Law and Justice / Human Services Committee - Regular Meeting

Good morning. The Snohomish County Council public hearing will be called to order. The Health and Community Services Committee. Sorry. Today is Tuesday, May 12. It's 11AM. We're meeting the Jackson Boardroom and also remotely. Before we get into the agenda, I'm going to read a brief public comment script. We will take public comment beginning with in person and then remotely. In Zoom, you'll click the hand icon to raise your hand. If you're calling by Zoom, press 9 to raise your hand. When called upon, press 6 to unmute. Each speaker will have three minutes to speak, please start your comment with your name and your city of residence. Now our clerk will call roll.

Council Chair Meade?

Here.

Vice Chair Lo?

Present.

Committee Member Nearing? Committee Member Dunn? Here. Committee Member Peterson?

Here.

Committee Member Nearing? I see that he's online.

Did he get moved over? Because he was stuck in the panelist and not in the regular.

I have promoted him.

Alright. Well well well, know he's on the call, so

jump in and say, you're

happy somewhere. Members.

Thank you very much. Alright. So now we will open up public comment. First, I'll open up public comment for anyone in person. Do you have anyone that wants to provide public comment? Hello. Welcome. Come on up.

Express our oop. Thank you. Our strong, support for the continued investment and support for permanent supportive housing solutions throughout Snohomish County, we know this model works. Permanent supportive housing is producing meaningful outcomes for some of our community's most vulnerable residents by combining stable housing with supportive services that help people maintain housing stability, improve health outcomes, and reduce reliance on costly emergency systems. Our nonprofit housing and service provider community has built deep expertise in this work over many years, and Snohomish County is fortunate to have organizations with the experience, partnerships, and operational capacity necessary to continue delivering these successful outcomes.

Additionally, I also want to emphasize that fifteen ninety Ahbh Ahbh funds are a sacred and limited community resource for capital investment into affordable housing. These dollars are one of the most important tools we have locally to leverage additional state, federal and private investment for the creation and preservation of our communities' affordable housing stock. Every local dollar committed through 1590 helps unlock significantly larger funding sources that otherwise would not come into our community. Setting aside substantial portions of these funds each year would not only reduce our ability to move critical affordable housing projects forward, but it also would not fully meet the scale of need associated with developing behavioral health center for a significant amount of time. We absolutely recognize the importance of behavioral health infrastructure and support continued exploration of these solutions.

However, we would strongly encourage the county to explore bonding capacity and other financial tools to address that need rather than reducing one of the few dedicated local capital resources available for affordable housing production. We need both housing and behavioral health investments to move forward, together at at the expense not at the expense of one another. Thank you for your leadership and continued commitment to our community. So that was from Bobby Thompson, who's the executive director of the housing consortium of Everett and Snohomish County. And then on behalf of Housing Hope, I just wanna echo what Bobby said.

You know, I'm speaking today on the second of the two ordinances, the number twenty twenty six ten seventy eight and twenty twenty six ten eighty. We Housing Hope, are opposed to both of these ordinances. We feel like the $15.90 money, the AHPH funding, as Bobby said, is our only local source of capital dollars for these projects. And we we need more resources if we want more projects. We don't need to slice and dice the already limited amount of funding that we have.

And so we would encourage the council to look at other options there to make sure that we're able to get these projects over the finish line. Council has already shown that you guys appreciate flexibility between these two funding sources of the affordable housing and behavioral health buckets. I think it was two years ago when you dedicated specific funding for the Linwood jail facility. You moved money between those two buckets. So you guys already have shown a track record of liking that flexibility and having an ordinance that restricts this funding source and doesn't allow you to move that money would, I think, be a negative for council and for community as we work to get these projects to pencil and get them stabilized.

And then I also just wanna say that for the the contracting ordinance, the twenty twenty six ten eighty, we think that there are better ways to approach what council member Nearing's goals are here. You know, we certainly support reforming the system, making sure that it works as well as possible, but we don't think that this ordinance is gonna really achieve many of the intended outcomes. So we would encourage counsel to to work on that one a little bit more closely as well. So thank you guys for your leadership and for, turning attention to this crisis. You know, it's a really big issue, and so we appreciate your work on this. And thank you for your leadership.

Thank you for your comments. Do you have any other public comment in person? Seeing none, I'll verify we have no hands raised online.

No hands are raised. And committee member Nearing is online. Oh, we might have a hand raised here. Oh, we do have, Zorius online.

Alright. Can we move him to the panel? Yes. Alright. Welcome. You should be able to unmute when you're ready if you wanna start your comment. What's the name again?

Zoe z I Oh,

there she goes. Hi. Welcome.

Hi. Thank you so much.

My name is Zoe Reyes, and I'm with Community Health Center of Snohomish County. Also joining to, provide additional support in addition to what, Rachel and Bobby had shared. Community Health Center of Snohomish County is, Snohomish County's largest community health center, and we're the sole recipient of health care for the homeless funding in our county. We've existed for over forty years with a mission to provide our diverse community with access to high quality, affordable health care, and we see over 75,000 patients a year in seven medical clinics, six dental clinics, two walk in clinics, four school based health centers, six pharmacies, and through our outreach programs where we provide health care embedded within five community housing and shelter locations and over 60 public schools. In 2025, over 5,000 of our patients were experiencing homelessness.

And through our decades of experience serving vulnerable populations, we know that individuals achieve better health and long term stability when health care, housing, and supportive services work together. Patients connected to CHC's clinical services alongside stable housing and community based support are significantly more successful in improving and maintaining their health and well-being. We agree with councilman Nerring that our community is in desperate need of additional behavioral health and substance use services, but it cannot be at the expense of housing. Addressing one critical need should not come at the expense of another as ordinance twenty six zero one eight proposes. Housing and health care are deeply interconnected, and strong communities require both stable housing and accessible health care systems working in partnership to effectively address the complex needs that our community members are facing.

We urge the council to explore opportunities to adequately invest in the creation and sustained operation of housing and health care rather than limiting and reducing resources at a time when the cost of construction, health care needs, and the number of Snohomish County residents who do not have health insurance are all, soaring. Thank you, for, your attention to this matter and your leadership in our communities, and for taking the time to hear these comments today.

Thank you, Zoe, for your comment. Do you have any other comments or any other hands raised online?

No. More hands are raised.

Okay. Great. Thank you. So we'll go ahead and close public comment then, and we'll move on to our agenda. We do have three items to discuss today, but first, we're going to change the order and do our discussion item first because we do have the North County's family services group here, and I know you have a time limit. So welcome. Thank you for being here, and I'm looking forward to your presentation.

There you go. It works. So, again, thank you so much. My name is Wyone. I'm with North County's Family Services in Darrington. We've been serving there since 1993. So it's been a bit of a time, and we're grateful for that. I also wanna give a shout out. It's not my stuff. When we came before, I let you know we threw people who were homeless into my my husband, my old Ridgeline van, and the county did dedicate a car to us. So thank you so much for that. It's what came in that today. So, again, thank you for that. You also are gonna be given booklets if you haven't already. One where it shows team night.

