Whatcom County Council Finance and Administrative Services Committee

**Jon Scanlon, on criminal justice tax transparency:** "If we wanna say, 'cause it's a councilmanic option, if we're saying, hey, people of Whatcom County, hey, businesses of Whatcom County, hey, visitors to Whatcom County, We want you to pay an additional sales tax. Here's what we're gonna use it on." **Ben Elenbaas, on spending oversight:** "I don't trust you guys the way you guys spend money. So I kind of like the idea of codifying exactly what it's going to be spent on." **Mark Stremler, on taxation authority:** "I would rather have the voters decide if we're going to take $7 million more out of their pockets than us." **Ben Elenbaas, on federal grant requirements:** "But I guess to answer the question real quick for the public record is yes, they're stipulating a whole bunch of things about the program." **Sarah Simpson, on basic needs support:** "Children can't go to childcare and parents can't go to work if they can't deliver diapers. So those childcare centers, childcare ce

# Whatcom County Council Finance Committee: Sales Tax Debates and Budget Season Prep ## Meeting Overview The Whatcom County Council Finance and Administrative Services Committee convened for an unusually packed morning on March 24, 2026. Chair John Scanlon called the meeting to order at 9:27 a.m., with all seven council members present: Elizabeth Boyle, Barry Buchanan, Ben Elenbaas, Kaylee Galloway, Jessica Rienstra, Scanlon himself, and Mark Stremler. What made this meeting particularly significant was the convergence of routine administrative business with a contentious policy debate that would continue into the evening. The committee processed 11 consent agenda items, nine budget-related ordinances, and spent considerable time discussing a proposed criminal justice sales tax that had clearly divided both the council and the community. The meeting also marked the delivery of the fourth quarter 2025 financial report, providing the backdrop for difficult budget decisions ahead. ## The Puget Sound Partnership Regulatory Debate The morning's first substantive discussion emerged when Councilmember Ben Elenbaas pulled agenda item 2 from the consent agenda — a $100,817 grant from the Puget Sound Partnership to develop a source control business inspection program under federal pollution discharge requirements. What began as a routine question about funding sources revealed deeper concerns about federal regulatory overreach and local autonomy. Elenbaas pressed Jennifer Hayden from Health and Community Services about the grant's origins: "So why is this money coming from Puget Sound Partnership? Where do they get the money from?" When Hayden couldn't immediately answer, the questioning intensified. "What kind of stipulations does the Puget Sound Partnership get to put on the program?" Elenbaas asked. "No strings attached. They have zero oversight. They're not going to say, no, your program needs to look like this?" The exchange revealed the complexity of federal pass-through funding. Director Thomas Cuddy clarified that these were indeed "federal pass through dollars" with requirements already baked into the county's approved proposal. But Elenbaas had read the contract terms and found them troubling: "I guess to answer the question real quick for the public record is yes, they're stipulating a whole bunch of things about the program." The councilmember's primary concern centered on public engagement. The contract specified that public comment wasn't required, which Elenbaas saw as potentially problematic: "I just wanted to make sure that just because it's not required doesn't mean that we won't do it because I think it's going to be very important to engage the businesses that will be regulated in the development of the program." He drew parallels to past regulatory mishaps, particularly when the county "changed definitions around onsite septic systems" without adequate input from affected contractors. Chair Scanlon suggested bringing the issue to the business and commerce advisory committee, recognizing the potential impact on local businesses. When it came time to vote, the item passed 5-2, with both Elenbaas and Stremler voting no — an unusual dissent on what appeared to be routine administrative business. ## Childcare Funding: East County Challenges Councilmember Stremler raised questions about three Healthy Children's Fund contracts totaling over $400,000, specifically asking whether any would create new childcare slots. Sarah Simpson from Child and Family Programs delivered a detailed presentation explaining the contracts' purposes, but her answer was unambiguous: none would directly create childcare capacity. The contracts included $111,000 for basic needs assistance through Opportunity Council ("over 230 families were served" with diapers and other essentials), support for families with children with complex medical needs, and a SEAS hotline program. Simpson emphasized the importance of seemingly mundane support: "Children can't go to childcare and parents can't go to work if they can't deliver diapers. Childcare centers don't provide diapers as a part of your tuition." Stremler's follow-up question revealed ongoing geographic equity concerns: "So you mentioned East County being a bit of a daycare desert... any progress with any expansion of daycare in that area?" Simpson responded that five out of seven recent capital contracts went to areas outside Bellingham city limits, though she couldn't provide specific locations during the meeting. ## Summer Weather Shelter Planning The committee approved extending a lease with Lutheran Community Services for potential summer shelter operations, but the discussion revealed significant uncertainty about emergency response planning. Chris Nafro from the supervised housing program explained the $32,000 contract would provide storage space and an option to activate shelter services during extreme weather events like wildfire smoke or heat waves. "I just want to be really clear with everyone in this call and out in the public that we don't yet have a firm plan on how and when we would operate a summer shelter," Nafro cautioned. The county was essentially buying flexibility rather than committing to specific services. Deputy Executive Anne Deacon emphasized this wasn't "a commitment to operate a shelter at this point because it would be a much larger commitment from the community." When Stremler asked about city involvement in heat and smoke response, Nafro acknowledged limited coordination: "I'm not aware of any concrete plans they have for clean air or healthy air operations over the coming summer." The discussion highlighted the challenge of emergency preparedness in a region increasingly vulnerable to climate-related extreme weather. ## The Criminal Justice Tax Debate The meeting's most contentious discussion centered on a proposed one-tenth of one percent sales tax for criminal justice purposes — potentially generating $6.5 to $7 million annually. Chair Scanlon had prepared multiple approaches for implementing the tax, reflecting the complexity of the political dynamics. The