City Council - Regular Meeting
City Council - Regular Meeting
Mon, August 10, 2026
Agenda items
Vote records
Discussion summary
Transcript
Meeting summaryAI-generated
Bellingham City Council — Regular Meeting, August 10, 2026
Council President Pro Tempore Hollie Huthman chaired this meeting in the absence of Council President Hannah Stone, who was excused. All six remaining council members were present. The session covered a public hearing on landmark trees, several ordinances, three litigation matters, potential property acquisitions, and final passage of a significant parking reform ordinance.
Landmark Tree Interim Regulations — Public Hearing
The Council held a public hearing on an ordinance that would extend, for an additional six months, the interim development regulations protecting landmark trees citywide. Five members of the public offered testimony (their specific comments are not detailed in the action summary). After the hearing closed, the Council moved the ordinance forward.
Vote: Lilliquist moved, Williams seconded — carried 6-0.
Mayor's Neighborhood Advisory Commission Reappointment
Mayor Kim Lund reappointed Lauren Bunke to a second and final term on the Mayor's Neighborhood Advisory Commission, expiring May 6, 2028. This was an informational item requiring no Council vote.
Mayor's Report: Regional Fire Authority Update
Mayor Lund reported that the Regional Fire Authority (RFA) planning committee — covering Bellingham and Fire District 8 — has reached agreement on the key elements of a proposed plan: service boundaries, a financial structure (a rate of $1 per $1,000 of assessed property value plus a fire benefit charge), a governance board, and operational structure. A draft proposal will go to Council in October following additional community engagement, with a resolution expected in November for Council approval. The plan would then go to voters in the February 2027 election. Mayor Lund also noted ongoing regional conversations about water resources, involving farmers, tribal representatives, Whatcom County officials, and environmental leaders.
Post Point Wastewater Treatment Plant — Contract Award
The Public Works and Natural Resources Committee recommended, and the full Council approved, a contract with Walsh Construction Company II, LLC for preconstruction and construction services for the Post Point Wastewater Treatment Plant Emission Control Upgrades Project. No contract dollar amount was specified in the action summary.
Vote: Lilliquist moved, Anderson seconded — carried 6-0.
One Percent for Art Program — Ordinance Amendment
The Council considered updates to Bellingham Municipal Code Chapter 4.92, which governs the city's One Percent for Art program. During deliberations, Council Members Lilliquist and Anderson proposed an amendment to the definition of "Artwork" that would have given preference to artwork integrated directly into capital improvement projects, rather than artwork placed nearby as a distinct piece. That amendment was rejected on a 2-4 vote, with Huthman, Hammill, Williams, and Cotton opposed. The underlying ordinance then passed on first and second reading.
Amendment vote: Failed 2-4 (Lilliquist and Anderson in favor; Huthman, Hammill, Williams, Cotton opposed).
Ordinance vote: Cotton moved, Williams seconded — carried 6-0.
Rental Registration and Safety Inspection Program — Ordinance
Following a daytime presentation on the proposed rental inspector audit and qualification process (information and discussion only, no vote), the Council moved forward an ordinance amending BMC 6.15, BMC 2.21.010, and BMC 6.12 to update the city's rental registration and safety inspection program and provisions governing rental agreements.
Vote: Huthman moved, Williams seconded — carried 6-0.
Executive Session — Litigation and Property Matters
The Council met in closed executive session and reported the following actions:
Oldham v. City of Bellingham: The Council authorized the Mayor to retain outside counsel to defend the City.
Vote: Williams moved, Hammill seconded — carried 6-0.
Jewett v. City of Bellingham: Same action authorized.
Vote: Williams moved, Hammill seconded — carried 6-0.
Blomeen v. City of Bellingham: The Council authorized the Mayor to retain outside counsel to defend both the City and individually-named City employees.
Vote: Williams moved, Hammill seconded — carried 6-0.
Lake Whatcom Watershed Property Acquisitions (3 items): Staff briefed the Council on three separate potential watershed property acquisitions. All three were for discussion only — no action was taken on any of them.
Additional Property Acquisition — Stamps presentation: Staff presented on a fourth potential acquisition. No action taken.
2020 Pacific Street — Day Center Site: In a late-added executive session item, staff presented on the City's potential purchase of property at 2020 Pacific Street for use as a day center. The Council voted to reject the pending purchase and sale agreement, citing the City's inability to identify an operator for the site.
Vote: Hammill moved, Williams seconded — carried 6-0.
Parking Reform Ordinance — Final Passage
The Council gave third and final reading to an ordinance permanently eliminating minimum automobile parking requirements citywide and establishing consistent bicycle parking standards across all zones. This ordinance had been under consideration for some time and represents a major shift in Bellingham's land use approach — removing the longstanding requirement that new developments provide a minimum number of car parking spaces. Council Member Lilliquist cast the sole dissenting vote.
Vote: Hammill moved, Williams seconded — Ayes: Huthman, Hammill, Williams, Anderson, Cotton; Nays: Lilliquist; Excused: Stone — carried 5-1. Enacted as Ordinance #2026-08-019.
Consent Calendar
The Council approved minutes from the June 1, June 15, and July 13, 2026 meetings, along with authorization of payroll and accounts payable transactions covering June 16 through July 23, 2026.
Vote: Lilliquist moved, Hammill seconded — carried 6-0.
Public Comment
Twelve individuals offered public comment during the public comment period. The action summary does not detail the content of their remarks.
Key Takeaways
Parking minimums eliminated citywide: The Council enacted Ordinance #2026-08-019, permanently removing minimum car parking requirements and standardizing bike parking rules — a significant land use policy change passed 5-1.
Regional Fire Authority on track for February 2027 ballot: The RFA plan is nearing completion, with Council expected to vote on a resolution in November ahead of a public vote.
2020 Pacific Street day center rejected: The City will not purchase the Pacific Street property it had been considering for a day center, as no operator has been found.
Three lawsuits advancing: The City authorized outside counsel in three separate litigation matters — Oldham, Jewett, and Blomeen — all named against the City and, in one case, individual City employees.
Landmark tree and rental inspection ordinances moving forward: Both measures passed first and second reading and will return for final consideration at a future meeting.
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
Over the phone: Call 253-215-8782, enter Meeting ID 871 5188 5205, and Password 9. Follow staff instructions at the time of the hearing or public comment period. Before or after a meeting: The City of Bellingham meets the Open Public Meetings Act by accepting written public comment in advance of City Council meetings. Send written input before or after a meeting.
Stamps presented information on the City's potential purchase of property at 2020 Pacific Street for use as a day center. Council rejected the pending purchase and sale agreement due to the City's inability to find an operator for the site by a 6-0 vote.
An ordinance relating to land use and zoning, amending multiple chapters in the Bellingham Municipal Code (BMC) to adopt permanent zoning regulations to eliminate minimum automobile parking requirements and establish consistent bicycle parking standards citywide
Council considered an ordinance relating to land use and zoning, amending multiple BMC chapters to adopt permanent zoning regulations eliminating minimum automobile parking requirements and establishing bicycle parking standards. The ordinance was approved for third and final reading by a 5-1 vote (Lilliquist opposed) and became Ordinance #2026-08-019.
Authorization of payroll labor cost payments dated June 16, 2026 to June 30, 2026
Council approved the Consent Agenda containing authorization of payroll labor cost payments dated June 16, 2026 to June 30, 2026 by a 6-0 vote.
A public hearing for an ordinance related to the preservation of landmark trees and extending for an additional six months the interim development regulations with respect to landmark trees throughout the city
Council President Pro Tempore Huthman opened and closed the public hearing on an ordinance related to preservation of landmark trees and extending interim development regulations. Five individuals provided testimony, and Council approved first and second reading by a 6-0 vote.
Approval of the June 1, 2026 City Council committee and regular meeting minutes
Council approved the Consent Agenda containing approval of June 1, 2026 City Council committee and regular meeting minutes by a 6-0 vote.
Agenda items (25)
Council Business
1Council BusinessOld or new business
Council members may raise any other business items not listed on the agenda.
25006Council BusinessAn ordinance regarding the One Percent for Art program; amending
The council will consider changes to the One Percent for Art program, which requires a percentage of public construction project budgets to be spent on public art.
What happened
Jace Cotton presented the committee report on an ordinance regarding the One Percent for Art program. An amendment to modify the Definitions section failed 2-4, but the motion for first and second reading of the ordinance carried 6-0.25011Council BusinessA presentation on the proposed rental inspector audit and qualification process
City staff will present information about a proposed process for qualifying and auditing rental inspectors.
What happened
Hollie Huthman presented a staff report on the proposed rental inspector audit and qualification process. This was information and discussion only with no action taken.25012Council BusinessAn ordinance amending BMC 6.15 and BMC 2.21.010, regarding the rental registration and safety inspection program, and chapter 6.12 BMC, regarding rental agreements
The council will consider changes to rental registration and safety inspection rules, including requirements for rental agreements.
What happened
Hollie Huthman presented an ordinance amending BMC 6.15 and BMC 2.21.010 regarding the rental registration and safety inspection program, and chapter 6.12 BMC regarding rental agreements. Council approved first and second reading by a 6-0 vote.25013Council BusinessA contract award for the Post Point Wastewater Treatment Plant Emission Control Upgrades Project (EU199), Bid No. 2B-2026 Community and Economic Development 1:15 p.m.
The council will award a contract for emission control upgrades at the Post Point Wastewater Treatment Plant.
What happened
Rosenblatt provided information on a potential Lake Whatcom watershed property acquisition. This was for information and discussion only; no action was taken.Procedural (12)
2ProceduralOnline: Join the Zoom meeting at cob.org/cczoom, then select the interpretation channel at the bottom of the screen. Those wishing to offer public comment in Spanish will be able to do so and their comments will be interpreted into English. Meeting records: Video recordings of each meeting are available online at cob.org/meetings within five business days following each meeting.
