NEWS UNBROKEN
Colville Zoning Board of Adjustment Conditional Use Permit Public Hearing and Approval Tuesday July 9th, 2024
[ Pause ] How's that roll call? >> Sandra Lomann. >> Here. >> Chris McDonough. >> Here. >> Hey. >> Jeff Pitt. >> Here. >> And here I'm seeing a journalist happen. I think they have a form. [ Pause ] We have a motion for removal of the minutes. [ Pause ] Motion to the second. [ Pause ] >> Today is a public hearing. [ Pause ] >> Could you increase the mic? >> I can turn it off. That's it. [ Pause ] >> So, first of all, I'm Chris Montgomery. I'm the chairman of the board. I want to explain. The CUP is a conditional use permit. This is not a zoning change. We're not trying to change the zone. We have no authority as the zoning board of adjustment to change the zoning for in use. So, a CUP means that this is a use that's permitted within this zone. It's up to us as a board to hear from the staff, the staff. Public, public, public. I'm going to do a public hearing play. >> Try now. >> Try now. All right. As a board can only oppose conditions. We can approve or disapprove and appoint conditions if there's an approval vote. We do not make an determination as to whether or not appropriate. I just want to make that clear. Also, I didn't give you my instructor so I'll shoot you for the next year. But it's important for this hearing to appear under the appearance of parents' doctrine. It's the fact that they're hearing. So, I'm going to ask each board member to tell me whether or not they've had any outside communications and relate that to communicate with it. And I did talk to a relative who's retired with a counseling degree. And we just talked about this kind of facility, not that it was coming here. So, that's it for me. Otherwise not. I haven't had any personal communication with anybody. Other than that, I too saw the Facebook post in some of the comments. The conversation with anybody. I have not had any communication relative to the decision. Alright, so. Also, I'm. Anybody has now, otherwise, I'm going to be the chairman for the board. And just for, since we don't have a nameplate, this is Santa Wilma. I'm Chris Montgomery. This is Derek Tate. And the gentleman in the car left is Jeff Pitts. And we constitute the board. So, does anybody have any problem with any of us being members of this today? I see no objections. So, we're going to proceed. Let me tell you that the purpose of the hearing is the CUP24-100 conditional news permit for a price stabilization facility. The applicant is Stevens County, DBA, doing business as Northeast Washington Alliance Counseling Services. The location is parcel number 019-890 is general commercial. The request is to take public testimony and render a decision. We have staff reports and exhibits that we've looked at. Ayes, the order that we're going to conduct this hearing today. First, we'll have a staff report. And then we'll have a presentation by the applicant. After those two presentations, I will open it up for public comment. Someone asked me earlier if I was going to put a limit on public comment. And historically, I've not done that. And so, I don't intend to do that today. If it's important to get the feedback from the community. And then we'll have the order of testimony from the public who means folks, persons, order or give an opportunity. And then, spokespersons for opponents, people against the project. You can speak in opposition to the hearing subject or the application. And then we'll have a brief time for rebuttal from the applicant or staff. Final questions. Then we'll be asked by ask of the staff and if the effects are elicited, then we might reopen public comment. That'll be the way it will handle it. So, just because we don't get to you right at the beginning, we're not ignoring you. I don't intend to ignore anybody or forget that everybody does not have an opportunity to speak. So, like that, if we can, the hearing is now open and if we have a staff, we can. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I apologize for being a little late. I apologize for being a little late. This challenge is important for me, because it's so familiar. I'm just waiting to share my screen. I did provide a brief presentation, but as you mentioned, this is an application for a prior presentation. A crisis stabilization facility. Now, there is a specific definition that I've provided in the staff report for crisis stabilization facilities. The applicant is applying for what it's a crisis stabilization facility slash residential treatment facility. So, I'll go through both of those definitions and definitions are really important. So, what gives proposed and what the applicant speaks for the most specific subject. Residential treatment facility or RTF means a facility in which a 24-hour on-site care is provided for evaluation, but gives proposed and what the applicant speaks for the most specific subject. Residential treatment facility or RTF means a facility in which a 24-hour on-site care is provided for evaluation, stabilization, or treatment of residential health, co-occurring stores, or drug exposed infants. And that's from Washington Administrative Code of 246-337-005. A crisis stabilization. Can you hear me? No. Sorry. How about this? Is that a little better? No, better. I think that's just really important. Okay. Do I need to speak up a little louder? Yes. Okay. Thank you. A crisis stabilization facility defined by WAC-246-341-1140 means a short-term facility designed to assess, diagnose, and treat persons experience in acute crisis without the use of hospitalization. So, it may be co-located with evaluation and treatment and outpatient treatment facility. Peace officers may drop off individuals if the facility chooses without the use of hospitalization and may be co-located with evaluation and treatment and outpatient treatment facility. Peace officers may drop off individuals if the facility chooses to provide involuntary services. Individuals are assessed to determine a need for civil commitment or other services. Facilities can offer short-term care for up to 24 hours and/or provide beds for overnight stays of approximately five days. Or provide beds for overnight stays of approximately five days. Both of these kind of fall in need of what's been termed community-based behavioral health facilities. And this is somewhat of a new initiative by the state to prevent from being to essentially disperse smaller scale behavioral health facilities throughout the state. The initiative, as I understand it, is really aimed rather than a large central state hospitals or jails, which are typically where someone experiencing acute mental health. I understand it is really aimed rather than a large central state hospitals or jails, which are typically where someone experiencing acute mental health crisis ends up. A variety of other facilities are now open to take. There's open funding to establish them throughout the state and even smaller communities. This is one type of community-based behavioral health facility. And I'll let the applicants describe in more detail community-based behavioral health facility. And I'll let the applicants describe in more detail what how this facility is different from other types of community-based behavioral health facilities that have been recently established in the county. They also kind of fall under another umbrella bucket by the state, which is called the central public facilities. There's no specific definition can stay code for central public facilities, but they are. And I've provided a link to this. This is RCW 3678200. Central public facilities or those facilities are typically difficult to cite, such as airport, state, education facilities, state and regional transportation facilities. Trans-of-authority facilities, local correctional facilities, including substance use disorder treatment facilities, mental health facilities, group homes communities, facilities, community transition facilities. So it's a very large umbrella. And what state code says about the central public facilities is that you can't necessarily preclude their citing anywhere in the state. There is an option to go through a regional citing process for central public facilities. If you don't have code to address them. Before this application was submitted, the council was given the options to, was provided options for how to address community-based behavioral health facilities in line of just new initiatives. And particularly after a recent citing as an option for a facility like this. And currently, call bill code does not have any standards in place to address these types of facilities. The Planning Commission is working diligently on providing a recommended code framework for dealing with these into the future. The application is in, however, and once an application is deemed complete, is vested by the rules of the four uses that aren't addressed in zoning code. Staff is forced to make an interpretation. There are a whole lot of great examples of light uses in current code, but juvenile detention center, nursing home, both require conditional use permit. So we said, well, that's probably, which is consistent with how a lot of other communities deal with facilities of this nature, conditional use permit process is probably the most appropriate course to take. And with that, the applicant provided an application and went through a couple of rounds of completeness reviews. We asked for some additional supplemental information, including the draft operations plan, which is not specifically called for our code, but we can't ask for additional information and drawing on the model ordinance project by the state. We asked for that, which was provided and the technical review committee also reviewed this application and advised the same along with a lighting plan and determined that because there was really no expansion of existing building or significant site work. The state environmental policy accident was not triggered in Zambia, it is the proposal is located within the general commercial. That's the C three zone. There are two commercial zones within Caldwell, the other C two and that's primarily downtown. We can show up here in just a second. It's like a connected. Are you really chair. Okay. So the proposal for the applicant's narrative essentially is to relocate an existing facility. Located currently, some of the key quarter to the proposed location, you can see there on the lower right of the lower part of the burial image there. In the existing public works building. Again, no building expansion was proposed. There was likely some building code modifications that will be triggered prior to occupancy should be approved. And as you mentioned, Mr. Chair, your action tonight today is to take public testimony, deliberate and hopefully your action tonight today is to take public testimony, deliberate and hopefully friend and hopefully friend or decision with appropriate conditions if the decision is for approval. This is kind of panning out. You can see it's the hero is kind of shows the surrounding uses. It is a block away from yet Kenham Park in the school. Located in the C three zone. And I already read those. These are the definitions of what we're addressing some of the definitions that we're addressing today for state code and Washington administrative code. The staff report provides an overview, which we've kind of gone over already. And there are certain part of findings and our staff analysis is included in the staff report. And the recommended conditions that I mentioned, there's two does not include you from adding a meeting. Notification hearing procedure, which you've gone over already. Mr. Chair, notification in notification until posting of the sites properties with the legal notification to the newspaper notification hearing procedure, which you've gone over already Mr. Chair. Notification in notification until posting of the sites properties with the legal notification to the newspaper and agency notification. And as I mentioned, so draft operations plan, a couple of rounds and as I mentioned, so draft operations plan, couple of rounds and cleanness reviews reviews, and then the meeting minutes from the technical review. These are the required findings for approval are five, which are well versed in having. And I've been being similar enough to other uses that you require. We will not be on unduly detrimental project means adequate to neighboring properties, means out of provision to access circulation, water supply, storm drain or sanitary sewage disposal emergency services environmental protection. We found no significant impacts to parking or circulation. Water supply storm drainage or suit as we mentioned in the analysis and the staff report. We determined this the, that is category exempt from the secret process. And beneficial public health safety and welfare from the public interest and generally compatible with Jason properties and other property in the district with respect to the beneficial public health safety and welfare in the public interest. While, you know, we provide our analysis, you are community members, and that is really more your with respect to the beneficial public health safety and welfare in the public interest. While, you know, we provide our analysis, you are community members, and that is really more your purview than mine. But we, uh, we found that it is generally compatible, given the existence of the facility now, only less than a block away. So, you know, certainly find any particular impacts to the surrounding area more so than what is currently. And while there may be another proposal, yeah, can speak to, or another type of use residential care facility and I'm, I'm sorry if I've gotten that wrong. But yeah, correct me. This is specific to the crisis stabilization facility. Which in some respects may have a benefit to public services if the, and we did ask for comment from police and emergency services and they were with us in technical review committee meeting. They may have a benefit to services if you don't have another place to take someone experiencing a huge mental crisis. It could be, you know, jail or maybe somewhere in Spokane, but that's for the emergency services to speak to more depth if they're here or public health officials. These are the recommendations for conditions by the technical review committee. Final operations plan with various elements and these are taken from model codes provided by the state for these types of facilities. And a lighting plan provided upon building permits submission. The final operations plan would be required prior to certain from Holly Keller. This came in yesterday. It was addressed to city commissioners, but I believe intent was to be decision making bodies. I'm writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed crisis stabilization facility by Northeast services on Hawthorne Street. While I understand the need for mental health services, I'm deeply concerned about the lack of infrastructure and to support individuals once they are released from the facility. The situation could potentially overburden our community's resources and significantly increase drug or crime rates thereby jeopardizing public safety and altering the character of our beloved small town. Statistically speaking, the proposed facility targets homeless drug individuals criminal back. The follow up services and support these high need individuals are likely to strain are already limited resources. These are similar situations in other communities, such as Chewila, where a Catholic charity's low income housing facility has led to incidents that have stressed local resources. Callville is a small town with a close knit community, the establishment of such a facility in your city park without the necessary infrastructure to support its operation and individuals that serve status to change our town fundamentally. The risk turning call bill into a place where residents no longer feel safe reminiscent of the challenges faced by Spokane and Seattle. Combined with the 72 unit supported housing complex being built by Catholic charity is the addition of a new facility. We likely result in an overwhelming influx of high need individuals into call callville. I urge you to consider the long term implications for our community. The stabilization period is over, these individuals will be released in the callville potentially without the necessary support leading to increase strain among enforcement of their community resources. Potential for increased drug use and crime rates is a significant concern that cannot be ignored. The negative impacts on cities like Spokane and Seattle are clear examples of what can happen when the high need populations are introduced without active support structures. These cities have been seen increased primary drug problems and significant strain on public services. We do not want callville to suffer similar fate. I strongly encourage you to reject the conditional use permit for the vice stabilization facility. Leave there are three more. Is that correct? Right. Okay. Okay. Here's a campaign stone. So I think these came way by way of the county. The commissioners. Okay. And I arrived this morning. Okay. I think this is from Kim McKenzie. Starting here. This is certainly. I'll go ahead and read this. Yeah. Can you move to a place that has a microphone that you can actually speak into without work by. We can't hear anything you're saying. Testing testing testing testing. I don't think it's much more. Okay. I'll just stand a little closer. Dear commissioners of Stevens County. I am a very concerned citizen. I have heard of and read about this board meeting being held tomorrow. I'm unable to attend. However, I would like my opinions heard. I would first inform us like to know how you plan to keep the citizens of Caldwell safe. How are we going to keep the patients safe and contained. What happens when there are three, five or seven day. Comes to an end. Are they going to be released onto the streets? Where is the safety for the community in that security and care will be in place. That facility fits in and it's happened. What resources will pay for this. If it's our tax dollars or money that belongs to me to maintain this county, I think you will find. People will not allow this. Why was something so important to citizens of Caldwell not announced publicly to the citizens. We have the paper. The radio station, many publications are citizens read or listen to weekly. Why does this seem to be a quiet. Let's try to slip this through without public knowing the meeting. I know why because citizens of Caldwell would never agree or accept this. You don't accept more danger and crimes. You don't accept more danger and crimes. I know why because citizens of Caldwell would never agree or accept this. We don't accept more danger and crimes. We don't accept more danger and crimes. We don't accept more danger and crimes. We don't accept more danger and crimes. We don't accept more danger and crimes. We don't accept more danger and crimes. We don't accept more danger and crimes to touch our families or our homes. There are hard-working struggling people that can use help. There are veterans that can use help. There is crime. You could be working on the stop. Have you considered the revenue aspect of this? People that come to visit for recreation or outdoor sports, shoppers from Canada, etc. Will no longer want to come here and feel threatened. We're not safe with a plethora of dangerous mental patients on the streets. Not to mention your own people. The line will be the norm and main street will become the trashy goes down. And Farm Jam, who will want to come for that. The junior high school is right up the street. There is a daycare around the corner. Youth groups and church donors are three blocks from this proposed site. The college or hotels across the street. Not to mention, already unsafe city park that is supposed to be for the citizens has become accessible, drugs, homelessness, and crime. What if your children or elderly parents were at church when some dangerous mental and stable patient leaves facility and goes across the street to the church and murders them? While you look at the coffin of your loved one, will you still think this is a good idea then? What exactly are you thinking to allow this? These are people the community you are supposed to make decisions or protect and take care of children and adults. An elderly of your county. We voted for you to do what was best for our county. This is not what is best for the people of Caldwell, nor Stevens County. I was born and raised in Caldwell. It is the place. I'm raising my son. I'm raising my stepson. I love Stevens County. The new influx of homeless people is seriously disturbing to me and everyone. I know that crime rate is going through the roof. The drug trade and related crimes to drugs is beyond disgusting. What are you currently doing about that? I am not seeing any control over the situation. Now you want to bring in more of the most dangerous and severely mentally ill individuals into our town. I'm not truly upsetting. I'm currently raising my stepson. I love Stevens County. The new influx of homeless people is seriously disturbing to me and everyone. I know the roof. The drug trade and related crimes to drugs is beyond disgusting. What are you currently doing about that? I am not seeing any control over the situation. You want to bring in more of the most dangerous and severely mentally ill individuals into our town. I'm currently a Boy Scout mom and a Boy Scout leader and not that long ago. We had no problem letting our boys work on community service projects as a boy like group that is no longer than case. The parents no longer feel their boys are safe on their own. That is truly sad. Our children should be safe. On the sidewalks and the stores in Palville, women should not have to worry about going to their vehicles from a store and being tossed by thugs. The times of unlocked doors walking to the store and movies without concern or bond. The safety of your citizens should be your top priority. This is your power to control our fine police force. Cannot keep up with this new rise in crime. When they do arrest them, the criminals are released. How awful is that? And how unsettling for the tax paying citizens of Stevens County. I'm asking if you do not allow this. The small town community will be destroyed by this. Our children and citizens will have to be safe. And I think just my opinion, you'll see your community members take care of matters themselves. I feel that criminal activity needs to be worked on before you ever bring more criminals into our great community to reap more havoc. I do not feel the situation will be controlled or maintain the safety of people in property. I don't know whose idea this was or his, but if they live here, they should consider finding their own property. Living on that property and taking care of these dangerous people themselves. I bet the last dollar they would not, I bet my last dollar they would not do it. Yet they want us to do it. Why do you want to destroy what your people in Palville and Stevens County can't work so hard to achieve and protect as a lifelong resident. Palville and Stevens County, I'm just sick that he would consider this for our hometown. And certainly can be a very discussed and heartbroken citizen of Palville. Okay. Hello Stevens County commissioners. While I understand the zoning is a city issue, the county and US commissioners are charged with overseeing this facility as a resident of Steve Police. And most of these criminal individuals into the community as it is the city park in Palville schools are in close proximity to a proposed location. I urge you to rethink the proposed plan to place this facility here and to have you recognize that any new victims and stress on the community are directly to the results of county leadership. As a citizen and taxpayer, I would appreciate a response to this email that specifically addresses the concerns of the community and your plans for the future of this facility. The county has a whole is looking to you for reason leadership that prioritizes its law by in citizens. Dear county commissioners, please do not approve the building of another crisis stabilization center. We will be housing and importantly mentally unstable people from all across the state, not just locals. The new acts locked facility at the hospital already takes in place from all across the state. It's a business got to keep those beds filled. I know this is true. I work there. When patients are released, many of them remain here are small town cannot support them and they end up on the streets homeless. Another crisis center only adds to the problem not there. Please hear the concerns from the citizens who live here and pay taxes here. Click out for the best interests of people who represent not special interest groups. Thank you, Catherine. Mr. Chair, if there's any questions about the staff report, happy to meet you. Sure. Yes. It's on your deal with questions. I do. On the first page of the staff report, I'm the surrounding zoning. Yeah, the staff has North R1, Birch Avenue and single town houses and I think that's inaccurate. And if you look at that, the report that's part of it, page five of outreach, I think that's accurate where it says it's multi-family dwellings for an avenue. So you're not in that proximity of R1. You're correct. My apologies. That isn't here in the staff report as I showed up on the screen. There's R2. Zoned into East R2. There's C3 directly to the North R2 beyond that multi-family dwellings for an avenue. So you're not in that proximity of R1. My apologies. That isn't here in the staff report as I showed up on the screen. There's R2. Zoned into East R2. There's C3 directly to the North R2 beyond that into the South. It's C3 and kitty corn into the South. It's R2. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? No. There any questions in the staff? This facility covers more than just students' counties. What's the real area of coverage for the shoots? I don't want to defer the applicant on that specific question. Any other questions? I don't have any questions of staff right now. I would like to, and you've already presented all the communications at this time. At this time, I'll ask for the applicant to speak on the proposal. Now, given the interest of the public and comments we've heard so far. If I don't hit your questions, you can ask me again and I'll make sure and comment on that. All right. So good morning. My name is David Nielsen, and I am the executive director of Stevens County doing businesses northeast Washington Alliance counseling services. Yesterday, July 8, 2024 was my 28th anniversary at the organization formerly known as Stevens County counseling services, currently known as new acts. I am and have been a doctoral level Washington state licensed psychologist throughout my entire 10 year with Stevens County. And I've been the executive director at New Alliance for nearly 18 years. I tell you this not to flaunt my credentials, but instead to begin to address one of the criticisms I recently heard about the proposed facility, which I will discuss further below, namely that we don't even have a qualified staff to operate a crisis stabilization facility. Perhaps ironically, July is also the anniversary of the house located at 150 East Glen directly behind our main office in Colville, from which New Alliance has provided crisis stabilization. We have been doing crisis stabilization services for the past 23 years. The information in your packet and I'll be referring repeatedly to the organizational plan that you have. The information that packet will correctly tell you that we opened a four bed crisis stabilization facility in July of 2001. We expanded that facility in 2007 to include seven short term stabilization beds with a length of stay of 14 days. Two sobering beds with a length of stay of less than 24 hours in four long term beds with a length of stay of six months or less is discussed on page two of the operational plan included in your packet. A crisis stabilization facilities a health care facility where individuals experiencing a mental health crisis are able to stabilize in a safe setting that connects them to treatment and supports like individual therapy psychiatric medication and life skills training. The crisis facility is not a locked facility and it serves voluntary individuals age 18 and over who can be treated safely in the community. The current house was issued a certificate of occupancy by the city of Colville under the classification of crisis facility in July of 2008. Our current request for a conditional use permit then does nothing more than relocate a program that has been active in Colville for 23 years and adds one new bed from 13 beds to 14 beds and relocates the facility from our backyard to our side yard. When Lee Smutsler, the former executive director of Stevens County Counseling Services first worked with the Stevens County Commissioners to purchase the crisis house. There was no licensing criteria in the state for such a facility. Mr Smutsler simply had the understanding that a facility that the facility would meet and need in our community, helping those experiencing a mental health crisis to remain in the community. Oftentimes, instead of being placed unsupervised in local motels. While they were connected to the services that they need, avoiding the expense of inpatient hospital stays with transportation to those facilities provided by our local sheriff and EMS taking those resources out of the county for hours at a time. Or longer, as patients were transferred to Wenatchee Yakima or Seattle, though the crisis house was and has been unlicensed. We have legally provided crisis services at the house as an offsite location offsite from our licensed facility on Hawthorne, just as our staff provide those same sorts of services and local schools, emergency departments, jails and other community settings. This time has gone on though, licensing criteria has evolved. And now we find it's time for new acts to license our program under the state of Washington as a behavioral health facility and a residential treatment facility of the crisis stabilization type. Given the spacing and infrastructure requirements, such as kitchen, laundry, et cetera, it's necessary for us to obtain licensure by the department of health. It's time for us to relocate to a facility that can more readily be converted to meet those licensing criteria. Hence, our plan is to purchase the public works facility and relocate the program from our backyard to our side yard. Again, we're proposing nothing different from that which new acts is already provided for the past 23 years. We are simply seeking to relocate from our backyard to our side yard. Rather than repeating all of the information that's in this operational plan, I would like to take a few minutes to respond to some of the critical feedback that I've heard from the community regarding the proposal in the past few days. First criticism, staff at new acts are not qualified to provide or supervise a crisis stabilization facility. There's been a misunderstanding about the type of credentials that our staff have. We've been criticized for employing certified counselors and we do not employ certified counselors. That is a credential type for independent practitioners working outside of the Department of Health licensed behavioral health agencies and new alliance is a licensed behavioral health facility. Our mental health program hires licensed mental health counselors, licensed social workers, licensed marriage and family therapists, and associate level counselors, social workers and family therapists, and agency affiliated counselors. We employ approved supervisors as clinicians. We have many staff of the credential type of approved supervisor. But in Washington, you don't even have to have the level of that level of credential unless you're trying to become a fully independently licensed person to practice independently outside of a behavioral health agency. In the running of behavioral health agencies, services are provided under the supervision of mental health professionals, which is defined on page eight of your packets. You want it to look very many of our staff member meet those criteria. Finally, the administrator of a residential treatment facility, which would be me, would have to meet state criteria defined in various administrative work administrative codes, which I exceed. You can rest assured on this is I have to provide relevant data about myself to the state Department of Health every year to renew our license to operate the facility that we operate inside Mount Carmel Hospital. And they have issued us that license since 2017. Second criticism I've heard there's insufficient infrastructure to support the proposed clients once they're released from the facility. To the contrary, the precise reason we are proposing to relocate next door to our main office is because that is exactly where our resources are located. In your packets page 15 through 18, describe the staffing of the facility strategically located next door to our main office, where we have additional resources to back up when problems arise. Keeping proximity to Mount Carmel Hospital is also important for us for those occasions when our clients may need placement at a higher level of care in an inpatient devaluation and treatment unit. We envision a campus of behavioral health services located right next to our headquarters on Hawthorne for easy access to behavioral health and other resources that are provided by rural resources. This is one of the most important areas of our county health, Northeast Washington health programs and Northeast Washington medical group. The proposed location is perfect because of its existing infrastructure that we can easily oversee. Third criticism, the facility will bring in influx of new patients to Stevens County, most of them homeless. This is the facility of the operational plan in your packets. Since we opened in 2001, New Alliance has served over 1300 individuals in our crisis house. Of those, 87% came from Ferry, Lincoln and Stevens counties, the three counties that New Alliance serves, with 72% of those being Stevens County residents. There are people that they are currently serving in the county, even though they may live elsewhere. We are not importing clients. We do not admit involuntary or criminally insane individuals who require treatment at a state hospital. Of those admitted, 60% were residing in their own private residence at the time of admission and fewer than 20% were homeless without housing. Other admission criteria excludes people who need stabilization services that is not the direct result of a mental disorder. That excludes those who are simply homeless looking for a place to sleep. Further in the 28 years that I have worked in Colville for the county, I have sat on numerous health care related boards and meetings. For as long as I can remember, I have listened to community members and professionals express their opinion that Stevens County is underserved. When it comes to mental health and substance abuse. Year after year, when partners like the Providence hospital system or Tri-County Health conduct their community needs assessment, a lack of mental health and drug and alcohol services are at the top five of needs, often the top two that are identified by the community. The behavior health services provided by New Alliance, including the crisis house, do not cause or increase the need for behavioral health services. Instead, they're developed in response to the community need for those services expressed directly by the individuals and professionals working in the public day in and day out. To say that responding to a behavioral health service is the cause for those services is tantamount to saying that hospitals cause illness, schools cause illiteracy, law enforcement causes crime, churches cause sin or grocery stores cause hunger. This is simply untrue. Facilities and programs provided by New Alliance do not cause the illnesses nor do they bring an influx of illness into our community. Instead, they're developed in response to the community need. Criticism number four, providing behavioral health services drives up costs and puts a drain on our local resources. The opposite is actually true. People who complete six months of publicly funded drug and drug and alcohol treatment are 87% more likely to sustain from alcohol, have an 85% reduction in illegal activity and are 90% more likely to have worked 10 or more days in the past 30 and have 25% fewer medical problems, all cost savings to the system. The state has conducted research showing that for every dollar spent on individuals participating in a drug court treatment program, there is a $4 to $7 return on investment through reduced costs to the legal system. People with diabetes and untreated depression are far more expensive to care for than those with treated depression. In the end, treatment saves money and more importantly, it saves lives. One is also to consider what would happen if there were no behavioral health services available locally. The problem of behavioral health would not go away. Our first responders, emergency room doctors, jails and other resource providers would still be left facing the challenge of serving those with behavioral health conditions, only now without additional resources. Police and EMS will still respond to calls, but now without any treatment support. Emergency departments will be inundated with people struggling with behavioral health problems, taking time and resources away from people with more emergent medical needs. But without local support, people will not simply leave the area without the needed resources. Instead, they will remain, but seek support and resources from systems that are not designed to serve them. I ask that you grant the conditional use permit for new alliance to relocate the crisis house that it has operated for 23 years, keeping it next to infrastructure that is in place next to our main office with qualified and competent staff. And a facility that will allow us to meet all the licensing criteria that we need to meet with the state. This facility is needed in Callville and has already served the community quietly and without serious concern for 23 years and is in direct response to our public and professional communities request for more behavioral health services. Any questions that I can answer for you? I have two. Yes. My first question is, can you tell me what happens to clients who are potentially violent or have felony warrants? So, if a person is so violent that we can't treat them at the current crisis house due to their mental illness, we will place them on our inpatient unit at Mount Carmel Hospital or we will have them admitted to other inpatient psychiatric facilities around the state, still taking those resources and sheriff to transport them to Monacci Yakima or wherever they need to go. If we can't maintain them safely at the crisis stabilization facility, they either go to inpatient facilities or they go to jail. And the second question. Well, part of the first question is felony warrants. Those people who have felony warrants, are they allowed in? So, a lot of times we don't even know if a person has a felony warrant, but if a felony warrant comes up, law enforcement says, do you have that person, they will come and pick up the person and they'll go to jail. My last question was, can you tell me what the difference is between that 16-bed facility at Mount Carmel and your 14-bed facility? So, the 16-bed facility at Mount Carmel is a locked facility that accepts involuntary patients. So, it's staffed 24 hours a day with nurses, behavioral health technicians. We have an onsite prescriber 40 hours a week with on-call prescribers 24 hours a day to respond to any sort of emergency that comes up. 99% of the people that are admitted to our facility inside of Mount Carmel are involuntarily detained and committed by the court to be there against their will. This facility is a totally voluntary facility. So, if a person is not stable enough to voluntarily stay to get treatment for their needs, they would be put up to the higher level of care through our crisis team. Steve, that's all I have. Yeah, just a question about, I see your notes about Prairie County and Lincoln County, but there's a reference in your note about Spokane County. What is the linkage with Spokane County? So, if a Spokane resident is coming up to Stevens County for any reason and they end up having a problem and they encounter the sheriff or a local police or they end up in an emergency department, our office's crisis counselors are called to respond to those people, evaluate them and then provide whatever level of care is necessary to keep them safe and stable in the community. So, some of those people will come to our crisis house, stay for brief periods of times, and then they're discharged back to where they came from. It's not that we're going to Spokane and recruiting the people in. Or for me, we've actually had people at the crisis house from out of the state of Washington. We're not going out and saying, send us your poor, you're tired and your needy. It's the police and the emergency department that are saying, these people are here, come help us. Just wondering how we have their own system. They do not, and we've taken people from Ponderosa. They have their own outpatient behavioral health provider, but they do not have their own crisis stabilization house, nor do they have their own inpatient bed like we do at Mount Carmel. So, if you serve some of Andre County to indirectly. So, at the crisis house, whatever page it was I referenced, I think it was page three or four, I talk about the statistics on people from all over the place that we've taken. So, let's see, let's see, Stevens can send you 2% Stevens County, 11% Ferry County, 5% Lincoln County, 5 and a half percent for one and a half percent were residents of Spokane out of state and ponder a respectively. So that's been our experience. Jeff, a couple, one just for verification, your current crisis facility, you've been for 23 years. Yes, how many beds currently there's 13 beds currently and the new facility would have 14 and what's going to happen to the current facility. Our plan is to turn that into recovery housing for people that are coming out of an inpatient drug and alcohol treatment facility that need sober housing. And then second question, and it's in your application so I'm going to bring it up now, no matter what, you have several letters of support, many of which are in the room. And I'm not going to ask you a verbatum, but I would like to hear from the sheriff, you get his viewpoint, realizing that the city of Colville, law enforcement, but I know the city and the county work together a lot. And I would just like to hear. So if you want me to see the Florida can end. I'm sorry to be on the spot, but I think a lot of people's minds. Security is probably at the top, and who they're going to ask. Chairman, do you step up here? Would you like me to address? Yeah. You are. But I think one of the reasons I just found out on this is on page five of this report, they listed a number of individuals that have voice support for this program. Okay. So, from a public safety standpoint, I'll echo what Dr. Nielsen already said, this facility has been in existence for 20 some odd years. We use it as law enforcement. It's a place where people in mental crisis in lieu of going to jail can go to safely, because we don't have room in the jail. And the jail is not a mental health facility, even though it's widely used for that all over the state. All, I'll reiterate, they're moving it from the backyard to the side yard and adding one bed that will have no effect on public safety. From my standpoint, what will have effective on public safety is if we lose the current crisis stabilization facility, do the licensing requirements, and we can't replace it. Then we're going to be hurting. So, we're not creating, we're moving. That's all. Sure, just an incredibly firm on me, moving it to the side yard might even make it. You know, I don't see one safer than the other. Where the current one is is kind of hidden, which often gives people a false sense of security. It's really not. The extra bed is going to provide law enforcement, the opportunity to keep one person out of jail or off the street continuing to have a crisis and cause problems. I don't know. I don't have a crystal ball for the secondary use of the plan goes through with the existing facility. I don't have a crystal ball with that's going to do. Of the mindset to believe that it's still will not have any impact on public safety. Thank you. Any other questions? I have more to present. This time, thank you. All right. At this time, the floor is going to be open for comments from the audience. Fairness. So I did that earlier and some of you might have missed my announcement. Before