I just wanna let you know that Jace is in there, playing basketball. He is Mia's special friend. He's six five, still growing, so keep an eye on him because he may be a professional basketball player someday. He is going to a lot of summer camps this summer. So those are just shout outs to that. Other pictures in there include our annual cookie exchange. I just wanted to put that in there. Because one of the little guys in there won the most unique cookie. Everybody cheered and clapped. It wasn't really edible, but it was really unique.

And, he was able to use his $50 card at IGA, and he said, I can buy anything I want. And I said, well, if your let you. So the pictures are in there. And then Ed Pace, is the fellow who gives us toys every holiday to make sure that our families that we can't get down to Christmas house or other places do have toys over the holidays. So some of those pictures show that. Kinda gives you a a little view of what we do throughout the year. And now I'll get into my my my writing, so I'll be looking down, so I apologize ahead of time. Anyway, it is great to share with you in person. I know we get to see some of you sometimes, and we really appreciate that. So thank you for letting us share and share some of the stuff that we do.

I also wanna take the opportunity to give a shout out to Snohomish County Health Department. They have been wonderful in the things they do with us and for us. And then community transit, they have just been outstanding. Had we not had Zip, we've been trying to get transportation up there for thirty years, And now Zip is there and calls our kids back and forth to school and after practices. And so our kids are able to do a lot of things they weren't able to do before as well as our adults. We have a woman I wanted to come today, but it was too far for her. She's even older than I am, and she's able to take Zip over to IGA and do grocery shopping. We often pick her up because she hasn't figured out how to get them to pick her up yet, but we're we're so grateful that Zip is there. Beyond that, Meg said, hey. Could we sponsor your community?

And we said, sure. She came, and Rosie will let you know how big the she came with a van load. And when I say van load of clothing and shoes and toiletries that we will be distributing at National Night Out on August 22, we're getting permission to do it a different day because we do it with Darrington's chamber of commerce, which is called Darrington Strong. So we're gonna do it August 22. If anyone wants to come up and flip hot flip hot dogs with us, you're more than welcome. It's we always give hot dogs that day. We wanna express our appreciation for your support of prevention. As you know, it is often much easier to intervention. It is really difficult to get dollars for prevention. So I'm just gonna tell you a tiny story.

I'm gonna leave it very generic so I don't cross any boundaries on confidentiality. But because we've been doing this so long, there were two siblings, came from the similar households. Both of these kids went to school with my kids, who are now in their forties. One of the kids became really, really involved in the Darrington Youth Coalition, graduated from high school, was doing tremendous things. He, she, they live out of state.

That person is a firefighter in his community where and I said he's now you know, where he lives. He will be giving back to all of us. If you just look at dollars, he will be giving back about a million dollars in his lifetime. His sibling chose not to get involved, and we still serve him. He visits with me every week. I'm kind of his pseudo mom because he's known me so long. He took a different path. I'm not judging him. I just wish he had participated in the prevention programming. He visits with me every week. We're able to give him a Salvation Army gas voucher. We make sure he has insurance. We make sure he has a license. We pick up food for him at the food bank. We make sure he gets it delivered.

He will be on Social Security disability for the rest of his life. He is on Medicaid. He's on food benefits, and and he will be consuming. And, again, I'm glad those safeguards are there for him. I would not take those away.

But where his brother will be giving back a million dollars in his lifetime, his sibling will be taking at least a million dollars in his lifetime. So prevention is imperative. So I'm grateful that the county recognizes that because prevention dollars are what allows us to do those things we might normally not be able to do. So that's the two the two siblings. And then our focus while it's on prevention, I just wanna say we also jump into intervention when we need to, which was demonstrated during the Highway five thirty slide.

We were there working seven days a week, twenty four seven. We are still serving those families, making sure two siblings who lost a sister are into counseling. We still visit with the parent. We may we are making sure that we are there long term to serve them. And also during the pandemic, because so many of our folks did not have Internet, do not have phone service, following all the state, federal, and county guidelines, we stayed open because it wasn't just, oh, let's stay open for fun.

It was their lifeline for many people. So we we focus on prevention, but we're able to jump into intervention anytime we need to, and we do that. Finally, I think I think I'm done. Your your funding decisions make this work possible. They ensure that prevention efforts continue to grow while also sustaining the intervention services that people depend on in their most difficult moments.

On behalf of those who have been supported, protected, and uplifted through these programs, thank you. Your leadership reflects a deep understanding of both the challenges our community faces and the solution that truly makes a difference. We are grateful for your partnership and for your commitment to serving all members of our little rural isolated down in the Cascade Mountains Darrington community. So thank you. I cannot appreciate truly, the appreciation for the the Ford Fusion is huge because I'm not trashing our car all the time.

So that's really very beneficial, and thank you for the prevention dollars. Without those, we could not do what we do. And now I would like to introduce Rosie. She's a champion for our youth, our senior citizens. She's the one who picks up the food every Monday for people, by the way, at at the food bank and delivers and those most vulnerable. And then she'll be followed by Sydney and then Mia, two of our primary actors in the mystery dinner theater, as well as outstanding Darrington Youth Coalition members and students of our Darrington High School. Mia just got her license. I just wanna share. It's big stuff because we she has to drive down to get the training. Representing all that is good in today's youth and our hope for future generations.

Rosie, you wanna hear? Oh, hold on. Okay. You're up, girl. One second. Now it's you next. Hi.

Good morning. My name is Rosa, Angela Morales Mata. I'm from, Darrington. My name is Rosa Angela Morales Mata, and I want to sincerely thank you for supporting prevention and intervention programs that help those who are too often forgotten. Every

day,

we work with some of the most vulnerable members on our community, youth searching for guidance, families facing hardship, seniors struggling with isolation, and individuals who do not always have access to technology supporting our support systems. You funding helps ensure they are searched for and cared for. Through our of school programs, we also provide nutritious meals for youth because we know that children cannot learn, grow, or try when they are hungry. Sometimes a warm meal, a safe place, and a caring adults can make all the difference in a youth person's life. And I wonder and I have the opportunity to pick up food from the local food bank and deliver it to shut ins, helping seniors and families who cannot leave their homes.

We also pick up people from the airport when they have nowhere else to turn. Thank you for recognizing the prevention matters, but also interventions save lives. Your leadership investment bring dignity sorry, help and opportunity to people who need most. For my heart and all behalf of the families we serve, thank you for standing with our community. Gracias.

Oh, thank you.

Thank you.

That was my mom. So I just wanted to share some of our accomplishments we've done as DYC, the Darrington Youth Coalition. That's me, Sydney, and a lot of my peers. We our topic is drug free community, drug free kids, and we do a lot of that by creating a safer and healthy and more connected community by volunteering programs, like helping at the food bank. I have helped at the senior center, the thrift stores.

We've also hosted nights at the park, Halloween barbecue, all of that, or just attend prevention meetings programs. Like, we're taking some kids to Great Wolf Lodge to present what we're doing now, and it's just a great opportunity to get Darrington into a better place, really. But, yeah, hopefully, this summer, we can also do summer camp. It's an opportunity for kids like me to get jobs, easy summer jobs, if we get funds because we really struggle on that. But, yeah, our work is meaningful to our community by all the partnerships and significance it holds behind. Thank you.

