# City Council Charts Course for 2025 at Bellingham Public Schools Retreat On a rainy November morning, six Bellingham City Council members gathered in the spacious conference room at the Bellingham Public Schools District Office for their annual retreat — a 420-minute deep dive into priorities, processes, and the mechanics of municipal governance. Council Member Michael Lilliquist was notably absent, arriving partway through the first session as the group wrestled with fundamental questions about how they work together and what they want to accomplish in 2025. The retreat setting — borrowed from the school district — felt appropriate for a day of civic education and planning. Council staff had laid out breakfast pastries and coffee, and the agenda promised substantive discussions about everything from policy priorities to public comment procedures. This was the kind of strategic conversation that gets squeezed out of regular Monday evening meetings, where council members dash between budget items and ordinance readings. ## Housing Emerges as the Unifying Priority The morning's first agenda item — 2025 Council Policy Priorities — immediately zeroed in on what has become the defining issue of Bellingham's rapid growth: housing. Council Member Jace Cotton opened with a clear declaration: "I think we should make 2025 the year of housing or our year of housing." That sentiment found echoes around the table. "I want to second Jace saying that I would really love to see 2025 the year of housing too," said Council Member Lisa Anderson. "I think you know the mayor for starting that... is a great way to start that but I agree that you know we as the council were interested in that really focusing on that next year." But beneath the consensus lurked deeper questions about process and authority that would surface repeatedly throughout the day. The conversation quickly moved from what to do to how to do it — and who gets to decide. Council Member Hannah Stone raised a persistent concern that has frustrated her throughout her five years on council: the lack of a comprehensive tracking system for legislative requests. "One of the things that I've been in the past is like a tracker that is shared by all department heads and council so if I say you know I want staff to look into inclusionary zoning and bring something back as a possible proposal we can see when something was made who's working on it what progress and then we can check back in," she explained. Stone's frustration was palpable as she described how proposals she made early in her tenure are "still being worked on" with little visibility into their progress. "I've been bumped a lot," she said, "and not to say that other things that have come up aren't also a priority... it's just not ever been part of our discussion." The need for better project management and prioritization became a recurring theme. Council President Dan Hammill acknowledged the problem, noting how council members will casually ask each other "hey whatever happened to that" about initiatives from years past. ## The Executive Order Tension The conversation took a more complex turn when Lilliquist arrived and was briefed on the discussion. His response revealed tension that had been simmering since Mayor Kim Lund issued an executive order to fast-track certain housing initiatives — ironically, many of the same proposals council members had been requesting for years. "I should be celebrating and dancing in the street for thanking the mayor and I do thank the mayor," Lilliquist said, "but I had a negative reaction because these are not new ideas these are ideas that I have tried to indicate that I believe are priorities." He expressed concern that the executive order was creating "an alternate legislative process" that bypassed the council's deliberative role. The mayor, who had been listening quietly, defended the decision by pointing to "the cost of inaction." She noted that city employees struggling to afford housing in the community they serve had made "really difficult public comments during contract negotiations." The encampment response team meets weekly, she said, underscoring the urgency of taking "upstream actions even if they're imperfect." Council Member Skip Williams offered a pragmatic perspective: "Progress is progress no matter who makes it happen." But Lilliquist remained concerned about truncated public processes, even as he acknowledged his support for the housing goals themselves. ## Process Questions and Capacity Constraints Threading through the entire discussion was the fundamental tension between council ambitions and administrative capacity. City Attorney Therese Pittman reminded the group that they had just passed a $543 million budget that already reflects their priorities. "Staff could be totally consumed by meeting and performing the work that's reflected in that budget," she noted. Council Member Anderson spoke about aligning new initiatives with existing work, particularly around the comprehensive plan update. "What's going to be really important is any ideas that we have the things that we want to change is have those conversations with those department heads and see if they can be inserted as part of the process of the comp plan." Cotton raised the question of how council can "add capacity" rather than just relying on existing staff resources. When pressed for specifics, she suggested better coordination of the stakeholder meetings council members already take and more collaborative policy development processes. The conversation revealed different philosophies about the council's role. Williams questioned whether council members should simply propose ideas and leave implementation prioritization to the administration, or whether they should be more actively involved in setting staff work plans. It's a classic boundary question in municipal government: where does legislative oversight end and executive management begin? ## Updating the City's Mission and Values The morning's second major item — a review of the city's 15-year-old "Legacies and Strategic Commitments" document — opened another can of philosophical worms. Williams had discovered the 2009 document hanging on his office wall and wondered whether it still reflected the city's actual priorities. Lilliquist provided historical context, explaining that the document emerged from frustration with annual priority-setting exercises that barely changed year to year. "The legacies and commitments were intended to not be revised they were intended to be those sort of things that were going to be perennially true," he said. But the document clearly shows its age. Housing barely merits a mention, appearing only as a sub-bullet under "Equity & Social Justice." Climate action gets short shrift. The fentanyl crisis that dominates current council discussions was unimaginable in 2009. "You can definitely tell even though these aren't necessarily ordered by number the 2009 hot topics of conversation are certainly at the top," observed Council Member Hollie Huthman. "Those are not our hot topics of conversation now." Hammill pushed for elevating housing to its own major category rather than leaving it buried as a sub-item. Climate action needed similar treatment, he argued, noting that "we have lost sight on that and we need to refocus on that particular item." The group agreed that the administration should take the first crack at updating both the mission statement and the strategic commitments, with two council members working alongside staff on the revision. The goal is to create a unified document that both branches of city government can embrace — something that reflects contemporary challenges while maintaining the aspirational tone of the original. Cotton raised an important governance question: whether the council needs its own distinct mission statement separate from the city's overall mission. It's a question that gets to the heart of Bellingham's council-manager form of government and the sometimes blurry lines between legislative and executive functions. ## The Perennial Public Comment Debate The afternoon session tackled one of the council's most enduring debates: public comment procedures. Every year, it seems, council members revisit when public comment should occur, how long speakers get, and what topics are appropriate. Currently, oral public comment comes at the end of meetings, after all business items. The council also accepts written comments in advance. It's a system that mostly works, but generates annual angst about whether it's optimal. Lilliquist made the case for splitting public comment into two sessions — agenda-related items at the beginning and open-topic items at the end. "Let's have at the beginning where it's agenda related," he suggested, acknowledging it's his "least popular solution ever." But other members expressed strong reservations. Anderson pointed to the practical benefits of the current system: staff can leave after business items are complete, and the council can focus on deliberation without time pressure from waiting public speakers. "In the past when it was in the beginning and it went for a really long time then our conversations were shortened," Anderson noted. She worried about "hastening our work because the room is full and we know there's going to be a lot of speakers." The debate revealed competing values: public engagement versus deliberative quality, accessibility for working families versus efficiency for council operations. Cotton suggested reducing individual speaking time from three minutes to two to accommodate more speakers. Anderson worried that would disadvantage nervous speakers or those discussing complex topics. City Attorney Alan Marinier clarified the legal requirements: the Open Public Meetings Act requires public comment before final action, but written comment satisfies that requirement. Time limits and topic restrictions are allowed, but must be applied consistently. After extensive discussion, the group seemed to settle on maintaining the status quo while potentially gathering more information about how other cities handle public comment. As Hammill noted, "the system that we have right now actually works fairly well it's not perfect but I don't think there is a perfect system." ## Building Council Capacity The afternoon's final substantive discussion focused on the expanded council staff structure — a significant change from just two years ago when Council Executive Assistant Jackie Weller worked largely alone. Now the council has added David Brauhn as Communications Specialist (shared with the mayor's office) and Iris Nott as Legislative Policy Analyst. The three-person team represents a substantial investment in council capacity. Weller outlined her role as the logistical backbone — meeting preparation, packet assembly, and keeping council members "safe from OPMA considerations or violations." Brauhn discussed his expanding communications work, from social media management to coordinating responses to email floods from concerned residents. Nott described her research role, from quick information requests to major policy analyses on topics like parking requirements and housing fees. She's also the council's eyes and ears on regional issues, attending county meetings and tracking legislation that might affect Bellingham. The structured approach to assigning work — small projects (under 4 hours) go directly to Nott, medium projects (4-24 hours) require coordination with Weller, and large projects need full council approval — represents an attempt to manage competing demands on limited staff time. Council members expressed appreciation for the expanded capacity. "This is new for us for council to have this much bandwidth and to have a team," noted Cotton. Williams, who served during the leaner years, emphasized how the support "helps us become more effective at what we do." ## Looking Ahead As the retreat wound down, the council had accomplished its main objectives: affirming housing as the top 2025 priority, agreeing to update the city's mission and values documents, maintaining current public comment procedures, and clarifying staff roles and responsibilities. But the day's conversations revealed deeper questions about the balance of power in city government, the pace of policy implementation, and the role of public engagement in decision-making. These aren't issues that get resolved in a single retreat; they require ongoing attention and periodic recalibration. The November retreat served its intended purpose: creating space for strategic thinking away from the weekly grind of ordinances and resolutions. Whether the agreements reached in the comfortable confines of the school district office will translate into smoother operations and clearer priorities during the heat of regular council meetings remains to be seen. With a new committee structure to be determined at the December reorganization meeting and several major housing initiatives moving forward, 2025 promises to test both the council's cohesion around their stated priorities and their ability to work effectively within the boundaries of municipal governance. The year ahead will show whether the conversations that filled this November day were merely aspirational or the foundation for more effective city leadership. For a council that has often struggled to move from discussion to action, the stakes couldn't be higher.