Whatcom County Council Committee of the Whole

The Whatcom County Council Committee of the Whole met for 2 hours and 29 minutes on February 24, 2026, covering five major items with significant decisions on urban growth planning, legislative priorities, and potential new revenue sources. The meeting began with an extensive presentation on the complex Water Resources Inventory Area 1 (WRIA 1) water rights adjudication process, which has already engaged approximately 1,200 landowners through county-led outreach efforts. The presentation sparked pointed questions from Council Member Ben Elenbaas about the unusual nature of the Department of Ecology both filing the lawsuit and helping defendants complete their paperwork. The centerpiece discussion involved the City of Nooksack's urban growth area (UGA) expansion proposal, ultimately resulting in preliminary council support for the city's supplemental proposal including controversial mitigative measures for flood-prone areas. After an initial motion to exclude areas 6, 7, and 8 failed by a 3-4 vote, a second motion to support the full proposal with stipulated elevation requirements and other safeguards passed 4-2 with one abstention. Council Member Jon Scanlon expressed frustration about making these decisions without final flood control infrastructure designs, while Council Member Elenbaas argued that local officials should have primary accountability for development decisions in their jurisdiction. The council also addressed legislative session updates, with positive news on crisis center funding flexibility and adjudication court staffing, but cuts to behavioral health programs. They unanimously added Senate Bill 6343 providing tax relief for flood victims to their legislative agenda. A proposed performance audits ordinance was deferred to a three-member workgroup rather than rushed introduction. The meeting concluded with extensive discussion of a potential public safety sales and use tax under RCW 82.14.450 that could generate approximately $7 million annually, though no formal action was taken on this complex revenue proposal that would require significant sheriff's office compliance work.

**AB2026-078 - Nooksack Urban Growth Area Proposal:** - Initial motion to support proposal minus areas 6, 7, and 8: FAILED 3-4 - Motion to preliminarily support full supplemental proposal with mitigative measures: PASSED 4-2 (1 abstention) - Includes elevation requirements and other flood-related safeguards - Affects approximately 9 acres of agricultural land conversion to UGA **AB2026-037 - Legislative Session Update:** - Motion to add SB 6343 (flood victim tax relief) to legislative agenda: PASSED 7-0 - Extends deadline to 2031 for property improvement tax relief applications **AB2026-040 - Performance Audits Ordinance:** - Motion to form workgroup (Scanlon, Rienstra, Elenbaas): PASSED 7-0 - Workgroup to reconvene in mid-May for June/July council consideration - Defers introduction based on professional audit input from Brian Estes **AB2026-159 - Water Rights Adjudication:** - Presentation only, no formal action required - Over 2,000 claims filed to date with May 1, 2026 deadline for most claimants **AB2026-139 - Public Safety Sales Tax:** - Discussion only, no formal action taken - Would require council decision by March 24 for July implementation

**Ben Elenbaas, on the water rights adjudication process:** "Have you ever seen a lawsuit where the people that filed it are so heavily involved with communicating, educating and helping people fill out their paperwork that they're going against in court?" **Ben Elenbaas, on the unusual nature of the process:** "That'd be like me getting with the person that broke into my home while I was sleeping to go over our court case before we go into court together." **Jon Scanlon, on frustration with the planning process:** "County Council has not gotten good advice on this. In my opinion, this Councilmember has not gotten good advice in this. I've been asking for advice in this." **Roland Harper (Nooksack), on development restrictions:** "Why would anybody, and I don't understand why Public Works, whoever drew this line drawing would veer into the city limits and say, well, we're just going to write off this section of this very rare commodity." **Ben Elenbaas, on accountability for local development decisions:** "Nobody will be held more accountable than Mayor Hester and the Nooksack City Council on if this is a bad decision. And no one can hold Council Member Scanlon accountable, probably from the City of Nooksack." **Raylene King (Superior Court Clerk), on statutory requirements:** "Why would I go to the adverse party to ask for help? Well, because the statute says they're required to."

