Whatcom County Council Committee of the Whole

The Whatcom County Council Committee of the Whole held a brief but substantive meeting on December 9, 2025, advancing three significant governance items while skipping comprehensive plan discussions due to time constraints. The 39-minute meeting focused on structural changes to council operations, environmental protection measures, and routine tax certification. The most debated item was AB2025-779, which would expand all standing committee memberships from three to seven members (all council members). This passed 4-3 after a spirited amendment process that added provisions for up to two vice chairs per committee. Council Member Jon Scanlon successfully argued that having chair and two vice chair positions would maintain focused leadership while allowing all seven members to participate. The council also recommended AB2025-813, a resolution to strengthen Lake Whatcom watershed protections by aligning county phosphorus neutral development codes with Bellingham's standards. This environmental measure passed 5-2 despite concerns from some members about costs and effectiveness. The proposal includes expanded homeowner education and regular inspection of private stormwater systems. A routine property tax levy certification (AB2025-826) was approved 6-1, formalizing previously made budget decisions. Two comprehensive plan items were postponed due to time constraints, with the committee choosing to adjourn early for a longer dinner break before the evening council meeting.

**AB2025-779 - Committee Structure Reform:** RECOMMENDED FOR ADOPTION WITH AMENDMENT (4-3 vote) - Expands all standing committee memberships from 3 to 7 members - Amendment added provision for "up to two vice chairs" per committee - Staff recommendation aligned with council action - Creates succession planning and potential minority representation **AB2025-813 - Lake Whatcom Watershed Protection:** RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL (5-2 vote) - Dockets comprehensive plan amendments to strengthen phosphorus neutral development codes - Seeks alignment with City of Bellingham standards - Includes homeowner education and private stormwater system inspections - Staff recommendation aligned with council action **AB2025-826 - Property Tax Levy Certification:** SUBSTITUTE RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL (6-1 vote) - Certifies county property tax levies for 2026 collection - Formalizes previously approved budget decisions - Staff recommendation aligned with council action **Items Not Acted Upon:** - AB2025-513 (Comprehensive Plan EIS alternatives) - postponed due to time - AB2025-701 (Comprehensive Plan amendments) - postponed due to time

**Council Member Ben Elenbaas, on committee expansion:** "I would rather that we stick with committees to divvy the work up and stick to that concept, then go this route." **Council Member Jon Scanlon, on working groups:** "The difference here, in going to seven is those three folks could then meet and work on issues in ways that normal human beings work on issues when they're not subject to the OPMA." **Council Member Tyler Byrd, on committee leadership:** "The intention is that committees will have more chairs than the council body as a whole has?" **Chair Kaylee Galloway, on legal compliance:** "We don't want, we want to work together without breaking the law. That's the intent." **Council Member Ben Elenbaas, on phosphorus standards:** "If the natural system, was, you know, phosphorus neutral, holding everyone to a phosphorus neutral standard would be one thing. But it's my understanding that just in the absence of humans, this would be a phosphorus dump." **Council Member Ben Elenbaas, questioning scientific basis:** "So I have a hard time with like, hey, let's, let's lay the standard that's phosphorus neutral when that's not natural." **Council Member Todd Donovan, on his Lake Whatcom legacy:** "Three years... this is his, his last hurrah."

