City of Bellingham Public Health, Safety, Justice, and Equity Committee

**Daniel Hammill, on intervention programs:** "Given the fact that the county will be increasing the cost to the city for jail services, this seems sort of counterintuitive to, as a prevention and intervention program, which is a nominal, you know, $60,000 is what my colleague often refers to as budget dust." **Tara Sendin, on budget pressures:** "We are having to cut about $100,000 of general fund out of our human services, housing and human services, really I think it's the human services grant funds. When we don't, none of us really want to do that, including the administration." **Daniel Hammill, on GRACE program effectiveness:** "Graces regularly over 80% for success, lead is in the 90s, sort of pull money from this knowing that we'll have future needs. It just, like I said, it just seems kind of counterintuitive to me." **Mayor Kimberley Lund, on program commitment:** "I think we are in complete alignment on that shared commitment to the value of these programs, the need for t

**Meeting ID:** MEETING-2025-12-08 # Real Briefings — Full Meeting Narrative ## Meeting Overview On the morning of December 8, 2025, the Bellingham City Council's Public Health, Safety, Justice, and Equity Committee convened for a brief but substantive 19-minute meeting to address two interlocal agreements with Whatcom County. Committee Chair Daniel Hammill presided over the meeting, joined by Council Members Skip Williams and Michael Lilliquist as voting members, with Council Member Anderson attending in person and Council President Holly Hoffman participating online. The committee had two items before them: a routine amendment increasing reimbursement rates for Advanced Life Support Services, and a more contentious amendment reducing the city's contribution to the GRACE (Ground-Level Response and Coordinated Engagement) program. While the first item sailed through with minimal discussion, the second sparked a philosophical debate about intervention services and budget priorities that revealed competing values around public safety investments. ## Advanced Life Support Services — A Routine Adjustment Fire Chief Bill Hewett opened the meeting's business by presenting the first agenda item with characteristic directness: "Yeah, good afternoon, Council — Bill Hewitt from the Fire Department and our good morning. It's not afternoon. It's been a long day already." His brief confusion about the time of day set a conversational tone for what would prove to be a straightforward approval. The amendment to the Advanced Life Support Services agreement was purely administrative — memorializing a 3.3% increase in reimbursement rates for 2026, based on the Consumer Price Index of 2.3% plus an additional 1%. "We have a six year ALS contract that runs with the life of the countywide EMS levy every year though we get together with county to agree on reimbursement rates for the next year," Hewett explained. The increase would bring the total reimbursement to $13,943,642, funded through the county-wide EMS levy. Council Member Lilliquist quickly moved for approval, Williams seconded, and the motion carried 3-0 without further discussion. "I'll bring that forward tonight," Hammill noted, dispatching with routine business efficiently. ## The GRACE Program Debate — Values and Budget Tensions The second agenda item proved far more complex, exposing the difficult trade-offs facing city leadership in a constrained budget environment. The proposed amendment would reduce Bellingham's contribution to the GRACE program by $60,358, from $415,358 to $355,000 for 2026. While seemingly a modest reduction, it triggered a broader discussion about the city's commitment to intervention and prevention services. Samya Lutz, Housing and Services Manager, presented the amendment with the administration's reasoning: "They've been under spending and so we just ask for this correction, the county agreed they've already approved this and so we're just wanting to move this forward." The reduction would align the city's contribution with actual program costs, as the county had never billed the full contracted amount since GRACE's inception. ### Hammill's Philosophical Opposition Committee Chair Daniel Hammill immediately expressed reservations, viewing the reduction through the lens of the city's broader public safety strategy. "I'm not supportive of this," he declared, citing specific program outcomes listed in the staff packet: "reduction in jail admission, reduction and jailbed day utilization, and the second one is reduction in law enforcement responses." His opposition was rooted in a systems-thinking approach to public safety costs. "Given the fact that the county will be increasing the cost to the city for jail services, this seems sort of counterintuitive to, as a prevention and intervention program," he argued. Hammill emphasized the program's effectiveness, noting that "Graces