# Permanent Supportive Housing Assessment and County Planning Priorities --- ## Meeting Overview The Whatcom County Council Committee of the Whole convened on Tuesday, September 9, 2025, for a packed three-and-a-half-hour session that showcased the complex balance between housing policy, land use planning, and public accountability that defines local governance today. Chair Kaylee Galloway opened the hybrid meeting at 1:16 p.m. with seven council members present, immediately noting the ambitious agenda ahead and warning speakers to keep tight to their time allocations. The meeting tackled three substantial topics: a comprehensive evaluation of the county's permanent supportive housing (PSH) programs, technical methodologies for land capacity analysis that will guide future development, and preliminary recommendations for updating the county's comprehensive plan chapters on capital facilities and parks. What emerged was a portrait of a county grappling with housing challenges, environmental constraints, and the ongoing tension between providing services for vulnerable populations while addressing community concerns about cost and effectiveness. Perhaps most significantly, the permanent supportive housing presentation sparked intense debate about program accountability, community impact, and the fundamental purposes of PSH programs—a discussion that council members agreed required more time than the meeting format allowed. ## The Permanent Supportive Housing Evaluation The centerpiece of the meeting was a detailed presentation by VillageReach consultants Alina Metji and Emily Gibson on their comprehensive evaluation of Whatcom County's permanent supportive housing system. Their year-long study examined seven organizations operating PSH programs across the county, from the Opportunity Council to Catholic Community Services, serving a highly vulnerable population of individuals and families with complex needs. The data painted a picture of both success and challenge. Between 2019 and 2024, PSH programs served 1,298 individuals, with 88% coming from homeless, institutional, or temporary housing situations. Of those who were homeless, 76% had been in that situation for over 12 months, and 46% were survivors of domestic violence. The disability statistics were particularly striking: 83% had mental health disorders, while only 31% had substance use disorders—contradicting common perceptions that PSH primarily serves people with addiction issues. "This contrasts with some perceptions that PSH programs primarily serve tenants with substance use disorders," Gibson noted, emphasizing that the majority of tenants struggle with mental health conditions and chronic health issues rather than substance abuse. The evaluation found that six of seven organizations scored above the federal fidelity scale threshold of 18, indicating overall alignment with core PSH principles. Programs emphasized trauma-informed care, harm reduction, and meeting tenants where they are. One tenant shared: "I really needed stability and help to be able to get my life on track and stay medicated and take care of myself." However, challenges emerged around safety incidents, the concentration of units in single buildings rather than scattered sites, and inconsistent protocols for overdose prevention and wellness checks. The mortality analysis revealed 71 deaths over the five-year period, with overdoses accounting for 36% of deaths where cause was known—a proportion that aligned with rising overdose deaths in the general Whatcom County population. When it came time for questions, the discussion quickly turned heated. Council Member Ben Elenbaas expressed frustration with what he saw as the report's educational approach rather than a critical examination of program effectiveness. "My opposition to PSH is in the way that they are currently functioning and are operating precisely because of my understanding of PSH," he said, pushing back on recommendations for better council education. Council Member Mark Stremler raised pointed concerns about the absence of explicit goals for helping community members become "happier, healthier, productive citizens" and questioned why programs weren't using their own data for quality improvement. "If the programs themselves aren't using their own data, who's going to? Is it going to be the health department? Is it going to be Council?" The conversation highlighted a fundamental tension about PSH philosophy. While the evaluation emphasized housing stability as the primary goal—not transitioning people out of programs—several council members questioned this approach. Community feedback included persistent misconceptions about PSH goals and expectations that people should "graduate" from programs. Ann Beck from Health and Community Services acknowledged ongoing challenges, particularly in recruiting on-site behavioral health providers. "We put money in the contracts to do that, and they... it has been difficult to find folks who are going to be hired on and work on site for those agencies," she explained. The discussion grew so intense that Chair Galloway ultimately agreed to schedule additional time at a future meeting specifically for PSH discussion, with Council Member Tyler Byrd noting his frustration that the packed agenda didn't allow for proper examination of such important topics. ## Land Capacity Analysis Methodology Following the PSH discussion, consultant Andrew Oliver from Leland Consulting Group presented the technical methodology that will guide