Residents can join the meeting online via Zoom at cob.org/cczoom and access Spanish interpretation, and video recordings will be posted online within five business days.
3ProceduralOnline: A sign-up form is available at cob.org/ccsignup on the day of the meeting.
Residents can sign up to speak during public comment online at cob.org/ccsignup on the day of the meeting.
4ProceduralIn person: Sign-up sheets are available outside the Council Chambers doors starting at 6:30 p.m. the evening of the meeting.
Sign-up sheets for speaking during public comment will be available outside Council Chambers starting at 6:30 p.m. on the evening of the meeting.
5ProceduralSign up, both online and in person, closes at 7 p.m. Once signed up, speakers may participate via the following options:
Both online and in-person sign-ups to speak close at 7 p.m., and speakers can participate in multiple ways once registered.
6ProceduralIn person: Meetings are held in Council Chambers on the second floor of City Hall.
City Council meetings are held in Council Chambers on the second floor of City Hall.
7ProceduralOnline: Join the Zoom meeting at cob.org/cczoom and follow staff instructions at time of the hearing or public comment period.
Residents can participate online in the meeting or public comment period by joining the Zoom meeting at cob.org/cczoom and following staff instructions.
8ProceduralOver the phone: Call 253-215-8782, enter Meeting ID 871 5188 5205, and Password 9. Follow staff instructions at the time of the hearing or public comment period. Before or after a meeting: The City of Bellingham meets the Open Public Meetings Act by accepting written public comment in advance of City Council meetings. Send written input before or after a meeting.
Residents can call 253-215-8782 to participate in the meeting or public comment period by phone, and the city accepts written public comments before or after meetings.
What happened
Stamps presented information on the City's potential purchase of property at 2020 Pacific Street for use as a day center. Council rejected the pending purchase and sale agreement due to the City's inability to find an operator for the site by a 6-0 vote.9ProceduralBy mail addressed to: City Council, 210 Lottie Street, Bellingham, WA 98225.
Written public comment can be mailed to City Council at 210 Lottie Street, Bellingham, WA 98225.
10ProceduralOnline: o For a public hearing: cob.org/publichearing. o For general public comment: E-mail all Council Members at ccmail@cob.org.
Written public comments can be submitted online through cob.org/publichearing for public hearings or by emailing all council members at ccmail@cob.org for general comments.
25000ProceduralApproval of the June 1, 2026 City Council committee and regular meeting minutes
The council will vote to approve the official minutes from the June 1, 2026 City Council meeting.
What happened
Council approved the Consent Agenda containing approval of June 1, 2026 City Council committee and regular meeting minutes by a 6-0 vote.25001ProceduralApproval of the June 15, 2026 City Council committee and regular meeting minutes
The council will vote to approve the official minutes from the June 15, 2026 City Council meeting.
What happened
Council approved the Consent Agenda containing approval of June 15, 2026 City Council committee and regular meeting minutes by a 6-0 vote.25002ProceduralApproval of the July 13, 2026 City Council committee and regular meeting minutes
The council will vote to approve the official minutes from the July 13, 2026 City Council meeting.
What happened
Council approved the Consent Agenda containing approval of July 13, 2026 City Council committee and regular meeting minutes by a 6-0 vote.Ordinance
24970OrdinanceAn ordinance relating to land use and zoning, amending multiple chapters in the Bellingham Municipal Code (BMC) to adopt permanent zoning regulations to eliminate minimum automobile parking requirements and establish consistent bicycle parking standards citywide
The council will consider a new ordinance that eliminates minimum parking requirements for new development and sets consistent bicycle parking standards throughout the city.
What happened
Council considered an ordinance relating to land use and zoning, amending multiple BMC chapters to adopt permanent zoning regulations eliminating minimum automobile parking requirements and establishing bicycle parking standards. The ordinance was approved for third and final reading by a 5-1 vote (Lilliquist opposed) and became Ordinance #2026-08-019.Consent Calendar
24996Consent CalendarAuthorization of payroll labor cost payments dated June 16, 2026 to June 30, 2026
The council will authorize payroll payments to city employees for the pay period of June 16-30, 2026.
What happened
Council approved the Consent Agenda containing authorization of payroll labor cost payments dated June 16, 2026 to June 30, 2026 by a 6-0 vote.25007Consent CalendarAuthorization of AP transactions issued June 26, 2026 through July 2, 2026
The council will authorize accounts payable transactions issued between June 26 and July 2, 2026.
What happened
Council approved the Consent Agenda containing authorization of AP transactions issued June 26, 2026 through July 2, 2026 by a 6-0 vote.25008Consent CalendarAuthorization of AP transactions issued July 3, 2026 through July 9, 2026
The council will authorize accounts payable transactions issued between July 3 and July 9, 2026.
What happened
Council approved the Consent Agenda containing authorization of AP transactions issued July 3, 2026 through July 9, 2026 by a 6-0 vote.25009Consent CalendarAuthorization of AP transactions issued July 10, 2026 through July 16, 2026
The council will authorize accounts payable transactions issued between July 10 and July 16, 2026.
What happened
Council approved the Consent Agenda containing authorization of AP transactions issued July 10, 2026 through July 16, 2026 by a 6-0 vote.25010Consent CalendarAuthorization of AP transactions issued July 17, 2026 through July 23, 2026
The council will authorize accounts payable transactions issued between July 17 and July 23, 2026.
What happened
Council approved the Consent Agenda containing authorization of AP transactions issued July 17, 2026 through July 23, 2026 by a 6-0 vote.Public Hearing
24999Public HearingA public hearing for an ordinance related to the preservation of landmark trees and extending for an additional six months the interim development regulations with respect to landmark trees throughout the city
The council will hold a public hearing on a proposed ordinance to protect landmark trees and extend temporary protections for an additional six months.
What happened
Council President Pro Tempore Huthman opened and closed the public hearing on an ordinance related to preservation of landmark trees and extending interim development regulations. Five individuals provided testimony, and Council approved first and second reading by a 6-0 vote.25004Public HearingMayor's reappointment to the Mayor's Neighborhood Advisory
The council will hold a public hearing on the Mayor's reappointment to the Mayor's Neighborhood Advisory board.
What happened
Mayor Lund reappointed Lauren Bunke to a second and final term on the Mayor's Neighborhood Advisory Commission, with the term expiring on May 6, 2028.Additional votes recorded in minutes
First and second reading – Ordinance on landmark tree preservation and interim development regulations extension
aye 6 · absent 1
Daniel Hammillaye
Edwin H. "Skip" Williamsaye
Hannah Stoneabsent
Hollie Huthmanaye
Jace Cottonaye
Lisa Andersonaye
Michael Lilliquistaye
Contract award – Post Point Wastewater Treatment Plant Emission Control Upgrades Project
aye 6 · absent 1
Daniel Hammillaye
Edwin H. "Skip" Williamsaye
Hannah Stoneabsent
Hollie Huthmanaye
Jace Cottonaye
Lisa Andersonaye
Michael Lilliquistaye
First and second reading – Ordinance on One Percent for Art program amending BMC Chapter 4.92
aye 6 · absent 1
Daniel Hammillaye
Edwin H. "Skip" Williamsaye
Hannah Stoneabsent
Hollie Huthmanaye
Jace Cottonaye
Lisa Andersonaye
Michael Lilliquistaye
Amendment to BMC 4.92.020 Definitions – "Artwork" definition
nay 4 · absent 1 · aye 2
Daniel Hammillnay
Edwin H. "Skip" Williamsnay
Hannah Stoneabsent
Hollie Huthmannay
Jace Cottonnay
Lisa Andersonaye
Michael Lilliquistaye
First and second reading – Ordinance amending BMC 6.15, BMC 2.21.010, and BMC 6.12 regarding rental registration, safety inspection, and rental agreements
aye 6 · absent 1
Daniel Hammillaye
Edwin H. "Skip" Williamsaye
Hannah Stoneabsent
Hollie Huthmanaye
Jace Cottonaye
Lisa Andersonaye
Michael Lilliquistaye
Authorize outside counsel – Oldham v. City of Bellingham
aye 6 · absent 1
Daniel Hammillaye
Edwin H. "Skip" Williamsaye
Hannah Stoneabsent
Hollie Huthmanaye
Jace Cottonaye
Lisa Andersonaye
Michael Lilliquistaye
Authorize outside counsel – Jewett v. City of Bellingham
aye 6 · absent 1
Daniel Hammillaye
Edwin H. "Skip" Williamsaye
Hannah Stoneabsent
Hollie Huthmanaye
Jace Cottonaye
Lisa Andersonaye
Michael Lilliquistaye
Authorize outside counsel – Blomeen v. City of Bellingham
aye 6 · absent 1
Daniel Hammillaye
Edwin H. "Skip" Williamsaye
Hannah Stoneabsent
Hollie Huthmanaye
Jace Cottonaye
Lisa Andersonaye
Michael Lilliquistaye
Reject purchase and sale agreement for 2020 Pacific Street
aye 6 · absent 1
Daniel Hammillaye
Edwin H. "Skip" Williamsaye
Hannah Stoneabsent
Hollie Huthmanaye
Jace Cottonaye
Lisa Andersonaye
Michael Lilliquistaye
Approve consent agenda
aye 6 · absent 1
Daniel Hammillaye
Edwin H. "Skip" Williamsaye
Hannah Stoneabsent
Hollie Huthmanaye
Jace Cottonaye
Lisa Andersonaye
Michael Lilliquistaye
Third and final reading – Ordinance 2026-08-019 eliminating minimum automobile parking requirements and establishing bicycle parking standards
aye 5 · absent 1 · nay 1
Daniel Hammillaye
Edwin H. "Skip" Williamsaye
Hannah Stoneabsent
Hollie Huthmanaye
Jace Cottonaye
Lisa Andersonaye
Michael Lilliquistnay
Verbatim transcript available
276 transcript segments indexed
All right. Good evening everybody and welcome to this regular meeting of the Bellingham City Council this August 10th, 2026. I am President Proim Huffman uh sitting in for President Stone who is excused tonight.
