S.B. 239 State Homeless Campus Amendments: transcript

Senate Economic Development and Workforce Services Committee, Feb 17, 2026

1. Committee chair37:44

   Uh, Senator Escamilla, you have a bill here, SB 2 39 State Homeless Campus Amendments. Um, thank you for being here. And I see that you have a substitute and then after that you have an amendment correct to that Sub Madam Chair substitute, correct? Yes. Okay. Do you want to give us some background of course, before we move the substitute?

2. Sen. Luz Escamilla38:06

   Absolutely. Um, you know, the, uh, the, um, so I'll speak to the whole bill because there were some just technical changes that needed to be made, but, um, if, if that's okay, well let, okay, lemme just say the changes were asked by the Department of Work for services just to define clearly what a homeless shelter is. And we didn't have any, you know, encompassing other institutions that we're not trying to be impacting with this legislation. This is truly for what we consider a homeless, uh, homeless shelter. So that's what the substitute is.

3. Unknown speaker38:42speaker not certain

   Okay. May, may I just ask a clarifying question? Sure. Please. For that. Uh, when you mean homeless shelter, do you mean like one of the current kind of larger homeless shelters we have, um, that we already have? Is that what you're talking about?

4. Sen. Luz Escamilla38:55

   So we define, um, here what the homeless shelter is. And, um, this bill will be, cannot be retroactive, so it will be moving forward for future shelters. And it's part of my presentation, the one that was announced that was considered for that is still considered for a 1300 bed facility. It's in my Senate district, which is why I am running this legislation. So it is really for purposes of our conversation, what we will consider a homeless shelter. Okay. So this is going forward for new homeless shelters that are built. Correct. And you're clarifying what a homeless shelter means in the substitute. In The substitute. Correct. Okay.

5. Committee chair39:34

   Uh, any questions? Uh, when you wanna make questions and make a motion, we need to move the sub, we need to move the substitute and then amend it before we talk about the bill. Really? Okay. Uh, move that we delete title and body Senate bill 2 39 and replace it with first substitute Senate bill 2 39. Okay. We have a motion to delete and title and Body Senate bill 2 39. State Homeless Campus Amendments. Replace it with first substitute of Senate Bill 2 39. Um, would you like to say any more about that? No. Senator. Senator Waive. Okay. Uh, all in favor indicate by saying aye. Aye. Um, aye. Aye. Okay. Said it at the same time. So, Yeah. Um, okay. Now there's an amendment one. Would you like to explain Amendment one? Yes.

6. Sen. Luz Escamilla40:34

   Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. So, in Amendment one, one of the pieces that are is, that is critical, at least in the current location, is just the situation related to mosquito and mosquito abatement. Um, where we have the biggest mosquito, uh, abatement issues is in the west side of Salt Lake City because we're on water. So, um, one of the pieces that we added was the public health piece of staff and visitors related to mosquitoes as part of the plan. Okay. So, um, the amendment, uh, does include that.

7. Committee chair41:09

   Would you like to move the amendment? Senator Owens?

8. Sen. Derrin R. Owens41:12

   So move. Okay.

9. Committee chair41:14

   So, Senator Owens has moved Amendment one to first substitute Senate Bill 2 39 State Homeless Campus Amendments. Uh, any discussion to the motion? All in favor indicate by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Uh, okay. Now we're gonna talk about first substitute Senate Bill 39, 2 39 as amended. So time

