12/17/2019 - Regular - Packet
City of Port Orchard Council Meeting Agenda
December 17, 2019
6:30 p.m.
1. CALL TO ORDER
A. Pledge of Allegiance
2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
3. CITIZENS COMMENTS
(Please limit your comments to 3 minutes for items listed on the Agenda and that are not for a
Public Hearing. When recognized by the Mayor, please state your name for the official record)
4. CONSENT AGENDA
(Approval of Consent Agenda passes all routine items listed below, which have been distributed
to each Councilmember for reading and study. Consent Agenda items are not considered
separately unless a Councilmember so requests. In the event of such a request, the item is
returned to Business Items.)
A. Approval of Vouchers and Electronic Payments
B. Approval of Payroll and Direct Deposits
C. Approval of the First Amendment to Contract No. 035-18, with Winward
McCormick, LLC for the McCormick Woods Lift Stations #1 and #2
Upgrades (Dorsey) Page 3
5. PRESENTATION
A. Administering the Oath of Offices
B. Behavioral Health Navigator Program
6. PUBLIC HEARING
7. BUSINESS ITEMS
A. Approval of an Interlocal Agreement with the City of Poulsbo for
Provision of Law Enforcement Behavioral Health Navigator Services
(Brown) Page 11
B. Adoption of an Ordinance Authorizing a Change in Police Department
Staffing from 18 Officers and 3 Sergeants to 17 Officers and 4 Sergeants
(Brown) Page 45
C. Adoption of an Ordinance Amending Sections of POMC 10.12.580 and
10.12.600 Regarding Parking on Public Streets (Rinearson) Page 49
D. Adoption of a Resolution Adopting the 2020 City Council Meeting
Schedule (Rinearson) Page 61
E. Adoption of a Resolution Accepting the Donation of a Chihuly Inspired
Chandelier Art Piece (Rinearson) Page 65
F. Adoption of a Resolution Approving a Contract with GGLO Design for the
Downtown/Campus Sub Area and Planned Action EIS (Bond) Page 69
G. Approval of a Contract with Inslee, Best, Doezie & Ryder, P.S. for City
Attorney Services (Rinearson) Page 71
Mayor:
Rob Putaansuu
Administrative Official
Councilmembers:
Bek Ashby (Mayor Pro-Tempore)
Chair: ED/Tourism/LT Committee
Staff: Development Director
Finance Committee
KRCC / PSRC TransPol / KRCC TransPol
KRCC PlanPol-alt / PRTPO
Shawn Cucciardi
Finance Committee
Land Use Committee
PSRC EDD-alt
Fred Chang
Utilities Committee
Sewer Advisory Committee (SAC)
Staff: Public Works Director
Jay Rosapepe
ED/Tourism/LT Committee
Utilities Committee
Sewer Advisory Committee (SAC)
KRCC-alt / KRCC TransPol-alt
Kitsap Transit-alt
John Clauson
Chair: Finance Committee
Staff: Finance Director
Kitsap Public Health District-alt
KEDA/KADA-alt
Cindy Lucarelli
Chair: Utilities and SAC Committee
Staff: Public Works Director
Chair: Chimes and Lights Committee
Staff: City Clerk
KEDA/KADA
Scott Diener
Chair: Land Use Committee
Staff: Development Director
ED/Tourism/LT Committee
Department Directors:
Nicholas Bond, AICP
Development Director
Mark Dorsey, P.E.
Director of Public Works/City Engineer
Tim Drury
Municipal Court Judge
Noah Crocker, M.B.A.
Finance Director
Matt Brown
Police Chief
Brandy Rinearson, MMC, CPRO
City Clerk
Contact us:
216 Prospect Street
Port Orchard, WA 98366
(360) 876-4407
Please turn off cell phones during meeting and hold your questions for staff until the meeting has been adjourned.
The Council may consider other ordinances and matters not listed on the Agenda, unless specific notification period is required.
Meeting materials are available on the City’s website at: www.cityofportorchard.us or by contacting the City Clerk’s office at (360) 876-4407.
The City of Port Orchard does not discriminate on the basis of disability. Contact the City Clerk’s office should you need special accommodations.
December 17, 2019, Meeting Agenda Page 2 of 2
H. Approval of Addendum No. 3 to Contract No. 053-18 with Waterman Investment Partners for the 640
Bay Street Purchase and Sale Agreement (Bond) Page 81
8. DISCUSSION ITEMS (No Action to be Taken)
A. 2020 City Council Retreat (Mayor) Page 85
9. REPORTS OF COUNCIL COMMITTEES
10. REPORT OF MAYOR
11. REPORT OF DEPARTMENT HEADS
12. CITIZEN COMMENTS
(Please limit your comments to 3 minutes for any items not up for Public Hearing. When recognized by the Mayor, please state
your name for the official record)
13. EXECUTIVE SESSION: Pursuant to RCW 42.30.110, the City Council may hold an executive session. The topic(s) and the
session duration will be announced prior to the executive session.
14. ADJOURNMENT
COMMITTEE MEETINGS Date & Time Location
Finance December 17, 2019; 5:30pm City Hall
Economic Development and Tourism January 13, 2020; 9:30am City Hall
Utilities December 16, 2019; 9:30am City Hall
Sewer Advisory February 19, 2020; 6:30pm City Hall
Land Use TBD DCD*
Lodging Tax Advisory October, 2020 City Hall
Festival of Chimes & Lights January 13, 2020; 3:30pm City Hall
Outside Agency Committees Varies Varies
Council Retreat January 17, 2020; 9:00am Puerta Vallarta**
*DCD, Department of Community Development, 720 Prospect Street, Port Orchard
**1599 SE Lund Ave, Port Orchard, WA
CITY COUNCIL GOOD OF THE ORDER
City of Port Orchard
216 Prospect Street, Port Orchard, WA 98366
(360) 876-4407 • FAX (360) 895-9029
Agenda Staff Report
Agenda Item No.: Consent Agenda 4C Meeting Date: December 17, 2019
Subject: Approval of the First Amendment to Prepared by: Mark R. Dorsey, P.E.
Contract No. 035-18, with Winward Public Works Director
McCormick, LLC for the McCormick Atty Routing No.: 500-18
Woods Lift Stations #1 and #2 Upgrades Atty Review Date: December 5, 2019
Summary: On April 17, 2018, the City of Port Orchard and McCormick Winward, LLC entered into an
Agreement (C035-18) entitled “City of Port Orchard McCormick Woods Lift Stations #1 & #2 Upgrade
Agreement” for the purpose of constructing two sanitary sewer lift stations to serve the McCormick
Properties. The construction of these facilities had specific performance timelines, and while both parties are
making progress on their respective responsibilities (LS1 is operating and undergoing final inspections, LS2 is
designed, permitted and out for construction bid), neither party has met the deadlines outlined in the
Agreement. Therefore, both parties agree that the deadlines should be amended to reflect the current
progress and adjusted expectations.
Relationship to Comprehensive Plan: Chapter 7.5 – Future Sewer System Needs, Projects #3 & #4.
Recommendation: Staff recommends that the City Council authorize the Mayor to execute the First
Amendment to Contract No. C035-18, being an Agreement with Winward McCormick, LLC for the
McCormick Woods Lift Stations #1 & #2 Upgrade.
Motion for Consideration: I move to authorize the Mayor to execute the First Amendment to Contract No.
C035-18, being an Agreement with Winward McCormick, LLC for the McCormick Woods Lift Stations #1 &
#2 Upgrade.
Fiscal Impact: None
Alternatives: None
Attachments: First Amendment to the ‘Agreement’.
Page 3 of 88
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Page 4 of 88
AMENDMENT #1 TO CITY OF PORT ORCHARD MCCORMICK
WOODS LIFT STATIONS #1 & #2 UPGRADE AGREEMENT
Page 1
FIRST AMENDMENT TO CITY OF PORT ORCHARD MCCORMICK WOODS LIFT
STATIONS #1 & #2 UPGRADE AGREEMENT
This FIRST AMENDMENT TO CITY OF PORT ORCHARD MCCORMICK WOODS
LIFT STATIONS #1 & #2 UPGRADE AGREEMENT (“Amendment”) is entered into between
the City of Port Orchard, a Washington municipal corporation (“City” or “Port Orchard”) and
Winward McCormick, LLC, a Washington limited liability company (“McCormick”). City and
McCormick are each a “Party” and together the “Parties” to this Amendment.
The Parties hereby agree as follows.
RECITALS:
A. McCormick is the current owner of certain undeveloped property which is located within
the City of Port Orchard.
B. On April 17, 2018, the Parties entered into an Agreement entitled “City of Port Orchard
McCormick Woods Lift Stations #1 & #2 Upgrade Agreement” (hereinafter “Agreement”)
for the purpose of constructing two sewer lift stations (Lift Station #1 and #2) to serve the
McCormick Property.
C. The Agreement designated McCormick as responsible for constructing Lift Station #1 and
the City as responsible from constructing Lift Station #2. The construction of these two
facilities had specific performance timelines. While both parties are making progress on
their respective responsibilities, neither party has met the deadlines in the Agreement. Both
parties agree that these deadlines should be amended to reflect current progress and
adjusted expectations.
FIRST AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT:
1. Section 2, subsections (e) and (f) of the Agreement are hereby amended to read as follows:
e. Substantial Completion of LS1 Replacement by June 30,
2020 (“Substantial Completion” or “Substantially Completed”
means functional at full design capacity, including backup
requirements and site security, including but not limited to
appropriate fencing); and
f. City punch list of items for repair or correction to
McCormick by August 15, 2020.
2. Section 3 of the Agreement is hereby amended to read as follows:
The parties agree that the LS2 Replacement shall be designed and
constructed with adequate capacity to serve full build-out of the
McCormick Property. The City agrees to begin construction of LS2
Page 5 of 88
AMENDMENT #1 TO CITY OF PORT ORCHARD MCCORMICK
WOODS LIFT STATIONS #1 & #2 UPGRADE AGREEMENT
Page 2
Replacement by January 15, 2020 and that the LS2 Replacement
will be Substantially Completed by November 15, 2020.
Because the City’s portion and McCormick’s portion of the LS1
Replacement and the LS2 Replacement, as determined by the
McCormick Woods Wastewater Analysis, dated March 15, 2018,
are generally equal both in cost and firm capacity to be used, and
because the parties have agreed, instead of sharing the costs of each
lift station replacement, for McCormick to construct, at its sole cost,
the Interim Upgrade and the LS1 Replacement, and for the City to
construct, at its sole cost, the LS2 Replacement, the City agrees that
it shall not seek any reimbursement from the McCormick Property
for the costs of the LS2 Replacement. The City further agrees that it
shall not increase the Capital Facilities Charge (CFC) for sewer
applicable to the McCormick Property to pay for the LS2
Replacement.
3. Severability. The provisions of this First Amendment are declared to be severable. If any
provision of this First Amendment is for any reasons held to be invalid or unconstitutional
by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect
the validity or constitutionality of any other provision.
4. Entire Agreement. The written provisions and terms of this First Amendment shall
supersede all prior verbal statements of any officer or other representative of the parties,
and such statements shall not be effective or be construed as entering into or forming a part
of or altering in any manner whatsoever, this First Amendment. The entire agreement
between the Parties with respect to the subject matter hereunder is contained in the
Agreement and exhibits thereto, and this First Amendment. Should any language in any
of the Exhibits to the Agreement conflict with any language contained in this First
Amendment, then this First Amendment shall prevail. Except as modified by this First
Amendment, all other provisions of the original Agreement not inconsistent with this First
Amendment shall remain in full force and effect.
5. Effective date. This Amendment shall be effective as of , 2019.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment on this day of
December, 2019.
WINWARD MCCORMICK, LLC CITY OF PORT ORCHARD
By: By:
Its: Its: Mayor
Page 6 of 88
AMENDMENT #1 TO CITY OF PORT ORCHARD MCCORMICK
WOODS LIFT STATIONS #1 & #2 UPGRADE AGREEMENT
Page 3
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Patrick Schneider Jennifer S. Robertson
Attorney for Winward McCormick Attorney for Port Orchard
ATTEST:
Brandy Rinearson
Port Orchard City Clerk
Page 7 of 88
AMENDMENT #1 TO CITY OF PORT ORCHARD MCCORMICK
WOODS LIFT STATIONS #1 & #2 UPGRADE AGREEMENT
Page 4
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
) ss.
COUNTY OF KITSAP )
I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Mr. Rob Putaansuu is the person
who appeared before me, and said person acknowledged that he signed this instrument, on oath
stated that he was authorized to execute the instrument and acknowledged it as the Mayor of Port
Orchard to be the free and voluntary act of such party for the uses and purposes mentioned in the
instrument.
Dated: 20
(print or type name)
NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the
State of Washington, residing at:
My Commission expires:
Page 8 of 88
AMENDMENT #1 TO CITY OF PORT ORCHARD MCCORMICK
WOODS LIFT STATIONS #1 & #2 UPGRADE AGREEMENT
Page 5
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
) ss.
COUNTY OF )
I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Mr. is the person
who appeared before me, and said person acknowledged that (he/she) signed this instrument, on
oath stated that (he/she) was authorized to execute the instrument and acknowledged it as the
of Winward McCormick, LLC to be the free and voluntary act of such party for the uses
and purposes mentioned in the instrument.
Dated: 20
(print or type name)
NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the
State of Washington, residing at:
My Commission expires:
Page 9 of 88
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Page 10 of 88
City of Port Orchard
216 Prospect Street, Port Orchard, WA 98366
(360) 876-4407 • FAX (360) 895-9029
Agenda Staff Report
Agenda Item No.: Business Item 7A Meeting Date: December 17, 2019
Subject: Approval of an Interlocal Agreement with Prepared by: Matt Brown
the City of Poulsbo for Provision of Law Chief of Police
Enforcement Behavioral Health Navigator Atty Routing No.: N/A
Services Atty Review Date: N/A
Summary: This is an updated ILA between the City of Port Orchard and the City of Poulsbo for the provision
of law enforcement Behavioral Health Navigator services. The City of Poulsbo currently provides a Navigator
to the City of Port Orchard for up to twenty-five (25) hours per week. The Navigator receives an average of
thirty-five (35) referrals from police officers every month; this referral to navigation services permits officers
to provide a higher level of compassionate service to those who need more than law enforcement assistance.
Providing subjects a connection to services also allows officers more time to deal with the criminal element in
our community. Navigators are also able to spend more time working on solutions as they are not responsible
for dealing with any additional calls for service.
The City of Poulsbo currently provides the Behavioral Health Navigator program at no cost to the City of Port
Orchard. This is not consistent with other member agencies – the City of Bremerton and the City of
Bainbridge Island budget $30,000 annually for their own Navigator. It is highly likely our access to this unique
program will be removed should we not participate financially.
Recommendation: Recommend the council to approve this Interlocal Agreement.
Relationship to Comprehensive Plan: N/A
Motion for consideration: I move to approve the Mayor signing an ILA between the City of Port Orchard
and City of Poulsbo to continue providing for law enforcement Behavioral Health Navigator services.
Fiscal Impact: The request from the City of Poulsbo is $30,000 for the year 2020. This money was not
budgeted in the Police Department’s 2019-2020 budget. A budget amendment may be needed.
Alternatives: Not approve the ILA and lose access to the law enforcement Behavioral Navigator program.
Attachments: Interlocal Agreement, Quarterly Report, Behavioral Health Navigator Program, and LEXIPOL
Law Enforcement Response to People in Crisis.
Page 11 of 88
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Page 12 of 88
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT AMONG THE CITIES OF
PORT ORCHARD AND POULSBO FOR PROVISION OF LAW
ENFORCEMENT BEHAVIORAL HEALTH NAVIGATOR SERVICES
This Agreement is by and between the City of Poulsbo (“Poulsbo”) and the City of Port
Orchard (“Port Orchard”) and is made and entered into pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 39.34
RCW.
WHEREAS, the undersigned cities hereto are public agencies as defined by Chapter 39.34,
Revised Code of Washington, and are authorized to enter into joint or cooperative actions and to
cooperate with each other on the basis of mutual advantage and thereby to provide services and
facilities in a manner and pursuant to forms of governmental organization that will accord best
with geographic, economic, population and other factors influencing the needs and development
of local communities; and
WHEREAS, law enforcement agencies are often the first responders to those in behavioral
health crises or with behavioral health conditions and who are in need of connection to services,
thereby creating a demand upon the undersigned cities respective to resources and impacting the
communities of the undersigned cities, both individually and jointly; and
WHEREAS, the City of Poulsbo Police Department has an established Behavioral Health
Outreach Navigator Program which assists law enforcement in connecting individuals with
behavioral health issues, who are identified as at-risk or in crisis, with treatment and other
community resources, with the goal of diverting initial or further involvement in the criminal
justice system; and
WHEREAS, the City of Port Orchard has determined that the cooperative utilization of the
City of Poulsbo Police Department Behavioral Health Outreach Navigator Program would be of
benefit to its Police Department and the community; and
WHEREAS, the City of Poulsbo agrees that the cooperative utilization of its Behavioral
Health Outreach Program is of benefit to the City of Port Orchard, the City of Poulsbo and their
respective communities;
Page 13 of 88
NOW THEREFORE, the City of Poulsbo and the City of Port Orchard, through their
respective legislative bodies, do hereby agree as follows:
1. SCOPE OF SERVICES. Poulsbo Police Department (“PPD”) shall assign, as staffing levels
permit, to the City of Port Orchard Police Department (“POPD”) a Police Navigator
(“Navigator”) from the Poulsbo Police Department Behavioral Health Outreach Navigator
Program (“Program”). The Navigator will be housed in the Port Orchard Police Department
and will work no more than 25 hours per week with POPD, assisting law enforcement officers
to connect individuals with behavioral health issues to treatment and other community services.
