City Council - Regular Meeting
City Council - Regular Meeting
Mon, July 21, 2025
Agenda items
Vote records
Discussion summary
Transcript
Meeting summary
Summary not yet available.
Agenda items (27)
Council Business
1Council BusinessLabor Relations: Review contract proposal for IAFF 106S (Danner, approx. 5 min.)
2Council BusinessPotential Property Acquisition (Stamps, approx. 3 min.)
3Council BusinessOld/New Business
24610Council BusinessA Resolution Deferring to the Voters Initiative No. 2025-03 Prohibiting Landlords from Interfering with Tenants Engaged in Protected Activities
Procedural (3)
4ProceduralBy mail addressed to: City Council, 210 Lottie Street, Bellingham, WA 98225
5ProceduralElectronically: o For a public hearing: https://cob.org/publichearing o For general public comment: E-mail all Council Members at ccmail@cob.org.
24611ProceduralApproval of the 7/7/2025 City Council Committee and Regular Meeting Minutes
Adjournment
29AdjournmentTues. 12 PM: Repeat broadcast of Monday afternoon Committee meetings
30AdjournmentTues. 7 PM: Repeat broadcast of Monday night regular meeting
31AdjournmentWed. 8 AM: Repeat broadcast of Monday night regular meeting
32AdjournmentSat. 12 PM: Repeat broadcast of Monday afternoon Committee meetings
33AdjournmentSat. 7 PM: Repeat broadcast of Monday night regular meeting Online Streaming: The meetings are streamed live at https://cob.org/btv. Online viewers will see exactly what cable customers would see. Video: Video recordings of each meeting are available on the Internet at https://cob.org/meetings within five business days following each meeting.
Ordinance
24589OrdinanceAn Ordinance Relating to Equal Protection and Equal Provision of City Services Regardless of Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity or Gender Expression, and Creating a New Chapter of the Bellingham Municipal Code Regarding Such Matters
24594OrdinanceAn Ordinance Regarding Water Utility Use Rates; Amending Bellingham Municipal
24595OrdinanceAn Ordinance Regarding Sewer Utility Use Rates; Amending Bellingham Municipal
24596OrdinanceAn Ordinance Regarding Surface and Stormwater Utility Service Rates; Amending
24597OrdinanceAn Ordinance Regarding the City’s Utility Customer Assistance Program for Low Income Households; Amending Bellingham Municipal Code Chapter 15.04
Public Hearing
24605Public HearingA Public Hearing to Consider an Ordinance Relating to the Adoption of the Barkley Urban Village Subarea Plan and Associated Development Regulations
24606Public HearingA Public Hearing to Consider an Ordinance Establishing the Barkley Urban Village Planned Action Pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act
24607Public HearingA Public Hearing to Consider a Resolution Authorizing the Mayor to Enter into a Development Agreement with Talbot Real Estate, LLC., Regarding the Development of
24608Public HearingA Public Hearing to Consider the Britton Road / Northern Heights Annexation
General Business
24609General BusinessMayor's appointments to the Mayor's Neighborhood Advisory Commission (Information Only)
Consent Calendar
24612Consent CalendarAuthorization of A/P Transactions Issued July 04, 2025 through July 10, 2025
24613Consent CalendarWashington State Criminal Justice Training Commission Officer Wellness Grant
24614Consent CalendarAuthorization of Payroll Labor Cost Payments Dated June 16, 2025 to June 30, 2025
24615Consent CalendarAuthorization of A/P Transactions Issued June 27, 2025 through July 03, 2025
24616Consent CalendarWhatcom Transportation Authority (WTA) Transit Access Fund Grant Acceptance - Texas Street and Woburn Street Street Crossing Improvements
Additional votes recorded in minutes
Adopt ordinance regarding utility customer assistance program for low-income households (Agenda Bill 24597)
aye 7
Dan Hammillaye
Hannah Stoneaye
Hollie Huthmanaye
Jace Cottonaye
Lisa Andersonaye
Michael Lilliquistaye
Skip Williamsaye
Refer Barkley Urban Village sub area plan items to committee
aye 1
voice voteaye
Refer Britain Road Northern Heights annexation to committee of the whole
aye 1
voice voteaye
Adopt amendments to LGBTQ+ ordinance (subsection F changes - red highlighted)
aye 1
voice voteaye
Adopt amendment to LGBTQ+ ordinance (section 050 - blue highlighted language on federal/state guidance)
aye 1
voice voteaye
Pass resolution deferring voters initiative 202503 (landlord interference with tenants) to voters
aye 1
voice voteaye
Ratify collective bargaining agreement with IAFF Local 106S (2024-2026)
aye 1
voice voteaye
Authorize mayor to close real estate transaction for Lake Whatcom watershed property (Cooper purchase)
aye 1
voice voteaye
Approve consent agenda
aye 1
voice voteaye
Adopt ordinance regarding water utility use rates (Agenda Bill 24594)
aye 7
Dan Hammillaye
Hannah Stoneaye
Hollie Huthmanaye
Jace Cottonaye
Lisa Andersonaye
Michael Lilliquistaye
Skip Williamsaye
Adopt ordinance regarding sewer utility use rates (Agenda Bill 24595)
aye 7
Dan Hammillaye
Hannah Stoneaye
Hollie Huthmanaye
Jace Cottonaye
Lisa Andersonaye
Michael Lilliquistaye
Skip Williamsaye
Adopt ordinance regarding surface and storm water utility service rates (Agenda Bill 24596)
aye 7
Dan Hammillaye
Hannah Stoneaye
Hollie Huthmanaye
Jace Cottonaye
Lisa Andersonaye
Michael Lilliquistaye
Skip Williamsaye
Adopt amendment to utility customer assistance program ordinance changing 60% AMI to 80% AMI (Agenda Bill 24597)
aye 1
voice voteaye
Adopt ordinance relating to equal protection and equal provision of city services regardless of sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression (Agenda Bill 24589)
aye 7
Dan Hammillaye
Hannah Stoneaye
Hollie Huthmanaye
Jace Cottonaye
Lisa Andersonaye
Michael Lilliquistaye
Skip Williamsaye
Verbatim transcript available
460 transcript segments indexed
[Music] All right. Good evening everybody. Welcome to the July 21st, 2025 regular meeting of the Bellingham City Council. Bellingham City Council meets all requirements of the State of Washington Open M Open Meetings Act.
Before we begin, we acknowledge that we are gathered on the traditional and unseated territory of the Lemi, Nukac, Seamish, and Samyamu 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.
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.
Remote viewers can log on to co.orgccoom orcczoom and click on the language icon at the bottom of the screen to listen in Spanish. I'll go ahead and let our interpreter repeat that. language. >> Thank you.
Roll call, please. >> Hannah Stone, >> here. >> Dan Hamill, >> here. >> Skip Williams, >> here. >> Lisa Anderson, >> here. >> Michael Liiloquist, >> here. Jay Cotton >> here. >> Holly Huffman >> here.
>> All council members are present. >> Thank you. And up first we have the mayor's report. >> Good evening. >> Good evening members of council, members of the community, and city staff that are here tonight.
We have a special item to start the mayor's report tonight and that is I have the honor and privilege of introducing and helping celebrate our police chief for the day. Chief for a day is a program of the Washington State Criminal Justice Training Commission and encourages local law enforcement agencies to identify in partnership with our school district a child who is sworn in as honorary police chief or sheriff.
Each little chief or little sheriff is celebrated with special activities and ceremonies, meets local law enforcement representatives, and serves as an honorary leader throughout the year. I'm very pleased to introduce the Bellingham Police Department's 2025 Chief for a Day, Tristan Vipic.
A little bit about Tristan. Tristan is going into the fifth grade at Columbia Elementary School. He loves dogs, Marvel superheroes, riding his scooter, and socializing with friends and classmates. He has already visited the police station, met several members of the Bellingham Police Department, including his counterpart, Chief Rebecca Rebecca Mertzig, and he was especially thrilled to meet K9 Vukco and station dog Astra today.
Tristan is here tonight with his family and his grandparents to be officially sworn in as Bellingham Police Chief for a day. Tonight, we're honored to have Judge Deborah Love and Commissioner Henry here to deliver the oath of office.
>> Thank you very much, Mayor. All right. Good evening, everyone. Thanks everyone for being here. Tristan, can you please raise your right hand for me? >> I'm going to go ahead and go through the oath and please just repeat after me.
I state your name. I, Tristan, >> solemnly swear >> I solemnly swear >> that I will obey >> the laws of the United States >> the laws of the the United States >> Washington State >> and the city >> of Bellingham >> of Bellingham.
>> I will faithfully >> discharge the duties >> of chief for a day >> chief for a day >> for the Bellingham Police Department. Chief Tristan, congrat congratulations. [Applause] Here we go. [Applause] Next up, mayor's report tonight and this is for information only.
I have some new appointments to the mayor's neighborhood advisory commission. I am appointing Deborah Valentine as the Colombia neighborhood representative, Chelsea Campbell as the King Mountain Neighborhood Representative and Barbara June as the Samish neighborhood representative.
Last up in mayor's report tonight is an update on a city lawsuit. As you know, the city of Bellingham receives millions of dollars in HUD and DOT funding to support community development programs and transportation projects.
The city has received these funds for decades and relies on them to provide crucial support for vital services. We pass on many of these funds to provide food and shelter to community members through nonprofit agencies like the Bellingham Food Bank and the Opportunity Council.
Over the past months, the city has learned that in exchange for receiving housing and transportation grant funds, the Trump administration will be requiring that cities adopt new policies on immigration, diversity, gender identity, and reproductive rights.
Such policies are counter to our community's values. values that are stated and affirmed in adopted in 2017 and again and just last month and values we are additionally discussing tonight. These newly added grant conditions put the city in an impossible position.
either accept policies that would harm our community and go against our core values or lose access to critical federal funding that supports essential community services. In response to attempt to attach political strings to these crucial federal grant funds and to ensure the benefit from any future injunctive relief, the city of Bellingham has now joined a growing coalition of over 60 local governments fighting back.
On July 10th, we joined a federal district court lawsuit, King County v. Turner, which argues that these grant conditions are an abuse of executive power and violate the Constitution and federal laws.
It's unacceptable and possibly unlawful to use housing and transportation funding as leverage to force the city of Bellingham to adopt unrelated federal policies. We are standing up to protect vital services against what we believe to be executive overreach and what courts will ultimately decide to be unlawful attacks against cities like ours.
And that concludes mayor's report tonight. >> Thank you, mayor. >> Okay. Uh up next, we have a couple of public hearings. Uh we have three agenda items and we're going to condense those into one public hearing.
They're all related to to a similar subject. Um so up first we have our public hearings regarding the Barkley Urban Village sub area plan. Let's see here. [Music] So, this is a public hearing to consider an ordinance relating to the adoption of the Barkley Urban Village sub area plan and associated development regulations.
The proposal includes amendments to the Bellingham comprehensive plan, land use development code, title 20, included including changes to zoning designations and development regulations and amending portions of the Barkley neighborhood plan and zoning table to reflect this new overlay.
Planning Commission held a public hearing on June 5th, 2025 and recommended approval of the project. The vote was six to zero. Um, and I believe what what's >> I think I think we should read all three.
>> Read all three. Okay. >> If you don't mind. Second is agenda bill 24606 uh public hearing to consider an ordinance establishing the Barkley urban village planned action pursuant to the state environmental policy act.
The state environmental policy act sea allows for upfront envir environmental analysis planned actions to be conducted for a specific geographic area typically associated with a sub area planning effort.
These planned actions require an environmental impact statement, also known as an EIS, to be conducted and potential impacts and mitigation measures identified. This upfront analysis streamlines future project specific review and provides clarity and certainty on required mitigation for both developers and the public.
The proposed plan action represents the findings of the final EIS for the Barkley Urban Village and identifies mitigation measures associated with the buildout of the urban village. And then the third is agenda bill 24607 public hearing to consider a resolution authorizing the mayor to enter into a development agreement with Talbet Real Estate LLC regarding the development of Barkley Village.
Talbet Real Estate LLC and the and city staff negotiated a development agreement regarding the future development of Barkley Village. The agreement allows Talbot Real Estate to vest to the development regulations adopted contemporaneously with the proposed development agreement for a period of 25 years.
In exchange, Talbot Real Estate has agreed to provide certain public benefits, including, for example, dedicating approximately 40 acres of property located on the eastern portion of the Barkley Urban Village as open space.
This property will remain in its natural forested state in perpetuity. The council is required to hold a public hearing and pass a resolution prior to executing the development agreement under RCW36.70B.2000.