Yeah.

Good morning, council members. My name is Sydney Menting. I'm from Darrington, Washington. And first of all, I wanna say thank you to Sam Lau for attending the Mystery Dinner Theater, and thank you to mister Reed for changing the schedule so that we could go first. To start, Darrington Youth Coalition has done numerous things for Darrington.

We have fed people who like, there's tons of people in Darrington who, like, can't afford to eat, and we have done that, like, numerous times while providing entertainment. We have helped clean up the town, cleaned up garbage, attended a town council meeting to put more anti smoking signs up. And we just wanna thank you for believing in us and investing in our future. Your funding has given us opportunities to do more than just have fun. It has helped us grow, develop leadership skills, make connections, and then give back to our community.

Because of your support, we've been able to enjoy meaningful activities while also making a real difference through service projects. Some of our favorite experiences have included creating swag bags for shut in senior citizens and people with disabilities. On Christmas, like, couple days before Christmas, we made some bags to give to the seniors the senior living center. And some of them, like, it just made their day, and they would, like, tell us, like some had, like, sad stories, so, like, like, didn't enjoy Christmas anymore, but we helped cheer them up. And we help brighten their days and remind them that they are cared for.

We've also had the honor of ringing the bell for the Salvation Army, supporting families in need during the holiday season. These experiences have taught us compassion, teamwork, and the importance of serving others. You didn't just fund activities. You help create opportunities for us to learn, lead, and make our community stronger. So thank you for your generosity, your trust, and for making these experiences possible. We are truly grateful.

That's the presentation? Alright.

Well

okay. You're up to ask. Here it is.

You gotta turn your microphone on because I can't hear you.

Oh, I I grew up with seven siblings. You should be able to hear me.

The people online.

Oh, okay. Well yeah. So, anyway, Tacos and Timber is this Friday. It's a team night. We never know how many we're gonna get. We're going to have a taco bar developed by Alex, a nine year old, who is telling me what I have to have there. Her brother. He's kinda bossy. So, we're gonna have a taco bar. If you wanna come and help chaperone, you're obviously more than welcome.

Well, again, we might have 10 kids there. Last time we did in February, we try to do a community event once a month so that we are decreasing isolation and increasing networking and opportunities. So that'll be Friday night, eight to ten. And then on Saturday, we're taking a group of youth, those who want to go and or their parents as well to the you'll you are not alone in Stamwood. And then, of course, we're doing stuff in June, the beginning of the summer celebration. We'll be doing hot dogs there. And, yeah, we just do a lot of hot dogs. So if you ever wanna come and flip a hot dog, you're more than welcome. I don't eat hot dogs, just so you know. Anyway, thank you.

We are done. Truly do appreciate you investing, the county investing, knowing that we're using your money, judiciously, carefully, and, that's that's it. So thank you so much.

Well, thank you for being here. Thank you for the presentation and for showing us what the investment is producing and sharing all the stories. Thank you. You did really well with your presentations. Do you have a minute for potentially questions from council if if they've

got them? Do you have

any questions or comments from council members, council member Lowe?

Yeah. I don't have a question. I just have a comment. I just wanna thank you for all your work, and I really enjoyed the dinner theater. It was the murder dinner, it was really, really good. The actors were incredible. All of you did such a great job and to have it intertwined with dinner and then the auction and everything else. And I think what was impressive to me is to see the whole room full of people from the community and to get to meet community members. A lot of times we, as council members, we are on the dais, and we don't get to really interact when we're out in the public like that. And to be in the room and interacting with so many people in the community and to have the delicious meals. So thank you for the invitation, and really proud of the work that you guys are doing up in Darrington. It's incredible.

Heather, are we done?

Yeah. I loved hearing about the the car that it's useful, the Ford Fusion that was donated. So that was a surplus vehicle that we could, donate. So I'm so grateful to hear that that's helping you guys. And I'm on the board of community transit, so I'm I'm glad to hear that the ZIP program has been helpful. That was a pilot project. So if you can send them comments that it's been useful. I was also curious if, I know that's based on an app. So if broadband issues are are if you're able to use the ZIP and to use that app or, hopefully, the improvements in broadband in Darrington in general will help that, but any information on that is helpful.

No. Thank you so much, council member Dunn. The people are able to use it. It's working out really well. The person we often need to pick up, I think we all forget not everyone has a cell phone, and not everyone has Internet. So she will let us know when Zip is picking her up because she can call for that, and then we know to show up an hour or two later and help her get through the line because she has memory issues, and I never have her give me her any of her pins. But just working with her and calming her down, she's able to find them and retrieve them. So if there's anything and I don't know what we do about folks who only have landlines. I don't know. But, again, ZIP is changing the life in Darrington. So thank you.

That's great. If you wanna share

that with Community Transit. I can share that with them in my updates. But if you wanna share that with Community Transit directly, that's great.

You bet. Thanks.

Other questions or comments from council members? Alright.

Yeah. This is Nate on online. Sorry.

Yep. Councilor Renee.

Yeah. No questions. I just wanna make sure to give a shout out to Wyon and the whole team at North County Family Services. They do just phenomenal work and really the only organization of its kind in Darrington that's serving the community in the way they are. So really proud to to get to partner with them as a county and really appreciate UI on all the work that you do and everybody who came to speak today. So thank you.

And thank you, councilman. Now we'll get these kids back to school.

Alright. Thank you all for being here. Thank you. Have fun at school and stay in it. Right? Alright. Okay. Now we'll move on. That was our discussion item. We have three action items, three ordinances to go over, so we'll introduce those. And I will turn it over to Cynthia.

For the record, Cynthia Foley, Council Staff. The proposed ordinance prohibits the expenditure of county funds for purchasing syringes and smoking equipment for illegal drug use. The proposed code bans expenditure of all locally collected revenues, grants, and pass through fund funding for these purposes. Under the terms of the legislation, the county may contract with organizations that run syringe service programs but cannot provide funding for the syringes used by these programs. The request is to move ordinance 26 dash zero one seven to the JLS agenda to set time date for a public hearing.

Alright. Thank you. Do we have questions or comments from council members? Council member Dunn?

I had a question. Was there community outreach for this ordinance that you're aware of?

Perhaps council member Naren can speak to that. I I wasn't part of that process.

Sure. This is this is Nate. Thank you, Cynthia. So this is something that I've heard about quite a bit from members of the community, in my district in particular. There's not been a formal community outreach process. Of course, that's what, that's what the the public process is for here. We have been working with, county departments. And like I said, I've been hearing from constituents on the issue, but happy to engage others who are interested in having the conversation. Thanks.

Thank you, council member Nerring. Other questions or comments from council members? Okay. So we are moving this to GLS on May 20 to set time and date. Do you wanna put that on action, or is everyone alright with consent? Is that a question, council member Pierce?

I mean, I I'm I am not supportive of this ordinance, whatsoever. I think that the data is clear out there what has happened in other areas when needle exchange programs are cut or hindered and the explosion in AIDS infections and other infections. I think this is I think that the data is clear on what harm reduction does to help. So I'm I am not in favor of moving this ordinance out of committee.

