Resolution 4168 - Laserfiche WebLink

16. Police and Fire Protection - The Fire Marshall's Office of the City of Everett was asked to review the proposed juvenile care transition facility. In a memo dated February 14, 1994, the Assistant Fire Marshall indicated that a review had been done of the proposal and its impact to fire protection in Everett. It was concluded that the facility will not result in a need for extended fire or emergency medical services; will not result in additional personnel being required; will not result in additional fire equipment being necessary; and will not impact the delivery of services to the residents of the City of Everett. 17. The Everett Police Department was contacted to identify impacts that would result from the proposed development. In a memo dated February 16, 1994, the Police Chief stated that it is not possible to "exactly predict the incremental impact of one facility upon the provision of police services". The Police Chief, however, did indicate that an estimate of 15 police events per month would be generated by the Second Chance facility and that the Police Department would need an additional police officer to handle these calls. 18. In his February 16, 1994, memo, the Police Chief based his projections of service calls for the proposed site on the activity that has occurred at the Denny Youth Center, another juvenile detention facility in the City of Everett. Denny Youth Center had approximately 19 police reports per month, including police activity that involved "warrant service". 19. The Applicant and the City of Everett Planning Department, in response to the Police Chiefs contentions of increased impact on police services from the proposed facility, submitted that "warrant service" of court papers is a legal service of court papers on the person or place, requiring appearance of the person in court. This type of activity is not common at the type of facility proposed by the JRA. The individuals in the JRA type facilities have already gone through the court proceedings, and there usually is no pending litigation against them. As a result, the warrant service would not be common place. 20. The City stated that the comparison of the Denny Youth Center with the proposed facility is not accurate. Denny Youth Center is overcrowded with regard to ovemighters and serves as a probation, a court activity related, and restitution facility. The Denny Youth Center is much more active in the on-going litigation process of criminal proceedings than the proposed facility. The proposed structure will have the specific purpose of a transition facility and will not duplicate the activity of the Denny Youth Center. The comparison of the activities and the public services required for the Denny Youth Center are not applicable to the proposed facility. Although there will be minor impact on police services, it will not occur with the same frequency as at the Denny Youth Center. 8