And I believe I will pass it over to Darby Gallagan for uh further presentation. Great. Thank you. I'm muted. Okay. Thank you very much. Um, good evening, council members. I'm Darby Gallagghan with the Planning and Community Development Department, and I'm going to attempt to summarize the hundreds of pages in the packet and the um, seven or eight years of work into a 10-minute or less presentation.
So, hold on to your hat. Um, on its face, the Barkley Village, um, in this northeastern part of the city for those who aren't familiar with it, um, it it looks and acts and functions as an urban village.
Um, but and it's recognized as such in the city's comprehensive plan. However, in reality, the reality that we live in as planners on paper is that it's a big messy jumble of um this is just an example of the convoluted um zoning requirements and plan development contracts that regulate it.
And that is because it historically wasn't really envisioned to be an urban village. Um back in the 90s, it was envisioned as a commercial industrial um area. And it was only over time that it started kind of developing that way because of the vision of the owners of the property.
Um those owners um p predominantly are the Talbet company and they are here tonight and they're going to talk briefly about kind of what their vision is. But you can see in blue the majority um ownership um in the village.
And the city has been working with them pretty closely over the past few years as they as they have been formalizing a vision to create more transparency for the public and um internally and between city staff of what is the 20 year plus vision for how it's going to be laid out in Barkley and how the area is going to develop over the next several decades.
Um, I will just skip that because the photos didn't come through. But this is really just to illustrate that things that are happening on the ground are what we want to see and what we're going for in the comprehensive plan of having mixed use, residential, commercial, public spaces, amenities, um, shopping opportunities, etc.
Um, over the past few years, I had mentioned we've u been working through mostly environmental review. There were several years involved where Barkley had initiated a planned action ordinance, which is an opportunity available under state law that allows for an area comprehensive environmental review.
And it does require quite a bit of on the ground um documentation, surveying studies um for the wildlife, the creeks, the wetlands, etc. and then to overlay that with um the various development um intentions to establish a box under which development can occur without further environmental review.
If something is proposed outside of that box, then it goes through its own separate process. But the idea is to let the land speak for itself and to have predictability to streamline the things that we um expect and want to have built in that area.
So you um listed the three public hearings. There's a package of documents that will help this come to fruition. The first agenda bill focuses on the sub area plan which is the vision document similar to the city's comprehensive plan that lays out the policy framework.
The implementing zoning and development regulations is what the rules are for when something does get built over time of what the the parameters are for that. The second agenda bill is the planned action ordinance that I just mentioned.
That's the ordinance that creates that environmental um review expectations. And then finally, there's a resolution and a development agreement between the city of Bellingham and the Talbet Company that creates some expectations for um what should occur over time with the development pattern.
So, I'm going to go through these one slide each, maybe two, to give you a quick snapshot. Um the sub area plan begins on page 26 of the city council packet. And again, this is policy language that guides the development into the future.
It contains these chapters um that talk about the different aspects of the plan. And it was very important that these all align with citywide goals for pedestrian connectivity, transportation, connectivity for vehicles and transit and bicycles, as well as our other goals for um habitat and um wildlife and other comprehensive plan elements.
The land use layout in the sub area plan is also echoed in the development regulations. So it has a proposed central core mixed use which is where the tallest buildings would go. And then outside of that is a mixeduse area that is mostly the same except for slightly lower height limits.
Uh it was mentioned that part of the development agreement includes a significant proportion of um conserved open space. that's referred to as the north 40 up here in the northeastern part. And then there's also a retention of a kind of green buffer separation that's been designated as preserved preserved open space.
Um that is kind of reflecting what's there on the ground right now and what's um intended into the future. The development regulations I mentioned are the the rules for what gets built. Those are on page 86 of the city council packet.
Um, I mentioned a range of permitted uses and residential uses. It's very consistent with our other urban villages. The height limits going back to this land use map would be up to 250 ft in the central core, 85 ft in the periphery, and then 35 foot, which is the same height limit as our residential areas along this buffer where there's a little bit of development potential adjacent to existing residential uses.
Uh the goal is um over 20 years to be able to accommodate up to 3,000 housing units. That's triple what is anticipated in the 2006 comprehensive plan under the existing regulator regulatory framework.
So it's quite a significant increase in what um would be able to be constructed there over time. Um the proposal includes urban village design standards. Those are already in place for Barkley and there's no amendments proposed.
There's some additional detail about making sure that those core areas where the highest intensity development occurs has that really active street frontage um and ground floor residential ground flooror commercial requirements.
Um, additionally, there is no on-site um, parking proposed, and that's consistent with the rest of the regulations citywide and leaves the parking to the market to make sure that it's a functional parking ecosystem with structured parking and off-site and on street parking as well.
Um, moving to the planned action ordinance, um, I mentioned that there's a threshold. We kind of refer to it as the development box that's been assessed. um the the transportation mitigation that would occur over time is laid out in that document.
So when a certain threshold of development is achieved, that's when things like additional intersections, um trail crossings, lane reconfigurations, and um different mitigation for um transportation purposes would be implemented.
Um and then lastly, the development agreement is a um 20-year agreement between the city and Talbot or their successors and interests and includes um vesting of the land use and development regulations.
Some discussion about the right of way, um private and public streets and how those would work. Some ability to shift transportation and other impact fees between projects since we're looking at a bigger area, not just a parcel.
Um and then also a systemwide approach to storm water development instead of parcel by parcel looking at how something could be designed to accommodate storm water in a broader um terminology. So I will end there.
I'm happy to answer any questions. I also would like to invite a representative from Talbet Company to talk for just a couple of minutes about how the implementation of this vision um might occur over the coming years.
Good evening, council members. Uh, I'm Ben Besley, Bellingham resident in the Alabama Hill neighborhood representing the Talot Group and Barkley Village. Also want to introduce Jane Talbot, who's here with us this evening.
She's a resident of the South Hill neighborhood. Jane and her brother Stow uh who can't be here this evening because of a personal commitment that he could not reschedule support the efforts of the Talbot group in our management of the property and ongoing efforts to design for the future.
I'd also like to recognize John Mullen with Talbot. Uh John designed and built many of the buildings that are that are uh at the village you see today. He's had literally every job that you can have at the company over his 17ear tenure.
Without John's monumental effort and the corresponding effort from the city side by Darby Gallagan, we wouldn't be able to do this. So, uh, as Darby mentioned, there are hundreds of pages, uh, of information.
There have been years of design and conversations that's gone into these approvals that you're looking at tonight. But what I'll try to do is just to convey two things. First, why Talbot is undertaking this effort to make Barkley Village an official urban village.
And second, how we do this. First, the why. Simply put, we are doing this to accelerate the buildout of Barkley Village while maintaining Talbot's values and design standards. The studies, ordinances, plans, and regulations before you this evening will reduce the time and cost of new projects, primarily housing projects within Barkley Village.
As we know, there are a number of approvals necessary before and during the building permit process. That's land planning, zoning approval, infrastructure capacity, uh sepha clearance, which can include traffic and critical areas and storm water.
Essentially, we've taken all of these studies and done them upfront to the degree we can for all of the different uses that are that are included in the development regulations. Each of these studies takes time and money.
Um, by engaging uh a design team to create a framework for future growth, voluntarily conducting an environmental impact statement to predetermine the impacts and potential mitigations, and engaging with city staff to work through numerous development scenarios.
We believe we will save years on the front end of each project that can be built here. But speed is not our primary goal. It's just a measure of how well we're doing our jobs. The real measure of our success will be a community where families and businesses can grow connected by open space among beautifully designed buildings.
Second is the how. We design with a long-term perspective to create a place that each of us would someday like to live and work. This means listening to our residents, our tenants, our neighbors, and our partners, investing time and resources in thoughtful design, and putting value before profit.
Great example of this is the road alignment for Burns and St. Clair. When considering how to design these roads, we first asked our transportation consultant, Amalia Leighton Cody, who's right there on that screen, uh to compile the latest long-range plans for local and state bike, trail, and road designs.
A lot of people had already given a lot of thought to these systems, and we could learn from them. We then surveyed all the significant trees in the wooded areas where we might see development in the future.
Uh I have a picture here this evening that I I'm not able to show you for technical reasons. Um, but if you could see it, it's a lovely picture. It's actually of Jane and John and our ar ar ar ar ar ar ar ar ar ar ar ar ar ar ar ar ar ar ar ar arborist uh Aubrey Stargel in the woods last February surveying the trees where their civil engineering team.
So we went out with a team and surveyed all of the trees. Um we also pulled uh all of the areas around the Trans Mountain pipeline and from there we uh created a designated road network that preserved as many significant trees as possible um taking into account grade um that would minimize land disturbance.
So, this is not the least expensive way to design a road and it's not the least expensive way to build a road, but we believe that in the future, the people that live here and visit here will recognize the value.
We also see Barkley Village as an incubator space for new designs and ideas. New road typologies to support bikes and pedestrians. Our multimmodal trail that was already constructed as part of Mercy's Trail View project.
Public private partnership that led to Scramble Nature Play Park. our Barkley Owners Association, which is a private organization overseeing the common area maintenance all around the village, new cameras in our parking areas that provide real-time parking demand information that we can use in shared parking applications in the future.
These are just to name a few. These are ideas that our staff spends a lot of time on, and as results come from these studies, we look forward to sharing them with you and the rest of the community in Bellingham.
Uh there's one more image I wish I could show you and it is a newspaper article that I found from 2006. Uh and on the cover of it is is Sto Talbot. Um and at the time he was he was uh working on some of the future designs and plans just about to break ground on our first residential project, the Drake condominiums.
And the headline says city's urban village pioneers add residential. Um, since then, uh, around Barkley Village, we've seen 302 320 new residential units and as stated earlier, we want to accelerate this process.
There is a lot to like about this article, but it's really sto's quote where he says, "This project is a learning process for us. It's got to we've got to do it right the first time, even if we're not going to make a lot of money, because this is setting the standard, and ultimately, we need more people in Bark Village to make it work." And uh you know the principles that Stow stated back in 2006 are principles that still guide Talbot today.
I'm sure if Stow were here he would agree. The world continues to change and development is a learning experience as we know. I think the the flexibility that's built into the sub area plan and the development regulations will allow us to learn and grow with the city.
We embrace enduring highquality design to set the right standard for future projects. And at the end of the day, it's really all about the people who will live and work in Barkley Village because that's what will make it make it a success.
So, thank you very much. Look forward to your comments and questions. >> All right. Thank you. Uh any clarifying questions before we open up the public hearing from council? Okay, we'll go ahead and open up the public hearing.
>> Right. We had three individuals signed up for this public hearing. uh Daniel Blumer, Miles Silverman, and Chris Rosselli. >> Again, these are speakers just for this specific topic. Good evening all.
My name is Dan Blanker. I'm a resident of the Birwood neighborhood and a member of the city's planning commission. June 9th, the planning commission met to review the plan regarding the Barkley Village urban village with city staff and Talbot who are leaving this from a development side.
Staff provided information regarding intended densities, transportation improvement staging, environmental regulations, notably SEIPA, as you've heard, and integration within the city's trail, bike, and transit network.
The commission had relatively extensive questions on each of those topics that staff for Talbet were able to provide clarity to. Overall, the commission found the plan to be in line with the city's goals of improving access to housing, jobs, and multimodal transportation and unanimously recommended approval.
That is all I have. Thank you very much. >> Thank you, Dan. [Music] >> Good evening. My name is Miles Silverman. He him. I am from the Cordata neighborhood. And just I don't know how much much I want to say because I don't think I have much insightful to say but I am pleased with the designs I've seen in terms of multimodality in terms of transit access.
Welcome transit authority. I hope you're ready to scale up service on the gold line. Um, I am pleased with what I've heard about environmental mitigation, both in terms of density and in terms of preserving green space to the extent possible while still building more housing.
I was pleased to hear about the possibility of of protected cycleways on Sunset. I hope that gets built at some point. Um, in terms of environmental mitigation, I was particularly pleased to see wetlands being taken seriously.
That is very important. Um, with regard to the 250 ft maximum, I'm curious to see what will be done in that because that is because if all that height is used, that is the highest anything has ever been built in the city.
So hopefully it will be well well used. And I know I've heard concerns about a private developer being responsible for providing the housing that we need. And given what happened with Hardcourt, I can't say those concerns are entirely unjustified.
So, Talba, I hope you do a better job than Hardcourt did with the waterfront, but if you do, 3,000 homes is 3,000 homes. So, I So, I figure as long as we get those homes built, that's what matters the most in that regard.
And I think that's about all I have to say. I'm looking forward to Barkley being more pedestrian friendly than it is right now and to having more housing. Thank you. >> Thank you, Miles. >> Good evening, council.
