Whatcom County Council Planning and Development Committee

The Whatcom County Council Planning and Development Committee received a comprehensive departmental update from Planning and Development Services (PDS) Director Mark Personius, revealing both significant operational challenges and ambitious future workload demands. The presentation painted a picture of a department managing substantial community growth and regulatory complexity with effectively the same staffing levels it had 20 years ago. The most striking statistic emerged from Personius's historical comparison: while Whatcom County's population has grown by more than 55,000 people over the past two decades, PDS has actually shrunk from 54 budgeted positions in 2006 to 53 today. This dramatic imbalance has forced the department to pursue aggressive efficiency measures, including cross-training staff across divisions and implementing the SKEP (Skills Enhancement and Training Program) to allow internal advancement without additional funded positions. The department's workload statistics underscore the operational pressure: staff handle over 700 building inspections monthly, field nearly 1,000 phone calls during peak summer months, and process more than 100 public disclosure requests annually. Director Personius noted they're second only to the Sheriff's Office in public records request volume, consuming significant staff time beyond their core permitting functions. Looking ahead, the committee considered docketing 15 new comprehensive plan and development regulation amendment projects for 2026, though Personius acknowledged they cannot complete all items in a single year. State-mandated priorities include the Critical Areas Ordinance update (due within six months of comprehensive plan adoption) and housing amendments that must be adopted concurrently with the comp plan due to legal proceedings elsewhere in the state. The meeting concluded with tension over the docketing process itself, as Council Member Ben Elenbaas challenged why specific code language proposed by council members must wait on the docket rather than proceeding immediately through the review process. His frustration reflected a broader concern about legislative authority being constrained by administrative workload limitations. No formal votes were taken. The docket resolution (AB 2026-195) was forwarded to the evening council meeting without committee recommendation, allowing for continued deliberation on prioritization and process concerns.

**AB 2026-194 (PDS Department Report):** - **Action:** Received as information/reported - **Vote:** No formal vote required - **Details:** Comprehensive presentation on department metrics, staffing challenges, customer service data, and future priorities **AB 2026-195 (Resolution docketing Comprehensive Plan and Development Regulation amendments):** - **Action:** Forwarded to Council without recommendation - **Vote:** No committee vote taken - **Details:** Proposed docketing of 15 new items for 2026 work program, including Critical Areas Ordinance update, school impact fees, and housing amendments - **Staff Recommendation:** Not specified, though Personius noted capacity constraints and prioritization necessity

**Mark Personius, on staffing challenges:** "In 2006, PDS had 54 budgeted FTE positions. Today, 20 years later, we have 53. So in the last 20 years, the county population grew by more than 55,000 people. And our workforce has actually shrunk." **Mark Personius, on daily operational reality:** "Between 10 and 20% of our staff are are not available. They're on leave. They're on increasingly on medical leave. The youngers are adding to their families and the elders are replacing their knees and their hips and their shoulders." **Mark Personius, on state mandate complexity:** "There hasn't been a year in my memory when the state legislature did not adopt new land use building or environmental laws for counties to implement. It creates a situation where the regulatory ground underneath us is moving almost constantly." **Council Member Ben Elenbaas, on docketing frustration:** "It's so insane to me that, 'cause like say I, we make a change to Whatcom County Code 2.54, which we may be doing tonight that doesn't have to go to the docket and die and wait a year and a half to get implemented it's County code." **Council Member Ben Elenbaas, on legislative authority:** "As a council member, when I propose language, I feel like that should be a good trigger, right? If we present it to you as an idea, like with the slaughterhouse thing, that's being presented to you guys through the AG Advisory Committee on like, hey, help us come up with what we need here. That's not at all what I had done with the AG storage." **Mark Personius, on workload reality:** "We can't do it all this year. Certainly, we will prioritize. Our priorities are state mandates and legal compliance issues." **Kelly Chamberlain, on call volume:** "In July, it's over a thousand calls a month. And throughout the summer when development is quite busy, it's really hitting over 900 quite regularly with our admin spending 15, 17, 20 hours, just triaging calls." **Mark Personius, on private UGA expansion timing:** "I wouldn't recommend telling somebody we're going to take $10,000 and then we're going to put you on the shelf for five years at a minimum with no guarantee that we'd ever approve it."

