Name: Bellingham City Council - Public Works and Natural Resources Committee meeting, Apr 13, 2026
Start: 2026-04-13
End: 2026-04-13
Location: City of Bellingham

City Council - Public Works and Natural Resources Committee

Mon, April 13, 2026

Agenda PDF Minutes PDF Watch Video

Agenda items

Vote records

Discussion summary

Transcript

Meeting summaryAI-generated

City Council – Public Works and Natural Resources Committee — April 13, 2026

This was a regular committee meeting chaired by Council Member Michael Lilliquist, with Council Members Lisa Anderson (participating remotely) and Jace Cotton also present. Three items were considered, all advancing to the full council with unanimous recommendations.

Surplus Timber Sale Agreement — North Beaver Preserve

The city owns approximately 160 acres on the north side of Galbreth Mountain, acquired as part of the Lake Whatcom land acquisition and preservation program. About 80 acres of this parcel contain an overstocked Douglas fir plantation — a legacy of its previous use as commercial timberland — and staff recommended thinning it through a negotiated surplus timber sale with Janicki Logging and Construction.

Mike Palskin, Public Works superintendent, explained that Janicki was selected through a previously council-authorized negotiation process (approved August 11 under BMC 4.86.070) because the company already has forest road access adjacent to city property, making timber removal more practical. Under the agreement's terms, the city will receive 20% of gross proceeds, while Janicki bears all trucking and harvest costs. The city will be responsible for improvements to existing roads on its property only — though Palskin noted those road costs could offset much of the city's revenue share. No new roads will be built; only existing logging roads will be improved with gravel, and those roads will be considered for decommissioning after forest management activities conclude. Saw logs (lower-grade timber) will be sold at $1 per ton, and a $10,000 compliance deposit is required. Harvesting is restricted to June 1–September 30 in summers 2026 and 2027 to protect soil and reduce sedimentation risk. All timber is export-restricted. An independent forester (separate from Janicki) will monitor compliance on-site.

Council Member Anderson asked several probing questions: whether there are hard limits on gaps between residual trees exceeding 25 feet in diameter (staff acknowledged the contract language is somewhat open-ended, and the contracted forester will manage compliance); whether riparian areas are protected (staff confirmed the northeast portion of the parcel — near creek drainages — was excluded from harvest entirely); whether roads would be decommissioned after use (confirmed as the plan, with a potential second thinning in 3–10 years before final restoration); and whether replanting with species other than Douglas fir is planned (staff confirmed understory planting of species like western hemlock and western white pine has already been underway on other parts of the parcel for seven to eight years and will continue).

Vote: Lilliquist moved, Anderson seconded (implied). Passed unanimously by the three-member committee. Advances to full council with a unanimous recommendation.

Ordinance Amending Multimodal Transportation Impact Fees (BMC Chapter 19.06)

Staff presented a comprehensive update to the city's transportation impact fee (TIF) schedule, driven by three changes: (1) alignment with the newly adopted 2025 Bellingham Comprehensive Plan and its updated 20-year transportation project list; (2) addition of an annual inflation adjustment to the fee rate going forward; and (3) a new 80% fee credit for early learning facilities, now authorized under state law (an RCW passed in 2020).

Transportation Planner Dylan Casper walked the committee through the methodology. Fees are calculated based on growth projections (approximately 18,000 new housing units and 19,000 new jobs by 2045), converted from vehicle trips to person trips using a multimodal model, then divided across a list of TIF-eligible capital projects totaling about $104 million out of the full $270 million 20-year project list. The resulting base rate drops from $2,830 to $1,770 per person trip — a 37% decrease. For a single-family home, the actual fee falls from approximately $3,857 to about $2,895, a roughly 25% reduction. The decrease reflects two factors: the new comp plan's project list is more fiscally restrained and multimodal-focused than its 2016 predecessor, and the updated ITE Trip Generation Manual (12th edition) produces higher trip-generation factors that partially offset the lower base rate.

Bellingham's fees have historically been around the 25th percentile statewide. In 2025, the city was 30% below the state average; under this update, it will be approximately 41% below average.

Council Member Cotton raised several substantive discussion points: whether the 80% credit for early learning facilities should be mandatory rather than permissive (staff said it functions as always-granted in practice); whether affordable housing credits should similarly be made automatic; and whether future study could support fee credits for neighborhood commercial uses to incentivize walkable development. Staff confirmed that work is already being coordinated between Public Works and Planning, though it wasn't ready for this update cycle. Mayor Lund added that the administration is thinking broadly across departments about reducing friction for adaptive reuse.

Council Member Anderson noted that even with an 80% reduction, small in-home daycare centers could still face fees around $6,000 — potentially cost-prohibitive — and asked that future updates consider scaled credits for small childcare operations. Staff clarified that adaptive reuse projects also receive a credit for the pre-existing use before any percentage reduction applies, which can significantly lower or eliminate fees in practice.

Lilliquist noted the ordinance still uses the outdated term "single family detached" drawn from ITE manual categories, and suggested the terminology should eventually be updated; staff confirmed this is a limitation of the ITE manual, not city choice.

Vote: Cotton moved, Anderson seconded (implied). Passed unanimously. Advances to full council with a positive recommendation.

Acceptance of WSDOT Grant — Downtown Signalized Intersection Accessibility and Safety Improvements

The city has been awarded a $1.68 million grant from the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) for accessibility and safety upgrades at six downtown intersections — three on Railroad Avenue and three on Cornwall Avenue. The total estimated project cost is $3.5 million, meaning the grant covers approximately 47% of costs. Because WSDOT is a public agency, an interlocal Local Agency Agreement is required, necessitating council action.