10. Sen. Luz Escamilla41:35

    Is your Thank you Madam Chair and Committee for your time. So, you know, we've been through a lot, um, as a legislature in the last 10 years trying to address our issues, uh, related to individuals experiencing homelessness. We, um, lived through Operation Rio Grande. We went into a spoken hub hub approach. And I, you know, there's still a lot of things that we need to work on, and I think the multiple committees are addressing the multiple needs. But in, uh, October of this year of 2025 of, you know, the year 2025, there was an announcement made that was the, or the advisory board. Uh, thus, uh, just to be clear, the Office of Homeless Services, or the Homeless List Service Board made a recommendation of a specific campus and for now a 1300 bed facility. So, want you guys to keep in mind that our current homeless, um, services and, and campuses are no more than 300 beds. This was a 1300 bed recommendation coming from the board, and it happened to land in my Senate district. So, as you can imagine, if you, our Senator Vickers, probably, if it would've been in your Senate district, you would've hear a lot from your constituents. It activated, um, a group of constituents with just concerns about process. I mean, there was an eminent domain legislation that gave the authority for the state to take over that piece of land. And I'm not here to discuss those pieces. I'm here to discuss moving forward, what does that mean for any district in the state legislature, any area in our state, when it's potentially gonna be impacted by a, you know, homeless campus, especially of this big, um, portion. And working with my, uh, counter, uh, in the house, Representative Hollins, which is my legislator in, in the House, my representative, we work with our, our co community, and we heard from them and what we're doing with the SB 2 39 first substitute as amended, Madam Chair is trying to put together, um, a process that provides one, a very specific comprehensive plan, which you will think if they're gonna be opening such an expensive, um, facility, that we will have this comprehensive plan in place. But it delineates in statute what that plan looks like, addressing criminal justice assistance, employment support, behavioral mental health services, transportation requirements. And that that process and that, uh, comprehensive plan will be, um, ready with also, uh, to address what happens if those needs are not being met. What happens if serious gaps are are taking place, like we saw with Operation Rio Grande, that we will have a mechanism for the, not only the community, but the state to address them within a timeline. So this is more than anything a, a process that will allow for coordination, that it will allow for the Homeless Services Ombudsman that already exists, and it's in place to engage in this, uh, process to have an investigation if needed. And it provides just mechanisms for reporting also to the Executive Appropriations committee and, you know, and responding, responding to incident reports if needed, and creating a remediation plan. So the bill, if anything, puts a framework, um, Madam Chair and Committee to make sure that if, uh, a, a homeless campus, large homeless campus ends up in your community, that the community will know that the state has put a process in place for addressing concerns and making sure that there is a plan in place before it opens. And the community can be at ease and at peace that they will be, that they're also taking care of, not only of the individuals in the community, but also the individuals inside those facilities. 'cause we wanna make sure also they're being served correctly. And if it's okay, Madam Chair, I would like my, my, um, house sponsor, which is part of my presentation. Okay. Thank you. Hello, representative Holland. Thank you. And I apologize for being a little late. We let out on the house floor late. Um, and, um, I think please

11. Committee chair45:50

    Introduce yourself. I'm sorry. Oh,

12. Rep. Sandra Hollins45:51

    I'm sorry. I'm, um, representative Sandra Hollands, district 21. Um, it is my, um, district in which the shelter is going. Um, and I think this bill provides guard guardrails around, um, the shelter. It's something that our community has been asking for. Um, and so, and pretty much this is the, that's the purpose of this, of this bill, is to create those, those guardrails. Um, we want, I wanna make it quite clear that we are not, um, our community is not anti shelter. We have always been open and supporting in our backyards, wanting to help people. Um, but, um, us, uh, shelter this magnitude is going to have a huge impact on the community and the residents that live near the shelter. And so they want to assure, they want to be assured that their properties is gonna be, um, uh, protected and that they're going to be protected living out in that area. Thank you.

13. Sen. Luz Escamilla46:49

    Okay. Thank You. That concludes our presentation, Madam Chair.

14. Committee chair46:52

    Okay, thank you. Um, then I'll return to the committee for clarifying questions. Seeing none. Oh, Senator Owens, I'm sorry.