Whatcom County's land capacity analysis—a crucial component for determining where and how much housing can be built to meet future growth projections. The methodology stems from House Bill 1220, which requires planning for all economic segments of the population. Using the state's "Housing for All" planning tool, the county must demonstrate land capacity to accommodate housing units at different income levels through zoning classifications. Lower-income households are assumed to be served by subsidized housing, moderate-income households by middle housing like duplexes and small apartments, and higher-income households by single-family detached housing. Oliver walked through the four-step process: selecting assumed densities, assembling net developable lands inventory, estimating capacity, and evaluating results. The process includes significant deductions for critical areas, public uses, infrastructure gaps, and a market factor acknowledging that not all land will redevelop over the 20-year planning horizon. Council members pressed for specifics about accuracy and real-world application. Council Member Elenbaas questioned whether the analysis properly accounts for restrictive agreements or overlays that might prevent development on otherwise zoned land. "We've allowed it, but then we functionally disallow it with some other issue," he said, pointing to concomitant agreements that restrict development despite zoning permissions. The discussion revealed ongoing tensions between planning projections and development realities. Council Member Byrd voiced community feedback that "what we project and what we estimate during this process doesn't actually equate to what truly is out there" when property owners actually try to build. Chris Behee from the City of Bellingham provided insight into practical challenges, noting that environmental constraints alone eliminate more than 50% of Bellingham's gross land capacity. The city takes 150-foot buffers on all wetlands regardless of quality, "erring on the side of caution and not wanting to overestimate our supply." For House Bill 1110's middle housing requirements affecting Bellingham, the city is counting only about 7% of theoretical capacity—approximately 4,000 units out of a potential 56,000—based on realistic assessments of infrastructure, environmental constraints, and market factors. Council Member Todd Donovan pressed on confidence intervals for the projections, given their importance for urban growth area decisions. Matt Aamot from Planning and Development Services emphasized that the built-in review process—a buildable lands check every five years—serves as the key feedback mechanism for adjusting assumptions. ## Comprehensive Plan Chapters: Capital Facilities The meeting's final major segment focused on preliminary Planning Commission recommendations for the comprehensive plan's capital facilities chapter. This technical but important chapter addresses county and special district facilities including law enforcement, parks, schools, fire, water, and sewer systems. Council members engaged in detailed discussions about specific policy language, starting with Goal 4K regarding school and fire district impact fees. The Planning Commission had added explanatory text about the effect of these fees on housing affordability, but Council Member Donovan moved to strike this addition as inappropriate editorial commentary for a policy document. "It's kind of like putting a whereas op-ed statement in there, rather than a policy or a goal," Donovan argued. The motion passed unanimously, restoring the original goal language focused on enabling districts to receive mitigation fees. Council Member Jon Scanlon raised several water-related issues, noting the absence of drainage and diking districts from the chapter and questioning whether Point Roberts' stormwater needs should be explicitly addressed. He also highlighted the complete absence of water adjudication—"the biggest water issue in our county"—from the planning documents. The discussion revealed the challenge of comprehensive planning: balancing technical requirements with policy priorities while ensuring all relevant infrastructure needs are addressed. Scanlon's suggestion to reference adjudication-related infrastructure prompted Aamot to note they would need to examine whether such projects fit the definition of capital facilities. Chair Galloway successfully moved to amend Policy 4A-2 to include language about facilitating "potential city annexation," reflecting the county's role in supporting future municipal expansion. This passed unanimously after brief discussion about avoiding commitments that might obligate county funding. A more complex amendment involved Policy 4F-2 regarding parks and recreation facilities. Galloway proposed adding tribal consultation requirements, suggesting the county "make a good faith effort to consult with Lummi Nation and Nooksack Indian Tribe on relevant land acquisitions and the development of new trails and other recreational facilities that may have an impact on their cultural resources." Parks Director Bennett Knox supported the amendment as consistent with existing practices, but Council Member Stremler voted against it, expressing concerns about speaking for tribes without their input. The amendment passed 5-2, with Kayla Schott-Bresler from the Executive's Office agreeing to follow up with tribal leadership about continued consultation opportunities. ## Parks and Recreation Chapter Discussion The parks and recreation