City of Bellingham City Council Committee of the Whole

The Bellingham City Council held an intensive work session to finalize details for the 2025 Comprehensive Plan update, following up on their November 3rd public hearing. The session focused on addressing specific council questions about annexation policies, energy storage, faith-based organizations, public development authorities, and climate compliance requirements under House Bill 1181. The Council made substantive policy refinements to annexation planning language, adding requirements for developing fiscal mechanisms rather than just analyzing costs. They approved energy storage amendments requested by Puget Sound Energy and directed staff to strengthen environmental impact analysis requirements for future annexations. In a significant administrative action, the Council streamlined their external committee assignments from 30 to 20 positions, removing appointments to 10 organizations including several nonprofits and chambers of commerce. This represents a shift toward more strategic assignment of council member time and energy. The comprehensive plan work revealed ongoing tension between aspirational housing goals and fiscal realities. Staff reported that fully addressing the city's affordability gap would require $130 million annually — ten times current resources of $13-15 million. This stark reality shaped discussions about new mechanisms like public development authorities. The session demonstrated the complexity of updating growth management documents under new state requirements. Staff cross-referenced multiple Commerce guidance measures to show compliance with HB 1181's greenhouse gas reduction mandates, while council members pushed for more specific targets and baseline measurements.

**Comprehensive Plan Amendments (AB 24728):** - **LU-11 & 16 Amendments:** Passed 7-0. Changed "identify" to "designate" future land uses, added "developing mechanisms" language for fiscal challenges in annexation planning - **Environmental Impact Analysis:** Passed 7-0. Required separate bullet point for environmental opportunities/costs in annexation analysis - **Active Annexation Language:** Passed 7-0. Directed staff to replace "allow annexations" with more proactive language while maintaining conditional requirements - **Energy Storage Policies:** Passed 7-0. Added PSE-requested language to FS-22 and C-39 for underground utilities and energy storage systems - **Right-of-Way EV Charging:** Passed 7-0. Added right-of-way to C-37 electric vehicle infrastructure policy - **Public Development Authority Language:** Passed 7-0. Directed staff to add PDA language to appropriate location in housing chapter - **Community Forest Caption:** Passed 7-0. Changed map caption from "community forests" to "publicly owned forest parcels" pending urban forest plan completion **Committee Assignment Reductions (AB 24729):** - **Removed 10 Assignments:** Passed 7-0. Eliminated council appointments to: Bellingham International Airport Advisory Committee, Bellingham School District K-12, Bellingham/Whatcom County Tourism Board, Chamber of Commerce, Downtown Bellingham Partnership, Higher Education Liaison, Opportunity Council, Port of Bellingham Marina Advisory Committee, Sister Cities, and Working Waterfront - **Communication Protocol:** Organizations will be notified that council members can still serve by individual recruitment, but council will not make formal appointments

**Council Member Lilliquist, on annexation planning:** "I would want to sit in here or change in here language which goes beyond identifying and analyzing and goes towards obligating us to look for solutions and to take actions, to actually move towards a plan that feeds a fiscal responsibility." **Council Member Anderson, on environmental analysis:** "I would like to see some of the environmental aspect put to this as far as how what is the potential for carbon... what remains and what would be lost with development." **Council Member Stone, on comprehensive plan representation:** "I want the broader community to feel like they're represented in this plan, right, that this plan is about our broader community." **Planning Director Foster, on housing affordability gap:** "Just think of it in terms of scale... it's basically like a factor of 10 for the current financial and organizational resources." **Council Member Lilliquist, on committee assignments:** "What goes through my head is what is the purpose of this? What is the purpose of serving on these committees?" **Council Member Williams, on committee reduction:** "When this list is not exhaustive... add six to this. Now we're at 36, not 30. And I know... some of these... require significantly more work than just being on the task force."