15. Sen. Derrin R. Owens47:05speaker not certain

    Just, you're missing me today. So,

16. Committee chair47:08

    Well, I think I've called on you a couple Times. I'm here to help,

17. Sen. Derrin R. Owens47:11

    uh, a couple questions if I could. Sure. Um, I, I am see the bill and, um, I, I definitely can understand some angst and, um, I'm not familiar with, uh, the decisions of where these things have, I live quite a ways off the Wasatch front. But, um, I'm, I was looking at one, um, item here, and that is for behavioral and mental health, um, that you have to have one provider for every three clients. So if this was a 1300 bed facility, um, I'm looking online, let's see, for 2 58, mental health, uh, 2 59, 2 50, uh, 2 61, the service provider shall be licensed certified and mental health professional, the service provider ratio will be no more than three patient to per provider. So that would be 400 providers. So let me clarify that.

18. Sen. Luz Escamilla48:21

    Um, thank you for that question, madam, if I can proceed, please. Thank you. Please. So the entire, the way the recommendation for this new facility is, um, senator, is that it's not all mental behavioral health. So this ratio is only for the mental behavioral health, um, acuity cases. But the, the 1300 bed facility, it's actually to serve all types of individuals experiencing homelessness. So this, um, this ratio is evidence-based, kinda like best practices, but just to be clear, those 1300 beds were not all intended to be mental behavioral health, um, high acuity patients or individuals. So that, that's a great question because, uh, actually the vast majority will not be probably that type of, of, um, individuals, but it is, right. I mean, they are gonna be servicing everyone, but the goal is of if you have an acuity servicing for that mental behavioral health, that's usually the, the regular best practice approach. And we expect that if we're gonna be housing and potentially as it's been presented, that they will be an execution of, um, civil commitment. That they will at least have the adequate servicing if we're gonna be committing people against their will on some of these instances, which is what they've been, uh, proposing on this facility. Is that part of this bill? So the, my bill does not address that, but if there's gonna be anything of that type of commitment of civil commitment that that's what they've been discussing, that I'm hoping that we are gonna be servicing them adequately, uh, with the services, which is the intent of this part, this, this portion of the bill. My bill does not address, um, the entire, you know, program of the, of the current facility that they are proposing, senator. But it's, I'm just saying if we're gonna be doing full-blown civil commitment and retaining people like that, that we actually provide mental behavioral health services in an adequate way.

19. Sen. Derrin R. Owens50:31

    Well, that just do that. I, I see that in some places here. I've read the bill a couple times and to the show meet industry standards, and I just, I just can't get there as far as, um, having, I don't know, a doctor who is mental health who deals in that, that has three clients who could survive. And, and I, madam chair and I, I would love to, you know, this is not my biggest concern and I can certainly work on other language that provides maybe more clarity that is not a direct ratio, um, senator.

20. Sen. Luz Escamilla51:06

    Um, we just wanna make sure that the services are adequate. But to your point, I mean, it, it is, if there's 1300 people with mental behavioral health that is impo, we don't have enough providers period.

21. Sen. Derrin R. Owens51:17

    In the whole state. I mean, right. In the outside, right. In the whole state. Yeah. Okay. I, I do think that is an issue. Yeah.

22. Sen. Luz Escamilla51:25

    Mm-hmm. Yeah, and we can address that for sure. I'll make the change necessary changes for that.

23. Sen. Derrin R. Owens51:30speaker not certain

    That, that's all for now.

24. Committee chair51:31

    Other questions? Yeah. Okay. Uh, anyone else? Okay. Anyone from the public like to speak to this bill, please? Uh, two people. Is that what I see? Is there anyone online? Okay. We have two people that wanna speak to this. Bill, please come up, introduce yourself. Take about two minutes.

