City Council - Planning Committee

Mon, August 10, 2026

Agenda PDF Watch Video

Agenda items

Vote records

Discussion summary

Transcript

Meeting summaryAI-generated

City Council Planning Committee — August 10, 2026

This was a regular Planning Committee meeting chaired by Council President Stone, joined by Council Members Anderson and Lilliquist. The session focused entirely on Bellingham's rental registration and safety inspection program, covering both a process presentation and a proposed ordinance with several substantive amendments.

Agenda Item 1: Rental Inspector Audit and Qualification Process (AB 25011)

Planning and Community Development Director Lion and Rental Protection Specialist Julia Burns presented a new framework for qualifying and auditing both city-employed and private rental inspectors under the Rental Registration and Safety Inspection Program.

Background: State law requires the city to allow property owners to choose either a city inspector or a private (third-party) inspector. Previously, private inspectors only submitted a declaration attesting that they had inspected a unit and found it compliant — the city received no data on what had failed, how many items failed, or how serious failures were. Since early 2025, the city has begun collecting that data, enabling the new audit program.

Key program elements presented:

Private inspectors will be required to reapply for approved status every two years, completing a training, a ride-along with the building official, and proof of certification from an approved home inspector organization. All inspectors — city and private — will be audited every two years. Audits will examine pass/fail ratios compared to program averages, credential validity, timeliness and accuracy of paperwork, and any complaints received about inspected units. Falsified declarations of inspection will result in immediate suspension. Repeated paperwork errors will result in removal after three occurrences. Missed deficiencies will trigger retraining and a ride-along, with one opportunity to correct before removal. City inspectors will go through the same audit process as part of their regular HR performance review.

Committee discussion: Council Member Lilliquist praised the program as "long anticipated and very necessary," highlighted the value of the ride-along component, and noted that with only about a dozen active private inspectors, the building official's pace of one audit per month is workable. He also commended staff for launching an online public dashboard where residents can look up any rental property's inspection history by address.

Council Member Anderson asked staff to clarify the difference between a routine audit (consistency-checking across an inspector's body of work) and an investigation (a specific due-process inquiry triggered by a complaint or serious misconduct). Director Lion confirmed these are distinct: audits assess broad patterns; investigations are a higher tier involving HR processes or formal review for third-party inspectors.

Council President Stone noted this addresses a long-standing gap — property owners have financial incentive to hire inspectors who pass their units, and the city previously had no visibility into what private inspectors were finding.

Council Member Anderson asked whether the federal NSPIRE (National Standards for Physical Inspection of Real Estate) standard — required for federally subsidized housing — had been reviewed for alignment with the city's program. Director Lion confirmed that the city's newly hired rental inspector (who started earlier in August) will be NSPIRE-certified, and that the city's checklist is "substantially similar" but not identical to federal standards, with room to incorporate lessons going forward. Staff confirmed the safety checklist is not codified, so the director can add items administratively without council action.

Council Member Lilliquist requested that an annual report on the rental safety inspection program — required by BMC 6.15.070 but not previously produced — be developed and delivered to the full council. He also asked for a parallel, high-level report on code complaints and resulting citations. Director Lion agreed this is now feasible with Julia's team in place, and asked council for input on preferred timing and format.

Motion (committee-level): Lilliquist moved to request the administration develop a council-appropriate report on code complaints and citations. Passed 3–0.

Council Member Lilliquist also raised Click Fix as a potential public reporting avenue. Staff confirmed it is not currently used for rental inspection complaints, though the capability exists. The current online reporting mechanism — a map-based click-through on the city website — was noted as functional, with email and telephone alternatives available.

Agenda Item 2: Ordinance Amending BMC 6.15, 2.21.010, and 6.12 — Rental Registration, Safety Inspections, and Rental Agreements (AB 25012)

Burns and Director Lion presented an ordinance formalizing several improvements to the rental program and clarifying the city's 120-day rent increase notice requirements. This item required a committee vote.

Key changes in the ordinance:

Audit authority: Codifies the building official's authority to audit inspectors and impose disciplinary measures, as described in the Item 1 presentation.

Inspection checklist: Makes explicit in code that the rental safety inspection checklist must be used for all inspections, that results must be submitted via the checklist (showing specific deficiencies), and that all checklist items must be up to standard for a unit to pass. This closes the prior gray area where private inspectors could issue passing declarations without itemizing what they found.

Citation authority: Removes the Police Department from the citation process. Currently, code compliance staff must route citations through BPD, then to municipal court and the prosecutor's office — a time-consuming multi-department handoff. The ordinance grants citation authority directly to code compliance officers within the Planning and Community Development department, giving staff more control over their own timelines.

Appeals: Reduces from two appeal opportunities to one. State law requires that landlords be able to appeal an inspection finding, so that appeal is retained. However, the additional appeal of a final city determination (revocation or suspension of a license) is removed, as multiple 14-day appeal windows significantly delay compliance and leave tenants waiting longer for repairs.

120-day rent increase notice amendments: This generated the most discussion. The current 120-day notice requirement (requiring landlords to give 120 days' notice before raising rent) has been exploited by some landlords requiring tenants to respond within 30 days — effectively forcing tenants to decide 90 days before lease end whether to accept or leave, well before comparable units are listed on the market.

The ordinance proposes:

Notices must be served consistent with RCW requirements (in person or equivalent), not just mailed informally.

Tenants may not be required to respond more than 20 days before the effective date of the increase, aligning with the state's 20-day notice requirement for ending a tenancy.

An exception for income-based subsidized tenancies, where rent changes based on income or household status rather than a standard increase; those tenants will receive 30-day notice.

Notices not delivered in compliance with the chapter are null and void; landlords may reissue but must restart the 120-day clock.

If a landlord misses the window to properly notice a rent increase, they must wait until the next rental term to try again.

Discussion on 120-day notice language: Burns flagged a prior draft that would have automatically converted a fixed-term lease to month-to-month if the landlord failed to properly notice — a provision that was removed. She noted this could be risky for landlords because month-to-month tenancies carry greater tenant protections under state law, and suggested clarifying what happens at lease expiration.

Council Member Anderson expressed concern that without an automatic conversion mechanism, an improperly noticed lease could simply lapse with no scaffolding for the tenant — potentially creating a pathway for eviction without just cause or relocation assistance obligations. She wanted something definitive on the books protecting tenants in that scenario.

Council Member Lilliquist read the ordinance language as already addressing this: rather than converting the lease type, the current language gives the tenant the right to renew under the existing lease terms, preserving the status quo without lapsing or converting. Burns confirmed staff would verify this interpretation against state law and provide clarification, if needed, before the full council vote.

