[0:11] [music]

[0:17] [music]

[0:31] Good evening and welcome to the

[0:32] Bellingham City Council regular meeting.

[0:34] Today is Monday, August 24th, 2026.

[0:38] Going to call the meeting to order and

[0:40] begin with roll call.

[0:41] » Holly Huffman

[0:42] » Here.

[0:43] » Dan Haml

[0:44] » Here.

[0:44] » Skip Williams

[0:45] » Here.

[0:45] » Lisa Anderson

[0:46] » Here.

[0:47] » Michael Lilliloquist

[0:47] » Here.

[0:48] » Jay Cotton

[0:48] » Here.

[0:49] » Hannah Stone

[0:50] » Here. All council members are present.

[0:52] Thank you very much.

[0:54] » The Bellingham City Council meets all

[0:55] requirements of the State of Washington

[0:57] Open Public Meetings Act.

[1:00] Before we begin, we acknowledge that we

[1:02] are gathered on the traditional and

[1:03] unseated territory of the Lummy, Nuksac,

[1:06] Samish, and Simyu people who have cared

[1:10] for and tended this land since time and

[1:12] memorial. Truth and acknowledgement are

[1:14] critical to building mutual respect and

[1:17] connection across all barriers of

[1:19] heritage and difference.

[1:22] We begin this effort to acknowledge what

[1:24] has been buried by honoring the truth.

[1:26] We pay respect to their elders, both

[1:28] past and present. Please take a moment

[1:30] to consider the many legacies of

[1:32] violence, displacement, migration, and

[1:35] settlement that bring us together here

[1:37] today. And please join us in uncovering

[1:39] such truths at any and all public

[1:41] events.

[1:43] The Bellingham City Council provides

[1:45] Spanish interpretation at all regular

[1:47] evening meetings. Interpretation can be

[1:49] accessed by in-person attendees by

[1:52] utilizing the headsets located at the

[1:53] front of the room. Remote viewers can

[1:56] log on to co.orgccoom

[2:01] and click on the language icon at the

[2:03] bottom of the screen to listen listen in

[2:05] Spanish.

[2:40] Our next council meeting will be held on

[2:42] September 14th, 2026.

[2:46] So this evening we are beginning first

[2:48] with a public hearing.

[2:50] This is agenda bill 255027,

[2:54] a public hearing on an ordinance

[2:56] relating to land use and planning

[2:58] amending title 20 of the Bellingham

[3:00] Municipal Code creating a new chapter

[3:03] 20.29A 29A

[3:07] titled lowincome housing development

[3:09] incentive removing and reducing zoning

[3:12] based development regulations for

[3:14] low-income housing in all residential

[3:16] multi- urban village and commercial

[3:18] zones.

[3:20] This ordinance proposes adoption of the

[3:22] lowincome housing development incentive,

[3:25] a new chapter within title 20 of the

[3:27] Bellingham Municipal Code, intended to

[3:30] facilitate the development of

[3:31] permanently affordable housing by

[3:34] reducing regulatory barriers and

[3:36] streamlining approvals for qualifying

[3:38] low-income housing projects.

[3:41] The proposed incentive would exempt

[3:43] eligible developments from certain

[3:45] zoning and land use regulations while

[3:48] maintaining applicable health, safety,

[3:50] environmental, and infrastructure

[3:52] standards.

[3:54] Qualifying projects must provide

[3:56] long-term affordability for households

[3:58] earning less than 80% of the area median

[4:01] income, also known as AMI. A type six

[4:05] public review process is required for

[4:08] these development code amendments.

[4:10] Following a public hearing on July 9th,

[4:13] 2026, the planning commission

[4:15] recommended approval of the proposed

[4:17] code changes to the city council. So,

[4:19] we'll begin this evening um with

[4:21] community economic development manager

[4:23] Tara Sundine.

[4:24] » Good evening, uh Tara Sundine. I'm

[4:28] joined by Kurt Abfeld. We both work in

[4:31] the planning and community development

[4:32] department and we're co-presenting. I'm

[4:35] going to keep my comments brief because

[4:37] you read um the full summary statement.

[4:40] Um so, as you know, our affordable

[4:42] housing partners, our affordable housing

[4:46] developers, specifically uh the the

[4:48] nonprofit ones struggle um with um

[4:53] getting these projects off the ground.

[4:56] Um costs remain high. The financing that

[4:59] they use is fairly complicated. As you

[5:03] know, there's quite deep subsidy that

[5:06] goes into these projects and from time

[5:08] to time we find that the land use

[5:11] regulations are either adding a little

[5:13] complexity, maybe a little delay,

[5:16] sometimes more cost. Um, and so Kurt and

[5:19] I have been talking about bringing this

[5:21] forward for a while. Um, even before the

[5:24] the parking regulations were no longer

[5:27] an issue. Um, so we're pleased to to be

[5:30] presenting this. It's a pretty

[5:32] straightforward proposal and uh summary

[5:35] statement was was uh pretty robust on

[5:38] what's eligible, but it is that simple.

[5:41] If a project and I'll describe projects

[5:44] for you all that are familiar to you and

[5:46] those um that the community might be

[5:49] familiar with that um this would apply

[5:52] to they would apply to something like

[5:56] Cedar Commons that's currently being

[5:58] built out by Bellisair.

[6:01] um the Aloha in the Samish Way um

[6:04] neighborhood or Samish Commons, the uh

[6:08] Trail View at Barkley Village, Eleanor

[6:11] downtown. These are familiar

[6:13] developments to our community. These

[6:15] projects typically are in the four to

[6:18] five story range. Um, and I say that

[6:22] because we are recommending that we

[6:24] remove height limits as a constraint,

[6:27] but we know what kind of bandwidth um,

[6:30] the the financing affords these

[6:32] projects. Right now, we're seeing

[6:34] development usually in the fourstory

[6:36] range, and that's because the tax credit

[6:38] program is a little weak right now. Um,

[6:42] they're not as valuable as they are

[6:44] sometimes. Um, and just pushing that

[6:47] there's a little extra cost to go into

[6:50] fifths story. Um, for those that think

[6:52] that all of a sudden we're going to see

[6:54] eightstory buildings or 10story

[6:56] buildings, I can assure you that these

[6:58] housing um, developers cannot afford to

[7:01] go into that type of construction which

[7:04] um would be a lot more costly. Um we're

[7:08] also proposing that um in order for the

[7:11] the developers to be eligible, they're

[7:14] already partnered with the city. So

[7:17] these are the projects I speak of, they

[7:19] need to be in um the city's uh

[7:22] consolidated plan, and as you know,

[7:26] that's a plan that you all approve. So,

[7:29] these are um this is pretty targeted to

[7:32] a small number of projects in our

[7:35] community and and it's um purposeful in

[7:37] that way. Uh

[7:40] Council Chair Stone mentioned the

[7:42] permanent affordability. We think that

[7:45] there is a really solid um uh uh what do

[7:50] you um

[7:53] anyway so we're we're providing some

[7:55] flexibility for the development in

[7:58] return for a um a public benefit that is

[8:02] long-term uh affordability. So a

[8:05] covenant would be recorded on these

[8:06] properties and the properties would be

[8:09] permanently affordable for a 50-year

[8:11] period. So, we think that's a pretty

[8:13] pretty solid um tradeoff. And um with

[8:17] that, I'm going to turn it over to Kurt

[8:19] to summarize the code changes.

[8:22] » Great. Thank you, Tara. Uh yeah, so Tara

[8:25] really hit kind of the first bullet on

[8:27] the slides that you're seeing tonight.

[8:28] Um the why, um these new rules would

[8:32] apply citywide, but they would only

[8:34] apply through our urban village,

[8:36] commercial, and residential multiszones.

[8:37] they would not be allowed in residential

[8:40] uh single zones. Um and really kind of

[8:43] getting at to the the meat of the

[8:45] document here, the ordinance is it's

[8:47] really setting back and reducing the

[8:49] development standards. Um I'm going to

[8:51] walk through those development standards

[8:54] so we can get a good overview of um what

[8:56] what would apply and what wouldn't apply

[8:58] in these areas. Um as Tara mentioned,

[9:01] height uh we are not we are recommending

[9:04] no height limit uh except within certain

[9:06] view corridors. We've got several of

[9:08] those in the waterfront and the Oldtown

[9:10] areas. Um I'll just show you a quick

[9:12] couple quick slides. These are in our

[9:14] Oldtown areas where through those

[9:16] Oldtown or through those urban village

[9:19] plans, we've adopted specific um view

[9:22] corridors that we wanted to maintain and

[9:24] kept heights lower in those areas. So

[9:27] these new no rules, no height

[9:29] regulations would not apply in those

[9:31] areas where we've already adopted

[9:33] certain limits.

[9:35] Um many of our or I should say most of

[9:39] our areas within the the city include

[9:42] either a density requirement. So that

[9:44] density is the number of units per

[9:47] amount of land that you have. Um some of

[9:50] our urban villages have floor area ratio

[9:53] requirements which again um these things

[9:55] are really kind of intended to keep

[9:58] those the scale of the buildings a

[9:59] little bit smaller. Um we are

[10:02] recommending that there be no maximum

[10:04] floor areas or densities in these areas.

[10:07] We want to be able to uh let these um

[10:10] designers develop these buildings or

[10:12] design these buildings in a way that

[10:14] maximizes the total unit count because

[10:16] that's really what we've seen is um

[10:19] whether it be parking or a setback

[10:21] standard or um a height limitation, we

[10:25] seem to get a reduction in units. And so

[10:29] we're really trying to encourage more

[10:30] units and trying to eliminate some of

[10:32] those barriers.

[10:34] Um when it does come back to setbacks,

[10:36] we are wanting to make sure that we

[10:39] still maintain those underlying setbacks

[10:42] um so that they are the same as the

[10:44] buildings that would be constructed

[10:46] nearby. Um lot coverage, we're getting

[10:49] away from lock coverage as well. Uh

[10:52] remember a lot of these the buildings

[10:54] that are being built are being built in

[10:56] our more urbanized areas such as the

[10:58] commercial zones or in our urban village

[11:01] areas. Um

[11:04] so no maximum lot coverage requirements.

[11:08] Um we are recommending some usable space

[11:11] in certain areas. um that usable space

[11:14] for people. It's a it's a private usable

[11:17] space um but it can be joined to be a

[11:19] common usable space. Um we're looking at

[11:22] a 100 square feet per dwelling unit um

[11:25] except within our urban villages because

[11:27] most of our urban villages do not

[11:28] require that usable space. Now, um we

[11:32] did, um throw in an alternative here,

[11:35] which is something that we've been

[11:36] looking at for quite some time now, and

[11:39] that's when we have buildings or units

[11:42] that are located near a park or some

[11:45] other type of facility where some where

[11:47] the residents can actually go out to

[11:50] recreate someplace else or get some that

[11:52] open space. Um and so that alternative

[11:56] here to providing that is if the the

[11:59] project is located within a/4 mile of a

[12:01] park um then they don't have to provide

[12:04] that that 100 square feet per unit. Um

[12:08] parking as you know uh you've already

[12:10] passed those rules and regulations. Um

[12:13] so there's no auto parking that would be

[12:15] required for these projects. Um there

[12:18] will still be ADA and electric vehicle

[12:22] charging stations. uh would still be

[12:24] required when parking is provided. Um

[12:27] and then as a part of the recent parking

[12:30] regulations that were adopted, there are

[12:32] citywide bike parking standards which we

[12:35] are recommending stay with these

[12:36] projects. Um a landscaping uh we're

[12:39] keeping those rules the same as

[12:41] underlining zoning. Um and then we do

[12:44] believe that these projects should still

[12:46] go through some sort of design review.

[12:48] Um, as you are aware, the state has

[12:51] recently required jurisdictions to go to

[12:54] an objective standard, uh, which the

[12:57] city currently has an interim ordinance

[12:59] in place. So, we've gotten rid of the

[13:02] subjectivity when it comes to design

[13:03] review and it's very straightforward

[13:05] objective standards. And just on a side

[13:07] note, um, we've, um, just from a staff

[13:11] perspective and a, uh, developer

[13:14] perspective, those interim rules seem to

[13:16] be working very well. um staff says that

[13:18] they are not as they're not taking as

[13:22] much time to do these types of reviews

[13:24] and the development community knows

[13:26] exactly what they need to do um because

[13:28] it's quite clear. So we believe again

[13:31] that design review is important for

[13:33] these buildings uh should still go

[13:35] through that process.

[13:38] Um and finally I just wanted to

[13:42] reiterate the planning commission held a

[13:44] public hearing on July 9th. Um they did

[13:47] u recommend approval with a 50 uh

[13:50] review. Um we believe in summary that

[13:54] staff believes that the proposal offers

[13:56] a very targeted way to use the city's

[13:58] land use regulations to support um a

[14:02] very important community priority uh

[14:04] which is increasing the supply of

[14:06] low-income housing while maintaining

[14:08] health, safety, and environmental and

[14:10] infrastructure standards. Um, we

[14:12] therefore uh recommend that you adopt

[14:14] the planning commission's findings,

[14:16] conclusions, and recommendations and

[14:17] pass the ordinance tonight. We are

[14:19] available for any questions you may

[14:21] have.

[14:23] » Thank you very much for the

[14:24] presentation. Um, as you noted, we're

[14:27] first here for public hearing. So, are

[14:29] there any clarifying questions before we

[14:32] receive that public hearing testimony?

[14:33] Then we'll bring it back for discussion

[14:34] at the close.

[14:37] Questions? Okay, seeing none, we will

[14:40] open the public hearing and I'll turn to

[14:41] the clerk to read the first names.

[14:44] Right, we had four individuals signed

[14:45] up. Um, first up was Adam Bellinger. Um,

[14:48] it's Jess or Tess Mullen or Muller, Mary

[14:51] Lou White, and then Pete Day.

[15:02] » Good evening, council staff, and uh,

[15:04] community members. My name is Adam

[15:06] Bellinger. Um, I am broadly supportive

[15:09] of this uh recommendation um for the

[15:13] low-income housing development

[15:14] incentive. Um, what I would suggest

[15:17] though is that there be tracking of the

[15:20] actual costs to build

[15:23] going forward of these affordable

[15:26] housing projects relative on a per unit

[15:28] basis relative to the private sector. Um

[15:32] there's a pretty big differential of uh

[15:36] when I look at projects that are have

[15:38] been done in the last few years. Um it's

[15:40] roughly about half a million a unit to

[15:43] build an affordable housing uh uh

[15:47] project and yet the private sector is

[15:50] able to do it for 330,000 roughly lately

[15:53] uh in the last few years. Um

[15:56] uh it's that's a pretty big differential

[15:59] and if we're not getting the the actual

[16:03] costs reduced for the um for the

[16:07] affordable housing, we need to keep

[16:09] looking for ways to get it uh down

[16:13] lower. Um and there's there's a lot of

[16:16] factors that go into affordable housing

[16:18] as I'm sure you're aware of some of

[16:19] those. But um I I think we really need

[16:22] to like track how this looks going

[16:24] forward as uh we see the the impacts on

[16:27] the development piece. Thank you.

[16:32] » Thank you, Adam.

[16:40] » Jess or Tess Mullen or Müller, Maryl

[16:44] White, and Pete Day.

[16:49] You're all welcome to come up to the

[16:50] mic. Yeah,

[16:57] I don't have my written comment because

[16:58] I couldn't get off the computer today

[17:00] and as usual I'm not organized, but you

[17:03] guys have gotten my comments more than

[17:05] once. You know, my concerns with regard

[17:08] to mining. um my concerns regard to this

[17:12] uh burden it places on the um the people

[17:15] who are paying taxes here because it's

[17:17] deeply financed and doesn't give the

[17:20] financial return for that finance. Um I

[17:23] didn't say what ordinance it is because

[17:26] it's not on the sheet I was given.

[17:29] Likewise, I got this on July 25th, but

[17:32] um if I were somebody who had not been

[17:34] on the board as an alternate, I would

[17:37] not be able to ex to reach this until 7

[17:40] days before the meeting to find out

[17:42] anything about it. Um so that's just

[17:45] another thing on the side and I think

[17:47] it's in my notes. Um, with regard to the

[17:50] mining in particular, because I live in

[17:52] a mining area area, a historic mining

[17:55] area, I'm concerned because the voids

[17:59] aren't equal across the city and that's

[18:02] why we shouldn't have a regulation

[18:04] that's equal across the city. I'm also

[18:07] concerned with regard to the

[18:08] environmental factor. Um because these

[18:12] units they city is saying is four

[18:15] roughly four to five now but they

[18:17] acknowledge there'll be at least up to

[18:19] six. They acknowledged at the last

[18:21] meeting if it's on record I don't know

[18:23] if it's on record but it could be on

[18:25] video that there's really no regulations

[18:27] any longer. Um so that these will end up

[18:30] ultimately possibly going into

[18:31] residential neighborhoods. I would also

[18:34] like to um place it on record any notes

[18:37] that I've put in at that meeting, this

[18:38] meeting, and potentially uh the 20 or

[18:41] the 2701

[18:43] um Birwood neighborhood um h planned

[18:47] housing that I also provided the council

[18:49] with documentation on with regard to the

[18:51] risks for storm water drainage. Um, I

[18:55] think the council knows that the city

[18:56] has infrastructure that's overundred

[18:58] years old and that these large

[19:00] structures put in on infrastructure that

[19:03] wasn't developed for that could lead to

[19:06] um backwatering and sewage backups in

[19:09] homes, which has happened in Bellingham

[19:11] several times this year. Um, it will

[19:15] also uh potentially lead to blackouts

[19:18] where you don't get electricity or you

[19:20] have a restriction on your electricity

[19:22] or water. Um, so I think we need to look

[19:26] at this more carefully and that it

[19:27] should be subject to due diligence and I

[19:31] think having a broad um thing that isn't

[19:34] subject to due diligence doesn't cover

[19:36] that. Um, I also would like to say with

[19:39] regard to the SEIPA comment, um, that I

[19:43] I noticed in the SEIPA comment that the

[19:45] city has decided to give away our

[19:47] wildlife for the outskirts of the

[19:49] Bellingham and I don't think that's good

[19:51] for the health and safety of the

[19:53] citizens of Bellingham. Um, so and I

[19:56] don't think that we were asked about

[19:57] that either with regard to that. So, I

[20:00] welcome the council to talk to me.

