Name: Bellingham City Council - Public Works and Natural Resources Committee meeting, Jun 15, 2026
Start: 2026-06-15
End: 2026-06-15
Location: City of Bellingham

City Council - Public Works and Natural Resources Committee

Mon, June 15, 2026

Agenda PDF Minutes PDF Watch Video

Agenda items

Vote records

Discussion summary

Transcript

Meeting summaryAI-generated

Public Works and Natural Resources Committee — June 15, 2026

This was an afternoon committee meeting chaired by Council Member Michael Lilliquist, with committee members Lisa Anderson and Jace Cotton. Several other council members were present. The committee took up two items: a lengthy informational briefing on the city's Comprehensive Sewer Plan and emerging solids handling technology, and a resolution to adopt the 2027–2032 Transportation Improvement Program.

Comprehensive Sewer Plan and Emerging Solids Handling Technology

Public Works Director Joel Funt and Deputy Director Mike Olinger provided an extensive update on two related but distinct topics: the city's new Comprehensive Sewer Plan, and the national landscape for wastewater solids handling technology.

The Comprehensive Sewer Plan is a first-of-its-kind effort for Bellingham — prior planning had examined specific elements of the wastewater system in isolation, but this plan will look at the entire system from the moment wastewater leaves a home or business all the way to discharge into Bellingham Bay. The plan is required by state law and is timed to incorporate population projections from the recently adopted Bellingham Comprehensive Plan. It is expected to be completed through 2028 and will cover collection system capacity and aging infrastructure, treatment requirements at the Post Point facility (including nutrient reduction), regulatory compliance, and long-term financial planning. Funt was careful to note what the plan is *not*: it will not make a final technology selection, will not produce final facility designs, and is not a substitute for future engineering, permitting, or environmental review. It is intended as a guiding framework for long-range, stepwise decision-making.

On solids handling technology, Olinger reported on what staff have been learning nationally as utilities grapple simultaneously with changing PFAS science, evolving regulations, aging infrastructure, and emerging technologies.

Staff recently visited the *EarthCare facility* in Pennsylvania, one of the first facilities attempting gasification of municipal biosolids at scale. Olinger noted the gasification process itself is showing promise — but with significant caveats. The facility is only processing *digested* solids (Bellingham's Post Point does not digest), it operates in a rural setting with few neighbors, and it is not yet processing undigested waste. Most memorably, Olinger recounted that the facility's odor was so intense that his cotton clothing absorbed the smell during the visit, requiring the team to stop and buy new clothes on the drive back to Philadelphia. Staff were also warned by facility workers not to walk under the air control systems, as any dripping material would take a month to come out of skin or clothing. These are among the real-world operational challenges the technology is still working through.

Staff also reported on *Edmonds, Washington*, which is one of the few municipal utilities in the country actively attempting a full-scale transition from incineration to gasification. The system was originally expected to come online in 2022 and remains in a difficult commissioning phase. It operated for about one week in May before having to shut down again — the primary challenge being that the consistency of the solids feed stock is not yet reliable enough for continuous operation, partly due to severe site constraints that limit storage space before and after the gasifier. Olinger noted that both Edmonds and Lynnwood, which are trucking their solids, are dealing with an ongoing problem of solids dripping from trucks and leaving trails on city streets, requiring street sweepers and generating resident complaints.

On PFAS destruction, Olinger noted that recent research from the Edmonds project suggests approximately 90–95% PFAS destruction is being achieved after the regenerative thermal oxidation (RTO) stage — a finding that generated discussion. Lilliquist noted that high-temperature incinerators have achieved similar figures, and raised concern that the remaining 5% is not yet fully accounted for. Olinger acknowledged that testing capabilities are improving, meaning what was previously believed to be full destruction is now understood to be incomplete — a challenge that may apply across technologies, not just gasification.

Council discussion was substantive. Anderson, now in her seventh year dealing with this issue, asked whether gasification is truly the direction most utilities are heading or whether other technologies are in the mix. Olinger said gasification currently shows the most promise, with pyrolysis and supercritical water oxidization still in development but not yet scalable to large municipal systems. He said gasification is likely the leading candidate for the next 5–10 years, but acknowledged that could change. Funt added that the goal of the comprehensive sewer plan is to lay groundwork so that future councils can feel confident seeing a decision through to completion, rather than facing another difficult off-ramp.

Anderson made an important contextual point: the previous near-complete plan was appropriately halted when PFAS concerns emerged — information that was not available when that work began. She expressed concern that the new plan should explicitly build in a principled framework for off-ramps, so that if new unknown information emerges years from now, future decision-makers have clear criteria to justify changing course without starting from scratch.

Hammill asked about the solids consistency challenge at Edmonds. Olinger explained that gasification has historically worked well in agricultural settings where waste is very consistent, but human waste is not, and that Edmonds' site constraints make it particularly hard to maintain the buffer storage needed for steady gasifier operation.

Council President Stone asked about community engagement. Funt said a community engagement plan is being developed with consultants, with a particular focus on solids handling given expressed community interest. Details are still being finalized, but the intent is to develop shared community values that will then inform technical decision-making throughout the planning process.

This item was for information and discussion only — no vote was taken.

Resolution Adopting the 2027–2032 Transportation Improvement Program

Transportation Assistant Director Tim Holman presented the resolution, which the full council had already received at a public hearing on June 1. The six-year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) is a planning and funding document submitted annually to WSDOT by July 1 as required by state law. The only change since the public hearing was moving the bike rack program from item 27 to item 6 in the program list — a change prompted by public comment requesting the city be more proactive about bike rack installation and maintenance beyond downtown and Fairhaven, reaching other urban villages across the city.

