# Setting the Course for 2025: Bellingham City Council's First Act The New Year brought familiar rituals of municipal renewal to Bellingham City Hall on January 6, 2025, as seven council members gathered for their annual reorganization meeting. What began as routine business—electing officers, assigning committees, mapping out legislative priorities—revealed deeper tensions about how local government should function and adapt to mounting challenges around housing, public engagement, and civic transparency. Meeting in the Mayor's Boardroom rather than the council chambers, the condensed group conducted the essential business of democratic governance: choosing leaders, distributing responsibilities, and charting a course for the year ahead. By the time they adjourned more than four hours later, they had navigated contentious debates about committee structures, wrestled with complex housing policy, and grappled with fundamental questions about how citizens should participate in their own government. ## Council Leadership Elections: A Thoughtful Transfer of Power The afternoon began with the ceremonial passing of the gavel, as outgoing Council President Dan Hammill presided over the election of his successor. In a moment that reflected both continuity and change, he nominated Hollie Huthman for the role, a choice that spoke to her steady presence during a year when several council members will be running for higher office. "I mentioned it briefly to council member Hoffman," said Councilmember Jace Cotton, using Huthman's former name in what appeared to be a brief confusion. Cotton raised concerns that would echo through several agenda items about the challenges of balancing multiple responsibilities. "I hope that whoever serves as president is going to make this a priority," she said, acknowledging the competing demands of council work, day jobs, and for some members, upcoming political campaigns. The concern touched on a broader challenge facing part-time elected officials: how to maintain focus on governance while pursuing other ambitions. Cotton's comments reflected a "personal policy of not necessarily wanting someone who's running for election to be serving as president," citing both potential conflicts of interest and the simple reality of limited bandwidth. Huthman, accepting the unanimous vote with characteristic humility, promised to "continue and improve upon the work that past presidents have done to improve our communications and also our working relationships with staff." Her words carried weight in a year where the relationship between council and administration would face new tests. The elections of Edwin "Skip" Williams as President Pro Tem and Michael Lilliquist as Mayor Pro Tem proceeded without drama, each receiving unanimous support. The smooth transitions belied the more contentious discussions that lay ahead. ## The Committee Structure Debate: Efficiency Versus Tradition What followed was perhaps the most substantive discussion of local government process the council had engaged in for months. Led by Councilmembers Lilliquist and Dan Hammill, the conversation revealed fundamental disagreements about how the council should organize its work. Lilliquist opened with a stark assessment: "From a council point of view, I think they're not functioning as intended in terms of focusing discussion, dividing the workload, evening out the workload." He had prepared a detailed memo outlining his concerns about committees that meet rarely or not at all, while important business defaults to committee-of-the-whole sessions that involve all seven members. The Climate Action Committee became a symbol of this dysfunction. "The climate committee was a victim of the committee of the whole deference thing," Lilliquist explained. "We had two briefings. They both went to the committee." Instead of specialized, focused work sessions, major policy discussions were being pushed to the full council, undermining the supposed efficiency of committee structure. Hammill countered with a defense of the current system, arguing for doubling down rather than dismantling. "If we simply went back to not moving things to the committee of the whole by default and really try to focus in on maintaining the committee structure, that we'd be better off," he said, citing upcoming work on jail planning and response division presentations that could benefit from focused committee attention. Lisa Anderson raised practical concerns about proposed changes, particularly suggestions for committee meetings on different days or times. "It's hard for the public if planning was going to meet on a Thursday at two. It also pulls staff out and staff are obligated to show up on Council Mondays," she pointed out, highlighting the ripple effects of seemingly simple procedural changes. But Anderson also revealed a deeper frustration with how committee work gets disrupted: "When a council member who is not on a committee and not a chair of a committee proposes something during old and new, but it is taking staff's time... without discussing [with] that committee chair." She called for better coordination among council members to prevent good projects from getting delayed when staff resources get redirected to new priorities without warning. Cotton expressed ambivalence about the whole enterprise: "I go back