Whatcom County Council Committee of the Whole

The Whatcom County Council Committee of the Whole advanced significant portions of the County's Comprehensive Plan update on March 10, 2026, approving multiple chapters with important amendments while continuing their marathon review process. The three-and-a-half-hour meeting resulted in formal approval of Chapter 1 (Introduction and Growth Projections) and Chapter 3 (Housing) to move forward for legal review and eventual public hearing, while Chapter 2 (Land Use) discussions were extended to March 17th due to time constraints. Most significantly for housing policy, Council adopted new policies requiring interpretation of Comprehensive Plan provisions to favor housing supply and affordability where multiple interpretations are reasonable. They also added environmental justice language requiring adequate separation between residential development and heavy industry. These changes signal a Council majority increasingly focused on addressing the region's housing crisis through planning policy. The meeting also featured presentations on Lake Whatcom water quality management and county housing programs, plus discussion of a proposed criminal justice sales tax that could raise $6.5-7 million annually. The legislative session update revealed optimism about state funding for flood mitigation and court infrastructure, with final budget decisions expected by Thursday. Council Chair Kaylee Galloway reordered the agenda to prioritize housing discussions, reflecting the urgency Council places on completing the Comprehensive Plan update. The meeting demonstrated both the complexity of comprehensive planning and the political tensions around balancing growth management, environmental protection, and housing affordability.

**Comprehensive Plan Chapter 1 (AB2026-185):** - **Vote:** 7-0 to amend Policy 1C-6 regarding public work and workforce development - **Vote:** 5-2 to advance amended Chapter 1 to legal review and public hearing (Elenbaas and Stremler opposed) - **Staff recommendation:** Not specified - **What it means:** Chapter 1 moves forward with language emphasizing local workforce development in county projects **Comprehensive Plan Chapter 3, Housing (AB2026-188):** - **Vote:** 7-0 to add new policies 3A-5 and 3A-6 requiring pro-housing interpretation of plan provisions - **Vote:** 5-2 to strike family terminology references (Stremler and Elenbaas opposed) - **Vote:** 6-1 to add environmental justice policy 3B-5 on industrial-residential separation (Stremler opposed) - **Vote:** 7-0 to acknowledge Buildable Lands Report in monitoring section - **Vote:** 6-1 to advance amended Chapter 3 to legal review and public hearing (Elenbaas opposed) - **Vote:** 5-2 to include updated housing numbers table reflecting reduced rural population (Elenbaas and Stremler opposed) - **Staff recommendation:** Not specified for amendments - **What it means:** Chapter 3 advances with strong pro-housing policy language and environmental justice protections **Comprehensive Plan Chapter 2, Land Use (AB2026-186):** - **Vote:** 5-2 to approve amendments 92-95, 98-111, 114, 116-118, 124-128, 130-132, and glossary items (Elenbaas and Stremler opposed) - **Vote:** 4-0-3 to protect existing industrial uses in urban growth areas (3 abstentions: Boyle, Buchanan, Rienstra) - **Vote:** 5-2 to retain impact fee policy with "may" instead of "will" language (Elenbaas and Stremler opposed) - **Vote:** 5-2 to restrict rezoning in flood plains and sea level rise zones (Stremler and Elenbaas opposed) - **Vote:** 6-0 to continue Chapter 2 discussion March 17th (Buchanan absent for vote) - **What it means:** Chapter 2 partially completed with continued discussion scheduled

**Council Member Ben Elenbaas, on pro-housing interpretation policy:** "I would like to incorporate the same type of language into almost all decisions that are county-related matters." **Planning Director Mark Personius, on countywide planning policy authority:** "In 96 they are quoting a countywide planning policy and amending it, but Council does not have the authority to do that by themselves. They have to be approved by all the cities." **Council Member Mark Stremler, on impact fees:** "I think impact fees, which will ultimately be paid by the final user, are going to add to the cost of housing." **Chair Kaylee Galloway, on environmental justice:** "It is trying to convey that everyone deserves a healthy place to live regardless of income." **Council Member Ben Elenbaas, on policy flexibility:** "I see this policy as not very productive and it takes away any flexibility they would have to put housing in the appropriate spot." **Executive Staff Kayla Schott-Bresler, on criminal justice tax approach:** "The executive's recommendation is that the Council proceed with an ordinance that recognizes all the uses authorized under the statute and directs and provides flexibility to use this revenue on any eligible service."

