Loading...
Cmd50522 spec mtg Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 5, 2022 Page 1 EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING – VIRTUAL/ONLINE MINUTES May 5, 2022 ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Vivian Olson, Mayor Pro Tem Diane Buckshnis, Council President Pro Tem Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember Will Chen, Councilmember Neil Tibbott, Councilmember Councilmember Susan Paine, Councilmember Laura Johnson, Councilmember ELECTED OFFICIALS ABSENT Mike Nelson, Mayor STAFF PRESENT Michelle Bennett, Police Chief Shannon Burley, Deputy Parks, Rec., Cultural Arts & Human Services Director Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Patricia Taraday, City Attorney’s Office Scott Passey, City Clerk 1. CALL TO ORDER The Edmonds City Council virtual online meeting was called to order at 8:02 p.m. by Mayor Pro Tem Olson. 2. ROLL CALL City Clerk Scott Passey called the roll. All elected officials were present, participating remotely, with the exception of Mayor Nelson. 3. COUNCIL BUSINESS 1. PROPOSED ORDINANCE ADDING NEW CHAPTER, CHAPTER 5.70 ENTITLED “UNLAWFUL OCCUPATION OF PUBLIC PROPERTY" TO CITY CODE Patricia Taraday, city attorney’s office, advised tonight is continued discussion from the last council meeting. An updated ordinance was circulated that included the amendments voted on at the last meeting. She was happy to answer any questions. Councilmember Paine began to make an amendment. Council President Pro Tem Buckshnis raised a point of order, whether the main motion was already on the table. City Attorney Jeff Taraday said this is not an adjourned meeting, it is a special meeting. If it was an adjourned meeting, the motion would already be on the table, but since it is a special meeting, the motion is not on the table. To make things smooth and straightforward, he recommended the council agree to continue where they left off which was a motion to adopt the pending ordinance and that motion had been amended by a motion made by Councilmember Chen which was further amended by Mayor Pro Tem Olson. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 5, 2022 Page 2 If the council wants to start where it left off on Tuesday, it would be with that amended version. That would require a consensus of the council as this is a special meeting, not a continuation of the last session. MAYOR PRO TEM OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM BUCKSHNIS, TO CONTINUE FROM WHERE WE HAD BEEN. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. COUNCILMEMBER PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY MAYOR PRO TEM OLSON, TO AMEND CHAPTER 5.70.020 DEFINITIONS, AFTER THE WORD “CHARGE” ADD “MUST BE LOCATED WITHIN A 35 MILE RADIUS WITH THE STARTING POINT OF EDMONDS CITY HALL.” Councilmember Paine explained the reason she was asking for this change was to have a smaller service radius. Including a geographical limitation and looking at the available overnight shelter will benefit individuals by keeping them near the resources they know and allow them to maintain relationship with nearby services and friendships. It also helps the human services program focus on local resources rather than chasing down far-flung overnight shelters from across the state. Councilmember Tibbott said he agreed with this the amendment in principle and appreciated the reasons that were identified. His one concern was someone may prefer another location. For example, someone who moved here from Yakima and wanted to move closer to family or friends. There should be an exception for someone who has a preference to move outside the 35 mile radius. Councilmember Paine said she did not see this as being restrictive when there were extenuating circumstances. This is related to the search for overnight shelter. If shelter was identified outside the purposes of this ordinance, that could occur. For purposes of the ordinance, she wanted to keep it focused to allow resources to be well managed and also serve the individual in a way that’s most helpful. Councilmember Tibbott asked if the attorneys understood the amendment that way, applying only to the search radius for the City and not for extenuating circumstances. Ms. Taraday said the way she interpreted the amendment to the definition of available overnight shelter would mean the geographic area that could be considered as available before some is cited for a crime would be within the area cited. Shelter could be arranged for someone outside that geographical radius and she did not see that as a limiting factor. Councilmember Paine restated the amendment: CHANGE SECTION 5.70.020 DEFINITIONS, AFTER “CHARGE” ADD “MUST BE LOCATED WITHIN A 35 MILE RADIUS WITH A STARTING POINT OF EDMONDS CITY HALL”. AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Councilmember L. Johnson referred to an email received today from the Edmonds diversity commission stating they would like to go on record opposing the unlawful occupation of public property ordinance that would criminalize homelessness if unhoused people declined services and will also disproportionately affect and hurt GLBTQ+ and people of color. Instead of criminalizing the unhoused, we suggest the City of Edmonds create services and infrastructure to assist those in need. The council also received letters from multiple elected officials in neighboring jurisdictions as well as state representatives imploring the council to remain a partner in addressing this crisis and not shift the burden onto neighboring cities. The council has also received a lot of input from citizens. She asked Deputy Parks, Recreation, Cultural Arts & Human Services Director Shannon Burley and Police Chief Michelle Bennett what is the urgency, is this an emergency and is it necessary to pass it tonight or does the council have time to slow down and take into consideration input from advisory committees and what other electeds and experts are saying, that this doesn’t resolve homelessness, that services need to be in place. