# Greenways Committee Navigates Budget Crisis Through Lake Whatcom Program Overview and Funding Shifts The City of Bellingham's Greenways Advisory Committee convened virtually on October 2, 2025, to address pressing budget realities and explore the intricate world of watershed protection. What emerged was a meeting that highlighted both the complexity of environmental stewardship and the creative financial maneuvering required to maintain essential park services during a municipal budget crisis. Chair Kelsey Wylie led the evening session, which drew a solid quorum despite the virtual format — a continuation of pandemic-era adaptations that proved necessary when meeting logistics required full Zoom participation. The committee included regulars Kathy Furtado, Derek Ormerod, Zach Cook, Sarah Gardner, and Neil Schaner, along with staff members Peter Gill from Parks and Nicole Oliver, the Parks Director. ## The Lake Whatcom Management Program Deep Dive The meeting's centerpiece was an educational presentation on the Lake Whatcom Management Program, delivered by Sara Brooke Benjamin, an environmental coordinator from Public Works Natural Resources Division. For many committee members, this marked their first comprehensive look at one of the region's most significant environmental protection efforts. "Lake Whatcom is a treasure worth protecting," Benjamin began, sharing a recently updated video that traced the program's origins to water quality concerns that emerged in the 1980s and 1990s. The program, formalized through a 1992 joint resolution, represents a multi-jurisdictional effort involving the City of Bellingham, Whatcom County, and the Lake Whatcom Water and Sewer District. The scope of the challenge became clear as Benjamin explained the environmental transformation: "The loss of old-growth forests has weakened the protective barrier that prevents water and pollution from flowing into the lake. Extensive residential development over the past 60 years, particularly in the northern watershed, has further transformed the landscape." Zach Cook, who joined the committee just last year, pressed for details about the program's governance and funding mechanisms. "The resolution in 1992, was that passed by a vote, or what was the origin story of the program?" he asked. While Benjamin acknowledged gaps in her detailed knowledge — the program falls outside her direct expertise — she directed the committee to comprehensive online resources, including a five-year work plan with extensive historical documentation. The funding discussion revealed the complexity of environmental protection financing. Forrest Longman, representing the mayor's office, explained that costs are split between member agencies, primarily through watershed fees charged to water utility customers and stormwater utility fees that fund drainage improvements and treatment facilities. Kathy Furtado raised a practical question that highlighted public misconceptions: "I'm just wondering where in Lake Whatcom is the drinking water actually removed from the lake. Is it down at the southeast end?" The answer surprised her — the intake is located near Geneva, much closer to recreational boat activity than many residents realize. ## The Recreation Versus Conservation Tension A fascinating subplot emerged around recreational access to watershed properties. The city has acquired extensive forested land for watershed protection — an interactive map showed properties spanning the 56-square-mile watershed marked in various colors indicating different ownership and protection status. Cook pointed to a significant opportunity: "The Hertz Trail gets within, I don't know, 100 yards of connecting to Blue Canyon Road, which would allow someone to circumnavigate the entire lake, walk or bike, were there an option for an easement through those new acquisitions." This touched on a complex policy tension. Peter Gill, who lives in the watershed, noted historical resistance to recreational use: "There was discussion about trail extensions from the county park through that property. And so that's one of the questions Greenways wants to understand — what kind of recreational accessibility is there on these properties?" Benjamin acknowledged the fundamental conflict: "What I've always heard from the field staff is, you know, it's not — there's no recreation. And actually, if you just look at the goals from the Joint Council Resolution, there's not a recreational component." Longman added nuance to this position, explaining that while recreation isn't the program's purpose, the city recognizes the complexity: "The program itself, obviously, recreation is not its purpose, and in a lot of ways, recreation is counter to the purpose of preserving these woods. But we do have areas where there's social trails, and there are certain opportunities where they could be connections that are otherwise unattainable." He also highlighted additional complications involving tribal rights: "There's also issues with usual and custom rights of our tribal partners, where when these things get reconveyed from the state, there are potential impacts on their rights to do their usual and custom things on those properties." ## Budget Crisis Forces Creative Solutions The meeting's most consequential discussion centered on the 2026 Greenways budget, presented by Parks Director Nicole Oliver in the context of a broader municipal financial crisis. The numbers told a stark story: a $10 million general fund gap, nearly 30 FTE layoffs affecting 40 positions, and cuts across every general fund department. "My number one philosophy was not to lose people, because we have been struggling for so long without adequate staffing, and we're still understaffed considering how much there is to take care of," Oliver explained. "So my main philosophy was to minimize loss of staff, period." The solution involved a significant shift in funding responsibility. Greenways funding would increase from 29.63 FTEs to 33.84 FTEs, with total costs rising by $838,000. This represented moving more positions and operational costs from the general fund to the Greenways levy — a creative but potentially controversial approach to budget balancing. Oliver walked through detailed budget charts showing the impact across different work groups: grounds and trails, urban forestry, stewardship, design and development. The increases reflected several factors: a market study that revealed many parks positions were underpaid, cost-of-living adjustments, the need for supervisory positions, and fleet rental allocations moving from general fund to Greenways. Neil Schaner, clearly wrestling with the implications, asked pointed questions about long-term sustainability: "When you're moving so many staff to the Greenways levy, there's obviously the risk, if this were at the end of the levy, that it would not be renewed, and then you'd have a lot of staff salaries to pay out of something else." Longman acknowledged the evolution in thinking: "Early in the history of the Greenways levies, there was a concerted effort to keep staff