City Council - Regular Meeting
City Council - Regular Meeting
Mon, August 25, 2025
Agenda items
Vote records
Discussion summary
Transcript
Meeting summary
Summary not yet available.
Agenda items (29)
Council Business
1Council BusinessPotential Litigation (Erb, approx. 10 min.)
4Council BusinessOld/New Business
24608Council BusinessAn Ordinance Relating to the Annexation of Approximately 146 Acres of Unincorporated Property Located Adjacent to the Northern Boundary of the Bellingham City Limits and Commonly Known as the Britton Road / Northern Heights Annexation; Assigning City Land Use and Zoning Designations and Establishing
24638Council BusinessReject All Bids for Bellingham Police Department Envelope Repairs Project (EF-153),
24639Council BusinessPresentation by the Port of Bellingham on the Whatcom County Industrial Lands
24640Council Business2025 Second Quarter Financial Review
24641Council BusinessConsideration of an Ordinance for the Vacation of a Portion of Donovan Avenue Generally Between 35th and 36th Streets
24642Council Business2025 Carbon Mitigation Grant Updates
24648Council BusinessA Resolution Authorizing the Mayor To Take All Steps Necessary To Prepare an Ordinance or Resolution for Council Consideration that Imposes a Sales Tax of One- Tenth of One Percent As Authorized by Engrossed Substitute House Bill 2015, Adopted by the State Legislature on April 22, 2025
Procedural (4)
2ProceduralLanguage Access The Bellingham City Council provides Spanish interpretation at all regular evening meetings. Interpretation can be accessed by in-person attendees by utilizing the headsets located at the front of the room. Remote viewers can log on to cob.org/cczoom and click on the “Language” icon at the bottom of the screen to listen in Spanish.
3ProceduralRemotely via phone: Call (253) 215-8782 and enter Meeting ID 896 9801 2044 and Password 9. Follow staff instructions at the time of the hearing or public comment period. Before or After a Meeting: Advance written Public Hearing testimony and general written Public Comment can be presented:
5ProceduralElectronically: o For a public hearing: https://cob.org/publichearing o For general public comment: E-mail all Council Members at ccmail@cob.org.
24643ProceduralApproval of the 8/11/2025 City Council Committee and Regular Meeting Minutes
Adjournment
29AdjournmentTues. 12 PM: Repeat broadcast of Monday afternoon Committee meetings
30AdjournmentTues. 7 PM: Repeat broadcast of Monday night regular meeting
31AdjournmentWed. 8 AM: Repeat broadcast of Monday night regular meeting
32AdjournmentSat. 12 PM: Repeat broadcast of Monday afternoon Committee meetings
33AdjournmentSat. 7 PM: Repeat broadcast of Monday night regular meeting Online Streaming: The meetings are streamed live at https://cob.org/btv. Online viewers will see exactly what cable customers would see. Video: Video recordings of each meeting are available on the Internet at https://cob.org/meetings within five business days following each meeting.
Ordinance
24605OrdinanceAn Ordinance Relating to Land Use and Zoning, Amending the Bellingham Comprehensive Plan, Amending the Barkley Neighborhood Plan, Including Land Use Areas 9, 13-20 And 25 and Amending the Land Use Development Code (Title 20) for the Purpose of Adopting the Barkley Urban Village Subarea Plan and Asso
24606OrdinanceAn Ordinance Establishing the Barkley Village Planned Action Pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act, Adding a new Section to BMC 16.30, and Amending BMC 16.30.020
24634OrdinanceAn Ordinance Relating to the Preservation of Landmark Trees and Extending for an Additional Six Months the Interim Development Regulations with Respect to
Public Hearing
24635Public HearingA Public Hearing for an Ordinance Amending Bellingham Municipal Chapter 20.15 (Temporary Shelters) to Delete Shelter Guest Maximums, Extend Permit Duration for all Shelter Types, Modify Permit Renewal Requirements, and Clarify Operational and
General Business
24636General BusinessMayor's appointment to the Civil Service Commission (Approval)
24637General BusinessMayor's Appointments to the Mayor's Neighborhood Advisory Commission (Information)
Consent Calendar
24644Consent CalendarAuthorization of A/P Transactions Issued August 01, 2025 through August 07, 2025
24645Consent CalendarAuthorization of Payroll Labor Cost Payments Dated July 16, 2025 to July 31, 2025
24646Consent CalendarInterlocal with United States Department of Justice Funded State and Local Task
24647Consent CalendarAuthorization of A/P Transactions Issued August 08, 2025 through August 14, 2025
24649Consent CalendarA Resolution Setting the Date and Time for a Public Hearing Before the Hearing Examiner to Consider a Street Vacation Petition for an Unimproved Portion of Burns Street within the Barkley Urban Village – ITEM ADDED 8/22/25
Additional votes recorded in minutes
Adopt ordinance amending BMC 20.15 temporary shelter regulations
aye 1
voice voteaye
Appoint Mimi Turin to Civil Service Commission
aye 1
voice voteaye
Approve resolution authorizing mayor to pursue 0.1% criminal justice sales tax
aye 1
voice voteaye
Reject all bids for Bellingham Police Department Envelope Repairs Project
aye 1
voice voteaye
Reject Britain Road Northern Heights annexation
aye 5 · abstain 1 · nay 1
Dan Hammillaye
Edwin Williamsaye
Hannah Stoneaye
Hollie Huthmanaye
Jace Cottonabstain
Lisa Andersonaye
Michael Lilliquistnay
Adopt ordinance vacating portion of Donovan Avenue between 35th and 36th Streets
aye 1
voice voteaye
Appoint council member Skip Williams to WTA board composition review meeting
aye 1
voice voteaye
Authorize mayor to execute documents for national opioid settlements
aye 1
voice voteaye
Approve consent agenda
aye 1
voice voteaye
Adopt ordinance extending interim development regulations for landmark trees (third and final reading)
aye 7
Dan Hammillaye
Edwin Williamsaye
Hannah Stoneaye
Hollie Huthmanaye
Jace Cottonaye
Lisa Andersonaye
Michael Lilliquistaye
Amend exhibit A of Barkley Urban Village ordinance to add land use areas map
aye 1
voice voteaye
Adopt ordinance for Barkley Urban Village sub area plan and development regulations (third and final reading)
aye 7
Dan Hammillaye
Edwin Williamsaye
Hannah Stoneaye
Hollie Huthmanaye
Jace Cottonaye
Lisa Andersonaye
Michael Lilliquistaye
Amend exhibit A of Barkley Village Planned Action ordinance to add Trans Mountain Pipeline notification language
aye 1
voice voteaye
Adopt ordinance establishing Barkley Village Planned Action (third and final reading)
aye 7
Dan Hammillaye
Edwin Williamsaye
Hannah Stoneaye
Hollie Huthmanaye
Jace Cottonaye
Lisa Andersonaye
Michael Lilliquistaye
Verbatim transcript available
311 transcript segments indexed
[Music] Good evening Hey everybody, welcome to the regular meeting of the Bellingham City Council this August 25th, 2025. Go ahead and call this meeting to order. The Bellingham City Council meets all requirements of the State of Washington Open Meetings Act.
Before we begin, we acknowledge that we are gathered on the traditional unseated territory of the Lemi, Nuksac, Samish, and Simyamu people who have cared for and tended this land since time immemorial.
Truth and acknowledgement are critical to building mutual respect and connection across all barriers of heritage and difference. We began this effort to acknowledge what has been buried by honoring the truth.
We pay respect to the their elders past and present. Please take a moment to consider the many legacies of violence, displacement, migration, and settlement that bring us together here today. And please join us in uncovering such truths at any and all public events.
The Bellingham City Council provides Spanish interpretation at all regular evening meetings. Interpretation can be accessed by in-person attendees by utilizing the headsets located at the front of the room.
Remote viewers can log on to co.org/cczoom and click on the language icon at the bottom of the screen to listen in Spanish. And I'll go ahead and let our interpreter repeat that for us. accessing oto.
language. [Music] here. >> Skip Williams >> here. >> Lisa Anderson >> here. >> Michael Lilliloquist >> here. >> Jay Cotton >> here. >> Holly Huffman >> here. >> All council members are present. >> All right.
Up first we have a public hearing. This is agenda bill 24635. A public hearing for an ordinance amending Bellingham Municipal Chapter 20.15 temporary shelters to delete shelter guest maximums. Extend permanent extend permit duration for all shelter types, modify permit renewal requirements, and clarify operational and infrastructure requirements.
The proposed amendments to the temporary shelter regulations BMC 20.15 are necessary to comply with Washington state law regarding the provisions on temporary shelters needed to accommodate the city's protected need to and to allow for the extensions of shelter permit durations.
Existing regulations limit shelter capacities and prohibitively restrict permit durations. Staff recommended approval of code changes to delete shelter guest maximums, extend permit durations, simplify permit renewals, and clarify operational and infrastructure requirements.
On June 26, 2025, the planning commission voted six to zero to recommend approval of the proposed amendments. and I will go ahead and pass over to Director Lion. >> Thank you, Council President Husman.
Blake Lion, director of planning and community development. We have with us this evening Sarah Olman, who's going to walk you through a little bit of the presentation. Um, as many of you may recall, we have had this ordinance in place now for several years.