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 5, 2022 Page 3 Chief Bennett answered anytime someone is unhoused and does not have the proper care especially in weather like this, for her and her staff, they consider it emergent to get someone the care they need whether it is medical, shelter, warm clothing or social services. Councilmember L. Johnson asked if this ordinance specifically was an emergency. Chief Bennett answered the ordinance gives them more ability to contact people. They currently contact people, offer them services, and take them to services and this ordinance provides a bit of a push if they do not want to accept services, they can be advised that public property is not somewhere they can stay which helps propel people into services they probably desperately need. Chief Bennett continued, in the last couple weeks, there have been a couple complaints, generally community members who see things and are upset. However, anyone driving on Highway 99 will see a number encampments, tents or other signs of people experiencing being unhoused; those are the people they really want to help. Ms. Burley agreed, stating from a human services perspective, they are trying to find shelter as quickly as possible for every person referred to them. With or without an ordinance, that is what they do. Councilmember L. Johnson asked what the $1000 and 90 days were based on. Ms. Taraday answered the $1000 and 90 days are the maximum penalty for any misdemeanor. This is a misdemeanor crime and the maximum penalty the court could impose would be a $1000 fine or 90 days in jail. As written in the ordinance, the first offense carries no mandatory penalty, the second offense has a mandatory penalty of $100 fine and 1 day in jail and the third offense also has a mandatory penalty. However, the ordinance states monetary penalties will be waived for those unable to pay. In that case, the court is asked to provide an opportunity for community service or work crew in lieu of a monetary penalty. Councilmember L. Johnson commented these are individuals who cannot afford shelter and the proposal is to start with the maximum for a first offense. She realized it was up to the maximum. If a person had $1000, they likely wouldn’t be sleeping out in the open. For an individual who is struggling, $50 is probably an insurmountable amount. Ms. Taraday answered the language in the ordinance is the statutory language regarding the definition of what constitutes a misdemeanor. In no way would it imply that a fine of $1000 would be imposed for the first offense. Paragraph 4 states if the person is unable to pay, the court is urged to waive the monetary penalty, understanding the circumstance that Councilmember L. Johnson outlined. Councilmember L. Johnson asked why the first offense would be a misdemeanor and were there other options. Chief Bennett answered without it being a misdemeanor, the only option would be to cite and citing would only be monetary so it has no teeth, just giving a person a piece of paper and walking away. Councilmember L. Johnson asked if the council as the legislative body had the discretion to start with a lower amount. Chief Bennett asked if she meant the fine when it went to court or it initially not being a misdemeanor. Councilmember L. Johnson answered either; if it went to court, could the council specify a different amount for the first offense in the ordinance. Ms. Taraday answered the council could mandate a certain amount for the first offense, recalling there was consideration of $50. If a minimum fine is included, that fine would apply to anyone that was unlawfully occupying public property, not just someone who is unhoused. Councilmember L. Johnson asked what is the point of this; it seems like a way to justify $1000 when this is clearly targeted at those who are unhoused, that cannot be sugarcoated. She compared it to a parent making punishment appropriate, stating a $1000 for someone who does not have shelter is so far out of appropriate. Ms. Taraday answered the council could make the first offense a mandatory $25, that is a legislative decision the council could create with an amendment. Chief Bennett said for people who are unhoused and do not have money, it could be the court’s decision upon discretion not to impose any monetary fee. Mandating a certain dollar amount takes away the discretion to not impose any fee. She could not imagine the current judge imposing a fee for the first offense. The statutory language is up to $1000, that is rarely imposed even for theft or assault cases. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 5, 2022 Page 4 Councilmember L. Johnson agreed with Chief Bennett with regard to the current judicial branch, but this is an ordinance the City is putting its name on. While Chief Bennett and the judge are in place now, that could change. She did not want to impose a minimum and wanted the maximum lowered. She was happy with zero but did not think $1000 was in any way, shape or form appropriate. There are so many loopholes in this because it is related to services and what constitutes adequate shelter for each individual so it is ripe for abuse. That is not an attack or judging the police department or human services; this is legislation that will be in place going forward. She did not support doing this to begin with. Mayor Pro Tem Olson advised Councilmember L. Johnson was approaching 15 minutes of commentary and suggested she finish in the next two minutes and make a motion if she wished. Councilmember L. Johnson reiterated she did not support this ordinance, but given she is here and has an opportunity to reduce the fine, she made the following amendment: COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PAINE, THAT THE MAXIMUM ON THE FIRST OFFENSE WOULD BE $25. Councilmember L. Johnson said the council is talking about those among us that have the least; if you don’t have housing, what do you have and a fine of $25 is still extremely punitive. Council President Pro Tem Buckshnis did not support the amendment, commenting in reading 5.70, the entire amount can be waived. This puts a dollar amount on it; an individual may not even have $25. Specifying a dollar amount eliminates the leeway to change it. Councilmember Tibbott did not support the amendment, agreeing with the points Council President Pro Tem Buckshnis made. There are also some legal reasons for retaining the $1000 amount that is assigned to other misdemeanors and a lower amount would create another category. Councilmember Paine expressed support for the amendment, noting the goal of reducing the fine was obvious. Imposing a $1000 fine creates a huge burden; the person is unhoused and struggling and is already in poverty and it makes life that much more difficult for them by accumulating more criminal history. The unfairness of this because the individual is poor and unhoused are status crimes that only apply to people who do not have a place to live, who are trying to get shelter when they are in a situation they probably don’t want to be in and are having a difficult time finding a way out of it. Having a fine over $25 makes it more difficult for a person to make the strides they need for self-sufficiency. She supported a maximum $25 fine. Ms. Taraday clarified the $1000 fine is the maximum fine that would be imposed as a category of a misdemeanor, the fine could be zero or up to $1000. The way the amendment is proposed is up to $25, it could be zero, but not more than $25. Councilmember K. Johnson did not support the amendment language because she felt the language as written was appropriate and it will be up to the municipal judge to make the determination regarding the amount the plaintiff needs to pay. She believed it was structured in an appropriate manner and she was ready to ready to vote no on the amendment and to support the main motion. Councilmember Chen agreed the monetary amount is up to the maximum and the municipal court judge will make that determination. He summarized the existing language was appropriate. Mayor Pro Tem Olson commented there was one case recently where $30,000 was found on someone who was unhoused. It is not an automatic assumption, and as staff has repeatedly said, it is not one size fits all, Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 5, 2022 Page 5 so leaving it in the court’s hands to make that assessment is appropriate because only they will know all the circumstances that were found by the first responders. Councilmember L. Johnson restated the amendment: TO REDUCE THE FIRST OFFENSE TO BE A MAXIMUM OF UP TO $25. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (2-5), COUNCILMEMBERS PAINE AND L. JOHNSON VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, CHEN, TIBBOTT, COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM BUCKSHNIS AND MAYOR PRO TEM OLSON VOTING NO. Councilmember Chen referred to 5.70.060 Rules, which states, The chief of police is hereby authorized to adopt rules, regulations, administrative policies, and procedures for implementing the provisions of this chapter. He asked what rules would be used to implement this policy. Chief Bennett answered most often what happens is, 1) the police are dispatched when there is a complaint, worry or request for a welfare check for a person on the sidewalk that is in crisis, or 2) the police are driving around (on-view or self- initiated activity) and see tents, shopping carts, bags, etc. In either situation, the police offer services and contact human services to inform Ms. Burley or Ms. Woods there is someone in crisis, provide descriptors and their location, and then either Ms. Burley, Ms. Woods or once a social worker is hired, will come out and do an assessment once it is determined it is a safe place for them to be, There are myriad other options with Compass Health, Swedish Edmonds Hospital and Snohomish County