## Meeting Overview On a summer Tuesday morning, July 29, 2025, the Whatcom County Council convened a special Committee of the Whole session that would prove to be one of their most interactive and policy-focused meetings of the year. All seven council members gathered in hybrid format at 9:02 a.m., with Chair Kaylee Galloway presiding, for a deep dive into the Healthy Children's Fund implementation plan—the county's ambitious $20 million levy program aimed at expanding childcare and supporting vulnerable children. This wasn't a routine presentation. Jill Boudreau from the Executive's Office and Sarah Simpson from Health and Community Services had designed an unusually engaging session complete with sticky dot prioritization exercises, policy discussions, and frank conversations about whether the county was moving fast enough to spend voter-approved funds. What emerged over the next 83 minutes was a revealing window into both the successes and tensions surrounding one of Whatcom County's most significant social investments. The meeting's significance lay not just in the fund's size, but in its timing: two and a half years into implementation, with $11 million still sitting in reserves, council members were grappling with fundamental questions about pace, priorities, and whether their approach matched voter expectations. ## The Ordinance Framework and Spending Rules Before diving into strategies and priorities, Boudreau made a point that would resurface throughout the meeting: the ordinance establishing the Healthy Children's Fund was "very prescriptive" about how money could be spent. Using a detailed graphic handout, she walked council through the exact legal language that governs every dollar. "I just felt it was important to go through this, because sometimes when things come, maybe before Council's sort of maybe contract adoption, there might be questions on, well, how does this fit in? And why are we doing this work?" Boudreau explained. The framework divides funding into strict categories: 55-68% must go toward early learning and childcare opportunities, 20-36% toward supporting vulnerable children, and up to 9% for administration (with 3% of that for evaluation). The ordinance requires independent audits every other year—the first of which was out for bid and expected to be completed by December 2025. Council Member Tyler Byrd asked about vendor contract rates, noting that federal rates had recently increased to 15%. Ann Beck confirmed that vendors could negotiate their rates within federal guidelines, though the county's administrative cap remained at 9%. An important clarification emerged when Boudreau noted that, contrary to public perception, the ordinance doesn't actually restrict spending to children ages zero to five. "I know that's out there. And a lot of people think that that's out there, but it's not actually in the ordinance," she said. This sparked immediate discussion. Council Member Todd Donovan observed that the kindergarten readiness goal seemed to imply an age restriction, while Ben Elenbaas noted that helping families inherently helps zero-to-five-year-olds regardless of specific age restrictions. ## Two Years of Implementation: Progress and Challenges Sarah Simpson detailed the implementation process that had unfolded since the plan's adoption in March 2023. The Implementation Team, formed through an open application process, included subject matter experts in vulnerable children, early learning, childcare providers, and members of the Child and Family Well-being Task Force. "This group was formed by application. So it was an open application process where people could apply to sit on the implementation team for the 2526 plan," Simpson explained. The team spent months reviewing what had worked, what hadn't, examining data from the Department of Children, Youth & Families on abuse rates and early learning needs. The results were tangible but modest in scale. The fund had created 259 permanent childcare slots and 192 drop-in childcare slots available monthly across the county. Behavioral health programs had provided 1,946 training hours through internship programs and 586 child appointments and family support visits. Food bank programs were serving over 12,000 households per quarter (though these weren't unique households). Council Member Donovan pressed for more detailed performance metrics: "So the implementation plan has those bullet points for how we'll measure success. So the number you had up there for, it was like under strategy five, we're supposed to have early learning care slots per 100 infants, toddlers and preschoolers as a number. Like, are we getting that with the auditor?" Boudreau acknowledged that robust data collection was still ramping up, with contracts at different stages and information "sort of kind of trickling in at the moment." The external audit would provide a more comprehensive evaluation. ## The Fund Balance Controversy Perhaps the most politically sensitive issue was the fund's growing balance. By the end of 2025, approximately $11 million—roughly one year's worth