Uh, when the ordinance was originally enacted, uh, there was a little bit of question and concerns about the the way it would be received in this community. And there were a number of different components that were also associated with not only the temporary shelters but safe parking and other temporary encampments.
And so um we've learned a lot in that intervening time and Sarah's going to walk us through what some of the requested changes are and happy to answer any questions when she's done. >> Hi, good evening.
I'm Sarah Olman. I think you guys stole my presentation. That summarizes it beautifully. Um, temporary shelter regulations were put in place back in 2018 and these include temporary tent encampments, temporary tiny house encampments, temporary building encampments, and temporary safe parking areas for people experiencing homelessness.
And like Blake has said, over the last seven years of implementing these rules, we've learned a lot and seen a lot of opportunities for improvement to this code. Tonight's presentation will briefly describe the changes and the reasoning behind them.
Proposed changes include the deletion of shelter guest maximums as well as extension of permit duration for certain shelter types and modification of permit renewal requirements to allow for continued operation of shelters when compliant with our local regulations and permit conditions.
And other minor changes pertain to clarifying operational and infrastructure requirements for certain shelter types, like removing the requirement for shelters to remain open 24 hours a day, updating the contact procedures when sheltering minors, and specifying safety measures for portable heating devices.
Now, I want to share the why. Passed into law in 2021, RCW3521-683 establishes that cities may not prevent the sighting of a sufficient number of shelters necessary to accommodate each city's projected need.
Bellingham's need for shelter can surge from one year to the next, and we have all seen this happen. Our existing regulations put caps on the number of individuals who may be sheltered, which is in conflict with state law and very problematic in our community.
Over the last seven years of monitoring temporary shelter operations, we've actually found very little evidence of negative impacts related to their size or term limit. In studying 911 call data for three different temporary tiny house villages, we found no obvious correlation between the sighting and operation of a temporary shelter and any increased crime in the vicinity.
Additionally, the city has received little to no um complaints about most of these shelters once they are operational. These findings conclude that restricting temporary shelter capacity and duration really lacks a proportional nexus to mitigating their impacts.
And finally, we have learned that temporary shelter infrastructure cannot be easily stood up by service providers alone. The city has stepped up as a major funding partner for temporary shelters. Extending permit duration past 5 years allows these invested public dollars to do more public good.
These code changes establish compliance with the RCW, prevent the premature closure of critical shelter infrastructure that has shown little negative impacts and immeasurable positive impacts for our community and allows public dollars to go farther.
Both planning commission and staff recommend the Bellingham City Council approve the adoption of the proposed ordinance, thereby amending temporary shelter regulations in BMC 2015. Uh, thank you so much.
And staff are available for any questions. >> And if I may add one other thought and comment to this. Um, we use the word temporary and the staff report lays it out, but just for the general public's awareness, temporary is typically referring to the duration that that residents are staying in the shelters themselves, not the not the shelter facility in itself.
As Sarah mentioned, we've spent a significant amount of time, energy, and money putting these communities together and standing them up and serving uh members of our community. So, as folks come through, they may use that as a stepping stone to that to the next chapter uh in their housing journey, but the the the actual facilities themselves are not temporary in nature.
We are investing a fair amount. Any clarifying questions from the council before we open up the public hearing? Council member Stone. So, >> I just had one um clarifying question. In the ordinance, it mentions that the responsible official reviewed the proposed amendments under the procedures of the state environmental policy act and issued a non-project determination of non-significance.
Could you just explain what that means, a non-p project determination of non-significance? >> Yes. And if we need further clarification, we can call in the SEPA responsible official. Non-p project generally pertains to like a code change, something where it's not specific to a project or a site where it may be citywide or regional.
Um, and then the non-significance was a determination that there's no adverse impacts that could necessitate either further study or mitigation. Anything further from council? Okay, we'll go ahead and open up the public hearing and this is uh for specifically the public hearing for this agenda item.
>> All right, we had one speaker signed up and that's Adam Adam Bellinger. Evening, council, uh, Mayor Lond, and, uh, um, planning staff. Um, my name is Adam Bellinger, and, um, I had a little bit of a problem with the statement in the, uh, staff memo saying that the there was little to no evidence of negative impacts from temporary shelters.
Um, I think that is a statement made out of survivorship bias. Um, in that, uh, there's plenty of, uh, examples of where the shelters that have been, uh, present here in Bellingham have had a pretty severe negative impact on the neighborhood.
Um for one that comes to mind immediately uh and I provided you a copy of a declaration was a Northwest Youth Services uh shelter for 18 to 24 year olds at the first congregational church. It got so bad in 2022 that it was shut down within a few months.
Um there was uh violence and any number of things that uh went on at that facility. Um and that was shut down by the um the the church. Um they still operate the um u ground floor u day use facility there.
But um there there is some definite impacts. The other one that comes to mind more recently was the um uh severe weather shelter. There was some very severe uh impacts to the neighborhood in that situation.
I in fact held my own meeting because we were having so many issues. Uh, Council Member Liiloquist and um, Lieutenant Murphy from the city came to uh, uh, attend that. Um, there was uh, intrusions, open drug use dealers uh, regularly.
Stabbing occurred right outside the shelter which happened to be Kitty Corner to a early childhood learning center. drug use was allowed on site and by reading my reading of this ordinance uh that shouldn't have been allowed and I guess I wonder about why.
Um and then there was no uh per uh the permit center. I couldn't find any evidence of an operations plan for the um for the uh severe weather shelter as well. um going to the um the tiny home villages.
Um I think those are have been successful, but um you know, they didn't necessarily start out that way. The uh president of that uh organization at the time uh was uh uh plead guilty to fraud of 75,000 and and uh was accused of sexual misconduct.
And so there's uh I think there's plenty of room for uh critical thinking on this one. I you know and these organizations seem to be on a better path now. But we need to have the ability to put a stop to things when they're going ary and I I at least in the current form I can't condone this uh uh ordinance as it uh with the proposed.
>> Thank you Adam. Your time is expired. >> Thank you. Thank you Adam. Okay, we'll go ahead and close the public hearing, bring it back to council. Council member Lilloquist. >> Yeah, I'd like staff to address that issue.
My understanding is that um these tiny home villages are also required to have operational plans that not only govern the code of conduct of individuals, but do they have some responsibility for the nearby environs and what are they?
Yeah, thank thank you so much for that public comment, too. Um, I do want to first define the difference between severe weather shelters and temporary shelters. Um, and maybe uh shed some light on the fact why the operations plan wasn't on city files.
And it's because severe weather shelters actually are exempt from a permit. Um, our community needs the ability to activate shelter when there are weather events that could cause death. So, extreme cold, extreme heat.
So, these types of uses are allowed for short activation periods and they don't need to go through a permit process. The idea is to to activate these spaces very quickly in case of emergency. Um, so that's why an operations plan was not required.
Um, usually, you know, we these operators work in conjunction with the county health department and there's usually some help and assistance, but um, sometimes operators learn as they go. Um, to the other point about operations plans in general, that is a requirement.
It is codified. It is part of the permit submitt requirement for temporary shelter operators to have an operations plan and a required code of conduct that their residents need to follow and staff review that during the permit review.
It's also public information during the public comment period. So, it can be analyzed, it can be tweaked, it can be added upon. Um, and we have found that they generally they work and I'm I'm speaking to our temporary tiny house villages because we have the most data on them.
They've been around for the long like some of them have been operational for five plus years and the operations plan plans have been pretty successful in managing behavior in towing the line as to behavior within villages.
Um, I'm hope I'm I hope I'm answering your question. >> Yeah. Well, the the other uh story brought up didn't have to do with any of the tiny home villages, which as you indicated, been pretty good, but it had to do with the um the ground floor facility that was run out of the the church basement.
I remember the opening of that. We were all very excited and proud. Did that have an operational plan? And was there any followup on if the plan was or was not followed? >> I am not familiar with that, but I'm wondering if Kurt can speak to that.
Good evening, council. Uh Curt Abfeld, Planning and Community Development Department. That um uh shelter was actually uh considered an accessory use to the church facility and so it was not subject to one of these permits.
So with most churches, they have the ability to operate those types of facilities um through both state law and our own rules and regulations. So they didn't have to go through that because it was an accessory use to it.
Um, one other thing that I do want to just just mention, um, all of our permits that we do when we do issue permits for these types of facilities, they all include a c a section or a condition that allows the planning director to modify or change or enforce whenever certain rules are not being held accountable.
So, we do have that ability to make sure that when issues do arise that we have some um react or way to respond to that and to add additional conditions if necessary. >> Um and I I do want to add that the relationship with that staff have with operators is unique in these types of permits.
In most all of them, we condition bi-weekly meetings with staff and quarterly site visits with staff. the fire department and the building official. So, these are heavily regulated uses with a a lot of input and oversight from city staff.
>> Council member Ham >> and Council Member Anderson had her hand up first. >> Sure. Go ahead. >> Thank you. Um I do want to make a comment. Um I do appreciate that tiny home villages have been ran pretty well.
Um there's pretty good safeguards. I understand that, you know, the calls were more likely EMS and those kind of services, but we also had base camp and that was a temporary shelter within a building.
And I kind of wished we would have been a little more transparent because we're putting a paragraph in here stating that it hasn't been that problematic. And we have another situation where I know the businesses and the downtown and issues that happened at that site.