[20:03] » Thank you, Mary Lou.

[20:20] Good evening, council members and

[20:23] neighbors, city staff. My name is Pete

[20:26] Day. I live in the Birchwood

[20:28] neighborhood as well and uh I also uh am

[20:32] here representing Compass Housing

[20:34] Alliance which is a regional nonprofit

[20:36] affordable housing developer. Um and I'm

[20:39] not going to take much of your time this

[20:41] evening. Um but I did want to offer

[20:44] support for this ordinance and

[20:46] underscore uh just how important

[20:49] regulatory updates like this are to

[20:52] making affordable housing possible in

[20:54] our community. So uh from a developer

[20:57] standpoint um in broad strokes an

[21:01] ordinance like this serves to increase

[21:03] certainty for us which is a huge deal um

[21:08] so that we can plan effectively and know

[21:10] at the outset of feasibility you know

[21:13] exploring um whether a project is even

[21:15] possible. Um we need clarity on what

[21:19] what the rules are, what the land use

[21:20] regulations are. Um and oftentimes what

[21:23] ends up happening is we um go in, you

[21:26] know, to a community that has more

[21:28] restrictive um land use regulations and

[21:31] there's a lot of back and forth with

[21:33] with the city that takes a lot of time

[21:35] to understand what those regulations are

[21:37] and how we can work with them. So

[21:40] appreciate the clarity um that this

[21:42] ordinance offers. Um, and secondly,

[21:46] I just [clears throat] want to call out

[21:47] the um the ways that an ordinance like

[21:50] this really does reduce development

[21:53] costs substantially.

[21:55] Um, and there are substantial soft costs

[22:00] and hard costs associated with pursuing

[22:02] variances, which is often the case uh

[22:05] when building affordable housing. um

[22:08] negotiating design allowances and paying

[22:10] consultants and legal fees uh to to work

[22:14] those things out. Um so there's

[22:17] definitely um uh cost savings there. And

[22:21] I'll call out a regulatory change like

[22:23] this um allows more of each affordable

[22:27] housing dollar to be spent on actually

[22:31] building affordable homes as opposed to

[22:35] um servicing the cost of administrative

[22:38] burden essentially, right? Um so uh I I

[22:44] want to thank uh Tara and Kurt for and

[22:46] the city staff for their work on this

[22:48] ordinance. Um, I feel that it does a

[22:51] does a good job of balancing the urgency

[22:53] of the need uh in our community um with

[22:56] appropriate safeguards for responsible

[22:59] community development. And I'll just

[23:01] call out clauses like the long-term

[23:03] affordability condition that's in the

[23:05] ordinance um as well as the city funding

[23:08] and consolidated action plan condition

[23:10] as well um as examples of um great

[23:14] safeguards that I appreciate are in

[23:16] there. Um, so thank you Tara and Kurt.

[23:19] Uh, and thank you councel for

[23:22] entertaining this ordinance.

[23:25] » Thank you Pete

[23:29] Jess.

[23:33] » Okay.

[23:36] Are there any So is there anyone else on

[23:38] the list?

[23:39] » Uh, Jess or Tess, but they're not um

[23:41] stepping up.

[23:42] » They haven't responded. Okay. Is there

[23:44] anyone else here this evening who would

[23:45] like to speak to this item?

[23:48] » Yes. Yes.

[23:49] » Hello everybody. You guys are in my

[23:51] wheelhouse when you start talking about

[23:52] affordable housing. But I a couple

[23:54] things I want to bring up. I didn't have

[23:55] my notes either. My computer decided to

[23:57] crash. What I want to highlight is

[23:59] what's the cost of the affordable

[24:01] housing that we do. And I wish that we

[24:04] would keep a record of um the increased

[24:08] regulatory cost which they're going to

[24:10] try and get rid of. But really there's

[24:12] hidden costs that nobody really wants to

[24:13] talk about. And that's there's about 92

[24:16] properties that are in Wakom County

[24:17] right now that pay no property tax. And

[24:21] what you'll find is there's a lot of

[24:22] like an apartment complex that is near

[24:24] me or my work on Wurn where they were

[24:27] paying 150 grand a year in property

[24:29] taxes and then about two or three years

[24:31] ago magically they paid zero.

[24:34] And so I want to be reminded that there

[24:36] isn't some magic budget tree that just

[24:39] drops

[24:41] $100 bills for us to get what we want.

[24:45] People have to be taxed to get that

[24:46] money. People have to pay money out of

[24:49] their own, you know, their own uh uh

[24:52] incomes.

[24:54] And I'm telling you that there's a cost

[24:56] to this. And when you say affordable

[24:58] housing, I want you to know, and this is

[25:01] no offense to anybody. I feel like

[25:03] people are saying it like my kids would

[25:05] say when they were little and we didn't

[25:07] have the money and they said just write

[25:08] a check because they had no real

[25:12] comprehension of what that meant. And I

[25:14] want everybody to remind I'm here to

[25:15] remind everybody that there's a cost

[25:17] when you're talking about affordable

[25:18] housing. There's a cost to your land use

[25:21] policies. There's a cost to your

[25:23] hoarding of land through the greenways

[25:25] and other purchases. uh on available

[25:27] land like in the US Street corridor that

[25:30] Bellingham owns like 50% of there's the

[25:34] cost of the tree ordinances. There's the

[25:36] cost of everything and it all just

[25:38] stacks and it makes it a very

[25:41] unaffordable place. And I want you to

[25:42] remember this isn't just evil. I mean

[25:44] developers do a God's work. They do a a

[25:48] a vital uh thing for our community.

[25:53] What happens is that we don't have jobs.

[25:55] It's like where's your teachers going to

[25:56] go? Where are they going to live? Are

[25:58] they going to live in 200 foot places?

[26:00] Are they going to want to live here? I

[26:02] want you to remember last time I said

[26:03] that Wakom County number one export we

[26:05] have is our children. That's from La uh

[26:08] La Sorenson. I want you to think about

[26:10] that when you're talking about these

[26:12] these issues that it's people's futures

[26:14] and people's ability to live here. But

[26:16] in reality, I believe that Bellingham

[26:18] had 42 projects or something the last

[26:20] couple years that got the tax break for

[26:23] for being in these corridors. Not one of

[26:25] them had uh lowincome housing. They

[26:28] could do market rent. So, I want you to

[26:31] say that there's a cost to all this. And

[26:33] then finally, I want you to know that

[26:35] that there's like $3 million worth of

[26:37] tax that's going away from people that

[26:39] aren't being uh uh collected. So, when

[26:41] you do these low-inccome h projects,

[26:44] let's keep a running total of what they

[26:45] cost. And it's not just hiding subsidies

[26:48] from people not paying taxes or proper

[26:51] or projects. Thank you.

[26:52] » Thank you, Brian.

[26:54] Thank you, Brian. Is there anyone else

[26:57] here this evening who would like to

[26:58] speak to the topic of this specific

[27:00] public hearing?

[27:03] Okay, seeing none, I will close the

[27:06] public hearing and bring it back to

[27:07] council for discussion. Council member

[27:09] Anderson.

[27:11] » So, I don't have any specific questions.

[27:13] I think it's pretty well written

[27:16] through. Um, generally, we would send

[27:19] this on to a work session if there's a

[27:21] lot of questions. Um but uh

[27:27] just to share, I remember a project on

[27:29] Samish Wayade, the Samish Commons, and

[27:32] as a uh neighborhood leader, we worked

[27:35] really hard to uh help secure that

[27:39] property. And then again, as two

[27:42] neighborhoods, Se Home and York, we

[27:44] really lobbyed that affordable housing

[27:47] would go into that part of our

[27:49] community.

[27:50] And thankfully it was awarded to

[27:53] Bellingham Housing Authority. And then

[27:56] um as time went on, I was on the

[27:57] planning commission. And when the

[28:00] property was designed and ready to go,

[28:03] um they were just outside the corridor

[28:05] for kind of the unlimited height. So

[28:08] there was a height limit for them. And

[28:10] they could save a substantial amount of

[28:12] money if they were able to use some uh

[28:15] like pre-engineered prefab parts. And so

[28:18] they were going to be six feet above the

[28:21] height limit. Six or eight feet above

[28:22] the height limit. So to try to save the

[28:26] money, they went to the neighborhoods

[28:27] and talked about trying to increase the

[28:29] height of which both neighborhoods were

[28:31] fully supported. And we kept asking

[28:33] them, could you go even go higher? But

[28:36] they explained to us that the cost of

[28:39] going from uh stick and board to

[28:43] engineered and manufactured like uh uh

[28:49] metals and stuff just greatly increased

[28:53] the cost that they would not be able to

[28:55] get funding. And so they had to go the

[28:57] route of delaying and then going through

[28:59] the planning commission to have the

[29:01] planning commission agree that the

[29:03] height should be changed. And then

[29:05] eventually that came to at least two of

[29:07] the council members here to vote for it.

[29:09] Um, council member Liiloquist and

[29:11] Council Member Hamill. And that caused a

[29:13] pretty significant delay for six feet

[29:17] and them being able to save enough money

[29:19] to be able to afford to put it in. And

[29:22] and I understand the cost associated to

[29:26] not getting taxes or perhaps additional

[29:29] staff time, but our largest segment of

[29:32] unmet housing needs are going to be

[29:34] those people under 80% AMI. And so our

[29:39] for-profit

[29:40] um development doesn't address that. And

[29:44] the city only has so much money to

[29:46] develop it on our own. So any

[29:49] opportunity we have to

[29:53] assist to cut down some of that

[29:56] administrative cost, the extra

[29:57] engineering cost. Um I used to be uh

[30:00] worried about height, um making sure

[30:04] that it fit within what was in that

[30:07] corridor or that neighborhood, but the

[30:09] reality is the more I understand about

[30:11] the engineering and the development

[30:12] costs, we're really not going to see

[30:14] anything above four stories. um because

[30:18] our nonprofits, they can't get that

[30:20] level of funding. Um that is more of a

[30:22] for-profit and this is not what it's

[30:24] covering. So, I'm not worried about the

[30:27] height coming in um and being an issue

[30:30] in the areas that are allowed. Um, and I

[30:34] could maybe not get a second. And this

[30:36] is unusual for me to make a motion to

[30:38] approve um without necessarily sending

[30:41] it to committee, but um I think this is

[30:44] a pretty straightforward and necessary

[30:47] and grateful that this is being coming

[30:49] forward. So I um move approval of um the

[30:54] adoption of

[30:57] the ordinance for the first and second

[30:59] reading.

[31:00] » Second.

[31:03] Motion was made by Council Member

[31:05] Anderson and a second by Council Member

[31:07] Hman.

[31:08] Discussion. Council member Liquist.

[31:12] » I think there's a lot about this

[31:15] ordinance that I love, but I think

[31:16] there's uh also a major problem which I

[31:19] would like to address before we we vote

[31:21] on it. Um

[31:23] yeah, you know this what it basically

[31:25] does does is it says uh by relaxing

[31:28] height rules or getting rid of them,

[31:29] density rules or getting rid of them or

[31:31] lot coverage rules or getting rid of

[31:32] them, you can build bigger the edges of

[31:35] your lot so long as you deal with storm

[31:37] water issues. You go as high as you want

[31:39] so long as you're have well engineered

[31:41] building and as as long as you don't

[31:43] block view corridors. All this makes a

[31:45] great deal of sense to me. I'm not sure

[31:48] about the open space thing. I can't tell

[31:49] if it's more generous or more forgiving,

[31:51] but I think that's a minor deal. My

[31:53] problem is that in the name of removing

[31:55] restrictions, we're creating a new

[31:57] restriction. We're creating the opposite

[31:59] of flexibility in a way which I don't

[32:01] think was thought through. The problem

[32:03] is that during our comp plan discussion,

[32:06] we talked about the value and the

[32:08] utility of mixed income projects and how

[32:11] mixed income projects are disfavored by

[32:14] the way we keep writing our rules. So

[32:16] that we keep writing rules which creates

[32:18] lowincome poor people housing or

[32:20] anything else and we don't allow

[32:23] possibility of mixtures of incomes. The

[32:26] way this is written it prevents that

[32:29] possibility. It's the opposite of

[32:31] flexibility. It actually excludes an

[32:33] option of mixed housing which I think

[32:35] runs counter to our compound policy 816.

[32:38] So on the applicability chapter 2029A-2

[32:42] section C, it says only projects

[32:44] proposing 100% low-income housing are

[32:48] eligible for the incentive provisions

[32:49] herein. I think that's a mistake. I

[32:51] think we should allow this if a project

[32:53] has the majority of low-income units,

[32:56] 60% or some other number. We can talk

[32:58] about it. But why are we excluding mixed

[33:01] income projects? We want housing. We

[33:04] want housing that's affordable. And we

[33:06] also want mixed income housing projects.

[33:09] We could get all three if we just

[33:11] rewrote the applicability section. So I

[33:14] would like to talk about that and maybe

[33:16] amend it before voting on the amendment

[33:18] on the ordinance.

[33:26] » Council member Lilloquist, is that

[33:28] formal motion or anything or at this

[33:30] point you just want

[33:31] » At this point I want to open discussion.

[33:33] » Okay. Council member Cotton.

[33:35] Um, I love this ordinance. I think it's

[33:38] so smart and thank you for the work to

[33:40] bring it forward. Um,

[33:43] okay. I have one uh technical question.

[33:46] How much work is it to re for the city

[33:48] to confirm a covenant has been recorded?

[33:50] Are you just copied on an email or the

[33:53] staff have to run down to the

[33:54] courthouse? Like how much staff time is

[33:56] that component?

[33:57] » I don't do that part, but um my team

[33:59] does and we do require covenants anytime

[34:01] we loan on a project. So, that's

[34:03] something that we do routinely.

[34:06] » I can answer. It's actually relatively

[34:08] minimal. Um, we draft up a uh the the

[34:12] covenant. It's very standard. Um, we

[34:15] require the developer or the applicant

[34:17] to recorded it. So, they walk they get

[34:19] it, they walk across the street, record

[34:20] it, bring us back a copy, we have a

[34:22] copy, it stays in the file.

[34:25] » Okay. That is I've always been curious,

[34:27] so thank you for answering that. Um, but

[34:29] I do think it, um, informs my reaction

[34:31] to your comments, council Loquist. Um,

[34:34] that question around whether or not this

[34:36] should be expanded to maybe incentivize

[34:38] participation in the 12-year MFT was

[34:40] brought up in the planning commission

[34:42] meeting. Um,

[34:44] I do think we would have to kind of get

[34:46] down to that maybe level of percentage,

[34:50] like a 20% for that really to pencil in

[34:52] most cases. But, um, I do think, um,

[34:58] we we are getting a lot in exchange for

[35:02] this. Like, we're talking about a

[35:03] 50-year covenant for affordability. So,

[35:06] in that sense, for that extra

[35:07] affordability, we're actually getting a

[35:09] lot more on top of the 12-year MFT. Um,

[35:12] so I I think it's maybe a really smart

[35:15] idea. Um I understand that you know this

[35:18] is uh providing a lot of additional

[35:21] flexibility and there might be some

[35:23] concerns about how that plays out but I

[35:25] think this the fact this is limited to u

[35:28] multif family zones makes me feel a lot

[35:31] more comfortable. Um and also we just

[35:33] desperately need affordable units and um

[35:37] it seems like we're we're getting a lot

[35:38] for what we're given here. So, I'm

[35:40] generally supportive of council and

[35:42] happy to continue that conversation in

[35:45] in committee or um uh or now if folks

[35:49] have thoughts.

[35:50] » Clear. Are you supporting council member

[35:52] Anderson?

[35:52] » I I'm supporting.

[35:54] » Yes.

[35:55] » Sorry.

[35:56] » So, um I I too would love to see what I

[36:00] call, you know, not the silos of

[36:01] poverty, but I just questioned how much

[36:03] time and work it would be to come back

[36:07] with what is the right mix. Is it 50%

[36:10] affordability? Is it 20% affordability?

[36:14] Um, things have to pencil out for the

[36:17] developer, not just the nonprofit.

[36:20] Because if you're doing mix often is not

[36:22] the nonprofit, it might be a nonprofit

[36:25] uh partnering with a for-profit

[36:28] development. I think conversations would

[36:30] need to be had so we had the right

[36:33] mix um to make it make sense. And I'm

[36:37] just wondering um and this might be to

[36:39] director Lions who's typing away there.