# Whatcom County Council Committee of the Whole — February 24, 2026 A complex tapestry of water rights, development pressures, and government responsibilities unfolded in the council chambers as Whatcom County grappled with some of its most pressing challenges. The 2 hour and 29 minute session revealed the intricate dance between state law, local autonomy, and the practical realities of managing growth in a flood-prone region. ## Meeting Overview Council Chair Kaylee Galloway convened the Committee of the Whole at 2 PM in hybrid format on February 24, 2026. All seven council members were present: Elizabeth Boyle, Barry Buchanan, Ben Elenbaas, Kaylee Galloway, Jessica Rienstra, Jon Scanlon, and Mark Stremler. The afternoon's agenda centered on the ongoing water rights adjudication process, urban growth area proposals for Nooksack, legislative updates, and a potential public safety sales tax that could generate $7 million annually. What made this meeting particularly significant was the intersection of technical complexity with deeply human concerns — from farmers and residents facing water rights uncertainty to a small city's aspirations for economic growth in a flood-prone landscape. ## Water Rights Adjudication: Navigating an Unprecedented Legal Maze The afternoon began with a comprehensive presentation on the Water Resources Inventory Area 1 (WRIA 1) water rights adjudication — a legal process affecting tens of thousands of Whatcom County residents and property owners. Gary Stoyka, the county's natural resources manager, set the stage by explaining the scope of their outreach efforts since 2024. "We've been doing this under grants from the Department of Ecology," Stoyka explained. "Our current grant with ecology runs out at the end of June this year." The numbers were staggering: 10 virtual workshops, 10 in-person workshops, 6 drop-in events, and participation in numerous community festivals. Through these efforts, they estimated reaching approximately 1,200 people with assistance and resources. Kara Coleman from Geosynthetic Consultants walked the council through the technical aspects of adjudication. "It is a superior court process to review all of the water use in the case area," she explained, noting that WRIA 1 encompasses most of Western Whatcom County and includes the Nooksack basin and its tributaries, adjacent coastal watersheds, and areas from the Canadian border down to Bellingham Bay. The presentation revealed the long and tortuous path that led to this moment. Coleman outlined a timeline stretching back to 1998, marked by failed negotiations, unsuccessful settlement attempts, and mounting pressure for resolution. The 2018 Streamflow Restoration Act, passed in response to the state Supreme Court's Hurst decision, ultimately compelled Ecology to pursue adjudication when local watershed planning efforts could not reach consensus. "Ecology was ultimately compelled to go to rulemaking, and that is why they undertook the Y01 rule amendment, which was published in 2020," Coleman noted. This rule set new water use limitations for domestic permit-exempt wells in Whatcom County. The current timeline showed the urgency of the situation: Ecology filed the adjudication in May 2024, sent out packets to potential claimants in March 2025, and set May 1, 2026 as the deadline for court claim submissions. "This is the current deadline for claimants who received the summons to file their court claims," Coleman emphasized, though she noted the judge could extend this deadline. Raylene King from the Superior Court Clerk's office provided insight into the administrative challenges. "Currently, we are still accepting claims. We are a little bit over 2,000 claims right now. There's a lot more to go," she said, acknowledging the magnitude of the task ahead. The questions from council members revealed deep concerns about the process itself. Ben Elenbaas raised pointed questions about the unusual nature of the proceedings. "Have you ever seen a lawsuit where the people that filed it are so heavily involved with communicating, educating and helping people fill out their paperwork that they're going against in court?" he asked. This led to a fascinating discussion about the statutory requirements that create this seemingly contradictory situation. King explained that the statutes actually require the Department of Ecology to assist claimants. "Well, because the statute says they're required to," she noted, referencing RCW 90-03, which mandates that "the department... shall provide information and will assist claimants of small uses of water in completing their adjudication claims." The conversation also touched on the challenges of ensuring everyone is properly notified. Elenbaas noted that between himself and his father, they had six parcels that would need to be addressed but had only received summons on two of them. "So, like, if that gives you an idea how many there might be out there," he said, "that there might be way more than what we think." Gary Stoyka explained that Ecology would address this through newspaper notifications for those who didn't receive direct service, though the timeline for this remained uncertain. The human dimension of the crisis became clear through Jamie Baxter's description of their outreach efforts. She detailed the barriers people face in filing their claims — some were told to wait and see what happened, others simply forgot about the packets they received. "Number one is that many people actually were being told to wait to file, to just wait and see what happened," Baxter explained. The presentation