# Trail Maps, Stewardship Cuts, and the Fight for Right-of-Ways The Bellingham Greenways Advisory Committee met virtually on November 6, 2025, with Chair Kelsey Wylie presiding over a meeting that would reveal both progress and frustration in the city's approach to trail development and volunteer programming. What began as a routine review of updated PROS plan trail mapping evolved into passionate testimony about community engagement, bureaucratic obstacles, and the future of Bellingham's greenway system. ## The Alex McLean Right-of-Way Controversy The evening's most dramatic moment came during public comment when Alex McLean, a former Greenways committee member and Happy Valley neighborhood advocate, delivered an impassioned critique of the city's approach to unimproved right-of-ways. McLean had recently met with Mayor Kim Lund about converting these neglected corridors into neighborhood trails — an effort he'd been pursuing for five years. "The mayor sat me down, and she's like, yeah, we're not doing that. We're not gonna be doing these right-of-way things," McLean told the committee, his voice carrying years of frustration. "What you guys did in Happy Valley... what my staff was telling me is those are just unicorns. Those, you know, were just amazing things that you guys did through sheer gumption and grit, and time, and money, and energy to get them to happen." McLean's work in Happy Valley had successfully transformed unused right-of-ways into functional trail connections, including one that leads directly to the city's largest elementary school. But according to McLean, the mayor indicated this was an anomaly that wouldn't be replicated elsewhere, despite a 2022 citywide inventory identifying 1,257 unimproved right-of-ways. "This is a no-brainer. Other municipalities don't do this," McLean argued, pointing to successful trail systems in places like Bend, Oregon. "Like, the cities we look at that are successful, that have cool infrastructure... they don't do this with their community assets and their public right-of-ways that are reserved as transportation easements." The controversy highlighted a fundamental tension between community-driven trail development and official city policy. David Stalheim, a committee member, had sent McLean the draft PROS plan map showing an "X" over the 27th Street right-of-way trail McLean had helped create — not because it was being removed, but because it had been completed and was no longer "proposed." ## Brian Armstrong's Broader Critique Following McLean's testimony, Brian Armstrong reinforced the theme of underutilizing community volunteers and misdirecting Greenways levy funds. Armstrong questioned recent expenditures on projects like skate parks and athletic field turf, arguing they strayed from the levy's core mission of trail connectivity and habitat restoration. "We need to get back to the heart of the levy," Armstrong declared. "When they... the Greenways board member mentioned that 'Why are we spending money on a skate park? The turf on the fields... and a ball field, and things like that,' and I think that kind of shows that we're getting away." Armstrong emphasized the value of volunteer labor and community engagement, pointing to McLean as a prime example of residents eager to contribute. "People want to help. People want to get in the neighborhoods. People want to be involved. They want to improve their park lands," he said, warning that misuse of levy funds could jeopardize future Greenways measures. ## PROS Plan Trail Mapping Debate The meeting's centerpiece was Parks staff member Peter Gill's presentation of updated trail maps for the Parks, Recreation and Open Space (PROS) plan. The maps, marked with green dashed lines for existing proposals and orange dashes for new or realigned trails, represented months of community input and technical review. Gill emphasized that these maps serve primarily as planning tools for working with developers and prioritizing city investments, not as detailed wayfinding guides. "The goal is to provide a recreational amenity and safe access between parks and open spaces," he explained. "But really, the reason we have this map out here is not to, like, master plan the whole city down to... where specifically on the ground this is gonna go. It's to help us work with the private development community when they develop new undeveloped land." Committee members raised numerous technical questions about specific alignments and connections. David Stalheim presented detailed concerns about inconsistent representation of on-street connections, missing trails on Galbraith Mountain's private property, and incomplete access points to popular recreation areas. "We're not consistent in our approach," Stalheim noted, pointing out that some trail connections showed street segments while others didn't. "Part of me says... the right answer is that I want to have a real trail plan and not a street plan. The street plan is something different, but maybe we just symbolize it differently." Neil Schaner raised concerns about the map's treatment of trails crossing different property ownerships, particularly when proposed trails would cross public works property. "What happens when a potential proposed trail is on public property and the city owns it, and not necessarily parks, but public works or some other entity?" he asked. "How much teeth does this have, and could Public Works just say, no?" The technical discussion revealed the complexity of coordinating trail development across multiple city departments and property types. Some trail segments had been removed due to feasibility concerns — wetlands, steep topography, or conflicts with other development plans. Others were