City Council - Regular Meeting
City Council - Regular Meeting
Mon, August 24, 2026
Agenda items
Vote records
Discussion summary
Transcript
Meeting summaryAI-generated
Bellingham City Council — Regular Meeting, August 24, 2026
All seven council members were present for this full evening session, which included a public hearing on affordable housing zoning incentives, mayoral appointments, committee reports covering budget, parks, public safety, and land use planning, plus executive session actions and final ordinance readings.
Public Hearing: Low-Income Housing Development Incentive (Agenda Bill 25027)
Staff from the Planning and Community Development Department — Tara Sundine and Kurt Nabfeld — presented a proposed new code chapter (BMC 20.29A) that would remove or reduce several zoning-based development standards — including height limits, density maximums, floor-area ratios, lot coverage limits, and parking minimums — for qualifying low-income housing projects. To be eligible, a project must: serve households at or below 80% of Area Median Income (AMI); be included in the city's Consolidated Plan (a document approved by the council); and be operated by a qualified low-income housing provider. A 50-year affordability covenant would be recorded on the property. Design review using objective state-required standards would still apply, as would health, safety, environmental, and infrastructure requirements. Setbacks would remain tied to underlying zoning. The Planning Commission recommended approval 5–0 following a July 9 public hearing. Staff cited familiar local examples — Cedar Commons, Aloha/Samish Commons, Trail View at Barkley Village, Eleanor — as the types of projects that would benefit. Staff noted that financing constraints (primarily the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit program) realistically limit these projects to four-to-five stories regardless of any height limit removal.
Public comment: Adam Bellinger expressed broad support but urged the city to track per-unit construction costs for affordable housing projects compared to the private market, noting a gap of roughly $500,000 per unit versus $330,000 for market-rate. Mary Lou White raised concerns about infrastructure capacity (aging sewer and water systems), environmental impacts, mining-area soil voids, SEPA, and the adequacy of public notice. Pete Day, representing Compass Housing Alliance, strongly supported the ordinance, emphasizing that regulatory clarity reduces soft costs (variances, legal fees, consultant hours) and allows more money to go toward actually building units. A second member of the public (identified as Brian) cautioned the council to acknowledge hidden costs of affordable housing subsidies — including property tax exemptions on roughly 92 Whatcom County properties — and argued that cumulative regulatory costs make Bellingham unaffordable overall.
Council debate on a proposed amendment: Council Member Lilliquist raised a substantive concern: the ordinance as written restricts eligibility to 100%-affordable projects, which he argued creates a new barrier to mixed-income development — something the council has repeatedly said it wants to encourage. He proposed amending section 20.29A.202(C) to allow eligibility for projects with "at least 20%" low-income units. Council Members Anderson, Huffman, Williams, and Hammill all expressed sympathy for the goal but opposed the amendment, citing: the complexity of blending nonprofit and for-profit development models; uncertainty about how a for-profit developer would manage a 50-year affordability covenant; the risk of delaying a project currently in the pipeline that would immediately benefit from the ordinance; and the lack of staff analysis on what percentage would actually make a mixed-income project financially viable. Staff (Sundine and Planning Director Blake Lion) recommended passing the ordinance as written and returning to mixed-income incentives separately. Council Member Cotton noted the definition of "qualified low-income housing provider" already technically includes for-profit developers, but agreed further analysis was needed.
To secure a commitment for future action, Lilliquist moved to temporarily table the amendment to first pass a motion directing staff to schedule a work session on mixed-income housing incentives. That tabling motion passed 7–0, followed by a 7–0 vote to direct the administration to schedule a work session on mixed-income housing incentives at an appropriate future time. The amendment was then brought back to a vote and failed 1–6 (Lilliquist in favor; all others opposed). The underlying ordinance was then passed.
Vote on ordinance (first and second reading): Moved by Anderson, seconded by Huffman. Passed 7–0.
Mayor's Appointments
Neighborhood Advisory Commission: Mayor Lund appointed Brandon Roundtree as the Sunnyland neighborhood's primary representative. This item was for information only; no council vote required.
Landlord and Tenant Advisory Work Group: Mayor Lund appointed 13 members from a pool of 60 applicants to this newly formed advisory body. Planning Director Blake Lion described the selection process: applicants were sorted into tenant, landlord/property management, and community-interest categories; geographic distribution across the city was considered; and staff specifically sought voices with lived experience that have not historically been represented. The 13 appointees are: Lette Alberon, McClean Bowers, Stacy Carol, Nathan Catherol, Margot Hammond, Selena Nolock, Lacy Lutire, Charlie Meyers, Bailey Peterson, Kevin Schilling, Rebecca Sharf, Jessica Silver, and Kimberly Vermuan.
Council Member Anderson voted no, expressing deep disappointment that Carrie Burnside — a well-known local tenant advocate with extensive involvement in housing policy at city, county, and state levels — was not selected, while Kevin Schilling, the communications and advocacy manager for the Rental Housing Association of Washington (a Seattle-based organization representing 60,000 landlords statewide), was appointed. Anderson questioned why someone not living in Bellingham was chosen when qualified local landlords were available. Council Member Lilliquist and Council President Stone, while acknowledging Burnside's contributions, said they welcomed new faces at the table and expected Burnside's voice to continue to be heard through other channels. Council Member Cotton also voted no.
Vote: Moved by Williams, seconded by Lilliquist. Passed 5–2 (Anderson and Cotton opposed).
Council Business: Second Quarter 2026 Financial Review (Agenda Bill 25016)
Budget and Finance Committee Chair Anderson reported that the city's financial position through June 2026 shows approximately 39 positions currently frozen, helping avoid a draw on reserves. Sales tax revenue is up approximately $1.2 million. No binding action was taken; this was an informational presentation by Finance Director Andy Ebjornson.
2026 Budget Amendment No. 3 (Agenda Bill 25015)
The amendment increases revenues by $4,092,873 and expenditures by $22,189,674 across multiple funds. Highlights include $1.2 million for higher-than-expected medical claims, $200,000 for remodeling the former Parks and Recreation suite at City Hall to house Human Resources, and $150,000 for the Hearing Examiner due to unusually complex appeals. Committee recommended 3–0.
Vote: Moved by Anderson, seconded by Hammill. Passed 7–0.
Land Use Application Fee Schedule Update (Agenda Bill 25014)
The city has not updated its land use application fees since 2007. The revised schedule (effective October 1, 2026) adjusts fees for inflation and adds an annual CPI-based adjustment. Revenue generated will partially fund a market study to inform future fee adjustments. The committee adopted an amendment adding a new Section 3 requiring staff to bring the fee schedule back to council for review before the first half of 2032.
Vote (resolution as amended): Moved by Anderson, seconded by Hammill. Passed 7–0.
Bakerview Meadows Park: Naming and Master Plan (Agenda Bills 25025 & 25026)
Parks and Recreation Committee Chair Williams reported on two items related to the city's new park on East Bakerview Road between Telegraph and Bakerview, east of Demer Road, purchased in 2020 to serve an underserved area of north Bellingham.
Naming: Following a public naming poll, the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board and staff recommended "Bakerview Meadows Park." Council concurred.
Vote: Moved by Williams, seconded by Hammill. Passed 7–0.
Master Plan: The plan reflects two years of community engagement with approximately 700 participants. It covers 26 acres, with a portion along Bakerview Road reserved for future low-income housing. The plan emphasizes natural habitat preservation, multi-use trails (including accessible trails), natural play spaces, a community garden, playground, adult exercise area, and disc golf. Implementation is phased over 10–15 years as funding allows: Phase 0 (immediate activation and temporary trails) at $75,000; Phase 1 at approximately $6 million; Phase 2 and beyond at approximately $7 million.
Vote: Moved by Williams, seconded by Huffman. Passed 7–0.
Public Safety Data Sharing Agreements — Blaine, Ferndale, and Lynden (Agenda Bills 25028, 25029, 25030)
Three identical interlocal agreements authorize the police departments of Blaine, Ferndale, and Lynden to share read-only access to their records management system name files with Whatcom 911 (What-Comm), enabling more efficient person checks. No Bellingham Police Department records are shared in return. All agreements are consistent with the Keep Washington Working Act. Committee recommended approval 3–0 for each.
Vote on each: Moved by Hammill, seconded by Williams (Blaine and Ferndale) and Huffman (Lynden). Each passed 7–0.
2026 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket (Agenda Bill 25023)
The council approved a docket of seven proposed amendments to the comprehensive plan to be reviewed this cycle. Items include a county-initiated rezone and various technical corrections. The review schedule: work session November 2, public hearing November 16, first/second reading December 7, potential final reading December 14.
Vote: Moved by Stone, seconded by Hammill. Passed 7–0.
Tenant Engagement Survey (Agenda Bill 25022)
Staff presented options for conducting a tenant survey, similar to the landlord/property manager survey done in fall 2025. The council directed staff to proceed with a digital survey this fall (Option 1), with results to be shared with the newly formed Landlord and Tenant Advisory Work Group.
Vote: Moved by Stone, seconded by Williams. Passed 7–0.
Council Meeting Procedural Changes (Agenda Bill 25024)
Beginning at the September 14 meeting, public comment will move to the start of the meeting, expand from 15 to 30 minutes total, and individual speaking time will decrease from 3 to 2 minutes. On language access, the council is shifting away from live Spanish-only in-chamber interpretation toward a broader multilingual approach using YouTube's 150+ language audio dubbing, the city website's 40+ language translation, and the city's existing Language Line contract (350+ languages on demand). Interpretation in any language or ASL remains available upon request with 48 hours' notice preferred. The land acknowledgement will be referred to the Mayor's office to develop in partnership with local tribes. A more comprehensive rules-of-procedure overhaul will come forward separately.
Vote: Moved by Stone, seconded by Williams. Passed 6–1 (Lilliquist opposed).
Executive Session Actions
Lake Whatcom Watershed Property Acquisition: The council authorized the mayor to purchase a property from Daniel Gibbon for $2,500. Moved by Anderson, seconded by Lilliquist. Passed 7–0.
Litigation Settlement — Oldham v. City of Bellingham: The council authorized the mayor to settle this Whatcom County Superior Court case (cause no. 23-2-00618-37) for $115,000 to plaintiff Julie Oldham plus $3,000 in mediation cost reimbursement to GLP Attorneys PS. Moved by Hammill, seconded by Huffman. Passed 7–0.
Potential Litigation — Federal Grant Conditions: The council authorized the mayor to retain outside counsel to represent the city in litigation challenging the federal Office of Management and Budget's proposed rule regarding federal grant conditions. Moved by Anderson, seconded by Huffman. Passed 7–0.
Consent Calendar
Approved as a block (sub-recipient agreement with Whatcom County/What-Comm, July 27 meeting minutes, payroll and AP authorizations). Moved by Hammill, seconded by Williams. Passed 7–0.
Ordinances — Final Readings
Landmark Tree Interim Regulations Extension (24999): Extended interim development regulations on landmark trees for an additional six months. Third and final reading. Passed 7–0.
Rental Registration, Safety Inspection, and Rental Agreement Amendments (25012): Amended BMC 6.15, 2.21.010, and 6.12. First and final reading. Passed 7–0.
One Percent for Art Program (25006): Amended BMC Chapter 4.92. Third and final reading. Passed 7–0.
Key Takeaways
Affordable housing zoning incentives adopted: The new Low-Income Housing Development Incentive (BMC 20.29A) eliminates height limits, density caps, and lot coverage restrictions for 100%-affordable housing projects tied to the city's Consolidated Plan, in exchange for a 50-year affordability covenant — a significant policy tool to reduce development costs for nonprofit housing providers.
Mixed-income housing discussion deferred: After extended debate, the council committed (7–0) to schedule a future work session on whether and how to incentivize mixed-income housing projects, signaling interest but no immediate policy change.
Landlord and Tenant Advisory Work Group seated: Thirteen community members confirmed to the new advisory body, though the 5–2 vote reflected disagreement over who was — and was not — selected.
City authorized to fight federal grant rule changes: The council unanimously authorized outside legal counsel to challenge a federal OMB proposed rule on grant conditions, a potentially significant financial protection measure.
Meeting format changing September 14: Public comment moves to the start of the meeting and expands to 30 minutes; individual time drops to 2 minutes; live Spanish interpretation replaced by broader on-demand multilingual services.
AI-generated summary from voice-to-text transcript. Not the official record. Verify important details with the source documents linked above.
What happened at this meeting
In-person: Headsets are available to attendees in Council Chambers.
Staff provided information on a potential Lake Whatcom watershed property acquisition with Rosenblat. This was for information and discussion only with no action taken. A second property acquisition item with Rosenblat also involved a Lake Whatcom watershed property, and the Council authorized the mayor to close the real estate transaction with property owner Daniel Gibbon for a purchase price of $2,500. The motion passed 7-0.
Online: A sign-up form is available at cob.org/ccsignup on the day of the meeting.
Council discussed the litigation matter Oldham v. City of Bellingham, et al. Staff provided information on the litigation matter, and the Council authorized the mayor to enter into a settlement agreement with Julie Oldham for dismissal of the case (Whatcom County Superior Court cause number 23-2-00618-37) in exchange for payment of $115,000 to Julie Oldham plus reimbursement of $3,000 in mediation costs to GLP Attorneys PS Incorporated. The motion passed 7-0.
Old or new business
Council discussed a potential litigation matter involving federal grant conditions. Staff provided information on potential litigation challenging the federal Office of Management and Budget's proposed rule regarding federal grant conditions. The Council authorized the mayor to retain outside counsel to represent the city in this litigation. The motion passed 7-0.
An ordinance related to the preservation of landmark trees and extending for an additional six months the interim development regulations with respect to landmark trees throughout the city
Council considered Agenda Bill 24999, an ordinance related to the preservation of landmark trees and extending for an additional six months the interim development regulations with respect to landmark trees throughout the city. This was the third and final reading. The motion passed 7-0 on roll call vote.
An ordinance regarding the One Percent for Art program; amending
Council voted on an ordinance regarding the One Percent for Art program amending Bellingham Municipal Code Chapter 4.92. The motion was made by Council Member Hamill and seconded by Council Member Huffman. No discussion was raised by council members, and the ordinance passed 7-0 by roll call vote.
Agenda items (31)
Procedural (10)
1ProceduralIn-person: Headsets are available to attendees in Council Chambers.
Headsets are available for attendees in Council Chambers to hear meeting proceedings.
What happened
Staff provided information on a potential Lake Whatcom watershed property acquisition with Rosenblat. This was for information and discussion only with no action taken. A second property acquisition item with Rosenblat also involved a Lake Whatcom watershed property, and the Council authorized the mayor to close the real estate transaction with property owner Daniel Gibbon for a purchase price of $2,500. The motion passed 7-0.2ProceduralOnline: Join the Zoom meeting at cob.org/cczoom, then select the interpretation channel at the bottom of the screen. Those wishing to offer public comment in Spanish will be able to do so and their comments will be interpreted into English. Meeting records: Video recordings of each meeting are available online at cob.org/meetings within five business days following each meeting.
Spanish interpretation is available for online meeting participants through Zoom, and residents can submit public comments in Spanish with interpretation to English; video recordings are posted online within five business days.
3ProceduralOnline: A sign-up form is available at cob.org/ccsignup on the day of the meeting.
Residents can sign up online to speak during the meeting using a form at cob.org/ccsignup on the day of the meeting.
What happened
Council discussed the litigation matter Oldham v. City of Bellingham, et al. Staff provided information on the litigation matter, and the Council authorized the mayor to enter into a settlement agreement with Julie Oldham for dismissal of the case (Whatcom County Superior Court cause number 23-2-00618-37) in exchange for payment of $115,000 to Julie Oldham plus reimbursement of $3,000 in mediation costs to GLP Attorneys PS Incorporated. The motion passed 7-0.5ProceduralSign up, both online and in person, closes at 7 p.m. Once signed up, speakers may participate via the following options:
Registration to speak closes at 7 p.m., both online and in person, with multiple options available for participating.
6ProceduralIn person: Meetings are held in Council Chambers on the second floor of City Hall.
City Council meetings are held in Council Chambers on the second floor of City Hall.
7ProceduralOnline: Join the Zoom meeting at cob.org/cczoom and follow staff instructions at time of the hearing or public comment period.
