## Meeting Overview On the morning of December 8, 2025, the Bellingham City Council's Public Health, Safety, Justice and Equity Committee convened for what would prove to be a brief but substantive session addressing two critical interlocal agreements with Whatcom County. Committee Chair Dan Hammill was joined by Council Members Skip Williams and Michael Lilliquist in person, with Council Member Lisa Anderson present and Council President Holly Huffman participating online. The meeting's agenda contained two amendments to existing county partnerships—one a routine annual adjustment for emergency medical services, the other a more contentious reduction in funding for a successful intervention program. What emerged was a revealing window into the city's budget pressures and the delicate balance between fiscal pragmatism and maintaining essential human services that keep vulnerable residents out of jail and emergency rooms. ## Advanced Life Support Services: A Routine Renewal Fire Chief Bill Hwitt opened the substantive portion of the meeting with characteristic good humor, catching himself as he greeted the committee with "Good afternoon, council" before correcting, "or good morning. It's not afternoon. It's been a long day already." The laughter that followed seemed to acknowledge the grinding nature of budget season, when officials move from meeting to meeting adjusting the financial machinery that keeps public services running. The first item—an amendment to the interlocal agreement for Advanced Life Support (ALS) services—represented the more straightforward side of municipal finance. Under this six-year agreement, Bellingham provides emergency medical services throughout Whatcom County, with annual rate adjustments built into the contract. "We have a six-year ALS contract that runs with the life of the countywide EMS levy," Hwitt explained. "Every year though, we get together with county to agree on reimbursement rates for the next year." For 2026, the adjustment was based on a Consumer Price Index increase of 2.3% plus an additional 1%, resulting in a 3.3% increase in county reimbursement to the city. "This amendment is just to memorialize that agreement," Hwitt said, emphasizing the routine nature of the adjustment. Council Member Lilliquist's response captured the straightforward nature of the item: "Yeah, this is just the contracted annual increase. I move approval." The motion passed without debate or opposition, a testament to the well-established nature of this regional partnership. ## The GRACE Program: A Debate Over Prevention The second agenda item proved far more complex, touching on fundamental questions about how cities should invest in preventing problems versus responding to them after they occur. The Ground Level Response and Coordinated Engagement (GRACE) program represents one of the more innovative approaches to breaking cycles of crisis among the community's most vulnerable residents. Samuel Lutz from the planning department introduced the proposed amendment, which would reduce Bellingham's contribution to GRACE by approximately $60,000—from $355,000 budgeted to what they actually anticipated billing, around $340,000. "We wanted to get this in line with the spending over the past few years," Lutz explained. "They've been under spending, and so we just asked for this correction." The GRACE program embeds case managers with both Bellingham Police Department and the fire department, working with individuals who are frequent users of emergency services. These are often people experiencing homelessness, mental health crises, or substance use disorders who cycle repeatedly through jails, emergency rooms, and crisis interventions. Council Member Lilliquist pressed for assurance that the overall GRACE budget would not be cut: "So is it fair to say this the grace budget itself is showing a very small increase rather than a cut even though our contribution is reduced. I just want to be assured of the level of service that grace will be providing." Lutz confirmed that the county's overall GRACE budget would actually increase slightly, from $1.009 million in 2025 to $1.04 million in 2026. "The city provides up to 40% of that budget after additional grants are factored in," he explained. "They've never billed us up to that full not-to-exceed amount." ## Hammill's Principled Opposition Despite assurances that service levels would be maintained, Committee Chair Hammill expressed deep skepticism about reducing funding for a program with demonstrated success. "I'm not supportive of this," he stated firmly, launching into a detailed explanation rooted in both the program's measurable outcomes and broader policy philosophy. Hammill pointed to the contract's reporting requirements, which track "reduction in jail admission, reduction in jail bed day utilization" and "reduction in law enforcement responses." These metrics weren't abstract—they represented real people avoiding the revolving door of crisis and incarceration. "Given the fact that the county will be increasing the cost to the city for jail services, this seems sort of counterintuitive as a prevention and intervention program," he argued. The committee chair revealed his position on the county's Jail Planning Oversight committee, giving him an insider's view of the mounting costs of incarceration. "What I see is the great need for intervention and prevention programs to flourish and to expand if possible," he said, describing the $60,000 reduction as "budget dust" compared to the program's tremendous impacts. GRACE embeds "two case managers with Bellingham Police Department, two with