[36:42] Um, does it make more sense to pass this

[36:46] as it is and then come back because I

[36:49] know your guys's work agenda after what

[36:52] was presented at the planning the shared

[36:55] joint meeting is quite extensive and so

[36:58] I worry about delaying something and

[37:01] then having a bunch of questions that go

[37:03] into a work session that could go into

[37:04] work session into work session to make

[37:07] it pencil out. Does it make sense to

[37:09] maybe delay this and have you come back

[37:12] um with any questions we're going to be

[37:14] forming now or does it make sense to

[37:16] perhaps if council supports it to pass

[37:19] it and then come back with an amendment

[37:22] when it fits into your work schedule?

[37:24] because I would like to see the

[37:27] opportunity for mix. But I also think if

[37:29] we're looking at good opportunity, we

[37:32] might want to consider some of those tax

[37:35] incentives in tandem with changes. And

[37:38] it may not necessarily be with this. It

[37:40] might be with another um ordinance that

[37:44] comes forward. So I guess some direction

[37:46] how you think might be best

[37:50] to reach maybe a shared goal of

[37:53] incentivizing more mixed income housing.

[37:57] » I'll let Tara respond first and then

[37:59] I'll

[37:59] » Yeah, I'll start. Um we do have a

[38:02] project in the pipeline that is stuck at

[38:05] the moment that one of our affordable

[38:07] housing developers and it's a height

[38:09] issue. So, we would like to see action

[38:13] and if the council wants to expand. So,

[38:16] this is the reason why it says 100%

[38:19] affordable is when we're funding

[38:22] projects, we that's the realm that we're

[38:25] in and and especially in the rental

[38:27] product. Um it doesn't mean that by the

[38:30] way a developer couldn't propose a

[38:32] mixeduse development and we partially

[38:34] fund and they would just follow the

[38:36] rules that that are there in the

[38:39] underlining zoning. So what we said to

[38:41] planning commission is if you want to

[38:43] contemplate expansion we're talking

[38:46] about a really different scope if we're

[38:49] talking about the 12-year expansion that

[38:52] is like citywide now. So, and we don't

[38:55] we just don't really know what to expect

[38:56] with with that program. So, I'd urge

[39:01] adoption and then come back later.

[39:03] » I would offer one other um consideration

[39:06] and that is the

[39:09] the two worlds of having an applicant

[39:12] who is an affordable housing developer

[39:14] and a market rate housing developer

[39:18] don't blend as much as you would think.

[39:22] um they are almost I I don't want to say

[39:24] they're exclusive because that wouldn't

[39:26] that wouldn't be a fair statement

[39:27] either, but they are unique and

[39:30] disciplined in their own right. And so

[39:33] having an idea of um making them

[39:36] collaborate and do that kind of stuff is

[39:38] is is great in theory and [laughter] but

[39:41] it's a little more difficult in

[39:43] practice. And so I would not want us to

[39:45] necessarily hold up the projects that

[39:47] Tara is talking about to kind of force

[39:49] that endeavor. Council member Lillquist.

[39:53] » Yeah, I must have spoken very poorly.

[39:55] I'm not saying we should require mixed

[39:57] use. I'm saying that we should allow

[40:00] mixed use. Saying at least say 60% means

[40:04] you could do 100%.

[40:06] No one has to do mixed use. If you like

[40:08] this proposal which gives the incentive

[40:10] to 100% then you might like it better if

[40:13] it also allowed another number when it

[40:15] was mixed use. So we don't need to come

[40:17] up with the right number. If if someone

[40:18] wants to come in and you only do 100%

[40:21] affordable, you can get it. You can get

[40:22] it. You can get it tomorrow. The

[40:24] whoever's lined up to do it, they can

[40:26] get it tomorrow if we pass it tonight.

[40:27] Well, 15 days. Um I'm suggesting we add

[40:30] flexibility. We add the possibility. I'm

[40:33] not saying only projects with exactly or

[40:36] at least some number, right? Or, you

[40:39] know, a mixed market rate. I'm saying at

[40:41] least this percentage has to be

[40:43] affordable. It could be 100% if you

[40:45] want. So, I'm I'm I'm making it

[40:47] permissive language, not mandatory

[40:49] language. So, I think I want to clear

[40:51] that up. And you you still may not like

[40:53] the idea. Um, but I'm also confused with

[40:55] the staff saying, "Oh, we can fund a

[40:57] mixeduse project now. We would just do a

[41:00] 100% of a funding of the 80% of the

[41:03] units that are affordable."

[41:05] That requires them to divide up their

[41:06] project. Why Why make it hard on them?

[41:09] Why not just have them show us the unit

[41:10] count? Uh, so I if we can all if we're

[41:13] already think we can do it and then

[41:15] going to Mr. Lion's point, they're

[41:17] really well taken. There are two

[41:18] different worlds of of forprofit and

[41:21] nonprofit and putting them together is a

[41:23] challenge, but we keep saying we want

[41:25] it. So why would we create a new

[41:27] roadblock of our own making? One more

[41:30] reason you can't do mixed use. So I'm

[41:33] saying let's get rid of this roadblock

[41:35] and not require mixeduse, but at least

[41:37] allow it. So that's what I would hope to

[41:39] propose. And I'm sorry I wasn't clear

[41:41] about that about you not requiring it.

[41:44] So, Council Member Loquist, in your

[41:46] mind, how would the incentive be applied

[41:49] to just hypothetically to a a mixed

[41:52] project, then in this case, it would

[41:55] just apply to the

[41:56] » Affordable simply say to the city that

[41:58] uh you know, we swear or affirm that X%

[42:01] of our units, 26 out of 32 or whatever

[42:04] their number is are uh qualify under

[42:07] section 030A definition of low-income

[42:10] housing. I mean, they're already

[42:11] swearing and covenanting that 100% they

[42:14] would just submit the same piece of

[42:16] paper which says that 80 or 60 or 40% of

[42:19] the units meet the requirement.

[42:21] » Council member Cod.

[42:22] » So, I'm interpreting your question

[42:23] council and maybe this is actually a

[42:26] really good candidate for work session.

[42:27] I don't know. Um, but uh sorry Steph um

[42:31] uh my interpretation is that it would

[42:34] all the incentives would still apply to

[42:36] the entire project is what you're

[42:37] suggesting, right? Yes, one building of

[42:40] money.

[42:40] » You have to build one building, but the,

[42:42] you know, if 20% were rent restricted

[42:46] units with an affordability covenant

[42:48] recorded, then the project could benefit

[42:51] from the flexibility that's contesting

[42:54] or whatever percent. I do I'm not sure

[42:57] it's worth doing 60% because I'm not

[42:59] sure there's anyone wanting to do that.

[43:02] Um, I think yeah, layering it on top of

[43:04] the MF team would make the most sense to

[43:06] me. So, what I would propose, um,

[43:10] there's not a formal motion on the table

[43:11] to amend the current motion, which was

[43:14] already, um,

[43:16] brought forward by the council members

[43:19] Anderson and Huffman. Um

[43:22] but we've spoken before about that

[43:25] interest in yes how how do we

[43:27] incentivize or make it simple for

[43:31] you know profit developers market rate

[43:34] and people who are building permanently

[43:36] affordable to collaborate or work right

[43:39] together on projects like it feels like

[43:41] it would be the best of both worlds but

[43:42] at the same time you're asking for two

[43:44] very different worlds to then play in

[43:45] the same sandbox and it's complicated

[43:47] and messy and so Um, but I think there's

[43:51] more

[43:53] than a simple right brush of the pen to

[43:56] effectuate what you're talking about.

[43:58] And in light of what Tara shared about,

[44:01] you know, projects in the queue that

[44:03] could potentially benefit from this that

[44:05] would put units on the ground here in

[44:06] our community, I proposed to move

[44:08] forward with the vote before us this

[44:10] evening and request a work session

[44:13] related to I mean, I don't know on what

[44:16] time frame, but in thinking about are

[44:18] there creative ways to get to that that

[44:21] mixed right

[44:24] mixed developments when you have

[44:26] permanently affordable and market

[44:28] coexisting and is there a way as a city

[44:31] to help to incentivize right that um but

[44:35] if you have a particular

[44:38] you know amendment I just think it's

[44:40] going to be right it's yes we would all

[44:43] like simple solutions and I don't think

[44:44] this is one that's going to be a

[44:47] achieved tonight but council member

[44:48] Liquist

[44:49] » This is not a work session but it's

[44:51] going to end up being one um you'll see

[44:54] why I propose that we amend 2029 AO2

[44:57] applicability section section C to read

[45:00] only projects proposing at least 20%

[45:04] lowincome housing are eligible for the

[45:06] incentive provisions herein

[45:10] » Second

[45:15] » The reason I chose 20 was to bring up

[45:17] the discussion that was had the planning

[45:19] commission although I didn't listen to

[45:20] it that had to do with it if doing it

[45:23] this way would layer it on with the

[45:24] MFTTE program that now you would not

[45:27] only have the MFTTE program which has

[45:29] the possibility of creating mixed income

[45:31] housing but has never yet once done so

[45:35] as Mr. Gas pointed out. Now we have a

[45:38] way of creating this MFTA program could

[45:41] potentially do that. I am not sure it's

[45:43] a great idea but I want to talk about

[45:45] it. This has not been talked about. This

[45:47] is a great topic for a work session but

[45:50] I want to talk about layering these on.

[45:51] It may be too much. It may I don't know

[45:53] but I want to talk about it.

[45:56] Council member Anderson and then H.

[45:58] » So I can't support it. Um 20% is too low

[46:02] in my opinion because this is about um

[46:05] creating affordability. 20% leaves 80%

[46:09] which for a for-profit developer could

[46:12] just blow out the whole height aspect

[46:15] because they can afford to go much

[46:17] higher. I was comfortable without a hype

[46:20] knowing that a majority of nonprofit

[46:22] based on their funding mechanism

[46:24] wouldn't be able to build higher than

[46:26] maybe four or five stories. A forprofit

[46:28] could and I think it just opens up too

[46:31] much concern about where would this

[46:33] potentially 10 or 12 story building go

[46:36] in what area. And um there I have too

[46:40] many questions that I don't think today

[46:44] we're going to answer and I'm just

[46:46] really apprehensive about not getting it

[46:48] passed tonight and potentially impacting

[46:51] the project. I'd much rather have had a

[46:53] motion afterwards to send it to staff um

[46:57] to create a work session in the future

[46:59] that would be able to give us um more

[47:02] details on the whatifs and the

[47:05] opportunities. Council member Hudman.

[47:07] » Thank you. Um I appreciate the

[47:09] conversation. Council member Loquist for

[47:11] sure. I know that's uh having mixed

[47:14] income housing has been um a topic of

[47:16] conversation a lot and how we encourage

[47:18] that has been a topic of conversation a

[47:21] lot. Uh I'm wary of this amendment only

[47:26] because

[47:28] of understanding just how complex

[47:31] nonprofit building is already the the

[47:35] number of factors that go into

[47:38] um build building nonprofit housing and

[47:41] then adding the extra complexity of the

[47:44] for-profit component as well into the

[47:47] same building.

[47:48] And I'm here for it. I I think it's just

[47:52] the the behind the-scenes details and

[47:54] funding mech mechanisms and what that

[47:56] looks like for staff. Um and what is it

[48:00] that we we uh as non-experts in this

[48:04] field um don't know about those

[48:06] complexities um which is why it would be

[48:08] wonderful to have a fuller conversation

[48:10] about that. Um, at this point I would

[48:13] really like to get this passed as it is

[48:16] something that has been poured over by

[48:18] staff already asking all of those

[48:20] questions of complexity. Um, and then

[48:24] perhaps at a later time um contemplating

[48:28] your your idea in a more full way.

[48:32] Council member Williams,

[48:35] » I tend to agree with my colleague um

[48:39] Holly Huffman in that

[48:42] I'm not a big prognosticator of doing

[48:45] things on the fly.

[48:48] I if this is an issue that needs to be

[48:52] addressed,

[48:54] then it needs to be addressed in the

[48:56] right way. This has already been

[49:00] addressed. It's been through the hopper

[49:03] and uh it's been recommended by the

[49:07] planning commission and the staff that

[49:09] we pass it this one. Now, if there's

[49:15] something else down the road that we

[49:17] need to take a look at and go through

[49:21] the work and the research and everything

[49:24] else to make sure that what you are

[49:27] talking about is going to work. I'm all

[49:30] for that, but I'm not all for just

[49:33] making a motion tonight on something

[49:36] that's already been thought through and

[49:39] dealt with. So, um I would support the

[49:42] motion.

[49:47] » No. Or not not your motion, the uh

[49:51] passage of this as it is written.

[49:54] » Council member Hamill.

[49:55] » Yeah. I understand. I think what you're

[49:57] trying to do and seeing the benefits of

[49:59] u mixed income developments there's um a

[50:03] body of work and evidence that supports

[50:05] that. I totally understand that.

[50:07] However, I I just I mean if you look at

[50:09] the um the projects that are cited here

[50:11] as as examples are nonprofit developer

[50:15] oriented. So, Sedra Commons um is

[50:19] opportunity council, Milworks is Mercy,

[50:22] Eleanor is Mercy. Um to and I think the

[50:27] the planning director is correct that

[50:29] what we're looking at is two different

[50:31] business models and two different types

[50:33] of work products that come out of those

[50:34] different business models. And one thing

[50:37] that I'm not clear on or not certain on

[50:40] is a for-profit developer ability to to

[50:44] manage a 50-year affordability

[50:46] requirement as part of the project. I'm

[50:48] just not

[50:49] » Certain that how that's going to work or

[50:51] if they'd want to take on that

[50:52] responsibility. There's a reason why we

[50:53] haven't seen I can't think of a single

[50:56] for-profit

[50:58] development in the city of Bellingham

[51:00] that has affordability um requirements.

[51:04] the all the ones that are, like I said,

[51:06] all the ones that are cited here,

[51:07] they're all nonprofit developers. They

[51:08] have expertise within that field. That

[51:10] is their lane and they they're very

[51:12] accomplished within that. Um,

[51:16] so I'm not going to support the

[51:17] amendment. I do support passing this

[51:19] tonight. I think that we do we should uh

[51:22] for the public benefit come back and and

[51:24] have a further discussion to try to

[51:27] understand your concept a little bit

[51:28] better in a future work session.

[51:31] Um, before I go to council member

[51:33] Anderson again, I was just going to note

[51:35] as well that in the motion that you

[51:37] made, I believe that you're just

[51:38] addressing subsection C, which talks

[51:41] about the percentage, but then

[51:42] subsection D states that low-income

[51:45] housing projects shall be operated by a

[51:47] qualified low-income housing provider.

[51:49] And so, I think there will be some

[51:51] direct conflict there as well. But the

[51:54] other question that you're getting at of

[51:56] yes, why haven't we seen any of those

[51:57] MFT projects come forward? I mean, I

[52:00] think that's the bigger thing to grapple

[52:01] with. It's like what? Yeah. What is it

[52:04] that's going to need to come forward in

[52:06] order to to move those projects? Um, and

[52:09] so I feel like there are already

[52:10] mechanisms available to try and foster

[52:13] those projects, but it's not coming to

[52:16] fruition. And so there's there are

[52:17] bigger things to unpack there, I guess,

[52:19] at this time, I believe. Council member

[52:20] Anderson.

[52:21] » Thank you. Um, I do see potentially a

[52:24] future opportunity, but I also want to

[52:27] make sure we get it right to make sure

[52:28] that it's just not something listed that

[52:31] never gets utilized because it's not

[52:34] worded where we needed. um like what

[52:36] council me council president um Stone

[52:39] has just stated, you know, some of the

[52:41] language in here would really need to

[52:43] change because in talking with some of

[52:45] our um nonprofit

[52:47] um one I won't throw them out there, but

[52:51] one of the dynamic conversations we had

[52:53] was there was some interest in having

[52:56] market rate in one of their

[52:58] developments, but they really had to

[52:59] look at a lot of different funding um

[53:02] possibilities to make something that

[53:03] like that happen. We also have a new um

[53:06] nonprofit in the community that has

[53:08] received some substantial grants. The

[53:11] future home buyers organization, they

[53:13] just placed their first person in a

[53:17] condo unit for permanent affordability.

[53:20] So whereas we have like Culian Land

[53:22] Trust that does a lot of development and

[53:24] building and it's all there. Um, the FHO

[53:28] is partnering with either already built

[53:30] units, but they were also partnering

[53:32] with a developer who just developed, but

[53:36] they're going to use hopefully the tax

[53:37] incentive, but it'd be really nice for

[53:39] our planning department to have the

[53:41] opportunity to sit down with like FHO,

[53:44] and I'm not going to say the developers

[53:46] name because, you know, there's a lot in

[53:48] the community, but maybe some of our

[53:50] developers and find out how do we

[53:52] incentivize such partnerships where um

[53:56] someone like FHO or even Culsian Land

[53:59] Trust or perhaps unknown to me um you

[54:02] know another if I had another name I'd

[54:04] drop it but for an organization to be

[54:06] able to say okay we could buy 10 units

[54:09] with our our funding for this and then

[54:13] you maybe ex expand it beyond just the

[54:16] tax credit because the units would be

[54:19] under um the nonprofit um for permanent

[54:22] affordability. they're the ones that

[54:24] monitor it and what happens with the

[54:26] forprofit can change hands. I could see

[54:29] where a model would work, but I think

[54:31] there's just some work and leg work that

[54:32] has to happen first to make sure that

[54:35] anything we're putting on the books will

[54:36] be utilized and be functional and

[54:39] hopefully we will see those partnerships

[54:41] come out. I have hope that we have some

[54:43] of the pieces, but slicing it into this

[54:46] ordinance is not going to be the thing I

[54:48] believe that will make it happen. And I

[54:50] want to make sure it happens. So, I I do

[54:53] appreciate council member Lilliloquist

[54:55] um bringing that forward because it does

[54:57] allow us to have this discussion and

[54:59] perhaps staff are aware of a desire we

[55:01] would like to go. Um but timing is also

[55:04] critical on it.

