Community Development Advisory Board (City of Bellingham)

Staff presented a sobering financial reality: the affordable housing sales tax projection was reduced from $3.9 million to $3.56 million, forcing difficult funding decisions. The board ultimately approved staff recommendations that maintained a "no new programs" philosophy while attempting to preserve existing successful initiatives. The recommendations included complete elimination of some programs, reduced funding for others, and strategic preservation of high-priority services. The most significant cuts included elimination of Opportunity Council's housing navigation program and rejection of funding for several new programs despite high scores, including Unity Care's Way Station day center and World Relief's housing assistance program. The board grappled with the tension between program quality scores and funding sustainability, particularly for programs like Francis Place permanent supportive housing, which received substantial funding despite scoring poorly due to operational challenges. The discussion revealed broader systemic issues affecting Bellingham's housing and homelessness response, including staff turnover at key agencies, the lack of robust clinical mental health services to support permanent supportive housing, and the challenge of coordinating funding across multiple sources and jurisdictions. Staff emphasized their regular quarterly meetings with funded agencies and the importance of understanding each program's broader funding context when making allocation decisions.

- **2025 Housing and Human Services Funding Plan:** Approved unanimously by voice vote - **Total Competitive Funding:** Approximately $3 million allocated across housing services ($2 million) and human services ($1 million) - **Complete Program Eliminations:** Housing navigation program (Opportunity Council), all Tier 4 programs as designated by CDAB - **New Program Rejections:** Unity Care Way Station, World Relief housing programs, Road to Home, and others despite some receiving high scores - **Reduced Funding Programs:** Francis Place (cut to $150,000), Opportunity Council rapid rehousing, Northwest Youth Services transitional living, Whatcom Dispute Resolution housing stability program - **Increased Funding:** YWCA received full requested amount, representing only program to receive more than previous year's allocation - **Philosophy Adopted:** "No new programs" approach to preserve existing successful services during budget constraints

"We also decided in talking also, with higher level management to have a philosophy of no new programs. We feel like this is a time to just really buckle down and try to shore up the programs that we do have in our community that are that are working, and and not kind of water things down thin things down." **Samia, on Francis Place challenges:** "Permanent supportive housing is really meant to operate in an environment where that is the case, right where there's a lot of choice. And there's a lot of ability to quickly respond to people's needs. We don't have that. And so, in the absence of that permanent supportive housing is asked to do things in a housing context that should be done in a medical clinical context, and it's very hard to be successful." **Samia, on Unity Care Way Station:** "When the way station was first being discussed, we participated in field trips to look at other day centers throughout the State. We told them from the beginning. We have capital funding, but we don't have operations funding for you." **Karen Jones, on World Relief:** "I read the big article on World Relief in the paper in the Cascadia Daily. That was a really impressive article, and so kind of makes me go. Oh, that's really sad, because it sounded like they were very effective in preventing homelessness and getting people getting new immigrants jobs, training, housing all that." **Shannon Laws, expressing gratitude for funding context:** "I really appreciate hearing Samya, your side of the applicants funding requests on a broad scope, because we're looking at them for you know the block grant, or whatever we're looking for, is very specific, and there's never enough money so it makes me as a member feel more comfortable." **Catherine Freeman, questioning Francis Place funding:** "I'm a little curious about Francis Place and wondering if you can share some insight into the scoring, and why it scored so low. And I get cutting funding from less than requested, but just from a dollar standpoint 150,000 proportionally to the total amount does seem like a high amount for something that scored relatively low both at staff and Cdab level."

