# Transit Innovation and Budget Decisions at Whatcom County Council Committee of the Whole ## Meeting Overview On Wednesday afternoon, August 6, 2025, the Whatcom County Council Committee of the Whole convened in a hybrid format at the County Courthouse to tackle two substantial agenda items that would shape both the county's transportation future and its fiscal priorities. All seven council members were present for what would become a nearly three-hour discussion spanning transit innovation, budget deliberations, and comprehensive planning. The meeting began with Council Chair Kaylee Galloway calling the session to order at 1:02 PM, setting the stage for presentations and debates that would reveal both the collaborative spirit and the careful fiscal stewardship that characterizes local government decision-making in Whatcom County. ## WTA's Vision: Beyond the Bus Les Reardanz, executive with the Whatcom Transportation Authority (WTA), opened the substantive portion of the meeting with an ambitious presentation titled "thinking beyond the bus." Accompanied by Maureen McCarthy, WTA's director of government and community relations, Reardanz painted a picture of a transit agency evolving to meet complex community challenges through innovative partnerships and strategic thinking. "Connecting people to opportunity" — that's our purpose," Reardanz explained, emphasizing how WTA serves not just as a transportation provider but as a community lifeline. "That's why we exist, is to make sure that we're connecting people to those opportunities. And by opportunity, meaning things like medical appointments, jobs, running starts, those kinds of things, including recreation." The numbers Reardanz shared revealed the scope of WTA's operation: millions of rides annually across both fixed-route buses and paratransit services, serving everyone from Western Washington University students to residents with disabilities who depend on paratransit for basic social connection. "We have, particularly those that ride paratransit as an example, that is their outlet, to be able to with disabilities, be able to get out of the house and go meet friends for coffee," he noted. ### Lynden Housing Innovation Perhaps the most striking example of WTA's evolved thinking was the Lynden workforce housing project. Rather than simply operating a traditional park-and-ride facility that wasn't reaching capacity, WTA partnered with the City of Lynden to transform underutilized transit property into workforce housing connected directly to transit services. "So thinking about non traditional ways ridership, if you live in a place where you can walk downstairs and hop on a bus that provides better access and up to to those opportunities," Reardenz explained. The project has attracted significant support, with $500,000 in state funding for predevelopment work and a congressional appropriation from Senator Murray's office for several million dollars in additional support. The strategic location offers residents walkable access to grocery stores, an elementary school, and recreational trails within a mile radius, creating what urban planners call a "complete neighborhood" accessible by transit. ### Bellingham Station Transformation WTA's second major development project involves relocating and expanding their current Bellingham station to the former Public Market property downtown. This move would allow for continued operations at the existing facility while construction proceeds, but more importantly, it would enable a public-private partnership to incorporate housing into the new development. "How do you combine transit with with housing and other needs in that area to be kind of an economic driver down in that area of downtown?" Reardanz asked the council. With no height limitations in the target area, the project could significantly increase downtown residential density while improving transit accessibility. ### The Transit Access Fund WTA's most innovative fiscal tool may be their Transit Access Fund, which allows the agency to leverage funding with partner jurisdictions for infrastructure improvements within a quarter-mile of bus stops. "When you think about you don't have double bidding, you don't have double procurement costs, you don't have double mobilization costs, those things, because it's all wrapped into this one package," Reardanz explained. Examples of successful partnerships included working with the City of Nooksack to install sidewalks along SR-9 that serve both bus stops and school access, and collaborating with Lummi Nation on bike lanes and shelter improvements. Most recently, the fund contributed to improvements at the Ferndale community hall, leveraging county parks investments to go further with ADA improvements. ### Council Questions and Transit Challenges Council members engaged with thoughtful questions that revealed both interest and fiscal realities. Council Member Scanlon inquired about the dramatic ridership spike from 2005 to 2009, learning it resulted from GO lines service expansion and WTA's universal bus pass agreement with Western Washington University — an achievement that earned national recognition. The conversation turned to more challenging topics when Scanlon asked about passenger ferry possibilities. While WTA has studied ferry operations with Kitsap Transit, Reardanz outlined the significant regulatory and infrastructure barriers: "You have different regulatory environment, so you have to move to Coast Guard. So you have very different funding streams, regulatory streams. You have to have Coast Guard license masters." Council Member Buchanan's questions about specialized transit revealed the