HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-29-2012 Agenda Packet
Municipal Services Committee
May 29, 2012 - 3:30 PM
Council Chambers
AGENDA
I.CALL TO ORDER
A.Roll Call
B.Announcements
C.Agenda Modifications
II.CONSENT AGENDA
A. May 14, 2012 Minutes*
III.ORDINANCES
A. Ordinance No. 6411* (Heid)
An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Auburn, Washington, amending
Section 10.36.540 of the Auburn City Code and creating new Sections 9.14.030,
9.26.010, 9.26.020, 9.46.010, 9.58.020 and 9.62.010 of the Auburn City code
relating to updating prosecution code sections
IV.RESOLUTIONS
A. Resolution No. 4814* (Lee)
A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Auburn, Washington, formally
accepting a grant from the Washington State Military Department in the amount of
Sixty-two Thousand and Two Hundred Eighteen Dollars ($62,218.00) from the
United States Department of Homeland Security Emergency Management
Performance Grant Program, and authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute
the necessary agreements to accept said funds
V.DISCUSSION ITEMS
A. Auburn Municipal Court* (Burns)
B. Matrix*
VI.ADJOURNMENT
Agendas and minutes are available to the public at the City Clerk's Office, on the City website
(http://www.auburnwa.gov), and via e-mail. Complete agenda packets are available for review
at the City Clerk's Office.
*Denotes attachments included in the agenda packet.
Page 1 of 38
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
Agenda Subject:
May 14, 2012 Minutes
Date:
May 23, 2012
Department:
Police
Attachments:
May 14, 2012 Minutes
Budget Impact:
$0
Administrative Recommendation:
Background Summary:
Reviewed by Council Committees:
Municipal Services
Councilmember:Peloza Staff:
Meeting Date:May 29, 2012 Item Number:CA.A
AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINEDCA.A Page 2 of 38
Municipal Services Committee
May 14, 2012 - 3:30 PM
City Hall Conference Room 3
MINUTES
I. CALL TO ORDER
Chair Peloza called the meeting to order at 3:30 p.m. in Conference Room 3 of City
Hall, 25 W. Main, Auburn, WA.
A. Roll Call
Members present: Chair Peloza, Vice Chair Osborne, Member Wales.
Staff present: Mayor Pete Lewis, Chief of Police Bob Lee, City Attorney Dan
Heid, Finance Director Shelley Coleman, Planning & Development Director Kevin
Snyder, Auburn Municipal Airport Manager Jamelle Garcia and Acting Police
Secretary/Scribe Terry Mendoza. Others present: Auburn Reporter
representative Robert Whale and citizen Scot Pondelick.
B. Announcements
C. Agenda Modifications
II. CONSENT AGENDA
A. April 23, 2012 Minutes
Vice Chair Osborne moved to accept the Minutes as presented. Member Wales
seconded the motion.
MOTION PASSED: 3-0
III. ORDINANCES
A. Ordinance No. 6409 (Moore)
An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Auburn, Washington, amending
Section 10.40.020 of the Auburn City Code relating to off-street municipal parking.
The Committee recommended striking "(employee parking)" from Section 1.A.2
and 1.A.3.
Vice Chair Osborne moved to forward Ordinance No. 6409 as amended to full
Council for consideration. Member Wales seconded.
MOTION PASSED: 3-0
IV. RESOLUTIONS
Page 1 of 2
CA.A Page 3 of 38
A. Resolution No. 4815 (Coleman)
A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Auburn, Washington, authorizing the
City to accept a federal grant in the amount of $202,500 from the Federal Aviation
Association (FAA) to update the Airport Master Plan and Wildlife Hazard
Assessment and authorizing the execution of the grant agreement.
Member Wales moved to forward Resolution No. 4815 to full Council for
consideration. Vice Chair Osborne seconded.
MOTION PASSED: 3-0
V. DISCUSSION ITEMS
A. Matrix
The Matrix is modified to reflect the following:
Item 24P - Status changed to reflect the meeting held on 3/27/12 with M.I.T.
Item 30P - Review date changed to 6/25/12.
*New Item added:
Item 32P - Project description: Green River Community College/Airport
Negotiations. Lead: Shelley Coleman. Review date: 6/11/12. Status: Discussion
on negotiations between GRCC and the Airport.
VI. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 3:55 p.m. The next meeting of the Municipal Services
Committee is Tuesday, May 29, 2012 at 3:30 p.m.
Signed this ___________ day of May, 2012.
_______________________ _________________________
Bill Peloza, Chair Terry Mendoza
Acting Police Secretary/Scribe
Page 2 of 2
CA.A Page 4 of 38
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
Agenda Subject:
Ordinance No. 6411
Date:
May 23, 2012
Department:
City Attorney
Attachments:
Ordinance No. 6411
Budget Impact:
$0
Administrative Recommendation:
City Council introduce and adopt Ordinance No. 6411.
Background Summary:
The provisions of the Auburn Municipal Code periodically need to be reviewed for
consistency with other code provisions and/or for updating, where either because of
court cases or practical issues related to prosecution it is beneficial to add language to
the City Code that addresses, corrects or clarifies code language.
Ordinance No. 6411 identifies several areas of the City Code that relate to prosecution
and enforcement efforts by the Police Department that require updating.
Reviewed by Council Committees:
Finance, Municipal Services
Councilmember:Staff:Heid
Meeting Date:May 29, 2012 Item Number:ORD.A
AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINEDORD.A Page 5 of 38
-------------------------------
Ordinance No. 6411
May 7, 2012
Page 1 of 5
ORDINANCE NO. 6 4 1 1
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF AUBURN, WASHINGTON, AMENDING
SECTION 10.36.540 OF THE AUBURN CITY CODE
AND CREATING NEW SECTIONS 9.14.030,
9.26.010, 9.26.020, 9.46.010 9.58.020 AND 9.62.010,
OF THE AUBURN CITY CODE RELATING TO
UPDATING PROSECUTION CODE SECTIONS
WHEREAS, the provisions of the Auburn Municipal Code periodically
need to be reviewed for consistency with other code provisions and/or for
updating, where either because of court cases or practical issues related to
prosecution it is beneficial to add language to the City Code that addresses,
corrects or clarifies code language; and
WHEREAS, several areas of the City Code that relate to prosecution and
enforcement efforts by the Police Department have been identified and language
has been drafted, set forth below, that would assist the police and prosecutors in
addressing prosecution cases.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUBURN,
WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN as follows:
Section 1. Amendment to City Code. That section 10.36.540 of
the Auburn City Code be and the same hereby is amended to read as follows:
10.36.540 Evidence of violation.
In any prosecution charging a violation of any law or regulation governing
the standing or parking of a vehicle, proof that the particular vehicle described in
the complaint was parked in violation of a law or regulation shall constitute prima
facie evidence that the registered owner of the vehicle was the person who
parked the vehicle where and at the time such violation occurred. (Ord. 5212 § 1
(Exh. F), 1999; 1957 code § 9.22.100.)
ORD.A Page 6 of 38
-------------------------------
Ordinance No. 6411
May 7, 2012
Page 2 of 5
Section 2. New Section to City Code. That Section 9.14.030 of
the Auburn City Code be and the same hereby is created to read as follows:
9.14.030 Strangulation.
A. A person is guilty of strangulation if, under circumstances not
amounting to a felony, or notwithstanding the presence of circumstances that
could potentially have been prosecuted as a felony, a jurisdiction empowered to
prosecute such felony charges has declined to file felony charges, he or she
assaults another by means of strangulation.
B. “Strangulation” shall mean intentionally impeding normal breathing
or circulation of the blood by applying pressure on the throat or neck or by
obstructing the nose or mouth of another person.
C. Strangulation is a gross misdemeanor. Any person convicted of this
crime shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than 30 days.
Section 3. New Section to City Code. That Section 9.26.010 of
the Auburn City Code be and the same hereby is created to read as follows:
9.26.010 Exposing minor children to domestic violence.
A. A person commits the crime of exposing minor children to domestic
violence when he or she:
1. Commits a crime of domestic violence, as defined in RCW
10.99.020; and
2. The crime is committed in the immediate presence of, or is
witnessed by, the person’s or the victim’s minor child, minor stepchild, or a minor
child residing within the household of the person or victim. For the purposes
hereof, a minor child or minor stepchild refers to such child or stepchild who is,
on the date of the violation, under the age of 18 years.
