Name: Bellingham City Council - Planning Committee meeting, May 11, 2026
Start: 2026-05-11
End: 2026-05-11
Location: City of Bellingham

City Council - Planning Committee

Mon, May 11, 2026

Agenda PDF Minutes PDF Watch Video

Agenda items

Vote records

Discussion summary

Transcript

Meeting summaryAI-generated

City Council Planning Committee — May 11, 2026

This Planning Committee meeting, chaired by Councilmember Hollie Huthman and joined by Councilmembers Lisa Anderson and Michael Lilliquist, had a single agenda item that ran approximately 35 minutes over its allotted time due to substantive and productive discussion.

Agenda Bill 24929: Resolution Creating a Landlord-Tenant Advisory Work Group

What it is: Staff presented a resolution to create a limited-term advisory work group to study Bellingham's landlord and tenant programs and recommend improvements. The proposal stems from Mayor Lund's 2024 Housing Executive Order. With more than 50% of Bellingham residents renting their homes, and the city's rental registration program currently covering 22,578 units, staff described the work group as an opportunity to hear regularly from both renters and landlords and to identify practical improvements to existing programs, policies, and practices.

The proposed work group would have 9 to 13 members, serve for approximately one year, and include at minimum: four current tenants (including students in off-campus housing), three landlords (with a mix of large property managers and independent "mom-and-pop" owners), one member with relevant legal experience, and one member with community connections. A facilitator/consultant would be retained to help the group produce a final report with prioritized recommendations.

Discussion:

*Composition and equity concerns:* Councilmember Anderson raised concern that if all four flexible seats (above the minimum nine) were filled by landlords, the group could become unrepresentative. She moved to amend the resolution to designate at least one seat for an income-constrained tenant — someone receiving housing assistance such as a Section 8 voucher or subsidized housing through the Bellingham Housing Authority. She noted that subsidized renters represent a sizable portion of the rental population (staff confirmed over 1,700 subsidized units in the city) and that without an explicit seat, this voice might be overlooked.

Lilliquist suggested broadening the language to include people who are "currently or have previously lived in subsidized housing," acknowledging that low-income residents often face barriers to volunteering. Councilmember Williams and others cautioned against designating a seat that might remain permanently unfilled, suggesting instead that income-constrained tenants simply be named as a targeted demographic for outreach. After considerable back-and-forth, Anderson agreed to table her motion so staff could return with precise amended language for the full council vote that evening — language that would designate one seat for an income-constrained individual while allowing flexibility if the seat cannot be filled.

Councilmember Cotton (not a committee member but present) expressed enthusiasm for the work group model generally and noted that affordable housing operators could be a valuable category of landlord representative — best accomplished through intentional outreach rather than a designated seat.

*Scope — existing programs vs. new ideas:* Lilliquist and Cotton both observed that the resolution's purpose statement is narrowly focused on the city's existing landlord-tenant "requirements and programs," and questioned whether the group could recommend new programs or policies beyond the current framework. Staff and Mayor Lund clarified that the intent is deliberately focused: start with what exists, identify improvements that can be acted on within current resources, build trust between landlord and tenant stakeholders, and treat future expansions as a potential second phase. Staff drew a comparison to the Keep Washington Working Act Advisory Work Group, whose constrained scope produced a more productive and actionable work product. Anderson ultimately agreed, noting that broader mandates — like the Climate Action Task Force — can take years to yield implementable results.

Lilliquist suggested the final report could still include a "parking lot" section noting recommendations that exceed current resources or require state action, without constraining the group's conversation. He also expressed interest in modifying the purpose statement to allow at least some forward-looking flexibility. This was noted but not resolved before the meeting ended.

*Pending technical fixes:* Lilliquist flagged that over a year ago he brought forward specific technical fixes to renter notification requirements, which never advanced due to competing priorities (the Comprehensive Plan and state legislative work). He asked whether those fixes could be moved forward as staff-level ordinance work rather than being folded into the new work group's scope. Staff indicated they would welcome direction from council on this, and Council President Stone and Lilliquist agreed to follow up on the appropriate path to bring those fixes forward separately.

*Timeline:* Staff noted that people have already expressed interest in applying. Once the resolution passes, the standard city advisory group application will be available on the city website. Staff plan additional outreach by end of May. The goal is to have the work group seated by end of September.

Outcome: Because the resolution requires only one vote and Anderson's amendment motion was tabled pending revised language from staff, the committee took no formal vote. The full council vote on the resolution — including the proposed amendment — was deferred to the regular council meeting the same evening (May 11, 2026).

Key Takeaways

A new landlord-tenant advisory work group is moving toward adoption. The 9–13 member body will spend approximately one year evaluating Bellingham's rental programs and producing prioritized recommendations — modeled on the Broadband Advisory Work Group.

A likely amendment will designate one seat for an income-constrained renter. Councilmember Anderson successfully pushed for explicit representation of subsidized or low-income tenants; staff will bring refined language to the full council vote that evening.

