Whatcom County Council Committee of the Whole

The Whatcom County Council Committee of the Whole held a comprehensive policy session addressing state legislative priorities, urban growth area proposals, and governance reforms. The most significant action was preliminary approval of portions of urban growth area proposals from cities of Nooksack and Blaine, marking progress on the overdue 2025 comprehensive plan update that was legally required by December 31, 2025. The legislative session discussion resulted in formal county support for three state bills: HB 2442/SB 6294 allowing counties to implement progressive real estate excise taxes for affordable housing (passed 5-1), HB 2520 clarifying emergency meeting authorities under OPMA (passed 6-0), and authorization for Councilmember Galloway to engage in the legislative process on DNR ecosystem services legislation HB 2170/SB 5999 as "other" rather than supporter (passed 4-1-1). Urban growth area deliberations consumed significant meeting time and revealed deep divisions over flood risk management. The Nooksack proposal sparked intense debate about approving new development in flood-prone areas before adequate infrastructure protection is in place. After a complete proposal failed 2-5, Council ultimately approved only the upland portions (areas 3 and 4) by a 5-2 vote. Blaine's revised proposal, which actually reduces their UGA by 610 acres to protect drinking water sources, passed unanimously 7-0. The meeting also advanced a simplified outdoor musical entertainment ordinance that aligns county thresholds with state law (raising the permit requirement from 1,000 to 2,000 attendees), and discussed implementation of eight voter-approved charter amendments. Most significantly, Council authorized up to $9,999 for professional facilitation of a council strategic planning process, indicating institutional commitment to improved governance. The session highlighted ongoing tensions between development pressure and climate resilience, with Councilmember Jessica Rienstra's lived experience of repeated flooding in supposedly safe areas providing powerful testimony against approving questionable flood zone development.

**State Legislative Agenda (3 actions taken):** - HB 2442/SB 6294 (progressive real estate excise tax for affordable housing): Approved 5-1, with Stremler opposing - HB 2520 (emergency meeting authority): Approved 6-0 with one away - HB 2170/SB 5999 (DNR ecosystem services): Authorized Galloway to engage as "other" 4-1-1 (Stremler opposed, Buchanan abstaining) **Urban Growth Area Proposals:** - Nooksack complete proposal: Failed 2-5 (only Stremler and Elenbaas supporting) - Nooksack areas 3 and 4 only: Approved 5-2 (Stremler and Elenbaas opposing) - Blaine revised proposal: Approved 7-0 (reduces UGA by 610 acres) **Ordinance Introduction:** - Outdoor musical entertainment code amendment: Approved 7-0 for evening introduction **Other Approvals:** - Council strategic planning facilitation funding up to $9,999: Approved 6-1 (Elenbaas opposing) All actions exceeded staff recommendations where applicable. The Nooksack split decision notably diverged from planning staff and city preferences for the complete proposal.

**Councilmember Jon Scanlon, on infrastructure planning:** "I'm worried about the existing population, and I think in a comprehensive process to look at how we're planning for the future, we should be looking at the infrastructure needs, and I think that's infrastructure that includes existing population and not just future." **Councilmember Jessica Rienstra, on flood risk:** "My anecdotal and unique experience of moving into an area very similar to 6, 7, and 8 that was right outside of a floodplain and then being flooded twice does very much impact my hesitancy here for those specific areas." **Councilmember Ben Elenbaas, on local autonomy:** "Nobody wants to flood worse than the people that live in Nooksack. They also hold their elected officials accountable directly, unlike you guys. They're an insignificant voting block to you guys. Yet here we sit when we clearly know that nobody wants to flood less than the people that are in harm's way." **Chair Kaylee Galloway, on comprehensive planning timeline:** "It took us 45 minutes to talk about one, one UGA proposal. So I think as we continue to work on our schedule for this comp plan process, I think it's good that we factor in lots of time, lots of time." **Councilmember Jon Scanlon, on audit value:** "I have always found the conversations with evaluators and auditors to be so helpful for my work because it's a time to reflect... it's explaining to somebody about what your job is. And somebody who doesn't know what you're doing, it helps you, I think, sometimes to think about how does that you talk about your work?" **Joel Pitts-Jordan, on performance audits:** "Performance audits function in much of the same way [as medical practitioners]. Over the course of 12 to 18 months, auditors will talk to affected people. They'll observe department work, analyze data, and review laws and best practices."