B. For the purposes of this section, “witnessed” shall mean if the crime
is seen or directly perceived in any other manner by the minor child.
C. Exposing minor children to domestic violence is a gross
misdemeanor. Any person convicted of this crime shall be punished by
imprisonment of not less than 30 days.
Section 4. New Section to City Code. That Section 9.26.020 of
the Auburn City Code be and the same hereby is created to read as follows:
9.26.020 Non-merger of domestic violence crimes.
Every person who, in the commission of a crime of domestic violence,
shall commit any other crime(s), may be punished for the other crime(s) as well
as for the crime of domestic violence, and may be prosecuted for each crime
separately.
ORD.A Page 7 of 38
-------------------------------
Ordinance No. 6411
May 7, 2012
Page 3 of 5
Section 5. New Section to City Code. That Section 9.46.010 of
the Auburn City Code be and the same hereby is created to read as follows:
9.46.010 Public intoxication.
A. A person is guilty of the offense of public intoxication if he or she is
21 years of age or older and he or she appears in a public place while intoxicated
to the degree that the person may endanger the person or another. For the
purposes hereof, a public place is an indoor or outdoor area, whether privately or
publicly owned, to which the public have access by right or by invitation,
expressed or implied, whether by payment of money or not, but not a place when
used exclusively by one or more individuals for a private gathering or other
personal purpose.
B. Public intoxication is a misdemeanor.
Note: RCW 66.44.270(2)(b) addresses a similar violation by individuals under the
age of 21 years.
Section 6. New Section to City Code. That Section 9.58.020 of
the Auburn City Code be and the same hereby is created to read as follows:
9.58.020 Witness tampering.
A. A person is guilty of witness tampering if he or she induces or
attempts to induce a person that he or she knows or reasonably should know is a
witness in a case before the Auburn Municipal Court:
1. to testify falsely,
2. to withhold testimony without right or privilege, or
3. to fail to appear in court when scheduled to testify by subpoena or
court order.
B. Witness tampering is a gross misdemeanor.
Section 7. New Section to City Code. That Section 9.62.010 of
the Auburn City Code be and the same hereby is created to read as follows:
9.62.010 Non-felony forgery.
A. A person is guilty of non-felony forgery, if, with intent to injure or
defraud:
1. He falsely makes, completes, or alters a written instrument; or
2. He possesses, utters, offers, disposes of, or puts off as true a
written instrument that he knows to be forged; or
3. The total amount of loss by the victim(s) of the forgery is less than
$1,000, or notwithstanding the amount of the loss by the victim(s), a jurisdiction
empowered to prosecute felony forgery charges has declined to file felony
ORD.A Page 8 of 38
-------------------------------
Ordinance No. 6411
May 7, 2012
Page 4 of 5
charges or where the circumstances do not meet the county’s felony charging
guidelines.
B. Non-felony forgery is a gross misdemeanor.
C. This section is intended to supplement city jurisdiction in cases of
forgery cases that could potentially have been prosecuted as felonies but which
were declined in writing by the county in which the offense occurred or which do
not meet said county’s felony charging guidelines as communicated to the city. If
a person is charged with forgery under state law for a particular incident, the
person shall not also be charged under this section for the same conduct.
Section 8. Implementation. The Mayor is hereby authorized to
implement such administrative procedures as may be necessary to carry out the
directions of this legislation.
Section 9. Severability. The provisions of this ordinance are
declared to be separate and severable. The invalidity of any clause, sentence,
paragraph, subdivision, section or portion of this ordinance, or the invalidity of the
application thereof to any person or circumstance shall not affect the validity of
the remainder of this ordinance, or the validity of its application to other persons
or circumstances.
Section 10. Effective date. This Ordinance shall take effect and be
in force five days from and after its passage, approval and publication as
provided by law.
INTRODUCED: __________________
PASSED: _______________________
APPROVED: ____________________
CITY OF AUBURN
______________________________
PETER B. LEWIS
MAYOR
ORD.A Page 9 of 38
-------------------------------
Ordinance No. 6411
May 7, 2012
Page 5 of 5
ATTEST:
_________________________
Danielle E. Daskam, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________
Daniel B. Heid, City Attorney
Published: _________________
ORD.A Page 10 of 38
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
Agenda Subject:
Resolution No. 4814
Date:
May 23, 2012
Department:
Police
Attachments:
Resolution No. 4814
Budget Impact:
$0
Administrative Recommendation:
City Council approve Resolution No. 4814
Background Summary:
A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Auburn, Washington, formally accepting a
grant from the Washington State Military Department in the amount of Sixty-two
Thousand and Two Hundred Eighteen Dollars ($62,218.00) from the United States
Department of Homeland Security Emergency Management Performance Grant
Program, and authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the necessary
agreements to accept said funds.
Reviewed by Council Committees:
Municipal Services
Councilmember:Peloza Staff:Lee
Meeting Date:May 29, 2012 Item Number:RES.A
AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINEDRES.A Page 11 of 38
-------------------------
Resolution No. 4814
May 16, 2012
Page 1 of 1
RESOLUTION NO. 4 8 1 4
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF AUBURN, WASHINGTON, FORMALLY
ACCEPTING A GRANT FROM THE WASHINGTON
STATE MILITARY DEPARTMENT IN THE AMOUNT
OF SIXTY TWO THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED
EIGHTEEN DOLLARS ($62,218.00) FROM THE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
PERFORMANCE GRANT PROGRAM, AND
AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO
EXECUTE THE NECESSARY AGREEMENTS TO
ACCEPT SAID FUNDS
WHEREAS, the City created and maintains an active Emergency
Management Program; and
WHEREAS, the United States Department of Homeland Security makes
available Emergency Management Performance Grant monies to local
emergency management programs; and
WHEREAS, the Washington State Military Department, Emergency
Management Division has approved a grant of those monies to the City of
Auburn Emergency Management program.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUBURN,
WASHINGTON, HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Purpose. The City Council of the City of Auburn does
hereby accept the Washington State Military Department, Emergency
Management Division offer of a grant in the amount of Sixty Two Thousand
Two Hundred Eighteen Dollars ($62,218.00) as the City’s allotment of annual
Emergency Management Performance Grant monies.
RES.A Page 12 of 38
-------------------------
Resolution No. 4814
May 16, 2012
Page 2 of 2
Section 2. Implementation. The Mayor of the City of Auburn is hereby
authorized to implement such administrative procedures as may be necessary
to carry out the directions of this resolution.
Section 3. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect and be in
full force upon passage and signatures hereon.
DATED AND SIGNED THIS ________ DAY OF JUNE, 2012.
CITY OF AUBURN
____________________________
PETER B. LEWIS
MAYOR
ATTEST:
____________________________
Danielle E. Daskam,
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________________
Daniel B. Heid,
City Attorney
RES.A Page 13 of 38
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
Agenda Subject:
Auburn Municipal Court
Date:
May 23, 2012
Department:
Finance
Attachments:
Auburn Municipal and KCDC Program
Matrix_FInal
Auburn Municipal Court Proposal
Auburn Municipal Court Adjusted
Comparison
Budget Impact:
$0
Administrative Recommendation:
Background Summary:
For committee review and discussion.
Reviewed by Council Committees:
Councilmember:Staff:Burns
Meeting Date:May 29, 2012 Item Number:DI.B
AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINEDDI.B Page 14 of 38
JUDICIAL PROGRAMS COMPARISON
ProgramKing County District Court (KCDC)Auburn Municipal Court (AMC)
Interpreter web applicationKCDC's unique award winning Interpreter
Web Application allows court clerks,
administrative staff and interpreters to
conveniently manage scheduling and
assignment of interpreter services.
Interpreters self assign for jobs via the web
application freeing court staff time from this
task. It allows the user to see if interpreters
are already scheduled to cover a calendar
so that multiple calendars can be added to
existing interpreter assignments, thereby
limiting the duplication of services at any
location and controlling costs. This creates
flexibility for court users by not limiting the
court and court users to one "language
calendar" .The web application completes
the accounting process automatically
generating vouchers and interfacing with
the county's financial system which has
created a streamlined cost efficient
process. KCDC also has 2 Spanish Staff
Interpreters who have resulted in additional
cost savings due to the high need for
interpreters in this language.
AMC schedules all hearing with interpreters for the
same calendar resulting in savings, efficiencies and
eliminating the need for special software.
AMC doesn't need a system that schedules people
for ten different courts as it only operates one court.