our fire department that ride with the community paramedic and there's one in Ferndale as well," Hammill noted. The program's success rates were impressive: "Grace is regularly over 80% for success. Lead is in the 90s." ## Budget Realities and Competing Priorities The administration's response revealed the harsh arithmetic of municipal budgeting during tight fiscal times. Tara Dean, community and economic development manager, provided crucial context: "We are having to cut about $100,000 of general fund out of our human services housing and human services really I think it's the human services grant funds when we don't none of us really want to do that including the administration." Dean explained that reducing GRACE funding to actual usage levels would "save cuts come next June and July for a whole slew" of other programs. "We'd prefer to avoid cutting other services that are being funded by the general fund," she said, describing the reduction as a way to "kind of shuffle" resources during a "tight budget time." Deputy Administrator Forest Longman offered another perspective on the fiscal mechanics: "Having this money under contract in this way makes it unusable for other purposes. So we're not using this money for this grace contract because they haven't historically billed us to this point." By rightsizing the contract, the city could free up general fund dollars for other pressing needs. Mayor Kim Lund emphasized that the reduction reflected current program costs, not the city's valuation of the work: "I think an essential part is we don't believe this will be a reduction in services or outcomes and that is why we're bringing it forward." ## Anderson's Practical Questions Council Member Anderson asked the practical question that often drives policy decisions: "Can we reconsider? And if the money is available, can we then supplement and put more money towards the program?" This reflected a pragmatic approach—accepting the current reduction while keeping the door open for future increases if needs or resources changed. The response suggested ongoing monitoring: "We'll certainly keep an eye on level of service and I think the intent is there is not to be a reduction in level of service of Grace and Samuel will and Jason will carry that message forward to the health department but also keep track of it during contract management." ## Williams Seeks Clarity on Staffing and Flexibility Council Member Williams focused on understanding the relationship between funding levels and actual service capacity. "What I'm hearing is this is like a temporary reduction that we haven't been billed for in roughly that amount of funds, right? And so the end result is this $60,000 and we're not responsible per se for growing the program, developing new personnel and making it bigger." The response confirmed that program expansion would require county initiative: "I think that would be something that we would work with the county on if the time was right to expand the program. I would expect them to come here and talk with us about expansion. But this doesn't change the staffing levels, the level of service for this program." Williams seemed satisfied that the reduction wouldn't immediately impact services and that funding could be restored if needed: "So if it doesn't lead to a reduction, it can be reinstated down the road if need be, and so on. And this is only a short-term reduction." ## Future Funding and Justice Sales Tax The discussion revealed broader strategic thinking about sustainable funding for intervention programs. Williams suggested that GRACE represented exactly the kind of program that should be supported by the city's justice sales tax: "This is the kind of program that we should be looking in the future for the unspent monies from the justice sales tax to be supporting because some of the specific program outcomes are reduced jail bookings and engagement with law enforcement." This connection wasn't theoretical. Williams argued that GRACE "really meets the justice project implementation plan goals and strategies to which the city's monies are meant to support." However, he noted current restrictions in county code that limit how the city's unspent sales tax revenue can be allocated, promising to "seek to create more flexibility that is in alignment to what the voters passed." ## Lilliquist's Policy Framework Council Member Lilliquist provided perhaps the clearest articulation of the policy tension underlying the debate. "I'm supportive of this because currently the county is never billed as full amount because the current funding level supports as many staff as they've hired," he said, accepting the current fiscal reality. However, he immediately pivoted to the larger question: "I think the policy question and the question that Mr. Hammill is touching on is maybe GRACE should actually be grown." He emphasized that supporting the current contract amendment didn't mean accepting current staffing levels as optimal: "That's not a vote in my mind of saying I like the staffing levels to stay where they are. I'm open to that increasing for good reason." Lilliquist posed the crucial implementation question: "How will we all of us know when it should be grown that next increment which would be another staff member maybe pairs of staff members you know for the program and that might be money very well spent because the grace program creates cost savings elsewhere on public coffers." ## Hammill's Evolution and the Human Services Safety Net The debate's emotional center emerged in Hammill's final comments, which revealed both his deep commitment to intervention