Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHFB_Joint_City_County_Supported_Encampment_Memo_2026-09-15JOINT JEFFERSON COUNTY / CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND HOUSING FUND BOARD MEMORANDUM TO: Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners and Port Townsend City Council  FROM: Joint Jefferson County / City of Port Townsend Housing Fund Board  DATE: September 1, 2026  SUBJECT: A shared City-County policy for supported encampments and a broader homelessness-response tool belt  ACTION: Direct preparation of a common policy framework and a time-limited pilot for supported interim encampments.   Purpose and request. The Housing Fund Board recommends that Jefferson County and the City of Port Townsend develop and adopt a common supported-encampment policy so that people experiencing homelessness, service providers, neighbors, and first responders encounter the same basic expectations regardless of which side of a jurisdictional line an encampment is located. The policy should add options between a fully permitted shelter and an unmanaged encampment, while preserving each jurisdiction’s authority over its own property, land-use decisions, law enforcement, and municipal operations. This is not a recommendation to make permanent encampments the endpoint of the homelessness response system. It is a recommendation to recognize that, when shelter and housing capacity are insufficient, displacement alone can move people and public-health impacts from one place to another without reducing homelessness. A shared policy can create predictable, humane, lower-cost interim tools while housing and shelter capacity are expanded. Why joint action is needed now • Recent displacement from the County Mill Road property and the City’s removal of the encampment near the DSHS/Evans Vista area demonstrate a regional problem: when one location closes without enough replacement capacity, people remain unhoused often at higher risk for negative outcomes and must relocate elsewhere in the same community. • Jefferson County Public Health has countywide public-health responsibilities, but those responsibilities do not replace the City’s control over City property, City land-use rules, policing, and municipal operations. A single operational framework therefore requires affirmative action by both legislative bodies. • The community does not currently have sufficient revenue or physical capacity to provide permanent housing or even indoor shelter to every person experiencing homelessness. The response system needs a graduated set of options that can reduce health and safety risks without making displacement the default intervention. The five-year plan already calls for this work The Joint Affordable and Homeless Housing Services Plan: 2025-2030 provides a direct policy rationale for this action. The action assignments identify the Shelter Coalition as a lead for Action 5.A.2, “Develop and implement a plan to provide emergency housing and support for current encampments that meet the essential needs of the unsheltered population…” with lived-expert involvement prioritized and a January 2026-January 2027 implementation window. The same assignment appears for the Continuum of Care Lead. The plan also assigns the Shelter Coalition and CoC/CEAB work on Action 2.B.3, shared operational policies and standards of care, and assigns the Shelter Coalition Action 3.B.4, client-centered practices intended to reduce administrative and emotional burden. A common City-County encampment framework is a practical way to advance those commitments rather than maintaining separate expectations for the same unhoused population. The Housing Fund Board’s role is also consistent with the plan. The plan assigns the HFB biannual progress review responsibilities, resource oversight, restructuring work, and integration of evidence-based prioritization into local funding. Because the HFB includes county commissioners, City councilmembers, and subject-matter experts, it is an appropriate joint body to recommend a common framework to both legislative authorities. Recommended policy architecture: one framework, several tools The central recommendation is a tiered response framework in which the City and County select the least disruptive intervention adequate to address the actual health, safety, access, and public-use conditions at a site. Tier Tool When it fits Common minimum expectations  1 Outreach and monitored status A low-impact site where immediate removal is not necessary for health, safety, access, or essential public use. Regular outreach; hazard assessment; sanitation referral; clear triggers for escalation to subsequent tiers.  2 Supported interim encampment People will remain outdoors, no adequate placement for individuals is available, and the site can reasonably accommodate limited public-health supports intended to materially reduce harm Portable toilets, handwashing where feasible, dumpster/refuse service, fire-risk mitigation, outreach, emergency access, site contact, basic conduct expectations, scheduled review.  3 Managed or permitted emergency outdoor shelter / safe parking A sponsor or managing agency is available and a site can meet applicable land-use and operational requirements. Operator plan, potable water and sanitation, refuse, fire/life safety, resident rules, grievance process, services, data/reporting where required.  4 Religious-hosted encampment, shelter, or safe parking A religious organization owns or controls a suitable site and elects to host. State-law MOU framework; public-health and safety conditions; managing-agency coordination; statutory protections for public agencies.  5 Removal / relocation Immediate hazard, obstruction, essential public use, severe site impacts, or other conditions make continued occupation untenable. Consistent notice, property handling, outreach, identification of available alternatives, and trauma-informed implementation.  