DI.B Page 15 of 38
JUDICIAL PROGRAMS COMPARISON
ProgramKing County District Court (KCDC)Auburn Municipal Court (AMC)
District Court Electronic
document management
system
District Court Records (DCoR) electronic
document management system has been
in place since 2005. The City of Auburn
would avoid software and implementation
costs of their pending new system.
An electronic storage system for court
record and documents.
Includes electronic routing of work to the
employees at any of the District Court’s
facilities.
Calendaring component used by all judges
on the bench to instantly electronically
access all the documents in every case on
their individual calendars and judges can
enter case notes as needed.
Includes certain e-filing features that
import documents from the Law, Justice
and Safety Project Booking and Referral
System (BARS), two Red-light Camera
vendors, a parking vendor and electronic
tickets filed by most law enforcement
agencies.
Reduces paper documents.
Provides access to prosecutors, public
defenders, police and the public.
By 2013, DCoR will be upgraded to allow
attorneys and the public to e-file
documents into DCoR.
Online allows the public to view or print
In the process of implementing an electronic,
paperless document system which is anticipated to
be in place by years end and will be made
accessible to other SCORE cities.
pp
publicly available court documents from
the internet for a fee.
This system has been in operation since
Video LinksVideo Links for every judge’s bench. A
computer and camera that permits the
judge to link via video with the SCORE, or
Snohomish county jails and the Kent jail
from Maleng Regional Justice Center. The
video links have been set up and are being
used by probation officers to conduct pre
sentence interviews at the Snohomish
County and SCORE jails. In addition,
KCDC's access to defendants in the King
County Jail and Snohomish County Jail
allows KCDC to apply the interjurisdication
warrant program and provide new court
dates to some defendants before they are
booked at SCORE.
AMC has Video access to SCORE jail only as there
is no need for access to King or Snohomish County
jails
DI.B Page 16 of 38
JUDICIAL PROGRAMS COMPARISON
ProgramKing County District Court (KCDC)Auburn Municipal Court (AMC)
Master Calendar SystemThe Master Calendar System is an
exclusive system to KCDC. The system is
an automated, web-based program
allowing for efficient setting of cases,
searches into the future for available court
dates, and provides enhanced record
keeping. The Master Calendar also
implements and aids the Court in
maintaining Best Practices in its operation,
and allows for better tracking of calendars
and scheduling of pro-tems.
AMC uses a software system for scheduling that
has the capacity to schedule hearings in other
courts as well if needed.
Jury Management SystemJury Management System was created for
KCDC and provides an automated process
for the summoning of jurors. The system
shows the history of every juror, past and
present, and Court locations are able to
receive lists of juries, and letters of
recognition. The system completes the
accounting process automatically
generating vouchers and interfacing with
the county's financial system which has
created a streamlined cost efficient
process.
AMC provides a substantially similar system
IT Help Desk ApplicationKCDC's IT Help Desk Application was
designed to assist Court staff and IT staff
with technical and functional questions and
problems.
An IT person is stationed at the Justice Center. All
technical issues are usually resolved with in
minutes.
p
Knowledge Center and MS
SharePoint
Knowledge Center and MS SharePoint
program enables court, probation staff and
management the ability to quickly access
procedures and policies that impact court
operations.
Court and personnel policies are available
electronically as well as in written binders for all
staff.
Ticket/Sector ProjectETicket/Sector Project involves the
electronic issuance of traffic tickets with an
electronic upload to the court database.
The submittal of tickets electronically
streamlines the data entry process on the
part of the courts and eliminates redundant
data entry on the part of the court and DOL
when cases are adjudicated. Dispositions
are sent to DOL electronically, eliminating
the need to mail paper dispositions.
AMC does the same thing and also accepts
electronic filing of criminal charges.
DI.B Page 17 of 38
JUDICIAL PROGRAMS COMPARISON
ProgramKing County District Court (KCDC)Auburn Municipal Court (AMC)
Red Light Photo EnforcementRed Light Camera Photo Enforcement
Program transmits case data and
documents via a FTP from the vendors
which automatically imports the data
directly into JIS/DISCIS. Red Light Camera
tickets are not handled by clerical staff until
there is a payment or a request for a
hearing date. KCDC provides notice and
collection services to contracting cities for
these types of cases.
AMC has an automated system as well.
Parking Data ExchangeParking Data Exchange is similar to the
Red Light Camera program, transmission
of case data and documents has been
totally automated via a FTP from the
vendor. A parking ticket issued
electronically is not handled by clerical staff
until there is a payment or a request for a
hearing.
If the City of Auburn were to chose to file its parking
tickets electronically AMC would have the capacity
to accept those filings.
Booking and referral systemBooking and Referral System (BARS) is a
Law Safety Justice project automating the
booking process for law enforcement
agencies throughout the County. The
system takes data submitted by law
enforcement and passes it to the Booking
System, the Prosecuting Attorney and,
when submitted by the Prosecutor to the
Court, produces an electronic Superform
for judicial review. The eSuperform is
AMC has a system that performs the same function.
jp
transmitted electronically to the District
Court DCoR system and can be viewed by
the judge in the courtroom.
Docket CallDocket Call is an electronic calendaring
systems in the lobby area at each location.
This signage replaces paper calendars.
The electronic signs scroll names
alphabetically allowing multiple people to
view them at once and allowing the public
to find their name and courtroom in less
than 2 minutes.
AMC posts written calendars prominently in three
different lobby locations.
AMC doesn't have flat screen televisions in its lobby
as the need does not justify expense.
Credit card paymentsCredit Card Payment at the Court
Locations. While fine payments via credit
card have been available on line for some
time, District Court this year will improve
its customer service by allowing credit card
fine payments at all of its locations.
AMC accepts credit card payments on line and has
accepted credit card payment at the court for a
decade.
DI.B Page 18 of 38
JUDICIAL PROGRAMS COMPARISON
ProgramKing County District Court (KCDC)Auburn Municipal Court (AMC)
Regional Mental Health CourtRegional Mental Health Court is designed
to improve treatment of mentally ill
offenders, enhance public safety, and
reduce jail use and jail costs. RMHC is
provided at no charge to all cities. The City
of Auburn's defendants are able to access
RMHC.
As a result of the Mental Illness and Drug
Dependency (MIDD) initiative Auburn also
participates in the regional mental health court. It
accepts an average of two referrals per year from
Auburn.
Regional Veterans CourtRegional Veterans Court (RVC) is a new
veterans’ therapeutic court. RVC is a
specialized court within the criminal justice
system that are structured to resolve the
underlying mental health and any co-
occurring substance abuse issues that are
causing individuals to become involved
with the criminal justice system. The goal
of these efforts is to provide treatment and
support to court participants to break the
cycle of criminal justice involvement and
reduce recidivism. Anticipated
commencement celebration: June 14,
2012.
AMC began operating its Veterans Court on May 18.
Student CourtKCDC provides student court at the
Issaquah courthouse.
AMC operates a student court in cooperation with
the Auburn School District allowing diversion for first
time high school traffic offenders.
Defensive Driving School,
Alive at 25 Program, DUI
Victims Impact Panel
KCDC indentifies resources in the
community for the defendants to access
these programs.
AMC offers these programs.
Relicensing ProgramRelicensing Program assists individuals on
awalk-inbasiswithsuspendedlicenses,to
AMC has a similar program. Its calendars
addressingrelicensingoccuronadailybasis.a walk-in basis with suspended licenses, to
become legal, licensed drivers. This walk-
in program is included in the services
under the interlocal agreement. (Note,
there is a second aspect to King County’s
relicensing program which includes a
diversion of pending Driving While License
Suspended 3rd Degree or No Valid
Operator’s License 1st Degree charges
referred to the program from the King
County Prosecutor’s office; it is this piece
for which a city under the interlocal
agreement may contract for at an
additional cost.) Providers attending
Relicensing court are collection agency
and LELO (Labor Employment Law
Organization).
addressing relicensing occur on a daily basis.
DI.B Page 19 of 38
JUDICIAL PROGRAMS COMPARISON
ProgramKing County District Court (KCDC)Auburn Municipal Court (AMC)
Payment CenterPayment Center completes the accounting
functions for the entire court in one
location. Functions handled at the
Payment Center are receipting payments,
monitoring delinquent accounts, working
with the court’s collection agency on time
payment agreements, assigning cases to
collections, processing online credit card
payments through the Court’s vendor,
issuing bail refunds, reporting and
collection of non-sufficient funds
payments, resolving accounting issues for
Court staff and defendants, auditing cases
eligible for Failure to Appear status,
ordering reports for auditing purposes, and
the daily accounting and balancing of
incoming funds.