and forth about this. I appreciate having the committees, but I think that if we're going to continue having committees, we would need to sort of revitalize that and come to an agreement about how work is going to be delegated." The discussion revealed competing visions for council effectiveness. Lilliquist favored either full seven-member committees for important topics or abolishing committees altogether in favor of committee-of-the-whole work. Others saw value in the existing structure but wanted better coordination and clearer priorities. Ultimately, the debate ended with a compromise that satisfied no one completely: they would propose combining Climate Action and Natural Resources into one committee, splitting Community Development from Economic Development, but delay final decisions until staff could provide feedback on the administrative implications. "I don't like to hear 'we're going to do this and hopefully staff will do this or do that,'" said Hannah Stone, capturing a key tension in local government: the balance between council prerogatives and administrative capacity. ## Committee Assignments: Democracy's Retail Politics If the structure debate was about grand theory, committee assignments revealed democracy's retail politics. The process of divvying up seven council members across six committees produced moments of awkwardness, confusion, and surprising candor. The most dramatic moment came during Planning Committee assignments, when four members expressed interest in serving on what promises to be one of the busiest committees in 2025. With major comprehensive plan updates, parking reform, middle housing discussions, and landmark tree protections on the horizon, Planning Committee membership became highly coveted. Lisa Anderson made her case with the confidence of experience: "Planning and development has been an area of interest of mine for about 25 years from working on a neighborhood plan to being on the planning commission for four years... I believe experience matters. There is a lot of technical information that's going to be coming forward." Williams, the current committee member, emphasized continuity: "These are the issues I believe are going to have the greatest impact on the development of our city down the road. I've been on the committee now three years, and I've seen some of the development of things happening." Stone brought legal expertise to her pitch: "With my legal background and just attention to detail when reviewing proposals or ordinances coming forward, just paying close attention to not only the underlying intent, but how proposed legislation would impact the community upon implementation." But Cotton raised a crucial point about representation: "I think it's important that we maintain a representativeness of the council as a whole." She noted that if recent parking reform votes had gone to the proposed Planning Committee first, "it would have been a 2-1 instead of being more of a silo of complete support." The voting process itself became complex, with multiple ballots needed to sort out the competing claims. In the end, Lilliquist remained as chair, with Anderson and Stone joining him—a mix that promised both expertise and diverse perspectives on contentious land use issues. The assignments process revealed both the human dimension of local government and its inherent limitations. Even basic arithmetic proved challenging as members tried to ensure everyone served on the right number of committees. Staff member Kelly's final recitation of assignments felt like a relief: "Climate action will be chaired by Lisa Anderson and joined by Michael Lilliquist and Dan Hamill. Community and economic development will be chaired by Jason Cotton..." ## Board and Commission Assignments: The Hidden Government The discussion of external board and commission assignments opened a window into the vast network of advisory bodies, special districts, and quasi-governmental organizations that shape local policy. With 33 different boards and commissions requiring council representation, the assignments revealed the hidden complexity of municipal government. Huthman raised fundamental questions about the purpose and effectiveness of these assignments: "Why do we have members on those boards? Are there boards we're leaving out? Are there boards that we shouldn't have or don't need to have members on anymore?" Her five years serving on boards like Sustainable Connections and the Downtown Bellingham Partnership had left her questioning whether non-voting liaison positions truly served their intended purpose. "They find the information that's sometimes shared from board members to be really useful, but they're non-voting members," she said, suggesting that traditional presentations or committee discussions might accomplish the same goals. Lilliquist provided historical context: "In each of those cases, there were times where it just felt like they wanted to be better communication. And there was a feeling of neglect. And then the liaison position was a way of addressing that neglect." But he acknowledged this might no longer be the right tool for building relationships. Anderson offered practical criteria for evaluation: government-to-government relationships, organizations with financial contracts with the city, and broad community organizations like