bulletin or I think or something I think

19:17 ↗ it's what it's called yeah but it's been

19:18 ↗ reported as stolen okay so it's not just

19:21 ↗ going to be I get pulled over for

19:23 ↗ speeding or busted tail light or

19:26 ↗ whatever and because my license doesn't

19:28 ↗ match the registration uh they're going

19:31 ↗ to automatically assume that I've stolen

19:33 ↗ the car or

19:35 ↗ are they gonna in those situations are

19:37 ↗ they going to have to double check is it

19:40 ↗ sufficient that they double check that

19:41 ↗ the car has not been reported stolen or

19:43 ↗ will they actually yeah that's usually

19:44 ↗ what they do is they they just check to

19:46 ↗ make sure the car hasn't been reported

19:48 ↗ stole unless there's really some sort of

19:50 ↗ there have to be really suspicious

19:52 ↗ circumstances I mean if if the car

19:55 ↗ hasn't been reported stolen but there is

19:58 ↗ a slim jim on the passenger or the

20:01 ↗ steering column is broken yeah exactly

20:05 ↗ if there's if it seems you know if it

20:07 ↗ seems otherwise really suspicious then

20:09 ↗ yeah then they might do a little bit

20:11 ↗ more um investigation but

20:15 ↗ um without that report of being stolen

20:18 ↗ there's the I don't once again I don't

20:21 ↗ think they have

20:22 ↗ I don't think that alone establishes

20:24 ↗ probable cause okay all right

20:27 ↗ thank you

20:28 ↗ so I will let you continue with the

20:31 ↗ remainder of your presentation

20:33 ↗ okay

20:35 ↗ oh I'm here

20:37 ↗ so the options before the council this

20:39 ↗ evening are to adopt or to well the

20:43 ↗ options moving forward would be to adopt

20:45 ↗ the proposed ordinance which would

20:48 ↗ result in a couple more tools to combat

20:50 ↗ crime

20:51 ↗ not to adopt the proposed ordinance

20:54 ↗ which would result in no additional

20:57 ↗ tools which we would just continue to

20:59 ↗ rely on the tools that we already have

21:01 ↗ which we we do have tools or we could

21:04 ↗ adopt an amended version of the proposed

21:06 ↗ ordinance for instance adopting one of

21:08 ↗ these two tools but not the other so

21:14 ↗ um the committee really has the uh

21:16 ↗ choice to make a recommendation

21:19 ↗ to the full Council on either of those

21:22 ↗ any of those three options but the

21:24 ↗ administration recommends forwarding the

21:27 ↗ proposed ordinance as written to the

21:29 ↗ full Council for adoption at the regular

21:31 ↗ meeting on October 3rd

21:35 ↗ okay which is the next steps which would

21:40 ↗ be that we

21:41 ↗ um we recommend that it come back to the

21:43 ↗ city council meeting uh at

21:47 ↗ the next meeting

21:48 ↗ um we recommend that it be put on

21:49 ↗ consent for the next meeting but once

21:52 ↗ again that is up to this body to uh make

21:56 ↗ a recommendation on

21:58 ↗ here for any additional questions but if

22:01 ↗ not otherwise I'll take whatever

22:04 ↗ Direction

22:05 ↗ um you would like to provide after you

22:07 ↗ discuss thank you certainly

22:10 ↗ uh so I think I had one other question

22:16 ↗ oh yeah how did we

22:19 ↗ um find what's what was the Genesis of

22:22 ↗ this adding of the theft tools because I

22:25 ↗ I had been aware that Auburn had adopted

22:28 ↗ the vehicle trespass piece but I had not

22:32 ↗ it was somewhat of a surprise to me to

22:34 ↗ see this theft tools is has that also

22:36 ↗ been adopted

22:37 ↗ um like where did where did this come

22:39 ↗ from the second part

22:41 ↗ it's been adopted by many cities most

22:44 ↗ the cities I've worked in so it was on

22:46 ↗ my radar and the police department

22:48 ↗ specifically asked for it got it that

22:51 ↗ that answers my question

22:53 ↗ so I will ask the clerk if uh we have if

22:56 ↗ anyone has joined remotely that might

22:59 ↗ potentially offer public comment

23:02 ↗ chair Martz there is nobody attending

23:04 ↗ virtually

23:06 ↗ disappointing uh uh council member G

23:10 ↗ Michelle if you don't have any other

23:11 ↗ questions then we can move to uh

23:14 ↗ discussion and deliberation on our

23:16 ↗ recommendation back to the full Council

23:17 ↗ thank you

23:19 ↗ um I will uh be supporting this and

23:22 ↗ support sending it forward to the full

23:25 ↗ Council

23:27 ↗ Chief Swann and I were in a a public

23:30 ↗ forum about a week and a half ago and we

23:33 ↗ heard stories from members of that group

23:38 ↗ of audience members about car thefts and

23:42 ↗ the rise in crime and the concern about

23:45 ↗ crime increasing in neighborhoods that