A supported interim encampment should be defined narrowly The new Tier 2 tool is the principal policy gap. It should be designed as a temporary public-health and harm-reduction response, not as an unregulated shelter. The common policy could define a “supported interim encampment” as an existing or designated outdoor sleeping area where a jurisdiction intentionally provides limited services or exercises time-limited enforcement discretion while longer-term placement is unavailable. • A supported site would not automatically be treated as a licensed shelter or a promise of permanent occupancy. • Basic sanitation and refuse service should be understood as risk-reduction measures, not as an assumption by the City or County of day-to-day camp operation. • Legal counsel should determine, site by site, whether a land-use permit, emergency authorization, property license, or other approval is required. A joint policy should not attempt to use the phrase “supported but unsanctioned” to bypass otherwise applicable land-use, fire, environmental, or public-health law. • The City and County should use the same site-selection exclusions and escalation triggers, including traffic hazards, critical areas, unsafe fire conditions, blocked ADA access, threats to essential governmental operations, and conditions that cannot be mitigated with proportionate measures. • Each designation should be time-limited and reviewed at regular intervals, with a documented exit or transition plan. Liability: use layered risk management, not a blanket resident waiver Liability should be addressed through layered risk management rather than a blanket resident waiver of any tier of supported encampment. A supported-encampment framework should use clear resident acknowledgments of site rules and known hazards, written operating agreements with nonprofit site managers where applicable, appropriate insurance and provisions to the extent lawful and commercially available, documented inspections, and clear separation of governmental and site-management responsibilities. For religious-hosted sites, use the specific Washington statutory pathway that authorizes outdoor encampments and safe parking and provides civil-liability immunity to public agencies for permitting decisions and conduct or unlawful activity arising from the temporary encampment. The statutes also allow an MOU, while limiting a municipality’s ability to require the host religious organization to indemnify the municipality. Developing an MOU template and paperwork for religious organizations might increase use of the program. Review by the Jefferson County Prosecuting Attorney and Port Townsend City Attorney before final adoption, including review of insurance requirements, indemnification language, public-property licenses, ADA obligations, and any proposed resident acknowledgment form. What should be identical, and what may remain jurisdiction-specific Common City-County expectations Jurisdiction-specific implementation  • Definitions and graduated response tiers • Which public parcels may be designated  • Minimum sanitation/refuse/fire standards • Land-use and permit procedures  • Outreach and lived-expert engagement • Who signs site licenses or operating agreements  • Resident/site conduct expectations • Law-enforcement chain of command  • Hazard and removal triggers • Property-management responsibilities  • Documentation and review intervals • Budget authority and procurement  • Performance measures and public reporting • Local code amendments needed to implement the shared policy  Recommended action The Housing Fund Board recommends that the Board of County Commissioners and City Council jointly direct staff to return with a coordinated policy package within 90 days. The package should be developed by a small joint team including the County Administrator, City Manager, Jefferson County Public Health, County and DCD, City Planning and Community Development, Jefferson County Sheriff’s Office, Port Townsend Police Department, the County Prosecuting Attorney, City Attorney, and representatives of the HFB Shelter Coalition and people with lived experience. 1. Prepare substantially identical City and County supported-encampment policies built around the five-tier framework above. 2. Identify any amendments needed to the Jefferson County Encampment Policy, Jefferson County Code, Port Townsend Municipal Code, or administrative procedures so that the two policies can operate consistently. 3. Draft a standard supported-site checklist, resident acknowledgment, nonprofit operating/license agreement, and religious-host MOU template for legal review. 4. Identify one or two potential pilot sites or circumstances where a supported-interim approach could be tested for six to twelve months, with clear start/stop criteria. 5. Establish outcome measures that include sanitation complaints, fire/EMS and law-enforcement contacts, successful service connections, involuntary displacement events, resident-reported stability, neighborhood impacts, and cost per person compared with repeated abatements. 6. Return to both legislative bodies with legal review, fiscal impacts, and a recommended implementation date. Closing The core issue is not whether encampments are desirable. They are not a substitute for housing. The issue is whether the community will have a practical, consistent response when people are already living outside and there is not enough indoor capacity to offer everyone a place to go. A shared City-County policy can reduce unnecessary displacement, establish the same expectations across jurisdictions, improve sanitation and safety, and give staff options other than choosing between full permitting and removal. Requested decision: Authorize the Housing Fund Board and joint staff team to develop the common policy package and pilot proposal for consideration by both the Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners and the Port Townsend City Council.