Whatcom County Council Committee of the Whole

Whatcom County Council's Committee of the Whole tackled a packed agenda covering state legislative updates, critical urban growth area decisions, comprehensive planning challenges, and government reform initiatives during their 3-hour 20-minute hybrid meeting. The session was dominated by contentious discussions over floodplain development and housing capacity requirements that will shape the county's growth for decades to come. The meeting opened with positive news from Olympia, where the county's ferry district legislation and $15 million flood mitigation request are advancing through the legislative process. However, the bulk of the afternoon focused on urban growth area (UGA) proposals from Everson and Sumas, both seeking to expand onto agricultural land while grappling with flood risk concerns that have become acute following recent devastating flooding. Council took preliminary action on both UGA proposals but added significant constraints. For Everson, they approved the overall proposal but required that a 15.79-acre area north of the Nooksack River remain in UGA reserve rather than immediate development status due to future flood risks and uncertainty about ring dike placement. For Sumas, they approved the city's ambitious westward expansion plan but similarly held back a flood-prone area from immediate development consideration. The afternoon's most complex discussion centered on Planning Commission concerns about Bellingham's comprehensive plan, specifically a $133 million annual funding gap for affordable housing development. Planning Commissioner Dan Dunn argued that without identified funding sources, the city cannot legally claim capacity to house lower-income residents as required by state law. City of Bellingham staff countered that their approach follows state guidance and has been endorsed by the Department of Commerce. Council also advanced a performance audit ordinance that would implement voter-approved charter changes, despite Executive concerns about scope and reporting requirements. The measure passed with amendments after extensive debate about the balance between Council oversight authority and executive operational control. In a final action, they appointed Council Member Ben Elenbaas to lead the county's Emergency Medical Services levy planning committee.

**Urban Growth Area Decisions:** - **Everson UGA Proposal (AB2026-078):** Approved 7-0 with amendment requiring southern half of area 1 (15.79 acres) to remain in UGA reserve until flood infrastructure decisions are made. Amendment passed 5-2. - **Sumas UGA Proposal (AB2026-078):** Approved 4-0 with 3 abstentions, with amendment requiring area 2 to remain as UGA reserve rather than moving to full UGA status. Amendment passed 4-3. **Performance Audit Ordinance (AB2026-041):** - Recommended substitute ordinance for introduction 7-0 with three amendments: - Modified sixth whereas clause regarding State Auditor responsibilities - Added seventh whereas clause about State Auditor additional services - Retained subsection G with language requiring elected officials to report on audit implementations in their jurisdictions **Emergency Medical Services Committee (AB2026-132):** - Appointed Ben Elenbaas as primary representative and Kaylee Galloway as alternate to EMS 2029-2034 Levy Committee **Legislative Session Update (AB2026-037):** - Received briefing on county priorities including ferry district legislation (HB 2588 passed House Transportation Committee) and $15 million flood mitigation capital request - Noted potential $7.6 million annual funding for indigent defense services if state income tax proposal passes

**Council Member Ben Elenbaas, on Sumas's challenges:** "There really is only one option for their growth... They either start walking down that path now, or we drag our feet and drag our feet and drag our feet. And if somebody says no along the way, we can tackle that and address it. But if we say no right now, I feel like the City of Sumas is going to be on the endangered species list pretty soon." **Council Member Jon Scanlon, on flood safety concerns:** "If I'm 100, if I'm still here, I got to look somebody in the eye and say, yes, I approve this and I thought it was safe. That's for me. And I think in order to do that, we have to build the infrastructure to make sure that that is okay to live there." **Planning Commissioner Dan Dunn, on Growth Management Act compliance:** "If you're going to say that you're accommodating the thing, whether it's housing or economic development or anything else, need to show that you actually can do that and there's not something giant that's in the way." **Mayor John Perry (Everson), on timing and flood infrastructure:** "If the flood had been two months later, three months later, we'd be having a different conversation. So I think given the heightened awareness to flooding and the spotlight on that particular property, us being able to take a step back and get the information that we need to fully vet it, I think would be wise." **Josh Weiss, on potential indigent defense funding:** "I have never seen the state come up with such a large portion of new revenue source or any revenue source for that matter dedicated to county services. So this is, I would say it's a big deal, but not advising anybody to cash any checks yet." **Council Member Jessica Rienstra, on decision-making responsibility:** "The safety and the well-being of the residents are of the utmost importance to me. And I want to be able to sleep at night knowing that I made a good decision for everybody there."

