Name: Bellingham City Council - Community and Economic Development Committee meeting, Aug 10, 2026
Start: 2026-08-10
End: 2026-08-10
Location: City of Bellingham

City Council - Community and Economic Development Committee

Mon, August 10, 2026

Agenda PDF Watch Video

Agenda items

Vote records

Discussion summary

Transcript

Meeting summaryAI-generated

City Council Community and Economic Development Committee — August 10, 2026

This was a brief committee meeting with a single agenda item: proposed amendments to Bellingham's One Percent for Art ordinance. The committee was chaired by Council Member Jace Cotton (At-Large). Council Members Hollie Huthman and Skip Williams served on the committee; Council Members Lisa Anderson and Michael Lilliquist participated as non-members with Cotton's recognition.

Amendments to the One Percent for Art Program (BMC Chapter 4.92)

Senior Planner Darby Gallaghan presented recommended changes to the city's public art program, which was established in 2011 and codified in 2015. The program requires that 1% of eligible capital project costs (for projects over $2 million) be allocated for public artwork. When the program launched, roughly one project per year met that threshold; today approximately 20 projects are in various stages under the program, and the city's public art collection has grown to over 100 pieces — many now aging and in need of conservation.

Staff described the proposed changes as reflecting months of research into best practices and consultation with capital project managers, the Arts Commission, and legal and finance staff.

Four main changes proposed:

1. Standardized terminology and definitions. The amendments add formal definitions for "maintenance" (ongoing care), "conservation" (repair), and "collections management" (an umbrella term covering all of the above, plus deaccessioning and relocation). The amendments also clarify that artwork administered by the Whatcom Museum is not part of the city's public art collection for purposes of this ordinance.

2. Removing the requirement that artwork be located "in the vicinity" of the generating capital project. This was described as the most substantive change. Current language has been interpreted restrictively by legal staff, preventing the city from combining funds across projects to commission more impactful artwork. Staff emphasized that integrating art into or near the generating project remains the preferred approach and is reflected in internal administrative policies, but the code change would allow flexibility in cases where that isn't appropriate or cost-effective.

This change generated the most discussion. Council Member Anderson raised concern that removing geographic language could allow future administrations to concentrate artwork downtown while neighborhoods like Cordata — which generated the funding — receive nothing. Staff acknowledged the concern but argued that policy guidance in administrative procedures, rather than code, provides the necessary flexibility.

Council Member Lilliquist (non-member) went further, stating that placing the tiered preference only in administrative policy — rather than in the ordinance itself — is insufficient. He indicated he intends to introduce an amendment at the full council meeting that evening, proposing language such as "with preference given to integrated artwork elements," which he said would preserve the intended tiered approach while keeping it council-directed policy rather than purely administrative. Staff said they would confer with the legal department before responding to that proposal.

Council Member Cotton said he was not inclined to support Lilliquist's proposed amendment, expressing confidence that administrative flexibility is appropriate here and that the problems created by the old restrictive language outweigh the risks of the new approach.

3. Amended definition of eligible project costs. The update simplifies the calculation of which costs count toward the $2 million threshold and the 1% allocation. Most prior exclusions are removed for administrative efficiency; the only remaining exclusion is real property acquisition costs, which is standard best practice. The change also clarifies that remediation and cleanup projects required by law are exempt from the program, while restoration projects are subject to it — correcting a longstanding ambiguity in the original ordinance.

4. Expanded eligible expenses for the 1% allocation. The amendments explicitly allow a portion of the 1% allocation to be used for collection conservation and maintenance — an area currently funded only through the general fund. Staff noted this would need further work with legal and finance staff to determine when and how funds could be redirected, since some funding sources carry restrictions.

Council Members Anderson and Williams pressed staff on whether council would have any oversight over how much of any given project's 1% allocation is diverted to maintenance versus new artwork. Staff acknowledged that those decisions would be made administratively — by staff, the Arts Commission, and the Mayor — and would not come before council for project-by-project approval, though fund balances would appear in the budget. Anderson expressed discomfort with the lack of a council "touch point" on those decisions but did not indicate it was sufficient reason to oppose the ordinance.

Vote: Council Member Williams moved to recommend approval; Council Member Huthman seconded (implied). The committee voted unanimously in favor (3–0) and forwarded the recommendation to the full council for action the same evening.

Key Takeaways

The city's One Percent for Art program is being updated for the first time since 2015 to reflect a much larger and aging public art collection and lessons learned from a decade of administration.

The most significant change removes the "vicinity" requirement, giving administrators more flexibility to combine project funds or direct art spending to higher-impact locations — but critics worry this could disadvantage neighborhoods that generate the funding.