the Whatcom Transportation Authority seemed to justify council representation, while purely advisory roles might not. The conversation revealed the uneven workload distribution that plagues volunteer service. Hammill detailed his responsibilities on the Task Force for Incarceration Prevention: "That's actually three roles. It's not one... I chair a very active and large behavioral health committee that has about 25 members... And then I'm also on the steering committee for the task force as well. That's three plus meetings a month." Faced with time constraints and the complexity of fair distribution, the council took the path of least resistance: reappointing everyone to their current assignments while planning a future work session to address the underlying questions about purpose and effectiveness. ## Legislative Priorities: Bellingham's Voice in Olympia The presentation of Bellingham's 2025 state legislative agenda brought a different kind of energy to the room, as Mayor Kim Lund and the city's newly hired lobbying team outlined their strategy for the upcoming legislative session. The decision to separate from joint lobbying efforts with the county and port represented a significant shift toward more focused advocacy. "We feel like we have already more direct engagement and service... than we did in the previous year," Lund said, highlighting the benefits of dedicated representation. Lobbyists Nick Federici and Luke Esser brought decades of experience to what promised to be a challenging session dominated by budget constraints. The state faces an unprecedented $15 billion deficit over the four-year forecast period, fundamentally reshaping what's possible in the legislative session. "That either has to be done with changes in assumptions about who is covered for services, including revenue sharing with cuts to existing programs, or with new revenues at the state level," Esser explained. Against this backdrop, Bellingham's priorities took on greater urgency. The cleanup of the R.G. Haley site topped the list—a shovel-ready project dependent on state grants that had been recommended by the Department of Ecology but not funded in the governor's proposed budget. "We just received our first payment from the court. We have other agencies that are committed and actively paying into this work, and we are dependent on the state funding to complete it," Lund emphasized. The municipal court facilities renovation represented another concrete priority, with potential to relocate operations to the Pacific Street Office building in a way that could create a more "trauma-informed approach" to court design. But Lilliquist pressed for specificity on some of the agenda's broader goals: "Three of them do not have specificity. There are three of the most important issues," he said, referring to items on housing access, food security, and affordable childcare that lacked concrete legislative targets. Federici responded with details about potential housing legislation, including rent stabilization bills from previous sessions and new housing supply legislation that "would preempt local authority over some zoning decisions." The conversation revealed the complex interplay between local priorities and statewide policy trends. Cotton raised important questions about ongoing collaboration: "How do we support our partners, whether it be the county or the tribes, when it comes to issues that end up affecting Bellingham residents?" The answer highlighted the behind-the-scenes coordination that makes regional advocacy effective, with regular meetings planned throughout the session. ## Public Comment: The Perennial Challenge No discussion of council procedure would be complete without wrestling with public comment—the ritualistic end-of-meeting period that has become a source of ongoing frustration for both elected officials and community members. Lilliquist articulated the core problem with characteristic bluntness: "When I started on the City Council, public comment worked, and in many ways it has stopped working... The fundamental problem is really in what people are wanting to say to us, not in us wanting to hear them." His description of comments that had "turned nasty and hateful and inappropriate and profane" or become a "soapbox for someone to make and score political points" reflected a broader challenge facing local governments nationwide. The tension between free speech principles and productive civic discourse has no easy resolution. The structural issue that rankled many was timing: "We vote, then we listen. That's backwards. We should listen then vote," Lilliquist argued, noting the chronic feedback that "people come to be heard and we vote and then they're heard." But Anderson pushed back against changing the system for perception problems: "I can think of... and I'd love for somebody to give an example, that we have taken a final vote where we didn't have a period of time where comments could be made." She argued that by the time council votes, they've typically had public hearings, received emails, and engaged in extensive deliberation. Cotton raised the possibility of emphasizing third and final votes as genuine opportunities for reconsideration: "There's something to be said about the third and final vote not feeling too much like a rubber stamp... We voted first and