City of Bellingham City Council Regular Meeting action summary August 10, 2026, 7 p.m. Chair: Hannah Stone Phone: 360-778-8200 Members: Hollie Huthman, Daniel Hammill, Email: ccmail@cob.org Edwin H. "Skip" Williams, Lisa Anderson, Web: cob.org/council Michael Lilliquist, Jace Cotton Legislative Office Manager: Jackie Weller Disclaimer This document is provided as a courtesy follow-up of the City Council meeting.
Uh roll call, please. >> Dan Hamill >> here. >> Skip Williams >> here. >> Lisa Anderson >> here. >> Nicoloquist >> here. >> Jay Cotton >> here. >> Holly Huffman >> here. Right. Six council members are present with council president stone excused.
This document is not to be considered the minutes from the meeting but rather a report of the action taken by Council. All information contained herein is subject to change upon further review of recordings of the proceedings and composure and approval of the meeting minutes.
Comments and suggestions are welcome. Regular meeting The following items are heard in the Regular Meeting only. Call to order and roll call The meeting was called to order by Council President Pro Tempore Huthman at 7 p.m.
>> Thank you very much. Before we begin, we acknowledge we are gathered on the traditional and unseated territory of the Lummy Nooks Samish Seamyamu people who have cared for and tended this land since time immemorial.
Truth and acknowledgement are critical to building mutual respect and connection across all barriers of heritage and difference. We begin this effort to acknowledge what has been buried by honoring the truth.
Present: Council Member Hollie Huthman, Second Ward Council Member Daniel Hammill, Third Ward Council Member Edwin H. "Skip" Williams, Fourth Ward Council Member Lisa Anderson, Fifth Ward Council Member Michael Lilliquist, Sixth Ward Council Member Jace Cotton, At-Large Excused: Council President Hannah Stone, First Ward Announcements and upcoming meetings The Bellingham City Council meets all requirements of the State of Washington Open Public Meetings Act.
1. Land acknowledgement statement Before we begin, we acknowledge that we are gathered on the traditional and unceded territory of the Lummi, Nooksack, Samish and Semiahmoo People who have cared for and tended this land since time immemorial.
We pay respect to their elders, past and present. Please take a moment to consider the many legacies of violence, displacement, migration, and settlement that bring us together here today. And please join us in uncovering such truths at any and all public events.
Bellingham City Council provides Spanish interpretation at all regular evening meetings. Interpretation can be accessed by in-person attendees by utilizing the headsets located at the front of the room.
Truth and acknowledgment are critical to building mutual respect and connection across all barriers of heritage and difference. We begin this effort to acknowledge what has been buried by honoring the truth.
We pay respect to their elders past and present. Please take a moment to consider the many Page 1 of 8 legacies of violence, displacement, migration, and settlement that bring us together here today.
Remote viewers can log on to co.orgcc org/cczoom and click on the language icon at the bottom of the screen to listen in Spanish. participant. Thank you. Uh we have an upcoming public hearing on August 24th, 2026.
And please join us in uncovering such truths at any and all public events. 2. Language access The Bellingham City Council provides Spanish interpretation at all regular evening meetings. Interpretation can be accessed by in-person attendees by utilizing the headsets located at the front of the room.
The council will hold a public hearing to consider an ordinance adopting development regulations incentivizing the construction of lowincome housing projects. More more information will be available 7 days before the hearing at uh meetings.cub.org.
Remote viewers can log on to cob.org/cczoom and click on the “Language” icon at the bottom of the screen to listen in Spanish. 3. Upcoming public hearing On August 24, 2026, the Council will hold a public hearing to consider an ordinance adopting development regulations incentivizing the construction of low-income housing projects.
And the next city council meeting will be held on August 24th, 2026. And so first up on our agenda, we have a public hearing. This is agenda bill 24999, a public hearing for an ordinance related to the preservation of landmark trees and extending uh for an additional six months the interim development regulations with respect to landmark trees throughout the city.
More information will be available seven days before the hearing on meetings.cob.org. 4. Next Council meeting The next City Council meeting with be held on August 24, 2026. Public hearing 24999 1. A public hearing for an ordinance related to the preservation of landmark p.
On May 20th, 2024, the city council adopted an emergency ordinance relating to the preservation of landmark trees and established interim development regulations with respect to landmark trees throughout the city.
The council has extended the interim ordinance for additional six month for an additional six-month in increment on several previous occasions. On June 18th, 2026, the draft ordinance was presented to the planning commission.
7 trees and extending for an additional six months the interim development regulations with respect to landmark trees throughout the city Summary: Council President Pro Tempore Huthman opened the public hearing.
Five individuals provided testimony. Council President Pro Tempore Huthman closed the public hearing. Action: Michael Lilliquist / Edwin H. "Skip" Williams moved for first and second reading. MOTION CARRIED 6-0.
Following the public hearing and further deliberations, the planning commission recommended further revisions to the ordinance. As such, the interim ordinance will need another six-month extension in order to accommodate the schedule needed to incorporate the requested modifications.
And so, I believe I will turn it over to Director Lion uh to lead a discussion. >> Thank you. And good evening again. Uh Blake Lion, director of planning and community development. Uh the staff report says largely what I wanted to cover.
Appointments 25004 1. Mayor's reappointment to the Mayor's Neighborhood Advisory p. 26 Commission (information) Page 2 of 8 Summary: Mayor Lund reappointed Lauren Bunke to a second and final term on the Mayor's Neighborhood Advisory Commission expiring on May 6, 2028.
I just wanted to uh give a couple additional highlights. Um as we went through the public hearing in June, as you mentioned there on June 18th, uh there was a few things that came to light uh in the planning commission direction.
Mayor's report Standing time for briefings, updates, and reports to Council by the Mayor. Summary: Mayor Lund provided an update on the Regional Fire Authority (RFA). The RFA committee has drafted a plan that will provide fire and emergency medical services in Bellingham and Fire District 8.
The committee has agreed upon the RFA boundaries, financial structure ($1 per $1,000 of assessed property value and a fire benefit charge), a governance board structure, and operational structure. A draft proposal will be brought forward to Council in October after additional community engagement.
One of which uh they particularly wanted us to look at was an inloo program. So if you do uh find yourself in the need of removing a landmark tree, right now the ordinance derives that as a 3 to one planting ratio uh to replace that particular tree and if they're not is not physically space enough on the subject property because of the development that's being accommodated and the ability to replant those trees.
Council will consider a resolution in November to approve the draft RFA plan prior to submission for voter approval in the February 2027 election. Mayor Lund encouraged the community to attend an upcoming "Ask Us Anything” event on August 19th from 5:30 p.m.
were looking at trying to develop a inloo program and so they wanted to vet that out a little bit more have staff um come back with different examples. There was also some concern uh represented at that public hearing about the extent of the uh director's authorities.
to 7 p.m. at Larrabee Lager Company. Mayor Lund highlighted recent meetings and ongoing collaborations with local farmers, tribal representatives, Whatcom County elected officials, environmental leaders, and others to discuss the future of water in the region.
There was some desire to um kind of refine the language around damage, harm, and removal of trees and just a few other things that became very apparent that they wanted to flush out in greater detail.
So, they've asked us to come back with a little uh additional consideration. We need this additional time in order to be able to do that. uh in addition to the items that the planning commission has provided uh we've also received additional communications from uh Wacam Million Trees and so there's there's an additional memo and some analysis that they've continue to do to help inform our position.
She remains committed to building trust and strengthening relationships to ensure productive civic conversations. Council assignment reports Standing time for Council Member reports from assigned committees, boards, and other groups.
So we wanted to be able to give full consideration to that and to some of the conversations we've been having with our development committee as well. So we're asking that hopefully you can extend it for a final time uh which will give us the ability to again go back to the planning commission have a work session with them uh get their recommendation and then ultimately bring that forward.
Summary: There were no Council Member reports. Committee meeting reports The following committee meetings are held during the day. Committee chairs will present a summary of each agenda item during the evening meeting, and further discussion or action may take place if needed.
My expectation is that we be back to the planning commission uh later this year and probably back to the city council in the early part of next year before the um March time frame for expiration. So with that, I'm happy to go into any details, but uh the simple the request is relatively simple.
Committee meetings are open to the public to attend, however committee agendas do not include public comment sessions. Public Works and Natural Resources 1 p.m. Michael Lilliquist, Chair Lisa Anderson, Jace Cotton Page 3 of 8 25013 1.
A contract award for the Post Point Wastewater Treatment Plant Emission p. 30 Control Upgrades Project (EU199), Bid No. 2B-2026 Action: Michael Lilliquist / Lisa Anderson moved to authorize the Mayor to contract with Walsh Construction Company II, LLC for preconstruction and construction services for the Post Point Wastewater Treatment Plant Emission Control Upgrades Project (EU199).
Just trying to make sure we have time to do that adequate work. >> Okay. Clarifying questions from the council before we open up the public hearing. Okay. How many do we have signed up? >> We have five individuals signed up tonight.
MOTION CARRIED 6-0. Community and Economic Development 1:15 p.m. Jace Cotton, Chair Hollie Huthman, Edwin H. "Skip" Williams 25006 1. An ordinance regarding the One Percent for Art program; amending p.
>> Okay. And for the public hearing, uh this is uh public comment on just this agenda item. Regular public comment uh will be at the end of the meeting. So when you hear your name called, please uh come to either line up down here at the podium or there's also a microphone upstairs at the top of the stairs.