25. Jeff Olson, Fairpark Chair, Westside Coalition51:58

    So my name is Jeff Olson and I'm here representing the West Side Coalition. Salt Lake City is divided 22 communities, and the West Side Coalition represents the six on the west side. I also chair the Fair Park Community Council. And, um, we're the ones who primarily live with, um, all of these challenges. And, uh, it's really important. We're talking about real people. We're talking people who've been through a tremendous amount, who come from all over the state, who come from other states who come to our community. And, um, and they need, they really need care and loving, um, and attention. They need to be handled well. They need protected. Uh, at the same time, we also need to care for the people in the neighborhood. Um, they can suffer if we don't handle it right. And they do. And I could give you a number of stories of people who live in the neighborhoods where, um, who face the challenges of having people who are unsheltered and don't have resources trying to deal with their lives. And, uh, so we support this, this legislation. And the next one that's going to come up, uh, I have the same thing to say about both. So I'll do that now unless some issue comes up at in the next presentation. But we support these because we feel like they're designed to, um, really address both sides to provide support for the people who need it, and also protections for the community. Uh, a basic framework for doing that. At least they go a long way toward that. And that's basically my presentation. Thank you. Appreciate that very much.

26. Committee chair53:48

    And the next person, wait, would you please sign in? Just, yeah. Thank you, Senator.

27. Devon Kurtz, Cicero Institute53:58

    Thank you. Madam Chair. I am Devin Kurtz, and I am representing the Cicero Institute. We are opposed to this legislation for a couple of reasons. Uh, foremost, we feel that this is a, a bit of a premature framework. Uh, the specifics of the facility, while there is a bed count, um, that has not been, uh, you know, really nailed down in, in such a way that it would merit this kind of of legislation. And while I appreciate the, uh, concern of, of creating a framework ahead of time, uh, some of the specifics we find a bit problematic. Uh, the discussion of the staff. Two patient ratio, for example, um, one to three is not a professionally recommended standard. Most nursing ratios and inpatient psychiatric facilities is about one to six, but that also varies depending on time of day. So, for example, it could be one to six during working waking hours, uh, but at night might go to one to eight or one to 10, or one to 12. Uh, but those standards are largely determined in accreditation, which, if this was an inpatient psychiatric facility, it would be accredited, uh, both federally and, and usually there would be some state licensure component as well. Uh, we feel that those decisions would be best made between the facilities operators and its various accreditors, rather than putting that into statute. Thank you.

28. Committee chair55:15

    Okay. Okay. Thank you very much. Um, not seeing anyone else, um, I'm gonna bring it back to the committee for discussion. Action. Senator Kwa.

29. Sen. Karen Kwan55:30

    Thank you, Madam Chair. I move that we pass out, uh, SB 2 39 first sub with a favorable recommendation.

30. Committee chair55:41

    Okay. We have a motion on the floor. Um, whoops. Uh, yeah, I'm sorry to pass out the first sub of Senate Bill 2 39 as amended, uh, state homeless campus amendments to the Senate with a favorable recommendation, discussion to that motion.

31. Unknown speaker56:01speaker not certain

    I, I just wanna say I have similar concerns. I think you may wanna kind of do something that's more about when you get to staffing ratios and things like that, something that says as appropriately as, um, appropriately, because those change things change. Kirkman Sanchez change, it feels like having that in code's a little too specific. Um, so that, that would just be my opinion.

32. Committee chair56:27

    Uh, Senator Owens.

33. Sen. Derrin R. Owens56:30

    Yeah. Um, to the, to the motion. I, I still have concerns about that, but also, uh, I was just the last testimony about, uh, timing and whether I, we all have something in our district Senator. Um, all of the keeping the lights on comes from my rural districts and the mining and the dust and the pollution a lot, a lot. And the north side has a refinery. So not that, not to understate this, this is a heavy lift and challenge. I don't know what the model is for other states than major cities hubs that have this challenge. Um, I would really like to look at that. So this is a little premature for me to have this. And then numbers that, like for that one, stood out to me as that it's just, uh, kind of a deal killer that it seemed like maybe that was what this was written for. So, um, I'll probably oppose the motion.

34. Committee chair57:31

    Okay. Okay. Any other comments? Okay. Would you like to sum?