Alright. Other council members? Council member Dunn?

Well, I would share the same concern.

I don't know why there are no supportive clauses for the ordinance. There's no whereas is there a justification for it as well. Is there a reason there's no justification?

Typically, our attorney's advice has been to, not include recitals in council initiated ordinances. So that is a standard practice that we hold outside of GMA related ordinances.

Then I would share concerns with having a public hearing because there's a lot of misinformation around harm reduction, and moving this forward would do more harm do more harm than good. I I don't understand the problem that it's trying to solve. And if we have if we have a concern or even any distribution of this type of equipment currently. So I think that even moving it forward and having a public hearing would, ultimately cause more harm than good.

Do we have questions on work trying to work something through on it to get it to a point where we'd want to move it forward onto a public hearing, or is it just a general opposition to moving it to a public hearing? This is just a vote to to move it to GLS to set time and date for a public hearing. I don't know if council member Neri wants to speak to any of the okay. Council member Neri?

That would be great. Thank you, Jeremy. Appreciate it. Yeah. So maybe I'll just give a brief brief background on the ordinance. So the idea behind this is to prohibit county taxpayer dollars specifically from being used to purchase or distribute drug paraphernalia. So, you know, there are plenty of nonprofit organizations throughout the Puget Sound doing this. And on on on the private side, this would not impact those. It would specifically be on county tax dollars being used for this per for this purpose. And the intent really is to ensure that county policy is focusing on treatment, on recovery, and on accountability rather than, than facilitating or potentially enabling ongoing drug use.

I've heard from a lot of residents who are concerned about these current approaches that are happening both here and throughout the Puget Sound region. And so I think this is a way for us to establish a clear public policy on trying to help people recover from, from substance abuse, understand and respect there are different perspectives on harm reduction. I think it's important conversation to have, and, that's why I'd encourage moving us to a public hearing so that we can have that hopefully thoughtful public debate on this and then ultimately, have an up or down vote one way or the other. Thank you.

Councilor, we're done.

So have we identified what current funds are being used for this? And is there a reason it's just restricted to certain harm reduction? I mean, does this include medical assisted treatment? Does it include fentanyl testing strips and other types of harm reduction? Or it's just ones that Councilmember Nearing is concerned about?

And we also have executive staff from human services here, potentially, if you'd be willing to answer any of the questions too, if you wanna defer.

Yeah. I can can speak to the text of it, which is that the the text of it is limited to syringes and smoking equipment. So it's it's fairly specific in that. In terms of current expenditures, I have some idea in that. I don't think that it we're spending a lot of money for this currently, perhaps none. But does the executive wanna speak to that?

Hello, counsel. For the record, Lacey Harper with the executive's office.

Hello, council members.

You hit the mic.

Hello, council members. Kim Van Pelt from the health department.

And to answer the specific question around funding, we do not spend any currently. However, I believe this ordinance restricts us from even receiving future funds to do this work if there was a, let's say, hepatitis C outbreak or whatnot. So we would not be able to receive funds even to work against

Transmission of Yes. That's correct.

All right, thank you. Do you

have other questions or comments from council members? Councilmember

Do we have research around disease transmission related to harm reduction and some of the benefits around that? Or just Thank any research

you, Councilmember Dunn. There's over thirty years of research related to needle exchange and the public health benefits to it. It does diminish, for example, the spread of HIV, the spread of hepatitis C. And then organizations that do needle exchange service entities actually have been very useful in terms of stopping opioid related deaths, and actually connecting people to treatment. So, in Washington State, community based organizations that are doing the needle exchange actually are the major sources of distribution of naloxone, Narcan commonly known.

So, they've been very beneficial to, again, stemming the harm caused by opioid misuse.

Councilor Ruleaux?

So is the needle exchange, is that paid for using county dollars right now?

Currently, no.

So in the future, potentially, the county could decide to do a needle exchange using county dollars, but this policy would would prohibit that.

Correct.

So there's really not a conflict with this policy and what you just said then with the needle exchange we're using dollars for that.

Correct. In in that what it would do is just close off the option, essentially, of county funds being able to be used for that purpose. And again, if there was some sort of spread of disease in the community that was that we noted that would be harmful, like the spread of HIV, hepatitis c, if there was an outbreak, we would not have that option available to us.

Can I I'm sorry? Can I ask a clarifying question? Because I I thought this also prohibited our ability to receive noncounty dollars, federal or state, to do this work, for example, if there was an outbreak. So can we just get clarification on that? Is it specifically to county funds only, or does it also impact additional funding from outside sources?

The language of this ordinance describes how funds may be spent. How that could interact with future with future grant programs is not something that I could speak to.

Council member Lowe? So right

here in the ordinance, the last sentence says nothing in this section prohibits the county from administrating contracts with entities that lawfully distribute syringes and smoking equipment. So the county can still do contracts then. Is that correct?

Council member Low, we asked for that language to be added simply because if this ordinance were to pass, we currently do have contracts with entities that provide needle exchange. We are just not paying currently for needle exchange itself. So we wouldn't want to prohibit essentially have having relationships with those entities because again they're very useful to us in naloxone distribution or hepatitis C outbreaks. Relationship with them we would want to continue.

Councilor Mabita? I would just note reading it. It says county funds shall not be appropriated, expended, or awarded either directly or through pass through funding. So if there was an outbreak and the Center for Disease Control or the State Department of Health wanted to give the county money to help with that outbreak, this would not allow it. So I think that's I think that's a dangerous precedent to set.

And, Cynthia, that is that correct? That that interpretation? Because what you just said seemed more vague and, like, we were unsure, but that seems pretty clear that we could not be getting federal or state monies passing through the county to

The county could not distribute any funds for the purpose of, yeah, purchasing syringes and smoking equipment for the purposes of illegal drug use for harm reduction. Yeah.

Okay. Thank you. Do have other questions or comments from council members?

Yeah. Chair, this is councilor Mounieri.

Councilor Mounieri?

So I think this is an important conversation for us to have, and it's a, I think, a much larger conversation. For me, this is the most important or the most challenging issue that we face as a community around addiction and substance abuse, homelessness, and and all the issues that go with it. And so I think having the conversation about harm reduction and what works and what doesn't work and where we stand as a county in terms of policy is a really important one to have, and I I think we should have this public process on it. I think that's important. I appreciate hearing everyone's perspective.

For me, you know, I understand that there's good intent behind those who are supporting harm reduction efforts. I I just frankly haven't seen it working. I I think we can look at the Puget Sound region and all these efforts are in place, and we're not seeing a slowdown in overdose deaths. We're not seeing a slowdown in drug addiction certainly. And so I think, I I think it's important that we take a stand as accounting and make it clear that our policy approach prioritizes recovery and accountability, and that's why I've introduced this among, among other ordinances.

