Federal Way council adopts resolution backing proposed 94‑bed youth psychiatric treatment facility after hours of debate

Mayor Farrell and the Federal Way City Council voted 4–3 Wednesday to adopt a resolution expressing the city’s support for a proposed psychiatric residential treatment facility to be operated by Emerald City Behavioral Health.

The vote followed a detailed presentation from Michael Clark, chief operating officer of Emerald City Behavioral Health, who described plans for an integrated youth services center he said would include short‑term and long‑term residential treatment, a secure withdrawal (detox) unit and an outpatient clinic. Clark said the operator plans 94 treatment beds and a mix of funding sources including Medicaid reimbursement and private investors. “Everyone deserves equitable, quality care, especially children,” Clark said during his presentation.

Why it matters: Council members split over whether the facility — which Emerald City says would bring jobs and a local continuum of care for youth with severe behavioral‑health and substance‑use needs — should receive a formal expression of local support while permitting, regulatory and community questions remain. Supporters argued the region lacks higher‑level youth treatment capacity and that Federal Way could benefit economically and clinically; opponents warned about siting a large, secure residential facility next to the community center and asked for more vetting.

Council discussion and public comment: The item drew public comment both for and against. Several residents who identified themselves during the public‑comment period asked the council to oppose the resolution, arguing the proposed site is too close to downtown public amenities and that the facility could produce safety and resource pressures. Kim Papini told the council the proposed location was “horrible” and asked members to vote no. Lucia Faithful and other speakers urged more investment in day‑center services and local supports rather than a large residential center.

Council members debated process and public engagement. Council President Kochmar and Council Members Walsh and Dovi expressed concern about the size and proximity of the facility to the Federal Way Community Center and pressed for more vetting; Council Members Tran, Honda, McDaniel and Assefa Dawson supported adoption of a nonbinding resolution of support. Council Member McDaniel asked for financial and operational details; Clark said investors and grants support the project and that Medicaid reimbursement would fund much of the clinical care. The council also considered — and rejected — a motion to delay the vote until the first council meeting in May.

Regulatory context and provider commitments: During the presentation Clark cited federal and state Medicaid rules in explaining how a state waiver permits larger residential beds for youth under certain conditions (he referred to the IMD/PRTF waiver pathway used to receive Medicaid reimbursement). Clark said the proposal would be licensed and subject to Department of Health review and joint‑commission–style oversight and that Emerald City would not refuse care to uninsured youth, offering scholarship support when necessary. He described structured programming, a 1:4 staff‑to‑client ratio in residential units and onsite security and clinical staffing to limit unsupervised exits from the facility.

Council action and votes: After debate the council adopted the resolution of jurisdictional support on a 4–3 roll call. The four aye votes came from Council Members Assefa Dawson, McDaniel, Honda and Tran; the three nays were Council President Kochmar, Council Member Walsh and Council Member Dovi. Earlier in the meeting a motion to postpone the decision to the council’s first meeting in May failed on a 4–3 vote.

Next steps and timeline: Clark said construction and remodel work to ready the building would likely take about a year and that Emerald City prefers to proceed with community engagement and regulatory approvals in parallel. He invited council members and staff to tour the facility and requested the partnership implied by the resolution to secure managed‑care reimbursement pathways through King County. The resolution adopted by the council is nonbinding; necessary state and county approvals and licensing remain required before clinical services could begin.

Community follow‑up: Council members who voted for the resolution said they expected ongoing oversight and frequent updates from the operator and city staff. Council members who opposed the resolution said they would monitor operations closely and reserve the right to press for changes or, if necessary, regulatory remedies if public‑safety or operational commitments were not met.

Ending: The council’s decision moves the proposal forward in the local review and relationship stage but does not authorize construction or a certificate of occupancy. Council members and the operator agreed to continue outreach and to schedule follow‑up briefings for council and staff as permitting, licensing and funding details are clarified.