A discussion with the hearing examiner has left the McCleary City Council with no new solution to its residential treatment facility quandary.
Background
The city has been seeking guidance regarding the facilities in the past several months after it was announced last fall that Great Rivers Behavioral Health Organization (BHO) had received grant funding to repurpose the old Mark Reed Hospital into a residential treatment facility.
Residential treatment facilities offer inpatient services to people suffering from severe mental health and addiction issues. Patients are generally brought to those facilities on an involuntary basis by either law enforcement or local hospitals.
Concerns have been brought forward by the residents of McCleary and city council members. Those opposed to the facility say they worry the facilities will bring dangerous people or criminals to the city, and the facility will create large workload for the already thinned city police department.
Organizers for the facility have said there have been few or no incidents requiring local law enforcement at similar facilities throughout the state. At past public meetings in McCleary, proponents of the facility have said the patients are more likely to be victims of crime. Patients treated at the facility would be transported back to their home communities after treatment, according to organizers.
The council recently approved new definitions to city code that changed the definition of “hospitals” and clearly defined “residential treatment facilities.” Following the definition changes, the council sent the issue to the hearing examiner asking two questions: Can residential treatment facilities be in residential zones within McCleary? If not, where can they be located.
The hearing examiner has recommended that the city allow residential treatment facilities (with more than six patients) as a conditional use in residential zones and some commercial zones, and that the city also continue to allow hospitals as conditional uses in residential zones.
Last month, the hearing examiner sent his report to the city.
He recommended that the city allow residential treatment facilities (with more than six patients) as a conditional use in residential zones and some commercial zones, and that the city also continue to allow hospitals as conditional uses in residential zones.
BHO filed a complaint against the city in Grays Harbor County Superior Court in May alleging constitutional violations. (The state Attorney General’s Office in a letter to the city dated June 1 said the Attorney General was aware of the complaint and “has a strong interest in protecting the right of all Washingtonians to be free from unlawful discrimination…” The letter said the AGO would let the BHO and the city have an opportunity to resolve the conflict before getting involved.)
New concerns
During the council workshop on July 12, hearing examiner Neil Aaland didn’t waiver from his recommendations to the city.
However, one of the recommendations noted that the city would have to, without restrictions, allow residential treatment facilities for six or fewer people. Those facilities are protected by the Federal Housing Act, Aaland said.
“You can’t discriminate against them,” Aaland said. “ you just can’t treat them differently. If you had a conditional use for these things — a residential treatment facility up to six people — and you let a family of six move in, you’re treating them differently and that’s not allowed.”
Councilman Ben Blankenship said he worried of a hypothetical situation in which several small residential treatment facilities (with six or fewer people) move into homes all on the same block.
Aaland did not elaborate, but said the city could look for ways to prevent “saturation” but any requirements the city placed on the facilities could not be drafted to prohibit them. Those facilities (with six or fewer people) are viewed the same as any typical residence by federal law, Aaland said.
That fact was troubling to Councilman Dustin Richey.
“If a family comes in — four kids, a mom and a dad — that’s different than actually buying a home and turning it into a small residential facility,” Richey said. Aaland said legally it’s not different. “That’s silly. It really is. Think about that. It’s a completely different situation.”
Councilwoman Brenda Orffer noted that a saturation of those smaller facilities on one block isn’t likely due to other restrictions on those facilities unrelated to municipal code.
“The questions we have to ask are do those facilities have specific parameters abouts square footage, space and accomodation, and then you have to look the potential homes they would be interested in,” Orffer said. “They can’t just come into any old house in McCleary and set up a treatment facility. The structure has to have certain accomodations and meet certain parameters to even have it there.”
The city is planning to take some sort of action regarding residential treatment facilities during the July 26 McCleary City Council meeting.