So, they're not all um perfect and we're dealing with issues currently with the way stations. So, and I and I understand there's monitoring, there's collaboration, there's, you know, trying to fix the issues as they come up, but um it hasn't all been a bed of roses with our sighting and some of the behaviors and impacts.
There's definitely been impacts. So I want to just publicly state that I acknowledge that because I think our speaker is pointing out that there's a discrepancy between what we've provided in text and the reality on the ground.
But my question um I understand we're going to be complying with the state law and I understand the the limit on the numbers and we can't I'm assuming do a an area like you can't have so many in the downtown core.
I mean, if they're able to buy the real estate, the state law is not going to let us put those kind of limits in. But my question is is there's a certain amount of decision- making that's going to come from the planning director.
Um, and I assume things on health and safety that if a building only has so many square feet, um, and it's going to be a longerterm temporary shelter, not an emergency weather situation, what are going to be the guidelines that you operate on?
and are those going to be put in writing so that decision making as you know I I hope I retire long before you do from the city of Bellingham but in my time of being active from planning uh commission to now um we've had three planning directors or four um there was a temporary so I worry about legacy decisionmaking and when the planning commission let go of some of the strings that we were able to pull to make certain determinations and we agreed in the comp plan that there could be more director decision.
That was one of my concerns is that as personnel changes so and mayor's office and everything else so does the ideology and I I believe in consistency for the community on what to expect. So I personally would like more information of what certain things are that are going to be a criteria for making those decisions about approval monitoring and what are those deal breakers that are going to require amending those contracts and what at what point of being a community um impact fact that a site could possibly be closed down because I don't think those are going to be decisions that come back to council.
That's going to be stuff that is decided by the planning department and I'd like more information on that. >> Certainly and I'm happy to respond at least initially and we can get you more if if that's appropriate to do so as well.
Um when we came through this effort and wrote the ordinance uh initially and and had a number of the different permits, it's through input from various different staff departments uh through the mayor at the time, through council, through the community, and factor all of those things in and craft and write conditions of approval.
As Sarah has alluded to, um, where the authority comes in in addition to that is the planning director has the opportunity to say if something's not working, maybe it's a a comment that the earlier public speaker made that says, "Okay, we're trying to identify this particular issue, then we have the opportunity to come back in and and hone that in a little further and address that." And it can be to some degree an iterative process and trying to get gain compliance.
Now obviously there's some question about resource availability timing those kind of things but we can look through and are they having the uh desired intent associated with them uh and and we have the opportunity to continue to go through that process and iterate on that and make make those conditions of the approval.
Part of what we looked at, for example, with respect to the um conditions as they exist right now, and we've seen some of that through examples of like using the shelter protection zones or other things that come into play where that wasn't really the initial uh contemplation, but we've refined and continue to go through that process.
So, it's not maybe the absolute that you might be looking for, but it is a collaborative and iterative process that we're trying to go through. >> I guess one of the things follow up. One of the things that I'd be interested in is there a square footage um minimum for uh building um bathroom minimums u like what are we looking at?
Um, I want to make sure that temporary facilities are not warehousing people like cords of wood because there's no safeguards put on there and it's not part of in here that I have that information. >> No, I appreciate that that question.
Um, the ordinance before you does I think it omits some of the code sections that we're retaining. The code has regulations on the number of occupants per square foot. And when we get these applications, it's a joint decision between the planning director and the building official because a lot of this when we're speaking about buildings, it's dictated by building code.
So, we always bring bring in the building official to these decisions. We walk the buildings to make sure that they're appropriate for the number of individuals that they want to temporarily house in the buildings.
And it's a collaborative process. So there's there's code requirements in our code and in building code and then there's still that discretion at the director level. Um so I I hope that answers your question.
>> I guess it's the criteria of the discretion of making that decision is like where is that line where the discretion doesn't exceed that? And I know that's a personal thing. I'm just wondering if it's something that has been kind of written out um departmentally so that someone else coming in is going to have a similar implementation.
And if not, that's fine. It's just I I like things to be predictable and kind of know what we're agreeing to. And that's and I I do understand building code and all that, but it's that director's discretion that has always worried me a little bit so that I know where that threshold line is.
And to be uh clear about it, I think the as Sarah's alluding to the building code and I'll also add in fire uh marshall and life safety components of it. That's those are the non-negotiables. Uh in many of those situations where the where the planning director's discretion comes in is if there are extenduating circumstances that we see in the operation of that shelter or that tiny home village and there is an acute issue that we're trying to continue to address.
Maybe it may maybe it has a need for expanding the rules of uh the code of conduct that was mentioned or um there may be some unanticipated maybe you know dumping of trash in an inappropriate area or something like that where there's a a kind of a secondary issue associated with the operation of that uh that establishment and we're trying to bring in a finer point on that particular it's not I'm not going to override the building official they are and both the building official official and the fire marshal are uh independent in their line of thinking and how they approach some of that and I don't have undue influence on them.
>> Thank you for putting the frame of work in there. >> Council member Hamill. >> Uh yeah, I just wanted to respond to some comments that were made here. Um so the the ground floor was brought up and then um the tiny home village villages that were operated by homes now was also brought up.
I want to point out that neither organization, the leadership that was um present um when those issues occurred, they're they have not been employed there for years. So, I don't legislate in the rearview mirror.
I look through the I want to say windshield, but maybe over the handlebars is more of a Bellingham analogy. Um I do want to acknowledge what the um planning director had mentioned when it comes to um the the SPZs, the shelter protection zones that we created.
Just want to remind folks that we we expanded those around the lighthouse mission from the original proposal that came from planning. We actually went out another you know block or so um around the the mission.
And just to be clear, the shelter protection zones are um they're monitored by the staff of the organization. Um there's another um production zone around the way station and um the the numbers there are at the way station.
So this is medical respit for medically fragile individuals, people who are experiencing homelessness. There's a hygiene side, there's a um a shortterm care side. Um these are folks that are um they're very fragile and they would be released to the street if were it not for this organization.
So, Unity Care on one side, Opportunity Council on the other. Um they're they're well over their the numbers that they projected uh for this year. They're they're far surpassing it. So, I think that this is important that we um move this along.
with all deliberate speed. Um, one thing that I've not noticed over the course of the last few years is that we get to October or November and suddenly we're talking about what are we going to do for, you know, the cold weather months.
We're mid August right now. And I know that we've we have different leadership. We have a different mayor. We have a different planning director. But I don't want to be caught in a in a situation where we're scrambling to come up with solutions.
And I know that this is part of the mosaic of the whole solution. Um, and I don't think that this needs to get referred back to committee. I think that we we've we've known what these issues are for long enough.
Um, this council has seen this for years. So, I'm going to um vote to approve the um this uh council bill 246 uh 35 that's in the packet. >> Motion. >> Is that a motion? >> That's I'm I'm Yeah, I'm making a motion.
Second >> motion by council member Hamill, second by council member Williams. Council member Cotton. >> Yeah, just to bring us back to the why here. We know that the personal and community impacts of homelessness are profound.
Um and um yeah that uh we are really grateful for our community partners who have um stepped up to um help our neighbors and um the work always continues to support them to meet those um those challenges of doing that very difficult work.
So, um, thanks for that motion and, um, I don't know if there's also interest in us adopting the planning commission's findings of fact, um, or if that isn't important or not in that motion. Nope, I'm getting some headshakes.
Um, yeah, but, um, grateful for this. I do have one quick question if that's okay. Um the portion of the code which talks about requiring mitigation of um any parking that is displaced. I wonder if that makes more sense to leave at the director's discretion or if that should be in code or not um or if there had been thought about that.
I'd be curious. >> Yeah, that is a good question. Um we are leaving it in. I know that we have the interim parking ordinance in effect right now, but when it sunsets, we don't know where code will be at.
So, we decided to keep the the parking stuff the same in this code. Um, and just for everybody to know, 2015 allows director discretion to wave any of the regulations within it. Um, so if we do have a case where parking is make or break, we we can look into that further and analyze it more in a permit decision in that public process.
Thank you. >> Part of the consideration that goes into that as well is that through our experience over the last several years and seeing them, we do see uh residents of these communities bring vehicles with them sometimes in various different states of repair.
And so what because we don't have currently a safe parking uh provision in place, we felt like it was prudent to allow for that. Again, as Sarah mentioned, the interim ordinance does kind of supersede that at the moment, but Council member Stone, thank you.
So, a couple of clarifying questions about what we're no longer able to right limit. It sounds like it would still be addressed maybe through director discretion, but 100 seems like a lot, right? I mean, even right now considering the um the coordination with multiple tiny home villages now at North Haven and um you know in Birchwood neighborhood that just doubling to close to 50 feels like a lot and so to not have an up a high-end sort of cap to that because I mean I think some of what Sarah was speaking to you know we haven't witnessed any direct correlations with the numbers but I don't think we've had an experiment quote unquote that's been at that level.
Um, so just wondering how that would be addressed. The other limitation is I know previously there was language relating to 24 hours, right? being open 24 hours and I know that continues to be a point of tension in the community and having those right gaps and and coverage and so not if it can't be addressed here just putting a pin in that of like how do we um work collaboratively with our partners to try and ensure that there is 24hour right coverage even if it's not at one facility so I don't know if those are things that through state they definitely can't be mandated here is what I'm hearing um but hopefully they could be addressed someplace else.