Council Member Cotton called the overall amendments "pro-consumer" and noted the big-picture problem of tenants being pressured to commit 90 days out before any comparable units are available to shop. He suggested 65 days (rather than 20) as a tenant response deadline, reasoning that 65 days gives tenants enough time to comparison shop while giving landlords enough lead time for a proper notice to terminate. He also noted that the fundamental tension — fixed-term leases that can simply not be renewed for any reason versus month-to-month tenancies with stronger protections — is a broader policy issue he would like addressed, ideally at the state level.

Burns explained the 20-day figure aligns with state law's 20-day minimum notice required of tenants at the end of a tenancy. Cotton's 65-day suggestion was noted but not resolved; the committee did not amend the ordinance language on this point before voting.

Council Member Anderson asked whether reinspection results (not just initial failures and final passing declarations) should be submitted to the city, to allow tracking of how many times a unit failed before ultimately passing. Staff (Development Services Manager Kurt Afeld) explained that under the current enforcement structure, landlords have until the end of the inspection quarter to achieve compliance, and that requiring submission of each intermediate reinspection could inadvertently restart the compliance clock — potentially giving more time to non-compliant landlords. Anderson accepted this explanation and withdrew the suggestion.

Vote: Council Member Lilliquist moved to recommend approval of the ordinance as written. Passed 3–0. The ordinance will be forwarded to the full City Council for action that evening.

Key Takeaways

Inspector accountability tightened: Private rental inspectors will now need to reapply every two years, complete ride-alongs and training, and submit detailed inspection results — not just passing declarations — giving the city real data on what is failing in Bellingham's rental stock.

Citation authority moves in-house: The ordinance removes BPD from the rental code enforcement citation chain, streamlining the process under Planning and Community Development and reducing delays in compliance.

120-day rent increase notice strengthened: Landlords must now serve notices properly (consistent with RCW standards), cannot require tenants to respond more than 20 days before the effective date of a rent increase, and lose their window if notice is defective — closing a loophole that was pressuring tenants to decide far too early.

Annual program report directed: The committee unanimously directed the administration to produce a council-level annual report on rental safety inspection results and a parallel summary of code complaints and citations — a reporting obligation in the municipal code that had not previously been met.

Both items advance to full council: The ordinance was recommended 3–0 for adoption by the full City Council at its meeting the same evening.

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

What happened at this meeting

A presentation on the proposed rental inspector audit and qualification process

# Summary: Rental Inspector Audit and Qualification Process

City staff, led by Director Lion and Julia Burns, presented a comprehensive rental inspector audit and qualification process designed to ensure consistency between city and private inspectors in the rental registration and safety inspection program. The process requires private inspectors to reapply every two years, attend training including ride-alongs with the building official, and submit proof of certification from approved home inspector organizations. The audit will review inspector performance metrics (passed-to-failed ratios, missed deficiencies, credentials, and paperwork accuracy) with escalating corrective actions, including potential suspension for serious violations like falsified reports, while minor infractions such as late paperwork submissions allow multiple opportunities for improvement. Council Member Loquist, who specifically requested the audit program, expressed strong support for auditing both city and third-party inspectors and appreciated the new online dashboard for rental inspection history, though he raised practical concerns about conducting monthly audits given the approximately 15 qualified private inspectors available. Staff confirmed they will now meet previously unmet annual reporting requirements on rental safety inspections and code complaints with Julia's team in place, and clarified that the newly hired rental inspector will be certified in both city training and NSPIRE standards for subsidized housing compliance.

An ordinance amending BMC 6.15 and BMC 2.21.010, regarding the rental registration and safety inspection program, and chapter 6.12 BMC, regarding rental agreements

# Combined Summary

Staff presented proposed amendments to BMC 6.15 and BMC 2.21.010 that streamline the rental registration and safety inspection program through several key changes: requiring inspectors to submit both failed results and inspection declarations; bringing citation authority in-house under the building official rather than relying on the Bellingham Police Department; reducing appeal opportunities from two to one to shorten compliance timelines; and modifying 120-day rent increase notice requirements with exceptions for subsidized tenancies (30-day notice for income-based changes). During council discussion, Council Member Cotton supported consumer protections and suggested a 65-day notice period for rent renewals, while Council Member Anderson raised concerns about tenant protections if landlords fail to provide proper notice; Staff clarified that failing to provide 120-day notice of rent increase simply means landlords lose the opportunity to increase rent until the next rental term, and that the lease remains in its existing status. Council Member Loquist questioned the reinspection submission requirements, and Kurt Afeld, Development Services Manager, explained that state law requires submission of only the initial failed inspection and final passing inspection to ensure timely remediation without restarting compliance clocks. The Planning Committee voted unanimously (3-0) to recommend approval of the ordinance as written to full council, and a separate motion to request a council-appropriate report on code complaints and citations passed unanimously.

Agenda items (2)

Procedural (2)

25011ProceduralA presentation on the proposed rental inspector audit and qualification process

City staff will present plans for how rental inspectors should be trained, qualified, and audited to ensure they're doing their jobs properly and consistently.

What happened

25012ProceduralAn ordinance amending BMC 6.15 and BMC 2.21.010, regarding the rental registration and safety inspection program, and chapter 6.12 BMC, regarding rental agreements

The city is proposing changes to its rental housing laws to update how rental properties are registered, inspected for safety, and what landlords must include in rental agreements with tenants.

What happened

Additional votes recorded in minutes

Request administration to develop a council-appropriate report on code complaints and citations

aye 3

Hannah Stoneaye

Lisa Andersonaye

Michael Lilliquistaye

Recommend approval of ordinance amending BMC 6.15, BMC 2.21.010, and BMC 6.12 regarding rental registration, safety inspection program, and rental agreements

aye 3

Hannah Stoneaye

Lisa Andersonaye

Michael Lilliquistaye

Verbatim transcript available

201 transcript segments indexed

All right, we'll go ahead and get started with uh this afternoon's planning committee meeting chaired by myself, joined by council members Anderson and Liiloquist. We have two agenda items today. First up is agenda bill 255011, a presentation on the proposed rental inspe inspector audit and qualification process.

City staff have developed a process and requirements to be an approved rental inspector for the rental registration and safety inspection program as well as an audit program for both city and private inspectors.

These steps will ensure that all inspectors performing inspections for the program are applying standards consistently and thoroughly. Staff will present an overview of these new program program elements.

And first I will turn to director Lion. Good afternoon and thank you very much. Appreciate the opportunity to be in front of you all today. I also have with me Julia Burns who is our specialist and oversees the program.

Just as a reminder for the council and for the general public, um you authorized a couple positions two years ago in 2024. Uh Julia's position was one of those positions that gave us the opportunity to look at the rental registration program and to make some refinements and process improvements overall.

And so this is kind of this part of the suite of that effort. Uh so Julia's going to go through uh one of the things that council member Liiloquist had asked for is really that audit program given the fact that the state law and our local codes um require us to allow for both cityled inspections and privately held inspections and trying our efforts to try to make sure that those are consistent with the efforts and the qualities that our community expects.

