[0:00] Welcome back. So, moving forward with

[0:03] the committee meetings this afternoon,

[0:04] the next committee is committee of the

[0:05] whole. Just making note that

[0:08] So, the majority of council members are

[0:10] currently in chambers. I know that

[0:12] Councilmember Lilliquist is in the

[0:13] building somewhere and I expect his

[0:14] return shortly. So, we have a quorum and

[0:17] we'll proceed. The first item before the

[0:20] committee this afternoon is agenda bill

[0:22] 25023.

[0:24] This is a resolution establishing the

[0:26] docket of proposed amendments to be

[0:28] reviewed in the 2026 comprehensive plan

[0:31] amendment cycle.

[0:34] Proposed amendments added to the annual

[0:36] docket will be reviewed using a type six

[0:38] process, including public hearings on

[0:40] the merits before the

[0:43] before the planning commission and the

[0:44] city council.

[0:46] Following a recommendation by the

[0:47] planning commission, the city council

[0:49] will have an opportunity later this year

[0:51] to approve, modify, or deny each request

[0:55] using the criteria in Bellingham

[0:57] Municipal Code Title 20.20.040.

[1:02] For this item, I will first turn to the

[1:05] Planning Community Development Director

[1:07] Blake Lyon.

[1:08] » Thank you and good afternoon, Council.

[1:11] As you may recall, in the Growth

[1:13] Management Act for Washington State, we

[1:15] are allowed to amend the comprehensive

[1:17] plan one time each calendar year. And

[1:20] so, Chris is here, Chris Becher, our

[1:22] long-range planning manager, is here to

[1:24] walk us through that.

[1:26] It does count as one time even though

[1:28] there are multiple items, and so that's

[1:30] why we're going to walk through a few of

[1:31] those things, and please let us know if

[1:33] you have questions. Chris.

[1:36] » Great.

[1:38] Thank you, Director Lyon. Good

[1:39] afternoon, Council, Deputy Mayor,

[1:40] members of the public.

[1:42] It seems like just a few months ago we

[1:44] were here adopting the final Bellingham

[1:45] Plan. I think it was actually a little

[1:47] bit more than a half a year ago, but

[1:49] here we are.

[1:50] Um

[1:51] As

[1:52] Blake just indicated, we do have one

[1:54] chance per year outside of that

[1:56] once-a-decade periodic update cycle to

[1:59] bring amendments forward.

[2:00] They do

[2:02] the the list that the resolution before

[2:04] you today

[2:05] will create is called the docket. We

[2:07] have language in our municipal code and

[2:08] there's language in the growth

[2:10] management act about that docket, which

[2:11] is that once a year list. Today's

[2:14] resolution includes seven proposed

[2:16] amendments and I'll go through those in

[2:17] just a moment. And again as referenced

[2:20] to get on to the docket, there is a set

[2:23] of criteria in section 030 of 2020.

[2:27] There's also that list that was

[2:29] referenced in the agenda bill in 040

[2:32] that immediately follows this. That's

[2:33] how those actual proposals are evaluated

[2:36] once they're put on that list.

[2:38] And these are

[2:40] summarizing in general terms as opposed

[2:42] to the more legal language in the BMC,

[2:44] but the criteria first they must the

[2:47] city must possess the staff resources

[2:49] and any other necessary resources to

[2:50] thoroughly evaluate these proposals.

[2:53] And as indicated in the staff report,

[2:55] staff have determined that we we do have

[2:58] those resources. It's in the 2026 budget

[3:00] to review proposals like these. They

[3:03] also must be appropriate to the comp

[3:04] plan. They actually

[3:06] the way they're the criteria are

[3:07] written, they must satisfy the first one

[3:09] that we have the resources and then any

[3:10] of those following five. And I guess I

[3:13] would just say you can you can read

[3:14] those yourselves.

[3:16] The mix

[3:17] that make up this this group of seven

[3:19] proposals all tick

[3:21] for the most part boxes 1, 2, 3, and 4.

[3:24] None of them are addressing current

[3:25] state law requirements. We we tied most

[3:27] of those up in the Bellingham plan and

[3:29] there are some forthcoming later this

[3:31] year that are code amendments for things

[3:33] in the BMC that are responsive. So

[3:36] really just mostly operating in those

[3:38] those first four items there.

[3:42] Again as as indicated in the memo, we do

[3:45] believe we have the resources and we do

[3:47] believe that each of those meets one or

[3:49] more of those criteria specifically in 1

[3:51] through 4. And then also as indicated in

[3:54] the agenda bill once docketed these go

[3:56] through our normal standard types what

[3:58] we call our type six review process for

[4:00] amendments to the comprehensive plan and

[4:02] so that is public hearing before the

[4:04] planning commission and once planning

[4:06] commission chooses to make any

[4:07] modifications or changes to those they

[4:09] make a recommendation to go before the

[4:11] city that for that to go before the city

[4:13] council and then you also host a public

[4:16] hearing to hear from the community and

[4:18] then review those the information review

[4:20] the recommendation from the planning

[4:21] commission and then decide if you choose

[4:24] to approve modify or deny each of those

[4:26] individually.

[4:28] And as Blake indicated it's important

[4:29] that they all travel as a package

[4:32] forward at least through that

[4:35] those final votes by the city council

[4:37] which will likely be in December because

[4:38] that is that constitutes our one shot

[4:41] that the state affords us.

[4:44] So I'm just going to I'm not going to go

[4:45] through these in detail but I've kind of

[4:47] grouped them into three general

[4:49] categories in the map here for

[4:50] reference.

[4:52] And feel free to

[4:54] after I'm done with this feel free to

[4:56] ask questions.

[4:58] There really is only one that

[4:59] constitutes what we would call a rezone

[5:01] and comp plan amendment and that relates

[5:03] to

[5:04] out in the Iron Gate neighborhood there

[5:05] is a public zone that sits in the midst

[5:08] of a larger industrial zone out there

[5:11] and that public zone is currently owned

[5:12] by Watcom County. There's a crisis

[5:14] center out there. There's a day work

[5:16] center out there and they have a

[5:18] proposal

[5:19] just to the east of that on two

[5:21] to the west of that rather on two tax

[5:23] parcels to add their behavior care

[5:25] center and that's something that they'd

[5:26] like to do relatively soon and so that's

[5:28] again that kind of timely fashion.

[5:30] That's why this landed on the docket

[5:31] this year.

[5:33] So that's one of the proposals. The city

[5:35] you can see there's there's two blue

[5:37] pieces here with the gap in the middle

[5:38] the gap being the existing public zone.

[5:41] City staff when we reviewed the county's

[5:43] proposal

[5:44] would like to take the opportunity to

[5:46] clean up the the easterly boundary of

[5:48] that public zone. The city owns a piece

[5:50] of property that was formerly the the

[5:52] Vector waste site where materials were

[5:54] dried before being shipped off um things

[5:56] cleaned out of stormwater ponds and

[5:58] other kind of uh material. Um the city

[6:00] still owns that property and has an

[6:02] anticipated use there. And then also the

[6:04] southerly portion of that of that

[6:06] easterly site is actually part of the

[6:08] main county tax parcel that lives in

[6:10] that public zone. It's actually their

[6:11] stormwater pond that serves that site.

[6:13] So we'd like to clean that up to kind of

[6:15] kind of create a consolidated block of

[6:16] city and county ownership. Uh and so we

[6:19] felt like this was the opportune moment

[6:20] to slightly expand the county's request

[6:23] and and bring that forward. So that's

[6:25] what that that one involves.

[6:28] These middle series ones uh really tick

[6:30] the updates box. Um these are things

[6:32] that were anticipated when we brought

[6:34] the Bellingham plan forward late last

[6:35] year. We talked about the fact that

[6:37] there was a water system plan under

[6:38] review um that the uh pros plan was

[6:41] currently under underway at that point.

[6:44] And as you all know, you approved that

[6:46] by resolution um this spring.

[6:48] And so um and then also uh the school

[6:51] district Bellingham school district is

[6:52] updating their capital facility plan.

[6:55] And as we get further into the year,

[6:56] we'll have an updated capital projects

[6:58] list and we would like to incorporate

[7:00] that into our capital facility plan. Um

[7:03] that's the piece that enables us to

[7:05] collect impact fees. And then [snorts]

[7:07] also um earlier this year, the library

[7:09] board of trustees approved updated level

[7:11] of service standards for the public

[7:13] library which also lives in that capital

[7:15] facilities plan. So these are all um I'm

[7:17] not going to call it housekeeping, but

[7:18] they're all kind of general updates. Um

[7:21] they're not ones they've already had

[7:23] some sort of discussion through other

[7:25] processes or will through other

[7:26] processes and it's really the exercise

[7:28] of wrapping them in underneath the

[7:30] Bellingham plan uh so that there's that

[7:32] policy weight that drives that action

[7:34] there.

[7:36] Um the others are um really cleanups and

[7:39] corrections. And so we had some things

[7:41] related to the land use map that we

[7:43] adopted at the end of the year in the

[7:44] Bellingham plan. There were a couple of

[7:46] errors in the way that we translated

[7:48] urban village designations in the Samish

[7:51] Way urban village to the land use map.

[7:52] We had some things that we called

[7:54] residential that were really commercial.

[7:57] A few minor details like that. We'd like

[7:58] to clean that up. It's very hard to see

[8:00] on the one page map in the Bellingham

[8:02] plan, but if you bring up our web map

[8:04] and you can zoom in you're like, oh,

[8:05] wait, there's a few there that we got

[8:07] wrong and that disagree with the

[8:09] designations in the municipal code. So

[8:11] we we would like to correct that.

[8:14] Um

[8:15] Also

[8:16] earlier in the year public works brought

[8:17] forward changes to citywide speed limits

[8:20] and also in in that same ordinance

[8:22] amended the citywide list of arterial

[8:24] streets that live in the

[8:26] in the municipal code. We would like to

[8:28] sync up the maps in the transportation

[8:30] chapter of the Bellingham plan and also

[8:33] the the arterial map that lives in the

[8:35] multimodal plan with that new list of

[8:37] arterial streets. And also there were

[8:40] one or two errors in the previous

[8:43] arterial map that was adopted in the

[8:44] plan itself. One being Birchwood that

[8:47] goes beneath I-5 was missing from the

[8:48] map. So there's a few just little

[8:50] corrections like that we'd like to bring

[8:52] forward and then that update to sync it

[8:53] up with the BMC.