The scope is intentionally narrow — focused on improving existing programs within current resources, not launching new policy areas. Council and staff agreed this is the realistic and more actionable approach, with a potential second phase later.

Outstanding technical fixes to renter notification rules — raised by Lilliquist over a year ago — remain unresolved; he and Council President Stone agreed to work out a path to bring those forward as a separate staff-level effort rather than routing them through the new work group.

Residents interested in serving on the work group can apply now via the city's advisory group application on the city website; appointments are not first-come-first-served.

AI-generated summary from voice-to-text transcript. Not the official record. Verify important details with the source documents linked above.

What happened at this meeting

A resolution creating a limited-term advisory work group to study and make recommendations regarding City landlord and tenant programs

# Summary

Staff presented a resolution to create a 9-13 member, limited-term advisory work group (approximately one year) to study and improve Bellingham's landlord and tenant programs, which affect over 50% of the city's renter population, stemming from Mayor Linne's 2024 Housing Executive Order. The work group composition sparked substantial council discussion: Councilmember Anderson raised concerns about maintaining equitable representation across the flexible upper range and successfully moved to include income-constrained residents as a specific demographic target, while Councilmember Reloquist suggested expanding the definition to include people who previously lived in subsidized housing to increase applicant pools. Councilmember Liljaquist advocated for age diversity and noted category overlap (e.g., tenants with legal expertise), and the council emphasized inclusivity of students in off-campus housing and other marginalized communities through self-identification across multiple categories. The work group's scope includes reviewing existing programs and policies, identifying funding sources, and producing a prioritized report with near-term, mid-term, and long-term recommendations, with Deputy Administrator Keller requesting action that evening to seat the work group by end of September.

Agenda items (1)

Procedural (1)

24929ProceduralA resolution creating a limited-term advisory work group to study and make recommendations regarding City landlord and tenant programs

The city is forming a temporary advisory group to examine its landlord and tenant programs and recommend improvements to how the city handles rental housing issues.

What happened

Additional votes recorded in minutes

Postpone resolution creating landlord/tenant advisory work group

aye 3

Hollie Huthmanaye

Lisa Andersonaye

Michael Lilliquistaye

Verbatim transcript available

149 transcript segments indexed

City of Bellingham Planning Committee minutes May 11, 2026, 2:40 PM Chair: Hollie Huthman Phone: 360-778-8200 Members: Lisa Anderson, Michael Lilliquist Email: ccmail@cob.org Web: cob.org/council City Council committee meetings Standing committee members receive reports and information, ask questions, and vote on a recommended action for consideration by the full Council at the regular meeting.

So, we're going to continue with the committee meetings for the City Council this afternoon, May 11th. The next committee that we have before us is the Planning Committee, and that committee is chaired by Councilmember Huffman.

There is no public comment period during committee sessions. Call to order and roll call Council President Stone called the meeting to order at 2:40 p.m. Present: Committee Chair Hollie Huthman, Second Ward Committee Member Lisa Anderson, Fifth Ward Committee Member Michael Lilliquist, Sixth Ward 24929 1.

So, I'll turn it over to her at this time. Thank you, Council President Stone. Today, I am joined by Councilmembers Anderson and Liljaquist. We have one agenda item that is agenda bill 24929, a resolution creating a limited-term advisory work group to study and make recommendations regarding city landlord and tenant programs.

The city's landlord and tenant programs are critical to supporting safe, quality rental housing in Bellingham, where more than 50% of residents are renters. Originally established in 2015, the city's rental registration and property inspection program currently has 22,578 rental units registered.

A resolution creating a limited-term advisory work group to study and make recommendations regarding City landlord and tenant programs Summary: Janice Keller, Deputy City Administrator, Blake Lyon, Planning and Community Development Director, and Julia Burns, Rental Protection Program Specialist, presented the resolution, which creates a limited-term advisory work group to study and make recommendations regarding City landlord and tenant programs.

Council Members discussed the resolution and work group and asked questions. Action: Lisa Anderson moved to amend the resolution in Section 1a., "Tenant Experience: At least 4 residents who are currently tenants, including students in off-campus housing, and at least 1 that is income restrained, in Bellingham.

In recent years, the city has enacted additional new requirements to support fair, affordable, and accessible rental housing. City leaders propose creating a limited-term working group to study the city's landlord and tenant programs, policies, and practices to help inform enhancements and updates to better serve the community.

Action: Lisa Anderson moved to postpone the motion until staff can provide additional language that reflects the intention of including one income limited renter in the workgroup. MOTION CARRIED 3-0. Page 1 of 2 Adjournment There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 3:30 p.m.

And here to start off the conversation is a Planning and Community Development Director, Blake Ryan. I'm going to defer to Janice to start us off, and then I'll follow up. Good afternoon. Blake and I are sort of tag teaming this today, and Julia from the planning team is also here to help answer questions.

