Bellingham City Council - Public Works and Natural Resources Committee

**Mike Olinger, on Post Point technology choices:** "There were no available technologies that could meet all three priorities, affordability, reliable service, and environmental certainty." **Mike Olinger, on the decision to upgrade incinerators:** "The emissions upgrade gives us the opposite improved air quality, stability and time to plan for the next system while keeping post-point compliant and reliable." **Council Member Stone, on technology risks:** "I think about other aspects of city work where maybe being at the front and going first and sort of testing those new waters may be worth exploring but I feel like what you've highlighted as far as the struggles that other jurisdictions locally have come across, it's really of concern." **Council Member Anderson, on watershed recreation:** "So is there going to be a point where all of this property is going to be brought back in a sense where we're going to have a say of whether or recreation is where it's appropriate, where it's

# Bellingham Public Works Committee Grapples with Wastewater Treatment, Land Policy, and Rate Increases ## Meeting Overview The Public Works and Natural Resources Committee convened on November 17, 2025, with Chair Hannah Stone leading the discussion alongside council members Lisa Anderson and Jace Cotton. Mayor Kimberley Lund also attended the nearly hour-long session that tackled three significant infrastructure and policy items: a comprehensive update on Post Point wastewater treatment plant's solids management challenges, a septage rate increase that had gone unadjusted for over a decade, and revisions to Lake Whatcom watershed land management policies. The meeting revealed the complex balancing act facing Bellingham's utility operations — maintaining reliable service while navigating environmental concerns, aging infrastructure, and rising costs. Each agenda item highlighted different aspects of this challenge, from the $200 million biosolids project that was ultimately paused to the need for clearer policies governing thousands of acres of watershed protection lands. ## Post Point's Wastewater Solids Dilemma: A Bridge to Nowhere or Somewhere? Public Works Deputy Director Mike Olinger opened the longest discussion of the meeting with a comprehensive overview of Post Point wastewater treatment plant's solids management — a story he called "complicated" that spans five decades of technological evolution and regulatory pressures. The narrative began in 1974 when Bellingham installed its first incinerator at Post Point, representing "a major environmental step forward at the time." Prior to that, wastewater received only basic primary treatment at Sea Street before being discharged directly into Bellingham Bay. A second incinerator unit was added in 1994 for redundancy and reliability. "These systems have provided 50 years of consistent and local treatment under state and regional oversight," Olinger explained. "The local control has kept operations reliable and responsive to the community's growing needs." But by 2012, the city began planning for what seemed like the next logical step: a resource recovery project using anaerobic digestion to generate energy and produce biosolids for land application. "With years of technical and community work, the project was selected because it reflected our sustainability goals, beneficial reuse, energy generation, and a low carbon footprint," Olinger said. However, reality intervened in the form of escalating costs and emerging environmental concerns. "By 2022, the projected cost for Bio-Solids conversion project had grown to more than $200 million. At the same time, new concerns surrounding PFAS and other contaminants made bio-solids reuse uncertain." This forced a fundamental reassessment. "There were no available technologies that could meet all three priorities, affordability, reliable service, and environmental certainty," Olinger noted. "With those risks in mind, the City Council made the decision to pause the project and refocus on maintaining reliable and compliant operations using the proven system already in place at post-point." ### Comparing the Options: Incineration vs. Landfilling Following the biosolids project pause, staff and consultants evaluated two primary alternatives: upgrading the existing incinerators or switching to landfilling solids. The analysis revealed stark differences in long-term implications. "In the short term, land filling appears similar in cost, but over 20 years the cost is significantly higher, largely due to hauling and vendor fees," Olinger explained. "It would also require three to four truck trips per day, which would add odor, methane, and traffic impacts." The numbers told a compelling story about local control versus external dependency. "Upgrading the Ascentirators was a higher upfront capital cost, but keeps treatment local, under city control, and avoids the added hauling impacts," Olinger said. More critically, landfilling would eliminate operational flexibility. "Once the incinerators are shut down, they cannot be restarted, and selecting, permitting, and building new systems would take approximately 10 to 15 years. That means committing to landfilling for the entire period at a much higher long term cost." The operational risks extended beyond mere economics. "We