# Bellingham City Council Special Meeting — Planning the City's Future ## Meeting Overview On a crisp November morning in 2025, the Bellingham City Council convened for a lengthy 3-hour and 29-minute special meeting that would shape the trajectory of the city's growth and governance for years to come. Council President Hollie Huthman called the session to order at 9:30 AM, with all seven council members present: Hannah Stone, Daniel Hammill, Edwin "Skip" Williams, Lisa Anderson, Michael Lilliquist, and Jace Cotton. The meeting focused on three substantial items: a comprehensive work session on the 2025 Bellingham Comprehensive Plan update, a thorough evaluation of council committee assignments, and the appointment of members to a lobbying working group. What distinguished this meeting was its depth of policy discussion and the council's methodical approach to both long-term city planning and their own institutional responsibilities. ## The 2025 Comprehensive Plan Work Session The morning's centerpiece was an intensive work session on Bellingham's comprehensive plan update — the 20-year blueprint that guides all major city decisions on housing, transportation, land use, and climate action. Planning Director Chris Behee and his team, including Senior Planner Elizabeth Erickson and climate specialist Claire Fogofon, presented responses to council questions following the November 3rd public hearing. **Annexation Strategy: From Passive to Active** The most substantive debate centered on the city's approach to annexing new territory from Whatcom County. Council members expressed frustration with what they characterized as a historically passive approach, where the city waited for property owners to petition for annexation rather than actively pursuing strategic growth. "We've taken a necessarily passive approach to annexations," said Councilmember Lilliquist. "We've waited for the petitioners to come to us and we've had UGAs [Urban Growth Areas] that have just sat there forever, and it's kind of a public relations problem. You hear people say, why is there no growth in your growth areas?" The council examined policies LU-11 and LU-16, which outline annexation planning requirements. LU-11 calls for comprehensive analysis before annexation, including identifying future land use and zoning designations, analyzing infrastructure costs, and developing sustainable funding approaches. LU-16 states that annexations will only be allowed after this analysis is complete. But Lilliquist wanted stronger language. "I want a more active word there," he said. "Growth is like a splitting maul. A splitting maul has an axe on one side and a sledgehammer on the other. If you hit the environment with the sledge side you cause damage, but if you hit the wood with the splitting side you do something useful." The discussion revealed tension between being proactive about growth while maintaining fiscal responsibility. Council members voted 7-0 to direct staff to redraft LU-16 with more active language about advancing annexation, while maintaining safeguards requiring thorough analysis first. **Housing Mechanisms: The $130 Million Gap** Staff presented sobering numbers about Bellingham's affordable housing challenge. While the city pools $14-15 million annually from various sources for affordable housing production and services, actual need is estimated at $130 million per year — nearly ten times current resources. This gap prompted Councilmember Lilliquist to push for exploring Public Development Authorities (PDAs) as an alternative housing development mechanism. "I'm reaching for additional mechanisms that don't compete," he explained. "I don't want to create another Bellingham housing authority to compete with the existing one. I'm looking for things that can operate under different rules." PDAs are quasi-public entities that can operate with more flexibility than traditional government agencies. Seattle's social housing PDA, for example, can develop housing across income levels, not just for the lowest-income residents. The council voted 7-0 to direct staff to find an appropriate location in the housing chapter for language exploring PDAs and other alternative housing models. **Climate Policy Alignment** Claire Fogofon addressed questions about whether the plan's climate policies would actually reduce carbon emissions. She explained that the city's approach builds on existing climate work, referencing guidance measures from the state Department of Commerce that have "demonstrated ability to reduce greenhouse gas emissions." "What we've done is put together some of the connections between the measures and the policies in our comprehensive plan and the Commerce measures that were put forward as guidance," Fogofon said, showing slides linking city policies to state-approved carbon reduction strategies. Councilmember Anderson raised concerns about environmental impacts in annexation analysis, successfully moving to require separate consideration of environmental opportunities and costs as part of annexation planning. **Tree Canopy and Urban Forest Management** The discussion touched on state requirements for evaluating tree canopy coverage in urban growth areas. While the city has LIDAR data showing forest cover citywide, the comprehensive Urban Forest Management Plan remains under development. Staff showed maps highlighting publicly-owned forest parcels but acknowledged they were reluctant to define "community forests" before completing the formal planning process. The council approved revised map language to clarify that blue-outlined areas are examples of publicly-owned forest parcels, not the entirety of community forests. **Equity and Representation** Councilmember Stone raised broader concerns about representation in the plan. "When you look at the language used in the plan itself when thinking about underrepresented or marginalized, historically marginalized, vulnerable populations, that's