Name: Bellingham City Council - Public Works and Natural Resources Committee meeting, Sep 14, 2026
Start: 2026-09-14
End: 2026-09-14
Location: City of Bellingham

City Council - Public Works and Natural Resources Committee

Mon, September 14, 2026

Agenda PDF Watch Video

Agenda items

Vote records

Discussion summary

Transcript

Meeting summaryAI-generated

Public Works and Natural Resources Committee — September 14, 2026

This was a regular committee meeting covering three agenda items: a program update on Lake Whatcom land acquisition, a contract award for utility work on Samish Way, and a related noise variance request. Councilmember Jace Cotton arrived late; Councilmember Skip Williams temporarily filled in on the committee until Cotton was seated.

Item 1: Lake Whatcom Land Acquisition and Preservation Program Update

Mike Peruskin, Public Works Chief of Natural Resources Field Operations, presented a comprehensive update on the city's land acquisition program, which has been purchasing property in the Lake Whatcom watershed since 2001 to protect the drinking water source for over 120,000 city and county residents. Development in the watershed is the primary driver of excess phosphorus entering the lake, which causes dangerously low dissolved oxygen levels.

Program status: Since inception, the city has spent $60.2 million to acquire approximately 3,700 acres, with an additional 200 acres protected through conservation easements. In total, 947 potential development units have been removed. The acquired land is estimated to be worth roughly $122 million at current market values — about double what was paid. The current fund balance stands at $15.2 million.

Financial pressures: Peruskin explained that the program functions best in high-interest-rate environments because the city is a cash buyer, giving it a competitive edge when financing is expensive for private buyers. However, spending is now outpacing reserves. The 2026 capital acquisition budget is $10 million — already running a modest deficit against the fund balance. Staff plans to reduce the acquisition budget significantly in 2027, to between $3 and $4 million. There is currently over $21 million worth of properties with willing sellers, but only $15 million in reserves.

How properties are selected: Staff uses a GIS scoring model that weights physical features (proximity to streams or shorelines, steep or erosion-prone slopes, existing forest cover) and development potential (number of possible units, subdividability, adjacency to already-protected land). Properties must be outside city limits, must not carry HOA/CC&R encumbrances, and ideally cost less than $200,000 in structures — distinguishing livable from non-livable improvements. Staff is now demolishing some structures on acquired parcels.

Forest management progress: The city is actively thinning a 160-acre tract on the north side of Galbraith Mountain. About 90 of 160 acres have been thinned as of summer 2026; the contractor will return in 2027 to finish. The goal is increased structural diversity, understory biodiversity, and wildfire resilience.

Council discussion ranged widely. Councilmember Anderson emphasized that waterfront, stream-corridor, and landslide-prone properties should remain the highest acquisition priorities, and Peruskin confirmed they receive the highest scores in the model. Councilmember Cotton questioned whether conservation easements were truly cost-effective, noting that removing development rights can cost 75% or more of a property's full value. Councilmember Lilliquist suggested easements deserved more consideration as a cheaper way to achieve similar phosphorus reduction, particularly where willing sellers are rare. Anderson cautioned that easements provide more control than purchasing development rights alone, since they can also regulate forest management practices — an important distinction if the goal is full ecosystem protection.

Lilliquist offered a broader critique: the program as currently structured is a *preservation* program, not a *restoration* program. It prevents future harm but does not address developed properties — particularly lakefront parcels — that are actively contributing phosphorus runoff today. He argued that as the watershed approaches saturation of acquirable undeveloped land (the city and county together protect roughly a quarter or more of the watershed already), the program will need to evolve toward buying developed, high-value properties and potentially reversing existing development. He noted the lake is on a roughly 50-year recovery timeline and urged staff to begin planning tools for that next phase. Anderson agreed, expressing hope that future staff and council members would pursue creative partnerships with private forestry companies to improve logging practices in ecologically sensitive areas.

This item was informational only; no vote was taken.

Item 2: Contract Award — Samish Way Utility Replacements Project (EU197), Bid No. 44B-2026

Project engineer Joey Malloy described a two-part infrastructure project. The southern section runs along Samish Way from Bill McDonald Parkway to East Maple Street near Boomers, where aging 6-inch cast iron water main and 8-inch concrete sewer will be replaced with 12-inch ductile iron water main and 12-inch PVC sewer — significantly increasing capacity and fire protection for the area's growing development. A smaller northern component near G Street will replace a stretch of sewer line with concrete.

Five bids were opened August 12, 2026. Premium Services, a local firm, submitted the lowest responsible bid at $3,677,652.89 (including applicable sales tax), well below the engineer's estimate of approximately $5.3 million — a roughly $1.5 million difference. Staff attributed the gap partly to a conservative estimate that anticipated the night-work premium and a less competitive market, and partly to Premium Services aggressively pursuing city contracts. Staff expressed confidence in the project documentation.

Funding is split roughly 50/50 between the water and wastewater utility funds. The project includes an apprenticeship hours requirement.

Councilmember Anderson asked how this project coordinates with a separate state-grant-funded Samish Way overlay project. Staff explained the projects are kept separate to maintain clean grant accounting, but the sequencing is intentional: utility replacement happens first, followed by a complete road resurfacing from Bill McDonald to East Maple planned for next summer. Staff confirmed no freshly paved sections will be cut for this work. Anderson also inquired about the large bid-to-estimate gap; staff was satisfied that Premium Services understands the scope. Lilliquist asked about opportunities to install city conduit for telecommunications during the dig — staff confirmed conduit will be added along the lighting portion of the second (overlay) project.

Vote: Councilmember Cotton moved to award Contract 44B-2026 to Premium Services for $3,677,652.89. No second required in committee. Motion passed with unanimous recommendation to the full City Council.

Item 3: Noise Variance — Samish Way Utility Replacements Project (EU197)

Because Samish Way carries approximately 1,200 vehicle trips per day and is heavily used during university hours, staff requested a variance from the city's nighttime noise ordinance (BMC 10.24.120(C)(4)) to allow construction work at night for up to 130 calendar days during the project. Night work is expected primarily on the southern Samish Way segment; the northern G Street portion should largely be completed during daytime hours.