regularly over 80% for success, lead is in the 90s," and questioned the wisdom of reducing funding for intervention when jail costs were increasing. Hammill's perspective was informed by his service on the J-POP committee (jail planning oversight group), giving him direct insight into the need for prevention and intervention programs. "What I see is a great need for intervention and prevention programs to flourish and to expand if possible," he stated, framing the reduction as counterproductive to long-term cost savings. ### Administration's Budget Realities Community and Economic Development Manager Tara Sendin provided crucial context about the city's budget pressures. "We're going through that budget process right now, where you all are with General Fund. And it is a little complicated because we have a lot of different funding sources that help us fund a variety of human services," she explained. The administration was facing approximately $100,000 in cuts to general fund human services programs. "None of us really want to do that, including the administration," Sendin acknowledged. The GRACE reduction was proposed as a way to "save cuts come next June and July for a whole slew" of other services, since the county had historically not billed the full contract amount. Deputy Administrator Eric Lohman reinforced this perspective, explaining that "having this money under contract in this way makes it unusable for other purposes." The reduction would right-size the contract to actual service levels while freeing up general fund resources for other programs at risk of cuts. ### Williams Seeks Clarification on Service Levels Council Member Williams focused on ensuring that service reductions wouldn't accompany the funding cut. "What I'm hearing is this is like a temporary reduction that we haven't been built for in roughly that amount of funds, right?" he asked, seeking confirmation that current staffing and service levels would remain unchanged. When assured that "this doesn't change the staffing levels, the level of service for this program," Williams expressed support for the temporary nature of the reduction. "It doesn't mean that it can't come back as the program grows and develops and so on," he noted, viewing the change as a short-term budget adjustment rather than a philosophical retreat from intervention services. ### Lilliquist's Pragmatic Support with Future Vision Council Member Lilliquist offered the most nuanced position, supporting the current reduction while maintaining expectations for future program growth. "I'm supportive of this because, currently, the county's never bills full amount because the current funding level supports as many staff as they've hired," he reasoned. However, Lilliquist emphasized that his support didn't reflect satisfaction with current service levels: "The policy question and the question that Mr. Hammill is touching on is maybe grace should actually be grown. How will you, we all of us know when it should be grown, that next increment, which would be another staff member, really, pairs of staff members for the program." He articulated the program's broader value proposition: "The grace program creates cost savings elsewhere on public coffers." This recognition of GRACE's systemic benefits led him to qualify his vote: "I'm happy with it this year but that's not a vote in my mind of saying I like the staffing levels to stay where they are. I'm open to that increasing for good reason." ### Future Funding and Justice Sales Tax The discussion revealed ongoing tensions about how to fund intervention programs sustainably. Hammill suggested that "this is the kind of program that we should be looking in the future for the unspent monies from the Justice Sales Tax to be supporting," noting that GRACE outcomes aligned with Justice Project implementation goals. Mayor Lund acknowledged this possibility while noting current constraints: "The challenge to that right now and something will work with our colleagues at the county on is creating more flexibility as written into their county code right now. There's restrictions that we feel are encumbering how the city's unspent sales tax can be allocated." ### Resolution and Commitments Despite his initial opposition, Hammill ultimately supported the amendment after receiving assurances about the administration's commitment to intervention services. "What I heard mayor was I think a philosophical commitment to embracing intervention and treatment services including this as part of a safety net. I just want to make sure that we maintain that going into the future," he said. Mayor Lund provided that assurance: "I think we are in complete alignment on that shared commitment to the value of these programs, the need for these services in our community. And I think this is a reflection of the costs for the program as it exists today, but it's not a reflection of the value that we place on this essential work." The mayor