Residents can join online meetings through Zoom at cob.org/cczoom to listen or provide public comment.
8ProceduralOver the phone: Call 253-215-8782, enter Meeting ID 871 5188 5205, and Password 9. Follow staff instructions at the time of the hearing or public comment period. Before or after a meeting: The City of Bellingham meets the Open Public Meetings Act by accepting written public comment in advance of City Council meetings. Send written input before or after a meeting.
Residents can call 253-215-8782 to join meetings by phone using Meeting ID 871 5188 5205 and Password 9, or submit written comments before or after meetings.
9ProceduralBy mail addressed to: City Council, 210 Lottie Street, Bellingham, WA 98225.
Written public comments can be mailed to the City Council at 210 Lottie Street, Bellingham, WA 98225.
10ProceduralOnline: o For a public hearing: cob.org/publichearing. o For general public comment: E-mail all Council Members at ccmail@cob.org.
For public hearings, residents can submit comments at cob.org/publichearing; for general comments, email all Council Members at ccmail@cob.org.
25018ProceduralApproval of the July 27, 2026 City Council committee and regular meeting minutes
The council will approve the official minutes from the July 27, 2026 City Council meeting.
Council Business
4Council BusinessOld or new business
Council members can raise any remaining or new business items for discussion.
What happened
Council discussed a potential litigation matter involving federal grant conditions. Staff provided information on potential litigation challenging the federal Office of Management and Budget's proposed rule regarding federal grant conditions. The Council authorized the mayor to retain outside counsel to represent the city in this litigation. The motion passed 7-0.25014Council BusinessA resolution amending the City of Bellingham's Land Use Application Fee
The council will update fees charged for land use development applications.
What happened
Staff presented a resolution to amend the City of Bellingham's land use application fee schedule, which had not been updated since 2007. The proposed fees would account for inflation and include annual adjustments based on the consumer price index, with implementation set for October 1st, 2026. The committee recommended approval with an amendment requiring city staff to bring the fee schedule forward for council review before the first half of 2032, ensuring timely evaluation and potential adjustments based on market studies funded by the increased revenue. Council Member Anderson moved for approval as amended, seconded by Council Member Hamill, and the resolution passed 7-0.25015Council BusinessAn ordinance amending the 2026 budget - amendment no. 3
The council will vote on the third amendment to the 2026 city budget.
What happened
Council Member Anderson presented Item 25015, an ordinance amending the 2026 budget (amendment no. 3), which increased revenues by $4,092,873 and expenditures by $22,189,674 across multiple departments. Key allocations included $1.6 million in general fund appropriations, with $1.2 million for higher than expected medical claims, $200,000 for remodeling the old parks and recreation suite in City Hall to house the human resources department, and $150,000 for the hearing examiner due to complex appeals and hearings. The committee voted 3-0 to approve the amendment, and the full Council voted unanimously to pass it (7-0).25016Council BusinessSecond quarter financial review for 2026
City staff will present a financial review covering the first half of 2026.
What happened
Council Member Anderson presented the second quarter financial review for 2026, which included the June 2026 financial report providing detailed information for the six-month period. Staff reported that the city currently has 39 frozen positions to help prevent budget overages and maintain reserves, and noted that revenue tax has increased by approximately $1.2 million, with hopes to remain on budget or flatline. The presentation was for information and discussion only, with detailed financial information available on the city's website at cob.org/reports and a day session recording available on BT10.25022Council BusinessA discussion of tenant engagement options
The council will discuss ways to engage renters in city planning and decision-making.
What happened
Staff presented two options for tenant engagement on rental registration and related requirements, as directed by the council. Legislative policy analyst Iris Not and Planning Director Blake Lion proposed either moving forward immediately with a digital survey strategy or delaying until the landlord and tenant advisory working group developed a more robust proposal. The council voted unanimously to proceed with the immediate digital engagement strategy, with a motion by the chair and second by Council Member Williams. Director Lion and rental inspection manager Julia Burns clarified that state exemptions for 120-day notice requirements apply only to public housing units where rent fluctuates based on tenant income, while private landlords must still provide 120-day notice regardless of tenants' use of housing choice vouchers.25023Council BusinessA resolution establishing the docket of proposed amendments to be reviewed in the 2026 comprehensive plan amendment cycle
The council will establish which changes to the city's long-term comprehensive plan will be considered in the 2026 amendment cycle.
What happened
Staff presented a resolution establishing the docket of proposed amendments for the 2026 comprehensive plan amendment cycle, with seven items being added including a rezone and cleanup items. Chris Behey (long range planning manager) and Blake Lion (planning and community development director) explained that proposed amendments will be reviewed through a Type Six process including public hearings before the planning commission and city council. The timeline includes a work session on November 2nd, public hearing on November 16th, and council consideration for first and second reading on December 7th with potential third reading on December 14th. The committee unanimously recommended approval with a motion by the chair and second by Council Member Hamill, passing 7-0.25024Council BusinessA discussion of upcoming procedural changes to Council meetings
The council will discuss proposed changes to how City Council meetings are run.
What happened
# Summary: Procedural Changes to Council MeetingsCouncil President Hannah Stone and staff presented upcoming procedural changes to council meetings, including relocating public comment to the start of meetings with a reduced 30-minute block (2 minutes per speaker instead of 3 minutes). Council Member Lilliquist moved to retain the three-minute speaking time, but the amendment failed 4-6. The changes also include modifications to standing announcements, deferring the land acknowledgement to the mayor's office for formal tribal engagement, and expanded language access initiatives utilizing YouTube's 150+ languages, the website's 40+ language translations, and a Language Line contract offering 350+ languages, with council member interpretation available upon 48-hour notice. The motion to adopt the procedural rule changes passed 6-1, with Council Member Lilliquist opposed, while the overall work plan passed 6-0 with Council Member Huffman absent. Staff indicated a more comprehensive rules refresh will be presented in the short term.
25025Council BusinessNaming of the park on East Bakerview Road
The council will vote on an official name for the park on East Bakerview Road.
What happened
The Parks and Recreation Committee recommended naming the new 26-acre park on East Bakerview Road 'Bakerview Meadows Park,' selected from several public nomination options including Bellingham Park, Komo Culian Park, Telegraph Trail Park, and Culinian Meadows. Parks and Recreation Director Nicole Oliver and Peter Gil presented the nominated names to the committee and advisory board, which unanimously recommended Bakerview Meadows Park. Council Member Williams moved for approval, seconded by Council Member Hamill, and the motion passed 7-0.25026Council BusinessConsideration of the Bakerview Meadows Park master plan Public Health, Safety, Justice, and Equity 2:40 p.m.
The council will review and consider the master plan for Bakerview Meadows Park.
What happened
# Bakerview Meadows Park Master Plan SummaryStaff presented the Bakerview Meadows Park master plan for the 26-acre site between Telegraph and Bakerview roads, which incorporates input from 700 community participants and includes recreational amenities such as community gardens, playgrounds, exercise areas, disc golf, and multi-use trails designed for multiple abilities. Parks Director Nicole Oliver, Peter Gil, and landscape architect Leslie Batton from Field Collab LLC outlined the phased implementation strategy, with phase zero costing $75,000 to begin immediately, followed by phase one ($6 million) and phase two and beyond ($7 million), with full completion expected over 10-15 years as funding becomes available. The plan prioritizes natural habitat preservation, includes low-income housing integration, and features natural play spaces. Council Members Huffman, Liquist, and Williams praised the extensive public outreach and design features, and the Parks and Recreation Board, staff, and Council voted unanimously to approve the master plan.
25028Council BusinessAn interlocal agreement with the City of Blaine for public safety data sharing
Bellingham and Blaine will sign an agreement to share public safety data with each other.
What happened
# Summary: Interlocal Agreement with City of Blaine for Public Safety Data SharingStaff presented an interlocal agreement with the City of Blaine that authorizes the Blaine Police Department to share limited records management system data with WATCOM 911 call center, providing public safety telecommunicators with read-only access to the names file to support person checks and improve service efficiency for Blaine officers and assisting agencies. The agreement does not grant Blaine Police Department access to Bellingham Police Department records, and each party remains responsible for its own costs. WHATCOM Deputy Director Justin Rasmmanson provided a briefing confirming the agreement's consistency with the Keep Washington Working Act. The committee voted unanimously to approve the agreement 7-0, with a motion by Council Member Hamill and second by Council Member Williams.
25029Council BusinessAn interlocal agreement with the City of Ferndale for public safety data sharing
Bellingham and Ferndale will sign an agreement to share public safety data with each other.
What happened
Staff presented an interlocal agreement with the City of Ferndale for public safety data sharing with identical terms to the Blaine agreement. The committee voted to approve the agreement with a motion by Council Member Hamill and second by Council Member Williams, and it passed 7-0 with no discussion or opposition.25030Council BusinessAn interlocal agreement with the City of Lynden for public safety data sharing
Bellingham and Lynden will sign an agreement to share public safety data with each other.
What happened
Staff presented an interlocal agreement with the City of Lynden for public safety data sharing, following the same summary statement as the previous two agreements. The committee moved to approve with a motion by Council Member Hamill and second by Council Member Husman, and it passed 7-0 with no discussion or opposition.Ordinance
24999OrdinanceAn ordinance related to the preservation of landmark trees and extending for an additional six months the interim development regulations with respect to landmark trees throughout the city
The council will vote on an ordinance to protect landmark trees citywide and extend temporary development rules for these trees for six more months.
What happened
Council considered Agenda Bill 24999, an ordinance related to the preservation of landmark trees and extending for an additional six months the interim development regulations with respect to landmark trees throughout the city. This was the third and final reading. The motion passed 7-0 on roll call vote.25006OrdinanceAn ordinance regarding the One Percent for Art program; amending
The council will consider changes to the One Percent for Art program, which requires a percentage of public construction budgets to fund public art.
What happened
Council voted on an ordinance regarding the One Percent for Art program amending Bellingham Municipal Code Chapter 4.92. The motion was made by Council Member Hamill and seconded by Council Member Huffman. No discussion was raised by council members, and the ordinance passed 7-0 by roll call vote.25012OrdinanceAn ordinance amending BMC 6.15 and BMC 2.21.010, regarding the rental registration and safety inspection program, and chapter 6.12 BMC, regarding rental agreements
The council will update rental housing registration, safety inspection, and rental agreement requirements to strengthen tenant protections.
What happened
# Summary: Ordinance Amending BMC 6.15 and BMC 2.21.010The council considered an ordinance amending BMC 6.15 and BMC 2.21.010 regarding rental registration, safety inspections, and related provisions that aim to reduce administrative burden on affordable housing development by relaxing height, density, and lot coverage rules in exchange for long-term affordability covenants. Council Member Pete praised the ordinance for balancing community needs with safeguards, while Council Member Lilloquist raised concerns that the 100% low-income housing requirement excludes mixed-income projects and contradicts comprehensive plan policy 816, suggesting a 60% affordability threshold instead. Public commenter Brian highlighted hidden costs of affordable housing policies, including tax revenue loss from tax-exempt properties and cumulative regulatory burdens, noting that 42 recent corridor projects received tax breaks without including low-income housing. Council Member Cotton questioned administrative burdens and suggested expanding incentives to encourage participation in the 12-year MFT program with approximately 20% affordability thresholds. Council Member Anderson moved approval for first and second reading adoption, seconded by Council Member Haman.
Consent Calendar
25017Consent CalendarA sub-recipient agreement between Whatcom County, City of Bellingham, and What-Comm Communications Center
The council will approve an agreement between Whatcom County, the City of Bellingham, and What-Comm Communications Center.
25020Consent CalendarAuthorization of payroll labor cost payments dated July 1, 2026 to July 15, 2026
The council will authorize payroll payments for the period from July 1 to July 15, 2026.
25021Consent CalendarAuthorization of AP transactions issued July 31, 2026 through August 6, 2026
The council will authorize accounting payments issued between July 31 and August 6, 2026.
Public Hearing
25019Public HearingMayor's appointment to the Mayor's Neighborhood Advisory Commission (information)
The mayor is appointing someone to the Neighborhood Advisory Commission for the council's information.
What happened
Deputy Administrator Janice Keller presented the Mayor's appointment of Brandon Roundtree to a first term as the Sunnyland neighborhood primary representative to the Mayor's Neighborhood Advisory Commission. This item was presented for information only, requiring no vote from the Council.25027Public HearingA public hearing on an ordinance relating to land use and planning, amending Title 20 of the Bellingham Municipal Code, creating a new chapter 20.29a "Low-Income Housing Development Incentive," removing and reducing zoning-based development regulations for low-income housing in all residential multi, urban village, and commercial zones
The council will hold a public hearing on changes to city zoning rules to make it easier to build low-income housing in residential, urban village, and commercial areas.
What happened
# Summary: Public Hearing on Low-Income Housing Development Incentive OrdinanceCommunity Economic Development Manager Tara Sundine and Kurt Abfeld presented a public hearing on a new ordinance establishing a low-income housing development incentive chapter in the Bellingham Municipal Code, which would exempt qualifying affordable housing projects serving households earning less than 80% of area median income from certain zoning regulations while maintaining health and safety standards. The proposal targets specific nonprofit projects already partnered with the city—including Cedar Commons, Aloha at Samish Way, Trail View at Barkley Village, and Eleanor downtown—and the planning commission recommended approval after a July 9th, 2026 hearing. During public comment, Adam Bellinger raised concerns about tracking construction costs (noting affordable housing costs roughly $500,000 per unit versus $330,000 in the private sector), while Mary Lou White questioned mining regulations, environmental impacts, and the short 7-day review period; conversely, Pete Day from Compass Housing Alliance supported the ordinance, emphasizing that regulatory clarity reduces development costs by eliminating expensive variances and legal fees. Council Member Ham requested clarification on the low-income definition's consistency with the Washington State Housing Trust Fund, which staff confirmed had been modified based on planning commission and developer feedback. The Council voted 7-0 to approve the ordinance for first and second reading, rejecting an amendment by Council Member Liloquist requiring 20% low-income housing eligibility by a 1-6 vote.
25033Public HearingConfirmation of Mayor's appointments to the Landlord and Tenant
The council will confirm the mayor's appointments to the Landlord and Tenant Commission.
What happened
# Summary: Confirmation of Mayor's Appointments to Landlord and Tenant Advisory Work GroupDeputy Administrator Janice Keller and Planning Director Blake Lion presented Mayor Lund's appointments of 13 community members to the Landlord and Tenant Advisory Work Group, selected from 60 applicants to represent tenants, landlords, and professionals with relevant experience and geographic diversity. Council Member Hudman praised the diversity and fresh perspectives, while Council Member Anderson opposed confirmation, citing the absence of tenant advocate Carrie Burnside and noting that appointee Kevin Schilling resides in Seattle rather than Bellingham. Council Members Williams and Liiloquist supported the appointments, emphasizing the value of including new voices and renters with lived experience, and countered that engaged community members like Burnside would retain access to city processes. The council voted 5-2 to confirm the appointments, with Anderson and Cotton voting no.