Um go ahead go ahead and call the first names. >> All right. First up we have Adam Bellinger, Brian Armstrong, and then Brian Gas. Good evening, council, Mayor London, uh, Director Lion. Um, my name is Adam Bellinger.
37 Bellingham Municipal Code Chapter 4.92 Action: Jace Cotton / Edwin H. "Skip" Williams moved for first and second reading. Action: Michael Lilliquist / Lisa Anderson moved to amend 4.92.020 Definitions.
Um, I just have a one recommendation on this is, um, uh, I think that, um, we should consider, uh, increasing the diameter of the trees from 36 in to 48 in. I say this because the amount of forested land in uh Bellingham with 36 inch diameter trees is thousands of trees.
“Artwork” has the same meaning as “work of art” as defined in BMC 2.36.050(B), and specifically includes ornamentation integrated into the various elements of a capital improvement project as well as distinct, independent artwork located in the vicinity of the capital improvement project) with preference given to integrated artwork elements.
AMENDMENT FAILED 2-4. OPPOSED: Hollie Huthman, Daniel Hammill, Edwin H. "Skip" Williams, Jace Cotton MOTION CARRIED 6-0. Planning 1:45 p.m. Hollie Huthman, Chair Lisa Anderson, Michael Lilliquist 25011 1.
I mean, um, when you look around at, uh, the neighborhoods and particularly my Samish neighborhood, uh, there's just, uh, a very large portion of the land is basically would be inaccessible for, uh, development or infill housing, uh, density.
Um, and I think we as a community are committed to, uh, maintaining and, uh, uh, our excellent tree canopy. It's one of the best in the nation, but um I think we're we've got a lot of trade-offs that we need to do.
A presentation on the proposed rental inspector audit and qualification p. 44 process Summary: Page 4 of 8 Information and discussion only. 25012 2. An ordinance amending BMC 6.15 and BMC 2.21.010, regarding the rental p.
50 registration and safety inspection program, and chapter 6.12 BMC, regarding rental agreements Action: Hollie Huthman / Edwin H. "Skip" Williams moved for first and second reading. MOTION CARRIED 6-0.
And I think this is one area where we can um still take care of the truly landmark trees, but there's a lot of trees that are uh uh in the between uh area where I think it's uh a little bit too tight.
And um as these trees grow, they grow, you know, uh too. So it's it's it's going to be a moving target um as we uh over time. So that was all. Thank you. >> Thank you, Adam. >> Good evening, council. Brian Armstrong.
Committee Of The Whole 2:45 p.m. Hannah Stone, Chair Hollie Huthman, Daniel Hammill, Edwin H. "Skip" Williams, Lisa Anderson, Michael Lilliquist, Jace Cotton 1. Old or new business Summary: There were no discussion items for Old/New Business.
Uh I want to speak in support of extending and ultimately making permanent the landmark tree ordinance and to do so by placing it in the broader context of what this community values. Bellingham's identity is rooted in its natural environment.
Executive session 2:55 p.m. Closed to the public. Report in the Regular Meeting only. 1. Litigation: Oldham v. City of Bellingham, et al (Phillips, approx. 15 min.) Summary: Staff provided information on a litigation matter.
Action: Edwin H. "Skip" Williams / Daniel Hammill moved to authorize the Mayor to retain outside counsel to represent the City of Bellingham as a defendant in this matter. MOTION CARRIED 6-0. 2. Litigation: Jewett v.
People move here for what it has. Its forests, its waterways, its trails, its open spaces. The landmark tree ordinance is not an isolated policy. It is one expression of a long and consistent set of community values that show up across our governing documents, our ballot history, and our public engagement processes.
Our comprehensive plan commits to the city to protecting, enhancing, and restoring natural resources. Our climate action plan recognizes the urban forest as a central infrastructure for carbon sequestration, storm water mitigation, temperature regulation, air quality, and wildlife habitat.
City of Bellingham, et al (Phillips, approx. 10 min.) Summary: Staff provided information on a litigation matter. Page 5 of 8 Action: Edwin H. "Skip" Williams / Daniel Hammill moved to authorize the Mayor to retain outside counsel to represent the City of Bellingham as a defendant in this matter.
MOTION CARRIED 6-0. 3. Litigation: Blomeen v. City of Bellingham, et al (Phillips, approx. 10 min.) Summary: Staff provided information on a litigation matter. Action: Edwin H. "Skip" Williams / Daniel Hammill moved to authorize the Mayor to retain outside counsel to represent the City of Bellingham and the individually-named City employees as defendants in this matter.
Our pros plan surveys show that access to nature is one of the top three uses of our park system, and that residents consistently prioritize natural open space and habitat preservation. Our green wastists program has earned five successive voter approvals since 1990 because residents understand that protecting the natural environment is not a luxury.
It is foundational to who we are. Trees are part of that foundation. Mature trees are not replaceable on any meaningful human time scale. A young tree cannot provide the canopy, habitat, carbon storage, or storm water benefits of a tree that has taken decades to grow.
MOTION CARRIED 6-0. 4. Potential property acquisition (Rosenblatt, approx. 3 min.) Summary: Staff provided information on a potential Lake Whatcom watershed property acquisition. For information and discussion.
And the loss is cumulative. Each development decision that removes a mature tree contributes to the fragmentation of urban wildlife habitat, the loss of movement corridors for birds and pollinators, and the erosion of the interconnected canopy that makes urban forest function as a system.
No action taken. 5. Potential property acquisition (Rosenblatt, approx. 3 min.) Summary: Staff provided information on a potential Lake Whatcom watershed property acquisition. For information and discussion.
No action taken. 6. Potential property acquisition (Rosenblatt, approx. 3 min.) Summary: Staff provided information on a potential Lake Whatcom watershed property acquisition. For information and discussion.
Tree canopy also matters for equity. Shade, air quality, and storm water benefits are not distributed equally across Bellingham's neighborhoods. A permanent ordinance that protects mature trees citywide helps ensure all residents have access to the environmental benefits a healthy urban forest provides.
No action taken. 7. Potential property acquisition (Stamps, approx. 5 min.) Summary: Page 6 of 8 Staff provided information on a potential property acquisition. For information and discussion. No action taken.
And it matters for how we move through our city. Shaded trails and treeline streets make walking and cycling safer and more comfortable, supporting the multimodal transportation goals in our comprehensive plan and greenways program.
Our urban forests, our trail network are not separate systems. They are part of the same ecological and civic infrastructure. As Susan Delasio noted in her written comment, the loss of established habitat is effectively permanent for current generations.
8. Potential property acquisition (Stamps, approx. 5 min.) - ITEM ADDED 8.7.26 Summary: Staff provided information on the City’s potential purchase of property located at 2020 Pacific Street for use as a day center.
Action: Daniel Hammill / Edwin H. "Skip" Williams moved to reject the pending purchase and sale agreement for 2020 Pacific Street due to the City’s inability to find an operator for the site. MOTION CARRIED 6-0.
This community deserves a permanent comprehensive framework that protects landmark trees, recognizes the value of interconnected canopies, and treats our urban forest as the essential environmental infrastructure it is.
I would encourage this council to move with purpose toward a permanent ordinance. The values that make Bellingham worth living in are expressed in the policies we choose to protect them. And I will note I could not express all this in two minutes, which itself makes a case for preserving our three-minute public comment period.
Consent agenda Consent Agenda items are considered routine and/or non-controversial and may be approved in a single motion. A member of the Council may ask that an item be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered separately.
25000 1. Approval of the June 1, 2026 City Council committee and regular meeting p. 74 minutes 25001 2. Approval of the June 15, 2026 City Council committee and regular p. 96 meeting minutes 25002 3. Approval of the July 13, 2026 City Council committee and regular meeting p.
Thank you. Thank you, Brian. >> All right. And then after Brian, we have Mal Silverman and Susan Hutton. >> Good evening, Brian Gas from Bellingham. Um, it's kind of funny. We talk about this tree ordinance.
110 minutes 24996 4. Authorization of payroll labor cost payments dated June 16, 2026 to June p. 134 30, 2026 25007 5. Authorization of AP transactions issued June 26, 2026 through July 2, p. 135 2026 25008 6.
I I always want to quote John Wick when he says consequences. And I'm thinking that I don't know if government exists to think they're doing good, but then end up never being held accountable to the outcomes that are created.
But I want you to know that there shouldn't be anybody who's against a tree ordinance. I mean, I'm not. I think that tree ordinance is a good idea. Probably greenways was a good idea when you would buy property back in the day to to to do uh trails and and open space.
Authorization of AP transactions issued July 3, 2026 through July 9, 2026 p. 136 25009 7. Authorization of AP transactions issued July 10, 2026 through July 16, p. 137 2026 Page 7 of 8 25010 8. Authorization of AP transactions issued July 17, 2026 through July 23, p.
138 2026 Action: Michael Lilliquist / Daniel Hammill moved approval of the Consent Agenda in its entirety. MOTION CARRIED 6-0. Final consideration of ordinances 24970 1. An ordinance relating to land use and zoning, amending multiple chapters p.
That was a good idea. Um but now greenways essentially uh the city itself hasn't expanded in 20 years its uh its uh footprint. In fact, you're trying to reduce it. That's the only growth plan I've ever seen where shrinking is growing.
139 in the Bellingham Municipal Code (BMC) to adopt permanent zoning regulations to eliminate minimum automobile parking requirements and establish consistent bicycle parking standards citywide Action: Daniel Hammill / Edwin H.
What happens is you can't have everything. You know, a carpenter once said, a friend said something like, "It can be fast, good, or cheap." You know, name two or something. Pick two. You guys can't have greenways buying up any available land that's available.
Half of the US Street U that's supposed to be designated for the city's growth is owned by the city. And you can't have a plane department. It's not their fault. Marching orders from Washington. You can't have where plane department is just restricting any available land there is.