Council Member Lilliquist planned to introduce an amendment at the evening full council meeting to add explicit "preference" language for integrated/nearby artwork back into the ordinance, putting council direction into code rather than leaving it to administrative policy.

A portion of the 1% allocation may now be used for conservation and maintenance of the existing collection, addressing a chronic funding gap — but council will have limited direct oversight over how those funds are split between new art and upkeep.

The committee unanimously recommended approval, with the understanding that some issues (Lilliquist's amendment, legal review of maintenance fund mechanics) would be addressed at the full council meeting.

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 ordinance regarding the One Percent for Art program; amending Bellingham

# Summary: One Percent for Art Program Ordinance Amendments

Staff presented amendments to Bellingham's One Percent for Art program (BMC Chapter 4.92), which requires 1% of eligible capital improvement project costs over $2 million to fund public artwork. Senior Planner Darby Gallaghan explained that the program has grown significantly since 2015—from roughly one project annually to approximately 20 projects—and the city now has an aging public art collection requiring maintenance and conservation. The recommended code changes include standardizing terminology, removing restrictive language to allow more flexible and higher-impact investments, and enabling funds to be used for collection conservation and maintenance in addition to new artwork. Council members raised concerns about administrative oversight: Council Member Anderson worried that removing the requirement for artwork to be located near generating capital projects could allow future administrations to consolidate funding from different neighborhoods, and expressed concern about lacking City Council approval for fund allocation decisions between new acquisitions and collection maintenance; Council Member Locos proposed adding language stating "with preference given to integrated artwork elements" to preserve the original policy intent in the ordinance itself. Despite these concerns, the committee voted to recommend approval, with Council Member Cotton supporting administrative flexibility to maximize public benefit while maintaining program value.

Agenda items (1)

Procedural (1)

25006ProceduralAn ordinance regarding the One Percent for Art program; amending Bellingham

The city is updating its One Percent for Art program, which requires a portion of funding from certain construction projects to go toward public artwork. This ordinance change will modify how the program operates.

What happened

Additional votes recorded in minutes

Recommend approval of ordinance amending BMC Chapter 4.92 (1% for Arts program)

aye 1

voice voteaye

Verbatim transcript available

74 transcript segments indexed

Good afternoon. I will go ahead and call to order the Community and Economic Development Committee of the Bellingham City Council for August 10th, 2026. We have one agenda item before us today. This is an ordinance regarding the 1% for arts uh program amending Bellingham Municipal Code Chapter 4.92.

Uh, some background. In 2015, the city established a 1% for the arts program codified in BMC 4.92. The program requires 1% of eligible capital improvement project costs to be allocated for artwork in the public realm.

Staff is recommending several changes to the 1% for the arts code provision. The recommended code amendments reflect months of research into best practices for public art administration as well as deliberation among department staff and leadership to ensure the 1% for the arts ordinance best achieves the intended program goals including responsible care of the public art collection.

Um so I will first recognize Darby uh Gallagghan. Um Darby, you'll have to remind me your title. Um but take it away. >> Great. Thank you Darby Gallagghan. um senior planner with planning and community development.

Thank you for the introduction. Um good afternoon council members. Um Tara and I would like to um recognize that arts might seem like a light topic, but it is a heavy lift for our um city staff. So um thank you to our colleague Taylor for all the work that she did to research best practices.

Um we have our arts commission chair in the audience today and the arts commission have they've been great advocates um and lending their volunteer expertise and advocacy for support of our arts program.

Um and then also the these projects intersect with many of our colleagues in public works and parks who are carrying out a lot of the the administration and um our legal and finance staff who also help us.

So, it's been a it's been a lot of work for some pretty simple changes that we'll run through and then hopefully answer any questions that you have. Um, by way of background, our percent for arts program was established in 2015 and that um set a $2 million threshold for projects that were subject to the ordinance.

So, what it says is that if a capital project is over $2 million, then 1% of that budget gets allocated for the incorporation of art. So back in 2015, we would maybe have one project a year that would um be subject to the ordinance.

But as c you can imagine with rising costs and changes in the economy, we now have about 20 projects that are in various stages of development under this program. And we also um have an aging artwork collection that is um exhibiting some needs.

So, it's just a good time um as we're trying to elevate our program and the professional professionalism of it overall for us to assess the ordinance and how it's working. So, the purpose was really to reflect some hiccups that have happened along the way and increase the clarity of um when the program applies and how it's administered.