# Bellingham Community Development Advisory Board Tackles Tough Funding Decisions Amid Budget Constraints ## Meeting Overview The Bellingham Community Development Advisory Board (CDAB) convened on Thursday evening, April 10, 2025, for what would prove to be a pivotal meeting in the city's annual housing and human services funding process. The board gathered both in-person and virtually to review staff recommendations for the 2025 Housing and Human Services applications and the HUD Action Plan — a $26 million budget that would shape the city's approach to affordable housing and social services for the coming year. The meeting, chaired by an unidentified board member, included representatives from across Bellingham's wards: Catherine Freeman (at-large), Karen Jones (Sunnyland), Matt Unger (3rd Ward, Puget neighborhood), Samuel Lutz (city employee), Ben (5th Ward, Happy Valley), and Deidre Prado (at-large, Cordata). Staff members Kathleen Morton and Samia led the presentation, with Andrew Culkins from the Housing Authority also present. Notably, this would be Karen Jones's final meeting after serving through the challenging funding cycle, as she transitions to focus on other board commitments. The evening's agenda centered on a comprehensive work session reviewing staff recommendations for competitive funding allocations — decisions made more difficult by budget constraints, including a significant reduction in projected affordable housing sales tax revenue from $3.9 million to $3.56 million. ## Wrestling with Reduced Resources and Hard Choices The heart of the meeting focused on approximately $3 million in competitive funding for housing and human services, representing just 23% of the broader Action Plan budget. Staff presented a methodical approach to their recommendations, walking the board through their scoring process that evaluated applications on population served, high priority needs, equity and social justice, collaboration, and agency capacity. Kathleen Morton explained the rigorous evaluation process: "We assembled panels for, and we separated panels into 2 groups to review application. One group was for housing applications, and one group was for human services just because of the volume of applications that were submitted." The housing panel included city staff, a CDAB member, and a county representative, while the human services panel drew from United Way, community foundations, and public health organizations. The scoring revealed the challenge facing the city. As Samia noted, "This coming year, we're faced with some challenges around budget. And so we're going to be diving into that this year, and how we plan to approach balancing still supporting the programs that have a really large impact in our community, but also financially where we're at and where we're going to be going to." Staff adopted what they called a "philosophy of no new programs," focusing resources on shoring up existing successful programs rather than spreading funds thin across new initiatives. This approach meant that even well-scoring new applications would receive no funding recommendation. ## Housing Services: Tough Cuts and Difficult Decisions The housing services recommendations revealed the extent of the budget pressures. Staff recommended no funding increases over the previous year's amounts — effectively cuts when accounting for inflation and rising costs. Most significantly, the housing navigation program was recommended for complete elimination, though staff noted this decision had been discussed with the agency and wasn't unexpected given staff turnover and program challenges. The most contentious discussion centered on Francis Place, a 42-unit permanent supportive housing facility that scored poorly but received continued funding at $150,000 — representing 7% of the total competitive budget. Board member Matt Unger questioned this allocation: "I think I don't know. It still stands out that they're receiving 7% of our total funding yet scored amongst the lowest. I mean, I understand, continuing to support them at some level. But does another 25 or $30,000 to another agency? That scored higher, allow them to provide more services?" Samia provided context for the decision: "Francis Place serves single adults right? They're not explicit to seniors, or you know, any particular population other than homeless on entry... They have had a really hard time, as have almost all permanent sort of housing providers. Not least of which is because we don't have a robust, clinical mental health provision, who can sort of see people same day respond quickly to folks when they need treatment." The discussion revealed the broader challenges facing permanent supportive housing in a community lacking adequate mental health infrastructure. As Samia explained, "Permanent supportive housing is really meant to operate in an environment where that is the case, right where there's a lot of choice. And there's a lot of ability to quickly respond to people's needs. We don't have that. And so, in the absence of that permanent supportive housing is asked to do things in a housing context that should be done in a medical clinical context, and it's very hard to be successful." Other housing program cuts included reductions to Opportunity Council's rapid rehousing program and Northwest Youth Services' transitional living program. The Opportunity Council's prevention program, however, received full funding as it was identified as a high priority by city council and had demonstrated success with families and seniors. Only one housing program received an increase: the YWCA, which staff justified based on proportionality. "They use much less of our funding have historically used... City is often a pretty dominant portion of their funding. That is not the case for the YWC. And they'll still not be the case even with this increase," Samia explained. ## Human Services: Maintaining Core Programs The human services allocation proved less controversial but included some painful decisions. Staff generally stuck with previous year funding levels for existing programs while applying the "no new programs" philosophy more broadly. The most emotionally charged discussion concerned the Way