Uh thank you for your service to the community. By the way, my family and I are really grateful for what you do. Uh my name is Chris Rosselli, and I'm speaking today on behalf of uh myself as a private resident of Bellingham and not the organizations that I work with or my employer.
Uh my family has lived in the Roosevelt neighborhood uh near Barkley Village for more than 20 years. We walk daily along the railroad trail to access Roosevelt Elementary, Barkley businesses, and a variety of services.
And I think we're a very clear example of how urban villages benefit residents and the broader community, which give us the freedom to meet most of our daily needs on foot while reducing traffic and pollution.
And reflecting on what Barkley has offered my family, three themes come to mind and those are convenience, character, and community. The first is convenience. Barkley allows us to walk to everything we need.
Our grocery store, our pharmacy, our doctors, our dentists, massage therapists, physical therapists, restaurants, movie theater or orthodontists, as I mentioned, bus stops and more. Daily walks to Barkley have made us healthier and happier.
I actually truly believe that living next to Barkley has added years to my life. The second is character. Barkley is clean, it is safe, and it's welcoming. My kids have felt comfortable walking there since elementary school.
They love the lights, the events on the village green, and the incredible festive holiday lights and decorations during the holiday season. Our family has used the gazebo at Barkley as the backdrop for our Christmas picture every year for the past 10 years.
And also, until we bought our artificial Christmas tree two years ago, we sold out. We had to do that. Uh, we used Hagen as our personal tree farm and used to wagon our tree home every single Christmas.
And finally, community. Berkeley has become a hub of connection for us. And thanks to the Talbits, we have the fortune to spend hundreds of hours walking with my girls to and within Barkley over the years.
Whether it's to play in their fountain when they were toddlers, grab some pizza or sushi as teenagers, or continue our 15-year tradition of Starbucks Fridays where I get quality daddyaughter time with my girls.
Hagen employees have become an important part of our lives and they've gotten to know all of the Starbucks employees as well. Like downtown or Fair Haven or Sunnyland or the Learded Streets, Barkley is becoming one of Bellingham's great hubs where people gather and build community.
And I'm fortunate to be walking distance to it. So, this brings me to my point. I've watched Barkley evolve from Bellingham's unofficial financial center, which wasn't always a compliment, into one of Bellingham's most vibrant neighborhoods.
The addition of local restaurants, housing which has included some afford many affordable options, a beautiful playground, community events, and a commitment to walkability and green space has made Barkley a model for thoughtful development.
And I'm especially impressed that all of this came from Talbot's own vision, not a city mandate. So, I want to thank you for supporting Barkley Village and encourage you to approve the development agreement and planned action ordinance that will allow them to continue to build efficiently and intentionally.
I believe their track record of growing community and business and their plans including creative solutions for affordable and middle housing uh which our community needs. My only complaint I'm still waiting on a breakfast restaurant in Barkley.
So I'm sure that's coming as well. Thank you. >> Thank you Chris. >> Good evening council. I hope I'm not out of turn. I didn't sign up but Bill Guyer Guy Associates. some certified by the American Institute of Certified Planners with 48 years of professional planning experience.
Some gray-haired history. Where did the name Barkley come from? About 1986, 1987, and Blake can look at the planning commission records at that time, planning commissioner Mary Cheney, and identifying the name for a street that Jim Tal Talbot wanted to construct said, "We do not have anything that recognizes our maritime community." and she picked the name of Lieutenant Barkley who was associated with Captain Vancouver.
At that time, the planning commission could name streets, but that continued forward. I recall meeting with Jim Talbot when I was the planning director for the city, and he was sharing this dream that you're seeing before you of a vibrant area.
And it's it's so refreshing now 40 plus years later to to see this happening. Uh I do own property immediately one block west of this location. I have read the documents in your um in your packets tonight.
Uh having worked for one year for Talbot in 1992, each entitlement that we had to pursue to build something took a long time. You are taking as a city a major step forward to assisting one of the most um best developers in this region that is committed to the city both in dollars and and and moral sense and and righteousness of what they want to do to put people to work.
house them and have new businesses flourish. Uh the Talba company has made huge strides for this community and particularly in this part of Bellingham. They are to be applauded for the hundreds of thousands of dollars they've invested to to analyze this site to meet the development regulations criteria to meet the staff's needs and provide the technical support.
And what you're doing now is providing an entitlement to the company so they have a stabilized land use policy to proceed with construction in the future. That is a very good um uh prospect for the Bellingham residents, for the city of Bellingham itself as a corporation and certainly for Talba Company.
You will do great strides here by adopting these uh items this evening and I fully support your effort in doing so this evening. Thank you. >> Thank you, Bill. All right, that should conclude our sign up for this public hearing on the Barkley Village.
>> Okay, great. We can go ahead and close the public hearing. Uh, council council member Hamill. >> Yeah, thanks for the presentation this evening and thanks for um the Talib company for coming and um and being a part of this um presentation this evening.
So, um, 46% of the housing that is in in Barkley is affordable housing. Um, it's hard, you can't see it because it's not in the photo, but to the to the right of this photo, there's the Evergreen Apartments.
It's fronts um, Wurn and uh, and the side of it is Sunset. So, that's included in this parcel. And then there's also trail view, which I don't think is in this photo as well. I think it's a little bit lower here.
Yeah. And so, um, I think that, you know, that those are great strides to, uh, to be able to have almost half of the housing in this area to be affordable. And this would be like, um, you know, 60% AMI area median income.
So, folks that some folks are working, some folks have disabilities, um, some folks are seniors, a lot of working-class uh, families. Um, and I I really appreciate that effort for the mixed use. um residential I guess and my question is um is that intention to to moving forward for the additional 3,000 plus units of housing is is that number of 46% are we going to try to maintain that or what's the vision for that?
>> I'm not quite sure who I'm directing my question to. So >> um there are no regulatory requirements to provide additional affordable housing >> and I'm not asking for any regulation components. I think the Talba company um corporation has done um clearly has envisioned this part of Bellingham.
And so what I'm asking for is what is the vision and less so you know the regulation components. >> Yeah. And I would have I would invite um Talbot to come up and speak to that. But there is a letter that was forwarded today.
I don't know if you saw, but it came from Mercy Housing, um, whom, uh, Talbot partnered with on the Trail View project, and they spoke to the, um, the positive relationship and the cooperative nature of that partnership and, uh, expressed a willingness to enter into future partnerships um, should opportunities become available.
So, um I believe that is the vision in the future is to provide a wide range of affordability in the in the village. >> Thank you. >> And I don't know if Ben would like to address that in more detail.
>> Thank you very much, Council Member Hamill. Uh yes, it is our vision going forward to continue to provide affordable housing, both uh deed restricted income restricted housing and also housing at different income levels.
Um so uh and that is um something that Talbot has demonstrated you know to date in the Trailview project. Uh it's something we talk about in our designs uh in terms of the typology of housing and the size of the units and it does fit into the long-term vision of creating a real community of of you know populations of all incomes of all ages.
Uh mixed use in terms of some of it's for living, some of it's for working, some of it's for both. Um uh and and I think that the way we're approaching it is that you know the the solutions today are middle housing the solutions in 10 years might be something different but uh as a company um and as a property owner here yeah it it is our intent whether it remains at 46% it's not likely but it would it would remain a significant percentage and and again it's not 46% uh I think that is the the income restricted we would just be looking at a broad range of different affordability levels.
member Liquist. >> Yeah. Um, Mr. Besley, before you step down, let me put you a little bit in the hot seat. You're probably familiar with the uh city's multif family tax exemption, particularly the 12-year version, which would uh provide a tax exemption, but only if you include affordable housing units within the same project.
And one of the reasons why I really like this mechanism, which has yet to prove its success, but I I think it's valuable, is I don't like the idea of segregation by income. Um I think ideally we're a better community when all kinds of people live close enough to each other, even if they have different incomes.
And so the multif family tax exemption puts affordable units within the same project, your neighbors of other people who may have more income than you do. Um you've already talked about having a range of incomes, but can you tell me about um whether or not the TABA group has looked at the multif family tax exemption and do you think what is a chance that you might take advantage of it?
>> Uh we we have looked at it very carefully. Uh we uh we have an apartment project 142 unit apartment projects that's been in design for over two years and uh that was as soon as I started working on that project that was one of the first questions of what are the different programs that we could take advantage of to help finance this project in some way or another.
And it it it didn't work uh partially because of just the overall economic environment with financing and and cost being where they were. But even if as as those have changed, the circumstances don't make it feasible.
Um, and in fact, uh, what the council was, uh, able to pass just a few weeks ago or maybe it was a few months ago now, extending the 8-year is is likely, uh, and we'll know in a few months likely going to be able to bring another bring that project out of the ground.
But if we were to try to qualify with more affordable housing included, we would not be able to build it. Would we look at it in the future? Absolutely. I mean, we we'll we'll look at financing options like that, you know, going forward at all times.
Um, but, you know, um, again, I the way we're approaching it is, uh, where there are programs that are available that make it financially feasible, we're going to try to take advantage of them. But that's not where it that's not even where it starts.
I mean it starts at thinking about how to make this a real community with people from all different you know again different backgrounds um economic means um different you know uh focuses of interest and employment and everything because that's what's going to make an interesting community >> I may also uh just remind uh the public that with the adoption of the MFTTE program as we revise as the council revised If the uh the Taba group is able to move forward with the 8-year program, that also makes them eligible to do the 12-year extension, which could speak to the future economic conditions at that point.
It puts it on the table where it wasn't previously an option. And so, while they may choose to pursue it with 8-year under these current market conditions, if things change and improve, there's that option that's still available to them.
questions or comments. Council member Lilquist. >> So, um I really didn't get a chance to read everything in this packet and not the depth I wanted. I assume we're going to want to if you want direction, I would suggest we hold this over to committee to discuss.
Not because I see any red flags. Um but because the scale of this, I don't think people realize it. We spent three years talking about the waterfront plan. And in terms of acreage, this is more acreage than the waterfront.
And in terms of the dedication for parkland of the waterfront, 33 acres, this is 40 acres of open space. In terms of the height of the buildings down there, the highest buildings which may or may or may not be built down on the waterfront are about the same scale.
Most of them I think onund up to 150 I think at the highest. So this is actually as big as the waterfront. And at the time when we're talking about it, the fear is that it was almost too big to be next door to the downtown.
and there was concern that the one would grow too fast and drain the other. I wasn't worried about that because as we see it's taken way too long for the waterfront. So, the scale of this is um remarkable and that's why I want to take time to talk about it.
I have a number of small questions. Um but I would ask that the council consider moving this over to at least one um one work session and then um I'm sure we can get to I think we can get to a positive outcome on this.
>> Do you want to make a motion? I make a motion that we uh ask staff to bring forward all three of these items to a single work session or combined work session at the nearest convenience. >> Second.
>> Okay. Motion by council member Liquist. Second by council member Hamill. Dr. Lion. >> Is there a preference for that to go to the planning committee or committee of the whole? Do you have a >> I'd like it to go to planning, but that's because I'm chair.
>> Council member Hamill. >> No, I think it needs to go to committee of the whole. this, as you said, this is the scale of this is um at that level where a threeperson uh planning committee is fine, but I think it's better if the whole the committee uh of the whole chimes in on this.
>> Council member Anderson, >> I'm on the planning committee, so I kind of like the planning committee, but I also agree that having it be in committee of the whole um I think everybody there's pieces and parts of this.
Um, when it comes back, I want to know a little bit more about SEPHA. Um, I think I have a pretty good understanding, but I did read it three times and I've got little small questions that would maybe monopolize a little bit of time, but could possibly be quickly answered.
Um, and then also I have questions on the 40 acres and if that's going to tie in with utilization of making it a mitigation bank or um is there anything that that could be utilized for especially in light of um centralizing storm water and other aspects?
Um, are there any plans to be able to utilize improvements of that 40 acres to help offset some of the um, wetlands that may be um, diminished during development that I see in here? Those will be my my big questions.
>> Council member Hamill. >> Um, and I would just add a couple items for the for the work session. So, the street vacation for uh, for Rim Rimland, um, the Burns and St. Clair as well. What that just what that's going to look like.
Um and then I guess a further question would be how um House Bill 1110 would factor into what we're talking about here for residential. Um I know a lot of the units that are out there right now are apartment based units.
And so um 1110 provides um some headroom for you know duplexes, forplexes, sixplexes. what does that look like in terms of further development or is that not part of the the equation? So, just some clarity on that would be good.
>> Council member Anderson, >> I did want to give a positive comment though. Um, not sure if you'll be at our work session or not, but given that this basically is what would start out as a green field development.
