Whatcom County Council

**Meeting ID:** WHA-CON-2025-12-02 # The Whatcom County Budget Meeting That Mattered — A Story of Votes, Values, and Five-Dollar Trade-offs On a gray Tuesday afternoon in December, seven county council members gathered in the courthouse chambers to make decisions that would shape Whatcom County's financial future — and test their political mettle in ways that hadn't been seen in years. What unfolded over nearly two hours would be remembered not just for the millions in spending approved, but for the rare moments when this council actually said no. ## Meeting Overview The December 2, 2025 special meeting was the culmination of months of budget deliberations for Whatcom County Council. Chair Kaylee Galloway called the session to order at 1:02 PM, with all seven council members eventually present for a hybrid meeting that would cover ten separate budget items totaling over $20 million in new spending. This wasn't routine budget maintenance — it was a moment of reckoning. The county faced structural budget challenges, rising costs, and a community increasingly vocal about tax burdens. The agenda included everything from flood control funding to emergency medical services, from road repairs to conservation purchases. But underneath the technical ordinances and resolutions lay fundamental questions about the role of government and the limits of taxpayer patience. ## The Flood Control Prelude — A Glimpse of Things to Come The meeting began with three flood control zone district items, and immediately signaled that this would not be a typical rubber-stamp session. Director of Public Works Elizabeth Kosa fielded questions about a seemingly modest request for a 1% levy increase — worth about 69 cents per year for the average household. Council Member John Scanlon made the case for preparedness: "I'm going to speak in favor of this item and vote in favor of the 1% increase. It's a small increase at a household level. And looking towards the future, I think our flood control work is not something I would ever want to jeopardize in the future. We all know the risks in our county, so I want to make sure that that work is fully funded and set in a good path for the future." But when the vote came on the 1% increase (AB2025-709), it died in a 3-3 tie — a virtually unheard-of outcome for this council. Tyler Byrd, Todd Donovan, and Mark Stremler voted no, while Barry Buchanan, Kaylee Galloway, and John Scanlon supported it. Ben Elenbaas was temporarily absent, caught outside the chambers in conversation with Bellingham's police chief. The council then unanimously approved the backup option with no tax increase (AB2025-784). Scanlon graciously thanked Donovan "for having an option here, at least we have a backup option to vote on if as the first option failed." ## Public Voices — Fire Chiefs, Critics, and the Space Between When the main budget hearing opened, the first voices belonged to those who save lives. Fire Chief Ben Boyko from Whatcom County Fire District 7 painted a vivid picture of how previous county investments had paid dividends in human terms. "Just last week, I reviewed two cases where our paramedics identify critical findings on scene and initiated treatment and activated cath lab before the transport," Boyko testified. "One of those cases was 30 year old female patient in medicine. There's a saying, time is tissue. Your investment turns that principle into action and into saving lives." Jim Hallett, the citizen representative on the EMS oversight board, offered a more philosophical reflection: "I've come to understand that it takes a lot of things that have to come together and mesh together and work together and breathe together, for each one of us to take even one more breath." But the meeting also heard from skeptics. Lyle Sorenson delivered a pointed critique that resonated with taxpayer frustration: "It's amazing that we can have a meeting in the middle of the afternoon and with a mayor approve spending of $21 million just like no big deal... The interesting thing is that the property owners of Whatcom County don't have bank capacity." Hannah Ortiz struck a more nuanced tone, commending departments that had tightened their belts while warning about the cumulative impact of seemingly small increases: "I know 1% doesn't sound like a lot. We kind of minimize it down to how many lattes, but it's still like, the first pound I ever gained wasn't a lot, but goodness, 20 pounds later, it's a lot." ## The $20.9 Million Budget Amendment — Council vs. Spending Critics The largest single item was a $20.9 million budget amendment (AB2025-707) that incorporated months of council deliberations and amendments. Council Member Todd Donovan moved to approve it, but the discussion revealed deep philosophical divisions about spending and governance. Council Member Ben Elenbaas delivered perhaps the meeting's most introspective moment, acknowledging his role as the council's most frequent dissenter: "My time on council, I can recall one budget item that did not pass once, one time this council has said No, when people have come to us for money... if we would have said, No, I think we could have dealt with this sooner, because I think our plans would have been tighter, and the belts would have been strapped up a long time before today." Elenbaas continued with a memorable analogy: "If your kids know you always say yes, they'll never stop asking. And so we never say no, we always say yes. And personally, I don't feel like that makes for much oversight of the bureaucracy that were assigned to oversee." Chair Galloway pushed back against narratives of irresponsible spending: "I don't think any of us willy nilly like to raise taxes, but we recognize a public good and a public good and a public benefit that comes from the services that we do... The largest portions of our budget are public safety, which I think overwhelmingly, the community has demonstrated support for." The amendment passed 4-3, with Buchanan, Donovan, Galloway, and Scanlon supporting it. ## Conservation Futures — Environmental Values vs. Fiscal Restraint The Conservation Futures levy (AB2025-719) sparked debate about environmental priorities and government effectiveness. Elenbaas, who described himself as an environmentalist who works the land, nonetheless opposed the increase: "I think the dollars that we spend from this fund are incredibly misguided