Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Homelessness Safe Parking topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Orting council sends safe-parking proposal back to committee after split over scope and standards
Summary
Council members debated whether safe parking in Orting should be limited to churches, include nonprofits, or be capped in number; council voted to return the item to the Community & Government Affairs committee for revision.
The Orting City Council on Feb. 19 debated a proposed safe-parking ordinance that would allow people living in vehicles a supervised place to sleep. After more than an hour of discussion over who could host programs and which protections should be required, council members voted to send the proposal back to the Community & Government Affairs (CGA) committee for further work.
Councilmember Gunther, speaking in favor of including nonprofit operators, said the planning commission’s recommendation to allow only churches “is not in the best interest of our community” because no local churches had volunteered and some vulnerable residents — including elderly people sleeping in cars and 60 students identified as unhoused in the school district — would have no options if nonprofits were excluded. “Ignoring this reality to me is not an ethical choice,” Gunther said.
Deputy Mayor Koenig and others pressing for added operational safeguards said the city should adopt “gold standard” program rules such as case management, time limits on stays, 24/7 security and privacy fencing. Councilmember Sprowl highlighted concerns about gridlock during evacuations and other safety risks; he said fencing can protect people fleeing domestic violence. Several council members said case management and movement toward permanent housing are essential.
Planning Commission members had recommended limiting safe parking to churches and religious organizations and removing some performance standards drawn up by Recovery Cafe, the organization that originally proposed a model ordinance. City staff and the planning commission pointed to examples of long-running programs elsewhere and explained some hosts manage their own screening and time limits. City Attorney Daphne (last name in packet) told council the draft ordinance includes a requirement for a memorandum of understanding between the city and any host site.
Councilmembers expressed two recurring concerns: that limiting hosts to churches could prevent any program from starting, and that the city should avoid uncontrolled proliferation of sites. As a possible middle path, several members proposed a numerical cap on sites — for example, two — while restoring performance standards that require hosts to provide screening, case management and program rules.
After discussion, the council directed staff to return the draft to CGA with guidance to: consider allowing nonprofits that provide case management to operate safe-parking sites, include clear performance safeguards, and consider a limit on the number of sites. The CGA will prepare revised language and a recommended path forward for a later council meeting.
The council did not adopt an ordinance or take a final vote on permitting criteria at the Feb. 19 meeting. The planning commission’s report, Recovery Cafe materials and staff analyses will be part of the CGA review.
What happens next: CGA will redraft the ordinance language based on council guidance and either return it to council as a standalone item or schedule additional hearings as appropriate.