Um, and majority owned by one property owner. It's really exciting to see what has happened there. Um I think there's as the speaker has stated um there's a lot of quality in the design and so in reading this and there is a lot of material for me to walk away with just a few questions.
I thought it was really well put together and I wish like all of our urban villages we could have come in with a green field state of mind that everything could be planned out instead of retrofitted into existing structure.
So, um, excited to see what's going to happen here over the next 20 years. So, you guys have been doing a a pretty phenomenal job, um, creating the community and the development there. So, um, and I like a lot of the plans here.
Just a few little details I'd like to feel more comfortable knowing. >> So, thank you. >> You member Loquist. >> Yeah. Flagging for the the follow-up meeting. Um, I I'd like to know the 3,000 3,000 housing units, what the population estimate is, and whether or not that's already factored into our comp plan numbers or whether it's like maybe a happy bonus on that.
I'll also want to go into there's some really complicated language on page 149 on transportation and I'm gonna want to understand that a little bit better and I'm also going to want to talk about there's some language that gestured in the direction of advanced alternatives to storm water handling and I think I have some ideas on that and I'm just going to want to talk about it in the in the meeting.
Yeah, if you don't mind. Um, uh, I will absolutely be at the next hearing and however many hearings you want to have. Uh, I'm here. Um, but just want to say thank you very much for that compliment. And it is actually, it's a testament to our ownership.
This is their vision for how we're going to do this. They they would like it to happen as quickly as possible, but not at the sacrifice of of, you know, taking a lot of different perspectives into account.
um and really thinking long term what's the best thing for this property and really the best thing for the city of Bellingham uh I can just say that working with the Talbot you can tell in all the decisions they make they're really trying to think like if this if if we did this someplace else like could they do this also um it's also uh we have 15 people at at the Talba group who uh work very hard and implement all of these things we're talking about um a number of them are here this evening um and we're all very excited to continue with this process and the last thing I'll leave you with and I'll I'll say more about this when we get to speak again is that we're um what what the EIS studies is is a very it's it's sort of the most expansive scope we can imagine because we want to study every impact.
We want to assume like just like because that way we can understand when the traffic starts to get bad and when the wetlands can be impacted and what we can do about it. So we'll talk about that uh more but just the you know this is really we're doing this when thinking about developing earlier projects how what can we study up front and provide information upfront so that the process goes more quickly down the road same amount of diligence we just want to get it done up front if we can.
So, thank you. >> Any council member Cotton? >> Just briefly, I just want to thank the Talbot group for the public spiritness um spirit they they brought to their collaboration with the city on this. And also thank staff for the years of work.
And I have tons of questions, but they're all curiosities um rather than concerns. This is um uh massive for the prospects of a more affordable, walkable uh city that we're um hopefully going to love even more in 30 years than we do today.
So, thank you. >> Thank you. >> Okay, any further discussion? We have a motion on the table. All in favor say I. >> I. I. >> Any opposed or abstensions? Passes 70. Oh, did you confirm where it's going?
Oh, >> committee. I mean, yeah. Which committee? I'm fine with it going to committee of the whole, although I do like giving council member Liquist more to do. So, council member Loquist. >> Yeah, please.
I don't have much work to do. What we did with the waterfront, for example, is we actually divided it up. for example, the development agreement I and the plan action ordinance I think went to committee of the whole uh whereas the subair plan really is a planning document and that stayed in that went through it that was treated differently maybe in planning committee so that is another possibility I haven't been given enough to do everyone knows it please throw me a bone >> would the administration have a preference in which committee this goes to >> okay will this potentially take more than one meeting?
No, I don't think so. >> Um, as with Council Member Cotton, I have a lot of questions. They're not concerns. >> Okay. Well, I think due to the level of interest um from the council, we we we can do it in committee level.
Okay. Okay. So that is all for that public hearing. We have one more. [Music] This is agenda 24608. A public hearing to consider the Britain Road Northern Heights annexation. Consideration of a petition by property owners to annex 146 acres into the city of Bellingham.
Uh the annexation area is located within the city's northern urban growth area and is adjacent to the Barkley neighborhood. On March 25th, 2024, the city council held a public meeting and approved resolution 2024-02 to initiate the review process for this request.
The Watcom County Boundary Review Board deemed the annexation approved on March 24th, 2025. The final step in the annexation process is a public hearing and decision by the council as to whether or not it is in the city's best interest to approve the annexation.
And I'll go ahead and turn it over to Chris Behy to present. >> Thank you, council, and members of the public, the mayor. Um, again, this is, as you just read, this is the uh public hearing for the annexation.
Um I'm going to try and keep this to 10 minutes and then um Bill Guyire representing the uh annexation petitioners will go through a brief presentation as well following that. Um and then um we're happy to answer questions before or after the any other testimony that's offered.
I'm going to real quickly hit the procedural procedural timeline. Um go over just some quick maps and statistics that uh clarify where we're talking about and um what the annexationary covers. uh real quickly cover um put it in the context of the rest of our urban growth area and previous annexations.
Um touch on the financial impact summary and then our recommendation following that. Just some quick background. Uh and this is all just taken directly from the council packet and the page numbers are are referenced there.
Uh the uh petitioners submitted the 10% petition which under the state's petition method for annexation is how you kick off an annexation under that that methodology. uh they submitted that in October of 2023.
Um you can see some information there regarding the assessed valuation and acreage of the annexation area. And then uh in uh on March 25th of 2024 uh the council initiated the annexation for further consideration.
And then uh following that the 60% annexation petition which is the next required step was submitted by the applicant in May of 2024. took the county assessor a little bit of time to uh certify the various signatures and documents uh for that petition and they did finally uh certify that in July of 2024.
And then the city uh staff took time about 6 months to pull together a very detailed report which is that big 100 plus page piece that you see in this in the uh in the uh annex in the uh council packet.
uh and that includes a lot of kind of deep background and analysis and that was uh submitted and then deemed complete um and approved by the bander review board uh this past March. And so now we come before you with the the final piece of the process which is consideration at a public hearing.
Just real quickly, this is one of many maps that are in the packet. Um but I'll just have it up here and run through some of the statistics. Again, the area is located, you can see a just a thumbnail of the city here.
This area shaded in black. This is Bellingham. This is our unincorporated urban growth area around the edges. And this is located in the far northeast corner. Uh if you're familiar with where Squalcom High School and Northern Heights Elementary are in that northeast corner of the city, it's adjacent to uh those two schools.
And in the urban growth area uh between the city limits and Britain Road. Um you can see on the the bigger map panel here um the area is this roughly uh kind of backwards L-shaped gray area. It encompasses 146 acres about 700 existing residents is the best estimate we have.
Uh 288 existing homes. There are a total of just over 300 properties in the area and then um 291 of those are on city utilities and you can see this this is the uh current water and sewer service map.
So, these are all um what this map shows are city of Bellingham utilities that are already in the ground serving existing homes within this area. Uh there are five plats or subdivisions that all of these single family homes are within.
And you can see every one of them um have complete city water and sewer utilities. The green uh lines are the sewer lines, the blue are the water and the little red symbols are fire hydrants in those areas.
Um there are a number of uh of those again 303 and uh the ones that are not on city uh utilities you don't see those connections for. So there is some developable land um and you'll those are primarily some of these larger lots that front on Britain Road uh on the eastern side of that area up at the north end.
Just to orient real quick, um there is the uh uh large uh property owned by fire district 4, which is administered through uh district 21, which is why you see that labeled here on the map. And that includes uh not just the fire station, but also a training facility that's used by fire crews throughout the county um including Bellingham.
Um so that's that's an asset that's within the annexation area. There is an estimated development capacity for at least 100 homes on the uh the properties uh of the petitioners that initiated the petition for annexation.
And then as we were just talking about in the previous conversation, recently passed interim middle housing rules that you approved recently responding to House Bill 1110 uh does open the possibility for additional development capacity um on some of the uh already developed properties within the area.
although there are some um some of those that may may need some more process to open them up for development. Um and with that I'll um I'll I'll address that more in just a moment. Um again just talking this is just from the staff report and you could see that again uh those recently adopted accessory dwelling unit and also middle housing rules uh would apply to the zoning that gets adopted that is being recommended for this area.
Um let me back up real quickly. The adjacent areas that were annexed out of the same portion of the urban growth area most recently in 2019 were added to Barkley area 28, which is um one of the residential zones in Barkley.
The proposal is to add this area to that same area 28 given that it's coming from the same county zoning that those areas previously were were within. Um, and again, as is emphasized in the staff report, I've just circled the section here that those um, if this area does come into the city, it would be subject to those interim middle housing rules that you recently adopted and also of course the final housing rules when we get those adopted by the end of the year.
This is in response to um, a question Council Member Cotton brought to our attention earlier today. uh and that is the idea that uh while House Bill 1110 precluded additional um restrictive deeds and covenants on new subdivisions.
So that it's uh as of 2023 you cannot approve a plat and then restrict it for um only single family style development. You you need to allow accessory dwelling units and other middle housing forms. Uh there are a number of pre-existing plats that do to one degree or another have restrictions on them and those are allowed by law um because they came in well before that 2023 deadline.
Um we have that information for the five existing plat um only one of them the um Lakemont plat actually allows accessory dwelling units. There aren't any that we know of at this point in that area. They're just single family detached homes but the plat does indicate that those are allowed.
And then the other plats you can see indicated here either have restrictions directly on the face of the plat which would require a plat amendment which is possible but is some additional process or they have restrictions identified within the adopted covenants um that those plats reference and so those are filed with the auditor that also could be modified by a homeowners association.
They can choose to do that and have different thresholds to vote and approve those kinds of things and then that would be re-recorded with the auditor. So, there are some steps that could be taken to open that capacity up on those existing lots, but at this point, this just gives you kind of the lay of the land for those existing developments.
Again, this gives you just the perspective of the city. Um, this is our annexation history map and these are all the annexations numbered one to uh 46 or 45 rather. Um, this would be annexation number 46 in our history as a city and you could see where it is on the northeast corner there.
And then I just wanted to call your attention to the yellow shaded areas are all the areas we've annexed since we've had a designated urban growth area and that was in 1995. So since since that time when we established the growth area, we've annexed uh 24 areas totaling just over 3,300 acres that constitutes about 17% of the city's current area.
These areas spread across mostly the northern tier of the city support about 7,000 current jobs, about 4,500 housing units, and just over 9,000 uh estimated residents. And over the last uh 20 plus years, the city's invested about 140 million, and that's a rough estimate, but about 140 million in infrastructure for new roads, storm water, water, and sewer uh infrastructure, and a variety of other services in those areas.
The financial impact summary is on a very small type page in the report and I'm apologize for the small font but I'm going to hit this in in detail in the next couple slides. Uh the top portion deals with estimated annual revenue primarily from property taxes.
Um and then you see there's a a section in the middle that deals with estimated annual expenses. So what does it cost the city? Uh what would it cost the city to serve this area if we were to annex it?
and then just the math of subtracting um expenses from revenue. And then the section at the bottom that deals with more one-time capital improvement projects. Um so that would be instead of annual operating expenses, more capital improvements.
Looking at the top part of that page, uh this is looking at again the property tax revenue and you can see here this is based on the existing homes and properties in the area, the city revenue that would be um collected and this again is a 2025 estimate.
So, this would be the year following that when we adopt uh an an if we were to approve the annexation would be somewhere in the neighborhood of $265,000 is the what this would impact for the the revenues that would come into the city.
And you can see the variety of places that revenue goes. Um the biggest piece going to the general fund and then some other um the different housing and greenways levies. Um and then uh the voter approved housing levy and then the fire pension fund.
These two middle columns are are whatifs and those are what if we added another 100 housing units to the area or 200 housing units to the area. And that's to give you an idea of over again in 2025. But to give you an idea of overtime if we do achieve more infill and development in this area what that might pencil out to.
And you can see that $265,000 number goes up to about $360 to $460,000. So there is some additional capacity there for for um some offsets to the cost of providing infrastructure to that area. And then you can see some other um smaller additional revenue sources uh including the state shared revenues, the REIT in uh REIT uh dollars that we receive based on estimated home sales and then VNO and retail sales tax which are not appreciable at this point in that area.
There are no commercially developed properties. But if for instance we do expanded small-cale commercial like we've talked about in our Bellingham plan conversations, there's potential for some some amount there.
And you can see the additional amount that would add to the um the revenue from property taxes. Looking at the expenses, there is a one-time expense related to this area coming into the city and that relates to the utility billing changes.
The water and sewer utility bills in this area because it's in the urban growth area have a 50% search charge. They pay 150% of the rate that people that are already in the city pay. That would be revenue that we would lose.
