The Sammamish City Council passed an ordinance on homeless encampments Tuesday night, as hundreds packed City Hall to, once again, voice their opinions.

After hours of public comment and council discussion, with some community members asking for stricter regulations on homeless encampments and others asking for more leniency, an ordinance was adopted, which states that:

• Only one homeless encampment shall be permitted in the city within a 365-day period, and no more than one homeless encampment may located be within the city limits at a time;
• No homeless encampment shall operate within the city for more than four consecutive calendar months;
• A site may only host an encampment once every 18 months;
• Homeless encampment members must undergo mandatory checks for criminal warrants and sex offender status prior to occupying a site, and any resident who wishes to move into the camp must do the same.

The issue of background checks sparked much public concern. While multiple speakers said that requiring homeless encampment members to undergo background checks is unconstitutional, the council said that idea was never on the table. However, on May 13, councilmember Nancy Whitten had concerns over warrant checks, stating that they do not cover criminal records such as felony or assault, and inquired about the possibility of conducting background checks.

At that meeting, Sammamish Police Chief Nathan Elledge said that criminal background checks are not something the department can do unless there is a police investigation. When Tent City 4 was at Mary Queen of Peace Church, Elledge said that they did warrant checks on the residents, which allowed the police to see any outstanding warrants as well as sex offender history. However, background checks were not performed. Elledge added the city could hire a business to perform background checks, but it would cost around $10 per person.

During the May 13 discussion, Sammamish Planning Commission member Frank Blau said the commission had discussed background checks, but explained that when planning commission members moved into the city, they didn’t have to undergo a background check. Asking other people to do that, he said, would be burdensome.

At the Tuesday meeting, Elledge said that Bellevue, Kirkland, Mercer Island and Sea-Tac all require homeless encampment residents to undergo warrant checks prior to occupying a site.

In attendance were many Faith United Methodist Church members, who spoke about their personal experiences hosting Tent City 4. The church’s Board of Trustees Chairman Bill Mincey said that when Faith United, which is located in unincorporated King County, decided to host Tent City 4, he felt firsthand some of the fears and prejudices from concerned citizens.

“Some of it was uplifting, and a lot of it was disgusting,” he said.

Mincey said there has been a lot of concern over safety, and that while Tent City 4 was at Faith United, they had three incidents in the entire three-month period.

“We have a preschool on site, and ended up losing about 12 families,” Mincey said. “But we also kept families. And our congregation came together.”

One resident, Seth Eliot, said the ordinance does not deal adequately with security, citing the 2012 Tent City in Kirkland that refused to undergo background checks, but later found that a child sex offender was living in the camp.

“They said their system works, it doesn’t,” he said. “This is not about the homeless, this is about the camps and their organizers. The city is not the solution.”

Rev. Kevin Duggan from Mary Queen of Peace spoke to Eliot’s comments, stating that statistics can’t be taken out of context and need to be analyzed.

“Allegations are not proven facts,” Duggan said. “I would urge us not to kill flies with shotguns.”

Duggan said allowing encampments to stay in the city is not a solution, but it’s a reasonable, sane and safe response until the community strives for a more permanent solution.

Councilmember Don Gerend emphasized the importance of looking at the ordinance as a living document. Whitten agreed, explaining that the current ordinance is a good first step and that the city needs to continue to be adaptive and revisit the issue every so often.

“There are legitimate positions on both sides that need to be respected,” she said.

Other council members said that more permanent solutions needs to be found.

“The idea of keeping people in permanent poverty does not sit well with me,” said councilmember Tom Odell. “It’s not new, it’s not going away, and we need to come up with a way to deal with it.”