where you see reference," she said. "There's very little to race and other aspects." Stone noted that while Spanish-speaking engagement opportunities were mentioned, immigrants and refugees are barely referenced in the plan. With projections that Bellingham's community will become majority-minority in the next 20 years, she wanted stronger language about elevating historically marginalized communities. "I don't want that to be sort of trapped in that essence of vulnerability forever in time," Stone said. "I'm hoping that when we're thinking about 20 years and growth, I don't want that to be sort of trapped in that definition of vulnerability." Councilmember Anderson supported adding specific language about minority-owned businesses in economic development policies. ## Streamlining Committee Assignments After lunch, the council tackled an institutional housekeeping matter that revealed deeper questions about their role in community governance. Jackie Weller, Legislative Office Manager, presented research showing Bellingham assigns council members to 30 external committees — among the highest of cities surveyed. "An informal analysis of other cities in Washington found that Bellingham assigns membership to a relatively high number of groups," Weller reported. "On average, other cities surveyed had 21 committees, with the lowest being 10 and the highest being 38." **The Purpose Question** The conversation began with fundamental questions about why council members serve on external boards at all. As Councilmember Cotton put it: "What is the purpose of serving on these committees outside of the organization?" Councilmember Williams drew distinctions between different types of service. Some assignments fulfill clear governmental functions — like oversight of city-funded entities or intergovernmental coordination. Others serve community organizations that benefit from having an insider's perspective on city operations. "I've served on some of these agencies because I'm helping them, not because I'm helping the city," Williams said, describing his service on the Downtown Bellingham Partnership board. "By virtue of being a council member, I'm an asset to that board and therefore to the community." **Drawing Lines** The council identified several categories of assignments: - Legally required positions (mandated by state law or city code) - Intergovernmental coordination bodies - Oversight of city-funded or city-owned assets - Economic development entities - Nonprofit organizations seeking council representation Council President Huthman suggested eliminating assignments to nonprofit boards entirely. "It's not that city council members can't sit on a board — of course they can if they want to — but just that the council itself wouldn't be the one assigning the council member to that board." **The Pruning Process** The council methodically reviewed their 30 assignments, ultimately voting 7-0 to remove 11 positions from official appointment: - Bellingham International Airport Advisory Committee - Bellingham School District K-12 (liaison position) - Bellingham/Whatcom County Tourism Board - Chamber of Commerce - Downtown Bellingham Partnership - Higher Education Liaison - Opportunity Council - Port of Bellingham Marina Advisory Committee - Sister Cities Advisory Board - Sustainable Connections - Working Waterfront Council members emphasized that they could still serve on these boards individually if recruited by the organizations themselves. As Lilliquist explained: "We're giving that control to you, the organization, because we think it's yours. You are free to and encouraged to recruit one of us. We're just not going to be the ones assigning it." **Institutional Implications** The streamlining reflected broader questions about council workload and priorities. Councilmember Williams noted that the official list didn't capture all his commitments: "When I count six other boards, committees, task forces that I serve on, they're all intergovernmental and they have to do largely with public safety and behavioral health... Add six to this. Now we're at 36, not 30." The exercise also revealed inconsistencies in how assignments were managed. Some positions were voting seats, others were non-voting liaisons, and some were required by law while others existed by tradition or informal agreement. ## Lobbying Working Group Appointments The meeting's final item addressed preparations for the 2026 legislative session. Mayor Kim Lund requested appointment of up to three council members to a lobbying working group that would meet regularly with city staff and contract lobbyists during the 60-day session beginning January 12, 2026. This administrative appointment concluded the meeting's business, but the substance of the day lay in the thorough examination of both the city's physical future through comprehensive planning and its governance structure through committee assignments. ## What's Ahead The comprehensive plan will return to council on November 17th for potential final consideration, with December 8th as a backup date to meet the year-end adoption deadline. The committee assignment changes take effect with the new year, and city staff will communicate with affected organizations about the transition. As the meeting adjourned after nearly three and a half hours, council members had demonstrated both their attention to policy detail and their willingness to examine their own institutional practices. The comprehensive plan work session showed a council grappling seriously with growth management, housing affordability, and environmental stewardship, while the committee assignment discussion revealed thoughtful consideration of how they allocate their time and community engagement. The combination highlighted a city government working to be both strategic about its future and reflective about its processes — essential qualities as Bellingham continues to grow and evolve in the coming decades.