>> Yeah, I I hear you. I think that we we are all we all have question marks about what temporary safe parking would look like. We tried really really hard to get that and we failed. And so I think that's that's one part of revisiting this code and updating it.
Not saying that 100 was a barrier for getting an operator, but I think the purpose of this it this code update is to comply with the RCW and to build in an abundance of flexibility because this is the long game.
We know our numbers right now with point in time data, but we don't know where things will be 5 10 years down the line. So I think what numbers might seem really scary to us now, they might soon become a reality and we want to have that flexibility in place to to look out for our community.
Um as to the 24-hour time limit. Um so this code, it it allows for temporary shelters of various different types. We've got our temporary tiny house villages where it's like a community that's living together for sometimes months or even years.
We also allow overnight shelters under this code. So that that's kind of a bit of a rub in this code and we might update it in the future to define these two things because they operate very differently.
The 24-hour regulation was put into this code originally to prevent queuing on the street because we had a few instances where that was a detriment to neighbors. It affected commerce. Um, but the 24 hours, I mean, if the if the problem is a line on the sidewalk, we want our code to address the line on the sidewalk, not require an operator to operate 24 hours a day.
So, and that's what we've learned from our operators in in regulating this code. Operators have said, "Well, we need to we need to close up and clean house and turn over beds and then open up again." And it's it's not possible for us to be open 24 hours a day.
So, it's really just a queuing issue and we can control that by having them think that through in an operations plan. And if I may expand a little bit on that further, I think part of what is really important is the amount of upfront conversation and communication that happens between city staff and the operator and we we work with them.
So, for example, when you talk about Lighthouse Mission, we know that that was a purpose-built facility that there was a lot of design and intent that went into uh the different functions that that building can support uh and different members of the community because there are different members of this community that come in with a wide ranges of needs.
And so, that purpose-built facility has the ability to meet people where they are in their journey and and with those needs. We had a similar conversation when it came to consolidating in North Haven and talking with the operators and understanding uh kind of the difference between the two villages that were that were coalescing together and understanding what they felt like they could do.
So none of this is just done from a a top- down perspective. It really is a collaborative conversation about what makes sense and how to how to best serve people where they are and help them um you know move through their process.
I'll take a go and then back to council member Anderson. Um I was noting earlier today that um I remember early on on council tiny homes were a pretty controversial t topic. There was a lot of concern from the community.
it hadn't been something we had experienced before and um people were worried about what the impacts would be on the surrounding neighborhoods and I am really relieved to be facing these changes and not really hearing much input from the community.
Um I think that thanks to you know the operators of the tiny home villages as well as the residents um they are accepted and welcome parts of our community now. Um and I would say that people are even hoping to have see more of them and hope hopefully we will see more of them.
Um that's just tiny of course one one type of sheltering that this addresses but um you know we we entered into that cautiously and we've you know let let the rope out on the regulations over time as we've learned more there's a lot more sharing of information that's happening between communities.
um as we learn more and uh communities get more comfortable um accepting these sheltering options into into their their communities. And so I'm happy to support this and I'm happy that we continue to keep improving upon what we've got and adding different options and becoming more creative.
And also thank you to the community for sometimes being a little bit uncomfortable but then adapting. Um I think that we're not going to get these things right. uh at first all the time and so there is a little bit of learning and changing um and improving that will happen.
Um but it's worth it to to be able to help out our our neighbors and our residents in need. So I will go ahead and pass it over to Council Member Anderson. >> Thank you. Um I understand the changes and I do support many of them.
I will voice that I have some hesitation and and I understand we can't limit the numbers but I have some hesitation of not being able to limit sighting um to like regional areas in order to be able to um minimize impacts.
So part of that is, you know, 10 years from now if half of downtown closes and it all becomes temporary shelter, obviously there would be impacts and then I know it's our responsibility to mitigate the impacts as best as we can.
I don't think we have a lot of choice in uh addressing that concern. So we're just going to have to be really good with our agreements and making sure that we have best practices to um try to minimize that.
Um, but I'm hoping um, back when I was on planning is when this came forward and we worked on it and I made multiple calls um, to other states to talk to providers and I was thinking about that uh, when I was reading through this that one of the things that a few providers said that was very successful is because they couldn't operate 24/7 um, because they didn't have the staffing and the resources.
And so when it came to safe parking, um they had a site location and people they did have queuing up um but people would come in at a certain time. They would open the gates for 3 to four hours. people would come in and get set up and at a certain time people left and they had again like a you know 3- 4 hour exit and they had things on site that if somebody needed a battery jump or they needed some fuel or something and then if a vehicle just couldn't leave they worked towards fixing that vehicle with other grants to make sure that that person had mobile transportation but there was usually like eight hours that they weren't technically in operation so they were able to just have somebody in security and that lessened the overall and because of volunteers they didn't have as much burnout and it seemed to be a pretty successful model and um I always worried about the 24 because that's a lot of resources for provider and we've never been successful putting out our request um for partnership to bring in safe parking.
So, my question after all of that, um, I know city finances are difficult at this time and I don't know if we're going to have city finances in the next year to be able to put out a request for proposal for a partnership for safe parking, but is that something that we're looking at?
If there is the funding and one pool of money we can utilize, are we going to reair that with the new criteria that might be able to draw some interest? because I imagine operating 24/7 was a huge barrier of finding somebody interested in providing that service here.
>> Um, let me give a little context for those that may not be as familiar as you likely are. Um, so the city has gone through and made two attempts at the safe parking. The first one predated my time with the city, but the second one I was here involved with.
And in both situations, we put out the RFP asking for providers uh to come to the city uh with a site in hand uh with knowing where they were going to operate. And we were hoping that uh in some respects that they would partner with faith-based organizations or other uh facilities that might have additional land in available.
Neither one of those proved successful um and for various reasons. The city has also taken an opportunity under the prior mayoral administration in looking at um city-owned properties and did not identify any uh truly viable sites in that respect.
Now, could we take another look at it? Absolutely. Um and certainly, you know, willing to do so. Um, I'm going to sound like a little bit of a broken record and then and then there's some prioritization to that.
Had we do we if we had an operator or somebody coming to the city to do that, we could certainly spin that up relatively quickly, but I'll defer to the mayor and let her comment on as well. >> I think that's a conversation that we're all open to exploring.
Um right now um in response to the housing executive order which called for a new additional tiny home village, we are working in the 26th budget to um hold aside some land acquisition funds for a tiny home village.
But if you would rather see that redirected, we can have that conversation. I guess it depends because if we were able to purchase land and then there's the infrastructure cost that could go into millions to get the power and everything else that is needed.
If it was suitable that in an interim of two years it could be used for parking which may not require as much infrastructure in order to support it. It might be a good stop gap for a temporary use of purchased property until the next round of funding was available.
Just something to think about as we look at property, maybe keeping an eye on the ability for dual purpose. >> And it would also be helpful if that is the direction we were to receive to understand the distinction of whether or not we want to the first RFP tried to limit it to just uh passenger vehicles, so cars, trucks, vans.
The second attempt we tried to include RVs, mobile homes. very different dynamic when you're talking about that especially when you get into what we call junk vehicles where they are no longer operational and now it becomes a concern about what you do with that and this the salvage value and those kinds of things.
So if there is a desire to go that way understanding a little bit of what maybe the goal or intent is will help kind of uh keep our our scope fairly focused. >> Council member Loquist. Yeah. Well, first I want to talk about the the safe parking thing.
I um I believe the Watcom County Health Department has also indicated that potential safe parking is on their to-do list. So, it is not just on us. And I would I would offer to the mayor that I would I would read the our I would read our our desires flexibly that yeah, if if safe parking fits in the mix, no one's going to be opposed to it.
But the fact that we're looking for a site for a tiny home village, I think that is the first and best place to start. But, you know, wherever the opportunities take us, we should be open to it. Um, with regard to the size limit um for tiny home villages, I mean, I I I agree 100 is a lot.
The reason and the thinking at the time was not to limit the number of people who can find refuge and safety in community in tiny home villages, but to limit the size of any one place. and that was to create a sense of community, safety, continuity within that community.
Um, that's still a valid concern. I would still be very hesitant to uh approve or or have, you know, the administration approve a 100 unit facility. That may be necessary. It it may be what happens. But there we we saw in the earlier discussions and the first iteration of the homeless strategies work group that a large congregate shelter was problematic simply due to the large part and we had the same sort of thinking with regard to these smaller not drop in not congregate but selected communities.
Uh we're currently looking at one that can be up to uh 50 homes or maybe under 50 but individuals around 50 or more and that community size may work too. Um so uh my comment is there was never an attempt to limit the number of tiny home villages.
There was rather an attempt to come up with a good operational number that was most beneficial to the inhabitants of that village. I think that's still a valid concern. I would I would suggest that the planning director still has sort of that sort of thing in mind when any individual application comes forward and we consider the particularities of that particular situation.
I think that's still something should go into our thinking. And I I would say that uh it's been our experience that the operators want to be successful and oftent times they are imposing their own limiting factors on their ability to adequately staff and resource the facility and so we often times are not the limiting factor when it comes to that.