[55:06] » We have an amendment before us. Um if

[55:08] there's not further comment on the

[55:10] proposed amendment, I'm going to call

[55:11] the vote on the amendment.

[55:14] Council member Lilquist and Cotton,

[55:16] » You should go first.

[55:18] Um, just to note, the definition of

[55:21] qualified low-inccome housing provider

[55:23] does include for-profit developers, but

[55:25] your point is well taken. I think this

[55:28] amendment would only make sense if we

[55:29] also amended the definition of

[55:30] low-inccome housing and removed the

[55:34] reference to the consolidated plan. Um,

[55:38] but regardless, this motion sounds like

[55:40] it will fail. But I do think hopefully

[55:42] staff has heard seven council members

[55:44] interested in pursuing this idea. Um,

[55:47] but I do think just to respond to a

[55:49] comment, I am more afraid of um,

[55:52] Bellingham being a place that people

[55:54] can't afford rather than tall buildings

[55:56] and multif family zones. So, um, just to

[55:59] name our priorities, um, I, um, uh, I

[56:04] think we should be more afraid of

[56:05] Bellingham being a place people can't

[56:06] afford.

[56:10] Council Lopez,

[56:13] » To be honest, the reason why I proposed

[56:15] 20% was to make sure that it got on the

[56:17] table for discussion

[56:19] because I knew that I had a second for

[56:20] that. I don't think 20% is the right

[56:23] number. I threw out 60%. Maybe 80%.

[56:26] That's a better number. That's the more

[56:28] likely thing that would work for a model

[56:29] for mixed development. Councilman

[56:32] Anderson mentioned there's somebody

[56:33] who's looking at mixeduse development.

[56:34] Well, we're going to close the door on

[56:35] that. we're going to take this incentive

[56:37] and remove it from the table so it won't

[56:39] be available to them. We keep talking

[56:42] about how this is a difficult thing and

[56:43] how do we make this mixeduse work? We

[56:45] all want it. There's so much work uh uh

[56:47] Mr. Hamill referred to which says it's a

[56:49] good idea. Why are we closing the door

[56:51] on it? Why are we creating one more

[56:53] barrier to mixed use? My idea is not to

[56:59] require programs or projects to be mixed

[57:01] use. It is to allow them to be mixed use

[57:04] if they want. But if most of the

[57:06] developers are nonprofits doing 100%

[57:08] affordable, no harm, no foul opposite of

[57:11] that, that's a real benefit. I'd like

[57:13] this program to succeed. I just don't

[57:15] want it to have the unintended

[57:16] consequence of closing the door on one

[57:18] of the things we keep saying we want.

[57:21] So I understand this is not going to

[57:24] pass. I would have liked to have had a

[57:25] discussion. I would like to gone to a

[57:27] work session. I didn't want to do this

[57:29] through amendments, but it's the only

[57:31] way I could get the discussion to

[57:33] continue. I think we're making a

[57:35] mistake. I think we're going to get lots

[57:37] of really good projects out of this. I'm

[57:39] afraid we're going to be missing a few

[57:40] as well. And those will be really

[57:42] important projects. And those projects

[57:45] would be incredible examples to be proud

[57:47] of because the thing we've been talking

[57:48] about and hoping for for years and now

[57:51] those projects will not get disincentive

[57:54] and they're even less likely to ever

[57:55] come our way. Council member Williams,

[58:00] » I didn't hear a single person up here

[58:02] disagree with your with your concept.

[58:06] What I heard was

[58:09] we need to do some homework. We need to

[58:11] perhaps develop an

[58:15] another ordinance similar to this or

[58:18] something to address the issue. I think

[58:22] that by voting on this tonight is not

[58:25] closing the door. The direction and the

[58:28] feeling of this council is at least I

[58:32] think it is that that the issue that you

[58:36] are bringing up needs to be addressed.

[58:40] But is the best way to address it?

[58:43] Amending this or kicking it to a work

[58:48] session and being sure that when we do

[58:51] it, it's done the right way so that it

[58:54] will work.

[58:56] And um I like I said, I haven't heard a

[58:59] single person say no, the issue should

[59:02] not be addressed,

[59:04] just that maybe this isn't the form that

[59:06] it needs to be addressed in.

[59:09] So, thank you for bringing it up and

[59:12] having the discussion.

[59:16] » So, we have a motion.

[59:19] » Council member Huffman. [laughter]

[59:22] » Thank you, Council President. Um,

[59:25] in answer to the closing the door

[59:27] comment, I would say I want to make sure

[59:30] to keep the door open for this specific

[59:32] intended purpose.

[59:34] um you have opened a door and you should

[59:38] put a doors stop in it. Um perhaps once

[59:41] we vote on this uh there is another

[59:44] motion that could be made to keep the

[59:46] conversation moving. But I think that uh

[59:49] with all of the time and effort that has

[59:51] gone to this ordinance as is um with

[59:54] some very specific purposes to add some

[59:56] flexibility so that we um can directly

[1:00:00] impact

[1:00:02] uh providing some flexibility in a way

[1:00:05] that we know um is going to to uh have

[1:00:08] an effect. Uh I I think that for me is

[1:00:11] the priority. But I think that the

[1:00:13] conversation that you're having um with

[1:00:15] us is also very important. Um, we have

[1:00:17] the power to keep it going. So, uh, I

[1:00:20] would I would recommend recommend a

[1:00:22] motion once we're done with this.

[1:00:25] » So, we

[1:00:28] » There is a parliament to this amendment.

[1:00:31] » No, but it's parliamentally allowed.

[1:00:33] There's a motion which would supersede

[1:00:35] this one which would go towards the idea

[1:00:37] of a work session and then it would

[1:00:38] immediately come back to this one.

[1:00:41] It would it would do things in a certain

[1:00:43] order. It would the council would

[1:00:45] declare they want to have a work session

[1:00:46] to discuss mix income housing incentives

[1:00:49] and then that was disposed then this

[1:00:51] motion would immediately come back on

[1:00:52] the table. If you understand this I'm

[1:00:55] doing then you would second my motion.

[1:00:56] Otherwise you might think I'm trying to

[1:00:58] defeat the motion but I'm not. I'm

[1:00:59] trying to move it forward.

[1:01:02] Does anybody understand what I'm trying

[1:01:03] to say?

[1:01:04] » Yes. But is there a reason to do it now

[1:01:05] versus after this has been

[1:01:07] » It gives me the assurance that that

[1:01:09] really is the direction we're going and

[1:01:10] then it it gives me a completely

[1:01:12] different feeling about my subsequent

[1:01:13] votes.

[1:01:16] » Are you making a motion?

[1:01:17] » A motion to table the this current

[1:01:19] matter until the city council takes up

[1:01:21] the question of a work session to

[1:01:23] discuss mixed income housing incentives.

[1:01:26] » Is there a second?

[1:01:28] It's just to take he's moving to table

[1:01:30] for the moment. This is my understanding

[1:01:33] is to table this vote that is currently

[1:01:35] before us in order to hear a motion

[1:01:37] about a work session because he doesn't

[1:01:40] trust that after this vote we're going

[1:01:42] to move forward with consideration of a

[1:01:44] motion. He wants the assurance now

[1:01:46] before he casts his vote on his own

[1:01:48] amendment or the underlying motion.

[1:01:51] » Thank you for speaking English for our

[1:01:53] parliamentarian.

[1:01:55] I'll second it.

[1:01:57] » Okay. So there's a motion by C.

[1:01:58] » Just put it aside.

[1:02:01] So there's a motion from Council Member

[1:02:02] Liiloquist and a second by Council

[1:02:04] Member Anderson to table the current

[1:02:06] discussion and to consider a motion

[1:02:09] to schedule a work session on this topic

[1:02:12] » On mixed income housing incentives

[1:02:15] » On mixed income housing

[1:02:17] » Incentives.

[1:02:26] Okay. So, there is a motion to schedule

[1:02:28] a work session on mixed income housing

[1:02:30] incentives. Council member Williams,

[1:02:33] » I'm I'm having a hard time understanding

[1:02:36] why you just can't make that motion. I I

[1:02:39] mean after passage of this,

[1:02:42] » But we are where we are and I'd like to

[1:02:44] move forward this evening. So,

[1:02:47] » Any discussion on this motion for a work

[1:02:49] session to be

[1:02:50] » The motion is to table then we have to

[1:02:52] make the motion first. You have to clear

[1:02:54] it this motion off the the amendment off

[1:02:56] the table before you can talk about the

[1:02:59] work session. That's the parliamentary

[1:03:01] issue.

[1:03:01] » But the amendment will still be there

[1:03:03] when we come back.

[1:03:03] » Yes. Because because the motion to table

[1:03:06] immediately brings it back once the

[1:03:08] event is triggered.

[1:03:10] » Okay. All in favor of tableabling at

[1:03:12] this moment say I.

[1:03:14] » I. I.

[1:03:15] » Any opposed or abstensions? Seeing none,

[1:03:18] that passes 70. Council member

[1:03:20] Littlequist. Motion the city council

[1:03:22] request the administration to schedule

[1:03:23] at an appropriate time in the future a

[1:03:25] work session to discuss mixed income

[1:03:27] housing incentives.

[1:03:29] » Second motion's been made by council

[1:03:31] member Liiloquist and a second by

[1:03:32] council member Anderson again to

[1:03:34] schedule work session on mixed income

[1:03:36] housing incentives. Any discussion on

[1:03:39] the motion? Council member Anderson. I

[1:03:42] appreciate that council member Liloquist

[1:03:44] did not put a date or time stamp on when

[1:03:47] it has to come back because we all saw

[1:03:49] how much work is ahead. Um, and then I

[1:03:54] trust that staff will look at if it can

[1:03:57] dovetail into any other work that makes

[1:03:59] sense so we're not kind of at the end of

[1:04:01] the line. But thank you for not

[1:04:04] requesting it to come back quickly. I

[1:04:08] know.

[1:04:09] » Any other discussion on the motion?

[1:04:12] Seeing none, all in favor will say I.

[1:04:14] » I.

[1:04:15] » Any opposed or abstensions? Okay. Seeing

[1:04:17] none, that passes 70. So, we'll come

[1:04:20] back to the amendment that was

[1:04:22] previously tabled. Now that we've taken

[1:04:24] the action requested by the tableabling

[1:04:26] motion, the amendment brought forward by

[1:04:29] council member Liiloquist and seconded

[1:04:31] by council member Cotton is on page 13

[1:04:33] of our packet under section 20.29A.202

[1:04:41] 020 applicability section subsection C.

[1:04:46] The amendment was for it to read, "Only

[1:04:47] projects proposing 20% low-income

[1:04:50] housing are eligible for the incentive

[1:04:52] provisions herein."

[1:04:54] Any discussion on the motion?

[1:04:57] » Okay, seeing none, all in favor of the

[1:04:58] amendment say I.

[1:05:00] » I.

[1:05:03] » Any opposed?

[1:05:04] » No.

[1:05:06] » Any abstensions?

[1:05:08] » Okay. So, I believe that passed 61.

[1:05:11] [clears throat] You ended up being a

[1:05:12] yes.

[1:05:16] Well, Cotton was a no. I heard you as a

[1:05:18] » Yes, we were all nos.

[1:05:20] » You're both nos.

[1:05:22] » No, he was a yes. We were all nos to the

[1:05:24] amendment.

[1:05:24] » So, right. So, I'm saying you're voting

[1:05:26] against your amendment.

[1:05:26] » Yeah. Failed one six. It didn't pass.

[1:05:33] » Okay. So, that amendment fails 16. And

[1:05:36] that brings us to the underlying

[1:05:39] motion which was originally brought

[1:05:41] forward, if I can find it, by council

[1:05:44] member Anderson, seconded by council

[1:05:46] member Husman. That motion was to move

[1:05:48] to approve the ordinance for first and

[1:05:49] second reading.

[1:05:53] That ordinance being an ordinance

[1:05:55] relating to land use and planning

[1:05:56] amending title 20 of the Bellingham

[1:05:58] Municipal Code creating a new chapter

[1:06:01] 20.29A 29A titled lowincome housing

[1:06:04] development incentive. Close title

[1:06:07] removing and reducing zoning based

[1:06:09] development regulations for low-income

[1:06:11] housing in all residential multi- urban

[1:06:14] village and commercial zones.

[1:06:17] Any discussion on the motion? Council

[1:06:20] member Ham.

[1:06:21] » Yeah, just one clarifying question for

[1:06:22] staff. Under 20.298.030,

[1:06:26] 030 the definition for low-income

[1:06:28] housing. Is that consistent with the

[1:06:30] Washington State Housing Trust Fund,

[1:06:32] their definition?

[1:06:39] » This was one of the items that was

[1:06:40] changed when we were heading to the

[1:06:42] planning commission based on feedback

[1:06:45] from the affordable housing developers.

[1:06:47] So this has been modified so that it is

[1:06:51] consistent with the trust fund and the

[1:06:54] tax credit terminology or definitions I

[1:06:58] should say.

[1:06:59] » Okay.

[1:07:01] » Any further questions or discussion?

[1:07:05] » Any follow? Okay. Seeing none, all in

[1:07:07] favor will say I.

[1:07:08] » I.

[1:07:09] » Any opposed

[1:07:11] » Or abstensions? Okay. Seeing none, that

[1:07:14] passes 70.

[1:07:16] Any

[1:07:17] further items from staff on this matter?

[1:07:20] No. Okay. Thank you very much.

[1:07:28] So, that concludes the public hearing

[1:07:29] item that was before the council this

[1:07:31] evening. Um, next we would move forward

[1:07:34] with appointments. And for this item,

[1:07:37] I'm going to turn to Deputy

[1:07:39] Administrator Janice Keller.

[1:07:42] » Good evening. I'm presenting the

[1:07:44] appointments on behalf of Mayor Lund

[1:07:45] tonight. Um the first one is for

[1:07:48] information only. It's the mayor's

[1:07:50] appointment of Brandon Roundtree to a

[1:07:53] first term as the Sunnyland neighborhood

[1:07:56] primary representative to the mayor's

[1:07:58] neighborhood advisory commission.

[1:08:01] The second one is a confirmation of the

[1:08:05] mayor's appointments to the landlord and

[1:08:08] tenant advisory work group. Uh this one

[1:08:10] is a little more substantive and um

[1:08:13] we're looking for a confirmation vote

[1:08:17] after we've had a chance to present it

[1:08:19] and discuss it. Mayor Lund presents for

[1:08:22] city council confirmation 13 community

[1:08:25] members to be appointed to the landlord

[1:08:27] and tenant advisory work group. We

[1:08:30] received applications from 60 people who

[1:08:32] applied to be considered for 13

[1:08:35] positions. We were very thrilled to re

[1:08:38] receive that much interest from a range

[1:08:41] of landlords, tenants, professionals

[1:08:45] working in those fields and um just

[1:08:49] really pleased that um this gained so

[1:08:52] much attention after our outreach

[1:08:54] efforts. Those selected represent

[1:08:57] tenants, landlords, and community

[1:08:59] members with lived and professional

[1:09:01] experience in rental issues.

[1:09:04] Mayor Lond appoints the following

[1:09:06] inaugural members. Lette Alberon,

[1:09:11] McClean Bowers, Stacy Carol, Nathan

[1:09:17] Catherol,

[1:09:18] Margot Hammond, Selena Nolock, Lacy

[1:09:24] Lutire,

[1:09:26] Charlie Meyers, Bailey Peterson, Kevin

[1:09:29] Schilling, Rebecca Sharf, Jessica

[1:09:33] Silver, and Kimberly

[1:09:36] Ver Ver Muan.

[1:09:40] I was not involved in the application

[1:09:43] review or the interview process that um

[1:09:47] resulted in the selection of these

[1:09:49] folks. I'd like to invite planning

[1:09:51] director Blake Lion up to talk a little

[1:09:55] bit more about the that process.

[1:09:58] Thank you, Blake.

[1:10:02] » Thank you and good evening. Yes. Um, as

[1:10:05] Janice mentioned, we had um an abundance

[1:10:08] of riches in terms of the applicants

[1:10:11] that came forward and um, you know, it's

[1:10:14] unfortunate that 47 people were not uh,

[1:10:17] able to be selected, but certainly uh,

[1:10:19] very appreciative of everybody's

[1:10:21] interest and the statements they do

[1:10:23] that. Um, we started first and foremost

[1:10:25] with the resolution that the council

[1:10:27] passed. Uh you may recall that there was

[1:10:29] kind of several different categories

[1:10:31] within that resolution that asked for

[1:10:33] some tenant representation, some

[1:10:35] landlord and or property management

[1:10:37] representation, some community interest.