City Engineer and Assistant Public Works Director Mike Wilson explained that the project addresses ADA accommodation requests and aging signal infrastructure. While several intersections have received prior ADA ramp and mobility upgrades, Lilliquist asked why intersections that seemed relatively recently updated needed additional work. Staff clarified that the existing signals are approximately 50 years old and lack tactile push buttons and audible pedestrian signals — features required to serve people with visual impairments — which were not part of earlier upgrades.

Council President Stone, observing the meeting, noted that recent legal guidance directs the council to follow the precise motion language in the packet. The committee adjusted the motion to explicitly include authorization for the mayor to enter into any related amendments with WSDOT, as specified in the agenda materials.

Vote: Anderson moved, Lilliquist seconded (implied). Passed unanimously. Advances to full council with a unanimous recommendation.

Key Takeaways

Transportation impact fees are going down significantly. The updated TIF rate for a single-family home drops roughly 25%, and Bellingham will now sit about 41% below the statewide average — reflecting a more multimodal, fiscally restrained 20-year capital project list and an annual inflation adjustment going forward.

Early learning facilities will now receive an 80% TIF credit, joining affordable housing as a discounted category. Broader discussions about credits for neighborhood commercial and small childcare uses are underway between Public Works and Planning.

The city will thin 80 acres of overstocked Douglas fir at the North Beaver Preserve near Lake Whatcom, receiving 20% of timber proceeds while Janicki Logging bears harvest costs. Road costs may offset much of the city's revenue, but the primary goal is ecological — improving forest health, biodiversity, and watershed function.

A $1.68 million state grant will fund about half the cost of replacing decades-old downtown traffic signals with modern ADA-accessible equipment, including audible signals and tactile features for people with visual impairments, at six intersections on Railroad and Cornwall Avenues.

All three items passed the committee unanimously and proceed to the full council for final action.

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

Surplus timber sale agreement

# Surplus Timber Sale Agreement Summary

Staff presented a surplus timber sale agreement for an 80-acre overstocked Douglas fir plantation on the city's North Beaver Preserve property, designed to improve forest health and reduce fire risk while generating revenue (20% of gross proceeds to the city from contractor Janicki Logging and Construction). The agreement includes a $10,000 compliance deposit, export restrictions, harvesting limited to June 1-September 30 in 2026-2027, a hired contract forester to ensure compliance, road decommissioning after completion, and understory planting with diverse species like western hemlock and white pine. Council Member Anderson raised concerns about the thinning prescription's allowance for residual tree spacing up to 25 feet and potential excessive openings, as well as questions regarding wildlife habitat provisions like snags in riparian areas and limitations on trees exceeding 25 feet in diameter. Staff clarified that exceptions to harvesting prescriptions require consultation, roads will be decommissioned after final thinning (planned in 3-10 years), and additional wildlife habitat provisions would be included in understory restoration. The committee voted unanimously to recommend approval of the timber sale agreement to the full council.

An ordinance regarding multimodal transportation impact fees; amending

# Summary

Staff presented an ordinance to update Bellingham's multimodal transportation impact fees based on the 2025 Comprehensive Plan, which accomplishes three main objectives: adjusting fees annually for inflation, adding an 80% transportation impact fee credit for early learning facilities as authorized by state law, and updating the fee calculation methodology using the 12th edition ITE trip generation manual and 2045 growth projections of approximately 18,000 housing units and 19,000 jobs. The overall rate decreased from $2,830 to $1,770 per person trip (36% reduction), reflecting a policy shift toward pedestrian, bicycle, and transit infrastructure rather than single-occupancy vehicle focus, with single-family housing fees dropping from $3,857 to approximately $2,468 and placing Bellubicham's 2026 rates 41% lower than the state average. Council members raised concerns about whether affordable housing and early learning facility credits should be mandatory rather than permissive to ensure consistent application, and Council Member Cotton questioned whether remaining costs for adaptive reuse projects like daycare centers would still be prohibitive even with the 80% reduction. Staff clarified that adaptive reuse projects receive credits for pre-existing uses before additional reductions are applied, and impact fees could be zero if a redeveloped facility generates the same number of trips as the previous use. The committee voted unanimously to recommend approval, with members praising the comprehensive study and staff work.

Acceptance of a grant from the Washington State Department of Transportation for the Downtown Signalized Intersection Accessibility and Safety Improvements

Staff presented acceptance of a $1.68 million grant from the Washington State Department of Transportation for the Downtown Signalized Intersection Accessibility and Safety Improvement Project covering six downtown intersections (three on Railroad Avenue, three on Cornwall Avenue), with the state grant covering approximately 47% of the estimated $3.5 million total project cost. Mike Wilson, Assistant Director of Public Works, explained the project will modernize 50-year-old traffic signals and add accessibility features like tactile push buttons and audible signals for visually impaired persons. Committee Member Lisa raised a question about why intersections recently upgraded with ADA ramps and bike lanes needed further updates, and staff clarified that while some intersections had previous ADA accessibility upgrades for mobility access, the signals themselves are very old and lack modern low-vision accessibility features that were the subject of recent ADA requests. The committee voted unanimously to authorize the mayor to enter into the local agency agreement and related amendments with WSDOT.

Agenda items (3)

Procedural (3)

24890ProceduralSurplus timber sale agreement

The city is selling surplus timber from city-owned land and needs to approve the sales agreement.

What happened

24891ProceduralAn ordinance regarding multimodal transportation impact fees; amending

This proposes changes to fees that developers must pay to offset traffic and transportation impacts of new construction projects in Bellingham.

What happened

24892ProceduralAcceptance of a grant from the Washington State Department of Transportation for the Downtown Signalized Intersection Accessibility and Safety Improvements

Bellingham is accepting state funding to improve safety and accessibility at traffic lights in the downtown area, including upgrades for pedestrians with disabilities.

