# Whatcom County Council Confronts Budget Pressures While Advancing Justice, Housing, and Development Initiatives Council Chair Kaylee Galloway called the Tuesday evening meeting to order at 6:03 PM in the packed Council Chambers, with all seven council members present and a full agenda stretching late into the night. What began as a routine September meeting evolved into a marathon session of consequential decisions on housing, development funding, and infrastructure investments that would shape the county's future well beyond 2025. ## Executive's Report: Financial Challenges and Historic Milestones County Executive Satpal Sidhu opened with a sobering assessment of the county's fiscal outlook alongside celebration of significant achievements. The executive announced successful retention of a critical $25 million federal RAISE grant for the Lummi Island ferry project, despite complications from scope changes that had threatened the funding. "Whenever there is change of scope, it has to be reapproved," Sidhu explained, crediting the collaborative efforts of public works staff, the executive's office, the ferry advisory committee, and island residents. "We've been able to obtain the word that we can retain our grant." The financial picture proved more challenging. Sidhu described facing "a stagnant economy" causing sales tax revenues to fall below projections while inflation drives expenses higher than anticipated. "We together as council and the executive branch have to make difficult financial budget decisions in the coming months," he warned, setting the stage for what would become a recurring theme throughout the evening. On the justice front, Sidhu reported progress on the long-awaited justice project, announcing selection of Clark and associates as the design-build contractor. In a victory for local economic development advocates, he emphasized that the chosen team "has an excellent plan to involve local jobs as well as local subcontractors" with opportunities for both union and non-union workers, prioritizing Whatcom County workforce and businesses within legal guidelines. The executive concluded with a moving tribute to former County Executive Shirley Van Zanten, who had recently passed away. Van Zanten served as Washington state's first female county executive and Whatcom County's second executive. "She was a member of the freeholders and then she ran for the position of a council member," Sidhu recounted, noting her historic three consecutive terms in office. He declared September 10th as "Shirley Van Zanten Day" and announced plans to install pictures of all former county executives in the executive's office with brief histories. ## Hearing Examiner Process Modernization The council moved through three related public hearings designed to modernize and clarify the hearing examiner process. Hearing Examiner Rajeev Majumdar had presented these changes to the Planning and Development Committee in July, and no public opposition emerged during the hearings. The first ordinance clarified roles and duties of participants in hearing examiner proceedings. Majumdar explained the changes addressed practical issues: "Someone should bear the costs, but in the case of the appeal, it should probably be the appellant." Currently, he noted, a literal reading of the code would require applicants to pay for appeals brought by others against their projects—an apparent oversight. The second ordinance explicitly granted the hearing examiner authority to "grant in part or as whole, reject in part or as whole, or remand in part or as whole with direction and interpretation by the department." Council Member Todd Donovan questioned whether this represented new powers, but Majumdar clarified it simply codified existing practice. "What the Court of Appeals found in that case was that this council had done what's described here. They just didn't find it was written so explicitly," Majumdar explained, referencing a 2019 appeal case. "I want to make my decisions more appeal-proof." Council Member Ben Ellenbos supported the changes, viewing them as "proceduralizing what we actually do in Whatcom County," while Council Member John Scanlon caught a spelling error in one ordinance—"maters" instead of "matters"—which staff noted for correction. All three hearing examiner items passed unanimously, modernizing processes that Majumdar described as making the office more efficient while maintaining appropriate oversight. ## Public Voice: Housing, Safety, and Environmental Concerns The open session brought passionate testimony from community members on issues ranging from housing to jail conditions to environmental protection. Andrew Calkins from the Bellingham and Whatcom County Housing Authorities spoke in support of Economic Development Investment (EDI) board funding recommendations, particularly for affordable housing projects. "We serve close to 7,000 people each year through different affordable housing programs," Calkins explained, describing their Unity Street redevelopment project that would create 64 affordable homes "just a few blocks from here" near downtown businesses and transit. The project targets workforce housing with 70% of units affordable to people earning 50-60% of area median income. Former sheriff's office employees delivered stark testimony about working conditions. John Westerfield, thanking Council Member Ellenbos for attending a recent