crisis teams, etc. Chief Bennett continued, here are a lot of different entities who can provide assistance. The police department’s procedure would be to first contact human services and attempt to get the person the help they need. The next thing would be to offer shelter if the person is willing which is something the police do now. If there is no available shelter, many times the person is offered a motel voucher. She clarified the police department’s process is not, oh you have a tent and are camping, you’re under arrest. The only time camping on public property would become arrestable under this ordinance is if services are available and they are offered and the person does not want them and are told the City has an ordinance that does not allow camping on public property. They would need to either pack up their things and find another place, or they could accept shelter. Many times when she worked in the Shoreline area, the person would get on a bus to Seattle or elsewhere. It is not an automatic arrest just because the person is unhoused. The only part of the ordinance that is enforceable is if they are offered shelter, refuse it and then refuse to leave. Ms. Burley said in addition to what Chief Bennett said, this ordinance requires property storage. While the current property storage facilities or procedures could be identified, those may change; property storage may need to be larger, smaller, etc. This is why it was important to leave some of the implementation and operational details in the hands of the police chief instead of codifying them. Once they are in the ordinance, for example, if a specific location for property storage was identified, the ordinance would need to be amended if the location changed. Chief Bennett said the rules related to property storage could change due to state law. Property storage is only necessary if a person refuses to leave, won’t accept services and they are arrested. It would be important for the person’s dignity to store the person’s belonging safely so they can retrieve them. Councilmember Chen asked how long it would take for the police department or human services department to develop documented procedures. Chief Bennett answered it can be difficult to have a standard operating procedure (SOP) because every situation is a little different. As much as she would like to say there is a script and an exact way things would be done, it will depend on the circumstances. Their general guidance now would not change; the first thing they try to do is gain assistance for the person and contact human services. That is always the first step unless a crime is already happening, there has been an assault, the person is out of touch with reality or threatening harm to themselves in which case it is an ITA. It varies depending on what is happening with the individual. Without a crime or the person needing medical or imminent mental health treatment, their standard procedure now is to call human services to do an Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 5, 2022 Page 6 assessment if they are available. If human services are not available such as at night, officers try to do a referral. Councilmember Chen said he was not interested in details regarding storage but rather a general guidance procedure. He asked if that would take one or two weeks to develop that documentation. Mayor Pro Tem Olson asked if the Public Safety, Planning and Personnel (PSPP) committee could review the implementation plan when it is developed. Chief Bennett answered it would be difficult to encapsulate what will happen with each event. If this ordinance passes, what is mostly like to happen is she will put out a general order to the staff saying this ordinance is now in effect, as you make contact, contact human services, procedures for property if there is an arrest, etc. It would outline as a general order how the ordinance will work. She was hesitant to get into too many specifics because she did not want to box officers into anything when things vary so greatly. Councilmember Chen said that leaves uncertainty regarding the implementation because each officer would handle things differently. Chief Bennett said she would be happy to have council see the general order, but if she wrote procedures saying contact human services, human services comes out to do an assessment and offer housing, they may encounter a person that is in a mental crisis that requires an ITA which would require straying from the SOP. The general order needs to be broad enough for the various types of things that can happen. Another situation could be that a person is unhoused and there has been a theft or a third drug possession or other criminal activity, so that would not follow a standard SOP because the first thing would be to make an arrest due to criminal activity. She summarized there are a lot of different variable and factors, but as a general guideline, the general order to the officers will say minus a criminal complaint or an ITA, contact human services, offer shelter, how to handle property if an arrest is made, etc. She will provide general guidance but there has to be room for dynamic situations that can change quickly. Mayor Pro Tem Olson advised Councilmember Chen his questions/comments were approaching 15 minutes. If