Name: Bellingham City Council - Committee Of The Whole meeting, Aug 24, 2026
Start: 2026-08-24
End: 2026-08-24
Location: City of Bellingham

City Council - Committee Of The Whole

Mon, August 24, 2026

Agenda PDF Minutes PDF Watch Video

Agenda items

Vote records

Discussion summary

Transcript

Meeting summaryAI-generated

City Council – Committee of the Whole — August 24, 2026

This Committee of the Whole session covered three substantive items: establishing the 2026 comprehensive plan amendment docket, directing staff on a tenant engagement survey, and approving procedural changes to council meetings. The session concluded with notice of an executive session covering two potential property acquisitions and two litigation matters.

Agenda Bill 25023 — 2026 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket

Long-Range Planning Manager Chris Becher presented a resolution to formally docket seven proposed amendments to the Bellingham comprehensive plan (the "Bellingham Plan") for review during the 2026 annual amendment cycle. Under Washington's Growth Management Act, the city may amend its comprehensive plan only once per calendar year outside the decade-long periodic update cycle, so all seven amendments will travel as a consolidated package through a Type 6 review process — meaning public hearings before the Planning Commission and then before City Council, with a final council vote expected in December.

Becher grouped the seven proposals into three categories:

Rezone/map amendment: Whatcom County proposes to expand its existing "public" zone in the Iron Gate neighborhood to accommodate a behavioral health care center on two parcels adjacent to its current crisis center and day work center site. City staff is taking the opportunity to simultaneously clean up the eastern boundary of that public zone, consolidating adjacent city-owned property (a former Vector waste drying site) and a county stormwater pond into a coherent block of public ownership.

Plan updates: Three amendments will sync the Bellingham Plan with recently approved documents: the city's updated water system plan (approved by council this spring, though its state approval is still being finalized), the Bellingham School District's updated capital facility plan (which underpins school impact fee collection), and updated library level-of-service standards approved by the Library Board of Trustees earlier this year.

Corrections and cleanup: Three amendments fix errors introduced during the Bellingham Plan adoption. These include correcting land-use map designations in the Samish Way urban village (some commercial properties were mislabeled residential), syncing transportation and arterial maps with a recent BMC amendment on citywide speed limits and arterial classifications (including a missing segment of Birchwood Avenue beneath I-5), and restoring language about the essential public facilities siting process (BMC Title 20.17) that was inadvertently dropped when the facilities chapter was generalized during the plan update.

Interim City Attorney James Erck noted that Council had previously suspended private docket requests during the periodic update process, which explains the lighter-than-usual docket this year. Staff confirmed that the water system plan amendment can carry over to 2027 if state approvals aren't finalized in time.

The review schedule is compressed: Planning Commission public hearing October 1, optional work session October 15, Council work session November 2, Council public hearing November 16, with potential adoption December 7 or final reading December 14.

Councilmember Lilliquist asked why no private rezone applications appeared on the docket. Becher explained that property owners are likely waiting for the dust to settle after the Bellingham Plan adoption and ongoing interim middle-housing and ADU code work before submitting requests.

Vote: Moved by Council Member Anderson, seconded by Council Member Huthman. Passed 7–0.

Agenda Bill 25022 — Tenant Engagement Survey Options

Legislative Policy Analyst Iris Knot presented two options for conducting a tenant survey to complement the landlord and property manager survey conducted in fall 2025 — itself a product of the rental fee ordinances passed in June 2025. The two options were: (1) proceed now with a digital survey this fall, with results available to both council and the newly forming Landlord and Tenant Advisory Working Group; or (2) pause and let the working group develop a longer-term, more comprehensive data-gathering strategy.

Planning and Community Development Director Ryan provided calendar context: the advisory working group, whose members are nearly selected and whose facilitator contract is being finalized, is expected to meet monthly from September 2026 through September 2027 before producing a final report.

Council was unanimously in favor of moving forward now. Council Member Anderson argued that tenants had already been left out once, that delaying could mean the survey never happens, and that she was concerned the working group might organically expand its focus beyond this specific question. Council Members Huthman, Lilliquist, and Williams agreed, each noting the value of establishing a baseline now so future surveys can show change over time. Council Member Cotton noted that the goal isn't a statistically rigorous survey but rather identifying areas for further engagement. All who weighed in also supported the digital-only format as faster, cheaper, and more effective than mail — though Anderson suggested a follow-up mailer could be considered if broader reach is needed later.

Council President Stone moved to direct staff to proceed with Option 1, a digital engagement strategy this fall.

Vote: Moved by Council President Stone, seconded by Council Member Anderson. Passed 7–0.

Agenda Bill 25024 — Procedural Changes to Council Meetings

Council President Stone presented a package of changes to take effect at the September 14 meeting, informed by consultation with the city's office manager, the BTV team, the communications department, and legal counsel. Most changes were informational, but one set of rules-of-procedure amendments was put to a vote.

Public comment moved to the top of the agenda. General public comment will now be the first order of business at 7:00 p.m., before public hearings, so members of the public can count on a consistent time and do not need to switch between broadcast channels to watch. Comment will now air live on BTV/Comcast Channel 10 and YouTube. Stone confirmed with legal that YouTube's policies on medical misinformation — previously a concern during COVID — have softened sufficiently that this is no longer a barrier.

Sign-up modernization. A QR code and online registration form will be available the day of the meeting, plus an iPad outside chambers 30 minutes before the meeting. Automatic confirmation emails will include guidelines and a link to a new orientation video for first-time speakers. A physical basket will be added near the clerk's desk for hard-copy written comments and supplemental documents.

Standing language about Open Public Meetings Act compliance removed. Legal confirmed the city is not required to recite compliance at each meeting; doing so neither adds to nor detracts from actual compliance.

Land acknowledgement suspended. Stone announced she is removing the land acknowledgement from the opening of council meetings for now. She cited a city tribal relations report encouraging organizations to develop acknowledgements through meaningful engagement with local tribes — a process that properly belongs at the mayoral/executive level, given that local tribes view the mayor as the primary government-to-government contact. She also noted concern that the current acknowledgement feels perfunctory without a clear connection to substantive work. Stone said she views this as a chair's prerogative and did not bring it to a formal council vote, though she invited feedback. Councilmembers Lilliquist and Williams broadly agreed with her reasoning, while Anderson noted that any future council president wishing to re-introduce the land acknowledgement (or the Pledge of Allegiance, which was also discontinued) should bring the rationale to council for discussion rather than acting unilaterally.

Standing Spanish interpretation suspended; interpretation available on request. Stone proposed ending the standing in-person Spanish interpretation at evening meetings, noting that it has rarely served community members who were not already present, that the evening meeting captures less substantive work than the afternoon committee meetings, and that YouTube now provides AI-assisted audio dubbing and subtitles in over 150 languages. Interpretation in Spanish, other languages, or ASL will remain available upon request (ideally 48 hours in advance). Stone said she prefers directing interpreter resources to targeted community outreach events and open office hours. Multiple councilmembers expressed support, with Huthman noting that limiting standing interpretation to one language was itself inequitable given the breadth of the community's linguistic diversity.

Council member reports restructured. The "council assignment reports" section will be reorganized so that evening reports serve both as assignment updates and as a genuine report-out of old and new business from afternoon committee meetings — clarifying for evening viewers what was discussed earlier in the day.

Rules of procedure amendments voted on. The specific changes put to a formal vote updated Section 8 and Exhibit A of the council's rules of procedure to reflect: public comment as the first agenda item; online/iPad sign-up; a 2-minute speaking limit (4 minutes if interpretation into English is needed); a 30-minute public comment period (modifiable by majority vote); randomized speaker order; the requirement to allow any additional speakers at public hearings regardless of sign-up; prohibition on using general public comment to speak on items subject to a public hearing later that evening; and reinforced norms against personal attacks, hate speech, and other disruptive behavior.

Councilmember Lilliquist voted no, objecting specifically to reducing speaking time from 3 to 2 minutes, though he expressed support for all other changes. Council Member Anderson noted she also preferred 3 minutes but said voting no would not change the outcome since the 2-minute limit was already adopted as part of the communications work plan.

Vote: Moved by Council Member Williams, seconded by Council Member Cotton. Passed 6–1 (Lilliquist opposed).