[8:55] And then finally another error or what

[8:58] we call an error of omission in the 2016

[9:01] comprehensive plan we had a policy

[9:04] in the facilities capital facilities

[9:06] chapter that talked about that we need a

[9:08] process for siting essential public

[9:10] facilities. We have a piece in BMC 2017

[9:14] that we've codified in years past that

[9:16] is that

[9:18] specific policy process to site

[9:20] essential public facilities.

[9:21] When we

[9:23] in the Bellingham plan process did our

[9:25] facilities and services chapter, we

[9:27] generalized a policy and we

[9:29] inadvertently generalized out that

[9:30] essential public facilities language. So

[9:33] we have

[9:34] policy FS17 in the chapter in the

[9:36] Bellingham plan we'd like to add that

[9:38] language back in so that that [snorts]

[9:39] supports and points to our municipal

[9:42] code title 2017. So that completes that

[9:46] circle there and reestablishes that

[9:48] relationship.

[9:49] Those are really the list of updates. As

[9:52] you can see, there's really only one

[9:53] that's a what we would call kind of a

[9:54] classic rezone. The rest are all either

[9:56] updates or kind of clean-up exercises

[9:58] that we'd like to do.

[10:00] And staff recommend approval of the

[10:02] resolution to put those on the docket

[10:04] for consideration in the type six

[10:06] process.

[10:08] Before questions, I do want to just

[10:10] pivot real quickly or leave this up

[10:11] here. This is the schedule and this was

[10:13] also in the packet. It is a very short

[10:16] docketing schedule compared to most

[10:18] years

[10:19] and that's just where we find ourselves

[10:20] in the in the year.

[10:22] But we we are looking at a planning

[10:24] commission public hearing on October 5th

[10:26] October 1st.

[10:28] Looking at a work session if needed on

[10:30] October 15th and then we would come

[10:32] before you with a work session on

[10:34] November 2nd and then a public hearing

[10:37] on that same material on November 16th.

[10:40] Where we typically start have started

[10:43] with a public hearing before you. We're

[10:44] starting with a work session just to

[10:46] give the public more time to digest that

[10:48] draft ordinance and if there are any

[10:50] substantive comments to give them time

[10:51] to pull those together and also to give

[10:53] you a head start on asking any questions

[10:56] that we might [snorts] be able to

[10:57] clarify when we come forward with with

[10:59] that public hearing.

[11:01] And then there will be um

[11:03] just based on the on the rest of the

[11:05] year for the council calendar, December

[11:07] 7th could be an opportunity to approve

[11:10] that draft ordinance and then the last

[11:12] meeting in the year would be December

[11:13] 14th and so that would be the the third

[11:15] and final reading opportunity. If it

[11:17] doesn't happen sooner than that.

[11:19] So

[11:19] » [snorts]

[11:20] » With that,

[11:21] happy to answer any questions and

[11:23] entertain approval of the resolution.

[11:26] » Open up to council members. Council

[11:27] member Luquest?

[11:28] » Thank you Mr. Beebe for the

[11:30] presentation. These do strike me as

[11:32] appropriate and important um

[11:34] items to add to the docket. I know that

[11:36] in previous years we've had uh well,

[11:38] docketing occurred earlier and there

[11:40] were bigger items. They often had to do

[11:42] with urban villages or maybe private

[11:45] applications who are seeking significant

[11:47] changes in land use. Um

[11:50] do you feel comfortable speculating on

[11:51] why none of those have been coming

[11:52] forward? I'm going to guess it might be

[11:54] due to the fact that we just went

[11:56] through the comp plan cycle and that

[11:57] might have sort of cleared out people's

[12:00] requests at that moment. Uh is there any

[12:02] other reasoning you think we might we

[12:03] see those return in following years?

[12:05] » Yeah, I think I think that you really

[12:07] hit on it right there. Just that we had

[12:08] just finished the comp plan update

[12:10] process. We addressed a large variety of

[12:12] of of concerns expressed by the

[12:14] community in in all of the 2 and 1/2

[12:16] years of public input we received there.

[12:18] We did also um for a few inquiries from

[12:22] different developers or property owners

[12:23] around town that came forward during the

[12:25] periodic update process and they were

[12:26] asking specifically about something

[12:28] around residential zoning. We strongly

[12:30] encouraged them to pay attention to our

[12:32] process of adopting the interims for the

[12:33] middle housing, for ADUs, for um the

[12:36] design the uh design review process. And

[12:39] I think through that process um some of

[12:42] them either um

[12:43] realized that they could do what they

[12:44] were looking for there or decided to

[12:46] just push pause and wait for kind of the

[12:48] dust to settle after the plan was

[12:50] adopted and after um

[12:52] the if if you remember back to the uh

[12:54] just this last week the joint meeting

[12:56] that the planning committee had with the

[12:57] planning commission, that that list of

[12:59] code updates that we're still working on

[13:01] um as that plays itself out um and we go

[13:04] from interim middle housing regs to what

[13:06] the permanent ones will look like. So, I

[13:08] think there's some there's some um

[13:11] uh

[13:12] uh

[13:13] um

[13:14] un- uncertainty I guess is the right

[13:16] word about what the final code will look

[13:17] like and people maybe are wanting to

[13:19] just wait instead of introducing change

[13:20] in the middle of that to say let's wait

[13:22] and we might get what we need right

[13:23] there just through that process. And

[13:25] there will be again opportunities for us

[13:27] to receive comments on those amendments

[13:29] as well. So, I think that's part of it.

[13:30] Um and then the other part is staff are

[13:32] not proposing other substantive

[13:34] amendments for that very same reason

[13:36] that we're in the midst of like we're

[13:38] not going to um

[13:40] begin to do some of the things around

[13:42] like transit-oriented development or

[13:43] other kind of larger work plan items

[13:46] until later in the process when we get

[13:48] those residential zoning pieces ticked

[13:50] off that are um that we want to get

[13:52] those finished first. So, so a couple of

[13:54] different reasons why you're not seeing

[13:56] maybe a lot of requests from the public

[13:57] or other staff initiatives that are

[13:59] substantive coming forward outside of

[14:01] what's already on the schedule.

[14:07] » Anything else from council members? Um I

[14:09] just wanted to confirm

[14:11] Well,

[14:12] one express appreciation for the sort of

[14:14] elongated consideration by the council

[14:16] at the end of the year

[14:18] having that work session I think before

[14:19] the public hearing as you noted is

[14:21] beneficial to bringing forward council

[14:23] questions as well as um alerting the

[14:25] public to that item coming forward.

[14:28] And then, I just wanted to confirm the

[14:30] deadline for this to be adopted would be

[14:33] by the end of the year, right? It needs

[14:36] to be finalized before the close of the

[14:38] » Right, the items that we would that that

[14:40] are docketed on this 2026 list um I will

[14:43] say uh and I think uh Mike is here from

[14:46] uh Mike Wilson from Public Works. The

[14:48] one item that there's a little bit of

[14:49] uncertainty over is the water system

[14:51] plan and it's going through some late

[14:52] stages of approval and back and forth

[14:54] with the state. Um what we've talked

[14:57] with Public Works and the the the

[14:59] decision was well, let's go ahead and

[15:00] keep it on the list, um get it get it

[15:02] docketed today if we can and then as we

[15:05] have done in many times in years past,

[15:07] um items on the docket, if they don't

[15:09] get approved that year and they haven't

[15:10] been denied, they they are effectively

[15:13] still on the list and we don't need to

[15:14] docket them again. We can approve them

[15:15] with the 2027 docket. Um and we have had

[15:18] reasons in the past and other kinds of

[15:20] things that have spanned multiple years

[15:22] in that process. So, but just on the off

[15:24] chance that things all fall into place

[15:26] before the end of the year, that water

[15:28] system plan was one we felt like, "Well,

[15:29] let's get it on the list and leave it

[15:31] there. And if things converge in

[15:32] December and we can get it approved,

[15:34] that's great. If not, we will just

[15:36] finish that when it once it comes

[15:38] forward for final approval."

[15:39] » Okay. And just confirming today we have

[15:42] a resolution for consideration that

[15:43] would only require one vote. Um, but

[15:45] what will be coming forward would be an

[15:48] ordinance that will require first and

[15:49] second and third and final.

[15:52] Okay. Um, Interim City Attorney, James

[15:54] Erck.

[15:55] » Thank you. Good afternoon. So, I just

[15:56] wanted to um

[15:57] add on to something that Mr. B he said

[15:59] in response to your question,

[16:00] Councilmember Littlequist, about why

[16:02] this is a lighter

[16:04] docket. Um

[16:06] right when staff started getting moving

[16:09] on the periodic update, uh we came

[16:11] forward and asked Council

[16:13] uh to adopt a a resolution, if you will,

[16:15] to suspend the docket uh during that

[16:18] period so that staff could focus really

[16:20] on that important 10-year periodic

[16:22] update. So, we didn't actually receive

[16:23] any private requests uh in response to

[16:26] Council taking that action. Um and

[16:28] secondly, I just want Council to be

[16:30] aware because of the kind of compressed

[16:32] schedule, if you will, for these seven

[16:35] proposed docket uh amendments or comp

[16:37] plan amendments,

[16:38] um when they go forward to Planning

[16:41] Commission and then come to City

[16:42] Council, they will be consolidated

[16:45] uh for review. So,

[16:48] uh think about it in terms of like there

[16:49] will be one ordinance amending the comp

[16:51] plan with seven discrete sections, one

[16:53] section representing each of these seven

[16:56] amendments, assuming that Council

[16:58] approves this proposed docket, um

[17:01] rather than

[17:02] seven public hearings, seven separate

[17:05] ordinances,

[17:07] seven separate work sessions, etc. So,

[17:10] it's all going to be one

[17:12] comprehensive package, if that makes

[17:14] sense.

[17:15] Any questions about that?

[17:19] Okay. Thank you.

[17:21] » Thank you. Um I'm going to move approval

[17:23] of the resolution establishing the

[17:25] docket of proposed amendments to be

[17:28] reviewed in the 2026 comprehensive

[17:30] planned amendment cycle.

[17:32] » Second.

[17:36] » So, a motion was made by Council member

[17:37] Anderson and a second by Council member

[17:39] Huffman.

[17:40] Any discussion?

[17:44] Okay.

[17:45] Seeing none, all in favor will say aye.

[17:47] » Aye.

[17:48] » Aye.

[17:48] » Any opposed or abstentions? Okay. Seeing

[17:51] none, that passes 7-0. I'll bring that

[17:53] forward this evening.

