Federal Way residents, youth leaders decry council process on proposed youth psychiatric facility

Residents, youth leaders and several council members raised process and transparency concerns April 15 after the City Council moved forward last month with a resolution supporting a proposed youth psychiatric/behavioral health facility in Federal Way.

Speakers at the meeting said the substance of the facility is not the main objection — many called services for youth and mental health necessary — but that the council bypassed expected steps such as committee review, public hearings and broader notice before moving the matter forward.

Former youth commission chair Juan Luis Juarez Ramos told the council the objection was procedural: “My opposition today isn't about whether we need mental health resources… It's about the process that brought us here,” he said, asking the council to restart the public process with hearings and community input. Lucia Faithful, a member of Sound Alliance, urged the council to schedule a separate vote on funding the Federal Way Day Center and said she hoped shelters and day services would coordinate. Anna Patrick and Betty Taylor also urged more public meetings; Taylor called for a “do-over” and said the decision had been made too quickly.

Other speakers accused the council of sidestepping typical steps. Harold Booker, a long-time resident, compared the handling to “backroom politics” and said the absence of committee work and public comment was disheartening. Several speakers pointed to a perceived lack of background research and asked for details on licensing, referral processes and security protocols.

Council members responded in a range of tones. Council Member Honda described meeting with the facility’s proposer, Michael Clark, and said he had invited other members to tour the building; he suggested additional community meetings and site visits to answer residents’ questions. Council Member Esa Fadossa defended the council’s decision and said the facility could meet an urgent local need; he described visiting the location and said the presented security protocols and referrals convinced him the project could help youth in crisis. Council Member McDaniel thanked residents for attending and said their input would be considered going forward. Council Member Casa Redeby urged colleagues not to use committee reports to reargue votes, saying follow-up engagement should take different forms.

No new vote on the facility took place at the April 15 meeting. Multiple speakers asked the city to confirm what public notice and committee steps remain, to publish licensing and referral details, and to schedule public tours or information sessions so neighbors can see the space and ask questions.

A takeaway from the meeting: community members want fuller public hearings and clearer documentation about how referrals, licensing and county-level partnerships would work; council members said they would facilitate additional meetings with the project proposer and bring further information back to the council.

Ending: The proposer's representatives have been invited to meet with residents and council members for additional briefings; the council did not take further formal action on the facility at the April 15 session.