# Whatcom County Council Committee of the Whole Meeting — December 9, 2025 ## Meeting Overview The Whatcom County Council Committee of the Whole convened on Tuesday afternoon, December 9, 2025, for what would become a streamlined 39-minute session focused on three key policy decisions. All seven council members were present in the hybrid meeting format, with Chair Kaylee Galloway presiding from the Council Chambers in the County Courthouse. The meeting was deliberately shortened due to scheduling constraints. Two substantial agenda items — a comprehensive plan environmental impact statement discussion and comprehensive plan amendments — were postponed to ensure adequate time for three action items requiring committee recommendations to the full council. This efficiency-focused approach reflected the practical reality of governing bodies managing complex schedules while ensuring thorough deliberation on matters requiring formal votes. The atmosphere was collegial but focused, with council members demonstrating familiarity with the issues and comfort engaging in substantive policy debates. This was notably one of the final meetings for outgoing Councilmember Todd Donovan, adding a sense of transition to the proceedings. ## Committee Structure Reform: Seven-Member Committees and Vice Chairs The most procedurally significant item was an ordinance fundamentally restructuring how the county's standing committees operate. Currently, committees have three members each, but this proposal would expand all standing committees to include all seven council members while adding new leadership positions. Councilmember Jon Scanlon, who moved to recommend the ordinance, explained the rationale: "The idea is getting at the conversation we had when this was first introduced, that it is nice in our current format that you have three people who are dedicated to the issues of that committee. So we will still continue to have a structure where there's three people who are in the lead on that committee, so it'd be the chair and the two vice chairs in the lead on that committee." The key innovation was Scanlon's amendment creating formal vice chair positions. His original proposal would have mandated "Each committee shall have a chair, a first vice chair and a second vice chair." Chair Galloway suggested friendlier language: "The committee members shall be responsible for election of a chairperson, up to two vice chairs, and its internal organization." The debate revealed competing philosophies about committee governance. Scanlon argued the structure would allow the three leadership positions to work together outside Open Public Meetings Act constraints: "The difference here, in going to seven is those three folks could then meet and work on issues in ways that normal human beings work on issues when they're not subject to the OPMA." Councilmember Ben Elenbaas expressed skepticism about the fundamental premise: "I would rather that we stick with committees to divvy the work up and stick to that concept, then go this route." He noted the irony of expanding county committees to seven members while simultaneously advocating for the health board to move to five members: "I'm just trying to put my finger on the equity to the community. On how that works." Councilmember Mark Stremler questioned the practical implementation: "I'm not understanding more than a chair we don't have, we don't have that on Committee of the Whole now, it seems to function. And I know some of the other, the other committees are a little bit more focused, but I don't, I don't know what take a lead or take the lead. I don't know what that how that's going to like flesh out?" The discussion took a notable turn when Councilmember Tyler Byrd observed: "The intention is that committees will have more chairs than the council body as a whole has." This prompted some discussion about the unusual nature of having more leadership positions in committees than in the full council. Legal counsel Kimberly Thulin clarified an important point for the record: "I just want to clarify for the legislative record that it's not Council in considering this proposal that you're not intending to circumvent the open public meeting act." Chair Galloway confirmed: "The intent is not to break the law, correct? Yeah, we don't want, we want to work together without breaking the law. That's the intent." Elenbaas raised timing concerns: "I also find it interesting that we're voting on this right the meeting before we have two new council members, and I would think that maybe they might want to weigh in on this." However, proponents noted the need to have the structure in place before annual reorganization to avoid having to reorganize twice. The amendment passed 4-3 (Buchanan, Donovan, Galloway, Scanlon voting yes; Byrd, Elenbaas, Stremler voting no). The main motion to recommend the amended ordinance also passed 4-3 with the same vote breakdown. ## Lake Whatcom Watershed Protection Enhancement A resolution to strengthen Lake Whatcom watershed protections generated substantial debate about environmental regulation, cost-benefit analysis, and interjurisdictional coordination. The resolution, sponsored by Chair Galloway and Councilmember Donovan, would docket comprehensive plan and zoning amendments to enhance phosphorus neutral development codes and expand stormwater system oversight. Galloway provided context: "Council member Donovan and I have been serving as our council, the council's representatives on the lake welcome policy group for several years now. And I think council member Donovan even many years before. Years before I and this is one of the issues that's come up a number of times, specifically and most recently in the update of the lake welcome management program." The proposal has two main components: strengthening phosphorus neutral development codes to align with Bellingham's standards, and creating expanded homeowner education and inspection programs for private stormwater systems. "So many people who live in the lake welcome watershed have private stormwater systems. Some may not know that they have those storm water systems, or know what you know red flags look like if their storm water system is no longer functioning as it should," Galloway explained. Donovan characterized this as part of "trying to make city and county regulations a bit more harmonious terms of storm water and other things." He noted the proposal was intentionally left open-ended: "I hope I wasn't being too cynical, and I said, this will get docketed. Maybe not see it for a couple of years, but yeah, it's been left pretty open to see where can go with it." Elenbaas offered the strongest opposition, questioning the fundamental premise of