"Skip" Williams moved approval for third and final reading. Upon motion, said bill was placed on final passage and approved by the following roll call vote: AYES: Huthman, Hammill, Williams, Anderson, Cotton NAYS: Lilliquist EXCUSED: Stone MOTION CARRIED 5-1 and was thereafter named Ordinance #2026-08-019.
Public comment period City Council heard public comments from 12 individuals. Adjournment There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:51 p.m. Kelley Goetz, Deputy City Clerk kngoetz@cob.org Page 8 of 8
What do you think is left? The trees are being accosted by your policies, not the builders. People have to live somewhere. And I think that what's happening is I believe your uh planning commission voted like unanimously to reject a permanent um a permanent uh tree ordinance under whatever you were trying to do before.
But what I'd like to know is which one of those three are you willing to give up? Are you willing to not own you want to own a 100% of the greenways so nobody can live anywhere? Does anybody care about future generations being able to build live here?
I had a friend of mine Lornson um said in the last Wakom County meeting, you know what he said? Wakom Countyy's number one export is our children because they can't live here. So all you people who might have kids or you have grown and lived up here and you got a nice nice job in a nice community, good luck.
You didn't realize how good you had it because now you can't live here. There's no teachers that can live here in Bellingham and and be a teacher. Who who would want to do that? There's no employee that can buy their own house anymore, but yet you want to save a bunch of trees.
Well, you know what the consequences of that is? Not allowing any normal development to happen. 20 years you said that they that in your comp plan, you said that you had room for 10,000 detached single family homes.
You know how Andy got permitted here in 20 years? 2500. Where' the 7500 uh uh of those opportunities, of those futures, of those ability to live here, where did they go? So, I want you to start thinking about those people and those trees do need to be protected, but you need to also understand it's not the end.
It's not the result of >> Thank you, Brian. Your time is up. Uh, >> whatever. Sorry, I blew my hand. >> Thank you, Brian. What are the rules? Good evening, Miles Silverman from the Cordata neighborhood.
First, I want to agree with Mr. Bellinger on Sorry, I think I pronounced that wrong. Um on supporting increase of the threshold from 36 in to 48 in. And uh going along with that and going along with the need to have it relatively easy to build housing the now the answer to how we build within the land we already have is infill.
However, the concern then is that if the landmark tree ordinance is too stringent, then you will not have a lot of that infill happening. Especially with smaller projects because smaller projects, with larger projects, the developers will have a team.
They'll already be spending possibly six figures before ground is even broken, which means all right, you might as well hire an arborist at that point. However, for smaller projects, these are just people probably building backyard cottages or a couple town homes or cottage core or maybe even a small apartment building on one lot on their own, not with a large team.
And so then that means that the permitting process, including for landmark trees, has to be simple and doable and affordable. And if every project has to hire an arborist to verify that there are no landmark trees on the lot or that the roots aren't going to be there aren't any roots of concern in the area that's getting built on then that threshold means that half of those projects at least will never happen.
So at minimum there must be a clear process for small projects by which people can figure out that where are the areas where they have to do additional review for landmark tree protections and outside those um outside those protected areas outside those root zones.
the um review time added as a result of this ordinance should be measured in minutes because you just have the planner just check okay this is outside the root zone. So basically larger projects there is a balance to be struck in terms of protecting trees and allowing the projects to happen.
But particularly with smaller projects where you don't have large teams where they don't have the money to hire the arborist where you don't want to spend weeks on just a couple of units. That's not good for anyone.
Make sure it's easy for projects where the risk to the tree canopy is relatively low. Make sure it's easy to get those through. Thank you. >> Big mouth. Good evening, council members. My name is Susan Hutton and I am the executive director of the Watcom Million Trees Project.
Thank you for everything you do for this community and thank you for the opportunity to address you tonight about the landmark tree ordinance. The interim ordinance you're considering again tonight has kept some of Bellingham's oldest, most significant trees standing, which is a huge relief.
But every group that has had to work with it has struggled with its shortcomings. City staff has said its vague language doesn't give them enough guidance, so they have to spend time reviewing each project, which takes a lot of their time.
Developers find that waiting for staff review delays their project and that they often discovered unexpected ordinance related costs well after the project has begun. Advocates like Watka Million Trees have criticized several aspects of the ordinance, including its lack of transparency.
Notably, not one of us has disputed the value of preserving these trees. Our criticisms are focused exclusively on the interim ordinances failures, and it should not be the basis of the one you permanently adopt.
I'm saying this with all friendliness and confidence, with firmness, that trees and housing do not have to be enemies. Bellingham needs both. Other cities have successfully navigated this issue and there's no reason that Bellingham shouldn't either.
I submitted a memo to all of you that includes the specific language and code used by four peer cities that have very strong tree protection and have also provided the residents with needed housing, including affordable housing.
We deserve a good, thorough, thoughtful ordinance and I hope you'll insist that this is what you're given to approve. I also want you to know that Watcom Million Trees Project wants to support Bellingham in this effort.
We are ready to help research, to make introductions, to review language, or to be useful in whatever way that helps. Thank you again for your work and for the chance to speak to you tonight. >> Thank you, Susan.
>> That concludes the signup. >> Is there anybody else that would like to speak to this issue before we close the public hearing? Okay, go ahead and close the public hearing and bring it back to council.
Council member Liiloquist. >> Um, first of all, I think we have all the reason in the world to extend the interim ordinance uh so that we can get to a better version of the permanent ordinance. And I'd like to talk about uh our long-term goal, but before that, I'm going to move approval of the interim ordinance.
>> Second. >> Motion by Council Member Liquist and a second by Council Member Williams. Council member Loquist. >> So, as was indicated, the planning commission identified what they thought were a few things that came to light um that are important to consider uh in the final ordinance.
We just heard from Representative Dillian Trees project that they think there's there's room for improvement. Um I'm going to bring up two overlapping related issues that I would like to see addressed in the permanent ordinance, but not in this one.
And they're related and they're related to what's defined as a critical root zone and also as a tree protection zone. So question number one to staff is those seem redundant. So I are are are is the language redundant because they're both defined in the exact same way.
They're referred to in slightly different portions of the text but in both cases you take the diameter of the tree at chest height that's your diameter then in inches you double that to get the sorry the rad you then get that as the radius for a circle.
So you double that for its diameter in feet and that's your protection zone or your root zone. It's the same formula. Can we examine that as a way to simplify maybe using the same thing twice? That's my first request.
>> That is that is definitely a clarification we can work with. >> And then the second thing has to do with that definition itself. It seems to me that it's a problematic default definition. My understanding when talking to most people is that the likely critical root zone and the necessary tree protection zone is far smaller that in almost all cases.
So this room is 56 feet from front to back. I tried to measure it today. The smallest tree protection zone is going to be 20 feet wider than this in both directions and both much wider. In many cases, the the tree protection zone as defined this way extends onto adjacent properties.
If that was necessary to protect the trees, I'd say that's necessary. But my understanding is that's not necessary. So, it seems to me we're creating a problematic default, which then drives people to the other fork in the road, which is you can always go out and get an arborist.
arborist can tell you what the actual protection zone needs to be. I would like to have it so that we had a better default that didn't drive people to the extra time, trouble, and expense. So my request would be in the final ordinance can reexamine that rule of thumb to create something which isn't an unnecessary uh incumbrance, but it's something more realistic and closer to what might be recommended by uh tree experts.
>> Yeah. Yeah. And I think the opportunity that you're talking about is in the critical root zone, it talks about that one inch um diameter of breast height for that tree. And then the critical root zone by default is essentially one foot for every one inch of that dimension.
So if you have a 40inch tree, it's a 40 foot critical. >> Yeah. So then you're talking about um and so it starts to create a much bigger area which is different than the drip line of the tree um and as you pointed out sometimes that critical root zone then extends onto adjacent property.
So you may have a landmark tree on subject property that's now impacting development on adjacent properties as well. So there I think there is an opportunity to look at that to understand what the implications are of those.
We've started to do that through what we call a reasonleness memo. You may recall in the interim ordinance, there was language that talks about, I'm going to paraphrase it because I'm not going to try to read it verbatim, but um or remember it verbatim, but it simply says, you know, a property owner shall have reasonable use of that land as long as they demonstrate a reasonable uh look at alternatives associated.
And so the question became what is reasonable and so that is left open for interpretation and we've been trying to give guidance through this interim and learned a lot about doing that. So I agree that we can get a more defined or more definitive approach to what that looks like to give certainty both for the community as a whole but then also for those that may be pursuing infill or development projects.
>> Those two issues interact in the sense that um I'm saying that the protection zone is excessive. Maybe it is, maybe it is. But if it is excessive, that would drive more people to have to resort to the reasonleness definition to try to get in a little bit of development, say, "Hey, maybe I can encroach 20 ft." And you know, you're h you're forcing them to try to make a reasonleness argument and to potentially go to an arborist.
Whereas, if we had a better starting point, there'd be fewer people having to take those forks, maybe faster, easier approval. >> I agree with you in large part. I think part of what has to be part of the consideration is, and this is what we heard in public testimony tonight that they're concerned about is the specifics of that subject property.
It's very different if you're talking about a sloped site. Um, you know, it can be different if you're talking about a range of different characteristics that go into it. So, as much as we want to be um streamlined in our evaluation and our review, we want to give that level of consistency, we do have to allow for enough consideration for, you know, those projects that have additional consideration, whether there's riparian habitat, whether there's slope sites, whether there's a variety of different circumstances that may warrant it.
You can also take into consideration construction methodology and different things that have are we planing off the roots entirely. We don't want to necessarily do that because then that can undermine the longevity of the tree uh in a wind event and you know and the stability overall.
So again, there are variables that come into this conversation that we can start to look at if we can. Often times when we're trying to draft uh code like this, we're trying to do the most good for the most number of projects and properties and give enough flexibility where we can deal with the um the the lesser percentages that have abstract issues that we have to make sure we can address.