Old and New Business — Rental Ordinance Clarification

Planning Director Ryan provided a follow-up on a question from the previous meeting regarding notification requirements in a pending rental ordinance. He confirmed that the ordinance requires landlords to give 120 days' notice of a rent increase (above Washington's 90-day state requirement), and that tenants must indicate within 20 days of receiving that notice whether they will accept the increase or terminate their tenancy. He noted that the RLTA contains a wide variety of notification scenarios and recommended tenants seek legal advice for circumstances beyond the ordinance's scope. Council Member Cotton said he had heard from a landlord-side professional who did not share his earlier concerns, leaving him more comfortable with the current language.

Key Takeaways

Seven comprehensive plan amendments docketed for 2026, including a Whatcom County behavioral health facility rezone in Iron Gate, housekeeping updates to sync with the water system plan, school capital facility plan, and library standards, and corrections to mapping errors in the Bellingham Plan. Final council vote expected in December.

A digital tenant survey will move forward this fall, paralleling (rather than waiting for) the new Landlord and Tenant Advisory Working Group, with the goal of gathering baseline tenant feedback on the 2025 rental fee ordinances.

Public comment moves to the top of the agenda starting September 14, will air live on BTV and YouTube, and will use a new online sign-up system with randomized speaker order.

Standing Spanish interpretation at council meetings is suspended, replaced by interpretation available on request and AI-assisted multilingual tools on YouTube; the land acknowledgement is also removed from the opening of meetings pending more substantive city-tribal engagement.

Rules of procedure formally amended 6–1 to codify the new public comment structure, including a 2-minute speaking limit and 30-minute comment period; Councilmember Lilliquist dissented solely over the reduction from 3 to 2 minutes.

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

A discussion of tenant engagement options

# Summary: Tenant Engagement Options Discussion

Staff presented a digital survey strategy (Option 1) for gathering tenant feedback on rental fee ordinances passed in June 2024, with Iris Knot, legislative policy analyst, explaining two possible timelines: conducting the survey in fall 2026 alongside the landlord-tenant advisory working group or pausing to allow the group to develop a comprehensive long-term strategy. Council Members Huffman, Lilquist, and Williams advocated for proceeding immediately with the digital survey rather than waiting, emphasizing the importance of including tenant voices (which had been excluded from the initial landlord survey) and enabling longitudinal data collection to track how legislation affects outcomes over time. Council Member Cod acknowledged that while a perfectly representative survey would be ideal, the primary goal is to identify areas for further work and stakeholder engagement. The motion to move forward with Option 1 for fall engagement passed 7-0 with no opposition. In separate discussion, Director Lion clarified that the proposed ordinance maintains a 120-day landlord notification requirement and a 20-day tenant notice requirement consistent with the Residential Landlord Tenant Act.

A resolution establishing the docket of proposed amendments to be reviewed in the 2026 comprehensive plan amendment cycle

# 2026 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket Summary

Staff presented a resolution establishing a docket of seven proposed amendments for the 2026 comprehensive plan amendment cycle, which Planning Community Development Director Blake Lyon and long-range planning manager Chris Becher explained will proceed through a Type Six review process including public hearings before the planning commission and city council. The docket includes a notable rezone and comp plan amendment in the Iron Gate neighborhood to accommodate a new behavior care center, plus six administrative items such as cleaning up the easterly boundary of a public zone near the former Vector waste site, syncing water system plans, updating school district capital facilities and library level of service standards, correcting land use map designations in Samish Way urban village, aligning arterial street maps with recent speed limit changes, and reinstating essential public facilities language in policy FS17. Council Member Luquest noted fewer substantive items compared to previous years, and staff explained that the recent comprehensive plan cycle addressed many community concerns while developers await final code outcomes on middle housing before submitting new applications. To accommodate the compressed schedule, all seven amendments will be consolidated into one ordinance with seven discrete sections rather than separate ordinances, with a Planning Commission public hearing on October 5th, council work session on November 2nd, and public hearing on November 16th. Council Member Anderson moved for approval and Council Member Huffman seconded; the motion passed 7-0 with no opposition.

A discussion of upcoming procedural changes to Council meetings

# Summary: Discussion of Upcoming Procedural Changes to Council Meetings

Council President Hannah Stone presented comprehensive procedural changes to council meetings for implementation beginning September 14th. Key modifications include: moving public comment to the beginning of meetings at 7:00 PM for better broadcasting on BTV and YouTube; implementing a 30-minute total limit with reduced individual speaking time from 3 to 2 minutes and randomized speaker order using new QR code registration and online forms; establishing a formal basket for written comments at the clerk's desk; and developing an orientation video for first-time commenters. Additional changes include reconsidering the land acknowledgement practice (with the chair recommending it be developed collaboratively with local tribes at the mayoral level rather than read performatively at each meeting) and removing the requirement to state compliance with Washington's Open Public Meetings Act. Regarding interpretation services, President Sampson proposed shifting resources from live meeting interpretation to personalized engagement opportunities while maintaining interpretation availability upon 48 hours' notice, with Councilmembers Lilquist and Cotton supporting improved language access announcements. Councilmember Lilquist opposed the 2-minute speaking limit, preferring 3 minutes, while Councilmember Anderson requested future consensus before reintroducing elements like the pledge of allegiance. Councilmember Williams moved to approve the changes, which passed 6-1, with the council acknowledging potential implementation challenges and committing to provide grace during the transition.

Agenda items (3)

Procedural (3)

25022ProceduralA discussion of tenant engagement options

City leaders will discuss different ways to involve renters in city decisions and processes that affect them.

What happened

25023ProceduralA resolution establishing the docket of proposed amendments to be reviewed in the 2026 comprehensive plan amendment cycle

The city will decide which proposed changes to the comprehensive plan (the long-range blueprint for development and land use) should be reviewed and considered during the 2026 amendment cycle.

What happened

25024ProceduralA discussion of upcoming procedural changes to Council meetings

The council will explore potential changes to how City Council meetings are run and conducted.

What happened

Additional votes recorded in minutes

Adopt resolution establishing 2026 comprehensive plan amendment docket

aye 1

voice voteaye

Direct council staff to proceed with digital tenant engagement survey (Option 1)

aye 1

voice voteaye

Adopt amendments to council rules of procedure regarding public comment

aye 6 · nay 1

Daniel Hammillaye

Edwin Williamsaye

Hannah Stoneaye

Hollie Huthmanaye

Jace Cottonaye

Lisa Andersonaye

Michael Lilliquistnay

Verbatim transcript available

237 transcript segments indexed

City of Bellingham Committee Of The Whole minutes August 24, 2026, 2:50 PM 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 City Council committee meetings Standing committee members receive reports and information, ask questions, and vote on a recommended action for consideration by the full Council at the regular meeting.

Welcome back. So, moving forward with the committee meetings this afternoon, the next committee is committee of the whole. Just making note that So, the majority of council members are currently in chambers.

There is no public comment period during committee sessions. Call to order and roll call Council President Stone called the meeting to order at 2:52 p.m. Present: Council President Hannah Stone, First Ward Council Member Hollie Huthman, Second Ward Council Member Daniel Hammill, Third Ward Council Member Edwin H.

I know that Councilmember Lilliquist is in the building somewhere and I expect his return shortly. So, we have a quorum and we'll proceed. The first item before the committee this afternoon is agenda bill 25023.

This is a resolution establishing the docket of proposed amendments to be reviewed in the 2026 comprehensive plan amendment cycle. Proposed amendments added to the annual docket will be reviewed using a type six process, including public hearings on the merits before the before the planning commission and the city council.

"Skip" Williams, Fourth Ward Council Member Lisa Anderson, Fifth Ward Council Member Michael Lilliquist, Sixth Ward Council Member Jace Cotton, At-Large 25023 1. A resolution establishing the docket of proposed amendments to be reviewed in the 2026 comprehensive plan amendment cycle Summary: Blake Lyon, Planning and Community Development Director, and Chris Behee, Long Range Planning Manager, presented the resolution establishing the docket of proposed amendments for the 2026 comprehensive plan amendment cycle.

Council Members discussed the amendments and asked questions. Action: Lisa Anderson moved to recommend approval of the resolution. MOTION CARRIED 7-0. 25022 2. A discussion of tenant engagement options Page 1 of 3 Summary: Iris Nott, Legislative Policy Analyst, and Blake Lyon, Planning and Community Development Director, sought direction from Council on whether Council staff should proceed with the tenant survey requested by Council or to pause while the Landlord and Tenant Advisory Group and the administration work to develop a plan for future landlord and tenant data gathering and public engagement.

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.

Council Members discussed tenant engagement options and asked questions. Council Members each expressed a desire for Council staff to proceed with the survey. Action: Hannah Stone moved to recommend approval of a digital engagement strategy as described as Option 1 in the Tenant Engagement document attached to the agenda item.