operational challenges of serving a rural county. When her friend experienced long waits for paratransit pickup, Reardanz acknowledged the capacity constraints: "We do run into issues because we're trying to dispatch those folks all around the county and trying to get, you know, from South Whatcom County all the way up to the border and rides in between." Perhaps the most pointed exchange came when Council Member Elenbaas asked about using Uber vouchers instead of running buses on challenging routes. Reardanz's response revealed the economics of rural transit: with Uber rides averaging under four miles but costing $20-25, and buses capable of "interlining" — picking up three people in Kendall, then switching to serve packed Western Washington University routes — traditional transit proved more cost-effective despite critics who question buses operating with single passengers. The fiscal reality of WTA's ambitious vision became clear when Council Member Stremler noted the $8 million gap between expenses and revenue for 2025. While the agency could draw from $55 million in reserves, Reardanz acknowledged the long-term challenge: "We do need to narrow the expense revenue gap... with busses and fuel and personnel and benefits and insurance and everything going up." ## Budget Battles: Security, Services, and Priorities Following the WTA presentation, the council shifted to the more contentious business of mid-biennium budget adjustments for council offices. What followed was an hour-long debate that illuminated the tensions between fiscal responsibility and service provision that define local government. Chair Galloway framed the discussion carefully: "So this is specifically looking at our Council offices supplemental budget requests or sprs. So this is not a county wide budget conversations, not we're not putting the deputy executives on the hot spot. You know, this is totally just sort of us looking in house." ### Justice System Investments Council Member Buchanan took the lead on explaining two significant requests related to the county's justice system work. For the Incarceration Prevention and Reduction Task Force (IPRTF), the council had budgeted $25,000 for advertising over two years. Rather than use the 2025 allocation, Buchanan proposed saving it for 2026 when there would be more to advertise: "We'll have a design builder on board. There'll be a lot more information that's going to be available to the public." More controversial was the $39,900 request for contractor support for the Justice Project Oversight and Planning (JPOP) Committee. While the original justice levy ordinance included facilitation as an eligible expense, a subsequent interlocal agreement with cities restricted spending to construction-related expenses for the first four years. Deputy Executive Kayla Schott-Bresler explained the conflict: "The ordinance is permissive but not restrictive in how we spend the money... but the subsequent interlocal agreement narrowed that field for what the county can spend money on." The debate revealed deeper philosophical differences about public investment priorities. Council Member Galloway questioned using general fund money for what she characterized as "nice to have" services, comparing the facilitation request to other advisory committees that manage without paid facilitators: "We have other advisory committees, they're able to put together reports. It's volunteer time, and I recognize that that is a big request of people." But Council Member Buchanan pushed back forcefully: "What you're doing is putting a risk into the whole justice project that is avoidable at a very low expense, comparatively." Council Member Byrd supported this position, emphasizing the long-term implications: "This is a huge investment that we're making on the jail side. It's something that impacts our community for a very, very long time, much longer into the future than any of us will be here." ### The Security Debate Perhaps no issue revealed council priorities more starkly than the debate over courthouse security. The council faced requests for $15,000 in after-hours security (for the contracted security firm managing metal detectors) and $14,000 for sheriff's deputy presence during meetings. Council Member Byrd challenged both expenditures, arguing that enhanced security resulted from Superior Court decisions rather than council needs: "Because of that, they've used their authority under state law to then expand the security so that it covers the entire building, whereas before it only covered the upper floors." He proposed charging the court system for additional costs rather than absorbing them in the council budget. The philosophical divide became personal when Council Member Elenbaas spoke about security from his perspective as someone who typically carries firearms: "Out in the real world, I exercise my rights to defend myself, and I'm asked to alter my position when I'm in that building. So if our security team goes away, I don't know if I'll continue to do that or not." He emphasized protection for all attendees: "It's also about the safety of the people that are in the building... I like the idea of folks getting scanned as they come in to make sure that they don't have anything that's going to come flying at us at a rapid velocity." Council Member Stremler supported security based on a recent experience: "I recently watched a portion of the Bellingham city council meeting where the law enforcement who was in the room needed to take control of the room and remove someone." Without law enforcement present, he questioned who would handle similar situations. But Council Member Byrd remained