out of Greenways, kind of for that very reason. I think as time has gone on, we've recognized that this is sort of needed for the Parks Department to function the way that we have expected it to function." ## The Pie Chart Dilemma Schaner raised what may prove to be the meeting's most significant policy question, referencing the levy's guidance about proportional allocation between acquisition, development, maintenance, and climate initiatives. "I view that as guidance that we don't have to hit those percentages, and even if we do, it would be after the 10 years of the levy," he said. His concern centered on maintenance: "Don't defer maintenance. Increase the amount of maintenance you're doing now to not lose ground." Oliver responded with flexibility about categorization: "There's different ways we can allocate the funds into the pie, depending on how you decide. The climate this year was really cool, because we focused arterial trail development in climate, because trails was your number one priority. But if we do a neighborhood connector, we probably would put that into development." The discussion revealed an intention to address this formally: "I was thinking we should start talking about it after we have the full 2025, with the full impact of those 10 positions, and take a look at it and project it forward." Longman emphasized transparency: "We don't want to be perceived as trying to hide the ball or sweep any of this under the rug, so I think our intent is after we've closed out the year, to have that sort of discussion about the pie." ## Controversial Capital Projects Schaner pressed on specific capital projects that challenged traditional Greenways themes: a $1.5 million skate park, $600,000 for Squalicum Creek Park field improvements, and $6 million for Civic Field synthetic turf replacement. "Skate park is listed for $1.5 million. One of them doesn't have any green, one of them is fake green, and one of them, I'm not clear, but it's probably real green mixed with some dirt," Schaner said, tongue-in-cheek but making a serious point about optics. Oliver defended the precedent: "Greenways turfed Civic Stadium back in [previous years]. And park facilities maintenance of park facilities is part of the Greenways levy." She emphasized that the $6 million for synthetic turf wouldn't come entirely from Greenways, with the department pursuing partnerships and grants. The discussion highlighted a broader tension about what constitutes appropriate Greenways spending, particularly during a budget crisis when every dollar faces scrutiny. ## Public Trust and Communication Challenges Sarah Gardner raised perhaps the most politically astute concern of the evening: "I think it's important to get ahead of the language and the transparency with the taxpayers, because having worked on the levy, I think it really, truly is people's conception that it's going towards acquisition, primarily, maybe trails." She continued: "I just think that people, in order to have trust when that levy has expired and it needs a vote again, it's just important for people to understand that in this budget shortfall, some of that money has had to be used, because I think that will go a long way towards the longevity of it." Both Longman and Oliver emphasized their commitment to transparency, with Longman noting: "For this whole budget process, and Greenways included, transparency is really important to us, and we've been trying to really level up our communications game on this." Oliver added context from community feedback: "The work that we're doing on the PROS plan, a lot of the big themes that are coming out of that work are a desire for us to take care of what we have. To take better care of what we have is a big theme." ## Environmental Challenges and Long-term Stewardship The budget discussion intersected with genuine environmental concerns. Oliver described mounting challenges to the park system's ecological health: "Our forests are struggling right now. We're having some serious problems that are going to need to be addressed. We've got problems in Cornwall Park that we're going to do a major restoration. We've got problems up at the Arboretum with what we think is laminated root rot." She emphasized the financial reality of proper stewardship: "We buy these properties. 100 Acre Wood is a great example. We spent millions on it. We've invested at least $2 million so far, just on trail development and restoration. It's not small amounts of money to take care of these places and to do a good job." ## Field Trip Reflections and Future Planning The meeting concluded with reflections on a recent field trip to Bakerview Park, where several committee members had surveyed the future neighborhood park site. "It's just a lot bigger than I thought it was," Wylie observed, while Cook noted interest in the historical Nitsack Trail, part of the old Telegraph Road that ran through the property. Gill announced opportunities for the committee to observe Greenways funding in action, proposing an October 17 visit to Sunset Pond, where construction crews had just placed the first bridge of a Greenways-funded project. He also noted an October 23 open house for the Bakerview Park Master Plan. ## Term Renewals and Committee Continuity The evening ended with administrative matters as both Cook and Schaner learned their terms were expiring soon. Staff advised both to resubmit applications within two weeks, with Wylie encouraging them to continue: "Zach and Neil, please come back. We want you here." ## Looking Ahead As the meeting adjourned at 8:41 PM, the Greenways Advisory Committee faced a period of transition and challenge. The budget crisis has forced a fundamental reconsideration of how Greenways funding supports park operations, moving well beyond the traditional acquisition-and-development model toward comprehensive operational support. The Lake Whatcom presentation reminded committee members of the complex, long-term nature of environmental stewardship, where protection requires sustained funding and careful management across multiple jurisdictions. The tension between conservation goals and recreational access reflects broader challenges in balancing environmental protection with public access and enjoyment. Most significantly, the budget discussions revealed both the creative potential and political risks of leveraging voter-approved levies to address broader municipal financial challenges. The committee's next meeting on November 6 will likely continue grappling with these fundamental questions about the role and scope of Greenways funding in sustaining Bellingham's park system. The evening demonstrated that in municipal government, environmental protection and fiscal reality are inextricably linked, requiring both technical expertise and political wisdom to navigate successfully. For the Greenways Committee, the challenge ahead involves maintaining public trust while adapting to new financial realities, all while preserving the environmental legacy that makes Bellingham's natural spaces a treasure worth protecting.