## Meeting Overview The Whatcom County Council Committee of the Whole convened in hybrid format on March 10, 2026, at 1:05 p.m. in the County Courthouse Council Chambers, with all seven council members present: Chair Kaylee Galloway, Elizabeth Boyle, Barry Buchanan, Ben Elenbaas, Jessica Rienstra, Jon Scanlon, and Mark Stremler. This was a continuation of comprehensive plan discussions from the previous week, with Chair Galloway announcing a strategic reordering of the agenda to tackle Chapter 1 (Introduction and Growth Projections), then Chapter 3 (Housing), and finally Chapter 2 (Land Use) of the county's comprehensive plan update. The meeting represented a critical juncture in the county's comprehensive planning process, as council members worked through dozens of proposed amendments while also receiving updates on state legislative priorities and presentations on environmental permitting and housing programs. The session would run until 4:37 p.m., with substantive policy debates on everything from labor acknowledgments to environmental justice, housing supply strategies, and flood plain development restrictions. ## Stormwater Permits and Lake Whatcom Management The meeting opened with Cathy Craver from Public Works presenting on the Western Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit and its connection to Lake Whatcom's Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) requirements. Craver explained the nexus between federal stormwater regulations and the county's ongoing Lake Whatcom Management Program work, noting an upcoming Joint Councils and Commissioners meeting scheduled for April 1st. Councilmember Jon Scanlon seized on the Lake Whatcom discussion to emphasize the comprehensive plan's role in water quality protection. "If there is anything that comes up in the review of the current five-year Lake Whatcom implementation plan and of how things are going with the Lake Whatcom Management Program that they think was missed in the Comprehensive Plan he is open to that conversation," Scanlon stated, "and to seeing if there is anything else Council should be putting in the Comprehensive Plan to make sure we are doing a good job with the water quality in the lake." Chair Galloway noted that Lake Whatcom provisions appear primarily in Chapter 10 of the comprehensive plan, which has undergone staff review, and referenced a memo from council staff on the topic. The presentation concluded without formal action, serving as an informational update on the county's environmental regulatory obligations. ## Housing Programs Update: Growing Needs and Federal Funding Changes The Health and Community Services housing team delivered a comprehensive update on their programs, with Ann Beck, Michaela Mandala, and Chris D'Onofrio presenting highlights from the 2025-2026 severe weather shelter operations and broader housing initiatives. The presentation painted a sobering picture of persistent housing challenges in Whatcom County. "The things that contribute to people becoming homeless are not changing in our community very quickly," the team reported, emphasizing the structural nature of the housing crisis. They outlined growing service needs alongside concerning federal policy shifts that could impact local programs. D'Onofrio addressed a significant federal funding change that could reshape local housing strategy. "The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) changed the way that they had proposed to release funds, to move away from funding permanent housing interventions in favor of more transitional housing," he explained, "and how that might potentially impact Whatcom County permanent supportive housing programs." The discussion turned to financial management of winter shelter funding, with D'Onofrio reporting that both the county and City of Bellingham appeared unlikely to exhaust their allocated funds. "He stated they do not have a specific plan for money that is going to be left and do not think they will be tapping into the funds that the City offered as a kind of backstop, but he spoke about possible ways they might use the funds." Beck emphasized the flexibility of remaining funds: "The money can be used across the entire housing system so they want to maximize it." Scanlon inquired about additional funding sources, specifically asking about Economic Development Investment (EDI) funding for housing and whether bonding capacity at the Housing Authority was being explored. Councilmember Elizabeth Boyle concluded the presentation by thanking the team for their efforts in addressing the county's housing challenges. ## State Legislative Session: Waiting for Budget Resolution Jed Holmes from the Executive's Office provided an update on the 2026 state legislative session, describing the county's position as being "in a holding pattern waiting for the budgets to come out in their final form." Despite the uncertainty, Holmes expressed cautious optimism about several county priorities. Flood hazard mitigation funding emerged as a key priority, with Holmes reporting that while the House and Senate versions differed, "the County has expressed their opinion to