# Balancing Tenant Rights and Landlord Remedies: Bellingham's Junk Fee Ordinance Takes Shape On a busy afternoon in Bellingham City Hall, the Committee of the Whole wrestled with one of the most complex policy challenges facing renters and property owners alike: how to eliminate predatory fees while preserving legitimate landlord recourse. After nearly two hours of detailed discussion, amendments, and parliamentary maneuvering, the council moved significantly closer to finalizing an ordinance that could reshape the rental landscape in a city where housing costs continue to strain thousands of residents. ## The Domestic Violence Commission's Annual Check-in Before diving into the intricacies of rental fee regulation, the committee received its annual update from Susan Marks, director of the Bellingham-Whatcom County Commission on Sexual and Domestic Violence. The presentation offered a sobering reminder of how housing instability connects to broader community safety issues. "Healing looks like being believed and supported by my community, being able to walk around town, go to the store, go to the park, living without hypervigilance, being able to wear my hair down again, wearing clothing that makes me happy, being able to experience joy with my friends," Marks shared, quoting a local survivor. The numbers paint a troubling picture of escalating violence in Whatcom County. Superior Court saw a 125% increase in domestic violence protection order petitions in 2023, while forensic nurses at Saint Joseph Medical Center treated 81 domestic violence strangulation survivors, up from just seven in 2022. More than one in four homeless households are fleeing or attempting to flee domestic violence. Council Member Daniel Hamill asked about integration with the jail planning process currently underway in the county. "Assault in the fourth degree is a domestic violence crime," he noted, "and that's typically when you look at the charges that are in the jail, it's usually like DUIs, DV, assault four, and then kind of goes down the list." Marks explained that the commission's work recognizes the complexity of who ends up incarcerated. "Sometimes jail can actually really create a big piece of safety for survivor, just for a couple days to get that protection order, to get in the house, to get out of the house, to get their children somewhere," she said. "And sometimes survivors rely on their partner for work and income. And sometimes coming out of jail makes them escalate." The commission is funded through $90,000 annually from the city, $90,000 from the county, and $5,000 from Ferndale, along with a $600,000 federal grant for court system improvements focused on making protection orders more accessible. ## The Great Lease Violation Fee Debate When the committee turned to the rental ordinance, the most contentious discussion centered on a seemingly modest provision: allowing landlords to charge up to $75 for lease violations, provided tenants receive prior warning and an opportunity to cure the violation. Council Member Lisa Anderson voiced immediate concern. "It seems like it's a back door to an additional fee when we're trying to avoid additional fees," she said. "They can put anything in that lease. Like you can't wear red on Friday. Not to say that they would do that, but it's just giving an opportunity to add fees." Anderson's worry was specific and practical: a landlord could write a lease term requiring rent payment within two days, then charge both the standard late fee and a $75 lease violation fee when a tenant pays on day three. "That to me, would be more money than typically what would be charged for a late fee," she observed. Council Member Jace Cotton, who had proposed the fee as part of his amendment package, acknowledged the tension. "I might draft Allen [the city attorney] into this conversation in a moment," he said, noting that nonprofit housing providers had specifically requested this tool to help prevent health and safety issues. Council Member Michael Lilliquist defended the provision as necessary balance. "I do see this as added to balance the ordinance, to realize that property owners need to have recourses that are something less than full on eviction," he argued. "This is just an administrative fee provoked by the fact that there's something ongoing with the tenant's noncompliance with a written agreement." The discussion revealed the careful calibration required in tenant protection ordinances. Too restrictive, and landlords lose tools short of eviction. Too permissive, and new avenues for fee abuse emerge. After extensive back-and-forth, the council settled on compromise language: the fee would be limited to once per month ("each month" after "$75") and landlords would need to provide a "reasonable opportunity to cure" violations. Council Member Hannah Stone suggested the reasonableness standard would depend on context—some violations might require immediate correction, while others, like hiring a contractor for repairs, could reasonably take weeks. "I agree, I think the opportunity to cure should align with the fine period," noted Council Member Hamill. "If the tenant or the landlord or whoever the party is has to bring in like a contractor, good luck in two weeks for that type of work." ## Defining Fees and Utilities A more technical but equally important discussion emerged around the definition of "fees" and the disclosure of utilities. Anderson identified a potential contradiction between the ordinance's definition section, which included "additional fees to rent month to month" as an example of a fee, and a later section explicitly prohibiting such fees. "I imagine on that first section the 'such as' is just to try to give an example of what a fee is," Anderson said, "but when you're using that and then later say that that fee is not permitted, I think given that it's part of the ordinance, I think it gives some confusion." Cotton agreed to strike the problematic example from the definition, cleaning up the language while preserving the ordinance's intent. Anderson also pressed for stronger disclosure requirements around utilities, particularly for tenants using housing vouchers. "HUD vouchers will pay the overall rent, but they don't pay utilities," she explained. "And so being in a lease and having to disclose that is an important element so that they don't change mid-game and say, okay, now you have to pay your water, sewer and gas because it's not technically been provided in the lease that they're covering that." The council ultimately