Council Legislation

Proposed Ordinance No. O2024-516

Title: An Ordinance of the Pierce County Council Directing the Notice of Funding Availability Process Set Forth in Chapter 2.111 of the Pierce County Code (PCC), "Notice of Funding Availability," Be Utilized When Soliciting Applications and Awarding Funding from the Housing and Related Services Fund; and Amending PCC 4.48.020 S., "Housing and Related Services Fund."

Effective: May 3, 2024

Status: Passed

Sponsors: Councilmembers Ryan Mello, Jani Hitchen

Final votes

April 9, 2024
Excused Excused Excused Aye Aye Aye Aye


Documents
Additional legislative records are available below Collapse All  Expand All
 

Public Comments

Name Date Comment
John Leslie 4/1/24 4:17 PM I am writing to voice my opposition to Ordinance 2024-516. The underlying Resolutions 2022-22s and 2022-162s are flawed and this ordinance propagates those flaws by setting funding for demonstrably failed policies contained in the resolutions. Contrary to testimony you may be receiving continuing to attempt to prop up Housing First, the failure of this policy is abundantly obvious. It is plainly visible to everyone and is probably getting harder and harder for proponents to whitewash. Public sentiment is turning against this failure and its high time that the Pierce County Council begin representing the populace rather than a failed ideology. I am asking this ordinance be delayed and the underlying Comprehensive Plan to End Homelessness (PEH) be sent back for review and revision. Flaws in the plan include: 1. Most visibly, conflating drug addiction as a housing issue. 2. “Functional Zero” (page 7) is unattainable. 3. Capital costs projected to run as high as $400 Million (page 10) is not a realistic spending objective for the citizens of Pierce County. This is just cursory, but the flaws are broad and costly enough to warrant a complete rework of this plan and a rejection of all spending measures that support it until resolved. The Ad Hoc Committee report contained in R2021-82 which in part informed the PEH has a brief mention of “Legal intervention” (page 12) which was brought forward by PCHS staff. This was rejected and is the only mention of this type I can find in any of the PEH documents. Without a process to compel drug addicts, all subsequent actions are not only moot, but are wildly expensive and burdensome for taxpayers. As such, all spending mechanisms that do not include “Treatment First” instead of “Housing First” should be removed and remediated. I am fairly certain that you are primarily informed by proponents of the “Housing First” approach who have and stand to continue to receive large amounts of public funding. Please consider looking outside the box at the evidence of the Housing First failures. You will see this visibly almost anywhere you go in the county. There are numerous studies if your eyes are not sufficient to inform you.
Ryan Holland 4/1/24 10:36 PM This ordinance is adding language to policies that are designed with discrepancies and is proclaiming funding to a demographic that cannot be successful in recovery or to better the wellbeing and safety of the community. I ask that the council apply a NO vote to this ordinance or table it to better study the pros and cons of this policy. Thank you for your time.
Jim Collier 4/5/24 4:42 PM The wording is almost as bad as the policies that are being used to shore up the proposal. Treat the cause not the effect.