services and his willingness to adapt his position based on the discussion. "I'm really having a hard time with this one and I just see the future need being pretty great and the work that this program does," he said, acknowledging the tension between fiscal constraints and program value. Hammill painted a picture of an emerging human services ecosystem: "We've got the mobile medical unit now that's downtown and the one out at division and I mentioned the lead program, MCOT, Grace. There's a whole array of services that are out there and I just don't want to lose sight of that." His metaphor captured both opportunity and anxiety: "We're building this thing. You know, they say you build the plane as you fly it, which kind of scares me a little bit." This reflected the challenge of constructing comprehensive support systems while managing immediate budget pressures and political realities. "I'm looking for commitments when it comes to these very important intervention services and not just because of the increased cost to the jail services," Hammill emphasized. "I think it's the right thing to do." Mayor Lund's response affirmed this philosophical alignment: "I think we are in complete alignment on that shared commitment to the value of these programs, the need for these services in our community." She emphasized that the current reduction was "reflective of where we are today" rather than indicating the city's long-term vision for service levels. ## The Vote and Its Meaning Hammill's evolution during the meeting—from opposition to reluctant support—illustrated the complex decision-making that characterizes municipal governance. "Yeah I was a no on Friday but today I'll be a yes," he said, acknowledging how the discussion had shifted his thinking while maintaining his broader concerns. The final vote was unanimous in favor, but the debate had established important principles: that intervention programs like GRACE represent essential investments in community welfare, that current funding levels don't necessarily represent optimal service levels, and that future budget discussions should prioritize expanding successful prevention programs. ## Broader Implications This seemingly routine committee meeting revealed several significant dynamics in Bellingham's approach to public safety and human services. The city is clearly committed to evidence-based intervention programs that break cycles of crisis among vulnerable residents. However, it's also grappling with fiscal constraints that require difficult choices about resource allocation. The discussion highlighted the tension between prevention and response—investing in programs that keep people out of jail versus paying the mounting costs of incarceration. With county jail costs rising and general fund pressures intensifying, these conversations will likely become more frequent and more consequential. The meeting also revealed the complexity of intergovernmental cooperation, with the city and county sharing costs and responsibilities for programs that serve regional needs. The challenge of aligning different jurisdictions' budget cycles, funding restrictions, and policy priorities emerged as an ongoing concern. Perhaps most importantly, the debate demonstrated how elected officials navigate competing values—fiscal responsibility, program effectiveness, and long-term community vision—in real-time decision-making. While the immediate result was a modest funding reduction, the larger conversation established principles and commitments that will likely influence future budget discussions and policy development. As Bellingham continues building what Hammill described as a comprehensive human services "safety net," meetings like this one provide crucial opportunities to balance immediate fiscal realities with longer-term community investment in the systems that help the most vulnerable residents stabilize their lives and avoid the costly cycles of crisis that burden both individuals and public budgets.

### Meeting Overview The Public Health, Safety, Justice, and Equity Committee met on December 8, 2025, with committee members present to review two interlocal agreements with Whatcom County. The meeting focused on routine contract amendments for emergency services and a more contentious discussion about reducing funding for the Grace program. ### Key Terms and Concepts **Interlocal Agreement:** A contract between two or more government entities (like city and county) to share services or costs for programs that benefit multiple jurisdictions. **Advanced Life Support (ALS):** Emergency medical services that include advanced procedures like IV medications and cardiac monitoring, provided by paramedics with specialized training. **Grace Program:** Ground Level Response and Coordinated Engagement - a program that provides intensive case management for people who frequently use emergency services like police, fire, and medical response. **CPI:** Consumer Price Index - a measure of inflation used to calculate cost-of-living adjustments in contracts, which was 2.3% for this agreement. **CADB:** Community Development Advisory Board - a citizen board that makes recommendations on how to allocate certain city grant funds for human services. **General Fund:** The city's primary operating budget that funds basic services, often under budget pressure requiring difficult choices about program funding. **JPO Committee:** Jail Planning Oversight committee - a group that monitors jail costs and usage, relevant because Grace program aims to reduce jail bookings. **Justice Sales Tax:** A voter-approved tax with restricted