water adjudication meeting at Rome Grange, shifted to urgent concerns about the sheriff's department facilities. "The place is a cesspool. It's unfit for human habitation, and they work there every day," Westerfield declared. "The air in the sheriff's department is unfit for human breathing, and yet they have to work there every day." He noted that while the council was approving air conditioning for the parks department, sheriff's staff continued working in dangerous conditions. "If the county executive who is responsible for the care and welfare and safety of those people is not working on this every day in some form to find a place to put that department, it is nothing short of nothing less than dereliction of duty," Westerfield concluded. Daniel Harm provided updates on the Upper Nooksack conservation efforts, describing three potential conservation mechanisms that had emerged: CCA funds with the new "cash for counties" provision, a revitalized Trust Land Transfer program allowing tribal management, and a new executive order from the Commissioner of Public Lands to conserve 77,000 acres of mature forest. "We've heard that the Nooksack tribe is meeting with the DNR soon to learn more," Harm reported, suggesting tribal involvement could create "a really cool option for permanent protection." Several speakers addressed the proposed Blaine annexation of Birch Point area. Sharman Burnham, speaking for Birch Bay residents, argued the annexation process was moving too quickly and violated Growth Management Act requirements for early and continuous public participation. "The Whatcom County Council approved and appointed the Birch Bay Community Advisory Committee to ensure Birch Bay residents would be consulted on decisions affecting our community," Burnham stated. "Yet to date, this Council has failed to engage the committee on this critical proposal." ## Contract Negotiations and Fiscal Discipline The evening's most contentious debate centered on the hearing examiner services contract for 2026. Council Member Tyler Byrd had moved in committee to hold the contract until October to evaluate it alongside other budget decisions, creating a philosophical discussion about fiscal management during tight budget times. The proposed contract would extend Hearing Examiner Majumdar's services for a third year at $118,779.60, representing a 3% increase. Majumdar addressed the council directly, emphasizing his dedication to the role and the value provided. "I hope you've seen not just tonight, but in prior council meetings and in person meetings, I've been providing a greater level of service at a fairly similar rate of pay to what you have," Majumdar said. He noted the economic impact of keeping the contract local: "Your money here goes to support 10 employees at the Whatcom Law Group. That money goes right back here." Byrd defended his motion to hold, explaining his approach to budget management: "I'd rather just assess it all at the same time and be able to then have the flexibility of making decisions based on all of the information being present." He emphasized this wasn't about the hearing examiner's performance but about comprehensive budget planning. Council Member Ellenbos countered that approving the 3% increase was "probably the least expensive option we're gonna have," while Donovan noted the unusual timing of approving cost-of-living adjustments before completing collective bargaining negotiations. The motion to hold failed 3-4, with Byrd standing alone in his fiscal caution. The contract subsequently passed 6-1, with only Byrd voting against. ## Housing Funding Debate: Philosophy Meets Pragmatism The most substantial and revealing debate of the evening concerned funding for affordable housing projects, specifically the Opportunity Council's Bellis Fair Phase II senior housing project. What began as a straightforward endorsement of Economic Development Investment board recommendations evolved into a complex discussion about funding sources, workforce housing definitions, and fiscal philosophy. The EDI board had recommended funding five projects totaling $5.3 million: Maple Falls Water Co-op tank replacement, Port of Bellingham's Haven Marine Industrial Park improvements, two Colshan Community Land Trust townhome projects, and the Bellingham Housing Authority's Unity Street project. These recommendations passed unanimously. However, the EDI board had rejected the Bellis Fair Phase II project on a tie vote, leaving the council to decide whether to fund it independently. David Foreman from Opportunity Council emphasized the project's ready status: "We want to start construction in January." Deputy Executive Kayla Schott-Bresler outlined funding options, explaining that the county could use either EDI funds or the affordable and behavioral health sales tax fund (established through HB 1590). The 1590 fund had a $5.2 million balance and existing budget authority to fund the project. Council Member Donovan initially proposed a 50-50 split between funding sources, but the discussion revealed deeper philosophical divisions. Ellenbos ultimately moved to fund the project entirely through an EDI loan, noting the potential for repayment and reinvestment. Council Member Byrd offered the most pointed critique of using EDI funds for this purpose, distinguishing between housing needs generally and workforce housing specifically. "When you listen to