City Council - Committee Of The Whole

our next committee is committee to the whole we have one item before us and bear with me we've got a lot of BMC um code numbers to go through here uh this is an ordinance relating to the rental registration and safety inspection program amending BMC 6.15.18 0.15.0 40 6.15 five 6.15 70 6.15.18 and adding a new section to chapter uh 6.15 so following a staff presentation on December 4th 2023 the council directed the administration to take several actions with respect to the rental registration and safety inspection program Council directed Administration to bring forward an ordinance that would one eliminate Declarations of compliance and instead require that all rental units in the program be inspected by a city inspector or a private inspector as a condition of registration and two require private inspectors to provide more detailed information about failed inspections to the planning department and Grant the planning director the authority to require up to 100% % of any Property Owners rental units to be inspected if at least one of the owner's rental units fails an inspection and I believe uh Deputy City Attorney James herb and planning director uh Blake lion are here to take us through good afternoon Council um so as the agenda Bill States the last time we were here uh Council directed us to take well four actions three of which were uh related to the ordinance that's in front of VI the fourth was to revamp uh the city's tenant resources page to provide additional

information uh to tenants in our community about the resources that are available to them um so director Li may be able to speak to the status of that update uh but for my part I'm happy to answer any questions uh that you have about the ordinance that's before you um it does the three things that Council had directed um us to do uh one is eliminate the dire the certificates or um Declarations of compliance and instead require that all units going forward be inspected as a condition of registration um so landlords can no longer self-certify that the units meet the habitability requirements um it requires private inspectors to deliver the copies of failed inspection uh sheets to the city if any of the units that they inspect fail and it also allows the planning director the authority to require up to 100% of a property owner units um not just limited to the confines of that particular rental property to be inspected if any of the sampling inspections or any other inspection fails uh for that property owner committee uh council member list um one comment first of all Mr BB thank you I had some kind of technical questions and you you resolved them nicely for me um I the one thing I wanted to point to was concerning my mind is uh the definition of an owner and so now we cite to the the state uh statute which says that an owner means one or more persons jointly or severally in whom invested all or any part of legal tital property or all or part of a beneficial ownership and the

right to pres to present use and enjoyment of the property so really that means if there's uh a group of family members or a group of entities created by one owner they can be grouped together under the legal death definition of of owner so you don't have to they don't have to actually be owned by the exact identical ownership group or entity to be subject to this expanded inspection at the director's discretion council member Anderson thank you um I'm kind of curious a little bit about implementation of some of these changes so if this passes and we're doing away with the um the owners the landlord self declaration that it's fine and they already have a current permit um where they've paid their fee and it's current would this then apply to uh when they have to renew their um pay their fee because I think it's forgive me it's either good for every the the inspection is good for every year not every year every three years but the permit is yearly so would this go based on when they're supposed to be inspected again or based on when the permit is applied for again that's a great question and so we um contemplated that problem we talked about it actually during our meeting and the only way really to do it is to do it prospectively only so new rental units coming into the system will be subject to this requirement any rental unit that's previously been registered is already on that once every threeyear cycle for uh for an inspection and so rather than saying all of the rental

units across the city have to be inspected in 2024 we're saying all the newly registered units have to be inspected uh subject to the exceptions in the code and then everyone that's currently in there is already on that once a threeyear inspection reinspection cycle would it be the reinspection then where they would no longer be able to self declare or are they grandfathered in that's correct in the reinspection they they will have to get an actual inspection thank you I just want to uh pause here for a moment Miss get and miss last are we online is this meeting um on btv1 I just had a constituent text and say they couldn't find it okay you want to just confirm with with them thank you committee TV says we're live okay thank you appreciate it thank you committee further discussion I'm looking for an up up or down uh motion here I move that we approve this recommended change second okay the motion's been made by council member Williams and seconded by council member Anderson Is there further discussion on to this item go ahead council member Stone I just have about um couple might be kind of basic questions but um one was just my curiousity about whether so you talked about how much sort of variance there is between on the basis of a failure or a failed in inspection right this would be something very simple and a simple fix um versus something that might be more um serious for lack of um a better term and so I'm just wondering is there any discrepancy or variation there

accommodated for when we're talking about the trigger right for being able to then inspect sort of every property owned by that individual owner as how those failure failed inspections would be treated um from a practical application standpoint there would not be any difference if it if it is a failure on the checklist it's a failure on the checklist but from a from an actual implementation piece from a department side of things we're going to be looking for those properties that are more egregious to be able to address those uh in a manner that that warrants the the attention and the amount of time and effort would be necessary so we would be looking for those that have uh P persistent concerns or that are you know extended across different properties and try to prioritize and triage those particular pieces rather than just maybe somebody that's failing a smoke alarm uh battery test or something along those lines so just confirming that it's the planning director sort of discretion right I mean you have the authority to do that but then there's internal discretion correct I mean it's just the reality is is given the number of properties that are in the program and you know those that have those issues we're going to have to prioritize some of that workload in the manner that we feel like can be justified for the resources that we have available so we'll look to those that again have repeated failures on the reinspection or have multiple properties that you know or units that