So Julia's going to walk us through those and we'll get some in feedback from you all and then we'll move into the second item a little bit later. So I'll turn it over to Julia. >> Good afternoon, council members.

Can you hear me? Okay, great. Um, so I, as Mr. line was mentioning. Um I'm just going to go over the rental audit process as proposed. Um so a little bit of background. Um he did mention that state law requires that uh we allow both third-party uh inspectors as well as city employed inspectors to perform inspections for the rental safety inspection program.

Um as a result of that uh so in the past up until the beginning of this year we had only required that inspectors private inspectors submit their declaration of inspection which is um a declaration attesting that they have done an inspection in person and they have determined that their rental meets the rental safety standards as required by the checklist.

Um what we were not able to get through those declarations of inspection was information on what had failed in any previous inspections that the private inspectors had done. Um and also we weren't able to collect data as far as um you know what types of things were failing, how many things were failing, how severe the failures were.

So um at the beginning of this year we have started collecting that data um and that will help us um with our audit process. Um so the intent of this program is to ensure that both private inspectors and our city inspectors are um keeping the the standards for the inspections consistently um that they're consistently applying the checklist um and that they're interpreting aspects of the checklist in a similar way.

A little bit of overview about the program. So, um, private inspectors will be required to reapply to be approved inspectors for the program every two years. Currently, uh, city or private inspectors uh, just apply and then they're sort of permanently allowed to be inspectors from the program.

We don't really have any sort of um, regular checking and retraining of those inspectors. So, we want to make sure that that is consistently being done. Um, all inspectors, including the city inspectors, will also be audited every two years.

And I'll talk about specifically what that audit will cont consist of. Um, and then the audit process will be run by the building official and supported by our brand new rental residential rental inspector who will be responsible for taking the inspection results from the private inspectors and entering them into our system.

The program will include progressive corrective measures up and including suspension from the reg rental registration program approved inspector list for private inspectors. Um correction measures for city inspectors if we do find any issues with their performance will be through our standard human resources process.

[snorts] Um so the inspector application process I mentioned it's every two years. um they'll be required to attend a training or trainings, perform a ride along with our building in building official to make sure that the they're interpreting the inspection checklist as the city would hope they would be um and making sure that they're not missing any deficiencies.

Um they'll also be required to submit proof of certification by one of several approved home inspector inspector certifying organizations. Um the audits will review a fair number of items. So um the ratio of past to failed inspections comparable to the average.

Um we'll be able to do this down now that we have more information from private inspectors overall. um making sure that there were no missed deficiencies in past inspections that have either been reported to us through tenants or um in more recent inspections that we have performed.

Uh we'll check their credentials again. Uh we'll make it sure that they submit timely and accurate paperwork to the city. So I uh keep track of all of those inspections that are coming in and any interactions that we have with the private inspectors and I keep those in a spreadsheet.

So I'm keeping track of anytime there are issues that we have with inspectors in that spreadsheet I will use as part of this inspe or the audit process. Um we'll also check to make sure there are no falsified reports or incorrectly passed inspections.

We have had a couple of those um and those are not something that we want in this program. We rely heavily on the word and the professionalism of our private inspectors and so we need to make sure that they are being absolutely scrupulous when they are u submitting those declarations of inspection.

Um, also again they'll need to attend any required trainings and then all in addition to that no complaints have been submitted about the units that they have inspected and approved because we do occasionally get um tenants calling and complaining after an inspector came in and wondering why they didn't identify certain things.

Sometimes it's it's a deficiency that is is regulated by us. Sometimes it's not. So I mentioned escalating corrective actions. Um this is going to depend um you know on the severity and the frequency of of the actions.

Um obviously incorrectly submitted and or incomplete paperwork is going to be treated a lot different than a falsified declaration of inspection. So, we'd like to, you know, give a fair amount of um assistance to those um inspectors, especially if they're newer to the program to understand how we work and how we want them to be interpreting the code.

So, um, we're going to give them several opportunities both for results being submitted late, um, or incorrectly filled out, um, but by the third time, you know, if they can't get it together, we're going to have to ask them to, um, remove themselves from the program.

Um the falsified and in andor incorrect declaration of inspection as I mentioned that is something that would be an immediate suspension from the program because we really do need those to be accurate and we need to be have faith in those.

Um and then deficiencies missed in inspections and complaint about inspected property received. We'd like to give them some more training and ride along just to make sure that they really understand the expectations that the city has.

um and they'll have one opportunity to fix that before they're asked to step out of the program. So, we want to make sure that both our city inspectors and private inspectors are both performing inspections as we would hope.

Um so, the city inspector audits will be part of their regular performance review as a city employee. Um we will do a ride along with them as well to make sure that they are also interpreting the the checklist as we would hope um and doing a performance review which will include any pattern of complaints submitted about the inspector's behavior in the field um with renters or property managers.

Accurate entry of inspection results into track it and phone calls and emails documented properly. attention um has been paid to other issues in the property and and making sure that they understand the context and the background of their inspection.

Um again, we want to make sure they're attending any trainings that are required, that they have valid credentials, um that they have corrected any issues that we have identified in past audits, and um making sure that they're applying the checklist standards as we would hope they would.

And that is an overview of that. I open up to questions. >> And if I may just add a little bit um on the end there with regard to those audits, I think it's important to acknowledge the fact that we go through that evaluation process, whether that's city staff or whether that's the third party and try to hear all sides of the equation and make sure that we give fair and due consideration.

We don't want somebody to be um getting an unfavorable result and then just filing a frivolous complaint against somebody as a way to retaliate against them. So we wouldn't expect that to fly with city staff.

We don't certainly want to put our third party auditors in that same uh situation. But it is important to you know assess the facts and to begin and give a fair consideration to both uh all sides I should say.

Okay, committee. Council member Liquist. >> Yes. Uh, first of all, uh, this is a long anticipated and in my view a very necessary improvement. I'm I'm very happy to see this well thoughtout program coming forward.

Uh, I appreciate very much that we're auditing our own inspectors as well as third party. That only makes sense. Um, I also appreciate the ridealong component to training. I did a ride along with some of our inspectors.

It was very enlightening when you could just point out directly, see it's like this, but if it was like that, then so and so. I think that's a that hands-on component is good. I was kind of surprised when it read that we're that the building officials expect to undertake approximately one audit per month.

And then I looked right now, they're currently listed only 15 qualified private inspectors. At least one of them has a defunct website. So there's really only about a dozen or once a month I get through them.

I also looked at some of those uh private inspectors and some of them are highly qualified building inspectors in their own right. So that was reassuring. Even so, I think it's necessary to verify this.