unconvinced, noting existing safeguards: "To your left is a panic button that dispatches straight from the sheriff's office... they show up full tack best, and they're, what, 100 feet away." He also noted he'd "never seen an issue in the last eight years that has made me be afraid" in council chambers. ### Legal Services Deliberation The council's discussion of legal representation revealed another dimension of the independence-versus-resources tension. A three-member subcommittee had studied options ranging from hiring a full-time policy counsel (estimated at $160,000+) to continuing reliance on the prosecuting attorney's office. Council Member Scanlon, who led the subcommittee work, recommended the middle path: "Continue to make requests to the prosecuting attorney's office for our legal needs, collectively and individually, for counsel. And if we get to that point where we're demonstrating that there is more demand for legal services for our branch of government, then we have that conversation." Council Member Donovan proposed an alternative: a $50,000 legal reserve fund for independent advice when needed. He noted structural challenges with relying on the prosecutor's office: "Their fundamental interest is protecting the county from the council... the former prosecutor who served for, I don't know, a couple of generations, maybe define the culture of that office has explicitly said that." The legal services debate highlighted broader questions about legislative branch independence and the practical constraints of local government budgets. ### Budget Arithmetic and Process Criticism As the council worked through individual supplemental budget requests, procedural frustrations emerged. Council Member Donovan questioned the entire exercise: "The council is a legislative branch. We write the budget, we pass the budget, whatever we do right now we can undo again. This is not how we normally do things." He continued: "We're sitting there, like Ben just said, playing shell games of $14,000 here or there. I don't really care where these motions go, because the budget is going to come to us and we can do whatever the hell we want." Council Member Byrd agreed, noting how cost-shifting creates artificial budget reductions: "It's making it look like the executives budget is reduced, when, in fact, it's not they're just reallocating expenses." Despite procedural objections, the council methodically voted on each request. They approved courthouse after-hours security (5-2), ADA accessibility compliance funding (5-2), and JPOP facilitation support (6-1). They also approved returning unused Board of Equalization staffing money ($106,054) and reducing the council internship program by $15,000. The sheriff's deputy security removal failed 4-2, with Council Member Scanlon noting afterward: "We did spend a lot of time on 5000 10,000 $15,000 items. So I hope that when we're scheduling out our mid biennium discussions for the remainder of this fall, that we're giving significant amounts of time to significant budget decisions." ## Transportation Planning: Building the Future Network The meeting's final major item brought Chris Comeau from TranspoGroup to present Chapter 6 of the comprehensive plan update covering transportation. With only 30 minutes remaining in a meeting that had already stretched an hour beyond schedule, Comeau faced the challenge of explaining complex technical requirements and planning concepts in compressed time. ### Growth Management Act Requirements Comeau began by explaining how changes to Washington's Growth Management Act now require transportation elements to "specifically and explicitly implement the land use element." This means showing how the county will provide adequate multimodal transportation systems to support planned development patterns, and crucially, how it will pay for necessary improvements. "Ultimately, you need to show how you intend to pay for the things you say you need to implement the land use element," Comeau explained, identifying this as "the big question we'll cover." ### State Highway Evolution Two significant changes in state policy will affect Whatcom County's transportation future. First, the 2022 Complete Streets principles (amended in 2025) require the Washington State Department of Transportation to consider all user types when spending more than $1 million on state highway projects in the county. Second, WSDOT's 2020 Active Transportation Plan requires "level of traffic stress type one or type two facilities" — essentially protected or separated bike and pedestrian infrastructure — in population centers along state highways. Comeau showed a map highlighting areas where these requirements would apply, including incorporated cities, urban growth areas, and census-designated places like Birch Bay and Columbia Valley. "If state highways connect to these areas, and D O T shows up to do a million dollars worth of work they're supposed to be providing and funding" appropriate facilities for vulnerable road users. ### The Traffic Stress Concept Central to the new requirements is the concept of "level of traffic stress," which measures how safe and comfortable vulnerable road users feel based on traffic volume, speed, and separation from vehicles. "What you need to think about it is, from a user standpoint, what is going to make somebody feel more safe and comfortable and less stressed?" Comeau explained. This user-focused approach represents a significant shift from traditional transportation planning, which typically prioritized vehicle movement above other considerations. ### Current Conditions and Future Challenges Using the Whatcom Council of Governments