concluded with Elenbaas raising broader questions about equity and inclusion in the process. "I have a real hard time with telling somebody, like, hey, you weren't served. You didn't know about it. You didn't get the Bellingham Herald. So sorry, you don't have a right to water because adjudication already happened," he said, highlighting the potential for vulnerable populations to fall through the cracks. ## Nooksack Urban Growth Area: Balancing Development Dreams with Flood Realities The committee then turned to one of the most contentious items on their agenda — the City of Nooksack's proposal to expand its urban growth area. This discussion revealed the tension between a small city's growth aspirations and the county's concerns about developing in potentially flood-prone areas. Matt Aamot from Planning and Development Services provided the context: the council had previously supported expanding the UGA in Nooksack areas three and four east of the city, but areas six, seven, and eight west of the city remained under discussion. Roland Harper, representing the City of Nooksack, emphasized their efforts to address council concerns. "We've done our level best to listen to the council's questions, concerns, especially in light of recent flood events and no one wanting to put anybody in harm's way," he said. The city had prepared a supplemental proposal with mitigative measures to address flood concerns. The debate that followed revealed the complexities of planning in a post-flood environment. Council Member Jon Scanlon expressed continued concerns about the western areas. "We don't yet have the final design for the berms," he noted, referring to flood control infrastructure being planned by the county. "When you look at their preliminary line on the map, which is by no means the final line, but the preliminary line does not include these areas." Scanlon moved to accept the Nooksack proposal minus areas six, seven, and eight — essentially the western expansion areas. His motion reflected the same cautious approach the council had taken with other cities' UGA requests in potentially flood-prone areas. Mayor Kevin Hester spoke passionately about the city's position. "It's going to be quite a while before that feasibility study is really in play for the berms," he said. "Although I can tell you, I kind of wish they wouldn't have put the markers that they do have on the berms there... because those are probably nowhere near what is going to be the final result of that." The mayor emphasized the strategic importance of the areas in question. "We're talking about the areas, especially in 6th and 7th, that are really contiguous. And we think it's kind of a common-sense plan... that are pretty dramatic spaces for us in regards to commercial light industrial use that go hand in hand with the recent annexation that we had just below that." Roland Harper provided crucial technical context, distinguishing between flood risk levels. "There's a real difference between what I thought was very well-considered discussion about the Everson Urban Growth Area Reserve. There's a real difference between that and the Nooksack situation." He noted that the Nooksack areas were "not close to the Nooksack River" and "not on the FEMA draft map." The discussion revealed the broader challenge of making planning decisions without complete flood control information. Scanlon articulated his frustration: "County Council has not gotten good advice on this. In my opinion, this Councilmember has not gotten good advice in this. I've been asking for advice in this... we're at the point here where we're making these decisions on the dais." Council Member Ben Elenbaas offered a different perspective, drawing on personal experience. "My first home that I bought was 267 yards from the Nooksack River," he said, describing how despite the proximity to water and flood maps that might suggest problems, "whoever built it sure knew where to put it, and it's fine." This personal anecdote informed his view that local knowledge should carry significant weight. The voting process itself revealed the complexity of the issue. Scanlon's motion to exclude areas six, seven, and eight failed by a vote of three to four, with Buchanan, Rienstra, and Scanlon supporting the more cautious approach, while Boyle, Elenbaas, Galloway, and Stremler opposed it. Elizabeth Boyle then moved to preliminarily support the complete city proposal, including the disputed areas but with the stipulated mitigative measures. These measures included elevation requirements for new construction, restrictions on ground-floor residential uses in certain areas, and commitments to remove area eight from consideration if the planned church development didn't proceed. The final discussion before the vote touched on practical considerations. The areas in question weren't just theoretical development zones — they had specific intended uses. Area eight was designated for a church whose congregation had outgrown its existing facility. Areas six and seven were planned for commercial and light industrial development along the state highway. Roland Harper explained the immediate development pressure: "So they want to be able to build their church and bring in the property very soon." He also noted interest in commercial and industrial development: "And there's already interest for commercial development and industrial development in the adjacent sites annexation property." The motion to support the full proposal ultimately passed four to three, with Elenbaas, Galloway, Stremler, and Boyle voting in favor, while Rienstra