# Whatcom County Committee of the Whole Meeting — October 7, 2025 ## Meeting Overview The Whatcom County Council Committee of the Whole convened on Tuesday, October 7, 2025, at 1:02 p.m. for a marathon 3.5-hour session that would challenge conventional wisdom about government efficiency, public service delivery, and fiscal responsibility. All seven council members were present for what became an intense examination of two critical issues facing the county: the effectiveness of permanent supportive housing programs and a looming crisis in the Emergency Medical Services levy. Chair Kaylee Galloway opened the meeting in the hybrid format that has become standard since the pandemic, with members present both in council chambers and online. The agenda was ambitious, covering everything from housing assessments to budget adjustments to comprehensive plan amendments, but the real drama would unfold around questions that go to the heart of local government: Are we getting results for taxpayer investments? And when public services face financial crisis, who bears responsibility — taxpayers or service providers? ## The Permanent Supportive Housing Debate The first substantive discussion emerged from a carryover item that had clearly been brewing among council members for weeks. Council Member Tyler Byrd, known for his direct questioning style, opened with what amounted to a fundamental challenge to how the county evaluates its social programs. "To be frank, I kind of was like, what did we pay for?" Byrd said, referring to the permanent supportive housing assessment recently completed by VillageReach. "Because it felt like we paid for someone to go to the state websites and the dictionary and copy terms and put them in a presentation and a report and give those back to us that are the same things that we're always told." Byrd's frustration reflected a deeper concern about accountability and measurement in social services. He argued that the county consistently relies on national studies and best practices from other jurisdictions rather than rigorously evaluating local programs with local data. "We always refer to these data points that took place on case studies from years ago at some location that we're not aware of," he said. The critique stung because it touched on a persistent challenge in public health and social services: how to measure success in programs designed to address complex, long-term social problems. Chris D'Onofrio, Housing Program Supervisor with Health and Community Services, acknowledged the validity of Byrd's concerns while defending the assessment's value. "Not only are geographic differences important, but chronological differences are important too," D'Onofrio responded. "A lot of those studies were done four or five, six years ago, and a lot has changed since then." He pointed to the assessment's finding that local programs largely follow evidence-based models, which he called "a good sign," while acknowledging gaps in behavioral health services compared to larger metropolitan areas. The conversation revealed a fundamental tension about how to define success in permanent supportive housing. D'Onofrio noted that "the way that we define success locally is somewhat subjective," explaining that while programs promote housing stability, their broader impact on the unhoused population requires a more nuanced evaluation. Byrd pressed further, questioning whether housing stability alone is sufficient. "What are the metrics that we're shooting for?" he asked, comparing the situation to Opportunity Council contracts that had once measured success simply by ensuring no one returned to homelessness — a metric that could be gamed by never evicting anyone. The discussion took on philosophical dimensions when Byrd compared his approach to parenting: "I set expectations and I encourage them and I support them, and you give them a carrot and a stick kind of mentality." He argued for pushing people "outside their comfort zones to move on" rather than allowing indefinite stays in supportive housing programs. Ann Beck from Health and Community Services pushed back on this framework, emphasizing the reality of available resources and the diverse needs of the population. "There are some people in this community, in this country, in this world, that are never going to graduate. They are always going to need permanent, supportive housing, no matter what." The exchange highlighted competing visions of social services: one emphasizing accountability, progression, and resource turnover; another acknowledging that some individuals will always need support and that removing that support serves no one. Council Member Mark Stremler added another dimension to the debate, expressing discomfort with the assumption that some people "will never move on from support permanent, supportive housing." He called this perspective "potentially even verging on judgmental" and questioned whether such determinations are being made about individuals entering programs. Council Member Ben Elenbaas offered perhaps the most pointed criticism of the assessment itself, using a memorable analogy: "We asked 10 four year olds whether they stole the cookies, and seven of them said they didn't, but all the cookies are gone. That's how some of the data appeared to me to be presented and researched." Elenbaas argued that public health professionals "look at life differently than the rest of us" and called for redefining positive outcomes. "I think where we get frustrated is when we're helping those who won't," he said, distinguishing between those who "can't" improve their situation and those who "won't." Kayla Schott-Bresler from the Executive's Office provided an interesting counterpoint, noting that she had read the study quite differently. "I thought much of the study actually presented PSH in a much more negative light than I had previously understood," she said, explaining