## Meeting Overview The Whatcom County Council Committee of the Whole met for a marathon 3-hour-and-20-minute session on Tuesday, February 10th, 2026, grappling with some of the most consequential planning decisions the county has faced in years. Chair Kaylee Galloway presided over a hybrid meeting that tackled everything from state legislative updates to the politically fraught question of where cities should be allowed to grow in a county increasingly constrained by floodplains and agricultural preservation. The meeting was notable for its substantive policy discussions and the visible tension between enabling local communities to survive and thrive versus protecting residents from future flood risks. All seven council members were present for what would become a deep dive into the challenges facing small cities trying to expand in a landscape shaped by climate change, agricultural protection, and the Growth Management Act's housing mandates. ## State Legislative Session Update The meeting opened with Jed Holmes from the County Executive's office and lobbyist Josh Weiss from Columbia Policy Advisors delivering a mid-session update on the county's legislative priorities in Olympia. At day 30 of the 60-day legislative session, they reported mixed progress on key county initiatives. The county ferry district legislation—aimed at removing passenger-only limitations from Whatcom County's ferry authority—appeared to be making good progress, though Weiss noted concerning partisan divisions in the House. "A little concerned, it has been more of a partisan issue in the House than it has in the Senate," he told the council. The House version, sponsored by Representative Timmons (House Bill 2588), had passed out of the Transportation Committee but was waiting in Rules for a floor vote. The Senate version maintained bipartisan support, providing a backup option. On the county's $15 million flood mitigation funding request, Weiss provided a timeline: budget proposals would emerge around February 22nd, with the House leading this year. "We're in the stage in the budget process where we've got the information in that they need," he explained. "They're in the process of figuring out how much money they have in the capital budget to spend and where it will go." The session's most intriguing development was the potential windfall from Senate Bill 6346—the so-called "millionaire's tax." If passed, this income tax on high earners could provide approximately $7.6 million annually to Whatcom County for indigent defense services. However, Weiss cautioned council members not to "cash any checks yet," noting multiple uncertainties: the bill might not pass, could face constitutional challenges, might be subject to referendum, and wouldn't generate revenue until 2029 even in the best case scenario. Council Member Mark Stremler pressed on the policy implications of the tax proposal, asking whether potential wealthy resident departures had been considered. Holmes and Weiss diplomatically explained they were simply tracking bills that could affect county finances, not advocating positions on broader tax policy. ## Everson's Urban Growth Area Proposal Mayor John Perry and City Planner Alex Putnam presented Everson's proposal to add approximately 70 acres to their Urban Growth Area, with 34 acres coming from county agricultural land and 16 acres from their existing UGA reserve. To offset these additions, Everson proposed returning 66 acres of agricultural land to the county—a net reduction in their UGA footprint. "We're experiencing a pretty substantial boom in development, and expansion of the UGA is necessary to meet our housing needs," Putnam explained. The proposal focused on areas outside the current FEMA floodplain, reflecting the city's goal of "encouraging development outside of the floodplain." However, Council Member John Scanlon raised concerns about Area 1—a 15.79-acre parcel north of the river. His questions centered on future flood protection infrastructure, specifically whether ring dikes being studied by the county might conflict with residential development in that area. "Would that infrastructure potentially have to move to accommodate this area if that is used for housing?" he asked. Mayor Perry acknowledged the uncertainty, explaining that while the feasibility study for ring dikes was underway, results wouldn't be available for 6 months to a year, with the full study not completed until July 2027. He described potential alignments either east along Trapline Road or through Riverside Park, noting that in the 2025 flood, "about 4 inches of water overtopping Stickney Island Road" had occurred. The discussion revealed the complexity of planning for flood protection while accommodating growth. Perry emphasized that this property "didn't see water" in the 2021 flood and looked like "normal