the meeting started, I asked some folks that wish to speak to write their name down on sheet of paper that was over here. And so I'm going to start with those folks. If you're here and aren't on the list, I'm still going to give you a chance to say something I'm not limiting the public input. So there will be an opportunity for the applicant to speak in rebuttal after we receive some of these public comments. So I'm going to invite Heather. Is it Agular? Agular. Okay. You want to come up? My questions were answered. I'm going to check you off. Okay. Ken Leiske. L E I S K D has been still here. Morning. My question is. How for the record? Do you state your name and address? Yeah, Ken Leiske 1846 Brooks Road. Evans. Okay. Thank you. Yeah. When was the announcement of this meeting placed on the website? For instance, what is it? That's telling us June 21st. Okay. That answers my question. Thank you. Hey, I'm Martha fairly. My address is 1076. Salvation Lake Road, Colville, Washington. I'm also the clinical director at Northeast Washington Alliance counseling services. So I recognize my shared role as somebody who works there, but I did want to just kind of reiterate as an employee and as a community member. My support for this facility in the sense of. I hear these emails and I also read the Facebook posts that I believe most people were privy to with their concerns for what this could do to the community. And a town that we all love and feel safe in and want to continue to have that sense of security. And I think that that sense of pride and safety that people feel in their community right now is really a credit to our current existing crisis stabilization facility and the benefit of ongoing with that facility. Because it does give a place for people to go when they need help. It gives law enforcement a place to bring people when they need help, but maybe are not a good fit for being criminals in the jail. It is not a facility for people who are homeless or people who are criminally insane. Eastern State Hospital is still alive and well and operating and housing those people. That is not what we would be there for. I also really want to reiterate the benefit of having that be a centralized campus there right next to our current facility. It gets so easy when it's a 15 foot walk to bring somebody over for their appointments to get them connected to a counselor to get them established and familiar started on a medication regimen with one of our prescribers. I just really think that that centralized campus having them right there having them close by is going to be an ongoing large benefit to our services. Thank you. Lisa Gallagher. Good morning. My name is Lisa Gallagher and my mailing address is 565 PO Box 565 Springdale, Washington. I live in the basin area of Stevens County. Not long ago I was awakened in the middle of the night by a prowler outside my bedroom window. A very capable neighbor with a high power spotlight stopped this individual on my front porch and held him at gunpoint while the sheriff's deputies arrived. This person turned out to be a homeless drug runner in Colville with an array of serious mental health issues who makes a living stealing things and reselling them. On the street he's known to supply fentanyl and other hard drugs to addicts throughout the Colville community. Many of whom are in drug treatment and who have run out of their medically prescribed sub about suboxone. This is precisely the type of person that Dr Nielsen intends to serve and that hospitals social social service providers and law enforcement officers from here to Spokane will be falling all over themselves to dump on his doorstep. When Dr Nielsen presented his plan to the city council in January of this year, he candidly admitted that the population he intended to target consists of homeless male drug addicts with criminal backgrounds. Significantly Dr Nielsen stopped talking about his target population shortly after meeting with the city planners and learning what was involved in obtaining a conditional use permit. No doubt he came to understand that to obtain a conditional use permit he would bear the burden of showing that his proposed development would have no adverse impact on either surrounding properties or on the community as a whole. And as we all know homeless male drug addicts with criminal backgrounds create a whole load of adverse impacts. Dr Nielsen has submitted to the zoning board a very lengthy and detailed description of his program. It addresses everything from treatment modalities to the number and type of beds staffing ratios house rules and referral sources. But again, no mention of the single most relevant fact in this proceeding. The fact that his program will be targeting homeless male drug abusers with criminal backgrounds. And that the foreseeable impacts of his program are ones that no set of conditions can possibly mitigate. The result is that the record of this proceeding has been whitewashed to conceal a material fact. The single most important and outcome determinative fact that could possibly be put forward in this proceeding and the public has been equally misled and thereby deprived of the opportunity to come to this hearing prepared to address it. And I would submit that Dr Nielsen's attempt to conceal his critical fact from the board and from the public or to at least keep it from surfacing during this public process bears strongly on his credibility. There is another equally troubling issue that I'd like to talk about today. And that is Dr Nielsen's representation to the board that what he wants to do with his expanded crisis stabilization facility is really no different than what he has been doing now and what he's done for the last 23 years. Here again, he appears to be front running the issue of impacts, urging the board to conclude that if his facility is not bothering anybody now, what he's planning to do won't bother anyone either. Once again, however, this version of the narrative appears to have come about quite recently and only after the issue of adverse impacts reared its ugly head. Just a few months ago, Dr Nielsen was maintaining consistently that he was operating a mere outpatient crisis facility due to his lack of licensure to do anything more intensive. He said point blank to the city council on January 23 of this year. He said this point blank to the city council on January 23 of this year. So which is it, Dr Nielsen, are you running an unlicensed inpatient crisis stabilization facility, or are you being less than truthful when you represent to this board that the expanded program you have in mind is really nothing different than what you've been doing all along. Importantly, importantly, it is the applicant in this proceeding that bears the burden of establishing that the development for which he is seeking approval will not detrimentally affect the public interest. I would submit that his withholding of material information and his flip-flopping in regard to the nature and potential illegality of the program he's been running up until now, undermine his credibility so completely that he cannot possibly meet this burden of proof. A third issue that I want to discuss is something that has troubled me for a long time, and that is the fact that whenever a land use decision comes up that involves a drug treatment program or homeless services, and the code requires an analysis of impacts. The only impacts that the planners analyze or present to the decision-making body involve purely physical impacts. They talk about sewer capacity and increased traffic when it's the intangible impacts that really matter. Things like people using lawns for toilets, or shooting up in the doorway of a drug treatment facility, or showing up in the middle of the night under somebody's bedroom window. And here we go again with an application that requires an analysis of real-life impacts, and that fails to address even the most obvious and predictable consequences of housing homeless drug-addicted men with criminal backgrounds in a facility located on only a matter of yards from the city park and surrounded by schools, playgrounds, homes, and churches. The fourth and final issue I want to address concerns a letter issued to Dr. Nielsen by the City Planning Department on January 26th of this year. The letter states, "It is the city's position that a crisis stabilization facility is similar to both a temporary juvenile detention center and a nursing home." As such, a crisis stabilization facility is conditionally permitted and may be processed in accordance with CMC Chapter 17.84. This is really astounding. The Planning Department has no authority to determine what is and what is not an approved conditional use. It certainly has no authority to be issuing letters assuring the applicant or the applicant's potential funding sources that a determination has been made. The issue whether Dr. Nielsen's proposed use should be regarded as an allowed conditional use is a question solely for the Board of Adjustment. But here the process has been turned on its head. When asked in his application to explain why he qualifies for a conditional use permit, Dr. Nielsen points to this letter and says, "See here, the city has already determined that this is an allowable conditional use." Dr. Nielsen may not be so far off. It does in fact appear that this issue was decided well in advance of this hearing behind closed doors. The city knows it, the county knows it, and Dr. Nielsen knows it. This is not how the process is supposed to work. And it makes a mockery of the public hearing process which so many citizens have come to regard as just another futile exercise. Dr. Nielsen recently told the county commissioners that he is "making money hand over fist." And that he's got a whopping $13.7 million sucked away in the bank. And that he's going after additional public money to build his new facility. Treating indigence is apparently a very lucrative business. So who is this project really designed to benefit? The people of Stevens County or Dr. Nielsen's private ambitions? Thank you for your consideration of these very important points. [applause] My name is Tom Andres. I live at 1039B Basin Road in Colville. I was going to talk on some other points, but I think I'm going to just make one point. I wasn't aware I've been here after I retired from the military. For 22 years, and I didn't know we had that treatment center there. My daughter gets services at that facility. She is a 37-year-old. I'm a guardian. She still lives at home. The only thing she has to look forward to is outings with some of the work folks that take her out and see places in the community. And since learning about this, I can't risk her safety. She can't take care of herself. I can take care of myself and I can take care of her, but she can't. So I'll be suspending services just so I can sleep at night. And she's safe. Thank you. Sean Davis. My address is through Washburn Street in Curloop. I'm superintendent of the county jail, which serves the city of Colville as a housing facility. I would like to reiterate what Dr. Nielsen said on some of the points and what Sheriff Makey said on some of the points. This facility has been operating for 23 years. It is beneficial. In my capacity is running at jail. What we find I've been doing this job for 16 years in corrections in one form or another. What we find in my line of work is if there is nowhere for somebody who is having a mental health crisis to go, whether they've committed a crime or not. Used to be they always came to jail, which then occupies a bed for us, which means my staff, my corrections officer, are then trying to provide mental health services that they are not trained to do. It also means that that bed is then occupied. So we do not have room for the person who creeps underneath her window at night because we are being taken up by people who are just having a mental health crisis. Since having a crisis facility benefits that and allows these people somewhere to go, it's voluntary. They have to go there voluntarily and get the help that they need. It brings up beds in my jail for the people who actually need to be there for the ones that should be there, the ones who commit the crimes. So I'd reiterate, I don't see how the current facility impacts security, but I can see how losing it will definitely impact security within the city and the county by taking away those beds, and then I'm going to be where they end up. And if I'm where they end up, I'm losing those beds for people who actually should be there who are a danger to the public. Thank you. Thank you. I attended the May City planning meeting that included discussions on community based behavioral health facilities, zoning code amendments at the meeting. Shelly Short and I all expressed our feelings of advanced notification to the public. There was mention of workshops, whether the public would be provided the opportunity to express, discuss their thoughts, good or bad. Shelly brought up the Chiwila facility, how they did not seek advanced public input. The pushback that came from this and suggested to review the processes that they followed to prevent the same from happening here in Caldwell. I mentioned something about a green with Lou and preventing gossip by bringing the public in in advance. My concern here is upon review of the minutes from this meeting that were approved at a special meeting on June 19. These parts of the discussion were excluded. I'm not sure why, but would like to know. At the same meeting, Aaron did talk about his assistance with the city of Chiwila zoning as it related to their facility. He mentioned they created a local licensing requirement applicants to show proof that they maintained a state license, like a business license. This brings me to another couple of my concerns today. At this May meeting, it was mentioned that Nielsen's facility was operated all these years unlicensed. My specific concern here is this seem to be common knowledge amongst those in attendance. I did not hear which license was lacking. So afterwards, I tried to figure it out. I found that North East Washington Alliance counseling has never held. And as of today does not have a state license for its callville facility that it operates on Stevens County own property. I also did some digging, and I'm not completely sure it can feel like a rabbit call. But I found that the licensing requirements for behavioral health agencies in the state of Washington are to include an administrator, as well as clinical supervision for the services that they offer. Washington administrative code 246810.06 states quote the supervisor or consultant must have held a Washington state credential and counseling related fields for a minimum of five years. All credentials held by the supervisor or consultant must be in good standing end quote. The Washington state behavioral health agencies list shows North East Washington Alliance counseling services and callville has two supervisors, one for medical health, the other for substance use disorder. I then searched and found the substance use disorder supervisor listed as SUD clinical supervisor does not meet this requirement. Lastly, I'm worried with the close proximity to the adjacent family apartment complex, as well as Benny's motel right across the street, the college are public swimming pool, and of course, the park. So many children coming and going. I would hope that you do not approve. Hello, my name is man. I'm the administrator for northeast strike any health district address for a six South Oak Street in callville. To reiterate much of what has been spoken by Dr Nielsen, the sheriff and and Sean for the jail facility. We see those impacts of homelessness of people that have drug addictions. And the last thing that I believe our community needs is to have less resources. And so by by the idea of the slight expansion of an existing facility to provide better services and meet licensing requirements, we would speak in favor of this proposal. But also speak as a resident of of callville, for a long time lived here 23 years raised both my kids here care about it deeply and I think that's one of the things that every person in this room can speak to with common alley is we care about it. I think it's really important to say that these are not outside problems we're not immune from all of those things that are happening elsewhere from opiate addictions to crime to homelessness. Those are things that are we have here and they're not imported, but we have here. And the last thing that we want to have is less resources to be able to make improvements. So by having a crisis stabilization house, you can make improvements because you can connect people to resources and services that they need on a road to recovery and getting better, rather than going through this psychic process of incarceration release and facing, you know, a crisis. Again, thank you. All right, Roxanne Heston. Hello, my name is Roxanne Heston. I am at 5185 elk meadow way into your park. I am currently an employee of new acts. I am an outreach worker. I spend my time going out in the community and helping these people who are having mental health crisis. And I just fear that if we lose this facility in any way, I will have my hands tied as to what to do with folks. I don't have fancy statistics for you, but I can tell you that the vast majority of the people that I serve have housing, but they've lost it just currently for an example. I lost my job and I can't afford the rent or my wife and I just split up and there's no other place for me to rent in this town. So I'm living in my car. And we help these people who are lost to try to help get them stable and on a road to a new path. And if we don't do this work and if we don't have this facility available, those people are going to end up continuing to escalate in the community until the place where they end up in jail or in an ER. Beyond what we're already doing. So we are doing important work on helping to stabilize these people in their community, in their lives and keep them from using those resources from the jail, the sheriff and the hospital. Thank you. Barry Bacon. Barry Bacon 570 Hotchkiss Road. I've got a business on 250 South Maine and a nonprofit 528 South wind and my wife works working on North Elm. So I've worked here in the call of the area since 1990 serving folks. I see gaps in our health care system and that's why I continue to work for them and just retiring. I want to be involved and trying to solve some of those issues. There are three conversations that are kind of converging simultaneously and our commissioners and our city leadership and others are part of those conversations and they revolve around the revolving door of incarceration. The housing crisis that we're dealing with and addiction. All three of those conversations are happening right now and people are working on those issues, but David and his team are trying to address is, is one piece of that. They're already doing the work. As he said, they're just going to move it next door basically. And so I want to speak and on behalf of that I support the conditional use permit. Because it's work that's already being done and needs to continue in order to stay, give people an option to be stabilized. The questions that I would want you to consider is where, you know, as a, as a community where we want people having a mental health crisis to go. You know, it seems to me that it makes more sense to be in a crisis stabilization facility and that that's the right way to take care of them. They don't need to be in the emergency room and they don't need to be in the jail. We also provide medical care in the jail. So we see the end, the overcrowded nature of our current facility. What David and his crew are also trying to do is create a pathway out of people's current situation so that they have a future and they have hope. So by moving it next door that's going to open the door for another opportunity for them that he has previously described. If you look at a map of the state of Washington and where there are clean and sober housing facilities, where recovery residents are present that are approved, you see a big black hole north of Spokane. There aren't any up in the tri county area. And that needs to change as well. By creating this is just one tool that David is addressing right now and that's the crisis stabilization, but there are other pieces of this well rounded comprehensive approach to the problems that we face. They're not unique to this area. I heard on a presentation last week that there's been a 50% increase in homelessness, just for example, since 2015, destination wide. And that there's also that there's a 27 year difference in life expectancy between those who are housed and those who are not. I know that's not what we're here to discuss right now, but since it's been touched on, I just want all of you to understand that this is a necessary piece. It's a necessary tool to provide care for people in a mental health crisis, which happens in this area. And the second question, so the one question is, where do you like people with the mental health crisis to go? I think this is the right place for them, not in our emergency room, not in our jail. And the second is, what would happen if this is decline? I think that's a question that's worth addressing as well. I think probably what would happen, I can't answer for David's team, but I think that probably they would continue business as usual. They would continue to operate a crisis stabilization facility in its current location. They'd probably look for another site for what they also dream of doing. So this decision is not going to make the services go away. I don't believe. It's just a question of whether they do it back here or whether they do it next door and open up to this facility for other purposes. Thank you. Thank you. I think it's still tax dollars. Andy Heidorn, address 915 South Main Street, owner, manager, president of Benny's Cobble N, LLC, Trinity Corporation and our local properties. I'm here, not in favor of this movement because of my experiences. I work with many, many entities across the community through the hotel, rural resources, DSHS, the counseling center, many of the churches, as well as a couple other entities. We house folks once in a while at the hotel that other people pay for. These are people in between housing crisis situations. Sometimes mental health situations. I also live on the property right across the street from the counseling center. Many of you who