Additional votes recorded in minutes
Adopt ordinance creating low-income housing development incentive (first and second reading)
aye 7
Daniel Hammillaye
Edwin Williamsaye
Hannah Stoneaye
Hollie Huthmanaye
Jace Cottonaye
Lisa Andersonaye
Michael Lilliquistaye
Amend low-income housing ordinance to require only 20% low-income housing for eligibility
nay 6 · aye 1
Daniel Hammillnay
Edwin Williamsnay
Hannah Stonenay
Hollie Huthmannay
Jace Cottonnay
Lisa Andersonnay
Michael Lilliquistaye
Table current discussion to consider motion for work session on mixed income housing incentives
aye 1
voice voteaye
Schedule work session on mixed income housing incentives
aye 1
voice voteaye
Confirm mayor's appointments to landlord and tenant advisory work group
aye 5 · nay 2
Daniel Hammillaye
Edwin Williamsaye
Hannah Stoneaye
Hollie Huthmanaye
Jace Cottonnay
Lisa Andersonnay
Michael Lilliquistaye
Approve 2026 budget amendment (third amendment)
aye 1
voice voteaye
Approve resolution amending land use and application fee schedule
aye 1
voice voteaye
Approve naming of park as Baker View Meadows Park
aye 1
voice voteaye
Approve Baker View Meadows Park master plan
aye 1
voice voteaye
Approve interlocal agreement with City of Blaine for public safety data sharing
aye 1
voice voteaye
Approve interlocal agreement with City of Ferndale for public safety data sharing
aye 1
voice voteaye
Approve interlocal agreement with City of Lynden for public safety data sharing
aye 1
voice voteaye
Approve resolution establishing 2026 comprehensive plan amendment docket
aye 1
voice voteaye
Approve tenant engagement digital survey (Option 1)
aye 1
voice voteaye
Approve changes to council rules of procedure
aye 6 · nay 1
Daniel Hammillaye
Edwin Williamsaye
Hannah Stoneaye
Hollie Huthmanaye
Jace Cottonaye
Lisa Andersonaye
Michael Lilliquistnay
Authorize mayor to close real estate transaction with Daniel Gibbon for Lake Whatcom watershed property
aye 1
voice voteaye
Authorize settlement agreement in Oldm v. City of Bellingham
aye 1
voice voteaye
Authorize retaining outside counsel for litigation challenging federal grant conditions rule
aye 1
voice voteaye
Approve consent agenda
aye 1
voice voteaye
Adopt Agenda Bill 24999 - Landmark trees interim regulations extension (third and final reading)
aye 7
Daniel Hammillaye
Edwin Williamsaye
Hannah Stoneaye
Hollie Huthmanaye
Jace Cottonaye
Lisa Andersonaye
Michael Lilliquistaye
Adopt Agenda Bill 255012 - Rental registration and safety inspection program amendment (first and final reading)
aye 7
Daniel Hammillaye
Edwin Williamsaye
Hannah Stoneaye
Hollie Huthmanaye
Jace Cottonaye
Lisa Andersonaye
Michael Lilliquistaye
Adopt Agenda Bill 250006 - 1% for art program ordinance (third and final reading)
aye 7
Daniel Hammillaye
Edwin Williamsaye
Hannah Stoneaye
Hollie Huthmanaye
Jace Cottonaye
Lisa Andersonaye
Michael Lilliquistaye
Verbatim transcript available
440 transcript segments indexed
[music] Good evening and welcome to the Bellingham City Council regular meeting. Today is Monday, August 24th, 2026. Going to call the meeting to order and begin with roll call. >> Holly Huffman >> here.
City of Bellingham City Council Regular Meeting action summary August 24, 2026, 7 p.m. Chair: Hannah Stone Phone: 360-778-8200 Members: Hollie Huthman, Daniel Hammill, Email: ccmail@cob.org Edwin H. "Skip" Williams, Lisa Anderson, Web: cob.org/council Michael Lilliquist, Jace Cotton Legislative Office Manager: Jackie Weller Disclaimer This document is provided as a courtesy follow-up of the City Council meeting.
>> Dan Haml >> here. >> Skip Williams >> here. >> Lisa Anderson >> here. >> Michael Lilliloquist >> here. >> Jay Cotton >> here. >> Hannah Stone >> here. All council members are present. Thank you very much.
This document is not to be considered the minutes from the meeting but rather a report of the action taken by Council. All information contained herein is subject to change upon further review of recordings of the proceedings and composure and approval of the meeting minutes.
Comments and suggestions are welcome. Regular meeting The following items are heard in the Regular Meeting only. Call to order and roll call The meeting was called to order by Council President Stone at 7 p.m.
>> The Bellingham City Council meets all requirements of the State of Washington Open Public Meetings Act. Before we begin, we acknowledge that we are gathered on the traditional and unseated territory of the Lummy, Nuksac, Samish, and Simyu people who have cared for and tended this land since time and memorial.
Present: Council President Hannah Stone, First Ward Council Member Hollie Huthman, Second Ward Council Member Daniel Hammill, Third Ward Council Member Edwin H. "Skip" Williams, Fourth Ward Council Member Lisa Anderson, Fifth Ward Council Member Michael Lilliquist, Sixth Ward Council Member Jace Cotton, At-Large Announcements and upcoming meetings The Bellingham City Council meets all requirements of the State of Washington Open Public Meetings Act.
Truth and acknowledgement are critical to building mutual respect and connection across all barriers of heritage and difference. We begin this effort to acknowledge what has been buried by honoring the truth.
1. Land acknowledgement statement Before we begin, we acknowledge that we are gathered on the traditional and unceded territory of the Lummi, Nooksack, Samish and Semiahmoo People who have cared for and tended this land since time immemorial.
We pay respect to their elders, both 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.
Truth and acknowledgment are critical to building mutual respect and connection across all barriers of heritage and difference. We begin this effort to acknowledge what has been buried by honoring the truth.
We pay respect to their elders past and present. Please take a moment to consider the many Page 1 of 9 legacies of violence, displacement, migration, and settlement that bring us together here today.
Remote viewers can log on to co.orgccoom and click on the language icon at the bottom of the screen to listen listen in Spanish. Our next council meeting will be held on September 14th, 2026. So this evening we are beginning first with a public hearing.
This is agenda bill 255027, a public hearing on an ordinance relating to land use and planning amending title 20 of the Bellingham Municipal Code creating a new chapter 20.29A 29A titled lowincome housing development incentive removing and reducing zoning based development regulations for low-income housing in all residential multi- urban village and commercial zones.
And please join us in uncovering such truths at any and all public events. 2. Language 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. 3. Next Council meeting Public hearing 25027 1. A public hearing on an ordinance relating to land use and planning, p.
This ordinance proposes adoption of the lowincome housing development incentive, a new chapter within title 20 of the Bellingham Municipal Code, intended to facilitate the development of permanently affordable housing by reducing regulatory barriers and streamlining approvals for qualifying low-income housing projects.
The proposed incentive would exempt eligible developments from certain zoning and land use regulations while maintaining applicable health, safety, environmental, and infrastructure standards. Qualifying projects must provide long-term affordability for households earning less than 80% of the area median income, also known as AMI.
7 amending Title 20 of the Bellingham Municipal Code, creating a new chapter 20.29a "Low-Income Housing Development Incentive," removing and reducing zoning-based development regulations for low-income housing in all residential multi, urban village, and commercial zones Summary: Council President Stone opened the public hearing.
A type six public review process is required for these development code amendments. Following a public hearing on July 9th, 2026, the planning commission recommended approval of the proposed code changes to the city council.
Four individuals provided testimony. Council President Stone closed the public hearing. Action: Lisa Anderson / Hollie Huthman moved for first and second reading. Action: Michael Lilliquist / Jace Cotton moved to amend section 20.29A.020, subsection C of the ordinance as follows: “Only projects proposing one hundred (100) at least 20% Low- Income Housing are eligible for the incentive provisions herein" Action: Michael Lilliquist / Lisa Anderson moved to table the amendment until the Council takes action to schedule a work session on mixed income housing incentives.
So, we'll begin this evening um with community economic development manager Tara Sundine. >> Good evening, uh Tara Sundine. I'm joined by Kurt Abfeld. We both work in the planning and community development department and we're co-presenting.
MOTION TO TABLE CARRIED 7-0. Action: Michael Lilliquist / Lisa Anderson moved to request a work session on mixed income housing incentives. Page 2 of 9 MOTION TO SCHEDULE A WORK SESSION CARRIED 7-0. MOTION TO AMMEND FAILED 1-6.
OPPOSED: Hannah Stone, Hollie Huthman, Daniel Hammill, Edwin H. "Skip" Williams, Lisa Anderson, Michael Lilliquist MOTION FOR FIRST AND SECOND READING CARRIED 7-0. Appointments 25019 1. Mayor's appointment to the Mayor's Neighborhood Advisory Commission p.
I'm going to keep my comments brief because you read um the full summary statement. Um so, as you know, our affordable housing partners, our affordable housing developers, specifically uh the the nonprofit ones struggle um with um getting these projects off the ground.
Um costs remain high. The financing that they use is fairly complicated. As you know, there's quite deep subsidy that goes into these projects and from time to time we find that the land use regulations are either adding a little complexity, maybe a little delay, sometimes more cost.
34 (information) Action: Information only. No action taken. 25033 2. Confirmation of Mayor's appointments to the Landlord and Tenant p. 39 Advisory Work Group Action: Edwin H. "Skip" Williams / Michael Lilliquist moved to confirm the Mayor's appointments to the Landlord and Tenant Advisory Work Group: Lizet Albarran McLean Bowers Stacey Carroll Nathan Cathersal Margo Hammond Selena Knoblauch Lacey Lutjemeier Charly Myers Bailee Peterson Kevin Schilling Rebekah Sharf Jessica Silver Kimberly Vermeulen MOTION CARRIED 5-2.
Um, and so Kurt and I have been talking about bringing this forward for a while. Um, even before the the parking regulations were no longer an issue. Um, so we're pleased to to be presenting this. It's a pretty straightforward proposal and uh summary statement was was uh pretty robust on what's eligible, but it is that simple.
OPPOSED: Lisa Anderson, Jace Cotton Mayor's report Standing time for briefings, updates, and reports to Council by the Mayor. Summary: There was no Mayor's Report. Page 3 of 9 Council assignment reports Standing time for Council Member reports from assigned committees, boards, and other groups.
Action: Information and discussion only. No action taken. Committee meeting reports The following committee meetings are held during the day. Committee chairs will present a summary of each agenda item during the evening meeting, and further discussion or action may take place if needed.
If a project and I'll describe projects for you all that are familiar to you and those um that the community might be familiar with that um this would apply to they would apply to something like Cedar Commons that's currently being built out by Bellisair.
Committee meetings are open to the public to attend, however committee agendas do not include public comment sessions. Budget and Finance 1 p.m. Lisa Anderson, Chair Daniel Hammill, Michael Lilliquist 25016 1.
um the Aloha in the Samish Way um neighborhood or Samish Commons, the uh Trail View at Barkley Village, Eleanor downtown. These are familiar developments to our community. These projects typically are in the four to five story range.
Second quarter financial review for 2026 p. 85 Action: Information and discussion only. No action taken. 25015 2. An ordinance amending the 2026 budget - amendment no. 3 p. 104 Action: Lisa Anderson / Daniel Hammill moved for first and second reading.
Um, and I say that because we are recommending that we remove height limits as a constraint, but we know what kind of bandwidth um, the the financing affords these projects. Right now, we're seeing development usually in the fourstory range, and that's because the tax credit program is a little weak right now.
Um, they're not as valuable as they are sometimes. Um, and just pushing that there's a little extra cost to go into fifths story. Um, for those that think that all of a sudden we're going to see eightstory buildings or 10story buildings, I can assure you that these housing um, developers cannot afford to go into that type of construction which um would be a lot more costly.
MOTION CARRIED 7-0. 25014 3. A resolution amending the City of Bellingham's Land Use Application Fee p. 113 Schedule Action: Lisa Anderson / Daniel Hammill moved final approval of Resolution #2026-20 as amended during the Budget and Finance Committee.
Um we're also proposing that um in order for the the developers to be eligible, they're already partnered with the city. So these are the projects I speak of, they need to be in um the city's uh consolidated plan, and as you know, that's a plan that you all approve.
MOTION CARRIED 7-0. Parks and Recreation 2 p.m. Edwin H. "Skip" Williams, Chair Daniel Hammill, Jace Cotton Page 4 of 9 25025 1. Naming of the park on East Bakerview Road p. 138 Action: Edwin H. "Skip" Williams / Daniel Hammill moved to recommend approval.
So, these are um this is pretty targeted to a small number of projects in our community and and it's um purposeful in that way. Uh Council Chair Stone mentioned the permanent affordability. We think that there is a really solid um uh uh what do you um anyway so we're we're providing some flexibility for the development in return for a um a public benefit that is long-term uh affordability.
MOTION CARRIED 7-0. 25026 2. Consideration of the Bakerview Meadows Park master plan p. 158 Action: Edwin H. "Skip" Williams / Hollie Huthman moved to recommend approval. MOTION CARRIED 7-0. Public Health, Safety, Justice, and Equity 2:40 p.m.
Daniel Hammill, Chair Hollie Huthman, Edwin H. "Skip" Williams 25028 1. An interlocal agreement with the City of Blaine for public safety data p. 302 sharing Action: Daniel Hammill / Edwin H. "Skip" Williams moved to recommend approval.
So a covenant would be recorded on these properties and the properties would be permanently affordable for a 50-year period. So, we think that's a pretty pretty solid um tradeoff. And um with that, I'm going to turn it over to Kurt to summarize the code changes.
MOTION CARRIED 7-0. 25029 2. An interlocal agreement with the City of Ferndale for public safety data p. 310 sharing Action: Daniel Hammill / Edwin H. "Skip" Williams moved to recommend approval. MOTION CARRIED 7-0.
>> Great. Thank you, Tara. Uh yeah, so Tara really hit kind of the first bullet on the slides that you're seeing tonight. Um the why, um these new rules would apply citywide, but they would only apply through our urban village, commercial, and residential multiszones.
25030 3. An interlocal agreement with the City of Lynden for public safety data p. 318 sharing Action: Daniel Hammill / Hollie Huthman moved to recommend approval. MOTION CARRIED 7-0. Committee Of The Whole 2:50 p.m.
they would not be allowed in residential uh single zones. Um and really kind of getting at to the the meat of the document here, the ordinance is it's really setting back and reducing the development standards.
Page 5 of 9 Hannah Stone, Chair Hollie Huthman, Daniel Hammill, Edwin H. "Skip" Williams, Lisa Anderson, Michael Lilliquist, Jace Cotton 25023 1. A resolution establishing the docket of proposed amendments to be p.
Um I'm going to walk through those development standards so we can get a good overview of um what what would apply and what wouldn't apply in these areas. Um as Tara mentioned, height uh we are not we are recommending no height limit uh except within certain view corridors.
We've got several of those in the waterfront and the Oldtown areas. Um I'll just show you a quick couple quick slides. These are in our Oldtown areas where through those Oldtown or through those urban village plans, we've adopted specific um view corridors that we wanted to maintain and kept heights lower in those areas.
326 reviewed in the 2026 comprehensive plan amendment cycle Action: Hannah Stone / Daniel Hammill moved final approval of Resolution #2026-19. MOTION CARRIED 7-0. 25022 2. A discussion of tenant engagement options p.
368 Action: Hannah Stone / Edwin H. "Skip" Williams moved to recommend approval. digital engagement strategy in fall 2026 and share data with workgroup. MOTION CARRIED 7-0. 25024 3. A discussion of upcoming procedural changes to Council meetings p.
So these new no rules, no height regulations would not apply in those areas where we've already adopted certain limits. Um many of our or I should say most of our areas within the the city include either a density requirement.
373 Action: Hannah Stone / Edwin H. "Skip" Williams moved to recommend approval. MOTION CARRIED 6-1. OPPOSED: Michael Lilliquist 4. Old or new business Action: No action taken. Executive session 4:10 p.m.
So that density is the number of units per amount of land that you have. Um some of our urban villages have floor area ratio requirements which again um these things are really kind of intended to keep those the scale of the buildings a little bit smaller.
Um we are recommending that there be no maximum floor areas or densities in these areas. We want to be able to uh let these um designers develop these buildings or design these buildings in a way that maximizes the total unit count because that's really what we've seen is um whether it be parking or a setback standard or um a height limitation, we seem to get a reduction in units.
Closed to the public. Report in the Regular Meeting only. 1. Potential property acquisition (Rosenblatt, approx. 3 min.) Summary: Staff provided information on a potential Lake Whatcom watershed property acquisition.
For information and discussion. No action taken. Page 6 of 9 2. Potential property acquisition (Rosenblatt, approx. 3 min.) Summary: Staff provided information on a potential Lake Whatcom watershed property acquisition.
And so we're really trying to encourage more units and trying to eliminate some of those barriers. Um when it does come back to setbacks, we are wanting to make sure that we still maintain those underlying setbacks um so that they are the same as the buildings that would be constructed nearby.
Um lot coverage, we're getting away from lock coverage as well. Uh remember a lot of these the buildings that are being built are being built in our more urbanized areas such as the commercial zones or in our urban village areas.
Action: Lisa Anderson / Michael Lilliquist moved to authorize the Mayor to close the real estate transaction with the property owner, Daniel Gibboney, with a purchase price of $2,500.00. MOTION CARRIED 7-0.