They would just go back to paying the normal. They would change from that paying that sir charge to paying just the normal 100% city rate. There would be a small offset in that and that they would be subject to paying our storm water fee which they're not currently paying.
So there's a little bit of uh push one down, push one up kind of thing going on. and that nets out to a loss of about $140,000 over what the annual utility income would be for that area. And then uh some other um estimates uh life safety um if if you look back through the last two annexations that were approved um over uh near the Maplewood area and then the one immediately adjacent to this.
Both of those annexations called for two life safety uh people within the fire department to review plans and do all the life safety activities that are currently done by the county in these areas before they're annexed.
Um there was uh within the 2025 budget year um one of those positions was hired and so now that deficit related to those two previous annexations and this annexation is now uh one FTE for that life safety person in the fire department.
Um and you see that represented here as about 40% for this annexation of what that cost would be um given the the housing in the other areas. There are also uh is a placeholder here which is an estimate for non-fire city urban service staffing and that's on a per capita basis.
had some assistance from our um uh from the staff in the finance department to put a cost to all of the different interfund and uh kind of non capital infrastructure and non kind of frontline service personnel costs that happen on a per capita basis across the city.
um people like planners and our legal staff and and all kinds of other folks that um are not re just necessarily boots on the ground out in the community providing service, but they're in an office providing support services um so that the city can function.
So that's a representative uh number there. Uh there is a public works estimate for the 1.2 2 miles of arterial streets and 1.9 miles of residential streets. And you could see that represented here um as 59,000 and change.
And that's based on their current estimates from our city works maintenance management system on what we typically incur in a year for for mileage of streets in those two classes, which is the those are the miles of of residential and arterial streets in the annexation area.
And in a similar fashion, the parks department has provided an estimate. Um they have in their plans uh u a placeholder for about a half a mile of new trail in this area to provide connections and service to the neighborhood and into the city and adjacent parks.
And um on their looking at their annual maintenance costs for trail mileage, this is that representative number um about $3,300 um per year for that. So you can see the total um looking at the the deficit here and then these totals here of about $426 or $7,000 annually to provide service and maintenance of facilities in the area.
looking at the um total the previous page with the tax and other uh revenues and then the incurred costs here and you could see the difference being around $230,000 total uh to the to the negative uh for bringing this area in which as I know those of you that have been around for previous annexations commercial and industrial annexations tend to pencil out on the positive side of the ledger ones that are only residential unless they're particularly high density areas which this is a fairly uh moderate density area at this point tend to pencil out on the negative side of the ledger.
Again, I would just refer you back to this page where we have if you look at the 24 annexations, we've definitely had some big winners in this area. And then this is one of those ones where it's just pencils out on the slightly lower side.
Um, which is why this was provided for context to kind of give you that long-term view of our growth management activities and annexing areas in the UG to accommodate growth to accommodate our to accomplish our growth strategy that we um they won't all be winners, but this one is one that's just on the moderate side of the the negative part of the ledger.
Looking at the one-time um capital improvement pieces that we've documented in here, there is a uh as per the interlocal agreement that we have with the the different uh rural fired districts, there is an agreement for uh three years of payments to offset the the tax value for district 4 that we would be annexing.
And that's what this 548,500 number. It's just under $200,000 a year in tax revenue based on the current tax value uh for the fire district and the properties we'd be annexing. And so this is to help offset and soften that blow for uh fire district 4.
Um also estimated costs for three different culverts that relate to Toad Creek going um underneath different streets including Britain Road. And these are estimates based on some um similar size culverts that were recently completed down at Patton Creek.
And you can see the the kind of larger one in the 7.3 million and a couple of $2.5 million culverts. And again, rough estimates, but to give an idea of when those do uh come up on our project list, those those are kind of estimates of what that would cost.
You can see a placeholder here for that half mile of trail corridor that the park's plan calls for about $800,000. And then as part of that project, there's an additional 400 earmarked um that would be for a a bridge uh as part of that trail system that spans the Toad Creek Ravine.
Um again, a critical connection there for for uh the trail system. Uh there are no estimates for future sidewalk improvements um or bike improvements. Um there is curb gutter and sidewalk on those five plats already and street lights on those five plats that we showed you that on the map.
Um but Britain Road does not have those improvements. It is a two-lane county standard uh street. Um does have uh nice wide shoulders which are bikable at this point and are marked as a with a fog line.
Um but they're not designated bike lanes per se. So um that would be something the uh future improvements to those uh those streets with respect to future sidewalks or marked bike lanes would be roped into the next update of the bike and pedestrian master plans and would be prioritized with um all of the other parts of the city.
um and balanced again with equity and all the other pieces that go into those conversations. Again, just uh indicating here in the staff report explaining where that uh life safety position comes from.
And then finally getting to the recommendation uh that the the packet includes the goals and policies referenced in the 2016 comprehensive plan that support annexation and the reasons why that is part of our growth strategy.
And we feel that this annexation is consistent and does implement those goals and policies. Um we do as part of this uh staff report have a draft ordinance prepared that identifies um the area and also the proposed land use designations and uses for this area.
Uh we do recommend uh that you direct us to bring back a final ordinance um and assign this to appropriate committee for further consideration. And with that, I will um if there aren't any immediate questions, I will hand it off to Bill Guyer, who's representing again the petitioners, and he can come forward and anything that showed that.
Okay. All right. Good evening, council. Bill Guyer, Guyire and Associates. I'm certified by the American Institute of Certified Planners, 48 years, 49 years of uh planning professional practice. Um I'm representing as the applicant for this uh annexation and also my my three primary clients as the Tursel Profile Partnership that owns property at 4049 Britain Road at the northern location of the annexation.
Gleco, which owns a parcel at Mloud and uh Britain Road, and Ken and Dederbell, which own a smaller parcel on the east portion of the um of the application. My letter in the public comments in your packet spells out pretty much uh our perspective.
We think that the um we've looked at this for the past six years with a number of different organizations including homeowner associations, the fire districts, uh city departments, uh community members, uh and it was real surprising because a lot of people said we were thought we were already in the city.
We said well and they said well it's about time. So I'm going to refer to my letter as the it's about time letter. Um there's six conclusions that we presented to you and I'm not going to go through the details but to say first and foremost the staff has done a very good job providing you all the background information documenting uh what's there environmentally utility-wise the subdivisions that are there the populations and the process we went through the boundary review board but most important of the six conclusions we identified in my letter this area has been zoned for urban residential development for 40 years.
The county initially in 1984 adopted the urban suburb plan and designated this area peripheral to the city so that the city could do extra territorial planning. The city then followed up in 1985, our second major point, by adopting urban service areas.
Bellingham was on the forefront of planning in the state at that time in identifying areas that the city should expand into and how utilities are provided to it. This area was included in 1985. Um thirdly in the um Toad Creek corridor and hopefully the cursor will show up here on the on the map as um Chris had mentioned Toad Creek starts in the east of the annex area and proceedes through the middle and then comes down uh along to the west and crossing Mount Baker Highway and from this point about 3,000 ft out the Squallum Creek.
Although this is presently uh protected by Watcom County's critical area ordinance, once annexed in, of course, it is then protected by Bellingham's critical areas ordinance. Plus, you will note as the staff reported, there are some components for the Toad Creek corridor that relates to some of the parks, recreation, and open space plan.
So where you see this creek um when you get looking at the aerial there is a broader area because it's a fairly uh steep ravine in there and several wetlands that are um that can be pretty well protected.
Um our fourth key point in my letter is that as Chris mentioned and the um map on the wall shows most of these homes are already connected by city water and sewer. They're the process when the urban service area at the time property owners would petition the city to have urban services and by contract designating the number of units that they would build.
Public works would define what those water and sewer services should be. That contract would come to the city council which then uh authorized the mayor to enter into that contract so the developments can proceed.
So the subdivisions that are identified in your packet were all reviewed according to technical specs per the city's development guidelines and development requirements at that time and they've been operating as such since.
Hence a lot of the property owners asking us we thought we were already in the city. But equally important, the council and the mayor uh placed a cautisol, a covenant in each of these covenant uh these subdivisions that should annexation be proposed in the future that there is a no protest agreement by the property owners.
So the property owners purchasing homes in these subdivisions already had that identified within their title report. And per state law in the boundary review board's review, almost 90% of the property owners within this annexation area are subject to that no protest agreement.
In other words, the decision was made prior. My clients are part of those that uh are not part of a no protest agreement, but they're actively requesting the annexation. The fifth point is the area is suitable for urban development.
It's presently urm mixed in the county with a 6 to 12 unit uh per acre density. Uh Chris mentioned with the buildouts and the current covenants uh you have predominant single family in there. My clients are very much interested in the middle inome housing proponents.
not only that this city council has adopted but the state legislature has recently through HB11 mandated that we proceed with and this is all different forms of housing that are possible. One key point will also relate to one other item here I'll touch on just a second is the process of the underlying land ownership to allow those various housing forms uh to appear.
Um, in my letter to you, I provided you a comparison and to the staff of the existing zoning uses that are uh permitted, that are conditional uses and accessory uses related to those that are under the city of Bellingham's current residential single u, and parallels very closely.
There's a couple of them that don't really tie in directly. And in when you look at that um exhibit that I provided to you, there's only two that really come out to us uh on page two of my handout in my letter.
And presently, Watkam County zoning allows mobile home parks uh per development standards in their code. Now I'm not here to say of the traditional mobile home parks and as you looked at over the past two years on your mobile home uh moratorum but you have to think beyond that to the state adopted in HB110 and others changing how the land is managed so that you can have the smaller housing forms.
In other words, think of a condominium process or a general binding site plan. It's our opinion right now that the RS code in Bellingham does not provide for that type of housing opportunity to create middle housing components.
Chris and I have talked about this and I know the staff has been looking at this in great detail over the past year for when they come forward with recommendations to you, but we believe a a general binding site plan uh land entitlement component is very important to allow the smaller sized housing units that can be built in this area.
Our clients are also looking at various uh townhouse and other infill opportunities uh that have been successful uh in in in Bellingham. Um we the last comment I'll make is that the the ordinance provides for an effective date of April 1 of next year and I understand from past annexations city has reporting requirements to the state as it deals with population because then the state does its April 1 population estimate and they do revenue allocations based on that.
In past annexations, there has been the ability for applicants to proceed with the preliminary entitlement activities prior to the effective date of the annexation. And we're requesting same here. So, what that means is the three property owners that I represent, they would like to uh assuming the council passes tonight or at your next uh meeting the ordinance to proceed with annexation and approves it.
We would like the ability that we can then proceed with the pre-application and the neighborhood meeting discussion, complete that process, get into the actual uh technical work we need to do from the surveying and engineering to then bring a project proposal to the staff for its formal review.
Uh and the venue of that will be determined by how many units are being proposed. But that the final approval on that of course cannot come about until the annexation becomes effective. But we think there's a lot of preliminary work we can do this year in preparation so that should you bring that date forward from April 1, uh we can have the technical information and the design and review with staff that needs to occur because my three clients very much see themselves as housing producers to get into the middle uh income housing um market and bring some housing that we know is very much needed in Bellingham.
I'll be here through the rest of the evening. If you have any questions, be glad to answer them and certainly we'll attend any um any additional discussions that you have in the future. But I thank you for your time.
>> Okay. Thank you. Uh any clarifying questions from the council before we open up the public hearing? Okay. Seeing none. All right. We had five individuals signed up tonight. First up is Lee Stevens, Lewis um Leaky, Rod Shank.
[Music] Thank you. I'm Lee Stevens and I live just east of Squilum High School. My wife and I moved up here a year ago in March. And for me, it was sort of like a homecoming. See, my mother grew up in Bellingham, graduated from Bellingham High School.
I came up here as a boy from San Jose in the summers, watched CFL football, which was strange to me. Coming down from Vancouver, waiting for my mom, grandma to come home from Hagens, where she was an assistant manager, and my granddad worked as a long shoreman.
None of my family's been here for a long time. And so coming back up here brought a lot of good memories and moving to Bellingham was something we chose to do. So imagine my surprise when I tried to arrange for CSS uh trash pickup and they went, "Oh, you're not in the city of Bellingham." Gentleman's point.
That was how I discovered that we were about 130 feet east of where the line was. Um, okay. That's that's just the way it works sometimes. And we've enjoyed our time here and we're looking forward to a lot more time here.
But I would have liked to have said something on the Barkley um proposals that you have, except that you wouldn't have to listen to me, would you? Because I'm not a Bellingham resident. I live outside of Bellingham.