The work group we're proposing was called for in Mayor Linne's 2024 Housing Executive Order. With more than 50% of Bellingham residents renting their homes, we want to create a better, more regular opportunity to hear from people who rent and from people who manage rentals.

The work group will help evaluate and identify improvements for our rental programs, policies, and practices. This group, as we've proposed it, is consistent with the various improvements we've been making to our overall advisory group program, and um commitments we're making in the Bellingham plan and beyond further underscore our values around fostering community representing representation in city decision-making.

The resolution before you today describes the scope of work for this new limited-term advisory work group, which we prefer propose to have 9 to 13 members and work on this topic for about a year. Members will represent tenants, landlords, and community members with lived and professional experience in rental issues, and we're all available to answer any questions you have.

Thank you, committee members. Councilmember Anderson. Thank you. Um and thank you for bringing this forward. I'm excited to see the work that will happen. >> [cough] >> Sorry about that. Much like the the fiber work group, um it makes sense to um pull a different team together of different representation.

Um the one question that I have, though, is that it lists that there will be not less than nine, but no more than 13. And then um and this is on page 532, and then it lists um A through C what that makeup would be, whether it's tenant tenant experience, landlord experience, community connection.

But given that there would be at least four residents tenant, um three residents landlord, um and at least one community connection, that would make the nine. But if you should go up to 13, oh, excuse me, legal experience being an additional one.

Um, so that would make the nine, but if you did happen to go up to the 13, those four additional, do you have any idea what the the area of focus might be? My main concern would be if uh those additional four were all um landlord experience, then the ratio would be above a 50% and so wouldn't it be necessarily representative across the board of area of interest.

So I would just like some kind of assurance that um it's still going to be there's going to be equitability in those additional four should additional ones get selected. Thank you. I think we wanted to leave it a little bit flexible so that we can see who's interested and so the mayor and council can um make some decisions along the way.

I think we can use what you've said as feedback as we consider applicants. >> Yeah, just to add real quick, it's a very difficult position as a councilor if there were seven landlords coming forward for me to say, "No, I don't want these people." because we love and respect those who step forward to volunteer.

Um so it's best to filter them out before they come to us for their approval. I think it's a very valid concern that you're raising and the um the entire work group's makeup you know, will be shaped by who applies, but also with an eye towards equity for representation of voices around the table.

We call for landlords, we anticipate that we will be balancing a property management, larger property management with small independent landlord voices. The entire um our aim is to have a representative body that can best inform the city as they consider the scope of work as laid out.

And I also just want to acknowledge that this is a shared priority from both my administration and many of you as council members. So, we share your commitment. Council member Liliquist? Yeah, two things.

One, the first one I'm just going to go off of of that issue. Um, I was reading these as not necessarily separate categories. In other words, you could have a tenant with legal experience or a community, uh, connections person who had previously in their life managed property.

So, it isn't just one of each. I think we're looking for full representation and I would put in a plug for also some age diversity. It'd be nice if we had a an applicant pool that included some age diversity as well.

Um, so that's more I guess more a comment, um, on how you would interpret the advisory work group. My question had to do with the fact that there's already some, like, ongoing wish list for work I would like to see done, for example, on on, um, change closing some loopholes and changing and improve some definitions on renter notifications.

This is work I brought forward to the planning, uh, department over a year ago. I'm losing track. I was under the impression that that work might be coming back late last year, early this year. My guess is now you're going to say you'd love to pitch those ideas across the advisory work group, um, and that would slow them down and I'm going to suggest maybe not if indeed what I'm talking about are technical fixes as opposed to some higher level policy matters.

So, maybe my request is go back to that cuz I really would like to see those technical fixes brought forward as an ordinance earlier, um, unless you see there's some broader policy questions that need to be answered first.

Um, if you do recall the work I'm referring to, I do. And um, Blake Lion, director of planning and community development. I think one of the things that we want to make sure is that if there are certain technical fixes like you've described, one of them was the notices, that we get them motions in place so that the entirety of the council is in agreement of on that direction.

Um, and then we can certainly use the wish list items or the policy directions for the working group as well. Happy to do that. Well, you make a good point. The technical fix I'm referring to has never made it before the rest of the council.

Due to quorum issues, I haven't done that myself. Um, I would I would like to renew that that conversation and see if indeed is appropriate to work it into staff's work plan as opposed to treat it as a policy issue that should be moved to this advisory board.

Commissioner Stone? Sorry, I just want to interject on that point because that's something that we've been, right, talking about and one of the items highlighted in the retreat is that I think what we're wanting to do is because even that initial, from my perspective, right, even that initial review and work by the department is part of that workload that we talk about and bring that forward.

And so, what I'm hearing from staff as well is wanting to make sure that this is a priority for the council as a whole or at least as a majority of the council to formally put that on the the docket or work list.