What happened

Additional votes recorded in minutes

Surplus timber sale agreement

aye 3

Jace Cottonaye

Lisa Andersonaye

Michael Lilliquistaye

Ordinance regarding multimodal transportation impact fees

aye 3

Jace Cottonaye

Lisa Andersonaye

Michael Lilliquistaye

Acceptance of WSDOT grant for Downtown Signalized Intersection Accessibility and Safety Improvements Project (ET037)

aye 3

Jace Cottonaye

Lisa Andersonaye

Michael Lilliquistaye

Verbatim transcript available

151 transcript segments indexed

Good afternoon and welcome to Bellingham City Council meetings. Um this afternoon we are going to start with our committee meetings and first this afternoon we have public works and natural resources which is chaired by council member Lilloquist.

City of Bellingham Public Works and Natural Resources Committee minutes April 13, 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.

I'm pausing to give time to Yes. >> So I'm going to turn it over to him. >> Thank you very much. Uh our committee has three items before us today. First of those is approval of a surplus timber sale agreement.

There is no public comment period during committee sessions. Call to order and roll call Council President Stone called the meeting to order at 1:00 p.m. Present: Committee Chair Michael Lilliquist, Sixth Ward Committee Member Lisa Anderson, Fifth Ward (Attended remotely) Committee Member Jace Cotton, At-Large Public Works and Natural Resources 24890 1.

Surplus timber sale agreement Summary: Michael Parelskin, Public Works Superintendent of Natural Resources Field Operations, presented the surplus timber sale agreement. Council Members discussed the sale agreement and asked questions.

Let me turn to the page and I'll read the summary on this. Oh, joining me on the public works national resource committee are council member Anderson who's joining remotely and council member Cotton. So the city has acquired and now manages an assemblage of watershed parcels on the north side of Galorth Mountain known as the North Beaver Preserve.

The property was formerly managed by the commercial as for commercial timber and is now managed through the city's lake lake Watcom land acquisition and preservation program to accomplish forest health goals.

Action: Jace Cotton moved to authorize the Mayor to enter into the contract for negotiated surplus timber sale with Janicki Logging Company, Inc. MOTION CARRIED 3-0. 24891 2. An ordinance regarding multimodal transportation impact fees; amending Bellingham Municipal Code Chapter 19.06 Summary: Page 1 of 2 Tim Hohmann, Public Works Assistant Director of Transportation, and Dylan Casper, Transportation Planner, presented the ordinance, which revises multimodal transportation impact fees.

It is now necessary to reduce the total trees per acre and the necessary forest thinning will be accomplished through a negotiated surplus timber sale with Janicki Logging Construction. As explained in the memo, um, Janicki is already well set up to do this because they have forest roads which lead to our property and therefore there's an easier way to remove those trees.

Council Members discussed the rate changes and asked questions. Action: Jace Cotton moved to recommend approval of the ordinance. MOTION CARRIED 3-0. 24892 3. Acceptance of a grant from the Washington State Department of Transportation for the Downtown Signalized Intersection Accessibility and Safety Improvements Project (ET037) Summary: Mike Wilson, Public Works Assistant Director of Engineering, and Tim Hohmann, Public Works Assistant Director of Transportation, presented the grant award from the Washington State Department of Transportation for the Downtown Signalized Intersection Accessibility and Safety Improvements Project (ET037).

Council Members discussed the grant and asked questions. Action: Lisa Anderson moved to authorize the Mayor to enter into the local agency agreement and any related amendments with WSDOT for the Downtown Signalized Intersection Accessibility and Safety Improvements Project.

Also, from the memo, it indicates that we're only removing one species of tree and thinning that one species down to preserving the diversity for the other trees and thinning it down to a more optimal level for that one species of tree, which is our beloved Doug fur.

Uh, right before us today is Mr. Apparel Skin, I believe. and will you explain any more that needs to be explained? We can consider the matter. >> Yep. Thank you. Good afternoon, council members. Mike Palskin, public works um superintendent.

Uh today, representing the Lake Wacom land acquisition and preservation program. Uh as you said, we have a 160 acre parcel on the north side of Galbreth. Um about 80 acres of which are ready for um thinning uh in a overstocked Douglas fur plantation.

The parcel was previously managed um as a commercial forest. So we're here today with a second touch uh with council on August 11th through BMC 4.86.070. Council authorized staff to reach out to Janick logging to negotiate terms of a contract.

Um we went ahead and did that. Uh we came to the terms that the 20 uh the city will receive 20% of gross proceeds. Um and Janicki Logging and Construction will be responsible for all trucking and harvest related costs.

Um and the city will be responsible for agreed upon road improvements uh improvement costs to city property only. Um it's possible that the road costs uh will offset much of the city's proceeds. So just want to make sure you're aware of that.

Um however, this is this is a revenue contract. Uh we also agreed to the term that we will be selling um saw logs for $1 per ton. That's a pulp log. Um so that's a lower grade smaller log. There should not be a lot of um saw logs on the property, but sometimes you have to move little trees to get to bigger ones.

Uh we require a we'll be requiring a $10,000 deposit to guarantee compliance with the terms. Um and the timber is export restricted. So the harvest contract is also restricted to take place between June 1st and September 30th uh during the summers of 2026 and 27 um to reduce impacts to soil and potential for sedimentation.

So harvesting in the dry is preferred. Um the thinning prescription comes from our uh newly created forest management plan. Um and will focus on reducing stress from overstocking. Um improvement to ecological function and an increase in structural diversity.

So canopy layers and understory growth and biodiversity is kind of the the main objective. And we have a forest practice application permit uh in the final stages of review. Have any questions? Committee members, any questions?

