# Manufacturing Home Ordinance Work Session — Bellingham City Council Special Meeting ## Meeting Overview On a Monday morning in early June, the Bellingham City Council convened for a special work session to tackle two controversial ordinances aimed at limiting "junk fees" charged to tenants. What began as a scheduled three-hour session became an intensive negotiation over the details of regulating landlord-tenant relationships in one of Washington's fastest-growing rental markets. Council President Hollie Huthman opened the meeting at 10:13 AM in the Mayor's Boardroom with all seven council members present. The agenda included two related ordinances — one covering manufactured home communities and another for residential rentals. However, at Council Member Skip Williams' motion, they decided to tackle the manufactured home ordinance first, setting the stage for what would become a detailed line-by-line examination of municipal housing policy. This wasn't just routine legislative housekeeping. The ordinances represented the culmination of months of public engagement, including surveys and focus groups with landlords, tenants, and service providers. As Council Member Jace Cotton noted, they were attempting to align Bellingham's local protections with new state laws while addressing the unique vulnerabilities of manufactured home residents — some of the city's most economically precarious residents. ## Navigating the Document Maze Before any substantive discussion could begin, the council had to sort through multiple versions of the ordinance. Council Member Hannah Stone expressed visible frustration as she examined different drafts. "I'm actually confused as to which one of these to pick to start with because I see differences I don't understand," she said, pointing to inconsistencies between redlined versions and supposedly final documents. The confusion stemmed from having multiple drafts circulating — some showing Council Member Cotton's proposed amendments, others reflecting previously adopted changes. Council Member Stone noted specific underlining that appeared to contradict claims that certain sections had already been approved. "Is that red line adopted or not adopted?" she asked, highlighting the procedural complexity that often accompanies municipal lawmaking. Planning Director Jackie Weller clarified that they should work from the "Manufactured Home Ordinance as Amended on May 19th, 2025," which incorporated all previously adopted council changes. The version labeled "6/2/25" was the baseline, with Council Member Cotton's additional amendments to be considered separately. This organizational clarification allowed the meeting to proceed, but it highlighted how technical details can bog down policy discussions. ## Aligning State and Local Protections Council Member Cotton articulated his primary goals for the session: first, to align the manufactured home ordinance with the residential rental ordinance where appropriate, and second, to ensure compliance with House Bill 1217 regarding late fees, application fees, and pet deposits for manufactured home owners. This wasn't merely about consistency — it reflected a strategic approach to housing regulation that recognized both the similarities and unique characteristics of different housing types. The discussion revealed the complexity of regulating an industry where state law, local ordinances, and private contracts intersect. For manufactured home communities, residents own their homes but rent the land underneath — a unique arrangement that creates specific vulnerabilities. As Cotton noted, "These are our most vulnerable community members," justifying more protective regulations than might apply to traditional rentals. ## The Fee Definition Debate The first substantive amendment came when Council Member Cotton moved to add a definition of "fee" to align with the residential ordinance. The definition was carefully crafted: "Fee means any payment by the tenant that is proffered or imposed by the landlord but does not include the monthly rent or charges for damages. Fee may include charges designated by the landlord as additional rent if those charges are conditionally and differentially imposed on otherwise similar tenancies." Council Member Stone questioned why this definition was necessary, leading to a nuanced discussion about preventing landlords from circumventing fee restrictions by simply calling charges something else. "You can't just call your fee something else then call it additional rent charge if it still functions as a fee," Cotton explained. The definition passed unanimously, establishing a foundation for the rest of the ordinance's fee regulations. ## Move-In Fees and State Law Alignment One of the more significant changes involved replacing the concept of individual security deposits with "move-in fees" that encompass all upfront costs. Cotton moved to limit these fees to one month's rent total, consistent with House Bill 1217. "This is a case where 127 was more protective of manufactured home owners than our current draft," he said, expressing enthusiasm for the state-mandated caps. The change meant that landlords would need to consider application fees, security deposits, and any other upfront charges as part of a single total that couldn't exceed one month's rent. For manufactured home residents — who often have limited incomes and face