The Reality of Bellingham’s Greenways Levy & Lake Whatcom Watershed Program
- Brian Gass
- Sep 18
- 6 min read
Updated: Sep 20
Bellingham’s Greenways Levy and watershed programs have been sold to voters as ways to preserve open space, protect water, and improve quality of life. But behind the positive branding lies a more complicated reality: millions of taxpayer dollars are being used to acquire land that often removes developable property from the city’s future housing supply. This post explores how these programs really work — and why they matter for housing, affordability, and growth in Bellingham.
What Is the Greenways Levy?
How the Levy Began and Why it Was Renewed
The Greenways Levy was first approved by Bellingham voters in 1990, pitched as a way to preserve open space, expand parks, and protect natural areas around the city. The promise was simple: collect a small property tax levy and use it to purchase land that would otherwise be developed, ensuring future generations had access to green space and trails.
Over time, the levy proved politically popular. Residents liked the idea of protecting nature and adding trails, and city leaders found that “greenways” could be marketed as a feel-good initiative with broad support. What started as a single-term levy, however, became a permanent fixture: renewed multiple times (Greenways II, III, and IV), each with expanded scope and budgets.
With every extension, the levy’s role grew. In later versions, it wasn’t just about buying land — funds were also used for maintenance, staffing, and even climate-related language that had little to do with the original voter-approved mission. By 2025, the levy had morphed from a temporary conservation tool into an ongoing revenue stream for the Parks Department, with millions directed toward administration and staff salaries rather than just land purchases.
The result is that what began as a community-driven preservation effort is now a semi-permanent tax mechanism — one that continually removes land from potential housing supply, while funding city operations in ways voters may not have originally intended.
Where the Money Comes From
The Greenways Levy is funded directly through property taxes paid by Bellingham homeowners and businesses. Each renewal adds an extra tax rate on top of the city’s regular collections. That revenue is then earmarked for land acquisition, maintenance, and — increasingly — Parks Department staffing.
The Cost to Taxpayers
Originally, this was sold as a “small cost” to residents, just a few cents per $1,000 of assessed property value. But as property values have climbed, collections have grown into the millions of dollars each year. Today, the Greenways levy contributes roughly $4.5 million annually, much of which now covers employee salaries and administrative overhead rather than new land purchases.
Every property owner in Bellingham is continually taxed to fund the expansion and maintenance of land the city removes from the housing supply. In practice, what began as a straightforward open-space purchase fund now operates as a permanent tax line item — one that quietly reduces land for housing while expanding city payroll.
Currently, whenever the City purchases land using Greenways or Watershed funds, the property is removed from the tax rolls permanently.
That means lost tax revenue today.
Lost revenue to schools, services, etc that are supported by property taxes.
That means lost future revenue from development tomorrow.
And that means a higher burden on every existing taxpayer — you and me.
How Much Is Spent on Staff vs. Land
Today, the Greenways levy is expected to generate $60 million over 10 years and roughly $4.5 million annually, a significant portion of which is billed against the fund to cover employee salaries and administrative expenses rather than new land purchases.
Why Maintenance and Operations Keep Growing
This means every Bellingham property owner is continually taxed to expand and maintain land the city removes from the housing supply — and much of that money is cycling back into city payroll instead of delivering new open space. For many residents, the original intent of “buying green space” feels watered down into just another permanent tax line item.
Lake Whatcom Watershed Land Purchases and Their Impact
And it’s the same thing with the Lake Whatcom watershed program. The City taxes via water customers to buy land around Lake Whatcom. Noble idea, right? But here’s the kicker: every time they do that, it shrinks the tax base, increases long-term costs, and shifts the burden back onto everybody else
How Land Acquisitions Are Funded
The Lake Whatcom Watershed Program is funded through the City’s Utilities Fund (specifically water customers’ rates). When you pay your water bill in Bellingham, a portion of it goes into watershed protection and land acquisition.
How it works: The City set up a dedicated Watershed Land Acquisition and Maintenance Fund back in the early 2000s. Instead of relying on a property-tax levy (like Greenways), it diverts utility rate revenue — basically charging all water customers — to buy land, maintain properties, and cover ongoing staffing related to the watershed.
Scale: In recent years, this has generated about $4–5 million annually, which looks a lot like the size of the Greenways levy, but it comes from utility bills instead of property tax.
Staffing: Just like Greenways, a big share of the Watershed Fund is absorbed by Parks Department payroll and maintenance, not just new acquisitions.
The Greenways Levy Numbers
Take Greenways, for example. Currently, about 30% of the Greenways fund is allocated to staff, rather than maintaining trails, mowing grass, or fixing bathrooms.
So if the City can charge payroll to the Greenways fund, why can’t they also charge the property tax that would have been paid if that land were still privately owned?
That would keep the rest of us whole, and it would ensure the actual costs of owning land
are covered within the program itself.
We're talking REAL MONEY
The city has purchased $115,000,000 worth of land since 2000. This equates to 4056 acres of property. Taxed, even at the lowest rates, would be somewhere in the neighborhood of $1 MILLION dollars a year in revenue for the city, and in turn the Bellingham School District, who is the beneficiary of 35% of taxed homes. So $350K a year?
Slowing down the consumption of available buildable lots
If these programs were required to pay the taxes on the land they acquire, it would do two things:
It would keep the money to maintain the property inside the program, so there’s no free ride.
It would slow down acquisition, because the program would have to weigh maintenance and taxes before grabbing more land.
It’s the same as in your household: I could buy a much nicer car if I didn’t have to pay my mortgage. But I do. And that’s what keeps me in check financially. The City should be held to the same standard.”
The Bigger Picture
So when the City cries poverty and says they need new taxes — like the new sales tax for safety — remember this:
They’re already land-rich and cash-poor, and it’s by choice. They keep taking property off the rolls, and they never account for the lost revenue. Instead, they double-dip: one tax to buy the land, another tax to cover the gap it creates.
Instead of being honest, they resort to using police and fire departments, threatening their budgets to get what they want.
The Myth of “Available Developable Land
Another hidden cost of the Greenways and watershed programs is how they distort Bellingham’s official land supply. When the City or State publish “available developable land” inventories, those numbers often include wetlands, steep slopes, and even property the City has already taken out of circulation for Greenways or watershed preservation.
On paper, it looks like there’s plenty of room for growth. In reality, the supply of buildable land keeps shrinking — a fact that directly drives up housing costs. (We’ll explore the Urban Growth Area and these hidden land calculations in more detail in an upcoming post.)
Closing
Open space and clean water matter. Nobody’s arguing against that. But honesty matters too. And the reality is that these programs, as they’re structured, create hidden costs that make housing less affordable and taxes higher for everyone else--and it's by design.
If the City can use levy money to pay staff to the tune of $4.5 million a year, it can use levy money to cover the taxes those properties should be paying. Otherwise, we’re just paying twice — and nobody’s telling us the truth about it.
Comments