travel demand model, Comeau showed that county roads currently operate below adopted service standards. However, forecasting to 2045 reveals one significant exception: Lakeway Drive, the sole access route serving nearly 10,000 residents in the Lake Whatcom area, is projected to exceed capacity during peak hours. "It's the only way in and out for a community of almost 10,000 people coming into the largest employment center in the region," Comeau noted, highlighting the challenge of serving suburban development patterns with limited infrastructure. ### Active Transportation Networks The county's 2011 pedestrian and bicycle plan, while dated, provided a foundation for current planning. However, a 2019 proposal from the Bicycle Pedestrian Advisory Committee proved overly ambitious. "Unfortunately, there's a lot of stuff that's shown on this map that in an ideal world makes a lot of sense, but from a practical standpoint and a financial feasibility standpoint, it's impossible," Comeau observed. The comprehensive plan update takes a more pragmatic approach, building on existing infrastructure. County roads that already have shoulders of five feet or wider — whether paved or unpaved — form the backbone of a potential active transportation network. Unpaved shoulders could be paved at relatively low cost compared to widening roads to create new facilities. ### Level of Service Standards The new plan proposes simple, achievable standards for pedestrian and bicycle facilities: - Green (complete): Roads with five-foot or wider shoulders suitable for cycling - Orange (incomplete): Roads with something missing, like unpaved shoulders or insufficient width - Red (missing): Roads without adequate facilities These standards would be incorporated into the annual concurrency report, helping inform six-year transportation improvement program decisions and grant applications. ### Project Prioritization For each identified improvement need, the plan provides a menu of options from least to most expensive: - Basic shoulder improvements - Enhanced shoulders with signing - Protected bike lanes - Separated multi-use trails "It isn't going to serve the interest of the county or the user groups to put things on the six year tip or on the map that can't be constructed," Comeau emphasized. "You can't use or construct, what you can't fund." ### Transit Integration While Whatcom County doesn't operate transit, it owns rights-of-way where WTA operates. The plan proposes using the county's ADA transition plan obligations to prioritize bus stop improvements in areas with higher ridership, particularly in urban growth areas. This approach leverages existing requirements to create a more systematic approach to transit infrastructure investment, coordinating county and WTA efforts for maximum impact. ### Council Questions and Concerns Despite the compressed timeframe, council members raised important questions about implementation. Council Member Scanlon expressed interest in Safe Routes to Schools applications in unincorporated areas and asked whether the plan would support Parks Department trail planning efforts. Scanlon also inquired about freight movement, noting gaps in the goods transport system map and questioning whether roads are built to appropriate standards for commercial traffic. Comeau acknowledged these concerns while emphasizing current staffing constraints: "It is one thing to get grant funding, but they have to have the staff to deliver the projects." This reality check highlighted ongoing challenges in public works capacity that affect all infrastructure planning. ### Financial Feasibility Requirements The presentation concluded with a reminder of Growth Management Act compliance requirements. The Whatcom Council of Governments must certify that the transportation element is financially feasible, linking it to available funding sources. Without this certification, the county becomes ineligible for state and federal transportation grants. "If you don't have that certification, you're not eligible for state and federal grant funding that's administered through cog or the state," Comeau warned, emphasizing the practical stakes of the planning process. ## Closing and Future Challenges Chair Galloway acknowledged the compressed discussion, noting: "We will probably have to schedule a follow-up discussion for Council to discuss other questions or amendments in the fall." The meeting adjourned at 2:58 PM, nearly three hours after it began. The session revealed the complex balancing act facing local government: managing immediate operational needs while planning for long-term growth, weighing fiscal responsibility against service provision, and coordinating multiple agencies and funding sources to achieve community goals. From WTA's innovative approach to housing and transit integration, to the council's careful scrutiny of security and legal services spending, to the comprehensive planning challenge of building sustainable transportation networks, the meeting showcased both the possibilities and constraints that shape public policy in Whatcom County. The debates also highlighted philosophical differences among council members about the appropriate scope and cost of government services, differences that will likely continue to surface as the county navigates budget pressures and growth management requirements in the months ahead. As the region continues to grow and transportation needs become more complex, the decisions made in sessions like this one will shape how effectively Whatcom County can connect its residents to opportunities while maintaining the fiscal discipline demanded by taxpayers and state oversight.

