## Meeting Overview The Committee of the Whole met for a marathon session on June 9, 2025, tackling two of the most significant tenant protection measures in Bellingham's recent history. What began as a morning work session in the Mayor's Boardroom stretched into the afternoon Council Chambers, as all seven council members worked through complex landlord-tenant ordinances section by section, amendment by amendment. The meeting represented the culmination of nearly a year of public engagement and policy development on rental fee regulations. Two parallel ordinances were on the agenda: one addressing manufactured/mobile home communities and another covering all residential rentals. Both aimed to limit "junk fees" and increase transparency in rental costs, but each presented distinct challenges and constituencies. The atmosphere was businesslike yet collaborative, with council members clearly prepared and engaged. Multiple amendments were offered and debated, reflecting careful consideration of how to balance tenant protections with landlord concerns. The presence of representatives from the Opportunity Council later in the day added important community perspective on homelessness outreach efforts. ## Manufactured Home Ordinance: Quick Consensus on Targeted Protections The session opened with final work on the manufactured home ordinance (BMC 24502), which Council had been refining in previous meetings. This proved to be the easier lift of the day's two major items. Council quickly approved the final sections—miscellaneous provisions and severability clauses—that had been left unfinished from their last session. The main debate centered on the effective date. Initially set for 15 days after final passage, Council Member Cotton proposed extending it to 30 days after third reading, with Council Member Stone seconding. "I don't think that's enough time for people to be able to update and have those releases reviewed by attorneys," Stone explained. "I don't think this is reasonable." But even 30 days felt insufficient. Through some procedural maneuvering—requiring a motion to reconsider since the initial amendment had already passed—Cotton successfully moved to set an August 1, 2025 effective date. This would give the roughly ten manufactured home parks in Bellingham's jurisdiction nearly two months to adjust their lease agreements and consult attorneys. The reasoning was straightforward: this ordinance affects about 1,000 residents in a contained number of facilities, making implementation more manageable than the broader residential rental market. Council Member Anderson noted that many of the proposed changes aligned with recent state legislation that had already taken effect immediately, so operators were likely already working on updates. ## Residential Rental Ordinance: The Main Event The afternoon's focus shifted to the comprehensive residential rental ordinance (BMC 24501), affecting tens of thousands of tenants across Bellingham. This ordinance required far more detailed discussion, as it would reshape the rental market for the vast majority of the city's renters. Council began with housekeeping, correcting a date error in the whereas clauses. Cotton moved to change "March 28, 2024" to "March 28, 2025" in a recital about public engagement efforts, which passed unanimously. ### Fee Disclosure Requirements The disclosure requirements in BMC 6.16.020 passed without controversy. Council Member Lilliquist praised the simplified language: "I really appreciate that this was simplified, and I think is clear and should be... relatively impactful in terms of things being more clear for the consumer." ### Screening Fees and Security Deposits More substantial debate emerged around BMC 6.16.030 on reasonable fees permitted. Anderson moved to align the applicant screening fee language with the manufactured home ordinance, capping fees at $50 plus annual CPI adjustments for the Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue region. This passed 6-1, with only Council Member Stone dissenting. The security deposit provisions sparked detailed discussion about nonprofit service organizations. Cotton proposed clarifying language that would allow nonprofits to voluntarily offer double security deposits (up to two months' rent) on behalf of their clients, but making clear this was the nonprofit's choice, not a landlord requirement. "The underlying piece about this is it's the nonprofit that says we're willing to pay and then the landlord may accept it or not, as opposed to the nonprofit is paying and then the landlord says I need two months," Anderson clarified. City staff confirmed this reflected current practice. "Most rental assistance programs have a dedicated fund for security deposits," explained one official. "Basically, it's an incentive to work with us, get us to the front of the line for our clients." ### The Pet Fee Controversy The most contentious debate centered on pet-related fees. The ordinance initially prohibited any monthly "pet rent" while allowing one-time pet deposits up to 30% of monthly rent. Council Member Anderson moved to strike the prohibition on periodic pet fees, expressing concern about unintended consequences. "My biggest concern, so I will make the motion to strike... any single time or periodic fee required for a pet to occupy the unit," Anderson said. "I don't want it to become more difficult to find units that allow pets. This is really my biggest concern." Anderson's reasoning centered on market dynamics: "I think the bigger challenge for somebody that has a pet, a bigger challenge, is finding a landlord that will accept pets at all versus having to pay a fee to have a pet in a rental." Council Member Lilliquist offered a different perspective: "Pet rent is sort of a classic case of why we're even here. It's a new fee that feels like a junk fee, because it feels like it's adding on a fee for something which was always understood and covered before." The amendment to strike the pet rent prohibition passed 5-1-1, with Cotton opposed and Williams abstaining. But Cotton wasn't finished. He proposed a compromise: allow pet rent but cap it at 2% of monthly rent, and prohibit charging both pet rent and a pet deposit for the same unit. This either/or approach would let landlords choose their preferred method while preventing double-charging. "Any single-time or periodic fee required for a pet or pets to occupy the unit that exceeds 2% of monthly rent, or any such fee if the landlord collects a pet deposit," Cotton proposed. The math worked out roughly equivalent. On a $1,600 apartment, a 30% pet deposit would be $480, while 2% monthly pet rent would cost $384 in the first year but accumulate over time. "I'm more comfortable with the 