[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.
[1:05:04] » No.
[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.
[1:55:25] » 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.
[2:00:16] » 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.
[2:12:39] » 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.
[2:13:01] » 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.