that the report undermined common arguments about the health benefits of permanent supportive housing. ## The EMS Levy Financial Crisis The second major discussion centered on the county's Emergency Medical Services levy, which faces a structural deficit that threatens both current operations and future voter support. Deputy Executive Aly Pennucci introduced the issue by noting that costs are outpacing revenues due to "inflationary pressures and unplanned costs." Kayla Schott-Bresler from the Executive's Office delivered a detailed presentation showing the stark financial reality: without action, the EMS fund is projected to face a structural deficit of around $3 million for 2025, growing to over $5 million by 2028. The fund is expected to go negative by the end of 2028 if no action is taken. The presentation revealed how the 2022 levy planning process had created the current predicament. The council had adopted an EMS levy plan showing $13.2 million in property tax revenue for 2023, but after the assessor published new values, the approved rate could generate over $15 million annually. The council chose to levy the smaller amount aligned with the budget plan, creating what's known as "banked capacity" — roughly $2.5 million in 2025 that could be captured. "So the council now has this excess levy capacity," Schott-Bresler explained. "The Council doesn't have the authority to raise the rate back to 29 cents, but the council has the authority to leverage to essentially levy the difference between the maximum authorized Levy and what you are currently collecting." The financial pressures come from multiple directions. Long-term ALS and BLS contracts with fire districts create fixed costs, while the county has limited control over dispatch fees set by the Whatcom Communication Center. County indirect costs have also risen as the county has invested in HR, finance, and other support systems. "For 2025 we are expecting that we will close the year with approximately $25.3 million in expenses, which is almost $3 million more than was originally projected in the EMS Levy plan," Schott-Bresler reported. The levy plan also established an unusually high reserve target of 70% of current year operating expenditures — far above the typical three months of operating expenses that most jurisdictions maintain. This high reserve was set due to uncertainty about the levy's passage in 2022, but it now constrains available funds. Council Member Todd Donovan raised concerns about revenue assumptions, particularly regarding Ground Emergency Medical Transportation (GEMT) funding. "The odds are pretty good that it's just going to go away for some random reason or not random reason," he said, referring to potential changes in federal policy. The loss of GEMT over the last three years would impact the fund by roughly $6 million. "I think we also have to think about, do we just start cutting services in this budget to deal with that red line, because it's worse than what you're showing us," Donovan said, emphasizing that planning should account for revenue loss scenarios. County Executive Satpal Sidhu provided crucial context about the governance structure that complicates expense control. "We tax the people and Bellingham spends the money," he said, noting that while the county collects EMS levy funds, service contracts are negotiated between fire districts and the City of Bellingham. "As a body we have a lesser say on the expense side," Sidhu explained. "It's the district seven and the Bellingham fire, who we have contracts with, and they are ones who spend the money." He called for council support in pressuring service providers to address rising expenses: "Something has to be done with the red line as well. It cannot be only just go find new money." Council Member Byrd pushed back on the characterization that the county lacks influence over expenses. "The way that the ordinance was originally written, in the ballot measure was written, is that it's the county that's collecting the tax and overseeing it, and we hired the EMS manager to help," he said. "We are seeing those expenses... but we are definitely, I think more part of that, in my opinion, than Bellingham is." Fire Chief Hank Maleng from Whatcom County Fire District 16, speaking as president of the Fire Chiefs Association, provided insight into ongoing efforts to identify savings. He outlined recommendations from the Technical Advisory Board (TAB), including utilizing banked capacity, potentially reducing the reserve balance requirement, and examining specific program cuts. "Maybe we end up having to cut some of those potentially," Maleng said, referring to community paramedic positions. "The next thing was, maybe we look at the EMS office a little bit. And then potentially, we might have to work down the list, potentially, maybe the BLS allocation is is going to be on the chopping block." Chief Maleng defended current service levels by comparing Whatcom County to Skagit County: "They average 10 medic units a day, sometimes even higher. They have 100,000 less people than Whatcom County does, and we're doing with five we do with five medic units." Council Member Byrd raised specific concerns about the paramedic training program, questioning whether the county should continue paying salaries during training when other jurisdictions charge tuition. "The rates average between, on the low side just over $8,000 and on the high side, 13,000 when we are approving these here in Whatcom County, we're approving them at over $167,000," he said. Byrd argued that the county could recruit from the eight public paramedic programs in Washington state rather than funding its own training. "If we just said, Hey, we're going to hire out of those eight schools that are running these programs every year, that's got to be hundreds, if not 1000s, of students that are going through there," he said. Council Member Jon