City of Bellingham Greenways Advisory Committee

**David, on greenways fund misuse:** "Greenways funding has to be spent consistent with the greenways strategic plan. You can't find anything about skate park in the greenways strategic plan. Can't find anything about turf at civic field in the greenways strategic plan." **Brian, on voter intent:** "When you talk to people about greenways, they say, yeah, I didn't vote for greenways for a skate park." **Brian, on volunteer program potential:** "The volunteer parties are full every week, which shows the dedication of this community. And I imagine that if you expanded the capacity of those parties to even more people, they would be full every week." **David, on committee responsibility:** "This committee is tasked with making recommendations to the council, and the mayor and to Parks and Recreation Board about expenditure of greenways funds. And we didn't do that in the 2026 budget." **Kelsey, thanking staff:** "I want to thank the city particularly Peter diving in on this and gettin

## Meeting Overview The Bellingham Greenways Advisory Committee convened for its December 2025 meeting, marking both the conclusion of the year and a significant transition in leadership. Chair Kelsey Hamlin opened the meeting with the traditional land acknowledgment, recognizing the territory as the ancestral homeland of the Lummi, Nixac, and other Coast Salish tribes. The committee faced a packed agenda including public comment on controversial greenways funding issues, final review of the PROSE plan trail mapping, and the election of new officers for 2026. The meeting atmosphere was charged with tension over recent revelations about greenways levy funding being allocated to projects committee members felt were inconsistent with the original voter intent. This controversy would dominate much of the evening's discussion, setting the stage for passionate public testimony and substantive policy debates about the future direction of Bellingham's trail and open space programs. ## Administrative Updates and Funding Concerns Peter Boyle from city staff opened with routine announcements, thanking committee members who attended the PROSE plan open house two weeks prior. However, the meeting quickly took a more serious tone when he announced that the city was not currently recruiting for vacant positions on the Greenways Advisory Committee, explaining that the mayor's office was "working to find efficiencies in all of the committees and commissions." When committee member David pressed for clarification, Boyle explained that while vacancies existed, the city was "not accepting applications" at present. This administrative pause hinted at larger questions about the committee's future that would surface more dramatically during public comment. The committee also discussed potential future agenda items, including bringing back Natural Resources staff to continue conversations about recreation within the Lake Whatcom watershed lands. There was interest in expanding this discussion to include Whatcom Land Trust representatives, given their role as another major landowner in the county with properties that often adjoin city parks lands. ## Explosive Public Testimony on Greenways Funding The public comment period erupted with revelations that would shake the foundation of the evening's discussions. Committee member David, speaking during announcements, delivered a blistering critique of how greenways levy funds were being allocated, setting the stage for what followed. "This committee is tasked with making recommendations to the council and mayor and to Parks and Recreation Board about expenditure of greenways funds," David stated. "And we didn't do that in the 2026 budget. We were presented a budget at the last minute and made no recommendations whatsoever." David revealed his discovery that greenways funding was being allocated to projects he argued were inconsistent with the greenways strategic plan. "I found that, lo and behold, greenways funding has been identified for funding [a skate park construction project]. And it's in a skate park construction fund in public works budget," he explained. "There's no line item that's specifically there, but it talks about the greenways funds will be used for the skate park." The controversy deepened when David described learning about a $6 million allocation for turf replacement at Civic Field, also funded through greenways money. "You can't find anything about skate park in the greenways strategic plan. Can't find anything about turf at civic field in the greenways strategic plan, except if you call that maintenance, but then we have a lot of maintenance issues," he argued. "And why are we spending $6 million on civic field turf and not spending it on invasive species or trail maintenance?" Perhaps most dramatically, David revealed secondhand information suggesting the mayor had indicated there would be no future greenways levy renewal, with plans to transition to a metropolitan parks district model instead. "In response, and this is secondhand from city administration, the mayor was, oh, there's not going to be another greenways levy, and we're going to do a metropolitan parks district. And so greenways would go away," he reported. Brian, a frequent public commenter and greenways advocate, followed with equally passionate testimony supporting David's concerns. "The greenways levy has been around since 1990, voted in 89. The parties have been around since 91. I mean, this is a very important thing to this community," Brian emphasized. "And the fact that we are using that money in the ways that it wasn't intended for is very upsetting to me as well." Brian connected the funding controversy to operational impacts, noting that when Parks staff member Freya gave her recent