Um, I also mentioned we just want to continue to elevate the program and respond to best practices. Um, using arts wis as a good model in some other communities in the region. And then just recognizing that as we have a growing collection, we want to make sure we're having the most impactful investment in the arts program um, as we possibly can with with limited resources.

So, I'm going to just um, touch on the four main changes briefly and then open it up for questions. Um the first change is just to standardize terms and add some definitions. You'll not notice in the original version we talk a lot about maintenance and this was a good learning um challenge for me is that the way that we use maintenance in our daily lives isn't the same way that it's used in the art world.

So um maintenance is kind of the ongoing care and then we use conservation as when something needs to be repaired. And now we have this umbrella that we're defining which is collections management that includes all of those pieces or moving artwork around deassessioning pieces which has its own um other process and just um adopting that terminology that's very common in the art world.

Um and then also wanted to define that our public art collection that we're talking about under this ordinance doesn't include the works that are administered by the Wacom Museum because there have been some questions about that over time.

The second change, which is probably the most substantive, is um to amend language to not require artwork to always be integrated into the generating capital project. That is still best practice and that is still what the intention of the program is, is to look at ways, doesn't always have to be a sculpture that's integrated into the grounds, but there's lots of different ways.

And that's always going to be our first approach that we look at when we're establishing how should we apply the artwork. But there are some situations where that either isn't appropriate or it's not the best investment of the funds.

There have been situations where we would have liked to um combine multiple project funds and have a more um high-profile project that we weren't able to do because this language was too restrictive. So by striking that language that um says vicinity and says that it has to be incorporated it gives us a little bit more flexibility in the situations where it's not ideal to do that.

Um, we will continue and this is all outlined in our policies and procedures document, our administrative document. Um, that we work very closely with the capital project management management staff, the arts commission, the mayor and others on developing these approaches on a case-byase basis and that would continue.

Um the changes also set the stage to use a portion of the percent allocation towards collection um conservation and maintenance. And as I mentioned, we do have an aging collection of over a 100 pieces with at least 20 more coming down the line.

There's a lot more work to be done, but by changing the ordinance, we have that ability to further investigate what that would look like, when we would do that. It depends heavily on which um funding sources are being used for the project.

There are some funding sources that we can't be moving around to use for different things um and some that we can. So, we want to continue to explore that idea with our legal department and our other staff members to um look at whether um allocation in those situations would be beneficial.

Um, the third change is to amend eligible costs. And this does get a little bit confusing in the ordinance. When we talk about eligible costs, we're talking about those line item budgets. Budgets that um create the $2 million total, but then also help us calculate what the 1% allocation.

You'll notice um that there's a strikeout of a lot of different things in that definition. When we talked with the capital project managers, they said, "We're really looking at our budgets holistically, and to administer this more more efficiently, it's not helpful for us to have all these little nitpicky things that we're not including in the allocation.

The only one that you'll see that remains there is real property acquisition because that is not a best practice to include the cost of buying property when we're looking at a capital project um budget.

So that's the change there. There was also some confusion because under eligible costs, we had site restoration and remediation costs listed. When we dove back into the creation of the program and looked into um the archives there, the intent was never to not have restoration projects be subject to the ordinance.

So instead of having it all mushed into that confusing section, we've clearly um moved everything into the project exemption list to say when it's a cleanup project, a remediation project that's required in pursuant to local, state, or federal law, it's not part of the percent for arts.

That wasn't the intention. But we do make it clear now that restoration projects are, and we work with our public works staff on that. So that was an important clarification that we um wanted to bring forward.

Um finally the last change is to clarify the eligible expenses which is what we can spend that percent allocation on. I mentioned collection care as one that we wanted to clearly add. Um and then we just expanded a little bit to include all components of design, fabrication, installation and display of artwork just to make that clarity.

Um, so if council supports these changes, we'll um continue to continue continue to work to refine our internal policies and procedures and happy to try to answer any questions that you might have about the changes.

>> Thank you for the presentation. I'll first turn to committee council members Hamill or Williams. Council member Williams. >> Well, I really don't have any questions. It's a pretty Sorry, what? >> I got the committees wrong.

You go ahead. Okay. >> Oh, I was just going to say it sounds like a pretty straightforward proposal and I don't really have any questions about it. So, I would move that we we approve this. >> Great. We have a motion from Council Member Williams.

Uh, apologies. Uh, Council Member is no longer on this committee. Um, Council Member Huffman, any questions or comments? >> Sure. Thank you, uh, Council Member Cotton. Um it's great to hear that we after 22 years of uh having this program on the books that we are updating it as we've learned and we are growing.