Staff noted that night work would also reduce the need for a sewer bypass — a likely contributor to the project coming in under budget. The contractor will be required to implement noise-minimization best practices, including optimizing truck routing and minimizing backup alarms and dump truck tailgate noise.

Councilmember Anderson, who lives near the corridor and noted her bedroom window faces Samish Way, acknowledged the real impact on neighbors but said the tradeoff was necessary. She stated that daytime construction on this heavily trafficked road — particularly during the university year — would be untenable for commuters and unsafe for workers, and that she would be prepared to respond to constituent emails. She supported the variance despite the disruption.

Vote: Anderson moved to recommend approval of the noise variance to the full City Council. Motion passed with unanimous recommendation.

Key Takeaways

Lake Whatcom land acquisition is financially constrained: The program holds $15.2 million in reserves against over $21 million in willing-seller opportunities, and staff plans to cut the annual acquisition budget nearly in half in 2027. The program has protected roughly 3,900 acres and eliminated 947 potential development units since 2001.

Council signaled the program may need to evolve: Lilliquist and others argued that as undeveloped land becomes scarcer and more expensive, the city will eventually need to consider acquiring developed shoreline properties to truly restore the lake — a significant philosophical and financial expansion of the current preservation-focused approach.

A $3.7 million utility contract was approved for Samish Way, coming in well under the $5.3 million engineer's estimate. The project will upgrade aging water and sewer infrastructure to support increased development capacity and fire protection in the Samish Way corridor.

Nighttime construction on Samish Way was approved for up to 130 nights, to avoid massive daytime traffic disruption in one of the city's busiest corridors.

A complete Samish Way resurfacing (funded by a separate state grant) is planned for next summer, sequenced after utility work is complete — the committee emphasized that no freshly paved roadway should be cut for these utilities.

AI-generated summary from voice-to-text transcript. Not the official record. Verify important details with the source documents linked above.

What happened at this meeting

An update on the Lake Whatcom Land Acquisition and Preservation Program

# Summary

Mike Peruskin, Public Works Chief of Natural Resources Field Operations, presented an update on the Lake Whatcom Land Acquisition and Preservation Program, which has spent $60.2 million since 2001 to acquire approximately 3,700 acres and protect an additional 200 acres through conservation easements in the watershed that serves over 120,000 residents. The program maintains a fund balance of $15.2 million and has removed 947 development units by prioritizing properties based on physical attributes (streams, steep slopes, erosion-prone soils) and planning-level attributes (development potential, adjacency to protected lands). Council members, including Councilman Anderson and Councilwoman Anna, raised concerns about cost-effectiveness—particularly regarding conservation easements versus outright purchases—and questioned why the program focuses outside city limits rather than addressing already-developed shoreline properties within city limits, to which staff explained that developed areas already have strict stormwater regulations. Staff noted that the program recently passed Resolution 2025-26 to address recreational pressures, climate change, and forest management, including a 160-acre forest management project on Galbraith where thinning is expected to be completed by late summer 2027 to increase forest resilience. Council members expressed interest in pursuing restoration goals alongside preservation and exploring creative partnerships with private forestry companies to better manage logging practices in critical watershed areas.

A contract award for the Samish Way Utility Replacements Project (EU197), Bid No. 44B-2026

# Samish Way Utility Replacements Project (EU197) Contract Award Summary

Staff recommended and the committee unanimously approved awarding Contract 44B-2026 for the Samish Way Utility Replacements Project to Premium Services for $3,677,652.89, significantly below the engineer's estimate of $5.3 million. The project, funded roughly 50/50 from two sources, includes road surface rehabilitation, water pipe replacement (upgrading from 6-inch cast iron to 12-inch ductile iron), and sewer replacement (upgrading from 8-inch concrete to 12-inch PVC) along Samish Way from Bill McDonald Parkway to East Maple Street, plus sewer line work in the northern G Street area. Project engineer Joey Malloy explained that the improvements will enhance fire safety and accessibility for new developments, and the work is designed to be completed before a separate state-funded resurfacing project next summer. Committee member Anderson raised concerns about the $1.5 million variance between the estimate and bid, questioning whether Premium Services fully understood the scope, though staff attributed the difference to less competitive bidding in recent years and the engineers' higher valuation expectations, while noting Premium Services has recently emerged as an aggressive competitor for city jobs.

A noise variance for the Samish Way Utility Replacements Project (EU197)

# Samish Way Utility Replacements Project (EU197) - Noise Variance Summary

Staff requested a noise variance from VMC 10.24.120 for 130 calendar days of nighttime work on the Samish Way Utility Replacements Project to minimize disruption to businesses and residents during high-traffic university hours. The variance was presented alongside the contract award as the two are directly related, with Committee member Anderson noting the bid included a night work premium and confirming that the project timeline required careful coordination with the state-funded resurfacing phase. Although Mrs. Anderson, who lives near the corridor, expressed concern about nighttime noise, she acknowledged that nighttime work is necessary to avoid daytime traffic impacts and committed to responding to complaints from her ward. Staff pledged to implement best practices to minimize noise, including optimizing truck routing and reducing reverse signals and tailgate noise. The committee unanimously approved recommending the noise variance to the full City Council.

Agenda items (3)

Procedural (3)

25042ProceduralAn update on the Lake Whatcom Land Acquisition and Preservation Program

City staff will update the council on progress with buying and protecting land around Lake Whatcom to preserve the watershed and natural areas.

What happened

25043ProceduralA contract award for the Samish Way Utility Replacements Project (EU197), Bid No. 44B-2026

The city is awarding a construction contract to replace aging water, sewer, and other utility lines along Samish Way.