2. NAVIGATOR ASSIGNMENT. PPD shall ensure the Navigator has the appropriate and
necessary qualifications, training and experience to provide the services under this Agreement
and retains the sole authority to remove, replace or change the assigned Navigator to POPD.
However, PPD shall make reasonable attempts to avoid any significant disruptions to ongoing
cases. POPD shall provide to the Navigator and PPD a designated member of the POPD Crisis
Intervention Team, or other POPD law enforcement officer who shall serve as the point of
contact for the Navigator services and shall supervise the Navigator and the provision of related
services while on-site, in collaboration with the PPD Administrative Services Manager.
a. The City of Poulsbo shall pay the salary, associated benefits and employment costs of
the Navigator, with any overtime work needing prior approval by the PPD
Administrative Services Manager.
b. The Navigator shall be considered an employee of the PPD, reporting to, and supervised
by the PPD Administrative Services Manager. The Navigator will adhere to the policies
and procedures of the PPD, including the Behavioral Health Navigator Program
policies. Should an actual or perceived conflict arise regarding the responsibilities,
policies, or delegated duties of the Navigator, POPD shall promptly inform PPD.
c. The Navigator shall continue to have ongoing responsibilities with the PPD and may be
required to provide navigator support, attend mandatory trainings, conduct
investigations or attend to other work-related matters for PPD or other partnered
agencies, at the sole determination of PPD. Should POPD wish for the Navigator to
Page 14 of 88
participate or attend any POPD required meetings or trainings, POPD shall seek
authorization from the PPD Administrative Services Manager.
d. PPD shall provide the Navigator with a cellular phone and laptop for the provision of
the services in this Agreement, which shall remain the property of PPD.
e. POPD shall provide the necessary workspace and/or workstation in its Department
which provides the Navigator at a minimum access to ILeads, or any replacement
County-wide law enforcement records management system. The Navigator shall enter
all contacts into ILeads or its successor, and through this agreement are given the
authorization to do so. Such entry shall be in accordance with the policies and
procedures of the PPD.
3. COSTS.
a. For calendar year 2020, the City of Port Orchard will remit a payment of Thirty
Thousand Dollars ($30,000) to the City of Poulsbo for services provided herein. Such
payment shall be due upon full execution of this Agreement.
b. Unless as especially provided for herein, all other costs for the services under this
Agreement shall be borne by the City of Poulsbo.
4. INSURANCE. The cities shall, to the best of their ability, coordinate their liability insurance
coverages and/or self-insured coverages to the extent possible to fully implement and follow
the agreement set forth herein. However, the consent of any liability insurance carrier or self-
insured pool or organization is not required to make this agreement effective as between the
member cities signing this agreement and the failure of any insurance carrier or self-insured
pooling organization to agree or follow the terms of this provision on liability shall not relieve
any individual city from its obligations under this agreement.
5. LIABILITY. Each City shall be responsible for the wrongful or negligent actions of its
employees while participating in the Navigator Program as their respective liability shall
appear under the laws of the State of Washington and/or Federal Law and this agreement is
not intended to diminish or expand such liability.
Page 15 of 88
a. To that end, each City promises to hold harmless and release all the other participating
Cities from any loss, claim or liability arising from or out of the negligent tortious
actions or inactions of its employees, officers and officials. Such liability shall be
apportioned among the parties or other at fault persons or entities in accordance with the
laws of the State of Washington.
b. Nothing herein shall be interpreted to:
i. Waive any defense arising out of RCW Title 51.
ii. Limit the ability of a participant to exercise any right, defense, or remedy
which a party may have with respect to third parties or the officer(s) whose
action or inaction give rise to loss, claim or liability including but not limited
to an assertion that the officer(s) was acting beyond the scope of his or her
employment.
iii. Cover or require indemnification or payment of any judgment against any
individual or city for intentionally wrongful conduct outside the scope of
employment of any individual or for any judgment for punitive damages
against any individual or city. Payment of punitive damage awards, fines or
sanctions shall be the sole responsibility of the individual against whom said
judgment is rendered and/or his or her municipal employer, should that
employer elect to make said payment voluntarily. This agreement does not
require indemnification of any punitive damage awards or for any order
imposing fines or sanctions.
6. PUBLIC RECORDS. This Agreement does not establish a separate or independent legal
entity subject to suit or to the Washington Public Records Act (PRA), Chapter 42.56 RCW.
Accordingly, each party shall be responsible for retaining records it creates, owns or uses, in
accordance with the applicable record retention laws. All public records requests shall be
handled independently by the agency receiving the request in accordance with its own
policies and state law.
Page 16 of 88
7. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Agreement shall take effect on January 1, 2020 and shall expire
December 31, 2020, unless otherwise terminated per Section 8 of this Agreement.
8. TERMINATION. This agreement can be terminated at any time without cause, with 30
days written notice by either party. Termination of this Agreement shall not terminate
paragraphs 4 or 5 hereof as to any incident arising prior to the termination of this Agreement
and paragraphs 4 and 5 shall survive the termination of this Agreement with respect to any
cause of action, claim, or liability arising on or prior to the date of termination.
9. ADMINISTRATION. This Agreement is executed in accordance with the authority of
Chapter 39.34, the Interlocal Cooperation Act. The parties do not create through this
Agreement a separate legal entity subject to suit. The Police Chiefs of PPD and POPD, or
their designees, will administer this agreement for each party, and will meet each quarter, or
as needed, for the purpose of reviewing and discussing the operations and performance of
the Navigator and the Navigator Program. Each party to this Agreement shall be responsible
for its own budgeting.
10. DISPOSAL OF PROPERTY. No real or personal property will be jointly acquired or
owned by the parties under this Agreement. All property owned by each of the parties shall
remain its sole property to hold and dispose of in its sole discretion.
11. WRITTEN NOTICES. All communications regarding this Agreement shall be sent to the
parties at the addresses listed below by registered or 1st class mail, or by personal service,
and shall be deemed sufficiently given if sent to the addressee at the address stated in this
Agreement or such other address as may be hereafter specified in writing.
For City of Poulsbo: For City of Port Orchard
Chief Dan Schoonmaker Chief Matt Brown
Poulsbo Police Department Port Orchard Police Department
200 NE Moe Street 546 Bay Street
Poulsbo, WA 98370 Port Orchard, WA 98366
Page 17 of 88
12. SEVERABILITY. If any section of this Agreement is adjudicated to be invalid, such action
shall not affect the validity of any section not so adjudged.
13. WAIVER. Failure to enforce any provisions of this Agreement shall not be deemed a waiver
of that provision. Waiver of any right or power arising out of this Agreement shall not be
deemed a waiver of any other right or power.
14. AMENDMENT. This Agreement may only be amended by written agreement of all parties.
15. GOVERNING LAW/VENUE. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in
accordance with the laws and administrative rules of the State of Washington. In the event
of dispute, the venue for any action brought hereunder shall be in Kitsap County Superior
Court.
16. FILING. This agreement shall be filed with the County Auditor or listed by subject on each
agency’s website pursuant to RCW 39.34.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have approved and executed this Agreement,
this __________day of ____________, 2019.
CITY OF POULSBO CITY OF PORT ORCHARD
________________________ _________________________
BECKY ERICKSON, MAYOR ROB PUTAANSUU, MAYOR
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________ __________________________
JAMES HANEY SHARON CATES
CITY ATTORNEY CITY ATTORNEY
Page 18 of 88
Kitsap County Mental Health, Chemical Dependency &
Therapeutic Court Programs Quarterly Narrative Report
Agency: City of Poulsbo Quarter: July-September 2019 (Q3)
Program Name: Behavioral Health Outreach Person Completing Report: Kim Hendrickson
Date: October 31, 2019 Email: kimberlyh@cityofpoulsbo.com
Reflecting on your evaluation results and overall program efforts, briefly describe w hat has
been achieved over the Quarter. If program objectives have not been met, why not? Are there
any needed changes in evaluation or scope of work?
Our team of Navigators assisted 163 unique individuals this quarter struggling with behavioral health issues
(BHI) and responded to 281 police requests for assistance. In the first nine months of 2019, the Navigators
assisted 530 unique individuals and responded to over 800 police referrals.
In terms of impact, Navigators made 577 personalized referrals to treatment and other services this quarter.
Over one-half of these referrals (294) resulted in a successful connection to a program or service. Since the
start of the year, 90% of the police requests Navigators respond to have resulted in at least one referral. 52%
of these police requests result in at least one service connection.
Navigators helped 17 people with BHI satisfy court obligations this quarter. They assisted school officials with
20 youth in need of behavioral health assistance.
We contracted with two outside agencies this quarter: Peninsula Community Health Services and MCS
Counseling. These partnerships allowed our program to provide services that Navigators can't (i.e., ongoing
care coordination and mental health counseling).
- A PCHS community health care worker did ongoing care coordination for a small cohort of Bremerton
individuals through the Law Enforcement Assisted Diversion (LEAD) program. The goal, here, is to reduce
criminal recidivism by supporting individuals in their recovery efforts. The program assisted four individuals
this quarter. The CHCW assigned to our team left her position in August; there was no care
coordination/LEAD activity in September.
- A MCS Counselor provides short term therapy for youth at risk of suicide or self-harm referred by
Navigators. This partnership with MCS gives youth in North and South Kitsap quick access to counseling
regardless of insurance status. This initiative assisted nine youth this quarter. Four of these kids are now
connected to long term services.
Briefly describe collaborative efforts and outreach activities employing collective impact strategies:
The strength of the Behavioral Health Outreach Program depends on our partne rships. We leverage our
relationships with organizations and agencies to find treatment options for individuals and enhance
continuity of care. As noted above, we worked with PCHS and MCS counseling this quarter to help at-risk
individuals. We also worked with PCHS, the Bremerton Mayor, and Bremerton Fire to promote a new mobile
health care program (“fired up for health”) that will begin in 2020.
Navigators worked with the following individuals and agencies this quarter:
- DCRs, case managers, and clinicians at KMHS
Page 19 of 88
- West Sound Treatment Center and Agape Unlimited
- Kitsap County Jail staff and service providers
- Staff at Bremerton, Port Orchard, and Bainbridge Island schools (and school resource officers)
- Kitsap Connect, Salvation Army, Kitsap Rescue Mission
- DSHS, DDS, and the County Division on Aging (we attend monthly "A team" meetings)
- Prosecutor and court personnel at Poulsbo, Bainbridge, Port Orchard, Bremerton, and District Court.
Please describe your sustainability planning – new collaborations, other sources of funding, etc.:
We applied for a state “field response” grant through the Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs
this quarter. Our application was not successful—but we were told, by a WASPC representative, that our
team made the best presentation. (Unfortunately, only existing programs were funded this cycle.) We also
worked with Washington State University to submit a Department of Justice “Opioid Abuse Site Based
Program” grant to expand our LEAD Program (we were not awarded).
We work with closely with partnering police departments to make sure Navigator services meet their needs.
Poulsbo Police Department Administrative Services Manager Kelly Ziemann supervises Navigators' work and
these important agency relationships, and we expect that these departments will continue to support the
program. We did outreach to the Suquamish and Port Gamble S’klallam Tribes, this quarter, to encourage
new partnership opportunities.
Success Stories:
Port Orchard Police Department: School Resource Officer Wofford referred a student, “Paul,” to Navigator
Stern. Paul was experiencing hallucinations and depression, and threatened, on his social media accounts, to
bring a gun to school. Navigator Stern connected him to our program’s MCS youth therapist who was able to
meet with him immediately, at no cost, at his school. Navigator Stern and the therapist are working together
to connect Paul to long term support services, and to coordinate those services at the school. This is an
excellent example of how navigators complement the work of school resource officers and school officials.
Bremerton Police Department: Navigator Howard worked, this quarter, with an elderly individual struggling
with mental illness and alcohol dependence. “John” was referred to the Navigator after multiple suicide
attempts. He had no family nearby or support system in place. John was not interested, at first, in assistance
but over time trusted the Navigator to connect him to services. Navigator Howard connected John to the
County’s Division of Aging and Long Term care where he was assigned a mental health counselor. She also
contacted his granddaughter to let her know about his health and how she can support him.
North Kitsap Navigator Lynch has worked with Poulsbo and Bainbridge Police, for many months, regarding a
mother and her three children. There have been dozens of police contacts and Child Protective Services (CPS)
reports, but little action has been taken. (Police and CPS have been concerned about the oldest child, who
struggles with mental illness--and younger children not getting help with their basic needs.) Navigator Lynch
coordinated with multiple agencies, officers, and CPS caseworkers to address this situation. Through their
observations, and the observations of the community resource officer regarding code violations, they were
able to gather enough information to put the children in protective custody this quarter. The youngest are
currently attending preschool for the first time and are getting medical care. Both are making excellent
progress towards their developmental milestones.
Page 20 of 88
Behavioral Health Navigator Program
r 9or
q
The Behavioral Health Navigator Program gives police throughout the
county access to Navigators who help connect individuals with
behavioral health symptoms to services. Navigators co-respond with
officers to calls involving behavioral health issues and provide outreach
to individuals after police contact occurs. This program is funded by the
Kitsap County Treatment Tax and participating cities.
Navigators can:
. Work with individuals to identify treatment options
. Help overcome obstacles to services
. Educate parents and caregivers about laws and resources
. lmprove communication between police, atto
corrections, and service providers.
Navigators can't:
o Do assessments or involuntary commitments
. Provide therapy or other treatment services
. Share protected medical information
o Force anyone to accept help that isn't willing
to accept it
rneys,courts,
For Program information, contact Program Manager Kim Hendrickson (360) 3949794
The best way to contact a Navigator is through one of your police department's
Crisis lntervention Offi cers
City of Poulsbo Police Department 360: 779 3LL3
City of Bainbridge lsland Police Department: 2OG 842 52LL
City of Bremerton Police Department: 360 473 5220
City of Port Orchard Police Department: 360 876 1700
Page 21 of 88
LAW ENFORCEMENT RESPONSE TO PEOPLE IN CRISIS
Understanding the challenges
of incidents involving persons
with mental illness
A nationwide survey report
May 2019
Page 22 of 88
MENTALLY ILL PERSON OR PERSON IN CRISIS
Introduction
How often do these incidents occur?
What do these interactions look like?
Who responds to these incidents—and how?
How do officers feel about these interactions?
How are we preparing officers to deal with the mentally ill?
Recommendations to guide officers and agencies
Conclusion and sources
This survey referred respondents to the following
definition for a mentally ill person or person in
crisis: A person whose mental health symptoms
or level of distress have exceeded the person’s
internal ability to manage his or her behavior or
emotions in the immediate situation. While being
under the influence of intoxicating substances often
exacerbates mental health symptoms, behavior
associated merely with being intoxicated does not
indicate a person in crisis.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
3
5
7
10
14
17
20
23
LAW ENFORCEMENT RESPONSE TO PEOPLE IN CRISIS WWW.LEXIPOL.COM2
Page 23 of 88
3
Nearly 44 million Americans experience
mental illness each year.¹ Due to a lack of
mental health resources, those with serious
mental illness often become homeless or live
with family members who lack the knowledge
or resources to care for them effectively.
It’s also not uncommon for people to
experience short-term emotional crises
brought about by specific events and/or
exacerbated by drugs or alcohol. According
to the Center for Disease Control (CDC),
suicide rates rose more than 30% in half
of the states since 1999. Almost 45,000
lives were lost to suicide in 2016 alone—
and more than half of them did not have a
known mental health condition.²
Whether experiencing suicidal despair,
psychosis brought about by long-term
drug use, or paranoia due to a medication
interruption, people in crisis have an elevated
chance of coming into contact with a law
enforcement officer. When criminal conduct
is involved, the person is often arrested. The
National Alliance on Mental Illness estimates
2 million people with mental illness are
booked into jails each year.³
Millions more encounters between people in
crisis and law enforcement officers do not
involve criminal activity, yet officers are called
because there is no one else to respond.
Anecdotal evidence about the impact of
this issue abounds—resources are strained,
officers are burnt out or demoralized,
people in crisis suffer injuries and are even
killed by officers who were called to help
them. But data is often lacking. So in late
2018, Lexipol created a comprehensive
survey with questions designed to reveal
a more detailed picture of how this issue
is unfolding in law enforcement agencies
across the nation: How often do officers
respond to those with mental illness? What
makes these incidents so challenging? And
do agency policies and training provide
adequate guidance?
Partnering with law enforcement training
company Calibre Press, we surveyed
officers across the nation—and received an
overwhelming response. We are sincerely
thankful for the 4,200 law enforcement
officers who took the time to provide their
responses, more than one-third of whom
provided detailed accounts and many who
participated in post-survey interviews.
Their first-person accounts are included
throughout this report.
One respondent described the issue as
“criminal policing in the realm of social
work.” Indeed, it is a complex problem that
extends across many facets of society. The
solutions will be complex and varied as well.
We believe understanding the scope of the
issue from the eyes of law enforcement is a
good place to start building those solutions.
INTRODUCTION44MILLION
AMERICANS EXPERIENCE MENTAL ILLNESS
LAW ENFORCEMENT RESPONSE TO PEOPLE IN CRISISWWW.LEXIPOL.COM
Page 24 of 88
4
“I am a mom, wife, daughter and sister. Everyone wants me to
quit this job for my safety. We deal with someone emotionally
disturbed every night in our city, on patrol, or that someone else
has sent to us on the Greyhound bus to go to our shelters. I have
lucked up and been able to adapt. It gets very old, very fast. If
they want to commit suicide, we give them a ride to the hospital.