AMC performs the same functions at the one court it
operates in Auburn. AMC doesn't need a "payment
center" because it doesn't operate ten different
courts.
Call CenterCall Center a single call center for most of
the publics telephone access. In addition
to the phone technology necessary to
operate a call center, the court has
developed a robust training program and
an effective and efficient self-help menu
that is both in English and Spanish.
AMC performs the same functions at the one court it
operates in Auburn.
Civil and Small Claim FilingsCivil filings up to $75,000, small claims and
name changes
AMC does not have jurisdiction to provide those
services.
Domestic Violence and anti-Domestic Violence and anti-harassment AMC does domestic violence and sexual assault
harassment protection orders
and sexual assault orders
protection orders. Sexual Assault
protective orders.
protection orders.
Pro Tem trainingPro Tem's complete 2 day training and
require background check and application
process
AMC provides pro tem training as needed.
Dispute Resolution CenterDistrict Court contracts with a dispute
resolution center to assist litigants in
mediation services.
AMC resolves its disputes in the courtroom.
JAILAND JAIL ALTERNATIVES
Video LinksVideo Links for every judge’s bench. A
computer and camera that permits the
judge to link via video with the SCORE,
Kent or Snohomish county jails. The video
links have been set up and are being used
by probation officers to conduct pre
sentence interviews at the Snohomish
County and SCORE jails.
AMC has a video link with the jail Auburn uses
(SCORE) allowing hearings and probation
interviews without transporting prisoners.
Warrant Quash HearingsKCDC conducts warrant quash hearings at
all of its 9 locations. Officers can also bring
defendants to the court (instead of jail) for
a warrant quashing.
AMC conducts warrant quash hearings daily.
Officers can also bring defendants to the court
(instead of jail) for warrant quashing if they so
desire.
DI.B Page 20 of 38
JUDICIAL PROGRAMS COMPARISON
ProgramKing County District Court (KCDC)Auburn Municipal Court (AMC)
In-custody Presentence
Interviews
In-custody presentence interviews
conducted in all county and municipal jail
locations within King County and via Video
Conference between King County
Probation and the Snohomish County jail,
and between King County Probation and
SCORE.
AMC performs the same function.
Pre-trial MonitoringKCDC judges in appropriate cases use
SCRAM as a pre-trial monitoring program
allowing defendants to be released
pending trial. This system allows
continuous 24 hour daily alcohol monitor
system.
AMC operates a pre-trial monitoring program
allowing defendant's to be released pending trial
requiring them to report for random UA's and direct
supervision by a probation officer.
Community Service Work
Crew
Jail and jail alternatives King County
District Court makes effective and
appropriate use of jail alternatives (work
release, work crew-6 days a week
operation, community service, electronic
home detention, etc.) and the Court has
built into its system a number of processes
that insure defendants are heard in a
timely manner.
Auburn has a community service work crew
operating five days per week. It operates in Auburn,
not downtown Seattle.
Day JailCCAP program provided by the KCJ and is
a day program providing treatment,
education and social service and may be
imposed for any length of time. This also
includes individual needs assessment.
AMC operates a system where people can serve
time (up to 10 days) in the day jail in lieu of actual
incarceration. Auburn's day jail is in Auburn, not
downtown Seattle.
Electronic Home Monitoring See aboveAMC operates EHM program where it reviews jail g
(EHM)
ppgj
list daily for eligible participants, monitors offenders
with random UAs, requires regular reporting, and
funds EHM for the indigent while requiring payment
through community service.
Police limited authority to
issue notice of hearing rather
than arrest defendants.
KCDC has this system in place for the City
of Bellevue on certain misdemeanor bench
warrants.
AMC has had a system in place that does the same
thing for well over a decade.
PROBATIONSERVICES
Judge SupervisedJudge-Supervised probation model - active
involvement of judges in individual case
supervision decisions. Case monitored in
accordance with a General Administrative
Order (GAO), for consistency and
uniformity among probation officers.
AMC does the same. All municipal and district court
probation departments in the state are supervised
by the judges of that court.
Violation HearingsProbation officers submit violation report to
the Judge.
AMC does the same. In addition, AMC probation
walks into court offenders with serious violations for
immediate hearings.
DI.B Page 21 of 38
JUDICIAL PROGRAMS COMPARISON
ProgramKing County District Court (KCDC)Auburn Municipal Court (AMC)
WASIS/NCIC recordsRun instant WASIS/NCIC records from a
web-based ACCESS system as requested
for court hearings and judicial decision
making, for all presentences, and on active
supervised cases as requested by PO.
AMC does the same.
StaffHighly qualified and specialized staff -
Probation Mental Health Specialist hold
Master’s Degrees with concentration in the
social/behavioral sciences, and have
specialized training dealing with mentally ill
offenders. Probation Officers hold at least
a Bachelor's Degree.
AMC does the same.
Interstate CompactCoordinate and process Interstate
Compact referrals for qualifying offenders
living out of state or wishing to move out of
state
AMC does the same.
Probation CommitteeProbation Committee comprised of seven
Judges, the Probation Director, and legal
counsel to guide, assist and develop policy
recommendations referred the Court’s
Executive Committee and/or the judges as
a whole. Regular input is also encouraged
by the Court’s contract cities with regard to
all areas of operation of the Court including
probation.
Judge meets with probation staff at least weekly,
sometimes on a daily basis.
AMC has never had a liability claim filed against it
nor has it ever been subject to a lawsuit.
DUI Assessment ServicesDUI Assessment Services, certified by the
Division of Behavioral Health and
AMC probation has staff who are state certified
CDP's.
Recovery with 10 Probation Officers
qualified as Probation Assessment Officers
meeting all of the WAC-required
educational and experience requirements
to conduct DUI alcohol and other drug
assessments.
Levels of MonitoringFace to face monthly appointments with all
defendants placed on active probation
supervision, unless otherwise directed in
writing by the supervising judge.
Using a validated assessment tool offenders are
rated as follows: Level 1 offenders (highest risk) are
seen face to face twice each month; Level 2 once
each month: Level 3 monthly mail in with review of
criminal history and treatment reports. All are
subject to UAs when they report.
Effective SupervisionProbation officers supervise up to 155
offenders with the Probation Mental Health
Court Specialists supervising up to 55
offenders. Caseload excludes offenders
who have failed to appear resulting in an
arrest warrant.
Probation officers supervise up to 175 offenders.
Caseload excludes offenders who have failed to
appear resulting in an arrest warrant.
Imposition and Termination of
Probation
District Court does impose and terminate
probation based on the judge supervised
probation model.
AMC does the same.
DI.B Page 22 of 38
JUDICIAL PROGRAMS COMPARISON
ProgramKing County District Court (KCDC)Auburn Municipal Court (AMC)
Compliance MonitoringCompliance monitoring of defendants in
lieu of or following a period of active
supervision. Compliance monitoring
includes periodic record checks and
verification of compliance with other
conditions of sentence, and monthly
reviews of treatment status reports
received.
AMC does the same.
ARLJ 11 complianceKCDC meets or exceeds all ARLJ 11
requirements and complies with all state
recommended policies and procedures
which includes thorough risk
assessments..
AMC meets or exceeds all ARLJ 11 requirements
and complies with all state recommended policies
and procedures which includes thorough risk
assessments..
Urine Analysis (UA)
monitoring
Probation Mental Health Specialists refer
offenders to an agency to complete UA
testing. Offenders in treatment are UA'd by
their treatment agency.
AMC uses UA's as a tool to monitor some defendant
prior to trial, all offenders on probation and EHM and
others as directed by the court. Some offenders
provide UA's 2-3 times per week. In 2011 the rate
for positive UA's was 27.19%
PBT-Portable breathalyzer
test
Probation Officers complete PBT test. AMC does the same and has instant UA's for the
detection of drugs.
Probation officers attending
review hearings
Probation officers submit violation report to
the Judge and, if the judge requests the
probation officer be present in court, the
probation officer reports for violation
hearings.
Probation staffs all probation review hearings.
Disputes are quickly resolved and allegations of last
minute compliance are verified resulting in
imposition of immediate consequences.