are failing in that respect and we can prioritize those and then the final followup on that is um just related to that then authority to sort of trigger those broader inspections at that point does the owner still have it's still their choice about who conducts those in inspections or at that point is it sort of a mandatory Co inspection uh at the onset when they register that property and they come doe for that inspection that uh state law and our code Still Remains and gives them that option of whether they want to choose a city inspector or a third party inspector that that remains their choice to do that um once that we've had the the failed within that parameter again they can still pursue the corrections under either one of those options but we'll uh retain the right to try to do and we've been talking with um Council M lest about the auditing option and trying to look at the audit over the process and so they'll be subject to that so there's a motion on the table any further discussion here seeing none all is in favor signify by saying I I opposed abstentions recusals uh motion car 70 and with that that's the end of that part of the committee and I will now go to um old and new business council member Huffman thank you council president thank you council president uh so I would like to bring forward something that council member cotton and I have been working on together um we are interested in having the rest of council hearing from the rest of the council about your

interest in discussing parking minimum requirements um so when it comes to land use within our city there are three General basic uses for the land that we have uh places for people namely housing places for trees and places for cars and namely parking um so this Council has passed a resolution last year naming the lack of available and affordable housing a crisis and this council's also signaled the support for some very significant goals regarding tree canopy coverage in our city so uh I think it's an important conversation to have to help facilitate action on those two priorities uh to to talk about how parking for cars fits in to that equation um so we would be joining many other cities currently having this conversation uh Spokane recently passed some major code revisions regard ing parking minimums for example um and they're currently around 40 or so cities our size or smaller in the US that have removed parking minimum Citywide uh some of those are Burlington Vermont Port Smith Ohio Rowan Oak Virginia nine cities in Oregon and chattah huchi Hills Georgia um and of course many other larger cities have made these moves as well so um and it should should be also noted that removing parking minimums uh does not mean that designers and buildings won't include parking in their projects it just means that they can right size the parking for their their specific buildings um so I have a motion a specific motion it's a little long uh I move to request the administration work

with relevant staff to bring forward a work session regarding the removal of Citywide parking minimum requirements and related parking policy including but not limited to bike parking standards increasing Ada parking requirements street parking management strategies and related parking design standards that is my motion second second motion's been made by counc member Huffman seconded by council member cotton I saw uh council member Anderson then council member moquist thank you um it's no secret that on some of these changes where we change our zoning in order to increase um development I constantly say we keep giving things away without really a good exchange back and that's one of the reasons why I was pushing for information to come forward on inclusionary zoning um our state legislation changed some of the rules that allow for plexes in what historically was single family zoning and part of my intention of inclusionary zoning was to allow for plexus and single family but have one of them be Workforce housing level rental or truly affordable so that they would gain additional housing units for that development but the community would get something affordable and then when we it was proposed to eliminate parking um minimum in Oldtown again spoke out about here we are losing an opportunity that we're allowing development to potentially save money on infrastructure for parking and maximizing their rental units but again not getting something in exchange towards affordable

housing and I can so support the idea of uh parking minimum requirements but again I'm going to be chiming in in that I think it's really important that we look at it as a lens towards Equity that development is gaining something but that we're also gaining the opportunity for affordable housing and we keep missing that as part of the conversation um so I would like to make an amendment to include requesting staff as they bring this information forward that they look at any opportunities to include um inclusionary zoning and the ability for affordable units for the reduction of parking second motion or an amendment has been proposed by council member Anderson and seconded by council member lillquist forther discussion on that one council member cotton um great and um I certainly would support um a council discussion about inclusionary zoning and other strategies to increase affordable housing um Park eliminating um parking minimums alone is obviously not going to solve our housing crisis but it does um constitute a necessary step in order to get to that end goal and um I just also want to briefly before we get too much into the weeds thank um uh first council member Huffman for for leading on this um but also some really fabulous um community members um two folks in particular um I just want to shout out um Jamon augusty and um Scott Pelton for um really stimulating a lot of conversation around this and also that this conversation is not um uh the the first conversation we've

had as a community and I just want to thank some organizations in particular um uh The Association of Realtors um the um uh Walk and Roll Bellingham and staff at WTA who have really infused in this conver ation discussion about the Nexus of land use policy and transportation um also um walk a million trees um which is supportive of parking reform precisely because it allows for more green infrastructure and and um site specific development that can preserve our mature trees and um uh and also um all the folks associated with the wam housing Alliance and um so I think that since we are looking at this issue on the the tale of hundreds of cities um I think it makes sense as a starting point to evaluate if that solution um really makes sense uh for Bellingham before we start from a position of um uh starting from scratch and so I I think decoupling you know conversation about um about inclusionary zoning and parking um U minimums does really make sense because um I don't think they're rationally linked and um we're talking here right about potentially losing out on 60 70% of housing that could be built and um and Supply um is a big part of the part of the solution and and you all know me as a tenant Advocate and so um uh those issues are also close to my heart um but I I think moving forward on this makes sense and I would really appreciate the opportunity to have a work session um specifically on that okay further discussion council member question so I have on my paper here uh