[1:10:40] Uh and we went through those that

[1:10:42] identified and broke them out into those

[1:10:44] groups. We also took the opportunity as

[1:10:47] we do with the planning commission where

[1:10:48] we try to look for and best practices

[1:10:51] look for a broad geographic

[1:10:52] representation across the city. So it's

[1:10:55] not all from one particular u

[1:10:57] neighborhood that there is a

[1:10:59] distribution across those. And then we

[1:11:02] looked at some of the statements of

[1:11:04] interest that were brought forward um to

[1:11:06] see what other kind of self-disclosed

[1:11:09] areas of interest that they might have.

[1:11:11] And we looked in particular for voices

[1:11:13] that have not historically been

[1:11:15] represented in this community. And so we

[1:11:17] saw folks that were brave and offered up

[1:11:19] some of their lived experiences um and

[1:11:22] shared with some of those. And so we

[1:11:24] made recommendations to the mayor based

[1:11:26] on kind of a broad category of

[1:11:29] consideration and then factored into

[1:11:32] that um some of the overall group

[1:11:34] dynamics as we were working with the

[1:11:36] selection of our uh professional

[1:11:39] facilitator that was a little bit of the

[1:11:41] deliberation that came as well. So put

[1:11:44] forward some recommendations to the

[1:11:45] mayor.

[1:11:47] » Thank you Blake.

[1:11:49] Thank you very much. Um so again, this

[1:11:52] confirmation of the mayor's appointments

[1:11:54] to the landlord and tenant advisory work

[1:11:56] group is up for um consideration and

[1:11:59] approval by the council.

[1:12:02] » So move

[1:12:02] » Second

[1:12:03] » To confirm the mayor's appointments to

[1:12:05] this.

[1:12:09] » I move to confirm the mayor's

[1:12:11] appointments to the landlord and tenant

[1:12:13] advisory group.

[1:12:14] » Second.

[1:12:15] » Motion's been made by council member

[1:12:17] Williams and a second by council member

[1:12:18] Liiloquist. Any discussion? Council

[1:12:20] member Hudman and then Anderson.

[1:12:22] » Um, thank you to the 60 people who were

[1:12:25] interested and applied. That's pretty

[1:12:26] amazing that there were so many people

[1:12:29] willing to spend their time doing this

[1:12:32] um, serving their community. And one

[1:12:34] thing that really struck me is that

[1:12:35] looking through these names. I didn't

[1:12:38] recognize I recognize maybe one. Um, and

[1:12:42] I think that's fantastic. uh knowing

[1:12:45] that there's there are people out there

[1:12:47] who um are are not necessarily engaging

[1:12:52] with the city right now, don't know us

[1:12:55] um personally even and and um we'll be

[1:12:59] bringing their perspectives and

[1:13:01] knowledge and and hard work to this

[1:13:03] group. Um so I really appreciate that

[1:13:05] and also thanks to the the staff members

[1:13:07] that spent the time um going through all

[1:13:10] of these applications. That's that's a

[1:13:12] lot. It's a lot of work and I'm sure

[1:13:13] there were a lot of really good

[1:13:14] applicants. Um, so there were some tough

[1:13:16] decisions.

[1:13:18] » Council Anderson,

[1:13:19] » Thank you. Um, I'm unfortunately not

[1:13:22] going to be able to support this

[1:13:23] tonight. Um, it's not about the people

[1:13:27] who have come forward. I really

[1:13:28] appreciate the 60 people interested and

[1:13:32] um, the people who have been appointed.

[1:13:33] I have a lot of respect for people

[1:13:35] willing to donate their time and effort.

[1:13:38] Um, one of the reasons why I can't

[1:13:40] support this isn't so much who has been

[1:13:42] selected but who has not. Um, we have a

[1:13:46] community advocate who is one of the

[1:13:49] reasons why this uh group has been

[1:13:51] formed. They've been at the dis talking.

[1:13:54] They've been in people's office

[1:13:56] advocating. Um Carrie Burnside has been

[1:13:59] just a stalwart of working with council

[1:14:02] and the city when it comes to tenants

[1:14:04] rights and um tenant protections. And

[1:14:09] just for those who aren't familiar,

[1:14:12] probably people watching, um she is part

[1:14:14] of the Wakom Housing Alliance Policy

[1:14:16] Task Force, Wacom County Housing

[1:14:18] Advisory Committee, Bellingham Tenants

[1:14:21] Union, City of Bellingham Office of

[1:14:23] Healthy Housing Feasibility Study Task

[1:14:25] Force, Rental Registry Matrix. She's

[1:14:28] worked directly with staff um regarding

[1:14:31] the rental registry and making

[1:14:33] improvements. Um

[1:14:35] she has talked with people on both sides

[1:14:37] of the junk fee ordinance and advocated

[1:14:39] for better policy. Um she's brought the

[1:14:42] law advocates and dispute resolution

[1:14:45] professionals together to do know your

[1:14:47] right training for renters and for

[1:14:49] landlords. Um she has been here many

[1:14:53] times talking about policy and things

[1:14:56] that we can make um improvements on. She

[1:14:59] started a nonprofit with a couple other

[1:15:01] of our housing advocates um the future

[1:15:04] home buyer organizations. So she has

[1:15:06] brought in potentially a million dollars

[1:15:08] into our community to help lowincome

[1:15:11] um first-time home buyers and they just

[1:15:14] had their first signing of their first

[1:15:17] purchase um a week ago. uh she's been

[1:15:21] invited recently to speak at the you uh

[1:15:24] at Western Washington University to do a

[1:15:26] lecture series on the housing crisis and

[1:15:29] um issues facing tenants on a state

[1:15:32] level. She's been part of the Washington

[1:15:34] Housing Alliance and um she's the

[1:15:37] legislative district lead for the 40th

[1:15:39] and 42nd regarding the Washington

[1:15:41] Low-Income Housing Alliance. She's

[1:15:43] worked with Representative Gregerson's

[1:15:45] team on the statewide junk fee

[1:15:47] legislation. Uh she's uh consulted Mayor

[1:15:51] Kathy Wilson's office regarding the

[1:15:53] Bellingham Junks fee ordinance and the

[1:15:55] perhaps adoption there. Um she has been

[1:15:59] invited to signing with our current

[1:16:02] governor for low-income housing. Uh

[1:16:05] she's down in Olympia uh advocating um

[1:16:09] for legislation. Um I could go on. I

[1:16:13] just wanted a few things that um I was

[1:16:16] able to write down that she's been

[1:16:17] involved in. And I know it's important

[1:16:19] to have new voices, but we have a person

[1:16:22] who doesn't even live in our community.

[1:16:24] They live in Seattle. Kevin Schilling

[1:16:26] being appointed who lives in Seattle. I

[1:16:29] know we passed um the ability to have

[1:16:32] people outside of our area. I really

[1:16:34] thought that was when there wasn't

[1:16:36] qualified people eligible um to be on a

[1:16:39] committee to serve. So, we are bringing

[1:16:41] somebody in who is um part of the RH AWA

[1:16:46] who represents the needs of perspective

[1:16:48] prospective 60,000 small rental housing

[1:16:51] providers. Um I can't imagine we didn't

[1:16:54] have a small housing provider who would

[1:16:56] have applied who could have been

[1:16:57] speaking who lives in this community and

[1:16:59] has direct impact on those rental um

[1:17:03] experiences.

[1:17:04] but instead we're appointing the

[1:17:06] communication and advocacy mana man

[1:17:08] manager for a large represented group.

[1:17:10] Um it seems a little disproportionate

[1:17:12] for me. Um I'm just really disappointed

[1:17:15] that uh somebody in this community who

[1:17:17] worked really hard to get this in front

[1:17:19] of us who has such a vast experience of

[1:17:23] advocating for both sides um and who has

[1:17:26] a very strong knowledge of our

[1:17:30] legislation that is on the books. um who

[1:17:33] is known to be somebody who uh

[1:17:37] collaborates. So, [snorts]

[1:17:39] um I'm just really greatly disappointed

[1:17:42] and because of that, um as much as I

[1:17:44] really appreciate 12 of the applicants

[1:17:47] and think that they'll bring a lot of

[1:17:48] good things forward, um I just in my

[1:17:50] conscious cannot

[1:17:53] I can't as a council member feel like

[1:17:55] I'm slighting somebody in our community

[1:17:57] who has worked so hard to better our

[1:18:00] community and the uh living situations

[1:18:04] for the people who rent in our

[1:18:06] community. Council

[1:18:08] member Williams.

[1:18:11] » Wow. Um, I just want to say that I

[1:18:14] welcome this committee moving forward. I

[1:18:17] know it's been in the works for quite a

[1:18:21] while

[1:18:23] and um I see

[1:18:26] um

[1:18:29] I see this being able to give us the

[1:18:33] information that we need to make durable

[1:18:37] decisions to improve our rental

[1:18:42] um community. and um and hopefully we'll

[1:18:47] see some of those recommendations coming

[1:18:49] our way.

[1:18:51] So

[1:18:54] um see is is there any more uh comment?

[1:18:58] [clears throat]

[1:18:59] I guess that's your question.

[1:19:03] » Any other comments from council members?

[1:19:05] Council member Liquist.

[1:19:07] » Yeah. Um, this idea was proposed and

[1:19:10] supported by the city council quite a

[1:19:11] while ago and so I'm very much excited

[1:19:14] to see them start their work. There were

[1:19:16] some surprises in here. Council member

[1:19:18] Anderson uh pointed to one of those

[1:19:20] surprises, but there were mostly

[1:19:22] pleasant surprises. Um, as council

[1:19:23] member Huffman said, I didn't know most

[1:19:25] of these people. I think I knew two of

[1:19:27] them for sure and then I thought about

[1:19:28] I'd actually talked to a third person,

[1:19:30] but these are some new faces at the

[1:19:31] table and I really appreciate that. In

[1:19:33] particular, uh I want to I want to say

[1:19:36] express my um appreciation and my

[1:19:38] gratitude to the uh renters on this

[1:19:41] committee. Uh Jessica B, Selena, Nathan

[1:19:43] Mlan. I think those are the important

[1:19:45] voices uh which we've been missing and

[1:19:48] which we really need and I would like

[1:19:50] them to be uh strongly represented uh in

[1:19:53] this advisory work group to help inform

[1:19:55] us in our work going forward. We've done

[1:19:57] a lot of work on renter issues, but

[1:19:59] we've been doing it not always in the

[1:20:03] same way. Uh, a little bit ad hoc, some

[1:20:06] good here, some good there. Um, it'll be

[1:20:08] nice to have um an advisory body as a

[1:20:11] touchstone to create some maybe some

[1:20:13] consistency and some perspective on it.

[1:20:15] Um, so I will be I will be supporting uh

[1:20:18] this work these people being proposed to

[1:20:20] the work group and getting its work

[1:20:22] started.

[1:20:24] in the discussion. Um, just to speak to

[1:20:27] Council Member Anderson's comments. Um,

[1:20:30] I have great respect for Carrie

[1:20:32] Burnside. Much appreciation for I mean

[1:20:35] the long list as you said could go on

[1:20:37] her engagement in the community here

[1:20:39] locally and beyond. Um, I

[1:20:43] I feel though that right as evidenced by

[1:20:45] your comments, she's highly engaged

[1:20:47] already. Certainly knows how to access

[1:20:50] the city system and process. And I don't

[1:20:52] expect Car's voice to be silenced, you

[1:20:55] know, going forward and would expect to,

[1:20:58] you know, continue to um to hear from

[1:21:00] her, but am excited to have this um when

[1:21:04] we talk about sort of building a table

[1:21:06] and trying to expand our, you know,

[1:21:09] impact in the community as well as the

[1:21:11] engagement in the community and making

[1:21:13] sure that in a city of 100,000 people

[1:21:15] that we have, right, voices at the table

[1:21:17] that we haven't heard from and making

[1:21:19] sure that they feel welcome coming

[1:21:20] forward and especially especially as you

[1:21:22] commented, Director Lion, you know,

[1:21:23] sharing their lived experience and

[1:21:26] hopefully that will cultivate even more

[1:21:28] advocates in our community to, you know,

[1:21:30] help move forward um our efforts for um

[1:21:34] you know, improved landlord and tenant

[1:21:37] um protections as well as um the you

[1:21:41] know, future ordinances and resolutions

[1:21:43] and work that we will bring forward. And

[1:21:46] I I would have trouble making this about

[1:21:49] one person. Again, I feel like in a city

[1:21:51] of 100,000 people, um there are many

[1:21:53] many voices that we don't hear from that

[1:21:55] I would like to write to hear from in in

[1:21:58] the future. Um so, for those reasons, I

[1:22:00] will be um supporting the the motion.

[1:22:03] Again, we have a motion from council

[1:22:05] member Williams and a second from

[1:22:06] Council Member Liiloquist. The motion is

[1:22:09] to confirm the mayor's appointments to

[1:22:11] the landlord and tenant advisory work

[1:22:13] group. There's no further discussion.

[1:22:14] I'll call the question. All in favor

[1:22:16] will say I.

[1:22:17] » I.

[1:22:17] » Those opposed? No.

[1:22:19] » No.

[1:22:20] » Any abstensions?

[1:22:22] Okay. So, that passes 52.

[1:22:28] » Correct. Okay. That passes 52 um with

[1:22:31] council members Anderson and Cotton

[1:22:35] um voting no.

[1:22:41] Okay. Any further appointments? Deputy

[1:22:43] Killer.

[1:22:46] » No. and no mayor's report tonight.

[1:22:48] » Okay.

[1:22:49] » Thank you.

[1:22:51] » So then we will move forward with the

[1:22:53] council assignment reports. Any updates

[1:22:56] from council members?

[1:22:58] » Yeah, I've got

[1:22:58] » Council member Hamill.

[1:23:01] » Uh yeah, I just wanted to

[1:23:02] [clears throat] I'll be brief here since

[1:23:03] we're bit um long here this evening. So

[1:23:08] I serve on the incarceration prevention

[1:23:09] and reduction task force for Wakom

[1:23:11] County, the chair of the behavioral

[1:23:13] health committee. Um, and as part of my

[1:23:15] duties there, I toured Lumi Nation's uh

[1:23:19] swims facility. So that's secure

[1:23:21] withdrawal management and stabilization

[1:23:23] facility. It's new. It's not open yet.

[1:23:25] It opens next week and it's a 16 bed

[1:23:27] facility uh currently and it has an

[1:23:30] involuntary treatment and a voluntary

[1:23:32] treatment uh component to it. It is um

[1:23:36] it it could be a model for the beh the

[1:23:37] upcoming f or future behavioral care

[1:23:40] center uh for the county. Uh it's trauma

[1:23:42] informed design. It's very well done. Um

[1:23:46] staff 247, admittance 247 as well. Just

[1:23:49] wanted to highlight that. You can look

[1:23:50] it up online too and see some photos

[1:23:52] there and get further information. I

[1:23:54] also serve on the um EMS levy committee

[1:23:57] and the EMS oversight board for the EMS

[1:24:00] uh levy committee. I serve on the

[1:24:02] community paramedic planning team. We

[1:24:04] just started so I don't have a lot to

[1:24:06] update um the public and council with

[1:24:08] regarding uh community paramedic. Um,

[1:24:11] but it is part of the EMS levy plan.

[1:24:13] We're trying to figure out how to um

[1:24:16] provide service delivery throughout the

[1:24:18] county uh within within that program.

[1:24:20] And many of you will recall that the EMS

[1:24:23] levy originally was intended for ALS,

[1:24:25] which is advanced life support, but it

[1:24:27] did branch out to basic life support,

[1:24:29] community parame medicine training, a

[1:24:31] number of different items, but I just

[1:24:33] want to provide that report tonight.

[1:24:37] » Member Williams and then Anderson. Yeah,

[1:24:40] I I was um

[1:24:43] I was invited to participate in a tour

[1:24:46] of homes and businesses last week

[1:24:50] uh um regarding the home electri

[1:24:54] electrification appliance rebate

[1:24:57] program. This was organized by our by

[1:25:01] the mayor's uh climate office, Seth

[1:25:04] Vidana,

[1:25:06] and uh sustainable connections and and

[1:25:09] the opportunity council. We toured

[1:25:11] several homes and several nonprofit

[1:25:14] agencies to to [snorts] get an idea of

[1:25:19] what services these entities have um

[1:25:23] were uh provided with to to update their

[1:25:28] um

[1:25:30] their heating and electrification issues

[1:25:34] that they were having. Um we were also

[1:25:37] accompanied by several people from the

[1:25:40] state department of uh commerce in uh

[1:25:44] looking at these

[1:25:47] um homes and uh businesses. Bes um

[1:25:52] besides the individual homes that

[1:25:55] receive this service, there are several

[1:25:58] nonprofit organizations that are also

[1:26:01] being served such as the Watcom Center

[1:26:04] for Early Learning, Domestic Violence

[1:26:07] and Sexual Assault Services, Lydia

[1:26:10] Place, and Bridget Collins,

[1:26:12] uh and the Tedos Restaurant, which is a

[1:26:16] locallyowned

[1:26:17] minority business in in in our downtown

[1:26:20] sector. The funding for this program

[1:26:23] comes from the Washington

[1:26:26] Washington's climate commitment act, but

[1:26:29] the specific funding for uh Watcom

[1:26:33] County and Bellingham is a grant from

[1:26:36] the Washington Department of Commerce

[1:26:39] and is locally administered by the

[1:26:42] Opportunity Council and Sustainable

[1:26:44] Connections. Anyway, it was a very,

[1:26:48] for lack of a better word, enlightening

[1:26:51] experience and um I learned a lot by uh

[1:26:56] seeing all this.

