Everybody, welcome to the Bellevue City Council meeting for September 23rd, 2025.

Before we begin, I just want to tell you how much I appreciate that you're here, and we've heard a lot from the community.

I'm sure we will hear more tonight at public comment.

I just hope that we can all be polite, not use obscene language and no insults to people.

We can convey our feelings appropriately and intelligently, and I look forward to hearing from you.

And so with that, uh City Clerk, could you do the roll call?

Mayor Robinson here.

Councilmember Bargaback.

Councilmember Hamilton.

Councilmember Lee?

Councilmember Newman House.

Councilmember Sumador.

Absolutely.

Please rise.

I believe to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands.

One nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all.

Now, therefore, I, Dave Hamilton, on behalf of Lynn Robinson, mayor of the City of Bellevue, Washington, and on behalf of its city council, to hereby proclaim October 2025 as domestic violence action month in Bellevue, Washington, and urge all residents to speak out against domestic violence and support local efforts to prevent and end abuse in our communities.

LifeWire, a Bellevue-based nonprofit, provides housing, legal advocacy, and counseling to survivors.

Survivors, loved ones, and community members are encouraged to call the LifeWire helpline at 425746 1940 or visit LifeWire.org for resources and support.

Major Tarantino, thank you.

Thank you for having me.

On behalf of the police department, I want to extend my thanks and appreciation to the Bellevue City Council in recognizing this important topic.

As this department mentioned last week, domestic violence calls have increased when compared to last year.

The Bellevue Police Department asks all community members to call 911 should they be the victim or know someone who may be the victim of domestic violence.

This is the first step in stopping the cycle of violence associated with domestic violence, which I know will lead to a stronger Bellevue.

Again, thank you.

The Bellevue Police Department is grateful for the ongoing and constant support from the Bellevue City Council.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Have a seat and we'll do a picture after.

Okay, next up we have Filipino American History Month, uh read by Councilmember Vargava.

Thanks, Mayor.

Whereas Filipinos have lived in the United States for more than 425 years, beginning with the earliest documented proof of Filipino presence in the continental United States on October 18th, 1587 in Morro Bay, California, the Philippines became an American territory in 1898 following the Spanish American War.

And whereas the first known Filipino in the Seattle area worked at the Port Blakely Lumber Mill on Brainbridge Island in Washington Territory around 1883.

And whereas Washington State is home to the third largest Filipino population in the United States, and Filipino Americans are the largest Asian Pacific American population in the state, with the vast majority calling King County home, and whereas in November 1903, the United States government passed the Ben Chenaro Act providing funds for Filipino students to study in America.

By 1912, more than 200 Filipino students had graduated from American colleges and universities of the University of Washington enrolling the highest number of Filipinos of any institution in the nation.

And whereas Filipino Americans have lived and worked in Bellevue for decades, contributing to our city's growth, vibrancy and economy, and whereas Filipino American History Month provides an opportunity to promote the study of Filipino American history and culture and recognizes the contributions made by Filipino Americans and whereas today, as leaders, business owners, educators, and workers across all industries, Filipino Americans continue to enhance Bellevue's community and culture.

Now, therefore, I, Vishal Bargawa, on behalf of Lynn Robinson, the mayor of the City of Bellevue, Washington, and on behalf of the City Council to hereby proclaim October 2025 as Filipino American History Month in Bellevue, Washington, and urge all community members to celebrate the history and contributions of Filipino Americans to our community.

Thank you, Councilmember.

All right, next up we have Disability Employment Awareness Month, read by Councilmember Lee, and that will be accepted if you'd like to come up by Karen Williams, Debbie Myers, and Savannah Roth Oak.

Whereas more than one in four U.S.

adults for 61 million Americans have some type of disability, according to the Centus of Disease Control and Prevention.

And whereas October 2025 marks the 80th anniversary of National Disability Employment Awareness Month.

And whereas the purpose of National Disability Employment Awareness Month is to educate the public about disability employment issues and to celebrate the many and varied contributions, talents, and values of America's workers with disabilities.

And whereas people with disabilities continue to experience disproportionate instances of unemployment.

Discrimination, poverty, and economic instability.

And whereas workplaces that welcome the talents of all people, including people with disabilities, are a critical part of successful building inclusive communities and strong economics and whereas the city of Bellevue embraces the diversity, culture, and contributions of residents with disabilities in our schools, government, workforce, and communities by consistently and diligently working to make city employment programs, services, and facilities accessible to all.

And whereas numerous organizations and city staff in Bellevue work with residents and community partners to develop programs and policies that advance equity in hiring for people with disabilities.

Now therefore, I, Conrad Lee, on behalf of Mayor of City of Bellevue, Washington, and on behalf of City Council to hereby proclaim October 2025 as Disability Employment Awareness Month in Bellevue, Washington, and urge all residents to support disability equity by recognizing the value and contribution of the people with disabilities in our work spaces, and by pledging to take steps throughout the year to recruit, hire, return, retain, develop, and advance individuals with disabilities to foster full participation and economic self-success sufficiency.

Signed, Lynn Robinson, Mayor, City of Bellevue.

Welcome.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mayor.

Robinson, Council Members and staff.

It's an honor to accept this proclamation celebrating value and talent for National Disability Employment Awareness Month.

I'm Debbie Myers, the Executive Director of SCAC Employment Services here with Savannah Roth Oak.

And she's a recent new hire.

At um the Highland Center.

This year's theme for the 80th anniversary anniversary of Endeam is celebrating value and talent.

And we at SCAC would like to celebrate the city of Bellevue for your commitment to supported employment, setting the example for all businesses to provide access and see the value and talent people with disabilities bring to the workforce.

Your proclamation brings awareness and increases interest in hiring people with disabilities for all employers.

Joe, who works uh both IT and finance, scrubbing computers and IT and updating business addresses for finance.

Joe also is a member of the Disabilities Advocacy Resource Team, Dart, meeting monthly to discuss ways to expand on more inclusive uh work environments at the city.

Jesse, who works in HR, completing filing and scanning projects, Joseph, who works in the transportation department on special projects and maintains the cleanliness of the kitchens and conference rooms, and Savannah, who is here tonight, who keeps the Highland Center ready for patrons to enjoy.

Savannah, would you like to say what you like best about your job?

I like to are so you help set up the art.

Yes, Tara.

Yeah.

And do you use a checklist to get all your tasks done?

Yeah.

Yeah.

Anything else you want to say about your job?

Yeah, you like it though.

Yeah.

Um Savannah also has um we'd like to present a 2025 employer award to the City of Bellevue for your inclusive hiring practices and recognizing value and talent through supported employment.

Thanks for having us, and thank you.

Thank you so much.

Would you uh can we do a picture?

All right.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Okay, City Clerk, do we have anyone signed up for oral communications?

This evening there are 17 pre-registered speakers, though I will say that a number of those folks are signed up in support of the same item, which is 10 B, so we will only be able to hear from the first three speakers.

So I'll go over a few of the rules that the council has in place.

So total time for oral communications is for a period of no more than 30 minutes, and all topics have to relate to City of Bellevue government.

People speaking to items on tonight's agenda will be called first, and then if time remains, people just people speaking to items not on tonight's agenda will be called.

In both of those categories, the presiding officer is authorized to give preference to those who have not spoken to counsel within the last sixty days, or who will be speaking on items that will come in front of the council within the next sixty days.

Each speaker is allowed to speak up to three minutes, and as I previously mentioned, only three speakers are allowed to speak to any one side of a particular topic.

And then finally, in I want to mention that in compliance with Washington State campaign laws regarding the use of public facilities during elections.

No speaker may support or oppose a campaign, which includes one's own campaign or a ballot measure on uh the upcoming election.

Any speaker who begins discussing topics of this nature will be asked to stop.

So with that, I'll call our first speaker who is Jody Albert.

Thank you.

Sure.

Thank you.

So this is Crystal Leatherman.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you, Madam Mayor and members of the council.

My name is Crystal Leatherman.

On behalf of the Washington Real Retail Association, I'm the director of policy and government affairs.

Um we are here to voice our strong support for the proposed ordinance establishing mandatory minimum sentences for repeat offenders and giving you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Carl Kleinx.

Mayor Robinson and Council members, as the security director of the Bellevue Collection and an alum of the Bellevue Police Department for 30 years, I appear in front of you in support of Councilmember New Enhouse's proposed ordinance on the 30-day jail term for repeat theft offenders.

According to Chief Thir Shirley's update last week, the prevention, intervention, and enforcement crime strategy has resulted in a notable decline in theft citywide.

This mandatory sentencing ordinance supports this strategy and offers a strong incentive for active repeat offenders to choose a lawful, healthier path in life.

Offender accountability is an effective tool used by the police department and the city attorney's office to combat crime, and we applaud the great support that we get from the police and their rapid response to our calls and the prosecutor and quickly filing of charges.

At the Bellevue collection, I see firsthand the harm that theft causes our guests, employees, and businesses.

We routinely deal with repeat offenders, be they local, regional, or even international crime rings.

To counter this, we invest heavily in training and tenant outreach to encourage everyone to report crimes, exercise best practices in submitting evidence and statements to the police, and maintain awareness through our security patrol officers.

We collaborate directly with the police to identify active offenders and also host bi-monthly meetings for the Washington Organized Retail Crime Association to strengthen interagency coordination and offender accountability.

Repeat offenders, however, require a different response because of their blatant disregard of the law.

JN is one such offender that committed multiple trespass offenses and thefts over the past three years.

There's a picture that the city clerk will pass out that I'm referring to.

During one such incident, he knowingly violated an active trespass order, entered one of our buildings, stole six of our courtesy umbrellas, and this was after committing the same offense a few weeks earlier.

Security dispatchers tracked the suspect toward the area of the QFC.

I caught up to him, saw him shoplift at the QFC, and when he exited the QFC, I identified myself with badge as a security officer with the mall and asked for our stolen umbrellas back.

He immediately went to weapons, pulled out of his pocket an expandable baton, held it in a menacing way, and refused to give us back our stolen property.

I backed off, uh, updated my dispatchers via my radio, and about five minutes later, the Bellevue Police Department was vectored in and he was taken into custody.

JN is a convicted felon with 16 prior arrests, four of them being felonies, dating back to 1999.

Due to his felony conviction being for the violent crime of arson, he would be ineligible for the newly created community court program that is housed at uh the Bellevue Library.

Under this proposed ordinance, JN would be forced to choose between 30 days in jail or completion of a therapeutic program.

The choice for him would be reasonable, measured, and appropriate.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker on the list is Lori Wilk.

I want I want to ensure am I close enough to the speaker.

Yes.

Okay.

Thank you for allowing me to speak this evening.

And I'm speaking more from a member of the community and neighborhoods.

I'm from the Rockwood community, and um yesterday I sent a supporting mail for this um this new proposal.

And I, as background, I also think it's um kind of important to share from a neighbor perspective, uh, as opposed to a business perspective that um I moved here when uh it was the Bellevue of the 70s, but I don't that doesn't mean that I want it to be the same old, same old.

And I really love the vibrant business community that Bellevue has built.

And so the speakers that have just spoken about all of the issues impacting their business is something that's really of concern to me.

And it's the main reason I wanted to speak this evening.

I also wanted to um indicate that that I too found the crime report encouraging.

We've had in the neighborhoods, there's been a number of thefts in our small neighborhood.

Um they're also we've had been car prowled frequently, so it's all a part of it.

And um it demonstrated, though, I think when we heard the crime report that the Bellevue police are really being efficient with their funds, they're effective, and so those things are down.

So we're crime for thefts and car prowls up.

I think there would be a couple of things that we could do, and I think that as others have indicated, the repeat offenders really need to be addressed.

And we happen to have had um an incident that I think for us uh really brings it home.

It happens Sunday night.

Gary had been working in the garage, and a car squealed into the indoor small cul-de-sac, ran over people's lawns, rammed into a parked car in the driveway with a woman in it, they're just brand new neighbors, squealed out.

Oh, and he laughed after he did that.

Gary called 911.

We had the police immediate response.

And when the officer came back to um just make sure Gary had the description the same as he'd called it in and so forth, we were able to ask.

So is this guy did you find him?

Oh, yes, we did.

We were still them, and I'm like, so are you all familiar with them?

And of course, the answer was yes.

And I just really feel like um, I don't like to use cliches, but Seattle is a demonstration of judges only being able to use social measures.

And I really think that the community court that's been set up is a step in the a great direction, and I just think that we need to offer judges alternates, and I believe this measure will do that.

So thank you very much for your time.

Thank you.

Thank you.

That was the third and final speaker that we'll be able to hear from on 10B in support.

Um, there just so the council knows there's eight other people who had signed up in support of that as well.

Yeah, and I would encourage if you have not done so already to email your uh comments to the council at council at value law.gov.

Our next speaker on the list is Pam Johnston.

Ms.

Johnston is joining us virtually.

Ms.

Johnson, can you hear me?

Mr.

Yep, we can.

Your time begins now.

Okay.

Um I wanted to talk about the item uh concerning the public benefit rating system.

Um, this is a repeat uh um request.

Um we had the same request happen a few years ago, and I want to tell you a little bit about us for especially the new people, um, what this program is about.

This program is about making sure that we can have open space is one of the categories.

Um land is another category, but it's meant for things like um in one county, they're like putting all the land beside the river as open space.

Um one of the things that it's this is for is to try to get that open space that we need.