If not, we offer them a warm floor in the police department lobby
until breakfast is served in our local shelters.”
—Anonymous
62% 22%16%
4,209
TOTAL RESPONDENTS
47%
OFFICERS
(officer, deputy, detective, etc.)
53%
SUPERVISORS
(chief, sheriff, sergeant, lieutenant, etc.)
MUNICIPAL POLICE DEPARTMENTS COUNTY SHERIFF OFFICES OTHER
(state police, campus
police, corrections)
23%
31%
28%
18%
LESS THAN 25
SWORN OFFICERS
26 TO 100
SWORN OFFICERS
101 TO 500 SWORN OFFICERS
MORE THAN 500
SWORN OFFICERS
AGENCY SIZE
RESPONDENT DEMOGRAPHICS
LAW ENFORCEMENT RESPONSE TO PEOPLE IN CRISISWWW.LEXIPOL.COM
Page 25 of 88
“We have weekly contact with delusional subjects reporting
crimes and paranoid delusions; however, since they are not
evaluated by a hospital as ‘danger to self or others,’ there
is no action we can take to force them to get mental health
assistance, leading to repeated calls dealing with hours weekly
of resources and time.”
Ronald Brandt
Sergeant, Niles (IL) Police Department
Understanding the issue of law enforcement interaction with mentally
ill persons starts with assessing the magnitude of the situation. Every
community is different, and we might expect larger jurisdictions to encounter
people in crisis more often than small jurisdictions. Yet metropolitan police
departments might also have access to more resources that help alleviate
the strain these calls cause. Therefore, the overall effect lies not just in the
number of calls, but in how prepared officers are to deal with them.
WHAT PERCENTAGE OF YOUR CONTACTS WOULD YOU
ESTIMATE INVOLVE PEOPLE WHO ARE MENTALLY ILL OR
EXPERIENCING A MENTAL HEALTH CRISIS?
HOW OFTEN DO THESE INCIDENTS OCCUR?
60% OF OFFICERS SAY MENTALLY ILL INDIVIDUALS MAKE UP 11% OR MORE OF THEIR CONTACTS
“We had a situation with an older female where our officers were called
over 100 times in 3 months. We worked with mental health officials,
family and adult protective services. Our sergeant even testified in
court and the party was ordered forced medication, which eventually
helped. Our sergeant still visits with the person even though it has
been over a year. It took an enormous effort and many months, but we
no longer get calls on this person.”
Jeff Carr
Chief, South Jordan (UT) Police Department
99% OF RESPONDENTS HAVE HAD AN
INTERACTION (OR SUPERVISE AN OFFICER WHO HAS)
WITH AN INDIVIDUAL WHO IS MENTALLY ILL OR WAS
EXPERIENCING A MENTAL HEALTH CRISIS
LESS THAN 5%
11% - 20%
31% - 40%
MORE THAN 50%
6% - 10%
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
21% - 30%
41% - 50%
NOT SURE
LAW ENFORCEMENT RESPONSE TO PEOPLE IN CRISIS WWW.LEXIPOL.COM5
Page 26 of 88
Agency size has an impact on the
percentage of contacts involving mentally
ill subjects. In the smallest agencies (10
officers or fewer), 41% of respondents
said mentally ill subjects make up 11% or
more of their contacts. As agency size
increased, that percentage rose as high
as 70% of officers.
PERCENTAGE OF OFFICERS WHO SAY MENTALLY ILL SUBJECTS
MAKE UP AT LEAST 11% OF THEIR CONTACTS, BY AGENCY SIZE
“Our agency does an excellent job responding,
de-escalating and taking [mentally ill] subjects into custody
without major incident. However, it very rarely has any positive
or lasting effect or result in the end. Almost 50% of our calls
involve mentally ill individuals. It seems like we ‘Baker Act’
[Florida Mental Health Act] more people than we arrest.”
Jeremy Bird
Sergeant, Port Orange (FL) Police Department
57%
50%
41%
67%
70%
70%
61%
FEWER THAN 10 OFFICERS
10-25 OFFICERS
26-50 OFFICERS
51-100 OFFICERS
101-300 OFFICERS
301-500 OFFICERS
500+ OFFICERS
LAW ENFORCEMENT RESPONSE TO PEOPLE IN CRISIS WWW.LEXIPOL.COM6
Page 27 of 88
7
Ask a layperson to describe a person in
crisis and “suicidal” will be high on the
list. And in fact, many calls involving
mentally ill persons do involve suicide
threats or risks. But there are other
common threads running through these
incidents. People with mental illness are
more likely to neglect their basic needs,
leading to “welfare check” requests.
They fail to adhere to social cues and
appropriate behavior, so police may be
called for someone “running in traffic”
or simply someone “acting strangely.”
Often, those with mental health issues
self-medicate with drugs or alcohol, and
signs of mental illness can mirror signs
of inebriation, so officers may be called
for disorderly conduct.
Another unifying aspect of calls
involving people in crisis is the high risk
they pose to officers and the subjects
themselves. Most people with mental
illness are not violent. But by the time
law enforcement is called, the situation
may be fraught with emotion. Mentally
ill individuals often cannot describe
their condition and may feel threatened
by the presence of armed officers,
especially if lights and sirens are used.
The influence of drugs or alcohol can
exacerbate these reactions.
Although traditional use of force tactics
are often ineffective on individuals with
mental illness or in mental health crisis,
officers can be backed into situations
where there is no other alternative. And
that can produce a tragic outcome.
In 2015, the Washington Post released an
analysis of 462 police shooting deaths
that year. It found that 25% of those
deaths involved people “in the throes of
emotional or mental crisis … The vast
majority were armed, but in most cases,
the police officers who shot them were
not responding to reports of a crime.
More often, the police officers were
called by relatives, neighbors or other
bystanders worried that a mentally fragile
person was behaving erratically.”4
Even when the outcome of the call is
not tragic, there is great risk of injury to
officers or subjects whenever force is
used.
THE MOST COMMON TYPE OF CALL INVOLVING PEOPLE WITH MENTAL ILLNESS IS SUICIDE ATTEMPT OR THREAT
WHAT DO THESE INTERACTIONS LOOK LIKE?
“These incidents are usually dealt with relatively peacefully,
but there are no local resources to provide [the individuals],
no place to take them and no mental health teams to
respond and assist. Only in the most extreme cases can an
involuntary commitment be made. In most cases, we do what
we can to stabilize, avoid using force and disengaging. When
an arrest is necessary, force is often necessary as well. In
that case we attempt to minimize the degree of force. If the
elements of an involuntary commitment are not present, then
the county jail is the only alternative. When the subject is
released from jail (or the hospital), usually the next day, the
cycle starts all over again.”
Sean Madison
Staff Sergeant,
Sequim (WA) Police Department
LAW ENFORCEMENT RESPONSE TO PEOPLE IN CRISISWWW.LEXIPOL.COM
Page 28 of 88
“Recently [we] had a mentally ill person who was off medication and had
not eaten for a few days. The call initially was a suspicious person call, and
during the call the subject stole food from a nearby restaurant. My officers
handled the call well and did not pursue the misdemeanor crime. Instead
[they] spoke with and explained the situation to the restaurant. The subject
was transported by ambulance to receive a proper mental health evaluation.
He initially denied being diagnosed or taking meds. No force was used, just
verbal de-escalation.”
Francois Obasi
Sergeant, Las Vegas (NV) Metropolitan Police Department
87%
OF RESPONDENTS HAVE
PERSONALLY RESPONDED
TO A CALL WHERE
FORCE WAS USED ON A
MENTALLY ILL PERSON*
*Although a definition was not
included in the survey, “use of force”
in a police context can mean anything
from grabbing an individual in order to
restrain them, to the use of less-lethal
methods such as the TASER® device,
to lethal force such as firearms.
RESPONDENTS IN AGENCIES WITH FEWER THAN 10 OFFICERS WERE
LESS LIKELY TO HAVE USED FORCE ON A MENTALLY ILL PERSON
THAN RESPONDENTS FROM ALL OTHER AGENCY SIZES.
WHAT ARE THE TOP THREE TYPES OF CALLS YOU RESPOND TO THAT
INVOLVE INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE MENTALLY ILL OR EXPERIENCING
MENTAL HEALTH CRISIS?
39%WELFARE
CHECK
72%SUICIDE THREAT/ATTEMPT 10%ASSAULT
25%ASSIST FIRE/EMS
55%NUISANCE BEHAVIOR OR
DISORDERLY CONDUCT 10%LOW-LEVEL
MISDEMEANOR
23%SUSPICIOUS PERSON
9%MISSING OR
ENDANGERED PERSON
23%DOMESTIC DISTURBANCE
5%OTHER
3%VICE (DRUGS OR PROSTITUTION)
“I remember entering the room knowing of the special needs of the [juvenile],
attempting to de-escalate the situation until he threw a chair at the other
children in the room. Due to the situation and location of the other children
I knew that the use of my TASER [device] was out, so I had to go hands-on
while trying not to harm him. As he was scratching at my face and eyes,
I knew I just had to take it and get him subdued while trying my best to
protect myself.”
Mike Courtney
Patrol Lieutenant,
Madison County (ID) Sheriff’s Office
89%
85%
86%
73%
90%
89%
89%
FEWER THAN 10 OFFICERS
10-25 OFFICERS
26-50 OFFICERS
51-100 OFFICERS
101-300 OFFICERS
301-500 OFFICERS
500+ OFFICERS
LAW ENFORCEMENT RESPONSE TO PEOPLE IN CRISIS WWW.LEXIPOL.COM8
Page 29 of 88
9
“On 6 July 2012 I responded to a disturbance
call at a local housing development. On
arrival I made contact with the complainant
who was bed-bound … Someone began
yelling from the kitchen. A male exited the
kitchen, approached me and would not
comply with verbal commands to stop. When
the male kept coming toward me, I raised my
flashlight to block the male from getting any
closer and pushed him back. The male then
struck me in the face, at which point I struck
him in the side of the neck (brachial area) in
an attempt to stop his actions.
As the fight continued, blows were
exchanged and at some point I was knocked
down onto a couch. The suspect was able
to obtain my flashlight and began striking
me in the head with it. I attempted to radio
for assistance, but my radio mic was ripped
from my shirt and from its carrier.
Due to the confined space and blood running
down my face I chose not to deploy my
chemical spray. I thought about using my
firearm, but the complainant was in line
with the suspect. I went to draw my TASER
[device] and the suspect began hitting
me harder. I put my hands up to show the
suspect I did not have my TASER [device]
and attempted to get him to move off-line
of the complainant. When he did not move
and continued hitting me, I drew my TASER
[device] with my support hand and deployed
the cartridge. I could hear a high-pitched
noise, which indicated bad or no probe
contact … The suspect fell on top of me and
I proceeded to drive stun the suspect … The
suspect rolled off me … As I was attempting
to stand and draw my firearm, the suspect
tackled me, putting me face down on the
sofa. I was able to push the suspect off me
and roll him onto the couch.
I brought my firearm up to the ready position
and was about to give verbal commands
when I observed the suspect rising up from
the couch and approaching me. I proceeded
to fire two rounds toward the suspect; both
rounds impacted his body. As I started to fire
a third round my weapon malfunctioned. I
was able to get my firearm back into battery
and I could hear the suspect groaning. I
gave verbal commands for him not to move
and was able to locate my radio lying on
the couch and call dispatch to advise of my
situation and summon medical assistance.
I was transported to an area hospital where
I received over 100 sutures to my face and
head before being released. The suspect died
at the scene. I was criticized on social media
for not taking the time to evaluate and assist
the person suffering from mental crisis …
To this date I suffer from post-concussion
syndrome, memory issues, headaches
and continuous ringing in my ears. It was
later determined the suspect suffered from
schizophrenia and had not been taking his
medications for some time.”
32% OF RESPONDENTS HAVE BEEN INJURED DURING A CALL INVOLVING A MENTALLY ILL PERSON
The risk of injury rose with agency size: 23% of
respondents from the smallest agencies (fewer
than 10 officers) reported being injured during a
call involving the mentally ill, compared with 35%
of officers in agencies with more than 500 officers.
This is likely because officers in larger agencies
respond to more calls involving mentally ill people,
as indicated on page 6 of this report.
UP CLOSE
Brian Leatherwood
Investigator, Knoxville (TN)
Police Department
LAW ENFORCEMENT RESPONSE TO PEOPLE IN CRISISWWW.LEXIPOL.COM
Page 30 of 88
“[Responded to] a suicidal subject with a gun in a car
parked in a busy park. CIT officer communicated via
PA, then a CIT-trained crisis negotiator made contact
by phone. Negotiations ensued, and the subject
subsequently surrendered. The subject was counseled,
transported to mental health facility and set up with
information and follow-up services prior to the officers
leaving. The family was counseled on follow-up services.
Having all of our crisis negotiators CIT-trained is highly
beneficial and approximately 50% of our officers assigned
to patrol are CIT-trained.”
Erica Scott
Sergeant, Quincy (IL) Police Department
WHO RESPONDS TO THESE INCIDENTS—AND HOW?
IN AGENCIES THAT HAVE CRISIS INTERVENTION TEAMS,
THE MAJORITY (58%) OF RESPONDENTS
SAID CIT-TRAINED OFFICERS RESPOND
INDIVIDUALLY. ONLY 18% SAID THE MEMBERS
OPERATE AS A TEAM AND ARE AVAILABLE AT
ALL TIMES WITH REGIONAL MENTAL HEALTH
PROVIDERS AVAILABLE IN SUPPORT.
Officers are not social workers, and
interactions with mentally ill individuals have
a much better chance for a positive outcome
when specialized resources are on scene.
Across the United States, the models for how
such specialized resources are deployed—and
how quickly they are available—varies widely.
A few agencies have the benefit of embedded
licensed mental health practitioners. Others
have specially trained officers ready to deploy
at all times. Some provide basic training to
all officers. And still others struggle with few
available resources, forcing officers to wait
on scene for long periods or to resolve the
call on their own.
Even in agencies with specialized response
teams, the first officers on scene are
rarely part of those teams, and they must
decide how to initially handle the call.
Risk management expert Gordon Graham
distinguishes between events that provide
discretionary time—where officers may be
able to use de-escalation techniques or even
disengage completely while formulating a
plan—and events that are non-discretionary
time situations—when split-second decisions
must be made.
Calls involving people in crisis can be either.
Sometimes, however, officers unwittingly
escalate an incident, perhaps not realizing the
person is in crisis. Many signs of mental illness
can masquerade as being under the influence,
and individuals with mental illness often self-
medicate with alcohol or drugs, compounding
their symptoms—and making it even more
difficult for officers to determine the root
cause of their behavior.
Even if an officer is trained in crisis
intervention, discretionary time can quickly
disappear if the individual poses harm to
himself or others.
LAW ENFORCEMENT RESPONSE TO PEOPLE IN CRISIS WWW.LEXIPOL.COM10
Page 31 of 88
11
“[Responded to] repeat [calls] with a female who was mentally affected
and a user of street drugs. Her behavior led to her causing disturbances
on buses and at times lying in the roadway in front of oncoming traffic.
I used a calm voice and humor to develop a connection with her. She
understood I was not there to harm her or, in most instances, arrest
her. I understood her situation and over time would respond to calls
when the description of the subject matched hers. Over time my arrival
on a call had an immediate calming effect on her and she would call
me by name and do whatever I asked of her.”
Clayton Powell
Officer, Seattle (WA) Police Department
WHEN NEEDED, WHO IN YOUR AGENCY PROVIDES SPECIALIZED
LAW ENFORCEMENT RESPONSE TO MENTALLY ILL SUBJECTS
OR PEOPLE EXPERIENCING MENTAL HEALTH CRISIS?
*Most common “Other” responses were:
• All officers/deputies are CIT-trained
• Sworn members with specialized training (e.g., CIT)
• Mental health team or unit with sworn personnel and a clinician
• Psychiatric Emergency Response Team (PERT)
• Crisis negotiators
• County mental health professionals
WE DON’T HAVE SPECIALIZED RESPONSE
CHIEFS/SHERIFFS OFFICERS
CRISIS INTERVENTION TEAM
*OTHER
MOBILE CRISIS OUTREACH TEAM
ASSIGNED SOCIAL WORKER
SPECIAL WEAPONS AND TACTICS (SWAT)
41%50%
38%29%
9%11%
9%6%
3%4%
0%0%
NEARLY 40% OF OFFICERS & 50% OF CHIEFS AND SHERIFFS
REPORT THEIR AGENCIES DO NOT HAVE
SPECIALIZED RESOURCES TO RESPOND TO
CALLS INVOLVING MENTALLY ILL PEOPLE
LAW ENFORCEMENT RESPONSE TO PEOPLE IN CRISISWWW.LEXIPOL.COM
Page 32 of 88
78% OF OFFICERS SAY IT TAKES AT LEAST 30 MINUTES TO GET PROFESSIONAL MENTAL HEALTH PROVIDERS ON SCENE
TO IDENTIFY THE POTENTIAL FOR MENTAL ILLNESS OR MENTAL HEALTH CRISIS IN A SUBJECT, OFFICERS ARE MOST LIKELY TO RELY
ON AGITATION OR MANIC BEHAVIOR, SELF-HARM OR
SUICIDAL THREATS, AND ILLOGICAL THOUGHTS
Agency size impacts ability to get
specialized resources on scene.
More than 50% of respondents from
agencies with fewer than 50 officers
said it took more than an hour to get
resources on scene. That figure fell to
39% for agencies with more than 500
officers.
WHAT ARE THE TOP THREE SYMPTOMS YOU RELY ON MOST TO
INDICATE POTENTIAL MENTAL ILLNESS OR MENTAL HEALTH
CRISIS IN A SUBJECT?