drive up and down Hawthorne, see all my junk out back to the hotel and my back porch. That's where I live. I live in a glass house. I have had to buy one of the most sophisticated surveillance systems in Colville because of issues and situations and it doesn't all stem from the counseling center. Believe you me, we know that as a community, it's coming from everywhere. However, some of it does come from across the street, the counseling center. My business never closes. I'm up at all hours of the night, addressing concerns, arguments, fights, not on my property, but across the street, up to street, maybe even on my property. The crisis house that sits behind the counseling center. I've watched a lot of stuff come and go. Mr. Nielsen just made comment. It's not a locked door. My biggest concern is my clientele that comes from out of town, the stand in Colville. This community is an incredible community. It's a time of 5,000 people. Obviously, city limits of 5,000 people. We're very, very busy town. Small business really does well in this community. We have a lot of tax dollars coming through this community with most of it agriculture, which is timber. A lot of folks coming from out of town, stay at our hotels, then are potentially exposed to some of this. I can't find the right word, but these folks that we're trying to cater to treat. It makes it very, very tough to try to continue to do business when a portion of our livelihood is chewed away, a little bite here, a little bite there, a little bite there. We are already taxed to death. Makes it really tough to support something like this when it's in your backyard. When you watch it week after week, there's hundreds of things. David, I've been trying to have a meeting with you for over two months. Before I knew about this, we still got to have that meeting. Hundreds of incidents that I've watched go on across the street. Some I've called in because it's serious nuisance. Some I haven't worried. Some I've hollered at them, knocked it off, built someplace else. My biggest concern about this is security, security, security for our community, security for people working around the area, security for my property, for my guests coming and going. We bring in a lot of folks to this community through that hotel. We got 106 rooms. We're not full all the time. But we are sometimes, but we're pretty busy a lot of times too. How many people come into this community and maybe are exposed to something like that and don't want to come back? It's going to happen in every community. This whole nation is susceptible at right now. Our community is a small community. How do we continue to empower what we have here? We've got to protect it. There is an absolute need for what David and that organization is doing. There's a lot of things I don't agree with. Might be things that people agree with that I don't agree with that I do as well. But the bottom line is it's going to be very, very difficult, very tough for me to accept this in my backyard. Across the street from a business that my family started in '65 has grown to what it is today. I have a son that's very interested in taking over the business. Washington State, even federal level, makes it pretty tough to do small business in Washington. Some of you may know, there are a lot of challenges. There's other business owners in this room. They're seeing those challenges. More and more difficult. My business never closes. I don't have a nine to five. I never close. I've got to protect my guests every single day, every single hour. How do I do that? I'm up at night a lot. I'm watching stuff go on in this community a lot. I've watched a lot of stuff come and go from that crisis house that hasn't gone reported. Some of you don't need to. Some of it's a concern. You just watch it. Okay. It's dwindled. It's gone away. I've watched people yearnate, defecate, do drug deals in the alley behind that. You keep utility building, utility for beauty behind the dumpster for new alliance. Security is a problem. Scared is a big issue. And that is my biggest concern. If I have a guarantee, for the most part, we can't guarantee anything, right Brad, for security. Society is what it is. But for me to be okay with this move, serious security would have to change. I think that's all I have. [Applause] Hello. My lot of hues. I live in Fruitland, Washington. I am the chief financial officer for new alliance counseling services. I've been with the agency for 16 and a half years. I'm here to address the concerns of the public with additional taxes for this facility. And any funding streams this facility would have our current contract for running the current crisis stabilization facility. It comes from federal and state funding with the change in location and the different licensing for a behavioral health facility. The funding model would shift to a to stream more private insurances into the individuals that we serve. And away from the tax, the federal and state taxing model. That's what I have for you. So running names on my list, but that doesn't mean I've run out of time for people to talk. So is there anyone else in the audience who would like to speak for against this? Yeah. Do you state your name? Sure. Courtney Schrock, 220 Silver Mapleway. I just hear him call them. S-H-R-O-C-K. Thank you. I'm software engineer by trade. I deal with patterns. A couple of things that have been said here. I'm addressing you guys as well because your tasks with my hope is an honest exuding of what's the best course of action here? What's the decision to make? There's been a couple of things, I believe, that just spoke. She said something and I wanted to point out a little detail. She said that the funding sources have changed, are changing with this changing of facility so that it's going to change from more federal funding to more private individuals, private insurance. But then who are the private insurance companies that are paying for this? The people that they have jobs, they're homeless. They're like, what insurance company? So that's a paradox that just happened in front of me that I was like, that needs to be a parent. Another paradox, Dr. Nielsen. He said, this is a problem. We're just trying to help it. And so far, no one has actually made voice to the bigger pattern of what's going on here. Barry Bacon has brought up since 2015. There's been a mass change in what's going on. There's a lot more homeless. There's a lot more going on. When was the first homeless camp that came here to Colville? This is my third year in Colville. I came from Spokane. I saw the transformation. I lived in Spokane for 20 years. I saw what happened in Spokane County. Up front, my wife is a mental health therapist. She worked downtown. I worked downtown. We saw firsthand. We have served the hard up, personally numerous times. What I have seen personally is a shift from those that are on hard times to those that choose this behavior and are enabled by a system that profit from treating them. What I have is a class of people that are struggling to earn an honest buck in a business serving their guest. But there are some enterprising individuals that have realized that just like health care did, what has happened to health care prices through the roof? What happens when people don't pay for things directly? It doesn't matter what the cost is. If you can – I'm sorry. You don't qualify for federal funds because you don't have a problem. Well, that's foster a problem so we can qualify for federal funds. So who's getting paid? I hear you. I hear you. I hear you. It's a major problem. But I want to put forward that the problem is not dealing with the symptom and the side effect. I want to put forward that the problem is tolerating what creates the environment for it to fester because this is just a symptom. Dealing with the substance abuse is a real problem and my heart leaves for those that are captured by it. And I mean that sincerely. I have family members. This is not – this is right close to my heart. I can tell you personal stories. Family members, their kids lost their kids to the state and have recovered and have come back and are pillars of the society, but it is rare. I hear the sheriff and I hear the law enforcement with the jails. I think the jail is the wrong place for it. I tell you my wife is a mental health therapist. Dealing with this environment – these problems this way, you are on a lag measure. You are dealing with lag measures. The statistics that Dr. Nielsen gave you – those are for the entire time that he's been running it. What are the current statistics? And he said something that I don't know if you all caught this. When you asked him what his plan was for the existing facility, he said, "Well, we're going to put that in use too." So what in reality is happening is this change is doubling the size of the facility. It's taking it from a 13-bed facility to a adding 14 more beds. That's what's actually happening. It's a disservice to say we're just moving the operations to the side yard. It's doubling the facility. And it was just admitted by the CFO that by this change, doubling the facility is also allowing them to now service and build private insurance. You have the templates of information that allow you to see what's really happening here. There are people here that are profiting off of the symptom. They're profiting off of treating the symptom. Now, it's a real problem. And I want to propose a solution to that problem as well. And it's not something that I have, but there's other people in Spokane that I've observed that have the solution. It's called Union Gospel Mission. Union Gospel Mission has a zero tolerance policy for substance abuse while receiving treatment. Zero tolerance. That means no drugs, no legal substances. That includes marijuana. What that means is that if you really want to get better and you want to make, you want to achieve something else, you want to admit that where you are currently has a problem. You have to give up the substance that is eating away and ceasing you to be a functional part of society. That's a pivotal piece of treatment. Catholic Charities in Spokane from personal experience is a nightmare. I urge all of you to go observe what their treatment does to the environment around them. It is a nightmare. It is not just providing housing, it is enabling destructive behaviors. It is enabling the type of behavior that occupy the sheriff and occupy our jails. We're not helping the situation. We're only enabling it. The larger scope of what's actually happening, I have seen this exact pattern happen in Spokane. After 20 years, it is a complete mess. Keep it up because you're going down the same road that they started going down. I have friends that were city council members. I saw the transition happen. I heard you to take careful consideration for the bigger picture what's not spoken. Union gospel mission has a zero tolerance policy. If the homeless are here, they need help. We want to help you. We want to help you, but you've got to give up the substance. This is bad for you. You've got to give it up. We want to help you, but here it is. Oh, no. I want the substance more than help. That's what's happening, and for you to accept their refusal to remove substance from their life, you are enabling that destructive behavior. All your platitudes to help and to provide them housing is doing a disservice to them. You're only postponing the inevitable. I say that from family members that have gone through this road, I'm not just from an exterior side. They urge you to reconsider what's really at stake here. Like what's been said earlier, there is a bigger piece at play. You want to help the sheriff? You help him stand against the state government that says, we can't prosecute. You can do drugs all you want. You want to help the sheriff? Help him hold those that do substances and abuse the substances accountable and say, no, you've got to leave the county. Guess what? That solves your dilemma of the jails. No, you've got to leave. Think outside the box. Start addressing the real issue. This here, this discussion about rezoning for this one is just the tip of the iceberg. As Barry Bacon has said, this is a tripod of treatment, and I will say to you right now, your problem is much bigger than what this particular issue is at hand. Think long and hard about what industry you want here in Stevens County. You have a small business owner that said, we have a timber industry here. You know what happened in Spokane? The industry is healthcare. There's still a lot of people chugging along and trying to make a big difference, but be very careful. If you're doing health care in Stevens County, how you change the core, be very careful. Thank you. [applause] Is there anyone else in the audience? Let's go speak. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. I appreciate the opportunity to speak. My name is Corey Fitzgerald. I am at 880 South Main Street. That is the location of Country Chevrolet. I walked in here today just to tell you a story, but happened about four years ago. It was a gentleman that came out of the crisis stabilization. He was set out in the afternoon with nowhere to go. He hung around our city all night long, never went to bed. He picked up a real estate sign from the office and he went around banging on windows and knocking out glass at Mr. Sullivan at real estate offices and other buildings. The police actually made contact with this guy around six o'clock in the morning until he needed to stop what he was doing, right? After vandalizing, the gold bond will be here at 730. In that time, he did $35,000 in vandalism just on my lot. A few of those cars were mine. Most of them were my customers. Things not covered by my insurance. Imagine those phone calls. I'm sorry, sir. Your car got $10,000 for damage last night by someone who was released early from the crisis stabilization. I'm not sure he was stabilized when he came out. We chose to repair all those cars so we didn't have to make those phone calls. But I'm a victim. I'm a $35,000 victim of somebody who was set loose without the infrastructure behind that. Now, we can look around this town and we know we have a mental health crisis. Back to the jump drive before me. The fact that they can't give up the substance is the fact that we know there's a mental health problem to go to the next step. We know that. Have you seen a new girl jukin and jivelin and crosswalks or if they can get in shot when you drive by? We have this in our community. It's not going away because we say yes or no to this. We probably need a facility like this. But what scares me is what's going on next, what that other facility, the current facility will be used for. Walking in the day, I came in here and support. But what I've seen is a little bit of slight a hang-in. I feel like I might have seen Houdini once or twice come up here. Hey, not pay attention, what's going on over here. We're just moving it from the front yard to the back yard, you know, for this side yard. So I feel like the presentation has hurt the community here and that we're trying to help. We want to see mental health get better. We want to see substance abuse not be at the level it is today. It has exploded in the last 10 years. It shocks me to see some of this. Now, some of you may know, I've tried to, I don't want to say fight homeless, help homeless, but find a solution for the community over the last five years as it's affected me personally. So I implore you, you have a very important job. I am not jealous at all of your responsibilities to look at this strongly at what the future actually holds, right? This has been okay for the time it's been here. But what's coming, is that going to be worse than what we currently have? Maybe there's some conditions that could be applied. But just want to share my stories and my thoughts. I appreciate you listening. Thank you. [applause] Is there anyone else who just laid my hand? [applause] My name is Mary Silecki. I'm a 50-year resident of Stevens County. My address is 1610 Highway 20 East. I wrote a letter of support when the application was sent to the state because I've spent my life working on health issues in this community the whole while I've been here. And what I've watched happen is David Nielsen and his team have put together a good comprehensive approach to a lot of people's issues. The way we wish would go away, but they don't. And they need to have that kind of support. This crisis stabilization center is very important to the whole process of what we go through. One of the things I worked on at the state level when I was there was tobacco prevention. And we learned it wasn't just one thing. It had to have a whole prong. So David Nielsen and his team have put together the crisis unit that's at Mount Carmel Hospital. They have counselors who come into the ER and one of them -- and our sheriff's department and police were at the hospital today because there was an incident going on in the ER. And we have to have all of these services available. So I do hope that you let them take the next step and improve what they're doing. And what I did here in Dr. Nielsen's presentation was there's consideration of using the current space. It was the crisis stabilization as a sober and substance-free house where people can go in for rehab. I have a nephew who's currently having to get to that next step from court and recognize that it affects families all over the place. So thank you for allowing me to speak. Thank you. [Applause] I'd say that this is up. Okay, we'll get to it everywhere. Hello? Hi, your name and address, please. Can you hear me? Yes. Thank you. Okay. Connie LaRue, 1045, Kid Nurses Road, Colfield. Now, I've told you guys, and I've told you guys, I don't hear well. I couldn't hear hardly anything. But this man said, a couple of words here and there. Now, I know you've got these microphones so that I could hear, but people don't use these microphones, but I will. So I want to say, when David Nielsen was up here, I could hear very, very little of what he was saying, but I did catch one thing that really disturbed me when he was asked about the old facility and the new facility. And he's going to turn, well, it's not going to be a big change, but he's going to turn the old facility into a halfway house. So there's something wrong with what he's saying. And I can't put my finger on it because I didn't hear enough of what he was saying. But I'm here to tell you that this man back here in the orange shirt who just spoke, he put his finger on it. There's something wrong with what David Nielsen is telling us. And I think that this man is right and he's going to double the size of this facility. I don't think it's going to be right. I just can't see it happening. I am opposed to, I'm totally opposed to government increasing its size. And so if it's going to increase the size of the facility, then I'm opposed to it because this, you know, private businesses are going down, down, down because of government regulation, government control, taxes, burdens, they have to face, owners have to face. It's not right for government to increase when private businesses are going down. That's all. Thank you. [Applause] Hello. Hello, everyone. My name is Kristina Stivers. I live on Don Mountain Way in Addy. For those of you in the room who have never been affected by substance use or mental health anyway, Kristina Stivers. STI, V-E-R-S. And I wasn't going to speak today. However, I just wanted to say a few things. And if anyone in this room has not been affected in some way by substance use or mental health, consider yourself blessed and very unique at this point. I was that person five years ago who, you know, should have just been kicked out of the county. I struggled with mental severe mental health. I struggled with substance use myself. And we have to understand that there are always going to be those people who are not willing to give those substances up. However, the people who do need the help and are ready to make that change in their life and want the health and are willing to utilize those services, I use the crisis stabilization center. I use the sober living house. I struggled with opiate addiction and with the criminal justice system also. Next month I'll have four years, clean and sober. And I am also in huge favor of this facility. This existing facility because I've also done outreach work in this community. And those people who do want the help have a place to go and get connected to services. We understand that there are people who do not want the help who are not willing to change. But those people like me and several others in this room who finally got sick and tired of being sick and tired and wanted to become a successful contributing member to society. This was a place that I utilized and if it was not there for me, I probably would not be alive or before you today. And that's all I wanted to say. Hello. My name is Carol Jackson and I also live in 1970 Dunmount Way and Addie. And I too suffered from substance abuse. And I'm sorry, I want to look at you all. But I'll have to talk like this. I also suffered from chemical dependency and mental health issues. And I too went through the jail. I went to institutions and I was close to death. And without the assistance of a community really to help the people like me. I would not be looking at you all. I would maybe be dead. But I'm not. So in my critical moments, I get a little emotional because this is real. I am an outreach navigator. So I talk with a woman who looks like she wants to get shot. I talk to the guy at Walmart who's begging you for money. I talk to people in the street and we care about them. And to open a stabilization facility, I'm sorry, my voice is shaking, is unique to a community who wants to create help for people in their society. We're not sucking taxpayer dollars. I am not making a mint doing my job. I would paycheck to paycheck to come and tell you that I'm going to help people who are just like me. And we want to provide them a safe, sober environment, a safe area where professionals. And I say that word again, professionals can give guidance back into community. We link up with multiple resources in this community. We are unique. Callville is not unique to the church is going to come in and help you. You need a stabilization facility that's going to help you. You have a ton of churches in town. They're not providing services. We provide services to let you know that we have been there. We understand. We care about you. And we want to help you at any level, at any level. If anyone in here today would have a crisis tonight, where would you go? And that's what I'd like you to think about. Thank you. [Applause] Hi, I'm Rosetta Davis. I live on 973 East Birch. I've been in Kabul since 1980. I am one of the past criminals. Ask Brad. He knows me. [Laughter] But I'm a success story because I got sober in Kabul and this is my crime. This is my area where I did my crimes. But when I got sober, New Alliance got me sober. They actually, I got myself, but they helped me. And if it wasn't for New Alliance, I wouldn't be sober today. I'm raising two grandkids. My life has changed. And if it wasn't for the mental health and the substance abuse community, I wouldn't have been able to change and I would probably be dead or in prison. That being said, we need facilities in Stevens County to help people. We need, you know, nobody wants to look at the homeless camp. Nobody wants to deal with that stuff. Nobody wants it in their backyard. You know, I live right by the hospital. I don't care. I want people to get help. You know, I literally live a block from the hospital. And I don't have problems. I'm going to ask her, and someday I might, but I don't. I don't get robbed. I don't get none of that stuff happening. And not saying it doesn't. But this community needs extra help. We need people. We need to help the people that are here. We need to help. I mean, there's multiple people in this county that I have my mom and dad. I, there's people in this county that don't have moms and dads to go live with to get sober. They don't have places to go get sober and we need facilities to help people get sober. And, um, I mean, it's not going to go away. Beth is not going away. Carol is not going away. None of the opiates are going away. It's here. We just got to help the ones that are here. So thanks. So. My name is James Anderson. 