For this item, I will first turn to the Planning Community Development Director Blake Lyon. >> Thank you and good afternoon, Council. As you may recall, in the Growth Management Act for Washington State, we are allowed to amend the comprehensive plan one time each calendar year.

MOTION CARRIED 7-0. 25024 3. A discussion of upcoming procedural changes to Council meetings Summary: Council President Hannah Stone presented upcoming procedural changes to Council meetings and agenda packet modifications in September 2026.

And so, Chris is here, Chris Becher, our long-range planning manager, is here to walk us through that. It does count as one time even though there are multiple items, and so that's why we're going to walk through a few of those things, and please let us know if you have questions.

Council Members discussed the changes and asked questions. Council President Stone also presented proposed amendments to Council’s Rules of Procedure document to align with the changes to the public comment period.

Chris. >> Great. Thank you, Director Lyon. Good afternoon, Council, Deputy Mayor, members of the public. It seems like just a few months ago we were here adopting the final Bellingham Plan. I think it was actually a little bit more than a half a year ago, but here we are.

Um As Blake just indicated, we do have one chance per year outside of that once-a-decade periodic update cycle to bring amendments forward. They do the the list that the resolution before you today will create is called the docket.

Action: Edwin H. "Skip" Williams moved to recommend approval of amendments to Section 4 and Exhibit A of the Council Rules of Procedure, as shown here. MOTION CARRIED 6-1. OPPOSED: Michael Lilliquist Old/New Business Summary: Blake Lyon, Planning and Community Development Director, and Julia Burns, Rental Protection Program Specialist, followed up on questions from the August 10, 2026 meeting related to 120-day notice requirements for rent increase.

The proposed ordinance (agenda bill 25012) continues 120-day notification requirements and provides clarity for the 20-day tenancy termination notice requirement for tenants. There are many different iterations of notice requirements for specific situations in the Residential Landlord Tenant Act (RLTA), and legal advice should be sought when needed for individual situations.

We have language in our municipal code and there's language in the growth management act about that docket, which is that once a year list. Today's resolution includes seven proposed amendments and I'll go through those in just a moment.

Page 2 of 3 Some Council Members asked questions about items A-F in section 6.12.020 of the ordinance. Those items reflect the RLTA. Staff recommendations remain the same, to adopt the ordinance as written and presented at the August 10, 2026 meeting.

And again as referenced to get on to the docket, there is a set of criteria in section 030 of 2020. There's also that list that was referenced in the agenda bill in 040 that immediately follows this. That's how those actual proposals are evaluated once they're put on that list.

And these are summarizing in general terms as opposed to the more legal language in the BMC, but the criteria first they must the city must possess the staff resources and any other necessary resources to thoroughly evaluate these proposals.

Summary: Council moved into Executive Session at 4:15 p.m. to discuss four items until 4:45 p.m. 1. Potential property acquisition 2. Potential property acquisition 3. Litigation: Oldham v. City of Bellingham, et al 4.

And as indicated in the staff report, staff have determined that we we do have those resources. It's in the 2026 budget to review proposals like these. They also must be appropriate to the comp plan. They actually the way they're the criteria are written, they must satisfy the first one that we have the resources and then any of those following five.

And I guess I would just say you can you can read those yourselves. The mix that make up this this group of seven proposals all tick for the most part boxes 1, 2, 3, and 4. None of them are addressing current state law requirements.

We we tied most of those up in the Bellingham plan and there are some forthcoming later this year that are code amendments for things in the BMC that are responsive. So really just mostly operating in those those first four items there.

Again as as indicated in the memo, we do believe we have the resources and we do believe that each of those meets one or more of those criteria specifically in 1 through 4. And then also as indicated in the agenda bill once docketed these go through our normal standard types what we call our type six review process for amendments to the comprehensive plan and so that is public hearing before the planning commission and once planning commission chooses to make any modifications or changes to those they make a recommendation to go before the city that for that to go before the city council and then you also host a public hearing to hear from the community and then review those the information review the recommendation from the planning commission and then decide if you choose to approve modify or deny each of those individually.

And as Blake indicated it's important that they all travel as a package forward at least through that those final votes by the city council which will likely be in December because that is that constitutes our one shot that the state affords us.

So I'm just going to I'm not going to go through these in detail but I've kind of grouped them into three general categories in the map here for reference. And feel free to after I'm done with this feel free to ask questions.

There really is only one that constitutes what we would call a rezone and comp plan amendment and that relates to out in the Iron Gate neighborhood there is a public zone that sits in the midst of a larger industrial zone out there and that public zone is currently owned by Watcom County.

There's a crisis center out there. There's a day work center out there and they have a proposal just to the east of that on two to the west of that rather on two tax parcels to add their behavior care center and that's something that they'd like to do relatively soon and so that's again that kind of timely fashion.

That's why this landed on the docket this year. So that's one of the proposals. The city you can see there's there's two blue pieces here with the gap in the middle the gap being the existing public zone.

City staff when we reviewed the county's proposal would like to take the opportunity to clean up the the easterly boundary of that public zone. The city owns a piece of property that was formerly the the Vector waste site where materials were dried before being shipped off um things cleaned out of stormwater ponds and other kind of uh material.

Um the city still owns that property and has an anticipated use there. And then also the southerly portion of that of that easterly site is actually part of the main county tax parcel that lives in that public zone.

It's actually their stormwater pond that serves that site. So we'd like to clean that up to kind of kind of create a consolidated block of city and county ownership. Uh and so we felt like this was the opportune moment to slightly expand the county's request and and bring that forward.

So that's what that that one involves. These middle series ones uh really tick the updates box. Um these are things that were anticipated when we brought the Bellingham plan forward late last year. We talked about the fact that there was a water system plan under review um that the uh pros plan was currently under underway at that point.

And as you all know, you approved that by resolution um this spring. And so um and then also uh the school district Bellingham school district is updating their capital facility plan. And as we get further into the year, we'll have an updated capital projects list and we would like to incorporate that into our capital facility plan.

Um that's the piece that enables us to collect impact fees. And then [snorts] also um earlier this year, the library board of trustees approved updated level of service standards for the public library which also lives in that capital facilities plan.

So these are all um I'm not going to call it housekeeping, but they're all kind of general updates. Um they're not ones they've already had some sort of discussion through other processes or will through other processes and it's really the exercise of wrapping them in underneath the Bellingham plan uh so that there's that policy weight that drives that action there.

Um the others are um really cleanups and corrections. And so we had some things related to the land use map that we adopted at the end of the year in the Bellingham plan. There were a couple of errors in the way that we translated urban village designations in the Samish Way urban village to the land use map.

We had some things that we called residential that were really commercial. A few minor details like that. We'd like to clean that up. It's very hard to see on the one page map in the Bellingham plan, but if you bring up our web map and you can zoom in you're like, oh, wait, there's a few there that we got wrong and that disagree with the designations in the municipal code.

So we we would like to correct that. Um Also earlier in the year public works brought forward changes to citywide speed limits and also in in that same ordinance amended the citywide list of arterial streets that live in the in the municipal code.

We would like to sync up the maps in the transportation chapter of the Bellingham plan and also the the arterial map that lives in the multimodal plan with that new list of arterial streets. And also there were one or two errors in the previous arterial map that was adopted in the plan itself.

One being Birchwood that goes beneath I-5 was missing from the map. So there's a few just little corrections like that we'd like to bring forward and then that update to sync it up with the BMC. And then finally another error or what we call an error of omission in the 2016 comprehensive plan we had a policy in the facilities capital facilities chapter that talked about that we need a process for siting essential public facilities.

We have a piece in BMC 2017 that we've codified in years past that is that specific policy process to site essential public facilities. When we in the Bellingham plan process did our facilities and services chapter, we generalized a policy and we inadvertently generalized out that essential public facilities language.

So we have policy FS17 in the chapter in the Bellingham plan we'd like to add that language back in so that that [snorts] supports and points to our municipal code title 2017. So that completes that circle there and reestablishes that relationship.

Those are really the list of updates. As you can see, there's really only one that's a what we would call kind of a classic rezone. The rest are all either updates or kind of clean-up exercises that we'd like to do.

And staff recommend approval of the resolution to put those on the docket for consideration in the type six process. Before questions, I do want to just pivot real quickly or leave this up here. This is the schedule and this was also in the packet.

It is a very short docketing schedule compared to most years and that's just where we find ourselves in the in the year. But we we are looking at a planning commission public hearing on October 5th October 1st.