[17:55] Thank you very much.

[18:00] So, the next item before the Committee

[18:02] of the Whole this afternoon is agenda

[18:04] bill 25022.

[18:06] This is a discussion of tenant

[18:07] engagement options.

[18:09] So, as you may recall earlier this year,

[18:11] the Council directed staff, being

[18:13] Council staff, to research options for

[18:15] tenant engagement similar to the

[18:17] landlord and property manager survey

[18:19] that was conducted last fall in 2025.

[18:23] After considering options, a digital

[18:25] survey was identified as the recommended

[18:27] engagement strategy.

[18:29] The administration is also taking steps

[18:31] to convene the landlord and tenant

[18:33] advisory working group at this time.

[18:37] So, at this time Council staff seeks

[18:39] direction for next steps on tenant

[18:41] engagement. I'm going to turn to Iris

[18:43] Knot, who is our legislative policy

[18:45] analyst.

[18:46] » Thank you.

[18:47] Um yes, as Council President Stone

[18:49] mentioned, uh this came from the uh

[18:53] rental fee ordinances that were passed

[18:55] last year in June. And during that time,

[18:57] Council had initially asked for feedback

[19:00] um or data collection on landlord

[19:02] impacts from those ordinances.

[19:05] And so, we created a survey, conducted

[19:06] it in October-November, and presented it

[19:08] earlier this year. And during the

[19:11] presentation of that survey, uh Council

[19:13] requested a engagement strategy for

[19:16] tenant feedback. Uh so during that time,

[19:19] that was in April, and then in May, the

[19:22] Council approved the um resolution

[19:25] creating the uh landlord and tenant

[19:28] advisory work group. Um

[19:31] And that part of their assignment is to

[19:34] create um to to do two things. So, their

[19:37] assignments include reviewing existing

[19:39] data, um and then they also include

[19:42] reviewing and providing feedback on

[19:44] proposed plans for future data gathering

[19:46] and public engagement efforts. Um And so

[19:48] there's two sort of elements of that

[19:50] that kind of relate to the potential to

[19:53] move forward with this uh survey. And

[19:56] so, there are some pros and cons of

[19:59] moving forward or waiting. And there are

[20:01] really, I as I see it, kind of two

[20:03] options. We can move forward with the

[20:05] survey sort of along the same timeline

[20:08] that the rental advisory group um the

[20:10] sorry, landlord and tenant advisory

[20:12] group is getting rolling and doing their

[20:15] work, in which case this survey would be

[20:19] conducted in the fall, and then the data

[20:22] analyzed and presented to both Council

[20:24] and then available for that advisory

[20:26] group to use as part of their work.

[20:29] Um alternatively, we could pause and see

[20:33] what the engagement strategy

[20:36] that they develop and um create would be

[20:39] in terms of getting data collection from

[20:41] both landlords and tenants in the long

[20:43] term. And um

[20:46] there pros and cons to both of these

[20:47] options. So, we can move forward and

[20:49] provide that data. Council receives data

[20:51] earlier. Um it responds to the request

[20:54] and the interest that you have to

[20:56] collect information similar to the

[20:58] landlord um feedback that we've received

[21:01] if we move forward.

[21:02] If we pause, there's the potential for a

[21:05] more robust strategy that comes out of

[21:08] this work group from the collaboration

[21:11] of the landlords and the tenants during

[21:12] this work group that might create a more

[21:14] long-term um comprehensive data strategy

[21:18] and and gathering process.

[21:20] So, at this point, I wanted to pause and

[21:24] see what the direction is from the

[21:26] council. Um and there may be some other

[21:29] input coming from uh Director Ryan.

[21:33] Yes, Director Ryan.

[21:35] » If I may just uh to give you a little

[21:37] bit of a uh calendar sequence for what's

[21:41] anticipated with the landlord-tenant

[21:43] advisory work group. So, you have before

[21:45] you this evening the mayor's

[21:47] recommendation. Should you confirm that,

[21:50] then we will begin in earnest. We've

[21:52] gone through We're in the

[21:54] uh finalization of our um selection

[21:58] process and finishing out our contract

[22:00] with our professional facilitator, so

[22:02] they will be on board. We will then go

[22:05] into next month um starting our monthly

[22:09] meetings with the advisory group. So,

[22:11] that is currently calendar to be once a

[22:13] month from September 2026 through

[22:16] September 2027, and we will have the

[22:19] balance of that work that is performed.

[22:22] At the conclusion of that work, we'll

[22:24] have a final report that will be

[22:25] presented back to you all uh that can

[22:28] cover this and and probably other things

[22:30] that come up. So, I just wanted you have

[22:31] that context of the anticipated schedule

[22:34] while you're going through your

[22:35] deliberations.

[22:37] » Thank you very much. Um so, just note I

[22:40] know this is listed as information and

[22:41] discussion, but really we are seeking

[22:43] direction from the council um

[22:45] to Iris not regarding next next steps.

[22:49] Councilmember Anderson and then Huffman.

[22:50] » Thank you. Um I would like to keep going

[22:52] forward with doing the survey. Um we

[22:55] already surveyed once the the landlords,

[22:59] and we left out the voice of potential

[23:01] impacts and insight of the renters and I

[23:04] would like to continue that pathway with

[23:06] the advisory group one this may actually

[23:09] assist in informing and it could be a

[23:12] little chunk that they don't have to

[23:13] take on. I'm hoping the advisory group

[23:15] will be looking at a lot of other things

[23:18] and not just this one component.

[23:21] Um

[23:21] and I

[23:23] you know, we've communicated outwardly

[23:26] that we're going to do the survey and I

[23:28] really feel like if we just pull it and

[23:30] say we're going to put pause and we may

[23:32] not fully ever focus on this one thing.

[23:35] I I think it's

[23:37] um

[23:37] for the the community that are renters

[23:40] who want to be

[23:42] to kind of be heard specifically on

[23:45] this. Um I'm just not comfortable

[23:47] pulling it um because I heard from a lot

[23:49] of people why weren't they included when

[23:52] we surveyed the landlords and there's a

[23:55] lot of disappointment in that. So um I'm

[23:58] just really would like to avoid the

[23:59] conversation while we're positing it for

[24:01] a year or maybe two um because we don't

[24:04] know exactly what this work group's

[24:06] going to completely formulate. I think

[24:09] for some of us who really paid attention

[24:11] to uh the the fiber advisory that did go

[24:16] longer and it took a while to really get

[24:18] anything tangible through the

[24:20] recommendations and they kind of they

[24:23] went in different directions than what

[24:25] we thought originally the scope would

[24:27] be. So I'm hoping that the new advisory

[24:30] group might be a little organic and

[24:32] bring some insight that perhaps we're

[24:34] not

[24:35] right now. Um

[24:40] pinning them in. Um so anyway, I I think

[24:43] we've gotten a lot of good direction

[24:45] going forward so far, some momentum and

[24:48] I'd really hate to put pause one because

[24:50] of the renters, how they're going to

[24:51] feel about it and two, I think a missed

[24:53] opportunity.

[24:55] Um

[24:57] I think we already missed an opportunity

[24:58] once last year not asking for them to be

[25:01] surveyed, too. I'd just really hate to

[25:03] have that happen again.

[25:05] » Council Member Huffman.

[25:06] » Thank you. Uh agreed with Council Member

[25:08] Anderson. I think that I I think there's

[25:11] probably a lot of value in these

[25:13] surveys, not just the one-time surveys,

[25:15] but multiple surveys over years so that

[25:17] we can see change over time. Um and how

[25:20] the legislation affects

[25:23] uh the outcome of these surveys both

[25:25] with the landlords and the tenants. Uh

[25:27] and since we have already done the

[25:29] landlord survey, understandably because

[25:31] it was a very opportune time to do it um

[25:34] since we could link up with some other

[25:36] things that were happening at the time

[25:37] in terms of communication with

[25:38] landlords, but

[25:40] um

[25:41] my recommendation uh opinion would be

[25:44] that that um moving on with the survey

[25:46] right now would be appropriate and

[25:50] um

[25:51] who knows when the the the work group

[25:54] will be at a point that putting a

[25:57] uh recommendations together for a survey

[25:59] advice would would be happening. And so,

[26:03] um

[26:04] I would really like to see over the

[26:06] years how these the the results of these

[26:08] surveys change or don't.

[26:10] Um I also note that we're you've

[26:13] provided options for uh digital outreach

[26:16] or outreach by mail. Um

[26:20] And in looking over those, I would also

[26:21] agree with the recommendation to stick

[26:23] with with digital um these surveys as

[26:26] well.

[26:28] » Council Member Lilquist.

[26:29] » Council Member Lilquist, I concur with

[26:30] everything Council Member Ruthanne just

[26:32] said. Uh I I agree with Council Member

[26:34] Anderson. I think we should go forward

[26:35] with this now um even if it it might be

[26:39] stronger and richer in the future, I

[26:40] think we should go ahead soon. As

[26:42] Council Member Huffman said, in the

[26:44] future we can repeat it and that that

[26:46] repeat data will be even more

[26:47] informative. And I agree that we should

[26:49] go ahead with the digital outreach. It's

[26:51] just going to be faster, cheaper, more

[26:54] effective. It won't be perfect, but

[26:56] it'll good enough for our purposes to

[26:57] start, and I do want us to move ahead

[26:59] more quickly with getting this feedback.

[27:01] And in addition, I see this this survey

[27:04] as one part of our engagement with on

[27:07] these issues. The the you know, the

[27:11] advisory work group is another piece.

[27:13] So, this isn't the only thing we're

[27:14] doing. And so, taking that together, I

[27:16] feel comfortable with going ahead now

[27:17] and using the digital means.

[27:20] » Councilman Williams.

[27:23] » Well, I totally agree, too.

[27:26] But, um

[27:27] I also see this in a longer

[27:31] range um

[27:34] situation where

[27:37] this is our first step forward.

[27:40] But, if everything in at least to my way

[27:45] of thinking,

[27:46] if if everything works out, we have the

[27:50] committee, we have the

[27:52] the survey, and so on,

[27:55] that

[27:56] this will somehow

[27:59] become a

[28:01] systemic process that we would utilize

[28:05] somehow down the road periodically to

[28:09] get the data and the information we need

[28:12] to make

[28:13] um

[28:15] relative good decisions in this world so

[28:19] that it reflects the needs of everybody

[28:24] involved in this.