2% because of looking at the short game versus the long game," explained Anderson. "If I was a landlord making the decision... over aggregate, over time, if somebody rents for five years and they're paying that monthly amount, then there's more of a benefit." This compromise passed 5-1-1, with Huthman opposed and Williams abstaining. ### Striking City Enforcement In a significant policy decision, Council voted 4-3 to remove the city enforcement provisions entirely (BMC 6.16.090 and 6.16.100). Anderson led this effort, arguing for consistency with the manufactured home ordinance approach. "I'll make a motion that we strike BMC 6.16.090 city enforcement and also strike BMC 6.16.100 penalties," Anderson said. "Keep things consistent for the last one." This left enforcement entirely to private civil actions between tenants and landlords, removing the city's ability to investigate violations or impose fines. The vote was closer—Stone, Lilliquist, and Cotton opposed the change. ### Effective Date and Final Provisions The remaining sections passed with minimal debate. Council set the effective date as August 1, 2025, giving landlords across the city the same two-month implementation period as manufactured home operators. In recognition of changing housing policy at the state level, Hammill moved to add a new whereas clause: "With the adoption of recent state legislation House Bill 1110 and House Bill 1337 regarding middle housing and accessory dwelling units (ADUs), the City is likely to see an increase in small scale landlords." This acknowledging that accessory dwelling unit legalization and middle housing requirements would create new small-scale landlords who might need time to understand rental regulations. ## State Legislative Update: Mixed Results on Local Priorities The afternoon session included a briefing from State Representative Alex Ramel on the 2025 legislative session. Ramel reported both victories and disappointments for local priorities. On the positive side, the state achieved rent stabilization legislation that Bellingham had advocated for. "Thank you all for the leadership in calling on us again and again to support rent stabilization," Ramel told council. "Thanks for coming to committee meetings and testifying on behalf of the city." Housing investments also increased, with the largest-ever commitment to the Housing Trust Fund and new tools for accessory dwelling unit permitting. Western Washington University received $41 million toward heating system conversion that could connect to the waterfront district energy system. But Ramel expressed disappointment at the failure to raise local government levy limits. "Ultimately, we were not able to include that. I thought we were almost there, and the governor indicated that he would not support that proposal." Budget cuts also affected some programs council members cared about. The Recovery Navigator program—known locally as the LEAD program—saw a 20% funding reduction. "Taking a 20% hit on that is impactful," noted Council Member Gamble. "That program is upwards of 90% successful when it comes to diverting people out of the criminal justice system." ## Homeless Outreach Team: Boots on the Ground Success Representatives from the Opportunity Council presented an update on the Homeless Outreach Team (HOT), which receives $406,000 annually from the city. Manager Marisa Schoeppach and Team Coordinator Cheri Johnson outlined their "Main Five" operating principles: ethical, logical, safe, evidence-based, and rights-respecting. The numbers were impressive for the first quarter of 2025: 729 unduplicated individuals contacted, with 4,222 total engagements. The team visited encampments 297 times and completed 31 intake assessments for coordinated entry into housing services. "Usually when we come back from the weekend of everyone being off, there's roughly 15 calls that are solely about, 'hey, I'm ready to get out of this encampment,'" Schoeppach reported. "That's exciting to know that they're willing to trust us to have those conversations." Council Member Lilliquist praised HOT as "one of the strong spots in our system" but asked about barriers to greater success. The responses highlighted familiar challenges: limited weekend and evening coverage, gaps in treatment capacity, and long housing waitlists. "If we were able to launch outreach during the weekend, we would see a reduction in some of the calls that are going through to EMS and the cops and MCOT," Schoeppach explained. But expanding hours requires additional funding for both field staff and supervisory support. The treatment system continues to struggle with people who have both substance use and mental health needs. "You walk in with the idea of somebody's going to triage. They say, 'hey, this is a substance use issue.' You bring them over to the detox side. They say, 'no, this is a mental health issue,'" Johnson explained. ## Growth Planning and Welcoming City Values The committee also addressed two resolutions with less controversy. A non-binding resolution on countywide growth allocations passed unanimously, accepting projections of 30,310 new residents for Bellingham between 2023 and 2045. The final item was a resolution reaffirming Bellingham as a welcoming city, presented by Council Member Stone. This updated a 2017 resolution to strengthen language around discrimination protections and immigrant rights. "The City will continue to offer programs, services, activities, and facilities that are accessible to individuals with disabilities," was added by amendment before the resolution passed unanimously. ## Closing and What's Ahead Council Member Hammill closed the meeting by thanking the Fire Department and Alternative Response Team for their community assistance work. The meeting adjourned at 2:47 p.m. after nearly six hours of active deliberation. Both tenant protection ordinances now advance to the regular council meeting for first reading, with second and third readings to follow. If approved on the expected timeline, both would take effect August 1, 2025, giving landlords time to adjust lease agreements and practices. The ordinances represent a significant expansion of tenant protections in Bellingham, addressing concerns about "junk fees" while attempting to balance impacts on housing providers. The removal of city enforcement provisions means their effectiveness will depend largely on tenant awareness and willingness to pursue civil remedies. The lengthy deliberation reflected the complexity of housing policy and council's careful attention to stakeholder concerns. With rental housing comprising a majority of Bellingham's residential units, these changes will affect thousands of residents and hundreds of property owners across the city.