presentation, "it was obvious that we can't expand the volunteer opportunities simply because there's just not enough staff." He argued that instead of investing greenways money in projects like skate parks and turf, the city should be expanding the highly successful volunteer stewardship programs that regularly fill to capacity. "The volunteer parties are full every week, which shows the dedication of this community," Brian testified. "And I imagine that if you expanded the capacity of those parties to even more people, they would be full every week. People come out even when the weather is bad. And it's a great investment to not be investing in that program and expanding it and making it bigger and putting on steroids is very frustrating." The public testimony revealed a fundamental tension between the community's vision for greenways funding - focused on natural areas, trails, and habitat restoration - and the city's apparent willingness to use those funds for traditional park infrastructure projects like sports facilities and turf replacement. ## PROSE Plan Trail Mapping Refinements Despite the funding controversy, the committee proceeded with its scheduled review of the Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Environment (PROSE) plan trail mapping. Peter Boyle presented updates based on feedback from the recent public open house and written comments from committee members. The mapping discussion revealed the complex technical and political considerations involved in trail planning. Boyle explained that the maps represented "what we're publishing" rather than detailed engineering plans, noting that while the published resolution was what would appear in the official plan, "you can still check the GIS data to see if it clips a corner or something" when development occurs. ## Northern Trail Additions Starting at the north end of the city, several new trail connections were added based on community input. A connection off Telegraph Road near the recently purchased Newland property was restored to the map after being previously removed due to potential redundancy with a planned multimodal road project along James Street. "We did hear back from a significant number of people that this was something they are interested in," Boyle explained. The committee also added multiple trail connections on the lower slopes of Galbraith Mountain, all carefully positioned "outside the easement" to avoid conflicts with the established mountain bike trail system. These included access points at U Street, Lopez Street, and connections to existing trails like Dogma, Boot Drive, and Bob's Trail. "So there's multiple routes through here, depending on your mode of travel and which direction they go," Boyle noted. ## Happy Valley Neighborhood Connections Responding to input from the Happy Valley Neighborhood Association, several new trail connections were added to improve east-west connectivity in that area. A connection from the community garden across a dam to Connelly Creek formalized an existing informal pathway. Another connection from Mill Street down to Mackenzie was added "to facilitate that connection into Connelly Creek as well from this Mill Street neighborhood just south of Happy Valley Elementary School." The committee also approved a significant addition along the 20th Street right-of-way, connecting north to Knox Avenue and extending Knox Avenue connections both east-west and north-south. This addition addressed connectivity gaps in the Happy Valley area while utilizing existing platted rights-of-way. ## Street Vacation Policy Discussion Committee member David introduced a broader policy question that sparked substantial discussion about how to protect potential trail corridors from being lost through street vacation processes. Rather than trying to map every possible trail connection, David proposed "a policy to the pros plan that before any of these streets are considered for vacation, that the viability of it as a trail corridor be considered." This suggestion led to an extensive discussion about the existing street vacation process and its protections. City staff member Lena provided crucial context, explaining that the city already had "a really long list of criteria when we look at street vacations and one of them includes any future use of the right-of-way for transportation purposes. A trail qualifies as a transportation purpose." Lena detailed the existing protections: "There's even one that mentions you know if the right-of-way directly leads to any kind of park or trail then it can't be vacated." She emphasized that the technical review committee already considers trail potential during vacation reviews, sometimes recommending that trail easements be preserved even when the street right-of-way is otherwise vacated. However, David pressed for examples of where the system had failed to protect trail corridors, though he struggled to provide specific instances when asked. "There's been some trails that have been missed during street vacations though," he maintained, though he couldn't immediately recall details. The discussion revealed both the complexity of the street vacation process and the existing safeguards already in place. As Lena concluded, "The pros plan isn't going to be the right-of-way policy document to stop all you know any and all vacations and make them into a trail. But there is a whole vacation ordinance and criteria that city council looks at." ## Technical Trail Mapping Details The committee wrestled with several technical questions about specific trail alignments, particularly around connectivity to Galbraith Mountain from the U Street corridor. David advocated for connections via Democrat Street, noting conversations with the Whatcom Mountain Bike Coalition about a historically planned route that would