# A Packed Committee Meeting: Legislative Lobbying, Flood Zone Development, and Strategic Planning At 1:03 p.m. on Tuesday, January 27, 2026, the Whatcom County Council Committee of the Whole convened in hybrid format for what would become a dense, three-hour working session that touched on everything from state legislative strategy to the contentious politics of building in flood-prone areas. ## Meeting Overview Chair Kaylee Galloway called the meeting to order with six items on the agenda, though the discussion would sprawl well beyond the planned topics. All seven council members were present, creating a full table for what would prove to be consequential deliberations on urban growth areas, performance audits, and county priorities. The meeting operated as both a policy workshop and a glimpse into the practical mechanics of local government — from the technical details of real estate excise taxes to the raw tensions of council members wrestling with whether to approve development in areas that have flooded twice in recent years. ## State Legislative Advocacy: Three Bills, Three Different Approaches The meeting opened with Jed Holmes from the Executive's Office updating council on the county's 2026 state legislative priorities. The county was pushing ferry district legislation through both chambers, had submitted capital budget requests for behavioral care center flexibility and flood prevention infrastructure, and was working to secure adequate court funding. But the real action came when Chair Galloway presented three bills for potential county support, each revealing different council dynamics and decision-making processes. ### House Bill 2442: Progressive Revenue for Affordable Housing Councilmember John Scanlon took the lead on HB 2442, which would allow counties to implement a graduated real estate excise tax for affordable housing. Currently, only San Juan County can use this tool — the result of what Scanlon called one of those legislative quirks where "a great former 40th legislative district representative was doing a good thing for San Juan County" but created an inequitable system. The bill would establish a progressive fee structure, with sales over $3.025 million paying 3% while sales of $525,000 or less would pay just 1.1%. "This brings in a different mechanism that would hit high income households at a different level than lower income households," Scanlon explained. "And to me, that's a positive thing because maybe we can at some point say, all right, we're bringing in this revenue over here to help with affordable housing. Maybe we drop some things on property tax." The council had supported similar legislation for two years running. Scanlon moved to add both HB 2442 and its Senate companion SB 6294 to their legislative agenda. The motion carried 5-1, with Councilmember Mark Stremler dissenting and Councilmember Ben Elenbaas away from the meeting. ### House Bill 2520: Emergency Meeting Authority The second bill was more straightforward — HB 2520 would clarify that government bodies can hold emergency meetings remotely without first providing public listening options during declared emergencies. The bill had support from other counties and the Washington State Association of Counties. Galloway moved to support the bill, noting it would formalize what had been informal practice during recent flood emergencies. After brief discussion about whether the authority would end with the declaration of emergency (yes), the motion carried 6-0. ### House Bill 2170: Forest Management and Ecosystem Services The third bill proved the most complex. HB 2170 would give the Department of Natural Resources authority to enter new markets for ecosystem services — essentially allowing them to monetize the climate and environmental benefits of forest conservation rather than just timber revenue. Galloway described the delicate balance DNR faces as both a revenue generator for beneficiaries like counties and school districts, and as a steward of public lands for climate resilience and ecosystem health. "This would give us an opportunity to participate in the discussions of this," she said, acknowledging that "some counties support this, some counties don't." The politics were tricky. Councilmember Stremler questioned committing to legislation that was "still to be determined." Several members worried about impacts on school districts and wanted tribal consultation language strengthened. After extensive discussion, Councilmember Elizabeth Boyle crafted a compromise motion: "that Councilmember Galloway represent Whatcom County with a sign in as 'other' so that we have the opportunity to learn more about this legislation and potentially help shape it." This creative solution allowed county engagement without full endorsement. The motion carried 4-1-1, with Stremler