[1:26:58] The other thing I wanted to talk about

[1:27:01] is um

[1:27:04] I went to uh as I usually do to our

[1:27:08] parks and recreation committee meetings

[1:27:10] and our greenways meetings

[1:27:13] and uh the main focus of those meetings

[1:27:17] at least in the last month or so has

[1:27:20] been to identify the capital program

[1:27:24] priorities for the 2027 budget.

[1:27:28] such as the pier at Little Squallikham

[1:27:31] Park, the War Street Trail, Salish

[1:27:34] Landing, Greenways, Land Acquisition,

[1:27:37] and so forth. And um

[1:27:42] the uh program priorities were discussed

[1:27:44] with the parks and recreation staff at

[1:27:47] the meeting with final committee

[1:27:49] recommendations referred to them.

[1:27:53] And then the um staff will review all

[1:27:56] this, develop

[1:27:59] uh funding levels for each program and

[1:28:03] eventually that will be presented to us

[1:28:07] for inclusion

[1:28:09] in the 2027 budget.

[1:28:14] In in that time too, I also asked the um

[1:28:19] committee leadership about the uh

[1:28:22] process for merging the two committees.

[1:28:26] And um as I spoke to them, I was really

[1:28:30] glad to hear that they felt that the uh

[1:28:33] process was moving forward in a very

[1:28:36] positive way and that the fundamental

[1:28:39] standard they both spoke to me about is

[1:28:43] the purpose is broadening the

[1:28:45] understanding among members all of the

[1:28:48] members regarding the total parks and

[1:28:50] recreation program and not just their

[1:28:54] individual piece of the pie.

[1:28:56] And um in in that it doesn't mean that

[1:29:01] each programmatic focus goes away or is

[1:29:06] prioritized over the other, but it's

[1:29:09] broadened to a larger group with a

[1:29:12] unified vision and understanding for all

[1:29:15] of the areas and programs of of our

[1:29:17] parks and recreation uh uh department.

[1:29:21] And to to guarantee some consistency,

[1:29:27] the current members of each committee

[1:29:29] will be grandfathered into the new

[1:29:32] structure until their term expires with

[1:29:35] a gradual transition to the new

[1:29:38] committee structure. So, I thought that

[1:29:40] was a pretty good conversation I had.

[1:29:43] So,

[1:29:46] all that being said,

[1:29:48] » Thank you.

[1:29:49] » I had a busy week. Council member

[1:29:51] Anderson.

[1:29:53] » Thank you. I have a couple of things. I

[1:29:55] I failed to mention at our last council

[1:29:57] meeting that on August 6 um attended the

[1:30:01] um marine resource

[1:30:03] uh

[1:30:05] committee and it's it's a group of state

[1:30:08] local um

[1:30:11] environmental educational uh resource

[1:30:16] group uh that talks a lot about what's

[1:30:18] happening in our marine area and um what

[1:30:22] was really educ educational about that

[1:30:25] meeting is that there were two interns

[1:30:28] from Bellingham Technical College that

[1:30:30] had uh provided educational outreach uh

[1:30:35] over the summer down at Larabe Park

[1:30:37] where the boat launch is and basically

[1:30:40] educating the community about the ill

[1:30:42] grass there and the impacts trying to

[1:30:45] make sure that people do their boat

[1:30:46] launches and the soft launch of their uh

[1:30:49] personal uh watercrafts that they're not

[1:30:52] walking on the ill grass. um because of

[1:30:54] the habitat but they also came forward

[1:30:56] with some recommendations. Another um

[1:30:59] interesting thing was that um the GIS

[1:31:03] specialist for Pad Padilla Bay National

[1:31:06] um estuary is um there is a

[1:31:13] a data resource a GIS uh that is

[1:31:18] available. So you can um I don't have

[1:31:20] their website here. Um it's I think it's

[1:31:24] called Sound IQ. So, if you're want to

[1:31:27] kind of geek out on things that are

[1:31:30] happening in the marine area, um the

[1:31:33] sound IQ is actually they were showing

[1:31:36] us how to use it. And if you want to

[1:31:38] take a look at the islands or um see

[1:31:41] what what studies are happening and what

[1:31:43] resources are available, um that is

[1:31:46] something that you can spend some

[1:31:47] evening reviewing. Um so, uh this group

[1:31:52] is pretty fascinating. I'm learning

[1:31:53] quite a bit. Um

[1:31:57] I wish uh well their meetings are I

[1:32:00] believe open to the public and we meet

[1:32:02] on our next meeting will be uh

[1:32:07] on Thursday September 3rd from 5 to 5 to

[1:32:11] 7 and it's held in the garden room at

[1:32:14] the county building. So if you want to

[1:32:16] learn more about marine resources and

[1:32:18] what they're up to um it is open to the

[1:32:21] public and it's always educational. The

[1:32:23] other thing I wanted to cover is on

[1:32:25] Thursday, this past Thursday, August

[1:32:28] 20th, um the planning committee um

[1:32:32] hosted a joint meeting with the uh

[1:32:35] planning commission where staff were

[1:32:37] able to present to us basically

[1:32:40] everything that's in the hopper when it

[1:32:42] comes to um

[1:32:44] a lot of the um the work that is going

[1:32:48] forward. So, we kind of got a three to

[1:32:50] fiveyear perspective of legislative

[1:32:53] things that will be moving forward. So,

[1:32:54] at least um I would ask because I failed

[1:32:58] to ask, but if there was some slides

[1:33:01] that were presented if it might be

[1:33:03] useful to send to all of council because

[1:33:06] some of the graphics showed how far we

[1:33:08] are in projects, what is starting and

[1:33:11] when things should be coming forward to

[1:33:12] council. And I think um that's why I

[1:33:15] thanked council member Liiloquist who

[1:33:17] was in attendance and so was council

[1:33:18] member Huffman and I believe uh council

[1:33:20] member Cotton joined us online. It gives

[1:33:23] us a pretty good layout of the work plan

[1:33:26] and it's

[1:33:28] our planning department is doing quite a

[1:33:30] tremendous lift over the next couple of

[1:33:33] years. So I think it would be very

[1:33:35] useful to have that forwarded over. Um

[1:33:38] kudos to staff. It's always impressive

[1:33:41] to see everything if not um exhausting

[1:33:44] and daunting to realize the work that

[1:33:46] you guys have in front of you. So, thank

[1:33:48] you.

[1:33:51] Any other updates from council members?

[1:33:55] Okay,

[1:33:57] seeing none, I want to gauge we are at

[1:34:01] 8:30. Five minute break or go forward

[1:34:04] with report outs. We're at a Okay. Next,

[1:34:08] we have report outs from committee

[1:34:10] meetings earlier today. So, the first

[1:34:12] committee was budget and finance. That

[1:34:15] committee was chaired by council member

[1:34:16] Anderson. So, I'll turn it over to her

[1:34:18] for a report. Thank you, Council

[1:34:20] President. We had three items in front

[1:34:22] of us today. Joining me was Council

[1:34:25] Member Hamill and Council Member

[1:34:26] Liiloquist. Our first agenda item was uh

[1:34:30] 255016

[1:34:33] which was a um presentation that

[1:34:36] provided a summary of the city's

[1:34:38] financial position through the second

[1:34:39] quarter of 2026. The June 2026 financial

[1:34:44] report uh was attached to the agenda

[1:34:47] bill and provides detailed information

[1:34:49] related to uh the six-month period. The

[1:34:52] presentation and additional financial

[1:34:55] information is available on the city's

[1:34:57] website at co.orgreports.

[1:35:02] Um something uh basically to share

[1:35:05] coming out of that report is that

[1:35:07] currently the city has about 39

[1:35:10] positions that are currently frozen

[1:35:13] which has basically helped with um

[1:35:16] holding off some of our potential um

[1:35:21] overage and having to go into our

[1:35:23] reserves. Uh some of the good news is

[1:35:26] that um our

[1:35:30] revenue tax has gone up a little bit by

[1:35:33] um I think it was uh one 1.2 million. Um

[1:35:39] which is helping. Um there's no crystal

[1:35:42] ball, but the hope is is that we won't

[1:35:44] be too far over budget. Um if not,

[1:35:48] hopefully we'll be kind of flatlined. Um

[1:35:52] and it was uh if anybody's interested uh

[1:35:55] please go to the day session. We started

[1:35:59] at one o'clock today. It should be

[1:36:01] available on BT10

[1:36:03] um sometime tomorrow, but it was very

[1:36:05] informative of where the city budget is

[1:36:07] currently. And that one was for

[1:36:09] information and discussion only. Um our

[1:36:13] second item was um

[1:36:17] item number 255015.

[1:36:20] It was an ordinance amending the 2026

[1:36:22] budget. It is our third amendment. Um

[1:36:25] the amendment increased revenues by 4

[1:36:28] million 92,873

[1:36:32] and expenditures by 22,189,674

[1:36:38] across multiple departments and funds to

[1:36:41] ensure sufficient budget authority is

[1:36:43] providing for existing upcoming programs

[1:36:46] and projects um and to cover higher than

[1:36:48] anticipated costs. There was a line

[1:36:51] section in there. Some um some of the

[1:36:55] general fund aotments total 1.6 million

[1:36:58] and change. Um a big chunk of that was

[1:37:01] $1.2

[1:37:03] million um for higher than expected

[1:37:05] medical claims. um 200,000 for remodel

[1:37:09] of uh in city hall, the old uh parks and

[1:37:13] recreation suite which will be renovated

[1:37:15] to um house our human resources

[1:37:18] department who has vacated out of the

[1:37:20] federal building so that we could in the

[1:37:22] future move our municipal courts there.

[1:37:25] Um the hearing examiner is having an

[1:37:27] overage. uh the hearing examiner has had

[1:37:30] some rather large detailed um complex

[1:37:35] um appeals and hearings and so um we are

[1:37:39] raising that hopefully with this vote

[1:37:40] for 150,000. Um there are other funds

[1:37:44] that are also live uh listed. I just

[1:37:46] kind of wanted to give some of those

[1:37:48] highlights. Um but the committee voted

[1:37:53] uh three to zero to move um approval of

[1:37:57] the budget amendment and I so move

[1:37:59] » Second.

[1:38:01] » Motion's been made by council member

[1:38:02] Anderson and a second by council member

[1:38:04] Hamill. Any discussion?

[1:38:08] » Seeing none, all in favor will say I.

[1:38:11] » I.

[1:38:11] » Any opposed or abstensions? Okay, seeing

[1:38:14] none, that passes 70.

[1:38:16] » Great. And I failed to mention on those

[1:38:18] two. The first one was presented by our

[1:38:21] finance director Andy Ebjornson and our

[1:38:24] second one with the budget amendment was

[1:38:26] presented by our budget and treasury

[1:38:29] manager um Eric Johnson. So, our third

[1:38:33] item um which was presented by our

[1:38:37] director uh for planning and community

[1:38:40] development, Blake Lion, and also Kurt

[1:38:42] Nabeld, is agenda item 255014,

[1:38:47] a resolution amending the city of

[1:38:49] Bellingham land use and application fee

[1:38:51] schedule. Um, the city has not updated

[1:38:54] the land use application fee schedule

[1:38:56] since its adoption in 2007 and fee

[1:38:59] revenue is no longer keeping pace with

[1:39:01] the cost of service. In an effort to

[1:39:04] bring the fee schedule into alignment

[1:39:06] with current expenditures, the land use

[1:39:08] application fee schedule exhibit B in

[1:39:11] our packet has been revised to account

[1:39:14] for the inflation and include an annual

[1:39:17] adjustment based on the consumer price

[1:39:19] index. The proposed fee schedule would

[1:39:22] go into effect October 1st, 2026. The

[1:39:26] revenue generated from this adjustment

[1:39:28] will in part be used for a fund to

[1:39:30] market study to help inform future

[1:39:33] adjust adjustment um fee schedules as

[1:39:36] well as cost recovery. Um there was um

[1:39:40] great discussion and before I move there

[1:39:44] was um let me bring it up here if I can

[1:39:49] bring it. Oh lord

[1:39:54] there was an amendment and they were so

[1:39:55] kind to send it to me. Um so I guess for

[1:40:01] order. Do I bring forward the amendment

[1:40:03] first? Vote on that?

[1:40:05] » Bring forward the committee's

[1:40:06] recommendation. Okay. So, um the

[1:40:09] committee uh recommended three to zero.

[1:40:14] Um and I so move

[1:40:16] » Second.

[1:40:16] » Okay. So, with that there was um an

[1:40:20] amendment made.

[1:40:23] » So, the motion during the committee was

[1:40:26] to move approval as amended. So, the

[1:40:28] amendment was adopted, but you could

[1:40:29] read the amendment into the record

[1:40:30] tonight. So, that's included.

[1:40:32] » Thank you. I didn't know if we all had a

[1:40:33] vote on the amendment. So reading into

[1:40:35] the record the amendment um move to

[1:40:37] amend the resolution adding the new

[1:40:39] section 3 entitled city council review

[1:40:42] that states at some time before first

[1:40:45] half of 2032 city staff shall bring

[1:40:49] forward the land application fee

[1:40:51] schedule for review by city council. Um

[1:40:55] the discussion was that we would like to

[1:40:58] have this come forward um at some point

[1:41:01] to review and staff pointed out that the

[1:41:04] additional revenue that will be

[1:41:05] generated by the increased fee is going

[1:41:08] to help pay for um someone to do a

[1:41:12] market study. That information should

[1:41:14] come forward and at that point um we'll

[1:41:17] be able to uh either amend or change and

[1:41:21] that will be the report out. The

[1:41:23] amendment was kind of I feel like a

[1:41:25] placeholder to ensure that should

[1:41:27] something happen and um we don't get a

[1:41:31] timely study and recommendations coming

[1:41:33] forward at least we'd get a report back

[1:41:36] um in the near future.

[1:41:40] So again the um committee voted 30 and

[1:41:43] again I move

[1:41:45] » Yep. So there was a motion this evening

[1:41:47] then from council member Anderson,

[1:41:48] seconded by council member Hamill again

[1:41:50] to move to approve the resolution as

[1:41:52] amended. Any discussion?

[1:41:55] Seeing none, all in favor will say I.

[1:41:57] » I.

[1:41:58] » I.

[1:41:58] » Any opposed or abstensions? Okay. Seeing

[1:42:01] none, that passes 70.

[1:42:03] » End of committee.

[1:42:04] » Thank you very much. The next committee

[1:42:06] this afternoon was Parks and Recreation.

[1:42:09] That committee is chaired by Council

[1:42:10] Member Williams. So I will turn it over

[1:42:12] to him for a report.

[1:42:13] » All right. Thank you, President uh

[1:42:15] Stone. We had two items on our agenda.

[1:42:19] Both were dealing with the uh the new

[1:42:23] park off of uh Baker View Road that is

[1:42:27] going to be developed in the next um

[1:42:32] year or so. Uh the 10 or 15 years.

[1:42:36] [laughter]

[1:42:37] Anyway, uh the the first item was was

[1:42:41] was agenda bill 255021

[1:42:46] which was um dealing with the uh with a

[1:42:51] recommendation of a name for the park.

[1:42:54] So, um, at the June Parks and Recreation

[1:42:58] Advisory Board meeting, the parks and

[1:43:01] recreation staff shared the results of

[1:43:03] the public naming poll for this new park

[1:43:06] on East Baker View Road. Some of the

[1:43:09] names that were suggested were

[1:43:12] Bellingham Park,

[1:43:16] uh, Komo Culian Park,

[1:43:19] uh, Telegraph Trail Park, Culinian

[1:43:21] Meadows, and King Mountain Park. Um, and

[1:43:25] so forth. And then there was one other,

[1:43:28] uh, there were some other names, uh,

[1:43:31] recommended by staff. One of which was,

[1:43:37] where is it?

[1:43:39] Baker View Meadows Park, Telegraph

[1:43:41] Trail, and so forth. Some some of the

[1:43:44] same names. So, um, at the end of the

[1:43:48] the, uh, discussion,

[1:43:51] the Parks and Recreation Board and the

[1:43:54] staff recommended to name the park Baker

[1:43:58] View Meadows Park. So, after a brief

[1:44:02] presentation by Nicole Oliver, the parks

[1:44:05] and recreation uh director, and Peter

[1:44:08] Gil, going over all of the nominated

[1:44:11] names, the staff and the advisory

[1:44:14] committee recommended

[1:44:16] Baker View Meadows Park. The council

[1:44:19] committee concurred and I so move.

[1:44:22] Second.

[1:44:23] » Motion's been made by Council Member

[1:44:25] Williams and a second by Council Member

[1:44:26] Hamill. Any discussion?

[1:44:30] Seeing none, all in favor will say I.

[1:44:33] » I.

[1:44:33] » Any opposed or abstensions? Seeing none,

[1:44:36] that passes 70.

[1:44:38] » Okay. The the other um

[1:44:42] agenda bill that we had was uh number

[1:44:45] 255026

[1:44:46] which was a consideration of the Baker

[1:44:49] View Meadows Park master plan. Um as as

[1:44:55] we have said uh the park is located

[1:44:58] between Telegraph and Baker View on east

[1:45:02] um east of uh Demer Road. The property

[1:45:05] was purchased in 20120 for a

[1:45:08] neighborhood park in and expanding an

[1:45:11] undeserved part of our city.