from our stated goals of what we do. If I thought collecting more of these dollars would lead to a better outcome. I would support this, but... this is one of those things where we're just going to spend more money and we're not going to get a better result." Donovan wrestled with the decision, initially seeming to oppose it before clarifying his position. The levy passed 4-3, but not without moments of confusion that had the room "going quiet" when Elenbaas initially appeared to vote yes before correcting to no. ## The Road Fund Debate — Services vs. Sustainability The county road levy (AB2025-721) generated the meeting's most detailed policy discussion. The 1% increase would cost the average rural household just $5.70 per year, but represented deeper structural challenges about who pays for rural infrastructure. Council Member Stremler, who worked in public works for years, offered a firsthand account of declining services: "When I started at Public Works years ago... I think about the mornings, how many crews went out, how much work was getting done, and it was substantial over the years that slowly decreased... if we do not fund this core service of the government, it's it's going to continue to show up every Morning and evening as we drive to our respective homes and places of work." Donovan raised concerns about the structural inequity of the funding model: "You're adding seven or 800 bucks onto their property taxes... You can't just put, we're putting it all on folks who live in unincorporated areas. And you know what birch Bay incorporates? That's all that tax base is lost then." Elenbaas supported the road levy despite his general opposition to tax increases, citing the Public Works Department's exceptional track record: "There's historically been one department that has risen above all the rest, in my opinion, with their transparency, with their follow through, with their communication and with their adherence to their requested budgets... when they come to me and they say, Ben, I need more money, and this is why... I listen to them." The road levy passed 6-1, with only Donovan opposing. ## Emergency Medical Services — Lives in the Balance The EMS levy debate (AB2025-723) brought the most emotional testimony and philosophical reflection about the value of human life. The increase would bring the levy to the full amount voters had authorized at 29.5 cents per $1,000 of assessed value. Donovan framed it in terms of voter intent: "The voters approved a levy of 29.5 or less... We took less because there were things that were not in the implementation plan that we didn't quite know what the cost would be... that got 64% so I made me kind of regret that we didn't take the full thing originally." Elenbaas, despite his fiscal conservatism, supported the measure based on stark geographic realities: "If you have a heart attack in Blaine, it's 15 minutes. It doesn't matter. It's 15 minutes before somebody's getting to you... And I'm sorry, but you're dead in 15 minutes... any meaningful cuts in this department would mean a cut less service, and less service looks a whole lot like four units instead of five... there's no way in heck we're going back to four units." He also addressed persistent criticism about paramedic compensation: "You could work at my oil refinery turning a wrench with no college degree for one year and make more than a fully trained paramedic makes after 10 years on the job, so I do not believe for one second that it's the paramedic salaries that have increased this budget." Stremler stood firm in opposition: "I wanted to see that happen going into next year... I didn't see it happening. I have great friends in the EMS world, and we'll remain friends, but I just don't see we're all kind of being asked to do more or the same with less... I think much more could have been done." The EMS levy passed 5-2. ## The General Fund — Core Government Functions The final major vote was on the general fund levy increase (AB2025-725), which Galloway called "probably our most important fund, because it's, it's the one that funds everything." The 1% increase would generate about $360,000 countywide. Donovan, despite philosophical reservations, supported it for pragmatic reasons: "My hesitance on this is two fold. There's things I'm seeing us spending resources on that I don't think are appropriate... And we did add, we, all of us, put stuff on that is not necessarily fully funded for next year. So I would hope that this would get broad support to try to... limit the hole that y'all got to dig yourself out of next year." The general fund increase passed 4-3. ## Executive's Challenge and Council's Response County Executive Satpal Sidhu offered closing remarks that challenged the council's approach to budget cuts: "Just saying that government always wants more money and they can do it with less. Yes, we can do it with less. There's truth to that. But I think I would like to say... the council members, we would expect the council members to lay out, you have enough detail to tell us, don't maintain roads every year. Maintain every three years... You should tell us that cut these services to this so that you as council members tell your constituents that we're going to spend less money, but this is going to be the impact." ## Closing and What's Ahead As the meeting wound down at 2:46 PM, the council had approved most of the proposed tax increases while demonstrating an unprecedented willingness to say no — at least on some items. The flood control vote failure was particularly notable as perhaps the first budget item this council had rejected in recent memory. The meeting ended with announcements about upcoming community conversations and a lighthearted celebration of birthdays for Council Members Buchanan and Elenbaas. But underneath the pleasantries lay the recognition that tougher decisions await in the next budget cycle, when structural changes — not just levy increases — will be necessary. The December 2nd meeting revealed a county council grappling with competing pressures: the need to fund essential services, the limits of taxpayer patience, and the challenge of governing in an era of rising costs and constrained revenues. It was a rare glimpse of local democracy working through fundamental questions about the proper role and scale of government — with real money and real consequences hanging in the balance.