So, I guess I would encourage it could happen in real time or to to bring that forward for Well, that's sort of a chicken and egg issue. I think I brought this up at least a year and a half ago. And yeah, I mean, um, there was hope that it could fit into the the staff's work plan, but you know, best laid plans don't always happen.

How do I bring forward something? I think I think Mr. Lion indicated that there were that it might be brought forward at a staff level rather than having to make it a council initiative. And I guess that's never really been decided and it was resource constrained.

You're correct. I mean that was when we were uh looking through last year the the priority was on the comp plan and uh all the state legislative pieces. And so it it didn't fully get resourced uh in 2025.

This direction has been okay, we wanted to get the direction from the council and sure that we're moving forward with those priorities and with the additional constraint we have on uh departmental budgets.

So, that's what we're looking for is that direction. >> Well, so addressing Councilwoman Stone's process issue, um do you think you and I should talk about this about whether or not I need to bring it forward at this end or whether or not you feel you can bring it forward from your end.

>> direction, yes, is You'd prefer that I work it forward from this back to you. Okay, I will take it that way. Councilmember Anderson. Thank you. Um I'm going to make a motion to make a change or actually an addition or maybe further refinement.

And this is not at all to indicate that I don't think it would be a shared value with administration, nor do I think it wouldn't necessarily be supported if I just made a recommendation, but trying to um honor what was discussed at our faculty retreat is if we really want something, put it into an emotion.

That way it's codified and it's trackable. So, under page um 532 where it is tenant experience at least four residents who are currently tenants including students in off-campus housing in Bellingham, I would like to amend that to at least four residents who are currently tenants including students in off-campus housing, comma, and at least one that is income restrained in Bellingham.

And speaking to that motion, I know before there might be a second to it, I think it's really important that one of the people on the advisory group is someone who's receiving assistance um and is income constrained because I think their lens of what's happening in the rental is a very important voice to have on here.

I know that um it may mean additional outreach should someone not naturally apply, but I want to be assured we're going to have that voice on this committee. So, hopefully there's a second. We're in committee, so we wouldn't have a second.

Uh Councilmember Reloquist? Yeah, I'm wondering about the I I appreciate the idea. Yes, we need to have voices that aren't included, people who are maybe at a disadvantage uh in the marketplace. Um income constrained, I I don't know how to quite interpret that.

Is there another word like in subsidized housing or maybe >> Subsidized housing. I I don't know if if that's even the the rest word. Does that meet your intent, though? Yes, income constrained is people receiving Section 8.

They're in um reduced um based on their income, they're receiving public assistance for their housing. Whether it's through Coalition, I mean, whether it's through Bellingham Housing Authority, Section 8 housing, um some of our partners in the community, um people who are below the 80% or 60% AMI.

I didn't want to get that detailed, but I would assume income constrained would indicate people who fall within that category. Councilmember Reloquist? Yeah, can I suggest a change? I think it might be difficult to get someone who's currently in subsidized housing, but it might not be as difficult as someone who is either currently or has in the past lived in subsidized housing.

And we would still bring the lived experience. I just know with the housing authority, it's not always easy for them to get the resident member of the housing advisory board because low-income residents don't always have time outside of work to volunteer.

So, um if they had if they had previously lived in subsidized housing, would that meet the intent? Yes, it would. I would be interested in hearing the feedback from staff on the um suggested amendment as well, if there is any.

The term that we're more familiar with, I think, got interchanged to the income-constrained. Uh And so, yes, looking at something that is somebody is eligible based on the existing household income and is receiving some form of subsidy or assistance with that housing.

Whether that's through a voucher, whether that's through um you know, qualifications or subsidized rent. So, we can work with that language. Thank you. And I've I've never made a motion in committee. Is this something that should come back tonight for the final vote or can it be done in committee?

Um you could vote on it now, but I would also bring it up in in in the regular meeting this evening. And a question for staff in the makeup of the work group. Um if there wasn't an applicant that fit that description, what would be the result?

Well, if you Yes, I mean I mean I think that's the nature of the motion is that we would basically be going out and trying to solicit additional participants. So, that seat would like with any other board community or commission, that seat remains open and then we continue to create additional solicitation for people that might fit that need or meet that definition.

So, that seat would basically remain open. Janice. So, I want to ask a clarifying question about the motion. Are you asking us to encourage someone with those characteristics to apply and participate or are you designating a seat for a person with an income constrained individual?

>> Designating a seat. Since we have four that are flexible, um whether if we have out of the four positions someone qualifies for that, great. Um if for some reason someone had not applied, um and you could fill the four with tenants, then still reserve one of the additional up to 13 and do some additional outreach.

I think if um when the information goes out because you are identifying here including students in off-campus housing, if it includes a position that is um income constrained, then individuals will know that there is an opportunity available for them and that might just self-select an encouragement cuz they know that the door is open for them to be able to fill a seat should they apply.