Um so no maximum lot coverage requirements. Um we are recommending some usable space in certain areas. um that usable space for people. It's a it's a private usable space um but it can be joined to be a common usable space.
3. Litigation: Oldham v. City of Bellingham, et al (Phillips, approx. 5 min.) Summary: Staff provided information on a litigation matter. Action: Daniel Hammill / Hollie Huthman moved to authorize the Mayor to enter into a settlement agreement with Julie Oldham with the following terms: Dismissal of Oldham v.
City of Bellingham, et al, Whatcom County Superior Court Cause No. 23-2-00618-37, in exchange for the payment of $115,000.00 to Julie Oldham, plus reimbursement of $3,000.00 in mediation costs to GLP Attorneys, P.S., Inc.
Um we're looking at a 100 square feet per dwelling unit um except within our urban villages because most of our urban villages do not require that usable space. Now, um we did, um throw in an alternative here, which is something that we've been looking at for quite some time now, and that's when we have buildings or units that are located near a park or some other type of facility where some where the residents can actually go out to recreate someplace else or get some that open space.
MOTION CARRIED 7-0. 4. Potential litigation (Chaplin and Kraham, approx. 10 min.) Summary: Staff provided information on a potential litigation matter. Action: Lisa Anderson / Hollie Huthman moved to authorize the Mayor to retain outside counsel to represent the City in litigation challenging the federal Office of Management and Budget’s proposed rule regarding federal grant conditions.
Um and so that alternative here to providing that is if the the project is located within a/4 mile of a park um then they don't have to provide that that 100 square feet per unit. Um parking as you know uh you've already passed those rules and regulations.
MOTION CARRIED 7-0. Consent agenda Consent Agenda items are considered routine and/or non-controversial and may be approved in a single motion. A member of the Council may ask that an item be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered separately.
Um so there's no auto parking that would be required for these projects. Um there will still be ADA and electric vehicle charging stations. uh would still be required when parking is provided. Um and then as a part of the recent parking regulations that were adopted, there are citywide bike parking standards which we are recommending stay with these projects.
Um a landscaping uh we're keeping those rules the same as underlining zoning. Um and then we do believe that these projects should still go through some sort of design review. Um, as you are aware, the state has recently required jurisdictions to go to an objective standard, uh, which the city currently has an interim ordinance in place.
Page 7 of 9 25017 1. A sub-recipient agreement between Whatcom County, City of Bellingham, p. 374 and What-Comm Communications Center 25018 2. Approval of the July 27, 2026 City Council committee and regular meeting p.
396 minutes 25020 3. Authorization of payroll labor cost payments dated July 1, 2026 to July 15, p. 413 2026 25021 4. Authorization of AP transactions issued July 31, 2026 through August 6, p. 414 2026 Action: Daniel Hammill / Edwin H.
So, we've gotten rid of the subjectivity when it comes to design review and it's very straightforward objective standards. And just on a side note, um, we've, um, just from a staff perspective and a, uh, developer perspective, those interim rules seem to be working very well.
"Skip" Williams moved approval of the Consent Agenda in its entirety. MOTION CARRIED 7-0. Final consideration of ordinances 24999 1. An ordinance related to the preservation of landmark trees and extending p.
um staff says that they are not as they're not taking as much time to do these types of reviews and the development community knows exactly what they need to do um because it's quite clear. So we believe again that design review is important for these buildings uh should still go through that process.
415 for an additional six months the interim development regulations with respect to landmark trees throughout the city Action: Daniel Hammill / Hollie Huthman moved approval for third and final reading.
Um and finally I just wanted to reiterate the planning commission held a public hearing on July 9th. Um they did u recommend approval with a 50 uh review. Um we believe in summary that staff believes that the proposal offers a very targeted way to use the city's land use regulations to support um a very important community priority uh which is increasing the supply of low-income housing while maintaining health, safety, and environmental and infrastructure standards.
Upon motion, said bill was placed on final passage and approved by the following roll call vote: AYES: Stone, Huthman, Hammill, Williams, Anderson, Lilliquist, Cotton NAYS: (None) EXCUSED: (None) MOTION CARRIED 7-0 and was thereafter named Ordinance #2026-08-020.
Um, we therefore uh recommend that you adopt the planning commission's findings, conclusions, and recommendations and pass the ordinance tonight. We are available for any questions you may have. >> Thank you very much for the presentation.
Um, as you noted, we're first here for public hearing. So, are there any clarifying questions before we receive that public hearing testimony? Then we'll bring it back for discussion at the close. Questions?
25012 2. An ordinance amending BMC 6.15 and BMC 2.21.010, regarding the rental p. 431 registration and safety inspection program, and chapter 6.12 BMC, regarding rental agreements Action: Lisa Anderson / Michael Lilliquist moved approval for third and final reading.
Okay, seeing none, we will open the public hearing and I'll turn to the clerk to read the first names. Right, we had four individuals signed up. Um, first up was Adam Bellinger. Um, it's Jess or Tess Mullen or Muller, Mary Lou White, and then Pete Day.
Upon motion, said bill was placed on final passage and approved by the following roll call vote: AYES: Stone, Huthman, Hammill, Williams, Anderson, Lilliquist, Cotton Page 8 of 9 NAYS: (None) EXCUSED: (None) MOTION CARRIED 7-0 and was thereafter named Ordinance #2026-08-021.
>> Good evening, council staff, and uh, community members. My name is Adam Bellinger. Um, I am broadly supportive of this uh recommendation um for the low-income housing development incentive. Um, what I would suggest though is that there be tracking of the actual costs to build going forward of these affordable housing projects relative on a per unit basis relative to the private sector.
25006 3. An ordinance regarding the One Percent for Art program; amending p. 447 Bellingham Municipal Code Chapter 4.92 Action: Daniel Hammill / Hollie Huthman moved approval for third and final reading.
Um there's a pretty big differential of uh when I look at projects that are have been done in the last few years. Um it's roughly about half a million a unit to build an affordable housing uh uh project and yet the private sector is able to do it for 330,000 roughly lately uh in the last few years.
Upon motion, said bill was placed on final passage and approved by the following roll call vote: AYES: Stone, Huthman, Hammill, Williams, Anderson, Lilliquist, Cotton NAYS: (None) EXCUSED: (None) MOTION CARRIED 7-0 and was thereafter named Ordinance #2026-08-022.
Public comment period City Council heard public comments from 3 individuals. Adjournment There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:26 p.m. Kelley Goetz, Deputy City Clerk kngoetz@cob.org Page 9 of 9
Um uh it's that's a pretty big differential and if we're not getting the the actual costs reduced for the um for the affordable housing, we need to keep looking for ways to get it uh down lower. Um and there's there's a lot of factors that go into affordable housing as I'm sure you're aware of some of those.
But um I I think we really need to like track how this looks going forward as uh we see the the impacts on the development piece. Thank you. >> Thank you, Adam. >> Jess or Tess Mullen or Müller, Maryl White, and Pete Day.
You're all welcome to come up to the mic. Yeah, I don't have my written comment because I couldn't get off the computer today and as usual I'm not organized, but you guys have gotten my comments more than once.
You know, my concerns with regard to mining. um my concerns regard to this uh burden it places on the um the people who are paying taxes here because it's deeply financed and doesn't give the financial return for that finance.
Um I didn't say what ordinance it is because it's not on the sheet I was given. Likewise, I got this on July 25th, but um if I were somebody who had not been on the board as an alternate, I would not be able to ex to reach this until 7 days before the meeting to find out anything about it.
Um so that's just another thing on the side and I think it's in my notes. Um, with regard to the mining in particular, because I live in a mining area area, a historic mining area, I'm concerned because the voids aren't equal across the city and that's why we shouldn't have a regulation that's equal across the city.
I'm also concerned with regard to the environmental factor. Um because these units they city is saying is four roughly four to five now but they acknowledge there'll be at least up to six. They acknowledged at the last meeting if it's on record I don't know if it's on record but it could be on video that there's really no regulations any longer.
Um so that these will end up ultimately possibly going into residential neighborhoods. I would also like to um place it on record any notes that I've put in at that meeting, this meeting, and potentially uh the 20 or the 2701 um Birwood neighborhood um h planned housing that I also provided the council with documentation on with regard to the risks for storm water drainage.
Um, I think the council knows that the city has infrastructure that's overundred years old and that these large structures put in on infrastructure that wasn't developed for that could lead to um backwatering and sewage backups in homes, which has happened in Bellingham several times this year.
Um, it will also uh potentially lead to blackouts where you don't get electricity or you have a restriction on your electricity or water. Um, so I think we need to look at this more carefully and that it should be subject to due diligence and I think having a broad um thing that isn't subject to due diligence doesn't cover that.
Um, I also would like to say with regard to the SEIPA comment, um, that I I noticed in the SEIPA comment that the city has decided to give away our wildlife for the outskirts of the Bellingham and I don't think that's good for the health and safety of the citizens of Bellingham.
Um, so and I don't think that we were asked about that either with regard to that. So, I welcome the council to talk to me. >> Thank you, Mary Lou. Good evening, council members and neighbors, city staff.
My name is Pete Day. I live in the Birchwood neighborhood as well and uh I also uh am here representing Compass Housing Alliance which is a regional nonprofit affordable housing developer. Um and I'm not going to take much of your time this evening.
Um but I did want to offer support for this ordinance and underscore uh just how important regulatory updates like this are to making affordable housing possible in our community. So uh from a developer standpoint um in broad strokes an ordinance like this serves to increase certainty for us which is a huge deal um so that we can plan effectively and know at the outset of feasibility you know exploring um whether a project is even possible.
Um we need clarity on what what the rules are, what the land use regulations are. Um and oftentimes what ends up happening is we um go in, you know, to a community that has more restrictive um land use regulations and there's a lot of back and forth with with the city that takes a lot of time to understand what those regulations are and how we can work with them.
So appreciate the clarity um that this ordinance offers. Um, and secondly, I just [clears throat] want to call out the um the ways that an ordinance like this really does reduce development costs substantially.
Um, and there are substantial soft costs and hard costs associated with pursuing variances, which is often the case uh when building affordable housing. um negotiating design allowances and paying consultants and legal fees uh to to work those things out.
Um so there's definitely um uh cost savings there. And I'll call out a regulatory change like this um allows more of each affordable housing dollar to be spent on actually building affordable homes as opposed to um servicing the cost of administrative burden essentially, right?
Um so uh I I want to thank uh Tara and Kurt for and the city staff for their work on this ordinance. Um, I feel that it does a does a good job of balancing the urgency of the need uh in our community um with appropriate safeguards for responsible community development.
And I'll just call out clauses like the long-term affordability condition that's in the ordinance um as well as the city funding and consolidated action plan condition as well um as examples of um great safeguards that I appreciate are in there.
Um, so thank you Tara and Kurt. Uh, and thank you councel for entertaining this ordinance. >> Thank you Pete Jess. >> Okay. Are there any So is there anyone else on the list? >> Uh, Jess or Tess, but they're not um stepping up.
>> They haven't responded. Okay. Is there anyone else here this evening who would like to speak to this item? >> Yes. Yes. >> Hello everybody. You guys are in my wheelhouse when you start talking about affordable housing.
But I a couple things I want to bring up. I didn't have my notes either. My computer decided to crash. What I want to highlight is what's the cost of the affordable housing that we do. And I wish that we would keep a record of um the increased regulatory cost which they're going to try and get rid of.
But really there's hidden costs that nobody really wants to talk about. And that's there's about 92 properties that are in Wakom County right now that pay no property tax. And what you'll find is there's a lot of like an apartment complex that is near me or my work on Wurn where they were paying 150 grand a year in property taxes and then about two or three years ago magically they paid zero.
And so I want to be reminded that there isn't some magic budget tree that just drops $100 bills for us to get what we want. People have to be taxed to get that money. People have to pay money out of their own, you know, their own uh uh incomes.
And I'm telling you that there's a cost to this. And when you say affordable housing, I want you to know, and this is no offense to anybody. I feel like people are saying it like my kids would say when they were little and we didn't have the money and they said just write a check because they had no real comprehension of what that meant.
And I want everybody to remind I'm here to remind everybody that there's a cost when you're talking about affordable housing. There's a cost to your land use policies. There's a cost to your hoarding of land through the greenways and other purchases.
uh on available land like in the US Street corridor that Bellingham owns like 50% of there's the cost of the tree ordinances. There's the cost of everything and it all just stacks and it makes it a very unaffordable place.
And I want you to remember this isn't just evil. I mean developers do a God's work. They do a a a vital uh thing for our community. What happens is that we don't have jobs. It's like where's your teachers going to go?
Where are they going to live? Are they going to live in 200 foot places? Are they going to want to live here? I want you to remember last time I said that Wakom County number one export we have is our children.
That's from La uh La Sorenson. I want you to think about that when you're talking about these these issues that it's people's futures and people's ability to live here. But in reality, I believe that Bellingham had 42 projects or something the last couple years that got the tax break for for being in these corridors.
Not one of them had uh lowincome housing. They could do market rent. So, I want you to say that there's a cost to all this. And then finally, I want you to know that that there's like $3 million worth of tax that's going away from people that aren't being uh uh collected.
So, when you do these low-inccome h projects, let's keep a running total of what they cost. And it's not just hiding subsidies from people not paying taxes or proper or projects. Thank you. >> Thank you, Brian.
Thank you, Brian. Is there anyone else here this evening who would like to speak to the topic of this specific public hearing? Okay, seeing none, I will close the public hearing and bring it back to council for discussion.
Council member Anderson. >> So, I don't have any specific questions. I think it's pretty well written through. Um, generally, we would send this on to a work session if there's a lot of questions. Um but uh just to share, I remember a project on Samish Wayade, the Samish Commons, and as a uh neighborhood leader, we worked really hard to uh help secure that property.
And then again, as two neighborhoods, Se Home and York, we really lobbyed that affordable housing would go into that part of our community. And thankfully it was awarded to Bellingham Housing Authority.
And then um as time went on, I was on the planning commission. And when the property was designed and ready to go, um they were just outside the corridor for kind of the unlimited height. So there was a height limit for them.
And they could save a substantial amount of money if they were able to use some uh like pre-engineered prefab parts. And so they were going to be six feet above the height limit. Six or eight feet above the height limit.
So to try to save the money, they went to the neighborhoods and talked about trying to increase the height of which both neighborhoods were fully supported. And we kept asking them, could you go even go higher?
But they explained to us that the cost of going from uh stick and board to engineered and manufactured like uh uh metals and stuff just greatly increased the cost that they would not be able to get funding.
And so they had to go the route of delaying and then going through the planning commission to have the planning commission agree that the height should be changed. And then eventually that came to at least two of the council members here to vote for it.
Um, council member Liiloquist and Council Member Hamill. And that caused a pretty significant delay for six feet and them being able to save enough money to be able to afford to put it in. And and I understand the cost associated to not getting taxes or perhaps additional staff time, but our largest segment of unmet housing needs are going to be those people under 80% AMI.
And so our for-profit um development doesn't address that. And the city only has so much money to develop it on our own. So any opportunity we have to assist to cut down some of that administrative cost, the extra engineering cost.
Um I used to be uh worried about height, um making sure that it fit within what was in that corridor or that neighborhood, but the reality is the more I understand about the engineering and the development costs, we're really not going to see anything above four stories.
um because our nonprofits, they can't get that level of funding. Um that is more of a for-profit and this is not what it's covering. So, I'm not worried about the height coming in um and being an issue in the areas that are allowed.
Um, and I could maybe not get a second. And this is unusual for me to make a motion to approve um without necessarily sending it to committee, but um I think this is a pretty straightforward and necessary and grateful that this is being coming forward.
So I um move approval of um the adoption of the ordinance for the first and second reading. >> Second. Motion was made by Council Member Anderson and a second by Council Member Hman. Discussion. Council member Liquist.
>> I think there's a lot about this ordinance that I love, but I think there's uh also a major problem which I would like to address before we we vote on it. Um yeah, you know this what it basically does does is it says uh by relaxing height rules or getting rid of them, density rules or getting rid of them or lot coverage rules or getting rid of them, you can build bigger the edges of your lot so long as you deal with storm water issues.
You go as high as you want so long as you're have well engineered building and as as long as you don't block view corridors. All this makes a great deal of sense to me. I'm not sure about the open space thing.