Anderson raised a question about whether the city could accommodate requests from community groups — specifically Safe Streets Bellingham / Walk and Roll — who have been advocating to move certain bike lane, crosswalk, and striping projects forward on the timeline. Holman explained that the first two or three years of the TIP are largely locked in because projects are already in design and tied to signed grant agreements; disrupting those would have real financial consequences. The outer years are more flexible. The city's non-motorized program — which funds rapid-flashing beacons, flashing crosswalks, and incremental bike infrastructure — provides the most flexibility for incorporating community feedback and will be coming back to council for a bid award in the coming months.

Lilliquist noted that TIP "unknown" funding entries in the outer years are not mistakes but rather opportunities — projects positioned to accelerate if grant funding becomes available. He also highlighted the James Street multimodal improvements (Iowa Street to Sunset) as a significant future project that will be comparable in complexity to the Holly Street project, and expressed hope it could be moved forward sooner given its potential to transform a major arterial into a more multimodal corridor.

Anderson moved to recommend approval of the resolution. The motion passed unanimously (3–0) and will be forwarded to the full council.

Vote: Moved by Anderson; seconded implicitly (no formal second noted in transcript); approved unanimously 3–0 by the committee. Will advance to the full council.

Key Takeaways

Post Point solids handling remains unresolved and complex. Gasification shows the most national promise but is not yet operationally proven at municipal scale — Edmonds' system is still in troubled commissioning years behind schedule, and EarthCare in Pennsylvania has real odor and operational challenges. Staff are monitoring closely but recommend staying on the current compliant path in the near term.

The Comprehensive Sewer Plan is a major multi-year undertaking. For the first time, Bellingham will plan its entire wastewater system end-to-end, with completion expected in 2028. It is a planning framework, not a technology decision.

PFAS destruction is still not fully understood across any technology, including both incineration and gasification — a concern that applies industry-wide and will influence long-term planning.

Council wants a principled off-ramp framework built into the sewer plan so that future unknown information (as happened with PFAS halting the previous plan) can be addressed with clear criteria rather than ad hoc decisions.

The 2027–2032 TIP was unanimously recommended for approval and must be submitted to WSDOT by July 1. The bike rack program was elevated in priority; most near-term projects are locked by grant agreements, but the non-motorized program offers flexibility for community-requested improvements.

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 Comprehensive Sewer Plan and emerging solids handling technology

# Summary: Comprehensive Sewer Plan and Emerging Solids Handling Technology

Public Works Director Joel Fondis and Deputy Director Michael Olinger presented the city's Comprehensive Sewer Plan—a state-mandated, long-range framework addressing aging infrastructure (some over 100 years old), environmental regulations, and future growth while managing a Notice of Violation from the Northwest Clean Air Agency regarding solids handling at Post Point. Staff emphasized that the plan balances technical reliability, community priorities, operational feasibility, financial sustainability, and regulatory compliance, and serves as a guiding framework rather than final technology selection or facility design. Deputy Director Mike Oler discussed emerging solids handling technologies, noting that gasification shows promise for reducing solids volumes and addressing PFAS concerns, but current processes can only handle 1-2 million gallons per day versus the needed 10-30+ million gallons per day, with full implementation of new wastewater technologies typically requiring 10 years and $10 million. Council members, including Lisa Anderson and Hannah, expressed concerns about timeline, technology viability, and ensuring decision-making flexibility if emerging information requires course corrections, with Anderson emphasizing the need for an off-ramp mechanism for future councils. Staff indicated they are developing a community engagement plan in partnership with consultants to establish community values around solids handling, with multiple input opportunities through 2028.

A resolution adopting the 2027-2032 transportation improvement program

# Summary

Staff presented the 2027-2032 transportation improvement program (TIP), a six-year planning document required by WSDOT, with one change from the public hearing version: moving the bike rack program to address community requests for expanded installation beyond downtown and Fair Haven. Committee member Lisa raised concerns about timeline flexibility for accelerating bike lane and crosswalk projects proposed by Safe Streets Bellingham/Walk and Roll; Tim Holman, Public Works Assistant Director, explained that the first two years are constrained by existing grant agreements and design commitments, but outer years allow flexibility, and feedback from advocacy groups is incorporated into the non-motorized program for council consideration within one to two months. Another committee member noted that "unknown" projects are opportunity projects that could be accelerated with grant funding and expressed concern that the James Street multimodal improvements project, scheduled for later years, deserves earlier consideration given its transformative scope similar to the Holly Street project. The committee unanimously approved the resolution.

Agenda items (2)

Procedural (2)

24959ProceduralAn update on the Comprehensive Sewer Plan and emerging solids handling technology

City staff will provide an update on the Comprehensive Sewer Plan and discuss new technology options for handling solid waste in the sewer system, helping residents understand how the city manages wastewater and what improvements may be coming.

What happened

24963ProceduralA resolution adopting the 2027-2032 transportation improvement program

The city is adopting its official plan for transportation projects and improvements scheduled for 2027 through 2032, which outlines what road, transit, and infrastructure work will be prioritized and funded over the next six years.

What happened

Additional votes recorded in minutes

Recommend approval of Resolution adopting the 2027-2032 Transportation Improvement Program

aye 1

voice voteaye

Verbatim transcript available

159 transcript segments indexed

Good afternoon. Again, thank you for your patience and apologies for the delay getting started this afternoon, but we wanted to make sure that we have audio and video recording for the the meetings this afternoon for members of the public who may not be able to join us here in person.