added based on neighborhood association input or to improve regional connectivity. ## Committee's Decision to Delay After extensive discussion, Stalheim moved to postpone the committee's recommendation until December, pending additional public input at a November 19 PROS plan open house. "I think we're getting a long ways here, but I think there's... we want to make sure we get this right," he explained. The motion passed 6-1, with Derek Ormerod dissenting. Ormerod argued that the map would never be perfect and that sufficient work had been done to move forward. "We can continue to tinker with this and get public input, and all of that will happen, and I think that's great... but just having seen the hard work that's gone into it, getting it to this stage, that I would... I would be ready to recommend it tonight." Committee members acknowledged that maps would continue evolving through the adoption process, with opportunities for further refinement at Planning Commission and City Council hearings scheduled for early 2026. ## Stewardship Program Facing Major Cuts Freya Fradenburgh, presenting the stewardship program update, delivered sobering news about staffing reductions that would significantly impact volunteer coordination and environmental programming. The most dramatic change: elimination of the eight-person Park Ambassador Program effective December 31. "Due to staffing cuts, the elimination of this program was chosen by City Council as an effort to meet those budget cuts," Fradenburgh explained. "We are going to be down 8 full-time positions, which is definitely gonna mean some changes in our programming." The program had also decided not to pursue its partnership with AmeriCorps for 2025-26, citing federal funding uncertainty. "That money is something that we pay up front, and once it's gone, it's gone, whether or not those AmeriCorps members get to stay in service," Fradenburgh noted. Despite the cuts, some programs would continue. The Park Steward volunteer program maintained 88 active participants, though new applications were temporarily suspended due to processing backlogs. Saturday work parties would continue year-round, having successfully launched the fall season with 184 volunteers participating in Make a Difference Day at Whatcom Falls Park. The stewardship program oversees approximately 18 acres of active wetland mitigation sites, with more planned as new parks and trails are developed. Fradenburgh outlined discussions with Public Works about creating shared mitigation banks — larger restoration areas that could serve multiple departments more efficiently than the current patchwork of small, isolated sites. ## Budget Subcommittee Proposal David Stalheim proposed creating a budget subcommittee to provide more systematic oversight of Greenways levy expenditures, particularly for projects planned beyond 2026. His concern centered on the committee's limited role in budget prioritization despite its advisory mandate. "Our charge is to make recommendations to Council on things like the budget, and we're getting things... we're not making recommendations, we're just kind of getting things at the last minute sometimes," Stalheim observed. Several committee members expressed interest in budget oversight, though Peter Gill cautioned that there might not be enough substantive work outside of annual reporting periods to justify a formal subcommittee. The group ultimately agreed to address budgeting as a committee-wide agenda item in January 2026, with potential subcommittee formation if needed during strategic plan updates. Neil Schaner noted the committee still had an unfilled vacancy that had persisted for months, urging faster action to restore full public representation. ## Sunset Pond Progress The meeting included a brief update on the Sunset Pond trail project, where several committee members had recently toured the active construction site. The complex project involves creating trail connections from Iron Gate up to Racine Street, requiring substantial infrastructure to navigate steep terrain and wetlands. "It's a really tricky workspace with the wetlands, the pond, the steep terrain, but it's coming together rather quickly," Gill reported. Committee members who attended the hard-hat tour praised the project's scope and potential as a community destination, featuring a two-mile loop trail around the water body. ## Looking Ahead The committee rescheduled its recommendation on PROS plan trail mapping to December, following additional public input. The delay reflected members' desire to ensure thorough community engagement despite pressure to move forward on planning timelines. The stewardship program cuts highlighted broader budget pressures facing city services, even as volunteer interest remained strong. The elimination of park ambassadors and AmeriCorps positions represented a significant reduction in capacity for environmental education and restoration work. As the meeting adjourned at 8:46 PM, the tensions between community enthusiasm for trail development and institutional constraints remained unresolved. Alex McLean's right-of-way advocacy embodied the broader challenge of translating grassroots energy into systematic policy change — a dynamic that would continue shaping Bellingham's approach to greenway development. The committee's work on PROS plan mapping, while technical in nature, reflected fundamental questions about how the city prioritizes recreational infrastructure and engages community members in shaping their neighborhood connections. With final adoption planned for early 2026, the trail maps would serve as both blueprint and battleground for Bellingham's evolving vision of urban mobility and recreation.