Whatcom County Council

## Meeting Overview The Whatcom County Council convened in hybrid format on Tuesday, March 24th, 2026, at 6:02 PM for what would become a significant evening in local government deliberations. All seven council members were present: Chair Kaylee Galloway, Elizabeth Boyle, Barry Buchanan, Ben Elenbaas, Jessica Rienstra, John Scanlon, and Mark Stremler. The meeting followed a full day of committee sessions that had laid the groundwork for the evening's most contentious agenda item—a proposed 0.1% sales tax for criminal justice purposes. What made this meeting particularly notable was the dramatic debate over whether the council should impose this tax directly or let voters decide at the ballot box. The discussion revealed deep philosophical differences among council members about democratic governance, fiscal responsibility, and the proper role of elected officials in tax policy. Executive Satpal Sidhu had spent the morning legislative session reporting on the county's "almost very successful best year" with state funding, securing $13 million for flood mitigation and $2.1 million for court costs. But the evening would test the council's unity as they grappled with a locally-generated revenue need that exposed competing visions of representation and accountability. ## The Criminal Justice Tax Debate The centerpiece of the evening was a public hearing on ordinance AB 2026-213, which would authorize a sales and use tax of one-tenth of one percent (0.1%) for criminal justice purposes. This seemingly technical measure sparked the most substantive civic debate the council had seen in months, with the discussion ultimately consuming over two hours and revealing fundamental disagreements about democratic process. County Executive Satpal Sidhu had framed the need urgently during his opening report: "We are entrusted with their care" when speaking of those in the criminal justice system, and he called the tax essential to "keep our deputies on the road, our courts running, sheriff to have a decent office, and our jail to have an excellent health care system." The executive emphasized that while such decisions aren't easy, he was "proud to stand behind the value and extraordinary service our employees provide to this community." The public testimony revealed a community genuinely wrestling with competing values. Adam Bellinger offered "begrudging support" for the tax, acknowledging that while he felt "there should be a pretty high burden for tax increases" and that sales taxes are "generally considered to be a regressive tax," the community was "paying for decades of underinvestment in our public safety systems." He noted that the burden had "become too high to ignore." Brian Gass challenged the council's role entirely, questioning whether they existed as "shareholders would be for a corporation" to "protect the interests of the shareholders" or simply to "rubber stamp whatever the county executive wants." He argued the council was being given incomplete information and urged them to "stop for a second and not rubber stamp a tax increase for essentially a spendaholic government." Hannah Ortiz, who identified herself as a private citizen and had clearly studied the relevant legislation, offered a different path forward. She recommended that rather than rushing to impose the tax, the council should "take the next couple of months" to "put in binding language on how this money should be spent" and "bring it to the people" through a ballot measure. This suggestion would prove prophetic, as it captured exactly the division that would define the evening's debate. The most emotionally resonant testimony came from several residents who emphasized the human stakes. Cynthia Sue Ripke-Katsakowicz, at 80 years old, spoke about watching "two value systems... coming into collision in the America of today" and hoped "the voice of reason will prevail." Cesar Luna, a local barber who provides free haircuts to jail inmates through his nonprofit Clean Cut Futures, offered himself as a candidate for the Justice Project Oversight Committee, embodying the community engagement the tax was meant to support. Michelle Cameron, participating remotely from Everson, delivered perhaps the most systematic opposition argument. She outlined five specific concerns: the "broad and unrestricted use" of potential revenues, no requirement to actually increase spending rather than simply covering existing expenses, the burden of "stacking tax increases on residents" already struggling with cost of living, a "supplementing loophole" that could allow other county dollars to be redirected, and the fundamental issue that such a tax could be "adopted without a vote of the people." When the public comment period ended, Chair Galloway moved to approve the ordinance, but the motion immediately ran into procedural turbulence that would define the rest of the evening. ## The Parliamentary Drama What followed was a masterclass in legislative procedure and democratic tension. Council Member Mark Stremler moved to table the item "in order to give council the opportunity to consider an alternative ordinance which gives the voters the ability to decide if they want to participate in a new tax." This motion exposed a fundamental split in how the council members viewed their representational role. The motion to table failed on a procedural technicality—it required a two-thirds majority (five of seven votes) but only received four votes in favor. The roll call revealed the divide: voting yes to table were Buchanan, Elenbaas, Stremler, and Boyle; voting no were Galloway, Rienstra, and Scanlon. Council Member Ben Elenbaas then moved to hold the item rather than table it, allowing for continued discussion. His remarks revealed the personal nature of the fiscal pressure facing residents: "I know from my own personal experience and just from talking to everyone that... my tax burden is my biggest... thing that keeps me up at night, struggling to stay on top of it and not pay the penalties that come with not paying it in a timely fashion. And I make a very good wage, and I'm struggling... I'm behind on my property taxes on a parcel or two." Elenbaas continued with a powerful statement about democratic representation: "Over and over and over again, the people of the state of Washington have asked