What happened

25044ProceduralA noise variance for the Samish Way Utility Replacements Project (EU197)

The city is requesting permission to allow extra noise from the Samish Way utility replacement work beyond normal noise restrictions, since construction equipment will exceed typical sound limits.

What happened

Additional votes recorded in minutes

Award Contract 44B-2026 for Sammamish Way Utility Replacement Project to Premium Services

aye 1

voice voteaye

Approve noise variance for Sammamish Way Utility Replacement Project (BMC 10.24.120 C-4)

aye 1

voice voteaye

Verbatim transcript available

169 transcript segments indexed

Thank you all. Let me just open the document I need. Today we have three points before our eyes . The first one, Councilman Lillyquist? Yes. I just want to point out that I haven't seen Councilman Cotton, so you might need either me or Councilman Williams to speak at your...

Okay, could you speak? Of course. Good. So, Councilman Cotton is a member of this committee. He will be arriving soon, but in his absence, Councilman Williams will join me and Councilman Anderson on the Public Works and Natural Resources Committee.

Uh, the first item is an update on the Lake Whatcom land acquisition and preservation program . This program began purchasing land in 2001 to prevent further development of the Lake Watcom watershed, which is the source of drinking water for more than 120,000 residents in the city as well as the county.

Development is the primary cause of excess phosphorus entering Lake Whatcom, leading to low dissolved oxygen levels and subsequent required actions by the city, county, and the Lake Whatcom Water and Sewer District, provided by the Washington State Department of Ecology.

This presentation will summarize the acquisitions to date, budget, program updates, and direction of its development. Uh, we have Public Works Chief of Natural Resources Field Operations Michael Peruskin.

Shall we start? Michael. Okay, thank you. Good morning, council members. Mike Peruskin, Public Works Department Chief. And as Councilmember Lillyquist said, I'm going to provide, um, an update on our Lake Whatcom land acquisition and preservation program .

Okay, today we're going to look at the program and, um, talk a little bit about the history of the program. Um, we'll talk about our budget and expenses. Um, we're going to talk about how we determine which properties to buy and which not to buy.

Um, we're going to provide some program updates and talk about where we're going with the program, um, in the future, how the landscape is changing in the watershed and, um, economically. Okay, so before we start, um, I just want to go over the history of the program.

So this program, as you said, is aimed at acquiring land in the Lake Wotcomb watershed to protect water quality. We know that development in the watershed is the main cause of excess phosphorus in the lake.

This program was created by resolution in 2000 when the previous council's management and staff decided that prevention before a problem occurred was preferable to mitigating the effects of development after it occurred.

So we know that it is actually more cost- effective to prevent development than to try to treat it with stormwater management plans over time. We used this ordinance to change the water fee structure and implement a watershed management fee, which we use to purchase land in the watershed, and we can also use these funds to manage these facilities.

And then, last year, we passed Resolution 2025-26 to reaffirm how we manage these facilities and update how we respond to recreational pressures in the watershed, as well as climate change and forest management.

So, today, um, since the start of this program, um, we have spent $60.2 million on land acquisition in the watershed. Um, this land is marked in blue in these , um, areas on the watershed map depicted below.

Um, we acquired about 3,700 acres and then protected about 200 more acres with... That's not you. It's not me. We've been having some technical difficulties recently, so that's good. Everything is fine.

It just happens sometimes. Good. I don't know, I don't understand this. Sorry. Um, so we protected about 200 more acres through, um, conservation easements and other restrictions, um, in Snyderville. And we removed, um, 947 development units, um, with those funds, and about 100 of those were also through, um, restrictive covenants in Snyderville.

So mostly through, um , simple acquisition, but, um, we have some other, um, mechanisms at our disposal that we use to, um, prevent development in the watershed. And today, um, we have a fund balance or reserves of $15.2 million.

So , hmm, we're fine. Hmm, and I'll just mark on the map below, we also see that this green area—this is, um, the reclaimed lands of Whatcom County, which is Whatcom County parks. Good. So, I'm going to switch to another screen here and take a little drive around the watershed.

Let this guy drive. And this is just to help council members better understand the spatial idea of what we're talking about when we discuss, for example, how we buy land in a watershed. I want one more thing.

Backup option. Okay, so we'll just head from city hall to the watershed. Hmm, this 3D map is kind of , um, just a picture of a watershed . This brown area, um, where it meets the green, represents the watershed boundary.

Hmm, the watershed itself is about 36,000 acres. Today, we have protected about 12,000 properties located between city and county property. Again , the blue areas are protected urban areas . Greens are the parks of Watcom County.

At the end of the lake, it is worth noting that the main tributary flowing down from the southern end, on the left side, is Brennian Creek. It is home to the state's largest kokanee hatchery, which few people know about.

And then, looking back, you can see that the lake is divided into three separate pools. The third basin accounts for about 96% of the total volume of the lake. Its depth is about 350 feet. The second pool is 60 feet deep, and the first is about 100 feet deep.

They're separated by , um, a kind of harder sandy slope, um, which we thought was during the ice age, the glacier moved back and forth, and the smoother or softer rock eroded away, creating deeper basins, and the harder rock left behind little ridges that form these separate areas, um, basins one, two, and three.

And I think that's all our little flight is about. Hmm, and just wanted to show the complexity of the watershed. You know, certain areas consist of much steeper slopes. Hmm, the other parts are a bit more gentle.

Hmm, it affects how we look at the watershed and , um, how we try to figure out what real estate to buy . Hmm, but I'll get back to finances for a moment. Um, so this orange line represents our, um, purchases over time.

Hmm, as I mentioned earlier, we've spent a little over $60 million to date. Um , and this green line is, um, our total value of these assets. So, um, we took, um, the inflation of each of these properties purchased each year and calculated that, um, and also looked at the average change in home prices year over year, um, to adjust for market value.

So, we estimate that, you know, as an asset, these, you know, about 4,000 acres probably represent about $122 million right now. Um, yeah, about twice as much . And, um, just to talk more about the challenges of the program.