opposed and Councilmember Barry Buchanan abstaining. ## Urban Growth Areas: The Politics of Flood-Prone Development The meeting's most emotionally charged section dealt with urban growth area proposals — specifically, whether to allow cities to expand development boundaries into areas with flood risk. ### Nooksack: Living with Water Roland Harper from the City of Nooksack presented his city's modest expansion proposal, emphasizing that Nooksack had successfully annexed over 130 acres of previous urban growth area in just six years and had seen remarkable population growth — 250 new residents in two years alone, representing 25% of their 20-year growth projection. The city's proposal included several small areas: nine acres in three sections (numbered 6, 7, and 8) north of the existing city limits, plus areas 3 and 4 for industrial and residential development on higher ground. But the discussion quickly focused on flood risk. Councilmember Scanlon, who had supported similar expansions in the past, expressed new caution: "Until the infrastructure's put in place that's going to protect folks, we know what can happen. So I think in all this conversation, we should be talking about the cost of what it's going to take to make sure that people are safe." The tension was palpable when Councilmember Jessica Rienstra — who lives in Nooksack and experienced recent flooding firsthand — spoke about her hesitation: "I really can't move in a direction that would increase that risk for others as well. So just curious about the use of that land in the south, if there's plans for that specifically." Harper patiently explained that the city planned to require new construction at least two feet above flood elevation, following the model of neighboring Everson and Sumas. But Rienstra's lived experience carried weight: "I guess my anecdotal and unique experience of moving into an area very similar to 6, 7, and 8 that was right outside of a floodplain and then being flooded twice does very much impact my hesitancy." The clash of perspectives intensified when Councilmember Ben Elenbaas, returning to the meeting during the discussion, expressed frustration with the council's reluctance: "Nobody wants to flood worse than the people that live in Nooksack. They also hold their elected officials accountable directly, unlike you guys... Yet here we sit when we clearly know that nobody wants to flood less than the people that are in harm's way. And we're just going to tell them we know better." This drew a sharp response from Chair Galloway, who noted that "we do have a Council Member who lives in Nooksack. So there's some really direct lived experience here." When the full Nooksack proposal came to a vote, it failed decisively: 2-5, with only Elenbaas and Stremler supporting. But Scanlon wasn't ready to abandon Nooksack entirely. He crafted a compromise motion to support only areas 3 and 4 — the portions on higher ground away from flood risk. "We're saying yes to 3 and 4. Not saying no to anything else," Scanlon explained. "We are leaving other things on the table to continue the discussion." This motion carried 5-2, giving Nooksack partial approval while maintaining council concerns about flood-prone areas. ### Blaine: Simplification and Reduction The City of Blaine's revised proposal proved much less controversial. Community Development Director Alex Wenger explained that Blaine was actually reducing its urban growth area by 610 acres, removing previous expansion plans for the Birch Point area. The city's comprehensive plan update focused on infill development and industrial land expansion, with recent major projects including a 390-unit development approved just the night before. Blaine also wanted to preserve wellhead protection areas that were critical for regional water supply. After brief discussion about downtown densification and road infrastructure costs, Scanlon moved to support Blaine's updated proposal. The motion carried unanimously 7-0. ### Cherry Point: Industrial Zoning Cleanup The Cherry Point discussion was brief and technical. Planning Director Matt Aamot explained a proposal to remove about 385 acres from the urban growth area — land that was already in conservation easements or protective covenants and unsuitable for industrial development. The council had no objections to this cleanup effort, though Chair Galloway noted she'd like to see "all in one place where industry zones are getting switched and how we're... at least minimally at net neutral, net zero loss" of industrial capacity. ## Performance Audits: Implementing Voter Will One of the meeting's most substantive discussions centered on implementing a charter amendment requiring performance audit capability — an 80%-plus voter-approved measure that had been referred back to committee for more work. Joel