of revenue—would remain unspent. Boudreau emphasized this wasn't intentional hoarding: "Our concern is more about, is there a quality project? Does it meet the implementation plan? And do we have the resources? Let's do it." Council Member Jon Scanlon probed whether there was an intended target fund balance, drawing parallels to other levy funds that maintain reserves in case of renewal failures. Simpson clarified that staff didn't operate with a specific fund balance target: "Our concern is more about, is there a quality project? Does it meet the implementation plan? And do we have the resources? Let's do it." But Council Member Donovan voiced the political reality: "If I'm not part of this council and I'm looking at, we were sitting on over a third of the money that we brought in at the end of this year, we're bringing in too much money. It'd be my response if I was somebody out in the public, and that's a bad perception for us to be." The staff acknowledged this concern. Two major RFPs—one for capital projects ($7.6 million) and one for subsidies—were in the pipeline, which would accelerate spending significantly. ## The Great Strategy Prioritization Exercise The meeting's most interactive element came when staff distributed sticky dots to council members for a hands-on prioritization exercise. Each member received 10 dots marked with their district number to place on posters listing the fund's 10 strategies. "We have dots for all of you. There's 10. So you can put one on each one if you want, or you can prioritise things if you'd like," Boudreau explained as team members handed out the materials. The exercise revealed clear preferences: **Capital Projects (Strategy 1)** emerged as the top priority, receiving dots from five council members. This strategy focuses on funding small capital projects to expand, renovate, or repurpose buildings to increase childcare slots. **Support for Housing-Unstable Families (Strategy 8)** tied for first place, with strong support across districts. Council Member Elenbaas captured the sentiment: "The, excuse me, the only one on here that actually increases child care slots is small capital projects. And that is a single but limited strategy, right?" But Council Member Tyler Byrd crystallized a fundamental tension: "My issue is the only one on here that actually increases childcare slots is small capital projects. And that in itself doesn't, I mean, it's not creating more child care providers, right?" This led to detailed discussions about which strategies actually create new childcare capacity versus which provide supportive services. Simpson explained that seemingly indirect strategies could increase effective capacity: "Just providing some of these services in the classroom means that they might be able to take more kids on. Like she said, they might be licenced for 10, but because they have children that need more direct support, they can only take five. But now if they've got that direct support in the classroom, they can increase the amount coming in." ## The Workforce and Rural Challenges Several strategies addressed workforce development, though these received fewer priority dots. Council Member Mark Stremler asked about supporting unlicensed in-home childcare providers who might want to become licensed: "Maybe she's just doing it for cash. How can we help that person maybe move into a licenced arena?" Simpson detailed existing programs addressing this need, including the Imagine Institute project (funded through ARPA dollars) that pairs seasoned providers with newcomers, and CREC (Children's Resource and Early Childhood Development), which provides licensing support. The discussion revealed geographic disparities in needs and solutions. While urban areas might need more workforce support, rural areas faced facility and infrastructure challenges. "I think in our community, one of the challenges we face is that there's not always the infrastructure," Simpson noted. ## Funding Allocation Debates The proposed changes for years three and four (2025-2026) would increase early learning and care funding from 62% to 68% while decreasing vulnerable children support from 29% to 23%. This reflected both demand and demonstrated success in childcare expansion. Council Member Byrd raised questions about the math in the presentation slides, noting confusing redundancy in how percentages were displayed. "Anyone else looking at this is wondering, do we know how to do math over here?" he said, highlighting the need for clearer public communication. The ordinance's strict percentage requirements left little flexibility, but the proposed changes would direct more resources toward capital projects and direct childcare expansion—areas showing the most measurable results. ## Communications and Public Expectations A significant theme was the gap between public expectations and program reality. Council Member Scanlon referenced promotional materials that promised "5,000 more child care slots in Whatcom County," noting this was "what people were sold when this came before them." Boudreau acknowledged