Bellingham council elects new officers, narrows committee changes and advances tenant-fee review

Council President Dan Hamill was elected and sworn in at the start of the reorganization meeting; the council then selected its pro tems and completed committee and external-board assignments before turning to policy items. The council spent more than an hour debating how standing committees are used and whether to change which topics they cover, then voted to send a draft ordinance on landlord-tenant “junk fees” to a public engagement process with modifications. City staff and contracted lobbyists also briefed the council on the city’s proposed 2025 state legislative agenda.

Why it matters: The reorganization sets who will lead council committees and how work will be routed in the coming year — a practical matter that shapes how quickly and where topics such as housing, planning and public safety are vetted. The landlord–tenant ordinance debate reflected council concern about optional, add-on fees tenants face and how enforcement would be resourced. The council’s state agenda identifies a short list of capital and policy requests the city will press in Olympia.

Council leadership and officers Council President Dan Hamill took the gavel after a nomination and voice vote; the motion carried. The council likewise confirmed a president pro tem and mayor pro tem (nominations and voice votes recorded during the meeting). Hamill told colleagues, “I really look forward to a productive year,” and said he will emphasize communication and working relationships with staff.

Committee structure debate and path forward Council members spent extensive time debating whether to keep the standing committees, alter their membership, meet on different days, or dissolve committees and handle more business in Committee of the Whole. Several members said committees have “not functioned as intended” in recent years, while others urged keeping committees but revitalizing how they are used (for example, more true work sessions or occasional evening roundtables to increase public access).

After amendments and discussion the council did not dismantle committees at the meeting. Instead it asked the mayor’s office and department heads to review the proposed committee list and return recommendations; the council approved a motion to table any structural change until the administration provides a report. The council also accepted a set of standing committees and then approved chairs and membership as read aloud by staff (the final committee slate was recorded and published by the clerk’s office during the meeting).

Boards, commissions and external assignments Council members discussed whether every liaison on the city’s long list of external boards and partnerships remains necessary. Several members urged a short-term approach: keep current assignments in place temporarily and do a focused review in a staff/ council work session to identify statutory or government‑to‑government commitments versus discretionary liaisons. The council took a practical step by reappointing existing assignments for the short term and directing staff to bring a proposed reorganization of those external assignments back for review.

State legislative agenda briefing The council heard a 20‑minute briefing from the city’s contracted government‑relations team, who described the state’s fiscal context for 2025 and the council’s priorities. Nick Federici and Luke Husser outlined that Washington faces an operating‑budget shortfall on the order of many billions over the coming biennia and that the state capital budget and transportation budget will be tighter than in recent cycles. The city’s priorities highlighted in the presentation included funding for local cleanup and remedial action (Bellingham Bay/Remedial Action Grant requests), municipal court facility needs, central library renovation funding gaps, and support for housing‑related capital and operating needs. Federici summarized the team’s approach: prioritize “shovel‑ready” projects the city leads and monitor policy areas where opportunity arises during the session.

Public comment format and building security Council members discussed how to resume in‑person public comment after a pause related to safety incidents the prior year. Staff reported they will reinstate public comment at the next meeting and that the city is contracting with a recommended private security provider (the same vendor used by municipal court) to perform screenings; the vendor was described by staff as experienced with court security and focused on a customer‑service approach. Staff said metal‑detection equipment had been ordered and that the council would start with a set of updated procedures and signage and continue iterating through the year.

Landlord–tenant “junk fees” ordinance: public engagement and enforcement funding The council reviewed a draft ordinance intended to limit unclear or excessive move‑in, move‑out and other “optional” fees charged to tenants and to strengthen disclosure and tenant remedies. After staff and legal review, council members voted to send the draft to a public engagement process led by an outside facilitator and including both focus groups and a community survey. Staff described the planned outreach: three focus groups (large landlords & property managers; smaller landlords & managers; tenants and community service organizations) facilitated by the Whatcom Dispute Resolution Center, plus an online community survey.

Two council amendments were adopted before public engagement: one change replaces the term “total monthly payment” with “monthly rent” in three ordinance sections to reduce ambiguity; another amendment added a set of fee types that the council asked staff and the facilitator to test with stakeholders as potential prohibitions (examples discussed included fees for parking on a leased manufactured‑home lot, fees for access to a common area except for special events, charges that appear when a tenancy rolls to month‑to‑month, and some add‑on guest or administrative fees). The latter amendment was adopted by council with recorded support (the meeting record shows the amendment passed with six yes votes and one abstention). Councilmembers emphasized that enforcement resources would be needed for the code to be effective: staff estimated raising the annual rental‑registration fee by about $10 per unit (from the prior schedule) would generate roughly $200,000 and could fund an additional position to support administrative enforcement and complaint handling if the council chooses that route; the city currently lists about 21,000 rental units in its registration database.

What’s next - Staff will begin the public engagement plan for the rental‑fee draft and return results and any recommended ordinance edits to the council. The engagement will include facilitated focus groups and a wider survey. - The mayor’s office and department heads will report back on committee structure and staff capacity before the council takes any final restructuring vote. - The city’s lobbyists will circulate weekly bill lists and recommendations during the legislative session and staff will coordinate how the council will be updated and how members can participate in testimony or sign‑on letters.

Ending: The reorganization meeting combined routine officer elections with substantive policy planning. Council members said they expect follow‑up staff reports and public outreach in the coming weeks so that decisions about committee structure and tenant protections can be grounded in administration analysis and community input.