Pitts-Jordan, the Charter Review Commission member who had authored the amendment, appeared to explain the original intent. He described performance audits as like "a really good medical practitioner" — assessing symptoms, providing diagnosis, and recommending treatment plans. "Those recommendations could be managerial," he explained. "They could be budgetary. It could be that a particular office or program is not resourced to the level to complete the task that's been given to it. And those recommendations could be legislative. It could be that a particular statute is getting in the way of the full implementation of that program." The commission had deliberately avoided mandating dedicated funding, Pitts-Jordan noted, wanting to give the council maximum flexibility during challenging fiscal times. But the legal complexities proved thorny. County Attorney Kimberly Thulin explained that the draft ordinance needed language specifying "as permitted by law" because constitutional separation of powers limited the council's audit authority over judicial and other independent branches. This sparked a detailed discussion between Thulin and Scanlon about what exactly could be audited. Could council audit a recovery court program it funded? "I think to the extent that council's talking about the financial effectiveness, salaries, that kind of thing, you're well within your rights," Thulin explained. "But beyond that, you are limited." Deputy Executive Kayla Schott-Bresler offered the administration's perspective, noting that many departments already conducted extensive performance reviews for federal and state funders. She encouraged the council to clarify upfront what goals they hoped to achieve and to consider "the short-term fiscal impacts" of auditing work. "What is the council going to indicate they'd like to deprioritize in order to fund these audits?" she asked, noting the county faced years with "no extra cushion in the budget." The discussion revealed both the promise and complexity of performance auditing. Council members appreciated the transparency goal while wrestling with practical questions of scope, funding, and constitutional limitations. The item remained in committee for further refinement. ## Council Strategic Planning: Investing in Process In the meeting's final moments, Chair Galloway raised an unexpected topic: the possibility of hiring a facilitator for council strategic planning as part of their upcoming retreat. The idea grew from recognition that council agendas were packed with required business — charter mandates, budget processes, regulatory updates — leaving little time for proactive initiatives. "Sometimes we can lose the things where council members have ideas and want to lead on initiatives and that kind of stuff takes time," Scanlon observed. Galloway explained that a facilitated process could help the council move beyond simple priority lists toward "actionable items" and "performance indicators." Councilmember Buchanan noted the value of having external facilitation: "allows all council members to 100% participate rather than have to facilitate the meeting itself." But Councilmember Elenbaas expressed skepticism about professional facilitators: "I don't like the idea of facilitating things just simply because they do have that bag of tricks and it feels like sometimes we facilitate an outcome." Despite this concern, the council voted 6-1 to authorize up to $9,999 for strategic planning facilitation, giving Galloway and Scanlon authority to explore options and report back. ## Procedural Innovation and Time Management Throughout the three-hour meeting, the council grappled with time management and procedural efficiency. The urban growth area discussions proved particularly time-intensive — Chair Galloway noted it took 45 minutes to discuss just one UGA proposal, requiring the council to reconsider how much meeting time to allocate for comprehensive plan work. The meeting also showcased creative parliamentary procedure. When the DNR forest management bill proved politically sensitive, the council crafted a "sign in as other" compromise that allowed engagement without commitment. When the Nooksack flood zone development raised concerns, partial approval kept the process moving while addressing specific worries. These innovations reflected a council working to balance competing pressures: voter mandates requiring action, practical concerns about public safety, political dynamics among seven independent members, and the simple constraint of limited meeting time. ## Looking Forward: Themes and Tensions The January 27 committee meeting captured several recurring themes in Whatcom County governance: **Climate and Development Tensions**: The Nooksack UGA debate embodied the county's struggle to balance growth needs with climate adaptation. Council