City of Bellingham Public Works and Natural Resources Committee minutes June 15, 2026, 1:00 PM Chair: Michael Lilliquist Phone: 360-778-8200 Members: Lisa Anderson, Jace Cotton Email: ccmail@cob.org Web: cob.org/council City Council committee meetings Standing committee members receive reports and information, ask questions, and vote on a recommended action for consideration by the full Council at the regular meeting.

Um, so starting today, June 15, 2026, our afternoon committee meetings will begin with public works and natural resources. That committee is chaired by Council Member Liquist, so I will turn it over to him at this time.

There is no public comment period during committee sessions. Call to order and roll call Council President Stone called the meeting to order at 1 p.m. and announced a 15-minute delay due to technical difficulties.

The meeting resumed at 1:21 p.m. Present: Committee Chair Michael Lilliquist, Sixth Ward Committee Member Lisa Anderson, Fifth Ward Committee Member Jace Cotton, At-Large Public Works and Natural Resources 24959 1.

Thank you. Council President Stone, public works committee is myself, council members Lisa Anderson and Jace Cotton. We have two important matters today. Uh we had a little over an hour time. We'll see how much time it takes to cover them so we can maybe catch back up.

The first item is a an important presentation. It is, excuse me, an update on the comprehensive sewer plan and emergent emerging solids handling technology. Staff are here to provide an overview of the comprehensive sewer plan update and describe how this work supports long-term wastewater system planning, infrastructure investment, and future solids management evaluation.

An update on the Comprehensive Sewer Plan and emerging solids handling technology Summary: Joel Pfundt, Public Works Director, and Mike Olinger, Public Works Deputy Director, presented an overview of the forthcoming Comprehensive Sewer Plan update and how the department is tracking emerging technologies.

Staff will also provide an overview of the proposed community engagement approach and discuss how changing technologies emerging contaminants of concern and evolving regulations are shaping wastewater planning efforts across the country.

Council Members discussed the plan and asked questions. The presentation is available here. 24963 2. A resolution adopting the 2027-2032 transportation improvement program Summary: Joel Pfundt, Public Works Director, and Tim Hohmann, Public Works Assistant Director of Transportation, returned to Council for approval of the resolution adopting the 2027-2032 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP).

Council Members discussed the resolution and asked questions. Page 1 of 2 Action: Lisa Anderson moved to recommend approval of the resolution adopting the 2027-2032 six-year transportation improvement program.

The presentation will provide context for how the city's planning for the future while maintaining reliable and compliant wastewater operations today. Um I see our public works director Mr. Joel Fondis here as public works deputy director Michael Olinger.

Who would like to start? >> Okay, Joel. >> Um, I'm gonna start here in just a moment. I'm just gonna make my way back over to the table. I did. Oh, I did. >> So, uh, [clears throat] good afternoon, city council.

Um, mayor. Um, I'm Joel Funt. I'm the, uh, city public works director, and I'm joined today by Mike Olinger, uh, deputy public works director. And we're going to provide you with an update on the uh city comprehensive sewer plan that we are embarking on as well as an update on emerging solids handling technology and what we've been learned learning um just up to the last couple weeks.

So um provide kind of the latest and greatest on that. So, I wanted to start by saying last fall we were here to describe the path forward for the solids handling um at the post point to address the notice of violation that we received from the Northwest Clean Air Agency in March of two 2024 and um how we are addressing that going forward.

And now what we're really doing is turning our attention to the future and um kind of two things uh looking at that how we plan to maintain improve and grow our wastewater treatment system and also uh this broader conversation that is taking place in the wastewater industry around um planning for technology changing regulations and um the uncertainty that exists in um kind of always really exists in some ways.

But um you know, wastewater is one of those things right now where it seems like in some some ways it's changing day by day, but it's an industry that also changes at a at a much slower rate at the same time because of its complexity.

So today, like I said, I'm going to talk about the comprehensive sewer plan and I'm going to be talking about why it matters and what it covers. Um, and then I'm going to be turning it over to Mike to talk more about the wastewater solids handling at Post Point.

Um, and the providing an overview of the national landscape and some kuran examples. And then we'll talk a little bit about next steps and answer any questions. So, first of all, like why does WA long-term wastewater planning matter?

Well, really this is a this is a substantial investment um that the city has made over um gosh over more than a century in our existing uh wastewater uh handling system. um from uh collection and then how we deal with that uh that wastewater at um down at Post Point.

And um this system is intended to serve uh the community today but also the community for many many decades to come. It's a very complex system. It's made up of you know very new infrastructure um also aging infrastructure.

Some of our collection system is in the ground is over 100 years old and and we have to maintain that and take that very seriously. Um we have to be thinking about uh the treatment requirements that we have uh the environment environmental regulations that we need to um need to meet.

We have to do this reliably. This system is something that we operate every single day, 365 days a year, um, 24 hours a day and we need to do that for the population that's here today, but also for the growing population that will be here into the future.

And then wrapped around all of this is the financial element of that. We need to uh that all of those responsibilities we take very seriously and we are doing that on behalf of our rateayers who um pay for the utility ultimately.

Um this of course is uh this effort this comprehensive planning effort is something that we feel very strongly about but also uh it's state law. um that's because the consequences of not doing this kind of work uh could be you know significant for public health or environmental protections.

So I you know at some point the state legislature saw the wisdom in requiring all um operators of uh wastewater systems to do this kind of work. So, we have not only um do we do it the way we want to, but we have very specific requirements about what we need to do in order to get this um sewer comprehensive um wastewater uh comprehensive sewer plan um approved in the end by our regulators.