emphasized that the reduction was "reflective of where we are today" rather than a statement about optimal service levels. This framing allowed Hammill to change his position: "I was, I was up no on Friday, but today I'll be a yes." ## The Broader Context — Building the Plane While Flying It Throughout the GRACE discussion, participants grappled with managing a complex system of intervention services while facing budget constraints. Hammill captured this challenge with a vivid metaphor: "We're building this thing. I think the saying is you build the playing as you fly it, which kind of scares me a little bit, but we've got the mobile medical unit now that's downtown and the one out at Division and I mentioned the lead program, MCOT, Grace. There's a whole array of services that are out there and I just don't want to lose sight of that." This comment revealed the broader challenge facing municipal leaders: implementing a comprehensive approach to public safety and human services while managing fiscal realities and political pressures. The GRACE program exemplified this tension — a proven intervention that reduces costly emergency responses and incarceration, yet vulnerable to budget cuts because its benefits accrue system-wide rather than to a single department's budget line. ## Closing and What's Ahead The meeting concluded with Lilliquist's motion to approve the GRACE amendment, which carried 3-0 after the extended discussion. Hammill noted he would bring both items forward to the full council meeting that evening, wrapping up the committee's work efficiently despite the philosophical complexity of the issues addressed. The 19-minute meeting demonstrated how local government grapples with competing priorities in real time — balancing fiscal responsibility against programmatic values, managing inter-agency relationships, and making decisions that affect vulnerable community members. While both items received approval, the GRACE discussion revealed ongoing tensions about how to fund prevention and intervention services sustainably in an era of constrained municipal budgets. The committee's work reflected a broader challenge in local governance: maintaining commitment to evidence-based programs that generate long-term savings while managing immediate budget pressures. The ultimate consensus around maintaining current service levels while seeking future funding mechanisms suggested a mature approach to managing these tensions, even if the resolution remained somewhat provisional given the underlying budget constraints.

### Meeting Overview The City of Bellingham's Public Health, Safety, Justice, and Equity Committee met on December 8, 2025, chaired by Councilmember Daniel Hammill with committee members Skip Williams and Michael Lilliquist. The committee reviewed and approved amendments to two interlocal agreements with Whatcom County: one for Advanced Life Support Services and another for the GRACE program. ### Key Terms and Concepts **Interlocal Agreement:** A contract between two or more local governments to share services, costs, or resources. In this case, agreements between the City of Bellingham and Whatcom County for specific programs. **Advanced Life Support Services (ALS):** Emergency medical services that include advanced procedures like IV therapy, cardiac monitoring, and medication administration. Bellingham provides these services countywide through an agreement with Whatcom County. **GRACE Program:** Ground-Level Response and Coordinated Engagement - a program that provides intensive care coordination for individuals who frequently use emergency services, police, and hospitals to help break the cycle of crisis responses. **CPI (Consumer Price Index):** An economic measure used to calculate inflation and cost-of-living adjustments. The ALS agreement uses CPI plus 1% to determine annual reimbursement increases. **CDAB:** Community Development Advisory Board - makes recommendations on how to allocate certain city funding for human services and community development programs. **Hub and Spoke Model:** A service delivery approach where GRACE acts as the central "hub" coordinating care among various service providers (the "spokes") for complex clients. **Familiar Faces:** The term used in the GRACE program to describe individuals who frequently interact with emergency services, police, and hospitals without their underlying needs being met. **Justice Sales Tax:** A local tax dedicated to justice-related programs, which Councilmember Hammill suggested could potentially fund programs like GRACE in the future. ### Key People at This Meeting | Name | Role / Affiliation | |---|---| | Daniel Hammill | Committee Chair, City Councilmember | | Skip Williams | City Councilmember | | Michael Lilliquist | City Councilmember | | Kimberley Lund | Mayor | | Holly Hoffman | Council President (joined online) | | Anderson | City Councilmember (present in person) | | Bill Hewett | Fire Department Chief | | Samya