he had a motion, it should be made and if he had further questions, she will circle back to him. COUNCILMEMBER CHEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PAINE, TO ALLOW SUFFICIENT TIME FOR OUR CHIEF OF POLICE TO COME UP WITH A GENERAL GUIDANCE FOR PROCEDURES AND IMPLEMENTATIONS. Councilmember Chen commented this is dealing with homeless people and putting those people into custody and facing fines so this policy impacts people’s lives. He wanted to at least have general guidance regarding implementation so officers on duty have rules and procedures to follow, otherwise each officer will approach the situation differently. Given the situation, he would feel more comfortable if he had an opportunity to see those procedures. Mr. Taraday explained a lot of what the chief described are administrative details that the police chief and the police department will work out. To the extend the council wants to provide policy guidance, it certainly can but he believed what the chief described sounded like administrative details that are generally left to the administration to work through. If the motion was asking for an informational report from the chief regarding the rules that were developed and how they would be implemented, that is entirely appropriate. He asked whether the motion was seeking an informational report from the chief or whether it was to have the council approve the rules. Councilmember Chen said attaching information to the ordinance supporting the rules would also work. He wanted to know the guidance and procedures. He recall last Tuesday he proposed offers of shelter be documented because he did not want the City offering empty promises and just drive people out. He was happy with Councilmember Paine’s amendment limiting the radius to 35 miles from City Hall to ensure the City was not just driving people out and was sincere about providing help to people in crisis. This is another Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 5, 2022 Page 7 way to know that officers have a roadmap to follow. He suggested the police chief prepare that documentation and have it as an attachment to the ordinance. Councilmember Tibbott said what he heard described by Chief Bennett was the way the police department operates. They are trained professional; if the council adds SOPs to the ordinance, there will be hundreds of other ordinances where SOPs could be requested. He preferred to keep the ordinance the way it is and let the police department do their work. If need oversight or a report needs to be requested, that could be done later and does not need to be part of ordinance. He did not support the amendment. Councilmember Paine said she was very familiar with how rule making goes due to her past experience; rulemaking has always been the purview of the administration who put things into operation. Typically it is a courtesy, it’s helpful for the policy makers to know there are good rule making steps in place, but it is up to the administration to make those rules and ensure they are workable. With regard to the checklist Chief Bennett listed, she asked what happened if halfway through someone being onery and picked up, they say okay I’ll accept housing, would it be possible to back out. Chief Bennett answered absolutely, that would be whole goal, to get the person the help they need. If during the process they changed their mind and wanted to accept housing, that could happen. Councilmember Paine referred to the rule making and procedures described in ordinance 5.07.060, and said documenting a point or two on the webpage would be adequate for her. It may be helpful to have a report every 12-18 months from the police department describing the highs, lows, good and bad, particularly if this ordinance is enacted. Chief Bennett agreed a report could be provided to describe how things are going. Councilmember L. Johnson commented the council is debating the civil liberties of the most vulnerable residents. She referred to Section 5.70.060, relaying her understanding that the rules, regulation, administrative policies will be worked out and are not in place yet. The council also hasn’t defined what constituted adequate. The Boise case is based on the 8th Amendment related to cruel and unusual punishment. She asked whether it was cruel to criminalize someone sleeping on the street when shelter options are constrained by mental illness or addition. If the shelter will not accept them due to those issues, she wondered if they would be criminalized because they were mental ill or addicted. Councilmember L. Johnson respected that staff was saying the first goal was to work with them and find them services, yet with the woman last summer, which seems to be the impetus for much of this ordinance, there were a lot of hurdles to overcome. If this ordinance had been in place, she wondered if the time necessary would have been taken to find the services that fit that woman’s needs and got her in the place she is today or would the process have been rushed before appropriate services were found for her, an Edmonds resident who was unhoused. None of that is answered in the ordinance, yet the council is being asked to vote on it and say it will be worked out. As Councilmember Chen said, there should at least be an attachment that identifies