focus on the Senate's version which included both more money and more flexibility for Whatcom County." The county's other legislative priorities—funding for courts and added flexibility for the 23-hour crisis center allocation—appeared "to be on track." Holmes highlighted progress on ferry district legislation, noting it "came out of the Senate on Friday night in a version that looks very helpful to Public Works' requests and vision for what a ferry district could look like but they are waiting for the House to concur on that." The timeline was tight: "It all will be known by Thursday afternoon or Thursday evening." When questioned about alternate mechanisms for public defense funding after the Legislature removed it from the millionaire's tax bill, Kayla Schott-Bresler acknowledged there were "other slightly less helpful but creative revenue tools or promises of future tools that may come out this session." Holmes cautioned that "the operating budgets are not final yet," underlining the continued uncertainty surrounding state funding decisions. ## Criminal Justice Sales Tax: A New Revenue Tool Kayla Schott-Bresler presented the executive's proposal for a one-tenth of one percent sales and use tax for criminal justice purposes, authorized under RCW 82.14.345. The tax would generate approximately $6.5-7 million annually and could fund a wide range of criminal justice services. Schott-Bresler outlined the executive's recommended approach: "That the Council proceed with an ordinance that recognizes all the uses authorized under the statute and directs and provides flexibility to use this revenue on any eligible service, with decisions and priorities to be made every two years during the County's regular and transparent biennial budget process." The recommended allocation split the revenue between existing obligations ($4.5 million) and new priorities ($2.5 million). Existing obligations included "rising jail medical and food costs" and "Sheriff's Office Lease," while the remaining revenue would prioritize "labor costs through the budget process" including "continuity of services," "COLAs," and "evaluation of new needs, including public defense." The discussion revealed tension between providing specific uses versus maintaining budgetary flexibility. Council members explored whether they could determine specific uses before imposing the tax, with Schott-Bresler noting "the downside of that approach would be that they might be making that decision in a vacuum as opposed to seeing all the needs presented." Sheriff Donnell Tanksley spoke to his office's portion of the proposed revenue, addressing requirements his office would need to meet to access the funding. He discussed frozen positions and the obligation of the office lease, while also mentioning officer wellness programs and a recently released grant opportunity. The item was discussed without formal action, with the expectation that an ordinance would be introduced for public hearing in two weeks. ## Comprehensive Plan Chapter 1: Labor Acknowledgments and Workforce Development The comprehensive plan discussions began with Chapter 1, focusing on introduction and growth projections. The most contentious debate centered on proposed amendment 20, which sought to add the Dutch community to the labor acknowledgment section. Councilmember Mark Stremler advocated for including the Dutch community in the labor acknowledgment, leading to a broader discussion about historical recognition and inclusivity. The debate touched on fundamental questions about how government should acknowledge historical contributions and suffering. Councilmember Ben Elenbaas proposed a significantly different approach, moving "that the labor acknowledgment read: Whatcom County as it stands today is only possible because of ancestors, elders, and those who have gone before us. The Whatcom County government acknowledges this, in light of historical facts, that our region depended on the labor of dehumanization, exploitation, suffering, wisdom and skills of enslaved people." Elenbaas's motion failed for lack of a second, revealing limited council support for his broader reframing of the acknowledgment language. Council members expressed concern about the challenge of inclusivity versus specificity. As the discussion revealed, "By being specific they will leave people out," highlighting the difficulty of crafting language that honors historical contributions without creating new exclusions. The debate moved to amendment 21, which addressed Policy 1C-6 regarding workforce development. Stremler successfully moved to amend the policy language, with Elenbaas seconding. After a brief discussion about capitalization, Stremler amended his motion to change "public works" to "public work" so that Policy 1C-6 would read: "Through fair and open competition, leverage county resources and investments in public work to empower and uplift a local and diverse workforce for all." Council members discussed the policy's intent, with emphasis that "the County's policies and procedures should be unbiased" and "the intent of the motion is to not limit who can do the work" while remaining "subject to procurement laws." The motion carried unanimously, 7-0. The chapter concluded with Councilmember Jessica Rienstra moving to request staff preparation of the amended chapter for future council introduction and public hearing. The motion, seconded by Boyle, passed 5-2, with Elenbaas and Stremler dissenting. Chair Galloway noted that "the labor and land acknowledgments are outside of Chapter 1 so those are still fair game to refine," indicating ongoing discussions about these sensitive topics. ## Comprehensive Plan Chapter 3: Housing Supply and Environmental Justice The housing chapter discussion, continued from the March 3rd meeting, proved substantive and wide-ranging. Council members worked through amendments 48-54, addressing everything from interpretive principles to environmental justice concerns. ### Housing-First Interpretation Policies The most significant addition came through amendment 48, which Elenbaas moved to adopt. The amendment added two new policies designed to prioritize housing supply and affordability in plan interpretation: Policy 3A-5 established an interpretive framework: "Where provisions of the Comprehensive Plan are subject to more than one reasonable interpretation, apply the interpretation that most effectively advances the County's adopted housing supply and affordability objectives, provided that such interpretation: • Remains consistent with the Growth Management Act. • Does not diminish required protections for critical areas or designated resource lands. • Maintains internal consistency among Comprehensive Plan elements." Policy 3A-6 created an ongoing review requirement: "Periodically review development regulations and administrative practices to identify and eliminate unnecessary ambiguity that may unintentionally constrain housing supply or increase housing costs." Elenbaas emphasized the broader application potential: "He would like to incorporate the same type of language into almost all decisions that are counter-related matters." Planning and Development Services Director Mark Personius raised a procedural concern, asking "if Council has had legal review of this language for potential inconsistency or misinterpretation." Prosecuting Attorney Kimberly Thulin responded that she reviews proposals "as they go along" and was "in the process of looking at these proposals." The motion carried unanimously, 7-0, signaling strong council support for prioritizing housing objectives in plan interpretation. ### Family Terminology and Language Choices Amendment numbers 49-51 addressed references to family terminology throughout the chapter. Chair Galloway moved to strike family references, with Boyle seconding. The debate revealed philosophical differences about language choices in government documents. The discussion was brief but pointed, with some council members expressing that "there should be nothing offensive about family references." Despite this sentiment, the motion carried 5-2, with Stremler and Elenbaas dissenting, reflecting the council's preference for more inclusive language choices. ### Environmental Justice and Industrial Compatibility Amendment 52 sparked debate about environmental justice and land use compatibility. Galloway moved to add a new policy addressing the intersection of housing and industrial land uses, with Rienstra seconding. The original proposal began with explicit environmental justice framing: "Whatcom County's environmental justice goals should augment established zoning principles to rectify situations where marginalized residents have had to locate residential development adjacent to heavy impact industry." The substantive policy language addressed future zoning decisions: "Future zoning decisions should protect public health and community well-being by ensuring adequate separation between incompatible land uses. This includes avoiding or minimizing residential uses in close proximity to heavy industrial activities whenever possible and implementing appropriate buffering, siting, and design measures where such proximity cannot reasonably be avoided." Council discussion focused on the environmental justice framing and its necessity. Galloway ultimately accepted an amendment to strike the first sentence, focusing the policy on the practical separation requirements rather than the explicit environmental justice context. Council members discussed how the amendment relates to environmental justice principles, with supporters arguing "it is trying to convey that everyone deserves a healthy place to live regardless of income." The amended motion carried 6-1, with Stremler dissenting. ### Buildable Lands Report Integration Amendment 53 addressed incorporating the Buildable Lands Report into policy monitoring frameworks. The amendment required a correction during discussion, changing "Buildable Lands analysis" to "Buildable Lands Report." Galloway moved the amendment with Elenbaas seconding. Matt Aamot from Planning and Development Services provided context about the report's timing and requirements, noting "the next one will be in 2034" and referencing "Policy 3I-3 which is a new requirement that was passed