phosphorus neutrality: "But it's my understanding that just in the absence of humans, this would be a phosphorus dump, just with the the the way that the the geography and soils and landscape function here. So I have a hard time with like, hey, let's, let's lay the standard that's phosphorus neutral when that's not natural." He worried about cost without measurable benefits: "I'm concerned that this is going to add a lot of cost with very little measurable outcome." Elenbaas also raised an equity concern: "And as you move further and further away from the lake, like phosphorus neutral is probably less important than it sounds." Stremler pressed for concrete analysis: "I would hope that down the road that if the county changes their code, that that we get some idea of what these changes might cost someone who's going to, in a sense, you know, move forward with a project come with cost notes, right?" Chair Galloway acknowledged this need: "Yeah, you'll be able to be we're already seeing, it's from PDS has got already starting in some of their things. So you'll see, I was impressed. They're getting ahead of the curve there." Galloway defended the broader policy goal: "This to me, the health of Lake welcome makes sense for all of our county like I've been saying and advocating before and mentioned earlier today when Gary was here with us. I think Lake welcomes a potential drinking water source for more folks in our county, and I think it makes sense for all of us to invest in the health of Lake welcome as we plan for the future." The practical implementation drew questions from Byrd about coordination with Bellingham: "So the assumption is that we would change all the changes would be on our end to match it up. The city of Bellingham wouldn't be making any changes to their code." Executive staff member Aly Pennucci clarified: "The intent here is to align the two codes. So if, coming out of the work that staff does and with experts, if there was something that would suggest a departure from Bellingham standards, I think the county would be working with the city to align the codes." She provided historical context: "I will say originally, when this code provision was brought forward at the county, it was riding alongside the same requirements for the city of Bellingham and the county council at that time chose to sort of make changes after the stakeholder work in the staff proposal. So the idea here is to get back into alignment." Byrd raised concerns about the rushed timeline and lack of detailed discussion: "I'm a little disappointed to see this on the Committee of the Whole as well as tonight's agenda for final vote... there's a number of items in there. It's just, it's not one change. There's several potential changes... I would say, I know we're pushed for time, but hold this to the next meeting and take the time to go over it and review the presentation and discuss each one of the items." Galloway noted the item had been introduced a month earlier: "This presentation was given to us on June 4 as a part of the joint councils commissioners meeting... we brought this forward to council, I think, on the fifth of November, as a way to kind of try to introduce the topic, give council members time to think about it, research, it, stakeholder, it, whatever was needed." An interesting jurisdictional question arose about Skagit County's role, since a small portion of the watershed extends into that county. Scanlon noted from checking Google Maps: "I think there's maybe like three or four homes off Alger CCC, road, veteran, Skagit, and in the watershed, I think the rest of that is forestry." The resolution passed 5-2 (Buchanan, Donovan, Elenbaas, Galloway, Scanlon voting yes; Byrd and Stremler voting no). ## Property Tax Levy Certification The final action item was routine but essential: certifying the county's property tax levies for collection in 2026. This administrative resolution formalizes budget decisions previously made by the council. Galloway characterized it succinctly: "So I understand this to be formalizing decisions that we've we've made looks like we've got a substitute resolution." Donovan asked for clarification, prompting some good-natured confusion: "We already proved these. This is adding in the missing jurisdictions or so. This is certifying our county Levy, not the symmetric we ask that question every Yeah, just like deja vu all over again." The motion to recommend passed 6-1, with only Elenbaas voting no, though he seemed uncertain about his position. When asked if he wanted to change his vote, he confirmed: "Council member, Ellen boss, no." ## Cemetery District Deadline Extension In other business, the committee addressed a late submission from Cemetery District Number Seven, which had missed the December 1st deadline for submitting levy information. Clerk Cathy Halka explained: "Today, we received a submittal from cemetery district number seven, and I've issued a second agenda revision for the council evening meeting agenda to add an item to recertify the levy amounts to the assessor, including the cemetery district number seven." Legal counsel Kimberly Thulin provided guidance on the permissibility: "The statutory deadlines for the taxing districts have been legally determined to be remedial in nature and not mandatory... if the taxing district misses a deadline, they are limited to the amount that was previously assessed the previous year. So in this instance, the court, the council, can consider this proposal to add in district seven, so that's legally permissible." The penalty for missing the deadline is clear: the district can only levy what they levied the previous year. Since their 2026 request was actually lower than their 2025 levy, this limitation posed no problem. ## Closing & What's Ahead As the meeting concluded, Chair Galloway offered the committee a choice: return to the comprehensive plan discussions that had been postponed, or adjourn early for a longer dinner break before the evening council meeting. The consensus was clear: "I'm hearing some consensus for a longer dinner." The meeting adjourned at 3:51 p.m., with council members preparing to reconvene at 6:00 p.m. for the evening session. The efficient handling of three substantive issues demonstrated the committee's ability to move decisively on policy matters while maintaining space for meaningful debate on complex governance questions. The session highlighted ongoing tensions between efficiency and deliberation, between expanded participation and focused expertise, and between environmental protection and economic impact — all fundamental challenges in local governance that will continue to shape Whatcom County's policy directions in the years ahead.