Lutz | Housing and Services Manager | | Tara Sendin | Community and Economic Development Manager | | Blake Longman | Deputy Administrator | ### Background Context The City of Bellingham and Whatcom County have established several collaborative programs to address public safety, health services, and emergency response needs across the region. The Advanced Life Support agreement allows the city's fire department to provide advanced medical services throughout the county, funded by a countywide EMS levy. The GRACE program represents a newer approach to public safety - rather than just responding to crises, it attempts to intervene with intensive case management for people who repeatedly cycle through emergency rooms, jails, and police encounters. Both agreements reflect ongoing budget pressures facing local governments. While the ALS agreement sees a routine cost-of-living increase, the GRACE amendment actually reduces the city's contribution by about $60,000. This reduction comes during a tight budget year where the city is looking to minimize cuts to other human services programs. The county has historically not billed the city for the full amount available under the GRACE contract, making this adjustment possible without reducing services. ### What Happened — The Short Version The committee quickly approved the Advanced Life Support amendment, which increases the city's payment to the county by 3.3% for 2026 based on inflation plus 1%. This was routine business with no debate. The GRACE program amendment sparked more discussion. The city wants to reduce its contribution from about $415,000 to $355,000 for 2026. Staff explained this reduction is possible because the county has never billed the full contract amount historically, and the change won't reduce current service levels. Councilmember Hammill expressed concerns about cutting funding for an intervention program when jail costs are rising, but ultimately supported the change after receiving assurances that service levels won't drop and funding could be restored if needed. The committee approved both amendments 3-0. ### What to Watch Next • Both amendments go to the full City Council for final approval at their evening meeting • City budget discussions continue, with staff monitoring whether the GRACE program needs additional funding during 2026 • Potential future conversations about using Justice Sales Tax funds to support programs like GRACE • Ongoing development of the GRACE program's data platform (Julota) for better tracking of outcomes ---

**Q:** What is the Consumer Price Index adjustment for the Advanced Life Support agreement? **A:** 2.3% CPI plus an additional 1%, totaling a 3.3% increase for 2026. **Q:** How much will the city's GRACE program contribution be reduced by? **A:** $60,358, from approximately $415,358 to $355,000 for 2026. **Q:** What does GRACE stand for? **A:** Ground-Level Response and Coordinated Engagement. **Q:** Who chairs the Public Health, Safety, Justice, and Equity Committee? **A:** Councilmember Daniel Hammill. **Q:** What is the success rate mentioned for the GRACE program? **A:** Regularly over 80% success rate, with the LEAD program at over 90%. **Q:** How many embedded GRACE case managers work with Bellingham Police? **A:** Two case managers are embedded with Bellingham Police Department. **Q:** What does ALS stand for? **A:** Advanced Life Support Services. **Q:** What committee makes recommendations on human services funding? **A:** CDAB (Community Development Advisory Board). **Q:** How long is the term of the ALS interlocal agreement? **A:** Six years, running with the life of the countywide EMS levy. **Q:** What percentage of GRACE program costs does the city typically cover? **A:** Up to 40% of costs not covered by other funding sources. **Q:** Which department manages the GRACE contract for the city? **A:** The Planning and Community Development department, jointly with the Mayor's office. **Q:** How many people are typically served by GRACE at any given time? **A:** Approximately 75-100 GRACE members receive intensive case management. **Q:** What is the caseload size for GRACE case managers? **A:** Approximately 15-20 GRACE members per case manager. **Q:** What does the "hub and spoke" model mean in GRACE? **A:** GRACE serves as the central hub coordinating care among various service provider "spokes." **Q:** What was unusual about Councilmember Hammill's voting pattern? **A:** He initially planned to vote no but changed to yes, saying "I was up no on Friday, but today I'll be a yes." **Q:** What committee does Councilmember Hammill serve on related to jail planning? **A:** J-POP (Jail Planning Oversight Group). **Q:** What funding source was suggested for future GRACE expansion? **A:** Justice Sales Tax unspent monies. **Q:** Why hasn't the county billed the city for the full GRACE contract amount? **A:** The current funding level supports as many staff as they've hired for the program. ---