our legislative authorities to allow them to weigh in on increasing taxes. And I think as a council, we can respect that... I'm having a hard time looking my neighbor in the face and telling them that they need to pay more because I said so." Chair Galloway pushed back forcefully, arguing that delaying action would force the county to ask the sheriff's office "to absorb five to seven million dollars. That looks like firing sheriff's deputies." She emphasized that "public safety is a foundational county obligation" and expressed concern about a hard deadline of April 14th for submitting the county's intention to the State Department of Revenue for the tax to take effect in July. The debate revealed deep disagreements about budget certainty versus democratic process. Executive Sidhu weighed in with stark language: "I would like to remind the council that... we are actually proposing cut the safety right now. We'll worry about it later. That's the message we are getting as the budget makers." He emphasized that "budget is the biggest anchor" and that "if we don't take care of the budget we can do anything nothing will work." Stremler responded that his commitment to voter input was so strong that he'd "be willing to wait those two years" if necessary "that's how important it is to me to let the voters decide." This philosophical difference—between the urgency of operational needs and the principle of democratic consent—would drive the entire discussion. ## The Legal and Procedural Complications As the discussion continued, complex legal questions emerged about what options were actually available to the council. During the dinner break, Council Members Stremler and Elenbaas had drafted an alternative ordinance to put the tax question to voters, but this created new complications. Council Attorney Kimberly Dalene explained that she had "negative five minutes" to review the proposed ballot measure ordinance and needed time to determine whether the relevant state statute (RCW 82.14.345) actually allowed the council to bypass the normal councilmanic authority and go directly to voters. The legal uncertainty added another layer of complexity to an already fraught decision. Deputy Executive Kayla Bressler clarified the operational implications: if the council delayed action, "the executive must deliver his budget to the council by September 1st so the executive would prepare the budget absent this Revenue." This would mean directing departments to "absorb the costs" through reductions elsewhere, specifically affecting "the sheriff's office lease payments, the jail, food and medical costs, as well as all labor cost increases across the criminal justice system." Council Member Scanlon attempted to find middle ground by suggesting different timing options. He noted that if they could get a measure on the August primary ballot, "voters say yes, then it becomes timely for our discussions on the mid biennium... biennial budget." This would avoid the timeline problems of waiting until November. Under Sheriff Harris provided sobering context about the operational impact of delays. He confirmed that the sheriff's office was already eligible for state grant funding regardless of the sales tax decision, but emphasized the devastating impact of potential budget cuts: "It's really, really scary as the undersheriff to think about what type of cuts we would have to make in order to absorb four to $5 billion. That's 30 to 35 of our FTEs. That's half of our patrol budget. I'm not sure how we're able to absorb those kind of cuts, and still provide any level of service to the citizens of the county." ## Resolution and Moving Forward After extensive debate, the motion to hold the item passed 6-1, with only Chair Galloway voting no. This allowed the public hearing to remain open until either April 7th or April 14th, giving the council time to explore multiple options: the original executive proposal, Council Member Scanlon's version with more specific spending direction, and the potential ballot measure. The procedural resolution revealed the council's commitment to thorough deliberation even under time pressure. As Council Member Boyle noted, "I don't think any of us take tax increases lightly. It's something that we really wrestle with." She appreciated "this conversation between the seven of us" and emphasized the importance of understanding "what's possible on the table" before making final decisions. The debate also introduced an ordinance (AB2026-255) by Council Member Scanlon that would direct tax revenues to specific purposes: jail health and food services, sheriff's office lease payments, and labor cost increases across the criminal justice system. This represented an attempt to address public concerns about accountability and specificity in spending. Most significantly, the council also introduced AB2026-259, the ballot measure ordinance drafted by Stremler and Elenbaas. Despite legal uncertainties, this passed 6-1 for introduction, with Chair Galloway voting no. The council amended it to allow placement on either a primary or general election, and added specific language indicating their intent that revenues would be "prioritized in the 2027-28 biennial budget for support to the Whatcom County Sheriff's Office for jail health and food services, support to the Whatcom County Sheriff's Office for lease payments for the new Sheriff's office, and support for labor costs necessary to maintain levels of service." The evening demonstrated the Whatcom County Council functioning as intended—wrestling with difficult decisions, responding to public input, exploring alternatives, and ultimately leaving options open for further community input. The debate revealed genuine philosophical differences among elected officials about representation, fiscal responsibility, and democratic process, but also showed a commitment to finding solutions that would serve both immediate operational needs and longer-term democratic legitimacy. ## Community Voices on Flooding and Rural Concerns While the tax debate dominated the evening, the open session provided a platform for other pressing community concerns, particularly flooding in the Nooksack River valley. The testimony painted a picture of rural communities feeling abandoned by decades of inadequate response to recurring disasters. Alexandra