When we think about harm reduction, I mean, if you follow that all the way down you know, when I first started on the council, Vancouver was opening up its heroin injection site. I remember traveling with a member of the Everett City Council to go and and visit that because there was talk about about doing that in the Puget Sound as well. I was frankly horrified by what I saw. I thought it was terrible policy. It was clearly having a negative, negative outcome on on those who were in the area. And then, you know, we hear a lot now about drugs which are being consumed that are laced with things like fentanyl. And so, clearly, that's an issue that we face in the community. But on the harm reduction philosophy, I think the argument can be made. Well, maybe we should be giving out drugs and testing to ensure they're not laced with fentanyl. In that way, it's as as safe as possible for users to be consuming those drugs.

And so I I just don't think this is the right approach. I think it's doing more harm than it is doing good, and I think we should focus on recovery and accountability. And that's why I've introduced this ordinance. Again, I appreciate that there are diverse perspectives on this and people feel strongly. I do think it's really important that we have this conversation and come to a conclusion at where we're at as a county and and setting this in a policy. Thank you.

Thank you, Councilwoman Nearing. Councilwoman Dunn?

So I just wanna clarify. You're referencing something in Canada. There's that's Vancouver, Canada. There's no effort to hand out drugs or have safe injection site anywhere in the state, let alone Snohomish County or unincorporated. I know that the promotion around this ordinance and the other two includes a lot of misinformation.

That's why I think it's dangerous to community to even move this forward because we're already hearing misinformation related to this. There's we're not spending money on this currently in unincorporated. So what is the problem that we're trying to solve? If it's not going to have any impact because we already don't do this, but it would be beneficial to have the option, especially if there's some type of outbreak. It's also isolated to certain types of harm reduction that appear to only be concerning for one council member.

It's not all harm reduction. It's just some distribution of smoking equipment and syringe equipment. So we know that harm reduction works. There's thirty years of data that shows this works and that meeting people where they're at works. I'm not trying to make sober housing illegal.

I'm not trying to attack other types of recovery that work because recovery is multifaceted. Different types of recovery you know, people get into recovery for different reasons, and and different forms of recovery work for different people. So I'm not trying to attack the sober housing or other types of housing. This is just an attack on certain types of harm reduction that one council member has concerns with. So if we want to move it forward to have the public hearing, that's fine. But I do feel like even just having this conversation with the promotional items, you know, the promotion around it that already includes misinformation is damaging to community.

Sure. I understand the point. Councilmember Nayne, go ahead.

Yeah. So I I mean, I take serious issue with the characterization of it. I think asking the question of whether the county should have a policy of using tax dollars for the purchase and distribution of drug paraphernalia or not is a perfectly fair question to ask. I think it's a legitimate conversation to have. This conversation is happening throughout the state, throughout the country.

So I think the characterization of this is dangerous just to have the conversation is I mean, that's that's concerning to hear that. I think anytime we have the opportunity to have a public process, to ask policy question about what's in the best interest of the people we represent, for the people who are struggling with an addiction, we should take the opportunity and have that conversation and deliberate. And then, ultimately, we can all come to a conclusion. Mean, we'll be on different sides. And, but but I think framing it as dangerous to even have the conversation.

I mean, that's what we're elected to do. We're elected to have these hard conversations and discuss policy that's relevant to the people that we represent. And so, you know, I I respect, again, that everybody's on on different sides of this issue and and that there's strong feelings on it. But I think that's all the more reason to have, you know, robust conversation on it. And so I respect everybody's point of view, but I would really encourage us to be able to be willing to have that conversation.

Councilman Peterson?

Yeah. I just you know, speaking of public conversations a few months ago, and I think it was in front of the community safety committee where we had Dave Hayes and the folks that were doing the needle exchange program and some people that were in the recovery space really talked about the three legs of the stool that all three of those things were critical. Dave was representing the kind of the drug enforcement side and the work that they were doing to get drugs off the street, but also the critical work that these outreach groups were doing, including needle exchange, to make sure that they were also doing harm reduction to to reduce drug use. I think to, you know, to council member, you know, Nering's point where it seems like things are still increasing, you can never prove the negative. You can never prove that somebody did not go down a path because they were able to get the help.

So I think that's something that's kind of that's always a tough discussion. But I think we've we've had these conversations, and I think to have these conversations maybe more in that format of, hey. Let's let's have some people come and sit around a table and have a public discussion as opposed to start using the idea of a public discussion with a very specific endpoint. I think that was what was refreshing to me about that discussion. I was not sure where that was gonna go, but that I think really opened my eyes and I think hopefully opened a lot of people's eyes in our community about the need for all of these different types of services.

So I think if we structured it in that way, I would be much more willing. But because this ordinance has a very specific decision, I can't support it because I know that the science is wrong on that. The thirty years of science is wrong on that. Whether or not we have members of our communities that are concerned, I would rather structure it in a in a different, more community based, conversation way than through the ordinance process.

Thanks. Thank you, Councilwoman Peterson. Other questions or comments? So Councilwoman Neri, how would you how would you feel about that if we delayed this, let's say, to the next hearing or the next committee or maybe a couple, I don't know the schedule. I don't want to put us out that, Cynthia. And scheduled it in more of a discussionary format where we invite some of these people to give input, and we can ask the questions and workshop it a little more before setting time and date for an actual public hearing.

Yeah. Thank you, Jeremy. No. I prefer to keep this on track. I understand what councilmember Peterson is saying. I think those sorts of conversations can be helpful. This is a this is an ordinance. Right? This is the process for an ordinance. If the councilmember proposes something, you know, we can have thoughtful deliberation. And if, if there's questions about, you know, outbreaks or different types of harm reduction, then there's you know, you have the ability to work on amendments or propose changes if you'd like. But it's not it's it's not a typical move on council to hold something. In fact, I think one of the, you know, one one of the members who is opposed to this is the one who, I think, established the rule for not not holding things in committee for a certain amount of time. And so I would like to see this move forward. Let's have the discussion on it.

Amendments can be made. We can have ask questions. Community members can be involved, but but I'm not in favor of of holding this over. I think this is a legitimate policy proposal. We should have, you know, a thoughtful conversation on the merits of it, pros and cons, and then ultimately, we should take a vote and decide where we're at on it and and go from there.

Alright. Council councilor Roloff?

Yeah. The ordinance is two sentences. So, I mean, it's not really complicated on what, is trying to get there. I think, it's clear the county funds are not being expended at this point for this, but that's why we have to put this in place is because we have situations that develop as a county. For example, we didn't talk about battery battery energy storage systems or BESS several years ago, but now that's in the topic of all different counties and councils dealing with that subject now.

And so putting in to context and code before we cross that bridge is very important. And so this is just clearly stating a position for our county, that county funds will not be used. I think it's important that the public has a voice in this process. That's why we have the public hearing. Council members can still vote however they want after the public hearing, but I think it's important that the community has a voice in this process. So I think this should go forward.

Alright. Council and councilmember Dunne, how do you how do you feel about moving this forward versus holding it, doing a public discussion in committee?

Yeah. I mean, council member Nearing can have a town hall anytime he wants on an issue if he wants to have public engagement. I'll clarify that the reason I passed rules around holding things in committee was when council members were holding things prior to being assigned and did not move them forward and held were held in committee. So I would have preferred a robust public process around this item. If there's support from council to set it on an action agenda for the twentieth to set time and date for the public hearing, that sounds like that's gonna be the result today.