Um the public breathe benefit system offers an incentive to preserve open space on private property in King County by providing a tax reduction.

Um but it says on here the area for use for your home, landscaping, driveway, and other personal uses does not qualify.

It's this whole thing of saying I'm gonna take my backyard and make it open space, is not in the meaning of the um program because it's meant to get open space and be able to add on to that.

Um, and there's only two things in Bellevue that have qualified.

Um but they were qualified when they were in King County.

Um, so the system may have been different there.

Um, and this program lasts for 10 years.

And you can as long as you're in it for 10 years, you get to keep all the savings.

But if you quit in 10 years, um you you have to pay all the savings back.

So this person is trying to sell their backyard um for open space.

And you know, it's very likely that it would change hands in the next 10 years because counts as do.

Um, and it really doesn't go to the meaning of the public rates benefit system, because even though there's a trail there, the trail is owned by the HOA, it's not a public trail.

So, anyway, I want you to look at this in depth because you need to know what the system is about, and it's really about trying to preserve open space in big blotches, not just tiny spaces that aren't wetlands or special pieces like that.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Martin Sealig.

Are making solid progress.

We have utility easements on our site that benefit our site.

So do all the other sites in Bellevue.

The difference is in the easement, the utilities department requests seeks to that is gonna benefit other properties, not our family's properties.

And Deputy Mayor Mo, I know you've referred in the past to small businesses.

Our family has a small business.

We have one site in on the whole planet, City of Bellevue and any place else in the world.

We're a small business.

If you're unable or unwilling to honor that request, I ask that you direct your staff to continue to work with our family's professional team with a minimum of time and some well thought out creative planning, the city's professionals and the community development department and the utilities department working together with our professional team will achieve a win-win situation.

The result and the result will be that we'll achieve that situation that win-win long before the city might be able to acquire the sewer easement by condemnation.

Our goal is to achieve the same amount of floor area, and you'd know this, Mr.

May a deputy mayor, as we'd have under the housing, the home housing opportunities, multiple area uh areas, the same amount of floor area as if the easement did not exist.

I appreciate the the sacrifices the council makes.

Tonight is the first night or the second night of the Jewish New Year.

I recognize there are plenty of minorities on the council, but with a face-based council council, I don't think you'd have the uns insensitivity of having a meeting the same as if it were Christmas Eve or Christmas Eve Day.

Thank you.

Mr.

Zimmerman, that's a warning to you to not interrupt during public comment.

Hi, my name is Maria Hudson.

I submitted some documents to your counsel today.

One is dated a uh formal complaint against Officer Halstead.

On Saturday, Officer Halstead uh continued a pattern and practice of the Bellevue Police Department.

My vulnerable adult was commercially sexually exploited and given alcohol.

And instead of ITA ing her for trauma treatment and to do any kind of assessment of the perpetrator, they arrested her.

They took her to jail for felony harassment of me and disregarded an 18-year-old, developmentally delayed commercial vulnerable exploitation and intoxication.

Um I want this city council to talk to its police department specifically about vulnerable adults.

They are showing up to me, knowing that my daughter is commercially sexually exploited since she was a child out of Odo Middle School.

You'll see that recently I did a subpoena du say to come to Judge Tanalyn for the commercial, I'm sorry, for the forensic interview and for the video out of Life Wire Domestic Violence Shelter, just FYI.

I want to additionally bring your attention to the order that was signed by Judge Tanalen on July 27, 2022, which it identifies Bellevue Police Department as a conflict of interest.

That has continued both before and after.

Originally uh we dealt with student on student child abuse that interim chief Montgomery oversaw, then my let now Chief Shirley.

There is a pattern in practice of your police department allowing third party abusers of my daughter.

And when they show up and we are trying to report it, they criminalize her, and they have also attempted to criminalize me.

So the last thing I want to point your attention to is the mortgage assistance pre-approval letter.

The wrong actions of your police department against my vulnerable adult for felony harassment of her mother instead of ITA ing her.

Jeopardize her homeownership with me for a three-bedroom home.

I will be addressing this matter with Judge Tanalen if you do not with a uh protective injunction, because this is just ridiculous at this point.

They have obstructed amber alerts, they have had opportunity to arrest perps who have given her drugs, sexually assaulted her, given her alcohol, and no perpetrator has been um arrested, but they're always willing to prosecute my daughter for the resulting injuries from the perpetrators and never willing to protect her.

So I'm gonna need you guys to talk with your police department about that.

And I will be back before Judge Tana Lynn with a request for injunction on the matter.

Our next speaker on the list is Joe Kunzler, and I don't see Mr.

Kunzer online.

If you are joining us, can you please raise your hand?

Okay, I'll move to our next speaker who's Liz McKinney.

Hi there.

Uh my name's Elizabeth McKinney.

I work at Lavish Roots catering and hospitality.

I'm a dining worker there.

Uh I'm here representing my coworkers.

We run the dining cafeterias at Meta Cafes in Bellevue Redmond and Seattle.

Uh I am here because our job has been very difficult.

We had layoffs last February.

Nearly a hundred workers were laid off from the job.

And the workload has just increased since then.

Like we are being asked to do a lot, and we're being denied our raises.

And we have come together with the decision to unionize to form a union.

Um we went forward to the company in July with signatures from over 60% of our coworkers asking the company to remain neutral in that decision and to respect the rights of their workers.

And I want to thank Mayor Lynn Robinson for joining in our letter.

We had over 40 elected officials from Washington State who have also called on the company to remain neutral as we like go forward with our decision.

But right now, just to be clear, I signed as an individual.

Yes, thank you so much for doing that.

Uh right now that is not being respected.

We are facing a very intense anti-union campaign on the job.

We are being pulled into meetings, being told to vote no for the union.

We have been singled out by managers, being told that we are soliciting and harassing our co-workers for having conversations.

So right now I'm here to ask you today.

We're on Thursday at 3 p.m., 3 to 4:30.

We are going to have a picket action with me and with my coworkers right in front of the building that I work, which is in Bellevue, 10 minutes from here.

Um, and we are going to be demanding our rights as workers that the company respect us, that they respect the democratic process that we're going through right now.

And I would like to invite every single one of you to be there with us on Thursday.

Thank you.

Thank you.

The next speaker on our list is Alex Zimmerman.

Thank you.

Yes, I'm Alex Zimmerman.

Yeah, I'm Alex Zimmerman.

I want to speak something about violation about crime and about police departments.

Very interesting for me because police department for me for 35 years acting like a political police, like a Gestapa.

Prosecute me five times.

Nobody in oh, five times prosecute is good.

You know what this means.

Political prosecution is very interesting.

Trump have only four times.

I've had five.

So I'm better than Trump.

I know this.

But another point is absolutely critical.

For 45 years, I only one man who you give many trespasses and interruption.

One man, Jewish man who you treat like a Nazi Gestapo.

Oh, I forgot.

Happy.

Jewish year, you know what is mean now, and for another five thousand years.

Yep, absolutely.

Viva Trump, viva new American revolution.

Stand up, slip and happy cow.

And you cleanse this Dory Chamber from this bandita, you know.

Talking about anything to do with the work of the city council, so I'm gonna ask you to direct your words towards something that we actually work on.

I talk you are speak about agenda number one about crime.

Yeah, you have crime.

You have crime because policemen not good.

Two policemen stay in here.

Yeah?

Why?

Only for Alex Zimmerman.

Exactly.

This is exactly what has happened.

And about another policeman auction.

For last two years I have 20 ticket for $3,000.

In every ticket I bring in court, traffic ticket.

I bring in court in every hearing cost $3,000.

Again, this has nothing to do with the work of the city council, and that's your second warning.

If I have to tell you again, I'm gonna ask you to leave.

I talk about policemen.

What is problem?

This exactly here.

Why you interrupt me?

Yeah, you see this.

This here.

Black and white.

Yeah.

Domestic violence action with proclamation.

This exactly what is I talking?

It's a package.

You think in the policeman is different than you.

You doing the I'm gonna ask you to leave, Mr.

Zimmerman.

You're not addressing the council work.

So can I ask you to leave, please and ask the police to give them an escort.

No, I don't understand.

I'm talking about exactly an agenda.

Why are you doing this?

I'm asking you to leave, please.

No, you cannot do this because they're doing exactly what it's supposed to be.

Policeman is a part of your business.

And you are a Nazi pay.

Do we have anybody else signed up for public comment?

That is the end of our pre-registered list, though we do still have Sister Zimmerman.

You were interrupting our session here.

We do still have some time remaining in oral communication, so at this point I'd ask if there's anyone else joining us, either online or in chambers.

Would like to make a comment, please raise your hand.

Uh I will reiterate that we cannot take any additional comments in support of item 10B.

So you won't.

Yeah, unfortunately we won't.

Sorry.

Yep.

But you can send us an email.

That would be great.

Well, you're going to vote tonight and still ask.

Not really.

You can still send it.

The uh Dr.

Mercer, I see your hand if you want to come forward.

As you know, I should be in Africa, but I had to rebook my ticket so I had the opportunity to speak to you again and uh bring to your attention um parking again.

Um I asked uh two weeks ago for the uh parking regulation so I could review them, and I didn't get them until after two of my vehicles were towed.

I've also asked for the um delineation of where the Bellevue right-of-way is and where it's public property on the stretch from Southeast 16th to Southeast 20th on 156th.

Uh jock is working with me now, and she heard these complaints yesterday and may have already gotten some information to you regarding this.

Um the Bellevue police are very helpful.

I was very disappointed to hear that my new friend who just spoke before the other gentleman, if I can say gentleman, uh, is having difficulty with her uh vulnerable 18-year-old.

I'm sure you will talk to the police and make sure that they behave properly to people with disabilities.

You know, there is the Americans with disabilities thing, and that's very important.

Yeah.

Um, like I say, uh, I get so much support when I'm dealing with homeless people, and they have mental illness problems that I, you know, that are putting me in danger, and the police are right there to help me.

Um, you know, most of the time I am so happy with the Bellevue Police Department.

I was very disappointed to hear what my friend just said.

I I just met her the other day, and uh, she does have degrees in sociology, so she's worth listening to.

Um I've got more, but get on, and I'll work with.

I'd like to speak to Conrad, and I wanted to speak to John only to find out he he retired.

So who took John's place?

Are you you took John's place?

Okay.

Uh I hope I can talk to you guys before I leave for Africa.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I did not see any additional hands.

I'll do one final call out.

Okay.

I don't see any additional hands, Mayor.

I'll turn it back to you.

Okay, thank you.

Uh we have a report from our city manager.

Ms.

Carlson.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um, Deputy Mayor and Council members.

Tonight I'm uh very pleased to invite some members of our community development department up.

Uh they are here to provide a highlight of a program that was launched in 2023 as the state funding for the eviction prevention pilot program was eliminated.

The housing accord program is a voluntary program that supports landlords and tenants in finding alternatives to help uh reduce evictions and prevent homelessness.

And the program has provided a touch point and assistance for both landlords and tenants needing help to navigate some pretty difficult situations.

So we have assistant director Mike McCormack Cuntleman here this evening, Natalie Daniels of our conflict resolution center, she's the manager, and Julia Devlin Devin, Housing Accord Program Coordinator.

And with that, I'll turn it over to Mike.

Thank you, City Manager Carlson, uh Mayor Robinson, Deputy Mayor Malikucian, Councilmember.

It's a pleasure to be here with you tonight.

Uh, before we get started and introducing uh the conflict resolution center and the housing accord program, I did want to provide a brief update.

Uh as many of you know uh out in the community as well as on council uh Marcy McReynolds uh retired last April after 10 years of service.

Uh and so we celebrated her contributions to the city.

We did a national search far and wide uh to look for the expertise to lead the conflict resolution center moving forward and found that expertise in-house.

Uh so Natalie uh Daniels has been serving with uh conflict resolution center in some capacities since 2009.

Uh she's a trained lawyer, but don't let that don't let that scare you.

Uh she knows her business around mediation and conciliation and conflict resolution.

So I'm excited to introduce her to you tonight as well as Julia Devon, who's been doing an outstanding job with our housing accord program.

And with that, I'm going to turn things over to Natalie.

Thank you.

Uh Julia is also a lawyer, by the way.

If I'm guilty, she's guilty.

Um, so thank you, Mike, for that introduction.

Thank you, Council members, for inviting us to speak with you.

I have been fully invested in the work of the conflict resolution center since I started as a volunteer in 2009.

I'm delighted to join you now as the new manager.

Uh this brief is for information purposes only.

I'm going to start with a little background about the conflict resolution center, which is going to be celebrating its 30th anniversary next year.

Our mission is to increase the problem-solving capacity of our community.

Basically, we help put out people fires.

Our conflict resolution service is available to those living or working in Bellevue and Kirkland.

We also maintain membership in Resolution Washington, which is a statewide umbrella organization of 21 dispute resolution centers.

Our relationship with Resolution Washington allows us to access state grant funds that account for roughly half of our program budget.

The conflict resolution center handles more than 500 cases a year.

These are mostly neighbor to neighbor and landlord tenant cases.

These cases come to us directly and are also referred to by us by other city departments, including issues that come to council or the city manager.

We have numerous community partners as well.

We're able to deliver this free service because we have a vital volunteer program.

We have a pool of roughly 50 volunteers trained in negotiation and conflict coaching, with about 20 of them actively taking cases.