And then finally, it's timely because we uh uh you all just passed a new uh comprehensive plan for the city, the Bellingham plan. And so we have new population forecasts that we can use and apply uh to this um to this system as we're thinking about this.

So uh this comprehensive sewer plan is uh really comprehensive and that's really something that we are doing as a city for the first time. meaning in the past when we've looked at our sewer system from a long range planning perspective, we've looked at specific elements of this and of that system.

And so this seemed like a really good time to look at that uh comprehensively all the way from when that water leaves um a business or a residence all the way to through the system to when it leaves leaves the pipe as it goes out into Bellingham Bay.

Um that includes our collection system and making sure that we have the capacity necessary and that we are addressing infiltration and in um inflow into that system. We're thinking about how we're addressing our aging infrastructure and making sure that we understand the condition of it today and then how we're going to um maintain and preserve that improve it over time.

and then also system performance. Uh we're also looking at what hap is happening down at post point of course where we are looking at uh we we'll be looking at the nutrient reduction requirements that we need to meet uh through our regulators our treat treatment capacity as we change and grow uh our solids management strategy and how we are going to uh address that in the future.

uh we have a certain way that we do that now and one of the things that we'll be considering significantly is how we plan to address that into the future. Um we'll also be looking at how we comply with the the the complex regulatory environment which we operate under because you know at any given time we are regulated not only by uh the department of health but also department of ecology.

Um, we have a the Northwest Clean Air Agency, uh, which we, um, have to make sure we're meeting all of our requirements with, as well as other regulators that we, um, keep an eye on us. And then all of this we think about from the perspective of infrastructure and financial planning.

We will have a wellthoughtout and considered list of improvements that we need to make from a capital investment perspective. And then we will be thinking about the financial planning for that and how we um make sure we can fund that over time and do that in a um financially sustainable way.

So I wanted to talk a little bit about what the plan is and what it is not. Um this planning effort is not a single decision point. Um but it is a long range guiding framework that uh really we think about how we're going to uh through this plan implement over time um this complex system.

It's a tool to evaluate options, risks, and tradeoffs. It's a it was also a foundation for responsible long-term decision-making and this process will be in com community informed but technically led by our uh well-trained expert staff as well as scientists, engineers, regulators uh in the form of consultants and um and otherwise to uh make sure that we're doing this in a way that is going to get us where we need to go and do it in a way that is consistent with those um community uh community values.

But what the system is not it is it is not going to be a dec single decision on a spec specific technology. We are not going to be making final facility design or selections as part of this plan. uh and it's not a substitute for future engineering, permitting or environmental review.

That is all done at the time as these projects come along and we learn a lot you know learn more and unfortunately as with any plan it cannot um predict the future although that would make things much more convenient.

Um but um it's really you know we have we are working in a wastewater industry that is changing significantly. uh scientific understanding, regulations, technologies, treatment approaches are all changing um you know before our eyes and we want to make sure that we are uh we are doing that in a thoughtful way and really we feel that is why this long range guiding frame framework is so important is even as those other things change we can always look back to this comprehensive plan and making sure make sure we are doing this uh effort in consistent with um our long-term plans and uh our community's values.

So like I mentioned uh there is no single uh factor that drives uh regulations I mean drives decisions. Um it is really a balancing of a number of different factors. So when we're developing this plan, some of the things that we will be taking into account is uh the tech technical reliability of the system and uh solutions.

Uh we'll be looking at proven performance, making sure we can operate things dependably and that they uh operate in the long term. will be like I've mentioned a little bit before is you know leaning on community priorities through public engagement developing shared values and creating informed understanding of the situation in the community.

Um we'll also be looking at operational feasibility. uh that is important from making sure that we have the staff capacity to operate uh these various complex systems and we can do that in an integrated way and we can continue to maintain it in the future.

And of course we do all of this u mindful of the financial impacts of the decisions we make both in the near-term and long term. um thinking about environmental performance and the future of PAS reduction, addressing nutrient removal and um other emerging environmental um environmental outcomes which we seem to learn about uh every day.

And then uh like I've mentioned before is we're always doing this in a way where we need to meet our regulatory requirements from our our regulators um out there. And so with that, I am going to pass it over to Mike to talk some about um what's going on in the industry with uh wastewater solids handling.

>> Thank you, Joel. Good afternoon, council. Mike Oler, deputy director of public works. While the comprehensive sewer plan evaluates the entire wastewater system, one area receiving particularly significant national attention right now is solids management.

Utilities across the country are trying to navigate changing PAS science, evolving regulations, disposal challenges, aging infrastructure, and emerging technologies all at the same time. Because these issues are changing rapidly, staff continue closely tracking how other utilities are approaching these challenges and what lessons are emerging nationally.

And one thing that this is leading to is a little bit of long-term uncertainty within the industry. Part of our responsibilities in state is staying engaged in these conversations. Nationally, staff continue attending conferences, visiting facilities, talking with utilities and regulators, and tracking how projects are performing in real world conditions.

These conversations and site visits help us understand not just where technologies are showing promise, but also where operational, regulatory, and implementation challenges are still emerging. Some of the things that we're learning and key learning points are is that site characteristics play a big role in what technology is used and these transitions are taking longer than what most in the industry would like to see.

The Earthare facility in Pennsylvania is one example of where the industry is trying to go. There is real interest nationally in technologies like gasification because of their potential to reduce solids volumes and address PAS concerns.

At the same time, facilities like this illustrate how many operational and regulatory questions are still being worked through, including air quality controls, odor management, feed consistency, material handling, and permitting pathways.