PROFESSIONAL MENTAL HEALTH
PROVIDERS CAN BE ON SCENE IN:
33%30 MINUTES TO 1 HOUR
19%LESS THAN 30 MINUTES
45%MORE THAN 1 HOUR
SELF-HARM OR SUICIDAL THREATS
CONFUSION ABOUT SURROUNDINGS
62%
55%
43%
25%
25%
22%
17%
16%
11%
8%
6%
3%
2%
AGITATION OR MANIC BEHAVIOR
SEEING/SMELLING/HEARING THINGS THAT CAN’T BE CONFIRMED
DEPRESSION OR HOPELESSNESS
UNUSUAL SPEECH PATTERNS
ILLOGICAL THOUGHTS
SUSPECTED INTOXICATION/UNDER THE INFLUENCE
INAPPROPRIATE EMOTIONAL RESPONSE
INAPPROPRIATE PHYSICAL APPEARANCE
HOARDING OR OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL CUES
VERBAL HOSTILITY/AGGRESSION
STRANGE MOVEMENTS
LAW ENFORCEMENT RESPONSE TO PEOPLE IN CRISIS WWW.LEXIPOL.COM12
Page 33 of 88
13
Supervisors were more likely to call for
specialized resources (41%) vs. officers
(32%). Officers rely more on counsel-and-
release and counseling family and friends.
There was almost no difference across
ranks, however, in use of de-escalation
tactics and encouraging individuals to be
transported to a mental health facility.
WHAT ARE THE TOP THREE ACTIONS YOU MOST OFTEN
TAKE OR ARE MOST EFFECTIVE WHEN ENCOUNTERING
A PERSON YOU SUSPECT IS MENTALLY ILL?
64% OF OFFICERS SAID DE-ESCALATION TACTICS ARE ONE OF THE TOP THREE STRATEGIES THEY USE ON CALLS INVOLVING PEOPLE EXPERIENCING MENTAL HEALTH CRISIS
“The man was experiencing delusions, he was manic, exhibiting
signs of psychosis, and was malnourished. He got upset at the
clinic and left on foot … The man was very confused and resistant.
I got him to return to the crisis center with me and again speak
with his clinician. They engaged again but that quickly turned
south. I could see the clinician was stuck and had lost her rapport
with him. I made small conversation [with him] and eventually
found some common ground. I asked them to get him food, which
seemed to be a big help. After gaining his trust I was eventually
able to convince him that he needed to be evaluated. This call
lasted for over 1.5 hours, but the outcome was positive. We had
been getting 3 to 5 calls a week about him or from him but now
he’s been placed in a more conducive environment and we haven’t
had a service call in several months.”
Gregory Shore
Patrol Officer, Norwood (MA) Police Department
USE DE-ESCALATION TACTICS
76%
64%
38%
24%
22%
21%
8%
ENCOURAGE INDIVIDUAL TO
BE TRANSPORTED TO MENTAL HEALTH FACILITY
OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY)
COUNSEL AND RELEASE
CALL FOR SPECIALIZED
RESOURCES
COUNSEL FAMILY OR FRIENDS
PURSUE A CIVIL COMMITMENT ORDER
LAW ENFORCEMENT RESPONSE TO PEOPLE IN CRISISWWW.LEXIPOL.COM
Page 34 of 88
Law enforcement officers are generally
people of action. They respond to requests
for service or to unfolding situations they
observe, take steps to address the situation,
document as necessary, clear the call and
move on. Their role is one of problem-solver;
indeed, many people call 911 because they
are unable to solve a problem on their own,
whether or not it’s a true emergency.
It’s no surprise, then, that incidents involving
individuals who are mentally ill or in mental
crisis are frustrating to officers. Often,
there’s little that can be done within the
realm of law enforcement. An officer may
be called because someone is out of control
emotionally, but if there’s no active threat
or evidence of criminal activity, there’s no
reason to arrest. And meeting the involuntary
commitment threshold is often difficult.
So the officer does what he or she can,
documents the incident, clears the call … and
waits to be called back. The process is time-
consuming, even more so because calls
involving mentally ill individuals sometimes
involve lengthy transports to psychiatric
facilities or waiting for hours in the hospital.
HOW DO OFFICERS FEEL ABOUT THESE INTERACTIONS?
“Another verbal domestic between a mom and her soon-to-be adult
son. She has minimal parenting ability or communication skills; he
clearly knows our limitations and that he’s in control. Mom won’t
commit to filing unruly [behavior] charges or following through
on them, and he won’t take any responsibility for his actions. We
determined no criminal offense occurred despite her insistence
[that] we resolve his anger and property-destruction issues while also
refusing to assist us. We left once he was calm and a family counselor
arrived. What stands out is we have responded for him and his brother
over a dozen times for fight runs, domestics, property-destruction
calls and other criminal and non-criminal calls for service. Every call
has required the resources of the entire shift with no clear resolution
due to Mom’s and the boys’ mental health issues and instability. The
courts, schools and mental health providers haven’t been any more
effective in resolving the ongoing family issues.”
Michael Szpak
Lieutenant, Loveland (OH) Police Department
22%
78%
RATE THE OUTCOME AS LESS THAN FAVORABLE OR POOR
RATE THE OUTCOME OF THEIR INTERACTIONS WITH THE MENTALLY ILL AS FAVORABLE OR IDEAL
LAW ENFORCEMENT RESPONSE TO PEOPLE IN CRISIS WWW.LEXIPOL.COM14
Page 35 of 88
15
Interestingly, chiefs and sheriffs ranked their
preparedness the lowest, with just 50% of
chiefs and sheriffs saying they feel prepared
to meet the challenge of responding to the
mentally ill and 31% percent saying they do
not feel prepared.
Confidence in the ability to respond was
linked to respondents’ opinions of their
agency’s policies. More than 70% of those
who rated their agency’s policy on responding
to people with mental illness as adequate
said they felt prepared to respond to incidents
involving people in crisis, while just 36% of
those who rated their agency’s policy as
inadequate said they felt prepared. Agency
size was also a factor, with just 52% of
officers at the smallest agencies saying they
felt prepared, compared with 63% of officers
at the largest agencies.
Supervisors and officers differed slightly in
identifying the top challenges involving incidents
with mentally ill people. While both groups
selected the same top three challenges, officers
weighted citizen and media scrutiny heavier than
supervisors, who were more focused on the time
and resources the calls require. Supervisors were
also more likely than officers to select “difficulty
distinguishing mental illness from intoxication”
and “confusion about legal duty to respond.”
NEARLY 60% OF OFFICERS SAY THEY FEEL PREPARED TO MEET
THE CHALLENGES OF RESPONDING TO MENTALLY ILL PERSONS OR
PERSONS IN MENTAL HEALTH CRISIS. BUT 23% SAY THEY DO NOT
FEEL PREPARED, AND 17% SAID THEY’RE UNSURE.
WHAT ARE THE THREE TOP CHALLENGES YOU FACE ON CALLS
INVOLVING PEOPLE WHO ARE MENTALLY ILL OR IN A MENTAL
HEALTH CRISIS?
FEEL PREPARED
DO NOT FEEL PREPARED
UNSURE
“We have multiple cases where people having a mental health crisis are taken
on a 5150 hold and transported to the County Emergency Psych Department. In
most cases they are released almost immediately, provided transportation back
to our city and dropped off. The crisis continues, and we take them again on a
5150 hold. Sometimes twice in the same day. Huge waste of resources.”
Scot Smithee
Chief, Gilroy (CA) Police Department
CALLS TAKE MORE TIME AND REQUIRE
MORE RESOURCES
REPEAT CONTACTS WITH SAME PERSON
WHO DOES NOT OR CANNOT SEEK HELP80%
76%
40%
19%
14%
13%
11%
9%
7%
NO INFORMATION OR INADEQUATE
INFORMATION FROM DISPATCH
LACK OF POLICY DIRECTION
DIFFICULTY DISTINGUISHING MENTAL ILLNESS FROM
INTOXICATION/UNDER THE INFLUENCE
CITIZEN/MEDIA SCRUTINY AND/OR MISUNDERSTANDING
ABOUT THE CHALLENGES OF THESE CALLS
LACK OF KNOWLEDGE ABOUT LOCAL
MENTAL HEALTH RESOURCES
CONFUSION ABOUT LEGAL DUTY
TO RESPOND
HEALTH INSURANCE PORTABILITY &
ACCOUNTABILITY ACT (HIPAA) CONCERNS
80% OF RESPONDENTS CITED RESPONDING TO REPEAT OFFENDERS AS A TOP CONCERN
60%
23%
17%
LAW ENFORCEMENT RESPONSE TO PEOPLE IN CRISISWWW.LEXIPOL.COM
Page 36 of 88
16
Yakima County, WA, is testing out a model
becoming more popular throughout
the country: embedding mental health
professionals with officers. “The Yakima
County Sheriff’s Office, Yakima City
Police Department and the Union Gap
Police Departments are involved in an
area program with Central Washington
Comprehensive Healthcare,” says Yakima
County Sheriff’s Office Lieutenant Max
James. “The Sheriff’s Office and the
Police Department have embedded with
them designated crisis responders, or
DCRs, who work out of our buildings
and respond to calls for service and ride
along with law enforcement officers.
They conduct follow up interviews and
screenings of members of the community
that might need their assistance.”
Although dispatchers can access a 24-
hour call center to help people in crisis,
having the DCRs embedded means the
difference between an officer waiting
on scene for hours with a mentally ill
person versus having someone respond
immediately. “This is an aid for our officers,
a resource that can help them when they
encounter people with mental health
issues,” Lt. James says. “Embedded health
professionals can only do what they can
do, but it’s more than we can do.”
It’s a start, but the six DCRs are hardly
enough to provide 24/7 support across
Yakima County, which Lt. James says has
a large homeless population in the city as
well as issues with illegal drugs—issues
he says are getting worse. “Every year we
see more and more homeless, and a large
percentage of them have mental health
issues, either naturally or self-induced
through drugs,” he says. “This has always
been a part of police work; I remember
learning about it in the academy. A certain
percentage of the population has always
suffered from mental illness. But I think
the drugs and current events have made it
more pervasive.”
And Lt. James sees a direct connection to
officer safety. “Our guys are working a very
large area, more often than not alone,” he
says. “That’s always the way it’s been, but
when you add in mental illness and drugs,
there’s a lot more people who are going to
snap a lot quicker, and we’re having to deal
with that. I don’t know what the answer is.
I’m apprehensive for the future. I want my
guys safe, everyone going home. Part of
that comes from our policies and training,
but another part is our social values, how
we address this issue as a society.”
“Our biggest problem is once a person is deemed an
involuntary committal to the state facility, the facility has
no beds available and we (police) are forced to maintain
24-7 security for the person until a bed becomes available.
[This causes] major problems for resources and manpower.”
Donald Poore
Chief, Paola (KS) Police Department
UP CLOSE
LAW ENFORCEMENT RESPONSE TO PEOPLE IN CRISISWWW.LEXIPOL.COM
Page 37 of 88
17
THE POSITIVE RESPONSES
DIFFERED SLIGHTLY BASED
ON RANK.
For officers to successfully navigate
encounters with mentally ill individuals or
those in mental health crisis, the agency must
provide both comprehensive policies and
frequent training. Policies and training work
together—policies form the guiding principles
for officers; training helps officers apply
those principles to real-world situations.
Policies prescribe the what and why of how an
agency operates; how to carry out these rules
and guidelines is best captured in the agency’s
procedures and training materials.5
We can see the intersection of policy and
training when we explore an issue such as
the use of force on mentally ill persons. If you
ask a civilian whether police officers should
use force on unarmed, noncriminal mentally
ill subjects, most will say no—and that the
agency’s policies should reflect that. But
such an answer doesn’t address the realities
of policing, where a person in crisis may be
endangering themselves or others without
committing a crime, and force may be the
only way to control them. (Force, of course,
involves a range of options, from grabbing a
subject’s arm to using firearms.)
For this reason, agencies may choose not
to prohibit officers from using force on
unarmed, mentally ill subjects. To limit the
chance such force will be used, however,
agencies train officers to use discretionary
time, take into account a person’s mental
state when possible, and incorporate de-
escalation techniques.
Think of policies as the backbone of the
agency, and training as the nervous system.
Both are essential for helping officers
successfully navigate calls involving people
in crisis.
HOW ARE WE PREPARING OFFICERS TO DEAL WITH THE MENTALLY ILL?
62%
22%
16%
YES
NO
NOT SURE
DO YOU FEEL YOUR AGENCY’S POLICIES ADEQUATELY ADDRESS
MENTAL HEALTH RESPONSE?
79% OF AGENCIES
HAVE A POLICY ON INTERACTIONS WITH MENTALLY
ILL PERSONS OR PERSONS EXPERIENCING MENTAL
HEALTH CRISIS
SUPERVISORS
OFFICERS
Respondents from larger agencies were
more likely to report having a policy on
interactions with the mentally ill. Just 61%
of respondents in agencies with fewer
than 10 officers and 73% of respondents
in agencies with 10-25 officers said their
agency has such a policy. That number
rises to more than 81% for all other agency
size brackets.
“I responded to a suicidal veteran suffering from PTSD and depression. He
was threatening himself with a knife but asking for us to shoot him. I was
able to talk him out of the knife, and ultimately into voluntarily going for a
mental health evaluation on a police officer hold. What stands out was that
the training provided helped me work through it, keep it slow, and ultimately
not only was no force used, but I was able to build and maintain his trust by
gaining a voluntary response to help. It was a huge win for me.”
Richard A. Lewis
Patrol Sergeant, Springfield (OR) Police Department
85%
8%
7%
YES
NO
NOT SURE
DOES YOUR POLICY/TRAINING ENCOURAGE TAKING A PERSON’S MENTAL STATE INTO CONSIDERATION PRIOR TO USING FORCE WHEN YOU HAVE DISCRETIONARY TIME?
68%
55%
LAW ENFORCEMENT RESPONSE TO PEOPLE IN CRISISWWW.LEXIPOL.COM
Page 38 of 88
85% OF AGENCIES HAVE PROVIDED TRAINING ON INTERACTIONS WITH MENTALLY ILL PEOPLE OR PEOPLE EXPERIENCING A MENTAL HEALTH CRISIS
WITHIN THE LAST YEAR
27%
38%
18%
11%
6%
WITHIN THE LAST 6 MONTHS
LONGER THAN 2 YEARS AGO
WITHIN THE LAST 2 YEARS
CAN’T RECALL
65% OF OFFICERS HAVE RECEIVED SUCH TRAINING
WITHIN THE LAST YEAR
TOPICS COVERED BY AGENCY MENTAL HEALTH CRISIS TRAINING:
DE-ESCALATION TECHNIQUES
BEHAVIORS ASSOCIATED WITH SERIOUS MENTAL ILLNESS AND
DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES (E.G., AUTISM)88%
87%
65%
64%
64%
57%
50%
47%
44%
36%
34%
26%
C0-OCCURING DISORDERS (E.G., SUBSTANCE ABUSE)
PSYCHOTROPIC MEDICATIONS AND THEIR EFFECTS
COMMUNICATING EFFECTIVELY WITH FAMILY MEMBERS
POLICIES, PROCEDURES AND DECISION-MAKING TOOLS FOR
RESPONDING TO MENTAL HEALTH CRISIS SITUATIONS
CRISIS INTERVENTION TEAMS
RESOURCES AVAILABLE IN THE LOCAL COMMUNITY FOR
PERSONS WITH MENTAL ILLNESS
PREVENTING UNNECESSARY USE OF FORCE
MENTAL HEALTH FIRST AID
LIABILITY ISSUES AND CONCERNS/RECENT CASE LAW
ISSUES UNIQUE TO YOUTH WITH MENTAL ILLNESS
IDENTIFYING BEHAVIORS ASSOCIATED WITH
SERIOUS MENTAL ILLNESS AND THE USE OF DE-
ESCALATION TECHNIQUES WERE THE TOP TOPICS
FOR AGENCY MENTAL HEALTH CRISIS TRAINING
Training on dealing with mentally ill subjects
varied depending on agency size. Just 66% of
respondents from agencies with fewer than 10
officers had received such training, compared
with around 90% of respondents from officers
in agencies with more than 100 officers.
Officers from agencies with fewer than 10
officers were much more likely to report
being unsure whether their policy allowed
for use of force (22%) than officers in all
other agency size brackets.76%
11%
13%
YES
NO
NOT SURE
DOES YOUR POLICY ALLOW FOR THE USE OF FORCE ON UNARMED, NONCRIMINAL MENTALLY ILL SUBJECTS?
LAW ENFORCEMENT RESPONSE TO PEOPLE IN CRISIS WWW.LEXIPOL.COM18
Page 39 of 88
“Subject was making death threats via social media. My partner and I
went to interview and learned the subject suffers from bipolar, ADD and
depression. During the interview, the subject exhibited a wide range of
emotional responses to our questions and began acting agitated. Noticing
his increased agitation, we informed him we were both CIT-trained in
dealing with mental health issues. The subject immediately relaxed and
thanked us for our wanting to learn about persons with mental illness.
From that point forward, our interview turned for the better. We contacted
the local crisis team, who responded immediately, and got the subject
someone to talk with. The crisis team thanked us as well because the
subject was out of his meds and likely falling into another manic episode.”
Chuck Rowland
Senior Inspector, United States Marshals Service
“[Responded to a] very large-framed
teenage male (high-school football
player and wrestler) who was expressing
suicidal thoughts while holding a
large kitchen knife inside a relatively
small apartment with [his] mother and
younger sister. Subject initially refused
to cooperate with any verbal direction
to drop the knife, which he kept rubbing
up and down his neck. Eventually, with
the assistance of the School Resource
Officer familiar with the subject, he was
convinced to walk outside to an awaiting
ambulance for transport to a hospital for
evaluation per the request of his mother.
