Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Homelessness Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Everett council tables extension of service-facility buffer ordinance after hours of testimony
Summary
Councilmembers voted 4–3 to table a proposed amendment to delete the expiration provision for the service-facility buffer zone ordinance (council bill 2509-53). Dozens of public commenters spoke for and against the measure; council asked for more data before proceeding.
The Everett City Council on Oct. 22 voted 4–3 to table council bill 2509-53, which would have deleted the expiration provision from the city’s ordinance establishing service-facility buffer zones and extended related reporting requirements.
The ordinance under consideration would have kept the buffer-zone rules in effect until Dec. 31, 2027, and added new reporting requirements for administration. After nearly two hours of public comment — including residents who said the buffer zones improved neighborhood safety and advocates who said the ordinance criminalizes homelessness — the council voted to defer the measure to allow staff to produce additional case-level data requested by councilmembers.
Nut graf: The item drew strong, divided public comment: some residents and business owners said buffer zones have reduced crime and protected neighborhoods around treatment facilities; others, including people with lived experience of homelessness, said the policy displaces vulnerable people and can impede access to services.
Public testimony in chambers and via Zoom included statements from residents who live adjacent to treatment facilities, business owners and unhoused individuals. Supporters argued the zones reduced visible drug activity and improved downtown business conditions; opponents warned the ordinance pressures people into hiding, disconnects them from services and could raise constitutional concerns if enforced when no alternatives exist.
Council discussion focused on operational data and legal outcomes. City Attorney’s Office staff reported "no convictions" under the ordinance during its two years in effect and fewer than five pending cases; the city reported about 156 warnings and 3 citations issued specifically tied to buffer zones, plus about 11 combined citations and bookings over the ordinance period. Deputy Chief Hendrickson said the buffer-zone counts reflect warnings and citations recorded by police but that some cases may include additional charges.
Councilmember Tuohy moved to table the ordinance while staff compiles more granular data on who has been cited and whether charges were solely for buffer-zone violations. The clerk’s roll call on the motion to table recorded yes votes from Councilmembers Ryan, Voguely, Fossey and Tuohy; no votes from Councilmember Bader, Vice President Zarlingo and President Schwab. The motion carried; the item is to return to council for further review.
Ending: Councilmembers asked staff to supply case-level breakdowns — including whether buffer-zone charges were sole charges or combined with other offenses — and clearer language clarifying the ordinance’s sunset mechanics before reconsideration.
