Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Spaces topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Tumwater council expands park rules to city property, adopts exclusionary‑letter process amid public concern
Summary
Council passed an update to Tomwater Municipal Code extending park rules to all city property and formalizing exclusionary letters (up to 90 days) with an appeal path to the hearing examiner; staff emphasized the ordinance does not permit sleeping overnight in parks and public commenters raised fears it would allow homelessness in parks.
The Tumwater City Council on Nov. 18 approved Ordinance O2025‑008 to extend existing park rules to all city properties and to formalize an exclusionary‑letter process for rule violations.
Parks Director Chuck Denny told the council the change brings "the same rules apply anywhere in the city, whether you're on a park or whether you're on just standard city property," noting the update primarily extends 27 existing prohibitions to non‑park City facilities and adds a procedure for appeals to a hearing examiner.
Under the ordinance the city may issue exclusionary letters to individuals who violate the code; staff explained the enforcement officer may exclude a violator from affected property for a period (not to exceed 90 days if the person has no prior exclusion within one year) and that the hearing examiner may uphold, modify or rescind the exclusion on appeal using a preponderance‑of‑the‑evidence standard. Legal staff said the exclusionary letter is a civil administrative step, not a criminal record, and appeals are handled administratively before the hearing examiner.
The discussion drew substantial public and council attention because of prior public meetings and social‑media concern that the change would "allow homelessness in our parks." Denny and other staff repeatedly said that is not the case: "we are still not allowing people to sleep overnight in city parks," and described the ordinance as a clarification and alignment with neighboring jurisdictions. Council members sought clearer templates and guidance on how exclusionary letters will work in practice, whether exceptions for legitimate city business (for example, paying a bill at City Hall) will be explicit, and the process for progressive enforcement if exclusions are violated.
Supporters on council described the ordinance as a necessary clarification that helps officers and staff apply consistent rules across properties; critics urged close monitoring and clear guidance to protect due process and avoid unintended consequences for unsheltered residents. Staff said work will continue on template exclusion letters, procedural guidance and public outreach.
Next steps: the ordinance takes effect as adopted and staff will develop templates and provide further briefings; council invited continued community communication to clarify what the ordinance does and does not change.