Um, we only buy properties from sellers who are willing to buy. Um, and sellers willing to buy may fluctuate depending on various changes in the market. So if you look at this spreadsheet above, just you can see that yes, in 2021, post-COVID, when, um, we had very low interest rates, the market was very competitive.

So we were not competitive because our offers are based on fair market value. Um , so when the market changes in a certain way, you know, our program can either have an advantage or a disadvantage. Um, and similarly, looking at the graph below, um, these are our all-time purchases, marked in green, um , on this green line .

And the green, um, uh, that's the spending on the left, represented in millions. And then on the right you can see how, um, this reflects the changes reflected in mortgage rates or interest rates. So when you see interest rates go up, we often see more willing sellers or a competitive advantage for our program, um, because it's harder to get cash when interest rates are high.

Um, and we are cash buyers. So when interest rates are high, our program can be very successful, ahem, which can also put a strain on our fund balance. This is presented here. Um, again, it's something like the expenses over the last 5-6 years, um, compared to our fund balance.

So when interest rates were low, we saved a lot of money, which is represented by the blue bar chart. Um, and then you see that the deviation of the fund balance, um, in the run-up to 2025-26 from the red line, which is our spending, um, which we project will continue to distance itself.

So, expenses are going up, um, and our reserves or fund balance is going down. And the last table, I promise. Um, in this, um , red box, um, under the 2026 budget , um, here I would like to show some other, um, expenses related to our watershed management fund.

Um, so our operating expenses, that $2,032,000, um, represents personnel. So, we have a full-time team of five people in the watershed that manages these facilities on a daily basis. Um, they have a leader.

Um, that's partly my salary, and we have a great, um, real estate team that's also part of those operating expenses. Gm, which supports land acquisition. Um, in this line item of services for $ 1.6 million–that's, um, taxes and money that we, um, property tax, and also money that we, um, pay into the city's general fund to maintain this utility.

Um, and then 10 million–this is our capital budget or land acquisition budget for 2026. Um, you'll notice that the green square above is, um, 7.6 million. So yes, we are budgeting our capital expenditures with a small deficit this year because we still have a healthy fund balance.

So as it is decreasing, and for 2027, we are looking to significantly reduce the acquisition or capital expenditure budget. I think somewhere between 3 and 4 million. And just to sum it up, all of this leads us to the fact that we have more real estate to purchase.

We expect to spend another 3 million by the end of the year. You know, the chance of reaching that 6 million to cover the remaining costs by 2026 is probably about 50/50. But we have a lot of real estate under development.

So , we have over $21 million worth of real estate that we could purchase. So, willing sellers, but as we saw earlier, the fund balance is about 15 million. This figure fluctuates quite regularly. But, yes, there is more real estate, more willing sellers, than we have the funds to buy.

So, that brings us to how we make these decisions based on the financial performance of the program. We have a GIS model that takes into account various property attributes that we believe are useful for protecting water quality, and gives us some idea of how different properties rank relative to each other.

So, physical attributes are essentially how we want to keep sediment out of waterways. So, um, can we protect properties that have streams or are close to shorelines? Um, if they have steep and unstable slopes, that means there's an opportunity for protection.

So, they will get a higher rating. Um, if there are soils that are likely to be more prone to erosion, that increases the rating of the facility. Um, and also forest cover. So, these are kind of the physical attributes of the facility, and then there's the planning level attribute, which is, um, how do we consider the potential of the facility for development or change?

Um, and what might that look like, uh, are there a lot of potential development units? Can it be divided? Um, is there already a way or other mechanism to protect it? Is it already protected? Um, and also whether it is adjacent to other, um, protected objects.

So we'll take all these different ideas about how best to protect water quality through land management in the watershed, and then we'll have an assessment when we try to make a decision about which facility to acquire.

Um, and besides , we have a matching program. So, uh, just because something has good reviews, it doesn't mean it's always right for us. Uh, so we're not buying any real estate that's within the city limits right now.

Uh, we're looking for properties that are adjacent to other property clusters that we've already created, or we can start a new reserve. So , if there is another property around that we think we will have a good chance of getting.

Uh, and also, we want to make sure that the property we're buying has a construction cost of less than $200,000, which is usually the line between livable and unlivable. Uh, and we were talking about the model in the middle.

And then we need legal access, uh, clear ownership and no condominium association fees for all the real estate we buy. Uh, contributions to condominium associations can constitute, uh, a donation of public funds, so we avoid that.

Good. Uh, so mostly it was about simple purchases of, uh, land. Uh , we also have other protection mechanisms, uh , like conservation easements. Um, it's not really our first and most used mechanism, but it's just a tool that we have, um, when we don't have any willing sellers.

Um, so a conservation easement is defined as a non-ownership property interest, um, for conservation purposes. So we can stipulate the use of the property through an agreement, um, based on this RCW. Um, the land the conservation easement is on is working, so it's not really something that conflicts with property rights.

It works in conjunction with land ownership, so, um, it's a mechanism that can, um, preserve or condition forever. And, um, we believe that conservation easements are generally, um, aligned with how the fund is distributed, um, through the BMC, so, um, it's consistent with the goals of the watershed management fund.

Um, just to compare, I think the main takeaways between the two are that a conservation easement can be cheaper, not often by much, but, um, it can definitely be cheaper. Um, but it doesn't become an asset to the city, so, you know, simple purchases with payment are a valuable asset, unlike a conservation easement.

Um, we get a lot more control over the property when we own it outright, compared to a conservation easement. Um, and conservation easements can also have a different type of monitoring, um, or enforcement burden, which, um, has its pros or cons, depending on how you look at it .

Um, but going back, um, we don't really use conservation easements unless we have property that doesn't have a willing seller. So it's kind of , um, a second option for the program overall. Um, and then as mentioned earlier, um, in resolution 2025-26, we passed it last year and reaffirmed how we manage, um, watersheds.

Um, we re-categorized, um, the strategies that we believe will best protect water quality, um, into restoration, forest management, climate resilience, monitoring and maintenance, personnel, and um, accessibility and recreation.