While walking out to the ambulance, an
officer placed a hand on the subject’s
arm. The subject reacted to this action
by turning rapidly and pulling his arms
violently away from the officer. Due to
the size and agitation level of the subject,
a second officer deployed his TASER
[device] in probe mode, striking the
subject in the back. The subject was then
handcuffed and placed on the ambulance
gurney without further incident.
Ultimately two internal complaints
were investigated related to the initial
officer placing his hand on the subject
and the second officer using his TASER
[device]. In review of this incident with
regard to the reasonableness of the use
of force, it became very apparent two
of the three prongs [of the] Graham vs.
Connor [test to determine the objective
reasonableness of police use of force]
are not available when dealing with a
mental health issue.”
—Anonymous
65%
OF AGENCIES MANDATE CRISIS
INTERVENTION TRAINING
35%
LEAVE IT VOLUNTARY
Editor’s note: A 2017 6th Circuit decision came
to a similar conclusion. Although the case
involved use of force on someone experiencing
a diabetic emergency rather than a mental
health crisis, the parallels are striking. In Hill
v. Miracle, the Court concluded, “Applying the
Graham factors to the situation that [the officer]
faced is equivalent to a baseball player entering
the batter’s box with two strikes already against
him. In other words, because Hill had not
committed a crime and was not resisting arrest,
two of the three Graham factors automatically
weighed against [the officer].”6
UP CLOSE
LAW ENFORCEMENT RESPONSE TO PEOPLE IN CRISIS WWW.LEXIPOL.COM19
Page 40 of 88
20
This survey was designed to be descriptive—
to shed light on the problem of law
enforcement interaction with mentally ill
subjects and people in crisis so we better
understand how often these interactions
occur, what the interactions look like and
how officers feel about them. Developing
a robust set of tactics for addressing the
problem is beyond the scope of this project.
But in the course of gathering and analyzing
the data (including open-ended responses)
and conducting follow-up interviews with
select respondents, some patterns emerge.
These patterns point toward five steps law
enforcement agencies and community
stakeholders should explore as we develop
long-term solutions.
STEP 1
LOOK AT MENTAL HEALTH AS A RISK
MANAGEMENT PROBLEM
In many communities, the problem of
mental illness is so pervasive that it’s
tempting to accept calls involving people
in crisis as “just part of the job.” While we
may not be able to make such interactions
go away, leaders should not be complacent
about the risks these interactions pose.
Taking a risk management approach to
the problem is helpful, because it changes
the focus from resolving the issue to
minimizing the harm that comes from it.
The Tucson Police Department has taken
this approach through Crisis Intervention
Team (CIT) training and developing a crisis
response center where police can take
mentally ill people who don’t belong in jail.
The center strives to process offenders in
10 minutes so officers can quickly get back
on patrol.
In a recent Virginian-Pilot article
highlighting innovative strategies to reduce
the number of mentally ill people in jail,
Tucson Sgt. Jason Winsky said, “If you ask
our chief of police, he will tell you there
RECOMMENDATIONS TO GUIDE OFFICERS AND AGENCIES
60% OF OFFICERS SAY THE ABILITY TO
GET SPECIALIZED RESOURCES ON THE SCENE MORE QUICKLY WOULD HELP THEM FEEL BETTER EQUIPPED TO DEAL WITH CALLS INVOLVING PEOPLE IN CRISIS. 16% SAY MORE OR BETTER TRAINING IS KEY.
are all the reasons in the world to do this
stuff. Because it’s the right thing to do.
But on the other side of it, he views it as
a risk management program. Because
if you are training and you have the right
policies and procedures in place, you can
stand on that. Nobody is saying that doing
these things is going to guarantee you an
outcome. You are still going to have critical
incidents. You are still going to have use of
force. The idea is to minimize them.”7
STEP 2
REDUCE THE TIME OFFICERS NEED TO
DEVOTE TO CALLS
Tucson’s efforts to achieve 10-minute
processing point to another important
area of focus—reducing the time officers
must spend on calls involving the mentally
ill. Law enforcement is a first response
function. In their open-ended responses
and in follow-up interviews, survey
respondents did not exhibit a reluctance to
respond to incidents involving mentally ill
people; they exhibited frustration because
officers alone can’t appropriately resolve
these calls, so they often wait long periods
for specialized resources. It’s a little like
an officer showing up to a house fire and
being expected to deal with the situation
for 60 minutes or more until the fire
department finally arrives.
Getting specialized resources on scene—
embedded social workers, mental health
officers or on-call personnel from county
crisis response programs—is one way to
alleviate this problem. But it’s also possible
to do without specialized resources.
Sergeant Robert Nelms of the Guadalupe
County (TX) Sheriff’s Office says before his
agency took steps to develop a streamlined
procedure for mental health calls, officers
sometimes avoided processing subjects
through the mental health system because
it was time-consuming and complicated.
“If the procedure is not a simple, clean
procedure, if it’s burdensome and ties
them up for a day, they will avoid it,” Sgt.
Nelms says. “No one wants to say it, but
it’s realistic. If it’s going to turn into driving
to five different hospitals, and the person
just gets released again without getting
help, officers are going to avoid it. So you
see officers try to find a way to say things
are OK, this person doesn’t need help.”
Guadalupe County reduced the amount of
time officers spend on scene by training
them in the Texas Mental Health Peace
Officers Course and the Texas Mental
Health Code. The agency then developed
a streamlined process that emphasizes
officer empowerment. Officers don’t have
to wait for a specialist to arrive on scene;
they make the call on the appropriate
intervention and, if necessary, transport
the person to a mental health facility—none
of which requires reams of paperwork.
“The old method of bringing them in for a psych eval so they can be kicked
back out does not work. An LICSW [licensed independent clinical social worker]
working with the police department has been our best approach so far. The
vast majority of contacts involve harmless low-level chronic offenders. The
method of dealing with them is very similar: Build trust, get the release signed,
collaborate with community partners on a plan. Then track and monitor that
person for accountability on all involved.”
Kelly Greenwalt
Sergeant, Community Policing/Mental Health Unit
Duluth (MN) Police Department
LAW ENFORCEMENT RESPONSE TO PEOPLE IN CRISISWWW.LEXIPOL.COM
Page 41 of 88
21
“The state of Texas gave us a great tool,”
Sgt. Helms says. “It’s legislated that an
officer can never be forced to fill out more
than one piece of paper to get a psych
commitment started.”
When officers operate with embedded
social workers or have a place where
they can take people in crisis and not
be turned away, they are more likely to
pursue the needed resources and
not resort to arresting someone for a
minor offense when jail is likely only to
exacerbate the problem.
STEP 3
DON’T GO IT ALONE
Most agencies work with a tight budget
for mental health response. Collaboration
across agencies and county programs is
essential, not only to extend resources but
to make intervention more effective. The
Duluth (MN) Police Department Mental
Health Unit (MHU) includes two licensed
independent clinical social workers
(LICSW) who work out of the same
location as the sworn officers assigned
to the mental health unit; they respond to
requests for service alongside officers or
on their own—a model the agency calls
“the Duluth Response.”
“One of the unique things about our
program is the collaborative approach,”
says LICSW Patty Whelan. “Around 2015,
the MHU expanded their participation
with a community intervention group.
We participate with about 25 agencies
in Duluth who provide services to people
with mental illness—private providers,
detox, counseling, etc.” The local shelter
developed a release form that when
signed, allows all agencies to coordinate
the individual’s care using a consistent
approach. “Any one of the agencies
can obtain the release, so it expedites
everything,” Whelan says. “Someone can
show up in the ER in crisis and previously
they would just be discharged; now the
ER personnel can reach out to any of the
community partners. It’s gone from a tool
the department and local shelter used to
one all 25 agencies are using.”
The collaboration extends beyond
emergency response to longer term
planning. “Each month all the partner
agencies come together and look at the
chronic calls for service,” Whelan says. “As
a team, we talk about community response.
The case manager might try to set them up
with psychiatric appointments, the outreach
staff might explore options for housing.
There’s an aligned agreement on working
with the person.” Such collaborative
approaches build trust, cut down on repeat
calls and reduce the chances someone
will fall through cracks in the mental health
system.
STEP 4
INCREASE CRISIS
INTERVENTION TRAINING
Risk management expert Gordon Graham
stresses that every law enforcement officer
has a set of “core critical tasks” they must
train on constantly.8 These tasks represent
situations where if the wrong actions are
taken, tragedy can result. Calls involving
mentally ill individuals or those in crisis
certainly fall into the realm of core critical
tasks. And that means training is imperative.
Yet nearly 30% of respondents said their
last training on interaction with mentally
ill people was 2 years ago or longer, with
another 6% saying they can’t recall. Together
that’s more than one-third of respondents
who haven’t received recent training.
Much of the crisis intervention training
in law enforcement today dates back
the “Memphis Model” of crisis response
started by the Memphis (TN) Police
Department more than 30 years ago.9
It involves training officers in empathy,
listening skills and related de-escalation
techniques, with a focus on connecting
the individual to psychiatric resources
rather than arresting them. Such training is
typically about a week long (32-40 hours).
Another approach is called Mental Health
First Aid, an 8-hour course that teaches
officers how to identify, understand and
respond to signs of addiction and mental
illness and apply a 5-step action plan to
help.10 The International Association of
Chiefs of Police launched the “One Mind
Campaign” in 2016 with a goal of training
100% of sworn officers and selected
non-sworn staff, including dispatchers, in
Mental Health First Aid. The program also
challenges agencies to train at least 20% of
their sworn officers in the CIT model.11
Providing CIT or Mental Health First Aid to
all officers is an admirable goal. But the
focus should go beyond one-time training.
Training is most effective in small, frequent
doses and based on real-world examples. In
the survey, the longer respondents had gone
without training, the less confidence they
reported in being prepared to respond: 73%
of those who reported receiving training in
68% OF RESPONDENTS WHO INDICATED THEIR AGENCY HAS A CRISIS INTERVENTION TEAM REPORTED FEELING PREPARED TO MEET THE CHALLENGES OF RESPONDING TO THE MENTALLY ILL, COMPARED WITH 54% AT AGENCIES THAT DON’T HAVE CRISIS INTERVENTION TEAMS.
“85% of our patrol force is trained in Crisis Intervention. We call it Emotionally
Disturbed Persons Response. The training is voluntary and is 40 hours long. Our
dispatch center knows who is trained and makes every effort to send trained
officers on these types of calls. Our officers have intimate knowledge of local
resources available to make referrals. Every effort is made to avoid incarceration
and hospital admittances. We meet monthly with local providers, hospital staff, and
[mental health] professionals to discuss barriers, achievements and chronic cases.
We have a local wellness center comprised of peers to which we make referrals and
a Mobile Crisis Response team comprised of local providers to respond to scenes
during evening hours.”
David Guerrera
Lieutenant, Cortland (NY) Police Department
LAW ENFORCEMENT RESPONSE TO PEOPLE IN CRISISWWW.LEXIPOL.COM
Page 42 of 88
the last six months were confident in their
ability to respond to incidents involving
mentally ill persons. That number fell to
59% for those who had gone more than 2
years since receiving training.
Fortunately, brief, frequent training is also
cheaper and easier to deliver than all-day
or full-week programs. Supervisors can
use roll call or briefing to review parts of
a policy or pose a scenario to officers,
using it as a basis for discussion that
helps officers recall and retain the more
comprehensive CIT training. This approach
can also provide valuable direction for
officers in agencies where funding for
formal CIT training is not available.
STEP 5
MAKE SURE POLICY IS UPDATED AND
PERSONNEL KNOW THE POLICY
Only 14% of respondents said they don’t
have a policy that addresses responding
to people in crisis, but 22% said their
policies don’t adequately prepare them. In
addition, 7% said they didn’t know whether
their agency had policies addressing these
interactions and an equal percentage was
unsure about the content of the policy.
These responses underscore what Lexipol,
the nationwide leader in public safety
policy solutions, sees over and over again
working with thousands of agencies across
the country: Agencies often lack critical
policies. And even when an agency does
have an applicable policy, it is frequently
old, inconsistent with common practice or
rarely referenced.
In the area of mental health response
as well as in all operational areas, law
enforcement agencies can benefit from
a robust policy management system
that keeps policies up to date, tracks and
documents officer acknowledgment of
policies, and provides training to enhance
officer understanding of policies.
63% OF OFFICERS WHO REPORTED THEIR AGENCY HAS A POLICY ON INTERACTIONS WITH MENTALLY ILL PERSONS SAID THEY FELT PREPARED TO MEET THE CHALLENGES OF SUCH INTERACTIONS. THAT NUMBER DROPPED TO 42% FOR OFFICERS WHO SAID THEIR AGENCIES DIDN’T HAVE A POLICY.
“We recently had a ‘repeat’ subject who abuses narcotics and was
‘hearing and seeing’ people who he believed were trying to injure
or kill him. He is known to always be carrying some type of bladed
weapon, and he was actively trying to defend himself against those
he was hearing and seeing yet were not there. Due to the training
that our officers have had, we were able to de-escalate the encounter
and take him into custody and transport him to the county
hospital’s mental ward where he could receive help, rather than use
force on him, arrest him, and place him in jail, where he would not
get the same type of treatment for his problem. Our chief was very
proactive in getting all our sworn personnel to be certified mental
health officers, several years prior to the state requiring officers to
go through the training. He had the foresight to do something to
help before it was mandated.”
Robert Cantu
Warrant Officer/Mental Health Liaison,
River Oaks (TX) Police Department
LAW ENFORCEMENT RESPONSE TO PEOPLE IN CRISIS WWW.LEXIPOL.COM22
Page 43 of 88
1. National Alliance on Mental Illness. Mental health by the numbers. Retrieved 1/28/19 from https://www.nami.org/
learn-more/mental-health-by-the-numbers.
2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Suicide rising across the US: More than a mental health concern.
Retrieved 1/28/19 from https://www.cdc.gov/vitalsigns/suicide/index.html.
3. National Alliance on Mental Illness. Jailing people with mental illness. Retrieved 1/28/19 from https://www.nami.
org/learn-more/public-policy/jailing-people-with-mental-illness.
4. Lowery W, Kindy K, Alexander K et al. (2015) Distraught people, deadly results. Washington Post. Retrieved 1/28/19
from https://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/investigative/2015/06/30/distraught-people-deadly-results.
5. Pieper S. (6/28/17) Policy vs. procedure: In public safety, what’s the difference? Lexipol. Retrieved 1/28/19 from
https://www.lexipol.com/resources/blog/policy-vs-procedure-public-safety-whats-difference.
6. Wallentine K. 6th Circuit outlines new guidelines for police use of force during medical emergencies. Lexipol.
Retrieved 1/28/19 from https://www.lexipol.com/resources/blog/6th-circuit-outlines-use-force-standard-
medical-emergencies.
7. Harki G. (12/6/18) Jailing people with mental illness is a national problem. The solutions are local. Virginian-Pilot.
Retrieved 1/28/19 from https://pilotonline.com/news/local/projects/jail-crisis/article_001fb1f6-f418-11e8-af61-
0739dc1083e5.html.
8. Graham G. (12/5/18) Thinking critically about public safety training. Lexipol. Retrieved 1/28/19 from https://www.
lexipol.com/resources/blog/thinking-critically-about-public-safety-policy-training.
9. University of Memphis Crisis Intervention Team Center. Memphis Model. Retrieved 1/28/19 from http://www.cit.
memphis.edu/overview.php?page=2.
10. National Council for Behavioral Health. Mental Health First Aid. Retrieved 1/28/19 from https://www.mentalhealth
firstaid.org/about/.
11. International Association of Chiefs of Police. One Mind Campaign: Improving police response to persons affected
by mental illness. Retrieved 1/28/19 from https://www.theiacp.org/projects/one-mind-campaign.
SOURCES
A couple concerned about their
schizophrenic son’s recent deterioration.
A convenience store owner confronting
an elderly homeless woman talking to
people who aren’t visible. A colleague held
hostage by an employee wielding a gun
and threatening suicide. A security guard
reporting trespassing by two young people
who get extremely aggressive when he
asks them to leave.
Each of these people turns to 9-1-1 for
assistance. And in the time it takes to
make a call, mental illness and emotional
crisis become a law enforcement issue—
even when many times, there is no criminal
behavior involved. Sometimes, officers
draw on training and instincts to defuse
these potentially volatile situations and
get the individuals the help they need. But
despite the best intentions and efforts of
law enforcement officers and agencies,
many of these encounters continue to be
frustrating, demoralizing and dangerous—
to the officers and those experiencing
mental health crises.
This survey provides just a glimpse into
the nature of law enforcement interaction
with the mentally ill. There is much more
work to be done to fully understand
the problem and to develop, test and
refine best practices for mental health
response. But the complexity and scope
of a challenge should never stop us from
trying to minimize the risk it brings. We
hope this study provides a foundation
for how the public safety community can
better understand the issue of responding
to persons exhibiting mental illness—and
in turn, create resources to help officers
across the country.
CONCLUSION ABOUT LEXIPOL
Lexipol is the nation’s leading content, policy and training platform for public safety
and local government, with a suite of services dedicated to reducing risk and improving
personnel safety. These mission-critical services are offered through the PoliceOne,
FireRescue1, EMS1, CorrectionsOne and EfficientGov digital communities. Delivered
via an online platform and mobile policy app, Lexipol’s content is continuously updated
to address legislative changes and evolving best practices, allowing leaders and first
responders to focus on serving their communities. With principal offices in Dallas, Texas,
and Irvine, California, Lexipol services more than 2 million public safety professionals in
6,300 agencies and municipalities across the United States.