## Meeting Overview The Whatcom County Council Planning and Development Committee convened on March 10, 2026, at 11:07 AM in a hybrid format with all seven council members present. Committee Chair Jessica Rienstra led a packed agenda that included a comprehensive annual report from the Planning and Development Services Department and consideration of the 2026 docket for comprehensive plan and development regulation amendments. What made this meeting notable was the tension between the department's ambitious workload and its constrained capacity, as well as Council Member Ben Elenbaas's pointed criticism of the docketing process that he argued hampers the council's ability to function effectively. Director Mark Personius and his team presented extensive data showing both the department's substantial workload—handling nearly 1,000 phone calls monthly and over 700 building inspections—and the challenges of operating with the same staffing levels as 20 years ago while serving a population that has grown by 55,000 people. The discussion revealed ongoing tensions about permit processing times, staffing challenges, and the fundamental question of whether the county's planning department has adequate resources to meet community demands. ## Planning Department Annual Report: Numbers Tell the Story Mark Personius, the Planning and Development Services Director, opened with a data-driven overview of his department's work, assisted by communications specialist Kelly Chamberlain. The numbers painted a picture of steady demand despite economic headwinds. "I just point out on the right here, these are the building permits, which is typically the largest volume that we have," Personius explained, gesturing to a slide showing ten years of permit activity. "You'll see just over the last 10 years, decreasing rates of permits in general, which is not unusual for a county our size." While overall permit numbers had declined in 2025 due to high interest rates and construction costs, Personius highlighted a key indicator: "But I would point out this pre-application is an indicator of future, likely future construction activity. And you see that is actually, it has been increasing over the last 10 years and relatively stable the last couple of years." The department processed applications across a wide spectrum—single-family homes, commercial projects, accessory dwelling units, subdivisions, and various land use permits. Building permits in 2025 included 287 single-family homes applied for with 158 approved, plus commercial projects, detached structures, and 47 ADU applications. Chamberlain presented striking data on customer service volume. Four administrative staff members handle the main phone queue, triaging an enormous volume of calls. "In January, that was over 750 calls," she reported, with summer months regularly exceeding 900 calls and sometimes topping 1,000. "Throughout the summer when development is quite busy, it's really hitting over 900 quite regularly with our admin spending 15, 17, 20 hours, just triaging calls." The department maintains a comprehensive online resource center with form guides and links to help applicants navigate the permitting process independently. "We love to provide them with resources so that they don't have to call us so that they can figure out their own pathway when they like to," Chamberlain explained. Building inspections represent another major workload: over 700 inspections monthly, all scheduled for next-day service. "You just call in. We'll send out inspector the next day," Personius noted, describing a system with three geographic zones for efficiency. One striking trend was the growth in public records requests. "My understanding is I think we're second to the sheriff's office and volume of these. We now average well over 100 a year," Personius said. "They take a significant amount of time, staff time, not just admin time... but also all the staff that are involved that have any history with that or any emails, it can be quite, quite time consuming." ## Staffing Challenges and Management Innovations The organizational chart Personius displayed showed the stark reality of constrained resources. Gray boxes indicated vacant positions, including frozen management roles. "The natural resources planning manager is frozen at the moment. The long range planning manager is not funded at all," he explained. "That's the position I had when I first came to the county 14 years ago." The staffing situation has remained essentially static despite massive community growth. "In 2006, PDS had 54 budgeted FTE positions. Today, 20 years later, we have 53. So in the last 20 years, the county population grew by more than 55,000 people. And our workforce has actually shrunk." In response to these constraints, the department developed the Skills Enhancement and Training Program (SKEP), allowing career advancement without additional funded positions. "You can go from a planner one to a planner two to a planner three... internally with training requirements and other experience requirements without having to have an open position," Personius explained. Daily staffing presents ongoing challenges. "Between 10 and 20% of our staff are not available. They're on leave. They're on increasingly on medical leave. The youngers are adding to their families and the elders are replacing their knees and their hips and their shoulders." Despite this, "we still have to do the work. Those people are not available sometimes for six months or more." Cross-training has become essential for managing workload redistribution and creating opportunities for staff to move between divisions when openings arise. ## Major Projects in the Pipeline Personius outlined significant development activity throughout the county. In Birch Bay's Urban Growth Area, the Whisper Lake phase two development has submitted 66 single-family permit applications since final plat approval last year. The Horizons development is preparing for 52 middle