I can't tell if it's more generous or more forgiving, but I think that's a minor deal. My problem is that in the name of removing restrictions, we're creating a new restriction. We're creating the opposite of flexibility in a way which I don't think was thought through.
The problem is that during our comp plan discussion, we talked about the value and the utility of mixed income projects and how mixed income projects are disfavored by the way we keep writing our rules.
So that we keep writing rules which creates lowincome poor people housing or anything else and we don't allow possibility of mixtures of incomes. The way this is written it prevents that possibility. It's the opposite of flexibility.
It actually excludes an option of mixed housing which I think runs counter to our compound policy 816. So on the applicability chapter 2029A-2 section C, it says only projects proposing 100% low-income housing are eligible for the incentive provisions herein.
I think that's a mistake. I think we should allow this if a project has the majority of low-income units, 60% or some other number. We can talk about it. But why are we excluding mixed income projects?
We want housing. We want housing that's affordable. And we also want mixed income housing projects. We could get all three if we just rewrote the applicability section. So I would like to talk about that and maybe amend it before voting on the amendment on the ordinance.
>> Council member Lilloquist, is that formal motion or anything or at this point you just want >> At this point I want to open discussion. >> Okay. Council member Cotton. Um, I love this ordinance. I think it's so smart and thank you for the work to bring it forward.
Um, okay. I have one uh technical question. How much work is it to re for the city to confirm a covenant has been recorded? Are you just copied on an email or the staff have to run down to the courthouse?
Like how much staff time is that component? >> I don't do that part, but um my team does and we do require covenants anytime we loan on a project. So, that's something that we do routinely. >> I can answer.
It's actually relatively minimal. Um, we draft up a uh the the covenant. It's very standard. Um, we require the developer or the applicant to recorded it. So, they walk they get it, they walk across the street, record it, bring us back a copy, we have a copy, it stays in the file.
>> Okay. That is I've always been curious, so thank you for answering that. Um, but I do think it, um, informs my reaction to your comments, council Loquist. Um, that question around whether or not this should be expanded to maybe incentivize participation in the 12-year MFT was brought up in the planning commission meeting.
Um, I do think we would have to kind of get down to that maybe level of percentage, like a 20% for that really to pencil in most cases. But, um, I do think, um, we we are getting a lot in exchange for this.
Like, we're talking about a 50-year covenant for affordability. So, in that sense, for that extra affordability, we're actually getting a lot more on top of the 12-year MFT. Um, so I I think it's maybe a really smart idea.
Um I understand that you know this is uh providing a lot of additional flexibility and there might be some concerns about how that plays out but I think this the fact this is limited to u multif family zones makes me feel a lot more comfortable.
Um and also we just desperately need affordable units and um it seems like we're we're getting a lot for what we're given here. So, I'm generally supportive of council and happy to continue that conversation in in committee or um uh or now if folks have thoughts.
>> Clear. Are you supporting council member Anderson? >> I I'm supporting. >> Yes. >> Sorry. >> So, um I I too would love to see what I call, you know, not the silos of poverty, but I just questioned how much time and work it would be to come back with what is the right mix.
Is it 50% affordability? Is it 20% affordability? Um, things have to pencil out for the developer, not just the nonprofit. Because if you're doing mix often is not the nonprofit, it might be a nonprofit uh partnering with a for-profit development.
I think conversations would need to be had so we had the right mix um to make it make sense. And I'm just wondering um and this might be to director Lions who's typing away there. Um, does it make more sense to pass this as it is and then come back because I know your guys's work agenda after what was presented at the planning the shared joint meeting is quite extensive and so I worry about delaying something and then having a bunch of questions that go into a work session that could go into work session into work session to make it pencil out.
Does it make sense to maybe delay this and have you come back um with any questions we're going to be forming now or does it make sense to perhaps if council supports it to pass it and then come back with an amendment when it fits into your work schedule?
because I would like to see the opportunity for mix. But I also think if we're looking at good opportunity, we might want to consider some of those tax incentives in tandem with changes. And it may not necessarily be with this.
It might be with another um ordinance that comes forward. So I guess some direction how you think might be best to reach maybe a shared goal of incentivizing more mixed income housing. >> I'll let Tara respond first and then I'll >> Yeah, I'll start.
Um we do have a project in the pipeline that is stuck at the moment that one of our affordable housing developers and it's a height issue. So, we would like to see action and if the council wants to expand.
So, this is the reason why it says 100% affordable is when we're funding projects, we that's the realm that we're in and and especially in the rental product. Um it doesn't mean that by the way a developer couldn't propose a mixeduse development and we partially fund and they would just follow the rules that that are there in the underlining zoning.
So what we said to planning commission is if you want to contemplate expansion we're talking about a really different scope if we're talking about the 12-year expansion that is like citywide now. So, and we don't we just don't really know what to expect with with that program.
So, I'd urge adoption and then come back later. >> I would offer one other um consideration and that is the the two worlds of having an applicant who is an affordable housing developer and a market rate housing developer don't blend as much as you would think.
um they are almost I I don't want to say they're exclusive because that wouldn't that wouldn't be a fair statement either, but they are unique and disciplined in their own right. And so having an idea of um making them collaborate and do that kind of stuff is is is great in theory and [laughter] but it's a little more difficult in practice.
And so I would not want us to necessarily hold up the projects that Tara is talking about to kind of force that endeavor. Council member Lillquist. >> Yeah, I must have spoken very poorly. I'm not saying we should require mixed use.
I'm saying that we should allow mixed use. Saying at least say 60% means you could do 100%. No one has to do mixed use. If you like this proposal which gives the incentive to 100% then you might like it better if it also allowed another number when it was mixed use.
So we don't need to come up with the right number. If if someone wants to come in and you only do 100% affordable, you can get it. You can get it. You can get it tomorrow. The whoever's lined up to do it, they can get it tomorrow if we pass it tonight.
Well, 15 days. Um I'm suggesting we add flexibility. We add the possibility. I'm not saying only projects with exactly or at least some number, right? Or, you know, a mixed market rate. I'm saying at least this percentage has to be affordable.
It could be 100% if you want. So, I'm I'm I'm making it permissive language, not mandatory language. So, I think I want to clear that up. And you you still may not like the idea. Um, but I'm also confused with the staff saying, "Oh, we can fund a mixeduse project now.
We would just do a 100% of a funding of the 80% of the units that are affordable." That requires them to divide up their project. Why Why make it hard on them? Why not just have them show us the unit count?
Uh, so I if we can all if we're already think we can do it and then going to Mr. Lion's point, they're really well taken. There are two different worlds of of forprofit and nonprofit and putting them together is a challenge, but we keep saying we want it.
So why would we create a new roadblock of our own making? One more reason you can't do mixed use. So I'm saying let's get rid of this roadblock and not require mixeduse, but at least allow it. So that's what I would hope to propose.
And I'm sorry I wasn't clear about that about you not requiring it. So, Council Member Loquist, in your mind, how would the incentive be applied to just hypothetically to a a mixed project, then in this case, it would just apply to the >> affordable simply say to the city that uh you know, we swear or affirm that X% of our units, 26 out of 32 or whatever their number is are uh qualify under section 030A definition of low-income housing.
I mean, they're already swearing and covenanting that 100% they would just submit the same piece of paper which says that 80 or 60 or 40% of the units meet the requirement. >> Council member Cod. >> So, I'm interpreting your question council and maybe this is actually a really good candidate for work session.
I don't know. Um, but uh sorry Steph um uh my interpretation is that it would all the incentives would still apply to the entire project is what you're suggesting, right? Yes, one building of money. >> You have to build one building, but the, you know, if 20% were rent restricted units with an affordability covenant recorded, then the project could benefit from the flexibility that's contesting or whatever percent.
I do I'm not sure it's worth doing 60% because I'm not sure there's anyone wanting to do that. Um, I think yeah, layering it on top of the MF team would make the most sense to me. So, what I would propose, um, there's not a formal motion on the table to amend the current motion, which was already, um, brought forward by the council members Anderson and Huffman.
Um but we've spoken before about that interest in yes how how do we incentivize or make it simple for you know profit developers market rate and people who are building permanently affordable to collaborate or work right together on projects like it feels like it would be the best of both worlds but at the same time you're asking for two very different worlds to then play in the same sandbox and it's complicated and messy and so Um, but I think there's more than a simple right brush of the pen to effectuate what you're talking about.
And in light of what Tara shared about, you know, projects in the queue that could potentially benefit from this that would put units on the ground here in our community, I proposed to move forward with the vote before us this evening and request a work session related to I mean, I don't know on what time frame, but in thinking about are there creative ways to get to that that mixed right mixed developments when you have permanently affordable and market coexisting and is there a way as a city to help to incentivize right that um but if you have a particular you know amendment I just think it's going to be right it's yes we would all like simple solutions and I don't think this is one that's going to be a achieved tonight but council member Liquist >> this is not a work session but it's going to end up being one um you'll see why I propose that we amend 2029 AO2 applicability section section C to read only projects proposing at least 20% lowincome housing are eligible for the incentive provisions herein >> second >> the reason I chose 20 was to bring up the discussion that was had the planning commission although I didn't listen to it that had to do with it if doing it this way would layer it on with the MFTTE program that now you would not only have the MFTTE program which has the possibility of creating mixed income housing but has never yet once done so as Mr.
Gas pointed out. Now we have a way of creating this MFTA program could potentially do that. I am not sure it's a great idea but I want to talk about it. This has not been talked about. This is a great topic for a work session but I want to talk about layering these on.
It may be too much. It may I don't know but I want to talk about it. Council member Anderson and then H. >> So I can't support it. Um 20% is too low in my opinion because this is about um creating affordability.
20% leaves 80% which for a for-profit developer could just blow out the whole height aspect because they can afford to go much higher. I was comfortable without a hype knowing that a majority of nonprofit based on their funding mechanism wouldn't be able to build higher than maybe four or five stories.
A forprofit could and I think it just opens up too much concern about where would this potentially 10 or 12 story building go in what area. And um there I have too many questions that I don't think today we're going to answer and I'm just really apprehensive about not getting it passed tonight and potentially impacting the project.
I'd much rather have had a motion afterwards to send it to staff um to create a work session in the future that would be able to give us um more details on the whatifs and the opportunities. Council member Hudman.
>> Thank you. Um I appreciate the conversation. Council member Loquist for sure. I know that's uh having mixed income housing has been um a topic of conversation a lot and how we encourage that has been a topic of conversation a lot.
Uh I'm wary of this amendment only because of understanding just how complex nonprofit building is already the the number of factors that go into um build building nonprofit housing and then adding the extra complexity of the for-profit component as well into the same building.
And I'm here for it. I I think it's just the the behind the-scenes details and funding mech mechanisms and what that looks like for staff. Um and what is it that we we uh as non-experts in this field um don't know about those complexities um which is why it would be wonderful to have a fuller conversation about that.
Um, at this point I would really like to get this passed as it is something that has been poured over by staff already asking all of those questions of complexity. Um, and then perhaps at a later time um contemplating your your idea in a more full way.
Council member Williams, >> I tend to agree with my colleague um Holly Huffman in that I'm not a big prognosticator of doing things on the fly. I if this is an issue that needs to be addressed, then it needs to be addressed in the right way.
This has already been addressed. It's been through the hopper and uh it's been recommended by the planning commission and the staff that we pass it this one. Now, if there's something else down the road that we need to take a look at and go through the work and the research and everything else to make sure that what you are talking about is going to work.
I'm all for that, but I'm not all for just making a motion tonight on something that's already been thought through and dealt with. So, um I would support the motion. >> No. Or not not your motion, the uh passage of this as it is written.
>> Council member Hamill. >> Yeah. I understand. I think what you're trying to do and seeing the benefits of u mixed income developments there's um a body of work and evidence that supports that. I totally understand that.
However, I I just I mean if you look at the um the projects that are cited here as as examples are nonprofit developer oriented. So, Sedra Commons um is opportunity council, Milworks is Mercy, Eleanor is Mercy.
Um to and I think the the planning director is correct that what we're looking at is two different business models and two different types of work products that come out of those different business models.
And one thing that I'm not clear on or not certain on is a for-profit developer ability to to manage a 50-year affordability requirement as part of the project. I'm just not >> certain that how that's going to work or if they'd want to take on that responsibility.
There's a reason why we haven't seen I can't think of a single for-profit development in the city of Bellingham that has affordability um requirements. the all the ones that are, like I said, all the ones that are cited here, they're all nonprofit developers.
They have expertise within that field. That is their lane and they they're very accomplished within that. Um, so I'm not going to support the amendment. I do support passing this tonight. I think that we do we should uh for the public benefit come back and and have a further discussion to try to understand your concept a little bit better in a future work session.
Um, before I go to council member Anderson again, I was just going to note as well that in the motion that you made, I believe that you're just addressing subsection C, which talks about the percentage, but then subsection D states that low-income housing projects shall be operated by a qualified low-income housing provider.
And so, I think there will be some direct conflict there as well. But the other question that you're getting at of yes, why haven't we seen any of those MFT projects come forward? I mean, I think that's the bigger thing to grapple with.
It's like what? Yeah. What is it that's going to need to come forward in order to to move those projects? Um, and so I feel like there are already mechanisms available to try and foster those projects, but it's not coming to fruition.
And so there's there are bigger things to unpack there, I guess, at this time, I believe. Council member Anderson. >> Thank you. Um, I do see potentially a future opportunity, but I also want to make sure we get it right to make sure that it's just not something listed that never gets utilized because it's not worded where we needed.
um like what council me council president um Stone has just stated, you know, some of the language in here would really need to change because in talking with some of our um nonprofit um one I won't throw them out there, but one of the dynamic conversations we had was there was some interest in having market rate in one of their developments, but they really had to look at a lot of different funding um possibilities to make something that like that happen.
We also have a new um nonprofit in the community that has received some substantial grants. The future home buyers organization, they just placed their first person in a condo unit for permanent affordability.
So whereas we have like Culian Land Trust that does a lot of development and building and it's all there. Um, the FHO is partnering with either already built units, but they were also partnering with a developer who just developed, but they're going to use hopefully the tax incentive, but it'd be really nice for our planning department to have the opportunity to sit down with like FHO, and I'm not going to say the developers name because, you know, there's a lot in the community, but maybe some of our developers and find out how do we incentivize such partnerships where um someone like FHO or even Culsian Land Trust or perhaps unknown to me um you know another if I had another name I'd drop it but for an organization to be able to say okay we could buy 10 units with our our funding for this and then you maybe ex expand it beyond just the tax credit because the units would be under um the nonprofit um for permanent affordability.
they're the ones that monitor it and what happens with the forprofit can change hands. I could see where a model would work, but I think there's just some work and leg work that has to happen first to make sure that anything we're putting on the books will be utilized and be functional and hopefully we will see those partnerships come out.
I have hope that we have some of the pieces, but slicing it into this ordinance is not going to be the thing I believe that will make it happen. And I want to make sure it happens. So, I I do appreciate council member Lilliloquist um bringing that forward because it does allow us to have this discussion and perhaps staff are aware of a desire we would like to go.
Um but timing is also critical on it. >> We have an amendment before us. Um if there's not further comment on the proposed amendment, I'm going to call the vote on the amendment. Council member Lilquist and Cotton, >> you should go first.
Um, just to note, the definition of qualified low-inccome housing provider does include for-profit developers, but your point is well taken. I think this amendment would only make sense if we also amended the definition of low-inccome housing and removed the reference to the consolidated plan.
Um, but regardless, this motion sounds like it will fail. But I do think hopefully staff has heard seven council members interested in pursuing this idea. Um, but I do think just to respond to a comment, I am more afraid of um, Bellingham being a place that people can't afford rather than tall buildings and multif family zones.
So, um, just to name our priorities, um, I, um, uh, I think we should be more afraid of Bellingham being a place people can't afford. Council Lopez, >> to be honest, the reason why I proposed 20% was to make sure that it got on the table for discussion because I knew that I had a second for that.
I don't think 20% is the right number. I threw out 60%. Maybe 80%. That's a better number. That's the more likely thing that would work for a model for mixed development. Councilman Anderson mentioned there's somebody who's looking at mixeduse development.