Our diverse volunteer cadre reflects the cultures and languages spoken in Bellevue.

We also offer workshops in communication, listening, and other conflict resolution skills.

For the last two years, we've focused on creating alternatives to eviction with our housing accord program.

I will now turn it over to Julia to talk about that.

Thanks, Natalie.

And thank you, Council members.

Happy to be here and tell you about our program.

The Housing Accord works like the center does to prevent evictions and promote housing stability, particularly with immigrant, low-income and multifamily housing communities.

We work cross-culturally and empower residents and property managers to work together to find some common solutions that work for everyone and avoid and evictions and strengthen their communities.

Our services include one-on-one coaching, where we work with tenants or landlords, and direct negotiation between landlords and tenants to resolve back rent issues, but also maintenance requests, lease violations, and tenant to tenant conflicts.

We refer tenants to other resources, both within the city and outside as well.

The housing accord program, as was mentioned, grew out of the work we did during the pandemic to keep tenants housed and get landlords paid.

During the pandemic, the state mandated that dispute resolution centers negotiate repayment plans between landlords and tenants.

And our caseload increased from around 300 a year to 2800 over the two years of the mandatory program.

We had up to an 82% resolution rate and keeping about 9,000 people housed and their landlords made whole.

So the relationships with the landlords and the practices we developed during that time have been carried over with our present non-mandatory program and working with the housing accord.

In 2024 of August 24, the center was selected to be one of 10 cities in the U.S.

to participate in the National League of Cities eviction prevention learning lab.

And while the center took the lead, we worked closely with the Office of Housing, our Human Services, Arch, and others within the city.

This nine-month collaboration consisted of monthly learning labs that focused on best practices and innovation in eviction prevention, court support, and tenant landlord outreach communication and engagement.

The center was invited to present at our first meeting our best practices and eviction prevention, and we also conducted an early referral pilot as our final project.

The pilot was successful, and we now have a final report that's detailing our findings, a blog on the National League of Cities website, and are working to expand our early referral network.

The purpose of the early referral pilot, I'll tell you a little bit about it.

We partnered with the King County Housing Authority and Allied Residential Property Management Company and 24 of their property managers.

We completed 116 cases during the five-month pilot, which was from November to March.

The design was straightforward.

Property managers included this flyer when they gave out pay or vacate notices to alert the tenants about a possible eviction.

And then they we also transferred this flyer into Russian and Spanish after we met with property managers to see what might be the most useful.

And then both property managers and our organization track the data over time to see what the case outcomes were.

I'm happy to say that it was successful, and we showed that working with tenants early in the eviction process increases the likelihood of a resolution that helps both landlords and tenants avoid what is often a long and costly eviction process in court.

So specifically, our findings showed that managers can play a really significant role in resolving cases early right on site before it's escalated at all.

About 41% of the 983 notices that were given out during the pilot were resolved on site.

And then more people called the Bellevue Conflict Resolution Center, and our resolution rate also increased to about 90% of the cases being resolved or having no further action.

And then most of the time our cases involved coaching and where we work one-on-one with a tenant, and that was also shown to be the most effective means of resolving the cases.

So there's a copy of the early referral pilot report, and it's also on your web on our website of the city.

So going forward, we recognize that the housing accord and early referral to conflict resolution actually works, and so we're promoting that since the program started in September of 23.

Our we've completed 432 cases and help people stay housed.

Going forward, we want to expand and continue to build our relationships with the landlords and property managers, as well as work with human service organizations so that they can start to refer tenants to us early, especially the ones that are working on rental assistance and helping them.

And we're continuing improving our data collection, and we're working with residents to strengthen their communities by building relationships and things between tenants to tenants.

So we're excited about these results and the relationships we've built and with property managers, tenants, and community groups, and so we're looking forward to continuing to get the word out that the city has this program and that it's actually effective.

So thank you for your support of our center.

And if you have any questions, feel free to reach out or let us know.

Terrific.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Okay.

Um let's see.

I'm sorry.

Consent calendar.

Do I have a motion to approve the consent calendar?

I move to approve the consent calendar.

Second.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Okay, we're gonna take uh a little break here.

We'll come back at 10 after.

Okay, we're back in session, and we have two study session items in front of us.

So, city manager, would you like to introduce them?

Thank you, Mayor Robinson.

Uh Deputy Mayor and Council members.

So our first study session is an information only, and this is regarding the public benefit rating system, which is a state authorized county run program that allows homeowners to apply to reclassify their property as open space to qualify for a tax benefit.

There the program has specific criteria and process that's involved in assessing the properties to be approved, and that involves both the city council and the county council and requires approval from both bodies.

In addition, the city must review the parcel with the council at a public meeting, and that will be covered by staff when that's scheduled later this fall.

Tonight you will receive information about the program and the specific property in Bellevue that's seeking access to the PBRS program.

So from community development, we have planning director Tara Johnson, and uh like to introduce assistant city attorney Katie White.

This is her first time in front of the council.

With that, I'll turn it over to Tara.

Thank you, City Manager Carson for the introduction.

Good evening, Mayor, Deputy Mayor, Council members.

Um we're here this evening as uh uh City Manager Carlson mentioned to provide counsel with an overview of the PBR's program.

Um we'll talk a little bit about the last time it was before council as well.

A few of you uh may recall that.

Um so tonight's uh overview and uh presentation is really for information only.

Um, it's an opportunity for us to go into the details of the program in advance of a public hearing which has been scheduled for October 14th, so we'll be back to you then.

Um, and then tonight is also an opportunity for you to ask us questions and for us to bring back responses to questions that we may not not know the answers to at this point.

So um we'll start off, provide some background on the PBRS program.

Um, we'll talk about the process.

The process is uh not super straightforward, it's it's new um to several of you, so we'll go into some detail there.

We'll provide some context on where the site is located.

Um, we'll talk about our role with the overall review process and talk about the staff analysis as well as when we'll be bringing back um more details on the analysis and then the recommendation which will all occur at October at the October 14th public hearing.

And then we'll conclude with next steps.

So a little bit of background to provide just some context for the program.

In 1970, the Washington State Legislature enacted the Open Space Taxation Act as an incentive for property owners to preserve open space, farmland, and timber land and property.

In return for preservation and conservation, eligible portions of the property could be taxed at a lower rate.

It also provides authority for the county to adopt a public benefit rating system which could set open space priorities.

King County has adopted a program under that code, King County Code Section 2036, and you'll hear us refer to it at several times during the presentation tonight.

Consistent with the act, the purpose of the King County's PBRS program is to encourage conservation within the county, really focusing on natural resources, including resources that are located within city boundaries, like this application, really with the intent to maintain wildlife habitat, open space, wetlands and streams, forests, and productive farmlands.

Since the property is located within the city of Bellevue, both jurisdictions, King County and the City of Bellevue are responsible for evaluating the property and assessing whether it meets and qualifies for the open space conservation.

Each jurisdiction has to hold a public hearing on the application and request, and the act requires that both county and city have to identically approve the application for this classification to go into effect.

So both jurisdictions have to approve the application for the request to be granted.

If there are conditions tied to the application, then the conditions need to be identical with both the county and the city's approval.

If the application is approved, then the tax benefit would begin in 2026 for this application if it were approved before the end of the year.

A similar identical application on this property was submitted in 2022 and was denied by the city council at that time.

These properties are the Sambika Camp Retreat and Vassa Park.

So those are the two that you see highlighted on the map there.

So a little bit about the process.

And then we'll also be providing staff analysis and our recommendation at that time.

Council could decide to take action on the 14th if you choose.

And if either jurisdiction denies the application or the approvals are not identical, then that's where the process would end and the application is denied.

However, both Bellevue and King County identically approve the applications, then the next step would be for an open space taxation agreement to be recorded, and then the tax reduction would go into effect for 2026 and onwards from there.

So to provide some detail on the actual site, it's located as you as you may have heard with public comments located in the bridal trails neighborhood, so there's definite interest from the community there.

So this the site in yellow with the yellow boundary around it is the application site, and we'll go into more details about the acreage and the area that's being requested for conservation.

It's encumbered with two existing easements.

So it has the bridal trail, a bridal trails easement called the Trails End Easement, which is really been recorded and owned by the Homeowners Association, and then there's the Energize E-Site, Puget Sound Energy Olympic Pipeline Easement as well.

So this graphic goes into more detail.

The total site area, the boundary shown in red, is 1.38 acres, as you can see, as you can see from this graphic.

There's a trails end easement, which is owned by the homeowners association, and all property owners that are part of this development have access to that trail.

There's also a hundred-foot-wide Puget Sound Energy Olympic pipeline easement that exists on the property.

And then that area that's hatched in yellow is the property owner's home.

There's a under the act and the King County Code, the certain areas that are not eligible for conservation, and that's the home, the driveway landscaping, and other associated uses.

So that area where we are estimating to be about 0.28 acres, which we're anticipating, and we'll go through this in more detail with a staff analysis.

About 1.1 acres we're estimating to be eligible, a potentially eligible under the program.

So everything that's outside that yellow area, which includes the PSE Olympic pipeline easement as well as the trails end easement.

And we can come back to that if there are council questions.

So that I'm going to turn things over to Katie and she's gonna cover a portion of the presentation.

Thanks, Tara.

Good evening, Council members.

Thanks for hearing this matter tonight.

So Mr.

Tameri's application, which is an attachment to the agenda memo materials which were submitted, identifies that he requested open space classification for 1.33 acres of his 1.38 acre property.

As Tara just uh discussed, at most 1.10 acres could be, could potentially be eligible.

Uh 0.2 acres consists of his home and the immediate surrounding areas, such as its patio, driveway, backyard, which cannot uh qualify as open space.

Uh Mr.

Tameri's application, as you can see when you review it, has requested that a number of open space resource categories be applied to his property.

These open space resources come from King County Code chapter 20.36.

The criteria that are set forth in the code must be met in order for any resource category to apply.

Open space uh categories set forth in the code are assigned points, which then correlate with the tax deduction.

The categories that Mr.

Tamir has requested total 150 points, and if granted in full, this would result in a 90% tax reduction for the subject area that he's applied for.

And this area would therefore be taxed at 10% of its currently assessed value, resulting in a tax reduction of just over 8300 because the city of Bellevue receives 13% of that tax.

Um the City of Bellevue would see just over 1,100 less in taxes on his property if granted in full.

So this next slide is focused, um, it's intended to be an overview of the valuation criteria that the city council must look at when considering this application.

Uh the city council is one as one of the two legislative authorities that consider the application, the other being King County, uh, must consider certain factors when evaluating.

So pursuant to the act, the city council must consider the resulting revenue loss or tax shift, as well as whether the application will conserve or enhance natural, cultural or scenic resources, protect streams, protect soil resources, enhance recreational opportunities, among other considerations focused on enhancing uh natural lands.

Relatedly, as Tara has touched on, the city council must also look at the factors which are outlined in King County's PBRS program, which is codified at chapter 20.36.

Uh, that program has to be read consistent with the act, as the act is what authorizes King County to create such a program.

Uh the criteria for the open space criteria is like I said, must be read consistent with the act, which is the conservation of uh natural lands.

Can I interrupt you for one sec to direct counsel to this at um in your paperwork on the dais here?

Go ahead.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um, so King County Code 20.36.100 subsection C sets forth 20 different open space resource categories, as Mayor Robinson um just pointed out.

This has been provided as a handout to you all as counsel, so you can uh review it, but we will also be going over the resource categories in greater detail at the public hearing and specifically focus on the resource categories that he has applied for, um, which I believe is over six or eight.

Um it's a fairly large number of resource categories that he's applied for.

Um open space resource categories under the PBRS program include areas like urban open space, ecological enhancement, farm and agricultural land, forest stewardship, trail linkage, significant wildlife or salmon habitat, public recreation area, among a few others.

If any one of the 20 open space resource categories outlined in the code have been met on a property, uh King County Code does authorize that bonus points can be assigned to categories.

An example would be resource restoration of a wildlife habitat.

Um the chart on this slide identifies the corresponding tax reduction based on the number of points in order to qualify for a tax reduction.

A property needs to have at least five points, and then uh the reduction increases up to no more than 90 percent if there are 35 points or above.

And with that, I will pass it back to Tara.

So just want to recap the process a little bit.

Um, as I mentioned earlier, we started off with a site visit on May 1st with county staff, Bellevue staff, and the property owner.

And um an identical application was submitted in 2022.

Um there were a couple there were two study sessions with city council, and then following that the application was denied.

Um we have been reviewing the application using King County code as well as King County staff has also been reviewing the application using the code as well as state law.

And um of course, at the public hearing, we'll be providing you with more information on our analysis.

We'll be walking through the open space resource categories that the application uh that the applicant has requested credit for, and then walking through the staff analysis and our overall recommendation on October 14th.

So, next steps um is a public hearing, and then uh opportunity for council to take action if you're if you're prepared to do that.

And then, of course, um, as we've mentioned earlier, the tax exemption would only be granted if both uh the city and council approvals are identical.

So that um turn things back to you, Mayor.

Okay, thank you very much.

So I'm gonna open this up for any questions or comment.

Does anybody have anything?

Go ahead, Councilmember Hamilton.

Um thank you for the presentation.

Um what was the basis for the denial in 2022?

Sure.

Um so in 2022, uh the denial was uh focused on the statutory factors.