35. Sen. Luz Escamilla57:37

    Yes, Madam Chair. Thank you. And, um, you know, it's, it's been interesting. I mean, the C group has a very special interest on this, um, facility, so I never heard from them. So it's interesting, um, the, they come after the bill has been there for a minute, but here, here's the bottom line. I, and I'm gonna remove that. I, I agree that that ratio, uh, is too premature on the situation, but we were moving forward. If it doesn't move forward, it's because there's no funding. I mean, right. I mean, and it, what's interesting is for the west side of Salt Lake City, that both the good representative I are proud to represent, and we live there in Rose Park, both of us, um, we have the, the, the state prison with 3,500 beds. We have the inland port. Uh, there was an announcement they were gonna bill the seven, five, 7,500 ice facility at one point. You know, your, I agree with the good senator. We all disproportionately sometimes carried some of this, the needs, and we're happy to help. We just need some safety pieces so the community knows. And I don't think, and aside from, and I'll, you know, admit we can remove that piece. I have no problem removing that piece. But there has to be a place so we don't end up like Rio Grande. I mean, we were all having these problems and they were in our faces as we were seeing everything evolve and, and the operation that took place, and the funding that we spend to clean that process. We were here. Some of us, I think some of you guys we're here, we're trying to prevent that. And it's hard because, you know, I mean, who addresses those pieces of transportation? You will hope a board does. It doesn't have electro, it's not an elected board. So it is, you know, our constituents are demanding who represents us in those conversations, and that's what the next bill will be as well. It's like, can we have a community voice in there? So I, I hope you will let me move it so we can have the conversation. I want the Senate and hopefully the House to talk about what it means. If it ends up on anyone's district 1300 bed facility, it's a large facility that's not a small facility. And look, if it's a small of the spoken hub approach, I actually feel that that's the right way of doing this. But that was not what was told and was told to a community to start prepping for construction in months. And, you know, it may not happen because there's no funding. Um, but it doesn't mean that it's not now has been planted as a next process. So I we're just trying to respond to questions about who, who is over, who's the over, what's the oversight on something so large like this? And I hope all of my colleagues will consider saying, yeah, let's keep those conversations going. I, I agree with that. Language should be removed. So it's premature, but I, I think it's a worthwhile piece of conversation because it's gonna end up somewhere, whether they're smaller or larger. Um, there has to be some safeguards for not only the community, but the individuals that end up in those facilities. Because we know with Rio Grande, there was a lot of abuse. And my good colleagues is she was, she's a social worker and work in those, um, areas for years. And we just wanna prevent so we can all have better outcomes and measurable outcomes for this process. Thank you.

36. Committee chair1:00:57

    And you're willing to amend this Yes. Before it gets to Yes, it's heard on the floor.

37. Sen. Luz Escamilla1:01:02

    Absolutely. Okay. To remove that language.

38. Committee chair1:01:04

    Okay. Senator Kwan.

39. Sen. Karen Kwan1:01:09

    Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, you know, timing, timing is a funny issue because it's either too late or too late, uh, too early, too late. Um, and I think that when we have a huge investment like this, um, it, it's not too early to begin talking about what are those safeguards and what are the guardrails. Um, and I, I know that the good senator has worked, um, on, on, in many issues, um, on many bills in this issue, and, um, is always open to hearing concerns and making policy the best that it can be. And, um, I I really think that this is, um, a, a bill that should move forward, uh, as she continues to work on this and refine the language and to talk to, um, other, uh, uh, Senator Vickers, um, and legislators to find out the impacts to their, um, their districts. Because, you know, there's so many, um, uh, uh, services here in Salt Lake County and very little in other counties. So, um, to continue talking about what, uh, do we wanna see here, what are those guardrails? Um, so I, I'm gonna urge the committee to, um, to pass it out of committee and, and let Senator Escamilla continue to work on the language of this bill. Thank you. Okay.

40. Committee chair1:02:34

    Uh, then I'm gonna return to committee, uh, for a vote. Uh, all in favor of passing out first of, of Senate Bill 2 39 as amended. Um, please indicate by saying aye a Aye. All of opposed indicate, but no, uh, motion fails. Two, two, sorry. Thank you.