106 Richmond Lane. I'm not much of a public speaker, but I am a designated crisis responder in Stevens County. And I'm the one along with. Parabates here that helps put people into these facilities, both at the hospital and at our crisis stabilization. And I implore you guys to really, really think about. The benefit that this has to our community and to the people that I help. On a weekly basis. If this facility didn't exist, I'm not sure where I would put these people. I mean, I just implore you to think about that. And I don't know if I guess people should understand the process one day, what goes on there. People don't just, it's voluntary. But like Dr. Nielsen said, if someone's there and we feel like they're a prop, like something's going to become a bigger problem. I come as a designated crisis responder and put them. So, I really just implore everybody to think. I think it went longer than I thought. It's awesome. This is telling me it's... It's right. Okay, well, I mean, I think I really said what I wanted to say. It's just something I've been that new lines for eight years. I too suffered from mental health and substance use issues, but I've since, you know, gotten a master's degree. I was a counselor, now my designated crisis responder. I work with this population every week. I put people in our evaluation and treatment facility, I put people in our crisis stabilization facilities. These places need to be here. We need to figure out, I implore you to talk to Dr. Nielsen and figure out how this place needs to be here, but it needs to be here. The problem exists and without something like this, it would be in the jail. And I know the jail doesn't want that, so that's a lot of things. I don't know, Larry. 3350 design, all right? So, Larry, this one. I came in here thinking that I really didn't. There's very, very boots to this, and many reasons why. My wife would kill me if she heard me say this right now. I'm just going to give one testimony as to the release of her son who is schizophrenia in their facility. And right now, he's MIA. I don't necessarily know that they do the best job. I agree that we probably need more help. They need more help. I just don't know about the expansion, because he wasn't from here. He was shipped from a different county. I really just wanted to share that very post to this. I don't know that the expansion is good for it. I think that they're dropping the ball on a lot of issues. And this one definitely hits home. And my wife lives with it every day, so. You build it, they will come. That's all. Is there anyone else wishing to speak? Yes. My name is Sherry Penal, eight from two. Then I was like, oh my gosh. I understand we're all compassionate, and we want to help. I have experienced alcoholism and different addictions with my family. I've had deaths to my family because of it. I understand it. I have his son, now he's in Texas. He worked for the crisis intervention team, the housing negotiation team. I have EMTs and crisis intervention people in my family. And so I understand the situation. I don't think, maybe bigger facilities. I'm kind of rushing. I understand the sheriff at the end of the, because I have a policeman in my family. And like I said, my son works as a crisis intervention person. I don't think expanding the situation, making more beds, I think only the people accountable for their actions is more important. I agree with Mr. Trock. All right, I'll provide the way. I have Mr. Fitzgerald and a different business people. What about them? What about the people trying to set a business-based family, keep everybody safe, and we're catering to people. Somebody help themselves, and I'm happy they can help themselves. I'm happy they have the facility to do to help. But I will think they did it bigger, it's better. I don't think trying more money, making more, getting the government involved in it. The government for me is better, stay out of my pockets. Just lost my train. What about the good jobs? I worked for Section 8 for many, many years. I finally resigned because I couldn't support the program anymore. I think the program's great, helping the people that need the help. But when they start saying, "Okay, you're going to get a job, we're not going to count that money anymore. We're going to pay all your rent." People come in and get a job. They found out that, "Oh, I get a job, you're not going to pay all my rent." I quit my job. There's too many loopholes. If people want help, get help. And make them accountable. Do the drug test. Make them get a job. Okay, they all have a work source. They get the free shoes, distance, and now they show up for work. And they click. Where is accountability? I worked. Many, many years. I've been working since I was 13 years old. I've left overseas. I was born and raised here. I left when I was 18. I lived overseas for 32 years. I worked in fire prevention. I did many, many things. We came back here because my family was here. My dad was a retired pastor since they both passed away, because my dad had Alzheimer's. And this community's changed. Where is accountability? Where is it wrong to get a job at work? I'm kind of lost. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Is there anyone else wishing to speak? I have a question for you. My name is Mike Nichols. I live at 166. I went and missed a drive across from the glorious Catholic Charities Health. Now, I want to understand that I have compassion for people who are in need. But this body is going to have to determine some aspects of how that need is provided. Some people said, if you build it, they will come. That is exactly true. If we build more and more facilities to treat people, so far we haven't had this being able to say, the people who are dealing with are untrustworthy people. They have mental issues. People with mental issues cannot be trusted to live by the rules that most of us live by. And that has a detrimental effect on our community. We have a great little community here. But it's feeding away at it where people don't feel safe anymore. I remember that in school. We never took keys out of our car when we went to school. There's no safety. That kind of new thing for me. I didn't call it all my life. Sometimes I went to school and was gone for a little bit. What I wanted to talk about is a thing called devious means. People are not truthful in accomplishing what they decided to accomplish. I am a significant victim of myself. And we've seen it with even having charities sitting across the street from me. We have a cooperation between Aaron, Catholic charities and others involved behind the scenes where they taught the city planning mission into changing the zone. I was zoned. His own information said recommended to the city that they not change. They did an overall change. People don't know. They made every zone in the city, an all-time use zone. So you don't have any single family dwelling zones that are protected anymore. That was in the recently adopted comprehensive plan. And when they came before this committee to get approval of their construction, they were able to convince the committee that they didn't have to put in terms of sidewalks. When I had construction in the city, I had a pretty pretty pretty sidewalk. When the border patrol put in a facility, they had to put the sidewalks for a long, long way. But these guys didn't have to. It was devious what they did. We have people come to this thing. They said we're just going to move our current facility. They drug it out of. That was a devious means that we're going to get you guys to get involved with. And make you guilty of the devious part of this program. They're going to expand their facility. Now, it's already known. Sometimes I'm ashamed to know some homeless people that are in the underground. And it's already known as Spokane. If you want services, you can go up to Colorado. They have churches that will speak every day. They have all these programs. They're coming to Colorado. We saw people being dropped off that were part of that relocation program for the illegals. Coming across from Mexico. There's 10 million of them. They're coming here. We have to protect ourselves from them. We have to now. We have a company that is providing services for our use. If we expand that, we're going to expand the people. They will come. I've always respected it. Very vacant through my life. He and his cohorts are turning the city into a slum. A little bit of time here and there. And now they've got it with this new change. They can put these little places here and there in the community. Next to what have been single family dwellings. People feel safe in the community of single family dwellings. They just start putting people that have no skin in the game. They don't have anything. They're homeless or whatever. They even have a mental health condition that affects their behavior. And we're sticking them here and there. My point is that we have a facility now. They came with tedious means to get you to okay a movement of their program so they can expand. They've got drug out of them. It didn't seem they came forth with that. That is an intent to expand their facility. I'll say if we want to maintain the status quo, we have to stop providing additional care for that well these people will come in and take advantage of. I said I have a real soft part of that. Personally had opportunities to provide a place for homeless people. And I can currently provide some help to a homeless person. But as one of the ladies mentioned when we have a facility that is funded by the government and they want to expand it more or something. Someone suggested that insurance is going to pick up the difference. I don't believe that. It's a movement that has been proposed. I have to say that word by the communist. To get more and more government control and influence in the people's lives. We've got to stop that. We've got to resist that. Like my bitch Satcher said, sooner or later communist run out of other people's money. Well that's what this operates on. It operates on taking money from this person to give to that person. Now we do it through taxes. That's nice. It's the same thing. They theft from people. So it's actually a little taxation and give it to other people. That's wrong. And we need to start minimizing that. Not expanding. I suggest that if you allow this program that's proposed in the deepness means that you are part of the deepness means. And facilitating them to expand the facility when they came in and said we're just moving. Thank you. Anyone else who would like to speak? It's not fair to be the first one. My name is Heather Aginar. I'm at 416 East First Avenue. Right here in Paulville. So my question is for the applicant. And also for you guys. Does this decision have to be made today? Some serious points brought up both sides. I agree. We do need a place for people in crisis to go mental health, schizophrenia, severe depression, possibly autistic mental health crisis. I have five children. Four of them are neurodivergent. I have very vulnerable children. So now he's there. But I have four children at home. And who knows? Maybe one of them might end up in crisis. I have many friends who have autistic children who have gone into severe mental crisis. So it's not just drug addiction that I know that we do need a place for people who are in crisis, a safe place for them to go. However, it feels like, especially with the drugs that is causing most of the problem, that there's not really some ready solutions other than providing more services. Just give more and give more, rather than really looking at how to get to the root cause of these issues. You look at, no, I can't remember exactly which cities are which, so you have to forgive me. But I've seen a documentary on the housing first movement, especially in California, with I think it's Los Angeles and San Francisco. The main thing was the housing first, which Dr. Bacon and Catholic Charities as the main focus is housing first, which I appreciate the heart behind all of that. But if you look at the city's housing first philosophy is not solving the problem. And you look at, I think it's San Diego, don't call me on that, but another big city in California, they took a total different approach, more likely than the gospel approach of you have to maintain sobriety. You have absolute rules you have to follow. And if you don't follow those rules, you have to step away until you're ready to follow those rules. And we have people being released into our community, causing $35,000 worth of damage, and who's paying for that, the business owners. So I really think that we need a better plan of action and more input from the community and also more analysis of other major cities who are having success in their programs. The first is looking at Seattle and Spokane and Portland and all these major cities who are not having any success whatsoever in their programs. It's like they're throwing all this money at these problems and no one seems to be getting better, except for maybe a few new success stories are phenomenal and I love hearing it and they were finally able to take the steps that they needed. To get things over. So I agree with the sheriff and Sean. Okay, bye. Sorry. Okay. You were in that crisis, you know, but I really think there needs to be more discussion and more analysis and not more money being just thrown at it. And didn't you see there were some grants being provided, you know, what about building a facility specifically for this and they're connected, you've got the short term crisis and the halfway together. Not in town. So when they get released, they can go vandalize or pre-inventies or behind the dumpster or whatever, you know, I think that there needs to be more discussion and more public discourse, instead of just all of a sudden now you're getting all this input and you have no time to do data analysis from other major cities who are having success or other small towns who are having success in dealing with people who are in trouble. And to drug problems and the influx of illegal immigrants that are being thrown into our very small communities. We already have major issues here, not only with drug addiction and mental health, but we also have our disabled population, which is very dear to my heart. You know, I have to ship my son off to Spokane, because there is nothing here for him. And it looks like I have to do that to my daughter too, because there's nothing here for her. Okay, that doesn't make me comfortable. And those are my two oldest. So we have an incredible community that come together and they really care about people. The heart of the vacant and other people who work with Hope Street and warming shelter and everything is huge. And I love that. I just don't think exactly what the plan is, is viable for safety of our community. You know, I worry about my children being able to walk to the library and to the park and to the places. If we're not having a better plan of action. That's, and I saw yesterday some man I've never seen before, walking down Main Street, carrying a jug of water, screaming at somebody. I have no idea who was some, like, makeshift pipe weapon in his back and scared me. I'm like, I don't want to go outside right now. This man is clearly not well walking down our street. And I've never seen him before. So we are giving him influx of people coming into our communities that aren't from our community, and we just need a better plan. And I feel like this is just giving shotgun data without a really good discussion for the community. So that's my case, I'm sorry. All right, thank you. Anyone else wish to speak with me like, like once? All right, we're going to move on. Is there, at this point, an opportunity to rebuttal by the staff? Are you having a closer take? So just a few things, the risk of taking more of your lunch time. I just let it issue. So new alliance applied for a grant from the Washington State Department of Congress that we wrote in January, I believe it was due approximately February 12th of this year. Started writing in January about a month in advance. From the moment that we started working on that application to apply for funds to renovate the public works building, to move the crisis stabilization facility to the new location, we shout out to many different community partners, including the city of Caldwell to let them know from the get code. This is what we're planning on doing. So it has not been an attempt to keep anything a secret from the very beginning to communicate with the city about this. That's when the mayor invited me to address the city council about what a proposal was. And at that time, I talked about the two-ponged approach that we were trying to do, create a recovery housing program out of our existing facility, and then solve the problem of taking the existing facility and moving into a facility that we could get fully licensed to the state. So we're transparent about that from the very beginning. There's never been any intention to deceive even transparent from the beginning. The reason that the discussion that I shared with you all up to this point today about the current facility is because I was asked to write an operational program and to pursue the conditional use permit for the existing facility. I've been talking about anything else that would have been equivalent to having my history teacher ask me to write a report about the U.S. Constitution only for me to turn in and report about the theology of my church. That's not what I was asked to do. So there is a bigger plan of what we are trying to do. Move the crisis facility to solve the license issue once and for all, and to create recovery housing in the existing facility in response to a year-long needs assessment that several county agencies participated in and where again the issue was brought to us we need housing, particularly for people with addiction. So we've been very transparent about that. The commissioners created the Stevens County Housing Coalition last year to specifically address that. We've been very public and all of those open public meetings about our intent to create recovery housing. And once again, our plan is put all the infrastructure right on our campus at New Alliance rather than creating recovery housing out of the community someplace, where it could easily be put into case that we wouldn't have as much oversight of it. So yes, there is a bigger issue that's going on here, but we've been very transparent from that about the beginning. And the purpose of my understanding of today's discussion is to talk specifically about the crisis stabilization piece of that. All right. You might as well stay there for a second because I'm going to open it up for questions. I have post hours in. So can you get that license in the current facility, the one that you don't have? We're concerned that it's a house that we're currently in. And to have an industrial kitchen that we can get fully licensed in an industrial laundry facilities that we need would be difficult to do in that existing facility. When you say industrial kitchen, you mean a commercial kitchen? How do you just mean one facility? It won't be a commercial kitchen, but it's an industrial kitchen so that we can meet all of the department's health requirements about how food is prepared to serve in the facility. And then Denise Hager said that one of your supervisors doesn't meet the requirements, and Denise was talking about the approved supervisor. She was talking about the certified counselor that I refer to in my opening remarks, which is a credential that we don't even apply, that we don't use. She was looking at clinicians who are no longer having been employed, actually, the new alliance for many, many years. All of our supervisors have all of the licensure to provide supervision to license to drug and alcohol counselors and to licensed mental health counselors and licensed social workers that they're required to buy the state to have. So it was just a misunderstanding. I think she was looking at, not knowing the laws, but looking at a wrong credential type that we don't apply. And Anne, you had already mentioned about the security system. Do you have a security system planned for the building? In the existing facility, so all of these ID badges that we're all wearing, they're swipe cards. So to, I mean, the facilities, a lot of people can't just walk into the facility, but they can walk out of the facility. So to access the facility, you have to have an ID card and a country keypad to be able to get in. And the whole facility is currently lit up with security cameras, which is exactly what will happen in the new facility, so we can