So an adopt a resolution was adopted and it outlined that uh the city considered the tax loss to the city, particularly when there's only so many ways the city can recoup taxes via property taxes, and then it also looked at the statutory factors that I uh briefly touched on, like conservation of lands, um protections of stream, soil resources, and ultimately uh felt that this property, which um is in a um developed community and that is also burdened by easements, did not fit within the intent of the act.

Okay, and then you mentioned um that VASA park and Sambica were granted exemptions and prior possibly to incorporation into the city, but do you know specifically when that was?

We can um I don't know when specifically that was, but we can bring that back.

Okay, and then the King County hearing examiner will hear this tomorrow.

Tomorrow at one o'clock, yeah.

Do you have any idea when we might know their decision?

Um I our my understanding is their process is once the King County uh hearing examiner holds the public hearing, uh the hearing examiner has 10 days to issue their recommendation, and then it gets forwarded to the King County Council.

There's an appeal period um after the recommendation, I believe that's about 24 days, and then following that, if there's no appeal file, then it moves to the King County Council.

Okay, bring thank you, Mayor.

Okay.

Councilmember Bargava.

Yeah, thank you, Mayor.

Um building on the question actually that Councilmember Hamilton asked, I want to start with 2022.

Um did King County approve that application?

Yes, they did.

And is it fair to assume that the intent of the program both at the city and the county level is generally aligned, otherwise we'd not be looking for identical recommendations.

What was the driver for their approval and hard denial?

Um the last time, uh the last time around, I would say that we did not use the King County Code.

We used um, so we have the ability to use a King County code to assess the application or the act uh under state law, and our process the last time around was to use the provisions under the act and not review the utilize the King County Code requirements.

This time we're we're utilizing both, so we're ensuring that we meet the intent of the act and reviewing it against the King County Code.

Um King County's interpretation, they reviewed it against their code and their analysis was that they felt like it met the criteria.

Got it.

Um more question.

Is that any intent?

And I can study this further, but I if you can help off developable capacity, like is it the intention shouldn't be that I have a parcel that is encumbered to an extent that the developable capacity is very limited, and then we try to try to get tax benefit from the program.

Is that part of because the criteria for the 20 sort of open space categories is clear, but that developable capacity and how we think about that trade-off isn't it?

Um so I can start off and then have Katie Katie um weigh in as well.

The intent of the act is as as we outlined, is really to enhance opportunities for preservation of wetlands, streams, uh critical areas, things like that, or to preserve areas that could otherwise be developable.

So it's both aspects.

And as we'll walk through at the hearing, there are a number of different areas, so things like forest conservation, um ecological enhancement projects, um, things like that, uh wetlands, streams, salmon habitat, all of that.

Those are all different categories.

There's also a category for things like historic preservation.

Um so you could class you could meet a number of different uh criteria, and so it depends on what you're what you're applying for.

But the intent is, you know, if you have something uh of value under the act that meets certain criteria, then it can be preserved, then it's set aside.

Or if you have area that's developable, then um it could be set aside as preservation.

Is there anything else you want to add?

I can add to that just a little bit.

Um this is in the legislative intent of the statute, which is RCW 84.34.

Um, it focuses a and discusses that um if someone has lands that essentially could be developed, they could sell it their land to a developer, you know, make millions off of that sale, but they're choosing not to, they shouldn't be taxed at the highest and best use of their property.

They should be taxed at the current use of their property, which um could be open space.

So maintaining a large area of land as farmland as opposed to selling it to a developer.

So that was um appears to be the impetus for the act.

And so then in this case with this property being burdened by easements, um, the landowner couldn't develop uh the portions of the property that he's seeking to qualify under the as open space.

Got it.

So that would not qualify those areas encumbered wouldn't qualify.

Um staff will be providing their recommendation on October 14th, but that's a consideration, yes.

Okay.

Councilmember Sumendwaria.

Thank you.

Um I have two questions.

So the first question is um I see that Sambica Navasa Park was approved.

Um while you find out the timeline when they were approved, um are there any lot of similarity between the three properties?

Um to our initial our initial assessment, uh we're not seeing a whole lot of similarities with the Sambica camp retreat, which is um an active recreational use, as well as the Basa Park, uh, which is more of a private recreational use, um, and the subject property, which is uh single family uh single family property.

So definitely different in nature.

Okay, thank you.

And then my um next question is if it gets approved, we were gonna have a huge reduction in tax revenue.

Um what our plan, how are we able to recover that?

Um that would be something that is a fiscal impact to the city, so we would be losing that revenue.

Okay, would that be like divide out to other property owners?

Oh, it are you asking, is there gonna be a tax shift?

Yeah.

Not not if this just uh not if the specific property is if it's the only property that we're experiencing this tax impact on, then no.

Okay, thank you.

Yeah.

Okay, I'm gonna ask, and then I'll ask.

Councilmember Lego next.

So um to me, when I look at the criteria, the one that seems the most important and the hardest to attribute to this is public access.

So um when I look at Vasa Park or Camp Sambica and see uh all the public access to that, I question how much general public access there is to this property.

Can you explain that to me?

Um, there's access from the trails, the trails and easement.

So that's um I'm not sure to what extent that is publicly uh accessible, that's accessible to everyone that lives in that uh trails and subdivision or development.

Um that's something we can get more clarity on.

Um the property owner when we uh when we held held a site visit in May mentioned that he may be open to providing uh public access from uh from the street onto that connected to the trails and easement, but there's nothing recorded uh or anything, or he hasn't provided any documentation to state that he'd be willing to do that, just verbally mention that.

Okay.

So um, you know, I think about Milt Swanson's property where he had a barn, an acreage that was uh adjacent to parkland, and that to me is property that could have been developed, but wasn't and he I think he could have successfully applied for this to preserve the barn and the property.

Um not seeing it yet with this property, but um anxious to um hear more learn more from the public hearing.

Can you tell me what kind of a precedent could this set for uh other bridal trail landowners who have identical pieces of property next to him on either side of him?

I think each application um would be assessed based on the criteria that they're submitting for.

So we'd have to evaluate it based on their specific site constraints or site situations or context.

Um so that would be hard to you know state right now.

Does this set a precedent?

But um essentially if there was a very similar property and very under very similar circumstances, um then um there could be a precedent set.

And yeah, there's anything else you want to add?

Yeah, I can speak to that um a little bit more.

So this is a legislative determination which is reviewed uh by an arbitrary and capricious standard.

So if essentially an identical property in bridal trails applied with the similar uh trails and easement running through it, um when you apply the arbitrary and capricious standard, that would be difficult to deny that property if it has an identical component.

Yeah, got it.

Okay, uh Councilmember Lee.

Thank you.

When was this uh code set?

Uh the PBRS code.

Um it was created shortly after uh the act, which started in 1970.

King County has developed their PBRS program over the years.

Um but it was shortly after the act in 1970.

Yeah, that's a long time ago.

Okay.

So I think uh the uh what do you call avoidance of this tax should be applied based on conditions?

And the conditions seem to me may have changed.

It's that long time ago.

Uh so I always the go is correct.

We wouldn't have a go to open space and all that stuff.

You know, but I always believe that the DAVO is in the detail.

How do we look at the situation now?

You know, uh we may not we will not need that much open space.

We might have other questions.

There may ask that's a very good question.

You know, is access to it.

You know, there was not a condition, I assume.

Because if it is, it would be already included.

So, but I think we need to make sure what it are the conditions.

I think we as legislators today, we need to evaluate whether it's uh it meets the current condition.

We believe it's relevant to what we have today.

Change in 60 years tell us exchange.

So I in order to do that, we have to look at each condition and then talk about it.

That's why 2022, you know, we denied it, right?

Because we we probably didn't meet, we didn't follow the same condition, even though the reason is about we don't want to lose the tax.

You know, taxes eleven hundred dollars, that's not that much.

So the point is situations change.

We need to look at the conditions.

I believe the condition has to be once we agree to the conditions.

Part of the condition would be is a fair.

Does it help us to meet whatever we want to protect today?

Whether it be open space, whatever.

And so we have to do that.

We have to I think the council needs to go through a deliberation.

What are the conditions today that we're looking for that we are willing to give them a uh abatement on tax, you know, and whatever that may be.

And then uh you want to do that, we have to spend some time.

And I don't have time to go through each of these.

I mean, it's many pages of it.

So I'm not sure which one, which condition is still relevant.

We have to decide tonight.

No, I understand that.

But even if we say that it's okay, we we have no basis to say it's okay.

Because especially it was a denied in 2022 for one same go simple reason.

We don't want to lose $1100.

Same reason exists today.

I can say the same thing.

Right?

So that's why I think we need to go a little bit deeper.

Just to see what other conditions we really want to meet.

And if it doesn't meet those conditions, we don't need we council's not gonna approve.

I'm not gonna approve it.

Only if it meets the conditions.

Then I would approve it.

Then there's an open hearing.

We already heard from one of the public and the public testimony.

She came up with an idea, which I think she articulated and may actually reaffirm, well not reaffirmed, mayor actually questioned that.

She she actually added her comment to that, which is fair.

I think we all would be able to add more questions if I had more time to look at all these other things.

Many of them are still relevant, absolutely.

But somehow may not.

And I like to make sure that I understand what it is, what conditions we're applying, what conditions should we apply?

That's new, what condition maybe we should not even consider.

So I'm not ready to do anything, and I want to know what is fair.

I'll have a conversation first.

Unless you can tell me now, and I'm ready to spend some time to listen to it.

Um thank you, Councilmember Lee.

Um we are going to be uh going into more much more detail at the public hearing, so we'll walk through those five or six pages you received.

We're not going to walk through all of them, but we'll walk through what he's requested.

He thinks he meets each of the criteria.

So we'll walk through that and and also walk you through what our recommendation is or our analysis as to whether he meets the criteria or not.

So anybody, any council member who wants a staff briefing before the hearing is welcome to have one.

Are you saying that you don't need our approval tonight?

No, it's information only.

Just information only.

Okay.

So wait, I'm just offering my suggestions.

Yes.

I hope that when you have a chance going forward, you know, tell me.

Okay, I already told you what I wanted.

So I would look forward to it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay.

Any other comments or questions?

Thank you.

Okay.

Thank you very much.

Okay, we have a second study session item.

And uh city manager, go ahead and introduce, thank you.

Thank you, Mayor.

Deputy Mayor and Council.

Bellview has a vision and is a safe city, and we take uh crime seriously.

That's at the council level, the community level, the staff level.

In March, council directed staff to conduct some additional research and bring back draft code for consideration related to mandatory minimum sentences for specific offenses.

Tonight uh we have our city attorney, Trisna Tanis and our chief prosecutor, Steve Penner, back to present their research, offer options for your consideration and answer your questions.

This is a council initiated item.

So staff is here to support you in the direction that you consider uh providing this evening.

With that, I will turn it over to our city attorney, Trishna.

Thank you, City Manager Carlson.

Good evening, uh Mayor, Deputy Mayor, Council members.

Thank you for having us here tonight.

Steve and I are presenting the mandatory minimum item for your consideration.

Uh for direction, we are looking for you to uh consider directing us to prepare this ordinance to imposing mandatory minimum sentences on certain repeat offenders of certain theft crimes.

Uh our agenda will first recall council direction.

Uh this is back in the fall of 20 of last year as well as in March of this year.

We'll go through the components of the draft code.

We'll explain how we drafted the code the way we did, and then we'll provide additional information, some of which you asked for in your March meeting, but also some of which we feel like it would be helpful in your consideration of this item.

So we calling council direction.

The intention that you had stated in the fall of last year was to reduce public disorder crimes in Bellevue.

We brought um this to study session on March 11th, and uh during that study session, you asked us to bring back draft code in six months.

This is the six-month timeline, and as well as include more information, including data from other cities, Everett and Marisville have adopted similar ordinances, and then updates about the Bellevue Community Court, which at the time was not yet opened.

So, first um, going through the components of the draft code.

The crimes that we are including are theft third-degree crimes.

Repeat offender is defined as 18 years or older, and the defendant would have two or more convictions of theft in Washington state within the past two years.

The minimum sentence would be 30 days, and we have built in some discretionary provisions.

The first one is if uh if there is a substantial risk of mental or physical harm to the defendant, by that sentence, the court may order electronic home monitoring in lieu of jail sentence.

The second discretionary provision is if eligible, defendants may still go through diversion programs, which includes a community court.

So going through the basis for how we drafted the code.

First, um, we focused on crimes that are most impactful to Bellevue, and this is theft third degree.

Uh you heard last week that the crime rate in Bellevue is going down, which is great, excellent news.

Uh, regardless, uh, theft third degree is still the highest reported crime in Bellevue year over year.

You see that on the table at the bottom of the slide.

Um theft, of course, places a financial burden on retailers, customers, as well as our sales tax revenue.

It erodes in the in our confidence of societal fairness.

And then, as you um, I'm sure have experienced, and retailers have needing to do is to put everyday items behind locked cabinets or metal um uh gates in order to protect the merchandise.

We also focus on offenders who are most negatively impacting Bellevue.

These are the repeat offenders.

We carefully consider the characteristics of offenders and that who would be subject to this ordinance.

Um we understand um that jail sentence is life-changing.

It is very serious.

Uh, while we, of course, want to hold um offenders accountable.

We also wanted to be careful and mindful that it is a big impact.

So we are targeting those who are actively re-offending and disregarding our laws.