And also, is it possible to put up a map of the property? Um, overhead is that if it's too difficult, it's not necessary. >> Yeah, it is attached to the contract. Um, I don't know if it's on the agenda bill currently.

I didn't know. Well, if if you know um where Gworth Mountain is and you go down towards the water but still above Lake Louise Road, it's a property basically above Lake's Road but below the top of Gworth Mountain.

Committee members Anderson hand up. >> Oh, good. U Lisa, go ahead. >> Thank you. I'll try to get through this without coughing too much. I do have a few questions. Um so I'll take one at a time and be recognized for the next if no one else has questions.

um under section um 12 for thinning volume, it's page 59 of our packet, but it'd be I think the fourth page of the timber cell agreement. Um letter C, it states, excuse me, it doesn't state cough, but um it says spacing between uh residual trees shall not exceed um 25 ft anywhere within the harvest area.

But then the next line it says where a thinning prescription would recreate a opening greater than 25 ft in diameter. Um basically they'll retain one conifer within that opening. Are there any limitations on um kind of consecutive?

I I just kind of feel like um I know the goal is not to have that, but it leaves an opening that there could be. And I'm just concerned how many of those might end up being requested. and what are the guard rails to ensure there's not too many and that there's a certain amount of spacing and proximity to each other and within that too um leaving one conifer is there for wildlife habitat anything in additional to leaving snags for wildlife habitat um especially for our repairarian um areas that's convoluted two-part question.

Yeah, sure. Um, great question. Yeah, as far as the riparian buffers, I mean, we have extensive buffering of our creeks and we actually chose not to harvest um we there actually is about 140 acres of harvestable area in um in the parcel.

However, we sort of decided to exclude um the whole it's the north east portion of the parcel from harvest just for that very reason just to kind of give extra buffer. Yeah, it's the northeast side um to creeks.

And then we do have a forester uh on contract that'll be monitoring and dealing with compliance with the logger with Janicki. So the that's a different consultant than the actual logger. So that's how we maintain compliance on the site and make sure yeah we don't have um you know extra large gaps or any sort of harvesting that is outside of what we're requesting.

>> That makes sense. >> Yeah. And the primary part of that question because I do understand the the repairarian area, but part of the the question is um are there any limitations of how many of these exceeding 25 um ft diameter that would be allowed?

because I'm not finding anything that says, you know, in addition, they cannot have more than a set amount of these um extenduating circumstances that would go beyond the the 25. It's giving them an open to do that, but I'm not seeing anything that cretels how many they can request.

Um yeah, I mean I think that would be up to us and the consultant if they go past that require like basically what the prescription is saying they they do need to consult with us if they want to go further than like a 25 foot gap.

>> You can go ahead with your next question if you have one. >> Yeah, I do. And you actually answered one of the ones that I had. I wanted to make sure who was actually employing the forester and who they represented because I wasn't exactly clear on that because the forester would be working for working with both entities.

But the other question I have is about the roads. I'm not a big fan of expanding roads um in the watershed and I'm wondering um and it sounds like we're having to put the roads in on the city property um in order for them to have access to maybe areas to be able to pull out the timber.

Um, is there any plans to reforest and decommission those roads when the work is done? Or if not, will there be a justification presented to city council that the roads need to stay in place in order for like fire um prevention access?

Um, I I I have kind of a a desire that the roads, depending on how extensive they are, are um decommissioned and put back into um forest. And I know that could be expensive. So, I'm wondering if there was any thought to that.

>> Yeah, this particular harvest does not require any new roads. Um, we'll just be improving old logging roads that already exist. Um so yeah the cost is basically just for gravel rock um just to make sure that the roads are in good enough condition to haul on and all the roads in the hall route on that map there um are also already existing.

So yeah and then yeah we we will look for abandonment when we're done with um forest management. It's likely uh on this parcel we would come back in 3 to 10 years to do one final thinning. just depends on how um the stand responds to the first harvest.

>> And if you have any further questions, Lisa, go ahead. >> One more. Um what are the plans? Cuz I I completely support we need to go in there and thin because you need to have um not necessarily a monoulture of all Douglas fur because it was planted for future harvesting and it's in our best interest that we have a a healthy ecosystem.

Um, and it sounds like there'll potentially be another thinning, but are there plans in the long run to go in and plant additional species that may not necessarily be naturally um, uh, germinating themselves um, in order to be able to provide that healthy habitat.

>> Yeah, absolutely. actually outside of the 80 acres of Doug fur, we've been conducting understory planting for maybe the last seven, eight years. So yeah, after we kind of come through and do our final harvest, we would look to continue to increase you know biodiversity by planting um you know western hemlock or western white pine or other um species that are you know conifers that are not dug for.

Council member Cotton, >> thanks for this presentation and for those questions. Council member Anderson. Um, with that discussion, I will move uh to authorize the mayor to enter into the contract for negotiated surplus timber sale.

>> We have a motion recommend approval of the uh timber sale agreement. Any further discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> Any opposed? No. I'll bring that forward with a unanimous recommendation to the full council this evening.

We'll now go on to the next item uh which is an ordinance regarding multimmodal transportation impact fees which amends the Bellingham municipal code chapter 19.06. The city of Bellingham opposes a multimotal transportation impact fees on development activity as part of the financing public transportation facilities.

The city staff has conducted a study and developed an updated transportation impact fee rate schedule as described in the municipal code. The proposed ordinance will adjust the transportation impact fees annually for inflation to account for increases in project costs and adoption of the transportation impact fee credit for earlier learning facilities as authorized into state law will be added.

I note that the transportation impact fee is actually going down if I read correctly um not due to any policy decisions but due to the fact that the number of projects over the uh appropriate time period just simply cost less.

