The Bellingham City Council's Committee of the Whole meeting on January 13, 2025, unfolded as a day of returning to fundamentals while grappling with the evolution of urban life. With Mayor Kim Lund participating virtually from her City Hall office due to illness, the afternoon session tackled five substantial agenda items that revealed the complexities of governing a growing Pacific Northwest city. ## Meeting Overview Council President Hollie Huthman called the meeting to order at 1:35 p.m. in the Council Chambers, with all seven council members present. Mayor Lund's virtual participation from her office due to illness set a tone of continuity despite challenges — a metaphor that would characterize much of the meeting's business. The agenda encompassed issues ranging from routine administrative agreements to contentious debates about accessibility, development, and the changing face of Bellingham's downtown landscape. What made this meeting particularly significant was its timing: the first Committee of the Whole meeting of 2025, occurring on the same day that the City Council would implement new security screening measures for evening meetings. This juxtaposition of normalcy and heightened security concerns underscored the delicate balance modern municipal government must strike between openness and safety. ## County Jail Services Agreement The meeting began with what appeared to be routine business — a two-year interlocal agreement with Whatcom County for correctional services. Police Chief Rebecca Mertzig's presentation was refreshingly brief: "This is just a continuation of an existing agreement that we already have. It just simply continues our use of the Whatcom County Jail." But even routine matters revealed underlying tensions about fairness and cost. Councilmember Michael Lilliquist pressed on the financial aspects, noting that the base rate of $184 per day plus a $116 booking fee had been "quite a point of contention" in previous years. "Do you or some other member of the administration know how confident we feel about the fairness of these rates at this moment?" he asked. Chief Mertzig's response reflected the practical realities of regional cooperation: "I'm confident in the fairness. I have no reason to believe it's unfair at this point. I believe it's a market rate." The council approved the agreement 7-0, but the exchange highlighted how even basic services require constant vigilance about equity and fiscal responsibility. ## The Streetery Debate: Balancing Vibrancy and Fairness The most substantial discussion of the afternoon centered on streateries — the outdoor dining structures that became ubiquitous during the COVID-19 pandemic and have since become a permanent feature of Bellingham's streetscape. Council President Huthman recused herself from this discussion due to her business owning a streetery, with Council President Pro Tem Edwin "Skip" Williams taking the helm. Senior Planner Darby Galligan walked the council through a comprehensive assessment of the streetery program, explaining how these structures evolved from emergency pandemic relief measures to established components of downtown vitality. "I have many times over the last five or six years and during the pandemic been very grateful that we did that work because we had streamlined the process and clarified the requirements where many other communities in the world had not done so," she said. The numbers tell the story of transformation: approximately 30 streateries were permitted between March 2020 and December 2022, with about 20 remaining in active use, occupying roughly 30 parking stalls. This represents both an entrepreneurial response to crisis and a fundamental shift in how public space is allocated. The proposed changes addressed three key areas that had emerged from extensive community input: **Financial Equity:** The existing fees — $350 for initial permits and $50 annual renewals — were dramatically insufficient given the revenue-generating nature of these structures. The new proposal would implement an annual use fee of approximately $930 per parallel parking stall, based on 8% of downtown's median land value plus state-required leasehold excise tax. Galligan explained the reasoning: "When you have that over a month-by-month calculation, all the businesses that I talked to had no big issues with that cost, especially considering, again, that it's creating revenue-generating space." **Safety and Design Standards:** The assessment revealed common compliance concerns including inadequate ADA accessibility, questionable structural materials (including the troubling use of palette wood), and safety issues with propane heaters. The fire department's recommendation to eliminate propane due to storage risks in high-traffic areas represented a clear safety priority. **Community Acceptance:** Perhaps most tellingly, a survey of over 1,400 respondents showed that about 70% supported continuing streateries either as-is or with improvements, while only 20% wanted them phased out. This represented strong community endorsement for what had begun as an emergency measure. Councilmember Lilliquist asked a crucial question about revenue flows: would the new fees support the parking fund that maintains the downtown parking garage? Attorney Matt Stamps clarified that while the state leasehold excise tax would go to Olympia, the city's use fees would indeed support the parking fund — a critical detail for long-term downtown infrastructure sustainability. The council approved