And the latter is actually related to quite strong pressure on recreation in the Lake Wotcomb watershed. And then just a brief overview of the project. Uh, we're getting, uh, a little further along the middle of our first, um, project under the Lake Watcom Forest Management Plan.

We have a 160-acre tract of land on the north side of Galbraith that we are thinning for forest health. Uh, we've already thinned about 90 of those 160 acres by the summer of 2026, and we'll be back with the same contractor in 2027 to finish the job.

We have been using ground-based equipment, and we will move on to something like a tower and a cable communication system. So, there are two different zones . Some are accessible using different equipment, but we expect this to be completed by late summer 2027, and yes, this is a before and after photo, so you can see the additional light coming into the forest, which will help us increase structural diversity.

So, we will increase the biodiversity of the understory, and the goal is resilience to forest fires. Um, and yeah, so far, everything is going well, and we'll wrap it up at the end of the construction window in the summer of '26, and, um, again on June 1, 2027 .

Um, so to sum up, um, we expect to be more, um, concerned about deciding which properties to buy , um, as we see more and more willing sellers coming forward. Um, we're trying to, um, focus on adding properties that are adjacent to the land we've already acquired, um, because we know that reduces our, um, maintenance costs.

Just thinking geographically, if we have staff running around lots of tiny individual sites, um, it can get very expensive, so we try to accumulate larger, um , reserves across the entire watershed. Um, and we're also just looking at real estate, where we can get the most traction .

So, if it's a large property that needs significant restoration, that seems like a very good goal, whereas if we think there's a property that's already in good condition and it's not going to change, then maybe we'll be less inclined to buy it.

And with that, let me know if you have any questions. Thank you, Michael. Uh, I noticed that Councilman Cotton, uh, joined us in the City Council Chamber right after the presentation started. Uh, is it okay if Jason resumes his work on the committee?

You replaced him. No, of course not. I didn't think so. Okay, so do the committee members have any questions or discussions about this ? I would like to point out that the reason we are doing this is that although the City Council reviews every land acquisition program that is done in the privacy of a closed session, during the discussion of real estate transactions, and we wanted to have a policy-level discussion on this, which we would not do in a closed session, we have scheduled it here.

Councilman Anderson, I see you raised your hand. I just want to thank you for the presentation because, as City Councilman Lilquist pointed out, a lot of our conversations about the specific properties we buy happen in the executive branch, so the public is n't always aware of some of the decision-making criteria.

So I appreciate the presentation so that the community can better understand our goals and how we, uh, develop a purchasing strategy. You mentioned that when looking at the criteria, one of them is whether we can purchase a property that is adjacent to another property that we own.

But I also assume, and I would like to assure you, because I'm sure I'll get an email about it , that one of the top priorities would also be whether it's next to a stream that flows into a lake, or on the shore of a lake, or in an area that might be prone to landslides if developed.

So, um, there were some things that were presented, but I guess one of our top priorities is those properties that are, um, identified as being the most valuable, which would be the lake shoreline, along the stream corridors, and also areas that are prone to, um, ecological damage if they were, um, cut down or built on .

Yes. Hmm, yeah, in terms of the assessment, hmm, the areas that just can't be cleaned by stormwater in general, which is like , for example, coastal property or property that's very close to a creek, hmm, definitely have a higher rating in the model.

And we know that, um, yeah, the areas that are likely to be built on and don't have the potential to treat stormwater are actually the highest priority . Yes. Thank you, Jace. Hmm, one of the criteria you mentioned was the lack of joint ownership CC&Rs.

Hmm, and I wonder, um, how much thought was put into what was required for the acquisition and then the condemnation, you know, regarding this CC&R? Especially when it's like common property and probably doesn't have a lot of, um, value, or, um, it's just I know it's a big part of the watershed, so it's interesting to learn more.

Yes, today when we come across properties with condominium associations or CC&Rs, um, I mean they are often different. Uh, if it's a property we want, we contact the owner or the condominium association itself and ask them if they are willing to release it from the condominium association .

So we made attempts to do that. Uh, we've had success before, um, and failed in a few other attempts to take the property out of the condominium association, but, um, I would probably move on to the legal issue of whether we think it's necessary.

Now we're not getting into it until, um, the property is released. So, discussion. Also, I want to, um, come back to the idea of a conservation easement versus ownership. Jason, I was talking about this.

I see one significant benefit of conservation easements that has n't really been emphasized, but it's there. This is a low initial cost. Um, as you mentioned, there are a lot more properties that we could be looking at right now that we have the money for.

Um, and also, um, I...we're going to have to start looking at more expensive properties, and we'll get to that in the second comment later. Um, and I want to be very careful with our money. And if we can achieve more or less the same improvement in water quality with an easement, and it's a cheaper way to go, I think we should do it.

As Jason said, well, maybe we're just paying someone to do something they would have already done. If they have no intention of developing, why pay them not to develop? So, this is the complexity that we need to address to understand whether there is indeed a threat to development.

Um, and if there is a threat of development, conservation easements are the cheaper way to go, and I think that needs to be considered. So, that's my opinion. Other board or committee members? Anna? Thank you, Mike.

I just had a question about the purchasing criteria. You mentioned that you are not currently considering any properties within the city limits. And I thought that some members of the public might think that this is a city program, city resources and funds, for example: can you explain why not within the city limits?

Yes. Within the city limits, much more of the area that is currently developed or could be developed is already treated with stormwater infrastructure, and our stormwater regulations for development are extremely strict.

So, under those building codes, it's basically phosphorus neutral if you need it if you're trying to build a new home. So the focus is on using the funds where we think we can have the biggest impact, and we're seeing that outside of the city now.

Yes. Jace? Just to respond to your comments regarding the conservation easement, sorry for the comments, my request for the conservation easement. Yeah, I guess my question is that it doesn't seem to be much cheaper overall than buying.