For additional information, visit www.lexipol.com.
info@lexipol.com
www.lexipol.com
844-312-9500
“We have several bridges that sit high above a river and often get
people threatening to jump off the bridge. Most times we are able to
get the person to come back over the railing. The one that stands out
was the one I couldn’t save. We talked for what seemed like a long
time. He had just been released from a nearby hospital after a psych
evaluation. After talking with him, he simply pushed back and fell to
his death. That one haunts me still and it was probably 15 years ago.”
Cheryl Fridley
Lieutenant, Rochester (NY) Police Department
LAW ENFORCEMENT RESPONSE TO PEOPLE IN CRISIS WWW.LEXIPOL.COM23
Page 44 of 88
City of Port Orchard
216 Prospect Street, Port Orchard, WA 98366
(360) 876-4407 • FAX (360) 895-9029
Agenda Staff Report
Agenda Item No.: Business Item 7B Meeting Date: December 17, 2019
Subject: Adoption of an Ordinance Authorizing a Prepared by: Matt Brown
Change in Police Department Staffing Chief of Police
from 18 Officers and 3 Sergeants to 17 Atty Routing No.: 083-19
Officers and 4 Sergeants Atty Review Date: December 12, 2019
Summary: As part of the ongoing review of the organizational structure of the department, a need for
increased supervision has been identified. The department currently has one vacancy for Patrol Officer. This
request is to move that vacancy from Patrol to the position of Sergeant, creating an additional Sergeant
position and reducing the FTE count for Patrol from 18 to 17. This will provide 4 Sergeants for the department,
providing additional supervisory capacity across the 24/7/365 schedule.
Relationship to Comprehensive Plan: None.
Recommendation: With the support of Mayor Putaansuu and the Finance Director, I recommend the City
Council approve the change in FTE count to move one FTE from the job classification of Police Patrol to the job
classification of Police Sergeant.
Motion for consideration: “I move to adopt an Ordinance approving the reallocation of one FTE from Patrol
Officer to Police Sergeant as requested.”
Fiscal Impact: The change in FTE results in an increase of annual base pay wages of approximately $17,500 for
2020. The department budget can absorb the additional cost of pay and benefits associated with this change.
Alternatives: Not approve this request and provide alternative guidance.
Attachments: Ordinance.
Page 45 of 88
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Page 46 of 88
ORDINANCE NO. _______________
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PORT ORCHARD, WASHINGTON,
TO APPROVE A REDUCTION IN FTE COUNT FOR PATROL
OFFICERS FROM 18.0 TO 17.0 AND AN INCREASE IN FTE COUNT
FOR POLICE SERGEANTS FROM 3.0 TO 4.0; PROVIDING FOR
SEVERABILITY AND PUBLICATION; AND SETTING AN EFFECTIVE
DATE.
WHEREAS, the police department continues to review organizational structure, capacity
and best practices; and
WHEREAS, the Chief of Police recently determined that supervision of operations is an
area in which the City can benefit from organizational changes; and
WHEREAS, the 2019-2020 adopted budget provides for 18 Patrol Officers and 3 Police
Sergeants; and
WHEREAS, the department currently has a vacancy for the position of Patrol Officer; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined, based on the recommendation of the Chief
of Police, that the City will benefit from changing the vacant Patrol Officer position to a Police
Sergeant position; Now, therefore,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PORT ORCHARD, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN
AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The City Council hereby authorizes a reduction in the FTE count for Patrol
Officers from 18 to 17.
SECTION 2. The City Council hereby authorizes an increase in FTE count for Police
Sergeant from 3 to 4.
SECTION 3. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance
should be held to be unconstitutional or unlawful by a court of competent jurisdiction, such
invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other
section, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance.
SECTION 4. Publication. This Ordinance shall be published by an approved summary
consisting of the title.
SECTION 5. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in full force and
effect five days after publication, as provided by law.
Page 47 of 88
Ordinance No. _________
Page 2 of 2
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Port Orchard, APPROVED by the Mayor and
attested by the Clerk in authentication of such passage this 17th day of December 2019.
Robert Putaansuu, Mayor
ATTEST: SPONSOR:
Brandy Rinearson, MMC, City Clerk John Clauson, Councilmember
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Sharon Cates, City Attorney
PUBLISHED:
EFFECTIVE DATE:
Page 48 of 88
City of Port Orchard
216 Prospect Street, Port Orchard, WA 98366
(360) 876-4407 • FAX (360) 895-9029
Agenda Staff Report
Agenda Item No.: Business Item 7C Meeting Date: December 17, 2019
Subject: Adoption of an Ordinance Amending Prepared by: Brandy Rinearson, MMC
Sections of POMC 10.12.580 and City Clerk
10.12.600 Regarding Parking on Public Atty Routing No.: 082-19
Streets Atty Review Date: December 13, 2019
Summary: The City was approached to find ways to provide more parking downtown.
City staff has conferred with the Port Orchard Bay Street association and has determined that opening
the designated Merchant parking in Lot 1 (between Orchard and Frederick Street, on the north side of
Bay Street) to the general public would be beneficial. The parking lot is being underutilized by the
merchants, and may be better served by the public at large. With this change, any member of the public
will be able to park in this lot for up to 4 hours.
In addition, Cody Morgan, owner of the Peninsula Beverage Company, has confirmed that changing the
public parking adjacent to his business from two-hours to four-hours will not affect his business.
A redline version of the changes has been provided.
Recommendation: Staff recommends adoption of an Ordinance revising certain parking provisions in
POMC 10.12.580 and 10.12.600, as presented.
Relationship to Comprehensive Plan: N/A
Motion for consideration: I move to adopt an Ordinance revising certain parking provisions in POMC
10.12.580 and 10.12.600, as presented.
Fiscal Impact: N/A
Alternatives: N/A
Attachments: Redline and Final Ordinance.
Page 49 of 88
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Page 50 of 88
ORDINANCE NO. _______________
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PORT ORCHARD, WASHINGTON,
RELATING TO PARKING ON PUBLIC STREETS; AMENDING SECTIONS
10.12.580 AND, 10.12.600 OF THE PORT ORCHARD MUNICIPAL CODE:,
DIRECTING THE POSTING OF SIGNS; PROVIDING SERVERABILITY: AND
ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, WAC Section 308.330.270 of the Washington Administrative Code
(WAC) authorizes the City to adopt regulations to prohibit, regulate or limit stopping,
standing or parking of vehicles in the City; and
WHEREAS, Port Orchard Municipal Code Section 10.12.080(1) authorizes the City
Council to from time to time, establish parking prohibitions and restrictions on portions
of certain specified streets; and
WHEREAS, the City Council deems it in the best interest of the City of Port
Orchard to periodically review and update such regulations; and
WHEREAS, the City Council chose to codify the parking regulations in order to aid
the public in its ability to access and review said regulations; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that more parking for the general
public is needed in the downtown area; and
WHEREAS, staff has inspected and verified the parking conditions, including
signage, at the location described has confirmed that the proposed modifications to and
seeks to modify the regulations will so that the regulations correctly reflect the true
conditions; Nnow, Ttherefore,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PORT ORCHARD, WASHINGTON, DO
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Section 10.12.580 of the Port Orchard Municipal Code is hereby amended
to read as follows:
10.12.580 Parking time limited on certain city parking lots.
(1) The city parking lots are identified as follows:
(a) Lot 1, which lies between Orchard and Frederick Streets, on the north of Bay Street.
Parking in Lot 1 is a combination of monthly and merchant passcity parking and Port Orchard
Marina parking. Port Orchard Marina parking is the three northernmost rows and shall be
managed by the Port of Bremerton. Designated monthly and merchant pass parking, the most
Page 51 of 88
Ordinance No. _______
Page 2 of 5
southern row shall require the purchase of a parking pass as established in POMC 10.12.620.
City parking is limited to four hours maximum.
(b) Lot 2, which lies between Frederick Street and Sidney Avenue, north of Bay Street.
Parking in Lot 2 shall be allowed for a maximum period of four hours, including two car charging
stalls limited to four hours maximum.
(c) Lot 3, which is the five rows of parking area under city jurisdiction west of Harrison
Avenue and east of and parallel to the library’s easternmost exterior wall. Parking in the three
westerly rows of Lot 3 shall be allowed for a maximum period of two four hours at no monetary
charge. Parking in the easterly two rows is paid parking and shall require a paid daily parking
pass as established in POMC 10.12.620.
(d) Lot 4, which is all parking area under city jurisdiction which lies east of Parking Lot 3
and Harrison Avenue and west of the Marina Park. Parking in Lot 4 is a combination of free two-
hour parking for the park at the most northerly and easterly corner and paid parking and shall
require a paid daily parking pass as established in POMC 10.12.620.
(e) Lot 5, which is all parking spaces on City Hall property (first floor entry). Parking in
Lot 5 shall be for City Hall patrons and official vehicles only. The police chief or his/her
designate may authorize deviations to this policy for Lot 5, if necessary. No monetary charge.
(f) Lot 6, which is all parking spaces abutting the landscaped area at the southwest
corner of the intersection of Bay Street and DeKalb Street (Bayside Plaza). Parking in Lot 6 shall
be allowed for a maximum period of two hours. No monetary charge.
(g) Lot 7, which is all parking spaces located on the library property. Parking in Lot 7 shall
be limited to library staff only. Access to Lot 7 and parallel parking stalls via the adjacent parcel
to the south pursuant to easement AF# (8903310122). No monetary charge.
(h) Lot 8, which lies east of City Hall, north of and adjacent to Prospect Alley (between
Kitsap Street and Prospect Street). Lot 8 is for designated city vehicles and city employees via
pass Monday through Friday. No monetary charge.
(i) Paul Powers Park, which lies north and east of the public works department “south
shed” located at 2051 Sidney Avenue. Paul Powers Park parking is limited to dawn-to-dusk
parking only.
(j) Van Zee Park, which lies south of Tremont Street and west of Sidney Avenue, located
at 300 Tremont Street. Van Zee Park parking is limited to dawn-to-dusk parking only.
(k) Rockwell Pocket Park will be limited to two-hour parking from dawn to dusk.
Page 52 of 88
Ordinance No. _______
Page 3 of 5
(2) Parking restrictions in Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 shall be enforced on a 24-hour
basis, except Saturday, Sunday, and federal holidays within the city.
(3) Parking restrictions in Lot 4 shall also be enforced on a 24-hour basis on each
Saturday in the period of April 1st to October 31st.
SECTION 2. Section 10.12.600 of the Port Orchard Municipal Code is hereby amended
to read as follows:
10.12.600 Parking passes.
Parking passes are established for city parking lots defined in POMC 10.12.580 and are
subject to sales and use tax defined in RCW 82.14.020(3) and shall be collected upon the
amount of parking pass rates established as follows:
(1) Hourly Public Parking Pass. An hourly public parking pass is available to the general
public and will require the payment as designated in subsection (1)(a) of this section in United
States currency through electronic payment in an electronic parking pay station or similar
instrument provided near the parking space for each one-hour interval.
(a) Hourly public parking pass rates are as follows:
Effective January 1, 2011: $1.00 + tax
(2) Daily Public Parking Pass. A daily public parking pass is available to the general
public and will require the payment as designated in subsection (2)(a) of this section in United
States currency through electronic payment in an electronic parking pay station or similar
instrument provided near the parking space for each 12-hour interval or part thereof.
(a) Daily public parking pass rates are as follows:
Effective January 1, 2011: $5.00 + tax
(3) Monthly Public Parking Pass. A monthly public parking pass is available to the
general public and will require the payment as designated in subsection (3)(a) of this section in
United States currency through electronic payment in an electronic parking pay station or
similar instrument provided near the parking space. The monthly pass will be good for 31
consecutive calendar days from the date of purchase. Monthly parking passes are
nonrefundable; guarantee designated parking spaces from the hours of 4:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m.
except Saturday, Sunday, and federal holidays; and will not be prorated.
(a) Monthly public parking pass rates are as follows:
Effective January 1, 2011: $90.00 + tax
Page 53 of 88
Ordinance No. _______
Page 4 of 5
(4) Downtown Merchant Parking Pass. A downtown merchant parking pass is available
to documented business owners, and their documented employees, whose business and place of
employment is located in the downtown Port Orchard area between and including the 500 and
1300 blocks of Bay Street and the north and west side of Prospect Street. Downtown merchant
parking passes will require the payment as designated in subsection (4)(a) of this section in
United States currency and may be purchased from the city treasurer’s office finance
department. Downtown merchant parking passes are nonrefundable; guarantee designated
parking spaces between the hours of 4:00 a.m. and 10:00 a.m. except Saturday, Sunday and
federal holidays; and will not be prorated.
(a) Downtown merchant parking pass rates are as follows:
Effective January 1, 2011: $30.00 + tax
5) Commuter Vanpool or Carpool Parking Pass (three or more persons per vehicle,
registered with Kitsap Transit). A commuter vanpool or carpool parking pass is available to
registered vanpools and carpools and will require the payment as designated in subsection (5)(a)
of this section in United States currency. Commuter vanpool or carpool parking passes may be
purchased from the city treasurer’s officefinance department. Commuter vanpool or carpool
parking passes are nonrefundable; guarantee designated parking spaces between the hours of
4:00 a.m. and 10:00 a.m. except Saturday, Sunday and federal holidays; and will not be
prorated. Does not apply to city employee Lot 8 carpool designated stalls.
(a) Commuter vanpool or carpool parking pass rates are as follows:
Effective January 1, 2011: $30.00 + tax
(6) Contractor’s Parking Pass. Effective January 1, 2011, a contractor’s parking pass shall
be $8.00 per day per parking space per 24-hour period. The purpose of this pass is to
accommodate a temporary need of parking, as determined by the city engineer. (Ord. 001-15 § 1;
Ord. 001-12 § 7).
SECTION 3. Posting Signs. The City Engineer is hereby directed to post the signs as
required and as a result of the amendments toof Sections 10.12.580 and 10.12.600 POMC, after
passage of this Ordinance, before the Effective Date.
SECTION 4. Severability. If any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause, or
phrase of this ordinance is declared unconstitutional or invalid for any reason, such decision
shall not affect the validity of the remaining parts of this ordinance.
SECTION 5. Effective Date. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect five (5) days
after posting and publication as required by law. A summary of this Ordinance may be
published in lieu of the entire ordinance, as authorized by State Law.
Page 54 of 88
Ordinance No. _______
Page 5 of 5
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Port Orchard, APPROVED by the Mayor and
attested by the City Clerk in authentication of such passage this___17_th day of
__December____ 2019.
Robert Putaansuu, Mayor
ATTEST:
Brandy Rinearson, MMC, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM: SPONSOR:
Sharon Cates, City Attorney Councilmember
PUBLISHED:
EFFECTIVE DATE:
Page 55 of 88
ORDINANCE NO. _______________
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PORT ORCHARD, WASHINGTON,
RELATING TO PARKING ON PUBLIC STREETS; AMENDING SECTIONS
10.12.580 AND 10.12.600 OF THE PORT ORCHARD MUNICIPAL CODE;
DIRECTING THE POSTING OF SIGNS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND
ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, Section 308.330.270 of the Washington Administrative Code (WAC)
authorizes the City to adopt regulations to prohibit, regulate or limit stopping, standing
or parking of vehicles in the City; and
WHEREAS, Port Orchard Municipal Code Section 10.12.080(1) authorizes the City
Council to from time to time, establish parking prohibitions and restrictions on portions
of certain specified streets; and
WHEREAS, the City Council deems it in the best interest of the City of Port
Orchard to periodically review and update such regulations; and
WHEREAS, the City Council chose to codify the parking regulations in order to aid
the public in its ability to access and review said regulations; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that more parking for the general
public is needed in the downtown area; and
WHEREAS, staff has inspected and verified the parking conditions, including
signage, at the location described and has confirmed that the proposed modifications to
the regulations will correctly reflect the true conditions; Now, Therefore,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PORT ORCHARD, WASHINGTON, DO
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Section 10.12.580 of the Port Orchard Municipal Code is hereby amended
to read as follows:
10.12.580 Parking time limited on certain city parking lots.
(1) The city parking lots are identified as follows:
(a) Lot 1, which lies between Orchard and Frederick Streets, on the north of Bay Street.
Parking in Lot 1 is a combination of city parking and Port Orchard Marina parking. Port Orchard
Marina parking is the three northernmost rows and shall be managed by the Port of Bremerton.
City parking is limited to four hours maximum.
Page 56 of 88
Ordinance No. ____________
Page 2 of 5
(b) Lot 2, which lies between Frederick Street and Sidney Avenue, north of Bay Street.
Parking in Lot 2 shall be allowed for a maximum period of four hours, including two car charging
stalls limited to four hours maximum.
(c) Lot 3, which is the five rows of parking area under city jurisdiction west of Harrison
Avenue and east of and parallel to the library’s easternmost exterior wall. Parking in the three
westerly rows of Lot 3 shall be allowed for a maximum period of four hours at no monetary
charge. Parking in the easterly two rows is paid parking and shall require a paid daily parking
pass as established in POMC 10.12.620.
(d) Lot 4, which is all parking area under city jurisdiction which lies east of Parking Lot 3
and Harrison Avenue and west of the Marina Park. Parking in Lot 4 is a combination of free two-
hour parking for the park at the most northerly and easterly corner and paid parking and shall
require a paid daily parking pass as established in POMC 10.12.620.