And that led us to defining repeat offenders as those with two or more prior theft convictions, again, in Washington State within the last two years.

We the third um rationale or basis for how we drafted the code is that we wanted to maintain balance between the legislative and the judicially.

So sentencing such as this one is something that the legislature is doing.

But uh sentencing typically is under the realm of the judiciary.

So we felt it is important to maintain that balance between the legislative and the judicial branches of government.

We understand and acknowledge that we want to make sure that we put out there that there's a message that Bellevue doesn't tolerate repeat offenders.

We wanted to have that strong message in order to be able to potentially deter potential offenders from committing crimes in Bellevue.

And we want to do so by imposing automatic and consistent sentencing on similarly situated defendants.

We do this and be able to also protect the public at the same time.

These objectives are met by us being able to draft the code in a way that is pretty narrow.

Again, to focus on those crimes that are most impactful to Bellevue and those offenders that are um repeat offenders.

In terms of judicial balance, we also wanted to be able to maintain some judicial discretion.

We want the prosecutors and the court to be able to be responsive to unique facts and circumstances of each case.

So in this way, we did build some carve-outs within the uh draft code.

The allowance for electronic home monitoring, again, if there is that substantial risk of harm, as well as to be able to use other tools that may be more effective, um, including diversion programs and community court.

So with that, I'm gonna turn it over to Steve to walk through the rest of our presentation.

Thank you.

Um so there are two other cities that have passed similar ordinances, Marysville and Everett, and we've reached out to both of those cities to uh see how those ordinances are working.

Um it can be difficult to gather data uh in this particular area because um a lot of different things impact crime trends.

Uh as we've talked about recently, that crime trends in Bellevue right now are very good and going down.

So it can be hard to look at any particular data set and say for sure that it's because of a particular ordinance.

Anecdotally, uh we've been told that they believe it's working well.

Um of the anecdotes uh to the effect of uh they're seeing a reduction, they think now in repeat offenders.

So maybe not so much in the first offense, but they're not they're hoping that they're not seeing that third offense now.

Uh and also that the jail time has had the benefit for some uh defendants that it gives them time to uh dry out and be more open to treatment options by getting some jail time and away from substances.

We don't have any conclusory data on the efficacy of this.

It's a complex system, uh, it can be hard to prove a negative, it's hard to prove um deterrence because if it works, then there's nothing to show.

You're not looking at anything.

Um based on the conversations we've had with them, uh they seem to they seem to have positive uh feelings about how it's working.

So I don't know.

Um Bellevue Community Court.

Uh uh, we were asked to bring back information about that as well.

Uh it launched officially on July 15th at the Bellevue Library.

Um we have about 20 people in the in the program right now.

We have capacity to increase above that.

We look for defendants who will benefit from an increased level of intervention, supervision, and support.

Um so these are people who are really, really uh on the edges of society.

And the way it works is that the court is held in a large room in the library, away from the courthouse to kind of emphasize that this is an alternative way of handling the case.

And then in a large room next door are service providers, mental health service providers, substance abuse, uh, housing, employment, uh insurance, bus passes, um kind of whatever anybody needs, food.

Um and the idea is that um these are people who need this extra support, more than they might get normally through probation.

And we think that they'll be successful.

And the main reason, at least from my standpoint, is that it helps reduce recidivism, that these are people we're identifying that we think will not repeat if they get the supports that they need.

Um not everyone is eligible for this.

Most of our participants right now are charged with theft.

But if you have any violent felony history or any current felony charges or any sex offender history, then you will not be allowed into this program.

We did some data analysis of kind of how things are now versus how things would be if the ordinance is adopted.

We looked at uh how many people would be captured by this and what kind of sentences they're receiving now.

Uh on average, the number of people uh that we would expect to see.

We prosecute about 700 cases of theft per year.

About 10% of those people would have qualifying uh convictions in the last two years that would put them into this ordinance.

Uh of those people who've been convicted, on average, they've received a sentence of about 20 days.

So close to, but not quite what the ordinance says.

Uh we've indicated here that a 20-day sentence usually means 13 days of real jail after good time.

So a 30-day sentence would be 20 days after good time.

It's a tool that correctional facilities use to help maintain order.

Uh you can lose your good time, and you could end up doing the full time.

Uh there is a cost associated with this by increasing the amount of jail time.

Um, assuming we'd have 700 cases a year, and 10% of those people uh would uh qualify under this statute, that's about 70 defendants per year.

The additional real jail time from what we're already doing to what we would do under this ordinance uh is about 490 jail days per year.

And at the cost that we pay uh the score jail facility and what we expect those costs to be next year, the range of the additional jail cost is what's on the slide here about 83 to 120,000 additional.

Again, kind of going back to the components of the draft code.

The the crime is theft in the third degree.

That's the legal definition.

That includes any type of theft, whether it's from mail, from your car, from your porch, from a store, uh, all of that as a prosecutor, that's theft in the third degree.

Uh the repeat offenders, again, uh this would only apply to people 18 years or older.

We don't have jurisdiction over juveniles for the most part in Bellevue.

And we've defined the convictions to be uh any conviction for theft, first, second, or third degree or organized retail theft in the state of Washington in the past two years.

If that uh is met, if that's the situation, then ordinarily right now, the sentence for theft in the third degree, the judge has discretion to give anywhere from zero days in jail up to 364 days in jail.

This would change that to so that the minimum would be 30, and they would only have discretion to go for between 30 days in jail and 364 days in jail.

Uh I might point out when a judge imposes jail, if say if the judge gives 30 days in jail, the balance of that 364 will be uh suspended and held over the defendant's head for a probationary period, that's usually two years.

If they violate the conditions of their probation, the judge can and will usually impose additional jail and then put them right back onto that probation.

Uh the discretionary provisions are there's two listed here.

One is is that if a defendant, and this can happen, if a defendant has a substantial risk of mental or physical harm, then the judge would be allowed to convert it to electronic home monitoring.

This is in there for two reasons.

One to protect the mental and physical harm of people, uh, but also it it directs the court that that's the only acceptable way to convert this.

The way that would work in practice, it would be a burden would be on the defendant to show that this is true.

Um generally they would need documentation from a from a medical professional to establish that.

The score jail and the King County jail, which we use have medical facilities, they have psychological facilities.

Um they're able to take care of most people uh while they serve their sentence.

And then finally, we included a provision that just makes it explicit that defendants may participate in diversion programs like community court, even if they might otherwise uh fall into this ordinance.

And that's a way to encourage treatment for people who we think would be good candidates to successfully comply with the treatment requirements.

So we'll hand it back to you, Mayor.

Okay, thank you.

So, Councilmember New Enhouse, you brought this forward initially, I think in March.

Would you like to start us off?

Thank you, Mayor.

Yes, I would.

Um so thank you so much for all the great work uh Stephen Tris like you put into the uh uh to the ordinance to date and uh being here for the excellent uh presentation.

So thank you so much for that.

You know, and tonight I think we have a you know real opportunity to make Bellevue safer for residents, retail workers, business owners, and to support the outstanding work already being done by our police and prosecutor's office.

Uh this ordinance reflects, I believe, our our values of safety, accountability, and protecting the vibrancy of our community.

I want to thank everyone who took the time this evening to weigh in with their strong support of this ordinance, specifically uh organizations like the Washington Retail Association, Bellevue Chamber, Kemper Development, uh Wallace Properties, uh, the Bellevue Downtown Association, uh, Greg Cycles, King County Councilmember Reagan Dunn, um, and countless other retailers and property owners, large and small.

Uh especially when I acknowledge the residents uh who've emailed the council with heartfelt support and personal stories tonight.

Um in fact, my cashier Joyce, who works at my local QFC, um, sent me pictures of uh yesterday, which um has been sent to all of you.

Um she worked yesterday and they were hit three times.

Uh egregiously so because they were all repeat offenders, and one you will see a picture of someone backing up with his car and throwing in cases of Heineken, um, filling up his entire trunk.

Um so I wanted to share that with all my uh colleagues.

So appreciate all that, and all the people who came down tonight, too, those who spoke and those that didn't get a chance to speak.

Thank you for having your voice heard tonight.

Um but I think the greater point is all these messages, all this support really shows that um that support for this ordinance aligns with what the Bellevue Chamber's recent poll showed that 90% of residents are in favor of this ordinance.

That's just not consensus.

I would say that's more of a mandate.

In Bellevue, our retail workers and grocery store cashiers are more than essential.

They're the heartbeat of our neighborhoods.

Supporting them means more than gratitude, it means action.

If we want to protect jobs, we must protect the people who do them.

If we want to keep stores in Bellevue, we must ensure there's safe places to work and shop.

Now, Bellevue, we only need to look to our neighbors uh for a warning.

Uh our neighbors being Redmond, um, Kroger's closing a store there due to theft and uh other unsustainable operating conditions.

They're closing five stores throughout the region, all due to theft.

This is not just a public safety issue, it's an economic and affordability issue.

Businesses bear the direct costs, as just you've mentioned lost inventory, raising insurance premiums, added security expenses, and damaged uh customer trust.

These costs are ultimately passed on to the consumer.

And during a time where it is uh very expensive, uh affordability uh is a key issue in Bellevue.

And here in Bellevue, we've seen the trends.

So, yes, overall theft uh increase from 45% of over 1,800 cases in 2019 to 2600 cases in 2024.

Again, that's a 45% increase.

More recently, according to the March Staff Report, shoplifting alone as a category of third degree theft increased as well from 1242 cases in 2023 to 1417 cases in 2024.

That's a 14% increase.

And while shoplifting may have decreased in the first nine months of 2025 per BPD's public safety update a couple of weeks ago, um, that may very well change as we as we have yet to hit that busy holiday period.

That period that was um specifically targeted by BPD during the stop the lift campaign.

And interesting side note 40% of those that were arrested during that campaign were repeat shoplifters.

So I hear from residents every week about this issue, and I've seen the consequences firsthand.

I've seen it in front of my daughter.

I've tried to explain to my daughter why someone is running out with a bag full of steaks that they clearly have not paid for.

Why do they get be able to get away with that?

I've heard the complaints from uh the cashiers time and time again.

We don't feel safe here, we can't do anything.

What can be done?

A 2024 study commissioned by the Retail Industry Leaders Association found that external retail theft events are increasing, but reporting to law enforcement has dropped by nearly half since 2019.

Many retailers choose not to report incidents due to limited law enforcement resources, burdensome reporting processes, and a belief that nothing will happen.

I want to change that.

And we can look to our neighbors in Marysville, which have put a similar ordinance in place in 2023.

In Marysville, over half of the 35 repeat offenders chose to enter treatment program instead of serving their full jail sentence.

Marysville also reported a 17% decrease in people refusing, or excuse me, refusing services, meaning they're more open to it and they would rather have the services versus going to jail.

So the lesson is clear.

Accountability works, mandatory minimums when applied with care can be effective, can be an effective deterrent.

And I think the ordinance for Bellevue follows a best practice according to data that exists from the National Institute of Justice that I found was that when it is narrowly defined, meaning having a narrow scope, which this currently does, the cell has judicial discretion, allowing exceptions for mitigating circumstances, the complementary programs, as you mentioned, the diversion treatment, electronic monitoring, et cetera, and then regular data-driven route review, which we do on everything.

So absolutely that would be something we'd want to do in the future.

But accountability is key, and this ordinance sends a clear message.

If you come to Bellevue to repeatedly commit crimes, you will be arrested, and you will face consequences.

And that's not harsh.

That's common sense.

It's how we protect our workers, our businesses, our residents, and our city.

And we recognize that mandatory minimum sentencing comes with costs associated with incarceration and court processing.

But those costs are offset through reductions in theft, through stronger business environment, and restored public confidence.

And this ordinance is balance, holds uh repeat offenders accountable while giving first-time offenders time and opportunities to reform.

The draft code includes discretionary provisions such as eligibility for diversion programs and the option for electronic home monitoring in cases where incarceration may cause substantial harm.

So it's firm, but it's fair, it's compassionate, but it's very clear.

Bellevue must continue to build this reputation of the city that enforces the law, protects residents, workers, visitors, and does not tolerate this type of repeat theft.

So I hope that tonight we can send a message.

Bellevue's not a soft target.

We stand with our workers, our businesses, and our residents to ensure that everyone lives, works, and plays here, feels safe and supported and proud to call Bellevue home.

Thank you.

Councilmember Hamilton.

Great.

Thank you, Mayor.

Thank you for the presentation, and thank you for the critical role you play in helping reduce crime in our city.

We have a comprehensive system in Bellevue for prevent preventing and fighting crime.

Our criminal justice system functions so well because it is carefully calibrated and each element supports the others.

It's important to be aware of that because changes to one element have an impact on the others and the system at large.

The BPD has a crime prevention unit that successfully supports effective and fair ways to reduce crime and improve community safety.

The city maintains a comprehensive crime prevention web page that has a lot of resources that cover a wide range of topics, such as block watch programs, ways to prevent car prowling, and a guide for helping parents recognize possible gang involvement of their children and much more.

The city also funds numerous programs through our human services budget that also contribute to increased public safety through its programs that focus on food security, behavioral health, substance use disorders, and health and wellness.

And of course, we have a highly trained, accredited police department that fights crime on our streets every day.

And as we saw just last week, the members of our police force have been tremendously successful in fighting crime, and they presented us with actual data to prove it.

Overall crime is down 28%, shoplifting is down 19%, and car prowls are down 40%.