both the ordinance defining streateries and establishing the fee structure, and the companion resolution setting specific fee amounts, each passing 6-0 with Huthman's recusal. ## National Infrastructure Bank Resolution In a departure from local concerns, Councilmember Lisa Anderson presented a resolution supporting federal legislation for a National Infrastructure Bank. Her presentation connected Bellingham's infrastructure needs to national policy solutions, citing the American Society of Civil Engineers' assessment that $6.1 trillion is needed to restore national infrastructure. "We have trillions of dollars of infrastructure that needs to be built across this nation, let alone the work that we have in the state and even locally," Anderson explained. "The idea behind a, basically, like a federal bank is to have our money work for us instead of Wall Street." The proposal would create a $5 trillion federal bank funded through "repurposing of existing treasury debt" without new federal spending, potentially generating 25 million jobs at living wages. For Bellingham specifically, Anderson noted the city's "hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of existing and future infrastructure needs currently unfunded or infeasible due to cost." Councilmember Lilliquist supported the concept while acknowledging existing municipal borrowing capacity: "It isn't like the city lacks a way of borrowing. I just think this would be a better way of borrowing, potentially even lower costs, but also longer term benefits for having public monies kind of recirculate for public benefit." The resolution passed unanimously, adding Bellingham's voice to a growing chorus of local governments supporting federal infrastructure investment. ## Security Screening Implementation Perhaps the most personally affecting agenda item was the introduction of security screening for evening council meetings, beginning that very night. Deputy Administrator Janice Keller and Interim Public Works Co-Director Joel Pfundt presented the new measures alongside John Coleman, owner of Homeland Security Operations. Mayor Lund, speaking from virtual isolation, provided the broader context: "It's an acknowledgment that in the 85 years since this building was constructed and set forth to operate as the heart of Bellingham's city government, times have changed." She emphasized that these measures were commensurate with other civic buildings in Whatcom County and venues like the Mount Baker Theatre. The practical details revealed the tension between security and accessibility. All attendees would be screened by two uniformed, armed security guards using metal detector wands (a walk-through detector had been delayed in shipping). People could check large bags and retrieve personal items afterward, but those who refused screening would not be admitted. Councilmember Lilliquist captured the irony: "There's a little measure of irony in the fact that this safety measure can be off-putting or inconvenient to people." His specific concern about bag searches led to detailed explanations of the visual inspection process for purses and larger items. A revealing exchange occurred when Councilmember Hannah Stone, noting that Coleman's company was named "Homeland Security Operations," sought reassurance about its scope. As a local immigration attorney, she wanted confirmation that screening would not involve immigration status checks. Coleman assured her: "We're not affiliated with Immigration and Customs Enforcement or Customs and Border Protection. We're a private security company that just happened to pick the name Homeland Security Operations." The discussion emphasized customer service and de-escalation training, with Coleman explaining that his officers work at municipal courts and understand the balance between security and public service. ## Committee Structure Reorganization In the "Old/New Business" section, the administration responded to the council's recent reorganization discussions with specific recommendations for standing committees. Deputy Administrator Keller presented a three-part proposal: - **Remove the Climate Action Committee:** Staff argued that climate considerations should be integrated into all relevant committees rather than isolated in a standalone body. - **Maintain Public Works and Natural Resources together:** The integration of environmental work with infrastructure projects made separation counterproductive. - **Add a Finance and Budget Committee:** The move to annual budgeting cycles and complex general fund issues required dedicated oversight. Councilmember Dan Hamill, who had originally proposed combining climate with natural resources, accepted the staff recommendations. However, the discussion revealed the complexity of committee assignments, including mandatory service on other boards (like the fire pension board) for certain committee chairs. Councilmember Anderson raised practical questions about budget process changes: "Would we still hold that format, or would that all go to committee?" The October budget sessions where all departments presented to the full council had been valuable for comprehensive oversight. After extensive discussion, the council voted 7-0 to defer the committee reorganization to a future meeting, allowing time for fuller consideration of both internal committees and external liaison assignments. ## ADA Parking Amendment Discussion The meeting's most complex policy discussion emerged when Councilmember Cotton raised concerns about ADA