see inside and outside and monitor what's happening all the time through the facility. So those cameras are filming so you can back up. They're recording and we can go back. So now, my operations officers, I think they're safe for 10 days. We are at 90 days a week. The video is safe for 90 days. Oh, okay. If you get this cut and the other building becomes a drug and alcohol treatment thing. One year I was talking earlier about different businesses, he made reference to recovery housing, so that's what that's the intention is to create that is recovery housing. Would that require an additional cut? I don't know. Mr. Chairman, but recovery housing does have certain protections for it to it. I do not believe it would have the trigger or existing code. If it is considered equivalent to an adult family home, which has certain, which is allowed and permitted outright. That has certain protections within the state code. The other area of law that applies to recovery housing will be the care housing act like civil rights act. That's a certain protected classes associated with the housing. One is handicap. And recovering from substance abuse, non-current users, only are considered part of that protected class handicap. And there are a few interpretations that are researching the benefit of the planning issue. So those are just a couple of, because it was brought up, a couple of things to be aware of and legal framework at the both the state and federal level. But with respect to, if I may, lighting and security, lighting and security plan, we provided a technical review committee to provide a record in addition for a planning plan. You may, the applicant is amenable to it. You may consider it could be possible to expand that to lighting and security or surveillance plan, which may not be limited to camera surveillance, but it's called natural surveillance. This is a principle of set up or implementation from the sign, which Jeff took it to earlier with the location of the project being more open and more visible. But based on testimony received, it may be possible to broaden that lighting into a security plan, and maybe not be just limited to that single parcel, but other parcels under common ownership. I have another question. I have another question. On the security thing, I mean, there's always so much, Brad, right under the city, right, they can't be everywhere all the time. And you said you're the new facility in many things existing. You have to have the car rear, whatever you do, but anybody can get out. Correct. Is there any onsite security that human? No, we're not funded to have security officers, unfortunately. The money that we get is treatment dollars, and we're not paid for security. So we're paid to have the staff on site, but we're not paid to have a security guard on site. So the way it works right now is we have somebody there who's leaving voluntarily, who our crisis counselors have concerns about the staff on site, call the crisis counselor and law enforcement and say, David has left concerned law enforcement needs to pick them up, and then the crisis counselors who are coming to the evaluation see if they need criteria for volunteer potential. So, how do you address the concerns, or I would just like to see your, I guess, your response? I have those concerns too. There's times that we have had, as he said, people will come on to our property and sleep and camp at year and 18. We have the same issues that any other business owner does and call them to try and deal with people when the laws don't let us press charges at current time. So what we do now is some programs of expenditures to use some of these people that are the outreach navigators that are specifically funded to go and try and make contact with them to get them engaged in services. At the end of the day, though, the law doesn't allow me to take you into service against your will unless you were in imminent danger to self-others or poverty, which is what we're trying to prevent the get-go. So we do everything that we can to engage people voluntarily into services as quickly or as slowly as it takes, but if some people just simply choose not to come, we can't do anything about it until they reach the level of severity that the law allows us to involuntarily take into custody. And so what about the concerns of Mr. Fitzgerald? So I vaguely remember when that happened, it was shortly after that our inpatient unit opened, and I don't remember the exact details. So what I'm telling you may not be entirely correct, but my recollection is that the inpatient unit, as I told you, 99% of our people are involuntary, which means they sit before a judge and after the treatment team presents to them and says, "This is why your honor, this person needs to be here against their will." The judge ultimately, their representative by defense attorney by prosecutor at the end of the day, the judge rules. And when the judge rules, I disagree and snaps the gavel and the person is released. There's nothing that we can do about it, and the court has released people from the inpatient facility so much recently, but at the beginning, they released a bunch of people that we wanted to hold, and they said, "No, we don't think that they've met the threshold." And just like Sean, when he gets the order that they have to be released from jail and we get the order that they have to be released from inpatient, they're released. We opened that facility in 2017, and for the first year and a half, we really struggled with that. It's been better. I don't remember if that was exactly what happened in the case with countries generally, but I think that that's the story that I don't recall for sure. And what can you share with us, I guess, about the follow-up on people? I understand that you have people on par with people who didn't invite them or people who were treating, but what about the people that do? I mean, what does your follow-up proceed to it? I understand you explained it partly because they have concerns. For the crisis stabilization facilities, the current facility. So we do everything in our power to get people connected to the needed mental health treatment and more than needed drug and alcohol treatment. Through our agency, of course, they don't have to come to us. There's other treatment providers. We connect people with private practitioners. We connect them with local doctors. We'll give them resources through a real resources or whatever partner that they want to work with. So we get people connected to wherever they are willing to be connected to. That's not to say that there are some people who say, "Up yours, I don't want anything." And if they don't want anything and they don't meet the criteria for us to hold them against their will, then they're put out on the street and they walk. But that's not what we strive for. We strive to get everybody connected to everything that they need so that we can keep them and the community safe. So are you saying that if there's mental health people on site don't have a concern that would cause them to call the sheriff and/or the city police and/or the crisis intervention? Do you say it? I'm going to take that. I guess I've heard a lot of comments about what do we do about the people that are just released. Is there any follow-up on them other than they walked out the door? If so, the people who are releasing them are the master's level clinicians. They're evaluated and if the decision, the conclusion, clinical assessment is that they're not in imminent danger to self others or property. They're not in imminent risk to be greatly disabled. They can take care of themselves and they want to leave. I have no legal basis to hold them. Those discharges are few and far between. The vast majority of the persons are coming and they're wanting to be connected to services when we're getting the support they need to and providing agencies, including our own. So, just for our education, I guess, and helping us with any suggestions or possible options for the people that don't need those criteria. I get a few more. Is the law currently written at the end of the day? No. Any more than the jail when the judge says release them, they're released. So, the law is very clear on what's the threshold of illness, if you will, but of symptoms that a person can have before we can involuntarily take them into custody and have them detained to an involuntary and patient facility. So, even the conversations about people walking down the road and acting crazy. I raised my family here too. Our two children went through all 12 grades of school here in Colville. So, we've been in this community. My wife grew up here from the fourth grade. We're committed to this community too. I see people that walk down through the streets and concern me. But the law does not make it illegal to be mentally ill. The law makes it illegal to be mentally ill and to be an imminent danger to yourself, others, or property, or gravely disabled, and that's what we can intervene in. That's what we do intervene. The crisis house, that facility in particular, is set up to intervene before people get to that level of severity. It's the Mount Carmel facility that's for the very severe people. But at the end of the day, it is not illegal to be mentally ill. What do you say to those people that are advocating and are secretly trying to deal with the capacity? My response is, so the whole idea of recovery housing is to be brutally honest. My dear friend, Edna with Emergency Management, she's still here. Yeah, I am. This is my fault. I'm trying to apply it for a federal grant a couple of years ago to talk about how we as a rural county are addressing the opioid crisis. And that was one of six people that was concluded in that process. And through that project and traveling to Washington, D.C. and meeting with other rural counties, we were asked to come up with a project of what does your community need to help address issues related to opioid addiction. And through all of the partnerships that we've had and the Providence needs assessment and the Tri-County Health needs assessment that I already discussed, housing with the addicted population came up over and over and over as an unmet need. And so our project then, based off of the community's response that we need, some sort of housing for people with addiction was, let's create recovery housing. And there's lots of continuums of recovery housing. There's recovery housing where people can drink and use drugs from the very beginning under the theory of, let's just try and get them housed first and then worry about their recovery. All the way down to the Union Gospel Missions where if you drink or relapse, you're out the door. So we're moving. We're not at the Union Gospel Mission and at the continuum, but we're about two steps back from that way. Nobody's, they're not going to be allowed to drink. They're going to be required to be clean and sober in this recovery housing. And the reason that we're looking at a criminal justice population is because they will be involved with the court. They'll have court and probation oversight. So they're going to have teeth that are holding them accountable to be clean and sober while they're working on recovery. Just like the current mayor of Republic Washington, who used to be one of the most notorious addicts in the county, is now recovered through a program like this and is clean and sober and a respected citizen. That's what we're trying to create. So through this reaching role grant that turned into the Stevens, Stevens County Housing Coalition, the project that lets create recovery housing came up. And then the question is if we do recovery housing, is it going to, are we going to put a house, buy a house, someplace and call bill, which we could do. And the answer was, well, we could do that, but wouldn't it be better if we had it right on our campus where we have oversight. So we can have two birds with one stone, we can take that facility that has not been fully licensed and is difficult to get licensed, move it into a building that will help us meet all the licensing criteria. And we can address recovery housing, not the same thing as crisis stabilization, a completely different program right on the same campus where there's good oversight by the licensed behavioral health providers for the county. And the only other piece that I would say here about some of this is in terms of the government piece of it, behavioral health and most of Washington is not operated by the county. It's operated by private nonprofit organizations. A blessing and a curse for us. At the end of the day, there's nothing that requires new lines to be a county entity other than that's the way that it's been since it opened up in the 60s. We were in Spokane, we would have been a private nonprofit. So it's not that this is a government program. It just so happens that in Stevens County, it started out as a department of the county government. It could have become a 501(c)(3). There's decisions made years ago not to do that. And so we're a county agency providing the same sort of services that licensed private nonprofits do the most other counties in Washington. So this isn't a government program. Ultimately, this is a health care program trying to address the needs of the community. And what do you say to those folks that repeatedly say that you build that being a county? I think I tried to address that in my opening remarks. We're building it because it's already here. And if it wasn't here, they're not going any place. They're just going to be getting services in the jails and the emergency departments have from places that are not equipped to serve up. They're already here and they're not going any place. And all you have to do is look at the government statistics, if you will, of what has happened with our youth since COVID-19, the profound increase in depression and anxiety. These are the kids who are sitting around making a decision to have problems. They're trusting to an environment that really betrayed them. They're developing symptoms. They grow up to be adults. And we're seeing this with kids, we're seeing this with adults, huge increases in depression and anxiety across the entire nation following COVID. And it's not because people are raising their hand saying, you know, I want to be a bum. These are complex biological psychosocial issues that we're dealing with. If they were easy to resolve, we wouldn't exist because everybody would take care of it. And there's no single answer to it. Union Gospel Mission doesn't have the silver bullet. A doesn't have the silver bullet. New Alliance doesn't have the silver bullet. This takes a comprehensive approach, and all of us are doing our best to deal with a very complicated issue that, when not treated themselves in people's lives, and when treated, creates very healthy, successful, recovered people. Are you remembering? Yes, it was for staff. That's why I didn't have it. They're both on the odds. Yes, okay. So I think it was Lisa from the spring girl that said that the planning department had no authority to decide this was to be a cut. Could you address that? Well, on the staff report, and I think about people in the remarks that I did address, that there is interpretation, although I can... There's a basic thing is you can find any place else to put it. That's what it looks like with your staff report. Basically, an application of states is that if there's a use proposed, it's not listed in the use table. You don't need the table permitted and conditionally permitted uses. Then, an interpretation needs to be made on finding life uses. The best I could find was the nursing home, juvenile detention center. Not in the stretch, possibly. But also, as I mentioned in the remarks, looking at the state's model for instance, which is really a sample of various orders by various jurisdictions across the state that has adopted standards for behavioral health facilities. Typically, more often than not, they require a conditionally use code. And so, do you have the authority as the planner to make that decision? The code provides the authority to make that decision that can be overruled by this body. The other thing that doesn't have a lot to do with this, but Mike Nichols brought it up. He said there isn't any more single family dwellings are one in our town. That's that you can do anything anywhere. I didn't say anything anywhere, but they didn't change it to that all the zones were changed to multi use. That's a question for me that allows them to put this kind of housing for homeless, whatever in areas where there is single family zoning. So, the single family zoning, which you had to have single family building that doesn't exist anymore exactly because all of the zones were changed to multi use. You did that. Do you agree that there are multi use. Yeah. No, our one is limited to single family development and single family homes and accessory. So that doesn't mean that you could put something like this in an R one. It just, you can put it in an R one. It qualifies a long time use. Yes. It hasn't asked to be approved by a child allows for it, because of the way the state changed the program. That's how you got. So, the city did this implement one of the zones called for in the adopted conference plan. And I believe what's being referred to is what's called the neighborhood mixed use zone. You can see there are certain. Some pockets called them. There's there's one over here. And then there is some more. All for this area. And then, and this follows the future land use map of the city's comprehensive plan, which just happens to be across the street from your house. This happens to be. So that was a use zone called for in the office of lands, which was implemented by the planning zone commission council. Just give me that you're joking. If this board were to pass. The city council passed the cup, what's your timeline? And that might be to make me do such a question. It's a mark. Are you guys prepared to move? Is they need your building? Well, the funding to do the renovation between last night and sometime tomorrow. Originally, we expected to know at the end of April, if we knew at the end of April, the game plan was to take occupancy and start providing by July of 2025. So, just given the delay on notification, you can keep that can two months down the road. So September 2025. So you're here. Back at answer. They're here out. So, they're here out. But we need, we need to have an answer now, because we need to know if we're going to be able to start building or not, given the grants that we're anticipating. So what would happen if this was taken when you can get an answer to another public hearing next month? Next month is not the end of the world, as we keep delaying it. If I'm notified today or tomorrow and we need to execute contracts with Congress, we need to know. (inaudible) I have a question just for the minor, I guess. (inaudible) I just wanted, if you can add clarity for us on our first criteria, the one that says, project is consistent with the city call of comprehensive plan meets requirements and intent of this title, including the type of land use, the density slash intensity of the proposed development and protection areas. And so this seems to be very aware who are taking the judgment of all like this. Yes. And I tried to articulate that in my staff report, where, you know, there are certain, there's not a lot within the Congress to plan and talk about behavioral health facilities. But there are goals related to housing and serving those in need for housing and types of services needed for those in a way suffering from mental or substance abuse issues. So that's the best I can come up with, based on your current comments and goals and policies. So the couple that I cited, goal, ED, or professional services sector along with educational services, health care, and government employment drives. And then I second on development, or then policy 4.1. And under that, we can follow those positions as regional health, government, employment, civic activities, and public facilities. And then the housing element. And I tried to mention this is not a proposal specific to house individuals on a permanent basis. But the relationship population we serve are proposals that special needs populations. This is those who are physically and mentally disabled, mentally ill, substance abuse, and domestic abuse. For all elderly personings, these populations have a special full time of teeny and adequate housing. To develop evidence suggests special needs housing is a persistent challenge in Colorado, and that homelessness is on the rise of the county seat, the location of many social service providers and students coming. There will always be a need for these specialized housing types. Although we will continue to partner with organizations to specialize in addressing these issues, we will be really partnered to find solutions that maintain the city's small health care and quality of life. And finally, goal, goal, C, F, U2, that's future land use. Although plans proactively for the facility needed for anticipated growth and development. So, going through the completeness of the goals and objectives and statements that I thought potentially had an access to this proposal you want to provide with the staff. So from your perspective, what does support this adjustment, the authority to either agree or disagree with you? You are the decision makers. I am not. It's pretty much that simple. I find the analysis and you're welcome to question or challenge any part of my analysis. I'm neutral. I just do the technical work and the review. But you're welcome to add, subtract, disregard. As long as you can make adequate findings for approval, approval, and more conditions. Any conditions, you know, should have an essential nexus to the proposal. And we're roughly proportional to the impacts generated. We want to maybe impact the urban properties. It's got to be partially proportional to the impacts that are believed to potentially occur. So, are we out on the same, if we as a board out on the same limit that you're on in terms of making a judgment call about whether or not it fits within the comprehensive plan for the city problem? Broadening for conditional use permits, I think it's important to recognize the conditional use permits are allowed to use. And it's generally hard to, you know, unless it can't be served, right, unless you don't have water, super capacity, or, you know, it's very rare that a conditional use permit would be