Uh we shop in Bellingham. My wife works in Bellingham. We attend musicals at Squelum High School. I go down to Village Books. We do everything in Bellingham. I walk the Clipsson Trail down to the railroad trail every morning with my dog.
I get coffee at Woods down there and then make that long hill climb back up that it's great for my lungs and uh not so much for my u ego on the speed. I would like to have a voice in the city that I am live that I buy in, run through, walk through, etc.
So, please move forward with this annexation and let me bring a little bit of the Patton family back to the city of Bellingham. Thank you. >> Thank you, Lee. Lewis or Rod. >> Good evening and uh thanks for giving me a time to just address a couple of things here.
I'm Lewis Leak and I've been a homeowner in Northern Heights since 1997. In those 28 years, this is the third time we've had an annexation issue. Tried to get it before the city council and the first time there was a problem with uh fire company over in Moses Lake and they decided that the annexation process violated the state's one vote one person rule.
So they changed that whole deal and the annexation was off for a while. Then COVID came up and I believe this is when we first started this annexation and that put it off for a while and now this one's coming by and I hope that you'll act affirmatively and annexes into the city county residents on city and sewer.
Northern Heights homeowners are subjected to a 50% search charge on their water and sewer. We have no say in the matter. We don't have anyone who represents us on it. We just have to take what comes. Two years ago, I believe it was, when the city was thinking about uh revamping the whole wastewater treatment plant, the um it was skyrocketing water and sewer rates and it was going to fast outpace anything anybody ever considered.
I wrote letters to every city council person at the time and the mayor, not you. And I got not one reply back. And I wasn't surprised by that because I didn't vote for them, nor could I vote for them.
So they didn't have to listen to me. And apparently they didn't because I never heard back from them. So, it's not exactly taxation without representation, but it is kind of a stepchild to it because we don't have any say in it.
Thank you. >> Thank you, Louis. >> Right. We have as Rod here and then Daniel Blumer, Miles Silverman, and then Bill, you're listed as well. I don't know if you wanted to speak again. Daniel, if you want to go ahead.
Thank you. >> Good evening all. My name is Dan Blanker. I'm an engineer and a resident of Birchwood Neighborhood. And I did not plan on talking on this subject until I read the financial impact summary.
Financial impact summary shows that an annexation now and for at least the next 20 years would have a negative financial impact on city finances. It obligate the city to supply $14 million of infrastructure spending with an additional annual cost on the low end of 160 grand per year.
The low estimate assuming that the covenants are removed on development and that significant densification 60% per acre occurs along wetlands. something I am skeptical of giving existing levels of development.
At a time when the city is planning significant rate increases for wastewater for city residents, it would remove the 50% search charge from these pro properties, further imperiling our own wastewater system finances and requiring hiring higher rates for existing residents.
I don't blame residents for wanting to get access to city services. I don't blame them for wanting their utility costs to drop the 50% search charge or their property taxes to go down by 7 12%. As well as achieving a what would on net be $50,000 per household in infrastructure spending from the city of Bellingham.
City staff's recommendation largely states that this annexation complies with the 2016 comprehensive plan, but I find it unlikely to be consistent with our current iteration, giving the developing plans focus on growth, paying for growth, and fiscal sustainability.
I am honestly searching for a silver lining for the city on this as a place to besides just putting more housing, but I'm having trouble finding one. Thank you for your time. >> Thank you, Dan. [Music] Hello, Miles Silverman.
He him resident of the Cordata neighborhood. Mostly I'm inclined to concur with what Dan said in terms of fiscal sustainability in terms of making sure that services are affordable for citizens of Bellingham and making sure that Bellingham can continue to pay for itself.
The one argument in term that I would argue makes that one could say that it is some it is worth the additional debt would be that to provide affordable housing. And the issue here is the the biggest concern I see here is the location and the covenants.
Because if we want to provide that more affordable housing, then single family housing forms currently enforced as we saw prior are directly antithetical to that. a little looking around on Zillow can find one seeing some prices for new construction well above our already lofty median home price.
So if the middle housing does go through and if we see dozens or hundreds of new smaller more affordable houses coming in in this area that people on more modest incomes can actually afford to buy come in.
It is possible one could make the argument then that even though this would be going into debt then that would be worth it to make sure that people can live can live here because that's ultimately the point of meeting growth targets.
The point of meeting those growth targets is to keep housing down because everyone housing prices down. I should say not housing housing prices down because then that means there's enough housing that people don't have to compete for it because if too many people are competing for the same houses, then the rich folks get it and then the prices on houses everywhere go up and people on lower incomes can't afford it.
That is to say, unless it is more assured that the housing that will get built here can be accessible to people on lower incomes, then in terms of the goals of the city, I am not convinced that this is ideal.
Thank you. Thank you, Miles. >> All right. If Rod Shank is here or uh Bill Guyire, you were signed up as well, but yeah. Okay. All right. If Rod is not here, then we will close the public hearing. That's it.
>> Go ahead and close the public hearing and bring it back to council. >> Council member Ham. Yeah, I'm going to make a motion here in a moment, but I um to refer it to um committee of the whole. I think this needs to go back for more u further um discussion.
I I just have several questions. I just want to inform planning what my concerns are. So, transit would be a concern. Um no, there's no commercial third space in this area that I can detect. Uh there's no guarantees on affordable housing that would be built.
We can talk about missing middle all day and all night, but that doesn't mean that that's going to be um affordable to to folks who are um working in Bellingham or or or live in this uh area. The concerns I have around uh capital improvements, a a culvert that one culvert that's $7.3 million and then two more that are $2.5 million for and then there's there were others.
I think the total price tag on that was like 14 million um in capital. And so I guess I'm a little I'm very skeptical on this one. Um we are talking about rateayer increases for water and sewer right now um that are um would would put the price tag per month or per per bill at hundreds of dollars more than they currently are within 101 15 years.
So h how does this get paid for? Um, and then the other and and and the other question I would have is um public safety provisions. So there's a fire station right there. That's um station 12. It's in that Britain loop.
So I could see that you know conceivably fire could be responsive uh in that general area. Um actually the chief and I have been out there before um a couple times. And but I guess my question would be how does how does police how do they respond out there?
And if there's a call, what's the um response time and the um what doesn't get done if um if an officer or two are out there responding to a DB call, domestic violence call or or whatever the the call may be.
So I'd want to have those questions answered. Um, and I would want to get some assurance that that fire station can service that area uh in a way that's meaningful. Um, and I think that's those are my questions.
>> Council member Anderson. >> Thanks. Um, yeah, I'm okay with it going to a work session, but I don't know if answers will appease my um overall concerns financially right now. our budgets. We're looking at cuts and we've cut everything we possibly can down to staffing and we haven't had those full conversations, but unless the economic turns around, that's probably going to happen.
And I look at these dollar amounts um that we will be in the negative year after year. And I just look at our staffing and wonder who is that going to be for us to annex this. Um, I'm also the culverts right now $12 million.
It's an estimate, but it's the county's responsibility. We annex this, it's our responsibility. And um it's that's a huge dollar amount and by the time we get to it, it's going to escalate. and also knowing a little bit sometimes I'm dangerous when it comes to infrastructure but um with multiple different developments happening in that area and with their storm water um we don't know the quality of the retention ponds or the storm water that's put in place and what might have to be changed.
And on page um 14 of your report or page 187 it says um if this area is annexed storm water requirements for this area will need to be account for the severity of receiving waters and must incorporate measures to deal with the water quality impairments as identified by Washington state.
It also says that the US state department of agriculture soil conservation service and soil survey of Wacom County area Washington indicate that the soil in the annexation area may make infiltration of storm water difficult.
And so we're talking about escalating the cost of our storm water and our water. And if we annex this, there's going to have to be a lot of staff time looking at those drainages, those retention ponds, and what needs to be fixed.
And that's going to be on our dime, especially if those uh retention areas get turned over to the city, which is typically what happens. Um, I know areas in the county that have been developed to this level because of my husband's work was working on the storm water and retention ponds that they hadn't been maintained for 20 years and the county had to go in there and do that work because the homeowners didn't know it was their responsibility.
Um, I understand this has been built out, but as we're looking at, and it's one of the reasons why I wanted an annexation list of the cost versus the benefit, gaining a hundred maybe units developed for the cost of what it's going to cost the city is just a huge concern.
When we're looking at other areas that could be annexed, that might bring in thousands um, and it will end up paying for itself. So, I'm fine with moving it to session, but the cost overall at this point, I just have a hard time going to our rateayers and taxpayers and our city staff and saying, "We're going to bring this in and now it's going to cost us a lot of money.
And that money can come down to our staffing, other infrastructure, putting this on the tip plan because we have to treat everybody fairly, all of the city. So, they have no developed park. So, we're going to have to look at doing that eventually.
Britain Road will be a nightmare for us to fix to bring it up to the quality for city transportation. But also, my last concern in here, it says that based on call volume for um the sheriff office, um you know, it averages about, you know, one call a day or something.
Um but I know people who live out there that they don't call the sheriff because they know they won't come. So, I've always talked with the police department that there will not be annexation unless we are staffed.
It does didn't matter where. It was just in general. I've said this for years until we're staffed back where we have our special units and we don't even have traffic. And so now we're looking at sending officers out there and it is a 10-minute drive to spend hours and there's going to be a couple of them.
All of us, most of us have gone on ride alongs. I don't know if you've seen the queue of calls waiting and they're having to decide the most critical. If they're out there, you can't peel off of something because something bigger is happening in the city.
You have to stay and and finish your work there. I do not want to send one or two officers out possibly in a DB situation that they're going to be there for hours and we have four patrol officers on staff.
We're not there with our level of police to take care of our city area. We're doing a great job, but things happen and just thinning ourselves out more does not make financial sense. It doesn't make sense to the community that we're beholden to currently.
So, I've said my piece. Convince me otherwise, but um we can work on it, but those are all my areas. I don't know if staff will have answers to them. >> Council member H. >> Yeah, I just I agree with uh what the council member just said.
Um same concerns. And then one one question I would add before I'm going to make a motion here. Um I would want to understand um a little bit better what the um the wetland areas look like in terms of um how that would uh preclude development.
There's a creek that that runs right through there. And I can only assume that um the development happened on the on the north part of it and on the south part of it. I wouldn't want to understand that that middle section and what that looks like in terms of um potential development incumbrances.
And then my motion would be to um to refer this to I think it's big enough again to refer it to committee of the whole. sorry planning committee folks that are here. But um I I think it's just it's a big this is a big topic and it's I mean it's millions and millions of dollars that we're talking about with um with impacts here.
So that that'd be my motion. >> Second motion by council member Hamill and a second by council member Stone. Any further discussion? Council member Lilquist. When this comes forward um to the wrong committee, but oh well.
When this comes forward um I would want to talk about the the coverts. Are they mandated? As it was indicated, they're now currently the county's responsibility. My question would be is what percentage of the cost for coverts are actually born locally?
Um my recollection is that whether it's in the county or the city, there's usually hope for state funding, especially if it is tied to the Martinez decision. that has to do with restoring streams that that protect or enhance um salmon habitat.
So in other words, the entire cost may not be transferring to us, but then how much does transfer to us? Um in my estimation, this is actually one of the least bad annexations I've seen in memory. There's a myth out there that cities can grow their tax base.
That has never been true. Uh for decades we've known what are called cost of services studies show that annexing residential land is always the money loser. That's not a unique problem here. As Mr. Behe was indicating it needs to balance out in the end because you're also adding commercial lands, industrial lands, maybe institutional lands to support other uses.
The question is in the end will this lead towards a balance and one of the problems we have is that no one is knocking on our door to annex industrial land and everyone is knocking at our door to annex residential land.
And why is that? Because every single conversation is about the lack of housing. So we have a fundamental problem here that's not going away and it's not unique to this. So when we have a discussion about Little Britain Road, it's going to be a microscopic version of the um the Keitech property, the north the the the northern annexation up to um Smith Road or for that matter the South U Street.
The numbers there are even worse. How are we going to meet our um housing capacity needs unless we annex? And if every time we see a residential, primarily residential annexation, we see negative numbers and that stops us, then we're never going to get there.
So, um, I'm a fan of finding the least bad annexations possible. I don't know if this is really it yet, but we need to increase our residential land. It is a fundamental need for our community and there's a fundamental reason why the numbers will never look good.
The question is, can they look good in total in aggregate in the city entire citywide comp planning process? Um, I'm looking for ways to add housing capacity and I know we can add huge amounts of that within the city.
Barkley Village, 3,000 units over 20 years. Um, but I think we still need to look for judicious and strategic annexations. If not here, if not up to Smith Road, if not South U Street, then where? That's a really important question.