Well, we're going to close the door on that. we're going to take this incentive and remove it from the table so it won't be available to them. We keep talking about how this is a difficult thing and how do we make this mixeduse work?
We all want it. There's so much work uh uh Mr. Hamill referred to which says it's a good idea. Why are we closing the door on it? Why are we creating one more barrier to mixed use? My idea is not to require programs or projects to be mixed use.
It is to allow them to be mixed use if they want. But if most of the developers are nonprofits doing 100% affordable, no harm, no foul opposite of that, that's a real benefit. I'd like this program to succeed.
I just don't want it to have the unintended consequence of closing the door on one of the things we keep saying we want. So I understand this is not going to pass. I would have liked to have had a discussion.
I would like to gone to a work session. I didn't want to do this through amendments, but it's the only way I could get the discussion to continue. I think we're making a mistake. I think we're going to get lots of really good projects out of this.
I'm afraid we're going to be missing a few as well. And those will be really important projects. And those projects would be incredible examples to be proud of because the thing we've been talking about and hoping for for years and now those projects will not get disincentive and they're even less likely to ever come our way.
Council member Williams, >> I didn't hear a single person up here disagree with your with your concept. What I heard was we need to do some homework. We need to perhaps develop an another ordinance similar to this or something to address the issue.
I think that by voting on this tonight is not closing the door. The direction and the feeling of this council is at least I think it is that that the issue that you are bringing up needs to be addressed.
But is the best way to address it? Amending this or kicking it to a work session and being sure that when we do it, it's done the right way so that it will work. And um I like I said, I haven't heard a single person say no, the issue should not be addressed, just that maybe this isn't the form that it needs to be addressed in.
So, thank you for bringing it up and having the discussion. >> So, we have a motion. >> Council member Huffman. [laughter] >> Thank you, Council President. Um, in answer to the closing the door comment, I would say I want to make sure to keep the door open for this specific intended purpose.
um you have opened a door and you should put a doors stop in it. Um perhaps once we vote on this uh there is another motion that could be made to keep the conversation moving. But I think that uh with all of the time and effort that has gone to this ordinance as is um with some very specific purposes to add some flexibility so that we um can directly impact uh providing some flexibility in a way that we know um is going to to uh have an effect.
Uh I I think that for me is the priority. But I think that the conversation that you're having um with us is also very important. Um, we have the power to keep it going. So, uh, I would I would recommend recommend a motion once we're done with this.
>> So, we >> there is a parliament to this amendment. >> No, but it's parliamentally allowed. There's a motion which would supersede this one which would go towards the idea of a work session and then it would immediately come back to this one.
It would it would do things in a certain order. It would the council would declare they want to have a work session to discuss mix income housing incentives and then that was disposed then this motion would immediately come back on the table.
If you understand this I'm doing then you would second my motion. Otherwise you might think I'm trying to defeat the motion but I'm not. I'm trying to move it forward. Does anybody understand what I'm trying to say?
>> Yes. But is there a reason to do it now versus after this has been >> It gives me the assurance that that really is the direction we're going and then it it gives me a completely different feeling about my subsequent votes.
>> Are you making a motion? >> A motion to table the this current matter until the city council takes up the question of a work session to discuss mixed income housing incentives. >> Is there a second?
It's just to take he's moving to table for the moment. This is my understanding is to table this vote that is currently before us in order to hear a motion about a work session because he doesn't trust that after this vote we're going to move forward with consideration of a motion.
He wants the assurance now before he casts his vote on his own amendment or the underlying motion. >> Thank you for speaking English for our parliamentarian. I'll second it. >> Okay. So there's a motion by C.
>> Just put it aside. So there's a motion from Council Member Liiloquist and a second by Council Member Anderson to table the current discussion and to consider a motion to schedule a work session on this topic >> on mixed income housing incentives >> on mixed income housing >> incentives.
Okay. So, there is a motion to schedule a work session on mixed income housing incentives. Council member Williams, >> I'm I'm having a hard time understanding why you just can't make that motion. I I mean after passage of this, >> but we are where we are and I'd like to move forward this evening.
So, >> any discussion on this motion for a work session to be >> the motion is to table then we have to make the motion first. You have to clear it this motion off the the amendment off the table before you can talk about the work session.
That's the parliamentary issue. >> But the amendment will still be there when we come back. >> Yes. Because because the motion to table immediately brings it back once the event is triggered. >> Okay.
All in favor of tableabling at this moment say I. >> I. I. >> Any opposed or abstensions? Seeing none, that passes 70. Council member Littlequist. Motion the city council request the administration to schedule at an appropriate time in the future a work session to discuss mixed income housing incentives.
>> Second motion's been made by council member Liiloquist and a second by council member Anderson again to schedule work session on mixed income housing incentives. Any discussion on the motion? Council member Anderson.
I appreciate that council member Liloquist did not put a date or time stamp on when it has to come back because we all saw how much work is ahead. Um, and then I trust that staff will look at if it can dovetail into any other work that makes sense so we're not kind of at the end of the line.
But thank you for not requesting it to come back quickly. I know. >> Any other discussion on the motion? Seeing none, all in favor will say I. >> I. >> Any opposed or abstensions? Okay. Seeing none, that passes 70.
So, we'll come back to the amendment that was previously tabled. Now that we've taken the action requested by the tableabling motion, the amendment brought forward by council member Liiloquist and seconded by council member Cotton is on page 13 of our packet under section 20.29A.202 020 applicability section subsection C.
The amendment was for it to read, "Only projects proposing 20% low-income housing are eligible for the incentive provisions herein." Any discussion on the motion? >> Okay, seeing none, all in favor of the amendment say I.
>> I. >> Any opposed? >> No. >> Any abstensions? >> Okay. So, I believe that passed 61. [clears throat] You ended up being a yes. Well, Cotton was a no. I heard you as a >> Yes, we were all nos. >> You're both nos.
>> No, he was a yes. We were all nos to the amendment. >> So, right. So, I'm saying you're voting against your amendment. >> Yeah. Failed one six. It didn't pass. >> Okay. So, that amendment fails 16.
And that brings us to the underlying motion which was originally brought forward, if I can find it, by council member Anderson, seconded by council member Husman. That motion was to move to approve the ordinance for first and second reading.
That ordinance being an ordinance relating to land use and planning amending title 20 of the Bellingham Municipal Code creating a new chapter 20.29A 29A titled lowincome housing development incentive.
Close title removing and reducing zoning based development regulations for low-income housing in all residential multi- urban village and commercial zones. Any discussion on the motion? Council member Ham.
>> Yeah, just one clarifying question for staff. Under 20.298.030, 030 the definition for low-income housing. Is that consistent with the Washington State Housing Trust Fund, their definition? >> This was one of the items that was changed when we were heading to the planning commission based on feedback from the affordable housing developers.
So this has been modified so that it is consistent with the trust fund and the tax credit terminology or definitions I should say. >> Okay. >> Any further questions or discussion? >> Any follow? Okay.
Seeing none, all in favor will say I. >> I. >> Any opposed >> or abstensions? Okay. Seeing none, that passes 70. Any further items from staff on this matter? No. Okay. Thank you very much. So, that concludes the public hearing item that was before the council this evening.
Um, next we would move forward with appointments. And for this item, I'm going to turn to Deputy Administrator Janice Keller. >> Good evening. I'm presenting the appointments on behalf of Mayor Lund tonight.
Um the first one is for information only. It's the mayor's appointment of Brandon Roundtree to a first term as the Sunnyland neighborhood primary representative to the mayor's neighborhood advisory commission.
The second one is a confirmation of the mayor's appointments to the landlord and tenant advisory work group. Uh this one is a little more substantive and um we're looking for a confirmation vote after we've had a chance to present it and discuss it.
Mayor Lund presents for city council confirmation 13 community members to be appointed to the landlord and tenant advisory work group. We received applications from 60 people who applied to be considered for 13 positions.
We were very thrilled to re receive that much interest from a range of landlords, tenants, professionals working in those fields and um just really pleased that um this gained so much attention after our outreach efforts.
Those selected represent tenants, landlords, and community members with lived and professional experience in rental issues. Mayor Lond appoints the following inaugural members. Lette Alberon, McClean Bowers, Stacy Carol, Nathan Catherol, Margot Hammond, Selena Nolock, Lacy Lutire, Charlie Meyers, Bailey Peterson, Kevin Schilling, Rebecca Sharf, Jessica Silver, and Kimberly Ver Ver Muan.
I was not involved in the application review or the interview process that um resulted in the selection of these folks. I'd like to invite planning director Blake Lion up to talk a little bit more about the that process.
Thank you, Blake. >> Thank you and good evening. Yes. Um, as Janice mentioned, we had um an abundance of riches in terms of the applicants that came forward and um, you know, it's unfortunate that 47 people were not uh, able to be selected, but certainly uh, very appreciative of everybody's interest and the statements they do that.
Um, we started first and foremost with the resolution that the council passed. Uh you may recall that there was kind of several different categories within that resolution that asked for some tenant representation, some landlord and or property management representation, some community interest.
Uh and we went through those that identified and broke them out into those groups. We also took the opportunity as we do with the planning commission where we try to look for and best practices look for a broad geographic representation across the city.
So it's not all from one particular u neighborhood that there is a distribution across those. And then we looked at some of the statements of interest that were brought forward um to see what other kind of self-disclosed areas of interest that they might have.
And we looked in particular for voices that have not historically been represented in this community. And so we saw folks that were brave and offered up some of their lived experiences um and shared with some of those.
And so we made recommendations to the mayor based on kind of a broad category of consideration and then factored into that um some of the overall group dynamics as we were working with the selection of our uh professional facilitator that was a little bit of the deliberation that came as well.
So put forward some recommendations to the mayor. >> Thank you Blake. Thank you very much. Um so again, this confirmation of the mayor's appointments to the landlord and tenant advisory work group is up for um consideration and approval by the council.
>> So move >> second >> to confirm the mayor's appointments to this. >> I move to confirm the mayor's appointments to the landlord and tenant advisory group. >> Second. >> Motion's been made by council member Williams and a second by council member Liiloquist.
Any discussion? Council member Hudman and then Anderson. >> Um, thank you to the 60 people who were interested and applied. That's pretty amazing that there were so many people willing to spend their time doing this um, serving their community.
And one thing that really struck me is that looking through these names. I didn't recognize I recognize maybe one. Um, and I think that's fantastic. uh knowing that there's there are people out there who um are are not necessarily engaging with the city right now, don't know us um personally even and and um we'll be bringing their perspectives and knowledge and and hard work to this group.
Um so I really appreciate that and also thanks to the the staff members that spent the time um going through all of these applications. That's that's a lot. It's a lot of work and I'm sure there were a lot of really good applicants.
Um, so there were some tough decisions. >> Council Anderson, >> thank you. Um, I'm unfortunately not going to be able to support this tonight. Um, it's not about the people who have come forward. I really appreciate the 60 people interested and um, the people who have been appointed.
I have a lot of respect for people willing to donate their time and effort. Um, one of the reasons why I can't support this isn't so much who has been selected but who has not. Um, we have a community advocate who is one of the reasons why this uh group has been formed.
They've been at the dis talking. They've been in people's office advocating. Um Carrie Burnside has been just a stalwart of working with council and the city when it comes to tenants rights and um tenant protections.
And just for those who aren't familiar, probably people watching, um she is part of the Wakom Housing Alliance Policy Task Force, Wacom County Housing Advisory Committee, Bellingham Tenants Union, City of Bellingham Office of Healthy Housing Feasibility Study Task Force, Rental Registry Matrix.
She's worked directly with staff um regarding the rental registry and making improvements. Um she has talked with people on both sides of the junk fee ordinance and advocated for better policy. Um she's brought the law advocates and dispute resolution professionals together to do know your right training for renters and for landlords.
Um she has been here many times talking about policy and things that we can make um improvements on. She started a nonprofit with a couple other of our housing advocates um the future home buyer organizations.
So she has brought in potentially a million dollars into our community to help lowincome um first-time home buyers and they just had their first signing of their first purchase um a week ago. uh she's been invited recently to speak at the you uh at Western Washington University to do a lecture series on the housing crisis and um issues facing tenants on a state level.
She's been part of the Washington Housing Alliance and um she's the legislative district lead for the 40th and 42nd regarding the Washington Low-Income Housing Alliance. She's worked with Representative Gregerson's team on the statewide junk fee legislation.
Uh she's uh consulted Mayor Kathy Wilson's office regarding the Bellingham Junks fee ordinance and the perhaps adoption there. Um she has been invited to signing with our current governor for low-income housing.
Uh she's down in Olympia uh advocating um for legislation. Um I could go on. I just wanted a few things that um I was able to write down that she's been involved in. And I know it's important to have new voices, but we have a person who doesn't even live in our community.
They live in Seattle. Kevin Schilling being appointed who lives in Seattle. I know we passed um the ability to have people outside of our area. I really thought that was when there wasn't qualified people eligible um to be on a committee to serve.
So, we are bringing somebody in who is um part of the RH AWA who represents the needs of perspective prospective 60,000 small rental housing providers. Um I can't imagine we didn't have a small housing provider who would have applied who could have been speaking who lives in this community and has direct impact on those rental um experiences.
but instead we're appointing the communication and advocacy mana man manager for a large represented group. Um it seems a little disproportionate for me. Um I'm just really disappointed that uh somebody in this community who worked really hard to get this in front of us who has such a vast experience of advocating for both sides um and who has a very strong knowledge of our legislation that is on the books.
um who is known to be somebody who uh collaborates. So, [snorts] um I'm just really greatly disappointed and because of that, um as much as I really appreciate 12 of the applicants and think that they'll bring a lot of good things forward, um I just in my conscious cannot I can't as a council member feel like I'm slighting somebody in our community who has worked so hard to better our community and the uh living situations for the people who rent in our community.
Council member Williams. >> Wow. Um, I just want to say that I welcome this committee moving forward. I know it's been in the works for quite a while and um I see um I see this being able to give us the information that we need to make durable decisions to improve our rental um community.
and um and hopefully we'll see some of those recommendations coming our way. So um see is is there any more uh comment? [clears throat] I guess that's your question. >> Any other comments from council members?
Council member Liquist. >> Yeah. Um, this idea was proposed and supported by the city council quite a while ago and so I'm very much excited to see them start their work. There were some surprises in here.
Council member Anderson uh pointed to one of those surprises, but there were mostly pleasant surprises. Um, as council member Huffman said, I didn't know most of these people. I think I knew two of them for sure and then I thought about I'd actually talked to a third person, but these are some new faces at the table and I really appreciate that.
In particular, uh I want to I want to say express my um appreciation and my gratitude to the uh renters on this committee. Uh Jessica B, Selena, Nathan Mlan. I think those are the important voices uh which we've been missing and which we really need and I would like them to be uh strongly represented uh in this advisory work group to help inform us in our work going forward.
We've done a lot of work on renter issues, but we've been doing it not always in the same way. Uh, a little bit ad hoc, some good here, some good there. Um, it'll be nice to have um an advisory body as a touchstone to create some maybe some consistency and some perspective on it.
Um, so I will be I will be supporting uh this work these people being proposed to the work group and getting its work started. in the discussion. Um, just to speak to Council Member Anderson's comments.
Um, I have great respect for Carrie Burnside. Much appreciation for I mean the long list as you said could go on her engagement in the community here locally and beyond. Um, I I feel though that right as evidenced by your comments, she's highly engaged already.
Certainly knows how to access the city system and process. And I don't expect Car's voice to be silenced, you know, going forward and would expect to, you know, continue to um to hear from her, but am excited to have this um when we talk about sort of building a table and trying to expand our, you know, impact in the community as well as the engagement in the community and making sure that in a city of 100,000 people that we have, right, voices at the table that we haven't heard from and making sure that they feel welcome coming forward and especially especially as you commented, Director Lion, you know, sharing their lived experience and hopefully that will cultivate even more advocates in our community to, you know, help move forward um our efforts for um you know, improved landlord and tenant um protections as well as um the you know, future ordinances and resolutions and work that we will bring forward.
And I I would have trouble making this about one person. Again, I feel like in a city of 100,000 people, um there are many many voices that we don't hear from that I would like to write to hear from in in the future.