This compelling data proves that the critical role that BPD plays in our comprehensive approach to reducing crime is working and working very well.

Recent data from the Bellevue Chamber of Commerce shows that our residents are extremely satisfied with the work of the BPD and the efforts of all involved in our criminal justice system.

As previously mentioned, 91% say they feel safe in their neighborhood.

The chamber's data also points out that concerns over crime and homelessness have declined, and neither top the list of resident concerns.

Clap when you can.

There's a lot of good news here.

The city runs its own adult misdemeanor probation division that is tasked to facilitate rehabilitation and enhance community safety, which they've been very successful at accomplishing.

A key element of the probation division's goal to enhance community safety is to reduce the occurrence of repeat criminal activity on the part of its clients.

According to actual data that was presented to us earlier this year, only three and a half percent of the probation division's clients are involved in future crimes in Bellevue.

I don't think it's a stretch to think that adding another week of incarceration is going to add going to raise the recidivism rate when folks are cut off from their social supports, work, and housing for a longer period of time.

We can't take our eyes off the goal of reducing crime and increasing public safety, and I think this ordinance does that.

The criminal prosecution division, which includes prosecutors such as Mr.

Penner, prosecutes misdemeanors, gross misdemeanors, and traffic infractions occurring in Bellevue and assists victims in the process.

The criminal prosecution division, which works especially closely with BPD and the probation division, is primarily motivated by its commitment to protecting and enhancing the quality of life of Bellevue residents and visitors by enforcing laws, protecting victims, and holding people accountable for criminal behavior.

I've heard nothing but positive feedback from BPD and the probation division as it relates to their working relationship with the criminal prosecution division and with you specifically, Mr.

Penner.

They express appreciation for your filing of charges in 88% of the cases they bring to you and admiration for your ability to successfully prosecute 94% of them.

I've also heard it said that you're supportive of their sentencing requests.

I don't think we can achieve our crime prevention and public safety goals if you all don't work together extremely well.

Everything I've been able to gather, it makes it clear that you do, and a big thanks to you for all of that.

Our criminal courts also play a critical role in enhancing public safety.

As liaison to the probation advisory board, I have the chance to interact with our judges, prosecutors, public defenders, BPD, city staff, and community members every month.

It's a unique opportunity to gain insight into the inner workings of our court system.

These folks are bright, dedicated, and highly effective, and the data shows that.

Just to note, um, the first person to successfully complete a sentence through our new community court did so just today.

That's an accomplishment worth celebrating and an effort that deserves continued support.

I don't think these are major revelations.

I do think it's important to remind ourselves that we have a robust, effective system in place for fighting crime and increasing public safety.

People are held accountable, and we do what we can to help them make necessary adjustments in their lives, but ultimately it's up to them to do so.

It's in this context that we should consider whether or not a minimum mandatory sentencing ordinance could be helpful.

We regularly tout our commitment to data-informed decision making.

This council and our city staff, under the direction of our city manager, constantly reinforce the importance of collecting and using data to make decisions.

In fact, one of our strategic target areas is high performance government, in which we clearly state that Bellevue is committed to providing exceptional city services through data informed and collaborative decision making.

Community members and other stakeholders regularly and rightly push us to follow the data on a wide range of issues.

Using data to make decisions that we don't make, you using data to make decisions ensures that we don't make decisions based on a hunch or a perception or an emotion.

And we can't claim to be committed to data-driven decision making and only rely on it when it suits a specific goal.

Data-driven policy making is the enemy of perception-based or hunched-based policy making.

There is no data to support the effectiveness of a mandatory minimum sentencing ordinance.

While I doubt that adding seven days to a shoplifting sentence will reduce the likelihood of someone reoffending, if there was data to dispute that, I'd be interested in seeing it and open to change my mind.

In the absence of compelling data, I would be willing to rely, at least in part, on the professional judgment of those who are involved in our criminal justice system.

And I have a couple of questions, but it's with that in mind.

Do either of you have a professional opinion on the effectiveness of this mandatory minimum sentencing ordinance.

Even though no one involved in our criminal justice system has asked for this so-called tool, and the current code allows for a sentencing request of up to 364 days, and a hundred percent of those that would have qualified under this ordinance just last December got the 30-day sentences.

Do you think this having this ordinance in place would enhance your ability to reduce crime and make our city safer?

Would it help you be more effective?

Well, I guess what I would say is that I try right now to be as effective as I possibly can, and I can right now seek a 30-day sentence when I think it's appropriate.

So I guess that would be my answer.

Okay.

That's it.

Okay.

Thank you.

Um also too, uh, we heard heard in public testimony, and we got an email earlier today describing a situation that a local retail establishment encountered, and I'd like to get your thoughts on it if possible.

Um I think you heard the story about an individual who committed multiple trespass offenses and shoplifts over the preceding three years.

Uh during one such incident, he knowingly violated an active trespass order, brandished a metal club.

Uh turns out that he had previously been convicted of multiple felonies with 16 prior arrests.

Um just to be clear, is this the kind of individual that would be allowed to participate in community court?

Uh no.

Uh that that would be someone who'd be disqualified from participating in community court based on the felony history.

Okay.

And also we don't let people go in who are committing current offenses that are violent.

So this is not a program for people who commit assaults or brandish weapons of police officers.

Okay.

Great.

Thank you.

I thought so.

I just wanted to make sure we were all clear.

Um then, based on your standard practice, do you think you'd likely ask a judge to sentence such a defendant when convicted to jail time?

And if so, for how long so yes, definitely would be asking for jail time with that kind of history and under those circumstances.

For how much how long exactly, it's hard for me to say.

Part of my job is to treat each case individually and look specifically at criminal history.

I don't know exactly who JN is, but based on the information that uh Mr.

Klein provided, I would expect that our office would have asked for jail substantially in excess of 30 days already.

Uh and part of the average that goes into this is there are people that we are already asking for up to 90 days in jail or more, depending on the facts and circumstances.

Okay.

Thank you.

Um so you know, in my opinion, we don't have data supported to support moving this forward, and we've not heard a professional opinion that helps us overcome the lack of data.

A huncher theory is not good enough for me.

I don't believe there is nearly enough support from the highly trained and motivated folks at the city who are actively involved in the work of our criminal justice system to support moving this ordinance forward.

While I'm sure it's not intended, passing this ordinance would be a rebuke, it would be a vote of no confidence in our prosecutor, probation division, and judges.

And I don't think such a rebuke is warranted.

And it would take the spotlight off of the success that the BPD is having in reducing crime.

BPD does have the data.

They can prove that their efforts are paying off.

I'm totally open to spending hundreds of thousands of dollars more on public safety, but I would direct that additional money to supporting and expanding the efforts that we know work, like stop the lift and others.

And what what sends a stronger message?

A program like Stop the Lift, which includes a robust public awareness campaign that is strongly backed up by the officers of the BPD, or requiring someone to sit in jail for another week or stay home and play video games for another week.

Stop the lift sends the clear message that we're watching and we're coming for you if you get out of line.

So I'm ready to sign a check for the BPD, but there's no justification for sending one to our contracted jail provider in Des Moines.

I'd like to see us spend hundreds of thousands to provide our officers with more training and professional development opportunities, updated equipment, and other supports.

I also believe that we should be looking at increasing our human services funding and at providing support to other elements of our criminal justice system that our data shows will be effective.

What we're currently doing is working, and the data proves that.

I'm not in favor of changing our current approach based on a hunch.

So I'm gonna be voting no to this proposal so that I can say yes to continuing to support and consider expanding on the efforts that are currently under the way, underway, that are proven to be effective.

I also want to be in a position to say yes to future proposals that have gone through a due diligence process that centers supportive data.

Thank you, Mayor.

Thank you.

So I appreciate the two opposing opinions here.

Um I'm gonna go next, and I'm gonna start by saying, you know, thank you, Steve, for all the work that you're doing.

I know that you're working really hard to serve this community, and it's really gratifying to see crime rates actually going down so far.

Thank you.

Um I'm also glad that our community court is up and running, as council member Hamilton said, we had our first graduate today, so that's it'll be exciting to see the progress with that.

Um I think we all want what's best for our community and for the perpetrators of crimes, actually.

Um and even though crime has gone down, I think that 1,965 30 degree that's still a lot.

And it costs the community a lot in many ways, psychologically and monetarily.

And it costs the city that so I actually on the advice of a good friend called the Marysville mayor and talked to him today.

And he actually had data for me, and I don't know if it met the criteria of what you are looking for.

But what he told me is that they had seen a 10 to 20 percent decrease in repeat offenders since they implemented their mandatory minimum program in 2023.

And uh before yeah, and then property crime has gone down almost 28%, and crimes against society have gone down over 20%.

So you know, you can't necessarily say why, but that's that's good for them.

Um he also made the point that they found that most of the people who commit these crimes have in tandem a substance abuse problem.

And so their program, if you uh have the minimum sentence, you have to take substance abuse treatment if that's part of your issue.

And so, you know, you think about somebody who has a substance abuse addiction, going into jail for 38 days without any treatment, that's pretty cruel actually.

And so to mandate treatment for people, and then they say if they get through it successfully, they get actually cut their sentence short.

So if you get done in 20 days, you can be done with your with your um jail time.

So I would like to um have you give me advice on how we might put that, include that into this proposal.

So I I've read both statutes, and with the Marysville statute, uh the way it's structured is it it directs the judge to impose at least 30 days, and then there's another provision that indicates that if the defendant's willing to do inpatient treatment, so go to a residential facility, then the judge is allowed to convert the 30 days to that inpatient facility, and then as I understand it, if the provider says that they've then completed the necessary treatment, then that can that can be equivalent to having completed the jail term.

Okay.

Do so can we include that in our legislation?

Yeah.

Okay.

So um I'm not done yet, but I I'm interested in adding that.

Um also, so here's where my questions come in.

Um also we oh, also uh in talking to people, emphasis patrols are really effective, but they're super expensive and and hard to deal with this sudden influx of crime that you have to process the criminals and everything.

So I think uh he was the mayor was saying it's actually a lot easier to do six a week instead of 40 and over one weekend or something.

I know that for the police that that can be the case, although I know for at least the DUI emphasis patrols, uh agencies will come in and help and they help each other.

And so we will on a weekend like that, and when we come in on Monday, we'll have reports written by Redman officers and Seattle officers.

And I know Bellevue does that for other cities.

Yeah.

Um I've been here almost 10 years, and my team knows usually when that's going, and we're ready for it.

Um we have always been able to uh meet the need when there's a sudden spike in referrals.

Yeah, well, obviously you've done a good job.

Thank you.

Okay, so question time.

Um, so that's the substance abuse.

Also, can we uh have mental health treatment available to people while they're either in jail or in treatment for substance abuse?

So yes.

Um I I should back up and say um in order for the judge to well, there's there's mandated treatment and then there's available treatment, and sometimes we have to people have to choose it themselves.

Um if the judge can't always order it, but the judge can order an evaluation for substance abuse and mental health, and then the follow-in recommended treatment.

That is usually a condition of probation, regardless of what the jail time is.

Um and most treatment is what we call uh outpatient.

Uh they don't they're not in a residential facility, but they go and meet with people.

So I worded this very carefully, because it what I didn't want to address mandatory treatment.

I wanted to address having uh mental health services available.

The score jail does include uh psychology psychological professionals who can help people who've got mental health issues while they're there.

Okay.

And when they get out, our probation department can help them find continued treatment uh to help them as well.

Okay.

And then here's kind of a dumb question, but what the heck?

Um just to clarify if somebody should have more jail time than 30 days, this would not limit them to 30 days.

It would not limit them to we've written it specifically that it changes the range from zero to 364 to 30 to 364.

Okay.

And the judges would still have discretion and we would have the ability to ask for more.

Okay, thank you.

That answers my questions.

Deputy Mayor.

Thank you, Mayor.

I think before I start, I just want to thank my colleagues for being so articulate, expressing what they believe is in the best for our city.

So honored to be part of this amazing group.

Uh thank you, Teresa Nile Steve, uh, for an amazing job going back and work on this another six months and coming with some recommendation.

It is a complex issue.

And I read the code language, very well written and much better from the first one.

I think there has been a lot of improvement.

Thank you for all of your fiscal analysis and also bringing the connection to the new community court.

Uh I think again, the very difficult balance on one hand, we have businesses and community members impacted by repeat PEFT, and on the other hand, we need to be fair and always uh look at the long-term outcomes.

Really appreciate Councilmember New and Newman House for bringing this topic forward, and many community members who called me and emailed me.

I Sunday night I cleaned up my inbox to five emails on red, and by Monday night was 148.

Uh majority of them uh about this topic and majority of them supporting uh this topic.

Repeat organized theft undermines our community trust, harm retailers and customers, reduce sales tax revenues, and increase uh policing and court burdens.

And I think your uh input is going to help us to come up with a very good approach, hopefully after tonight.

I have uh two or three questions.

Uh one goes back to mayor's uh question from you.

So if we have one person who uh is a rep repeat uh offender theft, and this person is not eligible to go to the community court because they have uh violent felony.

But so they go to 30 days jail based on this, but they are also suffering from addiction or mental health or other root causes for this.

What are we doing about that?

Sending them to jail 30 days punishment, enforcement, great, but how are we addressing the root cause that it make this case uh case?

