[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.