Scanlon called for the EMS Oversight Board to take a more active role in addressing costs and planning for potential changes in federal funding. "Surely, every other county in the country and in this state is looking at this when it comes to the potential changes from HR one," he said. The discussion concluded with Council Member Stremler emphasizing the importance of addressing both revenues and expenses. "If we only present to them one solution without the other, this is not going to look good," he said, referring to public perception of tax increases without corresponding service efficiencies. ## Meeting Procedures and Process Reform In a brief but significant discussion, the council examined its own procedures for considering legislation. The issue centered on a recent change requiring committee discussion of items on the same day they're introduced, rather than the traditional two-week delay between introduction and committee consideration. Chair Galloway noted that while the change was intended to provide more time for complex issues, it had created "some clunky moments" and redundancies. Council Member Byrd advocated for council members to have direct access to the county's Legistar system to preview upcoming legislation, rather than relying on staff to provide information. "I think that council needs access to legis stars back in, so that council members individually view only access, but so council members can see what's coming in," Byrd said. "I don't understand why we don't have that level of access." Council Member Scanlon moved to return to the traditional procedure except for supplemental budget items, which would retain the new process. The motion failed on a 2-3 vote, with two abstentions, leaving the current system in place. ## Legislative Priorities and Planning The council received an update on state legislative priorities from Josh Weiss of Columbia Policy Advisors, their Olympia lobbying firm. Weiss outlined the results of the 2025 legislative session and provided a preview of 2026 priorities. The discussion touched on various state issues, including the Mosquito Fleet Act ferry bill and other transportation funding measures. Council members raised questions about specific legislation but did not make substantial policy decisions during this overview session. ## Comprehensive Plan Amendments The meeting included significant action on proposed amendments to the county's comprehensive plan update. Chair Galloway presented a series of proposed changes, many characterized as "scrivener's errors" — technical corrections rather than policy changes. Council Member Donovan moved to approve all scrivener's error corrections, which passed unanimously. These included corrections in chapters 6, 7, 9, and 12 covering various technical and formatting issues. The council also approved two substantive amendments: 1. **Transportation Impact Fee Language**: The council voted 6-0 (with one abstention) to restore original staff-recommended language requiring new development to fund "multimodal transportation system improvements" rather than broader transportation impacts. 2. **Facility Coordination**: The council voted 6-0 (with one member absent) to add tribes and fire districts to a goal about coordinating with non-county facility providers. Chair Galloway indicated she would work with staff to develop a more efficient process for handling the remaining comprehensive plan amendments, encouraging other council members to submit their proposed changes soon. ## Addressing Blighted Properties The final substantive discussion focused on addressing blighted properties and health impacts in Columbia Valley, an unincorporated area in eastern Whatcom County. Council Member Scanlon briefed colleagues on previous Health Board discussions and indicated that he and Council Member Byrd are working on a draft ordinance to address the issue county-wide. Council Member Byrd described the draft ordinance as aimed at streamlining "the County's process of dealing with identified properties" and establishing a formal task force to coordinate response efforts. Kayla Schott-Bresler from the Executive's Office acknowledged the community need but raised concerns about establishing new task forces without a broader conversation about advisory boards and staff capacity. "We are really struggling to take on new initiatives right now," she said. Council members discussed whether the task force might actually reduce staff workload by better coordinating existing efforts, and suggested including a sunset clause and possibly establishing the group by resolution rather than ordinance. ## Closing and What's Ahead The meeting concluded at 4:31 p.m. after nearly three and a half hours of intense discussion. Chair Galloway noted that the next council meeting would receive the executive's recommended biennial budget adjustments, marking a transition from discussion to formal decision-making on fiscal matters. The session highlighted fundamental tensions in local government: balancing accountability with compassion in social services, managing fiscal constraints while maintaining public services, and adapting governance procedures to handle increasingly complex policy challenges. The debates revealed not just different policy preferences among council members, but different philosophies about the proper role of government and the nature of public responsibility. As council members left chambers, they carried with them decisions that will affect thousands of county residents — from those experiencing homelessness who depend on supportive housing, to property owners who will pay EMS levy taxes, to communities throughout Whatcom County that rely on emergency medical services. The October 7 meeting demonstrated local government at its most essential: grappling with real problems affecting real people, with real money at stake and real consequences for getting it wrong.