Bellingham City Council

**Brian Armstrong, on comprehensive plan implementation:** "We set a lot of ambitions and we set a lot of goals and I I've seen plans before in Bellingham. I look at certain park master plans and see that they haven't really been fulfilled over a decade... And I think Mayor Lungy said one time at a committee meeting, voted Mike Tyson saying everybody has a plan until they get punched in the face." **Peter Frazier, on UGA inclusion:** "Including South U in the UGA doesn't annex a single acre or commit the city to spend a dollar... Adding new South U simply allows the city to plan responsibly for an area that already functions as part of Bellingham with neighborhoods of school, parklands, and streets tied to the urban grid." **Brian Gas, on planning credibility:** "I can't believe that you guys actually looked at that and didn't laugh at how could you present that to us and say that somehow being the most expensive place with no job outlooks and nobody talks about jobs and actually wor

## Meeting Overview On the evening of November 3rd, 2025, the Bellingham City Council convened for what would become a marathon 2 hour and 44 minute session addressing some of the most consequential planning issues facing the city. Council President Hollie Huthman presided over a full council — Stone, Hammill, Williams, Anderson, Lilliquist, and Cotton — as they tackled three major public hearings: the 2026 budget, the comprehensive plan update, and parking regulations. The meeting drew significant public engagement, with dozens of residents weighing in on the city's financial future, growth strategy, and development policies. This was not a routine evening of city governance. The comprehensive plan hearing alone drew 17 speakers, while passionate debates emerged around budget priorities, urban growth boundaries, and the role of parking minimums in shaping development. The council would ultimately defer major decisions on both the comprehensive plan and parking regulations, recognizing the complexity of the issues before them and the need for additional deliberation. ## The 2026 Budget: Financial Stability Through Difficult Choices Deputy Administrator Forrest Longman opened the evening with a presentation that laid bare the city's fiscal challenges. Facing a $10 million budget shortfall in the general fund, staff had crafted a budget built on what Longman called three basic principles: ensuring financial stability because "we no longer have the capacity in our reserves to wait for better outcomes," focusing on work only the city can do, and leveraging dedicated resources to continue vital programs outside the general fund. The numbers told a stark story. The general fund budget of $128 million was nearly balanced — out by just $355,000 — but that figure masked deeper structural problems. "There's also a $1.5 million one-time revenue that we're expecting," Longman explained. "So really on balance, we have nearly a $2 million ongoing deficit we're looking at next year. So this work is not over and we will continue to find ways to address that going forward." The path to balance had required painful measures. The city would eliminate over 40 positions, mostly vacant, while implementing a new one-tenth of one percent sales tax that the council had previously adopted. "We made targeted staff reductions to areas with minimal impact on public facing services where possible," Longman noted, though he acknowledged the limitations of such an approach. Yet the budget wasn't entirely about retrenchment. Longman highlighted continued investments in infrastructure, including over $15 million for affordable housing and homelessness services, environmental remediation of the Cornwall waterfront, and construction of a new dispatch center. The total citywide budget reached $543 million, including $155 million in capital investments. Three residents offered their perspectives during public testimony. Brian Armstrong, a frequent council meeting attendee, questioned whether the city would hold itself accountable to the ambitious goals it sets in various plans. "I've seen plans before in Bellingham. I look at certain park master plans and see that they haven't really been fulfilled over a decade," Armstrong said, referencing former Mayor Lindy's quote about Mike Tyson: "everybody has a plan until they get punched in the face." Adam Bellinger, identifying himself as a finance professional, pushed for better performance metrics in budget presentations. "It would be helpful to provide a format for presentation of how the departments are doing," Bellinger suggested, calling for data on cost per unit of service, staffing levels, and comparative performance over time. He wanted to see metrics like permits issued per year, road miles repaved, and timelines for service delivery. Brian Gas delivered perhaps the most pointed critique, questioning the fundamental role of the council itself. "I'm starting to think, like, what is a council, council exist for? Like, are