an item under old and new which is parking minimums um my requested motion is different enough that I'm going to make it following this motion it has to do with uh a research project for our policy analyst um had some discussions some Rose ones M with with Jamon and with Scott and with our planning and Public Works directors on this um so um my motion which we'll follow this really has to do with building the kind of like the knowledge base and the evidentiary base that we will need as policy makers to rather than sit up here and start discussing the effects of parking minimum elimination or reduction um I think I need uh further education I think we need further education so that would be my motion to follow this one I think they they go very much together and it's um fun fact of those watching City Council is not allowed to meet and discuss things outside of public meetings and sometimes you'll find that we're following parallel paths and this is one of those cases okay we have an amendment and a motion on the table we need to dispose of both of them before we get to your uh your new motion so the the amendment can you restate the amendment please or or Miss scats can you either way it won't be verbatim but the amendment was uh requesting that staff bring forward um information regarding the opportunity for inclusionary zoning um in exchange of that parking reduction okay for affordable housing okay thank you appreciate it um that motion was made by or that amendment was

made by council member Anderson and was seconding at my council member Lilo Quist I would like to recognize the City Attorney At this point yeah Alan Mariner City attorney I just want to make it really clear and maybe this is obvious is that at that work session regardless of what the direction is to staff that is just giving potentially giving staff direction to begin a type six process I mean you still have to what if you're changing the parking minimums or you're adding a requirement of inclusionary housing all of that needs to go through the type six process starting with the Planning Commission public hearing and then coming to you so you wouldn't take direct action at that after that work session you'd have to direct staff to go through do that process any questions for the City attorney on that item seeing none all those in favor of the amendment signified by saying I I opposed uh extensions recusals seeing non motion carry 70 let's go back to the original uh motion that was made by council member Huffman and was seconded by council member cotton Is there further discussion uh read can you miss gats can you read that motion please I'll have to defer to council member H yeah council member hman can you read that motion I can read that uh motion is to request the administration work with uh relevant staff to bring forward a work session regarding the removal of Citywide parking minimum requirements and related parking policy including but not limited to bik parking stand

standards increasing Ada parking requirements street parking management strategies and related design standards okay any questions on that motion um director lion please just one clarification on with respect to Ada because as it is right now it's currently a um a num it's based the number of ADA spaces is based on the number of parking spaces that are required and my understanding is is that we're going to be basing that off of what would be provided by that property so that we's there's an existing combination use the word increase and I just want to make sure I understand what that um uh references to I'll defer to council member cotton on that point okay right um so I'm thinking and particularly um examples in codes would be Anchorage Bend Austin where they have used a percentage of parking provided with tiers as more parking is provided to to make basically make sure that people with Mobility disabilities can find parking and we know under our current um our current um Ada transition plan that's that's already been identified as a challenge so that was my just be clear when we say Ada we're meaning Americans with Disability Act I I thought I heard you say Adu the first time it was Ada Americans with Disability Act thank you further questions or comments to the motion seeing on all those in favor signify by saying I I opposed exensions recusals motion carries 70 I will not recognize council member yeah so I've um already started some Wheels rolling on um directing or

asking our policy analyst to actually start compiling the cas studies the evidence the empirical data not just the advocacy pieces on what the effective rooming parking minimums is uh I've also been sending links and so some of Staff members sending links to Iris but she hasn't actually begun that project I think was appropriate and and uh council president um indicated that he would prepared to Greenlight it but I thought we should just do it as a formal motion that we um hereby authorize and direct our policy analyst to undertake a study uh on uh what is known about uh the effects of removing or reducing parking minimums in particular its effect on um housing affordability is that the motion that's the motion second motion's been made by council member list and seconded by council member Williams Is there further discussion related to that council member cotton um maybe council president or or Council M um lest or staff can speak to this but what what would be the best way if if staff is working on bringing stuff forward to make sure that capacity isn't being duplicated um is there yeah has that been a part of the discussion well in the past the previous policy analysts Endeavor to very clearly coordinate their work with ongoing staff work so in this case um I would assume on the direction of our our office manager and the president that Miss not would do the the same thing I think uh staff to staff discussion they could easily figure out how to to parcel up that work so