But my preference would have been a robust public process around this, and it sounds like we're not gonna get that either way other than having a public hearing to take action on it. So if the if the will of the council is to set time and date, that's fine.

Okay. I disagree that that's definitely where we're going. I I agree I agree with you, Councilmember Dunn, that there's a difference between holding items prior to assigning them versus once we now hear them in a committee and we clearly have a bunch of questions from different council members. There's not a ton of clarity yet, still even for me, on the implications of this. I also see the timing as if we're not doing it right now, we pass this now, nothing changes. If we pass this in a month, nothing changes. If we pass this in four months, nothing changes. So this is really a preventative stop gap. Correct me if I'm wrong, council member Nearing, but this is more let's get a policy in place so that the future we can't end up doing this. Okay?

So I don't see the rush and if we want to have a robust conversation around this, that's what the committee process is for, not a public hearing. Public hearing is to get public input, public comment, and then a vote. I see the committee process. We don't we haven't historically used it this way, but in the legislature certainly, the committee process is much more robust and you have a lot of discussion. There are amendments back and forth.

Things pause, things go quickly, and things go slowly. So I tend to agree with councilmember Peterson and councilmember Dunn that there's no harm in waiting a couple of weeks or a month or whenever the next committee schedule allows to have a more robust conversation and invite some of these other stakeholders to answer some of these questions around the science and the data and the efficacy of this programming. Yeah, I'd like to wait. I'd like to bump this at least two weeks and and maybe work with Cynthia on the schedule, whether it's two weeks from now or four weeks from now. But if at least the majority of council is comfortable with that, which it sounds like they would be, then we'll do that. If it Councilor Rinear?

Just mention something on that. Yeah. Thank you, Jeremy. Appreciate it. So if there are outstanding questions that people are still making up their minds on and we need more information, that's one thing. But what I heard was an expression that even having this conversation is is, quote, unquote, dangerous and an unwillingness to take to take a vote on it. So I think those are two completely different things. Like, we heard a couple council members state that they're already a no on this, so it doesn't sound to me like there are unanswered questions. But, certainly, if there's things we wanna find out or or more conversation, that that would be one thing. But that that is not what I heard in the prior conversation.

So that's my concern with holding this over is if it's just to avoid the public process or avoid a vote, then I I would not support that. I think it needs to move forward. We should engage and and bring the public in and have opportunity for for testimony and questions and whatnot. That's all great. And if we wanna do that in committee and there's outstanding questions, that's fine. Again, I haven't I haven't heard of any questions that we're that we don't have answered that we're waiting on.

I'll I'll speak for myself. I'm not a no or a yes on this yet. We're still in committee, And I have not engaged as strongly with our health department or the executive's office on what the implications of this would look like through human services. I have questions about the grant process. Do we currently have plans for grants or is it just we're worried about a future pandemic situation or outbreak?

So I personally have public health questions. There's been different representations of what the science has said over the last thirty years. We have some people saying the science could clearly support that this works. We have others, like, who's proposed this saying the science says this hasn't worked and you look. So I have I personally have plenty of questions still and I could absolutely use a robust committee conversation to help me figure out if I wanna be a yes or a no on this. So I don't see the vote as baked as is. I also don't I don't agree with the characterization that having a conversation publicly is dangerous. I wanna have the public conversation, but that's what we would do with this proposal is moving it to a committee conversation where we would have that public discussion. It'd be helpful for me. That that's what I'd like to do.

Yeah. And that's and that's completely fine with me. I understand and respect that if there are those outstanding questions. So I'm I'm comfortable with what you're proposing then with, you know, understanding that this is gonna be moved forward and will eventually, go to a public hearing and it's not gonna be a holding committee.

Alright. Other questions or comments from council members? K. So then it sounds like we will we'll hold this over. I'll work with our committee staff to figure out when we will schedule this for that further conversation in the next committee. We'll move on to our second ordinance, ordinance 26 dash zero one eight.

Good morning, counsel. For the record, Nicole Gourley, counsel staff. Ordinance 20 six-eighteen, sponsored by council member Nearing, would amend Snohomish County code 4.126 by requiring that 20% of the affordable housing and behavioral health sales tax revenue, also known as ABBA, or $15.90 dollars goes into a dedicated new fund called the Behavioral Health Facility Expansion Fund. These funds would be required to be used for the purchase, construction, or land acquisition for behavioral health facilities. Behavioral health facilities are defined as a facility where the primary purpose is to provide diagnostic, therapeutic, or rehabilitative services for mental health or substance use disorders.

If approved, the direction of the tax revenue into the new fund would begin on 01/01/2027. The staff report contains two things of note. First, under the fiscal section, it shows a table of what the current anticipated revenue for this fund is and what the plan has currently laid out for the behavioral health facility construction acquisition portion of that. And then at the bottom of it, the bottom row shows what the amount would be under the proposed ordinance. I would like to note, as I think public testimony also commented, in 2025, that number is larger due to council's amendment, adding $3,000,000 to the Limit Crisis Care Facility.

And then second, at the end of the staff report, there's a sectional analysis, which I'm happy to walk through if counsel would like. Otherwise, I will turn it to counsel for consideration.

Thank you, Nicole. Questions or comments from council members? Council member done.

No?

That's mean, so is this was there a public process related to this? Is it part of our is it part of the five year business plan that outlines how these funds will be used in community in order to address homelessness and emergency housing?

There was similar to the last one. I would say council member Nearing, and he can speak to that, would probably say the same thing as far as the development public process when we were developing it and discussing timeline and the community input for the ABBA plan. That is the reason for the January 1 part of the reason for the January 1 timeline and having it considered sooner so that if for some reason council chooses to adopt this ordinance that this can be incorporated into that process.

And then one follow-up question. Do we have more requests for housing projects than we have dollars for currently? And is there matching dollars at the federal government, at the federal level for some of those projects?

Hi, MJ.

While MJ is coming up, could we move Sherry, I think that Nate needs to be moved back over.

Thank you. Welcome back, Lacey. Hi, MJ. Do you

need to us to repeat the question? Okay. Great.

For the record, Mary Jane Brovovovich, director of human services. This last funding round for these funds, we had three times as many housing proposals as we had resources to fund. We also had more on the behavioral health side, but that was a substantially smaller fund. It's about $3,000,000, and we did have some more than that. But on the housing side, it was, I think, a factor of about 10. Yes. Thank you.

Thank you.

Other questions from council members? Alright. Seeing I

would just council member. I would just say broadly, I I have concerns. You know, we can keep this conversation going. But federal cuts, they've cut 40% or so from HUD funding. So I think that is critical when it comes to housing people.

I think one of the one of the best ways to keep somebody out of a crisis, whether it's a mental health crisis or another crisis, is to make sure that they're housed. And I think by making these investments upstream in housing to make sure that families are safe and that people are safe and that we can get people off the streets is is critical. Don't disagree that we need behavioral health centers as well. Those are incredibly expensive, and it would take years and years and years of us kind of stealing money from the housing side to finally figure out how to make an investment in something that's that expensive. I think those are other there are other avenues that we have to look at to find that funding through, you know, things are tight everywhere, but especially state and especially federal funding is something that that that's the kind of size of funding we need for something that easily cost a $100,000,000 as opposed to some millions here that can really help stack the funding.