and Scanlon opposed, and Buchanan abstained. This decision reflected the ongoing tension between development pressure and flood concerns that will continue to challenge Whatcom County as it balances growth with safety. ## Legislative Session Update: Taxes, Floods, and Ferry Districts The legislative update from Jed Holmes provided both good news and challenges for county priorities. The good news centered on the 23-hour crisis center, one of the county's major legislative priorities. "The house budget includes less restrictive language" regarding operational flexibility, Holmes reported, though he noted the Senate budget hadn't yet been amended. Water rights adjudication also received attention in the state budget. Holmes confirmed that funding they had been working to secure with the Administrative Office of the Courts appeared in both house and Senate budget versions. "So, um, they'll have more money for staffing necessary to process that deluge of cases that they're looking at," he explained. However, the news wasn't entirely positive. Holmes reported cuts to programs the county relied on: "We see some cuts to the walk in counties, alternative response team allocation starting in the next budget cycle. As well as cuts to the recovery navigator program that supports, uh. Lead programs around the state." The discussion of ferry district legislation revealed the complexity of state-local relationships. Holmes explained that legislation to expand ferry districts beyond passenger-only service had "passed out of the House, but with the requirement that new districts starting after this session would have to be voter approved." This created a timing issue for Whatcom County. "There is a window of opportunity... to think about creating a ferry district. And then if the law goes into effect..." Holmes noted. Currently, the council could establish a ferry district for passenger-only ferries without a vote. The proposed change would allow districts for vehicle ferries but require voter approval for any new districts created after the law takes effect. Ben Elenbaas expressed his preference for voter approval: "I would rather put it to the vote of the people. I just don't know that it would pass. But... it seems more appropriate. For the ferry district to be in place than not. Also more equitable for all citizens that use the ferry or don't use the ferry." Council Member Jon Scanlon introduced Senate Bill 6343, which would provide tax relief for Washington residents impacted by flood damage. "It would extend the deadline to 2031 for people to apply for tax relief for improvements made on their home impacted by the flood," he explained. The council unanimously approved adding this bill to their legislative agenda. ## Performance Audits Workgroup: Deliberate Process Over Speed The discussion of the proposed performance audits ordinance revealed the council's commitment to thoughtful governance over quick action. The ordinance was scheduled for introduction that evening, but council members expressed concerns about the pace. Jon Scanlon noted they had received suggestions from Brian Estes, who has professional experience in performance audits, and wanted time to review them. Mark Stremler agreed: "It feels like it is being a little bit rushed and he thought too, when the memo came in, that they should give it some time." Rather than rushing forward, the council took a collaborative approach. Scanlon proposed forming a workgroup: "What has worked in the past is establishing a workgroup with two or three interested councilmembers." The council unanimously approved a workgroup including Scanlon, Rienstra, and Elenbaas, with plans to have the matter back on the council agenda by June or July. This decision reflected the council's recognition that good governance sometimes requires slowing down to ensure thorough consideration of complex issues. ## Public Safety Sales Tax: $7 Million Question The meeting's final substantive item — discussion of a potential public safety sales and use tax — revealed the intersection of state policy, local fiscal needs, and public accountability. The tax, authorized under RCW 82.14.450, could generate approximately $7 million annually for criminal justice purposes. Jed Holmes explained that before the county could implement the tax, the Sheriff's Office needed to meet rigorous training and policy benchmarks. "The Sheriff's Office has communicated that they intend to be ready to file for a grant under the same House bill by the end of March," he noted. Kayla Schott-Bresler from the Executive's Office provided crucial fiscal context. The county had passed a deficit budget for 2026 "with the expectation that either the Council will need to take action on this sales tax this year or the County would have to make significant cuts in the 2027-2028 budget." The timing implications were significant. If the council acted by March 24, collections could begin in July with the first distribution in September 2026. Waiting until 2027 would mean action was needed by mid-October 2026. Undersheriff Steve Harris detailed the extensive preparation work his department had undertaken. "Prior to a vote on this tax, they have to give assurances that they are already compliant and they are ready to do that now," he said. The Sheriff's Office had invested over 6,400 hours in meeting the eligibility requirements. Sheriff Donnell Tanksley emphasized the relationship between the requirements and operational needs, particularly around use of force policies and training standards that House Bill 2015 had mandated. The discussion revealed