that Poli PS can bring forward this one piece while staff continues to bring forward the rest of the work session further questions mayor just to clarify council member list do you see the legislative analysts work happening concurrently or do you see that happening first before the work session all I don't hadn't thought about it I didn't realize there was going to be a work session on there I I was going to authorize the uh the research and that that would lead to a work session of its own when the when the white paper had been developed um I I I don't care what sequence they come forward and maybe they shouldn't come forward together or as a pair I I I don't it seems like there's a natural connection so they can't be totally separate but I don't have an opinion yet about timing and for that matter I don't know if we have an opinion yet about when this research or white paper might be ready I don't know if that's a one day project you'll turn around tomorrow or if it's like a several month project which it could be depending on the depth that's deemed appropriate well that I think that be that that's that's the question is like if if it's several months for the policy analyst to to complete their work um do we wait to schedule the work session for that um or what's the expectation on timing for those you want you want at the same time and One controls the other or vice versa I guess is I think I think in terms of a staff staff presentation like what I need would need to

talk about that but we're relatively near future for that uh if we could line those up to be at the same time that I think it'd be very appropriate if we could set a Target date say were you know end of March or end of April to have both of those work done then that would define the scope a little bit just Clarity on when expectations for that conversation coming forward would be may be appreciated sure I I can clarify a little bit here before I recognize council member Anderson so um as the community and the uh City staff know we are Staffing up um in the city council office um with um Jackie ler we're going into the management position um and IIs not coming on board uh for the policy analyst and we we will have weekly meetings to discuss these types of topics and issues and we can we can discuss that within the context of that of that meeting coming up here I think I believe it's on Wednesday and we can we can um uh email the U mayor's office department heads and city council to provide um the the sequential order of those meetings if that if that pleases the the councel okay I don't see any objections goad I'm going to recognize Anderson then then Williams just had a question go ahead if you want to follow up just uh directed to council member hu I'm sorry uh the question I had for council member Huffman and um cotton is relative to your motion what was your thinking about the timeline um I I think that I I would defer to staff and what the capacity is ter in terms of

timeline okay council member Anderson thank you um timing is always important and as somebody who professionally works with uh data and research and prefers to make decisions based on having that data in research SE Arch I think it's really important because we're there's an assumption that if we build more housing it's going to become more affordable there's also we need to build more housing because we don't have enough but I truly believe that market rate kind of dictates the cost and as people move here and we do have to plan for population growth and we're not keeping up I'm not saying that we should to be building housing but if we're looking at changing codes through a type 6 process to potentially eliminate parking I would like to have that evidence to form how we go forward with the work session and what we look at and and not be making assumptions on affordability because every meeting I've been in when it comes to planning changing things around housing from four years on Planning Commission and four years here let alone loone my years working on a neighborhood plan um when you start holding those Community meetings people are always citing affordability is the reason why we need to build more I would like to have that evidence that says yes it does by this much or no it doesn't because of this and be able to make those informed decisions if we're going to make a a dramatic change and I think the potential of eliminating parking can be a dramatic change on the

community not to say that it shouldn't happen happen but I want to go in with my eyes very wide open what things look like and not make assumptions so when we're talking about timelines I think the research that will be informing the content around that work session is extremely important and if I and maybe staff can disagree with me but if I was a staff member and I'm doing work and then somebody's doing something and it may not um frame the work that I've already done and then there's a lot more questions and I got to go back and do more work to me it seems like that could create a delay versus being efficient so I I think some work can probably start because it won't be dependent um but I think that information that will be provided by our analysis would be critical and framing Maybe the last half of the work coming from planning just my two cents further discussion to the motion seeing non motions been made by uh council member lillquist and second by council member Williams uh all those in favor signified by saying I opposed extensions recusals motion carries 70 further items for old and new cist uh just to let uh people know I just briefly spoke with director Lions about this I've been in conversation with um Port commissioner Bell um as the regional economic kind of entity um they he's proposing and the port is developing an idea for a focus group on Industrial lands um this would be made various stakeholders some elected some Not Elected from the for-profit and

nonprofit sectors to basically look at the issue of of Economic Development countywide and the issue of of what lands are set aside for uh industrial activity there's been already report on heavy Industrial but it didn't really look at light industrial and all industrial combined uh at this point it's just an idea but on the list of tentative people to invite would be would include a city council member so I'm tended toly raising my hand uh if indeed that body does come together I think it's really good timing if indeed the port does convene this focus group uh in this year because it could feed very naturally into the comp plan cycle for all the cities and for the county in the ne in the next two years so I think it could be very useful preliminary conversation that all jurisdictions can use I just wanted you to know about that at this point it's an idea the port has it it's not doesn't exist yet it's not approved yet but I'm kind of hoping it will come together okay I'd like to um take a point of privilege and add on to that so Council M Williams and I also met with uh commissioner uh Bell and uh Port director fix um probably two weeks ago to discuss Economic Development ports the Ado uh for the community area development uh organization so they are in charge of economic um stimulation activity uh drawing businesses into the into the county and so we discussed at length what that could and should look like and um I'd like to make a motion to um have uh representatives from