barriers to housing mobility — this represented significant protection against excessive upfront costs that could prevent them from securing housing. ## The Application Fee Controversy No issue generated more debate than application fees. The ordinance initially set a flat $50 limit per tenant, but Council Member Lisa Anderson argued this approach was fundamentally flawed. "I have concerns on that because it's such a set fee and as things change over time, it's going to be pretty arduous on staff to constantly bring things up to amend the code," she said. Anderson proposed allowing landlords to charge "actual cost" with receipts provided to tenants, arguing this would eliminate the need for annual adjustments and ensure fees reflected real screening expenses. However, other council members worried about potential abuse. As Council Member Michael Lilliquist noted, a property management company could claim high administrative costs, turning a $25 credit check into a $200 fee. The debate revealed different philosophies about fee regulation. Anderson favored market-based solutions with transparency requirements, while others preferred hard caps to prevent exploitation. Council Member Daniel Hammill ultimately suggested adding CPI adjustments to the $50 cap — an automated inflation adjustment that would avoid both administrative burden and potential abuse. After extensive discussion about which Consumer Price Index to use and the administrative burden on city staff, the council settled on "$50.00 plus CPI-U for the Seattle/Tacoma/Bellevue region calculated on an annual basis." The motion passed 5-2, with Council Members Stone and Williams dissenting. ## The Refund Requirement Debate The ordinance initially required landlords who declined applicants to refund all application fees — a provision that generated significant discussion about fairness and unintended consequences. Council Member Huthman expressed concern that refund requirements might lead to discrimination: "I can see a situation where there might be some prejudgment made in accepting an application in the first place and I would hate to have a barrier for a first step to applying to a place." Council Member Williams worried that property owners might limit the number of applications they accept to avoid potential refunds, potentially disadvantaging some applicants. However, Cotton argued that the scarcity of manufactured home spaces and the mostly corporate ownership of parks justified stronger tenant protections. The refund provision was ultimately struck by a 5-2 vote, with the reasoning that the $50 cap (plus CPI adjustments) already provided sufficient protection against abuse. As Huthman noted, "If we're limiting application fees to a small and reasonable number, then I think the refunding requirement isn't as important." ## Pet Fee Prohibition One area where the manufactured home ordinance differed from residential rentals was pet fees. The council maintained a complete prohibition on pet fees and deposits for manufactured home residents. Cotton explained the rationale: manufactured home owners own their dwellings, so pet damage would primarily affect their own property rather than the landlord's. Council Member Stone expressed some ambivalence about this provision, noting her general concern that prohibiting pet fees might lead some landlords to ban pets entirely. However, the unique characteristics of manufactured home communities — where residents own their homes and pets pose little risk to the land owner's property — justified the stronger protection. ## Enforcement: The Central Controversy The most heated debate centered on whether the city should have enforcement powers under the ordinance. The draft included provisions allowing the Planning Director to investigate violations and impose fines up to $1,000 for repeat or retaliation offenses. However, this triggered strong opposition from both city staff and some council members. Mayor Kimberley Lund spoke forcefully against city enforcement: "This is an additional burden on staff that we do not have the resources for. We feel strongly that this section should be removed for the same reason it took this body so long to discuss and define the distinctions and definitions. You're putting this burden on our planning director to make these distinctions between private parties." Council Member Anderson shared a painful personal anecdote about explaining to a community member why the city couldn't help with their rental dispute. The resident's first response was: "Is it because I'm a person of color?" Anderson described this as "devastating" and argued that creating enforcement powers the city couldn't realistically exercise would lead to similar painful conversations and potential accusations of discriminatory enforcement. City Attorney Marriner raised fundamental questions about the city's role: "Is it the role of the planning director to be the arbiter of private party contracts? We do not believe that is a new area we should be wading into." He also noted the opportunity cost, asking whether the planning director should spend time on private disputes during what the city called "the year of housing." ## The Enforcement Compromise That Wasn't Council Member Stone attempted a compromise, suggesting they keep only the provision stating the city "is not prohibited" from taking enforcement action while