Um so, for those reasons, I will be um supporting the the motion. Again, we have a motion from council member Williams and a second from Council Member Liiloquist. The motion is to confirm the mayor's appointments to the landlord and tenant advisory work group.
There's no further discussion. I'll call the question. All in favor will say I. >> I. >> Those opposed? No. >> No. >> Any abstensions? Okay. So, that passes 52. >> Correct. Okay. That passes 52 um with council members Anderson and Cotton um voting no.
Okay. Any further appointments? Deputy Killer. >> No. and no mayor's report tonight. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> So then we will move forward with the council assignment reports. Any updates from council members?
>> Yeah, I've got >> council member Hamill. >> Uh yeah, I just wanted to [clears throat] I'll be brief here since we're bit um long here this evening. So I serve on the incarceration prevention and reduction task force for Wakom County, the chair of the behavioral health committee.
Um, and as part of my duties there, I toured Lumi Nation's uh swims facility. So that's secure withdrawal management and stabilization facility. It's new. It's not open yet. It opens next week and it's a 16 bed facility uh currently and it has an involuntary treatment and a voluntary treatment uh component to it.
It is um it it could be a model for the beh the upcoming f or future behavioral care center uh for the county. Uh it's trauma informed design. It's very well done. Um staff 247, admittance 247 as well.
Just wanted to highlight that. You can look it up online too and see some photos there and get further information. I also serve on the um EMS levy committee and the EMS oversight board for the EMS uh levy committee.
I serve on the community paramedic planning team. We just started so I don't have a lot to update um the public and council with regarding uh community paramedic. Um, but it is part of the EMS levy plan.
We're trying to figure out how to um provide service delivery throughout the county uh within within that program. And many of you will recall that the EMS levy originally was intended for ALS, which is advanced life support, but it did branch out to basic life support, community parame medicine training, a number of different items, but I just want to provide that report tonight.
>> Member Williams and then Anderson. Yeah, I I was um I was invited to participate in a tour of homes and businesses last week uh um regarding the home electri electrification appliance rebate program.
This was organized by our by the mayor's uh climate office, Seth Vidana, and uh sustainable connections and and the opportunity council. We toured several homes and several nonprofit agencies to to [snorts] get an idea of what services these entities have um were uh provided with to to update their um their heating and electrification issues that they were having.
Um we were also accompanied by several people from the state department of uh commerce in uh looking at these um homes and uh businesses. Bes um besides the individual homes that receive this service, there are several nonprofit organizations that are also being served such as the Watcom Center for Early Learning, Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault Services, Lydia Place, and Bridget Collins, uh and the Tedos Restaurant, which is a locallyowned minority business in in in our downtown sector.
The funding for this program comes from the Washington Washington's climate commitment act, but the specific funding for uh Watcom County and Bellingham is a grant from the Washington Department of Commerce and is locally administered by the Opportunity Council and Sustainable Connections.
Anyway, it was a very, for lack of a better word, enlightening experience and um I learned a lot by uh seeing all this. The other thing I wanted to talk about is um I went to uh as I usually do to our parks and recreation committee meetings and our greenways meetings and uh the main focus of those meetings at least in the last month or so has been to identify the capital program priorities for the 2027 budget.
such as the pier at Little Squallikham Park, the War Street Trail, Salish Landing, Greenways, Land Acquisition, and so forth. And um the uh program priorities were discussed with the parks and recreation staff at the meeting with final committee recommendations referred to them.
And then the um staff will review all this, develop uh funding levels for each program and eventually that will be presented to us for inclusion in the 2027 budget. In in that time too, I also asked the um committee leadership about the uh process for merging the two committees.
And um as I spoke to them, I was really glad to hear that they felt that the uh process was moving forward in a very positive way and that the fundamental standard they both spoke to me about is the purpose is broadening the understanding among members all of the members regarding the total parks and recreation program and not just their individual piece of the pie.
And um in in that it doesn't mean that each programmatic focus goes away or is prioritized over the other, but it's broadened to a larger group with a unified vision and understanding for all of the areas and programs of of our parks and recreation uh uh department.
And to to guarantee some consistency, the current members of each committee will be grandfathered into the new structure until their term expires with a gradual transition to the new committee structure.
So, I thought that was a pretty good conversation I had. So, all that being said, >> thank you. >> I had a busy week. Council member Anderson. >> Thank you. I have a couple of things. I I failed to mention at our last council meeting that on August 6 um attended the um marine resource uh committee and it's it's a group of state local um environmental educational uh resource group uh that talks a lot about what's happening in our marine area and um what was really educ educational about that meeting is that there were two interns from Bellingham Technical College that had uh provided educational outreach uh over the summer down at Larabe Park where the boat launch is and basically educating the community about the ill grass there and the impacts trying to make sure that people do their boat launches and the soft launch of their uh personal uh watercrafts that they're not walking on the ill grass.
um because of the habitat but they also came forward with some recommendations. Another um interesting thing was that um the GIS specialist for Pad Padilla Bay National um estuary is um there is a a data resource a GIS uh that is available.
So you can um I don't have their website here. Um it's I think it's called Sound IQ. So, if you're want to kind of geek out on things that are happening in the marine area, um the sound IQ is actually they were showing us how to use it.
And if you want to take a look at the islands or um see what what studies are happening and what resources are available, um that is something that you can spend some evening reviewing. Um so, uh this group is pretty fascinating.
I'm learning quite a bit. Um I wish uh well their meetings are I believe open to the public and we meet on our next meeting will be uh on Thursday September 3rd from 5 to 5 to 7 and it's held in the garden room at the county building.
So if you want to learn more about marine resources and what they're up to um it is open to the public and it's always educational. The other thing I wanted to cover is on Thursday, this past Thursday, August 20th, um the planning committee um hosted a joint meeting with the uh planning commission where staff were able to present to us basically everything that's in the hopper when it comes to um a lot of the um the work that is going forward.
So, we kind of got a three to fiveyear perspective of legislative things that will be moving forward. So, at least um I would ask because I failed to ask, but if there was some slides that were presented if it might be useful to send to all of council because some of the graphics showed how far we are in projects, what is starting and when things should be coming forward to council.
And I think um that's why I thanked council member Liiloquist who was in attendance and so was council member Huffman and I believe uh council member Cotton joined us online. It gives us a pretty good layout of the work plan and it's our planning department is doing quite a tremendous lift over the next couple of years.
So I think it would be very useful to have that forwarded over. Um kudos to staff. It's always impressive to see everything if not um exhausting and daunting to realize the work that you guys have in front of you.
So, thank you. Any other updates from council members? Okay, seeing none, I want to gauge we are at 8:30. Five minute break or go forward with report outs. We're at a Okay. Next, we have report outs from committee meetings earlier today.
So, the first committee was budget and finance. That committee was chaired by council member Anderson. So, I'll turn it over to her for a report. Thank you, Council President. We had three items in front of us today.
Joining me was Council Member Hamill and Council Member Liiloquist. Our first agenda item was uh which was a um presentation that provided a summary of the city's financial position through the second quarter of 2026.
The June 2026 financial report uh was attached to the agenda bill and provides detailed information related to uh the six-month period. The presentation and additional financial information is available on the city's website at co.orgreports.
Um something uh basically to share coming out of that report is that currently the city has about 39 positions that are currently frozen which has basically helped with um holding off some of our potential um overage and having to go into our reserves.
Uh some of the good news is that um our revenue tax has gone up a little bit by um I think it was uh one 1.2 million. Um which is helping. Um there's no crystal ball, but the hope is is that we won't be too far over budget.
Um if not, hopefully we'll be kind of flatlined. Um and it was uh if anybody's interested uh please go to the day session. We started at one o'clock today. It should be available on BT10 um sometime tomorrow, but it was very informative of where the city budget is currently.
And that one was for information and discussion only. Um our second item was um item number 255015. It was an ordinance amending the 2026 budget. It is our third amendment. Um the amendment increased revenues by 4 million 92,873 and expenditures by 22,189,674 across multiple departments and funds to ensure sufficient budget authority is providing for existing upcoming programs and projects um and to cover higher than anticipated costs.
There was a line section in there. Some um some of the general fund aotments total 1.6 million and change. Um a big chunk of that was $1.2 million um for higher than expected medical claims. um 200,000 for remodel of uh in city hall, the old uh parks and recreation suite which will be renovated to um house our human resources department who has vacated out of the federal building so that we could in the future move our municipal courts there.
Um the hearing examiner is having an overage. uh the hearing examiner has had some rather large detailed um complex um appeals and hearings and so um we are raising that hopefully with this vote for 150,000.
Um there are other funds that are also live uh listed. I just kind of wanted to give some of those highlights. Um but the committee voted uh three to zero to move um approval of the budget amendment and I so move >> second.
>> Motion's been made by council member Anderson and a second by council member Hamill. Any discussion? >> Seeing none, all in favor will say I. >> I. >> Any opposed or abstensions? Okay, seeing none, that passes 70.
>> Great. And I failed to mention on those two. The first one was presented by our finance director Andy Ebjornson and our second one with the budget amendment was presented by our budget and treasury manager um Eric Johnson.
So, our third item um which was presented by our director uh for planning and community development, Blake Lion, and also Kurt Nabeld, is agenda item 255014, a resolution amending the city of Bellingham land use and application fee schedule.
Um, the city has not updated the land use application fee schedule since its adoption in 2007 and fee revenue is no longer keeping pace with the cost of service. In an effort to bring the fee schedule into alignment with current expenditures, the land use application fee schedule exhibit B in our packet has been revised to account for the inflation and include an annual adjustment based on the consumer price index.
The proposed fee schedule would go into effect October 1st, 2026. The revenue generated from this adjustment will in part be used for a fund to market study to help inform future adjust adjustment um fee schedules as well as cost recovery.
Um there was um great discussion and before I move there was um let me bring it up here if I can bring it. Oh lord there was an amendment and they were so kind to send it to me. Um so I guess for order.
Do I bring forward the amendment first? Vote on that? >> Bring forward the committee's recommendation. Okay. So, um the committee uh recommended three to zero. Um and I so move >> second. >> Okay. So, with that there was um an amendment made.
>> So, the motion during the committee was to move approval as amended. So, the amendment was adopted, but you could read the amendment into the record tonight. So, that's included. >> Thank you. I didn't know if we all had a vote on the amendment.
So reading into the record the amendment um move to amend the resolution adding the new section 3 entitled city council review that states at some time before first half of 2032 city staff shall bring forward the land application fee schedule for review by city council.
Um the discussion was that we would like to have this come forward um at some point to review and staff pointed out that the additional revenue that will be generated by the increased fee is going to help pay for um someone to do a market study.
That information should come forward and at that point um we'll be able to uh either amend or change and that will be the report out. The amendment was kind of I feel like a placeholder to ensure that should something happen and um we don't get a timely study and recommendations coming forward at least we'd get a report back um in the near future.
So again the um committee voted 30 and again I move >> Yep. So there was a motion this evening then from council member Anderson, seconded by council member Hamill again to move to approve the resolution as amended.
Any discussion? Seeing none, all in favor will say I. >> I. >> Any opposed or abstensions? Okay. Seeing none, that passes 70. >> End of committee. >> Thank you very much. The next committee this afternoon was Parks and Recreation.
That committee is chaired by Council Member Williams. So I will turn it over to him for a report. >> All right. Thank you, President uh Stone. We had two items on our agenda. Both were dealing with the uh the new park off of uh Baker View Road that is going to be developed in the next um year or so.
Uh the 10 or 15 years. [laughter] Anyway, uh the the first item was was was agenda bill 255021 which was um dealing with the uh with a recommendation of a name for the park. So, um, at the June Parks and Recreation Advisory Board meeting, the parks and recreation staff shared the results of the public naming poll for this new park on East Baker View Road.
Some of the names that were suggested were Bellingham Park, uh, Komo Culian Park, uh, Telegraph Trail Park, Culinian Meadows, and King Mountain Park. Um, and so forth. And then there was one other, uh, there were some other names, uh, recommended by staff.
One of which was, where is it? Baker View Meadows Park, Telegraph Trail, and so forth. Some some of the same names. So, um, at the end of the the, uh, discussion, the Parks and Recreation Board and the staff recommended to name the park Baker View Meadows Park.
So, after a brief presentation by Nicole Oliver, the parks and recreation uh director, and Peter Gil, going over all of the nominated names, the staff and the advisory committee recommended Baker View Meadows Park.
The council committee concurred and I so move. Second. >> Motion's been made by Council Member Williams and a second by Council Member Hamill. Any discussion? Seeing none, all in favor will say I. >> I.
>> Any opposed or abstensions? Seeing none, that passes 70. >> Okay. The the other um agenda bill that we had was uh number which was a consideration of the Baker View Meadows Park master plan. Um as as we have said uh the park is located between Telegraph and Baker View on east um east of uh Demer Road.
The property was purchased in 20120 for a neighborhood park in and expanding an undeserved part of our city. The master plan that was being presented uh today is a culmination of two years of work with local [clears throat] residents and the community to design and phase the 26 acre space for use as a park while holding a portion along Baker View for future lowincome housing.
The park is intended to be to be completed in phases over the next five years with access and temporary trails available immediately. But full implementation of the master plan will take about 10 to 15 years and will be phased in over that time frame as funding funding is available.
So the estimates are 75,000 for phase uh zero which is current uh 6 million for phase one and 7 million for phase two and and beyond. After a very very enlightening presentation by parks director Nicole Oliver and Peter Gil, park planning and development coordinator along with the landscape architect Lesie Batton from Field Collab LLC.
They explained to us that the the plan itself reflects the results of a vast public outreach program from 700 participants in that community that will be serviced by this park. The overarching direction is to maintain the natural habitat of the park and provide areas for many recreational activities over time such as having a community garden, a children's playground, and an adult exercise area.
ongoing disc golf targets [laughter] and several other amenities that'll be phased in over time as the funding permits. So, both the parks and recreation board and the parks and recreation staff recommended approval of this master plan and the committee concurred and I so move.
>> Second. Motion's been made by Council Member Williams and a second by Council Member Huffman. Any discussion? Council member Huffman. Uh I watched the meeting today, although I wasn't here. And um I maybe in my next life I'll be a park planner because that sounds like so much fun.
Um it's like real life getting to make trails and um and move dirt around. Um, but I remember my first being on council and looking at a map of the city and Nicole Oliver um, director Nicole Oliver talking about how we had such a void in the north uh, end of Bellingham when it came to parks.
And then I also got to be in a meeting um when Nicole Oliver got to be so excited that we were buying this property and we would get to have this park uh and the potential. Um and so it's really fun now to see that there is a plan and that um this park is going to be realized and it's going to be amazing and that uh so many people have provided input uh for for this vision.
I think that that's also really incredible. It's uh it's going to be something that the community is going to be really proud of. So, um very excited that this continues to move along. >> I just want to add >> Council Member Liquist and then Williams.
>> Yeah. Um I I echo a lot of the feelings that Council Member Huffman, I do remember when this came forward. I do remember being excited that it addressed a gap in our system. Um, I I uh also remember that when this came forward, the city council uh directed the staff to look at carving out part of the property for low-income housing, and that has been achieved that that land has been identified.
I think it's an extraordinary statement of values that we, you know, provide that kind of housing to what next to what one of our finest parks. I I note that uh this uh this master plan uh is leans heavily on trails trails trails because that's what the public wanted.
That's not a surprise to me and I'm really pleased to see that'll be multi-use trails, trails for people with multiple abilities, both smaller natural trail trails and and bigger uh paved trails. I think that's going to be great.
It's what it's what the public wanted in addition to other park amenities. I also appreciate that has natural play spaces along with play equipment and sports courts because that's been uh a recognized trend as a kind of a best practice for um how to get people young people um actively playing you know give them some ambiguity to give them some nature to climb upon and even a climbing area so you can get your vertical thrills out too.
Um, and I'm also really pleased that there's a phase zero activation phase. So, it'll take a while before um heavy work begins and uh and the covert can be breached with road access and things like that.
But, there's a phase zero, an activation phase that's going to occur right away. And I very much appreciate that and that there are trails even in that early phase zero as well as in the other phases.
Um, those are all wonderful features of this um the Baker View Meadows. Got to memorize that. Bigger View Meadows uh park master plan and which why we'll be enthusiastically voting yes. >> Council member Williams.