And if it doesn't get filled, it doesn't get filled, but if somebody later on within a reasonable amount of time, I'm assuming they could be selected. Dr. Lion? And I just wanted to reiterate to the mayor's point, we are looking for a diversity of lived experiences, voices.

One of the things that Julie and I worked on when thinking through this is as we solicit those, you know, we certainly want to understand people's interests and kind of how they self-identify in the categories that are presented.

But to the extent that they have alternative perspectives and experiences, if somebody's part of the deaf community, if somebody's in the the trans community as an ex- you know, just different examples where they have different experiences that we would benefit from understanding those um you know, experiences that they've had, that certainly is welcome into the extent that they feel comfortable self-identifying in that way.

We would welcome that additional input to see that we can get that broadest array of ideas, inputs, feedbacks associated with that. We wouldn't prevent or preclude somebody from doing that, but if they felt comfortable self-identifying in that way, we would certainly welcome that.

Another question, um cuz I think Council member Anderson, I think you're um with you uh in your line of thinking in encouraging um diversity amongst the tenant representatives, particularly those who are income constrained.

Uh and it it is I think it's notable that in this statement uh it says it says uh at least for residents who are currently tenants, including students in off-campus housing, which is kind of singling out a particular type of tenant.

Um we've talked about other types of tenant that uh curious why that specific type of tenant was listed here. What I'm thinking is we could kind of go down a big rabbit hole of types of tenants that we would want to see um in this group.

And so why why off-campus housing tenants in particular in this statement? Purely based on the percentage of our rental income population that is student-based. And so that was really the intent behind it is we have a significant input there.

And so we wanted to capture that at least and like I said, we can open it up to a wide range of others, but be just because that's a such a big portion of our rental community. So I might suggest an alternative [snorts] um because I would say income-constrained tenants are also a sizable portion of that demographic.

Um [clears throat] instead of >> [sighs] >> holding that seat, which could potentially go unfilled um and we wouldn't be able to fill out the group to the full 13 members, um I would potentially suggest in uh stating in this sentence um including students in off-campus housing and income-constrained tenants in Bellingham.

Um so including them as a specific demographic we're really trying to target uh but not necessarily reserving a seat that would remain unfilled just in case there are other uh applicants with the diverse experiences that that do apply and that we would like to to see.

Councilmember Anderson. I don't have it at my fingertips, but I know I read it at one point. Maybe you'll know the data on this. Out of our rental population do you have a ballpark figure how many people are income-constrained?

Going off of memory, so I know I'm close, but I may not be 100% accurate. But we have 54% of our rental community that um are are of our community that's in rental housing and of that it's either 56 or 58% are um dealing with the fact that they are spending more than 30% or 50% of their their income associated with that.

So, that may not meet the full, you know, definition of I'm spending you know, I'm below AMI and meeting the subsidy need, but they are definitely experiencing that pinch point. And do you know how many subsidized housing we have in the community?

I know it's in I don't have that number off the top of Okay. I can I can get >> That's the number I can't get to, but it is a a sizable sizable proportion and I believe that it's almost equal to the amount of student rentals there are based on population and that's why I wanted it added is because it is a very large population.

And I just want to make sure it's not does not come out unrepresented in this group because it is a very large segment of our population who are in subsidized housing currently. So, we do have a motion on the table.

Um further discussion on the motion. Councilman Cotton. I appreciate the the motion not on this committee, but thanks for letting me weigh in. Um it's like on the flip side I think representation from affordable housing operators would be really valuable.

I'm thinking that's probably best encourage our best accomplished by just encouraging people we know to apply and being intentional on that outreach, but um yeah, certainly there are overlapping sets of issues, but some distinct experiences.

So, um I'll let you guys dispose of the motion and I have one quick question. Okay. And I I will not be supporting the motion just because of that constraint. I wouldn't want to see a seat go unfilled.

Um but I will be interested in proposing alternative motion that gets at the same uh concept. Yeah, Council Member Williams. Sorry. Listening to the conversation, I think that the the intent of the motion is more along the lines of making sure that item A um item A that those folks are considered.

But the way the motion's written, it's it's almost like it would guarantee a spot. Um and um the way that I'm reading item A is more like at least four residents who are currently tenants. And then it says including students.

And if what you're saying, Council Member Anderson, in in the next phrase after the word students, you could say and this as opposed to designating one seat for someone or something. Not someone, something.

So that when when the applications come in and the people reviewing the applications, that criteria is in the list of being considered as opposed to saying one person has to be that. Because then in the four people that are there for for instance, one of those might be.

But they also have other qualifications that may qualify them for this. So, to designate a seat for a specific thing might be might be difficult as as opposed to guidance that says out of the four or five or whatever, these are some of the things that we're looking for.

Yeah, Councilmember Anderson. Just as a reminder, at our um retreat, we talked about providing guidance as suggestions or making motions to ensure what we want to see happen are actually followed through and could be tracked.