So, we need less money from development, but we're fall and I don't know. Uh, I'm gonna stop right there. Do I hand this over to you, Mr. Hullman first? >> Yeah. Thank you very much, uh, Chair Lilquest, uh, members of the committee, other members of the council that are here today.

Uh, Tim Holman, assistant public works director for transportation, here to, uh, talk to you a little bit about transportation impact fees. Um, as you said, this is an ordinance which does essentially three things.

It uh updates our transportation impact fees relating to uh the 20-year project list that was in the recently passed comprehensive plan. And as you said, uh those transportation impact fees are going down due to uh the the nature of that 20-year project list, uh being having a lot of focus on uh multimotal instead of single family car projects, as well as it was prepared during a fiscally uh tight time.

So, it it's a a more fiscally uh restrained list than we've had in the past. Um, it also uh because of of those transportation impact fees being uh being based upon the 20-year project list, we we're proposing in this ordinance to uh adjust that rate annually uh for inflation as the projects on that list would go up in cost similar to inflation.

Uh this is a change from how they've been this has been handled in the past, but we think as a staff this makes a lot of sense. And then it does one third thing which like you said it adds a a transportation impact fee credit uh for uh early learning facilities.

This was allowed uh by an RCW that was passed in I believe uh 2020. But as this is the first time we're updating our TIFF uh ordinance since that RCW passed um that was suggested to us uh I think first by council member Cotton but uh kind of came to light through the uh transportation commission and plan commission process.

So we thought we would include this in this ordinance at that time. And here to talk a little bit about more about transportation impact fees is Dylan Casper uh the city's transportation planner. Afternoon council and committee members.

Um so I'm going to go through a quick presentation here related to the transportation impact fees. Um so just to start off what exactly is a transportation impact fee? This is a onetime fee assessed on new development.

It funds transportation improvements needed to serve growth throughout the city. Um these these fees are limited to capital projects maintenance or oper or how these fees are calculated are limited to capital projects maintenance and operation is not an eligible project cost.

Um and this is required under state law through the growth management act. And one other thing is um a recent a relatively recent Supreme Court decision shifted the burden of proof that these impact fees um are defensible to the local jurisdictions that are uh imposing them.

So that meaning the city must have a clear nexus between uh the impact fees that are being imposed can be attributed to new development within the city. So why are we updating these? Uh the 2026 uh I'm going to call them tiff uh update took into effect the the land use growth projections in the 2025 Bellingham plan um which amounted to an additional about 18,000 housing units and about 19,000 jobs throughout the city uh for 2045.

These updates also took into account the zoning and density changes throughout the city um and taking into account the middle family middle family uh multifamily middle housing forms in single van single family zoned areas.

Um multiple homes allowed on individual lots meaning that density within the city is expected to increase over the next 20 years. So into the calculations a little bit. I just wanted to kind of explain what this table that is table three in your packet is showing.

Um the land use category column indicates the or includes the categories of land uses from 12 from the 12th edition IT trip generation manual which we're updating to. We're currently using the 11th edition.

Um and I'll go into how that changed a little bit more later in the in the uh presentation. Um these that you see on the slide here are high level categories and there's actually a total of 166 IT land use codes.

They'll be used to generate these impact fees for developments throughout the city. Um the growth and land use units column here is is the growth projections that were used in the 2025 Bellingham plan for each of these kind of highlevel land use types.

Um the IT vehicle trip rate category that's the like I mentioned before the 12th edition IT trip rates for each of these land use categories. Um and then the total vehicle trips column is is taking the growth in land use units from 2025 Bellingham plan and multiplying them by the these it vehicle trip um rates to give us a total vehicle trips per generalized category here.

Um and then the the last C or the last two categories you see there because the city doesn't only count vehicle trips we have a multimotal system um and that is regardless of the mode of travel the total vehicle trips must then be converted to person trips.

The person trip convac uh conversion factor column is using the W COG travel demand model and other various um transportation profession industry standard models to convert those vehicle trips into person trips.

Um and all of this information to give together gives us a total growth in multimmoal trips over the next 20 years. So the tiff eligible projects and costs uh these projects were chosen to chosen to assess the proportionate share of capital um transportation system improvements that should be attributed to this new development.

Um, and it's important to remember that out of the 20-year planned growth, uh, is is not the only reason that these transportation improvements will be needed. Uh, actually, Washington state law does not allow for all new developments to be account to be held accountable for 100% of transportation costs over the next 20 years.

And that's really just um all the residents throughout the city, not only the the development, the residents moving into these developments will um benefit from these improvements. So the multimodal projects um as you can see in figure 4 A um or table 4 A and figure six in the in the um study are identified as TIFF eligible projects.

These are multimodal projects that serve multiple modes of travel um but perhaps not all um almost all of these projects include pedestrian improvements and many also include bicycle improvements with them as well.

Uh and then the pedestrian projects. Um these are in table 4B in in the study. Uh these are not only 10 projects uh but 10 groups of projects. As you can see in figure 7, there's much more than 10 um lines on that map.

Uh many of these projects or groups of projects are are multi-million dollar sidewalk connections and crossing improvements. Um, and then similarly for the bicycle projects, these all came out of the the 2024 pedestrian master plan for the pedestrian and the 2024 bicycle master plan for the bicycle projects, the catalyst project packages that were listed in there.

Um, again, they're not only 12 projects, but 12 groups of projects um that are all multi-million dollar projects consisting in a combination of separated bike lanes, standard bike lanes, bike boulevards, um, crossing improvements um, and those are in figure eight of the study.

So, as I mentioned before, um we must show a a a strong nexus between the projects that we're calling TIFF eligible and and growth over the next 20 years. Um and that can be seen in tables 4 A and 4B in the study.