tension between immediate fiscal needs and the process of community engagement. Some council members wanted to move quickly to address budget pressures, while others preferred a more deliberate approach that would first establish spending priorities and then seek public input. Council Member Elenbaas raised concerns about the timing and public perception: "The opinion that levying a tax is tone deaf to everyone's living situation right now," he said, suggesting the council should consider "setting the priorities first and then deciding on the tax." The conversation also touched on equity and transparency. The City of Lynden had implemented a similar tax with minimal public pushback, but as Holmes noted, "they conveyed what they were going to use the money for" before implementation. County Executive Satpal Sidhu emphasized the importance of planning for flexibility: "Planning should be done so that spending the money would be flexible for future councils and executives." The discussion concluded without formal action, but with agreement to continue working toward a framework that would address both immediate fiscal needs and community input concerns. ## Closing & What's Ahead The meeting adjourned at 4:29 PM after nearly three hours of substantive discussion. Chair Galloway had managed to keep the complex agenda moving while allowing for thorough exploration of each issue. The session exemplified the challenges facing local government in 2026: balancing development pressure with environmental concerns, managing state mandates with local resources, and maintaining public trust while addressing urgent fiscal needs. The water rights adjudication alone affects tens of thousands of residents, while decisions about urban growth areas will shape the county's development patterns for decades. As council members left the chambers, they carried with them the weight of decisions that reach far beyond government — affecting farmers' water rights, families seeking housing, businesses needing infrastructure, and communities grappling with the ongoing consequences of climate change and economic pressure. The mood as the meeting ended was one of measured progress rather than resolution. Most issues would require additional work, more community input, and continued coordination with state agencies, local cities, and federal partners. It was the kind of meeting that demonstrates both the complexity of modern governance and the commitment of public servants to work through difficult issues with care and deliberation.

## MODULE S1: STUDY GUIDE **Meeting ID:** WHA-CON-CTW-2026-02-24 A structured study guide helping readers understand the meeting's content and context. Written for a general civic audience — assume no prior knowledge of the issues. ### Meeting Overview The Whatcom County Council Committee of the Whole met on Tuesday, February 24, 2026, for 2 hours and 29 minutes in a hybrid format. The meeting focused primarily on two major issues: a comprehensive presentation about the ongoing water rights adjudication affecting thousands of county residents, and urban growth area proposals for the city of Nooksack's comprehensive plan update. ### Key Terms and Concepts **Water Rights Adjudication:** A superior court process to review all water use in a specific area and clarify who has legal rights to use water. In this case, it covers Water Resources Inventory Area 1 (WRIA 1), which includes most of western Whatcom County. **Urban Growth Area (UGA):** Areas designated under state Growth Management Act where urban development is encouraged and where cities can extend utilities and eventually annex land. These areas receive higher-density zoning and urban services. **UGA Reserve:** Areas set aside for potential future addition to urban growth areas but cannot currently be annexed by cities. They maintain agricultural zoning until potentially redesignated. **FEMA Flood Maps:** Federal Emergency Management Agency maps showing areas at risk of flooding, used for insurance and development regulations. The county is working with both current and draft updated maps. **Committee of the Whole:** A meeting format where all council members participate but operating procedures are more informal than regular council meetings, typically used for presentations and preliminary discussions. **Mitigative Measures:** Specific requirements or conditions designed to reduce potential negative impacts from development, such as building elevation requirements or infrastructure standards. ### Key People at This Meeting | Name | Role / Affiliation | |---|---| | Kaylee Galloway | Council Chair, presiding | | Elizabeth Boyle | Council Member | | Barry Buchanan | Council Member | | Ben Elenbaas | Council Member | | Jessica Rienstra | Council Member | | Jon Scanlon | Council Member | | Mark Stremler | Council Member | | Gary Stoyka | Whatcom County Public Works, Natural Resources Manager | | Kara Coleman | Geosyntec Consultants | | Raylene King | Superior Court Clerk | | Jamie Baxter | Whatcom County Public Works Program Specialist | | Matt Aamot | Planning and Development Services | | Rollin Harper | City of Nooksack Attorney | | Kevin Hester | Mayor, City of Nooksack | | Jed Holmes | Executive's Office | ### Background Context The water rights adjudication represents an unprecedented legal process affecting an estimated 30,000-40,000 Whatcom County residents who use water for homes, farms, or businesses. The state Department of Ecology filed this lawsuit in 2024 after decades of failed negotiations and settlement attempts in the Nooksack River basin. Property owners