A structured study guide helping readers understand the meeting's content and context. ### Meeting Overview The Bellingham City Council held a special meeting on November 10, 2025, for 3 hours and 29 minutes to continue work on the 2025 Comprehensive Plan update following a public hearing held November 3rd. The meeting focused on addressing council questions about specific policies, discussing committee assignments, and forming a legislative lobbying working group. ### Key Terms and Concepts **Urban Growth Area (UGA):** Geographic boundaries where cities plan to expand and provide urban services over the next 20 years, as required by state Growth Management Act. **UGA Reserve:** Areas identified by local jurisdictions as potential future urban growth areas to be considered in subsequent planning cycles, beyond the current 20-year horizon. **Pre-zoning:** The practice of designating future land use and zoning for areas before they are annexed into the city, rather than simply adopting the most similar existing county zoning. **Annexation Plan:** A comprehensive analysis required before bringing new areas into city limits, including infrastructure costs, service provision, environmental impacts, and fiscal sustainability. **House Bill 1181:** State legislation passed in 2023 requiring local jurisdictions to incorporate climate elements into their comprehensive plans, focusing on greenhouse gas emission reduction and climate resilience. **Public Development Authority (PDA):** A quasi-public entity that can be created by cities to undertake housing and economic development projects under rules defined by the creating jurisdiction. **Commerce Measures:** Specific policy guidelines developed by the state Department of Commerce that have demonstrated ability to reduce greenhouse gas emissions or vehicle miles traveled. **Ex-Officio Member:** A board or committee member who serves by virtue of their office or position, typically without voting rights. ### Key People at This Meeting | Name | Role / Affiliation | |---|---| | Kim Lund | Mayor | | Hollie Huthman | Council President, Committee Chair | | Hannah Stone | Council Member | | Daniel Hammill | Council Member | | Edwin "Skip" Williams | Council Member | | Lisa Anderson | Council Member | | Michael Lilliquist | Council Member | | Jace Cotton | Council Member | | Chris Behee | Planning & Community Development Director | | Blake Lyon | Director | | Elizabeth Erickson | Senior Planner | | Sydney [Last name not clearly stated] | Bellingham Plan team member | | Anya [Last name not clearly stated] | Bellingham Plan team member | | Claire Fogafong | Climate group staff | | Jackie Weller | Legislative Office Manager | ### Background Context This meeting occurred during the final stages of Bellingham's mandatory 2025 periodic update to its Comprehensive Plan, a 20-year growth management document required by state law. The city has been working on this update for over two years, conducting extensive public engagement and policy development. Following a public hearing on November 3rd, the council needed to address remaining policy questions before potential final consideration on November 17th. The comprehensive plan update is particularly significant because it incorporates new state housing legislation and climate requirements, addresses the city's severe housing affordability crisis (with an estimated $130 million annual gap in funding needed), and determines where the city will grow over the next 20 years. The plan must balance environmental protection, infrastructure capacity, and housing needs while complying with multiple new state mandates. ### What Happened — The Short Version The council spent most of the morning refining policies in the draft comprehensive plan. They directed staff to strengthen language around annexation planning, requiring the city to develop mechanisms (not just analyze problems) for addressing fiscal challenges when bringing new areas into the city. They also asked for clearer environmental analysis requirements and more active language about pursuing annexations rather than just waiting for them. The council added language supporting electric vehicle charging in public rights-of-way and energy storage systems. They agreed to explore adding public development authorities as a tool for affordable housing development. After lunch, the council streamlined their committee assignments, removing themselves from 12 organizations (mostly nonprofits) while encouraging those groups to recruit council members directly if desired. They decided to focus official assignments on legally required positions and those serving clear governmental purposes. Finally, they appointed three council members to a legislative lobbying working group for the upcoming 2026 state legislative session. ### What to Watch Next - November 17th: Potential final consideration of the comprehensive plan ordinance - December 8th: Backup date for plan adoption if November 17th doesn't work - 2026 legislative session beginning January 12th, with the newly formed lobbying working group representing council interests - Future development of the annexation plan and analysis for priority urban growth areas ---