They want to make sure that they are providing the services to >> right there's a good size and it's not 500 and it's not 10 and and we should be flexible and listen to the operators too and the the residents.
>> I I do want to add to that um the code change it still retains the director's authority to consider and this is directly from code to consider such factors as size and location of the site the surrounding uses and other contextual factors.
Um and then we have the authority to reduce the number of people housed in a temporary shelter. Um based on characteristics of the population served and necessary services to be provided. So code does consider all of these nuances.
Every site is going to be different. Every operator will be different. So we're still retaining that authority. We're getting rid of the of the 100 or the the various caps on individuals served in each shelter, but we're still looking at it through that same lens.
I think it's also somewhat challenging and you all are probably familiar with this when we have a point in time count that's at near approaching a thousand individuals um and we have limitations uh for 300 and we know we're not meeting the need all things being considered equal and uh providers are a critical portion but not to have a code restriction that limits us to be able to meet and rise to the challenge uh we view as problematic.
So we're trying to just take those constraints off. We still think there's good planning to do. There's collaboration as I've already discussed with the operator and so all those things will continue.
Council member Stone, >> my question is related to the um I guess different treatment within the ordinance of temporary safe parking areas, temporary tent encampments and temporary tiny house encampments, right?
And then temporary building encampments, those tend to be treated differently. And so when looking at the frequency and duration, the first group that includes parking in tent and tiny homes, it references that the initial period is 2 years with the potential for consecutive one-year renewals.
And then the temporary building encampments, it's an initial period of five years. And then it says may grant one or more, which I think is the same but stated a little differently, but consecutive one-year extensions.
And so I was just curious if that those differences are intentional, and if so, why? And how they're how they're viewed differently, those two scenarios. So temporary building encampments have a fiveyear have five years as its base because it aligns with building code.
There's this exemption uh in state law that says buildings may be exempt from state building code if they house indig if they house the homeless. Um and so we've used that before with various cases like base camp had had this exemption from state building code.
It requires a council resolution um to authorize. So it it is regulated a diff a little differently in our code because of this broader state law. The two years for the other village types was used because again we had the most data from temporary tiny house villages.
That 2-year operational period we've seen it play out. We've permitted various temporary village temporary tiny house villages at that 2-year mark and it provides us enough time as regulators to see how the village operates and it gives them enough certainty that they'll have a space and employment for staff to to actually invest in these operations and go for a permit.
So the the two years was it was to create consistency with what we've seen play out with temporary tiny house villages and and the the differences in the language. It's semantics. It's it's the same thing renewal or extension.
Okay. >> The thought with the one year is simply as long as they're on good standing and there's no need to come back and address the conditions then we're going to roll. The previous code section had a cap of five years.
So, we've taken that off and just given the amount of investment that goes into getting some of these stood up, we wanted to say, okay, if they're if they are functioning well, then there shouldn't really there should be that checkin and make sure that we're doing that.
As Sarah mentioned, we have those meetings, but actually having a permit extension, if you will. >> Motion on the table. Any further discussion? Again, the motion is uh moved to adopt the planning commission's finding of fact, conclusions, and recommendations, and approve the proposed ordinance amending the temporary shelter regulations in BMC 20.15.
All in favor say I. >> I. I. >> Any opposed or abstensions? That passes 70. Great. Thank you so much. Moving on, we have the mayor's report. Good evening, council. Good evening, staff and members of the community that are here tonight.
Uh to begin with mayor's report, I am seeking an appointment to the civil service and it's for your approval and I am seeking to appoint Mimi Turin to fill a partial term on the civil service. >> Move approval.
>> Second. >> Motion by council member Liiloquist and a second by council member Williams. Any further discussion? Seeing none, all in favor say I. >> I. I. >> Any opposed or abstensions? That passes 70.
>> Thank you. Next, I'm making four appointments to the mayor's neighborhood advisory committee, and this is for your information. Those appointments are John Kain Roning to a first term in the Silver Beach Neighborhood.
Katie Herson Horvath to a first term as the Birchwood Neighborhood Representative. Lindseay Payne Johnson to a first full term as the City Center neighborhood representative. and William Beer as a second term as the Edgemore neighborhood representative.
>> Move approval. >> Go ahead. >> Just as a note in the formatting in the original packet, Williams bill's name was cut off. So, >> oh, >> and mayor, this one says it's for information only. Do you need our >> Yes.
>> approval? You do need our approval. >> No, sorry. I ask for your approval. It's been a long day. >> We're up here >> for your information. >> We're all there with you. >> All right. Um, last but not least, I think um something that's colored all of our conversations throughout the day is um considerations about the city's fiscal picture.
So, the city's financial picture is top of mind for all city leaders as we look towards this fall and deliberations about crafting the 2026 budget. This morning, we presented our most current information to both labor leaders and to city council.
And in both meetings, we shared the difficult news that we must work together to address a $10 million anticipated shortfall in the general fund as well as constraints in other funds. We are committed to transparency as we seek to develop lasting solutions to resolve these financial circumstances.
The reality is that the short-term revenue solutions and reductions we've used in recent years are not sustainable pathways to close the city's financial gap. The dip into our emergency reserves obligates us to be cleareyed as we are looking at deeper structural solutions to move us forward.
We are committed to working together together with labor across the city and all of our employees working together with council members and alongside of our broader community to explore sustainable solutions.
We will present the preliminary 2026 budget to council on Monday, September 29th. This will be followed by budget deliberations with council and conversations with our labor groups throughout October and November with council action on the budget scheduled in December.
The council must adopt a balanced budget by the end of 2025 and we are all committed together to doing our best to keep you up to date as we move through the budget process this fall. And that concludes mayor's report tonight.
Thank you. >> Thank you, mayor. Up next, we have committee reportouts. Uh this afternoon or this morning, we started with the budget and finance committee and that was chaired by council member Anderson.
Thank you, Council President. We had two items before us today. Um, and joining me um on committee uh was Council Member Dan Hamill and Council Member Michael Lilloquist. Um, bill number 24640, a 2025 second quarter financial review.
There was a presentation that provided a summary of the city's financial position through the second quarter of 2025. The June 2025 financial report is attached to the agenda bill and provides detailed um information related to the period.
This presentation and additional apologies financial information is available on the city's website at co.org/finance/reports. Um as the mayor uh basically shared uh we are looking at a a budget shortfall.
Um the information that was provided to us uh today shows that a lot of our revenue streams are pretty much flatlining but things are more expensive. So whether it's uh employee benefits or increasing employee wages um we're kind of getting that alligator bite that um we're just not keeping up.
So, we'll be looking forward to or not forward to the future, but um within the next month or two, we'll be looking at how we're going to be addressing that budget shortfall. Um and that leads me to item number two.
Um the bill number on that uh presentation was for information only. Um bill number 24648. um a resolution authorizing the mayor to take all steps necessary to prepare an ordinance or resolution for the council consideration that imposes a sales tax of onetenth of 1% as authorized by the engross substitute house bill uh 2015 adopted by the state legislature in April 2026 2025 and it becomes effective July 27th 2025 as part of The 2025 legislative session, the state legislator legislature created an additional onetenth of 1% sales tax for criminal justice.
The new tax can be imposed councilmatically providing the city meets the requirements of the local law enforcement grant program created by the same legislation. To impose a tax on January 1st, 2026, the city must adhere to all strict timelines that include submitting our eligibility documentation as soon as possible.
Submitting the documentation in no way binds the city to imposing the tax. It merely creates the opportunity um to do this in the future. So, one of the things that was discussed was that we have a very short timeline in order to pull all the documents together, apply um for a grant and also for um the ability to increase uh the sales tax by the onetenth of 1%.
Um so, we had that discussion and I'll make comment that the motion was made. Um, but again, this is so that we can go forward with that additional information in order to be eligible and then as we find out whether or not we're approved, um, council will be able to have that say in the future whether or not, um, we're actually going to implement it.
Um, the expectation is that in 2026 it could possibly provide up to 4 million. Um there are very specific uses for the funding which would be through the criminal justice system and for police. Um it some of the um requirements is certain types of training um that it's been identified what we already are in compliance with and what might be additional.
Um so this is not a given but it's a process to ensure that we'll be eligible should we decide to in the future. So after discussion, a motion was made for approval and the three on committee had moved approval and so I move second >> motion by the chair and a second by council member Hamill.
Any further discussion? >> Seeing none, all in favor say I. >> I. >> Any opposed or abstensions? That passes 70. >> End of committee. >> Thank you, council member Anderson. And then up next we had public works and natural resources and that was chaired by council member Stone.
>> Thank you. Um so this morning I was joined on the public works and natural resources committee by council members Anderson and Cotton. We had one item before us this morning. That was agenda bill 24638.
Subject is to reject all bids of the Bellingham Police Department Envelope Repairs Project. This was EF-153. bid number 41B-20225. This project was initiated to address water infiltration occurring on the exterior of the Bellingham Police Department building.
The city publicly opened two bids on August 6th, 2025. CDK Construction LLC was the responsible bidder who submitted the lowest responsive bid of 1,875,845.31 including any applicable sales or use tax.
The engineer's estimate for this project was $925,000. Because the lowest responsive bid was significantly higher than the engineers's estimate, staff recommended rejecting all bids, the project will be rebid um once review and adjustments are made to the project scope.