that communications had been a weakness in the first 28 months: "So that communications piece. So we've really worked on a robust communications plan and part of these videos that we're sharing is part of getting the information out." The team was developing direct mail campaigns, social media presence, and a dedicated website to better inform the public about available services and program successes. ## Looking Forward: Simplification and Focus As the meeting wound down, several themes emerged for future consideration. Council members expressed support for reducing the number of strategies to create more focus and flexibility. Council Member Donovan asked directly: "Is the plan as it exists right now, overly prescriptive and too many narrow buckets that's slowing down the ability to use the revenues that we're bringing in?" Sarah Simpson provided a nuanced response: "Standing up anything like this is a huge administrative and policy sort of challenge for any organisation, whether it's government or not. So I think the idea that we had a detailed plan of where we wanted to go was great. Like it's fantastic. Now that it's in implementation, now we're going to see the fruits of it." She suggested that 2026 would be an optimal time for major strategic pivots: "In 26 is a really exciting time to engage in all of this and really see to the end of the fund, at least, and have that super holistic and then really pivot and get money where it should be going based on data and evaluation." ## Age Restrictions and Vulnerable Children Council Member Scanlon advocated for clearer age restrictions, citing research on adverse childhood experiences and early intervention: "I think about this as, you know, it's a big picture, right? And we've seen the data, you know, around adverse childhood experiences, right? And if this programme can help to reduce those ACE scores for kids later on in life, we're less likely to see people with substance use disorder, less likely to see people in our jail." The vulnerable children definition remained undefined in the ordinance, presenting both opportunity and challenge for focused programming. ## Closing and Next Steps Chair Galloway praised the format as Council Member Byrd declared it "probably my favourite meeting out of any meeting. I like the format and what you're shooting for." The interactive approach had revealed both consensus and tensions. While all council members supported childcare expansion, they differed on priorities between direct slot creation, supportive services, workforce development, and infrastructure investment. Staff committed to incorporating council feedback into the revised implementation plan, with individual meetings planned for deeper district-specific discussions. The plan would return for formal adoption in fall 2025, informed by the audit results and this policy guidance. The meeting adjourned at 10:25 a.m., having achieved something rare in municipal government: a genuine policy workshop where elected officials could explore trade-offs, express preferences, and shape implementation before formal votes. As Galloway noted, "The more consensus we can build in community and that starts and ends with us on the dais, I think the better." The Healthy Children's Fund would continue its evolution, shaped by this morning's discussions and the ongoing challenge of translating voter intentions into measurable outcomes for Whatcom County's youngest residents.

### Meeting Overview The Whatcom County Council met as a Special Committee of the Whole on July 29, 2025, to discuss the Healthy Children's Fund implementation plan for years 3 and 4 (2025-2026). This was an interactive session where county staff presented funding strategies and council members provided policy direction on priorities and allocations for the voter-approved levy that funds early learning and childcare programs. ### Key Terms and Concepts **Implementation Plan:** The detailed roadmap outlining how Healthy Children's Fund dollars will be spent over two-year periods, including specific strategies, funding allocations, and expected outcomes. **Vulnerable Children:** Children experiencing homelessness, abuse, neglect, or other at-risk situations. The ordinance requires 20-36% of levy funds support this population, though no specific definition exists in the ordinance. **Early Learning Hubs:** Regional centers providing shared administrative services, co-located childcare and support services, and assistance for smaller providers across the county. **Capital Projects:** Building construction, renovation, or repurposing to create new childcare slots, funded through specific RFPs. **Drop-in Childcare:** Flexible care services allowing parents to book short-term childcare online for job interviews, errands, or other needs. **Fund Balance:** Accumulated levy revenue not yet spent, currently projected at $11 million by end of 2025. **RFP:** Request for Proposals - the process used to award contracts for specific services or projects. ### Key People at This Meeting | Name | Role / Affiliation | |---|---| | Kaylee Galloway | Council Chair, District 2 | | Jill Boudreau | Senior Policy & Project Manager, Executive's Office | | Sarah Simpson | Child & Family Programs Supervisor, Health & Community Services | | Ann Beck | Community Health & Human Services Manager | | Barry Buchanan | Council Member, District 1 | | Tyler Byrd | Council Member, District 1 | | Todd Donovan | Council Member, District 2 | | Ben Elenbaas | Council Member, District 5 | | Jon Scanlon | Council Member, District 3 | | Mark Stremler | Council Member, District 7 | ### Background Context The Healthy Children's Fund was approved by Whatcom County voters as a property tax levy to address critical gaps in early childhood education and childcare. The ordinance is highly prescriptive, requiring specific percentages go to early learning/childcare (55-68%) versus vulnerable children support (20-36%), with 9% allowed for administration. After 28 months of implementation, staff have contracted $7.9 million across 37 active contracts, creating 259 new childcare slots and 192 drop-in care slots monthly. However, an $11 million fund balance has accumulated, raising questions about spending pace and strategy effectiveness. ### What Happened — The Short Version County staff presented the current state of the Healthy Children's Fund and proposed strategies for 2025-2026. Council members participated in an interactive prioritization exercise using stickers to indicate which of 10 strategies their districts most needed. The clear winner was capital projects for building new childcare facilities, followed by housing support for vulnerable families and subsidies to reduce childcare costs. Several council members expressed frustration that only one strategy directly creates new childcare slots, despite this being the primary voter expectation. Staff proposed increasing early learning funding from 62% to 68% while decreasing vulnerable children support from 29% to 23%. The session revealed significant council interest in focusing on fewer, more impactful strategies rather than spreading funds across 10 different approaches. ### What to Watch Next • Staff will meet individually with council members to discuss district-specific priorities and refine the implementation plan • Council will reconvene in fall 2025 for formal adoption of the 2025-2026 implementation plan • Independent audit results due by December 2025 will provide external evaluation of fund performance • Major RFPs for capital projects ($7.6 million) and subsidies are launching, representing significant fund acceleration ---

**Q:** How much money has accumulated in the Healthy Children's Fund balance? **A:** $11 million by the end of 2025, representing about one year of revenue. **Q:** What percentage of Healthy Children's Fund money must go to early learning and childcare according to the ordinance? **A:** Between 55% and 68% of the total fund. **Q:** How many new childcare slots have been created so far through the fund? **A:** 259 permanent childcare slots plus 192 drop-in childcare slots available monthly. **Q:** Who is Jill Boudreau and what was her role in this meeting? **A:** Senior Policy and Project Manager in the County Executive's office who facilitated the implementation plan discussion. **Q:** What is the maximum percentage allowed for administrative costs? **A:** 9% of the total fund, with up to 3% specifically for evaluation purposes. **Q:** Which strategy received the most council member support in the prioritization exercise? **A:** Strategy 1 - capital projects to expand, renovate or repurpose buildings to increase childcare slots. **Q:** How many active contracts are currently funded by the Healthy Children's Fund? **A:** 37 contracts totaling $7.9 million over 28 months of implementation. **Q:** What is the proposed change in funding allocation percentages for 2025-2026? **A:** Increase early learning/childcare from 62% to 68%, decrease vulnerable children support from 29% to 23%. **Q:** Does the ordinance restrict funding to children under age 5? **A:** No, despite common belief, the ordinance does not include specific age restrictions. **Q:** What major RFPs are launching soon? **A:** Capital projects RFP for $7.6 million and subsidies RFP, both representing significant fund acceleration. **Q:** When is the next council decision point for the implementation plan? **A:** Fall 2025, when council will formally adopt the 2025-2026 implementation plan. **Q:** What was Council Member Byrd's main concern about the current strategies? **A:** Only one strategy (capital projects) specifically increases childcare slots, which was the main promise to voters. **Q:** How often are independent audits required? **A:** Every other year, with the first audit due by December 2025. **Q:** What is "drop-in childcare" through the fund? **A:** Online service allowing families to book short-term childcare for errands, job interviews, or other needs. **Q:** Who makes up the Implementation Team that developed the plan? **A:** County staff, subject matter experts, and community members selected through an application process. ---