the port um whoever they choose to send um come to the city council and discuss their plan for economic development and also um uh cleanup of the Waterfront just how that's how that's working and and um I want them to come and present I also want to include in that motion um that I'd like to invite a representative from uh Northwest Central labor or aflcio to discuss U potential future uh labor impacts um for the port but also for the broader Community as well and I'd like to do that in light of um a pending noise ordinance that this Council may be considering at some point in the future second motion's been made by the chair and seconded by council member Williams Is there further discussion seeing none all go ahead counc member Williams part of where this um came from was at least from me having a sense of what the total picture was regarding the development of the port downtown and it seems like we are getting a a lot of information from um Community groups and things like that but at the meeting where we did listen to some elements of organized labor and what that development down there means to them um I felt that um we needed to get a bigger picture of what the plans are down there before we make a decision on impacting that so so that's where this came from and um as council member Hamill council president Hamill said he he and I met with the port director I met with the um the uh uh labor Council and um just to discuss that and get their perspective on this on these

things so um with that I support the motion thank you council member Anderson okay so I I kind of feel a little bit that this is triggered because of ABC and um especially in mention of the noise ordinance and if we're inviting the port to come talk hopefully it's about the broader perspective of Economic Development outside of this particular project um if it becomes a form for them to justify what's been happening down there I I feel very hesitant that we're not in dividing you know it's a three-legged four-legged stool you have the city you have the port you have uh representatives of labor but you don't have representatives of the community coming forth and talking about the impacts of some of the decisions we might be making so it's not that I'm opposed to this but if it does become a form of explanation and justification without necessarily hearing from the community um about the impacts that have happened to the quality of life um I think we're doing a disservice because we have put up in my opinion these walls and not talking to some of the advocates in the community and um and they don't have a seat at the table yet to be able to come forward and talk with us about it so if we're going to go forward with this and it turns out to be a session where where um quite a bit of the time is spent about why we shouldn't be making changes based on the impact or perceived impact of Labor and jobs then I think we should have an equal opportunity afterwards for the community to

come forward and have a work session to talk about the impacts of the quality of life based on what's been happening down at the waterfront so just kind of sending that over the bow that I I hope it is a very broad conversation and doesn't become a Target regarding what's happening with ABC but if a majority of our time and discussion starts to hone in and focus on that I'll be making a motion to be able to offer an equal opportunity for the community to come forward and talk about the impacts about um potential decisions regarding a Sound Ordinance going to recognize uh council member Williams yeah to answer your question council member Anderson the focus I had was the broader perspective not the narrow perspective of or the impact of ABC as a part of this broader perspective that's what I expect to happen to have that conversation and um I'll just say I am hearing a lot from the people that you are speaking to via email I've had meetings with some of them and um and they're that uh group is a part of the of the picture but I I feel very strongly that we need the the pieces of the whole picture not just one side or the other so my goal is that it is a broad conversation focused on the total development of that facility not just the current company that's down there little question um I I agree I really want to hear a broad range of discussion Economic Development rather than talk about impacts of one particular business there will be a time in a place for that particular

discussion and base my conversations with the mayor that time in place will include uh participation from a a broad spectrum of viewpoints on there so I think there's a time in place for that specific discussion and I wouldn't want that to take over what I'm what I'm hearing is is really a focus on economic development and the various aspects of it um this morning I attended the Waton County's business and Commerce Committee this is a subcommittee of actually created by the county to advise the county on economic issues but is actually hosted at the Port as the o i mean there's a there's a lot of community discussions on economic development I think that's a sort of broad discussion that we want to talk about by the way in that discussion they talk about housing an awful lot they talk about child care that was a topic they've talked about bellingham's tree ordinance right what what is the impact of impact if the city does indeed want to preserve more green space on the ability to develop say more housing so I mean the discussions that we're talking about are being discussed in the context of Economic Development over in those meetings and and and by Port officials and so I would I would appreciate that broad conversation and that's how what I'm that's that's what I'm hoping we would hear from the port if they accept our invitation further discussion to the motion I'll I'll take a turn here um so my intent is not to be exclusive of um any voices when it comes to um economic

development at the port or future jobs um the port indicated to the council member Williams and I that they are going to be spending 27 million to dredge the channel in front of the shipping terminal with potential um customers like car companies to import uh Vehicles electric vehicles into the into the US that would make that Port more competitive with Vancouver BC with uh Tacoma Seattle Long View and right now we are we are not competitive at all um we couldn't even win that contract with with Noah um years ago if you recall that so I want to make sure that we are um that we are able to work uh in concert with the port uh one of the perennial uh issues that I've heard over my 35 years in Bellingham is that there are not enough good paying jobs in this community and people uh can't afford to live here and the cost of housing as we we know is just Rising so quickly so if we're able to provide some degree or if we're able to understand what the impacts of decisions that make on this dis are to job creation to attracting employers here to the to this community I I want to be able to understand uh what that looks like so that is the intent and that's the intent in bringing labor here and I am not opposed to including the the voices of uh impacted individuals and like council member Williams I have also met with leadership from those groups um we have all received hundreds of emails and so the there's no communication vacuum uh in that regard but I'm not going to I would never