they supposed to be like the, what do you call it, like the board members of a company? Like, who's looking out for the interests of the residents of Bellingham?" Gas challenged the council to focus more on economic growth, arguing that the city needed to "grow your way out of this" rather than simply managing decline. ## The Bellingham Plan: Shaping Two Decades of Growth The comprehensive plan hearing represented the culmination of a two-and-a-half-year planning process that had engaged thousands of residents in envisioning Bellingham's future through 2045. Senior Planner Elizabeth Erickson walked the council through what she called "the biggest changes" in the proposed update: Bellingham for All, More Housing Choice, Sustainable Growth, and Climate Resilience. The plan charts an ambitious course for accommodating 30,310 new residents, 18,390 housing units, and 19,384 new jobs over the next 20 years. It emphasizes growth in compact, mixed-use urban villages connected by transit corridors, with a particular focus on middle-scale housing types across the city. But the evening's testimony revealed deep divisions over how and where that growth should occur. The most contentious issue centered on Urban Growth Area boundaries, particularly the South U Street area near Lake Padden, where property owners, developers, and environmental advocates offered starkly different visions for the future. Peter Frazier spoke in favor of including South U Street in the city's Urban Growth Area, arguing that exclusion was based on unfounded claims. "You may have been told this would be cost prohibitive, yet no financial analysis has been shared to support that claim," Frazier said. "Including South U in the UGA doesn't annex a single acre or commit the city to spend a dollar." He emphasized that eventually, "nearly all infrastructure will be privately financed through impact fees and permit charges about 35,000 per home." Doug Angel, representing a family property dating back 70 years, made an emotional appeal for inclusion. "Our grandmother bought a 38-acre parcel on the hill behind us about 70 years ago. And her dream was that our family and others were going to be able to enjoy this beautiful part of the world," Angel shared. He positioned himself as "the third angel at bat" following his grandmother and father, declaring "my objective is that this will become a reality and I'll be able to go back and tell my grandmother in heaven we did it." But environmental advocates painted a very different picture of development in the Lake Padden watershed. David Roberts, representing the citizen science work of People for Lake Padden, presented findings from studies conducted between 2011 and 2013. "Phosphorus is the primary limiting factor controlling water quality and algae growth in Lake Padden," Roberts explained. "The conditions in Lake Padden have changed as a result of past development." Roberts shared a detailed map showing that when critical areas like steep slopes, streams, and wetlands were excluded, "there's very limited, available land available in the reserve UGA." The group's research led to three key conclusions: "Lake Padden is under stress today due to past development," new development should avoid critical areas, and the area presents significant challenges for sustainable growth. Betsy Gross went further, calling for complete removal of UGA reserve status from the South area. "It's dumb to develop in a watershed in which, and you've taken UGA status away from like Whatcom watershed," Gross argued. "Lake Padden has the same environmental protection overlay that Lake Whatcom has, and it's not smart to decide to degrade one of our most beautiful parks." The testimony wasn't limited to growth boundaries. Several speakers addressed specific policy concerns within the plan. Bill Geier, a certified planner with 50 years of experience, advocated for including religious institutions in the community wellbeing section. "Churches, synagogues, temples, religious institutions, it must be included in the community well-being section," Geier argued, citing federal religious land use protections. Brian Heinrich from Puget Sound Energy requested consideration of energy storage systems policies, noting the growing importance of battery storage for grid reliability. "That's a technology that I think we're going to need as we seek to continue reliability and meet demand as that grows in the coming years," Heinrich explained. David Stallheim from the Whatcom Environmental Council raised concerns about forest protection following the controversial clear-cutting at Samish Crest. "What was there before was a primary wildlife habitat defined by the city, studied in 2015, is one of the highest biodiverse forests in the city," Stallheim said, calling for stronger policies to prevent similar situations. Other speakers addressed middle housing implementation, transportation infrastructure, and population projections. Perry Escridge, representing both realtors and