Williams, representing both the Whatcom County Farm Bureau and the Deming Diking District, delivered devastating statistics about governmental inaction. She revealed that 70% of flood control zone district advisory committee meetings had been canceled since the November 2021 flood—only 19 meetings held out of nearly 60 that should have occurred over five years. "If I called into work 70% of the time sick, I'd be fired," she observed pointedly. Williams, who farms 130-year-old family land near the Nooksack River and survived two historic floods, challenged the county's proposed $182 million flood mitigation plan: "How can the public have confidence in such a large scale flood plan when the very committee tasked with advising on flood management... isn't even meeting consistently?" She described a pattern of failure, including nearly $300,000 in flood grant funding spent on an evacuation alert system for Deming that "never worked" with "still no one held accountable for jeopardizing lives and wasting money." Jason Postma from Sumas provided a visceral timeline of flood anxiety: "191 days. We had 191 days to live our lives... 191 days to not incessantly check the weather forecast. To not fill our local Facebook groups with panicked questions... 191 days to feel normal." His testimony captured how flood risk has become a constant psychological burden for valley residents, who know that "in 191 days it will be October 1st" and the cycle of fear will begin again. The human cost was evident in Nicole Sandoval Postma's account of business closures in Sumas. She described a town with "one road, we don't have stoplights, we don't have any big chain restaurants, we literally have one road with mom and pop shops," now losing businesses because "they can't recover from the damages" and there's "no plan in the future that they can count on." As acting chamber president, she reported businesses "barely hanging on" and "literally one minor flood away from... closing all the businesses." Lynette Polinder, a nurse midwife living in Nooksack, provided heartbreaking personal testimony about the financial impossibility of recovery. Despite making "a decent wage," she and her teacher partner cannot afford the $200,000 cost to elevate their house, with FEMA offering only $30,000 in assistance. "I don't have $200,000 just sitting around," she said through tears, speaking for neighbors who "thought this would be the last home they would live in" and now "don't know what they're going to do." ## Other Community Concerns The evening also featured testimony on broader governance and development issues. Ryan Bowman delivered a sophisticated critique of county decision-making regarding industrial zoning impacts on residential communities in Marietta, Alderwood, and Birchwood. He argued that county actions "appear to extend the protections and services meant for people toward industry instead," creating conditions where "longtime residents" are being pushed out and replaced by "those with fewer protections and less ability to speak out." Bill Geyer, a certified professional planner, challenged county staff's approach to comprehensive plan decision-making, arguing that the county charter grants council members—not staff—the authority to make final decisions. He described instances where staff provided "negativity" about council authority and urged the council to remember that "you are the decision makers as the voters have empowered you." Sherwin Tonti raised concerns about what he termed the "Red Green Alliance" and Chinese Communist influence in local businesses, describing a threatening incident at a Ferndale freeze-dry facility involving a Chinese national who allegedly threatened employees before fleeing the country. The testimony from Austin Pepperitz on downtown Bellingham conditions, Natalie Chavez on vaccine safety research, and others rounded out a picture of a community grappling with multiple challenges requiring sustained attention from elected officials. ## Routine Business and Committee Work Despite the drama of the tax debate, the council completed substantial routine business. The consent agenda included numerous contract amendments for social services, infrastructure improvements, and interlocal agreements—the unglamorous but essential work of county government. Notable items included a $500,000 contract amendment with Bellingham Food Bank, $289,854 for early learning mental health services, and various infrastructure projects from stormwater improvements to senior center upgrades. The council also approved several budget amendments totaling over $4.6 million and updated economic development strategy project lists. The meeting concluded with council committee reports and member updates, including assignment of Council Member Boyle to serve on the Americans with Disabilities Act compliance committee and approval of support letters for federal flood mitigation funding and school transportation safety improvements. ## Closing Reflections The March 24th, 2026 Whatcom County Council meeting exemplified local democracy at work—messy, contentious, but ultimately responsive to community concerns. The criminal justice tax debate revealed genuine philosophical differences about representation and fiscal policy, while the flood testimony demonstrated the ongoing human cost of climate change and infrastructure failures in rural communities. As Council Member Boyle noted in her closing comments, she appreciated when officials discuss policy trade-offs honestly, "because people who are paying attention know that whenever you prioritize one thing, there's something that you can't prioritize." The evening's debates demonstrated this principle in action—the tension between immediate operational needs and democratic process, between urban and rural priorities, between fiscal constraints and community expectations. The meeting adjourned near 10 PM, leaving multiple major decisions pending until April, but having demonstrated that Whatcom County's elected officials were willing to engage seriously with both the substance and the democratic process of difficult fiscal decisions. Whether addressing criminal justice funding, flood mitigation, or development impacts, the council showed a commitment to deliberative democracy that honored both public input and governmental responsibility.