the process as it exists today. Chief Bennett said without a crystal ball, she did not know how quickly last summer’s situation would have been resolved. She knew that the length of time it took caused a lot of difficult times for the family living in the house next door, fear by their children, etc. She referred to a person with mental health struggles sleeping in a city park which is a violation and a misdemeanor who was asked to leave numerous times, and finally given a citation because the police wanted arrest to be the absolutely last resort. The police tried everything, offering services, got Ms. Burley involved, and a mental health professional came out who he unfortunately threatened. On the third night the officers warned him if he was there the next day, they would arrest him and take him to jail. Chief Bennett continued, he was there the next night and was arrested and taken to jail and released within 12 hours. The police stored his property which he retrieved but he never came back to the park. It was a Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 5, 2022 Page 8 violation and it wasn’t until there were consequences to his behavior that he stopped sleeping in that park. He was scaring people and staff and there were numerous calls about him. He eventually got the services he needed and is now happily housed. With regard to the woman who was unhoused, Chief Bennett said she eventually got the services she needed and it was unfortunate it took many months and created a lot of issues for the adults and children who lived there. The police department’s ultimate goal is to serve everyone in the community to the best of their ability. Councilmember L. Johnson asked when someone is offered services, is it confirmed that there are services available to them. Mayor Pro Tem Olson asked councilmembers to keep their comments to the amendment. Councilmember L. Johnson said Mayor Pro Tem Olson was choosing the questions she could ask and the appropriateness of her questions and she was speaking to the motion. COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT CALLED THE QUESTION. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION TO CALL THE QUESTION CARRIED (5-2), COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, CHEN, TIBBOTT, COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM BUCKSHNIS AND MAYOR PRO TEM OLSON VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS PAINE AND L. JOHNSON VOTING NO. Councilmember L. Johnson raised a point of clarification, was Councilmember Chen’s motion that it would be an attachment to the ordinance. Councilmember Chen restated the amendment: REQUEST POLICE CHIEF BENNETT COME UP WITH OPERATING PROCEDURES TO BE AN ATTACHMENT FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS ORDINANCE. Council President Pro Tem Buckshnis raised a point of order and offered to make a substitute motion. Mr. Taraday advised that was not permitted as the question had been called. AMENDMENT FAILED (2-5), COUNCILMEMBERS CHEN AND L. JOHNSON VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, TIBBOTT, PAINE, COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM BUCKSHNIS AND MAYOR PRO TEM OLSON VOTING NO. Councilmember Tibbott expressed support for the motion as amended. A lot of assumptions have been made, one of which is if a councilmember supports the ordinance, they are unsympathetic to people in different situations and are unhoused. That is not accurate; most would say they want the best for people in difficult situations. There is also an assumption that people who are unhoused in the City’s parks or in other public places are from Edmonds, but that is unknown and there have been many circumstances to the contrary. Another assumption is there are no resources; more resources are coming from Snohomish County and the Health District than there were a year ago and the state has significantly increased funding and is about to double it again. He had an extensive conversation this week with an assistant to the county executive who said more resources are being developed both for housing and mental health support. The assumption that there are no resources is not accurate. Allowing people to stay in parks or occupy public space has not worked out well in other cities and he could cite examples. COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT CALLED THE QUESTION. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (2-5), COUNCILMEMBERS TIBBOTT AND MAYOR PRO TEM OLSON VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, CHEN, PAINE AND L. JOHNSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM BUCKSHNIS VOTING NO. Councilmember K. Johnson observed the council has received many emails from people who support this general idea and others who do not support it. She asked Ms. Taraday whether other cities in Snohomish Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 5, 2022 Page 9 County that have similar ordinances. Ms. Taraday answered when the city attorney’s office was approached to review this issue, they were asked to look at the City of Redmond’s ordinance and they also researched other ordinances. The City of Mercer Island as well as other cities have recently passed ordinances, but was unsure off the top of her head which other cities in Snohomish County