housing four-plex townhomes and 68 multi-family units. The Ponderosa Mobile Home Park redevelopment, approved by council last year, will accommodate 122 new mobile home units. "We've got over 50,000 square feet of new commercial industrial building applications in the pipeline across the county, either already submitted or in the pre-application process," Personius reported. The department is also managing major infrastructure projects including the California Creek Estuary Park shoreline permitting, Lummi Island Ferry Terminal improvements, and initiating the Ranch Quarry Mine Environmental Impact Statement process. ## Questions Reveal Ongoing Tensions Council Member Kaylee Galloway raised questions about compliance with state permit review timelines. Personius explained that reporting requirements now focus only on multifamily permits and subdivisions, not the broader range of permits the department processes. The current permitting system cannot automatically generate timeline reports. "The vendor has told us they can do that for an extra fee, of course, an extra cost. So we are working internally on researching whether we can use AI to kind of do that ourselves." Galloway suggested the council might consider funding the upgrade: "If we're interested in entertaining a budget, a supplemental budget request to help fund that technology, it might be a worthwhile investment just so we can continue to track and monitor." Council Member Elizabeth Boyle asked about right-sizing the department. Personius acknowledged the challenge but couldn't specify ideal staffing levels. "I don't know what a right size is. I know there are we're we're one of those counties that are right on the edge, right? We are no longer classified as a rural county, according to the state. But drive around Whatcom County and be hard pressed to say we're not a rural county." He emphasized how state mandates continuously add complexity: "There hasn't been a year in my memory when the state legislature did not adopt new land use building or environmental laws for counties to implement... The regulatory ground underneath us is moving almost constantly." Council Member Ben Elenbaas challenged the phone service data, citing constituent complaints about missed calls and voicemails that contradicted the presentation's positive statistics. Chamberlain clarified that the data only covered the main phone queue, not individual staff extensions, which explained the discrepancy. Elenbaas also asked about hiring strategies. "Do you have any strategies like that, that we could start thinking about to help you with your full staff?" Personius acknowledged it as primarily a budget issue but noted that "it's known in the planning community that this is a controversial place sometimes to work." ## The 2026 Docket: Ambitious Agenda, Limited Capacity Lucas Clark, participating remotely, presented the proposed 2026 docket containing 15 new items for comprehensive plan and development regulation amendments. The docket serves as the department's official to-do list for major regulatory changes, required by the Growth Management Act. The list included state-mandated items like the Critical Areas Ordinance update, locally requested items like school impact fees from Linden and Ferndale school districts, and ongoing work like the annual code amendments. One privately initiated request sought to expand the Birch Bay Urban Growth Area. When Chair Rienstra asked about capacity to complete all the work, Personius was direct: "Yeah, we can't do it all this year. Certainly, we will prioritize. Our priorities are state mandates and legal compliance issues, legal proceedings that we have to do." The Critical Areas Ordinance update topped the priority list as a state mandate that must be completed within six months of comprehensive plan adoption. The school district impact fee requests also ranked high priority, requiring extensive work to update 2009-era code, develop interlocal agreements, and integrate fee collection into the permit system. Council Member Jon Scanlon asked about the Lincoln Road property that developer Bill Guyer had presented to council the previous week. Personius confirmed it had been considered during the comprehensive plan process but wasn't recommended for Urban Growth Area inclusion. He suggested using the UGA reserve overlay designation to signal future growth areas to utility providers rather than docketing expensive amendment processes. ## Elenbaas Challenges the Docketing Process The meeting's most contentious moment came when Council Member Elenbaas questioned why specific code language proposed by council members must wait on the docket rather than moving immediately through the public process. "Personally, I disagree with that," Elenbaas said. "As the legislative authority, we should have the authority to update the code with language we have... adopt. So I guess my problem is, is like when I sent when we send something to you and it's like, this is the language we're looking for. Why doesn't that just go right into the public process to come right back to us to approve?" Personius explained the constraints: "It's not like we don't have anything else to do. Okay, we've got a full plate already, and that's why some things don't get done on the docket because they fall off the plate. We simply don't have the resources to do it in a given year." He noted that many items require review by advisory committees before reaching the planning commission and council, creating a "very deliberative process." Elenbaas pushed back: "My expectation as a council member is when we send something like that, that it immediately starts that process instead of sitting on the docket to wait years to get to." The exchange revealed deeper frustration with the system's pace. Elenbaas specifically referenced agricultural storage building language he had proposed, which he said wasn't meant to fix a specific permit issue but to align with broader agricultural viability