(e) Lot 5, which is all parking spaces on City Hall property (first floor entry). Parking in
Lot 5 shall be for City Hall patrons and official vehicles only. The police chief or his/her
designate may authorize deviations to this policy for Lot 5, if necessary. No monetary charge.
(f) Lot 6, which is all parking spaces abutting the landscaped area at the southwest
corner of the intersection of Bay Street and DeKalb Street (Bayside Plaza). Parking in Lot 6 shall
be allowed for a maximum period of two hours. No monetary charge.
(g) Lot 7, which is all parking spaces located on the library property. Parking in Lot 7 shall
be limited to library staff only. Access to Lot 7 and parallel parking stalls via the adjacent parcel
to the south pursuant to easement AF# (8903310122). No monetary charge.
(h) Lot 8, which lies east of City Hall, north of and adjacent to Prospect Alley (between
Kitsap Street and Prospect Street). Lot 8 is for designated city vehicles and city employees via
pass Monday through Friday. No monetary charge.
(i) Paul Powers Park, which lies north and east of the public works department “south
shed” located at 2051 Sidney Avenue. Paul Powers Park parking is limited to dawn-to-dusk
parking only.
(j) Van Zee Park, which lies south of Tremont Street and west of Sidney Avenue, located
at 300 Tremont Street. Van Zee Park parking is limited to dawn-to-dusk parking only.
(k) Rockwell Pocket Park will be limited to two-hour parking from dawn to dusk.
(2) Parking restrictions in Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 shall be enforced on a 24-hour
basis, except Saturday, Sunday, and federal holidays within the city.
Page 57 of 88
Ordinance No. ____________
Page 3 of 5
(3) Parking restrictions in Lot 4 shall also be enforced on a 24-hour basis on each
Saturday in the period of April 1st to October 31st.
SECTION 2. Section 10.12.600 of the Port Orchard Municipal Code is hereby amended
to read as follows:
10.12.600 Parking passes.
Parking passes are established for city parking lots defined in POMC 10.12.580 and are
subject to sales and use tax defined in RCW 82.14.020(3) and shall be collected upon the
amount of parking pass rates established as follows:
(1) Hourly Public Parking Pass. An hourly public parking pass is available to the general
public and will require the payment as designated in subsection (1)(a) of this section in United
States currency through electronic payment in an electronic parking pay station or similar
instrument provided near the parking space for each one-hour interval.
(a) Hourly public parking pass rates are as follows:
Effective January 1, 2011: $1.00 + tax
(2) Daily Public Parking Pass. A daily public parking pass is available to the general public
and will require the payment as designated in subsection (2)(a) of this section in United States
currency through electronic payment in an electronic parking pay station or similar instrument
provided near the parking space for each 12-hour interval or part thereof.
(a) Daily public parking pass rates are as follows:
Effective January 1, 2011: $5.00 + tax
(3) Monthly Public Parking Pass. A monthly public parking pass is available to the general
public and will require the payment as designated in subsection (3)(a) of this section in United
States currency through electronic payment in an electronic parking pay station or similar
instrument provided near the parking space. The monthly pass will be good for 31 consecutive
calendar days from the date of purchase. Monthly parking passes are nonrefundable; guarantee
designated parking spaces from the hours of 4:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. except Saturday, Sunday,
and federal holidays; and will not be prorated.
Page 58 of 88
Ordinance No. ____________
Page 4 of 5
(a) Monthly public parking pass rates are as follows:
Effective January 1, 2011: $90.00 + tax
(4) Downtown Merchant Parking Pass. A downtown merchant parking pass is available
to documented business owners, and their documented employees, whose business and place
of employment is located in the downtown Port Orchard area between and including the 500
and 1300 blocks of Bay Street and the north and west side of Prospect Street. Downtown
merchant parking passes will require the payment as designated in subsection (4)(a) of this
section in United States currency and may be purchased from the city finance department.
Downtown merchant parking passes are nonrefundable.
(a) Downtown merchant parking pass rates are as follows:
Effective January 1, 2011: $30.00 + tax
5) Commuter Vanpool or Carpool Parking Pass (three or more persons per vehicle,
registered with Kitsap Transit). A commuter vanpool or carpool parking pass is available to
registered vanpools and carpools and will require the payment as designated in subsection
(5)(a) of this section in United States currency. Commuter vanpool or carpool parking passes
may be purchased from the city finance department. Commuter vanpool or carpool parking
passes are nonrefundable; guarantee designated parking spaces between the hours of 4:00
a.m. and 10:00 a.m. except Saturday, Sunday and federal holidays; and will not be prorated.
Does not apply to city employee Lot 8 carpool designated stalls.
(a) Commuter vanpool or carpool parking pass rates are as follows:
Effective January 1, 2011: $30.00 + tax
(6) Contractor’s Parking Pass. Effective January 1, 2011, a contractor’s parking pass shall
be $8.00 per day per parking space per 24-hour period. The purpose of this pass is to
accommodate a temporary need of parking, as determined by the city engineer. (Ord. 001-15 §
1; Ord. 001-12 § 7).
SECTION 3. Posting Signs. The City Engineer is hereby directed to post the signs
required as a result of the amendments to Sections 10.12.580 and 10.12.600 POMC, after
passage of this Ordinance, before the Effective Date.
Page 59 of 88
Ordinance No. ____________
Page 5 of 5
SECTION 4. Severability. If any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause, or
phrase of this ordinance is declared unconstitutional or invalid for any reason, such decision
shall not affect the validity of the remaining parts of this ordinance.
SECTION 5. Effective Date. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect five (5) days
after posting and publication as required by law. A summary of this Ordinance may be
published in lieu of the entire ordinance, as authorized by State Law.
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Port Orchard, APPROVED by the Mayor and
attested by the City Clerk in authentication of such passage this 17th day of December 2019.
Robert Putaansuu, Mayor
ATTEST:
Brandy Rinearson, MMC, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM: SPONSOR:
Sharon Cates, City Attorney Bek Ashby, Councilmember
PUBLISHED:
EFFECTIVE DATE:
Page 60 of 88
City of Port Orchard
216 Prospect Street, Port Orchard, WA 98366
(360) 876-4407 • FAX (360) 895-9029
Agenda Staff Report
Agenda Item No.: Business Item 7D Meeting Date: December 17, 2019
Subject: Adoption of a Resolution Adopting the Prepared by: Brandy Rinearson, MMC
2020 City Council Meeting Schedule City Clerk
Atty Routing No.: N/A
Atty Review Date: N/A
Summary: Pursuant to POMC 2.04.010 Meeting Time and Place, the City Council shall hold a minimum of
one meeting per month. The City Council shall determine the annual schedule for these meetings for the
next calendar year, no later than the last regular business meeting of the preceding calendar year.
As done in previous years, the Council will continue to meet at 6:30 pm on the 2nd and 4th Tuesday of
every month for Regular Council meetings and the 3rd Tuesday of every month for a Council work study
session. However, the meetings in August and December will be the 2nd and 3rd Tuesday that month, and
both meetings to be Regular Council meetings.
Recommendation: Staff recommends adoption of a Resolution, adopting the 2020 City Council meeting
schedule, as presented.
Relationship to Comprehensive Plan: N/A
Motion for consideration: I move to adopt a Resolution adopting the 2020 City Council meeting
schedule, as presented.
Fiscal Impact: N/A
Alternatives: N/A
Attachments: Resolution.
Page 61 of 88
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Page 62 of 88
RESOLUTION NO. _____
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF PORT ORCHARD, WASHINGTON,
ADOPTING THE 2020 CITY COUNCIL MEETING SCHEDULE PURSUANT TO
POMC 2.04.010 MEETING TIME AND PLACE.
WHEREAS, on July 11, 2017, City Council adopted Ordinance No. 026-17 which adopted the
classification of non-charter code city for the City of Port Orchard; and
WHEREAS, certain updates of the Port Orchard Municipal Code were needed; and
WHEREAS, on October 24, 2017, City Council adopted Ordinance No. 038-17 which amends
certain provisions of Chapter 2.04.010 Meeting Time and Place by stating the city council shall hold a
minimum of one meeting per month. The city council shall determine the annual schedule for these
meetings for the next calendar year no later than the last regular business meeting of the preceding
calendar year; and
WHEREAS, City Council typically will meet for regular business meetings the 2nd and 4th
Tuesday of each month, with a work study meeting the 3rd Tuesday of each month; now, therefore,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PORT ORCHARD, WASHINGTON, HEREBY RESOLVES
AS FOLLOWS:
THAT: The 2020 city council meeting calendar shall be adopted, and meetings shall be held on:
January 14th, 21st, and 28th.
February 11th, 18th, and 25th.
March 10th, 17th, 24th.
April 14th, 21st, and 28th.
May 12th, 19th, and 26th.
June 9th, 16th, and 23rd.
July 14th, 21st, and 28th.
August 11th and 18th.
September 8th, 15th, and 22nd.
October 13th, 20th, and 27th.
November 10th, 17th, 24th.
December 8th and 15th.
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Port Orchard, SIGNED by the Mayor and attested by the
City Clerk in authentication of such passage this 17th day of December 2019.
Robert Putaansuu, Mayor
ATTEST:
Brandy Rinearson, MMC, City Clerk
Page 63 of 88
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Page 64 of 88
City of Port Orchard
216 Prospect Street, Port Orchard, WA 98366
(360) 876-4407 • FAX (360) 895-9029
Agenda Staff Report
Agenda Item No.: Business Item 7E Meeting Date: December 17, 2019
Subject: Adoption of a Resolution Accepting the Prepared by: Brandy Rinearson, MMC
Donation of a Chihuly Inspired City Clerk
Chandelier Art Piece Atty Routing No.: N/A
Atty Review Date: N/A
Summary: The City Clerk’s office received an email from Kitsap County regarding an art piece. Artist
Sarajane Rants asked if anyone would be interested in displaying the art, which is a Chihuly inspired
chandelier constructed by hand with 400 recyclable colored water bottles by students at South Kitsap
High School.
At the December 10, 2019, City Council Meeting, Mayor Putaansuu asked the Council if they would
consider adopting a resolution accepting this art piece and displaying it at City Hall. After discussion, the
Council agree to accept the donation and for staff to prepare the documents for acceptance.
Recommendation: Staff recommends adopting a resolution accepting a Chihuly inspired chandelier art
piece and to have it displayed at City Hall.
Relationship to Comprehensive Plan: N/A
Motion for consideration: I move to adopt a Resolution accepting a Chihuly inspired chandelier art
piece to be displayed at City Hall.
Fiscal Impact: N/A
Alternatives: N/A
Attachments: Resolution.
Page 65 of 88
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Page 66 of 88
RESOLUTION NO. _____
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF PORT ORCHARD, WASHINGTON,
ACCEPTING A CHIHULY INSPIRED CHANDELIER ART PIECE TO BE DISPLAY
AT PORT ORCHARD CITY HALL.
WHEREAS, on December 4, 2019, the City Clerk’s office received an email from
Kitsap County regarding an art piece. Artist Sarajane Rants asked if anyone would be interested in
displaying the art, which is a Chihuly inspired chandelier constructed by hand with 400 recyclable
colored water bottles by students at South Kitsap High School.; and
WHEREAS, during the December 10, 2019, City Council meeting, Mayor Putaansuu
asked the Port Orchard City Council if they would consider adopting a resolution accepting the art
piece to be displayed at Port Orchard City Hall; and
WHEREAS, the Port Orchard City Council had no objections to accepting the art and
for it to be displayed at City hall; now, therefore,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PORT ORCHARD, WASHINGTON, HEREBY RESOLVES
AS FOLLOWS:
THAT: The City Council accepts the Chihuly inspired chandelier art piece and authorizes
the art to be prominently displayed at the Port Orchard City Hall, 216 Prospect Street,
Port Orchard, WA.
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Port Orchard, SIGNED by the Mayor and attested
by the City Clerk in authentication of such passage this 17th day of December 2019.
Robert Putaansuu, Mayor
ATTEST:
Brandy Rinearson, MMC, City Clerk
Page 67 of 88
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Page 68 of 88
City of Port Orchard
216 Prospect Street, Port Orchard, WA 98366
(360) 876-4407 • FAX (360) 895-9029
Agenda Staff Report
Agenda Item No.: Business Item 7F Meeting Date: December 17, 2019
Subject: Adoption of a Resolution Approving a Prepared by: Nick Bond, AICP
Contract with GGLO Design for the DCD Director
Downtown/Campus Sub Area and Atty Routing No.: N/A
Planned EIS Atty Review Date: N/A
Summary: Summary and documents to be provided prior to meeting.
Recommendation: N/A
Relationship to Comprehensive Plan: N/A
Motion for consideration: TBD
Fiscal Impact: N/A
Alternatives: N/A
Attachments: Documents to be provided via email prior to meeting.
Page 69 of 88
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Page 70 of 88
City of Port Orchard
216 Prospect Street, Port Orchard, WA 98366
(360) 876-4407 • FAX (360) 895-9029
Agenda Staff Report
Agenda Item No.: Business Item 7G Meeting Date: December 17, 2019
Subject: Approval of a Contract with Inslee, Best, Prepared by: Brandy Rinearson, MMC
Doezie & Ryder, P.S. for City Attorney City Clerk
Services Atty Routing No.: N/A
Atty Review Date: N/A
Summary: On February 9, 2016, Council approved Contract No. 018-16, with Lighthouse Law Group PLLC
for City Attorney Services. The contract is set to expire December 31, 2019.
Port Orchard Municipal Code Chapter 2.08 Appointed Officers, provides that the Mayor may appoint the
City Attorney and enter into a professional services contract with a law firm or an individual upon
agreement by the Mayor and confirmation by a majority vote of the City Council.
Requests for qualifications for City Attorney Services was issued on October 14, 2019, with a submittal
deadline of November 15, 2019. Four proposals were received. The four applicants were asked to
interview with the City on December 4, 2019. The interview panel, consisting of Mayor Putaansuu,
Councilmember Rosapepe, Development Director Bond, Finance Director Crocker, and Human Resource
Coordinator Lund, interviewed the four applicants.
Mayor Putaansuu is providing his recommendation for Inslee, Best, Doezie & Ryder, P.S to be appointed
for City Attorney Services beginning January 1, 2020.
Recommendation: Staff recommends approving a contract with Inslee, Best, Doezie & Ryder, P.S for city
attorney services.
Relationship to Comprehensive Plan: N/A
Motion for consideration: I move to approve a contract with Inslee, Best, Doezie & Ryder, P.S for city
attorney services.
Fiscal Impact: Consistent with the City’s 2019-2020 biennial budget. Base contract is $115,200.
Alternatives: N/A
Attachments: Contract.
Page 71 of 88
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Page 72 of 88
-1-
CITY OF PORTORCHARD PERSONAL SERVICES
AGREEMENT FOR LEGAL SERVICES
I. PARTIES
This Agreement is made as of this 12th day of December 2019 between the City of Port Orchard
("City") and Inslee, Best, Doezie & Ryder, P.S. ("Firm").
CITY OF PORT ORCHARD, WASHINGTON (hereinafter the “CITY”)
216 Prospect Street
Port Orchard, Washington 98366
Contact: Mayor Robert Putaansuu Phone: 360.876.4407 Fax: 360.895.9029
And
Inslee, Best, Doezie & Ryder, P.S., a corporation, organized under the laws of the State
of Washington, doing business at:
Inslee, Best, Doezie & Ryder, P.S. (hereinafter the “FIRM”)
10900 NE 4th Street
Skyline Tower, Suite 1500
Bellevue, WA 98004
Contact: Charlotte A. Archer Phone: 425.450.4209 Fax: 425.635.7720
II. SERVICES PROVIDED
The Firm shall perform legal services as provided in this Agreement under the supervision and
direction of the Mayor or designee. Charlotte A. Archer will serve as the City Attorney and will
direct the services of the Firm consistent with this Agreement. The Firm will not substitute
other attorneys in providing services under this agreement without the permission of the City.
III. QUALITY OF SERVICES
The Firm shall perform all legal services in a capable and efficient manner, and in accordance
with the professional standards of the Washington State Bar Association.
IV. DESCRIPTION AND DELIVERY OF SERVICES
At the request or with the concurrence of the Mayor or designee, the Firm shall perform civil
legal services for the City, including but not limited to the following:
(1) Review or draft City ordinances, contracts, resolutions, interlocal agreements and
other legal documents;
Page 73 of 88
-2-
(2) Represent the City in lawsuits and contested administrative proceedings
commenced by or against the City;
(3) Consult with and advise the Mayor, City Council members, City staff members
and City consultants regarding legal matters relating to their respective duties for the City;
(4) Attend City Council meetings; and
(5) Perform such other duties and services as are necessary and appropriate in order
to provide the City with legal representation.
(6) Office hours on the Tuesday of each City Council Meeting (2nd and 4th Tuesdays
of the month), as needed. The City will provide workspace at City Hall for office hours.
When requesting legal services, the City shall state the services and the response date. The Firm
shall confirm receipt as soon as possible, with a goal of acknowledging the request for legal
services within one (1) business day of receiving the request. The confirmation shall identify the
assigned attorney, an estimate of the response date, and the mutually agreed upon deliverable(s).
The City may request the City Attorney to be available by cell phone, at times and in a manner
agreed upon by the Mayor and the City Attorney.
The parties acknowledge the Firm is subject to and bound by the Washington State Court Rules:
Rules of Professional Conduct (RPC”), including but not limited to RPC 1.7 Conflict of Interest:
Current Clients. The Firm shall follow said RPCs, including but not limited to, client
representation involving a concurrent conflict of interest as defined in RPC 1.7(a).