can't store solids on site, So any interruption in hauling creates immediate operational risks and it increases dependency on third-party vendors and Transportation capacity." ### Learning from Other Cities' Struggles Olinger contextualized Bellingham's situation by examining what happened to nearby municipalities that shut down their incinerators. The results were sobering. "In Linwood their incinerator was shut down after many years of compliance issues So emergency hauling was the only available option to them. Their long-term plan is to build a digestion system and land apply their biosolids. This is the same project that Bellingham paused in 2022." Edmonds faced similar challenges. "The city is transitioning to gasification system, but the new equipment isn't yet operational, so they're land-filling solids in the meantime. This project has been under delays for many years and is still showing no signs of becoming completed and operational." The contrast with Bellingham's position was stark. "In both cases, landfilling is temporary and driven by the lost loss of treatment capacity not by choice. Both cities still face several years of transition. In contrast, Billingham system is operational and compliant today. That allows us to take a proactive approach, upgrade our equipment, maintain reliability, and choose a reasonable path based on a full evaluation." ### Planning for the Future: A New Comprehensive Plan Engineering Manager Mike Wilson outlined the next phase of planning: a comprehensive sewer plan update, the first since 2009. "We feel like it's timely with all the study that's happened that Mike's alluding to to bring those back under one umbrella look at the treatment and the collection side at the same time." The two-year process will involve extensive stakeholder engagement. "We're going to have a lot of robust interplay with the Water Resources Advisory Board, the City Council, the Mayor's Office, and the public in terms of the public involvement process." Wilson emphasized the plan's scope would be comprehensive. "We're going to be, we've relied on tried and true technologies that continue to work and continue to perform. And we want to balance that with the study looking at emerging technologies and watches those mature. Also, there's the regulatory aspect. We've got the PFAS, the contaminants of emerging concern, nutrient reduction, solid handling, all those pieces of the puzzle will be a part of our study." The timeline extends well into the future. "Realistically we're looking at after we get down with the planning process a couple years from now you're talking mid-2030s for implementation." ### Council Questions and Concerns Council Member Liliquist pressed staff on dewatering technology options, referencing a staff memo noting that "Rotary presses were tested and found incompatible with post-points sludge characteristics." He asked whether other dewatering technologies could be explored. "There are many different types of dryers that can be used," Wilson responded, "and I use dryers in the broader broader sense of whether it's centrifuges, screw presses, rotary drying surfaces, the list goes on and on." However, Wilson cautioned against viewing any technology as straightforward. "When we talk about post-point, nothing is off the shelf. There is nothing that's just a plug it in and And here we go. Everything takes many years of planning and consulting and then permitting and anytime that we change our process requires us to repermit that process." Council Member Cotton expressed support for the cautious approach, emphasizing the critical importance of maintaining reliable service. "What's at stake here" in terms of reliable wastewater treatment made her appreciate "the fact that the incinerators are operational right now and reliable and that we're able to keep that processing in the interim." She noted the inherent tension in municipal utility management: "Those are some of the things that I think about city work and like those are the pieces that operating behind the scenes no one's necessarily thinking about because it's functioning and everything's going well and that's not something we want to, yeah, to risk and then be in the papers because we do have a problem." ## Septage Rates: Catching Up After Years of Neglect The committee's second item addressed a more straightforward but long-overdue housekeeping matter: increasing rates for septage disposal at Post Point. The current rates, set in 2012, needed a substantial 39% increase to cover rising costs. "To help ensure that septage disposable rates are covering increased costs, the rates will be increased by 39% on January 1st of this coming year, 2026," Chair Stone explained. "The update increases the dump fee from $15.75 per dump to $24.32 per dump. And increases the cost per gallon dumped from $0.13 to $0.20." Deputy Director Olinger acknowledged the oversight in rate management. "This is more of a cleanup on our part We we kind of over looked that we were supposed to be adjusting this rate annually And so as we've been kind of doing a self-audit here This was picked up and we're we're trying to fix that now." Plant Superintendent Steve Bradshaw joined Olinger to field questions about the rate structure and its impact. The current system serves septage haulers dealing with "highly concentrated organic material pumped