Um as shown in those tables, the proportional share cost was calculated using the WCOG travel demand model um and transportation analysis zone growth allocations which also went into the 2025 Bellingham plan.

Um the urban village infill transit supportive and uh transportation efficient growth strategies that were used in the plan. um the multimodal transportation hierarchy which we'll see here in another slide, the pedestrian and bicycle master plans and the multimodal uh mode share goals as well.

Um these criteria and growth strategies create a measurable nexus between uh areas of higher density and mixeduse development, network connectivity, um and the likelihood to support walking and biking and rolling activity that provides a direct transportation safety access and mobility benefits to the new developments that the transportation system serves or system improvements serve.

So this this uh should look somewhat familiar. This was presented as part of the 2020 2025 Bellingham plan as well, the multimmoal transportation hierarchy. And as Tiff kind or as Tim kind of alluded to previously, one difference from past TIFF eligible projects is as this this 20-year project list was much less focused on single occupancy vehicles um and more on um focusing to handle this growth through transportation infrastructure that relies on pedestrian, bicycle, and transit modes throughout the city.

So, um, using the groups of projects, the TIFF share calculation mentioned previously, about 104 million out of the $27 million in that 20-year project list in the 2025 Bellingham plan was identified to be a TIFF eligible projects.

That 104 million was then divided by the total person trip growth identified in the 2025 Bellingham plan to give us a total rate of 1770 per person trip. And the ITU land use categories have a person trip a trip generation um attached to them uh which will then be multiplied by this um 1,170 to come up with a uh a transportation impact fee for development throughout the city.

So how does this compare? How does the 2026 update compare to what development has paid in 2025 and previously? Um, and this this slide does that comparison. As you can see here, um, in 2025 current our current tiff rate is 2830, which is then multiplied by the 11th edition.

These are all for single family um, dwellings um, which is then multiplied by the 11th edition it um, trip generation for single family houses which is 1.36. So that takes us to right now a single family house is paying $3,857 um within the within the city and in 2026 in 2026 um with that update to 1770 and also the update to the 12th edition IT trip generation manual um you can see in the factor line there between 2025 and 2026 that jumped from 1.36 to 1.83 83 um which is basically due to it updating to using more representative data, stricter quality controls um reflecting modern and multimotal travel patterns and recognizing that development context matters in this trip generation.

Um so although there is a um 16% there's only a 16% decrease in the single family housing um that factor change is what is is what is showing um the 36% drop from the $2830 to the $1,770 there. Um and it's fairly consistent.

I did a uh comparison between the 2025 and 2026 IT or the 11th edition and the 12th edition land use codes and it varies slightly across the 166 different IT uh codes but in all like residential was a about a 14% decrease in total.

Um and as I mentioned previously, another major change that affects the tiff rates is um the 208 study that was done in the previous tiff rates that were approved by council um went off the 2016 comp plan list um which is we're now updating to the 2025 list which includes the 2024 bike and ped master plans.

So how do we compare to the state? Um, historically, uh, Bellingham impact fees have hovered around the 25th percentile in the state. Um, and in 2025, uh, we were 30% lower than the state average. In 2026, we're about 41% lower for single family houses.

Um, so here you can see on your screen where the average the red box is the average Washington tiff rate per single family dwelling and the green box is where Bellingham is landing in 2026 for the average rate.

So one thing I just wanted to point out is there's there's some flexibility in the tiff calculation. Um, it's a starting point. This tiff rate schedule and the tiff rate schedule you see in your study is a starting point for the calculations.

But there are many site location contextual conditions that allow staff to um apply additional factors to TIFF. Um this is all outlined in the Bellingham MUN municipal code 190630. Um and as Tim alluded to a bit as well, um there's credits that are given uh for ADUs is one.

Due to recent state law, we can only um charge ADUs 50% of the principal unit. So currently that 350 30,857 if someone were to build a single family house with an ADU, we are only allowed to charge them half of that $3,857, which turns out to be um lower than what they would have paid without that being there.

And that will continue forward. Uh we provide credits for mixed use urban villages um and trip reduction or and credits for the presence of sidewalks and bikeways within those urban villages as an incentive for development to develop within the urban villages where we want um land use to be denser.

Um we also provide an 80% credit for uh income restricted affordable housing and now also adding um early learning facilities to that 80% credit as well. And then there's also other legitimate transportation industry accepted meth methods to reduce trips through the TI the transportation impact analysis process.

So um staff recommendation is to adopt these 2026 tiff schedules and the transportation commission also recommends to adopt this and if there's any questions or discussion. Okay. Thank you Dylan for that excellent presentation.

I note that we have a recognized expert and consultant in the audience who helped prepare this if there's detailed technical questions. Committee members Jace. >> Okay, I'll start with my dumbest question which is um so the table has a a list of IG uses but you you mentioned there's 166.

So the ones that aren't in this table, where where in the statute are we like adopting those or are not in the Does that make sense? My question I guess where do I go to find the other 166 and um does that make sense?

Yeah, I I believe in are are the full I think the full 166 land use codes are are within the study um as part of it may have been a part of an appendix. Um but those will be adopted into code as well as part of this.

>> Yeah, all all 166 should be in table uh in the table in exhibit A. >> I'm just bad at counting, I guess. Thanks, Tim. >> Have more questions? Go ahead. >> Um, well, thank you for the early learning facility exemption.

I think that's really exciting. Um, my question, I guess, is the permissive versus should we just say we shall like is there any circumstance in which we would not want to provide that exemption? And then um we're not amending it in this ordinance and it's consistent across a couple of chapters, but I I wonder if we might want to take another look at the affordable housing exemption and that it's also permissive and then it requires it be in our consolidated plan or that the council has to vote on it otherwise.