That's the other interesting thing about housing. It's not just $3,000,000 is going to build a whole bunch of housing. It's going to help put that financing package together. And if you take one of those pieces out, the entire financing package can fall apart. So even if it looks like it's a modest move of just a few million dollars every year into this other fund, few million dollars can be the make or break of of a 100 unit housing that's gonna really make an impact on people's lives around the county.

So I have great concerns. But, again, I think we need some more discussion about how we how these funding stacks work and and what that would mean to even lose well, 20% is significant, but to lose 20% of the funding that has been dedicated to housing and has been used for housing. So I think we just need to have more conversations with more of the folks that do the work, but I appreciate the public comments today.

Other comments? Council Member Low?

Yeah. I attended the crisis stabilization ribbon cutting, I think, last month up in Skagit County, and and that was a partnership with the state and with the county and other dollars. And I don't think this is requiring that we bill, construct, and do the entire thing ourselves, but it puts dedicated money towards helping partner with other organizations and groups to build these type of centers. So I'm okay having a public hearing on this.

So I had a question about we're creating two different funds or creating a new fund now. Is there is there an administrative burden? Is there some type of delay? Is there an additional cost to this?

There's a yes. There is an additional administrative burden. I wanted to clarify that just so with the money that I just wanted to say that with the money that that that we had three times as many proposals. We had dollars. What the council approved that that the PABSS was moving forward the next year's money in order to make that less. But it's still substantially it's there were substantial number of unfunded proposals on the table, and I wanted to make sure I had that on the record. And that means there's much less money that will go out in this next NOFO for housing. Yes. There's an increased administrative burdening for managing two funds as opposed to one.

And what about risk? Is there some risk to it too if we don't hit the certain threshold or if we

I can definitely answer to that. I I'm not aware of an additional risk per se other than there has been a risk that when jurisdictions have held funds, a large number of funds in reserve for which they do not have an immediate or clear present plan, that there's that is looked at and and considered by the state. So there is a risk associated with that.

Thank you. Mhmm. Do you

have other questions or comments from council?

Yeah. If I could just speak briefly. Councilwomanarian? Yeah. Thank you. Appreciate it, and and appreciate the comments on this. So I think from my perspective, Sonoma County needs more behavioral health treatment capacity, especially as we're continuing to respond to, you know, the issues we've talked about, addiction, mental health challenges in the community. When I look at this fund, it's not just this fund. You know, we can think about both fourteen o six, fifteen ninety, CMH, and others. But when we're looking at this in particular, you know, the intent is for both affordable housing and behavioral health, and I think there's a a certainly a lot of need out there.

I think a lot of the focus has been on affordable housing. And and just from my perspective, not enough of a focus on behavioral health, to one of the points that council member Peterson was making, and I I think he's correct on this. You know, when it when you're looking at behavioral health facilities, it costs a lot of money, and it often takes a of time to build up. I think one of the challenges we've had by just doing one off appropriations without building up a fund is you know, it just doesn't work in the behavioral health space in the same way that it does with affordable housing inside that. So I think it's even more important that we establish a separate fund that can be built up so that we can really make meaningful investments in behavioral health in our community.

Yeah. Maybe 20% isn't the right amount. I'm I'm definitely open to conversation on on what that should look like, But I do think it's really critical that we have I think there's been a lot of focus on affordable housing and appreciate all the work that's gone into that. I think a renewed focus on behavioral health and treatment and what we can be doing as a county to to play a role there would be really important. And I think creating this fund that could build up over time and be a little bit more competitive is a is a good way to start that. So that's the reason for moving this forward. Like I said, certainly open to conversation on on what that appropriate amount is, and appreciate all the input that's been provided. Thanks.

Alright. Thank you. Other questions or comments from council members? And how do we feel about moving this forward to set time and date for May 20 GLS?

Councilman Peterson? I just want to make sure that when we do have the public hearing that we give enough kind of there's enough outreach and enough notice to get the service providers time to answer questions and to make presentations. So I think one of the misnomers out there is that we're build building housing without any services, where most of the work that's happening, at least in permanent supportive housing, is housing with services. So I want to make sure that that that is made clear by some of the providers that we have. So I just want to make sure we're rushing this process to make sure that we have enough time to, again, have that kind of robust community conversation other than, I think, just kind of public comment.

I think it would be important to have some of these folks kind of at the table to ask some have a little bit more back and forth to ask some specific questions.

So if we move this to next Wednesday, May 20, GLS to set time and date then, that gives us eight days to do some of the outreach to get some people to show up, and then we can decide then what if we need more time, how far we wanna set out the public hearing. K. Council member Dunn?

I think it would be helpful in time for the public hearing to have some information on the local, tax dollars that could be lost. So there there has been a reduction in some of the, like, HUD funding, but we did see an increase in, funding for the local tax dollars that come in for these types of projects. So there's multiple funding sources that can get really complicated. There's, a number of different state, local, and federal dollars. So I know that there was an increase in the federal dollars, which is why we increased at the policy advisory board level and the ABBA dollars took some of the projected you know, we use some of the money for from this year, which is why the NOFO is smaller.

But, anyway, my concern is that we are taking money that should go out into community and holding it. And so what is the risk that of dollars that we lose at the federal level if we are holding these dollars in reserve and not spending them? What do we lose in a match? So that might be information we can get from our federal partners if we know, what some of those federal matches are moving forward, how much we have, potentially, and then how what amount would we potentially lose by not having those matching dollars.

Alright. Other questions or comments from council members? Okay. So any objections to moving this to May 20 GLS agenda to set time and date? Hearing none, we will go ahead and do that. Alright. Our last ordinance now, item three, ordinance 26 dash zero one nine.

Ordinance 26 dash zero one nine would add a new section to Snohomish County code that would implement two requirements for solicitation, scoring metrics, subrecipient agreements, and contracts for county funding for housing or the operation of county owned housing. First, it would make it so the materials just mentioned could not require, incentivize, or give priority to those who provide temporary or permanent housing to individuals without any conditions or with minimal entry and or participation requirements. Second, it would make it so that these materials could not prohibit, discourage, or give lower priority to those who include sobriety, treatment counseling, or drug testing as part of their program. While this applies to all county funding, including pass through funds, there is a carve out for state and federal grants that if it that grant requires or incentivizes the use of such housing and complying with this section would cause the county to lose funding, that this section would not apply. And I will turn it to council for consideration.

Alright. Thank you. Questions or comments from council members? Or councilmember Nearing? Did you wanna speak to it?

Sure. Yeah. Thank you, chairman. I appreciate it. And I know we're getting into lunchtime here, so I apologize for the for the lengthy meeting, but I'll I'll try to be brief on this one. So this proposal, the intent is just to restore balance in how the county approaches housing and addiction policy. Right now, Housing First programs are heavily incentivized both the state and the federal level. Obviously, there's a lot of shifting dynamics at the federal level, and I think some welcome conversations about diversity of different types of programs. And and I think certainly Housing First works in some scenarios. I think in other scenarios, you know, more of a recovery oriented housing with some additional accountability measures can work better as well.