uses for justice-related programs, though current restrictions limit how flexibly these funds can be used. ### Key People at This Meeting | Name | Role / Affiliation | |---|---| | Council Member (Chair) | Committee Chair, Public Health Safety Justice Equity | | Council Member Skip Williams | Committee Member | | Council Member Michael Lilliquist | Committee Member | | Council Member Lisa Anderson | Attending in person | | Council President Holly Huffman | Attending online | | Chief Bill Huitt | Fire Department Chief | | Samuel Lutz | Housing and Services Manager, Planning Department | | Terara Dean | Community and Economic Development Manager | | Forest Longman | Deputy Administrator | | Mayor | City Mayor (present for discussion) | ### Background Context The city operates under tight budget constraints, requiring approximately $100,000 in cuts to general fund human services programs. Both agreements represent ongoing partnerships with Whatcom County that have been operating successfully for years. The Advanced Life Support agreement is routine, but the Grace program funding reduction sparked significant debate about the balance between fiscal responsibility and maintaining effective intervention programs that reduce costs elsewhere in the system. The Grace program has demonstrated high success rates (over 80%) in helping frequent emergency service users, and similar programs like LEAD show success rates in the 90s. These programs are designed to reduce more expensive services like jail stays and emergency room visits. The reduction represents about $60,000 - what some council members call "budget dust" - but reflects broader pressures on city finances. ### What Happened — The Short Version The committee quickly approved a routine 3.3% increase in reimbursement rates for Advanced Life Support services the city provides countywide. The more contentious item involved reducing the city's contribution to the Grace program from $355,000 to approximately $295,000. Staff explained this reflects actual billing patterns since the county has never billed the full contracted amount. One committee member initially opposed the reduction, citing the program's effectiveness and upcoming increases in jail costs, but ultimately voted yes after receiving assurances that service levels would not decrease and funding could be restored if needed. Both items will move forward to the full city council. ### What to Watch Next • Both agreements head to full City Council for final approval • Budget discussions continue with potential $100,000 cuts to human services programs • Monitoring of Grace program service levels and actual billing amounts • Potential future discussions about expanding intervention programs • Work with county on creating more flexibility for justice sales tax spending ---

**Q:** What is the Grace program? **A:** Ground Level Response and Coordinated Engagement - provides intensive care coordination for individuals who frequently use emergency response services. **Q:** How much is the city's Advanced Life Support reimbursement rate increasing? **A:** 3.3% increase (2.3% CPI plus 1% additional). **Q:** How many Grace case managers are embedded with Bellingham Police? **A:** Two case managers are embedded with Bellingham Police Department. **Q:** What is the Grace program's success rate? **A:** Over 80% success rate, with the similar LEAD program achieving success rates in the 90s. **Q:** How much money is being reduced from the Grace program budget? **A:** Approximately $60,000, reducing the city contribution from $355,000 to about $295,000. **Q:** Who is the Fire Chief who presented the ALS agreement? **A:** Chief Bill Huitt from the Bellingham Fire Department. **Q:** What does CADB stand for? **A:** Community Development Advisory Board - makes recommendations for grant allocations. **Q:** How much is the overall Grace program budget for 2026? **A:** $1.04 million, showing a small increase from 2025's $1.009 million. **Q:** What percentage of the Grace budget does the city provide? **A:** Up to 40% of the total budget after other grants are factored in. **Q:** Who manages the Grace contract for the city? **A:** Jointly managed by the mayor's office and planning department, with Jason Cornelius as point person. **Q:** How long is the Advanced Life Support agreement term? **A:** Six years, running with the life of the countywide EMS levy. **Q:** What committee does one member serve on related to jail issues? **A:** JPO (Jail Planning Oversight) committee. **Q:** How much was the city actually billed for Grace last year? **A:** Just under the budgeted amount, about $340,000. **Q:** What are the Grace program's measurable outcomes? **A:** Reduction in jail admissions, jail bed day utilization, law enforcement responses, and arrests. **Q:** Who was initially opposed to the Grace funding reduction? **A:** The committee chair, who changed their vote from no to yes during the meeting. **Q:** What broader budget challenge is the city facing? **A:** Need to cut about $100,000 from general fund human services programs. **Q:** How many Grace case managers work with the fire department? **A:** Two case managers who ride with the community paramedic. **Q:** What funding source could potentially support Grace in the future? **A:** Unspent monies from the justice sales tax, if restrictions are modified. **Q:** When do CADB recommendations typically come to council? **A:** Usually in May, as the city is half a year off the normal cycle. **Q:** What was the vote outcome for both agenda items? **A:** Both items passed 3-0 and will move forward to full city council. ---