exclude them from coming and and presenting um in addition to the port but I think that there's an order of operations when it comes to understanding the impacts on employment and labor and those are the first two pieces that I wanted to include and I'm happy to include uh other voices go ahead council member and I I realize that we receive a lot of emails and we receive emails at least I have on both sides of the issue um my concern is is the two-way communication so and from what I'm hearing from individuals in the community there's not necessarily a lot of communication from the city going out to them for fear of litigation and so that's the wall that I speak of and and that's an issue and we have to be able to work with all of our constituents whether it's the port whether it's the unions the employees the businesses but also so the community members and when our communication outwardly stops that two-way dialogue that's my concern that yes they do send a lot of emails but how many emails get sent back answering those questions um that's what I would like to acknowledge um because I don't think it's sufficient um and at least that's what I hear from individuals so there's been kind of a silence that has happened um under guidance and if we're going to have people come here and we're able to ask them questions and they're presenting again broad big picture but if it turns into a session that we're focusing on one industry and because of the decisions being based on those

impacts that's my concern that the community is going to feel that we are showing um more of a partisan view of listening and exchanging with One Direction and not necessarily with the residents and I just want to be mindful of that and acknowledge the perception that will happen based on it I'm not saying that we shouldn't have the meeting and I I think it's good to be able to talk about economic growth and their plan I just want to be very careful during that meeting how much Focus happens on one area where perhaps our community is feeling that that um they don't have a quality of dialogue because receiving emails and reading them is one way but if we're not responding as a city to those specific questions then it's it's not dialogue and so people don't know if they're being heard and so anyway that's where I'm coming from thank you council member City attorney marer yeah I just want to confirm that uh staff would not bring forward this uh draft noise ordinance until after these work sessions with the port labor and maybe with the community are completed thank you go ahead Council M and how soon will those be starting because I don't think that's I know that's being discussed internally but I wasn't sure if there was a timeline that could be shared with the community that those discussions will start up so I I would say we don't have Clarity the the draft ordinance is been revised based on Council input and we're prepared to bring It Forward at any time what we're hearing

is a a difference in the order of operations I think that's the conversation that's before us and is it a community stakeholder conversation that we're convening Administration is convening so that we're all sitting down and engaging in that robust dialogue or a going through this series of presentations to council as per President Hamill's suggestion today and so we're prepared to engage on all of those it's just what is council's priority for that order of operations further discussion to the motion motion's been made by the chair and seconded by council member Williams to uh create work sessions with the port uh at least two and also with uh with labor representation as well all those in favor signify by saying I I opposed council member Anderson no something separate are you V are you in favor of the motion yes I said yes okay all right just I didn't hear hand up for afterwards okay uh motion carry 70 go ahead council member thanks I hate winging motions but um I'm going to um I'd like to make a motion requesting uh City Administration to start to formulate those work groups that can run consecutive with the information and work groups that we're having um so that all stakeholders can come together and start that discussion and the reason why I feel it's important to start work on that is that I would like to think that what is coming forward with the port talking about Economic Development can help frame some of the information but specifically if we're going to be

talking about the noise ordinance and the impacts and having that dialogue with all the community I think that could be happening adjacent to and not necessarily having to wait until after we have those other work sessions okay I'm going to need you to restate the motion I move uh that we ask City Administration to begin to formulate the process of making Community work group to talk about about the noise ordinance uh adjacent to or consecutive to us meeting with work groups about economic development motion8 is there a second go ahead I I have a question Administration uh first do you already feel you have direction are you already committed to this stakeholder group is this is this motion redundant or is there like new value being added with this request I think she's trying to make sure that it stays somewhat uh sequentially that it's timely with regard to the other discussions I mean what does the administration already understand about it its direction to you I think when I hear work group that codifies it to a different level I think we were prepared to engage in stakeholder conversations I think work group is a slightly more formal and expansive and that's what the motion entails so we were prepared I think to move forward with those St stolder conversations around the table work group I think would I can change it to stakeholder conversation what I was gathering was that there was not Clarity of when to begin those stakeholder conversations until perhaps after we