denied, it's listed, not listed in your code. But it is under state code, you know, considered essential public facility, so it's not as clear cut as other uses that may have come before you. By conditional use permits, if you agree that this, that is the right process, then conditional use permits, it's really about the conditions are closed. And, you know, whether or not we can meet those conditions, whether it's basically whether it's economically viable to do so. And that said, conditions cannot be so onerous as we've been seeing this just trying to stop the development, you know, in its tracks. And there are certainly, there's case law that where her boards have been challenged on, you know, making an arbitrary decision for placing an owner's condition, like an helicopter tab or something. It doesn't have a, you know, essential nexus of halfway on the other side of town or something like that. Well, let's talk briefly about your suggested conditions for approval, then you've listed two, but then on the first one, you have A through H and sub parts of that. Are there other conditions that you considered and share with us today? No, but as I started to mention, Mr. Chair, condition number two on Building Climate Submission and Lighting Plan shall be provided. If you could certainly broaden that to lighting and surveillance or security plan. And you may consider given that the county also owns the parcel directly to the West and parcel directly to the Northwest. I see how they can, you may consider if the applicant's not, if the applicant's amenable to it, to broaden that to all adjacent parcels and include all adjacent parcels under common ownership. So that way that sort of county complex would have a security line. Just, you can't force a property, no, it's not a plan for anything. It's a different property, different assets, you just have the applicant. But given that those properties are connected and there is somewhat of a nexus to where the existing facility is. That might just be an addition that you can consider and I think that would be dependable. Does that also fall under one H? Is that a different thing? You are in one H? Correct. You said safety and discharge plan, what did you mean by safety? Oh, no, no. I'm talking about addition number two. I know, but I'm asking if it would also hide the interest of safety. That's at this point in front of the operations plan for new actual, useful stuff. And would not really apply to the commercial. But just listening to testimony, it brought a writing plan between writing security plans for all adjacent parcels under common ownership. Okay, is there any other questions in the session? No, I'm just, I'm just struggling with that. I've been building and becoming, to me, it's the same thing. There's rehabilitation thing in the, in the mental health at all. We'll see. Okay. Good question, please. There's a great crisis building. It's under C3. Also great. This is E.S. This is E.S. This is for sure. Yes, we've always come from the separate parking lot to the east. This is all in the C3. Yes. There's that parking lot to the east. That's not part of this proposal. It is under county ownership and is known as R2. It's just the parking area. The multi-family zone is just in the multi-family zone. That is not that part of it, which is part of people. Public works in the city. I see. That'll become part of your campus. Well, that part might change everything. Or will this stay hard? For 30, you need a parking lot to the south, if there's not like the one, no, the east. Do the east and the east. So, R2 up there. Yeah. R2 is right there. Yeah. There's no proposal to change, no. This is from the avenue. Is that just going to continue to be? So, parking lot is closed by Stephen's County Public Works. All of the new Alliance Outpatient Staff has public jokes people park there right now. It's exactly what it will continue to be when we will purchase it as part of the purchase package so that public works can be located wherever they're going to go. Okay. So, at this point, I'm going to close the public portion of this hearing. And now that we've heard public comments. And we review these documents concerning the proposal of the subject of the discussion of finding conclusions by the car force. In your presence, we're going to discuss, do you have a question? No, no, I'm okay. Okay. In your presence, we're going to discuss a proposal for either a proof or just people in this plan. So, you're welcome, that's it. And then eventually, we'll call for a motion on a proof or disapproval and have a vote. That's what's going on. I have a start. So, if we were to prove these tasks, my things, what changes between the two and the three? Well, this isn't the case of recommending this piece of page. This is what I'm having trouble with. Okay, we're part of that. The project will not be on duly detrimental to the use of properties in the project vicinity, which ties along to, I'm thinking they have 12 bins now. Yeah, no, they have 13 bins now and it's going to be 14. Then it'll be 27 bins. Well, I wasn't getting the impression from the applicant that it's the same kind of treatment. Could you read or address that? It's the difference between what you'll make that house later on. The facility will be licensed as a treatment facility, a health treatment facility, residential treatment facility. Through the Washington State Department of Health, people who are there, their stays will be paid by various state, federal private insurance. The admission and discharge criteria is a health care facility. The house will have no such licensing to be certified by the Washington Alliance of Recovery Restness. The people who will be there will pay contribute out of their pocket for their own stay. There's other different grants that will pay for the facility. It is not a treatment facility. It's not a treatment facility. It's a housing program. And this is for people that are already under gone. The priority population will be people leaving inpatient living alcohol treatment. Silver committed to being clean and sober. Living in a sober environment under the supervision of one of our recovery people with very strict requirements about participating in treatment, not participating in self-help, not using drugs or alcohol, finding or getting their life on track for recovery. Not a treatment program, a housing program. Does that put through the one general I think you left now? But he spoke about the Union Gospel Mission in Spokane. Is that like a zero tolerance? I mean, they can't come in there and get up, drop, drop, drop, whatever. The policy for that has not been written right yet. And I'm consulting with six of my staff that have been in recovery housing. The state encourages us not to have a zero tolerance, but to have a short leash. So let's just imagine that I said zero tolerance. Somebody comes in and they relapse. I'm going to kick them out on the street. And all of a sudden, all these business owners are going to be calling using. What am I supposed to be doing with this addict? So we're putting in, we're working on the protocols right now for what happens to that person to get them a very narrow window of opportunity to get it together or they will be out on the street. And what, just so I'm going ahead. What's your maximum duration on that window of time? For the window of time from relapse? Or the window of hell on when the person lived in a house? How long will the person live in a house? So research says that people who live at least six months have the best chance of going on to sustain full term recovery. We're anticipating six to 24 months would be the typical length of state. With the short abuse. Yeah, with the, and we're not playing around with being clean and so forth. We're working with criminal justice grant dollars. I want to stake a claim from some that will be that payment money that is coming to the county of the old. That's the commissioner's decision. People will be paying their own participation. We'll be looking at partnering with rural resources for some of the short term housing grants that they have. So we have limited funding. We're asking this of staff, I guess. And part of the effort is, Sandra, that we've done some of these things as workforce. So what authority of any do we have to tie this to any regulation of what you just described? For the other parcel, what does it like to review? Well, sorry. Senator's concern is that we're doubling it. I understand that there's a steeply different population that's being served. I don't know how legally I can tie them together. We've gotten the licensing. There's two worlds apart. The services are completely different. They are not the same program. I understand the population that we work with. One is treatment. What I'm concerned about is that it's a different thing that will be in the house that should come back to come again. That's what I'm thinking. And I'm afraid that it won't, because the plan will make the decision that's close enough. For the TRC will make the decision that's close enough. The night before a holiday may not get packed like this. That's why I'm concerned about the timing too. So, well, first thing is that that's other parcel is not under consideration. It's not what I asked, though. What I asked is if they want to do that to it, will it come out as a cut? Or is it just something that you might approve because you have the authority? I don't believe it well. I'll come back to that, but I want to address the chairman's question. Do you have authority to regulate anything under this process on that other parcel? And because it was not noticed for that parcel because nothing was applied for on that parcel, the answer would be no. However, I think expanding the fighting and security plan to adjacent parcels under the same ownership, you know, something within your purview to do is a reasonable expansion of the condition of the two. Coming back to the question about later, when had use changes following, you know, the making the life safety and building code modifications and leading all the conditions, this work proves, if they do approve it, for the parcel that is under consideration. That use is modified or changed on that existing general commercial zone property, would it require a conditional utility? And this might be something that we may engage the city's attorney on, or the State Department of Commerce, just for crystal clarification. There's a lot of definitions in state code, and sometimes, you know, conflicts arise from the poverty housing is defined, adult family homes are defined, also known as group homes. And it is home to conditionally used to prevent and seek to, or are they out, right? No. And this is what I was going to share with you here. RCW-70-128-1402, and I mentioned this earlier, but an adult family home must be considered a residential and use of property, design of other private utility rate purposes, adult family homes are a permitted use, and also on area zones for residential or commercial purposes, including area zones for single families' lives. So that says under state law, these adult family homes are not conditionally used, but they are already permitted to use state-wide. They all-- And you had to classify this recovery as an adult family home. I am not necessarily a boss of mine. And that's something that I would like to have a crystal clarity from the state or legal counsel on before I make that determination. At what point does recovery housing become a facility? What point does it become an essential public facility? What point is it just a residential use of property that falls under RCW-70-128-140? As a facility, is it a conditional use? If it was a behavioral health facility, I would say, yes, just like this, it would fall. I think it would be defendable to the highest condition of use of property. But if classified as an adult family home, I don't know liberty. And the other area of law, too, is just something to be aware of, is that for housing, you have to get classes, and you can't put them off. Which includes former users. Now, current users perform a use of less of the substance abuse issues. And those in recovery form are considered a protected class under legal limitations for housing. So what if we, as a condition of approval, state that there's, in other words, the facility that they're making with no longer be used for good law? For good law, no longer be used as any crisis stabilization facility. One that we were asking to improve. Because they've operated without our rights to now. And so, so we got a weird issue to permit by the city right now. Right. And so, but you're wanting to become licensed and to become licensed. There's certain things you need to do that are going to be easier to do. And this new facility, as I understand it, better suited in a lot of ways. And I understand all of those arguments. So, I'm just, there's having a discussion there. So my, the concern is, I think, from the public and at least from somewhere around the board here, is that you double your current capacity to do exactly what you're doing for the crisis stabilization. So I'm suggesting that, and I'm asking for your feedback as well, if we condition approval of this on abandonment of crisis stabilization at the existing facility. What would be your response? My response would be, with my county commissioner's boss's blessing, I could live with that. Okay. So, yeah, just, just a point of clarification. Then the current facility upon occupancy in the new facility could not be used. Correct. Okay. The current facility crisis stabilization. If we're, it could be expanded. Correct. Correct. So I'm, I'm going to ask for work. Obviously, our other option is laid out by the staff report is conditions of recommending denial. And I've gone through those, and that seems, we would go that route. It seems to be pretty arbitrary. And I think our support has written because it's, will not, will not, does not, does not, does not. And I don't think we can just say that on all conditions. So I'm open to criticism from other board members if you think we can. And by saying that, I'm also encouraging my fellow board members to provide any other comments on suggested conditions. On that, it's a number two that, that project will be unduly detrimental to the use of properties in the project. Yeah, on the denial one, and it could be changed to, to the one on top, the non denial one. If, if somehow we could write in the assurance of the security systems and the lighting, et cetera. I have a suggestion for that. Okay. And mentioned several times. So this is suggested condition number two. If you'd be ready to say on only prevent submission, the lighting and security plan shall be provided that addresses all adjacent forces under common. Mr. Chairman. Yes. I don't know if I'm allowed to ask or say any questions for some, for some clarification, maybe, and it has to do with the security. Um, we talked about a little bit, David commented on some security. And I, I, being the neighbor with a lot of clientele, as well as a community, was hoping for a little more clarification on security. Meaning currently the current situation with the crisis house, most of those apply laws rules will apply into the new facility. If a person is using that facility, they, I understand there's a curfew, they got to be back into the building. If they're allowed to leave, some are able to come and go. And I understand there's a curfew. And if they're come back before after that curfew, if they're under the influence of something and they're denied access or denied. The ability to come back into that facility. And I guess maybe David, you can clarify that as far as if that's accurate or not accurate. Then the security of, we talked about lighting security cameras. I understand you are commenting about if somebody's not stable enough, maybe, or want to leave a facility. There's actions that are taken, I think, with staff, maybe even with law enforcement, if it comes to that level, to prevent them from just walking out the door and blasting them past everybody, which potentially could happen. You know, the big guys in there and the guys in there trying to stop them might be pretty detrimental and they walk out. But my concern about that is those safety things, along with the safety things that you're talking about, for some clarification, where is the absolute limit for these people coming and going or the ability for them to come and go. And curfews are coming back under the influence and then what happens with them then. They're out on the street or do they go to the hospital where there's more secure confinement, I guess, if you will. That's where a lot of my security secure questions, obviously, for my property, my facility, as well as the community. So, I hope that clarifies the question. No, I think it's. I can stare at you. And then who's accountable. I know there'll be very useful comments. And I want to speak to that, but I want to speak as well, since the closest neighbor when it's expressed a problem. And we haven't heard from anybody in the site of that apartment complex. And you can't get to it. I've been over it yesterday and you can't knock it to that facility unless you go right through the middle of that apartment complex. So, I'm actually quite amazed that because there's all kinds of signage in the community today about this. And like one negative comment from somebody living in that apartment complex, so I would have expected that there's a problem. They work. My son lives there right in that path, but he's at work. I mean, he's a roof worker. And I know pretty much the majority, the one that they do, the thoroughfare part there, they work. They're all employed and have day jobs, so they can't just, and as far as the meeting, I found out last night, six or six, 30. So, you know, so I don't even know, I didn't even have time. I called my daughter-in-law this morning, she didn't pick up. She has two children. So, regardless of how long it was posted, the truth and the fact is that I did just find out last night, and I don't think I'm a rarity. I was talking about the signage that's there on the street. It was posted in the paper as well. What do you get, what do you get there? I don't want to get too far straight, but that really doesn't matter. I do have any suggestions on security aspects that the facility can implement that in some form or fashion could address your security issues. From some of the things that I observed, brings question of what kind of security is going on. Obviously, I haven't had a chance to talk with David. I've been trying to meet with him for a couple of months now. On some of those issues, obviously, this is kind of about, I didn't know what this was coming about before I was trying to meet with him. But maybe with some clarification, it helps me or that aspect of security for our community. But what I've observed doesn't look very good. It raises real concerns. I've had to address lots of problems, not necessarily saying they're coming from a crisis house. But are those people that weren't allowed back in the crisis house? Are they people that were kicked out at one point? I don't know. As I'm hearing it correctly here, receiving the point there could be third parties that aren't affiliated with the crisis center. Trifted onto that property from wherever in the city in our positive problem. That happens across all communities. Right. But you want to specifically hear some comments or feedback about these people that came from that recently. What's the plan? I guess my base concern about that is because a lot of these folks that they deal with, they're dealing with some of the worst, not the worst of the worst. Those used to go to Easter. But they're dealing with very difficult people, mentally unstable, mentally illness with potential drug and alcohol and crime background. So when those people are released or don't meet the, or can't follow the program and are released back out in the public, or even traditionally released back out. We're kind of a mamolistic nature. If they've been receiving treatment at this facility, they've been at the crisis center, different interactions. I've noticed some of those people come back and hang out. They sleep on their benches. They've had to put some camera systems in and different things to implement some safety for their building. So people don't hang out. It's helped. They still do, but I think back to the original safety concern, how their rules, their regulation, as well as their rules, apply to those folks coming and going. I guess under the current crisis house, and would all of that obviously flow over and potentially expand for safety? So that's a really big question when we transfer the easiest parts. In both the current facility and the existing facility, we've got these two sober events. And those are specifically for in the event that somebody does leave. Actually, they're really for people who are being admitted, who aren't clean and sober at the time that they're coming in. Let them sleep it off there before they come into the main part of the facility, just so we can keep a closer eye on them. Our policies are written now that if a person went to leave on pass with a family member or whatever. If they were to come back and we suspected directs our alcohol, we'd give them an instant UA, they'd take a breathalyzer. And if they're positive, we'll put them in that sobering room for 12 to 24 hours until we feel like they're not put out in the streets because they're higher under the influence. If they walk, then we're notifying law enforcement in the DCR so we can do the evaluation, say that they need to be going to a higher level of care. But people are not kicked out of the facility because they violated rules or they keep back from pass under the influence. When people first come into the facility, it's a voluntary facility. I want to emphasize it. It is not locked for 23 years. It has not been locked. When they come in, for the first 24 hours, we ask them voluntarily not to leave the facility so that we can make sure that they're safe and stable. Then, with repeated evaluations by our master's level of crisis counselors, is they feel like they're stabilizing to a point that they are safer. They're allowed to have, and I'm not going to get these numbers right because I can't remember off this. But they're allowed to have increasing numbers of hours off the site unsupervised. If it gets to the point where they're asking for 24 hours or off-site, they could be off-site