from septic tanks, cesspools, portable toilets, thing about RV holding tanks, things like that sort," as Chair Stone explained. ### Emergency Planning Questions Council Member Cotton raised an intriguing question about emergency capacity, asking whether Post Point could serve other municipalities if their systems failed. "Have we ever or is there the possibility that another municipality, if their sewer system should fail, that there would be interest in trucking stuff to us for processing?" "It is within our capacity. We do have capacity of the plant to do something like that," Olinger responded. "But I don't know that we could take all of any of those municipalities waste. But that would be negotiated under a separate interlocal. We would not use this for that type of taking sceptige." The question sparked curiosity about rate-setting authority, with Cotton asking "when those rate determinations are made by council versus the a director and if there's a reason why." City Attorney Matt Stamps provided historical context: "I think it's just a historical anomaly. It was codified that way that it was to be a director of determination. I don't know that there was a real rationale behind it other than it was just put forward that way." ### Revenue Impacts The rate increase affects a significant revenue stream. "Right now we're estimating that the revenue from this is in that $100,000 range for most users," Olinger explained. "We are expecting some of our users to use other municipalities as we raise our rates I think we were seeing a disproportionate share of our haulers hauled to us because we were Significantly cheaper than than other municipalities." ## Lake Whatcom Land Policy: Balancing Preservation and Recreation The committee's final item proved the most contentious: updating land management policies for the Lake Whatcom Land Acquisition and Preservation Program, which has purchased over 3,500 acres since 2000. Natural Resources Superintendent Mike Prelskin walked the committee through the need for policy updates, explaining that the original 2005 guidelines had become unwieldy. "The problem with 2005-09 is it explores our program on kind of a broader scale and makes justifications for why we need a program, how to create one. It also includes meeting minutes and case studies, citations. So it's very difficult to pull out the pertinent information when we're responding to increase from the public." The new policy aimed to streamline management while addressing growing recreational pressures on watershed lands. "There's a lot of competition for public land in the watershed," Prelskin noted, showing photos of illegal trails built by mountain bikers and timber trespassing detected by trail cameras. ### The One-for-One Trail Policy The most significant change involved managing trail systems. "The real only major change is how we're going to deal with inquiries for additional trail mileage, which is basically if we do decide there needs to be a new trail out there, we're going to abandon and maintain abandoned trails at a ratio of one to one." This represented a more restrictive approach than before. "So if there's a trail that we see that could facilitate a safer route through one of our properties or protect water quality, that's going to mean we're going to remove a trail at the same length before we add any new trail." ### Council Concerns About Recreation Council Member Anderson expressed fundamental concerns about allowing recreation on watershed protection lands. "In my mind I thought we're purchasing this land to set it aside and make it as pristine as possible in order to help preserve the quality of our watershed and recreation like trails and the human interaction and mountain biking and all that does not necessarily it's not conducive it's not my thought was when we're purchasing this it's not parkland it's not an extension of our parks and recreation." Her questions probed deeper policy implications: "Is there going to be a point where all of this property is going to be brought back in a sense where we're going to have a say of whether or recreation is where it's appropriate, where it's going to continue, what type of recreation on those parcels are going to be allowed." Anderson also raised enforcement concerns: "How do we strengthen the relationship with the Sheriff's Department, so we have more of a robust enforcement," noting the challenges of managing lands outside city limits where "our city police are not necessarily in the position of enforcing its more county and the partnership with the Sheriff's Department." ### Language Confusion and Clarification The discussion became mired in interpretation of specific policy language regarding trail decommissioning. The draft policy stated: "Older, social, or otherwise illegal trails shall be decommissioned at a rate of at least one to one with new trail mileage." Anderson expressed concern about how this could be read: "I kind of read it as if we remove then we add and I would want that word Smith a different that gave us It's not required, but it's an opportunity for should a third party entity want to expand a trail." City Attorney Stamps acknowledged the ambiguity: "I think that gets to your point, which is a good one. I think that's the key phrase that I think already does the work you're looking to do. But I guess it's in that sentence