convened the work groups that have been motioned I would like for those to be happening sooner than the conclusion of those work groups so I feel that they can happen simultaneously and I know requesting something does not always have it happen unless it's a motion requesting that it happens um past administration even though they would say there was clear Direction it would later come back that there wasn't emotion so they didn't have to adhere to it I just basically my motion is to have these conversations start sooner than concluding our work group groups so that they can be running concurrently okay motion's been made is there a second C morone I'll second um I'll second the motion I have a question I guess a follow question so seconding the motion to um to discuss it further so what I heard from president Hamill was a motion to conven work groups one with the port and one with labor and what I'm hearing from council member Anderson is a request for third potentially a third work session that would be Community Based when you were talking about that stool right and who all of those players on are when we're thinking about the um Economic Development and specifically the Waterfront in that development but I wanted clarification from Council MERS to give some background um so I was advocating for the noise ordinance and it was my understanding it was coming forward and then it was held because stakeholder conversations was wanting to be um implemented through Administration

so that's why it didn't come forward to us so it was under my um I don't want to say assumption it was information shared that that noise ordinance could come forward in the future but first wanted to be able to have conversations with all the stakeholders first just to help frame everything and so now and I've been asking when will this be coming forward so we can have a more in-depth conversation and now it sounds like now we're going to have work groups with two legs of the stool but we are leaving one out now it doesn't necessarily have to be a work group but I would like to have the Stak holder conversation which is the community voice of our neighbors to be able to have that discussion with the city um and I don't think we have to wait to hear from the port or the unions before we hear from our neighbors about the noise ordinance and impact I think it can happen concurrently and that's what I'm requesting uh council member council president Hamill had to step out for so I will be taking over in his absence uh council member list yeah I think I'm seeing a difference in these things uh the motion that we approved that Council Hamill was requesting uh inviting uh important uh groups and organizations or entities to present and have a work session before the committee before committe the whole whatever committee we choose but have a work session with the city council the Community State holder process I was viewing as something which was a public meeting but it wasn't here

it wasn't our meeting it was a community meeting and if I chose to attend it I would sit in the back and I would listen it would be a stakeholder meeting so I I don't think it's a third thing that's equivalent I think it's suie janeir think it's it's a different sort of purpose so I I too am um uh anxious and impatient for that stakeholder process to start I'm trying to be gracious because Kim is not an octopus she has two arms and only so much can be done at a time um but I do I I want that stakeholder process but I don't think I'm not seeing it as a s similar sort of thing as the presentations so I want it to but I wouldn't put it on the same footing and I don't want it to occur here with the cameras on I want to be a public meeting in a maybe a a a better setting where the sides themselves kind of can address each other sometimes um when I attend a meeting and maybe of the two as a council person you kind of like suck the air out of the room people keep looking to you for your opinion and we kind of get in the way of the process sometimes um so the stakeholder process I think I don't want to take the air out of the room I I I want the community members to have a a multi-directional dialogue which is different from a presentation where I really do want to be able to address the port and hear from them so I I view them as different in nature mayor go ahead this is very helpful conversation to hear from all of you in this forum to give us more clarity and Direction and I

share a lot of what you just expressed council member list in terms of the work sessions that you voted on based on council president Hamill's Direction and then that robust stakeholder dialogue where there are multiple groups of our community talking to each other about what's before us and so we are prepared to I think convene those conversations sooner rather than later now that we have this Clarity and just as a point of information well I know council member Anderson you're you're eager for the noise ordinance to reappear at the same time we were hearing directly from other council members that had a difference of opinion on that and so this conversation right now is very it's helpful and clarifying for us for our next steps our council member Williams yeah I just want to share my perspective on all of this right now the noise ordinance that I saw presented or the is a very specific application to a very specific problem that exists right now I know like I I've said I've met with people I've heard them come to the council and public comment I have gotten uh plethora of emails or a myriad of emails I guess is the word um and when I listen when I think about this noise ordinance as a solution to a specific problem and I asked myself the question what would happen if ABC disappeared next week just went away would we still need the noise or orance would it be applicable to the bigger picture of the economic development of that area or was it here's a specific solution to a

specific problem without even knowing what the problem area is doing to to um to uh make the problem go away who knows um is it another problem that's going to surface down with another industry down there we don't know that one of the things that I am big on is knowing what the ports um what the port's approach is going to be to that and what they are doing to mitigate those issues or not and I have to have all that information before I can make a decision on a solution and whether it happens concurrently in order I don't really care I just want to know that we're getting all of the information we need to make an informed decision whether it's from Community groups the port the labor Council the long shoreman's Union I need all of that information to make it an informed decision and when that happens it'll be the best one for that area okay we are we're at time and I think that we've heard from um enough members and I apologize for having to run out my contact lens folded over in my eye which is like the most painful thing in the world but I'm okay now um so we had a motion by council member Anderson and was uh seconded by council member Stone uh all those in favor signify by saying I um with regard to the motion um there was a change in word work group to stakeholder group how we is so we're voting on The stakeholder group idea do the thank you very much okay I'm ready to vote okay uh all those in favor signify by saying I I opposed abstentions recusals seeing none motion