members' different risk tolerances — shaped by lived experience, political philosophy, and technical expertise — created productive but sometimes tense discussions. **State-Local Coordination**: The legislative advocacy discussion showed how counties must navigate state policy while maintaining local priorities. The forest management bill exemplified this complexity, requiring the county to engage with tribal nations, environmental groups, timber interests, and school districts simultaneously. **Process and Transparency**: From performance audits to strategic planning, the council consistently returned to questions of public engagement and accountability. How do elected officials balance efficiency with openness? How do they ensure voter-mandated reforms actually improve governance? **Resource Constraints**: Nearly every discussion touched on funding limitations — whether for flood protection infrastructure, performance audits, or strategic planning facilitation. The council operated within tight fiscal constraints while facing expensive mandates and community expectations. As the meeting adjourned at 4:05 p.m., council members had authorized state lobbying efforts, given partial approval to development proposals, advanced voter-mandated reforms, and invested in their own strategic capacity. The work represented incremental progress on multiple fronts — the steady accumulation of decisions that shape county direction over time. The evening council meeting would follow immediately, with an amended agenda including the outdoor music ordinance that had been discussed and recommended earlier. In the grinding routine of local government, Tuesday, January 27, 2026, had proven remarkably productive — a day when Whatcom County Council moved several significant issues forward while wrestling with the fundamental tensions of governing a diverse, growing region facing climate challenges and resource constraints.

**Meeting ID:** WHA-CON-CTW-2026-01-27 A structured study guide helping readers understand the meeting's content and context. ### Meeting Overview The Whatcom County Council Committee of the Whole met on January 27, 2026, to discuss legislative priorities for the 2026 state session, urban growth area proposals from cities, and implementation of voter-approved charter amendments. The meeting covered significant decisions about state legislation support and preliminary approval of some city expansion proposals. ### Key Terms and Concepts **Urban Growth Area (UGA):** Designated areas where cities plan to expand over the next 20 years, required under Washington's Growth Management Act to concentrate development and preserve rural areas. **Real Estate Excise Tax (REET):** A tax on property sales that can be dedicated to affordable housing programs; currently only available to San Juan County but proposed legislation would extend this to all counties. **Committee of the Whole:** A meeting format where all council members participate in detailed discussion before formal council action, allowing for more flexible debate. **Charter Amendment:** Changes to the county's governing document, approved by voters in 2025, requiring implementation by county government. **Performance Audit:** An evaluation of government programs to assess efficiency, effectiveness, and compliance with laws and policies. **OPMA (Open Public Meetings Act):** State law requiring government meetings to be open to the public, with specific emergency exemptions. **Floodplain/FEMA Flood Zone:** Areas mapped by the Federal Emergency Management Agency as prone to flooding, restricting development or requiring special construction standards. **FLIP (Flood Risk Management):** Whatcom County's flood mitigation planning process addressing recent flooding events. ### Key People at This Meeting | Name | Role / Affiliation | |---|---| | Kaylee Galloway | Council Chair | | John Scanlon | Council Member | | Elizabeth Boyle | Council Member | | Jessica Rienstra | Council Member | | Barry Buchanan | Council Member | | Mark Stremler | Council Member | | Ben Elenbaas | Council Member | | Jed Holmes | Executive's Office | | Matt Aamot | Planning & Development Services | | Rollin Harper | City of Nooksack Planner | | Alex Wenger | City of Blaine Community Development Director | | Joel Pitts-Jordan | Former Charter Review Commission Member | ### Background Context This meeting occurred during Washington state's legislative session, requiring counties to act quickly to support bills they want passed. Whatcom County has been dealing with significant flooding events that damaged homes and infrastructure, making flood-related development decisions particularly sensitive. The Growth Management Act requires cities and counties to plan for 20-year growth, but recent flooding has raised questions about where it's safe to