Looking at a work session if needed on October 15th and then we would come before you with a work session on November 2nd and then a public hearing on that same material on November 16th. Where we typically start have started with a public hearing before you.

We're starting with a work session just to give the public more time to digest that draft ordinance and if there are any substantive comments to give them time to pull those together and also to give you a head start on asking any questions that we might [snorts] be able to clarify when we come forward with with that public hearing.

And then there will be um just based on the on the rest of the year for the council calendar, December 7th could be an opportunity to approve that draft ordinance and then the last meeting in the year would be December 14th and so that would be the the third and final reading opportunity.

If it doesn't happen sooner than that. So >> [snorts] >> with that, happy to answer any questions and entertain approval of the resolution. >> Open up to council members. Council member Luquest? >> Thank you Mr.

Beebe for the presentation. These do strike me as appropriate and important um items to add to the docket. I know that in previous years we've had uh well, docketing occurred earlier and there were bigger items.

They often had to do with urban villages or maybe private applications who are seeking significant changes in land use. Um do you feel comfortable speculating on why none of those have been coming forward?

I'm going to guess it might be due to the fact that we just went through the comp plan cycle and that might have sort of cleared out people's requests at that moment. Uh is there any other reasoning you think we might we see those return in following years?

>> Yeah, I think I think that you really hit on it right there. Just that we had just finished the comp plan update process. We addressed a large variety of of of concerns expressed by the community in in all of the 2 and 1/2 years of public input we received there.

We did also um for a few inquiries from different developers or property owners around town that came forward during the periodic update process and they were asking specifically about something around residential zoning.

We strongly encouraged them to pay attention to our process of adopting the interims for the middle housing, for ADUs, for um the design the uh design review process. And I think through that process um some of them either um realized that they could do what they were looking for there or decided to just push pause and wait for kind of the dust to settle after the plan was adopted and after um the if if you remember back to the uh just this last week the joint meeting that the planning committee had with the planning commission, that that list of code updates that we're still working on um as that plays itself out um and we go from interim middle housing regs to what the permanent ones will look like.

So, I think there's some there's some um uh um un- uncertainty I guess is the right word about what the final code will look like and people maybe are wanting to just wait instead of introducing change in the middle of that to say let's wait and we might get what we need right there just through that process.

And there will be again opportunities for us to receive comments on those amendments as well. So, I think that's part of it. Um and then the other part is staff are not proposing other substantive amendments for that very same reason that we're in the midst of like we're not going to um begin to do some of the things around like transit-oriented development or other kind of larger work plan items until later in the process when we get those residential zoning pieces ticked off that are um that we want to get those finished first.

So, so a couple of different reasons why you're not seeing maybe a lot of requests from the public or other staff initiatives that are substantive coming forward outside of what's already on the schedule.

>> Anything else from council members? Um I just wanted to confirm Well, one express appreciation for the sort of elongated consideration by the council at the end of the year having that work session I think before the public hearing as you noted is beneficial to bringing forward council questions as well as um alerting the public to that item coming forward.

And then, I just wanted to confirm the deadline for this to be adopted would be by the end of the year, right? It needs to be finalized before the close of the >> Right, the items that we would that that are docketed on this 2026 list um I will say uh and I think uh Mike is here from uh Mike Wilson from Public Works.

The one item that there's a little bit of uncertainty over is the water system plan and it's going through some late stages of approval and back and forth with the state. Um what we've talked with Public Works and the the the decision was well, let's go ahead and keep it on the list, um get it get it docketed today if we can and then as we have done in many times in years past, um items on the docket, if they don't get approved that year and they haven't been denied, they they are effectively still on the list and we don't need to docket them again.

We can approve them with the 2027 docket. Um and we have had reasons in the past and other kinds of things that have spanned multiple years in that process. So, but just on the off chance that things all fall into place before the end of the year, that water system plan was one we felt like, "Well, let's get it on the list and leave it there.

And if things converge in December and we can get it approved, that's great. If not, we will just finish that when it once it comes forward for final approval." >> Okay. And just confirming today we have a resolution for consideration that would only require one vote.

Um, but what will be coming forward would be an ordinance that will require first and second and third and final. Okay. Um, Interim City Attorney, James Erck. >> Thank you. Good afternoon. So, I just wanted to um add on to something that Mr.

B he said in response to your question, Councilmember Littlequist, about why this is a lighter docket. Um right when staff started getting moving on the periodic update, uh we came forward and asked Council uh to adopt a a resolution, if you will, to suspend the docket uh during that period so that staff could focus really on that important 10-year periodic update.

So, we didn't actually receive any private requests uh in response to Council taking that action. Um and secondly, I just want Council to be aware because of the kind of compressed schedule, if you will, for these seven proposed docket uh amendments or comp plan amendments, um when they go forward to Planning Commission and then come to City Council, they will be consolidated uh for review.

So, uh think about it in terms of like there will be one ordinance amending the comp plan with seven discrete sections, one section representing each of these seven amendments, assuming that Council approves this proposed docket, um rather than seven public hearings, seven separate ordinances, seven separate work sessions, etc.

So, it's all going to be one comprehensive package, if that makes sense. Any questions about that? Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you. Um I'm going to move approval of the resolution establishing the docket of proposed amendments to be reviewed in the 2026 comprehensive planned amendment cycle.

>> Second. >> So, a motion was made by Council member Anderson and a second by Council member Huffman. Any discussion? Okay. Seeing none, all in favor will say aye. >> Aye. >> Any opposed or abstentions?

Okay. Seeing none, that passes 7-0. I'll bring that forward this evening. Thank you very much. So, the next item before the Committee of the Whole this afternoon is agenda bill 25022. This is a discussion of tenant engagement options.

So, as you may recall earlier this year, the Council directed staff, being Council staff, to research options for tenant engagement similar to the landlord and property manager survey that was conducted last fall in 2025.

After considering options, a digital survey was identified as the recommended engagement strategy. The administration is also taking steps to convene the landlord and tenant advisory working group at this time.

So, at this time Council staff seeks direction for next steps on tenant engagement. I'm going to turn to Iris Knot, who is our legislative policy analyst. >> Thank you. Um yes, as Council President Stone mentioned, uh this came from the uh rental fee ordinances that were passed last year in June.

And during that time, Council had initially asked for feedback um or data collection on landlord impacts from those ordinances. And so, we created a survey, conducted it in October-November, and presented it earlier this year.

And during the presentation of that survey, uh Council requested a engagement strategy for tenant feedback. Uh so during that time, that was in April, and then in May, the Council approved the um resolution creating the uh landlord and tenant advisory work group.

Um And that part of their assignment is to create um to to do two things. So, their assignments include reviewing existing data, um and then they also include reviewing and providing feedback on proposed plans for future data gathering and public engagement efforts.

Um And so there's two sort of elements of that that kind of relate to the potential to move forward with this uh survey. And so, there are some pros and cons of moving forward or waiting. And there are really, I as I see it, kind of two options.

We can move forward with the survey sort of along the same timeline that the rental advisory group um the sorry, landlord and tenant advisory group is getting rolling and doing their work, in which case this survey would be conducted in the fall, and then the data analyzed and presented to both Council and then available for that advisory group to use as part of their work.

Um alternatively, we could pause and see what the engagement strategy that they develop and um create would be in terms of getting data collection from both landlords and tenants in the long term. And um there pros and cons to both of these options.

So, we can move forward and provide that data. Council receives data earlier. Um it responds to the request and the interest that you have to collect information similar to the landlord um feedback that we've received if we move forward.

If we pause, there's the potential for a more robust strategy that comes out of this work group from the collaboration of the landlords and the tenants during this work group that might create a more long-term um comprehensive data strategy and and gathering process.

So, at this point, I wanted to pause and see what the direction is from the council. Um and there may be some other input coming from uh Director Ryan. Yes, Director Ryan. >> If I may just uh to give you a little bit of a uh calendar sequence for what's anticipated with the landlord-tenant advisory work group.

So, you have before you this evening the mayor's recommendation. Should you confirm that, then we will begin in earnest. We've gone through We're in the uh finalization of our um selection process and finishing out our contract with our professional facilitator, so they will be on board.

We will then go into next month um starting our monthly meetings with the advisory group. So, that is currently calendar to be once a month from September 2026 through September 2027, and we will have the balance of that work that is performed.

At the conclusion of that work, we'll have a final report that will be presented back to you all uh that can cover this and and probably other things that come up. So, I just wanted you have that context of the anticipated schedule while you're going through your deliberations.