cross Cemetery Creek despite significant wetland challenges. The discussion revealed the ongoing tension between mapping aspirational trail connections and focusing on realistic, achievable projects. As Peter noted about one proposed connection, "This has come up in some conversations... This along with down at the bottom where that mobile home park... lots of wetlands down in there." After detailed discussion about various access options, the committee ultimately recommended adding a connection via Bass Street rather than Democrat Street, as Bass Street appeared to offer better connectivity to the recently purchased Samish Crest properties and would likely be developed with proper infrastructure as the area urbanizes. ## Committee Leadership Transition The evening concluded with the election of new officers for 2026. Chair Kelsey Hamlin announced her decision to step down after serving in the role, immediately nominating Zach for the position. "I personally would like to recommend that Zach is the chair for 2026," she stated. Zach accepted the nomination, acknowledging his relative newcomer status while expressing enthusiasm for the role. "The only caveat with me is it's only my second year on the committee but I really would enjoy to do it. I like these meetings. I look forward to them and I feel like I've gotten to know all of you a little better so yeah I would certainly give it a go." The committee unanimously elected Zach as chair with a 7-0 vote. For vice chair, after some discussion and consideration of other members, Neil was nominated and elected with a 6-0-1 vote (abstaining himself). Outgoing chair Kelsey received recognition from Neil, who noted: "I want to thank you for being chair of the past year. I can tell I don't think you truly enjoyed it in all the moments but I appreciate you stepping up and taking the chair this past year." ## Final Trail Map Approval Despite the evening's controversies, the committee successfully concluded its trail mapping review. Neil made a comprehensive motion "to recommend the pro plan map with all the amendments that we discussed tonight," which was seconded and passed unanimously with all seven members voting in favor. This vote represented months of detailed review and revision, incorporating community feedback from the public open house as well as specific technical recommendations from committee members. The approved map now includes dozens of new trail connections while preserving the core network of existing and planned trails throughout Bellingham. ## Looking Ahead As the meeting concluded, staff announced that future meetings would be held at the Pacific Street Operations Center in room 114, providing a permanent location for the committee's hybrid meeting format. The next meeting was scheduled for the second Thursday in January due to the New Year holiday falling on the first Thursday. The meeting ended at 8:23 PM with significant unresolved questions hanging in the air. The revelations about greenways funding allocation and potential changes to the committee's structure and role represent fundamental challenges that will likely dominate future discussions. Whether the new leadership can navigate these waters while maintaining the committee's advisory role in trail planning and greenways stewardship remains to be seen. The successful completion of the PROSE plan trail mapping review provides a solid foundation for the committee's technical work, but the broader questions about funding priorities, community input, and the future of the greenways program itself have introduced uncertainty into what had been a relatively routine advisory function. The transition to new leadership comes at a critical time when the committee may need to assert its advisory role more forcefully to ensure community voices are heard in greenways funding decisions.

### Meeting Overview The City of Bellingham Greenways Advisory Committee met on December 5, 2025, to discuss trail mapping for the PROS (Parks, Recreation & Open Space) Plan and elect officers for 2026. The meeting focused heavily on citizen concerns about greenways levy funding being used for purposes not aligned with the original voter intent. ### Key Terms and Concepts **Greenways Levy:** A voter-approved funding mechanism first passed in 1989 to acquire and maintain natural areas, trails, and open space in Bellingham. The current levy generates millions for parks and recreation but has specific requirements for how funds can be spent. **PROS Plan:** The Parks, Recreation & Open Space Plan that guides the city's long-term vision for parks and recreation facilities. The committee was reviewing proposed trail mapping for inclusion in this plan. **Street Vacation:** A legal process where the city can sell unopened or unused public right-of-way to adjacent property owners. This requires technical review, public hearings, and City Council approval. **Urban Growth Area (UGA):** Areas outside the city limits but within the county that are planned for future city development and services. **Right-of-way:** Public property set aside for streets, utilities, or other public purposes, even if not currently developed or used. **Metropolitan Parks District:** An alternative funding model for parks that was mentioned as potentially replacing the greenways system. **Whatcom Land Trust:** A local nonprofit organization that acquires and manages conservation lands throughout Whatcom County. **Trail Mapping:** The process of identifying and officially designating future trail corridors in city planning documents to preserve opportunities for trail development. ### Key People at This Meeting | Name | Role / Affiliation | |---|---| | Kelsey | Greenways Advisory Committee Chair (stepping down) | | Peter | City Parks and Recreation Staff | | Lena | City Staff | | David | Greenways Advisory Committee Member | | Zach | Greenways Advisory Committee Vice Chair (elected as 2026 Chair) | | Neil | Greenways Advisory Committee Member (elected as 2026 Vice Chair) | | Kathy | Greenways Advisory Committee Member | | Dina | Greenways Advisory Committee Member | | Sarah | Greenways Advisory Committee Member | | Brian | Member of the public providing comment | | Jim Marcotte | King Mountain Trails Subcommittee representative | ### Background Context The Greenways Advisory Committee oversees the city's greenways levy, which voters have supported since 1989 to fund natural area acquisition and trail development. However, recent budget decisions have allocated greenways money toward projects like skate parks and turf replacement at Civic Field — uses that committee members and citizens argue weren't the voters' intent when approving the levy. This controversy has sparked concerns that the city may eliminate the greenways system in favor of a metropolitan parks district model. Meanwhile, the committee continues its work mapping future trails for the PROS Plan, balancing community input with practical considerations like maintenance costs and property access. The meeting occurred after a well-attended PROS Plan open house where trail connectivity emerged as a top community priority, reinforcing the importance of the greenways mission even as its funding faces challenges. ### What Happened — The Short Version The meeting began with public comment from Brian, who criticized the use of greenways funds for skate parks and turf rather than trails and natural area maintenance. Committee member David then detailed his investigation into the budget, confirming that greenways money was allocated for these purposes without committee recommendation or alignment with the greenways strategic plan. The committee spent most of the meeting reviewing proposed trail additions to the PROS Plan map. They discussed new trail connections near Telegraph Road, multiple routes on Galbraith Mountain, connections in Happy Valley neighborhood, and potential access points from U Street to Galbraith Mountain. They also debated whether to include questionable trail routes or instead create a policy requiring trail consideration before any street vacation. The meeting concluded with officer elections. Kelsey stepped down as chair after one year, and the committee unanimously elected Zach as the 2026 chair and Neil as vice chair. The committee will move to a new meeting location at the Pacific Street Operations Center starting in January 2026. ### What to Watch Next - Follow up on the greenways funding controversy and any potential changes to the levy system - Track the PROS Plan's progress through planning commission and city council approval - Monitor the January 2026 Greenways meeting for discussion with Natural Resources staff about Lake Whatcom watershed recreation policies - Watch for potential Whatcom Land Trust participation in future meetings ---

**Q:** What year was the Bellingham greenways levy first approved by voters? **A:** 1989, with implementation beginning in 1990. **Q:** Who was elected as the 2026 Greenways Advisory Committee chair? **A:** Zach, who had previously served as vice chair in 2025. **Q:** What two uses of greenways funding were criticized by public commenters? **A:** Skate park construction and turf replacement at Civic Field, both costing millions of dollars. **Q:** What does PROS Plan stand for? **A:** Parks, Recreation & Open Space Plan. **Q:** Where will the Greenways Advisory Committee meet starting in January 2026? **A:** Pacific Street Operations Center, room 114. **Q:** What organization did Jim Marcotte represent during public comment? **A:** King Mountain Trails Subcommittee from the Neighborhood Group. **Q:** What legal process allows the city to sell unused public right-of-way to private property owners? **A:** Street vacation, which requires technical review, public hearings, and City Council approval. **Q:** What alternative funding model was mentioned as potentially replacing the greenways system? **A:** A metropolitan parks district. **Q:** What two streets were discussed as potential new access points to Galbraith Mountain? **A:** Democrat Street and Bass Street, both extending east from U Street. **Q:** Who stepped down as committee chair at this meeting? **A:** Kelsey, after serving one year as chair. **Q:** What organization was suggested as a potential partner for future meetings about land management? **A:** Whatcom Land Trust. **Q:** Where did the PROS Plan open house take place that influenced this meeting's discussion? **A:** Bloedel Donovan Park. **Q:** What is required before greenways funds can be spent according to committee members? **A:** Committee recommendations consistent with the greenways strategic plan. **Q:** What does UGA stand for in planning terminology? **A:** Urban Growth Area, referring to county areas planned for future city development. **Q:** What trail system was specifically mentioned as needing better east-west connections? **A:** Routes connecting neighborhoods to Galbraith Mountain. **Q:** What policy suggestion did David make regarding street vacations? **A:** Requiring trail viability analysis before any right-of-way vacation near schools or parks. **Q:** What creek presents challenges for trail development near U Street? **A:** Cemetery Creek, which has associated wetlands. **Q:** How much does the Civic Field turf project cost according to David's budget review? **A:** Approximately $6 million, scheduled for 2027. **Q:** What was the main community priority identified at the PROS Plan open house? **A:** Trail connectivity and natural areas. **Q:** When is the next planned agenda item about Lake Whatcom watershed recreation? **A:** First quarter 2026. ---