goals in the comprehensive plan. "It almost feels like my ability to function as a council member is being hampered by it dying on the docket, right?" Elenbaas said. "And like we are expected by our constituents to help them and make good decisions for the future. I guess that it's straight up criminal to me that we even have to go through the docketing process on code language." Personius acknowledged the concern while explaining resource constraints: "We do have to balance all those requests, right? Not just from council, but from the administration and from privately initiated folks outside the organization that will also want changes." He provided specific examples of timing challenges, noting that the Agricultural Advisory Committee goes on hiatus during summer farming season and their staff coordinator was having a baby, meaning meat processing amendments couldn't be addressed until fall. ## No Recommendation Moves Forward As the meeting approached its noon deadline, the discussion remained unresolved. Council Member Galloway suggested letting the docket item move forward without committee recommendation, allowing continued deliberation at the evening council meeting. "If we just don't make a motion out of committee today it would just come out of committee with no recommendation we could pick up this discussion and deliberation at this evening's council meeting," Galloway explained. Personius reminded the committee there was no deadline pressure: "You're not, there's no deadline on this. So if you, and typically council does add things to, to the docket, so you don't have to make a decision tonight." ## Closing and What's Ahead The meeting adjourned at 12:05 PM with the docket item forwarding to council without recommendation and clear tensions remaining about the balance between planning department capacity and community expectations. The discussion highlighted fundamental questions about local government effectiveness: How should counties balance thorough public process with responsive action? What level of staffing is appropriate for growing communities? And how can elected officials ensure their policy priorities don't languish in bureaucratic processes? These questions will likely resurface as the council considers the docket at their evening meeting, with the backdrop of a planning department managing substantial workload with static resources while facing continuous pressure for faster, more responsive service. The department's annual report showed impressive productivity metrics, but also revealed the stress points in a system stretched between competing demands for careful process and timely results.

## MODULE S1: STUDY GUIDE **Meeting ID:** WHA-CON-PDV-2026-03-10 ### Meeting Overview The Whatcom County Council Planning and Development Committee met on March 10, 2026, to receive a departmental status report and consider the annual docket of proposed planning amendments. The meeting focused on PDS's operational challenges and the 15 new items proposed for the 2026 work program. ### Key Terms and Concepts **Annual Docket:** A legally required list of proposed amendments to the comprehensive plan and development regulations that PDS maintains and presents to council each year. The Growth Management Act requires this process to provide transparency about what planning changes are being considered. **Growth Management Act (GMA):** State legislation that requires counties like Whatcom to manage growth through comprehensive planning, critical area protection, and coordinated development patterns. Many of PDS's mandated tasks stem from GMA requirements. **Urban Growth Area (UGA):** Designated areas where cities can accommodate growth and eventually annex. These boundaries are carefully managed and can only be expanded when there's demonstrated need and adequate infrastructure capacity. **Critical Areas Ordinance:** County regulations protecting environmentally sensitive areas like wetlands, fish habitat, and steep slopes. PDS must update these within six months of adopting the comprehensive plan. **Pre-application Meeting:** An early consultation between developers and PDS staff to identify potential issues before formal permit submission. The volume of these meetings indicates future development activity. **Site Plan Review:** The process where PDS evaluates proposed development locations relative to critical areas, buffers, and stormwater requirements. This often involves multiple iterations as projects are refined. **SKEP Program:** Skills Enhancement Training Program that allows PDS staff to advance from Planner I to Planner II to Planner III without waiting for vacant positions, addressing the reality that staffing hasn't grown despite population increases. **Impact Fees:** Charges on new development to help fund the infrastructure (like schools) needed to serve growth. Both Lynden and Ferndale school districts have requested the county implement these fees. ### Key People at This Meeting | Name | Role / Affiliation | |---|---| | Jessica Rienstra | Committee Chair | | Elizabeth Boyle | Council Member | | Barry Buchanan | Council Member | | Ben Elenbaas | Council Member | | Kaylee Galloway | Council Member | | Jon Scanlon | Council Member | | Mark Stremler | Council Member | | Mark Personius | PDS Director | | Kelly Chamberlain | PDS Communication Specialist | | Lucas Clark | PDS Planner (presented remotely) | ### Background Context Whatcom County's Planning and Development Services department operates at the intersection of state mandates and local needs, managing everything from single-family home permits to major industrial projects. The department has seen declining permit volumes in recent years due to high interest rates and construction costs, but pre-application meetings suggest development activity may increase. A critical challenge is that PDS has essentially the same staffing (53 FTE) as 20 years ago, despite the county adding 55,000 residents and the state adopting numerous