23:48 ↗ have not ever experienced it before or

23:51 ↗ haven't experienced it at the level

23:53 ↗ that's occurring now and so

23:56 ↗ I think that we should be giving our

23:59 ↗ police officers as many tools as they

24:02 ↗ can have to obviously control the

24:05 ↗ situation

24:06 ↗ as far as putting on the consent agenda

24:10 ↗ I'm a little bit torn because

24:14 ↗ this is a question that is high concern

24:17 ↗ to our community

24:18 ↗ it might be important for them to know

24:22 ↗ that we're doing this and sometimes

24:24 ↗ things on the consent agenda are not

24:26 ↗ noticed

24:27 ↗ and so I'm just wondering if it might be

24:31 ↗ worth a brief discussion at the council

24:35 ↗ I I can't imagine that the council will

24:37 ↗ not

24:38 ↗ support it but of course that's up to

24:39 ↗ them but just for public information I'm

24:43 ↗ wondering if we want to put it on the

24:44 ↗ regular agenda but I did hear the

24:48 ↗ recommendation from our lawyers so

24:51 ↗ I'll listen to what councilmember Martz

24:54 ↗ has to say about that was there a

24:56 ↗ recommendation to put this on consent

24:58 ↗ agenda I'm not that's just what you just

25:00 ↗ said yeah oh I'm not seeing it in the

25:01 ↗ written materials no

25:03 ↗ and usually I

25:05 ↗ am fine with whatever with that I just

25:08 ↗ it seems like a it seems like you know

25:11 ↗ it seems like it would not be

25:12 ↗ controversial which is why I um I agree

25:16 ↗ it's just that however I do see the um I

25:20 ↗ see the

25:21 ↗ the

25:22 ↗ the wisdom in discussing it publicly

25:27 ↗ yeah we're receiving a number of emails

25:29 ↗ kind of on a regular basis from uh

25:31 ↗ people in different parts of our

25:33 ↗ community and then again having been at

25:36 ↗ that Forum uh that public discussion

25:38 ↗ about a week and a half ago

25:40 ↗ um it's really a deep level of concern

25:43 ↗ in our community and that's I agree with

25:46 ↗ you that it's kind of a slam dunk but

25:50 ↗ um I just wonder if it isn't worth

25:52 ↗ calling out so that our community knows

25:55 ↗ we're taking action on their behalf

25:58 ↗ I couldn't agree more I would like to

26:01 ↗ have a giant Banner in the sky that says

26:03 ↗ we've just adopted uh you know assuming

26:06 ↗ the full Council were to adopt it yeah

26:07 ↗ uh this measure and I know that uh there

26:12 ↗ is a movement afoot uh led by South King

26:14 ↗ County cities right to have a while

26:17 ↗ still maintaining a compassionate and uh

26:21 ↗ you know uh uh reform based uh legal

26:26 ↗ system to put more teeth into addressing

26:30 ↗ property crime and these uh the crimes

26:32 ↗ that are occurring in higher frequency

26:34 ↗ in King County so

26:36 ↗ um I think as many you know I hope every

26:38 ↗ city that does this

26:41 ↗ um and so I'm totally with you I think

26:42 ↗ it should be regular business I think it

26:44 ↗ could be a very short I don't even think

26:45 ↗ staff needs to make a presentation I

26:47 ↗ think I would be comfortable presenting

26:50 ↗ this as the as the committee chair yeah

26:52 ↗ and uh and having you be on regular

26:54 ↗ business and and

26:56 ↗ um uh maybe having our attorney I mean

26:58 ↗ you're there for our Council meetings

27:00 ↗ anyhow right or you're there so you know

27:03 ↗ you could just be available for

27:05 ↗ questions but I'd be I'd be fine

27:06 ↗ Fielding it just myself

27:08 ↗ on a regular business but

27:10 ↗ um so I think what you're hearing is a

27:11 ↗ two to O recommendation to bring this

27:13 ↗ back to the full Council on regular

27:15 ↗ business October 3rd yep

27:17 ↗ and like I said I'll be happy to make

27:19 ↗ the a short presentation on it yeah well

27:22 ↗ I'm happy to do this one as well it

27:24 ↗ doesn't it doesn't matter to me

27:28 ↗ yeah I just I don't think we need the

27:29 ↗ full uh you know the presentation you

27:32 ↗ gave us here today I don't think we need

27:34 ↗ to go through that at full Council I

27:36 ↗ think I can just uh report it out

27:41 ↗ I think yeah yeah have fun with that

27:45 ↗ all right

27:47 ↗ um well uh that concludes our one piece

27:50 ↗ of business this evening uh so uh

27:54 ↗ according to the agenda we're done so uh

27:58 ↗ we uh uh this meet this meeting is

28:01 ↗ adjourned at 6 58 pm

28:05 ↗ and thank you everyone watching at home

Approved minutes

The minutes PDF below is the canonical record. Structured parsing of attendance and motions for this body's minutes format is not yet implemented — open the PDF for the full content.

Open PDF