Um I I still would like to check that a highly qualified professional really is still a highly qualified professional. Um so I I appreciate those components. I will have another question, but I also want to point out one thing and give enormous kudos, which is that now the administration has created an online dashboard for our rental inspections.

You can go online, enter an address, look at a map, identify the property, and look up its inspection history. Right now, that inspection history is kind of shallow, but that's exactly what you said, Ms.

Burns, will be added to in future years. That dashboard will be more and more valuable. Um, it has value at the moment, but it that value will only increase in time. So, those are the end of my comments uh at the moment.

>> Council member Anderson. >> Thank you. Um my question because I just would like a little clarification. I I've learned not to make assumptions. Um under the city impact and background, Council Member Loquist mentioned the um building official will need to undertake approximately one audit per month, which should take roughly three hours.

I'm assuming that the audit is looking at perhaps like there was we're going to randomly audit to make sure that something that stated was in compliance it it's in compliance. Is that going to be um just like one unit gets audited?

Is it the records that get audited? if you could kind of define a little bit better what is audited and if it is units um in a rental area. Um is that just one rental unit and is that audit different than if somebody has complained and uh an inspector goes in and finds out that there are issues then that could trigger an audit.

So is it the same thing or is there just randomized audit and then there will be audits for the complaint system for things that we find that are not in compliance. So if you could delineate or define those.

>> Sure. That's a great question. Um so I think it's yes both sort of. Um so uh in the case of um we're we're focusing on the inspector themselves rather than units in a specific geographic area. So we will be looking back through the inspector's work over the past two years and looking at sort of what we're seeing patterns wise.

Um, and as I mentioned, I'm keeping track on a spreadsheet of any sort of complaints um, issues that I've received um, notice of, whether that's through a complaint or through um, other inspections that have been done on that property um, or if we've performed two inspections um, because we were doing a compliance and a rental inspection.

um that if there's any inconsistencies that we're keeping track of those. Um so to answer your question, there's just there will be one audit process which is a scheduled audit process, but it doesn't mean that if there are um situations that arise that um you know we find that there's something serious like that through a compliance case for example um that we can't look at their records again.

Does that did I cover everything on that question? >> Yeah. And if I can elaborate a little bit, I just want to be clear, the audit program that we're talking about, as Julia has described, is kind of the broader assessment.

In our in my world, that's different than uh an investigation. If somebody's accused of something wrongdoing, whether that be staff or third party, and we have to go through, you know, a due diligence process to investigate that, that may take longer than the three hours.

that may be more severe in terms of the response. The audit program is just to kind of get that broad assessment of where some of that may come in. So if we have a member of the public that has, you know, express some concerns about, you know, somebody's treatment or didn't feel like, you know, was appropriately handled, then we would do that in the form of an investigation.

Can I >> just to clarify? So an audit would be the randomization checking to make sure things are done as stated but the investigation would be that we we have perceived or identified an issue because where we can ex inspect up to 100% of the units that is something different that's part of the investigation and would not be considered an audit because I've heard the word audit like auditing multiple sites to see if that was a one-off or if It's a systematic problem.

I wanted to make sure we're talking about two different things and not >> Yeah, the audit is intended to make sure that there's consistency and continuity between the third party and the city staff as Julia had mentioned.

Um, if we get those inspection results and they seem to be disproportionate in one direction or the other, there doesn't seem to be the consistency with how things have evolved over the course of time.

We wanted the ability to go out, audit, train to do a lot of those things. It's it's I would view it in terms of kind of a voluntary compliance and trying to make sure that again there's that degree of consistency and continuity throughout the program.

The investigations are kind of an higher tier of concern. um you may be that a member of the public um has expressed you know displeasure with a a particular set of circumstances and then we go through if it's a city staff personnel we'll go through it the our evaluation our progressive discipline if it's appropriate we work with uh HR and the representation for the employee and there's a very specific process that we'll go through in that respect we want to give some similar difference to the third party and not just make assump ions, but we want to go through and evaluate those particular details and give the opportunity to again hear all sides of that before up until we, you know, decide if it's appropriate to dismiss them from the program.

So, it's just a distinction between severity in my opinion. >> Thank you. [snorts] >> Then I'll take a go and pass it to Council Member Loquist and then I know Council Member Williams also has a question.

Um, no questions necessarily. Just noting that um, number one, very happy that this council approved um, for the rental protection specialist position to be created. I think there was definitely a need and um, really happy to see some of your work presented to us here and there is much to come, I'm sure.

Um this was an issue when we were reviewing the um rental inspection program a couple of years ago after it had only been in existence for a couple of years. This seemed like a really clear um hole that needed to be filled at least with there were a lot of questions um because the the state requires uh property owners to um have the choice of a private inspector.

it. I was always curious why would someone choose a private inspector over a um a city inspector. Um and there was a lot of mystery kind of around you know what what was what um kind of inspections were the private inspector inspectors doing and what kind of results were they seeing because we weren't requiring any information.

And of course, a property owner is paying this in this private inspector that they are hiring. And so, the property owner has an interest in passing that inspection. So, I'm glad that that these um these questions are are are being answered um for us and um that we've solidified that process a little bit and made it um more consistent and have more confidence in that in that process.

Um and noted we won't be this this agenda item does not have action requested but the next one does and it is related. So um and we have until 2:15 uh for the No, we have until 2:45 for this uh committee.

So uh Council Member Loquist. >> Yes. Thank you. I I want to begin by reminding us how important this program is. This is about safety, health, and habitability. The checklist in here is like basic things.

Are the pipes leaking? Is there, you know, cold wind coming through the window because the the it doesn't seal closely? C can you get out of your bedroom? Is there no operable window or ventilation? These are pretty important uh items.

And so this program, it's important that it succeed. And the general theme I would say is that we need to gather the data necessary to evaluate and approve the effectiveness of the program because so much is at stake.

So with that in mind, I want to ask about three sources of information and hopefully three reports or information that could come back to the city council. One, uh, per the municipal code section, uh, BMC 615070, a report on the rental safety inspection program is due back to the council.

We've heard about some of those numbers already. Um, I'm wondering when we would see that report where it really lists out all the number of inspections that are occurring, the number of units that are being inspected, what those results are.

Um, with the dashboard, it seems to me you're you're automating a lot of that. But I would, but we're due, the council is due an actual report to delivered to us. So, I want to ask about that. And then I'd like to ask about the possibility of a parallel report.

And that parallel report would have to do with code complaints and whether or not they resulted in citations. So, there's two routes at least to finding a problem. One is we inspect and oops, there it is and then there might be a citation and a follow-up.

The other is that there's a complaint and then there might be a follow-up and there might be a citation. And I think it's important in both cases that we kind of know the rate that these are occurring and at least how many of them result in citations or necessary corrective actions.