So, we're certainly endeavoring to do that and we'll continue to work on refining it and bring back some of your >> Thank you. My request would be to look for a simplification where we can find it. >> Absolutely.
Further questions or comments? All right. Seeing none, we'll take a vote. All in favor say I. >> I. >> I. I. >> Any opposed or abstensions? That passes. 601 excused. All right. Moving on. appointments.
Maryland. I'm going to use the microphone tonight or this is microphone tonight. Uh, first up is an appointment and that's for information for council and that is I will be reappointing Lauren Bunkkey to her second term as the Roosevelt neighborhood representative to the mayor's neighborhood advisory commission.
I wanted to share with the public tonight an update that I gave to council earlier today during uh the committee of the whole and it's an update on the regional fire authority uh planning committee. The committee has met bi-weekly to draft a plan for the RFA since May 22nd.
The plan will provide fire and emergency medical services to Bellingham and the area currently covered by Wakom County Fire District 8. To date, the committee has agreed on a plan with chapters that outline the boundaries of the RFA, the financial structure of the RFA, including a property tax of $1 per 1,000 assessed property value, and a fire benefit charge based on the relative cost to provide fire protection to any building or structure.
[snorts] The draft formula to calculate that fire bitten fit charge has been explored by the committee and a governance board structure for both the transitory period of three years and a permanent board structure have been identified.
The RFA's operational structure and the assets to be transferred with the RFA when it is formed have also been discussed. The RFA planning committee will hold a public meeting to give an overview of the RFA plan and conduct a required public hearing on the fire benefit charge in mid October.
We expect to bring forward a resolution to council for approval of the draft RFA plan in early November before submitting the proposal as a measure for voter consideration in the February 2027 election.
I also wanted to invite council and the community to join us at our North Bellingham ask us anything next week. If you are curious to learn more about city priorities or if you have questions about our work, we are hosting our third and final ask us anything event this year.
I will be joined by the department head team next Wednesday, August 19th at Larabe Logger Company from 5:30 to 700 p.m. to take your questions and hear your thoughts. This event is free and it is open to the whole community.
Come ready to mingle and enjoy refreshments from 5:30 to 6 with our program beginning at 6:00 p.m. I look forward to joining those of you who can attend. And lastly tonight, I wanted to share with council and the public that I have spent two very full evenings with local farmers, tribal representatives, countywide elected officials, environmental leaders, and others talking about the future of water and our shared future together in Watcom County.
As we think about how to forage a path forward preserving this precious resource, I'm inspired by the work that we are doing to build trust and strengthen our relationships together. The kind of critical groundwork that is necessary for us to have healthy disagreement and productive civic conversations.
I am hopeful not only for the results we'll see in stewarding our finite water and the health of the Noosack River, but also for what we can learn and apply to our many shared challenges together. That's the end of mayor's report tonight.
>> Thank you, mayor. And next up, we have council assignment reports. This is a time for council members to report out from assigned committees, boards, and other groups. Not this week. All right. Um, we will move on to committee meeting reports.
First up, we had public works and natural resources and that was chaired by council member Liiloquist. >> Thank you, President Ojim Husman. The public works and natural resource committee met this morning.
Joining me on that committee are council members uh Anderson and Cotton. Right. Yes. And uh we had one item before us today. It was potential contract award for the postpoint wastewater treatment plants emission control upgrades project EU19 bid number 2B 2026.
The emissions control upgrade project will upgrade the air pollution control equipment for both postpoint incinerator units. The city issued a request for proposals for the general contractor construction manager services known as GCCM services in March of this year and publicly opened three price proposals on June 16th which complete which completed a multi-phase scoring process.
Walsh Construction Company 2 LLC submitted the lowest contractor's fee proposal and received the highest combined score from the review committee. Following council award, the mayor is then authorized to contract with Walsh to provide pre-construction services and to act as a construction manager and general contractor during the construction phase itself.
Pre-construction and construction services are estimated to be 900,000 and 40 million respectively. The project due to its size also includes an apprenticeship training requirement in terms of hours. So two things or I like to mention about this.
Um, this project is about pollution reduction and it was undertaken to meet stricter standards under the Clean Air Act and an agreement and oversight with the Northwest Clean Air Agency. So, it's about pollution reduction.
Um, the GCCM is an alternate form of project delivery. Rather than designing a project, having people bid on it, what we do is instead we bring in and choose based on their qualifications a general contractor ahead of time to help us manage the project and more importantly to help finalize the design in a way which can lower the costs and deliver the same outcome.
It's most common in larger and more complex projects like this air pollution control project is. Um, finally, I would uh comment that this doesn't lock us into the incinerators forever and ever. We're still actively pursuing uh better, more modern, more sustainable forms of handling uh the um sewage solids.
Um but in the meanwhile, we'd like to reduce air pollution, and that this program will do. This afternoon, the committee unanimously recommended that we move to authorize the mayor to contract with Walls Construction Company 2 LLC for pre-construction and construction services for the postpoint wastewater treatment plant emission control upgrades project.
And I so moved. Second >> motion by the chair and a second by council member Anderson. Any further discussion? Seeing none, all in favor say I. I. >> I. >> Any opposed or abstensions? That passes 601 excused.
>> Thank you, Council Member Liiloquist. Up next this afternoon, we had community and economic development and that was chaired by council member Cotton. >> Thank you, President Prom. Um I'm joined on that committee by council members um Huffman and uh Williams.
Um although all council members excluding um excuse President Huffman were also in attendance. We had one agenda item which was an ordinance regarding the 1% for the arts program amending Bellingham Municipal Code Chapter um 4.92.
Um this program goes back to um 2015 when the city established a 1% for the arts program. The program requires 1% of eligible capital improvement project costs to be allocated for artwork in the public realm.
Um staff is recommending several changes recommended several changes to the 1% for the arts um code provisions and um these reflect um months of research into best practices um as well as deliberation among department staff um to ensure um the ordinance best achieves uh the intended program goals um including responsible care for the existing public art collection and flexibility to maximize future public benefits.
Um there is a unanimous recommendation uh to adopt the ordinance and I so move second. >> Motion by the chair and a second by council member Williams. Further discussion. Council member Lquist. >> I definitely support this.
I supported creation of the program initially and I believe these are some very thoughtful and positive revisions. I'd like to revisit one of them though. In the definition of artwork for this project, originally it was defined that the art had to be um um located if not as part of the project integrated in it, located in the vicinity of the project.
And it just turns out in many cases for some kind of projects, it just isn't feasible to have the artwork in the vicinity of that capital improvement project. Uh imagine you're putting at a sewer pump and it's somewhere and there it's better place to put the art than near the sewer pump.
Um and so that that vicinity requirement was struck. However, as was discussed, it's still a best practice. It's still the intention. It's still the preferred first approach to have that artwork integrated into the public works project first.
That is the preference. That is the priority. The administration talked about a tiered approach where they prefer to integrate the art first. However, by striking that language, there is no discussion, no policy guidance to actually have that best practice be part of our policy.
Um, I think the council needs to speak and give policy guidance um on this topic. Um, and I say this in part because I was there as part of the original conversations and it was very clear that we wanted at the time to at all possible integrate public art in public facilities.
And this says basically if we can't we'll locate it somewhere else. It'll also be public art but we should prefer locating it integrating it into that public facility. Therefore I would amend uh 4 point I would move to amend 4.920 definitions of artwork to add the final statement which says with preference given to integrated artwork elements.
>> Could you restate that again? >> Sure. The current artwork definition says artwork has the same meaning as work of art as defined in municipal code 220 uh 3650 and specifically includes ornamentation integrated into various elements of a capital improvement project as well as distinct independent artwork.
The addition is with preference given to integrated artwork elements. >> Second motion by council member Loquist and a second by council member Anderson. Further discussion. >> What was the section number?
>> O28 the definitions. >> Oh, >> I would be interested in hearing from the mayor uh and staff their reflections on that conversation earlier today in this motion. staff certainly appreciates uh council member Lilyquist's perspective and the intention behind the motion that he's made here tonight.
Um it has certainly been something that city staff um the arts commission have discussed the very nature of this change at length. Um but we stand by what we brought forward earlier today and um we after careful consideration and intention feel like the language as written is um we stand by that that will always remain our standard is to adhere to best practices.
um we don't know that that necessarily needs to be codified in the code itself. And there's so much um project specific and sightsp specific analysis and determination that goes into these projects um that we felt like the flexibility was important in this case.
>> Council member Anderson, >> I'd like to speak while I'm supporting it. Um when I was on the planning commission during a comp plan we had very dynamic conversation about one issue and staff had assured the intention was a particular thing and then years later as I'm in this seat talking to the third generation second or third generation of leadership in that position they couldn't put their hands on anything that was codified.
side to basically agree that it was the intention to do something. Um, we are all temporary in these seats and the rules and legislation that we write often if it's not codified even though with the best intentions of current administration, staff and counsel that gets lost in time.
So I look at things as what could happen 20 years from now if this is not codified. it is our intention at you know to first try to locate that art on site or within a region area but if it's not possible there is the ability for staff and leadership to locate elsewhere but I just don't want to be in a situation that multiple generations down the line nobody can find this particular session to find out what the intent was because intent is not legislation so I'd like to the um what currently uh staff and administration would support would be their goal, but I'd like to codify it to ensure future generations know what we would like to see happen, but still it gives them the leeway to do something different if it best fits.
>> Further comments, Council Member Cotton. >> Yeah. Um um I guess I don't feel too strongly about this, but I I'll say I think we don't have really criteria for determining when it would be infeasible to include at the site.
I mean, the example we shared this afternoon was a $20 million lift station or or you know that the the scale of some of these expenses. Um it just makes sense to be able to locate that other places. So I I'm not sure this um yeah I'm it it maybe expresses an intent but I also like just I think we should be very careful about ambiguous in intent language in in code.