then that I see Council Member Anderson's concern." Council Member Liliquist proposed adding clarifying language in the management strategies section to explicitly address unauthorized trail removal, making clear that the city actively decommissions illegal trails regardless of any new trail construction. ### Pet Waste and Other Details Council Member Cotton raised a practical concern about pet waste, noting that the policy allowed "walking dogs and other domestic animals provided they are under leashed control" but didn't explicitly address waste removal. Given the phosphorus and nitrogen pollution concerns in the watershed, she suggested adding language about pet waste collection. Prelskin explained they had tried to tie prohibited activities to existing legal codes: "The prohibited uses, we really kind of needed to back them up with a supporting code that was provided either by a WAC and RCW or a county code. And so I actually, yeah, I did try to find something like a consolidated code that we could use to enforce in an event for pet waste because it is a big deal and there wasn't something that we could specifically apply." However, City Attorney Stamps clarified that as landowners, the city had more flexibility: "You know, I agree with that actually, I think we, you know, setting aside any like, you know, impermissible type discriminatory type rules, of course, but yeah, like if you wanted to specify Pat Waste, we could, that could be done as well, because it's a landowner." ## Closing & What's Ahead The meeting concluded with agreements to refine language on both the trail decommissioning policy and pet waste requirements before bringing the Lake Whatcom resolution to the evening council meeting for a vote. The committee demonstrated both the technical complexity of municipal utility management and the ongoing tension between environmental protection and public access to natural areas. The Post Point wastewater presentation set the stage for years of planning discussions as the city works toward its mid-2030s implementation timeline for the comprehensive sewer plan. The septage rate increase, while mundane, highlighted the need for consistent administrative attention to cost recovery. And the Lake Whatcom land policy revision revealed the evolving challenges of managing thousands of acres of watershed protection lands in a region facing growing recreational pressures. All three items reflected broader themes in municipal governance: the challenge of maintaining critical infrastructure, the need for adaptive policies as conditions change, and the importance of clear communication between staff and elected officials in making decisions that affect both environmental protection and public services.

### Meeting Overview The Bellingham City Council Public Works and Natural Resources Committee met on November 17, 2025, to discuss three agenda items: Post Point Wastewater Treatment Plant solids management upgrades, septage rate increases for 2026, and updates to Lake Whatcom watershed land management policies. ### Key Terms and Concepts **Post Point Wastewater Treatment Plant:** Bellingham's primary sewage treatment facility, operational since 1974, which processes wastewater from the city and handles solid waste through incineration systems. **Biosolids:** The treated sewage sludge that remains after wastewater processing, which can be either incinerated, land-applied as fertilizer, or landfilled depending on the treatment approach chosen. **PFAS (Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances):** Chemical contaminants of emerging concern that persist in the environment and have made biosolids reuse increasingly problematic and uncertain. **Septage:** Highly concentrated organic waste pumped from septic tanks, portable toilets, and RV holding tanks that is brought to the treatment plant by registered haulers. **Lake Whatcom Land Acquisition and Preservation Program:** A city program established in 2000 that has purchased over 3,500 acres to protect the Lake Whatcom watershed, which serves as Bellingham's drinking water source. **Anaerobic Digestion:** A wastewater treatment process that breaks down organic matter without oxygen to produce methane gas and biosolids, which the city considered but paused due to cost and contamination concerns. **Water Resources Advisory Board:** A city advisory body that provides input on water-related policies and programs, including the Lake Whatcom management strategies. **Bellingham Municipal Code (BMC) 15.12.210:** The city code section that governs septage disposal rates and requires annual rate setting by the Public Works Director. ### Key People at This Meeting | Name | Role / Affiliation | |---|---| | Hannah Stone | Committee Chair, City Council Member | | Lisa Anderson | Committee Member, City Council Member | | Jace Cotton | Committee Member, City Council Member | | Kimberley Lund | Mayor | | Mike Olanger | Public Works Deputy Director | | Mike Wilson | Engineering Manager | | Mike Prelskin | Superintendent of Natural Resources Operations | | Steve Bradshaw | Superintendent of Plants | | Matt Stamps | City Legal Department | ### Background Context The Post Point Wastewater Treatment Plant has served Bellingham for 50 years using incineration to handle sewage solids. In recent years, the city explored switching to a more modern anaerobic digestion