required disclosure of both utilities tenants are responsible for and utilities included in rent, ensuring clarity for housing voucher recipients and other renters about their total housing costs. ## Civil Remedies and Enforcement Perhaps the most significant substantive change involved the civil damages available to tenants who suffer violations. Cotton had proposed simplifying the remedy from a complex formula based on monthly rent to a flat $2,000 for tenants and $1,000 for prospective tenants. Anderson expressed discomfort with the higher amount for prospective tenants. "A current tenant, in some sense, it makes a little more sense, but a prospective [tenant], I think that ceiling is a bit high," she said. The distinction matters because prospective tenants—people applying for apartments who haven't yet signed leases—have different relationships with landlords than existing tenants. Anderson worried about frivolous lawsuits from rejected applicants claiming retaliation. After discussion, the council split the difference: $2,000 for current tenants, $1,000 for prospective tenants, recognizing the different stakes and relationships involved. Anderson also raised concerns about the retaliation provisions, particularly language prohibiting landlords from "refusing to provide, accept, or approve a rental application." In a competitive rental market where landlords might receive 30 applications for one unit, Anderson worried this could be weaponized by rejected applicants. Cotton acknowledged the concern but explained that the provision creates only a "rebuttable presumption"—meaning landlords can defend themselves by showing legitimate business reasons for their decisions. "All the landlord would need to do is demonstrate that I took this action for a bona fide business reason," he said. ## Subsidized Housing Accommodations Throughout the ordinance, the council carefully considered how different provisions would affect tenants receiving housing subsidies. Multiple amendments addressed these concerns: - Late fees would apply only to the tenant's portion of rent, not the full amount when a housing voucher covers part of the payment - Nonprofit service organizations (including faith institutions and universities) could pay security deposits on behalf of tenants, with higher limits than individual tenants - Traditional subsidized housing programs were exempted from certain provisions These adjustments reflect the reality that subsidized tenants often face unique challenges and that organizations helping them need flexibility to provide effective assistance. ## Mobile Home Considerations Deferred Time constraints forced the committee to defer detailed consideration of the companion ordinance addressing manufactured and mobile home communities. Council Member Hammill moved to postpone the item, noting they were running significantly over their allocated time with other committee meetings scheduled. The council did approve the staff-recommended changes to that ordinance, but left more substantial revisions for a future meeting. The manufactured home ordinance parallels the residential rental ordinance but includes specific provisions for mobile home park dynamics, such as parking and guest policies. ## The Term Limits Gambit In the meeting's final minutes, Cotton floated a different kind of policy proposal: a charter amendment establishing term limits for the mayor and city council. His suggestion sparked immediate and passionate opposition from multiple colleagues. "Would you term limit a firefighter or a librarian or a police officer?" Hammill asked pointedly. "They all work for the city. They all serve the public's best interests. I think that by artificially creating a barrier to experience is shortsighted, foolhardy, and comes from a perspective that does not honor the long term commitments of people that have served our city for, in some cases, decades." Hammill, in his eleventh year on council, argued that voters already have a term limit mechanism: elections. "We have a current system right now for eliminating people who are not effective, and that's called voting. It's called democracy." Anderson echoed this sentiment, arguing that recent salary increases have made council positions more accessible to diverse candidates and that the real barrier to competitive elections lies in political party endorsement processes rather than incumbency advantages. Council Member Stone pointed to historical data showing that since 1904, only seven council members have served more than 12 years, suggesting term limits would address a largely non-existent problem. The discussion revealed deeper philosophical divisions about democratic governance and institutional memory. Cotton framed term limits as ensuring "good generational diversity with a mix of institutional experience in this role and fresh perspectives." His opponents countered that artificial barriers to experience weaken governance and that voters should retain ultimate authority over their representatives' tenure. ## Looking Ahead The rental fee ordinance, after months of development and refinement, appears to be nearing final form. The committee's amendments have addressed many of the concerns raised by landlords, tenants, and service providers while maintaining the ordinance's core goal of eliminating predatory fees. The legislation will need to navigate additional review, including staff concerns about enforcement capacity and potential conflicts with pending state legislation. City Attorney Alan Marriner indicated that enforcement provisions might need to be removed due to resource constraints—a significant change that could affect the ordinance's practical impact. For thousands of Bellingham renters facing a housing market where vacancy rates hover around 2-3% and more than 20,000 households are cost-burdened, the ordinance represents a modest but meaningful step toward affordability and fairness. Whether it can effectively eliminate junk fees while preserving necessary landlord tools will depend largely on implementation and enforcement—questions the council will need to address as the ordinance moves toward final passage. The meeting demonstrated both the complexity of rental housing regulation and the careful balance required to protect tenants without creating unintended consequences. In a city where housing costs continue to squeeze residents, getting that balance right isn't just good policy—it's essential to maintaining Bellingham's livability for working families and longtime residents alike.