field flooding" during the 2025 event—"It didn't look any different than probably 90 percent of Whatcom County at that point." County planner Matt Aamot suggested keeping the area in UGA reserve status, allowing for annual reconsideration once more information became available about flood protection infrastructure. Mayor Perry accepted this compromise: "I think that's a good compromise given the kind of unknowns for that area." He noted the patience of property owners who had been in UGA reserve for about 20 years, adding, "their timing was just, if the flood had been two months later, three months later, we'd be having a different conversation." Council Member Rienstra moved preliminary support for Everson's proposal, with Scanlon successfully amending the motion to keep the southern half of Area 1 in UGA reserve. The amendment passed 5-2, with the full amended proposal passing unanimously 7-0. ## Sumas's Urban Growth Area Expansion Mayor Bruce Bosch and City Planner Carson Cortez presented Sumas's more dramatic proposal—a westward expansion that would nearly double their UGA area. The proposal stemmed from flood mitigation necessity: "The farther west you go outside Sumas, the higher in elevation it gets, to the point where areas eight and nine are completely out of the floodplain," Cortez explained. "We are almost entirely in the floodplain and get hit really hard every time it floods," he continued, highlighting the existential challenge facing the city. The western expansion would provide space for potential resident relocation out of flood-prone areas, potentially supporting future FEMA buyout or relocation programs. The proposal included multiple area designations: Areas 7, 8, and 9 would move from agriculture to UGA; Areas 2 and 6 would advance from UGA reserve to UGA; and Area 5 would revert from UGA reserve to agriculture. Area 1, currently in UGA status along Highway 9, would remain unchanged. Council members questioned the agricultural significance of the land being converted. Council Member Ben Elenbaas asked about irrigation rights, noting his farming experience: "if a parcel of ag land doesn't have irrigation rights, it's probably not commercially significant for the long term." Cortez acknowledged he didn't have that information but noted much of the area wasn't actively farmed, with some parcels "entirely wooded" and others used for "hobby farms." Council Member Scanlon pressed about plans for Area 1, expressing concerns about potential housing in flood-prone areas. Cortez explained the area was envisioned for commercial development along the Highway 9 corridor but acknowledged residential development remained possible depending on future annexation decisions. The city's flood mitigation focus emerged clearly when Council Member Elenbaas asked about the proposal's scale. Cortez confirmed the intent wasn't just growth accommodation but potential resident relocation: "this gives us enough space to, if we ever get to a point, whether it be through a FEMA grant or something else, to relocate homes into an area that's out of the floodplain." Planning consultant Rollin Harper provided crucial context about development rights extinguishment—a Growth Management Act requirement for bringing floodplain areas into UGA designation. He warned that downgrading Area 1 from its current UGA status could trigger similar requirements if later re-designated, potentially making the land "essentially useless for being in the city of Sumas." Council Member Elenbaas delivered an impassioned defense of supporting Sumas's proposal, describing the city's constrained geography: "all the way around the city is ag land. Almost all the way around the city is flood plain or an international border." He framed the choice starkly: "we're either going to make meaningful changes so the City of Sumas survives for the long term, or we say you can't do anything and you're probably going to die on the vine." However, several council members expressed reservations. Council Member Rienstra noted feeling "like everybody up here has run a marathon, and I'm now asking somebody to run a 5k with me so I can catch up to speed," seeking more time to understand the implications. Despite concerns, Council Member Scanlon successfully amended the proposal to keep Area 2 in UGA reserve rather than advancing it to full UGA status, providing another layer of review before development could occur in that flood-prone area. The amendment passed 4-3. The final vote on the amended Sumas proposal reflected the council's ambivalence: it passed 4-0 but with three abstentions from Galloway, Rienstra, and Boyle—an unusual outcome suggesting significant reservations among members who weren't ready to vote no but couldn't fully support the proposal. ## Planning Commission Concerns About Housing Requirements In an unscheduled