We're anticipating that that rebid will happen later this year, potentially in December um with anticipated work beginning to be executed in hopefully spring of 2026. In the interim, staff will um continue to do patching and minor repairs to the building.
It appears that the engineers estimate, you know, addressed potential unknown costs to the additional rot repair that may or may not be um need to be addressed once the facade was removed as part of this project.
Um but discussions with the bidding contractors um revealed that that uncertainty in the extent of masonry and stucco repairs that may be needed was the root cause of significant discrepancies between the engineers bid and the bids that were received.
So there was a unanimous recommendation and motion from the committee this morning to reject all bids for Bellingham Police Department envelope repairs and I so move. >> Second motion by the chair, second by council member Anderson.
Council member Anderson. >> Um, thank you. I just wanted to add that the question was made um regarding concern of mold because we do have employees working in that building and when you have uh water infiltration um on exterior walls there's the possibility and so staff did share that some of the drywall they have taken it out to ensure that we're not dealing with a situation of mold that could compromise the health and safety of our employees.
So deferring this until perhaps uh fixing it until spring um is not going to cause any undue harm um unknown to our staff. >> Any further discussion? All right, seeing none, all in favor say I. >> I. >> Any opposed or abstensions?
The passes 70. End of committee. >> Thank you, Council Member Stone. Up next we this afternoon we had community and economic development and that was chaired by council member Cotton. >> Great. And you've caught me unprepared.
Forgot we had one today. Um we had one agenda item before us today. Um that was a presentation from the uh Port of Bellingham on um the um thank you Michael. Um on the Wakom County industrial land study.
Um so the Port of Bellingham commissioned a study to assess the adequacy of industrial land in Wakom County including Bellingham to support future employment growth over the next 20 years. um as the county's associate development organization, the port um works to analyze um in this report um industrial land supply, economic and industry trends and development potential.
Um the study will be used to identify priority areas for infrastructure investment, zoning changes, and other policy recommendations to support industrial growth in appropriate areas. Um and the study's focus included um industrial lands within Bellingham and its urban growth areas.
Uh we had a rich discussion with lots of questions and I would um recommend the public um go and and listen to that recording. We expect more conversations on um many of the things discussed in in the near future.
Um that was for information and discussion only. Um and with that end of committee report. Thank you, Council Member Cotton. All right. And then up next, we had Committee to the whole. There were three items on our agenda.
First up, we had agenda bill 24608, an ordinance relating to the annexation of approximately 146 acres of unincorporated property located adjacent to the northern boundary of the Bellingham city limits and commonly known as the Britain Road Northern Heights annexation, assigning city land use and zoning designations, and establishing an effective date.
consideration of a petition by property owners to annex 146 acres into the city of Bellingham. The annexation area is located within the city's northern urban growth area and is adjacent to the Barkley neighborhood.
On March 25th, 2024, the city council held a public meeting and approved resolution 2024-02 to initiate the review process for this request. The Watcom County Boundary Review Board deemed the annexation approved on March 24th, 2025.
The final step in the annexation process as a public hearing and decision by the council as a as to whether or not it is in the city's best interest to approve the annexation. The city council held a public hearing on this item on July 21st, 2025 and referred it to committee of the whole for further deliberation.
uh we further deliberated this afternoon the no notice of intention can be found in the packet for the July 21st 2025 meetings at meetings.co.org or and after a very lengthy of discussion, there was a motion to not approve >> reject >> the annexation request uh with a mixed vote and I so move >> second >> motion by the chair, second by council member Anderson.
Further discussion. Council member Loquist. >> I'm gonna vote no. Um not because I don't understand uh the reasons for other council members concerns um which have to do with uh the fact that over the long run.
There's a question about whether or not this city will be able to will incur a negative economic impact. So it'll grow our tax base, it'll grow our revenues, but it'll also grow our obligations for services.
Um, and I I understand the legitimacy of that concern, but this is a poster child for what growth management is supposed to look like, where we do orderly annexations along our boundaries to keep contiguous areas in places that are well served or easily served by infrastructure.
And this area already is fully served by water, sewer, and surface streets that are already built to city standards. This is the sort of property we're supposed to be able to annex. And the fact that we can't, I think, is a problem that doesn't really relate to the annexation itself.
And so rather than reject this bid, I was hoping we could defer action on this the same way we deferred action on an earlier annexation. That one we deferred for too long. Um, but I would hope that we could have deferred action to try to figure out a solution for this because we will need to find ways to continue to grow and we will also need to find ways to deal with the financial implications of those annexations.
Council member HL. >> Yeah. So, I'm going to be voting in favor of uh rejecting this um proposal. We are the city of of Bellingham is um has a $10 million shortfall at this point. And um earlier uh in the day in budget and finance, we had talked about um imposing a sales tax of one10enth or 1%.
that would theoretically get us to maybe a $4 million um number that would cut that 10 million to to 6 million. Um and this um the culvert um repairs and installations alone in this in this what we're talking about right here is right now it's 1.875 million.
That's in today's dollars. And we know that by the time this all comes through, which is would be between 2030 and 2035, that due to inflation, tariffs, cost of goods, that's probably going to be north of $2 million.
Um, and so I don't want to go backwards on on budget and I appreciate the council members um perspective and I I do agree that this it it is a poster child uh for what we could be um bringing into the city if it were 2005 and it's not.
It's it's 2025. We have a a severe shortage right now. So I appreciate your comments, council member, and I I and I do agree with you, but um I just can't support this at this point. Council member Anderson.
>> Um I had made the motion and one of my well couple of reasons I'm not supporting it. Um when you have a hole, you don't bring an excavator to dig the hole bigger. And this is just an example in excavator coming in.
But decisions were made by past councils and administration that allowed the urbanization of an area um probably with the intent of eventually bringing it in. But that was done 20 years ago. And sometimes, well, things change.
And a good example for me is what happened at Post Point. For dozens of years, if not longer, the city pursued sewer digestion. And we put a lot of money in it, a lot of research, a lot of time. But as we got closer to really pulling the trigger, we were kind of getting down to the final stretch.
we were given with a lot more information that showed that it was kind of a fool's folly to pursue because of a lot of environmental uh challenges that would have faced us with the material left over with PAS and I had conversations with various employees who pushed back on me because they were like we've been in this planning phase longer than you've been here.
um basically told smaller people had made these decisions years ago and I just needed to kind of get in line and follow step. Um I don't deal well with that kind of um response and so fellow council members stood up and we kind of fought the fight of this is not a very sound environmental decision and for other reasons and that the process stopped and 20 years ago we didn't have the information on climate change.
We didn't have our priorities that we were going to build up the city and not sprawl it out. And we are going to be working on information really doing an analysis of our um UG area and it may show that this is a smart direction to go and it may show that it's not.
But my concerns other than the cost and basically I see it as employees who will not have a job because in the short term in three years we're going to have to spend um almost $400,000 a year. That is for sure known um in a budget crisis.
But I just don't think we need to be building east. um that may not be our best long-term investment when it comes to uh housing payoff versus cost to the city. Yes, we do need more housing, but do we need to create more sprawl that people are getting in a vehicle and transporting long distances or do we need to be putting our infrastructure and kind of our eggs in a basket to be more consolidated on large transportation corridors that are going to have the services.
We have food deserts in our inner city area, yet we're looking at expansion into an area that doesn't have grocery stores. It doesn't have amenities. And that to me is not smart development overall. We need to make sure I mean not walkable distance to those type of services.
So, you know, the more I think about it is just environmentally and community-wise, it just doesn't seem to be the right decision. Things could change with um further analysis. There's always the ability to bring this back with that new information, but I didn't want to pause it and have people kind of in limbo for a period of time waiting to make decisions about their property thinking that we might bring it in.
Plus the staffing time and resources because when we're looking at our infrastructure and where we're going to be um upgrading things, if we have this halo out here of possibility, then we're going to have to take that consideration.
Right now, the consideration is off the table because it's not in a holding pattern. If we decide to bring it in, then we can really look at the overall cost. But it to me, I'm not supporting it because I just don't think it's the right time.
As council member stated, it might have been the right time in 2005 and it should have been done then. >> Council member Cotton, >> I'm going to abstain again today. And um while I am still a skeptic, um I just don't quite feel like I've got the information I would need to make a decision um related to to um housing potential.
And so uh yeah, recognize all of the concerns and um but just absentions don't signify anything. So I thought I'd would share why. I'll go ahead and add we heard from quite a few very nice folks that would really like to be able to officially call themselves Bellingham City residents and um I'm sorry to disappoint those folks today, but um I agree with with my fellow council members that have some concerns about this, particularly the financial ones.
Um it's difficult facing the the the budget outlook that we have right now to consider uh making that hole a little deeper. Um and and yeah, it's it comes down to who is it that we would potentially have to cut on staff in order to make room uh for this action.
And so um and I I also do have some concerns with the levels of service, particularly with our first responders uh getting that far out east. Um, and if if we I I would I wouldn't I wouldn't feel good about uh potentially affecting our our response times um or put putting more of a burden on on uh those first responders um without some real real consideration that we're we're going to be adding more to um their ability to to answer those calls.
