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

Extracted from the next meeting's packet, where this meeting's minutes were approved as a consent-calendar attachment.

Open PDF

Attendance

Council / Members (3)

Tola Marts

Chris Reh

Barbara de Michele

Staff (2)

Wally Bobkiewicz, City Administrator

Chris Grabowski, Deputy City Clerk