must file claims by May 1, 2026, to protect their water rights, but only about 2,000 people have filed so far. This creates significant concern about people losing water rights through inaction. The Nooksack urban growth area discussion reflects ongoing tensions between promoting economic development and protecting communities from flood risks. Recent major flooding events have heightened concerns about developing in potentially vulnerable areas, while small cities like Nooksack need space to grow economically. The state requires cities to plan for population and job growth, creating pressure to expand urban boundaries while also ensuring public safety. ### What Happened — The Short Version County staff and consultants gave a detailed presentation about the water rights adjudication, explaining the legal process and outreach efforts to help residents file their claims. Several council members expressed concern about the unusual nature of the process, where the state agency filing the lawsuit is also helping defendants prepare their paperwork. The council then debated Nooksack's request to expand its urban growth area, particularly three areas that could potentially be affected by future flood control infrastructure. After initially rejecting a motion to exclude those areas, the council ultimately approved Nooksack's full proposal with flood-safety conditions included. Other business included legislative updates, forming a workgroup on performance audits, and discussing a potential public safety tax that could generate $7 million annually. ### What to Watch Next - The May 1, 2026 deadline for water rights adjudication claims is approaching rapidly - Public Works is expected to have flood control berm designs within three months, which could affect future development decisions - The council will consider a public safety sales tax in coming meetings - A performance audit ordinance workgroup will meet and report back by summer 2026 ---

## MODULE S2: FLASH CARDS **Meeting ID:** WHA-CON-CTW-2026-02-24 Generate 15-20 flash cards covering the key facts, decisions, people, and concepts from this meeting. Flash cards should be concise — question on one side, answer on the other. **Q:** What is the deadline for filing water rights adjudication claims? **A:** May 1, 2026, though the judge could potentially extend this deadline. **Q:** How many people have filed water rights claims so far? **A:** About 2,000 people, though an estimated 30,000-40,000 residents may need to file. **Q:** What areas comprise Water Resources Inventory Area 1 (WRIA 1)? **A:** Most of western Whatcom County including the Nooksack River basin and tributaries, plus coastal watersheds from the Canadian border to Samish Bay. **Q:** Who presided over this Committee of the Whole meeting? **A:** Council Chair Kaylee Galloway presided over the meeting. **Q:** What was the final vote on Nooksack's urban growth area proposal? **A:** The motion to support Nooksack's full supplemental proposal passed 4-3, with support from Boyle, Elenbaas, Galloway, and Stremler. **Q:** What concerns did Council Member Ben Elenbaas raise about the adjudication process? **A:** He questioned why sovereign tribes are dealing with county court rather than federal court, and found it unusual that the state agency filing the lawsuit is helping defendants fill out paperwork. **Q:** What is the difference between UGA and UGA Reserve designations? **A:** UGA areas can be annexed by cities and receive urban services, while UGA Reserve areas cannot be annexed and maintain agricultural zoning until potentially redesignated later. **Q:** How much could the potential public safety sales tax generate annually? **A:** Approximately $7 million per year if implemented. **Q:** What are the three Nooksack areas that sparked the most debate? **A:** Areas 6, 7, and 8, which are proposed for commercial, industrial, and church development west of the city. **Q:** What mitigative measures did Nooksack propose for flood safety? **A:** Building elevation requirements two feet above FEMA base flood elevation, no residential uses on ground floors in some areas, and removal of one area if development doesn't proceed. **Q:** How long did this Committee of the Whole meeting last? **A:** 2 hours and 29 minutes, from 2:00 PM to 4:29 PM. **Q:** What workgroup was formed during this meeting? **A:** A performance audits ordinance workgroup including Council Members Scanlon, Rienstra, and Elenbaas. **Q:** Which state bill was added to the county's legislative agenda? **A:** Senate Bill 6343, providing tax relief to residents impacted by flooding and winter weather events. **Q:** What county department is leading water rights adjudication outreach? **A:** Whatcom County Public Works, specifically the Natural Resources Division. **Q:** How many workshops and events has the county held for adjudication outreach? **A:** 10 virtual workshops, 10 in-person workshops, and 6 drop-in events, plus attendance at various community events. **Q:** What is the current status of the 23-hour crisis center funding? **A:** The House budget includes less restrictive language providing more flexibility, which was one of the county's legislative priorities. **Q:** When would revenue be available if the public safety tax is implemented? **A:** If action is taken by March 24, collections could start in July with first distribution to the county in September 2026. **Q:** What major flood infrastructure project is being designed? **A:** Flood control berms, with preliminary designs expected within three months through an 18-month contract process. ---