Um and I wonder if we might give some consideration just to say if it's affordable housing, we're going to provide the tiff exemption. I think the intent uh with the the language as written in in the ordinance is that uh those uh developers of those projects will need need to make a request to do that.

Um but I think that uh all the developers we've ever seen make that request. So um I think I think functionally it it works where it's always granted. Lis, do you have any questions or should we go back to Jace?

No, >> go ahead and go back to Jayce. Thank >> Jay. Okay. Um, you're moving quick for me. Um uh so in 2018 when we updated the exemption for the urban village internal trip capture from I think 15 to 20% for downtown and um Barkley like what can you just give me a sense of like what level of study that required and if we were to think about additional credits in the future for like neighborhood commercial where we you know really want to incentivize walking nearby.

Um like what how much does that kind of study cost? Um and just for us to think about budgets in the in the future. So the the urban village uh exemp uh credits were were included in the full analysis that uh was done for conversion to uh to the uh person trips to multimodal tiff instead of just vehicle tiff.

Uh so I think we'd need to dig just a little bit to to sus those out. Um but that was a fairly extensive study both I think in consultant time and and staff time. At the time we had um a staff member who is sitting behind me not a staff member anymore uh who's probably the foremost expert uh in tiffs in western Washington if not the whole state.

Um unfortunately we don't have access to him anymore uh as a staff member. Uh so I suspect uh that analysis wouldn't wouldn't be free. It would cost some and we can certainly get back to you on on an estimated cost if you'd like.

I >> think I might be answering this question correctly. There was uh the study looked at the number of what was called internal trip capture. If you go to an urban village, how many of your trips stay within there and are not car dependent?

And that was a quantitative estimate of internal trip capture. Is that more or less the idea that we use at the time? >> Yeah, I think I think that's right. But I will say, you know, in TIFF, in multimodal tiff, a trip is a trip, whether it's a short trip or a long trip is still using facilities, right?

So, uh all of that growth um when people are leaving their front door uh and making a trip somewhere else, even within their urban village, they're still impacting travel around the city. What I guess you're saying is that number wasn't pulled out of the air as a good number.

It was I think a quantitative estimate of the actual benefits of urban villages. >> And I planning commission recently we um staff presented some early uh concepts for amending our home occupations chapter as kind of a first step towards um you know opening up more neighborhood commercial options.

I mean certainly it was true when we were talking about early learning facilities but I know that you know these convergence of use can be a pretty high barrier um and I appreciate we're one of the lower tiffs but there's also communities that don't have any tiffs right so um to to think about if most of those I would love to be able to walk to a to a store near me right and that um it would be great if we could find a way to account for that um probably empirical reality I just know it it's not cheap to to do that to do that work.

So, um I just if there's interest in council and that I think that would be a conversation worth carrying forward and we're currently coordinating with the planning department on that. I just had a meeting about it last week.

Um it just wasn't timely to fit into this update, but public works and planning are coordinating on exactly that. So, >> Chair Chair Lil to if I if I may, um I wanted to to say we're out front a little bit.

one of the first changes from the new comp plan that's being implemented. So, um you know, Dylan was on it and said, "We have a new list. It's likely to go down. We want to get this before council quickly." But, uh we do realize that the the the 20-year project list uh might have changes that are made throughout the life of the comp plan, and we can revisit those on an annual basis.

I think that Dylan and I have talked about setting a goal to revisit the project list uh in in a five-year kind of a mid mid update to the comp plan. Uh so I think that uh we could sure have a conversation during that time during that time, you know, the inner inter in interceding years on if we want to do a major a more major uh tiff update uh than this one in in a few years.

Further questions? >> Mayor, >> I just want to jump in and make sure uh Council Member Cotton knows I've I've heard your line of inquiry and I support it. I think we should be having a conversation about what can we do or policy choices to reduce some of the friction for adaptive reuse for those businesses in our neighborhoods as we get further down that that pathway.

So um I'll take note of that and administration will will be thinking about how we can not just from transportation lens but broadly across departments how can we be supportive so >> thank you Kim council members >> my hands up Michael >> okay I sorry I didn't see it go ahead Lisa >> um I was just trying to do the quick math that's why I let council member Cotton go before I was ready but um and not not enough to delay um recommending this.

But what I would appreciate is as we're looking at um changes in that lens, as uh our mayor had stated, you know, adaptive reuse, um I would really appreciate if daycare centers was part of that. Um if we gave 80% reduction on 31,000, it's still around $6,000 somebody would have to pay.

And for um in-house daycare centers that might only have up to 10 children um that could be cost prohibitive. So um it would be nice if you know when we're looking at um you know education um you know for the most part like high schools and middle schools and such they're paying like 760.

So we still could have our daycarees paying more money um if my math is correct. So, um I would like to in the future get that lower or have like uh that flexibility of scale um especially in the adaptive reuse of current buildings.

Chair Lil, one one more thing I wanted to uh make sure that uh council is aware of and considering when when staff uses the table um especially for adaptive reuse or or any kind of redevelopment uh they get a credit also from the table for the pre-existing use.

and we're we're pretty uh dedicated to to going back and finding the most intensive use uh in the past to give uh you know as much ability for those reuse projects as we can. So, I just wanted want council to keep that in mind.

When you see that table, it can be a little difficult to have that context. But as as if if a uh if a home occupant uh daycare center for instance is uh redeveloping a site or or going into an existing single family residence, they would already get the single family residents credit or credit for the existing single family residents use.

So, just wanted to give that context to everyone. >> That would be before the 80% reduction. So, they'd get that credit and then whatever after the credit would then be reduced by 80%. So, it could be lower than what what you see in the table.

