Nehring attempts to fund an involuntary treatment facility

Published 1:30 am Wednesday, July 29, 2026

EVERETT — County Council member Nate Nehring is attempting again to divert affordable housing money toward a county-owned involuntary treatment facility for individuals with substance use disorders.

In April, Nehring sponsored Ordinance 26-018, which is currently moving through the council’s process. The ordinance would create a secondary fund from the county’s Affordable Housing and Behavioral Health Capital Fund.

Ordinance 26-018 would take 20% or about $3 million from the Affordable Housing and Behavioral Health Capital Fund and deposit it into the secondary fund, which could only be used to purchase, construct or acquire land for behavioral health facilities.

However, Nehring has a specific type of behavioral health facility in mind, he said in an interview. A Secure Withdrawal Management and Stabilization facility, or SWMS.

“One of my biggest areas of focus is on the SWMS facilities, on involuntary commitment and on secure withdrawal management,” Nehring said in an interview. “It’d be great to have a facility that you could utilize involuntary commitment to help people get treatment and get the help that they need to get back on their feet.”

In 2024, as part of the council’s work on the 2025-26 biennial budget, Nehring backed a condition to the budget that set aside $3 million both in 2025 and 2026 of affordable housing dollars to construct a county-owned SWMS facility.

The Affordable Housing and Behavioral Health Capital Fund was created in 2023, along with a 5-year plan for how the money would be used. The fund is primarily supported by an affordable housing 0.1% sales tax approved in 2021, with some additional funding from a shared state sales tax.

“We have a 5-year plan that we use to implement these dollars every year,” council member Megan Dunn said in an interview. “A 5-year business plan for those dollars that goes out widely in community to understand how are we working on providing for behavioral health in the county, and how are we providing housing, and where is the biggest need.”

In 2025, $16 million from the fund was approved for seven different projects. The Edmonds New Start Center, which opened June 29, was supported in part by the affordable housing fund.

“Nowhere near enough”

In 2018, the Washington State Involuntary Treatment Act, or Ricky’s Law, went into effect. The act allows others to call a crisis line for someone with a substance use disorder. If the individual experiencing the crisis is determined to require services, they will be detained at an SWMS facility.

“So somebody is addicted to fentanyl in a way that they are a threat to themselves or others,” Nehring said. “They are not in a position where they’re going to voluntarily get treatment. Jail is not the answer because it’s a revolving door, and so could involuntary commitment be used as a pathway toward a solution to help that person get into treatment?”

Currently, only about 10% of the Affordable Housing and Behavioral Health Capital Fund is designated for behavioral health facilities, he said. While his focus is on a SWMS facility, Nehring said he would like to see a greater proportion of the money go toward behavioral health as a whole.

“You’ll have some dollars that are put out for behavioral health but it’s like maybe $3 million,” Nehring said. “Three million is nowhere near enough to build a behavioral health facility. And so what happens is you’ll put the money out, nobody applies because that’s not enough money to build a facility.”

The money then goes back to the fund and is used on affordable housing, he said. So, the money is not going “in a meaningful way” to behavioral health, Nehring said.

“So I would say that’s maybe even the bigger purpose of the ordinance is setting up a specific fund that builds up over time, regardless of the amount that’s being put into it,” he said.

The fund is competitive, Dunn said. So, the money goes toward the biggest need, she said.

“My biggest concern is a lack of process,” Dunn said. “We are funding to the greatest need and the most competitive, so he’s undermining that competition by selecting something that he wants to do. That is not fiscally responsible.”

Projects that receive these funds are not supported by the county 100%, she said. They all have multiple funding sources; that’s part of the competitive process, Dunn said.

“Not best practice”

In February 2025, the county announced a funding notice that included the $3 million set-aside for an SWMS facility, according to a June report by Mary Jane Brell Vujovic, director of human services. The county received no proposals to develop a SWMS facility, the report says.

“This is multiple years and multiple attempts to set aside dollars for this forced treatment facility,” Dunn said. “Which is also not based on best practice. The science shows that forcing people into treatment actually increases their risk of overdose, and it doesn’t improve treatment outcomes. So, it’s both reducing the competition and it’s not based in science.”

A 2025 study found that “highly problematic users,” like those addicted to fentanyl, often leave treatment and relapse within a short period of time. Also, evidence shows that individuals discharged from involuntary treatment can be at elevated risk for harm, including overdose.

As of June 30, 2025, Washington state has three facilities with 45 SWMS beds total, Vujovic’s report says. The utilization rate of those beds ranged from 67% to 71%. Most of the people were treated for alcohol addiction.

Also, Nehring already has the ability to save affordable housing funds through policy changes, according to Kari Bray, spokesperson for the County Executive’s Office.

“The current structure does allow for earmarking funds or setting fund balance targets,” Bray said in an email. “The Council has the flexibility under code right now to set a minimum fund balance target and/or modify that through policy decisions.”

Using a code amendment to split the fund isn’t necessary and reduces the fund’s flexibility, she said.

“At this time, particularly considering the uncertainty around federal funding, it is helpful to maintain flexibility in our local dollars,” Bray said. Decisions on how to invest the funding are guided by the 5-year business plan, “that includes data, fiscal information, and input from regional groups focused on housing affordability, among other considerations.”

“An in-between approach”

Right now, there seem to be only two options: putting people in jail and hoping they get clean that way, or leaving them on the street, Nehring said. An SWMS facility could also be an alternative to jail, he said.

“An in-between approach for that treatment-resistant population is to say, ‘We’re not going to arrest you and put you in jail and have you recycle out of jail every week or whatever, but we’re also not going to leave you to die on the street,’” he said.

Unfortunately, it’s not that simple, Bray said.

“While such a facility would provide another potential destination for some people who may otherwise be at risk of overdosing or of going to jail, it is not as simple as a straightforward alternative,” she said. “There are laws governing how someone can be sent to a secure facility for substance use, and those laws lay out specific pathways.”

Involuntary detention is governed by Ricky’s Law. There are three ways a person may be ordered to a SWMS facility.

• An individual’s primary reason for detention is a substance use disorder and a designated crisis responder determines them to be an imminent danger to self or others, property or they have a grave disability.
• The individual’s family files a petition for detention and is evaluated by a designated crisis responder.
• The individual is not immediately detained by a designated crisis responder but must appear in court within 24 hours if they still pose a likelihood of serious harm. A judge then makes the final decision.

These pathways all “require resources for assessing individuals,” Bray said. “There is not a clear, rapid route in the law for someone to end up in a Secure Withdrawal Management and Stabilization bed instead of jail.”

“Due to poverty”

Ordinance 26-018 had a public hearing on June 10, after which the council sent it back to the committee for further deliberation.

During the hearing, council member Strom Peterson explained why so much money is needed for affordable housing rather than behavioral health facilities.

“So many people are saying that the homelessness crisis is an addiction crisis,” he said. “The number one demographic that is facing homelessness right now are seniors and that is due to poverty. It’s not due to addiction; it is due to medical bills, it is due to a sickness, it is due to a job loss.”

Taylor Scott Richmond: 425-339-3046; taylor.richmond@heraldnet.com; Bluesky: @btayokay.bsky.social