Mental Health (MH) ServicesKCDC's RMHC is an outstanding, award-
winning program (recipient of the 2010
RdRlld)didti
In addition to participating in the KCDC MH Court
Auburn operates its own MH court staffed by
btidSdMtlHlththhRandy Revelle award) designed to improve
treatment of mentally ill offenders, enhance
public safety, and reduce jail use and jail
costs.
The Court includes nationally recognized
features, including a dedicated team of a
judge, prosecutor, defense attorneys and
defense social worker, court monitoring
and probation mental health specialists, all
working with a problem-solving approach
and collaborative process. The RMHC
uses frequent court reviews to actively
monitor the defendant’s compliance and
success in meeting the conditions of the
treatment order.
probation and Sound Mental Health through a
separate contract. It averages over 50 releases to
inpatient treatment per year. AMC MH court is
much broader in the population it serves as it is
designed to help all offenders with MH issues, not
just a small group of mentally ill offenders with a
narrow diagnosis.
DI.B Page 23 of 38
JUDICIAL PROGRAMS COMPARISON
ProgramKing County District Court (KCDC)Auburn Municipal Court (AMC)
Substance Abuse Treatment
KCDC regularly requires defendants to
complete substance abuse treatment and
monitors defendants' enrollment and
compliance with such treatment. KCDC
also monitors treatment providers for
adherence to minimum reporting
requirements established by King County
Municipal and District Court Judges in
2005 and compliance with the Washington
Administrative Codes (WACs) and Revised
Code of Washington (RCW).
AMC has an extensive focus on substance abuse
treatment releasing over 350 offenders per year into
inpatient treatment and provides out patient
treatment to the indigent.
DI.B Page 24 of 38
Auburn Municipal Court (AMC) Proposal
Response to Concerns Expressed at Previous Presentations
It is important to keep in sight what our community is trying to accomplish with our
criminal justice system. In King County, Auburn has the highest rate of people receiving state
funded mental health services, alcohol and drug treatment services, and economic aid.
Percentages for people living below the poverty line, low median household income and cost of
housing rate near the bottom as well. In 1998 the crime rate in Auburn reached a peak of 105.9
incidents per thousand. By 2010 that rate had fallen to 53.5 incidents per thousand. Auburn’s
crime rate fell at twice the rate the state crime rate fell. (Exhibit 1) Having a court system that
holds defendants accountable and attempts to modify behavior has had a significant impact on
reducing criminal behavior and on our community. The city council is now being asked to
consider if it can continue to fund the services the court has provided to our community.
Staff asserts “The costs associated with the Court, Probation (alternatives to
incarceration) and the incarceration of offenders will reach approximately $10,000,000 per year
by 2013.” Over the last five years the budget for the court and probation has fluctuated
somewhat but basically it has remained flat. What has changed‐ and the reason we are having
this discussion‐ is the creation of SCORE. Contrary to representations that operating SCORE
would not be any more expensive than the previous Auburn Municipal Jail, the cost to house an
inmate has gone from $70 per day to a current figure of $115 per day (64% increase) with no
assurance that it won’t continue to rise even more steeply in the future. In addition the city is
obligated to pay an annual bond in excess of $1,500,000. As a result the city estimates its jail
cost will increase from $3,859,266 in 2010 to $7,139,165 in 2013, an increase of over 3 ¼
million dollars. That is not a result of the “court’s sentencing practices”.
Staff asserts “more and more offenders are sentenced to longer time in jail (as
compared to other cities‐see Exhibit 2)”. Exhibit 2 is a snapshot of the first six months of the
operation of the new SCORE facility showing an Average Daily Population for Auburn of 123.15.
While that is a high number (the highest we’ve seen in years) it is an aberration. The numbers
prior to that period were lower and the numbers since that period are trending down as well.
During that six month period police bookings did not increase appreciably. What happened was
people were being arrested on outstanding warrants at a much higher rate than previous to the
opening of SCORE. Before SCORE we had our own jail and the Auburn practice on serving many
warrants was not to book people but to release them with a new court date. SCORE doesn’t do
that anymore. It was common for officers to not go to other jurisdictions to pick up people
arrested on our warrants if the officer had more pressing duties, which was frequent. Now
someone picked up in another jurisdiction on our warrant is taken directly to SCORE bypassing
DI.B Page 25 of 38
Auburn Police involvement. Prior to SCORE, warrants served in other counties such as Pierce or
Snohomish were rarely if ever transported to Auburn’s jail. Now, because of SCOREs size,
transports between the counties are occurring much more frequently. We went through a
period where as fast as we could get people out of jail there was another crowd right behind
them coming in. This was not a result of the court’s sentencing and in fact these numbers are
coming down.
Staff asserts “the sentencing practices and probation services utilized by the court has
driven the cost higher over the years”. That is not true. Attached (Exhibit 2) is a graph showing
what the average annual billable population has been since 1997. There has been some
flotation but the average has stayed at right about 100 in spite of the steady increase in filings
(Exhibit 3) and a growth in population of over 74% in the last decade. “Billable population”
means those inmates the city is responsible to pay for. In the past corrections officials kept
track of people who are being held in other jails with Auburn holds that were not in the Auburn
jail and included them in the “average daily population” resulting in an inflated number. It was
those faulty numbers that lead the city administration into a jail contract with Yakima County
obligating the city to pay for more jail beds than it needed for 6 years.
Staff asserts “offenders are monitored longer through various sentencing practices and
probation services.” That is not true. The sentencing practices of the court have not changed.
The length of jurisdiction is set by state law (two years for most offenses, five years for
domestic violence charge and DUI).
Staff asserts of the population that probation supervises “The potential liability
exposure in monitoring such a large number of probation cases is of great concern”. The fact is
the probation department has never even had a claim filed against it. In addition the legislature
recently changed the probation liability standard from “negligence” to “gross negligence”. The
Washington Misdemeanant Correction Association recently surveyed its members and from
those who responded learned that since the change in liability standards there have been no
new lawsuits filed against a probation department.
Staff has attached a graph (their Exhibit 4) showing an Average Length of Stay (ALS)
comparing Auburn’s average length of stay with other SCORE city’s length of stay. Auburn’s
number is higher than that of other cities. What that number appears to include is the date a
person is sentenced and the date they are actually released or, if not yet released, the date
they are scheduled to be released. When someone is being held to be released to treatment
the entire balance of sentence is imposed because we do not know what the actual date of
release will be. The sentencing order usually has a sentence of at least a year and considering
how many offences the person might have on their record the release date on the sentence
could be more than a decade. In fact they are released to treatment within 30 to 45 days. We
do far more treatment releases than any other court using the SCORE facility which skews the
number compared to other cities.
DI.B Page 26 of 38
Auburn Municipal Court and King County District Court
Your Auburn Municipal Court has changed lives in this community. The crime rate in
this community has been cut in about half, twice the reduction in the crime rate sate wide. It is
a court that has been ahead of the curve. It operates the only municipal Mental Health Court
and soon the only Veterans Court in south King County. During its existence thousands of
alcohol and drug addicted people have received treatment and changed their lives and the lives
of their families. Make no mistake, contracting with King County will mean the end of this
effort. Our community will revert to the hope that the sanction of a jail sentence (and a small
one at that) will modify offender’s behavior. In addition to the strong emphasis on behavioral
modification, the Auburn Municipal Court offers services and programs that the district court
does not‐ such as student court, day jail, DUI Victims Impact Panel, Domestic Violence Victims
Impact Panel, defensive driving school and the Alive at 25 programs.
Some of the programs that both courts offer vary in actual operation:
• Probation Department. The difference between the probation services the two courts
offer is as steep as it is stark. King County is proposing to monitor 225 offenders; The
Auburn probation department monitors 700 offenders on average. King County does
not use urinalysis when monitoring offenders. The county strictly caps a probation
officer’s case load at 155 (35 in mental health court). Any violation can result in
termination of the probation officer’s employment. To maintain that cap, probationers
are often terminated from probation not because they are in full compliance and doing
well but because there are new offenders coming in. The remaining offenders not
assigned to probation (or terminated from probation supervision), regardless of their
past criminal histories, will be assigned to be monitored by a court clerk. The court clerk
will review the offender’s criminal record no more than once every six months. Hence
an offender could violate the law, regularly and without supervision for 6 months before
returning to court. County probation officers do not attend court reviews, do not
provide the court with direct testimony of the offender’s record of compliance, are not
there to disagree with claims made by the offenders and/or their attorneys in open
court and do not monitor efforts made (or not) to return to compliance at hearings
unless specifically ordered to attend court to address a particular case. Although
Washington State sets forth the requirements for probation services provided by courts
of limited jurisdiction through court rule (GR 11) King County does not comply with all of
its provisions. The focus of the Auburn Probation Department is on holding offenders
accountable and helping offenders to modify the behavior that caused them to violate
the law‐ hence the focus on treatment. King County probation officers assigned to
Auburn would not be involved in getting offenders mental health or substance abuse
treatment other than to orally tell them to go to treatment.