So, that is the emphasis of my motion. I want to make sure that one of the representation is people who are income um limited or constrained so that their voice is part of this group. I'm sure administration will do all they can, but should that not happen, I want to be assured that extra outreach will happen in order to try to garden gardener that representation on this committee.

So, in the past, I used to make suggestions or request of staff. And then when it didn't happen, I was always told by administration and other councils um that you need to make a motion if you want to see something happen.

So, that is why I'm making a motion. Um it doesn't guarantee it'll happen, but it just means that staff will do their best. And um so, I'm trying to adhere to better protocol of making requests of staff is by doing the motion.

And yes, I would like to see someone from this group representative of one of 13. Director Line? Councilmember Morrison, uh to answer your earlier question, it's over 1,700 units. I was able to look that up while you were talking.

Deputy Administrator Keller? So, uh a comment and a question. Can someone repeat the motion as it exists right now? You want me to repeat it, or do you have it? Yeah, I mean, we've got a few different versions that we've heard, and there's some feedback from Councilmember Lilliquist, so it's just making sure, and then some feedback from the administration as well.

Okay. So, the motion would be after um including students in off-campus housing, um See, currently tenants including students. And one, at least one, um representative of income limited. Now, I'm forgetting what Blake says that we call people.

>> Income constrained. Income constrained. So, a comment is that the way >> Councilmember Williams described his understanding of um item A, I think was the intention in us bringing it forward. So, we're looking for at least four residents who are currently tenants, and the definition of tenant includes students in off-campus housing in Bellingham.

This does not designate a seat for a student in off-campus housing. And the way I'm hearing your motion asks us also to consider as potential um participants, students in off-campus housing and um income-constrained residents.

If your intention is that we just um work hard to solicit from those two groups, then I think that accomplishes that. If your motion is what you described, which was set aside a seat for an income-constrained individual, then it I don't think your motion says that.

This where it We are in a rabbit hole. I apologize. [laughter] So, if you would like us to come back with language, I I think we would look for council direction, and then I might ask that we come back with language that is specific to what council directs us to do.

Okay. If it's allowable, I'll table so that staff can come up with a language that the intent is that there would be one spot for a um income-limited individual that is in the renter um and then if that could be shared, then I'll bring that motion forward tonight.

Okay, so we have a motion to table. Any discussion on the motion to table? Seeing none, all in favor say I. I. Any opposed or abstentions? Okay. And uh absolutely think thank you, Councilmember Anderson, for bringing this up, and and also um uh really sticking with the idea that we should be making motions uh as a council if we want to see act specific action.

I think you're you're absolutely right in doing that, and I think it generated some good conversation. Um and the you know, in the the end result is hopefully a little bit more clarity too as well. So, Okay.

Uh and uh Councilmember Lilquist. With regard to this work group, um I'm reminded of some other work groups we put together, limited term, uh the broad band advisory group, the climate action task force.

They had significant deliverables. Um and I note that a consultant would be retained for this work to help actually craft, write, publish those deliverables. What do we imagine the deliverables would be like?

That for the advisory work group and the task force, we're talking hundreds of pages with accompanying appendices. What do What do we imagine in this case the deliverables might look like? Well, I think one of the things that we we kind of have worked through is Julie and I have been talking a fair bit about trying to set up the, you know, with the one-year kind of term associated with it.

Set up some initial um structure or framework around that. Now, we certainly want to get the facilitator to be part of that conversation and leave some space there. We also wanted to leave a little bit of space for the council to provide any direction that you all might have, and for the the working group to help inform that as well.

The um overall deliverable will be a report, and in that report we'll identify areas that we feel like we need to address, and ideally with some prioritization to that, because we understand that some of this is going to be in a currently resource-restrained environment.

So, what can we do, you know, in the near term, what are maybe mid term, long term, various different um requirements for funding sources, can we establish some of that? So, it's pulling that information together.

Okay? Julie. I would just add I think that the scope of work really lays out um you know where there's opportunities for recommendations for improvements for us to do this work. I will speak from the experience of the Keep Washington Working Act Advisory Group that the scope of work and that enabling resolution was something that that body went back to time and again throughout their almost year and a half together as kind of a guiding star about you know, this is the container for the work.

Um are we inside or outside of the container? And I my hope is that this scope of work and this enabling resolution will really give a framework to the conversation um where there's recommendations that can help us improve.

I'll just add of the of the work groups that Council Member Lowquist mentioned this resolution is drafted to be most like the Broadband Advisory Work Group and the Keep Washington Working Act Advisory Working Group.

So, I think it's likely that the the work product and the result will will be similar in format to what you received from those efforts. The Keep Washington Working Act Advisory Work Group, I don't know if you've seen your May 18th agenda yet, but uh the members are bringing forward their final report and recommendations to your meeting next Monday on May 18th.