So after any jail term, whether it's these 30 days or something else on a different case, on a case like this where there's indication that there's a mental health issue or a substance abuse issue, the defendant will be put on probation for two years.

The remaining jail time that could have been imposed, so say 334 days, is hanging over their head as an incentive, and then they're ordered to get a substance abuse evaluation and or a mental health evaluation from a certified provider in the state of Washington.

Our city probation department then monitors to make sure that they do that.

When they get it, not only do they have to do the evaluation, but the judge will order that they comply with whatever the treatment recommendations are.

And if they don't comply, or if they don't get the evaluation in the first place, then the judge can put them in jail for additional time and then order them to do it again.

And so that's kind of the general system that we we do to I suppose in some way force people into treatment that it appears that they need uh that they haven't up to date successfully completed.

So thank you.

Uh thank you, that's helpful.

Then uh one follow-up from one of the questions that Ms.

uh council member Hamilton asked.

Uh, if we have 100K and we don't go with this ordinance, what is our best other options to decrease the number of that 70, 10 percent of 700 repeat offender to bring that down?

So that money would be in the police department, not not my office.

Um this would be, I guess my opinion based on anecdotal evidence, but I would think increased patrols, increased presence.

Uh using that money to put more officers in the retail areas so that people who might come to the city looking to steal items here see the police presence and decide that this isn't the right place or right time to do that.

That would probably be my suggestion.

I don't know if the police would agree with me, but that's my suggestion.

Thank you.

No, that's uh that's great.

Uh and I think this is my last question.

I think the pros to me of this ordinance is very clear.

Uh the strand is your messaging.

I think you have a slide eight.

Can you bring that a slide eight?

I think the proposal that um yeah, I think message that Bellevue does not tolerate repeat offenders.

Uh and I think investing 100K for a year in that to me is not that much of money that we can just maybe spend on campaigning on something.

So I think that justify that Bellevue is sending a message, and Bellevue is serious about addressing organized retail theft.

And I think I uh Council Member Hampton said there is no data, but I I believe the this level of visibility uh could make some of these organized uh groups rethink targeting our city.

Um and maybe that's is the pros that I am seeing.

But the concerns is uh, and I wanted to ask you again in the professional opinion and subject matter expert that you are.

What is the cons that you can talk to us right now and say this that's what you see as a cons of this audience?

So I I think what I would say about that is the nature of this is to take some discretion away, right?

Is to take some discretion, not all, but some discretion away from the judges and and by extension to my office on how to handle some cases.

It's uh it's a legislative direction that for this particular situation, this should be what you do.

And so in that sense, it would take some discretion away from me to deal with someone who has say two priors, but isn't quite, you know, maybe isn't eligible for community court, but for some other reason it doesn't seem like 30 days jail is the right solution either.

Um I'd say that would be the con, it would take that discretion away.

Um but I do work within a system where I don't have complete discretion.

I can't ask for two years in jail on these cases, I'm not allowed to.

Um but I I would say that would be the main con is that is that it limits some of the flexibility that my office has and that the judges have.

I thank you for the response.

Just one follow-up about your response is removing this discretion from you.

Can you, for example, um distinguish between someone tied to organized crime that everyone I believe they believe that they should see some punishment, and someone is stealing uh because of desperation, because of hunger, because of something that I'm sure if it happens to me at that level of hunger, I probably do the crime too.

Can you removing this discretion out of your office?

Does that impact you distinguish between these two persons?

So I think there's two parts to your question.

Am I am I able factually to determine whether or not a particular defendant falls into either those two categories or or other similar categories?

And I think generally we're able to tell.

Um we can tell by the the nature of the victim, the nature of the merchandise that was stolen.

Is it highly uh sought after?

Is it easily resellable, or is it you know, is it diapers and baby food?

But you know, um, so I do think that my office through our experience is generally able to do that.

If I had someone who was more in the the desperate situation, who couldn't qualify for community court, it would be difficult for me to create a situation where they didn't serve the 30 days jail.

Part of the difficulty of that though would be that it I have an obligation to enforce the law, and if this ordinance is passed, that's the law.

And so I shouldn't professionally go in and try to avoid this.

And so that would be a concern.

Um but if it was something where I felt the just result was to try to come up with some way to have this person get the services that they need so that they they don't re-offend and don't re-victimize people in the city of Bellevue and do it without having this ordinance apply, then I think that I would be able to come up with a way of doing that.

Okay.

This bullet point that says you can use other available tools that maybe were effective as in a diversion program.

It seems like you still have that discretion.

We have yes, and so I I think I'd be able to.

We can do diversions that are not community court.

I currently, as a policy, don't offer those to people with multiple priors.

I think it's a first offense type of situation.

You made a mistake, show us that you won't do it again.

I guess is what I'm trying to say.

Okay.

But if there was someone where I felt the just result was, I would try always try to get to the just result.

That's a big part of my channel.

And we all appreciate you for that.

And I just to clarify was talking to someone that is a repeat offender from this uh from hunger or uh diapers, and they are not qualified for any diversion program that we have because of uh the last two years they did some felony or violence activity again due to this this operation.

Last question out of that 70 people that we had that the repeat uh they are three offenders, 10-10%.

Do you know by any chance how many of them are belong to organized crime, and how many of them are just doing that because of the poverty or some other desperate measure that they are going through?

That can be harder to tell.

I mean, you can usually see based on the the nature and the amount, whether it's organized or not.

One one way that I'm able to tell is that if it's truly organized crime, it becomes a felony, and the police department will actually send it to the county for them to do full re organized retail theft is a felony.

Um so the more organized it gets, the more likely it is I won't see it.

So there's some of that.

But uh you know, if someone's stealing $800 sunglasses, you know, from the sunglass side, that's not a crime of necessity, right?

And you can tell that.

Um there are certain things that have higher retail value that people can traffic in, and and you can kind of tell that.

You can look at a person's criminal history and see if there's a lot of theft or if there was a sudden event that's led to uh kind of a spurt of criminal activity.

Um a lot of times people talk to the police and say exactly what they're doing.

Uh surprisingly, they they most people would confess to everything, and so we get information from them as well.

Um a lot of times it's the it's the store personnel who tell us.

They'll say, hey, uh we've they'll call, but here he's back, we've seen him before.

He stole from us three times, and he's here.

Please get here.

And our police do a great job.

They catch people in the store uh while they're doing it.

And so things like that, they're they're different case by case, but we can see that kind of stuff.

Uh thank you so much for all of your response, and thank you for helping our city to be a safer city.

Mayor, if I don't have any more questions, thank you.

Thank you.

Councilmember Sumadarya.

Thank you.

Um, as a small business owner in Bellevue, I think this is a really tough one.

Um I think that I first seeing how repeat like a fend really affects not just our bottom line, but also the safety and trust in our community, especially to the staff.

As as you know, small business owners, we have to deal a lot.

Not just staff, sometimes threat have many things, right, in life.

Um so I think that having having a barrier to protect them would be help everyone to thrive, especially in that environment.

I really, but I do believe in accountability where if we did something wrong, we should be held accountable.

I tell that, I tell that to three of my children all the time.

You know, there's timeouts with things we can do, but I think, but also I really a true believer in compassion.

Because I think that, like you know, the deputy mayor said, not everyone's situation is exactly the same.

And because I think that we need a solution that really protects our community, but also do give people a chance to build a life and rebuild their life when they have opportunity with our support.

Um I think this is I I I believe that you know we really cannot afford ignore the impacts of these crimes, and then but also we we can afford to kind of lose set of justice.

So some question I want to ask is about you know the fairness and also effectiveness.

I think I'm just really curious how it is.

Um, Councilmember Hamilton was asking you whether this is gonna be helpful with the process.

You said yes.

Um, can you did you say yes?

It's gonna be how few effective of your work out.

I misheard, sorry.

I I think I avoided answering yes or no to the question.

It's it's sorry.

Okay, all right.

I guess um well, I let me rephrase this.

Um, how do you see this gonna make your work more effective?

So I think probably to back up, this is some I can already ask for 30 days jail on appropriate cases, and and I try to do that.

Um, this is I think some information for me as a prosecutor as to what the community thinks is an appropriate sentence.

Um, maybe a little more than I've been doing, apparently.

Um I think one of the benefits that is kind of outside of my expertise is whether this will encourage people to not come to Bellevue.

Um that isn't something that I'll see because I only see a case after it's been charged, right?

So by definition, that person made a decision to come here.

Um so, in terms of how it might help, um, hopefully there'll be less less people doing it.

Um one thing that we've talked about is is it let's say there's someone who comes under this ordinance, but they do qualify for a community court, and so they get to go over there and they're told that they need to do certain things, um, housing and employment and substance abuse and mental health, they will know that if they fail in doing that, that their punishment will be at least 30 days, and that may be an increased motivation to help some people get through.

So that would be a way that it could help.

Okay, thank you.

Um so this is like thank you, by the way.

That's helpful.

And then you know, I I think I want to explore more and understanding the you know the balance and implementation.

So, in case um the mentor sentencing is applied, and then will the judge retain any discretion in the cases that he or she or they don't believe that's the case.

No, the the they'll not below 30 days.

The the point of it being mandatory is it binds the judges as well.

And so you could have a situation where a judge would say, I think that the appropriate sentence here is less, but I'm not allowed to impose it.

And if they did impose it, we could appeal.

Um and so they could complain, but they would have to impose 30 days.

Okay, perfect.

And then my next last question would be um, you know, because I think a lot of um criticism we see from the our justice system is the bias, right?

Add to certain um characteristic of who we are.

Um what are the safeguards we are gonna be in place to prevent disappointing or impact on the most vulnerable group?

That's a really, really big question.

Sorry.

Uh no, it's it's it's something that that we talk about all the time in my profession, and we try to it it it's you want to treat everybody fairly and equally under the law, but also not everybody comes into the courtroom from the same background.

Uh, not everybody will have the same results when they leave the courtroom.

And those are things that we try to take into consideration.

Um I guess the procedural safeguard is that my office would retain some discretion about how to charge um diversion programs.

Uh there's a defense attorney who will advocate for their client to bring up issues that we might not others see.

Um there's professionals in the probation department and in treatment agencies who can give opinions in advance.

They they don't have to wait to be sentenced to get their evaluation.

A lot of times defense attorneys will send their clients out to get the evaluation to come back and say, hey, the reason this happened is here's this mental health thing that you can't see from the police report, but this doctor did see.

So we should talk about that and see if there are other ways we can craft a remedy that holds the person responsible, but also addresses uh underlying issues to help them not re-offend.

And then we have judges, and we have really good judges in Bellevue, we really do.

Um and they care about doing the right thing, and they can stop us in the middle of stuff if they really think that it's the wrong way and ask us to stop and reconsider and go talk some more.

Um so we have all of that in place.

And and then I think one of the things that's important is everybody who does this work does it because we care about it and we want to do a good job.

And that I think that comes into all the conversations of what we try to do.

So hopefully um we can avoid impacting people improperly.

So like you said, I think I believe everyone in this room really cares about city.

That's what we are here, and now the message we receive because they're really passionate about care it.

Um since we are, I believe that we are leader in this region as you know, in policymaking, is there any way that for our city, if we can implement it, we can have some kind of data to show that how effective it would be?

Yeah, I think we would definitely so the one of the big things we have is our probation department.

And it's uh not most cities don't have their own probation department, and it's really a good team, it's run really well, and they do keep stats, and uh, I think uh council member mentioned only three percent of people who who work through probation re-offend in Bellevue.

They are they would be monitoring all of this and would be able to keep those statistics to see um recidivism rates, recidivism rates in Bellevue, success rates on treatment, all that stuff.

Um so yeah, we absolutely can keep track of this.

And I think the way that what we would want to look at isn't necessarily a reduction overall in crime or even a reduction in theft in crime, but what's the reduction of people doing it a second time or a third time?

And if this is successful, the more successful it is, the less we'll have to use it because people won't commit the third time, hopefully.

Okay.

Well, thank you.

That's another question.

Councilmember Bargada.

Okay, thank you, Mayor.

Uh actually I want to start by reiterating some of what my colleagues have said.

Um thank you for really doing great work so far to help reduce the crime rates and keep Bel V safe, but also in really creating a thoughtful uh ordinance for us to review and think about.

I I think it was really spectacularly done.

Um, so great job.

I also want to appreciate Councilmember Nyonas for bringing this forward.

I think this is a really uh sort of it's brought us to a place to have this discussion, and I really appreciate that.

I also appreciate actually Councilmember Hamilton for laying out an alternative view so that the discussion we've had, I have the benefit of going later in this process and my discussion so far has been really really enlightening and helpful to sort of think about the mental model and approach with more clarity.

So, with that sort of uh said, I think we've seen a 28% reduction in the overall crime rate year on year, as was in the report last week.

But theft and shaft lifting still remain a challenge.

We heard highest reported crime that does need to be addressed.

I do appreciate that this ordinance attempts to bring focus to repeat offenders, particularly for active repeat offending, which is what you're trying to do with the way you've crafted this and aims to target you know specific theft and shoplifting time crimes, so keeping that narrow, both of those I think are really uh, which is what I appreciated in the way you've crafted this and put this together.

That said, uh, I think it is equally important in parallel for us to evaluate what we're putting in place as appropriate mechanisms for people to prevent people from getting to the third strike here.

I think that is really, really important.

In my opinion, what we do at strike one and strike two for repeat offenders has to be part of the solution to something that we do at strike three.