• Electronic Home Monitoring. At the district court EHM consists of a clerk who informs
defendants of what agencies the defendants can contract with to provide the ankle
bracelets and then monitors to see if the defendant actually contracted with an EHM
DI.B Page 27 of 38
provider and receives reports of compliance or non‐compliance from the EHM
providers. The clerk notes issues of non‐compliance for a review calendar for a hearing.
At the Auburn Municipal Court the program is supervised much more intensely requiring
offenders to meet with and be monitored by a probation officer and be subject to
random urinalysis tests to insure offenders are maintaining sobriety while they are
incarcerated on EHM. AMC will pay EHM providers to monitor offenders who are
indigent and then require the offenders to pay the fees through community service.
• Community Service. At the district court community service consists of the court clerk
giving offenders a list of public and/or non‐profit agencies that will allow someone to
perform community service and then monitoring receipts filed by offenders showing the
community service performed. The Auburn Municipal Court offers the addition of a
community service work crew which has offenders providing community service to the
city of Auburn and monitors that the offenders are actually providing a service. This
additional service gives an opportunity to offenders to perform community service who
might otherwise be ineligible because of their prior criminal history e.g. ‐ sex offenders
and criminals with convictions for crimes of dishonesty.
• Mental Health Court. King County operates a mental health court facility in Seattle.
Services provided are to a limited group of severely mentally ill offenders. The
population receiving those services is the population that 40 years ago would most likely
have been institutionalized. It is not a service focused on all offenders with mental
health problems or even a majority of people who have those issues. In fact, as a result
of the regional Mental Illness and Drug Dependency (MIDD) fund, the Auburn Municipal
Court currently has full access to the KCDC Mental Health Court. We are able to place
about two referrals per year with the KCDC Mental Health Court. The Auburn Mental
Health Court contracts with Sound Mental Health for services. At anytime it serves a
population of 150 to 200 people.
• Relicensing program. King County has a regular weekly relicensing calendar where
people who have their license suspended can ask the court to remove their fines from
collection and have their license reinstated while the pay their fines directly to the
court. The Auburn Municipal Court operates the same program but, because it is more
convenient for people, rather than a weekly calendar those cases are heard every
morning.
Finally there is the issue of service to the public. The record of service of the current
Auburn Municipal Court to our community is excellent. Complaints are extremely rare and
when received are promptly and appropriately addressed. The rate of appeal of court
decisions has always been extremely low (less than a tenth of one percent). The court is
readily accessible by telephone and there is rarely a line at the front counter windows. The
people who work at the court are dedicated, conscientious and hardworking. They spare no
effort in providing top flight service to citizens of our community. A recent example of that
emphasis on service is that during the January snow storm the Auburn Municipal court
remained open to serve the public while the county courts were closed. The court has been
aggressive in trying to provide services to the community. It has established student court,
day jail, victims impact panel, defensive driving school, the Alive at 25 program, electronic
DI.B Page 28 of 38
home monitoring, the treatment release program, it operates a relicensing program, a
community service program, it has the only mental health court outside of Seattle in the state,
the Veterans Court opens within a month. The municipal court modified its calendars to
reduce the costs of interpreters by 40%. It added an additional calendar to speed up hearing
of those detained in custody. The record on the other side of the ledger over the last 30 years
is that of cities steadily leaving the county court system and forming their own court. At one
time they provided almost all the municipal court services in the county; they are now down to
only a few cities left.
The question is what level of services the City of Auburn wants to provide its citizens.
Attached are proposals for various levels of service and their associated costs.
Auburn Municipal Court Budget Proposals
Basic level of court services‐
The municipal court would remove the position lead clerk and reduce the number of
clerks by two positions (one of which is currently vacant) resulting in a savings of $220,000. The
court clerks would operate the electronic home monitoring program and the community
service program at the same levels the county proposes to operate. This would also result in
the elimination of the Community Service program resulting in a savings of $66,290. The
remaining budget for the court functions would then be $1,250,425.
A minimal level of probation services would require a probation manager, a probation
officer, a support staff person and a security guard. The cost would be as follows:
Salaries and benefits: $394,019
Lab contract for UA’s: $40,800
Supplies, small tools,
travel, communications,
miscellaneous: $10,790
Equipment rental
and fuel: $10,900
Facility Charges: $24,100
Total probation costs: $480,609
At this level of service probation would be able to monitor 260 offenders (as opposed to
the county proposal of 225). In addition to meeting or exceeding the level of services the
county would offer, the Auburn Municipal Court would provide the following services: All
offenders being monitored would continue to be subject to UA testing. Substance abuse
offenders would be eligible for release through state funded programs (ADATSA), programs
funded by the Veterans Administration, programs funded by tribal agencies and faith based
DI.B Page 29 of 38
programs such as Salvation Army. We would still be able to operate the mental health court
but the level of services we would be able to access for offenders would be significantly limited.
Releasing mentally ill offenders to a residential treatment placement would be severely limited
but would still occur. We would be able to operate a veteran’s court, but with only whatever
services might be available through the veterans’ administration or possibly the veterans levy.
We would still be able to operate the Day Jail, Victims Impact Panels, Defensive Driving School,
the Alive at 25 program and the Student Court program.
The combined court budget of $1,250,425 and probation budget of $480,609 totals
$1,731,034. The finance department estimates the cost of the contract with the county at
$1,919,950.
Increased levels of service proposal: # 1
Increased Mental Health and Substance Abuse Treatment Options
We currently have a contract with Sound Mental Health which costs the city $37,500 per
year. For that contract we receive mental health evaluations for offenders both in and out of
custody and access to a wide variety of mental health treatment programs including residential
programs. The mental health services we would be able to provide people without the benefits
of that contract would consist primarily of telling mentally ill people where to go to access
mental health services and then hoping they can follow directions. The options without the
program are to either incarcerate the offenders (which most would agree is very ineffectual and
expensive) or release them to the streets. The city initially entered into this contract largely
because the police had nowhere to take these people as the jail couldn’t help them and the
emergency room at the hospital could offer them no services.
Another contract we have is with Future Visions which cost the city $27,000. What we
get for that contract is an unlimited number of referrals to intensive outpatient treatment
programs. As set forth above we would be eliminating the city’s funding of inpatient treatment
for alcoholics and drug addicts. The Future Visions contract would allow an alternative to
inpatient treatment that, while not optimum, would be a significant asset for a large portion of
the population in need of substance abuse treatment.
Operating those two programs would require an additional probation officer which with
salary and benefits would cost $105,172. The combined cost of the probation officer and the
two contracts is slightly less than $170,000.
Increased level of service Proposal: #2
Pre‐Trial Monitoring
DI.B Page 30 of 38
Currently the city operates a pre‐trial monitoring program. The way it works is that
when someone (usually in jail) comes before the court charged with a crime the court has the
option of either having the defendant held in custody, released to the streets, or placed on pre‐
trial monitoring. Pre‐trial monitoring consists of reporting to a probation officer and providing
random UA’s to insure sobriety while awaiting trial. This sort of monitoring is used in cases
where violations of pretrial conditions could constitute a substantial danger to the public at
large or to a domestic violence victim in particular. Cases placed on pre‐trial monitoring are
usually charges of Driving While Intoxicated or domestic violence offenses. In 2011 there were
1,231 people monitored through pretrial monitoring. The annual costs associated with the
program are for a .75 non‐probation officer position at a cost (with benefits) of $63,750 and
$53, 190 lab fees for UA tests. The total cost of the program is slightly less than $117,000.