>> Thank you very much. Um so, just note I know this is listed as information and discussion, but really we are seeking direction from the council um to Iris not regarding next next steps. Councilmember Anderson and then Huffman.

>> Thank you. Um I would like to keep going forward with doing the survey. Um we already surveyed once the the landlords, and we left out the voice of potential impacts and insight of the renters and I would like to continue that pathway with the advisory group one this may actually assist in informing and it could be a little chunk that they don't have to take on.

I'm hoping the advisory group will be looking at a lot of other things and not just this one component. Um and I you know, we've communicated outwardly that we're going to do the survey and I really feel like if we just pull it and say we're going to put pause and we may not fully ever focus on this one thing.

I I think it's um for the the community that are renters who want to be to kind of be heard specifically on this. Um I'm just not comfortable pulling it um because I heard from a lot of people why weren't they included when we surveyed the landlords and there's a lot of disappointment in that.

So um I'm just really would like to avoid the conversation while we're positing it for a year or maybe two um because we don't know exactly what this work group's going to completely formulate. I think for some of us who really paid attention to uh the the fiber advisory that did go longer and it took a while to really get anything tangible through the recommendations and they kind of they went in different directions than what we thought originally the scope would be.

So I'm hoping that the new advisory group might be a little organic and bring some insight that perhaps we're not right now. Um pinning them in. Um so anyway, I I think we've gotten a lot of good direction going forward so far, some momentum and I'd really hate to put pause one because of the renters, how they're going to feel about it and two, I think a missed opportunity.

Um I think we already missed an opportunity once last year not asking for them to be surveyed, too. I'd just really hate to have that happen again. >> Council Member Huffman. >> Thank you. Uh agreed with Council Member Anderson.

I think that I I think there's probably a lot of value in these surveys, not just the one-time surveys, but multiple surveys over years so that we can see change over time. Um and how the legislation affects uh the outcome of these surveys both with the landlords and the tenants.

Uh and since we have already done the landlord survey, understandably because it was a very opportune time to do it um since we could link up with some other things that were happening at the time in terms of communication with landlords, but um my recommendation uh opinion would be that that um moving on with the survey right now would be appropriate and um who knows when the the the work group will be at a point that putting a uh recommendations together for a survey advice would would be happening.

And so, um I would really like to see over the years how these the the results of these surveys change or don't. Um I also note that we're you've provided options for uh digital outreach or outreach by mail.

Um And in looking over those, I would also agree with the recommendation to stick with with digital um these surveys as well. >> Council Member Lilquist. >> Council Member Lilquist, I concur with everything Council Member Ruthanne just said.

Uh I I agree with Council Member Anderson. I think we should go forward with this now um even if it it might be stronger and richer in the future, I think we should go ahead soon. As Council Member Huffman said, in the future we can repeat it and that that repeat data will be even more informative.

And I agree that we should go ahead with the digital outreach. It's just going to be faster, cheaper, more effective. It won't be perfect, but it'll good enough for our purposes to start, and I do want us to move ahead more quickly with getting this feedback.

And in addition, I see this this survey as one part of our engagement with on these issues. The the you know, the advisory work group is another piece. So, this isn't the only thing we're doing. And so, taking that together, I feel comfortable with going ahead now and using the digital means.

>> Councilman Williams. >> Well, I totally agree, too. But, um I also see this in a longer range um situation where this is our first step forward. But, if everything in at least to my way of thinking, if if everything works out, we have the committee, we have the the survey, and so on, that this will somehow become a systemic process that we would utilize somehow down the road periodically to get the data and the information we need to make um relative good decisions in this world so that it reflects the needs of everybody involved in this.

Not just one side or not just the other side. It's It's something that we that I think needs to reflect the the needs of that whole entire community as a whole. Not just one side versus the other, and I think this is a first step.

And um um and option option one I think is the best one right now. But uh down the road, who knows? But that could be something that a commissioner or a committee could determine. So, um I agree with this first step forward.

>> Any other council members before I go back to Council member Anderson? Seeing none, Council member Anderson. >> Thank you. I failed to mention I also support electronic. Um I think it's faster and less expensive, but also I'm hoping that the survey might There might be some uh responses that we're going to want more information on or better clarity, and that could go to the work group as they expand perhaps other areas that they're looking at, that a follow-up um engagement, whether it be that we fund a mailer in order to spread it out.

Um but I'm hoping that we'll get some good kernels, and either one another survey in the future to adding those uh areas of clarification we'd like to another future survey with additional content developed by the working group would be um I think very beneficial, and perhaps using a different um modality the next time in order to spread the net further would make sense.

>> Anything further from council members? I guess under those Council member Cod. >> Sure. Um um Agreed. Um my sense is um as great as it would be to do like um a weighted, accurate, representative survey, like this really isn't ask and answer questions.

It's mostly to identify areas for further work and stakeholdering. Um So, um I agree if it feels within staff capacity and not too tight on the budget, let's let's do it. Um and I'm eager to offer my two cents on on questions.

I'm sure we all have a a few. >> So, I think everyone has mostly weighed in at least those who weighed in were all in alignment of having the council staff move forward with the recommendation for option two, digital outreach.

Um So, that being so, I guess I'll formally move just so that we have that on the Well, the recommendation says option one, which is the digital outreach. Um So, I'll make a motion for council staff to move forward with option one, a digital engagement strategy this fall.

>> Second. >> So, motion made by the chair and a second by council member Anderson. Any further discussion? Seeing none, all in favor will say aye. >> Aye. >> Any opposed or abstentions? >> Okay. >> Seeing none, that passes 7-0.

>> Okay. >> Council member Cotton. >> Just briefly, thank you to Iris and Julia and Council President Stone and Planning Director Lion for their work on this. >> Okay. >> Thank you very much. With that, the next agenda item is agenda bill 25024.

This is a discussion of upcoming procedural changes to council meetings. So, Council President Hannah Stone will review planned changes to council meetings including adjustments to public comment, standing announcements, and language access.

So, for this item with my notes, struggled to come up with a memo that clearly sort of walked that through. So, what I'm proposing at this time, it is information discussion only for the most part, is to look through um sort of the agenda as you know it, and to go over what the proposed changes are.

At this time, in working with our office manager, um Jackie Weller, as well as, you know, the BTV team and others, and consultation with legal, the proposal is to move forward with changes at our next meeting, um which would be the next meeting, um being September 14th.

So, you would see a new agenda, you know, cover pages in the next packet if this were um we're going forward. So, in thinking about how to just looking at our typical agenda and its publication, you know, how to watch City Council meetings, one of the proposed changes is to move right, public comment to the beginning of Council meetings, um which would mean that public comment would be coming as a part of the regular broadcast on, right, BTV, Comcast Channel 10, also on YouTube.

So, um there would be some editing, right, to that language just to clarify that there's not sort of that separate separate channel as far as record record keeping as well. Um in how to provide comment and engage in that process, um wanting to highlight that with the help of David Braun, our communications um manager, looking at a new QR code bring us into the 21st century, a QR code as well as online registration form that will be available, sort of similar to our current practice, same day, um in addition to having an iPad here in person 30 minutes before.

Um so, again, it's just having that electronic sign-up, which, one, will make legibility, hopefully, in reading of those names and preserving that, um, record of sign-up a little bit easier. Um, and also helping to facilitate the randomization of names, right, and and calling of those names.

Um, in addition to that, you know, input provided by um, there are the ability for people to provide input. So, that will apply to council public comment session as well as public hearings. So, the proposal is for public comment to be at the very beginning, the first order of business in the evening, cuz that would be before public hearings.

Just to allow that consistency where members of the public know that public comment will be at 7:00, right, that that will be the first item of of business, um, and provide some consistency and reli- reliability in that respect.

Um, wanting to note that one of the changes as well with comment is wanting to have a basket. So, there's currently a sign in that little table that's next to the clerk's desk. Um, having a formal basket where people can provide, right, either written comments.

Ooh, I know Jackie's sign. Um, where people can provide, right, hard copies of written comments, thinking about in the comment period with 2 minutes to provide comment. If for some reason you weren't able to get through all of your written comments, being able to leave a hard copy that can be shared with council members.

Also, sometimes people speaking either at a public hearing or at public comment have additional support documents that they're wanting to share with council members. So, just having a formal location where those documents can all be collected and then distributed to council members.

Um, so, those are little nuances. Also, um, so, with that online registration through the form, they will then receive, right, an automatic response and that auto response provides some additional guidelines and commentary about the changes and, right, how to sign up.