So my only that's a that's a long policy issue I would like to talk about because there's no annexation will pay for itself and the infrastructure trap is always there. Go back to your strong towns. This is Chuck Morone 101.
Um but I will want to hear the answer about coverts because maybe that one piece isn't as bad as we fear. >> Other council members speaking on the motion. Okay. Seeing none. All in favor say I. >> I. I.
Any opposed or abstensions? Passes 70. Okay. So, we will move that to committee of the whole. Thank you very much. [Music] We will now move on to committee report outs. And luckily, this one's pretty short.
Uh today we had uh up first this afternoon committee of the whole and executive session. And that was all. So committee of the whole chaired by myself. We had a two two agenda items. First was an ordinance relating to equal protection and equal provision of city services regardless of sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression and creating a new chapter of the Bellingham Municipal Code regarding such matters.
At the June 9th, 2025 council meeting, Bellingham City Council members voted unanimously to approve a resolution that reaffirms the city's long-standing commitments to equal human rights, public safety, and social justice, and opposing hate and discrimination.
This ordinance puts into action values affirmed in the June 9th resolution with a specific focus on supporting LGBTQ plus community members. The ordinance creates a new chapter of the Bellingham Municipal Code that codifies existing city policies, practices, and actions and affirms the rights of LGBTQ plus community members to equal protection and provision of services regardless of sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression.
Council discussed the proposed ordinance during the June 23rd, 2025 committee of the whole meeting and agreed to allow more time for community input before voting. At the July 7th, 2025 meeting, council made amendments and moved the ordinance forward with a vote for first and second reading with the understanding it would be revised during the next committee of the whole meeting and further amendments could be made at that time.
And so this was a uh discussion work session uh regarding this ordinance. There were some amendments um proposed and approved by council member Stone. Um, we also received some further uh suggested amendments from a community member which staff uh had agreed to to review so that we could discuss further tonight.
And and we no longer have the the uh document viewer. I don't think do we? Okay. It might take a moment. Okay. Council member Stone will try to set that up. folks in the audience um and watching can can have something to visually to reference.
Um and this ordinance will also be further discussed at our third and final vote on on the ordinance um coming shortly. But council member Stone, >> I guess my question for the council is whether you want to review the proposed amendments now or did you want to wait until third and final?
I would >> we could really go either way. >> Um let's let's re review now since you've you've uh got yourself set up. >> That would be great. So, I just wanted to share the documents since they weren't included in the packet, and my apologize.
I have printed copies for the council, and my wonky double-sided ended up flipped on the short end instead of long, but you'll figure it out. Um, so there are a few changes that were made during the committee this afternoon.
So, those were already read into the record, but I just wanted to highlight those briefly. So what is that in section two? Just making sure to um specify BMC since it's referenced in other parts. And then in subsection F, those changes that are highlighted in red, those were read into the record and changed this afternoon.
So again, where it reads um LGBTQ plus individuals in Bellingham striking as outlined in and replacing that within accordance with um this chapter. Just wanted to make sure that if there were issues for consideration um that the city was going to take a stand to oppose or support just in accordance with seemed to speak more to the underlying sentiment of the legislation versus um needing to have specific um outline or notation within the the ordinance itself.
and then adding or support to the two oppose or support to again make that consistent with the beginning of that that section and then just striking the etc at the end of that subsection F. So those were already addressed this afternoon during committee.
There are a couple of items um that were reviewed by the legal team and brought forward for consideration based on feedback from um community members. And so in subsection F as you will see this these proposed changes are highlighted in blue.
So, one is wanting to ensure that, you know, decisions that would be made by the council and mayor to either oppose or support potential legislation or other actions that that would include feedback from the LGBTQ plus community.
So wanting to specify that specifically in this section and then in addition adding to the examples of such actions that could be taken by mayor and city council adding litigation to that list. I think as mayor Len spoke to this evening.
Um that's coming forward sooner rather than later maybe but the need for litigation and that being one of the right many actions that the city could undertake. Um, so that proposed change as well to subsection F.
So I'll leave that first. So I would make a motion to adopt those changes as presented. >> Second >> motion by council member Stone and a second by council member Hamill. Further discussion? Seeing none, all in favor say I.
>> I. >> Any opposed or abstensions? That passes 70. So the next proposed change is in the section 050 and this proposed change is um well I'll read it into the record first and we have the printed copy so that everyone can see it as well.
So adding to this section the um this statement. So for federal and or state statutes, court decisions or court orders that impact the rights, safety or dignity of LGBTQ plus individuals in Bellingham as provided for in this chapter, the mayor or their design shall provide guidance to city employees on how to perform any action that is required by such federal or state law, court decision, or court order in a manner that protects the rights of LGBTQ plus individuals under this chapter.
So, this proposed edit is an attempt to speak to um just concerns or interest in having right city staff and employees be able to try and balance when there are um perhaps federal or state changes um and how that intersects with our right with our local ordinance and and code um and how to deliver services and and implement those accordingly.
So, as it's written now, that has um cleared legal review as well. And so, I would move for that section to be adopted. >> Second >> motion by Council Member Stone and a second by Council Member Hamill.
Further discussion on that motion. >> Yeah. >> Council member Williams. >> Uh question. Uh Council Member Stone. Does this language only relate to the LGBTQ community or does it relate to the LGBTQ community as part of a larger group of affected people for something like this?
Well, I think with respect to this particular code section, it's speaking specifically as the title right reads for this section of the code. It would be specific to LGBTQ plus um individuals and those right interests related to the right safety or dignity.
Um, but I think that this language is to really codify city commitment, right, to that work, which I would expect would would carry over into, you know, the broader community as well. Um, but I could defer to legal and and the mayor if there's anything to share.
Yeah, I would I Alan Mariner, city attorney. I would say that um this is similar to um advising uh our city employees on how to handle uh immigration matters and ICE uh ICE operations and doing that in a way that is most protective of our immigrant population while still complying with federal law, which we're required to do.
So we do do this in other areas. I think we strive to do that in all areas. This is but this section is dealing with the with the uh the community that the stat the ordinance is dealing with. >> Council member Haml.
>> Yeah. I just wanted to point out that um in 2017 this council passed uh an ordinance regarding um immigration protections that did have similar language to what's being displayed here on the screen.
And then I believe it was in 2020 um the council passed um it was a resolution declaring racism as a public um health crisis with similar language. Um was very well researched. It was done largely by the community with past legal review.
Um, but I think it addresses the concerns that you may be bringing up, council rulings. Okay. Any further discussion on the motion? Seeing none, all in favor say I. >> I. >> Any opposed or abstensions?
That passes 70. >> That concludes the proposed um amendments that I have. Okay. Thank you, Council Member Stone. Any further discussion on this agenda item? And we will of course revisit the draft ordinance again in third and final.
Okay, moving on. We had agenda bill 24610, a resolution deferring to the voters's initiative number 202503 prohibiting landlords from interfering with tenants engaged in protected activities. The Watcom County Auditor has reviewed an initiative petition entitled Initiative 202503 prohibiting landlords from interfering with tenants engaged in protected activities and verified that the principal petitioners have collected a sufficient number of valid signatures of qualified registered voters as required by the city charter.
The petition is now an initiative bill. Council may enact the initiative bill, defer the bill to voters, or reject the bill and pass a different bill dealing with the same subject that would appear on the same ballot as the initiative bill.
Council must take action on the initiative bill on or before August 5th, 2025 to meet the deadlines established by the auditor. And so the resolution included uh was passed with with an amendment. Um it was discovered that there is a new requirement that um those who are writing the statements for the voters's pamphlet for and against um th those folks have to be a resident of the jurisdiction.
So they would have to be a resident of Bellingham. Um and and so the council made an amendment to strike the section uh naming those writers for and against. Um and then that matter can be taken up by the auditor um with suggestions from the city to to fill those roles.
So uh the motion let's see yes the motion to pass was approved unanimously for recommendation by the council and I so move >> second >> motion by the chair and a second by council member Hamill. Any further discussion?
>> Seeing none all in favor say I. I >> I any opposed or abstensions? That passes 70. >> Okay. And then we moved on to executive session. We had two matters before us. What the first was a labor relations matter with Danner and Sullivan.
Staff provided information on the proposed 2024 to 2026 collective bar bargaining agreement between the city and the international association of firefighters local 106s. I will now entertain a motion to ratify the agreement reached with the following general terms.
Uh duration January 1st, 2024 through December 31st, 2026. Wages and compensation effective upon ratification. Increase deferred compensation match by 0.25% to 6%. Introduce a 1% bilingual premium based on salary.
Effective January 1st, 2024, 4% COLA, 1.5% market adjustment. Effective January 1st, 2025, 4% COLA. Effective January 1st, 2026, 3.75% COLA. And for medical insurance, increase uh the city's contribution to medical health care by 6% each year.
>> Move approval. >> Second >> motion by motion by council member Anderson, second by council member Hamill. Any further discussion? Seeing none, all in favor say I. I. Any opposed or abstensions? that passes 70.
We then add a potent potential property acquisition with stamps. Staff provided information on a potential lake watcom wershed property acquisition totaling.96 acres with three potential development units.
I will now entertain a motion to authorize the mayor to close the real estate transaction described in the city's executed purchase and sale agreement with the property owners Richard and Lynn Cooper with a purchase price of $352,500.
Closing is to occur on or around August 1st, 2025. >> Move approval. >> Motion by council member Williams and a second by council member Hamill. Any further discussion? Seeing none, all in favor say I.
I. Any opposed or abstensions? That passes 70. Okay. Old new business. Got that one. Okay. Uh consent agenda. >> Move to approve. >> Second. >> Motion by council member Hamilton. Second by council member Williams.
Any further discussion? Seeing none, all in favor say I. >> I. >> Any opposed or abstensions? That passes 70. Okay. We now move on to final consideration of ordinances. And we have five of them. All right.
Agenda bill 24594, an ordinance regarding water utility use rates amending Bellingham Municipal Code Chapter 15.08. >> Pile second. >> Motion by Council Member Hamill, second by Council Member Williams.
Roll call, please. >> Excuse me. >> Oh, Council Member Loquist. >> Yeah, I continue to be concerned about the rate increases, and so I'm still looking for ways that maybe we've overestimated the amount of costs coming up.
We received a communication today or over this weekend that questioned the King Manner WA King Mountain Water Reservoirs, which according to the input, city was estimated a $60 million cost as opposed to say a 10 to$15 million cost, which they came up with based upon a, you know, dollar per gallon uh estimate on what it cost to put in water reservoirs.
Um, that's a $45 million difference. I'm just wondering if if someone from the administration could address this. I really would like to keep these rate increases as low as possible. I really want to make sure that we really haven't uh padded or overestimated our need.
So, I don't know if anyone's prepared to comment on that one particular water reservoir issue tonight. So, Council Member Loquist, a couple things there. I think we can highlight that the that this is um this is the second or third time that we've been through this with the water system planning effort.
And this is not the first time that these projects have been identified and analyzed by our consultant team and included as part of the the the model. These are long-term projects that have been on the books for a long time and have been consistently um the same size and scale.
Um, additionally, this is a a long-term project that uh we'll be um looking at not all just in the first three years, but you know, this is this is in these first 10 years and in the the the second 10 years of that um of those of all this work.
So even though this is a initial look at this um you know those those opportunities will continue to play out over many years. >> I just hope we can I'm sure we do we'll take kind of a values engineering approach whenever this does come forward.
Thank you. I would just add that we have asked council um that we'd be coming back in three years to reassess. Obviously, if we have new information that is to the benefit of our utility rateayers, we will be happy to share and price that accordingly as we move forward.
It's unfortunate um that we are where we are and we're looking at the costs that we're considering. Um but I feel like we've we've covered this and the reality is as um director fun said this is consistent with our consulting experts over many years and several looks at this.
We've had a couple bites of this apple and we've had consistent feedback over these costs. So, any further discussion? Okay, roll call, please. >> Hannah Stone, >> hi. >> Dan Haml, >> hi. >> Skip Williams.
>> I >> Lisa Anderson. >> Hi, >> Michael. >> Hi, >> Chase Cotton. >> Hi, >> Holly Huffman. >> Hi. >> Motion passes 70. >> All right. Next up, we have agenda bill 24595, an ordinance regarding sewer utility use rates amending Bellingham Municipal Code Chapter 15.12.
>> Move for second. >> Motion by Council Member Hamill, second by Council Member Williams. Further discussion. Roll call, please. >> Council member Williams. >> I. >> Council member Anderson. >> I. >> Council President Huffman.