So, um, I would, yeah, again, I think we've not been able to maximize the value of this program because of some of the ways that we've tied our hands in the original ordinance and I think flexibility should be what we prioritize.
Um, but thanks for staff for the work of this and also the um, Bellingham Arts Commission member on the audience who I know has contributed. Um, a lot of great work that went into this and we are really um, uh, quarreling over a very small part of a very exciting ordinance.
So, just to name that as well. >> Council member Williams. >> Council member Lilloquist, could you please explain your rationale again? >> Sure. Um, as was indicated, the idea of integrating our work elements into the public work was described as best practice, the intention of the administration, the first approach, and as part of a tiered administrative policy to do so.
But our ordinance doesn't support any of that. It doesn't speak to it all. We struck language that robbed us of flexibility, but we didn't provide any of that guidance. So that best practice, that intention, that first approach is not supported in the ordinance.
It's not denied. It's not prevented. But we're silent on the issue. Um I think rather than uh you know introducing ambiguity, we're resolving ambiguity, making it go away by making our intentions clear, speaking clearly.
Um saying there's a preference given to it isn't necessarily complicated. That's not a technical term. You don't need to look that up in a dictionary to figure out what that means. You talked about criteria for feasibility.
Well, that's not what we're doing. We're just saying a preference. If staff would like to develop criteria for feasibility as to when you can integrate or not integrate, let them do so. We're expressing general outcomes, not the actual methods.
We're expressing the purpose and the the higher prioritization, not the administrative means by which the city gets there. So I think we're staying in our lane by stating a preference which is very much in line with best practice with the intention and with current policy.
>> And could you read your motion again please? >> It simply adds the phrase that so artwork is integrated work or distinct independent works of art and it adds a phrase with a preference given to integrated artwork elements.
It just leans the equation a little bit to the first half, but both are allowed. >> Thank you. Uh Amy Creme legal department. Um the staff who I worked uh with on this is not present right now. So I think I'll just speak a little bit for them and us as a team as we were working on this.
And um first I just want to say that one of the big issues that we have faced over the years has been that exact language. Um the vicinity issue and we were trying to strike that word because legal department had a difficult time with that as did the departments whose projects they were.
What did that mean? It meant to some of the attorneys who looked at it from time to time that it needed to be on the premises of the actual site. it meant to other people it needed to be within the city limits.
Um, so we had a hard time with that and um we were trying to get rid of that so that we could uh have um not have those arguments and that the professional staff that makes these decisions and works with the art commission um that the expertise can be there about what the best um application of these funds is.
And um yes there is a preference for acquisition. But there also in this in this um in this amended ordinance is the maintenance uh which was not here before. And so when council if council were to put in a preference I think most attorneys at least would read that as a preference.
That's what you that's what council wants. That's what we want to do first. And it does not allow staff andor the arts commission and the mayor to take into account the other issues that are going to be there with a project that maybe nobody can see the art or maybe all the resources are being directed to a neighborhood that already has this.
So there's a lot that goes into this thought process and I think those are probably more typically placed in procedures and policies in the department itself and not in um the ordinance. Uh if you um if you look at most um of your code provisions, it won't say a preference for for something.
Uh it'll either be this is the way it is or the staff is going to work on this. Um so I just wanted to make that clear. In in addition, if that's something that council wanted to change somehow, I wouldn't suggest using this language.
I think you and staff would also really need to think about how this interplays with the maintenance uh requirements for these pieces of art that we really want to preserve and there's no real point in collecting them and constructing them and spending money on them and time on them if we're not going to have them maintained.
Um, so I think that would be something we'd want to spend more time thinking about how that construction of that language would work. But, um, we thought it I know staff um, and I thought it this really met the requirements that they were looking for and obiated um, some of the problems we were having with uh, different definitions of vicinity.
Thank you. To clarify, nothing amendment returns the idea of vicinity that struck and stays struck. So that issue is dead and moot and nothing in the amendment overrides the other language on main uh the what's the word the conservation work for the art.
This again that's independent. All that is staying in the ordinance. So the two serious issues you rose seem to be off to the side and don't have to do with the issue of what do we mean by artwork which is all I'm amending.
Um, we were just saying that that may be an interpretation of the word preference and I think um, yeah, I said what I'm thinking. So, thank you, Miss Graham. Um, I I'll go take ahead and take a turn before we go to second times around.
Um, I will not be supporting the motion. It's not one I feel particularly strongly about one way or another. I think um I prefer to put less uh less regulating factors on u making decision about artwork in our city.
I mean, we're already talking about artwork that is regulated by the government. um which you know uh so I I think I can you know I'm trying to think of situations where we might want a large amount of flexibility and potentially staff is also considering some upcoming projects that might have really really large price tags and that placing a a very very expensive art project um right next to that very large capital project might not be the best use of those funds when considering um the whole of the city u where there might be more value.
Let's say there's a you know hundreds of million dollar project that is going to be built near uh an area that has currently has a lot of artwork um but maybe not a lot of foot traffic in that area. um there might be potentially better use of of those funds elsewhere.
Uh I think that we already have some guardrails in the arts commission um and advisory board and so um I appreciate that we will in the future still have those guard rails uh on decision-m for these projects and thanks to those folks for coming out tonight as well.
So I think at this time because we're also uh hearing from staff that they have encountered some comp some complications from from having those restrictions um I would rather leave those restrictions off at their recommendation.
Council member Cotton. >> Never mind. >> Okay. Anything further? Council member Hamill. >> Yeah. I don't feel strongly about this. Um um but I do feel strongly about the work that um we ask volunteers on the arts commission and other commissions that we that they come forward and and put in this work and thought and I and I do feel strongly about supporting staff uh decisions and the thoughtfulness that goes in into um into the work that we see here tonight.
So I I won't be supporting the amendment. >> Council member Williams. One of the things that I greatly appreciate is when the language in an ordinance or a contract provision or anything else is crystal clear.
And um I think that the way that this has been um drafted is pretty good that way. Taking like you had said, what does vicinity mean? Some people interpret it one way, other people interpret it another way.
So I I won't be supporting this either, but um it doesn't mean that we can't have further discussions about it down the road and see what and maybe come up with something that's a little more well thought out.
Okay. Okay. Anything further? Um, just add one last note. I think that we don't have a lot of disagreements on this council. Um, I and this is a very small point. I think it just goes to show that this is something that that we all care about and that we care that we're we're attempting to make the best decisions uh for this program because it is such a wonderful program that um does does so much good for our city.
Uh so with that, all in favor of the motion say I. >> I. All opposed? No. >> No. >> Any abstensions? Motion fails. Two, four, one. Okay, moving on. I believe we also have the uh main motion on the table as well.
Was there Was there a main motion that was made? to to approve the ordinance. >> Yes, >> I can't remember now. >> Back on the main question. >> I did not note that there was a first and second on that.
>> That was a first. >> Yeah, council member Cotton moved and council member Williams seconded. >> Thank you so much. Okay, any further discussion on the main motion? All in favor say I. I. I. I. >> Any opposed or abstensions?
That passes. 61 excused. End of committee report. >> Thank you, Council Member Cotton. >> All right. Next up, we had uh planning committee and that was chaired by myself. We had two agenda items. First up was agenda bill 255012.
Is that correct? Nope. Back one. It's been a while since I've chaired a whole meeting. Getting my ceilings back. First was uh agenda bill 255011 uh presentation on the proposed rental inspector audit and qualification process.
City staff have developed a process and requirements to be an approved rental inspector for the rental registration and safety inspection program as well as an audit program for both city and private inspectors.
These steps will ensure that all inspectors performing inspections for the program are applying standards consistently and thoroughly. Staff presented an overview of these new program elements. And we had a presentation from Julia Burns, who is our rental protection program specialist, which is a relatively new position in the city.
Um, and she did the work to present uh some some updates to our rental inspection program. uh that were tagged and uh for for some work. We um then had a a related agenda item, agenda bill 255012, an ordinance amending BMC 6.15 and BMC 2.21.010 010 regarding the rental registration and safety inspection program and chapter 6.12 BMC regarding rental uh agreements.
The ordinance proposes to amend BMC 6.15 rental registration and safety inspection program in several ways. It authorizes the building official to undertake audits of inspectors performing inspections under the chapter and applicable disciplinary measures.
It introduces requirements and processes for using the rental safety inspection checklist for inspections performed under the chapter. It also refineses the process for sending licenses to code compliance, including authorizing code compliance officers to issue citations.
Amendments to chapter 6.12 will provide guidance and limitations on rent increases. So, the committee voted unanim unanimously to approve and I so move. >> Second. >> Motion by the chair and a second by council member Williams.
Council member Lilquest. >> I'm strongly in support of these changes. Uh, as I said this afternoon, they're they're long awaited and really valuable. I point to two things in particular. One, the entire um audit program is only can only be created by the changes in this ordinance and also the fact that authorizes the code compliance officers to issue the citations.
The people who find the deficiency should be the ones who then write the paper that says we found a deficiency. That's just the beginning of the enforcement process. But it makes no sense to have someone between the person who finds the problem and the person who writes down I found a problem.
So that is an important and streamlining because it takes weeks off of the compliance uh cycle uh when you have conditions and if you look at the checklist these are basic conditions. Does your toilet flush?
Does your you know does wind come whistling into your house? Is are there leaks in your bathroom? Um these are basic code issues that need to be resolved quickly. And so um allowing the code compliance officer to issue that citation I think creates a necessary speed when speed is sometimes important.
>> Council member >> Thank you. Um I'm supporting this. I'm happy specifically to see one uh specific um update or or correction made. want to send out a thanks to um tenant advocate Carrie Burnside working with council member Lilliloquist to kind of steward this.