Station, a new day center operated by Unity Care Northwest that scored highly but received no funding recommendation. Board members expressed frustration with this decision. "I'm really upset about the waste station," said one member. "I know lots of people who use it. And I want to understand why... I think we should consider an exception." Samia provided crucial context: "When the way station was 1st being discussed, we participated in field trips to look at other day centers throughout the State. We told them from the beginning. We have capital funding, but we don't have operations funding for you... we've told them that dozens of times over the years and yet they didn't come to us for capital funding, and they came to us for all questions." The discussion revealed tension about the city's appropriate role in healthcare versus human services. "We're not a health care program," Samia noted, explaining that Unity Care had other funding sources including county funding, Peace Health, and federal qualified health center dollars. Another new program, World Relief's housing assistance for refugees and immigrants, also received no funding despite recent positive media coverage. Staff noted the organization's challenges with a federal stop-work order and their status as a newer entity without strong local collaborative relationships. ## Broader Budget Context and Future Concerns The competitive allocations sat within a much larger $26 million Action Plan budget that included capital programs for new affordable housing construction, preservation, home rehabilitation, public facilities, and homebuyer assistance. The rental assistance and supportive services component — which included the competitive programs — represented less than a quarter of the total budget. Staff warned of additional challenges ahead. They recommended notifying some programs that funding might be reduced further in the second year, acknowledging that current funding levels weren't sustainable. This represented a new approach for the city — providing agencies time to adjust to anticipated future cuts. The budget pressures stemmed partly from reduced sales tax projections and the city's conservative estimates of carryover funds. Staff had to pull $800,000 from future years to maintain current programming levels, while also using $100,000 of affordable housing sales tax funds for services — both moves acknowledged as unsustainable long-term strategies. ## Process and Governance Reflections The meeting highlighted the complexity of the city's funding process and the weight of CDAB's advisory role. Board members appreciated staff's broader perspective on funding sources across the community. As one member noted, "I really appreciate hearing Samya, your side of the applicants... because we're looking at them, for you know the block grant, or whatever we're looking for, is very specific, and there's never enough money so it makes me as a member feel more comfortable, saying, Yeah... it's okay that this person doesn't get what we're voting for, because over in this other area, there's an application where, you know, they will get... funding." The scoring process revealed areas for improvement. Staff noted that high priority needs category had the most variance in scores due to lack of detailed rubrics, recommending more structured guidance for future evaluation panels. Technical difficulties with screen sharing created challenges for remote participants, highlighting ongoing issues with hybrid meeting formats that have become standard since the pandemic. ## The Vote and Path Forward After extensive discussion, the board moved to approve the staff recommendations as presented. The motion, made and seconded without lengthy debate, passed unanimously with all members — both in-person and remote — voting in favor. The approved recommendations will now advance to the Mayor and City Council for final approval. Staff indicated the matter would likely be considered at the May 5th council meeting, with potential continuation to May 18th if additional deliberation is needed. The recommendations would first be discussed in committee meetings during the day before formal action in the evening council session. ## Looking Ahead: Housing Challenges and New Board Members As the meeting concluded, staff shared updates about Fair Housing Month activities and the imminent transition of the North Haven tiny house village to Northwest Avenue. Three new board members — Nina Ward (Ward 2), Lola (Ward 6), and Matthew Maine (Ward 5) — were approved by the mayor to join CDAB, bringing fresh perspectives to future funding decisions. The discussion also touched on broader housing market trends, with members noting Zillow projections suggesting potential price decreases, though skepticism remained about any significant market correction. Development of row houses in the Cordata neighborhood under $800,000 was cited as a promising trend for more affordable homeownership options. The meeting adjourned early, reflecting the efficiency of a well-prepared board working through a familiar but challenging annual process. The weight of their decisions — determining which community programs would receive life-sustaining funding — was evident throughout the evening's deliberations. ## Closing & What's Ahead The meeting ended on a bittersweet note with Karen Jones's departure from the board after seeing the funding cycle through to completion. Her commitment to staying through the challenging budget decisions exemplified the civic dedication that makes local governance function effectively. The next CDAB meeting is scheduled for May 8th, with the board taking their traditional summer break in June and July. The approved budget recommendations now begin their journey through the formal city approval process, where they may face additional scrutiny and potential modifications before final adoption. The evening revealed both the constraints and the careful stewardship that characterize local government in challenging fiscal times. While no one left fully satisfied with the available resources, the process demonstrated thoughtful prioritization and transparent decision-making in service of the community's most vulnerable residents.