system that would have produced renewable energy and biosolids for land application. However, by 2022, costs had escalated to over $200 million and growing concerns about PFAS contamination made biosolids reuse uncertain. The city paused that project and decided instead to upgrade the existing incineration system. Meanwhile, the Lake Whatcom watershed protection program has been acquiring land since 2000 to prevent development that could harm the city's drinking water source. The original land management guidelines from 2005 needed updating to address current pressures from recreation, illegal trail building, and other unauthorized uses while maintaining the primary goal of water quality protection. ### What Happened — The Short Version City staff presented three main items. First, they explained why they're upgrading the wastewater plant's incinerator system rather than switching to a newer technology. The upgrade costs more upfront but is cheaper long-term than trucking waste to landfills, and it keeps treatment local and reliable. Second, they announced septage disposal rates will increase 39% in January 2026 to catch up after being frozen since 2012. Third, they proposed new rules for managing the 3,500+ acres the city owns around Lake Whatcom. The committee asked for small wording changes to clarify that unauthorized trails can be removed without having to build new ones, and requested language about pet waste cleanup. The items will come back for final votes at the evening meeting. ### What to Watch Next • Final committee votes on the Lake Whatcom land policy changes at the November 17 evening meeting • Launch of the comprehensive wastewater plan update process starting in early to mid-2026 • Septage rate increase taking effect January 1, 2026 ---

**Q:** When was the Post Point Wastewater Treatment Plant's incinerator system first built? **A:** 1974, with a second unit added in 1994 for redundancy. **Q:** How much did the biosolids conversion project cost when the city paused it in 2022? **A:** Over $200 million, which was significantly higher than originally projected. **Q:** What are the main concerns that led to pausing the biosolids conversion project? **A:** High costs exceeding $200 million and uncertainty about biosolids reuse due to PFAS contamination. **Q:** How much will the septage disposal rate increase in January 2026? **A:** 39%, raising dump fees from $15.75 to $24.32 and per-gallon costs from $0.13 to $0.20. **Q:** When were septage rates last adjusted before this increase? **A:** 2012, meaning rates had been frozen for over a decade. **Q:** How many acres has the Lake Whatcom Land Acquisition and Preservation Program purchased since 2000? **A:** Over 3,500 acres to protect the city's drinking water source. **Q:** What is the new "one-to-one" rule for trails in the Lake Whatcom watershed? **A:** If any new trail is approved, unauthorized trails must be decommissioned at least at a one-to-one ratio. **Q:** Who makes the decision about septage rate increases? **A:** The Public Works Director, as specified in Bellingham Municipal Code 15.12.210. **Q:** What are the three main options the city considered for handling wastewater solids? **A:** Upgrading existing incinerators, landfilling solids, or building an anaerobic digestion system. **Q:** How much annual revenue does the city expect from septage disposal after the rate increase? **A:** Approximately $100,000, though some users may switch to other facilities. **Q:** What happened to Lynwood's wastewater treatment approach? **A:** They shut down their incinerator after compliance issues and are planning a digestion system with biosolids land application. **Q:** When will the comprehensive wastewater plan update begin? **A:** Early to mid-2026, with completion expected by late 2027. **Q:** What is the primary purpose of the Lake Whatcom land acquisition program? **A:** To protect water quality by preventing development in the watershed that serves as Bellingham's drinking water source. **Q:** Why can't unauthorized trails just be removed without the one-to-one requirement? **A:** Staff clarified they can and do remove unauthorized trails daily; the one-to-one rule only applies when new authorized trails are built. **Q:** What enforcement challenges exist for Lake Whatcom watershed properties? **A:** Most properties are outside city limits, so enforcement relies on Whatcom County Sheriff rather than city police. **Q:** How many years would it take to select, permit, and build a new wastewater solids treatment system? **A:** Approximately 10 to 15 years according to staff estimates. **Q:** What types of unauthorized activities are occurring on Lake Whatcom watershed properties? **A:** Illegal trail building, timber trespass, unauthorized vehicle use, and various recreational activities. **Q:** When was the original Lake Whatcom land management policy adopted? **A:** March 21, 2005, based on recommendations from the now-dissolved Watershed Advisory Board. **Q:** What body recommended approval of the new Lake Whatcom land management policy? **A:** The Water Resources Advisory Board made a motion to support adoption. **Q:** When are the implementation timelines for major wastewater system improvements identified in the comprehensive plan? **A:** Mid-2030s, after the planning process concludes and rate-making discussions occur. ---