[28:26] Not just one side or not just the other

[28:28] side. It's It's something that we

[28:32] that I think needs to reflect the the

[28:35] needs

[28:37] of that whole entire community

[28:41] as a whole. Not just one side versus the

[28:44] other, and I think this is a first step.

[28:48] And um um

[28:50] and option option one I think is the

[28:53] best one right now.

[28:55] But uh down the road, who knows? But

[28:58] that could be something that a

[29:00] commissioner or a committee could

[29:02] determine.

[29:04] So, um

[29:06] I agree with this first step

[29:09] forward.

[29:13] » Any other council members before I go

[29:14] back to Council member Anderson?

[29:16] Seeing none, Council member Anderson.

[29:18] » Thank you. I failed to mention I also

[29:20] support electronic. Um I think it's

[29:22] faster and less expensive, but also I'm

[29:25] hoping that the survey might There might

[29:28] be some

[29:29] uh responses that we're going to want

[29:32] more information on or better clarity,

[29:35] and that could go to the work group as

[29:38] they expand perhaps other areas that

[29:40] they're looking at, that a follow-up um

[29:44] engagement, whether it be that we fund a

[29:47] mailer in order to spread it out. Um

[29:50] but I'm hoping that we'll get some good

[29:52] kernels, and either one another survey

[29:56] in the future to adding those uh areas

[29:59] of clarification we'd like to another

[30:01] future survey with additional content

[30:04] developed by the working group would be

[30:07] um

[30:08] I think very beneficial, and perhaps

[30:10] using a different um modality the next

[30:12] time in order to spread the net further

[30:14] would make sense.

[30:19] » Anything further from

[30:21] council members?

[30:23] I guess under those

[30:26] Council member Cod.

[30:28] » Sure. Um um

[30:30] Agreed. Um

[30:32] my sense is

[30:34] um as great as it would be to do like um

[30:37] a weighted, accurate, representative

[30:39] survey, like this really isn't ask and

[30:41] answer questions. It's mostly to

[30:44] identify areas for further work and

[30:46] stakeholdering.

[30:48] Um

[30:49] So, um I agree if it feels within staff

[30:52] capacity and not too tight on the

[30:54] budget, let's let's do it. Um

[30:57] and I'm eager to

[30:59] offer my two cents on

[31:00] on questions. I'm sure we all have a a

[31:02] few.

[31:07] » So,

[31:09] I think everyone has

[31:11] mostly weighed

[31:13] in at least those who weighed in were

[31:15] all in alignment of

[31:18] having the council staff move forward

[31:20] with

[31:21] the recommendation for option two,

[31:24] digital outreach. Um

[31:27] So, that being so, I guess I'll formally

[31:29] move just so that we have that on the

[31:33] Well, the recommendation says option

[31:35] one, which is the digital outreach.

[31:38] Um So, I'll make a motion for council

[31:41] staff to move forward with option one, a

[31:43] digital engagement strategy this fall.

[31:46] » Second.

[31:47] » So, motion made by the chair and a

[31:49] second by council member Anderson. Any

[31:51] further discussion?

[31:54] Seeing none, all in favor will say aye.

[31:56] » Aye.

[31:57] » Aye.

[31:58] » Any opposed or abstentions?

[31:59] » Okay.

[32:00] » Seeing none, that passes 7-0.

[32:02] » Okay.

[32:03] » Council member Cotton.

[32:04] » Just briefly, thank you to Iris and

[32:06] Julia and Council President Stone and

[32:08] Planning Director Lion for their work on

[32:09] this.

[32:10] » Okay.

[32:11] » Okay.

[32:11] » Thank you very much.

[32:15] With that, the next agenda item is

[32:17] agenda bill 25024.

[32:20] This is a discussion of upcoming

[32:21] procedural changes to council meetings.

[32:24] So, Council President Hannah Stone will

[32:26] review planned changes to council

[32:28] meetings including adjustments to public

[32:30] comment, standing announcements, and

[32:32] language access.

[32:34] So, for this item with my notes,

[32:36] struggled to come up with a memo that

[32:38] clearly

[32:40] sort of walked that through. So, what

[32:42] I'm proposing at this time, it is

[32:45] information discussion only for the most

[32:47] part, is to look through

[32:49] um

[32:49] sort of the agenda as you know it, and

[32:51] to go over what the proposed changes

[32:53] are.

[32:54] At this time, in working with our office

[32:55] manager,

[32:57] um

[32:57] Jackie Weller, as well as, you know, the

[33:00] BTV team and others, and consultation

[33:03] with legal, the proposal is to move

[33:06] forward with changes at our next

[33:08] meeting, um which would be the next

[33:11] meeting, um being September 14th.

[33:14] So, you would see a new agenda, you

[33:17] know, cover pages in the next packet if

[33:20] this were um

[33:21] we're going forward. So, in thinking

[33:23] about how to just looking at our typical

[33:27] agenda and its publication, you know,

[33:28] how to watch City Council meetings, one

[33:31] of the proposed changes is to move

[33:33] right, public comment to the beginning

[33:35] of Council meetings, um which would mean

[33:38] that public comment would be coming as a

[33:41] part of the regular broadcast on, right,

[33:45] BTV, Comcast Channel 10, also on

[33:48] YouTube. So, um there would be some

[33:50] editing, right, to that language just to

[33:53] clarify that there's not

[33:55] sort of that separate separate channel

[33:56] as far as record record keeping as well.

[33:59] Um in how to provide comment and engage

[34:03] in that process,

[34:05] um

[34:06] wanting to highlight that with the help

[34:09] of David Braun, our communications um

[34:11] manager, looking at a new QR code

[34:15] bring us into the 21st century, a QR

[34:18] code as well as online registration form

[34:21] that will be available, sort of similar

[34:23] to our current practice, same day, um in

[34:26] addition to having an iPad here in

[34:28] person 30 minutes before. Um so, again,

[34:31] it's just

[34:32] having that electronic sign-up, which,

[34:35] one, will make legibility, hopefully, in

[34:37] reading of those names and preserving

[34:39] that, um, record of sign-up a little bit

[34:43] easier. Um, and also helping to

[34:46] facilitate the randomization of names,

[34:49] right, and and calling of those names.

[34:52] Um,

[34:53] in addition to that,

[34:55] you know, input provided by

[34:59] um, there are the ability for people to

[35:00] provide input. So, that will apply to

[35:03] council public comment session as well

[35:06] as public hearings. So, the proposal is

[35:08] for public comment to be at the very

[35:10] beginning, the first order of business

[35:12] in the evening, cuz that would be before

[35:15] public hearings. Just to allow that

[35:17] consistency where members of the public

[35:19] know that public comment will be at

[35:21] 7:00, right, that that will be the first

[35:23] item of

[35:24] of business, um, and provide some

[35:26] consistency and reli- reliability in

[35:29] that respect. Um, wanting to note that

[35:32] one of the

[35:34] changes as well with comment

[35:37] is wanting to have a basket. So, there's

[35:39] currently a sign in that little table

[35:41] that's next to the clerk's desk. Um,

[35:43] having a formal basket where people can

[35:45] provide, right, either written comments.

[35:49] Ooh, I know Jackie's sign. Um, where

[35:52] people can provide, right, hard copies

[35:54] of written comments, thinking about in

[35:56] the comment period with 2 minutes to

[35:58] provide comment. If for some reason you

[35:59] weren't able to get through all of your

[36:01] written comments, being able to leave a

[36:02] hard copy that can be shared with

[36:04] council members. Also, sometimes people

[36:06] speaking either at a public hearing or

[36:08] at public comment have additional

[36:10] support documents that they're wanting

[36:12] to share with council members. So, just

[36:13] having a formal location where those

[36:15] documents can all be collected and then

[36:17] distributed to council members.

[36:19] Um, so, those are little

[36:22] nuances. Also, um, so, with that online

[36:26] registration through the form, they will

[36:29] then receive, right, an automatic

[36:31] response and that auto response provides

[36:33] some additional guidelines and

[36:34] commentary about the changes and, right,

[36:37] how to sign up. Um

[36:39] as far as the speaking for 2 minutes and

[36:42] the randomization of of the speakers as

[36:44] far as the order. In addition, David is

[36:47] working on a little orientation video

[36:50] just sort of for people who haven't

[36:51] provided public comment in council

[36:53] chambers before, like going through sign

[36:55] up and where you stand and where the

[36:57] council is in the orientation of the

[36:59] room. So, just to try and make that a

[37:00] little less daunting. So, with that auto

[37:03] response having a link to that

[37:05] um that sort of orientation and welcome

[37:08] welcome video.

[37:10] Moving forward on the agenda, so

[37:13] announcements and upcoming meetings,

[37:15] receive confirmation from legal that we

[37:17] do are not required to state that the

[37:18] Bellingham City Council meets all

[37:20] requirements of the State of Washington

[37:21] Open Public Meetings Act.

[37:23] Although that may be fun for the chair

[37:25] to to say every meeting, um we are

[37:28] complying, but that statement doesn't

[37:30] make that, you know, I guess reciting

[37:32] that statement doesn't make that truer

[37:33] or less true. Um it's all of the other

[37:36] pieces, right, that we we take on as a

[37:38] as a body um to ensure that compliance.

[37:42] So, for the announcements, moving to

[37:45] um

[37:46] strike that that section.

[37:49] In addition, wanting to address the land

[37:52] acknowledgement. Um this has been

[37:55] something that has come and gone from

[37:57] our agenda, you know, over time.

[38:02] Currently sitting as chair um for a

[38:04] couple of reasons, my recommendation is

[38:06] that um at this time that the land

[38:09] acknowledgement

[38:11] not be a formal part of our um the

[38:14] opening of our meeting

[38:16] for a couple of um reasons. One, there

[38:19] has been

[38:21] um there was a city tribal relations and

[38:23] engagement special project report that a

[38:26] team from the mayor's office um, who was

[38:28] on special assignment had pulled

[38:30] together. And that

[38:32] does speak specifically to development

[38:34] of land acknowledgements by and for the

[38:36] city of Bellingham.

[38:38] Acknowledging that the city of

[38:40] Bellingham, working as a unified entity,

[38:43] would benefit from developing a citywide

[38:45] right land acknowledgement.

[38:48] And that as part of that process of

[38:50] developing an organizational land

[38:52] acknowledgement, organizations are

[38:53] encouraged to ask themselves why they're

[38:56] beginning the initiative now and to what

[38:59] end.