but significant discussion, Planning Commissioner Dan Dunn briefed the council on serious concerns about comprehensive plan compliance, particularly regarding Bellingham's housing element. His presentation revealed potential legal vulnerabilities in the county's planning approach. Dunn explained that Bellingham's plan acknowledges needing approximately $133 million annually to meet Growth Management Act housing requirements for low-income residents, but provides no funding mechanism to achieve this. He cited recent Growth Management Hearings Board decisions rejecting similar approaches by other jurisdictions. "The City may not delay making adequate provision for the needs of these economic segments for another five years. It is required to do so now," Dunn quoted from a recent board decision against Mercer Island. The implication was clear: jurisdictions cannot claim housing capacity they cannot actually provide. "I have never seen the state come up with such a large portion of new revenue source or any revenue source for that matter dedicated to county services," lobbyist Weiss had noted earlier about the potential indigent defense funding. The same challenge applied to housing—the scale of need far exceeded traditional local government resources. Council Member Scanlon emphasized the countywide scope of the challenge, noting that zero-to-30% of area median income housing needs exceeded 11,000 units over 20 years, with 8,500 requiring non-permanent supportive housing and 3,300 needing permanent supportive housing. "Not just at a city level, but countywide. Yeah, we don't have a plan for that," he observed. City of Bellingham representatives Chris Behee and Blake Lyon responded, clarifying that House Bill 1220 requires planning for housing capacity, not funding for construction. They noted that Commerce (the state's planning agency) had praised Bellingham's methodology as exemplary for other jurisdictions to follow. "House Bill 1220 and Commerce's Guidebook does require us to show our work," Behee explained. "We just know that based on market rate rents in Bellingham, they're gonna land in that 70 to 80%, area median income slice. They're not gonna rent, the market rates aren't gonna be down in those income ranges for people making 30 or 50 or even lower percent of AMI." The city defended its approach as showing capacity while acknowledging funding gaps—a distinction they argued was legally sufficient but which the Planning Commission questioned based on recent hearings board precedent. ## Performance Audit Ordinance Development The council spent considerable time refining an ordinance establishing performance audit authority, working through detailed amendments based on executive branch feedback. The ordinance stemmed from a Charter Review Commission recommendation that voters had approved. County Executive Satpal Sidhu and staff raised concerns about scope and reporting requirements, leading to extensive discussion about the balance between council oversight authority and executive branch autonomy. Council members ultimately approved several amendments, including adding language acknowledging existing State Auditor functions and clarifying that both the executive and relevant elected officials would report on audit implementation—addressing concerns about the executive reporting on independently elected officials like the Sheriff or Treasurer. The final 7-0 vote to recommend the amended ordinance for introduction reflected consensus on the basic concept while acknowledging ongoing refinements might be needed. ## Emergency Medical Services Levy Committee Appointment In a lighter moment, the council selected representatives for the upcoming EMS levy planning committee. Both Council Members Galloway and Elenbaas expressed interest, leading to a vote that selected Elenbaas as primary representative and Galloway as alternate. The discussion touched on ensuring diverse perspectives on the committee and the evolving nature of EMS service delivery in the county. ## Closing & What's Ahead The meeting adjourned at 4:30 p.m. after more than three hours of substantive policy discussion. Chair Galloway noted that the council would be meeting "almost every Tuesday through now through mid-April" to work through comprehensive plan issues—a schedule reflecting the magnitude and complexity of decisions ahead. The session revealed the fundamental tensions facing Whatcom County: how to accommodate growth and enable community survival while protecting residents from climate risks, preserving agricultural land, and meeting state mandates for affordable housing. The UGA decisions, while preliminary, showed council members wrestling with these competing imperatives in real time, seeking compromises that balance immediate community needs against long-term risks and regional planning requirements.