>> Thank you. >> And if there's an adaptive reuse of a facility which might have generated the same number of trips, then the impact fee could be zero. >> Exactly. >> If they were equal. >> Yep. Yep. If someone tears down a single family house and builds a new single family house, they don't pay they don't pay impact fees.

similarly across all development. >> Uh Lisa, any further discuss questions? Jace, >> um thanks for that comment about the ADU um 50% discount. Um should we codify that um requirement just to make it transparent?

It is it is in the table already. >> Sorry. Sorry. The planning director is indicating that apparently that is already codified but uh in the land use portion of our code. >> Yes, that's correct. And it's also in state law.

>> Thanks for the answer, Director Lane. >> Are there questions or any further questions or clarifications? Other council members, we're looking for a motion. >> Move to approve the ordinance. >> Thank you for the work.

We have a motion to recommend approving the ordinance. I have just one observation or comment. We are using unfortunately outdated words. We're still, I guess, required to call them single family detached, whereas we're moving away from the family component and just referring to detached housing with a single dwelling unit, which is exactly what we mean, but it has different nomenclature.

Can we change that wording or is that wording part of statutes or codes or the tables we're using? you know, the the the >> Yeah. Unfortunately, the titles of those uh land uses are out of the IT manual.

So, in order to avoid confusion, we we use the word for word. I I guess the IT manual hasn't quite caught up. >> We'll send them a letter. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Okay, we have a motion before us to recommend approving the ordinance, adopting new new and lower transformation impact fees, um setting up new inflation adjuster, and also uh adding enhanced and new tiff discounts for certain uses.

Any further discussion? All those in favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> And I say I as well. So, I'll bring that forward with positive recommendation tonight. Thank you so much for the excellent work and the really uh good study.

very well written and easy to I easy for me to understand at least. Um the next item is acceptance of a grant from the Washington State Department of Transportation for downtown Signalized Intersection Accessibility and Safety Improvement Project ET037.

The city has been awarded a grant from the state for downtown safety accessibility and safety improvement project. The project will improve signals related to infrastructure at several downtown intersections.

A local agency agreement is now required as part of the process receiving those monies from the Washington State Department of Transportation. This overall project includes six intersections in our downtown, three on Railroad Avenue, three on Cornwall Avenue.

However, only half of those are eligible for this grant. And I notice that the grant covers almost half of the cost of the project. That is a 1.68 68 um million dollar grant for a total of a $3.5 million estimated project cost.

Mr. Wilson, are you here to tell us more about this before we consider it? >> Thank you. Appreciate the opportunity to be in front of you. Mike Wilson, uh assistant director of public works, over engineering, and the city engineer.

Um the only thing I would add to what council member Lilquist has shared is the uh just the functionality of this action is because it's with the washd another public agency we're required to have a interlocal agreement and that requires review and action by the the city council.

So that's why we're here in front of you recommending that that take place. The two specific documents are the local agency agreement and the project perspectus that outlines the uh the terms of this initial step and recommending that the mayor be authorized to approve these agreements and and related documents in the future on the project.

Um and as mentioned this is driven by accommodating uh ADA requests uh and modernizing the traffic signals so that uh you know for example persons that may be visually impaired have better safer access in in these intersections.

So with that we're happy to answer any questions and recommend approval. >> Thank you Mike. Uh, committee members, Lisa, >> thank you. I don't really have any questions. I'm really glad to see this funding opportunity.

Um, by doing the math, it looks like about 47% of our costs are going to be covered by the state. So, um, always glad when we can save money on um, needed improvements. So, barring anybody else having questions, um I move for approval to accept the grant from the Washington State Department of Transportation for the downtown specialized intersection accessibility and safety improvement project.

>> Thank you. I have a motion before us to authorize the mayor to enter into this local agency agreement. Any further discussion? Committee me council members also. Um I do have a question. Um, I think I know all six of those intersections and I think at least five of them already have ADA ramps of some sort and improvements of some sorts and bike lanes of some sorts.

When was the last time these were updated, modified or touched? I'm just wondering I'm surprised that they're already sort of out of data best practices considering they were reworked not too long ago.

>> Could I have you come back up and uh explain details? they they are relatively uh in good shape, but because of some of the accommodation requests and there's technology is evolved and has advanced, it's timely to make some updates.

You got something to add to that? >> Yeah. So, you're correct. Uh at least uh four or five of these intersections have uh had some 80 upgrades uh from an accessibility standpoint when it comes to a wheelchair or mobility access.

But the signals at all six of these intersections are oh very very old. Let's say going on 50 years old. So when it comes to accessibility features uh related to low visual and when I say that I mean uh like uh uh tactile push buttons and audible signals uh they do not have those features and that was the nature of the uh ADA requests we've had uh for these intersections.

>> Thank you. Any further discussion, Council Member Stone? >> Um, yeah, it's just actually related to the motion. I know that we'd received direction from legal recently to pay close attention to the motions as provided in the packet and I think between you and Council Member Anderson, you got most of it, but there is a part referencing any related amendments, and I don't know that that was included in the motion.

So, if you just do me the favor of rereading that motion prior to the vote, that would be appreciated. Are there any objections uh among committee members to uh recognize the motion as a move to authorize the mayor to enter interal agreement and any related amendments with WST for this project?

Seeing no objections from the committee that's the motion is now understood. All those in favor signify by saying I >> I >> I also agree. I'll bring that forward with unanimous recommendation night. I hope we didn't go over our a lot of time that it finishes the committee.

Um, I adjourn the committee and turn the meeting back over to Council President Stone. >> Thank you very much. Um, so the next committee is the planning committee. We'll pause just a moment to um, transfer over the recording to the next segment.