Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Substance Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Substance use subcommittee flags new synthetics and troubling youth survey numbers; board debates housing oversight
Summary
The substance use subcommittee reported on emerging synthetic drugs, a drug‑checking program and youth mental‑health survey results; the board also discussed concerns about management at a local supportive‑housing site (Asteri) and debated whether to send a formal letter, ultimately deciding against it after consultation.
Get email alerts on the Substance Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Jacob, chair of the substance use subcommittee, updated the board on recent meetings that covered emerging synthetic drugs, a drug‑checking program and local recovery efforts.
Jacob said presenters flagged new compounds such as metatomidine and other synthetics that complicate overdose response and detection, and he described a Department of Health drug‑checking program that tests samples donated by users to identify contents. "We're looking for respiration, not conversation," Jacob said in describing current EMS priorities during overdose response training.
Jacob also summarized CLIDE youth‑survey results for Tompkins County, reporting that "28 percent of Tompkins County youth grades 7 through 12 said yes to sometimes I think life is not worth it," and that sizable proportions reported frequent anxiety and low self‑worth. Board members described those figures as alarming and discussed using the survey data to refine local programming.
The meeting also revisited concerns about a local supportive housing site, Asteri. Some members described management problems and said residents did not consistently receive needed supports. A small group met with housing‑service leaders including Libby Barger, who characterized the incident as a one‑off and advised that a formal letter from this board might create obstacles to future housing approvals. Following that consultation, members discouraged sending a letter and instead recommended continued engagement with planning and housing partners and suggestions for nonpunitive developer checklists to clarify expectations for on‑site supports.
Members also discussed Beacon Communities' Southworks project as a forthcoming planning‑board review where the board could ask prospective developers specific questions about property management and supports for residents. No formal action was taken; subcommittee work will continue.