have similar ordinances. Chief Bennett advised Lynnwood does. Ms. Taraday said a lot of cities are implementing and adopting these types of ordinances. Councilmember K. Johnson asked Chief Bennett to explain the procedural process for implementing the ordinance as written. Chief Bennett answered procedurally if the police department is called to or through an on-view or self-initiated activity come upon a person who is camping overnight, officers first contact human services to ascertain what kind of services the person can be provided and what their needs are and offer assistance. If no shelter is available, there are no motel vouchers available, and there is no place for a person to go, the police will simply leave the scene. The ordinance does not allow for any action if no shelter is available which is part of the Boise decision. If there is shelter available or there are motel vouchers, about half the time a person will take a motel voucher, and transportation is provided. Once the person is provided shelter, human services continues to offer wraparound services such as a caseworker’s assessment to assist the person more holistically. If the person refuses shelter or motel voucher and indicates they plan to stay, they will be told the City has an ordinance that does not allow overnight camping and they could be arrested if they remain. At that point the person is free to go elsewhere. If the person refuses to leave, the person would be placed under arrest. At any point, the person could agree to accept shelter or accept other assistance. Councilmember K. Johnson commented without this ordinance, it seems like the police have no final alternative, they cannot say the person will be arrested. Chief Bennett said without the ordinance, the officers would have to walk away and the person can continue to camp there for infinity and the police have no recourse. Councilmember K. Johnson said that is what some cities to south have been dealing with. Councilmember K. Johnson asked Ms. Burley if she had anything else to add regarding her experiences with homeless persons in Edmonds. Mayor Pro Tem Olson asked if her question was related to passage of the ordinance. Councilmember K. Johnson answered yes. Ms. Burley answered it is a really complex issue, staff sees so many different types of people with different types of crises. From a procedural perspective, human services relies on the police department to ensure the safety of the social worker and/or first responder which is why they make the initial contact and not human services. Once human services knows the situation is safe, they need to know quite a bit of information about the individual because each shelter has unique strengths, weakness and opportunities. For example, if the person was male, a women only shelter would not accept them. A domestic violence situation is treated also differently. There was an individual who was disabled and in a wheelchair, but only available room didn’t work because there were stairs. There are a host of questions that need to be answered before human services can begin seeking available shelter. Ms. Burley continued, in practice, most likely a temporary hotel voucher would be offered to buy human services more time to seek a longer term solution. A call from Chief Bennett in the middle of night and human services calling shelters will not yield much, because shelters are also closed. There are limitation to securing shelter for an individual. Understanding a person’s mental health status and substance abuse disorder status also matters because some shelters will accept individuals who need wraparound services and others will not. Often a motel may deny services to someone who is deescalating or would do better in a medical setting. She summarized finding shelter takes time. She appreciated Chief Bennett bringing up one of the individuals that human services has worked with who is now in permanent supportive housing. To help that person get to that situation, there needed to be an opportunity to connect with the individual and they were resistant to efforts to help. Staff does encounter situations where it is equally heartbreaking Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 5, 2022 Page 10 that people aren’t willing to accept the help staff wants to provide to help them help themselves. The vast majority of people want to be off streets and usually people say yes to available shelter. Councilmember K. Johnson asked how frequently they encounter homeless people and how many homeless people human services has found housing for in the past year. Ms. Burley said human services is contacted by individuals experiencing housing crisis nearly every day. Not all those individuals are living in tents on a sidewalk. There are a lot of housing insecure people in Edmonds in need of help and staff is in a constant cycle of connecting people to appropriate services. She acknowledged the council has received numerous emails regarding the wait list to get into shelters and into services and even how long it takes after calling 211 to receive services. Councilmember K. Johnson said she did not have a feeling for how many homeless people were sleeping on sidewalks or encampments or the interurban trail. Ms. Burley answered the number of people they have