So, it's in your it's in that packet. Councilmember Cotton? Um yay. I I'm really excited about this. Um and in general, [clears throat] yeah, I think we should be doing more time limited work groups and probably less advisory boards cuz I think um we can just get a lot of great work done in a really focused way.

And so, super enthusiastic about this. Um speaking of that container and scope of work, um seems like there is a focus on evaluating existing policies and practices and opportunities for improvement and less focus or maybe no focus on new policies or program areas.

So, I just want kind of council to understand and participants understand too what what will the focus be and if that's work we want to do, is that going to be work that happens outside or do we want to create a space for that within this body?

I think our intent was um you're absolutely right in that the the the primary focus was on the resources and policies that we have it uh in today. My reading of uh item F under the scope of work where it says review, provide feedback on proposed plans for future data gathering, public engagement and outline uh in section six below can get to some of those things a little bit more, but part of what we've been talking about a little bit is we will also want to manage expectations that as we go into identifying those new bodies of work, that we give some thought and consideration to resources needed to be able to support that work and and do that.

So, what we felt fairly confident going into this with is that um if we're making recommendations based on existing programs, those are by and large are already resourced and so we can have that work and keep that body of work going and maybe more refined.

Uh but if we are identifying new bodies of work, then we're going to have to have the part of the conversation is going to have to be what are the resources needed to do that. And so, we didn't want to go in with the sky's the limit and and have to manage those expectations.

Councilmember Lilquist. I I really appreciate what Councilmember Cotton is saying because I do think things that are beyond our reach are still worth mentioning and discussing and indicating. Climate Action Task Force mentioned a whole lot of things that were beyond our reach but were important and worth mentioning.

And so, I can imagine um the final report might talk about existing programs and resources, but there might be another section about things beyond the scope, things that would require state action, things that require significant new funding, things that require a regional approach, whatever.

It's hard to have a conversation and then as soon as you bump up against something, you have to kind of like fold your hands and stop talking. I I think that the board should be free to put those in a parking lot and indicate them.

Um so, I I that's how I would would handle it rather than saying we can't talk about those things. Talk about them, but do realize when they cross a line in terms of resourcing and and current capabilities.

So, if that's a good suggestion, if I don't need to make it a motion, I think that might be one of way to approach these issues that don't always respect the lines of our resources. Thank you. Councilmember Williams.

Sorry. As I read section three, where it says scope of work, items A through F, I see they're they seem to me to be written in a way that don't really put um >> [clears throat] >> roadblocks in the way of looking forward and making recommendations and suggestions, particularly item B, identify and or consider potential Well, it says funding sources for future program enhancements, but every one of these items I see, it says evaluate city regulations and policies and systems and make recommendations for improvement.

Item B, identify funding sources for future enhancements. Item C, pro review inspection processes and make recommendations for improvement. To me, that's the scope of the work. And I would hope to see when when they make their final reports to us, that they would stay true to those items A through F, and if there are limits to some of the items due to regulations or funding sources or whatever, those would be identified as well.

And it wouldn't be, "No, we can't talk about it because we don't have the funding or we don't have the resources." It would be, "If we had the resources or we'll find the resources, this is what we recommend that we do." So, to me, the scope of work outlined here is pretty comprehensive.

Okay, and I will note we are about 25 minutes over time, but this has been very valuable conversation, so hopefully President So will forgive me. We do have a motion requested. Just a procedural question though, because Council Member Anderson made a motion and the motion was tabled.

Should the committee vote on potentially approving the resolution as a whole or is that something that should wait for tonight um when more information comes forward in regards to Council Member Anderson's original motion.

I would recommend waiting till tonight until you have that motion that may amend the resolution and voting then. Okay. Council Member Stone? So I guess I have a clarifying question about that. If there's only a vote taken this evening, is that then a first?

It's a resolution. Okay. And so even though typically we vote in the afternoon and the evening, there would be no limitation there. No, you you can take final action on the resolution as amended this evening.

Okay. Um because then the other question was if there I don't know where the committee is at with respect to, you know, questions or comments if there were any other lingering considerations or how much feedback we've received, but um one question was just about timing.

I know that there was a request to or an expectation or aspiration to um have this work group seated by the end of September. And so if this was, right, pushed off to the next meeting, just depending on people's comfort level, just wanted to make sure people knew that with the timing and cadence of meetings right now, it would not come back at the 18th.

It would come forward at June 1st because the 18th, I mean, for all intents and purposes, the agenda for the 18th is not even published and finalized, but so but just wanted to make that offer if time if it wasn't timing constraint, but Deputy Administrator Keller?

I think if possible, our preference is that you take action on forming the work group tonight, today, tonight, and we'll bring language back that resolves um Council Member Anderson's interests, and you can vote on that as well.

About timing, um we've we have people who've reached out already interested in applying to be a part of this working group and I will say as soon as the council takes action, if you approve the overall resolution, uh the application for city advisory groups is posted on the city website and it's the same application for all advisory groups.