Increased level of service proposal: #3
Electronic Home Monitoring (EHM)
The electronic home monitoring program as set forth in the basic level of court services
as set forth above with just a clerk operating the program is totally dependent on an offender
contacting and EHM provider and paying for EHM services from the offender’s resources. It is
also dependent on offenders maintaining sobriety. Some EHM programs have ankle braces
capable of determining if a defendant has consumed alcohol. No EHM program has an ankle
bracelet capable of deterring drug usage. The program the probation department currently
operates fills those gaps. For defendants who cannot afford EHM the city pays for those
bracelet services. This cost the city $110,879 in 2011. A full time probation officer (2011 salary
and benefits‐ $105,172) performs duties such as culling the jail lists looking for offenders who
would qualify for serving their sentence EHM, assisting defendants in making contact with EHM
providers, and monitoring offenders with random UAs. The lab costs last year for UA’s for the
EHM program was $24,891. Before the EHM program the city averaged less than 5 people per
day being monitored. After institution of the program we averaged more than 20 people per
day on EHM reducing the jail population. Most importantly, while some of those offenders
violated state drug laws as determined by UA’s, none of those offenders committed crimes of
violence or property crimes while on EHM. The net effect was that the public was protected
and not victimized again by offenders on EHM. The total cost of this program is slightly more
than $240,000.
Increased level of service proposal: #4
Probation Officers
The basic level of court services proposal, supra, projects that the number of offenders
supervised would be 260. The Auburn probation department currently supervises over 700
offenders. It would result in approximately 440 offenders being monitored by court clerks,
commonly called “bench probation”. What a court clerk does is periodically check to see if the
DI.B Page 31 of 38
offender has filed proof with the court that the offender has complied with the court’s order. If
the offender has not complied the offender is sent notice of a hearing. If the offender shows up
for the hearing the judge can then attempt to assess why the defendant has failed to comply
and try to persuade the defendant to comply. If the offender simply won’t or can’t comply the
court has two options: it can impose a sanction which is usually imposing jail or it can simply let
the offender go. Probation officers assist the worst offenders to comply. Many offenders do
not have the intellectual capabilities to comply either because they are mentally challenged or
are so trapped by drug and/or alcohol addiction they can’t effectively function. Some
offenders, especially domestic violence offenders, are so warped in their thought process that
without a probation officer supervising them the likelihood that they will reoffend is inevitable.
Each probation officer supervises 175 offenders. A probation officer with salary and benefits,
and also factoring in the cost of lab expenses to UA their monitored offenders cost $127,000.
Two probation officers, monitoring an additional 350 offenders, would cost $255,000.
The total costs of all of the services proposed above are as follows:
Basic level of court services‐ $1,731,000
Increased Mental Health and Substance Abuse Treatment Options‐ $170,000
Pre‐Trial Monitoring‐ $117,000
Electronic Home Monitoring (EHM)‐ $241,000
Two Probation Officers‐ $255,000
TOTAL: $2,514,000
DI.B Page 32 of 38
Exhibit #1
Comparison of Crime Rate 1995-2011
Per 1,000 People
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Th
o
u
s
a
n
d
s
Comparison of Crime Rate
Auburn
State
DI.B Page 33 of 38
Exhibit #2
Billable Inmates
54.1 49.7
66.7
90.7
108.1 106.9
95.4
81.8 85.3
106.3 103.4
111.4
94.7 100.26
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
19971998199920002001200220032004200520062007200820092010
Auburn Billable Jail Population 1997‐2010
DI.B Page 34 of 38
Exhibit #3
Auburn Case Filings 1995-2000
4,761 4,536 4,752
11,436
9,235
11,043 11,100
12,069 12,074 12,478
11,404
13,424
17,774 17,688
20,813
19,926
-
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
1995199619971998199920002001200220032004200520062007200820092010
DI.B Page 35 of 38
Auburn Municipal Court (AMC), Probation, Community Service, Jail & SCORE
AMC (3)AMC AMC AMC AMC AMC
Est 2013 Cost 2013 Proposal 2013 Proposal 2013 Proposal 2013 Proposal 2013 Proposal
Basic Proposal 1 Proposal 2 Proposal 3 Proposal 4
Salary and Benefits 952,286$ 732,180$ 732,180$ 732,180$ 732,180$ 732,180$
Non Facility Costs 592,170 592,170 592,170 592,170 592,170 592,170
CX Overhead
Reconciliation
City Facility interfund 134,600 134,600 134,600 134,600 134,600 134,600
City IS interfund 163,700 163,700 163,700 163,700 163,700 163,700
Security
Facilities (call center & improvements)
Total 1,842,756$ 1,622,650$ 1,622,650$ 1,622,650$ 1,622,650$ 1,622,650$
(Less) Plus Auburn Internal Allocations (32,725) (32,725) (32,725) (32,725) (32,725) (32,725)
Less Auburn Intergov't Revenue (24,500) (24,500) (24,500) (24,500) (24,500) (24,500)
Less Auburn Public Defender (315,000) (315,000) (315,000) (315,000) (315,000) (315,000)
Net Auburn Court Cost 1,470,531$ (2)1,250,425$ 1,250,425$ 1,250,425$ 1,250,425$ 1,250,425$
Probation
Salary and benefits 1,019,919 394,019 499,191 562,941 668,113 878,457
Supplies 5,850 10,790 10,790 10,790 10,790 10,790
Services & Charges 504,240 40,800 105,300 158,490 294,260 339,260
Interfund Services 35,000 35,000 35,000 35,000 35,000 35,000
Total Probation 1,565,009$ 480,609$ 650,281$ 767,221$ 1,008,163$ 1,263,507$
Total Net Court & Probation 3,035,540$ 1,731,034$ 1,900,706$ 2,017,646$ 2,258,588$ 2,513,932$
Less Auburn Probation Revenue (200,000) (200,000) (200,000) (200,000) (200,000) (200,000)
Total After Revenue Credit 2,835,540$ 1,531,034$ 1,700,706$ 1,817,646$ 2,058,588$ 2,313,932$
Proposal cost 169,672$ 116,940$ 240,942$ 255,344$
Community Service
Salary and benefits 64,790 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
SuppliesSupplies 1,500 1,500
Subtotal Community Service 66,290 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Jail/SCORE
Services & Charges 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000
Intergovernmental Service (1)7,079,165 7,079,165 7,079,165 7,079,165 7,079,165 7,079,165
Total Jail/SCORE 7,139,165 7,139,165 7,139,165 7,139,165 7,139,165 7,139,165
Total General Fund (Municipal Court,
Probation, Community Service, Jail &
SCORE)
11,511,526 9,920,624 10,090,296 10,207,236 10,448,178 10,703,522
169,672$ 116,940$ 240,942$ 255,344$
Note:
(1) 2013 Jail Costs based upon 2011/2012 average ADP of 124.
(2) AMC paperless project to be completed in 2012/2013 has a one time cost of $125,000, plus annual
reoccurring costs of approximately $15,000. These costs are not included in this total.
King County Court has already gone paperless and there are not costs to Auburn for this project.
(3) Includes 2013 labor costs. All other costs based on 2012 budget.
DI.B Page 36 of 38
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
Agenda Subject:
Matrix
Date:
May 23, 2012
Department:
Police
Attachments:
Matrix
Budget Impact:
$0
Administrative Recommendation:
Background Summary:
Reviewed by Council Committees:
Councilmember:Staff:
Meeting Date:May 29, 2012 Item Number:DI.C
AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINEDDI.C Page 37 of 38
MU
N
I
C
I
P
A
L
S
E
R
V
I
C
E
S
C
O
M
M
I
T
T
E
E
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
-
G
O
A
L
M
A
T
R
I
X
NO
.
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
D
E
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
L
E
A
D
C
O
S
T
R
E
V
I
E
W
D
A
T
E
ES
T
.
C
O
M
P
L
.
DA
T
E
STATUS
10
P
R
e
d
L
i
g
h
t
P
h
o
t
o
E
n
f
o
r
c
e
m
e
n
t
B
o
b
L
e
e
7
/
2
3
/
2
0
1
2
Qu
a
r
t
e
r
l
y
R
e
p
o
r
t
s
:
Ja
n
(
P
r
e
v
O
c
t
-
D
e
c
)
;
April (Prev Jan-Mar); July
(P
r
e
v
A
p
r
-
J
u
n
e
)
;
Oc
t
o
b
e
r
(
P
r
e
v
J
u
l
y
-
S
e
p
t
)
2nd meeting of the month.
Di
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
t
o
b
e
h
e
l
d
a
t
C
O
W
o
n
7
/
3
0
/
1
2
.
