## Meeting Overview On the afternoon of July 21, 2025, the Bellingham City Council's Committee of the Whole convened for what would become a substantive 53-minute meeting addressing civil rights protections and democratic processes. All seven council members were present, though Council Member Hannah Stone attended remotely from her car initially and arrived late to the session, highlighting the challenge elected officials face balancing multiple commitments. The meeting tackled two significant issues: finalizing an ordinance that would codify LGBTQ+ protections in city law and managing the democratic process around a tenant rights initiative that had gathered enough signatures to qualify for the ballot. What made this meeting notable was the intersection of policy refinement and procedural democracy—the council both strengthened civil rights protections while ensuring a grassroots initiative could move forward to voters. ## Ballot Initiative Process Complications The meeting opened with a scheduling adjustment as Council Member Stone was running late, prompting the council to reorder their agenda and address the tenant rights initiative first. Deputy City Attorney James Erb explained that Initiative 2025-03, which would protect tenants engaged in political activities from landlord retaliation, had qualified for the ballot. The council faced three options: enact the initiative themselves, reject it and propose an alternative, or defer it to voters in November. Council Member Dan Hamill quickly moved to defer the measure to voters, saying "We've done this before several times now over the course of the last four or five years and I would move to approve that we just defer and let the voters decide on this initiative 2025-03." This reflected the council's general practice of allowing citizen initiatives to proceed to the ballot rather than preempting the democratic process. However, the discussion revealed a procedural complication that illustrated the technical complexities of election law. Council Member Michael Lilliquist noted problems with the proposed for-and-against committees that would draft ballot arguments: "Currently, there's only one person in the against group and an individual Neil Tognazini who I believe is a professor up at Western has expressed a willingness to participate in the against committee." The situation became more complex when Council Member Jace Cotton raised a residency question about one of the applicants, triggering Deputy City Attorney Erb to cite recently amended state law: "I reviewed RCW 29A 32.280 earlier this afternoon. It was recently amended. The amendment just took effect January 1st of this year and the new amendments do require that individuals on these committees reside within the jurisdictional boundaries." This created a problem—at least one volunteer, Perry Eskridge, was believed to be a Ferndale resident rather than a Bellingham resident, making him ineligible to serve on the committee despite his qualifications. The discovery prompted a broader discussion about vetting committee members and ensuring compliance with election law. Council Member Lisa Anderson questioned whether business location might qualify someone for residency, asking "I know that their business location is in the city of Bellingham. I think their office that he works for is off of Northwest. So does it do you in interpreting that do you have to be a resident or would a business establishment qualify?" Erb clarified that the statute required actual residence within city boundaries. The council ultimately amended the resolution to give staff more flexibility in assembling proper committees while maintaining oversight of the process. They struck the specific committee appointments from the resolution and authorized staff to verify eligibility and work with the county auditor to solicit eligible volunteers. As Lilliquist put it, "I think at this point are either what Mr. Erb said. The administration can look and we can authorize substitution or we can also indicate to the auditor's office that you know we wouldn't oppose they're using their authority to also fill up the committee." ## LGBTQ+ Ordinance Refinements When Council Member Stone arrived and the meeting shifted to the LGBTQ+ protection ordinance, the discussion focused on technical refinements rather than fundamental policy questions. Stone proposed three minor amendments to subsection F of the ordinance, explaining her reasoning for each change. The first amendment involved changing "as outlined in this chapter" to "in accordance with this chapter" when describing protections for LGBTQ+ individuals. Stone explained: "I was thinking something might not specifically be outlined in this chapter, but in accordance with to me means in alignment with sort of the underlying sentiment of this chapter." The second amendment addressed consistency in language about the city's authority to oppose or support relevant legislation. Stone noted that "this section had been amended already at the beginning to address opposition or support" and wanted to ensure the language was consistent throughout. The third amendment was purely technical—striking "etc." from the end of the subsection to end more formally with "BMC period." Council Member Lilliquist added another small but important amendment, noting that "BMC is not actually defined earlier in the document" and suggesting they spell out "Bellingham Municipal Code" with BMC in parentheses on first reference. All amendments passed unanimously. The discussion revealed ongoing community engagement on the ordinance. City