build. Additionally, voters approved eight charter amendments in 2025 that change how county government operates, requiring implementation throughout 2026. ### What Happened — The Short Version Council members voted to support three state bills: one allowing counties to tax real estate sales for affordable housing (HB 2442), one clarifying emergency meeting rules (HB 2520), and gave preliminary support for exploring forest management legislation (HB 2170). For city expansion proposals, they gave partial approval to Nooksack's growth plans, supporting areas 3 and 4 but withholding support for flood-prone areas until more infrastructure planning is complete. They fully supported Blaine's revised proposal to actually reduce their growth area by 610 acres while focusing on downtown development. Council also discussed implementing voter-approved charter amendments and authorized up to $9,999 for a strategic planning facilitator. ### What to Watch Next • Legislative hearings on the three supported bills during the 2026 state session • Further discussion of Nooksack's remaining growth areas after flood infrastructure planning progresses • Council retreat planning for strategic planning session • Introduction of outdoor music festival ordinance changes • Continued implementation of charter amendments throughout 2026 ---

**Meeting ID:** WHA-CON-CTW-2026-01-27 **Q:** What are the three state bills the council voted to support? **A:** HB 2442 (real estate excise tax for affordable housing), HB 2520 (emergency meeting clarifications), and preliminary exploration of HB 2170 (forest management revenue). **Q:** Which council member led the discussion on HB 2442? **A:** Council Member John Scanlon, who has advocated for this real estate excise tax bill for the past two years. **Q:** What makes HB 2442's tax structure different from a flat tax? **A:** It's a graduated rate that increases with home sale prices - from 1.1% on homes under $525,000 to 3% on sales over $3.025 million. **Q:** Which areas of Nooksack's growth proposal did council preliminarily support? **A:** Areas 3 and 4 - the UGA reserve for light industrial development and the residential area near the middle school on higher ground. **Q:** Why did council withhold support for Nooksack areas 6, 7, and 8? **A:** Concerns about flood risk and lack of information about infrastructure costs needed to protect residents from flooding. **Q:** How much is Blaine proposing to reduce their urban growth area? **A:** By 610 acres, with no expansion proposed, focusing instead on infill development and downtown growth. **Q:** What was the main reason Blaine wants to remove the large area from their UGA? **A:** It's in their wellhead protection area where they get drinking water, and development could contaminate the water supply. **Q:** How much did council authorize for strategic planning facilitation? **A:** Up to $9,999 to hire an outside facilitator for council strategic planning work. **Q:** What threshold change does the outdoor music ordinance make? **A:** Raising the permit requirement from 1,000 attendees to 2,000 attendees for events lasting 5+ hours, aligning with state law. **Q:** Which council member lives in Nooksack and shared flood experience? **A:** Council Member Jessica Rienstra, who noted her house flooded twice in four years despite being outside the mapped flood zone. **Q:** What does FLIP stand for? **A:** Flood Risk Management - Whatcom County's process for planning flood mitigation infrastructure. **Q:** Who was the Charter Review Commission member who spoke about performance audits? **A:** Joel Pitts-Jordan, the primary author of the performance audit charter amendment (Proposition 3). **Q:** What vote count supported HB 2442? **A:** 5-1 with one council member away (Boyle, Buchanan, Galloway, Rienstra, and Scanlon voted yes; Stremler voted no). **Q:** What's the difference between Cherry Point's current and proposed zoning north of Grandview Road? **A:** Changing from light impact industrial to rural (one dwelling per 10 acres) for areas with conservation easements. **Q:** How many performance audits per year does Snohomish County average? **A:** 2.3 audits per year since 2006, costing between $60,000-$85,000 annually. **Q:** What was Council Member Elenbaas's concern about facilitated strategic planning? **A:** That facilitators sometimes "facilitate an outcome" rather than letting the process develop naturally. **Q:** What infrastructure project did Senator Shewmake offer to request funding for? **A:** A traffic study for the intersection of Mitchell Road and Mt. Baker Highway near Mount Baker School District. **Q:** Which areas did council say they wanted more information about before supporting? **A:** Nooksack areas 6, 7, and 8, pending flood infrastructure cost analysis and FLIP process results. ---