So, a when might we see the annual report on the safety inspections? And um how easy or easy how how feasible would it be to come up with uh kind of an abbreviated report that had to do with um code complaints and citations that result from them?

>> Thank you. And uh I'll echo a little bit of Council Member Husman's comments and it's nice to have Julia and her team uh and it is it is a team that is working on this because it gives us the capacity that we haven't had in years past.

So to your point, Council Member Liquist, um yes, the the code does require the annual reporting. we have not been um able to meet that expectation leading up to this, but with Julia's team now in place, we certainly feel like uh that is an opportunity and we can certainly carry that work forward.

Um I would almost answer it with another question in terms of we can think through the timing of that eligibility. we see uh probably the biggest distinction in the rental marketplace are the students and the timing of that but I don't know if that directly influences that.

So we can talk through what time of year you might think. Do you want the you want it based on a calendar year? Do we want So we can give that some consideration and come back to you with um that. But the intention behind that is to give you this is the number of units that we have in the program.

This is kind of the past fail rate. These are some of the topics that come up to uh question consistently and what we're doing to try to address an education and information campaign around those particular topics.

So, we can start to work through. I would encourage you as we develop that report for your consideration. If there's if there's particular items you'd like to see in that, we'd like to know because um that's something that we may give you the first iteration and then we can we can continue to refine that as we go through it.

Um, that's something that we can do and I'll work with Julie and her team to to start producing that at least in in its initial format. um with regard to the parallel report you're talking about on the code enforcement that I think there's a distinction that we should make uh between those two and I think your comments started to get to that point which is the rental safety inspection program is uh it's an expanded but it's about a 14 item checklist that is very specific to the life uh safety issues and habitability for that rental unit.

that is a um very different set of um thresholds between code enforcement and property international property maintenance code requirements. And so oftent times um though they're not mutually exclusive, but the the latter is a lot more involved than that.

And so we have uh the more egregious properties that go into that code enforcement criteria that involves a very uh hopefully not too lengthy but a very uh judicious process where we're whereby we're giving opportunity for corrections and compliance.

That's ultimately the goal, right? Is a safe habitable space. Um, but if somebody's not voluntarily complying, then we have to go through and engage the police department for citations because currently they're the only entity within the city that has citation authority.

And then we have to go through the prosecutor's office. And so the bandwidth for that can often times um extend out the time frame for uh involuntary compliance associated with that. So we can certainly work to develop a report that will do that but just understand that the resolution on those things is often not always in within our control.

That >> that's totally understood. There the section of the code refers to the annual report and this the next few lines are like and city council oversight or review. >> Um we're at at an oversight and review level.

I don't expect great detail but you know orders the magnitude of like what is the problem? what are the usual finding rates? Um, I I think that would be an appropriate council level report, less detail.

>> That's fair. And we can we can work to make that happen. >> Would the administration appreciate that that was in the form of a motion? [snorts] >> Yeah. I would like to make a motion that we request the administration uh to develop a council appropriate report on code complaints and citations.

>> Take a Okay. >> Can we vote as a full I think we can only vote as a committee, right? >> We don't need a >> We can only vote as a committee. >> This is a committee action. >> Yeah. So, we don't Yeah, we won't need a second.

Um but it would be the three of us voting. Okay. Uh any further discussion on the motion >> on motion >> on the motion for the committee? Seeing none, all in favor say I. >> I. >> I. Any opposed or abstensions?

Motion passes. 30. >> Council member Williams. I only have >> my only question is I was looking at the chart on page 48 about um the um how an inspector could be disciplined for doing the wrong thing.

[laughter] Um, has there been any thought, let's say I'm an inspector and I've been suspended? Um, what would I have to do to not be suspended? So, um, in order to obtain the basically the ability to get into the program, you have to go through kind of the the training process, the Ryong process.

I think um if we have somebody that is uh egregious enough to where they're jumping right to that program suspension and the more training and the ride alongs that have you know have gone into getting us to that point weren't enough.

Um, I think quite frankly the it would have to be a demonstration on the third party's uh point that they've that they've committed to that. And so what does that look like? Uh, I think that's going to I think time will tell.

We don't have a we don't have an answer. We haven't experienced that at this point. Um, I think that part of what our consideration is is do we feel like we have the capacity within the existing program to ma maintain the pace that our community expects and if if we have somebody who has intentionally and egregiously violated that and we remove that, I don't know that we would be very quick to welcome them back, but it's not to say that it's inconceivable.

>> Anderson, thank you. I'm always kind of wondering when's the best time to bring something up and ask a question. And this seems like since we're talking about rental, licensing, inspecting, it probably the right time.

Um, and I know you're relatively new and I'm assuming uh, Director Lions has probably heard of this, but um, I think the beginning of 2025, I think federally um, the Nspire was passed. It's the national standard for physical inspection of real estate and it was passed for basically subsidized housing.

So it is kind of like a rental licensing inspection program but for subsidized housing which is administered by the federal level. And um they have like different training and resources for people which is a great bonus.

And I'm wondering if anyone has looked into our program and and the criteria for that and is it considered equal or are there aspects of Inspire that we would benefit from? Um I kind of look at it as if there are two different rental inspection uh criteria if you're in subsidized housing versus not.

it makes sense eventually to align it if maybe Inspire might be a little bit better and doesn't uh I would assume it doesn't uh conflict with state law. I'm just wondering has staff or anybody looked into that?

Um and if not um I don't want to necessarily put it on your work agenda today since we have another motion already, but um don't be surprised if I don't in the future. So, um I can give you a a fairly quick and concise answer to that and that is in our rental rehab program, we do have a requirement for the inspired training.

When we were going through the process u through the council support of hiring a new rental inspector, part of what we incorporated into that job description uh was taking on that body of work that our housing rehab program.

And so now the rental inspector, we just hired a gentleman earlier this month, started with us, will be going through and will be inspire certified as well. So they will they will have the opportunity to have both uh the city training as well as that federal training.

>> But are we inspecting our rental stock to the same level even though they're certified? I mean, is the listing of the things, you know, the 15 or 18 things that we're checking, are they identical or are there things >> they are substantially similar?

I would not say that they're identical because there are some different uh federal funding criteria and requirements that go through that. But what as we get that in gentleman involved in some of that, we can certainly look to see if there's lessons that we can take from the Inspire program and inform our own.

Just to clarify, so I would assume adding a few additional items, should it be deemed it would be beneficial, that would be an administrative decision versus council saying we want I mean we could say we want these three things on there, but I assume it would be more of a um a staff programmatic to add to the list.

It's not council wouldn't have to approve that part. this. Yeah, the safety checklist is not codified in and of itself. So, that would be a stop. >> Wonderful. Good to hear that uh our new employee will be certified in that and hopefully looking at a lens of making improvements.