new planning requirements. This creates pressure to find efficiencies while maintaining service quality. The department processes over 700 building inspections monthly and handles nearly 1,000 phone calls during busy summer periods. The annual docketing process reflects this capacity constraint - while 15 new items are proposed for 2026, PDS acknowledges they cannot complete everything. State mandates like the critical areas ordinance update and legally required housing amendments take priority, potentially delaying other locally-initiated improvements. ### What Happened — The Short Version The meeting had two main parts. First, PDS Director Mark Personius and staff presented data showing their workload and challenges. Building permits have declined recently due to economic conditions, but pre-application meetings remain strong, suggesting future activity. The department handles massive call volumes - over 1,000 calls monthly in summer - with just four administrative staff doing initial triage. Personius highlighted staffing challenges, noting that 10-20% of staff are typically unavailable due to medical leave or family obligations. The department has created internal advancement programs since they can't add positions, and they've improved coordination with other departments like Public Works and Health. The second part covered the 2026 docket - a wish list of 15 planning projects ranging from mandated critical areas updates to school impact fees to cannabis retail code revisions. However, Personius acknowledged they can't do everything and will prioritize state mandates and legal requirements first. Council members raised concerns about permitting timelines, department sizing, and the docketing process itself. Council Member Elenbaas expressed frustration that council-proposed code changes get stuck on the docket for years instead of moving through the review process quickly. The committee forwarded the docket to the full council without a recommendation, allowing for continued discussion at the evening council meeting. ### What to Watch Next - The critical areas ordinance update must be completed within six months of comprehensive plan adoption - School impact fee implementation for Lynden and Ferndale districts will require code updates and interlocal agreements - The comprehensive plan itself is nearing final adoption, which will trigger implementation work - PDS will bring housing-related code amendments to planning commission in April and council in May to meet state deadlines ---

## MODULE S2: FLASH CARDS **Meeting ID:** WHA-CON-PDV-2026-03-10 **Q:** How many FTE positions does PDS currently have? **A:** 53 positions, which is actually one less than they had 20 years ago despite the county gaining over 55,000 residents. **Q:** What are the two management positions PDS is missing? **A:** The natural resources planning manager (frozen) and the long range planning manager (not funded at all). **Q:** How many phone calls does PDS handle monthly during busy periods? **A:** Over 1,000 calls per month during summer, with July seeing more than 1,000 calls handled by four administrative staff. **Q:** What does PDS's SKEP program do? **A:** Skills Enhancement Training Program allows staff to advance from Planner I to II to III without waiting for open positions. **Q:** How many building inspections does PDS conduct monthly? **A:** Over 700 inspections per month, scheduled for next-day service across three geographic areas of the county. **Q:** What percentage of PDS staff are typically unavailable on any given day? **A:** Between 10-20% due to medical leave, family leave, or other absences. **Q:** How many public disclosure requests does PDS receive annually? **A:** Well over 100 per year, making them second only to the sheriff's office in volume. **Q:** What are PDS's top priorities for the 2026 docket? **A:** State mandates and legal compliance, specifically the critical areas ordinance update and school district impact fees. **Q:** When must the critical areas ordinance be updated? **A:** Within six months after the comprehensive plan is adopted. **Q:** Which two school districts want impact fees implemented? **A:** Lynden and Ferndale school districts have requested the county adopt impact fees for new development. **Q:** What was the total acreage of the private Birch Bay UGA expansion request? **A:** 36.40 acres, currently zoned R10A rural. **Q:** How many new items are proposed for the 2026 docket? **A:** 15 new proposals, though PDS acknowledges they cannot complete all items in one year. **Q:** What does Director Personius recommend for the Birch Bay expansion request? **A:** He suggests not docketing it now but instead designating it as UGA reserve overlay for future consideration. **Q:** What permit types showed the largest decline in 2025? **A:** Building permits and natural resource reviews fell off due to high interest rates and construction costs. **Q:** What do pre-application meetings indicate about future development? **A:** They're a leading indicator of future construction activity and have remained relatively stable, suggesting development may pick up. **Q:** What's the fee for privately initiated docket amendments? **A:** About $10,000, and PDS warns there's no guarantee of approval. **Q:** Which county code sections would need updates for school impact fees? **A:** Whatcom County Code 2075, which hasn't been updated since 2009 despite state law changes. **Q:** What did Council Member Elenbaas say about the docketing process? **A:** He feels it hampers his ability to function as a council member when code changes "die on the docket." **Q:** How long might the Agricultural Advisory Committee be unavailable? **A:** They go on hiatus in May and won't return until September/October because members are farmers. **Q:** What happens to the docket if the committee doesn't vote? **A:** It moves to full council without a recommendation, allowing continued discussion at the evening meeting. ---