in the Growth Management Act a couple years ago." The final language emphasized using the Buildable Lands Report "to review and evaluate whether Whatcom County has achieved its goals and policies and work to implement any identified reasonable measures necessary to reduce the differences between growth and development assumptions contained in the county and cities comprehensive plans with actual development patterns." Council members discussed whether the report adequately distinguishes "what is allowable and what is functionally allowable," with supporters arguing that "acknowledging the Buildable Lands Report helps them learn from the past." The motion carried unanimously, 7-0. ### Legal Review and Next Steps Galloway moved to advance the amended Chapter 3 for staff preparation and legal review, with Scanlon seconding. Scanlon suggested adding explicit legal review requirements, leading to a friendly amendment that the motion request staff prepare the chapter "and for legal to review." The motion carried 6-1, with Elenbaas dissenting, moving Chapter 3 toward formal introduction and public hearing. ### Housing Table Corrections In a procedural moment highlighting the complexity of comprehensive planning, staff interrupted the Chapter 2 discussion to address a necessary correction to Chapter 3. Matt Aamot explained that "Council reduced the rural population in the last discussion of Chapter 3 so Planning had their consultants revise the housing numbers in table one to reflect that." Rienstra moved to include the updated table in the preliminary council draft, with Boyle seconding. The motion carried 5-2, with Elenbaas and Stremler dissenting, ensuring the housing projections would accurately reflect previous council decisions. ## Comprehensive Plan Chapter 2: Land Use Amendments and Procedural Complexity The Chapter 2 discussion revealed the intricate nature of comprehensive plan amendment processes, with council members working through dozens of proposed changes while navigating legal constraints and policy implications. ### Bulk Amendment Approval The council initially attempted to approve multiple amendments efficiently, with Galloway moving to approve amendment numbers 92-111, 114, 116-118, 124-128, and 130-132, plus glossary items 1 and 2. However, Planning Director Personius identified critical issues with the batch approach. "There are issues with numbers 96 and 97 as written," Personius explained. "In 96 they are quoting a countywide planning policy and amending it, but Council does not have the authority to do that by themselves. They have to be approved by all the cities." Additionally, "the proposed changes in 97 significantly changed the intent of that policy and could be inconsistent with Council's proposals to expand the Nooksack and Sumas UGAs into agricultural resource lands." Galloway amended her motion to remove the problematic amendments, approving numbers 92-95, 98-111, 114, 116-118, 124-128, 130-132, and glossary items 1 and 2. The motion carried 5-2, with Elenbaas and Stremler dissenting. ### Industrial Protection and Non-Conforming Uses Amendment 91 addressed concerns about existing industries in urban growth areas, particularly the Alderwood area. Personius briefed council members on changes designed to address "the concern of the existing HII industries in the Alderwood urban growth area." The discussion revealed both substantive policy issues and technical errors. Scanlon noted that "the policy number (2N-8) should actually be 2N-12 (a scrivener's error)," while staff identified a missing word requiring them to "un-strike 'preserve' in the first sentence." Galloway moved the corrected amendment, with Scanlon seconding. The final policy language read: "Encourage provision of serviced industrial sites by cities. Where applicable, within urban growth areas, preserve the regulatory ability of existing industries to continue operating, if proposed for rezoning, and protect existing industrial and maritime zoned developments from encroachment by incompatible uses and developments on adjacent lands. Protective measures should include but may not be limited to the adoption of notice of disclosure requirements." The discussion explored implementation details, including whether disclosure requirements would create notice requirements "for homes within a mile of industry-zoned land at the point of sale" and how to protect "heavy industry operating lawfully inside." The motion carried 4-0 with three abstentions from Boyle, Buchanan, and Rienstra. ### Tribal Recommendations and Jurisdictional Limits Amendments 96 and 97 originated from Nooksack Tribe recommendations but encountered jurisdictional obstacles. Based on Personius's earlier explanation about the legal issues, "the Council concurred to remove both proposed amendments from consideration. No motion was made and no action taken on number 96 or on 97 and they will not be included in the draft that moves forward after today." This decision highlighted the complex intergovernmental relationships involved in comprehensive planning, where tribal input must navigate existing jurisdictional frameworks and legal