20
P
A
n
i
m
a
l
C
o
n
t
r
o
l
a
n
d
R
e
s
c
u
e
B
r
e
n
d
a
H
e
i
n
e
m
a
n
O
n
-
G
o
i
n
g
Co
u
n
c
i
l
m
e
e
t
i
n
g
6
/
2
1
a
p
p
r
o
v
e
d
2
.
5
y
e
a
r
I
L
A
f
o
r
K
i
n
g
Co
u
n
t
y
A
n
i
m
a
l
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
.
O
n
9
/
1
9
/
1
1
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
a
p
p
r
o
v
e
d
Re
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
N
o
.
4
7
4
7
f
o
r
P
r
o
f
e
s
s
i
o
n
a
l
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
Ag
r
e
e
m
e
n
t
.
(
A
n
i
m
a
l
S
h
e
l
t
e
r
a
n
d
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
b
e
g
i
n
n
i
n
g
Ja
n
u
a
r
y
1
,
2
0
1
2
w
i
t
h
a
c
t
u
a
l
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
b
e
g
i
n
n
i
n
g
Ja
n
u
a
r
y
1
,
2
0
1
3
.
)
24
P
F
i
r
e
w
o
r
k
s
U
p
d
a
t
e
B
o
b
L
e
e
O
n
-
G
o
i
n
g
MS
C
h
e
l
d
a
s
p
e
c
i
a
l
m
e
e
t
i
n
g
o
n
1
0
/
2
0
/
1
1
.
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
h
e
l
d
on
3
/
2
7
/
1
2
w
i
t
h
M
.
I
.
T
.
26
P
G
r
a
f
f
i
t
i
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
/
P
o
l
i
c
e
O
n
-
G
o
i
n
g
H
o
t
l
i
n
e
P
h
o
n
e
N
o
.
9
3
1
-
3
0
4
8
E
x
t
.
7
27
P
A
n
i
m
a
l
C
o
n
t
r
o
l
L
i
c
e
n
s
i
n
g
Pr
o
g
r
a
m
M
i
c
h
a
e
l
H
u
r
s
h
7
/
2
3
/
2
0
1
2
Qu
a
r
t
e
r
l
y
R
e
p
o
r
t
s
:
Ja
n
(
P
r
e
v
O
c
t
-
D
e
c
)
;
April (Prev Jan-Mar); July
(P
r
e
v
A
p
r
-
J
u
n
e
)
;
Oc
t
o
b
e
r
(
P
r
e
v
J
u
l
y
-
S
e
p
t
)
2nd meeting of the month.
28
P
S
l
i
d
W
t
R
t
R
i
Sh
l
l
C
l
6/
2
5
/
2
0
1
2
Re
v
i
e
w
r
a
t
e
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
,
s
o
l
i
d
w
a
s
t
e
f
u
n
d
b
a
l
a
n
c
e
a
n
d
C
P
I
ap
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
.
H
a
s
t
h
e
r
e
v
i
s
e
d
R
a
t
e
M
o
d
e
l
d
o
n
e
i
t
'
s
j
o
b
?
Th
e
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
a
s
a
g
o
a
l
w
i
l
l
p
u
r
s
u
e
a
m
i
n
i
m
u
m
1
0
%
co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
s
u
b
s
i
d
y r
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
u
n
t
i
l
t
h
e
c
r
o
s
s
-
s
e
c
t
o
r
28
P
Sol
i
d
W
a
s
t
e
R
a
t
e
R
e
v
i
e
w
She
l
l
e
y
Col
e
m
a
n
6
/25
/20
1
2
co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
su
b
s
i
d
y
re
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
until the crosssector
co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
s
u
b
s
i
d
y
i
s
r
e
m
o
v
e
d
.
T
h
r
o
u
g
h
M
S
W
M
A
C
in
p
u
t
f
r
o
m
o
t
h
e
r
c
i
t
i
e
s
w
i
l
l
h
e
l
p
C
O
A
d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
i
f
i
t
w
i
l
l
ch
a
n
g
e
t
o
d
i
r
e
c
t
b
i
l
l
i
n
g
a
n
d
t
h
i
s
w
i
l
l
b
e
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
d
i
n
t
h
e
20
1
2
r
e
v
i
e
w
i
n
J
u
n
e
.
29
P
Go
l
f
C
o
u
r
s
e
W
o
r
k
i
n
g
C
a
p
i
t
a
l
R
e
v
i
e
w
a
n
d
Fu
t
u
r
e
P
l
a
n
s
Sh
e
l
l
e
y
C
o
l
e
m
a
n
7
/
2
3
/
2
0
1
2
O
n
-
G
o
i
n
g
Qu
a
r
t
e
r
l
y
R
e
p
o
r
t
s
:
Ja
n
(
P
r
e
v
O
c
t
-
D
e
c
)
;
April (Prev Jan-Mar); July
(P
r
e
v
A
p
r
-
J
u
n
e
)
;
Oc
t
o
b
e
r
(
P
r
e
v
J
u
l
y
-
S
e
p
t
)
2nd meeting of the month.
6/
2
5
/
1
2
f
o
r
g
o
l
f
c
o
u
r
s
e
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
m
a
r
k
e
t
i
n
g
p
l
a
n
r
e
v
i
e
w
.
30
P
S
t
r
e
e
t
M
e
d
i
a
n
M
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
D
a
r
y
l
F
a
b
e
r
6
/
2
5
/
2
0
1
2
Co
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
t
o
b
r
i
n
g
m
a
p
a
n
d
p
i
n
s
f
o
r
b
e
t
t
e
r
v
i
s
u
a
l
a
t
4
/
2
3
me
e
t
i
n
g
.
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
w
i
l
l
w
o
rk with PCDC to develop and
im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
i
z
e
d
a
p
p
r
o
a
c
h
t
o
s
t
r
e
e
t
m
e
d
i
a
n
ma
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
a
n
d
a
p
p
e
a
r
a
n
c
e
.
31
P
C
e
m
e
t
e
r
y
U
p
d
a
t
e
D
a
r
y
l
F
a
b
e
r
9
/
2
4
/
2
0
1
2
M
a
r
k
e
t
i
n
g
p
l
a
n
t
o
b
e
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
e
d
o
n
9
/
2
4
/
1
2
.
32
P
Gr
e
e
n
R
i
v
e
r
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
C
o
l
l
e
g
e
/
A
i
r
p
o
r
t
Ne
g
o
t
i
a
t
i
o
n
s
Sh
e
l
l
e
y
C
o
l
e
m
a
n
6
/
1
1
/
2
0
1
2
Di
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
o
n
n
e
g
o
t
i
a
t
i
o
n
s
between GRCC and the
Ai
r
p
o
r
t
.
NO
.
I
T
E
M
O
F
I
N
T
E
R
E
S
T
3
I
S
h
o
p
p
i
n
g
C
a
r
t
U
p
d
a
t
e
R
a
n
d
y
B
a
i
l
e
y
7
/
2
3
/
2
0
1
2
Ja
n
u
a
r
y
(
P
r
e
v
J
u
l
y
-
D
e
c
)
,
July (Prev Jan-June)
4
I
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
N
o
.
6
3
9
8
-
P
u
l
l
T
a
b
s
D
a
n
H
e
i
d
2
/
1
1
/
2
0
1
3
An
n
u
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
o
f
t
a
x
a
t
i
o
n
b
a
s
i
s
t
o
d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
i
f
a
n
y
ch
a
n
g
e
s
n
e
e
d
t
o
b
e
m
a
d
e
-
d
e
p
e
n
d
e
n
t
u
p
o
n
s
t
a
t
u
s
o
f
ec
o
n
o
m
y
.
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
N
o
.
6
3
9
8
w
a
s
e
n
a
c
t
e
d
2
/
2
1
/
1
2
.
La
s
t
R
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
D
a
t
e
:
5
/
1
4
/
1
2
E:
\
A
G
E
N
D
A
\
M
u
n
i
c
i
p
a
l
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
P
a
p
e
r
l
e
s
s
P
a
c
k
e
t
\
2
0
1
2
\
1
0
‐
May 29\Resources\Matrix 5‐14‐12.xls
E:
\
A
G
E
N
D
A
\
M
u
n
i
c
i
p
a
l
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
P
a
p
e
r
l
e
s
s
P
a
c
k
e
t
\
2
0
1
2
\
1
0
‐
May 29\Resources\Matrix 5‐14‐12.xls
DI.C Page 38 of 38