Um it's a fantastic program. I'm really appreciative that the the city of Bellingham decided to implement this in the first place. Um you've been looking at other cities um to get inspiration for for updating this in the comparisons.

I'm just curious, how many other cities have a program like this? Um, are we unique? How unique are we? Or is this um is this a a very common sort of a program? >> It is a a fairly common program nationwide.

There can be different allocations and there are a number of I don't know the exact number off the top of my head, but um Seattle has had their program for a very long time. We looked to Anacortis, Olympia as kind of other model cities.

Um the state that I mentioned Arts Wah they um administer a state program. So state capital projects also have to do or get to do have the opportunity to allocate um a portion of their budgets for artwork.

So yeah, it is fairly common, but I think we were one of the earlier communities um maybe the middle. There have been several more that have adopted it. Tara's shaking her head now. Um [laughter] but um anyway, we've um it's been a huge benefit to our community and we're also very grateful for it.

Thank you, >> Council Member Anderson. >> Uh thank you for recognizing me. I'm not part of this committee, but it does mean that I don't have to ask the questions tonight. I do have two questions, and I'll take one and then ask permission for the next.

um on page 40 and you mentioned the two areas that I had questions on because they are the changes but under the definition uh 2.92.020 020 the definition artwork. Um it's struck out at the bottom of the line located in the vicinity of the capital improvement project and and you spoke a little bit to it as far as you know sometimes it doesn't work in the location or the desire to maybe combine for a more substantial project.

My my only concern would be is that it's not specifying anymore that it should be kind of even in the region. So let's say hypothetically we have a lot of work happening out at Cordata and maybe we want to combine a couple of projects but then maybe we're not here and it's new administration.

Everybody says, "Let's put it downtown." And it seems that this would allow that situation, whereas, you know, maybe Cordado would really like their piece of art, too, to be in their um part of the neighborhood.

So I I mean I'm not going to words smmith and I it's not enough to kill it but I just wanted to express the concern that um by taking that out it could actually allow future generations of people sitting in this room to perhaps not have it be in a regional or in a community area and maybe think that downtown should be more vibrant as a big art district and then other communities have not.

Um, was there any weight or discussion given to the potential of that happening? >> Yeah, I think it is a really important consideration and thank you for bringing that up. The reason that we haven't replaced the language with anything more specific is because that um flexibility would also be needed if we wanted to move some funds into a maintenance program like say a portion of the percent for artwork.

I think it is very important for us to articulate in our operating policies and procedures which are adopted internally that our preference is for incorporating the project in to the actual generating project wherever possible and that is kind of the tiered approach.

Second would be in the vicinity but also having the flexibility to take a portion of those funds where that wouldn't be as clear. would you like to >> I think when we're writing code sometimes we well we we definitely have the intent that we're after which is what you're speaking to um which is why we wrote it the way we did at the beginning which is really to keep it in the vicinity but then when we go to our legal department and they're interpreting vicinity it gets a little more restrictive so this could go the other way and and I would say one of the reasons why we are proposing the change is we anticipate pay some fairly large capital projects in our in our future and we'd like to maybe spread the wealth a little bit in those cases where it makes sense and where the funding sources allow us to do so.

So sometimes we if we were to box ourselves in that way having the good intention, it might hurt us by spreading that into parts of our city that don't have very much heart. >> I think Council Member Locos has a followup on that.

>> I do have a followup on that. Um first I have to say that when you had to look back at the archives, it's like I was alive. You could talk to me. I remember. Um I flag this exact point here. Uh you yourself indicated that integrating the artwork is best practice.

It's the intention. It's the first approach. You say there's a tiered thing in administrative policy. That's not a replacement for council driven policy. You're basically creating administrative policy without policy guidance from the uh the ordinance.

So I have an amendment I'd like to introduce and I can't do it now. I would do it this evening which basically says in in place of the stricken language something like with preference given to integrated artwork elements and I think that language then fully justifies the tiered approach that you say exists in administrative policy but I think it needs to exist here the intentions need to be clear so that in 20 years from now oh this is a preference rather than a requirement so that's what I would like to introduce tonight if you have any objections uh to that I guess be nice to hear about them.

Now, >> I'd like to confer with colleagues in legal um and let you know this evening what what our thoughts are. I don't feel comfortable responding on the spot. >> Back to you, Council Member Anderson.

>> Thank you. And uh thank you, member uh Council Member Liiloquist. I know I won't be here 20 years from now, but who knows about you? you might be just we might pin you to the floor for legacy. Um the other question I had and you you did uh speak a little bit to this.