Attorney Alan Mariner reported on a morning meeting with transgender community members led by Selene Etheridge: "We had a broad-ranging discussion. I thought it was a very positive discussion. And I do know that Selene indicated that... she would be sending some additional amendments." This created some tension as council members received a Google document with proposed changes just as the meeting was beginning. Council Member Lilliquist raised concerns about the public record implications of discussing a live document that could be edited in real-time, prompting staff to capture a static version for the record. The proposed community amendments focused on three areas: enforcement priorities for federal and state laws, language about opposing or supporting relevant legislation, and clarifying requirements for city employees to comply with applicable laws. However, with limited time to review the proposals and concerns from legal staff, the council decided to defer consideration of these amendments to the evening's full council meeting. ## Old and New Business: Legislative Strategy and Committee Assignments The meeting's final substantial discussion addressed the council's approach to state legislative advocacy—a topic that reflected broader questions about the roles and authority of individual council members in a collective governing body. Council Member Stone raised concerns about community resources for landlords and tenants following recent rental fee ordinances, asking about developing template letters or forms that residents could use in disputes. She referenced work by the Northwest Justice Project and Washington Law Help in providing similar resources for state-level tenant protections. Council Member Lilliquist supported the concept, noting parallels in family law: "There are a couple areas of civil law where I think there's recognition that there's a lot of people who aren't attorneys who are trying to navigate a legal process. Family law is one area in particular where the Washington State Supreme Court has gone so far as to generate and in other areas hundreds of approved forms." Mayor Kimberley Lund offered to return with more information at the first August meeting, noting ongoing work by communications and planning staff to develop FAQs and other resources. The more substantial discussion involved Council Member Anderson's proposal to formalize the council's legislative advocacy process. Anderson noted that their first year working with lobbyists had involved an informal, "ad hoc group that kind of organically formed" to prioritize legislation, and she wanted to establish clearer procedures for the next legislative session. Anderson's concerns went beyond just process efficiency to fundamental questions about individual council members' authority to advocate independently. She noted "there was a lot of confusion when a couple of us wanted to send letters to Olympia or we wanted to go there and lobby ourselves and there was kind of question about whether or not that was appropriate because we had other counselors working with our lobbyists and I kind of pushed that I did not concede my legislative position to anyone." Council Member Lilliquist shared his experience from the previous session, describing how he had testified both on behalf of the city and in his personal capacity: "I did testify on behalf of the city in one regard on the property tax cap. In addition, I signed in a number of bills in my personal capacity and went down to Olympia in my personal capacity. I think everything I advocated was aligned with the city's agenda, but it sort of wasn't worked out formally." This highlighted a common tension in local government between collective action and individual elected officials' rights to advocate for their constituents. Council Member Cotton suggested using brief special meetings to keep the full council informed during the fast-paced legislative session, while Council Member Stone noted that their Friday strategy sessions would need careful consideration about public meeting requirements. The council ultimately approved Anderson's motion to have the mayor, council president, and staff develop a formal process defining roles and responsibilities for legislative advocacy, with the goal of completing the work by October to allow adequate preparation time. ## Looking Forward: Democracy and Process The meeting concluded with brief discussions of council retreat planning and the need to address external committee assignments before the next reorganization meeting. Council Member Stone emphasized wanting to address liaison commitments "in a meaningful way before we actually get to the next reorganization meeting because I fear that's just the nature of the work. Time goes by and then next thing you know the next year is starting." The afternoon session demonstrated how municipal government operates at multiple levels simultaneously—managing the technical details of election law compliance while refining policy language, addressing immediate constituent needs while planning for future advocacy strategies. The meeting's efficiency in handling complex procedural issues while maintaining democratic oversight reflected a council comfortable with both the substance of governance and the processes that enable it. As the council prepared for executive session to discuss labor relations and a potential property acquisition, the afternoon's work illustrated the ongoing balancing act between transparency and effectiveness, individual authority and collective action, that defines democratic governance at the local level.