executive's original proposal was deliberately broad, leaving spending decisions to future budget processes. But Scanlon had crafted alternatives that would specify how the first two years of revenue would be used: jail health and food services contracts, sheriff's office lease payments, and labor cost increases across the criminal justice system. Councilmember Elenbaas expressed skepticism about the county's spending priorities: "I guess I don't trust you guys the way you guys spend money. So I kind of like the idea of codifying exactly what it's going to be spent on." But he also recognized the contradiction in limiting future councils' flexibility when "it'll be us deciding where it's gonna go" during the relevant budget period. Scanlon explained his rationale for providing specific direction: "If we're saying, hey, people of Whatcom County, hey, businesses of Whatcom County, hey, visitors to Whatcom County, we want you to pay an additional sales tax. Here's what we're gonna use it on." He emphasized that rising costs meant the tax wouldn't fund significant new services but would help maintain existing service levels. The discussion revealed deep ambivalence about new taxation. Councilmember Stremler articulated constituents' confusion: "I've had a number of constituents reach out and ask me about this and first words that come out of their mouth are, oh, I, hey, I see there's a potential new public safety tax. And I'm like, not a public safety tax... I've only seen criminal justice use tax." Stremler's concerns went beyond semantics: "I would rather have the voters decide if we're going to take $7 million more out of their pockets than us. I know that's not how this one is designed. But for me to as part of this body to say, yeah, let's take another 7 million is a big challenge for me at this point." Councilmember Galloway offered the most detailed defense of the tax, arguing it would prevent cuts to sheriff's office operations: "By being able to fund those contracted obligations through this funding source allows us to continue levels of service, otherwise generally fund funded programs." She supported Scanlon's hybrid approach of adopting the executive's ordinance alongside a resolution specifying short-term priorities. The math was sobering. Even with the full $7 million, the county would barely cover projected cost increases: $3 million in criminal justice employee cost-of-living adjustments, $3.8 million for jail health and food contracts, and $750,000 for the sheriff's office lease. Deputy Executive Deacon warned: "I think even with this revenue, we're looking at a tough budget process." ## Budget Season Preparations Finance Director Randy Rydell delivered the fourth quarter 2025 financial report during the meeting, providing crucial context for upcoming budget decisions. The general fund ended with a balance of approximately $33.8 million, up from projected $29.7 million due to timing differences in federal funding recognition. However, Rydell cautioned against optimism about the higher fund balance. Much of the increase came from $1.4 million in opioid settlement money that "the State Auditor advised us that we needed to recognize now and not hold off until the expenses," which "can't be used for anything other than opioid settlement type expenses." The report revealed relatively flat spending across county departments, with parks and health departments actually spending less than the previous year. But underlying cost pressures remained intense, particularly for criminal justice operations. When Scanlon asked about funds of particular concern, Rydell demurred on providing details during the meeting, preferring to schedule a proper briefing for late April alongside budget process updates. This careful approach reflected the politically sensitive nature of the county's financial position as budget season approaches. ## Infrastructure and Economic Development The committee efficiently processed multiple infrastructure-related items that had been held up by new charter requirements for financial reporting. These included stormwater improvements at Strawberry Point and Eagle Ridge, courthouse building envelope repairs, and the ongoing Swift Creek capital projects. Councilmember Galloway asked about Swift Creek funding, noting the state's commitment of "$10 to $12 million every biennium" had fallen short with "approximately half of that" actually delivered over the last two budget cycles. Legislative liaison Jed Holmes confirmed Swift Creek wasn't prioritized for the current short legislative session but would be part of future appropriation requests. The committee also addressed updates to the Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy project list, though withdrew their recommendation when last-minute changes were needed. The discussion revealed ongoing challenges in maintaining current project lists across multiple planning documents, with some completed projects apparently still listed and others potentially missing. Councilmember Elenbaas raised questions about the massive project list: "How much do we harp on municipalities to update this list? I'm seeing projects that appear to me to be done and they seem to be still listed." Tyler Schroeder from the Port of Bellingham acknowledged the challenge, noting they would conduct "a little bit more of a thorough review" during the upcoming 2027-2031 strategy update process. ## Fiscal Reality Check Perhaps the most sobering moment came when Deputy Executive Deacon outlined the scale of the county's budget challenge. Without new revenue sources like the proposed sales tax, the county should "expect to absorb more than $7 million of cuts in the 2728 budget process... spread across county departments." The sheriff's office faced particular pressure due to "the most cost escalation, principally because of jail operating costs," but Deacon emphasized cuts wouldn't be limited to law enforcement. The comment crystallized the difficult choices ahead: find new revenue sources, make significant service cuts, or some combination of both. ## Looking Ahead The meeting adjourned at 10:35 a.m., but the criminal justice tax debate was far from over. A public hearing was scheduled for that evening, with additional discussion sessions planned before any final decisions. The committee had also scheduled a special meeting for March 31st to potentially consider a resolution outlining spending priorities. The morning's proceedings revealed a council grappling with fundamental questions about taxation, service levels, and public engagement in an era of rising costs and competing priorities. Whether the criminal justice tax would pass remained unclear, but the discussion had laid bare the fiscal pressures driving the proposal and the political challenges of implementing new taxes without voter approval. As budget season approaches, the committee's work on routine infrastructure projects and service contracts provided a reminder of the county's basic operational needs. But the larger debates about regulatory oversight, geographic equity in services, and fiscal sustainability suggested more contentious discussions ahead.