Um, can you give me an idea of how much cheaper it has been than fair market value in the last few cases? Yes, we really haven't done a lot of outright purchases of just conservation easements. Um, actually more of the experience of the program itself with conservation easements is because we have a third party like Whatcom Land Trust that has put additional restrictions on city property.

Um, if we are like that...Yes, when considering a conservation easement, the assessment often reflects the value of the development being removed. Um, so actually, if we're just talking about the development, it could be about 75% or more of the total value of the property, um, when you actually cap that development.

So, it's not cheap. Um, but there are other elements of a conservation easement that might be cheaper, um, like just restricting management practices or/and how you manage the forest. Um, and I think the last point I'll make here is that it just depends on the owner.

Um, if it's someone who cares about preserving nature, and it could be something very inexpensive for us . So, if they just want to, they have a property that they consider very special; they want it to stay the way they, um, owned and operated it for years, then it might be a slightly different cost landscape than, um, someone trying to get as much money as possible for a preservation easement or at fair market value, I would say.

Um, yeah, I think, um, I agree with Council Locus' comments and your wording as well. I think it's a good tool in the toolbox. I'm just concerned with our tremendous success in spending the fund and acquiring property that maybe we should apply, um, a little more, um, I think, skepticism to this as a tool in, you know, under these conditions.

Um, and I, you know, also just think it also reduces your property tax bills in the long run. So it seems like it's a lot of private benefit, um, uh, and certainly a public good, but at a fairly high cost, so, um, yeah, I just, um, appreciate this discussion, and, um, yeah, it seems like there's a general consensus, um, of people on this .

So I appreciate that. Can I just continue on this ? In the last decade, there has been much talk about another, but similar mechanism - the purchase of development rights. It was a tool that was used more by the county.

Often it was a transfer of development rights, but it is similar in that it is a mechanism where money is given to the landowner, and this destroys the development potential. And, as you said in your opening remarks, it is the development that creates harmful runoff into the lake.

Is anyone using something that could be called buying development rights? Have we completely discarded this idea, or are conservation easements completely equivalent in some sense? I would say that right now conservation easements are the only ones we are studying.

We've looked at this in the past, and I would say the reason it didn't work was because it was too complex for the program at the time. Hmm, we haven't really revisited this issue in the last few years.

But we can consider it. Lisa? Uh, I was going to make another statement, but tying in with what you just said, I would be a little concerned about, um, tying in development rights, because part of our goal is to preserve nature.

So, depending on how it's phrased, um, maybe eliminating, you know, the division and building two houses doesn't necessarily mean that it eliminates the ability to cut down a forest or do other things that might be harmful, whereas conservation can achieve that goal.

So I wouldn't want to spend money on tying up a development without necessarily having a say in the management and what happens on that property. Where is the conservation easement? Will give us the opportunity to have a little more control to ensure that the environmental benefits that are being spent on, you know, taxpayer money, are actually being achieved.

So I could imagine a development, maybe in the city of Bellingham, you know, in the sense that if it's located right on the lake , we didn't think that maybe we would be successful with stormwater. But we have a fairly powerful stormwater drainage system, so, you know, it's not enough without it .

In any case, I'm just concerned that the development won't necessarily fully achieve the goals that were set, and I wouldn't want to waste taxpayer money that way. I would try to, uh, make sure we have a vote, but the conservation easement is something I'm very interested in in the future, and I won't be in a position to have that kind of oversight, so I'm just stating it now.

I hope someone in the future hears this. Hmm, I'm very interested in going down that path in certain areas, especially, you know, in partnership with the state or maybe with properties that are owned by private forestry companies.

If we can be creative, we can have a greater impact on how forestry is done in very critical areas, because community and environmental groups are very concerned about logging practices in areas where perhaps forestry should take climate change into account, and it doesn't yet.

For example, in some of our areas along streams, bluffs, or areas that might be, ahem, harmful if completely cut down, it might be necessary to thin the forest or do selective logging or something like that.

So if we can find a way that, um , we can partner with these companies that are still holistic, um, but are achieving better environmental protection. We may have to think outside the box in the future.

We may not have reached the goal yet, but I hope that staff will really look at what's happening on private and public lands to see what partnerships we can create in the future to both meet environmental goals and, um, meet the needs of these institutions.

Any other discussions? Um, well, I'd like to do some high-level critical analysis of the program . Um, as you mentioned, Ms. Perleskan, we don't buy property with buildings on it, nor within the city limits.

Um, so this is what I would call a preservation program, not a recovery program. Conservation programs, generally speaking, prevent future damage by preventing something from being transformed in a way that will harm the lake, while restoration reverses current impacts.

Um, I think we also need to think about going back to current exposure, which means looking at the real estate that is developed, that has ownership. And as you mentioned, we have significant, um, operational stormwater treatment facilities in our part of the watershed, but there are some areas that are located, for example, on a lake, where there are no downstream treatment facilities .

Ultimately, to preserve the lake, I think we, the city and the county, will need to consider eliminating some of the developments, key locations where there is property located near the shoreline, and probably very expensive because of all of that.

And now this program with these acquisition criteria will never get there. I think we need to figure out how to get there someday, and the sooner we start thinking about it, the better. We have a 50-year-old clock on the lake.

I think we've been working for 8 years or something. I mean, we're going to need to start thinking about how to get to 100% recovery. So, I would advise the staff that we don't need to start thinking about tools that make it harder.

And once this fund, because it is perpetual, it will not disappear until we complete it. We may have to change direction and start looking at properties with structures that cause permanent damage and properties that are within city limits.

Otherwise, it remains a preservation program and never moves into the restoration part. So, that's my overall criticism of the program. It is very successful in what it does, but we need to do more, and this may be a tool that could be modified or expanded to achieve these goals.

Any further discussion or comments from City Council members, in person or online? Yes, Hanna, continue. Sorry, I think the council member was like, when you said that right now I'm thinking about the property that has structures on it.