Thanks. >> And I should say our previous employee that just retired also is certified in that program. >> Council member Loquist. >> Yeah. One final thing. Um is Cclick fix an avenue for reporting at all?

And on a side note, I tried to use the city's website to find Cclick Fix and enter it in the search engine. It did not come up. So, we should maybe make Cclick Fix a little easier to find >> at this time.

The answer is no. Okay. It it does it have the capability. Do other jurisdictions use it in that capacity? Yes. But right now, we use it predominantly for public works work order items and noise complaints that go typically to the police department.

and it hasn't gone so far as as this. >> I'm fine with that because on the website I did note there was a really nice click-through link. If you would like to report something, it goes to a map, you can click the property.

I think we have a good online reporting mechanism and I assume there's an email or telephone equivalent. >> If there's nothing further on this agenda item, we will move to the next which is similar and related.

Uh, agenda bill 255012, an ordinance amending BMC 6.15 and BMC 2.21.010 regarding the rental registration and safety inspection program and chapter 6.12 BMC regarding rental agreements. The ordinance proposes to amend BMC 6.15 rental registration and safety inspection program in several ways.

It authorizes the building official to undertake audits of inspectors performing inspections under the chapter and applicable disciplinary measures. It intro introduces requirements and processes for using the rental safety inspection checklist for inspections performed under the chapter.

It also refineses the process for sending licenses to code compliance, including authorizing code compliance officers to issue citations. Amendments to chapter 6.12 will provide guidance and limitations on rent increase notices.

Go ahead and turn it back to Director Lion. >> Thank you. I'll be very brief. Um these are essentially the suite of code amendments that go along in part with what we were just previously talking about, but there are a few other um extensions beyond just that that Julia will go over.

>> Good afternoon again. Um so the background on this is um as we have been implementing the program both me and staff prior to me um we've identified a handful of ways that we can make the program a little bit more streamlined standardized and clarify some things as well as having some input through council that um on changes that council would like to see.

So, um, the intent of this is to make some fairly substantial changes to title six, um, to refurther further refine our inspection and compliance process and to clarify the 120day rent increase notice.

Um, the key changes that we're going to make, um, the audit process was we just discussed, oh, pardon me, I should be advancing these slides here. um use of the safety inspection checklist. Um giving the director the authority to issue citations versus having them um be issued by the Bellingham Police Department.

Limit to one appeal opportunity and updated requirements, exemptions, and penalties for the 120day rent increase notices. So, I've gone over the audit process in fairly great detail, but just to review, um, all residential rental inspectors, both city and private, um, will need to do performance reviews, ride alongs, have their credentials checked for current status, um, an inspection, a history review of their inspections, and, um, compare pairing their approval and failure statistics to the the average um, the safety inspection checklist.

list is a checklist that um the director adopts um to ensure that all rentals are meeting a certain level of safety um a certain level of safety um and they must be used for all rental inspections. Um the co the code we've been using the rental checklist now for um over a year um but we haven't put that in the code.

So we wanted to make sure that it was clear that that was required and how inspectors need to be using and submitting that checklist. So um the the code will now state that they need to be used for all inspections under the program.

The results must be submitted via the checklist so we can see um specifically what deficiencies have been identified. Um all checklist items must be up to standards for the inspection to pass. So for private inspectors, if they identify just one thing on that list, then that is a failed inspection and it makes it very clear for third party inspectors to understand what is a past inspection and what is a failed inspection.

It leaves a lot less gray area than it has possibly in the past. Um and inspectors are responsible for submitting both failed inspection results and declarations of inspection. So, I talked about this a little bit before, but um it means that we'll both have the information on what failed, how many inspections they performed, and um how serious the issues were before they were able to issue the declaration of inspection.

It also gives us information on how long it took between the first inspection and the final declaration of inspection, which I think is helpful information to have. Uh issuing citations. So, um, as director Lion mentioned, um, currently we need to, um, start the code compliance program process within our department.

Um, and then we send those licenses to the police department to issue the citations and then those citations go to the municipal court and then to the prosecutor's office. So, it's a it's a fairly lengthy process with um uh different transitions from department to department.

So, we'd like to just simplify that a little bit by um bringing the citation um authority into our department um where we can um choose to put our own staff time into it rather than um relying more on the Bellingham Police Department to make time for us.

Um I the way that the code is structured now, we do have to verify every time we issue a citation that the infraction is still happening. So it does take quite a bit of staff time. So we want to make sure that um we have control over that use of staff time.

Appeals. So currently right now um under the rental registration program, uh we allow for an appeal of a an inspection result. So um if a landlord doesn't agree with something that was found, they can appeal that.

And then at the end of the process, they can also appeal any determinations that the city has made that are the final determination. So a pass, a fail, a revoke, um a suspension. Um they can appeal that as well.

The challenge with that is that um every time we offer an appeal opportunity, we also have to offer a 14-day appeal period, which significantly lengthens our time to compliance, and it means that the tenants may need to be waiting longer to have deficiencies repaired if there is in fact a deficiency that's valid.

So, um it's pretty standard to just have one appeal for a process like this. And so, um, we think it makes sense to just have one appeal. Um, state law requires that we allow, um, landlords and owners to appeal, um, the findings of an inspection.

So, we need to keep that particular appeal on the books because we're required to. But the final appeal of our revocation or our suspension, we are going to remove from our rental registration program.

Um, and the final change is the 120day notice requirements. So we are going to um give an exception for certain subsidized tenencies where the um cost of rent is based on income um amongst other variables.

And so those folks will have a 30-day notice of increase, but that will be based on um changes to any sort of income or um household status rather than um rather than just a regular increase of rent. Um, we're also going to include um a requirement that notices for 120day um, pardon me, 120 20day notices are going to need to be posted just like any other notice that a landlord would be required to through the state law.

So, that will need to be served in person. Um, or there's a variety of other options that they can do as well, but they need to be consistent with that. um 120 day noticed requirements may also not require the tenant to provide a uh reply prior to 20 days of the effective date of the increase.

So a lot of times what is happening now is a landlord will offer will issue a 120day notice of increase and say you have 30 days to reply to this notice. um which is means that basically a tenant has to give approximately 90 days notice that they're going to be leaving.

But it is difficult for a tenant 90 days before the end of their lease to try and find housing and to inter and to be able to figure out what they're going to do at the end of that period because it's so far in advance.

Um, it also is aligning with RCWS in that the tenant must reply no later than 20 days prior to the date of increase. The RCWs require that a tenant give 20 days notice prior to the end of their teny um no matter what kind of tenency it is.

So, we're sort of aligning our code to that one. Um, we also want to make it clear that um, a landlord just because they offer a 120day notice of increase, it doesn't mean that they also don't need to issue advanced written notice for termination of a teny.