builders, questioned the plan's heavy reliance on middle housing production. "The last thing I point out, Bellingham is aiming to get 10% of middle housing. Thanks to AI, I've been able to research the universe and the best plans with middle housing achieve 4%," Escridge noted. The complexity and scope of the issues led Council Member Lilliquist to call for additional work sessions. "I'm hoping we can refer this to a work session for further discussion I will be flagging probably four or more issues this evening I'd like to discuss and I don't think I can do that tonight and I don't think I'm ready to vote for tonight," Lilliquist said. The council unanimously agreed to schedule an optional work session for November 10th, while also approving staff's request to add a housing appendix to provide additional documentation on housing capacity analysis and methodology. ## Parking Policy: Balancing Market Forces and Community Needs The third public hearing addressed extending interim parking regulations that eliminate minimum parking requirements citywide. Planning Director Blake Lyon framed the discussion around upcoming state legislation and the need to coordinate with other interim ordinances on middle housing and design review. The current interim ordinance, in effect since January 2025, removes requirements for developers to provide parking while still allowing them to build it based on market demand. Elizabeth Erickson presented data showing varied responses: some projects in outer areas provide more parking than previously required, while infill projects in urban villages often provide less. "When you remove parking minimums, what you're doing is relying on the market to drive how much parking private developers provide," Erickson explained. She noted that despite concerns, "it's very rare that they would provide no parking just because we're not requiring it." The data on commuting patterns showed the continued centrality of car ownership across income levels. Approximately 64% of residents earning less than $50,000 annually drive alone to work, compared to 62% of those earning more than $50,000. "That really shows that today there's quite a bit of demand for parking," Erickson acknowledged. Public testimony revealed nuanced perspectives on the policy. Lane Davis-Quarry, speaking remotely from the Roosevelt neighborhood, supported middle housing but raised concerns about pedestrian safety on streets without sidewalks. "Right now I don't see any steps listed in the planning process to assess the impact of infill units that increase traffic on narrow streets, especially those without sidewalks," Davis-Quarry said, referencing a specific 18-unit project on St. Clair Street. Other speakers largely supported the extension, with some calling for stronger policies to support alternative transportation. The council ultimately approved extending the interim ordinance for six months and endorsed the staff work plan for exploring additional parking management tools. ## Committee Business and Council Actions Earlier in the day, the council had worked through committee business including budget work sessions, interlocal agreements, and capital facility planning. The committee sessions revealed additional details about departmental budgets, with presentations from Municipal Court, the City Council office, and the Mayor's office. The council approved several significant items during the regular session, including reauthorization of agreements with Whatcom County for probation services and impact fee schedules for the Bellingham School District. They also set their 2026 meeting calendar and handled routine consent agenda items. In executive session, the council authorized two property acquisitions: a 0.49-acre parcel from BNSF Railway Company for $75,470.50 near the State Street roundabout, and a 4.62-acre property in the Lake Whatcom watershed for $227,500 as part of the city's watershed land acquisition program. ## Public Comment and Community Engagement The evening concluded with general public comment from five additional speakers addressing various city issues. The extended public engagement — with over 30 speakers across all hearings — demonstrated significant community interest in the city's planning and policy decisions. The meeting highlighted the complex challenges facing Bellingham as it seeks to balance growth management, fiscal sustainability, and community values. With major decisions deferred to future meetings, the council acknowledged the need for continued deliberation on issues that will shape the city for decades to come. As Council President Huthman adjourned the meeting at 10:10 p.m., the stage was set for continued community discussion and council deliberation on some of the most consequential policy decisions in the city's recent history. The comprehensive plan work session scheduled for November 10th would provide the next opportunity for detailed discussion of the growth management issues that dominated this lengthy evening session.