V. FEES AND COSTS
The legal services shall be billed at the hourly rates set forth on Exhibit A. The City shall
reimburse the Firm for all out-of-pocket expenses incurred on the City’s behalf, including but not
limited to court fees, deposition costs, special mailing or courier, photocopying, long distance
telephone, facsimile, travel expenses, bridge tolls, and computerized legal research outside of the
Firm’s base plan. The City will not reimburse for ferry fares. The Firm will not advance funds to
pay third party costs (e.g., expert witness fees), and invoices for those costs will be forwarded to
the City for payment.
The Firm will not charge the City for travel time or mileage costs incurred for three (3) trips, per
month, to and from City Hall. Travel time and mileage costs for additional trips and/or trips to
locations other than City Hall will be reimbursed at the hourly rates for the attorneys.
VI. PAYMENT TERMS; TIME RECORDS
The Firm will bill the City monthly for services and out-of-pocket expenses. The monthly
invoice will summarize the date and extent of legal services performed and the charge for such
services and will itemize the expenses. Fees and costs are due in full from the City upon billing
by the Firm. A service charge shall accrue at the rate of twelve percent (12%) per annum, but
Page 74 of 88
-3-
shall only be added to any balance remaining unpaid sixty (60) days after the invoice date.
VII. TERM
This Agreement shall be in effect from January 1, 2020 through December 31, 2022, with
automatic annual one-year renewals. Renewal beyo nd six (6) years will require City Council
reauthorization. At any time during the term of this Agreement, either party may terminate this
Agreement upon sixty (60) days written notice.
VIII. INSURANCE
The Firm shall procure and maintain for the duration of the Agreement, insurance against claims
for injuries to persons or damage to property which may arise from or in connection with the
performance of the work hereunder by the Firm, its agents, representatives, or employees.
No Limitation
The Firm’s maintenance of insurance as required by the Agreement shall not be construed to
limit the liability of the Firm to the coverage provided by such insurance, or otherwise limit the
City’s recourse to any remedy available at law or in equity.
Minimum Scope of Insurance
The Firm shall obtain insurance of the types and coverage description below:
Automobile Liability insurance covering all owned, non-owned, hired and leased vehicles.
Coverage shall be as least as broad as Insurance Services Office (ISO) form CA 00 01.
Workers’ Compensation coverage as required by the Industrial Insurance laws of the State of
Washington.
Professional Liability insurance appropriate to the Firm’s profession.
Minimum Amounts of Insurance
The Firm shall maintain the following insurance limits:
Automobile Liability insurance with a minimum combined single limit for bodily injury and
property damage of $1,000,000 per accident.
Professional Liability insurance shall be written with limits no less than $4,000,000 per claims
and $4,000,000 policy aggregate limit.
Other Insurance Provision
Page 75 of 88
-4-
The Firm’s Automobile Liability insurance policies are to contain, or be endorsed, to contain that
they shall be primary insurance as respect the City. Any insurance, self-insurance, or self-insured
pool coverage maintained by the City shall be excess of the Firm’s insurance and shall not
contribute with it.
Acceptability of Insurers
Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best rating of not less than A:VII.
Verification of Coverage
The Firm shall furnish the City with original certificates and a copy of the amendatory
endorsements, including but not necessarily limited to the additional insured endorsement,
evidencing the insurance requirements of the Firm before commencement of the work.
Notice of Cancellation
The Firm shall provide the City Entity with written notice of any policy cancellation within two
business days of their receipt of such notice.
IX. INDEMNIFICATION/HOLD HARMLESS
The Firm shall defend, indemnify and hold the City, its officers, officials, employees and
volunteers harmless from any and all claims, injuries, damages, losses or suits including attorney
fees, arising out of or resulting from the acts, errors or omissions of the Firm in performance of
this Agreement, except for injuries and damages caused by the sole negligence of the City.
Should a court of competition jurisdiction determine that this Agreement is subject to RCW
4.24.115, then, in the event of liability for damages arising out of bodily injury to persons or
damages to property caused by or resulting from the concurrent negligence of the Firm and the
City, its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers, the Firm’s liability, including the duty and
cost to defend, hereunder shall be only to the extent of the Firm’s negligence. It is further
specifically and expressly understood that the indemnification provided herein constitutes the
Firm’s waiver of immunity under Industrial Insurance, Title 51 RCW, solely for the purposes of
this indemnification. This waiver has been mutually negotiated by the p arties. The provisions of
this section shall survive the expiration or termination of this Agreement.
X. ASSIGNING OR SUBCONTRACTING
The Firm shall not assign, transfer, subcontract or encumber any rights, duties, or interests
accruing from this Agreement without the express prior written consent of the City, which
consent may be withheld in the sole discretion of the City.
XI. DISCRIMINATION AND COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS
1. The Firm agrees not to discriminate against any employee or applicant for
employment or any other person in the performance of this Agreement because of race, creed,
Page 76 of 88
-5-
color, national origin, marital status, sex, age, disability, or other circumstance prohibited by
federal, state, or local law or ordinance, except for a bona fide occupational qualification.
2. Even though the Firm is an independent contractor with the authority to control
and direct the performance and details of the work authorized under this Agreement, the work
must meet the approval of the City and shall be subject to the City’s general right of inspection to
secure the satisfactory completion thereof. The Firm agrees to comply with all federal, state and
municipal laws, rules and regulations that are now effective or become applicable within the
term(s) of this Agreement to the Firm’s business, equipment and personnel engaged in operations
covered by this Agreement or accruing out of the performance of such operations.
3. The Firm shall obtain a City of Port Orchard business license.
4. Violation of this Paragraph XI shall be a material breach of this Agreement and
grounds for cancellation, termination, or suspension of the Agreement by the City, in whole or in
part, and may result in ineligibility for further work for the City.
XII. RELATIONSHIP OF PARTIES
The parties intend that an independent contractor-client relationship will be created by this
Agreement. As the Firm is customarily engaged in an independently established trade which
encompasses the specific service provided to the City hereunder, no agent, employee,
representative or sub-Firm of the Firm shall be or shall be deemed to be the employee, agent,
representative or sub-Firm of the City. In the performance of the work, the Firm is an
independent contractor with the ability to control and direct the performance and details of the
work, the City being interested only in the results obtained under this Agreement. None of the
benefits provided by the City to its employees, including but not limited to compensation,
insurance, and unemployment insurance, are available from the City to the employees, agents,
representatives or sub-Firms of the Firm. The Firm will be solely and entirely responsible for its
acts and for the acts of its agents, employees, representatives and sub-Firms during the
performance of this Agreement. The City may, during the term of this Agreement, engage other
independent contractors to perform the same or similar work that the Firm performs hereunder.
XIII. BOOK AND RECORDS
The Firm agrees to maintain books, records, and documents which sufficiently and
properly reflect all direct and indirect costs related to the performance of the Services and
maintain such accounting procedures and practices as may be deemed necessary by the City to
assure proper accounting of all funds paid pursuant to this Agreement. These records shall be
subject, at all reasonable times, to inspection, review, or audit by the City, its authorized
representative, the State Auditor, or other governmental officials authorized by law to monitor
this Agreement.
Page 77 of 88
-6-
Records preservation. The Firm understands that this Agreement is with a government agency
and thus all records created or used in the course of the Firm’s work for the City are considered
“public records” and may be subject to disclosure under the Public Records Act, Chapter 42.56
RCW (“the Act”). Firm agrees to safeguard and preserve records in accordance with the Act. If
the City receives a public records request and asks the Firm to search its files for responsive
records, the Firm agrees to make a prompt and thorough search through his files for responsive
records and to promptly turn over any responsive records to the City’s public records officer.
XV. NOTICE
Any notices required to be given by the City to the Firm or by the Firm to the City shall be in
writing and delivered to the parties at the following addresses:
Robert Putaansuu
Mayor
216 Prospect Street
Port Orchard, WA 98366
Phone: 360.876.4407
Fax: 360.895.9029
Inslee, Best, Doezie & Ryder, P.S.
Charlotte A. Archer
10900 NE 4th Street
Skyline Tower, Suite 1500
Bellevue, WA 98004
Phone: 425.450.4209
Fax: 425.635.7720
XVI. RESOLUTION OF DISPUTES AND GOVERNING LAW
1. Should any dispute, misunderstanding or conflict arise as to the terms and
conditions contained in this Agreement, the matter shall first be referred to the Mayor, who shall
determine the term or provision’s true intent or meaning. The Mayor shall also decide all
questions which may arise between the parties relative to the actual services provided or to the
sufficiency of the performance hereunder.
2. If any dispute arises between the City and the Firm under any of the provisions of
this Agreement which cannot be resolved by the Mayor’s determination in a reasonable time, or
if the Firm does not agree with the Mayor’s decision on a disputed matter, jurisdiction of any
resulting litigation shall be filed in Kitsap County Superior Court, Kitsap County, Washington.
3. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws
of the State of Washington. In any suit or action instituted to enforce any right granted in this
Agreement, the substantially prevailing party shall be entitled to recover its costs, disbursements,
and reasonable attorneys’ fees from the other party.
XVII. GENERAL PROVISIONS
1. Non-waiver of Breach. The failure of either party to insist upon strict
performance of any of the covenants and agreements contained herein, or to exercise any option
herein contained in one or more instances, shall not be construed to be a waiver or
relinquishment of said covenants, agreements, or options, and the same shall be in full force and
effect.
Page 78 of 88
-7-
2. Modification. No waiver, alteration, modification of any of the provisions of this
Agreement shall be binding unless in writing and signed by a duly authorized representative of
the City and the Firm.
3. Severability. The provisions of this Agreement are declared to be severable. If
any provision of this Agreement is for any reason held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be
invalid or unconstitutional, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or
constitutionality of any other provision.
4. Entire Agreement. The written provisions of this Agreement, together with any
Exhibits attached hereto, shall supersede all prior verbal statements of any officer or other
representative of the City, and such statements shall not be effective or be construed as entering
into or forming a part of or altering in any manner whatsoever, the Agreement or the Agreement
documents. The entire agreement between the parties with respect to the subject matter
hereunder is contained in this Agreement and the Exhibits attached hereto, which may or may
not have been dated prior to the execution of this Agreement. All of the above documents are
hereby made a part of this Agreement and form the Agreement document as fully as if the same
were set forth herein. Should any language in any of the Exhibits to this Agreement conflict with
any language contained in this Agreement, then this Agreement shall prevail.
CITY OF PORT ORCHARD INSLEE, BEST, DOEZIE & RYDER, P.S.
By By
Robert Putaansuu, Mayor Charlotte A. Archer, Attorney
ATTEST:
By: By
Brandy Rinearson, City Clerk Dawn Reitan, Shareholder
Page 79 of 88
-8-
Exhibit A
INSLEE, BEST, DOEZIE & RYDER, P.S.
2019 through 2021 Attorney Billing Rates*
Municipal Attorneys Hourly Rates**
Charlotte Archer $240 / $265
Curtis Chambers $240 / $265
Rosemary Larson, Dawn Reitan, and
Eric Frimodt
$325
Paralegals and law clerks Regular Firm rates or special
municipal rates if applicable,
adjusted annually. These rates
shall not exceed the lowest
Municipal Group Associate rate.
Other Firm partners (if approved
in advance by Mayor)
10% less than regular Firm
rates, rounded to next lowest $5
increment, adjusted annually.
* The City will be charged at the $240 per hour rate for the first forty (40) hours of work per month for
work performed by Charlotte Archer and Curtis Chambers. Otherwise, the above rates will apply.
*The Firm’s Attorney Billing Rates are subject to change on January 1, 2022, based on the mutual
consent of the Mayor and Firm.
*The Firm will provide updated rate sheets annually for paralegals and law clerks as well as for all
professionals not specifically listed in Exhibit A.
Page 80 of 88
City of Port Orchard
216 Prospect Street, Port Orchard, WA 98366
(360) 876-4407 • FAX (360) 895-9029
Agenda Staff Report
Agenda Item No.: Business Item 7H Meeting Date:
December 17, 2019
Subject: Approval of Addendum No. 3 to Contract Prepared by: Nick Bond, AICP
No. 053-18 with Waterman Investment DCD Director
Partners for the 640 Bay Street Purchase Atty Routing No.: 083-19
and Sale Agreement Atty Review Date: December 12, 2019
Summary: In July 2018, the City and Waterman Investment Partners, LLC (Waterman), entered into a
purchase and sale agreement for the City’s property located at 640 Bay Street. Two addenda to the
agreement have been previously approved to extend the closing date to December 31, 2019. The City
and Waterman now propose a third addendum to the agreement, to extend the closing date to March
31, 2020. This addendum is being requested by both parties because of the upcoming end-of-year
closing deadline and because December 17 is the last Council meeting for 2019; however, both the City
and Waterman will continue discussions in 2020 and more substantive revisions to the purchase and sale
agreement may result with an aim to close on the property in early 2020.
Recommendation: Staff recommends that the City Council authorize the Mayor to sign Addendum No. 3
to the real estate purchase and sale agreement for the City’s property at 640 Bay Street, and extend the
closing date to March 31, 2020.
Relationship to Comprehensive Plan: N/A
Motion for Consideration: “I move that the City Council authorize the Mayor to sign Addendum No. 3 to
the real estate purchase and sale agreement for the City’s property at 640 Bay Street, and extend the
closing date to March 31, 2020.”
Fiscal Impact: N/A
Attachments: Addendum No. 3.
Page 81 of 88
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Page 82 of 88
Addendum No. 3 to REAL ESTATE PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT
THIS ADDENDUM NO. 3 to the Real Estate Purchase and Sale Agreement for the
property located at 640 Bay Street, Port Orchard, Kitsap County, Washington, is executed by
and between Waterman Investment Partners, LLC, a Washington Limited Liability Company
hereafter (“Buyer”) and the City of Port Orchard, a municipal corporation organized under the
laws of the State of Washington (hereafter “Seller”).
WHEREAS, Buyer and Seller entered into the above referenced Real Estate Purchase and
Sale Agreement, dated July 10, 2018, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this
reference (“Agreement”); and
WHEREAS, Buyer and Seller entered into Addendum No. 1 to the Agreement, dated
December 11, 2018, to amend certain provisions of the Agreement, including the Closing Date,
which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference (“Addendum No. 1”); and
WHEREAS, Buyer and Seller entered into Addendum No. 2 to the Agreement, dated June
11, 2019, to extend the Closing Date in exchange for a payment from the Buyer, which is attached
hereto and incorporated herein by this reference (“Addendum No. 2”); and
WHEREAS, Section 16 of the Agreement provides that it may be amended or modified by
a written instrument executed by Buyer and Seller; and
WHEREAS, Section 6.1 of the Agreement sets forth the Closing Date requirements of the
parties, and provides that the parties may agree in writing to a later closing date than the originally
anticipated closing date of December 31, 2018; and
WHEREAS, via Addendum No. 1, the parties extended the Closing Date to June 30,
2019; and
WHEREAS, via Addendum No. 2, the parties extended the Closing Date to December 31,
2019; and
WHEREAS, the parties agree that it is in the best interests of both to further extend the
Closing Date to March 31, 2020; and
WHEREAS, the parties wish to memorialize their agreement to amend the Closing Date
of the Agreement;
NOW, THEREFORE, Buyer and Seller agree as follows:
Page 83 of 88
1. Section 6.1 of the Agreement is hereby amended to read as follows:
Closing date. This transaction will be closed in escrow by Title Company
acting as escrow agent (“Escrow Agent”). The closing will be held at the
offices of Title Company on or before that date which is thirty (30) days
after the execution of the Development Agreement and the expiration of
any applicable appeal period related thereto, but in any event no later than
March 31, 2020 (the “Closing Date”). If closing does not occur on or
before the Closing Date, or any later date mutually agreed to in writing by
Seller and Buyer, Escrow Agent will immediately terminate the escrow,
forward the Deposit to the party entitled to receive it as provided in this
Agreement and return all documents to the party that deposited them.
2. In all other respects, the Agreement between the parties, as amended by Addendum
No. 1 and Addendum No. 2, shall remain in full force and effect, further amended as set forth
herein, but only as set forth herein.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Addendum No. 3 this 17th day
of December 2019.
WATERMAN INVESTMENT
PARTNERS, LLC (BUYER):
_______________________________
Steve Sego, Sole Member
CITY OF PORT ORCHARD
(SELLER):
_______________________________
Robert Putaansuu, Mayor
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED:
_______________________________
Brandy Rinearson, MMC, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_______________________________
Sharon Cates, City Attorney
Page 84 of 88
City of Port Orchard
216 Prospect Street, Port Orchard, WA 98366
(360) 876-4407 • FAX (360) 895-9029
Agenda Staff Report
Agenda Item No.: Discussion Item 8A Meeting Date: December 17, 2019
Subject: 2020 City Council Retreat Prepared by: Robert Putaansuu
Mayor
Atty Routing No: N/A
Atty Review Date: N/A
Summary: The City Council Retreat is scheduled for Friday, January 17, 2020, starting at 9AM and is
being held at Puerta Vallarta Restaurant in Port Orchard.
Mayor, Council, and staff will discuss various items. A draft agenda has been provided for consideration
and discussion.
Recommendation: Mayor is asking Council to provide changes, if any, to the draft agenda.
Relationship to the Comprehensive Plan: N/A
Fiscal Impact: N/A
Alternatives: N/A
Attachments: Draft 2020 City Council Retreat Agenda.
Page 85 of 88
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Page 86 of 88
2020 City Council Retreat
January 17, 2020
9:00am - City Council Committee Assignments
10:00am - State of the City. 2019 overview/2020 plans
11:00am – Directors work plans and future priorities
12:30pm – Lunch
1:00pm – Council Goal Setting
Page 87 of 88
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Page 88 of 88