[39:00] These questions are designed to

[39:01] encourage the organization to consider

[39:03] the true intent behind their initiative

[39:06] and whether they're ready to carry it

[39:07] through meaningfully.

[39:10] Um, and so some of the things that I

[39:12] have reflected on over the course of

[39:14] time is one, um,

[39:17] how the local tribes also acknowledge,

[39:21] that communication and that engagement

[39:23] with the city and really seeing the

[39:24] mayor as, you know, that point of

[39:27] contact for the city and really filling

[39:29] that role as a

[39:31] as a leader, um, from the city, you

[39:34] know, with the tribes. So, feeling like

[39:36] that work as far as the development of

[39:38] what are the words that are used in a

[39:40] land acknowledgement, um, and and really

[39:43] engaging in that work with the the local

[39:45] tribes would happen at

[39:47] the mayoral or administrative level.

[39:50] Um,

[39:53] there's also been, uh,

[39:54] you know, at the beginning of the year

[39:56] thinking about the attempt to sort of

[39:57] share that responsibility of reading

[39:59] reading the land acknowledgement that we

[40:01] have in our packet, but without being

[40:03] able to point to sort of how those words

[40:05] were were chosen and the being able to

[40:08] point to the the work that we went into

[40:11] to to bring that land acknowledgement

[40:13] forward. Having that missing, it feels

[40:15] like reading the acknowledgement, um,

[40:18] you know feels a bit perfunctory or

[40:20] wrote at times and what I'm wanting is

[40:22] to make sure that

[40:25] those words if we are really you know if

[40:27] we're committed to reading those words

[40:28] at every meeting that it's somehow tied

[40:30] to meaningful work that we as a council

[40:32] are are taking on and engaged in

[40:34] um

[40:36] and so at the beginning of the year as

[40:37] part of our reorganization meeting

[40:39] you know I brought forward the idea of

[40:41] do we have a a council right role as a

[40:44] liaison to the to the local tribes and

[40:47] at that point the discussion was really

[40:48] highlighting the fact that that role

[40:50] lives more with the mayor and in the

[40:52] administration's office

[40:54] um

[40:56] and more recently there has been some

[40:58] you know pushback from members of

[41:01] those most impacted and most directly

[41:03] right members of

[41:05] um

[41:06] the native tribes here locally really

[41:09] speaking to the fact that

[41:10] acknowledgements on some

[41:13] um

[41:14] level have have changed I think some

[41:16] over

[41:18] over time um

[41:20] and just wanting to make sure that

[41:23] that again it's tied to the work so that

[41:26] a a ritual of this kind really is you

[41:29] know recognizing

[41:30] um a disposition or a dispossession

[41:33] right of land but then coming in a form

[41:36] of sort of

[41:37] reassurance and that history is being

[41:39] named but then absorbed in some respects

[41:42] and just wanting to make sure that

[41:45] again we're able to point to the

[41:46] meaningful work that's that's tied to

[41:49] that um

[41:51] and so

[41:52] I'm not at this time looking to you know

[41:55] bring a formal

[41:57] um

[41:58] motion before the council to to vote on

[42:01] that I'd

[42:02] personally sitting as chair right now

[42:04] I've done a lot of introspection on this

[42:06] and thinking about it and I'm prepared

[42:08] as

[42:10] as the chair at this time to make that

[42:12] that call. I feel like it's an awkward

[42:14] position to put the council in to sort

[42:16] of to vote um formally to support that.

[42:20] Um but I would open, you know, feedback

[42:23] on on that piece. So, two controversial

[42:24] things. One or at least up for, you

[42:26] know, discussion and and feedback um

[42:29] because they're the proposals that I'm

[42:30] bringing forward is that with respect to

[42:32] the land acknowledgement and the second

[42:34] is the language access um piece.

[42:37] And so, currently we have right, for a

[42:39] period of time have had standing

[42:41] interpretation in Spanish language

[42:43] during evening meetings.

[42:45] Um even as an immigration attorney and

[42:48] someone who speaks Spanish, I feel like

[42:50] that effort um

[42:52] is sort of mis- misplaced in that we

[42:54] haven't done the outreach and engagement

[42:56] with the community to really make that

[42:58] investment of resources and the

[43:01] interpreter's time um beneficial to the

[43:04] broader community. Um bringing in or at

[43:06] least those we're trying to serve.

[43:08] Bringing in the, you know, YouTube

[43:11] piece. I know there's some question

[43:12] about AI. Um but obviously through

[43:16] YouTube and those recordings that are

[43:18] then available not just for our evening

[43:19] meetings, but for the committee

[43:21] meetings, really when rich discussion

[43:22] and dialogue happens um and those votes

[43:25] take place initially, um you know,

[43:28] YouTube provides

[43:30] multiple languages, right, the ability

[43:32] for audio dubbing, right, voice over to

[43:35] all of those meetings as well as close

[43:37] close captioning and subtitles um in,

[43:40] you know, English as well as over 150

[43:43] languages. And so, obviously there are

[43:45] some some errors happen um but I think

[43:48] the overall advantage and benefit that

[43:51] the community um

[43:52] receives from having that available is

[43:54] great. In addition, you know, the

[43:57] language access work that's happening at

[43:59] the city where the COB um website,

[44:02] right, our website has printed materials

[44:05] and all of our

[44:06] um web pages available in multiple

[44:08] languages, English and 42. So, you know,

[44:11] over 40 languages that are available

[44:14] for, again, accessing our website as

[44:16] well as printed materials through our

[44:17] meetings website. Um, so that reaches

[44:20] more than, right, only the

[44:22] Spanish-speaking community, but having

[44:24] that

[44:25] um, available.

[44:26] But, wanting to make sure that

[44:27] interpretation is still available to the

[44:29] community upon request in Spanish or in

[44:32] other languages or in ASL. And so,

[44:35] encouraging members of the community to

[44:37] reach out, ideally at least 48 hours in

[44:39] advance, but, you know, if that's not

[44:41] possible,

[44:42] we're making a commitment to do our best

[44:44] effort, right, to accommodate requests

[44:46] that come forward. But, looking at our

[44:49] work plan, our communications work plan,

[44:52] my preference is is that we are

[44:54] investing the time and money in

[44:55] interpreters in those more personalized

[44:58] engagement opportunities, whether that

[45:00] be the council's been invited to a

[45:02] community event, right, for us to be

[45:04] present and making sure that there's

[45:06] interpretation available or us having

[45:08] open office hours and making sure that

[45:10] there's interpretation available, right,

[45:12] through the language line contract that

[45:14] the city has in place currently for

[45:16] people to feel like this is an open

[45:17] space where, no matter what language you

[45:19] speak, you know, we're going to do our

[45:20] best to to engage just as we would with

[45:23] someone who speaks English as their

[45:24] first language. Um,

[45:26] and so, the the work that the

[45:29] interpreters have done is

[45:31] phenomenal, I think.

[45:33] Trying to tackle government jargon and

[45:35] all of the acronyms and, you know,

[45:38] citations as well as fast talkers and, I

[45:41] mean, that's a a heavy lift as well, but

[45:44] feeling like, again, that that time and

[45:47] money being spent at this time is not,

[45:49] um,

[45:51] to the best benefit of us as a council

[45:53] and us doing our work as well as the

[45:54] community members that we're trying to

[45:56] to serve. So, there would be language

[45:59] changes to, again, the cover, um, page

[46:02] just

[46:03] expressing how you can make those

[46:04] requests for interpretation as needed

[46:08] and committing to our work you know

[46:10] through the work plan and David and

[46:12] communications to really lean into that

[46:15] outreach that would actually increase

[46:17] engagement

[46:19] from those members of the community. So

[46:21] that would shrink down obviously the

[46:22] announcement section. I know that there

[46:24] will be some

[46:25] you know controversy and differing of

[46:27] opinions about making those changes. Um

[46:30] but those are my proposals at this time

[46:33] with respect to announcements and

[46:34] upcoming meetings. So

[46:36] I'll pause there for some commentary but

[46:39] um Councilmember Cotton and then

[46:40] Lilquist.

[46:41] » Well thank you so much President Sampson

[46:43] for your leadership in bringing these

[46:44] forward. Um just a particular um

[46:48] like meaningful change I think around

[46:49] the language access. Like I remember we

[46:51] had

[46:52] an audience member come to multiple

[46:55] evening meetings where where the

[46:58] Spanish speaker and I just thought oh

[47:00] this is so boring like and the real

[47:02] content is in the the afternoon

[47:04] committees.

[47:05] And um

[47:07] and I don't think that was a

[47:08] particularly like meaningful experience

[47:10] for that community member and so I yeah

[47:12] I think we can do better and I think

[47:13] that is a good a good change.

[47:15] Um

[47:17] one thing I just wanted to Council I

[47:19] think Councilmember Lilquist mentioned

[47:20] at a previous meeting was

[47:22] it's like it is nice to be able to go

[47:23] and

[47:24] grab people and have a conversation

[47:26] afterwards and so while I think great

[47:28] for people's bedtimes for us to be

[47:31] starting with public comment um maybe

[47:33] finding a way to emphasize either on the

[47:36] you know the projector or on the screen

[47:38] like unless you provide a way for us to

[47:41] follow up with you

[47:43] um we we don't know how to follow up

[47:46] with you. So um I think that could be

[47:48] something

[47:50] um that would be helpful to add in the

[47:52] mix um perhaps on the cover cover page

[47:55] as well. But thank you again I think

[47:56] these are really thoughtful updates and

[47:59] um yeah, second second many of your

[48:01] comment.

[48:06] » Councilor Councilor Littlequist.

[48:08] » Uh thank you. I I I agree with um what

[48:11] OJ said. Thank you, uh President Stone,

[48:13] for your leadership and thinking about

[48:15] these issues and kind of looking what

[48:16] we're doing. Uh I like J- Jay's

[48:19] recommendation. I If we could just

[48:21] remind people in writing if they want to

[48:23] follow up to leave us contact

[48:25] information in some way. I I would

[48:27] appreciate that. I've always appreciated

[48:29] the ability to to do that and follow up.

[48:31] And that was new when public comments

[48:32] are at the end of the meeting and I

[48:33] could get up and I could I could

[48:35] immediately engage. Um on language

[48:37] accent, yeah, access. It It does seem

[48:40] like we're not actually providing

[48:42] uh a service a useful service here in

[48:45] these meetings. It's an expensive

[48:47] service. But, I do appreciate your

[48:49] suggestion, if I understand you

[48:50] correctly, President Stone, of moving a

[48:53] language accent's information up to the

[48:55] top of here. So, at every meeting people

[48:57] are told you can get interpretive

[49:00] services on request. So, we we create it

[49:02] as an on request and we make sure that

[49:04] it's it's easy to find the fact that

[49:06] that is available on request. That won't

[49:08] be missed.