### Meeting Overview The Bellingham City Council met on November 3, 2025, for a regular meeting focused primarily on three major public hearings: the second public hearing on the 2026 budget, a hearing on the comprehensive Bellingham Plan update, and a hearing on extending parking regulations. The meeting lasted approximately 3 hours. ### Key Terms and Concepts **Comprehensive Plan:** A long-range planning document required by Washington's Growth Management Act that establishes a community's vision for future development over a 20-year period and is updated every 10 years in a "periodic update" process. **Urban Growth Area (UGA):** Designated areas where urban development is encouraged to occur, helping prevent suburban sprawl while concentrating services and infrastructure efficiently. **UGA Reserve:** A designation that prevents the city from doing long-range planning for an area, effectively keeping it out of consideration for urban development until it receives full UGA status. **Interim Zoning Regulations:** Temporary development rules adopted while the city develops permanent regulations, often in response to changing state laws or local conditions. **Parking Minimums:** Requirements that force developers to provide a certain number of parking spaces, which the interim ordinance eliminated to allow market-driven parking decisions. **General Fund:** The city's primary operating budget that funds basic services like police, fire, parks, and administration — facing a $10 million shortfall in the proposed 2026 budget. **Greenways Fund:** Voter-approved funding specifically designated for trail connectivity, habitat restoration, and parks — not intended as a general "slush fund" for any parks-related spending. **Middle Housing:** Housing types between single-family homes and large apartment buildings, such as duplexes, triplexes, and small apartment buildings that provide more affordable options. ### Key People at This Meeting | Name | Role / Affiliation | |---|---| | Kimberley Lund | Mayor | | Hollie Huthman | Council President, Second Ward | | Hannah Stone | Council Member, First Ward | | Daniel Hammill | Council Member, Third Ward | | Edwin H. "Skip" Williams | Council Member, Fourth Ward | | Lisa Anderson | Council Member, Fifth Ward | | Michael Lilliquist | Council Member, Sixth Ward | | Jace Cotton | Council Member, At-Large | | Forrest Longman | Deputy City Administrator | | Elizabeth Erickson | Senior Planner | | Blake Lyon | Planning & Community Development Director | | Brian Armstrong | Public commenter (frequent attendee) | | Adam Bellinger | Public commenter (finance professional) | | Brian Gas | Public commenter (housing development advocate) | | Darcy Jones | Jones Engineers representative | | Peter Frazier | South U Street area advocate | | Bill Geyer | Planning consultant/church representative | ### Background Context Bellingham is facing significant financial and growth pressures that dominated this meeting. The city confronts a $10 million general fund shortfall for 2026, forcing difficult decisions about service cuts and new revenue sources. Simultaneously, the city is updating its 20-year comprehensive plan to guide future growth, a process that occurs only once per decade and shapes fundamental decisions about housing, transportation, and development. The comprehensive plan debate centers on where and how Bellingham should grow, with particular controversy around the South U Street area near Lake Padden. Some advocate for including this area in the Urban Growth Area to enable housing development, while others worry about environmental impacts to the lake's watershed. These discussions occur against the backdrop of Washington state's housing crisis and new state laws requiring cities to accommodate more housing types and reduce regulatory barriers. The parking ordinance reflects this trend, eliminating minimum parking requirements to make housing development more feasible and affordable. ### What Happened — The Short Version The council held three major public hearings. For the budget, Deputy Administrator Longman presented a balanced but tight 2026 budget requiring elimination of over 40 positions and a new sales tax to close a $10 million gap. Only three people commented, raising concerns about spending priorities and performance measurement. The comprehensive plan hearing drew 17 speakers with passionate testimony about growth, housing, and environmental protection. Major controversies emerged over including the South U Street area in the Urban Growth Area, with property owners and housing advocates supporting inclusion while environmental groups opposed it due to Lake Padden watershed concerns. The council voted to schedule an additional work session and approved adding a housing appendix to the plan. For the parking ordinance, the council voted to extend interim regulations eliminating parking minimums for six more months. This