### Meeting Overview The Bellingham City Council's Committee of the Whole met for 75 minutes on July 21, 2025, addressing two major items: deferring a tenant rights ballot initiative to voters and considering amendments to an LGBTQ+ rights ordinance. The committee also discussed future legislative lobbying processes and community resources for landlord-tenant disputes. ### Key Terms and Concepts **Committee of the Whole:** A meeting format where all seven council members participate in discussion and preliminary voting before items go to the full council for final action. **Initiative 2025-03:** A citizen-initiated ballot measure that would create new tenant protections regarding speech, assembly, and association rights, with penalties for landlord interference. **Ballot measure committees:** Required "for" and "against" groups that draft statements for the voter pamphlet when initiatives go to the ballot. **LGBTQ+ ordinance:** Proposed new chapter of city code affirming equal protection and services regardless of sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression. **Residency requirement:** State law requiring that ballot committee members must live within city boundaries to be eligible to serve. **Legislative work group:** A proposed council subcommittee to coordinate the city's state-level lobbying efforts and clarify individual council member roles. **Gender-affirming care:** Medical services that support an individual's gender identity, explicitly protected under the proposed ordinance. ### Key People at This Meeting | Name | Role / Affiliation | |---|---| | Hollie Huthman | Council President, chairing the meeting | | Hannah Stone | Council Member, participated remotely initially | | Michael Lilliquist | Council Member | | Daniel Hammill | Council Member | | Lisa Anderson | Council Member | | Jace Cotton | Council Member | | Edwin "Skip" Williams | Council Member | | James Erb | Deputy City Attorney | ### Background Context This meeting occurred during a period of heightened attention to both housing rights and LGBTQ+ protections. The tenant initiative emerged from community organizing around landlord-tenant power imbalances, while the LGBTQ+ ordinance responds to concerns about potential federal and state rollbacks of protections. Both measures represent the city's effort to codify local protections that may exceed state or federal minimums. The timing was critical for the initiative - council had until August 5 to decide whether to enact, defer to voters, or propose an alternative. The LGBTQ+ ordinance had been under discussion since June, with community input shaping its development. ### What Happened — The Short Version Council voted 6-0 (with Stone initially absent) to defer Initiative 2025-03 to the November ballot, but had to amend the resolution when they discovered that some proposed ballot committee members might not meet residency requirements. They authorized staff to work with the county auditor to find eligible volunteers. For the LGBTQ+ ordinance, Council Member Stone proposed minor amendments for clarity, including changing "outlined in this chapter" to "in accordance with this chapter" and adding "or support" to language about opposing harmful legislation. These passed 7-0. During old/new business, Council Member Anderson successfully moved to create a legislative work group to formalize how council coordinates state lobbying efforts, addressing confusion from the previous session about individual versus collective action. ### What to Watch Next • Final passage of the LGBTQ+ ordinance at the evening council meeting • County auditor's process for finding eligible ballot committee members for Initiative 2025-03 • Formation and work of the new legislative work group by October • Administration's report on tenant/landlord community resources at the August 11 meeting ---

**Q:** What deadline did Council face for action on Initiative 2025-03? **A:** August 5, 2025, to meet deadlines established by the Whatcom County Auditor. **Q:** What major issue emerged with the ballot committee appointments? **A:** Some proposed members, including R. Perry Eskridge, were not city residents as required by state law. **Q:** How did Council Member Stone participate initially in this meeting? **A:** She attended remotely from her car and was non-voting until she arrived in person. **Q:** What three options did Council have for Initiative 2025-03? **A:** Enact the initiative, defer it to voters, or reject it and propose a different bill on the same subject. **Q:** What change did Council Member Stone propose to the LGBTQ+ ordinance regarding "outlined in this chapter"? **A:** She changed it to "in accordance with this chapter" for better alignment with the ordinance's underlying sentiment. **Q:** What voting pattern occurred on most motions during this meeting? **A:** Most passed 6-0 initially (Stone absent), then 7-0 after she arrived. **Q:** What does Initiative 2025-03 primarily protect for tenants? **A:** Rights to speech, assembly, and association, plus protection from landlord retaliation. **Q:** Who is James Erb and what was his role? **A:** Deputy City Attorney who presented the resolution on Initiative 2025-03. **Q:** What legislative work group motion did Council Member Anderson propose? **A:** To create a process defining roles and responsibilities in citywide lobbying efforts for the next legislative session. **Q:** What meeting did the Administration request for follow-up on tenant resources? **A:** The August 11, 2025 council meeting to discuss planned community resources. **Q:** What penalties can landlords face under Initiative 2025-03 if it passes? **A:** Civil infractions with fines up to $500 for first violations and $1,000 for subsequent violations. **Q:** What phrase did Council add to the LGBTQ+ ordinance regarding legislative positions? **A:** "Or support" to complement "oppose" when taking positions on state and federal legislation. **Q:** Why did Council Member Cotton suggest special meetings during legislative session? **A:** To keep all council members in the loop despite the constraint of only two weeks between regular meetings. **Q:** What executive session items concluded the meeting? **A:** Labor relations regarding IAFF 106S contract proposal and a potential property acquisition. **Q:** What request did Council Member Stone make regarding council assignments? **A:** To address external committee liaison commitments and assignments before the next reorganization meeting. ---