Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Safety Code Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council discusses juvenile restitution amendment; third reading set for Aug. 20
Summary
Councilors heard questions and a technical comment on a proposed amendment to Everett municipal code addressing restitution for property damage by juveniles. Staff and a public commenter recommended technical edits; the council set a final reading for Aug. 20.
Get email alerts on the Public Safety Code Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Everett City Council discussed a proposed amendment to the municipal code on Aug. 13 intended to clarify how juveniles and their parents could be held responsible for restitution when property is damaged. Councilors asked staff for legal limits and technical corrections; the council scheduled a third and final reading for Aug. 20.
During the item introduced as Council Bill 2507-41, Council member Bader asked for clarification on how the amendment would affect juveniles and whether it would penalize minors or allow property owners to recover damages. Staff member Lacey Offit responded: “For those juveniles 15, RCW does allow for people who are victimized and their property damaged, by individuals without an age restriction, to bring a civil lawsuit against the parents.” Offit added that the city’s options are limited for juveniles under age 15 because of RCW restrictions and juvenile court procedures and that the city’s municipal court does not have jurisdiction over juvenile proceedings.
A public commenter, Brandon Islip of District 2, said he reviewed the draft and suggested a technical change to language in the proposed code that refers to a “responsible public or private party,” advising the council to use the term “responsible public agency or responsible private party” to align with existing definitions. Islip recommended that staff and the commenter work together on the language and return with final language. Council member Ryan said that language reflecting judicial leniency he had proposed previously was included in the amendment and that the revision looked acceptable to him.
City staff said they will work with the commenter and return with revised language; the council set the third and final reading for Aug. 20 so the amendment can be considered after those technical edits. No vote on final adoption occurred on Aug. 13.