[49:09] Um with regard to to land

[49:10] acknowledgement, I I do think there's a

[49:12] word about it being perfunctory or just

[49:14] words said. I find it personally better

[49:17] for me

[49:19] to do this work if I'm grounded in

[49:21] history and place and people. And a land

[49:25] acknowledgement does that, but cuz it's

[49:26] an important part a deeper part of our

[49:28] history and the place and the people who

[49:30] are in. But, we don't have to do it in

[49:32] acknowledgements. I think it's I think

[49:34] it's good if we are grounded in those

[49:36] things.

[49:37] Saying words that may may not um

[49:41] uh

[49:42] kind of like actually draw our attention

[49:44] at the moment isn't necessarily

[49:46] grounding. So, I I believe in grounding,

[49:48] but I don't know if those words are

[49:50] grounded in in the way that we do it and

[49:52] I I agree with what you said also

[49:54] President Stone that early report

[49:56] indicated that from the tribal

[49:58] perspective uh the executive to tribal

[50:01] relationship is the one that they deemed

[50:03] the more appropriate uh connection and I

[50:06] think we should honor and respect you

[50:08] know, how they would like to be uh

[50:10] approached as in a government-government

[50:12] way. So, um

[50:15] I I I I think I'm agreeing with uh that

[50:18] source of information that you were also

[50:19] looking at.

[50:21] » Councilmember Hudson.

[50:22] Uh first of all, I very much appreciate

[50:24] a leader that looks at even the small

[50:27] details of things we do and asks do we

[50:29] still need to do them that way?

[50:32] And so, I can I can see your stacks of

[50:35] notes here. You have taken a lot of time

[50:37] uh with these issues and I really

[50:39] appreciate that. Um I think that that

[50:42] these were things worth analyzing and

[50:44] evaluating and making sure that we are

[50:47] still doing things in the way that is um

[50:50] best serving

[50:52] uh our our council, the city, and uh the

[50:54] general public.

[50:56] Um I think that one thing that has

[50:58] bothered me about the uh interpretation

[51:00] services is that we are only providing

[51:02] one language um and there are as you

[51:05] stated, potentially 150 that um

[51:08] can be accessed in other ways. So,

[51:11] technologies over the last couple of

[51:13] years have

[51:15] you know, exploded with possibilities

[51:17] and so, um that you you know, I would

[51:22] would appreciate taking advantage of of

[51:25] that

[51:26] uh availability in other ways so that

[51:29] that more people uh potentially can

[51:31] access interpretation services and that

[51:33] when we do provide um in-person

[51:35] interpretation services, it's

[51:37] potentially a lot more meaningful for

[51:39] people. So,

[51:40] uh I appreciate the work that you've

[51:41] done on this.

[51:44] » Councilmember Hamel.

[51:45] » Yeah, I I want to echo the um

[51:48] that appreciation. [clears throat]

[51:48] There's a lot of work that has gone into

[51:50] this. Clearly, you've done your

[51:51] homework. And I think it's good for and

[51:53] healthy for

[51:56] a legislative body to re-examine how and

[51:58] why we do things periodically. I think

[52:00] that's that's better in service to the

[52:02] public. My question is

[52:05] the placement of public comment at the

[52:07] front of the meeting. With that, does

[52:09] that get us into any compliance issue

[52:12] with any

[52:13] um

[52:14] rules from YouTube?

[52:18] » So, I followed up with

[52:20] legal and

[52:23] also, I know that our office manager had

[52:25] looked in that in correspondence with

[52:27] our BTV team as well. And at this time,

[52:30] there's not concern about um

[52:33] about the

[52:35] I guess the concerns we had previously

[52:36] about, right, the the history that we

[52:38] have archived on YouTube. I know that

[52:40] the city has also taken steps to archive

[52:43] that information in other places as

[52:45] well.

[52:46] So, that's, you know, another change

[52:48] that takes that into account.

[52:50] But, I have been considering, you know,

[52:52] in advance in the opening of public

[52:55] comment, just a

[52:57] disclaimer, right, statement that's sort

[52:59] of like with public comment, right, and

[53:01] public hearings that the comments from

[53:03] members of the public coming forward,

[53:05] right, those aren't

[53:06] the the comments of the the council or,

[53:09] you know, the city. But, this is an

[53:10] opportunity to hear from from the

[53:12] public. And

[53:14] YouTube has changed their

[53:17] the language that that they have that

[53:19] that speaks to sort of the medical

[53:21] misinformation that was highlighted as a

[53:22] concern before and how they will

[53:24] administer sort of those warnings and

[53:26] strikes. That's changed and sort of

[53:28] softened. Um

[53:30] I feel like considerably. So, I don't

[53:33] have concern about about that and

[53:35] certainly that was the reason some of

[53:37] the reason why when I was sitting as

[53:39] president previously during during

[53:41] COVID, why didn't make the move to

[53:43] temporarily suspend live comment during

[53:45] during meetings. So, I take that very

[53:47] seriously, but I appreciate the the

[53:50] yeah, question for confirmation.

[53:53] Councilmember Anderson.

[53:54] » Thank you. I also echoing thank you for

[53:58] doing the work and I agree it's it's

[54:01] always in good form to re-examine what

[54:03] we do and why we do it and make

[54:05] adjustments cuz times and situations

[54:08] change. I also was curious as

[54:10] Councilmember Hamel had asked as far as

[54:14] research and Google a little bit where

[54:16] YouTube was at. So,

[54:19] I'm glad we're going to not lose people

[54:23] by having to switch channels in the

[54:25] sense from one thing to the other cuz I

[54:28] I do hear from people who

[54:30] they don't watch or listen

[54:33] or participate with the public comment

[54:36] period because it was too difficult to

[54:39] navigate on their end especially for

[54:41] those who use cell phones to to watch.

[54:44] So, I'm glad that change will be made.

[54:46] And

[54:47] assuming future I know some of the

[54:50] changes we're doing are under your helm,

[54:53] but I would like

[54:55] perhaps if we're going to change

[54:58] where we do reintroduce the land

[55:00] acknowledgment. One of the questions

[55:02] that I had brought up previously is that

[55:04] we no longer do the pledge

[55:06] to the flag and so I had quite a few

[55:10] people well, a dozen who had checked in

[55:13] with me previously about why we

[55:15] discontinued that. Some of them

[55:17] veterans, some thought it was a good

[55:18] idea, others not.

[55:20] So, I think

[55:22] um

[55:22] it's always up to the council president

[55:24] how they want to conduct their meeting,

[55:27] but if we're going to do an a major

[55:29] change in the future where we either

[55:32] re-implement

[55:34] either one, it would be good to have

[55:36] maybe consensus or discussion with

[55:38] council why the change is being made.

[55:41] So,

[55:42] um not suggesting that we uh

[55:46] override necessarily the council

[55:48] president's prerogative, but just for a

[55:50] future council presidents,

[55:52] um if you're going to re-implement or

[55:54] reintroduce something, um much

[55:56] appreciative of having that discussion

[55:59] much like uh council member Stone has

[56:01] brought forward to us today their

[56:03] rationale of why uh they think the

[56:06] change would be needed.

[56:09] » Councilman Williams.

[56:12] » Yeah.

[56:13] Um

[56:16] you have hit on a number of issues,

[56:19] um

[56:20] but the one thing that I want to

[56:24] basically discuss is that whatever our

[56:29] processes and protocols and these things

[56:33] are,

[56:35] um

[56:36] particularly things like the land

[56:39] acknowledgement and things

[56:42] of that nature,

[56:44] that they need to reflect our sincere

[56:48] belief

[56:49] in

[56:51] what they are supposed to be about,

[56:54] and that they should reflect

[56:57] our organizational relationship

[57:00] with

[57:01] that those parts of our community that

[57:04] we are supposed to be

[57:06] representing,

[57:08] as opposed to we do it just to be going

[57:11] through the motions.

[57:14] Um

[57:15] to me,

[57:17] that

[57:18] indicates

[57:20] that we we do it because we really

[57:22] believe in it,

[57:24] and that we have a very good

[57:26] relationship with these elements in our

[57:29] community,

[57:31] and that it's sincere

[57:34] and reflects our views as an

[57:37] organization.

[57:39] And I think that is the strongest way we

[57:41] can go down that path.

[57:44] So, thank you

[57:46] as everyone else has thanked you, but

[57:49] thank you for being so thoughtful

[57:52] about these things and uh

[57:55] um

[57:56] making these suggestions that will

[58:00] in my mind, no matter how they come out,

[58:02] but but I mean in my mind will in

[58:06] improve our relationships

[58:08] out there.

[58:12] » I appreciate it. Thank you.

[58:13] Um

[58:15] and I think to build off what you said,

[58:17] you know, there's there's been no

[58:19] evidence that sort of land

[58:20] acknowledgements alone, right, produce

[58:22] measurable change. I mean, that's not

[58:24] where the the change is happening. And

[58:26] so,

[58:27] I know I have no doubt that this council

[58:29] will stay, right, engaged um and

[58:32] continue to show up where it's important

[58:34] for our, you know, presence and support

[58:36] to to be.

[58:38] Um

[58:39] there's one other

[58:42] item that's kind of small.

[58:44] Um

[58:46] but looking at council assignment

[58:49] reports

[58:50] is a proposed change that that's going

[58:53] to be, you know, council member reports

[58:55] that will include, right, your outside

[58:58] assignments, but that will also

[59:00] sort of double as a a second old and new

[59:02] in the evening session because upon

[59:04] reflection, what I've recognized is that

[59:06] our

[59:07] our evening meeting is an is a report

[59:09] out from the day. And so, the old and

[59:11] new business under the committee of the

[59:13] whole is technically a report out of the

[59:16] old and new business that was shared in

[59:18] the afternoon, but we've always treated

[59:20] it just as sort of a new old and new.

[59:24] So, my plan is to change to give a brief

[59:27] report out for members of the public who

[59:28] didn't weren't there in the afternoon

[59:30] about what was shared during old and

[59:31] new. Um and instead then having at the

[59:35] beginning of the meeting or closer to

[59:36] the beginning after the mayor's report,

[59:38] that that council assignment reports

[59:40] will be council member right reports

[59:42] that can include updates from your

[59:44] council member assignments as well as

[59:47] there are other items for old and new.