You correctly pointed out that they are probably high value, and we have a policy, I think, where we will not pay X amount over a percentage, but above the assessed value of that property. So I guess I'm just curious, you know, when you think about researching this, do we need to revisit this policy and how much would we be willing to pay?

Um, because I think that's true, it could be reducing, uh, those reserves. So I think there are a few political issues to consider, but yeah, Mike. Yes, we are buying real estate now. Actually, today we started demolishing some structures.

So we buy properties that have had previous development. Hmm, there are enough properties now where I think we can achieve the same effect as buying a higher value property, ahm, cheaper. So we're still finding properties with abandoned structures or old farms that we can convert back into, um, working forests, or, you know, places with abandoned structures in general.

There is no shortage of them at the moment. Hmm, but yeah, in the end, hm, I think you're right. We're going to have to spend more, um, to try to achieve what you're talking about. We have a graph that shows the cumulative amount of phosphorus in pounds no longer going into the lake, and it's a nice curve, but it will level out as we preserve most of the properties that can be preserved, or they're in easements or something .

On that map you showed at one point, there were a few small rectangles, and now it looks like half the catchment or so is under some form of protection. Hmm, maybe not half, but, you know, the district looks like it's saved at least a quarter, if not more.

Hmm, we'll survive, I just think, in four decades, and this is the mechanism that we have . When I first joined the city council, these funds were used only to buy out undeveloped land . They weren't really available for capital projects , for installing stormwater treatment plants.

We have expanded the program again, moving from simple preservation to some forms of restoration. Hmm, I think this is another expansion that will eventually need to be done. Hmm, is there any further discussion?

Mr. Parrott, thank you for the wonderful presentation. We will move on to the next point. Thank you very much. Hmm, the next two points are related. Uh , they're related to contracting for a utility replacement project at Sammamish Way U197, tender number 44B 2026, and then there's going to be a request for, uh, what do they call it?

Uh, noise from night work. What do we call it? We call this noise bias for parts of the same project. So, this project includes road surface rehabilitation, as well as significant water pipe replacement and sewer replacement.

The city publicly opened five bids on August 12 of this year. Premium Services, a local company, was the responsible bidder, submitting the lowest price offer, which was, uh, $3.6 million, about $3.7 million , including any applicable sales tax, which was actually well below the engineer's estimate of about $5.3 million.

Due to the scope of the project, it will include an internship hour requirement. Uh, Mr. Malloy, are you going to introduce this? Do we need to contact Joey right away? Okay, Mr. Malloy, tell us more about this project.

Perfectly. Thank you. Yes, I'm Joey Malloy, engineer number one. I will be the leader of this project. Sorry for any setbacks this morning. I'm a new father, so sleep was extremely important . And I'm grateful for the opportunity to discuss the project.

This project consists of two main parts. Most of it will be implemented on Semish Way. This is the southern section from Bill McDonald to East Maple, near Boomers. So, on this section of the road, we will replace the old, uh, sewer and the old water main.

The sewers will be upgraded from 8- inch concrete, it seems, to 12- inch to 12- inch PVC. And then the water pipe will be increased from 6- inch cast iron to 12- inch ductile iron . So, there will be a lot more, uh, accessibility, uh, fire safety, and, uh , it will be updated for a lot of the new developments in the area.

The second part of the project is in the northern region to the G Street area. We will have a small amount of sewer upgrade work, and then the bulk of it will be sewer line replacement with a cast, er, concrete replacement.

So, that part of the project will be done and reviewed first, and then we will move on to the Sammamish Way area. Thank you. I would like to point out that, as stated, this involves replacing the water main and the wastewater sewer line.

The $3.6 million project funding is roughly 50/50 from these two funds. Committee members. Anderson, Mrs. Anderson. Thank you. Um, I believe for the Sammamish Way area, Bill McDonald, not Bill McDonald, we received a grant from the highway department to do work in that corridor.

I'm curious how this is coordinated because I thought the work would start soon, and then I look at this schedule, and one of the things I've said in the past is let's not do road repairs if we're going to dig it up.

Um, there's a lot of, um, development in this area, and it's part of my district, so I'm very familiar with that area. Um, it's a little unstable because of all the cuts, um, plugging in to some of the developments that have happened.

So I was looking forward to a really good road and then seeing it move forward. So I'm just wondering how that's coordinated so that we don't, um, cut back on things that have been repaired. Very good question.

So, um, this project, um, and the other project are funded differently. So the reason there are two separate projects is because the second column or the second phase for this area, the Samish Way overpass, is funded by a state grant.

So, to keep this funding clean and separate, we placed them in two separate projects. With that in mind, the goal was to get ahead of the utility replacement project on Semish Way so we could get through the codification, make the replacements, as you said, do some limited repairs on some of these really rough sections, and then hopefully next summer we'll come in and completely resurface the road from Bill McDonald all the way to East Maple, and then East Maple, probably to that corner.

Thank you for that. I knew that overlay work was underway and thought it would be earlier this year. So when I saw this, I was a little worried because I know that with some government grants, we have a certain amount of time within which work has to start.

And I just wanted to make sure that we didn't end up in a situation where, uh, this grant was in jeopardy because we were planning to start it after the start of the year, and then this happened because I already had some of the work on Sandwich Way started.

Here's the band, and by the way, it looks really great, installing some of these, uh, ball and sidewalk belts. So, uh, I guess the time will come. We are not going to cut back on new coverage. This is hope.

This is hope. Mr. Wilson? Mike Wilson, uh, city engineer. Another thing I want to add to this conversation is the grant program he mentioned is for coverage, and there is also a lighting component for some security.

So this will be part of that second project that he, uh, describes. Could you describe some of these, uh , ground improvements that will be part of the second project? Overall, what will be achieved. Regarding the lighting component you are asking about?

Regarding lighting, are we doing anything in terms of, I don't know, traffic calming , traffic redirection, or something like improving the streetscape of urban settlements? Is this even expected? Uh, Freeman Anthony, head of engineering .