>> I. >> Council member Hannah Stone. Sorry. Hi >> council memberquist. >> Hi >> council member cotton. >> Hi >> council member Hamill. >> Hi. >> Motion passes 70. >> Agenda bill 24596 an ordinance regarding surface and storm water utility service rates amending Bellingham Municipal Code Chapter 15.16.
Second. >> Motion by council member Hamill and a second by council member Williams. Further discussion. Roll call, please. >> Council member Anderson. >> I. >> Council member Cotton. >> Hi. >> Council member Liquist.
>> I. >> Council member Stone. >> Hi. >> Council member Hamill. >> Hi. >> Council President Huffman. >> Hi. >> Council member Williams. >> I. >> All right. The motion passes 70. Next up, we have agenda bill 24597, an ordinance regarding the city's utility customer assistance program for low-income households amending Bellingham Muni Code Chapter 15.04.
>> Move third and final. >> Second. >> Motion by Council Member Anderson, second by Council Member Williams. Further discussion? Council member Cotton. >> Um, can we turn to uh Deputy uh Oh my gosh, what's your title for us?
Sorry. Um, brain fart moment. Sorry. >> Thank you. Yeah. Uh, Deputy City Administrator Forest Longman. Um, we were contacted, uh, this is in regards to the customer assistance program to go along with the new utility rates to try and defay those costs for um, those in our community that have the hardest amount hardest to pay these new costs.
And one portion is related to nonprofit agencies that provide affordable housing for low-income households and public housing authorities such as the Bellingham Housing Authority. We were contacted by the Bellingham Housing Authority last week.
They let us know that they do have um some facilities where the rent restriction is 80% of AMI and in this ordinance we have 60% of AMI. Uh so we are recommending to council to change that 60 to 80% of AMI so that all of their facilities will be eligible.
Uh this is on page 491 of your packet. And I did hand uh print out and you should have in front of you a uh a new hard copy that has the amendments in section C. Really straightforward last line of section C.
Um, it changes earning less than 60% to earning less than 80% of AMI. >> Council member Cotton. >> So moved. >> Second. >> Motion by Council Member Cotton. Second by Council Member Williams. Council member Liquist.
um from those uh same housing authorities, they uh they and other people raised the issue of um some kind of prorating scheme if there was both affordable units and not officially affordable units. And I think you suggested in your memo that you thought there was language in here that that allowed the city to take that sort of approach.
>> Yeah. >> Is it in here? And if so, where is it? And could we make it even more clear with like adding a few words? Uh put uh yes, you potentially could make it more clear. We do believe that says when it says if the premises has rent restricted um they're talking about the full premises, the presence of rent restrictions on that premises and nowhere does it say all of those units have to be restricted.
Um I will say we are we have some constraints with our billing system as to whether we'll be able to prrate that. So, um, we may be just having to issue that discount for the whole premises on a nonprated basis, but with the way the language is written, the mere presence of those on the premises uh, requires us to issue the discount.
>> I'm going to think about that for a bit. Thank you, >> Council Member Cotton. Thank you, Deputy uh Administrator Longman, for your your work and responsiveness on this. And we just know that our nonprofit housing providers are dealing with a significant escalation in um operational costs and this is one way that the city can make a meaningful contribution to the sustainable sustainability of affordable housing in our community.
So, um thank you administration um for your work on this. >> Council member Hamill. >> Yeah, good catch uh council member. I think the 80% and below would would cover everybody at the either the 60 or the 30 um within that uh threshold.
So I would support the amend amendment to the motion. >> Further discussion there was meeting is getting along. There was a first or as a motion made >> vote on the amendment. >> Great. Thank you. Uh any further discussion on the motion for the amendment?
Seeing none, all in favor say I. >> I. Any opposed or abstensions? That passes 70. Thank you, Forest. Any further discussion on the uh the original motion? >> Move approval. I >> think we got that. >> No, we already did it.
>> Yep. Roll call, please. >> All right. >> Okay. >> Council member Hamill. >> Hi. >> Council member Anderson. >> Hi. >> Council member Cotton. >> Hi. >> Council member Stone. >> Hi. >> Council member Williams.
I >> council member Lilloquist >> I >> and council president Huffman >> I motion passes 70. >> And last up we have agenda bill 24589 an ordinance relating to equal protection and equal provision of city services regardless of sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression and creating a new chapter of the Bellingham Municipal Code regarding such matters.
Move third and final motion by council member Stone and second by council member Hamill. Further discussion. Council member Liquist. >> Um I'll be voting in favor of this. I think there's important commitments written into law for what the city needs to do.
Um it's a lesser kind of sanctuary. It it won't, for example, guarantee that everyone gets respectful health care because we don't reach in and can't regulate those sort of relationships. It won't necessarily guarantee there's no discrimination in the workplace or misnaming in the workplace because we don't reach into those business relationships.
Uh if you read this, every single paragraph in here says the city employees, the city shall, the city this. We can regulate ourselves. Um which is why it's what I call it a lesser kind of sanctuary. But there's one area where we reach beyond ourselves.
Um and that is the important section F that we've revised several times. That's the section where we take on the responsibility and the commitment to reach beyond what is within the city authority to what is in the greater authority of state and federal government.
That's the one area where we can reach beyond our municipal powers into the powers that have vested other areas. Um in addition to just kind of advocating at a cultural and a values level. But that's the one area um where this this ordinance does reach beyond the municipal powers and reaches for a greater kind of sanctuary.
member Cotton member, thank you for your leadership and um yeah, I just I just wanted to say I um I have like a deep aversion to symbolic politics and um what I um ended up coming back to um as we had this discussion was my experience as a kid in the closet, gay kid in the closet.
And every day I'd open up my incognito tab on my phone and Google LGBTQ news And um and yeah, you you read all kinds of news stories, right? Some that make you feel more hope and some that make you feel less.
And um my my biggest hope for for this action today is that some kid on their incognito phone uh on their incognito mode can um read a news article about this and feel a little bit more hope that um uh that they are loved and they are perfect the way they are.
um is who they are and um so any thank you council member Stone um and um thank you for everybody who shared um their hearts and their experiences and um their strong commitments for this city to be a place where um every single person belongs.
So thank you. >> Um thank you to the community members that brought this issue forward to us. Uh this was really community-led and um you showed up in force um for hours in really uncomfortable chairs and made yourselves incredibly vulnerable at this podium.
Um telling your stories and sharing your struggles and that's a really big deal. Thank you for trusting us with those stories. It it makes me really proud that this is a place where you felt like you could come in um and share with us.
I uh I really appreciate that. Um I think it's really special. So um this was, you know, a big community back and forth effort. Uh, of course, you know, the we approve the final thing on paper, but there's a lot of input input from people um who've cared a lot about this and been really amazing leaders in our community.
And I don't think this is the end for those community leaders. I hope not at least. Um, you know, and this is h this is all happening. I will say on one hand it's a huge waste of time because it's a huge waste of time caused by people that are in power and making us um address it when this is this should be something we have moved on past decades ago and not be talking about these issues anymore.
But um we have a federal administration and a president that's bully and bullying the most vulnerable people in our country. Um, it's the worst kind of punching down. It, uh, absolutely breaks my heart.
It's frustrating and infuriating. Um, and I thank you to our community for um, also letting us share our hearts and where we stand and um, giving us the opportunity to say that trans people, non-binary people in our community are valued, welcome, um, amazing uh, contributors to our community and um we would be so much less without you.
So this is the opening of a door um in the communication between community members and and city government. Um, I I hope this again, this is not the end of of helping us figure out ways that we can better support um our community members that are the most afraid and the most vulnerable right now and shouldn't be.
There's no reason for this. It's it's absolutely ridiculous. Um, so with that, uh, again, thank you everybody. Thank you for being here. Um, and we will take a break after this before we go to public comment, too, so we can stand up and stretch a little bit.
Council member Anderson, >> thank you. Um, I was going to say my thank yous to certain people in private, but I just want to acknowledge Seline. Thank you. I know every movement's not about one person.
It's about a community coming together and supporting, but there's always the lightning rod. I know how much time goes into advocacy, coming before council, organizing, um, all the writing, the campaign, everything's been very respectful.
Um, which shows to your leadership. I hope this is not the only time. I know through various channels I was, um, saying, I hope you move to my ward because I would love for you to be in this seat. This is, you know, my ward, but not forever.
So, I hope that leadership um that advocacy, the reason why I handed out York Patties is I mentioned to a few people when um in the York neighborhood when we'd come forward, it would make council very nervous why we were organized as a community, but we had hand out York Peppermint Patties.
So, tonight I handed them out because everybody needed a little bit of that um that what I felt was York magic because uh we were a powerhouse when we came in and we usually got what we wanted. I know this is not necessarily what everybody wanted, but I hope it's what the community needs and it will help fill that need.
But I can't mention everyone's name because I don't know them all yet. Um but the all the faces who have been here um session after session and who have written it is very appreciated and again Selene I know you're not um the only individual behind all of this but again you have been kind of the face and embodiment of bringing this forward.
So, I really appreciate the work that you've done and on behalf of all the other community members who have been supporting you and supporting this movement, I really appreciate the work that you've done.
Um, it's pretty phenomenal and I hope it doesn't stop here. Um, keep keep us accountable. Um, and keep working for it. Um, I know you're not paid so do take a little bit of a break once in a while. Thank you.
And I probably owe you a lunch, breakfast, a coffee at some point where we could talk about just about anything else that your heart desires if you're if you're a little saturated on this. But we we have mutual friends, so we'll make that connection happen.
>> Mayor, >> I just want to make sure that staff is also acknowledged, especially the legal team. They've been step lock step moving back and forth under consideration of these amendments. So my deep appreciation to legal to other key members including Deputy Keller, the communications team, our equity and belonging manager.
Um this is right. It's important. It feels good where we're at right now. And I just wanted to make sure that staff was acknowledged for their contributions as well. Council member Stone, just briefly again just to express appreciation to the community for coming out and showing up and sharing your um your concerns and and vulnerability and recognizing that this may not be everything that you know was asked for, but acknowledging the the great work that has gone on across the the council as well as as the mayor highlighted the extent extensive number of staff members who played a key role in in bringing this um this forward.
And really my hope too is that, you know, similar to what council member Cotton said, I am not big on just, you know, checking boxes and saying things just to say them, um but really wanting there to be some substance and and um real tangible, you know, change or support or protections provided by um the actions that we take.
And so one of my biggest hopes from, you know, taking this action is to provide some um support to the community that really allows, you know, one of the things I heard, I guess repeatedly from, you know, the stories that have come forward is just that desire to, as Council Member Cotton was saying, to belong in this community and to really not have to focus on, you know, your identity as a member of the LGBTQ plus community, but the, you know, all of the other amazing things that encompass, you know, who you are as individuals and as members of our community and to be able to let that show first and foremost um and make sure that you are accepted and welcomed as you as you show up, you know, um however that may be in any place here in the city.
Um and so again highlighting that this is work that is sort of a you know commitment from the city but work that we expect to to continue going forward and during this time um and all of the yeah vulnerability and people fearing you know feeling feeling fearful just hopeful that these efforts as well make that that time not feel so lonely and and some acknowledgement that we really are um trying to face these adversities together.
So, just a big thank you to everybody. Council member Williams, >> I'm not going to say much, but I am going to say that with this struggle that we have been through and this whole council as well as all of you and our staff, our administration have taken a giant leap forward.
And hopefully this will set an example for other cities to follow through and not just take a mini step forward, but a large humongous step forward to protect the rights of all citizens that are affected by the these actions.
and for that I appreciate everything that we have been through to get to this point. So thanks other comments. Yeah, might be very frustrated with the state of the federal government, but I'm very appreciative that it gives us an opportunity to um become a stronger community.
So, that is well worth the time. Um if there's any silver lining, um hopefully this makes us stronger and more resilient. And I think uh another wise council member once said, "We've got your back." >> So, you do?
>> Yeah. Um, okay. Call the question then. All nope. We're doing roll call. >> Oh, Council Member Stone. >> Well, Council Member Cot was asking we don't need to read the changes into the record again.
Or do we? >> We did that earlier this evening, so that's sufficient. >> I just want to make sure. >> Roll call, please. >> Council member Cotton. Hi. >> Council member Hamill. >> Hi. >> Council member Lilloquist.
Hi. Council member Williams >> I. >> Council member Anderson >> I. >> Council President Huffman. >> I. >> Council member Stone. >> Hi. >> Motion passes 70. >> All right. Let's take a break. We've been doing this for two and a half hours.
So get up, stretch. Um how how many f >> five minutes. How many folks do we have signed up for public comment? >> 27. >> 27. So get ready. And uh we're in it for the long haul, but see you back in 5 minutes.