chapter discussion showcased the breadth of recreational interests across Whatcom County while highlighting ongoing policy tensions around land use and environmental protection. Planning Director Mark Personius and Parks Director Knox walked through proposed changes emphasizing community engagement, trail development, and outdoor recreation access. Council members noted the limited attention to winter outdoor recreation in the chapter. Knox explained this reflected limited community engagement on winter activities during the last Comprehensive Parks, Recreation & Open Space Plan (CPROS) update, but promised more focus in future planning cycles. The discussion of trail mapping revealed coordination challenges with federal agencies and regional organizations. Questions arose about the Pacific Northwest National Scenic Trail's integration with county plans and how community members could propose new trail projects. Policy discussions touched on practical management issues. Chair Galloway successfully moved to expand Policy 9C-28's enforcement language to include "incompatible uses that damage the environment" alongside existing prohibitions on illegal trail building and off-leash dogs in restricted areas. This passed 5-1-1 after brief debate about the catchall nature of the language. A more contentious discussion arose around off-road vehicle (ORV) policy. Galloway initially proposed comprehensive narrative language about ORV regulation and management, noting that "there is a demand for ORV recreation, and people will do it anyway if the county prohibits it in every space." However, after Council Member Scanlon suggested simplifying to just the policy statement about regulating and managing ORV use while prioritizing safety and environmental protection, Galloway withdrew her motion for further refinement. The ORV discussion highlighted the ongoing challenge of balancing recreational demands with environmental protection and neighborhood concerns—a theme that runs through much of the county's planning work. ## Confirmation of Health Department Director In a brief but significant agenda addition, the council discussed the Executive's appointment of Champ Thomaskutty as the new Director of Health and Community Services, effective October 27, 2025. Thomaskutty addressed council members, outlining his philosophy on information sharing and communication with elected officials and the public. Council members expressed appreciation for interim director Charlene Ramont's service and asked Thomaskutty about his priorities for the health department. The discussion was positive and supportive, reflecting the consensus nature of senior administrative appointments. ## Agricultural Storage Resolution The meeting concluded with Council Member Ben Elenbaas presenting a resolution to docket a comprehensive plan amendment addressing agricultural storage buildings. The issue stems from current code requirements that treat storage facilities as accessory uses, creating permitting complications when storage is needed on parcels separate from growing operations. Elenbaas provided a specific example: "needing to build a potato storage facility outside of the floodplain, which would be on a parcel where they are not actually growing the potatoes," currently requiring a conditional use permit. His proposal would make agricultural storage a primary permitted use, streamlining the development process for farming operations. The resolution passed unanimously after Planning Director Personius confirmed his department had no objections to the docket amendment. This represented the kind of practical problem-solving that often characterizes local government work—identifying specific regulatory barriers and crafting targeted solutions. ## What's Ahead The meeting exemplified the complex interconnections of local government planning and service delivery. From the heated debate over permanent supportive housing effectiveness to technical discussions of land capacity methodology to detailed policy language in comprehensive plan chapters, council members grappled with both immediate community concerns and long-term planning challenges. The decision to schedule additional time for PSH discussion signals the council's recognition that housing policy requires deeper examination than standard meeting formats allow. Similarly, the ongoing comprehensive plan update process will continue consuming significant council attention as 2025 progresses. Planning Director Personius noted that Chapter 7 is scheduled for September 23 review, while the Planning Commission will hold public hearings on urban growth area and rural resource land proposals on September 11. The pace of planning work continues to challenge the council's ability to provide thorough oversight within existing meeting structures. Chair Galloway's management of the meeting—from acknowledging time constraints at the outset to facilitating discussion about agenda modifications—reflected the practical realities of governing a growing county with limited time resources. The session adjourned at 4:33 p.m., having covered substantial ground while leaving participants aware of how much work remains ahead. The meeting captured Whatcom County government at a pivotal moment: balancing immediate service delivery challenges with long-term growth planning, addressing community concerns about both spending and effectiveness, and managing the complex technical and political dimensions of comprehensive planning in a rapidly changing region.