And so I think making sure that we set a policy as a county that we are having a level playing field and we're, you know, open to to any and all proposals for consideration is important, and that's what this aims to do. You know, I've had some really good conversations with MJ, Lacey, the rest of the exec team, and and I appreciate the great work that they're doing. But, you know, we don't know who the next MJ or the next Lacey is gonna be. And so I think it's important that we enact in the code what we'd like to see as a county, especially with all the changes that are being contemplated at the federal level, which I think will have an impact on, you know, putting a little bit more of the onus locally on what we wanna require or not require. I think, ensuring that we have a policy that we're gonna consider all of these different range of, of ideas and and give them all a a fair shot is important. Thanks.

Thank you, Councilwoman. Any questions or comments from council members from other council members? Councilwoman Dunn?

Well, would just note that this adds a lot of bureaucracy and red tape around these local dollars. We do not currently incentivize for Housing First with our projects. So we received the NOFOs. We can you can read them yourself. They may be they may be incentivized at the federal and state level, but they're not with our local dollars.

And so it just makes it very complicated for these these housing developers to fund projects with up to 10 different revenue streams to then have just more and more bureaucracy, more and more red tape. So it adds complication to projects. It could potentially slow them down, make them more expensive. And it's hard to piece out the different funding sources and requirements around all those dollars to have specific requirements around these specific dollars for this one reason for one council member who might be opposed to a peer reviewed, best practice that is found to have better, outputs for for community and for health and human safety.

Other council members? So I don't know if this would be a question for MJ or Lacey or maybe Cynthia, but this is adding red tape, adding steps, or removing steps. But the way I've interpreted it is it makes it simpler. We're not ask or we're not giving extra bonuses or consideration to certain groups or certain applicants. But does that add red tape?

So from our perspective, we are neutral to this proposal because we think it has minimal impact.

Okay. That's what my understanding was is we don't we don't we don't require any of this already. So it kinda kinda doesn't do anything, but it doesn't certainly doesn't increase the burden on applicants. My knowledge. Right.

Okay. Thank you.

Other questions or comments? Yes. I can just

make make one response real real quickly. As I said earlier, I I do think that there are situations where Housing First works great. So I just wanna make sure I clarify, based on council member Dunn's comments. Not entirely opposed. I think there are situations where that is a great approach. I just don't think it's a universal approach for any and all situations. I think that recovery housing can be really valuable. We've heard from a lot of different recovery housing providers and had some really great discussions at council. And and I think there's been some really, you know, really productive back and forth on that. And so I I I think it's important that we give as many opportunities as possible, open up the door for, you know, a diverse array of proposals. But, but, certainly, this is not an effort to stop one type and and move toward another. It's just making sure that we're taking all into consideration. Thanks.

Alright. Other comments or questions? Councilman, we're done.

So just the comment on adding red tape. So if we're adding a new section that prohibits something, that is adding a bureaucratic process to something that does not exist right now. So there is not a section. There is this adds a new section to a chapter that doesn't exist. So there isn't a current requirement around these dollars for this. So by adding a new section, you're adding new requirements and new red tape that did not exist before. So it's not being done. We are not we don't have that requirement now. But to add something that prohibits it puts a restriction on the department that did not exist before.

It I'm not trying to be combative. I'm I'm actually very interested in your line of thinking right now because it will help me understand how I wanna move forward on this too. But from what I understand, the language in this is just saying the county it prohibits the county from giving additional credence or bonus points in the application process to projects that do certain things, Housing First being named. So if

we Councilmember Dunn is correct, that it does create restrictions on how the money will be utilized. But in terms of how we administer the fund, I don't

Wouldn't the restrictions be if we all of a sudden decided Housing First, our programs are gonna get additional credits or whatever during the application process. And so, therefore, when we are now taking new applicants, we have to consider this new thing because in in policy we put that we more value this project than this. That I feel like is additional burdens and it makes sense to me and maybe it's a policy decision we'd want to make or not. But simply saying we cannot require that or give bonus points for that. I don't my barbarian is not getting to where that is an additional administrative burden or red tape.

If it was, I mean, I it would help me decide how I wanna move forward on this. But if this is just preventing status quo or it's just maintaining status quo right now, we don't require housing first. So in the the future, we're not gonna require housing first, which is what I interpret this policy as. I don't understand the argument for this is creating more red tape.

Again, we are neutral to this proposal. I think you could make arguments either way, but we are, at this point, not prioritizing Housing First. This is not a current requirement.

I hear that.

Jared, I I would say that it depends on probably how you define red tape and what current practices are now and what they could be in the future. Right now, it doesn't have an operational impact. And while, yes, it does, if you define red tape as a new requirement that the department has to adhere to, technically speaking, yes. That it's a new requirement even though they're already compliant. Operationally, it's not gonna change what they do. Down the future, if they wanted to do housing first and incentivize it, then operationally, it would have an impact. But

If this ordinance didn't pass and down the future, some other organization or administration decided to implement housing first, that would be the red tape this is preventing.

Can I add something, Sharmid?

Yep.

Yeah. Thank you. And sorry. I know I said I was gonna be brief here. So if if the question about red tape is does this add to the code, yeah, clearly, adds language to the code. So when we're all doing our our nighttime reading of the county code, it's gonna take us a little bit longer to read through, the whole thing. But I think when it comes to the the practicality of it, you know, if if there are federal shifts that allow for increased flexibility, I can certainly foresee a scenario where we have a a question before us as a county of, k. We've got some funding available. Do we wanna add restrictions to it? Whether that's Housing First or anything else, or do we want it to those funds to be as flexible as possible.

That decision's gonna have to be made one way or another, whether that's by department staff, administration, county council. That decision will have to be made. So I think this makes you know, sets in the policy what our position is as a council. So in my mind, it reduces the the burden down the road when when that question is asked. I don't see adding language to the code necessarily as as a burden in and of itself.

Thank you, councilmember Neri. Other comments or questions from council? Okay. So the motion would or the proposal for me would be to move this to May 20, same as last ordinance to set time and date. Everybody alright with that?

Okay. I think it's kind of moving I I think it would be important to keep these last two ordinances maybe on the same schedule because on the one hand, with the previous ordinance, we're looking to reduce the amount of funding dollars. Then with this ordinance, we're in some ways looking to increase the types of housing that get those funding dollars. Absolutely. There's a space for Oxford House, sober living.

But we also want to make sure that we're getting as many dollars out to to those all of those critical types of housing as possible. So I think it would be important to have these two ordinances kind of in tandem as we're looking at scheduling just because I think there is kind of some conflict in both of these. Thanks.

All right. We'll remember that on May 20 then when we're setting time and date and we can decide then on the timing. Any other comments before we move this forward? All right. Then we will go ahead and move Ordinance 20 six-nineteen to GLS May 20 to set time and date. And that brings us to the end of our agenda for this committee. Council will be in recess until 01:00 for community safety and justice. Thank you.