In many cases, these projects are still operating in environments that are very difficult [clears throat] from large municipal wastewater systems like ours. Um, the EarthCare facility, many of us staff visited this facility last month.

um the the gasification process is showing a lot of promise. We were really encouraged by what we seen at the site. At the same time, there were some things that that would bring us challenges. Um as we visited the site, uh when we left the site, we were driving back to Philadelphia and all of us in the car kept trying to figure out what was in the car with us, what animal we brought with us and come to find out it was me.

um my cotton clothing that I was wearing while I visited this facility had soaked up the smell and the smell did not come out and so we ended up stopping so that I could buy new clothes so that the rest of us could still breathe and that I wouldn't draw attention in the airport.

Um at the same time you can see in the picture here some of their their air controls. Uh we went to walk underneath of those air controls and we were instructed by staff at the facility to stop because if any of that stuff dripped on us, they said it would take a month for it to come out of our skin or our clothing.

Um th those are just some of the things that they're working through. The the system is showing extensive promise. Um the gasifier itself seems to be working very well. The one gasifier unit that they are using to burn um municipal solids.

But at the same time, they are not process processing undigested solids yet. Everything that they are processing is digested. They're operating in the middle of farm country. Um they do have a few surrounding neighbors, but nothing that would be be in the context of within a city.

Um but they're showing promise and they're continuing to develop. Um they have one plant that is processing bioolids right now. They're looking to stand up another facility to process bioolids. That would be serial number two.

um but showing promise and we will continue to engage with them and look at the work that they're doing. Edmonds is one of the few municipal wastewater utilities in the country actively attempting to transition from traditional incineration to full-scale gasification technology.

Because there are still relatively few municipal scale examples nationally, utilities and regulators are continuing to learn in real time about how these systems perform operation systems perform operationally and regulatory.

One thing that stood out to staff is the timeline that and complexity involved in moving a project like this forward. Edmmonds has been working through the transition process for many years. The system was originally expected to come online in 2022 and is still continuing through operational and implementation challenges.

In our conversations with Edmonds and with Jacob's Engineering who is who is their consultant, they were able to start this gasifier for about a week last month. Um it did operate during that time and it showed a lot of promise.

It was able to to process the solids efficiently. What they're finding is that they're having a hard time getting the consistency of the solids to be at a level that allows the gasifier to operate continually.

So, at the end of that week, they had to shut the gasifier down so that they could do some more work on the system, and they're hoping to make another go at starting the system up again in August. The project also is illustrates how the science and regulatory understanding around PAS are still evolving.

Some early research results associated with the facility are promising and suggest significant PAS reduction through the process. At the same time, questions remain nationally around transformation byproducts, emissions pathway pathways, testing methods, and long-term regulatory implications.

And there was a a recent article published based on the results at Edmmonds and and those results are showing that PAS destruction is probably in the 90 to 95% range post RTO. So um regenerative thermal oxidization which is a a higher temperature process that happens at the end of it.

Um with the RTO they're they're thinking that they're achieving about 95% PAS destruction. um and they're the science is still evolving to figure out where the other 5% is going or what's happening with it.

So, we're continuing to moni monitor that. We're engaging closely with Edmonds. Um likewise, we're engaging with uh Lynwood on their process. So, both of those facilities are are trucking their solids.

Some of the concerns that are coming out of both of those those entities with their trucking is that every truck that leaves their site leaves a trail. Um they are continually cleaning up solids that are dripping out of trucks and being left on the streets and and things like that.

Um they said that that's been a struggle for them all along. They're working on better containment within the containers that they're trucking out, but it doesn't stop them from having to run street sweepers to try to collect the solids that are dripping and and deal with the complaints that are coming from residents as these trails occur from time to time.

Okay. What we're hearing constantly from utilities across the country is that there's real interest in where these technologies may be heading, but most agencies are still relying on proven systems while they watch the technology, regulations, and operational lessons continue to mature.

The city's responsibility is to steward critical public infrastructure in a way that protects public health, maintains reliable service, and responsibly manages long-term risk during a period of significant industry uncertainty and change.

The current path remains the most responsible near-term approach. While long-term solutions continue evolving, while we continue evaluating future alternatives and monitoring emerging technologies, we also have an obligation to maintain compliant, reliable wastewater operations today.

The near-term upgrades provide operational stability and regulatory compliance while allowing time for technologies, regulation, and industry practices to continue evolving for the comprehensive sewer plan.

Initial technical analysis and system evaluation work is already underway with the broader planning effort expected to continue through 2028. Over the next couple of years, we'll continue evaluating technologies, tracking regulations, engaging with the community and our partner agencies across the country, and bringing information back to council as the work progresses.

And with that, we're happy to take any questions that the council might have. >> Thank you, Mike. Thank you, Joel. Uh, committee members, >> I knew the date, but I can't recall and I'm not sure if you'll remember, but Edmonds um when they decided to move over to the gasification.

Do you know when that work started as far as um like when they might have started design and then build because I know they were supposed to be online 2022. Um there's just some in our community who seem to think we might have a faster switch over to something other than um incineration and knowing how long our previous plan that some of us kind of stopped because of the PAS concern.

Um I know that was in the works for over 10 years. I'm just kind of wondering um should we pick a new technology and decide we're all in um something like gasification if it didn't have the issues that it currently is still being addressed.

How long would it take to bring something that online? >> I I can't speak to when Edmund started the process. Our understanding is that Edmund started their project in 2018. They did have some delays because of COVID, but the project was supposed to be up with the COVID delays was supposed to be operational in 2022.

When they started their actual planning and design and development, I I don't know the answer to that. I I flippantly and and council member Loquist has heard me say this that it's 10 years and $10 million within the wastewater industry.