[1:45:14] The master plan that was being presented

[1:45:18] uh today is a culmination of two years

[1:45:20] of work with local [clears throat]

[1:45:22] residents and the community to design

[1:45:26] and phase the 26 acre space for use as a

[1:45:29] park

[1:45:31] while holding a portion along Baker View

[1:45:34] for future lowincome housing.

[1:45:38] The park is intended to be to be

[1:45:41] completed in phases over the next five

[1:45:44] years with access and temporary trails

[1:45:47] available immediately. But full

[1:45:50] implementation of the master plan will

[1:45:52] take about 10 to 15 years and will be

[1:45:56] phased in over that time frame as

[1:45:58] funding funding is available. So the

[1:46:03] estimates are 75,000 for phase uh zero

[1:46:08] which is current uh 6 million for phase

[1:46:11] one and 7 million for phase two and and

[1:46:15] beyond.

[1:46:17] After a very very enlightening

[1:46:21] presentation by parks director Nicole

[1:46:24] Oliver and Peter Gil, park planning and

[1:46:29] development coordinator along with the

[1:46:31] landscape architect Lesie Batton from

[1:46:34] Field Collab LLC.

[1:46:37] They explained to us that the

[1:46:41] the plan itself reflects the results of

[1:46:45] a vast public outreach

[1:46:48] program from

[1:46:51] 700 participants in that community that

[1:46:55] will be serviced by this park. The

[1:46:58] overarching direction is to maintain the

[1:47:01] natural habitat of the park and provide

[1:47:04] areas for many recreational

[1:47:08] activities over time such as having a

[1:47:12] community garden, a children's

[1:47:14] playground, and an adult exercise area.

[1:47:19] ongoing disc golf targets [laughter]

[1:47:23] and several other amenities that'll be

[1:47:26] phased in over time as the funding

[1:47:29] permits.

[1:47:31] So, both the parks and recreation board

[1:47:35] and the parks and recreation staff

[1:47:37] recommended approval of this master plan

[1:47:41] and the committee concurred

[1:47:44] and I so move.

[1:47:45] » Second.

[1:47:46] Motion's been made by Council Member

[1:47:48] Williams and a second by Council Member

[1:47:50] Huffman. Any discussion? Council member

[1:47:52] Huffman. Uh I watched the meeting today,

[1:47:55] although I wasn't here. And um I maybe

[1:47:59] in my next life I'll be a park planner

[1:48:01] because that sounds like so much fun. Um

[1:48:03] it's like real life getting to make

[1:48:06] trails and um and move dirt around. Um,

[1:48:11] but I remember my first being on council

[1:48:15] and looking at a map of the city and

[1:48:18] Nicole Oliver um, director Nicole Oliver

[1:48:22] talking about how we had such a void in

[1:48:24] the north uh, end of Bellingham when it

[1:48:26] came to parks. And then I also got to be

[1:48:28] in a meeting um when Nicole Oliver got

[1:48:31] to be so excited that we were buying

[1:48:34] this property and we would get to have

[1:48:36] this park uh and the potential. Um and

[1:48:40] so it's really fun now to see that there

[1:48:42] is a plan and that um this park is going

[1:48:46] to be realized and it's going to be

[1:48:47] amazing and that uh so many people have

[1:48:50] provided input uh for for this vision. I

[1:48:55] think that that's also really

[1:48:56] incredible. It's uh it's going to be

[1:48:58] something that the community is going to

[1:48:59] be really proud of. So, um very excited

[1:49:02] that this continues to move along.

[1:49:06] » I just want to add

[1:49:08] » Council Member Liquist and then

[1:49:10] Williams.

[1:49:11] » Yeah. Um I I echo a lot of the feelings

[1:49:13] that Council Member Huffman, I do

[1:49:15] remember when this came forward. I do

[1:49:16] remember being excited that it addressed

[1:49:19] a gap in our system. Um, I I uh also

[1:49:23] remember that when this came forward,

[1:49:24] the city council uh directed the staff

[1:49:26] to look at carving out part of the

[1:49:28] property for low-income housing, and

[1:49:30] that has been achieved that that land

[1:49:32] has been identified. I think it's an

[1:49:34] extraordinary statement of values that

[1:49:36] we, you know, provide that kind of

[1:49:38] housing to what next to what one of our

[1:49:40] finest parks. I I note that uh this uh

[1:49:45] this master plan uh is leans heavily on

[1:49:48] trails trails trails because that's what

[1:49:50] the public wanted. That's not a surprise

[1:49:51] to me and I'm really pleased to see

[1:49:54] that'll be multi-use trails, trails for

[1:49:56] people with multiple abilities, both

[1:49:58] smaller natural trail trails and and

[1:50:00] bigger uh paved trails. I think that's

[1:50:02] going to be great. It's what it's what

[1:50:04] the public wanted in addition to other

[1:50:05] park amenities. I also appreciate that

[1:50:07] has natural play spaces along with play

[1:50:10] equipment and sports courts because

[1:50:12] that's been uh a recognized trend as a

[1:50:15] kind of a best practice for um how to

[1:50:17] get people young people um actively

[1:50:20] playing you know give them some

[1:50:22] ambiguity to give them some nature to

[1:50:24] climb upon and even a climbing area so

[1:50:26] you can get your vertical thrills out

[1:50:28] too. Um, and I'm also really pleased

[1:50:31] that there's a phase zero activation

[1:50:33] phase. So, it'll take a while before um

[1:50:36] heavy work begins and uh and the covert

[1:50:39] can be breached with road access and

[1:50:41] things like that. But, there's a phase

[1:50:42] zero, an activation phase that's going

[1:50:44] to occur right away. And I very much

[1:50:46] appreciate that and that there are

[1:50:48] trails even in that early phase zero as

[1:50:51] well as in the other phases. Um, those

[1:50:54] are all wonderful features of this um

[1:50:56] the Baker View Meadows. Got to memorize

[1:50:58] that. Bigger View Meadows uh park master

[1:51:01] plan and which why we'll be

[1:51:02] enthusiastically voting yes.

[1:51:04] » Council member Williams.

[1:51:06] » Yeah. The only thing I want to really

[1:51:09] highlight is the responses from the

[1:51:12] community.

[1:51:14] getting 700 people to give you input as

[1:51:18] to what this park should reflect is a

[1:51:21] very is is something that we should be

[1:51:25] very very proud of because um to me

[1:51:30] that's how parks should should be

[1:51:32] developed by what the local community

[1:51:35] wants to see. And I think that a very

[1:51:39] fine job was done in getting that info.

[1:51:42] Having it phased in over a period of

[1:51:45] time is good because it gives us a

[1:51:48] chance to kind of see what'll work maybe

[1:51:50] and what might not work or might not

[1:51:53] work as we saw it. [laughter]

[1:51:56] But um it's this I remember dealing with

[1:52:01] this piece of land I believe the first

[1:52:03] year I was on the city council and now

[1:52:07] it's coming to fruition and I'm very

[1:52:10] proud that we're that we are doing that

[1:52:13] and making this happen.

[1:52:16] » Any other discussion on the motion?

[1:52:20] Okay, seeing none, we have a motion from

[1:52:22] Council Member Williams and a second by

[1:52:23] Council Member Huffman to move to

[1:52:25] approve the Baker View Meadows Master

[1:52:27] Plan. All in favor, we'll say I.

[1:52:29] » I. Any opposed or abstensions? Okay,

[1:52:32] seeing none, that passes 70.

[1:52:35] » So, so we had no further business. So, I

[1:52:39] adjourn the meeting

[1:52:41] and I'll pass it back over to you.

[1:52:44] » Thank you very much. So the next

[1:52:46] committee meeting this afternoon was

[1:52:48] public health, safety, justice, and

[1:52:49] equity. That committee is chaired by

[1:52:51] council member Hamill. So I will turn it

[1:52:53] over to him for a report. Uh thank you,

[1:52:56] Council President Stone. I was joined

[1:52:57] this afternoon by council members

[1:52:58] Williams and Huffman. We had three items

[1:53:00] before us. First was agenda bill 255028.

[1:53:04] This is an interlocal agreement with the

[1:53:06] city of Blaine for public safety data

[1:53:08] sharing. This interlocal agreement

[1:53:09] authorizes the city of Blaine Police

[1:53:11] Department to share limited records

[1:53:14] management system data with WATCOM 911.

[1:53:17] That's our uh call center. Watcom public

[1:53:20] safety telecommunicators will receive

[1:53:22] readonly access to the names file and

[1:53:25] Blaine's records management system to

[1:53:27] support person checks and provide more

[1:53:29] efficient service to Blaine officers and

[1:53:32] uh the other agencies that they assess

[1:53:34] assist. The agreement does not

[1:53:36] [clears throat] allow the Blaine Police

[1:53:38] Department access to Bellingham Police

[1:53:40] Department records. Each party may

[1:53:43] remains responsible for its own costs

[1:53:45] and the agreement does not authorize the

[1:53:47] expenditure or collection of funds. I'd

[1:53:49] also like to add that the this these

[1:53:51] agreements here um are all consistent

[1:53:54] with the keep Washington working uh act

[1:53:56] and um WATCOM deputy director Justin

[1:53:59] Rasmmanson was here this afternoon to um

[1:54:02] to provide us a briefing on these agenda

[1:54:04] items and he's here this evening. Thanks

[1:54:06] for joining us. Appreciate it. Uh this

[1:54:08] afternoon the committee uh voted to

[1:54:10] approve this interlocal agreement and I

[1:54:12] so moved.

[1:54:13] » Second.

[1:54:14] » Motion was made by council member Hamill

[1:54:16] and a second by council member Williams.

[1:54:18] Any discussion?

[1:54:20] Seeing none, all in favor will say I.

[1:54:22] » I.

[1:54:23] » I.

[1:54:24] » Any opposed or abstensions? Okay. Seeing

[1:54:26] none, that passes 70.

[1:54:28] » The second item is uh agenda bill

[1:54:30] 255029. This was an interlocal agreement

[1:54:32] with the city of Ferndale for public

[1:54:34] safety data sharing. I'm not going to

[1:54:36] read the summary statement. It's exactly

[1:54:37] what I just read before for the city of

[1:54:40] Blaine. Um and the committee u voted to

[1:54:44] approve and I move.

[1:54:45] » Second. Motion was made by council

[1:54:47] member Hamill and a second by council

[1:54:49] member Williams. Any discussion?

[1:54:52] Seeing none, all in favor will say I.

[1:54:54] » I.

[1:54:55] » Any opposed or abstensions? Okay. Seeing

[1:54:58] none, that passes 70.

[1:54:59] » The third and final agenda was uh a bill

[1:55:02] was uh 255030.

[1:55:04] This is an interlocal agreement with the

[1:55:06] city of Lynen for public safety data

[1:55:08] sharing. Again, same summary statement.

[1:55:10] The this afternoon the committee moved

[1:55:12] to approve and I so move.

[1:55:13] » Second.

[1:55:16] Motion was made by council member Hamill

[1:55:18] and a second by council member Husman.

[1:55:21] Any discussion?

[1:55:23] Seeing none, all in favor will say I.

[1:55:25] » I.

[1:55:26] » Any opposed or abstensions? Seeing none,

[1:55:28] that passes 70.

[1:55:30] » End of committee report.

[1:55:35] » Thank you very much. The next committee

[1:55:38] this afternoon was committee of the

[1:55:39] whole. All council members were present

[1:55:41] this afternoon. The first agenda item

[1:55:44] before the committee was agenda bill

[1:55:46] 255023.

[1:55:48] This is a resolution establishing the

[1:55:50] docket of proposed amendments to be

[1:55:53] reviewed in the 2026 comprehensive plan

[1:55:55] amendment cycle. So proposed amendments

[1:55:58] added to the annual docket will be

[1:56:00] reviewed using a type six process

[1:56:03] including public hearings on the merits

[1:56:05] before the planning commission and the

[1:56:07] city council. Following a recommendation

[1:56:09] by the planning commission, the city

[1:56:11] council will have an opportunity later

[1:56:13] this year to approve, modify, or deny

[1:56:16] each request using the criteria in

[1:56:19] Bellingham Municipal Code Title

[1:56:21] 20.20.040.

[1:56:25] Um we were joined this afternoon by

[1:56:27] Chris Behey, long range planning

[1:56:29] manager, as well as Blake Lion, commun

[1:56:32] um planning and community development

[1:56:33] director. Um just noting so there were

[1:56:36] seven items that are being placed on the

[1:56:38] docket. One is sort of a classic reszone

[1:56:41] being brought forward um by the county

[1:56:44] and also other just cleanup items. Um

[1:56:47] really sort of errors and things that

[1:56:49] need to be cleaned up since the the

[1:56:51] passage of that plan. Just wanting to

[1:56:54] highlight that there as far as the

[1:56:57] agenda going forward and next steps. Um,

[1:57:00] we are anticipating that these items

[1:57:03] then will come back before the city

[1:57:06] council for a work session November 2nd,

[1:57:09] so later this year. Then a public

[1:57:11] hearing proposed to be held on November

[1:57:13] 16th with council consideration of the

[1:57:16] ordinance for first and second reading

[1:57:19] on December 7th and potential third and

[1:57:21] final on December 14th. So this

[1:57:24] afternoon there was unanimous

[1:57:25] recommendation from the committee to

[1:57:28] move to approve the resolution and I so

[1:57:29] move.

[1:57:30] » Second.

[1:57:30] » Motion's been made by the chair and a

[1:57:32] second by council member Hamill. Any

[1:57:34] discussion?

[1:57:36] » Okay, seeing none, all in favor will say

[1:57:38] I.

[1:57:39] » I.

[1:57:39] » Any opposed or abstensions? Okay, seeing

[1:57:42] none, that passes 70.

[1:57:52] The next item before the committee was

[1:57:54] agenda bill 255022.

[1:57:56] This was a discussion of tenant

[1:57:58] engagement options. So earlier this

[1:58:01] year, the council directed staff to

[1:58:03] research options for tenant engagement

[1:58:05] similar to the landlord and property

[1:58:07] manager survey that was conducted in the

[1:58:09] fall of last year 2025.

[1:58:12] After considering options, a digital

[1:58:14] survey was identified as the recommended

[1:58:16] engagement strategy.

[1:58:19] As noted um earlier with the

[1:58:21] appointments that came forward um from

[1:58:24] the mayor's team, the administration is

[1:58:26] also taking steps to convene the

[1:58:28] landlord and tenant advisory working

[1:58:30] group. So at the at this time this

[1:58:33] afternoon, council staff um was seeking

[1:58:36] direction for next steps on tenant

[1:58:38] engagement. We were joined by

[1:58:40] legislative policy analyst Iris not as

[1:58:43] well as um Blake Lion who is the

[1:58:46] planning and community development

[1:58:47] director for the city. Um basically the

[1:58:50] question and direction before the

[1:58:52] council was consideration of whether um

[1:58:55] to move forward with the survey at this

[1:58:57] time under um sort of council direction

[1:59:00] that would go forward with um assistance

[1:59:02] and support from our legislative policy

[1:59:04] analyst Iris not and then whatever

[1:59:07] results are brought forward right the

[1:59:09] data collected from that survey that

[1:59:10] could be shared with the work group with

[1:59:12] the um landlord and tenant advisory work

[1:59:15] group for further consideration and

[1:59:18] analysis. or delaying that survey until

[1:59:21] the um landlord and tenant advisory work

[1:59:24] group had an opportunity to sort of lay

[1:59:26] out a more um robust and perhaps

[1:59:28] in-depth engagement proposal for

[1:59:31] landlord and tenant um surveys maybe in

[1:59:33] the future. So this afternoon there was

[1:59:36] a motion from

[1:59:39] the council to move forward with option

[1:59:42] one. So this is a digital engagement

[1:59:45] strategy

[1:59:46] um is the recommendation and to move

[1:59:48] forward with that this fall. Um so again

[1:59:53] the propo the motion from the council

[1:59:55] was to move forward at this time and

[1:59:56] then to share the data collected with

[1:59:58] the um working group for consideration.

[2:00:01] So um I will move at this time to move

[2:00:04] forward with option one this fall.

[2:00:06] » Second.

[2:00:07] » Motion was made by the chair and a

[2:00:09] second by council member Williams.

[2:00:12] Any discussion on that motion? Okay,

[2:00:14] seeing none, all in favor will say I.

[2:00:16] » I.

[2:00:17] » Any opposed or abstensions? Okay. Seeing

[2:00:20] none, that passes 70.

[2:00:24] » The next item before committee of the

[2:00:25] whole was agenda 255024.

[2:00:28] This was a discussion of upcoming

[2:00:29] procedural changes to council meetings.

[2:00:32] So, Council President Hannah Stone,

[2:00:33] myself, um reviewed plan changes to

[2:00:36] council meetings, including adjustments

[2:00:37] to public comment, standing

[2:00:39] announcements, and language access. Um

[2:00:42] so this afternoon during committee

[2:00:45] just highlighting um taking them in

[2:00:48] order. So changes to public comment we

[2:00:49] are looking to implement changes at the

[2:00:52] next council meeting um which again will

[2:00:54] be on September 14th. So at that council

[2:00:57] meeting moving public comment to the

[2:00:59] start of the meeting. Um that will be a

[2:01:01] 30 minute block with individuals um

[2:01:03] providing comment for two minutes each.