Um as far as the speaking for 2 minutes and the randomization of of the speakers as far as the order. In addition, David is working on a little orientation video just sort of for people who haven't provided public comment in council chambers before, like going through sign up and where you stand and where the council is in the orientation of the room.

So, just to try and make that a little less daunting. So, with that auto response having a link to that um that sort of orientation and welcome welcome video. Moving forward on the agenda, so announcements and upcoming meetings, receive confirmation from legal that we do are not required to state that the Bellingham City Council meets all requirements of the State of Washington Open Public Meetings Act.

Although that may be fun for the chair to to say every meeting, um we are complying, but that statement doesn't make that, you know, I guess reciting that statement doesn't make that truer or less true.

Um it's all of the other pieces, right, that we we take on as a as a body um to ensure that compliance. So, for the announcements, moving to um strike that that section. In addition, wanting to address the land acknowledgement.

Um this has been something that has come and gone from our agenda, you know, over time. Currently sitting as chair um for a couple of reasons, my recommendation is that um at this time that the land acknowledgement not be a formal part of our um the opening of our meeting for a couple of um reasons.

One, there has been um there was a city tribal relations and engagement special project report that a team from the mayor's office um, who was on special assignment had pulled together. And that does speak specifically to development of land acknowledgements by and for the city of Bellingham.

Acknowledging that the city of Bellingham, working as a unified entity, would benefit from developing a citywide right land acknowledgement. And that as part of that process of developing an organizational land acknowledgement, organizations are encouraged to ask themselves why they're beginning the initiative now and to what end.

These questions are designed to encourage the organization to consider the true intent behind their initiative and whether they're ready to carry it through meaningfully. Um, and so some of the things that I have reflected on over the course of time is one, um, how the local tribes also acknowledge, that communication and that engagement with the city and really seeing the mayor as, you know, that point of contact for the city and really filling that role as a as a leader, um, from the city, you know, with the tribes.

So, feeling like that work as far as the development of what are the words that are used in a land acknowledgement, um, and and really engaging in that work with the the local tribes would happen at the mayoral or administrative level.

Um, there's also been, uh, you know, at the beginning of the year thinking about the attempt to sort of share that responsibility of reading reading the land acknowledgement that we have in our packet, but without being able to point to sort of how those words were were chosen and the being able to point to the the work that we went into to to bring that land acknowledgement forward.

Having that missing, it feels like reading the acknowledgement, um, you know feels a bit perfunctory or wrote at times and what I'm wanting is to make sure that those words if we are really you know if we're committed to reading those words at every meeting that it's somehow tied to meaningful work that we as a council are are taking on and engaged in um and so at the beginning of the year as part of our reorganization meeting you know I brought forward the idea of do we have a a council right role as a liaison to the to the local tribes and at that point the discussion was really highlighting the fact that that role lives more with the mayor and in the administration's office um and more recently there has been some you know pushback from members of those most impacted and most directly right members of um the native tribes here locally really speaking to the fact that acknowledgements on some um level have have changed I think some over over time um and just wanting to make sure that that again it's tied to the work so that a a ritual of this kind really is you know recognizing um a disposition or a dispossession right of land but then coming in a form of sort of reassurance and that history is being named but then absorbed in some respects and just wanting to make sure that again we're able to point to the meaningful work that's that's tied to that um and so I'm not at this time looking to you know bring a formal um motion before the council to to vote on that I'd

personally sitting as chair right now I've done a lot of introspection on this and thinking about it and I'm prepared as as the chair at this time to make that that call. I feel like it's an awkward position to put the council in to sort of to vote um formally to support that.

Um but I would open, you know, feedback on on that piece. So, two controversial things. One or at least up for, you know, discussion and and feedback um because they're the proposals that I'm bringing forward is that with respect to the land acknowledgement and the second is the language access um piece.

And so, currently we have right, for a period of time have had standing interpretation in Spanish language during evening meetings. Um even as an immigration attorney and someone who speaks Spanish, I feel like that effort um is sort of mis- misplaced in that we haven't done the outreach and engagement with the community to really make that investment of resources and the interpreter's time um beneficial to the broader community.

Um bringing in or at least those we're trying to serve. Bringing in the, you know, YouTube piece. I know there's some question about AI. Um but obviously through YouTube and those recordings that are then available not just for our evening meetings, but for the committee meetings, really when rich discussion and dialogue happens um and those votes take place initially, um you know, YouTube provides multiple languages, right, the ability for audio dubbing, right, voice over to all of those meetings as well as close close captioning and subtitles um in, you know, English as well as over 150 languages.

And so, obviously there are some some errors happen um but I think the overall advantage and benefit that the community um receives from having that available is great. In addition, you know, the language access work that's happening at the city where the COB um website, right, our website has printed materials and all of our um web pages available in multiple languages, English and 42.

So, you know, over 40 languages that are available for, again, accessing our website as well as printed materials through our meetings website. Um, so that reaches more than, right, only the Spanish-speaking community, but having that um, available.

But, wanting to make sure that interpretation is still available to the community upon request in Spanish or in other languages or in ASL. And so, encouraging members of the community to reach out, ideally at least 48 hours in advance, but, you know, if that's not possible, we're making a commitment to do our best effort, right, to accommodate requests that come forward.

But, looking at our work plan, our communications work plan, my preference is is that we are investing the time and money in interpreters in those more personalized engagement opportunities, whether that be the council's been invited to a community event, right, for us to be present and making sure that there's interpretation available or us having open office hours and making sure that there's interpretation available, right, through the language line contract that the city has in place currently for people to feel like this is an open space where, no matter what language you speak, you know, we're going to do our best to to engage just as we would with someone who speaks English as their first language.

Um, and so, the the work that the interpreters have done is phenomenal, I think. Trying to tackle government jargon and all of the acronyms and, you know, citations as well as fast talkers and, I mean, that's a a heavy lift as well, but feeling like, again, that that time and money being spent at this time is not, um, to the best benefit of us as a council and us doing our work as well as the community members that we're trying to to serve.

So, there would be language changes to, again, the cover, um, page just expressing how you can make those requests for interpretation as needed and committing to our work you know through the work plan and David and communications to really lean into that outreach that would actually increase engagement from those members of the community.

So that would shrink down obviously the announcement section. I know that there will be some you know controversy and differing of opinions about making those changes. Um but those are my proposals at this time with respect to announcements and upcoming meetings.

So I'll pause there for some commentary but um Councilmember Cotton and then Lilquist. >> Well thank you so much President Sampson for your leadership in bringing these forward. Um just a particular um like meaningful change I think around the language access.

Like I remember we had an audience member come to multiple evening meetings where where the Spanish speaker and I just thought oh this is so boring like and the real content is in the the afternoon committees.

And um and I don't think that was a particularly like meaningful experience for that community member and so I yeah I think we can do better and I think that is a good a good change. Um one thing I just wanted to Council I think Councilmember Lilquist mentioned at a previous meeting was it's like it is nice to be able to go and grab people and have a conversation afterwards and so while I think great for people's bedtimes for us to be starting with public comment um maybe finding a way to emphasize either on the you know the projector or on the screen like unless you provide a way for us to follow up with you um we we don't know how to follow up with you.

So um I think that could be something um that would be helpful to add in the mix um perhaps on the cover cover page as well. But thank you again I think these are really thoughtful updates and um yeah, second second many of your comment.

>> Councilor Councilor Littlequist. >> Uh thank you. I I I agree with um what OJ said. Thank you, uh President Stone, for your leadership and thinking about these issues and kind of looking what we're doing.

Uh I like J- Jay's recommendation. I If we could just remind people in writing if they want to follow up to leave us contact information in some way. I I would appreciate that. I've always appreciated the ability to to do that and follow up.

And that was new when public comments are at the end of the meeting and I could get up and I could I could immediately engage. Um on language accent, yeah, access. It It does seem like we're not actually providing uh a service a useful service here in these meetings.

It's an expensive service. But, I do appreciate your suggestion, if I understand you correctly, President Stone, of moving a language accent's information up to the top of here. So, at every meeting people are told you can get interpretive services on request.

So, we we create it as an on request and we make sure that it's it's easy to find the fact that that is available on request. That won't be missed. Um with regard to to land acknowledgement, I I do think there's a word about it being perfunctory or just words said.

I find it personally better for me to do this work if I'm grounded in history and place and people. And a land acknowledgement does that, but cuz it's an important part a deeper part of our history and the place and the people who are in.