second, like, why do we have the third and final if it's not relevant?" The discussion also touched on security improvements planned for the resumption of in-person public comment, including contract security services and metal detectors. These changes reflected the ongoing tension between maintaining open access and ensuring safety for participants and staff. Ultimately, the council chose continuity over change, planning to resume public comment in its traditional format while acknowledging the ongoing challenges it presents. ## Housing Policy: The Technical Meets the Political The final major item of the day brought the council back to substantive policy discussion with a detailed review of proposed ordinances regulating residential rental fees. The so-called "junk fees" legislation represented months of technical work and political negotiation, now moving toward public engagement. City Attorney Alan Marriner and Planning Director Blake Lyon presented updated drafts that attempted to capture council feedback from previous work sessions. The ordinance would prohibit a range of fees deemed unfair or excessive, from appliance rental charges to month-to-month lease premiums. But the discussion revealed the complexity of translating policy goals into workable regulations. Cotton moved to amend language about providing landlords "an opportunity to cure a violation prior to City code enforcement"—language that reflected concerns about the city's enforcement philosophy. "I'm really interested in this conversation, in the broader conversation about our enforcement philosophy and system," Cotton said, suggesting that a fundamental review of how the city approaches code compliance might be overdue. The funding discussion proved equally complex, with Lyon outlining a proposal to raise rental registration fees by $10 to fund an additional enforcement position. The approximately $200,000 in additional revenue would support "that additional staff person, fully loaded position and salary benefits." Williams raised practical concerns about timing: "I was hoping we were going to have a little bit of time to gather data because... let's say for six months we don't get one single complaint, but we're charging the landlords more money to create a position that may not necessarily be needed." The conversation highlighted a persistent challenge in local government: how to resource new programs adequately while avoiding unnecessary burdens on regulated parties. Lyon noted that enforcement would focus on "the most egregious" cases, hoping that strategic action would encourage broader compliance. The public engagement process planned by Communications Director David Brauhn promised to be equally complex, with focus groups facilitated by the Whatcom Dispute Resolution Center covering different stakeholder groups. The decision to exclude council members and staff from these sessions reflected careful consideration of how to encourage honest feedback. "When you have a focus group, the person leading it has to be perceived as a neutral party for that very same reason, so that people feel free to speak their mind," Huthman explained, though Cotton expressed discomfort with "ceding our role as council as facilitators." ## Looking Ahead: The Work of Democracy As the marathon meeting concluded after more than four hours, the council had set the basic framework for 2025's work. Committee assignments were finalized, legislative priorities established, and complex housing policies moved toward public engagement. But the day's discussions revealed deeper questions about how local democracy should function in an era of increasing complexity and polarization. The tension between efficiency and representation ran through every major discussion. Should committees be streamlined for maximum productivity, or should they reflect the full council's diversity of perspectives? How can public engagement be both meaningful and manageable? What's the appropriate balance between technical expertise and democratic input in policy development? These questions have no permanent answers, only provisional solutions that must be revisited as circumstances change. The 2025 council will face significant challenges around housing, development, climate action, and public engagement. How they handle these issues will depend not just on their policy positions, but on how effectively they can navigate the procedural and interpersonal dynamics that shape all democratic institutions. The January 6 reorganization meeting established the basic structure for this work, but the real test will come in the months ahead as abstract committee assignments meet concrete policy challenges, and the competing demands of governance, politics, and public service play out in the detailed work of running a city. In the end, the meeting demonstrated both the limitations and the resilience of local democracy. Progress was incremental, discussions were sometimes meandering, and perfect solutions remained elusive. But seven elected officials managed to sort out their responsibilities, engage with complex policy questions, and maintain the essential work of democratic governance. In a time when democratic institutions face unprecedented stress, that commitment to the mundane work of self-governance may be more significant than any particular policy outcome.