It took a little while to get it through, but basically we had situations that um by law and regulation there has to be a 120day notice of a rent increase. and some uh landlords and property rentals were giving the tenants a 30-day window in order to accept the increase.
And so basically instead of giving them 120 days to be able to um well basically 100 days because they would have uh the last 20 days to generally let them know they're not accepting they're going to move out.
Basically it shortened it um from what the law intended and so it was kind of a loophole. So, this closes it so that there's better protection. So, tenants will get their full amount of time to be able to make that decision um about the rent increase and it also gives them enough time to be able to take a look at the housing market and see if there's something better to move to because 30 days, as you know, if you're a renter is not enough time often to decide and find another place to before you make your notice of acceptance.
So, want to um just point that out. We've heard from a lot of tenants this has been an issue. So, um this adjustment will definitely help alleviate um that loophole. Council member Ham. No. Council member Williams.
>> Yeah. I just want to um express that I'm very very happy with the um with the section on the um just a minute here. the the um inspection procedure because um a couple of years ago um we had some testimonials about some uh some of this where there was an inequitable application to this and by the fact that now we have a procedure that is Um that is standardized either by city inspectors or private uh private inspectors.
And there is a procedure that is mapped out for dealing with problem areas and problem people that aren't um keep uh that aren't um applying this the right way that there is a way that they will be dealt with.
And we hadn't had this at at least since I've been up here. We haven't had this um we haven't had this process applied in an equitable way. And so I'm just happy to see that this is this is coming into existence now.
And um hopefully we won't have any more substantial problems with this process. So, I'm just happy to see that part, that piece uh finally done. >> Council member Cotton. >> Yeah, this reflects a lot of great work from staff and um I do have a request for the council though, which is if we could schedule um a committee the whole work session before third and final.
Um, I feel like anytime Council Member Lokus and I have a different reading of of a statute, it is likely others will too. And so, um, particularly this requirement for landlords to offer at least 60 days advanced written notice to end a teny.
And it seems to me on my reading that that 20-day notice for a tenant to end a teny is specific to monthtomonth. I did look at that statute again. Um, and so I think the concern is we wouldn't want to incentivize um or disincentivize landlords from offering renewals.
So I I I think it just would be worth having one more conversation and I'm happy to reach out to to others who can maybe edify that conversation for us a bit more. Um but um unless there's an objection if we could throw this on the committee the whole schedule for our next meeting or older under old and new was is fine too.
Um, I'll look to council president and or staff to tell me what their preference would be, but >> I think we'll uh get some input from director Lion who unfortunately went all the way to the second floor of the gallery.
Thought you could get some work done up there. Thank you for the opportunity to respond. Uh Blake line, director of planning community development. So um typically we do third and final at the next meeting.
That doesn't have to be the case. There is no specific timeline that's driving this particular issue. So if the desire is to have opportunity for us to come back in a work session, we can look to do that and then schedule the third and final subsequent to that.
the ordinance wouldn't uh go into effect until 15 days following that. So there's there's no specific timeline to that requirement. >> Member Anderson. So respectfully, um it may not seem like there's, you know, a fire to get this done, but my concern is that notification where currently until we are 15 days past passage, landlords could still require a 30-day notice of acceptance of an increase, by passing the full 120day notice.
We've been waiting a couple of years for this to be amended. So, I do feel time is of essence because we're coming into fall, which is where a lot of leases are signed, especially for our younger population and students.
So, if we have another work session and then this goes into September there, I know several will have those lease situations coming up. And I think it's really important that we get this on the books in order to protect those new leases that will be coming forward within the next 30 days.
and we can certainly if the if it's the desire and we can work through the admin. The challenge is that the uh agenda for the your next meeting on the 24th isn't finalized but it's substantially prepared.
So, we would be looking at if we can the first meeting in September as you as you described, we could do a work session during the day and potentially third and final that evening, but that puts your uh adoption 15 days out after that.
So, that's into late September, which addresses the cons. >> Thank you for recognizing there are a lot of leases that end at the end of August. Yeah. >> So, we are pushing that window as it is. So, um I do worry about those tenants um basically having that hardship.
>> Understood. >> I'm wondering if uh potential um middle ground could be that council member Cotton and Liiloquist can get their questions answered directly from Director Lion and planning staff um and bring potential amendments to third and final.
with that >> if you if that's amendable to that idea, what we can do is work to refine that language. We can bring that uh up in old and new on August 24th and then if it's agreeable to the council as a whole, that can be approved as part of the third and final reading.
Again, it typically those are uh you know minimal corrections and not substantive pieces, but if we can get the clarity that you're seeking and I think it it should be just a a couple word refinement, we can certainly work to do that.
So, if that works better for uh the council as a whole and to speak to council member Anderson's concerns, >> Council Member Liquist, >> I'm happy to work with with Jace for us to figure out which of us is reading this wrong, which of us is reading it right.
I don't want to slow the process down. With all due respect to Mr. line. I think we need another person in the room maybe who has a law degree because the question is whether or not when a tenant who's given an offer to renew a lease waits until the last minute 20 days before and declines to renew the lease whether or not the landlord then needs to issue a new 60-day nudish to terminate the lease.
But in my mind, the lease has now been rejected by the tenant. There's no reason for the landlord to initiate a lease cessation notice when the tenant themselves knows about it and initiated the ending of the lease themselves.
That's not going to be a five-minute conversation. >> Understood. But it is one that I think if if it can be crafted with um an intentional but maybe a minimal amount of word smithing the legal theory behind it I agree with you requires you know some consideration and some analysis.
If the if the language itself can be fairly simplified then I still think we can hold to amendment to the third and final if it has the appropriate level of legal analysis behind it. Council member Cotton.
>> Yeah, I agree. Let's let's not hold this up if we can help it. And so sounds like a plan. We'll confab we'll update you and um committee the whole under old and new and um hopefully have clarity going into third and final that night.
And if anybody else uh listening wants to um chip in with their two cents, that's welcome as well. >> Thank you. Yeah. And for for clarity, um, with an ordinance like this, we vote three three times. And so, um, the ordinance does not actually pass until we make that third vote.
So, there still is time to amend the ordinance, uh, before then. Okay. Uh, we have a main motion on the table. Any further discussion? Seeing none, all in favor say I. >> I. >> I. Any opposed or abstensions?
That passes 601. Right. that. And with that, end of committee report. We then had committee of the whole. Um, no agenda items, but I'll go ahead and open it up for old and new this evening. All right.
Seeing nothing to report, we had quite a few executive session items. First up was litigation. Oldm versus city of Bellingham at all with Phillips. staff provided information on a litigation matter. I will now entertain a motion authorizing the mayor to retain outside council to represent the city of Bellingham as a defendant in this matter.
>> So move second. >> Motion by council member Williams, second by council member Hamill. Any further discussion? >> Seeing none, all in favor say I. >> I. Any opposed or abstensions? Passes 601 excused.
Next up we had litigation. Jwitt versus city of Bellingham at all with Phillips. staff provided information on a litigation matter. I will now entertain a motion authorizing the mayor to retain outside counsel to represent the city of Bellingham as a defendant in this matter.
>> So move second. >> Motion by council member Williams, second by council member Hamill. Further discussion? Seeing none, all in favor say I. >> I. >> I. Any opposed or abstensions? Passes 601 excused.
Um next up we had litigation Blowman versus City of Bellingham at all with Phillips. staff provided information on a litigation matter. I will now entertain a motion authorizing the mayor to retain outside counsel to represent the city of Bellingham and the individually named city employees as defendants in this matter.
>> So move second. >> Motion by starting to get pretty repetitive. Uh uh motion by council member Williams, second by council member. >> Further discussion? Seeing none, all in favor say I. >> I. >> I.
Opposed or abstensions? passes 601. We then had three potential property acquisition items with Rosenblat. For all of those, staff provided information on a potential Lake Watcom wershed property acquisition.
This was for information and discussion and no action was taken. Next up, we had another property potential property acquisition with stamps. Staff provided information on a potential property acquisition for information and discussion and no action was taken.
And finally, we had a pro potential property acquisition again with stamps. Staff provided information on the city's potential per purchase of property located at 2020 Pacific Street for a for use as a day center.
I will now entertain a motion to reject the pending purchase and sale agreement for 2020 Pacific Street due to the city's inability to find an operator for the site. So move >> second. >> Motion by council member Hamill, second by council member Williams.
Further discussion. And again, this is a motion to reject. >> Seeing none, all in favor say I. >> I. >> Any opposed or abstensions? That passes. 61 excused. >> Consent agenda. >> Approval. >> Second. Motion by council member Liiloquist and a second by council member Ham.
All further discussion. All in favor say I. I. Any opposed or abstensions? Passes 601. Final consideration of ordinances. Agenda Bill 24970, an ordinance relating to land use and zoning, amending multiple chapters in the Bellingham Municipal Code, BMC, to adopt permanent zoning regulations to eliminate minimum automobile parking requirements and establish consistent bicycle parking standards citywide.
>> Third and final second >> motion by council member Hamill, second by council member Williams. Roll call, please. Oh, further discussion. Roll call, please. >> Dan Hamill. >> Hi. >> Skip Williams. >> I.
Lisa Anderson. >> Hi. >> Michael Liiloquist. >> No. >> Chase Cotton. >> Hi. >> Holly Huffman. >> Hi. [clears throat] >> Motion passes 60. >> All right. Thank you. Uh that concludes the regular business of the meeting.
We will now move to the public comment period. If you are watching live online or on BTV, the broadcast will now end. However, you can continue watching via Zoom at co.org/cczoom org/cczoom or listen via phone by dialing 253-2158782 and entering meeting ID 871-5188-5205 and password 9.
Again, that's co.orgccoom or dial 253-215-8782 and enter meeting ID 871-5188-5205 and password 9 to continue to watch or listen live. If you are watching a recorded version of this meeting, you can view public comment videos at meetings.co.org.