That's normal for a project. Now, that could be a gross overestimate, but but we throw that number around a lot that it takes 10 years to come up with a full design, permit it, go to bid, construct it, make it operational.

You're in that 7 to 10 year time range. >> Uh, more discussion. I have a question um with regard to um uh Earthare uh which is you say is promising technology up and running and under slightly different circumstances.

Uh you said that right now they're only they are accepting some outside municipal waste in one of their one of their um one of their gasification uh chains but you said they're processing digested municipal waste and you made a point out of that as opposed to undigested.

uh what's the difference and what do you have to do to get it to that other state? What kind of processing needs to still occur on site before it is shipped to them? >> So, so they're processing digested waste.

We do not digest at post point. So, digested waste means that it's already been stabilized and the a lot most of the odor has been eliminated already. So, that is where the significant difference is. So, it's already a stable product.

ours is not as stable as what digested waste would be. As well as you're within those agencies who are bringing waste to them. So, so if Earthare needs to shut down for a week and work on their gas fire, they just let their providers know, hey, you can't bring us any waste for a week.

We would not have that option. We need to truck out of our facility every day. So um right now we're uh the sol the liquid stream goes this way. The solid stream goes this way. There is some uh activated sludge process occurs early on before the solids get to incinerators.

When it gets incinerators it's not digested but it is treated and transformed in some sense. >> It's it's just dewatered. >> It's just dewatered. >> Yep. >> Taking it from a a four, five, 6% solids to a 20 to 25% solids.

Okay, that helps answer that question. Further discussion, I have another question then. Um, you talk about Edmonds and their estimates on PAS destruction 90 to 95 which is I was surprised it's that low because there are high temperature incinerators that can that have been measured to achieve that.

You also said that it include RTO. I can't remember what RTO stands for. We don't need to know but are in our current emissions control process we have also will have RTO as a I think first of three different uh emission control technologies what is what is the significance of RTO with regard to our emissions control and theirs >> so it RTO is just processing the exhaust at a higher temperature so you're running it through another my technical experts are here but you're running it through another after burner >> okay so it might come off at I'm going to make it up 1100 or 1,000 degrees you jack that up to 1300 or 1400.

>> No, probably looking at closer to 18 to 2,000. >> 1800. Okay. So, that would explain the destru that might explain more destruction to PAS. >> Yeah. And I can I can give some context that I think what we're finding is that the the testing capabilities of our testers is getting better.

And so, what we thought was being fully destroyed, we're finding that no, it actually wasn't being destroyed. And Steve Day does a better job talking about this, but when we talk about the weight, there's some missing weight in the the emissions.

>> Well, that's concerning. But if it's a similar problem with the emissions from gasification, then we we're going to need to solve it regardless um of what salt handling technology. Um any further discussion?

Other council members? I see Dan and then also Skip. Go Dan. Yeah, thank you, chair. Um, so [clears throat] just a follow-up question on the Edmonds um process. Um, I think you said solid solids aren't consistent with gasification needs.

I'm trying to understand that process a little bit better. >> Yeah. So, with in gasification, so gasification has been around for decades. Um, mostly in the animal industry because the waste that comes out of animals is very consistent.

The waste that comes out of all of us is not that consistent. Um so so whether you are running it through a drying process or some other type of process you're digesting it and then drying it using other technologies to provide a consistent feed stock.

So what's what's really important is having storage on the front side and the back side of the gas fire. And Edmmond's site is so constricted that they don't have a lot of sight for storage prior to gasifying.

And so I think more so than the actual gasifier working, their their issues are are more related to the logistics of feeding the gas fire and taking waste away from the gasifier. One other element of the gasifier that's important is is the um optimally you would run it consistently and you're not turning it off and firing it back up is because that has a significant has a significant impact on the the life of and the performance of the equipment um that process >> as well as energy consumption.

Yeah, my understanding gasification generates a lot of its own operational energy, but you have startup. Yep. >> Um, and Skip, you had a question as well or comment. >> Just more of a comment than a question.

This my first year up here, this was the big issue and we are still dealing with it. But um I really appreciated your presentation and was wondering after we're all done here today if you could send me a copy of the slideshow so I can get it sunk into my >> Absolutely.

>> Thank you. >> Any further questions or discussion? Um I'm going to go with Lisa and then to Hannah. >> Just thinking um timeline, you know, what happens next? um some well this started my first year in council so this is my seventh year of talking about postpoint and direction.

Um we were really close to basically the 11th hour pulling the trigger for one process and starting to build on that and that pulled back. the gasification seems to be great new technology. We were talking about places in Australia that were being innovative and when we were like okay if we're pausing what's next?

Um and it seems like uh gasification seems to be a direction but there were other technologies we talked about five years ago. So I'm kind of um hesitant because the things as you said are rapidly changing.

Are there other merging technologies you guys have um because I've been trying to research and it's just a grab bag out there. Um other things that other municipalities internationally or local that are looking promising or do you think gasification really is the direction most municipalities are going?

A predecessor at one point had always said they don't want to be the first in on anything. they like to see closer to six to a dozen going forward so that the bugs are worked out. Kind of feel like we probably don't have that type of uh timeline available to us because of how long it takes to bring in um technology moving forward.

Um I'd hate for us to be going one direction and six years from now another council is looking at another pause or different direction. So any insight on um whether gasification seems to be going the national trend or there's some promising things out there that we're also investigating.