constraints. ### Impact Fees Debate Amendment 112 generated significant debate about housing affordability and infrastructure funding. Stremler moved to strike Policy 2C-7, which had been approved in the March 3rd session, arguing that "impact fees, which will ultimately be paid by the final user, are going to add to the cost of housing." Elenbaas seconded the motion, but Personius provided context about infrastructure financing alternatives. He explained who would pay for infrastructure improvements without impact fees and noted that while the policy stated impact fees "will be levied as per state law," the law doesn't require impact fees but "leaves it to the jurisdiction." Personius confirmed that "most of the cities in Whatcom County have impact fees on new construction," providing regional context for the policy discussion. Galloway, who had originally proposed the policy language, offered to accept changing "will" to "may" as a friendly amendment if the policy were retained. After discussion, Stremler's motion to strike the policy failed 2-5, with only Elenbaas joining Stremler in opposition. Galloway then moved to soften the policy language, changing "will be levied" to "may be levied" so the policy would read: "To defray the costs of infrastructure and service improvements required by development in areas under county jurisdiction, Construction Impact Fees, may be levied as per state law." The compromise motion carried unanimously, 7-0. ### Flood Plain and Density Restrictions Amendment 113 addressed climate resilience and development density in vulnerable areas. The proposal would restrict rezoning of R10A district land to higher-density zones if located in current flood plains, future flood plains, or sea level rise inundation zones. Scanlon provided policy rationale: "They may need to put infrastructure in place in some of the flood plain areas and sea-level rise zones and it is likely easier to do so when those areas are less dense compared to when they are more dense." Aamot displayed mapping showing R10A areas to help council members understand the geographic scope, while confirming that "UGAs would not be impacted by this since there is no R10A within urban growth areas." During discussion, council members refined the language, with Scanlon noting that elsewhere "they just said 'future flood plain.'" Galloway accepted this as a friendly amendment, simplifying the policy to address "current or future flood plain or a sea level rise inundation zone." Elenbaas opposed the restriction, stating "he sees this policy as not very productive and it takes away any flexibility they would have to put housing in the appropriate spot and site it away from a critical area in a way that you could preserve the agriculture aspect of that rural zone." Despite his concerns, the motion carried 5-2, with Stremler and Elenbaas dissenting. ### Continuation and Public Comment Recognizing the complexity of the remaining amendments and the approaching time deadline, Galloway moved to continue Chapter 2 discussion at the March 17th Special Committee of the Whole meeting, "picking up where we left off, starting with amendment number 115 and the remaining amendments they did not get to today." The discussion revealed practical challenges of comprehensive plan review, with council members noting there were "14 more amendments to vote on for this chapter" while considering whether they could continue at the evening council meeting. The decision to hold the discussion over to March 17th would "give opportunity for public comment," ensuring citizen input on the remaining amendments. The motion carried 6-0 with Buchanan having left the meeting, setting up the continuation of this detailed policy work for the following week. ## Closing and What's Ahead The meeting adjourned at 4:37 p.m., after three and a half hours of detailed policy work. The session demonstrated both the complexity of comprehensive planning and the council's commitment to working through technical details while maintaining opportunities for public input. The comprehensive plan discussions revealed ongoing tensions between housing supply priorities and environmental protection, between specificity and flexibility in policy language, and between local control and state regulatory requirements. Council members showed willingness to make difficult choices about language and priorities while maintaining procedural rigor in their amendment process. Looking ahead, the March 17th Special Committee of the Whole meeting would continue Chapter 2 discussions with the remaining amendments, ensuring public comment opportunities on the complex land use policies. The criminal justice sales tax would move toward formal introduction and public hearing, while state legislative outcomes remained pending final budget decisions. The meeting highlighted the intersection of local planning with state and federal requirements, from Lake Whatcom management to housing policy to infrastructure funding, demonstrating how county government operates within multiple layers of regulation and partnership while working to address community needs and priorities.