[2:01:06] With respect to the standing announce

[2:01:09] announcements, a couple of changes. Um,

[2:01:12] one regarding the land acknowledgement

[2:01:14] deferring to a special project report

[2:01:17] that was brought forward regarding city

[2:01:19] and tribal relations and engagement. um

[2:01:22] that was highlighting sort of the need

[2:01:24] for the city of Bellingham to work as a

[2:01:26] unified entity um with the local tribes

[2:01:29] to develop a formal land acknowledgement

[2:01:32] if that were to be adopted by the city,

[2:01:34] but acknowledging that the tribes really

[2:01:37] function at um a level higher than the

[2:01:39] council and that the tribes would defer

[2:01:41] to have that engagement and discussion

[2:01:44] directly with the mayor. Um so really

[2:01:46] for the council to defer to the mayor's

[2:01:48] office and the administration to carry

[2:01:50] that work. um forward with respect to um

[2:01:54] language access.

[2:01:57] So in lie of you know budget

[2:01:59] considerations as well as how um

[2:02:02] intentionally we are reaching out to and

[2:02:04] engaging with members of the community

[2:02:05] who for whom English may be a second

[2:02:07] language for them. um acknowledging that

[2:02:11] we have so moving the public comment to

[2:02:13] the beginning of the meeting as well

[2:02:15] will ensure that public comment and the

[2:02:18] broader um meeting is all livereamed

[2:02:21] through BTV and Comcast channel 10 as

[2:02:24] well as on YouTube. So acknowledging the

[2:02:27] although AI generated um certainly

[2:02:29] technology advancements the ability to

[2:02:32] then watch recordings of all meetings

[2:02:34] not just the evening regular meetings um

[2:02:37] in multiple languages. At this time

[2:02:39] YouTube have English plus more than 150

[2:02:42] languages available that allow for audio

[2:02:44] dubbing as well as you know voice over

[2:02:47] um in addition to closed captioning or

[2:02:49] subtitles in any of those languages.

[2:02:52] In addition, the city of Bellingham um

[2:02:56] website, you know, allows

[2:02:58] translation of all the pages on our

[2:03:01] website in English as well as 40 over 40

[2:03:04] languages. Um so that being available in

[2:03:08] multiple language as well as the COB

[2:03:10] meetings website, those support meeting

[2:03:13] materials from council meetings being

[2:03:15] available in translations um of multiple

[2:03:18] languages. And highly also that the the

[2:03:20] city has a contract with language line

[2:03:24] um and that language line offers even a

[2:03:27] much you know higher number of languages

[2:03:30] over 350 languages available. So the

[2:03:33] city has a contract with language line

[2:03:35] that allows any you know employee of the

[2:03:38] city to call and obtain live right

[2:03:42] interpretation in any of those languages

[2:03:44] sort of on demand. So really wanting to

[2:03:47] utilize the interpretation services that

[2:03:49] we have available um in a much more

[2:03:52] deliberate and sort of intentional way.

[2:03:55] So through our work plan, our

[2:03:57] communications work plan as a council,

[2:03:59] wanting to ensure that there are

[2:04:01] opportunities, part of that work plan is

[2:04:03] looking at invitations for council

[2:04:05] members and the council perhaps as a

[2:04:06] whole to attend specific, you know,

[2:04:09] events um andor um meetings or

[2:04:12] programming in the community as well as

[2:04:14] opening, you know, office hours and

[2:04:16] council um chambers or in our council

[2:04:19] office which would allow for you know

[2:04:21] interpretation on an as needed basis.

[2:04:24] um but wanting to make sure that members

[2:04:27] of the community know that we will

[2:04:30] provide interpretation upon request. So

[2:04:33] wanting to ensure that not only Spanish

[2:04:35] but any language or ASL that the

[2:04:37] community may need. You can contact um

[2:04:39] the council office, you know, to make

[2:04:41] those arrangements. We would request

[2:04:43] ideally 48 hours notice um to give us um

[2:04:47] you know, more opportunity to ensure

[2:04:48] that we're able to meet that as best we

[2:04:50] can. But certainly even if it was a last

[2:04:52] minute request, we would potentially use

[2:04:54] the language line contract that we have

[2:04:56] um or other other accommodations. But um

[2:05:00] in addition, so with the um public

[2:05:04] comment moving to the start of the

[2:05:06] meeting um and those changes to our

[2:05:09] standing announcements and language

[2:05:11] access, one of the pieces before

[2:05:13] consideration this afternoon were some

[2:05:17] changes to our rules of procedure. And

[2:05:20] so those rules of procedure ch those

[2:05:22] changes um just reflect what will be um

[2:05:26] implemented next meeting. Um so again

[2:05:29] moving that council um public comment

[2:05:33] period to the beginning of the meeting

[2:05:35] having that change from 15 minutes to 30

[2:05:37] minutes in our procedural rules and from

[2:05:40] 3 minutes to 2 minutes. Um there were

[2:05:43] some other

[2:05:45] changes that were

[2:05:48] um fully read into the record this

[2:05:50] afternoon, but most of them are somewhat

[2:05:52] um just semantics about how

[2:05:56] um how that is outlined in the rules.

[2:05:59] wanting to make sure that also the

[2:06:01] council knew, right, these proposed

[2:06:02] changes at this time are just related to

[2:06:05] the public comment period, but that a

[2:06:07] more comprehensive um proposal for um a

[2:06:11] refresh of our rules of procedure will

[2:06:13] be coming forward in the short term. Um

[2:06:16] so there was a motion from the council

[2:06:19] to move to approve the changes to the

[2:06:21] rules of procedure and I so move.

[2:06:23] » Second. Motion's been made by the chair

[2:06:26] and a second by council member Williams.

[2:06:29] Um just wanting to note that that was a

[2:06:32] split vote this afternoon. Actually in

[2:06:36] the

[2:06:37] um in the packet this evening. There are

[2:06:41] the minutes from the July 27th meeting,

[2:06:45] which is when we did consider the

[2:06:47] changes to our or the implementation of

[2:06:49] our council communications um work plan.

[2:06:53] And just noting that that did pass

[2:06:55] unanimously 6-0 with council member

[2:06:57] Huffman absent. Um but that does not

[2:07:00] have to influence the vote this evening.

[2:07:03] I know that um so just for for context

[2:07:08] when the communications plan was adopted

[2:07:11] by the council um there was a motion by

[2:07:13] council member Lilliloquist supported by

[2:07:15] council member Anderson to retain the

[2:07:17] threeminut right time um allotted to

[2:07:21] speakers and that amendment um failed to

[2:07:23] four and then adoption of the work plan

[2:07:26] as a whole passed 6 but in council

[2:07:29] member Husman's absence. So, just wanted

[2:07:31] to clear up the record from this

[2:07:33] afternoon's discussion and committee.

[2:07:34] Um, but we have a motion before us then

[2:07:37] to adopt the changes to rules of

[2:07:39] procedure. Any discussion?

[2:07:41] » Seeing none, all in favor will say I.

[2:07:43] » I.

[2:07:44] » I. Any opposed?

[2:07:46] » Okay. Any abstensions? Okay. Seeing

[2:07:49] none. So, that passes 61.

[2:07:52] Um, with council member Liiloquist

[2:07:54] opposed.

[2:07:56] Okay. Next, we have old and new.

[2:08:00] old and new, which this afternoon um we

[2:08:04] had director Lions speak to an item

[2:08:06] related to the 120day

[2:08:09] notice. Um and I wasn't sure if council

[2:08:11] member Cotton or Liloquist wanted to

[2:08:14] speak at all to what that resolved that

[2:08:16] followup.

[2:08:18] My interpretation was that it was a

[2:08:21] non-issue, but if there's anything you

[2:08:23] wanted to share from from that.

[2:08:25] » Um yes. Uh,

[2:08:28] Director Lion and Julia Burns, the

[2:08:30] rental inspection manager, uh, shared an

[2:08:32] update that resolved our concern around

[2:08:35] um, conforming with uh, state

[2:08:38] requirements around notices of

[2:08:40] non-renewal. Um, and also just to note,

[2:08:43] we received an email asking about

[2:08:47] um,

[2:08:48] uh, the concern around the language

[2:08:51] adopting the state exemption for um, uh,

[2:08:55] basically public housing units. Um and

[2:08:58] just to clarify that is uh consistent

[2:09:01] with state law and is really providing

[2:09:04] really applying to when a tenants um

[2:09:07] income is fluctuating due to or rent is

[2:09:11] fluctuating as a result of their income

[2:09:12] in a public housing project. It's not um

[2:09:16] a landlord in the private market would

[2:09:18] still need to provide a 120day notice

[2:09:20] even if their tenant is on a housing

[2:09:21] choice voucher. So, um, just those two

[2:09:24] pieces of clarity and as was noted after

[2:09:26] this afternoon, if if you have

[2:09:28] questions, the residential landlord

[2:09:30] tenant act can unfortunately sometimes

[2:09:32] be complicated and it's always

[2:09:33] recommended to consult an attorney.

[2:09:38] » Thank you very much. Um, other items

[2:09:42] this evening for old and new?

[2:09:47] » Okay. If not, we had executive session

[2:09:51] this afternoon. There were multiple

[2:09:53] items discussed. So, in executive

[2:09:55] session, the first item was a potential

[2:09:57] property acquisition. This was with

[2:09:59] Rosenblat. Staff provided information on

[2:10:01] a potential Lake Watcom watershed

[2:10:03] property acquisition. It was for

[2:10:05] information and discussion only and

[2:10:07] there was no action taken. The second

[2:10:09] item was also a potential property

[2:10:11] acquisition with Rosenblat. Staff

[2:10:13] provided information on a potential Lake

[2:10:15] Watcom watershed property acquisition.

[2:10:18] with the following action coming

[2:10:20] forward. So, I will now entertain a

[2:10:22] motion to authorize the mayor to close

[2:10:24] the real estate transaction with the

[2:10:26] property owner, Daniel Gibbon, with a

[2:10:30] purchase price of $2,500.

[2:10:32] » Move approval.

[2:10:33] » Second.

[2:10:34] » Motion's been made by Council Member

[2:10:35] Anderson and a second by Council Member

[2:10:37] Liiloquist.

[2:10:39] Any discussion?

[2:10:41] » Seeing none, all in favor will say I. I.

[2:10:43] » I.

[2:10:44] » Any opposed or abstensions? Seeing none,

[2:10:47] that passes 70.

[2:10:49] The next item is a litigation matter.

[2:10:52] Oldm versus city of Bellingham at all.

[2:10:54] This was with Phillips. Staff provided

[2:10:56] information on a litigation matter. The

[2:10:59] following action is coming forward. I

[2:11:01] will now entertain a motion to authorize

[2:11:03] the mayor to enter into a settlement

[2:11:05] agreement with Julie with the following

[2:11:08] terms. Dismissal of Oldm v. City of

[2:11:12] Bellingham at all. Watcom County

[2:11:14] Superior Court cause number

[2:11:16] 23-2-00618-37

[2:11:23] in exchange for the payment of $115,000

[2:11:27] to Julie Olden plus reimbursement of

[2:11:31] $3,000 in mediation costs to GLP

[2:11:35] attorneys PS incorporated.

[2:11:38] » Moved.

[2:11:39] » Second. Motion's been made by Council

[2:11:41] Member Hamill and a second by Council

[2:11:43] Member Hudman. Any discussion?

[2:11:47] Seeing none, all in favor will say I.

[2:11:49] » I.

[2:11:50] » I.

[2:11:51] » Any opposed or abstensions? Seeing none,

[2:11:54] that passes 70.

[2:11:57] The fourth and final item was a

[2:11:58] potential litigation matter. This was

[2:12:00] with Chaplain and CRAM. Staff provided

[2:12:03] information on a potential litigation

[2:12:05] matter. The following action is coming

[2:12:07] forward. I will now entertain a motion

[2:12:09] to authorize the mayor to retain outside

[2:12:12] counsel to represent the city in

[2:12:14] litigation challenging the federal

[2:12:16] office of management and budgets

[2:12:18] proposed rule regarding federal grant

[2:12:21] conditions.

[2:12:22] » Move approval.

[2:12:23] » Second.

[2:12:25] » Motion's been made by council member

[2:12:28] Anderson and a second by council member

[2:12:30] Huffman.

[2:12:34] Any discussion?

[2:12:36] Seeing none, all in favor will say I.

[2:12:39] » I.

[2:12:40] » Any opposed or abstensions? Okay. Seeing

[2:12:43] none, that passes. 70.

[2:12:48] Next, we have consent agenda.

[2:12:50] » Approval.

[2:12:50] » Second.

[2:12:52] » Motion was made by council member Hamill

[2:12:54] and a second by council member Williams.

[2:12:57] Any discussion?

[2:12:59] » Seeing none, all in favor will say I.

[2:13:01] » I.

[2:13:02] » Any opposed or abstensions? Seeing none,

[2:13:05] that passes 70.

[2:13:08] Final consideration of ordinances.

[2:13:12] » Agenda. Agenda Bill 24999, an ordinance

[2:13:15] related to the preservation of landmark

[2:13:17] trees and extending for an additional 6

[2:13:20] months the interim development

[2:13:21] regulations with respect to landmark

[2:13:23] trees throughout the city.

[2:13:24] » Third and final.

[2:13:25] » Second.

[2:13:27] Motion's been made by council member

[2:13:28] Hamill and a second by council member

[2:13:30] Huthman. Any discussion?

[2:13:33] Seeing none, roll call, please.

[2:13:35] » Holly Huffman,

[2:13:36] » Hi.

[2:13:36] » Dan Hamill,

[2:13:37] » Hi.

[2:13:38] » Skip Williams.

[2:13:39] » Hi.

[2:13:40] » Lisa Anderson.

[2:13:41] » Hi.

[2:13:42] » Michael Liiloquist.

[2:13:43] » Hi.

[2:13:43] » Jay Cotton.

[2:13:44] » Hi.

[2:13:45] » Hannah Stone.

[2:13:46] » Hi.

[2:13:46] » Uh, the motion passes 70.

[2:13:52] » Next up, we have uh agenda bill 255012,

[2:13:56] an ordinance amending BMC 6.15 and BMC

[2:14:00] 2.21.010.

[2:14:02] 010 regarding the rental registration

[2:14:04] and safety inspection program and

[2:14:07] chapter 6.12 BMC regarding rental

[2:14:10] agreements.

[2:14:11] » Move first and final.

[2:14:12] » All seconded.

[2:14:14] » Motion's been made by council member

[2:14:15] Anderson and a second by council member

[2:14:17] Liiloquist.

[2:14:19] Any discussion?

[2:14:21] Seeing none, all in favor will say nope.

[2:14:24] » Roll call, please.

[2:14:25] » Uh Holly Huffman.

[2:14:26] » Hi.

[2:14:27] » Dan Hamill.

[2:14:28] » Hi.

[2:14:28] » Skip Williams.

[2:14:29] » Hi.

[2:14:30] » Lisa Anderson. I

[2:14:31] » Michael Loiquist.

[2:14:32] » Hi,

[2:14:33] » Jace Cotton. Hannah Stone,

[2:14:35] » I.

[2:14:36] » The motion passes 7-0.

[2:14:40] » And finally, we have agenda bill 250006,

[2:14:44] an ordinance regarding the 1% for art

[2:14:46] program amending Bellingham Municipal

[2:14:48] Code Chapter 4.92.

[2:14:50] » Third and final.

[2:14:50] » Second.

[2:14:52] » Motion's been made by Council Member

[2:14:53] Hamill and a second by Council Member

[2:14:55] Husman. Any discussion?

[2:14:58] Seeing none, roll call, please. Ollie

[2:15:01] Huffman. Hi

[2:15:02] » Dan Hamill.

[2:15:03] » Hi

[2:15:03] » Skip Williams.

[2:15:04] » Hi

[2:15:05] » Lisa Anderson.

[2:15:06] » Hi

[2:15:06] » Michael Lilloquist.

[2:15:07] » Hi

[2:15:08] » Jace Cotton

[2:15:10] » Hannah Stone

[2:15:11] » I.

[2:15:11] » The motion passes 70.

[2:15:15] » Thank you very much.

[2:15:17] So that concludes the regular business

[2:15:20] of the meeting. Noting again that our

[2:15:23] next meeting will be on September 14th.

[2:15:28] So, as I said, that concludes the

[2:15:30] regular business of the meeting, and we

[2:15:31] will now move to the public comment

[2:15:33] period. If you're watching live online

[2:15:35] or on BTV, the broadcast will now end.

[2:15:38] However, you can continue watching via

[2:15:41] Zoom at co.org/cczoom oorgg/ccoom

[2:15:46] or listen via phone by dialing

[2:15:48] 2532158782

[2:15:53] and entering meeting ID 8715188525

[2:16:01] and password 9. Again, that's

[2:16:04] co.orgccoom rg/ccoom

[2:16:09] or dial 253-2158782

[2:16:15] and enter meeting ID 871-5188-525

[2:16:22] and password 9 to continue to watch or

[2:16:25] listen live. If you're watching a

[2:16:27] recorded version of this meeting, you

[2:16:30] can view public comment videos at

[2:16:32] meetings.c.org.

[2:16:34] og.

Untitled meeting

Transcript