Bellevue council directs staff to draft mandatory minimum for repeat theft offenders, adds treatment option

The Bellevue City Council on Sept. 23 directed staff to prepare an ordinance that would impose mandatory minimum jail time for repeat theft offenders while preserving treatment alternatives and a one‑year review. The motion, passed 6–1, asked staff to draft an ordinance imposing a 30‑day minimum sentence for qualifying repeat offenders and to include options for substance‑use and mental‑health treatment similar to Marysville’s approach, plus a 12‑month report back to the council.

The vote follows a months‑long council effort to respond to rising retail theft and organized shoplifting. Councilmember Andrew Neuwenhaus, who moved the direction, said the measure “makes Bellevue safer for residents, retail workers, business owners, and to support the outstanding work already being done by our police and prosecutor’s office.” He described the proposal as “firm but fair” and said it preserves diversion where appropriate.

City Attorney Trusna Tannis and Chief Prosecutor Steve Penner presented a narrowly written draft framework for council consideration. Under the direction the council approved, the ordinance staff will draft would target theft in the third degree and apply only to adults with at least two prior qualifying theft convictions in Washington within the previous two years. The draft presented to council included two discretionary provisions: (1) a judge could order electronic home monitoring in lieu of jail if incarceration posed a substantial mental or physical risk to the defendant, and (2) eligible defendants could still participate in diversion programs, including the newly launched Bellevue Community Court.

Penner provided office projections during the briefing: Bellevue prosecutes roughly 700 theft cases per year and about 10% of those defendants would meet the proposed repeat‑offender criteria (roughly 70 defendants annually). Penner estimated a net increase of roughly 490 jail days per year under the ordinance and an additional custodial cost in a range the office described as approximately $83,000–$120,000 annually to the contracted jail provider (figures as presented by staff).

Supporters in the audience included local retail and property stakeholders who said repeat theft harms employees and businesses. Crystal Leatherman of the Washington Retail Association told council the measure “focuses narrowly on chronic repeat offenders” and “ensures accountability.” Carl Klinix, security director for The Bellevue Collection, recounted repeat incidents at local properties and urged the council to give repeat offenders stronger consequences.

Opponents or cautious council members urged reliance on data and existing tools. Councilmember John Hamilton, noting declines in several crime categories, said he found no conclusive evidence that mandatory minimums reduce crime and warned the change would remove some judicial discretion. Hamilton said he would prefer investments in proven prevention programs and expanded police tactics such as the city’s Stop the Lift campaign. Several council members — while divided — said the ordinance should be paired with diversion, community court capacity and treatment pathways for people with substance‑use or mental‑health needs.

The motion adopted by council directed staff to prepare ordinance language that includes substance‑use treatment and mental‑health treatment alternatives and to return to council with a 12‑month report on outcomes. The city attorney’s office and the prosecutor’s office will prepare the draft ordinance for formal consideration at a future council meeting; the approved direction does not itself change law.

Councilmembers who spoke in favor emphasized three goals: (1) holding persistent offenders accountable, (2) protecting retail workers and customers, and (3) keeping Bellevue an economically viable commercial center. Opponents cautioned that the patchwork of criminal justice actors means outcomes depend on implementation and urged careful monitoring. The council majority concluded that the combined approach — mandatory minimums for narrow repeat‑offender criteria plus treatment alternatives and a report back — struck a balance between enforcement and rehabilitation.

The council’s direction will now move to staff drafting; any ordinance would return to council for public hearing(s) and a final vote before taking effect. The council also directed staff to include measures for data collection so the 12‑month report can track recidivism, demographics, treatment uptake, program capacity and fiscal impacts.

Votes and next steps: The motion passed 6–1. Staff will draft ordinance language reflecting council direction, including substance‑use and mental‑health treatment options similar to Marysville’s model, and return with a 12‑month report on implementation and outcomes.