**Q:** What is the main difference between Urban Growth Area (UGA) and UGA Reserve? **A:** UGA is state-designated land planned for annexation within 20 years, while UGA Reserve is locally designated land to be considered in future planning cycles beyond the current horizon. **Q:** What change did Council Member Williams want to policy LU-11 regarding annexation analysis? **A:** He wanted language requiring the city to "develop mechanisms" to address fiscal challenges, not just "identify and analyze" problems. **Q:** What is pre-zoning in the context of annexation? **A:** Designating future land use and zoning for areas before they are annexed, rather than adopting the most similar existing county zoning after annexation. **Q:** How much money does Bellingham currently spend annually on affordable housing? **A:** $14-15 million per year from federal, state, and local sources for housing production and wraparound services. **Q:** What is the estimated annual funding gap to fully address Bellingham's housing affordability crisis? **A:** Approximately $130 million per year, representing about 10 times current resources. **Q:** What is House Bill 1181? **A:** State legislation requiring local jurisdictions to incorporate climate elements into comprehensive plans, focusing on greenhouse gas reduction and climate resilience. **Q:** What are Commerce measures in relation to climate planning? **A:** Specific policy guidelines developed by the state that have demonstrated ability to reduce greenhouse gas emissions or vehicle miles traveled. **Q:** What is a Public Development Authority (PDA)? **A:** A quasi-public entity that cities can create to undertake housing and economic development projects under rules defined by the creating jurisdiction. **Q:** How many committee assignments did the council remove from their official appointment list? **A:** 12 organizations, primarily nonprofits like Chamber of Commerce, Downtown Partnership, and Sustainable Connections. **Q:** What was the council's approach to organizations removed from official assignments? **A:** They encouraged these groups to recruit council members directly, with members free to serve voluntarily without official council appointment. **Q:** Which three council members were appointed to the legislative lobbying working group? **A:** The transcript does not specify which three members were chosen, only that up to three would be appointed. **Q:** When does the 2026 legislative session begin? **A:** January 12, 2026, running for up to 60 days with expected end date of March 12, 2026. **Q:** What was Council Member Anderson's concern about climate targets in the comprehensive plan? **A:** She wanted specific baselines and targets for greenhouse gas emission reductions included, noting these are requirements of the Growth Management Act. **Q:** What change did the council make regarding electric vehicle charging infrastructure? **A:** They added language to policy C37 to include "rights of way" as potential locations for EV charging stations. **Q:** When are the next key dates for the comprehensive plan? **A:** November 17th for potential final consideration, with December 8th as backup for adoption by end of year. **Q:** What distinction did staff make between "liaison" and "ex-officio" committee positions? **A:** Ex-officio positions are officially recognized by organizations with expected meeting attendance but no voting rights, while liaison positions are more informal, as-needed relationships. **Q:** What was Council Member Stone's concern about representation in the comprehensive plan? **A:** She wanted stronger language around race and communities of color, noting the plan rarely mentions these groups outside of defining "vulnerable populations." **Q:** What policy area did PSE request changes to? **A:** Energy storage systems and undergrounding of distribution lines, requesting "where possible" language and recognition of energy storage solutions. **Q:** What is the significance of the forest canopy analysis mentioned in the meeting? **A:** It's required by the Growth Management Act and was completed in 2021, analyzing tree height, structure, and species mix citywide including urban growth areas. **Q:** How long has the comprehensive plan update process taken? **A:** Over two years, with council noting the significant lift required and timing for the next update cycle beginning in about 8 years. ---