carries 70 further items for old and new good so just briefly um one lots of activity today just to Advocate on behalf of our our support team I know sometimes things are on the Fly Right motions but if they get inviting ahead of time to share them with staff so that we have those motions um in advance I know it's hard on the Fly um the question I had and I don't know president haml if if you or staff are prepared to speak to um public comment now or this evening I know there's been a change right and that we won't be having um remote public comment um but whether that's a discussion if there's work the scenes that that will be coming back forward for discussion or how we're determining next next steps because I know there's been some Outreach um just expressing concern about about that limitation uh yeah um I can speak to that or try to um the there's a temporary suspension on the uh remote the zoom um uh component of public comment due to the um organized efforts by some to uh disrupt uh meeting meetings by um having uh comments that are racist or homophobic or anti-semitic or islamophobic that are um not welcome uh in a public forum and the the suspension is temporary until we um until we re-evaluate there was a statement that was issued by our communications director uh to the press and that is um it's public and it's in the Bellingham Herald uh in terms of the the comments that Miss Lasser as the office manager and I and um uh Janice Keller the director uh chose to uh

make in and trying to address these issues we hope that that suspension is temporary I or short uh short in nature it will be temporary and the public is more than welcome to come in person and comment uh as well as submit emails uh voicemails uh and other um Communications with with council members so the communication's not been cut off it's just one aspect of it that was um unfortunately hijacked by people with um who who do not do not have good intentions I'll put it that way go ahead um I would just uh like to confirm that there's an exception for the remote uh testimony for people who request in advance and I don't know what that deadline is uh an accommodation because they can't show up in person that's correct yeah so that thank you for for clarifying that there is a separate accommodation for for those that are unable to to come in person for whatever reason but they do just need to request that in advance go ahead Council mstone yeah and per sorry perhaps it's a question for legal but whether behind the scenes of or technology it um right what options we have to prevent obviously what you know we have concern about happening during meetings without um having having to suspend that as an option um in total so I don't know what options we have for because I know sometimes restricting right content would what has been um what's been happening at other meetings would that fall under things that we're able to restrict and cut off and excuse people from right meetings or

there are great areas where that's falling under sort of a freedom of speech um lens I guess that's my right question about how we decide how best to to move forward and we're working on that right now yes so and I would just add that this isn't a problem that's unique to us or to wam County at our newly elected training at the association of Washington cities this is a Statewide Nationwide phenomenon and issues so we're not alone in tackling this and so we stand prepared to look at what are what are other approaches that communities are adopting to tackle this effectively yeah Anderson I've been thanking about this because I remember when Council took the vote to be able to have remote meetings um or hybrid I was home with covid so I didn't attend that meeting but I could have had it passed the week before I'm just and it's great to be able to have hybrid meetings because if one of us do have to stay home at least if we're physically and cognitively able we can still participate but I just wonder if um conversation has gone to in order to not have to provide the online comment for concern of this type of behavior continuing if one of the solutions is to no longer provide hybrid meetings um does that legally get us out of that uh gray area of um having to monitor the online online comments I mean has that been a conversation um to repeal that I'm not advocating for it because I I I do like that ability to remote in if I'm homesick but um also concerned about limiting the the

comments um suspending it but also definitely don't want some of the content that happened at County Council let alone other places on the state to happen here and and just wondering if that's been I think I think under the open public meetings act the issue is more of if Council Council has a number of options and for a while we were just accepting written uh comments in advance of the meeting uh you you have to allow public comment for at four meetings where you're taking final action that would be like adopting a resolution or or or an ordinance um you can limit that to just written comment in advance or you can allow uh oral comment at the meeting if you allow oral comment you need if you have the technology which we do you need to provide that remote access for people who request an accommodation so I don't think the question is whether you're holding a hybrid meeting or not um uh it's more of what are you doing what are you allowing as far as public comment Stone Anderson does that answer your question yeah I I was under the assumption that because we do hybrid we had to be able to offer hybrid public comment but it sounds like because we have the technology we don't have a choice of offering it um we would have to but we could put the bumpers on and say that pre-registration for accommodation and not necessarily open to all As is that correct that that's correct and you could also allow no um remote public comment if you didn't allow oral public comment at your meeting

and just wanted the written comment in advance of the meeting C we are overtime are there other items for old and new okay there'll be another opportunity tonight I'm going to go ahead and move us to Executive session but I need to read the um the items I we have here for um for exe executive session number one uh potential property acquisition with stamps approximately 3 minutes number two potential property acquisition also with stamps for approximately 3 minutes uh number three potential litigation with good approximately 15 minutes number four litigation de Brun at Al versus City Bellingham with good for 15 minutes number five potential property acquisition and sale with Mariner for approximately 10 minutes and and number six potential property acquisition also with Mariner for 5 minutes those last few items were added U after you received your packets so now we we will recess to um to Executive session hold on one second here so 30 uh 45 uh 50 minutes so I'll come back here and uh gavel us out at um 310 so all right we're in recess yes