striking specific investigation and penalty procedures. This would preserve the city's theoretical authority while avoiding detailed enforcement obligations. However, staff clarified that without the full enforcement framework, the city would lack standing to take any action. As the city attorney explained, "Without 090, we wouldn't have standing. The city wouldn't have standing." This all-or-nothing dynamic forced a clear choice between full enforcement authority and private-only remedies. Council Member Lopez argued passionately for maintaining enforcement powers, even if unused: "The problem I see with removing this is that right now we have an unhappy situation where there's little realistic chance of enforcement for practical resource reasons. But if we remove this, then we have no possibility of enforcement whatsoever, even under egregious conditions." ## The Education and Legal Aid Alternative As the enforcement debate continued, council members increasingly focused on alternative approaches. Council Member Anderson advocated for partnering with legal aid organizations and creating educational resources to help tenants understand their rights and connect with attorneys. "I would much rather make the commitment to contract or work with law advocates or have a pool of lawyers who are willing to work knowing that they're going to get paid," Anderson said. She noted that the ordinance's provisions for attorney fees and triple damages might make cases attractive to private attorneys. Cotton pointed out that Whatcom County already provides right to counsel in eviction proceedings, meaning many tenants would have lawyers who could raise ordinance violations as affirmative defenses. This existing infrastructure could help enforce the ordinance without requiring new city resources. ## The Final Vote When the enforcement vote came, the split was close. The initial motion to approve city enforcement failed 3-4, with Anderson's alternative motion to strike both enforcement and penalties sections passing 4-3. The opposing votes came from Council Members Stone, Lilliquist, and Cotton, who preferred maintaining enforcement powers despite resource constraints. The final ordinance thus relied entirely on private enforcement through civil lawsuits, with provisions for attorney fees, triple damages, and affirmative defenses in eviction proceedings designed to make private enforcement viable. ## Technical Amendments and Cleanup Beyond the major policy debates, the council made several technical amendments to improve the ordinance's clarity and consistency. They added disclosure requirements for utilities included in rent, clarified that fees applied "per application" rather than "per tenant" to avoid penalizing larger families, and aligned damage award provisions with the residential ordinance. One amendment struck language that would have applied the ordinance to manufactured home owners who sublet their properties, limiting coverage to traditional park owner-resident relationships. Another removed an obsolete effective date that referenced January 2025, with the understanding that a proper effective date would be set during final passage. ## Looking Ahead The manufactured home ordinance, as amended, represented a compromise between tenant protection and administrative feasibility. While it lacked city enforcement provisions, it established comprehensive fee regulations with meaningful private remedies. The alignment with state law and inclusion of CPI adjustments addressed concerns about both protection and administrative burden. As Council President Huthman adjourned the manufactured home discussion, the council still faced the companion residential ordinance — a potentially more complex discussion given the larger number of affected properties and tenants. The manufactured home session had consumed over three hours, setting the stage for equally intensive debate on residential protections. The ordinance, if ultimately passed, would provide new protections for residents of Bellingham's manufactured home communities while testing the city's approach to regulating private housing markets through disclosure requirements and civil remedies rather than direct enforcement. ## Closing & What's Ahead The manufactured home work session concluded at approximately 1:14 PM after more than three hours of detailed policy discussion. While the council had originally planned to address both ordinances, the complexity and significance of the manufactured home provisions required the full session. The mood at adjournment was one of accomplished exhaustion. Council members had worked through dozens of amendments, balancing competing concerns about tenant protection, administrative feasibility, and the proper role of municipal government in private housing markets. As Council Member Williams noted, the changes made to the manufactured home ordinance would likely influence the parallel residential ordinance when the council reconvened. The next step would be scheduling another work session for the residential rental ordinance, followed by formal introduction and public hearings before final adoption. For Bellingham's estimated 1,000 manufactured home residents, the ordinance represented potential relief from fees that, while individually small, could create significant barriers to housing stability for some of the city's most vulnerable residents.