State Legislative Session Update

$15 Million State Flood Mitigation Capital Request (AB2026-037)

Jed Holmes from the Executive's Office briefed the council on a capital budget request submitted to the state the previous week, arising from the Flood Integrated Planning (FLIP) Steering Committee's identification of early action items for the next 18 months. The request totals $15 million and covers two broad areas: acquisition of key properties and easements, and advanced design for flood mitigation projects targeting Everson, Nooksack, and Sumas. Specific project concepts include corridor widening, berm and flood wall design around Everson and Nooksack, floodproofing of critical infrastructure, tide gate relocation or replacement on Jordan Creek, elevation of access routes to Lummi Nation, improvements to Nooksack tribal housing access (specifically Potter Road), and habitat and levee setback projects between Everson and Interstate 5.

Holmes noted the county's total flood project pipeline is estimated at nearly half a billion dollars, and the $15 million ask was calibrated to what might realistically be obtained. The request is lodged in the state capital budget under the Senate Ways and Means Committee (Chair: Senator Trudeau) and House capital budget oversight (Representative Therringer). Holmes indicated that after submission, capital budget requests typically go quiet until the state budget is published.

Stremler raised the meeting's sharpest critique: that "advanced design" has been the response for years, and communities want execution, not more studies. Holmes acknowledged the frustration but distinguished conceptual development from the current phase — moving projects into permitting-ready design — and indicated an operational plan from Public Works would be presented to Council at the February 24 meeting. Elenbaas reinforced the frustration and emphasized that the cities of Everson, Nooksack, and Sumas want action this summer, including sediment removal and river work. Holmes confirmed the flood corridor widening component encompasses the sediment removal and conveyance improvements those mayors have requested.

Rienstra probed the design vs. construction distinction, asking whether any of the 18-month plan includes actual construction activity. Holmes clarified: the state request is specifically for acquisition and advanced design; construction funding would need to come from the Flood Control Zone District or future grants. Boyle asked how flood-impacted constituents can track progress; Holmes offered to follow up with communications resources.

Galloway, calling in from Olympia, reported that she, Director Cosa, and Pam Gold of Lummi Island had testified before the relevant committee in support of the Ferry District Bill and that both the House and Senate versions had cleared their first committees. She also noted she had been unable to testify on the Ecosystem Services Bill due to time constraints and would continue engaging with other counties and with DNR and WSAC in that space.

Scanlon flagged a related item from the morning's Health Board meeting: the governor's proposed budget cuts include significant reductions to foundational public health services funding — the primary state-funded source for county health departments. He announced plans to bring a supporting resolution to the Council acting as Health Board as soon as the following week. Elenbaas expressed pointed concern about the irony: the governor presumably campaigned on reducing housing costs, as did most council members, yet cutting public health staff who handle onsite septic and well approvals — already a permitting bottleneck — directly undermines housing production goals. Schott-Bresler confirmed the county's general fund contribution to the health department recently dropped from approximately $3 million to $2 million, making state foundational funding more critical than ever. Scanlon mentioned four state bills related to mitigating the proposed cuts that Health Director Thomaskutty had referenced at the morning's Health Board meeting: Senate Bills 6129 and 6116 and House Bills 2382 and 2439.

The meeting also surfaced a question from Stremler about which bills in the lobbyist's tracking emails carry "support" designations and who makes those decisions. Holmes explained the distinction between bills on which the full Council has formally taken a position and bills on which the Executive independently weighs in as an elected official on core administrative matters. Schott-Bresler offered historical context: before 2022, the Executive's office had no engagement with the Council on legislative priorities at all. Buchanan corroborated this evolution, noting the current practice — however imperfect — represents significant progress.