The the question was um how much I mean for me how much can and will go towards the um restoration and maintenance and you spoke a little bit. It's a slightly an unknown, but my question would be um I always am a little uncomfortable with the idea of a blank check and this kind of writes it in that that 2% could be become a administrative decision that we're going to take all the money from Post Point and do a whole bunch of restoration and then there's no new artwork.

Um I'm not entirely comfortable that there's not a hand from council helping guide some of that. So I guess the question would be um and I would make the assumption that it would be during a budget process that that you know the amount of money that would maybe be divided into new art versus uh restoration and maintenance would come before council as far as the the project proposal.

But how do you see um the decision being made? How much of that 2% would go towards the restorative and maintenance and how are we and the public informed of that decision and have that ability for buyin.

And I do want to say I I fully support writing in that some of the funding can go towards that. Um, I think it's incredibly important, much like greenways. Um, we can install a whole bunch of artwork, but if there's not a budget to care for it, then, um, it's a big disservice, um, to that amendment, I mean, those amenities.

But I just want to make sure that council being budget authority will have a touch spot, an agreement to that division. And so how do you foresee that playing out? >> So why we don't want it written in code per se?

I'm going to give you an example. Um we just [clears throat] dedicated some artwork at Storybrook Park the other day. Um lovely piece and that um commission was around 30 I I might have this slightly wrong but around $30,000.

That's a $3 million or so park. um we would probably really push to keep all those dollars in that project because the that's not a very large budget for artwork. But let's say there's a pump station that's $20 million.

That's a $200,000 um piece of potential artwork. And I would I like to work with our team and make we what we do is we make recommendations to the arts commission who then makes that recommendation back to the mayor and we would we use our best judgment.

Right now there is no money other than general fund available to care for our collection. Um, and so I would want to work with with our teams, with our staff teams and arts commission and the mayor to say, you know, let's put some more than 10% of that budget into the care of the collection.

And then also keeping an eye on if that fund balance is growing, which would be in the budget, by the way, every every year. Um, I don't know that you would see a line item the way our budgets work. Um, if it got to be too large, I think we would re-evaluate it at that time.

But know that every dollar would be for caring for the collection. I think care of the collection is as important as buying new artwork. So, I I just caution us to write a code for percentages like that.

And that's just one example of why I would refrain from doing that. >> Okay. Um, I'll go to Council Member Williams. >> So, I've just got a question and I think you hit it on the head, but if it's part of the budget, ultimately it would come before us for passage before the final budget.

Correct. >> Well, we're working I would have to uh we're working on how to do this internally. we would be transferring funds from a department like public works to the planning and community development department.

So it would be a transfer of funds and I suspect maybe budget would need to answer that question for you. I would think that that would show up in the kind of year-end um type of process. Yeah. >> Okay.

>> And one more question from Council Member Anderson. Um, a little bit to council member Williams and and back. Um, the heart of my question is is that let's say 400,000 is the percentage. At no point does council actually have a say that you decide not to spend uh 360,000 on an art piece.

you might decide to spend 40,000 and move the 360,000 to maintenance. At no point, from what I'm gathering, does council have a say in that decision. It may actually show up as a line item in a budget for maintenance, but we're not necessarily being informed how that money got in there and what projects that was taken from.

Would I be correct in that assumption? Or again my original question at what point is council or is the intention to inform us directly of deciding what percentage and I don't want to set like 50% could go to maintenance.

I don't want to he anybody in because I think there's an assessment that needs to be done. How much money do we need? But the question was, will council have a say in yes, we agree that let's take this money from this particular art piece or no, we think we should focus more on art, a little less of the money going to maintenance.

So, it doesn't sound like council will have a say. It'll be more programmatic and administrative making that determination. Am I correct? >> Correct. >> Okay. Thanks for these questions and discussion.

And I'll just say I think um creating the flexibility to maximize the public benefit and the maintenance of our existing community assets makes a lot of sense to me. And I think um just to flag for this evening, I'm at this point I'm probably not supportive of um the potential motion you mentioned, council, simply because I don't think the worst case scenario seems likely or justifies tying our hands that you know, as much as I um think uh our oversight is helpful, I think um really administering this program is an administ administrative um the domain of the administration and I would want to just make sure that the challenges we've had really maximizing the value of this program because of our um uh some some of the language in the original ordinance that yeah we just don't repeat those mistakes um because this is a great program and we should um make sure that we ensure we have the flexibility to maximize its continued value.

So thank you for the presentation. We have a motion. Um, all in favor of recommending approval of the ordinance, please say I. >> I. >> I. Uh, I will bring forward that recommendation this evening. That was our only agenda item for committee.