>> I I think that gasification is showing the most likely success today. Um pyrolysis is still an option and and they're trying to scale pyrolysis up to a to an industrial level. Um super critical water oxidization is still showing promise but they have yet to put it on a full scale.

mostly they can process in the the 1 to two million gallon a day sort of range but have not been able to process it up to the 10 20 30 70 million gallons per day. Um I think today gasification is probably the most promising technology I would say probably in the next 5 to 10 years.

Um but that could change tomorrow. And and I would like to add, Council Member Anderson, from your perspective of thinking about the future and those, you know, these processes are, you know, long and as you well know, you know, decisions are made at an kind of step-wise as it gets further along.

And one thing that we're we would really like to do with this comprehensive sewer plan is really lay the groundwork so that um we can not only start the process but but whatever we do, we see through to the end and that that that future council feels comfortable kind of seeing that seeing that through and make feeling comfortable that all the folks that came before them have made a thoughtful and well-considered decision and you know I think to the point of like solids handling this is not a question of if we change it's a matter of when but we want to do that in a thoughtful way that is um is balances all of the different things that we're trying to take into account here.

Not only, you know, some very real, you know, this this the science continues to change as we cons continue to understand more about what's going on in um you know, in the world of the chemicals of concern.

But we also are trying to be mindful of, you know, if we get this, you know, if we get this wrong, um, you know, the utility rate payers are the folks that will end up um end up paying. >> And I I think I just want to finish answering the rest of your question.

So when we look around the rest of the country and the world that these technologies are continuing. So So Logan Home Australia, they are working to add a new gasification plant in Victoria. We're continuing to engage with them.

They're working through the permitting process which is taking them significantly more time than that they had expected, but we're continuing to engage with them and we're going to go visit them as soon as they get something going in Victoria as well.

>> Follow up. Go ahead. >> I just one thing for people who perhaps haven't paid as much attention, I just do want to say past staff, past counsel, I I think they did their due diligence. They did have a good process getting there, but it was emerging information like PAS that put the brakes on it.

And that was something that wasn't really known when, you know, the first nine steps were done. It was something that really kind of showed itself as time progressed. So, I'm just a statement. And I I think having a plan is a really good idea, especially if it's, you know, value stated, economically feasible, environmental, that there's a lot of things that we're using as a lens making our decision because then I think having justification for an off-ramp if something comes up that is just a complete unknown now.

Um because it was a struggle for us to do the off-ramp um because you know I was told very smart people before you had made these decisions and it's like well they didn't have all of the information. So I just worry not so much that we're not going to do the right work.

We'll do the right work in our current frame, but further down the line there can be something that was a complete unknown that then can change pathways. And I want to make sure that the plan addresses that kind of ideology that new emerging information is based on these kind of criteria is enough evidence to say even though we've spent a lot of time and money it's appropriate to do an off-ramp giving it's against these other values at this point.

>> Anna, you had a question or comment. >> Yeah, thank you. So I recognize the right technical analysis and that system evaluation right I'm going to leave that to the experts in the industry and look forward to you know hearing more as the development continues.

You mentioned that this work is expected to continue through 2028, but there's a highlight about community engagement and I know in the the background for the agenda item highlighting that the process will include, you know, community engagement opportunities to ensure that you know the plan going forward is reflective of our community values.

I'm just wondering at this point in the process, are you able to speak at all to what that community engagement would look like and the time or scope for that coming forward? And I don't know if that's you or other members of the team, but >> um [clears throat] we are working on a community engagement plan with our consulting team.

Um and that will uh include um working with the community to develop those values and particular with a particular focus around the solids handling um as well as other parts. You know, we've heard from interest groups in the community that the solids handling is a important discussion they want to be part of and so we want to make sure we're honoring that um discussion.

Um so you know as for details those are still kind of being put together but that's you know the general you know general idea is that it would be would we would have a lot of opportunities to make sure that the community feels comfortable and is informed about the work we do and how we do it.

And then um particularly it'll be focused around those values and how those how those values then can then be used to inform the technical decision making on you know all of the the different elements.

So yeah any further discussion on this? Okay this is for information discussion only. Thank you very much uh staff. Uh go on to the next item. So, a little note, my written packet says sewer plan first, tip second.

I think on online it might have had them reversed. So, I'm sorry for any confusion to people, staff, and members of the public. I'm going in the order of my written packet. So, the next item has to do with our transportation improvement program.

We have before us a resolution adopting the 2027 through 2032 transportation improvement program. This six-year TIP, as we call it, is a transportation planning and funding document. It is adopted annually to plan and program funding towards city capital projects that improve and maintain Belam's multimmodal transportation network.

So, it sits right between actually designing a process and um you know, actually budgeting it and then like getting to that point where you design and budget. The city council did indeed hold a public hearing on the chip at our June 1st meeting.

The city council is required to submit the tip update by July 1st. We've held it over to this committee for further discussion or questions if there are any. Uh Tim Holman is here, one of our public works, our transportation lead for public works.

Uh you or Joel. Tim, go ahead. >> Yeah, thank you, Chair Liquist, uh members of the committee and other council members present. Uh Tim Holman, public works assistant director over transportation. And yeah, I'm here t today to uh introduce or reintroduce to you the a resolution uh for approval of the 2027 to 2032 transportation improvement program.

Um, [clears throat] like you said, we had a public work uh public hearing on at the council member meeting on June 1st and uh by state law, we're required to approve and submit to WASHDOT uh the a tip uh by July 1st.

Um the only change uh from the tip that was uh in the packet at the public hearing and between the one that is in your packet today uh is moving the bike rack program. I believe it was number 27. Uh we moved it up to be program number six.