[59:49] So, it's a very

[59:51] nuanced technical change, but I'm going

[59:54] to try to

[59:56] to recognize in order to keep members of

[59:58] the public

[59:59] up to speed. Um

[1:00:02] Yeah, Councilmember Huffman.

[1:00:03] » Clarification. Um the council report

[1:00:07] section, will that be reports on items

[1:00:10] that don't have any action attached? And

[1:00:13] then uh old and new would be actionable

[1:00:16] items, potentially votes for the

[1:00:18] council.

[1:00:19] Um

[1:00:21] present

[1:00:22] first reads of resolutions or ordinances

[1:00:25] that might be under consideration that

[1:00:26] council members are

[1:00:28] uh considering with Would you see that

[1:00:30] as being the difference between the

[1:00:31] council report section and the old and

[1:00:33] new?

[1:00:35] » Well, really I would include

[1:00:38] So, the main difference right now is

[1:00:40] just that in the agenda where it says

[1:00:44] committee of the whole

[1:00:46] and for instance, today old and new

[1:00:47] business is item number four.

[1:00:51] That in the evening

[1:00:53] when we're reporting out when I would

[1:00:55] report out for committee of the whole,

[1:00:57] item four would be a report out of old

[1:00:59] and new

[1:01:01] that happened during the day. And so,

[1:01:02] technically there's not

[1:01:04] it's not like a new old and new section

[1:01:07] in the evening. So, I was going to

[1:01:10] sort of have that council member reports

[1:01:14] as an old and new, but I could follow up

[1:01:16] with legal about whether if something

[1:01:18] has a vote, I mean, my understanding is

[1:01:20] we could still take votes at that

[1:01:23] section in the meeting during council

[1:01:25] member reports if you're saying that

[1:01:27] there would be a potential old and new

[1:01:28] item that needs, right, a formal a

[1:01:31] formal vote. Because usually that would

[1:01:33] just be reflected in the

[1:01:35] minutes and report. I mean, if there's

[1:01:37] not additional documentation that needs

[1:01:39] to be attached,

[1:01:42] right, to the

[1:01:44] the meeting documentation. I guess one

[1:01:46] concern is

[1:01:48] this council assignment report section.

[1:01:50] That's not like a committee meeting in

[1:01:51] in OnBase. I don't know that you could

[1:01:53] actually add,

[1:01:54] right, physical documents. Say if

[1:01:57] someone came

[1:01:58] to the evening meeting and said, "Oh, I

[1:02:00] have this

[1:02:02] item to share with council members and I

[1:02:04] want it to be considered." Um so, that's

[1:02:07] a good point. So, we will reflect on

[1:02:09] that

[1:02:10] further for clarification about how the

[1:02:13] old and new

[1:02:14] if there's any constraints, I guess, if

[1:02:17] it's moved or if it's addressed there.

[1:02:20] Or if there's I don't think there's any

[1:02:22] harm either in during the committee

[1:02:24] report out. I mean, sometimes the

[1:02:26] council members reporting out from their

[1:02:28] committee and another council member,

[1:02:30] either from that committee or just on

[1:02:32] council, has additional commentary to

[1:02:34] add. So, I think we could still

[1:02:37] include um

[1:02:38] include old and new

[1:02:40] during the committee of the whole report

[1:02:42] out also.

[1:02:44] Okay.

[1:02:46] I appreciate that note for me to

[1:02:48] consider further.

[1:02:50] Other items or

[1:02:52] I'll walk through. Okay.

[1:02:54] If not, there was one item for actual

[1:02:57] consideration for a vote. And so, I had

[1:03:00] emailed you over the weekend just

[1:03:02] looking at our council rules of

[1:03:04] procedure.

[1:03:05] So, our council rules of procedure over

[1:03:08] time have been sometimes adopted by

[1:03:10] formal resolution and sometimes there

[1:03:12] have been changes just brought forward

[1:03:13] and adopted by a vote of the council. I

[1:03:17] confirmed with legal that

[1:03:19] we can do either. So, at this time I'm

[1:03:21] proposing that we wrote vote or consider

[1:03:24] voting on the proposed amendments to the

[1:03:27] public comment section

[1:03:29] to have that in place prior to

[1:03:33] implementing the changes so that we have

[1:03:35] our procedural rules reflecting those

[1:03:38] proposed changes in advance.

[1:03:40] Um but we are internally in the office

[1:03:42] working on a more comprehensive

[1:03:46] not complete rewrite, but a refresh of

[1:03:49] our rules of procedure that will come

[1:03:50] forward in the short term um for a more

[1:03:54] formal resolution adoption by the by the

[1:03:57] council.

[1:03:58] Um so, in the rules of procedure section

[1:04:00] 8, which was on page 4, and that um

[1:04:05] Jackie has brought up on the overhead.

[1:04:09] There was change to that section just to

[1:04:12] reflect the public comment period will

[1:04:14] be the first item of business on the

[1:04:16] agenda

[1:04:18] unless otherwise determined by majority

[1:04:20] approval of the council.

[1:04:23] And then

[1:04:27] in the exhibit, which is exhibit A,

[1:04:31] on page 11,

[1:04:34] there are some additional changes. So,

[1:04:36] in section 3, just indicating that a

[1:04:38] sign-up form

[1:04:40] for speaking during the public comment

[1:04:42] period and public hearings will be

[1:04:43] available online on the day of the

[1:04:45] meeting and on an electronic tablet

[1:04:48] outside council chambers 30 minutes

[1:04:50] before the start of the meeting.

[1:04:54] New section 5 reads, "Each speaker at a

[1:04:58] public comment period or public hearing

[1:05:01] is allowed 2 minutes unless

[1:05:03] interpretation into English is needed,

[1:05:05] in which case 4 minutes will be allotted

[1:05:08] or unless time is extended by the

[1:05:10] presiding officer.

[1:05:12] The public comment period will be

[1:05:13] limited to 30 minutes unless modified by

[1:05:16] a majority vote of the council.

[1:05:19] Then section six, speakers at public

[1:05:21] comment periods and public hearings will

[1:05:24] be called in a random order from the

[1:05:26] sign-up list. At public hearings, the

[1:05:28] presiding officer shall ask for any

[1:05:30] additional speakers to identify

[1:05:32] themselves once those who signed up in

[1:05:35] advance have spoken.

[1:05:37] And just wanting to confirm, I know

[1:05:39] there's been some question at the end of

[1:05:41] public hearings that even after we've

[1:05:43] called those who've signed up in

[1:05:44] advance, I always ask the audience if

[1:05:46] there's anyone else who wishes to speak

[1:05:47] to the item.

[1:05:49] Um and sometimes I've gotten side

[1:05:50] glances from council members. So,

[1:05:52] wanting to be clear that there is a

[1:05:53] legal obligation. So, public hearings

[1:05:56] are legally required and part of that

[1:05:57] legal requirement is that anybody

[1:05:59] present who wishes to speak to that item

[1:06:01] is given the opportunity to do so.

[1:06:03] Um and we cannot require advance sign-up

[1:06:05] for public hearings. So, that is a an

[1:06:07] important distinction.

[1:06:09] Um

[1:06:11] The next section, the new eight, says

[1:06:14] speakers may not use the general public

[1:06:16] comment period to speak about any topic

[1:06:18] that will be addressed later in the

[1:06:19] meeting as part of a public hearing.

[1:06:22] So, again, just to keep those comments

[1:06:24] separate um because the comment provided

[1:06:26] during a public comment period would

[1:06:28] then not be sort of archived as part of

[1:06:30] that testimony collected um

[1:06:32] and maintained as part of the record for

[1:06:34] that hearing. So, wanting to make sure

[1:06:35] that those are kept separate.

[1:06:38] Section nine, all remarks should be

[1:06:39] addressed to the council as a whole

[1:06:41] rather than to individual council

[1:06:43] members, the mayor, city staff, or the

[1:06:45] public.

[1:06:47] And then in subsection 10 A, disorderly

[1:06:50] speech or action, name-calling or

[1:06:52] personal attacks, obscene or indecent

[1:06:54] remarks, profanity, derogatory comments

[1:06:57] on personalities, and racist,

[1:06:59] homophobic, or other forms of hate

[1:07:01] speech.

[1:07:02] Again, highlighting that those are

[1:07:04] behaviors um

[1:07:06] that speakers shall refrain from

[1:07:08] including in their comments.

[1:07:10] So,

[1:07:11] these were just um

[1:07:14] sort of high-level changes to reflect

[1:07:17] what would be implemented at the next

[1:07:18] meeting with respect to the comment

[1:07:20] period being 30 minutes and the speaking

[1:07:21] time at 2 minutes.

[1:07:24] So, I would entertain either a motion

[1:07:26] for adoption of those changes or comment

[1:07:28] on

[1:07:29] other changes to make.

[1:07:31] » I

[1:07:32] I would like to move that we adopt the

[1:07:34] recommended

[1:07:35] changes.

[1:07:38] » Second.

[1:07:39] » Motion by Council Member Williams and a

[1:07:40] second by Council Member Cotton.

[1:07:45] Any other

[1:07:46] Council Member Liliquist?

[1:07:48] » I appreciate these changes for the most

[1:07:50] part. I I completely agree with them. I

[1:07:52] also am glad to see you looking at the

[1:07:54] rules procedure.

[1:07:56] I have a fondness for the rules

[1:07:57] procedure didn't exist until I was

[1:07:58] Council President and what I brought

[1:08:00] together a bunch of official,

[1:08:01] quasi-official, and unofficial documents

[1:08:03] to start this. I think it's a really

[1:08:05] good practice. It allows our Council

[1:08:07] President and the Council to review what

[1:08:08] we're doing and update it.

[1:08:11] So, thank you for that larger body of

[1:08:12] work. With regard to these public

[1:08:13] comment updates, the only thing I

[1:08:15] disagree with is reducing it from 3

[1:08:17] minutes to 2. I'm going to be voting no

[1:08:20] on these changes, but please understand

[1:08:23] that everything else in here I think are

[1:08:24] really valuable improvements and I

[1:08:26] appreciate them.

[1:08:29] » So, I just want to highlight that the

[1:08:32] changes that are incorporated here are

[1:08:34] aligned in our communications work plan,

[1:08:37] which was adopted I think unanimously by

[1:08:39] the

[1:08:40] Did you vote no at that time as well?

[1:08:42] Okay.