parking requirements in the upcoming interim parking ordinance. The issue centered on language requiring "at least one accessible stall shall be installed for all new construction, regardless of whether or not parking is provided." Cotton worried about unintended consequences in downtown and Fairhaven: "For those rare cases where developments or redevelopments are taking up the entire portion of a block, that seems infeasible and like it could have some unintended consequences, especially in our historic Fairhaven and downtown neighborhoods." Councilmember Lilliquist illustrated the concern with a specific example: "Where I live in Fairhaven, there is a building, the upper two stories are unoccupied, and the reason they're unoccupied is because to put residences up there, they need to provide parking. The thing that's holding back that building is the parking requirement... even one ADA spot for some of those rare cases is problematic." However, Councilmember Anderson strongly advocated for maintaining ADA requirements: "I don't want these silos of just able-bodied access. People with disabilities, elderly people, they need to be able to — if they are relying upon their own transportation — they're going to be eliminated from certain housing development without that access to parking." She proposed alternative solutions involving collaboration with the city to designate on-street ADA parking near developments that don't provide their own parking, with developers bearing the cost rather than taxpayers. Planning Director Blake Lyon explained that the requirement had been added specifically in response to council concerns about ensuring ADA access. The proposed ordinance included exemptions for single-family homes, small developments, and existing buildings where retrofitting would be problematic. The nuanced discussion revealed competing values: historical preservation and affordable housing development versus disability rights and accessibility. Councilmember Stone ultimately supported striking the universal ADA requirement: "It would feel almost arbitrary to be saying, irrespective of what parking you think is needed or you're going to build, you have to have at least one ADA space." After extensive debate, the council voted 6-0 (with Anderson abstaining) to ask staff to prepare an alternative version of the ordinance removing the requirement for ADA parking when no other parking is provided, while maintaining accessibility requirements when parking is constructed. ## Vesting and Development Timeline Concerns A technical but important discussion emerged about "vesting" — how long developers remain protected under rules in place when they apply for permits. Councilmember Anderson expressed concern about developers applying under current rules and remaining vested for extended periods if the council later changed regulations. City Attorney Alan Marriner explained the current system: applications vest to rules at the time of complete application and remain vested as long as permits remain valid. He clarified that recent code changes had addressed previous problems where subdivisions could remain vested for 25 years — now most permits have two- to five-year terms. This seemingly technical issue reflects broader tensions about development regulation: how to provide certainty for developers while maintaining flexibility for evolving city policies. ## Closing and What's Ahead The meeting concluded with brief announcements before moving to executive session. Councilmember Lilliquist noted an upcoming countywide comprehensive planning meeting, while Councilmember Cotton requested information about legislative advocacy opportunities during the state legislative session. Council President Huthman raised the question of online public comment procedures, noting they hadn't discussed virtual participation during their reorganization. This detail, easy to overlook, represented another facet of how COVID-19 had permanently changed civic engagement. The meeting adjourned to executive session at 3:29 p.m. to discuss property acquisitions, labor relations, and potential litigation — the private business that enables public governance. As the council prepared for their evening meeting with new security screening, the afternoon's discussions had illuminated core tensions in contemporary municipal governance: balancing accessibility with safety, economic development with equity, innovation with tradition. The streateries that began as pandemic emergency measures had become symbols of adaptation and resilience. The security screening represented acknowledgment of changed times. The infrastructure bank resolution connected local needs to national solutions. Through it all, the steady work of democratic deliberation continued — council members asking hard questions, staff providing detailed analysis, and the community's representatives wrestling with competing values and practical constraints. In Bellingham, as in cities across America, the fundamental work of self-governance adapts to new challenges while maintaining its essential character: thoughtful people making difficult decisions together, in public, for the common good. The evening ahead would test both the council's new security measures and their continued commitment to transparent, accessible government. The questions raised in committee — about development, accessibility, and public space — would continue to shape Bellingham's evolution as a place where people choose to build their lives and communities.