So, um I will be supporting the motion. Any further? Okay. All in favor say I. >> I. >> Any opposed? >> No. >> Abstensions. >> That passes 511. And up next we have agenda bill 24641 consideration of an ordinance for the vacation of a portion of Donovan an Avenue generally between 35th and 36 streets.
Is that a official term? Generally between um the petitioner proposes to vacate the subject of a subject rightway for additional land division opportunities. The hearing examiner held an open public hearing on June 23rd, 2004.
Yes, that is 2004 on the proposed vacation and recommended approval of the vacation. The hearing examiner's finding of fact, conclusions, and recommendation are an exhibit to the attached ordinance. City council held a closed record hearing on October 11th, 2004 and approved the vacation.
However, an ordinance finalizing the vacation was never presented to council. Um, the committee recommended approval and I so move. >> Second. Motion by the chair and a sec. Second by council member Liiloquist.
Any further discussion? Seeing none, all in favor say I. >> I. >> Any opposed or abstensions? That passes 70. And finally, we had agenda bill 24642 uh 2025 carbon mitigation grant update. In 2007, the city adopted the city of Bellingham climate protection action plan as official policy in response to the growing awareness of the global climate crisis.
In May 2018, the council adopted the updated climate action plan as policy with new emissions reduction targets. In 2023 and 2024, the city created action plans for the areas of building electrification, lowcarbon transportation, and renewable energy.
Staff provided updates on progress on current carbon emissions reduction grants awarded to the city. And I would say on that one, if you are interested in this subject, take a look back at the video at meetings.cu.
co.org for some updates on what we're doing here as a city uh to meet our climate action goals. Uh old and new. >> Council member Hamilton. >> Yeah. I just wanted to um extend a um sincere appreciation to Bellingham Police Department for allowing me to ride along with our bike patrol unit last Thursday.
um Sergeant Especiian Officer Alves um uh in addition to riding very fast um they they're very effective at what they do. It was really clear to me that they um they they build relationships on um compassion and they know a lot of folks um in our downtown area by name uh including folks who are homeless or um uh perhaps um addicted to um opiate um opiates.
And uh it just really came through that we I'm just really really proud of our police department and our fire department. Um, and I think that it um I think our officers really reflect the values that are are part of the broader community and um just really um was just really happy to to be out with them for a few hours on a nice day and uh riding around and talking to people, making contact with with folks and I look forward to to doing it again.
So, thank you. >> Council member Stone, I have a couple of old and new items. I guess first I will piggy back on council member Hamill um because earlier this month I had an opportunity to join officer um Tanner Bass on a ride along for I think we were out for a little over four hours maybe four and a half and during that time so his coverage is downtown typically um in the downtown corridor but I think during that period of time I experienced most things that officers might encounter in a in a day but um some of that was following up with an individual who had, you know, a sexual assault report from an old incident but needed to um share that information with a law enforcement officer.
And so just witnessing, you know, his demeanor and how in very sensitive um topic area to um to communicate with community member about that as well as um yeah, encounters with individuals the downtown core who either in alleyways or in vehicles.
Um you know, following up and checking in on individuals. Um, as well as then we had a a code call that sent us to North Cordata with lights and sirens. And so that was the adrenaline rush, but also just the um the willingness that officer Bass had to sort of talk through, right, sort of what's going through in his mind and what you're having to prepare for or what you're thinking about, right, during um one that just trip there.
um but also based on the limited information you may have prior to arrival, right? All the things that you have to take into account as far as public safety as well as officer safety and other um officers who may be joining us at that location and knowing that the other officer meeting us there had a trainee with them.
Um so just the complexities of every situation that that you might encounter. an opportunity to witness just joint jurisdictional work um with another local law enforcement agency down south where there had been a coordinated effort earlier that day to um to help them um track down somebody who was basically you know on the run from a crime committed further down south.
But just the shared resources and ability to communicate to to carry that out as well as then, you know, jail bookings interacted with bike patrol um because there was a effort where then bike patrol had um detained somebody but needed a a vehicle to help transport them to to the jail and then went through evidence.
um and you know how you take that evidence into custody and and so it just felt like you know throughout the day even in that um very limited time and sort of glimpse um really saw a lot and the the opportunities that he took to really engage in you know community policing and saying well this isn't necessarily an infraction or an issue that you know we would need to you know enforce but the fact that it's happening as an opportunity to engage with members the public, one for education, um, andor just to do those well checks and and, um, you know, make sure that the community is as healthy as possible and that you're helping to promote that that broader public safety.
So, it really was I just also want to extend the appreciation and condolences that I know he had extra report writing time probably at the end of that shift because he entertained all of my questions understanding that you know sometimes when you get a break during your shift you might be trying to compile those you know those reports um throughout the day so that they don't they don't pile up.
Um, but just wanting to also note that I understand that when we take ride alongs, it's a, you know, a great advantage for us to have that first, you know, first-person glimpse that that the work that's going on day in and day out.
But I understand that coordination of that as well as just the time of, you know, that officer takes is can be a heavy lift. So, wanting to acknowledge Chief Mertzig and Deputy Chief Day Jay Hart um as well as Lieutenant Kyle Nelson just for, you know, coordinating that that opportunity.
Um it had been some time since I'd had a chance to go out. So um yeah, just great appreciation for just the complexity of what our law enforcement officers face on a daily basis. Um so great appreciation.
I have others if people don't have I also have two but you can go ahead and go back. >> Okay, this one should be quick maybe. Um, we have, it has been requested that the council appoints a member to attend the WTA board composition review meeting.
>> I move that we appoint uh, council member Skip Williams to join that committee. >> Second. >> Motion's been made by council member Locist and second by council member Hamill. Any further discussion?
Seeing none, all in favor say I. >> I. >> Any opposed or abstensions? That passes 70. Congratulations. more responsibilities. >> It's only one day. >> Council member Stone. >> Okay, coming back to me.
So, the next report out is from a um as I'll say a site visit that Mayor Lond and I were able to um take recently out to the Middlefork NooKack River to witness the diversion dam um right restoration project that that took place there.
a long list of people to thank who went out with us that day. So, as I mentioned, Mayor Lun was on that trip as well as the um public works director Joel Fun, thank you for your time. And deputy director um Mike Olinger as well as so the plants engineer Steven Day and project engineer, you know, obviously the project engineer who oversaw removal of the Middlefork Noac River dam.
So the the depth of just knowledge that he was able to share throughout throughout the day about the history and complexities and what brought us to um to the completion of that pro that project as well as um Brent Baldwin joined us, superintendent of maintenance, as well as Morgan Ruff, natural resources special projects manager.
Mike Perilskin, natural resources field manager, who now with new title, field operations superintendent um for natural resources and um so Nick Leninger, chief operator for water within public works and Steven Bradshaw, superintendent of plants.
Um but this project was a big right undertaking by the city and just wanting to highlight that city of Bellingham as many of us already know operates a water diversion dam on the Middle Fork Nooks River approximately 20 miles east of the city of Bellingham.
The city has diverted water from the middle fork since 1962 to supplement its main water supply source like Watcom water um from the middle fork and that that water is diverted you know intermittently but mostly during winter and spring high flows um and in compliance with instream um flow requirements but from the river then the water flows through a 1.6 6 mile long tunnel um and 9.5 mile long pipe into Mirror Lake and then into Anderson Creek which empties into Lake Watcom and so following throughout the day right the entire sort of course of that that water and it really highlighted I think to the you know um everything that happens behind the scenes on a very grand scale to ensure that the residents of Bellingham right when you turn on your tap that fresh water comes out and it's clean and um and that it's always there when you turn on turn on your tap.
Um but this project was, you know, to restore fish habitat and passage for endangered salmon and trout species here locally as well as to maintain obviously the city's drinking water supply. Um but this project, you know, 20 million dollars or upward um for this project to be completed was really um a testament to to the broad part partnerships and coordination that's required sometimes to bring projects of this size to fruition.
Um, so those partners including obviously the city of Bellingham but also LMI Nation, NooKack Indian Tribe, the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife as well as US Fish and Wildlife Services, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, part of the US Department of Commerce, Resources Legacy Fund, American Rivers, and the Paul G.
Allen Family Foundation, name a few. But just to, you know, to raise the money um and coordinate that effort to to bring that project um to fruition is really impressive. And then just thinking about the technology at this point, the ability then to operate that facility in the dam right 20 miles away at Post Point um is pretty, you know, remarkable.
But to see the site and the pictures from, you know, before and after that dam was removed. I know some council members had an opportunity to visit that site during um I think it was during the pandemic, right, as that work was finishing up and the um the explosion to remove the rocks and um just to see it now and how um one just the beauty of of the site, but the the rushing river and to to know that those improvements have have been made.
It's also, you know, one of the things we were talking about earlier today, thinking about the coverts, right, in the property proposed for annexation, seeing that the city of Bellingham really has been a a leader in right, in this work and um helping to secure safe um you know, safe passage for for fish and and how important that is to you know, culturally to this area as well to as to the tribes.
Um, and so thinking as as we've continued to grow and expand that work here locally, um, that it really is an example, I think the tribes and and others will be able to, you know, to use as a model and to encourage other jurisdictions to to do the same.