Uh this ordinance could have a disproportionate effect on people with mental health, substance abuse, or just struggling with poverty and issues like that.

And so, for those reasons, it's really important to try and get earlier in this stage of thinking about what we do.

It's a little bit aligned with what I think Mayor Robinson was saying.

Um, is where my head is at on that.

We need to make sure that we're providing the appropriate supportive mechanisms, counseling, mental health support, substance abuse, even vocational training potentially.

And community court can play a role in that process as well, but at the first two strikes, because we really don't want people, this 10% number should be smaller and smaller, and hopefully zero, so that this doesn't ever come into play.

And I would really like to see what we're trying to do up front when we see that happen.

When we see somebody in shoplifting, we find that person, they are put in touch with authorities, and we find mental health issues or substance abuse issues.

We got to take action then, not wait for them to go to jail for 30 days.

Um I think that really needs to be part, I can't stress that enough from my point of view.

I was also really surprised in the briefing to hear that Everett and Emmeries will have very limited data after two years of this ordinance being in place.

Like to be honest, I was shocked.

Um, but I think I really appreciate the mayor reaching out to the mayor and getting some additional data points that do suggest there is some supportive evidence of a reduction in crime rates.

It is also my belief, and I said this to you in the briefing when we had uh, you know, when the data and anecdotes are not clear, and especially if they don't match, I think the anecdotes should really be considered very strongly.

Because uh it's really like if we don't have good data, anecdotes are really really important, and especially if they're not matching.

And in this case, we're getting anecdotes even from Marysville and Everett that they have seen reduction as Councilmember Dionhas laid out in his um in his uh statement.

Um I am uh supportive of actually directing staff to uh prepare the ordinance to test this approach.

And I say test this approach, it is likely it is like sort of relatively untested because we don't have great data on the actual efficacy, and this has come up in numerous parts of our discussion today.

Um I do want to say that a couple things that I want to really note that are important for us to consider uh as we start to test this out.

Effectiveness has sort of been uncertain as a real deterrent for this, and we should really think about, and the reason I say that is active offenders could act without expecting high risk of being caught, and may not be a deterrent.

So that's something for us to keep in our consideration said.

The other thing that's really important for me that's a little concerning is the one size fits all approach of this.

And even with the allowances that we have for conversion or you know, physical or mental health risk, as you've called out, many cases may not neatly fit into those criteria.

You know, and um when I was thinking about this, I was thinking of sort of the use case of, you know, I talked about this in a briefing, a 20-year-old mother of one or two who's caught twice stealing diapers and now is a third time.

What happens?

And like I don't think that is the intent of this ordinance.

And uh I think you know, I would really encourage in that situation for the the lawyers and the prosecutors to find plea-like situations if there is no diversion possible to try and you know have the right outcome.

Because the intent is to prevent organized crime, prevent people who are doing this fully conscious of this, but not to criminalize poverty, which I think is really really important.

Um I think there is another consideration, which is increased cost, which I think is well within limits uh for the legal and uh correction system.

And uh I I think as we lay this out, I think I would stress that we lay out some uh measures to evaluate success.

In fact, um some metrics that we should consider as we roll out this if we put Cameron to get there.

But I'll make a few suggestions on areas that I think are beyond just the reductions in reported theft or rate of recidivism.

I think those are obvious and we will surely track.

But I think uh, you know, and maybe community surveys uh for perceptions of safety, whether it's businesses or residents.

I think that is also part of the course.

Um and so is cost.

But I would also recommend that we look at the demographic breakdown to understand where we're at.

Uh we also look at the breakdown of mental health and um uh uh drug use uh um for folks who go through this and and and see what we're finding towards the end of that process.

I think if we don't track that, then we will not learn.

And I surely don't want to be in the situation where we don't have good data six months, eight months, twelve months from now on understanding the effectiveness and also sort of the effectiveness of comparing this to other alternatives that we may have uh on on the table, like people sentenced using mandatory minimum versus people who are uh second of time offenders.

Is there a change in the rate of recidivism, for example, uh is another way to think about this.

So those are sort of my uh suggestions on go forwards, uh, some of the call-outs on risk, and so at least how I'm thinking about this as a mental model to approach this and and learn from it and and make sure that we have a way to get Bellevue to be safer, uh, deter crime.

Uh, you know, I I think uh it was deputy mayor said even the perception of a threat which could be you know more punitive can deter crime, and you know, we should learn more about that.

It shouldn't be just an opinion that we have.

Uh so those are great.

The only question I have is I wanted to understand how you qualify substantial risk when you think about home monitoring.

Like what is substantial risk mean?

So it's a common term in in criminal law.

Uh you'll see it throughout uh definitions of crimes and in this kind of a context.

What it indicates to the judge and the way we've written it is is the defense attorney has to prove it.

And if the judge is going to do that, they have to put in written findings, which forces the judge to be confident in that decision.

Um I haven't seen this done very often, if ever.

It's very rare because they would have to show not just that there could be some risk, but that the jail facility doesn't have an ability to take care of that.

Anecdotally, we had a person arrested last week who had a very severe infection in their leg to the point where I was called because there was some concern they might have to amputate, and how do we deal with that?

Um they were able to control it, and the score jail facility said we can help him and take care of him while he's here and in the prison.

In the prison, they basically have their own miniature hospital.

So someone would have to show that whatever's going on with their defendant is over and above anything that the jail could provide, and that would be very difficult to show.

Someone was facing a possible amputation of a leg.

I mean, it's a fair assumption to make that the home monitoring is going to be very, very unlikely to come into play.

I I think it it's hard for me to imagine a circumstance that would be so bad that the jail time wouldn't be imposed because the jail itself is designed to take care of people who are in bad situations, both physically and mentally.

Mentally, physical and mentally.

A lot of the people who they serve, uh is a way of thinking of it, um, are people who are not in the best physical health or the best mental health, and they're already equipped to do that.

So they would have to show to the judge not just that there's a risk, uh, but that it's a substantial risk.

Uh, that it's it's and what does that mean?

Um that's what lawyers get paying for, I guess is trying to define terms, but I think it's unlikely that there would be very many people who would qualify for that.

But I think the important part of that provision is to make sure that the judge understands that if that is met, you don't waive the jail time.

It doesn't go to zero.

What it is is we're gonna convert it to a different type of detention, and it tells the judge that there's still gonna be 30 days.

We're just gonna have to serve it a different way for a very small percentage of the population.

Got it.

So the only thing I'll say in closing is uh in addition to what the mayor said about you know mental health support, I would say you know, accelerating that possibility at strike one and strike two, where it's appropriate, whether it's substance abuse, mental health support, or other ways to provide economic support to people who really need it to through programs we may have across the city, I think are really important, and the community court plays a pays plays a part there, but I think those are things that I would really push for to reduce this 10% number down.

Thank you.

Okay, Councilmember Lee, thank you for your patience.

Okay, thanks.

Uh well, thanks for the presentation.

Uh with some real good insight.

Uh I have worked with uh Chief Shirley for quite a few years, ever since that we first noticed that in factoria more, you know, many stores are reporting that goods being stolen.

It's not even stolen, it's just taken away bluntly, blatantly, and uh people who shop there notice that, and nobody seems to dare to do anything.

So it's really a scary situation.

Um the other hand, we all know that Bellview Police Department is doing a great job.

Uh, you know, so we have to compliment them and they're doing the best they can.

We fund them, we you know, do everything possible.

Uh but we also heard from the store owners, you know, today, uh not they come out and tell us, uh not last year, not this, not the six months ago, but right now because I believe that uh the stores are not reporting them.

The statistics are not showing because they figure what for, you know.

I mean, we couldn't do anything about it.

That's the problem.

So this ordinance introduced to do something.

Uh you know, because any possible victim in the store on us are and uh the whole city is and uh maybe you know, even more dangerously, these victims, not victims, these criminals can become violent.

That's why I believe that store store owners tell their workers don't risk your life.

It's not worth it, right?

Because and also I know police can't redo much because of the even capture them, you know, they're gonna come back, repeat.

But even if they uh do get the alert to come, and by the time they get there, the guy is already out of the store, and you cannot do anything about it unless you catch the red-handed.

So we tried station right there.

But you cannot have police stationed there 24 hours a day.

Even if that's the case, if you're one step too slow, they're out of the store, not much you can do.

So I think we we gotta do more.

That's the key.

And this is the ordinance, you know, uh Councilmember General House introducing is one two.

One two.

Because I believe one victim is too many.

I don't care what the status say.

We're going to discourage it.

And the two that we're using is to discourage it.

And you know, also you mentioned even though with the ordinance, we still have given the judicial discretion, right?

It's still discretion.

You mentioned a number of things that we still can do, we still be doing.

So there are other uh measures to combat you know crime and criminals.

They still continue.

So we're not losing them.

So I think it's important.

We heard over and over, uh, we heard from Deputy Mayor.

It's a message, very important message, that we are holding criminals accountable.

We have to hold everybody accountable, especially criminals, because they impact other people negatively.

So I appreciate even in your perspective, Steve, that there's value to stop repeat offenders.

Right.

So I have a question for you.

Doesn't repeat offenders, even less repeat offenders.

Does it mean that there would be less criminals, less crimes?

I would think it's logical.

Yeah, logically, right?

If they don't commit a third theft.

We don't have stats, but we have very important experienced opinion and observation.

So because of all that, I believe that it is something we definitely can use.

For what?

425,000.

We're talking about.

So I think it's worthwhile.

Because the store owners are losing more than that, probably in one day.

So why can we do this?

I'm sure if you ask owners, all of be happy to give us 125,000 to cover the geo cost.

So I believe this is a good law.

Number one, to give us a tool to discourage criminals specifically, you already said most likely, for sure, repeat offenders.

But more importantly, we discourage other offenders, other crimes.

And other people who are committing the crime, they will be well getting the message.

Let's not do it.

I think the complex purpose and Bellevue Police Department is great.

They will be doing all the other things that we will want to see done together.

So this addition to is what I would support.

So I support the ordinance.

Thank you.

Okay.

Okay.

Good discussion.

Really appreciate the thoughtfulness of the comments.

Um, and I appreciate you both with your answering and working with us on this.

So I'm going to ask Councilmember Newman House to make a motion.

And if uh we haven't hit on it as you thought it should be, let that we can amend it.

So let's try this.

Okay, thanks, Mayor.

Uh, I move to direct staff to prepare an ordinance imposing.

Let's slow down so we can think about it as you say.

Thank you.

I move to direct staff to prepare an ordinance imposing mandatory minimum sentencing for repeat offenders of certain theft crimes, and to include substance abuse treatment option, similar to Marysville's ordinance, with a 12-month report check back to council.

Second.

Is that good direction for me for you?

Yes.

Okay.

Just want to make sure any comments or questions.

Okay, all those in favor say I.

I don't know.

Oh, sorry, sorry.

Hold on, hold on, take it back.

I wanted to say that beyond substance abuse, I think mental health should be part of that, like behavioral issues, mental health conditions, are just as important.

Yeah, I forgot to put that in.

Um can we make that a necessary uh qualification or or or would that fall under?

I I think you can put both of those in there, and that will direct us to be able to do our best to include both.

Okay, okay.

Councilmember Bargava, you you amended it to include mental health.

Can I ask you a question?

Just a minute, let's there a second?

Second, I can you can't second.

I can't second.

Second.

Go ahead.

What is that uh term 12 months checkpoints means?

Mean the check back in with the council after the ordinance has been in effect over a year.

And assume they checked back and hopefully it is effective and it reduced that 10% to 5%, that's the goal.

But w what what is the council um role would be if we don't see any improvement and we see maybe actually opposite, maybe.

So what is that checkpoints and what is the council responsibility at that checkpoint time?

Well, I think that would be up to us as a council to take any direction or or or action that we would deem uh necessary based on the report that came back after that one year time.

So I just wanted to make sure that when it comes back, we have the discretion to again discuss that as a study session like this, and then as we would with any ordinance, wouldn't we?

Yeah.

So the ordinance well, this would just be a report back.

Yes, it would be a report back, assuming that um we are gonna be preparing the ordinance for you to take action, and if you do take action, that ordinance will be in effect.

Right.

The one year check back, at least how I understand it, and please correct me if I'm wrong, would be just to report back to council as to how things are going in terms of rates, recidivism, any other information that we can provide to council.

Obviously, if council decides to do something else at that point based on that report, then that would be a new item because that the ordinance that we're talking about here would already be in effect.

Right.

Yeah.

So we could at that time suggest at a new next meeting to address the concerns we had.

So the to just make me understand the checkpoint is just a report back.

Yes.

What happened in the next what happened in that 12 months?

But then we need a council vote if we wanted to discuss this ordinance.

We would need a whole item item on the agenda to do that.

And we could suggest that at that time if we wanted to.

That's and you would have to vote to have it put on the agenda.

The clarification I was looking for.

Thank you so much.

Okay.

So we have an amended amended motion that's been seconded.

And I think we can vote as a whole.

Is that okay, Charmeen?

Or shall we vote on the amendment?

You'll have to vote on the amendment.

Let's vote on um council member Bargava's amendment.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Okay, and with that, all in favor of the amended motion say aye.

Aye.

Any okay.

Any opposed.

No.

Okay.

So we uh it passes six to one.

All right.

Thank you very much.

Um we're going to adjourn our next meeting is not until October 7th, 2025.

So we will see you then.

Thank you.