them and you think about what they have told us and how they have defined it, it has never been defined as minimum wage jobs," Byrd argued. He described conversations with port officials and business leaders seeking housing for skilled workers and management teams, not entry-level positions. "That's not your 20% or your 25 or 30% that Mr. Strumler was speaking to earlier of AMI, right? That's not your minimum wage job workforce." Byrd proposed alternative funding through the 1590 source to preserve EDI flexibility for traditional economic development projects. "Why don't we flip that around and give a loan for 1.2 million out of the 1590 fund, leave this in the EDI fund because it gives us more flexibility," he suggested. Council Member Ellenbos pushed back with personal perspective: "Two of the things that I think are incredibly worrisome for almost everyone I talk to... is one, we are taxing seniors out of their homes." He argued that seniors represented a vulnerable population deserving subsidized housing support, while also noting concerns about housing affordability for young people entering the workforce. "My youngest is 18, my oldest is 26, and the rest of them fall in between there. And none of them can afford housing in this county without me subsidizing it," Ellenbos said. "And so like, when we talk about this workforce that is coming here, so we need to help make them be able to afford it, I don't want them to get the job. I want my freaking kids to get the job and stay here." Council Member Scanlon supported the EDI funding approach, noting that seniors ages 62-65 represent a significant portion of the workforce. Chair Galloway highlighted the economic development aspects of the project, including local contractor Dawson Construction's commitment to hiring goals: "By the end of August, 2025, subcontractors will be selected for the project... Preference will be given to local subcontractors in Whatcom County." The project would create an estimated 75 construction jobs plus 25 administrative positions during construction, with 17 permanent jobs afterward. After extensive debate, Byrd's motion to use 1590 funding failed 3-4, and the main motion to fund through EDI loans passed 5-2, with Byrd and Strumler opposing. ## Administrative Appointments and Process Decisions The council handled several administrative matters reflecting ongoing governmental operations. They selected Council Member Donovan to represent the county on a Whatcom Transit Authority board composition review scheduled for October 2nd, choosing him over Byrd in a 5-2 vote. For the Planning and Development Services director recruitment process, the council appointed Council Members Ellenbos and Galloway to participate in candidate screening and interviews. Deputy Executive Aly Pennucci outlined the timeline: screening interviews October 23rd and finalist interviews November 12th-13th. The council also addressed advisory board appointments. For the Child and Family Well-Being Task Force, they appointed Heather Carson after a tie-breaking vote by Donovan, who noted the importance of geographic diversity on county committees. In a more complex appointment, they selected Wes Van De Mark for the Board of Equalization despite a one-year separation requirement. The council voted unanimously to waive the separation period, with Clerk Cathy Halka explaining that county code allows such waivers when positions remain vacant for more than one month. ## Looking Forward: Budget Challenges and Strategic Planning As the meeting concluded at 10:17 PM, several themes emerged that will likely define the council's agenda in coming months. The tension between fiscal discipline and community needs, exemplified in the hearing examiner contract and housing funding debates, reflects broader challenges facing county government. The council also approved several committee motions addressing future projects. They endorsed a non-profit ownership model for Stewart Mountain Community Forest with county participation in governance, passing 4-3 despite opposition from Byrd, Ellenbos, and Strumler. They unanimously approved legal indemnification for Deputy Prosecutor Kellen Kooistra in federal litigation, demonstrating continued support for county employees acting within their official duties. The evening's proceedings revealed a council grappling with competing priorities: immediate community needs, long-term fiscal sustainability, and evolving definitions of economic development. The lengthy housing debate particularly illustrated how policy discussions involve both technical funding mechanisms and fundamental questions about community values and priorities. As Executive Sidhu had warned at the meeting's start, difficult budget decisions lie ahead. The council's willingness to engage in extended deliberation—even when it meant a four-hour meeting—suggests recognition of the significance of decisions being made during this challenging fiscal period. The September meeting demonstrated local government at work: wrestling with complex problems, balancing competing interests, and making consequential decisions that will impact the community for years to come. Whether addressing immediate needs like sheriff's office conditions or long-term investments like affordable housing, the council showed both the challenges and the possibilities of collaborative democratic governance in challenging times.