But, we don't have to do it in acknowledgements. I think it's I think it's good if we are grounded in those things. Saying words that may may not um uh kind of like actually draw our attention at the moment isn't necessarily grounding.

So, I I believe in grounding, but I don't know if those words are grounded in in the way that we do it and I I agree with what you said also President Stone that early report indicated that from the tribal perspective uh the executive to tribal relationship is the one that they deemed the more appropriate uh connection and I think we should honor and respect you know, how they would like to be uh approached as in a government-government way.

So, um I I I I think I'm agreeing with uh that source of information that you were also looking at. >> Councilmember Hudson. Uh first of all, I very much appreciate a leader that looks at even the small details of things we do and asks do we still need to do them that way?

And so, I can I can see your stacks of notes here. You have taken a lot of time uh with these issues and I really appreciate that. Um I think that that these were things worth analyzing and evaluating and making sure that we are still doing things in the way that is um best serving uh our our council, the city, and uh the general public.

Um I think that one thing that has bothered me about the uh interpretation services is that we are only providing one language um and there are as you stated, potentially 150 that um can be accessed in other ways.

So, technologies over the last couple of years have you know, exploded with possibilities and so, um that you you know, I would would appreciate taking advantage of of that uh availability in other ways so that that more people uh potentially can access interpretation services and that when we do provide um in-person interpretation services, it's potentially a lot more meaningful for people.

So, uh I appreciate the work that you've done on this. >> Councilmember Hamel. >> Yeah, I I want to echo the um that appreciation. [clears throat] There's a lot of work that has gone into this. Clearly, you've done your homework.

And I think it's good for and healthy for a legislative body to re-examine how and why we do things periodically. I think that's that's better in service to the public. My question is the placement of public comment at the front of the meeting.

With that, does that get us into any compliance issue with any um rules from YouTube? >> So, I followed up with legal and also, I know that our office manager had looked in that in correspondence with our BTV team as well.

And at this time, there's not concern about um about the I guess the concerns we had previously about, right, the the history that we have archived on YouTube. I know that the city has also taken steps to archive that information in other places as well.

So, that's, you know, another change that takes that into account. But, I have been considering, you know, in advance in the opening of public comment, just a disclaimer, right, statement that's sort of like with public comment, right, and public hearings that the comments from members of the public coming forward, right, those aren't the the comments of the the council or, you know, the city.

But, this is an opportunity to hear from from the public. And YouTube has changed their the language that that they have that that speaks to sort of the medical misinformation that was highlighted as a concern before and how they will administer sort of those warnings and strikes.

That's changed and sort of softened. Um I feel like considerably. So, I don't have concern about about that and certainly that was the reason some of the reason why when I was sitting as president previously during during COVID, why didn't make the move to temporarily suspend live comment during during meetings.

So, I take that very seriously, but I appreciate the the yeah, question for confirmation. Councilmember Anderson. >> Thank you. I also echoing thank you for doing the work and I agree it's it's always in good form to re-examine what we do and why we do it and make adjustments cuz times and situations change.

I also was curious as Councilmember Hamel had asked as far as research and Google a little bit where YouTube was at. So, I'm glad we're going to not lose people by having to switch channels in the sense from one thing to the other cuz I I do hear from people who they don't watch or listen or participate with the public comment period because it was too difficult to navigate on their end especially for those who use cell phones to to watch.

So, I'm glad that change will be made. And assuming future I know some of the changes we're doing are under your helm, but I would like perhaps if we're going to change where we do reintroduce the land acknowledgment.

One of the questions that I had brought up previously is that we no longer do the pledge to the flag and so I had quite a few people well, a dozen who had checked in with me previously about why we discontinued that.

Some of them veterans, some thought it was a good idea, others not. So, I think um it's always up to the council president how they want to conduct their meeting, but if we're going to do an a major change in the future where we either re-implement either one, it would be good to have maybe consensus or discussion with council why the change is being made.

So, um not suggesting that we uh override necessarily the council president's prerogative, but just for a future council presidents, um if you're going to re-implement or reintroduce something, um much appreciative of having that discussion much like uh council member Stone has brought forward to us today their rationale of why uh they think the change would be needed.

>> Councilman Williams. >> Yeah. Um you have hit on a number of issues, um but the one thing that I want to basically discuss is that whatever our processes and protocols and these things are, um particularly things like the land acknowledgement and things of that nature, that they need to reflect our sincere belief in what they are supposed to be about, and that they should reflect our organizational relationship with that those parts of our community that we are supposed to be representing, as opposed to we do it just to be going through the motions.

Um to me, that indicates that we we do it because we really believe in it, and that we have a very good relationship with these elements in our community, and that it's sincere and reflects our views as an organization.

And I think that is the strongest way we can go down that path. So, thank you as everyone else has thanked you, but thank you for being so thoughtful about these things and uh um making these suggestions that will in my mind, no matter how they come out, but but I mean in my mind will in improve our relationships out there.

>> I appreciate it. Thank you. Um and I think to build off what you said, you know, there's there's been no evidence that sort of land acknowledgements alone, right, produce measurable change. I mean, that's not where the the change is happening.

And so, I know I have no doubt that this council will stay, right, engaged um and continue to show up where it's important for our, you know, presence and support to to be. Um there's one other item that's kind of small.

Um but looking at council assignment reports is a proposed change that that's going to be, you know, council member reports that will include, right, your outside assignments, but that will also sort of double as a a second old and new in the evening session because upon reflection, what I've recognized is that our our evening meeting is an is a report out from the day.

And so, the old and new business under the committee of the whole is technically a report out of the old and new business that was shared in the afternoon, but we've always treated it just as sort of a new old and new.

So, my plan is to change to give a brief report out for members of the public who didn't weren't there in the afternoon about what was shared during old and new. Um and instead then having at the beginning of the meeting or closer to the beginning after the mayor's report, that that council assignment reports will be council member right reports that can include updates from your council member assignments as well as there are other items for old and new.

So, it's a very nuanced technical change, but I'm going to try to to recognize in order to keep members of the public up to speed. Um Yeah, Councilmember Huffman. >> Clarification. Um the council report section, will that be reports on items that don't have any action attached?

And then uh old and new would be actionable items, potentially votes for the council. Um present first reads of resolutions or ordinances that might be under consideration that council members are uh considering with Would you see that as being the difference between the council report section and the old and new?

>> Well, really I would include So, the main difference right now is just that in the agenda where it says committee of the whole and for instance, today old and new business is item number four. That in the evening when we're reporting out when I would report out for committee of the whole, item four would be a report out of old and new that happened during the day.

And so, technically there's not it's not like a new old and new section in the evening. So, I was going to sort of have that council member reports as an old and new, but I could follow up with legal about whether if something has a vote, I mean, my understanding is we could still take votes at that section in the meeting during council member reports if you're saying that there would be a potential old and new item that needs, right, a formal a formal vote.

Because usually that would just be reflected in the minutes and report. I mean, if there's not additional documentation that needs to be attached, right, to the the meeting documentation. I guess one concern is this council assignment report section.

That's not like a committee meeting in in OnBase. I don't know that you could actually add, right, physical documents. Say if someone came to the evening meeting and said, "Oh, I have this item to share with council members and I want it to be considered." Um so, that's a good point.

So, we will reflect on that further for clarification about how the old and new if there's any constraints, I guess, if it's moved or if it's addressed there. Or if there's I don't think there's any harm either in during the committee report out.

I mean, sometimes the council members reporting out from their committee and another council member, either from that committee or just on council, has additional commentary to add. So, I think we could still include um include old and new during the committee of the whole report out also.

Okay. I appreciate that note for me to consider further. Other items or I'll walk through. Okay. If not, there was one item for actual consideration for a vote. And so, I had emailed you over the weekend just looking at our council rules of procedure.

So, our council rules of procedure over time have been sometimes adopted by formal resolution and sometimes there have been changes just brought forward and adopted by a vote of the council. I confirmed with legal that we can do either.

So, at this time I'm proposing that we wrote vote or consider voting on the proposed amendments to the public comment section to have that in place prior to implementing the changes so that we have our procedural rules reflecting those proposed changes in advance.

Um but we are internally in the office working on a more comprehensive not complete rewrite, but a refresh of our rules of procedure that will come forward in the short term um for a more formal resolution adoption by the by the council.

Um so, in the rules of procedure section 8, which was on page 4, and that um Jackie has brought up on the overhead. There was change to that section just to reflect the public comment period will be the first item of business on the agenda unless otherwise determined by majority approval of the council.