allows developers to decide how much parking to provide based on market demand rather than city requirements. Ten people spoke, with mixed reactions to the policy's effects on different neighborhoods. The council also approved routine business including committee recommendations, property acquisitions, and appointments. ### What to Watch Next • **November 17:** Five additional public hearings scheduled, including ordinances on design standards, infill housing regulations, and co-living housing • **December 8:** Final adoption votes on both the comprehensive plan and 2026 budget • **Additional comprehensive plan work session:** Scheduled after council requested more discussion time on key issues like annexation policies and environmental concerns ---

**Q:** What was the size of the budget shortfall that prompted major cuts in the 2026 budget? **A:** $10 million in the general fund, requiring elimination of over 40 positions and adoption of a new 0.1% sales tax to balance the budget. **Q:** How many people spoke during the comprehensive plan public hearing? **A:** Seventeen individuals provided testimony on the Bellingham Plan, making it the most heavily commented item of the evening. **Q:** What is a "UGA Reserve" and why was it controversial at this meeting? **A:** UGA Reserve is a designation that prevents long-range planning for an area. The South U Street area's reserve status was controversial because it blocks housing development while environmental concerns make full UGA status disputed. **Q:** Who was Brian Armstrong and what was his main concern? **A:** A frequent public commenter who worried the city wasn't spending Greenways Fund money appropriately, using it for skate parks and artificial turf instead of trail connectivity and habitat restoration as voters intended. **Q:** What does eliminating "parking minimums" mean? **A:** It removes requirements that developers must provide a certain number of parking spaces, letting them decide based on market demand rather than city mandates. **Q:** What motion did Council Members Lilliquist and Cotton make regarding the comprehensive plan? **A:** They moved to refer the item to Committee of the Whole for an additional work session and to adopt a housing appendix to the plan. **Q:** How long do comprehensive plan updates occur and why? **A:** Every 10 years in a "periodic update" as required by Washington's Growth Management Act to ensure plans remain current with changing conditions. **Q:** What was Peter Frazier's main argument about South U Street? **A:** That including it in the UGA costs nothing today but opens the door to coordinated planning, shared infrastructure, and fiscally sound growth for Bellingham's future. **Q:** What did Bill Geyer suggest should be included in the community wellbeing section? **A:** Churches and religious institutions, arguing they provide critical community services but face discriminatory zoning as conditional uses. **Q:** How much will the new sales tax generate and what is it for? **A:** The new 0.1% sales tax is designated for criminal justice purposes and was necessary to help close the $10 million budget gap. **Q:** What percentage of positions being eliminated in the budget are currently vacant? **A:** Most of the over 40 positions being eliminated are vacant, minimizing direct impact on current employees. **Q:** What was Darcy Jones thanking the city for? **A:** On behalf of Kitek USA and Laraby Springs, she thanked planning staff and council for creating a good comprehensive plan and for engaging with their development proposals. **Q:** When are the final adoption votes scheduled for the major items discussed? **A:** December 8th for both the comprehensive plan and the 2026 budget adoption votes. **Q:** What did Brian Gas claim about the planning department's track record? **A:** He argued they have a history of dishonest planning, citing that in 2003 they said there was capacity for 10,000-11,000 housing units but only 2,400 single-family homes were actually permitted over 20 years. **Q:** What was the main focus of the Community Workgroup mentioned in the comprehensive plan process? **A:** A group of community members who met regularly throughout the two-year planning process to provide consistent feedback and help staff discuss critical issues and communication methods. **Q:** How many work sessions did the council hold on the comprehensive plan? **A:** Ten work sessions from June 3, 2024, to October 20, 2025, in addition to the public hearing. **Q:** What specific amendment did Council Member Stone propose for the parking ordinance? **A:** An amendment to Section 1 E regarding ADA parking requirements for certain types of development projects. **Q:** What was unique about the meeting duration mentioned? **A:** The meeting lasted 2 hours and 44 minutes, ending at 10:10 p.m., reflecting the substantial amount of public testimony and discussion. ---