EVERETT—The Snohomish County Council adopted Ordinance 24-011 at its Public Hearing on May 1, with a vote of 3-2, that will now require annual drug testing of county-owned supportive housing facilities for hazardous chemicals. The ordinance, introduced by Councilmember Nate Nehring was adopted on a 3-2 vote with Council Chair Jared Mead and Councilman Sam Low also voting in majority; Councilmembers Megan Dunn and Strom Peterson dissented.
The ordinance reads: “Testing shall be performed on all individual housing units, whether contained within single-family residences, multiplexes, condominiums, apartment buildings, motels or hotels, transient accommodations, pallet shelters, emergency shelters that operate more than thirty days per year or manufactured homes, as well as unsecured shared areas, including but not limited to, bathrooms, laundries, and lobbies.”
The new requirements direct the County Department of Facilities and Fleet to carry out methamphetamine and other drug testing and at the discretion of the Director, perform additional tests for other hazardous substances. The testing is intended to identify the presence of dangerous drugs in county-owned housing, including the hotels purchased in Edmonds and Everett.
“Since the county has decided to move into the role of landlord for affordable and supportive housing, it is critical that we ensure safe and healthy spaces are being provided for tenants and staff,” said Councilmember Nehring. “This testing requirement will give county staff the information they need to detect contamination early and, if necessary, take action to remedy the contamination before further damage is caused.”
After approximately 2 hours of public testimony, the Snohomish County Council with a vote of 3-2 on August 17, 2022, moved forward with the agreement to purchase two hotels to significantly boost bridge housing—with 129 units—with access to behavioral health services. The county used the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds to purchase both hotels – the America’s Best Value Inn in Edmonds for $9,075,000 and the Days Inn facility in Everett for $10,823,000. However, prior to finalizing the agreement, it was discovered that both hotels were contaminated with methamphetamine, a Schedule II stimulant under the Controlled Substances Act, for which the seller agreed to shave off $1.6 million from the closing price.
Persons exposed to illegal methamphetamine commonly experience headaches, respiratory and eye irritation, nausea, and vomiting. Prolonged methamphetamine exposure is also associated with neurotoxic effects, including neuropathy, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) and Parkinson’s disease.
“The County should never have gotten into the housing business,” Councilman Sam Low told the Lynnwood Times. “We have great partners that are experts in housing that have been successfully providing these services. To protect those who will be living in the hotels and our employees working in this environment, we do not want a repeat of Claire’s Place, where dozens of residents were displaced due to health issues related to drug residue.”
The ordinance comes following documented reports of meth contamination in supportive housing facilities in Everett and Snohomish. More than 60 residents of Claire’s Place alone were displaced after tests revealed that 48 units tested positive for dangerous levels of methamphetamine and fentanyl in October 2022.
The councilmen feel that earlier detection and awareness of the contamination may reduce the impacts to residents adversely affected by the evacuation of the buildings.
“It is my hope that this requirement will allow the County to keep vulnerable individuals safe and ensure that we are being good stewards of taxpayer dollars,” added Councilmember Nehring.
Author: Mario Lotmore
5 Responses
Nate’s efforts are appreciated. It is time to revisit Snohomish County ordinance 22-033, pertaining to mandatory chemical dependency services at county owned hotels.
https://snohomish.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5758613&GUID=5A941E3C-FD13-4EA1-B78C-54D55ACE02ED
If they are not giving UAs or requiring residents to be in treatment then drug use will happen and these rooms will get contaminated. Period. So what happens when rooms do become contaminated? Do they make the residents leave? Then the room is vacant while they fix the contamination?
Question, who’s going to be paying for the drug test, the renter or the county?
I guess a trick question, since we will pay anyways up front, or rental increase, or taxes.
Seems like all this is all a bandaids for a rotting and bleeding wound.
With drug tests less folks will be accepted, which then will increase the rent AGAIN, since less units are occupied. Which will put more stress on those renters (getting laid off and no pay raise to match inflation [persnally 3years no payraise] ). (use commen sense, people turn to drugs in high stress situations [not everyone] ).
Why not focus on the issues that are causing it, instead of waisting our tax. I’m aware there is people above those people, but dude these avoiding games of the cause of all this is getting really old.
If you dont take care of your flock and pastor it, the livestock WILL looking for care somewhere else and WILL avoid the unfair hand.
The article isn’t saying to drug test the residents, it’s saying to drug test the actual units themselves. Like the walls, the carpets, and so on.
Bottom line you cannot you can take somebody off the streets after 1, 5 ,10, or 20 years and just expect to put him in something that is a completely opposite from where they’ve been living for the last 1, 5 , 10 or 20 years. It’s virtually impossible you were being told that we have supportive housing they will help us get into drug treatment, schooling, jobs and acclimate back into the real world of society .then we get here! we’re here not even a week or two and bam we’re slammed with oh if you use by chance you got to lose your place to live. But what happened to housing first what happened to exhausting all other avenues before throwing us out on back on the streets well we’re just going to end up in jails institutions dead.?what freaking sense does that make? For example I moved in here 3 weeks later I relapsed because of the stress of being here and having a personal stalker and I was told nothing I was not helped I was on offering treatment I was not offered nothing the next thing I know I thought a 3-day quit on my door and then eviction notice after that still with no help whatsoever. Tell me what since that makes that sounds good right