And then in the exhibit, which is exhibit A, on page 11, there are some additional changes. So, in section 3, just indicating that a sign-up form for speaking during the public comment period and public hearings will be available online on the day of the meeting and on an electronic tablet outside council chambers 30 minutes before the start of the meeting.

New section 5 reads, "Each speaker at a public comment period or public hearing is allowed 2 minutes unless interpretation into English is needed, in which case 4 minutes will be allotted or unless time is extended by the presiding officer.

The public comment period will be limited to 30 minutes unless modified by a majority vote of the council. Then section six, speakers at public comment periods and public hearings will be called in a random order from the sign-up list.

At public hearings, the presiding officer shall ask for any additional speakers to identify themselves once those who signed up in advance have spoken. And just wanting to confirm, I know there's been some question at the end of public hearings that even after we've called those who've signed up in advance, I always ask the audience if there's anyone else who wishes to speak to the item.

Um and sometimes I've gotten side glances from council members. So, wanting to be clear that there is a legal obligation. So, public hearings are legally required and part of that legal requirement is that anybody present who wishes to speak to that item is given the opportunity to do so.

Um and we cannot require advance sign-up for public hearings. So, that is a an important distinction. Um The next section, the new eight, says speakers may not use the general public comment period to speak about any topic that will be addressed later in the meeting as part of a public hearing.

So, again, just to keep those comments separate um because the comment provided during a public comment period would then not be sort of archived as part of that testimony collected um and maintained as part of the record for that hearing.

So, wanting to make sure that those are kept separate. Section nine, all remarks should be addressed to the council as a whole rather than to individual council members, the mayor, city staff, or the public.

And then in subsection 10 A, disorderly speech or action, name-calling or personal attacks, obscene or indecent remarks, profanity, derogatory comments on personalities, and racist, homophobic, or other forms of hate speech.

Again, highlighting that those are behaviors um that speakers shall refrain from including in their comments. So, these were just um sort of high-level changes to reflect what would be implemented at the next meeting with respect to the comment period being 30 minutes and the speaking time at 2 minutes.

So, I would entertain either a motion for adoption of those changes or comment on other changes to make. >> I I would like to move that we adopt the recommended changes. >> Second. >> Motion by Council Member Williams and a second by Council Member Cotton.

Any other Council Member Liliquist? >> I appreciate these changes for the most part. I I completely agree with them. I also am glad to see you looking at the rules procedure. I have a fondness for the rules procedure didn't exist until I was Council President and what I brought together a bunch of official, quasi-official, and unofficial documents to start this.

I think it's a really good practice. It allows our Council President and the Council to review what we're doing and update it. So, thank you for that larger body of work. With regard to these public comment updates, the only thing I disagree with is reducing it from 3 minutes to 2.

I'm going to be voting no on these changes, but please understand that everything else in here I think are really valuable improvements and I appreciate them. >> So, I just want to highlight that the changes that are incorporated here are aligned in our communications work plan, which was adopted I think unanimously by the Did you vote no at that time as well?

Okay. Um but that's where that that lives as well as part of the communications plan. Council Member Anderson. >> I'll be voting yes, mostly because we've already had the vote moving from 3 minutes to 2.

So, it is part of our policy, but um, I also agree with Councilmember Liliquist on the original vote. Um, I preferred that we remained at the three minutes, but I also realize voting no at this point does not change that because that's been a decided um, decision by the majority of Council.

But I have solidarity with Councilmember Liliquist thoughts. >> Councilmember Hedman. >> We've had many um, different versions of structure for for uh, public comment over the years. They all have their benefits and they all have their drawbacks.

Um, we are not required to have verbal uh, public comment. Um, but we have many times discussed uh, on this Council how it is beneficial um, to the Council. And and and so I'm I'm I don't think that this structure is my ideal, but I um, but I'm also not I don't have strong feelings about any of these points.

I uh, as I said, every every version um, of our structure has had flaws to it. They're um, so I'm I'm happy to to try this one. It's very likely we will change it again at some point in the future as as conditions change um, in particular as interest in people speaking at public comment changes uh, over time as it has.

So, I'm willing to support this and let's see how it goes. >> Any other comments? I guess speaking to those points just wanting to highlight yes, Councilmember Liliquist leadership in 2017. Um, I know that so our rules of procedure right live in the charter I mean, by extension in that Article 3, Section 3.02 of the charter just says city council shall determine its own rules and orders of business.

And that's the extent of the direction provided. Um, so, great appreciation, yes, for the work to formalize that through the the rules of procedure. Um, and also to Council member Hudson's point that, you know, as a body we are required to receive public comment, but that can be in written form, and receiving written public comment is sufficient to meet the um the legal requirements that we face, and so, um having [clears throat] that opportunity for, you know, people to come and speak live in person in chambers um is something that we are not required to do, but that we have customarily done, and as you mentioned, it has ebbed and flowed and taken on different um different forms over over time.

Um, so, that certainly yes, is something that could could change again. Um, but for this consideration um of this particular motion, it's just to put our rules of procedure as they're currently written in alignment with um with the communications plan and the proposed changes that again would take effect at our next next meeting.

So, we [snorts] currently have a motion from Council member Williams, and a second by Council member Cotton to approve the changes. Any further discussion? Seeing none, all in favor will say I. >> I. >> Those opposed?

>> No. >> Any abstentions? Okay, so that passes 6-1. Okay. Great. Well, thank you for your patience with that, and at the next meeting there will be lots of roll out of changes, which um there will be some bumps along the way.

Um, we're going to hopefully provide some grace to members of the public as well as ourselves as we implement those those changes going forward. Um So, with that, that is the end of Committee of the Whole, um aside from old and new business.

Any items for old and new? Director Lion. >> Thank you for the opportunity to come back. After last meeting, we had a brief conversation about the um 120-day notice, and I indicated that I would provide a response back to Council Member Cotton and Council Member Liliquist.

So, after we've taken the opportunity to do a little bit more research and analysis, one of the things that I wanted to be clear about is that the proposed ordinance requires us to um continue with the practice of having the 120-day notification for the tenant.

So, the landlord is required to give that. That is above and beyond what the state requirement is for the 90-day notification. So, that is separate and intentional for that particular piece. The additional discussion came um after with regard to the difference between a 20-day and a 60-day notification requirement.

And what I want to say on that is that under the RLTA, the Residential Landlord Tenant Act, the tenant is required to give 20 days notice if they don't intend to continue with the tenancy. And we stop there.

As we've researched through uh the RLTA, there is a wide range of different notification requirements when it comes to the ending of tenancies across the board, and I don't want to uh be accused of giving legal advice or providing it, but there's a a variety of different reasons.

It could be for subsidized units, it could be for being a member of armed forces, and so on and so forth. And so, what I would say uh in response to your previous conversation is as written, this ordinance provides clarity for the 20-day notification once they've been given if they want to terminate tenancy.

But beyond that, if you're talking about other, I would defer to them to get legal advice cuz there's so many different iterations for that. Um Also, in the draft ordinance as it's written, there's we've received a couple different emails, several of you who have responded back to the staff about those.

There's items, I believe it's A through F in in provision, you know, I'm going to go off of memory, but I believe it's 6 12 020 and it's A through F and those are just references back to the RLTA. So, there's folks that have gotten a little bit concerned about what is written in there and really it is just us trying to give the tenants and those that might be reading our ordinance understanding of that.

So, our recommendation remains the same that we continue with the 120-day notice and the tenant has the ability to utilize that time frame and must provide indication within 20 days of the tenancy whether they're going to accept that increase or whether they're going to terminate the tenancy.

Which is consistent with the position Council member Leilani that you had articulated at your last meeting. >> Response from Council, Council member Cotton. >> Thanks for this follow-up. I am still confused by a lot of the RLTA as as many are, but I did hear back from at least um one person who professionally represents landlords and they did not share share my concern and so that's um a data point that makes me a little bit more comfortable.

Um and yeah, I think I efforts to yeah, streamline. So, I don't know. Councilmember has any other thoughts, but um thanks for the the follow-up. >> Thank you. Any other items for old and new from council?

Okay. Seeing none, we do have executive session this afternoon. There are a few items before us. The first is a potential property acquisition. This is with Rosenblatt for approximately 3 minutes. The second is a potential property acquisition, also with Rosenblatt for approximately 3 minutes.

Third is a litigation matter, Oldham versus City of Bellingham et al., with Phillips for approximately 5 minutes. And then potential litigation matter with Chaplin and Kram for approximately 10 minutes.