### Meeting Overview Whatcom County Council's Committee of the Whole met on Wednesday, August 6, 2025, to hear a presentation from the Whatcom Transportation Authority (WTA) and deliberate on two key items: supplemental budget requests for the council office and updates to the transportation chapter of the county's comprehensive plan. ### Key Terms and Concepts **Supplemental Budget Request (SBR):** Mid-biennium budget adjustments that departments submit to modify their approved two-year budget allocations. **Level of Service (LOS):** A measurement system for transportation infrastructure that rates quality and efficiency, particularly for roads during peak traffic hours. **Active Transportation:** Non-motorized transportation including walking, biking, and other human-powered mobility options. **Committee of the Whole:** A meeting format where all council members participate to discuss items before formal council action. **Incarceration Prevention & Reduction Task Force (IPRTF):** County advisory body focused on reducing jail population through alternative programs and policies. **Justice Project Oversight and Planning (JPOP):** Committee overseeing the county's jail construction and justice system improvements. **Level of Traffic Stress (LTS):** A rating system for bicycle infrastructure based on comfort and safety for users of different skill levels. **Growth Management Act (GMA):** Washington state law requiring comprehensive planning for development and transportation in growing counties. ### Key People at This Meeting | Name | Role / Affiliation | |---|---| | Les Reardanz | Whatcom Transportation Authority representative | | Maureen McCarthy | WTA Director of Government Community Relations | | Chris Comeau | TranspoGroup consultant | | Cathy Halka | Clerk of the Council | | Kayla Schott-Bresler | Deputy Executive | | Kimberly Thulin | Council Attorney, Prosecuting Attorney's Office | ### Background Context This meeting occurred during the county's mid-biennium budget review process, requiring departments to justify supplemental budget requests by August 18th. The council office faced pressure to demonstrate fiscal responsibility while maintaining essential services, particularly around justice system oversight and accessibility compliance. The comprehensive plan transportation update represented a major policy shift required by recent changes to the Growth Management Act, forcing the county to adopt new standards for pedestrian, bicycle, and transit infrastructure alongside traditional vehicle-focused planning. ### What Happened — The Short Version WTA presented their "beyond the bus" philosophy, highlighting innovative partnerships like workforce housing in Lynden and the planned downtown Bellingham station relocation. The agency revealed a significant budget shortfall with expenses exceeding revenue by $8 million in 2025. Council approved most supplemental budget requests, including $50,000 for ADA compliance, $39,900 for justice project facilitation, and $15,000 for courthouse security, while cutting the internship program budget in half and reducing advertising funds for incarceration prevention efforts. The transportation plan discussion introduced new requirements for multimodal level of service standards, with TranspoGroup consultant Chris Comeau explaining how the county must balance ambitious active transportation goals with financial reality. ### What to Watch Next - Final supplemental budget requests due August 18th to finance department - Transportation element certification by Whatcom Council of Governments - Comprehensive plan adoption process in fall 2025 - Upcoming discussions on council legal representation options - WTA's revenue challenges and potential service impacts ---

**Q:** What is WTA's current budget situation for 2025? **A:** Expenses exceed revenue by $8 million. WTA is using $55 million in reserves to maintain current service levels. **Q:** What does "beyond the bus" mean for WTA? **A:** WTA's philosophy of thinking holistically about transportation problems, partnering with others on housing, economic development, and infrastructure rather than just running bus routes. **Q:** How much did the council approve for JPOP facilitation? **A:** $39,900 for contractor support for Justice Project Oversight and Planning committee facilitation. **Q:** What are Level of Traffic Stress (LTS) standards? **A:** A rating system for bike infrastructure from 1-4, with LTS 1-2 being protected or separated facilities that feel safe for most users. **Q:** Which council budget item was cut in half? **A:** The Council Internship Program, reduced by $15,000 to save money during budget constraints. **Q:** What new requirement does the Growth Management Act impose? **A:** Counties must adopt multimodal level of service standards for pedestrians, bicycles, and transit, not just vehicles. **Q:** Where is WTA planning to relocate the downtown Bellingham station? **A:** To the former public market property (previously Safeway, Tube Time, Allied Arts, Base Camp location). **Q:** What is Lakeway Drive's significance in the transportation plan? **A:** It's the only road serving nearly 10,000 people in Geneva/Sudden Valley area and shows congestion problems during evening rush hour. **Q:** How much did the council approve for ADA compliance? **A:** $50,000 for accessibility compliance to meet federal ADA Title II requirements. **Q:** What happens if the transportation element isn't certified? **A:** The county becomes ineligible for state and federal transportation grant funding administered through COG or the state. **Q:** What security arrangement did the council approve? **A:** $15,000 for courthouse after-hours security but rejected removing the $14,000 sheriff's deputy position. **Q:** How much state funding did the Lynden workforce housing project receive? **A:** $500,000 for pre-development work, plus potential $2 million in federal funding from Senator Murray. **Q:** What is the timeline for comprehensive plan adoption? **A:** Fall 2025, with transportation element needing Whatcom Council of Governments certification first. **Q:** Why can't IPRTF use jail levy funds for advertising? **A:** An interlocal agreement restricts county justice sales tax spending to design, construction, and bond payments only. **Q:** What did B-pack's 2019 bike network proposal cost? **A:** The proposal was financially unfeasible, essentially requiring construction of new one-lane roads parallel to existing highways. **Q:** How many WTA rides are provided annually? **A:** Approximately 2.6 million rides per year on fixed route and paratransit combined. **Q:** What makes courthouse security more expensive now? **A:** Superior Court requirements expanded security coverage to the entire building, not just upper floors, requiring additional staffing. **Q:** What are population centers in DOT terminology? **A:** Census Designated Places where state highways must provide protected bike/pedestrian facilities when DOT does projects over $1 million. ---