Um, so just wanting to extend appreciation to again the public works team for for the opportunity to go out and have that um, yeah, firsthand view and just the deep the deep education as well that um, Steve was able to provide throughout the day.
So great appreciation and I don't know if there's anything to to add, Marilyn, but thank you for joining. >> I I think Council Member Stone just did an incredibly thorough summary of what it was like.
Um I think we all have deep appreciation for our drinking water and the high quality and um our commitment to protecting our drinking water source. Um but it was definitely um an eyeopening and highly educational experience to get to go see um the complexity of that engineering project, the extraordinarily high quality to which um we designed that facility and then just it was humbling and all inspiring to see the river flowing freely adjacent to that engineering structure.
And it's an incredible example of um what a public private partnership can accomplish. The American River um and the Paul Allen Foundation made deep um philanthropical gifts to enable that project in such a t quick timeline.
And so um it was it it was a day where I learned a lot and have a new appreciation for what comes out when I turn on my tap at my house. So yeah, thanks for going along with me, Council Member Stone. >> One more.
If nothing, go for it. So the last one, actually, this was a it's sponsored by the mayor's office, but I just want to highlight because there is a bin outside of chambers. um that will be there up until September 30th, but there's a community court food drive going on right now, a call for food and clothing donations to be placed um in one of the boxes here at city hall um that will help support the community court participants.
So, as you know, the city has been working to um stand up this community court um over at municipal court and that participants in the program really benefit from the food pantry that is currently set up at the at the courthouse.
And so these individuals who are navigating the court system and coordination with other support services um to really help provide additional support that they need to address the you know problems that they may have encountered at the court but really to make strides to hopefully not see that recidivism or you know continued problems.
And so one of the key pieces has been um yeah is having the food pantry there. So appreciation to the mayor's office for instating that food drive and again that will be going on food and clothing through September 30th.
Thanks. >> Thank you, Council Member Stone. One last item. Uh so if you've enjoyed watching our meetings from home on BTV, you've probably come to take for granted a level of excellence. I want to acknowledge the hard work and expertise of staff members Ben Skull Scudlaric.
Never said your name. Ben and Adam Gberg, who are behind the videos and broadcasts. You see, Ben and Adam recently earned eight awards from the National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors Government Programming Awards.
This tally includes top awards in the public and community meetings category for uh council meeting coverage, arts and entertainment category for a video about silent disco parties, and community awareness category for a video about the downtown forward plan.
We know they're good and people across the nation know they're good and getting better. Last year, BTV earned first place awards in the public education and program promotion categories. So they are building on their success.
Ben and Adam also do a great deal of other work for the city from providing audiovisisual at gatherings to photographing events. Their videos and broadcast connect people with city government and truly capture the life of the community.
Thank you Ben and Adam for your excellent work and congratulations on your welldeserved recognition. Thanks guys. Okay. Uh consent agenda. No. Got a lot today. Executive session. We had one item potential potential litigation with Herb.
Staff provided information on a potential litigation matter. I'll now entertain a motion to authorize the mayor to execute all documents necessary for the city of Bellingham to participate in nine additional national opioid settlements that were recently announced by the attorney general's office with Purdue Pharma and the Sackler family as well as eight generic opioid manufacturers including Alvagen, Amnile, Apotex, Hikma, Indivorin Sun and Zidus.
>> So moved. >> Second >> motion by council member Williams, second by council member Anderson. Any further discussion? >> Seeing none. All in favor say I. >> I. >> I. Any opposed or abstensions? That passes.
70. >> Consent agenda. >> Move to approve. >> Second. >> Motion by council member Hamill. Second by council member Williams. Any council member Stone. Right. So one item on the consent agenda. I just wanted to highlight I had an opportunity to speak with Chief Merzig briefly but agenda bill 24646 this is an interlocal with the US department of justice um funded state and local task task force agreement.
So this is reimbursement from the drug enforcement administration again US agency um for overtime worked for Bellingham police officers assigned to the Watcom County Drug Task Force. Um and so a couple of questions I had was one was whether or not um these assignments since it's on a reimbursement basis if there was concern about whether or not right something could change and if that reimbursement didn't come forward if this was still right a good use of officer time and and those um assignments to help with the the drug task force and understanding that that that is a you know good use and vested interest that we have locally and The other question was regarding the task.
It was highlighted in the agreement that the task force members and those officers assigned shall adhere to DEA policies and procedures and that they are um sort of deputized as task force officers of the DEA.
And so just confirming with chief chief Mertzig that um she was confident in the oversight that the local police department was able to maintain during those contracts um to not have any concerns about potential conflicts with our own local policies and procedures.
So um with that no concerns raised but I just wanted to um yeah to highlight that you any further discussion seeing none all in favor say I. I I >> Any opposed or abstensions? That passes 70. >> Final consideration of ordinances.
Um and on number two and number three, I have some amendments to those motions as well. So, >> all right. First up, agenda bill 24634, an ordinance relating to the preservation of landmark trees and extending for an additional 6 months the interim development regulations with respect to landmark trees throughout the city.
>> Third and final. >> Second. Motion by council member Lilliloquist, second by council member Hamill. Roll call, please. >> Hannah Stone. Oh, >> I guess further discussion first. I'm sorry. Before we Okay, roll call, please.
>> Hannah Stone, >> I. >> Dan Hamill. >> Hi. >> Skip Williams. >> I. >> Lisa Anderson. >> Hi. >> Michael Liiloquist. >> Hi. >> Jay Cotton. >> Hi. >> Holly Huffman. >> Hi. >> The motion passes 70. Next up, we have um agenda bill 24605, an ordinance relating to land use and zoning, amending the Bellingham comprehensive plan, amending the Barkley neighborhood plan, including land use areas 9, 13 through 20, and 25, and amending the land use development code, title 20, for the purpose of adopting the Barkley Urban Village sub area plan and associated development regulations.
>> Move third and final. >> Second. Motion by council member Anderson, a second by council member Williams. And so I've got some uh information from staff for a motion that's needed here to uh amend this motion.
So an additional page was added to exhibit A. This is a land use areas map from Pacific Surveying that was recently received. It was added as the last page of exhibit A. So, I move to approve the addition of the Barkley Village Land use areas map to exhibit A as seen on page 347 of the packet and page 343 of the printed packet.
>> Motion by the chair, second by council member Hamill. Any further discussion? Seeing none, all in favor say I. >> I. I. >> Any opposed or abstensions? That amendment passes 70. Any additional discussion on the original motion?
Can you just >> say it again? What page that? >> It says seen on page 347 of the packet, but that must be the digital packet. Um page 343 of the printed packet. >> Okay, thank you. >> Right there. >> Any further discussion on the original motion?
Seeing none, roll call, please. >> Hannah Stone, >> I. >> Dan Hamill, >> hi. >> Skip Williams. >> I. >> Is Lisa Anderson? >> Hi. >> Michael Loquist. >> Hi. >> Jace Cotton. >> Hi. >> Holly Huffman. >> Hi.
>> Motion passes 70. And finally, we have agenda bill 24606, an ordinance establishing the Barkley Village Planned Action Pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act, adding a new section to BMC 16.30 and amending BMC 1630.020.
>> Move third and final. >> Second. >> Mushed by Council Member Williams, second by Council Member Hamill. Again, uh an amendment needed coming from information from staff. I'll give you the page first.
It's page 418 of the printed packet, page 422 if you're looking at the packet digitally. Uh, so Darby spoke at the last meeting about added language regarding the notification to Trans Mountain pipeline for projects within 100 ft of a right-of-way or utility easement containing a transmission pipeline.
At the time, staff thought that this language was included in the ordinance, but it had not been updated yet. So, I will now move to approve uh amended exhibit A of the ordinance to add to the end of section 21A, a subsection 1-2 reading, notification to Trans Mountain Pipeline is required for any project within 100 ft of a right-of-way or utility easement containing a transmission pipeline.
In accordance with RCW19.1220033, the applicant shall notify and consult with the pipeline company prior to any excavation or digging activity. It is the applicant's responsibility to ensure compliance with the requirements for notification and consultation as notified in RCW19.122.033.
No additional mitigation measures are required. And again, this language can be seen on page 422 of the digital packet, page 418 of the printed packet. Move approval. >> Motion by council member Anderson, second by council member Williams.
Any further discussion on the amendment? >> Seeing none, all in favor say I. >> I. I. >> Any opposed or abstensions? The amendment passes 70. Any uh further discussion on the original motion? >> Seeing none, roll call, please.
>> Hannah Stone. Hi >> Dan Hamill. >> Hi >> Skip Williams. >> Hi >> Lisa Anderson. >> Hi >> Michael Liiloquist. >> Hi >> Jay Cotton. >> Hi >> Holly Huffman. >> Hi. >> Motion passes 70. >> Okay. That concludes the regular business of the meeting and we will now move to the public comment session.
If you are watching live online or on BTV, the broadcast will now end. However, you can you can continue watching via Zoom at co.orgccoom org/cczoom or listen via telephone by dialing 253-2158782 and entering meeting ID 896-98012044 and password 9.
Again, that's co.org/cczoom org/cczoom or dial 253-215-8782 and enter meeting ID 896-9812044 and enter P enter enter password 9 to continue to watch or listen live. If you are watching a recorded version of this meeting, you can view public comment videos at co.org/cc public comment.