>> Yeah. The only thing I want to really highlight is the responses from the community. getting 700 people to give you input as to what this park should reflect is a very is is something that we should be very very proud of because um to me that's how parks should should be developed by what the local community wants to see.
And I think that a very fine job was done in getting that info. Having it phased in over a period of time is good because it gives us a chance to kind of see what'll work maybe and what might not work or might not work as we saw it.
[laughter] But um it's this I remember dealing with this piece of land I believe the first year I was on the city council and now it's coming to fruition and I'm very proud that we're that we are doing that and making this happen.
>> Any other discussion on the motion? Okay, seeing none, we have a motion from Council Member Williams and a second by Council Member Huffman to move to approve the Baker View Meadows Master Plan. All in favor, we'll say I.
>> I. Any opposed or abstensions? Okay, seeing none, that passes 70. >> So, so we had no further business. So, I adjourn the meeting and I'll pass it back over to you. >> Thank you very much. So the next committee meeting this afternoon was public health, safety, justice, and equity.
That committee is chaired by council member Hamill. So I will turn it over to him for a report. Uh thank you, Council President Stone. I was joined this afternoon by council members Williams and Huffman.
We had three items before us. First was agenda bill 255028. This is an interlocal agreement with the city of Blaine for public safety data sharing. This interlocal agreement authorizes the city of Blaine Police Department to share limited records management system data with WATCOM 911.
That's our uh call center. Watcom public safety telecommunicators will receive readonly access to the names file and Blaine's records management system to support person checks and provide more efficient service to Blaine officers and uh the other agencies that they assess assist.
The agreement does not [clears throat] allow the Blaine Police Department access to Bellingham Police Department records. Each party may remains responsible for its own costs and the agreement does not authorize the expenditure or collection of funds.
I'd also like to add that the this these agreements here um are all consistent with the keep Washington working uh act and um WATCOM deputy director Justin Rasmmanson was here this afternoon to um to provide us a briefing on these agenda items and he's here this evening.
Thanks for joining us. Appreciate it. Uh this afternoon the committee uh voted to approve this interlocal agreement and I so moved. >> Second. >> Motion was made by council member Hamill and a second by council member Williams.
Any discussion? Seeing none, all in favor will say I. >> I. >> Any opposed or abstensions? Okay. Seeing none, that passes 70. >> The second item is uh agenda bill 255029. This was an interlocal agreement with the city of Ferndale for public safety data sharing.
I'm not going to read the summary statement. It's exactly what I just read before for the city of Blaine. Um and the committee u voted to approve and I move. >> Second. Motion was made by council member Hamill and a second by council member Williams.
Any discussion? Seeing none, all in favor will say I. >> I. >> Any opposed or abstensions? Okay. Seeing none, that passes 70. >> The third and final agenda was uh a bill was uh 255030. This is an interlocal agreement with the city of Lynen for public safety data sharing.
Again, same summary statement. The this afternoon the committee moved to approve and I so move. >> Second. Motion was made by council member Hamill and a second by council member Husman. Any discussion?
Seeing none, all in favor will say I. >> I. >> Any opposed or abstensions? Seeing none, that passes 70. >> End of committee report. >> Thank you very much. The next committee this afternoon was committee of the whole.
All council members were present this afternoon. The first agenda item before the committee was agenda bill 255023. This is a resolution establishing the docket of proposed amendments to be reviewed in the 2026 comprehensive plan amendment cycle.
So proposed amendments added to the annual docket will be reviewed using a type six process including public hearings on the merits before the planning commission and the city council. Following a recommendation by the planning commission, the city council will have an opportunity later this year to approve, modify, or deny each request using the criteria in Bellingham Municipal Code Title 20.20.040.
Um we were joined this afternoon by Chris Behey, long range planning manager, as well as Blake Lion, commun um planning and community development director. Um just noting so there were seven items that are being placed on the docket.
One is sort of a classic reszone being brought forward um by the county and also other just cleanup items. Um really sort of errors and things that need to be cleaned up since the the passage of that plan.
Just wanting to highlight that there as far as the agenda going forward and next steps. Um, we are anticipating that these items then will come back before the city council for a work session November 2nd, so later this year.
Then a public hearing proposed to be held on November 16th with council consideration of the ordinance for first and second reading on December 7th and potential third and final on December 14th. So this afternoon there was unanimous recommendation from the committee to move to approve the resolution and I so move.
>> Second. >> Motion's been made by the chair and a second by council member Hamill. Any discussion? >> Okay, seeing none, all in favor will say I. >> I. >> Any opposed or abstensions? Okay, seeing none, that passes 70.
The next item before the committee was agenda bill 255022. This was a discussion of tenant engagement options. So earlier this year, the council directed staff to research options for tenant engagement similar to the landlord and property manager survey that was conducted in the fall of last year 2025.
After considering options, a digital survey was identified as the recommended engagement strategy. As noted um earlier with the appointments that came forward um from the mayor's team, the administration is also taking steps to convene the landlord and tenant advisory working group.
So at the at this time this afternoon, council staff um was seeking direction for next steps on tenant engagement. We were joined by legislative policy analyst Iris not as well as um Blake Lion who is the planning and community development director for the city.
Um basically the question and direction before the council was consideration of whether um to move forward with the survey at this time under um sort of council direction that would go forward with um assistance and support from our legislative policy analyst Iris not and then whatever results are brought forward right the data collected from that survey that could be shared with the work group with the um landlord and tenant advisory work group for further consideration and analysis.
or delaying that survey until the um landlord and tenant advisory work group had an opportunity to sort of lay out a more um robust and perhaps in-depth engagement proposal for landlord and tenant um surveys maybe in the future.
So this afternoon there was a motion from the council to move forward with option one. So this is a digital engagement strategy um is the recommendation and to move forward with that this fall. Um so again the propo the motion from the council was to move forward at this time and then to share the data collected with the um working group for consideration.
So um I will move at this time to move forward with option one this fall. >> Second. >> Motion was made by the chair and a second by council member Williams. Any discussion on that motion? Okay, seeing none, all in favor will say I.
>> I. >> Any opposed or abstensions? Okay. Seeing none, that passes 70. >> The next item before committee of the whole was agenda 255024. This was a discussion of upcoming procedural changes to council meetings.
So, Council President Hannah Stone, myself, um reviewed plan changes to council meetings, including adjustments to public comment, standing announcements, and language access. Um so this afternoon during committee just highlighting um taking them in order.
So changes to public comment we are looking to implement changes at the next council meeting um which again will be on September 14th. So at that council meeting moving public comment to the start of the meeting.
Um that will be a 30 minute block with individuals um providing comment for two minutes each. With respect to the standing announce announcements, a couple of changes. Um, one regarding the land acknowledgement deferring to a special project report that was brought forward regarding city and tribal relations and engagement.
um that was highlighting sort of the need for the city of Bellingham to work as a unified entity um with the local tribes to develop a formal land acknowledgement if that were to be adopted by the city, but acknowledging that the tribes really function at um a level higher than the council and that the tribes would defer to have that engagement and discussion directly with the mayor.
Um so really for the council to defer to the mayor's office and the administration to carry that work. um forward with respect to um language access. So in lie of you know budget considerations as well as how um intentionally we are reaching out to and engaging with members of the community who for whom English may be a second language for them.
um acknowledging that we have so moving the public comment to the beginning of the meeting as well will ensure that public comment and the broader um meeting is all livereamed through BTV and Comcast channel 10 as well as on YouTube.
So acknowledging the although AI generated um certainly technology advancements the ability to then watch recordings of all meetings not just the evening regular meetings um in multiple languages. At this time YouTube have English plus more than 150 languages available that allow for audio dubbing as well as you know voice over um in addition to closed captioning or subtitles in any of those languages.
In addition, the city of Bellingham um website, you know, allows translation of all the pages on our website in English as well as 40 over 40 languages. Um so that being available in multiple language as well as the COB meetings website, those support meeting materials from council meetings being available in translations um of multiple languages.
And highly also that the the city has a contract with language line um and that language line offers even a much you know higher number of languages over 350 languages available. So the city has a contract with language line that allows any you know employee of the city to call and obtain live right interpretation in any of those languages sort of on demand.
So really wanting to utilize the interpretation services that we have available um in a much more deliberate and sort of intentional way. So through our work plan, our communications work plan as a council, wanting to ensure that there are opportunities, part of that work plan is looking at invitations for council members and the council perhaps as a whole to attend specific, you know, events um andor um meetings or programming in the community as well as opening, you know, office hours and council um chambers or in our council office which would allow for you know interpretation on an as needed basis.
um but wanting to make sure that members of the community know that we will provide interpretation upon request. So wanting to ensure that not only Spanish but any language or ASL that the community may need.
You can contact um the council office, you know, to make those arrangements. We would request ideally 48 hours notice um to give us um you know, more opportunity to ensure that we're able to meet that as best we can.
But certainly even if it was a last minute request, we would potentially use the language line contract that we have um or other other accommodations. But um in addition, so with the um public comment moving to the start of the meeting um and those changes to our standing announcements and language access, one of the pieces before consideration this afternoon were some changes to our rules of procedure.
And so those rules of procedure ch those changes um just reflect what will be um implemented next meeting. Um so again moving that council um public comment period to the beginning of the meeting having that change from 15 minutes to 30 minutes in our procedural rules and from 3 minutes to 2 minutes.
Um there were some other changes that were um fully read into the record this afternoon, but most of them are somewhat um just semantics about how um how that is outlined in the rules. wanting to make sure that also the council knew, right, these proposed changes at this time are just related to the public comment period, but that a more comprehensive um proposal for um a refresh of our rules of procedure will be coming forward in the short term.
Um so there was a motion from the council to move to approve the changes to the rules of procedure and I so move. >> Second. Motion's been made by the chair and a second by council member Williams. Um just wanting to note that that was a split vote this afternoon.
Actually in the um in the packet this evening. There are the minutes from the July 27th meeting, which is when we did consider the changes to our or the implementation of our council communications um work plan.
And just noting that that did pass unanimously 6-0 with council member Huffman absent. Um but that does not have to influence the vote this evening. I know that um so just for for context when the communications plan was adopted by the council um there was a motion by council member Lilliloquist supported by council member Anderson to retain the threeminut right time um allotted to speakers and that amendment um failed to four and then adoption of the work plan as a whole passed 6 but in council member Husman's absence.
So, just wanted to clear up the record from this afternoon's discussion and committee. Um, but we have a motion before us then to adopt the changes to rules of procedure. Any discussion? >> Seeing none, all in favor will say I.
>> I. >> I. Any opposed? >> Okay. Any abstensions? Okay. Seeing none. So, that passes 61. Um, with council member Liiloquist opposed. Okay. Next, we have old and new. old and new, which this afternoon um we had director Lions speak to an item related to the 120day notice.
Um and I wasn't sure if council member Cotton or Liloquist wanted to speak at all to what that resolved that followup. My interpretation was that it was a non-issue, but if there's anything you wanted to share from from that.
>> Um yes. Uh, Director Lion and Julia Burns, the rental inspection manager, uh, shared an update that resolved our concern around um, conforming with uh, state requirements around notices of non-renewal.
Um, and also just to note, we received an email asking about um, uh, the concern around the language adopting the state exemption for um, uh, basically public housing units. Um and just to clarify that is uh consistent with state law and is really providing really applying to when a tenants um income is fluctuating due to or rent is fluctuating as a result of their income in a public housing project.
It's not um a landlord in the private market would still need to provide a 120day notice even if their tenant is on a housing choice voucher. So, um, just those two pieces of clarity and as was noted after this afternoon, if if you have questions, the residential landlord tenant act can unfortunately sometimes be complicated and it's always recommended to consult an attorney.
>> Thank you very much. Um, other items this evening for old and new? >> Okay. If not, we had executive session this afternoon. There were multiple items discussed. So, in executive session, the first item was a potential property acquisition.
This was with Rosenblat. Staff provided information on a potential Lake Watcom watershed property acquisition. It was for information and discussion only and there was no action taken. The second item was also a potential property acquisition with Rosenblat.
Staff provided information on a potential Lake Watcom watershed property acquisition. with the following action coming forward. So, I will now entertain a motion to authorize the mayor to close the real estate transaction with the property owner, Daniel Gibbon, with a purchase price of $2,500.
>> Move approval. >> Second. >> Motion's been made by Council Member Anderson and a second by Council Member Liiloquist. Any discussion? >> Seeing none, all in favor will say I. I. >> I. >> Any opposed or abstensions?
Seeing none, that passes 70. The next item is a litigation matter. Oldm versus city of Bellingham at all. This was with Phillips. Staff provided information on a litigation matter. The following action is coming forward.
I will now entertain a motion to authorize the mayor to enter into a settlement agreement with Julie with the following terms. Dismissal of Oldm v. City of Bellingham at all. Watcom County Superior Court cause number 23-2-00618-37 in exchange for the payment of $115,000 to Julie Olden plus reimbursement of $3,000 in mediation costs to GLP attorneys PS incorporated.
>> Moved. >> Second. Motion's been made by Council Member Hamill and a second by Council Member Hudman. Any discussion? Seeing none, all in favor will say I. >> I. >> Any opposed or abstensions? Seeing none, that passes 70.
The fourth and final item was a potential litigation matter. This was with Chaplain and CRAM. Staff provided information on a potential litigation matter. The following action is coming forward. I will now entertain a motion to authorize the mayor to retain outside counsel to represent the city in litigation challenging the federal office of management and budgets proposed rule regarding federal grant conditions.
>> Move approval. >> Second. >> Motion's been made by council member Anderson and a second by council member Huffman. Any discussion? Seeing none, all in favor will say I. >> I. >> Any opposed or abstensions?
Okay. Seeing none, that passes. 70. Next, we have consent agenda. >> Approval. >> Second. >> Motion was made by council member Hamill and a second by council member Williams. Any discussion? >> Seeing none, all in favor will say I.
>> I. >> Any opposed or abstensions? Seeing none, that passes 70. Final consideration of ordinances. >> Agenda. Agenda Bill 24999, an ordinance related 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's been made by council member Hamill and a second by council member Huthman. Any discussion? Seeing none, roll call, please. >> Holly Huffman, >> hi. >> Dan Hamill, >> hi.
>> Skip Williams. >> Hi. >> Lisa Anderson. >> Hi. >> Michael Liiloquist. >> Hi. >> Jay Cotton. >> Hi. >> Hannah Stone. >> Hi. >> Uh, the motion passes 70. >> Next up, we have uh agenda bill 255012, an ordinance amending BMC 6.15 and BMC 2.21.010.
010 regarding the rental registration and safety inspection program and chapter 6.12 BMC regarding rental agreements. >> Move first and final. >> All seconded. >> Motion's been made by council member Anderson and a second by council member Liiloquist.
Any discussion? Seeing none, all in favor will say nope. >> Roll call, please. >> Uh Holly Huffman. >> Hi. >> Dan Hamill. >> Hi. >> Skip Williams. >> Hi. >> Lisa Anderson. I >> Michael Loiquist. >> Hi, >> Jace Cotton.
Hannah Stone, >> I. >> The motion passes 7-0. >> And finally, we have agenda bill 250006, an ordinance regarding the 1% for art program amending Bellingham Municipal Code Chapter 4.92. >> Third and final.
>> Second. >> Motion's been made by Council Member Hamill and a second by Council Member Husman. Any discussion? Seeing none, roll call, please. Ollie Huffman. Hi >> Dan Hamill. >> Hi >> Skip Williams.
>> Hi >> Lisa Anderson. >> Hi >> Michael Lilloquist. >> Hi >> Jace Cotton >> Hannah Stone >> I. >> The motion passes 70. >> Thank you very much. So that concludes the regular business of the meeting. Noting again that our next meeting will be on September 14th.
So, as I said, that concludes the regular business of the meeting, and we will now move to the public comment period. If you're watching live online or on BTV, the broadcast will now end. However, you can continue watching via Zoom at co.org/cczoom oorgg/ccoom or listen via phone by dialing and entering meeting ID 8715188525 and password 9.
Again, that's co.orgccoom rg/ccoom or dial 253-2158782 and enter meeting ID 871-5188-525 and password 9 to continue to watch or listen live. If you're watching a recorded version of this meeting, you can view public comment videos at meetings.c.org.