So, if a tenant if they issue 120day notice and the tenant comes back and says, "We're going to be leaving," um, they still do need to issue a notice to terminate that teny. Um, notices that are not delivered in compliance with the chapter are null and void.

So, um, if a tenant receives a notice of increase that does not meet the standards that we've laid out, um, it's no longer relevant. They don't have to worry about it. Um, and the landlord can only reissue notices if they are in compliance with the chapter.

So they there's nothing saying that they can't reissue a notice, but it does need to be 120 days in advance and it does need to be served in a proper in the way that it's required in the RCWs. Um, and I think the the final piece there, and I think this is something just to mention to council, um, in the language that council had suggested, um, it there was a suggestion that if a notice was issued in error, that a tenant would be allowed to continue the teny on a month-to-month basis.

Um, and then the landlord could reissue that 120-day notice. I would encourage council to consider just saying that a um that the if if the landlord issues the notice in error and there's no time to reissue that notice in a way that's in compliance with the chapter that the landlord needs to wait until the beginning of the next rental term to do the note to issue another notice of increase.

Because once a month to month once a teny changes from a month-to-month teny from a periodic teny that teny can only be ended by the landlord for specific certain reasons that are um generally related to either the landlord the tenant not paying or um violating the lease in some way.

Um, so it does mean that the landlord has a lot less control over how they choose to end a teny. Um, so it might be something to consider just saying, okay, if you miss if you miss it at the end of this lease, you're just going to have to wait till the next time.

So I I put that up to council just to consider both of those options and implications. [snorts] >> Okay. Thank you, committee. Council member Loquist, >> can we go back to that last point? Um because I want to make sure I understand it.

Um you say as as drafted, what happens if a landlord fails to follow the rules, doesn't properly notice, um that they the the teny converts to a month a month? I don't where in here does it say it converts to monthto monthth because I'm looking at it right now and I don't see that.

>> We took that out. We had gotten that suggestion, but we changed it to the current language that you see there. >> Okay, understood. Yeah, I I I understand why you you took it out. Um, it might be nice for the tenant if it converted a month a month, but it really is a conversion on the terms.

And this is supposed to be about whether you notice properly. It's not supposed to be a way to accidentally convert the the tenency terms. So, I see why that was removed. I can argue it kind of both ways on this, but that wasn't the intent.

>> Council member Anderson, >> thank you. Um, yeah, I I looked at that and I'm I'm comfortable with what is in there and not necessarily the other two options. And um I guess I'd want to know more your perception of um quoting on page 72, it may be considered quite a risk for some landlords like what that's kind of a very broad statement.

Um my concern is always those and we've discovered this with them. You know, they're giving the 120day notice but they give you 30 days to notify. So I always look at what could possibly be bypassed. um converting to month-to-month um does give some protection to the tenant because um my concern is if it doesn't automatically convert um are they bypassing a proper um notice to vacate and you know like a there's not a just cause eviction.

So with this not doing converting to monthtomonth bypass that process which if it wasn't a uh just cause eviction they're bypassing having to do relocation fees and such. So like if I improperly notice don't notice and then somehow the lease is allowed to just kind of lapse.

Um that puts I think the tenant if there's not proper renotification now I don't have a lease. What happens if it's not converting automatically to monthtomonth? I no longer have a valid lease. Where does that open up a pathway that could then go against the renter?

Um, it's just to me I'm more comfortable that it converts to some type of continuation of the lease and having some level of predictability for the renter to know what this means. Because to me, if the landlord's doing their job and they're giving the proper notification and there's proper timing to be able to renew the lease, then all is fair on the playing table.

If the landlord messes up, I could see if there's no automatic conversion, whether it's 30 days or we enact, they get four months, start over. I just I'm not comfortable that technically the lease could expire and there's nothing there for the tenant.

If that makes sense. >> Can I restate that question just to make sure I understand what you're saying? >> It was more of a concern. I mean, I'm I'm more comfortable having something on the books that defines what happens if a lease expires because the landlord did not do their job correctly.

Um, versus having no lease think in a wiggle room. >> I think if I understand you correctly, um, there's sort of two different things happening. So a landlord needs to notice to end a lease um to terminate a lease, but a landlord also needs to notice to increase rent.

So the termination of the lease, this won't affect that in any way. Um that will just basically that will continue as it was and and and the landlord will do what they what they will depend no matter what this says.

um with the 120day notice of rent increase. However, if the landlord does not deliver that increase within 120 days of the end of the teny, then um they just will lose their opportunity to um to do it until they start then until they can basically provide another 120 days notice prior to the end of the the next rental term.

So, um, they're basically just missing their opportunity to to do a increase. >> In here, sorry. In here though, on page 72, it says um, the first option as written in the proposed code language would allow a lease to transition from a specified term lease to a month-to-month.

So in here it's written that there's a specified term and then it moves to monthtomonth. So it wasn't to me when it's a specified term that means after that term it has expired or lapsed is how I would interpret a specified term and there was a suggestion to not write it that way.

So I guess that's where I'm getting that the term the lease expires because of the specified term has lapsed. So, >> I see what your question is. Um, I think that might be something we need to revisit the RCWS about because there are aspects of the RCWS that talk about um what happens to a lease once it expires.

Um, and it isn't that it automatically necessarily goes into a month-to-month, but we would want to check that to make sure because um, again, that would be an unintended consequence of of the lease reverting becoming month-to-month.

And without that specificity of identifying that, I'm not comfortable with the other two options that were suggested and replacement of it. I'm I I like definitive because that's what the first option is.

The other two does not define that. So yes, it maybe it needs to be addressed and written in a way that we don't have the unintended consequences allowing a lease to expire or lapse and have no scaffolding there.

that becomes the wiggle room for uh unjust cause for eviction bypassing having to do relocation fees. >> We can look into it and if we can get you clarity tonight, we'll give it to you and if not, we'll have to extend it out a little further.

>> Council member Cotton, >> thank you. I think these are really thoughtful updates and um uh yeah just to pick up on that conversation around the 120day notice amendments. I mean the big picture problem here well maybe start with the problem statement.

Problem statement people were getting rent and rent renewals um like nine months in advance and being given 30 or 60 days to respond before the rental market um that before any units are actually listed that they can do any comparison shopping.

So, I just think this is a proconsumer um uh move that can help people um be able to select the best option for them. And we just want to make sure we do it in a way that's um reasonable and implementable um for landlords.

Um which I think brings me to my question about there's a 60-day notice to not renew a lease, right? And so I think we would want to make sure that if someone is not renewing, the landlord has enough time to issue that notice to terminate that lease because it does automatically roll over into monthtomonth if if no notice is issued and no new lease is signed.

Um so instead of 20 days, I would be inclined to think about 65 days. Um, that's what I've heard from um, landlords and I've talked in the past and at least at 65 days a tenant can comparison shop and see what else exists.