[1:08:43] Um

[1:08:44] but that's where that

[1:08:46] that lives as well as part of the

[1:08:48] communications plan. Council Member

[1:08:49] Anderson.

[1:08:51] » I'll be voting yes, mostly because we've

[1:08:54] already had the vote moving from 3

[1:08:56] minutes to 2. So, it is part of our

[1:08:59] policy, but um, I also agree with

[1:09:02] Councilmember Liliquist on the original

[1:09:05] vote. Um, I preferred that we remained

[1:09:08] at the three minutes, but I also realize

[1:09:11] voting no at this point does not change

[1:09:13] that because that's been a decided

[1:09:16] um, decision by the majority of Council.

[1:09:19] But I have solidarity with Councilmember

[1:09:22] Liliquist thoughts.

[1:09:24] » Councilmember Hedman.

[1:09:26] » We've had many um, different versions of

[1:09:31] structure for for uh, public comment

[1:09:33] over the years. They all have their

[1:09:36] benefits and they all have their

[1:09:37] drawbacks.

[1:09:39] Um,

[1:09:40] we are not required to have verbal uh,

[1:09:45] public

[1:09:46] comment. Um,

[1:09:48] but we have many times discussed

[1:09:51] uh, on this Council how it is beneficial

[1:09:55] um, to the Council.

[1:09:57] And

[1:09:59] and

[1:10:00] and so I'm I'm I don't think that this

[1:10:02] structure is my ideal, but I um,

[1:10:07] but I'm also not I don't have strong

[1:10:09] feelings

[1:10:10] about any of these points. I uh,

[1:10:13] as I said, every every version um,

[1:10:16] of our structure has had flaws to it.

[1:10:19] They're um,

[1:10:21] so I'm I'm happy to to try this one.

[1:10:23] It's very likely we will change it again

[1:10:25] at some point in the future as as

[1:10:27] conditions change um,

[1:10:29] in particular as interest in people

[1:10:31] speaking at public comment changes uh,

[1:10:34] over time as it has.

[1:10:36] So,

[1:10:37] I'm willing to support this and let's

[1:10:39] see how it goes.

[1:10:42] » Any other comments? I guess speaking to

[1:10:44] those points just wanting to highlight

[1:10:45] yes, Councilmember Liliquist leadership

[1:10:47] in 2017.

[1:10:49] Um, I know that so our rules of

[1:10:52] procedure right live in the charter

[1:10:55] I mean, by extension in that Article 3,

[1:10:57] Section 3.02 of the charter just says

[1:11:00] city council shall determine its own

[1:11:02] rules and orders of business. And that's

[1:11:04] the extent of the direction provided.

[1:11:06] Um, so, great appreciation, yes, for the

[1:11:08] work to formalize that through the the

[1:11:10] rules of procedure.

[1:11:12] Um, and also to Council member Hudson's

[1:11:14] point that, you know, as a body we are

[1:11:16] required to receive public comment, but

[1:11:19] that can be in written form, and

[1:11:21] receiving written public comment is

[1:11:23] sufficient to meet the um the legal

[1:11:25] requirements that we face, and so, um

[1:11:28] having [clears throat] that opportunity

[1:11:29] for, you know, people to come and speak

[1:11:32] live in person in chambers um is

[1:11:34] something that we are not required to

[1:11:36] do, but that we have customarily done,

[1:11:38] and as you mentioned, it has ebbed and

[1:11:40] flowed and taken on different um

[1:11:42] different forms over over time. Um, so,

[1:11:45] that certainly

[1:11:47] yes, is something that could could

[1:11:48] change again. Um, but for this

[1:11:51] consideration um

[1:11:53] of this particular motion, it's just to

[1:11:54] put our rules of procedure as they're

[1:11:56] currently written in alignment with um

[1:11:59] with the communications plan and the

[1:12:00] proposed changes that again would take

[1:12:01] effect at our next next meeting.

[1:12:04] So, we [snorts] currently have a motion

[1:12:05] from Council member Williams, and a

[1:12:06] second by Council member Cotton to

[1:12:09] approve the changes. Any further

[1:12:10] discussion?

[1:12:12] Seeing none, all in favor will say I.

[1:12:14] » I.

[1:12:15] » Those opposed?

[1:12:16] » No.

[1:12:17] » Any abstentions? Okay, so that passes

[1:12:19] 6-1.

[1:12:24] Okay.

[1:12:28] Great.

[1:12:30] Well, thank you for

[1:12:32] your patience with that, and at the next

[1:12:35] meeting there will be lots of roll out

[1:12:37] of changes, which

[1:12:39] um

[1:12:40] there will be some bumps along the way.

[1:12:42] Um, we're going to hopefully provide

[1:12:44] some grace to members of the public as

[1:12:45] well as ourselves as we implement those

[1:12:47] those changes going forward. Um

[1:12:50] So, with that,

[1:12:52] that is the end of Committee of the

[1:12:55] Whole, um aside from old and new

[1:12:57] business.

[1:12:59] Any items for old and new?

[1:13:04] Director Lion.

[1:13:11] » Thank you for the opportunity to come

[1:13:12] back. After last meeting, we had a brief

[1:13:15] conversation about the um 120-day

[1:13:19] notice, and I indicated that I would

[1:13:21] provide a response back to Council

[1:13:22] Member Cotton and Council Member

[1:13:24] Liliquist. So, after we've taken the

[1:13:26] opportunity to do a little bit more

[1:13:28] research and analysis, one of the things

[1:13:30] that I wanted to be clear about is that

[1:13:33] the proposed ordinance requires us to um

[1:13:37] continue with the practice of having the

[1:13:39] 120-day notification for the tenant. So,

[1:13:42] the landlord is required to give that.

[1:13:44] That is above and beyond what the state

[1:13:46] requirement is for the 90-day

[1:13:47] notification. So, that is separate and

[1:13:50] intentional for that particular piece.

[1:13:53] The additional discussion came um

[1:13:56] after with regard to the difference

[1:13:58] between a 20-day and a 60-day

[1:14:00] notification requirement. And what I

[1:14:02] want to say on that is that under the

[1:14:04] RLTA, the Residential Landlord Tenant

[1:14:06] Act,

[1:14:06] the tenant is required to give 20 days

[1:14:08] notice if they don't intend to continue

[1:14:10] with the tenancy.

[1:14:12] And we stop there.

[1:14:13] As we've researched through

[1:14:16] uh

[1:14:17] the RLTA, there is a wide range of

[1:14:19] different notification requirements when

[1:14:22] it comes to the ending of tenancies

[1:14:24] across the board, and I don't want to

[1:14:27] uh be accused of giving legal advice or

[1:14:30] providing it, but there's a a variety of

[1:14:32] different

[1:14:33] reasons. It could be for subsidized

[1:14:35] units, it could be for being a member of

[1:14:37] armed forces, and so on and so forth.

[1:14:39] And so, what I would say uh in response

[1:14:42] to your previous conversation is

[1:14:44] as written, this ordinance provides

[1:14:48] clarity for the 20-day notification

[1:14:51] once they've been given

[1:14:53] if they want to

[1:14:55] terminate tenancy. But beyond that, if

[1:14:57] you're talking about other, I would

[1:14:59] defer to them to get legal advice cuz

[1:15:02] there's so many different iterations for

[1:15:04] that. Um

[1:15:07] Also, in the draft ordinance as it's

[1:15:10] written, there's we've received a couple

[1:15:12] different emails, several of you who

[1:15:14] have responded back to the staff about

[1:15:16] those.

[1:15:17] There's items, I believe it's A through

[1:15:19] F

[1:15:21] in in provision, you know, I'm going to

[1:15:24] go off of memory, but I believe it's 6

[1:15:26] 12 020 and it's A through F and those

[1:15:30] are just references back to the RLTA.

[1:15:32] So, there's folks that have gotten a

[1:15:34] little bit concerned about what is

[1:15:37] written in there and really it is just

[1:15:39] us trying to give the tenants and those

[1:15:42] that might be reading our ordinance

[1:15:44] understanding of that. So, our

[1:15:45] recommendation remains the same that we

[1:15:48] continue with the 120-day notice

[1:15:51] and the tenant has the ability to

[1:15:53] utilize that time frame and must provide

[1:15:56] indication within 20 days of the tenancy

[1:15:58] whether they're going to accept that

[1:16:00] increase or whether they're going to

[1:16:02] terminate the tenancy.

[1:16:04] Which is consistent with the position

[1:16:07] Council member Leilani that you had

[1:16:08] articulated at your last meeting.

[1:16:13] » Response from Council, Council member

[1:16:14] Cotton.

[1:16:15] » Thanks for this follow-up.

[1:16:17] I

[1:16:18] am still confused by a lot of the RLTA

[1:16:21] as as many are,

[1:16:23] but I did hear back from at least um

[1:16:25] one

[1:16:27] person who professionally represents

[1:16:28] landlords and they did not share share

[1:16:30] my concern and so

[1:16:32] that's

[1:16:33] um

[1:16:34] a data point that makes me a little bit

[1:16:35] more comfortable. Um and

[1:16:39] yeah, I think

[1:16:40] I

[1:16:41] efforts to yeah, streamline. So,

[1:16:44] I don't know. Councilmember has any

[1:16:46] other thoughts, but um thanks for the

[1:16:48] the follow-up.

[1:16:51] » Thank you.

[1:16:55] Any other items for old and new from

[1:16:57] council? Okay.

[1:16:58] Seeing none, we do have executive

[1:17:00] session this afternoon.

[1:17:03] There are a few items before us. The

[1:17:05] first is a potential property

[1:17:07] acquisition. This is with Rosenblatt for

[1:17:09] approximately 3 minutes.

[1:17:11] The second is a potential property

[1:17:13] acquisition, also with Rosenblatt for

[1:17:15] approximately 3 minutes.

[1:17:17] Third is a litigation matter, Oldham

[1:17:19] versus City of Bellingham et al., with

[1:17:21] Phillips for approximately 5 minutes.

[1:17:24] And then potential litigation matter

[1:17:26] with Chaplin and Kram for approximately

[1:17:28] 10 minutes.

[1:17:31] So, we will say 20 minutes we will take

[1:17:34] a brief break before we

[1:17:35] convene. So,

[1:17:38] we can meet in the

[1:17:40] boardroom in 5 minutes, so at 4:15. And

[1:17:44] then 25

[1:17:47] So, 15 5 25. Be back at quarter till.

Committee Of The Whole

Agenda

Transcript