Hmm, this is mostly overlap and overlap, but it will kickstart ADA improvements. So it will be a healthy volume in this context. Hmm, we have some existing sewer system that we will use, and which will serve as the basis for what will be applied after the overlap.

Hmm, with that in mind, we'll definitely take into account the master plans for cyclists and pedestrians when we create them. You know, the full design. And that's what Joey is just starting over the next month.

He starts it. So we have a solid year of design work building into what it will actually look like. So, again, I'm looking decades ahead. This urban village, I think, has been quite successful, but considering the potential for development over the next few decades, and this increase in water and sewerage will support all of that .

This could be a very livable, walkable, urbanized area. This is a vision. This is the goal. And so the sewerage and water supply project brings us closer to this by creating the infrastructure underneath it.

And I'm also talking about infrastructure. I'm just looking at the long term . Glad to see all these things taken into account. I have one more question. What exactly? Oh, a blast from the past. Part of our approach to excavation is to ask ourselves if there is any opportunity to upgrade or add underground pipelines or telecommunications, both public and private, when we implement major road projects.

Were telecommunications for the city or private organizations considered as part of these projects? We will coordinate our actions with private utility companies. It is worth noting that for the lighting portion of the second section of Sammamish Street, we will be looking to add city conduit along its entire length.

In accordance with it, and so that we can stick to the plan, as well as implement new lighting. Yes, okay. You can't lay too many pipelines. Mr. Anderson. Also my eternal question. Um, if you look at the engineering estimate compared to the bid, the difference is almost 1.5 million, and I'm not as familiar with premium services as some of the other people who bid.

Are we sure they fully understand the scope of the work and are we just getting a really good deal, or was the estimate significantly over budget? We usually don't see such a huge difference between them.

We see a gap, but 1.5 million is quite significant, and it worried me a little. So yeah, I will definitely confirm that it is a little overwhelming when you see it. I will say that there is probably a bit of both present here.

We have had less competitive bidding over the last few years, so the engineers' valuation largely reflects this, although we expected higher bid prices, especially given the night work premium. However, recently we have seen premium services emerge very aggressively in terms of obtaining city jobs.

They really want to be part of city projects. So they sharpen their pencils a little more. At least, that's what we believe in order to get the job. And I feel that working with the consultant team, I am confident in the project documentation that we have and we know it quite well and we are prepared for any questions that they bring up during the project and we will be able to answer them.

Thank you. Uh, we're waiting for a potential proposal on this . Chase? I propose to award Contract 44B 2026 for the Sammamish Way Utility Replacement Project to Premium Services for the amount of $3,677,652.89 .

We have a proposal under consideration. A second in the committee is not needed. Any further discussion? Everyone who supports the proposal confirms that they are saying "I". Everyone who is against? I will put this up for unanimous recommendation.

Okay, Mr. Mallett, I don't think you need to go because the next question is about the noise variance for the utility replacement project on Sandwich Way. Uh, this project involves replacing, as we just said, water and sewer pipes along Sandwich Way, Bill McDonald Parkway, and East Maple Street to reduce disruption to nearby businesses and residents who depend on this corridor.

Work in this area will need to be done at night when traffic is low. Staff is requesting a variance from the noise limitation contained in VMC 10.24.120 Section C Subdivision 4 for a total duration of 130 calendar days during the project.

It usually works out that maybe not all of those nights will be used, but many of them will be. And again, this project involved two parts, a southern part and a northern part, and this noise variance is only for nighttime work on that part of Sandwich Way.

I think, Joey, you wrote this summary. Is there anything else you would like to add to it? Eh, not too much. Well, I'll just reiterate that yes, I think the uh, 20 days that we're not including is that we expect a lot of the work on G Street to be done during the day.

Uh, we expect that most, uh, almost all of those 130 days will be at night. Really? The southern part, uh, the main reason, you know, is the business and the residents. We, especially, uh, in the university year, uh, it gets very crowded very quickly.

So we want to significantly reduce the impact of traffic, uh, the impact on residents as well as businesses. And uh, we think that this could also uh reduce the need for a sewer bypass . And that's where maybe some of these cost differences arise, uh.

So, I forget if it was in this article or somewhere else, but I think it was about 1,200 transport trips a day or something along Sandwich Way. I do n't remember. That's a lot . It sounds something like this .

Mrs. Anderson. So, I live near this corridor. Uh, my bedroom window faces, uh, Sammamish, and I hear all the noise that comes along that street, uh , especially at night. And I still can't support it anymore because I also drive it for commuting or shopping, uh, and you're right.

Anyone who lives in this corridor knows the amount of traffic that happens during the day, especially during university hours, we have a lot of traffic, and I can't imagine closing this road during the day.

Many people choose this route to go to Lakeway, depending on what's going on, because there always seems to be closures due to accidents. So I saw Lakeway, um, and Holly going back all the way to Boomers so people could try to make it to the right to go down Lakeway.

And you know, it's 4:00, so I can't imagine construction, let alone the safety of the people doing the work. So I know I will get emails as soon as the noise starts and I will be ready to respond to it since it is my ward.

Um, because I will also be periodically awake at night, um, during this time. Um, I'm just making this statement because I'm very aware of the impact, and it's a long period, but the work has to be done.

This needs to happen safely, as well as have the least impact on people commuting to work and school, and nighttime will likely be the only way. Hmm, I'd be willing to provide earplugs to a few of my neighbors if needed.

Hmm, so I'm going to make a motion to approve the requested noise level deviation action from BMC 10.24.10 C-4. We are asked to recommend approval of the variance to the full City Council tonight . Is there any further discussion?

I would like to read the content of the statement that staff will work with the contractor to implement best practices to minimize noise during the work, including optimizing truck and vehicle routing to minimize truck reverse signals and dump truck tailgate rumble, and similar practices.

All those who support the approval of the resolution can confirm this by saying: "I do." Anyone who is against it, I will take it with a positive recommendation. Mr. Mulroy, thank you very much. This concludes all items considered by the Public Works and Natural Resources Committee.