for 24 hours. They need discharge criteria. They don't need to be with this anymore and they're going. So we're keeping people in the house and most of the people are never going to be in the house because there's stuff going on in their lives. So with rare exceptions are people going out for an extended period of time. Most of the time they're being accompanied by a staff person when they're going out and doing things just for safety purposes because they are not stable by definition and will want them to be supervised. There's an aspect of this analysis that I don't think has been considered. And that is that under the law, we've demonstrated code. In granting of all conditional use permits, considerations shall be given to the cumulative impact of additional requests for like actions in the area. That means looking at other things they're doing. And that means looking at everything that's going on in this community and asking whether the sum total of those impacts is going to be too much. Thank you. Did you read that from there? Excuse me. You were reading that from the WAC? Yes, sir. Can you read that one more time? At 173-27-160-22. In granting of all conditional use permits, consideration shall be given to the cumulative impact of additional requests for like actions in the area. How is the interpretation of area would come up? Is that the block? Is that clear? I don't know. Okay, so any of this gender need more questions from you? I've been wondering that too. And why? Well, because a lot of people have said they didn't have time to do all of this. And I, indeed, I got the packet on the Internet on the third. I couldn't print where I was. I had to come into the city to get the packet. And I had four days of the company trying to read it. And then you say, "How come these people didn't come? They've had 16 days of posting." And I just don't think the cumulative effect of notification was working. And yes, I drove by the facility. But I didn't have much time to really do what I usually do, due diligence. This has helped tremendously. But I just wondered why it couldn't be postponed. That's why I wondered about them. And get some of these other things worked out. And I kind of worked most of them out. But I just feel pressured and pushed and not ready. Yeah, I agree. But I don't think it would matter. It may not. If we get four months of notice, you're still going to get the same reaction. But I don't disagree. I think it would matter if the public had a little better notice. But this isn't the first board to go through this. Basically three-rate surface of notice, and every board has to do with it. Well, I think we could be better. Oh, I don't disagree with that. I might be in a schedule for Dr. Dan. It might be. That's a process. Yes, I may explain to you, that primarily in consideration of shorelines in the state, and on references at the top, are some of you 90 to 48 years ago, which is, which applies to shorelines. So in the kingdom of the impacts, under that, I think are applicable primarily to the kingdom of the impacts on shorelines. I guess my concern right now, and that I'm not necessarily fine with this kind of road or at least I'm going to fall for motion. Anyway, but I do want to try a zero end of the dam on this two areas. So one area of suggested conditions for approval is one age, which is safety and discharge plan for the facility itself. Whether or not there's anything we add to that that's within our reality. The second one is on the condition to, which I've sort of already addressed, but what does that mean? In other words, on building permit submission, aligning and security plan should be provided and addresses all the case of varsals under common ownership. So that's like the outdoor part, and the one age is like the indoor part, and connected with the discharge. So I'm just looking, if you can help us help you, how to find that in a manner that is important. I'm not sure how to answer that, even with the external lighting. My thinking was I'm going to be consulting with these guys on what it needs to, what we need to do to make sure. And I think that lighting plans a good idea, frankly. We look at it after we had the meeting or looking at where we could put lights shining out and put a lot of combinations of good idea. I like it. I also don't want to have bays complaining to be in the future that we've now got these spotlights that are lighting up, you know, sighted as building and people are complaining that it's too right. And I'm concerned about the apartments in the backyard. I want it to be lit so we can see what's going on back there, but I don't want the apartments to be saying, what's all this light now that's causing a problem for us. So even with the lighting, I'm not working with the city to figure out how we can come up with a solution that meets the needs that have been identified without causing unforeseen consequences on the rest of the community. When it comes to security, I think that we'll be consulting with you guys on that too, the whack that we will have to address the series of blacks to become licensed. We'll have to be putting in business continuity and disaster plans and safety plans and infection control plans and all this kind of stuff that we'll have to be doing. But when you're talking about security, not how many surveillance cameras and locked doors and security systems that we put in place. My question, I think, is kind of the same as his question. It's like, what exactly are you asking this for? Because I can't hire security guards. We'll pay for treatment providers. That's what the contracts will pay us, what they don't pay us for. I guess I'm not looking for feedback from that. I understood those limitations. I'm looking for feedback on perhaps maybe an emergency security system we already have. And you said it retains information for what many days, and so forth. Let's see. So I guess what I'm trying to find to you, my question is a security plan. That's pretty good. So, is it going to surveil the entire campus? History combined facilities in the house, the history offices in the facility in my field. Which we already have kind of public works doing. Okay. So that area is not in the same type of surveillance and the rest of it is. I guess it's an under here proposal. So. All right. Sure. Yes. Can I offer a point of context? There's two different types of security that's being. There's a great area that I think would, I think you're struggling with trying to understand the bigger picture of like how do we solve the security problem. There's the idea of putting light in illuminates is based on the assumption that if there's light, you won't do bad things in light. There's also an except expectation of follow up and holding accountable. So, security as far as surveillance and keeping the footage subs, it assumes that there's someone looking at that surveillance and holding accountable what's actually taking place. If there's no report of like, hey, this is, the cameras that recorded the bad thing, you might as well not have them. It's not deterring anything. And so, there's an element of security from the standpoint of protection of the surrounding area from damage as opposed to picking up the pieces after the damage is already done as far as liability. The business owner that was said, who paid? My insurance company wouldn't pay for $30,000 for the damage that was done. And I can't pin it on who, buddy, who actually did it. If you're going to have lighting, you're going to have cameras that actually record who's can they be used to identify the person. And who's actually doing the accountability of holding them accountable? Is it the sheriff? Is it the state? What happens if security laps? Those are elements of the security that like, oh, this is a bigger thing. It might help you in determining where the boundary is on making the decision. Thank you. I think he's hitting on the right area of my, I guess, request for information. It's right. It's one thing to have the security cameras up. It's another thing to actually look at. What is the use of that right now? Is it? Is it reviewed? Is there a policy for review? And does it only come up? My insurance operations officer. All right. So our security system, we have several different cameras throughout all of our facilities, agencies, offices. Some of them will record on the road and some of them record 24 hours a day. If there's an instant report, we can go to that gate and time analysis within the recorded time frame, but those videos are surveying on this store. We can export that video clip to drive and get to the sheriff's office. We've done that several times. We've helped the gas stations when they got broken to a couple of years ago with the recording of. But we don't have the personnel to sit there and watch the video cameras 24/7. I always have the video cameras up when I'm in the office. But your report says that you have somewhere on duty 24 hours. So people got our ships. In our patient facility in Mount Carmel and in the crisis house right now, there's somebody on shift. And in the nursing station at the hospital and in the staff office at the crisis house, they have the computer screens basically all over big TV screens at the nursing station that show every aspect of the facility inside and out that we've got video cameras on. So they can be watching what's going on in the video cameras as they're doing the rest of their job. Now their job is the patients in front of them not to be watching what's going on outside, particularly the crisis house. But I can't tell you how the cameras are at the crisis stabilization facility 15/20 that are watching inside and outside. When there's an incident report, we can pick up and go and we can move from this camera to that camera to that camera to just watch the chain of events that occurs. We're doing our own investigation. But that's responsive. So I'm wondering is there anything pro-ac? I think what he meets by that is we're not just monitoring the streets to monitor the streets. But if we have a patient that goes outside, we would be watching that patient out there. If it is our patient and that's what we are providing care to and they're going outside onto our campus, we are watching them either lie on site or on the cameras. But if all of our patients are in our facility and we are monitoring them there and somebody from Venice walks outside and goes and starts getting trash cans over, very likely we wouldn't be aware of that until afterwards we hear, "Hey, did you guys get footage of this?" And we can help. But if it's our patients and the people that are under our care, we are providing 24-step monitoring of those individuals. And you're talking at the crisis facility house, you're not talking necessarily about the hospital. Both of those patients sit in the hospital, we only have cameras inside the facility. The hospital is probably the problem. So we release space for the inpatient unit and all of that inside. So with those people that talk about our shifts to them all the time before, they could have those monitors right there in their office. They have a chance to look at it. They currently do, okay? What do you... But again, just to be clear, their job is not to be told... Sure, I got that. And the people that you serve, what do you call it, what label you call it? It's flavor of the day. Clients. Clients. Clients. Clients. Clients, okay? Clients. All right. All right. We'll see if this wise or not. I'm going to make a motion for approval. And... Welcome, really, amendments. I've been trying to incorporate as much as I can for more discussions. So I'm starting with a staff analysis on page three and the listed one through five areas of the app to address. And I just want to reiterate for the public that's in attendance that we have a limited scope of what we can do. And we are definitely not changing anything. That is not our within our review, nor our curbs and sidewalks within our purview, except for traffic patterns, where we don't have the purview to waive the orientation of those things. So, number one, the project is consistent with the City of Colorado Comprehensive Plan, first of all, in the background. So... I'm making a motion recommending approval. I move the City of Caldwell's only Board of Adjustment. After consideration of the criteria and relevant standards of the Washington State, the call to approve the request by Stevens County. We've business as Northeast Washington Alliance Counseling Services for a conditional use permit to operate a crisis stabilization facility within the C3 zone for parcel number 0198900 at 185 Hawthorne Avenue in call for the washing. Now, the reasons for this motion are set forth on page three in the staff report. Item number one, the project is consistent with the City of Caldwell Comprehensive Plan meets the requirements and the intent of this title including the type of land use, the density/intensity of the proposed development and protection of critical areas if applicable. I would state the proposal has been interpreted by planning staff to be similar to other uses in the C3 zone that require a type three conditional use permit. All in comprehensive plan references may also be considered applicable in certain consistency and with reasonable conditions opposed upon the proposal. I understand this to be a great area, but it's not directly addressed, so I guess it gives us the authority to address it. And so I'm going to adopt verbatim, the CACOLA Comprehensive Plan, the three bullet dots underneath there on the goal of the 84, the 8411 housing element in the goal of the CFP2 that have been already read into the record. Item number two that we have to address, the project will not be a newly detrimental to the use of the properties of the project vicinity and it with focus on not undoing detrimental. And so, the finding there is a proposal will relocate the current crisis stabilization facility located at 150 east of Glen, which has been in continuous operation since approximately July 2001 to the present to now be next door to the public works facility located at 185 east Hawthorne. According to the applicants, since we have been in this exactly, we're providing these exact services for nearly 23 years with no detrimental impact to other properties in the city, or see no new undo, undo detriment to the surrounding properties with the proposed change. As proposed in this current location, it does not appear to interfere with the future development of any remaining property or any adjacent property under separate ownership, although no more. This is interesting for us, although no many parking standards currently exist in the CMC for this type of use parking appears adequate. Parking plan for the 16th town of works building provided by the applicant shows a total of 16 parking spaces and current parking arrangements shows 18 parking spaces, one of which is 88 in the client. So I basically adopted that as written by the staff, number four page or the staff comports number three. Are you adding any additions to that? Not to number two, but I have seven to two to three. Okay. Number three, I have two. Did you want to make a motion? I thought that's where you're adding a security. I've got that. Oh, you want to do it there? You should send approval under two. So before I move to three, I'm going to add conditions of approval under the heading of two, which is a project will not be a newly detrimental to the use of properties of the project vicinity. To meet that criteria in addition to what's in the staff report on page three, I would shift to the staff report page four. And the staff suggested suggested some conditions for approval and I would adopt number one, a half of which I'll provide a final operations plan prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy that addresses the following. A, the silly point of contact, print, email, phone, print, be processed for communicating with neighboring residents and businesses. C, policies and procedures to address neighborhood concerns. D, numbers of residents and expected rent to stay. E, facility rules and regulations. F, staffing plans, print number and shifts, print. G, on-site parking plan and anticipated response calls. H, safety discharge plan for the facility itself. I got at that for facility, for the facility itself. I just noticed as I read that, it's a number of residents and you said clients, someone say residents slash clients. I mean, that's a terminology, that's one D. Then on two, I'll modify what's there to read as follows. Upon building permit submission, a directional lighting and security and global security plan. For clients slash residents of the crisis stabilization facility shall be provided that addresses all adjacent parcels under common ownership. By now I mean, for administrative family, they retain house and shifts to the new location where the couple works is currently located. Just to be clear of that, the lighting and security just were all of it, not just the industry. Number I would add, number three. Current facility, comma upon occupancy of the new facility can no longer be operated as in crisis stabilization facility. That's a condition to approve the relocation of the new one. We're not going to get two, we're going to have one. And that would all go under item two. Okay. Can you read the third one again? Three. Current facility. Yeah. The current facility comma upon occupancy of the new facility comma can no longer be operated as a crisis. This is a crisis stabilization facility. Do you want to put some clarification of what that crisis facility is? Because they could just call it something different. Okay. Is there a need for it? I'll just put it as presented by the. It's in their plans. All that crisis stabilization facility as described by the applicant. And go ahead. Two, four, six, two, four, six, three, four, one, three, four, one, one, four, one, one, four. Oh, let me try it once in between those numbers, right? Okay. We'll add that to number three. The number three on our conditions of approval, page four of the staff report. Project makes adequate provision for access and circulation, water supply, storm range, sanitary, sewage disposal, emergency services and environmental protection. The property in front of Hawthorne Avenue to the south, the rear of the property has access from south Oak Street to the east. The proposal is not anticipated to create additional access issues. The applicant estimates that a maximum of working beds can be established and approved. It is unknown how many vehicle trips this activity would generate. So trip generation and distribution letter was provided or requested. Based on the materials provided, it is anticipated that trips generator could be equal to or less than the current use of the building by the Stevens County Public Works Department. Now I want to add, this is, I don't know what this is attached to, but it's part of the Baldridge report. It has page six only at the top, page three at the bottom. And it has a parsing map showing east Hawthorne Avenue and south Oak Street, but this is the language from there under the title of analysis/commence on site. I'm going to add these words to the end of three. An asphalt paved parking lot is shared with a neighboring parcel to the west and covers this southern half of the site. It is accessible via a single curb cut on Oak Street with already signed one-way traffic. Continuing through the neighboring lot onto Hawthorne Avenue, the site sits on the corner lot and has visibility from a nearby arterial intersection. To be clear, that's encompassing the whole campus, so the current administrative offices. I didn't know there is an inter here and this striping is all striped for parking in a one-way direction. Forcing you to exit off of the adjacent property occupied by the administrative offices, so by using that language and incorporating the whole campus. Number four, the project adequately mitigates impact identified through the scene reading process and the applicable. It's been determined by the planning staff as determined that the project is categorically exempt pursuant to CMC Chapter 18.04 and WAC 197-11-800. Number five, the project is beneficial to the public health, safety and welfare. This is in the public interest and is generally compatible with the case of properties and other property in the district. And then I will modify those findings to read as follows. Number five, the project is beneficial in accordance with the facility operations plans submitted by the applicant and is not inconsistent with the pattern it uses within the facility. And with all those sort of media and documents, there are four members elected. I don't call for roll call, but it's not allowed. Track to meet first. (Laughter) I did start. Yes, started. Did we have a discussion? I did. Absolutely. I don't care if I may not take it. I'll leave you in a second. Oh, yeah, true. (Laughter) We'll have a discussion first, though. Let's have a second. Anybody would second that motion? I'll second. There are a second. So now I have a discussion. So I stated earlier that it wasn't sure if you were ready to move on, but with your additions. Okay. Any other discussion? I agree. I don't think it could get any better. any other discussion? I agree. I don't think it could get any better. I think it would cover everything that I felt uncomfortable with, except for the time you're in. We'll talk about that later. All right. Aaron? Anybody else? Okay, we have a motion to discuss the second end of discussion. I'll call about. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. It's approved with these conditions. Now I have to cover a couple of other things. Do we have any communication over public presentations? Yes. Yes, we're sure. I just gave the opportunity to let everybody know that one hour from now, right in this room, is going to be the next act. Parks and Recreation and Open Space Plan, so called Prose Plan that we've been working on over a year now. And we're having an open house. We'll have some boards displayed here. And following at 6pm, the regular city council meeting, they're all out of public hearing adoption, a resolution of the Prose Plan. And the open house is really informal, drop it in time, ask questions and inform. There's a lot of pretty significant changes proposed for a lot of parks. And a lot of money that will bring the money that will be needed to support it over a number of years. All right, any other communications or public presentations? [BLANK_AUDIO]