Um, and I mean, yeah, the the fundamental like background inconsistency here is you just have a very different set of rights as a tenant if you're month-to-month versus if you're on a fixedterm lease where the fixedterm lease at the end of that term, your landlord can just choose to not renew for any reason whatsoever.

And I think that's a big problem. I think it's a big problem for how meaningful rent stabilization can be. It's a big problem in terms of protecting tenants against retaliation. I think it's something that we should address pre preferably at the state level, but certainly at the local level, but I certainly don't want to do anything to incentivize not renewing leases.

And so um I do think like a 65day um deadline to reply um makes more sense to me, but I'm open to other other thoughts. Um I'm really excited for this work group as well, by the way. And I think one of the things is we just have like now uh rent stabilization at the state level, rent increase notice, the relocation assistance chapter, and they all have different timelines and aligning those I think is one opportunity for clarity for both landlords and tenants that um would be appreciated by all.

So um anyway, this is this is great. Um but that's my two cents. >> I'll go ahead and take a go and then pass back to Council Member Loquist. Um I was thinking along the same lines as you were and council member Cotton curious um about why 20 days was chosen um because we do you know we we don't want to make it so constrictive for for landlords as well that that they um are also in a pinch um unnecessarily but then also making it reasonable for for the tenants to be able to um make the decision and and um find a new find new options if they need to.

Um, I'm curious why we've we've chosen 20 days. Um, and I also am cognizant that aligning days as much as possible because there are so many confusing requirements about days um is not a bad idea. Why 20 days?

state law um requires that tenants give 20 days notice at the end of a tenency. So, we're trying to be consistent with state law. >> Council member Loquist. >> Yeah, I want to revisit the proposed language because I I think if you read more closely, it may solve some of the confusion.

the if the the landlord fails to properly notice then what happens is the ten tenant has the right to renew the lease under the terms of the existing lease. It doesn't make the lease lapse. It doesn't convert it to monthtomonth.

It doesn't convert it to fixed term. It keeps the status quo. So we're not trying to regulate which way they should go where the this basically says whatever the status quo is, it just keeps going. We're not we're not regulating that.

but it doesn't lapse, it doesn't convert. So I think this language actually leaves it nicely alone and doesn't get us involved in it. So I I prefer this language. Um it's not a situation of lapsing. It's a situation of continuence.

Council member Anderson, >> just for clarification, are you speaking of uh the discussion points um on page 72 where it says the first option as written is what you prefer? >> Uh no, I prefer the uh option as written in the ordinance language, which is I think not the so-called first option.

Is that correct? The so-called first option isn't before us in the ordinance. Okay. >> Thank you. members. >> So, switching gears a little bit, I do have a couple of larger questions. Um, page 64, um, 6.15.100.

It just says in bold, director is authorized to make rules. Um, I'd love to have some examples of what that means because that's a pretty big blanket statement to put in here. >> That's a section that's in the current ordinance that is going unchanged.

So, we put the titles in so you could see the sequencing of the ordinance, but we're not proposing any changes. But, um, that's an example of the rental checklist that we were talking about where we may choose to add additional items on that rental checklist, but doesn't require us to come back and actually change the ordinance.

So, the director has the authority to make some of those administrative rule changes. Sorry, not on mic. Anyway, now on mic. Thank you um for clarifying that. I didn't catch the unchanged underneath it and I just saw the blanket title.

Um I do have another area um page 66 um 6.15.055 the inspection checklist deficiency inspector audit. I appreciate um the fact that the city um so number a last couple of sentences city written notice of each deficiency identified on the inspection list within 24 hours of the failed inspection.

So basically um we will now be getting a copy of failed inspections so we can track that. But if we move down um to the next section number three, it has rental units found to have deficiencies shall be reinspected until all deficiencies have been remedied.

Um my question is it doesn't specify that as each time it gets reinspected the reinspection would be provided. it would only jump to the the final that once it's met. And it it left me to wonder that when if we're looking at getting the failed inspection so we have data and we know what is failing it.

I think it is useful to then have a copy of the reinspection because if something's reinspected once and it passes or maybe it got reinspected twice and it passes, it says something different than if it was reinspected eight times for the same deficiency and it keeps failing.

I think that set of data is just as important. Um, and I think it would be a pretty easy change and I'm not council member Liiloquist for word smithing on the spot, but after it says rental units found to have deficiencies shall be reinspected until all deficiencies have been remedied.

Um and then um as adding in that previous part city written notice for each uh reinspect like see I'm not declaration of reinspection basically what I want to do sorry I'm a copy of the written notice of each reinspection shall be submitted to the city.

Period. And then um going on to declaration of inspection um may not be issued by a certified private inspector until all deficiencies have been removed. So, basically, I would like to have a copy of each reinspection submitted or resubmitted so we could track how many of those.

Um, I'm sure there was a better way to write that. Um, but I guess I would like to know from other council members if there is interest in having reinspections submitted. >> Just a note about that. state law requires that they submit the results of the initial failed inspection and then only the past inspection.

I think I think we can exceed that. That's not my realm. Um but just a note that that that would be above what state law requires. >> Good afternoon. Kurt Afeld, development services manager, planning and community development department.

Um, I think one of the issues I completely understand where you're trying to get at is make sure that we're seeing these ongoing um um compliance. We're getting compliance in a timely manner. The way that our current enforcement system is set up is that the inspectors, the private inspectors have a certain time frame in order to show compliance or property owners have a certain time frame.

it's the end of the the inspection quarter that they have to prove that any deficiency that has been identified has been remedied. So, in order to try and help speed up the the compliance process um that both council has wanted and and city staff have wanted, um we've instituted these new enforcement policies.

So, it's really happening at a at a pretty quick time frame. Um and we're really tracking that. Um, so I I think with our existing compliance process of really making sure that deficiencies are fixed in a timely manner, um, and the fact what Julie just mentioned, kind of that state law, the way that the language talks about having it, um, the initial and then the statement of compliance.

Um, I think our system is set up to be successful. um when you start looking at both of those um and don't necessarily need that additional language um because the the deficiency has already been identified and with our compliance process we're going to get um compliance quickly versus having us continually said or a checklist that says hey your railing is not safe the second time your railing is not safe.

Just thoughts on that. >> Yeah. So, to slightly paraphrase that, perhaps by reissuing another inspection, it could possibly start the clock again, giving them more time to comply, which would be an unintended consequence.

So, I will I appreciate that insight. Okay. And we are asking uh being asked for action today to vote to approve the ordinance. Council member Lilquist. >> I move uh that we recommend approval of the ordinance as written.

>> Motion on the table. Any further discussion? Seeing none, all in favor say I. >> I. Any opposed or abstensions? That passes 300 and will be recommended to the full council tonight. Right. Thank you so much for your presentations and the conversation.