So, if there are people watching today and tonight who wish to apply, you're welcome to apply. Um in the next week or two, we will post a web page with the resolution and and some more information if and and people can wait until they see the final um makeup of the work group as well and we'll do some additional publicity probably before the end of May to solicit additional um interest.

If I may, it it's not a first come first serve. So, we'll we'll take in all those applications as Deputy Keller was mentioning and evaluate that and look for a you know, appropriate representation. So, there's not a distinct advantage to getting your application in sooner rather than later.

Council member Anderson? And what I've requested, I don't think is overly controversial. It'll either be supported when it's once it's wordsmithed or not, but I think overall the resolution um I mean, it's going to pass whether the adjustment is made or not.

Um I mean, I'd be willing to vote yes as it is, but I have a strong preference for the addition. Whether other councilors feel that or not, I can't see this being delayed um because that was the only comment being made about changes.

So, it doesn't seem like this has to be drastically changed and reworked. Council member Rylant Quest? Brother looking at the scope, I turned to looking at the purpose statement, which is a single sentence.

When we had the Broadband Advisory Work Group, I worked really hard on the purpose statement, the goal statement for that Advisory Work Group, and it was looked back over and over again. I think Councilmember Cotton is right.

The current language seems to be focused on current activities rather than on possible future ones. It says the purpose of this work group is to research, discuss, and develop and form recommendations regarding the city's landlord and tenant requirements and programs.

I'd have a very hard time reading in there looking for possible new and improved programs and requirements. So, we're over time. I would I would look towards this evening modifying the purpose statement to make it clear that that the recommendations can go beyond simply assessing the current landlord-tenant requirements and programs cuz I can't read that in the in the purpose statement.

And I'd like to create that flexibility, which is not the same as making a promise beyond our resources. I'd also like to add maybe an interpretation of within the scope of work, F is review and provide feedback on proposed plans for future data gathering and public engagement efforts.

Uh feedback for proposed plans for future data gathering could be a a second work group after this work group has finished with this scope of work to to include, you know, other scopes of work. >> I read that as a specific to data gathering, though.

Data Data can be input from a focus group. >> [laughter] >> Mayor, did you have I think by and large the intention of this work group, just to be clear from staff and the administrators' perspective, is to make improvements in our existing programs within the existing resources that we have today.

We feel like it's prudent to start there. We're still in a budget constrained environment. And so we were trying to acknowledge where we are falling short, how we can make actionable improvements that are leading to better outcomes for renters in our community right now.

And beginning with that, I think we found that a constrained scope of work to some degree in the Keep Washington Working Act, you will find in your packets next week, created, I think, an improved experience for the community members participating in that, the ex-officio members, and it created more productive dialogue that was focused and led to a good work product, building trust that I think will enable future considerations.

And we see this as a similar process. Let's acknowledge that we're having groups that have like some natural friction coming together to help advise the city. Let's build trust and build on that to go bigger in the future.

So that's I just wanted to be clear about that. Remember Anderson. Um part of me is like, yeah, throw the doors open. I want not only looking at what we have, but what can we do? But I'm very cognizant that um like fiber, think of how long it took.

Climate, think how long it took before any recommendations came forward. And a lot of the recommendations weren't able to be implemented even still or even right away. So I think being a bit constrained as much as I want all the other information, I kind of think right now if we can make improvements with what's on the books and we can get that work to us in less than a year or a year, I think we're further ahead and we can come back next year after the recommendations and look at our resources and decide do we take another bite of the apple.

I mean, I'd like the whole apple cart right now, but the reality is we don't have a horse to draw it. So, let's work with what we have and try to make this um adjustment so that we have better policy that could be implemented sooner and have a faster impact on the rental community and then let's take a next step um because I don't want this to be two or three years because it becomes very unwielding because it's a much bigger project than our resources currently allow, let alone the resources that we have over the next couple years to be able to implement it.

So, I do as much as I want more, I agree right now less is much more feasible to create an action step. Dr. Line. If I may, I I also think there's value uh when we think about the work that we're doing for the rezoning efforts and the middle housing and the potential that we're inviting new smaller scale landlords into the marketplace.

One of the things we want very much out of out of this working group is to help um define the tools and the resources that small scale landlords that are just coming into the marketplace are going to need and benefit from so that they can provide a higher degree of rental housing available for our community as well.

So, the idea of keeping that a little bit more uh constrained, a little bit more focused, helps us get kind of speed to market. And I think there's a real advantage in doing that at this time, both from the tenants' perspective as well as from the smaller-scale, more independent mom-and-pop landlords that we're really trying to entice and encourage to come in and be part of the solution.

>> [snorts] >> Okay. We're now 35 minutes over time. Apologies again. Uh anything further from the committee? And while there is a motion to approve requested from the committee for recommendation to the full council.