received complaints about due to where people are living is quite low right now. The police encounter many more people than human services is trying to coordinate housing for. Staff has heard loud and clear from Chief Bennett that the social worker cannot start soon enough and staff is aware the police department has a list of people they want to try to get services for as soon the social worker is hired. It may be a better question for Chief Bennett regarding how many people the police encounter that this ordinance may apply to. With regard to the number of housing insecure people human services is working with, it is a lot. As the Kone report indicated, many of them are couch surfing, staying with relatives, or finding other shelter. The Parks crew is aware of a couple of people they encounter on a more regular basis. It is a transitory situation where there are significant services to the south and north of Edmonds and services in this region are incredibly limited. Often when individuals are connected to services, they have to go elsewhere. Councilmember K. Johnson said those answers were helpful in considering the main motion. Council President Pro Tem Buckshnis referred to Section 5.70.060 Rules, stating her belief that SOPs should not be required and she concurred with Councilmember Paine’s comments. She was going to make a substitute motion to request semi-annual reports be made to the PSPP committee and asked if that would be possible. Chief Bennett answered she can do whatever the council asks, recognizing there are limited resources. As a councilmember can always ask for a report to a committee, she was unsure she wanted to codify that request. Council President Pro Tem Buckshnis said reports would help councilmembers and citizens understand the status. She had total faith in the police department, noting body cameras would also be helpful, and the police departments procedures are very empathetic and compassionate. Mayor Pro Tem Olson referred to feedback about a sense of rushing this through. This has been a topic of conversation and a work in progress for many months, beginning with the work done by the homelessness task force where this concept originated along with many other things dealing with the underlying causes. Since the task force concluded in January 2022, the city attorney, human services program manager and the police chief have been working together to construct the ordinance. This is the third time it has been before council. At this point if councilmember have amendments, those could be discussed, but councilmembers know how they plan to vote on the overall concept and it would be beneficial to conclude this tonight. Ordinance and codes are not permanent and if the council becomes aware of an area that needs improvement, it can be revisited. She noted the time, 9:25 p.m., and was hopeful councilmembers would support extending the meeting if further discussion was needed. Councilmember L. Johnson referred to the procedure that Chief Bennett described when the police department encounters someone who looks like they intend to spend the night outside on public property, that they call human services to make an assessment. She assumed the police often encounter people in the evening hours. She asked the human services division’s hours, noting until this week, the human services manager was part time but is now full time and the City does not have a social worker or anyone available 24/7. She asked how an assessment was made if there was no one on the clock to do it and what the Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 5, 2022 Page 11 procedure was at that point. Chief Bennett answered all the sergeants have been issued credit cards as a result of $7,000 in emergency relief funds provided by Snohomish County. If it is nighttime and officers are unable to contact human services, a shelter, or other methodology, several times sergeants have purchased a motel room for the person and gotten them to the motel. The same rules would apply if the person refused shelter, etc. The person’s information and location is then given to Ms. Burley or Ms. Woods via email or phone call that night or the next morning so they can do an assessment. COUNCILMEMBER PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER CHEN, TO EXTEND TO 9:50. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (4-3) FOR LACK OF A SUPER MAJORITY, COUNCILMEMBERS CHEN AND PAINE, COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM BUCKSHNIS, AND MAYOR PRO TEM OLSON VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, TIBBOTT AND L. JOHNSON VOTING NO. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY MAYOR PRO TEM OLSON, TO EXTEND TO 9:45. MOTION FAILED (4-3) FOR LACK OF A SUPER MAJORITY, COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, TIBBOTT AND L. JOHNSON VOTING NO. COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON CALLED THE QUESTION ON THE MAIN MOTION. MOTION FAILED (4-3) FOR LACK OF A SUPER MAJORITY, COUNCILMEMBERS PAINE, L. JOHNSON AND CHEN VOTING NO. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT, TO EXTEND 9:35. MOTION FAILED (4-3) FOR LACK OF A SUPER MAJORITY, COUNCILMEMBERS PAINE, L. JOHNSON AND K. JOHNSON VOTING NO. 4. ADJOURN The council meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m.