So it's number six on the current list in the program section. Um we thought that just fit fit the format a little better. Uh, one of the comments at the public hearing was a desire for the city to be a little more proactive about the bike rack program and that's kind of one of the intents of including this as a standard program in the tip.

Solidifying that uh funding source uh will allow uh this staff to uh be a little more proactive about uh looking for opportunities where we can install bike racks in maybe outside of downtown and Fair Haven, where we've kind of done it now, into other urban villages as well as other parts of the city.

Um, it's also going to allow uh for a little more proactive maintenance of the existing bike racks that are out there. Um, so that was a great great comment. Um, [clears throat] staff recommends approval of the tip so that we can send it off to wash by the end of the month.

Thank you very much. Thank you very much, Tim. Committee members, >> Lisa, >> um trying to think how to frame this, not specifically to the tip, and I I don't know if staff would be able to speak to this, but there is a um a a group who um was looking I think they it's through Walk and Roll, but Safe Street Bellingham, and they have a proposal of moving some projects sooner.

Um I think it's a a pretty ambitious goal to have some of the work done this summer, but it has to do with um bike lanes and crosswalks and striping. Um and some of that is in the tip, but it's not necessarily I think it's it's interspersed through multiple projects.

And I believe they've met with staff, they've met with some council members, and I think they may have met with the mayor's team. And I'm just wondering if um their goal of moving some of the um the street work if that would be not to say are you going to support it, but is there any known conflict with the timeline for the tip for things to be moved around um in the future?

Because I know the tip is kind of our long range plan for six years. if there's something um in there that might be for year four and council or the mayor's team or other opportunities came forward and it wanted to be moved up to year two.

Um is there the flexibility to be able to accomplish that? I'm assuming I know the answer, but I just wanted it to be stated. Um, so yeah, many of these projects are um are reliant on funding and a lot of I don't know if there's more than maybe one or two projects that are in here that do not um leverage outside grant funding which makes it um between those couple things.

And then there's uh the element of a project that is in design. uh if we pause that that has real ramifications. So in a lot of ways, you know, the the I like to think of when we're talking about the tip, what we're really talking about like the more, you know, the part that is more flexible is really those outer one or two years because the first, you know, couple years are pretty well pretty well um baked and we're, you know, we're just implementing at that point through design and with grants that we have already signed agreements on and those kinds of things.

So, um the the one place where we do have um you know some flexibility and feedback like what we've received from walk and roll definitely comes into account is through um the non-motorized program which is more a bit more of a flexible program that we put together.

Um we have that will be coming back to council for um for uh bid award here in the next month or two. And that's really more, you know, we'll be seeing a bunch of rapid flashing beacons that are part of that, a bunch of flashing crosswalks, some additional bike lane, those type of types of things.

and that feedback from like walk and roll in those cases um will and definitely, you know, we take that into consideration as we're building that next program. >> And real quick, I just wanted to jump in to remind council that the tip is an annual process.

Even though we call it the six-year tip, we handle it every year. So again, next spring we'll be working on the 28 through 33 tip. Hard to believe. Um but you know that that is a time for some of those discussions to happen.

>> So my my assumption was internal funding there's a lot more flexibility unless it's earmarked for some of those that are pairing the external funding which would put that at risk. So inhouse we might have a little more flexibility but things requiring the internal funding to go with the external um there's less flexibility um and moving those things around.

So, thank you. I just wanted to make sure that I brought theirs up, but >> Go ahead, Lisa. >> I was um we didn't receive significant feedback opposed or necessarily pro on the tip and I I appreciated the opportunity to move this forward so the public would have more time to make comments should they versus just a hearing and making a decision.

Um, but seeing that there was nothing really glaring that the public has pointed out, and I think you guys did a really good job presenting the information, I will move that we vote to approve um the the tip.

>> We have a motion before us to vote to approve the resolution adopting the 2027 2032 six-year transportation improvement program. I'm going to ask for any further discussion on the motion or non-committee members.

Um I would like to make a few observations and kind of hopeful statements. I see one, two, three, five nice significant projects that have a category called unknown which might seem like why are you doing it if it's unknown?

Those are actually the opportunity projects. Those are the projects that right now are 2030 or 31 that could be 29 or 28 if there's grant funding. That's one of the the greatest uh values of having this tip.

Those those unknowns aren't a mistake. They're opportunities. So, I wanted to notice that. And then I wanted to make a kind of a I don't know comment or plea. There's a rather large project out there in the future, not unfunded, uh using our own transportation funds, but in the outy years, presumably because we don't have the money for it right now.

We've used it up. That's a James Street multimotal improvements between Iowa Street and Sunset. I'm really thinking about that because that is going to be nearly a Holly Street type of challenge. That is a major arterial for automobiles.

And yet we're hoping to not only resurface it, but to make it maybe a place that has better multimodal possibilities. Maybe a bike lane or not. Certainly the the sidewalks could stand with improving. They're kind of up and down.

They're old. They need to be re re redone. That's in the out years. That is a major project. I amum I'm looking forward to that. I would be nice if it could be move moved forward because I do think that will be a major transformative project in the out years.

So, I wanted to make that observation and I and I do think it's it's it's not going to be an easy one um designwise. Any further discussion? Seeing none, I will call the question for the committee to uh recommend approving the resolution.

All those in favor signify by saying I. >> I. Any opposed? I'll bring that forth unanimous recommendation to the whole committee the whole council tonight. Thank you very much. Uh that is the only that is the last item on the public works and natural resources committee.

Uh the the committee is now adjourned and I turn meeting back over to council president Stone. >> Thank you very much. Um so we will take a brief break. The next committee will start at 2:20 and that will be community and economic development.